174 



ri;.yfATI-:rCH. 



a tomewhat different footing from the other two. 

 The account of the death of Moses. Deut. xxxiv. 6, 

 10, with the phrase "unto this day." tin- ai-count of 

 Og' s bedstead, and of the name Havvoth .lair, with tin- 

 Mine phrase. Deut. iii. 10-15, the account of the 

 Giboonite tabeniacle sen-ice, with the same nhrase. 

 Josh. ix. 27, and all parallel cases come under the 

 same general statement. In sonic of the instances the 

 phrase would be peculiar it assigned to the times of 

 MOMS, but in every instance it is entirely natural for 

 some date not later than the times of I'hinchas. If 

 " Luz which is in the land of Canaan.' (ieii. xxxv. 

 r. . .lud. i 26, be understood as distinguishing the 

 Palestinian Luz from the Luz afterward built in the 

 land of the Hittites, then the phrase is later than tin- 

 times of Moses, but not later than I'liim-has. But it 

 is not necessary to understand this phrase as post- 

 M--.I: -. 



About sixty instances occur in Genesis. Exodus, 

 Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua of the names 

 Hebron. Bethel, Debir, and Hormah, proving that 

 these narratives were not written in their present form 

 till after the adoption of these names instead of Kir- 

 jath-arba. Luz, Kirjath-scpher, and Zephath. But it 

 is alleged that the change of name in each case oc- 

 ^urred after the death of Moses, Jud i. 10, 11, 17, 23. 

 But in these cases it does not follow that the old name 

 became extinct as soon as the new name was given. 

 Prof. 11 H. Palmer holds that the name Zephath is 

 still in existence in the Arabic name Sebaita, See 

 Palmer's Depart of the. Exodus, p, 236, et al. Again, 

 there is nothing improbable in the idea that the new 

 name given after the conquest was the renewal of a 

 Hebrew name previously given ; the Biblical accounts 

 give us to understand that this was actually the case 

 with the name Bethel. In short, these instances have 

 no great weight to prove that the passages where they 

 occur contain anything later than Moses, and no weight 

 at all to prove anything later than 1'hinehas. 



No instances are more generally conceded to be of 

 late origin than the law concerning the Israelite king, 

 Deut. xvii. 14-20, and the passage concerning the 

 Edoraite kings, Gen. xxxvi., especially v. 31. But 

 Moaes needed no prophetic insight, but only ordinary 

 human sagacity, to see that the Israelites were likely 

 at some time to wish to establish monarchy, so that 

 this was a case to be provided for. Further, according 

 to the record, Moses held that Jehovah had made a 

 promise, according to which a line of kings was to 

 come from the loins of Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob, 

 Cen. xvii. o, 16; xxxv. 11. This being the case, 

 there is no improbability in the idea of Moses giving 

 such a law as the one in Deuteronomy. And this be- 

 ing admitted, this man who was looking forward to the 

 existence of kings in Israel, and whose only interest in 

 Edom lay in the fact that Esau was the elder brother 

 of Israel, might very naturally mention the circum- 

 stance that there were as yet no kings in Israel, though 

 the Edomites had already had kings for some genera 

 tions. Until light can be thrown on the dates of the 

 Kdomite kings actually mentioned in this chapter, it 

 cannot be shown that anything in the chapter is of a 

 later date than Phinchas, or even than Moses. 



If it be admitted that Ex. xvi. was written after 

 the manna ceased (vs. 31, 35), that is, after the death 

 of Moses (Josh. v. 12), and for a generation who had 

 not seen the manna, and needed to nave it dcscrihed to 

 them, that would not date the chapter later than 

 I'liinchas. The minuteness of the description does 

 ot indicate lateness of dale ; nothing is more com- 

 mon than for men to write careful descriptions of won- 

 derful contemporary events for the information of 

 coming genera) 



The expression, "as Israel has done to the land of 

 his possession," Deut. ii. 12. may easily be understood 

 rri'iit to the conquest and division of the coun- 

 try east of the Jordan, and may therefore be the lan- 

 guage of Moses himself. Ana even one who refers 



this language to the conqueste west of the Jordan can 

 L-ive no pood reason for iiatini: it later than the ,une 

 of I'hiin has. The phnise "within thy gates" (Ex. 

 xx. Id, and elsewhere), and the law against removing 

 landmarks (IViit, xix. 14) need not In- regarded as 

 i >ost Mosaic, for they apply to a people who have 

 DOM settled and expect to settle ai/aiii. as well as to a 

 people arinally settled when the law was put into the 

 code. There is no reason for saying that " the moun- 

 tain of Jehovah' (den. xxii. 14) presupposes Solo- 

 mon's temple, or that "return to Egypt in ships" 



(Deut xxviii. f>8) is a re fen -i to ,l-r. xliii. 7, or to 



anything else than the familiar fact that Egypt, lie fore 

 the times of Moses, already had a maritime slave- 

 trade. 



Especial stress has been laid, in certain quarters, on 

 the words used in the Hexateuch to indicate the points 

 of the compass "seaward" for westward, (ien. xii. 

 8, and fifteen other places; toward the " \cgcb" for 

 southward, Ex. xxvi. 18; xxvii. 9, and many other 

 places | " across the Jordan " for east of the Jordan, 

 Deut. i. 1, and many other places. But these instances 

 merely show that these parts of the um Im/utmli of 

 tin- Hebrew language originated north of the Negeb, 

 and west of the Jordan ; the allegation that they also 

 show where the writer of these particular passages was 

 located when he wrote is untenable. From the days 

 of the patriarchs until now, you could not locate a 

 man on any square yard of ground on the face of the 

 earth where it would be inappropriate for him to say 

 "across the Jordan," designating thereby the country 

 east of the Jordan. We do not ncre need to say that 

 I'liinelias may have written these passages from his 

 home west of the Jordan, for the use of these estab- 

 lished geographical phrases affords no evidence of their 

 having been written in one locality rather than another. 



\\ e add but a single instance. The Book of Jashar 

 is cited in Josh. x. 12, 13. But some composition of 

 David's was apparently written in the Book of Jashar 

 (2 Sam. i. 18). If therefore the Book of Jashar was 

 a work produced at some one date, that date was as 

 late as I'avi'l. and we have here at least one passage 

 some centuries later than Moses and Joshua. If this 

 view be accepted, a single gloss like this is not very 

 important. But even in this case it is not necessary 

 to accept the late date. The Book of Jashar, instead 

 of being compiled at one time, may have been a col- 

 lection that gradually accumulated from generation to 

 gem-ration ; it may have received its name as early as 

 Joshua's time, while additions continued to be made 

 to it till David's time and later. 



The instances thus far treated probably number not 

 less than two hundred. The list could be greatly ex- 

 tended, but could hardly be made to include anything 

 that would change its character as evidence. Evidently, 

 ino-t of the instances might be. explained as having 

 IM-CII written centuries later than Moses, provided there 

 were proof that they ought to be so explained ; but on 

 the oilier hand, it is equally evident that most of them 

 mav supposably have been written by Moses himself, 

 ami that not one of them necessarily dates later than 

 Phinehaa 



This being the state of things, the argument from 

 these instances in favor of the early date of these 

 writings is not merely negative but positive. His- 

 torians are apt to compare the events they directly 

 narrate with later events, up to their own times. 

 Josephus, for example, speaking of Moses in Egypt-, 

 is led to mention that the city which he says Moses 

 :.-rvvard calln! Mcroe by C.amliyses, 

 and also to mention that the ( in i -ks of his own time 

 were familiar with :he Egyptian ibis, Atitiqiiitirx. 

 II., x. '2. \Vhat .Ii.s.-plius thus does is what nar- 

 rators arc accustomed to do. It is unite prominently 

 done in the I lexateiichal narratives of the times be- 

 fore Moses, and somewhat less prominently in those 

 of the times of Moses and Joshua. They u-e the 

 proper names that In-long to the times of Moses and 



