'Jacob, in conversing with his wives, uses Elohim, even when, looking only at the subject, Jehovah might have been more suitable. Elohim had not suffered Laban to hurt him, v.7; Elohim had taken away Laban's cattle, v.9; although, in these events, there had been a fulfilment of the promise, which Jehovah had made to Jacob on his departure from home. Even the 'angel of Elohim' had commanded Jacob to return, v.11: yet, according to the statement of the historian in v.3, this summons had proceeded from Jehovah. Now, since this use of Elohim cannot be accounted for from the nature of the subject, we must look for its explanation in the persons whom Jacob addressed. We may do this with less hesitation, since these persons give evidence of the vagueness of their religious knowledge, by their own use of Elohim on subjects which peculiarly belong to the jurisdiction of Jehovah. [Yet, at the birth of their children, according to H. himself, they had used the two names not indiscriminately, but with clear and proper distinction.] Elohim, according to Jacob's wives, had taken away their father's possessions; whatever Elohim commanded him, they exhorted him to do. They did not, perhaps, speak thus, because Jehovah was utterly unknown to them, but because He stood at a distance from them, so that they could only elevate themselves to Him in some solemn moments, of which the preceding section furnishes instances.'

But the above examples are sufficient to explain the language of KURTZ, when he candidly says, as quoted above in (217.i), that many passages of Genesis require to be twisted in order to show that the term Elohim was 'naturally and necessarily chosen on account of the idea attaching to it.'

222. It will be seen that KURTZ has been compelled, by a conscientious regard to the truth, to abandon a great part of the ground which he once maintained, and which is still maintained so strenuously by those who cling to the ordinary view. He still believes, however, that large portions of the Pentateuch were written down by Moses himself, and the 'groups of laws in the central books,' by the direction of Moses,' at all events, Our previous considerations have forced upon us the conviction, by reason of the impossibilities contained in it, that the account of the Exodus, generally, is wanting in historical truth, and that, consequently, it cannot be assumed beforehand as certain, without a careful examination of each part of the narrative, that any of such groups of laws,'

and under his supervision.'

We

as the story describes, were laid down in the wilderness. shall consider this point more fully hereafter. But, if the last four books of the Pentateuch must be pronounced to be, for the most part, unhistorical, it will hardly be contended that the book of Genesis can be any other than, in the main, unhistorical also.

223. It is quite possible, and, indeed, as far as our present enquiries have gone, highly probable, that Moses may be an historical character, that is to say, it is probable that legendary stories, connected with his name, of some remarkable movement in former days, may have existed among the Hebrew tribes, and these legends may have formed the foundation of the narrative. But this is merely conjectural. The result of our enquiries, as far as we have proceeded, is that such a narrative as that which is contained in the Pentateuch, could not have been written in the age of Moses, or for some time afterwards (175). But this statement does not amount to a denial that the Israelites did leave Egypt, and remain for a time in the wilderness of Sinai, under circumstances which produced a profound impression on the national mind. And, indeed, it is most reasonable to believe that some great event in the ancient history of the Hebrew people, of which a traditionary recollection was retained among them, may have given to the Elohist the idea of his work, and been made by him the basis of his story.

186

CHAPTER III.

THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

224. WE must next endeavour to arrive at some clearer notion, from an examination of the books of the Pentateuch themselves, as to the time when, the persons by whom, and the circumstances under which, they were most probably written. And, in pursuing our investigations, we need not be restrained by any fear of trespassing upon divine and holy ground. The writers of these books, whatever pious intentions they may have had in composing them, cannot now be regarded as having been under such constant infallible supernatural guidance, as the ordinary doctrine of Scripture Inspiration supposes. We are at liberty, therefore, to draw such inferences from the matter which lies before us, and to make such conjectures, as we should be readily allowed to do, in a critical examination of any other ancient writings.

For the present, however, it will be necessary to defer any complete survey of the entire contents of each separate book, and confine ourselves to those matters only, which bear upon the particular points now under consideration.

225. Here, first, it should be noticed that the books of the Pentateuch are never ascribed to Moses in the inscriptions of Hebrew manuscripts, or in printed copies of the Hebrew Bible. Nor are they styled the 'Books of Moses' in the Septuagint or Vulgate, but only in our modern translations, after the example

THE EARLIER HISTORICAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 187

of many eminent Fathers of the Church, who, with the exception of JEROME, and, perhaps, ORIGEN, were, one and all of them, very little acquainted with the Hebrew language, and still less with its criticism.*

The Jews do not speak of the First, Second, &c. Book of Moses, but designate each Book by the first word which occurs in it in Hebrew; except that for Numbers they employ 72702, In the wilderness,' which word occurs in the first verse, and is probably chosen as more expressive than the first word 271,And He said,' which was used in the days of JEROME.

* BLEEK quotes from GESENIUS (der Hebr. Sprache, p. 104) the following instance of the Hebrew scholarship of the fourteenth century, from DURANDUS, Bishop of Meaux (ob. A.D.1333), ad Apoc. xix. 1:

Alleluja: AUGUSTINUS sic exponit, al, salvum, le, me, lu, fac, ja, domine; HIERONYMUS Sic, alle, cantate, lu, laudem, ja, ad dominum; GREGORIUS sic, alle,ˆ pater, lu, filius, ja, spiritus sanctus, vel alle, lux, lu, vita, ja, salus; M. PETRUS ANTISIDORENSIS Sic, al, altissimus, le, levatus in cruce, lu, lugebant apostoli, ja, jam resurrexit.'

Of course, AUGUSTINE and JEROME never made the blunders here ascribed to them, and the latter was an accomplished Hebrew scholar. But the Fathers were, generally, very ignorant of Hebrew. They relied almost entirely on the Septuagint and Italic Versions; and hence several of them confounded Amoz, rip, the father of Isaiah, with the Prophet Amos, Diny, because the two names have the same form in Greek and Latin, 'Auws, Amos.

So TERTULLIAN and AUGUSTINE discuss the use of the name 'Jehovah-Elohim' in G.ii.4, in profound ignorance of the true meaning of the word 'Jehovah,' but basing their arguments only on the LXX equivalent for it, Kópios, 'Lord,' and the Vulgate, 'Dominus.' Thus the former writes, adv. Hermog. iii,'The Scripture supports our view, which has distinctly attributed each name to Him, and exhibited each at its own proper time. For it names Him GOD (Elohim), indeed, at once, since He always was; 'in the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.' And so, while He was making the things, of which He was afterwards to be 'Lord,' it uses only 'GOD,'-' GOD said,' ' GOD made,' and nowhere as yet 'Lord.' But, when He had completed the whole, and man, especially, who was properly to understand the name 'Lord,' nay, who is also called 'Lord,' then also it has added the name 'Lord,'-'And the Lord took the man, &c." And the latter, de Gen. ad lit. viii. says, 'It was written for the sake of man, to admonish him, how needful it was for him to have God for his 'Lord,' that is, to live obediently under His Lordship.'

་

Hence we cannot take any account of these Titles, in discussing the question of the real origin of these books.

226. JEROME,* however, has no difficulty in admitting the possibility of the truth of the apocryphal story in 2Esdr.xiv, where Ezra is introduced as saying, v.21,22,—

'Thy Law is burnt; therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of Thee, or the works that shall begin. But, if I have found grace before Thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in Thy Law, that men may find Thy path, and that they, which live in the latter days, may live.'

And Ezra says that his prayer was heard, and he received a command, to retire into a private place with five men, ‘ready to write swiftly,' and 'many box-tables to write upon.'

'So I took the five men, as He commanded me, and we went into the field, and remained there. And the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, Esdras, open thy mouth, and drink that I give thee to drink. Then opened I my mouth, and, behold, He reached me a full cup, which was full as it were with water, but the colour of it was like fire. And I took it, and drank; and, when I had drunk of it, my heart uttered understanding, and wisdom grew in my breast, for my spirit strengthened my memory; and my mouth was opened, and shut no more. The

* Ad Hebr. c.3: Sive Mosen dicere volueris auctorem Pentateuchi, sive Esdram ejusdem instauratorem operis, non recuso.

'Whether you choose to say that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch or Esdras the renewer of that work, I have no objection.'

The earlier Fathers, CLEMENS ALEX. and IRENEUS speak yet more positively :κἀν τῇ Ναβουχοδονόσορ αἰχμαλωσίᾳ διαφθαρεισῶν τῶν γραφῶν, κατὰ τοὺς ̓Αρταξέρξου τοῦ Περσῶν βασιλέως χρόνους, ἐπίπνους Εσδρας ὁ Λευίτης ὁ ἱερεὺς γενόμενος πάσας τὰς παλαιὰς αὖθις ἀνανεούμενος προεφήτευσε γραφάς. CLEM. ALEX. Strom.I.xxii.149.

'And, when the Scriptures had been destroyed in the Captivity of Nebuchadnezzar, in the times of Artaxerxes the king of the Persians, Esdras the Levite the Priest, having become inspired, renewing again produced prophetically all the ancient Scriptures.'

ἔπειτα, ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις 'Αρταξέρξου τοῦ Περσῶν βασιλέως, ἐνέπνευσεν Εσδρᾳ τῷ ἱερεῖ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευὶ, τοὺς τῶν προγεγονότων προφητῶν πάντας ανατάξασθαι λόγους, καὶ ἀποκαταστῆσαι τῷ λαῷ τὴν διὰ Μωϋσέως νομοθεσίαν. IREN.iii.25.

'Then, in the times of Artaxerxes, the king of the Persians, He inspired Esdras the Priest of the tribe of Levi, to set in order again all the words of the former Prophets, and restore to the people the legislation by Moses.'