tion of the idea of unity with a previous work, for Lamentations was often reckoned as part of the book of Jeremiah.

In the Greek version, these titles disappear, "and in their place we find descriptive names, suggested in almost every case by words in the version itself."* Other books of the Old Testament have " descriptive names," but they describe the nature of the contents (e.g., Psalms, Vaλuol; Chronicles, Παραλειπομένων), and do not summarize the subject as do Genesis or Exodus.

It is not unreasonable to say that both Hebrew and Greek titles do distinguish between the first five books and the rest of the Old Testament. No doubt this primarily suggests separation, but that separation implies that the five stand together in a common isolation.

(c) Style.

Turning now to internal evidence, we have next to consider the question of style, which figures so largely in the arguments for the analysis of this work.

Speaking broadly, we may say that three distinctive styles have been insisted on :

I. Flowing and picturesque (JE).

II. Prosaic and formal (P).

III. Fervid and impassioned (D).

(i) When, however, we find that style I is mainly employed in vivid narratives whose interest might almost be termed romantic; that style II occurs chiefly in statements of legislation, statistics, genealogies, details of journeys and construction; and that style III is almost confined to what profess to be reports of discourses delivered at a time of exceptional emotion, the variations cease to be surprising or incongruous. They become almost a necessity of intelligent composition, such as a talented author would naturally employ. Such variations of style to suit different subjects might easily be paralleled from modern works and histories of whose unity there can be no question.

(ii) When, too, we find that the characteristics of style I repeatedly cross and interlace with those of style II-as is said to be the case in the account of the Flood, the narrative of

* Swete, "Introduction," p. 214.

Dinah, the accounts of the Plagues, of the passage of the Red Sea, of the mission of the Spies, and of Korah's Rebellionand that traces of both style I and style II are said to be discoverable in the volume chiefly characterized by style III, it becomes much more probable that the variations are due to one and the same writer whose style is coloured by the nature of the thought he is expressing, than that they are due to the more or less arbitrary piecing together of fragments from different works.

(iii) It is, however, further urged that the passages distinguished by characteristics of style are also marked by peculiarities of diction or historic representation, and that these peculiarities confirm the analysis arrived at by considerations of style.

If all the passages in style I invariably showed one set of peculiarities, and all the passages in style II a different set, there would be great force in this argument, but it is not so. Instead, we find that passages in style I have embedded in them, here and there, peculiarities supposed to belong to style II, and vice versa. A division by style alone would not coincide with a division by peculiarities alone.

The fact that marked peculiarities, whether verbal or historic, are common to passages of varying style would tend to show that all these passages come from the same author, and that therefore variation of style is not a proof of difference of authorship.

ઃઃ

Suppose a panel of wood (like that in the chapel of Trinity College, Oxford) in which dark and light patches combine to form the semblance of a picture. Suppose that someone asserts: This appearance of a picture is not natural but artificial. Pieces of different woods, one kind dark and the other light, have been fitted together to produce this appearance. And, to prove that I am right, you will find that the parts differ in texture as well as in colour. The dark parts are rough, and the light parts are smooth."

Now if on examination the dark parts turned out to be all rough and the light parts all smooth, the presumption that these were really different kinds of wood would be greatly strengthened. But if it was found that the dark parts were smooth in places, and the light parts rough in places, that would show that differences of texture occur in the same wood, while the fact that rough and smooth wood alike are partly light in

colour and partly dark would show that difference of colour does not mean difference of origin. The presumption would then be that the panel was of one piece of wood, and the appearance of a picture natural, not artificial.

The fact, then, that peculiarities of diction or representation are common to passages which vary in style is in reality an indication that the whole work is of one piece, and that any appearance of design has not been artificially produced by combination.

(iv) Added to all this there are certain characteristics which link together the various parts. The tendency to repeat a statement in an enlarged or varied form, sometimes alleged as a special characteristic of P, is also found in passages attributed to JE parenthetic digressions are found both in D and P (in Deut. ii, 20-23; x, 6-9; in P, Exod. vi, 14-17): the use of stated formulæ is nearly as frequent in Deuteronomy (e.g., "the commandments which I command thee this day," "the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it ") as in Leviticus: all the parts show a disregard of strict chronology (in JE, Gen. xxxviii, Judah and Tamar, and Exod. xviii, Jethro's visit; in P, Num. vii and ix, events in first month after the census of the second month; in D, Deut. i, 37, 38; ix, 22; x, 6, 7). These characteristics are marks of a peculiar turn of thought, and lie deeper than the surface variations on which the critics rely. They are fair evidence that the whole work proceeded from one mind.

(d) Inter-relation of Parts.

It has before now been pointed out* how closely the parts varying in style are inter-related; how they dovetail into one another, and explain one another in a way that would hardly be possible if they were due to different authors. It would be superfluous for me to go over ground that has been already so well covered, but perhaps I may be allowed to recapitulate some points that have occurred to myself, and (so far as I know) have not been noticed elsewhere.

(i) The consistent use of holeed () in the genealogies of the chosen line (Gen. v, 3-32; vi, 10; xi, 11-27), while yalad (77) is used for other lines (Gen. iv, 18; x, 8-26), shows

* See Orr, Problem af O.T., 346–359.

a definite plan running through the whole series. In like manner the alternations of chazak (P) and kabed (1) show a similar unity of plan governing the account of the Plagues.

(ii) Gen. vi, 9, "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, and perfect in his generations" (attributed to P) follows immediately after and explains "Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (v. 8, attributed to J). In like manner Gen. vii, 11 expands and explains v. 10.

(iii) The passage, Gen. vii, 17-viii, 5, alleged to be composite, displays a threefold use of triple climax, indicating the work of one mind.

(iv) The renewed commission of Moses in Egypt (Exod. vi, 2-vii, 13, P) is the necessary sequel to Moses' complaint of the failure of his mission to Pharaoh (v, 22, 23, J).

(v) Deuteronomy, admittedly founded on the JE laws and history, and showing a number of verbal coincidences, requires the P laws to explain the bare references to the different kinds of Sacrifices, and to the law of Leprosy. The Deuteronomy title "Feast of Booths" ( xvi, 13) is only explained by Lev. xxiii, 42-43. The Deuteronomy system of judicature (xvi, 18; xvii, 8-13) modifies the Wilderness system (Exod. xviii), to suit the circumstances of the Promised Land. In the same way, Deuteronomy, while insisting on the law of the Central Sanctuary laid down in Lev. xvii, 1-5, relaxes the laws of slaughtering for food and of tithes, and makes a further provision of Cities of Refuge to suit the changed condition.

(vi) Exod. xviii records Jethro's suggestion of appointing subordinate judges: Deut. i, 9-17 supplements this by recording how Moses acted on the suggestion. Num. xiii, 1, 2 records the Divine authorization of the Mission of the Spies: Deut. i, 22 supplements this by recording that the first suggestion came from the people themselves.

(vii) The laws of Exod. xxii, xxiii, of the latter half of Leviticus, and of Deuteronomy, show the same unsystematic mingling of subjects. The three closing "hortatory exhortations (Exod. xxiii, 20-33; Lev. xxvi; Deut. xxviii) are alike in character, and display a consistent progression in that order. The intercessions in Exod. xxxii, 11-13, 31 f.; Num. xiv, 13-19; and Deut. ix, 26-29 are marked by the same magnanimity of character and the same turn of thought.

(viii) All the parts consistently represent Israel as a mighty nation at and after the Exodus.

(ix) All the parts show the distinction between Ani (') as the imperious and emphatic form of the personal pronoun, and the condescending or deprecatory form Anokhi (UN).

(x) All the parts preserve the distinction between JEHOVAH (7), the personal Covenant Name, connoting the relation of God to man and especially the Chosen Family, and Elohim (), the God of creation and all nations.

true

In Genesis and Exodus Elohim is several times found with the definite article, indicating the only true God, particularly in the Egyptian history and at the Burning Bush. The same use is found three times in connection with Jethro* and twice in connection with Balaam. In Deuteronomy it occurs four times where the teaching that God is the only true God is emphasized.

(e) Plan.

Taking the Pentateuch as a whole, a single purpose, slowly but consistently developed, is observable.

The earliest chapters, Gen. i-vi, lay down briefly but broadly the foundations of the Creation, the Fall, and consequent rapid corruption of the human race. Then chapters vii-xi narrate the Deluge, the fresh start after it, and again a rapid multiplication and deterioration. The remainder of the book is occupied with the selection of a particular family and its history down to the sojourn in Egypt.

The other four books deal with the enfranchisement of that family, now become a great nation, and its education and discipline in the Wilderness. The earlier part of Exodus narrates the sufferings and miraculous deliverance from servitude of the People; the latter part, the great Theophany at Sinai, the ratification of the Covenant, and the erection of the Tabernacle to be the Dwelling of the Divine Presence in the midst of the People. Leviticus carries on the tale with the laws of sacrificial ceremonial, the inauguration of the priesthood and consecration of the Sanctuary; then laws as to various forms of defilement, culminating in the purificatory rites of the Day of Atonement; and lastly laws to ensure the right conduct of the People. Numbers begins with the preliminary census, and carries on

* In one verse, Exod. xviii, 11, Jethro uses the term for "the gods," where he acknowledges the supremacy of JEHOVAH.