صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

LECTURE III.

The Authenticity and Truth of the four last books of the Pentateuch confirmed, by a comparison of the book of Deuteronomy with those of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Statement of the general argument deduced from this comparison-How far similar, how far dissimilar to that used by Archdeacon Paley, in his Horæ Paulina-Its application to the history, so far as it relates events not Miraculous-Instanced in general coincidence between the recapitulation in Deuteronomy, and the direct narration in the preceding books-In particular facts and circumstances-As to rules of purification— Directions for carrying the tabernacle-Disposition of the tribes in camp, &c.—An apparent contradiction-How reconciled-As to the appointment of inferior judges—And of the twelve spies.

DEUTERONOMY i. 1, 3.

“These were the words which Moses spake unto all Israel, on this side Jordan in the wilderness: "In the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, Moses spake unto the children of Israel according "unto all that the Lord had given him in commandment unto them."

THIS exordium to the book of Deuteronomy is exceedingly remarkable. It states, that it is not, like the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, a direct narration or journal of the various events which occurred to the Jewish legislator and nation, from the commencement of their deliverance from Egypt; but that it was a recapitulation of every thing which Moses thought it necessary to notice, in addressing the people shortly before his death, at the close of the forty years, during which he had acted as their lawgiver and judge. I beg leave to direct my reader's attention, to this peculiar character of the last book of the Pentateuch, because it seems to me, to supply the ground-work of an argument for the genuineness and truth of the entire, somewhat different from those which I have seen generally and distinctly noticed.

In my two last Lectures, I endeavoured to collect the topics in proof of the authenticity and truth of the works ascribed to Moses;

from their general reception among the Jews; from the important and public nature of the facts they relate; from the simplicity of their style and structure; from the particularity of their narrative, natural to an eye-witness, and to an eye-witness alone; and especially from the admirable impartiality they every where display. But if the distinct nature and purpose, ascribed to the book of Deuteronomy, really belongs to it, a comparison of this, with the preceding books of the Pentateuch, ought to afford a distinct proof of the truth and authenticity of all, from the UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES between them.

Arguments of somewhat a similar kind, have been lately applied by Archdeacon Paley,* with a force which seems unanswerable, to confirm the authenticity and truth of the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St Paul, by comparing them together, and pointing out the undesigned coincidence between the direct narration in the Acts, and the indirect allusions to the same facts in the Epistles; and thus establishing the truth of both, on the same principle as that by which we yield entire credit to two unsuspected witnesses, who deliver accounts of the same transactions, if it appears that neither was acquainted with the testimony of the other, and yet that their evidence exactly

agrees.

An argument of precisely the same nature as this cannot be applied to confirm the truth of the Pentateuch, because we have not any cotemporary writings to compare with it; all the works of the Old Testament (the book of Job perhaps excepted) being plainly subsequent to it, all presupposing its truth, deriving from it almost every account of the facts which it details; and in almost every allusion to these facts, adapted to the narrative which the Pentateuch delivers. This circumstance proves undoubtedly that the history of the Pentateuch was received by all subsequent Jewish writers, as the only authentic account of their nation; and thus establishes its truth exactly in proportion as it is improbable the whole Hebrew people should be mistaken in receiving such a narrative as true, if it were really fictitious; an improbability which can scarcely be stated too high, if we consider the public nature and great importance of the facts which the Pentateuch details, the high authority of the person to whom it is ascribed,

* Vide Paley's Hora Paulinæ.

and the early period at which it was received. But having touched upon these topics, I now dismiss them, and proceed to enquire, whether we may not even from the internal structure of the Pentateuch, derive some arguments for its genuineness and truth; which, though not exactly the same with those of the distinguished writer to whom I have alluded, are yet somewhat of a similar nature. We cannot indeed compare the entire with cotemporary writers, and thus confirm it by the agreement of different and independent testimonies; but we can compare the different parts of it together, and weigh the coincidence between the different parts of the same testimony. We may examine whether there exists a natural and exact agreement between the direct narrative and the various references to the same facts in the recapitulation, as well with each other as with the different situations in which the supposed author is related to have been placed, and the various views and feelings which these situations would naturally suggest.

The direct narrative was written at the time of the transactions, as they were passing; the recapitulation was delivered at a period long subsequent to many. The former was intended to record all the particulars of the events, most necessary to be known. In the latter, it was intended to notice only such particulars as the immediate object of the speaker, in addressing the people, rendered it expedient to impress upon their minds. In each, the laws are intermixed with the facts, and both laws and facts are referred to for different purposes and on different occasions. This gives room for comparing these statements and allusions, and judging whether they agree in such a manner as appears to result, not from the artifice which forgery or falsehood might adopt, but from the consistency of nature and truth. We may thus weigh the different testimonies of the same witness, delivered at different times and on different occasions, and judge, as it were by a cross examination, of their truth. And we may remark, that if a coincidence appears in minute and unimportant circumstances, it is therefore the more improbable it should have been designed; also, the more indirect and circuitous it is, the less obvious it would have been to a forger or compiler. If the situations in which the writer is placed, and the views with which at different times he alludes to the same facts, are different, and the terms which he employs are adapted to this difference,

in an artless and natural manner, this is a strong presumption of truth. Finally, if the direct narrative, and the subsequent references and allusions appear in any instance to approach to a contradiction, and yet on closer inspection are found to agree, this very strongly confirms the absence of art, and the influence of truth and reality.

Having thus expounded the general meaning of my argument, I proceed to exemplify it by some instances, which seem sufficient for establishing the conclusion contended for.

Some presumption that the four last books of the Pentateuch were really composed by an eye-witness, at the time of the transactions, arises from their describing the nation and the Lawgiver in circumstances totally different from any which ever existed before or after that peculiar period; from their adapting every incident, however unimportant, every turn of expression, however minute, to these peculiar circumstances.

The Jews are supposed to have left the land of Egypt, and not yet possessed themselves of the land of Canaan. In this interval the nation was all collected together, never before or after; it then dwelt in tents, never before or after; no one possessed any landed property or houses; no local distinctions, no local tribunal could then exist; these and a variety of other circumstances of the same nature, necessarily attended this peculiar situation. Now such is the nature of the human mind, that though it may be easy to imagine a peculiar situation of fictitious characters, and describe their conduct in this situation with sufficient consistency, as in a poem or a fiction entirely unconnected with reality; yet, when characters that have really existed are described in circumstances entirely or even partly fictitious; when it is necessary to combine a considerable degree of truth with a certain portion of fiction; when it is necessary to describe this unprecedented and fictitious situation, not merely in general terms, but in a very minute detail of facts and regulations; to connect it with particular times and places and persons, to combine it with subsequent events which were real, and with the laws and customs which the writer himself lives under, and which prevail through an extensive nation then, indeed, it requires no ordinary ingenuity, and no common caution, to preserve a perfect consistency; never once to suffer the constant and familiar associations which perpetually obtrude themselves upon the mind from present experience, to creep into our

language or sentiments, when we wish to describe or relate facts suitable only to past experience. Nay, admit that all this may possibly be done, it certainly can be done only by great care and art; and it is, I should conceive, next to impossible but that this care and art should somewhere or other betray itself in the turn of the narrative or the expression.

Now, an attentive perusal of the Pentateuch will, I doubt not, prove that it is written without any the least appearance of art or caution; and it is certain beyond all doubt, that its facts, sentiments and language, are adapted to the peculiarities of the situation which have been noticed. The present tense is constantly used in speaking of the facts in the wilderness; "I am the Lord, who bring"eth you up, out of the land of Egypt :" the future, in speaking of any thing to be done in the land of Canaan :* " I drive out before 'you, the Amorite and the Canaanite: take heed to thyself, lest "thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither "thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee. But ye "shall destroy their altars. Three times a year shall all your “male children appear before me. For I will cast out the nations "before thee, and enlarge thy borders."

66

Thus also, it is perpetually supposed in every direction, as to public matters, that the whole congregation can be collected together at the shortest warning. We are told tof dead bodies "carried out of the camp;" of victims on particular occasions being burned without the camp. This peculiarity of situation mixes itself with every circumstance of the narrative, directly and indirectly, in express terms, and by incidental allusions, and always without any appearance of art or design.

But to proceed to compare the direct narrative with the recapitulation. We may observe, that a variety of circumstances which it was natural and necessary to notice on the entrance of the Jews into the land of their inheritance, occur for the first time in the last address which Moses delivered to the people on the borders of Canaan. Then, and not before, does the legislator speak of the "place which the Lord should choose to put his "name therein."§ Then, and not before, does he add to the precepts concerning the observance of the three great feasts,

* Exod. xxxiv. 11-13, and 23, 24. + Vide Levit, nine first chaps, also x. 5. Levit. iv. 21, and viii. 17. Numb. xix. 9. § Deut. xii. 5.

« السابقةمتابعة »