3, 2,6. 'o3 
 
 Stem t^e £i6mr)? of 
 
 Q^equeaf^eb 6^? ^im fo 
 t^e feifirarg of 
 
 (prtncefon C^eofogicaf ^enttnatj 
 
 ^ . £81 
 
STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH 
 
 FOR POPULAR READING. 
 
 BEING AN INQUIRY INTO THE AGE OF THE SO-CALLED BOOKS OF 
 
 MOSES, WITH AN INTRODUCTORY EXAMINATION OF RECENT 
 
 DUTCH THEORIES, AS REPRESENTED BY DR. KUENEN'S 
 
 "RELIGION OF ISRAEL." 
 
 RUFUS P. STEBBINS, D.D. 
 
 Formerly President, Lecturer on Hebrew Literature, and Professor of 
 Theology in the Meadville Theological School. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 GEO. H. ELLIS, 141 FRANKLIN STREET. 
 
 1881. 
 
Copyright, 
 By Geo. H. Ellis. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 This work is substantially a reprint of articles 
 published in the Uiiitariaii Review, 1879 ^.nd 
 1880. I have not found it necessary to essen- 
 tially modify any of the arguments there pre- 
 sented in the present publication. Several works 
 and many articles, at home and abroad, have since 
 been published; but they do not in the slightest 
 degree affect the force of the argument presented 
 in the following " Study." 
 
 It seemed better to give the criticism on the 
 Dutch school as represented b) Dr. Kuenen as 
 originally written than to attempt by partial re- 
 writing and voluminous notes to introduce the 
 substance of it into the body of the work. In 
 this manner, the argument of the '' Study " is not 
 interrupted by noticing the objections and an- 
 swering the arguments and criticising the evi- 
 dence which are offered by many writers as well 
 as by Dr. Kuenen. Professor W. Robertson 
 Smith's lectures on the Old Testament and the 
 Jewish Church were not published till this work 
 was more than half through the press. I have 
 
/ 
 
 2 PREFACE. 
 
 examined it with care, and find very little which 
 would have required any notice, had I received 
 it in season. Though he takes substantially the 
 same ground on many points as the Dutch school, 
 he denies that Deuteronomy is a forgery of the 
 priests of the time of Josiah, and that the Books 
 of the Chronicles are historical forgeries to sus- 
 tain the new claims of the priesthood. The three 
 principal reasons which he gives for the late ori- 
 gin of the Pentateuch, especially the ritual por- 
 tion of it, are : first, the neglect of observing the 
 law and direct violations of it down to the divi- 
 sion of the kingdom or later; second, a distinct 
 priestly family or caste did not exist till the time 
 of Ezra ; and, third, the early prophets, Amos, 
 Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah, refer to no written law, 
 and denounce ritual observances. I have exam- 
 ined with care whether the evidence adduced to 
 sustain these reasons is sufficient to justify the 
 author's opinion, and do not find it necessary to 
 add but few special notes to the body of this 
 work, in order to show that it fails to confirm the 
 late origin of the Pentateuch. The " Introductory 
 on Dr. Kuenen's Religion of IsraeV examines the 
 validity of these reasons as presented by the 
 Dutch school, and I do not wish to enlarge this 
 work by a mere repetition of the argument in 
 another form and in other words. The same may 
 be said of the special arguments of Graf and sev- 
 eral other writers. 
 
PREFACE. 3 
 
 This work is not addressed to scholars, but is 
 an appeal to the sound sense and sober thought of 
 the people. It has been published at the request, 
 however, of scholars, professors in theological 
 schools, and ministers of different denominations, 
 for their own use and for the use of their classes 
 and parishes. I have not, therefore, filled the 
 bottom of the page with references, as it would 
 have been very easy to have done ; for they would 
 have been utterly useless to the great body of the 
 people, for whose instruction I send forth this 
 book. Let my readers take their Bibles and com- 
 pare my argument in this " Study," as they read 
 it, with the sacred narrative, and exercise the 
 same sound, practical judgment respecting its va- 
 lidity which they exercise in the common affairs 
 of life, and I have no fear of the result. May 
 the Source of all Truth bless this endeavor to find 
 and proclaim it ! 
 
 I have in manuscript, ready for the press, a 
 " Popular Introduction, or Common-Sense View 
 of the Books of the Old Testament," which I 
 hope in good time to publish. 
 
 RuFUS P. Stebbins. 
 Newton Centre, Mass., October, 1881. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Pagb 
 
 Introductory on "Kuenen's Religion of Israel," 7 
 A Study of the Pentateuch. 
 
 I. Introduction, 75 
 
 II. External Evidences, 82 
 
 III. Internal Evidences, 157 
 
 Analytical Index, 231 
 
INTRODUCTORY 
 
 Dr. KUENEN'S "RELIGION OF ISRAEL"* 
 
 Of the brilliant constellation of Dutch Biblical crit- 
 ics which has just risen above the horizon, Dr. Kuenen 
 appears to be the principal star. His works on The 
 RcUgio7t of Israel and The Prophets and Prophecy in 
 Israel are by far the most extensive and elaborate of 
 any works of this new and able school of writers. 
 The eyes of scholars are now turned from Germany to 
 Holland ; and the wonder of some and the admiration 
 of others are challenged to the utmost. Condemnation 
 and laudation will be visited upon these authors in 
 unstinted measure; for they give no quarter to dissen- 
 tients, and will, therefore, receive none from them. 
 They write in a tone of perfect self-reliance, and hold 
 in low estimate any opinions not corresponding with 
 theirs. The infallibility of the late Pio Nono was 
 modesty compared with the dogmatic certainty with 
 which they make affirmations upon subjects about 
 
 * The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State. By Dr. A. Kue- 
 nen, Professor of Theology at the University of Leyden. Translated from the 
 Dutch by Alfred Heath May. Vol. I., pp. Lx.,413. 1874. Vol. II., pp. 307. 
 1875. Vol. III., pp. 345. 1875. 8vo. Williams & Norgate, 14 Henrietta 
 Street, Covent Garden, London, and 20 South Frederick Street, Edinburgh. 
 
8 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 which such scholars as Gesenius, Ewald, De Wette, to 
 say nothing of others hardly their inferiors, hesitated 
 to give an opinion, much less to dogmatize. The 
 emphatic manner in which they announce as finalities 
 some of the flimsiest of their speculations and hypoth- 
 eses provokes a smile.* There will be ample and fre- 
 quent opportunity to illustrate this signal characteristic 
 of the work under review in the course of this essay. 
 The style of this work of Dr. Kuenen's is as dry as 
 it is dogmatic. We are informed, by those competent 
 to judge, that the translator has done no injustice to 
 the original. It is true that freshness and raciness 
 are not to be expected as the prime qualities of a work 
 of this kind ; yet it ought to be exempt from jejune- 
 ness, and to be animated and warm with the dignity 
 and importance of the subject. It should surely 
 kindle some enthusiasm to trace the history of a 
 people like the Jews, and describe a literature which 
 includes such writings as the Book of Job, the Psalms, 
 and the prophecies of Isaiah and Amos and Joel and 
 Hosea. It is true that Dr. Kuenen is not writing a 
 history of the literature of Israel, and may not have 
 felt any of the admiration which an appreciative reader 
 of these marvellous productions cannot suppress, as 
 he feels the glow and heart-throb in every syllable of 
 the ancient poet. His eye was fixed almost exclu- 
 sively on "altars" and "asheras" and "bull-gods," 
 and "chiuns" and "chemoshes" and " Molochs " and 
 "Levites" and "priests" and the "ritual" that was 
 not before Ezekiel "certainly," not before Ezra "prob- 
 ably." Dr. Kuenen's theme was the "religion," not 
 
 * See Appendix A, p, 59. 
 
KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 9 
 
 the literature, of Israel, and he is not to be blamed but 
 praised for adhering to it. If it was a dry subject, it 
 was not his fault. He is responsible only for its treat- 
 ment. To an examination of this, we will now address 
 ourselves. 
 
 Dr. Kuenen, in the three octavo volumes before us, 
 treats of the development of the "Religion of Israel" 
 from the earliest period down "to the fall of the Jew- 
 ish State." He does not fail of doing justice to the 
 theme for want of space. Three octavo volumes, 
 including over one thousand closely-printed pages, 
 cannot be judged a cramped or an abbreviated discus- 
 sion of the subject. As far as quantity is concerned, 
 there is no ground for fault-finding. What, then, is the 
 quality of the work done by the author ? 
 
 With an honorable frankness, at the very start Dr. 
 Kuenen states his "stand-point," his "sources of in- 
 formation," and "the plan and division" of his history. 
 " Our stand-point," he says, " is sketched in a single 
 stroke, as it were, by the manner in which this work 
 sees the light. It does not stand entirely alone, but is 
 one of a number of monographs on 'the principal re- 
 ligions.' For us, the Israelitish is one of these relig- 
 ions, nothing less, but also nothing more." These 
 religions may differ from each other in value, but one 
 is no more a special revelation from God than another. 
 Christianity belongs in the same category. All relig- 
 ions claim to be revelations from God, and the claims 
 of all are equally delusive. This is the author's 
 " stand-point," from which he views and discusses the 
 "religion of Israel."* It is not our purpose to chal- 
 
 *Vol. I., pp. 5-ia. 
 
lO INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 lenge its justness, at least not in this stage of the dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 The author's "sources of information" are "the 
 entire literature of Israel, so far as it originated in the 
 period " of which he treats. The value of each writ- 
 er's opinion and testimony must be determined by the 
 age in which he lived and the authorities which he 
 used. Hence " it is of the highest importance to trace 
 out and determine, first of all, the age of the various 
 books and of their several constituent parts, — for in- 
 stance, of the different prophets and psalms." But 
 the authors of the historical books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, from Genesis to Esther, were not contemporaries 
 with the events which they record ; and, therefore, we 
 cannot receive their account of the origin and devel- 
 opment of their religion, unless it agrees with the laws 
 of human p?'ogress, as understood by the author. 
 These histories also contain narratives of incredible 
 events, miracles, — such as the passage of the Red Sea 
 and the Jordan, the manna, the wandering in the wil- 
 derness, the giving of the lav/ at Sinai. All these 
 events are simply im.possible, and are therefore incredi- 
 ble. Hence, we discover that these writers " fearlesslv 
 allowed themselves to be guided in their statements 
 by the wants of the present and the requirements of 
 the future. They considered themselves exempt from 
 all responsibility." The priests and the prophets took 
 opposite views, and perverted history to sustain their 
 respective opinions. The narrative of the same trans- 
 action in the Books of the Kings differs widely from 
 that given in the Books of the Chronicles. In these 
 latter and later books, the priests colored or invented 
 
KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. II 
 
 the history to suit their ends, without regard to truth.* 
 We give an illustration referred to by Dr. Kuenen as 
 a type of the style of these falsifying historians: "If 
 any one wishes to form an idea of the modifications 
 which the materials supplied by tradition underwent 
 upon being worked up afresh, let him compare together 
 II. Kings xi., and II. Chronicles xxii,, lo; — xxiii., 21. 
 If the chronicler, under the influence of his sympathy 
 for priests and Levites, could give such an entirely 
 different version of the elevation of Joash to the throne 
 of his fathers, which was related with perfect clearness 
 in the older account, with which he was well acquainted, 
 how much more likely "was it that he should handle 
 the more ancient narratives in a manner to answer his 
 priestly end. (The italics are ours.) 
 
 Such is the statement of Dr. Kuenen's chosen illus- 
 tration of the partisan bias of the chronicler, and its 
 influence on his work. Let us examine its value and 
 by it judge the value of all such accusations. 
 
 I. Dr. Kuenen says his " materials were supplied by 
 tradition^ The chronicler says that these things and 
 more "are writte^t in the story of the Book of the 
 Kings," xxiv., 27; and the historian of the reign of 
 Joash, in II. Kings xi., xii., says that "the rest of the 
 acts of Joash and all that he did are written ... in the 
 Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah." Both 
 writers relied upon written documents and not upon 
 " tradition." Comment is unnecessary. 
 
 II. Dr. Kuenen assumes that the chronicler had be- 
 fore him no written documents except our Book of 
 Kings, and that he " worked up " the facts there re- 
 
 *Vol. I., p. 38. 
 
12 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 corded as he pleased. The work which he refers to 
 here and in other places is apparently a very different 
 one from our Book of Kings, and was undoubtedly the 
 public records which had been saved during the cap- 
 tivity. But how could Dr. Kuenen say that his " mate- 
 rials were supplied by tradition," when he was perfectly 
 "well acquainted" with the " older account" in Kings, 
 which he had "worked up " to suit his priestly ends ? 
 
 III. Dr. Kuenen accuses the writer of falsifying his- 
 tory to sustain the priestly pretensions, not to say usur- 
 pations, of his age, for two reasons : one, because he is 
 fuller in his account of the action of the priests during 
 the reign of Joash, and the other, apparently, because, 
 if the chronicler's narrative is substantially correct, his, 
 Dr. Kuenen's, theory of the development of the religion 
 of Israel is false. We have nothing to say about the 
 latter reason. Of the former, we say that the writer of 
 the Kings may be in error. But there is no reason to 
 suppose that both writers are not substantially correct. 
 There is no direct contradiction between them. Apply- 
 ing the common rule of criticism, that " what one does 
 by another he does himself," there is no appearance of 
 contradiction in their accounts. Jehoiada, the high- 
 priest, and the priests, are represented in Kings as 
 being very active in both civil and religious affairs. 
 The special services which they rendered in both are 
 more fully narrated by the chronicler ; but there is not 
 a shadow of evidence that he was laboring under such 
 an ecclesiastical bias as to lead him to falsify history, 
 that he might exalt the priesthood to honor. On the 
 contrary, he relates, without rebuke, how, in the great 
 reformation under Hezekiah, II. Chronicles xxix., 34, 
 
KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 13 
 
 when " the priests were too few, so that they could not 
 flay all the burnt offerings, their brethren, the Levites, 
 did help them till the work was ended, and until the 
 other priests had sanctified themselves ; for the Levitcs 
 wej-e more upright i?i heart to safictify thc7nsdves than the 
 priestsP A writer whose purpose was to elevate the 
 priesthood above the Levites would not have thus 
 written. See also xxx., 15, 17 ; xxxv., 10-15. 
 
 IV. Dr. Kuenen says the chronicler gives " an en- 
 tirely different version of the elevation of Joash to the 
 throne " from the wriier of Kings. Let us note the 
 facts : Jehosheba " took Joash and hid him and his 
 nurse in the bed-chamber from Athaliah, so that he 
 was not slain " in the massacre of the rest of the 
 family ; so also the chronicler states. He was hid six 
 years; so the chronicler. And in the seventh year 
 Jehoiada gathered the rulers over hundreds and other 
 officers into the house of the Lord, where they took an 
 oath and made a covenant, and showed them the king's 
 son and crowned him, stationi.ig a guard in different 
 parts of the city and temple ; the chronicler only adds 
 that in the temple as guards none but priests and 
 Levites entered. When Athaliah learned what was 
 done, and cried " Treason I " she was slain ; so the 
 chronicler. And Jehoiada took the king to the king's 
 house, and sat him on the throne of the kingdom : the 
 same in Chronicles, save that Jehoiada arraigned also 
 the priests, that the services of the temple might be 
 renewed, as it is "written in the law of Moses." Are 
 these ^^ entirely different versions of the elevation of 
 Joash to the throne of his fathers " t We submit 
 that it would be difficult to find two accounts of the 
 
14 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 coronation of Queen Victoria more alike. We are 
 curious to know what accounts Dr. Kuenen would 
 call similar if these are '■^entirely different''^ 
 
 But it is time to return from specific criticism to a 
 consideration of the main course of argument in the 
 work before us ; were we to yield to the temptation 
 offered, we should write a volume. 
 
 Such being " the condition of the sources of our in- 
 formation," Dr. Kuenen may well ask, " How are we to 
 endeavor to arrive at historical truth" respecting the 
 religion of the people ? 
 
 The answer to this question discloses the '' J)hifi " of 
 the author. It is as follows : — 
 
 "We offer, for instance, a supposition with respect to 
 the Mosaic period. On the strength of various indi- 
 cations, we assume that the people of Israel and the 
 man who delivered them out of their bondage in Egypt 
 had reached such and such a degree of religious devel- 
 opment. We proceed with our investigation, and grad- 
 ually come to the centuries during which the narratives 
 about Moses and his work were written down. We 
 now succeed in showing that, " if our conception of the 
 course of historical development be the true one, the repre- 
 sentation given in these narratives must necessarily have 
 been formed at that time, and could have assumed no 
 other shape."t 
 
 This is frank and intelligible. The author informs 
 us that he " assumes " as an historical verity a certain 
 state of " religious development," and then affirms that 
 if, according to his theory of the evolution of ideas and 
 human progress, the condition of the people, five or ten 
 
 *Vol. I., pp. 12-27. t Vol. I., pp. 26-32. 
 
KUENEN'S religion of ISRAEL. 15 
 
 centuries later, conforms to the demands of the theory, 
 the "assumed" state of things was correct, and the 
 representation of those early ages given in the histor- 
 ical books must have been merely the mistake?i con- 
 ceptio7i of the writers ; and proves that all narratives 
 containing such representations of opinions must have 
 been written at a later period, since no such opinions, 
 according to his theory of development, could have 
 been entertained by the men of the Mosaic age, nor 
 long subsequent to it. In short, Dr. Kuenen has a 
 theory respecting what could, and could not, have been 
 believed and done in the Mosaic and following age ; 
 and since the historical books do not sustain that theory^ 
 they are not ancient^ they are ?iot reliable ; the writers have 
 attributed opinions, laws, customs of their own times to 
 the time of their great ancestor. It does not appear to 
 have occurred to Dr. Kuenen that his theory may be 
 wrong, and that the old histories may be substantially 
 correct. Now if his theory, or assumption, or "sup- 
 position " is without solid foundation in reason and 
 undoubted facts, then the whole elaborate structure of 
 his work, — 
 
 " Like the baseless fabric of a vision, 
 . . . shall dissolve, 
 And leave not a rack behind." 
 
 Such is the "//<ar«," the theory, which is to determine 
 the age and value of the Old Testament books and the 
 opinions which were prevalent among the Israelites in 
 the time of Moses, and in all subsequent times: — if a 
 book contains opinions and describes customs and al- 
 ludes to religious rites, which, accordi?ig to Dr. KuenerCs 
 
1 6 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 theory, could not have been developed and prevalent at so 
 early a period, then the writer, u?iwittingly or maliciously, 
 states what is false ; for all historical truth or falsehood 
 is to be tested by this theory. It is the Procrustean bed 
 on which all statements are to be fitted, however great 
 the compression or extension. 
 
 Where, then, does the author think he finds solid 
 ground on which he may stand, and whence he can 
 take his departure and apply his theory of historical 
 verity ? As there is almost no historical literature ex- 
 tant which was composed before the captivity, 588 B.C., 
 the writings of the early prophets are examined to 
 learn the condition of religion and religious customs in 
 Israel, 808-700 B.C. Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Zechariah, 
 Micah, and Nahum are accepted as authority, and 
 quoted to show what opinions were prevalent, and 
 what rites were customary in the eighth century before 
 Christ, the firth or sixth century after Moses. Dr. 
 Kuenen does not omit the prophet Joel on any theo- 
 retical grounds, but because some writers place him in 
 a later period. There is no valid reason, however, why 
 the writings of Joel, as well as those of the other 
 prophets named, should not be considered as good 
 authority for the religious condition of this period. 
 
 In order to understand the bearing of these quota- 
 tions on Dr. Kuenen's theory, it is necessary now to 
 state, in as intelligible a manner as brevity will admit, 
 the order of the evolution of religious ideas, as assumed 
 in this theory among men, and especially among the 
 ancestors of the Israelites, and among the Israelites 
 themselves. The first religious state is fetichism, pre- 
 Abrahamic ; then polytheism, sub-Abrahamic, down to 
 
KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 1 7 
 
 the return from the captivity ; then monotheism. A 
 few men were monotheists so far as Israel was con- 
 cerned. This people had but one God. They believed, 
 however, there were other gods for other nations, and 
 no more doubted their existence than they doubted the 
 existence of Jahveh. Moses was one of these, and 
 others succeeded him ; but they were few who believed 
 in but one God for Israel. The idea of God became 
 purer, however, as generations passed away, till, in the 
 eighth century, in the time of Amos, very much more 
 worthy and nobler views were entertained of the nature 
 and character of the Supreme Being, and worthier and 
 purer worship was demanded. The sacrifices of beasts 
 and fruits were remanded to a secondary place, and 
 human sacrifices were pronounced abhorrent to God. 
 Moses wrote nothing of the Pentateuch but an abbre- 
 viated form of the Ten Commandments or " Ten 
 Words." A few chapters in Exodus and Leviticus may 
 have been composed before settling in Canaan ; but 
 the Book of Deuteronomy was not composed till the 
 reign of Josiah, 620 B.C., and the historical portions 
 of the four other books were not written till the cap- 
 tivity. Ezra and his fellow-priests drew up nearly the 
 whole ritual as we now find it in Leviticus and the 
 other books of the Pentateuch just before his return to 
 Jerusalem from Babylon, and brought it with him, 
 and introduced it, with the aid of Nehemiah and the 
 priests, as a Mosaic production, and venerable with age 
 and the observance of the fathers ; and the Books of 
 Chronicles were written, perverting and falsifying his- 
 tory, to sustain the false claim of Ezra's ritual to an- 
 tiquity and the supremacy of the tribe of Levi, and the 
 
1 8 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 dignity and sacredness of the priesthood. The older 
 historian of the Books of the Kings had no knowl- 
 edge of any such ritual and priesthood. The prophets 
 disappeared before the new order of priests, and the 
 voice of the poet-preacher was stifled by the smoke of 
 holocausts. 
 
 In due time, after centuries of struggle, suffering, 
 despair, and hope, the great Teacher came and an- 
 nounced a spiritual worship, demanding no sacrifice 
 but a devout heart, no temple but a consecrated spirit; 
 and Judaism blossomed into Christianity, and the relig- 
 ion of Israel was transformed into the religion of the 
 world. Such is substantially Dr. Kuenen's theory of 
 the development of religious ideas in Israel, and the 
 origin of the books of the Old Testament. We are 
 confident that we have not omitted any important par- 
 ticular or element of it. 
 
 We now return to an examination of Dr. Kuenen's 
 method of laying the foundation of his proof of this 
 theory or hypothesis in the writings of the prophets, 
 named on a previous page, who wrote during the eighth 
 century before Christ, or five or six centuries after the 
 putative time of Moses. And now let it be most dis- 
 tinctly understood that the historical books are ruled 
 out of this discussion for the present by Dr. Kuenen's 
 own decision of their modern date and careless or un- 
 scrupulous writers. He must not refer to them when 
 they record something which corresponds with his the- 
 ory, and ignore them or challenge them when they 
 record something which opposes his theory. No doubt 
 he intends to hold the scales evenly balanced, but he 
 is sometimes tempted beyond what he is able to bear 
 
' KUENEN's religion of ISRAEL. 19 
 
 to appeal as authority to the very witness he has pro- 
 nounced not trustworthy. Examples of this weakness 
 would be given were it necessary for our purpose, but 
 our space is all of it to the last letter demanded for 
 our special object, namely, to show the radical defect 
 and failure oi Dr. Kuenen's supposed proof of his the- 
 ory respecting the origin of these books, and hence of 
 the origin and development of the "Religion of Israel." 
 In the very brief writings of these prophets, " mono- 
 theism " is most emphatically taught, and the sin of 
 worshipping idols and serving the gods of other nations 
 is most emphatically rebuked ; and the severest calam- 
 ities are threatened if they forsake " the law of " Jeho- 
 vah ; and "captivity" as well as "drouth" and "lo- 
 custs " are predicted as the portion of the nation, if 
 the people obey not God, and do not observe his 
 " commandments." The temple was in existence, sac- 
 rifices were offered, feasts were kept, " priests " served 
 at the altar, and " the law " was often appealed to as a 
 rule of duty. In these brief fragments of the poetic 
 addresses of the prophets, we have allusions to all the 
 main features of the ritual service as described in 
 Chronicles and Ezra. The sternness of the rebukes 
 of these prophets, when they saw the wickedness of 
 the people in making and worshipping idols, is not 
 strange; is far from being "a remarkable phenome- 
 non," even when producing open " conflict " and perse- 
 cution. What may be done and said without opposi- 
 tion in Holland now we do not know ; but what was 
 done to free speakers and writers centuries ago we 
 know well enough ; and we know that in later times 
 Fox and Wesley and Whitefield were persecuted as 
 
20 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 bitterly as those prophets of 800 B.C., to say nothing 
 of Rogers and Cranmer, the martyrs of bloody Mary, 
 and the victims of the merciless Jeffries, cruelly tor- 
 tured in the blasphemed name of religion. There are 
 no " causes " far to seek, or hard to understand, as 
 Dr. Kuenen supposes, why these prophets were assailed 
 by the law-breakers, the cruel, the false, the idol-wor- 
 shippers, and idol-makers. The "conflict" is as old as 
 time, and will continue till time shall be no longer. 
 Yet our author infers — nay, affirms — that this " con- 
 flict" and persecution could not have arisen if the 
 Pentateuch had existed. 
 
 One would suppose that Dr. Kuenen would now ex- 
 amine with closest scrutiny these statements, so clear 
 and explicit, and their bearing upon his theory, which 
 these writers, whose veracity he does not question, 
 furnish so abundantly. He does no such thing. He 
 hastens to inquire into " the earlier fortune of the peo- 
 ple of Israel," as if he perceived that these prophets 
 furnished his theory no support. But what materials 
 has he, on his own theory, to furnish him any informa- 
 tion about it ? Not a line of history was written, as he 
 affirms, till this period, or later ; and what was written 
 then was "not historical." The writers of most of 
 these historical books, called so only by way of cour- 
 tesy, lived, on the theory of Dr. Kuenen, after these 
 prophets, and " considered themselves exempt from all 
 responsibility " as to the truth of the events which they 
 narrate. If there is no reliable record of events pre- 
 vious to 800 B.C., we are very much at a loss to guess 
 where he gets his information. If he writes from his 
 "inner consciousness" only, his history has no more 
 
KUENEN's religion of ISRAEL. 21 
 
 reliable source than that of those old Jewish writers 
 whom he so soundly berates for their groundless sto- 
 ries. If the Books of the Kings and of Samuel are 
 not reliable accounts, how can he quote them as he 
 does to show the state, civil and religious, of the people 
 " earlier " than the eighth century ? We stand firmly 
 here. Dr. Kuenen must either reject or accept these 
 historical books as being substantially reliable. If he 
 accepts them, then the controversy is ended, and his 
 emphatic condemnation of the untrustworthiness of 
 their writers is a gross injustice. If he rejects them, 
 then he has no right to appeal to them as authority in 
 any case whatever. He can take which horn of the 
 dilemma he chooses. He cannot be permitted to select 
 here and there a story, cull out here and there a sen- 
 tence, because it answers the purposes of his theory 
 and confirms his " assumption," and reject all the rest. 
 The references to the early history and customs of 
 the people from the time of Abraham onward are so 
 numerous in these prophets that Dr. Kuenen confesses 
 that we should be compelled to suppose that at least 
 Micah "was acquainted with those narratives " as con- 
 tained in the Pentateuch, " unless appearances should 
 tend to show that they were written or modified at a 
 later date," — that is, later than the time of these 
 prophets ;* and this Dr. Kuenen believes. They were 
 not written till the time of the captivity, or two hundred 
 years later than the time of these prophets. What 
 these prophets say, therefore, about the early past, they 
 have no authority for. They only express " the idea 
 which was entertaitied of that history in the eighth century 
 
 *Voi. I , pp. 102, 103. 
 
22 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 B.Cy Be it so. Then it is only repeating the folly of 
 the " wild ass that eateth up the east wind " to rake 
 over the stories in Genesis and Exodus, which were not 
 committed to writing till two centuries after this period, 
 to supplement the "ideas" of the eighth century as 
 given by these prophets. Our author does it, however, 
 and concludes that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob '"''are 
 not historical personages!'^ Nor are the twelve tribes 
 descendants of Jacob's twelve sons. There may be 
 some truth, but not much, in the account of the emi- 
 gration from Egypt, the wandering in the wilderness, 
 the entrance and partial conquest of Canaan, and the 
 anarchical condition from the time of Joshua to the 
 coronation of Saul. But he who believes least of what 
 is told is the wisest man.* 
 
 Dr. Kuenen, however, becomes so enamoured with 
 these old story-tellers that he gives us three chapters 
 more upon " The Israelitish Prophets before and during 
 the Eighth Century B.C.," and "The Course of Israel's 
 Religious Development," and " The History of Israel's 
 Religious Development before and during the Eighth 
 Century B.C." Now let it be most distinctly under- 
 stood that for every fact, or supposed fact, in these 
 three chapters, covering two hundred and twenty-four 
 pages. Dr. Kuenen is indebted to these same books 
 which he afhrms to have been written not only by men 
 who lived from a thousand to five hundred years after 
 the events described, but by men who " considered 
 themselves exempted from all responsibility " to tell 
 the truth ! No statement of fantastic act in the life of 
 Samson would be antecedently more incredible than 
 
 *Vol. I., p. 384. 
 
KUENEN'S religion of ISRAEL. 23 
 
 this. And yet the thing has been done by a renowned 
 scholar, — the pages are open before us in all their com- 
 pact beauty. But if Dr. Kuenen's theory is correct, 
 if his statements respecting the unhistorical character 
 of these books are to be accepted, then it is the beauty 
 of a harlot j for he can put no more historical truth 
 into these chapters of his book than he finds in these 
 books of the Old Bible ; and, if they are untrue, these 
 chapters are untrue. The same fountain cannot send 
 forth sweet waters and bitter, truth and lies. The logic 
 of the whole matter is, that methods and places of 
 worship, customs and habits of life, prevailed, accord- 
 ing to these writers, down to this eighth century, in 
 direct violation of the Mosaic law as recorded in the 
 Pentateuch, and which would not have prevailed had 
 the Mosaic law been in existence or been known by 
 the people. Therefore^ the Mosaic laws, so called, were 
 not composed till after the eighth century B.C. ! A 
 most magnificent non sequitiir. As if the violation of 
 a law was any evidence that the law was not on the 
 statute-book ! Or, to state the matter differently, as if 
 the performance of an act was proof that there was no 
 law against it, or that the existence of a custom was 
 proof that there was no statute forbidding it. Accord- 
 ing to these *' unhistorical " books of unknown author- 
 ship and irresponsible composition, other men than 
 priests offered sacrifices, in other places than at the 
 tabernacle. Punishments were inflicted by men having 
 no authority, and which were cruel and vindictive to 
 the last degree. The laws of Moses, in a word, were 
 not observed, and therefore they did not exist, — one of 
 
24 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 the most inconclusive inferences which could possibly 
 be drawn. All history shows its fallacy. * 
 
 Passing on from the eighth century B.C., the next 
 chapter treats of "The Religion of Israel to the Fall 
 of Jerusalem, in B.C. 588." The only two points of 
 special interest discussed in this chapter are (i) the 
 reform under Hezekiah, who overthrew the altars of 
 the idols, and cut down the groves [or the asheras], 
 and made a very thorough change in the administra- 
 tion of the religion of the people ; and (2) the finding 
 of the "Book of the Law," in the reign of Josiah, by 
 Hilkiah, the priest. It is necessary to pause a moment 
 to consider the value of these incidents in settling the 
 age of the Pentateuch. 
 
 Hezekiah' attempted to reform the worship of the 
 people, which, it is very important to note, for over a 
 century had been growing grosser and grosser, like the 
 ceremonies of the Romish Church during the Dark 
 Ages. Idols were set up and altars erected and sacri- 
 fices offered on the "high places." The prophets de- 
 nounced these practices in vain. The kings were sat- 
 isfied to administer the civil law ; and on grounds of 
 
 ♦ It is objected repeatedly by other writers that the absence of the record of 
 any enforcement of a law is sufficient proof tliat no such law existed. See (/ni- 
 tariaii Review, October 1880, p. 300, passim. "Good kings did not remove 
 idolatrous worship," therefore there was no law against idolatry. How much 
 these good kings did toward ridding the kingdom of idolatry we do not know. 
 That they did not wholly succeed is all that can be inferred from the passage 
 Can it not be said that we had good governors who did not shut up the liquor- 
 shops, and good mayors who did not close the most popular gambling sa'oons ? 
 Does it follow that there was no prohibitory law in Boston, because there were 
 more than two thousand bars where liquor was sold? We know there was. 
 There are also hundreds of vile houses in Boston which the good mayor has 
 not shut up. Is there no law against them ? Such reasoning would not be tol- 
 erated in the lowest form of a grammar school. 
 
KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 25 
 
 expediency, or supposing, by some method of inter- 
 pretation of their own, that idol-worship was consistent 
 with the worship of Jeliovah, they not only permitted 
 but encouraged it, as the popes encouraged image- 
 worship and the selling of indulgences. The nation 
 had departed no further from the requirements of the 
 Mosaic law — assuming that it was given as early as 
 his time — than the Church of the sixth to the tenth 
 centuries had departed from the teachings of Christ. 
 But customs are not easily changed ; and, though Hez- 
 ekiah appears to have been in earnest, he could not 
 eradicate the religious rites and opinions which had 
 been cherished and firmly rooted with increasing vigor 
 for more than three generations. He did his best to 
 purify their worship ; but, when he died, reaction came, 
 and a return to the long established and cherished 
 customs. For two generations, or during the long 
 reign of Manasseh, of fifty-five years, and the brief 
 reign of Amon, of two years, idolatry was practised in 
 its worst forms. The restraint under Hezekiah gave 
 way to unbridled license under Manasseh, as the re- 
 straint of the Commonwealth gave way to the license 
 of Charles II. and James II. He not only re-erected 
 the " high places," but he " built altars in the house of 
 the Lord, . . . and he built altars for all the hosts of 
 heaven, in the two courts of the house of the Lord. 
 And he made his son pass through fire, and observed 
 times and used enchantments and dealt with familiar 
 spirits and wizards." He set one of the abominable 
 "graven images of the grove," as our translation names 
 it to conceal its obscenity, "in the house of the Lord," 
 in the very temple itself, — a baseness of profanation 
 
2$^ INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 of which even Athaliah did not dream or Ahaz at- 
 tempt. Tkey appear to have reverently closed the 
 temple doors, and to have erected their idols only in 
 the courts. Nor is this all. "Moreover, Manasseh 
 shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jeru- 
 salem, from one end to the other." What horrors of 
 martyrdom the reformers under Hezekiah suffered, 
 these few words but dimly hint. The true prophets 
 fled and concealed themselves, or were slaughtered. 
 The true priests escaped as they could, and suffered 
 all extremities, even to perishing with hunger. The 
 reaction and persecution under Mary Tudor were not 
 greater or bloodier or more merciless than those under 
 Manasseh. And this prevalence of idolatry continued 
 for seventy-five years, till Josiah again attempted a 
 reform ; and this persecution of Hezekiah's reformers 
 continued till the last voice was silenced and the last 
 hand cold. 
 
 Nothing in Dr. Kuenen's work has so awakened our 
 regret, not to say our indignation in this instance, as 
 his attempt to palliate the abominations and atrocities 
 of Manasseh, saying that he " represented a convic- 
 tion " as well as Hezekiah. The " account [of his cru- 
 elties] is unworthy of credit," affirms Dr. Kuenen. 
 He only did what his grandfather Ahaz did in setting 
 up idols, and causing his son to pass through fire ! 
 " Free from all exclusivism, Manasseh cannot well 
 have become a persecutor of his own accord. If he 
 took this part upon him, he was driven to it by the 
 reception accorded to his measures ! " No doubt. 
 Mary Tudor's measures were not accepted; and, lo, 
 the stake, the rack, the red-hot iron ! Isabella's meas- 
 
KUENEN's religion of ISRAEL. 27 
 
 ures were not received ; and, lo, the horrors of the 
 Inquisition ! We have read apologies for Judas Iscar- 
 iot with considerable patience ; for the poor fellow 
 saw his guilt and shame, and hung himself. But we 
 have no hint that Manasseh ever relented in his work 
 of blood, or was abashed in the presence of his 
 " groves," or " asheras." He persecuted as long as 
 a hunted victim could be found. He practised his 
 licentious rites as long as subjects for their lustful 
 orgies could be furnished. He stands eminent among 
 the Anakims of cruelty, though he had " a conviction," 
 as Mary Tudor had, as James 11. had, as Torquemada 
 had, — "^; convictio?!^'' ! Heaven help us to escape 
 "convictions " ! 
 
 We now turn to consider the origin, character, and 
 extent of the reform under Josiah. For personal rea- 
 sons, probably, Amon, the son of Manasseh, after a 
 brief reign of two years, was assassinated by his ser- 
 vants in his own house. The people punished the assas- 
 sins, and placed his son Josiah, only eight years of 
 age, on the throne. Under influences which are not 
 named, his counsellors appear to have administered 
 civil affairs wisely, without interfering with the forms 
 of religion, till, in the eighteenth year of his reign, 
 while the temple was undergoing repairs, Hilkiah, the 
 high-priest, informs Shaphan, the scribe, that he had 
 ''''found the book of the law in the house of the Lord." 
 It was read before the King, and he was 5o moved in 
 view of the sins of the people, as revealed by this 
 "book of the law," that "he rent his clothes," and 
 directed that measures should be taken at once to 
 obey " the book of the law." He gathered the elders 
 
28 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 of the people, and " the book " was read in their hear- 
 ing, even " all the words of the book of the covenant." 
 Then the King and the people " made a covenant 
 before the Lord to walk after the Lord, and to keep 
 his commandments and his testimonies and his stat- 
 utes with all their heart and all their soul, and to per- 
 form the words of this covenant that were written in 
 this book." The work commences of conforming to 
 the law as recorded in this book. " The high-priest 
 and priests of the second order " bring out of the 
 temple all the vessels of Baal, and the shameful ashera, 
 "grove," burn them, and carry the ashes to Bethel. 
 He displaced the " idolatrous priests M^ho burned in- 
 cense in the high places unto Baal, to the sun and to the 
 moon and to the planets and to all the host of heaven. 
 He brake down the houses of the Sodomites, that were 
 by the house of the Lord, and defiled the high places 
 and Topheth." He burned to ashes all that would 
 burn, and ground to powder all that could be pulver- 
 ized, of the articles used in idol-worship; and, having 
 cleansed the land of idolatry, he commanded the pass- 
 over to be kept as directed '' in the book of this cove- 
 nant." But it was too late. Josiah was killed in a 
 battle with Pharaoh-Nechoh ; and under his sons the 
 nation again relapsed into idolatry, and Jerusalem was 
 taken, and the captivity followed. 
 
 Now, wha^t was this ^^ book of the law of the Lord^^ 
 which aroused Josiah to attempt a radical reform in 
 the religious practices of the nation? Dr. Kuenen 
 says : " Moses bequeathed no book of the law to the' 
 tribes of Israel. Certainly, nothing more was com- 
 mitted to writing by him, or in his time, than ' the ten 
 
KUENEN's religion of ISRAEL. 29 
 
 words,' " the ten commandments, "in their original 
 form." How, we ask with significant emphasis, how 
 does Dr. Kuenen know that Moses wrote these " ten 
 words " ? or that they were written as early as his day ? 
 Where is the proof of it? None is given, — not a line, 
 not a letter. The testimony of the "inner conscious- 
 ness " cannot be taken in this case ; and we challenge 
 him to bring any proof that Moses wrote " the ten 
 words " which will not also prove that he wrote a great 
 many words.* Dr. Kuenen says that the fragmentary 
 laws in existence before Josiah's time would not satisfy 
 what he calls the "Mosaic party," — that is, the anti- 
 idolatrous portion of the people, — and some one or 
 more of them, Hilkiah or others, forged " a book of 
 the law of the Lord," in the name of the old law- 
 giver, " Notions about literary property were then in 
 their infancy." They would have no " qualms of con- 
 science " who declared they had "found " a book when 
 they did not find it, but wrote it ; nor when they attrib- 
 uted its authorship to Moses, though they knew they 
 lied ! The ^Mosaic party must gain their end at all 
 hazards. " Now or never," — hence forgery and lying 
 are justifiable. That forgery — as unblushing and more 
 criminal than the forged election returns in Louisiana, 
 
 *A writer ill the Unitarian Rtviciu, November, iSSo, pp. 435, 436, eays the 
 ten commandments, as written on thi tablets of sto.ic, are not given in the 
 second writing, Exodus xxxiv., as in the first, Exodus xx. The historian says 
 they were. Compare Exodus xxxiv., i, and xxxiv., 27, 28. The writer mistakes 
 when he understands that the laws given in this chapter were written on the two 
 tables. They were written as the other laws were. Moses was commanded to 
 write these words or commands because they were '^ after the /<?«£7r," based 
 upon the words or commands given before. There were not ten of them, no 
 more, no less ; but a code of rules based upon the ten laws or commandments, 
 which were written on the tables, and not here repealed. They are not said to 
 be the words of the covenant, but "after the tenor, ''^ based upon them. 
 
30 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 or the Decretals — was the Book of Deuteronomy; not 
 the whole of it, but Deuteronomy iv., 44 — xxvi. and 
 xxviii. These chapters, no more, no less, were delib- 
 erately forged for a religious purpose at this time. 
 Now, what is the proof of it? Let us pick up as we 
 may the alleged evidence produced by Dr. Kuenen. 
 
 1. " Tlie first four books of the Pentateuch are more 
 rec:nt than the seventh century before our era"; and 
 therefore they cannot be, either one or all of them, the 
 book " found " or forged, the latter, not the former, 
 in Josiah's reign. But this is simply taking for granted 
 what must be proved. No evidence, not a line, has 
 yet been brought by Dr. Kuenen to shov/ that the first 
 four books of the Pentateuch were not written till after 
 this period, save that laws contained in it were often 
 violated, and sometimes with impunity. 
 
 2. *'Let it be further remembered that the writing 
 found by Hilkiah is called the '■book of the law^^ and 
 the ^ booh of the covetianty It is true that in Deuter- 
 onomy iv,, 44, we read, "And this is the law which 
 Moses set before the children of Israel. These are 
 the testimonies and statutes and judgments which 
 Moses spake unto the children of Israel." And in 
 chapter v., 2, 3, it is said that " the Lord our God made 
 a covenant with us in Horeb." But in no place is 
 Deuteronomy called " the book of the law," or " the 
 book of the covenant." But we read in Exodus xxiv., 
 7, that Moses took the book of the cove?iant, and read in 
 the audience of the people ; and numerous sections of 
 the other books of the Pentateuch are called " the 
 law." The inference drawn by Dr. Kuenen, from the 
 possible meaning of the phrases " the law " and *' the 
 
KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. ^I 
 
 covenant," as used in Deuteronomy, is therefore not 
 valid, and is far from proving that only the last book of 
 the Pentateuch is referred to, excluding the others. 
 
 3. " It cannot have been of any great length, if we 
 may believe the statement that it was read by Shaphan, 
 and then read before Josiah in one day." This would 
 be true of any of the sections named " the law " and 
 "the covenant," which are contained in any of the 
 books. These important sections might all be read 
 more easily than twenty-three chapters in Deuteronomy. 
 The only possible objection to this view is found in 
 one word in the history of this transaction, II. Kings 
 xxiii., 2 : "And he read in their ears all the words of 
 the book of the covenant," — as if the whole of the 
 book, whatever the topic, was read. There are large 
 sections of Deuteronomy which have no special rela- 
 tion to the reforms instituted by Josiah ; and laws re- 
 specting all his reforms are found in other portions of 
 the Pentateuch. Certainly, Dr. Kuenen will not rest 
 the proof that "M<? book of the law^^ read before Josiah 
 was our present Book of Deuteronomy, on the single 
 use of the word " all " by a historian who is not known, 
 and who belongs to a class of writers who are said 
 by himself "to consider themselves exempt from all 
 responsibility" to write the truth. We however believe 
 this writer was honest, and intended to tell the truth, 
 and did tell it ; and that what he said is that " all " 
 was read which pertained to the Being whom they wor- 
 shipped, and the place and form of worship then nec- 
 essary to be known, and the penalties which would 
 follow disregard of this law. 
 
 4. The final reason given by Dr. Kuenen for believ- 
 
32 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 ing that Deuteronomy is *' the book of the law " found, 
 forged, by Hilkiah is that the customs reformed are 
 all rebuked in Deuteronomy, and the penalties threat- 
 ened for transgression are there written. But all these 
 threatenings and all these laws are also contained in 
 other books of the Pentateuch. It is not necessary, 
 therefore, to infer that the reading would be confined 
 to the last of the five books. Hilkiah or Shaphan may 
 have made selections from any part of "the book of 
 the law" which were appropriate to the occasion. 
 What book this was wiiich Hilkiah " found " or 
 forged must be determined in a very different manner 
 from that which Dr. Kuenen has adopted. In the 
 proper place, we shall give it the consideration which it 
 demands. 
 
 The seventh chapter on "The Israelitish Exiles in 
 Babylon " contains so little which bears upon the ques- 
 tion which we are discussing that we shall pass it by 
 with the single remark that it is very full and able, 
 giving a correct view of the condition of the exiles, 
 and the influences of the peoples among whom they 
 dwelt upon their religious ideas and forms. 
 
 The eighth chapter, which describes the return from 
 the captivity and " The Establishment of the Hie- 
 rarchy and the Introduction of the Law," demands 
 special attention ; for we are here told of the origin of 
 the rest of the Pentateuch, and especially of the com- 
 position and introduction of the ritual law. As the 
 subject is a large one, and our space is limited, we 
 must confine ourselves to those points which have 
 direct reference to the origin of the Pentateuch and 
 the historical books. 
 
KUENEN'S religion of ISRAEL. 33 
 
 Dr. Kuenen affirms in the strongest language * that 
 "the priestly laws" and "priestly ordinances were 
 made known and imposed upon the Jewish nation now 
 for the first time,''^ by Ezra, 457 B.C. "They were not 
 laws which had been long in existence, and which were 
 now proclaimed afresh and accepted by the people, 
 after having been forgotten for a while. JVo written 
 ritual legislation existed in EzekieVs timeT f During the 
 first thirteen years after Ezra's return, he perfected the 
 code which he had brought with him from Babylon, 
 where he and others drew it up. It received some modi- 
 fications at the hand of Nehemiah, and perhaps others ; 
 and this code of laws was palmed off upon the returned 
 exiles as '-'' God's law which was given by [' the hand of] 
 Moses, the servant 0/ God," and which they bound them- 
 selves by a solemn oath, under a curse, to obey (Ne- 
 hemiah X., 29). No priest discovered the fraud ; no 
 scribe, versed in the traditions, customs, and laws of 
 the nation, had a suspicion that this formidable, exact- 
 ing, and onerous code was a barefaced forgery, a pro- 
 digious fraud ; or else they were all silent in the very 
 face of an imposition upon the credulity of a long- 
 suffering nation, without a parallel in the history of the 
 
 * Vol II., p. 230. 
 
 t Dr. Kuenen maintains that Leviticus xviii.-xxvi. was written by Ezekiel. 
 There is not a shadow of evidence of it. The peculiar archaisms wliich are 
 char.icteristic of the rest of the book and of all the Pentateuch are found in 
 this section, which are not found in the extant writings of Ezekiel, r.or in any 
 oiher writing of the Old Testament subsequent to that of the Peatateuch, He 
 must have taken great pains to imitate the style of the ancient books to conceal 
 this fraud, or some scribe must have tampered with his copy to give it the 
 antique form; and, further, he must have taken great pains in his extant proph- 
 ecy to refer to this section as containing the laws given to the " fathers," and 
 referring to this forged section as if given in ancient times in the "wilderness" 
 (chapter xx.f passim), when he knew that he wrote it himself. 
 
34 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 world. The stupidity of these people must have been 
 as amazing, as incredible, as was the fraud. There 
 were men and women among these exiles who were not 
 idiots, and who knew whether Ezra was introducing a 
 ritual and law which were new, and not in accordance 
 with the "customs" of the nation before the captivity. 
 There were thousands of those who returned with Ze- 
 rubbabel from the Babylonian exile, whose fathers had 
 worshipped in the temple which Solomon built, and 
 who were familiar with the whole ritual code. Could 
 their children be blinded to such a degree as not to 
 know a new code so minute in its details, reaching 
 even to the kind and cooking of their food ; the ma- 
 terial, form, and make of their garments; the construc- 
 tion and care of their houses ; the number, amount, 
 and payment of their taxes ; the rate of interest and 
 collection of debts ; the manner of treating strangers 
 and slaves ; the observance of the Sabbath, and the 
 penalty of its desecration ? And these are but a few of 
 the laws which touched their persons, their homes, and 
 daily occupations. The bare statement of an hypoth- 
 esis which demanded such a belief would seem to be 
 its sufficient and swift confutation. Imagine all the 
 men and women and children of those exiles who had 
 refused to sing the songs of their dear native land by 
 the rivers of Babylon, and who had mourned over the 
 loss of their homes, their temple, and their worship, 
 when they had returned to erect anew their altar, and 
 kindle anew its fires, to have had presented for their 
 acceptance such a ritual as they had never heard of ; 
 such a religious administration as never before existed 
 in the nation; and yet not a priest, not a Levite, not a 
 
KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 35 
 
 scribe, not a prophet, not a prophetess, ever hinted by- 
 word or line that this ritual, this code, was new ; was 
 not the ritual and code of the fathers ; was not the 
 manner of administration and fonn of worship which 
 prevailed in the land before Jerusalem was destroyed 
 and Judah carried captive ! The great company which 
 returned with Zerubbabel had built their homes, and 
 established anew the worship of their nation in the 
 rebuilt temple, and according to the "customs" of the 
 fathers. For over half a century, for fifty-eight years, 
 after the dedication of their new temple, " the priests 
 in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses," 
 had conducted the services of the temple, "as it is 
 written in the book of Moses^\ and twenty years before 
 the temple was finished, on their arrival at Jerusalem, 
 Jeshua and the priests and others " builded an altar to 
 the God of Israel to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it 
 is written in the law of Moses ^ the man of God J" They 
 kept the feast of the tabernacle, " as // is written,''^ and 
 " offered the daily burnt offerings by number, according 
 to the custom.''^ They also observed the " new moons, 
 and all the set feasts of the Lord." This large com- 
 pany, with the " high priests " and the " priests " and 
 "Levites" and "singing men" and "singing women" 
 and the " porters " with " the vessels of gold and of sil- 
 ver," and "priests' garments " and "knives," had been 
 keeping " passovers " and " all the feasts," and wor- 
 shipping according to the "custom " of the fathers, "as 
 written in the book of Moses," " in the law of Moses, 
 the man of God," during two generations, in the un- 
 doubting belief that they were honoring God and obey- 
 ing his law given to their fathers. And yet not a word 
 
36 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 of astonishment or objection is spoken, no contention 
 arises between these people and the company of Ezra 
 when they return and he introduces his ritual and 
 code which were ^^7zever before heard of^^ and " i^ow for 
 the first time imposed upon the Jewish nation " ! Every 
 tongue is dumb, every pen is idle; and this unparal- 
 leled monstrous forgery is accepted without a word of 
 challenge, a shadow of suspicion, by a people which 
 could boast of such writers as Amos, Isaiah, Micah, 
 Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, and the Psalmist ! If so, the 
 miracles of Eg}^pt, as well as those recorded in the 
 Book of the Judges, become mere commonplace affairs 
 in the history of Israel. 
 
 Monstrously incredible as this hypothesis is, Dr. 
 Kuenen has his reasons for adopting it. What are 
 they ? It is our duty, as reviewer of his work, to state 
 and examine them. In doing this, we shall be obliged 
 to adopt an order of our own, since Dr. Kuenen's rea- 
 sons are spread over the whole work, and are inter- 
 woven with his whole argument, and are nowhere so 
 arranged in separate paragraphs and distinctly an- 
 nounced as to make verbal quotations easy. We will, 
 however, strive to cover his whole ground with the 
 reasons which we shall name. It will be impossible to 
 refer to the page on which the reasons which we shall 
 state may be found, since they are implied or hinted or 
 assumed through whole chapters, without a brief and 
 clear enunciation. We omit, in this connection, as we 
 shall have occasion to consider it hereafter, the differ- 
 ence in the style of the author or authors of the Penta- 
 teuch and that of Ezra and the writers of his time, 
 which is to us most conclusive evidence that the Jewish 
 
KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 37 
 
 ritual was not the work of any writer who lived after 
 the captivity.''^ 
 
 The first reason which we will notice offered in 
 support of Dr. Kuenen's theory is that no mcfiiion is 
 made of any such work as the Pentateuch, or any such 
 ritual as it contains, in any work written before the 
 captivity. The value of this reason will depend upon 
 the number and character of the works thus early 
 written. If very few works were written, and they 
 were lyrical like the Psalms, or didactic like the Prov- 
 erbs, or hortatory like many of the prophets, we should 
 not expect to find formal quotations from the Penta- 
 teuch, assuming its early existence, any more than we 
 should expect to find formal quotations from the Gos- 
 pels in our Christian hymn-books, or in such sermons 
 as Channing's and Robertson's and Bartol's and Mar- 
 tineau's. All that could be expected in such writings 
 would be an occasional allusion, a particular expression, 
 a special phraseology, which would indicate that the 
 writers of these lyric and didactic and prophetic books 
 were familiar with the contents of the Pentateuch, as 
 the sermons of these preachers and the hymns of these 
 poets show that they are familiar wdth the contents of 
 the Gospels. Whether we do find any such indications 
 of familiarity with the contents of the Pentateuch in 
 the writers before the captivity will be determined sub- 
 sequently in its proper place.f 
 
 But we are by no means willing to confine the testi- 
 mony to the early origin of the Pentateuch to works 
 written before the captivity. What sound reason can 
 
 * See " Study of ihe Pentateuch," ui,dcr " Stylc^'' page 159 of this volume. 
 tSce "Study of .the Pentateuch," under ^ '^Quotations''' page 104 of this 
 volume. 
 
38 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 be given for not accepting the testimony of those who 
 wrote after the captivity to events transpiring and cus- 
 toms prevalent before it, if they have good authority 
 for what they say which disappeared soon after, and 
 had in their hands documents which have perished ? 
 None whatever. And here v/e must enter once more 
 our most decided protest against Dr. Kuenen's whole- 
 sale accusation and condemnation of the Hebrew writ- 
 ers, historians, and others. There is no evidence that 
 they were shamelessly destitute of veracity, " and con- 
 sidered themselves exempt from all responsibility " to 
 tell the truth, "and fearlessly allowed themselves to be 
 guided in their statements by the wants of the present 
 and the requirements of the future " ! After the events 
 of the life of Samuel from iioo B.C., the writers of 
 Jewish history are exceptionally scrupulous to refer to 
 their authorities. The writer of the Books of the 
 Kings specifies at the close of every section where a 
 full account of what he has very briefly narrated may 
 be found. Bancroft and Palfrey and Parkman are not 
 more scrupulous and frank in informing their readers of 
 the sources of their information. He does not appear 
 to think that he is writing to a set of ignoramuses who 
 could be duped, nor to a party of demagogues who 
 were to be iiattered and sustained. Honesty and 
 scholarship glow on every page. If the reader of the 
 Books of the Kings is impressed with any one thing 
 more deeply than another, it is with the truthfulness of 
 the writer. Undoubtedly, he was sometimes mistaken 
 1 in his interpretation of the old records on which he 
 \ relied ; but not wilfully to gain an end, but humanly as 
 not omniscient. There is no reason to distrust his 
 
KUENEN'S religion of ISRAEL. 39 
 
 Statements respecting the laws, customs, and religion 
 of the Jews, if he did write four or five hundred years 
 after the reign of David, and closed his history with 
 the fall of Jerusalem and the captivity of Judah; and 
 we shall use his work freely and confidently when we 
 have occasion to do so in this discussion. 
 
 We turn now to a consideration of the accuracy and 
 value of the narratives in the Books of the Chronicles. 
 These books are made the subject of the severest 
 criticism by Dr. Kuenen. He accuses the writer of 
 them of very slight regard for truth ; of so coloring 
 facts, and of inventing them when there are none, as 
 to sustain the priestly ritual and code forged in the 
 name of Moses by Ezra. Indeed, Dr. Kuenen may 
 be said to believe and maintain that the Books of the 
 Chronicles are substantially historical forgeries com- 
 posed to give color of truth to the ritual forgeries of 
 Ezra. The priests have invented a religion and forged 
 a history to prove it true."^ This all took place, and 
 no scribe of the age, not a man of all the writers of 
 the age, detected the cheat or exposed the falsifier 
 of his nation's history. Mark the point. The writer 
 of the Books of the Chronicles is not a blunderer, an 
 ignorant pretender, an unfortunate bankrupt in author- 
 ities : he is an intelligent, deliberate, persistent, and 
 determined falsifier of the annals of his nation which 
 were in his hands ; for this writer appeals as constantly 
 to his authorities for his statements as does the writer 
 of the Books of the Kings. Why, then, should Dr. 
 Kuenen assume that where these historians, or rather 
 annalists, differ, the writer of the Chronicles perverts 
 
 * Vol. III., p. 70 et seq. 
 
40 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 or inverts or invents his facts ? Why is it impossible 
 that the writer of the Kings may be mistaken ? Simply 
 because it would spoil the whole of Dr Kuenen's 
 theory ; for it is past all possible question that the 
 priesthood and the ritual are as old as the time of 
 David, if the narratives in the Chronicles are substan- 
 tially true. But Carthago delcnda est. The early, es- 
 pecially the Mosaic origin of the priesthood and ritual 
 must be false : therefore^ every historian asserting its 
 antiquity is thereby shown to be a liar or an ignoramus ! 
 That the writer of the Chronicles is an antiquarian, 
 and often busies himself about very small matters, is 
 true. That he is given to genealogies is also true. 
 That he writes an ecclesiastical and not a civil history 
 is also true. But this does not prove that he delib- 
 erately lied, and said that things were as he knew they 
 were not. Neal's History of the Purita?is differs as 
 much from Hume's history of the same period as the 
 Chronicles differ from the Kings ; and yet Neal is as 
 reliable an historian as Hume. He dwells upon other 
 topics and enlarges upon them, and is very diffuse upon 
 some points which Hume omits or only touches. So we 
 find it in the Chronicles. The writer lingers lovingly 
 around topics which the writer of the Kings passes 
 over very lightly or wholly omits, and sometimes they 
 contradict each other. But this is no proof that either 
 of them was a liar. Their authorities may have dif- 
 fered. The figures given in the Chronicles and in the 
 other books are obviously unreliable, for some reason 
 which is not yet explained. The blunders of copyists 
 do not satisfactorily account for all of them. But 
 these obvious mistakes do not affect in the slightest 
 
KUENEn's religion of ISRAEL. 41 
 
 degree the historical accuracy of the statements respect- 
 ing the religious usages and legal ceremonies of the 
 period of which the work is a fragmentary history, — 
 indeed, only the briefest annals. The fact of a battle 
 having been fought is not discredited because the 
 number of killed and wounded is incorrect, and the 
 name of the commander and the day of the fight are 
 obviously misstated. Genealogies may be erroneous, 
 and yet the events recorded may be substantially cor- 
 rect. It v/ould be a miracle, indeed, if the writer of 
 the Chronicles had made no mistakes in the names 
 of his long lists of ancient families ; and a still greater 
 one if the copyists of them for centuries had accu- 
 rately, letter for letter, reproduced the original. We 
 have tried our hand at both, and do not wish to con- 
 demn ourselves by accusing the writer of the Chron- 
 icles of being either an idiot or a knave because of the 
 mistakes which are found in his work. There is open 
 before me, as I write, the first volume of Savage's Gene- 
 alogy of New England, a " very miracle of accuracy," 
 and yet there are twenty octavo pages of "additions and 
 corrections " at the end of it. How critics of the school 
 of Dr. Kuenen would revel in a volume like this ! 
 
 After the most patient and long examination of these 
 books, we find nothing which proves or even indicates 
 that their writer falsified his documents and invented 
 incidents. As far as he writes the history of his nation, 
 he writes as a priest would naturally write — relig- 
 iously. He describes the acts of the priesthood much 
 more fully than those of the civil magistrates. He 
 does not bring his history down further than the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem. The books close with the issue 
 
42 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 of the decree by Cyrus for the return of the captives, 
 536 B.C. The writer probably composed his work 
 after the return of Nehemiah, and compiled from docu- 
 ments the so-called Books of Ezra and Nehemiah as a 
 fitting appendix to his own work. We submit that 
 there is no valid reason for supposing, with Dr. Kuenen 
 and others, that the Books of Chronicles were not writ- 
 ten as early as we have stated, simply because two gen- 
 ealogies of a few names are carried down to 250 B.C. 
 These names might well have been added by a later 
 hand. It may be assumed, therefore, with large meas- 
 ure of assurance, that all the historical books included 
 in our Bible, as we now have them, were composed 
 before 400 B.C., and that they are substantially reliable 
 in their account of the affairs of the nation, both civil 
 and ecclesiastical ; that there is no evidence which 
 would be admitted for a moment in any court of jus- 
 tice that these writers were arrant knaves, forging laws 
 and falsifying history ; that an indictment based upon 
 such evidence as is adduced against the integrity and 
 ability of these waiters would be quashed by any mod- 
 ern court, or a 710L pros, would be entered by any pros- 
 ecuting attorney. 
 
 A word must be said respecting the writings which 
 treat of the affairs of the nation from the time of 
 Moses to that of David, a period, according to Dr. 
 Kuenen, of about three hundred years in round num- 
 bers, — 1300 — 1000 B.C. The Book of Joshua gives 
 an account of the conquest and division of the land of 
 Canaan among the tribes, and covers a period of about 
 thirty years. If we can rely upon a statement in chap, 
 xvi., 10, "The Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites 
 
KUENEN's religion of ISRAEL. 43 
 
 [in Gezer] unto this clay," the book must have been 
 written before the end of Solomon's reign, for we read, 
 in I. Kings ix., 16, that Pharaoh took Gezer, burned it 
 with fire, slew the Canaanites, and gave it as a present 
 to his daughter, Solomon's wife. This passage would 
 be of little value in overcoming opposing evidence, were 
 there any ; but there is none of any weight. The fre- 
 quent use of the phrase "unto this day" implies some 
 lime after the events described, but is very indefinite. 
 This Book of Joshua may have been written as early as 
 the reign of Saul. There is no internal evidence against 
 such a date for its compilation. Its subject is of the 
 conquest, the battles, and the location of the tribes upon 
 their portions of the land. No reasonable critic would 
 expect to find much, if anything, which would treat of 
 their religious manners and customs. What there is 
 said about them we shall call attention to in the proper 
 place.* If there were no allusion to anything of the 
 kind, it would not surprise us, nor should we draw the 
 astounding inference that they were a people Vv'ithout 
 a religion and without a ritual. 
 
 The Book of Judges is a very composite work ; but if 
 we may rely upon a statement, chap, i., 21, that "the 
 Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jeru- 
 salem unto this day," the book must have been written 
 before tlie conclusion of David's reign ; for we read in 
 II. Samuel, v., 6-8, that David drove the Jebusites 
 out of Jerusalem, and took the stronghold of Zion, and 
 David dwelt in it. Another passage in one of the ap- 
 pendixes of the book, chap, xviii., 30, may indicate 
 
 *See " Study of the Pentateuch," under "Quotations front Joshua^^ P^ge 
 143 of this volume. 
 
44 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 that this portion was not written till two or three centu- 
 ries afterward; for certain persons are said to have 
 served as priests to the tribe of Dan "until the day of 
 the captivity of the land," referring, apparently, to the 
 deportation of the ten tribes of Shalmaneser and Esar- 
 haddon, 721 B.C. As an apology for the lawlessness 
 and insecurity of those days the writer of the appen- 
 dixes especially calls attention to the fact that there was 
 "no king in Israel in those days" (xviii., i, and else- 
 where). The book was possibly written as illustrative 
 of the importance of a closer union of the tribes and 
 of a stronger central government, or, more probably, 
 it was the work of a curiosity hunter, who gathered the 
 traditions of the most wonderful events which had hap- 
 pened during a period of civil and foreign wars, if bor- 
 der ravages and riotous outbreaks can be called wars, 
 like the feuds of the Scottish clans, or the fights of 
 Miles Standish and Captain Church with the Indians. 
 
 * The writer was an Israelitish Cotton Mather, and his 
 book of the wonders of New England, T/iaumaturgus, 
 is the Puritan Book of Judges. No reasonable critic 
 would expect to find m.uch respecting religious affairs in 
 such a work, covering three or four centuries in sixteen 
 chapters, and devoting four of them to the exploits of 
 
 / Samson, the Israelitish Morrissey (we mean no disre- 
 spect to either champion : we make our apology to the 
 shades of both). Whatever light the book will throw 
 upon the subject we shall produce in due time.* We 
 have said enough to show that Dr. Kuenen's argument, 
 drawn from the silence of the book, is very weak, if not 
 entirely destitute of force. 
 
 •See "Study of the Pentateuch," under ''Quotations from Judges,'' page 
 141 of this volume. 
 
KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 45 
 
 The historical notices contained in I. Samuel, preced- 
 ing the anointing of David, will require but a word of 
 consideration. They were probably written by some 
 earlier writer than the author of the Books of the Kings, 
 and he may have continued the history to near the close 
 of David's reign. The style is more diffuse than that 
 of the author of Kings, and is freer from Aramaean 
 or Chaldee words. What records he used, if any, he. 
 does not inform us ; and the amount of credit which 
 we give to his narrative will depend upon the probabil- 
 ity of the events occurring under the circumstances de- 
 scribed. Very strange things happen sometimes ; and 
 this rule, therefore, must be applied with great caution 
 and modesty. Very little, if anything, respecting eccle- 
 siastical affairs would be likely to be found in a brief 
 description of the transition of the people from a state 
 of anarchy and tribal rivalship and independence to the 
 restraints of a monarchy and the authority of a central 
 government. And what little there should be found 
 would be such imperfect hints or such dissevered state- 
 ments as would aid but little in forming a correct opin- 
 ion of their religious rites and hierarchy. And if there 
 were a ritual and a priesthood and an altar prescribed, 
 it would be impossible in such stormy times to enforce 
 or enjoy its observance, "every man for himself " doing 
 what was right in his own eyes ; and, as necessity knows 
 no law, religious rites and ceremonies would be regarded 
 or disregarded as circumstances compelled or permitted. 
 If the appointed altar could not be reached, the sacri- 
 fice would be offered elsewhere ; if the appointed priest 
 could not be found, the next most worthy person would 
 officiate ; if the day appointed could not be observed, 
 
46 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 the next clay most appropriate would be chosen. Laws 
 would not be enforced, criminals would escape, crimes 
 would be winked at. Whether any evidence whatever 
 exists in these narratives of the existence of any ritual 
 or code of forms of worship will be the subject of fut- 
 ure examination.* It certainly would not disappoint a- 
 student of history to find little or nothing on the sub- 
 ject. He certainly would not decide categorically, as 
 Dr. Kuenen has done, that there was no such ecclesias- 
 tical polity in existence, because at this particular period 
 of anarchy it was in abeyance, or because in these 
 scraps of civil history and accounts of insurrections 
 it was not specially mentioned. 
 
 On the contrary, Dr. Kuenen maintains that the rit- 
 ual contained in the Pentateuch could not have been in 
 existence during this period, because no direct reference 
 is made to it by these writers, and because so much was 
 done which was in violation of it. But who does not know 
 that laws are violated, customs disregarded, rites neg- 
 lected? Who does not know that the Thirty-nine Arti- 
 cles of the Episcopal Church are Calvinistic, and that 
 its preaching is largely Arminian? Was the ritual, so 
 to speak, of the gospel less ignored by the Church 600 
 — 1000 A.D. than the ritual of the Pentateuch from 
 Joshua to Hezekiah, if you please, six centuries ? The 
 inference from comparative silence and disregard is not 
 a safe nor a sound one, where that silence can be ex- 
 plained and that disregard accounted for, as can easily 
 and satisfactorily be done during the period before us. 
 The narratives relate almost exclusively to civil affairs, 
 
 •See "Study of the Pentateuch," unrler "Quotations from Samuel,^^ page 
 136 of this volume. 
 
KUENEn's religion of ISRAEL. 47 
 
 and, for the most part, in the briefest manner ; and the 
 people were governed by passions and appetites made 
 greedy and lawless by centuries of slavery and suffer- 
 ing in the midst of the grossest idolatry, and therefore 
 spurned the restraints of law and the denial of idol- 
 worship. A people cannot be lifted in an hour or a cen- 
 tury from ignorance, brutality, and idolatry to knowl- 
 edge, refinement, and spiritual worship ; and well may 
 it have taken a millennium of struggle and failure and 
 worshipping of asheras and Baals before these degraded 
 slaves could accept a "spiritual monotheism," and burn 
 their asheras, and understand that even their own ritual 
 was an offence to God unless the heart was pure and 
 the hands clean which observed it. We will quote, as 
 we can, such authority as De Wette in support of our 
 position : " The observance or non-observance of par- 
 ticular laws, the appearance or non-appearance of par- 
 ticular legal institutions, in a certain period, can prove 
 nothing, either for or against the existence of a written 
 law book." * We submit that the silence of these books 
 respecting the existence and observance of the Mosaic 
 ritual, and the few accounts of religious observances 
 not conforming to it, are no valid proof that it did not 
 exist, especially as against the later tradition of the na- 
 tion. We shall in due time show that perfect silence 
 does not pervade these books. We are now only deal- 
 ing with Dr. Kuenen's argument. 
 
 Respecting the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah to 
 which allusion has just been made, a few words must 
 be said ; for in these very brief fragments of the con- 
 dition of the Israelites for about a century, 537 — 434 
 
 •Parker's De Wette, § 163, a. 
 
48 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 B.C., after their return from captivity, we may find 
 some evidence of Dr. Kuenen's remarkable theory. 
 He thinks he does. Let us examine the books, and 
 see what it is worth, if indeed there is any. 
 
 It is evident that the best-conditioned and most 
 religious of the captives, those to whom "Jerusalem 
 was their chief joy," would undertake the long desert 
 journey, and attempt to rebuild the city and temple, 
 and re-establish the services of the fathers. They were 
 among the most intelligent and devoted of their race, 
 and would be most solicitous to establish in its purity 
 the worship of the fathers, and to render perfect obedi- 
 ence to those laws whose violation had been visited by 
 the destruction of their city and the capiivity of its 
 citizens. The first company which went up under the 
 lead of Zerubbabel as civil governor or king, and of 
 Jeshua as high-priest and head of religious affairs, 
 were accompanied by all the servants serving in the 
 old temple worship, and carried back the vessels which 
 Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the temple and carried 
 to Babylon. There were about fifty thousand souls, — 
 men, women, and children. On arriving at Jerusalem, 
 they immediately erected an altar, and at once com- 
 menced worship in accordance with the custom of the 
 fathers, offering sacrifices " as it is written in the law of 
 Moses, the wan of God.'''' They either had with them a 
 written ritual, or they knew there was one which they 
 remembered, and which they observed. They also 
 arranged their singers after '''•the ordinance of David, 
 King of Israel,''^ showing by this act also strict regard to 
 the customs of the fathers. How Dr. Kuenen can say 
 that they did not sing, but only "hoarsely shouted," can- 
 
KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 49 
 
 not be reconciled with Ezra iii., ii, which says, "And 
 they, the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the 
 Levites, the sons of Asaph, with their cymbals, sung to- 
 gether by course in praising and giving thanks unto the 
 Lord ; because he is good, for his mercy endureth for- 
 ever toward Israel "; and so thrilled were the multitude, 
 as they heard again the old temple anthems, that they 
 "shouted with a great shout, and the noise was heard 
 afar off." There is not a shadow of evidence but that 
 all this ritual service was familiar to them, and that it 
 was observed as it was " written in the law of Moses, 
 and after the ordinance of David." Having finished 
 their temple, after twenty years' hindrance and hard 
 labor, it was dedicated by the sacrifice of "bullocks and 
 lambs and he-goats ; by the priests in their divisions, 
 and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, 
 . . . as it is written in the book of Moses T They kept 
 " the passover and the feast of unleavened bread." 
 They also "kept the feast of tabernacles, as it is 
 written; according to the custo?n, daily burnt offerings" 
 were offered. There is not the slightest hint that the 
 temple service was not continued for fifty-eight years, 
 till Ezra and his company arrived, without intermission, 
 and in accordance with the "custom" of the fathers, 
 and as "it was written in the book of Moses. ^^ 
 
 Did Ezra introduce any change ? Did he make 
 "known and impose upon the Jewish nation priestly 
 ordinances, now for the first time^^ commanded ? Were 
 rites now introduced of which Zerubbabel and Jeshua, 
 the king and high-priest, and these devoted exiles 
 kne^o nothings as Dr. Kuenen affirms ? * Let us read 
 
 * Vol. II., p. 231. 
 
5© INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 what the fragments of history preserved in the Book 
 of Ezra tell us on this subject. Ezra *' was a ready 
 scribe in the law of Moses ^ which the Lo7'd God of Israel 
 had given " (Ezra vii., 6) ; and he was a priest, great- 
 grandson of Hilkiah, who found the "book of the law" 
 in the reign of Josiah, if the genealogy is correct ; and 
 " Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the 
 Lord and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and 
 judgments." After a few days, " the princes," who 
 apparently had succeeded Zerubbabel in the govern- 
 ment, complained to Ezra, who came with authority 
 from the Persian King, that the people had intermar- 
 ried, contrary to the law, with the neighboring people. 
 Ezra at once set about a reform, and a covenant was 
 made to put away their unlawful wives. " And let it 
 be done," they said, ''^ accordijig to the law." "Some 
 of these wives had children," not all. The whole 
 number of guilty persons was one hundred and thir- 
 teen only, out of a population of over fifty thou- 
 sand. Not a great number, certainly, if we consider 
 the condition of the people and the strength of the 
 temptation. This act of Ezra is founded upon no new 
 interpretation of ^^ the law written by Moses," which had 
 been the law of the nation from the beginning; much 
 less was it a new law of Ezra's. 
 
 Nehemiah now visits Jerusalem. In his prayer for 
 guidance before he left the palace in Shushan, he con- 
 fesses that " we have not kept the commandments, nor 
 the statutes, nor the judgments, which thou com?na7idest 
 thy serva?it Moses " as if he knew no code but the old 
 code of the fathers, — the code which the returned 
 people had used for three generations, ^^ as written in 
 
KUENEn's RELIGIOJJ of ISRAEL. 51 
 
 the book of the law of Mosesy Complaint was made to 
 Nehemiah that the poor were oppressed by the " usury " 
 demanded, and some of them had lost their homes by 
 the unlawful and cruel exaction of creditors. Nehe- 
 miah was " angry, and rebuked the nobles and the 
 rulers, and directed them to leave off this usury and to 
 restore their olive yards and houses." And they prom- 
 ised under oath to do so. After some years, Ezra again 
 appears upon the stage as a teacher of the law. The 
 people felt their need of fuller instruction. He used 
 for this purpose '"'' the hook of the law of Moses, which 
 the Lord had commanded for Israel." The same book 
 evidently which Zerubbabel had used seventy years 
 before, and of which Nehemiah spoke in his prayer. 
 This old "book of the law" Ezra read and explained 
 to the people. The devout wept when they learned 
 how they had sinned. The direction to dwell in 
 "booths" in the seventh month seems to have been 
 new to them, though they had kept the " feast of the 
 tabernacles " since their return. 
 
 A farther separation takes place from " strangers." 
 In the ninth chapter, a synopsis of the history of the 
 people is given as recorded in the Pentateuch, showing 
 that the " law " which was read was supposed to have 
 had its origin at that time ; and the covenant of the 
 fathers is renewed by the children, " to walk in God's 
 law, which was given by Moses, the servant of God, and 
 to observe and do all the commandments of the 
 Lord, . . . and not to give our daughters unto the 
 people of the land, nor take their daughters for our 
 sons." And they promise to contribute to the support 
 of the Levites ^^ as it is written in the law. '^ All this is 
 
52 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 in the Pentateuch, and is not spoken of as anything 
 new. A selection of one man in ten is made by lot to 
 dwell in Jerusalem. This is new; but it has nothing 
 to do with the ritual. They further ^^read in ihe book of 
 Moses that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not 
 come into the congregation of God forever." They, 
 therefore " separated from Israel all the mixed multi- 
 tude." Nehemiah, also, reformed the acts and labors 
 of the people on the Sabbath, to conform to the 
 "custom" of the fathers. This is all. There is not 
 the slightest shade of evidence that Ezra introduced 
 an entire new code of laws, never before known, but 
 the contrary. A few new arrangements are made to 
 meet the new condition, in which the people find them- 
 selves ; but there is not a hint that anything new to 
 which they were not accustomed, save in three or four 
 instances at the most, and these unimportant, was 
 added to ''''the hook of ihe law givefi by MosesT It is 
 incredible that no breath of opposition should have 
 been felt against this code, if it had not been what it 
 claimed to be, ''''the law given by Moscs.^' It is incredi- 
 ble, if there had been any opposition on this ground, 
 that no hint of it, nor the slightest trace of it, should 
 be found in these accounts of the reorganization of 
 the national worship. T\\q very slight changes in a 
 few forms, which changed circumstances compelled, by 
 no means furnish proof or justify the suspicion that 
 the whole post-captivity code was the invention of 
 priests for selfish purposes, with Ezra at their head; 
 and that he had the hardihood to proclaim to the 
 people that it was the very "law given by Moses," and 
 " written " by him, and observed by their fathers, and 
 
KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 53 
 
 whose violation, at last, was the cause of their captivity 
 and renewed obedience to which would now make them 
 prosperous ; and that the people were so stupid as not 
 to detect the fraud and expose the deceivers, and visit 
 them with swiftest and severest punishment ; or, if 
 they did, that all record of this detection, opposition, 
 and punishment, should have been lost by accident, 
 or erased by design, from both history and prophecy. 
 That the historical books contain no evidence of such a 
 ritual-forgery palmed off upon the returned exiles, we 
 have already fully shown. Nay, more : we have shown 
 that every fragment of these annals, every shred of the 
 story, informs us that this " law " was the old law, and 
 that this ritual was the ritual of the fathers. We turn 
 now to examine the teachings of the prophets during 
 this period, to see whether Dr. Kuenen's appeal to 
 them in support of his theory is of any more value 
 than his appeal to history. Unless we utterly mistake, 
 this support wdll also prove to be a broken reed which 
 will pierce him through who leans upon it. 
 
 (i) Dr. Kuenen says " that when Ezekiel, in the 
 year 572 B.C., wrote his description of the new Israel- 
 iiish State (chaps, xl. — xlviii.), no written regulations 
 for religious worship, no complete priestly legislation, 
 yet existed." And he says further, "that no evident 
 trace of these laws, or of the spirit which they breathe, 
 is to be found in the prophecies which saw the light 
 toward the end of the captivity, — about 538 B.C.* 
 
 Ezekiel we will notice first, as being probably the 
 earliest of the group, then the later Isaiah and Zecha- 
 riah, and then Haggai and Malachi. Ezekiel was not 
 
 ♦Vol. II., p. 153. 
 
54 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 of the company carried to Babylon. He was a dweller 
 on the remote river Chebar. The description which he 
 gives (chaps, xl. — xlviii.) of the division of the land 
 among the returned exiles, whenever they should return, 
 and of the temple they would build, is purely ideal, and 
 as impracticable, should an attempt be made to make 
 it real, as the throne or chariot of the Deity which 
 he describes in chapter i. is impracticable. This Dr. 
 Kuenen admits apparently, but he will not admit that 
 Ezekiel would have given play to his imagination in 
 describing the " ritual " of his ideal temple. Why not ? 
 Was the sacrifice more sacred than the altar? Was 
 the priest's attire more holy than the " holy of holies " ? 
 Why, then, should the prophet restrain his pen in de- 
 scribing the " snuffers " and the " snuffer-trays " and 
 the *' tongs "and the robes, when he had not shrunk 
 from describing ideally the altar and the holy place? 
 The presumption is that he would not. " Why did he 
 go into these minute descriptions of the ritual, if he 
 had the Pentateuch? Wliy did he not content himself 
 with a simple reference to the Mosaic laws ? " asks 
 Dr. Kuenen. If Ezekiel was here, we have no doubt 
 he would reply, Because I was writing a poem, and 
 wished to fill out my ideal state and temple and ritual 
 in every particular. Besides, Ezekiel clings close to 
 the forms and substance contained in the Pentateuch 
 which he idealizes in his poem. Dr. Kuenen says "he 
 v/as not acquainted with the whole of the ]\Iosaic law. 
 Deuteronomy and the still older book of the covenant 
 are presupposed by him throughout, but nothing be- 
 yond these collections." Now the fact is this : by a 
 careful collation of the passages and references which 
 
KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 55 
 
 are found in Ezekiel, nearly the whole ritual as it is con- 
 tained in the Pentateuch could be obtained, Ezekiel 
 uses the whole of the ritual as it stands in the Penta- 
 teuch; that is, all which his work demanded. Could 
 space be given, we would prove it by an examination of 
 the passages quoted. It must suffice, however, to say 
 that Ezekiel shows himself to be perfectly familiar 
 with the "law of Moses" as recorded in the Penta- 
 teuch, writing in a distant part of the country, one 
 hundred and fourteen years before Ezra went up to 
 Jerusalem, and thirty-six years before the great migra- 
 tion under Zerubbabel, who had regard in offering sac- 
 rifices to what "was written in the law of Moses, the 
 man of God," and who arranged the courses of the 
 priests "as it is written in the book of Moses." * 
 
 (2) We turn to examine the support furnished to 
 Dr. Kuenen's theory by the later, or "Deutero," Isaiah. 
 This writer " lays special stress upon Jahveh^s 07ie- 
 jiess^\- he expresses most significantly his contempt 
 of false gods ; he is a strong " monotheist." There is 
 not a passage which implies the non-existence of the 
 ritual law or of the Pentateuch, but much to the con- 
 trary. He speaks of the worthlessness of the ritual 
 unless the heart is in its observance ; but this is evi- 
 dence for the existence of the ritual, and not proof 
 that it did not exist. As we shall have occasion to 
 recur to this writer again before we finish this discus- 
 sion, we waive farther examination of his work till 
 then, having said sufficient to show that Dr. Kuenen's 
 inference is unfounded.f 
 
 ♦For further proof, see " Study of the Pentateuch," under "Ezekiel,^^ p. 105. 
 t See "Study of the Pentateuch," under " Isaiah,^ ^ p. 113. 
 
56 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 (3) But a word is necessary upon the writings of 
 the later Zechariah. He was a contemporary of Zerub- 
 babel, and the numerous visions which he describes 
 assume the existence of the ritual, though no direct 
 reference is made to it. Indeed, Dr. Kuenen does not 
 appear to place much reliance upon his silence as valid 
 evidence that the ritual was not in existence, and re- 
 garded as far as the circumstances would allow. 
 
 (4) The prophet Haggai, in the brief fragment of 
 only two chapters of his writings which have come 
 down to us, uses the language of the Pentateuch, and 
 speaks of " the law," as respecting things " clean and 
 unclean." Dr. Kuenen infers from chap, ii., 11, be- 
 cause the prophet directs the people to inquire " con- 
 cerning the law " of the priests, that there were no 
 "enactments of the written law": "only a priestly 
 tradition existed." As if, because one was referred to 
 the lawyer when he inquired after the "law" on a cer- 
 tain subject, we should infer that there was no statute, 
 written law, but only the tradition of the bar. It so 
 happens that the very point inquired about is stated 
 and decided in Numbers xix., 11. Haggai furnishes 
 no support to Dr. Kuenen's theory. 
 
 (5) The brief prophecy of Malachi, who was a 
 contemporary of Nehemiah, is thought by Dr. Kuenen 
 to give support to his theory, because he shows that 
 " Ezra and Nehemiah in their attempt at reform met 
 with strong opposition." The people violated the law 
 in various ways, and some of them despised Jahveh's 
 name. But this " law " which Malachi denounces the 
 people for disregarding and violating is no forgery of 
 the priesthood and Ezra, no new ritual palmed off 
 
KUENEN'S religion of ISRAEL. 57 
 
 upon the nation by a conspiring hierarchy, Nehemiah 
 assenting and abetting, — it was none other than ^'- the 
 law of Moses ^^^ the servant of Jehovah, which God 
 ^''commanded hirii in Horcb for all Israel.^'' If Malachi 
 reproved the people, it was for transgressing the " law 
 as it was written by Moses " ; and, if the people opposed 
 Ezra and Nehemiah, it was because they enforced 
 against evil-doers ^''the law as ivritten by Moses^^^ and 
 not a fraudulent code of Ezra's. There is not a 
 shadow of evidence that any opposition arose against 
 the administration of these men because they intro- 
 duced "new laws never before heard of"; but all the 
 evidence that exists of the opposition itself as well as 
 of its cause implies or affirms that it originated in the 
 enforcement of laws v/hose violation was the cause of 
 their captivity, and whose origin was in the ancient 
 days, "/;/ Horeb,''^ <iv\d whose author ^^ was Moses ^ the 
 man of Godr 
 
 The prophetical writings of this period not only give 
 no countenance to Dr. Kuenen's theory, but they op- 
 pose it in letter as well as in spirit. 
 
 We have now examined the main reasons adduced 
 by Dr. Kuenen in support of his hypotheses of the 
 origin of the Pentateuch, as they are less frequently 
 stated than implied in these volumes. To discuss every 
 point affirmed or suggested, to challenge every state- 
 ment which is doubtful or incorrect, to expose every 
 fallacious inference from conceded facts, would de- 
 mand as many volumes as the original work. We have 
 omitted nothing vital to his argument.* 
 
 See Appendix B, page 66. 
 
58 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 Thus far in the discussion, we have been laboring at 
 a disadvantage. We have been proving a negative. 
 We have been showing that the arguments adduced by 
 Dr. Kuenen are not valid to sustain his theory of the 
 late and forged composition of the Pentateuch. The 
 positive argument for its antiquity and substantial gen- 
 uineness does not appear. Dr. Kuenen's argument in 
 support of his theory may be confuted, and yet his 
 theory may be correct. We propose, therefore, to dis- 
 cuss the question positively and affirmatively, confuting 
 his theory indirectly by an examination into the age 
 and authorship of the so-called Books of Moses di- 
 rectly and critically, as we have confuted his arguments 
 in support of it by testing their logical and historical 
 value. We gird ourselves to the work in the assurance 
 that the antiquity of the Pentateuch can be vindicated, 
 and that the Mosaic origin of most of its contents can 
 be established. 
 
APPENDIX A * 
 
 In The Bible for Learners^ by Dr. H. Oort, Professor 
 of Oriental Languages, etc., Amsterdam, and Dr. T. 
 Hooykaas, pastor at Rotterdam, with the assistance of 
 Dr. A. Kuenen, Professor of Theology at Leiden, there 
 are abundant specimens of these "flimsiest specula- 
 tions." I quote a few to justify to the reader the 
 use of such language respecting the works of this 
 school of critics. 
 
 "The tabernacle," Dr. Oort says, "never really ex- 
 isted, except in the imagination of the writer," who lived 
 after the captivity. This writer must have been infatu- 
 ated with this creation of his imagination, of " rams' 
 skins dyed red," and "badger skins," and "fine-twined 
 linen," and " loops and couplings, blue upon the edge, 
 and taches and curtains of goats' hair, and boards of 
 shittim wood, and two tenons on one board, and forty 
 sockets of silver, two sockets under one board, and bars 
 of shittim wood, five bars for the boards of the taber- 
 nacle on the one side, and five bars for the boards of 
 the tabernacle on the other side, and the middle bar in 
 the midst of the boards shall reach from end to end," 
 etc., — must have been infatuated, indeed, for he repeats 
 the wearisome, dry details in the following chapters, 
 which one has hardly patience to read once. 
 
 The "representation of the camp of the Israelites," 
 as given in the Book of Numbers, we are told " the writer 
 
 * See page 8. 
 
/ 
 
 6o INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 had invented and worked out himself." No truth is in 
 it. We must class it with the historical "lies," for there 
 is no doubt about the writer's intending that his readers 
 should believe it was a true description of the work of 
 Moses. 
 
 Dr. Oort tells " learners " that " the prophet Malachi 
 [420-450 B.C.] is the first to use the expression 'law 
 of Moses.' " Now, the title is used I. Kings ii., 3, and 
 II. Kings xxiii., 25, books acknowledged by such critics 
 as De Wette and Davidson to have been written about 
 550 B.C. And the title is also used by the writer of 
 the Book of Joshua, placed by the same critics about 
 650 B.C., or two centuries earlier than Dr. Oort admits 
 that the title was used. Dr. Oort tells " learners " that 
 ** the very name given to . . . the Mount of Sinai signi- 
 fies the moon-god." We do not say that some modern 
 critics are moon-struck, but the moon has as much in- 
 fluence on their criticism as it has on the meteorology 
 of the rustic. Gesenius (Hebrew Thesaurus^ ad verb?) 
 says Sinai signifies ^'' ititum,^^ "mire " ! Again, Dr. Oort 
 tells " learners " that " the very name of the hero himself 
 [Samson] signifies ' sun-god.' " Gesenius says it signi- 
 fies "sunlike." These assertions need no comment. 
 They admonish " learners " to choose judicious teachers, 
 and to beware of disregarding truth, as the Hebrew 
 writers are said to have done. 
 
 Dr. Oort seems disposed, at times, to give the worst 
 interpretation possible to popular phraseology. For 
 example, he says the proverb, as used in Ecclesiastes, 
 "A living dog is better than a dead lion," means, "Life, 
 though branded with infamy, is preferable to the most 
 honorable of deaths " ! The real meaning of the pro- 
 
KUENEN'S religion of ISRAEL. 6l 
 
 verb is, while there is life there is capacity, activity, 
 hope of change from misfortune and sorrow; but when 
 dead we are good for nothing, can do nothing, can hope 
 for nothing. " Infamy " is not said to be " preferable to 
 death." So base a sentiment could not be found among 
 the O jib ways. 
 
 We will take one of Dr. Oort's myths, and learn his 
 style of interpretation. Solar myths are fashionable now 
 among the critics ; and the story of Samson opens a 
 rich field for fancy to riot in, as Dr. Oort in his chapter 
 on this Plebrew athlete illustrates. He opens his criti- 
 cism with a reference to Osiris and Horos and Typhon 
 and Herakles and Balder and Loki, original solar myths ; 
 and, as the "very name " of the hero " Samson " signi- 
 fies " sun-god," the reader is admonished in the outset 
 of the solar myth to be narrated. A rhetorical descrip- 
 tion, in his own language, is given of the interview of 
 the angel and Manoah, the father of Samson. He then 
 interprets : " Samson had long hair. These long hairs 
 are rays of the sun. The angel who rises up in the 
 flame of Manoah's sacrifice signifies the glow of the 
 dawn that blazes against the heavens, and heralds the 
 approach of the sun who brings to the world fresh life." 
 This is rich, but there is richer in store. Dr. Oort gives 
 a glowing description of Samson's exploits, " killing the 
 lion," " getting honey from the carcass," and his riddle 
 about it. A very simple thing for a fellow like Samson 
 to do. Now for the mythical interpretation. The " lion" 
 is a "sign in the zodiac." "Samson rends the lion; 
 that is to say, the sun passes through the constellation 
 of that name." ..." How did sweet food, honey, pro- 
 ceed from the strong and ravenous lion ?"..." When 
 
62 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 the sun passes through the lion, the bees make their 
 combs j and, when he leaves it, the honey is ready." Is 
 not this richer? Instead of saying, what was not at all 
 improbable, that a swarm of bees had made honey in 
 the hollow, bone-covered portion of the fleshless re- 
 mains of the slain beast, we are directed to the constel- 
 lations for an "answer to the riddle. It is no wonder 
 that the Philistines did not guess the riddle, and it is a 
 wonder that Samson was such a fool as to think they 
 did when they did not ; for they only thought of the 
 real beast : they had no zodiacal signs in mind. 
 
 Now for the story of the jackals (foxes), tied " tail 
 to tail, with a burning torch between them," and sent 
 among the Philistines' wheat all ready to harvest, which 
 so provoked them that they followed him to Lehi, where 
 he was delivered up by his friends, who feared the ven- 
 geance of the Philistines, bound with two new ropes. 
 But, when the Philistines shouted and came upon him, 
 he snapped the ropes, and seized the jaw-bone of an 
 ass, and slew them by the thousand ; and they fled ; 
 and, when he was thirsty, he cried to Yahweh, and 
 ''God split the hollow of the jaw-bone, and water 
 flowed out from it to drink." One word of criticism 
 before proceeding to give the mythical interpretation 
 of this exploit. The water did not flow from the 
 hollow in the jaw-bone of the ass, used by Samson in 
 beating off the Philistines, but from a hollow, a spring, 
 in Lehi, the place where the squabble was. Now, the 
 Hebrew word Lehi signifies "jaw"; and Dr. Oort 
 thinks the Lehi where the spring of water was was 
 the jaw-bone of the ass, and not the place Lehi. Our 
 translators made a mistake in translating the name: 
 
KUENEN'S religion of ISRAEL. 6;^ 
 
 "But God clave a hollow place that was in the jaw," 
 when they should have said, " a hollow place that was 
 in Lehi." There was a spring of water in that place, 
 Lehi, which Samson found and drank from. This is all. 
 
 But it is time to give Dr. Oort's mythical interpreta- 
 tion. In "the reddish-brown jackals, with torches be- 
 tween their tails, we easily recognize the lurid thunder- 
 clouds, from the projecting points [tails .''] of which 
 lightning flashes seem to dart." "When he has tri- 
 umphed over his foes, the sun-god no longer uses the 
 thunder-cloud as a weapon, but makes the rain pour 
 out of it. This explains why Samson threw away his 
 weapon after the victory, and that a spring rose from 
 the hollow of the jaw-bone." This is certainly richer 
 still ! 
 
 Patience ! But one more specimen remains. Samson 
 loses his locks by the betrayal of Delilah, and grinds 
 in the mill of the Philistines, among the women. His 
 hair grows again ; he is taken out to make sport for the 
 curious multitude, who so pile the roof of the building 
 that, by a push upon a couple of its pillars, it fell, and 
 killed many besides Samson. All very probable and 
 intelligible, and substantially true, past all reasonable 
 question. Now for the solar-myth interpretation. Los- 
 ing his locks in the winter months, "the sun-god is 
 gradually encompassed by his enemies, mist and dark- 
 ness. He loses all his power and glory. Gradually 
 his strength returns, and at last he reappears, . . . and, 
 in the end, triumphs over his enemies once more. This 
 final victory is represented by the scene in the Temple 
 of Dagon." The sun dies every year, and comes to life 
 again ; but " Samson was buried between Zorah and 
 
64 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 Eshtahol, in the burying-place of Manoah, his father," 
 and we hear no more of him. Such is the interpreta- 
 tion of the stories of the Bible commended to " learn- 
 ers." It is true that this is the most extravagant one of 
 all that have come under my observation ; but the only 
 reason why others are not as extravagant seems to be 
 that no others furnish such opportunity for the revels of 
 imagination. If this is criticism, what would be trav- 
 esty? 
 
 An instance of the way the author has of charging 
 the Hebrew writers with disregard of truth, and of fal- 
 sifying their own records, is found in his account of the 
 story of Korah.* " A later priest," he says, " who ac- 
 cepted the story as historical, was sadly perplexed by 
 the fact that Korah's family not only still existed, but 
 was held in high honor. He therefore took the liberty 
 of making a note to the effect that Korah's children did 
 not perish with him (Numbers xxvi., 1 1), thereby contra- 
 dicting the story itself, which expressly says that both 
 he and his were destroyed " (Numbers xvi., 32). Now, 
 the original account does not say that the children of 
 Korah were swallowed up. It does not even say that 
 Korah was swallowed up. It says that " Dathan and 
 Abiram came out and stood in the door of their tents, 
 and their wives and their sons and their little children ; 
 . . . and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed 
 them up, and their houses, and all the men that apper- 
 tained to Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that 
 appertained to thc7n, went down alive into the pit." . . . 
 Not a word is said that Korah was there with Dathan 
 and Abiram when the earth opened. It is ftowhere said 
 
 •Vol. II., page 523. 
 
KUENEN'S religion of ISRAEL. 65 
 
 that Korah or his children were swallowed up. It is 
 nowhere said that Korah, himself, was killed, either by 
 the opening of the earth or by the "fire that came out 
 from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty 
 men that offered incense " " at the door of the taberna- 
 cle of the congregation." But, as Moses had told Ko- 
 rah the day before to be present with his company at 
 that place, it is a fair inference that he was one of the 
 two hundred and fifty who were "consumed by fire from 
 the Lord at the door of the tabernacle," while Dathan 
 and Abiram and their families were swallowed up in 
 another part of the camp, where were the tents of 
 Reubenites. So far is it, therefore, from being true 
 that Hebrew writers " concerned themselves very little 
 with the question whether what they narrated really 
 happened so or not," that they excelled, in accuracy of 
 writing and scrupulous regard to facts, some of their 
 modern readers and commentators. 
 
APPENDIX B * 
 
 Some of Dr. Kuenen's affirmations are too important 
 to be passed by in entire silence. 
 
 (I.) Dr. Kuenen affirms (Vol. II., p. 299) "that the 
 Deuteronomist considers all Levites, without distinc- 
 tion, qualified to fill the priestly office," and "that a 
 reconciliation of Deuteronomy with Exodus — Numbers 
 is not to be thought of." This, he affirms, is certain 
 "from Deuteronomy X., 8, 9; and xviii., 1-8, where he 
 [the Deuteronomist] expresses himself quite unambigu- 
 ously." ..." He directly contradicts them [Exodus — 
 Numbers] . . . and expressly allows (Deuteronomy 
 xviii., 6, 7) that which, according to the priestly law- 
 giver (Numbers xviii., 3), is punished with death. 
 
 We take distinct issue with Dr. Kuenen on this 
 point. In Deuteronomy xviii., 6, 7, we read, "If a Le- 
 vite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel where 
 he sojourned, and come with all the desire of his mind 
 unto the place which the Lord shall choose, there he 
 shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all 
 his brethren i he Levites do, which stand before the Lord." 
 Now what says Numbers xviii., 2,3? "And thy 
 [Aaron's] brethren of the tribe of thy father, bring 
 them with thee, that . . . they may minister unto thee ; 
 but thou and thy sons with thee shall minister before the 
 tabernacle of 7mt?iess, and they shall keep thy charge and 
 the charge of all the taber7iacle ; only they shall not come 
 
 * See page 57. 
 
KUENEN's religion of ISRAEL. 67 
 
 nigh the vessels of the sa7ictiiary and the altar, that 
 neither they, nor ye also, die." And further on in this 
 chapter many specific duties of the Levites, as distin- 
 guished from those of the priests, are enumerated. 
 Where, we ask with emphasis, does Numbers "ex- 
 pressly contradict " Deuteronomy ? What does Deu- 
 teronomy "expressly allow" which Numbers "pun- 
 ishes with death ".? Both direct that Levites may serve 
 at the tabernacle. Numbers specifying their duties, 
 Deuteronomy only saying that the persons specified 
 '''should serve as all the Levites do " / that is, as directed 
 in Numbers. We renew our question with stronger 
 emphasis. Where is the "direct contradiction ".? 
 
 Now let us examine \\\q first affirmation that ^''all'LQ- 
 vites, without distinction, [were] qualified to fill the 
 priestly office," according to Deuteronomy viii., 9 ; 
 xviii., 1-8. We have already quoted the important 
 portion of the latter passage, and have only to remark 
 that all attempts to build up a theory of the Jewish 
 priesthood and the identity of the office of the priest 
 and the Levite, because of the use of the phrase, "The 
 priests, the Levites," are futile. All priests were Le- 
 vites, but "(^//" Levites were not qualified for priests; 
 and this idiomatic phrase proves only that priests 
 were Levites. A critical examination of this Hebrew 
 idiom would take too much space, and lead us into 
 details too dr)^ and minute to interest our readers ; and 
 we refer them to the constructio asyndeta of the Hebrew 
 grammars. We turn, therefore, to notice the other 
 passage, which proves that ''^// Levites, without dis- 
 tinction, [were] qualified to fill the priestly office," 
 Deuteronomy x., 8, 9. It reads thus: "At that time 
 
68 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 [at Mount Sinai] 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. Wherefore Levi hath no part 
 nor inheritance with his brethren ; the Lord is his in- 
 heritance, according as the Lord thy God promised 
 him." What is there in this passage to show that 
 "all"' Levites were or might be priests? Not a line. 
 The duty of the tribe of Levi is specified in the briefest 
 manner, including the service of both priests and Le- 
 vites, into which two classes the tribe is elsewhere said 
 to be divided. " The reconciliation of Deuteronomy 
 with Exodus — Numbers is not to be thought of," 
 therefore, only because there is nothing to reconcile. 
 Where there is no contradiction, there is no demand 
 for conciliation. Dr. Kuenen's inference, therefore, 
 that, since the Deuteronomist makes no distinction 
 between the priest and Levite, he must have written 
 before the " priestly ritual " of Exodus — Numbers and 
 of Ezra was composed, is without support. Dr. Kuenen 
 has mistaken an eddy for the current.* 
 
 (n.) Dr. Kuenen says again (Vol. II., p. ii6), 
 " Ezekiel is the first to desire other rules [than that 
 all Levites might officiate as priests] /^r the future : 
 after the return of Israel to her native land, ' the sons 
 of Zadok ' shall be the only lawful priests." But it is 
 evident from the context (Ezekiel xliv., lo-xlv.) that 
 
 *The statement, Unitarian Revieio, Nov. 1880, p. 937, that, "before this 
 captivity, the terms ' jDriest ' and ' Levite ' are synonymous," is incorrect, as shown 
 "(III.)" ; and another writer echoes Kueren's statement to the same effect, and 
 further informs us that Kuenen " revised his whole scheme of Israel's history " 
 on account of this supposed synonymousiiess (f '"piiest" and "Levite." A 
 pyramid on its apex, surely. See " The Levitical Priests," by Curtis, 
 
KUENEN's religion of ISRAEL. 69 
 
 Ezekiel had reference in this passage to the Levites, 
 and priests of the family of Aaron, who had served at 
 the altars of false gods in the reigns of Hezekiah and 
 Tosiah, and who had thus forfeited their claim to their 
 official position ; and as the " sons of Zadok " only of 
 the family of Aaron remained loyal to Jehovah, they 
 alone could officiate as priests. The most sacred ser- 
 vices of the temple could be performed by them alone. 
 Ezekiel desires no new rule. He only enforces an old 
 one that those who forsake Jehovah and serve at the 
 altars of false gods shall not serve at his altar. Dr. 
 Kuenen is betrayed into this error by his not seeing 
 that the priests are sometimes' spoken of as Levites of 
 whom they formed a part when the writer refers to the 
 position and duties of the tribe as a body. And while 
 in some instances it must be confessed that the sacred 
 writers are not so clear as is desirable, yet nothing but 
 an " assumed " theory could have led the author so far 
 astray. 
 
 (III.) Again, Dr. Kuenen says (Vol. I., p. 325), "In 
 David's days, no one thought of either the descendants 
 of Aaron or the Levites being the only persons compe- 
 tent to discharge the functions of priests." This is a 
 remarkable statement to make, when not the name of 
 a person acting as priest is mentioned who is not a 
 descendant of Aaron. The legitimate inference is that, 
 where names are not mentioned, the " priests " who 
 are officiating at the altar are the posterity of Aaron. 
 Priests and their services are mentioned frequently 
 during the reign of David by the writer of the Books 
 of Samuel and Kings, and not a hint is given that they 
 are not Aaronic. 
 
 (IV.) Dr. Kuenen says (Vol. I., p. 208): " /« the 
 
70 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 eighth century B.C., the prophet of Jahveh has become a 
 writer. ... It does not appear that the older prophets . . . 
 thought of writing down what they had spoken." Yet 
 we read that the " acts of David and Solomon," in the 
 ninth and tenth centuries B.C., were "written by Na- 
 than, the prophet," and also "in the visions of Iddo, 
 the seer," and also in "the book of the prophet Gad, 
 David's seer" (I. Chronicles xxix., 29; II. Chronicles 
 ix., 29). The only marvel is that so much, not that so 
 little, of the early miscellaneous literature of the He- 
 brews was preserved, when we remember the fortune 
 of that people. 
 
 (V.) Dr. Kuenen says (Vol. I., p. 273), " Probably 
 not one of the Psalms is from David's hand." So 
 destructive a critic as Hitzig claims that he WTote ten 
 certainly, perhaps more. And Ewald claims fifteen, 
 and probably several others. Davidson claims still 
 more. So does Eichorn, and Dr. Noyes, also. A 
 dozen eminent Hebrew scholars might be named who 
 believe that David wrote from twenty to eighty of the 
 Psalms ; but it is not necessary. Every student of 
 the Hebrew Scriptures knows them. But general 
 readers are widely and sadly misled by such state- 
 ments, and judicious, reliable scholars do not make 
 them. 
 
 (VI.) Dr. Kuenen is very confident that he can 
 pick out the portions of the "Book of Origins," or the 
 Elohim document, from Exodus — Numbers ; and he 
 confides in the accuracy of his dissection with an assur- 
 ance which is surprising to one who has made the sub- 
 ject a study. The fact is, no confidence can be placed 
 in any of these attempts to find and define the sup- 
 posed documents of which some writers affirm that 
 
KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 7 1 
 
 these books are composed. We have given the subject 
 a careful and most minute study, and we say without 
 hesitation that all these attempts are abortive. Some 
 specimens will be given taken from Kuenen (Vol. IL, 
 p. 163 — ). "Exodus xii., 1-23, 28, 37 (?), 40-51, are 
 from his [Elohist's] hand." Now, this writer calls the 
 Supreme Being, in Hebrew, Elohim, God, as distin- 
 guished from the later writer who calls the Supreme 
 Being, in Hebrew, Jehovah, Lord. This is a "chief 
 characteristic " of his style. In this passage, quoted 
 by Dr. Kuenen as written by the Elohist, the name 
 " Jehovah " is used fifteen times and " Elohim " not 
 oiice. In another passage, " Exodus xxv., 1 ; xxxi., 
 17," Jehovah is used forty times and Elohim but three 
 times. Theodore Parker says, " 1 would rather con- 
 sider the whole passage as Jehovistic." Again, " Exo- 
 dus xxxv.-xL," Jehovah is used thirty-three times and 
 Elohim 07ice. Theodore Parker says, " To me, this 
 passage seems Jehovistic throughout." Again, "Le- 
 viticus viii.-x.," Jehovah is used forty times, Elohim 
 7iot once. Again, "Numbers xv.-xix.," Jehovah is 
 used fifty-seven times and Elohim twice. Once more, 
 " Numbers xxvi.-xxxi.," Jehovah is used fifty-two A 
 times and Elohim but once. It is not necessary to ex- 
 tend this note further. The "chief characteristic " of 
 the Elohim document almost entirely disappears in the 
 passages attributed to the Elohist writer by Dr. Kue- 
 nen, and the " chief characteristic " of the Jehovistic 
 writer is found in them. This is sufficient to show the 
 fallacy of the whole criticism ; for, if the " chief char- . 
 acteristic " of one of the theoretical documents is found y\ 
 to be almost universally used in the other in practice, 
 either the theory or the practice is sadly at fault. 
 
A STUDY (IF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The Pentateuch, as well as other writings claiming a 
 high antiquity, has been made to pass the fiery ordeal 
 of criticism since the revival of Oriental learninsf, and, 
 like not a few of them, has been denied the venerable 
 age which had before been awarded to it. I do not 
 complain that these writings have been tried in so puri- 
 fying a fire. Nor will I complain that there has been 
 some rashness manifested in this process of purification, 
 since, in all first attempts, more or less imperfection 
 must exist. But I have no doubt that it will be found 
 in the end, after thorough scholarship and laborious re- 
 search have done their work, that many of those writ- 
 ings, whose antiquity has been denied, will again be in- 
 stalled in their original places of reverence and age. 
 The tendency is in that direction, even at this time; 
 and it will grow stronger and stronger as the discoveries 
 of scholars in the ruins of the ancient cities sive deci- 
 sive evidence of the general, and sometimes minute, ac- 
 curacy of the accounts which these books contain, and 
 of a literature as abundant, as various, and as copious 
 as is found in the Pentateuch. 
 
 There was a time, and it is not long since, when the 
 history of Herodotus was looked upon as largely myth- 
 
76 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 ical, as composed of " tales imposed upon the credulity 
 of the Father of History " ; but almost every modern 
 discovery goes to confirm the general accuracy of He- 
 rodotus, and convict the incredulity of his critics. The 
 same is true of other ancient documents, and frag- 
 ments of documents, which have come down to our- 
 day. Thorough modern research seems to be fast con- 
 firming the old opinion respecting the antiquity and 
 authenticity of the writings which claim to be the work 
 of ancient men. 
 
 The Old Testament writings have shared to some 
 extent the fate of the writings of Herodotus and other 
 ancient authors. Their historical parts have been put 
 to the test of criticism, and have been declared want- 
 ing. But recent discoveries and more thorough exam- 
 ination are confirming their general accuracy, and win- 
 ning back to them a continually increasing portion of 
 the confidence which they formerly commanded. Es- 
 pecially is tliis true of the Pentateuch. The writings 
 of Moses, as they are usually called, have been sub- 
 jected to the closest scrutiny by the most profound 
 scholars. Perhaps no work claiming its origin in re- 
 mote antiquity has passed through such an ordeal, and 
 with such various results. In the first instance, a very 
 modern date was given to it. The age of Ezra was 
 reported by some as that in which it first saw the light. 
 The date of its origin has, however, been receding ; and 
 generally an antiquity considerably higher is now con- 
 ceded to it by most of the same school of critics. 
 
 But it is not my purpose to write a history of the 
 progress of criticism upon the age and authenticity of 
 the Pentateuch. I have made these remarks to notify 
 
INTRODUCTION. 77 
 
 my readers of the present tendency of that kind of 
 criticism, which has been, by some defenders of the 
 ancient records, styled " destructive," that they may be 
 better able to appreciate the force of the arguments 
 which I propose to adduce in this study, to show that 
 the Pentateuch is of the age of Moses; that there are 
 reasons, by no means without weight, for the opinion 
 that the first five books of the Old Testament, called 
 the Pentateuch, were in the main compiled and written 
 either by Moses himself or by one or more of his 
 contemporaries, perhaps under his direction, or, at the 
 latest, by his immediate successors. It is no part of 
 my plan to prove the authenticity of these books, — the 
 truth of the statements made in them, — though inci- 
 dentally I shall touch that subject. My object is a 
 single and simple one. I wish to present the reasons 
 which have induced many of the most eminent schol- 
 ars and the great mass of believers, so far as they have 
 had reasons to give for their belief, for attributing the 
 Pentateuch to an author or authors of the Mosaic Age. 
 Nor do I propose to show or maintain that these writ- 
 ings have come down to us without damage, in their 
 original state precisely, I shall assume that they have 
 met with the same fate in their transmission to our 
 age which has befallen all other ancient writings. 
 Nor shall I claim for them any inspiration, in any sense 
 of that word. I shall examine them as I would any 
 other writings of antiquity. 
 
 I propose this only as my theme, — to examine the 
 evidence of the origin and age of the first five books 
 in our Bible, commonly called the Pentateuch. I call 
 this essay a Study, because it is the result of my own 
 
78 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 personal investigation extending over a period ap- 
 proaching half a century, and during a portion of 
 which time my duty as teacher at Meadville required 
 me to read the Pentateuch, as well as the rest of the 
 Hebrew literature contained in the Old Testament, 
 annually with the students ; and nothing has surprised 
 or pained me more of late years than the careless facil- 
 ity with which even men having the reputation of 
 scholarship copy and adopt the statements of others, 
 especially if they have come over the sea, without ver- 
 ifying them ; and are not only led far astray themselves, 
 which would be little, but they lead far astray multi- 
 tudes of others who confide in them, just as if they 
 were authority, and knew themselves, by their own 
 studies, whereof they affirm. The credulous, confiding 
 public is flooded with books and pamphlets written 
 without knowledge and published without thought. It 
 is a very easy thing to do to rewrite a dry, dull book 
 into a fresh and attractive one, and to scatter broadcast 
 in volume or pamphlet, in essay or sermon, the crude, 
 wild, baseless theories and hypotheses of persons who, 
 like the old Athenians, have nothing to do but to tell 
 some new thing, or startle men with some astonishing 
 discovery, or mortify them with some bold irreverence. 
 No responsibility seems to be felt for the influence of 
 opinions, and little regard is paid oftentimes to truth. 
 There is hot haste to get every new hypothesis, the 
 last guess, before the public. It goes up like a rocket, 
 fizzing and sparkling, to the admiration of the on-look- 
 ers, but soon grows dim, fades away, disappears, and 
 disappoints. 
 
 No such charge as haste or want of care can be 
 
INTRODUCTION. 79 
 
 attributed to the preparation and publication of this 
 Study. Want of skill, want of knowledge, may be its 
 vital, fatal defects. Had I known more, I should have 
 escaped my errors ; had I delayed publication longer, 
 I might have been wiser, and not have printed my con- 
 clusions. But such as I have, after these long years 
 of inquiry, I give, in the hope that my contribution to 
 this branch of Biblical criticism will not be wholly in 
 vain. 
 
 Before entering upon the examination of the subject 
 in hand, however, it will be necessary to give an outline 
 of the construction and contents of the work which we 
 are to examine, that the course of our inquiry may be 
 clearly understood. The Pentateuch is composed of 
 a sketch of the lives of the three great ancestors of 
 the Hebrew people, — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Gen- 
 esis xii.-l., — preceded by a sketch of the creation and 
 the flood, and genealogies of the descendants of Adam 
 in the line of Abraham to him (Genesis i.-xi.) ; and 
 followed, after an interval of centuries, with an account 
 of the residence of the Hebrews in Egypt and their 
 escape from bondage to Mount Sinai (Exodus i.-xix.). 
 All this is historical, and, excepting what is in Exodus, 
 relates to what transpired before the birth of Moses, 
 and may have been the work of some other person, 
 even after his death. Nor is it probable that what is / 
 contained in Exodus up to the twentieth chapter was J 
 written by him. Nor by any one else was it written at ' 
 the time the events recorded took place, and 7nay 
 not have been written for a century or more after- 
 ward. Moses and all the other leaders were too 
 busily engaged in rescuing the people from the Egyp- 
 
8o A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 tians, and providing for their wants and organizing them 
 into some orderly body, to undertake any literary 
 / labors. The laws given and the ritual prescribed and 
 yj the place of worship erected, and its furniture, and the 
 priest's duties and garments, are described and re- 
 corded. (Exodus XX. — Numbers x., lo). This portion 
 was written as the laws were given and as the events 
 transpired, day by day, at Sinai. Whatever is written 
 respecting their wanderings, till they arrived on the east- 
 ern bank of the Jordan (Numbers x., ii-xxxvi.), was 
 written as the events took place, either by Moses or 
 by his scribe, or by both. The closing addresses by 
 Moses, and the amendments and additions to the laws 
 contained in them, were written by Moses himself or 
 under his direction, by his scribes (Deuteronomy i.- 
 xxxi.). There is no conclusive internal evidence that 
 he did not compose the song contained in the thirty- 
 second chapter, and the blessings in the thirty-third ; but 
 some other hand of course gave the account of his 
 death and burial in the thirty-fourth chapter. The 
 whole Pentateuch, however, was written before any 
 other books that have come down to us, as the style, 
 the " archaic language," shows, and will be illustrated 
 hereafter. 
 
 This inquiry respecting the origin and age of the 
 Pentateuch may be pursued, if one pleases, as a purely 
 literary one ; for the Mosaic dispensation is not ours, 
 nor is the Law our rule of life. Whatever may jDrove 
 true in regard to the Pentateuch, our relations to God, 
 to Christ, and to man, are unchanged. Whether the 
 Law was of human or of divine origin, we are, as 
 Christians, to obey Christ, and accept the " substance," 
 
INTRODUCTION. 8 1 
 
 of which the Law, at the best, was only a " shadow." 
 As a purely literary inquiry, therefore, I shall discuss 
 them. 
 
 Three distinct questions present themselves for con- 
 sideration in opening our inquiry : Is the Pentateuch 
 as old as the time of Moses? Is Moses its author? 
 Does it contain a reliable account of the revelation 
 which God made to the Jews ? The first of these ques- 
 tions may be answered in the affirmative, and yet both 
 the others be answered in the negative. The first two 
 may be answered in the affirmative, and the last in the 
 negative. The second may be answered in the nega- 
 tive, and the first and last in the affirmative. We can 
 suppose Moses wrote the book and wrote incorrectly. 
 We can suppose it to be of the Mosaic Age, and yet 
 not written by him. We can suppose that, though not 
 written by him, it contains the truth. 
 
 In this Study, I propose to examine and answer only 
 the first question : Is the Pentateuch as old as the time 
 of Moses ? The inquiry will be divided into two / 
 parts : (i) the historical indications of the existence of the 
 book ; and (2) the evidetice to be derived fro7n its internal 
 cha?'acter, — or the external and internal evidence. I 
 shall commence with the former. 
 
PART I. 
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 In tracing the historical references to this work, we 
 must have regard to the character of the writings in 
 which the references are contained, and to the state of 
 mind which the people were in to whom these writings 
 were addressed. Where a people are well acquainted 
 with a book, the references to it will be incidental 
 rather than direct, implied rather than expressed. The 
 Pentateuch, in the time of our Saviour, was so well 
 known that it was not necessary to be definite in de- 
 scribing the book when references were made to it. 
 The copy used, the page from which the quotation was 
 taken, or to which reference was made, were not stated. 
 The writer or speaker thought he had been sufficiently 
 explicit if he had said " The Law " or " The Law of 
 Moses" or "The Book of the Law." More frequently 
 in that age, the Pentateuch was called only " The Law." 
 Let us, then, trace back from this period, in which the 
 Pentateuch was undeniably called " The Law " when 
 reference was made to it, indications of its existence in 
 still earlier periods. And if we find references made 
 to "The Law "and to ''The Book of the Law" and 
 to " The Law of Moses " and to " The Law of the 
 Lord," we are bound to infer, unless overpowering 
 reasons to the contrary can be given, that the Penta- 
 teuch is the book referred to j and especially are we 
 
FROM CHRIST TO MALACHI. 83 
 
 bound to infer this, if quotaiioiis are made from the 
 book referred to which are contained in the Pentateuch 
 as we now have it, or as it existed at the time tlie quo- 
 tations were made. Tliese statements, if reduced to 
 a canon of criticism, would give the following law of 
 historical inquir}^, which I believe to be correct; 
 namely, if we find that an ancient book is referred to, in 
 all later works ^ by the name which is now give?t to it, and 
 that references are 7?iade to if, and that quotatioJis are 
 made from its contents, such substa7itially as we now find 
 in it^ then the proper, the necessary conclusio?i is that the 
 book is the same as that which we possess. ^'ffju'c^-s A'/?.^wt*--c 
 
 This law of historical criticism I intend to apply to 
 this inquiry respecting the antiquity of the Pentateuch 
 in substantially the same form as that in which it existed 
 in the time of Christ, I propose to go back, step by 
 step, examining all the writings relating to the subject 
 which have come down to our time, that we may learn 
 whether they refer to the " Book of Moses," and, if so, 
 in what manner. If we find such a book alluded to, 
 named, quoted from, in the writings which have come 
 down to us from the Jewish people, then the conclusion 
 is that the book is at least as old as any of these writ- 
 ings, just as a traveller who has ascended the Nile from 
 Alexandria to its outflow from a lake in central Africa 
 would be sure he had found its source. 
 
 SECTION I. FROM CHRIST TO MALACHI. 
 
 I begin with the first Book of Esdras, which was 
 probably written a short time before the birth of Christ. 
 It speaks of the " Book of Moses," of " The Law of 
 Moses," of "The Law of the Lord," and of "The 
 
84 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Law." That in the last instance a book is meant is 
 clear from the rest of the passage: after Esdras had 
 brought " The Law of Moses," " When he had opened 
 the LaWy they stood up " (ix., 46). 
 
 The first Book of Maccabees was written about one 
 hundred years before Christ. " The Book of the Law " 
 is spoken of (iii., 48), and " The Law " is ver}' fre- 
 quently alluded to in it. The Book of Ecclesiasticus 
 was written about a century before the Book of Macca- 
 bees, according to the more probable opinion. In this, 
 we find reference to "The Law which Moses com- 
 manded" (xxiv., 23), to "The Book of the Covenant of 
 the Most High God," to "The Law of God," and to 
 "The Law" very frequently. The translator of this 
 book, who lived about seventy years later, speaks of 
 "The Law," referring to the Pentateuch, five times in 
 his short preface. One hundred years earlier than this 
 book was written, the Septuagint translation was made ; 
 and, one hundred years before the Septuagint translation 
 was made, the Samaritan Pentateuch was in existence. 
 How much earlier than this it existed, 1 do not now at- 
 tempt to decide. But that it existed as early as four 
 hundred years before Christ there is no good reason to 
 doubt. I have now gone back to the time of the 
 Prophet Malachi. From his time down to the time of 
 the son of Sirach, who composed the Book of Ecclesi- 
 asticus, we have probably no Jewish writings. 
 
 What they were accustomed to call the Pentateuch, 
 when they referred to it by name, we cannot tell. It 
 was in existence during this period we know ; for the 
 Septuagint translation was made, and the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch was in existence. Back to the time of Mai- 
 
FROM MALACHI TO EZRA. 
 
 achi, it is very easy to trace the use of the Pentateuc.x 
 as it existed in the time of Christ. There can be no 
 mistake respecting it. 
 
 SECTION II. FROM MALACHI TO EZRA. 
 
 Let us now examine the books which are extant which 
 were written after the return from the captivity, or rather 
 those which ^/W an account of the nation after its return 
 from the captivity to the time of Malachi; for I will 
 omit a consideration of the testimony of the Books of 
 Chronicles for the present. The prophecies of Mala- 
 chi, Zechariah, and Haggai, and the histories contained 
 in Ezra and Nehemiah, cover a period of about one 
 hundred and fifty years, extending back to five hundred 
 and thirty-two years before Christ. Malachi exhorts the 
 people to " remember the Law of Moses." He accuses 
 the priests of being " partial in the Law," and of caus- 
 ing many to stumble at "The Law," and teHs them that 
 the people should seek " The Law " at the mouth of the 
 priest (iv., 4 ; ii., 7, 8, 9). Haggai is directed by the 
 Lord to ask the "priest concerning the Law" (ii., 11). 
 Zechariah accuses the people of making "their hearts 
 as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the Law " 
 (vii., 12). The particular sins of which these prophets 
 reproach the people are violations of precepts contained 
 in the Pentateuch, and the virtues which they approve 
 are founded on obedience to the laws found in it. 
 
 But we find much more distinct reference to the Pen- 
 tateuch in the Books of Nehemiah and Ezra than in 
 these poetical books. In the eighth chapter of the 
 Book of Nehemiah there is a very full account of "The 
 Book of the Law of Moses." A summary may be given 
 
86 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 in a few words, in which the various names by which 
 this book was called may be included. The people 
 spake to " Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law 
 of Moses, . . . and he brought the Law . . . and read 
 therein, . . . and the ears of all the people were atten- 
 tive unto the Book of the Law. . . . And Ezra opened 
 the Book," and he appointed many others who "caused 
 the people to understand the Law. ... So they read in 
 the Book of the Law of God distinctly. . . . And the 
 people wept when they heard the words of the Law. . . . 
 Also he read in the Book of the Law of God." In the 
 tenth chapter, we read of " God's law given by the hand 
 of Moses," and of that which " is written in the Law." 
 In the thirteenth chapter, it is said, "They read in the 
 Book of Moses." These passages show us most clearly 
 that this book was called by different names, and that 
 one of them was simply " The Law." The passages 
 quoted in Nehemiah from " The Book of the Law " are 
 found in the Pentateuch. Indeed, the Samaritan Pen- 
 tateuch was nearly contemporaneous with Nehemiah, as 
 some of the ablest critics contend, if it does not date 
 back many years earlier, as is not improbable, to say the 
 least of it. 
 
 The Book of Ezra, which contains a history of a still 
 earlier period, is equally clear and explicit in its refer- 
 ences to the Book of Moses. It is said that they " of- 
 fered burnt-offering, as it is written in the Law of Mo- 
 ses " (iii., 2) ; that they " set the priests, ... as it is 
 written in the Book of Moses" (vi., 18). We read that 
 Ezra was a "ready scribe in the Law of Moses," and 
 that he "prepared his heart to seek the 'Law of the 
 Lord " (vii., 6, 10). Strange wives are said to have been 
 
FROM THE CAPTIVITY TO DAVID. 87 
 
 put away, according to "The Law " (x., 3). This Ezra, 
 a learned scribe in "The Law," is said, in the history 
 which gives an account of his deeds, to have instructed 
 the people in the Law, and to have established the wor- 
 ship as required by the Law. He is evidently fully hon- 
 ored in the book ; but the greatest work which tradition 
 attributes to him is not alluded to, not hinted at in the 
 most remote manner. I refer to the work of recovering 
 the Law, and putting in order its commands, after they 
 had been lost during the captivity. Of this work, noth- 
 ing is said, nothing is hinted. " The Book of the Law " 
 is spoken of as something in existence, not as something 
 which Ezra composed or compiled or found. Whatever 
 may have been its origin, Ezra was not its author. And, 
 should there be no evidence of its existence before the 
 time of Ezra or before the captivity, it would still be true 
 that we have not a shadow of historical evidence that 
 Ezra was the author of the book, but, rather, most abun- 
 dant evidence should we have to the contrary. The 
 quotations which are made from this "Book of the 
 Law" are taken from the Pentateuch as we now have 
 it; and the historical proof is strong that he read to the 
 people the book which has come down to us. So far, 
 the historical notices of the book are all that could be 
 expected under the circumstances. No work of so high 
 antiquity has come down to us with so good evidence of 
 its genuineness. 
 
 SECTION III. FROM THE CAPTIVITY TO DAVID. 
 
 A broader field now opens before us, and more diffi- 
 cult to traverse. Are there any traces of the existence 
 of this book at an earlier period t Are there any refer- 
 
88 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 ences to such a work in the earlier writings of the Jew- 
 ish nation, or in writings of the period of Ezra which 
 relate to the earlier times of the people ? This is the 
 question which is now to be answered. 
 
 Before proceeding to answer the question proposed, 
 however, it is necessary to notice a few particulars 
 touching the writings which have come down to us. 
 They may be divided into two classes, the poetical 
 and the historical. Respecting the latter class, little, 
 or nothing need be said by way of explanation. In 
 poetical books, we do not expect such explicit refer- 
 ences to books, especially to those which are familiar 
 to us, as in prose compositions. How few references 
 to the New Testament of such a nature as you will see 
 in a librarian's catalogue, or a critic's treatise, will you 
 find in all the poetical works in the English language ! 
 Even in our sacred poetry, no such specific titles of 
 the New Testament are found. " God in the gospel of 
 his Son" is, I think, the most specific reference in one 
 of our hymn-books. And, even in sermons, it is not 
 often that book and chapter and verse are referred to. 
 It is sufficient for our purpose, if there is such a refer- 
 ence or allusion to the Gospels as enables us to per- 
 ceive that such is the poet's or preacher's intent. So 
 in the poetical books of the period preceding and dur- 
 ing the captivity. All that we can expect to find, and 
 all that we need to find, to prove the existence of the 
 "Book of the Law," which Ezra read and taught, is 
 such allusion to its contents and spirit, and such use 
 of its words and phrases, as to show that it was in the 
 poet's mind. If we demand more proof than this, we 
 demand what, from the very nature of the case, we 
 ought not to expect. 
 
FROM THF CAPTIVITY TO DAVID. 89 
 
 Respecting the historical books, it should be remem- 
 bered that a period of probably one thousand years 
 is covered by the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, 
 the whole contents of which would not make a volume 
 larger than the fifth volume of Bancroft's History of 
 the United States^ which embraces a period of but three 
 years. The Books of Chronicles cover a portion of 
 the same period, beginning with David, and giving 
 only brief genealogies of what preceded his time. 
 Surely, if "The Law " was really a well-known book, we 
 should expect to find but very few specific references 
 to it in these writings. None, indeed, should we expect 
 to find there, unless something very closely connected 
 with the book itself should call for them. All that 
 we can expect is such a reference to manners, customs, 
 institutions, duties, as shall indicate an existing, funda- 
 mental law, such as was contained in Ezra's " Book of 
 the Law," which he read to the people, and taught 
 them to obey, as having been given by Moses in con- 
 formity to the divine command. More reference than 
 this to the Pentateuch, I hesitate not to say, cannot be 
 expected in these books. Were there more, I should 
 not be surprised to find an argument, drawn from their 
 very frequency, against the reliableness of the boc»ks 
 themselves, such as is now drawn against the reliable 
 ness of Chronicles, because the writer has dwelt at 
 greater length on ecclesiastical affairs than the writer 
 of the Books of the Kings has seen fit to do. Let us 
 bear in mind, then, as we proceed to examine these 
 books, both poetical and historical, that we must not 
 expect more, nor a different kind of, references to the 
 "Book of the Law" than the circumstances of the 
 
90 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 case authorize. On the supposition that the Penta- 
 teuch did exist as early as the time of David, we can- 
 not expect reasonably any more evidence of the fact 
 from these Jewish writings than I have before indi- 
 cated. 
 
 I. Evidences from the Historical lVriti?igs. — In the 
 first place, I will examine the historical writings which 
 treat of the period before the captivity from the time 
 of David ; and, as some objection has been raised 
 against the reliableness of the Books of the Chroni- 
 cles, I will first examine the Books of the Kings. I 
 will mention the passages in which " The Book of the 
 Law " is referred to, and then I will quote those words 
 and phrases which are evidently taken from that book. 
 This division of the evidence seems necessarv in order 
 to bring out its force fully. I will then turn to the 
 Books of the Chronicles, and inquire whether there is 
 such an obvious prejudice in the writer's mind respect- 
 ing this Book of the Law as to make void all his state- 
 ments in regard to it. 
 
 In the Books of the Kings, we find the following 
 references to the Pentateuch. In the time of Josiah, 
 whose reign closed twenty-three years before the cap- 
 tivity, we read (II. Kings xxii.) that Hilkiah, the high 
 priest, "found the Book of the Law in the house of 
 the Lord," which was then undergoing repairs. When 
 the king " heard the words of the Book of the Law, he 
 rent his clothes " ; for the people, both under the reign 
 of his father and that of his grandfather for sixty 
 years, had disregarded the Law utterh^, having erected 
 idols in the Temple for the people, and having endeav- 
 ored by the utmost cruelties to exterminate the worship 
 
EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 9 1 
 
 of Jehovah. And in the twenty-third chapter we read 
 that the king " read all the words of this covenant that 
 were written in this book." And he " commanded all 
 the people to keep the passover, as it is written in the 
 book of this covenant." And he "turned to the Lord 
 with all his soul and with all his might, according to 
 all the Law of Moses." 
 
 It will be noticed that the same name is given to the 
 book found by Hilkiah which was given to the book 
 which Ezra used in instructing the people. Some diffi- 
 culties, however, have been started respecting this trans- 
 action which demand a moment's notice. It has been 
 asked significantly how it was possible for Josiah to be 
 entirely ignorant of the contents of the Law of Moses. 
 It has always appeared to me that the answer is very 
 easy, when we consider the condition of the kingdom. 
 Manasseh, the grandfather of Josiah, had reigned most 
 wickedly for fifty-five years. He had introduced all 
 the " abominations of the heathen," had " built altars 
 in the house of the Lord," and had built "altars for 
 all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house 
 of the Lord." He also made his son pass through 
 fire, and " dealt with familiar spirits and wizards," and 
 "shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled 
 Jerusalem from one end to the other." And Amon, 
 his son, the father of Josiah, in his short reign of two 
 years, "forsook the Lord and walked in all the way of 
 his fathers." So that for fifty-seven years the Law had 
 been utterly disregarded, and very probably all the 
 copies of the Law on which the wicked kings could lay 
 their hands had been destroyed. Josiah came to the 
 throne when he was a mere child, only eight years of 
 
92 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 age. When he had reigned eighteen years, as some 
 maintain, or when he was eighteen years of age, and 
 had reigned ten years, as others suppose, he appears 
 to have learned something about the religion of the 
 fathers, and to have commenced repairs on the Tem- 
 ple. The pious Jews would unquestionably try his 
 disposition toward a change from idol worship ; and, 
 when it was found that he was disposed to return to 
 the worship of his fathers, a copy of the Law was pro- 
 duced for his examination. It was very probably the 
 Temple copy, — perhaps the autograph of Moses which 
 had been hidden by the priests to keep it from the 
 destroying hands of Manasseh. As Hilkiah expresses 
 no surprise at finding the book, nor Shaphan at its 
 contents, they probably had arranged this matter so as 
 to put this venerable copy into the king's hands. Tak- 
 ing all these circumstances into the account, it is 
 neither wonderful that Josiah was overwhelmed with 
 grief when the book was read, nor that Hilkiah should 
 have brought the book from its hiding-place at this 
 time. It is possible, to take another view, namely, 
 that, in removing the rubbish from the Temple, the lost 
 Mosaic autograph copy of the Law, which was kept in 
 the Temple for sacred purposes, may have been found. 
 At all events, there is nothing in this account which 
 indicates that the book was not in existence before 
 this time, as some have maintained, but quite the con- 
 trary ; for how could it have been' found if it had not 
 existed before the finding ? De Wette admits that the 
 book here found is the Pentateuch. These are his 
 words : " The discovery of the Book of the Law in 
 the Temple, under Josiah's reign, about 624 B.C., re- 
 
EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 93 
 
 lated in II. Kings xxii., is the first certain trace of the 
 Pentateuch in its present form." That the Pentateuch 
 was " in its present form " in the time of Josiah is suf- 
 ficiently clear from the historical proof that we have 
 adduced. Whether De Wette is correct or not in say- 
 ing that it is the " first certain trace of it in its present 
 form " will soon appear.* 
 
 In the reign of Hezekiah, who preceded Josiah 
 about one hundred years, we read (II. Kings xvii., 13) 
 that the kingdom of Israel had neglected the covenant 
 "made with the fathers"; and they are exhorted to 
 turn from their evil ways, and to walk " according to 
 all the Law." In the thirty-fourth and thirty-seventh 
 verses, it is stated that the people "fear not the Lord, 
 neither do they after their statutes or after their ordi- 
 nances or after the Law and commandment which the 
 
 * It has been objected to this account of the loss and recovery of the roll of 
 the Law that it is so highly improbable as to render it incredible, and furnish 
 evidence of its being a forgery. But the historical scholar will recall cases 
 more wonderful than this. William Bradford s manuscript History of Ply- 
 mouth Plantation was cited by Prince in 1736, and composed a part of his 
 library deposited in the tower of the Old South Church, Boston, Mass. It 
 was last cited by Governor Hutchinson in 1767. It was lost, though most dili- 
 gent search was made for it for eighty years, when it was found acc'dentally in 
 England by the Bishop of Oxford, in the FuUiam Library, as he was searching 
 for material for his History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America. 
 
 Bradford's LeUcr-Book MS. was also lost for many years. At last, a portion 
 of it was accidentally found in a grocer's shop in Halifax, N.S., by James Clarke, 
 Esq. These specimens of lost and recovered MSS. in modern limes must 
 suffice to show the perfect credibility of this account of Hilkiah. It will not 
 be considered to the point probably to mention that Herculaneum and Pompeii 
 were lost for over sixteen centuries in the heart of Italy. Most certainly, a 
 Hebrew roll might be lost for sixty years in the ruined, desecrated Temple of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 Prof. W. Robertson Smith says, in his lectures on the Old Testament in the 
 Jewish Church, p. 362, "The comparison of Deuteronomy xviii. with II. Kings 
 xxxiii , et sccj., effectual y diipr ves the idea of some critics that the Deuter- 
 onomic Code was a forgery of the Temple priests or of their head, the high priest 
 Hilkiah," 
 
94 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Lord commanded the children of Jacob " ; ... with 
 whom the Lord had made a covenant and charged 
 them, saying, " Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow 
 yourselves to them, nor serve them (Exodus xx., 5). . . . 
 But the statutes and the ordinances and the Law and 
 the commandment which he wrote for you, ye shall 
 observe, since the Lord brought you out of the land of 
 Egypt." The reference here to a book, and the same 
 book which Josiah found, is too clear to need comment. 
 It is so minutely described as containing the " statutes " 
 and ''ordinances" and "commandments" that there 
 seems to be no room for reasonable doubt about the 
 identity of the books. If room for doubt is left by 
 these passages, chapter xviii., 6, closes it : Hezekiah 
 " clave to the Lord, and kept his commandments which 
 the Lord commanded Moses." 
 
 In about 830 B.C., a hundred years before the reign 
 of Hezekiah, we read (II. Kings xiv., 6) that Arnaziah, 
 King of Judah, " slew not the children of the murder- 
 ers [who had slain his father], according unto that 
 which is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, 
 wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers 
 shall not be put to deaih for the children, nor the 
 children be put to death for the fathers " (Deuteronomy 
 xxiv., 16). Here the "Book" is distinctly spoken of 
 as having been in existence in the time of Amaziah, 
 two hundred years before the reign of Josiah. If it 
 should be said that this is a remark of the historian 
 derived from the opinions of his own time, the case is 
 varied but little ; for it would show that in this time 
 the antiquity of the book was the common belief. 
 
 About fifty years earlier than this, when Jehoash was 
 
EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 95 
 
 anointed king, we read (II. Kings xi., 12) that a part 
 of the ceremony of his coronation consisted in giving 
 him "the testimony," or, as De Wette and Gesenius 
 translate, "The Law." In Deuteronomy xvii., 18, 19, 
 it is required of the king that he should have "a copy 
 of the Law," ... "to read therein all the days of his 
 life." It is also recorded of Jehu, who reigned over 
 Israel but a few years earlier, that he " took no heed 
 to walk in the Law of the Lord God of Israel " (II. 
 Kings X., 31). When the days drew nigh that David 
 should die, he called Solomon to him, and charged him 
 most solemnly to walk in the ways of the Lord, "to 
 keep his statutes and his commandments and his judg- 
 ments and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law 
 of Moses " (I. Kings ii., 3). 
 
 Such are the explicit references in the Books of the 
 Kings to the Law of Moses. The references are made 
 to one book, the same as that which Josiah had, and 
 from which Ezra taught. In about sixty pages of the 
 copy of the Bible before me, containing a civil history 
 of five hundred years, could more specific references 
 to the Pentateuch have been expected ? So brief, so 
 limited, is the history that but few facts of any kind 
 could be stated : much less could there be a continual, 
 specific reference by name to a book which was so well 
 known as that which contained the fundamental law of 
 the nation must necessarily have been. 
 
 The last remark suggests another argument in favor 
 of the existence of the book during the period of the 
 Kings. It is that the sins rebuked are violations of 
 the Mosaic Law, that the blessings promised are con- 
 ditional upon obedience to that law. The whole tone 
 
96 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 of the history is taken from the Pentateuch. I will 
 enter into a more minute examination of this phenom- 
 ena, that the force of the argument derived from it 
 may be more fully appreciated. This is the second 
 division of the evidence to be derived from the Books 
 of the Kings which I proposed to examine. If we 
 discover that a writer is borrowi?ig words and phrases 
 which we find in a book to which he sometimes refers 
 by the usual title, we are still more confirmed in the 
 belief that he had before him the identical book which 
 has come into our hands ; just as, when we find the 
 phraseology of the New Testament in the sermon or his- 
 tory which we are reading, we feel assured that the 
 author had a copy of that book substantially like our 
 own. I have already, in the examination of the Books 
 of the Kings, made one or two quotations which con- 
 tain passages from the Pentateuch. / will now pro- 
 ceed to show that there is a Mosaic phraseology^ an intro- 
 duction and use of religious terms a?id antique expressions 
 which indicate familiarity with the Books of Moses ; as 
 the phrases, " was let hitherto," "thorn in the flesh," 
 "given to hospitality," indicate familiarity with the 
 Ian2:ua2:e of the New Testament. 
 
 In I. Kings ii., 3, Solomon is directed to keep the 
 Law, that "he may prosper in all that he does," — a 
 verbal quotation from Deuteronomy xxix., 9, except 
 the change of person from plural to singular, to adapt 
 it to the person addressed. In the prayer which Sol- 
 omon delivered at the dedication of the Temple, there 
 are numerous words and phrases taken from the Pen- 
 tateuch, such as, " if any man trespass against his 
 neighbor," " blasting and mildew," " the people of 
 
EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 97 
 
 thine inheritance," "the Lord is God, there is none 
 else." And if we consider that, in connection with 
 the use of these phrases, Solomon makes use of thes 
 expressions, " as thou spakest by the hafid of Moses thy 
 servant^ when thou broughtest our fathers out of the 
 land of Egypt," " there hath not failed one word of all 
 his good promise which he promised by the hajid of AIoscs 
 his serva7it,'" we cannot but feel a strong assurance, not 
 to say certainty, that we have the book which contained 
 those promises. In chapter xxi., 3, Naboth says to 
 Ahab, who had proposed that Naboth should give him 
 his vineyard, "The Lord forbid it me that I should give 
 the inheritance of my fathers unto thee." The " inher- 
 itance of the fathers " was inalienable according to the 
 Law, and was considered very precious, as may be seen 
 by referring to Numbers xxxvi. In chapter xxii., 11, 
 Zedekiah, a false prophet, who had " made him horns 
 of iron," declared to Ahab, " With these shalt thou push 
 the Syrians," referring directly to Deuteronomy xxxiii., 
 17, where it is said of Joseph, "His horns are like the 
 horns of unicorns ; with them shall he push the people 
 together to the ends of the earth." In the seventeenth 
 verse of the same chapter, it is said, " I saw all Israel 
 ... as sheep that have not a shepherd." This phrase 
 is taken from Numbers xxvii., 17 : "That the congrega- 
 tion of the Lord be not as sheep which have no shep- 
 herd." The agreement in the Hebrew is verbal. In 
 the twenty-seventh verse, a prophet is sentenced by the 
 king to eat the " bread of affliction," a phrase taken 
 from Deuteronomy xvi., 3, where the poor bread which 
 the people were compelled to eat on their departure 
 from Egypt is so called. In II. Kings ii., 9, Elisha 
 
98 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 prays Elijah, " Let a double portion of thy spirit rest 
 on me." This phrase, " double portion," is taken from 
 Deuteronomy xxi., 17, where the portion of the "first- 
 born " is described and defined. The use of the word 
 pM in the sense of "portion" is found but three times 
 in the Old Testament. In chapter iii., 19, 20, we find 
 Elisha directing the king, when he made war upon the 
 Moabites, to "fell every good tree," which is an allusion 
 to Deuteronomy xx., 19, 20. In chapter iv,, 16, we find 
 a very peculiar expression relating to the birth of a 
 child which is also found in Genesis xviii., 10, 14, where 
 Sarah is assured that she shall have a son. The simi- 
 larity of the two cases in some of their circumstances 
 no doubt prompted the use of the peculiar phrase in 
 Kings, " About this season, according to the time of life, 
 thou shalt embrace a son." In the forty-second verse 
 of this chapter, we read that a man brought to Elisha 
 "bread of the first-fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and 
 full ears of corn " (carmel). This word is used to de- 
 note the "polenta of early grain in Leviticus ii., 14 • 
 xxiii., 14," says Gesenius. In chapter v., 27, we read 
 that the servant of Elisha went out from his presence 
 " a leper white as snow." This peculiar phrase is 
 used in Numbers xii., 10; Exodus iv., 6; and nowhere 
 else. The phrase as used in those passages under such 
 peculiar circumstances is very strongly marked, and 
 is used by the writer in Kings to indicate the severity 
 of the punishment which fell upon the servant of 
 Elisha. A peculiar word is used in Genesis xix., 11, to 
 indicate blindness : " They smote the men that were at 
 the door with blindness " This Hebrew word is used 
 in II. Kings vi., 18 : " Smite, 1 pray thee, this people 
 
EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 99 
 
 with blindness." Elisha doubtless had in his mind the 
 peculiar word which indicated the blindness with which 
 the rioters about Lot's house had been smitten. The 
 word is used in only these two instances. In chapter 
 viit, 2, an unbeliever is represented as addressing Elisha 
 thus : " If the Lord would make windows in heaven, 
 might this thing be?" In Genesis vii., ii, "the win- 
 dows of heaven " are spoken of as having been opened 
 to produce the devastating flood. So here the speaker 
 says that, when a flood comes again, this which you 
 have predicted may happen. So references in the 
 Prophets are made to the same event in this peculiar 
 phrase (Isaiah xxiv., i8 ; Malachi iii., lo), which is 
 used nowhere else. 
 
 Such is a specimen of the peculiar words which are 
 used in the Books of the Kings, taken from the Penta- 
 teuch. But we also find in these books statements re- 
 specting the observance of ordinances required in the 
 Pentateuch. In I. Kings xviii., 29, 36, we read of the 
 "time of offering the evening sacrifice," as required in 
 Exodus xxix., 39 ; and in II. Kings iii., 20, we read that 
 aid was afforded " in the morning when the meat offer- 
 ing was offered." Compare this with the same passage 
 in Exodus, and we shall find that offerings were required 
 morning and evening, and that a meat (or meal) offer- 
 ing was to be offered with the lamb. In II. Kings iv., 
 23, we read of two festal days, " the new moon " and 
 " the Sabbath." And, in the first verse of the same 
 chapter, we read of a creditor of whom a woman says, 
 he " is come to take unto him my two sons to be bond- 
 men." This the Law (Leviticus xxv., 39) permitted 
 and regulated. Solomon is represented as " offering 
 
loo A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 burnt-offerings and peace-offerings," both of which were 
 required by the Law. He also assembled all the people 
 " at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the sev- 
 enth month." This was the feast of the tabernacle, and 
 the Temple was dedicated at this time. On account of 
 the joyfulness of the occasion, Solomon doubled the 
 days of this most joyful of all the feasts. In I. Kings 
 xii., 32, after the division of the kingdom, we read that 
 Jeroboam "ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the 
 fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in 
 Judah, ... in a month which he had devised of his own 
 heart." Well did the historian say this, for the Law re- 
 quired the feast to be in the seventh month, not in the 
 eighth. 
 
 The testimony rendered in the Books of the Kings — 
 by the name of the book, by the use of its peculiar 
 terms, by the quotations made from its contents, by the 
 description of observances, sacrifices, feasts, offerings, 
 such as the Law requires — to the existence of "the 
 Book of the Law of Moses " which Ezra used in teach- 
 ing the people is as full and as specific as, under the 
 circumstances, we could expect. Had we no other writ- 
 ings of this period, the proof of the existence of the 
 Pentateuch would be as great as that which is furnished 
 for the antiquity of any other work of that age. But 
 there are other writings. The Books of the Chronicles 
 are still to be examined. 
 
 The writer of these Books of the Chronicles speaks 
 more of ecclesiastical affairs, and hence we would ex- 
 pect to find in his writings more frequent reference to 
 the rites and ceremonies of their religion. De Wette, 
 Kuenen especially, and others, have decried these books 
 
EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. lOT 
 
 because they have what they call a Levitical spirit. I 
 am not sure that a priestly spirit is more likely to bias 
 an historian than a political spirit. There has been no 
 evidence brought that the bias of the writer has cor- 
 rupted his integrity. At all events, I am sure that the 
 reader, after comparing what the chronicler has re- 
 corded respecting the Law with what is said respecting 
 it in the Books of the Kings, will not be disposed to 
 think that his Levitical bias has done him serious harm 
 as an historian. Let us, then, see what this writer, who 
 has been so unceremoniously treated, has to say of the 
 Law, and the customs of the people so far as they re- 
 garded the Law. 
 
 In I. Chionicles xvi., 40, we read that Zadok the 
 priest did "according to all that is written in the Law 
 of the Lord, which he commanded Israel." In chapter 
 xxii., 12, 13, David charges Solomon to "keep the Law 
 of the Lord," and to "take heed to fulfil the statutes 
 and judgments which the Lord charged Moses with con- 
 cerning Israel." In II. Chronicles vi., 16, Solomon 
 prays that God's promise to his father, founded on this 
 condition, — if " thy children take heed to walk in my 
 Law," — may be fulfilled in him. This passage has been 
 quoted before, from Kings. In chapter xii., i, Reho- 
 boam is said to have forsaken " the Law of the Lord." 
 In chapter xiv., 4, Judah is commanded "to do the 
 Law." In chapter xvii. is an account of the good kin'g 
 Jehoshaphat's sending out teachers to instruct the peo- 
 ple ; and " they took the Book of the Law of the Lord 
 with them, and went about throughout all the cities of 
 Judah, and taught the people." In chapter xxiii., 18, it 
 is said that Jehoiada appointed persons who should 
 
I02 .A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 " offer the burnt-offerings of the Lord, as it is written in 
 the Law of Moses.^^ In chapter xxv., 4, we read that 
 Amaziah slew not the children of his father's murderers, 
 "but did as it is written in the Law of the Book of Moses ^ 
 where the Lord commanded, saying, " The fathers shall 
 not die for the children, neither shall the children die 
 for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin." 
 This passage is quoted from Deuteronomy xxiv., 16. 
 The parallel passage is IL Kings xiv., 6. In chapter 
 XXX., 16, we read that the priests and Levites stood in 
 their "place, . . . according to the Law of Moses." In 
 the thirty-first chapter, Hezekiah directs that " morning 
 and evening burnt-offerings, and the burnt-offerings for 
 the Sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set 
 feasts " shall be offered, " as it is written in the Law of 
 the Lord." He further directed that " the portion of the 
 priests and Levites" should be given them, "that they 
 misht be encouras-ed in the Law of the Lord." And 
 " every work that he began ... in the Law ... he did 
 with all his heart." In chapter xxxiii., 8, we read of " the 
 whole Law and statutes and ordinances by the hand of 
 MosesT In chapter xxxiv., we have an account of the 
 finding of the " Book of the Law of the Lord given by 
 Moses," parallel to the passage in II. Kings xxii. In 
 chapter xxxv., Josiah commands to kill the passover 
 " according to the word of the Lord by the hand of 
 Moses" ; and they did ''as it is written in the Book of 
 MosesT And the good king's acts were "according to 
 that which was written in the Law of the Lord." It 
 will be observed that the " Book of Moses " and " the 
 Lav/ of the Lord " are identical. 
 
 Such is the manner in which the Pentateuch is spoken 
 
EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. I03 
 
 of in the Books of the Chronicles. There is no marked 
 difference between the style of reference and that in 
 the Kings. Nor are the references much more numer- 
 ous. These titles of the book, or the natncs by which it 
 is called, are the same as those which we found in the 
 Books of the Kings, in Ezra, in Nehemiah, in Malachi, 
 in Ecclesiasticus, and in Maccabees. The same names 
 being used, the inference is that the same book is re- 
 ferred to. But as we found quotations from the book 
 in Kings, so we do in the Chronicles, still more cer- 
 tainly identifying it as the same book by its contents. 
 The use of peculiar and emphatic terms which are found 
 in the Pentateuch shows that the writer was familiar 
 with the book as we now have it. The people are ex- 
 horted not to be "stiff necked " as their fathers were, — 
 II. Chronicles xxx., 8. In the Pentateuch, this is a fa- 
 vorite term. " The mighty hand and stretched-out arm " 
 are spoken of in chapter vi., 32, which is a pecuHar 
 phrase of the Pentateuch. God is said to be "gracious 
 and merciful," chapter xxx., 9, which is a quotation from 
 Exodus xxxiv., 6. It is used elsewhere in the Penta- 
 teuch, however. In chapter xxx., 15, we read that 
 "they killed (he passover on the fourteenth day of the 
 second month"; and "kept the feast of unleavened 
 bread seven days," verse 21. This is in accordance 
 with what is recorded in Exodus xii. The feasts are 
 spoken of. In chapter viii., 13, we read of the solemn 
 feasts, three times a year, " even the feast of unleavened 
 bread, and the feast of weeks, and the feast of taber- 
 nacles." And in these books, as in the Books of the 
 Kings, the whole tone of rebuke and approbation is 
 taken from the standard established in the Pentateuch. 
 
I04 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Nothing could be expected different in their style and 
 tone, if it were mathematically certain that the Penta- 
 teuch existed at this time, by information derived from 
 an entirely different source. 
 
 I have now examined the historical works which 
 treat of the condition of the people from the time of 
 David. It is for the reader to determine whether there 
 is not as much and as explicit reference to the Penta- 
 teuch as, under the circumstances, could be expected. 
 What book of that age can be so certainly traced in 
 history ? We have found no hint of any remodelling 
 of the work, and we have no historical reason to sup- 
 pose that any such thing was done. Without any far- 
 ther evidence, we have sufficient proof of the existence 
 of the Pentateuch in the days of David, within three 
 or four centuries of the time of Moses. But the whole 
 field of the poetical books is yet to be explored. Fur- 
 ther and striking evidence v.ill here appear of the an- 
 tiquity of the " Law of Moses, the man of God." 
 
 II. Evidence from the Poetical Books. — I have al- 
 ready remarked that in poetical .works we do not ex- 
 pect to find books referred to by quoting their title- 
 page ; and usually we may expect that the reference 
 will be the less explicit as the work referred to is well 
 known. We shall only look for general terms and 
 phrases, and shall often expect to find some word ex- 
 pressive of the contents of the book used by me- 
 tonymy to denote the book itself. In the historical 
 books, we have found that the Pentateuch was referred 
 to by the name of "The Law," "The Law of Moses," 
 " The Law of the Lord," " The statutes, judgments, 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 05 
 
 commandments, and ordinances of the Lord." We 
 may therefore expect to find only these, and still 
 more general, names given to the book by the poets. 
 
 I. The Book of Daniel is supposed by many to 
 have been written at a late period, long after the cap- 
 tivity. As I do not propose to enter into any discus- 
 sion respecting the age of the books which I shall 
 quote, I will only remark that, if Daniel was written 
 at as late a period as is maintained by some, it shows 
 how the Pentateuch was referred to at that time, and 
 enables us to trace the book, by the manner in which it 
 is spoken of, back to earlier times. In Daniel ix., lo, 
 II, 13, we find the prophet lamenting, in his prayer, 
 the sins of the people ; and he confesses as follows : 
 " Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our 
 God to walk in his laws. . . . Yea, all Israel have trans- 
 gressed thy Law ; . . . and therefore the curse is poured 
 upon us. . . that is written in the Law of Moses, the ser- 
 vant of God. . . . And he hath confirmed his words, . . . 
 as it is v/ritten in the Law of Moses." l^iat the Pen- 
 tateuch is here referred to is past all question. 
 
 2. Habakkuk, speaking of the violence that pre- 
 vailed in the land, gives, as a reason for it, that " the 
 Law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth," 
 chapter i., 4. 
 
 3. Zephaniah, chapter ii., 3, exhorts all those "to 
 seek the Lord which have wrought his judgment," i.e.^ 
 obeyed his Law ; for we shall soon find that this word 
 sometimes stands for the whole Law. 
 
 4. Ezekiel, who lived during the captivity, prophesy- 
 ing of the evil yet to befall the people, says, chapter 
 vii., 26, " The Law shall perish from the priests." In 
 
Io6 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 the name of God, he says to the people, chapter v., 6, 
 " they have refused my judgments and my statutes, 
 and have not walked in them." He declares, chapter 
 xi., 20, that their heart will 3^et become flesh, so that 
 they will walk in " the statutes and keep the ordi- 
 nances " of the Lord. He repeats the same truth in 
 chapter xxxvi., 27. In the eighteenth chapter, the same 
 expressions are used to denote the Law ; and specific 
 statutes are referred to. He promises that blessings 
 shall attend the man who "hath not defiled his neigh- 
 bor's wife " (Leviticus xviii., 20) ; nor hath come near 
 to a woman when she is ritually unclean, — a technical 
 term (Leviticus xviii., 19); nor hath "oppressed any" 
 (Leviticus XXV., 14); " but hath restored to the debtor 
 his pledge" (Exodus xxii., 26); "hath spoiled none by 
 violence" (Leviticus vi., 2) ; "hath given his bread to 
 the needy, and hath covered the naked with a gar- 
 ment" (Deuteronomy XV., 7, 8); that "hath not given 
 forth upon usury" (Exodus xxii., 25) ; that " hath exe- 
 cuted true judgment between man and man" (Leviti- 
 cus xix., 15). In chapter xi., 12, Ezekiel gives as a 
 reason why so great punishments should fall upon 
 these people that they " have not walked in the stat- 
 utes nor executed the judgments " of the Lord, but 
 have done after the manner of the heathen. If we 
 look into the Law (Leviticus xviii., 4, 5), we shall find 
 it declared that the people shall not do according to 
 other people's laws and customs ; and it is commanded 
 them, " Ye shall keep my statutes and my judgments." 
 These references will sufiice for this prophet, to show 
 that he quotes the Law, and that he gives it the same 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 107 
 
 names, in his references to it, which are given by other 
 writers whose works we have examined.* 
 
 5. From Ezekiel, I will pass to Jeremiah, who was 
 his contemporary for a part of his life. Jeremiah went 
 from Jerusalem into Egypt. Ezekiel, many years previ- 
 
 * " It is difficult," says a writer in The Unitarian Review for November, 
 1S80, p. 431, "it is difficult to read his [Ezekiel's] pages written in Babylon, 
 and believe that any important priestly legis'ation had preceded them. He does 
 not quote from existing laws." In view of this unqualified denial from so re- 
 spectable a source, I feel called upon to invite the reader's attention to farther 
 P'orf that Ezekiel's writings give overwhelming evidence of his acquaintance 
 with "existing laws." It is assumed from the character of the writer that 
 no quibble is intended in the use of the word " quote." If it is meant that the 
 name of the writer, and the chapter and verse in which the quotation may be 
 found, are not mentioned, then there is an instant end to the discussion. But, 
 if it is meant that there are no clear quotations of statutes and phrases from the 
 Pentateuch as defiriitely made as could be expected in a poetical address, then 
 I must take direct issue, and appeal to the judgment of the reader by for ifying 
 my previous references; and th'3 reader is eip:icially requested to observe t'nat 
 the captivity of the people is ascribed to disobeying the law quoted. 
 
 Examples: Ezekiel iv. , 14, " Beho'd, my soul hath not been polluted; for I 
 have not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces ; neither came 
 there abominable flesh into my mouth." Compare now the different laws on 
 this subject: Exodus xxii., 31, "Neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of 
 beasts"; Leviticus xvii., 15, "And he shall be unclean until the even"; 
 Deuteronomy xiv , 3, "Thou shalt not cat any abominable thing" ; and Leviti- 
 cus xxii., 8, "That which dieth of itse'f, or is torn, he shall not eat." These 
 scattered laws are condensed by Ezekiel. Ezekiel iv., 16, reads, " I will break 
 the staff of bread in Jerusalem; and they shall eat bread by weight, and with 
 care'' ; Leviticus xxvi , 26, " When I have broken the stafiE of your bread, . . . 
 they shall deliver you your bread by weight " ; Ezekiel v., 10, " The fathers shall 
 eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers, . . . at-.d 
 the whole remnant of thee wi:l I scatter into all the winds." Compare Leviti- 
 cus xxvi., 29, "And yo shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your 
 daughters"; and verse 33, "And I will scatter you among the heathen"; also 
 Deuteronomy xxviii., 64, " The Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the 
 one end of the earth even unto the other." This is another instance of Ezekiel's 
 condensing separate threatenings into one. Ezekiel v., 12, " I will scatter a 
 third part into all the winds, and I will draw out a sword after them "; Leviti- 
 cus xxvi., 33, "I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a 
 sword after you"; Ezekiel xiv., 14, 15, " I will make thee waste, and a re- 
 proach among the nations. ... It shall be a reprojch and a taunt, an instruction 
 and an astonishment uato the nations"; Leviticus xxvi., 31, "I will make 
 your cities waste, atd bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, . . . and your ene- 
 
Io8 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 ously, went to Babylonia as a captive. The following 
 remarkable quotation from the Pentateuch is found in 
 Jeremiah iv., 23, " I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was 
 without fonn and void,^^ a phrase found only in Gene- 
 sis i., 2. In chapter ii., 8, the prophet says, in the 
 
 mies . . . shall be astonished at it." So Deuteronomy xxviii., 37, " Thou shalt be- 
 come an astonishment, a proverb, and a by-word among all nations" ; Ezekiel v., 
 17, " I will send upon you famine, and evil beasts, and they shall bereave 
 thee"; Leviticus xxvi., 22, "I will also send wild beasts among you, which 
 shall rob you of your children" ; Ezekiel vi., 4, 5, *' I will destroy your high 
 places, yo'ir altars shall be desolate and your images shall be broken, and I will 
 cast down your slain before your idols, and I will lay the dead carcasses of the 
 children of Israel before their idols " ; Leviticus xxvi., 30, " I will destroy your 
 high places and cut down your images, and cast your carcasses upon the car- 
 casses of 3'our idols"; Ezekiel vi., 6, "The cities shall be laid waste, and the 
 high places shall be desolate"; Leviticus xxvi., 31, "I will make your cities 
 waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation " ; Ezekiel xiv., 8, " I will set 
 my face against that man, . . . and will cat him off from the midst of my people " ; 
 Leviticus xvii., 10, " I will set my face against that soul, . . . and will cut him off 
 from among his people " ; Ezekiel xiv., [5, " Wild beasts will desolate the land." 
 So Leviticus xxvi., 22 ; Ezekiel xvi., 59, " Thou hast despised the oath in break- 
 ing the covenant"; Deuteronomy xxix., 12, "That thou shouldest enter into 
 covenant with the Lord thy God, and idto his oath " ; verse 14, " Neither with 
 you only do I make this covenant and this oath " ; Ezekiel xviii. , 6. There is a 
 special reference to the law respecting the relation of the sexes, which is found in 
 Leviticus xviii., 19, 20, and xxiv., 18 ; Ezekiel xviii., 7, " And hath not oppressed 
 any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge"; Exodus xxii., 26, "If thou 
 take thy neighbor's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it to him by that the sun 
 goeth down " ; xxiii., 9, " Thou s^alt not oppress a stranger " ; Ezekiel xviii., 20, 
 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the fi^ther, neither shall the father bear 
 the iniquity of the son" ; Deuteronomy xxiv., 16, "The fathers shall not be put 
 to doath for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the 
 fathers"; Ezekiel xx., 6, "a land flowing with milk and honey"; Exodus 
 iii., 8, " a good land, . . a land flowing with milk and honey" ; Ezekiel xx., 11, 
 "And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which if a man 
 do he shall live in them " ; Leviticus xviii., 5, " Ye shall keep my .statutes and 
 my judgments, which if a man do he shall live in them"; Ezekiel xx., 12, "I 
 gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them " ; Exodus xxxi. , 13, 
 " My sabbaths ye shail keep, for it is a sign between me and you " ; Ezekiel xx., 
 13, "Then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to 
 consume them"; Numbers xiv., 29, 32, 33, "So will I do to you: your car- 
 casses shall fall in this wilderness" ; Ezekiel xx., 23, " I lifted up my hand unto 
 them also in the wilderness, that I wuuld scatter them among the heathen, and 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 09 
 
 name of the Lord, "They that handle the Law knew 
 me not " j for the priests and the prophets whose office 
 it was to know the Law were both of them violating it 
 by serving Baal. In chapter xviii., 8, the prophet 
 complains, in a prayer to the Lord, of the boasting of 
 
 disperse them through the countries." The threatening is recorded in Leviticus 
 XKV\., 33, "I will scatter you among the heathen"; lizekiel xx., 3r, "When 
 ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire" ; Leviticus 
 xviii., 21, " Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pas through the fire to Molech." 
 This chapter is largely the language of the Levitical law: Ezekiel xxii., 7, 
 •' They have set light by father ar)d mother " ; Deuteronomy xxvii. , 16, " Cursed 
 be he that setteth light by his father or his mother" ; also, " They have dealt op- 
 pression with the stranger " ; Exodus xxii., 21, "Thou shalt rieither vex a stran- 
 ger, nor oppress him"; also, " In thee have they vexed the fatherless and the 
 widow"; Exodus xxii., 22, "Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless 
 child." In Ezekiel xxii., the language and phrases and sentences of the Pen- 
 tateuch are so frequent as to forbid quotation. After one more quotation, 
 I must refer the interested reader to the chapter itself. Verse 26 reads thus : 
 " Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things : 
 they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they 
 showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes 
 from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them" ; Leviticus xxii., 2, " Speak 
 unto Aaron and to his sons, . . . that they profane not my holy name in those 
 things which they hallow unto me" ; x., 10, "And that ye put difference between 
 holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean." Here is certainly a clear 
 reference to priests, to a ritual law, and the duty of observing it. There are not 
 less than twenty distinct references to the law and passages from it in this 
 chapter of only thirty-one verses. 
 
 It would seem to most minds a sheer waste of time and patience to pur- 
 sue this inquiry further, but one or two more passages demand attention : Ezek- 
 iel xxiv., 7, " Her blood, . . . she poured it not upon the ground to cover it with 
 dust " ; Leviticus xvii., 13, " He shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover 
 it with dust " In Deuteronomy xii., 16, it reads, "Ye shall pour out the blood 
 upon the earth as water," and nothing is said of " covering it with dust," sho^^■- 
 ing that Ezekiel had the priestly law of Leviticus before him, or ii mind, whi^h, 
 according to Kuenen's hypothesis, was not written till a century after his death! 
 If the reader has interest enough to do it, and is not yet satisfied, he may com- 
 pare Ezekiel xxviii., 24, with Numbers xxxiii., 55; and Ezekiel xxxiii., 15, with 
 Exodus xxii , 4, Numbers v., 6, Leviticus xviii., 5; and Ezekiel xxxiii., 25, with 
 Leviticus vii., 2<i; Ezekiel xxxiv., 25-27, with Leviticus xxvi., 6, 7; Ezekiel 
 xxxvi., 3, 17, with Deuteronomy xxv.ii., 37, Leviticus xviii., 25; and Ezekiel 
 xxxix., 23, with Deuteronomy xxxi., 17. But enough : I must hold my hand 
 
 I have taken pains to compare the frequency of Ezekiel's use of the language 
 
no A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 the wicked, who say, " The Law shall not perish from 
 the priest." In chapter xliv., 23, he upbraids the peo- 
 ple because they have not " obeyed the voice of the 
 Lord, nor walked in his Law, nor in his statutes, nor in 
 his testimonies." And in the tenth verse he is still 
 more explicit : speaking in the name of the Lord, he 
 says, "Ye have not walked in my Law, nor in my stat- 
 utes that I set before you and before your fathers^ 
 In the twenty-second verse, he says that on account of 
 their sins their "land is a desolation and an astonish- 
 ment and a curse," — words used in Leviticus xxvi., 32, 
 to denote the punishment which should follow trans- 
 gression. These are a specimen of the terms used by 
 this prophet when he refers to the Pentateuch. The 
 whole spirit and almost letter of Jeremiah's prophesy 
 is based upon the Pentateuch. His promises and 
 threatenings are all founded upon the laws therein con- 
 tained. All the rites and ceremonies which he de- 
 scribes are such as are found in "The Law." There 
 is but one passage which appears to invalidate this 
 
 in the law, and references to it and quotations from it, with that of four of our 
 most celebrated preachers' reference to the gospel, or quotations from it. Dr. 
 Dewey, in the Two Great Cojn7nai!dments, a volume of three hundred 
 pages, uses the language of the Gospels (texts of sermons excepted) but /orty- 
 ^z/^ times. Mr. Martineau, in Hojirs of Thought seco d scries, uses the lan- 
 guage of the Gospels twenty-five times. Dr. Channing, in the Perfect Life, 
 uses the language of the Gospels eight times in two hundred pages. Dr. 
 Walker, in Reason, Faith, ajtd Duty, uses the language of the Gospels eighteen 
 times in two hundred p.iges; and in but ^7«^ instances does he say he takes it 
 from the Gospels, and in but very few instances do the others. 
 
 Since this note was written, I \<idiXXi {Bibliotheca Sacra, A^rW, 1881, p. 390) 
 that Prof. R. Smend, in his recent work, The Prophet Ezekiel{Der Prophet 
 Ezechiel), 1880, maintains that the Levitical law was developed from Ezekiel, 
 and not Ezekiel's quotations taken from the law. Of any such hypothesis, the 
 re'ding of Ezekiel is the swifte.^t and most conclusive confutation. Ezekiel's 
 quotaiioiis are not only from a la>v already in existence, but from a law given to 
 the fathers, and for not obeying which they were carried captive. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. m 
 
 conclusion. It is contained in chapter vii., 21-23: 
 " Put your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat 
 flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor com- 
 manded them in the day that I brought them out of 
 the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacri- 
 fices. But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey 
 my voice and I will be your God, and ye shall be my 
 people." The state of mind in which the prophet ut- 
 tered this passage must be considered, in order to un- 
 derstand his meaning. "The children gather wood," 
 says he, "and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women 
 knead their dough to make cakes to the queen of 
 heaven, and to pour out drink-offerings unto other 
 gods," in the streets of Jerusalem. The flagrant viola- 
 tion of the Law in offering these sacrifices to such vile 
 gods in the streets of the city so fired his soul with in- 
 dignation that he put the comparative value of sacrifices 
 and an obedient heart in direct contrast with each 
 other: "The Lord did not command sacrifices; he re- 
 quired a pure heart." Another view is that the 
 prophet here made a sharp distinction between what 
 was commanded and what was only regulated. It is 
 contended by some critics that sacrifices are regulated 
 by the Law, not commanded by it, — they were already 
 in existence, like circumcision.* Whatever view we may 
 take of the prophet's meaning, we cannot understand 
 him as looking upon sacrifices as offensive to God ; for 
 in chapter xvii., 26, in describing the great glory and 
 pure worship of the blessed period which would come 
 after their enemies were destroyed and God's kingdom 
 
 *Leviacus i., 2., "Speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them, if 
 any man bring an offcri g unto the Lord, y^ shall bring," etc. 
 
112 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 was established, he says, " They shall come from the cit- 
 ies of Judah, and from the places about Jerusalem, and 
 from the land of Benjamin, and from the plain, and 
 from the mountains, and from the south, bringing burnt- 
 offerings and sacrifices and meat-offerings and incense, 
 and bringing sacrifices of praise unto the house of the 
 Lord." The more probable interpretation is that which 
 is founded upon the supposition that the prophet is 
 asserting a strong negative to show the comparative 
 value of sacrifices and the spirit in which they should 
 be offered. But, admitting that we could adopt no in- 
 terpretation which would reconcile this passage with 
 others, it would not be reasonable to deny the asser- 
 tion of a hundred passages because of the apparent 
 counter assertion of one. His prophecy teaches most 
 clearly that offering sacrifices in accordance with the 
 regulations of the Pentateuch was a part of the na- 
 tional worship, and shows, whatever was the origin of 
 that book, that it was in existence in his time. This, 
 indeed, is the only point which I am now endeavoring 
 to establish. In Lamentations, it is said, chap, ii., 9, 
 that " the Law is no more " ; that is, not regarded. 
 
 6. Passing now to a still earlier period, we come 
 to Isaiah who flourished about 730 B.C. The style 
 of his poetry is much loftier than that of the prophets 
 whom we have examined, and hence we should expect 
 to find fewer explicit references to the statute-book of 
 the nation. I do not speak too strongly, however, 
 when I say that the prophecies of Isaiah are based 
 upon the doctrines of the Pentateuch. Their tone and 
 spirit are just as we should expect them to be, if Isaiah 
 had made himself familiar with that book. In describ- 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. II3 
 
 ing the future glory of the kingdom, in a passage taken 
 from a still earlier prophet, he says, " For out of Zion 
 shall go forth ike Law,''^ to be established among all 
 nations. In the eighth chapter, he rebukes the people 
 for going after false gods, " and to wizards that peep 
 and mutter " ; and asks, " Should not a people seek 
 unto their own God ? . . . To the Law and to the testi- 
 mony ; if they speak not according to this word, it is 
 because there is no light in them." Nothing can be 
 clearer than that the prophet counsels the people to 
 study the book of their own law instead of consulting 
 wizards, if they wish to learn their duty. In chapter xlii., 
 21, 24, the prophet declares that, notwithstanding the 
 neglect which it has received, the Lord " will magnify 
 the Law and make it honorable " ; and he gives as a 
 reason why Jacob had been given for a spoil and Israel 
 to robbers, that they " would not walk in the ways of 
 the Lord, neither were obedient to his Law." Ge- 
 senius says that the jDhrase, ''I will make my judgment 
 to rest for a light of the people " (chap, li., 4), refers to 
 the Mosaic Law. It should be remarked concerning 
 the last two passages that they are in that portion of 
 Isaiah which has been assigned to a later date and an- 
 other writer. In chapter xxiv., 5, it is affirmed that the 
 people "have transgressed the laws, changed the ordi- 
 nance, and broken the everlasting covenant." By 
 these terms "The Law" is referred to in other books, 
 and very probably they refer to it liere. In the first 
 chapter of his prophecy, Isaiah rebukes severely those 
 who " trample the courts of the Lord," bringing their 
 sacrifice with wicked hearts and bloody hands. He 
 says to the people, if " ye be willing and obedient, ye 
 
114 ^ STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 shall eat of the good of the land." This is in conform- 
 ity with the Law, Deuteronomy iv., 30; viii., 20; and 
 many other places. He speaks of their "new moons " 
 and "appointed feasts." He asks where -the people 
 can be "smitten" again, since "from the sole of the 
 foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it," 
 with evident reference to Deuteronomy xxviii., 35, 
 where it is said of the nation, if it sin, " The Lord shall 
 smite thee . . . with a sore botch that cannot be healed, 
 from the sole of thy foot to the top of thy head." He 
 says to them, "Your country is desolate; your cities 
 are burned with fire; your land — strangers devour it, 
 and it is desolate," as it was foretold would be the case 
 in Deuteronomy xxviii,, where it is said, " The nation 
 from far . . . shall eat the fruit of thy land " until it be 
 "destroyed." "But," he continues, "if ye be willing 
 and be obedient, ye shall consume the good of the 
 land ; but, if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured 
 with the sword ; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken 
 it." In Leviticus xxvi., 5, the Lord says, " If ye walk 
 in my statutes, ... ye shall eat your bread to the full " ; 
 but, if ye will not hearken to me, I " will draw out a 
 sword after you" (verse t^t,) ; "my sword shall devour 
 flesh " (Deuteronomy xxxii., 42). In the description 
 which the prophet gives of the enemy which he will call 
 to destroy his wicked people, there is evident allusion 
 to Deuteronomy xxviii., 49, 50. Isaiah says (chap, v., 
 26. 27), "He will lift up an ensign to the nations from 
 far, and will hiss them from the end of the earth. . . . 
 They shall come with speed swiftly." In Deuteron- 
 omy, referred to above, Moses says, " The Lord shall 
 bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. II5 
 
 the earth, as swift as an eagle flieth." These speci- 
 mens must suffice to show how Isaiah's style abounds 
 with words and phrases which are taken from the Pen- 
 tateuch. They prove that the style of the old Law 
 Book and its very words were imbedded in his mind so 
 as to make a part of his thoughts. 
 
 7. The prophet Micah was a contemporary of 
 Isaiah. His short prophecy is based, in all its rebukes 
 and promises, upon the laws and threatenings and 
 promises made in the Pentateuch. In the closing verse 
 of his prophecy, he declares that faithfulness and mercy 
 will yet visit the people, " which," he says, addressing 
 the Lord, "thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the 
 days of old." These promises will be found in Gene- 
 sis xii., 2 ; xxvi., 24; xxviii., 13; Deuteronomy xxx., i- 
 5. I will not pause to examine minutely this prophecy. 
 It exhibits the same characteristics as does that of 
 Isaiah; and, as he was contemporary with that prophet, 
 it is less important to present his allusions, mostly quite 
 obscure, to the Law. And I pass on the more readily, 
 since Dr. Kuenen, in his elaborate work on The Kdig- 
 ioii of Israel^ admits that the references of Micah are so 
 numerous and so exact to the events recorded in the 
 Pentateuch that " we must even suppose that he was 
 acquainted wiih those narratives, unless appearances 
 should tend to show that they were written or modified 
 at a later date" (Vol. I., p. 103). I will therefore pro- 
 ceed to a consideration of the prophecies of Hosea, 
 Amos, and Joel, taking them up in order. 
 
 8. Hosea (780 B.C.) says to the people (chap, iv., 6), 
 "Thou hast forgotten the Law of thy God." Again, 
 he says (chap, viii., i), " They have transgressed my 
 
Il6 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 covenant and trespassed against my Law," therefore 
 " He shall come as an eagle against the house of the 
 Lord." The reference is to Deuteronomy xxviii., 49, 
 "The Lord shall bring a nation ... as swift as an 
 eagle flieth." Speaking of Ephraim, in the name of 
 the Lord, he says (viii., 12), " I have written to him 
 the great things of my Law, but they were counted as 
 a strange thing." One of the distinguishing features 
 of the style of this book is the repeated use of the 
 words "whore," "whoring," "whoredom," to signify 
 desertion of the true God and worship of false gods. 
 This phraseology is derived from the Pentateuch most 
 obviously. In Exodus xxxiv., 15, 16; Leviticus xx., 5, 
 6 ; Numbers xiv., t^t, ; Deuteronomy xxxi., 16, and in 
 numerous other jDlaces, these words are used to signify 
 idolatry. Indeed, the style of Hosea is colored through 
 and through with the style of the Books of Moses. I 
 will commence with the first chapter and proceed with 
 an examination of his style as far as is necessary for 
 my purpose. The land is said (chap, i., 2) to have 
 "committed a great whoredom." Leviticus xix., 29, 
 " Lest the land fall to ["commit"; the original word 
 is the same as in Hosea] whoredom." Inverse 10, it 
 is said, "The number of the children of Israel shall be 
 as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor 
 numbered," which is a verbal quotation from the prom- 
 ise made to Jacob (Genesis xxxii., 12), " I will make 
 thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be num- 
 bered for multitude." In the eleventh verse, the 
 prophet says that the people " shall come up out of the 
 land " of their captivdty. This phrase is used repeat- 
 edly in the Pentateuch when the deliverance from 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. I17 
 
 Egypt is spoken of, and therefore had great signifi- 
 cance to the Jews. In chapter ii , 8, the prophet says, 
 "She," Israel, "did not know that I gave her corn and 
 wine and oil," a quotation from Deuteronomy vii., 13, 
 where God says, " I will bless the fruit of thy land, thy 
 corn and thy wine and thine oil." And, in the tenth 
 verse, God says, " None shall deliver her out of my 
 hand," a phrase taken from Deuteronomy xxxii., 39, 
 "Neither is there any that can deliver out of my 
 hand." Inverse 11, we have mention of "her feast 
 days," which are the Passover, Pentecost, and Tab- 
 ernacles; her "new moons," Numbers xxviii., 11, 12; 
 and " her Sabbaths," Leviticus xxiii., 3; "and all her 
 solemn feasts." A very clear reference is made in the 
 twelfth verse, in the word "rewards," meaning wages 
 of whoredom, to Deuteronomy xxiii ,18. It is said 
 in verse 17 that the Lord would take the "names of 
 Baalim out of her mouth," which phrase is used in 
 Exodus xxiii., 13, "make no mention of the names of 
 other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." 
 In chapter iv., 4, we read that reproof and rebuke are 
 useless, for the "people are as they that strive with 
 the priest." And how were they that strove with the 
 priest? In Deuteronomy xvii,, 12, we read that the 
 " man that will not hearken unto the priest . . . shall 
 die." There was reason, then, why no reproof should 
 be given to the people,- — they were past help. How 
 clear is the reference to the Pentateuch in this pas- 
 sage ! A very striking instance of quotation is found 
 in chapter iv., 10. The prophet is describing the 
 suffering that shall come upon the people for their 
 sins ; and he tells them, " They shall eat and not be 
 
llS A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 satisfied " (c.v., " not have enough "). In Leviticus 
 xxvi., 26, where the Lord threatens calamities if the 
 people sin, he says, "When I have broken the staff of 
 your bread, ... ye shall eat and not be satisfied," — a 
 verbal quotation. In the same verse is a distinct ref- 
 erence to Genesis xxviii., 14, and Leviticus xx., 20, 21 : 
 "They shall commit whoredom, and shall not increase." 
 The original word for "increase," " to break forth," is 
 used in the promise to Jacob, "And thou shalt spread 
 abroad ["break forth"] to the west and to the east," 
 etc. This use of the word is peculiar to the Penta- 
 teuch ; and the threatening of not increasing is con- 
 formed to the passage referred to in Leviticus and 
 many other places in the Law. In the thirteenth verse, 
 the prophet accuses the people of sin, because they 
 have done as wickedly as the nations which they were 
 commanded to destroy : " They sacrifice upon the tops 
 of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, 
 under oaks and poplars and elms." In Deuteronomy 
 xii., 2, -where the practices of the nations are described, 
 the same phrases are used, except that, in the last 
 clause, the prophet has substituted specific names for 
 "every green tree." In chapter v., 6, the prophet saj^s 
 it will not be with them now as it was of old, when 
 thev "2:0 with their flocks and with their herds " to 
 seek the Lord, for he will have withdrawn from them 
 on account of their wickedness. In describing the sac- 
 rifices which the people offereil to the Lord, in the 
 Pentateuch the phrase " with your flocks and with 
 your herds " is very common. Why were " the princes 
 of Judah like them that remove the landmark " 
 ("bound," c.v.), and upon whom the prophet declares 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 19 
 
 that the Lord will " pour out his wrath Hke water " ? 
 Because in Deuteronomy xxvii., 17, it is said, ^''Cursed 
 be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark." This 
 reference is too striking to admit of doubt. And the 
 prophet continues, " Ephraim is oppressed and crushed 
 [c.v., broken in judgment] because he forsook the 
 Lord" ; just as it is declared it shall happen unto the 
 nation, if they forsake God, in Deuteronomy xxviii., -^^^ : 
 "Thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway." 
 In chapter v., 15, and vi., i, we read, " In their affliction 
 they will seek me earl}^," and say, " Come, let us return 
 unto the Lord, for he hath torn and he will heal us ; he 
 hath smitten and he will bind us up." This is a fulfil- 
 ment of the prophecy in Deuteronomy iv., 30, " When 
 thou art in affliction [c.v., tribulation], ... in the latter 
 days, and thou turn to the Lord thy God " ; and in 
 Deuteronomy xxxii., 39, " I kill and I make alive ; I 
 wound and I heal ; neither is there any one that can 
 deliver out of my hand." Compare with this Hosea 
 v., 4, " I will tear, . . . and none shall deliver " (c.v., 
 rescue). In chapter vii., 10, the people are reproved 
 because, after all their afflictions, " they do not return 
 to the Lord their God, nor seek him," as required in 
 Deuteronomy iv., 29, 30. The declaration, " I v/ill 
 chastise them, as hath been proclaimed in their congre- 
 gation " (c.v., "as their congregation hath heard "), chap- 
 ter vii., 12, is to the point, as the laws were usually said 
 to be proclaimed " to the congregation " in the Penta- 
 teuch. And here seems to be an explicit reference to 
 punishments which had been threatened to the people 
 at that time. In chapter viii., 6, there is an apparent 
 reference in the ori2:inal to the calf which was burned at 
 
I20 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Horeb. The prophet says, " The calf of Samaria shall 
 be broken in pieces " (made " kindlings " literally). 
 In the twelfth verse there is the explicit declaration, 
 " I have written to him the great things of my law " ; 
 or, as it should be translated, " I have written for him 
 many laws ; but they were counted as a strange thing." 
 Here we have proof that the laws quoted were written, 
 and these laws are found word for word in the Penta- 
 teuch. In the next verse is quoted the remarkable 
 prophecy in Deuteronomy xxviii., 68, " They shall re- 
 turn to Egypt." In chapter ix., 4, in speaking of the 
 calamity of the impending captivity, he says, " They 
 shall not offer wine-offerings to the Lord ; . . . their 
 sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of mourners ; 
 all that eat thereof shall be polluted." In Leviticus 
 xix. is a full statement of the defiled condition of 
 all who are mourning. In the fifth verse, it is asked, 
 "What will ye do in the solemn day [i.e., feast days 
 generally], and in the day of the feast of the Lord ? " 
 {i.e., of the Passover, or some other of the three great 
 feasts), — showing that feast days were observed at this 
 time in Israel. The historical allusions in this chapter 
 are too numerous for quotation. The feast of the tab- 
 ernacles was celebrated in Israel ; for in chapter xii., 9, 
 we read, " I will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles, 
 as in the days of the solemn feasts " (feast). In verse 
 14, it is said of Ephraim, " He shall leave his blood 
 upon him," which is a phrase used in the Law to show 
 the penalty which hangs over the evil-doer, Leviticus 
 XX., 9 : " He that curseth his father or his mother, his 
 blood shall be upon him," i.e., he shall be put to death. 
 But I must not dwell upon the writings of this 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 121 
 
 prophet any longer. We find that he speaks of the 
 Law, sometimes almost makes a formal quotation from 
 it, and in almost innumerable instances makes use of 
 its language. I have marked more than twice as many- 
 clear references to the Law as I have quoted. But, if 
 these are not sufficient to convince the reader, no num- 
 ber would be. They most clearly identify the Law 
 which was "written," and with which Hosea was famil- 
 iar, with the Pentateuch of Ezra, of the son of Sirach, 
 of Josephus, and of Martin Luther. His prophecy is 
 as full of allusions to the Pentateuch, and his style par- 
 takes as much of its flavor, as the sermons of the Puri- 
 tans do of the Bible ; and one would as soon think of 
 denying that John Robinson or John Cotton had our 
 New Testament as that Hosea had our Pentateuch. 
 It is admitted that the ritual and priesthood were exist- 
 ing in perfection, and that the Pentateuch was in the 
 hands of Malachi substantially as we have it to-day, 
 yet he does not refer to its contents or to the ceremo- 
 nies of the ritual any more frequently than Hosea, who 
 lived three hundred years before him. If Hosea makes 
 as free use of it as Malachi, why is it not conclusive 
 evidence that he had it ? This inference can be over- 
 come only by very weighty objections. 
 
 (9) I must make some examination of the writings 
 of Amos, who was a little earlier than Hosea. In chap- 
 ter ii., 7, our translation reads, " and turn aside the 
 way of the meek " : it should be rendered, " wrest the 
 judgment of the weak," which agrees with Exodus 
 xxiii., 6, "Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy 
 poor." An abominable sin is spoken of in the same 
 verse, which the Lord says " profanes his holy name," 
 
122 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 — a verbal reference to Leviticus xx., 3 : I will set my 
 face against that man who "profanes my holy name." 
 The wicked people are said (verse 8) " to lay them- 
 selves down upon clothes laid to pledge." Exodus 
 xxii., 26, forbids this, and requires that "raiment taken 
 to pledge " shall be delivered to the owner when " the 
 sun goeth down." The phrase, verse 10, "and led you 
 forty years in the wilderness," is a verbal quotation 
 from Deuteronomy xxix., 5. The people are rebuked, 
 verse 12, for giving "the Nazarites wine to drink." 
 Why not? In Numbers vi., 3, the Nazarites' vow to 
 abstain from wine is given. 
 
 The fourth chapter of Amos is so filled with refer- 
 ences to the Pentateuch that a specific enumeration of 
 them would be impossible in this study. Not less 
 than a dozen instances of the use of language to be 
 found in the different books of the Pentateuch could 
 be quoted. I must content myself with a condensed 
 summary, leaving the reader who is interested in this 
 examination to pursue it into its details at his leisure. 
 " Bring your sacrifices every morning," Numbers xxviii., 
 3, 4, " and your tithes after three years," Deuteronomy 
 xiv., 28, which reads, " At the end of three years, thou 
 shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase " ; a 
 very clear reference. " Offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving 
 with leaven," Leviticus ii., 11, "and publish the free 
 offerings," Leviticus xxii., 18. " I have given you want 
 of bread," Leviticus xxvi., 26, "yet have ye not returned 
 to me, saith the Lord." This last phrase is used sev- 
 eral times in this chapter, and has evident reference 
 to Deuteronomy iv., t,o, where the people are exhorted, 
 in their troubles, " to turn to the Lord their God." '' I 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1^3 
 
 have smitten you with blasting and mildew," Deuteron- 
 omy xxviii., 2 2. "I have sent among you the pestilence, 
 after the manner of Egypt," as predicted in Leviticus 
 xxvi., 25 ; Deuteronomy vii., 15 ; xxviii, 27. In chap- 
 ter v., II, the prophet says, "Ye have built houses of 
 hewn stone, but ye shall not dwell in them"; Deuter- 
 onomy xxviii., 30, where it is said, "Thou shalt build 
 an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein." Further, 
 the prophet says, "Ye have planted pleasant vineyards, 
 but ye shall not drink wine of them " ; predicted in 
 Deuteronomy xxviii., 39, " Thou shalt plant vineyards, 
 . . . but shalt not drink of the wine." The prophet de- 
 nounces them, because " they afHict the just, they take 
 a bribe." Exodus xxiii., 8, Deuteronomy xvi., 19, declare 
 "Thou shalt not wrest judgment, thou shalt not respect 
 persons, neither take a gift" (bribe). In verse 17, he 
 says, " I will pass through thee " as I passed through 
 the land of Egypt on the dreadful night when the first- 
 born were slain and you were preserved. Now you 
 will be punished, and a great " wailing " will be heard 
 among you, as a "great cry" was raised by Pharaoh 
 and his servants. (Exodus xii., ;^o.) The Lord ex- 
 presses his dislike (verses 21, 22) of their "feasts," 
 their "solemn assemblies," their "burnt-offerings and 
 meat-offerings," and of their " peace-offerings." (Num- 
 bers xxix., 25 ; Leviticus xxiii., 36 ; Deuteronomy xvi.) 
 The prophet accuses the oppressors of the people of 
 being so greedy of gain as to say, chap, viii., 5, " When 
 will the neixj moon be gone that we may se// corn, and 
 the Sabbath that we may set forth [open] wheat .'^ " A 
 remarkable resemblance exists in the original between 
 the words marked in italics and those in Genesis xli., 
 
1^4 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 56, " And Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold 
 unto the Egyptians." No " servile work " could be 
 done on the new moon of the seventh month, or the 
 beginning of the civil year. Leviticus xxiii., 24, 25. 
 He further charges these greedy traffickers with " mak- 
 ing the ephah small," Deuteronomy xxv., 14, "and the 
 shekel great," Deuteronomy xxv., 13, "and falsifying 
 the balances by deceit." Leviticus xix., -^d^ requires 
 " just balances." When carried captive, the wicked 
 people would not escape suffering, for the Lord says to 
 them by the mouth of the prophet, chapter ix,, 4, 
 " Thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay 
 them " (those in captivity), which is a reiteration of the 
 threatening in Deuteronomy xxviii., 65, and Leviticus 
 xxvi., T^T^^ " I will draw out a sword after you among the 
 heathen." In the same chapter, eighth verse, the Lord 
 says, " I will destroy it [Israel] from off the face of the 
 earth," which is a verbal repetition of the punishment 
 threatened in Deuteronomy vi., 15, "The Lord thy 
 God . . . will destroy thee from off the face of the earth." 
 These quotations from Amos make it evident that he 
 was familiar with the language of the Pentateuch. He 
 rebukes Israel for violating the laws therein contained, 
 and writes precisely as iL the contents of that book were 
 as familiar to him as the contents of the gospel were to 
 John Bunyan. He calls the book by the name which 
 it has had through all succeeding years up to his time. 
 In giving a general reason for the punishment which 
 would come upon tl e people, he says, in chapter ii., 4, 
 " They have despised the Law of the Lord, and have 
 not kept his commandments," a direct reference to the 
 thre.it in Leviticus xxvi., 15, where it is said, "If ye 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 125 
 
 shall despise my statutes," the most terrible calamities 
 shall fall upon you. The customs, rites, worship which 
 the prophet describes are all identical with those spoken 
 of in " The Law." 
 
 It is important to remember that both liosea and 
 Amos prophesied in the kingdom of Israel. They 
 addressed the rulers, princes, priests, and people of 
 that nation as if tkeyw&XQ familiar with the Law. They 
 speak of them as keeping the feast days, the new 
 moons, and the Sabbaths. Is it improbable that the 
 people of Israel had a copy of the Law, whose contents 
 are so fully stated in these prophecies ? It is further 
 to be remembered that Amos was *' no prophet," that 
 is, by education, '' nor the son of a prophet " ; he was 
 a "shepherd and a gatherer of sycamore fruit." If, 
 then, he was so familiar with "The Law," never hav- 
 ing been educated in it, how much of its language must 
 have been on the lips of those who had attended the 
 schools of the prophets .? There is more reason than 
 some scholars are willing to allow for referring the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch to a much earlier age than is 
 commonly assigned to it. It is by no means improb- 
 able that copies of " The Law " existed in the northern 
 kingdom before the captivity, and that the people who 
 were left in the land had copies with them, and that it 
 has been handed down among that people from age to 
 age, to the present day. If such a supposition is rea- 
 sonable, the existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch is 
 evidence of the high antiquity of the Hebrew Penta- 
 teuch. 
 
 But I do not rest this argument on any such basis. I 
 am tracing references to "The Law," the Pentateuch, 
 
126 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 back through the Hebrew writings that have come 
 down to us ; and we find abundant evidence of its exist- 
 ence in the writings of the two prophets who were sent 
 to prophesy to the kingdom of Israel. But this aside. 
 We must pursue our inquiry still further. 
 
 lo. Next in order comes the prophecy of Joel, who 
 was a little the predecessor of Amos, at least in the 
 opinion of some scholars ; but he prophesied to the 
 kingdom of Judah. 
 
 The prophecy of Joel is very brief, covering but a 
 few pages. The whole spirit of his prophecy is derived 
 from "The Law." His promises and threatenings are 
 all derived from those contained in " The Law." He 
 says, "The meat-offering and the drink-offering is cut 
 off from the house of the Lord ; the priests mourn." 
 " The harvest of the field is perished, the river is dried 
 up, the fig-tree languisheth ; . . . call a solemn assem- 
 bly," for the " locust hath eaten " up the harvest. 
 Compare with these expressions Deuteronomy xxviii., 
 38-42. In the second chapter, the prophet directs 
 them to call an assembly. " Blow ye the trumpet," says 
 he. In Numbers x., 3, we find that this was the ap- 
 pointed method of calling an assembly. He says, 
 describing the locusts, " There hath not been ever the 
 like, neither shall there be any more after it, even to 
 the years of many generations." This is a clear ref- 
 erence to Exodus X., 14, where, describing the locusts 
 of the plague in Egypt, the writer says, " Before them 
 there were no such locusts as they, neither after them 
 shall there be such." In chapter ii., 13, the prophet 
 exhorts the people to repent, assuring them that the 
 Lord God "is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. I27 
 
 and of great kindness"; an assurance which he could 
 well give, for, Exodus xxxiv,, 6, the Lord himself de- 
 scended in a cloud, and proclaimed, "The Lord God, 
 merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in 
 goodness and truth." The prophet further says that 
 the Lord will leave a blessing behind him, " a meat- 
 offering and a drink-offering." Most earnestly he im- 
 plores the people "to blow the trumpet, to proclaim a 
 solemn assembly, to appoint a congregation, ... to 
 let the priests weep between the porch and the altar, 
 and say, Spare thy people, O Lord, aid give not their 
 heritage to reproach, that the heathen should use a by- 
 word against them " (marginal reading). In Deuter- 
 onomy xxviii., 37, the people are threatened, it" they 
 sin, with the punishment of becoming " a proverb and 
 a b3^-word among all nations." The reference is clear. 
 Joel's prophecy is filled with Mosaic terms, and with 
 the spirit and letter of the Law. Let it be remem- 
 bered that Hosea, Amos, and Joel, whose references 
 to Deuteronomy are so numerous, wrote a century and 
 more before Hilkiah forged it, according to Kuenen.* 
 II. The testimony of two more books yet remains 
 to be examined, the Proverbs and Psalms. In Ecclesi- 
 astes and Solomon's Song, we find nothing to our pur- 
 pose, nor should we expect to. Nor should we expect 
 to hnd much light on our theme in the Book of Proverbs. 
 The subject of the book forbids it. Yet even here are 
 there some hints of the existence of the Pentateuch. 
 
 ♦Yet, notwiihitandin^ this evidence that the prophetic writings are saturated 
 with the spirit and sprinkled all over with the phrases and ceremonies of the 
 Pentateuch, a writer in the U?titarian Review for November, 1880, p. 427, asks 
 in a tone of haughty challenge, " What reference to Mosaic law or Mosaic ritu-s 
 can iou find in any of the earlier prophets ? " '' What appeal to their authority ? " 
 
128 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 King Lemuel's mother taught him, chapter xxxi., 5, that 
 princes should not drink wine lest they " forget the 
 Law, and pervert the judgment of any that are afflicted." 
 Deuteronomy xxiv., 17, Exodus xxiii., 6, ''Thou shalt 
 not pervert judgment." In chapter xxviii., 4, 7, 9, " The 
 Law" is spoken of. So also in chapter xxix., 18, we 
 read, " He that keepeth the Law, happy is he," " but 
 where there is no vision the people perish." Other 
 passages of like character are found in the book which 
 it is unnecessary to quote, as they add nothing to our 
 argument. Davidson says. Vol. IL, p. 342, "The Prov- 
 erbs are ethical maxims deduced front the Mosaic Law 
 anC Divine Providence." The Book of Psalms con- 
 tains lyric poems, for the most part, which were com- 
 posed during a long period of the nation's existence. 
 Some were probably composed before the lime of 
 David, many by him, and by his contemporaries and 
 immediate successors, and some as late as after the 
 return from captivity. If we could certainly select 
 those of the earliest date, they would be much more to 
 our purpose than those composed at a later period. As 
 in many cases such a distinction cannot accurately be 
 made, I shall quote from 'those which are more gener- 
 ally conceded to be of the earlier class, after I have 
 drawn a few illustrations from those of a confessedly 
 later period. The seventy-eighth psalm is supposed to 
 have been written much later than the time of David. 
 It is an historical poem, and repeats the most prominent 
 incidents recorded in the Pentateuch. It speaks dis- 
 tinctly of the "covenant of God," and declares that the 
 people refused in early times " to walk in his Law"; 
 that " he established a testimony in Jacob, and ap- 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 29 
 
 pointed a Law in Israel," which he commanded the 
 fathers to *' make known to their children." Deuter- 
 onomy iv., 9, vi., 7, xi., 19, require that the Law should 
 be taught to the children. The use of the language of 
 the Pentateuch in this psalm is so pervading that I 
 must ask readers to examine it for themselves in con- 
 nection with this argument. To make quotations is 
 impossible. Psalm cxix. is a very artistic poem, con- 
 structed with express reference to the Law, the statutes, 
 the commandments, and the judgments of the Lord. 
 Through one hundred and seventy-six verses, it labors, 
 with all variety of phrase, to extol "The Law" of the 
 Lord, and inculcate obedience to all its " statutes." 
 In Psalm xcvii., the writer says that the Lord spake to 
 his people " in the cloudy pillar ; they kept his testimo- 
 nies and the ordinance that he gave them." In Psalm 
 Ixxxix., 30-32, the writer, enumerating the calamities 
 which shall rest upon the house of David, says, in the 
 name of the Lord, " If his children forsake my Law, 
 and walk not in my judgments; if they break my stat- 
 utes, and keep not my commandments ; then will I visit 
 their transgression with the rod." Moses is spoken of 
 as one to whom God had made himself known, ciii., 7 ; 
 cv., 26 ; cvi., 16, 23, 32. These psalms are also filled 
 with the incidents and language of the Pentateuch. In 
 Psalm xix. there is a comparison made between the in- 
 struction given in the works of Nature and that which 
 is given in "The Law of the Lord." "The Law of the 
 Lord is perfect, converting the soul ; the testimony of 
 the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes 
 of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the command- 
 ment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The 
 
130 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 fear [by metonymy, that which teaches us the fear] of 
 the Lord is clean, enduring forever ; the judgments of 
 the Lord are true and righteous altogether." In Psalm 
 xL, 8, we have a very clear statement of the existence 
 of books in the time of David. " In the volume of the 
 book it is written of me, . . . Thy law is within my 
 heart." As it has been suggested that this may be a 
 figurative reference to God's purposes, not to any literal 
 volume, I do not press the inference that it refers to 
 the Book of the Laia, but simply say that it proves the 
 existence of un-ittcJi books in the time of David ; and v/e 
 have seen already that, I. Kings ii., 3, David charges 
 Solomon to keep the "statutes and commandments and 
 judgments and testimonies " of the Lord, " as it is writ- 
 ten in the Law of Moses." The poem and the history 
 agree. In Psalm i., 2, it is said that the delight of the 
 good man " is in the Law of the Lord, and in his Law 
 doth he meditate day and night." 
 
 These references to the Pentateuch, under the same 
 names which we have found in use from the time of 
 Paul and the Son of Sirach, are proof of the existence 
 of the same work which Paul and the Son of Sirach 
 used, unless some proof can be brought that it was 
 remodelled between these periods. Of such a trans- 
 formation, history does not record a syllable : therefore 
 the work is the same as that to which David and the 
 Psalmists alluded, as that which Paul and the Son of 
 Sirach used, unless internal evidence, derived from the 
 book itself, can be brought to show the contrary. To 
 that internal evidence, I shall attend in due time. I 
 now confine myself to the historical evidence. 
 
 But we fin4 wot only the old names, but also the 
 
EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 131 
 
 style of the Pentateuch introduced into the Psalms, its 
 facts alluded to, its rites mentioned. I will notice a 
 few of the latter. In Psalm xix., i, there is the same 
 distinction between the heavens and the firmament as 
 in Genesis i. The word *' firmament " is a peculiar 
 one, and is doubtless used by the Psalmist on that 
 account. Psalm xxxiii., 6, 7, teaches us that "By the 
 word of the Lord v/ere the heavens made " (Genesis i., 
 14, "And God said, Let there be lights in the firma- 
 ment "), " and all the host of them by the breath of 
 his mouth " (Genesis ii., i, " Thus the heavens and 
 earth were finished, and all the host of them "). " He 
 gathereth the waters of the sea together as a heap " 
 (Genesis i., 9, "And God said. Let the waters ... be 
 gathered together into one place "). In Psalm Ixxxi., 
 3-5, there is a direct reference to the time when a stat- 
 ute there named was enacted : " Blow the trumpet in 
 the new moon " (Numbers x., 10, " In the beginnings of 
 your month [i.e., new moons], ye shall blow with the 
 trumpets "), "in the time appointed, on our solemn feast 
 day ; for this is a statute for Israel and a law of the 
 God of Jacob. This he ordained . . . when he went 
 out through [of] the land of Egypt." Verse 6, "I 
 removed from his shoulder the burden" (Exodus i., 
 11). In Psalm xv., 3-5, we read that a good man 
 "backbiteth not with his tongue" (Leviticus xix., 16), 
 " nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor " (Exo- 
 dus xxiii., i). " He putteth not out his money to usury "' 
 (Exodus xxii., 25), "nor taketh a reward against the 
 innocent " (Exodus xxiii., 8). " He sweareth to his 
 own hurt, and changeth not " (Numbers xxx., 2). 
 These references are all too distinct to be mistaken, 
 
132 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 *' Burnt-offerings and sin-offerings " are spoken of in 
 xl., 6; li., 19; Ixvi., 13, 15 : "I will go into th) house 
 with burnt-offerings ; . . . I will offer unto thee burnt 
 sacrifices of fatlings, with the incense of rams." Psalm 
 cxxxiii., the "precious ointment that ran down on 
 Aaron's beard " refers to his anointing (Leviticus viii., 
 12), where Moses is said to pour the "anointing oil " 
 on Aaron's head. 
 
 It is not necessary to accumulate these quotations 
 any further. It is evident that, upon the supposition of 
 the existence and familiar use of the Pentateuch by 
 the writers of the Psalms, we could not expect to find 
 more frequent allusions to the book, nor more evident 
 use of its words and phrases, than we do find. Hence, 
 the argument is as full and cogent from this quarter as 
 is required for my purpose. 
 
 I have now closed my examination of the historical 
 and poetical writings of the Jewish nation back to the 
 time of David. And, all through both classes of writ- 
 ings, we find not only the title of the Pentateuch 
 named in references to it, but we also find constant 
 use of its style, and allusion to its rites, ceremonies, 
 and laws. I hesitate not to say that no writing which 
 has come down to our day from a remote antiquity can 
 show such an array of historical evidence attesting its 
 age as the writings of the Jews furnish to the existence 
 of the Pentateuch in the time of David. The book 
 which David referred Solomon to as the " Law of 
 Moses," in which were " written the statutes, com- 
 mandments, judgments, and testimonies of the Lord," 
 is the book which now lies open before me, or else I 
 
EVIDENCE FROISI THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 33 
 
 have no reason or right to speak of the history of 
 Thucydides as being in our hands. Those who are 
 not accustomed to inquiries of this kind may not be 
 aware of the superior amount and quality of the evi- 
 dence which can be adduced in favor of the existence 
 of the Pentateuch in the time of David, over that 
 which can be produced in favor of the early origin of 
 any other work of remote antiquity which has come 
 into our hands, and which, nevertheless, we accept as 
 being sustained by all the evidence which, under the 
 circumstances, could be expected. 
 
 Let us remember, too, the period at which we have 
 arrived. We are within four hundred years or less of 
 the time in which Moses lived, who is supposed by 
 David to have written these Ltlws. The golden age of 
 Hebrew literature is fixed at this period. A glorious 
 temple was to be erected in which the worship of 
 Jehovah, as prescribed in "The Law," could be 
 offered. The schools of the prophets had been send- 
 ing out scholars into all parts of the land for a hun- 
 dred years. It is incredible that a book containing the 
 fundamental laws of such a nation, on an obedience to 
 which rested their national destiny, could have been so 
 universally referred to their great law-giver, if indeed 
 he had no hand in its composition. Had we no frag- 
 ments of history relating to the period between David 
 and Moses, we could not hesitate to refer the book to 
 him to whom it was referred at this period. The men 
 of that age were abundantly capable of determining 
 such a question. They were under the most impera- 
 tive obligation to determine it correctly, and there is 
 no more reason, historically, to suppose them to be 
 
134 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 mistaken than we have to suppose that the English 
 monarchs and scholars are mistaken in referring the 
 Doomsday Book to the time of William the Con- 
 queror. 
 
 SECTION IV. FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 
 
 As far as external historical evidence is concerned, I 
 might pause here. But there are some earlier writings, 
 some portions of which were composed probably before 
 the time of David, or during his reign, — namely, 
 Joshua and Judges ; and some which, though relating 
 to the times previous to him, were not composed till 
 a later period, — namely, the Books of Joshua and 
 Samuel. 
 
 To understand the value of the evidence rendered 
 by these books to the antiquity of the Pentateuch, a 
 word is necessary respecting their age and contents. 
 The Book of Joshua was written before the close of 
 the reign of Solomon, if we can rely upon the state- 
 ment made in chapter xvi., lo, where it is said, "The 
 Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites [in Gezer] 
 unto this day." But, in I. Kings ix., 16, we read 
 that Pharaoh "took Gezer, burned it with fire, slew 
 the Canaanites, and gave it as a present to his 
 daughter, Solomon's wife." The book may have been 
 composed earlier, even in the reign of Saul, or during 
 the life of Samuel. There is nothing in the style or 
 contents of the book which requires a later author. 
 The contents of the book are such as rather to forbid 
 than admit any specific quotations from the Pentateuch, 
 consisting, as they do in the first half, of a description 
 of passing over Jordan, and of the battles of the 
 
FROM DAVID TO MOSES. I35 
 
 conquest, and, in the last half, of a condensed state- 
 ment of the boundaries of the tribes and their cities.* 
 The Book of Judges tells us, in chapter i., 21, that 
 "the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in 
 Jerusalem unto this day," which shows, if the passage 
 can be relied upon, that the book, or the main part of 
 it, must have been written before the end of David's 
 reign, since in II. Samuel, chapter v., 6-8, we learn 
 that David drove the Jebusites out of Jerusalem, and 
 took the stronghold of Zion and dwelt in it. A passage 
 in the appendix of the book, which was added at a 
 later date, chapter xviii., 30, would probably place this 
 addition as late as 721 B.C. "The day of the captivity 
 of the land'' is spoken of. There is nothing in the 
 language or contents of the body of the book to forbid 
 its composition in the early years of the monarchy, 
 since its descriptions of the anarchical condition of 
 the people have very much the appearance of an apol- 
 ogy or good reason for a stronger and consolidated 
 government, as well as of an illustration of the peril of 
 "doing evil in the sight of the Lord." The subject of 
 both the book and its appendix is such as not to require 
 or even permit many references to the Pentateuch, 
 made up as it is of battles and exploits of heroes and 
 heroines, and devoting four chapters to the freaks and 
 
 ♦Davidson says{/n(ro. O. T., Vol. I., p. 415): "The ecclesiastical state of 
 the people under Joshua appears to have been in accordance with the divine 
 law. There was the ark of the covenant, priests, a high priest Eleazer, Leviii- 
 cal cities. Circumcision and the passover were observed. The tabernacle was 
 set up, and the congregation assembled beside it. [Dr. Oort, Bible for Learfiers, 
 says, "The tabernacle never really existed except in the imagination <l the 
 writer " (of Exodus), who lived after the captivity.] The Reubcnites, Gadites, and 
 half-tribe of Manasseh 'kept ail that Moses, the servant of God, commanded 
 them.' " 
 
136 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 follies and feats and gallantries of the renowned ath- 
 lete, Samson. 
 
 The Books of Samuel, down to the reign of David, 
 appear to be closely connected with the succeeding his- 
 tory, and very probably were the production of the au- 
 thor of the history of that reign, whose writings were 
 used by the author of the Book of Kings, who wrote at 
 the commencement of the captivity, 586 B.C. During 
 this tumuhuous period of establishing the monarchy, 
 but little reference would be made, in brief annals, to 
 rituals and customs. Weightier and novel matters 
 would press upon the writer's attention. And in all 
 these writings we cannot rely upon any stronger evi- 
 dence of the age of the Pentateuch than is furnished 
 by the opinion of the age in which they vvere written, 
 as expressed by their authors. It is true that they did 
 not rely wholly upon tradition. They had, apparently, 
 in their hands scraps of records and songs which fur- 
 nished some written testimony to the customs and laws 
 of this period, and to the existence of the Mosaic rit- 
 ual. These obscure references and passing hints we 
 shall do well to notice and weigh. 
 
 In I. Samuel i., 3, we read that Hannah and her hus- 
 band, a hundred years before the time of David, "went 
 up yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord of 
 hosts, in Shiloh," where the tabernacle was. In chap- 
 ter i., 21, 22, the writer tells us that the journey was 
 repeated the next year by the father alone, and that 
 the second year the child Samuel was with them. This 
 "yearly" journey was required by "The Law" at the 
 feast of the passover, but we do not read of it again in 
 the book, showing how many things customary are not 
 
FROM DAVID TO MOSES. I37 
 
 named. We read of the offering of " burnt-offerings " 
 and " peace-offerings " at different times and at differ- 
 ent places, since no spot had been selected as the per- 
 manent resting-place of the ark. There are, also, found 
 some phrases in the Books of Samuel which the his- 
 torian evidently took from the Books of Moses ; but as 
 he wrote at as late a period as is covered by some of 
 the books already examined, and as his style would 
 only prove the existence of the Pentateuch when he 
 wrote, I will not occupy much space by making quota 
 tions. In I. Samuel, chapter xii., 14, Samuel says to 
 the people, " If ye will not rebel against the command- 
 ment of the Lord," it will be well with you ; "but if ye 
 rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then shall 
 the hand of the Lord be against you, as it was against 
 your fathers." This is obviously said in reference to 
 the Law, for " the commandment," " the testimony," 
 are often used for the Pentateuch. The writer of the 
 Book of Judges, chapter iii., 4, says, "They [the na- 
 tions not conquered] were to prove Israel, ... to know 
 whether they would hearken unto the commandments 
 of the Lord, which he had commattded their fathers by 
 the hand of Moses y In Josiiua i., 7, 8, the Lord is rep- 
 resented as thus addressing Joshua : " Be thou strong 
 and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do 
 according to all the Law wJiich Moses^ my servant, com- 
 manded thee. . . . This Book of the Law shall not depart 
 out of thy mouth, . . . that thou mayest do all that is 
 written therein." In chapter viii., 30, 31, we read that 
 "Joshua built an altar, ... as Moses the servant of the 
 Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is writte?i 
 in the Book of the Law of Moses^ In chapter xxiii., 6, 
 
138 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 we read of what "is written in the Book of the Law 
 of Moses"; and in chapter xxiv., 26, we read that 
 " Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of 
 God." 
 
 Such are the names given in these early annals to 
 the book or code by which tlie people were governed-. 
 Let us now see if the references to it or the customs of 
 the period render it certain that our Pentateuch is 
 intended by these names. The priests are represented 
 in Joshua as " bearing the ark," and the " ark of the 
 covenant," and the " ark of the Lord," and " the ark 
 of the testimony" ; and " Phinehas, the son of Aaron," 
 is said to have " stood before the ark of the covenant 
 of God in those days," in the Book of Judges ; and in L 
 Samuel it is spoken of ten times, and in IL Samuel five 
 times. In Joshua xviii,, i, "the tabernacle of the con- 
 gregation" is said to "be set up at Shiloh," and it is 
 mentioned again xxii., 19 ; and three times it is spoken 
 of in Samuel. The " curtains " of the dwelling-place of 
 the ark are mentioned in IL Samuel vii., 2, and in the 
 sixth verse the "tent and tabernacle" are spoken of, 
 describing the original tabernacle accurately, the " tent " 
 signifying the outward covering of skins and cloth of 
 goat's hair, and "the tabernacle " signifying the "cur- 
 tains of fine twined linen and blue and purple and 
 scarlet," Exodus xxvi., i, 14. This passage shows hov/ 
 carefully the material and form of the ancient taber- 
 nacle had been preserved through all ages and vicissi- 
 tudes, amid repairs and renewals down to the time of 
 David, a period of about four hundred years, when we 
 find him ambitious to erect a more imposing struct- 
 ure for the administration of the ritual. We read, in 
 
FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 1 39 
 
 I. Samuel xxi., 6, of the " shew bread " which was in the 
 tabernacle at Nob, chapter xxii., ii, and which was 
 "hallowed bread," of which David and his men were 
 permitted to eat after much deliberation, as it was 
 sacredly set apart for the priests, Leviticus xxiv., 9. 
 In I. Samuel, during times bordering upon those of the 
 Judges, we read frequently of " offerings " and " sacri- 
 fices," offered app.irently at places where the " taber- 
 nacle " was from time to time located, and sometimes 
 on altars built for the occasion. 
 
 These records of religious observances are quite fre- 
 quent, though brief ; but they are hints of what existed 
 and was common, as the "yearly sacrifice " to which the 
 people are said to go up is mentioned specially but three 
 times. And it is to be remembered that these were 
 turbulent times, and the writer of Judges does not 
 dwell upon the years of peace, but describes almost 
 exclusively the insurrections and forays and personal 
 exploits of the time. We read of " priests " in Joshua 
 and Judges and Samuel, and of their presence at the 
 place of the tabernacle. There is no evidence which is 
 decisive that any service which was allotted by the Law 
 to a priest was performed by any other person. In the 
 case of Samuel, there are two or three instances in 
 which he may have offered sacrifice ; but it is by no 
 means clear that even in those a priest was not in 
 attendance, though not spoken of. But, granting that 
 Samuel did offer sacrifices two or three times, it does 
 not follow that it was lawful, but rather that he violated 
 the Law. And, further, if we can rely upon the record, 
 the relation of Samuel to the priesthood was unique ; 
 and he may have felt authorized to act as a priest in 
 
I40 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 certain contingencies, if he did so. In either view 
 of his action, it does not furnish even a presumption 
 against the existence of the ritual ; much less does it 
 furnish an argument against its existence. 
 
 Did I not fear that I should utterly exhaust the pa- 
 tience of my readers, I should like to refer to some yet 
 more obscure indications of the existence of the Pen- 
 tateuch contained in these fragmentary sketches of the 
 earliest anarchical times, and yet so exact as to com- 
 mand attention. I must satisfy my desire to give a 
 specimen of them : I. Samuel i., ii, "And there shall 
 no razor come upon his head"; a literal statement of 
 the Law of the Nazarite, Numbers vi., 5. Chapter i., 
 24, she " took three bullocks and an ephah of flour " 
 for her offering ; just the right proportion of flour pre- 
 scribed to a bullock, Numbers xxviii., 12. Chapter 
 ii., 2, " Neither is there any rock like our God," is 
 literally taken from Deuteronomy xxxii., 30. The 
 departure from the ritual by the wicked sons of Eli is 
 described in chapter ii., 13-15, in not " burning the fat " 
 and the " sodden meat " which were prescribed in Le- 
 viticus vi., 28, and vii., 31-35. In verses 18, 19, the 
 child Samuel's "linen ephod " is mentioned, and his 
 "little coat" (robe), which was the priest's garment 
 worn under the " ephod," both described in Exodus 
 xxviii., 6, 31. In chapter iii., 3, we read of the " lamp 
 which burnt " in the place " where the ark of God was," 
 Exodus xxvii., 21. In chapter iii., 14, we read of the 
 "sacrifice" {zabacli) and "offering" {piincah) required 
 by the Law in many places. I have already alluded to 
 the frequency with which the " ark of the covenant " 
 is mentioned. Chapter vi., 6, speaks of the " harden- 
 
FROM DAVID TO MOSES. I41 
 
 ing " of the people's hearts as the heart of " Pharaoh 
 was hardened," Exodus xii., 31. In chapter vii., 9, we 
 read that "Samuel took a sucking lamb, and offered it 
 for a burnt-offering wholly to the Lord," Leviticus xxii., 
 7. Chapter viii., 3, Samuel's " sons took bribes and ^T 
 perverted judgment," Exodus xxiii., 8. Chapter ix., 24, 
 "And the cook took up [heaved up] the shoulder, and 
 set it before Saul," Exodus xxix., 27. Chapter x., 25, 
 " Samuel wrote in a book the manner of the kingdom," 
 Deuteronomy xvii., 18, 19. Chapter xx., 5, 6, "To-mor- 
 row is the new moon," said David, " let me go ... to 
 Bethlehem, for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all 
 the family," Numbers x., 10; xxviii., 11. Verse 26, 
 "Saul . . . thought something had befallen him [David], 
 he is not clean ; surely he is not clean," Leviticus vii., 
 20, 21. Chapter xxviii., 3, " And Saul put away those 
 that had familiar spirits and wizards out of the land," 
 Deuteronomy xviii., 11, 12. Chapter xxx., 7, 8, "And 
 David said to Abiathar, the priest, bring me hither the 
 ephod [in which were the Urim and Thummim]. . . . 
 And David inquired of the Lord," Numbers xxvii., 21. 
 Frequently the " Lord " is said to be " inquired of " in 
 the life of David. In II. Samuel vi,, 2-17, we read of 
 the " ark of the Lord and the cherubim," and of the 
 death of Uzzah for touching it, Numbers iv., 15. 
 
 In Judges i., 20, we read that "they gave Hebron 
 unto Caleb, as Moses said," Numbers xiv., 24; Joshua 
 xiv., 9, 13. In chapter ii., 17, 20, 22, the people are 
 charged with going "a whoring after other gods, and 
 turning quickly out of the way which their fathers 
 walked in, . . . transgressing my covenant, which their 
 fathers did keep" (chap, iii., 6); and the children of 
 
14^ A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Israel "took their [Canaanites'] daughters to be their 
 wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and 
 served their gods," and, verse 4, did not "hearken unto 
 the commandments of the Lord, which he commanded 
 the fathers by the hand of Moses." Read the Law, 
 Exodus xxxiv., 15, 16. The "ephod," in which were 
 the Urim and Thuramim, is spoken of as if essential 
 even in forbidden forms of consultation, viii., 27 ; 
 xvii., 5 ; xviii., 14, 17, 18. In xiii., 19, we read that 
 "Manoah took a kid with a meat [meal] offering, and 
 offered it upon a rock to the Lord." This kind of 
 offering is required. Numbers xv., 24. "Burnt-offer- 
 ings" and "peace-offerings" are mentioned in xiii., 16; 
 XX., 26; xxi., 4. "The ark of the covenant" is spoken 
 of, XX., 27. "The house of God in Shiloh," that is the 
 "tabernacle," is spoken of in xviii., 31, and very prob- 
 ably also in x x., 18; xx., 18, 26, 31; and xxi., 2. 
 Phinehas, the grandson of iVaron, "stands before the 
 ark," XX., 2S. " A man plucked off his shoe, and gave 
 it to his neighbor to confirm " a bargain respecting mar- 
 riage under peculiar circumstance, as reported in Ruth 
 iv., 8. The Law is found in Deuteronomy xxv,, 9. A 
 reference is also made in iv., 12, to Genesis xxxviii., 29. 
 But I must refrain, or patience will be utterly ex- 
 hausted. I wished to quote some of my notes on 
 Joshua, especially those including passages where it is 
 said that somethins: was done "as Moses the servant 
 of the Lord commanded," as, in chapter xi., 12, 
 "Joshua smote all the cities of those kings and all the 
 kings of them with the edge of the sword, and he 
 utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the 
 Lord commanded." The command of Moses is in 
 
FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 1 43 
 
 Numbers xxxiii., 52, and Deuteronomy vii., 2, "Thou 
 shalt smite them and utterly destroy them ; thou shalt 
 make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto 
 them." I leave them all, and close here the direct 
 historical or external evidence of the antiquity of the 
 Pentateuch. Fragmentary and obscure as many of 
 these notices and references are in these early books, I 
 submit that they are as numerous and as explicit as any 
 reasonable critic would expect to find. I confess to my 
 own surprise at finding so many. Only Hebraists can 
 estimate the loss I feel in not being able to make these 
 quotations from the original language, that their force 
 might be fully estimated.* 
 
 I cannot better meet the objection which is raised 
 against the existence of the Mosaic ritual during the 
 time of the Judges and Samuel, founded upon the infre- 
 quent mention of it and of its observance, than by refer- 
 
 *Much has been made by Kuenen, Graf, Prof. Smith, and others, of the use 
 of the words, "the priests, the Levites," in Deuteronomy xxii., 9, 18, and else- 
 where, without the copulative conjunction, "and," as if it proved that there 
 was no distinct portion uf the tribe of Levite priests before the captivity. But 
 the same formula is used afler the captivity (Nehemiah x , 29, 35 ; xi., 20; I. 
 Chronicles ix., 2; II. Chronicles v., 5; xxiii., 18; xxx., 27; Isaiah Ixvi., 21; 
 Jeremiah xxxiii., 18), showing that, however it is to be explained, it certainly 
 does not mean that all Levites were priests or could be; but undoubtedly it 
 meant that all priests were Levites of the tribe of Levi, as the history testifies. 
 There are only twenty-four places in the Old Testament where ihis phrase is 
 ufed, and these may well be explained by the not unusual grammatical asjyn- 
 detic constrziction, where "conjunctions which serve to connect words and 
 phrases are omitted," as in Genesis xxxi., " yesterday [and] the day before " : 
 Judges xix., 2, "a year [andj four months"; Habakkuk iii., 11, "sun [and] 
 moon"; Nahum iii., i," it is full of lies [and] robbery " ; Isaiah Ixiii., 11, " Moses 
 [and] his people"; Proverbs xxii., 21, "words [and] truth"; Zechariah i., 13, 
 " words [and] consolations " ; Exodus xxiv., 5, " offerings [and] peace-offerings." 
 These examples must suffice. To build up a theory of the Jewish priesthood on 
 this phrase used but twenty-four times in opposition to the clear and explicit decla- 
 rations of bo:h the law in the Pentateuch and the testimony of subsequent history 
 is erecting a pyramid on its apex. 
 
144 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 ring to the early history of the colony of Plymouth. 
 That the Pilgrims had the Bible and ministers and 
 churches and regular services on Sunday, everybody 
 knows. William Bradford, for many years governor of 
 the colony, wrote a history of it down to 1646, or for 
 twenty-six years after the colony landed at Plymouth. 
 It makes an octavo volume of four hundred and forty- 
 four pages. I have looked through its pages to see 
 how he treats the subject of religion, — its ministry, its 
 church, its ordinances, its Bible. I may have over- 
 looked some instances in which he speaks of them, but 
 I am confident they can be but few. He mentions 
 "the Lord's day'* but twice; he speaks of "ministers" 
 but fifteen times; of the "church" but twenty times; 
 of "baptism" but once; and in every instance very 
 briefly. Four times he speaks of the "Scriptures"; 
 four times of "the word of God"; and once of "the 
 infallible word of God," — evidently meaning in all 
 these cases the Bible. There are repeated quotations 
 from the Bible, and its language is used frequently; and 
 sometimes the book and the chapter and verse are men- 
 tioned from which the quotation is taken. And tJie 
 "gospel" is spoken of ten times as if the New Testa- 
 ment was meant in distinction from the Old ; and once 
 "the pure Testament of Christ" is named, with evident 
 reference to the New Testament. There is one refer- 
 ence to " neglecting hearing the word on the Lord's 
 day." The choice of a "pastor" is spoken of three or 
 four times. Two instances of setting apart a " day of 
 humiliation " are recorded. " Taxing for preaching " is 
 once spoken of. And yet this history is written in a 
 religious spirit, and " God's providence " is mentioned 
 
FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 1 45 
 
 on almost every page. Now, the very brief Book of 
 Judges covers a period ten times as long as Bradford's 
 history does, and would give room for ten times less ref- 
 erence to the ritual than Bradford makes to the Pil- 
 grims' ecclesiastical affairs, were the book as large as 
 Bradford's ; but, if its size is taken into the account also, 
 there would be eighty times less chance in Judges to 
 treat of religious rites and books than in Bradford; and 
 if Bradford does not speak of the Bible in any phrase- 
 ology, under any name, but about sixteen times, how 
 many times could we expect Judges to speak of the 
 "Law of Moses," on the supposition that it was used 
 as freely and observed as scrupulously during that 
 period as the Bible was by the Pilgrims ? An answer to 
 this question gives the weight of the objection named 
 above, and it is found to be of no value. And, in farther 
 confirmation of this estimate of the little weight to be 
 attached to this objection, another cause of the infre- 
 quent reference to the Law and its ritual is found in Dr. 
 Kuenen's Religion of Israel. He says (Vol. IL, p. 293), 
 "A temporary abeyance of the ritual legislation is not 
 inconceivable" under "kings indisposed" to regard it. 
 Much more, then, may we suppose that its observance 
 was frequently held in "abeyance" during the stormy 
 times of the Judges, and the convulsions which at- 
 tended the establishment of the monarchy. 
 
 If "amidst arms laws are silent," we should not ex- 
 pect to hear anything of ritual observances during the 
 tumults of the Judges. 
 
 This would be the place to examine the evidence 
 which the Book of Deuteronomy furnishes of the ex- 
 istence of the Book of the Law, the ritual code, were 
 
146 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 it not that the references to it are so intimately con- 
 nected with the internal evidence, the second division 
 of my Study, as to make its examination at that time 
 most convenient and suitable. It must suffice, there- 
 fore, to say here and now that the existence of some 
 such book or code is clearly implied, if not necessi- 
 tated, by the laws quoted and amended, and the cere- 
 monies modified and the demands withdrawn. These 
 will be fully examined and illustrated in due time, and 
 are of such a nature and so numerous as to bind all 
 the previous historical evidence back to a date as early 
 as the death of Moses. 
 
 We have now traced back through a period of over 
 a thousand years notices of a work containing the laws 
 which governed the Jews. We find that the various 
 names by which it is called, beginning with the New 
 Testament, in all the w^orks which have come down to 
 our time, are repeated in an unbroken series back to 
 the time of Joshua. "The Law," "The Law of 
 Moses," "The Law of the Lord," "The Book of the 
 Law," "The Book of the Law by the hand of Moses," 
 "The Book of the Law of the Lord," "The statutes 
 and commandments of the Lord," are used as names 
 to designate the Pentateuch from the days of Paul to 
 the days of Joshua. And, further than this, we have 
 found that the passages which are quoted by all this 
 series of writers from the book referred to under those 
 names are contained in the Pentateuch, and are often 
 quoted with verbal exactness, even when the language 
 of the Pentateuch is peculiar. And, still further, we 
 have found that peculiar words and phrases are used 
 
frROM DAVID TO MOSES. 14? 
 
 frequently in all these writings, which are most obvi- 
 ously taken from "The Law," showing that it was a 
 book whose contents were as familiar to these writers 
 as the language of the New Testament is to the preach- 
 ers of our clay. In a word, we have found all the evi- 
 dence that could be expected, and vastly more than is 
 found for the antiquity of any other writing of an age 
 even much less remote. 
 
 The whole atmosphere of these books is fragrant 
 with the incense which rose from the Law, and the 
 whole elaborate, magnificent ritual of the nation is 
 found imbedded in it. Our Pentateuch did exist in 
 their day. It must have existed, or all historical evi- 
 dence is false and worthless. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to allude to an objection to the 
 early origin of the Pentateuch which was raised by a 
 former class of critics, and pressed with great vehe- 
 mence. It was maintained that the art of writing, even 
 if known, was not sufBciently advanced to produce 
 such works as the Pentateuch as early as the time of 
 Moses. Modern discoveries, however, in Egypt and 
 Chaldea and Babylonia have removed all doubt that 
 writing was common in all these countries as early as 
 the age of Moses. The walls of the tombs and tem- 
 ples of Egypt are adorned with representations of 
 scribes engaged in writing ; and a room has been 
 opened in one of the great palaces which is called a 
 "library," showing that works were collected for use. 
 Cloth, papyrus, skins, and stones were used for engrav- 
 ing and writing. Rituals and financial documents of 
 almost every kind are found among the relics in the 
 tombs. In Chaldea and Babylonia, also, writings are 
 
148 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 found on tablets of hardened clay, showing that poems 
 were written in the Ur of Abraham before he was born. 
 The Legends of Izdubar are about half as long as the 
 Iliad, and they were written five centuries before the 
 birth of Moses. And from that remote date, 2000 
 B.C., down, we have writings of every kind, — accounts, 
 deeds, biographies, histories, legends, etc., — demon- 
 strating not only the possibility, but the probability 
 that the great law-giver of Israel would commit his 
 ritual and code to writing, as it is affirmed in the Pen- 
 tateuch that he did. But I have lingered on this effete 
 objection longer than its inherent weight justifies ; yet 
 as an illustration of the baselessness of many other 
 objections, and of the confirmation of the antiquity of 
 the Pentateuch found in the abundance of books and 
 writings of various kinds of a far earlier date even, it 
 seemed necessary to say as much as this respecting it. 
 It may be expected that something will be said at 
 this point respecting the marvellous events which are 
 recorded in the historical portions of the Pentateuch. 
 As this Study is not exegetical, but historical, such an 
 inquiry does not fall within my subject; at least, I have 
 no occasion to treat of these marvellous events any 
 further than their record affects the question of the 
 age and origin of the Pentateuch. The historical book 
 of Genesis closes at Least two centuries before the time 
 of the Hebrew law-giver, and is evidently composed of 
 such traditions, recorded and oral, as had come down 
 to his time. We have no conclusive proof tliat the 
 wonderful things there recorded are true, or tiiat they 
 ever transpired; and the contents of the book do not 
 in the slightest degree weigh against the opinion that 
 
FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 1 49 
 
 it was written or compiled in the Mosaic age. Respect- I 
 ing the history in Exodus up to the arrival at Sinai, it i 
 is probable, all the circumstances taken into considera- \ 
 tion, that it was not written till many years after the 
 events described took place, and may not have been . 
 written till many years after the death of Moses, 
 though it must have been written while the "arciiaic j 
 language " was in use.* The nature and extent ot the 
 wonders in Egypt may have been exaggerated, as re- 
 peated from father to son ; and it is not impossible that 
 a literally correct account is not given of the evils 
 which befell the Egyptians at that time, and the exact 
 circumstances of their deliverance. Very probable it 
 is so. No blame can attach to the writer, whoever he 
 was, who gathered up these oral reports of the causes 
 which led to the escape of his nation from bondage, 
 and what befell the people in their flight. An interval 
 
 *It is hardly necessary to remind the iutelHgent reader tliat passages have 
 occasionally found their way into the text which were at first only marginal notes 
 and explanations of names and places, — which has happened to all ancient writ- 
 ings, and by no means proves the composition of the work itself to have been at 
 as late a period as that of the note. A few specimens of these later note? will 
 be s^iven. Genesis xii., 6, " And the Canaanire was then in the land " Gene.-is 
 xiii., 7, "And the Canaanite and the Perizzife dwe't in ihe land." These sen- 
 tences were added after the conquest. Genesis xxiii., 2, " In Kirjath-arba ; the 
 same is Hebron." The last words were wriiten after (he conquest, to define an 
 ancient city. Another passage shows that the interpolated note was mt written 
 till after the mor.archy was established : Genesis xxxvi., 31, " before there reigned 
 any king over the land of Israel." The passage respecting the cessation of the 
 manna (Exodus xvi., 35) belongs to the same class. Leviticus xviii., 2^, " as it 
 spued out the rations before you,'' is evidently a note. Deuterononiy ii , 12, 
 contains another. So also Exodus vi., 20, and xi., 3, unless, as is more probable, 
 the whole accoimt, Exodus i.-xix., 25, was written laier. "The meekness of 
 the man Moses," Numbers xii., 3, is clearly a marginal note. These are speci- 
 mens of the explanatory notes which have found their way into the text. Their 
 parenthetical character most clearly shows that such was their origin, and they 
 raise hardly the slightest antecedent presumption against the antiquity of the 
 original work. 
 
150 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 of forty or fifty years, perhaps more, after the death of 
 Moses, a full century or more after they transpired, 
 would be sufficient to magnify, in their narration, 
 events which, in any point of view, must have been 
 startling and destructive. Precisely what those calami- 
 ties were, I have no occasion to inquire. That they 
 were uncommon and very serious, is evident. It mat- 
 ters not, as far as this argument is concerned, whether 
 they were miraculous or natural in the usual acceptance 
 of these words. 
 
 The same remarks may be made respecting the 
 description of the giving of the commandments at 
 Sinai. They may have been, they were, written at the 
 time ; but the historian may not have known the pre- 
 cise circumstances under which they were given when 
 he wrote the attached history, and intervening years 
 and the descriptions of others may have magnified the 
 wonderful phenomena of mountain scenery as it had 
 appeared to persons born and reared in the level and 
 fertile valley of the Nile. I enter into no speculation 
 on this subject, but only say that such an origin will 
 account fully for the coloring which is given them. 
 Were these wonderful events accurately recorded, and 
 were they stupendous miracles, the antiquity of the 
 Pentateuch would not be in the least affected by it, for 
 that is proved in an entirely independent manner. 
 Almighty Power is amply equal to doing what is here 
 recorded ; and, if any one chooses that interpretation 
 of these remarkable events, the way is open without 
 in the slightest degree shaking the conclusion, other- 
 wise reached, of the age and origin of the Pentateuch. 
 
 One word more, though not closely connected with 
 
FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 15 1 
 
 the subject. The Pentateuch, as well as the rest of the 
 Bible, is written from a religions point of view ^ and every- 
 thing which takes place is attributed to the direct act 
 of God. So, when a person speaks what he or others 
 think is the will of God, it is said that God speaks, 
 that God commands, that God forbids. The same 
 language is now used not only by ignorant, but by 
 intelligent, religious people. Further than this. Seller 
 says, in his Hermeneutics, the Bible "sometimes de- 
 scribes events by representing as spoken things which 
 had only happened, without the express words having 
 been actually employed," — as the thunder is said to be 
 the voice of God, as God spake to Moses in the burn- 
 ing bush, whatever it may have been, — that is, taught 
 him by it as a sign. So, probably, the supposed teach- 
 ing of remarkable events is embodied by the historian 
 in words which are attributed to God. But it is time 
 to return to the direct discussion of my subject, which 
 is not related except very remotely to any of these 
 questions, any more than the age and authorship of 
 GuUivc?''s Travels and Robinso7i Crusoe are related to, 
 or depend upon, the authenticity, the truth of, the 
 accounts recorded in them. The contents may be 
 incredible, but their age and authorship may be in- 
 dubitable. Things differing so widely must not be 
 confounded with each other."^ 
 
 • Great stress is laid upon the fact by many writers, and by Prof. Smith in 
 particular, that "anointed stones" {Matstsebahs) were erected, and "carved im- 
 ages" set up by kings and priests until the captivity, and thus proving that the 
 law against idol-worship was not in existence. But it is evident that many of 
 these "anoiiited stones " and " carved images" were not made for worship, and 
 were forbidden by the law only when worshipped. Not only were the curtains 
 of the tabernacle *' wrought with cherubim of cunning work " (Exodus xxxvi., 8), 
 but two chcrubmi were made of pure gold to stand OQ either end of the meicy* 
 
152 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 SECTION V. — CONCLUSION OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 Here I rest the historical evidence for the antiquity of 
 the Pentateuch. Were there no internal evidence in 
 support of the external, we should be obliged, by the 
 laws of historical criticism, to accept " The Book of 
 the Law of Moses " as originating in his age. That 
 the last four books, or portions of them, indirectly 
 profess to have been written in that age, is not dis- 
 puted. The validity of this profession is sustained by 
 the internal as well as by the external evidence, as I 
 shall show. But, before examining it, I will quote some 
 of the opinions of leading liberal, not to say radical, 
 critics on the antiquity of portions, at least, and large 
 ones, of the books contained in the Pentateuch, that 
 the reader may see the extravagance of some re- 
 cently broached hypotheses, and how very near these 
 
 seat in the Most Holy place, on the Most Holy ark(xxxvli., 10). The second 
 commandment did not forbid making "carved images," but it forbid making 
 carved work or any images _/<?r w^rjA^^ (Exodus xx., 4, 5) When Solomon 
 erected his Temple, he not only covered the walls with ' * carvings of cherubim and 
 palm-trees and open flowers," but he fet up two pillars at the entrance of the 
 Temple, covered al! over with carvings of vines and pomegranates, and made a 
 molten sea "which stood upon twelve oxen," and "between the ledges were 
 lion?, oxen, and cherubim," showing that Solomon did not interpret the law as 
 forbidding making images for orna^nent, but for g-ods (I. Kings vi ). If any one 
 should say that all this use of carved ornaments, acd images of beasts and 
 fruits and vines, shows either the absence of the law or its disregard, let him 
 turn to Ezekiel, and he will find that his ideal temple is adorned in the same 
 manner, as far as he gives a particular description of it. Not only were cheru- 
 bim and palm-trees carved upon the walls of the temple, but each " cherub had 
 two faces, the face of a man and the face of a young lion '' (Ezekiel xli.)- So the 
 great reformer and composer of the law, as some maintain, did not hesitate to 
 use "carved images" to ornament his ideal temple, while in his law — for it is 
 maintained by these authors that Ezekiel wrote Leviticus xxvi. — he hz\6i absa- 
 bitely forbiddeji all images for any use. So evident is it that the second com- 
 mandment only forbade the use of images as representing Jehovah, and set up 
 for worship. 
 
CONCLUSION OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 1 53 
 
 able scholars come to sustaining the result of my own 
 historical inquiry. 
 
 De Wette says (§162, b.), "He [Amos] must have 
 had the Book of Genesis, in its present fonn^ about 790 
 B.C." " Hosea (785 B.C.) affords us a trace of its ex- 
 istence. He must have known the Book of Numbers^ as 
 well as the original documents and later fragments of 
 Genesis." "Isaiah (759 B.C.) evidently refers to Gen- 
 esis." And " Micah (725 B.C.) refers to Numbers and 
 Genesis." "The discovery of the Book of the Law in 
 the Temple, under Josiah's reign, about 624 B.C., re- 
 lated in II. Kings xxii., is the first certain trace of the 
 existence of the Pentateuch in its prcscfit fonn''^ (§162, 
 a.). And he says (§12, b.), "Our present four books 
 of Moses originated in the time of Solomon," 1000 
 B.C. De Wette decides that "the Elohim document 
 was written in the time of Samuel or Saul " (noo B.C.) 
 (§ 158), and the "Jehovistic document before the refor- 
 mation under Hezekiah took place," 726 B.C. (§ 159). 
 But this whole hypothesis of the use of Elohistic and 
 Jehovistic documents, especially after the Book of Gen- 
 esis, is shown to be without sufficient reason, and all 
 
 I have carefully examined all the cases of disregard of the Levitical law 
 referred to by Prof. Smith, which are recorded as taking place down to the time 
 of David and a little after, and find not one which is not impliedly in violation of 
 the law or excused on the ground of the unsettled state of the nation, cr 
 growing out of a false interpretation of the law itself. The worship of strange 
 gods in the time of Solomon, and under his patronage, was not more antagonistic 
 to the Levitical law than was the worship of images under the patronage of the 
 Pope in the tenth century. The universal prevalence of taking oaths all over 
 Christendom, and the numerous grounds of divorce in all Christian lands, would 
 be greater evidence of the non-existence of the gospel history than the offering 
 of sacrifices by Samuel and Saul and Solomon is of the non-existence of the 
 Levitical law which permitted the priests alone to offer them, — if indeed these 
 men and others did offer them, for often what one does by another as his agent 
 one is said to do himself, as Solomon is said to have built the Temple, though 
 he hewed neither stone nor timber. 
 
154 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 conclusions drawn from it are therefore unreliable. 
 The "archaic" words and phrases which Ewald and 
 Gesenius and De Wette maintain are found in the 
 Pentateuch are as numerous in what are called the 
 "Jehovistic " documents as in the Elohistic ; but the 
 former, according to De Wette, was written about three 
 hundred years after the latter. He says, "The Penta- 
 teuch was completed about the time of Josiah" (§ 12, b.). 
 Dr. Davidson (Vol. I., p. 133) says, "The present 
 Pentateuch had been completed shortly before the 
 reign of Josiah" (641 B.C.), " in the reign of Manas- 
 seh" (690 B.C.?) (p. 123). "The Book of the Law of 
 Moses, spoken of II. Kings xiv., 6, may or may not 
 have been the whole Pentateuch. The notice in ques- 
 tion proceeds from the compiler of the Kings, who 
 wrote after the present Pentateuch was completed. . . . 
 In this passage, we understand the Book of the Law 
 to be coextensive with the Pentateuch''^ (p. 119). "The 
 same meaning may be assigned to the same phrase in 
 II. Kings xxii., 8, 11, and II. Chronicles xxxiv., 14, 15," 
 where Shaphan is said to have found " The Book of the 
 Law in the house of the Lord." And Dr. Davidson 
 goes so far as to say that it must have the same sense 
 in II. Chronicles xvii., 9, where it is said Jehoshaphat 
 (912 B.C.) sent out men to teach " the Book of the Law 
 of the Lord through all the cities of Judah." This 
 statement is made on the authority, as the writer of 
 Chronicles says, of what he found "written in the Book 
 of Jehu, the son of Hanani," whose works were a part 
 of "the book of the kings of Israel." On this admis- 
 sion it is not easy to see why Dr. Davidson does not 
 also admit that the Pentateuch, at least, may have been 
 
CONCLUSION OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 155 
 
 in existence at this time "in its present form." He 
 does say with emphasis that " it is impossible to assign 
 it to so late a date " as the time of Ezra (p. 122). He 
 also maintains that Moses wrote not only the com- 
 mandments, Exodus XX., but also xxi.-xxiii., 19; xxv.- 
 xxxi. He further claims that Moses was the writer of 
 Leviticus i.-vii., xi.-xvii., "which have the genuine 
 Mosaic stamp " very perceptibly. Numbers i. " exhibits 
 a minuteness, circumstantiality, and historical verisimil- 
 itude which scarcely allow of a different writer. All is 
 natural on the supposition of their bclojiging to the ti?ne 
 of Moses. Chapter iv. belongs to the same times ; 
 X., 1-8, must be regarded as Mosaic j xix. is a wilder- 
 ness enactment. These are not the only parts of 
 the three middle books of the Pentateuch written by 
 Moses. The tabernacle was made in the wilderness, 
 and the Levitical legislation was Mosaic in its origin 
 and essence" (Vol. I., pp. 109-113). Here are about 
 thirty chapters attributed to the pen of Moses in Exodus 
 — Numbers by as radical a critic as Dr. Davidson. 
 Lengerke places the Elohistic document in the time of 
 Solomon and the Jehovistic in the time of Hezekiah. 
 Tuch places the Elohistic document in the time of 
 Saul, and the Jehovistic in the time of Solomon. 
 Stahelin places the Elohistic document in the time 
 of the Judges and the Jehovistic in the time of 
 Manasseh. Ewald, whose theory of documents was 
 peculiar and accepted by few or none, believed they 
 were all written before the end of the seventh century 
 B.C., and assumed nearly their present form {History 
 of Israel, Vol. I., p. 130). Some fragments, he thinks, 
 were pre-Mosaicj one large one as old as the begin- 
 
156 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 ning of Samuel's jurisdiction ; another larger portion 
 of the Pentateuch, which he calls by the name of the 
 " Book of Origins," was composed in the reign of Sol- 
 omon, but all were written three hundred years before 
 the time of Ezra, to whose authorship the Dutch school 
 refer a large portion of them. 
 
 It will be observed that all these scholars who had 
 no theories of the evolutmi of religious ideas to support 
 remit the origin of the largest portion of the Pentateuch 
 to a very early period, and all of it to times before the 
 reign of Josiah, 640 B.C., or two hundred years before 
 the time of the return of Ezra. But the distinction 
 which these scholars make between the Elohistic and 
 Jehovistic portions of the last four books is chimerical, 
 as will be made evident. The " archaic " style is as 
 obvious in the Jehovistic as in the Elohistic portion ; 
 and to date the one in the time of the Judges, as 
 Stahelin does, and the other in the time of Manasseh, 
 five hundred years later, is a leap in literary criticism 
 which cannot be imitated nor vindicated, and proves 
 conclusively the falseness of these theories. Were 
 there, therefore, no further or other evidence of the age 
 and probable author of the Pentateuch, I should feel 
 justified in claiming that its antiquity and authorship 
 were as fully proved as could be reasonably expected 
 when we consider the scant literature of these early 
 ages and nations. But more and more conclusive proof, 
 if possible, is waiting for admittance, derived from the 
 writings themselves. 
 
PART II. 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 To APPRECIATE fully the force of the internal evidence 
 which I shall present respecting the age of the Penta- 
 teuch, it is necessary to consider the circumstances 
 under which the external evidence raises the strongest 
 probability, if it does not prove, that it was written, and 
 the kind of composition, both in style and construction, 
 which under those circumstances we should expect to 
 find. 
 
 According to the presumption raised by the external 
 evidence and their own profession, these writings, or 
 a large part of them, were composed during a period 
 of forty years in which the Jewish people were sojourn- 
 ing in the region lying between Egypt and Palestine 
 or Canaan. They had just escaped — a portion at least 
 of them — as slaves from long and bitter servitude in 
 Egypt, and were on their way to take possession of the 
 land which their fathers had inhabited, and from which 
 they had emigrated some hundreds of years before into 
 Egypt. During this sojourn in the wilderness, they 
 received laws adapted to their condition, and directing 
 their occupation and mode of life and worship in the 
 country of which they were to take possession. Their 
 situation was peculiar, and peculiar regulations would 
 be needed for both their civil and religious, as well as 
 social, welfare. Difficulties would arise in the interpre- 
 tation and execution of a new code of laws under new 
 circumstances. Rebellions would take place when any 
 
158 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 special perils awaited the people or any disappointment 
 overtook them. We should expect in a book composed 
 under such circumstances that many minute incidents 
 then occurring would be related, many laws passed, 
 growing out of passing events, many difficulties re- 
 corded in the execution of the laws, and growing out 
 of the contradictory character of some parts of their 
 theoretical and experimental legislation. We should 
 expect that the record of these years would be frag- 
 mentary, journal-like, often abrupt in its statements, 
 disconnected, incoherent, omitting periods in which 
 nothing specially worthy of record transpired, recording 
 many things which have little interest to us, but which 
 were of great importance to them. Such would be the 
 character of the book if written under such circum- 
 stances as I have supposed, and which are affirmed in 
 the book itself to be the circumstances in which it was 
 composed. 
 
 Nor these marks only should we expect to find. The 
 book would have passed through all manner of perils 
 during the turbulent period of the judges and the es- 
 tablishment of the monarchy, when it had no secure 
 place for preservation and would undoubtedly suffer 
 in the disarrangement of its parts, the loss of some of 
 them, the errors of any attempts at copying and cor- 
 recting, the glosses of subsequent scribes to render old 
 expressions intelligible, old names modern, old customs 
 understood. We should expect to find, scattered all 
 through it, the explanations, additions, queries, of more 
 modern writers, such as the compliment to the " meek- 
 ness" of Moses, the song at the old well, the modern 
 names of old towns and old professions. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 59 
 
 Let US now examine the books, and see whether 
 the construction and contents of the Pentateuch do 
 not indicate pretty clearly such an origin ; whether it 
 does not "breathe the desert air"; whether the camp 
 and a nomadic state do not give form and coloring 
 to the whole work; and whether the language does not 
 contain archaic and obsolete words, and forms of 
 words, and use words in a peculiar sense, all of which 
 indicate a period much earlier than that in which the 
 remaining books of the Old Testament were composed, 
 and prove past successful refutation the Mosaic Age of 
 the work. 
 
 SECTION I. EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 
 
 I will first examine the proof of its antiquity to be 
 found in the Style and Language of the Pentateuch. 
 Respecting "the archaisms and other peculiarities of 
 the language " which are found in Pentateuch, De 
 Wette says, " All that can be proved [by them] is that 
 some of the fragments of which it is co7nposed are earlier 
 than others.''^ "And since the Book of Joshua, notwith- 
 standing its affinity with Deuteronomy, does not possess 
 in common with it certain archaisms, we must admit 
 that a certain uniformity of language was observed and 
 established by the author or compiler." ^ Let the 
 reader mark two important affirmations : (i) There are 
 "archaisms and other peculiarities of language" in the 
 Pentateuch. (2) They are so marked as to distinguish 
 even the Book of Deuteronomy from the Book of 
 Joshua, in which they are not found. But, says De 
 
 *§ '57- 
 
l6o A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Wette, " all that can be proved by these archaisms and 
 peculiarities of language is that some of the fragments 
 of which it [the Pentateuch] is composed are earlier 
 than others." Now, the fact respecting these "archa- 
 isms and peculiarities " is that they are found in both 
 the so-called Elohistic and Jehovistic documents as 
 selected by De Wette himself. They are not limited 
 to any of these theoretical or real documents or frag- 
 ments. They pervade the whole work. They make as 
 clear a distinction between the Pentateuch and all the 
 following books of the Bible as the contents of the 
 rocks do between the Eocene and the Miocene periods ; 
 and it is lamentable that he should have allowed him- 
 self, when struggling with this objection to his theory 
 of the late origin of the Pentateuch, derived frOm its 
 "archaisms and peculiarities of language," to entirely 
 misrepresent the method and result of Jahn's Study 
 on this subject. Pie says,* "Jahn, without examining 
 and sifting, has huddled all together, . . . especially 
 [names of] things which do not occur elsewhere, — tech- 
 nical terms." This is just what Jahn did not do, what 
 he especially avoided. He omitted all such words as 
 De Wette accuses him, in this quotation, of introduc- 
 ing, as our subsequent notice of Jahn's method will 
 show. In § 34, De Wette says, " The oldest writers, the 
 authors of the Pentateuch, . . . write in the purest and 
 most beautiful language. . . . During the exile and 
 after it, the influence of the Aramaean language be- 
 comes visible, as well as other peculiarities in the usage 
 of the language." Gesenius divides Hebrew literature 
 into two periods, that before and during and that after 
 
 *§ i57i Note a. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. l6l 
 
 the captivity. The " Aram^an tinges " all the second 
 period. " The Pentateuch belongs to the first period, 
 with Joshua and Judges and Samuel and Kings." And 
 what is unaccountable is that, after saying that " the 
 language and usage of the Pentateuch, in the historical 
 passages, agree perfectly with those of the other histori- 
 cal books," he immediately continues: "However, the 
 Pentateuch has some peculiarities," which he concedes 
 may indicate "a high antiquity of these books." "* 
 Gesenius obviously means by this that they are the 
 oldest in Hebrew literature, as the " archaisms " prove, 
 and consequently were not written in whole or in part 
 by Ezra. But Gesenius says more than this : " From 
 the circumstance that these idioms appear also in the 
 later Book of Deuteronomy, it is in the highest degree 
 probable that a cojiforming hand has been busy with 
 them." Mark the consequence of this " probability." 
 Deuteronomy is supposed to be the book found or 
 forged by Hilkiah. If so, as these critics maintain, 
 then " the archaisms and peculiarities of language," 
 which it is affirmed distinguish the four other books of 
 the Pentateuch, Genesis — Numbers, had already gone 
 out of use, and rendered it necessary for the writer of 
 Deuteronomy to ''''conform''^ his style to those older 
 books, in order that his forgery might escape detection. 
 But if these books. Genesis — Numbers, were not writ- 
 ten, as the Dutch school maintain, till during the cap- 
 tivity and after it, why was it necessary that the writer 
 of Deuteronomy should feel compelled to "conform" 
 his style to that of books not in existence ? Indeed, to 
 ordinary minds, it does not seem possible that he could 
 
 * De Wette, Vol. I., Appendix D, § 8. 
 
l62 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 do it without miraculous foresight. And, more wonder- 
 ful still, why should these forgers of the laws during 
 and after the captivity have taken so much pains to in- 
 troduce these " archaisms and peculiarities " when there 
 was no old literature to show that they ever existed, no 
 older books considered sacred ? 
 
 In order, however, to justify his placing Deuteronomy 
 at a considerably later period than Genesis — Numbers, 
 Gesenius says : " A remarkably different style prevails in 
 Deuteronomy [from that in the earlier books]. Its most 
 remarkable characteristic consists in a certain diffuse, 
 rhetorical, and moralizing tone, and the constant re- 
 turn of favorite phrases." That is to say, " its most 
 remarkable characteristic " is precisely that which dis- 
 tinguishes an oration from a statute, an address from 
 an enactment. Deuteronomy is an oration, an address. 
 Exodus — Numbers are made up of "orders" and 
 " laws." They demand a different style from an ad- 
 dress, and they have it. Yet the fragments of addresses 
 which are scattered through these earlier books are as 
 " diffuse, rhetorical, and moralizing in tone " as Deu- 
 teronomy. There is nothing in the style of Deuter- 
 onomy to separate it in age from the other books. The 
 different styles demanded by moral precepts and stat- 
 ute laws and specifications for work and an address 
 fully explain and justify the difference between the 
 style of Exodus — Numbers and that of Deuteronomy. 
 
 Then, again, the mood of 7nind in which a person 
 writes, and whether he dictates or holds the pen, has 
 his extemporaneous address taken down by another or 
 writes it out afterwards himself, make a difference in the 
 same person's style which few critics appreciate. As I 
 
EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 63 
 
 write, a notable instance of it comes to mind. It is in 
 Mr. Whipple's Memoir of Thomas Starr King.^ In an 
 interview with Mr, King, Mr. Whipple says : " I main- 
 tained that he lost in compactness many of the advan- 
 tages he gained in compass, — that his pen when placed 
 in his own fingers not only hit on the best word or 
 phrase to express his thought, but really deepened the 
 thought by the pauses which composition exacts. The 
 dispute culminated late one Sunday evening after he 
 had dehvered a carefully premeditated lecture on Hilde- 
 brand. I recklessly offered to distinguish among the 
 promiscuous passages which were fresh in my memory 
 those which he had himself written from those he had 
 dfctated to his amanuensis. Manuscript in hand, he 
 laughingly defied me to undertake the task. By good 
 luck, I happened to be right in every giiessT Two 
 thousand years hence or less, some critic of this disin- 
 tegrating school will be proving to admiring students 
 of " advanced thought " that this lecture on Hildebrand 
 is a composite work patched up by a later hand from 
 different authors ! 
 
 As this matter of style has an important, not to say a 
 decisive, bearing on the age of the Pentateuch, I make 
 one more reference to the opinion of Gesenius. He 
 says, in h.\s Hebrew Grammar, Introduction, 3: "The 
 Pentateuch undoubtedly has some peculiarities of 
 language which may pass for archaisms,^^ and then 
 proceeds to name a few which distinguish it from all 
 other literature before the captivity : " Jeremiah and 
 Ezekiel are examples of a decided approach to the 
 Aramaean hue of the silver age," or to the books written 
 
 ♦Page 58. 
 
164 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 during the later period of the captivity and after the 
 return, " in all of which a Chaldee [Aramaean] coloring, 
 although in different degrees, is exhibited." He says 
 further, as quoted in Parker's De Welte,^ " As the 
 language appears at present in the writings of the Old 
 Testament, we can distinguish in them only two periods 
 distinctly marked by their character, — those writings 
 before the exile and those during the exile and after it.'' 
 On page 443, he says : " With the exile begins a new 
 epoch for language and literature, which is particularly 
 distinguished by an approach to the cognate East-Ara- 
 maean dialect to which the Jews in the land of exile 
 became accustomed." And he further says, page 450 : 
 " Ezekiel stands on the borders of the two periods. .*. . 
 He shares many peculiar terms and Chaldaic expres- 
 sions with his contemporary, Jeremiah. But they are 
 more numerous in Ezekiel ; and, among all writers of 
 the Old Testament, perhaps he has proportionably the 
 greatest number of grammatical anomalies and inac- 
 curacies." " Ecclesiastes is tinged most deeply with 
 Aramaean dye." This would seem to be conclusive 
 respecting the composition of any part of the Penta- 
 teuch in this period or near it, and yet we are gravely 
 told by Dr. Kuenen that Leviticus xviii.-xxvi. was 
 written by this eminently Chaldeeizing Ezekiel. 
 
 Dr. Davidson says : " There are some peculiarities 
 in the Pentateuch . . . which were afterwards modified or 
 dropped. There are diversities between the language 
 as found in it, and the language some centuries after, 
 which can be recognized." " The Aramaean [Chaldee] 
 element is a characteristic feature which distinguishes 
 
 *Vol. I., Appendix D, p. 440. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 65 
 
 the language of this [later] period." " This deteriora- 
 tion is observable even in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who, 
 in point of language, stand on the borders of the two 
 ages," that before and that after the captivity. " It is 
 still more noticeable in the post-exile prophets." * And 
 yet a school of critics contend that a portion of the 
 Pentateuch was written by Ezekiel, and, more incredible 
 still, that large parts of it were written by Ezra. Nine 
 years later, when Davidson was goaded into becoming 
 a partisan rather than a critic, he endeavors to parry 
 the force of the argument derived from " archaisms " in 
 favor of the Mosaic age of the Pentateuch by exposing 
 the extravagant claims of some of their advocates ; but 
 he says, "We do not say that there are no diversities 
 of language between the Pentateuch and later books." 
 The fact then remains that there is an observable di^'cr- 
 cjice in the style of the Pentateuch from that of the later 
 books, and indicating an earlier age. And this is all 
 that is claimed. The more or less diversity is of no 
 vital importance. 
 
 Ewald, the great Hebraist, whose fanciful theory of 
 five or six writers of different portions of the Pentateuch 
 has not been accepted by critics, says, " These frag- 
 ments," referring to the earliest, according to his classi- 
 fication, " display 77iany both rare ajid archaic peculiarities 
 in the usage of words " ; and he gives several in a note^ 
 and remarks, *' We find here, in proportion to the trifling 
 bulk of the passages, a great number of words which are 
 either wholly unknown elsewhere, or are not usual in 
 prose." t But the same holds true of all the portions 
 
 * Bib. Crtt., Vol. I., pp. 15,18. 
 ^His. 0/ Is., Vol. I., p. 65. 
 
l66 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 or sections made by Ewald; and these peculiarities all 
 disappear in the books following the Pentateuch, prov- 
 ing that a period of considerable length must have in- 
 tervened between the close of its composition and that 
 of those books. I cannot understand how Hebrew 
 scholars can believe that the Pentateuch, so marked by 
 its " archaisms," could have been written after Joshua 
 
 — Kings (a large part of it even by Ezra), which are free 
 from them ; and these books were most certainly written 
 before the middle of the captivity, most of them before 
 its commencement, and some of them as early as or 
 earlier than the time of David. 
 
 The ejnphasis with which Ewald characterizes the dif- 
 ference in the style of the Pentateuch and that of the 
 rest of the books written before the captivity (Joshua 
 
 — Kings) demands notice. "The first phenomenon," 
 he says, " that strikes the observer here is the 7?iarked 
 difference in tlie language [of these later books] in com- 
 parison with that of the preceding great book of the 
 primitive history [the Pentateuch]. Although both are 
 equally made up of passages by the most diverse writ- 
 ers, yet on the whole each is distinguished by ■a. peculiar 
 cast of language. Many fresh words and expressions 
 become favorites here [in Joshua — Kings] and sup- 
 plant their equivalents in the primitive history [Genesis 
 
 — Deuteronomy] ; others that are thoroughly in vogue 
 here [in Joshua — Kings] are . . . avoided in the primi- 
 tive history. But the most ronarkable and pervading 
 characteristic is that words of common life, which never 
 occur to the pen of any single relater of the primitive 
 history, find an unquestiotied reception here [in Joshua — 
 Kings]." " I have no hesitation in saying," he yet 
 
EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 167 
 
 more emphatically affirms, " that the established usage of 
 centuries must have sanctioned for the primitive history 
 [the Pentateuch] a style of narrative and a cast of lan- 
 guage utterly differe7it from those customary in the his- 
 tory of the Kings," in which Ewald includes Judges — 
 Kings. They " naturally created a 7iew style of narra- 
 tive and of language."^ The italics are mine. Ewald 
 here affirms that for " centuries " the " primitive style " 
 of the Pentateuch existed before the writers of the later 
 books and literature lived. But we have good reason 
 to believe that we have remains of literature as early 
 as the time of David in some of the Psalms, to say 
 nothing of the probability that the Book of Judges and 
 portions of Samuel and all of Joshua may have been 
 written in his reign or shortly after, in none of which 
 are there any of the " archaisms and peculiarities of lan- 
 guage " which are " utterly different from those custom- 
 ary " in Joshua — Kings, and constituting a " neiu style 
 of narrative and language." But, according to the esti- 
 mate of many modern critics, only about three centuries 
 intervened between Moses and David or Solomon, and 
 only about five, according to the earlier critics. Ewald's 
 "usage of centuries" reaches back easily to the time 
 of Moses in either chronology. To make as great a 
 change in the language as he affirms, that length of 
 time, in that age, would be required. The age of the 
 Pentateuch is thrown back, therefore, to the time of 
 Moses by the demand of its '-''utterly differenf^ style from 
 that of the later books. For this " archaic style tinges " 
 all the differe7it documents of which some critics think the 
 work is composed, as Ewald admits "even Deuteronomy 
 tobe."t 
 
 * Vol. L, pp. 134, 135- tPage 135. 
 
l68 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 These opinions of eminent Hebrew scholars, with 
 which nine-tenths of the scholars in this country who 
 can read Hebrew agree, must suffice as proof of the 
 "archaic style" of the Pentateuch. A popular essay 
 like this is not the place for a minute exhibition and 
 criticism of these " archaisms and peculiarities of lan- 
 guage." A few specimens only will be given, as indi- 
 cations of their character, and illustrations of their 
 number and variety, in which the common reader may 
 be interested. 
 
 The most striking and obvious peculiarity in the style 
 of the Pentateuch is the use of the same word for the 
 singular pronoun in the third person of both genders, 
 he and she. In the rest of the Hebrew writings, a dis- 
 tinction is always made and a different word is used for 
 the feminine pronoun she. Ewald himself admits that 
 *' this is a proof which cannot be mistaken, in favor of 
 the high antiquity of the Pentateuch." And when we 
 remember that this pronoun is used nearly two hundred 
 times in the Pentateuch, and, with but eleven excep- 
 tions, in the same form, the "proof" becomes decisive 
 that the book is older than any other Plebrew writings 
 which have come down to us ; hence older even than 
 the Psalms of David, in which no such " archaic " word 
 is found. The same remark may be made respecting 
 a word which in the Pentateuch is used twenty-five times, 
 and is applied indifferently to either a young man or a 
 young woman ; while in the other Hebrew writings the 
 feminine termination is added to distinguish the gender. 
 A peculiar form of the plural demonstrative pronoun 
 " these " is found in the Pentateuch. One phrase which 
 indicates strongly the very early origin of the book is 
 
EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 69 
 
 that used to denote the death of an Israelite. He is 
 said "to be gathered to his people ^\- while in the later 
 writings he is said " to be gathered to his fathers^ The 
 nation not yet being settled in the land of promise, the 
 "fathers" are not spoken of. A peculiar word is used 
 in the Pentateuch to denote species^ kind^ of animals 
 and plants twenty-eight times, and is never used in later 
 writings, with but one exception, when Ezekiel (xlvii., 10) 
 most obviously quotes the language of the Pentateuch, 
 Genesis i., 21. A peculiar phrase is used twenty-one 
 times to signify the relation of the sexes. Fourteen 
 times a peculiar word is used for lamh. A peculiar 
 word for laugh is used thirteen times, or rather a pecu- 
 liar spelling of a word. A peculiar word is used fifty 
 times for goat which is never used for that animal in the 
 other books. A word is used for female twenty-one 
 times in the Pentateuch, and never in the other writings 
 except by Jeremiah (xxxi., 22), with evident reference 
 to the old usage. Nephesh is used eighteen times for 
 "creature" and but once elsewhere, Ezekiel xlvii., 9. 
 Such is a specimen of the " archaic " words and 
 phrases used in this book. Dr. Jahn, who made a 
 special examination of these " archaisms," after omit- 
 ting all words which treat of subjects peculiar to the 
 Pentateuch, such as names of towns, villages, nations, 
 men ; of diseases and symptoms of diseases ; of blem- 
 ishes in sacrifices, priests, men, and women; of parts 
 of the tabernacle, and its altars, curtains, and furni- 
 ture, — in short, after the omission of all words which 
 were used to signify things or ideas not spoken of in 
 the later books, — found over two hundred words, used 
 from two to two hundred times each, which are peculiar 
 
170 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 to the Pentateuch.^ When we consider the meagre 
 vocabulary of Hebrew words, this number is a very- 
 large one, and is conclusive evidence that the book 
 was composed in a period remote from that in which 
 the other Hebrew books were written. " The few sol- 
 itary Chaldaisms which occur in the writings of the 
 Golden xA.ge," and which have been adduced as proof 
 of the modern origin of the Pentateuch, Gesenius says, 
 " may be accounted for by the fact that these books 
 passed through the hands of copyists v/hose language 
 was Chaldee." Besides, it is not certain that all these 
 so-called Chaldaisms are such. " Some of them are 
 not found," says Gesenius, "in Chaldee, and seem to 
 have belonged to the Hebrew popular dialect." t 
 
 Looking at the language only, therefore, we are re- 
 quired to refer, the Pentateuch to an age as remote' 
 as that of Moses. It is objected, however, to this 
 view of the age of the Pentateuch, that the language 
 must have undergone a greater change between the 
 
 *yet in the face of all this conscientious and scholarly discrimination, De 
 Wette is rash enough and unjust enough to say that Jahn was utterly heedless 
 and undiscriminating in his selection of words. 
 
 t The latest statement which I have seen respecting the language of the Pen- 
 tateuch is contained in a notice of a Historico-Cr iiical Commentary on the 
 Laiiguage of the Elohist in the Pentateuch (by C. Victor Ryssel : 8vo, pp. 
 92; Leipzig, Fernan, J878), in which it is said that "the result of the au- 
 thor's laborious examinations is that only some parts of the Books of Exodus, 
 Leviticus, Numbers, contain peculiarities of language which point to a rather 
 late date of composition. These are the parts which, taken together, form the 
 so-called Priest's Code. But the greater parts of the Elohiitic book, and the 
 weightiest, i.e., the historic and the supreme laws, are to be referred to the early 
 days of the literature of the Israelite people." Of the ability of this scholar to 
 decide on this subject, I have no knowledge. Accepting his decision as correct 
 respecting the fact of "certain peculiarities cf language" in the ritual which 
 " point to a rather late date of composition," this would be expected; for ritual 
 language survives all other, and would be used, when ritualistic matters were 
 treated of, long centuries after the ritual was composed and adopted. 
 
Evidence from style and language. 171 
 
 Mosaic Age, in which it is claimed that the Penta- 
 teuch was written, and the age in which the remaining 
 books, Joshua — Kings, were written, than we find that 
 it has undergone in these books. If, however, Joshua 
 and Judges and a portion of Samuel were written in 
 the age of David or Solomon, as is most probable, only 
 about three hundred years intervened between their 
 composition and that of the Pentateuch, according to 
 the most commonly received chronology ; and, setting 
 their composition as late as that of the Books of the 
 Kings, but about seven hundred years separate them. 
 Now, it is well known that the early Oriental languages 
 do not change as rapidly as those in modern days. 
 The late George H. Smith, the eminent Assyriologist, 
 says : * " The texts of Rim-agu, Sargon, Hammurali, who 
 were one thousand years before Nebuchadnezzar and 
 Nabonidus, show the same language as the texts of these 
 later kings, there being no sensible difference in style to 
 match the long interval between them." These older 
 texts were of the age of Moses, according to the old 
 chronology, and just as much time elapsed between 
 their composition and the later texts as elapsed be- 
 tween the time of Moses and the captivity, when the 
 Books of the Kings were written ; but, according to 
 the new chronologv, the text of Rim-as^u is three hun- 
 dred years older than that of the Pentateuch. 
 
 The Egyptologists also testify to the slight changes 
 which took place in the early centuries in the language 
 of Egypt. In the Revue Archeologique (1867, unless my 
 reference is incorrect) is the following statement : " In 
 comparing the demotic papyrus with the romance of 
 
 * Vol. IL.p. 23. 
 
1^2 . A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 the Two Brothers, even a superficial examination shows, 
 not only that the language and the formulce of the two 
 papyri, separated from each other by an interval of 
 some thousand years, are of the same kind, but also — 
 a point of most special interest — even the grammar has 
 not undergone the least change." Well might there 
 not have been any greater change in the Hebrew lan- 
 guage of the time of Moses down to the time of the 
 captivity than we find when we compare the language 
 of the Pentateuch and that of the Books of the Kings. 
 There is a change, and as great as we should expect to 
 find under the circumstances, as great as the analogy of 
 other Oriental languages would lead us to anticipate. 
 
 The language of the Pentateuch is "archaic" ; sig- 
 nally different from the earliest of the other writings, 
 and some of these date back to the time of David. 
 The time between Moses and David was none too great 
 to have wrought this difference. Governed by the lan- 
 guage of the work, we must date the Pentateuch as 
 early as the Mosaic Age. 
 
 Nor can it be said with any ground of reason that 
 this " archaic language " in the Pentateuch is only the 
 " priestly idiom " which was used by the priestly forgers, 
 Hilkiah and Ezra ; for there is no proof that there was 
 any " priestly idiom." And, more than this, the writ- 
 ings of the priests w^hich have come down to us contain 
 none of these " archaic peculiarities." Jeremiah, Eze- 
 kiel, Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, all priests, write in the 
 degenerate language of the age of the captivity, and 
 use none of the " archaic " words which distinguish the 
 language of the Pentateuch from all the other books. 
 This they would not have done, had these peculiar 
 words been the special vocabulary of priestly men. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 73 
 
 Before dismissing a consideration of the language of 
 the Pentateuch, as furnishing an argument for its an- 
 tiquity, it is necessary to consider an objection to this 
 conclusion which has been drawn from the marked 
 diversity of style in the books themselves. A sufficient 
 reply to this objection, so far as my argument is con- 
 cerned, is that, however diverse the style of the differ- 
 ent parts of these books may be, the style of all these 
 parts is " archaic," and hence they were written long 
 before Joshua — Kings. But I cannot admit that such 
 diversities of style as the objection implies are found in 
 the Pentateuch. Excepting the first eleven chapters of 
 Genesis, which contain some notices of the world before 
 the time of Abraham, and excepting several passages 
 in the remainder of Genesis, there is a unity of style as 
 clearly marked as in any writing by even one person, 
 spread over as long a period (forty years) and includ- 
 ing as many different subjects, to say nothing of the 
 probability of the employment of scribes who would 
 naturally write in different styles while using the same 
 " archaic language." I have gone through the drudg- 
 ery of examining all De Wette's divisions founded upon 
 what he is pleased to call diversities of style, and have 
 risen from the task entirely satisfied that there is no 
 good foundation for any such wide diversities as he 
 maintains are to be found, making it possible with any 
 degree of certainty to identify the different writers. 
 The self-contradictory nature of some of the rules by 
 which he professes to be governed, the different words 
 which in different sections he quotes as proving the 
 identity of the authorship of some sections and the dif- 
 ferent authorship of other sections, are sufficient to lead 
 
174 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 the student to suspect that a mistake has been made in 
 this portion of his Introduction ; and upon further and 
 closer examination he will find his suspicions changed 
 into firm conclusions that such heteroijeneousness of 
 style, as is affirmed so decidedly to exist, is not to be 
 found in these books. But we will not be allured much 
 further from a positive consideration of our subject by 
 the fruitful field of criticism which opens before us in 
 this direction. 
 
 A very brief space only must be taken to illustrate 
 the fatuity of all such attempts to cull out the parts 
 which are attributed to the different hypothetical 
 writers. I use De VVette's fragments, who confesses 
 to following " Stahelin's plan." Did De Wette test this 
 plan by comparing it with the text? It does not seem 
 possible. He says Exodus xvi. is from the Elohist 
 writer, yet God is called Elohim but once and jfehovah 
 twenty-two times. Chapter xx., 19-21, is Jehovistic, 
 and yet God is called Elohim three times and not once 
 Jehovah. Leviticus iii., 6, is called Elohistic, yet God 
 is called Jehovah. These are selected as Elohistic, yet 
 God is called Jehovah in all of them : Leviticus vi., 18 ; 
 vii., 20, 21 ; X., 15, used twice. Leviticus xiv., Jehovah 
 is used twenty-three times, Elohim once. Leviticus i.- 
 iii., Jehovah twenty-nine times, Elohim once ; xvii., 
 4-10, Jehovah seven times, Elohim not once; xix., 8, 
 34, Jehovah in each; xxii., 3, Jehovah twice; xxiv., 16, 
 22, Jehovah in both; xxvii., 9, 11, 16, 21, 22, 28, Jeho- 
 vah eight times and Elohim not once in these later ref- 
 erences. Let us look into Numbers i.-x. : Jehovah is 
 used ninety-nine times, Elohim once! xviii., Jehovah 
 sixteen times, Elohim not once; xx., 1-13, Jehovah 
 
EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 175 
 
 seven times, Elohim once ; xxv., 1-18, Jehovah six 
 times, Elohim once. These are sufficient illustrations 
 of the complete unreliableness of this attempt to parcel 
 out these books. Exodus — -Numbers, among different 
 authors on this use of the names of God. Further 
 exposure was made of the attempt in the Review of 
 Kuenen, p. 71.* 
 
 * The utter futility of all attempts to separate the Levitical or priestly parts 
 of the middle books, Exodus — Numbers, from the rest of the writing, will be 
 best understood by the reader from the disagreements of the scholars who have 
 attempted to separate them. I will give the parts selected by Noldeke, as 
 quoted by Prof. Smith, pp. 442, 443, and as selected by Stahelln, as quoted in 
 Parker's De Wette, Vol. IL, pp. 106-130. 
 
 For greater ease in comparing them, I will tabulate their selections. The 
 verses selected are often not connected. 
 
 Exodus, 
 
 chapter 
 
 
 i) 
 
 Noldeke 
 
 9 
 
 verses; 
 
 Stahelin 22 
 
 
 
 
 ii., 
 
 
 it 
 
 
 2h 
 
 
 
 t( 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 vi., 
 
 
 (( 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 i( 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 vii., 
 
 
 (( 
 
 
 15^ 
 
 
 
 i< 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 viii., 
 
 
 <( 
 
 
 7h 
 
 
 
 << 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ix., 
 
 
 t( 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 (1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 xi., 
 
 
 (( 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 (< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 xii., 
 
 
 <( 
 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 <c 
 
 42 
 
 
 
 
 xiii.. 
 
 
 (i 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 (( 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 xiv.; 
 
 
 i( 
 
 
 ^5 3' 
 
 -2 
 
 
 l< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 XV. 
 
 
 i( 
 
 
 2| 
 
 
 
 (( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 xvi. 
 
 
 (( 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 <( 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 xvii., 
 
 
 <{ 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 xix., 
 
 
 <( 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 (( 
 
 
 
 
 
 XX. 
 
 -xxiv.. 
 
 
 (( 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 (< 
 
 118* 
 
 
 
 xxi. 
 
 -xxxi.. 
 
 17 
 
 (( 
 
 
 all 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 all 
 
 
 
 XXXV. -xl. 
 
 
 (t 
 
 
 all 
 
 
 
 << 
 
 all 
 
 Leviticus 
 
 
 i. 
 
 -xxvi., 
 
 , 2 
 
 (( 
 
 all but 48 
 
 
 <( 
 
 all 
 
 
 
 
 xxvii. 
 
 
 (1 
 
 
 all 
 
 
 
 (< 
 
 allt 
 
 Numbers 
 
 ) 
 
 
 i.-viii., 
 
 22 
 
 << 
 
 
 all 
 
 
 
 "4 
 
 verses more 
 
 
 
 
 ix.-x.. 
 
 28 
 
 (( 
 
 
 all 
 
 
 
 "9 
 
 verses more 
 
 
 
 
 xiii., 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 19 3- 
 
 ■2 
 
 
 (< 
 
 all 
 
 • De Wette and Parker differ from both Noldeke and Stahelin and from each other, 
 t Parker utterly objects to both. 
 
176 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 I cannot close this already extended discussion of the 
 " archaic language " of the Pentateuch as proof of its 
 high antiquity, without saying that my reading of the 
 Hebrew and my examination of the discussion of the 
 eminent critics quoted above compel me to make three 
 periods of the language of the Old Testament Script- 
 ures : The first covering the Pentateuch ; the second, 
 Joshua — Kings ; the third, Chronicles — Esther. The 
 poetical books belonging to the second and third periods 
 can be nearly as easily distinguished as the historical. 
 
 Numbers, chapter xiv., Nokleke 23 verses; Stahelin all 
 
 xvi., " 73-2 " " all 
 
 '* " xvii.-xix., " all " '* confused 
 
 " " XX., " 18^ '* " confused 
 
 " " xxi., " lYz " " o 
 
 *' " xxii., " I 4. .< o 
 
 " ♦• XXV., " 18 " " o 
 
 " " xxvi., " 53^ " " 65 
 
 " " xxvii., " all " " all 
 
 " •• xxviii., " o " " all 
 
 " •' xxix., " o " " all 
 
 •' XXX., " 14 " " 16 
 
 " xxxi., " all " " all 
 
 xxxii., '• 23% " " 32 
 
 '• xxxiii., " 50 " *' 49 
 
 '* xxxiv.-xxxvi., " all 
 
 all 
 
 Decided dissent i? expressed by both De Wette and Parker from many of 
 these selections, which I did not think it necessary to note. Prof. Smiih says, 
 " Noldeke's table is generally accepted as careful and correct in esseniialsV 
 De Wette says, " Stahe;in's is, as a whole, certainly correct ! " The italics are 
 mine. Comment is unnecessary. But that the reader may see what this table 
 does not show, tlie manner in which these verses are selected by Noldeke, I will 
 give a few specimens as furnishing farther proof of the imaginary Ime which 
 separates the verses chosen and the verses left. Exodus i., 1-5, 7, 13, 14; ii., 
 23. 24, 25; xiii., I, 2, 20; xii., 1-23, 28, 37, 40-51; xi., 9, 10; Numbers xvi., i, 
 half of 2, 3-1 r, 16-23, part of 24, 26, 27, 35; xxxii., 2 (3?), 4-6, 16-32, part of 
 33, 40. These specimens must suffice. Any reader can turn to the Bible, and 
 judge whether there is any ground for selecting just these passages. I have no 
 fear of the result. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 1 77 
 SECTION II. EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 
 
 Were there, therefore, no other evidence of the age 
 of the composition of the Pentateuch, its archaic lan- 
 guage would be sufficient to determine it. But there is 
 other evidence corroborative of this, and also adding its 
 own independent weight to the same conclusion. This 
 evidence is found in the contents and structure of the 
 books of the Pentateuch, and determines their age as 
 certainly and as evidently as the contents and structure 
 of the rocks determine their age. llie contents and 
 structure of the Silurian rocks no more surely prove 
 their deposition to have been before the Devonian than 
 the contents and structure of the Pentateuch prove it to 
 have been written before any other books in the Bible. 
 
 Another internal argument in favor of the antiquity 
 of the Pentateuch is found in the jour?ial-like character 
 of the work itself. It is in precisely the form it would 
 have been in, had it been written under the circum- 
 stances commonly believed to exist at the time of its 
 composition. It is fragmentary and abrupt, relating 
 incidents in such a manner and form as to induce the 
 belief that the writer was on the spot and narrated what 
 he saw, and his own feelings under the circumstances. 
 To fully appreciate this characteristic of the Penta- 
 teuch, or the last four books of it, we must go into 
 particulars, which will show very clearly that they were 
 composed on the spot where the transactions recorded 
 transpired. 
 
 I. I w^U first refer to the occurrence of U7iexpected 
 difficulties which arose, making it necessary to amend or 
 
178 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 repeal laws which had been previously enacted. A 
 marked instance of this nature occurs respecting the 
 law of inheritance in accordance with which none but 
 sons could inherit the real estate of the father ; and 
 specific regulations were made respecting the manner 
 in which it should be divided. But, when the tribes 
 were about to enter upon possession of the promised 
 land, the daughters of Zelophehad came forward, and 
 stated that their father had left no sons at his death, 
 and therefore that their father's portion of the land 
 would go out of the family. They pray, therefore, that 
 a possession may be given them among their brethren. 
 To meet this emergency, Moses enacts a new, or rather 
 amends the old, lav/. He enacts that, " if a man die 
 and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to 
 pass unto his daugliter." And farther provisions are 
 made in case no daughter should survive (Numbers 
 xxvi., i-ii). If we turn forward nine chapters, we 
 shall find that this new law was found to be as defec- 
 tive as the old one, but in another direction. It was 
 the intention of Moses that no part of the inheritance 
 of one tribe should pass into the possession of another 
 tribe. But these daughters of Zelophehad were pro- 
 posing to marry into another tribe, — not into that to 
 which their father belonged. This caused the children 
 of the other families of the tribe to make complaint to 
 Moses that his amendment to the old law, which gave 
 the inheritance to the sons only, and giving it, in case 
 of no sons, to the daughters, would disinherit their tribe 
 of a part of their estate, since these dauditcrs of 
 Zelophehad were about to marry out of the tribe, and 
 thus take their father's inheritance with them. Moses 
 
EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 1 79 
 
 saw the conflicting nature of both the original law and 
 his amendment, and he amended the amendme?tt by en- 
 acting that, in all cases, " every daughter that posses- 
 seth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of 
 Israel shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe 
 of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy 
 every man the inheritance of his fathers." Let, there- 
 fore, the daughters of Zelophehad " marry to whom 
 they think best ; only to the family of the tribe of their 
 fathers shall they marry " (Numbers xxxvi.). Thus, 
 after three experiments, the law is perfected, and the 
 details of the cause of these changes are given as if 
 written on the spot. Would a compiler of the laws of 
 the Hebrews in the time of Ezra have thus stated this 
 matter } It is very improbable, not to say incredible. 
 
 Another incident is related, showing the imiDcrfect 
 character of the first enactment, and how, from time to 
 time, laws were added to meet these new emergencies. 
 A man was found violating the Sabbath by picking up 
 sticks (Numbers xv., 32). The law had forbidden all 
 work. A man is found violating the law : how is he 
 to be punished? Moses adds a new section to the 
 law containing the penalty for violating the Sabbath. 
 Stone him with stones without the camp. Here we see 
 clearly that a history of the origin of the penalty is 
 given, which would not have been given by a compiler 
 of a later age. The same is true of the law against 
 blasphemy (Leviticus xxiv., 10-23) ^^ ^^ noticed soon. 
 
 The change which was made in the law respecting 
 7isury indicates the journal-like character of the Penta- 
 teuch. It is first enacted (Exodus xxii., 25) that no usury 
 shall be taken of the poor, as it would be oppressive ; 
 
l8o A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 but it is distinctly implied that it might be taken of the 
 rich. Just as the tribes were to enter Canaan, thirty- 
 eight years after, we find that this law is so modified as 
 to forbid the taking of usury from any Hebrew (Deut- 
 eronomy xxiii., 19). It had been found, probably, that 
 very little money would be loaned to the poor with- 
 out usury, when it could be loaned to the rich with 
 usury. All usury of Hebrews is therefore now forbiddeji. 
 But another curious change is found in these usury laws 
 respecting strangers who came to dwell among the He- 
 brews. Soon after the people left Egypt, it was enacted 
 that no usury should be taken of the poor of their own 
 people, but of the poor of other people who had come 
 among them nothing is said. In about two years, just 
 before the people leave Sinai, a more stringent law is 
 passed respecting usury (Leviticus xxv., 35) ; and stran- 
 gers are included in it, and especially those who had 
 been overtaken by calamity and had lost their property. 
 Just before entering Canaan (Deuteronomy xxiii., 19), 
 we find that the law forbidding usury when loans were 
 made to sojourners and strangers is repealed. It is 
 very easy to see why a writer on the spot should insert 
 all these particulars ; but it is not easy to see why a 
 later writer giving a compend of the law should have 
 inserted all these minute matters, or indeed how he 
 could have known them unless some one had written 
 them at the time, and the later writer had used his 
 journal. The old law was found upon trial to be im- 
 perfect : an amendment was enacted, and inserted in 
 the book containing the legislative proceedings, as is 
 done at this day. 
 
 An unforeseen difficulty arose respecting the passover 
 
EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. l8l 
 
 (Leviticus xxiii., i). Every Israelite was bound by the 
 original law to keep the passover on the foiirtcenth day 
 of the first month, and a heavy penalty rested upon 
 him who failed to obey it. Yet it was equally perilous 
 for a person ritually unclean to minister in any sacred 
 rite. In Numbers ix., we have the record of such a 
 conflict in the laws. " Certain men who were defiled 
 by the dead body of a man," so that they could not 
 keep the passover, came to Moses and Aaron and in- 
 quired what they should do. Moses saw the conflict in 
 the laws, and enacted that they, and all persons who 
 should hereafter be in their situation, might eat the 
 passover on the fourteenth day of the second month, re- 
 garding, at the same time, all the ceremonies which 
 were required of those who ate it in the previous 
 month. 
 
 A long series of amendments is found in Deuter- 
 onomy to adapt laws, many of which were designed 
 for a camp and nomadic life, to the settled, agricultural 
 condition of the people in Canaan. In camp, they were 
 required to kill their animals for food at the tabernacle, 
 that the priests might see that no idolatrous rites were 
 performed with the blood and entrails : in the land of 
 their inheritance, they could kill animals for food at 
 their own homes. Tents were to be exchanged for 
 houses, and laws respecting their construction and 
 purification are enacted. 
 
 A difficulty arose respecting the penalty to be in- 
 flicted on one of that " mixed " race which came out of 
 Egypt with Israel. A son of an Israelitish woman and 
 of a man of Egypt had a fray, blasphemed and cursed. 
 He is kept in ward till his case could be inquired into \ 
 
j82 a study of the PENTATEUCH. 
 
 and it is at last determined, after careful inquir}', that 
 he should be put to death as an Israelite must be who 
 had committed the same crime (Leviticus xxiv., 10-23). 
 Such changes, additions, and amendments in the laws, 
 made to meet emergencies apparently unforeseen, most 
 certainly indicate a writer on the spot, and not a histo- 
 rian of remotely succeeding generations. 
 
 II. But this Book of Deuteronomy and the light 
 which it throws upon the age of the Pentateuch de- 
 mand a thorough examination, as so much misappre- 
 hension exists concerning both. 
 
 Dr. Kuenen afHrms that the forger of Deuteronomy 
 intended to deceive the people^ and that " men used to 
 perpetrate such fictions without any qualms of con- 
 science."* De Wette says: "The author of Deuter- 
 onomy would have us regard his whole book as the 
 work of Moses" (Parker's De Wette, Vol. II., p. 159). 
 Davidson says, " A late writer represents the whole of 
 Deuteronomy, or at least chapters iv., 44-xxx., as pro- 
 ceeding from Moses' hand." . . . "The deception was 
 an innocent one, being merely a veil or fon?i for 
 communicating and enforcing lessons of importance ! " 
 Indeed, all supporters of this theory admit that 
 Deuteronomy is a flagrant forgery. Yet they are 
 compelled to admit, also, that the writer had before 
 him many older documents containing laws ancient 
 and venerated. I propose to show how the laws given 
 at Sinai, forty years before, were amended on the east 
 bank of the Jordan by the original law-giver, and thus 
 prove by its contents that the address of Moses is not 
 a " fiction " written eight centuries later, but a substan- 
 
 * Vol. II., p. 18. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 1 83 
 
 tially correct report of a real transaction. In Deuter- 
 onomy xii.-xxvi., we have a series of additions and 
 amendments to previous laws, all based upon new circuni- 
 sia?ices or defects discovered in the origirial enactment^ none 
 of them affecting the fundamental law of the nation. 
 It would require more space than I can take, and more 
 patience in the reader than can be assumed, to quote 
 or refer to all the changes made and 'the reasons for 
 them ; nor is it necessary for my argument to do so. 
 A few must suffice as indicating the rest. I give the 
 following as average illustrations of all of them : Per- 
 mission is given to the people to kill animals at their 
 own homes instead of at the door of the tabernacle. 
 Secretly enticing to idolatry is made a capital crime. 
 Idolatrous cities are to be razed to the ground. 
 Mourners are not to shave between the eyes. A dead 
 carcass may be sold to an alien. The animals that 
 may be eaten are named. When the distance is " too 
 great to carry the tithe of corn and wine and oil and 
 the firstlings of thy herds and flocks " to the place 
 which God shall choose, "then thou shalt turn it into 
 money " to use at the place chosen. Payment of debts 
 is not to be enforced in the Sabbatical year from the 
 poor. Slaves are to be emancipated on the seventh 
 year. Female slaves are to have the same righis as 
 males : they are to be provided for, when bearing, by 
 their master. Judges are to be appointed in all cities. 
 Regulations are made respecting a king. An addition 
 is made to a priest's perquisites. A test of a false 
 prophet is given. Minute regulations are made re- 
 specting cities of refuge. Landmarks are not to be 
 changed. Two witnesses are to be required for " any 
 
184 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 iniquity" as well as for "murder." A false witness is 
 to be punished as the criminal, if guilty, would be. 
 Regulations are given for drafting soldiers for war. 
 Trees are not to be destroyed when besieging cities. 
 The treatment of a town in case of uncertain murder 
 is described. Conditions of marrying a female cap- 
 tive are given, etc. There are over sixty ainoidments 
 afid additions to the law as contained in Exodus — 
 Numbers, in these chapters, and they are such as 
 one having the original laws before him would, under 
 the circumstances, have made ; but it appears incred- 
 ible that one having the laws of Deuteronomy before 
 him could have composed those of Exodus — Num- 
 bers, as the theory assumes. 
 
 Again, the indirect quotations of the original laws 
 and references to them contained in Exodus — Num- 
 bers, by the speaker in Deuteronomy, in connection 
 with the amendments and additions which he makes, 
 are of such a kind as to compel the belief that Exo- 
 dus — Numbers were in the hand of the speaker ; at 
 any rate, they raise a violent presumption that these 
 books were already written, and their contents well 
 known to the Deuteronomist. 
 
 In about a dozen places, the speaker in Deuteron- 
 omy quotes from what God " had commanded " or 
 " said," and his quotation or reference is found in the 
 previous books. In some instances, the quotations are 
 verbal ; in others, free, but including a peculiar word or 
 phrase, as not to " lift up " an iron tool on building an 
 altar (Deuteronomy xxvii., 5=Exodus xx., 26); to drive 
 out the Canaanites "little by little" (Deuteronomy 
 vii., 22=Exodus xxiii., 30); God is a "jealous God" 
 
EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 1 85 
 
 (Deuteronomy iv., 24= Exodus xx., 5) ; thou shalt not 
 wear a garment of " divers sorts " (Deuteronomy xxii., 
 ii=Leviticus xix., 9). Some of these words and 
 phrases are used only in the passages quoted. These 
 quotations are sufficient to indicate the character of 
 the rest of the passages, and the reader can judge of 
 their weifi:ht in this argument. To an unbiassed critic 
 who had no theory to support, they alone would seem 
 to be decisive of the whole question. But lest some 
 readers should still hesitate to accept this conclusion 
 on the testimony of these passages, I will trespass 
 upon the patience of others by quoting a few more 
 passages which must remove the least shadow of 
 doubt. In Deuteronomy i., 16-18, Moses says the 
 "judges shall not respect persons in judgment, but ye 
 shall hear the small as well as great, and judge right- 
 eously between every man and his brother. ... I com- 
 manded you at that time [' whilst at Horeb '] all the 
 things which ye should do." In Leviticus xix., 15, 
 is the original law. In Deuteronomy iii., 18, Moses 
 says, addressing the tribes which were to settle on 
 the east side of Jordan, " I co?jimanded you at that 
 time, saying. Ye shall pass over armed before your 
 brethren," and help them subdue the land first. This 
 command is in Numbers xxxii., 20-23. In Deuter- 
 onomy xi., 22-25, ^^ order to encourage the people to 
 go up and take the land, Moses reminds them that the 
 " Lord hath said that he will drive out all these na- 
 tions from before you." This saying of the Lord is in 
 Exodus xxiii., 27-29. In Deuteronomy xviii., 2, he 
 says, "The tribe of Levi . . . shall have no inheritance 
 among their brethren ; the Lord is their inheritance, as 
 
1 86 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 he hath said unto them " ; and he said it in Numbers 
 xviii., 20. In Deuteronomy xx., 17, Moses repeats the 
 *' command of the Lord " contained in Exodus xxxiv., 
 II, to drive out or exterminate the " Hittites and the 
 Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hiv- 
 ites and the Jebusites," from the land. In Deuter^ 
 onomy xxiv., 8, Moses directs the people " to take 
 heed m the plague of leprosy to observe diligently and 
 do according to all that the priests the Levites shall 
 teach you : as I commanded these, so ye shall observe 
 to do." This " command " is found in Leviticus xiii., 
 14."* 
 
 * A writer in the Unitarian Review, October, 1880, p. 303, after recii^ng the 
 stoning of Achan's children, with their father, for his sin, and the hanging of 
 seven of Saul's sons for the sin of Saul in slaying the Gibeonites, says, " If they 
 had had the law of Deuteronomy, ' The children shall not be put to death for the 
 father,' " Joshua would not "have killed Achan's innocent children," nor David 
 " have hanged the seven inno.:ent sons of Saul." Perhaps they were no better 
 interpreters of the Law of Moses than the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 headed by the profound Chief Justice Taney, when he said, " The negroes had no 
 rights which a white man was bound to respect " ; and, possibiy, the apparent con- 
 flict of laws may have puzzled the poorly educated jurists, Joshua and David, 
 for the so-called ten tables announced that their God \\ as " a jealous God, visiting 
 the iniquity 0/ the fathers upon the childre7t tmto the third and fotirth genera- 
 tion of them that hate him.'' H, under the light of the nineteenth century, the 
 highest court in the United States could announce such an opinion as Chief 
 Justice Taney's, may not Joshua have been mistaken three thousand years 
 before ? More remarkable still, two opposite decisions were made by the same 
 court wiihin about a year, touching a more vital point in ihe Constitution, — the 
 constitutionality of the legal-tender lau' raising pai:)er money to an equality with 
 gold. Different interpretations of a law are so far from proving that there is no 
 ]avv that they prove its existence past all question. 
 
 It may not be inapposite to remind the reader that different interpretations are 
 very frequently given of law by different administrations, and that laws for 
 generations obsolete or remaining unenforced are revived and enforced, as just 
 at this time ihe English law of eviction, which has been ob.=olete for two centuries, 
 is being enforced in Ireland, or as an old law of Maryland has just been dis- 
 covered, which requires the tongue of a Unitarian, one who denies the Trinity, to 
 be bored through with an iron, which never was enforced and whose existence 
 surprises tlie present generation. 
 
 He also objects that two different reasons woiJd not have been given for keeping 
 
EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 187 
 
 But I must refrain from quoting further. Reasonable 
 readers have rights which unreasonable ones are bound 
 to respect. If these passages are not conclusive and 
 do not remove the last shadow of a reasonable doubt, 
 then the presence and testimony of Moses himself 
 could not dispel it. The author of Deuteronomy was 
 familiar Vv^ith the preceding books, or historical ques- 
 tions are incapable of settlement. 
 
 So evident are these references, and so numerous, 
 that even Dr. Davidson admits that " it is possible that 
 the successive laws may have been given by Moses, 
 
 the Sabbath in Deuteronomy v. and Exodus xx. by the so-called Orig'nist, the 
 former because of release from Egyptian bondage, the latter because of God's rest 
 from creating. But would the Originist writing after the Deuteronomist, with 
 whose reas n he was familiar and the people also, and which would be so pleasant 
 to them, have given another and obviously much less touching and humane 
 reason ? 
 
 The same- wiiter affirms that Deuteronomy and the historical books take a 
 wholly diffcient view of the sacerdotal tribe and the priesthood from Exodus — 
 Numbe s {Unitarian Review, Tp. 307). He says that in Joshua — Kings the 
 restriction tj sacrifice to the family of Aaron is unknown. This objection hai 
 beea f-iily a::srtered ill the text. In some cases the law may have been violated 
 by supposed necessity, in others priests may have been officiators, but not named. 
 Qiiid facit per alium facit Per se ; and so far is it from being true, as this 
 writer affirms, that Ezekiel is the parent of the priestly legislation, that he is 
 perpetually referring to and quoting the laws relating to sacrifices already in 
 existence, as I have most fully illustrated. 
 
 The same writeraffiimsin italics, on page 305, that the " Deuteronomist is unac- 
 quainted with the Book (jf Origins," or the main portion of the other books of the 
 Pentateuch, and appeals to Deuteronomy xii., 8, and Leviticus xiv., 8, 9, to prove 
 it. Ill Deuteronomy, refer; ing to the change in thtir condition consequent on the 
 people's passing over Jordan, the writer says, "Ye shall not do after ail the things 
 that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes," — that is, 
 regarding the law as best you can in your migratory condition. But, in Leviticus, 
 the Originist, so called, says that he who regardeth not the law of sacrifice 
 referred to " shall be cut off from among his people." But if the Originist wrote 
 after the Deuteronomist, as is maintained, woild he hpve written that it was a 
 law given on the mount to ?.l ,se.i l;y Jehovah, whun the Deuteronomist had 
 written that there was no such law iu existence according to these interpreters? 
 
1 88 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 from the first code at Sinai till the time of his death in 
 Moab ; the legislation being supplemented, enlarged, 
 modified, altered as circumstances arose." * And he 
 also admits, respecting Deuteronomy, that '* it is pos- 
 sible indeed to conceive of Moses, provided he wrote 
 the preceding books of the Pentateuch, giving a survey 
 of the historical circumstances through which he had 
 passed at the head of the Israelites, and modifying or 
 abrogating such enactments as would be unsuitable to 
 the people when they had obtained possession of the 
 promised land." t " There is no doubt," he says, " that it 
 [Deuteronomy] is built on the historical facts embodied 
 in the former parts of the Pentateuch. It alludes to 
 them throughout. Yet it is still possible . . . that his 
 [the author's] acquaintance with them may have been 
 borrowed from oral traditioiir But, only two pages 
 further on. Dr. Davidson says : " These proofs [filling 
 three pages] of the Deuteronomist's acquaintance with 
 the four preceding books might be multiplied, since 
 almost every chapter presents some indication, however 
 slight, that z£//-///6'7^ documents were employed by him."$ 
 Now pass on seven pages further, and we find Dr. 
 Davidson saying, "The Deuteronomist found the first 
 four books 7nade up in their present form of two or more 
 leading documents, and terminating with Moses' death." 
 Comment on such criticism is unnecessary. Dr. Ku- 
 enen, who maintains that the chief portion of Exodus 
 — Numbers was not composed till two centuries after 
 Deuteronomy, must settle the matter as he can with Dr. 
 Davidson, who affirms that the "four books," Genesis 
 
 * Vol. I., p. 75. t Vol. I., p. 253. 
 
 JVol. I., pp. 386, 387. The italics are mine. 
 
Evidence from contents and structure. 189 
 
 — Numbers, "in their present form," were in the 
 hands of the Deuteronomist. 
 
 III. Another evidence of the time and place and 
 manner of writing these books and enacting these laws 
 is found in Deuteronomy xxviii.-xxx. compared with 
 Leviticus xxvi. At the conclusion of the residence at 
 Sinai, when the code and ritual had been giv^en, Moses 
 exhorts the people, Leviticus xxvi., to obedience, as 
 they were soon to be settled in the promised land, by 
 all the motives which could influence a patriotic and 
 religious people. He pictures before them all the 
 blessings of peace and all the luxuries of prosperity 
 consequent upon obedience, and all the desolations 
 of war and the horrors of famine and plague which 
 will follow disobedience. It was as natural as fit that 
 then and there such an earnest and ardent and admon- 
 itory address should be made. But the people did 
 not enter the land as was expected. They wandered 
 about for thirty-eight years, till nearly all who heard 
 the address had forgotten it or were dead. We are not 
 surprised, therefore, to find, as the people were about 
 to enter the land after their long wanderings, and as 
 their great leader could not pass over with them, that 
 he again addresses them at even greater length and 
 with supreme earnestness. The same principles are 
 clothed in more glowing language, and are warmed 
 with a patriot's anxiety and importunity. The time, 
 the circumstances, give coloring to the words spoken. 
 Accept the historical account as correct, and both 
 speeches find their place and justification. Deny the 
 reliableness of the history, and either the one or the 
 other of the speeches is superfluous, and its origin can- 
 
190 A STUDY OF THE PENTATElTClt. 
 
 not be accounted for, nor the location of the one in the 
 Book of Leviticus justified. The internal evidence of 
 the age and origin of the Pentateuch, derived from the 
 construction, contents, and repeated references to the 
 other books, and the amendments and repeal of laws 
 contained in them, the enactment of new laws de- 
 manded by the changed conditions of the people, as 
 exhibited in Deuteronom}^ would of itself justify the 
 belief of the Mosaic Age of these books. 
 
 But there is more evidence of the same kind con- 
 tained in the description of the condition of the people, 
 and the enactment of new laws, and the amendment of 
 old ones, thirty-seven years before, when the people 
 were about to enter Canaan from Kadesh, as written in 
 the Book of Numbers to which we must now turn our 
 attention.* 
 
 IV. The fourteenth chapter of Numbers closes ap- 
 parently the account of the residence of the people at 
 Kadesh after the repulse of the revolutionary attempt 
 to force their way into Canaan. No further account is 
 given of them till they appear again at Kadesh in the 
 desert of Zin, thirty-seven years afterwards. Of this 
 period, we know nothing except the list of stations where 
 they encamped, given in the thirty-third chapter, and 
 the modified or new laws, given in chapters xv. -xix., 
 including the rebellion of Korah. I propose now to 
 examine these chapters to see what light they throw 
 upon the age and authorship of the Pentateuch. 
 
 These regulations were made with express reference to 
 
 *A writer in the Uniiariafi Review, October, 18S0, page 302, says: "The 
 Deuteronomist coald not have known the Levitical law as we now have it. . . . He 
 flatly contradicts many of if? mo^t positive statements." The repeal of some of 
 the old laws and the enactment ut diiicreiit ones, as shown above, rather proves 
 a familiarity with them. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. IQI 
 
 the wa?its of people when settled in the p?'oi?iised huid^ a?id 
 when they were supposed to be about to enter it. "When 
 ye come into the land of your habitations," says Moses, 
 you will regard the following laws. As the history re- 
 cords, it was supposed by Moses as well as by. the 
 people that they were to enter at once upon their inheri- 
 tance ; and therefore he had so improved the original 
 code as to better adapt it to their new condition. There 
 is no reason to suppose he would have made these addi- 
 tions and amendments, as recorded in the fifteenth chap- 
 ter, now, if he had known they were to be wanderers in 
 the wilderness one generation, or thirty-seven years 
 longer. The history implies the reason why these laws 
 were made then^ and the implication of immediate en- 
 trance "into their habitations" contained in the pub- 
 lication of such laws confirms the authenticity of the 
 history, and shows the journal-like style of the work. 
 The fifteenth chapter was written evidently before the 
 repulse took place, and the rebellion was punished by 
 the denial of that generation to enter the land. 
 
 Do the laws themselves, as compared with other 
 laws, throw any light upon the origin of these books ? 
 Chapter xv., 1-16, extends the regulation respecting 
 strangers at thepassover to all the sacrificial ritual, as if 
 the people were to be so situated that strangers would 
 be very likely to join them more frequently than they 
 had done before ; and, most obviously, strangers would 
 be more numerous when they were settled in the land. 
 Again, the quantity of flour and oil and wine is specified 
 for each offering of a lamb or of a ram or of a bullock, 
 as if there would be hereafter no lack of flour and oil 
 and wine as there was in the desert, when the quantity 
 
102 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCtt. 
 
 for an offering was not specified (Leviticus ii.), — indi- 
 cating that they were about to change a nomadic for 
 an agricultural life. 
 
 Numbers XV., 17-21. This law of the "heave offer- 
 ing " of a "cake of the first of the dough," with grain 
 taken from the ^'' threshmg floor ^^^ is new^ and implies 
 that they were soon to be husbandmen. No such cere- 
 mony of thankfulness could have been observed in the 
 desert. 
 
 Numbers xv., 22-29. " ^ ^i*^ ^^ ^^ goats " is added 
 to the sin-offering for sins of ignorance of the congre- 
 gation (Leviticus iv., 13-21). The cause of this addi- 
 tion does not appear. But emphasis is laid on the 
 obligation of "the stranger that sojourneth " with them 
 to obey this law, as if more such persons would be 
 likely to be among them. This is new. Numbers xv., 
 30-36. The presumptuous sinner is to " be cut off 
 from among his people" ; and a case of such presumpt- 
 uous violation of the law of observing the Sabbath is 
 brought before Moses, and he decides that the form of 
 "cutting off from the people," or that capital punish- 
 ment, shall be stoning. This law and the form of the 
 penalty are both new. 
 
 Numbers xv., 37-41. The law requiring the wear- 
 ing of " fringes on the borders of their garments " is 
 new. This law, unlike the others, does not include 
 " strangers," as it indicates race. There is nothing in 
 either this law or the one before to indicate the time in 
 which they were made ; but their connection with the 
 others raises a strong presumption that they were en- 
 acted at the same time, and before the repulse on " the 
 hill even unto Hormah " and the rebellion of Korah. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 1 93 
 
 Numbers xvi. contains an account of the rebellion 
 of Korah and Dathan and Abiram and On, — the 
 first a Levite, the other three Reubenites. That a 
 second rebellion should have sprung up just at this 
 time among the chief men, since Moses and Aaron had 
 failed to take them into the promised land and were 
 about to lead them back into the desert, is very credi- 
 ble. They gave as a justification for their rebellion 
 the very plausible, not to say satisfactory, reason that 
 Moses and Aaron had taken too much upon themselves, 
 as the recent great reverses and the sufferings of the 
 great and terrible wilderness journeyings threatened 
 showed. Reuben was the eldest son, and Judah the 
 fourth : why should not the children of Reuben lead in 
 the march, and command instead of being placed behind 
 Judah, as second in rank ? Korah was a descendant 
 of an elder son of Kohath than Elzaphan, who had been 
 made " chief of the families of the Kohathites," and 
 was cousin of Moses and Aaron, and might well aspire, 
 after such disasters and such prospects, to a higher 
 place. The time and circumstances correspond with 
 the insurrection, and are its insufficient reason. The 
 rebellion was nipped in the bud by the destruction of 
 the leaders in a marvellous manner, and the right of 
 Aaron to be the head of the priesthood is vindicated 
 by the budding of his rod when all the other rods of 
 the tribes budded not (chap. xvii.). Then follows, in 
 chapter xviii,, a repetition of many of the laws re- 
 specting the priesthood, with additions and changes, 
 and a special charge to Aaron respecting his official du- 
 ties and perquisites as distinguished from the Levites. 
 These laws settled the questions in dispute between 
 
194 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 the Kohathites and the priests, Aaron and his sons. 
 In verse 8, the " anointing " of the priests is spoken 
 of, referrinof to the law which is recorded in Leviticus 
 viii., 30. It is announced (chap, xviii., 12, 13) that the 
 "first-fruits" should be given to Aaron, which is new; 
 verse 14, every devoted thing is given to Aaron (Levit- 
 icus xxvii., 28), also new ; verse 13, redeemed firstlings 
 are to be Aaron's (Exodus xxxiv., 9), new. 
 
 Chapter xviii., 20, informs us that Aaron (the priest- 
 hood) should "have no inheritance in the land " as the 
 Levites did, which is new ; but the Levites must give a 
 tenth part of their tithe to the priesthood (verses 26, 28). 
 In this manner, all future dispute about the income of 
 the priests is avoided. That this special legislation 
 should have taken place at this critical time is strong 
 evidence of the substantial accuracy of the history. 
 And the legislation without the history would be strong 
 evidence that something very important had transpired 
 in the camp to render it necessary. 
 
 The nineteenth chapter contains a minute account of 
 the preparation and use of the water of purification for 
 any one who had been made unclean by contact with a 
 dead body ; the water to be used with the ashes of a 
 red heifer. The occasio7i of this law is found in the 
 plague, recorded in the sixteenth chapter, which carried 
 off many thousands of the people. The whole cere- 
 mony was a most vigorous and efHcient health law, and 
 being enacted at this particular time corroborates the 
 history. 
 
 All these laws indicate special causes for their en- 
 actment, and justify the belief that these chapters (xv. 
 -xix.) were written at the time the people were 
 
EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 1 95 
 
 encamped near Kadesh, — the xv., before their repulse, 
 when they were soon expecting to enter the prom- 
 ised land, and the xvi. - xix., after that repulse. For 
 farther evidence of the truth of these accounts, the 
 reader is referred to Undesigned Coi?icidences, where the 
 subject of Korah's rebellion is more fully examined. 
 
 V. After the wanderings in the wilderness were over 
 and the people were encamped near Jordan, we find 
 Moses giving more directions to the people, some 
 entirely new, some modifications of previous laws. Let 
 us see if there is anything in these directions or laws 
 which will throw light upon the time and cause of their 
 enactment, or anything in the condition of the people 
 which will account for these laws being given at this 
 particular time. 
 
 In Numbers xxviii., i-8, the daily offering is spoken 
 of, required in Exodus xxix., 38-42 ; and there is added 
 to the original law the following amendment : " In the 
 holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be 
 poured." Both the place and the kind of wine are 
 new. The original word for wine is translated in 
 Leviticus x., 9, " strong drink." If it means "old wine," 
 as the rabbins say, it implies that they were soon to be 
 settled where they could keep wine till it was old, 
 which they had not been able to do before. And the 
 command to pour it " in the holy place " indicates that 
 they might be tempted when settled in the land, by 
 remoteness, to pour it elsewhere. Numbers xxviii., 4, 
 and Exodus xxix., 39, are in the same words, showing 
 that the writer of Numbers was familiar with the old 
 law. 
 
 Numbers xxxviii., 9, 10. The Sabbath-day ofTering of 
 
196 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 two lambs is new, and implies that they would be so 
 situated that their flocks would permit such a draft on 
 them, and also distinguish that day from other days. 
 
 Numbers xxix., 11-15. These new-moon offerings 
 are new^ and also imply an increase of their herds and 
 flocks and vintage and olive-trees and grain, to justify 
 another festival of their own nation at the time of the 
 idolatrous festival of other nations, and thus secure 
 them from joining their neighbors in idolatrous rites. 
 
 In chapter xxviii., 16-25, the proper manner of keep- 
 ing the passover is described. In Leviticus xxiii., 5-8, 
 no particulars are given. Verses 19-23 in Numbers 
 are new. The animals, bullocks, and lambs to be 
 offered in sacrifice on each of the seven days are 
 specified : fourteen bullocks, forty-nine lambs, and seven 
 goats in all. This free use of animals certainly indicates 
 a larger supply at hand than they had previously had. 
 
 Numbers xxviii., 26-31. The description of "the 
 day of first-fruits " differs in no important particular 
 from that in Leviticus xxiii., 19-21. There is no 
 obvious reason why it should have been inserted here, 
 except that it was intimately connected with the new 
 moon and passover. 
 
 Numbers xxix., 1-6, prescribes the sacrifices which 
 are to be offered at the feast of trumpets, which is not 
 done in Leviticus xxiii., 24, 25. This again shows 
 clearly that flocks and herds would be more numerous, 
 as they certainly would be as soon as they had settled 
 in the promised land. 
 
 Numbers xxix., 7-1 1, describes the services of the 
 holy convocation on the great day of atonement, and 
 prescribes the sacrifices which must be offered, of 
 which nothing is said in Leviticus xxiii., 26-32. 
 
EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 197 
 
 Numbers xxix., 12-34. The holy convocation of 
 the feast of tabernacles and the feast itself are fully 
 described day by day ; but in Leviticus xxxiii., 34- 44, 
 only briefly. Numbers prescribes the sacrifices for 
 each day, but says nothing about booths. Leviticus 
 speaks of the booths, but does not specify the sacrifices 
 or special ceremonies. The animals ordered for sacri- 
 fice during this greatest of festivals are seventy-one 
 bullocks, fifteen rams, ninety-nine lambs, and seven 
 goats. This number of animals indicates a near ap- 
 proach to more prosperous conditions than they were 
 enjoying. 
 
 Numbers xxix., 35-40. We read in this section of 
 the "solemn assembly" on the eighth day of the feast 
 of the tabernacles, which is barely alluded to in Leviti- 
 cus xxiii., 36. This shows clearly that this great feast, 
 as well as the others, was not only rarely kept, but that 
 they must have been destitute, when kept, of what 
 gave them their hold upon the people in the land of 
 promise. Nor is it probable that when they were 
 settled in the promised land they were able to keep 
 these great festivals, or did keep them, according to 
 the ideal as prescribed in these laws. They all imply 
 an immediate possession of their inheritance. And this 
 necessary implication of the laws in themselves accords 
 with the history and authenticates it. 
 
 Numbers xxx. It is evident from this chapter that 
 the judges had had serious perplexity in administering 
 the law of vows as recorded in the twenty-seventh chap- 
 ter of Leviticus ; and some general principles to aid 
 the judges are laid down in this chapter, (i) Every 
 man must do according to all that proceedeth out of 
 his mouth j but (2) if a woman vowed, there were con- 
 
198 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 ditions of fulfilment depending on her father's hearing 
 her; if (3) she was married or betrothed, there were 
 conditions of fulfilment depending upon her husband 
 or betrothed hearing her j if (4) she was a widow or 
 divorced, all shall stand ; if (5) she is a wife in her 
 husband's house, the conditions of fulfilment will vary 
 as he did or did not hear her vow. 
 
 There is nothing in this chapter to indicate when it 
 was written ; but as vows were often, if not always con- 
 nected with sacrifices, it is very probable that the full 
 treatment of that subject in connection with these great 
 feasts may have opened this question of the obligation 
 of vows, especially when the vow must be paid by the 
 husband or guardian of the person making the vow. 
 
 Taking all these 7iew laws and amendmmts of old ■ 
 laws into the account, it is quite impossible to escape 
 the conclusion that they were written when the history 
 affirms that they were written, and when the contents 
 of the laws themselves require them to have been 
 written. This origin of these laws, or the most skilful 
 and criminal forgery, is the only possible conclusion of 
 the whole matter. 
 
 SECTION III. UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 
 
 I wish now to call attention to another class of phe- 
 nomena denoting the time in which the Pentateuch 
 was composed. I refer to Undesigned Coincide?ices, — 
 correspondences so slight yet so peculiar as to show 
 that an eye-witness recorded the events to which they 
 relate.* 
 
 * About thirty years ago, I read a small work by Blunt on this subject. As all 
 my references to that work are lost, I am unable to tell for how many of these 
 coincidences I am indebted to him, and can make only this general acknowledg- 
 ment. 
 
UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 199 
 
 (i) An instance of this kind is the rate of travelling 
 attributed to the people on their departure from Egypt. 
 In about six or eight days, we find that they had 
 marched as far as Marah, which was two-thirds of the 
 way to Mt. Sinai from Rameses. But they did not 
 reach Sinai under forty-five days. What more natural 
 than that they should travel thus rapidly the first part 
 of the way to escape the enemy, and then slacken their 
 speed to give repose to the feeble and time for the 
 stragglers to come up ? Besides, it will be found upon 
 examination that they fled much more rapidly from 
 Rameses till the passage of the Red Sea than they did 
 afterwards. This is entirely natural ; and, when we 
 reflect that the writer has only incidentally given us a 
 clew to discover that such was the fact, it forces on us 
 the conviction that he was one of the company.* 
 
 (2) The original direction respecting the order of 
 marching was changed for the greater convenience of 
 those who bore the tabernacle and its furniture. It is 
 distinctly stated in the general orders, as recorded in 
 Numbers ii., that after six tribes have moved forward, 
 
 * The peculiar and apparently unreasonable route which Moses took in leaving 
 Egypt, lead' ng the people mio di cul de sac, — the sea on the one Iiand and the 
 mountains on the other, and Pharaoh behind them, — is attributed by the pious 
 historian, writing perhaps half a century afterward, to the special direction of 
 Jehovah to Moses in order probably that He might show furth His power to the 
 fleeing nation, and give them courage to persist in the great undertaking of escap- 
 ing from bondage and returning to the land 01 their remote ancestors. This may 
 be so. But I am inclined to another, and to me more probable as it is a more 
 reasonable, explanation of this remarkable mistake of Moses, as it appears to us 
 without the historian's theory or knowledge of its cause. Let the reader bear in 
 mind that God i i spoken of by this very pious writer as directing everything and 
 causing everything, and that Moses is scarcely a free agent in anything. Now, I 
 submit as most probable that, when Pharaoh learned that the people had fled, he 
 changed his mind and determined to intercept their march. He accordingly 
 pursued with his horsemen and chaiiots, and succeeded in outflanking them and 
 
20O A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 when they decamp, then the Levites shall set forward 
 with the tabernacle. But in the tenth chapter, where 
 we have an account of their setting out on their march, 
 we read that, after three tribes had set forward, the 
 tabernacle was taken down, and the sons of Gershon 
 and the sons of Merari set forward bearing the taber- 
 nacle. Then came three tribes more, and then the 
 Kohathites set forward bearing the sanctuary, the holy 
 utensils, the altars, and the ark. And a good reason 
 appears why this change was made. The tabernacle 
 would be set up ready to receive the sacred things as 
 soon as those who bore them should arrive upon the 
 ground of re-encampment. 
 
 (3) In the fourth chapter, we read that a division 
 was made of the different parts of the tabernacle be- 
 tween the sons of Gershon, Merari, and Kohath. The 
 sons of Gershon were to bear the coverings of the tab- 
 ernacle ; the sons of Merari were to bear the pillars and 
 boards and sockets ; the sons of Kohath were to bear 
 the sacred vessels, the altars, and the ark. Now, if we 
 turn to the seventh chapter, we read of the trains and 
 
 gettingin their front before they had reached the north-western point of the sea. 
 Moses had his choice cither to fight Pharaoh, now in front of him, or flee as 
 well as he could down the country by the side of the sea. He chose the latter 
 alternative, and by removing his marching signal to the rear, and deceiving 
 Pharaoh as to his true position, he gained time, by taking advantage of the 
 darkness and of a very low stage of the water, to get the people over to the 0:her 
 side. When the day dawned, Pharaoh attempted to cross after them, but the 
 muddy bottom and the return of deep water prevented him, and a large number 
 of his army perished in the attempt. Moses turned down by the sea because he 
 was compelled to by the position of the Egyptians; and after their wonderful 
 escape the people saw in it the guidance of their God ; and the devout historian 
 of another generation introduces Jehovah as the counsellor and guide of Moses 
 in the whole transaction. Nothing could be more natural. But the reader of to- 
 day must recognize in his study of these early records this pervading language of 
 piety, and interpret them accordingly. I am not satisfied with Brugsch's hypo 
 thesis respecting the route of the escaping Israelites, 
 
UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 201 
 
 wagons which were provided some days after to carry 
 the tabernacle. Without giving the reason for the un- 
 equal distribution, two wagons and four oxen were given 
 to the sons of Gershon, and four wagons and eight oxe?i 
 to the sons of Merari. This difference in capacity for 
 carrying freight corresponds to the difference in the 
 materials which the two parties were to carry, Merari 
 having much the heavier portion, as is found by look- 
 ing back four chapters, where the distribution of mate- 
 rials is made^ It is hardly credible that a later his- 
 torian would have separated these items in this way, 
 and yet have, thus incidentally, preserved the corre- 
 spondence between the parts. 
 
 (4) The omission of the mention of Simeon in the 
 blessings v;hich Moses pronounced upon the tribes, as 
 recorded in Deuteronomy xxxiii., has given rise to no 
 little speculation. If we turn back to the twenty-fifth 
 chapter of Numbers, a reason will be found for this 
 omission which is entirely satisfactory. We read in 
 the chapter referred to that a terrible plague smote the 
 camp of Israel on account of the introduction of a Mid- 
 ianitish woman into the camp under very offensive cir- 
 cumstances. Twenty thousand died of the plague be- 
 fore it was stayed. This- terrible calamity, which hap- 
 pened but a short time before Moses pronounced his 
 blessings on the tribes, was caused by the act of "Zimri, 
 the son of Salu, a prince of the chief house of the Simeon- 
 itcs." It appears also that the plague was confined to 
 the tribe of Simeon ; for we find in the census, taken 
 but a short time after, that this tribe had diminished 
 thirty-seven thousand. It is not at all wonderful, there- 
 fore, that Moses should omit to bless such a tribe, when 
 
202 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 their diminished numbers were a standing witness of 
 God's displeasure, and when the plague, which had so 
 devastated their part of the camp, had but just been 
 stayed, and was fresh in the memory of all. Nor is this 
 the conclusion of the matter. We find that, when the 
 tribe took possession of the promised land, Simeon was 
 made a barrier both of Egypt and the Philistines, so 
 that he must first suffer in case of attack from that 
 quarter. These facts, so purely incidental in "the man- 
 ner of their relation, scattered through different chap- 
 ters, so perfectly accounting for other facts, remarkable 
 in their character yet equally incidentally related, with- 
 out any reasons given for such strange phenomena, bear 
 with no little weight in the scale of the authenticity and 
 age of these books. That they were not introduced 
 into the Pentateuch for the purpose of supplying the 
 material for this argument to future investigators of the 
 age of the work is evident enough. The supposition 
 is absurd. 
 
 (5) The account of the visit of Balaam for the pur- 
 pose of cursing Israel demands notice. After the in- 
 effectual attempts made by Baiak, King of Moab, to 
 induce Balaam to curse Israel, and after Balaam had 
 obtained all the gifts which h^was able to wring from 
 the frightened king, we read, Numbers xxiv., 25, that 
 "Balaam rose up and went and returned to his place." 
 " His place," we find in chapter xxii., 5, to be "Pethor," 
 a city of Mesopotamia, on the Euphrates. But we are 
 surprised when we read in chapter xxxi., 8, where the 
 chiefs of Midian are named who had been slain in bat- 
 tie, to find that "Balaam also, the son of Beor," was 
 slain by the sword. How came he here, among the 
 
UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 203 
 
 Midianites? He had left Balak, King of Moab, "to 
 return home." If we turn back to the twenty-second 
 chapter, we find that the "elders of Midian" went with 
 the elders of Moab, with the " rewards of divination in 
 their hand," to invite Balaam to come and "curse 
 Israel." The elders of Midian are no more mentioned 
 in the history ; yet in this brief line we find the cause of 
 Balaam's taking Midian in his way, on his return home. 
 More gifts he would obtain, if possible, before he left 
 the country. He was killed while he stopped among 
 that people to finish the object for which he had made 
 his journey from the East. The presence of the his- 
 torian of these facts on the spot where they transpired 
 seems certain. 
 
 (6) In the account of the rebellion and destruction 
 of Korah and his company there are some very strik- 
 ing indications of the writer's presence at the time. 
 The leaders of the rebels, as we learn from Numbers 
 xvi., I, were "Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of 
 Kohath, the son of Levi ; and Dathan and Abiram, the 
 sons of Eliab ; and On, the son oE Peleth, sons of Reu- 
 benP How came it to pass that the tribe of Reuben^ or 
 a part of it, and the Kohathites should be engaged in 
 this rebellion? If we look back thirteen chapters to 
 chapter iii., 29, we shall find that in recording the loca- 
 tion of the Levites in the camp, the writer states that 
 " the families of the sons of Kohath shall pitch on the 
 side of the tabernacle southward^ And still further 
 back, in chapter ii., 10, we read that "on the south side 
 shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben." At the 
 distance of thirteen chapters, and separated from each 
 other by one chapter, we find statements showing that 
 
204 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 the tribe of Reuben and the Kohathites were on the 
 same side of the camp, and in close proximity. It 
 would be very easy for them, therefore, to confer to- 
 gether as they are represented as doing. 
 
 (7) Again, as we read the account of the punishment 
 inflicted on the rebels, as recorded in the sixteenth 
 chapter, we seem to see the earth open, and Korah, 
 Dathan, and Abiram, and " their sons and their wives 
 and their little children," all swallowed up alive. What, 
 then, is our surprise, when we read, ten chapters later, 
 in the twenty-sixth chapter, which contains a record of 
 events which transpired thirty-six years afterwards^ that 
 " the children of Korah died not." We turn back to 
 re-examine the sixteenth chapter, to see if we were mis- 
 taken. We there find that the people are commanded 
 to "depart from the tents of those wicked men." "So 
 they gat up from the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and 
 Abiram, on every side." This tabernacle appears to 
 have been occupied in common by the rebels as their 
 place of meeting with their associates. And then we 
 read that " Dathan and Abiram came out and stood in 
 the door of their tents, and their wives and their sons 
 and their little ones." This public tent of meeting, it 
 seems, stood near the tents of these two men, who were 
 Reubenites, and not near the tent of Korah, who was 
 a Levite ; so that when " the earth opened her mouth 
 and swallowed them up, and their houses [tents] and 
 all the men [that is, the rebels] that appertained to 
 Korah, and all their goods," the children of Korah, 
 who were in the family tent among the Levites, were 
 not destroyed. Thus the apparent contradiction is rec- 
 onciled in such a manner as to indicate that an eye-wit- 
 
UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 205 
 
 ness was the historian. I cannot forbear recalling the 
 attention of the reader to another feature of this trans- 
 action. Korah, the leader of this rebellion, was son of 
 Izhar, the second son of Kohath, Amram, the father of 
 Moses and Aaron, being the first. But the chief oi the 
 Kohathites was Elzaphan, the son of Uzziel, the fourth 
 son of Kohath. It was natural, therefore, that envious 
 feelings should arise, on his part, against the hardship 
 of the younger branch of the family. The posterity of 
 Reuben, the eldest so?i of Jacob, would likewise be not 
 a little dissatisfied that Judah, a younger brother, 
 should be placed at the head of all the tribes. 
 
 (8) In the tenth chapter of Leviticus, we read that 
 "Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of 
 them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense 
 thereon, and offered stra?igefire before the Lord." For 
 this act, they were smitten dead by fire "from the Lord." 
 And " Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel, the 
 uncle of Aaron," carried their dead bodies "from before 
 the sanctuary out of the camp." No cause for this 
 high-handed act of these two sons of Aaron is given by 
 the writer; but he immediately after records a new law: 
 " Do not dri7ik wine nor strong drink, thou [Aaron] nor 
 thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of 
 the congregation, lest ye die. . . . And that ye may put a 
 difference between holy and unholy, and between clean 
 and unclean." The cause of this new enactment was, 
 most obviously, the sacrilegious act of Aaron's sons, 
 committed when they were intoxicated, and did not put 
 a difference between "holy and unholy, and between 
 clean and unclean." Such gross outrages must not be 
 repeated, and a law is enacted to prevent their recur- 
 
2o6 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 rence. Here we not only have a new law to meet an 
 emergency, but we also have a law based upon the 
 probable condition of those two priests, when the fact 
 of their being intoxicated is not mentioned. 
 
 (9) A farther coincidence demands notice in this 
 connection. This act of Nadab and Abihu took place 
 on the eighth day after the tabernacle was erected ; for 
 in Exodus xL, 2, we read that the " tabernacle of the 
 tent of the congregation " was to be set up on " the 
 first day of the first month." In the thirteenth verse, 
 we read that Aaron and his sons were to be anointed 
 and clothed in their holy garments for their sacred 
 office. After seven chapters in Leviticus, giving direc- 
 tions about particular sacrifices which were to be 
 offered in the tabernacle, we find in the eighth and 
 ninth chapters a specific account of the consecration 
 of Aaron and his sons which continued seven days 
 (chap, viii., -^i)- C)n the eighth day (chap, ix., i), 
 new ceremonies were performed by these priests, their 
 seven days of confinement and seclusion being ©ver; 
 and it is on this eighth day that these sons of Aaron, 
 once more associating with their friends, indulged 
 probably so freely in the use of the cup as to profane 
 the Lord by attempting to serve in their holy office 
 while intoxicated. How natural that men who had 
 been accustomed to the moderate social glass should 
 indulge thus freely after such a week of seclusion ! 
 Yet of all this series of causes the writer says not a 
 word ; nor is there the remotest ground for the sup- 
 position that he had arranged these incidents to fur- 
 nish us with this argument for the age of his writing. 
 That the narrator was on the spot and related what he 
 saw is too obvious to require comment. 
 
UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 20/ 
 
 (lo) Nor have we yet done with this account. These 
 dead bodies were carried "out of the camp" just six 
 days before the passover. Turning forward now twen- 
 iy-five chapters, which are filled with the transactions 
 of these six days, to the ninth chapter of Numbers, 
 we come to the fourteenth day of the first month, on 
 which the passover was to be kept. We here find -an 
 account of its observance ; and we read " there were 
 certain men who were defiled by the dead body of a man, 
 so that they could not keep the passover on that day ; 
 and they came before Moses and Aaron," and said 
 that they were defiled and were thus prevented from 
 offering their offering unto the Lord. " Seven days," 
 which were necessary for the purification of those who 
 were unclean by contact with a dead body, had not 
 transpired since Mishael and Elzaphan had carried out 
 their kinsmen's dead bodies, and hence they could not 
 eat of the passover or offer the sacrifice. It is jDroba- 
 ble that these were the men who came to Moses, as 
 above related ; for such a complaint would be likely 
 to originate in the first instance among the chief men, 
 and these men were of that class. The phrase, " the 
 dead body of a man," being the legal term by which 
 ritual uncleanness from contact with the dead is 
 expressed, by no means shows, or implies, that there 
 was but one dead body. Three implied conditions are 
 found in this narration, two of them connected with 
 other facts related ten and twenty chapters distant, 
 and so related as to show clearly that the writer of 
 these accounts must have been an eye-witness of what 
 he relates, or at least a contemporary of the events, 
 and narrating what he well knew was transpiring. Let 
 
2 08 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 these ten illustrations of "undesigned coincidences" 
 suffice. 
 
 SECTION IV. EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 
 
 Another characteristic of these books, showing their 
 journal-like character, and indicating a writer in the 
 camp of Israel, is found in the minuteness of the details 
 in many parts of the narrative, and their repetition 
 under such circumstances as to exculpate any later 
 writer from being the author of such useless definite- 
 ness and wearisome repetitions ; and yet these same 
 circumstances demanded of the desert-journalist just 
 such a minuteness and repetition. These phenomena 
 have a twofold power : they equally demand an ancient, 
 and forbid a modern, writer. Let us now examine 
 some of them. 
 
 (i) In the census of the people, an account of which 
 is contained in the first chapter of Numbers, there is an 
 illustration of the recording, at the time, of work done, 
 or of the journal-like character of the book. First, we 
 have the names, not only of the superintendents of the 
 census of each tribe, but also the names of their fathers, 
 which it is not probable would have been given by a 
 writer in the time of Ezra. Then we have repeated be- 
 fore the round number of each tribe the formula under 
 which the census was taken, making a repetition of the 
 same words twelve times, which it is difficult to believe 
 an historian a thousand or eight hundred years later 
 would have done ; but it is very probable it would be 
 done, when the separate papers of enrolment were 
 passed in and recorded or filed. Seven lines of the 
 nine which constituted the return of each tribe are, 
 
EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 209 
 
 word for word, the same. A later historian of the 
 transaction, with these returns before him, would, at 
 the most, have written the heading but once ; and then, 
 after this description of the persons enrolled, he would 
 have named the tribes and their number in order. Of 
 all this, Josephus only says (chap, viii., 2), "The num- 
 ber of the offerers [of the half-shekels, as represented 
 by this census] was six hundred and five thousand five 
 hundred and fifty." 
 
 (2) Another illustration of the time and place of writ- 
 ing this Book of Numbers is contained in the second 
 chapter, in which the order of the encampment is speci- 
 fied with great minuteness. The names of the tribes 
 are given, and also the name of the " captain " of the 
 tribe is given, and, yet more, the name of the captain's 
 father, and also the number in the tribe according to 
 the census, and, finally, the whole number in each of 
 the four divisions which were encamped on the four 
 sides of the tabernacle, the account filling thirty-two 
 verses of the chapter. All this would be very necessary 
 in the order for arranging the camp at first; but what 
 historian in the time of Ezra would have given an ac- 
 count of the camp in this manner ? Josephus illustrates 
 this admirably (chap, xii., 5): "When they set up the 
 tabernacle, they received it into the midst of their camp, 
 three of the tribes pitching their tents on each side of 
 it." And all that is said by Josephus respecting the 
 elaborate arrangement in the next chapter — abridged 
 in the paragraph below — is that "the priests had the 
 first place about the tabernacle ; then the Levites." 
 
 (3) Then, in the third chapter, there is a record of 
 the distribution of the material of the tabernacle and 
 
2IO A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 its furniture among the priests and Levites, whose order 
 of encampment is minutely specified inside the other 
 tribes and around the tabernacle, which was their 
 special charge. The sons of Gershon shall have charge 
 "of the covering of the tent and the hanging for the 
 door of the tabernacle of the congregation and the 
 hangings of the court and the curtain for the door of 
 the court . . . and the cords of it." And the charge of 
 Kohath " shall be the ark and the table and the candle- 
 stick and the altars and the vessels of the sanctuary 
 and the hanj^insf and all the service thereof." " And 
 the charge of the sons of Merari shall be the boards 
 of the tabernacle, and the bars thereof, and the pillars 
 thereof, and the sockets thereof, and all the vessels 
 thereof, . . . and the pillars of the court round about, 
 and their sockets and their pins and their cords." This 
 has certainly the air of the camp and the desert and the 
 time of the great migration. 
 
 (4) But there is yet more of this, and more even, if 
 possible, to the purpose. How shall that portion of the 
 tabernacle furniture which the sons of Kohath are to 
 carr}'-, and which was holy, and which none but a priest 
 could handle on pain of death, be approached, pre- 
 pared, and borne ? In the fourth chapter, from the 
 fourth to the tenth verses, we have a m.inute description 
 of the manner in which Aaron and his sons ''shall cover 
 the ark of testimony with the covering veil, and shall 
 put thereon the covering of badgers' skins, and shall 
 spread over it a cloth wholly of blue, and shall put in 
 the staves thereof," by which it is to be carried. "And 
 upon the table of shew bread they shall spread a cloth 
 of blue and put thereon the dishes, and the spoons, and 
 
EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 211 
 
 the bowls and covers, . . . and they shall spread upon 
 them a cloth of scarlet, and cover the same with a cov- 
 ering of badgers' skins, and shall put in the staves 
 thereof." And the "candlestick, and his lamps, and 
 his tongs, and his snuff dishes, and all the oil vessels 
 thereof," are to be covered with "a cloth of blue," and 
 to be put into " a covering of badgers' skins and put 
 upon a bar"; "and upon the golden altar they shall 
 spread a cloth of blue and cover it with a covering of 
 badgers' skins," "and they shall take all the instru- 
 ments of ministry . . . and put them in a cloth of blue, 
 and cover them wiih a covering of badgers' skins, and 
 shall put them on a bar ; and they shall take away the 
 ashes from the altar, and spread a purple cloth thereon ; 
 and they shall put upon it all the vessels thereof, where- 
 with they minister about it, even the censers, the flesh- 
 hooks and the shovels and the basins, all the vessels 
 of the altar, and they shall spread over it a covering of 
 badgers' skins, and put to the staves of it"; then, and 
 not till then, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear 
 them. Then the service of the sons of Gershon and 
 Merari is to be arranged by Aaron and his sons, and a 
 census of these families is to be taken of all males from 
 thirty to fifty years old, that proper relays and reliefs 
 might be made while marching and in camp. 
 
 What I affirm is that all this minute direction and 
 organization of the Levites and priests indicates, de- 
 maiids for its justification, its cause, the precise time, 
 and place, and circumstances which the history de- 
 scribes ; and that no historian of the nation in the 
 time of Ezra and Nehemiah would have written in this 
 manner. I pass by the fact that the " shittim wood," 
 
2 12 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 of which the wood-work of the tabernacle and its furni- 
 ture was made, was abundant about Mount Sinai and 
 rare in Canaan, and that the " badgers' skins " were 
 most probably the skins of a fish which abounded in 
 the Red Sea, as I do not wish to introduce anything as 
 fact into this Study which may be challenged. 
 
 (5) But I have not done. I must challenge the 
 reader's patience still further. I cite as a striking 
 proof of the authenticity and age of the Pentateuch 
 the minute account of the offerings made by the princes 
 of Israel to the tabernacle during the period of its 
 dedication. It is contained in the seventh chapter of 
 Numbers, commencing with the twelfth verse. Each 
 prince brought his offering on a day by himself, so that 
 on twelve different days we have the entry made by the 
 scribe in the journal of the offering. Each prince 
 offered the same gifts. The wording of the entry is in 
 each case the same. Leave a blank in either of the 
 entries for the names of the princes, and they will read 
 alike. I will give the first entry : " And he that offered 
 his offering the first day was Nahshon, the son of 
 Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah ; and his offering 
 was one silver charger, the weight thereof was a hun- 
 dred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy 
 shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary ; both of them 
 were full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meat-offer- 
 ing; one spoon of ten shekels of gold full of incense; 
 one young bullock, one ram, one lamb of the first year, 
 for a burnt-offering ; one kid of the goats for a sin- 
 offering; and for a sacrifice of peace-offerings, two 
 oxen, five rams, five he-goats, five lambs of the first 
 year. This was the offering of Nahshon, the son of 
 Amminadab." 
 
EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 2l^ 
 
 Now, instead of simply saying that each of the 
 other princes of the tribes offered in like manner the 
 same offerings unto the Lord, the writer goes on and 
 repeats this inventory eleven times, through eighty 
 verses. It is incredible that a later writer, giving such 
 an account, should proceed in this manner. It appears 
 altogether like an entry made by the scribe to see that 
 the tribes did what was required of them, though no 
 mention of such requisition is made in the record. I 
 have had the curiosity to turn again to Josephus to see 
 how, in his summary of the law, he manages this matter, 
 and will quote the passage which relates to these of- 
 ferings, that the reader may see the difference between 
 the style of a later writer and that of the old journal- 
 ists. Josephus says : " Every head of a tribe brought 
 a bowl, a charger, and a spoon of ten daricks full of 
 incense. Now the charger and bowl were of silver, and 
 together they weighed two hundred shekels, but the 
 bowl cost no more than seventy shekels ; and these 
 were full of iine flour mingled -with oil, such as they 
 used on the altar about the sacrifices. They brought 
 also a young bullock and a ram, with a lamb a year 
 old, for a whole burnt-offering ; as also a goat, for the 
 forgiveness of sins. Every one of the heads of the 
 tribes brought also other sacrifices, called peace-offer- 
 ings ; for every day, two bulls and five rams, with lambs 
 of a year old and kids of the goats. These heads of 
 the tribes were twelve days in sacrificing, one sacrific- 
 ing every day." The contrast between these two ac- 
 counts clearly shows us how an historian living long 
 after the events, as in the time of Ezra, would have 
 managed such a subject. 
 
214 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 (6) Another illustration of this head of my argument 
 is found in the wearisomely minute diagnostics of the 
 leprosy in men, houses, and garments (Leviticus xiii., 
 xiv.). Two long chapters, of nearly sixty verses each, 
 are filled vv^ith the repulsive details of the indications 
 and purification of this most loathsome of all diseases. 
 I must be excused from quoting any of it. No more 
 modern historian would thus burden his pages; but 
 then and there it was necessary, for definite rules must 
 be given for the guidance of the priests. Indeed, the 
 whole of this portion of the Pentateuch which refers to 
 ritual impurities indicates clearly enough that it had its 
 birth in the camp, among a people just emerging from 
 barbarism. 
 
 (7) Perhaps the most marked of all these laboriously 
 minute descriptions and repetitions is to be found in 
 the last half of Exodus, where the tabernacle and its 
 furniture and the priests' garments are described in the 
 most accurate manner, even to the tassels and pins 
 and taches (Exodus xxv.-xxx.). Moses brings this 
 minute description of the whole sacerdotal dress and 
 tabernacle construction and incense manufacture with 
 him from the Mount. It is precisely like the specifi- 
 cations in -a modern contract for building a dwelling- 
 house or making a garment or a confection, but more 
 minute, if possible. The v/ork is given out by Moses ; 
 and, as the workmen bring back to him the portion 
 which they undertook to make, it is entered again with 
 the same minute description in the Pentateuch (Exodus 
 xxxvi. -xxxix.). So that we have a duplicate descrip- 
 tion of all these articles, so wearisomely minute that we 
 
EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 215 
 
 can hardly have patience to 'read it once. Admit that 
 this was written on the spot, and all this minuteness 
 and duplication is accounted for : deny this, and there 
 is no possible reason why such a minute detail of these 
 articles should be repeated, even if we can discover 
 why they should be once described. It seems incredi- 
 ble that any later writer could have done it. Of the 
 "pattern given in the Mount," which is so minutely 
 described, before the work was done, in the Pentateuch, 
 Josephus only says (chap, v., 8), " He [God] had sug- 
 gested to him [Moses] that he would have a tabernacle 
 built for him, and that the tabernacle should be of 
 such measure and construction as he had showed 
 him." Josephus then gives a careful description of 
 the work. There is no repetition of particulars. 
 
 To feel the full force of this argument, it is necessary 
 that one should read carefully the account in the Pen- 
 tateuch, and at one sitting, if possible. 
 
 I should be glad to go into a consideration of the 
 specific directions given touching many of the condi- 
 tions of camp life, and especially those health regula- 
 tions which it was necessary for a people thus sojourning 
 to observe, and which no modern historian could dwell 
 upon so long and minutely as they are dwelt upon in 
 the Pentateuch; but the nature of the subjects, as well 
 as the great length of my Study, requires that I should 
 pass them over. Their bearing upon the point which F 
 am considering is clear and strong ; and, in connection 
 with some of the circumstances w^hich I have already 
 referred to, they furnish evidence, almost conclusive in 
 itself, of the antiquity of the work in which they are 
 contained. 
 
2l6 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 SECTION V. EVIDENCE FROM CHASMS IN THE HISTORY. 
 
 The chasms in the history are another indication 
 of the antiquity of the Pentateuch, (i) The space of 
 nearly four hundred years, according to the reckoning 
 which commends itself to many scholars, from the 
 descent of Jacob and his family into Eg3q3t to the de- 
 parture of the people, is passed over in almost entire 
 silence ; and so also are the youth and manhood of 
 Moses, in which Josephus and the rabbins revel and 
 glory. Only those incidents are mentioned which are 
 necessary to an introduction to the great work of deliv- 
 erance from Egyptian bondage. We can hardly sup- 
 pose that a writer of the time of Ezra would have left 
 such gaps in his history. The particular and wonderful 
 events in the life of Moses before his flight to Midian, 
 which tradition had handed down, and which attracted 
 the Jews in the time of Josephus, could hardly have 
 escaped the notice of earlier writers. They would have 
 filled up these chasms with such traditions as had come 
 down to them respecting the marvellous life of their 
 great law-giver. That such would have been their 
 course can hardly be doubted by any one who is ac- 
 quainted with Jewish writers, and knows how prone 
 they were to introduce traditionary tales where histor- 
 ical facts failed them. 
 
 Nor is the chasm referred to, all. Thirty-seven 
 years, covering a large portion of the period of the 
 wandering in the wilderness, is left an entire blank, and 
 we know almost nothing of what transpired, except the 
 stations which from time to time the people occupied. 
 A more attractive field for the growth of traditions 
 could not be imagined ; and not to enter it would 
 
EVIDENCE FROM EGYPTIAN CUSTOMS. 217 
 
 require more regard for historical truth, or a nicer 
 discrimination between what is true and what is false, 
 than later writers of that nation have shown in their 
 works, or than some modern critics give them credit 
 for. I cannot introduce illustrations to show the cor- 
 rectness of these remarks. Those readers who are 
 familiar with Jewish literature do not need them, and 
 those who are not will find enough of them in the 
 writings of Philo, Josephus, the Talmudists, and the 
 rest. Admit that the principal parts of the last four 
 books of the Pentateuch are the work of a writer, a 
 scribe or scribes, contemporary with the events which 
 are recorded in them, and these chasms are easily 
 accounted for : assume any later period for their com- 
 position, and they present insurmountable obstacles. 
 
 SECTION VI. EVIDENCE FROM EGYPTIAN CUSTOMS. 
 
 I should be glad to go at length into a consideration 
 of the minute and circumstantial references which we 
 find in the Pentateuch to Egyptian customs. But I 
 must confine myself to one, as an illustration of many, 
 which impresses deeply upon the mind the opinion that 
 an eye-witness must have recorded them. A resident 
 in Egypt, and none "other, could thus have colored the 
 history with such delicate touches denoting his age and 
 residence. In the fifth chapter of Exodus, the histo- 
 rian gives an account of the additional labor which was 
 put upon the Hebrews when they complained of their 
 tasks, and asked leave to go into the country for three 
 days to worship. " I will not give you straw," said 
 Pharaoh. " Go ye, get you straw where ye can find it. 
 ... So the people were scattered abroad throughout all 
 
2l8 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 the land of Egypt to gather stubble instead of strawJ^ 
 The " straw " was that which had been broken upon 
 the threshing-floor ; the " stubble " was what had been 
 left standing in the field after reaping. If we turn now 
 to Wilkinson's Manners and Customs of the Ancient 
 Egyptians (Vol. VI., page 86), we shall find an engrav- 
 ing, taken from the ancient tombs, in which is rep- 
 resented the gathering of wheat. The reapers are 
 represented as cutting off only the heads of the grain, 
 which they put in baskets, and leaving the " stubble " 
 nearly as high as their shoulders behind them. This 
 was the " stubble " which the Hebrews went out to 
 gather, not the short stubble which was left when the 
 straw was cut near the ground. The overtasked He- 
 brews had not the privilege of going to the threshing- 
 floors and getting their "straw" : they were compelled 
 to gather this high " stubble " in the field. In the 
 same work, we find illustrations of brick-making, and 
 bricks made with straw are found in the ruins of the 
 ancient cities. 
 
 Such minute knowledge of the manners of Egypt 
 as the writer of the Pentateuch everywhere shows, and 
 which it would cover pages to describe, confirms the 
 opinion of its Mosaic origin. It is hardly conceivable 
 that a later writer could have so fully informed himself 
 of ancient customs as to have spoken of them so inci- 
 dentally and yet so accurately and minutely. 
 
 SECTION VII. EVIDENCE FROM EGYPTIAN WORDS AND 
 
 RITES. 
 
 Another evidence of the early origin of the Penta- 
 teuch is found in the use of Egyptian words, the adop- 
 
•EVIDENCE FROM EGYPTIAN WORDS AND RITES. 219 
 
 tion of Egyptian customs in their worship, both in 
 utensils, altars, and robes, and also in the establishment 
 of a priesthood and ritual. In the first sixteen chapters 
 of Exodus, in which the bondage and escape of the 
 people are described, no less than forty-eight words, 
 exclusive of proper names, of Egyptian origin, are used, 
 if such scholars as Gesenius and Bunsen can be relied 
 upon, to say nothing of Seyffarth and Harkavy and 
 Wilkinson. Egypt must have been the native land of 
 the author. He is familiar with the manners and 
 customs of the people. The whole account is evidence 
 of such an author. The Urim and Thummim were 
 Egyptian symbols of Truth and Justice, and were worn 
 by the judge or priest in the breastplate which was 
 over his priestly dress, as is shown in Wilkinson's 
 Ancient Egyptians. The dress of the priests is not 
 unlike that of the Egyptian priests — linen — as repre- 
 sented in the same work. Their bathing and shaving 
 the whole body were the same also. Even the ark of 
 the covenant and the cherubim over it are copied from 
 those used in Egypt, as may be seen in Wilkinson, Vol. 
 v., page 276. As far as modern studies in Egyptian 
 archaeology have gone, they confirm the accuracy of 
 the description of the manners, laws, and language of 
 that ancient people made by the writer of the Penta- 
 teuch, and remand its composition to an early age and 
 a native of the country. 
 
 It has been objected to the antiquity and unity of 
 the Pentateuch that such a complicated ritual and 
 comprehensive body of laws could not have sprung int9 
 existence at once ; that generations, centuries, were 
 necessary to evolve and mature them. It is forgotten 
 
226 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 by those who present this objection that the Egyptians 
 were an old nation when Jacob's family went among 
 them. They had the most attractive and elaborate 
 ritual the world knew, — priests, temples, altars, sac- 
 rifices, were almost everywhere. Their laws were the 
 mature wisdom of ages. How easy was it, compara- 
 tively speaking, for the law-giver of Israel to arrange, 
 with the aid of such a ritual and such laws, the ritual 
 and laws which we find in the Pentateuch, so similar to 
 those of Egypt as to reveal their relationship, and so 
 dissimilar as to prevent confounding them, and estab- 
 lishing the independence of their author ! No careful 
 student of the Hebrew code and ritual can fail to see 
 the influence of an Egyptian education and residence 
 upon the law-giver ; so that the objection is itself 
 transformed into an argument in favor of the antiquity 
 of the Pentateuch and even of its Mosaic ori,o:in. He 
 would naturally, trained as he had been, construct a 
 full code and ritual for the recently delivered people. 
 Nor is it any valid evidence, scarcely a presumption, 
 that he did not do it, because they were but imperfectly 
 administered, and in some respects apparently persist- 
 ently violated for centuries. The code and the ritual 
 sprang fully formed, mature, from the brain of Moses, 
 like Minerva from the brain of Jupiter. The people 
 were not able to understand or appreciate but a small 
 part of them at first, and some portions of them were 
 very probably found impracticable or so burdensome as 
 to compel neglect. The code and the ritual were ideal, 
 and could not in every particular be made real. The 
 servile, emancipated race developed slowly up to the 
 standard of their law whose requirements were ever 
 
NO EVIDENCE OF ENACTMENTS AFTER MOSES. 22 1 
 
 before them. Their barbarism gradually wore off, and 
 the knowledge of the one only God increased, and 
 diminished their belief in other gods and their relish 
 of idolatrous rites. The people grew tip to the law, as 
 Christians are growing up to Christianity. The gospel 
 reads to-day as it did eighteen centuries ago, but how 
 differently it is understood and practised ! The Mosaic 
 code and ritual read tlie same through all the tumultu- 
 ous period of the Judges and the revolution under 
 Samuel, and during the monarchy ; but how differently 
 were they regarded as the people sloughed off their 
 barbarisms and improved in knowledge ! 
 
 SECTION VIII. NO EVIDENCE OF ENACTMENTS AFTER 
 THE TIME OF MOSES. 
 
 One point further, and I will close. The Pentateuch 
 concludes its history v/ith the death of Moses, and 
 professes to contain only those laws and rites which 
 were prescribed by him. There is not a particle of 
 reliable evidence^ either external or i/iterfial, that a single 
 law recorded in the Pe7itateuch was the work /)/ the period 
 subsequent to the time of Moses. I affirm this with the 
 emphasis of assurance. The possession of the prom- 
 ised land is always spoken of as future. New laws are 
 given, new regulations are established on the banks of 
 the Jordan, just before the people passed over to take 
 possession of their country, such as their changed con- 
 dition would require. No laws were made afterwards 
 of which we have any record which were fundamental. 
 All appeals are made to the law of Moses. 
 
 So much for the ajitiqaity of the Pentateuch. Who 
 was its writer 1 To answer this question is no purpose 
 
22 2 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 of this Study. Probably Moses was the principal 
 author. I am aware that one objection which has 
 weight in some minds is made to the Mosaic authorship 
 of the Pentateuch : it is that he is spoken of in the third 
 person in the historical portions. This is true ; and 
 admitting that it has weight so far as the Mosaic author- 
 ship is concerned, it has no weight whatever against my 
 position ; for I am not proving that Moses was the 
 writer of the Pentateuch, but that it was chiefly at least 
 composed during his life. Against this position, the 
 objection has no force whatever. But I am by no 
 means willing to give it the weight'which is claimed 
 for it as conclusive against the Mosaic authorship under 
 any circumstances. Xenophon is admitted on all hands 
 to have written the Anabasis^ and yet he never speaks 
 of himself in the first person, though he is the principal 
 character in the work. Who can dogmatically assert 
 that Moses did not do the same thing? Besides, who 
 can say that Moses did not adopt the usual practice of 
 early times, as indicated both in history and in monu- 
 ments, of employing a scribe, or scribes, who took note 
 of passing events, as well as writing out the laws, who 
 would naturally speak of Moses in the third person ? 
 
 The whole book has the style and coloring, the con- 
 tents and structure, of a writing of the Mosaic age. A 
 few passages of later date can easily be accounted for 
 z."^ scholia — explanatory clauses — which have been in- 
 troduced into the text by later copyists and readers. 
 Some apparent or real contradictions can be easily dis- 
 posed of by the same method, or as failures in the 
 memory of the original writer. As well might one 
 challenge the antiquity of the pyramid because he had 
 
RESULTS. 223 
 
 found a modern stone infibedded in one of its courses. 
 Whether its condition could be accounted for or not, no 
 antiquarian would think of pronouncing the monument 
 of Cheops a work of the Ptolemies, standing in its 
 hoary presence, with the voice of history sounding in 
 his ears. As no astronomer would be accounted sane 
 who should dispute that the sun is the source of light 
 because a few dark spots are found on its surface, so no 
 scholar who has surveyed all sides of this subject in the 
 full light of modern discoveries can reasonably deny 
 to the Mosaic age the production of the Pentateuch on 
 account of alleged modern interpolations, imperfect 
 genealogies, or contradictory dates and names which 
 are found in it. 
 
 SECTION IX. RESULTS. 
 
 It results from the foregoing investigation : — 
 
 I. That that portion of the Hebrew Scriptures called 
 the Pentateuch, or the Five Books of Moses, can be 
 traced by a common name — " The Book of the Lav/," 
 "The Law given by Moses," "The Law," and other 
 titles — from the time of Christ back through all the 
 extant literature of the nation — prose and poetry, 
 prophecy and proverb, history and psalm — till the time 
 of David, and in all fragments of its literature of an 
 earlier date ; — 
 
 IL That all the passages quoted from the book with 
 these titles are found in the Pentateuch, and often its 
 peculiar phraseology is preserved in the quotation, 
 showing that the book is proved to be the same by its 
 contents as well as by its title ; — 
 
 in. That there is not the slightest hint in the his- 
 torical books that these laws were enacted or revised 
 
224 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 in any later time than that of the Mosaic age ; all Jew- 
 ish opinions to this effect being of a much later date, 
 and based upon no historical evidence whatever; — 
 
 IV. That the language of the Pentateuch, its pecu- 
 liar phrases and "archaic words," shows that it must 
 have been written some centuries before any other of 
 the extant Hebrew writings, thus remitting its composi- 
 tion to several generations before the time of David, as 
 the language of the earliest Psalms, which are free from 
 them, witnesses; — 
 
 V. That the contents of the Pentateuch, the journal- 
 like arrangement of its events and laws, the constant 
 assumption or implication that it was written in a camp, 
 and many of its laws adapted only to camp life, the 
 amendments of laws when on the borders of the prom- 
 ised land to fit them to the changed condition and 
 wants of the people, the inventories of gifts, and the 
 record of specifications for wood-work, and curtains, 
 and garments, and vessels for sacred use, the record of 
 incidents which caused new laws to be enacted or old 
 laws to be amended, the incidental and most obviously 
 undesigned coincidences of events which are separated 
 by many chapters and much time, confirm the previous 
 historic and linguistic evidence of the early origin of 
 the Pentateuch, and place its composition in the Mosaic 
 age, and prove its direct or indirect Mosaic author- 
 ship ; — 
 
 VI. That the tumultuous anarchical times before the 
 accession of David to the throne render it very proba- 
 ble that sections of the law may have been misplaced, 
 possibly lost; that some of the historical sections may 
 have been disarranged ; and that as time passed on 
 
RESULTS. 225 
 
 old names were modernized, obscure incidents ex- 
 plained, and modern words and phrases sometimes 
 substituted for the obsolete originals ; but none of 
 these modern explanations and interpolations and sup- 
 posed corrections in the least degree affecting the 
 force of the argument derived from the above-men- 
 tioned considerations of the age and at least the prin- 
 cipal authorship of the work; — 
 
 VII. That, notwithstanding the difficulties attending 
 the reference of this work to so early an age and 
 authorship, they vanish into comparative unimportance 
 when compared with those which attend any other 
 theory of its composition, especially that which refers 
 it to the time of Ezra, or accounts for it by miscella- 
 neous aggregations made during the ten centuries 
 which transpired between Moses and Nehemiah ; — 
 
 VIII. And, finally, that the only reasonable, and 
 indeed the necessary, inference to be drawn from these 
 facts — the historical references to this book by the 
 same names to the earliest times ; the quotations made 
 from it in later writings corresponding in minute par- 
 ticulars to passages found in it; the archaisms with 
 which it abounds ; the journal and camp-like arrange- 
 ment and tone of its laws; the undesigned coinci- 
 dences, indicating a writer on the spot; the occasional 
 explanation of antique words, names, and customs ; 
 and the insuperable difficulties of fixing upon any 
 other period for its composition — is that the Penta- 
 teuch belongs to the Mosaic age, and fixes the author- 
 ship of the book upon Moses and his contemporaries 
 or immediate successors. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 DIFFICULTIES OF ANY THEORY OF UNBELIEF. 
 
 I KNOW the objections raised, the suspicion surmised, 
 the prejudices appealed to ; but I also know that 
 there are difficulties in unbelief as well as in belief. It 
 is often supposed that there are no difficulties trailing 
 after denial ; that some belief is not professed or im- 
 plied when another is rejected. But he who denies the 
 antiquity of the Pentateuch will be required by that 
 denial to believe some things which will stagger reason 
 and forbid faith. That very denial will compel him to 
 adopt a positive opinion respecting the origin of the 
 Pentateuch, which will draw after it difficulties more in- 
 solvable and facts more incredible than the plagues of 
 Egypt or the refluent waves of the Red Sea. For he 
 must believe that an unbroken chain of writers from 
 the days of Josephus to the time of David, including 
 philosophers, historians, poets, prophets, have quoted 
 different books under the same title, and containing 
 the same laws, expressed in the same words ; that, be- 
 tween the translation of the Septuagint, in the golden 
 reign of Philadelphus, and the time of the prophet 
 Malachi, about a century, this " Book of the Law of 
 Moses " was mostly written and palmed off upon the 
 Jewish scribes as of Mosaic origin, and gravely trans- 
 lated by them into Greek at his command; or that, be- 
 tween the time of Malachi and the time of Ezra, about 
 
CONCLUSION. 227 
 
 half a century more, some one or more of the returned 
 exiles constructed a work which received the approba- 
 tion of both prophets and rulers, people and priests, as 
 the " Book of Moses " by whose laws their fathers had 
 been guided ; or that Ezra himself codified and pub- 
 lished the national laws under the title of the " Laws 
 of Moses," or invented nearly all of them, and suc- 
 ceeded in making the people receive them as such, 
 either by gross fraud or because they were really of 
 Mosaic origin, and yet his history makes no mention of 
 such a wonderful work in narrating the invaluable ser- 
 vices rendered to the people by this efficient ruler ; or 
 that, a century before, Hilkiah and Shaphan imposed 
 a code under the name of " The Book of the Law of 
 the Lord by Moses" upon King Josiah and all the na- 
 tion, and that Hezekiah had no such " Book of the 
 Law of Moses" as the historian affirms, and that Ama- 
 ziah did not quote from it when he said, as it " is writ- 
 ten in the Book of the Law of Moses," and that Jehos- 
 haphat did not send out the scribes to teach that book 
 when they "took the Book of the Law of the Lord 
 with them," and that Jehoash had some other book 
 under the name of "the Law" given him when he was 
 anointed king, and that David did not refer to it when 
 he charged Solomon to have regard to what "is written 
 in the Law of Moses." He must believe, moreover, 
 that dififerent books and different codifications of the 
 laws of the people from time to time are thus referred 
 to, when not one lisp in the whole history or poetry or 
 prophecy of the nation can be found to that effect. 
 He must believe that the nation was so stupid as to per- 
 mit it, and its historians so careless as not to mention 
 
228 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 it either to the honor or the disgrace of any scribe or 
 king. He must believe that in the time of Ezra or 
 Josiah a writer succeeded in imitathig the ancient style 
 of the Mosaic age so perfectly that all the scribes and 
 priests were deceived into the belief that it was the 
 work of Moses, even when there was no evidence that 
 he ever wrote such a book, or that such a book bad 
 ever existed in the nation. Nay, more : he must believe 
 that all its complicated and burdensome laws were re- 
 ceived at once and adopted as the code of the nation, 
 because they believed them to be of Mosaic origin, and 
 submitted to the severe discipline which these laws im- 
 posed, without once questioning the authenticity of the 
 book or the authority of the law-giver. He must be- 
 lieve that the writer not only invented the accounts 
 of the building of the tabernacle, and wearisomely 
 repeated them, and also introduced the repetitious de- 
 scriptions of the offerings and the consecration of the 
 sacred things, but he must believe that he could luckily 
 hit upon or skilfully invent those numerous undesigned 
 coincidences which are scattered all through the book, so 
 evidently unobserved by the writer himself. He must 
 believe that the writer — guilty of one of the grossest 
 impositions ever practised upon a people — was never 
 suspected, much less accused, of fraud, but that his 
 spurious work was received and adopted without a word 
 of complaint, suspicion, or hesitation by a whole nation. 
 He must believe that no "Book of the Law" was in 
 existence during the reign of David, and that all the 
 historians, prophets, and poets which have referred to 
 it in an unbroken series from his time down to the time 
 of Nehemiah and Malachi, Sirach and Philo, were mis- 
 
CONCLUSION. 229 
 
 taken, or else he must believe that a gross corruption 
 of the old copy was made, and made in so skilful a 
 manner that no one detected it then, or can now tell 
 with any certainty the new portions which were added 
 to the old book. The learned men of Jehoshaphat, 
 the scholarly priest and scribe of Josiah, the noble 
 Ezra, the skilful Nehemiah, never suspected the fraud, 
 never discovered the cheat. Nor did the prophets Joel 
 and Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah, Haggai and Malachi, 
 have a suspicion that "the Law," "the Laws of 
 Moses," "the Law of the Lord," on which they based 
 all their predictions, and to which they appealed in con- 
 firmation of all their threatenings and promises, was a 
 mere collection made from age to age of the laws of 
 the nation, and attributed, by a pious fraud or illiterate 
 mistake, to their great deliverer, Moses, to give them 
 sanctity and power over the peoplp. Surely, a louder 
 curse would have leaped from the fiery lips of Isaiah 
 upon the head of such a deceiver than he ever uttered 
 against the hypocritical priests who " trampled the 
 courts of the Lord." Yet such must be his belief who 
 disbelieves. 
 
 Adopting the canon of Hume, that of two miracles 
 we should believe that which is the less marvellous 
 and incredible, I accept the miracle, if it be one, of 
 the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, rather than the 
 theory which makes it either the growth of centuries 
 or the work of a modern Jew of the time of Ezra. 
 The difficulties attending the last theory are vastly 
 greater than those which surround the first. As easily 
 could I believe that the basaltic pillars which compose 
 the Giant's Causeway were the work of the fabulous 
 
230 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 race whose name they bear, and not the production of 
 the earth's central fires. I believe, then, that the Pen- 
 tateuch is a work of the Mosaic age, and largely the 
 work of Moses himself; that it has come down to us 
 with few, very few, dislocations, interpolations, and 
 corruptions; and that it will be handed down to com- 
 ing ages as an admired monument of the wisdom, 
 learning, and arts of that remote age, — as a monu- 
 ment of an early revelation of the divine will, to re- 
 store and elevate the race. I believe that the more 
 thorough the investigations are which are directed to 
 the examination of this book, the more profound and 
 searching the scholarship which is devoted to the in- 
 quiry of its age and authorship, the more successful 
 the endeavors of the explorers of the ancient monu- 
 ments on the Nile and the Tigris in exhuming sculpt- 
 ured- tablets and opening tombs whose walls are pict- 
 ured history, the more brilliant the success of the 
 Rawlinsons, the Layards, and the Hinckses, the Smiths 
 and the Sayces, in deciphering the cuneiform inscrip- 
 tions on the walls of the palaces of the successors of 
 Ninus, and of the Wilkinsons and the Lepsiuses and 
 the Mariettes in interpreting the painted symbols and 
 hieroglyphic histories in the tombs of the Pharaohs 
 contemporary with Abraham and Joseph and Moses, 
 the more certainty will be given to the conclusions 
 which I have reached, or, at least, to which I have 
 pointed the way : that the Pentateuch is substan- 
 tially OF THE Mosaic age, and largely, either 
 
 DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OF MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP. 
 
ANALYTICAL INDEX. 
 
 Page 
 INTRODUCTORY ON KUENEN'S "RELIGION OF ISRAEL." 
 
 Style of the Work, and Test of the Truth of Later 
 
 Writers, 7-10 
 
 Illustrations of Perversions of History by Priests and 
 
 Prophets, 11-13 
 
 Theory of Human Progress the Test of All History, . 14-16 
 Point of Departure in the Inquiry of the Historic 
 
 Truth, and Dr. Kuenen's Method of Argument, . 16-24 
 
 Reform under Hezekiah and Josiah, 24-27 
 
 Hilkiah's " Book of the Law," 27-32 
 
 The Law the Work of Ezekiel and Ezra (Leviticus 
 
 xviii., xxvi.), 33-36 
 
 Objection that "No Mention is made of any such 
 Work as the Pentateuch in any Work written 
 
 before the Captivity " examined, 37~S^ 
 
 Testimony of the Book of the Kings, 37-39 
 
 " " " " Chronicles, .... 39-42 
 " " " " Joshua, Judges, Samuel, 42-47 
 
 " " " " Ezra, Nehemiah, . . 47-57 
 
 Conclusion 57 
 
 Appendix A : " The Bible for Learners." Some of 
 
 its Theories noticed, — Sinai, Samson, Korah, . . 59-65 
 Appendix B : Some of Dr. Kuenen's Theories exam- 
 
 amined, — Priests, Lcvitcs, etc., 66-69 
 
 No Prophetic Writing till Eighth Century, . 70 
 
 Not One Psalm from David, 70 
 
 Different Documents in Exodus and Num- 
 bers, 71 
 
232 ANALYTICAL INDEX. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Introduction, 75-81 
 
 External Evidences, 82 
 
 I. Christ to Malachi. 
 
 1st Esdras, 83 
 
 ist Maccabees, 84 
 
 Ecclesiasticus, 84 
 
 Septuagint Version, 84 
 
 Samaritan Pentateuch, 84 
 
 II. Malachi to Captivity. 
 
 Malachi, 85 
 
 Haggai, 85 
 
 Zechariah, 85 
 
 Nehemiah, 85-86 
 
 Ezra, 86-87 
 
 III. Captivity to David. 
 
 (i) Historical Books, remarks on, . . . 87-90 
 
 Books of the Kings, 90-100 
 
 Josiah, 90-93 
 
 Hezekiah, 93~94 
 
 Amaziah, 94 
 
 Jehoash, 94 
 
 David, 95 
 
 Solomon, 95-100 
 
 Books of Chronicles, 100-104 
 
 (2) Poetical Books, 104-132 
 
 I. The Prophets. 
 
 Daniel, 105 
 
 Habbakuk, 105 
 
 Zephaniah, 105 
 
 Ezekiel, 105-107 
 
 Jeremiah, 107-112 
 
 Isaiah, 11 2-1 15 
 
 Micah, 115 
 
 Hosea, 11 5-1 21 
 
 Amos, 1 21-126 
 
 Joel, 126-127 
 
ANALYTICAL INDEX. 233 
 
 PAGE 
 
 2. Poems. 
 
 Ecclesiastes, 127 
 
 Solomon's Song, 127 
 
 Proverbs, 128 
 
 Psalms 128-132 
 
 Value of this Evidence 132-134 
 
 \N. David to Moses, 134-15^ 
 
 ist Samuel, 134-14^ 
 
 Judges, 141-142 
 
 Joshua, 142-146 
 
 Observations on External Evidence, 146-151 
 
 Conclusion, 152-156 
 
 Internal Evidence. 
 
 General Observations as to what would be the 
 Character of the Books, supposing them 
 
 to have been written at the Time claimed, 157-159 
 
 I. Antiquity of Style 159-176 
 
 II. Contents and Structure. Removal of 
 Unexpected Difficulties in the Laws, 
 and Comparison of Numb. Lev. and 
 
 Deut., 177-198 
 
 III. Undesigned Coincidences, 198-208 
 
 IV. Minuteness of Details, 208-215 
 
 V. Chasms in the History, 216-217 
 
 VI. References to Egyptian Customs, . . . 217-21S 
 
 VII. Adoption of Egyptian Words and Rites, 218-221 
 
 VIII. No Evidences of Later Enactments, . . 221-223 
 
 IX. Results, 223-225 
 
 X. Conclusion.— Difficulties of Unbelief, . 226-230 
 
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH OOSPELs 
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCES. 
 
 By EZRA ABBOT, D. D., LL.D., 
 
 Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation in the Divinity 
 School of Harvard University. 
 
 This essay, originally read before the Ministers' Institute, at Provi- 
 dence, R.I., in 1879, and since then revised and greatly expanded, 
 conies most appositely at a time when a destructive school of criticism 
 is sul)jecting the origin and authenticity of the various books of tlie 
 Bible to the most searching investigation. Professor Abbot is emi- 
 nently qualified for the discussion which he b.as undertaken. A valued 
 member of the Anglo-American Bible Revision Committee, he is 
 acknowledged to lie one of the foremost scholars of Christendom ia 
 his department. Tliis essay is right in the line of his life studies, 
 ar.d bears everywhere unmistaka))le marks of conscientious labor, 
 lleligious papers of all denominations unite in bearing testimony to its 
 value; and it has been fairly pronounced by a writer in the Popular 
 Science Monthly for August " a masterpiece of critical scholarship." 
 
 " Professor Abbot is familiar with the almost immense literature of his subject 
 as no other American is, and probably he has not over four or live peers abroad. 
 He professes tobelousto the liberal school of theology, -whence his conclusion 
 deiives a twofold interest. It is. thus far. the principal contribution of the year 
 to American theology, and cannot easily be overrated. Those who wish to boast 
 of Ainericaii theolo;<y, without making themselves ridiculous, will do well to 
 appeal to Abbot on St. John."— Boston Advertiser. 
 
 " There is no higher authority on this subject in America than Professor 
 Abbot. There is no more competent scholar in Germany. ... The book may be 
 said to be the most important contrilnition to this department of Biblical 
 apologetics that has been made in America since Norton's work." — N.V. Inde- 
 pendent. 
 
 " It is not too much to say that I'rofessor Abbot has laid all Christian scholars 
 under a deej) debt of obligation by the thoroughness of his researches into a 
 question of primary interest and importance. As the result, he may be con- 
 siilered to have completely turned the tables ujion the opponents of the Apostolic 
 authorship. To IJishop Lightfoot and Professor Drummond, much praise is due 
 for their luvestigatioiis in this tjeld ; but to Professor Abbot clearly belongs the 
 palm. No one befori^ liim had so completely mastered the literature of the early 
 Christian jieriod. Uis reading seems to have embraced everything, and his 
 memory to retain everything on the subject."— Christian Life (English). 
 
 " The present volume is the fruit of the author's well-known ripe scholarship, 
 keen insight, and accuracy ahriost proverbial, and cannot fail to take rank witn 
 the foremost publications on the general subject, both here and on the other 
 side of the Atlantic. It is made available to moire of the clerical professi<m than 
 3U!-h books usually are, by introducing patristic and other quotations in English, 
 wl'.ere prafticable, in a simple and literal translation. Scarcely anywhere will 
 the reader tind such a well-digested stock of infoi-mation, and siich forcible, not 
 to say irrefragable, argument to prove the genuineness of John's Gospel. ' — 
 Simd'jy School Times. 
 
 " Professor Abbot's discussion is simply admirable, both for its research and 
 its reasoning. Itcoiuh-nses into itself years of study. Nothing seems to have 
 escaped the author, and his presentation of the argument is unsuriiassed in its 
 judicial fairness and its good sense. In short, the discussion is tlie ablest vindi- 
 cation of historic truth rcsjjecting the Fourth (gospel which lias appeared for 
 many a day .— a discussion which will compel the attention, and, as we believe, 
 the assent of the foremost European scholars. It is one of the most thorough 
 critical essays ever produced in this country." 
 
 8vo. 104 pp. Price, Cloth, 75 Cents. Tiipir, 50 Cent.s. 
 
 I^or sale by booksellers, and sent by i?iail by 
 
 Geo. H. Ellis, Publisher, 141 Franklin Street, Boston. 
 
INSTITUTE ESSAYS! 
 
 READ BEFORE THE " MINISTERS' INSTITUTE," PROVI- 
 DENCE, R.I,, OCTOBER, 1879. 
 
 CONTENTS : 
 
 Introduction, Rev. H. W. Bellows. 
 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Eev. S. R. Calthrop. 
 
 The Relation of Modern Philosophy to Lib- 
 eralism, Prof. C. C. Everett. 
 
 Influence op Philosophy upon Christianity, F. E. Abbot. 
 
 MOIS'OTHEISM AND THE Jews, Dr. GUSTAV GOTTHEIL. 
 
 The Idea of God Rev. .T. W. Chadwick. 
 
 The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, . . . Prof. Ezra Abbot. 
 
 The Gospel op John Rev. Francis Tiffany. 
 
 Methods op Dealing with Social Questions, Rev. J. B. Harrison. 
 
 Ethical Law and Social Order, Rev. Geo. Batchelor. 
 
 "To the reader of comiiarative theologies, this book has a special interest." — 
 Z ion's Herald. 
 
 " The publication of this volume is one of the great tide-marks of theological 
 progress iu the United States." — Free Religious Index. 
 
 "Of all the compilations to which Unitarian discussions have given rise, this 
 will be found the most solid and mavity ."—Christian Register. 
 
 " The cause of Unitarianism will have to take care of itself ; but it is a matter 
 of great public importance when clergymen, however stationed in practical life, 
 address themselves without reserve and without qualification to tlie ascertain 
 ment of philosophic truth. How well this has been done at the Providence 
 meeting of the ' lnstiti;te' is shown by this volume, which is entitled to the cor- 
 dial attention not only of students of theology, but also of those interested in 
 high truth. Those wl'io knoAV enough, and those whose religious system has been 
 completed, had better not approach a volume wliich, to a seeker after facts, is 
 wonderfully grateful and stimulating."— 5oa-'ok Advertiser. 
 
 8vo, 5380 pp. Cloth, ^1.35; paper, gSl.OO. 
 
 THREE PHASES OF MODERN THEOLOOYs 
 
 CALVINISM, UNITARIANISM, LIBERALISM, 
 
 By JOSEPH HENRY ALLEN, A.M., 
 
 LECTURER ON ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY. 
 
 " The addresses rest throughout on Christian theism, the ethical spirit, the 
 temperate soul, vast reading, and good ;iiulgment. They are singularly dispas 
 sioiiate and well balanced, and good readers will find them healthful as well as 
 stimulating and helpful." — Boston Advertiser. 
 
 8vo, 68 pp. Paper. Price 35 cents. 
 
 THE MINISTER'S HAND-BOOK, 
 
 FOR CHRISTENINGS, WEDDINGS, AND FUNERALS. 
 
 COMPILED AND ARRANGED 
 By Rev. MINOT J. SAVAGE. 
 
 This little volume contains a service for the baptism of children, several forms 
 of marriage service, and a variety of burial services, with a number of selections 
 in prose and poetry siiitable for'use at funerals. At the end of the book are a 
 dozen blank pages, for such additions as individual taste may indicate. It is well 
 printed iu clear, large type, and put up in neat, flexible bindijig.ite size and shape 
 being arranged especially for the pocket. 
 
 Flexible cloth, 7.5 cents: full Turkey morocco, gilt edares, stamped 
 with owner's name in j;ol<l, SiJi. .■>(). 
 
 For sale by booksellers, or sent by mail by 
 Geo. H. Ellis, Publisher, 141 Franklin Street, Boston. 
 
nSTEAAT BOOICS 
 
 Fall of 1881. 
 
 MAN'S ORIGIN AND DESTINY. Sketched from the 
 Platform of the Physical Sciences. By Prof. J. P. Les- 
 ley, Secretary American Philosophical Society, etc. 
 New and Enlarged Edition. 8vo. Cloth. ^2.00. 
 
 ECCE SPIRITUS. i2mo. Cloth. ^1.25. 
 
 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. By Rufus P. 
 Stebbins, D.D. i2mo. Cloth. $1.25. 
 
 THE WAY OF LIFE. By George S. Merriam. i6mo. 
 Cloth. $1.00. 
 
 A YEAR OF MIR A CLE. A Poem in Four Sermons. 
 By William C. Gannett. Square iSmo. Flexible 
 cloth, 50 cents. Extra, bevelled edges, full gilt, ^r.oo. 
 
 TENDER AND TRUE. Poems of Lcrve. Selected by 
 the Editor of '■'■ Quiet Hours,''' etc. iSmo. Cloth, $1.00; 
 extra, full gilt, $1.50; half calf, ^2.50; full calf or 
 morocco, ^3.50. 
 
 GEO. H. ELLIS, Publisher, 
 
 J41 Franklin St., Boston. 
 
',-/ VERITABLE HAND-BOOK OF NOBLE LIVINGS 
 
 THE DUTIES OF WOMEN. 
 
 A COURSE OF LECTURES 
 By FRANCES PO^A;'ER COBBE. 
 
 CRITICAL NOTICES. 
 An eminent American clergyman, writing from London, says : — 
 
 " It is tlie profoundest, wisest, purest, noblest boolc, in principle, aim, and tone, 
 yet written upon the True Position of Woman in Society. It should be circu- 
 lated far and wide among all classes of our countrywomen. It should be made 
 a class-book in our schools^ It should become the 'Hand-Book ' and Vade Mecum 
 of young American girls." 
 
 " As I turn the pages of this book, I am struck with its candor, sympathy, and 
 insight, and wish tliat it might be read and pondered by both conservative and 
 radical women. The former might learn the relation of freedom to duty, and the 
 latter may well consider the perils which surround each onward step. , . . IVIiss 
 Cobbe might have called her book 'Old Duties in Ncav Lights.' It must help 
 many women to lead sincere, self-reliant lives, and to determine at critical 
 moments what their action shall be." — Mrs. Elizabeth K. Churchill, in the Provi- 
 dence Journal. 
 
 " The best of all books on 'Women's Duties.' Now that George Eliot is gone, 
 there is probably no woman in England so well equipped for general literary 
 work as Miss Cobbe."— Coi. T. Wtntworth IIicjcjinson,in Woman's Juurnal. 
 
 " I desire to commend it to the careful perusal of women in our own country, 
 as a book full of timely counsel and suggestion, and to all, as a valuable contri- 
 bution to the literature of ethics." — Julia Ward Howe, in Christian Register. 
 
 " Just now, the first ' Duty of Women ' is to read tliis whole book with studious 
 self-application; for it is rich in saving common sense, warm -with the love of 
 man, and consecrated by the love of God."— Miss JIarriet Ware Hall, in Unitarian 
 Review. 
 
 " What is best in the whole book is that she founds her teaching for women so 
 strongly in the deepest and simplest moral principles that her thoughts come 
 with a force and breadth which win for them at once a respectable hearing." — 
 Londoii Spectator. 
 
 "One of the notable books of the season. . . . No true woman can read these 
 lectures Avithout being stirred by them to completer life."— i/or?;wo' Star. 
 
 " In Miss Cobbe's latest book, ' The Duties of Women,' there is nuich to be com- 
 mended for its common sense and its helpfulness. Miss Cobbe goes down to the 
 principles underlying the topics of which she speaks; and the strength with 
 which she utters her thoughts is the strength of conviction and of earnest pur- 
 pose." — Sunday School Times. 
 
 "This is the very volume needed for parents to intrust to tli^ir daughters 
 when leaving home for school, and for earnest friends to offer young brides, as 
 a wedding gift." 
 
 Fourth Edition. Cloth. 13mo. Sil.OO. 
 
 NeAV Cheap Edition. Paper. 35 cents. 
 
 For sale by booksellers, and mailed, postpaid, on receipt oj the price, hy 
 
 Geo. H. Ellis, Publisher, Boston.