Dear Mr. Editor,
With the question now stirring the Free Church of Scotland, respecting the teaching of one of its professors, the readers of the Bible Treasury have no direct Concern. Yet when the scriptures are assailed by criticism to prove that large parts of the Pentateuch were not written by Moses, but by others after his time, all Christians are deeply concerned in the accuracy of Such startling statements. The Lord quoted from the Pentateuch as the writings of Moses. “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?” (John 7:19.) The Spirit of God teaches us, that “the law was given by Moses.” (John 1:17.) Professor Smith, in his recently published statement in vindication of himself, would, by criticisms on Old Testament scripture, invalidate such teaching. Now what are such criticisms worth? To a consideration of them let us now turn, first quoting his own words (page 36): “Apparently, says criticism, the only way to make the new law an integral part of the old legislation was to throw it into such a form, as if it had been spoken by Motes, and so incorporate it with the other laws. Of course, if this plan was adopted, the statute-book ceased to be pure literal history. The ascription of a law to Moses could no longer be taken literally, but could only indicate that the law was as much to he observed as if it came from Moses, and that it was a legitimate addition to his legislation. Such a Method of publishing laws would not be free from inconvenience; but the actual unquestioned inconveniences of the Pentateuch, when measured by our ideas of a law-book, are so great, that this cannot prove the thing impossible. On the other hand, there is no deceit implied in the use of an artificial literary form proceeding on a principle well understood, and so it is a pure question of literary and historical evidence whether the Hebrews did at one time recognize and use such a principle. There is one piece of direct historical evidence which seems to sheer that they did, for in Ezra 9:11 a law is quoted from Deut. 7, expressed in words that throw it back into the wilderness period, and yet the origin of this law is ascribed, not to Moses, but to the prophets.”
Leaving it to the simplest Christian to determine whether there is no deceit in stating that Moses wrote what he did not write, and remembering that God in His word, and the Lord Jesus, speak only of Moses as the one by whom the law was given, let us examine the scriptures to which the professor turns in support of his statements and position. A law, he tells us, is quoted by Ezra 9:11 from Deut. 7, and yet the origin of this law is ascribed, not to Moses, but to the prophets. Now it would scarcely be credited that any one contending for, and engaged in, critical studies, could have made such a statement. A quotation the professor calls it! Why, the fact is this: there is not a word in the one passage quoted the same as those in the other. Of the three verbs in the law in question in Deuteronomy, only one of them is made use of in the passage in Ezra. The negative particles used by Ezra are not the same as those in Deuteronomy; and the nouns in the one passage are in the singular, and in the other are in the plural. With these important differences in a raw of only eleven words, it is surely trusting too much to the credulity or inability of his readers to verify his statements, to assert that a law is quoted in Ezra 9:11 from Deut. 7:8. That the ready scribe in the law of. Moses referred to this passage of Deuteronomy we may well believe; but, that he meant it to be a quotation of it, his words would surely negative. He speaks of what God commanded by His servants the prophets. It was the tenor of prophetic teaching that he spoke of. Now Deut. 7 is not the only passage in the Pentateuch which refers to such a subject. In Ex. 34:16 we have a reference to it; and elsewhere, in Josh. 23:12, likewise. Ezra does quote from in Deuteronomy that passage, but it is from Deut. 23:6. A quotation, then, from the law of Deut. 7 the passage in Ezra clearly is not.
But we are further told that “the origin of the law is ascribed, not to Moses, but to the prophets,” because Ezra speaks of God's servants the prophets. Was not, however, Moses a prophet? Is he not termed one in Deut. 18:15; 34:10? But Ezra makes mention of prophets, and surely correctly; for in the book of Joshua (classed by the Jews among those called the former prophets), as well as in the books of Moses, the people were warned against the sin of intermarrying with the nations in the land. Ezra's words, then, seem well chosen; and the professor's attempt to make him a witness of the use in scripture of “artificial literary form” sorely falls to the ground.
Again, writes Professor Smith (page 37), “If, for example, Num. 18 assigns the firstlings to the priests, and Deut. 12 bids the people eat them themselves, and if both laws are perfectly clear and unambiguous in the tenor of their words, it is vain to ask us to believe that both laws wore given by Moses to be observed together.”
Let us examine this. In Ex. 13 we meet with the first command about the firstlings. The Lord claimed them as His for evermore. He had the right to dispose of them as He would. In Ex. 22:30; 34:19; Lev. 27:26, He reminded the people of His claim. In Num. 18:17, 18 He gave them to the priests to eat. In Deut. 12:6, 17, 18; 23; xv. 19, 20, He told the people who brought them, to partake of them with their families and the Levites who were within their gates, at the place where He would choose to put His name. Now it is clear that there is an alteration made in the law. The principle however, that God claimed the firstlings as His, to dispose of as He would, remains the same throughout. In the wilderness God gave them to the priests. (Num. 18) In the land the people were to eat of them likewise. God, of course, had the right to modify His law, and doubtless there was an adequate reason for it. How well the priests were provided for when in the land, we have evidence in the reign of Hezekiah. (2 Chron. 31:4-14.) God's provision was ample when the people conformed to the law about it. Some useful remarks on this point, too long to be here quoted, will be found in “Synopsis of the Books of the Bible,” vol. i., pp. 267, 268. They will well repay perusal.
“But,” adds the professor, “it is vain to ask us to believe that both laws were given by Moses to be observed together.” Who, we may ask, said they were to be observed together? Read Num. 18, as the provision for the wilderness, and Deut. 12; 14, as the arrangement for the land, and all is simple and easy. For it is not a solitary instance of a change made consequent on the people's entrance into the land. Compare Deut. 12:15, 16 with Lev. 17:3, 4, and Deut. 22:1, 2 with Ex. 23:4, for other changes necessitated by their leaving the wilderness, and entering on the land of their possession.
Again, it is objected that the law of Deut. 12:11 could not have been given by Moses, for Samuel, it is assumed, and Elijah knew nothing of it, as they did not conform to it. Now Samuel must have remembered the days of his youth at Shiloh, when men abhorred the offering of the Lord. For certainly then the law of Deut. 12:11 was observed, though the people had had the greatest provocation to break it, from the sins of the two sons of Eli. But what says the law of Deut. 12:11? The people are told to bring to the altar of burnt-offering all that God had commanded them. The words are, “All that I have commanded you.” Now did the offerings of Samuel at Mizpeh, and those of Elijah at Carmel, fall under this category? They were such as God permitted, but were not of those which He had commanded. Now a law of Ex. 20:24 clearly provided for the building of other altars than that in the tabernacle or temple. In Judg. 6:25, 26; 13:16-20, 1 Chron. 21:18-28, as well as 1 Sam. 7:9, and 1 Kings 18, God commanded on some occasions, and sanctioned on others, altars for exceptional offerings. For such the law of Ex. 20 provided, whilst that of Deut. 12 clearly did not. Deut. 12 was to guard the people from all admixture of idolatrous rites with the worship of God. Ex. 20 provided for the exceptional instances of which we have the proofs of the divine approval. There is, then, really nothing contradictory in all this.
Again, in page 55, attempting to support his theory about Deuteronomy, the professor seeks to make the opening words of the book itself to be a witness in his favor. His words are these: “But does not Deut. 1:1 show that the whole book claims to have been written on the east side of Jordan, before the people entered Canaan? On the English translation, yes; but the translation is wrong, and the verse really says, ‘These are the words which Moses space on the other side of Jordan.'“
Now here the professor is incorrect in saying that the English translation is wrong. Grammatically it is quite admissible, for the Hebrew, b'ngehver, øÆáÅòÀÌá may correctly be translated, “on this side,” or, “on that side,” for it does not of necessity by itself determine anything as to the locality, east or west, of Jordan. For proof of this I would refer to the book of Joshua. In Josh. 1:14, 15 the word is used of the east side of Jordan, where Joshua was at the time he addressed the children of Reuben, of Gad, and of the half tribe of Manasseh. In chapter v. 1 it is used of the west side of the river. Again, in chapter ix. 1 it is used of the west aide, and in verse 10 of the east. In chapter xii. 1 it is used of the east side, in verse 7 of the west; and there, as at times elsewhere, defining words are introduced to make plain to which side reference is made, “towards the sun-rising,” 1; “on the west,” verse 7. Anything, then, but on the meaning of b'ngehver, to discredit Deuteronomy being really written by Moses, must fall to the ground.
Three other scripture proofs of the position the professor has taken up, may be more briefly noticed. In page 38 he suggests the chronicler (2 Chron. 20:36) has misunderstood the phrase in 1 Kings 22:48,” the ships of Tarshish.” May not the chronicler be right, and the critic wrong? Further on (page 40) he Calls attention to the introduction of the word Samaria (1 Kings 13:32) in a speech of the old prophet, years before Omri built the city, which he celled Samaria, after Shemer, the owner of the hill (1 Kings 16:24), adding, “we shall misread the history, if we assume that the speeches were given word for word as they were written.” Now this remark is not to the point, the question being, not whether we have a summary merely of the old prophet's speech to his sons, but whether he is made by the historian to use a word which was not in existence till years afterward. This is a very different matter. On what ground is such a statement based! In 1 Kings 13:32 Samaria is used, it would seem, as the name of a district— “cities of Samaria” —like Heshbon and her cities (Josh. 13:17), or “cities of Hebron.” (2 Sam. 1:3.) But in Kings xvi. it appears for the first time as the name of the city built by Omri on the bill he bought of Shemer, its former owner. Such are the facts of the case.
What explanation can be offered? Critics, we learn, cut the knot in a very summary manner. “The history,” we are assured, “is consistent, and the critic is only anxious to reach a standpoint, from which the consistency shall become manifest.” (Page 40.) And the standpoint to which we are conducted is, that the Spirit of God sanctioned “artificial literary form,” making a person say what he did not say, and which it was well known he never uttered. Without dogmatizing on the example from 1 Kings, may it not be that, after all, 1 Kings 16 gives us the clue to the difficulty? The hill was called Samaria, and the city on it was called Samaria, after Shemer. May not the bill have been so called from its position suited to be a watch-tower, whilst the city received its name from Shemer? The hill, then, may have been known as Samaria before Omri built it. The historian only tells us why the city was so named. Is there anything opposed to this in the sacred record? 1 Kings 13 appears to speak of a district of Samaria; 1 Kings 16 clearly tells us the origin of the name of the city, but mentions the hill Samaria as well.
One remark more. On page 47 we read,” In the Old Testament the prophetic word, as a whole, and not merely prophetic vision in the narrow sense, is called a seeing, or intuition. (Chazon Isa. 1:1; Nah. 1:1.)” Such a statement surely needs explanation. Intuition, in the common acceptation of the term, is not the same in sense as “vision” in the prophets. Did Nahum by intuition pour forth the burden of Nineveh? And did Isaiah by intuition give forth his predictions about God's people and the nations?
Having passed in review the different scripture witnesses adduced by Professor Smith in support of his teaching, a simple-minded Christian will perhaps say, What are such criticisms worth? But a more solemn question remains: Is this the way to deal with God's word written?
C. E. S.