202 REV. J. IVERACH MUNEO, M.A.^ ON THE WITNESS OF 



making. Along these lines they will see that the former 

 developed out of the latter. The original material was the same, 

 and the ablauts ait and ai with their modifications run through 

 the whole development. They answer such questions as — Why 

 is fio the passive of facio 1 What is the connection between 

 sum and fni ? What is the derivation of iroikw ? Why is there 

 no perfect of hyui ? What is the philological connection between 

 ^€09 and Deus ? 



t^*]n, li"^', epicene in the Pentateuch, has opened up the original 

 structure of these languages, and to the philologist the traces 

 occur just like fossils in the rock or knots or grain in wood, 

 revealing their original identity quite unmistakably. He, she, 

 it, qui, quae, quod, o, 77, to, are derived from the same source as 

 t<in, hv\ with its discarded feminine ending to express the neuter. 



Now the evidential value of such a pronoun in the Pentateuch 

 is exactly as I have said, for it fixes the latest possible date of 

 its authorship. 



There is only one instance of the epicene use of ^^IPT, hv\ out- 

 side the Pentateuch. It occurs in the eighth chapter of 

 I Kings, and if genuine, and not a mere copyist's slip, may have 

 been used in this instance from the Pentateuch. 



This pronoun does not say Moses wrote the Pentateuch. It 

 does infinitely better than that. It proves that the Pentateuch 

 was contemporary with him. And, if so, then the unity that 

 pervades it, and proves it to have been the production of a single 

 author, also proves that author to have been, substantially, 

 Moses. No other is ever even mentioned between the boards of 

 the Old Testament. It is true that some other must have 

 written the account of his death in the last chapter of 

 Deuteronomy. It is also true that Moses must have used 

 materials for his work : it is an historical work. Again and yet 

 again there is the express statement that he was commanded to 

 write in " the " book or in " a " book. It comes to very much the 

 same thing. Written materials prove to have existed, and are 

 expressly stated to have been put by Moses in " the " or " a " 

 book, which would be required for the production of just such a 

 work as this. The essential point is that ^^IPT, hv\ proves the 

 materials to be not later than Moses' time. 



There are many other philological evidences of the antiquity 

 of the Pentateuch. Any who would like to see them may be 

 referred to the late Principal Douglas's translation of Keil's 

 " Introduction to the Old Testament" (T. and T. Clark, Vol. I, 

 pp. 44-52), a work of much merit, not a mere translation. One 

 may say that cutting off these in detail is a hopeless task. The 



