OR THE PENTATEUCH IN ITS AUTHORSHIP, CREDIBILITY, AND CIVILISATION. BY THE REV. W. SMITH, PH.D. VOLUME I. 'Moses wrote this Law' LONDON: LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. PREFACE. THE VOLUME here laid before the public is the first of a series which I purpose bringing out on the Pentateuch. The subject is a large one: and, even when confined to the narrow range marked off in the title-page, will need for its satisfactory treatment several goodly volumes. The Authorship alone demands another. For although I have endeavoured to round off the part which I now publish, and to give it, as far as I could, a certain character of completeness, there remains yet much in that department to be added—a full refutation of the Separatist Theory; which, not satisfied, as it should have been, with pointing out in Genesis pre-Mosaic documents, breaks up the whole Pentateuch into un-Mosaic fragments, contributed chiefly by post-Mosaic writers. There is certainly a disadvantage in thus presenting but a half-view of one's subject, with the shadow still resting on the remainder. The true proportions of the argument must, for the time, be lost, and appear distorted, while viewed through the mist that has yet to be cleared away. But this passing inconvenience seems more than counterbalanced by the advantage attending a successive publication of the volumes. For the criticism, to which this fundamental portion of my work is likely to be subjected in the interval, will enable me, before quitting the special ground which it takes up, to test its strength to the utmost, to find out its weak points, to detect oversights, to correct inaccuracies, to supply deficiencies, to clear up obscurities, to rectify misunderstandings, and to give more breadth and completeness to the handling of the entire subject. In consideration of which issue, though much of the second volume has already been prepared, I have thought it best to hold it over for some time; in order that the work, as a whole, may ultimately benefit by the hints and strictures whether of friend or foe. Among critics there may be a certain class who will deem undeserving of serious notice a work that professes an uncritical attachment to supernaturalism, that still clings to the old-fangled belief in the possibility of revelation, and that will not consent to bring Jesus Christ down to the level of Socrates or of Buddah. With the modesty characteristic of surface minds it has been proclaimed, that a Christian philosopher' can henceforth be only a monstrosity (the Tübingen School, &c., p. 156); that no one out of Bedlam could have imagined the master on whose breast he leaned at supper, to be the Creator and Lord of the World' (ib. p. 277); and that the only honest resource is to sever incompatible alternatives; either to abdicate reason, or to side with scientific criticism' (ib. p. 178), as they understand the term. And, certainly, were our argument in any one particular grounded on the assumed truth of scriptural revelation, or of actual prophecy, or of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the book might well have been spared both to author and reader. It would miss the real point of the controversy, and would be but ill adapted to the general tone and temper of the age. As we have not, however, so dealt with the matter in hand, we confess we do not see how the acceptance of a pantheistic philosophy should be the indispensable introduction to the higher criticism,' and the recognition of God's all-knowledge and power an infallible sign of mental imbecility. It is hardly selfevident that, on a point of biblical criticism, a follower of revelation must ipso facto be in the wrong, and humbly yield precedence to his infidel opponent; nor is it clear, why a belief in the real inspiration of Scripture should incapacitate a critic from proving that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. All that can be reasonably demanded of such a one is to keep his own convictions on these points out of the argument: which ought, of course, to be established on independent grounds of rational evidence. It is in this way that I have endeavoured to treat my subject. I take up the records of the Old Testament simply as furnishing the historic data on which the argument is to proceed. I make no account either of their inspiration or of their infallibility. I do not even assume that they are trustworthy. I merely consider them as the only works that give us any information on the matter; then examine what credence is due to their historical statements; and, lastly, draw the inference naturally deducible from the simple and unmiraculous facts which they contain. The sturdiest enemy of supernaturalism cannot ask for more. The New Testament, however, is handled in a somewhat different way. For the authority of Christ and his |