:

ter. Dr Gray has the following remarks upon this subject : The account of the death and burial of Moses, and some other seemingly porthumous particulars described in this chapter, have been produced to prove, that it could not have been written by Moses and in all probability these circumstances may have been inserted by Joshua, to complete the history of this illustrious prophet; or were afterwards added by Samuel, or some prophet who succeeded him. They were admitted by Ezra as authentick, and we have no reason to question the fidelity.

Truth

This language is authoritative and dictatorial. when questioned, comes out purer and brighter for the ordeal through which it has passed: whereas error is scorched and withered by the touch of criticism. The chapter before us is admitted by all not to have been. written by Moses. Why then was it ever attached to the book of Moses without some strong mark to denote that it was only an appendix? It cannot be allowed that Joshua, Samuel or Ezra could connive at such a deception. There is internal evidence that neither Joshua nor Samuel made this addition to the Pentateuch; for the word Nabi, rendered in English prophet, indicates an age later than that of Samuel. We learn from the First book of Samuel, chap. ix, verse 9, which was written after Samuel's death, that he who

is now called a Prophet, was beforetime called a Seer.

If, therefore, the xxxivth chapter of Deuteronomy had been written before or in the time of Samuel, Moses would have been designated as a Seer, [in Hebrew Roech] and not Nabi a Prophet. This exculpates both Joshua and Samuel from having added to the book of Moses without mark of such addition. There are also other indications in the same chapter that Joshua could not have written it, for he would hardly have written of himself that Joshua the son of Nun "was full of the spirit of wisdom: " neither would he have said "there arose not a prophet since in

Israel like unto Moses," for there was no other prophet to whom Moses could be compared except Joshua himself. The word since implies that many years had passed since the death of Moses, and that many prophets had arisen, none of whom could be placed in comparison with him who led them out of Egypt. Moreover, the words "no man knoweth of his sepulchre," i. e. the sepulchre of Moses, "unto this day" are another proof that the chapter was not added by Joshua, for they imply that a considerable space of time had elapsed, during which the sepulchre of Moses remained unknown. As Joshua died only 25 years after Moses, these words coming from his mouth would lose half their force, and would probably, also, convey an untruth, for we cannot believe that the great Hebrew legislator was buried clandestinely, or that Joshua, the next in command, and almost his equal, could be ignorant where his body was laid.

6. Anachronism in names, especially those of places, mentioned in the Pentateuch.

Many names of places occur in the Pentateuch, which were not given to those places until long after the time of Moses. This proves either that the book was written after those places had received the names by which they were then known; or that some later writer has inserted into the original work of Moses the names by which those places were known in his own age. The latter supposition is wholly untenable: it would be an outrage upon the integrity of a book like the Bible, which derives its importance from its being an immaculate record. The number of such passages is so great, (several hundred altogether) that a large part of the whole must be cut off as not genuine, if such texts are interpolations. It would, moreover, be a positive infringement of that very law which Moses, delivered to the Israelites; for we find in Deuteronomy iv, 2, it is expressly forbidden to make any change what

ever in the covenant which God gave through Moses.

DEUT. iv, 2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you.

If it should be replied that the mere insertion of the name of a place into the historical part of the Pentateuch is not an infringement of the law of Moses, such a reply is tantamount to an admission of the whole question. I admit that the perfect law of Moses is contained in the Pentateuch, but not that the terms "Pentateuch" and "law of Moses" are convertible terms. The law of Moses was given 1500 years before Christ, but the Pentateuch was compiled probably not more than 400 or 500 years before Christ.

The passages where more modern names of places occur in the Pentateuch are these:

1. Hebron.

GEN. xiii, 18. Then 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.

Instead of the words "in the plain of Mamre" Bishop Patrick and Kidder interpret it "by the oak of Mamre," which is to be preferred, if we retain the reading 'in Hebron' but if, with Calmet, we read by or near Hebron,' the interpretation 'plain of Mamre' may be retained: for it is evident that, though an oak may be in a city, a plain can only be in its neighbourhood.

GEN. xxiii, 2. And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan: and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her.

xxiii, 19. And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Maire; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan.

xxxv, 27, And Jacob came unto Isaac his father unto Mamre. unto the city of Arbah, which is Hebron, where Abraham and Isaac sojourned.

xlix, 30. In the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which

is before Mamre, in the land of Canaan &c.

It appears from these passages that the city of Hebron, which was also called Mamre, formerly bore the name of Kirjath-arba, i. e. the city of Arba. A question, therefore, arises, as to the time when the name Kirjath-arba was exchanged for that of Hebron. We in vain search the Pentateuch for an answer to this question, but in the book of Joshua the difficulty is entirely cleared up.

JOSHUA xiv, 6. 15

unto him [Joshua]

66

:

Caleb, the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite said .... give me this mountain, whereof the Lord spake in that day; for thou heardst in that day how the Anakims were there, and that the cities were great and fenced if so be the Lord will be with me, then I shall be able to drive them out, as the Lord said. And Joshua blessed him, and gave unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh Hebron for an inheritance. Hebron therefore became the inheritance of Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite unto this day, because that he wholly followed the Lord God of Israel. And the name of Hebron before was Kirath-arba; which Arba was a great man among the Anakims. And the land had rest from war.

If the name of Hebron was not given to the city formerly called Kirjath-arba, until after it was taken from the Anakims by Caleb the son of Jephunnah, it follows that the Pentateuch, in which the name Hebron' occurs several times, could not have been written until after the time, when that town was taken by Caleb the son of Jephunneh.

2. Dan.

GEN. xiv, 14. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

In the time of Abraham, and even in the time of Moses, there was no place called Dan: there was a city called Laish, which afterwards was captured by a marauding expedition of the Iraelites and received the name of Dan. Bishop Patrick, in the Family Bible, gives the following note upon this passage:

pursued them unto Dan.] As far as the place where one of the

springs of Jordan breaks forth called Dan, as Josephus relates, where he speaks of this history.

The words of Josephus here follow:

Κατὰ πέμπτην ἐπιπεσὼν νύκτα τοῖς ̓Ασσυρίοις περὶ Δάνον-οὕτως γὰρ ἡ ἑτέρα τοῦ Ιορδάνου προσαγορεύεται πηγή—&c.

Falling upon the Assyrians the fifth night near Dan-for so is one of the fountains of the Jordan called &c.

We cannot doubt that in the time of Josephus the name Dan was well known to the Jews, whether applied to the tribe of Dan in the south of Palestine, to the little town formerly called Laish but afterwards Dan, or to the fountain of the Jordan, which seems to have been called Dan, because it was in the immediate neighbourhood of the town. This does not interfere with the question, whether the word Dan, as applied to these places, could have been in existence in the time of Moses. If it was not then known, as we have the best evidence to prove, we must infer that the Pentateuch was written or compiled after the name of Dan was given to the town of Laish: i. e. some time during the government of the Judges.

3. Succoth.

GEN. xxxiii, 17. And Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built him an house, and made booths for his cattle: therefore the name of the place is called Succoth.

Dr Wells, as quoted by the editors of the Family Bible, rem arks on the name Succoth:

So the place was afterwards called: it is situated not far from Jordan to the East.

This is, of course, the natural and obvious meaning of the text. It is not stated that Jacob gave the name of Succoth to this place, and as he soon after went down into Egypt, and none of his posterity ever came again into Canaan, until the time of Moses, it is almost certain that the place did not receive the name of Succoth until the Israelites were settled in the land, and gratified their natural