56 



REV. A. H. FINN, ON THE 



at the outset. In that work he shows exhaustively how unsatis- 

 factory German Biblical criticism is, how full it is of improved 

 assumptions and petitiones 2^rincipii ; and how hopelessly unscientific 

 it is in its axioms, postulates, and definitions. In this paper he 

 gives us the converse of the proposition he has proved in his book, 

 and undertakes to show that the e\'idence — internal as well as 

 external — points to the conclusion that the Pentateuch is a single 

 work of Mosaic origin. 



I ask the reader to note Mr. Finn's words (page 33) on external 

 evidence, and especially toii. On page 34, 1 have to remark that I 

 could at any time undertake to produce from the works of historians 

 so graphic and picturesque as Macaulay and Froude, passages as 

 " prosaic and formal " as Wellhausenism produces from the Penta- 

 teuch. On page 35. I ask attention to the paragraph beginning, 

 " If all the passages.'' Page 37 contains a reference to the similarity 

 of character displayed in Exod. xxiii, 20-33 ; Lev. xx^-i, Deut. 

 xxviii ; and also in Exod. xxxii, 11-13, 31 (and following verses), 

 Num. xiv, 13-19, and Deut. ix, 26-29. This argument can as easily 

 be tested by anyone entirely ignorant of Hebrew as by the pro- 

 foundest Hebrew scholar. I have often said that the Wellhausen 

 theory on such points is about as ridiculous as Aaron's excuse that 

 he put the gifts he received from the people in the fire, and " there 

 came out this calf." Note also the remarks under head v on this 

 page. Also in page 38 note the use of the definite article with the 

 plural word Ehhim (lit. gods), showing that the writer was a believer 

 in the Unity of God, whereas Wellhausenism contends that the 

 Israelites were originally worshippers of the gods of Palestine ; and 

 in page 39, on the '* majestic unity of design " displayed throughout 

 the five books of Moses, and the impossibility of an array of 

 " redactors " contriving to bring so " majestic an imity " about on 

 Wellhausenist assumptions. 



As to the word Torah (p. 41), I knew something of the Ile\-isers 

 of the Old and New Testament translations, and I am sure that 

 undue and unnecessary deference was paid by many of them to those 

 who were inclined to pay respect to Wellhaiisenist-s. Constantly, 

 in the margin of the Revised Version, appears the word " teaching," 

 as alternatives to Law, in the text. From Exodus to Malachi, the 

 word Torah means Law (see Hos. viii, 12), though not, perhaps, 



