merely a name like that of
Chemosh or Milum, but that it was adopted by _E_, the great writer of
the early days of David, as the name of the national deity of Israel,
and inserted by him in his narrative of the Exodus, and under the
influence of the Prophets came gradually to be associated with the noble
ideas of purity and righteousness.

The criticisms upon the authors of the latest books are severe and
vehement. In the books of Chronicles "the real facts of Jewish history,
as given in Samuel and Kings, have been systematically distorted and
falsified, in order to support the fictions of the LL, and glorify the
priestly and Levitical body, to which the Chronicler himself belonged."
In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, not only the whole narrative (except
part of Nehemiah) but also the decrees of the kings of Persia, the
letters of the governor, and the prayers of Ezra and the Levites are
"pure fictions of the Chronicler;" and the book of Esther is an
unhistorical romance, suggested by a wish to account for the existence
of the Feast of Purim, which was probably no more than the commemoration
of the choosing by lot of the new inhabitants of Jerusalem in the days
of Nehemiah.

It was said by Dr. Arnold that the Old Testament required a Niebuhr; and
Bishop Colenso is not a Niebuhr. Indeed, it is but fair to him to say
that he is modest enough to disclaim functions such as those of the
great German, and to regard himself as preparing the way for their
future exercise. Many of his criticisms are telling and convincing. But
in his construction he is weak. Even if men can be persuaded that the
employment of fiction in the Old Testament histories is as extensive as
the Bishop supposes, and that at every turn they are to be on the watch,
not only for a Levitical colouring of the narrative but for the most
barefaced invention, yet they will hardly be persuaded that the name of
Moses should be "regarded as merely that of the imaginary leader of the
people out of Egypt, a personage quite as shadowy and unhistorical as
AEneas in the history of Rome or our own King Arthur." Indeed, when even
Kuenen attempts a reconstruction of the earlier history, his narrative
is merely a bald and meagre statement of the events as usually believed.
The impartial reader will close this book with the conviction that the
goal has not been reached, and will await the time when mere criticism
must give way to positive history.

The work of the Bishop