\ 
 
I JxruTJxrinJxrijiJuinruxrii^uujTjTjxjxixruxn u uiT^ 
 
 HOW 
 
 TWO DOCUMENTS 
 
 MAY BE FOUND IN ONE 
 
 A MONOGKAPH 
 
 m CONNECTION WITH THE HIGHER CRITICISM 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES CAEMICHAEL, D.D., D.C.L. 
 
 DEAN OF MONTREAL. 
 
 MONTREAL: 
 
 THE GAZETTE PRINTING COMPANY. 
 1895 
 
 uTJxruxnjinjjrnuijxnJTxmjxrjTjiinJinjxruxr^ 
 
HOW 
 
 TWO DOCUMENTS 
 
 ii \ ■ 
 
 MAT BE FOUND EST ONE 
 
 A MONOGRAPH 
 
 j IN CONNECTION WITH THE HIGHER CRITICISM 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES CAEMICHAEL, D.D., D.C.L. 
 
 DEAN OF MONTREAL. 
 
 MONTEEAL: 
 
 THE GAZETTE PRINTING COMPANY. 
 
 1895 
 
V 
 
 Entered according to Actof ruruaD.»i* n! Oau .da, by James Carmichael, in the oflSoe If 
 of the "ttinister of iigriculture, in the year 1895. 
 
7 ■ \\' 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 MONOGRAPH 
 
 IN CONNECTION WITH THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the fundamental thought 
 underlying the Higher Criticism of the old Testament, is 
 that of the manner in which the Pentateuch and the Book 
 of Joshua (the Ilexateuch) apparently lend themselves to 
 division or articulation into distinct documents. This 
 documentary hypothesis discovered by Jean Astruc (1753) 
 and elaborated by Eichhorn (1787), has been the basis of all 
 critical investigation on the part of those opposed to the 
 Mosaic authorship, for the last century. Much has grown 
 out of it not originally of it, and the term " Higher Criti- 
 cism" covers a much vaster field than that of ancient docu- 
 ments. Yet, none the less is the documentary hypothesis 
 the basis of the criticism. For, although the documents 
 J. & E. & D. are confined to the Hexateuch, there has 
 grown out of these claimed writers what the critics call 
 " the Deuteronomic spirit," or the " influence of D." This' 
 influence is applied to the Old Testament as a whole, so 
 that, although " the touch of the vanished hand " of D. is 
 not traceable beyond the Hexateuch, his influence extends 
 largely through the later books. 
 
i 
 
 The documentary liypothcHirt, an applied to the Hexateuch, 
 may bo shortly stated as follows : 
 
 1. The Hexateuch, as it stands, did tiot exist until after 
 the Babylonian captivity, it being a composite work com- 
 posed of at least four documents, and whatever literary 
 work Moses left behind him. 
 
 2. According to Driver, Moses left the " Decalogue " < 
 and the " Book of the Covenant " (Ex. xx-xxiii), together j 
 with the nucleus of some form of priesthood, and tradi- ' 
 tional lore on matters of ceremonial observance. 
 
 3. The balance of the material was supplied by four less 
 known writers styled J&E&D&P., J&E writing dur- 
 ing the early centuries of the Monarchy, D., in or about 621 
 BC, and P., sometime during the Babylonian captivity. 
 
 4. Each writer had his characteristic style of writing. 
 J. was ethical, anthropomorphic and descriptive, E. was 
 concrete, D. was oratorical, P. was legal. Each wrote freely 
 according to hi? own style, and all the documents were 
 finally fused together by a late redactor or redactors into 
 the Hexateuch as we possess it, a volume of varied styles 
 and uses of words etc., peculiar to each writer. 
 
 In the form of a monograph one could not attempt to 
 follow or discuss the varied reasons given by the critics for 
 thus apportioning the Hexateuch amongst different authors ; . 
 it would be fair neither to the critics nor to the writer to 
 attempt to do so ; hence it is the object of this monograph 
 to deal fairly and temperately with but one aspect of the 
 criticism, namely, the claim that certain chapters or portions 
 of the Pentateuch may be divided into two or more reason- 
 ably consecutive documents. 
 
 It may be said that the strength of this documentary 
 hypothesis largely lies in the fact that there are certain 
 chapters in the Hexateuch which can be divided up into 
 
two apparently totally (liHtiiict and coiiHOi-utivc roconln o\' 
 the one event. There are not many such ehapterw hut there 
 are a sutKeient ninnher to warrant the creatiiMi of the hypo- 
 thcHirt that at leant two authors contrihutetl material to torm 
 such chapterH. Kx. xiv, (lencriptive of the pannage of the 
 Red Sea in a very Htrikin^ evidence of this douhlenewH of 
 structure, for one can so distrihute and connect the verses 
 i as to make two totally independent accounts of the passage 
 y v.ithout leaving out or interiiolating a word. Thus, it is 
 very hard to follow Driver's articulation of Ex. xiv, verse 
 hy verse, giving these verses to the hypothetical J., and 
 these to the hypothetical P., without heing struck by the 
 almost irresistible conviction that no one hatid wrote that 
 chapter, although one band might easily have made one 
 account out of two documents. 
 
 Convinced as many are of the Mosaic authorship of the " 
 Pentateuch, spite of all the learning and ingenuity of the 
 critics to the contrary, one consequently feels that there 
 must be some explanation of this doubleness of writing 
 apart from doubleness of authorship. One can hold fast to 
 the Mosaic authorship, even admitting that Moses used 
 ancient documents, and even ancient tradition under the 
 direction of Goa, in writing the Pentateuch ; but one 
 shrinks back from fancying him producing that kind of 
 writing which is chiefly remarkable for what would have 
 been a " cunning method " of weaving the words of con- 
 temporary authors into one narrative ; above all when he _^ 
 who saw the events recorded was himself admittedly a 
 writer, and presumably as capable of describing such events 
 as any other person. Hence even admitting Moses to be 
 the writer of Ex. xiv, his use of contemporary documents 
 in connection with that chapter appears most unlikely ; 
 though by no means unlikely — under God's direction — in 
 connection with events that lay far behind him. 
 
n 
 
 ' Bow tlltn can Olio liold oil to tlu^ MoHuic iiuthorrtliip of 
 BUch (louhle-voicod <'hii[»torH ? . Tlio uiiHwer jippwirH \)\\i\n 
 and (^onvincin^. ' " . 
 
 TlIK CIIArTKKS IN TIIK I'KNTATKUOll WHICH AKTIOULATK 
 SMOOTIIIiY OH REASON A IlLY HO, ARK DKSCHll'TIVK CIIAI'TKRS, AND 
 MOSES WHEN HE WROTE DESORIl'TIVKLY DID SO IN THAT I»E(!lJIiIAR 
 STYLE WHICH EASILY LENDS ITSELF TO ARTICULATION INTO TWO 
 
 DOCUMENTS. Tliis iiiuy Houiid a Htniiige and iiidot'uiisiblo 
 statemtMit, but one haw only to seek to articulate modern 
 writers according to the same method that tlie Higher 
 Critics have articulated Moses, to find that this nrirvellous 
 douhleness of composition is solely a ([uestion of style coii- 
 nected with the writer that you are seeking to articulate. 
 
 In the case before us, one has first of all to become thor- 
 oughly familiar with the writings and spirit of Moses. He 
 had varied styles of writing as many modern writers have, i 
 but he was the born master of one style — the descriptive. 
 Read his strong, vigorous descriptive chapters. Get imbued 
 with the spirit of that peculiar style, and then ask yourself 
 the question who it is in the present day that writes like 
 Moses, and one by one you will be able to lay your hand 
 on the authors, and one by one be able to articulate their 
 books. 
 
 Before furnishing evidence of the correctness of such a 
 theory, Driver's articulation and distribution of Ex. xiv, 
 between the hypothetical authors J & E & P., is worthy of 
 notice. 
 
 P. 1-4, 8-9, 15-18, 2la (to "over the Sea") 21c, 22-23, 
 26-27a (to " over the Sea ") 28-29. 
 
 J. 5-7, 10a (to "afraid") 11-14, 196-20, 21b (to "dry land") 
 24-25, 276, 30-31. 
 
 E. 106, I9a. 
 
According to this articulatioti the chajitiT \h ulmoHt 
 wliolly coinpoHiMl of J & P., urid tho Htroiii^tli of the criti- 
 c'lHin VwH ill tho fact that if you join J k K., and then Hcpar- 
 atc thcin from I*., you ohtaiii two clear (Uu'unieiitH whicli 
 read aw foMovvn : 
 
 ' 611 And It WI18 told tho king of 
 
 Egypt Mmt the people Med : and the 
 heart of I'hiinioh and of liiH.scTvants 
 wan turned against the people, and 
 
 I they Haid, Why have we done this, 
 that we have let Iwrael go from serv- 
 ing UH i 
 
 \ 
 
 ' fl. And he made ready hlH eharlot, 
 
 and took his people with him : 
 
 ( 
 
 '» 7. And he took six hundred chosen 
 chariots, and all the chariots of 
 Egypt, and captains over every one 
 of them. 
 
 i 
 
 10. And when Pharaoh drew nigh 
 the children of Israel lifted up their 
 eyes, and behold, the Egyptians 
 marched after them and they were 
 sore afraid : and the children of 
 Israel cried unto the Lord. 
 
 11. And they said unto Moses, 
 Because there were no graves in 
 Egypt, hast thou taken us away to 
 die in the wilderness? Wherefore 
 hast thou dealt thus with us, to 
 carry us forth out of Egynt ? 
 
 12. la not this the word that we 
 did tell thee in Egypt, saying. Let 
 us alone, that we may serve the 
 Egyptians ? For it had been better 
 for us to serve the Egyptians, than 
 that we should die in the wilderness. 
 
 14ir And Moses said unto the 
 people. Fear ye not, stand still, and 
 see the salvation of the Lord, which 
 he will shew to you to day : for the 
 Egyptians whom ye have seen to 
 day, ye shall see them again no more 
 for ever. 
 
 P. 
 
 AND the liOitiispake unto Moses, 
 saying : 
 
 2. Speak unto the children of Is- 
 rael, that they turn and encamp 
 before IM-hahiroth, between Migdol 
 and the sea, over against Haal-xep- 
 lion : before it shall ye encuimp by 
 the sea. 
 
 a. For Pharaoh will say of the 
 children of Israel, They arc en- 
 tangled in the land, the wilderness 
 hath shut them in. 
 
 4 And I will harden Pharaoh's 
 heart, that he shall follow after 
 them ; and I will be honoured upon 
 Pharaoh, and upon all his host ; that 
 the Egyptians may know that I am 
 the Lord. And they did so. 
 
 H, And the Lord hardened the 
 heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and 
 he pursued after the children of 
 Israel : and the children of Israel 
 went out with an high hand. 
 
 9. But the Egyptians pursued 
 after them, all the horses and char- 
 iots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, 
 and his army, and overtook them 
 encamping by the sea, beside Pi- 
 hahiroth, before Baal-zephon. 
 
 1511 And the Lord said unto 
 Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto 
 me? speak unto the children of Is- 
 rael, that they go forward : 
 
 16. But lift thou up thy rod, and 
 stretch out thine hand over the sea, 
 and divide It: and the children of 
 Israel shall go on dry ground 
 throTigh the midst of the sea. 
 
8 
 
 14. The Lord shall fight for you, 
 and ye shall hold your peace. 
 
 1911 And the angel of God, which 
 went before the camp of Israel, re- 
 moved and went behind them ; and 
 the pillar of the cloud went from 
 before their face, and stood behind 
 them : 
 
 20. And it came between the camp 
 of the Egyptians and the camp of 
 Israel ; and it was a cloud and dark- 
 ness to them, but it gave light by 
 night to these : so that the one came 
 not near the other all the night. 
 
 216. And the Lord caused the sea 
 to go back by a strong East wind 
 all that night and make the sea dry 
 land. 
 
 24. And it came to pass, that in 
 the morning watch the Lord looked 
 unto the host of the Egyptians 
 through the pillar of fire and of the 
 cloud, and troubled the host of the 
 Egyptians. 
 
 25. And took off their chariot 
 wheels, that they drave them heav- 
 ily : so that the Egyptians said, Let 
 us flee from the face of Israel; for 
 the Lord flghteth for them against 
 the Egyptians. 
 
 276. And the sea returned to his 
 strength when the morning ap- 
 peared ; and the Egyptians fled 
 against it ; and the Lord overthrew 
 the Egyptians in the midst of the 
 sea. 
 
 30. Thus the Lord saved Israel 
 that day ouc of the hand of the 
 Egyptians ; and Israel saw the 
 Egyptians dead upon the sea shore. 
 
 17 And I, behold, I will harden 
 the hearts of the Egyptians, and 
 they shall follow them ; and I will 
 get me honour upon Pharaoh, and 
 upon all his host, upon his chariots, 
 and upon his horsemen. 
 
 18. And the Egyptians shall know 
 that I am the Lord, when I have 
 gotten me honour upon Pharaoh, 
 upon his chariots, and upon his 
 horsemen. 
 
 2la. And Moses stretched out his 
 hand over the sea, and the waters 
 21c. were divided. 
 
 22. And the children of Israel 
 went into the midst of the sea upon 
 the dry ground : and the waters 
 were a wall unto them on their 
 right hand, and on their left. 
 
 2311 And the Egyptians pursued, 
 and went in after them to the midst 
 of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, 
 his chariots, and his horsemen. 
 
 2611 And the Lord said unto 
 Moses, Stretch out thine hand over 
 the sea, that the waters may come 
 again upon the Egyptians, upon 
 their chariots, and upon their horse- 
 men. 
 
 27a. And Moses stretched forth 
 his hand over the sea. 
 
 28. And the waters returned, and 
 covered the chariots, and the horse- 
 men, and all the host of Pharaoh 
 that came into the sea after them ; 
 there remained not so much as one 
 of them. 
 
31. And Israel saw that ^reat 20. But the children of Israel 
 
 work which the Lord did upon the walked upon dry land in the midst 
 
 £Kyptian9 ; and the people feared of fche sea ; and the waters were a 
 
 the Lord, and believed the Lord, wall unto them on their right band, 
 
 and his servant Moses. and on their left. 
 
 In the foregoing articulation one is freely carried along 
 with the consecutive flow of each description. The double 
 nature of the chapter is so apparent that single authorship 
 seems an impossibility, the question rather is, which account 
 is superior, if superiority be possible ? And yet the truth 
 is, that spite of the almost irresistible conviction that two 
 authors were at work, one has only to proceed to articulate 
 modern writers to discover that this style of writing which 
 lends itself to articulation is a somewhat common, and cer- 
 tainly widespread style ; evidence of which may be taken 
 from writers of such known repute as to place the extracts 
 above all possibility of impeachment. 
 
 Thus one of the most striking descriptions in that singu- 
 la larly captivating book, Stanley's " History of the Jewish 
 Church," is, strange to say, his description of the " Passage 
 of the Red Sea." As we read it slowly and thoughtfully 
 word by word the reality and grandeur of the whole event 
 stand out before us, as under the brush of a painter rather 
 than the words of a writer. Stanley's descriptive power 
 seems to have sprung from what one might call his " desk 
 sight." He plainly studied his subject till his mind was 
 filled with it ; then there rose up before him what he sought 
 to describe, and he simply wrote down on paper what he 
 seemed to see. Hence the rich, glowing, realistic power of 
 his words. A dozen men might use the same words to 
 describe the same event, but they might never group them 
 as he did, apart from that gift of "desk sight" which 
 unquestionably he possessed. In other words to be an his- 
 torian like Stanley you must have the soul and eye of the 
 poet like Stanley. 
 
10 
 
 This remarkable descriptive passage may be articulated 
 into two distinct and separate documents, one of which I 
 would call A, and the other B. Placed side by side the 
 distinction between the documents is very apparent. 
 
 A. 
 
 [First, we must observe what may 
 be called the whole change of situa- 
 tion.] They had passed in that 
 night from Africa to Asia. Behind 
 the African hills which rose beyond 
 the Bed Sea, lay the strange land of 
 their exile and bondage, the Bed 
 Sea flowed between them, the Egyp- 
 tians whom they saw yesterday 
 they will see no more forever. And 
 before them stretched the level 
 plains of the Arabian desert, the 
 desert where their fathers and kin- 
 dred had wandered in former times. 
 Further this change of local situa- 
 tion was at once a change of moral 
 condition ; from slaves they had be- 
 come free ; from an oppressed tribe 
 they had become an independent 
 nation. And when in the Christian 
 Scriptures and in the Christian 
 Church we find the passage of the 
 Bed Sea taken as the likeness of the 
 moral deliverance from sin and 
 death, when we read in the Apo- 
 calypse of the vision of those who 
 stand victorious on the shores of the 
 "Glassy Sea" mingled with fire, 
 having the harps of God, and sing- 
 ing the song of Moses the servant 
 of God, and the song of the Lamb " 
 —these are so many testimonies to 
 the importance, to the sanctity of 
 freedom, to the wrong and the 
 misex*y of injustice, oppression and 
 tyranny. But it was the mode of 
 their deliverance which made this 
 event so remarkable. We must place 
 it before us in the words of the 
 sacred narrative. The passage as 
 
 B. 
 
 [ First we must observe what may be 
 called the whole change of situation.] 
 They had crossed one of the great 
 boundaries which divide the quar- 
 ters of the world, a thought always 
 thrilling, how much more when we 
 reflect on what a transition it in- 
 volved to them. The land of Egypt 
 with its mighty river, its immense 
 buildings, its monster worship, its 
 overgrown civilization, — this, they 
 had left to revisit no more ; and 
 before them stretched the desert 
 where their great leader had fed the 
 flocks of Jethro through which they 
 must advance onward till they 
 reach the land of Promise. It is 
 their deliverance from slavery, it is 
 the earliest recorded instance of a 
 great national emancipation. In 
 later times, Beligion has been so 
 often and so exclusively associated 
 with the ideas of order, of obedience, 
 of submission to authority that it is 
 well to be occasionally reminded 
 that it has other aspects also. This, 
 the first epoch of our religious his- 
 tory, is, in its original historical sig- 
 nificance, the sanctiflcation, the 
 glorification of national independ- 
 ance and freedom. Whatever else 
 was to succeed to it, this was the 
 first stage of the progress of the 
 Chosen People. The word "Bedemp- 
 tion" which has now a sense far 
 holier and higher, first entered into 
 the circle of religious ideas when 
 God " redeemed his people from the 
 house of bondage." But it was not 
 only the fact, but the mode of the 
 
It 
 
 thus described was eflFected not in 
 the c.almnesH and clearness of day- 
 light but in the depths of midnight, 
 amidst the roar of the Inirricane 
 which caused the sea to ^'0 back, 
 amidst a darkness lit up by the 
 broad glar.* of lightning "as the 
 Lord looked out" from the dark 
 thickness of the Cloud, We know 
 not, they knew not by what precise 
 means the deliverance was wrought, 
 we know not by what precise track 
 through the Gulf the passage was 
 effected. We know not and we need 
 not know; the obscurity, the mystery 
 here as elsewhere was part of the 
 lesson. All we see distinctly is, 
 that through this dark and terrible 
 night with the enemy pressing close 
 behind, and the driving sea on 
 either side He "led his people like 
 sheep by the hands of Moses and 
 Aaron." 
 
 deliverance which made this event 
 so remarkable in itself, in its appli- 
 cations and in its lasting conse- 
 quences. We must place it before 
 us if possible, not as we conceive 
 it from pictures and our own ima- 
 ginations but as illustrated by the 
 Psalmist and the commentary of 
 Josephus and Philo. " The waters 
 saw thee, O God, the waters saw 
 thee and were afraid, the depths 
 also were troubled. The clouds 
 poured out water, the air thundered. 
 Thine arrows went abroad, the 
 voice of thy thunder was heard 
 round about, the lightnings shone 
 upon the ground, the earth was 
 moved and shook withal." "God's 
 way was in the sea and his paths in 
 the great waters, and his footsteps 
 were not known." 
 
 Acting on the lines of the Higher Criticism, it might be 
 argued from this modern aspect of doubleness, that A. 
 wrote his account of the passage of the Red Sea, as one 
 imbued with the Spirit of the writings of Moses, and that 
 B. wrote under the influence of the Psalmist. Then both 
 documents plainly came into the possession of Dean Stanley, 
 who fusing them together produced the beautiful des- 
 cription of the passage of the Red Sea, found in his "His- 
 tory of the Jewish Church." Of course all this is unlikely 
 inasmuch as Stanley does not give one hint that the des- 
 cription of the event is not the offspring of his own pen, 
 he certainly claimed the authorship of the whole work 
 and received from the reading public the merited praise for 
 it. The explanation is, that Stanley produced this pecu- 
 liarly constructed form of writing without being aware of 
 it • at times, it was his style as it has been and is the style 
 of many other writers. 
 
12 
 
 Thus Dean Farrar's descriptive and florid style of 
 writing, naturally lends itself to this kind of literary 
 articulation, as may be seen in the following extracts from 
 the "Life of St. Paul," vol. ii, p. 291, descriptive of the 
 Apostle's last visit to Jerusalem. 
 
 A. B. 
 
 [And so for the fifth time since his 
 conversion Paul re-entered Jeru- 
 Balem.] He had rarely entered It 
 without some cause for anxiety, and 
 there could have heen scarcely one re- 
 miniscence which it awoke that was 
 not infinitely painful. But never 
 had he trod the streets of the city 
 with so deep a sadness as now that 
 he entered it, avoiding notice as 
 much as possible in the little cara- 
 van of Ceesarean pilgrims and Gen- 
 tile converts. But he was the 
 bearer of help which was a tangible 
 proof of his allegiance to the Mother 
 Church, and the brethren whom he 
 saw that evening at the house of 
 Mnasongave him a joyous welcome. 
 It may have cheered his heart for 
 the moment, but it did noc remove 
 the deep sense that he was in that 
 city which was the murderess of 
 the prophets. The next day till 
 sunset was marked by the cere- 
 monies of the feast, and the greater 
 part of it was spent by St. Paul and 
 his little company in an assembly of 
 the elders, who met to receive him 
 under the presidency of James- 
 James, the stem white-robed mys- 
 terious prophet, and the conclave of 
 his but half -conciliated Judaic pres- 
 byters. No misgivings could assail 
 them in their own free Asiatic or 
 Hellenic homes, but here in Jeru- 
 salem, in " the Holy and noble city " 
 under the very shadow of the 
 Temple, face to face with Zealots 
 and Pharisees, it required nothing 
 less than the genius of a Paul to 
 
 [And so for the fifth time since his 
 conversion Paul re-entered Jeru- 
 salem]. The school of Gamaliel, the 
 Synogogue of the Libertines, the 
 house where the High Priest had 
 given him his commission to Dam- 
 ascus, the spot where the reddened 
 grass had drunk the blood of 
 Stephen, must all have stirred up 
 painful memories. He was going 
 into a city were friends were few, 
 and where well nigh every one of 
 the myriads among whom he moved 
 was an actual or potential enemy, 
 to whom the mere mention of his 
 name might be enough to make the 
 dagger flash from its scabbard, or 
 to startle a cry of hatred which 
 would be the signal for a furious 
 outbreak. He knew too well the 
 burning animosity which he kind- 
 led, because he remembered too well 
 what had been his own and that of 
 his party against the Christian 
 Hellenists of old. The wrath which 
 he then felt was now a furnace 
 heated seven-fold against himself. 
 
 The Elders were already assem- 
 bled when the visitors came in, and 
 we may imagine that it was with 
 something more than a thrill of 
 curiosity— that it must have been 
 with an almost painful shyness— 
 that timid provincial neophytes like 
 Timothy and Trophimus (the latter 
 especially an uncircumcised Gentile 
 whom his teacher had encouraged 
 to regard himself as entirely eman- 
 cipated from the Jewish law) found 
 themselves in the awful presence of 
 
m 
 
 James, the Lord's brother. That 
 free spirit was a lesson which the 
 Jews themselves as a body could 
 not learn. The destruction of Jeru- 
 salem did more to drive them from 
 an immemorial " orthodoxy " than 
 the epistles of St. Paul himself. 
 
 claim without shadow of misgiving 
 that Divine freedom which was 
 arraigned in the name of a history 
 ricfi in miracles, and a whole liter- 
 ature of inspired b joks. It recjuired 
 indeed the earthquake shock which 
 laid their temple in ruins, and 
 scattered their nationality to the 
 four winds of heaven, effectively to 
 teach them the futility of the con- 
 victions to which they so passion- 
 ately clung. They would have re- 
 sisted without end the logic of argu- 
 ment had not God in due time 
 refuted their whole theology by 
 the irresistible logic of facts. 
 
 In this articulation A seems to have been written from 
 the standpoint of describing the opposition to St. Paul, 
 not only from the Jews but the Jerusalem Christians, 
 whereas B. deals largely with the retrospective feelings 
 of St. Paul himself, as his Christian feet trod the 
 streets of a city where in days past he had been a zealous 
 enemy of the Christian religion. 
 
 Many parts of the writings of De Pressense are capable 
 of the easiest and smoothest articulation. As in his des- 
 cription of the child Jesus (Life of Christ, p. 232.) 
 
 A. 
 
 B. 
 
 " The Child " says St. Luke "Grew 
 and waxed strong in Spirit, filled 
 with wisdom, and the Grace of God 
 was upon Him." Thus did Jesus 
 pass through the obscure period in 
 which thought and consciousness 
 are yet dormant; on the knees of 
 his Mother. Evil alone, had no 
 growth within Him, nothing tar 
 nished the exquisite purity of his 
 soul. Then as He grew and intelli- 
 gence opened He became more and 
 more conscious of the peculiar rela- 
 
 It is certain that the childhood of 
 Christ forms no exception to the 
 law of slow and gradual progress. 
 He learned to speak, and the divine 
 treasures hidden within were not 
 at once disclosed. He never for an 
 instant ceased to be one with his 
 Father, His heart opened as spon- 
 taneously to the life divine as his 
 lungs breathed the vital air. Ex- 
 ternally no hing seemed to distin- 
 guish Him from other children, at 
 least to those who did not like 
 
14 
 
 tion wliich united Him to God. He 
 did not asHume the prophet, nor 
 even assert a precocious indepen- 
 dence. As a child he perfectly ful- 
 filled the <?uties of his age, which 
 may be summed up in subnusHion 
 to the heads of the family. 
 
 Mary lift the veil of humility which 
 concealed his inner life. If it had 
 been otherwise it would ha\e been 
 impossible to explain the persistent 
 unbelief of his kinsfolk and neigh- 
 bors. "Thus" says Irenieus, he 
 sanctified childhood by passing 
 through it." 
 
 In this articulation the weight of A's descriptioi is on 
 the human side of the child Jesus, whilst B seems to tend 
 more towards the divine side. 
 
 Kinglake's well known description of Prince Louis Nap- 
 oleon submits itself easily to articulation. 
 
 A. 
 
 [But the President of the Repub- 
 lic was Prince Charles Louis Nap- 
 oleon Bonaparte, the statutory heir 
 of the first French Emperor.] Both 
 in France and England at that time 
 men in general imagined him to be 
 dull. When he talked, the flow of 
 his ideas was sluggish, his features 
 were opaque ; and after years of 
 dreary studies, the writings evolved 
 by his thoughtful, long pondering 
 mind had not shed much light on 
 the world. Yet the more men 
 knew him in England, the more 
 they liked him. He entered into En- 
 glish pursuits and rode fairly to 
 hounds, he was friendly, social, 
 good-humoured, and willing enough 
 to talk freely about his views upon 
 the throne of France. 
 
 The opinion which men had 
 formed of his ability in the period 
 of exile, was not much altered by 
 his return to France, for in the 
 Assembly his apparent want of 
 mental power caused the world to 
 regard him as harmless, and in the 
 chair of the President he commonly 
 seemed to be torpid. But there 
 were always a few who believed in 
 
 B. 
 
 [The President of the Republic 
 was Prince Charles Louis Napoleon 
 Bonaparte, the statutory heir of the 
 first French Emperor.] The election 
 which made him the Chief of the 
 State had been conducted with per- 
 fect fairness, and since it happened 
 in former years he had twice en- 
 gaored in enterprizes which aimed 
 at the throne of France, he had 
 good right to infer that the millions 
 of citizens, who elected him to the 
 Presidency were willing to use his 
 ambition as a means of restoring to 
 France a monarchical form of Gov- 
 ernment. But if he had been open 
 in disclosing the ambition which 
 was almost cast upon him by the 
 circumstances of his birth, he had 
 been as successful as the first Brutus 
 in passing for a man of poor intel- 
 lect. Even the strange ventures in 
 which he had engaged had failed to 
 win towards him the interest which 
 commonly attaches to enterprize. 
 People in London who were fond of 
 having gatherings of celebrated 
 characters, never used to present 
 him to their friends, as a serious 
 pretender to a throne, but rather as 
 
 
w 
 
 his capacity, and obnervant men 
 had latterly remarked that from 
 time to time tliere appeared a State 
 paper, understood to l)e tiie work of 
 the President, whicli teeined vvitli 
 thouglit, and which nljowcd that 
 'he writer, standing solitary and 
 apart from the Gregarious Nation 
 of which he was the chief, was able 
 to contemplate it as something ex- 
 ternal to himself. 
 
 ' If his intellect was of poorer qua- 
 lity than men supposed it to be at 
 the time of the Anglo-French alli- 
 ance, it was much above the low 
 gauge which people used to assign 
 to 't in the earlier period which 
 began in 1836 and ended at the close 
 of 1851. That which had so long 
 veiled his cleverness from the know- 
 ledge of mankind was the repulsive 
 nature of the science at which he 
 labored. Many men before him had 
 labored to bring craft into politics. 
 Many more toiling in humbler 
 grades had applied their cunning 
 skill to the conflicts which engage 
 courts of law, but no living man 
 perhaps, except Prince Louis Bona- 
 parte, had passed the hours of a 
 studious youth, and the prime of a 
 thoughtful manliood in contriving 
 how to apply stratajtem to the 
 science of jurisprudence. It was 
 not perhaps from natural baseness 
 that his mind took this bent. The 
 Inclination to sit and sit planning 
 for the attainment of some object 
 of desire— this indeed was his na- 
 ture—but the inclination to labor 
 at the task of making law an engine 
 of deceit, this did not come perforce 
 with his blood, yet it came with his 
 parentage. For years the prince 
 pursued this strange calling ; and 
 by the time his studies were over he 
 had become highly skilled. Long 
 before the moment had come for 
 
 though he were a balloon man, who 
 had twice had a full from the skies 
 and wa . still in some measure alive. 
 The sayings lie uttered al)out his 
 "destiny" were addressed (appar- 
 ently as a matter of policy) to casual 
 acquaintances, but to his intimate 
 friends he used the language of a 
 calculating and practical aspirant 
 to an Empire. 
 
 His long endless study of the 
 mind of the first Napoleon, had 
 caused him to adopt and imitate 
 the emperor's habit of looking down 
 upon the French people, and treat- 
 ing the mighty nation as a subject 
 to be studied and controlled by a 
 foreign brain. Indeed, during the 
 periods of his imprisonmeRt and 
 exile, the relations between him 
 and the France of his studies, were 
 very like the relations between an 
 anatomist and a corpse. He 
 lectured upon it, he dissected its 
 fibres, he explained its functions, 
 he she wed how beautifully nature 
 in her infinite wisdom had adapted 
 it to the service of the Bonapartes, 
 and how without the fostering care 
 of those same Bonapartes the crea- 
 ture was doomed to degenerate and 
 perish out of the world. It is true 
 he might have determined to reject 
 the indication by the accident of his 
 birth, and to remain a private 
 citizen, but when once he resolved 
 to become a pretender to the im- 
 perial throne he, of course, had to 
 try and see how it was possible — 
 how it was possible in the midst of 
 this century- that the coarse Bona- 
 parte yoke of 1804, could be made to 
 sit kindly upon the neck of France, 
 and, France being a European na- 
 tion, and the yoke being in sub- 
 stance a yoke such as Tartars make 
 for Chinese, it followed that the ac- 
 
16 
 
 britifflnK his crcioked science Into 
 UHC, he had learned how to frame a 
 cunHtltutlon which would Heoui to 
 enact one thing and really enact 
 another. He knew how to put the 
 word "Jury " Into laws, which rob- 
 bed men of their freedom. He 
 could set the snare which he called 
 ** universal suffrage :" he knew how 
 to strangle a nation in the night- 
 time with a thing he called " a 
 plebiscite," etc. 
 
 commodation of the one to the 
 other could only be effected by 
 guile, etc. 
 
 The style of Josephus gives a wide field for the produc- 
 tion of double documents as may be seen in the following 
 account of John of Qischala (Wars B. 2, C. 21.) 
 
 Now there arose a man of Giachala 
 whose name was John. His char- 
 acter was that of a very cunning 
 and very knavish person, beyond 
 the ordinary rate of the other men 
 of eminence there, and for wicked 
 practices he had not his fellow any- 
 where. Poor he was at first, and 
 for a long time his wants were a 
 hinderance to him in his wicked 
 designs. He was a hypocritical pre- 
 tender to humanity, but when he 
 had hopes of gain he spared not the 
 shedding of blood : his desires were 
 ever carried to great things, and he 
 encouraged his hopes from those 
 mean wicked tricks which he was 
 the author of. He took care that 
 none of his partners should be easily 
 caught in their rogueries, but chose 
 such out of the rest as had the 
 strongest constitution of Itody, and 
 the greatest courage of soul, to- 
 gether with great skill in martial 
 affairs. So he got together a band 
 of four hundred men, who came 
 principally out of the country of 
 Tyre, and were vagabonds who had 
 run away from its villages. 
 
 B. 
 
 As Josephus was thus engaged in 
 the administration of the affairs of 
 Galilee, there arose a treacherous 
 person, a man of Gischala, the son of 
 Levi, whose name was John. He 
 was a ready liar and yet very sharp 
 in gaining credit to his fictions. He 
 thought it a point of virtue to de- 
 lude people, and would delude even 
 such as were dearest t/O him. He 
 had a peculiar knack of thieving, 
 but in some time he got certain 
 companions in his impudent prac- 
 tices: at first they were but few, but 
 as he proceeded on in his evil 
 course, they became still more and 
 more numerous, and by means of 
 these he laid waste all Galilee, and 
 irritated a considerable number who 
 were in great expectation of a war 
 then suddenly to arise among them. 
 
Tlic fon^going oxaini>U'8 clearly provo tliut the secret of 
 being able to divide up any one docunient into two or 
 more documontH dcpondH wholly on the stylo of the writer 
 of the document so divided. It is almost imporisiblc, for 
 instance, to articulate a chapter, or a page of Butler's 
 " Analogy of Religion " because it is close, logical reason- 
 ing, there is not a needless word — to articulate, would only 
 produce gaps in the onward sweep of the argument. Much 
 the same may be said of sermons written by such writers 
 as Archer Butler and Canon Liddon, for although a 
 certain floridness of style, is characteristic of their sermons, 
 still there is a logical connection between each paragraph, 
 that if it does not destroy, certainly impedes, articulation. 
 But rich, glowing, descriptive writing apart from argument 
 lends itself at once to it. The writer is unbound, his work 
 is that of description and as his soul goes forth to image 
 f some great event, he revels in a tropical luxuriance of 
 I words ; he repeats thoughts, he emphasizes by viewing his 
 position from different standpoints — in short he is dramatic, 
 elaborative, largely figurative, his descriptions flow with 
 the fire of his soul, and when the cold-blooded articulator 
 gets at him with his different colored pencils, and proceeds 
 to dissect him, the writer becomes the literary father of a 
 much larger family than he knew he possessed. 
 
 Now why should this peculiar style of writing be 
 allowed to Stanley, Farrar, etc., without any impeachment 
 of the personal originality of the works in which such 
 chapters or portions of chapters, occur, and be denied to 
 Moses ? Apart from controversy about revelation and 
 inspiration why could not Moses have written every word 
 of Gen. c. 1, c. 29, c. 32, Ex. c. 14, Num. c. 16 ? In these 
 and many other chapters of the Pentateuch the subjects 
 are of just that nature that allows free dramatic descriptions 
 naturally and consistently, and as a consequence the chap- 
 
 *4 
 
IS 
 
 tors ire cant in the (Inuiuitii^ mould. Mohoh, as nianv otlier 
 vvritcrw, had other Htyk's of writing, hut thin was his nuirttor 
 style — and whorcvor ho givew hiiiiHclf loose rein and toUovvs 
 that style to the full, his writings lend themselves more or 
 lesH to a natural and easy articulation. No one douhts 
 that Dean Stanley wrote every word of his description of 
 th(^ I'assage of the Red Hea, eviMi though his words can he 
 divided up into two ap[»arent documents, and why should 
 any reasonable person doubt that Moses might have written 
 the original account though his words can be divided up 
 in just the same way. 
 
 This questio!! of literary style cannot be ignored by the 
 Higher Critics, because their critical analysis of the Penta- 
 teuch, and indeed all the historical portions of the Old 
 Testament, turns largely upon the style of the writing 
 analyzed. When we asked why Gen. 10 to 27 and 31-2 
 and many other verses and portions of chapters are given 
 to P. rather than to J. or E. the answer is " because P. 
 described with minuteness" "important occurrences in 
 connection with the patriarchal history of Israel," " as an 
 introduction to the systematic view of the theoretic insti- 
 tutions which is to follow in Ex. and Num.. and which it 
 is the main object of P. to exhibit," — and as these verses 
 are minutely descriptive of important patriarchal occur- 
 rences, consequently P. must have written them. . In other 
 words the critics first assert the existence of defined and 
 separate documents, then they name suppositious authors 
 from the varied styles of the different documents, and then 
 they apply the diiferent styles to the whole Hexateuch, 
 apportioning it out between the hypothetical J. & E. and 
 D. & P. The critics have gained no slight praise for the 
 careful labor they have bestowed on apportioning out the 
 Hexateuch amongst these different authors, but the fact is 
 that once admit the principle on which they proceed, 
 
1» 
 
 tiumely, that no one vjriter r<in he p).ssessed of more than one 
 .sfj/le^ and itH upplicutioii in u work of ooTiipiinitivo eawe. 
 All tluit in rc'([iilre(l is rtrnt to wot apart what In adinittiMl to 
 have biinn writtoii by Mowos, and tlicii apportion tlio bal- 
 ance according to tlio iron riilo of "one num, one wtyle." 
 All portionH in wbi(;li the wor«l "Jehovah " is used, arul 
 which are ethical, theological and anthi'oiioniorjihic are 
 ffiven to .r. All portions in which the word " Klohini " 
 irt used, that dwell upon concrete particulars, atid that deal 
 with sacred sites and localities, are jriven to K. All lon^ 
 and stately oratorical periods must have been writtt^n by 
 D. or some one imbued with his spirit, and all things con- 
 nected with the institutions of the Israelitish theocracy were 
 written by P. Admit the principle and the mental labor 
 of applying it to a book the size of the Pentateuch is by 
 no means laborious to any one gifted with the art of 
 classifying material quickly. 
 
 But is the rigid canon of the Higher Critics " One Man, 
 one Style," a correct Canon ? Is it true that J could no more 
 give figures relating to the priesthood, than P could write 
 a well sustained conversation ? Is it not a fact that all evi- 
 dence makes against such a position. There are certain 
 documents that not only are, but must be written in one 
 style — acts of parliament, of congress ; legal documents and 
 political notes etc., in such cases the style and wording are 
 settled either by law or custom ; and as a rule they are utterly 
 impossible to articulate, but the hypothetical writers of the 
 Pentateuch cannot be classified with the writers of such 
 documents. They are claimed by the critics to have been 
 idealistic or plain historians and their claimed united work 
 as found in the Pentateuch is meant for history from begin- 
 ning to end. Now no historian of any reputation has 
 developed but one style in dealing with and using the 
 material that goes to make up his history. Perhaps the 
 
20 
 
 inoHt dirttiiictivo MyUi conrH'trtcMl with hirttory iw tlmt cliar- 
 actorintir •)!' Ourlylc Rut Ii'ih liintory of Krudcrick tin* ( treat 
 uiiittfH ill it all tlu' rlianictrriHticH wlilcli ^o to malic up tho 
 claimiMl <lo(Miiiu'iitH .1 Si K k 1) k \\ In tho " Lifn and 
 Wordrt of OhrJHt" l>y Dr. C. (Icikic, wo have a well miw- 
 tiiiiu'd ('lo(iu«'Mt and Htrikin^ record of the life of our Lord 
 prcHi'iitcid to Uri. (Jcikic'n ^titicral Htyli;, without hcin^ too 
 tlorid, in picturcHcpic, and at tinu'H nin^ularly pathetic, and 
 thiw Htyle runn through hin two vcdunieri. Hut Dr. (ieikie 
 docH more than doHcirihe toucliingly oui- Lord'H life. Hiw 
 hook ia a treasure house of information on the traditions 
 of the Rahhis, on .fewish liahitn and customs, on the topo- 
 graphy and geography of the Holy land. II(> indulges 
 " in ethical and theological reHections," ' at times he is 
 oratorical" and "system and circumstantiality are mark- 
 edly characteristic of the arrangement of his materials." 
 If one wished to articulate his hook on the lines of the 
 Higher Criticism, one could easily do so, for it contains 
 many specimens of douhleness of structure ; and the work 
 as a whole unites within it, all the necessary materials for 
 distrihution amongst many authors. One could easily ap- 
 portion the direct narrative to Qeikie, the topography and 
 geography to A., the rabbinical information to B., the 
 ethical and theological to C, the system and circumstan- 
 tiality to D. But none the less would Dr. Geikie have been 
 the sole author of the book. 
 
 Indeed it may be fairly claimed that "One man, one 
 style," "One man, one field," "One man, one class of 
 information," is really confined to the hypothetical writers, 
 born of the Higher Criticism. They seem to stand alone 
 — unique. Doctors have been essay writers and poets, 
 clergymen and great legislators have been novelists and 
 poets, not a few great leaders of political life have been and 
 are theological authors, and at lea^t one great legal mind 
 
21 
 
 has cditi'd volumcH of rcli^iouH praiHo. In fact tho mind of 
 
 ediu'.att'd man in moro like a HovviT pardon, than ono pottud 
 
 phint ri'ritin^ • a tal)U'; andthdii^li thv drittof the proHont 
 
 day IH towardn HptHiiali/ation of study and practioo, still 
 
 every win*; Hi)ocia!iHt will hco to it, that ho dtn'H not dwarf 
 
 hi« widortproad goiuM-al gifts through tho attention ho pays 
 
 ^1 to one of them. Thus some of tho groatont British and 
 
 4 Amorioan legislators have hoon gifted orators and writers, 
 
 *l each has possessed throe gifts and excollod in all — notahly, 
 
 I Gladstone. The stylo that showed itself in tho impassioned 
 
 ^ flood of words let loose over tho Bulgarian atroeities by the 
 
 orator Gladstone, was vastly diftbrent from the style to be 
 
 found in the " Vatii-an Decrees " of the controversialist 
 
 Gladstone, and that again differed from the smooth non- 
 
 oommittal language characteristic of the diplomist Glad- 
 
 Btojic. And it would appear somewhat unjust if in years 
 
 to come some critics yet to be born, should from evidence 
 
 of style create at least two distinct Gladstones, and seek to 
 
 prove that the impassioned orator was an " idealized " 
 
 Gladstone, idealized by an independent writer out of the 
 
 style and material furnished by the Gladstone who wrote 
 
 the " Vatican Decrees." 
 
 "Why this wideness of thought, variety of style and free- 
 dom of description should be allowed to ordinary thinkers 
 and writers and denied to Moses, seems somewhat remark- 
 able. That there are difficulties in connection with the 
 Pentateuch every ordinary student must admit, but one is 
 puzzled to see how the creation of hypothetical writers dis- 
 poses of such difficulties. For there is no doubt that the 
 most likely man to have written the Pentateuch was Moses, 
 and the most unlikely, men born centuries after the events 
 taken part in by Moses had occurred. Then certainly the 
 hypothetical writers do not dispose of existing difficulties ; 
 they rather add to them. I do not dispose of a Penta- 
 
22 
 
 teuchal difficulty by realizing that P wrote this perplexing 
 verse or verses ; and that although he does not " wilfully 
 desert or falsify tradition " "his aim" was that "of pre- 
 senting an ideal picture of the Mosaic age" and that some- 
 times " the representation of P includes elements, not in 
 the ordinary sense of the term historical." On the whole 
 Moses with a few difficulties that modern research geo- 
 graphical and other investigations — may yet explain, seems 
 a far safer guide than P who idealizes and is admittedly 
 inaccurate, and often without any historical ground to lean 
 back on. 
 
 But not only was Moses the most likely person to have 
 written the Pentateuch, but as we have seen, there is no 
 reason why he should not have done so. He, like Stanley, 
 may have possessed the style which leads at times to 
 doubleness of composition when writing narrative, and he 
 like Geikie and others, may have been naturally gifted 
 with varied styles of composition. As a gifted man, there 
 was nothing to have prevented him writing a song as a 
 poet, delivering speeches as an orator, describing scenes of 
 family, social or military life as a talented narrator, or 
 announcing laws, religious and otherwise, in a purely legal 
 manner. Apart wholly from any question of revelation 
 or inspiration, there is no reason why Moses should not 
 have written every word of the Pentateuch, with the 
 exception of Deu. xxxiv. 
 
"V