■ mW'Bh 
 
 r^>r^:rsr^^t.-i:^^:\ 
 
 •irSr; ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iZiS" y^*^ "•' 
 
 F:^>< 1." ■' !r^T-m'/f^*^*rrtf»^ 
 

 LIBRARY 
 
 PRINCETON, N J 
 
 JN o. Case, ^_^- --^O ^9^'i* 
 
 No. Shelf, i:^- SecJion-S^[££^ 
 
 No. Book,ir2^,.._...4-.'Bii>J- 
 ^Tq, 1 1 
 
 X- 'mr^m 
 

 m 
 
 i>-% 
 
 .*•*. 
 
 *i-- 
 
 
 ■.»r!<|V- 
 
 '^'^-u'i«■X•' 
 
 '►> •" ■^^-"'>,»'r 
 
 '■!'^\-, 
 
 T^^vt- 
 
 i¥V; 
 
 .<rSi^.'^^ti,i 
 
 Mlil 
 
 ;;'■ ■• 
 
 r.-^ 
 
 • -t'^/ 
 
 •>'• ^ ■ > -v 
 
 
 '-V- 
 
 
 
THE PENTATEUCH AND 
 ITS ANATOMISTS. 
 
THE PENTATEUCH 
 
 AND 
 
 ITS ANATOMISTS 
 
 THE UNITY AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE 
 
 BOOKS OF MOSES 
 
 VINDICATED AND CONFIRMED, 
 
 IN REPLY TO MODERN CRITICISMS, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Rev. T. R'^BIRKS, 
 
 VICAR OF HOLY TRINITY, CAMBRIDGE, 
 
 AUTHOR OF ' CHURCH AND STATE,' ' BIBLE AND MODERN THOUGHT, 
 
 ' DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF,' ETC. 
 
 LONDON : - 
 HATCHAEDS, 187 PICCADILLY, W. 
 
 1869, 
 
LONDON: 
 
 8TKANOEWAT8 AND Walden, Printers, 28 Castle Street. 
 Leicester Square. 
 
PEEFATORY NOTICE. 
 
 The present volume is a small contribution to a contro- 
 versy of growing importance, and to the defence of those 
 books of Scripture, which form the wellspring and source 
 of all later revelations from the living Grod to the children 
 of men. The Elohistic question, or the objection raised 
 against the unity and genuineness of the Book of Grenesis 
 from the use of the two Divine names, is here treated 
 in a form quite intelligible to plain English readers. I 
 think that I have given a full and complete solution 
 of the problem, which has been solved very imperfectly, 
 so far as I am aware, even in the best of those Grerman 
 and English replies to neological critics which have 
 hitherto appeared. In the later portion, also, I believe 
 that there are some parts which may claim to be original 
 contributions to the main object of the work. Owing to 
 a long interval, from various causes, between the writing 
 
vi Prefatory Notice, 
 
 of the first and last parts, I fear that there is some little 
 want of completeness in its structure. Such as it is, I 
 commend it to the blessing of God, and also with some 
 confidence to the perusal of those who desire, in these 
 perilous times, to have their faith in the lively oracles of 
 Grod confirmed by new lines of thought, and rooted more 
 firmly against every storm. 
 
 Trinity Parsonage^ Cambridge. 
 Sept. 23, 1869. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 INTEODUCTION ..... 
 I. STATEMENT OF THE CONTROVERSY 
 II. THE NAME OF GOD REVEALED TO MOSES 
 
 III. THE ELOHISTIC THEORY 
 
 IV. THE SACRED NAMES IN GENESIS 
 V. THE CREATION AND THE FALL 
 
 VI. THE TIMES BEFORE THE FLOOD 
 VII. THE TIMES OF THE FLOOD . 
 VIII. THE HISTORY OF ABRAHAM . 
 IX. THE HISTORY OF ISAAC AND JACOB 
 
 X. ON ALLEGED ANACHRONISMS IN GENESIS 
 XL ALLEGED ANACHRONISMS OF THE LATER BOOKS 
 XII. ALLEGED HISTORICAL CONTRADICTIONS . 
 XIII. THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY 
 
 XIV. THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION .... 
 XV, THE UNITY AND INSPIRATION OF THE BOOK OF 
 GENESIS 
 
 I'AOh. 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 23 
 
 40 
 58 
 88 
 97 
 lOG 
 129 
 145 
 160 
 191 
 223 
 235 
 277 
 
 29.'5 
 
THE PENTATEUCH 
 
 AND ITS ANATOMISTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 1. The Pentateuch, according to the firm belief of the 
 whole Jewish nation for centuries before Christ, is the law 
 of God, given by Moses with Divine authority to the people 
 of Israel. Its truth, authority, and Divine inspiration, 
 are confirmed by our Lord and His Apostles, and form 
 the basis of their teaching, almost in every page of the 
 New Testament. Such has been also the constant faith of 
 the whole Christian Church, built on these sure testi- 
 monies, from the days of the Apostles through every later 
 age. 
 
 During the last century, however, a series of attacks 
 on the authenticity and truth of the books of Moses have 
 been made by learned writers on the Continent, who have 
 not openly renounced the name of Christians. Various 
 hypotheses have been framed to account for their origin, 
 without admitting any supernatural revelation from God 
 to man. They have thus been assigned to some unknown 
 
2 Introduction. 
 
 weavers of Jewish legends, long after the death of Moses ; 
 whose works, at first imperfect, were reduced by some 
 compiler into their present form, and were then offered to 
 the nation as the genuine work of Moses, the legendary 
 lawgiver of the people. 
 
 This vital controversy, involving the whole issue be- 
 tween open infidelity and Christian faith, after having 
 lasted in Germany for three or four generations, has now 
 passed over to ourselves. In the recent works of Drs. 
 Davidson and Colenso, the doctrinal arguments of the 
 foreign critics are condensed and simplified, and set before 
 the English public in a popular form. It seems highly 
 desirable, then, to submit the merits of these sceptical 
 theories, so confidently proposed, and so loudly extolled, to 
 a close and exact cross-examination. Their vague, in- 
 definite, and shifting character, has, till of late, been a 
 serious hindrance in the way. The last edition of Dr. 
 Davidson's Introduction, however, has removed this diiffi- 
 culty, hj presenting the main hypothesis in a distinct and 
 definite form. In the present work the whole question 
 will be examined with especial reference to these latest 
 developments of the negative theory. The variety of the 
 topics, and the width of the inquiry, will make it desirable 
 to study condensation, so far as it is consistent with a 
 searching and thorough investigation. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE CONTROVERSY. 
 
 2. The theory which, resolves the Pentateuch into the work 
 of several later and uninspired authors, and denies, to a 
 great extent, its historical truth, has passed through many 
 varieties of form. Dr. M^Caul's Summary in the ^ Aids to 
 Faith,' will supply a just and brief outline of their origin 
 and succession. 
 
 i. ' In 1753 Astruc, a French physician, taught that the Book 
 of Genesis is made up of twelve memoirs or documents, of 
 which the two principal are the Elohistic and Jehovistic. From 
 these Moses composed the hook in twelve columns. Copyists 
 mixed these together, and hence the present form of Genesis. 
 
 ii. ' Eichhorn asserted that it is based on two pre-Mosaic 
 documents, distinguished by the names, Elohim and Jehovah ; 
 and that the author, in relating any event, selected the docu- 
 ment in which the fullest account was contained. Sometimes 
 they are mixed together. Some other documents were con- 
 sulted. 
 
 iii. ' Ilgen supposes seventeen documents, but only three 
 authors, one Jeh ovist and two Elohists ; and is so acute in his 
 scent, as sometimes to divide single verses among the three, and 
 give each his own. 
 
 iv. * De Wette's theory, in his first edition, is that a contin- 
 uous Elohistic document forms the basis of the whole, and ex- 
 tends to Exodus vi. In this the author inserted what he found 
 in one or more Jehovistic documents. 
 
4 Tlie Pentateuch 
 
 V. ' Von Bohlen believes in the same Elohistic basis, but 
 denies the existence of Jehovistic documents. The author of 
 the book in its present form is the Jehovist. 
 
 vi. ' Gramberg makes three authors, the Elohist, the Jeho- 
 vist, and the Compiler, who does not scruple sometimes to sub- 
 stitute one Divine name for another. 
 
 vii. ' Ewald begins by holding the unity of Genesis, and prov- 
 ing it against the document and fragment hypotheses. About ten 
 years after, he taught that the basis of Genesis is an ancient 
 ■writing, of which considerable remains are found in the whole 
 Pentateuch, which is distinguished by peculiarities of language, 
 and especially by the use of Elohim up to Exod. vi. 2. This 
 author incorporated more ancient documents, as Exod. xx., 
 xxi.-xxiii. Subsequently arose another work, which ascribed 
 the name Jehovah to patriarchal times. From this, portions 
 were inserted in the former work by the author of the present 
 book of Genesis, so that at least four writers are concerned. 
 Thirdly, he extended and modified this view^, by supposing more 
 than t^TO treatments of the ancient history, forming the Pen- 
 tateuch and the Book of Joshua. He ascribes Genesis in its 
 present form to that writer whom in his first edition he calls 
 the fourth nan ator, and in his second, the fifth narrator of the 
 primjeval histories, who lived in the time of Joshua. This 
 work had several predecessors, three according to the first 
 edition, six according to the second. Three are Elohistic. 
 
 viii. ' Hupfeldt takes, as the basis of our Genesis, three inde- 
 pendent historic works, two Elohistic and one Jehovistic, and 
 makes a Compiler in addition. 
 
 ix. ' Knobel believes in two documents ; first, the Elohistic, 
 forming the basis of the Pentateuch and Joshua; secondly, the 
 Jehovistic, which again has two previous sources. There are, 
 besides, two Jehovistic developments, in which the Comi)iler 
 followed hints in the documents, sometimes popular tradition, 
 or his own concej)tions. 
 
 ' This enumeration is far from exhausting all the varieties. 
 
and its Anatomists. 5 
 
 Some assert one Elohistic document, others two, others three. 
 Some make one Jehovist, others more. Some make him the 
 same with the Compiler, others a different person. Some make 
 two, others three, others four, and Ewald seven documents, by- 
 different persons, to be the materials of Genesis. One supposes 
 the documents pre-Mosaic, another that they were in the time of 
 Joshua or the Judges, another in the time of David, another 
 some centuries later.' — Aids to Faith, pp. 191-193. 
 
 3. Dr. Davidson, a disciple and warm admirer of these 
 German theories, in his earlier introduction (1857) has a 
 chapter on the authorship and date of the Pentateuch, in 
 which their difi'erences cause him no small perplexity 
 and vacillation. His report of them will supplement the 
 previous description. 
 
 ' What is called the Supplement Hypothesis is now the 
 most approved one in Germany. According to this, an ancient 
 document formed the essential basis of the work, which received 
 considerable insertions and supplements. Critics have attempted 
 to trace this groundwork, and the supplementary matter, distin- 
 guishing one from the other. The two chief are usually called 
 the Elohim and Jehovah documents. The former is closely 
 connected in its parts, and forms a whole, while the latter is 
 thought to be supplementary. They were combined by the hands 
 of an editor so skilfully as to make their separation very difficult 
 — indeed almost impossible in some instances.' 
 
 This last remark is exactly reversed by Dr. Colenso, 
 (Part II. p. 8), who calls this union so clumsy and im- 
 perfect, that it falls to pieces in the reader's hands. The 
 other statement is modified before the end of the chapter 
 by Dr. Davidson himself. The moon enters on a new 
 phase. 
 
 ' After the ingenious investigation of Hupfeldt, the name, 
 
6 The Pentateuch 
 
 Supplementary Hypothesis, is seen to be inappropriate, because 
 the Jehovist did something more important than furnish an 
 appendix to the first document. We prefer the name, Docu- 
 mentary Hypothesis, now that justice has been done to the 
 Jehovist. With regard to the.hypothesis of Ewald, none seems 
 to have adopted it. Rightly so, for it lacks all verisimilitude and 
 probability. Nothing but an excess of subjectivity could have 
 led that scholar to divide the Pentateuch into four portions of 
 different ages, to which the Deuteronomist, said to be the final 
 author of the Book of Joshua, gave its last form. It is sur- 
 prising to see how he fixes the respective time of the four parts, 
 supposing that the oldest, the Book of the Covenant, was written 
 in the time of Samson.' 
 
 4. Dr. Kurtz gives a somewhat fuller outline of 
 Ewald' s theory. 
 
 ' Ewald "s Crystallization Hypothesis, although based on an 
 assumption of critical omniscience and infallibility, and hence 
 exacting implicit reception, has not found any support among 
 the learned. He supposes that seven works were incorporated 
 in the " great book of primeval history." (1) The oldest historical 
 work, of which very few fragments are preserved, was the book 
 of the Wars of Jehovah ; then follows (2) a biography of Moses, 
 of which also only a few scanty fragments have been handed 
 down ; much more has been preserved of (3) the Book of 
 Covenants, written during the time of Samson ; and (4) of the 
 Book of Origins, the author a priest of the time of Solomon ; 
 these writers are followed by (5) the third narrator of primeval 
 history, or first prophetical narrator, a citizen of the kingdom of 
 Israel at the time of Elijah and Joel ; (6) by the fourth narrator, 
 who flourished and wrote between b.c. 800 and 700 ; and (7) 
 by the fifth narrator, or third prophetic narrator, not long after 
 Joel, who collated all former authorities. Then commenced the 
 purely artistic application of primeval history, " when its sacred 
 soil merely served as material for prophetic and legislative pur- 
 
and its Anatomists. 7 
 
 poses." This was done, first, by an unknown author in the 
 beginning of the seventh century, and then on a much wider 
 scale by the author of Deuteronomy, the prophet who restored 
 and completed the ancient law, and who lived in the time of 
 Manasseh, and wrote in Egypt. . Finally, during the time of 
 Jeremiah, flourished the author of the poem called the Blessing 
 of Moses. A somewhat later historian combined the work of 
 the Deuteronomist, originally an independent composition, the 
 smaller sections by his two colleagues, and the work of the fifth 
 narrator, into one great work — such vicissitudes did it undergo, 
 before attaining its present form. Happily for us, Ewald is 
 able, not only to assign to each of these ten authors his own 
 part in the great work, even to single verses and words, but 
 generally to distinguish and characterise the sources, from which 
 each of them again had drawn his original materials !' — Kurtz, 
 Old Covenant. 
 
 5. Assuming two documents, Dr. Davidson gives a 
 summary of opinions on their respective dates. 
 
 ' It is verv difficult to ascertain the time when they wrote. 
 Nothing but conjecture has been advanced on the point. Ewald 
 and Von Lengerke place the Elohist under Solomon, the 
 Jehovist under Hezekiah. Stahelin, again, puts them in the 
 time of the Judges and Saul. Tuch thinks the older lived in 
 the time of Saul, the younger in that of Solomon. Killesch 
 places the Elohist in David's time, De Wette in the time of the 
 Kings, and the Jehovist after Jehoram, and before Ezekiel (?) 
 We are more inclined to the view of Delitzch, that they lived 
 not far from the time of Moses himself. We cannot think that 
 one merely supplemented the other's work, or even saw it. 
 Neither was the Pentateuch completed by the Jehovist, or so 
 early as his day. After him it existed in two pieces, separately 
 composed, and some one must afterwards have put them 
 together.' 
 
 ' The Deuteronomist may have had peculiar sources, whence 
 
8 The Pentateuch 
 
 he drew additional materials, as Ewald and Von Lengerke suppose, 
 though we entirely dissent from their ideas. In comparing it 
 with the other books, it has been too generally assumed that it 
 was composed after them. It may be that it was written first 
 of all, there is nothing against it ! and it is very probable, as 
 will appear afterward. We cannot believe, with Von Bohlen, 
 Vater, Gesenius, and Hirtraann, that it proceeded from Jere- 
 miah, the evidences of identity being very few and feeble in- 
 deed.' 
 
 6. The view of Dr. Colenso (Part II. pp. 356-359), 
 seems to agree in the main with De Wette and Von Boli- 
 Icn. Instead of accepting what Dr. Davidson calls the 
 results of Hupfeldt's most profound investigation, he re- 
 marks on it as follows : — 
 
 ' Though very unwilling to differ from one of the most 
 original and clear-sighted of modern critics, I think a single 
 glance at the Jehovistic insertions will satisfy the minds of 
 most readers that they could never have been taken out of a 
 complete story, which lay before a later editor.' 
 
 His owTi theory is thus explained : — 
 
 ' Different authors were concerned in the composition of the 
 Book of Genesis, whose accounts, in some respects, contradict 
 each other One of these is distinguished by abstaining alto- 
 gether from the name Jehovah in that book, while the other 
 freely uses it from the first. The former composed also Exod. 
 vi. as all critics admit, and internal evidence proves, and de- 
 signedly forbore the use of the name, till he had announced its 
 revelation to Moses. He had some special reason for thus com- 
 mending it to the regard and veneration of the people. The 
 most natural is that he was himself introducing it as a new 
 name for the God of Israel. Samuel was probably this Elohist, 
 and the position lie held, the circumstances of his time, and the 
 
and its Anatomists. 9 
 
 accounts of his doings, tend to confirm this suspicion. It is 
 made almost certain, because David, in his earliest Psalms, 
 made little or no use of the name Jehovah, and in the later 
 Psalms used it more freely. The Jehovist could not be earlier 
 than the latter part of David's life, nor yet have lived long 
 after Samuel, since he does not introduce freely into the story 
 names compounded with Jehovah, as- a later writer would pro- 
 bably have done. All of the four first books, and of Joshua, 
 which is not from the Elohist, was composed by one or more 
 writers in the latter part of David's reign or in the early part 
 of Solomon's, except a few interpolations. These are from the 
 Deuteronomist, who revised the work, and added almost the 
 whole of Deuteronomy. He wrote about the time of Josiah, 
 and may not improbably have been the prophet Jeremiah.' 
 
 7. In his Introduction of 1862 Dr. Davidson changes, 
 and partly reverses, the conclusions of his earlier work 
 (1857). He now supposes three writers, and not two 
 only, referring no small portion to a younger Elohist. 
 He brings down the Elohist from the time of Eleazar or 
 Joshua, where he placed him before, to the reign of Saul, 
 and the later writer from the time of the Judges to the 
 reign of Uzziah. Instead of holding with De Wette that 
 Deuteronomy was the first written, and placing it ap- 
 parently under Joshua, he now makes it the latest of all, 
 in the reign of Manasseh, a change of seven or eight 
 hundred years. He still adheres to that view of the in- 
 dependence of the later document, which Dr. Colenso 
 thinks a single glance at its contents enough to disprove. 
 Strangely enough, however, he calls these new-born 
 opinions, reversing on three main points his own views 
 of five years before, ' settled results,' which only those 
 who dwell in an 'atmosphere of ignorance' can reject and 
 
10 The Pentateuch 
 
 oppose. In one respect his last work is a real benefit, 
 since it presents us with a definite theory, capable of strict 
 examination. Amidst the chaos of learned guesses and 
 h^^otheses in the Germans from whom he borrows, it is 
 usually hard to discover the exact theory they intend to 
 substitute for the old faith of Jews and Christians. Dr. 
 Davidson exhibits his own system, borrowed apparently 
 from Hupfeldt, in a tabular form, so as to supply a definite 
 basis for comparison with the creed of the Church which 
 he casts contemptuously away. The Book of Genesis is 
 broken up into more than three hundred portions, which 
 are then parted among four writers, placed in the reigns 
 of Saul, of Joram, of Uzziah, and Manasseh, though who 
 they were is quite unknown. This distribution professes 
 to rest on internal evidence in the teeth of all external 
 testimony, which has constantly assigned the whole to 
 Moses for two thousand five hundred years. Such an 
 exploit, so long after the last of these supposed authors, 
 would be without parallel in the whole history of litera- 
 rature. Nothing could rival such a piece of learned 
 ingenuity, in dissecting the work into its elements, ex- 
 cept the skill of the first Redactor, who wove them to- 
 gether with such curious art as to deceive the whole 
 Jewish nation, and the whole Church of Christ, almost 
 for three thousand years. 
 
 8. The attempt to turn one-third of the Old Testa- 
 ment history into fable, and to degrade the prophets of 
 God into authors of a clumsy patchwork of uncertain 
 legends, is so gigantic an undertaking, that most persons 
 would approach it with feelings of diffidence, and almost 
 of dismay, from the greatness of the task, and the mo- 
 
and its Anatomists, 1 1 
 
 mentous issues it involves. Even Dr. Davidson and 
 Dr. Colenso, with, all their confidence in their new-formed 
 opinions, feel that some external authority is required, as 
 a partial counterpoise to the consent of the wisest, holiest, 
 and most learned men, who for more than two thousand 
 years have owned the genuineness and Divine authority 
 of the Book of Moses. This counterpoise they find in the 
 German critics of the last century. The spuriousness of 
 the Pentateuch, they affirm, is almost universally held by 
 the only class whose Hebrew learning qualifies them to 
 pronounce a judgment. Common English Christians have 
 not been able to climb the mount where these critics give 
 tbeir oracular decisions, and thus have remained the 
 contented slaves of an old superstition. These two 
 writers undertake the office of mediators, and descend to 
 the plain with the tables of this new and negative reve- 
 lation, to communicate to the English laity the oracles 
 they have received from more learned hands. Thus Dr. 
 Colenso writes : — 
 
 ' All the elaborate attempts which have been made to ex- 
 plain away difficulties and reconcile contradictions are but as 
 breath spent in vain, when the composite nature of the Exodus 
 is once distinctly recognised, and the Pentateuch falls to pieces, 
 as it were, in our hands, the different ages of the different 
 authors being established beyond a doubt, and clearly exhibited ! 
 .... He who is no Hebrew or German scholar is necessarily 
 ignorant, at present, of the real facts of the case, and can scarcely 
 be regarded as a fair and competent judge. In the present Part 
 the main points of the argument are put within the grasp of 
 any one, whether clerk or layman, though unacquainted with 
 Hebrew or German, if only he will give the needful attention, 
 free from prejudice, to the points at issue. . . . The notion of 
 
12 The Pentateuch 
 
 two distinct writers being concerned in the composition of 
 Genesis is not a mere fancy of critics, but a fact which it be- 
 comes ns, as true men, and servants of the God of truth, to 
 recognise, whatever the consequences, however it may require 
 us to modify our views of the Mosaic dispensation, or of Christ- 
 ianity itself. On the main point there is almost unanimous 
 agreement among all who have devoted themselves to the close 
 examination of the question. All such critics as are here re- 
 ferred to are of one mind as to the existence of Elohistic and 
 Jehovistic portions in Genesis, and agreed as to most of them. 
 This conclusion, being so unanimously adopted by those com- 
 petent to judge, should influence the minds of all reasonable 
 persons. . . . The differences of opinion of different critics with 
 respect to details, the ages of the writers, and the extent to 
 which their hands can be traced, do not at all affect the main 
 question, in which all are agreed, that Elohistic and Jehovistic 
 passages certainly exist in the Book of Genesis, and as certainly 
 are due to different authors.' 
 
 Two grave questions are thus raised at the outset of 
 the controversy, before entering on the direct question. 
 First, is the truth or falsehood of the Pentateuch, its 
 origin from the God of Israel through His servant Moses, 
 or from unknown Jewish impostors, an esoteric inquiry, 
 on which only a few learned German Hebraists are com- 
 petent to form a judgment, while plain English Chris- 
 tians, of common sense and fair intelligence, are bound 
 to accept submissively their oracular decisions? And 
 next, are these oracles agreed among themselves, except 
 in trivial details, which do not affect the evidence of their 
 main theory? Or do they, on the contrary, disagree on 
 every point except a false interpretation of one important 
 passage of Scripture, the main foundation of their theory, 
 
and its Anatomists. 13 
 
 and a common rejection of tlie most weighty and empha- 
 tic declarations of the Son of God f A reply to these two 
 questions will prepare us to enter, without prejudice, on 
 the following inquiry. 
 
 9. The great question at issue is whether the Penta- 
 teuch is the Word of God, the writing of Moses the man 
 of God, and historically true ; or whether it is historically 
 false, a clumsy patchwork of impossible fictions, the work 
 of two, three, or four, or perhaps eight or ten, Jewish de- 
 ceivers. Is advanced Hebrew scholarship the chief requi- 
 site for a just decision ? The answer is plain, with the 
 least reflection on the nature of the real evidence. This 
 is either external or internal. The former consists in its 
 acceptance as the law of God and the work of Moses by 
 the whole Jewish nation, as far back as any records re- 
 main, and in the repeated and strong testimony of our 
 Lord and his Apostles to its worth, genuineness, and 
 Divine authority. To these may be added its acceptance 
 by the most learned Jews and Christians alike, down 
 to the present day, the collateral testimonies of heathen 
 writers, records, and monuments, and the firm adherence 
 to its statutes by the Jews through the long ages of their 
 dispersion. All this evidence is just as accessible to the 
 intelligent English reader, who avails himself of the help 
 his own language supj)lies, as to the most learned Oriental 
 or Sanscrit scholar. With every disciple of Christ, His 
 words alone are decisive. It is only where faith in Christ 
 has perished, and the disciple thinks himself able to sit in 
 judgment on his Master, and to correct the mistakes of 
 the Lord of glory by his own superior wisdom, that the 
 alleged tokens of spuriousness, from internal evidence, can 
 
14 The Pentateuch 
 
 be more than dust in the balance against the sayings of 
 Him who is the Truth, the Word, and the Wisdom of 
 God. 
 
 But even in dealing wdth the internal evidence, He- 
 brew scholarship occupies a very secondary place among 
 the qualifications for passing a sound judgment. The 
 Pentateuch is historical, and extremely simple in its style. 
 The chief gain from a knowledge of Hebrew consists in 
 greater vividness of impression, and the sense of closer 
 contact with the events, but not in the possession of de- 
 finite materials of reasoning, which a good translation 
 fails to give. There are delicacies of style, like the scent 
 of a flower, which may perish in the best version. But these 
 either do not enter at all, or else must hold a very secondary 
 place, in a serious historical controversy. In the question 
 before us it is hardly one tithe either of the objections or 
 the replies, which need any amount of Hebrew learning, 
 either to discern their force, or to detect their weakness. 
 Thus, in the First Part of ^ The Pentateuch Examined,' 
 nineteen reasons are advanced to prove the Book of Exodus 
 incredible. Of these there are only three or four where 
 any reference is made to the Hebrew, and of these there 
 is not one where it is really necessary, either to see the 
 force of the objection, or to understand the reply. Its 
 chief use is to render an argument, complete in itself, 
 more pointed and decisive. Again, out of 184 pages in 
 Dr. Davidson's argument to prove the comi:)osite nature 
 of the Pentateuch, only two pages, from first to last, in- 
 volve the necessity of Hebrew scholarship to decide upon 
 them, and even these are points which the use of a He- 
 brew concordance might supply. The main requisites in 
 
and its Anatomists, 15 
 
 such an inquiry are a spirit of humility and reverence, 
 which dreads equally to exalt the human into the Divine, 
 or to degrade the Divine to the level of human error ; — 
 good common sense, which seizes on the essential points 
 in an historical inquiry, and keeps ever in view the real 
 question at issue ; and a judicial habit of mind, which 
 weighs carefully the whole evidence on both sides of a 
 question, before it comes to a final decision. In all these 
 qualities the negative critics of Germany, as a class, are 
 palpably and deplorably wanting. They come to the 
 Bible, as the hospital surgeon to a corpse which he is to 
 dissect in the presence of admiring pupils, not as crea- 
 tures who may find, and wish to find, a message from 
 their Creator, still less as guilty sinners, who long for 
 tidings of salvation. They constantly lose sight of the 
 real question in a maze of learned speculation ; and their 
 habits of solitary study commonly leave them the slaves 
 of their own hypotheses, and strangers to that judicial 
 temper of mind which English thinkers, from the nature of 
 our institutions, usually attain in a far higher measure. 
 Such negative critics, even on intellectual grounds alone, 
 and still more from their want of humility and re- 
 verence, are almost the worst authorities on a question of 
 this vital kind, to which an appeal could possibly be made. 
 Even their Hebrew scholarship can, at the most, place 
 them merely on a level with thousands of intelligent 
 Jews, for a thousand years before the fall of the second 
 temple, with whom Hebrew was their native tongue, 
 and its literature their exclusive and familiar study, and 
 amongst whom a suspicion against the Mosaic authorship 
 of the law, so far as evidence remains, never once arose. 
 
16 The Pentateuch 
 
 10. A second inquiry remains : Are these modern cri- 
 tics, who contradict our blessed Lord and affirm the spuri- 
 ousness of the books of Moses, unanimous in their main 
 conclusions ? Is not their disagreement almost as great as 
 it is possible to be ? This is a question of fact, which ought 
 to admit of an easy reply. Their opponents, as Hengsten- 
 berg, in the Preface to his work on the Pentateuch, Dr. 
 M'Caul, in the 'Aids to Faith/ and Mr. Eose, in the 
 ' Replies to the Essays,' affirm this variance of the scep- 
 tical critics in the strongest terms. Even Dr. David- 
 son, in his earlier work, admits and apologizes for the 
 perplexing fact. * In separating,' he says, ' the two 
 (three ? four ? five ?) original documents of the Penta- 
 teuch, it is apparent that the subject does not admit of 
 very definite determination. In regard to details we 
 must expect that scarcely two critics agree in all things.' 
 After five years, however, what was once apparent has 
 ceased to be plain, and his later work contains ' a very 
 definite enumeration of the chapters and verses, due to 
 each,' not of two, but four writers. Still, that two docu- 
 ments at least are incorporated in the Pentateuch, and 
 these in many respects difierent and sometimes contra- 
 dictory, are in his judgment ' settled results ' and.' firmly 
 established on critical grounds,' so that as soon as a little 
 light dawns upon hitherto benighted Christians, the empti- 
 ness of their traditional faith appears. In the same spirit 
 Dr. Colcnso repels the charge of incurable discord brought 
 against his German teachers. The main conclusions, he 
 says, are established bej^ond all doubt. As to the details 
 we can only feel our way with caution, with continued 
 labour, and a repeated survey of tlie ground travelled 
 
and its Anatomists. 17 
 
 over. Critics are agreed as to the existence of Elohistic 
 and Jehovistic portions in Genesis, and in respect to 
 most of them. The differences do not affect at all the 
 main question, and are only proof of their independence of 
 each other, and of the common truth of their judgment 
 when they all agree. The only admission needful is that 
 the conclusions of criticism, in some of the very difficult 
 questions raised by the examination of the Pentateuch, 
 are not so thoroughly worked out as to command univer- 
 sal assent, and take their place among the positive results 
 of science. 
 
 Let us examine this plea more closely, and inquire 
 what are the main conclusions in which these negative 
 critics agree, and what those mere details in which they 
 still differ, not quite so certain as the Newtonian theory. 
 
 First, it is plain that the word Elohim occurs thirty- 
 five times in unbroken succession in Gen. i.-ii. 4 ; and 
 again, along with El Shaddai, about twenty- five times in 
 the history of Joseph and its sequel, and ten or twelve 
 times successively in one or two other parts of Genesis. 
 Again, the double title occurs about twenty times in Gen. 
 ii. 5-iv. 24 ; and the sacred, name alone twenty times in 
 Gen. x.-xiii. ; seventeen times in ch. xviii. xix. ; nineteen 
 times in ch. xxiv. ; fourteen times in ch. xxv. 19-xxvii. 
 27 ; and ten times, with one deviation, in ch. xxxviii. 
 xxxix. In this sense all readers, orthodox or rationalist, 
 of course agree that there are Elohistic and Jehovistic 
 portions ; however strongly pious minds may dislike the 
 degradation of these names of the Holy One, to form the 
 mere counters of critical controversy and learned disqui- 
 sition. 
 
 c 
 
18 The Pentateuch 
 
 Next, all these negative critics, wlio have more faith 
 in their own grammatical skill than in the ' true sayings of 
 God,' agree in denpng that ' Moses gave the Law ' to the 
 Jews, or that he ' wrote of Christ,' or gave the account of 
 the vision at ' the bush,' or the precept on divorce ; and 
 ascribe the Pentateuch to several later authors. Many- 
 orthodox German critics, not inferior to their rivals in 
 learning, differ wholly from this view ; and believe rather 
 the words of the Faithful and True Witness, with whom 
 Moses himself conversed on the mount of glory. But 
 when we speak of those critics, whom Drs. Davidson and" 
 Colenso extol and admire, their agreement on this second 
 point is almost complete. 
 
 Thirdly, these critics nearly all expound Exod. vi. in 
 this sense, that the word Jehovah, as a name of God, was 
 wholly unknown till the Exodus ; so that, in the view of 
 the writer, its use began with that message to Moses. 
 This is a view, the entire falsehood of which admits of 
 a perfect demonstration from the whole context. It is 
 a mistake, however, into which mere grammarians with- 
 out theology, who deal more with syllables than with the 
 deep things of God, are very likely to fall. These 
 critics, accordingly, adopt it with great unanimit}^, and 
 it is one of the very few ' main conclusions ' in which 
 they agree. 
 
 Fourthly, it results, of course, from this construction 
 of the passage, that he who wrote it, unless asleep or 
 dreaming, could never represent this sacred name as used 
 by the patriarchs and others long before Moses. Those 
 parts of Genesis, then, where this name is put into the 
 lips of others beside the narrator, must, on this hypothesis, 
 
and its Anatomists. 19 
 
 be due to some other hand. This is a fourth and last 
 point on which they agree. Their unanimous consent 
 includes a self-evident fact, which a child may perceive, a 
 common disbelief of the words of Christ, a false exposition 
 of a passage in Exodus, and a necessary and unavoidable 
 consequence of that false interpretation. 
 
 11. Let us next inquire what are those mere details, 
 on which they continue to differ. 
 
 i. The Number of the Supposed Authors. Some admit 
 two only ; a greater number, three ; Hupfeldt and others, 
 four; Ewald, seven at least; and others as many as 
 twelve. 
 
 ii. The Nature of the Composition. There are three 
 main varieties, or genera, of critical theories ; the Frag- 
 ment, Supplement, and Plural-Document Hypotheses. 
 The first admits many pre-Mosaic or post-Mosaic frag- 
 ments, pieced together by the last compiler. The second 
 supposes one Elohistic document, supplemented by one, 
 two, or three writers, whom it calls Jehovists. The third 
 assumes at least two, or perhaps three, distinct documents 
 or histories, united at last by one compiler. 
 
 iii. The Natu.re of the Contrast in the use of the Sacred 
 Names. Astruc and Eichhorn admit three varieties, parts 
 exclusively Elohistic, others where the sacred name alone 
 occurs, and others mixed of both. De Wette and most 
 later critics exclude the second class, or writings where 
 the sacred name alone is used. The change is required 
 by common sense, since Elohim, if the earlier name, 
 certainly never grew obsolete. But it abandons more 
 than half the alleged ground of the whole theory. There 
 are only three passages of any length where there is an 
 
^0 The Pentateuch 
 
 exclusive use of tlie name, Elohirn, and six where there is 
 the like use of the name, Jehovah. 
 
 iv. The Nimiber of Elohists. Astruc, Eichhorn, De 
 Wette, Gramberg, Knobel, assume one only, and so Dr. 
 Davidson in his earlier work. Ilgen and Hupfeldt, and 
 the Dr. Davidson of 1862, assert that there were two 
 Elohists ; and Ewald, in his latest hypothesis, either three 
 or four. 
 
 V. The Number of Jehovists. Eichhorn, Ilgen, Yon 
 Bohlen, seem to admit one only, De Wette several, Gram- 
 berg and Hupfeldt two, and the latter a Deuteronomist 
 beside ; Knobel three or four, Ewald five or six. It is 
 not easy to reduce some of these complex theories to an 
 exact enumeration. 
 
 vi. The Age of the first Elohist. Delitzch, who comes 
 nearest to the orthodox view, places him in the time of 
 Joshua, being perhaps Eleazar himself. Stahelin refers 
 him to the Judges, Dr. Colenso makes him the prophet 
 Samuel. Tuch, and Dr. Davidson in 1862, refer him to 
 Saul, Killisch to David, Ewald and Yon Lengerke to 
 Solomon, De Wette to some of the later kings. Others 
 think the whole a fabrication in the days of Josiah ; and 
 Sorensen, bolder still, ascribes it to the time of the Macca- 
 bees. These conclusions deserve the praise of chronologi- 
 cal impartiality^, and range pretty evenly over the eight 
 centuries from the death of Joshua to the Captivity. 
 
 vii. The Age of the Supplement Writer, assuming one 
 only. Delitzch places him just after the death of Joshua; 
 Dr. Davidson, in 1857, under the Judges ; Stahelin under 
 Saul, Dr. Colenso near the close of the reign of David, 
 Tuch under Solomon, where Ewald places the Elohist, 
 
and its Anatomists. 21 
 
 Dr. Davidson (1862) under Uzziali, Ewald and Yon 
 Lengerke under Hezekiah, De Wette somewhere after 
 Jelioram. Many also place the last compiler, whether 
 the same with the Jehovist, or a different person, in the 
 time of Jeremiah. 
 
 yiii. The Extent of the Elohistic Document or Docu- 
 ments. Even in Genesis the diversity is considerable, 
 but in the later books the divergence is complete. Most 
 assign to him the greater part of the laws in Exodus, 
 Leviticus, and Numbers. But a minority, including 
 Dr. Colenso, make his work end abruptly at Exod. vi., 
 except a few fragments, and ascribe nearly all the rest to 
 later hands. 
 
 ix. The Place and Date of Deuteronom\^ Many, as 
 George and Dr. Davidson (1857), hold it to be the first 
 and earliest of all the books of the Pentateuch ; others, as 
 De Wette, Hupfeldt, and Dr. Davidson (1862), make it 
 the latest ; some under Manasseh, others under Josiah, 
 and several (Gesenius, Hirtmann) even fancy it to be 
 Jeremiah's own composition. 
 
 There are some of those minor ' details,' on which the 
 negative critics continue still to disagree. Except their 
 common denial of the Mosaic authorship, and their com- 
 mon perversion of the text in Exodus, they include eyerj 
 conceivable point of divergence. The number, the ages, 
 the extent of composition, the relative order of the sup- 
 posed writers, are all diversel}^ explained. Beyond the 
 four points already specified, it seems impossible to dis- 
 cover one foot of firm ground amidst a quagmire of con- 
 jectures and contradictions. The variations are precisely 
 of that kind which clear, well-defined contrasts of earlier 
 
22 The Pentateuch 
 
 and later style, in definite portions of tlie work, would 
 exclude altogether. Thus Deuteronomy is placed alter- 
 nately as early as Joshua, or as late as Jeremiah, or even 
 the Maccabees. The age of the Jehovist, in the view of 
 Tuch, is the age of the Elohist in that of Ewald. In the 
 only points where a delicate perception of Hebrew style 
 might prove its existence and value, b}" consistent and 
 harmonious conclusions, the diversity, and even the con- 
 trast, is complete. It is thus tolerably clear, even at the 
 outset, that all these theories grow out of one root, their 
 interpretation of Exod. vi. ; that the Book of Genesis is 
 carved, first, into two or three portions, and then, to 
 complete the system, into three hundred, in order to suit 
 this fundamental assumption, and present it in some form 
 not wholl}^ incredible ; and that difierences of style are 
 then fancied or invented, in critical caprice, to strengthen 
 a decision based on other grounds, where the mere Eng- 
 lish scholar is nearly as competent as the most learned 
 Hebraist to form a sound judgment. We may add, far 
 more competent, if only trained in habits of judicial and 
 exact reasoning, and taught from childhood to approach 
 the Word of God in humility and reverence, listening to 
 the voice which says to every Scriptural student, 'Put ofi* 
 thy shoes from thy feet, for the place where thou standest 
 is holy ground.' 
 
and its Anatomists, 23 
 
 CHAPTEE II. 
 
 THE NAME OF GOD REVEALED TO MOSES. 
 
 12. The reasons alleged to disprove tlie Mosaic author- 
 ship of the Pentateuch may be classed under three lieads, 
 — the use of the Sacred Names, alleged Contradictions, 
 and alleged Anachronisms and Contrasts of Style. But 
 the negative theories founded upon them have one common 
 root, from which they all spring. It is inferred, from 
 Exod. vi., that the word Jehovah, as a name of God, was 
 first made known to Moses, and was, at least in the 
 writer's view, wholly unheard of in the times of the 
 patriarchs. Hence it would follow at once, that only 
 those parts of Grenesis where this name is absent, or else 
 confined to the narrator, could belong to the writer of 
 Exod. vi., whoever he may be. In the chaos of opinions, 
 if there be any ' main conclusion established ' in contrast 
 to the ' details ' where the discord is interminable, it con- 
 sists in this doctrine or exposition alone. An inquiry 
 into its truth is thus the first step towards a clear and 
 just view of the whole sceptical argument. The passage 
 itself reads as foUows : — 
 
 ' Then Jehovah said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I 
 will do to Pharaoh ; for with a strong hand shall he let them 
 
24 The Pentateuch 
 
 go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of the 
 land.' 
 
 ' And Elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am 
 Jehovah. And I made myself known to Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob, as El Shaddai, but by my name Jehovah I was not made 
 known to them. And I have also established my covenant with 
 them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pil- 
 grimage, wherein they were strangers. And I have also heard 
 the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep 
 in bondage, and I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore 
 say unto the children of Israel, 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 for Elohim. And ye shall 
 know that I am Jehovah your Elohim, which bringeth you out 
 from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring 
 you in unto the land, concerning which I did swear to give it to 
 Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, and I will give it to you for 
 an heritage : I am Jehovah. And Moses spake so unto the 
 children of Israel, but they hearkened not unto him, for anguish 
 of spirit, and for cruel bondage.' 
 
 13. In the ' Pentateuch Examined,' Pt. II., these verses 
 receive the following comment : — 
 
 ' The above passage cannot, without a perversion of its 
 obvious meaning, the meaning which would be attached to it by 
 the great body of simple-minded readers, be explained to say 
 anything else than this, — that the name Jehovah was not known 
 at all to the patriarchs, but was now for the first time revealed, 
 as the name by which the God of Israel would henceforward be 
 distinguished from all other gods. So Professor Lee admits in 
 his Hebrew Lexicon, and so Josephus writes, — " Wherefore 
 God declared to him His holy name, which had never been dis- 
 covered to men before." But then we come at once on the fact. 
 
and its Anatomists. 25 
 
 that this name is repeatedly used in the earlier parts of the 
 story throughout the whole Book of Genesis, and is put into the 
 mouths of the patriarchs themselves. The recognition of the 
 plain meaning of Exod. vi. 2-8, would be enough to decide at 
 once the question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. 
 If the name originated in the days of Moses, then Moses himself, 
 in writing the story of the patriarchs, would not have put the 
 name into their mouths." 
 
 ' The ordinary mode of reconciling these discrepancies is 
 exhibited in Kurtz, ii., p. 100 : " It is not expressly said that 
 the name was unknown before Moses, but merely that in the 
 patriarchal age God had not revealed the fulness and depths 
 of His nature, to which that name particularly belonged." But 
 this is an assumption made only to get over a difficulty. If 
 Abraham made use of the name at all, then God was known 
 to him by that name in some measure, in some 'sense or other, 
 if not so perfectly as by the Israelites in later days. If the 
 patriarchs employed the name at all, it could scarcely have 
 been said " I appeared," &c. Could Abram have believed in 
 Jehovah, and God himself have declared the name to Abram, 
 and yet Abram, after all, be said not to have known God by 
 that name ? It appears to be a mere straining of Scripture, in 
 order to escape from an obvious contradiction, to assign such a 
 sense as Kurtz, and Kalisch, and other able commentators do, 
 to the word know in this passage of Exodus. The whole is easily 
 explained when we know that different writers were concerned.' — 
 Pent. Ex. ii. 232. 
 
 13. Now it is quite true that superficial readers and 
 verbal triflers, learned or unlearned, may easily and sin- 
 cerely persuade themselves that the view in the above 
 extract is the only natural meaning of the text. But 
 it is equally true, that whoever turns from words to 
 things, from grammar to real history and genuine theo- 
 
26 The Pentateuch 
 
 logy, and studies tlie words with the reverence due to a 
 message of the living God, will be led certainly and irre- 
 sistibly to a wholly opposite conclusion. The text, with 
 its context, far from proving that the mere word-name 
 Jehovah was unknown to the patriarchs before Moses, 
 proves the exact reverse ; that the name, as a word, 
 was already familiar to Moses and the people of Israel, 
 though its deep significance was now, for the first time, to 
 be clearly revealed. Let us consider the proof at length. 
 i. And, first, the other view degrades the message into 
 a piece of verbal trifling, wholly unsuited to the actual 
 wants of the people, and to the majesty of the God of 
 Israel. They were fainting under a heavy yoke, and ready 
 to despair of deliverance. The message was to give them 
 new hope in their hour of extreme discouragement. Yet 
 its main drift, in the view here examined, is to tell them 
 that a new sound or set of characters must henceforth be 
 used in speaking of the God of their fathers, instead of 
 names already familiar, and hallowed by long and sacred 
 memories. What comfort could there be in such a change ? 
 To see the force of the argument, without irreverence, let 
 us replace the word by the name of God in some modern 
 language, and mark the effect. *I was known to yowv 
 fathers as El Shaddai ; but by my name Iddio I was not 
 known to them. Wherefore say unto the children of 
 Israel, I am Iddio. Ye shall know that I am Iddio, your 
 God. I will give it to you for a heritage : I am Iddio.' 
 On this * only natural view ' of the text, His people ask 
 for bread, and the God of glory offers them a stone. 
 They need comfort in their distress, and they receive an 
 elaborate piece of verbal trifling. 
 
and its Anatomists, 27 
 
 ii. ' And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I 
 am Jehovali.' The writer cannot mean this for the first 
 mention of a new word, because he represents it as used 
 already twelve times before, by Moses, by the elders, by 
 the people, and even by Pharaoh. To start with assuming 
 a plural authorship in these four chapters, Exod. ii.-vi., 
 so closely connected, and tearing away the text from its 
 whole context, in order to found a cavil upon it, would 
 be the mere madness of scepticism, and deserves no 
 answer. The passage, by every rule of honest criticism, 
 must be expounded by its own context. Hence the sense 
 cannot possibly be, — I now take to myself for my title this 
 new word, unknown to you and your fathers. This mes- 
 sage rather, at the opening of the Old Covenant, must 
 answer to the message by Malachi at its close,—' I am 
 Jehovah, I change not ; therefore ye the sons of Jacob 
 are not consumed.' So here, — ' I am Jehovah, I change 
 not ; therefore ye shall assuredly be delivered.' I am 
 all that this familiar name really implies, the True, the 
 Faithful, the Unchangeable. 
 
 iii. ' And I was revealed to Abraham, to Isaac, and to 
 Jacob, as El Shaddai.' The word, i2ame, does not appear in 
 this clause. No allusion is made in it to a mere sound, but 
 to the Divine character alone. It is not ' They called me,' 
 or ' I called myself,' El Shaddai, but I was seen or re- 
 vealed as such ; and a word could be no object of sight in 
 an oral message. Other titles might be and were used in 
 God's messages to the patriarchs, but this had its mean- 
 ing so unfolded, that they saw and felt its force and 
 power. He was shown to be Almighty in the victory 
 over the kings, the destruction of the cities of the plain, 
 
28 The Pentateuch 
 
 the birth of Isaac, and His other wonderful works in the 
 da5^s of old. It results at once that the other clause has 
 a similar meaning. 
 
 iv. ' But by my name Jehovah I was not made known 
 to them.' This clause contains two proofs to fix its own 
 meaning. First, the change of person. It is not said, ' My 
 name Jehovah was not known to them,' but * by,' or ' as to 
 my name Jehovah, /was not known.' The knowledge thus 
 delayed was real, not verbal. What is taught is not that 
 their vocabulary was too scanty, but that their experience 
 of God's perfections was partial and incomplete. Again, 
 the same inference follows from the phrase, 'my name 
 Jehovah.' If now first introduced, the natural phrase 
 would be, ' by the name Jehovah.' But here it is implied 
 that this was already a Divine name, even from the time 
 of the patriarchs, though its full and proper force was 
 now to be learned more fully. The Divine Speaker claims 
 the title to Himself, as already His own. 
 
 V. The whole message turns on the contrast between a 
 promise and covenant, simply given, and its fulfilment, 
 in spite of seemingly insurmountable hindrances, after 
 long delay. The sum of the whole is plainly, * I am the 
 Unchangeable God, whose word is sure and true after 
 many generations.' Now this is clearly one idea pro- 
 minent in the name Jehovah, though it may not exhaust 
 the fulness of its meaning. * I am that I am ' points to 
 the same truth. He is not only the Self- existent, but the 
 Self-consistent Being, ' the Father of Lights, with whom 
 is no variableness nor shadow of turning.' 
 
 15. These reasons, from the passage itself, are con- 
 firmed by the whole context. 
 
and its Anatomists, 29 
 
 vi. And, first, what is tlie meaning of tlie inquiry 
 ii. 13 ? ' When I am come to the children of Israel, and 
 shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent 
 me unto you, and thej^ shall say unto me. What is his 
 name ? what shall I say unto them ? ' Did Moses ask for 
 some arbitrary sound, which might distinguish the God 
 of Israel from Ammon, Ptah, or Chem, and the other 
 gods of Egypt ? This would be wholly at variance with 
 the wisdom of the Jewish lawgiver. There is a close re- 
 semblance to his prayer in a later crisis. ' If I have 
 found grace in thy sight, show me now thy way, that I 
 may know thee, and that I may find grace in thy sight.' 
 What he needed to sustain him in his great commission, 
 and also to encourage the people, was a deeper and more 
 intimate knowledge of the true name and character of the 
 God of their fathers. A new set of sounds or syllables 
 could be of no avail. What they needed was a firm hold 
 on the Divine perfections, and to this the answer cor- 
 responds. ^ And God said unto Moses, I am that I am. 
 Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am 
 hath sent me unto you.' 
 
 These words ought to decide the whole controversy. 
 Yerbally and literally, the name Jehovah is not an- 
 nounced, but two others, which never once reappear in 
 the whole history. What is given is not a word-name to 
 replace those already in use, but a grand idea, a Divine 
 perfection. Again, the name so announced is an exposition 
 of the word-name Jehovah, which is assmned to be already 
 known, and therefore is used in the next verse without 
 further preface. If the object were to announce a fresh 
 word-name, the whole passage is unmeaning ; for the 
 
30 The Pentateuch 
 
 word Jehovali is not announced at all, and the two which 
 are actually mentioned never appear again. But if the 
 object were to bring out in fresh relief the true meaning 
 of a familiar name, which had been worn down by use, 
 till it became like an empty sound, then all is consistent, 
 emphatic, and harmonious. The old name is verified by a 
 double change. The old root mn, already almost obso- 
 lete, is replaced by r:^?^, the modern and usual form ; and 
 the third person, suitable in the lips of God's servants, is 
 exchanged for the first, since it is God Himself who here 
 announces His own name. The redoubling of the word, 
 also, as both subject and predicate, brings out more clearly 
 its hidden force. The name Jehovah, He Which Is, had 
 been worn down, like * holy day ' in holiday, till its power 
 was lost. But the title, ' I am that I am,' and the message, 
 * I Am hath sent me unto you,' would waken up the buried 
 truth. The name. He Which Is, Jehovah, would no 
 longer be a mere sound, but a watchword, on which the 
 faith and hope of God's afilicted people might securely 
 repose. 
 
 vii. The next words fully confirm this exposition : 
 ' Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, 
 the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of 
 Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you : this 
 is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all 
 generations.' 
 
 The compound title has been used ten or twelve times 
 in the Book of Genesis, which is some presumption that 
 it is not mentioned as wholly new, but as a familiar title, 
 revived with a deeper meaning. But this is plain also 
 from the text itself. The title, * the God of your fathers,' 
 
and its Anatomists. 31 
 
 was certainly familiar, and needed no explanation. But 
 the name, Jehovali, enters here likewise, without any formal 
 introduction, as one familiar to their ears. If wholly new, 
 the previous verse could not prepare them for its sudden 
 introduction, since the letters and the sound are wholly 
 different. But if the name were familiar, and only its 
 true meaning forgotten, the previous verse would serve to 
 revive it in the most impressive way. The old sound 
 would start into new life, and have all the emphasis of a 
 new revelation. The name I Am would be a pledge that 
 Jehovah had indeed spoken to Moses, and resumed His 
 name into His own lips, that it might bring hope and 
 comfort to His people in their hour of fear and sorrow. 
 
 viii. ' Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, hath met 
 with us : let us go . . . that we may sacrifice to Jehovah 
 our God.' 
 
 This use of the name on the first appeal to Pharaoh 
 would be most unnatural, had it been unknown until that 
 hour to the Israelites themselves. The Egyptians must 
 have known them to be worshippers of some God distinct 
 from their own, and have spoken of Him under some 
 name used by the Israelites. If Jehovah was this name, 
 either the most usual or the most distinctive, then the 
 message is natural. But the appeal, on which their de- 
 liverance was to depend, would never be weakened by in- 
 troducing a verbal novelty, a name unheard of before. 
 This would conceal from Pharaoh the real nature of the 
 petition. It would then seem as if these Hebrews were 
 taking up some new worship, which neither they nor their 
 fathers had known, and asked for a three-days' absence, 
 to carry out their capricious innovation. What could be 
 
32 The Pentateuch 
 
 more likely to defeat the purpose of their appeal to 
 Pharaoh, and to rob it of all moral power ? 
 
 16. The intervening chapters, Exod. iv. v., point as 
 clearly to the same view. 
 
 ix. First, how does Moses describe his own fears from 
 the unbelief of the people ? ' But, behold, they will not 
 believe me, nor hearken to my voice ; for they will say, 
 Jehovah hath not appeared to thee.' 
 
 These words exclude the notion that the historian 
 meant to describe this name as now first revealed. In 
 that case, unbelief of the vision to Moses would clearly in- 
 volve also a rejection of the name. It would be to the 
 people, what the Pentateuch is now to unbelieving critics, 
 a mere forgery. Their answer might be, 'The God of 
 our fathers,' or else 'El Shaddai, hath not appeared to 
 thee.' But the words prove that, in the view of the 
 writer, this sacred name was in use among the people, 
 even before they were persuaded that the God of their 
 fathers had once more revealed Himself to Moses. 
 
 X. The purpose of the signs is next explained. ' That 
 they may know that Jehovah, the God of their fathers, 
 the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of 
 Jacob, hath appeared to thee.' 
 
 There is here no sign of anj^ persuasion to induce them 
 to adopt a new and untried name. On the contrary, the 
 order of the words implies that the name, in both parts 
 alike, was familiar to their ears. The only difficulty was 
 to convince them that Jehovah, their fathers' God, would 
 really deliver them. The words would else have been, ' That 
 they may believe that the God of their fathers hath ap- 
 peared to thee, and that His name is Jehovah.' To com- 
 
and its Anatomists. 33 
 
 plicate tlie direct conflict with their unbelieving fears by 
 the attempt, at such an hour, to make a whole people take 
 up a new word for the name of their God, never heard of 
 before, would contradict all common sense. It would be 
 wholly opposed to the wisdom of God, and His tender 
 care for the weakness of His people. 
 
 xi. 'And the Lord said unto him. Who hath made 
 man's mouth ? or who maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or 
 the seeing, or the blind ? have not I Jehovah ?' 
 
 The nature of the appeal here makes it evident that a 
 familiar name would be used, not one which Moses had 
 heard for the first time a few moments before. Its 
 emphasis rests on the simplicity and self- evidence of the 
 truth, which Moses ought to have known already. -A 
 new title of God, now first used, would plainly deaden its 
 force. That One called Jehovah had these high attributes 
 would then have been a fresh revelation, and not, as here 
 described, an old and familiar truth. 
 
 xii. 'And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith 
 Jehovah, Israel is my son, my first-born,' &c. 
 
 The same remark applies here. A new name for the 
 God of the Hebrews, which Pharaoh heard now for the 
 first time, would only tend to defeat the object of the 
 message. It would lead him to think that his Hebrew 
 slaves were adopting some new god, unknown to their 
 fathers, and using the futile pretext of some religious 
 caprice to procure a resj)ite of their labours. 
 
 xiii, 'And Pharaoh said. Who is Jehovah, that I 
 should obey His voice to let Israel go ? I know not 
 Jehovah, neither will I let Israel go. And they said. 
 The God of the Hebrews hath met with us ; let us go, we 
 
 D 
 
34 The Pentateuch 
 
 pray tliee, three days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice 
 unto Jehovah our God/ &c. *But he said, Ye are idle, 
 ye are idle ; therefore ye say, Let us go, and do sacrifice 
 to Jehovah.' 
 
 Here Pharaoh accepts the name Jehovah, without 
 question or surprise, as the usual name of the God of the 
 Hebrews. He merely disclaims all reverence, honour, 
 and obedience, as due from him to this tutelary deity of a 
 foreign and servile race. Jehovah, and God of the Hebrews, 
 are in his eyes equivalent terms. Thus he says to the 
 taskmasters, ' They cry, saying, Let us go and do sacrifice" 
 to our God ;' but to the officers of the Israelites, ' Ye are 
 idle; therefore ye say. Let us go and do sacrifice to Je- 
 hovah.' He thus takes it as a matter of course that 
 Jehovah was the well-known name of the God of the 
 Hebrews, whom he disowned. 
 
 xiv. * Jehovah look upon you, and judge, because ye 
 have made our savour to be abhorred in the eyes of 
 Pharaoh,' &c. 
 
 This use of the name by the officers in the forefront of 
 their bitter complaint is quite inexplicable, if they had 
 learned it first from Moses a few days before ; and this, 
 too, in connexion with a message which now seemed to 
 them a delusion and a snare. On this hypothesis they 
 could only have said, ^ The God of our fathers look upon 
 you, and judge,' but could never have made their complaint 
 in its actual form. If the message were only a delusion, 
 this new name would share in its disgrace. 
 
 XV. The whole history of the plagues confirms the 
 same view. Five times the purpose of these judgments is 
 said to be, 'that the Egyptians may know that I am 
 
and its Anatomists. 35 
 
 Jehovah.' (Exod. vii. 5, 17; viii. 22 ; x. 2 ; xiv. 4, 18.) 
 Plainly, it was not to convince them that the God of the 
 Hebrews had adopted a new surname, a fresh sound or 
 hieroglyphic, but to convince them that He was the true 
 God, the Self-Existent and Unchangeable, whose covenant 
 could not fail. These words are thus a clear and distinct 
 commentary on the previous message. By these plagues 
 and this deliverance God revealed the unchangeableness 
 of His purpose of love, as it had never been revealed 
 before. 
 
 17. These reasons, from the message and its context, 
 are a full and decisive demonstration of the entire false- 
 hood of that exposition on which all the sceptical theories 
 depend. But they are further confirmed by the character 
 of the name itself. It is the future of mn, an older form 
 of n^n, to be, but one almost obsolete when the first books 
 of the Old Testament were written. This is clear from 
 the fact that riM occurs thousands of times from Genesis 
 to Malachi, but mn only in about six places ; and three of 
 these are imperatives, the simplest and most primitive 
 part of the verb, which, therefore, retains more easily an 
 ancient and earlier form. The future, which answers to 
 the sacred name, is never once found in its grammatical 
 sense, ' I will be,' or * He will be,' and a form akin to it 
 once only ; while the root n^'^ is found in that tense alone 
 some thousands of times. Just as the name. Holy Ghost, 
 in our language, must have been given in our language to 
 the Spirit of God, when ghost was a familiar term for 
 spirit ; but is still used as a sacred name, when that word 
 has become confined to the sense of an apparition; so the 
 name Jehovah must have been formed in a stage of the 
 
36 The Pentateuch 
 
 Hebrew tongue earlier than the earliest writings of the 
 Old Testament ; that is, in the pre-Mosaic or Patriarchal 
 times. Its artificial invention at any later period would 
 reverse all the laws of language ; and would degrade it, from 
 being the natural utterance of a Divine perfection, retain- 
 ing its ancient and venerable form as first given, into a 
 piece of verbal trifling, unnatural and almost ridiculous, 
 which could never have been adopted with reverence by a 
 whole people, nor have replaced names consecrated by 
 ages of holy worship. 
 
 18. One argument only is ofi'ered, in the 'Pentateuch 
 Examined,' to support the interpretation now disproved : 
 ' If Abraham made use of the name Jehovah at all, then 
 God was known to him, in some measure, in some sense 
 or other, by that name, if not so perfectly as by the 
 Israelites.' The answer is plain and easy. It may be 
 quite true that God was known by this name to Abraham, 
 in some sense or other ; and equally true that He was not 
 known to him by this name, in that most imjwrtcuit sense, 
 which the whole context proves to be alone intended in 
 these words of Exodus. It would be a strange and novel 
 maxim of criticism that no historical statement is true, 
 unless it be true in every sense of the words, which is 
 grammatically possible. What modern history would not 
 be proved almost a tissue of falsehoods, if once tried by a 
 test so ridiculous and absurd ? 
 
 19. The reasoning of Dr. Davidson (i. 16-24) on this 
 passage, as often, is tortuous and obscure. In direct 
 opposition to Dr. Colenso, he admits that Exod. vi. refers 
 to the fuller discovery of the meaning of the name, and 
 not to its first invention. ' We do not deny that the 
 
and its Anatomists. 37 
 
 name was sometimes employed in the pre-Mosaic time. 
 Probably it was usual among the maternal forefathers 
 of Jocbebed (wbo were they ?) as the composition of her 
 name implies. Nor do we deny that between the ante- 
 Mosaic and Mosaic use of the appellation there must have 
 been a great distinction, because the import of it was not 
 properly understood till the times of Moses.' But he still 
 clings to the sceptical conclusion, after abandoning the 
 main premise on which it rests. ' We cannot believe 
 that the writer of Exod. vi. 3 intended such a contrast. 
 Had he done so, the text would have been different. The 
 word appeared would have had associated with it, not 
 El Shaddai, but Jehovah ; i.e. I appeared to the patriarchs 
 as Jehovah ; but the fulness of the meaning implied in the 
 name was imperfectly apprehended by them. Or some 
 other verb would have been used as antithetic, Jehovah still 
 standing in place of El Shaddai ; i.e. "I was known to the 
 patriarchs as Jehovah, but I was not experimentally known 
 to them in the fulness of the covenant meaning.'' Their 
 knowledge of my character was only superficial. But it 
 is clear to the unbiassed reader that there was no such 
 marked difference between the apprehension of Jehovah 
 before and after Moses, as one-sided apologists would lead 
 us to suppose.' 
 
 Here we learn, as one of the author's ' settled results,' 
 that 'there must have been a great distinction' in the 
 employment of the name before and after Moses, but still 
 no * marked difference,' — as apologists, in their atmosphere 
 of ignorance, falsely pretend. The question is answered 
 both yes and no in the same page. Next, the sacred 
 writer, had he meant to mark this contrast, would not 
 
38 The Pentateuch 
 
 Lave said, * God was known to them as El Shaddai, but as 
 Jehovah {i.e. the Unchangeable) He was not made known,' 
 but have used the briefer and more emphatic antithesis : 
 ' He was known to the patriarchs as Jehovah, but was 
 not experimentally known to them in the fulness of the 
 working power and covenant meaning of the name ! ' In 
 other words, if the Lord had really spoken to Moses at 
 the bush, instead of the grand and simple message as it 
 stands. He would certainl}^, in Dr. Davidson's opinion, 
 have made use of his own milk-and-water paraphrase. 
 Had this modern improvement appeared in the text, it 
 would have been a more convincing sign of spuriousness 
 than all the laborious arguments such critics have hitherto 
 been able to devise. 
 
 20. It is urged, however, that Abraham believed in 
 Jehovah, Gen. xv. 6, and apprehended rightly the character 
 of God under that name, and realised the promise, though 
 not yet fulfilled, so that the essential character of the 
 knowledge in both cases was the same. This argument 
 contradicts flatly the previous admission of a great dis- 
 tinction, in respect of this knowledge, between the earlier 
 and later time. But it contradicts also the force of the 
 words employed — I was seen — I was not known. Here 
 sight and knowledge are used as equivalent and conver- 
 tible, while sight is the constant antithesis of faith. And 
 this meaning is confirmed by the whole sequel, where the 
 Egyptians are to ' know Jehovah,' or that God is Jehovah, 
 by the actual experience of the judgments upon the land, 
 and the actual deliverance of Israel. The name, it is 
 admitted, was in existence and use before, and its mean- 
 ing, so far as a word alone could convey it, must therefore 
 
and its Anatomists. 39 
 
 jbave been known. But tlie contrast referred to a deeper 
 and more intimate knowledge, siicli as could be gained 
 only by the present manifestation of God's uncbangeable 
 truth and grace, in the fulfilment of His promise after 
 ages of delay. Such, when compared with the whole con- 
 text, is the clear and demonstrable meaning of the mes- 
 sage. It is grand, simple, majestic, worthy of the living 
 God to reveal, and to place as the very foundation of His 
 written messages of truth and holiness ; while the expo- 
 sition of unbelieving critics is crude, contradictory, and 
 frivolous, worthy of themselves. The whole history, from 
 the third to the fifteenth of Exodus, rises up, with one 
 consenting voice, to prove its utter falsehood. 
 
40 The Pentateuch 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE ELOHISTIC THEORY. 
 
 21. The modern criticism, which affects to place among its 
 settled results the spuriousness of the Books of Moses, starts 
 usually from the perversion of Exod. vi., which has now 
 been fully disproved. This datum is then combined with 
 four main arguments, from supposed anachronisms, from 
 the use of the two sacred names in Grenesis, alleged con- 
 tradictions between parts thus assigned to different authors, 
 and supposed contrasts or diversities of style. These are 
 so mixed and involved together as to make it hard to de- 
 cide on the best order of review. It seems the clearest 
 plan, first to state the sceptical theory in its ripened form, 
 and the direct arguments which prove it inconsistent and 
 incredible ; and then to compare the opposite views, in 
 their solution of the successive details of the sacred narra- 
 tive in historical order, from first to last. 
 
 The modern critics assume, then, two writers of the 
 Pentateuch at least, but five in the sckeme of Hupfeldt 
 and Davidson, and perhaps of Dr. Colenso — an Elohist, a 
 junior Elohist, a Jehovist, a Deuteronomist, and a Redactor 
 by whom the work was completed into its present form. 
 The Elohist is supposed to be the writer of Exod. vi. 1-8, 
 
and its Anatomists. 41 
 
 and to avoid constantly the use of the name Jehovah in pre- 
 Mosaic times. The Jehovist some hold to have written a 
 second continuous history, others that he only supplemented 
 the earlier work. He is said to use either name, but more 
 commonly Jehovah, even in the times before Moses. The 
 junior Elohist is admitted by some only, as Hupfeldt and 
 Davidson, who make him agree with the Elohist in style, 
 and with the Jehovist in the mixed use of the names, or 
 else conversely. The part assigned to the first Elohist is 
 styled the fundamental document. In Dr. Davidson's 
 scheme it only forms one- sixth of Genesis, another sixth 
 is given to the junior Jehovist, five-ninths, or more than 
 half, to the Jehovist, and one-ninth to the Redactor, who 
 fused the whole into one. The theory splits up Grenesis 
 into more than three hundred fragments, great and small, 
 and then assigns each of them, on alleged critical grounds, 
 to its right owner among these four claimants, whose 
 names, ages, and characters, are all unknown. Some 
 place the Elohist as high as Eleazar, others as late as 
 Solomon. The Jehovist has been referred to the times of 
 Phinehas, of Saul, of Solomon, of Uzziah, and of Hezekiah. 
 The Redactor and the Deuteronomist, of course, come 
 later. Many place them under Manasseh or Josiah, and 
 many melt them into one. 
 
 The parts asigned by Dr. Davidson to each of his four 
 contributors are these : — 
 
 I.— Ch. i. li^ii. 3; V. 1-28, 30-32; vi. 9-22; yH, 6-9, 
 11, 13-16, 21, 24; viii. 1-5, 13-19; ix. 1-17, 28, 29; 
 xi. 10-32 ; xii. 4, 5 ; xiii. 6 (11, 12) ; xv. 1 ; xvi. 3-15, 
 16 ; xvii. ; xix. 29 ; xxi. 2, 4, 5 ; xxiii. ; xxv. 7-11, 17, 
 20, 26; xxvi. 26-35; xxviii. 1-9; xxxi. 18; v. 9-15, 
 
42 The Pentateuch 
 
 28, 29; vi. 6-8; xxxvii. 1; xlvi. 6, 7; xlvii. (11, 27), 
 28 ; xlviii. 3-7 ; xiix. 29-33 ; l. 12, 13. 
 
 II.— Ch. xvi. 2, 15 ; xx. 1-17; xxi. 1-3, 6, 7, 10-17, 
 18-20, 21-34 ; xxii. 1-13, 19 ; xxv. 11*; xxvi. 6, 13, 14, 
 16, 17, 19-22, 25; xxviii. 10-12, 17-22; xxxi. 2, 4-9, 
 11, 13-17, 19*, 23*, 20, 24-6, 8, 9, 38-41, 42-6, 7, 51-4 ; 
 xxxii. 1-3, 23*, 25*, 27-32 ; xxxv. 6, 7, 22-26 ; vi. 2-5, 
 11^14, 19_28; vii. 3-18, 19-22-4-8, 29-31 (32-36) ; xl.; 
 xli. 1, 5-14, 15-17, 22-24 (25-27, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42), 43, 
 45-48, 50-52, 54 ; xlii. (6,7), 8-10, 12, 21-23; xlv. 2,3; 
 xM. 8-12, 13-27; xlviii. 1, 2, 10, 13, 14, 20; xlix. 33 ; 
 L. 22. 
 
 III. — Ck ii. 4-9, 10-25; iii. 1-21; iv. 1-26; vi. 
 4-8 ; vii. 1-5, 10, 12, 16, 17, 22, 23 ; viii. (2-4), 6-12, 
 20-22 ; ix. 18, 19 ; x. 1^-32 ; xii. 1-4, 6-20 ; xiii. 1-5, 
 7-11, 12-18; xiv. ; xv. 2-f; xvi. 1, 4-14; xviii. 1; xix. 
 28 ; XX. 18 ; xxi. 20 ; xxii. 14-18, 20-24 ; xxiv. ; xxv. 
 6, 12-16, 18, 19, 21, 26-28 ; xxvii. 45 ; xxix. ; xxx. 13, 
 17-40 ; xxxi. 1, 3, (17-19), 21-23, 25-30, (31, 50), 53, 
 54 ; xxxii. 1, 4-24 ; xxxiii. 16, 18, 20 ; xxxiv. 4, 6, 8-18, 
 20-26, 28, 30 ; xxxv. 5, 16, 20, 21, 27 ; xxxvi. 9, 10, 
 15-19, 31-43; vii. 2, (3, 11, 18, 23), 25, 27, (28,32-3-5), 
 34 ; viii. ; ix. ; xli. (14, 15, 17, 25), 18-21, 29, 31-*42, 
 44_6-7-9, 53-57 ; xlii. 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 13-20, 24* ; xKii. ; 
 iv. 3-34 ; v. 1-4, 28 ; vi. 5, 28 ; vii. 1-10, 12-27 ; viii. 
 8-12, 15-19 ; ix. 1-28 ; l. 15-21, 22, 23. 
 
 IV.— Ch. ii. 9 ; iii. 22-24 ; v. 20*; vi. 1-3, 4; vii. 8; 
 ix. 18, 20-27 ; x. (5, 8, 20, 25, 31), 21 ; xi. 1-9 ; xix. 
 30* ; xxi. 8, 9, 17 ; xxiv. 67* ; xxv. 26, 29-34 ; xxvi. 
 1-5, 7-12 (14, 25), 15, 18, 23, 24; xxvii. 46; viii. 13-16 ; 
 xxx. 14-16, 40; xxxi. 1, 10-12, 18, (25, 41, 48, 50-52) ; 
 
and its Anatomists. 43 
 
 xxxii. (23-25), 26, 32, 33 ; *iii. 17-19; iv. (1, 2, 13, 26), 
 5, 7, 19, 27, 31 ; v. 1-4 (7, 9, 16, 20, 27) ; vi. 1, 2, 6, 9, 
 18, 29, 36 ; ix. 1, 20 ; xl. (3, 5, 7, 15) ; xli. (1, 14, 15, 
 22, 24-27), 32, 39 ; ii. 6, 7 ; iv. 1, 2 ; vi. 1-5, 12 ; vii. 
 29 ; viii. 1, 5, 12 ; ix. (28, 29) ; l. 1-11, 14, 24, 26. 
 
 The succession of tlie two sacred names, using A for 
 tlie first (Elohim), B for the second, and C for the com- 
 pound, will be — 
 
 A35, C'~, A3, C«, B9, AB, A^B, AB, AB^ A^, B^, 
 A^B, A^B^, A^BA, B^ B^O, B^ B^, D^B, B^, B«, B A^^ 
 Bi^ B7, A2, AB, A^B.— B2, A^^B, A^B, AB^O, B'9, AB*, 
 B7, B"^A, A3, B^, A^BA, B^, A«, B^. — BA^BA, A^BA^ 
 A^O, Alio, 0, 0, B^O, B^AB^, AO.— A9, A^, A^, A^, A^ 
 A^O, A7, BA, A*. 
 
 22. This quadripartite theory is so complex in its de- 
 tails, so flatly opposed to all external evidence, and «o 
 destitute of internal coherence and probability, as to need 
 no refutation, if it were not laboriously framed, and 
 stoutly and confidently upheld, by writers who almost 
 claim a monopoly of learning and critical discernment. 
 It becomes necessary, on this ground alone, to show the 
 fatal objections to which it is exposed in every part, even 
 irrespective of all the historical and external evidence. 
 
 Let us begin with the Elohist, the writer of Exod. vi. 
 2-4, and, therefore, a disguised name of Moses ; who, in 
 the common faith of Jews and Christians, and by the 
 direct teaching of our Lord and His Apostles, is the in- 
 spired author of the whole Pentateuch. In this new 
 system, however, the Elohist has only one- sixth, and the 
 rest is transferred to other and later hands. But the rea- 
 sons assigned are futile and worthless. 
 
44 The Pentateuch 
 
 i. First, Exod. vi. 2-8, is said to prove the belief of 
 tlie writer, tliat the word Jehovah was unknowii before 
 the Exodus. This has been proved false by a dozen 
 arguments, drawn from the passage itself and its whole 
 context. The name of the mother of Moses, Jochebed 
 {i.e. Jehovah hath honoured), in this same chapter, is an 
 additional and decisive evidence of the falseness of the 
 exposition on which the theory is based. 
 
 ii. Even if this false exposition were received, the 
 words refer distinctly to God's messages to the three 
 patriarchs, and to these alone. The parts of Genesis af- 
 fected by it are xv. 7, 8 ; xvii. 1-22 ; xviii. 9-19 ; xxii. 
 11-18; xxvi. 24, 25 ; xxviii. 10-22 ; xxxii. 24-30 ; xxxv. 
 9-15, and xlvi. 1-4. These are just one-twentieth of the 
 book. Those which introduce the name Jehovah in a 
 Divine message are only xv. 7, 8 ; xviii. 9-19 ; xxii. 
 11-18 ; xxviii. 10-22 ; or just one-fiftieth part of the 
 whole. These are all which even the false construction of 
 Exod. vi. would compel us to assign to a different author ; 
 yet this is made the pretext for depriving the Elohist — 
 that is, Moses — of five-sixths of the whole book. 
 
 iii. The natural result, if the false exposition were 
 true, would simply be a contrast between the absence of 
 the name Jehovah in the speeches of the patriarchal 
 times, and its presence in the narrative. Since the name 
 had been revealed, and revealed as specially approj^riate, 
 when the Elohist wrote, there is every reason why he 
 should use it throughout in the history, and exclude it 
 only in the speeches, where, on this view, it would be a 
 direct anachronism. But no such contrast is found, 
 except in two or three places, chaps, ii., xxxix. ; and these 
 
and its Anatomists, 45 
 
 tlie theory does not assign to tlie Elohist, but to the 
 Jehovist ! 
 
 iv. The pleas for the arbitrary hypothesis, that the 
 Elohist constantly forbore the sacred name in pre- Mosaic 
 times, are contradictory and worthless. According to 
 Dr. Colenso, the Elohist is Samuel the Prophet, who con- 
 ceived the pious and patriotic design of introducing a new 
 word, of his own invention, for the popular name of the 
 God of Israel ; and, in order to give it a due prestige, in- 
 vented these conversations of God with Moses, and the 
 chief incidents in the narrative of the Exodus. An object 
 worthy of a third-class grammatical pedant, pursued by 
 means worthy of the Arch-Liar himself ! Still on this 
 hypothesis, as silly as profane, there is no reason why 
 the writer should abstain from the name Jehovah through 
 a whole book, but quite the reverse, if his object were 
 simply to bring it into vogue. Its absence in the mes- 
 sages of God to the patriarchs, and in their conversations 
 with each other, would be more, not less striking, if the 
 historian himself constantly employed it. To sustain the 
 hypothesis, the holy prophet is degraded into a compound 
 of impious profaneness and more than childish folly ; and 
 the only gain is to make the assumption on which it rests 
 doubly incredible. 
 
 Dr. Davidson, on the contrary, 'does not deny that 
 the name Jehovah was sometimes employed in pre-Mosaic 
 times.' But, then, ' the earlier a writer was, the more 
 likely would he be to attend to the distinction ' of using 
 the name only after Moses, and so ' the careful Elohist 
 excluded the name in the matter of Genesis.' But we 
 look in vain for any reason to justify the assertion. If 
 
46 The Pentateuch 
 
 the name was actually known before Moses, there can be 
 no reason why an earlier post- Mosaic writer, rather than 
 a later, should reverse the fact w^hich lay nearer to his 
 0"\\Ti time, and treat it as unknown. Still less is any show 
 of reason offered why he should treat it as unknown to 
 himself, as well as to the patriarchs, throughout more than 
 one half of his own narrative. The proper inference, if 
 the interpretation of Exod. vi. were correct, would not be 
 that its writer composed only the Elohistic sections, but 
 rather that there were portions he did not write, and in- 
 troduced, without change, from earlier pre-Mosaic records. 
 
 23. The passage in Exodus, then, even as explained 
 by these critics, lends no help whatever to their theory, 
 but is a direct stumbling-block in its way. We may, 
 therefore, dismiss it from the inquiry. Let us now 
 examine whether this theory fulfils its claim to satisfy and 
 explain the use of the two names in the Book of Genesis. 
 
 i. And, first, if the use of the names be a sufficient 
 ground of separation, it points clearly to three authors, 
 and neither two nor four, — an Elohist in ch. i. 1-ii. 3 ; 
 xvii. 2-f. ; xxxv. ; xl.-l. ; a Jehovist in ch. ii.-iv. ; xi.-xvi. ; 
 xviii.-xix. 28 ; xxxviii. ; ix. ; and a Neutral, who uses 
 either name, in the rest, or ch. v.-x. ; xix. 29-xxxiv. But 
 such a division among three writers, which is the result 
 of the proposed test, fairly applied,, is wholly preposterous. 
 The Elohist would thus vault from the first Sabbath to the 
 covenant with Abraham when 99 years old, then to the 
 return of Jacob from Padan-aram, with no mention of his 
 birth or that of his sons, and then at once to tlie dreams 
 of the cliief butler and baker, when in prison with Joseph 
 in Egypt. The two other portions also would be such 
 
and its Anatomists, 47 
 
 fragments, as neither inspired prophet nor cunning forger 
 would ever be likely to compose. Besides, the hypothesis 
 of any writer strictly confining himself to the name 
 Jehovah is wholly unreasonable. 
 
 ii. The exclusive use of Jehovah, or Jehovah Elohim, 
 in ch. ii.-iv., xi.-xvi., where it occurs 29 and 35 times in 
 succession, needs an explanation just as much as that of 
 Elohim 35 times in ch. i. 1-ii, 3 ; and again 35 times in 
 ch xl.-l. Now if the former passages are consistent with 
 an admission that their writer knew, and so might have 
 emploj^ed either name, the latter must be consistent with 
 it also. If this use of Elohim requires an Elohist, to 
 whom the sacred name was unfamiliar or unknown, 
 then we ought to admit a Jehovist, who used that name 
 exclusively. But such an assumption is not made by 
 these critics, and is disproved by the currency of both 
 names throughout the Old Testament. 
 
 iii. The parts which the test refers to the Elohist, 
 when we assume the latitude of a solitary deviation or 
 interpolation, are ch. i. 1-ii. 3 ; v. ; ix. 1-19 ; xvii. ; xxi. 
 2-34 ; xxiii. ; xxix. 1-30 ; xxxiv.-xxxvi. ; xl.-L, or 21 
 chapters. But the theory assigns him only the four first 
 of these, and the sixth (ch. xxiii.) with a few verses in the 
 other seventeen chapters. By way of compensation, it culls 
 out for him parts, amounting to one-half of his portion, 
 from those chapters where the names are mixed, or where 
 the sacred name alone is used. Out of his 262 verses, 132 
 belong to these five chapters, and 130 to the other frag- 
 ments. Thus the actual division of these critics, and that 
 resulting from their own test, when fairly applied, wholly 
 disagree, except in a few chapters, chiefly at the opening 
 
48 The Pentateuch 
 
 of the book. Again, ch. xl.-l. are clearly Elohistic in the 
 use of the names, since the other name is found only in one 
 verse out of eleven chapters, or 360 verses. Yet here only 
 1 6 J verses, less than one-twentieth part, are assigned to 
 the Elohist ; while 228 are ascribed to the Jehovist, and 
 the rest (116) to the junior Elohist and the E-edactor, who 
 share the same privilege of using either name. 
 
 iv. The theory involves the dissection of the Book of 
 Genesis into verses, and even parts of verses, in order to 
 satisfy its imaginary conditions. But such a process de- 
 stroys the main pillar on which it pretends to rest. Out " 
 of 1534 verses, only about 300, or one-fifth, contain either 
 of the sacred names. AYhen once the dissection into single 
 verses is allowed, the test on which the theory depends 
 ceases to apply to four-fifths of the whole. The further 
 license of assuming interpolations or substitutions of the 
 names themselves, or of a Jehovistic for an Elohistic por- 
 tion, completes the suicide, and makes the test useless in 
 the remaining 300 verses, to which it might otherwise apply. 
 
 24. The * groundwork document,' as elaborated by the 
 theory, from ch. ix. onward, is one quite inconceivable 
 for any historical writer to have composed. After twenty- 
 three verses of genealogy, from Shem to Terah, made 
 to follow close on ix. 1-17, 28, 29, it continues as 
 follows : — 
 
 * And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed 
 out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his 
 brother's son, and all their substance, and the souls they had 
 gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of 
 Canaan ; and into the land of Canaan they came. And the 
 land was not able to bear them that they might dwell together, 
 
and its Anatomists. 49 
 
 for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell to- 
 gether ; and thej separated one from the other. Abram dwelt 
 in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelt in the cities of the plain . 
 After these things came the word of Jehovah to Abram in a 
 vision, saying. Fear not, Abram : I am thy shield, and thy ex- 
 ceeding great reward. And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar 
 her maid, the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the 
 land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram, to be his 
 wife. And Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, 
 Ishmael. And Abram was eighty- six years old when Hagar 
 bare Ishmael to Abram.' 
 
 Ch. xvii., God's covenant, ending, — 
 
 * And all the men of his house, born in the house, or bought 
 with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.' 
 
 Then, without preface, — 
 
 ' And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of 
 the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out 
 of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities 
 in which Lot dwelt. And Sarah conceived at the set time of 
 which God had spoken to him. And Abraham circumcised his 
 son Isaac, being eight days old, as God commanded him. And 
 Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born 
 unto him. And Sarah was a hundred and seven and twenty years 
 old, the years of the life of Sarah, (ch. xxiii.) . . . And the field 
 and the cave were made sure unto Abraham, for a possession of 
 a burying-place, by the sons of Heth. And these were the days 
 of the years of Abraham's life which he lived, one hundred and 
 seventy-five years. Then Abraham gave up the ghost and died 
 
 And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that 
 
 God blessed his son Isaac. And these are the years of the life 
 of Ishmael, one hundred and thirty-seven years ; and he gave 
 up the ghost and died, and was gathered to his people. And 
 Isaac was forty years old when he took to wife Eebekah, the 
 
50 The Pentateuch 
 
 daughter of Bethuel the Syrian, of Padan-aram, the sister to 
 Laban the Syrian. And Isaac was threescore years old when 
 she bare them. {i.e. Esau and Jacob.) And Abimelech went to 
 him {i.e. Isaac) from Gerar, and Ahuzzath, one of his friends, 
 and Phichol the chief captain of his army. And Isaac said unto 
 them, Wherefore come ye to me, seeing ye hate me, and have 
 thrust me away from you?' &c. &c. ' And he called it Sheba. 
 And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith, 
 daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath, daughter of Elon 
 the Hittite ; which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and Rebekah. 
 And Isaac called Jacob and blessed him, and charged him . . . 
 the sister of Nebaioth, to be his wife.' (xxviii. 1-9.) 'And ha 
 {i,e. Jacob) carried away all his cattle and all his goods, the 
 cattle of his getting, which he had gotten in Padan-aram, to go 
 to Isaac his father in the land of Canaan And God ap- 
 peared to Jacob when he came out of Padan-aram, and blessed 
 him. (vv. 10-14.) And Jacob called the name of the place 
 where God spake to him, Bethel.' 
 
 This disjointed, meagre outline, the mere bones of the 
 sacred history, all misjoined together, may be left to tbe 
 judgment of any sensible reader. The mere perusal of this 
 * document/ which, the critics have devised with so mucb 
 labour, is enough, to fix its real worth as th.e original of 
 the sacred history. Yet, in order to produce this limping 
 continuity, fifteen single verses, and nine parts of verses, 
 have to be stolen from paragraphs or chapters, either 
 mixed or Jehovistic in their use of the names ; and one 
 verse is included (xv. 1), where the name Jehovah alone 
 appears in the sacred text. The transition from xiii. 12 
 to XV. 1, and from this to xvi. 3 ; the mention of the name 
 of Ishmael before his birth had been mentioned ; the 
 passage from the circumcision of the servants to the escape 
 of Lot, without a single verse on the judgment from which 
 
and its Anatomists. 51 
 
 he was saved ; tlie mention of the conception of Isaac and 
 his circumcision, but not of his birth or naming, which are 
 left to be supplied by the 'junior Elohist ;' and then of 
 the death and burial of Sarah, without a word about Isaac 
 or Ishmael, are curious illustrations of this product of 
 modern criticism, when it undertakes to distribute among 
 four Jewish forgers of fables the earliest message of the 
 living God to sinful men. To crown the absurdity, we 
 are told that this ' ground- work document,' thus composed 
 chiefly of genealogies, geographical notes, and marks of 
 chronology, 'resembles a poem more than a history.' — 
 Dav. Introd. p. 25. In truth, it resembles rather a 
 broken skeleton, the remains of a living history, from 
 which a reckless criticism has scraped the flesh entirely 
 away. 
 
 25. Let us now turn to the junior Elohist, to whom 
 are assigned 221 verses and ^Q parts of a verse, or nearly 
 the same amount as to the earlier writer. The proofs of 
 his existence are thus given : — 
 
 ' How have traces of a junior Elohist been detected ? Certain 
 portions belong to neither of the two documents exclusively, but 
 have peculiarities resembling both. Though Elohim occurs in 
 them, they are not what are termed Elohistic. Their tone and 
 manner more resemble the Jehovist's. Such phenomena appear 
 in the history of Jacob and Joseph. There is no doubt that 
 XXXV. 9-15 belongs to the first document. But by the pre- 
 ceding history of Jacob, ch. xxxii., he received the name Israel 
 from his night- wrestling. Hence different traditions were employed 
 in the two chapters, as is clear from the contents. In con- 
 formity with this twofold tradition is the double origin of Bethel. 
 Hence xxviii. 11, &c., and xxxv. 1-7, though marked by the 
 same name, Elohim, are of later origin than xxxv. 9-15. So 
 
52 The Pentateuch 
 
 ch. xxxi. does not belong to the primitive document, from whose 
 genuine parts it varies, but to a later Elohim document, agreeing 
 more nearly with the Jehovistic parts of the history. The 
 account of the settlement in Egypt belongs, in a great degree, 
 to the junior Elohist. This is shown by the contents, manner, 
 and style. The narrative is too diffuse and minute to harmonise 
 with the summary notices of the primitive Elohist. Great stress, 
 too, is laid on dreams, which is unlike the original document , . 
 To the same Elohist must be referred Gen. xxii. ]-13, 19. 
 Apart from the use of Elohim, the entire conception and point 
 of view show a higher development of the religious idea than 
 belongs to the primitive Elohist. The sacrifice of an only son. 
 is remote from his conception, who studiously kept sacrifices 
 away from the time of the patriarchs ! . . . . The third chapter 
 of Exodus belongs to the same; for not only does the title 
 Elohim occur in it seven times along with Jehovah, but an ex- 
 planation of the latter is given, which cannot belong to the 
 Jehovist, because of vi. ]3. The old Elohist would not use the 
 name Jehovah as is here done, and therefore it belongs to the 
 junior Elohist. Of the sections referred to one thing must be 
 allowed, that they belong to some other document than the two 
 leading ones. A third source of tradition shines through them. 
 .... The principal traits in him and the Jehovist resemble 
 each other. He is distinguished from the latter, not only by 
 the use of Elohim, but by the absence of strong expressions of 
 hatred against neighbouring tribes, and a milder apprehension 
 of sin. In many things he has an analogy to the Elohist, in 
 more to the Jehovist.' — Introduction, pp. 44-46. 
 
 26. This passage is a striking instance of the self- 
 contradiction into which these discoverers continuallj^ fall, 
 when they set up a claim to special insight. 
 
 i. First, the contrast between the so-called Elohist 
 and Jehovist rests entirely on two things — the use of the 
 Divine names, and the general tone and st3de. We are 
 
and its Anatomists. 53 
 
 warned (p. 18) that it is great ignorance to think that 
 the conchision rests on either line of proof, separately and 
 alone. It is affirmed to rest on their concurrence. Yet 
 now a junior Elohist has to be invented, because, in one- 
 sixth of the book, these two kinds of evidence contradict 
 each other. Here parts agree in style and tone which 
 differ in the use of the name ; and, on the other hand, 
 those which agree in the use of the names differ in style 
 and tone. Thus, if we rest upon the names only, this 
 junior must be identified with the first Elohist ; if we 
 rest on the style, with the Jehovist. Hence, by these con- 
 cessions, instead of a concurrence of the two arguments, 
 they are seen to be in direct antagonism, and neutralise 
 each other. The need of inventing this junior Elohist 
 is a deadly blow against the original theory, which it 
 crumbles into dust. 
 
 ii. The next recourse is to the charge of contradiction. 
 ' There can be no doubt that xxxv. 9-15 belongs to the 
 first document, and it contradicts xxxii. andxxviii. 11-22.^ 
 Now, first, since both are called Elohistic, it is surely 
 more natural to reckon the first passages the earlier, if they 
 are to have two sources. To assume, without proof, that 
 the third alone belongs to the first Elohist, is quite in 
 keeping with the superficial presumption of the whole 
 criticism. Next, the alleged contradiction is purely a 
 result of critical blindness. The passage xxxv. 1-8 con- 
 tains, as is allowed, a direct allusion to the previous his- 
 tory, ch. xxviii. But the passage vv. 9-16 is a simple 
 continuation of the former. The negative critics break 
 up this chapter of simple, continuous narrative, into thir- 
 teen parts, in this marvellous order : — 
 
54 The Pentateuch 
 
 Qh.. XXXV. 1-4, Redactor ; v. 5, Jehovist ; vv. 6, 7, 
 Junior Elohist ; v. 8, Redactor ; v. 9, ' And God appeared 
 unto Jacob/ Elohist ; ' again,' Redactor ; ' when lie came 
 out of Padan-aram,' &c., v. 10-15, Elohist; v. 16a, Re- 
 dactor; Y. 16b-20a, Jehovist ; v. 20b, Redactor; v. 21, 
 Jehovist ; vv. 22-26, Junior Elohist ; v. 27, Jehovist ; 
 vv. 28, 29, Elohist 
 
 Comment seems superfluous on such a climax of 
 critical folly. The second account of the name Israel 
 is so far from contradicting the first, that it assumes 
 and implies it. There is nothing in xxxv. 10 to explain 
 why this particular name should be given. Exactly the 
 same repetition occurs in the New Testament. Simon is 
 surnamed Peter at the ordination of the Apostles, Mark, 
 iii. 16 ; and again, considerably later, the name is re- 
 peated and confirmed. Matt. xvi. 17, 18. The only part 
 assigned also to this junior Elohist, within the first 
 nineteen chapters, or from the Creation to the birth of 
 Isaac, is precisely these two verses : ' And Sarai said unto 
 Abram, Behold, now, the Lord hath restrained me from 
 bearing : I pray thee, go in unto my maid, it may be 
 that I may obtain children by her. And Abram heark- 
 ened to the voice of Sarai. And Hagar bare ^.bram a 
 son.' Some century earlier the Elohist had recorded, 
 ' And Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, 
 Ishmael.' Then, after this long delay, the junior Elohist 
 records the birth itself ; and another century later, a Je- 
 hovist prefaces with the verse, ' Now Sarai, Abram's wife, 
 bare him no children, and she had a handmaid, an 
 Egyptian, whose name was Hagar/ Perhaps, in like 
 manner, some learned critic on ' Paradise Lost,' in future 
 
and its Anatomists. 55 
 
 days, will discover clear signs that tlie third paragraph 
 was by Pope, the second by Byron, and the first by 
 Tennyson, except a few words from the Redactor, who 
 soon afterwards fitted them together. 
 
 27. The separation of the part of the Jehovist, to 
 whom five-ninths of the whole are assigned, and who has 
 thus in quantity more than three times the Elohist, de- 
 pends on nothing but arbitrary caprice. The text in 
 Exodus, it has been shown, would leave the Elohist, the 
 first writer, nineteen-twentieths of the whole. But by 
 the arbitrary assumption that he chose to abstain wholly 
 from the name Jehovah, this is reduced to twenty- one 
 chapters, and by the invention of a second Elohist, to 
 bridge over the opposition between the names and the 
 style or contents, only five of these are left to him, and are 
 pieced out with odd verses, chosen here and there, amount- 
 ing in length to five or six chapters. Thus the Jehovist, 
 the supplementer, comes to be the chief writer, and owns 
 more than half the book. Yet, even with these ample 
 materials, the blanks are distressing and unaccountable. 
 He gives, for instance, the genealogy from Noah to Eber, 
 and the history of Abraham at length ; but the genealogy 
 from Eber to Abraham belongs to the Elohist. He is 
 robbed also of the vision, xv. 1, where the sacred name 
 occurs, which is given to the Elohist, to bridge over a 
 chasm. In ch. xx. he has the last verse alone assigned 
 him, which is unmeaning without the history to which it 
 belongs ; and in ch. xxi. only the clause about Ishmael, 
 ' And he dwelt in the wilderness and became an archer.' 
 In ch. xxii. we are told of that solemn oath of Grod, the 
 subject of repeated praise and adoration in the Psalms 
 
.56 The Pentateuch 
 
 and Prophets, and celebrated by Zacbarias before the 
 birth of Christ, and by St. Peter when two thousand souls 
 were gathered in by his message (Acts, iii. 25, 26), that 
 ' vv. 14-18 are evidently a Jehovistic appendix loosely 
 added to the preceding/ * They have not known nor 
 understood, for their eyes are shut that they cannot see, 
 and their hearts that they cannot understand.' 
 
 28. If one history, beyond all others, bears simplicity 
 and unity on its face, it is that of Joseph. The following 
 specimen of its treatment, by these modern neologists, 
 will almost supersede, with most persons, the need of 
 more laborious refutation of their scheme. Ch. xxxvii. 
 enters their crucible, and is distilled as follows : — 
 
 1 . ' And Jacob dwelt in the land wherein his father was a 
 stranger, in the land of Canaan.' — Eloliist. 2. * These are the 
 generations of Jacob. Joseph being seventeen years of age 
 . . . . their evil report.' — Jehovist. 3. 'Now Israel loved Jo- 
 seph more than all his children, because he was the son of his 
 old age.' — 2wfZ Elohist. 4. ' And he made him a coat of many 
 colours.' — Je/iomi. 5. vv. 4-10, 2nd Eloliist. 6. 'And his 
 brethren envied him.' — Jeliovist. 7. 'But his father observed 
 the saying.' — 2nd Eloliist. 8. ' And his brethren said to him, 
 Shalt thou indeed reign over us ... . and bring me word 
 again.' — 2nd Elohist. 9. 'So he sent him out of the vale of 
 Hebron, and he came to Shechem.' — Redactor. 10. vv. 15-1 8a 
 . . . . ' And when they saw him afar off,' — 2nd Elohist. 11. ' be- 
 fore he came near.' — Redactor. 12. 'they conspired to slay 
 him.' — Jehovist. 13. vv. 19-22a .... 'And Reuben said to 
 them, Shed no blood, but cast him into this pit that is in the 
 wilderness, and lay no hand upon him.' — 2nd Elohist. 14. ' that 
 he might rid him out of their hands, to deliver him to his father 
 again.' — Redactor. 15. ' And it came to pass, when Joseph was 
 come unto his brethren.' — 2nd Elohist. 16. 'that they stripped 
 
and its Anatomists. 57 
 
 JosepTi ont of his coat, his coat of many colours that was on 
 him.' — Jeliovist. 17. ' And they took him, and cast him into a 
 pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it.' — 2nd 
 Elohist. 18. 'And they sat down to eat bread,' &c. v. 25. — 
 Jeliovist. 19. ' And Judah said unto his brethren. What profit 
 is it, if we slay our brother, and conceal his blood?' — Not 
 assigned. 20. ' Come and let us sell him,' &c. v. 27. — Jehovist. 
 21. ' Then there passed by Midianite merchantmen ; and they 
 drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit.' — 2nd Elohist. 22. ' And 
 sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver ; and 
 they brought Joseph into Egypt.' — Jeliovist. 23. 'And Keuben 
 returned .... and they brought it to their father.' — 2nd Elo- 
 hist. 24. ' and said. This have we found : know now whether it 
 be thy son's coat or no. And he knew it.' — Jehovist. 25. ' and 
 said. It is my son's coat ; an evil beast hath devoured him.' — 
 2nd Elohist. 26. ' Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces.' — 
 Jehovist. 27. ' And Jacob rent his clothes .... unto my son 
 mourning.' — 2nd Elohist. 28. ' Thus his father wept for him.' — 
 Jehovist. 29. ' And the Midianites sold him into Egypt.' — 
 2nd Elohist. 30. ' Unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, and 
 captain of the guard.' — Jehovist. 
 
 The credulity of sceptics is proverbial. But it may 
 be doubted whether a more striking illustration of it can 
 be found than in the pubKcation of this patchwork theory, 
 where this one chapter is broken up into thirty morsels, 
 and assigned to four di£Perent writers, as a triumph of 
 critical skill, a ' settled result,' far more credible than 
 the express affirmation of Apostles and of the Lord of 
 Glory ! 
 
58 The Pentateuch 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 THE SACRED NAMES IN GENESIS. 
 
 29. The use of the two names of God, Eloliim and Jehovah, 
 in the Book of Genesis, occupies a chief place among 
 modern objections to the Mosaic authorship. The ex- 
 planation the negative critics propose proves indeed, when 
 examined, a total failure, and some of the details of their 
 composite scheme violate the plainest lessons of common 
 sense. But the proof of their failure cannot alone satisfy 
 the inquiring mind. The interchange of the names can- 
 not be accidental, since each, in turn, occurs ten, twenty, 
 and thirty times in succession. Hence the modern de- 
 fenders of the genuineness and unity of the book have all 
 recognised a distinction in the use and meaning of these 
 names. But in their efforts to detect an internal reason 
 for the choice their success has not been complete. Some 
 of their explanations are so strained and artificial, as to 
 give occasion to their adversaries to cast discredit on the 
 whole, and to represent it as mere special pleading, to which 
 truth and honesty are sacrificed. Dr. Davidson says, that 
 ' Ilengstenberg and Drechsler failed to show that the name 
 employed is always the one which alone suits the con- 
 nexion. To prove the exclusive suitableness of each 
 
and its Anatomists. 59 
 
 where it stands, they have taxed their ingenuity to the 
 utmost without success.' This remark is true. But it 
 has not been shown that this complete insight into the 
 reason of the choice, in every case, is at all required to 
 vindicate the unity of the book. Such a condition is 
 never exacted in the case of any human writer whatever. 
 These learned and able German apologists, by attempting 
 too much, have obscured the real strength of their cause ; 
 and have neglected the previous inquiry, within what 
 limits this distinctive use of the names might be expected 
 to prevail. The subject admits of a more cautious and 
 thorough treatment than it has yet received, and will then 
 furnish a powerful evidence of the original unity of the 
 work, and the Divine art and wisdom of the sacred 
 narrative. 
 
 30. Let us assume, then, that Moses was the writer, 
 and actually received those Divine messages in the third 
 and sixth of Exodus, and inquire what conclusions will 
 follow with regard to the use of these sacred names. 
 
 And, first, it results from Exod. iii., that the name 
 Jehovah, worn down by use till its origin and force were 
 almost forgotten, was revived by the lips of God himself 
 in His first message to Moses. * He which is continually/ 
 the meaning of the name, became, when God himself was 
 the Speaker, the solemn utterance, ' I Am that I Am,' a 
 God unchangeable in moral excellence, and in the truth 
 of His counsels. Thus the name, to Moses, would be no 
 mere sound, but have a full and deep significance, an- 
 nouncing the unchangeableness and perfection of God. 
 
 [N'ext, it results equally from Exod. vi., that Moses was 
 taught to recognise a contrast between the name El Shad- 
 
60 The Pentateuch 
 
 dai and Jehovah. In the first character God had revealed 
 Himself to the patriarchs, and in the second He would 
 now reveal Himself by fulfilling His earlier promises. 
 The statement refers plainly to comparative, not absolute 
 knowledge, and to revelation, not in words but in acts, such 
 as the works of power about to be displayed. The Lord 
 had revealed His mighty power to the patriarchs within 
 the narrow limits of their own lifetime. The practical 
 disclosure of His unchangeableness needed a wider range 
 of time, an interval of delay and seeming oblivion, and the 
 fulfilment of His promise to the fourth generation. A 
 similar contrast must obtain between Elohim and Jehovah. 
 The former may difier from El Shaddai by an implication 
 of Divine fulness of being, from its plural form, but the 
 main idea seems clearly the same. Each refers to the 
 power of Grod, for which He is the just object of religious 
 reverence. And hence Moses, to whom those two mes- 
 sages were given, would be likely, above any other writer, 
 to use these names with a vivid perception of the secret 
 contrast in their power. 
 
 This contrast is viewed by Hengstenberg as follows : — 
 
 ' Elohim is the Great Unknown which infuses fear. Of His 
 interior nature nothing is expressed. The name is merely re- 
 lative, and, as such, superficial; for the deepest relations of God 
 to men, such as holiness and love, are not included in the name. 
 The plural ending leads also to such a vague character. It is 
 the more general, and Jehovah the more deep and discriminating 
 name of God. Hence we must expect that these names, before 
 the complete establishment of the theocracy, would alternate 
 differently from a later period. The religious condition of this 
 period appears allied to that of the later heathen world, yet had 
 the same elements which were combined in the theocracy. The 
 
and its Anatomists, 61 
 
 mixed character must have certainly occasioned a mingled use of 
 the names. As the relation to the earlier or later period pre- 
 vailed, the analogy to the heathen world or the theocracy, must 
 the name Elohim or Jehovah have been bi'ought into use .... 
 The name Jehovah relates to the complete unfolding of the 
 Divine nature. In Elohim and El Shaddai the Godhead is con- 
 templated only in its most outward relation, and the religious 
 stage corresponding, the mere sense of dependence, is the lowest 
 of all. In Jehovah, the superior nature assumes a determinate 
 form. It is the only name of God which describes Him accord- 
 ing to His innermost nature, the only one which can be con- 
 sidered as a proper name .... Elohim became Jehovah by a 
 historical process. That Elohim became Jehovah is the object 
 of the whole sacred history ; to show how He became so is the 
 main principle of its representations.' 
 
 Tlie main idea in tliese extracts is true, tliougli not 
 the whole truth. ; but the expressions at the close are 
 misleading and inexact. The name, Jehovah, is expounded 
 by the lips of God Himself— I Am that I Am — the Self- 
 consistent and Unchangeably Perfect Being. That Elohim 
 should ' become Jehovah' directly contradicts the meaning 
 of the name. He is, and must be, the same from everlast- 
 ing. But a dimmer apprehension or knowledge, on the 
 part of His worshippers, may be raised, by revelation, 
 into one which is fuller and more intimate. This, doubt- 
 less, is what the able writer intends; but in subjects of 
 this kind inexact phrases react upon the mind, and produce 
 confusion of thought. 
 
 A more serious defect in this view is the representation 
 of Elohim as, in all respects, an inferior name, suited only 
 to a superficial stage of religious feeling. If this were so, 
 its frequent use in the Old Testament, from first to last. 
 
62 The Pentateuch 
 
 would be unaccountable. But a comparison with the Xew 
 Testament furnishes a complete disproof. The names 
 which answer to these in the Greek version, it is well 
 known, are Geoc and Kvptoc- But in the New Testament 
 0£oc is reserved, almost invariably, for the title of God 
 the Father ; the name Kvgiog, Lord, is applied almost as 
 constantly to our blessed Saviour, the Incarnate Son of 
 God, the Mediator of the new covenant. Here it is plain 
 that 0foc occupies the highest, and Kvgiog the second 
 place. So 1 Cor. xiii. 4-6, and in hundreds of passages. The 
 view offered above, if accepted as the whole truth, plainly 
 contradicts this great fact, the main result of the compari- 
 son of the sacred names in the Old and IS'ew Testaments. 
 
 31. The truth is, that each name, in turn, may be 
 viewed as higher than the other, according to the special 
 aspect in which we regard it. Elohim represents God 
 as the Mighty, the rich in power, the Unsearchable, the 
 Unknown ; Jehovah, as the Unchangeable, the harmoni- 
 ous and self- complete, the holy and perfect, the Self- 
 revealed, who is capable of being definitely known. Thus 
 the passage from ignorance to knowledge, from dimmer to 
 clearer apprehension, is the transition from the knowledge 
 of Elohim to the higher apprehension of Jehovah. But, 
 again, all creature knowledge is limited by faculties which 
 are finite, and cannot exhaust the nature of the Divine 
 Being. One who could be comprehended and fully known 
 by the creature could not be the true and infinite God. 
 Hence the stage of thought, where advanced but still 
 imperfect knowledge loses itself in a higher mystery, in 
 the feeling how much still remains unknown, is the passage 
 from a knowledge of Jehovah to the worship of Jehovah 
 
and its Anatomists. 63 
 
 as Elohim. And this reconciles the opposite facts of the 
 Old and New Testaments. In the Mosaic revelation, the 
 vague, dim knowledge of God, in earlier times, became 
 enriched, enlarged, and made definite, by a series of 
 direct revelations. The worship of God as Elohim was 
 ripened into the knowledge of the great I Am, the un- 
 changeable, covenant-keeping Jehovah of the Exodus. 
 In the Gospel this work of self-revelation reached its 
 height, when ' the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among 
 us ; ' and the incommunicable name, Jehovah, passing 
 first into the Kv^toc of the Greek version, coalesced with 
 the frequent title of honour between men and men, in that 
 wondrous name, the Lord Jesus. It now becomes the 
 sign of completed revelation, the Godhead manifested in 
 our Lord's humanity ; and Jesus, the Son of Man, is 
 crowned with the name of the Most Holy, — * that every 
 tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (^. e. Jeho- 
 vah), to the glory of God the Father.' But now the un- 
 searchableness of the Divine nature is exhibited by the 
 name 0£oc, i-C- Elohim, applied to the Father, whom the Son 
 reveals, but who remains for ever inaccessibly glorious. 
 * No man hath seen God at any time ; the Only-begotten 
 Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath revealed 
 Him.' Thus the soul is led upward by successive stages, 
 from Elohim to Jehovah, and from Jehovah to Elohim ; 
 from dim religious reverence, to see, to look upon, and to 
 handle the Word of Life, and know Him that is from 
 the beginning ; and, from this higher knowledge, to the 
 voice of Apostolic adoration, — ' the depth of the riches 
 of the wisdom and the knowledge of God ! how unsearch- 
 able are His judgments, and His ways past finding out ! ' 
 
64 The Pentateuch 
 
 We liave thus obtained a partial key to the probable 
 use of these names by Moses in his inspired history of the 
 patriarchal times. The more general name, Elohim, forms 
 the starting-point and ground- work of the whole. When 
 a definite, historical, and moral revelation is made to men, 
 the name Jehovah will form its natural embodiment and 
 expression. When past revelations lose themselves in the 
 course of general providence, and in the sense of a my- 
 stery, to be solved only by new and higher revelations, 
 the name Elohim, the title of God as the mysterious and 
 infinite, may be expected to reappear. 
 
 32. A second truth, however, remains to be weighed, 
 and its consequences traced, before we can expect to solve 
 the problem before us. Both of these names are names of 
 one and the same God; Elohim is Jehovah, and Jehovah 
 is Elohim. The distinction and contrast of the names 
 needs to be so wisely tempered as never to create the false 
 impression of two Deities, whose attributes are independent 
 and incompatible. They are to be used, so to speak, as 
 stereoscopic photographs, for the object of both is the 
 same glorious Being ; and the mental eye must learn to 
 combine these contrasted aspects in one wondrous vision, 
 an unknown God, who can and must be known ; a re- 
 vealed God, who is and must remain unsearchable. There 
 must be many passages, in a sacred history where the 
 main object of thought is the Divine Being, which have 
 no special reference either to the dimness or clearness of 
 human knowledge, to the presence or absence of a peculiar 
 mystery. To fulfil this object, both names have naturally 
 to be employed; not in strict alternation, which would 
 give an artificial air to the language, but rather with such 
 
and its Anatomists. 65 
 
 an occasional change, tliat in tlie same historical section 
 one name predominates, but the other is once or twice 
 introduced; or so that successive sections are placed in 
 relief, or slight contrast, by the insensible transition from 
 one to the other name. Such a character we may expect 
 to prevail in those passages which have a connective or 
 transitional character, which relate neither to the crisis 
 of a new, moral, or historical revelation, nor to that time 
 of growing mystery, which forms the preparation for a 
 revelation still to come. 
 
 The book of Genesis, for the purpose of this inquiry, 
 may be distinguished into ten portions of unequal length ; 
 or chh. i.-iv., v.-x., xi.-xviii. 28 ; xviii. 29-xxiii., xxiv. 
 XXV. xxvi. xxvii. - xxxii. xxxviii. and xxxix., and ch. 
 xxxiii.-L. (except the last). Five of these, containing 
 thirty-three chapters, illustrate the first principle, or the 
 more discriminating use of the sacred names ; and the 
 rest, containing seventeen chapters, the mixed, or more 
 alternate and miscellaneous usage. 
 
 33. The Creation. Chap. i. 1-ii. 3. — Here the name, 
 Elohim, alone occurs thirty-five times. The section 
 reveals the sequence and order of the natural creation, 
 and prepares the way for the record of the Fall. It dis- 
 plays the power of the Almighty ; but it is in the govern- 
 ment of men and angels that His moral perfections are 
 displayed. Hence the name expressive of Divine power, 
 in contrast to Jehovah, expressive of truth and holiness, 
 is alone employed. 
 
 Paradise and the Fall. Chap. ii. 4-iii. 24.— Here, 
 twenty times in succession, we meet with the compound 
 title, the Lord God, Jehovah Elohim. Only in the words 
 
66 The Pentateuch 
 
 of the Serpent and of Eve we find simply Eloliim. That 
 name of dimmer knowledge and vague reverence alone 
 suits the lips of the deceiver, and the woman's expiring 
 faith. The use of the compound in the narrative is con- 
 stant and imvaried : — 
 
 ' Jehovah, the Self-revealer, and Elohim, the Ahnighty 
 Creator, are one. Had Moses suddenly used Jehovah alone, 
 there might have been a doubt whether Jehovah was not different 
 from Elohim. The union proves their identity ; and, this being 
 proved, Moses drops the union, and employs sometimes one, 
 sometimes another, as occasion and propriety may require.' — - 
 M'Caul, Aids to Faith, p. 19G. 
 
 This use of the compound here alone, and so often, is 
 a distinct proof of the unity of the work. No hypothesis 
 of two, three, or four independent authors can explain it. 
 This primitive revelation of God to man, the basis of the 
 moral government of our world, evidently requires the 
 higher name, Jehovah. But since only Elohim has been 
 used before, its addition is needful here, and here only, to 
 establish the truth Israel confessed in the days of Elijah, — 
 
 * Jehovah, He is Elohim ; Jehovah, He is Elohim.' This 
 union, expressed here so early, is then impKed throughout. 
 It keeps Jehovah from being degraded into a mere local 
 and national God of the Jews ; and Elohim from passing 
 into a dim worship of the powers of nature — the Elohim, 
 the gods many, and lords many, of the heathen world. 
 
 Caix and Abel. Ch. iv. — In this third section the 
 compound title ceases. Nine times Jehovah appears 
 alone. Once only, in the words of Eve, we read, v. 25, 
 
 * Elohim hath appointed me another seed, instead of Abel, 
 whom Cain slew.' The narrative is a first example of 
 
and its Anatomists, 67 
 
 God's moral government of our fallen world. Hence tlie 
 name Jehovah is clearly appropriate. And now the 
 addition of Elohim is superfluous. It has been amply- 
 shown, by the previous section, that Jehovah is also 
 Elohim ; that' He who accepted Abel, and pronounced the 
 sentence on Cain, is the Almighty Creator of heaven and 
 earth. 
 
 The name Elohim, v. 25, has been explained to denote 
 (Hengst.) that the faith of Eve had become less lively 
 than af the birth of Cain, and now amounted only to a 
 recognition of a general Providence, and that this is con- 
 firmed by the case of Leah, xxix. 35 ; xxx. 18. But this 
 is far from a certain, scarcely even a probable, inference. 
 The reason is, rather, that the first birth directly brought 
 to mind the promise and sentence of Jehovah, iii. 15, 16. 
 This birth of Seth, 130 years later, when hundreds had 
 intervened, had no such peculiar reference. Its special 
 feature was to be a work of God's power, counteracting 
 the ravages of sin and death. Hence Elohim is the more 
 appropriate name. 
 
 In these three sections the names occur sixty-seven 
 times, in a way clearly expressive of choice and design. 
 And this design implies as clearly a single writer. A 
 plural authorship might explain the use of Elohim in 
 ch. i. 1 — ii. 3, and of Jehovah in the rest; but not the 
 twenty-fold repetition of the compound name. 
 
 34. The Call and Yisions of Abraham. Ch. xi.-xviii. 
 28. — This portion of the book extends to the visit of the 
 angels and the overthrow of Sodom. The promise cul- 
 minates, before the performance in the birth of Isaac. 
 The sequence is B^O, B^, B^D-^B, B^ B^ BA^o, B^^, B^. 
 
68 The Pentateuch 
 
 In eight chapters Jehovah occurs more than fifty times, 
 and Elohim (or El Shaddai) ten times in one chapter 
 alone. 
 
 This era was one of repeated messages to the Father 
 of the faithful, the ground of all the later revelations of 
 the Law and the Gospel. The constant use of the name 
 Jehovah is thus in full harmony with the facts revealed. 
 The one exception makes the reason of the choice still 
 plainer. Ch. xvii. is a record of the covenant of circum- 
 cision, when the land of Canaan and the birth of Isaac 
 were both promised. In v. 1 the name Jehovah links it 
 with the whole context ; but the message itself begins, 
 * I am El Shaddai, the Almighty God.' Now this is the 
 name placed in direct contrast to Jehovah, Exod. vi. 2-4. 
 The kindred name, Elohim, appears twice as a term of 
 relation, and seven times as a narrative title. Thus an 
 Elohistic message is firmly imbedded in a context, where 
 the name Jehovah alone is used more than fifty times. 
 The revealed fact corresponds. In the midst of a season 
 of special revelation there was given the pledge of a 
 higher revelation still to come. The birth of Isaac, and 
 the overthrow of the cities of the plain, works of Divine 
 power, in which God appeared as El Shaddai, were close 
 at hand. In the Exodus, and the inheritance of Canaan, 
 after generations of delay and seeming oblivion. He woidd 
 reveal Himself as Jehovah, the Unchangeable. The con- 
 stant use of Jehovah in the whole narrative marks the 
 period as one of signal revelation. The use of El Shaddai 
 and Elohim in this one chapter marks its contrast with 
 the later mcssiige, when the promise would be fulfilled 
 after long delay. 
 
and its Anatomists, 69 
 
 S5. The Marriage of Isaac. Ch. xxiv. — This chap- 
 ter is the crown and close of Abraham's history, the 
 calm sunset of his life of faith. The covenant is seen 
 passing over, in its fulness, to Isaac, the heir of the 
 promise. The name Jehovah occurs, then, nineteen times, 
 and Elohim never once alone. But the sacred name is 
 enriched and varied in the lips of Abraham and of his 
 servant, — ' Jehovah, the God of my master Abraham ; ' 
 'Jehovah, the God of heaven and the God of the earth;' 
 and ' Jehovah, the God of heaven, which took me from 
 my father's house,' &c. The constant use of the name 
 answers to the nature of the history, as crowning the 
 mercies of God to His servant and friend, the climax of 
 the first stage of the Abrahamic revelation. 
 
 The Life of Isaac. Ch. xxvi. — This chapter is the 
 sole account of Isaac, except the record of his weakness 
 and infirmity in the blessing being overruled by the hand 
 of God. It contains a series of tokens of Divine favour, 
 and of special mercies bestowed on him as the heir of the 
 promise. A reference to the covenant with Abraham is 
 expressed or implied from first to last. Seven times, then, 
 Jehovah is used, never Elohim. 
 
 36. Ch. xxxiii.-L. (except chh. xxxviii. xxxix). — In 
 these sixteen chapters, or 519 verses, being more than one- 
 third of the book, Elohim is found fifty times, and Jehovah 
 once only, in the ejaculation of the dying patriarch, * I 
 have waited for thy salvation, Lord ! ' Such a usage, 
 through so large a part of the narrative, needs explana- 
 tion, even more than the repetition, thirty-five times, in 
 the first chapter of creation. 
 
 The schemes of Hupfeldt and Davidson, and others of 
 
70 The Pentateuch 
 
 the same kind, here fail miserably. They break down the 
 history of Joseph, that pattern of simplicity and historical 
 truth, into a multitude of petty fragments — thirty in one 
 chapter alone — and parcel it out among four writers, who 
 lived centuries apart from each other. And next, in this 
 most Elohistic portion, these anatomists assign only seven- 
 teen verses to their Elohist, out of 360, and no less than 
 228 to their Jehovist, whose characteristic is either the use 
 of Jehovah alone, or the mixture of both names. It is hard 
 to conceive how a critical suicide could be more complete. 
 If two-thirds of the most Elohistic portion may, after all, 
 belong to the Jehovist, what a mere pretence it must be 
 to justify this theory of manifold authorship by an appeal 
 to the supposed contrast in the use of the sacred names ! 
 
 The principle already laid down supplies a direct key 
 to this striking feature of the history. We find that Elo- 
 him alone occurs also nine times in Exod. i. ii., before the 
 vision at the bush, when the name I Am was solemnly re- 
 vealed to Moses. Thus the name is used sixty times, in 
 almost unbroken sequence, before the dawning light of 
 that glorious vision. Then there is a marked and sudden 
 change, and Jehovah, almost exclusively, occurs 160 times 
 in the ten chapters that follow Exod. iii. 14 — xiii. 16. 
 
 After the return of Jacob from the East, and the re- 
 newal of the covenant at Bethel, the season of special 
 revelation to the three patriarchs reached its close. A 
 season of delay and mystery set in, marked by the crimes 
 of the patriarchs ; the sale of Joseph into Egypt ; the 
 hopeless grief of Jacob, through the unrepented sin of his 
 children; and the descent of the chosen seed into the 
 house of bondage. That early revelation, which had 
 
and its Anatomists. 71 
 
 begun witli tlie call of Abraham, was losing itself in a 
 deeper mystery, in wbich the God of Providence was 
 watcbing secretly and silently over tbe destinies of tbe 
 chosen race, until the appointed time of the promise 
 should come. Thus the constant use of Elohim has its 
 ground in the whole tenor of the history. Special uses 
 may be explained by special reasons, as in xl. 8 ; xli. 16, 
 &c. ; but the great fact itself, now mentioned, can alone 
 account for a usage so constant, and maintained through- 
 out twenty chapters, except two only, and one of these an 
 historical episode. 
 
 The principle, then, of the revealed contrast of the 
 names in the message to Moses, and of his authorship of 
 the work, expounds all the cases, from first to last, of the 
 decisive predominance, or the exclusive use, of either 
 name. It explains also their constant combination in the 
 second section of the historj^, which occurs there alone. 
 Out of six or seven distinct phenomena, the sceptical 
 theory can account for one or two at most, and fails com- 
 pletely in all the rest. 
 
 37. Let us now turn to the case of a mixed or com- 
 posite use of the names. This occurs in ch. v.-x., the 
 transition from the Adamic revelation of Paradise to the 
 covenant with Abraham ; in ch. xvii. 29 — xxiii., the tran- 
 sition from the fulness of the promise to Abraham to his 
 ripe old age ; in ch. xxv., the passage from Abraham to 
 Isaac ; and in ch. xxviii.-xxxii., the chequered history 
 and conflicts of Jacob, before the covenant fades into 
 mystery once more. Here the second principle (no. 31) 
 will supply a sufficient key, without recourse to strained 
 and conjectural solutions, by which some able German 
 
72 The Pentateuch 
 
 writers have obscured and weakened the force of their 
 own argument. 
 
 The six chapters, v.-x., lead us from the dying out 
 of the days of Paradise to the dawn of the Abrahamic 
 covenant. The covenant with Noah, though a type of 
 better things to come, abides chiefly within the range of 
 outward blessings, or the restoration of the orderly course 
 of Providence, which had been disturbed and arrested by 
 the overflowings of evil. Hence both names of God, the 
 general and the special, suit equally with the events, and 
 may be expected to appear in the history. In character 
 it was special — a time of solemn judgment, never to 
 return ; but in extent general, affecting the whole race. 
 Hence secondary reasons may well enter here into the 
 choice and alternation of the two sacred names. 
 
 The Genealogy. Chap. v. — Here we find the name 
 Elohim at the beginning and in the middle, but Jehovah 
 at the close. In v. 1 Elohim appears twice, and for a 
 double reason. There is a direct allusion to ch. i. 27, 
 from which the account is resimied ; and also the contrast 
 with the name Jehovah in the previous verse marks the 
 beginning of a new section. This bridge also, between 
 the first and last days of the old world, is a time of 
 mystery, not of revelation. All these reasons conspire to 
 explain the use of Elohim. 
 
 Again, in v. 22, 24, we read that ' Enoch walked with 
 God ; and he was not, for God took him.' In the former 
 phrase, Elohim is required from the nature of the thought, 
 the retiching upward of the soul after Divine communion, 
 and to walk with the Lord is a phrase never used. I3y 
 attraction the same name is used in the sequel, — God 
 
and its Anatomists. 73 
 
 took him ; and it is in liarmony with, this time of mystery 
 and long-suffering. 
 
 The name Jehovah reappears in the words of Lamech 
 at the birth of JSToah. There is here a direct allusion to 
 the sentence of the Lord, ch. ii. 17, 18. The chapter, 
 linked with the first section of the history at its opening, 
 is linked equally with the second at its close. Here, too, 
 we have the dawn of a new revelation in the days of 
 Noah ; while this mention of Jehovah restores the balance 
 between the two aspects of the Divine character, equally 
 revealed in this portion of the history. 
 
 38. The World before the Flood. Ch. vi. — The 
 order of the names here is A B, A B*, A^. But in the 
 title, sons of God, the name Elohim is essential, and son 
 of Jehovah never occurs. Hence the chapter resolves 
 into two parts ; eight verses where Jehovah, and fourteen 
 others where Elohim, occurs five times in succession. 
 The first of these sections is a message of moral truth, the 
 verdict of the Most High on the state of a guilty world. 
 In vv. 6, 8, it mingles grace with the tones of judgment, 
 and anticipates the tears of the Lord Jesus over guilty 
 Jerusalem. Hence Jehovah, the name of moral revelation, 
 is fully appropriate. But since the message is world- 
 wide, affecting the whole of mankind, and all God's lower 
 works, Elohim is appropriate also. It is used, therefore, 
 in the immediate sequel and continuation. The change is 
 made simply through the phrase, ' Noah walked with God,' 
 where Elohim alone is suitable. This name, once intro- 
 duced, is continued to the close, both to mark a distinct 
 paragraph of the history, and to maintain the balance 
 between the natural and moral features of the event, at 
 
74 The Pentateuch 
 
 once a special judgment on abounding moral evil, and a 
 marked era of God's universal providence towards mankind. 
 
 39. The Flood. Ch. vii. viii. — Tke order of the 
 names here is B^, A^B, A^, B'. Thus Elohim occurs five, 
 Jehovah six times, and still with four alternations. Hence, 
 by the rule of the sceptical theorists, the whole should 
 be referred to the Jehovist, to whom they assign less 
 than half, or 22 out of 46 verses. To account on their 
 theory for the four changes of the name, they have 
 introduced no less than sixteen alternations of two writers. 
 A truly wonderful piece of critical patchwork, illustrating 
 the large credulitj^ of unbelief ! Let us see whether we 
 cannot find a simpler key. 
 
 The account is composed of seven sections — vii. 1-10 
 (B^A) ; vv. 11-16 (BA) ; vv. 17-24 (0) ; viii. 1-5 (A-) ; 
 V. 6-12 (0) ; vv. 13-19 (A) ; and vv. 20-22 (B^). Of 
 these two are mixed, in two both names are absent, two 
 have Elohim only, and the last only Jehovah. 
 
 In the previous section, vi. 9-22, which is Elohistic, we 
 have the times of long-sufiering and mysterious patience 
 while the ark was preparing. But now, in vii. 1-10, we have 
 the announcement of present judgment, the seven days im- 
 mediately before the flood. The mystery unfolds, and the 
 judgment begins. Hence the name Jehovah once more, 
 vv. 1, 5, and also to mark the opening of a new historical 
 section. But this section continues to the 10th verse, for 
 V. 8 answers plainly to vv. 2, 3, and v. 10 to v. 14, as its ful- 
 filment, and V. 11 marks plainly a historical commencement. 
 Why, then, does Elohim appear v. 9 ? Partly to link 
 the passage with the earlier directions vi. 22, and partly 
 for the general reason, to maintain the balance of opposite 
 
and its Anato'mists, 75 
 
 features in the whole history of the solemn judgment. 
 The whole narrative is too intensely moral to be fully 
 expressed by the name Elohim alone ; and yet its contrast 
 with the Abrahamic covenant, in which God was more 
 specially revealed, and its universal aspect, forbid equally 
 the use of Jehovah alone. 
 
 In the next section the two names occur only just at 
 the close . . . . 'they went in, male and female, of all flesh, 
 as God had commanded him, and the Lord shut him in,' 
 V. 16. Here the antithesis is more striking, because one 
 name follows close upon the other. One clause links the 
 passage with the original directions, vi. 9-22, and the 
 other with the detailed instructions, vii. 1-5. The Lord 
 not only informed him of the exact day when the flood 
 should begin, but crowned his care and watchful love by 
 securing the ark when he had entered. The works of 
 general providence and special grace are kept equally 
 prominent, and neither is sufiered to obscure the other. 
 In the next section, vii. 17-24, the names are absent. 
 Nevertheless, the critics break it up into four fragments, 
 and assign two to each writer. 
 
 In ch. viii. the features of ch. vi. are reversed. In 
 vv. 1-19, Elohim occurs thrice, twice in the first, and 
 once in the third section. Then, in the closing account 
 of Noah's sacrifice, Jehovah is used once more, three 
 times. The name agrees with the nature of the event, the 
 sacrifice of faith accepted, and a covenant of grace 
 renewed and confirmed once more. The use of Elohim, in 
 all the first part, maintains the view of this great event as 
 a signal work of Divine power — a great era of the history 
 of the world and of mankind. The parts of the four 
 
76 The Pentateuch 
 
 chapters correspond, by a kind of inverse parallel, 
 vi. 5-8 (B*) with viii. 20-22 (B^). Noah finds grace once 
 more. The earth shall not be cursed, though the imagina- 
 tion of man's heart be evil continually, vi. 9-22 (A* + A), 
 with viii. 1-19 (A^ + A), and vii. 1-10 (B2A), with vii. 
 11-24 (AB), the direct warning, with its immediate 
 execution. The higher aspect is conspicuous at the com- 
 mencement, vi. 5-8 ; and again at the close, vii. 20-22. 
 
 40. The Sequel of the Flood. Chh. ix. x. — The 
 order of the names is A^BA, B^. Thus, in the Noetic 
 covenant, ch. ix., Elohim is used throughout, except in the 
 blessing upon Shem, v. 26. In v. 6 alone it is required by 
 the nature of the phrase. But in vv. 1, 8, 12, 16, 17, two 
 or three reasons concur for its use. By contrast with 
 viii. 20-22, it marks a new and complete section, and it 
 answers to the unusual character of the promise, which 
 includes not mankind alone, but the lower creatures. Still 
 further, the special season of judgment and mercy is 
 passing away, and melts into the twilight of God's mys- 
 terious providence, till the call of Abraham. But the 
 sacred name is joined fitly with the promise to Shem, 
 * the father of all the children of Eber,' through whom the 
 special covenant of grace was to be handed down to Abra- 
 ham and his seed in later days. The force of the name is 
 more conspicuous by the contrast that follows, — ' Elohim 
 shall enlarge Japheth.' In one case the reference is to 
 the covenant of Jehovah ; in the other to God's universal 
 providence, who is God not of the Jew only, but also of the 
 Gentiles. 
 
 The use of Jehovah twice in x. 9, standing alone in 
 a genealogy, and the mention of a proverbial title of 
 
and its Anatomists. 77 
 
 Nimrod, hardly needs an explanation. It implies merely 
 that this was the more familiar name of God with the 
 writer, or else commonly used by those who spoke of 
 Nimrod under this expressive description. 
 
 41. The Birth and Sacrifice of Isaac. Ch. xix. 
 29 — xxiii. — The order of the names in these three chapters, 
 and the close of a fourth, is A^; AD, A^B; B^ A^B; A^B, 
 AB* ; 0. Thus Elohim occurs 24, and Jehovah only 10 times, 
 and there are nine alternations. The scheme of Hupfeldt 
 and Davidson breaks it up into twenty-one divisions, of 
 which twelve are in ch. xxi. only. But, assuming the 
 unity of the ' narrative, the changes admit of an easy and 
 simple explanation. 
 
 The first occurrence of Elohim is xix. 29. 'And it 
 came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain,' 
 &c. The verse is plainly a summing up of the previous 
 narrative, to form an introduction to the sequel of Lot's 
 history. In ch. xviii. xix., Jehovah alone has been used 
 17 times, in connexion with the signal honour given 
 to the faith of Abraham, and as signal an execution of 
 Divine judgment upon sin. Here we have the tran- 
 sition to two portions, in which the sin of Lot and the 
 weakness of Abraham's faith are revealed. This opening 
 of a new section of the history is indicated by the 
 transition to Elohim, after the constant use of Jehovah 
 through sixty preceding verses. The same use is con- 
 tinued through the next chapter, the sojourn of Abraham 
 in Gerar. It was an interval of delay before the actual 
 birth of Isaac, and was marked by Abraham's prevarication 
 and weakness of faith. Yet here also a balance is main- 
 tained. First, Abimelech makes an appeal : * Adonai, wilt 
 
78 The Pentateuch 
 
 thou also slay a righteous nation ? ' using a name interme- 
 diate in its character. And next, at the close, the state- 
 ment that God healed Abimelech and his wife is followed 
 by the explanation, that Jehovah had inflicted on them 
 temporary barrenness. The immediate transition seems 
 here to disprove any radical contrast, and still more any 
 union of two documents. The names are combined, to . 
 link the chapter with the general series of special mercies 
 to Abraham ; and still to mark its nature, as part of the 
 wide scheme of God's universal providence. Looking at 
 these two verses alone, the names might have been re- 
 versed with equal propriety, but the link of connexion 
 with the Abrahamic revelation comes in more pointedly 
 at the very close. 
 
 Again, in chap, xxi., the birth of Isaac, Elohim is 
 used eleven times throughout its course, but Jehovah 
 twice at its opening and once at its close. Yet these 
 verses are inseparable parts of the narrative, which ought 
 thus, by the theory, to be referred to the Jehovist, and 
 not to the Elohist. In the scheme of Dr. Davidson it is 
 assigned mainly to a junior Elohist, but six verses, in 
 fragments, to the Elohist, the Redactor, and the Jehovist. 
 In vv. 1-20 we have a climax of capricious complication. 
 But the unity, in vv. 2-32, appears alike from the sim- 
 plicity of the record, and the constant use of Eloliim. Its 
 opening and its close alone link it with God's promise and 
 Abraham's faith, by the name Jehovah. ' And the Lord 
 visited Sarah, as he had said ; and the Lord did unto Sarah 
 as he had spoken. . . . And Abraham planted a grove 
 in Beersheba, and called on the name of Jehovah, the 
 everlasting God.' The use of Elohim in the rest of the 
 
and its Anatomists. 79 
 
 cliapter answers to a time of transition from tlie crown- 
 ing revelation of God in promise, ch. xviii., xix., to the 
 perfecting of Abraham's faith, when he offered Isaac on 
 the altar, and received the final promise, confirmed by the 
 oath of God. 
 
 In chap. xxii. we pass from this time of transition to 
 the crowning point of Abraham's life-long discipline, and 
 the full victory of his faith. In its first stage Elohim 
 only is used four times, and in the second, Jehovah five 
 times, in the same exclusive way. It is when Abraham 
 has lifted up the knife to slay his son, in the moment of 
 triumphant faith, that the name Jehovah reappears, and 
 is repeated to the close. It is the angel of Jehovah who 
 speaks from heaven. Abraham calls the place Jehovah- 
 Jireh. The proverb is, ' In the mount Jehovah will be 
 seen.' The angel of Jehovah calls to him a second time, 
 and the oath runs, ' By myself have I sworn, saith Je- 
 hovah.' Here, then, we have not a mixed and balanced 
 use of the names, but a plain transition from mystery to 
 new and fuller revelation, and therefore from the name of 
 dimmer knowledge, Elohim, to the higher and covenant 
 name. Only in v. 12 the angel says, ^ Now I know that 
 thou fearest Elohim.' The command had been received 
 from God, as a God of mystery, whose path is in the deep 
 waters ; and the prompt obedience of Abraham had been 
 a practical acknowledgment that, even as Elohim, the 
 Inscrutable and Unsearchable, He is to be implicitly trusted 
 and obeyed. New mysteries of Providence, when solved, 
 are transfigured into the causes and materials of clearer 
 vision, and of a more ripe and perfect faith and love. 
 
 The Death of Abraham and Birth of Jacob. Chap. 
 
80 The Pentateuch 
 
 xxY. — After the crowning feature of Abraham's faith, in 
 chap, xxiv., and the transfer of the covenant to Isaac, 
 the child of promise, we have here a new historical tran- 
 sition. Here Elohim is found once, v. 11, and Jehovah four 
 times, in vv. 20-23. The whole is plainly continuous, 
 and from one hand. It contains in order, (1) the sons of 
 Abraham by Keturah, and their portions, 1-6 ; (2) the . 
 age and death of Abraham, and his burial by both his 
 sons, 7-10 ; (3) the blessing and house of Isaac, v. 11 ; 
 (4) the genealogy of Ishmael, vv. 12-18 ; (5) the fuller 
 genealogy of Isaac, vv. 19-26, and (6) Esau's sale of his 
 birthright, vv. 27-34. The quadripartite hypothesis, how- 
 ever, splits it into eleven fragments, from four different 
 writers, the Jehovist, the Elohist, the junior Elohist, the 
 Jehovist, the Elohist, the Jehovist, the Elohist, the Jeho- 
 vist, and the Elohist again, and the Redactor in the last 
 six verses ! But the names alternate after an interval of 
 ten verses, because neither character predominates. The 
 covenant unfolds itself silently, by G-od's blessing, yet it 
 is not a time of special revelation, but rather of general 
 providence. Abraham dies and is buried. His sons, both 
 alike, have children born. Only in v. 23 the answer of 
 God is a new prophetic revelation, and there Jehovah is 
 used with its full significance. 
 
 42. The Life of Jacob. Chap, xxvii.-xxxii. — The 
 order of the names, in these six chapters, is B^A, A'^B^A^ 
 BA, OB'', A«B3, BA7BA, A^BA^, so that Elohim is found 
 27, and Jehovah 16 times. In the first triplet the occur- 
 rences are 7 and 10, and in the second 20 and 6 times. 
 Thus they are mixed throughout, but Jehovah predo- 
 minates slightly at first, and Elohim more decisively in 
 
and its Anatomists, 81 
 
 the later portion, whidi is followed by sixteen chapters, 
 where the more sacred name is never foimd. There is 
 here the clear sign of a general purpose. As the covenant 
 with Abraham loses itself more and more in the general 
 mystery of God's all-wise providence, through the che- 
 quered life of the third patriarch, the name Jehovah is 
 withdrawn, and Elohim appears in its stead. Beyond 
 this main law of usage we have repeated marks of a 
 simple alternation. Thus, in xxvii. 27, 28, it seems more 
 ingenious than true to say that Isaac, by using the sacred 
 name in the former verse, meant ' a field like that of Para- 
 dise, resplendent with traces of the Deity, a kind of en- 
 chanted garden.' (Hengst.) Isaac's faith was not so bright 
 in this hour of dim- sight edness of body and spirit, as that 
 we should assign to his words such a recondite meaning. 
 On the contrary, the names seem to alternate here, because 
 both were in frequent use, and the blessing required and 
 implied no allusion to the contrast between them. The 
 sense and drift is the same as if in each instance Jehovah 
 Elohim were employed. In xxviii. 13, Jehovah appears 
 twice in God's own message. But in the answer of Jacob, 
 vv. 16, 17, the words alternate once more, and so also in 
 vv. 20, 21. If we omit ^the house of God,' the proper 
 name of Bethel, the order will be AB^B AB, and the names 
 alternate simply, both in the narrative, vv. 12, 13, and in 
 the exclamation and vow of Jacob, vv. 16, 17, and vv. 20-22. 
 So, also, Jehovah is used in connexion with the birth of 
 the four eldest sons, Elohim in that of the rest ; and the 
 hopes of Eachel, after Joseph's birth, introduce the sacred 
 name once more — ' The Lord shaU add to me another son.' 
 A section, where Jehovah is used once both by Jacob and 
 
 G 
 
82 The, Pentateuch 
 
 Laban, and once by tbe historian, xxx. 25 — xxxi. 3, is 
 followed by Jacob's fligbt; where Elohim is used seven 
 times, by Jacob, by Eacbel and Leah, and by the historian ; 
 and the names alternate once more in the closing words of 
 Laban, w. 49, 50. 
 
 In chap, xxxii. this mixed, alternate use, comes to an 
 end. In the prayer of Jacob in his distress, v. 9, he uses 
 the title, * God of my father Abraham, and God of my 
 father Isaac, Jehovah, which saidst unto me, Eeturn to 
 thy country and thy kindred, and I will deal well with ^ 
 thee,' &c. After this voice of earnest praj^er in the hour 
 of danger, El Shaddai and Elohim recur forty times, in the 
 lips of the patriarchs and messages of God ; but Jehovah 
 never more, till that death-bed utterance, * I have waited 
 for thy salvation, Lord !' These are like two mountain- 
 tops of faith and hope in the patriarch's history, but there 
 lay between them a dark valley of fear, mystery, and 
 sorrow. 
 
 43. JuDAH AND Joseph. Ch. xxxviii., xxxix. — 
 These two chapters, B^O, B^AB^, directly reverse the 
 usage in all the close of Genesis beside. Except in v. 9, 
 where Elohim alone is suitable in addressing a mere hea- 
 then, Jehovah is used in them eleven times in succes- 
 sion. In the former chapter this might seem the more 
 surprising, since it records the sin of Judah and of his two 
 eldest sons. But a key is found in the later history. 
 Judah was the ancestor, and Joseph a conspicuous tj^pe, of 
 Messiah. Chap, xxxviii. ends with the birth of Pharez, 
 from whose stock David and the kings of Judah, and our 
 Lord himself, were to spring. The chapter appears in 
 the opening genealogy of the Gospel, only in a condensed 
 
and its Anatomists, 83 
 
 form ; and Tamar, Kuth, and Bathsheba, alone are named 
 among the female ancestors of Messiah. The history- 
 serves, then, to mark how, even amidst the sins of the 
 patriarchs, and in spite of them, the covenant of Jehovah 
 with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, moved on steadily to- 
 wards its final consummation in the birth and advent of 
 the Messiah of God. 
 
 The use of the name in chap, xxxix. has a kindred 
 purpose. For this stands at the head of Joseph's history 
 in Egypt, of which it forms an inseparable part. Hence, 
 the constant . presence of the name in this one chapter 
 serves to link the whole narrative firmly with the Abra- 
 hamic revelation, chap, xii.-xxiv., as a continuation of the 
 same covenant of grace ; while the avoidance of it as con- 
 stantly, in all the sequel of the history, through thirteen 
 whole chapters, serves to bring out into strong relief the 
 fuller and higher revelation to Moses, wherein the power 
 and emphasis of the name, Jehovah, was signally dis- 
 played. Again, the solitary occurrence of the name, in 
 the dying utterance of Jacob, is like a bright star of 
 faith and hope in the midst of a time of mystery and of 
 darkness. 
 
 44. Let us now review briefly the conclusions to 
 which we have been led. The main facts, in order, are 
 these: — (1) An exclusive use of Elohim, i. 1-ii. 3; (2j 
 an exclusive use of Jehovah Elohim, ii. 4-iii. ; (3) and of 
 Jehovah alone, chap. iv. ; (4) a mixed use of the names, 
 chh. v.-ix. ; (5) a sole use of Jehovah, x.-xix. 28, except (6) a 
 sole use of El Shaddai and Elohim in chap, xvii., after 
 the first verse ; (7) a mixed use, xix. 29-xxiii. ; (8) a sole 
 use of Jehovah, xxiv. and xxvi. ; (9) a mixed use, in chap. 
 
84 The Pentateuch 
 
 XXV., and in xxyi.-xxxi. ; and (10) a sole use of Elohim, 
 xxxiL-l., in nineteen chapters, except (11) a sole use of 
 Jehovali, in chap, xxxviii., xxxix., and twice beside, in the 
 prayer of Jacob and in his dying confession. 
 
 The use of Elohim alone, in the record of Creation, 
 is at once explained by the nature of the message. It 
 records the work of Divine Power, before God's moral 
 government of man begins to be displayed. The use, 
 as constantl}^, of Jehovah Elohim, in the record of Para- 
 dise and the Fall, and there only, is the result of two 
 causes ; first, that the sacred name is natural and appro- 
 priate, in laying the firm basis of God's moral govern- 
 ment, and of all the later promises ; and next, that the 
 sameness of Jehovah and Elohim needed to be shown, 
 once for all, at the opening of the work. The sole excep- 
 tion, in the words of Eve and the serpent, makes the proof 
 of design clearer still. The sole use of Jehovah, in chap, 
 iv., results from the fact, that it contains the one specimen 
 of God's moral government in the old world, and that the 
 further addition of Elohim is now superfluous. The occur- 
 rence of Elohim and Jehovah at the close may implj^that the 
 birth of Seth was viewed rather as a new work of Divine 
 power, while that of Cain had been the first fulfilment of 
 Jehovah's promise ; or, as a simple alternation, preparing 
 for the alternate use in the chapters that follow. The 
 mixture of the names, chaps, v.-ix., where Elohim occurs 
 twenty-four and Jehovah thirteen times, and there are 
 thirteen alternations, answers to the nature of the his- 
 tory, as a transition from the Adamic to the Abrahamic 
 era of revelation ; and to the twofold character of the 
 Flood, as a season when God was revealed alike as the 
 
and its Anatomists. 85 
 
 Moral Governor and the Universal Creator and Preserver 
 of mankind, and of all the lower works of His hand. The 
 details are explicable by a double purpose, to give dis- 
 tinctness to the successive sections of the narrative, and 
 to give a balanced exhibition of the special and general 
 aspect of this great work of God. The constant use of 
 Jehovah, in ch. x.-xix. 28, xxiv., xxvi., results at once 
 from the dignity and importance of the Call and Covenant 
 of Abraham, and its continuation in Isaac, the heir of 
 promise. The mixed use, in xix. 29-xxii. and xxv., re- 
 sults from the transitional character in each case; first, 
 from the completion of the covenant and mercy to Abraham 
 to the consummation of his faith ; and then, from his calm 
 and peaceful old age, to Isaac's inheritance of blessing. 
 Here the name, Elohim, prevails, as in a time of prepar- 
 ation for higher light and fuller mercy ; but there is a con- 
 stant mixture, and links to combine it with the main era 
 of promise just before. In chap. xxii. the transition comes 
 to light once more. Elohim is used during the trial of 
 Abraham's faith ; Jehovah alone, when faith prevails, and 
 the blessing is given. In the history of Jacob, chap, 
 xxvii.-xxxvii., its chequered character of sin and conflict, 
 as well as faith, prayer, and blessing, is reflected by the 
 mixed use of the names ; where first Jehovah is more fre- 
 quent, and Elohim towards the close, when the covenant 
 begins to shroud itself in a season of conflict, sorrow, 
 mystery, and long delay. In the last nineteen chapters, 
 from the vision of the angel and the meeting with Esau to 
 the close, this character wholly prevails ; and Elohim is 
 used to the exclusion of the more sacred covenant name, 
 to prepare, by contrast, for the dawn of fuller and clearer 
 
86 The Pentateuch 
 
 light in the Mosaic revelation. The two exceptions illus- 
 trate and confirm the general law. The episode concern- 
 ing Judah and Pharez, and the first chapter of JosejDh's 
 Egyptian history, hj their sole use of the name Jehovah, 
 maintain the union with the earlier days of the covenant, 
 with which the whole narrative of Joseph is thus combined 
 by a portion inseparable from the rest ; while the use of the 
 sacred name, once in Jacob's prayer, xxxii. 9, and again 
 in his dying ejaculation, xlix. 18, are like two mountain- 
 tops of faith and hope at the beginning and close of this 
 long period of mystery and sorrow, and of patient waiting 
 for a promise, only to be fulfilled after generations of 
 delay. 
 
 Thus, on the assumption of the unity of Genesis, and 
 of its Mosaic authorship, the explanation of the use of the 
 two sacred names, which is so striking and peculiar, is 
 consistent, harmonious, and complete. On the other 
 hand, the sceptical hypothesis, amidst its high pretensions, 
 fails to satisfy every main condition of the j)roblem it 
 afifects to solve. It cannot accoimt at all for the special 
 use of the compound name in the second, and only in the 
 second, section of the narrative. It cannot account for the 
 alleged dislike of the supposed Elohist to the use of the 
 sacred name in his own narrative, as well as in the 
 speeches of the patriarchs. Its alleged indications of di- 
 verse authorship, from the names and the style, confessedly 
 contradict each other in at least one-sixth of the book, and 
 the theorj^ has thus to be patched by the invention of a 
 third writer. But the rent is only made worse, since the 
 junior Elohist has then to be distinguished from the 
 Jehovist by his use of the names alone, in sj^ite of re- 
 
and its Anatomists. 87 
 
 semblance of stjde ; though it is made a charge of gross 
 ignorance, in defenders of the authenticity, to conceive 
 that any distinction is made to rest on such a different use 
 of the names alone. It cannot explain, in the least, the 
 Elohistic character of the last nineteen chapters, the most 
 striking feature of the whole ; and actually assigns to 
 the Elohist only one-twentieth part, and to the Jehovist 
 two-thirds, of this largest Elohistic portion. To crown 
 the whole, that history of Joseph which is marked by 
 internal unity almost beyond any history ancient or 
 modern, is split up into some eighty or ninety portions 
 — a tessellated mosaic of paragraphs, verses, and half 
 verses, supplied by four different writers, the earliest 
 supposed to live in the days of Samuel or Saul, and the 
 latest in the time of Uzziah or Manasseh. A more pro- 
 digious violation of all critical common sense is hardly 
 possible to conceive. Even in the points, then, where the 
 sceptical theory boasts most loudly of settled results, of 
 critical facts and deductions, it proves, when once closely 
 tested, to be a miserable failure. Its complicated vortices, 
 which split up the Book of Genesis into more than three 
 hundred fragments, cannot explain, after all, the most 
 striking phenomena they have been rashly invented to 
 solve, in the teeth of all Christian faith and all historical 
 evidence. 
 
The Pentateuch 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 THE CREATION AND THE FALL. 
 
 45. The first of tliose internal arguments, wliicli have 
 been lately adduced to prove the spuriousness and plural 
 authorship of the Book of Genesis, is drawn from alleged 
 contradictions between the first and the second chapters, 
 in the account of creation. No single person, we are 
 modestly assured, could be guilty of so many absurdities. 
 But an acquaintance with these critics will show that it 
 is hard to assign a limit to the absurdities of which even 
 a single writer may be guilty, when once they cast off 
 all deep reverence for the oracles of the Living God. Our 
 Lord, when risen from the grave, opened the understandings 
 of His disciples, to reveal to them the certainty, truth, and 
 wisdom, of ' all things written in the Law of Moses ' con- 
 cerning the Saviour of mankind. Our modern critics 
 promise their readers an illumination of an opposite nature, 
 by which they will see that Law to be full of impossibilities 
 and contradictions so gross and flagrant, that the blunder- 
 ing or deceit of several writers, all combined, is needful to 
 explain them. How much wiser and more discerning 
 they must be than the Son of God! Let us examine 
 these alleged contradictions. 
 
and its Anatomists. 89 
 
 46. Six notable points of difference, it is said, exist 
 between tbe two cosmogonies. But, as Dr. M'Canl has 
 well observed, and a reference to the text will show, it is 
 wholly false that there are two cosmogonies. In chap. ii. 
 there is no mention of the creation of light, of the firma- 
 ment, of the sun, moon, and stars, of the sea and the dry 
 land, the main elements of a real 'cosmogony.' Three 
 events only are named, in close connexion with man's 
 creation ; the formation of plants, since he was placed in 
 Paradise ; of the animals, since they were brought to him 
 to receive names ; and of the woman, who was to supply 
 the want of loving and intelligent companions. ]N"o- 
 thing, then, can well be plainer than the truth of Dr. 
 M^CauFs statement, which a glance at the text, by some 
 strange blindness, is said to disprove. There is no second 
 account of Creation ; but a needful expansion of that part, 
 the most important, which relates to the creation of man, 
 and his first estate in Paradise before the Fall. 
 
 i. 'In the first chapter the earth emerges from the 
 waters, and is, therefore, saturated with moisture ; in 
 the second, the whole face of the ground required to be 
 moistened.' 
 
 The so-called contradiction is an agreement. If a 
 mist went up from the earth, then the earth from which 
 it went up was not dry, but 'saturated with moisture.' 
 Such was the state of the earth in general. The ' whole 
 face of the ground ' which the mist watered must be dis- 
 tinct. It will mean, naturally, those high and open tracts, 
 which would be the first to be dried by the heat of the 
 sun. In the absence of rain, copious dews would be re- 
 quired for the full growth of vegetation. 
 
90 The Pentateuch 
 
 ii. ^In tlie first, birds and beasts are created before 
 man ; in tbe second, man is created before the birds and 
 beasts/ 
 
 The text says nothing of tbe kind. We might as 
 well make it assert that the four rivers of Paradise were 
 created after Adam, before the birds and beasts ; or make 
 St. Luke affirm that John did not baptize our Lord till . 
 after Herod had put him in prison. 
 
 iii. ' In the first, all the fowls that fly are made out of 
 the waters ; in the second, out of the ground.' 
 
 This is the only plausible objection to the consistency 
 of the narrative. It admits of a double answer. The 
 words admit plainly the marginal version, — ^ And let fowl 
 fly above the earth,' &c. The contrast, then, disappears 
 at once. Or if we retain the Septuagint version and our 
 own, the waters here may answer to the * place of the 
 seas' in v. 9, in contrast to the dry land or continent, 
 and include the islands. But the order of the words, in 
 i. 21, where the fowls are not included in the description, 
 ^ which the waters brought forth abundant!}^ after their 
 kind,' seems to confirm the marginal version. The birds 
 will thus hold a middle place, as created on the fifth day, 
 like the fishes and creeping things ; but from the ground, 
 like the beasts of the sixth day. 
 
 iv. ' In the first, man is created in the image of God ; 
 in the second, he is made of the dust of the ground, and 
 merely animated with the breath of life. It is only after 
 eating the forbidden tree, that " The Lord God said. Be- 
 hold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and 
 evil." ' 
 
 Man, according to this objection, had not the image of 
 
and its Ancdomists. 91 
 
 God while sinless, and only gained it when he became the 
 bondslave of sin and death. The aim of God's command 
 was to hinder him from attaining it; and that of the 
 tempter, to secure to him God's image, in spite of God's 
 own prohibition ! Such an objection needs no reply. It 
 is simply a large contribution to a Satanic theology. 
 
 V. ' In the first, man is made the lord of the whole 
 earth ; in the second, he is merely placed in the garden of 
 Eden, to dress it and to keep it.' Another proof of con- 
 tradiction almost as strange. Our Queen has gardens and 
 a royal residence at Windsor ; therefore, plainl}^, she can- 
 not be Queen of England. 
 
 yi. ^ In the first, man and woman are created together, 
 as the closing work of the whole creation ; created also, as 
 is evidently implied, in the same way, and blessed to- 
 gether. In the second, the beasts and the birds are 
 created heticeen them. First, man is made of the dust, 
 and placed by himself in the garden ; then the beasts and 
 birds are brought to him ; and lastlj^, after all this, the 
 woman is made, but only as an helpmate for the man.' 
 This objection is mainly a repetition of the second. But, 
 further, it asserts that the creation of Adam and Eve, 
 in ch. i. is simultaneous, and in ch. ii. successive. In 
 reality, there is an exact agreement. For ch. i. notes 
 briefly two steps in man's creation, without explaining 
 them, and the distinction of sex first appears in the second. 
 ' In the image of God made he him, male and female 
 created he them.' The next chapter simj)ly expands this 
 notice, and explains the transition from the first to the 
 second stage. Woman was first created, virtually, m 
 man, and then was formed from him. So, in vv. 1, 2, which 
 
92 The Pentateuch 
 
 the sceptics assign to the Elohist, or writer of the first 
 chapter, — 'In the day that God created man, in the like- 
 ness of God created he him ; male and female created he 
 them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam in 
 the day the}^ were created/ Here are three stages, the 
 creation of Adam, under which name the two sexes are 
 included ; the separation of the woman, who still shares the 
 common name ; and, lastly, the blessing pronounced upon 
 both. 
 
 Such are the alleged contradictions, which are to prove 
 the presence of two authors and an ignorant compiler. 
 All, with one exception, are frivolous and absurd; and 
 that one seeming divergence depends on a very doubtful 
 rendering, and, even with our version, may be very easily 
 explained. Let us now examine the internal proofs of 
 unity in the whole narrative. 
 
 47. And first, the opening words of the second section, 
 ii. 4, link the two parts indissolubly into one. * These are 
 the generations of the heavens and the earth, in the day 
 that the Lord God created the earth and the heavens.' 
 Dr. Da^ddson, indeed, afiirms that ' there is little doubt it 
 is a proper title to the account immediately following.' 
 * In all other instances it is a title. As used elsewhere, the 
 words show that they stand at the head of a leading his- 
 torical section, where a new epoch, a new genealogy, or 
 the account of a new patriarch, commences. Hence, they 
 must point to a new and independent statement.' That 
 is, because, in ten or eleven cases, the generations plainly 
 follow the words in question, we must expound '■ these ' to 
 mean ' the following,' in a passage where they plainly and 
 expressly come before, and as plainly do not foUow. And 
 
and its Anatomists, 93 
 
 it must be observed, furtber, tbat, in tbe otber cases of 
 buman genealogies, tbere is usually a formula of recapitu- 
 lation at tbe close, varied sligbtly from tbe opening. So, 
 Gen. X. 20, ' Tbese are tbe sons of Ham, after tbeir fami- 
 lies, after tbeir tongues, in tbeir countries, in tbeir nations.' 
 Also, X. 30, 31, ' Tbese are tbe sons of Sbem,' &c. ' Tbese 
 are tbe families of tbe sons of Noab, after tbeir generations,' 
 &c. 'All tbese are tbe cbildren of Keturab,' xxv. 4. 
 * Tbese are tbe sons of Isbmael, and all tbese are tbeir 
 names,' xxv. 16. 'Tbese are tbe sons of Esau, wbo is 
 Edom, and tbese are tbeir dukes,' xxxvi. 19. 'Tbese are 
 tbe dukes of tbe Horites, among tbeir dukes in tbe land 
 of Seir,' v. 30. ' Tbese are tbe dukes of Edom, according 
 to tbeir babitations in tbe land of tbeir possession,' v. 43. 
 Again, in Exod. vi., tbe word * tbese,' in connexion witb 
 genealogies, refers twice to wbat follows, and eigbt times 
 to wbat bas gone before. Tbe attempt, tben, to expound 
 it 'tbe following' in tbis place, wbere tbe generations 
 evidently bave come before, and as evidently do not 
 follow, is a piece of critical lunacy bardly to be surpassed. 
 Tbe verbal allusion is clear and plain. ' In tbe beginning 
 God created tbe beavens and tbe eartb,' i. 1. ' Tbus tbe 
 beavens and tbe eartb were finisbed, and all tbe best of 
 tbem,' ii. 1. ' Tbese are tbe generations of tbe beavens 
 and tbe eartb wben tbey were created,' v. 4. On tbe 
 otber band, tbere is plainly not one word of tbe creation 
 of tbe beavens and tbe eartb in tbe cbapter tbat follows. 
 Tbere is also a clear reason wby tbe title or summary, in 
 tbis case, sbould follow and not precede ; and one wbicb 
 does not apply to later buman genealogies, as every reader 
 of taste and feeling will at once perceive. Tbe sublime 
 
94 The Pentateuch 
 
 message, * In the beginning God created the heavens and 
 the earth/ forms the natural opening of all Divine reve- 
 lation ; and its power and simple grandeur would be 
 weakened if a formal title were made to come before. In 
 fact, the whole structure of ii. 4, 5, is so plainly dependent, 
 and so wholly unlike the heading of the genealogies of 
 Adam, Noah, Ishmael, &c., as to make the attempt to 
 turn it into a separate cosmogony an astonishing instance 
 of critical blindness. 
 
 48. The next verse is obscure in the English trans- 
 lation, which follows the Septuagint. But when its true 
 sense is perceived, it doubles the force of the previous 
 argument. The word [Z)"il: should be rendered, as often 
 elsewhere, ^ not yet,' and the verses will read as follows, — 
 * These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, 
 when they were created, in the day the Lord God made 
 the earth and the heavens ; and when no plant of the field 
 was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field was yet grown : 
 for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, 
 and there was not a man to till the ground. And there 
 went up,' &c. We»haye thus a condensed description of 
 the previous cosmogony. The first clause refers to the first 
 and second, and the dawn of the third day. In that first 
 stage * no plant was yet in the earth.' In the next, or the 
 third, fourth, and fifth days, no herb was yet grown, and 
 there was no rain, and no human cidture, for man was not 
 yet created. But from the earth, still saturated with 
 moisture on the greater part of its surface, a mist went 
 up, and wiitcrcd the face of the ground in Paradise, and 
 man was formed and placed in the garden, to dress it 
 and to keejo it. Thus the three main stages of the six 
 
and its Anatomists. 95 
 
 days' creation are briefly repeated ; before the plants were 
 made on tbe tbird day ; after tbe plants were in the 
 ground, before man's creation ; and, lastly, tbe creation 
 of man bimself. Tbus tbe retrospective cbaracter of tbe 
 wbole statement is plain, and proves tbat botb parts 
 proceed continuously from one and tbe same autbor. 
 Four successive stages correspond, (1) wben tbey were 
 created, ii. 4 ; i. 1, 2 ; (2) no plant as yet in tbe eartb, 
 V. 5 ; ii. 2-10 ; (3) no berb as yet grown, v. 5 ; ii. 11-25 ; 
 (4) man created to till tbe ground, to dress and keep tbe 
 garden, v. 7 ; i. 26-30. 
 
 49. ' And tbe Lord God formed man of tbe dust of tbe 
 ground.' So, on tbe sixtb day, tbe creative fiat ran be- 
 fore, — ' Let tbe eartb bring fortb tbe living creature after 
 its kind.' Tbe exact manner of man's formation is not 
 tbere specified ; but tbe words bere are in barmony witb 
 tbe general statement, tbat tbe living tbings of tbe sixtb 
 day were brougbt fortb by tbe eartb. 
 
 ^ And man became a living soul.' Tbis scripture is 
 quoted by St. Paul to confirm, by resemblance and con- 
 trast, tbe bigber trutb tbat ' tbe last Adam was made a 
 quickening spirit.' In tbe beart of an inspired revelation 
 of tbe resurrection, and of mysteries of God's will con- 
 nected witb tbe rapture of tbe saints, be puts on tbis 
 earliest message tbe seal of an equal authority. It is tbus 
 a message of God — a foundation able to bear tbe weight 
 of tbat glorious superstructure, tbe doctrine of our Lord's 
 new- creating power in tbe resurrection of all His people. 
 
 50. Tbe rest of tbe chapter falls into three sections, — 
 (1) Man's relation to tbe vegetable world, to Paradise, and 
 tbe tree of knowledge and tbe tree of life, vv. 8-17 ; (2) 
 
96 The Pentateuch 
 
 his relation to the animal world, giving names to all, but 
 finding among them no companion, vv. 18-20 ; (3) his 
 relation to the woman, formed out of his side, to be a help 
 meet for him, yv. 21-25. This also repeats the order of 
 the first chapter. Man receives dominion, first, over the 
 plants and trees, but with one test of his obedience as- 
 signed ; then over all the animals, to whom he gives 
 names, in token of his higher intelligence and royal 
 dominion. Lastly, woman is given for his companion, 
 and a common blessing pronounced upon them. The 
 Divine authority of vv. 23, 24, is directly affirmed in our 
 Lord's answer to the Pharisees, Matt. xix. 3-6 ; Mark, x. 
 2-9. Those who venture to ascribe this chapter to an 
 unknown legend-monger, in the days of Solomon and 
 Uzziah, cannot avoid the guilt of claiming to be wiser 
 than the Lord of glory, and pouring open contempt on 
 the most solemn declarations of the Son of God. 
 
and its Anatomists. 97 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE TIMES BEFORE THE FLOOD. 
 
 51. The fifth and sixth chapters of Genesis contain a 
 genealogy from Adam to Noah, and a description of the 
 sin of the old world, with the command to ISToah to build 
 the Ark, reaching thus to the eve of the flood. On the 
 Elohistic theory ch. v. is assigned to the Elohist, except v. 
 29 which is torn away from the rest and given to another 
 writer, and also ch. vi. 9-22 ; while ch. vi. 1-8 is either 
 ascribed wholly to the Jehovist (Colenso), or partly to the 
 Redactor, and partly to the Jehovist, in four fragments 
 (Davidson) . On either view, ch. v. must have joined at first 
 to ch. ii. 3, and again ch. vi. 9-22 to the close of ch. v. 
 But the internal reasons against this mutilation and distor- 
 tion of the narrative are clear and decisive. 
 
 i. First, the almost verbal repetition of i. 27, 28, in ch. 
 V. 1, 2, is natural and impressive, when three chapters full 
 of various interest, the record of Paradise and the Fall, and 
 the birth and history of Cain and Abel, have come between. 
 But if only six verses were interposed, as in the Elohistic 
 theory, this repetition of four clauses, with scarcely a 
 change, becomes only a dull tautology. 
 
 ii. ' The book of the generations of Adam,' implies 
 
 H 
 
98 The Pentateuch 
 
 naturally that some account of Adam himself has gone 
 before, just as the genealogy of the sons of Noah fol- 
 lows the full record of their preservation from the flood. 
 As a direct sequel of the mention of the Sabbath, to pass on 
 so rapidly through near two thousand years of the history 
 of mankind without a word of comment, whether we view 
 the writing as inspired scripture, as legend, or as forgery, 
 is unnatural in the extreme. 
 
 iii. The phrases, ch. v. 1, 2, ' in the day that God created 
 men ' and ' in the day they were created,' copy the form of 
 ch. ii. 4, ^ in the day they were created.' While the^ 
 substance of these verses links them with i. 27, 28, at the 
 close of the Elohistic section, their form links them as 
 plainly with the opening of the section assigned to the 
 Jehovist. This directly contradicts the hypothesis which 
 assigns them to two different authors. 
 
 iv. The clause, ' he called their name Adam,' alludes to 
 the previous mention of the naming of Eve, Cain, Abel, 
 and Seth, ii. 23, iii. 20, iv. 1, 2, 25. The naming of Adam 
 was implied, but only implied, in i. 27. But after the re- 
 cord that Eve received a double name from her husband, 
 and Cain, Abel, and Seth, their names from Eve, it becomes 
 natural to observe expressly that Adam received his name 
 directly from God. 
 
 V. The mention of Seth refers back plainly to iv. 25, 26, 
 where the reason of his name is given, which also implies 
 the previous history of Cain and Abel. This alone explain'^ 
 the long dela}' of his birth for a hundred and thirty years ; 
 since Adam was in manh^ prime when first created, and 
 the promise had been given at once, ' Be fruitful, and 
 multiply, and replenish the earth.' 
 
and its Anatomists. 99 
 
 vi. The words, ' tie died/ repeated seven times in tlie 
 genealogy, refer back to the previous record, ii. 17, iii. 3, 19, 
 of the entrance of sin and death. They do not recur after 
 the flood, which implies that they are repeated here, and 
 that seven times, with a special purpose. They form 
 plainly a series of Divine corollaries on the truth and 
 reality of the previous threatening and sentence of God 
 
 vii. Lastly, the rapid transition, in so brief an outline 
 of descent, from Adam to Noah is most unnatural, unless 
 some account of the first days of mankind has gone before. 
 The record is no mere pedigree, given for its own sake, as 
 an antiquarian curiosity. It must grow out of a sacred 
 history, a section of Divine revelation, at its opening, just 
 as it issues and expands into another at its close. 
 
 52. In the birth of Noah and the words of Lamech at 
 the close of this chapter, the sacred name is found once 
 more, with a direct reference to the curse of Jehovah, ch. 
 iii. 17. The Elohistic theory, then, has to tear away this 
 verse from the context, as due to later interpolation. The 
 separation is made in this curious way. ' And Lamech 
 lived 182 years, and begat,' (Elohist) ' a son, and he called 
 his name' (Jehovist) 'Noah' (Elohist), 'saying, This same 
 shall comfort us ... . because of the ground the Lord 
 hath cursed,' (Jehovist). And Lamech lived, after he 
 begat Noah,' etc., etc. Elohist. 
 
 The sacred text, however, protests loudly against this 
 violent separation, for many reasons. 
 
 i. The words, w. 28, 29, are the parallel and counter- 
 parts of vv. 1-3 at the opening of the chapter. The name 
 Adam, received from God, marks the opening of the 
 genealogy, and the name Noah, received by prophecy from 
 
100 The Pentateuch 
 
 Lamecli, marks its close. Creation and the hope of re- 
 demption thus correspond to each other. 
 
 ii. The years of Lamech, by the rule of the theorists, 
 must be from the Jehovist, since the number 777 has 
 plainly the sevenfold or mystical character in the highest 
 degree. Hence, if any part is ascribed on this ground to a 
 different source, the four verses 28-31 must go together. 
 But the entire omission of Lamech in this connected gene- 
 alogy is plainly impossible. As Enoch is the seventh, so 
 is Noah always in Scripture or in tradition the tenth from 
 Adam. 
 
 iii. The use of the sacred name, by Moses, in recording 
 the prophecy of Lamech, connected with God's signal work 
 of moral government as the righteous Judge, is natural 
 and appropriate. But the interpolation of two fragments 
 before and after the name Noah, by a second writer, coming 
 a century or more after the first, is an hypothesis wholly 
 violent and incredible. On this view, the original sentence, 
 the present verse, and the words of viii. 21, must be three 
 inventions, devised to dovetail neatly into each other. Yet 
 we are told that the Jehovist did not unite the documents 
 in any way whatever. That was the Redactor's work, who 
 forming them into a connected text, ' was not solicitous of 
 exact agreement, nor could have introduced it everywhere 
 without materially altering the nature of the documents. 
 It shows ignorance of the subject to talk of the supple- 
 menter or editor intending to harmonise the parts, and 
 taking pains to fit them with great nicety.' According, 
 then, to the view of this critic, the Redactor was so in- 
 difierent to truth and consistency that he left a flat con- 
 tradiction at the interval of six verses, vii. 3, 8, 9. It 
 
and its Anatomists. 101 
 
 was by mere accident that he interpolated here two half 
 verses from some later documents, so that no common eye 
 can detect the junction ; and so as to refer back to the 
 threatening in iii. 17, and forward to the promise viii. 
 21, with a punctual and exact correspondence. In the 
 view of Dr. Davidson, it is ignorance and absurdity 
 to see anything here but a fortuitous concourse of atoms 
 and fragments of verses ! 
 
 iv. But the Jeh ovist, it is said, is * a diligent seeker of 
 etymologies,' and so this fragment of a Jehovistic verse is 
 inserted by the Redactor in an Elohistic chapter, and is 
 also incorrect. Thus one contradiction is piled on 
 another. For if the Redactor culls out an etymology 
 from a long document to interpolate it here, the charge of 
 a taste for etymologizing must belong to him far more than 
 to the author of this unknown, invisible document. The 
 accusation against Moses, that a false derivation is given, 
 is only a new instance of reckless and profane criticism. The 
 text does not affirm that 7rst and comfort are the same root 
 or verb, but only that, when Lamech called his son, Noah, 
 ' a resting-place,' he added the explanation, that his son 
 would be a comfort to himself and others, under the toil 
 which the curse of God had imposed. The proper ety- 
 mology is implied and assumed afterwards, in viii. 4, — 
 ^ And the ark rested .... on the mountains of Ararat ;' 
 words which the scheme refers also to the Jehovist, and 
 not the Elohist. — Introd. p. 59. 
 
 53. The next chapter is divided by the theory, either 
 into two (Colenso) or five fragments (Davidson). In the 
 latter, which claims to be the ripest scheme, we have 1-3 
 the Redactor, 4a the Jehovist, 4b the Redactor, 5-8 the 
 
102 The Pentateuch 
 
 Jeliovist, and 9-22 tlie Elohist. But again the text 
 protests loudly against this separation, and offers many 
 proofs of its own unity. The guilt of the world is first 
 described, then God's favour to Noah. His genealogy 
 and character are briefly resumed, and then is recorded 
 the DiA'ine command to prepare an ark for the saying of 
 his house. AYe have thus a natural sequel of the previous 
 genealogy, an unbroken and harmonious narrative. Let 
 us now consider the results of the Elohistic theory. 
 
 i. First, on this view, vi. 9, 10, is the direct sequel of 
 ch. V. 32. The document would run thus, — * And Noah was 
 five hundred years old, and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and 
 Japheth. These are the generations of Noah ; Noah was 
 just and perfect in his generation ; Noah walked with 
 God. And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and 
 Japheth.' Who does not feel how unnatural and incre- 
 dible is this mere tautology ? After a description of the 
 world's wickedness has been interposed, it is quite suitable 
 that the same link, which formed the close of the first 
 genealogy, should become the heading of the new history. 
 But when this important paragraph has been wrenched 
 away, and assigned to another, the repetition becomes a 
 useless folly. 
 
 ii. The solemn warning, that God would destroy all 
 flesh, is wholly based on the previous record of man's fall, 
 and consequent expulsion from Paradise, of the murder 
 by Cain, and the fuller and riper wickedness of ch. vi., 
 1-8. When these are torn away, and given to another, it 
 loses all moral congriiity, and seems more like a work of 
 sudden and capricious displeasure than a righteous judg- 
 ment on abounding sin. The two verses, vi. 11, 12, are 
 
and its Anatomists. 103 
 
 not enough to explain it ; but rather stand themselves 
 in need of some fuller illustration, such as the paragraph 
 before them clearly supplies. 
 
 iii. The part, vv. 9-22, is referred by the theory to the 
 Elohist, the first writer ; vv. 5-8, to the Jehovist ; and 
 vv. 1-3 to the Redactor, the latest of the three. Yet the 
 three form one plainly connected, continuous history. 
 This is much the same as if some ingenious critic should 
 give the first paragraph of ' Paradise Lost ' to Pope, the 
 second to Byron, the third to Tennyson. 
 
 iv. According to Dr. Davidson, 'much injury has 
 been done to the hypothesis by terming the Jehovist a 
 reviser or interpolator of the Elohim document. He 
 wrote independently, and has his own peculiarities. The 
 facts of the case necessitate a hypothesis, which assumes 
 the employment of two or more documents by a final 
 editor. The larger the induction, the more manifest does 
 the need of this become.' According to Dr. Colenso, a 
 single glance at the facts is enough to prove this variety 
 of the hypothesis untenable. But let us give the first 
 example of this wide induction, or the sequence here of 
 this ' independent document.' It will run thus, — ' And 
 to Seth, to him also there was born a son, and he called 
 his name Enos ; then began men to call upon the name 
 of the Lord. And Lamech lived 182 years, and begat a 
 son, and called his name Noah, saying. This same shall 
 comfort us, concerning our work and toil of our hands, 
 because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed. There 
 were giants in the earth in those days. And the Lord 
 saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, 
 and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was 
 
104 The Pentateuch 
 
 oxAj evil continually/ Is not this a wonderfully con- 
 nected, and harmonious 'independent document?' Cer- 
 tainly it has 'peculiarities/ which distinguish it from any 
 real document the world has ever witnessed, sacred or 
 profane. 
 
 V. The Elohist is said to be marked by regular gra- 
 dation and exactness in the notation of times (pp. 40-1). 
 In vi. 3, we have an important notation of this kind. 
 But the theory transfers this to the Redactor, directly in 
 the teeth of this alleged contrast. 
 
 vi. The sequence of the parts which the theory strives 
 to separate is j)lain. The multiplying of men upon the 
 earth is the natural completion of the previous genea- 
 logy. The birth of daughters answers to the repeated 
 phrase before, 'and begat sons and daughters.' 'They 
 took them wives,' answers to the statement respecting 
 Lamech before, ' And Lamech took unto him two wives.' 
 The words, 'he also is flesh,' prepare the way for the 
 double statement, vv. 12, 13, — 'All flesh had corrupted 
 his way upon the earth.' ' The end of all flesh is come 
 before me.' 'His days shall be 120 years,' links itself 
 with V. 32 before, and vii. 6, following, both referred to 
 the Elohist. It shows that this voice, or message of God, 
 was just twenty years before the birth of Shem or Japheth. 
 It was the requiem of the old world, shortly before the 
 birth of the parents of the new world to follow. ' Those 
 days ' refers back to the words just before, and not to 
 the birth of Noah, as the theory requires, or even the 
 birth of Enos. ' That he had made man upon earth,' is 
 like a summary of i. 2, — ' Let us make man in our own 
 imago .... upon the earth,' an Elohistic section. ' I 
 
and its Anatomists, 105 
 
 will destroy man whom I have created,' answers to the 
 next verse,— 'So God created man in his own image,' &c. 
 The sequence of the two words, in the same order, is like 
 a direct reference. Again, v. 8, the close of the so-called 
 Jehovistic portion is plainly the text of the whole section 
 that follows. Because the holy ];)atriarch ' found grace in the 
 eyes of the Lord ' he received a Divine message, instruct- 
 ing him hov/ ' to prepare an ark for the saving of his 
 house.' The unity of the narrative, thus far, is manifestly 
 unbroken and complete. Every attempt to tear up the 
 sacred text, and resolve it into a series of interlacing 
 fragments by the different writers, the more closely it is 
 examined, reveals more clearly its contradiction to all 
 internal evidence. 
 
106 The Pentateuch 
 
 CHAPTER YII. 
 
 THE TIMES OF THE FLOOD. 
 
 54. This part of the sacred text lias been strangely tor- 
 tured, to suit the Elohistic theory. It is parted, chh. 
 vii.-ix., by Drs. Davidson and Colenso, into nearly thirty 
 fragments, as follows : — 
 
 ' Davidson, Introd.' p. 60. Ch. vii. 1-5, Jehovist ; 6, 7, 
 Elohist; 8a, Redactor; 8b, 9 El. ; 10, Jeh. ; 11, EL ; 12, 
 Jeh. ; 13-16a, El. ; 16b, 17, Jeh. ; 18-21, El. ; 22, 23, Jeh. ; 
 24, El. ; viii. 1, 2a, El. ; 2b, 3a, Jeh. ; 3b, El. ; 4a, Jeh. ; 
 4b, El. ; 4c, Jeh. ; 5, El. ; 6-12, Jeh. ; 13-19, El. ; 20-22, 
 Jeh. ; ix. 1-17, El. ; 18a, Jeh. ; 18b, Eedac. ; 19, Jeh. ; 
 20-27, Redac. ; 28, 29, Elohist ; twenty-eight portions. 
 
 ' Penta. Exam,' Part lY. Ch. vii. 1-5, Jeh. ; 6-9, 
 El. ; 10, Jeh. ; 11 El. ; 12, Jeh. ; 13-16a, El. ; 16b, 17, 
 Jeh. ; 18a, El. ; 18b-20a, Jeh. ; 20b, 21, El. ; 22, 23a, Jeh. ; 
 23b, 24, El. ; viii. 1, 2a, EL ; 2b, Jeh. ; 3, 4a, El. ; 4b 
 Jeh. ; 5, EL ; 6-12, Jeh. ; 13a, EL ; 13b, Jeh. ; 14-19, EL; 
 20-22, Jeh. ; ix. 1-17, El. ; 18-27, Jeh. ; 28, 29, El. ; 
 twenty-five portions. 
 
 In these seventy-five verses there are only six where 
 the name Jehovah occurs, and ten others with Elohim. 
 When the license of separating verses and parts of verses 
 
and its Anatomists. 107 
 
 is assumed, there are thus fifty-nine, or four-fifths, to 
 which the test of the names does not apply. These are 
 parted by Dr. Davidson, Elohist 31 v. 4 fr., 12 portions ; 
 Jehovist, 16 v. 4 fr., ten portions ; Eedactor, 6 v. 2 fr., 
 three portions. Or supposing the test to apply to the 
 four unbroken paragraphs, vii. 1-5, viii. 15-19, 20-22, 
 ix. 1-17; or thirty verses, there remain forty-five, which 
 these critics have to apportion b}^ other tests. And here 
 they agree in twenty-eight, and vary in seventeen verses, 
 which may claim, perhaps, to be a fair amount of success. 
 55. The six first chapters are assigned by the theory, 
 alternately, to the Elohist and Jehovist, thus, — chh. i., 
 ii. 3, El. ; ii. 4-iv. Jeh. ; ch. v. (except 29) Elo. ; vi. 
 1-8, Jeh. (or Eedac.) ; v. 9-22, Elohist. But its unity 
 throughout has been shown by following reasons. The 
 words of ii. 4, ' These are the generations,' &c., are a dis- 
 tinct verbal reference to the previous chapter, linking the 
 two parts expressly into one. Next, ii. 5, is a further 
 summary and retrospect of the previous narrative, in its 
 three stages, before the plants were formed, after they 
 were formed, before man's creation ; and lastly, that 
 creation, given now in fuller detail. Thirdly, the com- 
 pound name, Jehovah Elohim, is used in this section 
 alone. This is explained at once with one sole author, 
 who would prove silently, at the outset, the common re- 
 ference of both names, when he is about to use them 
 alternately in the rest of the work. On the opposite 
 theory, no plausible explanation of this main feature can 
 be given. Lastly, the transition from the first Sabbath, 
 by a bare genealogy, to the birth of Shem, Ham, and 
 Japheth, and the wickedness before the flood, is unnatural 
 
108 The Pentateuch 
 
 and incredible, even in a mere inventor of legends, and 
 far more in the outset and basis of a series of Divine 
 revelations. 
 
 Again, cli. v. is linked with the first section, it is true, 
 by its opening verses. But it has also many links with 
 those which follow. The form of the phrases, 'in the 
 da}^ that God created man,' ' in the day they were created/ 
 is repeated from ii. 4. The naming of Adam refers to 
 the previous naming of Eve, Cain, Abel, and Seth ; the 
 words, seven times repeated, ' he died ' to the threatening 
 and sentence, ii. 17-iii. 19 ; the mention of Enoch and 
 Lamech has a resemblance and allusion to the genealogy 
 of Cain ; Enoch's walking with God is an allusive contrast 
 to Adam and Eve's guilty flight and concealment ; and 
 the birth of Noah, 28-31, an inseparable part of the 
 genealogy, refers most plainly to the record of the curse, 
 iii. 17. Also the passages, 1-3, and 28-32, at the begin- 
 ning and close, answer to each other, as linking the brief 
 genealogy with the previous account of Creation and the 
 Fall, and the latter of the Flood ; and the presence in 
 them of both names (Elo. 2, Jeh. 1) deprives the whole 
 of its alleged Elohistic character, the only plea for its 
 separation from the actual context. 
 
 Again, ch. vi. 1-8, is fixed in its place by various in- 
 ternal signs. The multiplying of men, the birth of 
 daughters, sum up the two main results of the genealogy. 
 The period of 120 years is linked with the twenty-eight 
 numbered periods before it, and is almost exactly the 
 average of their nine generations (117;|.) The description 
 of the world's wickedness is essential to account for the 
 flood, and v. 8 to explain why Noah was alone preserved. 
 
and its Anatomists, 109 
 
 Only the presence of this section hinders v. 32 and vi. 10, 
 from becoming a needless tautology, instead of a natural 
 and emphatic resumption. Lastly, in yi. 9-22, the phrase, 
 'Noah begat three sons,' refers to ch. v. 28, in contrast 
 to V. 3, where son is omitted ; ' the end of all flesh,' to 
 yi. 3 ; ' he also is flesh,' ' wherein is the breath of life,' to 
 ii. 7 ; and the ' fowls, cattle, and creeping things,' to 
 V. 7, just before, all in the so-called Jehovistic portions. 
 By these various links and fastenings the whole six 
 chapters are firmly bound together. 
 
 56. In the account of the flood, chh. vii.-ix., three 
 charges of internal contradiction are brought to disprove 
 their unity and Mosaic authorship. The first and chief 
 is found in vi. 19, 20, and vii. 2, 3. According to Drs. 
 Golenso, Davidson, and Kalisch, this is a contradiction 
 'impossible to reconcile, especially in the case of the 
 fowls ;' and ' all attempts at arguing away the discrepancy 
 have been utterly unsuccessful, though the most desperate 
 efibrts have been made,' sophistry used, and common 
 sense defied. Dr. Davidson adds further, that ' the plain 
 statement cannot be evaded by the arbitrary assumption 
 of two commands given to Noah at difierent times ; the 
 first when he was ordered to build the ark, and the other 
 when it was finished. The narrative contradicts this, be- 
 cause the word of is found in vii. 8, and this forbids the 
 construction that they went in by pairs, whatever their 
 numbers. 'The language is explained by vi. 19, 20, 
 where the number of the pairs is confessedly given.' 
 
 The emptiness of this charge against the narrative 
 may be easily proved. 
 
 i. First, it is self-evident that the text represents two 
 
110 The Pentateuch 
 
 messages as given to Noah ; one before the ark was 
 begun, the other after it was finished. This is neither 
 evasion nor assumption, but plain on the face of the text. 
 Whoever denies it, as Dr. Davidson has done, must be 
 either blind or dishonest. In vi. 14-21, Noah receives 
 instructions how to build the ark, and why, or for what 
 end. In vii. 1-5, he is told what he must actually do, 
 when he has now completed it, seven days before the 
 flood began. The interval might be longer, but could 
 scarcely be less than from ten to twenty years. 
 
 ii. The words of vi. 18-20, are a promise even more 
 than a command, and predict how, and with what atten- 
 dance, Noah and his family shall be preserved. They 
 form part of God's covenant, v. 18 ; and the only two 
 direct imperatives are in vv. 14, 20, and refer to the 
 building of the ark itself, and the collection of food. But 
 vii. 1-4 opens with a direct command, and a limit of 
 time is named for its performance. There is thus no 
 mere repetition, as asserted, but a distinct advance. To 
 encourage him in building the ark, Noah has been told 
 from the first that he and his household, and all the 
 species of living things, shall be saved in it, by God's 
 covenant ; and now he is told to enter it within seven daj^s 
 that the promise and covenant may be fulfilled. The 
 words, ^ Come thou, and all thy house into the Arl',' are a 
 contrast to those before, and impl}^ that it was now built 
 and ready for use. 
 
 iii. The first direction is that two of every sort, male 
 and female, must enter the ark, to keep seed alive. It is 
 not said, ' two only,' or * two and no more.' The iDurj^ose 
 required two at least, and what was essential, to show the 
 
and its Anatomists. Ill 
 
 purpose of the ark, and be an explanation of its size, was 
 revealed at once. To suppose that this general instruction, 
 years before, forbade the preservation of more pairs than 
 one, in any case, is ridiculous and absurd. The contra- 
 diction has no source but an utter confusion of thought 
 in the objectors themselves. ' Two of every kind, to keep 
 seed alive ' can never be expounded ' Two, and no more 
 of any single kind.' The second instruction, some years 
 later, really confirms and repeats the first, and only adds 
 a further direction, to take six additional pairs of the 
 clean beasts and birds alone. 
 
 iv. The ellipsis in vii. 3, explains itself at once by the 
 parallelism. The LXX., perhaps for the sake of careless 
 readers, have given it in a brief and easy paraphrase. 
 ' Also of clean fowls of the heaven by sevens, and of all 
 fowls that are not clean by two, the male and female, to 
 keep seed alive upon the earth.' The same contrast between 
 the number of the clean and unclean preserved is to 
 apply to the beasts and the fowls. 
 
 V. The word ' o/' in vii. 8, implies that there was a 
 selection in each case, and ' two, two,' that those selected 
 entered by pairs, a male and a female. It is used equally 
 in V. 2, 3, to which it plainly refers, where the number of 
 seven pairs and single pairs is prescribed. To infer from 
 it, with Dr. Davidson, in the face of the plain words of the 
 text, that vi. 13-21 and vii. 1-5 must be parallel, not 
 successive, is lunacy, and not criticism. 
 
 vi. If the contradiction were as plain and certain as it 
 is plainly groundless, it is not true that ' the matter ex- 
 plains itself easily by the hypothesis of two authors.' It 
 is scarcely less incredible that this Redactor or Jehovist, 
 
112 The Pentateuch 
 
 wlio joined the parts elsewhere so skilfully that the world, 
 for three thousand j^ears, has never detected the patch- 
 work, should leave a flat contradiction within six verses, 
 than that Moses himself should do it. A few grains of 
 modesty would teach these negative critics how far easier 
 and more natural is the third alternative, that they have 
 fallen into a blunder themselves, while trampling under 
 foot those words of Christ, — ' It is easier for heaven and 
 earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail/ 
 
 57. The next contradiction alleged relates to the con- 
 tinuance of the flood, of which Dr. Davidson writes as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' In the prior narrative 150 days are represented as the time 
 of the flood's rising before it began to abate. The word prevailed, 
 V. 24, cannot consist with the hypothesis, that, while the rain 
 lasted forty days, the water still prevailed during 110 after the 
 cessation of the rain, so that there was no perceptible subsidence 
 to Noah. No such imperceptible subsidence is ever alluded to. 
 All that z5 stated is in viii. 3, the abatement of the waters at the 
 end of the 150 days. The verb, in vii. 24, is explained by its 
 like use in vii. 18, where were increased is joined with it, as if to 
 show that it is inconsistent with the subsidence of the waters. 
 It is incorrect to say, that a different term, Uin, is used to ex- 
 press the rise or increase of the waters ; because the latter is 
 appended to the former in v. 18, which is Elohistic. The use of 
 both in this verse determines the sense of the one in v. 24, and, 
 therefore, precludes the idea of imperceptible subsidence. Be- 
 sides, it is utterly impossible that so many as 110 days' subsidence 
 followed forty days' rain. The proportion is unnatural.' 
 
 Here the alleged contradiction is that v. 17, from the 
 Jchovist, makes the waters rise only forty days ; while 
 V. 24, of the Elohist, makes the rise last 150 days. Now, 
 
and its Anatoiinists. 113 
 
 first, this contradicts flatly the explanation the text itself 
 supplies. For the 150 days reach from ' the second month 
 and the seventeenth day/ vii. 11, to 'the seventh month 
 and the same day,^ viii. 4. Then the text marks the end 
 of these days by a definite fact, the resting of the ark on 
 one of the mountains. But since the waters had prevailed 
 ' fifteen cubits and upward,' a subsidence of fifteen cubits, 
 and probably of much more, since the ark was not likely to 
 rest on the very highest point, must have gone before. 
 Next, the nature of the case excludes any other view. The 
 resting of the ark would be a definite event, and a natural 
 measure of time ; but the moment of greatest height would 
 be invisible and imperceptible, and need a miraculous reve- 
 lation to decide. Again, vv. 17, 18 are so far from limiting 
 the rise to forty days, that they express plainly just the 
 reverse. Three stages of later increase are described at 
 once in three successive verses. Till contradiction has been 
 proved from the text as it stands, there can be no pretence 
 for splitting it up, as these critics do, into ten fragments, 
 of which one half, it is alleged, contradict the other. 
 
 It is argued, next, that prevailed , v. 24, means rose or 
 increased, because it is joined with the word increased in 
 V. 18, ' to show that it is inconsistent with a subsidence of 
 the waters.' An astonishing inference ! Thus if we are 
 told, first, that a person stood up and spoke ; next, that 
 he stood up ; and thirdly, that he stood up and was silent, 
 the first will prove that to stand up means to speak in the 
 other two cases, and that the third statement is an ' irre- 
 concilable contradiction.' The true conclusion from v. 
 18 is clearly just the reverse, that the waters might pre- 
 vail, and not increase. One word refers to their actual 
 
114 The Pentateuch 
 
 lieiglit, as surmounting the eminences ; the other to their 
 progress to a height still greater. If they prevailed, and 
 then increased further, they must have still prevailed 
 when they had decreased only to that former level. Here 
 the resting of the ark is the limit expressly named. 
 
 A further discovery remains, that v. 18 'precludes the 
 idea of an imperceptible subsidence.' That is, because 
 the waters prevailed so as to cover the hills, and increased 
 further, they could not decline from fifteen to fourteen 
 cubits above the mountain-tops without the change being 
 perceived clearly by those within the ark. Also, ' the 
 proportion is unnatural, of 110 days' subsidence after forty 
 days' rain.' Another strange piece of confusion ! For 
 the text makes the rise terminate qftcr the forty days, 
 though before the 150. It specifies three steps of increase 
 after the first period, and makes one of these only to have 
 been reversed, when the 150 days were complete. Besides 
 this perversion of the text, the attempt to fix the times, 
 in such a case, by rules of arithmetic, is an acme of cri- 
 tical folly. The event, if true, lay so far beyond the 
 common course of nature, that an attempt to improve the 
 intervals by abstract reasoning is little short of a claim 
 to be wiser than God. 
 
 58. The text has been further charged with contra- 
 diction, * as the story now stands,' from the interval 
 between viii. 5 and 13 being too long to be filled up by 
 the specified interval, three months or 90 days by 40 + 21 
 days. This difficulty, at first sight, has some ground, 
 though the Elohistic theorj^ docs not in the least explain 
 or remove it. But a closer search provides a solution which 
 turns it into mark of consistencv and i ruth. 
 
and its Anatomists. 1 1 5 
 
 Let us only assume, in v. 8, tliat an interval has to be 
 supplied from v. 6, since the account of the sending of the 
 raven is finished before the dove is named. Why should 
 Noah make a double experiment the same day? The 
 mission of the raven, forty days after the first of the tenth 
 month, would be 11.11, and the first mission of the dove, 
 if at the same interval, would be 12.21. The second would 
 be 12.28, and the third 12.35. Now this would be the 
 last day of a true solar or Egyptian year, with five epa- 
 gomense, or added days, after the close of twelve equal 
 months of thirty days. The next day after that on which 
 the dove failed to return, would thus be ' the first day of 
 the first month. ^ Surely this exact coincidence is a strong 
 sign that the above is the true construction, that the sim- 
 plest and very ancient Egyptian form of year was then in 
 use, and that the records present a genuine history. 
 
 Let us now inquire whether the narrative contains in- 
 ternal signs of its own unity. For this end, this chapter 
 may be divided into ten sections and paragraphs. 
 
 59 Ch. vii. 1-5. 
 
 These verses are ascribed by the theory to the Jeho- 
 vist, and thus made the immediate sequel of vi. 4-8 ; but 
 they continue in reality the Elohistic narrative, vi. 9-22. 
 
 i. First, the previous command to build the ark implies 
 and requires further directions when it was built, and some 
 notice of the exact time when the judgment would come. 
 This is exactly what is here supplied. The change of the 
 sacred name is natural, partly as the sign of a new para- 
 graph, and partly to mark the fulfilment of the covenant 
 made some years earlier. 
 
 ii. The previous message began, * Make thee an ark, &c. 
 
116 The Pentateuch 
 
 The opening words liere, ' Come thou and all thy house, 
 into the ark/ refer back to this command, and imply 
 that the work was now complete. 
 
 iii. ' For thee have I seen righteous before me in this 
 generation.' There is here a plain reference to the words, 
 ' Noah was righteous, and perfect in his generations, and 
 Noah walked with God,' and a contrast to those which fol- 
 low, — ' God looked on the earth, and behold, it was cor- 
 rupt, vi. 10, 12. 
 
 iv. The instructions, v. 2, 3, refer to those in vi. 19, 20, 
 which they do not contradict, but simply complete. The 
 first and general instruction is renewed and confirmed, 
 but Noah is taught to take six additional pairs of the clean 
 animals alone. 
 
 V. A mark of time, like vii. 4, on the eve of the flood, 
 is plainly required by the nature of the event. When this 
 paragraph is cut out, there is a most unnatural leap from 
 the charge to make the ark, some years before, to the 
 sudden influx of the judgment without warning. 
 
 vi. The last verse, vii. 5, agrees with vi. 32, with a 
 verbal diff'erence. The repeated clause, ' so did he,' marks 
 the close of the long delay during the ark's preparation. 
 It is a full stop at the close of a distinct era of time. But 
 the shorter form, vii. 5, links this paragraph more closely 
 with that which follows, in which Noah's obedience to the 
 new charge is at once described. The making of the ark, 
 the command to enter, and its prompt execution, are the 
 subject of those successive paragraphs, and none of them 
 can be left out without producing a mutilated narrative. 
 
 60. Ch. vii. G-10. 
 
 i. The date, v. 6, refers back plainly to ch. v. 32, which 
 
and its Anatomists. 117 
 
 gives the generation of Noali, and to ch. v. 27, which 
 makes Methuselah die in the year of the flood. But it also 
 refers to vi. 3, since it marks the close of those 120 years 
 of patience, and its month-date, to the week's interval 
 just before. 
 
 ii. The form of v. 7 answers to the previous command, 
 vv. 2, 3. Hence the negative critics are perplexed and dis- 
 agree. Some make these clauses a mere interpolation of 
 the Redactor, while another refers them to the Elohist, as 
 merely implying a complete obedience to vi. 19, 20. 
 
 iii. The four verses, 7-10, answer to 1-4, each to each, 
 vv. 1, 7, ' Come thou, and all thy house, into the ark.' 
 ' And Noah went in unto the ark.' Yv. 2, 8. ' Of every 
 clean beast, and of beasts not clean, Yv. 3, 9. ' The 
 male and the female, to keep seed alive.' ' The male and 
 the female, as God commanded.' Yv. 4, 10. * For jet 
 seven days, &c. . . . And after seven days the waters of 
 the flood were upon the earth.' Thus we have, first, the 
 command and the promise ; and then, the fulfilment of 
 God's commands by Noah, of the promise by God himself. 
 The second passage clearly implies the first, and de- 
 pends upon it ; and v. 10 belongs strictly to the three be- 
 fore. Its separation by the Elohistic theory dislocates 
 and disturbs the whole passage. Its connexion is further 
 shown by the recurrent mention of the 'waters of the 
 flood,' vv. 7, 10. 
 
 61. Ch. vii. 11-16. 
 
 The Elohistic theory breaks this section into four parts, 
 by separating v. 12 and the last clause of v. 16 from the 
 rest, and assigning them to later interpolation. The piece- 
 meal division it requires, so that vv. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, are 
 
118 The Pentateuch 
 
 successively referred to different authors, is alone its full 
 condemnation. But other direct reasons prove its false- 
 hood. 
 
 i. The date, v. 12, is separated by the theory from 
 the one before and after. Yet it has the plainest connexion 
 with both. This first day of the flood here specified, the 
 17th of the 2nd month, was the last of the seven days, and 
 the first of the forty, and stands here in its true place just 
 between them. 
 
 ii. The words of v. 12 clearly refer to the warning 
 V. 4, and announce its fulfilment, beginning on the day 
 named in the previous verse. The theorist then tears it 
 from the context, and ascribes it to the Jehovist. It is 
 said to be * inserted awkwardly, out of its proper place in 
 the story, and to interrupt the continuity.' On the con- 
 trary, the close of the seven days, v. 10, the date of the 
 flood, V. 11, and the forty days of rain which at once 
 began, stand plainly in the most natural order possible. 
 The forty days are named again, it is true, v. 17 ; but 
 equally in order, since v. 12 refers to their commencement 
 from the day just named, while v. 17 represents the 
 whole period as the first stage of the flood, succeeded by 
 others. 
 
 iii. The statements of 7-10 and 13-16 have been said 
 to contradict each other as to the day when Noah entered 
 the ark. More stress would have been laid on this by the 
 objectors, only that both alike are called Elohistic, and 
 contradiction here would be only a stumbling-block to 
 their own theory. But the simple explanation is, that the 
 whole week would be required for these final arrange- 
 ments. The task began as soon as the command was 
 
and its Anatomists. 119 
 
 given, or seven days before the flood, and it was completed 
 ' the self-same day ' when the flood began. 
 
 iv. The four verses, 13-16, correspond alike with the 
 two quartets, 1-4 and 7-10. The first, in each case, 
 refers to the entrance of ]N^oah and his house 'into the 
 ark,' now finished. The second, to the beasts and cattle, 
 in vv. 8, 14, including also the fowls. The third specifies 
 'male and female;' 'two and two, the male and female,' 
 and ' two and two of all flesh.' The fourth predicts the 
 time of the flood, and notes that time as fulfilled, and the 
 closing act of preparation on the seventh and last day, 
 'The Lord shut him in.' This exact correspondence 
 proves the unity of the whole. 
 
 V. The union of the names, v. 16, is no sign of a double 
 origin, but the reverse. A Redactor, using both names, 
 would be most unlikely to vary the name used just before 
 in so brief an addition. The words, also, are so far from 
 having the marks of a later supplement, that they form 
 rather the natural and necessary conclusion of the whole 
 account of the preparation. The}^ sum up together the 
 two previous sections of the Divine commands before and 
 after the ark was built, vi. 9-22, vii. 1-5, and mark their 
 common fulfilment by the double sacred name. The 
 union is so close as to be plainly intentional. In a single 
 author it is fuU of emphasis at this point, where the pro- 
 mise to Noah culminates, and the judgment on the world 
 begins. 
 
 62. Ch. vii. 17-24. 
 
 Four of these verses describe the rise of the flood, and 
 the other four its effects and time of continuance. The 
 parts are thus equal and similar, three verses of climax in 
 
120 The Pentateuch 
 
 each case, witli a following pause. The attempt, in one 
 scheme, to sever vv. 17, 22, 23, and refer them to the 
 Jehovist, and in the other (' Pentateuch Examined,' Part 
 IV.) to part them into six alternate morsels of a verse 
 and half a-piece, ascribed to the two imaginary writers, 
 is really preposterous. Let us examine the details. 
 
 i. In vv. 17-19 three stages are plainly marked. In 
 the first the ark, during the forty days, began to float, 
 and was lifted above the earth. The water had covered 
 deeph^ the lowlands where it was built. In the next, the 
 waters were so risen that the lower eminences were 
 covered, and the ark moved with freedom ' upon the face 
 of the waters.' In the third, ' all the high hills were 
 covered.' The fourth A'erse adds, then, a definition of 
 their highest elevation, fifteen cubits above the highest 
 mountains, so that there was no point left where the ark 
 could not float without obstruction. Yet the scheme of 
 Dr. Davidson transfers to another writer the first verse, 
 on which the rest depend, simply because the fort}^ days 
 refer plainly to v. 4 in a Jehovistic portion. Dr. Colenso 
 goes further, and assigns all four verses to the Jehovist, 
 except the two clauses, — ' And the waters prevailed, and 
 were increased greatly upon the earth,' v. 18 ; ' and the 
 mountains were covered,' v. 20. Dr. Davidson leaves all 
 to the Elohist, except v. 17 ; which the forty days compel 
 him to assign to his Jehovist, since they refer to v. 4. 
 Dr. Colenso leaves all to the Jehovist, except two clauses, 
 required to give some show of continuity to the Elohistic 
 'ground- work document.' It is quite plain that both 
 views are equally fidse, and that the three statements are 
 a regular climax from one and the same hand. ' And the 
 
and its Anatomists. 121 
 
 waters increased, and bare up the ark/ v. 17 ; ' And the 
 waters prevailed, and increased greatly upon the earth,' 
 V. 18 ; ' And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the 
 earth.' Like the first, second, and third stories of the 
 ark itself, the three statements are built compactly to- 
 gether, and wholly exclude the idea of mere patchwork 
 and accidental union. 
 
 ii. The four verses are thus plainly a connected whole. 
 But the first verse, in the mention of the forty days, 
 links them firmly with the Jehovistic section, vii. 1-5. 
 And the last, in the mention of the fifteen cubits, just half 
 the depth of the ark, and probably that of its draught, 
 or immersed portion, links them as plainly with vi. 
 15, 16, or the dimensions of the ark, in the Elohistic 
 section. 
 
 iii. The three verses, 21-23, in describing the 
 results of the flood, refer equally to Elohistic and other 
 portions : — 
 
 ' And all flesh died,' vii. 13. 'The end of all flesh is come 
 before me.' — Elohistic. 
 
 ' Both of fowl, and cattle, and beast, and every creeping 
 thing,' ' and every man,' vi. 7. ' Man and beast, and creeping 
 thing and fowls.' — Jehovistic. 
 
 ' In whose nostrils is the breath of life,' vi. 17. 'AH flesh, 
 wherein is the breath of life.' — Elo. ii. 7. ' And breathed into 
 his nostrils the breath of life.' — Jehovistic. 
 
 ' Every living substance ;' compare vii. 4, its only other 
 occurrence. — Jehovistic. 
 
 * Upon the face of the ground.' So ii. 6, iv. 14, vi. 1, 7, 
 vii. 4, Jehovistic; but viii. 13, Elohistic. 
 
 ' Men and cattle, and creeping things, and fowl of the heaven.' 
 So vi. 7, Jehovistic. 
 
122 The Pentateuch 
 
 iv. Y. 24 answers to v. 20. Each follows three verses, 
 which describe the progress and the effects of the flood. 
 One assigns its limit in height, the other in time. The 
 150 days refer directly to y. 11, 'The second month, the 
 seventeenth day ;' but also indirectly to the seven days 
 before, and directly the forty daj^s that followed, being a 
 third historical datum of the same kind. These two last 
 periods mark the beginning and the close of the present 
 section, the brief record of the flood itself, in contrast to 
 the preparation and the abatement. ^o verse can be 
 severed without sensibly impairing the symmetry of the 
 whole. 
 
 63. Ch. viii. 1-5. 
 
 These five verses are parted by Dr. Davidson into 
 seven portions, and by Dr. Colenso into five, to suit 
 the Elohistic theory. The parts they respectively assign 
 to the Jehovist are 2b, 3a, 4ac, or 2b, 4c alone. But it 
 is plain that the three clauses in v. 2 answer exactly 
 to vii. 11, 12, in the same order, the fountains of the 
 deep, the windows of heaven and the rain. ' The waters 
 returned from ofi" the earth continually,' is a direct con- 
 trast to vii. 17-19, before, and the 150 days, v. 3, refer 
 also to vii. 24. 'The ark rested,' is an allusion to the 
 name of Noah, ' rest,' in ch. v. 29 ; and the date to the 
 previous date, in vii. 11. ' The mountains of Ararat ' 
 corresj^ond with the geographical notices of the rivers of 
 Paradise. The continual decrease, ' till the' tops of the 
 mountains were seen,' reverses the previous description, vii. 
 19, that all the high hills were covered. There is really 
 not the least pretence for breaking up this simple passage 
 into five or six fragments, and assigning them alternately 
 
and its Anatomists, 123 
 
 to two different unknown authors, in open defiance to all 
 common sense, no less than in foul disparagement of the 
 words of God. 
 
 Four reasons are assigned why ' on the mountains of 
 Ararat ' should be referred to a second writer, as a later 
 addition. (1.) If it had formed part of the original verse, 
 the Ilehrew idiom would require that it should follow 
 immediately after " the ark rested," and not come at the 
 end of the verse. Ans. There is no such Hebrew idiom, 
 different from our own. In both languages, the note of 
 time usually comes either first or last, as being a simple 
 accessory to the main thought. But here we have an 
 exception, for a reason in the nature of the case, and not 
 dependent on the language. The time is here an intimate 
 part of the statement, from the double reference to the 
 date of the flood, vii. 11, and the period of 150 days. But 
 the place is here purely additional, since no indication of 
 it has come before. Hence, either in English or Hebrew, 
 the actual order is the most suitable. (2.) ' The Jehovist 
 shows special acquaintance with the geography of the East.' 
 This is no argument, but a double assumption, that the 
 whole is a pure fiction, and that the prophet Samuel, the 
 Elohist of the writer, was too ignorant to name Ararat, 
 even in a pure invention. (3.) ' The Jehovist fixes the 
 residence of men after the flood in the neighbourhood of 
 Armenia.' This is merely, in other words, that the history 
 in viii. 4. and ch. xi. is consistent. (4.) ' Both writers refer 
 to mountains, but the particularity of detail agrees more 
 with the style of the Jehovist.' Yet most of the details of 
 time, the years of the patriarchs, the date of the flood and 
 its duration, and the dimensions of the ark, belong to the 
 
124 The Pentateuch 
 
 Elohist. When sucli loose allegations are allowed to out- 
 weigh all direct, historical evidence, there is no limit to 
 the absurd hypotheses which may be formed, like soap- 
 bubbles, to glitter for a moment and disappear for ever. 
 
 64. Ch. viii. 6-12. 
 
 In this paragraph neither name of God appears. The 
 critics assign it to their Jehovist, because the two in- 
 tervals of seven and forty days resemble those in vii. 4, 
 where the name Jehovah precedes and follows. But here 
 they are met with a great difficulty ; at least those, like 
 Hupfeldt and Davidson, who Adew the second as an inde- 
 pendent author. For when v. 5. is transferred to another 
 document, there is nothing to which this new period can 
 be properly referred. ^ At the end of forty days ' refers to 
 the date in viii. 5, Elohistic. He ' opened the window of 
 the ark which he had made ' refers equally to vi. 14, 16, 
 Elohistic. ' The raven went forth, in going forth and 
 returning,' a phrase like viii. 3, 5, Elohistic. On the 
 other hand, ' the face of the ground,' occurs chiefly in 
 places called Jehovistic, but presently, in v. 13, Elohistic. 
 The i^aragraph, since it contains direct allusions alike to 
 Elohistic and other sections, is a fresh proof of the unity 
 of the whole. But this is still plainer from the sequence 
 of the whole narrative, and also from the correspondence of 
 the successive intervals, when once it is understood that in 
 V. 8 an interval of forty da^^s is implied, as one is expressed 
 two verses before. 
 
 Q^. Ch. viii. 13-22. 
 
 The three last verses are here assigned to the Jehovist, 
 the others usually to the Elohist. And yet the date in 
 V. 13 is linked with that in v. 5 by the intervening intervnls 
 
and its Anatomists. 125 
 
 10.1+40+40 + 7 + 7 = 12.35, or the last day of the six 
 hundredth, followed by the first of the next year. Also 
 vv. 13, 14, refer to v. 7 in their mention of the drying of 
 the earth (Jeh.), but vv. 15, 16, to vi. 18, 19, and also to 
 i. 22, 28. 
 
 The three verses 20-22 refer directly to vii. 2, 3, iii. 
 17, 18, V. 29, vi. 5, vii. 28, i. 5. The last of these, where 
 day and night are first named, is Elohistic, and v. 29 is an 
 inseparable part of w^hat is called an Elohistic section. But 
 while the cross references are thus enough, even here, to 
 disprove the dual theory, the unity of the whole narrative 
 is more plainly marked another way. For the mention of 
 day and night refers to the first chapter of the Creation, 
 that of the curse on the ground to ch. iii. on the Fall, the 
 sacrifice of Noah to ch. iv., and the sacrifice of Abel, to 
 which the Lord had respect, the arrest of the curse through 
 Noah to ch. V. and the prophecy of Lamech ; the description 
 of man's heart to ch. vi. 5, which brings on the judgment; 
 the mention of clean beasts and fowls to ch. viii. 2, 8, where 
 seven pairs of these are preserved, while the whole passage 
 is the direct and natural sequel of the chapter where it 
 occurs. This sacrifice prepares the way for the covenant 
 and blessing that follows. 
 
 66. Ch. ix. 1-17. 
 
 Here Elohim recurs six times, and also there are 
 various allusions to ch. i. 1 — ii. 3, and what are called Elo- 
 histic passages. Thus ix. 1 refers to i. 22, 28, viii. 17, 
 and again ix. 3. to i. 29, ix. 66 alike to i. 26, 27, and v. 1, 
 V. 9, to vi. 18, and v. 10 to viii. 17, and perhaps v. 11, to 
 vi. 13 and 7 and 17. At the same time, one main enact- 
 ment, vv. 5, 6, refers not less plainly to the previous ac- 
 
126 The Pentateuch 
 
 count of the murder of Abel, iv. 1-15, and of tlie violence 
 with which the earth had been filled, vi. 5, 11, 12. The 
 narrative of the Fall is the necessary link of transition be- 
 tween the record of Creation and of the Flood, and this 
 covenant with Ncah is the first stage in a great economy of 
 redemption. The sacredness of blood, here enjoined, is 
 an early preparation for the great mystery of the New 
 Covenant. 
 
 67. Ch. ix. 18-29. 
 
 This passage, except the two last verses, is referred to 
 the Jehovist in the simpler form of the modern theory; but 
 Dr. Davidson and Hupfeldt, for some esoteric reasons, make 
 it over to a third party, the Redactor, except 18a, 19, 
 which they are content to leave to the Jehovist. It is self- 
 evident, in opposition to this wonderful piece of anatomy, 
 that w. 18-27 form one connected history. No verse or 
 clause can be severed from it without violence. The sacred 
 name occurs only once, in the blessing of Shem, whefe it is 
 full of emphasis. B}^ the narrator himself neither name is 
 here used. The only reason why it should be thought that 
 the writer of ix. 1-17, who there uses Elohim four times, 
 andthewriter of Exod. vi. 1-8, could not also have written 
 this passage, is the false construction of the text in Exodus, 
 as if Jehovah were a name or word wholly unknown before 
 Moses. Once restore the true sense, and it becomes quite 
 natural that Moses, while he uses Elohim in the world-wide 
 covenant with Noah, and in the blessing of Japhcth, in the 
 blessing of Shem should represent the patriarch as employ- 
 ing the higher and more sacred name, ' Jehovah, the God 
 of Shem,' as a preparation for the title * Jehovah, the God 
 of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.' 
 
and its Anatomists, 127 
 
 68. The sequel of the Flood, chh. x. xi., consists of two 
 genealogies, separated from each other by the history of the 
 Confusion of Tongues. This last is purely Jchovistic, the 
 sacred name occurring in it five times ; but the two genea- 
 logies, except in one parenthetic verse, x. 9, exhibit neither 
 name. The critics have thus a free range, to assign them 
 as they please. Yet as the first, ch. ix., is the direct 
 sequel and expansion of the Elohistic covenant with JNToah, 
 in which his sons are commanded, * Be fruitful and mul- 
 tiply;' while the latter is the genealogy of Shem only, 
 ix. 26, of whom Jehovah was to be the God, and is a 
 direct preparation for the purely Jehovistic narrative of 
 Abraham, chh. xii.-xvi. ; we might have expected that the 
 former would be given to the Elohist, and the latter to 
 the Jehovist. Strange to say, their decision is just the 
 reverse. The general, difi'usive genealogy, including Ham 
 and Japheth, is assigned to the later Jehovist ; and the 
 limited, special pedigree of the sons of Shem and fore- 
 fathers of Abraham, is ascribed to the Elohist. But the 
 reason soon becomes plain. This Aground- work docu- 
 ment' could not leap over ten generations. Hence, the 
 transition from Shem to Abraham must be given to it, in 
 order to avoid a total breach of continuity. But when we 
 have reached so far, through ten descents, plainly designed 
 to prepare for the life of Abraham, the problem grows in- 
 tractable, for that life is Jehovistic from first to last ; and 
 the only resource is to cull out a verse and a half from 
 ch. xii., one and two halves from ch. xiii., one where the 
 sacred name occurs from ch. xiv., and two others from ch. 
 xvi., to bridge over the passage to the Elohistic chapter of 
 the covenant, ch. xvii. The overthrow of Sodom is then 
 
128 The Pentateuch 
 
 slurred over in a single verse, and two verses more are 
 given for tlie birth of Isaac, while the Elohist is permitted 
 to retain a whole chapter of the burial of Sarah. The 
 genealogy then, in ch. xi., becomes like a long avenue 
 which leads to nothing; instead of being, as the text 
 itself shows it t@ be, the brief transition to a new era 
 of fuller and higher revelation. So strange and violent 
 are the shifts to which those critics are obliged to have 
 recourse, who burn incense to their own critical dissecting- 
 knife, and thus blind themselves to the unity and divine 
 harmony of these ' true sayings of God.' 
 
and its Anatomists, 129 
 
 CHAPTER YIII. 
 THE HISTORY OF ABRAHAM. 
 
 69. The life of Abraham, clili. xii.-xxiv., is the central 
 portion of the Book of Genesis, the basis of every later 
 message of God. The covenant it reveals is for ' a thou- 
 sand generations.' The 'New Testament, from its first 
 sentence onward, claims to be simply the expansion and 
 fulfilment of the oath and promise of God here made 
 known to mankind. Any theory which would resolve it 
 into the union of three or four vague and contradictory 
 traditions, or successful forgeries, strikes plainly at the 
 foundations of the Christian faith. When it comes before 
 us with loud boasts of superior wisdom and insight, our 
 duty is to deal with it as it professes to deal with the 
 word of God, and to submit its claims to a close and 
 searching examination. 
 
 The sceptical theory assigns these thirteen chapters, 
 except one paragraph, to three writers, ascribed to the 
 times of Saul, Jehoshaphat, and Uzziah, in more than 
 forty fragments of very unequal length. The Elohist has 
 chh. xvii., xxiii., and a few verses from six others ; the 
 Junior Elohist, chh. xx.-xxii. 13, except five or six verses ; 
 
 K 
 
130 The Pentateuch 
 
 and the Jehovist, chh. xii.-xvi. ; xviii. 1-28 ; xxii. 14-24 ; 
 xxiv., of nearly all the rest. The Redactor has only the 
 nine last verses of eh. xix., and two or three other verses, 
 or parts of verses. 
 
 70. The direct marks of unity in the whole narrative 
 are clear and plain. The stem from which the whole 
 proceeds is the brief genealogy of Terah, xi. 27-32. Nearly 
 all the names in that family record recur in the course of 
 the history, Abraham, Lot, Nahor, Sarah, Milcah. The 
 journey of ch. xi. 31, 32, is continued and completed in 
 xii. 4-6. The age of Abraham, xii. 4, refers to the 
 double notice of xi. 26, 32 ; and the mention of Haran to 
 xi. 28, 31, 32 ; and that of the Canaanite to the earlier 
 catalogue, x, 15-19. After the descent into Egypt, xii. 
 10-20, we have the return, xiii. 1 ; the consequent increase 
 in the pastoral wealth of both patriarchs, xiii. 2-5 ; and 
 the need for separation, v. 6, which refers back to the re- 
 cord of their joint migration. Then the record follows, 
 alternately, of mercj^ and blessing to the stronger, and of 
 chastisement to the weaker faith. Thus xiii. 14-18, 
 repeats and expands the earlier promise, xii. 2, 7 ; and 
 ch. xiv. recounts the calamity in which Lot was involved 
 by his choice of Sodom for a home. The promise, xv. 1, 
 refers directly to the oath of Abraham just before, and is 
 a kind of Divine compensation. The seventh verse refers 
 back to xi. 28, in the genealogy, and the rest of the 
 chapter unfolds and confirms the two earlier promises, 
 chh. xii. 1-3, xiii. 14-18. The history of Hagar, also, is 
 linked, in vv. 3, 16, with the previous notice of the age of 
 Abraham, xii. 4, and stands midway in time between the 
 call and the birth of Isaac, which soon fdUows. 
 
and its Anatomists, 131 
 
 Again, ch. xvii., which the theory assigns to a distinct 
 author, is linked most closely with what precedes and 
 follows. For the names Abram and Sarai, after occurring 
 uniformly seventy times, in xi. 26-xvii. 5, are now changed 
 to Abraham and Sarah, which occur uniformly, about 140 
 times, in all the sequel of the history. Abraham's age, 
 V. 17, refers to xii. 4, and xvi. 3, 16 ; and his prayer for 
 Ishmael to the narrative xvi. 11-15 ; and the promise of 
 Isaac is the groundwork of the three or four next chapters. 
 In ch. xviii. the names Abraham and Sarah refer to xvii. 
 5, 15 ; their age to xvii. 17 ; the laughter of Sarah, v. 
 12-15, to that of Abraham, xvii. 17; the promise, v. 14, 
 to xvii. 21 ; and the cry of Sodom to the earlier statement, 
 xiii. 12, 13. In ch. xix. the mention of Zoar refers back 
 to three earlier passages, xiii. 10, xiv. 2, 8. The twentieth 
 chapter is linked with xii. 10-20, or the descent into 
 Egypt, both by resemblance and contrast, as might be 
 traced in various details. But ch. xxi. is full of these 
 references to the previous history. Thus v. 1 refers to 
 xvii. 19, 21, .and xviii. 9-15, v. 2 to xvii. 21, v. 3 to 
 xvii. 19, the name of Isaac assigned before his birth ; 
 V. 4 to xvii. 12, for the time of circumcision ; v. 5 to 
 xii. 4, xvi. 3, 16, xvii. 1, 24, 25, for the age of Abraham ; 
 V. 6 to xviii. 12, 15, v. 10 to xvi. 1, 6, xvii. 21, v. 11 to 
 xvii. 18, and w. 12, 13, to xvii. 19-21, and vv. 14-20 to 
 the account, xvi. 7-14, of Hagar's first peril in the wilder- 
 ness. The act of Isaac's sacrifice, besides other allusions, 
 stands nearly midway in time between ch. xxi. and ch. 
 xxiii. ; and the latter, with its account of Sarah's death and 
 burial, comes just three years before Isaac's marriage ; 
 of which the record is linked with it hj the closing 
 
132 The Pentateuch 
 
 words, — 'And Isaac was comforted after Ms mother's 
 death.' 
 
 71. The Elohist has only xii. 4b, 5, xiii. 6, lib, 12a, 
 XV. 1, xvi. 3, 15b, 16, xvii., xix. 29, xxi. 4, 5, and xxiii., 
 assigned to his share in the quadripartite scheme. Three 
 disjointed fragments, on the sceptical theor}^, were the first 
 written account of Abraham among the Israelites, com- 
 posed about the time of Saul, or eight hundred years after 
 the events, and four hundred after the Exodus. Besides 
 a few verses of chronology, &c., culled out from chh. 
 xii.-xvi., they contain no incident of the patriarch's life ; 
 but only a Divine vision, a fiction in the view of these 
 theorists, in which circumcision was enjoined, and an ac- 
 count of the purchase of Machpelah for a burial-place. 
 A erlance at the contents of this 'Elohim document' 
 might satisfy any reasonable mind that it is a strange 
 chimera of some modern theorists. Neither inspired 
 prophet, nor honest historian, nor reckless forger, could 
 ever have devised so crude a narrative of the time-honoured 
 patriarch, and have published it to the world. 
 
 Next, how does it satisfy the main test, on which the 
 whole theory professedly depends ? The Pentateuch, we 
 have been told, by its use of the sacred names, * drops to 
 pieces of itself in our hands.' It is a 'very interesting and 
 easy study ' for common readers, by this simple means, to 
 convince themselves of the falsehood of the old doctrine of 
 Christ and his Apostles, and the superior truth of the 
 modern or composite theory. How does the test apply here ? 
 The passage, xvii. 3-22, which is the record of God's 
 message, and not a simple narrative, may be set aside as 
 equally explicable on cither view. We have then forty- 
 
and its Anatomists. 133 
 
 nine verses within the limits, xi. 27-xxv. 10, assigned to 
 the Elohist. Only three of these have the name Elohim, 
 xvii. 23, xix. 29, xxi. 4. T^Y0 have actually the name 
 Jehovah, xv. 1, xvii. 1 ; the entire absence of which, by 
 the theory, is the chief mark of this Elohist. The other 
 forty-four verses have neither sacred name. The test, 
 then, cannot be used at all, except in five verses out of 
 forty-nine, and is flatly contradicted in two verses out of 
 the five. In so wonderful a way, by the help of the new 
 theory, does this part of the Pentateuch drop to pieces of 
 itself in our- hands ! 
 
 72. There are, however, some other more general 
 tests, or contrasted features, which are said to mark this 
 'Elohim document,' and which Dr. Davidson states as 
 follows (p. 25) : — 
 
 i. ' In the Elohim document there is no mention of 
 sacrifices and altars, because these were Mosaic forms of 
 religious intercourse between God and man.' There are 
 twelve places in Genesis where there is mention of sacrifice 
 or altar, from ch. xii. to the close. Of these, seven, that 
 is a majority, are Elohistic, by the test of the names : 
 Gen. xxii. 1-8 ; xxxi. 54 ; xxxiii. 18-20 ; xxxv. 1-3, 6-8, 
 13-15 ; xlvi. 1-4. 
 
 ii. ' God speaks with His servants without the peculiar 
 forms of communion afterwards emploj-^ed, such as angels, 
 dreams, visions, &c., &c.' This is almost a direct reversal 
 of the fact, since there are no less than fourteen such cases 
 recorded in Elohistic passages : Gen. xx. 3; xx. 6; xxi. 17, 
 18; xxi. 23; xxxi. 11 ; xxxi. 24; xxxii. 1; xxxii. 24-28; 
 xxxv. 9 ; xxxvii. 5, 9 ; xl. 5 ; xli. 1-7 ; xlvi. 2. 
 
 iii. * The patriarchs move about freely.' We might 
 
134 The Pentateuch 
 
 infer that the Jeli ovist invented by these critics is so ill . 
 informed as to confine the patriarchs to a single spot. But 
 of Abraham's movements from place to place three only 
 are in Elohistic passages, and eight in the Jehovistic. 
 ' Their wealth consists of herds and servants.' Another 
 proof of the accuracy of these learned theorists. In the 
 lives of Abraham and Isaac, flocks and herds are named 
 seven times in Jehovistic, only twice in Elohistic passages. 
 ^ The tent is the dwelling-place.' Another strange test 
 by which to distinguish two patriarchal historians. It is 
 even more unfortunate than the last. In Abraham's his- 
 tory tents are named seven times, and always in Jehovistic 
 passages, never once in the Elohistic : xii. 8 ; xiii. 5, 12, 
 18 ; xviii. 1, 9, 10 ; xxiv. 67. 
 
 iv. ' The whole history is disposed in epochs, so that it 
 has an epic form and character, with evenness of proportions 
 and equability of manner.' A simple reference to No. 23 
 will illustrate the hardihood of this assertion. Anything 
 less epic in style, or more uneven, like a series of sudden 
 historical jerks, it is impossible to conceive. The Word of 
 God, however mangled, can hardly be robbed of its divine 
 simj)licity ; but if the purpose were to make it ridiculous by 
 critical mutilation, the success could hardly be more com- 
 plete than in the ' Elohim document.' 
 
 V. ' It resembles a poem more than a history, since 
 only the more important points are touched on succes- 
 sively. The descriptions of the Elohist are regular, orderly, 
 clear, simple, in artificial calm, free from the rhetorical 
 and poetical.' 
 
 This critical invention, the Elohim document, is cer- 
 tainly not like a history, and as certainly ' free from the 
 
and its Anatomists. 135 
 
 poetical element/ But its resemblance to a poem no 
 common eye can discover. It is rather like an index of 
 contents to some work of history, in which clauses have 
 been omitted. Its orderly nature consists in a series of 
 sudden vaidts, from Abraham's vision to Sarah's gift of 
 Hagar to her husband, before Hagar has been once named ; 
 from the circumcision of Ishmael and Abraham's household 
 to the rescue of Lot from Sodom, without one word to 
 explain the judgment ; and from the birth of Isaac to the 
 burial of Sarah, and from this to Abraham's death, without 
 mention of Isaac's marriage. It is, in fact, a capricious 
 selection, which contradicts the test on which it professes to 
 depend, and after all, can scarcely claim the most imperfect 
 degree of historical continuity. 
 
 73. This portion of the Elohim document, besides 
 the two whole chapters, xvii., xxiii., contains nine small 
 fragments. Let us see by what right, or on what 
 grounds, these can be parted from the context to which 
 they belong. 
 
 i. The first is ch. xii. 5. It stands between the Jeho- 
 vistic verses, 4, 7, 8. It is a direct sequel of the previous 
 verse, which names the age of Abraham when the migration 
 occurred ; and introduces the next verse, the land being 
 named in both, fully in the first, briefly in the second. 
 The course of the narrative requires its presence. Abram 
 must have reached the land, before passing through it. 
 The separation of this one verse, and its transfer to a writer 
 three centuries before the composition of the rest, is a para- 
 dox without a grain of evidence, even on the grounds of 
 these neologists themselves, and bids defiance to every 
 law and rule of sober criticism. 
 
136 The Pentateuch 
 
 ii. Tlie second passage is xiii. 6. Tlie verse coheres 
 most intimately with its context on either side. When 
 appended to xii. 5, where the scheme places it, the sequence 
 is most unnatural. If Abraham and Lot could travel 
 together from Haran with their flocks, why need they 
 part as soon as they enter the land ? But the verse ex- 
 plains itself in its true context. By the gifts of Pharaoh, 
 and natural increase, the wealth of Abraham was enlarged 
 on his return from 'Egypt, and that of Lot also. On their 
 return northward this new difficulty might well arise. 
 The sixth is the necessary transition from the fifth to the 
 seventh verse, and stands now in its own natural place. 
 The internal evidence is just as decisive as the external 
 against its forced separation and transfer to a wholly 
 distinct author, w^ho is said to have lived some three 
 hundred years before the rest was composed. 
 
 iii. The third passage is xv. 1. Its transfer to the 
 Elohist is a still more marvellous work of the ' higher criti- 
 cism,' since it not only requires its actual context, but con- 
 tains that sacred name, Jehovah, the presence of which is 
 made elsewhere the sure proof that another hand, distinct 
 from our Elohist, has been at work. Still further, the 
 verse records a vision, and from visions, we have just been 
 told, the Elohist is free ! How, then, can we explain this 
 contradiction, not merely of the common laws of evidence, 
 which they set aside continually, but of the empirical rules 
 of the theorisers themselves ? Simply, by the desperate 
 effort to bridge over a chasm to which the theory leads, 
 and by which the Elohist would pass at once from the 
 genealogy of Terah to the covenant of circumcision. For 
 decency's sake a few stepping-stones had to be supplied ; 
 
and its Anatomists, 137 
 
 and for this end even the double test of the sacred names, 
 and of visions, is cast to the winds. The Elohist must 
 here have one verse given him, at whatever sacrifice of 
 consistency or common sense. 
 
 iv. A fourth passage is xvi. 3, to which may be added 
 15b, 16. This short chapter is broken by the scheme into 
 six portions, assigned to three writers. The earliest con- 
 tributes two verses and a half; the second, two centuries 
 later, a verse and half ; and the third, a century still later, 
 the other twelve verses. Stranger still, the third supplies 
 V. 1, the second v. 2, and the first v. 3. A hj^othesis 
 more ridiculous in the eyes of sober criticism could hardly 
 be devised. Thus, immediately after the words to Abra- 
 ham, ' I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward,' 
 without any previous mention of Hagar, or of Abraham's 
 complaint, xv. 2, 3, on which it depends, we should have 
 the abrupt sequel, — ' And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar 
 her maid, the Egyptian, &c.' This evidently implies the 
 previous mention of Hagar, v. 1, and of Sarai's hope, v. 2, 
 to become a mother by proxy. Again, the second clause 
 of V. 15 is parted from the first, which is given to the 
 junior Elohist, two centuries later ; and this is parted from 
 vv. 4-14, by which alone it is explained, and which are 
 made a century later still. The result is to bring xii. 4, 
 xvi. 3, 16, within seven verses, and thus to turn the last 
 into a mere tautology. 
 
 V. In ch. xix. only v. 29 is given to the Elohist. Yet 
 this is plainly the summary of the whole preceding history. 
 When used to replace it, the, verse becomes abrupt and 
 unnatural. In the scheme it follows close after the wholly 
 difierent statement of xvii. 27, — ' And all the men of his 
 
138 The Pentateuch 
 
 house, born in his house, or bought with money of the . 
 stranger, were circumcised with him/ 
 
 vi. The division of ch. xxi. 1-20, is like an extreme of 
 critical caprice and folly. It runs thus : — 
 
 V. 1. Junior Elohist. 
 
 V. 2. ' For Sarah conceived,' Elohist, ' and bare Abraham a 
 son in his old age,' Junior Elohist; ' at the time of which God 
 had spoken to him,' Elohist, 
 
 V. 3. 'And Abraham .... Isaac,' Junior Elohist. vv. 4,5, 
 Elohist. vv. 6, 7, Junior Elohist, 
 
 vv. 8, 9, Redactor, vv. 10-17a, Junior Elohist. 
 
 ' And the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven,' 
 Redactor, ' and said unto her .... And God was with the lad, 
 and he grew,' Junior Elohist. 
 
 ' And he dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer,' 
 Jehovist. 
 
 74. Two chapters in this part of the history are assigned 
 to the Elohist. The first is ch. xvii., where the name 
 Elohim is used throughout the message. But in v. 1 the 
 whole is linked with the previous context by the use 
 of the sacred name, — * The Lord (Jehovah) appeared to 
 Abram.' Since the character of the Jehovist is to make 
 use of either name, but of the Elohist to use Elohim only, 
 and this verse is inseparable from the rest, the whole 
 chapter, by the rigid ajDplication of the test, should be 
 referred to the third writer, and not to the first. The 
 theory fails wholly to account for this solitary occur- 
 rence of the sacred name at the outset of an Elohistic 
 message. 
 
 Again, ch. xxiii., though neither Divine name is found 
 in it, is referred to the Elohist, and thereby separated 
 
and, its Anatomists. 139 
 
 from nearly tlie whole preceding and following historj^ 
 But its links of connexion are many with previous parts, 
 not Eloliistic. The last previous verse of the Elohim 
 document would be, ' And Abraham was a hundred years 
 old when his son Isaac was born unto him.' Then, with- 
 out one word of Sarah's joy, or Isaac's weaning, childhood 
 or manhood, the sequel would come, leaping over thirty- 
 seven years at a bound, ' And Sarah was 127 years old, 
 the years of the life of Sarah. And Sarah died in Kirjath- 
 arba.-* 
 
 Again, the mention of Hebron refers to xiii. 18, xiv. 13, 
 xviii. 1, where Abraham's sojourn there is named. The 
 words, ^ I am a stranger and sojourner,' refer to the first 
 promise, xii. 7, xiii. 14-17. The words, ' Thou art a 
 mighty prince among us,' refer to the victory, xiv. 16-24 ; 
 and the friendly intercourse with the sons of Heth to the 
 earlier statement, xiv. 13. The whole account is firmly 
 fixed by the chronology to its actual place, later than the 
 sacrifice of Isaac, and before his marriage. Among the 
 adjoining chapters this, more than any other, might be 
 viewed possibly as a later supplement, rather than a main 
 part of the fundamental document. 
 
 75. The jDarts assigned to the Junior Elohist are chh. 
 XX., xxi. 1, 2b, 3, 6, 7, 10-17a, 17c, 20a, 21-34, xxii. 
 1-13, 19. And here the hypothesis is a combination of 
 paradoxes, hard to refute from their total want of even the 
 least show of evidence. First, the existence of this 
 writer depends on an admission fatal to the whole theory. 
 For the distinctness of the Elohist and Jehovist is alleged 
 to depend on the concurrence of two separate tests, the 
 use of the Divine names, and certain supposed contrasts in 
 
140 TJie Pentateuch 
 
 the nature of the contents. But because some parts agree 
 with the Elohist in the use of the Divine name, and with 
 the Jeho^dst in other features, a third writer is invented 
 to whom these may be referred. The portion of the book 
 assigned him is one- sixth, just equal to that assigned to 
 the Elohist. Thus it is really admitted, that the alleged 
 tests of diverse authorship contradict each other, just as 
 often as they seem to agree. And since only about one- 
 half of what is assigned to the Elohist is properly Elohistic, 
 and the rest consists of verses wrenched out of their con- 
 text in Jehovistic sections, the true result is that Elohistic 
 parts agree twice as often in character with the Jehovistic 
 as they differ, and the theory is disproved and condemned 
 by the data of its own authors. 
 
 Next, the document of this Junior Elohist is made to 
 commence with Abraham's sojourn in Gerar, and the epi- 
 sode with Abimelech. But such a commencement of a 
 separate work or document is wholly incredible. It is 
 here doubly so, because this histor}^ is a sequel of xii. 
 10-20, of the same general character, only modified by the 
 difference in the character of Abimelech — a history where 
 there is more of grace and less of righteousness. But the 
 theory reverses and destroys this delicate relation between 
 two real events in one continuous history. The event, 
 ch. XX., is made to be first recorded, the opening of a 
 separate composition ; and then, a century later, the other 
 account of the descent into Egypt proceeds from a wholly 
 different hand. 
 
 Again, the last verse of this chapter, because of the 
 Divine name, is severed from the rest, and assigned to the 
 Jehovist. But its inseparable connexion with the verse 
 
and its Anatomists. 141 
 
 before it is perfectly clear. "Without this key, the other 
 verse would be an unsolved enigma, instead of forming the 
 climax to the moral of the whole narrative. No writer, 
 not drunk with the spirit of hypothesis, would dream of 
 giving them to two writers a century apart from each 
 other. The confused patchwork into which ch. xxi. is re- 
 solved b}^ the theory has been already shown. But indeed, 
 amidst its extreme simplicity, the narrative here baffles 
 all the attempts of the most subtle anatomists to tear the 
 parts asunder. Thus xxi. 1-3, referred to the Junior 
 Elohist, alludes plainly to xvii. 19, 21, referred to the Elo- 
 hist ; and as plainly to x\dii. 14, referred to the Jehovist. 
 Again, vv. 6, 7, referred to the second writer, refer directly 
 to xviii. 13, 15, ascribed to the third, a hundred years later. 
 Also V. 10, still referred to the Junior Elohist, is the direct 
 continuation of vv. 8, 9, referred to a fourth writer, some 
 centuries later, and becomes unmeaning when separated 
 from them ; while v. 17, referred piecemeal to the second 
 and fourth writers conjointly, is the echo and varied re- 
 petition of xvi. 7, 8, 13, referred to the third writer, the 
 Jehovist, distinct from both. Again, v. 21, still referred 
 to the Junior Elohist, links itself with xvi. 1, of the Jeho- 
 vist, which mentions the country of Hagar. The words, 
 also, of xxi. 33, 34, by the principles of the theory, assign 
 themselves to the Jehovist ; and they are so linked with 
 the rest of the chapter, as its consummation, as wholly to 
 destroy the argument for diversity of authors from the 
 various use of the Divine names. 
 
 Again, in ch. xxii., vv. 1-13 are ascribed to the second 
 writer vv. 14-18 to the third, v. 19 to the second, and 
 vv. 20-24 to the third once more : the next chapter being 
 
142 The Pentateuch 
 
 given to the Eloliist, or first writer. A separation more 
 forced and unnatural could hardly be devised. It is self- 
 evident that vv. 14-18 are the direct sequel of the previous 
 account of the sacrifice, on which its moral significance 
 entirely depends. To call them ^ evidently a Jehovistic 
 appendage, loosely added to the preceding account,' proves 
 the blindness and critical fatuity which may accompany 
 claims to superior wisdom and learning. 
 
 76. To the Redactor are ascribed two passages, xix. 
 30-38, xxi. 8, 9, one clause in xxi. 17, and the last words 
 of xxiv. 67. What the pretences may be for this whim- 
 sical selection it is hard to divine. There is no use of 
 either sacred name in the first passage ; and its simply 
 genealogical character woidd seem to fix it at once to the 
 same writer with the other genealogies, most of which are 
 referred to the Elohist. This passage, also, links itself 
 by a plain moral unity with the rest of the chapter, of 
 which it forms the close, and with the earlier mention of 
 Lot, chh. xi. xii. xiv. ; who now disappears from the his- 
 tory, after his relation to the Moabites and Ammonites has 
 been shown, just as Ishmael disappears after the mention 
 of his twelve sons, xxv. 13-18 ; and Esau, after the genea- 
 logy of the Edomites, ch. xxxvi. The perfect \m\tj of 
 plan in these three cases is alone fatal to the sceptical 
 theory, which parts these closing passages among four 
 difierent authors. * 
 
 The ascription of xxi. 8, 9, to the Redactor is still 
 more strange. For v. 9 is plainly the beginning of a new 
 paragraph, and the key to the ten verses that follow. 
 Nothing can be clearer than that these verses are an in- 
 tegral part of the narrative in which they stand. In like 
 
and its Anatomists. 143 
 
 manner, one clause of xxiv. 67 is ascribed to him, plainly 
 to destroy the mark of unity thus supplied between the 
 two successive chapters, xxiii. and xxiv., and for no other 
 conceivable reason whatever. 
 
 77. In reviewing this portion of the history, it is 
 plain that the sceptical theory divides a connected and 
 continuous narrative into fort}^ portions, ascribed to four 
 writers, who range from the time of Saul to that of 
 Manasseh, in equal contempt of all external and of all 
 internal evidence. Thus, in this fundamental portion 
 of the history, the Elohist has only fifty-seven verses 
 ascribed to him out of 360, or less than a sixth of the 
 whole. Seven of these are picked out of chh. xii.-xvi., a 
 portion clearly Jehovistic, where the sacred name occurs 
 thirty times in succession, and Elohim not once. Ch. 
 xvii. is ascribed to him, because Elohim occurs in it 
 seven times, though the sacred name appears in its first 
 verse ; and this, by the test, would assign it to the Jehovist, 
 like those which precede and follow. Ch. xx., which 
 exactly resembles ch. xvii., since Elohim. occurs six times, 
 but Jehovah once at the close, is not referred to the Elo- 
 hist, but to another wholly different writer. So also 
 ch. xxi., which is wholly Elohistic, except in the first and 
 two last verses, is transferred almost entirely to this third 
 source, with the exception of two verses of chronological 
 detail. Last of all, a chapter which supplies no test from 
 the presence of either name is ascribed to the Elohist ; 
 though it is preceded and followed by Jehovistic passages, 
 wdth which it has the closest connexion, both in point of 
 time and in moral unity. The sacred narrative is rent 
 into tatters, into verses, and fractions oi a verse ; but 
 
144 The Pentateuch 
 
 every attempt to give the recomposed documents some air 
 of completeness only involves the scheme in deeper and 
 more hopeless contradictions. The more thoroughly the 
 hypothesis is examined by the ordinary rules of evidence, 
 the more difficult will it be to explain how it could ever 
 have arisen ; imless from a judicial visitation, which turns 
 wise men backward, and makes their knowledge fooKsh, 
 when they dare, with unholy hands, to tear in pieces and 
 mangle the oracles of the living God. 
 
and its Anatomists, 145 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF ISAAC AND JACOB. 
 
 78. The twelve chapters, Gen. xxv.-xxxvi., including the 
 genealogy of Esau, form plainly a continuous and con- 
 nected history, reaching from the marriage of Isaac to his 
 death, an interval of 140 years. Nine chapters are occu- 
 pied with the life of Jacob, from the time when he obtained 
 the blessing by subtilty until his return to Isaac at 
 Hebron. It includes, in regular order, his flight from 
 Esau, and journey to Haran, the vision and promise he 
 received at Bethel, his stay with Laban, and the birth of 
 his eleven sons, his six years of longer service, his abrupt 
 return, his encounter with Esau and their reconciliation, 
 the sin of Dinah and destruction of the Shechemites, the 
 return to Bethel, the birth of Benjamin, the return to 
 Isaac at Hebron, and his death. The history is strictly 
 continuous, and does not seem to contain one single de- 
 parture from the true order of time. 
 
 This portion of the narrative, by the sceptical theory, 
 is split up into 120 fragments, which are then assigned to 
 the four difierent authors whom it professes to have 
 discovered. Let us examine this wonderful mosaic, re- 
 viewing each chapter in succession. 
 
 L 
 
146 The Pentateuch 
 
 79. Ch. XXV. 
 
 Here Eloliim occurs once only, v. 11, and Jehovali four 
 times, vv. 21-23. Hence, if the whole is viewed as 
 closely united, it must be referred to the Jehovist ; but if 
 separated, vv. 1-18 may be supposed to belong to the 
 Elohist ; and all the rest, which is plainly one history, to 
 the Jehovist. The scheme, however, breaks it up into eleven 
 fragments, of which four are given to the Elohist, five to 
 the Jehovist, six verses to the Redactor, and one clause to 
 the Junior Elohist ! 
 
 i. First, vv. 1-6 are given to the Jehovist. This is so 
 far natural, that it assigns them to the same author with 
 the last chapter. The passage is plainly a direct sequel of 
 the previous history. In v. 5 there is a distinct allusion 
 to xxiv. 36. The genealogy of these sons of Abraham by 
 Keturah resembles those in x. 21-31, xix. 37, 38, and xxii. 
 20-24, all collateral lines to the sacred family, through 
 Shem and Eber, Terah and Abraham, so as to imply 
 strongly one common author. 
 
 ii. Yv. 7-1 la. These verses are ascribed to the Elo- 
 hist, but the last clause of v. 11 to the Junior Elohist. 
 This supposed interpolation of a solitary clause from a 
 distinct author is doubly unnatural in those who repel a 
 similar solution, almost with contempt, when used to set 
 aside a few supposed anachronisms. In this case we read 
 the decision, — ' No interpolation hypothesis can be re- 
 garded otherwise than as a tacit admission of the insuper- 
 able difficulty that exists in the assumption of Mosaic 
 authorship, and therefore we reject all such expedients.' 
 But though four interpolations in the whole book are held 
 intolerable, when used to remove an argument against the 
 
and its Anatomists. 147 
 
 genuineness of tlie Pentateucli, four in one chapter alone 
 are here adopted, without scruple, as a normal and usual 
 feature of the composite theory, (lib, 17, 20, 26b.) 
 
 The transfer of these verses to a different author from 
 those before them can have no ground in the sacred names. 
 For no such name occurs in vv. 1-6, and Elohim once 
 only in v. 11. Hence all might be assigned to the Elo- 
 hist, or to the Jehovist, without any violence to the main 
 theory. But these verses are plainly the continuation of 
 those before. It is ridiculous to suppose that any writer 
 would pass from the last acts of Abraham to the genealogy 
 of Ishmael, and the genealogy and history of Isaac, without 
 any allusion to the patriarch's death. Still further, the 
 words, ' while he yet lived,' in v. 6, are plainly the direct 
 preparation for the two verses that follow, with their brief 
 account of Abraham's death. Again, the mention of his 
 age, 175 years, continues the series of notices xii. 4, xvi. 
 3, 16, xvii. 1, 17, 24, xxi. 5, xxiii. 1, of which the four 
 first are Jehovistic, the three next Elohistic, and the last 
 neutral, so far as the names are a test, but which form 
 together one clear sign of the common authorship of all 
 the chapters where they occur.' The mention of Isaac and 
 Ishmael refers to ch. xvi. 11, 15, xvii. 18, 19, xxi. 3, and 
 that of the cave of Machpelah to ch. xxiii., while the men- 
 tion of Beer-lahai-roi, v. 11, refers plainly to x\'i. 7-14, a 
 Jehovistic passage. On this ground, no doubt, the extra- 
 ordinary expedient is used of making this one clause an 
 interpolation of the Junior Elohist. But the pains are 
 wasted, since this junior, like the senior, could not refer 
 to the words of the Jehovist, who is placed a century later 
 than himself. It is plain that vv. 1-11 must be from one 
 
148 The Pentateuch 
 
 and tlie same author, and the same who wrote the previous 
 chapter. Thus the whole is reclaimed to the Jehovist, that 
 is, to Moses, as far as v. 16. 
 
 iii. Y. 17 is given to the Elohist, while those before 
 and after are assigned to the Jehovist ; and again v. 20 in 
 the same arbitrary way. But the context forbids the 
 separation in either case. Thus, in xi. 27-31, we have the 
 genealogy of the sons of Terah, followed, v. 32, by Terah's 
 age and death. In xxv. 1-6, we have the sons of Abraham 
 by Keturah, followed, vv. 7, 8, by his age and death. In 
 xxv. 12-16 the genealogy of the sons of Ishmael, followed, 
 v. 17, by Ishmael's age and death. In xxxv. 22-27 the 
 genealogj^ of the grandsons of Isaac, followed, w. 28, 29, 
 by Isaac's age and death. In l. 22, 23, we have Joseph's 
 children, followed, v. 26, by Joseph's age and death. This 
 uniform plan, in five cases, proves the unity of each passage, 
 and also indicates the plan of one common author. None 
 of these passages has any test of its origin in the use of 
 the sacred names. Yet the scheme refers the first to the 
 Elohist, the second and third to the Jehovist, the fourth 
 to the Junior Elohist, the last to the Redactor and Jehovist 
 in partnership together, in utter defiance of reason and 
 common sense. Here it is self-evident that v. 17 is the 
 direct sequel of the verses before it, and that v. 18 is 
 the geographical topstone of the whole passage. 
 
 iv. Yv. 20 and 26b are taken from their context, and 
 assigned to the Elohist. The theory is driven to this des- 
 perate expedient, in order to have some link of connexion 
 between the genealogy of ch. xi. and the life of Jacob, 
 since in this interval hardl}^ an Elohistic passage is to be 
 found. But the separation in each case is plainly absurd. 
 
and its Anatomists. 149 
 
 The text would then read, ' And these are the generations 
 of Isaac, Abraham's son : Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac 
 intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren/ 
 The omission of the marriao^e and ao^e at marriao^e in the 
 intermediate verse makes the simple narrative, so clear and 
 complete as it stands, almost ridiculous. Again, the frag- 
 ments reserved for the Elohist have even a stranger 
 appearance. ' And these are the years of the life of Ish- 
 mael, 137 years ; and he gave up the ghost, and died, and 
 was gathered unto his people. And Isaac was forty years 
 old when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel 
 the Syrian, of Padan-aram, the sister to Laban the Syrian. 
 And Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them ! ' 
 By this triumph of modern criticism, the father and 
 brother of Rebekah are identified with her twin children, 
 whose names are not given. On the other hand, the 
 clause 26b is essential to the paragraph before it, since 
 it shows that there had been twenty years of delay and 
 barrenness between Isaac's marriage and the birth of his 
 sons. 
 
 V. Yv. 29-34 are assigned to the Redactor, on what 
 pretext it is hard to say. In xxvii. 36, which the scheme 
 itself refers to the Jehovist, there is a direct allusion to 
 this whole paragraph. It could not, then, have been from 
 a later, though it might be from an earlier writer, if there 
 were really more than one. But since the whole chapter 
 before it has now been shown to have one and the same 
 source, links itself by its opening with the Jehovistic chap- 
 ter that precedes, and here, at the close, with ch. xxvii., 
 admitted to be also Jehovistic, the unity of all the three 
 chapters is directly proved by internal evidence. 
 
150 The Pentateuch 
 
 81. Cli. xxvi. 
 
 This cliapter is a brief record of Isaac's peaceful 
 life. Tried by the test of the names, it is Jeliovistic 
 from first to last. The sacred name is found in it seven 
 times, from y. 2 to v. 29 ; and Elohim, as a simple 
 name, never. The scheme of Davidson and Hupfeldt, 
 however, as if Chaos sat umpire, does not here allow the 
 Jehovist a single verse, but shares all among the Elohist, 
 Junior Elohist, and Redactor. To the Redactor, as coming 
 latest, is assigned, of course, the earliest and most fmi- 
 damental j)ortion, or vv. 1-5, 7-12, with 18, 19, 23, 24. 
 To the Junior Elohist are given nine verses in the middle, 
 but in five morsels, vv. 6, 13, 14a, 16, 17, 19-22, 25a. To 
 the Elohist, as first in time, is allotted the conclusion and 
 sequel, vv. 26-33a, where the sacred name appears twice, 
 and Elohim never. If the aim of these critics had been to 
 show how many inconsistencies could be heaped up in one 
 hypothesis, their success could hardly have been more 
 complete. 
 
 i. The first paragraph, vv. 1-5, is ascribed to the 
 Redactor. Yet it is plainly the basis on which the whole 
 sequel depends. It contains the sacred name, Jehovah, 
 and records a vision ; and, by the maxims of the theorists 
 themselves, should be referred to the Jehovist, and thus 
 continue the previous narrative from the same hand. It 
 also refers directly to xii. 10, a Jehovistic passage ; and, 
 again, to xx. 1, 2. In vv. 3, 4, it refers once more to the 
 oath, xxii. 15-18, also a Jehovistic passage ; and in v. 5 
 to xviii. 18, 19, another of the same kind. 
 
 ii. In vv. 6-16 we have one connected paragraph of 
 Isilac's abode in Gcrar. The scheme refers vv. 6, 13, 14a, 
 
and its Anatomists. 151 
 
 16, to the Junior Elohist, and the rest to the E-edactor, 
 breaking the whole into five portions. But the division is 
 senseless and absurd. For v. 7, 'the men of the place/ 
 refers directly to the verse before it, ' And Isaac dwelt in 
 Gerar/ and again, v. 13, 'the man waxed great,' refers 
 equally to the words, ' He received a hundred-fold, and 
 the Lord blessed him.' In like manner the words, 'the 
 Philistines envied him,' assigned to the Redactor, refer to 
 the statement, ' For he had possession of flocks, and pos- 
 session of herds, and great store of servants ;' which some 
 author, according to the scheme, wrote in the -days of 
 Elisha, while the envy of the Philistines was added by 
 another in the time of Manasseh. The whole passage is 
 plainly from the same author as vv. 1-5, of which it is the 
 direct consequence. Isaac obeyed the instruction; and, 
 instead of copying Abraham's example in the first famine, 
 remained in Gerar. It is from the same author as xii. 
 10-20, to which it alludes. Isaac fell under the same 
 temptation as his father had done. It has the same author, 
 again, as xiii. 2, 6, to which it has a close resemblance. 
 
 iii. Yv. 17-25. These nine verses, again, have been 
 parted into six fragments, alternately ascribed to the Red- 
 actor and Junior Elohist. By the test they plainly 
 belong to the Jehovist, since the sacred name is found in 
 them three times, and no other. Their unity is plain. 
 Twice Isaac digs a well, and abandons it because the 
 herdmen of Gerar strive for it. A third time he digs 
 a well, and they cease to strive, and his patience and 
 meekness are rewarded by a vision and a blessing. 
 But while the narrative is one whole, and Jehovistic, it 
 refers plainly to xxi. 25, an Elohistic context; and in 
 
152 The Pentateuch 
 
 vv. 23, 24, to xxi. 33, 34, the close of the same chapter 
 where Abraham calls on the name of Jehovah, the ever- 
 lasting God. 
 
 iv. Yv. 26-35. These verses, except one clause, the 
 scheme paradoxically ascribes to the Elohist, though the 
 sacred name occurs twice, and Elohim not at all. Its unity 
 with the previous context is fixed by vv. 25, 32, 33, while 
 the allusion to the previous league of Abraham, almost a 
 century earlier, xxi. 22-34, is equally plain. The mercies 
 to the father were, in substance, repeated to the son. But, 
 beside the long interval, the contrasts are as striking as 
 the general resemblance. Isaac had been thrust away in 
 envy ; but in Abraham's case, Abimelech's plea for favour 
 was the kindness he had shown, and the fault of his 
 servants is remedied as soon as known. This whole 
 chapter, then, belongs to the same writer as chh. xxiv., 
 xxvii., and also xxv., or to the writer of all the main 
 portion of Abraham's and Isaac's history. 
 
 80. Ch. xxviii. 
 
 The previous chapter is assigned to the Jehovist in 
 the scheme itself, an admission of their unity with the 
 previous narrative, excepting the last verse, which is sup- 
 posed to be from the Redactor. But here vv. 1-9 are 
 given to the Elohist, 10-12 to the Junior Elohist, 13-16 
 to the Redactor, and 17-22 to the Junior Elohist again. 
 This fourfold division is less complicated and unnatural 
 than the utter dissolution in chh. xxi., xxv., and xxvi., 
 but is still groundless and untenable. 
 
 And first, V. 46 is plainly the link of connexion be- 
 tween the fears of Rebekah, with her advice to Jacob, 
 vv. 42-45, and Isaac's charge, which follows on her com- 
 
and its Anatomists. 153 
 
 plaint, xxviii. 1. The union is so close as to show that all 
 have the same author. But the scheme assigns the first to 
 the Jehovist, the second to the Redactor, and the third to 
 the Elohist, writers five centuries apart from each other. 
 
 IN^ext, the charge of Isaac refers plainly to the mission 
 of Abraham's servant, in answer to which E-ebekah came 
 from Padan-aram to Palestine. There alone we have the 
 previous mention of Laban. The blessing, v. 3, also refers 
 more immediately to the oath, xxii. 15-18 ; and a whole 
 series of Jehovistic promises, chh. xii.-xviii. Again, the 
 statement concerning Esau, vv. 6-9, refers plainly to 
 xxvi. 34, 35, and also to xxv. 13 ; the latter Jehovistic in 
 the scheme, and the other proved by its connexion to be- 
 long to xxvi. 26-33, a Jehovistic section. Hence the 
 whole passage, xxviii. 1-9, is falsely ascribed to a difierent 
 author from the four previous chapters. 
 
 In xxviii. 10-22 we have a connected account of 
 Jacob's journey, of his vision at Bethel, and the vow that 
 followed. The scheme refers the greater part to the Junior 
 Elohist ; but vv. 13-16 to the Redactor, two centuries 
 later. It is wearisome to deal with these violent disloca- 
 tions and manglings of plain history. Here v. 13 is the 
 natural sequel of v. 12, and depends directly upon it. 
 Again, vv. 16, 17, are closely connected, so that the second 
 implies the first. The mention of the waking is the 
 natural sequel of the dream, v. 12 ; and the fear was his 
 waking meditation, when the dream and vision were gone 
 by. The whole passage is plainly one consistent narrative ; 
 and Jehovistic, since the sacred name occurs four times 
 in these thirteen verses, and Elohim, as a simple name, 
 once only. The promise also, v. 14, is a repetition of 
 
154 The Pentateuch 
 
 that to Abraham, xiii. 14-16 ; and again, xxii. 18, both 
 Jehovistic sections. The mention of Haran links itself 
 with xii. 4, 5, where it is last mentioned; while the 
 naming of Bethel prepares the way for a whole chapter 
 (xxxv.), Elohistic throughout, of the later history. It 
 thus appears that the Elohist and Jehovist are the same 
 person, the Elohist referring to Jehovistic sections which 
 haA^e gone before. 
 
 82. Chh. xxix. xxx. 
 
 No sacred name occurs in \y. 1-30 of the next chap- 
 ter, but the name Jehovah four times in the five last 
 verses. The theory ascribes the whole to the Jehovist. 
 On its own hj^pothesis this decision is capricious, but 
 is so far correct, that the writer is taken to be the 
 same as in chh. xxiv., xxv. 19-28, xxvii. ; and who 
 has been shown, by internal evidence, to be also the 
 writer of chh. xxv. 29-34, xxvi., and xxviii. But the 
 history is a direct continuation of xxviii. 16-22, and not 
 of xxvii. 41-45, the last Jehovistic section in the scheme ; 
 and the whole narrative, with its vivid and minute deline- 
 ation, is absurdly ascribed to an author in the time of 
 IJzziah, eight or nine hundred years after the interview 
 occurred. 
 
 Again, ch. xxx. is ascribed to the Jehovist, except 
 w. 14-16 and 40b, which are separated from the rest, 
 and given to the Redactor. But those verses are necessary 
 to explain the transition from v. 13 to v. 17, since they 
 show that Leah still felt herself comparatively slighted 
 and forsaken. The whole chapter, then, is justly ascribed 
 to the same author with the last. But the theory, in 
 making this admission, destroys the principle on which it 
 
and its Anatomists. 155 
 
 affects to rest. For in xxx. 1-23, Elohim occurs eight 
 times, and Jehovah not once ; so that by the rule it should 
 be referred to the Elohist, not the Jehovist. Yet it is 
 plainly unnatural to ascribe the record of the birth of four 
 older patriarchs to one writer, and that of seven j^ounger 
 ones to another, who lived three centuries earlier. 
 
 83. Ch. xxxi. 
 
 In this chapter the sacred name occurs twice, near 
 the beginning and the close; but Elohim seven times 
 as a simple name, and eight times in a compound 
 title. On the sceptical hypothesis, the whole has thus 
 a strong claim to be given to the Elohist. Its treat- 
 ment, however, is a marvel of critical sagacity. It is 
 divided into somewhere about thirty- six portions, eleven 
 verses, out of fifty-five, being shared between two writers. 
 The Elohist, who might seem to claim the whole except 
 two verses, has only v. 18 ; the Junior Elohist, vv. 2, 4-9, 
 11a, 13-17a, 19a, 20, 23b, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31a, 38-41ac, 
 42, 46, 47, 51, 52, 53b, 54a, or fifteen fragments; the 
 Jehovist, V. 1, 3, 17b, 19b, 21-23a, 25, 26a, 27, 30, 31a, 
 50b, 53a, 54c, or eleven fragments; and the Eedactor, 
 w. 10, lib, 12, 18, 23c, 41b, 48b-50a, 51b, 52b, or nine 
 fragments. In the analysis of this chapter, learned pe- 
 dantry has certainly achieved a signal triumph over 
 common sense, as well as religious reverence for the word 
 of God. Any hypothesis which parts this simple, clear, 
 and connected narrative, so true to life in every parti- 
 cular, into forty morsels, by three different authors three 
 centuries apart, curiously inwrought together like a tes- 
 selated pavement, may be left to sink under the weight of 
 its own folly. 
 
156 The Pentateuch 
 
 If, however, tlie sceptical theorists fall back on the 
 simpler view, that this chapter, except w. 3, 49, is from 
 the Elohist, the name Jehovah being there a later inter- 
 polation, reasons start up on every side to refute the hypo- 
 thesis of separation, even in this less monstrous form. For 
 the whole depends plainly on the j)revious narrative of 
 Jacob's twent}^ 3^ears with Laban, and cannot be understood 
 without it. But this narrative, both by the use of the 
 names and the confession of the theorists, is Jehovistic. 
 Thus V. 5 refers to xxx. 27 ; v. 7 to v. 33 ; v. 13 to 
 xxviii. 16-20 ; 13b to xxviii. 15 ; v. 14 to xxix. 25-30 ; 
 V. 15 to xxix. 27 ; v. 18 to xxviii. 2, 5 ; v. 20 to xxv. 20 ; 
 V. 24 to XX. 3 ; v. 38 to xxix. 20, 27, and xxxi. 7 ; and 
 V. 53 to xi. 29 ; xxii. 20, 21 ; xxiv. 10 ; xxix. 5. The 
 narrative is not only connected throughout, but linked 
 with the whole course of the previous history. 
 
 84. Ch. xxxii. 
 
 The narrative, from v. 9 of this chapter, becomes 
 purely Elohistic to the end of the book, except in 
 chh. xxxviii. and xxxix., and the ejaculation of Jacob, 
 xlix. 18. This prayer in his distress, and that death- 
 bed confession, are like two mountain-tops of faith and 
 hope, with a long valley of mystery and sorrow be- 
 tween them. Here, however, where we should expect 
 nearly the whole to be assigned to the Elohist, he almost 
 disappears from the scheme. Out of more than 600 verses 
 only thirt}^ are ascribed to him, or less than one-twentieth 
 of the whole. In this chapter, especially, he is not 
 allowed to own a single verse. The Junior Elohist has 
 vv. 1, 2, 22c, 24b-31a; the Jeh ovist, vv. 3-21, 22b, 23b; 
 and the Ptcdactor, 22a, 23a, and 31a, 32. The two first 
 
and its Anatomists, 157 
 
 verses, strangely severed from their context, are proved 
 by tlie geography to be an integral part of the narrative, 
 for Mahanaim lies between Mizpeh and Penuel. The 
 separation, again, of w. 22-24 into seven fragments is 
 plainly absurd. Here the higher criticism surpasses itself, 
 and gives this result. ' And he rose up that night/ age of 
 Saul, 'and took his two wives, and his two women-ser- 
 vants, and his eleven sons,' age of Uzziah, ' and passed 
 over the ford Jabbok,' age of ElisJia. 'And he took them,' 
 age of Manasseh, ' and sent them over the brook ; and sent 
 over that he had,' age of Uzziah. 'And Jacob was left 
 alone,' age of Manasseh ; 'and there wrestled a man with 
 him until the breaking of the day,' age of Elisha. Further 
 comment is needless on such a scheme. The whole chap- 
 ter, except in v. 9, is Elohistic, like the sequel, but plainly 
 belongs to and continues the previous Jehovistic narrative, 
 thus establishing the unity of the whole history of the 
 three patriarchs. 
 
 85. Chh. xxxiii., xxxiv. 
 
 The first of these chapters is Elohistic in the names, 
 and in the second neither name appears. The scheme, 
 however, constant in its inconstancy, gives xxxiii. 1-16 
 to the Jehovist, and also the main part of ch. xxxiv. But 
 xxxiii. 17, 18b, 19, xxxiv. 2b, 5, 7, 13b, 19, 26, 27, 31, 
 are assigned to the Redactor, and no part to either Elo- 
 hist, though here the purely Elohistic division of Genesis 
 begins. It is quite true that the writer here, as else- 
 where, is the Jehovist ; that is, one who freely uses the 
 sacred name wherever occasion requires. But it is no less 
 true that the separation of the verses thus ascribed to the 
 Redactor is without a shadow of internal around. 
 
158 The Pentateuch 
 
 And first, Y. 17 is a direct sequel of xxxi. 47, 49, 
 xxxii. 2, 30, 31, the previous stations of Jacob at Mizpeli, 
 Malianaim, and Penuel. These are ascribed, in the scheme, 
 to the Junior Elohist, to whom, in consistency, this v. 17 
 should also be given, and not to a fourth and much later 
 writer. But the existence of this Junior Elohist has been 
 already disproved. The passage xxxi. 47-49 is Jehovistic 
 on the face of it. The mention of Mahanaim, also, and 
 Penuel, is linked inseparably with Jacob's earnest prayer 
 to Jehovah, who had ordained his journey, xxxii. 9, on 
 which the emphasis of the later vision depends. The 
 excision of v. 19, and of the previous words, ' which is in 
 the land of Canaan,' is equally gratuitous ; while the last 
 verse, Avith its motto, ' God the Elohim of Israel,' is strangely 
 left to the Jehovist undisturbed. The next chapter is 
 divided into sixteen fragments, between the Jeho\dst and 
 the Redactor, in the same capricious way. As a climax in 
 this process of critical dissection, the complaint of Jacob, 
 V. 30, is put into the lips of one writer, and the reply of 
 his sons, v. 31, is given to another, a century or two 
 centuries later in time, and more than a thousand j^ears 
 after the occurrence ! 
 
 86. Chh. xxxv.-L. 
 
 In ch. XXXV. only the name Elohim occurs, and in 
 eh. xxxvi. both are absent. In ch. xxxix. the sacred 
 name occurs seven times. The other thirteen are the 
 main Elohistic portion of the book, since the name Elo- 
 him occurs in them forty times, and the sacred name 
 twice only. The higher criticism perseveres in its learned 
 toil. It parts ch. xxxv. into fourteen, and ch. xxxvi. 
 into twelve or tliirtcen portions, and ch. xxxvii., the first 
 
and its Anatomists. 159 
 
 of Joseph's history, alone into thirty fragments, and those 
 which follow into twenty or thirty more. Also one-sixth 
 is given to the Elohist, and two-thirds to the Jehovist, in 
 this the most Elohistic portion of the whole book. 
 
 When the hypothesis fails so miserably in dealing 
 with the most important features of the problem it j^re- 
 tends to solve, it seems lost labour to disprove, in detail, 
 the seventy or eighty changes of writers which it intro- 
 duces in these sixteen remaining chapters. The mere 
 statement, already given, of the manner in which it is 
 attempted to dissect ch. xxxvii. into thirty different frag- 
 ments, is alone, to simple minds, a full refutation of the 
 whole theory. It seems more natural to pass on at once 
 to the positive objections to a Mosaic origin, which these 
 chapters and the other books of the Pentateuch are 
 alleged to supply. These consist of anachronisms, which 
 would prove the author to be later than Moses ; contra- 
 dictions or duplicate histories, which would infer the 
 union of two imperfect and inconsistent accounts ; and 
 diversities or contrasts of style. Of the first class, from 
 twenty to thirty have been advanced in recent works, 
 and examined in the replies of Hengstenberg, Keil, 
 Kurtz, and Havernich; but they deserve and will repay 
 a fresh examination. 
 
160 The Pentateuch 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 ON ALLEGED ANACHRONISMS IN GENESIS. 
 
 87. The Canaanites. 
 
 Gen. xii. 6. 'And the Canaanite was then in the land.' 
 xiii. 7. ' And the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in 
 the land.' 
 
 From these words it has been argued that the writer 
 must have lived after the expulsion of the Canaanites by 
 Joshua ; the sense being, that they were still in the land, 
 and not yet expelled. Dr. Davidson remarks : — 
 
 ' An ordinary reader must feel that they are a superfluous 
 addition, if not later than Moses. The writer means the parti- 
 cular tribe or race of the Canaanites. This is given as a reason 
 for Abraham's finding them in the locality where he first settled, 
 a part remote from the sea. In Moses' time the tribe in question 
 dwelt near the sea, and at the Jordan, away from Abraham's 
 first place of residence. The remark, then, could have had no 
 propriety if it came from Moses.' 
 
 The objection rests on the view, that there is an im- 
 plied contrast with the occupation of the land by Israel 
 in the time of the writer. But this notion is plainly un- 
 true, and even absurd. What Jewish writer, under David 
 or Solomon, could think it needful to remind his readers 
 
and its Anatomists. 161 
 
 tliat Abraham was earlier than Josliua, and that the 
 Canaanites had not been extirpated in his days. The 
 idea of guarding against such a mistake is preposterous. 
 Neither the previous narrative, nor current tradition, 
 could leave room for a suspicion that Joshua had driven 
 them out before Abraham entered the land. 
 
 The true sense is plain from the context. In ch. x. we 
 have been told that in the days of Peleg ' the earth was 
 divided.' In ch. xi. only fourteen verses separate the 
 mention of Peleg from the call of Abram ; and in these no 
 allusion is made to the migration of the sons of Canaan, 
 or their occupation of Palestine. Hence, looking to the 
 previous record alone, in its rapid transition from the 
 days of Noah to those of Abraham, it might well seem 
 open to doubt whether the Canaanites were already there 
 when Abram arrived. The main purpose is clearly, as 
 Hengstenberg has said, to record the fact that ' Abraham, 
 the bearer of so great a promise, came as a stranger and a 
 pilgrim, and had not a foot of land he could call his own.' 
 But still some contrast with a possible misconception must 
 as plainly be here intended. And that misconception, as 
 evidently, is not the preposterous idea that the Israelites 
 had expelled the Canaanites at the time of the Call, a 
 century before Israel was born ; but the conjecture that 
 this Call, named only a few verses after the confusion of 
 tongues, might have been even earlier than the Canaanitish 
 occupation of the land. The word then is the only proper 
 translation of the Hebrew word ; but then, even already, 
 is not less clearly the implied meaning, or correct 
 paraphrase. 
 
 Dr. Davidson, however, in the above extract, suj)poses 
 
 M 
 
162 The Pentateuch 
 
 a contrast witli the later position of the Canaanites near 
 the sea-coast. This proves, he says, that the remark could 
 not be from Moses, — a strange instance of confusion of 
 thought. For the effect of this construction would evi- 
 dently be just the reverse, to destroy the whole objection, 
 and to prove that the words might be those of Moses 
 himself ; since the Canaanites were by the sea- coast in his 
 days, at the mission of the spies in the second year of the 
 Exodus, Num. xiii. 29. If the words referred, then, to their 
 removal from Sichem, in the centre, to the sea, no one 
 could be so Kkely as Moses to have noticed the change. 
 In his zeal to confirm the objection, the writer destroys it. 
 But there is no reason to think, that ' in the land ' means 
 only * in the central part of it,' or that ' the Canaanites * is 
 here a specific, and not rather a generic term. The repe- 
 tition, in xiii. 7, has a double purpose. It gives more 
 emphasis to the contrast between Abram's pilgrim state, 
 though rich, and an actual inheritance ; and the mention 
 of the Perizzites, the more pastoral inhabitants of the un- 
 walled villages, Ezek. xxxviii. 11, explains how it came to 
 pass that the flocks of the two patriarchs were straitened 
 through want of sufficient pasture. 
 
 88. Hebron, or Kirjath-arba. 
 
 Gen. xiii. 18. * In the plains of Mamre, which are in Hebron.' 
 xxiii. 2. * And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba : the same is Hebron 
 in the land of Canaan.' xxv. 11. 'In the field of Ephron the 
 Hittite, which is before Mamre.' 
 
 xxxv. 27. * Unto Mamre, unto the city of Arba, which is 
 Hebron.' xlix. 30, l. 13. ' Before Mamre in the land of Canaan.' 
 
 Num. xiii. 22. ' And they came unto Hebron .... Now 
 Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.' 
 
and its Anatomists, 163 
 
 Josh. xiv. 15. ' And the name of Hebron before was Kir- 
 jath-arba ; a great man among the Anakims.' 
 
 Here it is argued from the text in Joshua, that 
 Hebron first received tliat name in the time of Joshua and 
 Caleb, and indeed from Caleb's son ; so that tlie name 
 could not appear in a genuine work of Moses. The reply 
 of Hengstenberg is that Hebron was the earlier name ; 
 that Kirjath-arba was of later origin, from one of the 
 Anakims, between the death, of Abraham and the time 
 of Joshua; and that the earlier name was then revived 
 and retained. To this it is retorted that the words in 
 Joshua are absolute, and do not naturally admit of this 
 meaning. 
 
 Now the first inquiry must be, — Does the text in 
 Joshua mean that Kirjath-arba was the only name by 
 which the city had been known before the Conquest? 
 This is certainly not its sense, for two weighty reasons. 
 First, besides Hebron, the city is twice called Mamre in 
 the Book of Genesis. And this name is plainly derived 
 from the Hittite, who, with his brothers Aner and Eshcol, 
 was in league with Abraham, and took part in the vic- 
 tory over the four kings. Again, Arba was a chief man 
 among the Anakims, and we have no hint of the presence 
 of these Anakims in the days of Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob. Hence the words in Joshua must plainly mean 
 that Kirjath-arba was the name current among the 
 Canaanites, when Caleb wrested the city from them. 
 Thus Mamre and Kirjath-arba will be two successive 
 names, derived from two chief inhabitants ; the earlier, 
 Mamre the Hittite, brother of Aner and Eshcol ; and the 
 
164 The Pentateuch 
 
 later, Arba, possibly the king of Hebron, who is men- 
 tioned in the list of those dispossessed and overthrown. 
 
 But besides tliese two names, Mamre and Kirjath- 
 arba, or city of Arba, derived from the Canaanite pos- 
 sessors, have we no sign or proof that the name Hebron 
 was in use before the days of Moses ? This may be de- 
 duced, first of all, from the meaning of the name, society, 
 or association. This might have been given by the first 
 Canaanite settlers, but it is more probable that the sacred 
 history itself supplies the key. We read in Gen. xiv. 3. 
 of the five kings, that they were 'joined together (nDH) in 
 the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea.' They were 
 routed and slain, and their people made captive by the 
 four kings. Next we are told that Abram dwelt in the 
 plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and bro- 
 ther of Aner, and these icere confederate with Abram. In 
 common, they pursue the kings, rout them completely, and 
 rescue the captives. It is the sole instance of confederacy 
 or association with the Amorites or Canaanites in the Book 
 of Genesis, and is connected with the most signal and con- 
 spicuous political event in the history of Abraham. What 
 could be more natural than that the city or town where 
 Mamre dwelt, and where the compact (nn3, "v. 13) was 
 made, should be named by Abraham, and perhaps by his 
 companions, plan, association ? The word is rendered 
 coupling together, Exod. xxvi. 3, 6, 9 ; xxxvi. 10, 13, 16 ; 
 league, Dan. xi. 23 ; compact, Ps. cxxii. 3 ; and fellowship, 
 Ps. xciv. 20. The name, if it arose from this league of 
 Abraham with the three Amorites, would remain in use 
 in Abraham's familj^ and be the sacred and abiding 
 name; while they might adoj)t along with it the successive 
 
and its Anatomists, 16 b 
 
 titles given by the Canaanites, when they 'called the lands 
 after their own names.' (Ps. xlix. 11.) This key will 
 explain all the variations in the text. 
 
 89. The first mention of the city is in Gen. xiii. 18, 
 'Abram dwelt in the plains of Mamre, which are in 
 Hebron.' The plains are mentioned by their native title 
 at the time, since Mamre was then alive. But since that 
 title had passed away, it is explained by the permanent 
 name of the city, which had continued unchanged from 
 Abraham to Moses among the Hebrews, while Mamre had 
 been replaced by Kirjath-arba among the Canaanites. 
 And besides, ' the plains of Mamre which are in Mamre,' 
 would have been a tautology. The early but transient 
 name has its meaning fixed by the other, which was more 
 sacred, and also more lasting. 
 
 ii. ' And Sarah died at Kirjath-arba, the same is 
 Hebron, in the land of Canaan.' These words are a direct 
 sign of the Mosaic authorship. A later writer in the age 
 of David or Solomon might have named the place, either 
 simply by its actual name Hebron, or by its name at the 
 time of Sarah's death among the Amorites, that is Mamre. 
 But there seems no reason why he should introduce a 
 name, certainly not in use when Sarah died, and as cer- 
 tainly obsolete in his own age. On the other hand, 
 Kirjath-arba was the actual name of the city among the 
 Canaanites before the death of Moses ; and its introduc- 
 tion, in his case, is quite natural, though in a fictitious 
 Elohist or Jehovist it would be wholly out of place. 
 
 The words, ' in the land of Canaan ' ought clearly to be 
 separated by a slight pause. They are not meant to 
 distinguish Hebron from some other city of that name, 
 
166 The Pentateuch 
 
 not in Canaan, for no mention of sucli occurs in the Bible, 
 but to point out tbat Sarah died and was buried in the 
 land of pilgrimage and promised inheritance. It is thus 
 a weighty and natural addition, answering to xxxvii. 
 1 — ' And Jacob dwelt in the land wherein his father was 
 a stranger, in the land of Canaan.' 
 
 iii. ' Before Mamre, the same is Hebron, in the land of 
 Canaan.' As the former verse identifies Kirjath-arba, 
 the actual Canaanite name when Moses wrote, so this 
 identifies Mamre, the earlier Canaanite name, with Hebron, 
 the sacred Abrahamic name from first to last. The Maso- 
 retic pause, neglected by our translators, is here plainly 
 after Hebron, not after Mamre, and thus confirms the 
 previous remark. In the land of Canaan Sarah died, and 
 in the land of Canaan she was buried. The place is fixed 
 by its earlier and later Amorite name, and by its constant 
 name in the famil}^ of Abraham. 
 
 iv. 'And Jacob came unto Isaac his father, unto 
 Mamre, the city of Arba, which is Hebron, where Abra- 
 ham and Isaac sojourned.' Here we have, in natural order, 
 the native name at the time of the event, the native name 
 when Moses wrote, and the sacred name, permanent in the 
 sacred family, ever since that ]n3n, or league of unity 
 between Abraham and Mamre, Aner, and Eshcol, which 
 was crowned b}^ their victory over the confederate kings. 
 
 V. ' So he sent him out of the vale of Hebron.' This 
 narrative relates entirely to the internal history of Jacob's 
 own family, and hence the Canaanitish name is not intro- 
 duced, but the more sacred title alone. 
 
 vi. xlix. 30, * Which is before Mamre, in the land of 
 Canaan.' l. 13, ' Before Mamre.' 
 
and its Anatomists. 167 
 
 In tlie former passage, where Jacob speaks, Kirjatli- 
 arba, a later name, could not be used, and does not appear. 
 He employs naturally the native name, Mamre, then in 
 use at the time. The historian retains it, therefore, when 
 he relates how the sons of Jacob fulfilled his dying 
 charge. 
 
 vii. JSTum. xiii. 22. ' And they ascended by the south, 
 and came unto Hebron, where were Ahiman, Sheshai, and 
 Talmai, the children of Anak. And Hebron was built 
 seven years before Zoan in Egypt.' The name Mamre 
 was now obsolete, and the old name, Hebron, was alone 
 appropriate, since the mention of the sons of Anak in- 
 volved a virtual allusion to its other name, the city of 
 Arba. The added clause implies the writer's intimate 
 knowledge of its whole history, even from its foundation 
 before the time of Abraham. 
 
 viii. Josh. xiv. 13, 15. Here the sacred name is still 
 used, as most familiar to the Israelites. It is mentioned as 
 the habitual name, and not at all as now first imposed, for 
 there was nothing in Caleb's conquest to give rise to such 
 a name. It is only noted, in passing, how the later 
 Canaanite name had arisen. ' He was the great man 
 among the Anakims ' — their most noted leader, probably 
 only one or two generations at most before the time of the 
 conquest. 
 
 ix. The only counter argument, that Caleb * called it 
 after one of his sons,' (Dav. 'Int.' p. 2.), seems to be 
 nothing else than a critical blunder, founded on 1 Chron. 
 ii. 42. The Caleb there named is the brother of Jerah- 
 meel, or Chelubai, v. 9, the son of Hezron and great- 
 grandson of Judah. The sons of Caleb the son of Je- 
 
168 The Pentateuch 
 
 phunneh are named mucli later, iv. 15, Iru, Elah, and 
 Naam, but not Hebron. The passage ii. 42 is obscure, 
 but seems to imply that Hebron was grandson to tbe 
 earlier Caleb, which would place him in the sixth gene- 
 ration from Judah. But there is also a still earlier 
 Hebron, the grandson of Levi and uncle of Moses, Exod. 
 vi. 18, from whom a family were named in the wilderness, 
 Num. iii. 27. There is thus no ground whatever for the 
 assertion that Caleb the son of Jephunneh had a son, 
 called Hebron, from whom the city derived its name. 
 
 90. Dan. 
 
 The most plausible charge of anachronism is founded 
 on Gen. xiv. 14, when compared with the history of the 
 Danites, and their occupation of Laish or Leshem in Josh. 
 xix. and Judg. xviii. How could the place be called Dan 
 by Moses, if the name were first given to it long after his 
 death ? Hence Prideaux, Keland, Witsius, the older de- 
 fenders of the authenticity of Genesis, have supposed that 
 Laish might have been changed to Dan at some later 
 period. On the other hand, Havernick, Kurtz, and Heng- 
 stenberg, rather maintain that there was a second Dan in 
 the same neighbourhood, distinct from Dan-Laish. On 
 this hypothesis Dr. Davidson remarks : — 
 
 * It would be difficult to convince an impartial reader that 
 any other than the well-known city is intended in the Penta- 
 teuch, or that the hypothesis of two places identical in name, 
 and not far distant, is other than arbitrary. That the name, 
 Dan, stands by prolepsis, or prophetic anticipation, is quite im- 
 probable. Nor is it more likely that Laish originally stood here, 
 and was altered for the new name by a later writer.' 
 
 This objection, unlike most of the others, has some 
 
and its Anatomists. 169 
 
 strong apparent force. Unless clearer reasons can be 
 offered than those of Jahn or Hengstenberg for the exist- 
 ence of two Dans near together, one older than Moses, the 
 difficulty will remain, and will be some presumption, 
 however slight, in favour of an origin of the book during 
 the time of the Judges or the Kings. But the following 
 remarks will give, I think, a full solution of the diffi- 
 culty, and turn it into a new proof of the unity and con- 
 sistency of the sacred narrative. 
 
 i. The name Dan, in the later books, is constantly 
 associated either with Beersheba or Bethel ; in the former 
 case, as a northern limit of the land ; and in the latter, 
 as the place selected for the site of one of the golden 
 calves. Both of these names are derived from signal 
 events in the lives of the first patriarchs. This is some 
 presumption that Dan had received its name in a similar 
 way. In the phrase, * from Dan to Beersheba,' one name 
 alludes to the solemn oath and promise of God to Abra- 
 ham. It seems unlikely that the other shoidd allude 
 only to the marauding expedition and idolatry of the 
 Danite emigrants. 
 
 ii. The most striking event in the whole life of Abra- 
 ham, viewed from without, was his victory over the 
 kings, when he routed them at Dan, and chased them on 
 the way to Damascus. Beerlahai-roi, Zoar, Beersheba, 
 Moriah, Galeed, Bethel, Peniel, Succoth, Mahanaim, Abel 
 Mizraim, all received lasting names from some event in 
 the lives of the three patriarchs. It seems hardlj^ possible 
 that this notable victory of Abraham should leave behind 
 it no trace of a similar kind. 
 
 iii. The name Dan, judging or judgment, if applied by 
 
170 The Pentateuch 
 
 Abraham himself to the scene of his first encounter with 
 the kings, is plainly most suitable and expressive. The 
 word occurs in this very reference in the next chapter, 
 where the plagues of Egypt are foretold. ' And also that 
 nation whom the}^ shall serve will I judge — dan anoki.' 
 That victory of Abraham was the pledge and earnest of 
 ever}^ later deliverance. The Almighty was seen, almost 
 visibl}^, executing judgment on behalf of His servant. 
 
 iv. The scene of the victory would be some night en- 
 campment of the kings. And this would not be likely to 
 be within or under the walls of a Canaanite or Sidonian 
 city, but might very naturally be around the sj)rings or 
 fountain of a river. Josephus says, that he pursued them 
 unto Dan, 'for so the other source of the Jordan is styled.' 
 The name, if it were given by Abraham to the place of 
 the encounter, would thus belong naturally to a plot or 
 encampment near the fountain, and not to any Canaanite 
 city, though one might be near to the place. A name, 
 also, given to the spot from an event so public anel con- 
 spicuous, would be likely to be widely current, and might 
 well be associated with Beersheba, as the popular Hebrew 
 name for the northern limit of the land of promise. Both 
 alike would thus be memorials of the most signal mercies 
 of God to their forefather Abraham. 
 
 V. This view is confirmed by its analogy with the case 
 of Bethel. The spot where Jacob received his vision first 
 took this name, which was current side by side Tsdth that 
 of Luz, the city. But after the conquest Luz itself was 
 named Bethel, from the sacred spot of the vision, to 
 whicli it was near, 
 
 vi. The words of Judg. xviii. 29, when weighed care- 
 
and its Anatomists. 171 
 
 fully, rather confirm this view than oppose it. 'They 
 built a city, and dwelt therein. And they called the 
 name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, 
 which was born to Israel ; however, Laish was the name 
 of the city at the first.' The threefold repetition of the 
 word cifi/, in these few lines, seems almost superfluous. 
 But if this name attached before, not to the city itself, but 
 to a river, fountain, or camping- ground in its immediate 
 neighbourhood, and for quite a different reason, then the 
 mention of the city has its full emphasis, and also the 
 explanation of the reason of its name. 
 
 91. vii. The compound title, Dan-jaan, in 2 Sam. 
 xxiv. 6, is a strong and hitherto unnoticed confirmation 
 of this view. It means, ' Judging he answered or an- 
 swereth.' Comp. Gen. xviii. 27, xxiii. 14. What words 
 could be more expressive of the Patriarch's feelings of 
 gratitude after his marvellous success ? This fuller name 
 must have been preserved by tradition, though the shorter 
 was usually employed, and seems to fix its own origin to 
 the time of Abraham. The name of the city had no such 
 reference, but was an echo, in the lips of apostatizing 
 Danites, of Rachel's name for Bilhah's firstborn, when 
 she 'judged before the time,' and applied to the birth of 
 Dan the truth really fulfilled afterwards in the birth of 
 Joseph. 
 
 viii. It will complete the proof, and remove the last 
 trace of the objection, if it can be made probable that the 
 writer of Genesis himself has recognised the existence of 
 Laish. That city is called Leshem (C^^b) in Judges, two 
 radicals being the same, but the third diff'erent. 
 
 Let us now turn to Gen. x. 19, and we read as fol 
 
172 The Pentateuch 
 
 lows, — ' And tlie border of tlie Canaanites was from Sidon, 
 as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza ; as thou goest, unto 
 Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto 
 Lasha (:s7tr^b)/ 
 
 It is natural to conclude that we have here a brief 
 outline of the whole circuit of the land. We have plainly, 
 in the first clause, the whole length of the sea-coast line, 
 from Sidon, in the extreme north, to Gaza near Gerar in 
 the furthest south. The second clause, then, should give 
 the eastern side. It begins with the cities of the plain, 
 at the south-eastern limit, or the southern end of the 
 Dead Sea, and to complete the circuit, must end in the 
 north-east. This is precisely the place of Laish, or 
 Leshem, and here we find it said, ' even unto Lasha ' 
 (rti7b). Two radicals are the same in each of the three 
 forms, — Lasha, Leshem, and Laish, and the third only is 
 different. Lasha does not differ more from Laish than 
 this from Leshem. Nothing more than an uncertain guess 
 is offered by Jerome and others, who regard this Lasha as 
 the south-eastern limit ; and no allusion to a town or place 
 of that name, near to Sodom, occurs in any other passage ; 
 while Sidon, Gaza, Sodom, and Laish, would mark out the 
 four cardinal limits of the land of promise. Thus, on the 
 whole, it seems to result, from a comparison of the passage, 
 that the scene of the encampment of the Idngs, and of 
 Abraham's victory, received the name Dan-jaan, 'judging 
 he hath answered,' or Dan simply, long before Laish 
 changed its name through the Danite settlement ; and it 
 is also probable that Laish is named even in Genesis, but 
 under a varied and earlier form, as the north-eastern 
 boundary of the Canaanite possessions. 
 
and its Anatomists. 173 
 
 It may be added, that the choice of this spot by the 
 Danites for the mission of their spies first, and then for 
 their military expedition, implies that they had some 
 special reason for regarding it as a part of their inhe- 
 ritance. We have no sign in the history that it was 
 formally allotted to them by Joshua, but the reverse. 
 But if the source of the Jordan, near which the city lay, 
 had borne the name Dan, the name of their tribe, ever 
 since Abraham's victory, they might easily take this as 
 a warrant to seize upon it as part of their destined in- 
 heritance. . 
 
 92. Amalek. 
 
 *In Gen. xxxvi. 12, 16, Amalek appears as a grandson of 
 Esau and chief of an Arabian tribe, and according to all proba- 
 bility must be regarded, from the design of the genealogies, as 
 the father of the Amalekites. But this contradicts the account 
 in Gen. xiv. 7, according to which the Amalekites, at the time 
 of the expedition of the kings from Asia, appeared on the field 
 of history, and suffered a defeat from them.' — Gesen. 
 
 This difficulty, as Hengstenberg remarks, Le Clerc, 
 Michaelis, and others have attempted to remove by assum- 
 ing that Amalek, the son of Esau, had nothing to do with 
 the Amalekites. But this expedient is wholly unnatural, 
 and opposed to the clear purpose of the genealogy. The 
 solution of Hengstenberg himself, after Mark and others, 
 is simple and complete. The text in Gen. xiv. speaks 
 only of the ' country of the Amalekites,' and not of the 
 Amalekites themselves. This peculiar form of expression 
 is used in this one case alone, and plainly points to a 
 diflPerence of meaning. The land which Amalek after- 
 wards occupied was already peopled, either by the Horites, 
 
174 The Pentateuch 
 
 named just before, or by the Amorites, who complete tbe 
 list of tbe conquests. * The closer examination of tbe 
 context, in which not a word is placed unadvisedly, gives 
 a death blow to the assumed contradiction.' (Hengst.) 
 
 93. MORIAH. 
 
 According to Yater, Yon Bohlen, and other German 
 critics, the author of Gen. xxii. derived the name Moriah 
 from an event in Abraham's life, * because Solomon built 
 his temple on a mountain of that name.' Others, again, 
 deny the identity of the two places, and transfer, with the 
 Samaritans, the Moriah of Genesis to Mount Gerizim. 
 The strong argument which the whole passage supplies 
 for the early knowledge of the sacred name, Jehovah, 
 has been also set aside in the ' Pentateuch Examined,' on 
 the ground of the entire uncertainty of the real meaning 
 and derivation. 
 
 The view of Hengstenberg is, that the name denotes 
 ' the shown of Jehovah,' or ' the appearance of Jehovah,' 
 from the Hophal participle of the verb nsn, to sec ; and 
 that Jehovah- Jireh is simply an explanatorj^ paraphrase ; 
 so that the name Moriah is used by prolepsis in v. 2, and 
 was really given in consequence of this remarkable vision 
 and message at the time of Isaac's sacrifice. The re- 
 currence of the name, at the time when the temple was 
 built, is no proof at all of a later origin than Moses, 
 imless we wholly deny the fact of a Divine Providence, 
 and set aside both tjrpical and actual prophecy. On the 
 contrary, the three events, — Isaac's sacrifice, the building 
 of Solomon's temple, and the fulfilment of the Saviour's 
 words, * Destroy this temple, and in tliree days I will 
 build it again,' — have a most intimate connexion with 
 
and its Anatomists. 175 
 
 each other, and miglit well be associated with the name, 
 ' the vision, appearance, or revelation,' of the Lord. 
 
 The whole subject, when further examined, instead of 
 constituting an objection, becomes a direct evidence of the 
 truth and authenticity of the Book of Genesis. 
 
 i. The view of Hengstenberg, that the name is used 
 by prolepsis in v. 2, is needless and rather strained. But 
 it is wholly different from the absurdity which Dr. Colenso 
 charges upon him, that ' the Divine Being used the name 
 proleptically, and commanded Moses to go to a place, 
 which was not yet called by the name by which he called 
 it.* The criticism implies either ignorance or entire for- 
 getfulness of what prolepsis means. The view of Heng- 
 stenberg is not that the Lord Himself used the name 
 before it was given, but that Moses used it in describing 
 a place, to which the Lord had summoned Abraham by 
 some earlier name. 
 
 ii. The derivation Hengstenberg, with others, has pro- 
 posed, from n^"i^, the Hophal participle of nsn, to see, 
 and the name Jehovah, seems highly probable, for several 
 reasons, if it be not rather from the verbal noun nS"]D, by 
 a similar contraction in composition, change of vowels, 
 and the omission of a feeble radical. Aquila renders it 
 * the conspicuous land,' and Symmachus ' the land of 
 vision;' while the Samaritan text, nsmo, retains the ra- 
 dical, the omission of which has been urged as an ar- 
 gument against the derivation. 
 
 But a stronger reason may be drawn from the passage 
 2 Chron. iii. 1, where Moriah is also named. Solomon 
 began to build ' on Mount Moriah, where the Lord ap- 
 peared to David his father.' So our version, supplying 
 
176 The Pentateuch 
 
 the name of God, and rendering the relative by the adverb 
 where. But this would properly require the addition of 
 'CW. The literal rendering is, ' who was seen by,' or ' who 
 appeared to,' David his father. The construction at first 
 sight is obscure. But it becomes plain, when once we 
 resolve the name into its components, * on the mount of 
 the vision of Jehovah, who appeared to David his father.' 
 The relative refers to Jah, that is Jehovah, which ends 
 the name, and the verb n^n: to the participle or verbal 
 noun, with which the name begins. The passage, then, 
 seems to fix, beyond reasonable doubt, the true derivation 
 and meaning of the name Moriah. 
 
 The question will now arise whether it is a proper 
 name. Except in these two texts it never appears, and 
 it is a descriptive title in the LXX., Symmachus, Aquila, 
 and the Vulgate. The land is mentioned in one place, 
 the mountain in the other. It seems, then, to have been 
 a proper name only in an imperfect sense, like the Land 
 of Promise for Palestine, the Holy City for Jerusalem, 
 and the City of Peace for Bagdad, where the force of the 
 title is never lost. Thus the Mount Moriah in Chronicles 
 will be simply ' the Mount of the vision of the Lord, 
 who appeared to David, and to whom he builded an altar 
 in the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.' 
 
 94. On this view the words in Genesis will mean ' the 
 land of the vision of Jehovah,' nearly as in Symmachus, 
 fiC T}]v -yriv Tr\Q oTrracriag. To what vision, then, would 
 this refer ? When Abraham returned from the slaughter 
 of the kings, he met Melchizedec ' in the valley of Shaveh, 
 which is the king's dale,' near to Salem. After re- 
 nouncing the spoil of Sodom in fidelity to God, the mes- 
 
and its Anatomists. 177 
 
 sage follows, — ' After these things came the word of the 
 Lord to Abram in a vision, saying. Fear not, I am thy 
 shield, and thy exceeding great reward.' The close con- 
 nexion in thought with the previous verses, which de- 
 scribe the Patriarch's sacrifice, makes it most likely that 
 the promise was given as a direct sequel to this interview, 
 before the return to Hebron. Then followed that striking 
 vision of the burning lamp and fiery furnace, and a more 
 detailed promise of the land of Canaan. The district 
 where this revelation occurred might well be named from 
 it, ' the land of the vision of the Lord.' The addition, 
 ' on one of the mountains that I will tell thee of,' shows 
 that this land included several hills or eminences. If the 
 meeting with Melchizedek, and the vision, ch. xv., were 
 near Jerusalem, then this feature is explained. The 
 mount of the sacrifice, the temple mount, and Calvary, 
 would all belong to this ' land of Moriah,' and still might 
 all be distinct from each other, as the two last are clearly 
 not the same. The event included a type, not only of 
 the Crucifixion, but also of the Ascension, since the 
 beloved son was restored to his father after a figurative 
 resurrection ; and may have taken place, like the Ascen- 
 sion, in private, even though Salem was already a city, 
 and possibly at the same place, on some retired spot of 
 the Mount of Olives. 
 
 The chapter, thus explained, becomes a direct proof 
 that Moses was the writer of Genesis. For it is plainly a 
 whole, not a patchwork of fragments, and yet we meet 
 with Elohim only at the beginning, and Jehovah only at 
 the close, while the change of names answers to the 
 turning-point of the history. This is a clear sign that 
 
178 The Pentateuch 
 
 the like transition, elsewhere, is from the intelligent choice 
 of one and the same author, and not from the piecing of 
 independent documents. Again, a proverb based on the 
 event was current at the date of the writing — 'In the 
 Mount Jehovah will be seen ' — a clear proof, besides the 
 names Moriah and Jehovah-Jireh, that the sacred name 
 had been in use even from the days of Abraham. The 
 Elohist and the Jehovist, therefore, are not two persons, 
 but one and the same, in whose days the tradition of the 
 sacrifice was still fresh, and the proverb had not faded 
 away by the lapse of many generations. 
 
 95. Bethel. 
 
 This name has been said to prove a later date than 
 the time of Moses, because of the passage in Judg. i. 
 22, 26. But the answer of Hengstenberg is here 
 complete. 
 
 ' The apparent anachronism vanishes on close examination. 
 Jacob called, not the city, but the place in its vicinity, where he 
 saw the vision, Bethel. They are distinguished from each other 
 in Josh. xvi. 1, 2, " And the lot of the children of Joseph goeth 
 out from Bethel to Luz." The name was transferred by his de- 
 scendants to the town. Comp. xxxv. 6 : "So Jacob came to 
 Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, that is, Bethel." That the 
 Canaanites still persisted in calling it Luz as before, and that 
 the name Bethel had only a prophetic importance, was perfectly 
 natural, and needed not to be expressly noticed. Not till the 
 Israelite conquest would the name Luz be superseded by the 
 name Bethel. That this existed already appears from its being 
 given to Luz as soon as taken. It stands in no relation to any 
 event of that time, and points only to the fact recorded in 
 Genesis .... How powerfully the minds of the Israelites had 
 been impressed thereby we learn from the circumstance that, 
 
and its Anatomists. 179 
 
 during the war against the Benjamites, the ark of the covenant 
 was in Bethel; and there also, after the war was over, the ga- 
 thering of the people was held. Jeroboam trusted so much to 
 the ancient sanctity of the place, that he considered it suited, in 
 preference to all others, to be the rival of Jerusalem.' 
 
 The words of xxxv. 6 seem indeed a direct sign of the 
 Mosaic authorship. ' And Jacob came to Luz, which is 
 in the land of Canaan, that is, Bethel.' If the name Luz 
 were still in use, and the writer were not in the land of 
 Canaan, while Bethel was already in use among the 
 Israelites, to express the place where their forefather re- 
 ceived the vision, then the expression is natural and 
 appropriate. But it is less natural if the name Luz had 
 long been obsolete, and the book were written within the 
 borders of the land. 
 
 96. The Kings of Edom. 
 
 Gen. xxxvi. 31. ' And these are the kings that reigned in 
 the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the sons 
 of Israel.' 
 
 The objection from these words has been stated as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' The last clause could hardly have been written till after 
 there had been a king in Israel. Hengstenberg replies, that it 
 contains a reference to the preceding promises to the patriarchs 
 of a kingdom among their posterity, especially to ch. xxxv. 11. 
 "Notj^et," says the historian, "had this promise been fulfilled to 
 Jacob, for no kings had appeared in his line." He quotes with 
 approbation J. H. Michaelis and Calvin. He might also have 
 alluded to the laboured attempt of C. B. Michaelis, containing 
 a similar explanation. All such endeavours are opposed to the 
 plain meaning of the clause, which refuses to play the part 
 
180 The Pentateuch 
 
 forced npon it. The Edomite list contains eight kings, and may 
 perhaps reach up to the time of Moses. It is impossible, how- 
 ever, to show that it reached to his time. Granting that it did, 
 what a trifling remark would it be for Moses to say, when he 
 was giving a list of the kings before his own time, " There was 
 no king then in Jacob's line : this was before Israel had a 
 king." Truly this would have been Avhat Locke calls *' a trifling 
 proposition," since they all knew that kings in Israel had not 
 then appeared.' 
 
 Now this passage, wlien taken with its own context, 
 is really a powerful argument for the Mosaic authorship, 
 as the following remarks will prove : — 
 
 i. First, the original does not, as our version seems to 
 do, prej udge the question, whether the list were limited by 
 the first king in Israel, or by the time of the writer ? It 
 may be rendered, with equal exactness in the first clause, 
 and greater in the second : ' And these are the kings 
 which have reigned in the land of Edom, before the 
 reigning of a king over the sons of Israel.' It is the 
 context alone which can decide whether the perfect or 
 the simple past gives more exactly the true meaning. 
 
 ii. If we retain the other version, it is implied that 
 the limit of the list is the beginning of the reign of Saul, 
 the first king of Israel. It is plain also, from Num. xx. 
 14-20, that Edom had a king in the fortieth year of the 
 Exodus, and from the whole passage, that they were 
 elective, not hereditary. For such reigns twenty years 
 is a high average, and seven reigns and a half, for the 
 last was current, will be 150 years. But the interval from 
 the Conquest to Saul's accession, according to 1 Kings, 
 iv. 1, would be at least 356 years, still longer b}^ the 
 
and its Anatomists. 181 
 
 chronology which sums up the periods of the judges ; 
 and even with the contracted and impossible chronology 
 of Bunsen and Lord A. Herve}^, more than 200 years. 
 Hence on no reasonable hypothesis can the period of these 
 kings be made to reach so far as from the Conquest to 
 Saul. And besides, the mention of the King of Edom in 
 Numbers has not at all the appearance of being the first 
 commencement of kingly rule. The list, therefore, dis- 
 agrees altogether with the later limit, and cannot be 
 made, without extreme violence, to close with the reign 
 of the first Israelite king. 
 
 iii. Let us now try the other hypothesis, that Moses is 
 the author, and Hadar the king of Edom mentioned in the 
 Book of Numbers. Taking eighteen years for the average 
 in an elective monarchy, seven reigns and a half will be 
 135 years. Reckoned back from the Conquest, these bring 
 us to 120 years after the descent, or 210 years after the 
 marriag^e of Esau, for the accession of the first Edomite 
 king. The date will be 145 years, or four descents, after 
 the time when he was already a powerful chieftain, 
 leading an armed band of four hundred men. It is quite 
 natural, then, to suppose that by that time the Edomite 
 tribes might have so far multiplied, and have had such 
 accessions from the Horites, as to set up an elective mo- 
 narchy, and thus bind together the tribes that would else 
 have been weakened by separation. The number of kings, 
 therefore, agrees perfectly with this hypothesis, and con- 
 firms its truth. 
 
 iv. The words ' before the reigning of a king over the 
 sons of Israel,' if Moses were the writer, are by no means 
 a trifling proposition. The two facts, when put side by 
 
182 The Pentateuch 
 
 side, conveyed a deep moral lesson of the rapid progress 
 of the power wliich was doomed to decay, and of the slower 
 growth of that which rested on the sure promise of God. 
 The contrast might have been overlooked, unless the 
 well-known fact, that no king had yet appeared in Israel, 
 were stated in the same breath with the brief record of 
 these Edomite kings. And this view of the purpose is 
 directly confirmed by the position of the whole Edomite 
 genealogy. It follows close ujDon the promise to Jacob, 
 * A nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and 
 kings shall come out of thy loins ;' and is followed at 
 once by the expressiA^e contrast : ' And Jacob dwelt in 
 the land wherein his father was a stranger, in the land of 
 Canaan.' The force of these words is increased by their 
 antithesis with the last verse of the genealogy : ' These 
 are the dukes of Edom, according to their habitations in 
 the land of their possession : this is Esau, the father of 
 the Edomites.' The antithesis in v. 31 is plainl}^ just of 
 the same kind. So many kings have ruled in Edom, and 
 there is yet no king in Israel. So many dukes of Edom 
 in a land of possession, while Jacob dwelt with his sons 
 in a strange land, first in Canaan, and then in Egypt, 
 the house of bondage. 
 
 V. But the Mosaic date of the list is proved further 
 by two internal signs. The fourth king is thus described : 
 ' Hadad, the son of Bedad, who smote Midian in the field 
 of Moab : and the name of his city was Avith.' Now if 
 these eight reigns extended from Moses to Saul, their 
 avera.^e length must be forty-five years, an amount 
 wliolly unreasonable, and this reign would fall at the 
 close oi' Eliud's rest, or one generation before the time of 
 
and its Anatomists. 183 
 
 the greatest prosperity and strength of Miclian. There 
 would thus be no harmony, but direct opposition to the 
 probable deduction from other evidence. But if the series 
 ends with the king named in Numbers, or at the time 
 of the Conquest, then, at the probable rate of eighteen 
 years for each elective reign, the middle of the fourth 
 reign would be about seventy-two years before the Con- 
 quest ; that is, it would answer to the first ten years of 
 the sojourn of Moses himself in Midian. What could be 
 more natural then that he should place on record an 
 Edomite victory, which took place while he was a so- 
 journer in Midian, and was gained over the main body of 
 the tribe among one branch of whom he was compelled 
 to sojourn ? 
 
 Again, the last king is named with fuller particulars 
 than the rest. ' And Hadar reigned in his stead : and the 
 name of his city was Pau ; and his wife's name Mehetabel, 
 the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.' This 
 minuteness of detail agrees perfectly with the view that 
 this was the king who refused Israel a passage through 
 his land, and was still alive when the record was penned, 
 so as to be a double reason why fuller particulars re- 
 specting him should be given. 
 
 Thus the objection drawn from these words is so far 
 from having any weight, that it turns, when closely 
 examined, into a powerful evidence and clear sign that 
 the record was of the age and in the time of Moses. On 
 this view alone the requirements of chronology are satis- 
 fied, and the internal marks in the notices of the fourth 
 and eighth kings are fully explained. 
 
184 The Pentateuch 
 
 97. The Land of the Hebrews. 
 
 Gen. xl. 15. ' For indeed I was stolen away ont of the land 
 of the Hebrews.' Conip. xxxix. 14, 17; xli. 12. 
 
 Another objection has been raised from these passages. 
 
 '■ The word Hebrew is used in a familiar way, as if it were a 
 well-known appellation of a whole people, well known even in 
 Egypt ; nay, as if the land of Canaan could already be spoken 
 of by Joseph as the land of Hebrews, so as to be readily under- 
 stood by the Egyptians. It seems plain that expressions, current 
 in a later age, have been allowed inadvertently to slip into the 
 narrative.' 
 
 The reply to this objection is clear and simple. 
 
 i. First, the narrative is throughout consistent. The 
 name, Hebrew, is applied to Joseph, alike by his master's 
 wife, and by the chief butler before Pharaoh, as well as by 
 Joseph himself. It appears again in the account of the 
 feast. ' The Egyptians might not eat bread with the 
 Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.' 
 It occurs in Exodus, in Pharaoh's instructions to the 
 midwives, and their excuse, i. 18, 19, in the words of 
 Pharaoh's daughter, ' This is one of the Hebrews' children,' 
 and in the request of Moses' sister in reph^ It enters 
 into the first message which Moses was to address to 
 Pharaoh, * The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with 
 us.' It is thus represented throughout as the standing 
 name and title by which the famity of Jacob were known, 
 from the first, in Egypt. It seems even to have been 
 detected among the hieroglyphics as their actual name. 
 
 ii. The use of the phrase, ' the land of the Hebrews,' is 
 perfectly natural and appropriate. It occurs once only, 
 when Joseph speaks of his own sale b}^ his brethren. In 
 
and its Anatomists, 185 
 
 all other cases 'the land of Canaan' is used, ch. xlii. o, 7, 
 13, 29, 32 ; xlv. 17, 25 ; xlvi. 6, 12, 31 ; xlvii. 1, 4, 13, 14, 
 15; xlviii. 3, 7 ; xlix. 30; l. 5, 13; or twenty times in the 
 history of Joseph. Hence the use of the other name in one 
 case only, where the question is of the sale of a Hebrew 
 captive by other Hebrews, is an internal sign of historical 
 truthfulness, and not of accidental error. It means clearly, 
 'the land in which it is well known that the Hebrews 
 sojourn.' 
 
 iii. But the use of the name Hebrew itself .is here 
 charged with anachronism, as if the Abrahamic family 
 were too few or too obscure to have a distinct name, known 
 in Egypt. This, however, is to contradict the most promi- 
 nent facts in the history. Abraham himself had sojourned 
 in Egypt, and his removal, according to the narrative, 
 had been with signal marks of God's power, that were 
 likely to make a deep impression on Pharaoh and his 
 servants. Soon after followed the victory over the kings, 
 the most signal political event of that period. When 
 Abraham asks for a burial-place for Sarah, the Hittites 
 answer him, ' Hear us, my Lord, thou art a mighty prince 
 among us, in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead,' 
 xxiii. 6. When Isaac leaves Gerar, the Philistines envy 
 him for his large possessions of flocks, herds, and servants. 
 * And Abimelech said unto Isaac, Go from us ; for thou art 
 much mightier than we.' When Jacob goes to Bethel, 
 ' the terror of God was upon the cities round about.' And 
 presently it is said of the two brothers, ' Their riches were 
 more than that they might dwell together ; and the land 
 wherein they were strangers could not bear them, because 
 of their cattle, xxxvi. 7. The name, Hebrew, given 
 
186 The Pentateuch 
 
 already to Abraham before bis \dctory, xiv. 13, would 
 become still more consj)icuous after that event, and attach 
 to the family in every stage of their later growth into a 
 powerful nation. And hence the use of the word by 
 Potiphar's wife, by Joseph to the chief butler, and by the 
 chief butler to Pharaoh, is one j)lain internal sign of the 
 truth and reality of the whole narrative. In the speech of 
 Joseph, ' For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of 
 the Hebrews,' it is self-evident that the usual phrase, ' the 
 land of Canaan,' would be far less appropriate and ex- 
 pressive. 
 
 98. Abel Mizraim. 
 
 A double objection has been dra^^ai from this part of 
 the narrative. First, that the route described is unnatural 
 and incredible. And next, that the words ' beyond Jordan ' 
 could not be used by Moses, but implj^ a writer who lived 
 in the land of Canaan. 
 
 i. It seems, no doubt, a strange and unlikely route for 
 a funeral procession from Egypt to Hebron, to journey to 
 the east bank of the Jordan, and then to cross over, and 
 pass southward to its destination. But this is rather a 
 presumption for its truth, since it is not a route which 
 could easily suggest itself to a mere inventor of legends 
 in some later age. On the other hand, there are se- 
 veral things to explain why this circuit might be 
 preferred. The burial was attended by * chariots and 
 horsemen, a very great company.' It would thus have the 
 air, to the Canaanites, of a military expedition, and, if it 
 came direct against their southern frontier, might provoke 
 immediate hostility. Again, in funeral processions the 
 object is to do public honour to the deceased, and, instead 
 
and its Anatomists. 187 
 
 of the least expensive and tlie shortest course, the more 
 costly and the more public may often be preferred on 
 that ground alone. Next, the solemn mourning of seven 
 days required a cultured land and not a desert, and yet the 
 Canaanites were not likely to permit a military encamp- 
 ment on their own territory. Besides, the districts on the 
 east of the Dead Sea were not improbably in some partial 
 dependence on Egypt, and the Midianite traffickers, to 
 whom Joseph was sold, seem to have passed that way. 
 Lastly, the arrangements would of course be made by 
 Joseph, aiid it might be one purpose he had in view, by 
 choosing the route for this powerful cavalcade by which 
 he had been led away as a lonely captive into Egypt, 
 to impress more deeply on his own family, and on the 
 Egyptians themselves, the overruling hand of God, and 
 His constant care for the chosen people. 
 
 ii. The description, ' beyond Jordan,' is fixed by the 
 whole context to mean here the eastern side. Is this any 
 objection to the view that Moses is the writer? JN'one 
 whatever. The phrase must be used, either with reference 
 to general geography and the stand-point of the history 
 itself, or else with reference to the actual position of the 
 writer, where he happened to be when the words were 
 penned. But the later use can only be allowable when 
 that position has been previously named or is evidently 
 implied. To adopt it, in other cases, would create hopeless 
 ambiguity, and defeat the very object of the definition. 
 This use is quite natural, Deut. iii. 20, 25, iv. 21, and in 
 similar passages, but here it would be wholly out of place. 
 Canaan is the centre of the whole history, ch. xii -l, and 
 the phrase ' beyond Jordan ' must refer to that alone ; 
 
188 The Pentateuch 
 
 since the writer has given us, thus far, no sign of the 
 place where his narrative was composed or published. 
 Still further, if Moses wrote the law near the end of his 
 life, and on the eve of the Conquest, it must have been 
 with the express design that it should first be read pub- 
 licly, when the people had actually crossed the Jordan, 
 and begun to possess the land. On the other hand, the 
 very name, Abel Mizraim, in so strange a locality, would 
 be a lasting pledge for the truth of the whole narrative 
 — a seal of the whole book of Genesis to the Israelites of 
 later daj^s. 
 
 99. The King's Dale. Gen. xiv. 17. 
 
 * The king referred to may have been Melchizedek, or some 
 other of the kings of Canaan. But it seems more probable that 
 the expression points to King David, who was the first to make 
 Jerusalem the seat of government for the children of Israel. 
 And so we read, 2 Sam. xviii, 18, " Absalom in his lifetime had 
 taken and reared up for himself a pillar, which is in the king's 
 dale." He would be most likely to have done this near the 
 royal city, as Josephus writes, ' Ant.' vii. 10, 3. This would 
 accord with the statement that Melchizedek, king of Salem, 
 came out to the valley of Shaveh. The use of Salem, also, in 
 the substance of the main story, would indicate a writer living 
 in later times, since the Canaanite name was Jebus ; and there 
 can be little doubt that the name Jerusalem, possession of 
 peace, was first given to it by David.' 
 
 The assumption that ' the valley of the king ' was so 
 named from King David has no ground whatever on 
 which to rest. There is no recorded event in David's 
 life which would explain it. If it were named from 
 him, as Zion was called ' the city of David,' the probable 
 name woidd have been ' the vaUey of David.' On the 
 
and its Anatomists 189 
 
 otlier hand, tlie history suggests spontaneously an ade- 
 quate reason for the title in this interview with ^Icl- 
 chizedek. The valley of Shaveh is plainly the older and 
 Canaanitish name, and Hhe valley of the king' is one 
 which replaced it among the Hebrews. But ' Melchizedek, 
 king of Salem,' is here declared to have met Abraham 
 and blessed him in this very place. The words run, ' in 
 the valley of Shaveh, the valley of the Melech. And 
 Melchi-zedek, Melech Salem, met Abraham,' &c. Among 
 the chosen family it received and retained, no doubt, this 
 new name of Emeg Melech, 'valley of the king,' because 
 here the King of righteousness, the King of Salem, or 
 peace, bestowed his blessing on the father of the faithful, 
 and Abraham's victory was crowned there by the fullest 
 approval of heaven. There is as little ground for the 
 view that the name Jerusalem was first invented in the 
 time of David. For the name Jebus applied properly to 
 the stronghold of Mount Zion, while Salem appears to 
 have been an early name of the lower city. In like 
 manner, from Josh. x. 1, 3, 5, 23, xii. 10, Jerusalem 
 seems to have been an early and familiar name. It was 
 simply the extension of the name to include Jebus, the 
 upper city, which appears to have been the work of a 
 later age. 
 
 The other geographical objections in the ' Pentateuch 
 Examined,' Part II., deserve only a passing notice : 
 
 Gen. xiii. 10. ' " Like the land of Egypt, as thou comost to 
 Zoar." What could the Hebrews in the wilderness have known 
 of the nature of the country in the land of Canaan, as thou 
 comest unto Zoar, Gen xv. 22 ? Or what could Moses himself 
 have known of it?' 
 
190 The Pentateuch 
 
 That is, what could Moses, or the Hebrews before the 
 Conquest, have known of the route by which they had 
 just passed only a few months before, skirting it at a 
 distance of about twenty miles, and which lay about 
 thirty miles south from their actual and prolonged en- 
 campment on the plains of Moab ? Surely a more sur- 
 prising inquiry was never made. 
 
 Gen. XXXV. 19. ' Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.' 
 xiv. 2, ' Bela, which is Zoar ; ' v. 3, ' The vale of Siddim, 
 which is the Salt Sea; v. 7, ' Enmishpat, which is 
 Kadesh.' These double names are thought, in some 
 unexplained way, to be signs of a later date. But 
 the natural inference is just the reverse. If the name 
 Zoar was used ever since the time of Lot in his family, 
 and among the Hebrews, then the use of the earlier 
 name, xiv. 2, bespeaks a writer of patriarchal times, or 
 at least one very intimately acquainted with them. So 
 also the mention of the vale of Siddim, which is the Salt 
 Sea, is a direct consequence of the antiquity of the cam- 
 paign described, and forms a presumptive sign that the 
 narrative dates from a remote and very early age. 
 
and its AnatomUts. 191 
 
 CHAPTEE XI. 
 
 ALLEGED ANACHRONISMS OF THE LATER BOOKS. 
 
 100. The Genealogy of Moses and Aakon. 
 
 Exod. Yi. 26. ' These are that Aaron and Moses to whom 
 the Lord said, Bring out the children of Israel from the land of 
 Egypt, according to their armies. These are they which spake 
 to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel 
 from Egypt ; these are that Moses and Aaron.' 
 
 These words have been thought unsuitable for Moses him- 
 self to write, and to imply the lapse of a considerable time, 
 when his name had become celebrated. ' Even if it meant 
 " this is the genealogy of Moses and Aaron," this does not 
 remove the idea of a later author. Why should Moses him- 
 self have mentioned that he and his brother were the per- 
 sons to whom the Lord said, ^' Bring out," &c. ? Surely 
 this was a superfluous addition to the register as given by 
 himself. The two were not unknown to the reader, but 
 already prominent in the history. Why, then, give their 
 genealogy just at this place ? One can only explain it by 
 supposing that difi'erent documents were used, from one of 
 which the genealogy was taken and inserted without 
 
192 The Pentateuch 
 
 much regard to naturalness of position. It is evidently 
 part of an older and longer genealogy, and not composed 
 on this occasion.' (Davids. ' Intr.' pp. 7, 92.) All these 
 statements, on inquiry, will be found exactly to reverse 
 the real truth. 
 
 i. First, the genealog}^ is in its most natural place. It 
 follows the completed mission of Moses and Aaron, and 
 precedes the miracles and judgments by which that mis- 
 sion was fulfilled. Their previous message had been 
 tentative alone, and was followed by heavier burdens on 
 the people. So also, in the New Testament, our Lord's 
 genealogy in St. Luke foUoAvs close on His baptism, and 
 introduces His public and miraculous ministry. 
 
 ii. Next, the suitableness and propriety does not de- 
 pend on the person of the writer, but flows directly from 
 the facts themselves. A new era of Divine revelation was 
 here to be opened, and needed to rest on a firm historical 
 pedestal. These great facts were no legends, and by no 
 legendary persons was the message given. The wonders 
 of the Exodus are here linked with thirty names of known 
 persons, one half of whom enter into the later history. 
 Thus the passage, charged with being out of place, or 
 superfluous, is really an impregnable bulwark against 
 those various devices of scepticism, which labour to dis- 
 solve and melt away the solemn facts of Providence into 
 a series of untruthful and worthless legends. 
 
 iii. The theory of several documents cannot explain a 
 single feature of the text, but contradicts them all. Mis- 
 placement, if real, would be as hard to explain in the case 
 of a compiler as of an original historian, since the chief 
 task of such a compiler must be to arrange his materials. 
 
audits Anatomists. 193 
 
 The arresting of the genealogy with the third tribe, that 
 of Levi, and the expansion of that part alone, so as to 
 include the descent of fourteen persons, all named in the 
 later narrativ^e, agrees with the supposition that it was 
 w^ritten expressly for its actual place, but with no other 
 theory. In fact, Exod. yi. 14, 15, is a repetition of Gen. 
 xlvi. 8-10 ; while xlvi. 11, is expanded into ten verses, 
 reaching to the birth of Phinehas, which must have been 
 about the time of the Exodus. This points at once to 
 the composition of the list by Moses, or one of his con- 
 temporaries: 
 
 iv. The notion that Moses and Aaron were less cele- 
 brated and conspicuous at the date of the Conquest than 
 in later ages is plainly absurd. At the date of the com- 
 position of the Pentateuch, if genuine, the vivid sense 
 among the people of the greatness of Moses would be at 
 its height. Here Moses and Aaron are defined by their 
 great work which they had fulfilled, and the object of 
 the passage is to fix their relation, by genealog}^, to the 
 rest of the people. The features alleged to jDrove a later 
 origin are precisely those which prove the reverse. A 
 mere historian of some later age would be likely to define 
 the leaders by their parentage, fully and at length, before 
 the history began, and then to record their actions. But 
 here they are defined by the work itself, as being public 
 and notorious ; and their families and descent are given, 
 not at the very outset, but before the record of their 
 mighty works, to impress a deeper tone of historical reality 
 on the wonderful narrative : — 
 
 ' The words are repeated at tlie end of v. 27, to mark pre- 
 cisely the resumption of the history. At the begimiiiig the 
 
 o 
 
1 94 The Pentateuch 
 
 genealogical reference predominates, and Aaron stands as the 
 elder. At the end the historical view is taken, and Moses is 
 named first, as the more important.' — Hengst. i. p. 108, c. v. 
 
 101. The Western Sea. 
 
 In Gen. xii. 8, xiii. 14, xxviii. 14 ; Ex. x. 19, xx^d. 
 22, 27 ; Num. ii. 18, iii. 2, 3, xxxiv. 6, xxxv. 5, the word 
 yam, tlie sea, is used to denote the west, or western side. 
 The expression, it is said, ' obviously could not have been 
 familiarly used in this way till some time after the people 
 were settled in the land of Canaan. It is evident that 
 neither Moses nor any one of his age could have invented 
 this form of expression while wandering in the wilder- 
 ness. Still less could he have used the phrase '' wind of 
 the sea" to express a westerly wind, with reference to an 
 event in the land of Egypt, where the Mediterranean lay 
 to the north and the Eed Sea to the east.' It is said 
 further, that in Gen. xli. 6, ' the east wind is spoken of as 
 a parching wind, which it is in Palestine, not in Egjn^t, 
 whence the LXX. in that place write voroc south-west, 
 and not aupoc, east wind.' — P. E. ii. p. 200. 
 
 Am. i. The Hebrew language was not formed in 
 Egypt, but imported and retained. Joseph ' spake to his 
 brethren by an interpreter.' The names and the whole 
 course of the history imply that the sojourners in Goshen 
 remained distinct in language, as in religion, from the 
 Egyptians. The language thus retained was confessedly 
 that of Canaan, where their fathers had sojourned more 
 than two hundred years, and to which they looked for- 
 ward as their destined inheritance. The familiar term, 
 in Canaan, for a westward direction would thus be natur- 
 ally retained, even in Egypt. 
 
and its Anatomists. 195 
 
 ii. Brief words, in constant use for familiar ideas or 
 objects, are those which most rapidly drop their original, 
 and retain their secondary meaning. Who, now, ever 
 thinks of wood in connexion with a candlestick ? But the 
 customary name for one of the cardinal points is a case 
 to which this principle must apply in its greatest force. 
 
 iii. The early knowledge of western geography was 
 too dim to form any temptation to the Israelites in Egypt 
 for departing from the language of their fathers in this one 
 point. They knew, probably, nothing at all of the breadth 
 of Africa to the west. As Europe was to them ' the isles 
 of the sea,' so their main association with the western 
 regions would still be that of a great maritime district, 
 just as before. 
 
 iv. In Exod x. 19, on which the objection is made 
 chiefly to rest, it is doubly worthless. For a north-west 
 wind, which would be strictly ' the wind of the sea,' 
 would exactly fulfil the object of carrying the locusts 
 from Egypt into the Eed Sea. The direction from 
 Alexandria to Suez, and Thebes to Berenice, is exactly 
 that which passes over the largest portion of the 
 Mediterranean. 
 
 V. The LXX. do not translate u3>in by vorog in Gen. 
 xli. 19, &c., but use the compound avE/iocpOopoQ. In 
 most instances of the later use of qadim for the name of a 
 wind, the reference is to its pinching character rather 
 than to its direction. Hence it must naturally have 
 acquired very early a secondary sense. The wind which 
 brought the locusts may have been from the south, or 
 south-east, and that which removed them, from the north- 
 west-by-west, and in each case the name used will be 
 
196 The Pentateuch 
 
 tlie most appropriate among the few Hebrew names of 
 winds. 
 
 102. The Celebrity of Moses. 
 
 Exod. xi. 3. * And the Lord gave the people favour in the 
 sight of the Egyptians. Moreover, the man Moses was very- 
 great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, 
 and in the sight of the people.' 
 
 Individuals, it is said, are only spoken of thus after a 
 considerable lapse of time. From Moses himself the 
 words are not appropriate, and every attempt to show 
 them suitable to their present place is abortive. So far 
 from his greatness being an additional reason for the 
 Egyptians' parting with their jewels, it detracts from and 
 irreverently spoils the one just given. (Davids. * Intr.' 
 p. 8.) 
 
 ' Hengstenberg observes, that the above laudations of Moses 
 are in keeping with the context. This may be quite true, with- 
 out its being true that they were written by Moses : it would 
 only tend to show that the context also was of a later age.' — 
 Pent. Exam. ii. p. 222. 
 
 The main stress of this objection depends, as often, on 
 a very superficial view of the text. The greatness of 
 Moses is not named as a reason why the Egj^ptians gave 
 so freely to Israel. On the contrary, this favour shown 
 to the people at large, and this deep reverence for Moses 
 among the Egyptians, are noted as conjoint effects on the 
 previous judgments. The reproach which had rested on 
 Israel from their long bondage was mightily removed. 
 They had favour in the siglit of the Egyptians, and gifts 
 from their hands ; and their leader, from being looked on 
 as an outcast and despised as a fanatic, had come to be 
 
and its Anatomists, 197 
 
 regarded with deep honour and reverence, as the messenger 
 of a Power now proved to be Divine. The mention of 
 this second result, as well as the former, is essential to 
 the moral completeness of the narrative. It is a strange 
 mistake to suppose that they contain a 'laudation of Moses.' 
 So far as praise is implied, it is in the previous choice of 
 him as God's messenger, and the mighty works he was 
 sent to perform. The change was not that he was grown 
 more worthy, but that the Egyptians were less blind than 
 before, and compelled at length to see and own, through 
 those works, the mighty hand of the God of Israel. Some 
 allusion to this great change of feeling on their part is 
 needful to throw light on the closing events of the Exodus. 
 
 The phrase, ' the man Moses,' is purposely used to 
 remind us whence this greatness before the people and 
 Egyptians arose. It had its source in the fact that he 
 was the ' man of God,' or the Lord's own commissioned 
 messenger, to do these great works before Pharaoh and 
 his servants. 
 
 103. The Manna and the Testimony. 
 
 Exod. xvi. 34, 35. 'As the Lord commanded Moses, so 
 Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept. And the 
 children of Israel did eat manna forty years, until they came to 
 a land inhabited : they did eat manna until they came to the 
 borders of the land of Canaan.' 
 
 ' This verse,' it is said, 'could not have been written till after 
 they had ceased eating manna. Nor conld it have been written 
 until the IsraeUtes were within the Canaanite border, since the 
 word here used never means extra terminwn but always intra 
 terminum: — P. ^. p. 212. ' Moses was dead before the manna 
 ceased, and therefore it is natural to infer that he did not write 
 
198 The Pentateuch 
 
 these words. Hengstenberg argues that the author means only 
 to state the time when it still continued, not to determine when 
 it ceased : but this explanation is unnatural.' — Dav. p. 4. 
 
 These words, from Le Clerc onward, have been often 
 alleged, either as a later interpolation, or a strong pre- 
 sumption against the genuineness. But they form, in 
 reality, a powerful argument on the other side, to confirm 
 the Mosaic authorship. 
 
 If the passage had been written after the Conquest, in 
 the old age of Joshua, or still later, the natural statement 
 would be, ' And the children of Israel did eat manna 
 forty years, till they crossed the Jordan, and began to 
 take possession of the land.' Such was the actual period 
 when the manna ceased, after the passover near Jericho. 
 But the language here is different, and is suited to Moses 
 alone. The period here assigned is, * till they came to a 
 land inhabited ; till they came to the borders of the land 
 of Canaan.' This is a limit earlier, but very slightly 
 earlier, than the actual cessation. It answers plainly to 
 the last days of Moses, or any time after crossing the brook 
 Zered till his death. The fortieth year was then more than 
 half expired, the people had reached an inhabited land, 
 were close to the banks of Jordan, and the manna con- 
 tinued still to fall. The positive statement is exact. It is 
 also implied that the cessation was near at hand, but no word 
 indicates that the manna had ceased already. That was 
 reserved for the first days after the death of Moses, when 
 they entered Canaan itself, and did not merely occupy the 
 inhabited land east of Jordan, that lay close on its borders. 
 The form of the phrase is thus a direct sign that the ac- 
 count was written very shortly before the death of Moses. 
 
and its Anatomists. 199 
 
 It is alleged, however, that they could not be said to 
 have come to 'the border of Canaan' till the Jordan 
 was crossed. The statement is wholly groundless, and 
 equally opposed to reason and usage. As the term pro- 
 perly denotes the edge or limit, it may be used, with equal 
 latitude, of a place either just without or just within. 
 Thus Kadesh, Num. xx. 11, was in 'the utmost border' 
 of Edom, but not within, else the leave to enter would 
 have been taken before it was asked for, and the whole 
 context implies that they did not then overstep the 
 boundary. • So Hor was ' on the edge of the land of 
 Edom.' So, in Judg. vii. 11, 17, 19, Gideon clearly did 
 not enter the camp, but remained on its outside. No po~ 
 sition could answer more exactly to the description, ' till 
 they came to the border of Canaan,' than the encamp- 
 ment where Moses gave the peoj)le his parting message. 
 
 The mention of the Testimony, as well as of the forty 
 years, excludes the idea that the Pentateuch in its present 
 form was written successively as the events occurred. 
 Separate messages or laws would most probably be com- 
 mitted to writing as they were given ; but the whole work, 
 as it now stands, was the parting legac}^ of the great 
 Lawgiver to the people. The verses before us, from the 
 peculiar phrase emploj^ed, confirm this view in the most 
 indirect, but simple way. Moses affirms what was now 
 history, that the manna had lasted forty years till they had 
 left the wilderness, and reached the inhabited land on the 
 east of Jordan, close to the river, on the very edge of 
 Canaan. He only implies, what was still future, that 
 upon their crossing the Jordan, and beginning to occupy 
 Canaan, it would entirely cease. 
 
200 The Pentateuch 
 
 104. The Omer. 
 
 Exod. xvi. 33. * xVnd Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, 
 and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the 
 Lord, to be kept for your generations.' V. 36. ' Now an omer 
 is the tenth of an ephah.' 
 
 The explanation in v. 36. is ascribed to the interval of 
 time, in which this measure had gone out of use. Heng- 
 stenberg, after J. D. Michaelis and Kanne, would remove 
 the difficulty by affirming the omer to be a common 
 earthen vessel in use among the Israelites, and not a 
 measure. He argues that this verj^ measure is constantly 
 expressed by I'lnK?!?, a tenth, and also, that every Israelit- 
 ish family would be likely to possess a vessel, but not a 
 measure. But this View seems plainly disproved by the 
 words of V. 18, ^ And when they did mete it with an omer, 
 he that gathered much had nothing over,' &c. Some vessel 
 must surely have been used in gathering it. The measure- 
 ment was later, and a distinct process. It is implied that 
 a measure was accessible to every famity, but not that 
 each had one of its own. The moral of this history and 
 the force of the definition are both lost, if omer was only 
 the name for small earthen vessels of uncertain size. 
 How, then, rejecting the vievf of Michaelis, Kanne, and 
 Ilengstenberg, is the passage to be explained ? 
 
 The force of the objection lies in the remark that the 
 words arc ' totally out of place, because the writer is simply 
 making an historical statement, not enunciating a law/ 
 (Dav. 2.) Now this overlooks the fact that the whole 
 Pentateuch is the Law of God by His servant Moses, and 
 that its histories all subserve a legal purpose. The present 
 
and its Anatomists. 201 
 
 chapter is the first in the Law, where any mention of a 
 measure occurs. It is here linked mth a signal miracle of 
 Divine love, completed by a second miracle of Divine 
 equity. The measure would receive a kind of consecration 
 from the miracle, and what could be more natural, in 
 a code of laws, than to mark briefly its relation to the 
 fundamental measure? For the epha/i is named almost 
 forty times in Scripture, the homer ('^'^n) of ten ephahs, 
 ten times, but the oner, in the sense of a measure, in this 
 chapter alone. Another name, the fent/i, is preferred in 
 every other instance. This brief definition, then, of a 
 measure named here only, serves to connect the whole 
 system of Jewish measures with the long series of wonders 
 of Divine mercy throughout the forty years of sojourn in 
 the wilderness ; and the omer of manna, laid up in the 
 most holy place, would complete the lesson, and make it 
 still more deeply impressive. The words are thus far 
 more suitable from the inspired lawgiver himself, than 
 when viewed as the casual addition of some later age. 
 
 105. The Writing against Amalek. 
 
 Exod. xvii. 14. ' And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this 
 for a memorial in the book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua, 
 for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from 
 under heaven.' 
 
 Such particulars, it is said, relating to Moses as a icritcr, 
 agree only with a later person who used documents. On 
 the supposition that he wrote the whole, they are incon- 
 gruous. 
 
 This passage is important, since it contains the earliest 
 direct reference to the written composition of any part of 
 the work. Its true force seems plainly to be just the 
 
202 The Pentateuch 
 
 opposite of what the objection affirms. The phrase, ' the 
 book/ must refer to some work which Moses had either 
 begun to write, or else was expected and intrusted to write 
 before the close of his commission. What Moses is here 
 told to write seems to be, not the account of the conflict, 
 but simply the Divine purpose, — ' that I will utterly put 
 out the name of Amalek from under heaven/ This notice 
 plainly could not stand alone, but must be in connexion 
 with a narrative of the event. This narrative is as- 
 sumed, and is the subject of no command. The message 
 refers wholly to a supplement which Moses could have no 
 warrant to append, except by a distinct revelation from 
 God. Hence the words are a direct evidence that a narra- 
 tive of the Exodus, by Moses himself, was either actually 
 begun, or at least was well known to form one part of his 
 duty as the apostle and messenger of God. It is further 
 observable that, besides fidfilling the command here, in the 
 regidar course of the history, he fulfils it once more in the 
 well-known passage at the very close of the book of the 
 law, where there is a verbal allusion to the memorial to be 
 placed on record, — * i^^/z^ew^^er what Amalek did to thee 
 by the way,' &c. (Deut. xxv. 17-19.) It would be i\ie 
 simplest inference of reason, from the facts themselves, 
 that they were not to pass into oblivion through the want 
 of a record. But as soon as the ten commandments, first 
 orally delivered, had been written on the two tables of 
 stone by the finger of God, the principle of a written 
 record of all the other Divine messages, and of the history 
 out of which they arose, would have received a solemn 
 sanction, and must have been seen and felt by all to be one 
 main work entrusted to the Lawgiver of Israel. 
 
and its Anatomists. 203 
 
 106. The Description of Joshua. 
 
 Exod. xxiv. 13. ' And Moses rose up, and his minister 
 Joshua.' 
 
 xxxiii. 11. 'And he turned again into the camp : but his 
 servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out 
 of the tabernacle.' 
 
 The words here, it is said, are not such as would be 
 written by Moses, but by a much later person ; and the 
 language in the second place is not the most appropriate, 
 but would agree better with a first mention of Joshua. As 
 coming from Moses, it is an unsuitable description of his 
 own servant, but a later author would insert it. Both 
 places, it is said, belong to the Jehovist. 
 
 The objection from the first passage is so unmeaning, 
 that it is hard to understand how it could have arisen, or 
 wherein the incongruity is fancied to consist. This simple 
 mention that Joshua now accompanied Moses is one of 
 those slight touches which mark the truth of the whole 
 narrative, and also its Divine unity. Unless recorded hj 
 Moses himself, no tradition was likely to hand it down to 
 later times ; while it stands here, in a single word, as a 
 virtual prophecy of Joshua's later eminence and honour. 
 
 The other passage has also an unmistakable character 
 of minute, historical truth. Yet the motive for its in- 
 sertion, and for the short description of Joshua 'as a 
 young man,' is not so plain. If, however, the fact were 
 to be mentioned at all, there is nothing to make it less 
 natural from Moses than from any later writer. Nay, 
 there is an especial propriety that, in the same verse 
 which records his own signal honour in its first clause, 
 the second should mention a signal and distinguishing 
 
204 The Pentateuch 
 
 honour of Joshua, his destined successor. Such an asso- 
 ciation with Moses, in the case of Aaron and Hur, or any 
 of the elders, would have been less significant. But that 
 Joshua, a young man, should be present near to Moses 
 when this revelation was given, and abide still in the 
 tabernacle when Moses left it to bear God's messao^e to 
 the people, was a significant prophecy of the high office 
 in store for him in later years. Such minute touches, so 
 full of meaning, are quite natural in the inspired Law- 
 giver, but wholly inexplicable on the infidel view. 
 
 107. Anticipations of the Conquest. 
 
 Lev. xviii. 28 ' That the land spue not you out also, when 
 ye defile it, as it spued out the nations which were before you.' 
 
 Num. XV. 32. * And while the children of Israel were in the 
 wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the 
 sabbath-day.' 
 
 Num. XV. 22, 23. ' And if ye have erred and not observed 
 all these commandments, which the Lord hath spoken unto 
 Moses, even all that the Lord hath commanded you by the 
 hand of Moses, from the day that the Lord commanded Moses, 
 and henceforward among your generations,' &c. 
 
 Deut. ii. 12. ' As Israel did unto the land of his possession, 
 which the Lord gave unto them.' 
 
 These four texts have one common character, and have 
 been alleged in proof of the post- Mosaic origin of the 
 whole. But the objection is strangely superficial. 
 
 i. The words in Leviticus come at the close of a 
 chapter, which prohibits to the Israelites incestuous mar- 
 riages and practices, common among the nations they 
 were about to expel. It opens with a definition of its 
 object. ' After the doings of the land of Egypt wherein 
 
and its Anatomists. 205 
 
 ye dwelt, shall ye not do ; and after the doings of the 
 land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; 
 neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.' The point of 
 time is thus clearly fixed in the chapter itself, after the 
 Exodus, and before the Conquest. Then, at the close, the 
 warning voice is repeated still more solemnly, * Defile not 
 yourselves in any of these things ; for in all these the 
 nations are defiled which I am casting out before you : 
 And the land is defiled ; and I have visited the iniquity 
 thereof upon it, and the land itself hath vomited out her 
 inhabitants.' The Hebrew tense is the future, with Vau 
 conversive, equivalent to the past, and the judgment is 
 thus prophetically exhibited as if already come. Then 
 follows the natural sequel,—' Ye shall therefore keep my 
 statutes,' &c., ' that the land spue not you out also, when 
 ye defile it, as it hath spued out the nations that were 
 before you.' 
 
 Thus in V. 3 the ejection is distinctly represented as 
 still future, in v. 24 as if already in progress, ^ am casting 
 out,' and in v. 25 as if fulfilled. But since the judgment 
 is prophetically described as already come, so too, by 
 natural consequence, is the moral danger to the Israelites, 
 lest by like sins they should bring on themselves a like 
 visitation. It is a surprising obtuseness, if not conscious 
 dishonesty, which can alone see any proof of a later 
 authorship in this vivid and expressive style of God's 
 most solemn warning. The Hebrew knows nothing of 
 our compound tenses, shall have, or ivill have. The choice 
 lay between a perfect and an imperfect. And since the 
 judgment on the Canaanites must first have been executed 
 before the warning lesson could apply, it is plain that the 
 
206 The Pentateuch 
 
 tense used is by far the most natural and expressive. The 
 language of the chapter, from first to last, suits perfectly 
 the time in the wilderness, and no other period. 
 
 ii. The words of Num. xv. 32, ' while the children of 
 Israel were in the wilderness,' &c., have been thought to 
 imply a date after the death of Moses. On what pretence 
 it is hard to say. They had ceased to be in the wilderness 
 at least four months before his death ; during which, as- 
 suming the genuineness of the Pentateuch, most probably 
 the whole, and certainly this later portion, was written. 
 The precepts, ch. xv. 1-31, must, apparently, have been 
 given early in their sojourn, perhaps in the second or 
 third year, not long after the solemn oath recorded just 
 before. This incident is plainly added to illustrate the 
 previous command, the warning against presumptuous 
 sins. There is no proof that it occurred early, or even 
 before Korah's rebellion. Its connexion with the verse 
 before it is moral, not chronological. Hence the most 
 general notice of the time was enough, that it happened 
 while they were still in the wilderness, before the conquest 
 over Sihon. This later sentence, being revealed and exe- 
 cuted while they were still on their journey, confirmed 
 and ratified the code of laws first given, of which the 
 wilderness w^as the scene, in contrast to the legislation in 
 the plains of Moab. 
 
 iii. The passage, Num. xv. 22, 23, is still more 
 strangely made an objection to the genuineness than the 
 text in Leviticus just examined. It is impossible to de- 
 vise words more appropriate, at the very time of the 
 Mosaic legislation, for conveying instructions to the people 
 how their sins of ignorance, committed in all time to 
 
and its Anatomists. 207 
 
 come, miglit be forgiven througli a fitting sacrifice. 
 Every word is suitable and emphatic, as a true message 
 from the God of Israel to His people in the days of Moses 
 — a stamp divinely afiixed to the whole legal economy. 
 The only alternative, and one which the objection must 
 imply, is that the whole account is a pure invention and 
 imposture of the grossest and most hateful kind. Such a 
 calumny against the word of God is too much like one of 
 those presumptuous sins which are here excluded from 
 the hope of pardon. 
 
 108. On Deut. ii. 12, Bleek observes,— 
 
 * This plainly sets forth a time when the Israelites were al- 
 ready in possession of the land, and had driven out the former 
 inhabitants ; a time, therefore, later than Moses. The suppo- 
 sition of Eosenmiiller and others is very forced and unnatural, 
 that the reference is to what had even at that moment hap- 
 pened, " as Israel is now doing to the land of their possession," 
 and then to think of the tract on the other side Jordan.' 
 
 So Dr. Colenso : — 
 
 ' Plainly the country of Sihon and Og is not meant by the 
 expression " the land of his possession which the Lord gave 
 unto him," for this is indicated distinctly as the land of Canaan 
 in Deut. iv. 1.' 
 
 This last remark shows extreme carelessness, to say 
 no more. For in Deut. iv. 1 the tense is different ' which 
 the Lord God of your fathers is giving you.' But in 
 Deut iii. 18 we have the very phrase and tense of ii. 12 
 directly applied to the Transjordanic region : ' And I 
 commanded you at that time, saying, The Lord your God 
 hath given you (10?) this land to possess it.' This actual 
 
208 The Pentateuch 
 
 possession, also, is contrasted witli one still future : ' Until 
 they also possess the land which the Lord your God hath 
 given them beyond Jordan/ It is a curious proof that 
 the eastern land cannot be meant where the language is 
 of a past possession, because the w^estern is meant where 
 the text speaks of possession still future ; and this, when 
 the two texts are parted by a third, which places this 
 past and this future possession in direct contrast to each 
 other ! 
 
 The text ii. 12 has really no difficulty, w^hen the 
 Hebrew is rendered, as it should be, by the English jDcr- 
 fect : * As Israel hath done to the land of his possession, 
 which the Lord hath given him.' The context fixes the 
 reference to the part of the inheritance already con- 
 quered. Even the most careless forger could never speak 
 of the whole land as already possessed, in a chapter the 
 whole drift of which is to encourage Israel in their task 
 of taking possession. On the other hand, the words are 
 most impressive and appropriate on the lips of Moses. 
 They place the past success of the Israelites on the basis 
 of a Divine gift, which brought with it the assurance that 
 equal success would attend them, after his own decease, 
 on the west of Jordan. Edom, Moab, Ammon, and their 
 ow^n first victories and conquests, are all turned into 
 motives of full confidence that Canaan should soon be- 
 come their possession, according to the covenant of God. 
 
 109. The Commendation of Moses. 
 
 Num. xii. 3. ' Now the man Moses was very meek, above all 
 the men which were upon the face of the earth.' 
 
 This high praise of Moses has seemed to many to be 
 
and its Anatomists. 209 
 
 inconsistent with the view that he was the writer of 
 the whole Pentateuch. Dr. Davidson remarks on it as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' These words are inappropriate, if proceeding from Moses 
 himself. The attempt of Hengstenberg to explain them is a 
 curious phenomenon of exposition. After giving four reasons 
 to show that they are to guard against a misconception of the 
 words " the Lord heard," he still feels that they have something 
 of a strange air. But this vanishes in his view, if we measure 
 Moses by his own standard, not by ours. Whoever can report 
 his own offences and defects, as Moses has done, can speak of 
 what the Lord has wrought in him with an openness entirely 
 different from what we can use. And besides, Christ said, re- 
 ferring to the present passage, "I am meek and lowly in heart." 
 If this be not special pleading we know not where to find it. 
 The language is extravagant commendation. A modest and 
 meek man, whatever be his faults, will never employ such self- 
 commendation, exalting his own person above all others in the 
 world .... The words and their context disown the determin- 
 ation of apologists to shut their eyes to all evidence contrary to 
 their own prepossessions.' — Introd. pp. 8, 9. 
 
 The difficulty here has plainly its source in the 
 secret assumption that an inspired work is wholly like 
 common history, and depends purely on ' the will of 
 man/ and not on the overruling power and influence of 
 the Holy Spirit. The view of Hengstenberg, who speaks 
 of the noble objectivity of the character of Moses, and 
 quotes from Calmet, ' As he here praises himself without 
 pride, he blames himself elsewhere with humility,' is in- 
 sufficient on this very ground. If this chapter were 
 nothing more than uninspired narrative, written by Moses, 
 the words of this verse would certainly be unnatural. 
 
 p 
 
210 The Pentateuch 
 
 The praise here given, if true, could be known to be true 
 by the Searcher of hearts alone. Who but God Himself 
 can weigh in an even balance the characters of all man- 
 kind, and decide who is pre-eminent in any one grace or 
 virtue ? 
 
 When the question is viewed in this light, it assumes 
 a new aspect. Is the Spirit of God to be debarred from 
 the mention of a fact, essential to the clear apprehension 
 of the whole event, and its true moral, because the 
 same statement, had it originated with Moses, would have 
 seemed like what St. Paul deprecates, the foolishness of 
 boasting ? Yet since the Spirit is the Spirit of order and 
 decorum, no less than of wisdom and holiness, there is 
 some presumption here, from the nature of the whole 
 monograph, that another prophet, and not Moses, might 
 be chosen at first to place it on record. We know, from 
 ch. xi., just before, that the spirit of prophecy rested on 
 seventy elders at least. Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, Joshua, 
 might be used in recording some of the messages given in 
 the wilderness, while these were all finally incorporated 
 by Moses, under Divine guidance, in the Torah committed 
 to the Levites before his death. The short chapter before 
 us is a distinct message, clearly parted ofi" from those 
 which precede and follow. It contains a signal interfer- 
 ence of God to maintain the honour of His servant Moses, 
 when his own brother and sister, through jealousy, had 
 cast reproach upon him. The lesson is enforced in a 
 much later command — Deut. xxiv. 9, 'Kemember what 
 the Lord thy God did unto Miriam by the way,' &c. The 
 record, including God's own attestation to the character 
 of Moses, and the large trust he had received, would come 
 
and its Anatomists, 211 
 
 with more apparent weight, if some other, such as Eleazar 
 or Joshua, were chosen to be the historian. The office of 
 Moses at a later date, when the Pentateuch was com- 
 posed, would then be purely ministerial, to insert the 
 message already revealed in its own place, and to ac- 
 cept with gratitude this testimony of God to his meek- 
 ness and fidelity ; when he was called upon elsewhere 
 not to shrink from recording his own sinful impatience, 
 by which he was excluded from the land of promise. 
 
 When we look closely at the whole chapter, it has 
 plainly the air of a contemporary narrative. It is dra- 
 matic and pictorial in the highest degree. It forms the 
 basis of a later precept near the close of the Law, and of 
 an Apostolic argument on the pre-eminence of Christ over 
 Moses. Heb. iii. 1-6. Its opening words, while they allude 
 to Exod. ii. 15, 22, are suited to a brief and separate 
 narrative. The statements of vv. 2, 9 imply a direct 
 revelation to the writer of the mind of God. Even the 
 words in question could be justified, whether in Moses or 
 another, only on the ground of a distinct Divine revela- 
 tion. They form the moral keynote of the whole passage. 
 And since the plain drift of the whole was to establish the 
 leadership of Moses on the ground of God's appointment, 
 when even Aaron and Miriam had assailed him, there is 
 a reason here, which applies to no other chapter, for the 
 selection of some third party, whether Eleazar, Joshua, or 
 one of the seventy elders that prophesied, to be the in- 
 spired penman of this brief section of the history. On 
 this view the whole difficulty and strangeness disappears. 
 There could then be no risk, even with the most perverse, 
 of ascribing the words to the foolish self-praise of Moses, 
 
212 The Pentateuch 
 
 instead of hearing in them God*s own witness to the grace 
 bestowed on His chosen servant. 
 
 110. HORMAH. 
 
 Num. xxi. 3. ' And he called the name of the place Hormah.' 
 xiv. 45. ' And discomfited them unto Hormah.' 
 
 Judg. i. 17. * And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and 
 they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly- 
 destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.' 
 
 The objection from these verses is stated by Dr. David- 
 son as follows : — 
 
 '■ The notion of a prolepsis in Num. xiv. 45 is untenable. It 
 appears to a plain reader that Num. xxi. 1-3 was not written 
 till after the time referred to in Judg. i. 17, since the execution 
 of the curse is there related. In other words, Numbers was 
 written after the tribes had received their portions in the land. 
 It is obvious, too, that Judg. i. 17 could not have proceeded 
 from the same author as Num. xxi., because they disagree about 
 the time when the place was called Hormah. It is unlikely 
 that the name was given twice to one place. Hengstenberg 
 thinks that when it was put under the curse by the Israelites, 
 the power of the Canaanites remained unbroken, and therefore 
 it soon became Zephath again. This is contrary to Num. xxi. 3, 
 " And they utterly destroyed them and their cities." In Judg. 
 i. 17 the words infer that Hormah was a new name, not an old 
 one reintroduced.' 
 
 Here a little careful attention will remove the whole 
 difficulty, and disclose the real harmony of all the succes- 
 sive statements. 
 
 i. The mention of Hormah, Num. xiv. 45, is a pro- 
 lepsis in this sense alone, that the name had not been 
 given to the place when the mission of the spies occurred. 
 
and its Anatomists. 213 
 
 or in the second year of the Exodus. But the name had 
 been freshly given a few months before the Book of 
 Numbers was written ; and there is a peculiar force in 
 this mention of it, to mark the contrast between the vain 
 attempt of the people to take possession without the help 
 of God, and the first earnest of success when that help 
 had been solemnly implored. 
 
 ii. The conquest, Num. xxi. 1-3, is no prolepsis, but 
 an account of the first conflict of Israel with the Canaan- 
 ites, about six months before crossing Jordan, and their 
 complete success. Hormah lay to the south of that moun- 
 tain boundary, which was a natural defence of Canaan on 
 its southern side. Hence this partial success did not open 
 their way northward ; and, after destroying these out- 
 lying towns beyond the proper limit of Canaan, they 
 turned back, to compass the land of Edom, and entered 
 Canaan on its eastern side. 
 
 iii. The name, Hormah, ' utter destruction,' from the 
 nature of the case, could be current only among the 
 Israelites, and not among the Canaanites themselves. 
 But since they left the neighbourhood immediately, and 
 did not approach it again till the Jordan was crossed, 
 and the conquest had made considerable progress, its use 
 could only be very rare and occasional, historical rather 
 than actual, a memorial of the event, not the title of a 
 place where they dwelt, or with which they had any 
 direct communication. It would be a memory of the 
 past and a prophecy of the future, rather than a name in 
 present, actual use. 
 
 iv. The king of Hormah, Josh. xii. 14, and the king 
 of Arad are named among those overcome by Joshua. 
 
214 The Pentateuch 
 
 When Canaan was so thickly peopled, the chasm made 
 by the utter destruction in Numbers would be soon filled 
 up by the overflow from the populous tribes in the south 
 of Canaan. In the campaign against Sodom, a similar 
 fact appears. Gen. xiv. 10, 11, 17. The Aactory of Joshua 
 was over these kings, not necessarily over their cities 
 also. They were overthrown, probably, in some conflict 
 where they were confederate with the other southern 
 kings. 
 
 V. The event in Judges was ' after the death of Joshua,' 
 i. 1, when the league of Simeon and Judah occurred. It 
 was thus thirty or forty years, a whole generation, after 
 the event in Numbers. Since Zephath lay south of the 
 southern boundary, it would be earliest reached when the 
 Israelites came ' by the way of the spies,' but latest in 
 their actual conquest of Canaan, when they came to it 
 from the north. The Canaanites, of course, would not 
 use the name Hormah — a memorial of past, and a pro- 
 phecy of future calamity. To them, as soon as re- 
 occupied, it would be Zephath. But the words in Judges 
 refer plainly to the geographical name, or that which 
 was given to the place by its own inhabitants. This 
 now first ceased to be Zephath, and began to be Hormah. 
 In Num. xxi. the Israelites had not taken possession, 
 but retired southward as soon as their vow was ful- 
 fiUed. 
 
 The various statements, it is now plain, agree per- 
 fectly with each other. The historical name, in Numbers, 
 first became the actual geographical name when the dis- 
 trict was permanently occupied, after the death of Joshua, 
 by the children of Simeon and Judah. 
 
and its Anatomists. 215 
 
 111. The Book of the Wars of the Lord. 
 
 Num. xxi. 13-15. * For Arnon is the border of Moab, be- 
 tween Moab and the Amorites. Wherefore it is said in the Book 
 of the Wars of the Lord, What He did in the Red Sea, and in 
 the brooks of Arnon, and at the stream of the brooks that 
 goeth down to the dwelling of Ar, and lieth upon the border of 
 Moab.' 
 
 ' It is improbable,' it is said, 'that Moses should quote the 
 Book of the Wars of the Lord, that is, his own work. The fact 
 of such quotation shows a time of learning, and a person poste- 
 rior to Moses. This is confirmed by the particle then, com- 
 mencing V. 17, which points both here and Gen. xii. 6, xiii. 7, 
 to a subsequent author.' 
 
 The word then, in Gen. xii. xiii., no doubt points to an 
 author subsequent to Abraham, and here to one who 
 wrote after the encampment at Beer. But this does not 
 seem to be a formidable objection, in either case, to the 
 Mosaic authorship, since Moses certainly survived the 
 encampment, and lived after Abraham and not before 
 him. 
 
 i. Three quotations are given successively in this chap- 
 ter. The first is from ' the Book of the Wars of the Lord,' 
 and the last is plainly a triumphant war- song. Hence they 
 all probably belonged to the same book. Why are these 
 quotations made? Hengstenberg has said, with truth, 
 that it was certainly not for the mere purpose of con- 
 firming the geographical notices. It is rather to relieve 
 the seeming dryness of the details in these journeys ; and 
 to show how melodies of song and praise, which had been 
 silent in the wilderness, awoke once more, as soon as they 
 began to enter upon the land of promise. 
 
216 The Pentateuch 
 
 The Book in question, then, was probably a collection 
 of Israelitisb songs of praise, founded on the wonderful 
 works of the Exodus, and later deliverances of the chosen 
 people. Its writers will be called, v. 27, * they that speak 
 in proverbs ' that is, not in the simple historical style, but 
 with poetical figures. (Ps. Ixxviii. 2.) 
 
 ii. The first quotation is abrupt, and plainly incomplete. 
 It might probably have formed part of the opening words 
 of a Ij^rical song nearly as follows, — ' I will sing the works 
 of the Lord, the mighty acts of the God of Israel. What 
 He did for us at the Red Sea,' &c. &c. The word Suphah 
 seems here to be geographical, referring to the earlier 
 deliverance at the Red Sea, and not to be 'a storm,' as 
 Hengstenberg interprets, with vaheh for a proper name. 
 ' Yaheb He took in a storm.' The point of the quotation 
 will turn on the union of the last act of the Exodus, and 
 the first of the Entrance, in the heading of the song. The 
 crossing of the Arnon would thus be marked, in a simple 
 but impressive way, as the close of their wilderness sojourn. 
 
 iii. The second quotation is still shorter. It is a contrast 
 to the miraculous smiting of the rock in the wilderness, and 
 marks their first entrance on 'a land inhabited,' with 
 * fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills.' 
 The rock had been smitten amidst the murmurs of the 
 people, but the well of the nobles is digged amidst their 
 songs of hope and joy. 
 
 iv. The third quotation is clearly an Israelite song of 
 victory upon the conquest of Sihon. His former exploits 
 against ^loab are named, to make the victory of Israel 
 more impressive. There is an abrupt and lyrical change 
 from the triumphs of Sihon to his sudden overthrow. 
 
a7id its Anatomists. 217 
 
 There is notliing, then, in these references, when their 
 true purpose is seen, in the least degree inconsistent with 
 the Mosaic composition of the history. This ' Book of the 
 Wars of the Lord ' was probably a small collection of 
 national chants or songs of praise, which grew up during 
 their years of sojourn, after the marvels of the Exodus had 
 wakened up the faithful to a new sense of the power and 
 mercy of the God of Israel. Its chief subjects would be 
 the Exodus and the Entrance ; and each chant or song 
 being composed successively as the occasion arose, these 
 brief allusions or quotations serve to light up the details of 
 the march with a dramatic vividness, scarcely attainable 
 in any other way. In fact, the words of v. 27 seem to 
 imply that this last triumphal song was still current in the 
 lips of the Israelite bards, and had scarcely been enrolled 
 in the book to which it naturally belonged in a written 
 form. 
 
 112. Havoth Jair. (Deut. ii. 14.) 
 
 Two objections have been founded on this verse. First, 
 that the phrase ' unto this day ' is inconsistent with the 
 shortness of the interval between the conquest of Bashan 
 and the death of Moses. And next, that Judges, x. 3-5, 
 proves that the name Havoth Jair had its origin much 
 later, shortly before the time of Jephthah. 
 
 The phrase, ' unto this day,' occurs often in the Penta- 
 teuch, Gen. xix. 87, 38, xxii. 14, xx\4. 33, xxxii. 33, xxxv. 
 20, xlvii. 26, Deut. ii. 22, iii. 14, x. 8. All of these have 
 sometimes been adduced, without distinction, as proofs of 
 a date later than Moses. It is self-evident, however, and 
 owned by the more recent critics of the negative school, 
 that no objection can be drawn from any of them, except 
 
218 The Pentateuch 
 
 Deut. iii. 14 alone. But this event, it is said, ' belongs to 
 the time named,' before the death of Moses, and could not 
 have been so spoken of in his farewell discourse, the 
 interval being very short. 'Here Hengstenberg,' Dr. 
 Davidson says, * tries to show that all which occurred from 
 Num. xxii. to the end, intervened, so that the fact was not 
 so near the present time of the writer. But in this the 
 critic fails, and is therefore obliged to have recourse to the 
 fluctuating character of the phrase, and the common 
 occurrence of new names not remaining fixed to their 
 objects soon after their introduction. To say that the 
 phrase was nearty equivalent to our English word, stilty 
 is simply absurd.' 
 
 These remarks are equally superficial and supercilious. 
 
 i. First, it is almost self-evident that the events of 
 Num. xxii. and onward intervened between the occupation 
 of the land of Bashan and the parting address of Moses. 
 There seems no reason at all why several months should 
 be suffered to elapse, after the victories of Israel, before the 
 occupation of the vanquished territory ; while the conveni- 
 ence of the narrative makes it natural that all the facts 
 respecting the possession of the eastern tribes should be 
 recorded together, just before the instructions as to the 
 boundaries of the promised land. The request of the 
 Reubenites and Gadites, from the nature of the case, must 
 have followed closely on the double conquest, and Jair's 
 occupation of Bashan was the direct sequel of the conflict 
 in which Og was overthrown. 
 
 ii. Th,c phrase, * unto this day,' cannot in itself define 
 any long interval or period of time. As Hengstenberg 
 remarks, the duration implied is not absolute, but relative. 
 
and its Anatomists, 219 
 
 It depends entirely on the objects of the discourse, whether 
 they are subject to alteration in a longer or shorter time. 
 Cases of its use for an interval of a few years only are 
 comparatively frequent. The words, 'still,' ' until now,' and 
 * until this day,' clearlj^ differ in this alone, that the last 
 implies a distinct interval of several days at least. Thus 
 the words, ' he has never paid me to this day,' might refer 
 to an interval of a few weeks or of several years, accord- 
 ing as the debt was contracted on condition of prompt 
 payment, or under a usage of considerable delaj^ 
 
 iii. The strangeness of Deut. iii. 14, is mainly due to 
 the translation. The Hebrew has no distinction between 
 the simple past or aorist, and the perfect, but in this case 
 the latter is the proper English expression of the thought, 
 since its force is to denote an act which continues its 
 effects to the present time. It will then read thus, ' Jair, 
 the son of Manasseh, hath taken all the country of Argob, 
 and hath called them Bashan-Havoth-Jair, unto this day. 
 And I gave Gilead to Machir.* 
 
 The whole of Deut. i.-iii. is a review of God's past 
 dealings with Israel, placing them in sharp and strong- 
 contrast with that future which was close at hand, the 
 coming years of conquest and ages of possession. This 
 past reaches from the Exodus and Sinai to the latest en- 
 campment in Bethpeor. This third chapter relates wholly 
 to events which had occurred within the second half of 
 the fortieth year. Hence it is natural and suitable that 
 its purely historical or retrospective tone should be tem- 
 pered by one clause or verse, linking it closely with the 
 present, and thus making the past a more direct pledge of 
 future conquest. Og was the more dreaded of the two 
 
220 The Pentateuch 
 
 powers they had overcome. Yet Israel had taken posses- 
 sion of his land, and held it still. The words ' unto this 
 day ' are not restricted to the name, which was merely a 
 sign of the fact, but include the fact itself. Jair has 
 occupied the land of Og, as the present name of these 
 Havoth shows, and possesses it to this day. This ' accom- 
 plished fact,' in the present occupation of a kingdom 
 deemed so mighty less than a year ago, is a pledge of 
 similar conquests soon to be achieved. Thus the words in 
 question are far more suitable and expressive in the lips 
 of Moses, than they can possibly be if transferred to an 
 unknown writer of some later age. 
 
 The objection from the passage in Judges is plainly 
 worthless. The interval of time between the two events 
 is rather less than three hundred years. The recurrence 
 of the name, Jair, like that of Gilead in the father of 
 Jephthah, is perfectly usual and natural. If this were a 
 proof of identity, it would also identify Jairus in the 
 Gospel with the son of Segub, or with the successor of 
 Tola. One inference would scarcely be more absurd than 
 the other. Again, the re\dval of the name Havoth Jair, 
 after falling into disuse, when a new Jair rose to eminence 
 in the same district, can occasion no surprise to any 
 thoughtful mind. The towns, so named from the judge, 
 do not seem to have been wholly the same as those to 
 which the name had been given before. They were thirty 
 in number, while twenty-three and sixty are the only 
 numbers given in the first conquest ; the former, appar- 
 ently, for the Bashan Havoth Jair, and the latter including 
 those towns of Kenath, which took the name of Nobah. 
 The passage, 1 Chron. ii. 22, 23, is rendered by Hengsten- 
 
and its Anatomists. 221 
 
 berg,— ^ And Segub begat Jair, who bad twenty-three 
 cities in the land of Gilead. And Geshur and Aram took 
 Havoth Jair from them (Jair's descendants) with Kenath 
 and her daughters, threescore cities in all ;' and he adds 
 strangely, that the passage has this meaning or none. 
 It seems plain, however, that it does not speak of a re- 
 conquest, which would be quite out of place, but of the 
 first conquest, and should be rendered, — 'And he took 
 Geshur and Aram, even Havoth Jair from them (the 
 Geshurites, &c.), with Kenath and her daughters, three- 
 score cities ; all these belonged to the sons of Machir the 
 father of Gilead/ The words of Joshua, xiii. 13, only 
 prove that the expulsion of the Geshurites was not com- 
 plete. 
 
 The remark of Steuder, that Jair, according to Chron- 
 icles, was ' certainly not contemporary with Moses, but 
 his age falls not long after Joshua,' is nearly as absurd as 
 the construction Yater has placed on Deut. iii. 15, that 
 Machir in person survived till the conquest. But even 
 Hengstenberg's own view, that Jair, ' a vaHant warrior, 
 held what he had gained with his sword and bow,' involves 
 the same error, though in a less flagrant form. For it is 
 plain from Chronicles that Jair, like Machir, denotes the 
 family, and not the person, its historical head. Hezron, 
 the first-born of Pharez, could not have been born much 
 more than twenty years after the descent, and Segub was 
 born to him at sixty years of age. Hence Jair, the son of 
 Segub, must have been born about 110 years after the 
 descent, or 105 before the Exodus, and would have been 
 145 had he survived till the Conquest. But all who were 
 above forty at the Exodus, except the Levites, had died 
 
222 The Pentateuch 
 
 before the second numbering. It is plain tbat Jair was 
 dead even before the Exodus, probably wbile Moses was 
 in Midian ; and his family, who took possession, had 
 multiplied through four descents at the time of the Con- 
 quest. It seems to have resulted from the honourable 
 position of Joseph, and of Manasseh as his firstborn, that 
 in this family alone the maternal prevailed usually over the 
 paternal genealogy. Hence, including sons and daughters, 
 four descents might raise the number to ten thousand, 
 while the half tribe amounted only to twenty- six thousand. 
 Jair took Argob in the same sense as Machir took Gilead, 
 that is, the family who bore his name. 
 
 Other anachronisms have been alleged (Davids, p. 13) 
 in Deut. xix. 14 ; Exod. xxii. 29 ; Lev. xxvi. 34, 35, 43 ; 
 but the charge is so manifestly and purely absurd as to 
 deserve no answer. Moses, forsooth, could not have given 
 a law to the Israelites not to remove old landmarks or 
 not to delay the offering of their first-fruits, because they 
 had not then entered the land. He could not warn them 
 of future exile as the sure effect of national sin, and of 
 their neglect of God's sabbaths, because that would imply 
 a foresight of events still remote. There seems really no 
 limit to the childish folly into which men may be permitted 
 to fall, when they rely on their own fancied learning to 
 cast foul reproach on the words of the Living God. 
 
and its Anatomists. 223 
 
 CHAPTEE XII. 
 
 ALLEGED HISTORICAL CONTRADICTIONS. 
 
 113. The charges of internal contradiction brought against 
 the Pentateuch by modern critics are very numerous. 
 Most of them, however, are so palpably groundless, as to 
 make it an irksome and almost superfluous task to offer a 
 formal refutation. Six or seven of the chief shall be exa- 
 mined in order, as presented by Dr. Davidson in his last 
 work, that it may be seen what kind of arguments have 
 been relied upon to uproot and overturn the old founda- 
 tions of the faith of the Church of Christ. 
 
 ISSACHAR, ZeBULUN, AND JoSEPH. 
 
 * There are double etymologies of the names Issachar and 
 Zebiilun, Gen. xxx. 14-20. In v. 16 the name Issachar is ex- 
 plained by the circumstance that Leah had hired Jacob with her 
 son's mandrakes, while in v. 18 she calls him Issachar because 
 God had given her a hire or reward for lending her maid to her 
 husband. In like manner she called her sixth son Zebulun — 
 dweller, saying, " Now will my husband dwell with me :" but 
 her words, " God hath endued me with a good dowry," intimate 
 dowry as the meaning of the name, from zabad, daleth and lamed 
 being interchangeable letters. The Hebrew writers, having no 
 perception of scientific etymology, undertook to explain old 
 
224 The Pentateuch 
 
 names by the language as spoken in their day. Each would 
 naturally give his own derivation of the same word. Different 
 etymologies of Joseph are given. " And she conceived and bare 
 a son, and said, God hath taken away my reproach. And she 
 called his name Joseph, and said, The Lord shall add to me an- 
 other son." In the former case it is equivalent to ^D^^"*, from 
 ?)DW; in the latter the Jehovist deduces it from p^^N to add. 
 Kiel replies, that the former gives no etymology, but only 
 makes a slight allusion — a most remarkable statement.' — 
 Introd. p. 62. 
 
 Ans. i. This objection flatly contradicts the theory it 
 is brought to confirm. For in the scheme of the writer, 
 XXX. 17-40 is referred wholly to one and the same writer, 
 the Jehovist. Now this contains the alleged double ety- 
 mology of Zebulun and Joseph, and the sole etymology of 
 Issachar. A strange beginning of the sceptical argu- 
 ment! 'And Balak said unto Balaam, What hast thou 
 done ? I took thee to curse, and behold, thou hast blessed 
 altogether ! ' 
 
 ii. The double etymology of Issachar, by the state- 
 ment of the objector, is one and the same. The meaning, 
 hire, is the etymology. If Leah gave it for a double 
 reason, there is in this no shadow of inconsistency or 
 contradiction. The theory makes vv. 14-16 a later ad- 
 dition from the Redactor. But a more unnatural sepa- 
 ration cannot be conceived. Leah's grateful acknow- 
 ledgment, V. 18, is like a direct echo of her own previous 
 words, V. 16 ; while the intermediate passage, with its 
 minute touches of domestic history, is most absurdly as- 
 signed to the last of four fictitious authors, in the reign 
 of Manasseh. 
 
and its Anatomists. 225 
 
 iii. The statement respecting Zebiilun involves tlirco 
 flagrant contradictions. Tlie objection assigns vv. 19, 20 
 to two authors, the scheme to one only. The name 
 Elohim alone is used vv. 17-23, and yet the scheme refers 
 all to the Jehovist, and the objection, part to the Jehovist, 
 and part to the Iledactor or Elohist. Again, the double 
 allusion in the name, which the scheme ascribes to the 
 invention of the Jehovist, is held to be impossible in 
 Leah herself, in whom alone it is perfectly natural and 
 consistent. 
 
 iv. In the third case the remark of Keil is plainly 
 true, and the dogmatic contradiction plainly false. This 
 is proved by the contrast of tense in the two verbs. The 
 words of Rachel were not ' God will take away,' which 
 would be needful to create a second etymology, but ' God 
 hath taken away (^iPW) my reproach ; while Joseph, ^OV, 
 a future tense, strictly answers to the saying, ^ God will 
 add to me another son.' Asaph and Joseph are two 
 proper names, both prominent in Scrij)ture, and quite 
 distinct from each other. 
 
 114. Abraham tn Egypt and Gerar. Gen. xii. xx. 
 
 ' Sarah is taken by Ahimelech at Gerar, as slie bad been 
 taken in Egypt by the king of the conntiy, with the intention 
 of making her a wife. It is remarkable that two events, so 
 strikingly alike, should have occurred in Abraham's life. And 
 when Sarah's beauty is that from which danger is apprehended, 
 there is a difficulty in xvii. 17, xviii. 11, 12. She must have 
 preserved her charms to a late period of life. Still, there is 
 some room for doubting the original identity of the facts, on 
 account of the dissimilarities.' 
 
 Ans. The two events agree only in two points, — the 
 
 Q 
 
226 The Pentateuch 
 
 desire of a lieatlien king to many Sarah, and God's 
 interference for her protection. They differ in all the 
 rest. In time, they are twentj^-four years asunder. In 
 place, one is in Egypt and the other in Gerar. In 
 person, one is Abimelech, the other Pharoah. In the 
 character of the person, one is implied to be a despot, 
 restrained by a strong hand alone, the other a man of 
 uprightness and religious fear. In the means employed, 
 great plagues in one case, and in the other a dream of 
 the night, and a brief restraint on the usual fertilitj^ The 
 tone of the rebuke to Abraham is harsh and irritated on 
 the part of Pharoah, gentle, modest, and truthful on the 
 part of Abimelech. The view, which would confound 
 together two events so wholly distinct, on the ground of 
 a single resemblance, is an extreme instance of critical 
 blindness. One occurrence, instead of being any pre- 
 sumption against the truth of the other, serves only to 
 make it more probable. The objection, from the age of 
 Sarah is clearly worthless ; since the basis of the whole 
 narrative, on which its moral depends, is a special exercise 
 of Divine power in the case of Abraham and Sarah, so 
 as to fulfil God's promise in direct opposition to the cus- 
 tomary laws of human life. 
 
 115. Abraham and Isaac in Gerar. 
 
 ' The same thing also happens to Rebecca at Gerar. It is 
 remarkable that Gerar, the theatre of action, and Abimelech, 
 the party concerned, are the same in both cases. It is mere 
 assumption to say that it was the common name of Gerar's 
 kings.' 
 
 Alls. i. The interval of time between the sojourn of 
 Abraham and Sarah, and that of Isaac and Rebecca, is 
 
and its Anatomists. 227 
 
 about eighty years. The view that ' Abimelech, the 
 party concerned, is the same in both cases,' may pair off, 
 in point of truth and good sense, with an assertion that 
 Festus and Agrippa agreed to send Paul to Augustus 
 CsGsar, and not to Nero, for trial, — Acts, xxv. 25 ; xxvi. 
 32; Luke, ii. 1, — and that ' it is a mere assumption to 
 think that' Augustus and Ca3sar ' were common names ' of 
 the Roman Emperors. Abimelech is still the name of 
 Achish, king of the Philistines, in the time of David. 
 
 ii. All the other circumstances are here distinct. Re- 
 becca is not taken at all from her husband ; the king 
 merely reproves him for the danger to which he had 
 exposed her from some of his people, and the guilt which 
 miorht thus have been brought on the land. The criticism, 
 which would confound in one two occurrences so wholly 
 distinct in time, persons, and essential features, is astonish- 
 ingly absurd. 
 
 iii. The sceptical hypothesis divides the history in 
 Gen. xxvi. in the following way, vv. 1-5, Redactor ; 
 V. 6, Junior Elohist ; vv. 7-12, Redactor ; 13, 14a, Jimior 
 Elohist; 14b, 15, Redactor; 16, 17, Junior Elohist; v. 
 18, Redactor; vv. 19-22, Junior Elohist; vv. 23, 24, 
 Redactor; 25a, Junior Elohist; 25b, Redactor; 26-33, 
 Elohist; 33b, Redactor; 34, 35, Elohist. Thus we are 
 required to believe that an unknown author, in the days 
 of Elisha, recovered from tradition, or invented, nine 
 verses, giving an account of Isaac's stay in Gerar ; and 
 that another, in the days of Manasseh, prefixed five verses, 
 with a pretended account of a Divine vision and message, 
 and interpolated eleven others, in four different frag- 
 ments ; and this compound was then prefixed to ten other 
 
228 The Pentateuch 
 
 verses, dating from the time of Saul, so as to form one 
 tri23le narrative, where common eyes can see only a plain, 
 unadorned, consecutive statement of Isaac's personal his- 
 toYj. And these follies dare to call themselves advanced 
 Biblical criticism. 
 
 iv. The three histories, with all their distinctness, 
 have plainly a moral unit}^, to which there is allusion in 
 Ps. cv. 13-15. Each falls naturally into its own place, 
 while they all reveal the weakness of faith in the two 
 patriarchs, and the gracious care of God, b}^ which they 
 were preserved from the effects of their own timorousness. 
 But the scheme explains their presence in the same book 
 by a kind of fortuitous concourse of atoms. The middle 
 one was first composed by the Junior Elohist in the times 
 of Elisha ; then the first, or the account of Abraham in 
 Egypt, b}^ a. writer in the daj^s of Uzziah ; and the third, 
 with its sequel, partly by one in the days of Saul, partly 
 by another in the time of Elisha, and chiefly by a fourth 
 in the time of Manasseh, eleven centuries after the events 
 he professes to record. This confusion, worse confounded, 
 is what we are invited to- believe as far worthier of confi- 
 dence than the true sayings of the Son of God. 
 
 116. IIagar and Ishmael. 
 
 ' The narratives in Gen. xvi. and xxi. appear to be varieties 
 of one and the same event, because the principal circumstances 
 are identical. Both have the same result, obviously the aim 
 intended, the separation of the Arab descendants of Abraham 
 from his theocratic posterity. The motive is the same, Sarah's 
 jealousy and envy. Tlie greatness and power of the people are 
 noted in both In both an angel makes the announcement, "with 
 the same etymology of the name Ishmael, at a fountain in the 
 wilderness. Thus the essentials of both arc the same ; the re- 
 
and its Anatomists, 229 
 
 maining circumstances are of secondary moment, and do not 
 hang well together. The view which refers them to the same 
 event, taking different forms by transmission through inde- 
 pendent channels, is confirmed by the fact that one is Junior 
 Elohistic, the other Jehovistic' — Introd. p. G3. 
 
 Ans. The trivial differences are these. The two events 
 are just sixteen years apart. In one, Ishmael is unborn ; 
 in the other, fifteen or sixteen years old. In one, Hagar 
 is expelled for despising the barrenness of Sarah ; in the 
 other, Ishmael for mocking at Sarah's child, when his 
 weaning-feast was held. In one, Hagar flies of her own 
 accord from Sarah ; in the other, she and Ishmael are for- 
 mally dismissed by Abraham, after a Divine revelation. 
 In one case, she is charged to return and submit herself 
 to Sarah ; in the other, she never returns at all. In one 
 case, the name Ishmael is given to the unborn child ; in 
 the other, the name is assumed to be already known, and 
 is the subject only of an indirect allusion. In one, the 
 result is the birth of Ishmael in the house of Abraham ; 
 in the other, his stay in the wilderness, and his marriage. 
 There is a moral resemblance in the two events, but nearly 
 all their historical features are in marked contrast with 
 each other. The effort to identify them, or view them as 
 the same event distorted by two historians, is conspicuously 
 absurd. 
 
 117. Meribah and Kadesh. 
 
 'Another duplicate account is in Exod. xvii. 1, Num. xx. 
 1-13, of the water brought out of the rock, and the origin of 
 the name Meribah. As the same name could not have been 
 given twice, both must have grown out of one. Exod. xvii. 2-7 
 is Jehovistic, while Num. xx. 1-13 contains portions of different 
 documents.' 
 
230 The Pentateuch 
 
 Here, also, the contrasts are so plain, as to make it 
 wonderful how they could ever be supposed to be varied 
 reports of the same event. They difier widely in time, 
 since there was an interval of just thirty-nine years. 
 They differ as widely in place, since the first was at 
 Ptejohidim, and the latter at Kadesh, in the southern 
 limit of Canaan, a distance of nearty 180 miles in a direct 
 line. In the name given to the place — to the first, 
 Massah and Meribah, and to the second, Kadesh and En 
 Mishpat, the place where God was sanctified, and the 
 fountain of judgment. In the complaint uttered, which 
 implies in the second case the wasting of that whole 
 generation, — 'Would God that we had died when our 
 brethren died before the Lord.' In the instruction to 
 Moses, to smite the rock in the first case, to sjDeak to it in 
 the other. In the impatience of Moses, the second time 
 only, which was the immediate ground of his exclusion 
 from entering the land. Each is referred to distinctly in 
 the chapters that follow, — ' Ye rebelled against my com- 
 mandment in the desert of Zin, in the strife of the con- 
 gregation, to sanctify me at the water before their eyes : 
 that is the water of strife in Kadesh in the wilderness of 
 Zin,* Num. xxvii. 14. 'Ye shall not tempt the Lord your 
 God as ye tempted Him in Massah.' Deut. vi. 16. 
 
 118. The Appointment of Judges. Exod. xviii. ; 
 Deut. i. 6-18. 
 
 The latter account, it is here objected, contradicts the 
 earlier, and both arc inconsistent with Num. xi. 14-17, 
 where Moses still complains of bearing the burden alone. 
 
 Now it is plain, from the account in Exodus, that this 
 appointment of judges was by Jethro's advice, that it took 
 
and its Anatomists. 231 
 
 place before his return, and formed the first main step in 
 the Sinaitic legislation. An executive was first appointed, 
 and then a code of laws was publicly given. But the 
 order in Deuteronomy is really the same. The objection 
 overlooks v. 18, which follows the mention of this ap- 
 pointment, and includes the whole series of legislation 
 that followed. ' And I commanded you at that time all 
 the things which ye should do.' Moses, in this brief 
 review of the past, first recounts the charge to go up and 
 possess the land, y»' hich closed the stay at Iloreb ; and 
 then notices the double fact, the appointment of judges 
 and the promulgation of laws, which had prepared the 
 way for this march to the Land of Promise. 
 
 Again, the selection of the seventy elders, and the 
 gift of prophecy bestowed on them, is plainly distinct in 
 character from the selection of judges, as well as later in 
 time. In the former history, the prophetic character, or 
 the reference of causes directly to God, was expressly re- 
 served to Moses alone. But the prophetic gift, in the 
 later selection, raised its possessors nearl}^ to the level of 
 Moses, and made their utterances final and decisive, like 
 his own. Hence, his words to Joshua, — 'Envicst thou 
 for my sake ? Would God that all the Lord's people were 
 prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon 
 them ! ' There is thus no contradiction between the two 
 statements, but a perfect harmony. Not merely the ex- 
 clusive judgeship, but the sole possession of the prophetic 
 office, was too heavy a burden, and needed to be shared 
 with others. 
 
 119. The Mission of the Spies. 
 
 Here three contradictions are alleged. First, that in 
 
232 The Pentateuch 
 
 Numbers it is ascribed to the express command of God, 
 but in Deuteronomy to the wish of the people. But the 
 two things perfectly agree. If Moses consulted God upon 
 the request of the people, the answer he received would 
 be a Divine command. Secondly, that the parties were 
 not the same. ' The writer seems to have forgotten that 
 these things took place, according to the story, forty 
 years before.' On the contrary, his recollection of the in- 
 terval is conspicuous throughout these opening chapters,, 
 and is expressly stated, ii. 7, 14 ; i. 46. The statement is 
 astonishing for its audacity. Nearly one-half of those 
 numbered the second time would be already alive, and 
 one-third of them old enough to remember, at the earlier 
 date. Thirdly, Moses in Numbers is said to exhort the 
 people to go up, only after the return of the spies, while 
 in Deuteronomy it is before. But there is nothing in 
 Numbers to exclude the earlier exhortation, and it is 
 implied by the whole course of the previous history. 
 
 120. The Edomites. Deut. ii. 29. 
 
 A contradiction is alleged between the statement, 
 Deut. ii., and those of Num. xx. and Deut. xxiii. In one 
 place the Edomites and Moabites sell bread and water to 
 Israel ; and in the other are blamed, and an adverse law 
 is enacted, because they refused to do it. 
 
 The answer of Leake, Kurtz, and Ilengstenberg, is 
 plain and easy, that the two statements refer to different 
 times. The Edomites refused to give Israel a passage 
 across their mountain border; but when these dreaded 
 rivals had reached the eastern side, which is less defen- 
 sible, tliey made a virtue of necessity, and were then 
 eager to avoid new occasion of offence. 
 
and its Anatomists. 233 
 
 But it is still urged tliat the Book of Numbers gives 
 no sign that Balak and his people, cither for love or 
 money, supplied the Israelites with bread and water, as 
 the later passage affirms. This disclosure, however, of 
 new historical details, agreeing with the earlier narrative, 
 but not contained in it, is one of the most natural signs 
 of a genuine record. Fear leads naturally to acts of out- 
 ward submission and courtesy, even where the spirit is 
 secretly hostile, and we are told that 'Moab was sore 
 afraid of the people because they were many.' This pas- 
 sing mention of an outward submission, not mentioned 
 before, and the later condemnation of their hostile spirit 
 when they hired Balaam to curse the people, is so far 
 from being a difficulty, that it is a strong indication of 
 historical truth. 
 
 121. The Place of Sacrifice. 
 
 The limitation of sacrifices, in Deuteronomy, to one 
 appointed place, is thought to contradict the earlier pro- 
 mise in Exod. xx. 24. Also the mention of present 
 licence, Deut. xii. 8, is held inconsistent with the actual 
 condition of the people under the eye of Moses encamped 
 on the plains of Moab. • 
 
 The appointment, however, of a central place for 
 national worship, where all the sacrifices were usually to 
 be ofiered, is one main feature of the history, from the 
 pitching of the tabernacle at Shiloh down to the burning 
 of the first temple ; and onward, after the Captivity, to 
 the times of the New Testament. The more indefinite 
 promise, in Exod. xx., was not only given before the 
 sanctuary and its altar was built, and the precept, in Lev. 
 xvii. 1-7, but in later times applied to the special and 
 
234 The, Pentateuch 
 
 extradordinary sacrifices, such as that of Samuel at Eben- 
 ezer, or Gideon at Ophrali, wliich were warranted by 
 pecular circumstances, or by a direct command of God. 
 When God recorded His name in any place, there sacrifice 
 might be ofiered, while one central place alone for such 
 sacrifices was the general rule. Again, the words, xii. 8, 
 refer to the state of Israel in the wilderness, in which 
 other passages show clearly that great religious laxity 
 had prevailed. 
 
and its Anatomists, 235 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 122. The Elohistic theory, which distributes the Penta- 
 teuch among four or five authors later than Moses, and 
 remote in time from each other, draws its chief arguments 
 from the use of the sacred names in Genesis, and from 
 supposed anachronisms or contradictions. Its main pillars 
 have now been tested and found worthless. Some o/ the 
 texts appeared to directly confirm the Mosaic origin of 
 the work. Instead of gleaning objections that remain, it is 
 wiser now to consider the direct evidence from the Law 
 itself, which ratifies the ancient faith of the Church and 
 the Synagogue, that Moses was truly and indeed the 
 writer of the books which bear his name. And here the 
 natural order is to begin with Deuteronomy, which con- 
 tains various testimonies to its own authorship. Is this 
 book an imposture and forgery of Jeremiah, or some 
 unknown deceiver in Jeremiah's age, or the genume 
 writing of 'Moses, the man of God?' 
 
 No middle ground is possible in this inquiry. If the 
 discourses and parting words of Moses were real events, 
 it seems certain that they would be recorded at once, and 
 the Book of Deuteronomy, received by the Jews as a 
 
236 The Pentaieuck 
 
 Divine message for at least twenty-tliree centuries, must 
 be that record. If those discourses were not real, but 
 invented long after, and ascribed to Moses, and to God 
 Himself, eight centuries after Moses' death, then the 
 whole book is a successful forgery, by which the Church 
 and the world have been long deceived. It is a fraud, 
 with almost every conceivable aggravation of its impiety 
 and profaneness. 
 
 123. First, assuming the events and discourses to be 
 real, what light does the book throw on its own com- 
 position ? 
 
 When Moses gave the addresses, of which chh. xxvii. 
 xxviii. are the record, it is implied that the previous 
 chapters were already written. For the direction is there 
 given, * And thou shalt set thee up great stones, and 
 plaster them with plaster ; and thou shalt write upon the 
 stones all the words of the law very plainly.' This im- 
 plies that he had the law, to which he refers, in his hand, 
 or by his side, in a written form. And v. 26 implies 
 further its actual existence as a writing. Ao:ain, in 
 ch. xxviii. 58, we have mention of ' all the words of this 
 law that are written in this book,' and in v. 61, of ' every 
 sickness, and every plague, which is not written in this 
 book of the law.' It may be doubted whether this book 
 were confined to these last addresses, or contained all the 
 earlier legislation. But it seems clear that the com- 
 mands so lately delivered were contained and written in a 
 book when these warnings and instructions were given. 
 
 Next, it seems also plain that chh. xxvii., xxviii. were 
 also written, when the address in chh. xxix., xxx. was 
 uttered. For ch. xxix. 1 marks a completion of the 
 
and its Anatomists. 237 
 
 repeated law, Deut. i.-xxviii : ' Tlicse are the words of 
 the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make 
 with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside 
 the covenant which he made with them in Ilorcb.' 
 
 The later code, now complete, is here contrasted with 
 the earlier Sinaitic legislation, Exod. xix. ; Lev. xxvn. 
 But here, in v. 21, mention is made of ' all the curses 
 of the covenant that are written in this book of the law ;' 
 and again, v. 27, of ' all the curses that are written in 
 this book.' There is here a double allusion to xxvii. 
 14-26 and xxviii. 15-68. It seems to follow that these 
 threatenings and curses had been already written in the 
 book of the law, at the time when the further address in 
 chh. xxix., XXX. was given, closing with the solemn alter- 
 native of life and death. 
 
 124. In chh. xxix.-xxxiv. there is more room for a 
 difference of judgment, how far the words imply their 
 composition by :Moses himself, or point to their addition 
 by Joshua or Eleazar after his death. Assuming the 
 general truth of the record, it must seem highly probable 
 that chh. xxix., XXX. would be written by Moses himself 
 after their oral delivery, just as the two previous chapters 
 had plainly been. Again, the account of the death of 
 Moses, ch. xxxiv., must clearly have been added after his 
 decease. Ch. xxxiii. begins with the words, ' This is the 
 blessing wherewith Moses, the man of God, blessed the 
 children of Israel before his death.' This naturally im- 
 plies that the blessing orally delivered by Moses was re- 
 corded after his death by some other person, since this 
 title of honour is added to the name of Moses for the first 
 time. 
 
238 The Pentateuch 
 
 The question with regard to clih. xxxi., xxxii., or the 
 Song of Moses, with its introduction and sequel, is more 
 obscure and doubtful. Unless Moses recorded the com- 
 pletion of the writing by anticipation before it had strictly- 
 occurred, some part, if not the whole, of these chapters, 
 as they now form part of the book, must have been from 
 a contemporary, but later hand. 
 
 Hengstenberg thinks that the delivery to the priests 
 and elders, xxxi. 9, was an official act, which had a 
 sjmibolical character. After this Moses resumed the book, 
 and wrote as far as v. 23, where his own autograph ceased. 
 It was then continued, probably by Joshua, after Moses 
 had written the song separately, and taught it to the 
 people, perhaps also after his death. On this view, v. 9 
 gives the testimony of Moses himself, and v. 24 that of a 
 Continuator, to the Mosaic composition of the rest of the 
 work. 
 
 This view is open to some difficulty from the language 
 of vv. 19, 22. For in this case the Song would be wholly 
 wanting in the part written by Moses, and still a refer- 
 ence be twice made to it, as if written by him. It seems 
 that all from v. 14 must be referred to the same person, 
 whether Moses or Joshua, by whom the Song was appended 
 to the rest of the law. And if this was a Continuator, 
 and not Moses, it is more natural to ascribe to him the 
 thirteen previous verses. For these two chapters, like 
 the two pairs of chapters before them, form one closely 
 connected historical portion of the book. 
 
 On examination, however, the difficulty in referring 
 these chapters to Moses himself will be found to disappear. 
 The Song was written the same day that the message was 
 
and its Anatomists. 239 
 
 given, and was publicly brought to the children of Israel, 
 V. 22. This might easily be on the same, or at latest on 
 the following day. But when this was done, Moses the 
 same day received the command to go up to Mount Nebo. 
 He knew, then, that this was the last of the Divine 
 messages he was appointed to deliver and record. The 
 Song, from its very nature, was to be part of the Book of 
 the Law, its fitting and solemn close. The writing of the 
 Song was also to precede its oral publication, and the 
 purpose of its being w^ritten required a statement of the 
 circumstances under which it was revealed. One or two 
 hours would suffice to write it down, with the seven verses 
 that precede and the nine that follow. There seems, 
 then, no difficulty in supposing that Moses might write, 
 two hours beforehand, his charge to the Levites, their 
 summons of the people, and the oral publication of the 
 Song, just as he would have written them at the close of 
 the day, or on the day following, had the record been to 
 follow and not precede this oral publication. An antici- 
 pation of this limited kind is frequent, and almost neces- 
 sary, in legal documents. On this view the words in v. 9 
 refer to the writing as far as ch. xxx, but the fuller phrase 
 in V. 24 to the completion as far as the close of ch. xxxii, 
 where the autograph of Moses will end. As soon as the 
 Law was thus complete, a double charge was given to the 
 Levites, to keep it in their custody, by placing it at the 
 side of the ark, and to gather the assembly for the oral 
 delivery of the Song. These two chapters would be 
 actually written in the course of the day when the threefold 
 message was given, xxxi. 14-16, xxxi. 2, 3, xxxii. 48-52. 
 But officially, by the final delivery of the book to the 
 
240 The Pentateuch 
 
 Levites, to be placed at the side of the ark, this record of 
 the last day of the lawgi^dng was ratified at its close, after 
 the Song had been orally published, and the parting 
 exhortation addressed to the assembled people. The Bless- 
 ing might be pronounced the next day, before Moses went 
 up to the Mount, and be recorded by Joshua or Eleazar 
 after his death. 
 
 125. The order of events will result as follows from the 
 internal evidence. The publication of Deuteronomy began 
 on the first day of the eleventh month. Nearly on the 
 last day of that month, Moses gave the charge to the 
 people, xxxi. 2-6, to Joshua, vv. 7, 8, and also to tlie 
 Priests and Levites for the public reading of the Law every 
 seven years, vv. 9-14. This would be in the morning of 
 the day. Then Moses and Joshua received the joint 
 charge to present themselves before God. Moses was told 
 to write and publish the Song which God was about to 
 reveal, and Joshua to be strong, and of good courage, 
 because he was now appointed the successor of Moses and 
 future captain of the people. Moses receives the further 
 charge to go up, probabi}" the next day, to Mount Nebo. 
 He writes at once these two chapters, the message of his 
 last day of office, the close and seal of the Law. lie 
 directs the Levites where to place the Book of the Law, 
 now complete, at the close of the day, but first to gather 
 the people to hear the Song which God has revealed. The 
 Song, alreadj^ written, is read in their ears according to 
 the record. Moses then adds those few words of affec- 
 tionate admonition, as alread}^ recorded, while he hands 
 over the book to the Levites at the close of the day. The 
 next morning the people are summoned early to hear their 
 
and its Anatomists, 241 
 
 great lawgiver's last words of blessing. lie then obeys 
 the command, and goes up to the Mount. The thirty days 
 of mourning begin, and last till the close of tlie fortieth 
 year. 
 
 The conclusion from this analysis is plain. Either 
 Deuteronomy, as far as ch. xxx., and probably as far as 
 ch. xxxii., is the writing of Moses himself, or it must be a 
 most complex and skilful forgery, in which Divine messages 
 are invented, and the holy name of God is taken in vain a 
 hundred times, to give currency to utter falsehoods. The 
 writer, if not Moses, must have been a man of seared 
 conscience and obdurate heart. He must have been able 
 to pen that solemn passage — ' If thou wilt not observe to 
 do all the words of this law, that are written in this book, 
 to fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord thy God, 
 then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful, great 
 plagues, and of long continuance,' — while conscious all the 
 time that he was speaking deliberate lies in the name of 
 the Lord. Let any one read the passage, ch. xxix. 18-28, 
 striving to join with it the theory of these critics, that the 
 whole is a mere invention ; and his conclusion must surely 
 be that a more hideous and hardened liar than their so- 
 called Deuteronomist could never have darkened and pol- 
 luted the face of our sinful world. 
 
 Let us now turn to the opening of the book, and we 
 shall find a series of indirect proofs of its Mosaic author- 
 ship, hardly less decisive and, in some respects, even more 
 striking, than the direct evidence at the close. 
 
 126. Ch. i. 2, 3. 
 
 ' There are eleven days' journey from Horeb, by the way of 
 Moinit Seir, unto Kadesh-barnea. And it came to pass in the 
 
 R 
 
242 The Pentateuch 
 
 fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the 
 month, Moses spake unto the children of Israel,' &c. &c. 
 
 How is the presence of this second verse to be ex- 
 plained ? The answer is simple and clear, if Moses were 
 the writer. The first chapters are a humbling review of 
 the sins of the people, Now the very date of the message 
 contained, to thoughtful minds, a very deep lesson. The 
 distance from Horeb, where the law was given, to the 
 southern border of Canaan, was only a journey of eleven 
 daj^s. And now, at the end of forty years of wandering 
 and punishment, they have not yet entered the land of 
 promise. Thus their perverseness and rebellion had 
 lengthened a journey of a few days into a weary wander- 
 ing of almost fortj^ years. The insertion, then, is most 
 natural and significant in Moses himself, their aged Law- 
 giver, while in any later historian it would be an im- 
 probable addition. 
 
 Strangely enough, in the * Pentateuch Examined,' ii. 
 219, this verse has been boldly claimed as an objection to 
 the Mosaic authorship. After quoting the simple and 
 sensible remark of Scott, that ' it seems to have been in- 
 troduced to remind the Israelites that their own misconduct 
 alone had occasioned their tedious wanderings,' the com- 
 ment follows : * One glance, however, at the connexion 
 will show that the verse cannot have been inserted for the 
 reason assigned by Scott, but is simply a note of distance, 
 which interrupts awkwardly the course of the narrative, 
 and never certainly could have been introduced by Moses 
 himself into the story.' 
 
 This glance must be very like a later glance at Num. 
 iii. 18, in p. 835, where the text is made to speak of 
 
and its Anatomists. 243 
 
 Gersliom, the son of Moses, instead of Gerslion, the son 
 of Levi, great uncle of Moses, and a process of reasoning 
 is founded on this flagrant error. Some assertions are so 
 monstrous, that they almost put an end to argument. 
 The truth of Scott's remark, so boldly denied, is almost 
 self-evident, but we will strive to make it still plainer. 
 
 The verse in question, then, if it were merely a geo- 
 graphical remark, would be what the objector stjdcs it, an 
 awkward interruption. It would be wholly out of place, 
 because they were now in the plains of Moab, far away 
 from Kadesh-barnea. But if its purpose is to contrast 
 the actual with the ideal route, then it stands exactly 
 where that contrast is rendered the most impressive. 
 Their natural route, had they been faithful and courageous, 
 would have been from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea, close to 
 Hormah, and not far from Beersheba. Their actual place 
 was far difierent in the plains of Moab east of Jordan. 
 The natural interval would have been only a little more 
 than eleven days, a fortnight or three weeks, from Horeb 
 to that southern border, where they would have begun at 
 once their career of conquest. The interval of time 
 actually spent had been nearl}^ thirty-nine j^ears. How 
 could Moses introduce this later repetition of the Law 
 more impressivel}^, then by reminding them at the outset, 
 even in the formal mention of the date, that their former 
 rebellion against that Law had caused them nearly forty 
 years of fruitless toil and bitter sorrow ? Viewed in this 
 light, it is no unmeaning and awkward interruption, but 
 a fit prelude to the cautions, warnings, and exhortations 
 which are soon to follow. 
 
 127. Ch. i. 6-46. 
 
24-i The Pentateuch 
 
 This review lias several features, which, prove it to be 
 the record of a real address by Moses himself to the people. 
 How abruptly that prayer is interposed, in the account of 
 the appointment of the judges, who were to relieve him 
 from a burden too heavy to be borne ! ' The Lord God 
 of your fathers make you a thousand times so many as 
 ye are, and bless you, as He hath promised you.' How 
 true is this to nature, if a real utterance of the dying 
 Lawgiver ! The appointment in Ex. xviii. is given with 
 new details, while all the laws in Exodus and Leviticus 
 are summed up in one short sentence : ' And I com- 
 manded you at that time all the things that ye should 
 do.' 
 
 Again, v. 19 refers back to v. 2, and their journey 
 from lioreb to Kadesh-barnea. Here they had received 
 the command to go up at once, and possess the land. 
 Their request for spies to be sent, which might have been 
 an act of simple prudence, was a first sign of their un- 
 belief. It was shown, by the effect of their message, to 
 be a cloak for their cowardice and perverseness. And 
 thus the contrast in v. 2 unfolds itself more clearly. It 
 was their own sin which had lengthened out this eleven 
 days' journey into a tedious sojourn in the wilderness for 
 forty years. 
 
 The order of vv. 37, 38 is natural in Moses and in no 
 other. Caleb and Joshua alone had been excepted from 
 the sentence in Num. xiv. The promise to Caleb, and to 
 the little ones, stands here in the same order as in the 
 earlier history. But Joshua, who then shared the pro- 
 mise to Caleb, received afterwards the higher promise of 
 conducting Israel into the land. Moses himself was 
 
and its Anatomists. 245 
 
 excluded much later, as the people had been before, and 
 through their sin. Thus the rapid transition is natural 
 in Moses, and in him alone, from the second year to the 
 fortieth, and back to the second again, because the first 
 promise to Joshua, and the second, the sin of the people, 
 and his own sin through the people, were closely linked 
 in the thoughts of Moses, when he reviews at their close 
 the long course of those forty years. 
 
 The sequel repeats the account in Numbers with one 
 significant addition : ' And ye returned and wept before 
 the Lord ; but the Lord would not hearken to your voice, 
 nor give ear unto you.' Their tears were like those of 
 Esau, on the borders of whose lands they were encamped, 
 and could not reverse the settled judgment of God. They, 
 too, like him, had despised their birthright, and ' thought 
 scorn of that pleasant land.' 
 
 128. Ch. ii. 9-13. 
 
 ' And the Lord said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, 
 neither contend with them in battle : for I will not give you of 
 their land for a possession, because I have given Ar unto the 
 children of Lot for a possession. The Eniims dwelt therein in 
 times past, a people great, many, and tall, as the Anakims; which 
 also were accounted giants, as the Anakims ; but the Moabites 
 call them Emims. The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime ; 
 but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had de- 
 stroyed them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel hath done to 
 the land of their possession, which the Lord hath given them. 
 Now rise up, and get you over the brook Zered, and we went 
 over the brook Zered.' 
 
 These recollections of earlier history, as Scott, ITeng- 
 stenberg and many others have shown, ' were introduced 
 
246 The Pentateuch 
 
 to encourage the Israelites.' But this Drs. Davidson and 
 Colenso deny. 
 
 ' The explanation is ingenious, but improbable, because it 
 does not apply to some of tlie notices. A careful examination of 
 Deut. ii. 10-13, 20-23; iii. 9-11, shows that they refer to events 
 long past, and interrupt the connexion of the discourse. They 
 are parentheses which break the continuity of the composition.' 
 (Davids. 'Introd.' pp. 10, 11). 'It will be plain to an un- 
 prejudiced reader that this is not the special reason for which 
 these notices are introduced. They occur only as pieces of in- 
 teresting information on the points in question, without a word 
 to intimate that they are expressly meant for the encouragement 
 of the people.'— Pe«i:. Ex. ii. 220. 
 
 The reason, then, which makes it plain that these are 
 not the words of Moses, is that they are aAvkward paren- 
 theses, when referred to any mere historian of later times, 
 while in his lips they would be a powerful encouragement 
 to the people, on the eve of their conflict with seven nations 
 mightier than themselves. And again, they cannot have 
 been meant to encourage the people, however suited for 
 that purpose, because Moses does not state his design in so 
 many words, ' I am telling you of these earlier events on 
 purpose to encourage you ! ' Such criticisms outrage 
 every principle of common sense. 
 
 The view of Keil, that Moses added the words when he 
 wrote down his own discourse, seems also to be groundless. 
 They would be far more suitable in his oral address than 
 if only added in the written copy, given to the custody of 
 the priests for later generations. On the other hand, every 
 clause points silently to the great end for which these 
 statements are made. Why were the Israelites not to 
 
and its Anatomists. 247 
 
 distress Moab? Because God himself had given Moab 
 their possession. The Emims, indeed, whom they had 
 dispossessed, were ' great, many, and tall, as the Anakims ' 
 whom Israel were now to dispossess : but the gift of God 
 had prevailed in their case, as it must shortly do in Israel's 
 victory. So too the sons of Esau had dispossessed the 
 Horites, as Israel had done to Sihon and Og, of whose land 
 they w^ere now in possession. All these precedents taught 
 the same lesson, that the Anakims must soon be driven out 
 before the people of God. The words of v. 13, compared 
 with V. 24, are the message of God rather than v.'ords of 
 Moses. And thus the insertion of vv. 10-13 in the midst 
 of the Divine message Moses had then received, is highlj^ 
 impressive in the lips of Moses himself, but, if referred to 
 any other writer, is quite unnatural. It is wholly unlike 
 the invention of an unscrupulous forger of later times. 
 
 129. Ch. ii. 20-23. 
 
 • That also was accounted a land of giants : giants dwelt 
 therein in old times, and the Ammonites call them Zamzum- 
 mims: a people great, many, and tall, as the Anakims ; but the 
 Lord destroyed them before them, and they succeeded them, 
 and dwelt in their stead. As he did to the children of Esau, 
 which dwelt in Seir, when he destroyed the Horims from before 
 them ; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead unto 
 this day. And the Avims, which dwelt in Hazerini, unto Azzah, 
 the Caphtorims, which came forth out of Caphthor, destroyed 
 them, and dwelt in their stead.' 
 
 On this Hengstenberg truly remarks, — 
 
 ' The apprehensions, which these details were to obviate, are 
 stated shortly before, i. 27. Compare Num. xiii. 28, 31, 33. To 
 root out the prejudices here expressed, and by which the older 
 
248 The Pentateuch 
 
 generation were exclnded from the land, was the condition of 
 victory for the succeeding one. Moses met them by reasoning 
 a minori ad majus. What God did for the Moabites, Ammonites, 
 Edomites, and Caphthorites, will He not also do for His own 
 people? Thns it appears that these passages break the con- 
 nexion in outward appearance only, and were exactly suited to 
 the state and disposition of those to whom Moses addressed him- 
 self. The reason, by no means unimportant, which others have 
 adduced for the Mosaic origin of these portions, that their exact 
 knowledge of the earliest times carries us back to the times of 
 Moses, now assumes a subordinate position.' — H. Pent. ii. 195. 
 
 It may be remembered, further, that the repetition of 
 the phrase, * a people great, many, and tall, as the Ana- 
 kims,' shows the purpose of the statement far more expres- 
 sively than if Moses or the Avriter had said in so many 
 words, — I say this for your encouragement. Also the 
 repeated mention of the destruction of the Horims is fatal 
 to the hypothesis that the paragraphs are inserted as 
 curious historical facts alone. The encouragement of a 
 people so timorous and faithless as Israel had been until 
 now needed to be line upon line, with a threefold cord of 
 precedents that could not be broken or explained away. 
 
 130. Ch. iii. 9, iv. 48. 
 
 ' From the river of Arnon unto Mount Hermon, the Sidon- 
 ians call Hermon Sirion, and the Amorites call it Shenir.' 
 ' From Aroer, which is by the bank of the river Arnon, even 
 unto Mount Sihon, which is Hermon.' 
 
 Here four different names are ascribed to the same 
 mountain ; one used by the Sidonians, another by the 
 Amorites, a third, and perhaps also a fourth, by the 
 Israelites themselves. Their insertion would be without 
 
and its Anatomists. 249 
 
 meaning in a later age, when Hermon had been used for 
 centuries by the inhabitants of Palestine. But this moun- 
 tain was the northern limit of Israel's destined inheritance, 
 and is named on that account. There was an end to fulfil, 
 by naming in the Law itself its titles among the two 
 bordering northern tribes, who might dispute the limits. 
 Comp. Josh. xiii. 4, 5. The name, Sion, elevation or hffi- 
 ness, seems to have been given by the Israelites from the 
 impression made on their senses by the height of this 
 mountain. Hermon, from the root, chere?n, like Hormah 
 at the southern limit, seems to be a sacred memorial of the 
 sentence on the Canaanites, inscribed alike on the southern 
 and northern limits ofthe Land of Promise. This sentence, 
 then, might be added by Moses in the writing, since its 
 aim probably was not the present encouragement of the 
 people, but to be a record of the limit of Israel's inherit- 
 ance in the name usual among the bordering northern 
 tribes, the Amorites and Sidonians. The statement is 
 natural in a wiiting of the Lawgiver, but not in any later 
 composition. 
 
 131. Ch. iii. 11. 
 
 ' For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the remnant of 
 the giants : behold, his bedstead is a bedstead of iron; is it not 
 in Rabbath of the children of Ammon ? nine cubits is the length 
 thereof, and four cubits the breadth thereof, after the cubit of 
 a man,' 
 
 An objection has been founded on these words, — 
 ' Only a very short time conld have elapsed since the con- 
 quest of Og. How, then, could his bedstead have been removed 
 in that interval to Rabbath Aramon ? There was not one of his 
 people left alive to bear off in safety this cnmbrous relic. Or 
 
250 The Pentateuch 
 
 how conld Moses, so soon after the event, have spoken of Og in 
 terms like these? It may be said that it had been taken to 
 Eabbath before the death of Og, perhaps captured by the Am- 
 monites in some former war, or sent by Og himself for preser- 
 vation. The first supposition is hardly consistent with the fact 
 that Og is said to have had his threescore cities fenced with 
 high walls, &c. As to the second, it is very unlikely that an 
 iron bed of this kind should have been deemed by him such 
 a treasure as to be sent to the Ammonites for safe keeping. 
 Scott observes that the Ammonites either saved it, or bought it 
 of the Israelites, and carrying it to Eabbath, it was there pre- 
 served as a monument of his stature, and of Israel's victory. 
 Kurtz thinks it most probable that it was at Eabbath before the 
 Israelites came into the neighbourhood. But how could Moses 
 have spoken of Og in such language at so short an interval after 
 the conquest ? Spenoza considers that in David's time, when he 
 gathered all the people together and took Eabbath, an iron bed 
 was found, and ascribed by the traditions of the people to the 
 Amorite king.' — Pent. Ex. ii. 215, 216. 
 
 This passage, like the two before it, eh. ii. 10-13, 20- 
 23, is really a strong evidence for the genuineness and 
 historical reality of this discourse of Moses. 
 
 And first, the resort to the times of David for an 
 explanation, and to his later conquest of Eabbah, is simply 
 ridiculous. The encampment of Israel in the plains of 
 Moab was not more than twenty miles from that town. 
 It lay within two or three miles, at most, from the border 
 of the land now occupied by the trans- Jordanic tribes. 
 
 The suggestions that Og might have sent his bedstead 
 to Ptabbah for safe keeping, or that some of his subjects 
 took it thither alter his death, are unworthy of notice. It 
 is strange how any one could oflPer conjectures so impro- 
 bable. The bedstead of this giant king was not likely to 
 
and its Anatomists. 251 
 
 be taken till lie himself was slain. It is named as if meant 
 for constant use, and not for show. But since Moab and 
 Ammon were greatly distressed and alarmed by the vic- 
 tories of Israel over the Amorites, and the people had 
 a strict charge not to disturb these tribes, or occupy their 
 lands, an embassy to assure them of this friendly purpose 
 would be natural, and almost necessary. In the similar 
 case of the Edomites we know that such a message was 
 sent. What could be more natural than to send some 
 present with the embassy, as a pledge and token of the 
 absence of any hostile design ? Rabbah lay only just 
 beyond the border of the Israelites. And if this bedstead, 
 after the victories of Israel, were sent with an embassy to 
 that city, it would fulfil a double object, and not only be a 
 pledge of peace and good- will, but a visible sign of the 
 power of Israel, who had now destroyed this mighty king, 
 so lately an object of dread to the bordering nations. 
 
 The words, then, in the lips of Moses himself, would 
 be forcible and appropriate. If added or composed at a 
 later period, they would be perplexing and unnatural. 
 The form of the question implies that the fact was notori- 
 ous to the persons addressed. This might easily be true 
 of the Israelites, when encamped within twenty miles of 
 Eabbah, and only two or three months after Og had been 
 defeated and slain, and this prize of victory sent to Kabbah 
 as a pledge of peace and sign of power. But it would be 
 most unlikely in the case of Jewish readers dispersed 
 throughout Palestine in any later age. 
 
 Again, Moses had reminded the people how the Horims, 
 Emims, Zamzummims, and Avites, earlier giant races on 
 the skirts of Canaan, in circuit from south to north-east. 
 
252 The Pentateuch 
 
 had been destroyed. He now adds that only Og and his 
 people had remained, and these had now fallen already 
 before the sword of Israel. The overthrow of the giant 
 races outside of Canaan was complete. Within a few 
 miles of the place where he addressed them, in E.ab- 
 both Amnion, this bedstead was a visible token of this 
 completed destruction. Great, many, and tall, as the 
 Anakims, they had now passed away, a sure pledge and 
 earnest of the further conquest near at hand. Yet still 
 the charge needs to be given, — ' Ye shall not fear them, 
 for the Lord your God he shall fight for you:' v. 22. 
 Thus these so-called parentheses are convincing marks of 
 the genuineness of these discourses, as truly addressed to 
 the people by the Jewish Lawgiver before his death. On 
 this view alone they are all emphatic and strictly in 
 place, and capable of a full and clear explanation. 
 
 132. Bashax-Havoth-Jatr. Ch. iii. 13-15. 
 
 * And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom 
 of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh ; all tlie region of 
 Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants. 
 Jaar the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto 
 the coasts of Geshuri and Maachithi, and called them after his 
 own name, Bashan- Havoth-Jair, unto this day. And I gave 
 Gilead unto Machir.' 
 
 The phrase, ' unto this day,' Gen. xix. 37, 38 ; xxii. 
 14 ; xxvi. 33 ; xxxii. 33 ; xxxv. 20 ; xlvii. 26 ; Deut. ii. 
 22 ; iii, 14 ; x. 8, has often been urged indiscriminately, 
 as by Von Bohlen and Ilartmann, in proof of the post- 
 Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. More cautious oppo- 
 nents confine the objection to this single passage, since in 
 every other instance the phrase would plainly be quite 
 
and its Anatomists. 25 o 
 
 suitable, even in the time of Moses. Even the latest of 
 tlie events thus referred to, the separation of the Levites, 
 X. 8, had taken place thirty-nine years before. But since 
 only a few months had elapsed since the conquest of Og, 
 the use here of the same phrase is urged as a clear sign that 
 the author wrote some time after the death of Moses. 
 The objection is plausible, and requires an answer. 
 
 Now, first, it is plain that the verse is no interpolation, 
 but an integral part of the whole sentence. Moses first 
 reminds them what portion of the land he had given to 
 Reuben and Gad. He then states that the rest of Gilead, 
 and all Bashan, were given to the half tribe of Manasseh. 
 And, next, he distinguishes the two parts of this allot- 
 ment. Jair, the son of Manasseh, took all Argob, giving 
 the towns a new name ; ' and I gave Gilead,' that is, the 
 rest of Gilead, named v. 13, *unto Machir.' These two 
 portions completed the allotment of this half tribe on the 
 east of Jordan. Then the allotment to Keuben and Gad 
 is named once more as a preface to the charge they had 
 received. Thus v. 14 is plainly essential to complete his 
 review of the allotments already made. 
 
 Again, the phrase ' unto this day ' does not belong to 
 the name only, but to the whole verse, which might be 
 paraphrased : * Jair took Argob, and has kept possession 
 of it unto this day.' The stress and emphasis of the 
 remark, it is clear from the whole context, refers to the 
 occupation, of which the new name was only a sign. 
 These cities could not bear the title of Havoth-Jair, 
 unless the sons of Jair had held them now in actual 
 possession. 
 
 Wh}', then, should Moses employ such a phrase when 
 
254 The Pentateuch 
 
 the conquest had occurred, at the furthest, only three full 
 months before ? The context supplies an answer. This 
 phrase has been used seven times in Genesis, and never 
 once in the three later books. It reappears in Deuter- 
 onom}^ and first in reference to the occupation of Seir 
 by the Edomites, and the conquest or expulsion of the 
 Horites, ii. 12, 22. This was the first instance of the 
 overthrow of a giant race by the kindred or posterity of 
 Abraham, and the possession of Bashan was the last. 
 Five similar events had occurred, — the destruction of the 
 Horims, Emims, Zamzuramims, Avites, and Bashanites, 
 completing a circuit of Palestine, and the latest, like the 
 earliest, was now an accomplished fact, marked by an 
 abiding and settled change of possessors. Though Jair 
 had held Bashan only a few months, and Esau had held 
 Seir for more than a century, and the eighth Edomite 
 king was now reigning, both were facts of the same per- 
 manent character. Thus the use of the phrase, by Moses, 
 is emphatic and significant. All the giant races outside 
 of Canaan are now at length finally vanquished and dis- 
 placed. It remains only for Israel to complete the des- 
 tined work, to overthrow the dreaded Anakims, and enter 
 in their promised inheritance. This day beholds Edom 
 in the land of the Horims, Moab in that of the Emims, 
 Ammon in that of the Zamzummims, the Caphthorims in 
 that of the Avites, and Manasseh in the land of Og, the last 
 remnant of the giants. To-morrow, then, must see the 
 Anukims overthrown, and Israel settled in their stead. 
 The use of the phrase is thus no objection to the Mosaic 
 authorsliip, but its strong confirmation. 
 I'i'J. TiiK pRAVKii OF Moses. 
 
and its Anatomists. 255 
 
 This passage, Deut. iii. 23-29, is one of the clearest 
 signs of the genuineness of the discourse, of which it 
 forms the fitting and solemn close. It is a new fact, not 
 recorded before, and every word bears the stamp of truth. 
 The reverence and earnestness of the request, the firmness 
 of the Divine refusal, so humbling to the aged leader of 
 Israel, are equally conspicuous. It is implied that the 
 request had been made even earlier, and was repeated 
 when these eastern conquests were complete, and the 
 Jordan alone parted them from the Land of Promise. At 
 the same time the remark, ' The Lord was wroth with me 
 for your sakes,' was a touching memorial to the people of 
 their own sin. For their sake Moses, though far less 
 guilty, was forbidden to enter the land which they were 
 encouraged to cross over, in order to enjoy privileges he 
 was forbidden to share. What forger could ever invent 
 words of such tender pathos and deep moral power, and 
 then take the name of God in vain to give currency to 
 his own lie ? 
 
 134. The Historical Preface. Deut. iv. 44-49. 
 
 These verses introduce the main body of laws in this 
 book, just as xxix. 1 marks their close, and their relation 
 to God's earlier messages. They leave plainly no alter- 
 native open, except the admission of the genuineness and 
 Mosaic origin of the record, or else the charge of a very 
 carefully planned and most deliberate forgery. The 
 twenty-four chapters that follow must either be the law 
 of God by the hand of His servant Moses, or a gigantic 
 falsehood from first to last. And yet they contain, along 
 with the Decalogue, the three texts by which the Son of 
 God repelled and overcame the temptations of Satan in 
 
256 Tlte Pentateuch 
 
 the wilderness, and that first and great commandment, 
 wliich His lips have singled out from the whole word of 
 God as pre-eminently Divine. Our Lord's own question 
 is thus unanswerable : * If ye believe not his writings, 
 how can ye believe my words?' The whole passage 
 before us has a kind of legal precision, in order to fix 
 exactly the time and place when and where this crowning 
 portion of God's law was given to His people. The 
 comment, ' beyond Jordan toward the sunrising,' and the 
 name Sion, given to Mount Hermon here only, are further 
 signs that the words were penned on the eastern side of 
 the river, before the name Hermon, dating from the Con- 
 quest, had superseded other and earlier names. 
 
 135. The Eepetition of the Decalogue. 
 
 The variations between Exod. xx. and Deut. v. 6-21 have 
 been turned into an objection against the genuineness of 
 Deuteronomy in these words. 
 
 ' That the Denteronomist had no very strong sense of the 
 unspeakable sacredness of the earher clocnment is plain by the 
 liberties he has taken witli its contents, hf altering several ex- 
 pressions, and modifying remarkably the fonrth commandment. 
 One would have thought that any one, even Moses himself, while 
 repeating words believed to be ineffably holy, which had not only 
 been uttered in the ears of Israel by Jehovah himself, but, 
 according to the story, written down by the finger of God twice 
 over on the tables of stone, would not have varied by a single 
 word or letter from the Divine original. Yet how stands the 
 case? There are several minor discrepancies, but the latter part 
 of the fonrth commandment is completely altered, and a totally 
 diff'erent reason is assigned for sanctifying the Sabbath .... 
 Each >vriter i)rofesscs to give the identical words which were 
 Kj)()ken by .Jehovah himself, at the very same point of time. 
 
and its Anatomists. 257 
 
 This excludes the notion that one passage gives a mere remi- 
 niscence of the other, which might be vague or defective on 
 some points, without affecting the general credibility of the nar- 
 rative. Hence the two statements involve an absolute contra- 
 diction. The narration is so remarkable, that it cannot be sup- 
 posed that Moses wrote the passage in Deuteronomy, either for- 
 getting, or designedly modifying, the words of the original 
 commandment. It is, therefore, enough of itself to show that 
 the Book of Deuteronomy, at all events, could not have been 
 written by Moses. As the Deuteronomist ventured to make so 
 important a change, it is plain that he did not think it a sacri- 
 legious act to alter the original form of the command, that he 
 regarded it as merely a human composition, emanating from 
 some writers of the previous age.' 
 
 The last remark amounts to an assertion that the 
 Deuteronomist, being a consummate and hardened liar, 
 capable of tbe worst profaneness, treated the writer of 
 Exodus as another liar of the same stamp. The hypothesis 
 is hateful and even horrible. It involves the necessary 
 consequence that the Lord of Glory was a third deceiver, 
 wbo endorsed and ratified these lies of the Elohist, and 
 Deuteronomist, and thus gave them a tenfold, and hundred- 
 fold wider currency than before. But the objection, when 
 more closely examined, will prove as unreasonable as it is 
 really in its own nature immoral and blasphemous. 
 
 i. First, the charge of direct contradiction, drawn from 
 Deut. V. 22, rests on a critical error. ' These words ' is 
 not a vague expression for each letter and sjdlable, but 
 denotes, ' these ten commandments.' This is plain by 
 comparing Exod. xxxiv. 28, and Deut. iv. 13. ' And he 
 wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten 
 words.' ' And he declared unto you his covenant which 
 
 s 
 
258 The Pentateuch 
 
 he commanded you to perform, the ten words, and he 
 wrote them upon two tables of stone.' In both passages, 
 * the words ' are ten in number, and refer to the ten 
 commandments, each being yiewed as a whole, and not to 
 the grammatical elements of which they were composed. 
 
 ii. The reason alleged wh}^ the report in Deuteronomy 
 could not be from Moses is just the clearest sign that 
 Moses, and no other, gave this new recension of the Deca- 
 logue. Any mere historian, perhaps anj^ inferior prophet, 
 would have felt bound, by reverence, to reproduce unvaried 
 those ten commandments which had been written on tables 
 of stone by the finger of God. In Moses alone, the man of 
 God, the Divinely appointed lawgiver, whose words were 
 to be received as not less truly words of God the Supreme 
 Lawgiver than the Decalogue itself, a deviation is conceiv- 
 able, and consistent with the fullest sense of the sacredness 
 of the earlier message. It was he who had with his own 
 hands dashed to pieces the tables first given, in token that 
 the covenant was broken by the open idolatry of the 
 people. The actual tables were not the first, but the 
 second. A mere annalist would naturally rej)eat these 
 laws verbatim, just as first pronounced on Sinai. But 
 Moses was God's own lawgiver, filled with the Spirit of 
 God to complete a code already begun. And hence, in his 
 case alone, there might be weighty reasons for some 
 partial change in the way of expansion or comment, when 
 the Decalogue was republished, without abating in the 
 least degree the sacredness which belonged to the whole. 
 In the preface, tlien, and the three first commands, where 
 the first person is used, the repetition is exact. But in the 
 fourth [ind fifth commandments Moses speaks as the Law- 
 
and its Anatomists. 259 
 
 giver, no longer as a mere annalist, and renews them both, 
 as precepts now given them anew, with Divine authority, 
 by adding that significant clause, ' as the Lord thy God 
 commanded thee.' A fresh reason, too, is now given for 
 the observance of the Sabbath, from the great work of 
 deliverance and redemption which God had wrought for 
 His people Israel. Such a change is quite natural, and 
 adds to the force of this repetition of the Decalogue, 
 transferring the command from past time to time present, 
 when the speaker is God's own inspired messenger, the 
 dying Lawgiver of His people. Instead of a mere record 
 of what had occurred forty years before, it now becomes a 
 present voice of authority from the living God to His own 
 people. But in any common historian such a change 
 would be out of place. Nothing else than the high dig- 
 nity of Moses, as the mediator of the old covenant, can 
 fully explain this rapid transition from the simple anna- 
 list to the voice of authority and the tones of the legis- 
 lator, so that the change increases and renews the im- 
 pressiveness, without impairing the authority, of the 
 original message. 
 
 136. The Death of Aaron. Deut. x. 6, 7. 
 
 These verses, it has been said, interrupt the narrative, 
 and are out of place, and every explanation proposed is 
 too artificial to be adopted. The order of the stations, 
 too, is difierent from that in the Book of Numbers. 
 Aaron's death is placed in Mosera instead of Hor, and 
 seems to be joined with the separation of Levi, while 
 there was really an interval of thirty- eight or thirty-nine 
 years. The reason for the statement of v. 7, it is also 
 objected, is not easy to understand. 
 
260 The Pentateuch 
 
 These verses are, indeed, very hard to explain on the 
 sceptical hypothesis of the spurioiisness of the book, and 
 its modern date. The sudden transition can only be ex- 
 plained, when the words are seen to be a genuine discourse 
 of the great Lawgiver of Israel. The connexion is plain, 
 omitting these two verses. The sin of the people in 
 making the golden calf was the reason whj^ the two tables 
 were broken, and had to be renewed. At this time the 
 tribe of Levi consecrated themselves to the Lord by their 
 zeal against idolatry. Exod. xxxii. 25-29. Their appoint- 
 ment as the priestly tribe seems to have begun that day, 
 and was ratified within a month after the completion of 
 the tabernacle, when the tables were placed in the ark, 
 and the ark in the most holy place, Exod. xl. 2, 3, 20, 21. 
 'At that time' the Lord separated the tribe of Levi, 
 Num. iii. 1-51. The second forty days, twice named, 
 Deut. ix. 25-29, x. 10, concurred with the first stage of 
 that consecration ; and the placing of the tables in the 
 ark was the prelude to that final act by which this tribe 
 took the place of the first-born. 
 
 Again, the mention of Taberah, Massah, Kibroth- 
 Hattaavah, and Kadesh-barnea, also deviates from the 
 order of time through a higher law of moral unity. The 
 sin at Massah was before the worship of the calf, the three 
 other events almost a year later. But they were all sins 
 of the same kind, and lessons of humiliation to the people. 
 They are grouped together, as no mere annalist would be 
 likely to do, in a way that bespeaks the heart and voice of 
 Moses the Lawgiver. 
 
 In Num. xxxiii. 31-33, successive stations are named 
 at Moseroth, Bene-jaakin, Hor-hagidgad, and Jotbathah. 
 
and its Anatomists. 261 
 
 These answer to Beeroth, of tlie children (beni) of Jaakan, 
 Moserah, Gudgodah, and Jotbath, in this later passage. 
 The order of the two first is plainly different. But the 
 people were twice in this neighbourhood, in the second 
 year when the spies were sent, and again in the fortieth 
 year, at the time of Aaron's death. The verses in Num- 
 bers refer to the earlier visit, since a return to Ezion- 
 gaber, v. 35, is there named before Aaron's death. The 
 order, then, of the two stations at Moseroth and Bene- 
 jaakan might well be varied. Again, in Num. xxxiii. 37, 
 they are said to have pitched in Mount Hor before the 
 death of Aaron. But that this was near the mountain, 
 not upon it, is plain from Num. xx. 22, 23, 25 ; where 
 Moses, Aaron, and Eleazar, are said to go up from the 
 camp to the mountain. The name Hor-hagidgah, implies 
 that Gudgodah, the next station, bordered on the mount, 
 and so doubtless did Moserah ; and an encampment 
 reaching from it nearly to the foot of the mount might 
 bear either name. 
 
 137. The two verses, Deut. x. 6, 7, depart wholly 
 from the order of time, since the death of Aaron was 
 thirty-eight years later than the events which precede 
 and follow. And, hence, their presence can be explained 
 in the actual words of Moses, but in no other way. His 
 aim throughout is to prove the patient mercy of the Lord 
 to His people in spite of their aggravated sins. The calf- 
 worship had brought on them a double token of the 
 Divine displeasure. First, the tables of the covenant 
 were broken, and the covenant itself dissolved, almost as 
 soon as made. But in answer to the intercession of Moses 
 new tables were provided, written upon by the finger of 
 
262 The Pentateuch 
 
 God, placed in tlie ark, and remained there until that 
 very day. Next, the Lord had been very angry with 
 Aaron to have destroyed him; and with such a judgment 
 on the high-priest, the covenant of grace to Israel would 
 have come doubly to an end. But Moses prayed for Aaron 
 at that time, and he was forgiven. Not only so, but, 
 when the time of his death arrived, there was a new token 
 of God's restored and enduring favour, when 'Eleazar, 
 his son, ministered in the priest's office in his stead.' 
 Thus doubly, at the close of their wanderings, by the pre- 
 sence of the new tables in the ark, and by the high- 
 priesthood of Eleazar in the place of Aaron, mercy had 
 rejoiced against judgment. These verses, then, are na- 
 tui'al in a retrospect by Moses himself at the close of his 
 life, and on this hypothesis alone. 
 
 The brief details, again, of the wells of the children of 
 Jaakan, and of the rivers of waters found at Jotbath, are 
 such as no later writer could be expected to supply. In 
 the lips of Moses they have a singular force and beauty. 
 To those wearied wanderers these * streams in the wilder- 
 ness and rivers in the desert' would be associations of 
 delight and pleasure. The chief mercy, the renewal and 
 continuance of the high-priesthood, was thus enshrined to 
 their hearts in a setting of visible and external blessings. 
 While the patience of Moses had been worn out and 
 failed tlirough their repeated murmurings, the patient 
 love of their God was more and more clcarh^ revealed. 
 "Wells fii-st, and then rivers of water, had attended and 
 sealed a liiglier gift, the confirmation in Eleazar of the 
 priestly covenant. So strong is the proof afforded by 
 these words, at first sight rather obscure and perplexing. 
 
and its Anatomists. 263 
 
 of the genuine, historical reality of the discourse in which 
 they are found. 
 
 138. GiLGAL. Deut. xi. 30. 
 
 * It must seem strange,' it is said, ' that Moses, vfho had 
 never been in the land of Canaan, should know all these places, 
 and be able to describe them so accurately. But it is still more 
 strange that he should know the name Gilgal, which, according 
 to the Book of Joshua, was not given to the place till after the 
 people had entered the land of Canaan. It is plain the text 
 was written at a later age, when these places and names were 
 familiarly known.' — Pent. Ex. ii. 200. 
 
 How could Moses, it is here objected, know anything 
 precise of the geography of Canaan ? We may well repl}^, 
 how could he help knowing it ? He held a high rank in 
 Egypt, in the household of Pharaoh, nearly forty years. 
 The constant intercourse of Egypt and Canaan, before the 
 Exodus, is proved by Scripture and the monuments. 
 Since then, he had passed forty years in Midian, with the 
 constant hojDO of leading Israel to the land of their fathers. 
 The Midianites were carriers between Egypt and the 
 countries to the north. Moses was grandson of Levi, and 
 Levi had lived 33 years in Canaan, before the Descent. 
 Joshua and Caleb, with the other spies, had searched the 
 land forty days, and had brought a full report to Moses of 
 all that they had seen. With such motives for gaining 
 fill] knowledge, and such various opportunities, ignorance 
 on the part of Moses of the geography of Canaan, in all its 
 main features, is incredible and impossible. 
 
 Again, is the Gilgal here named really the encampment 
 between Jordan and Jericho ? Even in this case, the 
 name might have existed before, and the event in Josh. v. 
 
264 The Pentateuch 
 
 9 have merely* added to tlie old name a new association. 
 This occurs in other instances. But here there is strong 
 evidence that another Gilgal is meant, lying to the west of 
 Ebal and Gerizim. For in Josh. xii. 23 a king of the 
 nations of Gilgal is named, after Dor in the coasts of Dor, 
 and before Tirzah. Now Tirzah lay about ten miles east 
 of Ebal, and Dor to the north. Again, in 2 Kings, ii. 1-6, 
 Elijah and Elisha came down from Gilgal to Bethel, and 
 from Bethel, b}^ Jericho, pass on to Jordan. This Gilgal, 
 then, was higher than Bethel and more remote from 
 Jordan. In 2 Kings, iv. 38, 42, we find Gilgal named 
 once more, not far from Baal Shalisha, which lies south- 
 west from Gerizim. Buins with the name Jiljilieh are 
 still found, fifteen or twenty miles north of Lydda, and 
 near to the sea- coast route, nearly due west from Ebal and 
 Gerizim. Hence it seems clear that this was the Gilgal of 
 Deuteronomy, and that it adjoined the sea-coast route from 
 Egypt through Palestine. * The Canaanites which dwell 
 in the champaign over against Gilgal, beside the plain of 
 Moreh,' would then fix the site of these mountains, Ebal 
 and Gerizim, by reference to a much-frequented route 
 through Palestine, well known by report to the Israelites 
 in Egypt, and during their stay in the wilderness. The 
 place of Sichem, the plain of Moreh, was also the earliest 
 station in Palestine of the patriarch Abraham. The 
 words in question would be especially natural on the lips 
 of !Moses, and would define the position of Ebal and 
 Gerizim in the way most familiar to those who had been 
 dwellers in Egypt, and acquainted by report with the jour- 
 neys of Abraham. 
 
 139. Thk Priests the Levites. 
 
and its Anatomists. 265 
 
 The use of this title in Deuteronomy alone has been 
 made a strong objection to the Mosaic authorship of the 
 whole Pentateuch. 
 
 ' In the four other books the priests are mvariahhj called the 
 sons of Aaron, never the sons of Levi ; whereas in Deuteronomy 
 they are called invariably the sons of Levi or Levites, never the 
 sons of Aaron ; and, in fact, the Deuteronomist distinctly men- 
 tions Levi, not Aaron, as the root of the priestly office and 
 dignity. It is obvious, that the same writer, whether Moses or 
 any one else, cannot be supposed to have changed so completely 
 in one moment, in the time intervening between the last act 
 recorded in the Book of Numbers, and that in the first chapter 
 of Deuteronomy, not only his tone and style, but his very 
 phraseology, so as up to this point to have called the priests in- 
 variably by one particular designation, and then suddenly to 
 drop it, and call them ever afterwards by another. This single 
 fact seems sufficient to decide the question whether the whole 
 Pentateuch were written by Moses.' — Pent. Ex. ii. 359. 'In 
 the other books the priests are always styled the sons of Aaron, 
 and never the sons of Levi ; yet, in Deuteronomy, they are 
 always called the sons of Levi or Levites, and never the sons of 
 Aaron. It is impossible to believe that any writer should have 
 so sudddenly changed his form of expression in such a case as 
 jthis, in the very short interval of a few days or weeks at most, 
 between the last act recorded in Numbers and the first in Deu- 
 teronomy. And let it be observed, that in Deut. xxvii. 9, the 
 priests, the Levites, and in Deut. xxxi. 9, the priests the sons of 
 Levi, are not the priests as they should be in future days, but 
 those men actually living, or supposed to be living, Eleazar and 
 Ithamar, the sons of Aaron,' — iii. 395. 
 
 Let us cross-examine the statements, on which this 
 immense superstructure of unbelief is raised — the facts 
 which alone are to convict Christ and His Apostles of a 
 
266 The Pentateuch 
 
 palj^able delusion, or of guilty collusion with the frauds 
 of others. Are they true ? They are untrue in every 
 part. * In the other four books the priests are invariabty 
 called the sons of Aaron, never the sons of Levi.' In 
 Genesis and Exodus neither title occurs, or could natu- 
 rally occur, since neither Aaron nor the Levites were set 
 apart for their office. In Leviticus the title, ' priests the 
 sons of xiaron,' or simply 'the sons of Aaron,' occurs 
 thirteen times in the laws of sacrifice, but always in 
 direct messages of God, and only twice after the conse- 
 cration of Aaron. But instead of being invariable, the 
 simpler title, priest or priests, occurs 170 times. In 
 Numbers, again, the compound title occurs once only, x. 8. 
 In the other three-fourths of the book, or during thirty- 
 nine years of the history, it never once recurs, while 
 priests are mentioned, generally, once or twice only. In 
 either book, the compound title is never once employed 
 by the historian, but only in direct messages of God, and 
 even here only in ten chapters out of forty-five; in 
 Lev. i.-vii., xiii., xxi. ; Num. x. Its entire absence, then, 
 in Deuteronomy, in the lips of the historian, is a feature 
 common to this book with all the rest. Its absence there, 
 even in Divine messages, is a feature common with the 
 twenty-six chapters of Numbers just before, and with the 
 whole of Exodus. 
 
 But when we examine still further, this boasted proof 
 of plural authorship changes sides, and yields a strong 
 argument for the unity and historical reality of the whole 
 Pentateuch. Eor the thirteen examples of the title in 
 Leviticus all precede the consecration of the tribe of Levi 
 to share in the work, and in many important distinctions of 
 
and its Anatomists. 267 
 
 the priestly office. The title, which thus appears to ex- 
 clude them, is found afterwards in one passage alone. 
 The history then reveals a double and triple sin, — the 
 murmuring of Aaron and Miriam against Moses, the 
 rebellion under Korah against the honours of Aaron and 
 his house, and of Dathan and Abiram and the whole con- 
 gregation against the special holiness of Levi, the priestly 
 tribe. The sin, in each case, is severely punished. Miriam 
 is smitten with leprosy, and Aaron has to humble himself 
 before his brother. Fire consumes the two hundred and 
 fifty leaders, headed by Korah the Levite, who claimed 
 equality of priestly honour with Aaron and his sons ; 
 while the earth opens and swallows up the rebels, who 
 claimed equal holiness for the whole congregation. Nrnn. 
 xvi. 40, &c. But this solemn warning against rebellion 
 is followed by mercy, when the rod of Aaron, for the tribe 
 of Levi, bloomed and yielded almonds. The special pre- 
 rogatives of Aaron and his seed having once for all been 
 upheld by so signal a judgment, the whole tribe of Levi, 
 by this striking and symbolical miracle, were henceforth 
 publicly instated in the dignity and honour of a priestl}" 
 tribe. Its meaning is expounded in the next chapter, 
 Num. xviii. 1, 2. The Levites were to be 'joined' to the 
 house of Aaron. All were to be priests, in contrast to 
 the other tribes, though Aaron and his sons were to be 
 priests in contrast to the other Levites, who were also to 
 serve around the tabernacle. 
 
 140. The style used in Deuteronomy answers, then, 
 to the changed circumstances at the close of the sojourn. 
 The judgment on Korah, the Levite ringleader in rebellion, 
 had made the deepest impression. Aaron had died, full 
 
268 Tlce Pentateuch 
 
 of years and honour, second only to Moses in the rever- 
 ence of the people, and Eleazar had succeeded in his 
 stead. Phinehas, Eleazar's son, had received the high 
 approval of God, and the promise of an everlasting priest- 
 hood. The house of Aaron were still few in number, and 
 their honour for the present was secure ; but the Levites 
 were a tribe of many thousands. They were made to 
 depend for their subsistence on the tithes and offerings of 
 the people, and their honour and privilege needed new 
 and strong safeguards after Moses was gone. 
 
 This key explains the partial change of style in 
 Deuteronomy^, which no dual authorship can ever do. 
 Moses first mentions the death of Aaron, and that Eleazar, 
 his son, ministered in the priest's office in his stead. 
 After this he dwells mainly, if not entirely, on the privi- 
 leges and duties of the whole priestly tribe. First, he 
 records their Divine consecration to priestly work, x. 8 : 
 ' At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi, to 
 bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before 
 the Lord, to minister to Him, and to bless in His name 
 unto this day.' Upon this, a sevenfold charge that Levi 
 should have no part with his brethren, because the Lord 
 was his inheritance, and that his brethren should not 
 forsake him, is placed in the front of the whole legisla- 
 tion, X. 9 ; xii. 12, 19 ; xiv. 27, 29 ; xvi. 11, 14. Men- 
 tion follows twice of ' the priests the Levites,' xvii. 9, 18, 
 where the second passage confirms the wider reference, 
 for the law is afterwards given in custody to the whole 
 tribe. The next passage expressly expounds the phrase 
 in its wider sense : ' The priests the Levites, all the tribe 
 of Levi, shall have no part or inheritance with Israel,' 
 
and its Anatomists. 269 
 
 xviii. 1. As the sequel of the command, a Levite, and 
 * all his brethren the Levites/ are named in the same 
 context, xviii. 6, 7. In ch. xxi. 5, the ordinance of the 
 slain heifer, * the priests the Levites ' are named again, 
 and defined by marks that apply to the whole tribe : ' for 
 them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister to him, 
 and to bless in the name of the Lord,' an allusion to 
 ch X. 8, which has gone before : * The Lord separated the 
 tribe of Levi, to minister unto him, and to bless in his 
 name.' In ch. xxvi. the Levite simply is mentioned 
 again three times, and solemnly commended to the faith 
 and piety of the whole nation. In the closing chapters, 
 *the priests the Levites' are joined with Moses in the 
 address to Israel, xxvii. 9. They speak together to aU 
 Israel, and then the Levites, v. 14, receive the charge to 
 fulfil just the same office, and pronounce aloud the curses 
 to the other tribes, after the entrance into the land. Still 
 later, the final delivery of the law is twice described in 
 these words : — 
 
 ' And Moses wrote this law, and dehvered it unto the priests 
 the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the 
 Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel,' xxxi. 9. 
 
 ' And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of 
 writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 
 that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the 
 covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law,' &c., 
 xxxi. 25, 26. 
 
 Last of all, in the blessing of Moses, the priestly 
 privilege is assigned, without distinction, to the tribe of 
 Levi : ' They shall put incense before thee, and whole 
 burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.' 
 
270 The Pentateuch 
 
 141. This feature, then, of Deuteronomy, which has 
 been alleged as a decisive proof of separate and later 
 authorship, is really a sign of its historical truth and 
 Mosaic origin. The relation to the history is of that 
 delicate and real kind, which no forger of later times 
 could invent or observe. The priests are called ' sons of 
 xA.aron ' eleven times in the laws of sacrifice, in Divine 
 messages, before Aaron's consecration ; but after this, 
 thrice only, also in Divine messages, and forty years 
 before the death of Moses. After the separation of the 
 Levites, and the vindication of Aaron from the rebellious 
 rivalry of Korah and other Levites by solemn judgment, 
 the blossoming of the rod 'for the tribe of Levi,' and the 
 laws that follow, join the whole tribe in an important 
 share of priestly honour and service. And now, when 
 Aaron has died amidst the mourning of the people, and 
 Eleazar and Phinehas have the promise of an everlasting 
 priesthood, and the leadership is about to pass, in Joshua, 
 to the tribe of Ephraim, one object of the dying Law- 
 giver is to confirm that priestly dignity of the tribe of 
 Levi, on which the very preservation of the whole legal 
 economy would depend. Hence its distinctive honours 
 are enforced more than twenty times, while the pre- 
 rogatives of Aaron's family are left to depend on the 
 Sinaitic legislation. This is doubly natural, when we re- 
 member that the very first promise of the Covenant to all 
 Israel, is that they should be ' a kingdom of priests and a 
 hoh' nation,' and the sacred honours of the tribe had been 
 more signally displayed in Moses the Levite, than even in 
 Aaron the founder of the priestly line. 
 
 On the other hand, no hypothesis of a later origin of 
 
and its Anatomists. 271 
 
 tlie book affords the least key to this peculiarity. For 
 the later the date, the longer would be the series of pre- 
 cedents for the contrast between the priests, the sons of 
 Aaron, and the rest of the Levites, and it would grow 
 less likely that a mere inventor of legends would pass it 
 by in silence. It enters so deeply into the whole course 
 of later Jewish history, that its absence in Deuteronomy 
 can only be explained by the fact, that this book is simply 
 the completion of a code of laws, not a separate whole. The 
 prophets, it is owned, like the Deuteronomist, call the 
 priests ' Levites,' or ' sons of Levi,' and never ' the sons of 
 Aaron.' But this destroys the objection it is brought to 
 confirm. For the two prophets in question (Jer. xxxiii. 
 18, 21, 22 ; Ezek. xliii. 19 ; xliv. 15 ; xlviii. 13) were 
 themselves priests of the seed of Aaron, and could neither 
 be ignorant of the priestly distinction of his family, nor 
 tempted to make light of it. The usage, then, of Deuter- 
 onomy must be quite as natural and consistent in the lips of 
 Moses, the Levite, as of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, descendants 
 of Aaron. We are taught, in both cases, that the conse- 
 cration of the whole tribe of Levi to God's especial ser- 
 vice was a truth even more fundamental than the special 
 prerogatives of the sons of Aaron alone. The voice of 
 the latest prophet is here an echo to the parting words of 
 Moses : ' Ye shall know that I have sent this command- 
 ment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, 
 saith the Lord of hosts. My covenant was with him of 
 life and peace, and I gave them to him for the fear 
 wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name,' 
 Mai. ii. 4, 5 ; Exod. xxxii. 26, 29 ; Deut. xxxiii. 8-11. 
 142. Historical Allusions. 
 
272 The Pentateuch 
 
 The Book of Deuteronomy consists mainly of a repe- 
 tition and enforcement of laws already given at Sinai, 
 with some added precepts. Yiewed as history, it occupies 
 only the eleventh month of the fortieth year. But the 
 links are very numerous which bind it to the earlier 
 histories. These are natural and impressive, when we 
 view it as a genuine record of the words of Moses. But 
 when it is ascribed to some forger of later date, or even 
 of the age of Jeremiah, they involve such a combination 
 of subtle invention with reckless and deliberate lying, as 
 to degrade the Law of God, the bright reflection of His 
 perfect holiness, into nothing higher than a frightful 
 masterpiece of Satanic falsehood. 
 
 The following events of the earlier histories are re- 
 ferred to in Deuteronomy, and the allusions are inwrought 
 throughout into the very texture of its legislation. 
 
 (1) The creation in Genesis, iv. 32. (2) The Sabbath, 
 V. 14. (3) The dispersion of mankind, xxxii. 7, 8. (4) 
 The oath to the patriarchs (twenty-five times), i. 8, 35 ; 
 vi. 10, 18, 23; vii. 8, 12; viii. 1, 18; ix. 5, 28; x. 11, 
 15 ; xi. 9, 21 ; xix. 8 ; xxvi. 3, 15 ; xxviii. 11 ; xxix. 13 ; 
 xxxi. 7, 20, 21 ; xxxiv. 4. (5) The genealogy of Lot, 
 ii. 9, 19. (6) The overthrow of Sodom, xxix. 23. (7) 
 Jacob's danger and exile, xxvi. 5. (8) The descent to 
 Egypt, sevent}^ persons, x. 22 ; xxvi. 5. (9) Joseph's 
 separation from his brethren, xxxiii. 16. (10) The 
 blessing on Ephraim and Manasseh, xxxiii. 17. (11) 
 The increase in Egypt, i. 10 ; x. 22 ; xxvi. 5. (12) The 
 bondage of Egypt, iv. 20 ; v. 6, 15 ; vi. 12, 21 ; vii. 8 ; 
 viii. 14; xili. 5, 10; XV. 15; xxiv. 18; xxvi. 6. (13) 
 Mode of cultivation in Egj-pt, xi. 10. (14) Vision to 
 
and its Anatomists. 273 
 
 Moses at tlie busH, xxxiii. 16. (15) His age at tlie 
 Exodus, i. 3 ; xxxi. 2 ; xxxiv. 7. (16) Plagues and 
 diseases of Egypt, i. 30 ; iv. 34 ; v. 15 ; vi. 22 ; vii. 15, 
 19 ; xi. 3 ; xxviii. 27, 60. (17) The Passover and Exodus, 
 xvi. 1-7. (18) Consecration of tlie firstlings, xv. 19, 20. 
 (19) The pillar of cloud and fire, i. 33 ; xxxi. 15. (20) 
 Passage of the Red Sea, xi. 4. (21) The Manna, viii. 3, 
 16 ; xxix. 6. (22) Rephidim and Massah, vi. 16 ; viii. 
 15 ; ix. 22. (23) War with Amalek, xxv. 17-19. (24) 
 Appointment of judges, i. 9-15. (25) Sojourn in the 
 wilderness forty years, i. 31, 33 ; ii. 7 ; viii. 2, 15, 16 ; 
 XV. 5 ; xxxii. 10-12. (26) Law at Sinai in fire, iv. 11, 
 12, 15 ; V. 4 ; xxxiii. 2-4. (27) Fears and alarm of the 
 people, V. 22-27 ; xviii. 16. (28) Answer of God, v. 
 28-31. (29) Moses forty days in the mount, ix. 9. 
 (30) First tables written, ix. 10; x. 2. (31) Golden 
 calf made, x. 16, 21. (32) Aaron's sin, x. 20. (33) 
 Tables broken, ix. 17. (34) Calf turned to dust, an 
 drunk, ix. 21. (35) Consecration of Levi, x, 8. (36) 
 Second forty days of intercession, ix. 18, 25; x. 10. (37) 
 Second tables written, x. 1-4. (38) Ark made, x. 3. (39) 
 Law of leprosy in Leviticus, xxiv. 8. (40) Journey from 
 Sinai, Num. x. 13; Deut. x. 11. (41) God's choice of 
 each resting-place, i. 33 ; Num. x. 33. (42) Sin at 
 Taberah, ix. 22. (43) Sin at Kibroth-hattaavah, ix. 22. 
 (44) Hazeroth and Miriam, xxiv. 9. (45) Pre-eminence 
 of Moses (Num. xii. 7, 8), xxxiv. 10-12. (46) Mission of 
 the spies, i. 22, 23. (47) Grapes of Eshcol, i. 24, 25. 
 (48) Rebellion of the people, i. 26-28 ; ix. 23. (49) Oath 
 of rejection, i. 34, 35. (50) Promise to Caleb and Joshua, 
 i, 36, 38. (51) Presumption of the people and defeat at 
 
 T 
 
274 The Pentateuch 
 
 Ilormali, i. 41-44. (52) Yain weeping and regret, i. 45. 
 (53) Rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, xi. 6. (54) Shoes 
 and raiment in the wilderness, viii. 4 ; xxix. 5. (55) 
 Miracle at Kadesh, viii. 15. (56) Death of Aaron at 
 Hor, X. 4. (57) Stations of Bene-jaakan, Moseroth, and 
 Gudgodah, x. 5. (58) Journey southward from Kadesli 
 to Ezion-gaber, ii. 1, 8. (59) Wilderness of Moab, i. 8. 
 (60) Brook Zered and river Arnon, ii. 13, 24. (61) The 
 interval of thirty-eight years, ii. 14. (62) The wasting of 
 the numbered generation, i. 35 ; ii, 14. (63) The message 
 to Sihon, ii. 26-29. (64) His defeat at Jahaz, ii. 30-35. 
 (65) The defeat of Og at Edrei, iii. 1-3. (66) The hiring 
 of Balaam, xxiii. 3-5. (67) The sin of Baal-peor, iv. 3, 4 ; 
 ix. 7. (68) The exclusion of Moses, i. 37 ; xxxi. 2. (69) 
 The appointment of Joshua, i. 38; iii. 28; xxxi. 3, 7. 
 (70) The Urim and Thummim, xxxiii. 8. (71) The three 
 festivals, xvi. 1-16. (72) The inheritance of Eeuben and 
 Gad, iii. 12, 16, 17. (73) That of Machir, iii. 15. (74) 
 Havoth-jair, iii. 14. (75) Cities of Eefuge, iv. 41-43. 
 (76) The death of Moses in Pisgah, Num. xx^Hli. 12 ; 
 Deut. xxxii. 49. 
 
 More than seventy facts, recorded more fullj^ in the 
 previous historj^, are thus woven into the texture of this 
 closing book of the law. Twenty-five of these are in the 
 three opening chapters, and fifteen more in the exhorta- 
 tion, chh. ix., x., but the rest are spread throughout its 
 whole course. Nothing can be more spontaneous and 
 natural than the way in which they are introduced. Some 
 fresh particulars are added, but so naturally, and in such 
 agreement with the rest, as to bespeak their own reality. 
 Such are the mention of the mode of cultivation in Egypt, 
 
and its Anatomists. 275 
 
 xi. 10; the implied age of Moses at the Exodus, i. 3; 
 xxxi. 2 ; xxxiv. 7 ; the occasion of Amalek's warfare, 
 XXV. 18 ; the words of Moses before the appointment of 
 judges, i. 9-15 ; the supply of raiment, viii. 4 ; xxix. 5 ; 
 the command about their children, iv. 10 ; the alarm of 
 the people, v. 24 ; the answer of God, v. 28-31 ; the 
 anger of God with Aaron, ix. 20 ; the words of Moses' 
 intercession, ix. 26-29 ; the description of Jotbath, x. 7 ; 
 the message of God, x. 11 ; the request of the people for 
 spies to be sent, i. 22 ; their words of despondency, i. 27, 
 28; the exhortation of Moses, i. 29-31; the weeping, 
 i. 45 ; the threefold charge about Edom, Moab, and 
 Ammon, ii. 4, 9, 19 ; the mention of the giant races, 
 ii. 10, 20, 23; the full message to Sihon, ii. 26-29 ; the 
 sixty cities of Argob, iii. 4 ; the names of Hermon, iii. 9 ; 
 iv. 48 ; the bedstead of Og, iii. 11 ; the share of the 
 Ammonites in hiring Balaam, xxiii. 3, 4 ; and the choice 
 of the three cities of refuge, iv. 43. 
 
 143. Besides these historical references, which link 
 this book so closely with the whole previous histor}', and 
 disprove its later origin, its moral features and tone make 
 the hypothesis of a forgery insufferable and monstrous to 
 every mind which retains any spiritual instinct, and has 
 learned ' to fear that great and terrible name, the Lord 
 our God.' How real and earnest, how lofty and sublime, 
 is its tone, from first to last, of Divine authority ! How 
 tender and delicate are its touches of human symjDathy 
 from the djdng Lawgiver to the people he so dearly 
 loved, and whom, for their sins, even more than his own, 
 he was forbidden to lead into the Land of Promise ! 
 Whoever can ascribe this holy book, this overflowing 
 
270 The Pentateuch 
 
 from the heart of one who had been on the mount with 
 God, to some shameless forger, eight centuries or more 
 after the death of Moses, must come under the descrip- 
 tion of the Apostle, of those who are ^ corrupted in 
 imderstanding, undiscerning, or reprobate in the faith,' 
 and the solemn caution of our Lord : * If they believe 
 not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be per- 
 suaded though one rose from the dead/ These messages 
 of the living God, by which the Son of God, filled with 
 the Spirit of Truth, repelled and overcame the most subtle 
 attacks of the great Deceiver, can never, without blasphemy 
 against the God of truth, and the honour of Christ, be 
 degraded into one of the most hateful and profane false- 
 hoods, which that Deceiver has ever practised on the 
 religious credulity of sinful men. He who speaks in this 
 book might seem almost to have entered already within 
 the skirts of that cloud of glory, where the three disciples 
 saw him conversing with Elias and their Lord Himself, 
 on the holy mount. The Christian who obeys the Divine 
 command, to delight in this book of the law, and to 
 meditate therein day and night, Avill soon leave behind 
 him, as at the foot of the mount, the janglings of scep- 
 tical criticism, like the jarring sounds in the camp of 
 Moab and Midian ; and will rise, through meditation on 
 God's holy law, to the clear vision of His Divine glory, to 
 whom Moses in the law and the prophets bear witness, — 
 the Incarnate and Living Word, the promised Saviour 
 and Redeemer of mankind. 
 
and its Anatomists. 277 
 
 CHAPTER XIY. 
 
 THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION. 
 
 144. The Book of Deuteronomy, when its authenticity 
 lias once been established by the full concurrence of ex- 
 ternal and internal evidence, throws a clear light, back- 
 ward, on the historical reality of the whole Pentateuch. 
 For it does not profess to be a code complete in itself. It 
 claims to be the repetition and completion of a code 
 already given and committed to writing-. It defines itself 
 plainly in xxvii. 1 : ' These are the words of the covenant 
 which the Lord commanded Moses to make with tlie 
 children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside tlie covenant 
 which he made with them in Horeb.' That this later 
 covenant, the completion of the first, was committed to 
 writing, is twenty times affirmed, iv. 2, 9, 14 ; vi. 6-9, 20 ; 
 xi. 18-21 ; xvii. 18-20 ; xxvii. 1-3, 8, 26 ; xxviii. 58, 61 ; 
 xxix. 20, 21, 27, 29 ; xxx. 14 ; xxxi. 9, 24, 26, 46 ; 
 xxxiii. 4. It is thus plainly implied that the earlier 
 covenant, of which it is the completion, wtis also written, 
 and is ten times afiirmed of the Decalogue, the basis and 
 centre of the whole* The central portion of the three 
 earlier books, Exod. xix.-Num. x., answers all the con- 
 ditions required by the statements in Deuteronomy re- 
 
278 Tlte Pentateuch 
 
 specting this earlier covenant made at Sinai. Not only 
 the external, but also the internal evidence, proves that 
 these form the code of written laws, to which Moses 
 alludes so often in his parting discourses as already given 
 to the chosen people. They form a connected series of 
 Divine messages, with a few historical chapters of con- 
 nexion, beginning with the Decalogue, and ending with 
 the march from Horeb to take possession of the promised 
 land. The references to these facts and laws in the later 
 book are so numerous, that only a very condensed list of 
 them can be given. They confirm the unity of these two 
 main portions of the Pentateuch in the clearest and 
 strongest way. 
 
 145. Exod. xix.-xxiv. Earliest Legislation at 
 
 SiXAI. 
 
 In these six chapters we meet with the following links 
 of connexion with Deuteronom}^ : — 
 
 it^ 1. Continuous notation of time from the Exodus, 
 Exod. xix. 1 ; Deut. i. 3 ; Comp. Exod. x^d. 1 ; xl. 2 ; 
 Xum. i. 1 ; ix, 1 ; x. 11. 
 
 Y 2. Scene of the first covenant, Exod. xix. 1, 2, 11, 18, 
 20, 23 ; xxiv. 16, 18 ; Deut. i. 2, 6, 19 ; iv. 10 ; v. 2, 4, 
 22 ; ix. 8, 15 ; xviii. 16 ; xxix. 1 ; xxxiii. 2. 
 
 X 3. ^lessage of God to Moses, xix. 9-13 ; Deut. iv. 10. 
 
 "7^ 4. Assembly at the foot of Sinai, xix. 14-17 ; Deut. 
 iv. 11; V. 5, 22. 
 
 K 5. The fire and thick darkness, with no similitude, 
 xix. 16, 18, 21 ; XX. 18, 21 ; xxiv. 17; Deut. iv. 11, 12, 
 33, 36 ; V. 4, 22, 24, 26 ; xxxiii. 2. 
 
 ;( 6. The voice of God amidst the fire, xix, 9, 19 ; xx. 
 1,19, 22 ; Deut. iv. 12, 33, 36 ; v. 4, 22-26. 
 
and its Anatomists. 279 
 
 V 7. Tlie ten commandments, Exod. xx. 2-17 ; Deut. 
 V. 6-21. The changes in the fourtli and fifth command- 
 ments are suitable in the lips of the Lawgiver himself, but 
 of no later and inferior writer. 
 
 X 8. The fear and alarm of the people, xx. 18-21 ; 
 Deut. V. 23-27. The more brief report of their words of 
 terror in Exodus is replaced by a fuller account, agreeing 
 perfectly with the earlier summary. And it is followed 
 by a message of God to Moses, given in Deuteronomy 
 alone, fidl of Divine pathos and sublimity : ' that there 
 were such an heart in them,' &c. &c. 
 
 X 9. The prohibition of idolatry, deduced from the 
 solemn circumstances of this Divine message, Exod. xx. 
 22, 23 ; Deut. iv. 15-20, 23-26 ; vi. 14, 15. 
 
 X 10. The manumission of Hebrew servants, Exod. xxi. 
 1-4; Deut. XV. 12-15. 
 
 X 11. The law of abiding service, xxi. 5, 6 ; Deut. xv. 
 16-18, with its reason adjoined. 
 
 V 12. The provision for the maid- servant or captive, 
 xxi. 7-11 ; Deut. xxi. 10-14. 
 
 a 13. The sentence on presumptuous murder, xxi. 12-15 ; 
 Deut. xix. 11-13. 
 
 ' 14. The judgment on rebellious children, xxi. 17 ; 
 Deut. xxi. 18-21. 
 
 > 15. The law of retribution, xxi. 23-25 ; Deut. xix. 
 16J1. 
 
 X 16- Sentence on witchcraft and idolatry, xxii. 18-20 ; 
 Deut. xvii. 2-5 ; xviii. 9-12. 
 
 Y^ 17. Care for the stranger and the widow, xxii. 21-24 ; 
 xxiii. 9; Deut. x. 18, 19; xiv. 29; xvi. 11, 14; xxiv. 
 17, 18. 
 
280 The Pentateuch 
 
 "J^ 18. Restoration of the pledge from the poor, xxii. 
 25-27 ; Deut. xxiv. 10-13, 17. 
 
 X 19. Consecration of the first-fruits and first-born, xxii. 
 29, 30 f Deut. xii. 6, 17 ; xv. 19-23. ^ > J 'b , < ^ '^ 
 
 % 20. False witness and unrighteous judgment, xxiii, 
 1-3, 6, 7 ; Deut. xix. 16-19 ; xxv. 1 
 y^' >t 21. Prohibition of bribery, xxiii. 8 ; Deut. xvi. 19. 
 
 N^ 22. Restoration of property and help of neighbours, 
 xxiii. 4, 5 ; Deut. xxii. 1-4. 
 
 •^ 23. The seventh year of rest, xxiii. 10, 11 ; Deut. 
 XV. 1 ; xxxi. 10. 
 
 t 24. The three main festivals and national gatherings, 
 xxiii. 14-17 ; Deut. xvi. 1-17. 
 
 % 25. The seething of the kid, Exod. xxiii. 19 ; Deut. 
 xiv. 21. 
 
 / 26. The promised expulsion of the seven nations, 
 xxiii. 23, 24* Deut. vii. 1-6, 16. ^/^^ P^^l '5"-^ 
 i^ 27. Promises of health and fertility, xxiii. 25, 26 ; 
 Deut. vii. 14, 15; xxviii. 11, 27, 60, 61. 
 ;< 28. Expulsion of the Horites by hornets, xxiii. 29, 
 30 ; Deut. vii. 20-23. 
 
 f- 29. The ensnaring efiect of Canaanite idolatrj^, xxiii. 
 33; Deut. vii. 16,25; xx. 18. 
 
 >, 30. The ascent of Moses to receive the tables, Exod. 
 xxiv. 12-18 ; Deut. ix. 9. 
 
 146. Exod. xxv.-xxxi. Laws of the Tabernacle 
 AND THE Priesthood. 
 
 This part of the earlier legislation contains details of 
 the structure of tlie tabernacle, which needed no repeti- 
 tion after it had been set up thirty-nine years. But still 
 
and its Anatomists. 281 
 
 the references to tlio Divine instructions here given are 
 not few. 
 
 1. The ark of Shittim wood, xxv. 10-15 ; Deut. x. 1, 
 2, 3, 5, 8 ; xxxi. 9, 25. 
 
 2. The testimony or tables within the ark, xxv. 16, 
 21 ; xxxi. 18 ; Deut. x. 3-5. 
 
 3. The altar of sacrifice, xxvii. 1-8 ; Deut. xii. 27 ; 
 xvi. 21 ; xxvi. 4. 
 
 4. The priesthood of Aaron and Eleazar, xx\4ii. 1-4 ; 
 Deut. X. 6 ; xvii. 12 ; xviii. 3. 
 
 5. The Urim and Thummim of the high-priest, xxviii. 
 29, 30 ; Deut. xxxiii. 8. 
 
 6. The consecration and its fulfilment, Exod. xxix. 
 1-35 ; Lev. viii. ix. 
 
 7. The promise to speak with Moses at the tabernacle, 
 xxix. 42, 43 ; Deut. xxxi. 14, 15. 
 
 8. The incense and incense-altar, xxxi. 9, 34-36 ; 
 Deut. xxxiii. 10. 
 
 9. The Sabbath in connexion with Israel's redemp- 
 tion, xxxi. 13-17 ; Deut. v. 15. 
 
 10. The writing of the Law on the first tables,, xxxi. 
 18 ; Deut. iv. 13 ; v. 22 ; ix. 10, 11. 
 
 147. The Later Legislation. Exod. xxxii.-xl. 
 
 All the main features in the historical episode of the 
 worship of the golden calf reappear in Deuteronomy. But 
 in the Kps of the aged Lawgiver, just before his death, 
 they assume a wholly difierent form, and are the groimd 
 of an earnest call to humility, in the prospect of new and 
 greater mercies from God. The facts recalled to their 
 memory are the idolatry of the whole congregation, the 
 
282 The Pentateuch 
 
 share of Aaron in their sin, its disclosure to Moses by 
 God himself, the proposal to make of him a greater 
 nation, his descent with the tables in his hands, their 
 destruction in his anger, the destruction of the golden 
 calf itself, and the mingling of its powder with the brook, 
 the consecration of the whole tribe of Levi, the inter- 
 cession of Moses, his fear of the total rejection of the 
 people, the preparation of the second pair of tables, the 
 second forty days on the mount, the writing of God on 
 the second tables, the renewal of the covenant. All these 
 are set before them in tones of earnest and holy love, to 
 stir them up to gratitude to the God of Israel. Viewed as 
 a forgery, nothing could be more imj)ious ; but as the real 
 words of the dying Lawgiver, nothing could be more 
 tender, earnest, and morally sublime. And we have also 
 internal proof, Exod. xxxiv. 27, that this earlier covenant 
 was recorded at the time, in these words : ' And the Lord 
 said unto Moses, Write thou these words, for after the 
 tenor of these words I have made covenant with thee and 
 with Israel.' And, since this renewal of the covenant 
 plainly required the history of the golden calf for its ex- 
 planation, we may infer, assuming the legislation to be 
 real, that the whole passage, Exod. xxx.-xxxiv., must 
 have been written down soon after the events occurred. 
 
 To the later legislation, chh. xxxv.-xl., there are few 
 direct references in Deuteronomy. It consists mainly of 
 the fulfilment of instructions, given before the sin of the 
 people. But it also prepares the way, by the building of 
 the tabernacle, for all the legislation in Leviticus, where 
 the messages are given from the tabernacle in every case. 
 The closing verses, also, find a striking counterpart in 
 
and its Anatomists. 283 
 
 Deut. i. 33 ; xxxi. 14, 15, whicli marks tlie unity of plan 
 in the whole message, and in the most indirect way. 
 
 148. The Book of Leviticus. Ch. i.-xviii. 
 
 The first part of this book contains chiefly the detailed 
 laws of sacrifice, which needed no repetition after thirty- 
 nine years. Their existence, however, is assumed in every 
 part of Deuteronomy. The following particulars of the 
 earlier or Sinaitic legislation reappear in the course of the 
 book, and show how thoroughly the last book of the law 
 is linked, here also, with those which come before it, and 
 how far it is from being a complete and independent 
 code. 
 
 1. Laws of burnt-offerings, Lev. i., vi. 8-18 ; Deut. xii. 
 6, 13, 14, 27 ; xv. 21 ; xxxi. 10. 
 
 2. Meat-offerings and peace-offerings, Lev. ii. iii. 
 Deut. xii. 6, 11, 17, 27 ; xviii. 3, 4 ; xxvii. 7. 
 
 3. The provision for the priests. Lev. vi. 16-18, 26 
 vii. 6, 28-36 ; Deut. xviii. 3-5. 
 
 4. The death of Nadab and Abihu, Exod. xxiv. 1, 19 
 Lev. xii. 1, 2, implied Deut. x. 6. 
 
 5. The distinction of clean and unclean beasts, Lev. xi. 
 Deut xiv. 1-20. 
 
 6. The law of leprosy, Lev. xiii., xiv. ; Deut. xxiv. 8. 
 Here the fulness of the original law, occupying 116 
 
 verses, is in striking contrast with the brief and simple 
 enforcement of it, — ' Take heed in the plague of leprosy, 
 that thou observe diligently, and do according to all that 
 the priests, the Levites, shall teach you : as I commanded 
 them, ye shall observe to do.' It is thus clearly implied 
 that the laws of leprosy had been already given, with full 
 details, in a written and permanent form. 
 
2S4 The Pentateuch 
 
 7. Laws of ceremonial pollutions and cleansing, Lev.. 
 XV. ; Deut. xxiii. 9-14. Here the later instructions agree 
 in spirit with tlie first, and extend them further. 
 
 8. The one place of sacrifice, Lev. xvii. 1-9 ; Deut. xii. 
 5, 8-11, 13, 14, 18, 28; xiv. 23-25. 
 
 Here, again, the later precepts enforce and repeat 
 many times the general instruction which had been given 
 before. But the passage, Deut. xxvii. 4-7, proves that 
 this enforcement of the unity of national worship, at the 
 place which the Lord would choose, did not supersede the 
 wider promise, Exod. xx. 24 ; to which the command in 
 Deuteronomy itself, forbidding the use of an iron tool in 
 raising the altar at Ebal, makes a clear allusion. 
 
 9. The sacredness of blood, Lev. xvii. 10-14 ; Deut. 
 xii. 16,23-25; xv. 23. 
 
 10. Prohibited marriages. Lev. xviii. ; Deut. vii. 3; 
 xxii. 30. 
 
 149. Lev. xix.-xxvii. 
 
 As this later portion of Leviticus is less occupied with 
 ceremonial details, the allusions to its precepts and the 
 repetitions of them are more abundant, and prove clearly 
 that Deuteronomy continues and completes the legal code 
 already given. 
 
 1. Lev. xix. 2. ' Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord your 
 God am holy.' 
 
 Deut. vii. 6. ' For thou art an holy people to the Lord 
 thy God.' xiv. 2. ' For thou art an holy peo^Dle unto the 
 Lord thy God ;' v. 21 the same, xxiii. 14. ' Therefore 
 shall th}^ camp be holy.' 
 
 2. xix. 3. * Ye shall fear every man his mother and 
 his father;' Deut. v. 10; xxi. 18-21 ; xxAdi. 16. 
 
and its Anatomists. 285 
 
 3. xix. 4. ^Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to 
 yourselves molten, gods/ Deut. iv. 16-18, 25; vii. 25, 26; 
 xii. 3 ; xvi. 22 ; xxvii. 15 ; xxix. 17. 
 
 4. xix. 10. Law of gleaning, Deut. xxiv. 19-22. 
 
 5. xix. 12. False swearing, Deut. v. 11 ; vi. 13 ; 
 X. 20 ; xxiii. 21. 
 
 6. xix. 13. "Wages of tlie hireling, &c., Deut. xxiv. 
 14, 15. 
 
 7. xix. 15, 16. Eighteousness in judgment, Deut. i. 
 17 ; X. 17, 18 ; xvi. 18-20 ; xxiv. 17. 
 
 8. xix. 19. Law against unnatural mixtures, Deut. 
 xxii. 9, 10, 11. 
 
 9. xix. 26, 31. Encliantment and divination, Deut. 
 xviii. 9-14. 
 
 10. xix. 27, 28. Forbidden marks and cuttings, 
 Deut. xiv. 22. 
 
 11. xix. 29. Sensual sins forbidden, Deut. xxiii. 17, 18. 
 
 12. xix. 33, 34. Care for the stranger, and its reason, 
 Deut. X. 18, 19; xxiii. 7; xxiv. 17; xxvii. 19. 
 
 13. xix. 35, 36. Justice in weights and measures, 
 Deut. XXV. 13-16. 
 
 14. XX. 1-5. Condemnation of Moloch worship, Deut. 
 xii. 29-31. 
 
 15. XX. 10-16. Unnatural crimes accursed, Deut. 
 xxvii. 20-23. 
 
 16. xxii. 17-25. Sacrifices without blemish, Deut. 
 xvii. 1. 
 
 17. xxiii. 4-44. The three annual festivals, Deut. xvi. 
 1-17. 
 
 18. xxiv. 10-16. Stoning for the sin of blasphemy, 
 Deut. xiii. 6-10 ; xvii. 2-5. 
 
286 The Pentateuch 
 
 19. xxiv. 19-22. Law of retribution, Deut. xix. 
 18-21. 
 
 20. xxy. 1-7. Sabbatic year of rest, Deut. xv. 1-6 ; 
 xxxi. 10-12. 
 
 21. XXV. 35-38. Relief of the poor and needy, Deut. 
 XV. 7-15. 
 
 22. xxvi. 3-13. Blessings promised to obedience, 
 Deut. xxviii. 1-4. 
 
 23. xxvi. 14-39. Cursings of national disobedience, 
 Deut. xxviii. 15-68; xxix. 18-28. 
 
 24. xxvi. 40-46. Promises of mercy on rej)entance, 
 Deut. XXX. 1-10; xxxii. 36-43. 
 
 150. Num. i. X. 10. 
 
 These first chapters of Numbers complete the Sinaitic 
 legislation, before the journey northward towards the 
 land of promise. Their direct links with Deuteronomy 
 are few ; but they have a most intimate relation with the 
 journeys that follow, and with the laws, from the Exodus 
 onward, w^hich have gone before. The numbering of the 
 twelve tribes, the disposal of their places in the encamp- 
 ment round the tabernacle, the separation of the Levites, 
 the appointment of the work of each Levitical family 
 during the march, and in setting up the tabernacle, the 
 separation of the lepers, the description of the pillar of 
 cloud and fire as the guide of their journeys, and the pre- 
 paration of the silver trumpets, all are the natural preface 
 to the record of the successive journeys that follow. We 
 SCO the people thus arranged, as the army of the Lord, 
 to march in due order, like a marshalled host, and take 
 possession of the promised land. On the other hand, the 
 links \\\\\\ tlic previous histor}^ and legislation are very 
 
and its Anatomists. 287 
 
 plain and strong. The number of tlie tribes, Num. i. 
 44-46, refers back to tlie collection of tbe atonement 
 money, Exod. xxx. 11-16; xxxviii. 25-28; and thus 
 binds together the whole Sinaitic legislation. The separ- 
 ation of the tribe of Levi refers back to the history of the 
 golden calf, Exod. xxxii. 26^29, and is the fulfilment of 
 the promise made to them after their zeal against the 
 idolatry of the people. The mention of Elishama as the 
 captain of Ephraim is an historical link with the previous 
 mention of Joshua, his grandson, in the war with Amalek, 
 Exod. xvii., and in the ascent of Moses to the mount of 
 of God, xxiv. 23. The mention of the four sons of Aaron, 
 Num. iii. 1-4, refers back to the record of their sin and 
 death. Lev. x. 1, 2. The numbering of the Levites, and 
 their substitution for the numbered first-born, refer to 
 the command, Exod. xxii. 29, as well as the earlier pre- 
 cept at the time of the Exodus. The instruction to exclude 
 the lepers repeats and enforces the previous law, Lev. xiii. 
 46, — 'He shall dwell alone, without the camp shall his 
 habitation be.' The law of trespass, and the addition of 
 the fifth part in repayment. Num. v. 5-8, answer to the 
 repeated directions at the close of Leviticus, xxvii. 11-13, 
 15, 19, 27, 31. The law of the Nazarite, Num. vi., seems 
 to extend the briefer direction. Lev. xxvii. 1, 2. The 
 statement. Num. vii. 89, after the full consecration of the 
 altar by the princes, answers to the promise, Exod. xxv. 
 22, and is an instance of its fulfilment. The description 
 of the candlestick, Num. viii. 1-4, refers back to the com- 
 mand, Exod. xxv. 31-40, wdth its allusion to the pattern 
 shown on the mount. Lastl}^, the ordinance for the pass- 
 over in the second month completes the historical inter- 
 
288 The Pentateuch 
 
 lacing of the wliole, and links the last act of the Sinaitic 
 legislation with the fundamental ordinance of the first 
 Passover, one year earlier, at the time of the Exodus. 
 
 151. The Book of Deuteronomy, it thus appears by a 
 full induction of evidence, implies the existence of the 
 earlier Sinaitic legislation in a written form before the 
 death of Moses ; while the central portion of the Penta- 
 teuch, Exod. xix., Num. x., fulfils every condition required 
 in this earlier written code, and links itself with the last 
 words of Moses in the plains of Moab, almost in a hundred 
 distinct particulars. These are also inwrought so curiously 
 into the texture of the later book, that nothing else than 
 the truth of both documents, the earlier and the later, can 
 explain their correspondence, and their entire variation of 
 form and arrangement. But these two partial codes could 
 not stand alone without that historical setting on which 
 their meaning very mainly depends. The Historical Pre- 
 face, Exod. i.-xviii., containing the record of the bondage, 
 the plagues, the first passover, and the Exodus ; and the 
 Historical Sequel, Num. xi.-xxxvii., containing the brief 
 account of nearly thirty-nine years of wilderness sojourn, 
 are plainly required to connect, harmonize, and explain, 
 the Sinaitic lawgiving, and its later expansion and repe- 
 tition before the death of Moses. Accordingly, the links 
 which unite Deuteronomy with these historical portions of 
 the three earlier books are as striking, and as decisive of 
 their common unity of authorship, as those which bind 
 together the earlier and later legislation. Let us trace 
 them in order, beginning with the later portion. 
 
 The Sojourn and Journeys in the Wilderness. 
 Num. X. 11-xxxvi. 
 
and its Anatomists, 289 
 
 1. Num. X. 11. ' It came to pass on the twentieth, 
 day of the second month, in the second year, that the 
 cloud was taken up from off the tabernacle of the testi- 
 mony.' Tliis refers backward to the fundamental date of 
 the Exodus, Exod. xii. 2, 3, 6, 41, to the first mention of 
 the pillar of cloud, xiii. 21, 22, and the later description, 
 at the very close of the book, of its resting on the taber- 
 nacle, xl. 34-38, with the renewed and fuller statement, 
 !N'um. ix. 15-23. But it also points onward to the use of 
 the same era in later passages of this book, Num. xx. 1 ; 
 xxxiii. 3, 38,. and its continuation in the opening words 
 of Deuteronomy, i. 3 : ' In the fortieth year, in the eleventh 
 month, on the first day of the month.' 
 
 2. V. 12. ^ And the cloud rested in the wilderness of 
 Paran.' To this there seems a double allusion, at the 
 beginning and close of Deuteronomy, i. 1 ; xxxiii. 2. 
 
 3. V. 13. ' And they first took their journey according 
 to the commandment of the Lord by the hand of Moses.' 
 So, Deut. i. 6-8 ; x. 11, where this command is twice 
 mentioned, and once with fuller detail. 
 
 4. Yv. 17, 21. The Levites bearing the tabernacle, 
 Deut. X. 8 ; xxxi. 9, 25. 
 
 5. vv. 25, 27. Dan, Asher, Naphtali, the three last 
 tribes in order, Deut. xxxiii. 22-25. 
 
 6. YV. 33, 34. The ark searching out a resting-place, 
 Deut. i. 33. 
 
 7. xi. 1-3. The sin of the people at Taberah, Deut. 
 ix. 22. 
 
 8. xi. 4-34. The lusting at Kibroth-hattaavah, Deut. 
 ix. 22. 
 
 u 
 
290 The Pentateuch 
 
 9. xii. 1-15. The leprosy of Miriam at Hazerotli, 
 Deut. i. 1 ; xxiv. 9. 
 
 10. xii. 5-8. The pre-eminence of Moses as a prophet, 
 Dent, xxxiv. 10-12. 
 
 11. xiii. 1-20. The mission of the twelve spies, Deut. 
 i. 20-23. 
 
 12. xiii. 23-27. Their report, with the grapes of 
 Eshcol, Deut. i. 24, 25. 
 
 13. xiv. 1-4. The murmuring and rebellion of the 
 people, Deut. i. 26-28, 32 ; ix. 23. 
 
 14. xiv. 20-23, 26-30. The oath of exclusion from 
 the land, Deut. i. 34, 35. 
 
 15. xiv. 24, 30, 31. The promise to Joshua, Caleb, 
 and the little ones, Deut. i. 36, 38, 39. 
 
 16. xiv. 39-45. The presumption and defeat of the 
 people, Deut. i. 41-44. 
 
 17. xvi. 1-34 ; xxvi. 9, 10. The rebellion of Dathan 
 and Abiram, Deut. xi. 6, 7. 
 
 18. xvii. 7-10 ; xviii. 2. The consecration of the 
 house of Levi, Deut. xii. 12, 19; xiv. 27, 29; xvi. 11, 14; 
 xviii. 1, 6, 7 ; xxiv. 8. 
 
 19. xix. 1-22. Purification by a heifer unyoked, Deut. 
 xxi. 1-9. 
 
 20. XX. 1-11. The smitten rock in Meribah Kadesh, 
 Deut. viii. 15. 
 
 21. XX. 12, 13. The exclusion of Aaron and Moses 
 from the land, Deut. i. 37 ; iii. 26, 27 ; iv. 21, 22 ; x. 6 ; 
 xxxi. 2 ; xxxii. 48-52. 
 
 22. XX. 14-21. The command respecting Edom, Deut. 
 ii. 4-6. 
 
and its Anatomists. 291 
 
 23. XX. 22-29. The death and burial of Aaron in 
 Hor, near Moserah, Deut. x. 6. 
 
 24. xxi. 4-10. The compassing of the land of Edom, 
 Deut. ii. 1-8. 
 
 25. xxi. 12, 13. The crossing of the brook Zered and 
 Arnon, Deut. ii. 13, 14, 24. 
 
 26. xxi. 21-31. The message to Sihon and his over- 
 throw, Deut. ii. 24-37. 
 
 27. xxi. 33-35. The victory over Og at Edrei, Deut. 
 iii. 1-10. 
 
 28. xxii.-xxiv. The hiring of Balaam by the Moabites, 
 Deut. xxiii. 3-6. 
 
 29. XXV. 1-17. The sin of Baalpeor, Deut. iv. 3 ; 
 xxxii. 15-17. 
 
 30. xxvi. 63-65. The wasting of the numbered gen- 
 eration, Deut, i. 35 ; ii. 14-16. 
 
 31. xxvii. 12-14. The scene of the vision of Moses 
 and cause of his death, Deut. xxxii. 48-52 ; xxxiv. 1-4. 
 
 32. xxvii. 15-23. The appointment of Joshua as 
 leader, Deut. i. 38 ; iii. 28 ; xxxi. 3, 7, 8, 23 ; xxxiv. 9. 
 
 33. XXX. 1-16. The binding nature of a vow, Deut. 
 xxiii. 21-23. 
 
 34. xxxii. 1-38. The inheritance of Gad and Reuben, 
 Deut. iii. 12, 16-20 ; xxxiii. 20, 21. 
 
 35. xxxii. 39-42. The inheritance of Manasseh, 
 Machir, and Jair, Deut. iii. 14, 15 ; xxix. 8. 
 
 36. xxxiii. 30-34. The stations of Moseroth, Bene- 
 jaakan, Hor-hagidgad, and Jotbathah, Deut. x. 6, 7. 
 
 37. xxxiii. 44-50. The final encampment in the plains 
 of Moab, Deut. i. 1, 5 ; iii. 29; iv. 45-49. 
 
292 The Pentateuch 
 
 38. XXXV. 14. Three cities of refuge east of Jordan, 
 Deut. iv. 41-43 ; xix. 7. 
 
 39. XXXV. 13-34. Three other cities west of Jordan, 
 Deut. xix. 1-6, 8-13. 
 
 40. XXXV. 31-34. The land defiled by unpunished 
 murder, Deut. xxi. 1-9. 
 
 152. The Historical Preface of the Law. Exod. 
 i.-xviii. 
 
 The relations of the Book of Deuteronomy to the his- 
 tory which precedes the Sinaitic legislation are hardly 
 less intimate than with the account of the wilderness 
 sojourn in the Book of Numbers. AYe may note the 
 following references, many of them indirect, as evidences 
 of the unity of the whole. 
 
 1. Exod. i. 1-5. The descent into Egypt with seventy 
 persons, Deut. x. 22 ; vii. 7 ; xxvi. 5. 
 
 2. i. 7, 12, 20. The increase into a mighty nation, 
 Deut. i. 10 ; x. 22 ; xxvi. 5. 
 
 3. i. 8-14 ; ii. 23. The severity of the Egj^tian 
 bondage, Deut. iv. 20 ; v. 6 ; vi. 21 ; viii. 14. 
 
 4. iii. 1-6. The vision to Moses at the bush, Deut. 
 xxxiii. 16. 
 
 5. iii. 7-10. The message of God and its fulfilment, 
 Deut. xxvi. 6-9. 
 
 6. iii. 12. The prophecy of worship at Horeb, and 
 its fulfilment, Deut. iv. 10-14 ; xxxiii. 2. 
 
 7. iv.-xi. Signs and plagues in Egypt, Deut. vi. 22 ; 
 vii. 18, 19; ix. 26; xi. 2, 3. 
 
 8. xii. 1-36. The ordinance of the Passover, Deut. 
 xvi. 1-10. 
 
and its Anatomists. 293 
 
 9. xii. 11-13. The consecration of the firstlings, 
 Deut. xii. 6 ; xv. 19. 
 
 10. xiii. 14, 16. The question of children, and the 
 answer, Deut. vi. 20-25. 
 
 11. xiii. 21, 22. The pillar of cloud and fire, Deut. 
 i. 33; viii. 15; xxxii. 10-12. 
 
 12. xiv. 1-31. The overthrow at the Eed Sea, Deut. 
 xi. 4. 
 
 13. XV. 26. The promise of freedom from Egj^tian 
 disease, Deut. vii. 15. 
 
 14. xvi. 1-4, 14-21. The gift of the manna, Deut. 
 viii. 3, 16 ; xxix. 6. 
 
 15. xvii. 1-7. The temptation at Massah and Meribah, 
 Deut. ix. 22 ; viii. 15 ; xxxiii. 8. 
 
 16. xvii. 8-16. The war with Amalek and the Divine 
 sentence, Deut. xxv. 17-19. 
 
 17. X viii. 1-27. The appointment of judges to relieve 
 the burden of Moses, Deut. i. 9-17. 
 
 153. This rcA^iew of the three books of Exodus, Levi- 
 ticus, and Numbers, in their relation to Deuteronomy, 
 shows how close and intimate is the union of the whola 
 The later message, besides the external evidence of the 
 Jewish nation, of our Lord and His Apostles, contains the 
 strongest internal proofs of its genuineness, as the parting 
 voice of the great Lawgiver of Israel. It is a legislation 
 committed to writing from the first, but refers throughout 
 to an earlier code, the covenant at Sinai, of which it is 
 only the completion. The portion of the Pentateuch 
 which reaches from Exod xix. to Num. x. answers in 
 every respect to this earlier written code of laws, which 
 
294 The Pentateuch 
 
 the message in Deuteronomy presupposes and requires. 
 There are nearly a hundred links of mutual correspondence, 
 most various in their character, from a verbal repetition of 
 the same law, to supplemental developments of historical 
 facts, or kindred laws where the principle is the same. 
 
 But this earlier legislation, the central portion of the 
 Pentateuch, is inseparably linked with the history of the 
 Desert, the Sojourn in Egypt, the Plagues, the Passover, 
 and the Exodus, which have gone before, and with the 
 forty years of journeying in the wilderness, which follow. 
 And the allusions to these histories in Deuteronomy are, 
 in proportion, not less numerous than to the Sinaitic 
 legislation which intervenes, and includes about sixty 
 particulars, and all the main incidents of the sacred narra- 
 tive. The coat may be said to be woven without seam 
 from the beginning of Exodus to the end of Deuteronomy, 
 so multiplied are the mutual references which bind the 
 whole together. If Moses must indeed be stripped of his 
 robe of honour confirmed to him by the lips of the Lord 
 of glory, it would have been wiser for the negative 
 critics to have borrowed a lesson from the Roman soldiers, 
 who said, * Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose 
 it shall be.' The seamless robe resists, and bids defiance 
 to the hand of the spoiler. 
 
and its Anatomists. 295 
 
 CHAPTER XY. 
 
 THE UNITY AND INSPIRATION OF THE BOOK OF 
 GENESIS. 
 
 154. The Book of Deuteronomy has its truth and genuine- 
 ness confirmed, not only by the voice of our Lord and His 
 Apostles, and the consenting testimony of the Jewish people 
 in every age, but by the clearest internal signs of historical 
 reality as the parting words of Moses. Its moral earnest- 
 ness and pathos of appeal, its tone of holy reverence, its 
 sublime and solemn grandeur, both in the opening exhort- 
 ation, and the Song and Blessing at the close, make the 
 view which degrades it into a subtle and complicated for- 
 gery of some later age incredible, impossible, and mon- 
 strous. Most of the objections brought against it only 
 turn, when fairly examined, into powerful evidences of 
 its truth. The differences in style and diversities of state- 
 ment, as compared with the earlier books, are such as 
 any later forger would be likely to have avoided with 
 care, while they result naturally from the circumstances of 
 the latest message of the Lawgiver before his own death. 
 To this book of the law, even more than the others, the 
 warning of our Lord will clearly apply, — ' If they hear not 
 Moses and the prophets, neither wiU they be persuaded 
 though one rose from the dead.' 
 
296 The Pentateuch 
 
 But this triitli of Deuteronomy is the direct proof of a 
 like origin and authority in the three previous books. The 
 covenant of God with Israel by Moses in the plains of 
 IMoab, once accepted as real history, implies and requires, 
 not only the fact of an earlier code of laws given at Sinai, 
 but their previous existence in a written form. The Books 
 of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, always associated 
 with Deuteronomy under the common title of the Books or 
 Law of Moses, have all the features required in that earlier 
 code, to which the Lawgiver refers so often in his later 
 and final message. A hundred and fifty particulars have 
 been pointed out, in which there is a direct or indirect 
 correspondence of the later with the earlier books. Their 
 common acceptance as the writings of Moses through 
 fifteen centuries of national existence, and eighteen more 
 of Jewish dispersion, puts a key-stone to this body of con- 
 senting evidence, which the voice of God sealed long ago 
 in the parting words of the Old Testament, — * Remember 
 ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded him 
 in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.' 
 
 It remains now to complete this course of inductive 
 inquiry by internal proofs that the Book of Genesis is no 
 cento or patchwork of historical fragments, loosely thrown 
 together in some far later age, but is really the first book 
 of God's perfect law to Israel by the hand of Moses ; and 
 linked inseparably with the four books that follow, not 
 only by an unbroken series of external evidence, more last- 
 ing and extensive than in the case of any other work, but 
 by clear internal signs, which prove that it is the historical 
 groundwork of all the Sinaitic and Transjordanic legis- 
 lation. We may trace at once its unity and harmony of 
 
and its Anatomists. 297 
 
 structure in itself, its close connexion with the later books 
 of the law, and its wider harmonies with the whole course 
 of God's later messages to mankind. 
 
 155. Historical Limits and Range. 
 
 The law of Moses, from the facts in the four later 
 books, and from the miraculous writing of the two tables 
 at Sinai, professes to be the first beginning of Divine 
 revelation in a written form. It is natural, and almost 
 necessary, that such messages should begin with some 
 record of man's creation, and of his first condition as a 
 responsible creature under the moral government of God. 
 This is doubly essential, since the fourth commandment 
 introduces a direct reference to the fact and order of creation 
 in the most central part of the Sinaitic covenant. On the 
 other hand. Exodus begins with the descent of the sons of 
 Israel into Egj^pt, and the death of Joseph. The first 
 book, then, of the law needs, first of all, to satisfy this 
 condition, that it shall begin with a record of the six days' 
 creation, announced in the tables written with the finger 
 of God, and shall reach to the death of Joseph. These 
 are the exact historical limits of the Book of Genesis. 
 Hereby it fulfils the first and simplest condition required 
 in any book which claims to be the writing of Moses, 
 introducing four later books, that contain the double 
 covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai and in the plains of 
 Horeb. 
 
 To comprise, however, in a book of moderate size the 
 record of twenty-four centuries at least, so as to avoid 
 enormous breaks on the one hand, and meagre, barren 
 abstracts on the other, is no easy task. No accidental 
 weaving together of broken fragments or independent 
 
298 The Pentateuch 
 
 documents could possibly succeed in a work so difficult. 
 Yet in the Book of Genesis it is accomplished with the 
 greatest apj)arent ease. There is no discontinuity from 
 first to last. The parts, though distinct, in point of 
 chronology overlap each other. Two chapters of genea- 
 logy are the chief means of efiecting the needful progress, 
 without resolving the whole into a barren epitome. 
 Still these genealogies are firmly rooted in the history; 
 and each of them is connected, both at its opening and 
 close, with a special promise and covenant of God, on 
 which the whole history depends. Thus the historical 
 limits of the book are the first sign of its genuineness, as 
 one integral part of the Law of God by the hand of Moses. 
 
 156. Main Divisions of the History. 
 
 The book resolves itself easily and naturally into five 
 main portions : (1) the Record of Creation and the Fall, 
 chh. i.-iv ; (2) the History of the Flood, chh. v.-ix. ; (3) 
 the History of Abraham, with its prefatory genealogies, 
 chh. x.-xxiv. ; (4) the History of Isaac and Jacob, with 
 the like genealogies, chh. xxv.-xxxv. ; (5) the History 
 of Jacob and Joseph, with the prefixed genealogy of 
 Edom, chh. xxxvi.-L. These are j)arted from each other 
 by the genealogy of Adam down to Noah ; of the sons of 
 Noah and of Shem, to Abraham ; of the other sons of 
 Abraham, and Ishmael, and of the sons of Esau. The two 
 first, being more remote, occupy together rather less space 
 than each of the rest. Now, of these five historical por- 
 tions the first is plainly required by the words of the 
 Sinaitic law, and the nature of God's earliest written 
 message to man ; and the three last by the nature of the 
 whole law, which is based on the truth and reality of a 
 
and its Anatomists. 299 
 
 covenant whicli God had sworn to the three patriarchs. 
 This fundamental oath of God is named twenty times in 
 Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, and no less than thirty 
 times in Deuteronomy alone. But the covenant mth 
 ISToah and the record of the dispersion of mankind, is as 
 plainly essential, assuming the general truth of the events, 
 in order to link the early record of creation with the his- 
 tory of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, after an interval of 
 two thousand years. 
 
 157. The Genealogies of Genesis. 
 
 But the unity of plan in the whole book is still more 
 apparent, when we examine its structure with reference to 
 the genealogies which separate, and still combine, the five 
 main periods of its sacred history. 
 
 First of all, the Record of Creation and the Fall, chh. 
 i.-iv., begins with a whole chapter of ' the generations of 
 the heavens and the earth,' ii. 4. Such is the title given 
 to Gen. i. in the book itself, and its regular, formal outline 
 of the successive work of the six days answers well to the 
 name. That the title only follows in this case, instead of 
 coming before, as in ch. v. 1, or of both preceding and 
 following, as in the case of the sons of Noah, Ishmael, and 
 Edom, is explained at once by the nature and dignity of 
 this opening message of all revelation. But the fact is 
 plain, that Gen. i. is called ' the generations of the heavens 
 and earth, when they were created, in the day that the 
 Lord God made the earth and the heavens.' And it is 
 followed by three chapters of sacred history, which include 
 the state of Paradise, the history of the Fall, and its moral 
 consequences in the sin of Cain and murder of Abel, 
 reaching on to the seventh generation in Cain's posterity ; 
 
300 The Pentateuch 
 
 and to Enos, tlie third from Adam, in the sacred line of 
 promise. 
 
 The second historical division, chh. v.-ix., begins with 
 a genealogy, as before. ' This is the book of the gener- 
 ations of Adam.' By this the transition is made from the 
 first to the second period. Yet, brief as is this record of 
 sixteen centuries and upwards, it begins with a summary 
 of the first, in the creation of Adam and Eve, i. 26-28 ; 
 and the birth of Enos from Seth, the seed appointed 
 in place of Abel ; and it closes within the times of long- 
 sufiering, v. 32, vi. 3, with the birth of Shem, Ham, 
 and Japheth, the three sons of Noah, whose genealogy 
 forms the opening of the third historical period, and 
 with a prophecy fulfilled, viii. 21, at the close of the 
 second period. In other words, it condenses into itself, at 
 its opening, all the previous history ; and its close is the 
 stem, from which branch out all the details of the six 
 chapters that follow. The history has seven portions, 
 all closely connected with each other, and with the genea- 
 logy that precedes them ; the moral state of the world 
 before the Flood, ch. vi. 1-8 ; the charge to Noah to build 
 the ark, vi. 9-22; the second charge after the ark was 
 built, vii. 1-9 ; the actual rising of the Flood till its de- 
 cline, vii. 10-24 ; the abating of the Flood, viii. 1-14 ; 
 the sacrifice and covenant of Noah, viii. 15-ix. 17 ; the 
 sequel of the covenant, or the sin of Ham, and prophecy 
 of Noah, till his death. 
 
 Tlie third main division contains the history of Abra- 
 ham, till tlic marriage of Isaac and his own death, chh. 
 x.-xxv. 10. The transition is made, as before, by means 
 of genealogies. But in this case we have two, and not one 
 
and its Anatomists, 301 
 
 only ; the first of the sons of JSToah in general, and of the 
 seventy families by whom the earth was peopled after the 
 Flood ; and the second, of the sacred line of Shem the 
 heir of promise, down to Abraham. The opening of each 
 is closely linked with the previous history, v. 32 ; vi. 10 ; 
 ix. 18-27; x. 1, 2, 6, 15-19, 21; xi. 10; while the men- 
 tion of Abraham, Nahor, Ilaran, Lot, Sarai, and Milcah, 
 at the close of the latter, contains the fruitful seeds of all 
 the later history of this third period. The genealogical 
 stem, which seems so dry, buds and blossoms, like the rod 
 of Aaron, and yields both fruits and flowers. 
 
 The opening of the fourth period follows the same 
 law. The list of Abraham's sons by Keturah closes the 
 third period, and fitly prepares the way for his death and 
 burial. But before the main line of sacred history is 
 resumed, we have first, as in v. 1, x. 1, and xi. 10, a 
 genealogy to prepare the way, ' Now these are the genera- 
 tions of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the 
 Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare to Abraham,' xxv. 
 12-17. We have the names of his twelve sons, answering 
 earlier to the twelve patriarchs in the sacred line, and his 
 own death. Then the history resumes with the words, 
 * These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son : 
 Abraham begat Isaac,' &c. The main history is then 
 pursued in ten chapters, till we come to a summary of 
 Jacob's sons after the birth of Benjamin, answering in 
 place to the earlier list of Abraham's sons by Keturah. 
 Then follows the death and burial of Isaac, in words 
 exactly resembling the death and burial of Abraham, 
 ch. xxv. 7-9 ; xxxv. 27-29. 
 
 The last division of the history, like aU the rest, begins 
 
302 The Pentateuch 
 
 witli a genealogy. In length it resembles clili. v. and x., 
 for it occupies a whole chapter ; but in character it re- 
 sembles most the opening of the fourth period. Edom, 
 like Ishmael, was the elder brother, born after the flesh, 
 and not by promise ; and his genealogy is given, like that 
 of Ishmael, only at greater length, before the writer 
 resumes the main course of the sacred history. The 
 form of resumption is just the same, and here is doubly 
 significant, because all the births have been recorded pre- 
 viously : XXV. 19, * And these are the generations of Isaac, 
 Abraham's son : Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac was 
 forty years old when he took Eebekah to wife,' &c. ; 
 XXX vii. 1, 2, * And Jacob dwelt in the land wherein his 
 father was a stranger, in the land of Canaan. These are 
 the generations of Jacob : Joseph being seventeen years 
 old,' &c. &c. 
 
 Now this unity of plan, running through the whole 
 book from first to last, in the use of the genealogies, and 
 their orderly position, so as to sum up the previous his- 
 tory and prepare the way for the portion that follows, 
 and the subordination of the more general or collateral 
 genealogy to that of the sacred line, is alone a strong 
 proof of the Mosaic authorship. "We have here no cento 
 of fragments, no loosely cemented compound of two or 
 three independent documents, but a history marked by 
 unity of plan and harmony of execution from first to last ; 
 whore extreme simplicity, as in a message to an infant 
 church, is joined with secret depths of wisdom, which 
 disclose the presence of One greater than even the Jewish 
 Lawgiver, the revealing Spirit of the living God. 
 
 158. The Use of the Sacred Names. 
 
and its Anatomists. 303 
 
 The use of the two sacred names, Elohim and Jehovah, 
 has been made the primary argument for denying the 
 unity of Genesis, and parting it among two, three, or 
 four writers, much later than Moses. But when fully 
 and fairly examined, it supplies a strong and clear proof 
 of the common authorship of the whole. Let us resume, 
 in a few words, the main facts of the case, and the evidence 
 they supply. 
 
 The features to be explained are these : (1) the use of 
 Elohim alone in the first record of creation, i.-ii. 3 ; (2) 
 that of Jehovah- Elohim, the compound title, twenty times 
 in succession in the next section, ii. 4-iu., and there alone ; 
 (3) the use of the sacred name in ch. iv., with one excep- 
 tion at the close ; (4) of Elohim in ch v., with one excep- 
 tion at the close ; (5) the mixed use in the history of the 
 Flood and its sequel, chh. vi.-xi., where Elohim occurs 
 twenty and Jehovah eighteen times ; (6) the use of 
 Jehovah alone, about fifty times, in the eight first chapters 
 of Abraham's life, except ch. xvii., where it occurs only 
 once, and Elohim ten times ; (7) their alternate use in the 
 earlier and later part of the account of Isaac's sacrifice ; 
 
 (8) their mixed use in the middle period of the narrative, 
 chh. XXV. -XXXV. (El. 42, Jeh. 27), but with a less fre- 
 quent use of Elohim at the beginning (El. 8, Jeh. 22), 
 and more frequent towards the close (El. 34, Jeh. 5) ; 
 
 (9) the use of the sacred name, chh. xxxviii., xxxix. 
 (Jeh. 11, El. 1) ; and (10) the purely Elohistic usage of 
 the last eleven chapters (El. 36, Jeh. 1). None of these 
 facts are really explained by any form of the sceptical 
 hypothesis. The view of Exod. vi., from which it starts, 
 is contradicted by the whole context. If true, it would 
 
304 The Pentateuch 
 
 simply require the transfer of two or three chapters to some 
 second writer, while the theory leaves the Elohist only 
 one-sixth part of the whole. The fundamental document, 
 which results from the proposed dissection, is an historical 
 monster, which could never have a real existence. It 
 must either make a sudden leap from the six days' 
 creation to a barren genealogy of Seth and his sons, and 
 thence to the covenant of circumcision, and thence again 
 to the history of Joseph, or supply the void by renouncing 
 and contradicting the basis on which the whole structure 
 professes to be reared. The use of the compound title 
 in ii. 4-iii., the purely Jehovistic usage in xii.-xvi., xviii., 
 the transition in ch. xxii., and the purely Elohistic usage 
 in chh. xl.-L., receive on this view no explanation that is 
 plausible in the least degree. 
 
 On the other hand, all these facts have been simply 
 explained b}^ the two principles, both involved in the 
 Mosaic authorship, that each name is used, in main por- 
 tions of the history, with reference to a contrast in their 
 meaning, taught clearly to Moses in a direct revelation of 
 God Exod. iii., vi. ; and still that in other passages, and 
 partly even where the distinction is observed, it is a further 
 object, by their interchange, to keep it clearly in view 
 that Elohim, the God of power, is Jehovah, the God of 
 unchangeable holiness, and that Jehovah, the revealed 
 God, in covenant with Israel, is also Elohim, the God of 
 the whole earth, a Being mysterious and unsearchable. 
 The use of the compound title in the second section of the 
 history, and there alone ; the Jehovistic usage in Abraham's 
 history ; the Elohistic use in the message of promise, 
 ch. xvii., to contrast with its later fulfilment in Exodus ; 
 
and its Anatomists. 305 
 
 tlie transition in tlie account of Isaac's sacrifice ; the 
 mixed usage, passing from the name of revelation to that 
 of providential mystery, in the middle period ; and the 
 purely Elohistic character of the closing chapters, all are 
 explained simply and naturally by the key already given, 
 and resist the utmost ingenuity of our modern anatomists 
 to account for them by a plurality of unknown authors. 
 The book is carved out into three hundred fragments, 
 every rule and test of separation is contradicted in turn, 
 to meet some new exigency, and the final result, as in the 
 history of Joseph, and the thirty fragments of ch. xxx^di., 
 is a palpable reductio ad ahsurdum of the whole theory. 
 
 159. The Creation and the Fall. Gen. i.-iv. 
 
 Let us now examine the five main divisions of the 
 book, and trace their unity in themselves and with each 
 other, their connexion with the later books as parts of 
 the same Divine law, and their harmonies with the whole 
 course of later revelation. 
 
 The first section, chh. i.-iv., consists of three portions. 
 The first of these is a worth}^ and sublime opening of the 
 whole code of written revelation. Here the name Elohim 
 alone is used, as the simpler title of Divine power and 
 greatness. The next portion is marked by the use of the 
 double title, like a solemn proclamation at the entrance 
 on the moral history of mankind, that Elohim is Jehovah, 
 and Jehovah is Elohim. But it links itself with the first 
 chapter by the direct reference, ii. 4, and resumes the 
 mention of the dry land, or earth's geography, of the 
 plants and trees, of the animals, and of the creation of 
 men and women, in connexion with the first moral pro- 
 bation of mankind. The third chapter refers to the second. 
 
306 The Pentateuch 
 
 almost in every verse. Again, ch. iv. is equally linked 
 with the previous account of the Fall, of which it reveals 
 the fatal consequences. Thus iv. 1 refers to iii. 20, and 
 16 ; V. 7 to iii. 16 ; v. 12 to iii. 17 ; v. 16 to iii. 8 ; and 
 V. 25 at the close to v. 1 at the beginning. The whole 
 is one continuous and inseparable history. 
 
 160. But this first portion of the book has also links 
 in every part with the rest of the law, and with the later 
 messages of God. The first verse answers plainly to the 
 opening of the Fourth Gospel : * In the beginning was 
 the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word 
 was God : All things were made by him, and without him 
 was not anj^thing made that was made.' It corresponds 
 also with the title of Christ : * the Beginning of the 
 creation of God,' and with the final promise : ' Behold, I 
 make all things new.' The account of chaos, i. 2, is 
 made a parable of the national ruin and desolation of 
 Israel, Jer. iv. 22-27. The light- creating word, v. 3, is 
 made a symbol of the most glorious truth of redemption, 
 2 Cor. iv. 6 : * God, that caused the light to shine out of 
 darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of 
 the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus 
 Christ.' The successive creation of the beasts of the sea 
 and the earth, followed by that of man himself, is the 
 groundwork of an antitype in the last prophecy of the 
 New Testament, Rev. xiii., xiv., xix. The account of 
 man's creation in God's image, with large dominion, is 
 linked by Ps. viii., midway in God's providence, with two 
 prophecies of the New Testament, which look forward to 
 the redemption to come, 1 Cor. xv. 24-28 ; Heb. ii. 5-10. 
 Its authority is sealed by the lips of Christ : * Have ye 
 
and its Anatomists. 307 
 
 not read, that he whicli made them in the beginning 
 made them male and female.' And again by the Apostle, 
 who borrows from it the description of the new and Divine 
 nature, the fruit of redeeming grace, 'which is renewed 
 in knowledge after the image of Him that created him.' 
 The whole account of the six days, and the Sabbath that 
 followed, is made the basis of the fourth commandment, 
 revealed in cloud and fire, and twice written by the finger 
 of God on the tables of stone. And it is further appealed 
 to by Christ in His noted saying, ^ The Sabbath was made 
 for man ' (that is, in the message of God next after his 
 creation) 'and not man for the Sabbath.' 
 
 161. In the next division, the Law of Marriage, and 
 of the wife's subjection to the husband, link the history 
 with the later books, as one part of the revealed law of 
 God ; while the first curse on the ground for the sin of 
 Adam finds its later expansion in Lev. xxvi. 18-20, 32-35 ; 
 Deut. xxviii. 15-24, 38-42 ; xxix. 22-25. But the words 
 are further linked with an august series of later revelations. 
 Thus ii. 7 is quoted by St. Paul, where he reveals the 
 mystery of the resurrection : ' And so it is written. The 
 first man Adam was made a living soul : the last Adam is 
 made a quickening spirit.' The garden of Eden is re- 
 ferred to in Genesis itself, xiii. 12 ; in the second book of 
 Kings and Isaiah, xix. 12 ; in repeated prophecies, Isa. 
 li. 3 ; Ezek. xxviii. 13 ; xxxi. 8, 9, 16 ; and in the visions 
 of St. John, Rev. ii. 7 ; xxii. 1, 2. The tree of life re- 
 appears in the Book of Proverbs, iii. 18, and in the visions 
 of Ezekiel and the Apocal}^se. The land of Havilah 
 refers to the later genealogy of the sons of Shem, and the 
 frequent mention of gold of Ophir, while the mention of 
 
308 The Pentateuch 
 
 the onyx is linked with the building: of the tabernacle, 
 and the glorious foundations of the New Jerusalem, Exod. 
 XXV. 7 ; xxviii. 9-12, 20 ; xxxv. 9 ; Rev. xxi. 20. The river 
 Hiddekel is named again once only in Dan. x. 4, xii. 5 ; 
 but the Euphrates is found in the covenant to Abraham, 
 Gen. XV. 18, in the parting exhortation to Moses, Deut. 
 xi. 24, and in the whole course of sacred history and pro- 
 phecy, down to the close of Revelation. The warning, 
 ii. 15-17, is the root and pattern of every later threatening 
 on disobedience. The words, ii. 23, 24, are quoted by 
 our Lord as a Divine law ' from the beginning,' and made 
 by St. Paul the ground of a main ordinance of the Church 
 of Christ, 1 Tim. ii. 11-13. The Old Serpent reappears 
 in Isaiah's prophecies, xxvii. 1, and in St. Paul's Epistles, 
 2 Cor. xi. 3 ; but still more plainly in the closing prophecy 
 of Scripture, Rev. xii. 3, 9, 15 ; xx. 2. The threefold 
 temptation finds its counterpart, and its result a contrast, 
 in our Lord's temptation in the wilderness. The excuses 
 of Adam are made a moral warning in the Book of Job, 
 xxxi. 33, 34, and in Hosea, vi. 7, while the results 
 of death are made the ground, by St. Paul, of a glorious 
 antithesis between the sin of Adam and redemption in 
 Christ, Rom. v. 12-19. The sentence on the serpent is 
 renewed by the prophet, Isa. Ixv. 25, and expounded by 
 Apostles, Rom. xvi. 20 ; Rev. xx. 1, 2. The Seed of the 
 Woman is a description of the promised Redeemer, which 
 forms the text of all later revelation (Isa. vii.-ix. ; Mic. 
 V. 1-G ; Matt. i. 18-25 ; Gal. iv. 4) ; while the first men- 
 tion of cherubim at the gate of Paradise is the germ of 
 a trulli, which is unfolded in the structure of the taber- 
 nacle and the temple, and in the visions of Isaiah, Ezekiel, 
 
and its Anatomists. 309 
 
 and St. John. The whole section is one condensed sum- 
 mary of facts and truths, of warnings and promises, which 
 are unfolded in the later series of Divine messages for 
 four thousand years. 
 
 162. The History of the Flood, chh. v.-ix. 
 
 This second division of the book resolves itself into 
 nine sections, — the genealogy, the state of the old world, 
 the charge to Noah, the second charge when the ark was 
 built, the beginning and continuance of the Flood, its 
 abatement, the sacrifice of Noah, the covenant that fol- 
 lowed, and the later history of the curse and blessing. 
 
 These sections are so closely connected, that they 
 cannot be parted from each other without extreme vio- 
 lence. The genealogy, from Adam to Noah, and the 
 birth of his three sons, brings us down from the earlier 
 to the later period. The account, vi. 1-8, begins twenty 
 years before the close of the last portion, and is the moral 
 key of the judgment that follows. The first charge, 
 vi. 9-22, resumes the genealogy from v. 32, and refers 
 back to the account of Enoch, v. 22, 24, and gives the 
 main outlines of the coming deliverance. The second 
 charge, vii. 1-10, implies that the ark was now built, 
 adds further directions about the clean beasts and birds, 
 and gives a definite warning of the exact time of the 
 approaching Flood. The account, vii. 11-24, links itself 
 by the year date with v. 32 ; vi. 3, and by the month 
 date with the warning, vii. 4, 10, by v. 13, with vi. 18 ; 
 vv. 14-16, with vi. 19, 20 ; vii. 2, 3, by v. 20, with vi. 15 ; 
 and by vv. 21-23, with vi. 7-17 ; vii. 4. The account of 
 the Flood's abatement contains eight or nine of these 
 backward references, and the next section, viii. 16-21, is 
 
310 The Pentateuch 
 
 full of them. Comp. vi. 18 ; vii. 13 ; vi. 19 ; i. 28 ; Tii. 
 2, 3 ; iv. 4 ; iii. 17 ; v. 29 ; vi. 5 ; vi. 7, 17. The covenant 
 also points in every part to the earlier history. Comp. 
 i. 28, 26, 29; iv. 11; vi. 13; i. 26; v. 1; i. 28; ^di. 
 13-16. The prophecy of Noah, ix. 18-29, also refers to 
 V. 32 ; vi. 10 ; vii. 13 ; iv. 11 ; v. 32 ; vii. 6, 11. 
 
 163. This period is less closely linked with the other 
 books of the law than those which follow. Yet the Song 
 of Moses alludes plainly to the dispersion (Gen. x.) of the 
 seventy families of the sons of Noah after the flood. The 
 reckoning of months and days, which meets us here for 
 the first time, agrees with the old Egyptian calendar, and 
 finds its further key in Exod. xii. 1, 2. The descriptions 
 of Enoch and Noah, who ' walked with God,' reappear in 
 the charge to Abraham, xvii. 1, and in the blessing on the 
 sons of Joseph, xlviii. 15. The time of forbearance, vi. 3, 
 is the first of a series of prophetic times, of which a second 
 occurs in the promise to Abraham, xv. 13, and a third in 
 the forty years' sojourn in the wilderness, Num. xiv. 33, 
 34. The description of Noah, vi. 6, is repeated fivefold 
 to Moses, Exod. xxxiii. 12-17 ; xxxiv. 9 ; and his exact 
 obedience to God's instructions in building the ark, vi. 
 22, vii. 15, answers to the sevenfold notice of the Kke 
 obedience of Moses when the tabernacle was raised, Exod. 
 xl. 16-32. The distinction of clean and unclean beasts 
 and fowls, is given twice, with fuller details, in the earlier 
 and later legislation. Lev. xi. ; Deut. xiv. 3-21. The 
 seven days' interval, thrice named, refers to the appoint- 
 ment of the weekly Sabbath. The removal or mitigation 
 of the curse, viii. 21, points onward to the caution which 
 closes the Old Testament, Mai. iv. 6, and to one of the 
 
and its Anatomists. 311 
 
 latest promises of tlie New, Rev. xxii. 3. The strict pro- 
 liibition of blood is one main feature of the law of Moses, 
 Exod. xxi. 12-23 ; Lev. xxv. 16-19, 31, 33 ; Deut. xix. 
 11-13. The curse upon Canaan, and the blessing of 
 Shem, are like the root of all the history to the close of 
 Joshua. The waters of Noah are named, Isa. liv. 9, as a 
 pledge of God's faithfulness, and his history is twice 
 quoted by our Lord as a warning of judgment. In Ezek. 
 i. 27, 28; Heb. xi. 5-7; 1 Pet. iii. 19-21; 2 Pet. ii. 5; 
 iii. 6, 7 ; Jude, 14, 15 ; Eev. x. 1 ; iv. 3 ; ix. 5, 10 ; we 
 have repeated allusions, in the Old and New Testament 
 alike, to the events in this section of the sacred history. 
 
 164. The History of Abraham. Gen. x.-xxiv. 
 
 The unity of this portion of Genesis is complete. It 
 begins with a double genealogy, by which the transition 
 is made from the times of the Flood to the life of Abraham. 
 One is general and collateral, of all the sons of Noah ; the 
 other special and successive, in the sacred line of Shem, 
 thus alluding to the promise, ix. 26. The seventy families, 
 ch. x., answer to the like number of souls at the descent, 
 ch. xlvi., and to the seventy elders. Num. xi. ; and have 
 also a more secret relation to the seventy palm-trees at 
 Elim, and the Mission of the Seventy in our Lord's minis- 
 try. The mention of Nimrod and Babel prepares the w^ay 
 for that account of the dispersion which follows. The 
 mention of the Canaanites and their border, and of Shem 
 as father of the children of Eber, points onward to the 
 future contrast between the doomed tribes and the Hebrew 
 race, the people of God's covenant. The second genea- 
 logy, xi. 10-32, like that of Seth, ch. v., links itself in its 
 first words with the whole previous history; and at its 
 
312 The Pentateuch 
 
 close introduces all the chief persons of the history that is 
 to follow ; in one case, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth ; 
 in the other, Abraham, Nahor, Haran, Lot, Milcah, and 
 Sarah. 
 
 The interlacing of the history is most complete. Thus, 
 ch. xii. has six references to the chapters immediately 
 before it ; and there are six in ch. xiii., seven in ch. xiv., 
 five in ch. xv., two in ch. xvi., six in ch. xvii., four in ch. 
 xviii., five in ch. xix., four in ch. xx., twelve in ch. xxi., 
 six in ch. xxii., four in ch. xxiii., and twelve in ch. xxiv., 
 or almost eighty in the whole period. Each part of the 
 history grows naturally out of that which precedes. The 
 separation of Lot and Abram is occasioned by their added 
 wealth on their return from Egypt. Lot's choice of Sodom 
 occasions his captivity, and this leads to Abraham's victory. 
 His self-denial is rewarded by a fuller renewal of the pro- 
 mise. The episode of Hagar is the consequence of its 
 long delay. The covenant of circumcision, the vision at 
 Mamre, the fall of Sodom and rescue of Lot, the sojourn 
 at Gerar, the birth of Isaac, the exile of Ishmael, Isaac's 
 sacrifice, Sarah's death and burial, and Isaac's marriage, 
 are all linked by the simplest and firmest signs of histori- 
 cal succession. No single stone can be wrenched out of 
 this Divine structure without a sensible disturbance and 
 dislocation. Thus ever}^ verse, almost, of ch. xxi. refers 
 to facts or promises which have gone before. The faith 
 of Abraham reaches its highest triumph when he ofiers 
 Isaac on the altar, and receives its glorious recompense in 
 that oath of mercy, which is to a thousand generations. 
 The genealogy of Nahor and Milcah prepares briefly for 
 the account in ch. xxiv. Then follow, in due order, the 
 
and its Anatomists. 313 
 
 death and burial of Sarah, the marriage of Isaac, the list 
 of the sons of Abraham by Keturah, and his own death 
 and burial, full of years and honour. 
 
 165. The sacred history, in this central portion of 
 Genesis, is the stem on which all the later messages of the 
 Law depend. It is mainly Jehovistic in its use of the 
 sacred name, as Gen. i.-v. are Elohistic, ch. xxxix. Jeho- 
 vistic, and ch. xl.-L. Elohistic. And since all these por- 
 tions are plainly essential to the outline of the book, this 
 fact alone is a full disproof of the dual or composite theory. 
 Again, the oath, ch. xxii., which crowns the other promises 
 to Abraham, is mentioned twenty times in Exodus, Levi- 
 ticus, and Numbers, and thirty times in Deuteronomy 
 alone. Abraham's deliverance from Egypt is a type 
 and earnest of the later Exodus. Hebron, which is 
 Mamre and Kirjath-arba, one chief scene of the sojourn, 
 and also of the burial of Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob, reappears in the journey of the spies, and in the 
 fidfilment of the promise to Caleb, whose inheritance it 
 became. The history of Melchizedek prepares the way 
 for the solemn oath in the Psalms, ex. 4, and for the 
 full exposition, in the New Testament, of the priestly 
 perfection of Christ. The command ' Fear not,' xv. 1, is 
 repeated seventy times in the Law, the Prophets, and the 
 New Testament, down to the latest vision of Christ in 
 Patmos to the beloved disciple. The title, 'I am thy 
 shield,' is renewed at the very close of the law in the 
 blessing of Moses. The promise, xv. 6, is the groundwork 
 of two main Epistles of the New Testament. The date, 
 XV. 13-21, and its attendant warnings, find their common 
 fulfilment at the time of the Exodus. The history of 
 
314 The Pentateuch 
 
 Hagar and Ishmael enters into the later liistorj^ of the 
 Islimaelites, of Kedar and Nebaioth, and supplies one of 
 the most striking tj^pes or parables in the whole word of 
 God. The covenant of circumcision is the first basis of 
 the whole law of Moses, and finds its completion at the 
 Exodus in the ordinance of the Passover. The rescue of 
 Lot from Sodom, like that of Noah from the flood, has its 
 echoes through all later ages. Compare Deut. xxix. 23 ; 
 xxxii. 22 ; Ps. xi. 6, 7 ; Isa. iii. 9 ; xxxiv. 8-10 ; Ezek. 
 xvi. 46-50, 53 ; Hos. xi. 8 ; Joel, iii. 18 ; Amos, iv. 11 ; 
 Zeph. ii. 9; Matt. xi. 23, 24; Luke, x. 12; xvii. 28-30, 
 32 ; 2 Pet. ii. 6-9 ; Heb. xiii. 2 ; Jude 7 ; Rev. xix. 3. 
 The sacrifice of Isaac and the oath which followed, are 
 linked with the whole series of Divine promises both in 
 the Old and New Testament. 
 
 166. The History of Isaac and Jacob. Ch. xxv.- 
 
 XXXV. 
 
 The unity of the whole book is shown in the way in 
 which its main divisions, though successive, sKghtly over- 
 lap each other, so as to bind the whole into one. Thus 
 the first period closes with the birth of Enos, iv. 26 ; but 
 the genealogy resumes earlier, and includes Adam, Seth, 
 Enos, as the three first links of the series, down to Noah. 
 It closes one hundred years before the Flood, mth the birth 
 of the sons of Noah ; but the history of the Flood is re- 
 sumed twenty years earlier, vi. 3. This second period 
 closes with the death of Noah, three hundred and fifty 
 years after the Flood; but the genealogies both resume 
 from the Flood itself. They close with the death of Terah 
 in Haran, but the history resumes from the caU of Abra- 
 ham in Ur of the Chaldees, before reaching Haran. The 
 
and its Anatomists, 315 
 
 period closes witli tlie death of Abraham. The next re- 
 sumes with the generations of Ishmael about sixty years 
 earlier, and with the marriage of Isaac, and birth of his 
 sons, thirty-five and fifteen years before Abraham's death. 
 It closes with the death and burial of Isaac. The last 
 period resumes with the history of Joseph, when only 
 seventeen years old, or twelve years before Isaac's death. 
 Thus all the separate portions of the narrative are dove- 
 tailed firmly into each other. The links of connexion are 
 here too numerous for distinct mention. Three only may 
 be specified. The internal unity of this division, from the 
 death and burial of Abraham to that of Isaac, is marked 
 by the genealogy of the twelve princely sons of Ishmael 
 at its opening, xxv. 13-16, and of the twelve sons of Israel 
 at its close, xxv. 22-26. Its connexion with the previous 
 history is shown by xxv. 19-23, compared with xvii. 19, 
 21 ; xviii. 10 ; xxi. 1-12 ; xxii. 23 ; xxiv. 15-67 ; xvi. 
 1, 2 ; and with the opening of the part that follows, by 
 xxv. 27, 30-34 ; compared with ch. xxxvi., the genealogy 
 of the sons of Esau. 
 
 167. The History of Jacob and Joseph. 
 
 The unity of the main part of this final division, the hiS' 
 tory of Joseph, is so apparent and striking, as to make the 
 sceptical hypothesis, which would decompose and dissect 
 ch. xxxvii. alone into thirty fragments, a marvel of learned 
 folly. But even the parts where the unity is less apparent 
 can be shown to have an organic connexion with the rest. 
 Thus the opening genealogy of the Edomites conforms to 
 the law of the four previous divisions, which begin with 
 ' the book of the generations of the heavens and earth in 
 the day they were created,' ii. 3 ; * the book of the gener- 
 
316 The Pentateuch 
 
 ations of Adam/ v. 1 ; * the generations of the sons of 
 JS^oah,' and 'the generations of Shem/ x. 1 ; xi. 10 ; and 
 again, ' the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son,' and 
 'the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son,' xxv. 12, 19. 
 In these two latter cases the more general or less sacred 
 precedes the sacred line, — 'That is not first which is 
 spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that 
 which is spiritual.' The order here is the same. ' Now 
 these are the generations of Esau, which is Edom,' xxxvi. 
 1, 'according to their habitations in the land of their 
 possession,' v. 43. ' These are the generations of Jacob,' 
 xxxvii. 2. Again, ch. xxxviii., which seems like a 
 digression, continues the sacred line of the true seed of 
 Abraham in the tribe of Judah, and thus enters into the 
 genealogy in the opening of the New Testament, — ' And 
 Judah begat Pharez and Zara of Tamar.' The vision to 
 Jacob at Beersheba refers to the whole history of Abraham 
 and the promises, xv. 13 ; xvii. 6. The list, xlvi. 8-27, 
 is the ground of many successive statements in the later 
 books of the law ; the heading of Exodus, i. 1-5 ; the 
 genealogy, vi. 14-25 ; the fuller genealogy, Num. xxvi. 
 5-50 ; and the historical allusions, Deut. i. 10 ; vii. 7 ; 
 X. 22 ; xxvi. 5 ; xxxii. 8. The blessing on the two sons of 
 Joseph enters into the whole later history of the two 
 tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh ; and that of the twelve 
 patriarchs finds its counterpart in the blessing of Moses, 
 the man of God, at the close of the Law ; while the charge 
 of Joseph concerning his bones serves to unite this first 
 sacred book, at its close, with the first stej) of the ful- 
 filment of the Abrahamic covenant in Exod. xiii. 19 ; 
 and with its final completion in the Book of Joshua, 
 
and its Anatomists, 317 
 
 by the full possession of the land of promise, Josh. xxiv. 
 31-33. 
 
 168. It would require many volumes to trace the 
 deeper harmonies of this wonderful book, not only within 
 itself, and in relation to the four books of the Law for 
 which it prepares the way, but with the higher messages 
 of the Gospel, and the whole series of revelations from 
 God to man. The questions raised by the comparison of 
 its statements with the real or supposed discoveries of 
 modern science open another field of inquiry, which the 
 wisest of men, in our present state of imperfect know- 
 ledge, cannot hope fully to explore. I have confined 
 myself here to a view of the internal signs of unity and 
 Divine authority in the Books of the Law as the genuine 
 writing of Moses, the foundation of all genuine faith in 
 the later revelation of the Gospel. All other evidence, 
 how full and decisive soever, must range itself, like the 
 armies of Michael in Milton's poem, under a still higher 
 standard — the express testimony of the Incarnate Son of 
 God. He, whose name is the Truth, has given His sepa- 
 rate attestation to each book of Moses, and to all of them 
 in one. 
 
 The Father speaks to us from the cloud of glory : * This 
 is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ; hear ye 
 him.' Then the Son Himself speaks to us : ' Have ye not 
 read, that He which made them in the beginning, made 
 them male and female, and said. For this cause shall a 
 man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, 
 and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are 
 no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath 
 joined together, let not man put asunder.' 'That on you 
 
318 The Pentateuch 
 
 may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, 
 from the blood of righteous Abel/ * As the days of Noah 
 were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.' 
 ' The same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire 
 and brimstone from heayen, and destroyed them all/ 
 * Eemember Lot's wife/ These are his repeated seals to 
 the truth and authority of Genesis. 
 
 ' Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you 
 by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of 
 Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? God is not the God of the 
 dead, but the living.' * Now that the dead are raised, 
 even Moses shewed at the bush when he calleth the Lord 
 the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of 
 Jacob.' ' God commanded, saying. Honour thy father and 
 mother ; and He that curseth father or mother, let him 
 die the death,' Matt. xv. 4 ; Exod. xx. 12 ; xxi. 17. ' If 
 thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments .... 
 Thou shalt do no murder. Thou shalt not commit adultery, 
 Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness, 
 Honour thy father and thy mother,' Matt. xix. 17, 18 ; 
 Exod. XX. * Your fathers did eat manna in the wilder- 
 ness, and are dead.' Here our Lord has set His seal to 
 the laws and the facts in the Book of Exodus. 
 
 * Shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that 
 Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them,' Matt, 
 viii. 4 ; Lev. xiv. 3. ' The shewbread, which it was not 
 lawful for him to eat, nor for them which were with him, 
 but only for the priests,' Matt. xii. 4 ; Lev. xxiv. 5-9. 
 ' If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments 
 .... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' Matt, 
 xix. 10; Lev. xix. 18. 'And the second is like unto it. 
 
and its Anatomists, 319 
 
 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two 
 commandments hang all the law and the prophets/ Matt, 
 xxii. 39, 40. ' Ye have heard that it hath been said, An 
 eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,' Matt. v. 38 ; 
 Lev. xxiv. 20. Here the like seal is put on the Book of 
 Leviticus. 
 
 * As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even 
 so must the Son of man be lifted up,' John, iii. 14, 15 ; 
 Num. xxi. 4-9. * Your fathers did eat manna in the 
 wilderness, and died,' John, vi. 49, 58 ; Num. xxvi. 63-65. 
 
 * Ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old 
 time. Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform 
 unto the Lord thine oaths,' Matt. v. 33 ; Num. xxx. 2. 
 These are His testimony to the history and commands in 
 Numbers. 
 
 ' It is written, Man doth not live by bread alone, but by 
 every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.' ' It 
 is written again. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.' 
 
 * Get thee behind me, Satan ; for it is written. Thou shalt 
 worship the Lord thy God, and him alone shalt thou 
 serve.' * It hath been said. Whosoever shall put away 
 his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement,' Deut. 
 xxiv. 1. ^ In the mouth of two or three witnesses every 
 word shall be established,' Matt, xviii. 16 ; Deut. xix. 15. 
 
 * Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered 
 you to put away your wives,' Matt. xix. 8 ; Deut. xxiv. 
 1-4. ' Master, Moses said, if a man die, having no 
 children,' &c. ' Jesus answered and said unto them. Ye 
 do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God,' 
 Matt. xxii. 29 ; Deut. xxv. 5-10. ' Jesus said unto him, 
 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and 
 
320 The Pentateuch, &c, 
 
 with, all tliy soul, and with all thy mind ; this is the first 
 and great commandment .... On these two command- 
 ments hang all the law and the prophets.' These are 
 direct attestations to the truth and inspiration of Deuter- 
 onomy. And all these are crowned by the more compre- 
 hensive sayings : ' Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or 
 tittle shall not pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled,' 
 Matt. V. 18. ' Whosoever shall break one of these least 
 commandments, and teach men so, shall be called least in 
 the kingdom of heaven,' v. 19. * Therefore all things 
 whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye 
 even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets,' 
 vii. 12. * It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than 
 one tittle of the law to fail,' Luke, xvi. 17. ' If they hear 
 not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be per- 
 suaded, though one rose from the dead,' xvi. 31. ' Had 
 ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he 
 wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how can 
 ye believe my words,' John, v. 46, 47. 
 
 "With these words our inquiry may well close. Let 
 God be true and every man a liar. The Lord of glory 
 Himself has proclaimed that faith in His words, and in 
 the writings of Moses His servant, stand and fall together. 
 Whoever rejects Moses, in so doing rejects the words of 
 Christ. The Law, given by Moses, and the grace and 
 truth which have come by Jesus Christ, form one twofold, 
 but harmonious message from the Creator, the Preserver, 
 and the Judge of mankind. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed by Stbakoeways &, "Walden, Caatlo St. Leicester Sq. 
 
 /r\ / 
 

 M