ALLEGATION X

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 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 or two 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.

66

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

In the

sold by his brethren to Ishmaelites. other narrative, called E, he is cast by his brethren into a pit, and stolen thence by the Midianites without his brothers' knowledge. In J, Judah takes the lead; in E, Reuben. In chapter xxxvii. 21 it is considered by many critics that Reuben was originally Judah!

Similarly in Driver's "Westminster Commentary on Genesis," chapter xlv. 4, 5 he omits from the story, which he ascribes to E, the clauses, "Whom ye sold into Egypt," and "That ye sold me hither." These are placed in brackets, to indicate that they are borrowed from J, and marked JR, to show that a Redactor" of J inserted them to complete the narrative. The original sources of Genesis being two contradictory accounts, and Genesis as we have it being a compilation or redaction from them, the several accounts of the transaction have been skilfully harmonised.

66

I have not space to examine many cases of this kind, and therefore I shall give special attention to those which I put

forward. This case of Joseph is, I think, a favourite with Professor Driver. He had it in the first edition of his "Introduction," as I well remember, many years ago.

Before I point out the mistake on which it rests, I wish to call attention to the effect of Driver's view of Holy Scripture in this place. This story of Joseph is used in the New Testament, by both St. Stephen and our Lord, for the purpose of instructing the Jews in regard to their treatment of the Lord Jesus. In the great parable reported by three Evangelists on the last day of His ministry special attention is drawn to the case of Joseph by the words, "Come, let us kill him," which our Lord puts in the mouths of the "wicked husbandmen" at the sight of "the heir.' The Evangelist St. Matthew, who by no means invariably gives his Old Testament citations in the words of the Septuagint, here gives the exact Greek of the words of the brethren at the sight of Joseph when his father sent him, “Deute, Apokteinōmen Auton.” St. Mark does the same thing. This cannot

be accidental. St. Stephen, in his famous defence before the Sanhedrin, says that "The patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt": a statement which shows that he, at any rate, did not doubt the selling of Joseph. Nor can we doubt that St. Stephen pointed to our Lord, and to the Judas who sold Him, by this mention of Joseph, if we regard the whole drift and tenor of his speech, and its effect upon the hearers.

I cannot, therefore, pass over Driver's treatment of the question whether Joseph was sold by his brethren as a matter of no importance.

The story of the sale of Joseph is here exhibited as Professor Driver divides it.

(I have set out the two narratives in alternate paragraphs for convenience.)

J. And Joseph went after his brethren,

and found them in Dothan. / And
they saw him afar off, and before
he came near unto them, they con-
spired against him to slay him.

Gen. xxxvii. 17.

18.