argument (!). He appeals to Proper Names compounded with Jehovah, which first came into use contemporaneously with, or else after, the days of David. Every one immediately thinks of Joshua; and VoN BOHLEN does not forget, but naturally avails himself of, the fact, that he was originally called Hoshea. This is, indeed, correct; but, if the name of Joshua was not a product of the Mosaic age, if it had not been given him, as the Pentateuch informs us, by Moses himself, how did it obtain universal acceptance among the people? It would be carrying mythical notions to an extravagant length to maintain that the nation had never retained the right name of their distinguished commander-in-chief,—that he received a new name in the age of David or Solomon.'

Ans. According to our view, Joshua was only a mythical or, perhaps, legendary personage, whose second name, compounded with Jehovah, certainly originated in an age not earlier than that of Samuel. At all events, there is no evidence that this new name was popularised, that it ever did 'obtain universal acceptance,' that Joshua ever was a well-known, popular, hero. His name is never mentioned in the later history, or by anyone of the Psalmists or Prophets, except in a reference to the book of Joshua, 1K.xvi.34.

'Yet let us now turn from what the author thought to that which escaped him, who so often asserted without examining, and that with inconceivable confidence. No small number of Proper Names, in the times preceding David, are compounded at the beginning with Jehovah. Thus Jochebed the mother of Moses, whose name certainly was not (?) of later formation, Joash, the father of Gideon, Jotham, Gideon's youngest son, Jonathan, Priest of the Danites in the time of the Judges, another Jonathan, 1Ch.ii.32, and so several more, [but only in the Chronicles.] Besides these, there are those names that stand on the same footing, which have an abbreviated Jehovah at the end, as Moriah, Ahijah, the son of Becher, the grandson of Benjamin, [in Chronicles], Bithiah [in Chronicles], &c.'

Ans. We have already considered all these instances, that of Jochebed (305), Joash and Jotham, as well as Micah, not mentioned by H. (436), Jonathan (438), Moriah (Ch.IX.X.), and the Chronicler's names (306, &c.), and we have seen that not one of them really militates against our theory.

'Thus much, however, is correct, that names compounded with Jehovah become much more frequent from the time of Samuel. [This is true according to the more authentic history, but not according to the Chronicler, who makes them quite as numerous long before the time of Moses.] But this lends no support to VoN BOHLEN's view, and is easily explicable from facts, which the accredited history presents to us. Owing to the prevalent view in Israel of the close correspondence of names and things, it could not be otherwise than that the powerful theocratic excitement in the times of Samuel and David would create a demand for the composition of Proper Names with the theocratic name of God, Jehovah; and, what at first proceeded from living reasons, would in aftertimes, (which leant upon that period, so splendid both externally and internally,) be adopted from

standing usage. What an effect the state of the public mind has on names has been exemplified clearly among ourselves by the relation of names, in an age of unbelief, to those of the preceding believing times. Since the Proper Names, compounded with Jehovah, had not yet had sufficient time to become naturalised, and since, in the period of the Judges, only a few living roots were in existence from which such names could be formed [how can this be said, if there were so many names in the Mosaic age compounded with Elohim? (301, 302)], we might expect beforehand not to find them very numerous at that time.'

Ans. But, according to the Chronicles, we do find them common enough from the time of Jacob downward. Setting aside, however, his statement as manifestly fictitious, we agree with HENGSTENBERG, (though looking at the matter from a very different point of view), that the 'powerful theocratic movement, in the times of Samuel,' did create a demand for such names,' which, according to our view, that same age originated; and thus we also believe with him that such names had not yet had sufficient time to become naturalised.'

464. We have thus something like firm ground to stand upon, as the result of this inquiry, and can at once account for many of the strange phenomena, which we observe in the Pentateuch. The earliest portions of it, including the account of the Exodus itself, or, rather, as we shall see, the first scanty sketch of it, were written four hundred years, at least, after the supposed time of the Exodus, three hundred of which, according to the story, passed amidst the stormy and disorderly period of the Judges, which can only be compared with the worst times of Anglo-Saxon England. The chronology, indeed, of the Judges is, notoriously, very confused and contradictory; and it is quite possible that a much shorter space of time than three hundred years may really have elapsed, since the movement took place, which, as we believe, lay at the basis of the Elohistic narrative. During that period, however, it seems very unlikely that any historical records were written, or, if written, were preserved,― preserved by whom? Later writers, at all events, mention no historians of earlier date than Samuel, Nathan, and Gad; so that whoever wrote the Book of Judges wrote, most probably, from the mere legends and traditions of the people.

465. Thus, then, it is not necessary to suppose that the narra

tive of Samuel is a pure fiction, an invention of the Prophet's own imagination, in short, merely a pious fraud.' It is very possible that there may have been, as we have said, floating about in the memories of the Hebrew tribes, many legendary stories of their ancestors, and of former great events in their history, how they once fled in a large body out of Egypt, under an eminent leader, such as Moses,- how they had been led through that great and terrible wilderness,' had encamped under the dreadful Mount, with its blackened peaks and precipices, as if they had been burnt with fire (83),-how they had lost themselves in the dreary waste, and struggled on through great sufferings, and many died, but the rest fought their way at last into the land of Canaan, and made good their footing among the tribes which they found there, by whom they were called Hebrews, that is, people who had 'crossed' the Jordan.* Precisely the same expression is used by the natives of Natal in speaking of those Zulus, who from time to time have been driven by fear, or have migrated for other reasons, from their native land lying to the north of the British colony, and 'crossed' the large frontier river, the Tugela, into the Natal district, either before or after it came under British rule. It is quite customary to speak of them, simply, as abawelayo, ‘people who have crossed,' or, perhaps, the movement may be more closely defined, 'who crossed with Umpande,' or whoever the principal person may have been.

466. It is conceivable that the recollections of that terrible march may have left indelible traces on the minds of the people, and may have been exaggerated, as is the case with legends generally, while circulated in their talk, and passed on by word of mouth, from sire to son, in the intervening age. In this way, natural facts may have been magnified into prodigies, and a few thousands multiplied into two millions of people. It * It is possible, of course, that they may have obtained this name, as some suppose, from 'crossing' the Euphrates.

is quite possible that the passage of the Red Sea, the manna, the quails, and other miracles, may thus have had a real historical foundation, as will be shown more fully in our critical review of the different Books of the Pentateuch. And Samuel may have desired to collect these legends, and make them the basis of a narrative, by which he, being dead, might yet speak to them with a Prophet's voice, and, while rejected by them himself as a ruler, might yet be able patriotically to help forward their civil and religious welfare under kingly government, and more especially under the rule of his favourite David, whose deep religious feeling accorded with his own sentiments so much more fully than the impetuous, arbitrary, character of Saul. His annual journeys of assize, when he went from year to year in circuit to Bethel, and Gilgal, and Mizpeh, and judged Israel in all those places,' 1S.vii.16, would have given him good opportunities for gathering such stories, as well as for knowing thoroughly the different parts and places of the country, to which such legends were attached. He may have spent a great part of his life, especially the latter part of it since Saul came to the throne, and he was himself relieved from the cares of government, in the elaboration of such a work as this, filling up from his own mind, we may conceive, the blanks left in such legendary accounts, and certainly imparting to them their high religious tone and spiritual character.

353

CHAPTER XXI.

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS IN PART II.

467. IN the Third Part of this work, I shall enter into a close examination of the Book of Genesis, and shall seek to assign the different parts of the book, with such degree of probability as the case admits of, to their respective authors.. I shall endeavour to make this part of the subject as clear and intelligible as I can to the English reader, who may have no acquaintance with the Hebrew language; though, of course, to a Hebrew scholar, or even to one who has a mere elementary knowledge of Hebrew, the arguments will be still more convincing. I trust, however, that no reader, who will be willing to give his close attention to the minute discussion of the book of Genesis, as it will be there set forth, and in a question of such deep interest and importance, I may surely rely on thus

far securing the reader's cooperation,

to follow the course of the reasoning;

will find himself unable

and, if so, I entertain no

doubt as to his arriving with me at the same general results. 468. HUPFELD writes as follows, Die Quellen der Genesis, p.1:

The discovery, that the Pentateuch is put together out of various sources or original documents, is beyond all doubt, not only one of the most important, and most pregnant with consequences, for the interpretation of the historical books of the O.T., or rather, for the whole theology and history, but it is also one of the most certain discoveries, which have been made in the domain of criticism and the history of literature. Whatever the anticritical party may bring forward to the contrary, it will maintain itself, and not retrograde again through anything, so

A A