صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

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.

"

But as I am compelled to expose what appear to me Dr Geddes's 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 I 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 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]
[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 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 preceding I 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 occasionally 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,

"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

not from phraseology* alone, (for as to the variations in the phraseology of a language spoken above 3,300 years ago, by a nation of whose compositions so few have reached us, I conceive they cannot be clearly ascertained so as to form any very clearly conclusive ground of argument,) but from the internal structure of the works; from the nature of the facts they dwell on, the circumstances they select, the feelings they display; in a word, from the difference as well as the coincidences observable between them, which appear to me to be exactly such as nature and truth must have produced, had all these works really been written by the Jewish lawgiver himself; and which exhibit a harmony so exact, so natural, and evidently undesigned, that it cannot be accounted for on any other hypothesis. It affords me some gratification to find that this topic of argument appears to repel by anticipation the objections of Mons. De Wette on this part of the subject, and in this instance vindicate the authority of Scripture: I refer my readers to the preceding work, Part I. Lect. III. and IV.

Another assertion imputed to this author, relates to the tribe of Levi :-" Moses (says he) may have introduced a priesthood; but "who can define what portion of the laws relating to it was his pro"duction? If the tribe of Levi had been distinguished in the times "of Moses in the sense and in the manner in which it is represented "in the Pentateuch, and had been sanctioned as a cast of priests, "a hierarchy would have directed every thing; which history does not "shew."

To this I answer, that the constitution of the tribe of Levi must to a certainty have been fixed before, or at the original settlement of the Jews in Canaan, because we cannot otherwise account for one entire tribe being excluded from the possession of landed property, living, not in one body, as each of the remaining tribes did, but in cities dispersed through the entire land of Canaan, even on both sides of the river Jordan, and possessing amongst these cities all those which were appropriated as cities of refuge to fugitives in consequence of homicide. We cannot, I affirm, account for this, but on the supposition that the tribe of Levi had been set apart before the settlement of the Jews in Canaun, to be supported by tithes and offerings instead of land, and that they had consented to the arrangement. Here then is a full proof that the entire system concerning the tribe of Levi, their distribution, the tithes and offerings by which they were to be maintained, must have been promulgated and admitted before the settlement of the Jews in Canaan; it follows therefore that every part of the Law of Moses respecting these points, was coeval with Moses himself. Can we, then, doubt whether it was written and published by Moses? What inferior authority would have been competent to establish so singular an arrangement, unfavourable to the temporal interests of the Levites, whom

*I would not be understood to say that the phraseology of the Pentateuch affords no presumptive proof of its authenticity; much less do I in any degree admit that it supplies any presumption against its genuineness--but purely that this ground of argument is not so clear or convincing as that derived from the general structure of the history, and the prevailing sentiments and feelings pervading it, and the harmony and connexion of the various parts of the narrative. In proof that the phraseology of the Pentateuch supplies a strong presumption in favour of its genuineness, I beg leave to refer to the learned Mr Marsh's tract on the Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses, pp. 5, 6, 7, and 13. I have briefly adduced his chief arguments in Part 1, Lect I.

it excluded from landed property, and to those of the remaining tribes whom it loaded with the payment of tithes and offerings?

Observe now the inferences which clearly follow from this fact. If the arrangements concerning the distinction, the distribution, and support of the tribe of Levi, were necessarily coeval with Moses himself, can we believe that the purposes for which they were so distinguished, distributed, and supported, were not thought of until long after? Can we believe that the Levites were set apart from the rest of the nation by Moses, and that no business was provided for them to attend to, until some ages after ?-that, in short, the Levites existed from the beginning, but that the Levitical law was, as Mons. de Wette is represented to have stated it, "the invention and badge of later priests." This is incredible; we cannot but see that both are inseparable parts of one system, the entire of which must have been formed and established by the same authority, and at the same period; and as the arrangements as to the distinction, the distribution, and support of the Levites, must have been coeval with Moses, so must that Levitical law of ceremonials, sacrifices, and religious duties, for attending to which the Levites were set apart.

But Mr De Wette asserts, the Levites could not have existed as a separate cast of priests, "otherwise a hierarchy would have been esta"blished, which would have directed every thing; which the history "does not shew."-Assuredly this is a mistake: wonderful indeed would it have been, if the Levites, possessing no landed property, and no political rank, dispersed through the country, and dependent for their very existence on the degree of reverence and obedience paid to the Mosaic law, by a people prone to neglect and disobey it, though they never totally rejected it; wonderful it would have been, if such a hierarchy had" directed every thing." But the author was doubtless thinking of Rome, where at one period the Emperors were Pontiffs, and at another the Popes controlled Emperors. Indeed to some, the very sound of the word hierarchy carries with it the idea of boundless wealth, and resistless influence; but the Jewish Levite, often poor, dependent, and wandering, did not and could not possess any such wealth or influence.

Mr De Wette is further represented as asserting, that "it is astonishing and incredible in itself, that Moses should have published "ceremonial rites so accurately defined and so artificially contrived. "The feasts appear to have been the work of time and of successive "contrivances, rather than of a deliberate legal institution: amid the deserts of Arabia, surrounded by dangers, inquietude and want, "Moses had no time to think of feasts."-What! in forty years, during which the people were miraculously sustained with manna, and during above thirty years of which the Jews never saw the face of an enemy, and were confined within a space they might have traversed in three months-was it impossible to contrive and write down regulations for observing three annual feasts, and conducting the daily worship and offerings of the sanctuary? But, says this author (according to these reviewers) "Moses must have instituted the passover and the feast of "tabernacles in the midst of the events which occasioned them, and even before the events, as would appear from Exod. xii. 3. but with

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"

[ocr errors]

" which verse 39 is at variance, for in verse 39 they appear to be taken by surprise, while according to verse 3 they must have been prepared. "The whole relation proves itself untrue by its ambiguity and equivo"cation." This is strong language, whether used by the German philosopher or the English critic. Strange, that the inventor of this story could not avoid so clumsy an equivocation within twenty lines. But let us reconsider it: in Exodus, xii. 3, the people get notice to prepare the passover, a lamb for each family," to be eaten with unleavened bread at a single meal, and "to be eaten that night in haste; it is the "Lord's passover." We are then told that at midnight all the firstborn of the Egyptians were slain," and there was a great cry through"out all the land of Egypt; and Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my peo'ple and the Egyptians were urgent that they might send them out "of the land in haste, for they said, We be all dead men. And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneadingtroughs being bound in their clothes upon their shoulders." And now comes verse 39, which states, "and the people baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt; and could not tarry; neither had they prepared for themselves any victuals." Here says our critic, is a direct contradiction; for they had notice to prepare the passover the very night before. True, but they had also been commanded to eat it as soon as it was prepared, and leave nothing of it until the morning; this therefore did not supply victuals for their journey. "But they had notice of their departure, and ought to "have been prepared with victuals." The narrative does not say they had been told they should depart that night; Providence seems to have concealed this, that the sudden effect of the divine interposition should be more powerful and impressive. But if they had received twelve or twenty-four hours, or even four days, (the utmost possible length of notice the history will allow,) notice of their departure, this was rather too short a time for 600,000 men, with a suitable proportion of women and children, and a mixed multitude besides, to collect into one body, and prepare for quitting for ever the place of their residence for 400 years with flocks and herds, and much cattle. They might have been satisfied with carrying their bread away, without waiting to prepare it with all the nicety of confectioners. They had been commanded, in the beginning of the chapter, to eat the passover with unleavened bread; and in the end of it we are told, that they had no dough, except unleavened. And is this a contradiction? Or thus: a whole nation had received notice to quit their country for ever within twentyfour hours or even four days; and yet they are represented as going away in a hurry and unprepared-here is another contradiction; and thus the truth of a fact is overturned, which for 3,300 years has been believed and annually commemorated by a whole nation, from the very period it took place, and the very beginning of their year changed to preserve a perpetual record of it. Really all this would be very ridiculous, if the subject did not so deeply concern the best interests of mankind, and exhibit the inventors of such arguments and their retailers, somewhat in the character of the madman, who, as Solomor

« السابقةمتابعة »