The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-03-15
The Date of the Pentateuoh.


The date of the Hebrew documents in
general has been here assumed to be that
assigned to them by the older scholars.
This position is justified by the Egyptian
evidence. German and Dutch critics
have labored with extraordinary acuteness
and skill upon the Mosaic documents
alone, with such illustrations as they
could obtain from collateral records, using.
be it remembered, such records as all the
the older and too many of the later
classical scholars out of Germany and
France have used, coins and inscriptions,
not as independent sources, but as mere
! illustrations. The work has been that of
great literary critics, not of psychologists.
The result has been to reduce the date of
the documents, except few fragments,
by many centuries.
The Egyptian documents emphatically
call for reconsideration of the whole
question OF the date of the Pentateuch
1t is now certain that the narrative of
the history of Joseph and the soiourn and
Exodus of the Israelites-that is to say,
the portion from Genesis xxx to Exodus
xv-so far as it relates to Egypt, is sub
stantially not much later than B. G. 1900,
IN other words, was written while the
memory Of the events was fresh. The
minute accuracy of the text is inconsistent
with any later date. 1t is not merely
that it shows knowledge of Egypt, but
knowledge of Egypt under the Ramessi-
des and yet earlier. The condition of
the country, the chief cities of the from
tier, the composition of the army are true
OF the age of the Ramessides, and not true
OF the age OF the Pharaohs, contemporary
with Solomon and his successors. If the
Hebrew documents are of the close o. the
period OF the kings of Judah, how is it
that they are true of the earlier condition,
not OF that which was contemporary with
those kings? Why is the Egypt of. the
Law markedly different from the Egypt
OF the Prophets, each condition being
described consistently with its Egyptian
records, themselves contemporary with
the events? Why is Egypt described in
the Law as one kingdom, and no hint
given Of the breakup of the empire into
the small principalities mentioned by
Isaiah xix, p? Why do the proper names
belong to the Ramesside and earlier age.
without single instance of those Semitic
names which came into fashion with the
Bubastite line in Solomon's time? Whv
do Ioan- Rameses and Zoar take the places
OF Mlgdol and Tahpanhes? Why are the
foreign mercenaries, such as the Lubim.
spoken OF IN the constitution Of Egyptian
armies In the time of the kingdom of
judah, wholly unmentioned? The re-
latons OF Egypt with foreign countries
are not less characteristic. The kingdom
of Ethiopia, which overshadowed Egypt
from before Hezekiah's times and through |
out his reign, is unmentioned in the ear
her documents. The earlier Assyrian
Empire. which rose for a time on the
tall OF the Egyptian, nowhere appears.
These agreements have not failed to
strike foreign Psychologists who have no
theological bias. These independent
scholars without actually formulating
any view Of the date Of the greater part
OF the Pentateuch, appear uniformly to
treat Its text as an authority to be cited
side by side with the Egyptian monu-
ments So Lepsius, in his researches on
the date Of the Exodus and Brupscb in
his discussion of the route Cbabas IN
IN his paper on Rameses and Pithom.
vi course it would be unfair to implcate
any one Of these scholars in the differences
expressed above but at the same time II
is impossible that they can. for instance
hold Kuenen's theories of the date of the
Pentateuch so far as the part relating to
Egypt is concerned. They have taken
the two sets Of documents, Hebrew and
Egyptian, side by side, and in the work
ing Of elaborate problems found everv-
thing consistent with accuracy on both
sides and, Of course, accuracy would not
be maintained in a tradition handed
down through several centuries.
If the large portion Of the Pentateuch
relating to the Egyptian period of Hebrew |
history, including, as it does, Elohistic as
well as Jehovistic sections, is of the re-
mote antiquity here claimed for it. no
one can doubt that the first four books Of
Moses are substantially Of the same ace
The date Of Deuteronomy is a separate
question. Leaving this problem aside
,he early age Of the first four books does
lnquestionably involve great difficulties.
but not nearly so great as the hypothesis
of late date when they are confronted