Undoubtedly, as we have intimated above, there are questions more easil}' asked than answered in re- lation to the use of these two names, Jehovali and Elo- him, in the history previous to the time of Moses. Possibly those who uphold the common belief that Moses wrote the whole of it have passed over these difficulties too lightly, or have spoken too confidentl}' of having fully explained them ; if so, their fault has really been that they have attempted more than they were under anj'^ obligation to attempt. Elohim and Jehovah have their differences, j'et vastly more nu- merous and important are their points of agreement; and it may be too much to assert that, whenever they were used, there was retained a consideration of their distinctive meanings. This much, however, we may affirm with perfect confidence — and in doing so we go beyond any requirement which can fairly be made bj' those who differ from us in this discussion — to a con- siderable extent it is very easy to show in Genesis, as well as in the later books of Scripture, that these two divine names are employed with an intentional dis- crimination— Elohim expressing more general!}' the Deity, and Jehovah expressing God in covenant with Israel, possessed of every perfection, and using it for the good of his people, as his character is manifested in their history. If so, the use of the one or the other name is no proof at all of a difference of authorship. We may moreover assert that the hypothesis of tlie modern critics entirelj' breaks down as to this text (Exod. vi, ."), the solitary passage in whicli they can even profess to find countenance given to tlieir views; and owing to tlie importance which they cannot but attaeli to it, we have examined it at considerable length, in order to show that it is in fact opposed to them as soon as it is rightly interpreted. Moreover, when they press this argument in favor of difi'erent
writers in the Pentateuch, on accoimt of the different names for the Divine Being, they will find that they need to account for a great deal more than the use of the two words Jehovah and Elohim. There is also El, which Knobel, commenting on tliis text, reckons an intermediate title ; and tliere is the occasional use of Elohim with a jylural verb, as to which Gesenius and others have coarsely suggested that it may be an indi- cation of polytheism left in the syntax of the lan- guage ; tliere is also the variation of the presence or the absence of the article with Elohim; and there is the use of another divine title, Adunui. He who reads the history of Balaam, and observes the use of the three names Elohim, El, and Jehovah, will find difficult}' in believing that these are not intentional]}' varied by the same writer ; as indeed the critics in general do not hesitate to ascribe the entire section to the Jeho- vist. He who notices how Jacob and Isi-ael are used in the closing cliapters of Genesis to denote the same individual will probably hesitate to assert that a dif- ference of names for a person, be he man or God, ought to be accounted for by the difference of authorship. This has certainly been affirmed to some extent by Colenso ; but his statement will perhaps not meet with more support from those who agree with him in his leading principles than his other statement that Je- hovah was a name invented about the age of Samuel and David. We have already noticed that the inter- pretation of Exod. vi, 3, to which the critical school are committed, assumes that the word Jehovah was till then unknown ; whereas there is varied evidence for its earlier existence. Vaihinger indeed makes the further concession that in the original document, " as is confessed by almost all," the name Jehovah is em- ployed by Jacob a few times (Gen. xxviii, 21 ; xxxii, 10; xlix, 18). See God.
(4.) Yet the admission that the name Jehovah was not unknown before the age of Moses, and the conse- quent impossibility of making the different divine names a proof of diversity of authorship, and of draw- ing confirmation of this opinion from Exod. vi, 3, are not felt by the critical school at the present day to be so damaging as they. would have been felt by their pred- ecessors, or as they will generally be felt by those who take an impartial view of the arguments. Eor the tendency now is to rest more upon an alleged differ- ence of style and thought, icMch is discovered by compar- ing the fundamentcd document with the additions. This line of reasoning necessitates a considerable amount of acquaintance with the language, and also of patient drudgery, even to understand its meaning, and to es- timate its value, however roughly ; it is therefore im- possible to discuss it within our limits here. We have no hesitation, however, in expressing our opinion that it is excessively wearisome in the process, and so vague in the results that these are likel}' to be estimated very much in conformity with the previous inclina- tions of the investigator. One of the so-called crit- ical commentaries may present long lists of words pe- culiar to the different authors ; but the imposing array of evidence is collected by a vicious reasoning in a circle. The existence of different authors is inferred from the existence of different sets of words and phrases ; but in order to arrive at the grouping of these words and phrases into diflTerent sets, the con- tinuous naiTative needs to be cut up in the most minute and fantastic manner among diflTerent authors. It is a mere assumption, and antecedently improbable in a high degree, that a cliapter in Genesis or Exodus is a patchwork of authorship such as modern criticism pro- nounces it to be ; but if we are to believe this on the evidence of the difierences in the language and com- position of the different parts, we need something more than the assertions of the critics to make us believe that these parts really are different ; for all the time they appear to uninitiated readers to be one consecu- tive and homogeneous piece of writing. It is impos-