HISTORY OF THE BIBLE. 



Genesis, gives a clue to the two distinct docu- 

 ments of which the first book of Moses is com- 

 posed. Since his time, a controversy has raged, 

 of which the end is still far off. Germany was 

 long the great battle-field of the combatants ; but 

 the war has now extended to England, Holland, 

 and America. 



As regards the Pentateuch, hardly any unpre- 

 judiced scholar would now maintain the ancient 

 belief that it is, as a whole, the composition of 

 Moses, or, in the form in which it exists, that it 

 is the work of a contemporary of the Hebrew 

 legislator. Opinion, indeed, differs on the question 

 of the extent to which the writer or compiler of 

 the book availed himself of materials that Moses 

 or others may have collected, and many think 

 that the minutiae of the sacerdotal law were 

 probably an expansion and development of the 

 simpler ritual of the wilderness. That it must have 

 been at least redacted since the time of Moses, 

 is shewn by numerous passages which indicate a 

 later date than the conquest of Palestine e.g. 

 1 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) ; ' And these 

 are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, 

 before there reigned any king over the children 

 of Israel' (Gen. xxxvi. 31); 'That the land spue 

 not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out 

 the nations that were before you' (Lev. xviii. 28). 

 The evidence of the post-Mosaic origin of some 

 parts of the Pentateuch may thus be said to lie 

 on the surface, and is perceptible even by the 

 unlearned reader; but a knowledge of the Hebrew 

 tongue is necessary to appreciate the value of 

 that criticism which has found in the book traces 

 of various documents. Some scholars assume 

 four ; two are almost universally admitted, and 

 are generally spoken of as the Elohistic and 

 Jehovistic documents, from the names of the 

 Deity which are constantly used in certain sec- 

 tions of Genesis. The former is believed to be 

 the older document, and it always occurs in con- 

 nection with certain distinctive peculiarities of 

 thought and expression that mark an independent 

 author. The two are not strictly coincident. Thus, 

 for example, in the beginning of Genesis, we find 

 what appear to be two different accounts of the 

 history of the creation : in the one, God is always 

 Elohim ; in the other, Jehovah. The same is to 

 be said with regard to the account of the Deluge, 

 and several incidents in the lives of the Patri- 

 archs ; the descriptions of the tabernacle ; the 

 priestly vestments ; the story of the manna as 

 given in Exodus and Numbers ; the account of 

 the appointment of the council of the seventy 

 elders in the same books ; &c. The Elohist's narra- 

 tion of the primitive patriarchal Tiistory is short, 

 simple, and free from poetical rhetoric. The 

 Jehovist's account is more elaborate, and dwells 

 at greater length on the leading heroes and 

 principal events. The Jehovist is penetrated with 

 the later theocratic spirit, and the theology of 

 the prophets. He treats the national history and 

 laws from a didactic point of view. Moreover, 

 the Elohist generally speaks of the Divine Being 

 as the national God of Israel, the other nations 

 and their affairs being of no account. To the 

 Jehovist, on the other hand, Jehovah is the God 

 of the whole earth (Gen. xxiv. 3) ; all nations are 

 to be blessed in the seed of Abraham (Gen. xxii. 



18) : Israel is to be a ' kingdom of priests ' (Exod. 

 xix. 6) to bring the Gentiles to God. The view 

 now in most favour with critics is that there 

 were two Elohists, one prior, the other posterior 

 to the Jehovist. 



The documents being thus considered not to 

 have proceeded from Moses alone, or from any 

 1 one person or age, have, in consequence, become 

 exposed to all kinds of critical analysis, and their 

 historic, scientific, and moral statements have been 

 repeatedly challenged. Comparative theology, for 

 example, throws some doubts on the exclusively 

 Hebrew origin of the story of Paradise. It is 

 supposed to be Aryan as well as Semitic ; or 

 ; perhaps it goes back to that remote past when 

 the distinctions between the two families of man- 

 kind were less sharply defined than they after- 

 wards became. The controversy regarding the 

 account of creation is more familiar to ordinary 

 readers, but arose from a misconception as to the 

 nature and design of the account. Whether or 

 not the results of modern criticism regarding the 

 origin of the book are received, nobody should 

 seek for scientific notions in a cosmogony belong- 

 ing to the first ages of the world. The story of 

 the antediluvians, of the Deluge, of the Tower of 

 Babel, and other wonders recorded in Genesis, 

 are found to present numerous points of similarity 

 to the Indian, Persian, or Chaldsean versions of 

 the same stories, together with such variations as 

 mark a distinct national tradition. The received 

 chronology, as ordinarily understood, is also ques- 

 tioned. Six thousand years for the history of the 

 world, is now almost universally felt to be inade- 

 quate to account for the diversities that exist 

 among mankind, assuming the Biblical doctrine 

 of the unity of the race to be true ; and in addi- 

 tion, proof is held to have been dug up from the 

 bowels of the earth that man has been in exist- 

 ence here for a much longer period. The narra- 

 tive of the exodus of the children of Israel from 

 Egypt has been subjected to a microscopic criti- 

 cism by Bishop Colenso, who has set forth what 

 he regards as the most serious difficulties of the 

 account It is argued that the later develop- 

 ments of sacerdotal legislation have been thrown 

 back to the Mosaic period, for the purpose of 

 investing them with greater sanctity and authority. 

 This would not indeed be done deliberately or all 

 at once, but by degrees ; and as each particular 

 ordinance was shaped in obedience to the religi- 

 ous precepts of the great deliverer, it would come 

 to be considered as springing from him who was 

 the origin and soul of the nation. 



The preceding sketch of the mode in which 

 criticism has dealt with the Pentateuch, will be 

 sufficient to shew the reader the scope and method 

 of modern critical inquiry, and it will, therefore, 

 not be necessary to exhibit the line of analysis 

 pursued in regard to the other books. Briefly, 

 the results are these : The Book of Joshua con- 

 tains passages, such as the allusion to Judah and 

 Israel as distinct (xi. 21), which point to an age 

 later than that of Solomon, and the grammatical 

 forms confirm this view. Judges has a thoroughly 

 antique character, and the documents from which 

 the compiler drew are mostly anterior to the 

 monarchy ; but there are references which are 

 later e.g. ' There was no king in Israel in those 

 days ' (xvii. 6 ; xviii. I ; xix. I ; xxi. 25). Its his- 

 tory is romantic and picturesque, but little or no 



387 



