CLAIMED ANACHRONISMS

There are in the Pentateuch many passages which are claimed by the analytic critics as referring to events that occurred after the time of Moses. They argue, and correctly, too, that a writing must be later than any event mentioned in it.¹ But this argument from claimed anachronisms, as employed by the critics, involves two fallacies. One of these consists in putting particular passages for the entire book in which they are found. The critics virtually reason thus: Moses did not write a certain passage or certain passages; therefore he did not write the Pentateuch. The viciousness of their logic is the more glaring because of their almost invariably assuming that passages which stand in the way of their hypotheses are additions made to the original writing by later hands. Another fallacious proceeding of the critics in their contention about Pentateuchal anachronisms is their employment of the very history which they decry as untrustworthy. In their desire and effort to fix the writing of some passage or book after the occurrence of a particular event, they take that event, as to character, time, and place, just as it is related in the Pentateuch.

But let us examine the passages cited to prove anachronisms.

I. "And the Canaanite was then in the land";² "And the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land."³

It is implied in these passages that there was a time when the nations mentioned were not in the land, and the analytic critics, Voltaire, Reuss, Kuenen, Wellhausen, and others, claim that this implied time was subsequent to the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. In this way they endeavor to make out an anachronism and to prove that the Book of Genesis was written long after the time of Moses. But these critics virtually inject the word still into these texts, and read, "The Canaanite was then still in the land"; "The Canaanite and the Perizzite were then still dwelling in the land." Reuss, indeed, translates the first passage thus: "Bien que les Cananéens fussent alors dans ce pays"⁴ (although the Canaanites were then in this country) — a fair enough translation. But in a marginal note he remarks, "Que le mot alors serait bien étrange dans la bouche de Moise"⁴ ("The word then ["alors"] is strange in the mouth of Moses"). Thus Reuss and other analysts read into the passage the idea expressed by the word still, or yet. But the original Hebrew word means simply then, or at that time. It is so defined by Gesenius, who refers to one of these passages, and it is so translated elsewhere. The sacred historian merely states that Abram arrived at Moreh and that the Canaanite was at that time in the land; that a strife arose between Abram's herdmen and those of Lot, and that at that time the Canaanite and Perizzite were dwelling in the land. The implication is that the Canaanite and Perizzite were already in the land before the arrival of Abram and Lot, and not that these people had disappeared from the country at the time of the conquest. Indeed, as a matter of fact, they continued in the country after the conquest, for it is expressly stated that the Canaanites continued to dwell "in mount Lebanon, from mount Baal-hermon unto the entering in of Hamath"; and that after the conquest "the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites."⁵ Our analytic critics, contrary to the plainest historical statements, imagine that there were no Canaanites nor Perizzites in Canaan after the conquest. They appeal to history, which they have already decried as incorrect and untrustworthy, and even that they misquote and misrepresent.

There was a time, however, when there were no Canaanites nor Perizzites in the land. That was a time previous to the immigration of Abraham. On his arrival he found them there. They were there then. As to how long they had been there or how long they remained, the passage gives no information. The anachronism exists only in the imagination of the analysts.

2. An anachronism is claimed also in the references to the city of Hebron. It is mentioned as existing in the time of Abraham. The references to it are as follows: "Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord";⁶ "And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba; the same is Hebron in the land of Caanan";⁷ "And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan";⁸ "And Jacob came unto Isaac his father unto Mamre, unto the city of Arba, which is Hebron, where Abraham and Isaac sojourned";⁹ "And they [the spies] ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)";¹⁰ "And the name of Hebron before was Kirjath-arba; which Arba was a great man among the Anakims."¹¹

Thus in Joshua the statement is that the former name of Hebron was Kirjath-arba; but it is designated as Hebron in the time of Abraham and in the time of the spies. The inference of some of the critics is that Kirjath-arba was not called Hebron until it was given by Joshua to Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, and that therefore all these references to Kirjath-arba as Hebron must have been written after the conquest and division of Canaan, hence not by Moses. Reuss presents this argument very adroitly. After declaring the Book of Joshua to be utterly untrustworthy, he could not well quote it to prove the incorrectness of Genesis and Numbers. But he translates both the expressions, "the same is Hebron," and "which is Hebron," by the phrase, "anjourd'hui Hébròn" ("at this time Hebron"), putting the words in parentheses. In a marginal note he describes Hebron as "the chief place of the tribe of Judah," not recognizing its existence in the time of Abraham at all.¹² In this way Reuss assumes and insinuates that all the references to Hebron in Genesis were written by an author who lived long after the time of Moses.

We do not object to putting the above-mentioned clauses in parentheses; for they are in their nature parenthetic, and probably the original writer would have enclosed them in parenthetic signs if such signs had been in use in his time. Nor do we object to the suggestion that these clauses were inserted in the original document by a redactor. But our position is that this redactor may have lived in the time of Moses, or may have been Moses himself. For Hebron may have been the original name of the city, to which Kirjath-arba was afterward added, this second name being dropped at the time of the conquest and division of Canaan, as related in Joshua.¹³ Even Bleek, who cites Genesis 13:18 as containing an anachronism, virtually surrenders the point by adopting this suggestion.¹⁴

We have now, however, in this matter much more than the suggestion of a possibility. The archaeologists have shown that the possible in this case is not only the probable, but the real. They have demonstrated that a century before the exodus Palestine was a province of the Egyptian empire, and that cities and places with which we are so familiar in the Scriptures — Jerusalem, Megiddo, Taanach, Gibeah, Kishon, Hebron, and nearly all the rest — were well known to the officials of the Egyptian government.¹⁵ Hebron is one of the places mentioned in the Egyptian monuments. "The spring of Hebron" is mentioned as one of the places in Palestine conquered by Rameses II. It is also found in the inscriptions among the places conquered by Rameses III.¹⁶ It is generally agreed by Egyptologists that Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the oppression. It is thus in evidence that in the century preceding the exodus there was in Palestine a town famous for its springs, called Hebron, a place of sufficient importance to be named among the conquests of one of the greatest of the Egyptian kings. There is no anachronism, then, in the references made to this place in Genesis. The writer of Genesis calls it Hebron, though he says that in his time it was also called Kirjath-arba. He intimates, however, that Hebron was the original and better known name, for when he speaks of the time of the building of the town he calls it Hebron, not Kirjath-arba. Whenever he uses the latter name, he informs his readers that he means Hebron.¹⁷ Now the Egyptian monuments, as above mentioned, prove that in the time of Moses, and before his time, there was a city or town in Canaan called Hebron. The monuments are as yet silent as to Hebron being for a time called also Kirjath-arba. But, as matters are now going, perhaps the next steamer that comes across the Atlantic will bring word that the excavators in Palestine or Egypt have discovered evidence of the double name. In the meantime, this much has already been ascertained, that before the time of Moses the city was known by the name of Hebron, which refutes the charge of anachronism.

3. "Pursued them unto Dan."¹⁸

It is claimed that here "Dan" is employed to designate in the time of Abraham a city that did not receive that name until more than three hundred years after the time of Moses.¹⁹ Voltaire, Paine, Reuss, and other analytic critics so maintain.

The argument of the critical objectors in this case is made up of inconsistencies and assumptions. Though they have much to say about redactions, interpolations, and mistakes, and the resultant uncertainties, in the Pentateuch and elsewhere in the Bible, they nevertheless accept with unwavering confidence the account of the change of the name of Laish to Dan, in the books of Joshua and Judges. They assume that Laish was not formerly called Dan, just as Kirjath-arba was originally called Hebron, the name which it afterward again received. They assume that there was only one city Dan, that is, Laish-Dan, which the Danites took by force, and named after their ancestor. These critical objectors further assume that Dan, as mentioned in Genesis, was a city, though it was not so called, and though Josephus expressly says that it here designates one of the forks of the Jordan, Jor being the name of the other.²⁰ Totally ignoring the statement of Josephus, the objectors assume that Dan was a city, that there was but one city called Dan, that it was not called Dan before it was captured by the Danites, and that the name "Dan" was not substituted in Genesis by a redactor copyist for "Laish."

4. "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel."²¹

It is maintained that the writer of this passage must have lived after the establishment of the monarchy among the Israelites — at least four hundred years after Moses. Such is the ground taken by Voltaire, Paine, Reuss, and Wellhausen. Paine affirms that this passage proves that Genesis was not written until the time of Saul, and that, as the words "any king" imply more than one, we are brought to the time of David at least. Reuss expresses the same view with disdainful confidence: "Du reste, I'auteur qui a rédigé cette liste n'a pas vécu avant Pépoque de David et de Solomon. On devrait enfin ne plus se donner le ridicule de nier cela."²² ("Finally, the author who reduced this list to writing did not live before the time of David and of Solomon. People ought no longer to make themselves ridiculous by denying that.")

Notwithstanding the overweening confidence of these critics, there is something to be said on the other side.

(1) Saul was not the first Israelitish king. It is a matter of express and plain record that Abimelech, the son of Gideon, was king in Israel more than two centuries before the time of Saul. The Book of Judges reads as follows: "And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of Millo, and went and made Abimelech king, by the plain of the pillar."²³ Nor was the authority of Abimelech limited to one city or one tribe; for it is further recorded that Abimelech reigned over Israel three years. It is not, indeed, recorded that he was regularly and permanently established as king, nor that his kingly authority was universally acknowledged. But it is recorded that Abimelech reigned over Israel three years.²⁴ This fills the description in Genesis 36:31: "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel," — any king, regular or irregular, permanent or temporary. Thus, instead of bringing us down to the time of Saul or David, as these critics so confidently assert, this passage does not bring us within two centuries of that time.

(2) Nor does this passage really bring us to a time later than Moses; for there was a king in Israel in the time of Moses — Moses himself The title of king is expressly given him. "Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. And he was king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together."²⁵ Moses was recognized as king even beyond the limits of the Hebrew nation. Balaam, the son of Beor, said, "He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them."²⁶ Moses at this time was the head and ruler of the nation, and must be the king to whom Balaam referred.

Moses and after him Joshua were more kingly in character and position than the chiefs or emirs that reigned in Edom before any king reigned in Israel. These Edomite kings, a list of whom is given, were not hereditary rulers, for no one of them was the son of his predecessor, and they lived in different cities. It is evident that they were such kings as Jephthah and Gideon among the Israelites. Reuss virtually admits all this in saying: "Il ne s'agit pas ici d'une monarchic hereditaire, mais d'une succession de chefs ou emirs (militaires et electifs) places a la tete d'une confederation de tribus. On pourrait comparer cette forme de governement a celle qu'on suppose d'ordinaire aux Israelites du temps des juges, mais á Pegard de ceux lá la critique historique fait ses reserves."²⁷ ("The reference is not to a hereditary monarchy, but to a succession of chiefs or emirs, military or elective, placed at the head of a confederation of tribes. This form of government may be compared to that which may be regarded as common among the Israelites during the time of the judges, but in regard to the latter the critical historian makes his reservations.") Well, then, the Edomite chiefs or emirs are called kings in our passage, and the corresponding magistrates among the Israelites, called judges, are styled kings also; and among these irregular magistrates must be included Moses, who was the greatest king of them all.

Besides these facts, which indicate that the passage under consideration may have been written in the time of Moses, and even by Moses himself, there are some positive considerations which suggest that the writer must have lived before the establishment of the monarchy. A writer who lived after that event would not be likely to use the word "king" as he does, applying it to the chiefs of the Edomites and to the irregular magistrates of the Israelites called judges. This use of the word points to a time when there were only irregular and temporary magistrates.

Besides, there is reason to believe that the writer of the passage under consideration was contemporary with Hadar, the last mentioned king of the Edomites,²⁸ for, though the death of each one of his predecessors is mentioned, his is not. Neither is his successor mentioned. Yet the name of his city is given, and his wife's name, and her mother's, and her grandfather's, or, possibly, her grandmother's. A writer disposed to enter thus into particulars would doubtless have recorded the death of Hadar, had he not been still living. This view is confirmed by the fact that the account of the Edomite kings given in Chronicles is the same with that in Genesis, except that in the former the death of Hadar (Hadad) is mentioned.²⁹ All these facts are accounted for by the view that Hadar was still living when the list of Edomite kings in Genesis was made out, but had died before the writer in Chronicles made a copy of it.

Still further, the word "king" is used in this wide sense in the Book of Judges. The phrase, "when there was no king in Israel," so often employed in that book, refers by way of contrast, not to the subsequent times of the monarchy, but to the preceding times, when Moses, Joshua, and other efficient judges exercised central authority. The expression, "when there was no king in Israel," points to a time when there was a suspension of the national authority through the inefficiency of the judge, or in consequence of there being temporarily no judge at all.

The hypothesis that Moses wrote this passage in the assured belief that, in accordance with divine promise and prophecy, there would be an established line of monarchs in Israel in succeeding times, is not necessary, but is more reasonable than the view of Reuss and others, who make the word "king" in one clause of the verse³⁰ mean elective military chiefs; and in the other, established hereditary monarchs. Certainly Moses was more of a king than any of the Edomite captains, and he is expressly called a king. Our passage,^ then, means that there were established and recognized rulers among the Edomites before there were any such among the Israelites, that is, before the time of Moses.

5. Another anachronism is claimed in the use of the name "Moriah" to designate the place where Abraham was directed to offer up Isaac.³¹ It is maintained that, according to the chronicler, the name was unknown until the time of David.³² Voltaire, quoting from Aben-Ezra, sets forth the fact that Moriah is called the mountain of the Lord, as a reason for holding that the Pentateuch was reduced to writing long after the time of Moses.³³ Reuss thinks it very natural that an attempt should be made to give a sort of anticipative consecration to the place on which the temple was built.³⁴ Both he and Voltaire refer to the chronicler³² in proof of the claimed anachronism.

We reply: (1) That the analytic critics pronounce the chronicler to be utterly untrustworthy as a historian, but here one of his incidental statements is brought confidently forward to prove a chronological inaccuracy in the Book of Genesis.

(2) The statement in Chronicles shows only that Mount Moriah was chosen as the site of the temple because David had

(3) It is in evidence that there was a "mount of God"³⁵ in Palestine long before the time of Moses. In the list of Palestinian cities conquered by Thothmes III. is the name "Har-el" ("mount of God"), which has been identified with the geographical position of Jerusalem, as is shown by Professor Sayce, in his late work.³⁶ It is thus proved that more than two centuries before the exodus there was a mountain called the mount of God in the region of Jerusalem, corresponding to the Mount Moriah of Genesis.

(4) Even Reuss, after bringing forward this argument apparently with his customary assurance, virtually admits its invalidity, as follows: "Le texte parle de Tune des montagnes de la terre de Moriah, et les anciennes versiones n'ont pas toutes un nom prope ici"³⁷ ("The text speaks of one of the mountains of the land of Moriah, and not all the ancient versions have the proper name here " ).

6. Anachronism is claimed in the reference to "the book of the wars of the Lord."³⁸

The objectors urge that this book did not exist until after the time of Moses. Voltaire says, " Comment Moise auasit-il cité le livre des guerres du Seigneur, quand ces guerres et ce livre perdu lui sont posterieurs?"³⁹ ("How could Moses quote the wars of the Lord, when these wars and this lost book were subsequent to his time?") Reuss also affirms that the wars of the Lord began only in the last year of the life of Moses, and that materials could not have been furnished for such a book while the Israelites were still far from the Jordan."⁴⁰

The denial of the existence of this book in the time of Moses, on the ground that the wars of the Lord had not yet taken place, furnishes another remarkable example of the ignoring of Jewish history. There were many wars of the Lord before the Israelites came to the Jordan.

(1) There was the war at the Red Sea, where the Lord did all the fighting, and where, after the war was over, the Israelites sang songs in honor of the conqueror: "The Lord is a man of war";⁴¹ " Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea."⁴² Here was material for the book of the wars of the Lord.

(2) Then there was the war of the Amalekites, which took place in less than three months after the exodus. Joshua led the Israelites in battle, while Moses sat on the top of the hill with the rod of God in his hand, Aaron and Hur staying up his hands until Amalek was discomfited.⁴³ Here was more material for the book of the wars of the Lord. ' ' And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua."⁴⁴

(3) Next came the war of Hormah, where a southern tribe of Canaanites made an attack on the Israelites and captured some of them. The tide of war at first was against the Israelites, but they made vows in order to gain the victory, and in the end destroyed their assailants and their cities.⁴⁵

(4) The fourth war was with Sihon, king of the Amorites, who made an attack on the Israelites. But they smote him and his people, and took their cities and lands.⁴⁶

(5) After this Og, the king of Bashan, and all his people went out to Edrei to battle against Israel. But they smote him and his people, and took possession of his country.⁴⁷

(6) The sixth war was with the Midianites. In accordance with the direction of Moses, twelve thousand Hebrew warriors went against them, slew all the males, took thirty-two thousand captives, burnt all the cities and castles, captured six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep, seventy-two thousand beeves, and sixty-one thousand asses.⁴⁸

All these wars took place before the death of Moses, and yet some critics declare that there were not materials sufficient for the making up of the book of the wars of the Lord. It is true that some of these wars took place near the close of the life of Moses; but he may have revised his writings near the close of his life and inserted this reference to the war-book. Perhaps Moses was the author of it. It appears that he was divinely recognized as the most suitable person to write such a book.⁴⁴ At all events, it is shown that the wars of the Lord began before the Israelites were fairly out of Egypt, and that a book of the wars was begun in less than three months after the exodus. Within these three months, forty years before the death of Moses, two famous wars — the Egyptian and Amalekite — had been finished, and were already celebrated in song and history. Four other wars were waged and finished before Moses died. The contention, then, of Voltaire, Reuss, and other critics that a book of the wars of the Lord could have been written only after the death of Moses is shown to be groundless.

7. A similar argument has been drawn from the references to the Book of Jasher.⁴⁹ It is claimed that inasmuch as this is quoted in Joshua, and yet contains some of the compositions of David,⁵⁰ the Book of Joshua must have been written after the time of David.⁵¹ And as the analytic critics unite in thought the Book of Joshua with the five preceding books, and call the whole the Hexateuch, they thus derive an argument to prove that the Pentateuch was not written till long after the time of Moses. But even if it be admitted that the reference in Samuel indicates that the Book of Jasher contained some of David's compositions, which is by no means certain, it does not follow that it did not exist in the time of Joshua, because the book, though existing in Joshua's time, may have afterward contained songs written by David. A collection of national songs was sure to receive additions from age to age. The Book of Psalms was formed in this way. The mode of argumentation adopted by these anti-Mosaic critics would lead to the conclusion that the Davidic psalms were written after the exile. The Book of Jasher, then, may have existed in the time of Joshua and of Moses, and have had additions made to it in the time of David. The mention of this book, therefore, in times previous to David does not prove anachronism.

8. "And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan."⁵²

Inasmuch as it is stated in the Book of Joshua that the manna ceased after the Israelites crossed the Jordan,⁵³ and since Moses died before that event, it is maintained that the writer of the above passage must have lived after the crossing of the Jordan and after the death of Moses. This is one of the arguments that Voltaire appears to have overlooked; but Paine, Reuss, and other critics make use of it. Reuss's presentation of it is as follows:

"Ce n'est là qu'un premier sujet de douter. Dès le début il est parlé de choses qui n'arrivent qu'ò la fin du voyage. Exodus 16:35, nous lisons que les Israelites se sont nourris de manne jusqu'a ce qu'ils fussent arrives dans leur nouvelle patrie. In efifet, Joshua 5:12 affirme que la pluie de manne cessa cinq jours aprés le passage du Jordain, c'esta-dire au plus tot six semaines aprés la mort de Moïse (Deut. 34:8; Josh, 1:11; 2:32; 4:19). Mais le texte de l'Exode parle au passé défini, et non au futur."⁵⁴ ("We have here only a prime subject of doubt. At the very start, things are mentioned that happened only at the close of the journeying. In Exodus 16:35 we read that the Israelites are fed by manna until they have come into their new country. It is, in effect, affirmed (Josh. 5:12) that the rain of manna ceased five days after the passage of the Jordan, that is to say, more than six weeks after the death of Moses. But the text of Exodus speaks of the past definite, not of the future.") The argumentation of Reuss is not conclusive:

(1) It is no proof of inaccuracy or of untrustworthiness that things which took place at the close of the journeying are mentioned in Exodus. In history, especially in Bible history, events are not always related in their chronological order; nor does a departure from chronological order create doubt or suspicion, except in the minds of analytic critics and skeptics.

(2) Moses may have written the Book of Exodus at the beginning of the wandering, and inserted this passage⁵⁵ near the close of his life on a final review. There is nothing improper in an author's redacting his own writings.

(3) The passage does not speak of the cessation of the manna at all. It states merely that the Israelites ate manna forty years, and that they ate it until they came to an inhabited country — the borders of Canaan. There is not a word about the cessation of the manna, nor even of the Israelites' ceasing to eat it. The declaration that the Israelites ate manna until they came to the borders of Canaan may seem to imply that then they ceased, and the objector, of course, supposes that they ceased to eat manna at that time because they could not get it; and he further supposes that their inability to get it resulted from its ceasing to fall. But there is not a word of all this in the text. It affirms merely that the Israelites ate manna until they came to the borders of Canaan; but this does not necessarily imply that then they ceased to eat it. When the Hebrew said, "I will call on God as long as I live," or, "I will call on God until I die,'* he did not mean that then he would cease to call on God. When a man and woman, at marriage, solemnly engage to love one another until death, there is no implied promise that they will cease to love each other when they die.

Though, then, the manna ceased after the crossing of the Jordan and six weeks after the death of Moses, there is nothing in this passage that might not have been written by him. The utter silence of the author of this passage concerning the crossing of the Jordan, the entrance into Canaan, and the actual cessation of the manna suggests that he died before these events took place, and that if he were not Moses, he at least lived in the Mosaic age.

But if our passage does indeed imply that the manna ceased when the Israelites came to the borders of Canaan and before the death of Moses, still there is here no anachronism, but a mere discrepancy between Exodus and Joshua as to time. The objector, of course, here gives the preference to the Book of Joshua, however much he may decry in general its historical accuracy. But, after all, may not the ceasing to eat manna have begun as soon as the Israelites reached the border of Canaan, and the manna continued until after the crossing of the Jordan.? There is a distinction to be made between the ceasing to eat manna and the ceasing of the manna itself. People who had been eating manna nearly forty years would embrace the very first opportunity to procure other food.

9. "The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them."⁵⁶

The analytic critics maintain that this passage refers to the conquest of Canaan as an accomplished fact, and therefore could not have been written by Moses. Reuss says, "On remarquera qu'il y est question de la conquête de la Palestine comme d'un fait passé"⁵⁷ ("It is to be remarked that the question here is concerning the conquest of Palestine as a past fact"). Kuenen sententiously refers to this passage to show that, according to the historical standpoint of the writer, Canaan was already in the possession of Israel.⁵⁸

According to this view, Moses, who died before the conquest, cannot be the author of this passage. Our contention, however, is that this passage refers to conquests made before the death of Moses.

(1) The Israelites had conquered the Amorites, taken their land, and dwelt in all their cities and villages.⁵⁹

(2) Next they destroyed Og, the king of Bashan, and his people. The record states that they left none of his sons or of his people alive, and possessed his land.⁶⁰

(3) The subjugation of the Midianites furnishes a third example of conquest and spoliation. Israel made war upon them, killed the men, took the women and children captive, burnt the cities and castles, and seized the cattle, sheep, and goods.⁶¹

In addition to all these conquests, before the death of Moses all east Palestine had been subdued, and with his consent and by his direction was divided up among the two and a half tribes. During the last two years of Moses' life the south Canaanites,⁶² the Amorites, and Midianites were destroyed; King Arad, King Sihon, King Og, and five kings of Midian were slain, their armies annihilated, their cities burned, their goods plundered, and their lands (except those of the Midianites) seized, divided, and held as a permanent possession. In this way was treated the whole transjordanic region. In view of these facts, Moses might well say orally, and afterward in writing, that the Edomites destroyed their predecessors and seized their lands, "as Israel did to the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them."

We suggest two changes in the English translation, one of which the original requires, and the other of which it allows. The first is the omission of the article before the word "land" (as there is no article in the original); and the other is the substitution of the present-perfect tense of the verb for the past. The sentence will then read as follows: "As Israel has done to land of his possession." The error of the critics is in understanding "the land of his possession" to mean all the land of his possession. The omission of the article in English, as in the original Hebrew, makes more evident the error.

10. Deuteronomy 3:11, the account of Og's iron bedstead.

The critics claim that though Og, the giant king, was slain in the last year of Moses' life, in this passage his bedstead is mentioned as a thing of antiquity, and therefore the passage must have been written long after Mosaic times. This is the view presented by Voltaire,⁶³ Paine,⁶⁴ Reuss, Kuenen, and many others. Reuss comments as follows: "A Rabbah on montrait le pretendu lit de fer du géant Og, qui avait eté tue dans l'année méme de la mort de Moïse, et le texte (Deut. 3:11) fait remarquer comme une chose memorable que ce lit existe encore. En general, tout ce chapitre, ainsi que le précédent, raconte les événements de cette même année comme si c'etaient des faits appartenant á une époque lointaine."⁶⁵ ("At Rabbah is shown the pretended iron bedstead of the giant Og, who had been killed in the very year of Moses' death, and the text (Deut. 3:11) mentions it as a memorable thing that this bedstead still exists. In general, this entire chapter, as also the preceding, relates the events of this same year as if they were facts pertaining to a distant period.") Kuenen oracularly writes, "Og's bed, a relic of antiquity."⁶⁶

The basis of the argument in this case is wholly imaginary. There is not one word in this passage to indicate that the iron bedstead was a very old one, or that Og had been a long time dead. Even the formula "unto this day" is not found here. The only thing mentioned as extraordinary is the size of the bedstead, and even this is adduced merely to prove that Og was truly a giant. For anything that is said in the passage, the bedstead may not have been a year older than when its gigantic owner last lay upon it. Its antiquity is wholly an achievement of the critical imagination. The critics practice exegesis on the text first, and then proceed to the work of exegesis.

11. "Unto this day."

This phrase is employed very often in the Pentateuch, and is cited by the analysts to prove that many of the passages in which it is found cannot have been written in the time of Moses. They claim that it suggests a period of many years as intervening between the age of Moses and the time in which the passages containing this formula were written. The following passage from Deuteronomy may serve as an example: "Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi, and called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this day."⁶⁷ It is claimed that the formula "unto this day" indicates a long lapse of time previous to the time of the writer, and that, as Moses lived only a short time after the transactions referred to took place, he cannot be the writer of this passage. Many other passages in the Pentateuch contain this phrase, and if it necessarily implies a long lapse of time the most of them must have been written long after the time of Moses.

Now Reuss affirms that "unto this day" always implies antiquity. His words are, "La formule implique toujours la notion de l'antiquité"⁶⁸ ("The formula always implies the notion of antiquity"). If the critic had only paid a little attention to the exegesis of the phrase, he certainly would not have made this affirmation. Genesis 19:37, 38:"Moab... the father of the Moabites unto this day. . . . Ben-ammi. . . the father of the children of Ammon unto this day." Here present time is indicated, or at least the sacred writer did not mean to say that Moab had been the father of the Moabites for a long time, and that Ben-ammi had been a long time the father of the Ammonites. Genesis 48:15:"The God which fed me all my life long unto this day." Here "unto this day" means present time, and, though preceding time is indeed referred to, it is expressed by the words "all my life long." Numbers 22:30: "Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day?" The time referred to here is not antiquity, nor a long period, but merely the time since the ass had come into Balaam's possession, at most only a few years, and this is expressed by the words "ever since I was thine," while "unto this day" refers only to present time. It is not necessary to discuss the character of the occurrence here mentioned, nor to inquire whether the ass spoke, if it spoke at all, in the Hebrew language. We have the record in Hebrew, and doubtless the language employed accords with good Hebrew usage. Joshua 22:3: Joshua said unto the two and a half tribes, "Ye have not left your brethren these many days unto this day." The time here referred to is the time in which the Israelites were engaged in conquering Canaan, that is, about seven years, and is here expressed by the words "these many days," while "unto this day," as usual, here means present time. I. Samuel 29:6, 8:Achish said to David, "I have not found evil in thee since the day of thy coming unto me unto this day." David, in his reply, said:" But what have I done? and what hast thou found in thy servant, so long as I have been with thee unto this day?" Here our formula again means simply up to the present time, while the preceding time is indicated by other words. In this case the period designated is only a year and four months, for that was the time David had spent in the land of the Philistines.⁶⁹ 1 Samuel 12:2: Samuel said to his countrymen, "I have walked before you from my childhood unto this day." Here, once more, not antiquity, not a long period, but a single lifetime is meant, and that is expressed by the whole phrase "from my childhood unto this day," which is equivalent to "from my childhood to the present time."

On examination, then, we find (1) that the words "unto this day" do not of themselves imply antiquity, nor a long period, but are often employed when the implied time is brief, the lifetime of a man, the lifetime of an ass, seven years, sixteen months, or a still shorter period; (2) that when any period of time, longer or shorter, is designated, it is not done by the formula "unto this day," but by added words or phrases; and (3) that this formula is precisely equivalent to "unto the present time." Thus, the phrase "from my childhood unto this day" is equivalent to "from my childhood until now.

Kuenen, a man of more sober judgment than Reuss, though perhaps even more dogmatic, sets entirely aside the dictum of the latter quoted above, and virtually concedes the futility of the argument derived from this formula by declaring ' ' that there is nothing in this expression absolutely to preclude the Mosaic date," and by giving up all the passages containing this formula in Genesis and all but three in Deuteronomy⁷⁰ as not necessarily referring to times later than Moses.⁷¹ Even in regard to the argument as founded on these three passages, he weakens (a thing very unusual with him), as is indicated by the following declaration: "At any rate, the use of the formula ' even to this day' inclines us to place the writers of the Hexateuch long after the times of Moses and Joshua."⁷²

It is not strange that Kuenen, after having given up all but three of the passages containing this formula, should only be inclined to rely on these as proving the Pentateuch to have been written long after the time of Moses. One of these passages is Deuteronomy 34:6, where the writer, speaking of the burial of Moses, says, "But no man knoweth of his sepulcher unto this day." As we have shown, so far as this passage itself is concerned, it may have been written within a year or even within a month after the death of Moses. The writer merely states that at the time he wrote no one knew of the sepulcher of Moses, but does not even intimate that Moses had been long dead.

Another passage which Kuenen declines to give up entirely is Deuteronomy 10:8, where it is stated that, at a former time, the tribe of Levi was appointed "to stand before the Lord to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day." We have an account of this separation of the tribe of Levi in the third chapter of Numbers, nearly forty years before the words recorded in this passage purport to have been spoken by Moses. But, as we have shown, Moses might have used the same phraseology, even though that event had taken place only a year or two before. According to Kuenen's view, the writer of Deuteronomy puts improper phraseology in the mouth of Moses, representing him as using words near the time of the occurrence that could be appropriately employed only long afterward. But the author of Deuteronomy thoroughly understood the Hebrew language, and it is more likely that Kuenen and other critics are mistaken than that he committed a grammatical blunder.

The remaining passage which Kuenen declines to give up is the one with which we set out — Deuteronomy 3:14, "called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this day." But we have shown that the formula here employed, by itself considered, means merely present time. We have shown also that Kuenen himself admits that "there is nothing in this expression absolutely to preclude the Mosaic date." We have further shown that in some cases the statement made in connection with this formula refers to a very brief period of time, as, for example, the time of David's sojourn in the land of the Philistines. Once more, the writer of our passage appears to have been living at the time Jair called the villages after his own name. No preceding time or event is expressed or implied. Jair named the villages "unto this day," at this time, the time then present. And the words purport to be spoken by Moses. Did the author of Deuteronomy commit a blunder in grammar in representing Moses as using language which was applicable only to events long after their occurrence.? To employ the phraseology as an argument to prove that the writer lived long after the Mosaic age is to assume that Moses did not speak the words attributed to him, and that the writer committed the literary blunder of attributing words to him that he could not have spoken without a grammatical error.

12. Joseph's declaration: "For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews."⁷³

The analysts maintain that Palestine was not called the land of the Hebrews until after the conquest of Canaan, and therefore Moses could not have written this passage. Kuenen coolly assumes the anachronism without proof. Reuss's presentation of the objection is as follows: "Joseph raconte á Pharaoh qu'il a été enlevé du pays des Hébreux. (Gen. 40:15.) Comment le pays de Canaan pouvait-il étre nommé ainsi, soit par un individu qui, avec ses onze fréres, était le seul represéntant de la nation des Hébreux, soit par Moïse du temps duqual il n'y avait pas un seul homme de cette race dans le pays?"⁷⁴  ("Joseph relates to Pharaoh that he was carried off from the country of the Hebrews. (Gen. 40:15.) How could the country of Canaan be named thus, either by an individual who, with his eleven brothers, was the sole representative of the nation of the Hebrews, or by Moses, at the time in which there was not a single man of this race in the country?")

This statement is marked by the characteristic inaccuracy of its author.

(1) Joseph related, not to Pharaoh, as Reuss states, but to the chief butler, how he had been taken from the land of the Hebrews.⁷⁵

(2) Reuss errs again in asserting that Joseph, with his eleven brothers, was the sole representative of the Hebrew nation. When he said this, he must have forgotten Jacob, his numerous grandsons, and the whole company of sixty-six persons, including only two of the women, that went down into Egypt.

(3) Our critic makes a mistake, or does worse, in using the word "nation" in this connection. Neither Joseph nor Moses calls Jacob's family a nation. They are simply called Hebrews.

(4) It is an unjustifiable assumption to assert, as our critic does, that if Moses wrote this passage he must have written it when there was not a single man of the Hebrew race in the country. It is possible that Moses revised the Book of Genesis near the close of his life, and that he inserted this very phrase, "land of the Hebrews," after the two and a half tribes, including more than one hundred thousand able-bodied men, with their wives and children, — in all, more than three hundred thousand persons, — had been permanently settled in Palestine east of the Jordan.⁷⁶ Critics, who have so much to say about the revising and touching up of books, ought to allow that an ancient author might revise and retouch his own writings.

(5) In the circumstances, Joseph's calling Canaan the land or country of the Hebrews was both natural and proper. What else would he have called it? Had he called it Canaan or the land of the Canaanites, the Egyptians would have regarded him as a Canaanite. If he had named it Palestine or the country of the Philistines, he would have been regarded as a Philistine. He was a Hebrew. His great-grandfather, a mighty prince,⁷⁷ was known as Abraham the Hebrew. This name was transmitted to his descendants. The Pentateuchal history shows that in Egypt they were called, not Israelites nor Jews, but Hebrews. Thus the Egyptians knew them and named them.⁷⁸ In speaking, then, of Palestine to an Egyptian it was very natural and proper that Joseph should designate it as the land or country of the Hebrews, or the country in which the Hebrews lived. It seems, however, that Reuss objects to the use of this expression in Joseph's and Moses' time, on the ground that the Hebrews did not own the country until after the conquest. In his note on the passage he says: "Un pays des Hébreux n'a existé qu'aprés la conquete. Ni Joseph ni Moïse n'a pu s'exprimer ainsi."⁷⁹ ("A country of the Hebrews existed only after the conquest. Neither Joseph nor Moses could have expressed himself thus.") Had Jacob and his sons no country at all? Canaan was theirs because they lived in it, just as people in general call the country in which they live their own, whether they possess any real estate in it or not.

But whether correct or not, it was natural for Joseph to call the land from which he had been carried off the land of the Hebrews, and it was proper for the historian to record accurately his words.

13. Another case of claimed anachronism is the naming of the villages of Jair. The passages on which the claim of anachronism is founded are as follows: "And Jair the son of Manasseh went and took the small towns thereof, and called them Havoth-jair."⁸⁰ In the address of Moses, recorded in Deuteronomy, the statement is repeated that Jair took certain towns and districts and ' * called them after his own name, Bashanhavoth-jair, unto this day."⁸¹ But in Judges we have an account of a man named Jair, a Gileadite, who "judged Israel twenty and two years. And he had thirty sons that rode on thirty ass colts, and they had thirty cities, which are called Havoth-jair unto this day, which are in the land of Gilead."⁸²

The contention is that cities that received the name of Havothjair in the time of the judges are represented in the Pentateuch as having been thus named in the time of Moses — a clear case of anachronism. Voltaire, speaking of Moses and the Pentateuch, says: "Il n'y a pas d'apparence qu'il eut appele les endroits dont il parle de noms qui ne leur furent imposes que longtemps apres. Il est fait mention dans ce livre des villes de Jair, et tout le monde convient qu'elles ne furent ainsi nommes que longtemps apr^s la mort de Moise."⁸³ ("There is no probability that he would call places of which he speaks by names which were given them only long afterward. In this book there is mention of the cities of Jair, and all the world agrees that they were thus named only long after the death of Moses.") Other critics say substantially the same thing.

To this our reply shall be brief, and it is just this, that the passage in Judges does not say when, nor after whom, the cities mentioned therein were named. It does indeed say that these cities were called Havoth-jair, but that they were thus called after the name of Judge Jair is just what it does not say. Voltaire no doubt saw this fatally weak place in the argument, and endeavored to cover it up with the asseveration that "all the world agrees that they were thus named only long after the death of Moses." His successors in criticism have pursued a similar course. Besides, this is a case of apparent discrepancy between authors, not anachronism; but in such cases some critics may always be depended on to decide against the Pentateuch.

14. Kuenen refers to Numbers 15:22 to show that to the writer of the passage the sojourn in the wilderness was a closed period of history. But what of it? The sojourn in the wilderness was indeed a closed period of history to Moses and the Israelites during the whole time covered by the Book of Deuteronomy. We suggest, however, that the words, "while the children of Israel were in the wilderness," may be understood as implying that the writer viewed the sojourn in the wilderness merely as still in progress. So far as this* statement is concerned, the author at the time of writing may himself have been sojourning in the wilderness.

15. Deuteronomy 19:14:" Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's land-mark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it."

It is maintained that the words, "they of old time have set in thine inheritance," indicate that at the time of the writing of this passage the boundary marks of the lands in Canaan had been in existence for a long time. The passage, however, is in form a legal enactment, and purports to have been uttered by Moses in prospect of their future settlement in Canaan. If the form of expression betrays a later origin, it must be that the writer erred in the use of words. He tried to put such words into the mouth of Moses as would represent him as legislating, before the conquest, for the Israelites after they should have been permanently settled. But he failed to choose the right words, and, by mistake, represents Moses as talking like a man who lived at a much later period. According to the critics, the writer of this passage committed the error of representing Moses as saying that the settlement in Canaan was still future and as virtually saying at the same time that it had taken place long before.

If there had been a future-perfect tense of the Hebrew verb, probably Moses would have said, "Remove not thy neighbor's land-mark, which they going before thee shall have set." But for the absence of the future-perfect tense from the Hebrew language, evidently there would not be even the semblance of a foundation for the argument which the critics draw from this passage.

These are the principal passages and arguments that are adduced by the analysts to prove anachronisms in the Pentateuch, and to disprove its Mosaic authorship.

1) This applies to history, but not to prophetic utterances.

2) Gen. 12:6.

3) Gen. 13:7.

4) 4) L'Hisioire Sainte et la Loi, Vol. I., p. 342.

5) Judg. 3:3, 5.

6) Gen. 13:18.

7) Gen. 23:2.

8) Gen. 23:19.

9) Gen. 35:27.

10) Num. 13:22.

11) Josh. 14:15.

12) L'Hutoire Sainte, Vol. I., p. 344.

13) Josh. 14:15.

14) Introduction to the Old Testament, Vol. I., p. 231.

15) Brugsch-Bey, Egypt Under the Pharaohs, chs. 8, 11; Sayoe, Higher Criticism and the Monuments, pp. 52, 53, 176, 186.

16) Sayce, idem, p. 188, note.

17) Gen. 23:2; 35:27.

18) Gen. 14:14.

19) Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18:27-29.

20) Antiquities, 1:10:1.

21) Gen. 36:31.

22) L'Histaire Sainte, Vol. I., p. 411.

23) Judg. 9:6.

24) Judg. 9:22.

25) Deut. 33:4, 5.

26) Num. 23:21.

27) L'Histoire Sainte, Vol I., p. 411.

28) Gen. 36:39.

29) 1. chr. 1:43-54.

30) Gen. 86:31.

31) Gen. 22:2.

32) 32) 2 Chr. 3:1.

33) Traité sur Tolérance, Melanges, p. 452. 

34) L'Histore Sainte, Vol. 1., p. 300.

35) Gen. 22:14.

36) Higher Criticism and the Monuments, pp. 186, 187.

37) L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. I., p. 370.

38) Num. 21:14.

39) Dictionnaire Philosophique, Vol. IV., p. 65.

40) L'Histaire Sainte, Vol. I., Int., p. 128.

41) Ex. 15:3.

42) Ex. 15:21.

43) Ex. 17:8-13.

44) 44) Ex. 17:14.

45) Num. 21:1-3.

46) Num. 21:21-31.

47) Num. 21:33-35.

48) Num. 31:1-47.

49) Josh. 10:13.

50) 2 Sam. 1:17-27.

51) Reuss, L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. I., p. 128.

52) Ex. 16:35.

53) Josh. 5:12.

54) L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. 1., Int., p. 127.

55) Ex. 16:35.

56) Deut. 2:12.

57) L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. I., p. 278.

58) Hexateuch, pp. 34-36.

59) Num. 21:23-31.

60) Num. 21:33-35.

61) Num. 31:1-12.

62) Num. 21:1.

63) Dictionnaire Philosophique, Article "Moses."

64) Age of Reason, p. 75.

65) L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. 1., p. 130.

66) Hexateuch, p. 37.

67) Deut. 3:14.

68) L'Histoire Sainte, Int., p. 130.

69) 1 Sam. 27:7.

70) Deut. 3:14; 10:8; 34:6.

71) Hexateuch, p. 36.

72) Hexateuch, p. 34.

73) Gen. 40:15.

74) L'Histoire Sainte, Int., p. 131.

75) Gen. 40:9, 15, 23.

76) Num. 1:21, 25, 35.

77) Gen. 23:6.

78) Gen. 40:15; 41:12; Ex. 1:15, 16, 19; 2:6, 7, 11, 13; 7:16; 9 :1, 13.

79) L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. I., p. 420, note.

80) Num. 32:41.

81) Deut. 3:14.

82) Judg. 10:3, 4.

83) Dictionnaire Philosophique, Vol. XIX., p. 65.