170 



REV. J. E. H. THOMSON, M.A., D.D., OX 



aware that it is produced by the lengthening of the shortest letter 

 in the alphabet by doubling its length,"^ (the "jot " of our Xew 

 Testament) into 1. 



I will now make a personal grumble (similar to the amusing 

 attempt by Sir G. MacMunn to pay a compliment to a renowned 

 scholar by calling the invention of a German savant a "late recen- 

 sion " of the Pentateuch). Dr. Thomson has said on p. 2, very 

 modestly, but, unknown to him, at my expense, " I do not think 

 that e^4dence from Chronicles is to be dismissed on the plea that the 

 book is non-historical." Xow I do not know whether Dr. Thomson 

 has ever heard of a book called Lex Mosaica. It was published more 

 than a quarter of a century ago. But I am happy to say many 

 of the contributors to it are still alive. I happen to be one of them. 

 And in the commencement of the essay allotted to me I venture to 

 question the late Dr. Driver's assertion that " the authors of the 

 Hebrew historical books (save Euth and Esther), do not re-write 

 the matter in their own language, they excerpt from the sources 

 at their disposal such passages as are suitable to their purpose."* 

 Now, Chronicles is not excepted in any way from this assertion, 

 and I must refer my readers to pp. 210 and 211 in my essay 

 (if it be not a great impertinence on my part), in which I show 

 (1) that the Chronicler sometimes " re-writes the narrative in his 

 own words " ; (2) that he adds a few words of his own or of another 

 author ; (3) that he leaves out unnecessary circumstances ; (4) 

 he inserts passages from other portions of his narrative ; (5) (and 

 Dr. Kobertson Smith vouches for this) he flatly contradicts his 

 authorities ; and so on. But the most important fact of aU is that, 

 like all respectable modern historians, he mentions the authorities 

 he uses. 



Nor does Wellhausen come out of the fray with honour. His 

 rollicking insolence and irreverence to authorities, none of them 

 less than 2000 years old, and some of them much more, is unbecoming 

 in any one claiming to be an historical scholar. If we foUow him 

 into his inquiry into the composition of the Pentateuch, we find a 

 not less ridiculous infallibility assumed in his assignment of the 

 " sources." 



* I am compelled by considerations of space to be brief in my quotation 

 and my answer to it. 



