kingdoms; or rather, after it became customary to speak of them in this way; which appears to have been some time before the actual separation. 1 Sam. xviii. 16; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1; comp. 2 Sam. v. 1-5; xix. 41; xx. 2. That some of these references may belong to the original record, is quite probable; while it is certain that others were written by the compiler or copyist. Additional evidences bearing on the question of the early or late writing of these books, will appear in our remarks on the next particular.

SECTION III. - AUTHORS.

If there are indications in these books, as we have shown, of their having been written by men who had a personal interest in the narrative, then we may reasonably look to Joshua, or one of his scribes, as being the author of the book that bears his name to one of the last of the judges, or a scribe appointed to do that work, as the author of Judges-to Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, as having written the books of Samuel. And in respect to these last, we have the express authority of the author of Chronicles. "The acts of David, the king, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel, the seer; and in the book of Nathan, the prophet: and in the book of Gad, the seer." 1 Chr. xxix. 29.

Samuel could have written only so much of this his tory as is embraced in First Samuel, to chapter 25th, as his death occurs at this point. The rest must have been written by Nathan and Gad; but how much by each, we have no means of determining. It is not indeed absolutely certain, that our books of Samuel, are the books referred to, as having been written by Samuel, Nathan and Gad; but, as it is expressly stated that they wrote the life of David, and as no other has come down to us, or has ever been recognized by the Jewish people, the plain inference is, that these are the books.

The reader will observe that every evidence, which goes to show, that these men, or their cotemporaries,

wrote the books, at the same time, proves the early_writing, and shows that the passages, which indicate a later date, are the work of compilers and copyists. It would be useless for us, to enter extensively into the discussion of the question of authorship, in regard to these books; as men who have examined the subject much more than we, have failed to reach any satisfactory result.

SECTION IV.-COMPOSITION.

The more we have examined the theory of the two "documents," as the basis of the five books of Moses, the more we have been inclined to accept it. The documents can there be plainly traced. See Biblical Review, Vol. I, page 18. De Wette attempts to point out the passages which belong to these documents, in the book of Joshua, the Judges, and the following books. Here the distinction is not so clear; though it is evident that the author of Joshua was acquainted with the documents, as existing in the Pentateuch, and, to some extent, modified his style by their peculiarities.

The theory of De Wette is, that the first twelve chapters of Joshua, are, in the main, Jehovistic, or from the Jehovistic document. But of these twelve chapters, he excepts six passages, which he places in the Elohistic column. Then, in these six passages, he finds single expressions, that are Jehovistic. The balance of the book, consisting of twelve chapters more, he divides about equally; but the changes from one document to the other, are very frequent, and some passages are mixed. The following passages are Jehovistic: Ch. xiii. 1–14; xiv. 6-15; xv. 13-19; xviii. 1-10; xxiv. 1-28. Elohistic:-xiii. 15-32; xiv. 1-5; xv. 1-12; xv. 20-62; xvi. 1-xvii. 13; xviii. 11-xix. 51; xx. 1xxi. 43.

Then 22 to 24 is mixed, some of it Elohistic, and some Jehovistic; and on either side, are found single expressions, that belong on the other; so that only the general character of the passages can be determined.

Then some passages are thought to belong to neither document, but to differ from both. And it should be added, that a great diversity of opinion exists, with this class of expounders, as to the application of the theory.

The book of Judges exhibits but few traces of the documents; and hence De Wette does not attempt to classify the passages. He remarks, however, that "the style is like the Jehovistic parts of Deuteronomy, though there are Elohistic passages.

It is not to be denied that some parts of the book indicate a diversity of sources, from which the history was derived. "It is evident that the history of Gideon and of Abimelech, is derived from at least two separate docnments. In one (vi. 11- viii. 28) the son of Joash is called Gideon throughout, with but a single exception, (vii. 1,) though his name is repeated more than thirty times; in viii. 29 -35, he is called indifferently Gideon and Jerubbaal; but in ch. ix., he is always called Jerub

baal * * * * The appendix (xvii. - xxi.) evidently contains two separate documents. xvii.xviii. and xix -xxi. But both have the same author, who is distinguished by his love of a kingly government. (xvii. 6; xix. 1.) The passage, xx. 36-46, appears to be a supplement to the previous account of the battle. Perhaps this was derived from an independent popular legend. There is a slight numerical difference between the two accounts, in one 25,100 perish, in the other 25,000."

The author above quoted finds plenty of evidence that the books of Samuel were made up from different sources, though he does not find the distinguishing marks of the "Jehovah" and "Elohim" documents. The "contradictions" which he finds in these books, he accounts for, by referring the conflicting passages to different documents. This, surely, is a charitable view of the subject; for it is better to believe men err, than to believe they lie and deceive. We hope, however, we have shown that neither alternative is necessary.

It may be added, in respect to the composition, or make up, of the book of Judges, that the two stories at the end of the book, commencing with the 17th chapter, are not put into the position they occupy, to indicate the order of time that belongs to them in the history. The first of these transactions must have taken place soon after the settlement of the country, and yet not till the power of Jabin, who held that northern country in the region of Dan, was broken, in the time of Deborah and Barak. The last transaction, namely, the war with Benjamin, took place while Phinehas was high priest, who was grandson of Aaron and son of Eleazar. Judges. xx. 28.

The time of writing the appendix, containing these stories, has no necessary connection with the time of their Occurrence. De Wette argues, from allusions to the absence of a kingly government, that the writing took place after the time of the kings. These allusions do not authorize this conclusion Other nations had kings, if the Israelites had not; and it was easy to institute comparisons, and express regrets, that they lacked what others had. The allusions may have been prompted, too, by the problematical advantages of being under a strong and vigorous government.

We have said nothing of the book of Ruth, for the reason, that it is not so much a separate book, as it is a part of the book of Judges, to which, we are assured by St. Jerome, it once belonged. It is plain, from some circumstances mentioned in the book, that the incidents took place, at the time of one of the early judges. The book closes with a genealogy, from which we learn that Boaz, who married Ruth, was the son of Salmon, and grandson of Nashon, who was cotemporary with Moses, and prince of the tribe of Judah. Num. 1. 7. Furthermore, from the genealogy of Jesus, Matt. i. 5, we learn, that Salmon married Rachab of Jericho; and of course their son Boaz must have lived immediately after the conquest of Canaan. This determines the time when

Boaz and Ruth were on the stage; and when the events occurred, recorded in the book of Ruth; but it does not determine when the book was written.

It was not written till after Judges, for there is allusion to the time "when the judges ruled." i. 1. We might infer, from the genealogy, near the close, that it was not written till the time of David. iv. 22. But it would have been very natural, for a copyist to add this name, as it would give character to the story, and perhaps gratify those personally interested.

The story is of such a character, that it could be transmitted, without material detriment, for several generations, before being put into permanent form. It was probably written in the time of David, and, it may be, at his instigation, for, though it represents him as descended from a poor woman of Moab, and from a harlot of Jericho, (if she were a harlot,) that reproach, if it be one, would be balanced by the fact, that Nashon, the prince of the tribe of Judah, and brother-in-law of Aaron and Moses, belonged on the same list.

The custom of taking off the shoe in confirmation of certain contracts, existed when the marriage of Boaz and Ruth took place; but it had gone out of use when the book was written; and this implies a long period, in view of the well known inveteracy of oriental cus

toms.

The number of generations, from Boaz to David, may seem hardly sufficient to fill the space of time that intervened, according to the usual chronology; over five hundred years, according to Hales; and nearly four hundred, according to Calmet; but it must be remembered, that Bible Chronology, during this period, is greatly embarrassed, and has never been determined with any degree of certainty.

Some expressions, in the book of Ruth, that are also found in Samuel and Kings, but no where else in the Bible, have led to the opinion, that it may have been written by the same hand. One of these is, "The Lord