Historical Books 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Old Testament. 
 
 DR. AIKEN. 
 
 
^-. g','24 
 
 ol tljf ^Jjfnlngff^^ 
 
 i^^< 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. ^ 
 
 Section »rT".»..../r\ ^^ 
 
SYLLABUS OF LFXTURES 
 
 BY DR. AIKEN, ON 
 
 Special Introduction to the Historical Books of the 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 (See Dr. Green's Lectures on Old Testament Canon and Philolosj^y.) 
 
 Canon Westeott's definition of the Canon of the Scrip- 
 tures : " The collection of books which constitute the orig- 
 inal written rule of the Christian faith." 
 
 We recapitulate certain points in regard to the O. T. Canon, 
 inasmuch as part of our proof in regard to the historical 
 books turns upon the nat.ure and value of the N. T. refer- 
 ences to, and quotations from, the O. T. 
 
 We shall not expect to find within the O. T. either the 
 terms that afterward came into use to describe the collec- 
 tion, or the enumeration of its constituent parts, or the 
 definition of its functions. The later Jews, in the Talmud 
 and elsewhere, employ the terms hakhathubh, sephorhn, has- 
 sepher, k/(hhhe haqqodhesh^ iniqra. The well-known analytic 
 designation is Torah, nebhiim^ ukhethubhim. Whole frequently 
 called lorah. In the Greek Apocryphal books no single 
 term is applied to the whole, while the three divisions are 
 recognized and designated. The N. T. names. Fuerst's ex- 
 planation and comment on the phrase Sacred Scriptures, or 
 Holy Scriptures. IS", T. use of "the law" in John xii. 34; 
 X. 34 ; XV. 25. Paul's use in I. Cor. xiv. 21. Reuss's assertion 
 that " the law " means only " the law and prophets." His 
 comment on Luke xxiv. 44 ; reply. 
 
Comment on the fact that some O. T. books do not ap- 
 pear to be quoted from or alhided to in the X. T. ; also on 
 the assertion that the Rabbins settled the canon about 
 A. D. 70. 
 
 The prologue to Ecclesiasticus gives in three forms the 
 threefold division of the O. T. collection. Comment on 
 their meaning. Josephus, about A. D. 100, gives an enu- 
 meration, explains the limits set to the collection, and also 
 the grounds and the measure of the nation's regard for it. 
 The only open questions relate to distribution. He also 
 quotes from all the books but four. Philo's quotations and 
 testimony. Comment on alleged diversities of opinion 
 among the early Jews. (1) They express private opinion 
 in regard to one or two books ; (2) Grounds of esteem paid 
 to Barach and Ecclesiasticus ; (3) Contents of the LXX. ver- 
 sion. 
 
 It is objected by Fuerst and others that no discrimination 
 but a chronological one determined the bounds of the (). T, 
 collection. Improbable that everything else had perished. 
 Compare also Eccl. xii. 11 ; II. Mace, ii, 13, 14 ; and con- 
 sider the age of the older Apocrypha, as compared with the 
 critics' theory in regard to the later canonical books. See 
 I. Mace. ix. 27, and cf. iv 46 ; xiv. 41. Consider the 
 theory of some critics in regard to the influence of some of 
 the Apocrypha on the thought and style of the N. T., as 
 compared with some canonical books. General conclusion 
 favorable to the Palestinian and Protestant canon, 
 
 THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. 
 
 The legitimacy of the processes that are resorted to, and 
 the validity of the results that are most confidently an- 
 nounced, in the sphere both of the O. T. and K. T., chal- 
 lenge careful scrutiny. In the case of the O. T. the results 
 are often revolutionary, in respect to the literature, the his- 
 tory, the nature and scope of the dispensation ; the issues 
 involve also the N. T- Are the methods legitimate and 
 only misused, or are methods and results to be condemned 
 together ? Is " criticism" necessarily irreconcilable with the 
 
higher claims of God's word, essentially irreverent and out 
 of place — or necessary to a correct understanding of the 
 Scriptures, and to the vindication of their claims ? Does 
 the Bible invite, invoke and challenge criticism to establish its 
 honors and its influence ? 
 
 Origin of criticism as a method or process in dealing with 
 literature, and with all that is documentary, memorial and 
 monumental. Dr. Rainy's definition of criticism as a science 
 and as an art. Tlie beginnings of criticism in the schools 
 of Alexandria, and its revival after the invention of the art 
 of printing. The great names in critic;;! science. 
 
 Freund's definition of criticism in philology. The sphere 
 of textual critk-ism, its jxdmographic and diplomatic- methods, and 
 its more subjective and conjectural processes. Use of the 
 term loirer (or extertml) criticism. Necessity that it be sup- 
 plemented by other methods, even in dealing with texts. 
 Meaning of the term hif/her (textual) criticism, and the 
 value ot its best results. 
 
 Leaving the text, this criticism passes on to consider the 
 authorship of a work, and the time of its composition ; — an 
 inquiry of wider range, more delicate and difficult. The 
 valne of presumptions ; the warrant for misgiving or doubt. 
 The relations of hermeneutics to this critical process. The 
 transition from philological to historical criticism, and the 
 specific aim of the latter. The former examines, makes 
 accessible and available, the sources with which the latter is 
 to deal. 
 
 What, fhet), are some of the recof/tdzed principles and accredited 
 methods of historical criticism f 
 
 Three matters of chief concern suggest three lines of in- 
 quiry, bearing on the authorship, the form and the substance 
 of the historical material before us; tlie witness, the form of 
 his testimony, and its reliableness, sufficiency and purport. 
 
 1. As to authorship ; the comparative value of an anony- 
 mous, and au identified authorship or testimony. 
 
 2. As to form; the question as to the originality and 
 purity of the form before us ; the extent and the occasion of 
 any suspected or apparent change. 
 
3. As to substance ; the main inquiries relate to the re- 
 liableness of the testimony, its sufficiency for the purpose 
 for which we are asked to receive it, and its purport. 
 
 Putting the matter in more technical form, as indicated 
 by the methods of the masters of historical science (like 
 Von Sybel and Droysen), we find that they insist on a four- 
 fold process of investigation, bearing on the authenticity, — 
 the integrity,— the correctness and reliableness, — and the 
 adequacy and completeness of the historical material with 
 which we may be dealing. (Ambiguity ot the term "• au- 
 thenticity," as used sometimes of the form, sometimes of 
 the substance, of that of which it is affirmed. We use it in 
 the former sense, for which the term " genuineness " is 
 sometimes preferred.) 
 
 (a) Our first inquiry must be, whether the material before 
 us is what it purports or claims to be ; — the question of au- 
 thenticity in its broadest sense. It includes but reaches 
 beyond the question of authorship, whether asserted within 
 the work under examination, or in any title however 
 attached, or by any tradition, so as to deal with anonymous 
 historical material ; — looking for the period, the region, the 
 class of agents or influences from which the work may have 
 come forth ; — asking what the work purports to be, for 
 what purpose it professes or appears to have been produced, 
 and what there is to warrant its profession or claim ? 
 
 Consider the wide range of possible conclusions, and the 
 significance of the conclusion. 
 
 (6) Our second inquiry must be, whether the material 
 before us is in unchanged form what it was and aimed to 
 be ; or, if not unchanged, what alterations can be detected 
 and eliminated. Has there been a development from earlier 
 to later forms ? This is the question of integrifi/. 
 
 {c) The third question is, whether the document (or what- 
 ever it may be) when it was produced, did and could give 
 what it claims to establish, or is regarded as establishing ; — 
 or whether at the very time of its production it could claim 
 to be correct only partially and relatively, or not at all ? 
 This is in a broad way the question of credibiHty. 
 
Four subordinate inquiries are involved : — 
 (1). Whether what is reported is in itself possible, judged 
 by the standard of human experience ? 
 
 (2). Whether it is possible under the given conditions and 
 circumstances ? 
 
 (3). Whether in the motives, the aims, the personal rela- 
 tions of the narrators, there is anything discernible to warp 
 the conception, or the representation of the facts ? 
 
 (4). Whether incorrectness is unavoidable, in consequence 
 of the inadequacy of the means or opportunities of obser- 
 vation and apprehension ? 
 
 The lirst two inquiries related to the subject matter ; the 
 last two to the observer or witness. Criticism, also, looks 
 after any possible general or individual coloring that might 
 result from characteristics of time, place, circumstance, or 
 personal peculiarity. 
 
 {(l) A fourth inquiry is, whether the material before us 
 contains all the elements of which we are seeking to gain 
 knowledge, or need to have knowledge ; or, in what degree 
 and in what respects it is incomplete ? 
 
 When all is done we have not the true historical fact, but 
 prepared material, A constructive process must now follow 
 the critical process. We are bound to form a positive pic- 
 ture of the condition of things brought before us by the 
 results of criticism. 
 
 Criticism claims the right to apply these methods and 
 processes, without limitation or qualification, to the Bible. 
 
 But the Bible claims and evinces a divine, as really as a 
 human authorship. Its internal characteristics and claims, 
 the credit gained, the influence exerted, demand considera- 
 tion all the way, and not merely at the end of the critic's 
 work. These writings cannot be justly put on the same 
 plane with any others that criticism handles. Whom are 
 you impugning ? What are you invalidating ? are questions 
 that must be borne in mind. 
 
 While both the lower and the higher criticism have a 
 legitimate application to the Scriptures, the application 
 should, for every reason, be made with the greatest caution, 
 
discrimination and reverence. The claim of pre-eminent 
 jealousy for the peculiar prerogatives and honors of the 
 word of God, is little warranted by the history of Biblical 
 criticism, as practiced by the " critical " school. 
 
 Critical methods should be employed with peculiar care- 
 fulness as well as thoroughness. 
 
 (a). Because Christianity is so conspicuously an historical 
 religion in its foundations and in its essence. 
 
 (6). Because Christianity stakes so much upon the nature 
 and reliableness of its Scriptures. 
 
 (c) Because unbelief so frequently originates in the rejec- 
 tion of the historical foundations and elements of Christ- 
 ianity and its Scriptures. 
 
 It is not peculiar to Christianity to contain elements of 
 real or alleged history ; it is the proportion and significance 
 of the historical elements that is characteristic. Illustrate 
 the relation of the historical to the doctrinal in Christiani^-. 
 The credibility of the Scriptures the necessary condition of 
 their accomplishing their work. Criticism — Christian criti- 
 cism must ever keep this in mind. 
 
 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS OF THE 0. T. 
 Their Historical Nature and the Value of their His- 
 torical Evidence. 
 
 I. Their arrangement, connection and general aspect. 
 
 The fact is quite familiar to us that in the Hebrew Bible 
 the historical books are found disti-ibuted in the three great 
 divisions of the 0. T. (5 in the Torch, 6 in the Nebhiim, 6 
 in the Kethiihhim), while the LXX. has brought them to- 
 gether and arranged them, as nearly as might be, in chron- 
 ological order. Three partial exceptions — Ruth, Esther and 
 Chronicles. 
 
 This historical narrative covers a period extending from 
 the beginnings of human history to a point a little later 
 than the middle of the fifth century B. C. Slight breaks 
 after Genesis and Joshua, and within Judges, as also be- 
 tween Kine's or Chronicles and Ezra. 
 
This continuity not one of mere liistorical succession. If 
 the record is even substantially reliable we have : — 
 
 (1). A continuity, a steadiness, a quality of historic move- 
 ment absolutely unique. (2). This movement is entirely 
 inexplicable, as the result of the unfolding of any natural 
 germs, or the working of any natural forces, belonging 
 cither to the Hebrew people, or to the whole group of 
 peoples that at any point come into historic contact with 
 them. (3). If the history of Israel, and the development of 
 its religion were natural, as Kuenen, Tiele and others teach, 
 then the historic documents of the O. T. should be judged 
 unauthentic, incredible, full of legends and more positive 
 inventions, crowded with anachronisms, with inversions of 
 cause and eifect, and the most unwarranted claims — which 
 claims, however, are here innocent, legitimate and [quasi) 
 divinely authorized. 
 
 If, however, the substantial authenticity and credibility of 
 these books are tenable, then the distinguishing feature, 
 both of the historic movement and of the record, is the 
 presence and control of the supernatural ; the marvellous 
 elements are no surprise ; here is a peculiar divine pres- 
 ence ; the actors, events, ordinances and economies are 
 special divine instrumentalities. 
 
 Is a middle ground tenable ? Can we concede in respect 
 to the literature, the ^rchteology, the history, etc., what 
 destructive and reconstructive criticism claims, and preserve 
 the Church's heritage of faith in respect to the pre-emi- 
 nently and distinctively supernatural character of the dis- 
 pensation ? Can we change the perspective of the whole 
 scene and movement without loss of confidence in the O. T. 
 as part of the canon of our faith ? 
 
 II. The nature and limitations of the best attainable proof 
 of the authenticity and integrity of these books. 
 
 (rt) The historical period as compared with that of the 
 N. T., and the period of authorship. 
 
 (6) These historical books are followed by no testimonies 
 corresponding with that of the church fathers, the early 
 
8 
 
 versions, the writings of the early heretics. Relative age of 
 the oldest MSS. 
 
 (c) These books for the most part, if not entirely, anony- 
 mous. The meaning of the titles, at the best, debatable. 
 
 {d) So far as tradition supplies the lack, this must be 
 scrutinized. The meaning of the citations and allusions of 
 the ]Sr. T. must be carefully investigated. 
 
 {e) With respect to the integrity of these O. T. books, 
 our judgment must be reached by the accumulation of ap- 
 proximations and probabilities. The wide interval left by 
 MSS. and versions, wheti narrowed to the utmost, leaves u 
 considerable interval. Internal evidences nmst be carefully 
 studied, and the exceptional safeguards and guarantees sup- 
 plied by the reverence of the Jews for the very form of 
 their sacred books, duly estimated. 
 
 Compare the estimates of Stade and Josephus. 
 
 PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Our general inquiries are three : (1) What have these 
 books been supposed to be, in respect to their nature and 
 authorship, and for what reason ? (2) What do they pur- 
 port to be ? (3) What does the evidence, when scrutinized 
 and sifted, prove them to be ? 
 
 For the description of this portion of the O. T,, as given 
 in the later books, see II, Chron. xvii. 9 ; Josh. xxiv. 26 ; 
 Neh. ix. 3 ; II. K. xiv. 6 ; Neh, viii. 1 ; IT. Chron. xxv, 
 4 ; xxxiv. 14. There are more abbreviated expressions, 
 like " the law of the Lord," " the law of Moses," " the 
 law," or simply " law ;" in some cases the reference may be 
 not to the books, but to their great theme. 
 
 The fivefold division is mentioned by Philo and Josephus. 
 The Greeks devised the name pentateachos. The Rabbins 
 spoke of the five-fifths of the law. The Jews designated 
 each book by its opening word or words ; the LXX. by a 
 name suggested by some prominent subject. 
 
 Three reasons have been given for the place which these 
 books occupy in the O. T. collection : (1) The position be- 
 
9 
 
 longing chronologically to their subject matter; (2) The 
 time of their composition ; (3) The fact that this portion of 
 the O. T. was first consecrated to a public and official use. 
 
 Reasons why many critics propose to substitute the term 
 Hexateuch. Does Torah ever include Joshua? To which 
 division of the Hebrew Scriptures was Joshua assigned ?l 
 Joshua not reckoned b}- the Samaritans v/ith the Penta- 
 teuch. 
 
 AUTHORSHIl' OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Reach and importance of the question as stated by Reuss. 
 
 The investigation to be pursued under three heads : 1. 
 Assertions and ascriptions which appear to decide the au- 
 thorship in whole or in part. 2. Corroborations. 3. Ob- 
 jections and difficulties. 
 
 /. Assertions and Ascriptions of Authorship. 
 (rt) Such as are found within the Pentateuch. 
 {h) In other books of the O. T. 
 (.) In the N. T. 
 [d) In Jewish tradition. 
 
 (a). Asserfloxs and Ascriptions found. wUhin fhr Peniateilch 
 
 There are passages in which Moses is directed to write 
 certain things, or is said to have written certain things, in 
 accordance with a commandment of the Lord. Opposite 
 inferences drawn from this characteristic of these passages, 
 
 Ex. xvii. 14 ; Ex. xxxiv. 27 ; N^um. xxxiii. 2 ; Ex. xxiv. 
 4, 7. What do these passages fairly imply, and how much 
 do they cover ? As to Deuteronomy, Reuss says : " Deuter- 
 onomy (chap. v. 28) claims undoubtedly to have been written 
 by Moses himself.'' 
 
 Deut. xxxi. 9, 11 : " Moses wrote this law," etc. ; xxxi. 
 24,26. What is meant in these passages by " this law ? '* 
 Is it Deuteronomy alone, or the legislative part of Deut., or 
 the completed law of the Pentateuch ? Consider chap, i., 5; 
 iv. 8; xvii. 18, 19; xxvii. 1, 3, 8; xxviii. 58-61: xxix. 19, 
 20 ; XXX. 10 ; xxix. 29 ; xxxii. 46. 
 
10 
 
 What is " this law ? " Is it the law of Deuteronomy, or 
 the law of the Pentateuch ? 
 
 In favor of the former conclusion it is said : 
 
 (1). The assertions of Deut. iv. 44 sq,, v. 1 sq., make a 
 sharp discrimination between the Deuteronomic legislation 
 and all that the preceding books contain. 
 
 (2). The phrase, " this law," which occurs in 19 of the 22 
 instances in Deut. in which the law is mentioned, seems to 
 limit us ; all the more in view of the fuller expression of 
 iv. 8, the expression " which I command you this day " (re- 
 curring more than 25 times), and the words of xxix. 1. 
 
 (3). If xvii, 18 refers to anything more than the specific 
 law with respect to the king, it seems to relate only to the 
 law of Deut. 
 
 (4). The law referred to in xxvii. 4, 8, can hardly be 
 more extensive than the law of Deut. 
 
 On the other side it is urged : 
 
 (1). The law of Deut. is not in its style apparently, nor 
 does it purport to be, the original legislation, nor independ- 
 ent legislation ; but rather to be a hortatory restatement. 
 
 (2). While the phrase " this law " seems to refer most 
 specifically to the law of Deut., it would greatly force the 
 emphasis to conceive of this law as distinct and separable. 
 The expression usually denotes the Pentateuch legislation as 
 a whole. 
 
 (3). Deuteronomy seems to imply the previous existence 
 of the other books of the Pentateuch, in its allusions to facts 
 then recorded, especially to the covenant at Horeb, and the 
 legislation referred to Sinai and the wilderness, which is 
 often repeated with close verbal coincidence. Expressions 
 like those of xviii. 2 (cf. ISTum. xviii. 20) and xxiv. 8 (cf. 
 Lev. xiii. and xiv.) seem to require the previous existence of 
 originals found in the niiddle books. 
 
 (4). As to the copy of " this law " required in Deut. xvii, 
 8, it can hardly be the seven verses of the immediate con- 
 text, nor the law of Deut. alone, but the entire legislation 
 ot the Pentateuch. 
 
11 
 
 (5V As to the inscription required by xxvii. 4, 8 (cf. 
 .fosh. viii. 32), it might be for such a special occasion at 
 least the substance of the entire legislation. 
 
 (6). Joshua i. 7, 8, seems to refer to the whole law, and 
 many of the laws which specially guided Joshua are not 
 laws of Deut. ; see e. g., Josh. i. 18 sq. : v, 2, 10 ; xiv. 1, 2, 
 6 sq. ; xvii. 4 ; xviii. 1 ; xx. ; xxi. 2-8 ; xxii. 29. 
 
 We do not seem to be required to restrict, or warranted 
 in restricting " this law " to Deut. in any such sense as to 
 exclude, or not to imply, the Mosaic authorship of the pre- 
 ceding books. Most critics admit that Deut. explicitly 
 claims Mosaic authorship. 
 
 (b). As.^t'rf'Oii.'^ (1/1(1 ((scrij>fi()us found in the later, books of the 
 0. T. 
 
 It should not be expected that direct mention of the au- 
 thorship of the Pentateuch would appear in the succeeding 
 books, but' only allusion to the relation of Moses to the 
 history or the legislation. 
 
 Josh. i. 7. 8, seems to refer tlie book of the law as well 
 as the law to Moses ; so viii. 81-35 ; xxiii. 6 ; xxi v. 26. 
 
 In Judges and Samuel the law is referred to Moses, with- 
 out express mention of the book. I. K. ii. 3 contains in 
 their most complete combination forms of expression occur- 
 ing in Ex. xv. 26 ; Lev. viii. 35 ; Num. xxxi. 13 ; Deut. 
 iv. 45 ; vi. 17 ; viii. 11 ; xx. 13 ; xi. 1 ; xxvi. 17 ; xxx. 16, 
 etc. In 1. K. viii. 53, 56, we have forms of expression 
 made familiar in the Pentateuch ; e. g. Ex. xix. 5, 6 ; Deut. 
 iii. 20 ; iv. 20 ; ix. 26, 29 ; xii. 9, 10; xiv. 2 ; xxv. 19, etc. 
 In II. K. xiv. 6 sq., we have a verbal quotation from Deut. 
 xxiv. 16. II. K, xviii. 12, refers to the covenant and to the 
 commands without mention of a book of the law IF. K. 
 xxii and xxiii. refers to " the hook of the law,'' " the book 
 of this covenant" and "• the law of Moses." The meaning 
 of these references will be discussed hereafter. The later 
 historical books, by common consent, refer both the law 
 and the Pentateuch to Moses. See II. Chr., xxii. 18 ; xxv. 
 4 : xxx. 16 ; xxxiv. 14 ; xxxv. 14 ; Kzra iii. 2 ; vi. 18 ; 
 
12 
 
 Neh. i. 7; viii. 1; ix. 3 ; xiii. 1. In the Prophets we 
 should not expect to find explicit mention of the books ot 
 the Pentateuch and their authorship. See, however^ Dan. ix. 
 11, 13; Mai., iv. 4 (E. v.), and Is. Ixiii. 11, 12. 
 
 All these allusions are simple, incidental^ natural, har- 
 monizing best with the implications of the Pentateuch 
 itself. Indirect evidences become proportionally more im- 
 portant. 
 
 (c). Intimations Concerning the Anthcn^ship of the Pentateuch 
 found in the N. T. 
 
 We are dealing with a later time, whose general faith 
 does not flow from direct or independent knowledge, ruled 
 possibly by established traditions, and accustomed to repeat 
 current formulas. But we are dealing with new and pecu- 
 liar witnesses. Many critics lule out their testimony, 
 
 (1). A number of passages in the Gospels refer to Mose» 
 as the legislator, without quoting words from the Pentateuch 
 in form referred to him. These express the faith of the 
 time, and carry by implication the equally prevalent faith 
 in regard to the books. There was no more, no less, of one 
 faith than of the other. Mt. viii. 4 ; xix. 7, 8 ; John viii. 4. 
 
 (2), Another small group of passages employs the word 
 Moses, or the phrase " law of Moses,'' for the books of 
 Moses- Luke xxiv. 27 ; Acts xv. 21 ; Luke xvi. 29, 31. 
 
 (3). There is a large class of passages in which Moses m 
 named in connection with words from the Pent., cited as 
 spoken or written by him. 
 
 Thus Mt. xxii. 24, 31 ; Mk. xii. 19, 26 ; Luke xx. 28, 37 ; 
 Mk. vii. 10 ; Acts iii. 22 ; vii. 37 ; Rom. x. 5, 19= 
 
 (4). There is another group of passages like John i. 45 ; 
 V. 45-47 ; Acts xxvi. 22 ; II. Cor. iii. 15. 
 
 In these classes of passages, by as great a variety of 
 methods as could be secured, expression is given both to a 
 faith and a habit ; faith in the leadership, legislatorship, au- 
 thorship of Moses — and the habit of speaking naturally and 
 artlessly of the books as his. This faith and habit enter- 
 tained where, and as they were, and endorsed as they were, 
 are not to be lightly thrust aside. 
 
13 
 
 But it has been said : Christ and the Apostles did not 
 come into the \vorld to instruct the Jews in criticism ; to 
 accomplish his purpose Christ must abstain from opposing 
 many gross errors ot his countrymen ; our Lord so tar con- 
 descended to the general notions of his countrymen as to 
 adopt their modes of speech in regard to their sacred books ; 
 faith in Christ cannot restrict our critical in(juii"ies; the em- 
 phasis of the N. T. passages is not on the Mosaic authorship 
 but merely on things contained in books ascribed to Moses. 
 Some ascribe the style of Christ and the Apostles simply, 
 but directly, to their ignorance. 
 
 But it was replied long ago : Christ and the Apostles did 
 come to teach truth, not to be imposed on by common 
 ignorance, nor to foster vulgar errors ; his denunciation of 
 the rulers' views of tradition (e. g.) shows how much he 
 prudently spared their errors, and how he regarded Scrip- 
 lure. The quibbling interpretation put on several of the 
 above passages illustrates the spirit of much current criticism. 
 
 (d). llie estdhl is/ted (ind tradilkmat fhiih of lite Jews. 
 
 Aside trom the indications given in the N. T., we have 
 those furnished by the O. T., by Philo, Josephus and the 
 Talmud. See I. P]sdr. i. 11 ; v. 49 ; vii. 6, 9 ; Baruch ii. 
 27, 28 ; II. Mace. i. 29. The general faith is admitted to 
 have been most explicit and emphatic. There is no other 
 faith of the kind so intense, so unanimous, so abundantly 
 and variously corroborated, while sustaining a relation so 
 unique to every department of the national life. 
 
 At this point we interpose three remarks : 
 
 R. 1. If criticism should establish the existence ot differ- 
 ences of style in various parts of the Pent., this would not, 
 in the face of adequate affirmations and corroborations, dis- 
 prove Mosaic authorship. Moses being the author need not 
 personally have written the whole. 
 
 R. 2. Certain closing }»aragraphs must ])e from another 
 hand ; and here and there in other instances by due author- 
 ity, verbal explanations, etc., may have been introduced. 
 
14 
 
 R. 3. The Mosaic authorship of the Pent, is not in the 
 slightest degree inconsistent with the use by Moses of docu- 
 mentary as well as traditional material in the preparation of 
 Genesis. The length of life ascribed to the early generation 
 makes a living tradition of a very few links, adequate for all 
 its purposes. 
 
 II. Corroborations of the Mosaic Authorship of the Pe?i- 
 
 tateuch. 
 
 (a). The entire naturalness and antecedeiif probability of such 
 ft record from the hand of Moses. 
 
 Critics have asserted the improbability that Moses should 
 have produced a work of such compass, of such contents, 
 under such conditions, with such variety in its material and 
 style, in fully developed perfection, etc., etc. 
 
 Such a priori considerations are to be set over against 
 other probabilities and positive evidences. The absence of 
 parallels in other literatures weighs but little. He who 
 admits the existence of Moses must concede to him extraordi- 
 nary capacity, a rare human training, an exceptional Provi- 
 dential discipline, and a very special relation to the resources 
 of the divine wisdom and power. The occasions for his 
 acting, and acting in this way were exceptional. The known 
 characteristics of the people made it more natural and essen- 
 tial that this law of God to Israel should be written (Baum- 
 garten) cf. Deut. xxix. 4, 18 ; xxxi. 27-29 ; xxxii. 15 ; x. 16. 
 The normative influence of this literature should seem noth- 
 ing remarkable. 
 
 (b). The perfect practieableness of such a record in those times ^ 
 under the existing conditiojis, and from, the hand of Moses. 
 
 The objections urged a generation or two ago against the 
 existence of the art of writing, alphabetic writing, among 
 the Hebrews as early as the age of Moses, are utterly aban- 
 doned. Cuneiform writing, it is claimed, was invented 
 by the Accadians 3,000 years B. C. Egyptian hieroglyphic 
 writing can be followed back to the 3d dynasty. There is 
 
15 
 
 in Paris a papyrus from the 5th dynasty, estimated by jjeiioi- 
 mant to be 2,000 years old at the time of Moses. The 
 Hittites used alphabetic writing probably before the age of 
 Moses. The Phconician claims are well known. It is a 
 mere assumption that the Hebrews were less civilized than 
 the nations about them. Moses was brought up in Egypt 
 as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. The officers set over the 
 Israelites in Egypt, and those set over divisions of the tribes 
 organized for their march through the wilderness, were 
 Shoterm, writers. 
 
 ■ (c). The general uiuty and consistency of the narratice In itself 
 and its contents, a nnity not superficial but fundamental, a unity 
 such as is best explained on the supposition of wiity of authorship. 
 
 Of course, to prove oneness of authorship the unity must 
 be something more than that which characterizes the O. T. 
 as a whole, simplg unity in the view taken of God, His 
 general relations to men, Plis special relations to Israel, of 
 the economy which He instituted, and the work which 
 He is carrying on in Israel, and through Israel for the 
 world. There appears to be a more specific oneness of 
 spirit, purpose and conception throughout the Pentateuch. 
 
 And so far as such evidences appear, they are so fur forth 
 inconsistent with the theory, that we have wrought to- 
 gether in the Pent., the work of an annalistic, a theocratic, 
 a prophetic narrator and a Deuteronomist, the proof of 
 whose existence consists in part of their marked diversities 
 in style, and thought, and faith. 
 
 One of the strongest evidences, not merely of unity of 
 plan, but of unity of authorship, is found in the mutual 
 references which connect part with part in a^ way and to an 
 extent that is characteristic and unique among the books of 
 the 0. T. These are not only closer and more fre(|uent 
 than arc found elsewhere, but are ijcrfectly natural to one 
 writing in the time and with the probable aim of Moses, 
 while many of them would lie less luitural to a later writer, 
 or to a composite work. Mr. Warrington, c. g., illustrates 
 the habit of the Pent., especially in its ht)rtatory and pro- 
 
16 
 
 plietic parts, of reierring to a personal knowledge common 
 to the writer and his readers ; a knowledge of the events of 
 the past in Egypt and the wilderness — all very natural to 
 Moses, but which would be from a writer of Manasseh's 
 time, " the most exquisite of literary frauds." (Heng- 
 stenberg). 
 
 (d). The constant and mistudied evidences of personal partici- 
 pation on the part of the author, in the acts done ai}d the events 
 recorded in the four later books. 
 
 It has long been recognized that the books are so con- 
 structed as to convey this impression. The books were 
 naturally so produced, or other and later writers successfully 
 produced this appearance. 
 
 In favor of the former position, attention has been called 
 to the minute recital of names, description of places, speci- 
 fication of numbers, ot the names of minor leaders and their 
 genealogy, of dimensions, materials, etc., all important and 
 natural for the time. Explanr^tions and minute directions 
 abound that only embarrass the narrative, and which a late 
 writer would therefore avoid. Interruptions, irregularities, 
 repetitions appear, appropriate to one like Moses, but un- 
 likely to be used or simulated by a later writer. 
 
 In regard to the legislation, observe : (1) The large pro- 
 portion of laws given in a direct and somewhat bald way, 
 as received by Moses from God for direct transmission to 
 the people ; while (2) In other cases the legislation appears 
 closely connected with conditions just then existing, and is 
 sometimes changed as conditions change. Observe espe- 
 cially the tone of the Deuteronomic laws. The blending of 
 these two methods was eminently natural for Moses. 
 
 But critics object : — 
 
 (1). There are chronological contradictions within a nar- 
 rative professing to be chronological, and to put events and 
 facts in their causal relations. A personal participant could 
 and would avoid this. 
 
 In illustration cf. Num. i. 1, and ix. 1. But this seeming 
 return of the narrative upon itself is sufficiently explained 
 
17 
 
 by ix. 6-14. Ct. Ex. xvi. 35, with Josh, v 12 ; Ex. xvi. 34 
 with chiip. xxxvii. ; Num. i. with Ex. xxxviii. 26; ICx. xix. 
 22, with chaj). xxviii. 
 
 (2). There is serious incompleteness at various points in 
 the narrative. See especially Num. xx., where 38 yea,rs, more 
 or less, simply disappear from view. It is, besides, utterly 
 unlikely that all that was interesting or important in inci- 
 dent, institution or legislation, should i)e crowded into two 
 years at the beginning and end ot" the wilderness lite. But 
 according to the mu-rative these 38 years had their function 
 which was fultilled, and this solemn silence is one of the 
 most eloquent portions of the narrative. 
 
 (3). There are many repetitions, mutual contradictions 
 and manifest errors of arrangement in the narrative. 
 
 There are repetitions, it is said, in the ler/islafiott. E. 7,, 
 in Ex. xxxiv , legislation is repeated which has just been 
 recorded in chap, xxi.-xxiii. ; and in Lev, xx., legislation that 
 has already been recorded in cljap. xviii. It is improbable 
 that Moses should have thus given to the people twice at 
 God's command within so short a time the same precepts, 
 or should have thought it needful to record them twice. 
 But if anything so momentous as a renewal ot the covenant 
 occurred at the time referred to in chap, xxxiv., why should 
 not requirements made at its first institution be repeated ? 
 And while Lev. xviii. reprobates certain offences, chap. xx. 
 emphasizes the punishments to be visited upon them ; and 
 why should not some of the details be repeated ? 
 
 There are historical repetitions, it is said. Compare Num. 
 xi. with Ex. xvi. 12 sq. ; Num. xx. 1-12 with Ex. xvii. 1-7; 
 Num. ix. 15-23 with Ex. xl. 34-38. This is the kind of 
 objection that is frequently urged against narratives in the 
 Gospels, wherever two miracles, or any other two historical 
 narratives, exhibit marked resemblances, whatever the points 
 of difference, and however clear the proofs of a recurrence 
 of somewhat similar events. 
 
 There are historical inconsistencies^ it is said. Compare 
 Ex, iii. 11 and vi. 30 with Num. xii. 8 and Ex. xi. 3 ; Num. 
 xiii. 1, 2 with Deut. i. 20-22 ; Deut. i. 37 and iii. 26 with 
 
18 
 
 Num. XX. 12 and xxvii. 14. Examination shows that there 
 is here no real inconsistency. 
 
 Material is introduced, it is said, in inappropriate connec- 
 tions ; e. g., the genealogy of Moses and Aaron in Ex. vi. ; 
 compare Num. xxvi. 59 ; the visit of Jethro to Moses " at 
 Sinai " in Ex. xviii., before Sinai has been reached, and 
 " before God " when the tabernacle had not been erected. 
 Moreover, a tabernacle is called for in Ex. xxv.-xxxi., while its 
 erection is called for only in xxxiii. 7-11, and its completion 
 must have required time;' and the ordinances concerning 
 the shewbread in Lev. xxiv. 5-9, are presupposed in Ex. xl., 
 and should be connected with the legislation of Ex. xxv. 
 
 The question of the genealogy is discussed hereafter in 
 another connection. The visit of Jethro was at least sub- 
 stantially at Sinai, and the succession of events is but 
 slightly modified to avoid breaking the narrative of Israel's 
 dealings with God. It is commonly assumed that temporary 
 arrangements for the tabernacle anticipated the final struc- 
 ture. Dillmann regards the shewbread legislation of Levit- 
 icus as designed for a different time from that implied in 
 Exodus. 
 
 (e). Tliere are ample and varied evidences of minute and special 
 familariUj with the lands and times covered by the history. 
 
 See Hengstenberg, Ebers, Palmer, V'igouroux, Rawlinson 
 and other authorities. 
 
 Von Bohien (1835) and Tuch (1838) asserted the inaccu- 
 racy of many of the Egyptian representations of Genesis ; 
 but the discoveries and interpretations of the last 50 years 
 have signally vindicated the narrative. It is exceedingly 
 difficult to credit all the writers required by the document 
 hypothesis with this exact knowledge and correct represen- 
 tation ; and all the more, if some of the documents took 
 their form as late as some critics assume, and their material 
 had passed through so many redactions. Just so far as this 
 intimate familiarity with Egypt and the wilderness is all all- 
 pervading presence, it becomes a welcome suggestion that 
 one Moses may have been the author of the narrative. 
 
Id 
 
 observe, also, the fi'ee way in wiiich words of Egyptian 
 origin are introduced without exphmation or comment, as 
 if by an author wlio knew that his first readers would be as 
 familiar with them as himself 
 
 Vigouroux devotes 170 pages to the examination of the 
 story of Josep)h in its minutest details, as illustrated by 
 monuments and documents. Ex. i.-xv. may be tested in the 
 same way. Palmer bears witness to a like accuracy in the 
 details of the narrative of the wilderness life. 
 
 We may consider together — ■ 
 
 (f). jEcidetices of the eonfroUinq or modifi/ing injluence of con- 
 ditions, such as were peculiar to the age of Moses ; and 
 
 (g). Eridence< that irhen the books of the Pnitateuch were 
 written the occupation of Canaan was yet future^ and that many 
 of the prorisions of the legislation were anticipative. 
 
 There arc characteristics of the time of the Exodus and 
 the wandering in the wilderness, which correspond remark- 
 ably with the history and with the form and substance of 
 the legislation set forth in the Pent. ; and these are repro- 
 duced at no subsequent period ; moreover, in many of these 
 provisions the residence in Canaan is distinctly contemplated 
 as future. 
 
 Salvador contrasts the conditions of the Mosaic legisla- 
 tion with those of the legislation of Lycurgus, Draco, Solon, 
 Numa, Confucius, Mahomet, etc. 
 
 There are certain exigencies in the condition of Israel in 
 Egypt which are met in characteristic and effective ways in 
 the facts of the history and the legislation. 
 
 (1). In the social and political condition of the people the 
 slight and inadequate organization. 
 
 (2). In the temper and spirit, the moral tone and tenden- 
 cies of the people, the conspicuous characteristics are such 
 as might be expected of such a people, living in such con* 
 ditions in such a land ; effeminacy, self-indulgence, self-dis- 
 trust, an aversion to self-denial, hardship, discipline, etc. 
 
 (3). In their religious life a fading away of the old faith, 
 and a serious complication with positive idolatries. See 
 
20 
 
 Josh. xxiv. 14 ; Lev. xvii. 7 ; Ezek. xx. and xxiii. ; Ex. xxxii. ; 
 Lev. xviii. 21 ; xx. 2 ; Deut. iv. 15-19. 
 
 (4). These faults are dealt with and these wants met in 
 the theocratic system, which is not a product of the ten- 
 dencies and necessities of the time, but comes to meet them 
 fr6m without and from above. It inijtlied (Hengstenberg) 
 that law in all its details was direct from God ; that God 
 was the basis as well as the source of right ; that all power 
 was an efflux from the divine suprenuicy ; that God will 
 reward and punish ; that He supplies means of knowing His 
 will; that He dwelt among His people. The singular inter- 
 mingling of laws on all subjects is a reminder that God 
 claimed and exercised the right to regulate life in all its 
 spheres. The ceremonial law had manifold moral and dis- 
 ciplinary uses, 
 
 (5). Whether the Pentateuchal legislation is provisional or 
 most permanent in its charactei-, the frequent assertion and 
 constant implication is, tliat the occu})ation of Canaan is yet 
 future. And the probability is very great, that these laws 
 which so reflect and provide for the minute and peculiar 
 conditions of that wilderness life, must have l)een put on 
 record there. It is ditflcult to arcount otherwise for the 
 accuracy with which they have been preserved. 
 
 But it is (»bjected, that all through the Pent, we And inci- 
 dental phrases and forms of expression, archa>ological ex- 
 planations and the like, which imply a later authorship and 
 a residence within the Promised Land, 
 
 Conservative commentators admit that now and then an 
 authorized prophetic hand may have introduced some of 
 these expressions— the only diflerence being with reference 
 to the number of these later modifications. This is a matter 
 of detail and need not be inconsistent with a high doctrine 
 of inspiration, nor with a timi maintenance of the Mosaic 
 authorship of the Pent, as a whole. 
 
 A later time is said to be implied in passages like Gen. 
 xii. 6 ; xiii. 7 ; xl. 15 ; so wnth the phrase, " unto this day," 
 in Gen. xix. 37; xxii. 14; xxvi. 33; Deut. iii. 14 (cf. Num. 
 xxxii. 41 ; Jud. x. 3, 4), etc. See, also. Gen. xxxvi, 31 : 
 
21 
 
 Kuni. XV. 82 sq. ; Lev. xviii. 28 ; the Song of Moses in Ex. 
 XV. ; Deut. iii. 11 ; the designation of Abraham, Aaron and 
 Moses as " prophet " in Gen. xx. 7 ; Kx. vii. 1 ; Num. xi. 
 29; xii. 6, in apparent contradiction to I. !Sam. ix. 9. See, 
 also, the citation in Num. xxi. 14 from " the book of the 
 wars of Jehovah." 
 
 Other passages presuppose a writer and a people already 
 established in Canaan ; e. g., passages employing the phrase 
 " beyond Jordan," of the East side of Jordan, Deut. i. 1, 5, 
 etc. ; the designation of the Wt-st by /A/>n, especially while the 
 people were at Sinai, Ex. xxvi., xxvii.,xxxvii., xxxviii. ; Num. 
 ii. and iii. The whole style of Lev. xxvi. presupposes long 
 residence in Canaan, and much experience there of idolatry 
 and judgment. See, also, Num xv. 22 sq. ; Deut. xix. 14; 
 Deut. XX. (the laws of war). See the impHcation of the 
 laws of Lev. xiv. 33 sq. ; xxv. 29 sq. ; xvi. 21 ; xxvi. 31 sq. ; 
 Deut. xi. 20. 
 
 (h). (Jha meter istu'S of lari(/ua</e /mftlmg to a rel<itirtl)i archaic 
 f title tike that of Moses. 
 
 Bleek maintains that we find the Hebrew purest just in 
 the oldest writings preserved to us ; and that the later 
 writings are distinguislied by a depraving of the language, 
 an intermixture with other Semitic tongues ; and that in 
 the oldest literature there is such development as implies 
 a not inconsiderable previous literary activity. 
 
 Style corroborates the asserted Mosaic authorship only so 
 far forth as linguistic and rhetorical evidences point to an 
 ancient authorship, and unity of authorship. In recogniz- 
 able particulars the Pentateuch has a diction somewhat its 
 own, with some characteristic grammatical forms. (Keil's 
 Introduction, sec. 14.) 
 
 The Dean of Canterbury maintains that, as compared, 
 €. (/., with Isaiah, both forms and words in the Pentateuch 
 are easily distinguished ; and as an Aramaic scholar asserts 
 that the Pentateuch often uses one equivalent, where later 
 books use another, for Syriac words. 
 
22 
 
 (i). Incidental evidences, scattered in a continuous series of 
 references through the succeeding books, showing that the records 
 of the Pentatench had been prerioudy produced. 
 
 These are all the more significant when derived from the 
 history of the divided and frequently hostile kingdoms of 
 Judah and Israel. When the reference to facts, laws, pre- 
 dictions contained in the Pentateuch is minute, and forms 
 of expression are identical, " tradition '^ does not turnish an 
 adequate explanation. 
 
 Joshua is so full of recognition of the Pentateuch that for 
 this, among other reasons, it is claimed that we should speak 
 rather of a Hexateuch. The very confusions and disorders 
 of the time of the Judges are constantly measured in the 
 narrative itself by the standard which the Pentateuch sup- 
 plies. Havernick argues : The deterioration of the people 
 must have been quite different from what we find in the 
 time of the Judges, if we give up the assumption of a time 
 like the Mosaic, and a fixed standard transmitted from it. 
 So likewise many things in the books of Samuel and the 
 early part of Kings, are less intelligible if we sever them 
 from the Pentateuch. Even some of the assumptions and 
 seeming usurpations of Samuel indicate a wish to comply 
 with the spirit of the Pentateuch, where the observance of 
 its forms was not possible. 
 
 Many details of David's life are hard to be understood! 
 except on the supposition of the settled authority of the 
 Mosaic economy. His parting charge to Solomon is full of 
 the spirit of the Pentateuch legislation. The course of the 
 early Kings of Israel, even in many of their irregularities^ 
 shows that they were in some things consciously *at a disad- 
 vantage as compared with the Kings of Judah ; and some- 
 times they seem to be counterfeiting compliance with the 
 requirements of the Pentateuch, or devising plausible sub- 
 stitutes. The older Prophets, both of Judah and Israel, are 
 full of the spirit of the Pentateuch. 
 
23 
 
 I IT. OhjecMonfi and DiffijCitlties urged against the claim 
 of Mosaic Authorship for the Pentateuch. 
 
 Such objections and difficulties as have been thu- far inci- 
 dentally suggested, if allowed any force, go to show the 
 inconclusiveness of the arguments by which the claim of 
 Mosaic authorship is supported. Prof Strack says of the 
 reasons adduced against the Mosaic authorship : " It is not 
 to be denied that if each of them be considered separately, 
 very different judgments can be formed in regard to 
 them, i»artly according to the critical, partly according 
 to the theological point of view,, occupied by him who is 
 judging them." But the attempt is made to show by evi- 
 dence of many kinds, (1) That the Pentateuch in its present 
 form cannot be from the age, and of course not from the 
 hand of Moses ; (2) That it is not an original unit from any 
 age or hand ; and (8) That the order of the composition of 
 its important sections, the time of that composition (at least 
 approximately), and the kind of intiuence that was dominant 
 over the several parts can be measurably determined. 
 
 Certain characteristics and tendencies of the critical spirit 
 and method attract attention. 
 
 1. Its professed philosophical and historical impartiality, 
 and its contempt for all that is not critical. Of course all 
 prepossessions are professedly set aside. Some lines of evi- 
 dence are ruled out, on which " traditional " views in part 
 rest. Authority is repudiated. The legitimacy of the use 
 of N. T. citations is often denied. Frequently a doctrine of 
 nature and its laws is assumed which excludes the super- 
 natural. A corresponding doctrine is often maintained in 
 regard to historical development and the laws of human 
 progress. We are cautioned against the attitude taken by 
 the historians of Israel, as though the critics never took an 
 attitude. 
 
 2. The measure and quality of the respect shown by the 
 critical theory and method for the historical reliableness of 
 the O. T. records. The records are good authority so far 
 as they support, utterly bad when they conflict with, or fail 
 to support, the theory. 
 
24 
 
 3. We are constantly forced to observe the amount ot 
 support which the theory derives from things that are nega- 
 tive, from what does not appear, from what is not said and 
 what is not known, from the seeming non observance of 
 laws, and the like. Kueneii vindicates this mode of pro- 
 cedure, provided (a) The persons in question were pious 
 Israelites and sincere friends of the theocracy ; and (b) Their 
 mode of acting, far from being ;in isolated fact, is common 
 to a multitude of their contemporaries. He adds {c) That 
 acts apparently in accord with more or less of the prescrip- 
 tions of the law do not prove the existence and validity of 
 the law at the time; beciiusc the acts may be due to a 
 popular custom, possibly later embodied in a law. 
 
 4. The theory continually assumes the existence of the 
 most absolute and open antagonism between the prophetic and 
 the priestly institutions, orders and functions. Books from 
 prophetic hands alone reliably describe the times. We are 
 often misled by our wrong application of the woi-d Tonih, 
 which frequently means only instruction, not the law. 
 " Prophetism and the authority of the later Tivdh are pro- 
 foundly incompatible" (Kuenen). "They (the spiritual 
 prophets) deny that these things (sacrifice and ritual) are of 
 positive divine institution, or have any part in the scheme 
 on which Jehovah's grace is administered in Israel " (Rob- 
 ertson Smith). How, then, would the prophets stand in 
 the light of the N". T. ? 
 
 5. It is the delight of the theory (if not a necessity to it) 
 to magnify discrepancies, to create inconsistencies and posi- 
 tive contradictions where none exist. Volumes of meaning 
 are extorted from phrases or incidents that can be made to 
 appear favorable to the theory, while every thing on the 
 other side is reduced to a minimum. 
 
 6. It is difficult to decide whether the theory and its re- 
 results are in a larger degree the consequence, or the fruit- 
 ful source, of low views in regard to the nature, authority 
 and value of the O. T. Scriptures. The intrusion of any 
 dogmatic principles or considerations is strenuously objected 
 to, except the dogmatism of science. Many upholders of 
 
25 
 
 the theory will allow no inspiration e.\cei>t siK-h as may l»c' 
 affirmed of numbers pf men, a peojjle, a class, a ti-ain of in- 
 fluences, a course of events. It is difficult to form a clear 
 conception of the inspiration that was engaged so many 
 centuries in fashioning the composite Pentateuch, rejecting, 
 remodelling, creating false apjjearances, producing studiously 
 false impressions— tlie crowning result being that the nature 
 and scope of the Pentateuch and its legislation have re- 
 mained hidden until within this generation. 
 
 HISTORICAL SURVEY. 
 
 " We have to assume that this view" (Mosaic authorshifi of 
 the entire Pentateuch) was the general view at the time of 
 Christ and the Apostles : we find it expressly in Philo and 
 Josephus " (Bleek). In the first Christian centuries there 
 were individual dissenting o[iinions, especially among the 
 Gnostics. So with two or three Jewish scholars in the mid- 
 dle ages ; so with Carlstadt, Hobbes, Spinoza, R. Simon and 
 others in the 16th and 17th centuries. 
 
 In 1753 Astruc, in his Conjectures, etc., called attention to 
 the changing use of the names of God in Genesis, inferred 
 the existence of older documents, and laid the foundations 
 of the Documevi hypothesis. This was extended by Eich- 
 horn, DeWette, Bleek and Ewald to other books, reinforced 
 by other tests, and supplies a fundamental element to the 
 modern critical position. 
 
 In 1805 Vater brought forward definitely the Fraiimevi 
 hypothesis, previously suggested by Peyrere, Spinoza and 
 Geddes, which insists that much of the material, both his- 
 torical and legal, especially the latter, consists of small frag- 
 ments, often showing no clear connection, and no palpable 
 order. 
 
 Passing from the literary form, criticism began now to 
 deal also with the contents of the Pent., e. //., the literally 
 historical character of the events, and the relative age of the 
 laws recorded there. DeWette, Augusti, Vatke and George 
 are the leaders. 
 
 A third theory, the Supplement hypothesis, assumes an 
 original document to which later and successive additions 
 
26 
 
 were made. Tuch, Stahelin, DeWette, Von Lergerke and 
 others its advocates ; Schrader almost its only recent ad- 
 herent. 
 
 Further study led to the abandonment or serious moditi- 
 cation of the theory of a single fundamental document. 
 Ewald, Knobel, Hupfeld (1853), Boehmer (1862), and others 
 suggested and described several more or less independent 
 documents, later wrought together. Hupfeld claimed to 
 identify a second Elohist, whose age, as compared with the 
 Jehovist, is diiferently interpreted. Riehm (1854) more 
 clearly distinguished the Deuteronomist. 
 
 Strack gives these as four points in which critics are sub- 
 stantially agreed, (a). There are merely or chiefly four 
 documentary sources of the Pent., E, E^, J, and D. (b). 
 Several sections of the Pent., although preserved to us only 
 within these four, are considerably older, (c). The Elohis- 
 tic are older than the Jehovistic portions (disputed by many). 
 {d). E, E^ and J had been wrought together before D was 
 produced (also disputed). 
 
 Critics diifer widely as to the mutual relations of these 
 documents, the time of their combination, etc. 
 
 Another school, working partly within the same lines, 
 partly after methods of their own, has lately come to 
 the front. Reuss claims to be its founder ; Yatke and 
 George (1835), Graf, Kayser, Wellhausen, Stade, Kuenen 
 and others, its chief advocates. For various reasons at dif- 
 ferent times, they have pronounced the legislation of the 
 middle books in its present form, mainly postexilian. Graf at 
 first separated the Elohistic historical material from the Elo- 
 histic legislation by an interval of centuries, but changed 
 his ground. The oldest documents, it is claimed, know no 
 enjoined worship at one central sanctuary, hold worship at 
 high places entirely legitimate, know no detailed law of 
 sacrifices, no exclusively theocratic explanation of the feasts, 
 no distinction between priests and Levites, and in general 
 no hierarchy (Kautzsch). Three strata in our historical 
 books correspond with the three strata of the Pentateuch. 
 An enormous literature has been developed by this contro- 
 versy. 
 
27 
 
 Delitzsch claims that the quetstioii must he left to experts, 
 the church as a whole havino- no interest in it, and needinij 
 to have none; — from which latter view we entirely dissent. 
 The reliableness or unreliableness of the 0. T. Scriptures, 
 the real nature and meaning of the O. T. economy, God's 
 relation to it and its relation to His plans for saving men, 
 the meaning and value of N. T. comments on O. T. laws 
 and facts, are too deeply implicated. The theory is admitted 
 to be revolutionary. Many phases of the development of 
 the theory, as well as its characteristic spirit and methods, 
 suggest caution and inspire distrust, in spite of the fact that 
 its advocacy is so l»rilliant, and that it is so much the mode. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL METHOD. 
 
 There are two lines of investigation of which the critical 
 method makes chief use, separately or in combination. 
 Their conclusiveness separately, and their significant coinci- 
 dence in their main results, are insisted on. 
 
 I. The method of literary analysis. 
 
 II. The method of " realistic " analysis (Merx) ; the ex- 
 amination of the substance, structure and contents of the 
 Pentateuch, studied by itself and in its historical, its legisla- 
 tive, and its tew poetical portions, — and also in relation to 
 the data supplied by the other books of the O. T., historical, 
 }>rophetical and poetical. 
 
 Historically the literary examination broke ground, and 
 prepared the way for historical criticism. Many of the 
 more recent discussions simply assume the results of the 
 literary analysis to be incontrovertibly settled, and give 
 the literary part of the proof, if at all, only for the sake of 
 symmetry and completeness. 
 
 Kuenen, looking for fixed starting points, finds them in 
 the threefold grouping of the Pentateuch lav.'s, which is 
 self-evident, and the peculiar use of the divine names in 
 Genesis and the opening of Exodus, which is equally indis- 
 putable. Prof Strack admits, " In general, there prevails 
 too great confidence in the reliableness of the literary an- 
 alysis." 
 
28 
 
 1. The aim and method of the literary analysis. 
 
 This method aims to trace out documentary sources and 
 incorporated fragments, the plan, the unity, the proofs of an 
 editing to which all has been subjected, and an approximate 
 identitication of the editors, by its careful and discrim- 
 inating dealing with lexical peculiarities, characteristics of 
 thought and style, of doctrinal conception and purpose, with 
 any seeming preference for favorite material. 
 
 We are asked to consider — 
 
 A. The use of the mtmes of God in the Pentateuch. 
 
 Kuenen's argument, e.g., is : — 
 
 1. The names Elohim and Jahve are by no means simple 
 synonyms, Jalive is the proper name of the God of Israel ; 
 Elohim is always an appellative, which, however, frequently 
 in the O. T< acquires the character of a proper name. 
 
 2. The original distinction between the two names is 
 often the reason for the use ol one or the other, but not 
 always. 
 
 3. While elsewhere the motive is only matter of infer- 
 ence, the reasons are for Genesis and Ex. i.-vi.^ given by the 
 authors themselves in Ex. vi. 2, 3, with which Ex. iii. 13-15 
 (from another hand) corresponds. Inferences to be drawn 
 in regard to Jahve when it occurs in earlier passages 
 
 4. It is obvious that the exclusive use of Elohim is limited 
 to a portion of Genesis, while in another portion the name 
 Jahve is presupposed as known, and unhesitatingly used. 
 
 5. Although these parallel records in- Exodus must have 
 led at once to the conjecture that more than one narrator in 
 Gen. intentionally avoided the use of Jahve, yet at first all 
 Elohim passages were referred to one and the same author. 
 
 6. The authors of these remote narratives would prob- 
 ably treat of the continuations of the history, and their re- 
 ports be transmitted to us as in the Hexateuch. This seems 
 to have been the case. 
 
 Remarks : — 
 
 (1). We cannot accept the interpretation which Kuenen 
 and his entire school give to Ex. vi. and Ex iii. With them 
 
20 
 
 the passages are coiiciusivo ; s to the inipossibiHty that the 
 name Jahve could have been used by Uod or of God l)cfbre 
 the time of Moses. 
 
 {(f). This interpretation involves a very inadequate con- 
 ception of the nieanino- and use of tiie word shfni as 
 employed in these passages and in tlie (). T. generally. The 
 names of God are peculiarly significant and representative. 
 God's glorious memorial name is not given merely to dis- 
 tinguish Him from the gods of Egypt. See Is. ix. 6 • 
 Ivi. 7; Ex. xxiii. 21. When Dillmann says that Ex. vi. 3 
 asks for the name, and not the import of the name, etc. we 
 reply that Moses was intent on something infinitely more 
 important than a mere appellation for his God. He asks for 
 something that will Justiiy all that lie is to do, and sun)mon 
 the people to do. See Ex. xxxiii. IJi; xxxiv. 6, lor the pro- 
 gressive revelation to Moses himself. " The profo/i pscudos 
 of all document and fragment hypothesis lies in this, that 
 the main connection of the names of God with the revela- 
 tions of God is mistaken, etc." (Keil). 
 
 (6). This interpretation involves a no less inadequate con- 
 ception of the meaning of nodlia. See Ps. ix. 10 ; xci. 14. 
 Baumgarten calls attention to the fact that a revelation of 
 El Shaddai is to be made to the great heathen nation while 
 Jahve is making Himself known to Israel. 
 
 [c). It greatly weakens the force of Ex. vi. 3, as a whole, 
 to suppose that the stress of the verse is laid on God's taking 
 a new name, disclosing one not in any sense previously 
 known. The first clause- refers to something substantial 
 and essential ; the second can hardly fall off to the mere 
 giving of a title. " As to the import of my name, Jehovah, 
 I was not known to them," alone does justice to the deep 
 significance of this series of communications and dealiuirs. 
 So Jewish commentators understand the passage. 
 
 [d]. If the critical interpretation of Ex. vi. and Ex. iii. is 
 not warranted, it becomes of course far more difficult to 
 rule out the 160 instances in Gen. in which Jehovah occurs, as 
 belonging all of them to post Mosaic documents, and intro- 
 duced inadvertently or by some intention into their pre- 
 
30 
 
 Mosaic parts. The expedients to which the theory is obliged 
 to resort inspire distrust. 
 
 (2). This particular criterion, whatever maybe true of the 
 others, is of very little use for the chapters and books fol- 
 lowing Ex, vi. Kuenen admits its use to be very infrequent 
 after this point. Dr. Stebbins shows that in 28 chapters 
 called Elohistic Elohim occurs but 7 times, while Jehovah 
 occurs 237 times. 
 
 (3). On the supposition that the critical interpretation of 
 Ex. vi. and iii. is unwarranted, whatever perplexities exist 
 in regard to the peculiar use of the divine names in Genesis, 
 will remain to be solved in some other way. No hypothesis 
 is wholly free from difficulties. 
 
 (4). Unless the name of Jochebed, Moses' mother, given 
 in Ex. vi. 20, and Num. xxvi. 59, is a fabrication or an after- 
 thought, Jahve appears to have been one of the elements of 
 which it was composed. Dillman suggests its pointing pos- 
 sibly to ti.e use of the divine name, Jahve, in this family. 
 But why here ? 
 
 B. With this discriminating use of the names of God we Jind, 
 it is said, other lexical peculiarities associated. 
 
 Schrader (DeWette's Introd., viii. ed., §186), gives 14 
 words or phrases as characteristic of the 1st Elohist, 13 as 
 characteristic of the 2d Elohist, 30 as common to the 2d 
 Elohist and the Jehovist, while 11 are said to be peculiar to 
 the Jehovist. The discussion is important, chiefly in its 
 bearing upon the chapters following Ex. vi. Whatever evi- 
 dence ma}^ appear that Genesis is composite, do the same 
 lines of division run through from Ex. vii. to the end of 
 Joshua, as is claimed ? Just in proportion as the divine 
 names fail to furnish a clear line of demarcation, the other 
 criteria should be clear, and their application decisive. 
 
 Conservative scholars do not accept, as one of the axioms, 
 the doctrine that these lexical discriminations were trium- 
 phantly established forty years ago. Of course, as Keil and 
 others have long admitted, if the different names of God 
 embody different conceptions of His relations to the world 
 
31 
 
 and to His people, the style of representation will in other 
 respects conform. Some words and turns of thoujrht and 
 expression will ho natural, pertinent and nec-essary, in one 
 class of passages, that will not he in the other. The same 
 remark will hold g-ood with respect to favorite material. 
 The genealogical, legislative and other elearly defined por- 
 tions of the hooks will naturally have their own technical 
 terms and nsus kx/ucnd'i. This does not, however, necessarily 
 establish diversity in the authorship and age of the docu- 
 ments, the religious views which they represent, the attitude 
 of the writers, the classes to which they belong, and the inter- 
 ests which they are seeking to promote. 
 
 The invention of the 2d Elohist, and the necessity of 
 combining in him Elohistic with Jehovistic peeuliarities, 
 suggests the question : If in Tlim, why not in others? 
 
 If critics differ by 1,000 years in the period to which they 
 assign certain portions oi' the Pentateuch, we conclude that 
 the criteria cannot be very clear and decisive. Careful ex- 
 amination fails to establish the claims of most of the words 
 said to be distinctively Elohistic or Jehovistic (Vos.) 
 
 The next three points we treat in combination. It is said 
 
 c. Marked rlietormd peculiarities of thomjht and .s(i/le are asso- 
 ciated with this characteristic use of words ; als*.), 
 
 D. Distinctions in the selection and. use of favorite material ; 
 and 
 
 E. Characteristic doctrinal conceptions and aims. 
 
 Schrader describes the Ist Elohist as broad in style, cir- 
 cumstantial, repetitious, with a marked fondness for genea- 
 logical details. Wellhausen says : " Stiff, pedantic style, 
 etc. This of all the documents has the most pronounced 
 characteristics, and is therefore most easily ajid surely iden- 
 tified." Dillman says : " The style is broad, juristically pre- 
 cise, formal, etc." 
 
 The 2d Elohist, according to Schrader, sharply distin- 
 guishes different times and periods, empliasizes general 
 relations, keeps close to the chosen line. Wellhausen judges 
 this document historical only in form ; the historical serves 
 
32 
 
 as a mere frame-work for the lepil material, a mask for dis- 
 guising it. 
 
 Of the 2d Elohist, Bilhiiaiiii says : " This document is 
 richest in details ol material, contains in nuuiy ways the 
 reminiscences that are most original and fresh. The portions 
 of the land, and the patriarchs that most interest it, show it 
 to be a document of the middle or northern tribes, etc." As 
 to the discrimination between the 2d Elohist and the Jevo- 
 vist critics differ widely. 
 
 In respect to the religious complexion of the documents, 
 the 1st Elohist, according to Schrader, .... knows no 
 altars or sacrifices in the earliest periods, and no distinction 
 of clean and unclean animals, .... conceives of the inter- 
 course of God with men as simple and direct, with no phen- 
 omenal or mediating interpositions exce[)t the simplest, etc. 
 The 2d Elohist, setting forth God as Elohim, represents Him 
 as manifesting Himself in dreams, appearing by His angel, 
 set forth under anthropomorphic forms in His intercourse 
 with men. Tuch represents Jahve as well as Elohim as 
 appearing in dreams, the angel as sometimes the angel of 
 Elohim, sometimes the angel of Jahve, etc. The Jehovist 
 introduces the worship of God as Jehovah from the first 
 (Gen. iv. 26), brings in sacrifice from the time of Cain and 
 ■ Abel, discriminates from the first between the clean and un- 
 clean, finds altars, arts and industries in primitive times, 
 and exhibits a more developed theology, anthropology and 
 mythology, etc. 
 
 Wellhausen says : The Jehovist shows least of the intiu- 
 
 ence of the prophets The -Id Elohist has felt at least 
 
 the breathings of prophetism. ... The religious elements 
 are more energetic as well as more refined, etc. The style 
 of the Deuteronomist, Ewald describes as exceedingly 
 tender, but at the same time somewhat difiPuse, without the 
 terseness and firm grasp of the antique style. 
 Remarks : — 
 
 (1). There is a measure of truth in some of these discrim- 
 inations, so far forth as God's manifestation of Himself, now 
 in a more general way as Elohim or El Shaddai, and again 
 
33 
 
 in a more special way as Jehovah, would naturally involve 
 diversities of conception and representation, with a corre- 
 sponding style of phraseology. Keil clearly i-ecognizes the 
 a 'priori reasons for anticipating these varieties. Iliivernick 
 urges that the more clearly we recognize the divine presence 
 in the history and the record of it, as an early and constant 
 reality and power, the more impossihle will it be to niaintain 
 all the critical results of this literary analysis. 
 
 And all the more when we observe : — 
 
 (2). The very minuteness of many of these discrimina- 
 tions, and the overweening conlidence, and overawing posi- 
 tiveness with which they are set forth, creates distrust of 
 them ; so also the magnitude of the conclusions drawn from 
 very small premises, "the want of an objectively fixed 
 foundation being supplied by so much greater subjective 
 certainty " (Bredenkamp). 
 
 (3). Just in proportion as the lexical tests fail to establish 
 the discriminations that are asserted, and to identify and 
 define the documents, we are thrown back on the subjective 
 Judgments and estimates of the critics, a most uncertain and 
 fluctuating reliance, leaving us in constant doubt at which 
 end of the theory the facts stand. 
 
 (4). While critics point triumphantly to the number of 
 particulars in which they are agreed, it is no less obvious 
 that in other particulars they are in the sharpest antagonism 
 to each other. See Watson's Hulsean Lectures for 1882, for 
 a telling exhibition of dift'erences of judgment in regard to 
 the style and spirit of the same documents. We are left to 
 wonder how the same conclusion was reached from these 
 contrasting premises ; how the documents were identified as 
 the same when their peculiarities are so ditterently estimated. 
 And the outlines are very shadowy, and the fragments in 
 which we are to find these clear discriminations often very 
 small. 
 
 II. The realistic analysis^ or the historical criticism of the Pen- 
 tateuch. 
 
 1. The fields of investigation to be searched by this his- 
 torical method are : (a) The legislative portions of the Pen- 
 
34 
 
 tateuch ; (b) The historical portions both ot the Pentateuch 
 and of the following books ; (c) The prophetical and poeti- 
 cal literature of the O. T. 
 
 2. The chief points to be investigated are : (a) The mu- 
 tual relations of the main legislative codes; (b) The mutual 
 consistency of the details of this legislation ; (c) The mutual 
 consistency of different parts of the history ; (d) The rela- 
 tions of the Mosaic history to the legislation which is 
 referred to that time ; (e) Evidence furnished in the subse- 
 quent history of the apparent existence or non-existence, 
 observance or non-observance of the laws, etc. ; (f) Evidence 
 from the prophetical and poetical literature of the existence 
 or non-existence, observance or non-observance of the laws, 
 etc. ; (g) Evidence from the historical, prophetical and poet- 
 ical books of the actual existence of a different order of 
 things, out of which the legislation may more probably have 
 grown. 
 
 (3). The alleged result reached by the investigation of 
 these points. 
 
 (a). It is said to be in all respects unfavorable to the claim 
 of Mosaic authorship either for the whole, or for any con- 
 siderable part of the legislation, or for the record of it. 
 
 (b). It is said to be in all respects favorable to the theory 
 that the legislation now recorded in the Pentateuch owes ita 
 origin chiefly to three quite different periods and trains of 
 influence ; and that the authorship of the record is in like 
 manner to be extended over several centuries, and to be 
 assigned to several different hands, w^hich can be in a broad 
 and general way identified, and their mutual relations de- 
 termined, 
 
 Vernes gives this statement (EncycL des Sciences rel., X.) ; 
 The first partial edition of the Hexateuch, amounting to 
 about 80 chapters, was composed in the prophetic spirit by 
 the Jehovist early in the 8th century B. C. The Deuteron- 
 omist, at the end of the same century, contributes material 
 amounting to about 40 chapters, exhibiting a combination of 
 the prophetic spirit with priestly inclinations. A few years 
 after the reforms of Josiah the Deuteronomist combines this 
 
35 
 
 new material with the work of the Jehovist in a second 
 edition of the Hexateuch. Tlie Klohist, alter the exile, 
 writes a new history of Israel, including numerous and 
 detailed legislative provisions, conceived under an entirely- 
 sacerdotal or clerical inspiration, etc., etc. Witliin the 
 century between Nehemiah and Alexander the Great, the 
 second edition of the Hexateuch was brought by unknown 
 hands into combination with the Elohist-Ezraic code in our 
 present Hexateuch. 
 
 We are then to study tirst : — 
 
 (a). The mifffial rdat'xms of tlir main Icf/isladve ax/fs of fhe 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 The codes, so called, of the Pentateuch are three: (1). The 
 book of the covenant, mentioned in Ex. xxiv. 7. (2). The 
 laws of Deuteronomy, including in general Deut. iv. 44- 
 xxvi. (3). All the other laws in Ex., Lev. and Num., com- 
 monly called the priestly or (priests') code. 
 
 In respect to the first Ivuenen says : The sequence is by 
 no means always clear and regular ; some items break the 
 succession ; the preceding verse (xx. 22), which lacks con- 
 firmation, connects these laws with the words which Jehovah 
 spoke to Israel from Heaven. There is one allusion to an 
 earlier commandment (xxiii. 15), and no announcement of 
 laws to be subsequently promulgated. 
 
 In regard to Dout., he says there are these questions only : 
 Where the collection begins and ends, whether iv. 44-xxvi. 
 or xii.-xxvi., and, whether the collection has come to ns in 
 the original form. It is in general homogeneous, and 
 sharply distinguished from both the other codes. 
 
 With the exception of two or three fragments in Ex.xii., 
 xiii. and xxxiv. the third collection includes all the remain- 
 ing laws of the middle books— very miscellaneous, ill ar- 
 ranged ; m.uch might be omitted without loss. Some have 
 the character of novels ; they are also some times mutually 
 inconsistent. They relate mainly to the cultus, the sanctuary 
 and its servants, sacrifices, festivals, purity and purification, 
 vows; other things are touched in a priestly sense. 
 
3b' 
 
 R. 1. While there are facts lying on the very surface of the 
 narrative and the legislation which justify a certain discrim- 
 ination between these various parts of the Pent., the differ- 
 ences both in substance and form are greatly exaggerated. 
 
 K. 2. The want of orderly arrangement within the several 
 parts is rather in favor of an ancient and Mosaic authorship 
 (Dean Payne Smith). " In Palestine the national code 
 would have been digested and made uniform." The laws 
 as they stand appear to be recorded as they purport to have 
 been given, at intervals, and in a fragmentary way. 
 
 P. 3. The fundamental assumption of the critical theory, 
 constantly reiterated, that each code and each law must be 
 the product and exponent of its own times ; and that, there- 
 fore, from the subject and form of each law we may infer 
 the conditions out of which it grew, and which made it 
 seasonable and necessary, is in most absolute opposition to 
 the whole scheme and conception of the Mosaic economy. 
 This assumes that God is the guard and guide, the law- 
 giver and ruler of Israel. It is continually asserted that the 
 great part of the economic laws of the Pent, deal with the 
 life of a sedentary and agricultural people, and would not 
 have originated among, or been given to, nomads in the 
 wilderness, etc. But this nomad life was transitional and 
 was expected to be brief, and is adequately provided for. 
 The long life of the future in Canaan was that which had 
 been for centuries promised, that toward which God had 
 been leading the people and for which he had been discip- 
 lining them, for which he had brought them out of Egypt, 
 and in which he was now to establish them. That so little 
 was done for political and social organization, favors the 
 idea that God being always ruler over all, might put them 
 at one time under one human guidance, again under another. 
 What would occupy a foremost place in any humanly 
 devised codes is here left out of the account as a matter of 
 legislation. The enforcement of all laws rests on the basis of 
 God's relations, and will in experience be proportionate to 
 the reality and vigor of the people's recognition of God. 
 
 R. 4. In respect to the mutual relation of the codes the 
 one thing that we can discuss as a settled thing is the sup- 
 
37 
 
 posed discovery, tliat the Deuteronomic code as a published 
 code is the product of Josiah's time. " This book must 
 serve as tl'e basis for critical research, because the date of 
 its publicatiou can be accurately enough determined " 
 (Reuss). See II. K. xxii., xxxii. ; 11. Chr. xxxiv., xxxv. See 
 Ewald's description of the way in which Deut. is put into 
 the mouth of Moses, and of tlie substance and scope of the 
 book (Hist, of Isr., iv. 220 sq.) ; and Dean Stanley's sketch 
 of the peculiarities of Deut. (Jewish Church, II. 552). 
 
 (1), As the record stands before us it is according to 11. 
 K. xxii. 8, " the book ot the law " that Hilkiah reports to 
 Shaphan as found in the house of the Lord. Presumptively 
 this form of expression points to something previously 
 known. 
 
 (2). Whatever difficulties there may be in accounting for 
 the surprise and consternation of the king, and his apparent 
 ignorance of the law, its demands and its threatenings, with 
 all his zeal for reforms apj^arently already initiated and in 
 progress for some years, it is more difficult to account for 
 the facility with which the high priest, the scribe, the king, 
 the prophetess and the people, receive as the law of the 
 Lord and the law of Moses (xxiii. 25), a book which none 
 of them had eyer seen before, a book to all intents and pur- 
 poses just produced, yet purporting beyond any other book 
 of the O. T. to be from Moses himself. 
 
 (3). Whatever features may or may not be peculiar to 
 Deut., we cannot but regard these as singular products of 
 Josiah's time ; the definition of the duties of the prophetic 
 order, when since Samuel prophets had been coming and 
 going 500 years ; the definition of the duties of kings, when 
 from the time of Saul there had been kings for 450 years : 
 the inculcation of the necessity of political unity now, rather 
 than when the tribes were first coming out of Egypt and 
 the wilderness into Canaan ; the perils connected with high 
 places were moreover no new perils (see the account of 
 Balak and Balaam, 800 years before) ; while the blessings 
 and curses might as well be be connected with a law prom- 
 ulgated by the real Moses, as by a fictitious Moses, 
 
38 
 
 (4). The national relations made prominent in Deut. are 
 peculiar for so late a day as that of Manasseh and Josiah ; 
 relations to Canaanites, Amalckites, Ammonites, Midianites 
 and Moabites ; relations to Egypt suggested by the recent 
 bondage, rather than V>y the com[tlication8 of the monarchical 
 period ; and no allusion to Syrians and Assyrians. 
 
 (5). Some of the most characteristic elements of Deut, 
 seem to have been known before Josiah's time. Ilosea and 
 Amos appear to refer repeatedly to things mentioned in 
 Deut. alone of the books of the Pent. Cf Hos. v. 10, with 
 Deut. xix. 14 ; Hos. iv. 4, with Deut. xvii, 12 ; Hos. iv. 13, 
 and viii, H with Deut. xxiii, 18 ; xii, 2, 4 sq. ; Amos iv. 4, 
 with Deut. xiv, 28 ; Am. viii. 5, with Deut. xxv. 14 sq. 
 
 Zahn says: Every literary untruthfulness brought forward 
 with the purpose to deceive, passed in the first centuries of 
 the church with all the teachers of the church whose writ- 
 ings have come down to us, as an abominable sin. And 
 Bredenkamp urges that it is a sheer 'petitio principii to sup- 
 pose that it had been otherwise with the Jewish sacred 
 literature. 
 
 (b). The mutual oonsistcncjj of the Pentateuch legislation. 
 
 The general argument of Kuenen, etc., is, that the first 
 and second codes purport to have been recorded by Moses, 
 while in the third, the laws purport to have been revealed 
 to Moses and put in force by him, but may have been re- 
 corded by others. In Deut. no other previous legislation is 
 presupposed except the Decalogue of Deut. v. 6-18. Other 
 laws were revealed at Sinai ; but these laws of Deut., de- 
 signed for a people dwelling in Canaan, are now first com- 
 municated to the people (v. 28 ; vi. 1). The writer does not 
 presuppose the knowledge by the people of any earlier laws, 
 like those of the book of the covenant. Even in chap. ix. 
 and X, no mention is made of such a book and the people's 
 acceptance of it. The laws of the priests' code were also 
 designed for the people in Canaan ; these codes may there- 
 fore be fairly compared. We discover essential difiTerences 
 and even contradictions that cannot be removed. 
 
39 
 
 To illustrate these (lifterences Kueneii selects eight par- 
 ticulars : — 
 
 (1). J Mace of worship : See Ex. xx. 24; Deut. xii. and 
 par. ; Lev. xvii. and par. By the law in Ex. many places are 
 allowed ; in Deut. one is insisted on ; in Lev. one is presup- 
 posed. 
 
 But the capricious selection by men of places for worship 
 is surely cut off by the phrase in Ex. : Where I record mv 
 name. Divine sanction is essential : and the torm of expres- 
 sion points quite as naturally to change of place in the 
 course of history; especially wjien an authorized contem- 
 poraneous plurality of places finds no support elsewhere in 
 the law. 
 
 (2). The religious festivals : See Ex. xxiii. 14-17 and par. ; 
 Deut. xvi. 1-17 ; Lev. xxiii. and par. The two popular 
 codes agree (cf. also Ex. xxxiv. 18, 22-24, and xiii. 3-10) in 
 recognizing three yearly feasts ; in the priests' code, however 
 (see Lev. xxiii. passim ; Num. xxviii, 18, 25, 26 ; xxix. 1, 7, 
 12; Ex. xii. 16), there are seven, distinguished by holy con- 
 vocations, abstinence from labor and sacrifices. 
 
 Dillmann s<\vs : " The point of view (of Lev.) is broader, 
 and that there is a contradiction between this and the other 
 legal documents cannot be fairly asserted." Things that 
 differ are confounded in the haggim and the moadhim, and 
 so Sabbath and new moon are put on the same footing as 
 Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. 
 
 (3). Priests and Levites : See Ex. xxviii. and par. ; Nutiu 
 iii. and par. ; Deut. xviii. 1-8 and par. According to the 
 priests' code Aaron and his descendants are the only lawful 
 priests ; all Levites are set apart for service at the sanctuary, 
 but excluded from the priesthood (see Num. xvi. 9, 10 ; xvii. 
 5 ; xviii. 1-3). According to Deut., however (x. 8-9), the 
 tribe of Levi is set apart " to bear the ark of the covenant 
 of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister unto Him, 
 and to bless in His name," i. e. to the priesthood. All have 
 the right to become priests. So in regard to blessing ; Num. 
 vi. 23-27 ; Deut. x. 8, 9 ; xxi. 5. 
 
40 
 
 The concise answer is, that in some portions and passages 
 of the O. T. the distinction between priests and Levites is 
 sharply drawn, elsewhere not. Sec Malachi, when accord- 
 ing to the theory the priests' code had been in existence 
 many years ; yet in i. 6 ; ii. 1-8 ; iii. 3, 4, the phrase " sons 
 of Levi " is used of those Avho are performing the most 
 strictly priestly functions, 
 
 (4). Tithes of the fruits of the tield and of the flock : See 
 Num. xviii. 21-32; Lev. xxvii. 32 sq. ; Deut. xiv. 22-29 ; 
 xxvi. 12-15. The tithe of Lev. and Num. is undoubtedly 
 diflferent from that of Deut. The author of Deut. must 
 have alluded to a second tithe if he had known of one, and 
 ottered some Justification. In xviii. 3, 4 he names no tithes 
 among the sources of the priests" income. Cf Num. xviii, 
 21. If two tithes w^ere assessed while it is pretended that 
 only one is demanded, " the one legislator can be maintained 
 only at the expense of his moral character." (Kuenen). 
 
 On the subject of tithes see Dr. Ginsburg in Kitto's 
 Cyclop., and McClintock & Strong's Cyclop, 
 
 To assume that a full statement in regard to tithes must 
 be made wherever tithes are mentioned is wholly unwar- 
 ranted, Deut. may be silent in regard to one tithe, and 
 Num. in regard to another, without justifying a slur on the 
 character of the one legislator. It is a sheer assumption 
 that Deut, xviii. 3, 4 professes to give all the sources of the 
 priests' income. And the precepts of Deut. necessarily pre- 
 suppose other ordinances. • (Bredenkamp), 
 
 (5), The firstlings of the flock : See Ex, xxii. 30 ; xiii. 
 12, 13; xxxiv, 19, 20; Deut xv. 19-23; Num. xviii, 15-18, 
 As compared with Ex. the law in Num. protects the priests 
 from certain possibilities of loss ; while between Num, and 
 Deut, there is more positive contradiction. That which in 
 Deut, is expressly awarded to the ott'erer and his household, 
 to be eaten b}' them before the Lord, is in Num, wholly 
 given to the priests. See the views of Riehm and Robert- 
 son Smith. 
 
 The difiiculty has been met by two lines of suggestion ; 
 that these laws relate to firstlings belonging to difierent 
 
41 
 
 tithes, which under .Jcliovah's (lircctioii arc (hsposed of in 
 different ways; and that tlic plirases "give to Jcliovah '" 
 (Ex, xxii. 30) and " sanctity unto tiic Lord " (Dent. xv. 19), 
 are sometimes misapprelicndcd If tliat was duly given or 
 sanctified which in specified proportions was given to the 
 priests and used hy the worshipers, the essential rccpiire- 
 ment of tlie two laws is met. 
 
 (6). The dwelling [jlaccs of the jjricsts and Levites in the 
 land of Canaan : See Deut. xviii. 6 and par, ; Num. xxxv. 
 1-8 and par. ; Josh. xxi. 1-40. While according to Num. 
 and Josh, the Levites receive their cities with the respective 
 suburbs in absolute possession, according to Deut. they re- 
 side as guests in the cities of the Israelites (xii. 12, 18 ; xiv. 
 27, 29; xvi. 11, 14), and arc with widows, orphans and 
 strangers commended to the benevolence of the people (.xii. 
 19 ; xxvi. 11 sq., etc.) 
 
 Neither does Deut. iniply that the Levites had no such 
 assignment 'of cities as that declared in Num. (See xviii. 8, 
 where their patrimcmy is recognized, although not de- 
 scribed), nor does it, in making them objects of generous 
 benevolence, imply that apart from that they were entirely 
 'destitute, 
 
 (7), The beginning of the Levites' term of service : See 
 Num. iv. 3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47 ; Num. viii. 24. Accord- 
 ing to Num. iv. they serve from their 30th to their 50th 
 year; according to Num. viii. from the 25th to the 50th. 
 
 The ordinary explanation is, that the first regulation has 
 reference to the heavy service of the wilderness period, the 
 second to the subsequent, more settled life in Canaan, or 
 the lighter duties of their office even in the wilderness, " in 
 the tent of meeting." 
 
 (8). The emancipation of Israelitish slaves : See Ex. xxi. 
 1-6 ; Deut. xv. 12-18 ; Lev. xxv. 39-43. The laws of Ex. 
 and Deut. ordain emancipation after six years of service ; 
 that of Lev. in the year of jubilee. 
 
 Dillman holds these directions not inconsistent. The per- 
 manent bondage of an Israelite or his family was not al- 
 lowed. Lev. deals with the case of those who, on account 
 
42 
 
 of poverty, had sold themselves. To release them in the 
 7th year might only return them to the wretchedness of 
 their old condition ; yet even they might not be held beyond 
 the year of jubilee. 
 
 (c). The mutual consisieiiey of different parts of the Peiita- 
 feuch history. 
 
 The first point insisted on by Reuss and others of his 
 school is the numberless repetitions of the history ; thus the 
 promise to Abraham ; the story of a patriarch's calling his 
 wife his sister ; Beersheba; the sending away of Hagar and 
 Ishmael ; the name of Isaac ; the name Israel ; Bethel ; the 
 genealogies of Moses and Aaron ; the return to Moses of 
 his wife and children, the water brought from the rock, etc., 
 etc., appear from two to six times each. In other cases two 
 accounts have been unskilfully combined ; as in the story 
 of the deluge, of Abraham's departure from Ur and Haran, 
 of Joseph, of the mission of Moses to Pharaoh, of the pas- 
 sage of the Red 8ea, of the sending of the spies, of Korah, 
 Dathan and Abiram. 
 
 In all these cases exposition should be careful and exact ; 
 inferences should be cautiously drawn ; the critical prin- 
 ciple should guard alike against forced harmonizing and 
 forced antagonizing ; the authors should be credited with 
 the belief that they were not bringing into their narratives 
 insoluble contradictions. If there is real repetition a reason 
 should be sought; if only an apparent repetition, the differ- 
 ences should have full weight. 
 
 Apply these principles to the cases above specified. 
 
 (d). Belations of the Mosaic history to the legislation recorded 
 in the Ferdateuch ; or, the fitness of the historical setting of the 
 Pentateuch legislation . 
 
 The naturalistic doctrine would make the legislation as a 
 whole, and each item of it, the pure and simple product of 
 the natural conditions in which the legislator found himself 
 and the people at the time when the laws took their form. 
 Others who admit supernatural elements, nevertheless^ 
 
48 
 
 argue that in the case of the legislation, as in the case of 
 prophecy and all kindred matters, the suhjects of which the 
 legislation (or prophecy) treats, must he within the natural 
 field of view of the legislator (or prophet), and so must l)e 
 not only supernaturally possible, hut natural under the his- 
 torical conditions of the case. 
 
 No one should deny that in the case of very numy items 
 of the legislation there may be found, and in the case of 
 many more may have existed, antecedent usages, human 
 deliberations, consultations and experiences, and the like — 
 all of which on the higher theory are in the Mosaic system 
 taken up to a higher plane, divinely sanctioned for their 
 present purpose, divinely adapted and enjoined ; while all 
 these are supplemented by jjrovisions and enactments com- 
 ing more directly from the divine wisdom and authority. 
 
 Can, then, the laws contained in the last four books of the 
 Pent, be held to date from an epoch when the Israelites 
 were only hordes of nomads, traversing with their flocks 
 the wilderness of Sinai, and the steppes East of the Dead 
 Sea? Keuss lays stress on three points as chiefly proving 
 the unfitness of the historical setting of this legislation : (1) 
 The entire want of political organization ; (2) The want of 
 correspondence between the civil legislation in many of its 
 particulars, and the time when it purports to have been 
 given ; (3) A like want of correspondence in the case of the 
 ritual laws. 
 
 (1). No ties but Idood, common language, religion and 
 barbarism, bound together these nomads. Yet an undis- 
 puted nationality is presupposed ; and this ungovernable 
 people could not dispense with a firm and permanent con- 
 trol, if the laws were to have any chance of execution. 
 
 So Kuenen ;— maintaining that the legislation assumes 
 the existence of authorities who are nowhere instituted or 
 instructed. Much that is said needs fuller definition ; e. g. 
 Dent. xix. 12 ; Ex. xxi. 6 ; xxii. 8 : Deut. xvii. 8 sq. 
 
 As for the nonuid life, it was evidently incidental and 
 transitional. All that is said of their occupations, habits, 
 tastes, and their very faults, proves that they had been an 
 
44 
 
 agricultural people, and this they expected to l)e. The 
 Eg3'ptian life had also been for many of them a city life, in 
 the closest contact with the culture of Egypt. Much that is 
 described and prescribed implies proficiency in the in- 
 dustries and arts of civilized life. As to political organiza- 
 tion, it is a marked peculiarity of the legislation that it 
 makes little of that of which human codes ordinarily make so 
 much. Tribes, generations, houses, and individual families 
 had their organization ; there were elders, etc. The theo- 
 cratic principle controls and explains all. 
 
 (2). Reuss argues that any law actually promulgated must 
 correspond with the actual condition of the people if it is 
 to have any chance of being executed. Numberless laws of 
 the Pent, imply wholly different conditions from those 
 actually existing. The agriculture of Canaan is very unlike 
 that of Egypt. Many things imply a somewhat advanced 
 civilization. 
 
 As for the differences between Egyptian agriculture and 
 that of Canaan the forefathers of the Israelites had lived for 
 generations in Canaan, and continual intercourse between 
 the two countries would keep the traditional knowledge 
 from dying out. It is plain that the Israelites were not the 
 barbarians whom the critics delight to depict. . 
 
 (3). Of the ritual laws Rcuss selects two for special chal- 
 lenge ; the law of the Sabbath, and those which relate to 
 worship at one central sanctuary. Of the Sabbath law 
 there are two versions, one connecting the institution with 
 the mythical history of the creation, the other with deliver- 
 ance from the Egyptian bondage. And the labors from 
 which the people are enjoined to rest, are rural labors, 
 manual toils. 
 
 As for the new reason given in Deut. for Sabbath obser- 
 vance, it seems eminently natural that the universal and 
 essential reason first given should be supplemented \^not 
 superseded) by the more national and temporal reason. 
 
 In regard to the central sanctuary, the required pilgrim- 
 ages, etc., it is said, the demands are impracticable. Ex. 
 xxiii. 17 does not, in form, make such a demand ; Lev. xvii. 
 
4o 
 
 points to a clitferent geographical and iiolitical lioi-izon for 
 the legislation :— to a time when all the territory to which 
 the law could ajiply consisted of one city and a few villages. 
 Ex. xxiii. Ill (if not 17), seems to point to one place. 
 And as for Lev. xvii.-xxvii., Dillmau regards this whole 
 group of laws as pre-eminently the Sinaitic ; — Sitiai-laws. 
 No law-giver could have enacted these after the legislation 
 of Deut. 
 
 (e). Ecldencc famished in flic suhscf/iient /lislonj of the (ippa- 
 rent exigence or non-existence, the obserrance or non-obscrrnnce of 
 fhe l/nrs, and of the inslitiiilons (a which the burs relate. 
 
 In the view of the critics this is the most important, and 
 the most decisive evidence accessible to us. 
 
 Even Genesis, it is claimed, may be called to witness, so 
 far forth as it testifies to acts done l>y those who are set forth 
 as types of theocratic [)erfection, which are recorded with- 
 out censure, although in flagrant contradiction to the letter 
 of a law recognized as obligatory for the whole people. 
 How could Moses, as author both of Genesis and of the 
 law, make such a record, without some precaution taken as 
 a safegard for the authorit}' of the law? Cf. Lev. xviii. i>, 
 20 ; xviii. 18 ; xiii. 12 with the marriages of some of the 
 patriarchs, and of Moses' parents ; and the laws of Ex. xxi. 
 and Deut. xxi. with the sending away of Hagar. 
 
 The history does not preten(t that all was right which it 
 records; makes distinction of time in respect to the fulness 
 and precision of divine revehitions ; does not set forth the 
 patriarchs as models of theocratic perfection ; holds up the 
 law and not these examples as the standard of duty ; abun- 
 dantly warrants the condemnation of all that is contrary to 
 fundamental morality, and supplies proof of the evil ten- 
 dency of whatever is evil. 
 
 The examples of Abraham and Jacob were not to be fol- 
 lowed when groves and pillars had been forbidden on ac- 
 count of their relations to idolatry, etc., etc. 
 
 Passing to the time of the Judges, criticism makes much 
 of the " theocratic heroes " ot the period, and of the lack 
 
46 
 
 of evidence that they or their historian knew anything of • 
 the law which Joshua had Just established so firmly. The 
 four examples relied on as proving knowledge of the law 
 mean nothins: of the sort; Gideon's refusal to be kino-; 
 Jephthah's vow ; Samson's consecration, and the marriage 
 of Boaz (Reuss). The tabernacle is not named in Judges, 
 and men worshiped where they would. Sacrifice is spoken 
 of with satisfaction, offered at many different places. Lay- 
 men offer sacrifice ; the legal festivals are not once men- 
 tioned. 
 
 " Israel's iron age " is far from satisfactorj- ; yet the indi- 
 rect witness borne by the book of Judges to the preceding 
 books is most impressive b}' the very way in which the irre- 
 gularities of the time are marked as abnormal. In such an 
 age only two kinds of power could secure the observance of 
 a law like that of the Pentateuch ; adequate political poAver 
 did not exist, and the existence of moral power was to bo 
 tested. The wilderness life was not promising. " Every 
 man did that which was right in his own eyes," by no means 
 proves that each man's own inclination was the only stand- 
 ard of right. 
 
 The distribution of the land by Joshua was largel}' ideal ; 
 was to be made real ; " by little and little ; " under condi- 
 tions explicitly laid down. The destruction of the Canaanites 
 was enjoined and justified, and the consequences of failure 
 to execute the divine bidding were distinctly announced. 
 Lev. xviii. 27-30; Deut. ix.^1 sq. Cf. Ex. xxiii. 32, 33; 
 xxxiv. 12-16; Nunj. xxxiii, 55. 56; Josh, xxiii. 12, 13; 
 Jud. ii. 2, 3. 
 
 The history recorded in this book is a wonderful witness 
 to the law and institutions of Mosos. So far forth as the 
 people did not aim at that for which the law was given, and 
 observe what it prescribed, they experienced just what the 
 law denounced. Such a book should not be expected to 
 bear much testimony in regard to the details of a more nor- 
 mal life. The conditions of the country often put many of 
 the provisions of the law in abeyance. And the law was 
 never designed so to limit God, that he could never allow 
 or create an exception to what it ordained. 
 
47 
 
 No one claims that tlie law was, through this period, hoth 
 well known and strictly ohserved. Many of tlie irregulari- 
 ties may be explained in a way quite consistent with the 
 previous enactment and knowledge of tlie Mosaic law ; so 
 of Gideon's refusal to be king, dephthah's vow, rash and 
 cruel as it was, may have been suggested by it; so the as- 
 cetic practices of Manoah's wife, and the course of Boaz, 
 
 But beyond these four instances, there are many more in 
 which, by fact or phrase, the book bears witness to a knowl- 
 edge of Pentateuchal requirements. There was a " house 
 of the Lord," and in Shiloh, where " the feast of the Lord " 
 was also observed. " The ark of the covenant" is in the 
 custody of the priests. A grandson of Aaron " stood before 
 it." Numerous technical expressions correspond with those 
 of the Pent. 
 
 The abnormal condition of the land and the times ex- 
 plains some of the irregularities. God's own intervention 
 calls forth others. The four instances of irregular sacrifice 
 are all called forth by supernatural manifestations. No pre- 
 viously existing local sanctuaries are endorsed by them. 
 Shiloh is the place ot the sanctuary at the end of Joshua's 
 time, in Micah's time, in Eli's time. 
 
 As for the books of JSanmel, Keuss urges such points as 
 these : Samuel's tribe ; his irregular residence as a child at 
 iShiloh, — in the house of God, which cannot have been the 
 tabernacle. There were apparently other sanctuaries — at 
 Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, Ramah and Nob. The ceremonies 
 are peculiar (L S. vii. 6) ; all Levites sacrifice (ii. 28) ; even 
 women serve (ii. 22). Anybody could sacrifice, — the men 
 of Bethshemesh (vi. 14); of Kirjath Jearim (vii. 1); Saul 
 (xiii. 9 ; xiv. 33 sq.) Samuel opposes the setting up of the 
 kingly oifice (ch. viii. 8), in spite of Deut. xvii., and Gen. 
 xvii. 6. Moses is named only as liberator (xii. 6), and his 
 laws not at all. 
 
 But Samuel could be Levite and Ephraimitc. No ignor- 
 ance or disregard of the law is shown in Hannah's consecra^ 
 tion ; none in Samuel's conduct in the tabernacle at Shiloh 
 (Jud. xviii. 31). Shiloh lost its pre-eminence (iv. 3 sq.), and 
 
48 
 
 all the approved sacritices at Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah and 
 Ramah are connected with Samuel's presence. Nob is a 
 city of priests. For some unknown reason the high priest- 
 hood seems to tlu'ctuate between Ithamar's and Elcazar's 
 line. If ii. 28 is an interpolation (Reuss), what does it prove 
 in regard to the service of women ? The seemingly irregular 
 acts of sacrifice have a clear justification or stand as irre- 
 gular. Omission of Moses' name, and of reference to his 
 laws, is the most negative of proofs. The way in which the 
 people sought a king is Samuers justification. 
 
 As for David, Reuss objects to the non-Levitical mode of 
 bringing up the ark from Ivirjath Jearim ; and claims that 
 Nathan's words to David (II, Sam. vii.) show that nothing 
 was known of the splendid tabernacle of the wilderness. 
 Men continued to go up to Gibeon even to the beginning of 
 Solomon's reign. David and his family sacrificed at Bethle- 
 hem (I. S. XX. 6, 29) ; at Hebron (II. S. v. 3 ; xv. 7) ; on 
 the Mount of Olives (II. S. xv. 32) ; and David built an 
 altar on Araunah's threshing floor (II. S. xxiv. 25). There 
 were two priestly lines ; David's own sons, a Jairite, and 
 Nathan's son, were priests. David sacrifices (II. S. vi. 17 
 sq.) ; xxiv, 25; I. K. ix. 25), and even takes part in a 
 human sacrifice (II. S. xxi. 6). Levites are mentioned only 
 in one doubtful passage (II. S. xv. 24). Oracles are often 
 mentioned, which any priest may give — and usually images 
 are associated. There were teraphim in David's house (I. S, 
 xix. 13). Nabal's sheep shearing is the only festival men- 
 tioned. 
 
 In the bringing up of the ark there are normal elements, 
 as well as irregularities, and the vindication of its sacred- 
 ness by terrible judgments can hardly be connected with an 
 unknown law. Bearers of the ark are mentioned in xxv,, 
 vi. 13, and Levites as bearers in xv. 24. The ark and the 
 tabernacle are separated; the time for the final establish- 
 ment of the one central sanctuary had not come ; that and 
 the re-establishment of one priestly line come in Solomon's 
 reign. Abnormal worship is for the present unavoidable. 
 As to the " priesthood " of David's sons, etc., the great ma- 
 
49 
 
 joritv of expositors agree in giving kohcii here u political im- 
 port. In the sacrificial acts ascribed to David Levites may 
 have really officiated. The execution of liizpairs sons is 
 no act of worship. In connection with Urini and Thununin 
 God might be consulted (says Riehm) " anywhere where 
 one has at his disposal the ephod, and a priest com[)etent and 
 authorized to inquire of God."' There is no intimation that 
 David had any knowledge of Michal's tcraphim. 
 
 (f). Evidence from the pro/)hefira/ atul pocfircd literature of the 
 existence or non-existence, the obserrancc or non-obser ranee of the 
 taic.<< ascribed to Moses. 
 
 It is said to be claimed for the prophets that they never 
 cease to exhort the Israelites to the obedience due to the 
 moral law ; and that there is no part of the Pentateuch 
 which does not serve as a text ior their discourses, their 
 commentaries and their appeals. Whereas, in fact, before 
 Jeremiah there is nothing that resembles a citation from, or 
 a commentary upon, an ancient and official text. Neither 
 are there indirect citations. Torah means simply instruc- 
 tion ; never legislation. The ancient prophets never insist on 
 ritual observance ; they speak more than contemptuously of 
 it. See Is. xxix. 13. The great festivals are unknown ; 
 priests are rarely mentioned, Levites never. 
 
 Proverbs is the earliest of the poetical books that bears 
 the impress of the late Judaism. (So Reuss). 
 
 R. 1. This representation fundamentally misconceives, 
 and historically inverts the mutual relation of the law and 
 the prophets. 
 
 The holiness of God is the first principle of the U. T, 
 religion, and the holiness of men its great practical aim. 
 This explains what is done both for the community and for 
 individual men. Inward holiness should show itself in all 
 the relations of life. The system is historically progressive. 
 Its earlier and more imperfect forms are easily misappre- 
 hended ; and failing of their appropriate effect need to be 
 supplemented, on the one side by discipline, on the other by 
 agencies like those of the prophetic institution. The law 
 
50 
 
 entered upon its work with an unspiritual people fresh from 
 the bondage of Egypt and the idolatries and judgments of 
 the wilderness, and to be established in a land full of peoples 
 of a most unspiritual type. Truth must be taught by forms 
 and S3'mbols liable to constant misunderstanding and mis- 
 use. The tendency was strong, when the law was observed, 
 to rest in externals as sufficient and satisfactory. 
 
 The law was an ideal law ; the people, their kings, often 
 their priest^, were far from being ideal. The prophetic in- 
 stitution had been set up in Moses, the law-giver, and an- 
 nounced in the law itself It was never, in its intention, 
 antagonistic to a true priesthood or a true observance of the 
 law. The law and the true prophets stood as mighty and 
 harmonious witnesses for God, and agencies working toward 
 holiness. Their conception, their tendency, their normal 
 result were one. They agree in their immediate aim, the 
 development of personal holiness, and in their remoter aim 
 which was to prepare for Christ. And in prophecy itself 
 there was development ; compare the earlier and the later. 
 The common relation of law and prophets to Christ seems 
 utterly irreconcilable with the critical doctrine of a deadly 
 mutual antagonism. And of the two the law must be the 
 antecedent. It is wholly inconceivable that the law should 
 stand on the foundation of prophecy. Where prophecy had 
 failed there would have been little promise or prospect of 
 success from the Levitical law. 
 
 R. 2. The critical conception demands of the prophets a 
 ;kind and amount of reference to the law, which should not 
 be at all expected, and because this kind of detailed refer- 
 ence is wanting, declares the Deuteronomic law non-existent 
 before Josiab's time, and the law of the middle books non- 
 existent until the return from the exile. 
 
 If our conception of the relation of the prophets to the 
 law, as above given, is correct, they need not be continually, 
 in the spirit and after the method of the later scribes, refer- 
 ring to its minute specifications. It is enough if they plainly 
 have it in mind, are concerned alike for the neglect and the 
 misapprehension of it, and use all their power to secure the 
 
51 
 
 holiness at which it aims. The prophets' service will be 
 rendered by broad and deep denunciations of sin, and the* 
 declaration of the divine purpose, on the one hand of judii^- 
 nient, on the other of grace. 
 
 K. 3. This critical representation greatly understates and 
 misstates the amount of actual allusion in the books of the 
 prophets to the things that arc central, essential, funda- 
 mental in the law. After all the denials of the critics, the 
 more conservative and the more radical, it is still nuiintained 
 (see especially the thorough discussion of Bredenkamp), tliat 
 the psalms and the older prophets obviously presuppose, and 
 have their root in, such things as these : 
 
 (1). The covenant set forth in its nature and conditions in- 
 the Pent,, with mention ot Moses as the organ of the divine 
 communication, and with undoubted recognition otherwise 
 of its substance. See passages like Amos iii. 1 ; IIos. viii. 
 1 ; vi. 7 ; xiii. 4 sq. ; Is. v. ; and especially Jeremiah. Sacri- 
 fice is from the first assuiucd to be at least an accompani- 
 ment of the covenant. The rebuke of abused and perverted 
 sacrifice shows how true sacrifice is esteemed. See Ps. 1. 
 The ZbmA, which this relation implies, cannot l)e mere in- 
 struction, but a law. Torali denotes sometimes prophetic 
 intruction, sometimes the entire revelation of divine counsel 
 and direction, sometimes plainly legislation See Deut. 
 xxxiii. ; Hos. iv. 6; viii 12; Mic. iii. 11 ; Jer. xviii, 18; 
 Ez. vii. 26 ; xxii. 26; Zeph. iii. 4; Mai. ii. 7. Places, per- 
 sons, offerings are made holy l)y their relation to the holy 
 God ; see Ex. xix. 5, 6 ; Is, vi. 5 ; chap, xxvi., and other 
 passages. In respect to idolatry prophetic teaching harmon- 
 izes with Ex. XX. 
 
 (2). As tor the worship which the prophets contemplate, 
 there is a normal worship which is never rejected as un- 
 godly. Tlie ritual law has a moral side, which it is the 
 great aim of the prophets to exalt to higher honor. See 
 Beut. vi. 5 ; xxx. 6 ; Lev. xix. 2 sq. ; Ps. xl., 1., li., etc. ; Am. 
 iv. 4, 5 ; v, 4 ; v. 21-27 ; IIos. v. 4 ; ix. 4, 5 ; Is. i. 10 sq. ; 
 xix. 19 sq. ; xxix. 1 ; xxx. 29. Mich. vi. 6-8 is not a denun- 
 ciation of all ceremonial worship, but of the inadequate and 
 
52 
 
 gross conceptions of the multitude So Jer. vi. 20 ; vii. 
 21 sq., and kindred passages. Your sacritices, not your 
 sacrifices, the prophets condemn. 
 
 (3). As for the place of worship, see the implication of 
 Psalms like the iii., xv., xxiv., xxvii, 1,, Ix., ex. ; and cf. pas- 
 sages like Am. i. 2 ; ix. 11 ; Hos. iii. 5 ; xiv. 2. 3 ; Is. ii. 2 ; 
 xxix. 1 ; XXX. 29 ; xxxiii. 20. The high places are generally 
 denounced hecause of their associations with false gods, im- 
 purity, and idolatry. (See Dr. Green's " Moses and the 
 Prophets," pp. 137-le)9.) 
 
 (4). As for the priestly class, the tribe of Levi is the 
 priestly class, if there is any, and the legitimate priests are 
 by descent Levites. That priests are so little referred to in 
 their normal work should not excite surprise. That the 
 character and conduct of many of the priests is so brought 
 out by the scathing rebukes of the prophets, shows not an 
 antagonism between the orders, but the true nature of the 
 priestly office, and the greatness of the sin chargeable on 
 those who are untrue to it. This throws, moreover, a flood 
 of light on the moral and religious state of the people. 
 
 (g). Einden.ce from the historical, prophetical and poetical 
 books of the actual existence of a different order of things, out of 
 which the let/islafion may more probabb/ have groum. 
 
 To discuss this point in full would require a detailed ex- 
 amination of the chief theories as to the real origin of the 
 leo-islation, which is denied to Moses as its author. Within 
 the limits of our time this is inq30ssible. 
 
 All the historical connections of the legislation which 
 appear on the surface of the Pent, narrative are cut away 
 by such dicta as this (S. Sharpe, Hist, of the Hebrew Nation, 
 p. 15) : " These laws are, indeed, all said to have been de- 
 livered by Jehovah to the Israelites on their march out of 
 Egypt ; but this was only the priestly manner of saying that 
 these laws were agreeable to the will of God." The chief 
 warrant for Wellhausen's great reconstruction of the history 
 of Israel is the alleged possibility and necessity of carefully 
 separating the historical from the legislative tradition. 
 
53 
 
 (Encycl. Brit., xiii. 399). " Moses was not regarded as the 
 promulgator, once for all, of a national constitution, but 
 rather as the first to call into activity the national sense for 
 law and justice, and to begin the series of oral decisions 
 which were continued after him by the priests." The giv- 
 ing of the law at Hinai he declares " the product of the 
 poetic necessity, etc." Stade professes to write a history of 
 the people of Israel. The object of a Biblical history is 
 edification ; that of a historif is truth. The Biblical history 
 is specially attracted by narratives which have a religious ten- 
 dency ; a histortj remorselessly exposes all narratives that 
 betray a tendency. The method of the Biblical history is 
 harmonistic ; it knows no contradictions ; the true element 
 of a historif is the contradictions by which it lays hold on 
 the real threads in the web of the historical recital. The 
 chief difficulties encountered by the historian are, the fact 
 that the history of Israel is essentially a history of religious 
 ideas, the marked peculiarities of Hebrew authorship, and 
 the fortunes of the traditional text. 
 
 With full liberty assumed to make the documents what 
 you will, and put them where you will, a critic who is not 
 superior to the " subjectivity " that works such mischief m 
 the Biblical narratives, and sometimes betrays " tendencies," 
 .may, by the use of the historic imagination, give you " a 
 history of Israel " (its legislation included). Its reliableness 
 will, perhaps, remain a matter of question. 
 

 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 ■■^•^IW^WiK 
 
 " '¥m ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HIGHSMITH 
 
 # 45220