"S=%r- 
 
 
 rROFESSOK SMITH'S 
 
 (JRlTlClSAiS ON THE PENTATEUCH 
 
 EXAMINED. 
 
 BV 
 
 11 Ev. JAxMES SMITH. M.A 
 
 txn (iluutb, CmhiuD. 
 
 ABERDEEN : 
 'AVIS SMITH, M'COMBIE'S COUKT. 
 
 Bsia^s 
 
 .36686 
 
PRINCETON, N. J. "*^ 
 
 
 Division. 
 Section ^ I 
 
 , 5 GC^^G 
 
PROFESSOR SMITH'S 
 
 CRITICISMS ON THE PENTATEUCH 
 
 EXAMINED. 
 
 Rev. JAMES SMITH. M.A., 
 
 J^rcc Clinrrh, (Tarlanb. 
 
 ALEHDEEX : 
 LEWIS SMITH, M'COMIJIES COUKT. 
 
 1878. 
 
PREFACE, 
 
 The fallowing pages are almost a verbatim re- 
 print of a series of articles which appeared in 
 the columns of the Aberdeen Journal. The 
 entire MS. was in the hands of the printer, and 
 a considerable portion of it had appeared Ijefore 
 the publication of Principal Douglas' pamphlet. 
 I do not here profess to deal with the x^ositive 
 evidence in support of the historical character 
 of the Pentateuch and the unity of the Mosaic 
 Legislation, but simply to examine the negative 
 criticisms of Professor Smith, as embodied in his 
 *' Additional Answer.*' In consequence of my 
 not having been able to revise the proof sheets 
 prior to this issue, there are a few typographical 
 errors ; but these are of a trifling character, and 
 such as an ordinary reader will correct for him- 
 self. On page 34, line 17, insert 35 after p ; 
 i\nd on page 40, line 20, delete '' after pastures. 
 
 J. SMITH. 
 
 F.C. Manse, Taelano, 
 5;/( Oct., 1878. 
 
PEIHCETOII "'^'^' 
 ,ftLC. SEP Ibbi 
 
 PROFESSOR SMITH'S CRITICISMS .* 
 
 PEJNTATEUCH EXAMINED. 
 
 I.— INTRODUCTION. 
 
 According to the new theory as expounded by Pro- 
 fessor Smith there are three distinct legislative pro- 
 grammes in the Pentateuch, viz : — 
 S=^Exodus XX. — xxiii. 
 
 D-=Deuteronomy iv. 44 — xxix. 1 (Heb. xxviii. 69). 
 Q=Greater part of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. 
 S is probably Mosaic, D is later than Hezekiah's 
 lleforuiation (p. 78)* and before that of Josiah, and 
 thus falls within the first three quarters of the 7th 
 century B.C. 
 
 The great dispute among critics is whether D or Q 
 is earlier. In his article " Bible " Prof. Smith leaves 
 this question unsolved {Eanjcl. Brit. 638a) ; but he 
 now gives it as his opinion that D is latest, that the 
 elements at least of Q were Mosaic, that it never was 
 in full force till restored in the time of Ezra, when 
 the Pentateuch was compiled as it now is, and the 
 legislation and ritual of Israel thereby declared in- 
 capable of further development ; the living guidance 
 of the prophetic voice now gave way to the authority 
 of a Canon. {Encycl. Brit. 635b.) 
 
 "• The figures refer to Prof. Smith's "AddiMoual Arswcr " 
 unless Avhen othei'wise specified. 
 
Ill his additional answer Professor Smith gives 
 some account of the evidence uhich has led him to 
 adopt these conclusions. A careful peiusal of his 
 Encydopcedia Articles and his answers (along with 
 Presbytery and other speeches) shews that he has 
 tacitly resiled from some of his former statements, 
 or given such explanations as alter somewhat their 
 aspect ; but the main and most objectionable cle- 
 ment regarding the Pentateuch, especially Deutero- 
 nomy, remain?. He admits, indeed, and says he 
 never concealed the fact, *' that many of the construc- 
 tive theories of critics are merely tentative," (Ans, 
 (34) but there is the same dogmatism as before. If 
 these theories are merely tentative they .should be • x- 
 pressed with much less confidence, and promulgated 
 with much less arrogance. Indeed, it is plain that 
 the writing of the articles in the Encydopcedia 
 Britannica was a gross blunder on that view, for they 
 give the merely tentative theories of critics instead of 
 ascertained facts, and t'lat sometimes in a very dog- 
 matic form. Professor Smith claims that he cannot 
 justly be condemned for the results at which he has 
 arrived until they have been examined and refuted 
 by the approved laws of scholarly research. " ]\[y 
 condemnation cannot be for the edification of the 
 Church, unless it proceed on the ground that all 
 the arguments I can advance have been patiently 
 heard and conclusively rebutted on the open ground 
 of philological an'l historical research" (Ans. 6-i). 
 A somewhat unreasonable claim ; inasmuch as no 
 man is likely to satisfy Jiim that his arguments 
 are fallacious and his conclusions false ; and a 
 man may be fully persuaded in his own mind, 
 without wading through all the material tluit Pro- 
 fessor Smith can bring forward under the naKic 
 of criticism and historical research. That it would be 
 
no easy task to convince him that lie has erred may 
 be jucl;^ed from the fact Ihat he characterises some 
 parts of Dr Curtiss' work on tlic Levitical priests as 
 a " desperate attempt" at harmonising, while on the 
 other hand Dr Delitzsch has been convinced by the 
 same work that it is possible to harmonise the very 
 greatest differences that occur.* Critics may manu- 
 facture logic to suit their own taste. 
 
 There are, as Professor Smith admits (p. 6 ) 
 two ways of dealing with his new views : (1) 
 it may be demonstrated that they are erro- 
 neous, and then that they are dangerous ; or (2) 
 it may be proved that they are dangerous, and there- 
 fore must be erroneous. He strongly objects to the 
 second method as unjust and unreasonable ; but with- 
 out cause, for no Church covild afford to follow all real 
 or quasi-heretics through all the windings of the pro- 
 cesses whereby they have conre to hold eiToneous 
 views. The Church has a scheme of doctrine, but no 
 system of critical science, and from a doctrinal point 
 of view a theory may be seen to be utterly impossible, 
 even although the evidence on which it professes to 
 rest has never been looked at. Holding the doctrine 
 of Christ's true divinity and impeccable humanity, the 
 Church maybe called to deal with one who professes 
 to have discovered that Christ had been guilty of 
 falsehood. He may produce a long and elaborate 
 argument or series of arguments to prove the 
 correctness of his discovery ; but the Church may 
 righteously refuse to look at it; she may say at 
 once and emphatically, "Away with you and 
 your arguments ; I know that your theory must 
 be false." So with Professor Smith : the Churcli 
 might meet him by a Rcdactio ad ahsurdum, and say, 
 " Your theory cannot be true." At the same time an 
 
 Add. Ans. 39 ; Levitical Priests, Pref. x. 
 
undue advantage would bs given to these new views, 
 and in some quarters a bia? in tlieir favour would be 
 created, were it even seemingly admitted that they 
 are so powerfully and logically supported that it is 
 impossible to meet and answer them by the use of the 
 same critical methods. Now, there is no cause for 
 any such admission, thei'e i:3 indeed every reason why 
 criticism should be courted and applied, both in the 
 interests of scientific truth and of sound doctrine. ■ 
 The moi-e thoroughly this is done, the more untenable 
 will the new views be manifested to be. 
 
 At the risk of being regarded as a presumptuous, 
 illiterate, and uncritical traditionist, I have no hesi- 
 tation in saying that the new theory of Deuteronomy 
 is an "unnecessary, incongruous, and demoralising 
 theory,"* and that the arguments by which it is 
 now supported are in many respects crude, illo- 
 gical, and self-c.intra.lictory. If the reader takes 
 for ganted without examination that the texts 
 and words whicli Professor Smith adduces prove 
 the positions which he brings them forward to 
 defend, he may possibly rise from the perusal 
 of the Additional Answer with a vague and hazy 
 feeling that after all the Nev.^ Views have apparently 
 the best of it. But if he will take the trouble care- 
 fully to verify tlio citations and read them for him- 
 self, comparing Scripture with Scripture, he will 
 have ample means of convincing himself that Profes- 
 sor Smith uses texts in the most rash and reckless 
 manner, and draws the most erroneous conclusions 
 with the utmost confidence, while his arguments, wlien 
 closely inspected, are utterly devoid of force, and liave 
 not the shadow of a foundation to rest upon. 
 
 !):• :\Iur|)liy <»f Ujlfast in tlic BrUitth awl Foreign Ju'ctn- 
 ycllcal Jlcri it; Jan., 187S, p. V2.1. 
 
As usual, some of his most imposing pseudo-argu- 
 ments are found in the easy and flippant assumption 
 
 so common with a certain class of critics — that all 
 
 the learning and scholarship are on his side, and that all 
 who are opposed to him are mere indolent traditionists. 
 It is just possible, however, that one may, by honest 
 searching scholarly criticism, be led to a more con- 
 fimued acquiescence in the older views, and r. critic 
 who admits that many of the current critical theories 
 are merely tentative ought to speak with kss arro- 
 gance and more humility concerning traditional views, 
 more especially when he knows that all the scholar- 
 shin in his own Church has hitherto been against him, 
 and when even his most ardent defenders believe him 
 to be wrong, so far wrong as to require "brotherly 
 dealing" regarding his errors. 
 
 The conclusions to which both the Jewish and 
 Christian Churches have arrived and which they have 
 held so long are not to be lightly set aside because 
 they present some difficulties. If the critics had 
 the Bible reconstructed after their own hearts to- 
 morrow, a new race of critics would, within the next 
 decade, tear it all in pieces again with the utmost 
 ease. " Old Jev.dsh tradition" is not to be despised 
 when it happens to tally with critical views (pp.21, 
 37). "I ask the reader to observe," saj's Professor 
 Smith in the coolest possible manner, " that the critics 
 build their opinions on a sedulous search of Scripture, 
 and on examination of the minutest points in the Old 
 Testament record ; v:lnch issureUj moreltonoiiring to the 
 Word of God than indolent acquiescence in traditional 
 views.'' (P. 84 — the italics are mine). I likewise ask 
 the reader to observe that a sedulous search of Scrip- 
 ture will utterly overthrow Professor Smith's 
 opinions and confirm the ortliodox doctrine of the 
 Church. I shall likewise follow liis exam]ile 
 
in setting forth the r'.sults ©f the search " in a form 
 sufficiently jiopular to bo followed by those v/ko have 
 not the advanta.;e of scholarly training and a kuow- 
 of the original tongue" (p, 11). I am glad that the 
 possibility of doing so is now admitted by Professor 
 Smith himself, because a method of speaking and 
 writing upon the subject has prevailed to a large ex- 
 tent which has had a powerful tendency to foster, 
 specially in immature and ill-furnished minds, the 
 delusion that none but thoroughly equipped schctlars 
 could xmderstand these matters, and thereby not a 
 few siTch persons have sought to earn a cheap reputa- 
 tion for scholarship by professing to adopt the New 
 Views, but who could not give a shadow of a reason 
 for so doing. 
 
 lu the following discussion I shall deal first with 
 those of the isolated difficulties — mainly of a verbal 
 character — which Professor Smith brings under our 
 notice ; I shall then take up the difficulties relating 
 to the jn'iests and Levitcs, and finally the difficulties 
 regarding the one altar. As it will be impossil)le in 
 most cases to quote fully the texts referred to, 1 have 
 to request the rca-^er to examine them for liinuclf. 
 
II.— DIFFEKENCES OF AN ISOLATED AND 
 VERBAL CHAEACTER. 
 
 All readers of the Pentaieuch mnst of course atlinit 
 that, as in ail the other books of Scripture, there are 
 difficulties to be encountered, and apparent inconsis- 
 tencies which it may be difficult or impossible for us 
 now to reconcile. The view commonly held seeks to 
 account for these, partly on the reasonable supposi- 
 tion that some ordinances were temporary, intended 
 only for the wilderness, and that they a^fterv/ards as- 
 sumed a form adapted to the national life in Canaan, 
 and partly by the consideration that our ignorance of 
 all the circumstances very probably leaves us without 
 the necessary data for a full adjustment of all seeming 
 contradictioiis. Not a few difficulties in the Gospels 
 must be left unsettled for the same reason ; no theory 
 yet invented has removed them. Professor Smith 
 admits the force of the former of these considerations 
 to a certain extent (p. 17) ; I believe it will explain 
 much more than he will allow, while at the same time 
 it must be admitted also that there are some difficulties 
 which it does not remove. There are such difficulties 
 all through the Bible. The Four Gospels present 
 them in larger numbers and of a more formidable 
 character than the Pentateuch ; and whatever 
 method of reconciliation is allowed in the one case 
 cannot be refused in the other. Professor Smith's 
 treatment of the Pentateuch is analogous to the 
 legendary and mythical theories of the Gospels. 
 I admit still farther that some of these difficulties 
 seem to disappear under the new light, but even when 
 that is the case it is a seeming benefit gained at tho 
 expense of raising difficulties of a much more serious 
 
character. Xo doubt, the jjoiitivc argimients in 
 favour of the new views are entitled to have their oirti 
 Hcio/tt, "whatever difKculties may be still felt to 
 attach to the critical position " (p. 85) ; but that is 
 a strange claim to make when the professed object of 
 criticism is to remove difiiculties, and we cannot 1)0 
 expected to acquiesce in the self-complacent insinu- 
 ation that traditionists — if we must be so called — are 
 content to look merely at the surface, while the 
 critics are seeking " to penetrate the inner struc ture 
 of the Old Testament" (p. Si); we hiimbly submit that 
 we can look as far beneath the surface as they. 
 
 While this is the state of the case regarding diffi- 
 culties, it is manifest that the critics have no right to 
 ilaunt any of them before our face, to frighten us out 
 of the received opinions, unless their own theory gives 
 a satisfactory solution of them. We all admit that 
 there are difficulties, but the critics have clearly no 
 right to urge any of these against the traditional view 
 luiless their own viev/ removes them. Now, while 
 Professor Smith adduces what might seem to a mere 
 casual reader a very formidaljle array cf difficulties and 
 objections against the ordinary view, it will be found 
 on a more attentive examination that his own theory 
 leaves many of these just where they were, and that 
 they are not in the slightest degree obviated by his 
 new scheme. Take a few examples. 
 
 In Num. iv, the Service of the Levites is ordained 
 to begin at the age of thirty, but in Num. viii. 3 Seq. 
 at the age of twenty-five (p. 17). 
 
 Now we might at once confess that we cannot ac- 
 count for this change ; but we are entitled to ask if 
 the new theory accounts for it. If it does not, 
 (and Professor Smith does not attemjit any explana- 
 tion, because, we i)resunie, he has none to offer), it is 
 \ain to urge it hs if it contained any argument or 
 
could be made a witness for the new claim. David 
 ga.ve command that the Levites should be numbered 
 from twenty years old (1 Chron. xxiii. 27), probably 
 because under the new system which he inaugu- 
 rated a larger number would be required for the 
 work imposed upon them, or (as the context would 
 seem to imply) the work which they would now 
 have to do in connection with the Temple ser- 
 vices was such that they might commence to take 
 some part' in it at an earlier age than formerly. In 
 this same chapter, however, we are informed of an- 
 other numbering from thirty years old (ver. 3), so 
 that the difficulty still remains ; moreover, it continues 
 down to Ezra's time, when we find the Levites 
 ministering from twenty years old (Ezra iii. 8), al- 
 though by that time we know from the critics, that the 
 Pentateuch had been compiled or edited in its present 
 form and there is not in the Pentateuch any law to that 
 effect. Fiom Num. viii. 25, 26, we learn that Levites 
 after being relieved from ordinary service at the age 
 of fifty continued as a sort of reserve force to do some 
 service still. This suggests the probability of there 
 being an initial probationary term of five or ten years 
 before entering upon the full Levitical status, which 
 would account for the double numbering. But, in any 
 case, the difficulty adheres to the new view quite as 
 much as the old. 
 
 In Exodus xxii. 31, carrion is to be thrown to the 
 dogs. According to Leviticus xvii. 12, 1.5, it must 
 be eaten neither by the native Israelite, nor by the 
 Ger. But in Deuteronomy xiv. 21, the Ger is 
 allowed to eat of it. (Pp. 17, 18.) 
 
 This also is a difficulty which is common to all theo- 
 ries. Our inability to solve it is no doubt due in a 
 large measure to our ignorance of all the circumstances 
 and lack of materials from which to derive fresh 
 
10 
 
 light. Probably the iiuletiulteness of tliu term 
 Ger, a stranger, a sojourner, may have something to 
 do with it. Elsewhere, Professor Smith, for strategi- 
 cal reasons, claims for it a very " precise sense" (p. 
 36) ; but he supplies us with suflRcient material to 
 prove that this " precise sense " is a fiction, for he 
 says (p. 19, note) that in early times the Ger was 
 probably as often an Israelite of another tribe as an 
 alien, but by the time Deuteronomy was written 
 tribal distinctions had been weakened, and " the Ger 
 could only be one who was not a Hebrew," still later 
 the word meant a religious proselyte. This is no doubt 
 ingenious, but it effectually destroys the claim for a 
 very precise meaning. It might afford a plausible 
 explanation of the permission to give carrion 
 as food to the Ger in Deuteronomy, if it 
 were true, but it is not so. For while 
 here Professor Smith tell us that when 1> 
 was written Ger could only be one who was not a 
 Hebrew, he elsewhere constructs an elaborate argu- 
 ment to prove that at the time of D the 
 Levites had no cities assigned them because they are 
 si^oken of as being Gerim ( Ueut, xviii. 6, p. 36) ! This is 
 one example of many similar fantastic tricks which 
 Professor Smith plays, more of which we will find in 
 due course. Whatever explanation may be the true 
 one regarding the carrion, we are entitled as yet to 
 assuQie that it attaches to the new theory as well as 
 the old. The Levites at least are allowed^ by Professor 
 Smith's own admission, to eat it in D while 
 they are forbidden in Q, and the " very precise 
 sense" of Ger will not get him over the difficulty. 
 The Levite might be a Ger (Deut. xviii. 6), or the 
 Levite and the Ger might 1)e distinct (Deut. xxvi. 12). 
 The diversity in the laws given (Lev. xxiii. 15-2lt, 
 ftud Num. xxviii. 26-30), respecting the burnt offering 
 
n 
 
 at Pentecost, is not at all accounted for by the new- 
 theory (p. 18). Professor Smith does notprofess to ac- 
 count for it,andhe has no right therefore to create a pre- 
 judice against the traditional view on account of it. 
 There may be some explanation under his theory 
 which he has not yet discovered ; and all that we 
 claim is just the same possibility. It would be hard 
 to prove that it is impossible. It is remarkable that 
 in Numbers xxviii. 19 the same offering is ordered for 
 the Passover feast which is prescribed in Leviticus for 
 Pentecost, and that in the latter no such offering is 
 prescribed for the Passover at all. Dare we suggest 
 the possibility of a mistake on the part of some scribe? 
 Professor Smith can scarcely object to such a suppo- 
 sition, seeing how frequently his own theory requires 
 such assistance. 
 
 D and Q differ in the destination of the tithe, and 
 this offering, which in Q appeared as a kind of tri- 
 bute payable to the Levites, is to be spent according 
 to D on the sacred feasts at which the Levites were 
 present merely as guests (p. 37). 
 
 Professor Smith admits that there is a possible way 
 of reconciling the apparent difference, viz., by suppos- 
 ing that there was r. double tithe, one of which is 
 regulated in Q and the other in D. It may be quite 
 true that D never mentions the tithe in Q, and rice 
 versa, and this may seem " very extraordinary ;" it 
 may also be true that D does not institute anew 
 tithe, but only regulates existing usage ; but we are 
 by no means forced to the conclusion that the author 
 of D knew nothing of the other tithe (p. 38). It is 
 quite conceivable that by oral teaching Moses had in 
 the course of forty years regulated many things as 
 particular cases were presented to him, some of which 
 would now l^e embodied in D. Numbers xxvii. and 
 xxxvi. furnish analogous instances. This should not 
 
12 
 
 be diflRcult to believe by one who is of opinion that 
 almost the only Torah existing prior to the captivity 
 was contained in the oral decisions of the priests. 
 (" Bible," 635a.) D either imposes a new tithe or 
 gives regulations regarding a previously existing 
 tithe, possibly derived from " The Fathers," for sac- 
 rificial purposes ill addition to that formerly prescribed 
 for the support nf the Levites. Professor Smith seems 
 to ar^ue that because, as he without proof aliegea, 
 the author of D knew nothing of another tithe in Q 
 therefore such a tithe could not hi.\e existed ; but 
 then we must remember that according to him it is 
 g'j,ite certain that D was intended as a complete 
 self-contained system of divine iastruction, and ac- 
 cordingly no reconciliation of a supposed discrepancy 
 can be accepted which L'oes on the assumption that 
 the law of D is not intelligible without reference to 
 Q ! Professor Smith no doubt refers to a numbe*- of 
 texts in proof of this, but the reader will find, it he 
 take the trouble to turn them up in his Bible and 
 read them (see p. 28), thn,t they prove nothing to the 
 purpose except by a prior begging of the question. We 
 simply reply that the very opposite is quite certain, and 
 that there are many things in D which are intelligible 
 only by reference to the preceding books. A plain 
 intelligent reader will speedily discover this for liim- 
 self by simply perusing the book. If, en the other 
 hand, each book was intended to be self-contained 
 and independent, there can of course be no argument 
 a silnitio. 
 
 Professor Smith greatly objects to everything like 
 " strained exegesis" of a passage, however clear its 
 meaning may be, when the plain meaning is against 
 him, but he is not slow to strain a passage and take 
 th'j utmost advantage of the most trifling expression 
 if he thinks he can make a point by it. Dr Curtiss, 
 
13 
 
 he says, "makes a desperate attempt" to harmonise 
 the enactments about tithing by an explanation which 
 is " absolutely inconsistent" with the words of the 
 text"* (Deut. xiv. 29 and xxvi. 12), these words being 
 " within thy gates," which Professor Smith interprets 
 as a strict and absolute command prohibiting the re- 
 moval of the tithe to a Levitical city. " The tithe is 
 consumed by being eaten where it lies !" But the very 
 verse quoted to prove this (Deut. xxvi. 13) shews that 
 the consumption and the giving to the Levites are 
 totally distinct, and the " where it lies" is an unwar- 
 ranted interpolation of his own. Whatever difficulty 
 there may be about the tithes, he certainly does not 
 remove it. 
 
 These examples wilLsuflBciently indicate the general 
 cliaracter of the difficulties on which Professor Smith 
 has laid so much weight, and will enable the reader 
 t(} judge how far he justifies the claim made by him, 
 viz., that he removes difficulties which ordinary people 
 merely explain away ! 
 
 There is another class of difl&culties of which we 
 may safely say that they are less formidable and more 
 easily explained under the old theory than under the 
 new. It is obvious that the diverse character and 
 design of Q and D would naturally lead us to expect 
 considerable variety of expression and diversity of 
 statement, inasmuch as the former is mainly a law 
 book, strictly so-called, while the latter is a popular 
 exposition. To some of these diversities we shall next 
 call attention. 
 
 In considering the relation between D and S Pro- 
 fessor Smith says, " Practically the whole law of S, 
 except a list of compensations for damages, which 
 would be less useful to the general public than to 
 
 *See Curtiss' Levitical Priests— p. £7 ff. 
 
14 
 
 judge?, is incorporated in D with the necessary, and 
 no more than the necessary, modifications." (P. 82.) The 
 same principle of criticism cannot then be objected to 
 in considering the relation between D and Q. Between 
 S and D there are differences of precisely the same 
 character as those that we find between Q and D. 
 The fourth commandment, as given in Deut. v. 12 — i 5, 
 has two considerable additions to the form given in 
 Exodus XX., although both profess to give the words 
 of Jehovah (Exodus xx. 1. Deut. v, 4 — 22). In the 
 tenth commandment, as given in Deut. v. 21, two dif- 
 ferent verbs are used for coveting, the verb used in 
 Exodus being applied here only to " thy neighbour's 
 wife," (Chamad, Exodus xx. 17 ; Deut. v. 21) while 
 another verb (Avah, Hithpael, which is not found 
 in any part of Exodus) is applied to everything else. 
 The law of release in the seventh year is extended in 
 Deut. XV. 1 — 6, beyond its range in Exodus xxi. The 
 laws in Exodus xxi. 15 — 17 are omitted in Deut., and 
 another relating to a similar matter is inserted 
 Deut. xxi. 18—21. The law in Deut. xxii. 28, 29, 
 contradicts the law of Exodus xxii. 16, 17. The law 
 of Exodus xxii. 26, 27, is supplemented by Deut. 
 x.xiv. 6, and the addition is in perfect keepiiiff 
 with the ordinary view of Deuteronomy, while on 
 Professor Smith's view it would be meaningless. 
 When about to take possession of the promised 
 land, Israel might not unnaturally receive such 
 a charge. It is easy for Professor Smith to assert 
 that the law of S is " incorporated in D with 
 the necessary, and no more than the necessary mo- 
 difications," but it would have been more to the 
 purpose had he pointed out at least a few of these 
 very exact modifications, of which he does not 
 give even a single example. The fact is that both 
 C^ and D are founded primarily upon S ; and each in 
 
15 
 
 its own way and in accordance with its own design 
 enlar<;es and modifies when necessary ; but there is 
 no greater diversity between D and Q than between 
 D and S, considerinsj the brevity of the one and the 
 length of the other. 
 
 The great anxiety of the critics to find some 
 plausible support for their theory may be judged from 
 the natui-e of the difficulties at which they so greedily 
 grasp, and which, though genei'ally extremely trifling, 
 they press to the very uttermost. 
 
 In Exodus xiii., 11-13, a law is given that after the 
 people enter Canaan, the firstling of an ass must be 
 redeemed with a sheep or else killed. But before the 
 wilderness journey is over, and before the law has 
 been put in force, the ordinance is changed. (Levit. 
 xxvii. 27 ; Num. xviii. 15), (p. 18). 
 
 We might, as before, enquire in what respect the 
 new theory throws any light upon this diversity ; 
 but, indeed, it needs no light thrown upon it. 
 In Exodus xiii. we have manifestly the primary 
 law upon the subject in hand, closely associated 
 as it was with the killing of the first-born in Egypt, 
 and the institution of the Passover. In the other 
 passajjes we have simply an amplification of the same 
 law, without the shadow of a contradiction or change. 
 True, Exodus says merely — " Every firstling of an ass 
 thou shalt redeem with a lamb," but surely it would 
 be no great stretch of imagination or straining of the 
 probabilities of the case to suppose some one asking, 
 " How am I to do if I have no lamb, or if I have 
 none that I could part with without serious loss?" 
 Neither is it at all unreasonable to suppose that the 
 value in such a case might be taken in money, and 
 that such au explanation was inserted in the more ex- 
 tended law. It is not the hai'monizers that are hard 
 pushed to find explanations, but the criiics that are 
 
16 
 
 hard pushed to find objections when parading such 
 flimsy difficulties as these. 
 
 In a passage too long to quote in full (pp. 36, 37), 
 two divergencies are pointed out between the laws in 
 Q and D regarding firstlings. (1) "The destination 
 here given [i.e., to the firstlings — Deut. xiv. 23, xv. 
 20] is directh' contradictory to Xum. xviii. 18, which 
 assigns them to the priest ;" and (2) " According to 
 Deut. xiv. 24, seq., the firstlings might be turned into 
 money if the distance from the sanctuary was too great 
 to allow them to be brought in kind, and any sort of 
 food or drink might he bought witli the price. But 
 in Num. xviii. 17, it is forbidden to redeem any firstling 
 fit for sacrifice." 
 
 This divergence is pnrtly connected wi'.h theques- 
 tion of tithes, which is admittedly difficult ; partly, 
 however, it can be accounted for by' the different cir- 
 cumstances in which the laws were given, the one 
 being intended for the Desert, the other for'Canaan. 
 It is not strictly correct to say that the law of D 
 allowed the firstlings to be redeemed while the law of Q 
 forbade it ; in both they must be detoted and used 
 for a sacred purpose, and the equivalent money value 
 must in D be so spent that its produce shall be eaten 
 "before the Lord thy God," (Deut. xiv. 26) which 
 was not required in a case of ordinary redemption. 
 This was a merciful provision which really'conserved 
 the essence of the law of Q. In any case Professor 
 Smith has no right to use this objection atrainst us 
 because it is equally valid against himself. If the 
 law of Q (as given in Num. xviii. 18), does not allow 
 the redemption of any clean firstling, neither does the 
 law of S, as given in Exod. xxii. 30 ; but yet Professor 
 Smith can confidently affirm that the law of S is in- 
 corporated in D with the necessary, and no mcethan 
 
17 
 
 the necessary, modifications, while the very same 
 modifications of Q form irreconcilable contradictions ! 
 
 Another curious point is the use of sacred pillars at 
 the sanctuary ... In patriarchal times . . . 
 the Ma9§eba was the mark of a holy place . . 
 In S (Exod. xxiii., 24) Maggebot erected to false gods 
 are commanded to be broken. But this command did 
 not • exclude the use of the sacred pillar in the 
 sanctuaries of Jehovah. [Then follows a number of 
 instances in which such pillars were erected.] Even 
 in Isaiah xix., 19, we read of an altar to Jehovah and 
 a Ma99eba to Jehovah as parallel ideas. But when 
 we turn to D we find a strict prohibition to set up a 
 Ma99eba (Deut. xvi,, 22.) Is it not clear that the 
 law was unknown to Joshua and Samuel, nay even to 
 Isaiah, when he predicts the erection of a Ma99eba as 
 a sign of the conversion of Egypt? (Pp. 71-72, 
 oomp. 76.) 
 
 This is an instance of " strained exegesis." The 
 term ]Vra99eba is forced into a preciseness of meaniug 
 that it cannot bear. The law in Deut. xvi., 22, is 
 precisely the same as in Leviticus xxvi., 1, where the 
 pillar or " standing image" is of an idolatrous cha- 
 racter. What else can it be, seeing it is an erection 
 which " the Lord thy God hateth" ? How can Pro- 
 fessor Smith explain it on any other understand- 
 ing ? The erection of memorial pillars, such as Jacol> 
 and others erected, is nowhere forbidden. There ai-e, 
 however, two striking facfs which entirely subvert 
 any seeming argument that migiit be founded on these 
 laws in favour of the New Views, In the first place, 
 while Professor Smith quotes, I think, every instance 
 that he could find of persons erecting pillars, &e., from 
 Jacob to Solomon, he is strangely oblivious of the im- 
 portant fact that after the date to which ice assign the 
 Pentateuchal legislation, there is not a single instance 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 in which the term Maocebah is applied to them. The 
 words occurs nine times in the book of Genesis and is 
 invariably applied to memorial 'pillars (Gen. xxviii. 
 18, 22 ; xxxi. 13, 45, 51, 52 (twice) ; xxxv. 14, 20.) It 
 also occurs nine times in Kings and Chronicles, and is 
 invariably applied to idolatrous statues (1 Kings xiv. 
 23 ; 2 Kings iii. 2 ; x, 26, 27 ; xvii. 10 ; xviii. 4 ; xxiii. 
 14; 2 Chron. xiv. 3 (2); xxxi, 1.) In the second 
 place, Professor Smith's theory is that " the new mat- 
 ter [in D] is to be viewed as a development of the old 
 legislation under prophetic authority to meet the new 
 needs of a later age" (Ans. 53) ; that D belongs "to 
 the period of prophetic activity in the 8th and 7th cen- 
 turies B.c and had been lost in the 
 
 troubles under Manasseh" (Ans. 54) ; that the "his- 
 tory points with unmistakable clearness to the period 
 between Hezekiah's Reformation and that of Josiah 
 as the time within which Deuteronomy was probably 
 written" i.e. 700-625 b.l. (p. 78) ; " it was received 
 because it was felt to contain the voice of God and to 
 agree with prophetic doctrine" (p. 78), and in 
 particular that it "went forth to interpret the 
 teachings of Isaiah and his fellows in their bearing on 
 the constitution and practice of theocratic life," 
 (p. 80). How then, it may be asked, can Professor 
 Smith argue that D contains a leyal provision for- 
 bidding the Ma<,^eba, which was hateful to Jehovah, 
 and that this was enacted within a short time 
 after the death of Isaiah, if not within his life- 
 time, as an interpretation of his teachings which 
 at the same time it dii-ectly contradicted. Isaiah, 
 too, utters a prediction, so that his teaching is at 
 once represented by two opposite lines of legislation, 
 one of which denounces the Ma^gebah as a thing 
 accursed, and the other holds it forth as a blessing ! 
 This is certainly a phenomenon as remarkable as 
 
19 
 
 anything that the traditional view has to account 
 for. It is one instance of many in which Professor 
 Smith claims what he regards as direct anta- 
 gonisms between D and the earlier legislation as being 
 also developments of the spirit of the Mosaic law. 
 But he seldom makes an}' attempt to shew how the 
 development of the spirit leads to an opposition 
 among the details, which he is bound to do, before he 
 can claim even plausibility for his theory. In the 
 present case the contradiction is too glaring for such 
 an attempt ; and yet elsewhere he does not hesitate to 
 shew how, as he puts it, the law of D " attaches to the 
 great doctrines of Isaiah !" (p. 80). 
 
 Moreover, if Isaiah xix. 19 proves that the law 
 in Deut. xvi. 22 was unknown to Isaiah, which 
 Professor Smith says is clear, then it is equally 
 clear from 2 Kings xviii. 4-^ that the law ^cas 
 known to Hezekiah, who brake the Ma99eboth 
 (rendered " images," ver. 4), and who did so, 
 along with many other things, in obedience to the 
 " commandments which the Lord commanded 
 Moses" (ver. 6). Ma99eboth is as unqualified in this 
 case as in D, and Professor Smith has no right to 
 force one meaning in to it in the one case which it will 
 not bear in the other. Long before Hezekiah's time 
 the erection of these images was condemned (1 Kings 
 xiv. 23). It appears that the erection of a Ma5§eboth 
 was a primitive patriarchal custom which naturally 
 became incorporated with idolatrous worship. In 
 most cases we find that it preceded the erection of an 
 altar, and in that casfe; the erection of one " near unto 
 the altar of the Lord" (Deut. xvi. 21, 22) would be 
 a retrograde movement, the Maggebah would be 
 meaningless, unless it were a memorial. In this 
 view Isaiah xix. 19 would also be quite intelligible 
 (and consistent with Deut. xvi. 21, 22), inasmuch as 
 
20 
 
 Isaiah is speaking of the introduction of true religion 
 into a heathen land, of which the Macgebah would 
 very naturally be one of the earliest indications, 
 as in patriarchal times. It must surely be manifest 
 that whatever precise meaning may be attached to 
 the word and the command regarding it, the diflEiculty 
 of harmonising is much less under the old system than 
 tmder the new. 
 
 The law about cities of refuge in Num. xxxv. and 
 that in Deut. xix. are both dated from the plains of 
 
 Moab In Numbers the technical expression 
 
 " City of Refuge" is repeated at every turn. In 
 Deuteronomy the word Refuge does not occur, and the 
 cities are always described by a periphrasis (p. 22.) 
 
 I shall have something to say afterwards about 
 verbal criticism on which even Professor Smith de- 
 pends to a large extent ; meantime it is enough to say 
 that the word Miqlat, Refuge, occurs nowhere in the 
 Pentateuch except in Num. xxxv., and in only other 
 two passages of the whole Bible (Joshua xx., and 1 
 Chron. vi.), so that any argument based upon its non- 
 occurrence in Deuteronomy is very insecure. The Law 
 in D supposes the previous enactment to be known, 
 whatever Professor Smith may say to the contrary, 
 and the omission of the technical terra Miqlat is easily 
 accounted for by the fact that Num. xxxv. is Levitical, 
 and Deut. xix. is popular. This meets also the other 
 cases adduced (p. 27). Prof. Smith says : " Similar 
 variations in legal expressions might be multiplied 
 almost without number [a very strong hyperbole — 
 there may possibly be a dozen, perhaps even a score.] 
 Yet there is no point which a lawyer is naturally 
 more attentive to than the use of the same expres- 
 sions in the same sense throughout his writings," 
 (p. 27). That is quite true, no doubt, but Professor 
 Smith has not adduced any exanq^le uf a word being 
 
21 
 
 used in diverse senses, so far as I have observed (with 
 one exception to be noticed by and by, and in which 
 he is wrong) ; and the truth here stated is by no 
 means inconsistent with the fact that a book written 
 for lawyers will contain numerous technical terms 
 which would be carefully eschewed in a popular 
 manual. It is worthy of mention that, if D omits 
 the enactment requiring the manslayer to continue in 
 the City of Refuge till the death of the high priest, 
 it gives In another connection the process by which he 
 was to be tried and which was adopted by Joshua, but 
 is found nowhere in Q. (Deut. xxi. 19, 20 ; Joshua 
 XX. 4). 
 
 There is another class of difficulties which seem to 
 be raised by Professor Smith himself. 
 
 Of these I shall here notice two — viz. the laws 
 about the manumission of a maidservant, and those 
 about the penalty enacted for seduction, both of 
 which are mistated, and a fallacious argument con- 
 structed accordingly. 
 
 1. " At Exodus xxi. 7, it is expressly stated that a 
 Hebrew maidservant is not to be set free like a man- 
 servant at the close of seven years. In Deut. xv. 12, 
 1 7, the law is made the same for bo<"h sexes, and so 
 it is taken in Jerem. xxxiv." (p. 17.) " The ex- 
 planation is clearly indicated in S, where verses 8 seq. 
 shew that the law is calculated for a state of society 
 in which a Hebrew girl was ordinarily bought to be 
 the wife of her master or his son" (p. 56.) 
 
 Thisisoneof many instances furnished by Prof. Smith 
 in these answers of the possibility of even critics dealing 
 in a careless and superficial manner with their subject. 
 The law in D is given correctly, but that in S is en- 
 tirely misrepresented. Any one who reads the pas- 
 sage with any care cannot fail to see that verses 7-10 
 contemplate the probability of the maidservant being 
 
22 
 
 married by her master or his son, but verse 11 expli- 
 citly declares that in case this is not done, " then she 
 shall go out free without money," and the law in D, 
 though more concise, is precisely the same so far as it 
 goes. And so Prof. Smith falls into the mistake of 
 which he accuses the Chronicler (ans,, pp. 38, 58), 
 and gives an explanation when none was needed, be- 
 cause it is quite certain he has himself committed a 
 mistake ! 
 
 2. " In Exod. xxii. 16, 17, he who seduces a virgin 
 is obliged to buy her of her father as his wife, or if 
 the father refuse he is to pay the same dowry as if he 
 
 had married her a virgin In Deut. 
 
 xxii, 28, we find a parallel law It is still 
 
 pi-ovided that the offender shall ma^ry the damsel and 
 pay a sum to the father ; but the expression ' Mdhar 
 of virgins' has disappeared, and the compensation is 
 fixed at fifty shekeTs. Apparently the custom of pay- 
 ing a dowry to the father in every case of marriage is 
 no longer known ; and, therefore, though the price is 
 retained, it cannot as in S be estimated by usual prac- 
 tice as to the dowry of virgins, but requires to be fixed 
 by law" (pp. 56, 57.) " The Book of Kings has a 
 technical word for dowry given by the father to his 
 daughter (1 Kings ix. 16) which implies a reversal of 
 the old custom" (p. 57). 
 
 This custom of paying a mohar to the father is 
 said to be " well known to all students of antiquity," 
 but it had ceased by the time that D was written, 
 viz., B.C. 700-625 — yea, even m Solomon's time, 1000 
 B.C. In these circumstances it would be interesting 
 to learn from what sources Professor Smith has de- 
 rived his information. "Antiquity" as generally un- 
 derstood and studied comes down a few centuries 
 beyond this date. The assumption that the custom 
 had ceased in Egypt and Israel by that time is purely 
 
23 
 
 arbitrary and unfounfU'd. The two cases lej^asluted 
 for are not so nearly analogous as they are represented ; 
 modern as well as ancient legislation deals with them 
 very differently frona each other. The attempt to 
 found an argument upon the absence of the word 
 mdhar, dowry, in D is at once seen to be extremely 
 frivolous, when it is known that, besides the place 
 quoted in S, the word occurs only once elsewhere in 
 the Pentateuch (Gen., xxxiv, 12.) and only once again 
 in the whole Bible. In Kings there is a technical 
 word for a dowry given by the father to his daughter, 
 (1 Kings, ix. 16) which implies, says Professor Stnith, 
 " a reversal of the old custom" (p .57) but Josh., xv. 
 16-19, proves that both these customs existed simul- 
 taneously at a much earlier date. The seeming con- 
 tradiction thus harmonised suggests the possibility of 
 other harmonies being possible, though we may have 
 lost the necessary means of proving them. 
 
 There are several other mistakes which might be 
 adverted to here, but which will be dealt with under 
 other subjects with which they are closely connecte d. 
 We come now to the consideration of mere verbal 
 difficulties. 
 
 " Arguments from style," Professor Smith admits, 
 " are admittedly difficult and often precarious" 
 (p. 55). I am disposed to go farther, and say that 
 here at least they are utterly worthless. For, be it 
 observed, these books which make up the Old Testa- 
 ment, and whose authorship extends over several 
 centuries, by universal admission, to say nothing of 
 earlier documents inserted, constitute absolutely 
 the whole literature of these centuries, and there are 
 no means whatever outside of the Old Testament 
 itself of determining linguistic questions. When the 
 encjuiry is narrowed to the Pentateuch, verbal 
 criticism can be of no value whatever, unless in some 
 
24 
 
 eases to corroborate conclusions which have been 
 otherwise satisfactorily arrived at. 
 
 The worthlessness of arguments from style in 
 general may be gathered from some of the conclusions 
 to which they have led. Thus the peculiarities of 
 language and style found in some of the Psialins leads 
 Hitzig to date them about the time of the Maccabees, 
 while Ewald on similar cfrounds believes them to be 
 Davidic. Gratz places Canticles in the 3rd century 
 B.C., while Hahn, Hengstenberg, Keil, &c,, 
 regard it as Solomonic. One critic ccmsiders the 
 speeches of Elihu as breaking the connection and 
 clearly inserted by a later hand, another finds in these 
 speeches the key which opens up the interpretation of 
 the whole book ; Seinecke calls Elihu " a bombastic 
 fool," Ewald considers his speeches as most beautiful, 
 and Kamphausen regards them as equal to any other 
 part of the book. Confining ourselves to the Penta- 
 teuch we find an equally puzzling diversity. Accord- 
 ing to Stahelin, Deuteronomy was written by the 
 Jehovist ; De Wette and Gesenius claim a distinct 
 authorship; Ewald thinks it was written by a Jew 
 living in Egypt during the reign of Mana.sseh ; Hart- 
 mann assigns the authorship to Jeremiah ; while 
 Hupfeld, followed by Graf and others, considers that 
 the writer was a layman, who edited also the whole 
 history from Genesis to Kings. In the 10th edition 
 of Home's Introduction, Dr Samuel Davidson con- 
 tended that the Pentateuch was the work of an Elohistic 
 author of Joshua's time, followed by a Jehovist living 
 during the period of the Judges, with a final editor 
 belonging to the time of Saul and David. He held 
 also the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy, which 
 Delitzsch still adheres to. Some of the critics have 
 •so frequently changed their opinions on important 
 points, and the views of one have so soon been over- 
 
25 
 
 thrown by another, that one need not be alarmed at 
 their loud outcry about any matter at any particu- 
 lar time. Even Professor Smith, though he usually 
 expresses his theories in strongly dogmatic language, 
 admits that they are by no means settled on a 
 secure basis. One instance at least has occurred 
 since the article " Bible " was written. In that 
 article he said of the speeches of Elihu that they 
 are " almost universally assigned to a later hand " 
 (" Bible," 639 b.), the ground of this almost universal 
 consent beii::g that these speeches break the connec- 
 tion (a purely subjective reason), that they are defi- 
 cient in literary merit, and specially that the language 
 employed differs very much frcm the rest of the book. 
 Meanwhile, however, a young man at Bonn, not satis- 
 tied with these reasons, particularly the last of them, 
 sets himself to a thorough study of the matter. He 
 divides the book into nine sections, according to the 
 different speakers, counts carefully the number of 
 words in each — omitting particles and other constantly 
 recurring words — and finally reckons up the words in 
 each section, wdiich are found in all the rest, and also 
 those which are peculiar to each particular section, 
 the result being to prove conclusively that the critics 
 had been promulcrating as ascertained facts regarding 
 these speeches mere fancies which had not the 
 slightest foundation. In any other equal section of 
 the bonk there are actually moie peculiarities than in 
 these speeches I "'■ Professor Smith was obliged to 
 admit that this "most complete compariscn of the 
 language of Elihu with that of other parts of the 
 poem . . . . will certainly modify current 
 opinion." (B. and F. E. E., Oct. 1877, p. 790.) 
 
 BeitrcKje zur Kritik dcs Bvdccs Ilitb, von Lie. Carl Euddc, 
 Privatdocent in Bonn, S. 83 neq 
 
 D 
 
Enough has been aaid to show the extreme pre- 
 cariousnes.s of such arguments. It would be utterly 
 unreasonable to expect that no part of the Pentateuch 
 should shew peculiarities not found in other parts. 
 Any writer of a book, even though it were all on one 
 subject and of one character, would necessarily employ 
 in sections as large as Exodus or Deuteronomy, word 
 which would not be found in any other part of it. 
 
 I have already had occasion to point out some 
 matters in which this verbal criticism has caused Prof. 
 Smith to err — e.g. Maggebah, jNIiqlat, Mohar ; there 
 ai-e several others to which he directly calls our at- 
 tention. 
 
 "InNumbers the phrase for accidentally is bish'gaga, 
 in Deut. bib'li da'at."— (p 22). 
 
 Bish'gaga, which occurs fifteen times in Leviticus 
 and Numbers, occurs in only one other passage in tlie 
 whole Bible, viz. Joshua xx., where it is twice used 
 (ver. 3, 5). 
 
 Bib'li occurs twice in Deuteronomy and thrice 
 elsewhere (Deut. iv. 42, xix. 4 ; Joshua xx. 3, 5 ; Job 
 XXXV. 16). 
 
 In all these cases except Job xxxv. 16, it is found 
 in connection with da'ach ; and it is remarkable that 
 in Joshua xx. 3, we find both the terms bish'gagah 
 and bib'li da'ath (rendered in the A.V. " unawares- - 
 unwittingly"), and in verse 5 the latter alone is used. 
 The most obvious explanation of this is that both forms 
 of the law were known at that time, that the techni- 
 cal term bish'gagah is employed along with the 
 more popular form of it as explanatory. Professor 
 Smith calls attention also to the fact that in Numbers 
 "the Congregation" isto judge inthe case of the man- 
 slayer, and in Deuteronomy " the Elders of his City." 
 Now in Joshua xx. we find that both "the Congrega- 
 tion" and " the Elders" have something to do (vcr. 4,6 
 
27 
 
 9,) so that both forms of the law must have been 
 known. In Deuteronomy and Numbers the same 
 word Rotseach is employed for " manslayer." 
 
 " The verb for hate is different" (p. 22), i.e., in the 
 two passages above referred to. 
 
 In Numbers, the participle 'Oyeb, enemy, occurs 
 once, and the corresponding noun 'Eyvah, enmity 
 twice (Numbers xxxv. 21, 22, 23), and neither of 
 these words occurs in the corresponding passage in 
 Deuteronomy; but the verb occurs frequently in 
 other parts of the latter book, so that the reason 
 for its non-occurrence here, whatever it may 
 be, cannot be of any service in the present 
 discussion. The verb to hcUz in Deuteronomy 
 is Sane', which occurs frequently in this book, and 
 occasionally in other parts of the Pentateuch (e.c., 
 Exodus XX. 5, Levit. xix. 17). It is t© be observed, 
 however, that the noun, siri'aJi, hatred, is used in 
 Numbers xxxv. 20, so that here again the argument 
 would be invalidated whatever its value might other- 
 wise be. 
 
 There ai-e, in other parts of Scripture, much more re- 
 markable verbal variations than any that Prof. Smith 
 has produced, or can produce, in support of his views; 
 but no one dreams of founding any argument upon 
 them. In Isaiah xiv., e.f/., there are about half-a-dozen 
 hapaxicrjoniena. In Josh. xiii. 29, where the half tribe 
 of Manasseh is twice mentioned, two different words 
 are used for " tribe," and I have previously pointed 
 out that in the tenth commandment, as given inDeut. 
 V. 21, two different verbs are used for " covet." One 
 might as well argue that the different clauses of each 
 verse here specified must have a different authorship 
 as adopt the illogical conclusions of the critics. Prof. 
 Smith in one sentence (p. G9) uses the phrases " wor- 
 ship of the Phoenician Baal" and " service of the 
 
28 
 
 Tyrian deity' as expressing the same thing ; and by 
 a careful comparison of his various writings it would 
 hd easy to show, on his own principles, that their 
 authorship has extended over several centuries ! 
 
 The one account says again and again, " to kill any 
 person," the other, " to kill his neighbjur." (pp. 22, 
 23.) 
 
 Well, the phrase, " kill his neighbour," occurs 
 just once and no raorj ; and the phrase, " kill any 
 person," occars threa times. Professor Smith might 
 as well have said so, as use the misleading words 
 " again and again " in reference to these expres- 
 sions. But, further, the words employed are not 
 peculiar to the portions of the Pentateuch to which 
 these passages belong. Neifjhbour is a word of com- 
 nrwn occurrence, and nepJiesh is found in Deut. xxiv. 
 7, and xxvii. 27, with the same signification as in 
 Xnm. XXXV. 
 
 These examples, all taken from a single passage, 
 may help to shew on what a very sandy foundation 
 the critics sometimes build. No wonder that the work 
 of one generation consists largely in casting down what 
 their predecessori; had laboriously built up ! And no 
 wonder that it is found a comparatively easy task I 
 
 " Deuteronomy always sjieaks of the mountain of the 
 law as Horeb, and Sinai occurs only in the poetical 
 passage, xxxiii. 2. But in the other four books wo 
 always hear of the law as given at Sinai" (p. 22). 
 
 ]jut this is precisely what ire would expect, inas- 
 much as Horeb is generally understood to signify the 
 whole mountain range of the Peninsula, and Sinai 
 to be the proper name of one of the peaks, Ras Sufsafeh 
 in the north or Jebel Musa in the south. Now it 
 would be most natural, in the immediate vicinity 
 of the mountain, that the particular peak of it around 
 which the glory of Jehovah had been so signally 
 
29 
 
 manifested, should be most frequent!}^ named, and 
 tliat, as the mountain receded from view by the in- 
 tervention of time and space, the name of the whole 
 range should come to be substituted. This view is 
 not invalidated by the fact that once or twice the 
 name Sinai occui's toward the end of the desert jour- 
 ii^y» [^-U- Num. xxvi. 64), and it is strongly corrobor- 
 ated by the fact that it is this name that is almost 
 invariably used in poetry, {e.g. Deut, xxxii. 2 ; Jud., 
 v. .5 ; Ps. Ixviii., 8, 9). Even one who has no poetic fire 
 about him can at least understand how the poet's 
 fancy would rather hover round '"'the steep frowning 
 glories of dark Lochnagar" than roaici among the 
 Grampians at large, or gaze upon the peak of Sinai 
 melting under the fiery glory of Jehovah's presence 
 rather than look across the whole range of Horeb. 
 There are also, it must be observed, many passages in 
 the Pentateuch in which the name Horeb would be 
 inappropriate, as a specific locality is designated [e.g. 
 Exodus xvi. ; xix. 2, 20 ; &c.) 
 
 .5. " I may note iu a word a difference in language 
 between Q and D, confirmatory of these results [i.e. 
 aliout the tithes). In Q the tithe is the people's 
 Teruma (tribute). In D the Ttruma of thy hand 
 means not the tithe but the first fruit." (p. .39 note.) 
 
 I have examined all the passages of Q & D in which 
 the word occurs, and can find no ground, for such a 
 distinction. It certainly does not mean tithes in 
 Exod. XXV., 2, 3 (A.V. offering), nor xxix., 27, 28 
 (A.V. heave-offering), nor xxix., 13, 14, 15 (A.V. 
 offering), nor Leviticus vii., 14, 32 (A.V. heave- 
 offering), nor Num. v., 9 (A.V. offering), nor xxxi., 
 41 (A.V. heave-offering), where it is expressly said 
 not to be a tithe ; neither is it in any case applied to 
 the tithes exclusively. In Deiitei'onomy xii. (the only 
 place in D where it occurs, verses G, 11, 1"), it 
 
00 
 
 probably means the first fruits, but not as sucb, and 
 it is equally probable that these are at least included 
 in the great majority of passages (over thirty in 
 number), in which it is found in Exodus, Leviticus, 
 and Numbers. 
 
 I have dwelt thus long upon these comparatively 
 minute, and in asense trivial, matters, because Profes- 
 sor Smith makes it his boast that his opinions are built 
 " on a sedulous search of scripture, and in examina- 
 tion of the minutest points in the O. T. record," and 
 insinuates that those who differ from him are con- 
 tented with an " indolent acquiescence in traditional 
 views," which is dishonoHring to the Word of God 
 (p. 84). 
 
31 
 
 II.— THE TEIESTS AND LEVITES. 
 
 The matters to Le discussed here are verynumeious 
 and some of them very minute. I shall endeavour, 
 however, to deal v^ith them as fully as possible. 
 
 Professor Smith holds that throughout Q and D 
 there are two quite distinct but systematic and com- 
 plete schemes of Levitical and priestly support and 
 service ; that in the foi-mer the priesthood belongs 
 exclusively to the house of Aaron, that the Levites 
 hold a subordinate position, and that the priesthood has 
 assigned to it a distinct specified provision ; that in the 
 latter these distinctions are obliterated, that every 
 Levite may be a priest and perform all priestly func- 
 tions, that the distinction made as regards the sep a 
 rate provision also disappears, and that all the Levites 
 are maintained as the priests are in Q (pp. 29, 30). 
 More particularly: Q gives the firstlings to the priests, 
 while T> assigns them to the people tliemselves (Ans. 
 37 ; Add. Ans. 30) : in Q the service connected with the 
 altar, the burning of incense, and the blessing of the 
 people are priestly functions, while to the Levites belong 
 the subordinate offices connected with the tabernacle 
 (pp. 29, 30) ; these diverse functions ai-e expressed by 
 the formulas " standing before or ministering unto 
 the Lord," and " standing before er ministering tu 
 Aaron," respectively (p. 32) ; in D these various 
 services are conjoined and ascribed to the Levite 
 priests (p. 31} ; in Q the Levites are supported by the 
 tithes and have certain cities assigned them for their 
 residence, while the priests have certain dues con- 
 nected with the altar-service and a tithe of the 
 Levites' tithe (p. 30) ; in D all the Levitical priests 
 are maintained by the fire-offerings and first fruits 
 
32 
 
 (pp. 06, oti) without cities or tithes, these beiug now 
 chiefly emph>yed for the maintenance of the great 
 feasts (pp. 36, 37). 
 
 There are thus two distinct and coherent schemes 
 of legishxtion, but the relation of the one to the 
 other is somewhat difficult to define. Professor 
 (Smith is of opinion that Aaron held the priestly 
 office in the Desert, and that the " tribe of Levi 
 was there consecrated to its special vocation," but 
 the details of the system are not Mosaic (Ans. 
 50) ; the legislation of D is also later than 
 Moses (Ans. 53). He did not until recently pro- 
 fess to decide whether the D or Q legislation was 
 the earlier ; he seems now, however, to hold that Q is 
 the earlier, and that the two were combined and 
 edited at or shortly before the time of Ezra (pp. 34, 
 42, 43. Comp. Ails. 31 and " Bible" tiSSa). From 
 the time of Ezra downwards the law of Q was the 
 chief guide, as modified by Ezekiel, and others (pp. 
 42, 48.) 
 
 So far as I have been able to gather fx'om as careful 
 a study as I could give, these appear to he Professor 
 Smith's positions, the evidence for which I shall now 
 examine. Let me premise, however, that his state- 
 ments are sometimes so vague, indefinite, and un- 
 steady, that it is far more difficult to criticise his views 
 and expose them, than it would be if he could produce 
 a definite scheme of what he holds to be the satisfac- 
 tory theory which is to solve all the difficulties and 
 reconcile all the discrepancies. The only precise 
 thing is that D and Q give two distinct legislative 
 programmes, one or other of which — possibly both — 
 cannot be Mosaic. He has a present opinion, which 
 is apparently merely tentative, regarding the relative 
 dates, but he considers that of no importance. "Either 
 in il or else in D there are laws which, though as- 
 
cribed to JNIoses, were not given by Iiini, but form 
 a later rlevelopment of the legislation. This is enough 
 to make good my general position, and if so much is 
 conceded, no one is likely to make it a question of 
 orthodoxy which particular parts of the Pentateuch 
 are post-Mosaic" (p. 53). Now Professor Smith, 
 before writing this, had made a claim that his accusers 
 ought in reason and justice to demonstrate that his 
 opinions are erroneous before condemning them on 
 doctrinal grounds (p. 6) ; surely, therefore, he ought 
 to be as explicit in stating his opinions and the evi- 
 dence on which they rest as he expects his accusers 
 to be on their part, especially when he challenges a com- 
 bat into which they are by no means bound to enter. 
 If we are not told whether the history of the Jewish 
 Church begins with D and ends with Q or rice rersa, 
 if we are told that it does not much matter which, but 
 that it must be one or other, and that the history 
 proves that there was a great development from the 
 one to the other, that the history tells us with " un- 
 mistakable clearness" about certain things which 
 prohaUy took place (p. 7, 8), that thus we can read 
 that history much more clearly, and make it "more 
 living and real" to ourselves, that we thereby dis- 
 cover how religion was lifted up step by step by 
 providential movements and the Word of Eevelation 
 (p. 84), while all the time it is a matter of indifference 
 in what direction the development is, and no one is 
 very sure about it — when this is the case that criti- 
 cism presents to us, we might surely be excused from 
 accepting any such challenge as Professor Smith 
 throvvs out. 
 
 He, moreover, makes certain very convenient ad- 
 missions, of which he claims full advantage when 
 advocating his own views, but which he quietly 
 ignores when they would cover our positions. He 
 
34 
 
 iulmits that in the Pentateuch " the laws are mixed 
 u}) with the history, and sometimes so closely incor- 
 l)orated with the narrative that it is difficult to dis- 
 tinguish between permanent ordinances and his- 
 torical statements of what was done on a single occa- 
 sion ;" he admits also that " established custom" on 
 some matters which lie at the basis of his argument 
 " was fluctuating" (p. 43) ; he admits that some ordi- 
 nances may be of a temporary and some of a perma- 
 nent character (p. 17) ; he admits that the mere 
 separate existence of several law books afterwards 
 edited and combined in the Pentateuch does not of 
 itself prove that all the laws contained in them were 
 not promulgated by Moses (p. 26) ; he admits that 
 there is no certainty among critics regarding the dates 
 of the several parts (p. 24) ; he admits that arguments 
 from style are very precarious (p. ) ; he admits that 
 critics differ much among themselves (p. 23) ; he 
 admits that a system of interpretation which brings 
 out a meaning only by arbitraiy conjecture stands 
 self-confuted (p. 42) ; he admits that an elaborate 
 system of laws might exist without being always 
 carried out (p. 42) ; he admits that many mistakes 
 have been made, and will continue to be made, in the 
 region of O. T. criticism (p. 53) ; he admits that there 
 are numerous interpolations (p. 87). Joshua has 
 been interpolated in several passages, and so have the 
 other historical books ; i.e., historical facts which 
 utterly subvert the foundation of the new theory have 
 been invented by a later author ! 
 
 Of all these admissions Professor Smith is entirely 
 forgetful wdien they might be urged against his case, 
 and he is equally forgetful of thorn when they would 
 strengthen ours. Had he kept them always in mind, 
 it is probable most of his critical labours would have 
 been a few years longer in seeing the light, in wdiich 
 
35 
 
 case they would possibly have been more matured and 
 reliable, while less dogmatic and intolerant. 
 
 It is impossible to gather what view he holds of the 
 Elohistic legislation of Q and the authorship of the 
 books containing it. " It is conceivable" that the 
 elements of it may have been Mosaic, but if so, the 
 practical carrying of it out fluctuated very much, and 
 it was never fully in operation till after the Exile. To 
 demand that such vague and indefinite opinions 
 should be met with precise and convincing refutations 
 is very unreasonable. It is not so very difficult, 
 however, to show that many arguments adduced in 
 support of them are fallacious, and that some of the 
 assumptions on which they proceed are totally un- 
 warranted. I shall first deal with the main conten- 
 tion of the new theory, viz., that in D all Levites are 
 at liberty to perform all priestly functions, and that 
 in Q there is a distinct barrier between priests and 
 Levites ; I shall then examine some of the evidence in 
 detail. 
 
 Our contention is that not only was the Aaronic 
 priesthood instituted by Moses and the tribe of Levi 
 consecrated, but that the distinction in Q was also 
 ]V[osaic and permanent, and that it is not set aside b}- 
 D. It is quite possible, and requires no special theory 
 to account for it, that in certain circumstances the 
 whole LeviLical and priestly functions might be spoken 
 of without making any distinction between the sepa- 
 rate parts of the whole work, for which the tribe of 
 Levi was consecrated. It would be nothing unnatural 
 to find an author at one time emphasising the conse- 
 cration of the tribe from among the other 
 tribes, and at another time emphasising the special 
 consecration of the priests out of the consecrated 
 tribe. In a treatise upon Church Government, it 
 would surely be no strange or inconceivable pheno- 
 
36 
 
 menon to finJ a chapter dealing with the duties of 
 office-bearers generally, and shewing that the adminis- 
 tration of funds, charge of property, exercise of dis- 
 cipline, ruling, teaching, pastoral oversight, &c., are 
 vested in office-bearers distinct from the whole con- 
 gregation or church at large, and another chapter 
 dealing with the requisite distinctions and classes of 
 office -beai-ers. Neither would it be necessary to prove 
 that the chapters of such a treatise belonged to ages 
 far apart, even if in one part of it the term Presbyter 
 should include both ministers and elders, and in 
 another part be strictly limited and defined as applying 
 only to the teaching elders. All ministers are elders, 
 just as all priests are Levites. It is no part of the 
 design of Deuteronomy to emphasise the distinction, 
 but rather to emphasise the exclusive separation of 
 the tribe of Levi for all tabernacle service. 
 
 Professor Smith traces the history through Joshua, 
 Judges, Samuel, and Kings, and finds to Lis own en- 
 tire satisfaction that down to the time of Josiah any 
 Israelite could be a priest, while he admits the special 
 priesthood of Aaron's famil}', that by D the pi-iest- 
 liood was restricted to the Levites, and by Ezekiel the 
 Levites were degraded and the house of Zadok en- 
 dowed with the exclusive priesthood. 
 
 1, On the subject of "dues" he finds that the 
 liistory is somewhat stubborn, but he consoles him- 
 self with the reflection that it is " fluctuating," 
 which seems to be regarded r.s satisfactory proof 
 that no law existed except the very convenient 
 elementary law which he imagines Moses left in 
 writing supplemented by oral decisions. The priestly 
 " dues" in Eli's time were very peculiar, and were 
 manifestly contraiy to all law, although he considers 
 tlie metliod adopted l)y Eli's sons was recognised as 
 their riglit — an unwarranted assumption, whicli on 
 
37 
 
 the part of a traditionist would have been a heinous 
 offence. It is admitted that the phrase Mishpat 
 Hakkochanim me'eth ha'am means the priests' due 
 from the people (not the priests' custom, as A. V,), 
 but a slight change in the punctuation would connect 
 thephrase (1 Sam. ii. 13,) with the previous verse, and 
 render the whole much more natural than as it stands 
 in the A.V. " The sons of Eli vv^ere sons of Belial, 
 they knew not the Lord nor the Statutory due from 
 the people to the priests, but when any man, &c." 
 (C'omp. Deut. xviii. 3, where the statutory due is de- 
 fined.) Of course the method actually adopted did 
 not correspond with any law, but was a gross pro- 
 fanation introduced by godless men, and not by any 
 means a " recognised right" as Professor Smith de- 
 clares. " The sin of the young men was very great 
 before the Lord" (verse 17) which clearly proves that 
 the law of the Lord was against them, and that 
 law is found nowhere but in Deut. xviii. 3. These 
 same young men appear to have totally neglected 
 the work of their sacred calling, leaving it to their 
 servants and others (verse 15), but that cannot prove 
 that the law allowed every man to offer his OAvn 
 sacrifice. 
 
 The next case mentioned we must give in Pro- 
 fessor Smith's own words : "At the time of Jehoi- 
 ada, the dues seem to have been paid in money ; and 
 it is quite against the law of Q that a money pay- 
 ment was taken instead of the sin and trespass offering " 
 (2 Kings, xiii. 16, p. 43). In a footnote it is added, 
 " By comparison of Hosea iv. 8, Amos ii. 8, it may 
 be gathered that this practice prevailed in Ephraim 
 also." Here we have a series of reckless fallacies 
 which it is extremely easy to expose. The design is 
 to show that in the time of Jehoiada the custom was 
 opposed to the law of Q, the tacit conclusion being 
 
38 
 
 that the latter had no existence. Now, in order io 
 make this out it is assumed that the money spoken 
 of was in exchange for the sin and trespass offei'ing, 
 0, most arbitrary and unfounded assumption ; it is 
 assumed also that there is no money which could be 
 called " trespass money " unless on the former 
 assumption. If the law were absolutely silent upon 
 the subject it would be far more in the spirit of 
 true criticism to confess that the trespass money 
 is something unknown to us which must continue 
 in obscurity, than to force an unwarrantable mean- 
 ing upon it in order to make a point in argument. 
 But we are not left in ignorance ; we have only 
 to turn to Levit. v. 14—19, wliere we will find 
 he trespass money as well as the trespass ofifer 
 ing ; and in Num. xviii. we find where they discovered 
 that all this was the priests'. So that the case, instead 
 of helping the new theory, clearly proves that the 
 law of Q was recognised and acted on. If the " Sin 
 Money " is not expressly mentioned, it may easily be 
 supposed that some of the moneys payable would be 
 so called, or it may be covered by Levit. vii. 7. The 
 note above quoted refers to two texts which have no 
 bearing whatever on the point. Jehoiada was effecting 
 a reformation whereby the law was put in force, 
 whereas Hosea and Amos are exposing the sinfulness 
 of a very different line of conduct ; and yet Professor 
 Smith seems to regard the cases as analogous. 
 
 This is all that can be adduced regarding the " dues." 
 The histoiucal notices are certainly very " scanty," as 
 lie says ; but when he finds that of the two cases the 
 one " by no means corresponded with Q," and the other 
 " is quite against the law of Q," he is entirely misled 
 by his own audacious assumptions ; both are in perfect 
 harm.ony witli the law of Moses as found in Leviticus 
 an<l Deuter(nioniv. 
 
39 
 
 2. Tilt) allusiui) to tithes in Auios iv. J. is aJiuitteil 
 b}' Prof. Smith to " indicate a state of things analo- 
 gous to " D (p. 43, 44), an admission which is not quite 
 consistent with the statement made elsewhere, that 
 the Deuteronomic law is " referred to by no prophet 
 of earlier date than'' Jeremiah, (" Bible " 637 B.), but 
 of course it is easy to get out of this difficulty by the 
 usual back-door — the author of D is adopting the 
 prophetic programme of Amos ! 
 
 " In the prophecy about Eli's house, 1 Samuel ii. 3b', 
 it appears that a priest who had no office was in 
 danger of starving, which would not be the case if the 
 tithe of Q were recognised " (p. 44). That is to say, 
 it would be impossible for Jehovah to bring the pos- 
 terity of Eli into a state of miserable poverty if the 
 Mosaic provision of the tithes existed for the support 
 of those from whose fellowship they were expelled I 
 Jehovah threatens to punish the sins of Eli's house by 
 degrading them from the priesthood and reducing 
 them to poverty ; this proves that the law of Q re- 
 garding tithes was not then in existence ! And this 
 is called a " Sedulous search of Scripture," and a pene- 
 trating "into its inner structure." 
 
 The tithe collected by Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxxi.) is 
 said by Profesor Smith not to agree strictly either 
 with Q or D (p. 44), which may be true if we 
 search into minute details ; but it will be hard to find 
 any serious divergence from what was commanded by 
 Moses. A perusal of the chapter will satisfy the 
 reader that Hezekiah was proceeding according to 
 law, and it is noticable that the " law of the Lord " 
 receives very prominent recognition (ver. 2, 3, 4) ; it 
 is inconceivable that all that we read of was done in 
 accordance with mere " oral decisions of the priests," 
 and there is nothing inconsistent with the law either 
 of Q or D. As usual Professor Smith does not hesi- 
 
40 
 
 tate to make a reckless assumption wlieu he thinks 
 he can thereby get an advantage. " It is noteworthy 
 that the edict to bring in the tithe was issued only to 
 the people of Jerusalem . . , the other cities 
 joined voluntary and brought the tithe of cattle." 
 Now, when Ave read the chapter we find it written : 
 "Thus did Hezekiah throughout all Judah " (verse 20) 
 beginning no doubt at Jerusalem (ver. 4) ; and we 
 find it written also that " the tithesof all things brought 
 they in abundantly" (ver. 5.) 
 
 3. Coming to the residence of the Levites, we findne 
 cessarily wide gaps in the records and much confusion 
 regarding the ^occupation of the cities assigned to 
 them ; but so far as the facts go, they are in entire 
 harmony with the law of Q. Wars and intestine 
 troubles of a more, general and local character would in- 
 evitably create fi-equent and sometimes long-continued 
 departures from the strict details of the law, and in 
 this way most of the apparent difficulties can be 
 accounted for. All that Professor Smith can say 
 against this is — " It hardly appears that these 
 cities were occupied according to the law of Q ;" as 
 if that were evidence. And again : " The Chronicler 
 certainly twice speaks in a general way of the 
 Levites as actually resident in their cities and pas- 
 tures" (1 Chron. xiii. 2. 2 Chron. xi. 14). But it 
 is doubtful whether these references imply that the 
 provisions of Q had been fully carried out" (p. 45). 
 The question is not whether Q had been fully 
 carried out, but whether it existed, aud whether 
 there were such cities ; and it would be impossible 
 to prove anything by means of plain statements of 
 Scripture, if references are to be dif^posed of in that 
 summary and absurd fashion. 1 (Chronicles xiii. 2 
 proves all that we need care for in this connection, 
 as clearly as any text Professor Smith can adduce to 
 
41 
 
 prove anything. The revolt of Jeroboam and the 
 consequent influx of Levites into Judah must have 
 caused changes in the letter of observance in order 
 to retain the spirit of the law. 
 
 4. Deut. xxxi. makes the carrying of the ark a 
 priestly function. As such it appears in the subse- 
 quent history (p. 31, note), " the one exception being 
 1 Chron. xv," (p. 45). Of course all priests could 
 perform Levitical functions ; and unless the writer 
 of Joshua has falsified the history, "the priests, the 
 Levites " bore the ark at the crossing: of Jordan, and the 
 siegeof Jericho, while David, after making a mistake, 
 discovered, by a more attentive study of the law, that 
 the Levites ought to bear it (1 Chron. xv. 2). A com- 
 parison of Deut. xxxi. 9 with ver. 25 shews that the 
 "priests, the Levites" signifies not priests in the strict 
 sense of Q, but in a popular sense, as including all who 
 performed Levitical service. Professor Smith admits 
 that the term priest sometimes means only the high 
 priest ; but on his own principle, one might argue 
 that as the priest is entitled to do what only the Jiigh- 
 priest could do, therefore all priests were high -priests ! 
 The division of the Levites, according to Q, who were 
 assigned the special duty of bearing the ark, were the 
 Kohathites, to which family the house of Aaron 
 belonged ; and as the priests had to cover the ark 
 and have everything in readiness, so that the Levites 
 might not touch it at all, it is not surprising that they 
 should be closely identified at times with other Ko- 
 hathites as the bearers of it (Num. iii. 31 ; iv. 15 ; x. 
 21). All the work of the Levites was under the im- 
 mediate superintendence of priests delegated for the 
 purpose (Num. iv. 15, 28, 33). In 1 Chron. xv. 2 we 
 have an unmistakable reference, almost an exact 
 quotation from Deut. x. 8. Professor Smith is 
 ominously silent regarding it, barely mentioning it 
 
 F 
 
42 
 
 as "the only exception." But it requires explanation 
 as much as many other things do, and probably Pro- 
 fessor Smith saw that the only explanation to be given 
 on his theory is that the Chronicler had here also been 
 tampering v/ith the history. In another connection, 
 indeed, he mentions incidentally that it is " simply a 
 quotation from Deuteronomy" (p. 33, note), which, so 
 far as I can see, can have no other meaning than that 
 the author of the history inserted this explanation, 
 though it was not historically accurate. Professor 
 Smith tells us that he does so elsewhere ( Ans., p. 41), as 
 also that the author of Joshua colours his history by re- 
 ferences to D, the historical facts being of course different 
 from what he represents them to have been. (p. 86) 
 In this way it is the simplest thing in the world to 
 account for the gathering of Israel atEbal andGerizim 
 in accordance with what are usually regarded as di- 
 rections cf Moses given to Joshua before his ^.eath, 
 but which reall}' had no existence, at least in writing 
 till about 700 years after his death ! Admitting that 
 the author of the book of Joshua had read these curses 
 and blessings in Deuteronomy "it does not follow that 
 Joshua read from D what a later historian knows and 
 describes as part of that book." How can we possibly 
 prove anything if that sort of wriggling is to be ac- 
 cepted as the highest manifestation of scholarship 
 and criticism. 
 
 Reverting to the official duty of bearing the ark, it 
 is undeniable that the priests did sometimes perform 
 this work, chiefly on great occasions ; but it is 
 equally undeniable that they did not always do so, 
 and therefore the Ijcvites are not elevated to the 
 priesthood when this function is assigned them. 1 
 Chron. xv. 11-15 needs no explanation in accordance 
 with our view ; according to the new theory it must 
 be explained away. And the passages referred to by 
 
43 
 
 Professor Smith give no such uniform and unvary- 
 ing practice as to warrant any of his sweeping con- 
 clusions ; certainly the law never could be inferred 
 from them were it otherwise unknown. Besides, it 
 must be borne in mind that even if a law can be 
 shown to be disobeyed, that is no proof that it did 
 not exist. 
 
 But the great contention is that Q gives a syste- 
 matic scheine in which priests and Levites are dis- 
 tinct, while J) gives another equally systematic, in 
 which they are identical. Now, while some plausible 
 things can be said in support of this notion, it requires 
 a great many assumption?, and involves a great many 
 difficulties, regarding which we may say, with at least 
 as much truth as it can be said of the difficulties on 
 the other side, that they require a " disconnected 
 series of hypothetical solutions, all in some degree un- 
 natural" (p. 29). 
 
 It is incredible that two such systems of legislation 
 should be inserted by any sane man in the same law- 
 book as binding upon a nation without any hint that 
 the one repealed the other, but with all the appear- 
 ance of being equally binding. It is incredible that 
 they should have been attributed to the great law- 
 giver whose name had been identified with Israel's 
 national origin, although neither of them was really 
 his. One might as well endeavour to concoct a history 
 of William the Conqueror and the laws of his time, 
 with the legislation of the last century, in so far as it 
 relates to the same subjects, tacked on to it, by an 
 editor, so as to make the whole appear as of the 
 11th century A.D. Perhaps the simplest way to do 
 this would be to insert all the recent legislation, 
 together with suggested amendments, into a speech 
 supposed to have been delivered to the Norman 
 army ! " For my own part I am unable to see what 
 
44 
 
 other shape the work could have assumed which 
 would have expressed its purpose as clearly in a way 
 BO generally intelligible" (p. 83). Truly, the words 
 of Cicero concerning the philosophers of his time may 
 be applied to the critics of ours : — " I don't know how 
 it is, but no opinion is so absurd as not to find some 
 of them to support it." 
 
 The notion of two systematic schemes finds no sup- 
 port in the sub^icquent history, some portions of which 
 emphasize the difference, like Q, while others ignore 
 it like D. Even D is not uniform ; there are some 
 exceptions to its common mode of speech. Professor 
 Smith unwarrantably assumes that in Deut. xvii. 12, 
 the priest " unquestionably denotes the high priest" 
 (p. 32). Unquestionably it does no such thing ; it is 
 precisely parallel to verse 9, and merely gives the 
 law applicable to a contumacious person who refuses 
 to obey the priests' decision. No high priest can 'be 
 found in D upon the principle insisted upon by the 
 new theory, and it will not do to force one into it 
 merely because his absence will tend to invalidate 
 the theory itself. The priests and Levites are dis- 
 tinguished in Deut. xxvii. 9, 12, 14. The law of Q 
 was clearly recognised in the times of Uzziah (2 
 Chron. xxvi). After the book was found by Hilkiah 
 in the temple, the priests and Levites were as distinct 
 as before ; the Levites who were not priests were to 
 be the teachers of the people (2 Chron. xxx. 22, and 
 XXXV. 3 ; Deut. xxxiii. 10). Hezekiah, who had for- 
 merly made a reformation very similar to Josiah's, 
 carried out this regulation, and so also did Jehoshaphat 
 (2 Chron. xvii. 9). Deut. xxxiii. 10, therefore was 
 an old law well known and acted upon. 
 
 The way in which the priests and Levites are spoken 
 of at the coronation of Joash (comp. 2 Kings xi. and 
 2 Chron. xxiii), and also at the dedication of the 
 
45 
 
 temple, shews that there is no special emphasis to be 
 put upon the expression, " the priests the Levites.' 
 According to the new criticism, the distinction made 
 in 1 Kings viii. 4 (comp. 2 Chron. v. 5) is a mistake ; 
 and so Professor Smith would fain omit the " and." 
 
 The expression, " the priests the Levites," is once 
 used by Nehemiah (chap. xi. 20) ; it occurs also in 
 Josh. iii. 3, and therefore proves nothing. 
 
 The division of the priests and Levites into courses 
 by David (1 Chron. xxi. 24-29, and xxiii. 6) was con- 
 tinued by Solomon (2 Chron. viii. 14) and Hezekiah 
 (2 Chron. xxxi. 17-21). The same arrangement 
 subsisted in the time of Josiah, Ezra, &c., down to the 
 time ©f Christ (Luke i. 5-8). 
 
 In the Epistle to the Hebrews (chap. vii. 11) the 
 expression " Levitical priesthood," is used as synony- 
 mous with " the order of Aaron "(comp, chap. v. 4), 
 and is contrasted with that of Melchisedec. It is also 
 argued that the priesthood, which has always been 
 an essential element in true worship, must be express- 
 ly appointed by God (chap, v, 4), and that any change 
 in it indicates an entire revolution in the whole 
 economy (chap. vii. 11-18). Now the critics are 
 bound to shew when, where, and for what important 
 purpose the change which they insist upon was made. 
 We do not need any new fangled hypothesis to account 
 for the difference of standpoint between Kings and 
 Chronicles. The former deals mainly with the 
 Northern Kingdom, where the influence of the 
 Levitical priesthood was scarcely felt and therefore 
 comes little into notice. Equally untenable is the dis- 
 tinction which is insisted upon between " ministering 
 before the Lord," and "ministering before Aaron." 
 That there is such a distinction very expressly stated 
 in various forms when the design is to define accu- 
 rately the specific functions of the priests and tEe 
 
46 
 
 Levites is of course to be expected. But it is a mistake 
 in fact to allege that there is such an invariable 
 distinction when the specific duties of each are not 
 in question. 
 
 Professor Smith says : " The common Levites of 
 Q are personal attendants of the priests, but not of 
 Jehovah," and "the Levite priests of Deuteronomy 
 stand before the Lord to minister to Him" (p. 
 33). Now what has been already said supplies 
 a sufficient answer to this. Dr Curtiss is per- 
 fectly right in saying that " sharpness and detail are 
 especially wanting in Deuteronomy,"* and one has 
 only to compare it with the legislative parts cf Le- 
 viticus and Exodus, to see this. Professor Smith 
 however transforms the phrase into " obscure and in- 
 exactly written" (as if that were synonymous with 
 Dr Curtiss' phrase) and then tells us that it "is simply 
 absurd !" " No book," Professor Smith adds, " is 
 clearer in style and expression, or fitter to be a manual 
 of the law," which, I am sure, Dr Curtiss will not 
 deny ; but he would probably say that for that very 
 reason sharpness and detail are not introduced into it. 
 He sufficiently explains what he means when he points 
 out that the technical names for various kinds of offer- 
 ings occur so seldom in Deuteronomy, some of them, 
 indeed, not at all. "The contrast," he says, "between 
 Deuteronomy and the other books of the Pentateuch 
 in this respect is very striking."t To assert that this 
 is not correct would be " simply absurd." And as 
 there is no sharpness or detail in distinguishing here, 
 so there is none in distinguishing the special ministra- 
 tions of priests and Levites. It would be most 
 
 ^Levitical Pnests, quoted by Professor Smith, Add.Ans. 40. 
 t Levitical Prictits, p. 30, 3X. 
 
47 
 
 unnatural to expect the same sharpness or detail 
 in a -people's hook, a general history, as one would 
 look for in a statute book or lawyer's manual ; 
 but nothing short of this same exactness will satisfy 
 Professor Smith. 
 
 The Hebrew verb Sharath, to minister, cannot 
 be restricted, as he maintains, to " such personal at- 
 tendance as brings the minister into closest contact 
 with his master " (p. 32.) It is simply a general 
 term denoting all kinds of service, and it is only from 
 its connection in any particular passage that the 
 precise kind of service can be inferied. It is some- 
 times used absolutely without any qualifying clause, 
 e.g., Num. viii.,26, where itseems to indicate the lighter 
 work, or simple attendance at the Tabernacle, in 
 contrast with the more laborious service. When 
 we turn to 2 Chron. xxix., where we have some ac- 
 count of Hezekiah's Reformation, we find (1.) that 
 the priests and Levites are distinct (ver. 4.) (2.) 
 That the law, as well known, had not been carried 
 out for a considerable time past (ver. 6-7). (3.) That 
 although the priests and Levites are distinct, they 
 are all spoken of as chosen by the Lord to serve him 
 (ver. 11). (4.) That the orders of the Levites were 
 still kept up as arranged in the times of Moses and 
 David (ver. 12-15). (5.) That the priests alone 
 entered into the inner part of the house to cleanse 
 it, and the Levites carried away the rubbish which 
 was brought out (ver. 16). And yet in the face of 
 all this Professor Smith can assert in the coolest 
 manner that if " the passage proves anything, it 
 proves that at the time of Hezekiah the law of D 
 and not of Q was in force !" (p. 33, note). Was it 
 from the law of D also that Hezekiah learned about 
 the sin-offering ? And about the priests the Sons 
 of Aaron (ver. 21). ? In 2 Chron. xxiii., 6, there 
 
48 
 
 is the same distinction between " priests and minis- 
 tering Levites," under Jehoiada the high priest. 
 In this connection Professor Smith attempts to reply- 
 to Dr Curtiss regarding the case of Samuel, and it 
 will surely be difficult to find elsewhere within so 
 small a compass so many fallacies as are condensed 
 into the following passage : — 
 
 But though Samuel was not I'y birth a son of Aaron, 
 he was certainly adopted into the place of a priest, for 
 in his ministry before the Lord he wore the Ephod and 
 the priestly mantle or 3IeHl (1 Sam. ii. 18, 19), which 
 the English version unfortunately renders coat. Neither 
 of these belonged to a common Levite. Mr Curtiss 
 singularly enough refers to the fact that Samuel ojien- 
 ed the doors of the sanctuary, forgetting that to shut 
 these doors is priest's work (Mai. i. 10). (P. 33 note.) 
 
 (1.) It is here assumed that Samuel was actually per- 
 forming the regular work of a priest when he was a mere 
 child. (2.) He was brought to appear " before the 
 Lord" as soon as he was weaned, (chap. i. 23) that he 
 might " there abide for ever." According to Pro- 
 fessor Smith's exegesis he must have entered upon the 
 duties of the priests' office very young ! (3.) The 
 child did minister unto the Lord (chap. ii. 11.) 
 therefore he must have been a priest, but, (4) he 
 ministered before Eli (chap. ii. 11, comp. iii 1,) there- 
 fore he cannot have been a priest, but only a Lev- 
 ite ! Remember, " this usage is invariable" (p. 33, 
 note.) (5.) There is no proof that the ephod was 
 worn solely by priests ; all that we know is that 
 special instructions were given that the priests' ephod 
 should be made in a particular manner. (6.) It is 
 almost impossible to believe that any one at all 
 desirous to write accurately could have made so reck- 
 less and utterly groundless an assertion as that Me'il 
 was a priestly mantle and could not be worn even 
 
49 
 
 by a common Levite. There is not the slightest 
 proof of such a statement, there is indeed abundant 
 evidence that it is utterly and recklessly false. The 
 Me'il worn by the high priest was, like his ephod, 
 to hb made of particular material and in a special 
 manner, concerning which instructions were given 
 (Exodus xxviii. 31, 35), but the garment itself 
 was a common one by no means confined to the 
 priests or even the Levites. Jonathan wore one (1 
 Samuel xviii. 4) ; so did Saul (1 Samuel xxiv. 4 5) ; 
 David's daughters likewise (2 Samuel xiii. 18 ) ! Job 
 too (Job i. 20) ; and also his three friends (Job ii. 12). 
 (7.) Finally it is amazing that Prof. Smith should 
 speak almost with a self-complacent sneer of Dr 
 Curtiss' remark regarding the opening of the door. 
 This, says Prof. Smith, was priest's work. Indeed I 
 How is this proved? By Malachi i. 10, whick if any 
 one choose to read he will find that it gives no light 
 whatever upon the subject. It would be very singular 
 if it did if the new theory be correct, for both D and 
 Q had come into full force between the date of Samuel 
 and ]\Ialachi. Bat such a critic as Prof. Smith has 
 no difficulty in adducing a text from Malachi to prove 
 a custom of Samuel's time nearly 800 years before 
 whenever it suits his purpose, forgetting for the time 
 all the new discoveries about D and Q and develop- 
 ments, and the penetrations of the inner structure of 
 the O. T. Both Kings and Chronicles make it clear 
 that the charge of the doors did not belong to the 
 proper priestly function (2 Kings xxiii. 4 ; and xxv. 
 18 ; 2 Chron. xxiii. 4, 6 ; xxxiv. 9) ; Jeremiah also 
 makes a distinction between the priests and the 
 door-keepers (Hi. 24). Singularly enough the 
 44th chapter of Ezekiel, on which Professor Smith 
 builds so much, affords here material for shewing 
 how self-contradictory and incoherent his criticism 
 
50 
 
 is. The opening and shuttingr of the doors was, 
 he tells us, priestly work. He tell us farther that 
 in Ezekiel's legislation the Levite.s are degraded 
 because of their sins. " Ezekiel docs not say that 
 certain sons of Aaron are to be degraded and become 
 common Levites, but that the Levites are to be degra- 
 ded to do functions which formerly belonged to the 
 people themselves " (p. 49). But now when we turn to 
 the passage in Ezekiel we find that one of these 
 functions to which they are degraded is to have charge 
 of the doors (ver. 11) ! The fact is that Ezekiel 
 xliv. 11 restores the Levites to their proper place, 
 and (though there are difficulties connected with the 
 passage which I cannot attempt to solve, as I must 
 confess my inability to do so) a more probable solu- 
 tion than Professor Smith's will be found in the 
 view which regards the Levites as now degraded 
 from priestly work and offices which they had 
 unlawfully usurped, while the faithful sons of 
 Zidok are confirmed in their position (ver. If)), 
 and the uncircumcised strangers (ver. 7, 9, comp. 
 chap, xliii. 8) are to be altogether expelled. This 
 explains also, in conformity with what I have said 
 already, why the words " th e priests, the Levites, the 
 sons of Zadok," are used (ver. 15) inasmuch as all 
 foreigners and all other Levites are excluded. The 
 priests are not only to be Levites in opposition to 
 '■ the uncircumcised," they are also to be sons of 
 Zadok to the exclusion of all other Levitical families. 
 The main features of Ezekiel's legislation are, so far 
 as this matter is concerned, in perfect keeping with 
 our view, and require a laboured explanation to force 
 them into harmony with the new view. The house 
 of Zadok was not now for the first time elevated to 
 the supreme rank in the priesthood, but had held that 
 position ever since the time of Solomon (1 Kings 2, 
 
51 
 
 35). We need not enter upon a discussion of the 
 relation in which the house of Zadok stood to the 
 house of Ithamar, which we have too meagre 
 materials to discuss with any lucidity (1 Cliron. 
 xxiv). It seems, however, pretty manifest that if 
 the law of Q was not known, and to some extent at 
 least recognised in David's time, the Chronicler has 
 much to answer for. 
 
 Professor Smith makes a sufficiently ingenious 
 but wholly inconclusive and very needless attempt 
 to prove that the exclusion of Eli's family from 
 the supreme priesthood (1 Samuel ii. 27-36) must 
 be regarded as exteniling to the whole house of 
 Aaron, for the purpose of showing farther that Zadok 
 who was made high j)riest by Solomon (after the depo- 
 sition of Abiathar, who belonged to the family of Eli), 
 did not belong to the house of Aaron at all, but was 
 merely so reckoned afterwards when his name was 
 entered on the roll of the supreme guild of the priest- 
 hood (p. 46, 47). This, Professor Smith allows, renders 
 it necessary to understand the Genealogies given in 
 Chronicles in another than the natural sense (1 Chr. 
 vi. 1-8, 49-53 ; ix. 11 ; xxiv. 3 ; xxvii. 17) ; and 
 there is a still more serious objection to it, viz., that 
 it would have a direct tendency to obliterate the ful- 
 filment of the prophecy against Eli's house instead 
 of making and keeping it prominent. If the prophecy 
 in 2 Samuel ii. had the wide range that is here assigned 
 to it, why should anyone who reverenced the Divine 
 Word, and whose design was to magnify it, conceal 
 under this legal fiction the plain fact that Zadok was 
 not an Aaronite, which, one wuuld think, he would be 
 most anxious to make prominent. Obviously the 
 plain words of the Chronicler would, on the principles 
 adopted by Professor Smith as the basis of his 
 whole ai'gument, warrant a critic to attempt a 
 
reconciliation from the opposite end, and to explain 
 away the prophecy in Samuel on the ground that 
 Aaron's house never was deprived of the priesthood. 
 Attempts to base a system upon erroneous assumptions 
 usually necesjjitate numerous contradictions, as we 
 have ample opportunity of seeing in the present 
 case. D is founded upon the teaching of Isaiah, but 
 Isaiah teaches that " the sons of the stranger " are to 
 minister and offer sacrifice (chap. Ivi. 5-7) ! 
 
 It only remains under this head to consider 
 what ground there is for the contention that God's 
 inheritance (Deut. xviii. 1) includes only the dues 
 paid to the priests at the sanctuary, and that in D there 
 are no tithes nor cities provided for the Levites (p, 35). 
 This conclusion is supposed to be confirmed by the 
 statement (ver. 6) " that the Levite who is not at the 
 Sanctuary is supposed to be sojourning in some city 
 of Israel" — " a very pi-ecise sense " (as we have seen, 
 p. 10) being claimed for the word sojourn. 
 
 Now it is quite true that the expression, " I am 
 thine inheritance," applies only to the sous of Aaron 
 in Num. xviii. 20, and that in Q it is nowhere applied 
 to the common Levites ; it is also true that in Deut. 
 X. 9 the same expression applies to Levi. But what- 
 ever force these facts might have when thus stated 
 absolutely and without explanation, they can have 
 none when it is added that these are the only two 
 places in which the expression occurs in the Penta- 
 teuch, and it is impossible to argue with any con- 
 fidence from so extremely narrow a datum. Equally 
 groundless is the assumption that Deut. xviii. G 
 implies that all Levites were homeless (p. 36) except 
 those who were at the Sanctuary. The peculiar 
 character of the provision made f(n- the Levites might 
 suflSce for the application of this term to them when 
 contrasted with the otlier tribes. The Israelites 
 
were not homeless in Egypt, though they are often 
 spoken of very naturally as having been sojourners 
 and strangers there (Levit. xix. 34 ; L)euteron6my x. 
 18, 19 ; xxiii. 7, 8), and there is no other pas- 
 sage in which the expression is applied to the 
 Levites in general. Surely any argument of so 
 wide a scope would need a broader basis of 
 fact to rest upon. Joshua xiii. 14, 13 and xviii. 7 
 are unintelligible unless the inheritance at that time 
 extended to the whole tribe ; and if it did not the 
 writer must have again falsified his history to make 
 it conform to a state of society which had no existence 
 till many centuries later. Imagine a history of the 
 Norman Conquest which supposes our present institu- 
 tions to be in full operation ! No doubt the revolt of 
 Jeroboam caused great confusion among the Levites 
 and caused them to lose many of their cities. But it 
 is curious that Professor Smith should find in their 
 migration to Judah a fulfilment of Jacob's prophecy 
 that they would be scattered in Israel (p. 45) when 
 they were in reality much less scattered than they had 
 been before. 
 
 We have already seen that the subsequent history 
 gives n© sign of any change in the law regarding either 
 the Levitical tithe or the Levitical cities. The enact- 
 meiit in Dcut. xviii. 6 may indicate an exceptional 
 case rather than an ordinaiy condition of things. It 
 certainly implies the existence of the law in Levit. 
 XXV. 32-40, and was probably intended to exempt the 
 Levites from becoming hired servants, as would have 
 been the ordinary law in such a case (ver. 40, 41). As 
 already stated, the tithes are most easily explained 
 on the supposition of there being two sets of tithes, 
 one analogous to the ancient patriarchial or personal 
 tithe, and another national or public. In after times, 
 we know, the Jews paid this double tithe because 
 they so understood the law. 
 
54 
 
 III. THE ONE ALTAE. 
 
 We come now to consider tlie supposed diversity 
 between S and D regarding the place of sacrifice and 
 worship. Briefly stated, the new view is that in S 
 altars might be erected and sacrifices offered at 
 numerous high or holy places throughout the land, 
 such places being indicated by some manifestation of 
 Jehovah's Name, and that in D sacrifices are to be 
 limitejl to one central altar in a place which the Lord 
 phall choose (pp. 57, 58, 65). 
 
 As soon, therefore, as the Tabernacle was erected 
 at Shiloh there should have been no other high places, 
 on the common theory of Deuteronomy, but the whole 
 subsequent history renders such a view iucredible 
 (pp. G3, OS). Let ns now examine the evidence by 
 which this view is supported. 
 
 And we may premise that we need not be careful 
 to account for occasional departures in special cir- 
 cumstances from the recognised institutions, in regard 
 to ceremonial matters. Hosea was surely not the 
 first who had taught that if the people did not render 
 to Jehovah a spiritual service, their ritual exactness 
 would be rejected ; tJiat has been an axiom of the 
 true religion since the foundation of the world, and 
 even if we find exceptions to a ceremonial law allowed 
 or commanded in exceptio;iai circumstances ^.g., 
 Samuel, Elijah), that is no prt)of that the law did not 
 exist, and was not conformed to by the godly when it 
 was possible for them to do so. Church attendance 
 is a recognised Christian duty, but there are circum- 
 stances which may bring a higher law inco operation, 
 so that absence from the house of God may become 
 one's duty. David ate of the shew-bread and was 
 guiltless, although he thereby transgressed a cere- 
 monial law. And it may be here noted that neither 
 
55 
 
 in S nor D is there any mention wliatever of the shew 
 bread ; so that, according to the new views, the his- 
 torian has again falsified the history, and Jesus 
 Christ apparently did not know it ! There would be 
 nothing at all derogatory to the character of God in 
 supposing that on such matters as the time, place, aiid 
 manner of sacrifice — positive and ceremonial ordi- 
 nances involving nothing of a moral or spiritual cha- 
 racter — exceptions might be sanctioned. Professor 
 Smith indeed says it is a "strange theology" that 
 could suppose such a thing (p. 71). I, for my 
 part, cannot understand what sort of a 
 theology that can be which finds anything strange in 
 such a supposition, neither can I see how Professor 
 Smith can reconcile his pi'ofessed amazement at such 
 a very natural hypothesis with his own theory that 
 the "covenant ordinances" were in a state of con- 
 stant flux, that prophets were constantly giving new 
 laws, and that the whole legislation of D was tlie re- 
 sult of their new teaching. " Strange theology" in- 
 deed ! It is inconceivable to the mind of this theolo- 
 gian that God should allow any of His ordinances to 
 be temporarily modified or superseded by one of His 
 own prophets under his own special guidance, but it 
 becomes a most natural and proper thing when the 
 modification or repeal is to be permanent ! Q was 
 not put in furce or had dropped out of use, 1) was 
 then given as a simpler code to take its place ; after 
 the captivity it was found practicable to revert to the 
 original and more complicated system (p. 42). Noth- 
 ing more simple when the whole code of laws is in 
 question ; but that anything of the kind could bo 
 done v/ith a single ordinance — strange theology ! 
 
 As usual Pi-ofessor Smith is satisfied with a single 
 text, which he strains to its utmost capacity 
 and beyond it, in order to make it conform to his 
 
5G 
 
 notion?, and he reads all the subsequent history 
 after his own peculiar fashion in orJer to prove that 
 his exegesis is correct. " In all the places where I 
 set a memorial of my naray" (Exod. xx. 24) does not 
 necessarily or naturally bear the meaning assigned to 
 it by Prof. Smith. The form " kol hammaqom" more 
 naturally means " the whole place" (comp. kol 
 ha'ai'ets) and may be so understood here, the place 
 being that mentioned in chap, xxiii. 20, " to bring 
 thee into the place which I have prepared" (comp., 
 Jud. xi. 19.) This grammatical construction is more 
 common than that which Prof. Smith insists upon, 
 which usuiilly is indicated either by the plural num- 
 ber or the absence of the article. In Isaiah xii. the 
 Lord's name is said to be recorded in the whole land. 
 With this also agi-ees Exod. xxiii. 13, where the men- 
 tion of other gods is forbidden (comp Josh, 
 xxiii. 7, Ps. xvi. 3-5), the Hebrew verb " record " 
 or "make mention" in all these cases being 
 the same. The Lord dwells in the whole land (Num. 
 XXXV. 34), and the case of David, who complained 
 (1 Sam. xxvi. 19) that his enemies had driven him 
 out from the Lord's inheritance, " saying, go serve 
 other gods" sustains this view, although Prof. Smith 
 refers to it as supporting his contention (p. 65). 
 " The place that I have chosen to set my name there" 
 (Neh. 1. 9) is manifestly equivalent to " the land 
 which thy fathers possessed" (Deut. xxx. 5) the former 
 passage being an express reference to the latter. This 
 text, therefore, on which so huge a superstructure is 
 built up, will not bear the meaning forced upon it. 
 Indeed it is only by a series of gratuitous assumptions 
 and illogical inferences that it can be made to have 
 any allusion to the altar and altar worship at all. 
 
 Moreover, Prof. Smith admits that even his own 
 interpretation of hoi hammaqom — all places - is not in- 
 
67 
 
 coHsistent with the institution of a special altar, with 
 special priests for national as distinguished from local 
 worship (p. 61), a declaration which substantially con- 
 cedes that there is no irreconcilable contradiction be- 
 tween the two legislations on this subject. For if plura- 
 lity of altars in S is not inconsistent with one special 
 altar, then one special altar in D is not inconsistent 
 with plurality of altars. The appointment of the 
 great annual festivals in S, plainly renders the con- 
 cession of one special sanctuary even then absolutely 
 necessary (p. 61), thus also the presence of the taber- 
 nacle and brazen altar gave special prominence to 
 particular localities in David's time (1 Chron. xxi. 28 
 ff). In Exodus xxi. 13, the Lord says concerning the 
 manslayer, " I will appoint thee a place whither he 
 shall flee," but elsewhere we learn that six such places 
 were appointed. The law of D does not definitely 
 and absolutely abolish all worship elsewhere than 
 at the central national sanctuary ; at most it is 
 impossible to affirm that trespass offerings, sin-offer- 
 ings, &c., were necessarily sacrificed at the one altar^ 
 for they are not mentioned in J) at all. The statements 
 therefore that "it is at the sanctuary or before the altar 
 that every religious act addressed to Jehovah must 
 take place," and that D limits the place of worship to 
 one such sanctuary, is totally unfounded and cannot 
 for a moment be supported by any reasonable exegesis 
 of the texts on which they are professedly based. In 
 order to get rid of the manifest absurdity involved 
 in the idea that all animals are to be presented at 
 the central sanctuary before being slain, the Pro- 
 fessor has to assume (without the least attempt to 
 prove, or a shadow of evidence to support the assump- 
 tion) that in D, for the first time, permission was 
 given to slay animals for food without offering sacri- 
 fice ! (p. 63.) 
 
 H 
 
The idea that every animal designed for food 
 must, if D be Mosaic, be presented at the cen- 
 tral sanctuary (p. 62.) is as much opposed to the facts 
 of the case as it is opposed to common sense. It is 
 certainly opposed to common sense that every man 
 must under the law of D make a pilgrimage to 
 Shiloh or Jerusalem before he could perform an ac- 
 ceptable act of worship. Yet Professor Smith's 
 theory demands such an astounding regulation, and 
 surely the very absurdity of it might have suggested 
 the probability of essential error in his exegesis. 
 His argument from Hosea ix. 3, and Amos vii. 17, is 
 very far fetched and requires a very strained exegesis 
 indeed. 
 
 The history is no less clearly opposed to Professor 
 Smith's view. " In all places where I record my 
 name" implies, we are told, that God would by special 
 manifestations indicate where he desired altars to be 
 erected, and both the antecedent example of the 
 patriarchs and the subsequent example of many 
 leaders in Israel are appealed to in proof (p. 57) ; but 
 the evidence is against this assertion. Abraham was 
 wont to build an altar wherever he settled, whether 
 he received any divine manifestation or not (Gen. 
 xii. 8 ; xiii. 4 18,) and so were the other patriarchs. 
 As regards the subsequent history. Professor Smith 
 merely selects such cases as seem to favour his argu- 
 ment, and even some of them give no evidence in 
 his favour. If the view which I have given be cor- 
 rect, these are quite as much within the law of D as 
 that of S. 
 
 In this connection I may advert to a remarkable 
 argument introduced here and elsewhere (pp. 73, 85) 
 about unclean animals and an unclean land, in which 
 we have some as neat specimens of reasoning in a 
 circle as anyone need wish to see. What makes the 
 
59 
 
 life of the people unclean ? " The whole life of the 
 people becomes unclean when they leave the land of 
 Jehovah to dwell in an nnclej,n land" (p. 73). What, 
 then, is an unclean land ? " An unclean land is one 
 in which the life of the inhabitants is unclean" (p. 85). 
 Why is the life of the inhabitants unclean ? " Be- 
 cause their daily food cannot be presented at the 
 sanctuary" (p. So). And why can it not ? Because 
 "an altar for the worship of Jehovab cannot be 
 erected" (p. 85). And again we ask, why cannot an 
 alter be erected ? And we are told that "the mark 
 of an unclean land is that an altar cannot be erected." 
 But what <;on3titutes an unclean land or an unclean 
 people is left as it was before. Professor Smith is 
 here labouring with a prodigious effort to explain the 
 altar Ed according to his new light, but he finds it, 
 of course, utterly impossible. He fails, after all his 
 laborious logic, to tell us even why the 
 land to the east of Jordan would have 
 been unclean. His notion of an unclean 
 
 land is extremely super6cial and meagre. 
 The words used (Josh. xxii. 19), "//"the land of your 
 possession be unclean," and the fact that it was not 
 its uncleanness which caused the erection of the altar 
 Ed are sufficient to shew the most casual reader that 
 Professor Smith's explanation is simply absurd. For 
 how could there have been any "if" about a matter 
 which must have been obvious to all. Of course their 
 daily f«od could not at any time be presented at 
 Shiloh if their possessions lay «ast of the Jordan ; 
 and the whole land must, in this view, have been un- 
 clean except within a few miles of the place where 
 the sanctuary was, and it would have been a, physical 
 impossibility to have made it clean ! A land unclean 
 and the life of its inhabitants unclean because their 
 daily food cannot be presented at the sanctuarv ! 
 
60 
 
 And this adduced in order to explain the erection of 
 the altar Ed ! The utter absurdity of such criticism 
 is manifest at a glance when looked at with the eyes 
 of commonsense, however deep and scholarly it may 
 be regarded by those who are, or who would fain be 
 considered, higher critics. 
 
 An unclean land is repeatedly explained in Scrip- 
 ture (Lev. xviii. 25 ; Num. xxxv. 33, 34 ; Deut. xxiv. 
 4 ; Isaiah xxiv. 5 ; Jer. ii. 5-8 ; iii. 1), and with this 
 explanation, Hosea ix,, to which Professor Smith at- 
 taches so shallow a meaning becomes deeply significant. 
 The attempt (p. 72) to press into his service the case 
 mentioned in 1 Sam. xiv. 32 is simply ludicrous. 
 " Eating with the blood," apart from all reference to 
 an altar (and there is no mention of an altar in the 
 context, ver. 35 being quite separate), was forbidden in 
 all circumstances (Lev. iii. 17 ; vii. 26 ; Deut. xii. 
 16-23). 
 
 It is on all hands admitted that in Deuteronomy 
 very special emphasis is laid upon the fact that in 
 process of time Jehovah would choose for himself 
 where the great national sanctuary was to be, and that 
 many of the most solemn public services were to be re- 
 stricted to that place, and it is equally true that " we 
 are not told when or how the choice of the one sanc- 
 tuary is to be made." But Professor Smith must 
 have misread the history in the most amazing manner 
 if he really thinks that we discover this one sanctuary 
 of Jehovah's choice by comparing Joshua xviii. 1 
 with Jer. vii. 12, and that Shiloh was the chosen 
 place (p, 63). It needs no very careful or critical search 
 of the Scriptures to see that the conclusion at which 
 he arrives is grossly erroneous and entirely opposed to 
 the facts. Shiloh was never chosen by Jehovah as 
 the one permanent sanctuary. Had Professor Smith 
 discovered the very obvious fact that the place where 
 
61 
 
 Solomon's temple was erected wa? the place chosen hy 
 Jehovah in accordance with D, much of his criticism 
 would have been spared, and some of his vaunted ar- 
 guments would have entirely collapsed. Yet the fact 
 is so very plain that his oversight is quite marvellous. 
 Jehovah was to choose a place as his more direct and 
 immediate dwelling-place after He had given Israel 
 rest from all their enemies (Deut. xii. 10, 11). Now 
 we find that David's purpose to build a permanent 
 temple was closely connected with the fact that in 
 his day this rest had been secured (2 Sam. vii. 1, 
 where the words are identical with those of Deut. xii. 
 10). David (as we find from 1 Chron. xiii. 7 compared 
 with chap. xv. 2) had been studying the Word of 
 God more carefully, and he concluded that th3 time 
 indicated for a permanent temple had now anived. 
 Here he was in error ; he had many wars yet to en- 
 gage in, although at that time he was not aware of 
 this. The Rest would not be reached in his day, but 
 was reserved for his son, for whom also the temple 
 building was reserved. 
 
 Again, the associated ideas of Deut. xii. 10, 11 
 are made prominent when the temple was actually 
 built by Solomon (1 Chron. xxii. 18, 19 ; 1 
 Kings V. 3-5; Heb. 17-19). It was not till 
 now that the one place was definitely and per- 
 manently chosen ; and hence up till this time the 
 high places have been tolerated because no definite 
 selection of a single central national sanctuary had 
 been made (Kings iii. 2). This is the manifest mean- 
 ing of numerous passages in which the matter is r e- 
 ferred to, e.g., 2 Sam. vii. 7 ; 1 Kings viii. 16 ; 1 
 Chron. xvii. 5, 6 ; xxii. 19 ; 2 Chron. vi. 5, 6; vii. 
 12-16, where it is said — Ve'attah — but now (after 
 so long a time) — I have chosen, &c. In these pas- 
 sacres there is a marked connection between the 
 
62 
 
 choosing of the sanctuary and the choosing of the 
 house of David (see 2 Chron. vi. 5, 6. and comp, Ps. 
 Ixxviii. 67-70 and 2 Sam. vii. 13). Henceforth the high 
 places are not to be tolerated as they had formerly 
 been, and the removing of them became the mark of 
 the most thorough reformation (1 Kings xv. 1 i ; xxii 
 43 (44) ; 2 Kings xii. 3 (4) ; xiv. 4 ; xv. 4, 35 ; xviii. 
 4 ; xxiii. 8 ; &c., &c.). It is not the Chronicler and 
 other writers of Scripture history that have been 
 guilty of inserting inferences and explanations of an 
 unwarranted character, but the critics themselves. 
 
 Thus we have a simple and satisfactory explanation 
 of all the subsequent references to the sanctity of Zion. 
 According to the new light, the Deuteronomist attaches 
 his legislation to Isaiah's great doctrine that the Lord 
 hath founded Zion ! (p. 80), whereas in truth Isaiah 
 and all the prophets, knowing that God had chosen 
 Zion in fulfilment of his ancient promise, attach their 
 teaching to that grand historic fact. There is not 
 a single passage* which connects Jehovah's choice of 
 a sanctuary with Shiloh, while the statement that 
 the Lord hath chosen Jerusalem or Zion meets us con- 
 tinually, and is associated with the election of David 
 as the divinely appointed king. This new departure 
 is visible to ordinary eyes through the whole sub- 
 sequent history. The ark, which had hitlierto been 
 the special symbol of the divine presence, now passes 
 out of sight, the movable and temporary being ab- 
 sorbed in the stable and permanent symbol. The ark 
 never appears in the history of Israel after it had been 
 placed in the Huly of Holies by Solomon except on one 
 occasion when we find Josiah ordering its restoration 
 to its proper place, from which it had been removed 
 (2 Chronicles xxxv. 3, comp. Jer. ii. 16, 17). It is pro- 
 
 •■ Prof. Smith cites Jer. vii. 12, but there is no raention 
 there of Jehovah's choice. 
 
63 
 
 bable that its separation from the Tabernacle (which 
 was also removed from Shiloh, we know not when, 
 1 Chronicles xxi. 29), occasioned the tempo- 
 rary double priesthood which we find in the 
 time of Saul and David (comp. 1 Chronicles 
 xvi. 1, 37, 38). The places which had been visited 
 by the Tabernacle and the Ark continued to be the 
 principal high places of unlawful worship afterwards. 
 It was by the divine command, through Gad the seer, 
 that the threshing floor of Araunah was selected as 
 the spot for the permanent temple (2 Sam. xxi v. 18 ; 
 1 Chronicles xxi. 18 ; 2 Chronicles iii. 1). In all this 
 there is nothing inconsistent with the leading features 
 of the Mosaic ordinances as commonly understood, 
 though there are minute points which it will be diflS.- 
 cult to harmonise, and which are not without their 
 value to an earnest student of Scripture, inasmuch as 
 they are calculated to stimulate more sedulous re- 
 search, while they afford at the same time welcome 
 pabulum to a carping self-complacent criticism. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 That the book found by Hilkiah had been written 
 from 50 to 100 years previously and was lost in the 
 time of Manasseh is Professor Smith's unwarranted 
 assumption whereby he seeks to evade the theory 
 of pious fraud ; but his evasion is as objectionable and 
 untenable while less straightforward than the more 
 outspoken hypothesis. The critics have yet to show in 
 what respect the reign of Josiah was so exceptional as 
 to call for the application of the new law, or what 
 new development had taken place to explain it. They 
 have also to show how such a book was at once 
 received although it was entirely unaccredited, how 
 its authorship was forgotten, how it came to be 
 attributed to Moses, how it should have been 
 
6i 
 
 imposed by divine sanction, in order to effect 
 " a complete social and religious revolution," 
 and to give " fixity and constitutional form to 
 the work accomplished by the preaching of the 
 great prophets of the 8th century" (pp. 73-80) 
 when the nation was already within 40 years of the 
 captivity which, it was positively declared in reply to 
 Josiah's anxious inquiry, could not now be averted 
 (2 Chron. xxxiv, 23-28), and how the wickedness of 
 former generations wtis the cause of impending cala- > 
 mities inasmuch as they had broken the lavv- contained 
 in a book which they had never seen and could not 
 possibly have seen. They have to shew why the 
 great Schism and the destruction of the Northern 
 Kingdom are entirely ignored ; and they have to 
 shew the great importance and significance of the 
 one altar at that time, as well as point out when, 
 where, and how it was then chosen. 
 
 These and many other questions the critics have 
 yet to answer, and they lay upon them a burden 
 far more heavy than any that lies upon the 
 ordinary view. It would be difficult to conceive 
 a passage of history more misleading than that 
 about the finding of the law-book, if it really con- 
 tained new legislation, for the whole narrative clearly 
 implies that it was a well-known law-book which had 
 been long in existence, but which had been lost, and 
 whose precepts had long been neglected (2 Kings 
 xxii. 13 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 21). It was manifestly well 
 known to Hezekiah, notwithstanding the reckless as- 
 sertion of Professor Smith, that there is not the 
 " slightest hint" of such a thing ; the Scripture dis- 
 tinctly affirms that Hezekiah rer.ioved the high places, 
 and brake doicn the imar/es — Ma^geboth — and that in 
 doing so he kept the commandments which the Lord com- 
 manded Moses (2 Kings xviii. 4-6). Hezekiah's re- 
 
65 
 
 formation v,-as precisely of the same character as 
 Josiah's, and all historical records would be rendered 
 unintelligible if Prof. Smith's arbitrary and reckless 
 method were adopted in the interpretation of them. 
 
 The poor Chronicler is a sad bungler. Besides 
 much other blundering, we are told that he does not 
 understand what "Ships of Tarshish " were. Most 
 critics whose opinions are worth anything confess 
 themselves somewhat doubtful as to the term, but of 
 course Prof. Smith knows all about it, and he assures 
 us that the Chronicler misunderstood it (ans. 38). 
 He assures us also that the Chronicler has sometimes 
 stated certain things as facts without evidence 
 (ans. 38), which, being inteipreted, simply means 
 that he falsified the history to suit his theories. 
 There could be no science of history, this critic un- 
 blushingly declares, unless he, the critic, is at- liberty 
 to reject the statements of the chronicler whenever 
 they do not fit into his theory (see ans, p. 38) ! The 
 science of history, it seems, cooks the facts which it 
 finds embedded in historical documents to suit its 
 own appetite. If a poor chronicler is somewhat tough 
 and obstinate with his facts, then of course he mis- 
 understands, makes mistakes, draws unwarranted 
 inferences, assumes without evidence. But he is 
 none the less writing under the full and immediate 
 inspiration of the omniscient Spirit ! 
 
 Hezekiah made certain reforms in accordance with 
 the commandments which the Lord commanded 
 Moses ; Josiah, a century later, made precisely simi- 
 lar reforms in accordance with the commandments 
 contained in the law-book found by Hilkiah. But in 
 order to buttress a certain foregone conclusion, Prof. 
 Smith, with his usual critical audacity, would have us 
 accept his ipse dixit in opposition to plain common - 
 sense that this book contained entirely new legisla- 
 tion, and that there is not the " slightest hint" that 
 
 I 
 
66 
 
 Hezekiah knew anything about it ! One is tempted 
 to inquire if the critic has read the passages. 
 
 There was, so far as has yet been shown, less reason 
 for "the surrender of the ancient forms " in Josiah's 
 time than during the preceding centuries. While 
 making a miserably far-fetched and manifestly strained 
 attempt to show why a /o/'e«j/i king was specially to 
 be eschewed, the critic is obliged to admit that before 
 this command (Deuteronomy xvii. lo) could be gene- 
 rally known, the raison cVdre of such an enactment 
 had disappeared (p. 82, note). 
 
 " The book of the law of the Lord, by the hand of 
 Moses" (2 Chron. xxxiv. 14), is plain enough toan ordi- 
 nary uncritical reader, but it is not to be expected that 
 the critics could leave the expression to tell its own 
 unvarnished tale to ordinary men. Their function is 
 sometimes supposed t© be the very laudable and im- 
 portant one of throwing light upon what is dark to 
 others ; but alas ! they sometimes lay themselves open 
 to the stern rebuke " who is this that darkeneth 
 counsel by words without knowledge ?" This book is 
 attributed to !Moses although it was really written by 
 some unknown author seven or eight hundred years 
 after his death. How is this accounted for? "Some three 
 hundred years after Josiah, a writer who wished to 
 convey to his readers the fact that the book was part 
 of the Pentateuch used a current expression to impart 
 that information" (p. 87) ! Let us see how this criti- 
 cism would work in explanation of any similar modern 
 phenomenon. A living historian, let us suppose, is 
 writing a concise history of the Scottish (Josiah's) 
 ileformation, and has occasion to refer to certain 
 Bermons by John Knox or some other author (Hil- 
 kiah^D) as having had a powerful influence in pro- 
 moting that great event. These sermons were edited 
 by a well-known author of the Revolution period 
 (Ezra), and somehow, no one can tell how, along with 
 
67 
 
 much other material they were by him inextricably 
 mixed up with the works of a much older author 
 (Moses), which had been transmitted, partly in writing 
 and partly by oral tradition, from the eighth or ninth 
 century of the Christian era. and the whole work has 
 ever since been known under the name of this ancien t 
 author. Forsome reason not very plain the 16th century 
 preachers had very closely imitated the 8th centur y 
 author. Thus the historian — without a hint as to 
 the true date or authorship — speaks of these sermons 
 under the " current expression " employed to describe 
 the whole complex volume which, strange to say, has 
 come to be regarded by all men as the authentic 
 work of the man whose name it bears. Yea, it is eve n 
 probable that the final editor of the Revolution period 
 may already have lost all knowledge of the original 
 authorship of the various parts of his work. He per- 
 haps believed the sermons mentioned to have been 
 the work of the ancient author, and traces of this 
 opinion may appear in his editorial work (comp. 
 ans. p. 56). Our historian therefore is naturally, 
 and necessarily still more ignorant, but twenty-five 
 centuries hence, long after the New Zealander has 
 surveyed the ruins of London, some Maori Profes- 
 sor of the dead Anglo-Saxon language and litera- 
 ture will discover that mistake ! And in an- 
 nouncing his discovery to the world he will satisfy 
 all critical men that the whole thing has been 
 as simple and natural as possible. He will doubtless 
 be able to say, " For my own part, I am unable to see 
 what other shape the work could have assumed which 
 would have expressed its purpose as clearly and in a 
 way so generally intelligible " (p. S3). 
 
 Verily, if Professor Smith is to be regarded as 
 giving us fair specimens of what the higher critics 
 can achieve, their productions may be described, as 
 Thomas Carlyle describes certain other productions 
 
68 
 
 as containinjT " things meiiiurable at the rate of per- 
 haps one pennyworth per ton." 
 
 Although Professor Smith affirms, without a 
 shadow of proof and in the teeth of all the evidence, 
 that the Chronicler applied to Deuteronomy a 
 " current expression "' which really embraced a much 
 wider range, it is noticeable that the phrase used (2 
 Chron. xrixiv. 14) occurs nowhere else, and is the most 
 precise and definite of all the phrases by which the 
 work is designated ; and it is equally remarkable 
 that the phrase " by the hand of " Moses is nowhere 
 employed in this connection in the book of Deutero- 
 nomy itself. I have hoard of an infidel who affirmed 
 that if God had intended to teach us that Jesus is 
 truly divine, there would have been some unmistak- 
 able declaration to that effect in Scripture, and who 
 persisted in asserting that there is no text in the 
 New Testament which expresses in unequivocal terms 
 the divinity of Jesus Christ. Being asked to say 
 what form of woi'ds he would consider satisfactory as 
 a statement of that doctrine, he dictated the phrase, 
 '* Jesus Christ is the true God ;" whereupon he was 
 directed to 1 John v. 20, where these exact wox-ds 
 occur. Similarly if our critics were to dictate a phrase 
 in which the authenticity of the Deuteronomic and 
 other Pentateuchal legislation as the work of Moses 
 would be clearly indicated, it would be impossible for 
 them to find a more express declaration to that effect 
 than in these words : — Sepher Torath-Jehovah b'yad 
 Mosheh, " The book of the law of the Lord, by the 
 hand of Moses." These words are found in 2 Chron. 
 xxxiv. 14, and nowhere else, and they designate the 
 book found by Hilkiak. 
 
 In reply to the assertion that there are in the 
 earlier prophets no quotations frr.ra Deuteronomy, it 
 would be easy to point out many such — and some 
 have been already pointed out — but, of course, such 
 
(quotations can have no weight with a critic who can 
 turn round at once and tell you that it is the Deuter- 
 onomist that has embodied in his laws the teaching 
 of the prophets, and that the authors of the historical 
 books inserted their own impressions at convenient 
 intervals to make the history tally with what they 
 thought the facts should have been ! Moreover, 
 there are many interpolations ! All these are, as 
 Dr Curtiss expresses it, very convenient ways of 
 dodging difficulties, and the critics having thus 
 dodged and wriggled* out of them try to persuade 
 themselves that they have removed them I 
 
 The amount of dodging and wriggling required to 
 remove some of the difficulties — many of which 
 are of their own raising — may be conceived 
 when some of Professor's Smith's contradictory 
 statements and mutually destructive arguments 
 are considered. Let us look at a few of them. 
 At one tin:e D is a development of Isaiah's 
 teaching ; at another time they contradict each 
 other. At one time D extends from Deut. iv, 4-t to 
 xxix. 1 (Heb. xxviii. 69) ; but very soon this becomes 
 inconvenient, and chaps, xxvii,, xxviii., xxix. must be 
 exempted or at least reckoned doubtful. At one time 
 the argument is enforced by the natural development 
 of the Ger into a mere foreigner, at another ti me a 
 far-reaching hypothesis starts with the fact that the 
 Ger is a Levite. The last editor of the Pentateuch 
 may have really believed that Moses was the author ; 
 but no one could believe that who came to know the 
 truth. At one time the argument reqiaires that 
 dowries be paid to the bride's father by the bridegroom, 
 
 *I use this word " wrig-g'le" in reference to Prof. Smith, 
 because, without a blush on his own part, or a rebuke on the 
 part of any one else, he applied it in open J^ynod to Principal 
 Brown— a man in almost every respect infinitely superior to 
 himself. I am sure, therefore, that he does not reg-ard it as an 
 objectionable term. 
 
70 
 
 at another time it is essential that this custom must 
 have been entirely reversed — in Eastern lands at least 
 — 1000 years B.C. At one time almost the only law 
 prior to Josiah's time is the oral decisions of the 
 priests ; at another time to say such a thing is to 
 exalt tradition above the written Word. At 
 one time the door-keeper must of necessity be 
 a priest, at another the Levites are degraded 
 from the performance of priestly functions to 
 be door-keepers. At one time Ewald is reckoned 
 among cautious critics ; at another time he is not 
 over-cautious. At one time Mark is the final editor 
 of the Gospel that bears his name ; at another time 
 the Gospel is an enlarged edition of Mark's original 
 work. At one time the new criticism makes Israel's 
 history living and real ; at another time it makes 
 our whrde construction of that history uncertain. At 
 (wie time the Deuteronoraic legislation is a develop- 
 ment of Mosaic principles ; at another time it is in 
 direct contradiction of them. At one time the intro- 
 duction of new ordinances is quite consistent with 
 the spirit of the O. T. dispensation ; at another time 
 the whole ritual is in a state of flux ; but yet again 
 the supposition of any change or modification pro- 
 ceeds from a " strange theology.'' At one time the 
 Israelites are affirmed to have laid no weight on 
 questions of authorship, at another time Deuteronomy 
 is ascribed to Moses in order to give it weight ; and 
 again its value does not depend in the least upon 
 its being Mosaic. At one time the heroine of 
 Canticles is " betrothed" to the shepherd ; at 
 anotlier time the critic, finding himself in a 
 dilemma, thinks it is a pity he used the word 
 " betrothed." * 
 
 •The unanswerable lojric of Dr Moody Stuart havinsr shattered 
 Trof. Smith's hulicrous tlieorv of the Canticles, he attempted 
 
71 
 
 And finally, this new theory, which finds insuperable 
 difficulties in the way of believing that the Penta- 
 teuchal legislation could belong to the time of Moses 
 because of its manifold contradictions and inconsis- 
 tencies, after a long and weary chase after divers 
 wonderful hypotheses, comes to the conclusion that in 
 Ezra's time the book with all its contradictions was 
 accepted as the Jewish Code. Eemarkable pheno- 
 menon ! such a book in Moses' time is full of difficul- 
 ties, contradictions, inconsistencies, incredible and 
 impossible ; but in Ezra's time it has become a beauti- 
 ful development, a complete Code, an authoritative 
 Canon, with all its contradictions and inconsistencies 
 merged into harmony ! The same book with precisely 
 the same legislation ! Only substitute the time of 
 Ezra for the time of Mose?, and the critics find no 
 difficulty, specially if you allow Moses to stand as the 
 figurative author ! But common sense enters a protest 
 against such miserable mockery, and surely eveij the 
 critics themselves will by-and-bye come to see that 
 they Lave been making criticism ridiculous. 
 
 The graphic pen of the autlior of the "Eclipse of 
 Eaith," although not writing precisely about the 
 present case, has accurately described how the matter 
 stands. When it is attempted, he says, to show 
 precisely how the Pentateuch is made up, how many 
 documents there are, that they may have been put 
 together like a patch work quilt at any time from 
 Joshua to Ezra, then loud is the din of controversy, 
 
 to wrisgle out of his position by asserting that Kallah 
 [betrothed], " as was well known, was an extremely wide word 
 in Hebrew." Well, it occurs 34 times in the O. T., and ni 17 
 at least it is applied to a married person ; it is seven tnnes con- 
 nected with " bridegro' ■m"— Chathan— and in no case does it 
 mean anything "extremely wide" of betrothed. Nme tnnes 
 it is rendered in the A. V. *' bride," and eight times " spouse," 
 six of these being in Canticles. It is not the term that is ex- 
 tremely wide in its meaning, but the new theory that is ex- 
 tremely ridiculous in its notioHS, and extremely repulsive in 
 its ethics. 
 
and iutinite the variety of opinions. " I have found 
 a fresh bit of the Elohistic docum ent," cries one 
 critic, "it begins in the middle of the 13th verse of 
 this chapter, and ends in the middle of the 14th 
 
 verse, just at the word ." ** No s\ich thing," 
 
 cries a second, " that is clearly Jehovistic ; any body 
 can see that with half an eye." "You are both 
 mistaken, " cries a third, "it belongs to neither, as I 
 have proved in a new dissertation of 150 pages." 
 And when it is to be determined at what epoch these 
 fortuitous atoms were gathered together in the 
 Pentateuch, equally edifying is the variety of opinion. 
 " No part," says one, " can be as old as the Judges, 
 i.e., if there ever were any Judges." " At least," 
 cries a second, " there is no trace of it before 
 Samuel's time." " We must come down yet lower," 
 says a third, " Nathan or Gad may have had a hand 
 in it." " Pure nonsense," cries a fourth, " the 
 Pentateuch was not known before Solomon's time.'' 
 " No, nor then," cries a fifth, " we must come down 
 to the time of the captivity ; perhaps if Ezra were 
 aliv^, he could tell us something about it." " Pray, 
 gentlemen, agree amcmg yourselves," an ordinary 
 Christian feels inclined to say ; " it is impossible 
 criticism can be worth much, which terminates in 
 such endless discordancies." 
 
 One happy thing is, however, that whenever one 
 of these theories is combated alone, it immediately 
 crumbles to pieces in our hands. And no wonder, for 
 the learned authoi's of all the rest, as well as the 
 advocates of the ordinary view, fall upsn it. And 
 such, I predict, will be the issue in the present case. 
 
 This was written nearly twenty years ago, but it is 
 equally applicable to critics and their theories to-day. 
 The writer was possibly no critic ; but he was 
 certainly no fool, and even critics would be all the 
 better occasionally of a little common sense. 
 
BS1225.4.S66S6 
 
 Professor Smith's criticism on the 
 
 nceton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 00040