AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. §. 1. 1. They did not proceed from ONE impostor. WHOEVER, With knowledge and impartiality, examines the question, whether the writings of the Old Testament are authentick, will undoubtedly be compelled to reply in the affirmative. 1. No ONE impostor can have forged them all:-this is proclaimed by every page of the Old Testament. What diversity in language and expression! Isaiah does not write like Moses, nor Jeremiah like Ezekiel; and between these and each of the Minor Prophets, as relates to style, there is a great gulf fixed. The grammatical structure of language, in the books of Moses, contains much that is peculiar ; in the book of Judges occur provincialisms and barbarisms; Isaiah moulds common words into new forms; Jeremiah and Ezekiel abound in Chaldaisms. In short, as we proceed from the writers who assume an early date, to those who are more recent, we observe the language in a gradual decline, until it sinks at last into phrases of mere Chaldee. Then what diversity in the march of thought and range of imagery! The stringed instrument resounds when struck by Moses and Isaiah; and is soft in intonation at the touch of David. The muse of Solomon swells in the splendour of the most voluptuous court; but her sister, artlessly apparelled, strays with David along rivulets and banks, over plains, and among flocks and herds. One poet is original, as Isaiah, Joel, and Habakkuk; another imitative, as Ezekiel. One wanders the untrodden path of a genius; while at his side, another loiters along the beaten footway. From one proceed flashes of surprising knowledge; and about his neighbour, not a spark of learning has ever kindled. Through the most ancient writer glow strong Egyptian tints; in his successors they become more and more languid, and in the latest they are entirely extinct.* Finally, even in manners, there is the most beautiful gradation! At first, all is plain and simple; as in Homer, and at the present day, among the Bedoween Arabs. This ingenuous simplicity is gradually lost in luxury and effeminacy, and at last wholly disappears in the voluptuous court of Solomon. There is nowhere a sudden transition; but throughout, an advance gradually progressive! None but ignorant or thoughtless skepticks can admit, that the Old Testament has been forged by ONE impostor. [The characteristicks of language, style and manner, exhibited by the sacred writers, are copiously illustrated by the author, in his particular introductions to the several books. See his Introduction to the O. T., (in German), vols. 11. iv. v., the sections on these subjects; JAHN's Introduction to the O. T., (translated by Prof. Turner and the Rev. Mr. Whittingham), P. 1. §. 9. & P. 11., on the style of the respective books; HORNE'S Introduction, Vol. 1. Ch. 11. S. 1. subsect. 111. 1. & IV. 1. & Vol. IV. P. I. Ch. I-VII. on the same. GESENIUS, in his History of the Hebrew Language, (in German), § §. 10. 11. supplies examples; and DE WETTE, in his Introduction to the Bible, (in German), §. 34. directs the student to sources of information on the subject. See also LowтH's Lectures, (Gregory's translation), particularly Lect. xxi. & XXXIV., with the Notes of the Translator and others, Boston, 1815; and Rosenmüller's edition of the original, with the Notes of J. D. Michaelis and the editor, Leipzig, 1815. Tr. 1 §. 2. 2. And the Writings of the Old Testament did not proceed from SEVERAL impostors. 2. "But, perhaps, SEVERAL impostors have made common cause, and in a late century, have at the same time forged our Scriptures of the Old Testament."-Yet how could they forge, in a manner so conformable to the progress of the human mind? How was it possible, in modern times, to form the language* of Moses? This evidently transcends all human powers! In fine, one writer always supposes the existence of another; t they could not therefore have arisen, all at the same time ; it must have been in succession. "Perhaps, then, at different periods there have been such impostors, who proceed in the introduction of spurious writings, just where their forging predecessors had left off. Hence may be explained the allusions of the writers to each other; hence that striking rise in all the parts!" But (1.) How was it possible, that no one discovered and exposed the imposition, and so branded the impostor, that after ages might be secure? How could a nation, repeatedly, at different times, permit itself to be deceived? And (2.) What purpose could such an impostor have? To exalt the Hebrew nation ?-Then from his praises result most grievous defamations; for the Hebrew people, according to the Old Testament, act at all times a most unworthy part!-Or to degrade the Hebrews?-Yet, in this case, how could the nation permit books to be obtruded on them, that defamed their character, and told in plain words, * [See EICHHORN's Introduction to the O. T., Vol. 1. § §. 10, 11; ↑ [The author particularly illustrates this, in his Introd. to the O. T., vol, 1. §. 4. Tr.! how often foreign conquerors may have trodden them under foot? * §. 3. Evidences of their Authenticity. In addition to this, the Old Testament bears all the marks of authenticity. 1. The very reasonings that argue for a Homer, maintain even the authenticity of all the particular books of the Old Testament. Why are we disposed to deny merely the latter that justice which we allow the former. If a profane writer assumes a certain period, and all internal and external circumstances of his book accord with it; then, no impartial inquirer after truth permits himself to indulge a doubt to the contrary. Nay, we do not hestitate a moment, in reference to a writer of an unknown period, to decide his age by internal considerations derived from his works. Why should the critical inquirer not pursue this course, in reference to the Bible? 2. As yet, no one has been able to oppose with arguments, the integrity and credibility of any writer of the Old Testament; but every discovery in ancient literature has hitherto been some new confirmation of the sacred books. As yet, no one has demonstrated that any writer of the Old Testament may have composed in a style, with knowledge, and under circumstances, that might not have been conformable to the age in which he professed to live. In short, all the Books of the Old Testament, the writers of which we know by name, have been impressed with the seal of the integrity of their authors. And in those books, the authors of which have been unknown, internal considerations always show, that we are compelled to recognise them as authentick. The Book of Joshua, for instance, the author of * Onthis subject, consult JAHN's Introduction to the O. T., P. 1. §. 9. Tr. which is unknown, enters so deeply into the particulars of the most ancient Geography, that miracle upon miracle must have been wrought on an impostor, if he could have been in a situation to compose it thus. Let any one examine, with due intelligence, and without prejudice; and I am certain, that he will convince himself of the Authenticity of the Books of the Old Testament. I here premise however, what any one will readily suppose in works so ancient, that most writings of the Hebrews had passed through several hands, before they acquired their present form; and that ancient and modern may sometimes be mingled in them, without leading an impartial judge, on this account to doubt of their authenticity. 1. No ancient author of any nation has survived the age in which he wrote, but various particulars may have been altered in his text, or additions have been inserted in it. Sometimes, he was glossed designedly, and obsolete words and expressions, and geographical names were changed for others that were modern, to explain his meaning for the later reader, Sometimes, a person made observations in the margin, for his own use or that of others, without intending that they should be inserted in the writer; but officious posterity has transferred the marginal observations into the text. Thus, before we can render the authenticity of a writing doubtful on account of such passages, we must with critical minuteness examine, whether they have from the first existed in it, and have actually proceeded from the author's hand. 2. The very nature of the origin of many Scriptures of the Old Testament renders it necessary, that ancient and modern passages and sections must interchange in them. Very few proceeded from the hand of their authors, in the form in which we now have them. The separate constituent parts of many had long been extant as special works, before they became united with certain parts now added to them. Should even the Mosaick writings, in their present order, not be those of Moses; yet they have been collected from Mosaick documents, and have merely been disposed by a more recent |