by themselves, are mere disjointed fragments, and require the Elohistic story to connect them with each other.

212. This implies at once that the Elohist was the oldest of the two writers, and that his narrative may have been used by the other as the groundwork, upon which he framed his own additions. The Jehovist, in fact, may have revised what the Elohist had written, making his own insertions here and there, sometimes in long passages, (as in the second account of the Creation,) sometimes in shorter ones, (as in the small section about the Deluge,) sometimes interpolating two or three verses only, or even a single verse or part of a verse, which makes its appearance in the midst of the older writing, and, now and then, in such a way as to make it difficult to assign precisely to each writer his own particular portion. In most cases, however, the distinction of the two hands is so plain, that it cannot be mistaken by any attentive reader.

213. Besides the peculiarity in the use of the Divine Name, there are other differences in style and language, which are found to distinguish the two writers.

Thus the Elohist uses the expression,, El Shaddai, ALMIGHTY GOD, Xvii.1,* xxviii.3, xxxv.11, xliii. 14, xlviii.3, xlix.25, which the Jehovist never employs.

Again the Elohist uses Israel as a personal name for Jacob, xxxv.21,22, xxxvii.3,13, xliii.6,8,11, xlv.28, xlvi.1,2,29,30, xlvii. 29,31, xlviii.2,8,10,11,13,14,21, xlix.2, 1.2,—the Jehovist never.

Also the Elohist uses always Padan or Padan-Aram, i. e. the cultivated field of the highlands,' for the mountainous district near the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris, xxv.20, xxviii.2,5,6,7, xxxi.18, xxxiii.18, xxxv.9,26, xlvi.15, xlviii.7, a name which occurs nowhere else in any other part of the Bible; whereas the Jehovist uses Aram-Naharaim, i. e. the highlands

* The occurrence of the name, Jehovah, in this verse, (N.B. in this verse only of the whole chapter,) will be considered, when we review the whole book of Genesis in Part III.

of the two rivers,' xxiv.10 (E. V. Mesopotamia), which name appears also again in D.xxiii.4, Ju.iii.8, 1Ch.xix.6, Ps.lx.(title).

214. We shall find that the Elohistic narrative forms the basis of the whole story from Genesis to Joshua, fragments of it appearing, here and there, throughout. In fact, at the very end of Joshua, xxiv.32, we have a passage, containing the account of Joseph's bones being brought at last into the land of Canaan, and buried in Shechem, which is evidently by the same hand as that which wrote Joseph's dying injunction about them in G.1.25, and that which recorded the fact of Moses taking them out of Egypt in E.xiii. 19 and all these, as we shall see, are due to the Elohist.

215. We shall have occasion to return to this subject hereafter. But this circumstance, viz. that such unmistakable differences of expression distinguish, throughout the book of Genesis, the parts which are due to these separate writers, may almost, with reference to the momentous questions involved, be called providential, since it enables us to speak positively on some points, which might otherwise have been still subject to doubt, and will be found greatly to relieve the difficulty of determining, with some approach to probability, the age of the different portions of the Pentateuch.

216. But this simple fact, which, when once attention is drawn to it, will be so obvious to any unprejudiced reader that it cannot be disputed, is enough by itself to set aside the ordinary notion of the whole Pentateuch having been written by Moses, and, as such, coming to us in every part with the sanction arising from his Divine Mission. It does, however, more than this. It proves that the original Elohistic document was not considered so venerable and sacred by the second writer, whoever he may have been, in whatever age he may have lived, that he was restrained by any religious fears or scruples from meddling with it,—from altering, enlarging, or curtailing it, at his own pleasure, and mixing up with it, as of equal value, his own compositions. Even if both were divinely inspired to an equal degree, yet it

N

must seem strange that one inspired writer should take such liberties with the writings of another, believed to be divinely infallible, that one man, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, should amend, add to, or erase, in this way, portions of a story, which either was, or was believed to be, in its every letter and word, of Divine original, and, as such, of absolute, immutable authority.

217. It may be well here, before we proceed further, to insert a few quotations from KURTZ, which will show the gradual progress of an honest mind, in the investigation of the matter now before us, from the most decided orthodoxy at starting, to a very considerable change of opinion at the conclusion of his work.

I quote first from vol.i.p.56-65.

It is a historical fact, better established than any other in antiquarian research, that the Pentateuch is the basis and the necessary preliminary of all Old Testament history and literature, both of which and with them Christianity as their fruit and perfection - would resemble a tree without roots, a river without a source, or a building which, instead of resting on a firm foundation, was suspended in the air, if the composition of the Pentateuch were relegated to a later period in Jewish history. The references to the Pentateuch, occurring in the history and literature of the Old Testament, are so numerous and comprehensive, and they bear on so many different points, that we cannot even rest satisfied with the admission, which BERTHEAU himself would readily make, that many portions of the present Pentateuch date, indeed, from the time of Moses, but were only collated and elaborated by a later editor. We go further, and maintain that the whole Pentateuch — its five books, and all the portions of which it is at present made up — is the basis and the necessary antecedent of the history of the Jewish people, commonwealth, religion, manners, and literature. We have not reached the stage in our researches, when we shall submit proof for this assertion. This, indeed, is the object of the history, which we propose to furnish in the following pages.

The necessity, on the one hand, of considering the Pentateuch as the basis of Jewish history, in all the relations of its internal developement, and, on the other, the appearance, at the very period when the Pentateuch must have been composed, of the man whom Israel celebrated as the founder of its national and political history, has in all ages induced the representatives, both of the Synagogue and of the Church, to maintain, in accordance with the most ancient tradition, the Mosaic authorship of this, the fundamental, work of the Old Covenant. But this principle may be held in a narrower, and in a wider, acceptation of it. In the former case, the

whole Pentateuch, as at present existing, is held to be from the pen of Moses, (of course, regarding the passage D.xxxii.48—xxxiv as a later addition and conclusion, written by a contemporary who survived Moses). In the latter case, it is thought that only certain portions of the Pentateuch had been written by Moses himself, and the rest by his contemporaries or survivors (collaborators or disciples), either at his own behest, and under his own superintendence, or, at least, in the same spirit, and that with them the sections and fragments, left by Moses himself, had been combined into one work. The latter opinion has of late been advocated by DELITZSCH; the former, (which is also the old one), has latterly been set forth by HENGSTENBERG, RANKE, HÄVERNICK, DRECHSLER, WELTE, Herbst, SCHOLZ, KEIL, and the AUTHOR, in his 'Contribution towards proving and defending the Unity of the Pentateuch,' and in his Unity of Genesis. The same view will be maintained and defended by the Author in the Introduction which is soon to appear.

We have not indeed at any time concealed it from ourselves or from others that, notwithstanding the able works of HENGSTENBERG, RANKE, DRECHSLER, and our own attempts, the argument, which upholds the original unity of Genesis, and of the Pentateuch, was not wholly free from difficulties.

Among these the following are the principal : —

(i) The almost exclusive use of the name Elohim in the sections, which manifestly form part of (what is called) the fundamental portion of the work. Granting that the term Elohim may, in many, or even in most, of these passages, be shewn to have been naturally and necessarily chosen on account of the idea attaching to that term, still many other passages might be adduced, which require to be twisted, in order to admit of this explanation. If, besides, we take into consideration E.vi.2, it is indeed probable that the use of the name Jehovah had purposely been avoided. in some passages.

(ii) The absence of all reference to the blessing of Abraham-(G.xii.3, xviii.18, xxii. 18, xxiv.7, xxviii.14, all Jehovistic sections) in Elohistic sections, where we should certainly have been warranted in expecting to find an allusion to it, e.g. in G.xvii.

(iii) Frequently we notice a usus loquendi peculiar to each of the two sections. It is, indeed, true that STÄHELIN has urged this very much beyond what sound criticism warrants. We believe that, in our two critical works, we have irrefragably shewn that about nine-tenths of the words and modes of expression, which he mentions as characteristic of each of the two sections, are entirely fanciful. But we confess that in some cases we have been unsuccessful in shewing that the differences in the mode of expression were due to the difference in the subjects treated. Among these we reckon the striking circumstance, that the Elohistic sections always designate Mesopotamia as Padan-Aram, and the Jehovistic as Aram-Naharaim.

But, despite these difficulties, which at the time we knew we had not perfectly removed, we thought with a good conscience to maintain and defend the unity of Genesis.

218. Let us now see how KURTZ is obliged to modify his view, when he has reached the end of his work, iii.p.502–522.

We cannot conceal the fact, that our examination of the middle books of the Pentateuch has brought us more and more to the conclusion, that several authors have taken part in the composition of the Pentateuch. Our inquiry, hitherto, has not been thoroughly critical in its character, but has been conducted primarily and chiefly in connection with the developement of the plan of salvation, and therefore cannot be regarded as thoroughly exhaustive. As far as it has gone, it has brought us to the following conclusions, though our mind is still wavering and undecided.

(i) It is probable that Moses composed, and committed to writing with his own hand, simply those portions of the Pentateuch, which are expressly attributed to him.

(ii) The groups of laws in the central books, of whose authorship no express statement is made, must have been written down by the direction of Moses, and under his supervision, before the addresses in Deuteronomy were delivered, and immediately after they emanated from the mouth of Moses.

(iii) The last revision of the Pentateuch, and its reduction into the form in which it has come down to us, took place in the latter portion of the life of Joshua, or very shortly after his death.

In the historical portions of the Pentateuch, we must admit the existence of two distinct sources, which may be described as the 'groundwork' and the 'supplementary work.' Whether the groundwork consisted originally of historical matter only, or contained from the very outset the groups of laws in the central books,— whether it was written by the author who compiled the central groups of laws, or not, these, and other questions of a similar character, we are utterly unable to determine.

219. KURTZ then states his own conclusions as follows:

At all events, we venture to express it as our confident persuasion, that the question, as to the origin and composition of the Pentateuch, is far from having been settled, either by HÄVERNICK, HENGSTENBERG, and KEIL, on the one hand, or by TUCH, STÄHELIN, and DELITZSCH, on the other, and still less by EWALD or HUPFELD. But whether the further attempts of scientific criticism to solve the problem shall continue to follow the direction already taken by these meritorious scholars, or whether they shall strike out an entirely new and independent course, and whether the results obtained shall be favourable or unfavourable to the unity and authenticity of the Pentateuch, the following points are, to our mind, so firmly established, that no criticism can ever overthrow them.

(i) The Pentateuch, in its present form, is canonical and theopneustic, composed, arranged, and incorporated in the codex of the Sacred Scriptures of the Ancient Covenant, with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit.

(ii) It is authentic: so far as its Divine origin is concerned, authentic, because it