of a similar character, were handed down by oral tradition, or put into writing by Moses himself, or by one of his contemporaries. De Wette is of the former opinion; Bleek, of the latter. That they belong to the age of Moses is unquestionable.' Why is a fact, confessedly doubtful, assumed to be certain when it is to point an argument against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch?

Bishop Colenso starts in a direction opposite to that taken by Dr. Davidson; but manages, nevertheless, to come round to the same conclusion. The one, supposing the Book of the Wars to be contemporary with Moses, infers that a quotation from it must be posterior to his age. The other, supposing the work to have been compiled after Moses, comes, by a more logical route it must be confessed, to a similar statement. But it is worth while to examine more closely the latter's reasoning on the subject.

For Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites; wherefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of Jehovah,

What he did in the Red Sea,

And in the brooks of Arnon,

And at the stream of the brooks,

That goeth down to the dwelling of Ar,

And lieth upon the border of Moab.-(Num. xxi. 13-15.)

Clearly this passage could not have been written by Moses or by one of his contemporaries. A writer of that age could not have stated in this way a fact, "Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites," which must have been notorious to those for whom he was writing. Nor would he have used this statement to illustrate the words of a Song, which could only by any possibility have just been composed, since it refers to

1 Ib. p. 112.

events which had happened, according to the story, only a week or so before. In fact, the language of the Song itself implies that the transactions at the "brooks of Arnon," as well as at the Red Sea, were long past. And, consequently, the "Book of the Wars of Jehovah," which contained this Song, must have been written long after the days of Moses.' 1

Colenso's argument throws a new light on the laws of historical composition. For it involves this general principle, though specially applied to Moses, that the historian. has no right to place upon record a fact notorious to those for whom he is writing. In this way a vast deal of contemporary history should never have been written : indeed, all history would become an impossibility. any rate, if the facts be notorious to contemporaries, surely posterity is to be considered in the narration of events. And could any one think that Lingard, or Tytler, were travelling out of their sphere, if they stated in their histories the notorious fact that the Tweed is the border of Scotland, lying between it and England?

At

The argument, besides, assumes that it was a fact notorious to all, that the Arnon was the boundary of the Moabites and Amorites. It may have been so. But there is not the slightest reason for the assertion. The Hebrews, escaping from the thraldom of Egypt, were not grounded in the elements of universal geography, as the young are now-a-days; and although they had actually passed over the ground, it is probable enough that none but the leaders knew exactly where the boundary line was to be drawn.

It was, however, of consequence to Israel that the limit. should be accurately defined. For all on one side of it was to lapse to Israel, while the Moabite territory on the other was to remain, at that time, inviolable.

1 Ib. pp. 205, 206.

And, indeed, we see of how much importance this slight observation, in the mouth of Moses, afterwards became. Because it is apparently on this very document that Jephthah grounds his rejection of the Ammonite claims, quoting, along with a great deal more, the very words in question: Arnon is the boundary of Moab' (Judg. xi. 18). Colenso's first objection, therefore, is of no weight whatever.

His second has just as little. He believes that the text is intended to illustrate the Song, while the generality of commentators take the Song as an illustration of the text. Surely, the commentators are in the right; and the bishop's idea would be more suitable to a poetical commentary, than to the history of God's people. It is quite indifferent, however, to the present issue, on what side we may range ourselves. For the narrative and the Song may still be, in either case, contemporaneous; and the historian could, therefore, allude to the poem, and quote its words.

It is not to confirm his statement that he does so. For the poetical words are not very definite, and much less do they lay down the boundary as between Moab and the Amorites. The object seems rather to show, that in the very ballads of the people, independently of the history, the wonders that Jehovah was working for Israel were recorded by the popular poets. 1 We do not see, then, how 'the language of the Song itself implies that the transactions at the brooks of Arnon, as well as at the Red Sea, were long past.'

Dr. Davidson, however, finds a further reason for supposing the work posterior to Moses, in the particle then, which occurs in the 17th verse. What magical virtue our opponents find in that little word it is impossible to make out. An author who describes an event anterior to

1 See Welte, ib. p. 190.

the time he is writing in, can, surely, use the word then in reference to it, if he has any reason at all for directing attention to the time it took place.

These reflections are sufficient to demonstrate, that there is no good reason to fancy, with Colenso, that the Book of the Wars of Jehovah must be dated long after Moses; or, with Dr. Davidson, that the author of the Pentateuch must have lived in a subsequent age. The whole requirements of the case are easily met by supposing, as we may naturally do, that among the Hebrews at the Exodus a popular ballad poetry either sprang up, or received a fresh impetus from the grandeur of the events unrolling themselves before them. The rest of the chapter furnishes additional specimens (Num. xxi. 17, 18, 27-30) in the last year of the wanderings, when the enthusiasm of the nation was wrought up to its highest pitch. Or it may have been that, in imitation of the royal scribes in Egypt, who described poetically the battles of their kings, the Hebrews may have instituted among themselves a poetical dignitary, whose office it was to record, in glowing language, the battles of their King Jehovah. By the time Moses put the last hand to his work, abundant materials had been gathered for the sublimest triumphal odes. For, in addition to the glories of the Red Sea, Israel, led on by Jehovah, had already conquered the Amalekites, the king of Arad, the Midianites, Sihon king of the Amorites, and Og the gigantic warrior of Bashan. '

VII.

A puerile objection is derived from Ex. xxiv. 13: 'And Moses rose up and his minister Joshua,' &c. The words in italics,' says Dr. Davidson,2 are not such as

1 See Hengstenberg, ib. ii. p. 225.

2 Ib. p.

12.

would have been written by Moses himself. Another person long after would naturally use them. This supposition is strengthened by Exodus xxxiii. 11: "And he turned again into the camp; but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle." After the preceding notice of Joshua, this is not the most appropriate language, for it would agree better with a first mention of Joshua. As a description of his own servant coming from Moses, it is unsuitable. A later author would insert it. Both places belong, as we shall see, to the Jehovist."

Joshua was the minister of Moses. Any other author could say so. Why could not Moses himself? Moses writes in the third person. So that there is no difficulty about the wording. Moses also knew that Joshua was appointed to succeed him as extraordinary chief, and on that account it was useful to make the statement in question, to show that from his intimate converse with the lawgiver, Joshua had been trained in the best school for the discharge of his important functions.

But why repeat it with the addition son of Nun, a young man? It is one of the peculiarities of the old simple Hebrew style, that such qualifications of things or persons are often added, as by no possibility could be lost sight of or forgotten. Thus in Gen. xxvii. the qualifications son, brother, father, &c., are reiterated again ard again without the least apparent necessity. It is unfair to confine an author to the barely necessary.1

It is urged that such language would agree better with a first mention of Joshua.' Perhaps so. But what of that? How can that prove that Moses did not write this, or the first, or both? Dr. Davidson says that the

1 See what has been said on this passage, supra, pp. 342, 343.