386-88 
the histories and poetical compositions 
of that period, we may fairly conclude 
that it was written at the same time, 
or very nearly so. 
‘* For (says Mr. Gesenius) if there were 
a distance. of nearly 1000 years. between 
those writings, which must be the case, if 
Moses was the author of the latter, we 
should see a fact unparalleled in the whole 
history of languages, viz. that a living lan- 
guage, and the circle of ideas of a nation, 
should have remained unaltered for such a 
space of time. It is true, that in support 
of this opinion it has been alleged (by 
Michaelis, Jahn and Eckermann) that, in 
the first place, the eastern languages and 
customs are less liable to change than those 
of the west; and, 2dly, that the Mosaical 
writings, as being the classics of the nation, 
had become the pattern and rule for the 
subsequent writers. But it may be easily 
shown how unsatisfactory these arguments 
are in explaining our subject. All the 
eastern languages which we have had an 
_ opportunity of reviewing for the space of 
-1000 years, have, during that time, really 
undergone material changes, And as to 
the latter assertion, it either means to im- 
ply, that the language of literature alone 
was formed after the ancient documents, 
or that even the living language was, as it 
were, spell-bound by such a classic. In 
the first point of view, reference is made to 
the example of the Greek and Roman clas- 
sics, the Koran, and Luther’s translation of 
the Bible: and this alone may be con- 
sidered a plausible one. But, in the first 
place, there are other distinct proofs to 
shew that the Pentateuch did not exist at 
so early a period; and, in the second, that 
it was not, like those classics, in the hands 
rhetorical heaven of heavens, God of Gods 
(10, 14, 17, with which compare 1 Kings 
viii. 27, Chr. ii., 5) &c., 17> law, Deut, 
xxxii. 2, is decidedly a later word. The 
tone and language of this book most agrees 
with some of the prophets, especially Jere- 
mynd Wd to 
vTqT:° hh F 
renounce, xxviii.25, compare with Jer. xv. 4, 
xxiv. 9, xxix. 18, xxiv. 17, besides this, only 
in 2 Chron. xxix. 8; omit (idols), xxii. 
miah ;: for instance 
16, compare with Jer. iii 13, v. 19; 
ON m0 TAT; to teach backsliding, 
xiii. 5, compare with Jer. xxviii. 16, xxix. 32, 
22v, to kill the young. people; xxxii. 25, 
eompare with Jer. xy.'7, xxxvi. 13-15. La- 
ment. i. 20; by) nyyw, obstinacy of 
heart, xxix. 18, compare with Jer. iii. 17, 
vii. 24, ix. 13, xi. 8. 
Antiquity of the different Parts of the Old Testament. (Dec. 1, 
of every individual. Then, it is to be ob- 
served, that the later historical works do 
not bear the stamp of imitation about them, 
as we find to be the case in some of the 
later Psalms; they seem rather the pro- 
duce of a very similar age and spirit. In 
fine, those analogies do not prove that for 
which they are advanced. That of the 
classics is out of place, for the question is 
about a living, and not a dead language ; 
and the two others go against it: for nei- 
ther the German nor the Arabie, such as 
they are written at the present day, are 
any longer the same as in Luther’s Bible, 
or in the Koran. The latter supposition 
contradicts itself. Even in our age of 
study, it cannot be imagined that an au- 
thor, however classical, could stop the pro- 
gress of a living language, much less in 
antiquity, where they read and wrote so 
much less, and spoke and acted so much 
more. We should rather suppose that 
language would hurry along, in its change, 
its older documents, and compel them to 
speak with the tongues of later periods. 
Therefore, if we even consider that in some 
parts of the Pentateuch, much more an- 
cient documents formed the basis (which is 
very probable‘in the Decalogue, for in- 
stance), we must still necessarily admit of 
a later transeription and remoulding, ac- 
cording to the language of the period. The 
result, for the history of the language, re- 
mains the same, viz. that the writings of 
the Old Testament, before the captivity, in 
their present form, cannot be far distant 
from one another, and this alone we mean 
to assert.” 
Mr. G. divides the Hebrew literature 
into two periods, the one before, and 
the other after, the captivity. Without 
attempting a strict definition of that 
which belongs to the one or the other 
of these periods, which (he says) would 
be rendered impossible by the nature 
of the Hebrew literature, he assumes 
the following statement as being the 
most probable : - 
“ Of the greater historical writings we 
may enumerate, as belonging to this (the 
first period), the Pentateuch, the books of 
Joshua, and the Judges, Samuel, and 
Kings ; at least the principal parts of them 
were composed at that period, although we 
cannot doubt of their having been re-edited 
more recently, besides having had some 
new pieces incorporated in them.* Many 
of the Psalms, especially in the first books, 
are evidently genuine compositions of Da- 
vid, or his school; whilst the majority of 
them bear the stamp of a more. recent pe- 
riod. 
* For example, the blessing of Moses, 
Deut. xxxiii., the 7th verse of which could 
only have been written during the cap- 
tivity. ; 
