Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

This distinction must be carefully borne in mind, since the first Hebron (the district) must certainly have been known to Moses, and perhaps long before, while the second (the city) did not receive that name until some years after the passage of the Jordan.* The occurrence of Hebron' in the first sense (Gen.xiii.18,xxxvii. 14) presents, therefore, no indication of date. In three other cases it is clearly an addition of a later hand (Gen.xxiii.2,19, xxxv.27), while the phrase 'in the land of Canaan', which occurs in the first two, as before fixes the original narrative to have been written before the conquest of the land. These explanatory notes may have been added at any time after the capture of KirjathArbah. One passage only presents a difficulty,-Nu.xiii.22, where in describing the journey of the spies through the land, it is said 'And they went up by the south, and came unto Hebron, where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak were. Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.' This last clause is almost certainly a later addition, as it has no connection whatever with the narrative. It of course refers to the old Kirjath-Arbah. The other part of the verse, however, must certainly be referred to the same hand as the rest of the chapter, while the mention of the three sons of Anak, who held KirjathArbah when Caleb took it, seems to fix the Hebron intended to be the city, and not the district. If so, then the narrative in Nu.xiii.-xiv. must be assigned to a period considerably later than that of the conquest, since the old name seems to have been familiarly used for some time after the change. It is quite possible, however, that as Kirjath-Arbah undoubtedly stood in the district of Hebron, it may be the district that was intended, and not the city; so that the indication here presented, however valuable if corroborated by other evidence, cannot be allowed any

* An exactly parallel case is to be found in Debir, which is mentioned in the same terms with Hebron in Josh.x.38-9,xii.13, and clearly as the name of a district; while in Josh.xv.15,49, Jud.i.11 we have mention of the city of Kirjath-sepher, conquered by Othniel, and then re-named Debir.

very great weight if standing alone.* It must not be overlooked, that the occurrence of these ancient names, Mamre and KirjathArbah, both utterly unknown in the later historical books †, is a serious objection to Bishop Colenso's theory of the origin of the Pentateuch in the times of Samuel and David.

4. BETHLEHEM is twice mentioned in the Pentateuch as the more modern name for Ephrath, Gen.xxxv.19,xlviii.7 (both Elohistic). We have no information as to the origin of the later name, while the older one continued to be coupled with it long afterwards, to distinguish it from the northern Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulon (Jud.xvii.9,xix. 1-2, 18, Ruth.iv.11,1 Sam.xvii. 12, Mic.v.2,&c., comp.Josh.xix.15). No argument can therefore be founded upon the occurrence of either name, though the way in which the name Bethelehem is introduced, in the two passages in question, presents another illustration of the explanatory notes appended to the original narrative some time after the entrance into Canaan.

5. HORMAH is mentioned in Nu.xiv.45 as the name of a place to which the Amalekites and Canaanites drove the Israelites, when they attacked their mountain. The name was not given to it, however, until the Israelites conquered the district in the last year of their sojourn in the wilderness (Nu.xxi.3). A conclusive proof that the earlier portions of the narrative were written after the later events had transpired, and not at the very time they concern. The city mentioned in Jud.i.17 as formerly called Zephath, but named Hormah on its capture, was in the same neighbourhood, but probably a different place. The other was

*It is curious that Bishop Colenso says not a word about this passage, where the evidence of later origin is really strong, but confines himself to Gen.xiii.8, where he endeavours to establish an anachronism by assuming the identity of the Hebron, in which stood the terebinths of Mamre, with the city whose name 'before was Kirjath-Arbah.'

† Kirjath-Arbah is mentioned in Neh.xi.25, nowhere else in the Bible, beside the passages referred to in the text.

clearly a district; while the meaning of the name ('doomed') would naturally account for its repetition, even without the association of locality.

6. MIZPAH is mentioned as another name for Galeed in Gen. xxxi.48-9. It was most probably added by a later hand. Neither are mentioned again in the Pentateuch; nor have we any clue as to when the later name was introduced.*

We have now considered in detail all the signs of time in the first four books, which Bishop Colenso has adduced in support of his theory. Those on the other side, arising from the minute truthfulness of the history, the precise and familiar acquaintance with Egypt and the wilderness displayed throughout, the lack of system in the arrangement of the collections of laws, and of the books generally, the connection of several of the laws with little incidents in the history which occasioned them, these have been pointed out before,† and must of course be borne in mind in forming a judgment on the point at issue. Taking, then, all these points of evidence into consideration, with the various objections and explanations to which each are severally open, the following conclusions seem to force themselves upon us, as the necessary result of our inquiries.

(1.) The theory which would ascribe the first four books of the Pentateuch to writers living in the times of Samuel and David is utterly inadequate to explain the phenomena presented by them,

* Besides these signs of time, there is the phrase 'unto this day' on which Bishop Colenso naturally insists, as a proof that the narrative was written some time after the events thus spoken of. As, however, none of the instances on which he builds his argument belong to the first four books, it will not come under notice till further on. In one place in Genesis however it supplies a valuable note of time not to be overlooked. At the close of the account of Joseph's legislation during the famine, Gen.xlvii.13-26, it is said, that 'Joseph made it a statute over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part.' This must clearly have been written by some one well acquainted with the laws of Egypt, who lived considerably later than Joseph. The whole passage is probably due to the Jehovist, as it interrupts the regular narrative very manifestly.

† See Hist. Charact. Pent. p. 178-97.

I

and is directly contrary to many of the indications of time. contained in them.

(2.) The difference of date and character between the Elohistic and Jehovistic sections of Genesis is confirmed by several indirect signs of time.

(3.) Some portions of the Elohistic narrative seem to be of greater antiquity than others; all however would seem to have been written before the conquest of Canaan, and some of the later portions probably soon after the descent into Egypt.

(4.) The Jehovistic sections of Genesis were composed while the people were yet familiar with Egypt, and probably before the conquest.

(5.) The narrative in the book of Numbers was written (at least in part) quite at the close of the sojourn in the wilderness, or more probably after the passage of the Jordan.

(6.) The narrative of the Exodus, as a whole, must be regarded as the work of a contemporary; the laws, as recorded in their original form, as first delivered in the wilderness.

(7.) Both Elohistic and Jehovistic narratives have undergone a certain amount of revision, in the way of addition, or perhaps in one or two instances of alteration, since their original composition. These corrections are for the most merely explanatory, and were made some time after the conquest of Canaan. One in particular belonging clearly to the reign of Saul.

CHAPTER VI.

THE TRUE ORIGIN OF THE FIRST FOUR BOOKS.

(BISHOP COLENSO, PART. II., CHAP. VII.-VIII., XI., p. 223-34, 256-66.)

THE last three chapters have been occupied in examining the evidence advanced by Bishop Colenso in support of his theory, that the Elohistic portions of Genesis and Exodus are to be ascribed to Samuel, the remainder of each, with Leviticus and Numbers, to Nathan, Gad, or some other writers of the age of David and Samuel. We have inquired into the use of the distinguishing name, Jehovah, in the formation of proper names, and in the composition of Psalms; we have investigated the characteristics of a particular Psalm, which was thought to present special features of comparison; we have carefully weighed every sign of date that the books themselves presented. And the result has been, that on every point the evidence advanced has lamentably failed to furnish even the smallest support to the theory; nay, rather, that it has recoiled against it, and furnished us with powerful weapons of attack. We started with the presumption, that the books were written in the time of Moses, if not by Moses' own hand; and every step of the argument has brought the substantial truth of this presumption more strongly to light. Some parts indeed were certainly earlier, a few minor additions later; but the existence of these only serves to fix the Mosaic origin of the remainder, the bulk of the books, more strongly and convincingly. It remains now to examine what further positive

« AnteriorContinuar »