Moses

never was in Palestine. He is said to have written certain songs and laws in * the desert of Sinai, where he conversed with Yahveh in the bush; but we are not told that he employed any scribes. We have no evidence that his writings were transferred from the kune i form, and from the dialect of the 15th century B.c., to the alphabet and Hebrew language of the time of the Prophets, or of Ezra, We require more proof than is forthcoming before we can admit that Moses would even have been capable of writing the Pent a teuch. The discovery that kune i form was used by Can a a nites, in the 15th century B.c., no more establishes the Mosaic origin of the “Five Books” than do the recovered facts as to ancient towns, or the geographical discoveries of explorers. A true religion requires a true God, with attributes such as all men could regard as befitting the Omniscient, and the Almighty, Ruler of the Universe. Better evidence is needed than we po e ere we believe that such « God spoke to a Hebrew in the desert of Sinai, giving him a Revelation of Himself. Thus neither “ Higher Criticism” nor the discoveries of explorers affect the main question: while research into the nature of Old Testament deities (Klohim, and Jehovah) cuts deep to the root of the matter, rendering idle all enquiry as to ages of patriarchs, or dates of Bible books. These become unimportant questions—of mere literary interest—if Elohim, and Jehovah, like Brahma or Zeus, were mythical figures in legends mingled with historical traditions. To those who accept their Bibles from their Churches, criticism is no doubt as deadly as evolution. Criticism destroys the very e ence of the Bible, its claim to divine infallibility. Evolution destroys the dogma of a Fall, the Christian conception of original sin, and the doctrine of Redemption (see Atonement). So thought the Pan-Presbyterian Council, meeting at Glasgow in 1896; and the matter is ably treated by Rev. Dr G. H. B.