(B.) Its Laws.

[31]Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xlvii., 1915, p. 355.

There is also evidence of quite another kind that this latter part of Genesis was written in Egypt. This is afforded by six passages, where, after the name of a place, is added some such phrase aswhich is in Canaan.[32]Yet there do not appear to be any other places of the same name liable to be confused with these. When then would it be necessary to explain to the Israelites that these places, Shechem, etc., were in Canaan? Certainly not after the conquest, when they were living there, and it was obvious to everyone; so we must refer them to the time when they were in Egypt.

[32]Gen. 23. 2, 19; 33. 18; 35. 6; 48. 3; 49. 30.

And this is strongly confirmed by a little remark as to thedesert of Shur, which lies between Egypt and Canaan, and which is described as beingbefore Egypt as thou goest towards Assyria.[33]Clearly then this also must have been written in Egypt, since only to a person living there would Shur be on the way to Assyria.

[33]Gen. 25. 18.

And the same may be said of the curious custom of first asking after a person's health, and then, if he is still alive.[34]This was thoroughly Egyptian, as some exactly similar cases have been found in a papyrus dated in the eighth year of Menephthah, generally thought to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus.[35]But it is scarcely likely to have been adopted by a writer in Canaan, as it makes the narrative seem so ridiculous.

[34]Gen. 43. 27-28.

[35]Chabas, Mélanges Égyptologiques, Third Series, vol. ii., Paris, 1873, p. 152.

Secondly, as to the history ofMoses. The name itself is Egyptian;[36]and his being placed in an ark ofpapyrussmeared with bitumen was quite suited to Egypt, where both materials were commonly used, but would have been most unsuitable anywhere else. And several of the words used here, as well as in otherparts of the Pentateuch, show that the writer was well acquainted with the Egyptianlanguage. In this single verse for instance, there are as many as six Egyptian words,ark,papyrus,pitch,flags,brick, andriver; though some of these were also used in Hebrew.[37]Then as to the Israelites making bricks withstraw. This is interesting, because we know from the monuments that straw was often used for the purpose, the Nile mud not holding together without it, and that its absence was looked upon as a hardship. So here again the narrative suits Egypt, and not Canaan; where as far as we know, bricks were never made with straw. And it so happens that we have a little direct evidence here. For some excavations were made at Tel-el-Muskhuta in 1883; which turns out to bePithom, one of thestore citiessaid to have been built by the Israelites.[38]And nearly its whole extent is occupied by large brick stores; some of the bricks being made with straw, some with fragments of reed or stubble used instead, and some without any straw at all. While, unlike the usual Egyptian custom, the walls are built with mortar; all of which exactly agrees with the narrative.[39]

[36]Driver's Exodus, 1911, p. 11.

[37]Exod. 2. 3.

[38]Exod. 1. 11. Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xviii., p. 85.

[39]Exod. 1. 14; 5. 12.

Next, as to theTen Plagues. There is much local colouring here, and hardly one of them would have been suitable in Canaan. Moreover, the order in which they come is very significant, as it makes them agree with the natural calamities of Egypt.

(i.) The water being turned into blood cannot, of course, be taken literally, any more than when Joel speaks of the moon being turned into blood.[40]It refers to the reddish colour, which is often seen in the Nile about the end of June; though it is not as a rule sufficient to kill the fish, or render the water unfit to drink. And the mention ofvessels of wood and stone[41]is interesting, as it was the custom in Egypt topurifythe Nile water by letting it stand in such vessels; and the writer evidently knew this, and took for granted that his readers knew it too, though it seems to have been peculiar to that country.

[40]Joel 2. 31.

[41]Exod. 7. 19.

(ii.) Frogs are most troublesome in September.

(iii.) Lice, perhaps mosquitoes or gnats, and

(iv.) Flies, are usually worst in October.

(v.) Murrain among the cattle, and

(vi.) Boils cannot be identified for certain, but their coming on just after the preceding plagues is most natural, considering what we now know, as to the important part taken by mosquitoes and flies in spreading disease.

(vii.) The hail must have occurred about the end of January, as the barley was then in the ear, but the wheat not grown up; and severe hailstorms have been known in Egypt at that time.

(viii.) Locusts are known to have visited Egypt terribly in March, which seems the time intended, as the leaves were then young.

(ix.) The darknesswhich might be feltwas probably due to the desert wind, which blows at intervals afterthe end of March, and sometimes brings with it such clouds of sand as to darken the atmosphere.[42]And curiously enough it often moves in a narrow belt, so that the land may be dark in one place, and light in another close by, as recorded in the narrative.

[42]I have noticed the same in the Transvaal, in particular a sandstorm at Christiana, on 20th October, 1900, which so darkened the sky that for about a quarter of an hour I had to light a candle.

(x.) The death of thefirstborn, which occurred in April (Abib), was evidently not a natural calamity. But what is specially interesting is the statementagainst all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments, without any explanation being given of what is meant by this.[43]It refers to the Egyptian custom of worshippinglivinganimals, the firstborn of which were also to die; but this would only be familiar to a writer in Egypt, since, as far as we know, such worship was never practised in Canaan. The agreement all through is most remarkable, and strongly in favour of a contemporary date.

[43]Exod. 12. 12; Num. 33. 4.

And the same familiarity with Egypt is shown in the subsequent laws and addresses of the Pentateuch. Thus we read of laws being written on the doorposts and gates of houses, and on great stones covered with plaster, both of which were undoubtedly Egyptian customs; and the latter was not, as far as we know, common elsewhere.[44]Similarly the Egyptian habit of writing persons' names on sticks, was evidently familiarto the writer.[45]And so was the curious custom of placing foodfor the dead,[46]which was common in Egypt, though it never prevailed among the Israelites.

[44]Deut. 6. 9; 11. 20; 27. 2.

[45]Num. 17. 2.

[46]Deut. 26. 14.

Again the ordinaryfoodof the people in Egypt is given as fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic, all of which were commonly eaten there.[47]But as the Hebrew names of four out of the five vegetables do not occur elsewhere in the Bible, they could scarcely have been very common in Canaan; while none of the characteristic productions of that land, such as honey, milk, butter, figs, raisins, almonds, and olives, are mentioned. The list is, as it ought to be, thoroughly Egyptian.

[47]Num. 11. 5.

It must next be noticed that a large part of thereligious worshipprescribed in the Pentateuch was obviously borrowed from Egypt; the most striking instance being that of theark. A sacred ark is seen on Egyptian monuments long before the Exodus, and is sometimes surmounted by winged figures resembling the cherubim.[48]And thematerialssaid to have been used for this worship are precisely such as the Israelites might have then employed. The ark, for instance, and also the tabernacle were not made of cedar, or of fir, or of olive, as would probably have been the case in Canaan (for these were the materials used in the Temple)[49]but of shittim,i.e., acacia which is very common near Sinai, though scarcely ever used in Canaan. And the other materials were goats' hair, rams' skins, sealskins (or porpoise skins) from the Red Sea, and gold, silver,brass, precious stones, andfine linenfrom the Egyptian spoils; the latter, as before said, being an Egyptian word.[50]There is no mistake anywhere, such as a late writer might have made.

[48]Comp. Exod. 25. 13-18.

[49]1 Kings 6. 14-36.

[50]Exod. 25. 3-10.

Moreover, in other places, the writer of the Pentateuch frequently assumes that his readers know Egypt as well as himself. Thus the people are twice reminded of thediseasesthey had in Egypt—'the evil diseases of Egypt which thou knowest' or 'which thou wast afraid of'—and they are warned that if they deserve it, God will punish them with the same diseases again.[51]But such a warning would have been quite useless many centuries later in Canaan; just as it would be useless to warn an Englishman now of the diseases of Normandy,which thou wast afraid of, if this referred to some diseases our ancestors had before they left Normandy in the eleventh century. Such words must clearly have been written soon afterwards. Similarly the people are urged to be kind to strangers, and to love them as themselves, becausethey knew the heart of a stranger, having been strangers in the land of Egypt. And this again could scarcely have been written centuries after they left Egypt.[52]

[51]Deut. 7. 15; 28. 60.

[52]Exod. 23. 9; Lev. 19. 34.

Elsewhere the writer describes the climate and productions of Canaan; and with a view to their being better understood, he contrasts them with those ofEgypt.[53]Obviously, then, the people are once more supposed to know Egypt, and not to know Canaan. For instance, Canaan is described as a country of hillsand valleys, and consequently of running brooks; and not like Egypt where they had to water the land with theirfeet. But no explanation is given of this. It probably refers to thewater-wheels, which were necessary for raising water in a flat country like Egypt, and which were worked by men'sfeet. But can we imagine a late writer in Canaan using such a phrase without explaining it? On the other hand, if the words were spoken by Moses, all is clear; no explanation was given, because (for persons who had just left Egypt) none was needed.

[53]Deut. 8. 7-10; 11. 10-12.

On the whole, then, it is plain that when Egyptian matters are referred to in the Pentateuch, we find the most thorough familiarity with native customs, seasons, etc., though these are often quite different from those of Canaan. And we therefore seem forced to conclude that the writer was a contemporary who lived in Egypt, and knew the country intimately, and as we have shown, he evidently wrote for persons who had only recently come from there.

We pass on now to the Laws of the Pentateuch, which are found in the middle of Exodus, and occupy the greater part of the remaining books. And as we shall see, they also (quite apart from their references to Egypt) bear strong marks of a contemporary origin.

In the first place several of the laws refer exclusively to the time when the Israelites livedin the desert, and would have been of no use whatever after they settled in Canaan. Among these are the laws regarding thecampandorder of march.[54]Full particulars are given as to the exact position of every tribe, and how the Levites were to carry the Tabernacle. And what could have been the object of inventing such laws in later times, when, as far as we know, the people never encamped or marched in this manner?

[54]Num. 1. 47—4. 49.

Then there is the extraordinary law as to theslaughter of animals. It is stated in Leviticus that every ox, lamb, or goat, intended for food, was to be first brought to the Tabernacle, as a kind of offering, and there killed. But plainly this could only have been done, when the people were in the desert, living round the Tabernacle. So when the law is again referred to in Deuteronomy, just before they entered Canaan, it is modified by saying that those living at a distance might kill their animals at home.[55]

[55]Lev. 17. 3; Deut. 12. 21.

Moreover, some of the other laws, though applicable to Canaan, are of such a character as to be strongly in favour of an early date. Take, for instance, the remarkable law aboutland, that every person who bought an estate was to restore it to its original owner in the year of Jubilee, the price decreasing according to the nearness of this year.[56]How could anyone in later times have made such a law, and yet assert that it had been issued by Moses centuries before, though no one had ever heard of it?

[56]Lev. 25. 13.

Or take the law about the Levites.[57]They, it will be remembered, had no separate territory like the other tribes, but were given some special cities. And it isscarcely likely that such a curious arrangement could have been made at any time except that of the conquest of Canaan; still less that it could have been made centuries afterwards, and yet ascribed to Moses, without everyone at once declaring it to be spurious.

[57]Num. 35. 1-8.

It must next be noticed that the laws are not arranged in any regular order, but are closely connected with the history; many of them beingdated, both as to time and place. For instance, 'The Lord spake unto Moses in the Wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,' etc.[58]And several others are associated with the events which led to their being made; and these are often of such a trivial nature, that it is hard to imagine their being invented.[59]Thus the Pentateuch shows, not a complete code of laws, but one that was formedgradually, and in close connection with the history.

[58]Num. 9. 1; 1. 1; Deut. 1. 3; see also Lev. 7. 38; 16. 1; 25. 1; 26. 46; 27. 34; Num. 1. 1; 3. 14; 33. 50; 35. 1; Deut. 4. 46; 29. 1.

[59]Lev. 24. 15; Num. 9. 10; 15. 35; 27. 8; 36. 8.

And this is confirmed by the fact that in some cases the same laws are referred to both in Leviticus, (near the beginning) and in Deuteronomy (at the end) of the forty years in the Desert, but with slight differences between them. And theseexactly correspondto such a difference in date. One instance, that referring to theslaughter of animals, has been already alluded to. Another has to do with the animals, which might, and might not, beeaten. Leviticus includes among theformer, several kinds of locusts, and among the latter the mouse, weasel, and lizard; all of which Deuteronomy omits.

Clearly then, when Leviticus was written, the people were in the desert, and there was a lack of animal food, which might tempt them to eat locusts or mice; but when Deuteronomy was written, animal food was plentiful, and laws as to these were quite unnecessary.

In each of these cases, then, and there are others like them, the differences must be due either to the various laws dating from the times they profess to, when all is plain and consistent; or else to the carefully planned work of some late writer, who was trying in this way to pretend that they did.

Still more important is the fact that in several places stress is laid on the people'spersonal knowledgeof the events referred to;e.g., 'The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.'[60]And what is more, this personal knowledge is often appealed to as a special reason for obeying the laws.[61]For instance, 'I speak not with your children which have not known, and which have not seen the chastisement of the Lord, ... but your eyes have seen all the great work of the Lord which He did.Thereforeshall ye keep all the commandments,' etc. Plainly this would have had no force in later times; indeed it would have provided an excuse fornotobeying the laws, since the people of those days had no personal knowledge of the events referred to.And we may ask, is it likely that a late author, who falsely ascribed his laws to Moses, in order to get them obeyed, should yet put into the mouth of Moses himself an excuse for not obeying them?

[60]Deut. 5. 3; 24. 9, 18, 22; 25. 17.

[61]Deut. 11. 2-8; 4. 3-15; 29. 2-9.

Moreover, combined with this assumed personal knowledge on the part of the people there is a clear indication ofpersonal authorityon the part of the writer. The later prophets always speak in God's name, and such expressions asThus saith the Lord, Hear ye the word of the Lord, are extremely common, occurring altogether over 800 times. But in the laws of the Pentateuch nothing of the kind is found. They are delivered by Moses in his own name, often with the simple words,I command thee, which occur thirty times in Deuteronomy. And, of course, if the laws are genuine, there is nothing surprising in this, as Moses had been the great leader of the people, for forty years; but a late author would scarcely have adopted a style so different from that of all the other prophets.

Lastly we must consider thewordingof the laws; and this also is strongly in favour of a contemporary origin. Thus, as many as sixteen of them, which have special reference to Canaan, begin with some such phrase aswhen ye be come into the land of Canaan,[62]which plainly supposes that the people were not there already. And the same may be said of numerous other laws, which the people are told to obey when they enterinto Canaan; or are even urged to obey in order that they may enter in, both of which again, imply that they were not there already.[63]While several of the laws refer to thecamp, and sometimes totents, in such a way as to show that when they were written, the people were still living in a camp.[64]

[62]Exod. 12. 25; 13. 11; Lev. 14. 34; 19. 23; 23. 10; 25. 2; Num. 15. 2, 18; 35. 10; Deut. 7. 1; 12. 1, 10, 29; 17. 14; 18. 9; 26. 1.

[63]E.g., Deut. 4. 1, 5, 14; 5. 31; 6. 1, 18; 8. 1.

[64]E.g., Exod. 29. 14; Lev. 4. 12; 6. 11; 13. 46; 14. 3; 16. 26; 17. 3; Num. 5. 2; 19. 3, 14.

The wording, then, of all these laws bears unmistakable signs of contemporary origin. Of course, these signs may have been inserted in later laws to give them an air of genuineness, but they cannot be explained in any other way. Therefore the laws must be either ofcontemporary date, or elsedeliberate frauds. No innocent mistake in ascribing old laws to Moses, can possibly explain such language as this; either it was the natural result of the laws being genuine, or else it was adopted on purpose to mislead.

Nor can the difficulty be got over by introducing a number of compilers and editors. For each individual law, if it falselyclaimsto date from before the conquest of Canaan (and, as we have seen, numbers and numbers of laws do so claim,When ye be come into the land of Canaan, etc.), must have been made bysomeone. And this someone, though he really wrote it after the conquest of Canaan, must have inserted these words to make it appear that it was written before.

Practically, then, as just said, there are but two alternatives—that of genuine laws written in the time of Moses, and that of deliberate frauds. And bearingthis in mind, we must ask, is it likely that men with such a passion for truth and righteousness as the Jewish prophets—men who themselves so denounced lying and deception in every form[65]—should have spent their time in composing such forgeries? Could they, moreover, have done it soskillfully, as the laws contain the strongest marks of genuineness; and could they have done it sosuccessfullyas never to have been detected at the time? This is the greatmoraldifficulty in assigning these laws to a later age, and to many it seems insuperable.

[65]Jer. 8. 8; 14. 14; Ezek. 13. 7.

We have thus twovery strongarguments in favour of an early date for the Pentateuch: one derived from itsEgyptian references, the other from itsLaws. The former shows that no Israelite in later times could have written the book; and the latter that he would not have done so, if he could.

We pass on now to the opposite theory, or that of alate date. According to this the Pentateuch, though no doubt containing older traditions, and fragments of older documents, was not written till many centuries after the death of Moses. And the four chief arguments in its favour are based on thelanguageof the Pentateuch, itscomposite character, its laws beingunknownin later times, and thefinding of Deuteronomyin the reign of Josiah. We will examine each in turn.

Now in general character the language of the Pentateuch undoubtedly resembles that of some of theprophets, such as Jeremiah; so it is assumed that it must date from about the same time. But unfortunately critics who maintain this view do not admit that we haveanyHebrew documents of a much earlier date, with which to compare it. Therefore we have no means of knowing how much the language altered, so this of itself proves little.

But it is further said that we have three actualsigns of late date. The first is that the word forwestin the Pentateuch really meansthe sea, (i.e., the Mediterranean) and hence, it is urged, the writer's standpoint must have been that of Canaan, and the books must have been written after the settlement in that country. But, very possibly the word was in use before the time of Abraham, when the sea actually was to the west. And in later years a Hebrew, writing in Egypt or anywhere else, would naturally use the word, without thinking that it was inappropriate to that particular place. The second expression isbeyond Jordan, which is often used to denote theeasternbank; so here again, it is urged, the writer's standpoint must have been that of Canaan. But this is also untenable. For the same term is also used for thewesternbank in several places,[66]and sometimes for both banks in the same chapter.[67]The third is Joseph's speaking of Canaan as theland of the Hebrews, long before they settled there, which is difficult to explain on any theory, but rather in favour of a late date.[68]

[66]E.g., Deut. 11. 30; Josh. 12. 7.

[67]E.g., eastern in Deut. 3. 8; Josh. 9. 10; and western in Deut. 3. 20, 25; Josh. 9. 1.

[68]Gen. 40. 15.

On the other hand, the language contains severalsigns of early date, though most of these can only be understood by a Hebrew scholar, which the present writer does not profess to be. But a couple of examples may be given which are plain to the ordinary reader. Thus the pronoun forheis used in the Pentateuch both for male and female; while in the later writings it is confined to males, the females being expressed by a derived form which is very seldom used in the Pentateuch. Similarly, the word foryouthis used in the Pentateuch for both sexes, though afterwards restricted to males, the female being again expressed by a derived form. These differences, though small, are very significant, and they clearly show that the language was at a less developed, and therefore earlier, stage in the Pentateuch than in the rest of the Old Testament.

The next argument is that the Pentateuch seems to have hadseveral authors; since the same words, or groups of words, occur in different passages all through the book. And this, combined with slight variations of style, and other peculiarities, have led some critics to split up the book into a number of different writings, which they assign to a number of unknown writers from the ninth century B.C. onwards. For instance, to take a passage where only three writers are supposed to be involved, Exod. 7. 14-25. These twelve verses seem to the ordinary reader a straightforward narrative, but they have been thus split up.[69]Verses 19, 22, and parts of 20, 21, areassigned to P, the supposed writer of the Priestly Code of Laws; v. 24 and parts of 17, 20, 21, to E; and the remainder to J; the two latter writers being thus named from their generally speaking of the Deity asElohimandJehovah(translatedGod, andLord) respectively.

[69]Driver's Introduction to Literature of Old Testament, sixth edition, 1897, p. 24. A slightly different division is given in his Exodus, 1911, p. 59.

Fortunately, we need not discuss the minute and complicated arguments on which all this rests, for the idea of any writings being so hopelessly mixed together is most improbable. While it has been shown in recent years to be very doubtful whether these names,ElohimandJehovah, occurred in the original Hebrew, in the same places as they do now.[70]And if they didnot, the theory loses one of its chief supports.

[70]The Name of God in The Pentateuch by Trœlstra; translated by McClure, 1912

And in any case there are at least four plain and simple arguments against it. The first is that theEgyptian references, to which we have already alluded extend to all the parts J, E, and P; as well as to Deuteronomy, which these critics assign to yet another author D. They are thus like an Egyptianwater-markrunning all through the Pentateuch. And while it is difficult enough to believe that even one writer in Canaan should have possessed this intimate knowledge of Egypt, it is far more difficult to believe thatfourshould have done so.

The second is that all the writers must have been equallydishonest, for they all contain passages, which they assert were written by Moses (see further on). And here again it is hard to believe, that even onewriter (leave alone four) should have been so utterly unscrupulous.

The third is that the curious custom of God speaking of Himself in thepluralnumber, which would be strange in any case, and is especially so considering the strong Monotheism of the Jews, is also common to both J and P.[71]And so is the puzzling statement that it was God Himself Who hardened Pharaoh's heart, which is also found in E.[72]

[71]Gen. 1. 26 (P): 3. 22 (J).

[72]Exod. 4. 21 (E): 7. 3 (P.): 10. 1 (J).

The fourth is that parallel passages to the supposed two narratives of the Flood, ascribed to J and P (and which are thought to occur alternatelynineteentimes in Gen. 7. 8.) have been foundtogetherin an old Babylonian story of the Flood, centuries before the time of Moses; and also in layers corresponding to J and P.[73]And this alone seems fatal to the idea that J and P were originally separate narratives that were afterward combined in our Genesis.

[73]Sayce's Monument Facts, 1904, p. 20; Driver's Book of Genesis, 1905, pp. 89-95, 107.

Of course those who maintain that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, quite admit that he made use of previous documents, one of which, the book of theWars of the Lord, he actually quotes.[74]Nor is it denied that someadditionshave been made since his time, the most important being the list of kings, who are said to have reigned in Edombefore there reigned any king over the children of Israel.[75]And this brings the passage down to the time of Saul at least who was Israel's first king.But it is probably a later insertion, since these kings are referred to in a different way from the dukes, who precede and follow them. And the same may be said of a few other passages[76]such as thatthe Canaanite was then in the land, which must clearly have been written after the Israelites conquered the country. But they can all be omitted without breaking the continuity of the narrative.

[74]Num. 21. 14.

[75]Gen. 36. 31-39.

[76]Gen. 12. 6; 13. 7; Exod. 16. 36; Deut. 2. 10-12, 20-23; 3. 14.

Passing on now to the third argument for a late date, it is urged that the laws of the Pentateuch cannot really have been written by Moses, since, judging from the other Old Testament Books, they seem to have beenunknownfor many centuries after his time. But this is scarcely correct, for even the earliest books, Joshua and Judges contain some references to awrittenlaw of Moses;[77]while both in Judges and 1 Samuel there are numerous agreements between what is described there, and what is commanded in the Pentateuch.[78]And similar evidence is afforded by the later books, David, for instance, alluding to thewrittenlaw of Moses, as if it was well known.[79]So in regard to the prophets. Two of the earliest of these are Hosea and Amos; and they both contain frequent points of agreement;[80]as well as one reference to a large number ofwrittenlaws.[81]

Back to Index Next