Abbildungen der Seite

vice the one talent given him. His best strength and thought have been given to the present work; and by it he would be judged rather than by any previous one. Fain would he have floated down the stream of a pleasant and profitable orthodoxy amid the plaudits of the multitude; but he durst not contravene evidence, or prove false to the sacred convictions of conscience. He has been in search of scriptural orthodoxy, not of that human idol falsely so called. It has cost him a struggle to come to conclusions sometimes different from those of men he respects ; yet he follows the promptings of religion in adhering to the voice of reason, identical as it is with God's word. Aberrations of intellect are venial sins : unfaithfulness to the high instincts which unite man to God and reflect the divine, is irreligion.

From the MS. of the first volume having left his hands or being already in type, the author regrets that he could not use Kamphausen's “ Das Lied Mosis," the able work of a fine Hebrew scholar ; Stähelin's Specielle Einleitung in die kanonischen Bücher des alten Testaments," and Popper's “Biblischer Bericht über die Stiftshütte." A complete index will be given with the third volume.

May, 1862.



1. Places adverse to its Mosaic authorship, containing notices historical,

geographical, archæological, and explanatory.-II. The writer intimates that
he was in Palestine.—111. Omissions unfavourable to Mosaic authorship.-
IV. Two leading documents at least in the Pentateuch.-V. The pieces where

the distinctive usage of the two occurs exhibit such internal and essential pecu-

liarities as exclude unity of authorship.-VI. Other documents probably em-

ployed.–VII. The respective ages of the Elohist, Jehovist, and junior Elohist.

-VIII. Historical traces of the existence of the first four books in other biblical
writers.-IX. Tables of Elohistic and Jehovistic sections.-X. Unity of authorship
discountenanced by duplicates.-XI. Diversities, confusedness, and contradictions.
-XII. Repetitions observable in the legislative parts.—XIII. The peculiar
nature of the legislation in the different books.—XIV. The unsuitableness of
sections and paragraphs. —XV. Legendary and traditional elements adverse to
Mosaic authorship. - XVI. No important difference between the language of
the Pentateuch and that of other books written shortly before the return from
Babylonian captivity.—XVII. Evidences of Mosaic authorship in the Penta-

teuch.-XVIII. Does the Pentateuch expressly claim to be the work of Moses

himself ?-XIX. Testimony of the thirty-first chapter of Deuteronomy.-XX.

Meaning of the phrase “ book of the law” in the Old Testament.-XXÍ. Testi-

mony of the New Testament regarding the Mosaic composition of the Pentateuch.

-XXII. When the present Pentateuch was completed






ONE of the first questions connected with the Pentateuch is that of authorship. Whether it be of so great importance as some would represent, admits of grave doubts. It appears to us to have been magnified into more consequence than properly belongs to it. We shall begin with some passages shewing a later origination of these books than the time of Moses; and proceed to other considerations tending to support the same conclusion.

I. The following places in the Pentateuch itself convey wellfounded doubts of Mosaic authorship. They contain 'notices historical, geographical, archæological, and explanatory; or statements implying a post-mosaic time and writer.

And the Canaanite was then in the land." (Gen. xii. 6.)

“ And the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.” (Gen. xiii. 7.)

These words obviously imply, that when the writer lived, the Canaanites and Perizzites had been expelled from the land. If they were written when the two races still dwelt in the country, they are unmeaning and superfluous. Hence many advocates of the Mosaic authorship have conceded that a later hand appears in them. Thus Prideaux says, that the first is an interpolation made when the Canaanites, having been extirpated by Joshua, were no longer in the land. But Hengstenberg, after Witsius, thinks the passages have no bearing on the question of authenticity, because they are easily explained and justified in their respective connexions. Objecting to the supplementary words still and already, which in his opinion are arbitrarily added, he

1 The Old and New Testament connected, etc., Part I., Book V., p. 343, ed. 1719.

« ZurückWeiter »