xviii: 29. There may have been two Dans, as there were two Kanas and probably two Bethsaidas. At any rate these and similar passages furnish at best only possible but no certain grounds for accepting post-Mosaic elements in the present Pentateuch.

It

But to deny entirely that such elements do actually exist would be going too far in the other direction. Some facts in the Pentateuch are too decided on this point. We do not think that any judicious scholar would claim the last chapter of Deuteronomy as Mosaic, at least not from v. 5 on, in which the death of the lawgiver is recorded. This part was evidently added by a later hand, and from v. 10 it would seem to have been written some considerable time after Moses' death. will be noticed here that it is nowhere stated expressly, or ex professo, that we here have a different author from the one who wrote the preceding chapters. The reason why we must accept this is because internal evidence point to post-Mosaic date. The canon or rule then for discovering such elements that may not be Mosaic must be the internal testimony. This is of course not meant in the sense that this is post-Mosaic simply because it refers to things later than his day. Many of the laws given to Moses do the same, and in the nature of the theocracy and the Old Testament covenant such laws were necessary. But it runs counter to all healthy ideas of prophecy to think that historical events should be predicted and then recorded as past. Prediction is indeed one

of the constituent elements of prophecy, but it is always given as prediction, and its divine source and character are expressly indicated by this very characteristic. These verses are post-Mosaic simply because they record not prophecy but postMosaic history.

But it is difficult to see, in case such nonMosaic verses were added to the end of the Mosaic legislation, not as an appendix but as a constituent part of the whole and as its formal close, why such elements may not have been introduced elsewhere also. Of course the existence of these non-Mosaic verses at the end of the Pentateuch does not prove the existence of verses of the same kind elsewhere. For all that, every jot and tittle of the rest of the Pentateuch might be Mosaic. All that it proves is, that the addition of non-Mosaic elements was not an impossibility. If such elements have been introduced elsewhere their presence must be detected in the same way in which they were detected in Deut. xxxiv.

We have already seen that of the passages which are generally quoted as indicative of a postMosaic origin many are at best of doubtful value. They do not furnish conclusive evidence. We are, however, unable to claim this for all passages. There are a number of passages which seem to the writer can be explained only on the supposition that they were written in a period later than Moses. We mention here two examples. In Gen. xii: 8; xxviii: 19; xxxv:15, a certain place is called Bethel, and in one of these passages, xxviii :

19, it is identified as the earlier Luz. But accord, ing to Josh. xviii: 13, Luz was then still the name of that place. Bethel became its name only later. The explanation usually given to set aside this anachronism (cf. Hengstenberg, Beiträge, III. 200 sqq.), which distinguishes between a city and a district of Bethel, has no ground whatever in the statements of the Pentateuch or of Joshua. A second example is Gen. xxxvi: 31 sqq., in which a list of kings of Edom is given "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.” Gen. xvii: 6, in which kings are promised for Israel, cannot furnish a sound basis for making this a quasi-prophetic passage. It is in nowise a parallel case with the kings, law in Deuteronomy. It is an historical passage and presupposes the existence of kings in Israel. The existence of these and similar passages in the Pentateuch would seem to prove, notwithstanding that for the great mass and bulk of the contents a Mosaic origin is claimed, and the claim is supported by further reasons, that the collecting of these Mosaic revelations and the final editing was not accomplished until a later day.

8. What is the value of this evidence of the Pentateuch concerning itself? The testimony of a witness is measured by the amount of credence given to his words. Apodictically no historical point can be proved. It is regarded as certain and sure only in the degree as its evidence is considered reliable. The same is the case with regard to the Pentateuch. What divides scholars in this de

partment into such antagonistic camps is not the exegesis of this or that passage, but the "standpoint" of the investigators. The conser vative scholar accepts the authority of the Pentateuch over against canons and laws drawn from philosophical speculations. The advanced critic, on the basis of his ideas concerning the nature of religion in general and revelation drawn from extra-biblical sources, regards his deductions as better testimony than the simple statements of the Pentateuch, and accordingly interprets the words of the Pentateuch in accordance with his philosophy. It is for this reason that he finds mythology in Genesis where others find history.

In the nature of the case no historical fact can be proved with mathematical certainty. It is only a question of a greater or less degree of probability. Internal and external evidence must combine to determine this degree of probability. It is for this reason that we have more confidence in Thucydides than in Herodotus. For the conservative scholar the conviction that the Pentateuch is an inspired work is a ground for believing its statements concerning itself. This conviction of inspiration he gains not by logical reasoning or historical criticism, but as a testimonium spiritus sancti. He who would by logic or criticism prove the divine character and inspiration of Scripture has not only an Herculean task, but an impossible-task before him. Logic and criticism can be only subsidiary aids in showing that the objections made to the claims of inspiration are

groundless. Another reason for accepting this self-testimony of the Pentateuch is its acceptance as Mosaic and divine by Christ and the New Testament. A conservative scholar is convinced that this authority is a better ground for belief than his own theories and hypotheses, in case these should clash with the former. But in all these cases care must be taken to know exactly what these authorities testify to. Thus, e.g., the question as to the extent of the New Testament testimony and what it exactly means is one differently answered by men equally anxious to heed this testimony. Men are sometimes mistaken in their estimate of scriptural testimony. In the days before the Reformation the church universal was convinced of the canonicity of the Apocrypha. The Protestant church, by the exercise of its rights of higher criticism, rejected these books, The learned men of that day were convinced that the Bible taught the Ptolemaic system. A closer view in the light of new facts showed them that they were mistaken. A matter of prime necessity is then to determine exactly what the evidence of our witnesses is, and that evidence must be then accepted by the conservative and Christian scholar. This does not mean that this evidence will always be a confirmation of the traditional views on matters of historical and literary criticism. The old is not necessarily true because it is old; the new not necessarily false because it is new. In each case a conscientious and searching, a rigid but reverential examination of the facts must determine