Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

that Og, after the battle in which he was subdued, when he found himself unable to defend his own capital, had fled to Rabbath, where he may have died and been buried in this coffin.

No. XVI.

TEXT: Deut. iii. 14.-" Jair the son of Manesseh took all "the country of Argob, unto the coasts of Geshuri, and Maac"hathi; and called them after his own name Bashan-havoth-jair " unto this day."

OBJECTION." Unto this day," could not have been written by Moses, as the event happened only a few months before his death.

66

ANSWER. This is undoubtedly the insertion of some later writer willing to connect this memorandum of ancient history with the part of the Mosaic record to which it properly belonged. And though the critics have not noticed it, yet it seems to me evident, that the very substance and structure of this verse mark it as an interpolation, In the two verses before, and the two verses after, Moses mentions the distribution he had made of the lands taken on that side Jordan, to the two and a half tribes, with this remarkable phrase annexed to each I gave them." Thus the 13th verse is, " And the rest of Gilead, " and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half-tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was "called the land of giants.' The verse now in question repeats this fact in a form different from that used immediately before, interrupting the narrative by telling us, that Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob, &c.; and then the legislator proceeds again in the first person, in perfect connexion with the 13th verse, but very abruptly as following the 14th, "And I gave Gilead unto Machir." In a word, we must include the 14th verse in a parenthesis, to preserve the train of thought and style unbroken: its introduction is forced and unnecessary.

66

[ocr errors]

No. XVII.

TEXT: The entire Thirty-fourth chaper of Deuteronomy, which gives an account of the death of Moses.

ANSWER.-The words of Moses evidently conclude with the thirtythird chapter, which contains the blessings pronounced by him on the whole people collectively, and the several tribes distinctly, before he went up by the command of God to Mount Nebo, to view the land of Canaan and to die there. The thirty-fourth chapter was added to complete the history, the first eight verses probably immediately after his death by his successor Joshua, the last four by some later writer, probably Ezra.

We have now collected all the passages which the ingenuity and diligence of Le Clerc, a most acute critic, could discover in the Pentateuch, calculated to raise a doubt whether it was not composed by some writer later than Moses, which on a hasty view of the subject, ho maintained was the fact; and adopted the wild hypothesis, that the Pentateuch was compiled by the priest, sent from Assyria to teach the colonists settled by Nebuchadnezzar in Samaria, the manner of worshipping the God of the land, On maturer consideration, he distinctly saw and candidly acknowledged, that these passages did not bear him out in this opinion; which he accordingly publicly retracted, and distinctly reconsidered all the Texts he had alleged in its support, and refuted the arguments against the genuineness of the Pentateuch, which he had derived from them. Witsius, who answered his original objections, and says of him, "In iis conquirendis omnium ni fallor diligentiam superavit doctissimus Clericus," concludes his answer with observing, that "if all these texts are considered without prejudice, only four passages of the entire volume can be found, in which an "interpolation must be recognized; and this an interpolation so slight, as only to extend to the change of some one word, or the addition of some one historical memorandum (in additione brevissimæ historiola) "to which the words of the original gave a natural occasion.”—“ And surely (concludes Witsius) these minute additions do not bear out "the enormous assumption of pronouncing, that Moses was not the au"thor of the Pentateuch, in opposition to the credit due to the suf"frage of all antiquity, as well as the authority of Christ and the "Apostles."

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

66

Le Clerc was very naturally disposed to give his own objections as great a degree of importance as they would bear, and his conclusion is as follows: Hence we may collect, that of eighteen passages, which are adduced as indications of a more modern date in the Pentateuch, "the greater number are doubtful; and it cannot therefore be urged, "that there are every where through the Books of Moses marks of a "different age. Some are plainly added by another hand, and yet they " are not such as to prevent us from acknowledging these books to be "the work of Moses; just as no one would deny that the Iliad and Odyssey were the works of Homer, because, as the old grammarians allege, there are various verses interpolated in different parts of "these poems. We are not to imagine that in the most ancient times, "there was as great a variety of books or as many copies of the same "book as at present; therefore it might easily come to pass, that any thing added to the writings of Moses by any later prophet, might afterwards appear in all copies of a subsequent date."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Le Clerc adds, "If indeed it was not from other considerations evident, that far the greatest part of the Pentateuch must have been "written by Moses himself, as we have before shown, there would, I "confess, arise from these marks of a more modern hand, most strong "reasons for believing that the entire work was written at a later pe66 riod. But as we have certainly proved, that we must acknowledge "almost the entire Pentateuch to have been written by Moses, there "is no cause why we should not attribute these books to him."

These arguments of the learned Critic I have endeavoured to com

bine with such others, as appeared to me most important, in the First Part of the preceding Work, Lect. I. and II.; and I hope I may add, that I have traced another series of proofs from the internal structure of the history, in Lect. III, and IV. which preceding writers had not adverted to, and which, combined with those before adduced, form a mass of direct proofs that the entire Pentateuch was the work of Moses himself; against which the presumptions and suspicions grounded on the Texts we have been now considering, are of so little weight as to be incapable of raising any serious doubt in any candid or reflecting mind.

Dr Geddes's opinions on the Authenticity of the Pentateuch, considered:-Specimens of his reasonings on this subject.

66

[ocr errors]

THE minuteness of this discussion will, I trust, be excused, when it is recollected, that the genuineness of the Pentateuch is still doubted or denied, by Writers who claim the character of learned critics, and even of profound divines. Amongst these, the LATE Reverend Dr. GEDDES must not be passed by. As a theologian, commentator on and translator of the Scriptures, he certainly has reached the very acme of liberality, even in this liberal age. The general tenor of his opinions is indeed very clearly summed up, where he tells us that On the whole I think it may be laid down as an axiom, that the bulk " of Christians, whether Protestants or Papists, cannot be said to have "" a rational faith because their motives of credibility are not rational "motives, but the positive assertions of an assumed authority, which "they have never discussed or durst not question; their religion is the "fruit of unenlightened credulity. A very small number* of curious " and learned men only have thoroughly examined the motives of their religious belief, in any communion; and it will be found, I presume, "that the MORE CURIOUS and LEARNED they were, the LESS they GENERALLY BELIEVED: hence perhaps, the old adage, Ignorance "is the mother of devotion." A writer holding this principle as an AXIOM, and ranking himself if not with the learned, yet certainly with the curious, we may expect would be careful not to believe too much. He tells us indeed, (and I will not presume to question his veracity, to his own master he must stand or fall)" I willingly pro"fess myself a sincere though unworthy disciple of Christ; the Gospel of Jesus is my religious code, and his doctrines my dearest delight: "Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. Rather than renounce these glorious titles, I would shed my blood. Catholic Christianity I revere wherever I find it," &c. &c. But as he has no where condescended to tell us, in what Catholic Christianity consists, "that Christianity which is a rational, a most rational religion;" I can only enter this solemn protest against any rash infidel, who may

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*Vide Preface to Critical Remarks, p. 5 and 6.

claim Dr Geddes's authority as supporting infidelity, from his supporting particular opinions, which with minds differently constituted would lead to it. His conclusion we see is different, though his premises are unhappily too often the same with those of the infidel. I am compelled to notice some of them connected with the subject of this Work.

[ocr errors]

The Pentateuch this learned Critic admires and applauds, declaring that "whether it be considered as a body of history, or as a system of 'jurisprudence, it will not appear to shrink from a comparison with "any piece of ancient writing, even when divested of every privilege "it might claim from revelation." To prove this more clearly, the Doctor in the process of his inquiries strips it of all such privileges. With him, Moses was no more inspired than Teutas, Numa, or Lycurgus; and the query, whether Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, appears to him "never to have been sufficiently answered, un"less injurious language may be deemed an answer." And he declares that from intrinsic evidence it appears to him indubitable, first, that "the Pentateuch in its present form was not written by Moses; secondly, it was written in the land of Canaan, and most probably at "Jerusalem; thirdly, it could not be written before the reign of David, "nor after that of Hezekiah." Here he was impatient to enlighten mankind by communicating the result of his inquiries, though he had not leisure to communicate the proofs on which that result depends. He had reserved those for his general preface, which he had not time to write in fourteen years (for his Prospectus was published in 1786, his Critical Remarks in 1800;) and unhappily death has closed his labours, before he was able to favour the world with this long promised Preface; we are therefore compelled to glean his reasons as they are scattered in his volumes.

[ocr errors]

66

I think it however necessary to remark his concession, that though he is inclined to believe the Pentateuch was reduced to its present form in the reign of Solomon, yet he is persuaded, "it was compiled from ancient documents, some coeval with and some even anterior "to Moses." And he further observes, "From the time of Moses "there can be no doubt, I think, of the Jews having written records. Moses, who had been taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians, most 'probably was the first Hebrew writer, or the first who applied writing to historical compositions. From his Journals a great part of the Pentateuch seems to have been compiled. Whether he were "also the original author of the Hebrew cosmogony, and of the his、 tory prior to his own days, I would neither confidently assert nor 'positively deny."

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

On the integrity of the present text of the Pentateuch, he observes, that "though it has not come down to us without alterations, yet what "work of antiquity is there, the text of which we have so many "means of correcting as that of the Pentateuch? Two rival peoples, "the Jews and Samaritans, have preserved separate exemplars of it in "different characters; it was excellently translated into Greek, at a

* Vide his Verses in answer to a Friend, who asked him, Whether he thought Moses inspired? -End of the Critical Remarks.

!

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

period when the copies must have been much less imperfect than they afterwards became; and we have various versions of very early "date, by the help of which, compared with the original and with

one another, and of the various readings of the text itself, collected "in the present century from a great number of manuscripts, a nearly "genuine copy of the Pentateuch may, by the rules of a judicious criticism, be at length obtained."

[ocr errors]

In this entire account there is certainly some obscurity and confusion. What is meant by the Pentateuch in its present form? Does it mean this work with every word or verse which now is found in it, e. g. with the last chapter of Deuteronomy; or the text, as to the kings of Edom, marked above, No. X.? In this sense it might be admitted, that the Pentateuch in its present form, i. e. so far as relates to these few passages, plainly inserted by some later writer long after Moses, to explain or complete the history, was not entirely written by Moses, nor completed perhaps until the time of Ezra. But if, as the Doctor admits, there can be no doubt that the Jews had written records from the time of Moses; if the Pentateuch was compiled from the very journals of Moses himself; then it becomes the province of sound criticism to decide, how much of it is thus formed of the journals of Moses. I think I have proved from clear internal evidence, it was entirely composed of these identical journals, that is, entirely written by Moses himself, except only the few passages above referred to.

The learned Doctor has no where clearly detailed his opinions on this point in their full extent, by distinguishing the passages he considered as the genuine production of Moses, from those which he attributes to the supposed modern compiler. He has, however, given us some specimens of his mode of reasoning on this subject, which I proceed to consider.

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

Gen. x. 19.-Dr Geddes in this verse adopts the Samaritan reading, which describes the bounds of Canaan as more extensive than the Hebrew text, viz. "from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates " and to the HINDER sea," (an expression elegant perhaps, but to me not very clear.) And he observes, I prefer the Samaritan reading to the Hebrew, for the following reasons: in the promise made to Abraham, chap. xv. ver. 18, 19, 20, 21, the very same boundaries are assigned "to the land of Canaan in all the copies, which are here marked in "the Samaritan, and the same number of peoples or tribes included in "them. Again, in Exod, xxiii. 31, the same boundaries are assigned "in a more particular manner from the Red Sea to the Sea of the "Philistines (that is, the Mediterranean) and from the Wilderness of "Shur to the great river Euphrates. It is true this was not accom'plished until the reigns of David and Solomon, which latter is expressly said in the first Book of Kings, iv. 21. to have had dominion over all the kingdoms from the river Euphrates unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the borders of Egypt. But whence (asks the Doctor) sprung the present reduction of those boundaries in the I present text of Genesis? That I know not; but I suspect it arose "from this; that when the compiler or translator of the present copy "of the Hebrew text lived, the boundaries of Judea had been greatly 'circumscribed, and he had accommodated his text to that circum

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

66

« ZurückWeiter »