than the attested reliability of the record, and the signal failure of this and many similar attempts to discredit it. And, moreover, I am bound by my subscription to our Articles not to expound or accept any exposition of one place of Scripture which makes it repugnant to another. To do so destroys its force in the sense in which our Lord accepted it, as all alike "Law" of God.


The linguistic considerations put forth by Professor Driver do not prove diversity of authorship. Great proof of unity of authorship between J, E, and P, and SS exhibited, but ignored by Professor Driver.

I HAVE said that Professor Driver makes an unfair use of linguistic distinctions in proof of his division of the Pentateuch among separate authors, whom he names P, J, &c. One piece of unfairness is more especially connected with P. It is this. The statistical pieces of history and law are carefully set aside as having certain characteristics, and assigned to one author. This author has the name P assigned to him. Now it is manifest that if one has to write upon certain topics, the topics bring with them a certain set of words, especially if they are statistical or legal. It is begging the whole question to treat these special words and phrases as char

acteristic of the writer, when they may be only the necessary vocabulary of the subject under treatment. And when, having assigned all these terms to a given writer, say P, the Professor proceeds to treat the phrases as marks of that writer wherever they occur, and to cite them as proof of his authorship, manifestly he is arguing in a circle, and his argument proves nothing. This fallacy underlies nearly the whole theory of the document called P, or the Priests' Code, in the " Hexateuch."

That word may serve as the introduction to a set of facts which appear to have escaped the Professor's treatment entirely, and which distinguish the Pentateuch from the rest of the Old Testament. I refer to the use of the common pronoun for “he” in Hebrew throughout the Pentateuch where" she" is used in all the other books of the Hebrew Bible.1 This peculiarity

1 Since writing the above, a friend has called my attention to the following remark in Driver's "Deuteronomy," Introduction, pp. cxxxviii-ix:

"The epicene HW is not an archaism :--for the fact that Arabic, Ethiopic, Aramaic,-to say nothing of

does not appear in Joshua, and is fatal, if not explained, to the notion of a "Hexateuch." (See Mandelkern's "Concordance,” pp. 1269-70.)

I am determined to make this point as plain to an English reader as it is to scholars, for I have promised not to involve the subject in technicalities of scholarship.

Until some seven centuries after Christ the Hebrew Bible was written (we are told) without vowels. Every one who read it aloud must either know the traditional way

Assyrian, all have a feminine with Yod, is proof that the distinction between the two genders must have existed already in the original language spoken by the Semitic nations when they lived together in a common home, and that Hebrew consequently even in its earliest stage must have possessed a feminine HI." And more to the same effect.

But no one denies that there is a feminine HI in Genesis. The verse I have quoted from Genesis xx. (verse 5) proves it. See p. 223.

The point is this. In Genesis xx. 5 the masculine and feminine pronouns are used, not indiscriminately, but of the same person in the same sentence, with the most careful discrimination. When Driver has found a parallel to Genesis xx. 5 in the Hebrew Bible, we may believe that this is not an archaism. At present, it stands.

of reading, or be prepared to supply the vowels himself, intelligently and intelligibly, if his reading was to be understood. The printed Hebrew Bibles of to-day have vowels supplied by the Hebrew critics, which every one can read. But here and there the Bible is read otherwise than it is written, that is, with different consonants. The two commonest examples of this are the third personal pronoun (when feminine) in all but ten places in the Pentateuch, and the Sacred Name Jehovah. Let me speak of the Sacred Name first. As written, this would be simply JHVH. No one can read this word without supplying vowels. The Jews do not read it at all, but instead of JHVH they say a word of which the consonants are DNY or LHM. And in the printed Bibles they print JHVH with the vowels belonging to the other words which they mean to read in its place. So that one finds JeHoVaH or JeHoViH according as one is intended to read either eDoNa Y or eLoHiM. This e is a very short vowel, between a and e, as

« VorigeDoorgaan »