|
APPENDIX
To Chapter II.
Some unfortunate critic (the Archaeologist in the Monthly Magazine for August,
1814) has attempted to prove that the book of Exodus and a part of Genesis were composed
about the time of Jeremiah, mainly on the following grounds: first, because the book of
Exodus, chap. 25. contains a description of the candelabras to be used in the temple,
which was to consist of seven branches, and Solomon (so says the Archaeologist) was
ignorant of this commandment, because he made eleven single candlesticks, each
holding one light (1 Kings, chap. vii. v.49,): secondly, because the motto, HOLINESS TO
THE LORD, which is ordered in Exodus to be put on all the temple-plate!!! was not
upon the utensils of the first temple, but it was in use during the second temple, (by
which, I suppose, he wishes to insinuate that the motto was engraved upon the utensils
of the second temple); for proof we are referred to Zech. chap. xiv. v.20: and, lastly, as
to the book of Genesis, whereas it contains (chap. 36:31) a list of eight kings
who reigned in Idumea — לפני מלך
מלך לבני
ישראל which is rendered in the English
version, "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" — from
this it follows, that the book was not written till long after Moses, i.e. after the
introduction of royalty among the Israelites; and since the princes of Edom are
mentioned in chap. 15:15, of Exodus, the Archaeologist draws another argument against
this latter book having been redacted to its present form before Jeremiah. Reader, have
you ever heard ignorance presuming to teach wisdom? If not, please to procure for
your perusal the 38th volume of Sir R. Phillips's Monthly Magazine, and when you have
read, with the utmost attention what is said there, pp. 34, 35, by the learned
critic, in relation to the antiquity of the biblical writings, you will agree with me,
that hardly a more foolish piece of criticism was even committed to paper, and that no man
could be more ignorant of the subject he presumes to discuss, than our would-be learned
antiquarian. Let us see what he says in relation to the first reason he gives for his
assertion, that Solomon must have been ignorant of what is contained in the twenty-fifth
chapter of Exodus — because he made "eleven single candlesticks." I did
consult the passage in the seventh chapter of the first book of Kings; but, unfortunately
for the Archaeologist's position, the Hebrew word used is
המנרות which ought to be translated "the
candelabras," but not "the candlesticks;" and, in fact, the verse concludes
with — "and the flower-works, and the lamps, and the tongues were
gold." I will but briefly state that נר (Ner)
means a single lamp; מנרה (Menorah),
however, an assemblage of lamps, or candelabras, plural,
מנרות, several
assemblages of lamps, or simply candelabra; in short, Ner and Menorah
bear the same relation in Hebrew as mount and mountain do in English. The
ה is equivalent to the English definite article the;
and for these reasons המנרות
should be translated as I have done, and this must be apparent to every one, even if he be
entirely unacquainted with the Hebrew. If the Archaeologist had now but reflected what
could be meant by the definite article, he would have come to the conclusion that it
alludes evidently to a known form, which form is given in, in continuation, to be flowerwork,
lamps, and tongues: and is this not the same as we find recorded and commanded in
Exodus, chap. 25?
To his second objection I may answer explicitly, that the critic overshot the mark
altogether. The inscription he speaks of, which, by the by, ought properly speaking, to be
given in English, HOLY TO THE ETERNAL was ordered to be engraved on the golden plate
only, which the high priest wore over the mitre; but I defy the Archaeologist, if he
yet lives, or any other person who has adopted his opinions, to produce even the shadow of
evidence to prove that this inscription was to be upon any other utensil spoken of in
Exodus. Was Solomon now to blame for not doing that for which he had not the least warrant
in the Pentateuch? But our critic, to show his complete ignorance, concludes —
"but (the motto) was in use on the return from captivity;" and refers to
Zechariah, chap. 14:20. This verse, however, speaks not of the utensils in use during
the second temple, but relates to the time of the Messiah, for the prophet days: "In
that day there shall be upon the bells of the horses, HOLY TO THE ETERNAL;" and if
this is taken in connection with the whole of the fourteenth chapter, every intelligent
reader will easily discover, without any aid of mine, the time of which Zechariah
treats.
It will thus be seen, that the second objection is too puerile to deserve further
refutation. We now come to the reason given to prove that Moses was not the author of
Genesis. The whole objection rests upon the words, "before there reigned any king of
the children in Israel;" but if we insert a single particle, namely, "yet,"
and read "before there yet reigned," &c. all difficulties will be at
once removed; and Moses, then, meant to say, that up to his time eight kings had been
reigning over Edom, whereas the Israelites had no king yet. But some one may ask me:
"What proof can you produce that your construction is the correct one?" I will
then give this as my reason: Saul, the first king of Israel, was chosen about four hundred
years after the Exodus; the Israelites resided, at the lowest calculation, two hundred and
ten years in Egypt, during all which time there were probably kings in Idumea. I will not
adopt the opinion of the critic, the average reign of these eight kings will
be found to have been seventy-six years! But allow that the last of these kings
lived in Moses's time: the whole duration of their collective reign may then be put down
at two hundred and fifty, and the average reign of each at thirty-one years.
I will not add one word more, but leave it for all judicious men to decide which
hypothesis is the most reasonable.
If, then, the thirty-sixth chapter of Genesis be no objection to its being written by
Moses, no argument can be drawn from it against the authenticity of chap. 15:15, of
Exodus, because allusion is there made to the dukes of Edom. The Archaeologist is further
mistaken in supposing that the Jewish archives, as he is pleased to style our
sacred canon, were ever kept in the ark; for in this ark were only the two tables
on which the Decalogue was inscribed by superhuman agency; but the Pentateuch itself was
kept at the side מצד of the ark. (See Deut. chap.
31:26.) When,
therefore, the critic wishes to draw a distinction between the "canon of the
ark" and the "canon of the temple" — a distinction entirely unknown to
the Hebrews, because in Solomon's time there were only the two tables, (but not nothing,
as A. says,) in the ark, and no other archives (1 Kings, chap. 8:9,) — he comes
to an altogether erroneous conclusion; for the very assertion of the passage in Kings,
"that there was nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses had placed there
in Horeb," proves most incontestably the truth of the opinion I have ventured to
advance.
That, during the reigns of Menasseh and his son, who were very wicked, and addicted to
idolatry, the study of the law was much neglected, and that, in consequence, the copies of
it had become scarce, is extremely probable. When, therefore, Josiah had read the contents
of the book which was found in the temple, in the twenty-sixth year of his age, and the
eighteenth of his reign, he sent to the prophetess Huldah, to enquire of her if she
had received any revelation concerning what God intended to do to the Israelites, because
they had transgressed the commandments contained in the book which had been found. What
evidence can be produced to establish that this book was not the same that was
delivered to the Levites by Moses? I may answer, none whatever. On the contrary, when a
person reads the twenty-second chapter of the 2nd Kings, he will, if not predetermined not
to be convinced, come to the inevitable conclusion, that the book was the entire
Pentateuch, since Josiah observed precepts scattered indiscriminately through the whole
law, (particularly Exodus). And if it even will not be admitted, (because the
supposition be too bold,) that the book was the autograph of Moses, given to the Levites
just before his death, to be kept at the side of the ark, that is inside of the temple, in
the holy of holies, to be there as an evidence against the Israelites, — every
one must confess that it must have been a similar one.
The Archaeologist is further pleased to inform the world, that "the Hebrew was
never the vernacular language of Palestine," and that the Hebrew bible now extant is
"a translation from the original language, made for the use of the Babylonian court,
to enable it the better to govern the conquered province." If any man were to come
forward and say, that the Declaration of Independence is a translation of a Chinese
document, written three thousand years before the creation: he could hardly be more absurd
than the Archaeologist is in saying, that the Hebrew was not the vernacular tongue of the
Jews, but of the Babylonian court. If he had but turned over to the book of Daniel, he
would have seen that the language called Hebrew was not the one spoken in
Nebuchadnezzar's palace, and that there is a radical difference between the Hebrew
and the Chaldean languages; and that the latter was the one spoken and understood by the
Babylonians. Daniel, therefore, when he speaks of what occurred in the king's palace, uses
the last mentioned language; but when he narrates his visions and prayers, and in the
first chapter, he uses his own vernacular tongue, the Hebrew. If, now, the Hebrew was not
vernacular in Palestine, how do the Scriptures exist at all in that language? Could the
Babylonians possibly have ordered a translation into this language, when they and
the Jews were ignorant of it? What should have been the use of it? Turn the matter
as you will, you must arrive at the conclusion, that the Hebrew was the language
spoken by the Israelites, previous to their abduction to Babylon, and that the Scriptures
ever existed in this same language, and in the same style in which we now possess them.
The Archaeologist also says, "that the Decalogue must be an interpolated fragment,
introduced after the captivity." His reasons are, first, because Joshua did inscribe
the Decalogue existing in his time on a single altar; and, secondly, because the long
fling against sculpture would not have been inserted till after the destruction of the
brazen serpent. (2 Kings, chap. 18:4.) Let us consider these objections.
1. "Could Joshua inscribe the Decalogue, as now existing, in large legible
letters on a single altar?" I answer, yes, for in Exodus, chap. 27:1, we read
that the altar made in the wilderness was to be five cubits long, five cubits broad, and
three cubits high; let it also be considered that this altar was carried about from place
to place, but that the one built by Joshua upon mount Ebal was a permanent
structure, built of blocks of entire and unhewn stone, and so large that the whole
Deuteronomy was written on it. (Joshua, chap. 8:32.) If we now even admit that only
the Decalogue was inscribed on this altar, (which, however, remains to be proven, for not
a word is said about the Decalogue,) and that the altar itself was of no larger dimensions
than the one made by Moses, it will yet strike every one, that there was room enough for
the Decalogue upon a surface of sixty square cubits, if the letters were of any reasonable
size.
2. "Could the inhibition against sculpture have been known before Hezekiah?"
Again I must answer in the affirmative. "But did not Moses make the brazen
serpent?" Certainly; but this was by the special command of God. The reason for this
order may perhaps have been this: the Israelites, discontented with the manna, began to
murmur, and to desire something which they thought better. (Numb. chap. 21:5.) God, to
punish them, sent poisonous serpents amongst them, who killed a "large number of
Israel." Being now convinced of their sin, and conscious of their ingratitude towards
God and Moses, they besought him to pray for them to the Eternal, to remove the reptiles
from them. Moses thereupon was ordered to make a serpent, and fix it upon a staff, that
every one bitten might see it, and when seeing it remember his sins, ask forgiveness, and
thus obtain a prolongation of life. As we also read in Tractate Rosh Hashanah,
chap. iii. § 8: "And thus it is also said: 'Make thyself a serpent, and place it
upon a staff, and it shall be that every one who is bitten, and looks at it, shall live.'
But how could the serpent kill or keep alive any man? The serpent itself could not; but
when the Israelites looked towards it on high, and subdued their hearts to their Father in
heaven, they were cured; and if not, they perished." This, then, was the object of
the brazen serpent; but it was done away with as soon as the occasion for which it was
made had passed; and we find no mention made of it till Hezekiah, who destroyed it because
the idolaters in his father's time had paid it adoration, contrary to law. In
short, the brazen serpent was but a temporary suspension of a negative precept,
similar to Elijah's sacrifice on Carmel (see above, page 147); but this precedent was on
no account to be imitated; and can any proof be adduced that it ever was by those
judges and kings who lived according to the precepts of the law? It will therefore be seen
from the foregoing, that the length of the Decalogue is no argument against its identity,
and that the "long fling" against sculpture is any thing but
interpolated.
The next subject for enquiry is what the Archaeologist says in regard to the feelings
towards the Egyptians displayed in the second book, the Exodus, namely. He has discovered
that its intention is to rouse hatred towards the Egyptians in the bosom of the Jews, I
suppose he means by the narrative of our long sufferings in Egypt. But the insinuation
that Jeremiah therefore must have been the author, (so says the Archaeologist,) is as
false as the inference is unjust. I do not suppose that any person will doubt, or
even doubt, that the situation of the Israelites in Egypt was the most abject and
miserable. A historian of our people, intimately acquainted with all that occurred, and
confining himself strictly to facts, transmits an account of the hardships of our
ancestors to posterity, that the latest descendants of Jacob may learn to know the great
wonders and the unbounded mercy of God; in redeeming His people from a state worse than
death. How can he be charged with sinister motives in so doing? Shall history not speak
what is true, because, forsooth, prejudice might be roused against tyrants and oppressors?
Shall vice be unblushingly practiced, and virtue not even dare to raise her voice to
denounce the evil? This ought certainly not to be. And the tyrant will ever be abhorred,
and the wicked be denounced, as long as men love freedom, and preserve a due regard for
virtue.
If, then, the book of Exodus were to give an exaggerated account of our affliction in
Egypt, the charge might perhaps be sustained; or if the Pentateuch would even insinuate
that if it were lawful to hate the people of that country, the author might then be
accused, with some show of reason at least, of displaying too much acrimony. But neither
is the case: all our sufferings are described in about fifty verses, and that without
comment, which was indeed unnecessary, for the enormities practiced towards us required
not many words to make them odious; and so far from our being ordered to hate the
Egyptians, we are commanded (Deut. chap. 23:8,) to receive the grandson of an
Egyptian proselyte into the congregation, "because we were strangers in his
land;" and this surely looks very different from hating our former oppressors. If
Jeremiah, now, had altered the Pentateuch, and added just what he pleased, would he have
suffered the last passage adduced to remain as a damning record against him? Surely
not. Upon the whole, it will be self-evident that all the outcry of the Archaeologist is
mere imagination, and the emanation of a mind filled with prejudice, and bent upon
weakening the authority of the Mosaic law; and that the whole is no more founded upon
truth, than his concluding assertion, or rather insinuation, that Jeremiah quoted at Babylon
documents altogether new to him, up to the time of his making the selections for composing
the Pentateuch (!); which must be untrue, for Jeremiah never was in Babylon,
since we know from his own account, that he fled from Palestine into Egypt. This
country he never left afterwards, for he died there; and I defy any person to produce the
slightest proof to establish that he ever was in Babylon. The charges made by the
Archaeologist against Jeremiah for want of patriotism require no refutation, as every body
will no doubt be gladly inclined to acquit him of a crime — for crime it is — of
which Jews are but seldom guilty; for a national feeling, deep-rooted and heartfelt, is
their principal characteristic. And do not the Lamentations of Jeremiah of themselves
sufficiently prove how deeply he felt and mourned for the downfall of Jerusalem?
—
Since some of my readers may perhaps think this criticism of mine out of place, I deem
it necessary to state the following reason as my justification. Having seen by accident
the remarks of the critic, I thought to myself, who is this uncircumcised
Philistine, that he blasphemes so against our holy law? Again I reflected, and found that
his arguments were perhaps as good as can be adduced in favor of his position. I resolved
therefore, to refute them, thinking that, by doing so, I should in the best manner
possible establish the assertion at the head of the second chapter; and I hope that I have
proved almost beyond a doubt that Moses, and Moses alone, must have been the writer of the
books which bear his name.
In conclusion, I would remark, that most objections raised against the authenticity of
the Bible are predicated upon the lack of understanding of our language and our customs;
and it therefore happens that, whether they are urged by a Voltaire, a Paine, a Cooper, or
an unlearned man of the lowest degree, they all bear the characteristic of consisting more
of assertion without proof than of sound argument. And however formidable they may appear
to one who only reads a translated Bible, which naturally must contain more or less
inaccuracies, they can weigh but little with one acquainted with the language and habits
of the people to whom the Bible was given. Much more might be added; but the length to
which the subject has been carried already admonishes me to desist for the present.
|
