question of the date and authorship of the Hebrew Scriptures turns upon such a knowledge of Hebrew as we scholars alone possess. We have divided the Pentateuch, so called, into sections, each of them containing a set of words and phrases not to be found in the others. On this ground, we say that these several sections must be the work of different authors, and we deny the received (which we call the traditional) date. The argument proves far too much, for it is applicable to any book of general history, which requires different sets of words for different topics. But, just now, I say in reply, You have no right to reason thus. If you admit the internal evidence of the books for one point, you must admit it for all. You have no right to exclude one syllable. The statement that "Moses wrote this law" in Deuteronomy xxxi. is just as much internal evidence as anything else the book contains. In fact, the authority and character of the book stands so high on moral grounds, and on the testimony of antiquity, that what

you, Professor Driver, may be pleased to say, is of no more weight in comparison of its statements than the twittering of a sparrow on the roof of your house is in comparison of your words. Your argument is one mass of special pleading. Why the fashionable world of to-day has thought fit to hearken to your testimony rather than to that of all the ages, of Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, of our Lord and the Holy Ghost Himself, is a mystery which I am not able to explain without making suggestions which, not being a judge of the cause I plead, I have no right to make.

I have a right, however, to protest, and protest I do, against the utterly unfair denial and repudiation of the right of the sacred Scriptures to be cited in their own defence, and to be accepted in what they state regarding their own origin and authorship, at least as much as the historian Thucydides, or any other writer of antiquity.

The remainder of the Proof of the Second

Proposition on the first page of my letter will be, that Professor Driver has denied the Divine Authority of Holy Scripture by denying the authorship of Moses, upon grounds which will not bear critical examination.


Professor Driver's analysis of the Hexateuch is faulty in special points. For instance, his proof of separate authors in the story of Joseph is without foundation, and erroneous in important particulars.

THERE is a further objection to Professor Driver's method of dealing with Scriptures in general, and the Hexateuch in particular. He is constantly doing what our Article expressly forbids, "expounding one place of Scripture so that it be repugnant to another."

The reason of this prohibition is obvious. It is especially applicable to law. If the Bible is Law for us, we can obey it only by construing it harmoniously. And with regard to the code of Moses, which was the Law of Israel, at least from the days of Ezra, it must manifestly have been possible to keep it as a whole, or what

could "the righteousness of the law," or the statement that St. Paul was "blameless" in it, have meant? Or how is the similar statement in Luke i. 6, regarding Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, to be understood?

The Jews have certainly been students of the Law in Scripture long enough to see the contradictions between the several enactments in the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy alleged by Driver from the Germans, if these had any substantial existence.

I can only bring forward one examples of Professor Driver's method, and from history rather than law. I shall take the plainest first. It is upon a matter of detail with which every child is familiar.

It is taken from the story of Joseph in Genesis, appears in Driver's" Introduction," and appears also in his " Westminster Commentary."

In his "Introduction," p. 18, he says that, in the narrative which he calls J, Joseph is

« VorigeDoorgaan »