Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

r

that "though it has not come down to us without alterations, yet what "work of antiquity is there, the text of which we have so many means of correcting as that of the Pentateuch? Two rival peoples, "the Jews and Samaritans, have preserved separate exemplars of it in "different characters; it was excellently translated into Greek, at a "period when the copies must have been much less imperfect than "they afterwards became; and we have various versions of very early "date, by the help of which, compared with the original and with one another, and of the various readings of the text itself, collected "in the present century from a great number of manuscripts, a nearly genuine copy of the Pentateuch may, by the rules of a judicious "criticism, be at length obtained."

66

[ocr errors]

In this entire account there is certainly some obscurity and confusion. What is meant by the Pentateuch in its present form? Does it mean this work with every word or verse which now is found in it, e. g. with the last chapter of Deuteronomy; or the text, as to the kings of Edom, marked above, No. X.? In this sense it might be admitted, that the Pentateuch in its present form, i. e. so far as relates to these few pas sages, plainly inserted by some later writer long after Moses, to explain or complete the history, was not entirely written by Moses, nor com pleted perhaps until the time of Ezra. But if, as the Doctor admits, there can be no doubt that the Jews had written records from the time of Moses; if the Pentateuch was compiled from the very journals of Moses himself; then it becomes the province of sound criticism to decide, how much of it is thus formed of the journals of Moses. I think I have proved from clear internal evidence, it was entirely composed of these identical journals, that is, entirely written by Moses himself, except only the few passages above referred to.

The learned Doctor has no where clearly detailed his opinions on this point in their full extent, by distinguishing the passages he considered as the genuine production of Moses, from those which he attributes to the supposed modern compiler. He has, however, given us some specimens of his mode of reasoning on this subject, which I proceed to consider.

Gen. x. 19. Dr. Geddes in this verse adopts the Samaritan read. ing, which describes the bounds of Canaan as more extensive than the Hebrew text, viz. " from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates "and to the HINDER sea," (an expression elegant perhaps, but to me not very clear.) And he observes, "I prefer the Samaritan reading to the "Hebrew, for the following reasons: in the promise made to Abraham, “chap. xv. ver. 18, 19, 20, 21, the very same boundaries are assigned “to the land of Canaan in all the copies, which are here marked in "the Samaritan, and the same number of peoples or tribes included in "them. Again, in Exod. xxiii. 32, the same boundaries are assigned "in a more particular manner from the Red Sea to the Sea of the "Philistines (that is, the Mediterranean) and from the Wilderness of "Shur to the great river Euphrates. It is true this was not accom. "plished until the reigns of David and Solomon, which latter is ex

66

"pressly said in the first Book of Kings, iv. 21. to have had dominion over all the kingdoms from the river Euphrates unto the land of the "Philistines, and unto the borders of Egypt. But whence (asks the "Doctor) sprung the present reduction of those boundaries in the "present text of Genesis? That I know not; but I suspect it arose "from this; that when the compiler or translator of the present copy "of the Hebrew text lived, the boundaries of Judea had been greatly "circumscribed, and he had accommodated his text to that circum"scription. But why then left he the other two passages unaltered? "This indeed, I cannot account for, nor am I obliged to account for "it: but this I affirm, the present Hebrew text is inconsistent with it"self, the Samaritan is consistent; let the reader choose whether of the two he will abide by." Now I should have no hesitation in choosing the consistent text; but I really think it not very candid in the learned Doctor, to impute to his imaginary compiler of the present Hebrew Pentateuch exactly knavery enough to alter, so as to accommodate to the existing bounds of the land of Judea, a text where no allusion to these bounds occurs, and dulness enough to leave unaltered passages which prophetically and directly pointed out these bounds, in a manner contrary to what Dr. Geddes supposes to have been their extent in the compiler's time. Let us, however, consider on what grounds this charge of inconsistency against the Hebrew text, as it now stands, is founded.

Gen. xv. 18 to 21, relates, "In that same day the Lord made a co"venant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, "from the river of Egypt, unto the great river, the river Euphrates : "the Kenites, and the Kennezzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hit“tites, and the Perrizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and "the Canaanites, and the Gergashites, and the Jebusites." Here God promises to the Jews a great extent of country, from the Nile to the Euphrates, inhabited by ten distinct nations or rather tribes, of whom one was distinguished by the name of CANAANITES, who therefore inhabited only a part of this extended country. Now Genesis, x. 15 -19, states that "Canaan begat Sidon his first-born, and Heth, and "the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Gergashite, and the Hivite, "and the Arkite, and the Senite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, " and the Hamathite; and afterwards were the families of the Ca"naanites spread abroad. And the border of the Canaanites was from "Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar unto Gaza; as thou goest unto So"dom and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lashah." This country is certainly only a part of that included in the subsequent promise to Abraham. But is it not obvious that there are two

* The learned Bochart, Phaleg, Lib. IV. cap. xxxvi. remarks that "the Canaanites were those "who inhabited partly on the sea and partly on the banks of Jordan; deriving their name either from "their being merchants, which the word in Hebrew imports, or because they held the chief place *for some time amongst the descendants of Canaan." Vide p. 348. Bochart remarks that" of the eleven families of the Canaanites enumerated, Gen. x. 15, six were not involved in the anathema or "condemnation which the Jews were authorized to execute, the Sidonii, Arkæi, Sinæi, Avadii, "Samarai, Hamathæi; a new proof, if any were wanting, that it was their own national guilt, not "merely their descent from a guilty ancestor, which drew down on the condemned nations the "judgments of God."

natural and credible hypotheses, on which this apparent difference can be reconciled; one, that of the numerous descendants of Canaan some one tribe were particularly distinguished by the name of Canaanites: and that when the text says, "and afterwards were the families of the Canaanites enlarged," it means to mark out the peculiar extension of this tribe, and describes in the 19th verse the borders of their territory. This is not an imaginary hypothesis, because it appears from Gen. xv. 21. and Exod. xxiii. 28, that in the time of Abram and also of Moses, one peculiar tribe or nation descended from Canaan were called Canaanites, while others also descended from him had other names. Admitting this, is there any inconsistency between the passage which states, Gen. x. 19, that this single tribe occupied a small country, and Gen. xv. 18 to 21, which states, that this tribe, united with nine others, occupied a much larger space? But if this solution be not admitted, and it be maintained that Gen. x. 19, describes the entire country occupied by all the descendants of Canaan; is there yet any inconsistency in supposing that this is only the country occupied by them soon after their first division into distinct tribes, or as the text expresses, "after the families spread abroad;" but that in three hundred years after, when the promise was made to Abraham, the same nations occupied a much greater extent of country, and four hundred years after Abraham, in the time of Moses, a still greater? which is then (as Dr. Geddes observes) more particularly marked out, for this plain reason, that then it became more necessary to point out its precise bounds, that the Jews might know how much they were authorised to take possession of. Such then is the foundation on which this critic charges the sacred text with inconsistency, and its compiler with fraud. I feel no inclination to give any man injurious language;

but the friends of this learned Doctor must excuse me, if I do not in this instance give him credit for that caution, judgment and candour, which such a discussion requires; and if, taught by this single example, I feel indisposed to adopt his conclusions, where he has not stated the reasons by which they are maintained.

66

But Doctor Geddes insists strongly on the text, Gen. xxxv. 21. "Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar." (Vide the texts considered before No. IX.) He founds his objection not so much on the identity of this tower with that over the gate of Jerusalem, as on the use of the word beyond. He observes," whether "this tower were not far from Bethlehem, or near to the sheep-gate "of Jerusalem, if Moses had written this, he would not, he could not have expressed himself in this manner; in describing a journey "from Bethel to Jerusalem, he could not with propriety say of any "intermediate place, that Jacob had come beyond it, when such an " event happened; whether he be supposed to have written his history "in Egypt or in his way to Canaan." As this objection did not occur to any preceding writer, let us consider it. The expression translated beyond is, compounded of the word 7, which by itself signifies trans, ultra, beyond, further on, or as Leigh (vide his Critica

[ocr errors]

Sacra) expresses it, "loci et temporis distantiam et remotionem significat," and the præfix D, which signifies a, ab, from. The compound is translated by Montanus, ab ultra, from, beyond, i. e. he stretched his tent from beyond the tower of Edar, or from a distance beyond the tower of Edar to that tower, marking an approximation to the place of the writer, as a person journeying from Bethel to Jerusalem or Bethlehem, must have approximated to a writer coming from Egypt towards the land of Canaan. Compare Gen. xix. 9, where the words

п are employed to signify removal to a greater distance; accede ultra, says Montanus; stand back, says our translation; the præfix, marks a removal in the contrary direction. Now if this remark be just, what becomes of Dr. Geddes's criticism? I do not question his skill in the Hebrew; but I do discover a most unwarrantable negligence and temerity, combined with a most eager zeal to overturn the genuineness of the Pentateuch. "But indeed (he concludes) every "thing convinces me that the Pentateuch was composed at Jerusalem, or at least in Palestine." Yes, truly, every thing convinces him of it, even what ought to have convinced him of the contrary.

66

But as I am compelled to expose what appear to me Dr. Geddes' errors on this important subject, so I feel much more gratified at acknowledging his fairness where he has reasoned fairly. On Gen. xxxvi. 31, considered above (vide No. X.) Dr. Geddes remarks, "this and the "twelve following verses were by Spinoza urged, as one clear proof "that the Pentateuch could not be written by Moses; if he had only "said that this part of the Pentateuch could not have been written "by Moses, he would have said no more than what any discerning "reader must in my conception acknowledge. Nothing to me can "be plainer than that all this was written after there were kings, or at least a king, in Israel." True. And are we then to understand Dr. Geddes's strong assertions, that " the Pentateuch in its present form was not written by Moses," &c. &c. to mean only this, that though the substance of it consists of the journals of Moses, yet there were parts of it added in Palestine, even after the reign of Solomon? This assuredly is all he can prove: how is it to be lamented that he was not cautious or candid enough to say no more. Then his criticism might

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

have exerted itself freely, to distinguish the genuine text from the interpolations; and the more accurately he distinguished them, the greater thanks would he have received from the friends of religion and of truth, who are now compelled to regard him as an enemy, and view all his 'proceedings with suspicion and distrust.

An Article in the Appendix to the Eighth Volume of the Critical Review for September, 1806, in which Mr. De Wette's Work on the Old Testament is briefly considered. An humble remonstrance to the Reviewers.

[ocr errors]

In the Appendix to the eighth volume of the Critical Review, September, 1806, I find a work noticed on the Old Testament, by a Mr. De Wette, teacher of philosophy at Jena; which, as it appears to maintain opinions very inconsistent with what seems to me the truth, and very injurious to the authority of the Pentateuch, I was anxious particularly to examine. I have not, however, been able to procure as yet either this work, or Vater's Commentary on the Pentateuch, which is represented as maintaining nearly the same opinions. And I think it is unfair and uncandid to combat an author, whose system is known only through the medium of a Review, in which it must necessarily be stated indistinctly and imperfectly, and possibly may be misunderstood and misinterpreted. I shall therefore advert to the article in which this work is noticed, only so far as relates to some positions immediately connected with my subject, and which are distinctly stated as supported by Mr. De Wette, The first is, that the book of Deuteronomy appears to have been the work of a very different writer from him or them, who wrote the second, third and fourth books ascribed to Moses. It is said, "this constitutes a whole, and breathes a spirit which in a very remarkable manner distinguishes it from the other books." And we are afterwards told of "a bold dissertation of De Wette, in which "the book of Deuteronomy is proved to be different from the preced"ing books of the Pentateuch, and the work of a later writer, by the "deviations in the phraseology of Deuteronomy from that of the preceding books." On this point Mr. De Wette and I are fairly at issue. That the book of Deuteronomy constitutes, a whole, and that it is composed in a different manner, and with a different view from the three preceding books, I have stated. The three preceding books are narratives and journals formed at the time the events took place, or laws and regulations, recorded as they were gradually and occasion. ally promulgated, either by the public and miraculous voice from the glory of God, or through the medium of the inspired legislator; while the book of Deuteronomy is a recapitulation of those events delivered near forty years after the principal facts had taken place, in a public address to the Jewish nation, designed to impress the Divine authority of the Mosaic law on their minds, and to inculcate the necessity of perpetual obedience to the divine commands. But while this difference of object must have produced a difference of style and manner, I have endeavoured to prove that the Book of Deuteronomy, and the three preceding, must have been equally the production of Moses himself,

66

« ForrigeFortsæt »