pp:xtateucii
918
PENTATEUCH
sihle for tlie critics to establish any clear nsns loquendi ■without tearing the book often into shreds, and pro- nouncing passages, and single verses, and clauses of verses, and individual words to be interpolations or alterations; a process which insures its own condem- nation. In fact, if there were no other difficult}', he who has attempted the humble task of following the statements of the critics on the subject must have been often brought to a stand-still by their disagree- ment as to the several writers to whom their respec- tive gifts of sagacity lead them to ascribe the individ- ual passages. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence of diversity of language in passages which they are pretty well agreed in ascribing to the same author, as well as of remarkable similarit}' of language in writings which they generally' attribute to diflerent authors.
In this argument from style in general, as in the previous one from the use of the divine names in par- ticular, we have no object to gain by pressing our reply to the uttermost, and, as some might think, undidy. We might grant that there are traces of a difference of style, and yet deny that this fact is any evidence what- ever of difference of authorship; and we should be sup- ported in our denial by the common experience and opinion of men respecting parallel cases in literature, where no theological bias comes in to warp their judg- ment. The language of Deuteronomy furnishes by far the best case for the critics, although in it (as above detailed) we see many traces of the author of the rest of the Pentateuch; but there are certain peculiarities which we have no difficulty in attributing to the ora- torical character of the book. If anything of the same kind can be established as to certain classes of passages in the first four books, in their genealogical and legis- lative portions respectively, or in passages involving prophetic announcements, etc., no allegation is simpler or fairer than that the style is intentionally varied with the change of subject; in fact, many of the words pa- raded in lists of differences of style are naturally or even unavoidably connected with the subjects treated in only a few places. If there were evidence from some other quarter that these passages proceeded from cer- tain different authors, modern criticism could then make use of the pecidiar language with propriety in confir- mation of its disintegrating hypotheses; but to do so at present is to indulge in the vicious reasoning in a circle of which we have already spoken, or to fall into another great logical vice, by begging the question, in affirming that difference of subject-matter is evidence of differ- ence of authorship. In short, we can admit the exist- ence of differences of style and language only within limits so narrow that they appear as nothing in com- parison with the exaggerated estimate that is often given of them. In so far as comparatively trifling dif- ferences do exist, while we are ready to suggest reasons in the subject-matter (or even in external circumstances, as the use of "Sinai" or " Iloreb") which may often explain them, we feel and acknowledge no incumbent duty to do so. For we hold it to be the indefeasible right of every author to change his style and language under the influence of motives which may be inappre- ciable to his readers; and we hold that this right is ex- ercised by every author in proportion to the strength and freshness of liis own individual mind, or of the mind of the age and nation to which he belongs, the variety and compass of the work with which he is en- gaged, the wealth of the language whicli he uses, or the culture he has received, and the demand of the human spirit that occasionally changes shall occur, for no other reason than to give it rest from tlie monotony of a mechanical uniformity.
Before leaving the consideration of this argument, it may be right to notice how it combines in itself so many great fallacies; for it involves also a mistake as to the point which is to be proved. Tlie critics profess to prove that Moses is not the writer of the Pentateuch ;
and, on their own showing, the evidence of this fact is that there are in it traces of different authors, liut this is nothing to the purpose, unless they also prove that these authors were subsequent to the time of Moses. So learned and cautious and orthodox a theologian as Vitringa long ago gave expression to the opinion that Moses may probably have made use of written docu- ments prepared by the patriarchs and safely handed down among the Israelites, till he arose to collect and arrange and supplement them; but if we shrink from asserting that written instruction was given to the patriarchal Church, we must all the more exalt the strength and value of primeval tradition — tradition upon the very subjects which are handled in the book of Genesis. There is, then, no difficulty whatever in maintaining that, before the time of Moses, there ex- iste<l a body of instruction as to the dealings of God with men, which was known and preserved in the fam- ily that had been called to the knowledge of his grace; and the language of that instruction must have assumed a certain fixity of form, whether we affirm or deny that it was written out and laid up in the repositories of the patriarchs. When Moses began to write the Penta- teuch, there was already, therefore, a religious and his- torical phraseology. Grant everything that the critics imagine they have established, and their original docu- ment might be nothing more than the pre-Mosaic writ- ing or tradition ; while the editor or supplementer might be Moses himself: or if there be traces of several hands and several stj-les, nevertheless, as Astruc himself be- lieved, these may be no more than traces of the differ- ent (but not contradictory or untrustworthy) rills of patriarchal tradition, which he was guided to collect into one channel, and send down to posterity in the clear, continuous, consistent stream of the narrative in Genesis. The influence of these varieties of style might tell upon him stiU as he continued his labors in the composition of the other books. This is all a supposi- tion ; but it is a supposition vastly more modest and credible than that of the modern disintegrating criti- cism ; and it admits everything which that criticism can even profess to have established by the most mi- croscopic study of the language, and the most merciless vivisection of the subject of its experiments.