be allowed that the Samaritan Pentateuch descended from copies existing among the ten tribes before the Assyrian captivity, or even the Babylonian, to a period when the Hebrew nation flourished in its greatness. And we may reasonably ask, whence such an opinion originated, if it be unfounded in scripture, as it must be if these texts are spurious. To the great deliverance from Egypt, the glorious independence of the people, the only fact which the sabbath was instituted to commemorate,-why should the Hebrews append a reference to the period of time employed by God in the formation of the world, and to the day of rest immediately subsequent, thus calling off the national mind from the single purpose intended, to another altogether different? All embarrassment on this point is removed by admitting the commonly received opinion. I am willing to allow that the text of the New Testament is supported on external grounds, much more susceptible of careful observation and determinate settlement than that of the Old. This will probably be granted by all who are acquainted with the data on which each is maintained to be generally correct. In the language of the author, an interpolation may exist in the Pentateuch "for which the external evidence is as complete as it is for any part of it. We must allow that it shared in some degree the lot of other books, and received occasional interpolations." But then, in every such case, satisfactory reasons for supposing interpolation must be given; and here Dr. Palfrey has failed in the case under consideration. The whole ground on which he maintains the spuriousness of the three texts, is their alleged inconsistency with Deut. v. 15, and the representations so often made of the sabbath as a day of rest.* Unless he has substantiated his allegation, their genuineness remains unaffected. * On the same ground, GABLER, in his Versuche über the Schöp The view commonly taken of the two texts in Exodus and Deuteronomy, that each assigns a separate reason for observing the sabbath not exclusive of the other,* is considered by the author as "untenable. The writer is not assigning reasons for an institution, but acquainting us with specific words which God spake." He particularly insists upon this point. "Moses undertakes to apprize us of words which God spake in the people's hearing ;" and he “wrote them, that is, the words recited-the precise words recorded-those words, and no other. These words the Lord spake-and he added no more." But I appeal to any candid and liberal interpreter to say, whether such an assumption is not unreasonable and contrary to the general use of scriptural language. When we read, that the word of the Lord came to a prophet, saying,' or, 'the Lord said unto a prophet,' does any one suppose that the language following such an introduction are the identical words in which the communication was audibly conveyed to the prophet's ear? To refute such an extravagant notion in the present day would be to waste the time and patience of the reader. And I apprehend that few would be more willing than the Professor himself to dispense with argument on such a point. And yet, I cannot see any essential difference between this case and that of giving the decalogue. In the latter the circumstances of fungsgeschichte, p. 63, rejects Ex. xx. 8 ss. and xxxi. 12—17, because in Deut. v. 12—16, Moses mentions another design of the sabbath. See JAHN's Introduction, p. 215, (note b); or his Einleitung in die Göttlichen Bücher des Alten Bundes, Theil II. p. 136. * Maimonides has stated these two reasons with remarkable distinctness and propriety. They may be found in his Moreh Nevochim, Part II. chap. 31, p. 46, Berlin edition, 283, Buxtorf's Translation. Patrick, in his note on Ex. xx. 11, has placed his remarks within the reach of the English reader. solemnity, of terror, of sublimity, and consequently of impression, are undoubtedly greater. The publicity of the audible communication is also a peculiar and an important circumstance. Still, it remains to be proved, that the author of the Pentateuch intended to deliver the very words in which the ten commandments were embodied. If he have clothed them in terms best fitted to express the laws intended to be promulged, he might employ the language which he has used, in evident consistency with the ordinary phraseology of scripture, even if the words had been selected by himself. Certain language, certain words, are constantly said to be used, when the meaning evidently is, that the sentiments which they express are avowed or cherished. See, among a multitude of illustrations, Deut. xxxiii. 9, Isa. xxviii. 15. The terms word' and 'thing' are often equivalent, and used in our translation to denote the same Hebrew expression 17. We have an illustration of this in Ex. xxxv. 1, 4: "These are the words 77" and, "this is the thing ." The former of these texts, together with the two verses immediately following, is so strikingly applicable to the point in question, that I must be allowed to quote them in full. "These are the words which the Lord hath commanded, that ye should do them. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day." On the ground which Dr. Palfrey assumes, the prohibition of a fire on the sabbath must also have been audibly enunciated by God himself; or rather, this text also must be stricken out of the Pentateuch, because it contains matter additional to the very words supposed to have been uttered, of which it is" even declared, as if to preclude all doubt upon the point,” (says the author,) " and he added no more.” If we maintain that the language in which the decalogue is contained in Deuteronomy is the very words in which it was uttered on Sinai, then most certainly the language in Exodus (chap. xx.) cannot be the very words, for they differ in several particulars from the former, as any one may see who will take the trouble to compare them. And were it really necessary "to interpret with all this precision," I submit whether we should not rather suppose the chapter in Exodus to contain the identical words, because it is the history of the giving of the law, of the very original publication of it, whereas that in Deuteronomy is only the re-statement of the fact made by Moses to the Israelites long after it occurred. Here, in passing, I may be allowed to express my firm persuasion, that not a few able commentators have perplexed themselves with difficulties leading to forced constructions of texts in themselves sufficiently plain, on the supposition that verbal harmony was to be expected, where the sacred writers intended simply to express the same thought, or to make the same general representation. A comparison of 2 Sam. vii. with 1 Chron. xvii, xxviii. 3—7, will afford an illustration to any one who is tolerably well acquainted with commentaries. Thus far I have considered the point in question in reference to the ordinary scriptural use of language. But I ought not to omit the fact particularly important in this case, that the very term rendered words is actually the one employed by the divine historian to express the commandments themselves. Thus, in Ex. xxxiv. 29, we have for "the ten commandments," ; and so in Deut. iv. 13, and x. 4, in both which places these same mandments" or 'words,' 7, are written on the "two tables of stone." 66 ten com said to have been And it is especially worthy of notice, that in the very verse on the latter clause of which Dr. Palfrey lays such stress (Deut. v. 22, in the But although Dr. Palfrey has argued against the text in Exodus from that in Deuteronomy, his persuasion is that neither is genuine, because "the decalogue in every other case, studying the utmost brevity, deals only in laws and their sanctions," while this "exhibits the reasons on which the law was founded, a topic which seems foreign to its purpose." If, indeed, the external evidence were of such a kind as to throw suspicion on the genuineness of the text, the Professor's argument might be allowed a place; although, even in that case, I think the importance to be attached to it would be very inconsiderable. The circumstances of the Israelites may have been such as to afford sufficient cause for giving the reasons of this particular law. Their long residence in Egypt may have weakened both their regard for the sabbatical institution, and their knowledge of the grounds on which it was established; and it may have been highly expedient to impress these considerations on their minds. And the positive nature of the law, in contradistinction to the moral character of all the others, may have added another motive leading to the introduction of reasons in this particular case. Besides, the lawgiver is not so studious of brevity as he is represented to be. The second commandment goes very much into detail, in the represen. tation both of the law and its sanction. Neither can we |