the documents from which the Pentateuch was subsequently framed; and there are those that would have it as then first appearing in its present form when it was said to be found in the temple in Josiah's reign. But it is impossible to conceive that a deliberate imposture (for such it would have been) was then palmed upon the nation by men like Josiah and Hilkiah, who were at that time specially anxious, by penitence and turning away from sin, to avert God's threatened judgments. Nor, had they been so minded, could they have ventured on an act of sacrilege which must have been immediately exposed. There is no proof that this was the only existing copy of the law; but, if it were, instances are not wanting, even in modern days, of the entire disappearance for a time of some book which, when a single copy has been found and brought to light, is at once easily recognized as the very original work, and no production of the finder.

But, surely, however some of the allusions above given may be excepted against, there is enough to show that the whole mind of Israel, as evidenced through all its literature, was impregnated with facts, and principles, and habits, and customs, which are narrated and prescribed in the Pentateuch, and that the other books are continually re-producing Pentateuch phraseology. It is not reasonable to confine the testimony so furnished to fragments, or to suppose that prophets based their solemn warnings, and kings constructed their political and religious observances on mere floating leaves, which had not been brought into anything like order or completeness or definite proportions. There must have been some finished work to which such allusions were made. And the Pentateuch is a whole, constructed on a plan, regularly developed, with its parts fitting to each other. If it were dismembered and separated into its so-called component portions, they would not be severally complete. It is true that writers like Hupfeld have endeavoured to prove the independence and completeness of the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents; but their own admission that the final editor has suppressed portions of these documents is fatal to their proof. It is impossible to enter here into any detailed argument for the unity of the Pentateuch : the question has been fully treated by various authors, to whom the student must be referred. It may just, however, be remarked that the completeness, original or factitious, must needs be very perfect, since for ages it was received as a whole, the acutest minds never detecting anything heterogeneous in its composition. That peculiarities, which have in later days been supposed to mark a diversity of authors, were perceived has been already confessed; but the conclusion which some modern critics have drawn from them was not guessed at.

'De Wette, Einleitung, § 162 a. p. 200. See Hävernick, Einleitung, § 139. I. ii. pp. 534-540.

2 Hupfeld's purpose is to show that a document is complete in itself. But, after eliminating it in the best way he can, he still has to confess that there are gaps in it. He is not, however, dismayed, and persists that originally there were no gaps, but that pieces were left out by the compiler when he had materials from other sources. Die Quellen der Genesis, p. 194. It is almost needless to observe that an ingenious man may by such a process of argument prove almost anything he chooses.

Hävernick, Einleitung, § 110. I. ii. pp. 35—58., Introduction, § 6. pp. 23–44.; Keil, Einleitung, §§ 22, 32.

There are difficulties in the way of a late composition of the Pentateuch which it seems hard to solve. Why are archaic forms used through the whole, if the primary documents were of no great antiquity, and if the editor was later still? For example, we have

are used through the נער and הוא and ;האלה for the later form האל

Pentateuch, even in Deuteronomy, which some regard as very late indeed, for both genders.' Hupfeld, who admits the fact, accounts for it by saying that the editor-that is, of the first four books-applied a harmonizing hand, and then that either he who annexed Deuteronomy was possessed with a wonderful passion (mit einer sonderbaren Grille) for uniformity, or perhaps the author himself had the fancy of imitating the phraseology of old books. And then,

as it might be asked why persons so fond of harmonizing did not harmonize the names of the Deity, but left here, and in there, Dr. Hupfeld supposes that, as in later parlance both names were used, and were equally authorized, and as there was a presumption that D was introduced for special internal grounds, so it was felt that no change of this must be made. He that is convinced by such reasoning must be easily convinced indeed.

There is a problem connected with the Pentateuch, which presents some difficulty under any aspect, and has had exercised upon it some of the keenest wits, but which, on the supposition of a late date, seems to become absolutely insurmountable. It is the absence of distinct enunciation of the soul's immortality. This is not the place to discuss the matter itself, or to show how far that which is not directly taught is deducible from the Pentateuch by inference. To the acknowledged facts as they lie before us our attention must be exclusively directed. If we read from Genesis through the history, the devotional poetry, the prophetical utterances of scripture, we see an orderly development. The future world, distant and darkly hinted at first, draws nearer and nearer: the veil is gradually lifted; and flashes of the inner glory shine more brightly forth. So that David could gaze upon the path of life, and anticipate the pleasures at God's right hand for evermore; while the prophets describe exultingly the spiritual and everlasting glories of Messiah's salvation. All is in order-the church advancing, God's purposes ripening, as the ages rolled on. But now put the Pentateuch in the time of the prophets, in David's time, and you have a vast anomaly. A compiler, sitting down to construct the guide-book of the nation, the laws and the ordinances and the covenant, even if he had used older documents (and these older documents are placed, as we have seen, by the new critics very late), could not have thrown back his mind, and have shut out that blessed light which was glowing round him. It is impossible to account for the phenomena of the Pentateuch in regard

See other examples of peculiarities of speech found exclusively in the Pentateuch, in Kurtz, Einheit des Pent. p. 77, note. They are such as Tuch acknowledges: comp. Keil, Einleitung, § 32. p. 127.; Jahn, Introduction, part ii. chap. i. § 3. pp. 177-179.; Hävernick, Einleitung, § 31. I. i. pp. 188., &c.

2 Die Quellen der Genesis, p. 199.... so lässt sich das daraus erklären dass auch im spätern Sprachgebrauch beide Namen nebeneinander bestehn, also gleichberechtigt erscheinen, und die Vermuthung für sich hatte aus bestimmten inneren Gründen gesetzt zu sein, so dass es unantastbar für ihn wurde. The words are worth preserving.

to the great doctrine of the soul's immortality if you bring down its composition to a late period.

Other considerations there are of a similar kind which are not without their weight. The Pentateuch was the law-book of the Israelitish nation. Now any one who wants to form a digest of laws from earlier documents places them in order, strikes out those which have become obsolete, and condenses what he finds into a consistent whole. But in the Pentateuch we see laws given at one time, which are modified or added to, at another. This is so clearly the fact that an argument has been raised therefrom against the whole being the work of a single writer. That has been considered before: it may here be said that this fact is a proof of the antiquity, a proof that the laws were committed to writing as soon as they were promulgated. God, though acting miraculously, did not treat the Israelites as mere machines. They were to use the ordinary means of acquiring knowledge, they were to learn by experience. So that, though they had a divine conductor, yet Hobab, well acquainted with the country, would be of vast service to them, " instead of eyes," when they were encamping in the wilderness (Numb. x. 31.). And Moses was let to find the inconvenience of being sole judge (Exod. xviii. 13-26.), before he was led to appoint inferior magistrates, an appointment which the Lord fully sanctioned. So it was on occasion of Zelophehad's leaving no sons that the general law was promulgated (Numb. xxvii. 8.), that a man's inheritance was to descend to his heirs female in default of male. No more was added. God left the people to find whether this was sufficient. And afterwards, on the representation of the elders of their tribe, a supplemental law was issued (Numb. xxxvi. 6.), that such females must marry only with their own tribe (comp. Numb. ix. 1-14.). It is hard to believe that we should find piece-meal legislation of this kind delivered by a writer who lived long after, when the law was complete.1

But the limits of this volume will allow no more to be said; and the matter must be summed up in a few closing words. The reasons produced for different opinions have been carefully weighed, and the great force of many of them is freely acknowledged. Still the conclusion seems irresistible for an early authorship for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. If Moses could not relate his own death, so that some final addition had to be made, if there were documents existing before his time of which he might avail himself, he yet seems (it is the persuasion of the present editor) so to have written and modelled it as that he may fairly be called its author. The whole mass of external evidence is in favour of this. succeeding writers of the Old Testament appear to confirm it. And there is the venerable authority of Christ himself, which cannot, without violence, be set aside. None of the objections taken from the internal structure seem conclusive. The alleged contradictions are not irreconcilable. The traces of a later date are not convincing. The narratives of the Pentateuch are literally true. The miracles it records were actually performed. The voice of God really uttered the

The

It may be remarked, also, that it is in the highest degree improbable that the threat of destroying Israel, and raising up a new nation in the posterity of Moses, Numb. xiv., would proceed from a late writer,

precepts which are attributed to him. So that thus, by Moses's hand, was laid the first stone of that edifice of God's word which hath into the fair proportions in which we now enjoy a completed bible.']

grown

CHAPTER II.

ON THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

SECTION I.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

THIS division of the sacred writings comprises twelve books; viz. from Joshua to Esther inclusive: the first seven of these books are, by the Jews, called the former prophets, probably because they treat of the more ancient periods of Jewish history 2, and because they are most justly supposed to be written by prophetical men. The events recorded in these books occupy a period of almost one thousand years, which commences at the death of Moses, and terminates with the great national reform effected by Nehemiah, after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity.

It is evident, from an examination of the historical books, that they are collections from the authentic records of the Jewish nation; and it should seem that, though the substance of the several histories was written under divine direction, when the events were fresh in memory, and by persons who were evidently contemporary with the transactions which they have narrated, yet that under the same direction they were disposed in the form, in which they have been transmitted to us, by some other person, long afterwards, and probably all by the same hand, and about the same time. Nothing, indeed, is more certain than that very ample memoirs or records of the Hebrew republic were written from the first commencement of the theocracy, to which the authors of these books very frequently refer. Such a practice is necessary in a well-constituted state: we have evidence from the sacred writings that it anciently obtained among the heathen nations (compare Esther ii. 23. and vi. 1.); and there is evident proof that it likewise prevailed among the Israelites from the very beginning of their polity (See Exod. xvii. 14.).. Hence it is that we find such frequent references to the Chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah in the books of Samuel and Kings, and also to the books of Gad, Nathan, and Iddo.

The historical books are of very great importance for the right understanding of some other parts of the Old Testament: those portions, in particular, which treat on the life and reign of David, furnish a very instructive key to many of his psalms; and the prophetical books derive much light from these histories. But the attention of the sacred writers was not wholly confined to the Jewish people: they have given us many valuable, though incidental, notices concerning the state of the surrounding nations; and the value of these notices is

1 See Kitto's Cycl. of Bibl. Lit. art. Pentateuch; comp. also Macdonald, Creation and the Fall, part i. pp. 9, &c.; and Rawlinson, Hist. Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records, lect. ii. pp. 36-78.

2 On the Jewish divisions of the canon of scripture, see before, pp. 34, 35.

very materially enhanced by the consideration, that, until the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, the two latest Jewish historians, little or no dependence can be placed upon the relations of heathen writers. But these books are to be considered not merely as a history of the Jewish church: they also clearly illustrate the proceedings of God towards the children of men, and form a perpetual comment on the declaration of the royal sage, that "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov. xiv. 34.). While they exhibit a mournful and impartial view of the depravity of the human heart, and thus prove that "man is very far gone from original righteousness," they at the same time show "the faithfulness of God to his promises, the certain destruction of his enemies, and his willingness to extend mercy to the returning penitent. They manifest, also, the excellency of true religion, and its tendency to promote happiness in this life, as well as in that which is to come; and they furnish us with many prophetical declarations, the striking fulfilment of which is every way calculated to strengthen our faith in the word of God."

[Keil well remarks that a theocratic principle is to be observed in the historical books. The covenant with Israel, and the rule of their life, private and national, had been laid down in the book of the law; and now there must be set forth the result of faithfulness or unfaithfulness to the divine commands by word and fact; so that the annals of the chosen people simply unfold the historical realization of the divine plan previously sketched out in the law. The form in which we find the historical books has been regulated by this principle. Of some persons and things the notice is scanty, of others comprehensive and detailed. This arose not from the plenty or the paucity of materials, but from the suitableness or otherwise of occurrences to subserve the theocratic purpose. Hence the authors are in the background: they do not introduce their own feelings or opinions: they pass no judgment on the persons whose story they narrate, and leave the moral worth of their doings to be estimated by results. The summaries of character of the Israelitish monarchs to be found in the books of Kings are well-nigh the only exception.2]

SECTION II.

ON THE BOOK OF JOSHUA.

I. Author, genuineness, and credibility of this book.-II. Argument.— III. Scope and design.-IV. Synopsis of its contents.-V. Observations on the book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua x. 13., and the miracle there recorded.

I. THE book of Joshua, which in all the copies of the Old Testament immediately follows the Pentateuch, is thus denominated,

Herodotus and Thucydides, the two most ancient profane historians extant, were contemporary with Ezra and Nehemiah, and could not write with any certainty of events much before their own time. Bishop Stillingfleet has admirably proved the obscurity, defects, and uncertainty of all ancient profane history, in the first book of his Origines Sacræ, pp. 1-65. 8th edit. folio. [Late researches are, however, adding certainty to the history of various ancient nations, and producing additional confirmation of the credit of the sacred writers.] 2 See Keil, Einleitung, § 40. pp. 160-164.