prove nothing to the purpose. For the case then would only be one of our ignorance versus the authority of Moses. But even this he hardly attempts. For admitting the possibility of one near Antipratis, between Dor and Thirza (Jos. xii. 23), he confines himself to the task of showing, with but poor success, that the Gilgal named in 2 Kings ii. 1, iv. 38, is the same "Gilgal by Jericho." It was a place where "sons of the prophets" lived, 2 Kings iv. 38-41, as they would be likely to do at a place so hallowed; and it was near the Jordan, 2 Kings vi. 4, which seems at once to decide the question. It is not said that Elijah and Elisha" went down" from Gilgal to Bethel; but "Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal," 2 Kings ii. 1; and on the way, apparently, the conversation in ver. 2 is supposed to have taken place; and so "they went down to Bethel." They may be supposed, therefore, to have reached some place where Bethel was either below or to the south of them; in which case they would be said to "go down" to it.' 1

The Bishop observes, that it is not said in 2 Kings ii. that the two prophets went down from Gilgal to Bethel. And, grammatically, the remark is a just one. But the critic should not confine his attention to the bare hard letter of an isolated clause. He has to view it in its logical relation to the surrounding context. And in this way we find that, logically, the clause implies the descent in question. In the preceding chapter Elijah was left in Samaria (2 Kings i. 15 col. 2), far away from Gilgal by Jericho, but near to any Gilgal that was in the neighbourhood of Mount Ebal. The historian is about to relate the last episode in the prophet's life-his journey towards the Jordan, where the whirlwind was to carry him up to heaven (ii. 1). Why should he first transport Ib. p. 463.

him from Samaria to Gilgal-by-the-Jordan; then, without any new incident in the journey, back to the high grounds above Bethel; and lastly make him retrace his steps once more to the Jordan? The episode opens with the conversation of the prophets above Bethel; and there naturally must we look for the Gilgal from which they began their journey. For this supposition is the only thing that can make the narrative consecutive, and reduce to one the three journeys otherwise needed. And why may not a Gilgal in that part of the country have been a residence of Elijah, Elisha, or the sons of the prophets? Because that residence was near the Jordan, 2 Kings vi. 4, which seems at once to decide the question.' There were certainly prophets living near the Jordan. We are told expressly of many at Jericho (2 Kings ii. 5, 15, 19). But nowhere are we told that any lived at Gilgal-byJericho. Even though such a fact were mentioned, it could hardly prevent other prophets living at another Gilgal. So little, apparently, is needed to decide a question already prejudged by Colenso!

6

VIII.

To these geographical difficulties may be added a group of explanatory names occurring in Genesis. Davidson, feeling their weakness in point of argument, does not even allude to them. But as Colenso has not thought it beneath him to rake up the old rubbish of Vater and Von Bohlen, and to embellish it with some remarks of his own, it is right that we should give them a passing notice. Sometimes,' he says, 'the modern name of a town or place is given, as well as the ancient one. "And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan" (Gen. xxiii. 2). So "Ephrath, which is Bethlehem" (Gen. xxxv. 19); "Kirjath-arba, which is

Hebron" (ver. 27). So again," Bela, which is Zoar" (Gen. xiv. 2), "the vale of Siddim, which is the Salt Sea," ver. 3, "En-Mishpat, which is Kadesh," ver. 7, "the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale," ver. 17. The “king," who is referred to in the above expression, "king's dale," may have been Melchizedek, or some other of the ancient kings of Canaan. But it seems more probable that the expression points to king David, who was the first to make Jerusalem the seat of government for the children of Israel. And so we read (2 Sam. xviii. 18), "Absalom, in his lifetime, had taken and reared up for himself a pillar, which is in the king's dale." He would be most likely to have done this near the royal city. Accordingly Josephus writes (Ant. vii. 10. 3):-" Now Absalom had erected for himself a marble pillar in the king's dale, two furlongs distant from Jerusalem, which he named Absalom's Hand." This also would accord with the statement that "Melchizedek, king of Salem," came out to the "valley of Shaveh,' to meet Abraham. For it can scarcely be doubted that Salem here means Jerusalem, as in Ps. lxxvi. 2, "In Salem also is his tabernacle." And it is noticeable that the name Melchizedek, "king of righteousness," means the same as Adonizedek, lord of righteousness," who is spoken of in Jos. x. as having been king of Jerusalem in Joshua's time. And so Josephus understands it, Ant. i. 10. 2. Canon Stanley, however (Sinai and Palestine, p. 250), supposes it to be "the northern Salem mentioned in Gen. xxxiii. 18; John iii. 23."

'If our view be correct, then the use of the word Salem also, especially as it occurs in the substance of the main story, would indicate a writer living in later times; since the Canaanitish name of the city was Jebus (Jos. xviii. 28; Jud. xix. 10, 11), and there can be little doubt that the name Jerusalem, "possession of peace," was first given.

to it by David, after its capture by him from the Jebusites (2 Sam. v. 6-9).'1

As the Hebrews of the Exodus had centuries between them and the events recorded in Genesis, it would have been a strange phenomenon, if, in such debateable land as Palestine was, no change of name had taken place in the interval. Old names had naturally disappeared, and new ones had sprung up. Sometimes, the old name, from the traditions of the tribe, was most familiar to them, as Hebron; at other times, commercial intercourse with the natives may have made them best acquainted with the modern one, as was perhaps the case with Bethlehem. And wherever violent changes had altered the face of the country and the nature of the scenery, it was necessary to explain the position of the locality alluded to, by the names which alone were intelligible at the time that the narrative was written. Thus, what at the time of Abraham's arrival in Canaan was called the vale of Siddim was at the Exodus covered by the Salt Sea. Moses, therefore, by introducing such explanatory notices into the documents at his command, made them all the more intelligible to the reader. It is only when the names inserted into such notices are post-Mosaic, that the argument can have the slightest weight.

But there is not the shadow of a reason for believing that any one of them is post-Mosaic. Of Bethlehem we know not the origin. It appears in Jud. xvii. 7, and in the Septuagint Version of Jos. xv. 59. whether it belongs to the original text. other name for it, not even Ephrath, which is certainly as old as Jacob. There exists no cause whatever for assuming that the name is more modern than Moses.

It is disputed But there is no

As Kirjath-arba has already been disposed of, we come Ib. Part II. pp. 217, 218.

to the four examples from Gen. xiv. It is remarkable, that these four explanatory notices are found in what some critics, including Ewald, consider to be the oldest document of the Pentateuch, and also pre-Mosaic. The names, which are explained, belonged to their respective places before the catastrophe of Sodom made such a change in the Jordan valley. The vale of Siddim had sunk under the Dead Sea. No wonder, that such names occurring in such a document should need explanation in the time of Moses. Bela, as a name, had been swallowed up by Zoar, to commemorate the fortunes of Lot. Colenso, indeed, seems to imagine, that although Zoar was so ancient a name, Moses and the Hebrews could have known nothing of it: what could they have known of the nature of the country in the land of Canaan, "as thou comest unto Zoar" (Gen. xix. 22)? or what could Moses himself have known of it?' The proper answer is the Scotch one: what does Colenso know about Zoar, Canaan, or Egypt, that he should utter one word about them?

The vale of Siddim no longer existed; En-Mishpat had given way to Kadesh; and the valley of Shaveh, wherever that was, had acquired the title of the king's dale. In all this is there the least indication of a post-Mosaic name? Colenso, on the strength of the romance, given above in his own words, answers: yes! at least for the king's dale, 'if our view be correct.' No doubt, if it was David who first gave the name, Moses did not write it. But he cannot show that it originated with David; and by admitting, that the 'king' referred to may have been Melchizedek, or some other of the ancient kings,' he virtually grants that Moses might have written the passage where it occurs. The chances in favour of David are founded on our ignorance both of topography and history;

1 Ib. p. 217.