The unreasonableness and utter poverty of the separate document-hypothesis is also plain by joining chapter 5 to the end of chapter 2:3. What can be more meager? The entrance of death is unaccounted for, the moral trial in Eden is lost, sin is left out, and God's ways as to it: the prophetic revelation of the Savior and of the destruction of Satan's power is gone; the solemn history of Cain and Abel disappears; also faith in a sacrifice, and this the index and accompaniment of righteousness, God testifying of the gifts; the suffering of the godly; the worldliness and progress in material things of those who are far from God. And Seth is introduced in a way which derives an immense accession of weight from the intervening chapters, if even it be really intelligible without them.
On the other hand, if the entire narrative be taken as a whole, consisting of distinct parts, each having its own definite character, yet only seen in their proper value as conspiring from different points to the one result, how immense the gain in beauty, force and harmony! Creation properly falls under Elohim; the relationship of man and his trial and fall, as well as the ruin and creation, under Jehovah-Elohim; the discrimination of the just from the unjust, both morally and above all in worship, with the issues here below, under Jehovah, the distinctive name of God in the government of man on the earth. Chapter v. returns naturally to Elohim since the perpetuation of the line from Adam is in question, but with Jehovah in verse 29 where we see special relationship.
Dr. Perowne thinks that the alleged design in the use of the divine names will not bear a close examination. Not so; it only seems to fail, I venture to say, for want of a searching analysis. He allows that it does suit the earlier chapters, but not Noah's history, on comparing chapter 6:7 with 8: why say, argues he, that “Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah,” yet that he “walked with Elohim"? Now he might have seen in chapter v. 23, 24, that the expression “walked with God” is not casual but designed. Not only is it appropriate to simple historical mention, but to moral contrast with those characterized by the violence and corruption of all flesh in the earth (11, 12). Jehovah is required where not nature but relative feelings and position are meant to be conveyed. The principle is true in the New Testament equally as in the Old. Thus our Lord Himself always says “Father” in His life or ministry; He says “God” on the cross when bearing the judgment of sin, against which all that God is in holy antagonism was arrayed; He says both when He arose from the dead and placed His disciples in His own place and relationship as far as this could be, now that sin was put away by the sacrifice of Himself, and He could take the place formally of a quickening Spirit in resurrection. So John's Epistles employ “God” and “Father” concerning the Christian with invariable distinctiveness and propriety. It is evident to me then that to “walk with God” is just the right phrase for moral character; while we may also see, by comparing verses 5 and 12, that the introduction of His special relationship applies a more severe and intimate test.
Again, the other cases Dr. P. has named (6:21, 22; 7:5, 9) are plain examples used from internal motives, while 7:16 exposes the futility of referring the matter to distinct documents. In the former Elohim speaks with authority of destroying creation, preserving as Creator only enough to perpetuate species. In the latter He reveals what became Him in special connection with Noah; but even there, where care of the creature only is in question, we read of “the male and the female as Elohim commanded Noah,” “male and female of all flesh as Elohim had commanded; and Jehovah shut him in.” The change in the last is plain and necessary, as in verse 5 also, closing the directions which provide for the exigencies of sacrifice in the “clean” beasts and birds preserved not by a pair but by sevens. The existence of both titles in the same verse is most unnatural on the document-hypothesis, but as explicable as elsewhere when we see that a divine design guides from internal reasons in every case.
Such then is the true explanation of the duplicate accounts, as they have been styled. If difference of authors or of documents had any real evidence, it in no way covers the facts; it really introduces mere imagination to set aside the positive declarations of the Lord and the apostles, who attribute to Moses expressly what a groundless fancy distributes among two, three, five, ten, or even more imaginary writers of the disjecta membra of the Pentateuch severed from each other by considerable intervals of time.
It would not be edifying to discuss too minutely the neology of Dr. Davidson's book, chiefly culled from German sources: a few specimens must suffice. To him the Fall, for instance, is a national mythus. The apostle repeatedly treats it as a fact of the gravest import, which none can slight with impunity (2 Cor. 11; 1 Tim. 2). But what of that? Paul knew nothing of the higher criticism, and must be condoned for his ignorance! The nature of the serpent, the manner in which he is said to have proceeded, the dialog between him and Eve, the sentence pronounced, militate against that mode, the apostolic mode, of interpretation! Thus, however plain the scriptures, these men are not ashamed to count it a vulgar error if one insist on their authority and sacredness. It has nothing, say they, to do with personal religion; it conduces in their judgment to a right view of inspiration if one accepts their word that the Bible abounds in almost every sort of error on the one hand, and on the other that all religious men were counted inspired. Talk no more of Paul in the first century: did not “the immortal De Wette” come to opposite conclusions so long ago as the year 1805? Paul, no doubt, treats the history as the origin of man's universal sinfulness (Rom. 5:12-2112Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12‑21); 1 Cor. 15:21, 2221For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21‑22)); but why heed so antiquated an idea? The Anglo-German scribe had not yet appeared to expound aright the philosophical myth in which a reflecting Israelite sets forth his views on the origin of evil! Such, my reader, is the spirit of modern rationalism.
Of course the apostle's use of Gen. 4 in Heb. 11:44By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. (Hebrews 11:4) is of no account. It is an accommodation! We are told by our new oracle that the “mythic view of the first three chapters is corroborated by the succeeding narrative.” Gen. 4 “presupposes a different theory of the origination of mankind” —this because of verse 14, and the supposed inconsistency of verses 2 and 20! The infatuation of this pseudo-criticism culminates in the judgment that the Sethite line in Gen. 5 and the Cainite one in chapter 4:17,18, “are parallel accounts resolvable into one and the same genealogy!”
The solemn account of antediluvian apostasy and corruption in Gen. 6 is naturally treated with levity; and the flood (chaps. 7, 8) affords the usual material for free handling. “What gave rise to the mythus was the yearly inundations which happen in most countries.... If the account of the deluge be a poetical myth, it is of no importance to inquire whether the catastrophe was partial or universal... Authentic (!) Egyptian history [for with these men Egyptian history (?) is authentic, scripture is not] ignores the existence of a general flood, to which there is no allusion in the annals from the epoch of Menes, the founder of the kingdom of Egypt, B.C. 3463 (!), till its conquest under Darius Ochus, B.C. 340; whereas the period of the Noachian deluge is said to be about 2348 B.C.” I presume that the writer is not much acquainted with these matters, and that he means Baron Bunsen's date for the accession of Menes, B.C. 3643. But the reader should know that in the same work the world's history before Christ is set down at twenty thousand years, and that Egypt is supposed to have been ruled provincially for more than five thousand years before Menes. On such a scale, in contempt of all that is known in or out of the Bible, one must consider that it is a moderate flight in this imaginative system to claim for Menes no more than a few centuries before the flood. It may be added that the basis of it is a passage of Syncellus, and a manifest error, as has been shown by others. But there is no need of learning or logic here; for the divine testimony of Christ has sealed the truth of the flood as an authentic fact, and a most solemn warning to unbelief. (See Matt. 24:37-3937But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:37‑39); Luke 17:26, 2726And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. (Luke 17:26‑27)). The apostles Paul (Heb. 11:77By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Hebrews 11:7)) and Peter (1 Epistle 3:20; 2 Epistle 2:5) have confirmed the witness to it, if this were wanted.
The freest thinker will not complain that, when I cite the testimony of Baron Bunsen, he is likely to give an opinion unfairly to the prejudice of Egyptian records as compared with the Old Testament. “The written character is prolix; the repetition of fixed phrases makes it still more so. Little is lost by occasional lacunæ; but comparatively little advance is made by what is preserved. There are few words in a line, and, what is still worse, little is said in a great many lines. Inscriptions on public buildings were not intended to convey historical information. They consist of panegyrics on the kings and praises of the gods, to each of whom all imaginable titles of honor are given. Historical facts are thrown into the shade as something paltry, casual, incidental, by the side of such pompous phraseology as Lords of the World, Conquerors of the North, Tamers of the South, Destroyers of all the Unclean, and all their enemies. The case of the papyri is certainly different. But written history, such as the historical books of the Old Testament, so far as our knowledge of their writings goes, was certainly unknown to the old Egyptians.”
Let us briefly review a quantity of smaller points. The unbelieving criticism on the earlier chapters of Genesis has been noticed the more, as being in fact the most confidently urged, and, if refuted, involving the rejection of much the greater part of the rest. Subsequent insertions, brief and rare as they are, are rather a confirmation than a weakening of the Mosaic authorship, and in no way an infringement of inspiration, which is a far more important thing; for all were equally inspired of God, whether Moses or Samuel, Ezra, Jeremiah, or any other prophet. The Book of Proverbs is a clear instance, where a large and important addition at a later epoch than that of its earlier portion is avowed. But it is not certain that some of the notices supposed to be of this kind were not original, as, for instance, Gen. 13:1818Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord. (Genesis 13:18), etc. One can easily understand the original name, for a time overlaid by the name of Arba, finally restored; and we can conceive a curious coincidence in the name of Dan, as it seems to have been an element in Jordan and Dan-jaan, apart from the tribe.
The passage in Gen. 36 (verse 31) on which most stress has been laid seems to be undoubtedly of Moses. To call the notice of kings that reigned in Edom “before there reigned any king over the land of Israel” a trifling proposition is not only irreverence, but evinces that fatal defect of all rationalists—the absence of moral perception. Israel had the promise of kings, which Esau had not; yet Esau had many successive kings long before a sign of royalty was seen in the object of that promise. Had the passage been written after Saul or David's line began to reign, the phraseology would have been different, not “any” or “a” king, but “the king” or “the kings.”
Again, Ex. 16:35, 36; 22:2935And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan. 36Now an omer is the tenth part of an ephah. (Exodus 16:35‑36)
29Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. (Exodus 22:29); Lev. 26:34, 35, 4334Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. 35As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it. (Leviticus 26:34‑35)
43The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes. (Leviticus 26:43); Deut. 19:1414Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it. (Deuteronomy 19:14), are only difficult to one who denies the essential claim of scripture. Lev. 18:2828That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. (Leviticus 18:28) is cleared in its true sense by simply reading verses 24, 25. Num. 15:3232And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. (Numbers 15:32) is quite plain if written, as it probably was, in the plains of Moab. Gen. 40:1515For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews: and here also have I done nothing that they should put me into the dungeon. (Genesis 40:15) is most natural on the lips of Joseph looking back on the land where his father and himself were once together, and designating it by “the Hebrews” —a name familiar among the Gentiles.
Nor do notices of ancient inhabitants or actual rulers and their history, as in Deut. 2; 3, present the smallest difficulty. They are of the highest interest in themselves, and Moses might well speak and write of them.
Ex. 6:2626These are that Aaron and Moses, to whom the Lord said, Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt according to their armies. (Exodus 6:26) has nothing to do with the lapse of a considerable time after Moses, but is due to the sense of God's condescension in using such men by the writer who was one of the two. This may seem trifling to a modern critic; what does the pettifoggery (and, as far as I have had leisure to sift, very incorrect minims) seem to those who rejoice in the divine truth of God's dealings with man for this world and for eternity? So, if the Bible were a human book, such texts as Ex. 11:33And the Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians. Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the people. (Exodus 11:3), Num. 12:77My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. (Numbers 12:7), might seem strange. Nevertheless the history proves their strict truth; and the language of Paul in 2 Cor. 11 may cause one to hesitate in counting them later additions by Ezra or some other authorized hand, as no one doubts of the formula “unto this day.” But none of these in the smallest degree touches the claim of Moses to have written the Pentateuch by inspiration.
(Continued from page 227)(To be continued)