Our next extract is from Von Lengerke, a Professor in the University of Königsberg.*"The use of writing and of the easier writing-material, that made of skins, is thus presupposed, by the oldest tradition, to have been in exist. ence at the time of Moses, and there is no sufficient ground to doubt it." "At all events, it appears to be historically proved from their names, e. g. Kirjath Sepher, city of the book, etc., that writing was practised by the inhabitants of Canaan, at a very early time, before the return of the Israelites from Egypt." "That the Israelites appropriated to themselves many arts while in Egypt, e. g. the art of weav. ing, of fusing and working metals, etc, is undeniable; and probably the like may be concluded of the art of writing, though the discovery of a Semitic alphabet cannot be of Egyptian origin; still the supposition is probable, that the Egyptian hieroglyphic writing was transformed by the Hyksos (Shepherd Kings) into alphabetic writing, and that this discovery then passed over to the other Semitic tribes." "The Tyrians certainly had an historical literature in the • Mosaic era; for, though the fragments from Dios and Me. nander of Ephesus do not relate to a time earlier than that of David and Solomon, still we may draw the conclusion from the genuinely historical stamp of these notices, that Phoenician historical writers flourished at a far earlier period."

"The conclusion does not appear hasty," says Professor A. T. Hartmann of Rostock," that the art of writing, for a long time employed by the Babylonians, passed over to the Phoenicians, as soon as the latter felt their need of it. Now if this was the case, the Phoenicians had learned to use this

* Kenáan. Volks-und Religionsgeschichte Israel's, 1844, Introduc tion, pp. xxx., xxxi„, and p. 374.

invaluable art, certainly at a period which extends far back of Moses and the residence of the Israelites in Egypt.' ""* "Acquaintance with alphabetic writing," says Vater, "on the part of Moses and his contemporaries, is not merely possible, but more than probable." +

"The inscriptions on the Babylonian bricks," says Boeckh," which are written in a character similar to the Phoenician, exhibit a later form than the oldest Phoenician; yet this by no means proves, that the Phoenician character did not originate in Babylon; for it certainly often happens, that the older form of writing is preserved in a derived alphabet longer than in the original one, as the Italian alphabet, and particularly the Latin, show in relation to the Greek."

"The Egyptians on one side," says Professor Olshausen of Kiel, "the Hebrews and Phoenicians on the other, we find, at a time which extends back of all sure chronology, in possession of an alphabet, which has one and the same extraordinary principle to denote the sound. For this purpose an object was represented or pictured, whose name in the various spoken languages of Egypt or the Semitic tribes, begins with this sound."

"Moses at least was acquainted with the Egyptian writing; he himself could write; from him begin the notices in respect to the practice of the art of writing among the Israelites." ||

It is unnecessary to multiply these references any further. The argument from this source against the genuineness of

* Histor. Krit. Forschungen, 1831, p. 615.

+ Vater, quoted by Hengstenberg, Beiträge, I. p. 424.

‡ Metrolog. Untersuch., p. 40.

|| Ueber den Ursprung d. Alphabetes, 1841, pp. 5, 6.

the Pentateuch is wholly untenable, and is generally abandoned in Germany. As, however, it has been recently brought forward with considerable confidence, and as the discussion of it might cast light on other topics which may come under consideration, we have thought it worth while to devote some space to it.

V. THE LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF THE PENTATEUCH DO NOT PROVE ITS LATER ORIGIN.

It is confidently affirmed by some in our country, that the Pentateuch must be of comparatively recent origin, from the fact that its language and idiom do not differ from those of the professedly later books. Moses, as is affirmed, wrote six or eight centuries before some of the prophets ; there would, therefore, inevitably be many archaisms, or vestiges of antiquity, in the former; but as there are not, then it follows that the writer of the Pentateuch must have been coeval, or nearly so, with the prophets. The similarity, or rather identity, of style in the two cases precludes any other hypothesis. We might with as much reason suppose that the Latin of Ennius, or of the Twelve Tables, would be identical with that of Livy or Tacitus; or that Chaucer and Addison would use the same English vocabulary; as that Moses and Isaiah should be found to differ in style as little as they do. The early origin of the Pentateuch is impossible on this ground alone. We need no other proof that it is not genuine.

It is hardly necessary, perhaps, to undertake to refute this position at length. The opponents of the genuineness of the Pentateuch in Germany have generally, and long ago, abandoned this ground as untenable. Since, however, it is again urged as a decisive objection to the early origin of

the five books of Moses, it may be well to devote a few pages to its examination.

In the first place, it is not true that there are no differences between the language of the Pentateuch and that of the later books. The differences are by no means inconsiderable, as the best Hebrew scholars of the present day acknowledge. Ewald, speaking of some fragments of the Pentateuch and Joshua, says that "there are many things in the style as rare as they are antique. Considering the small number of passages, the amount of words elsewhere wholly unknown, or not used in prose, is great.

The last service which was performed for the cause of sacred learning by Dr. Jahn of Vienna, was an elaborate essay on the language and style of the Pentateuch, designed to vindicate its genuineness. His object was to show that there are a multitude of words in the Pentateuch, which never occur, or very rarely, in the later books; while in the later books there are many words, which are never or but seldom found in the Pentateuch. In his lists, he has omitted most of the anaέ λeyóμeva, also those words, which must from the nature of the case be peculiar to the Pentateuch; e. g. proper names of countries, cities, and nations; the names of particular diseases, such as the leprosy and its symptoms; the various terms which designate blemishes in men, priests, and sacrificial offerings, and those which were employed in the construction of the tabernacle; also the names of those natural objects which are peculiar to Egypt and the Arabian desert. On the other hand, in the list of words peculiar to the later books, those terms are excluded which the author of the Pentateuch had no occasion to use. After the designations

*Geschichte d. Volkes Israel, I. 77.

for all these classes of objects were left out, Jahn then made a selection from the most important of the remainder. This enumeration comprises about four hundred words and phrases peculiar to the Pentateuch, or but very seldom employed elsewhere, and about four hundred words and phrases in the later books, which either do not occur at all, or but very rarely, in the Pentateuch. Jahn's list, as Hengstenberg remarks, requires a revision, as Hebrew learning has made great progress in the last twenty-five years. Jahn fell into some mistakes in his interpretation of words, and he confined himself too much to their external form. He should also have omitted the åñaέ λeyóμeva. Yet, after all allowances are made, the greater portion of the words in his enumeration are perfectly in point. Not a few words and phrases to which he makes no allusion might swell the number.

We here adduce a few terms and forms of speech, some of the more important of which Gesenius and Ewald also refer to as peculiar to the Pentateuch.

The words, he, and y, young man, are of common gender, and used, also, for she and young woman. The former is found in one hundred and ninety-five places, as feminine, in the Pentateuch; neither is found as feminine out of it. "In accordance with the spirit of the language,' says Ewald," and the obviously gradual separation of gender, this is a proof, which cannot be mistaken, in favor of the high antiquity of the Pentateuch." When stands for, the punctators give it the appropriate pointing of this form (17). From this circumstance, it has been suggested as probable, that other original archaisms in the Pentateuch may, in the lapse of ages, have been conformed to later usage.