Pentateuch

PENTATEUCH

The five books the books of Moses; that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. See articles on those books, and also MOSES.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

PENTATEUCH

From five, and an instrument or volume, signifies the collection of the five instruments or books of Moses, which are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Some modern writers, it seems, have asserted that Moses did not compose the Pentateuch, because the author always speaks in the third person; abridges his narration like a writer who collected from ancient memoirs; sometimes interrupts the thread of his discourse, for example, Gen 4:23; and because of the account of the death of Moses at the end, &c. It is observed, also, in the text of the Pentateuch, that there are some places that are defective: for example, in Exo 12:8. we see Moses speaking to Pharaoh, where the author omits the beginning of his discourse. The Samaritan inserts in the same place what is wanting in the Hebrew. In other places the same Samaritan copy adds what is deficient in the Hebrew; and what is contained more than the Hebrew seems so well connected with the rest of the discourse, that it would be difficult to separate them. Lastly, they think they observe certain strokes in the Pentateuch which can hardly agree with Moses, who was born and bred in Egypt; as what he says of the earthly paradise, of the rivers that watered it and ran through it; of the cities of Babylon, Erech, Resen, and Calmeh; of the gold of Pison; of the bdellium, of the stone of Sohem, or onyx stone, which was to be found in that country.

These particulars, observed with such curiosity, seem to prove that the author of the Pentateuch lived beyond the Euphrates. Add what he says concerning the ark of Noah, of its construction, of the place where it rested, of the wood wherewith it was built, of the bitumen of Babylon, &c. But in answer to all these objections it is justly observed, that these books are by the most ancient writers ascribed to Moses, and it is confirmed by the authority of heathen writers themselves, that they are his writings; besides this, we have the unanimous testimony of the whole Jewish nation ever since Moses’s time. Divers texts of the Pentateuch imply that it was written by him; and the book of Joshua and other parts of Scripture import as much; and though some passages have been thought to imply the contrary, yet this is but a late opinion, and has been sufficiently confuted by several learned men. It is probable, however, that Ezra published a new edition of the books of Moses, in which he might add those passages that many suppose Moses did not write. The Abbe Torne, in a sermon preached before the French king in Lent, 1764, makes the following remarks: “The legislator of the Jews was the author of the Pentateuch; an immortal work, wherein he paints the marvels of his reign with the majestic picture of the government and religion which he established! Who before our modern infidels ever ventured to obscure this incontestable fact? Who ever sprang a doubt about this among the Hebrews?

What greater reasons have there ever been to attribute to Mahomet his Alcoran, to Plato his Republic, or to Homer his sublime poems? Rather let us say, What work in any age ever appeared more truly to bear the name of its real author? It is not an ordinary book, which, like many others, may be easily hazarded under a fictitious name. It is a sacred book, which the Jews have always read with a veneration, that remains after seventeen hundred years exile, calamities, and reproach. In this book the Hebrews included all their science; it was their civil, political, and sacred code, their only treasure, their calendar, their annals, the only title of their sovereigns and pontiffs, the alone rule of polity and worship: by consequence it must be formed with their monarchy, and necessarily have the same epoch as their government and religion, &c.

Moses speaks only truth, though infidels charge him with imposture. But, great God! what an impostor must he be, who first spoke of the divinity in a manner so sublime, that no one since, during almost four thousand years, has been able to surpass him! What an impostor must he be whose writings breathe only virtue; whose style equally simple, affecting, and sublime, in spite of the rudeness of those first ages, openly displays an inspiration altogether divine!”

See Ainsworth and Kidder on the Pentateuch; Prideaux’s Con. vol. 1: p. 342, 345, 573, 575; Marsh’s Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses considered; Warburton’s Divine Legation; Dr. Graves’s lectures on the last four books in the Old Test. Jenkins’s Reasonableness of Christianity; Watson’s Apology, let. 2 and 3; Tabor’s Horae Mosaicae, or a View of the Mosaical Records.

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

Pentateuch

(Greek: pente, five; teuchos, book)

The first five Books of the Bible taken collectively, viz.: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, written c.1400 B.C. The name may be traced back to Origen (254); the Jews designated the Books by their opening words. A constant tradition, both Jewish and Christian, has always asserted the Mosaic authorship of those five Books, and the Biblical Commission has reasserted it (June 27 1906) in the sense that Moses is their principal ahd inspired author and that they were finally published under his name. But it is perfectly lawful to admit that Moses made use of previously existing documents which he inserted in his work.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Pentateuch

In Greek pentateuchos, is the name of the first five books of the Old Testament.

I. NAME

Though it is not certain whether the word originally was an adjective, qualifying the omitted noun biblos, or a substantive, its literal meaning “five cases” appears to refer to the sheaths or boxes in which the separate rolls or volumes were kept. At what precise time the first part of the Bible was divided into five books is a question not yet finally settled. Some regard the division as antedating the Septuagint translation; others attribute it to the authors of this translation; St. Jerome was of opinion (Ep. 52, ad Paulin., 8; P.L., XXII, 545) that St. Paul alluded to such a division into five books in I Cor., xiv, 19; at any rate, Philo and Josephus are familiar with the division now in question (“De Abrahamo”, I; “Cont. Apion.”, I, 8). However ancient may be the custom of dividing the initial portion of the Old Testament into five parts, the early Jews had no name indicating the partition. They called this part of the Bible hattorah (the law), or torah (law), or sepher hattorah (book of the law), from the nature of its contents (Joshua 8:34; 1:8; Ezra 10:3; Nehemiah 8:2, 3, 14; 10:35, 37; 2 Chronicles 25:4); they named it torath Mosheh (law of Moses), sepher Mosheh (book of Moses), sepher torath Mosheh (book of the law of Moses) on account of its authorship (Joshua 8:31, 32; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:16; 23:25; Daniel 9:11; Ezra 3:2; 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; etc.); finally, the Divine origin of the Mosaic Law was implied in the names: law of Yahweh (Ezra 7:10; etc.), law of God (Nehemiah 8:18; etc.), book of the law of Yahweh (2 Chronicles 17:9; etc.), book of the law of God (Joshua 24:26; etc.). The word law in the foregoing expressions has been rendered by nomos, with or without the article, in the Septuagint version. The New Testament refers to the Mosaic law in various ways: the law (Matthew 5:17; Romans 2:12; etc.); the law of Moses (Luke 2:22; 24:44; Acts 28:23); the book of Moses (Mark 12:26); or simply, Moses (Luke 24:2; Acts 15:21). Even the Talmud and the older Rabbinic writings call the first part of the Bible the book of the law, while in Aramaic it is simply termed law (cf. Buxtorf, “Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum Rabbinicum”, 791, 983; Levy, “Chaldaisches Worterbuch”, 268, 16; Aicher, “Das Alte Testament in der Mischna”, Freiburg, 1906, p. 16).

The Greek name pentateuchos, implying a division of the law into five parts, occurs for the first time about A. D. 150-75 in the letter to Flora by the Valentinian Ptolemy (cf. St. Epiphan., “Haer.”, XXXIII, iv; P.G., XLI, 560). An earlier occurrence of the name was supposed to exist in a passage of Hippolytus where the Psalter is called kai auto allon pentateuchon (cf. edition of de Lagarde, Leipzig and London, 1858 p. 193); but the passage has been found to belong to Epiphanius (cf. “Hippolytus” in “Die griechischen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte”, Leipzig, 1897, t. I, 143). The name is used again by Origen (Comment. in Ev. Jo., t. II; P.G., XIV, 192; cf. P.G., XIII, 444), St. Athanasius (Ep. ad Marcellin., 5; P.G., XXVII, 12), and several times by St. Epiphanius (De mensur. et ponderib., 4, 6; P.G., XLIII, 244). In Latin, Tertullian uses the masculine form Pentateuchus (Adv. Marcion., I, 10; P.L., II, 257), while St. Isidore of Seville prefers the neuter Pentateuchum (Etym., VI, ii, 1, 2; P.L., LXXXII, 230). The analogous forms Octateuch, Heptateuch, and Hexateuch have been used to refer to the first, eight, seven, and six books of the Bible respectively. The Rabbinic writers adopted the expression “the five-fifths of the law” or simply “the five-fifths” to denote the five books of the Pentateuch.

Both the Palestinian and the Alexandrian Jews had distinct names for each of the five books of the Pentateuch. In Palestine, the opening words of the several books served as their titles; hence we have the names: bereshith, we’elleh shemoth or simply shemoth, wayyiqra, wayedhabber, and elleh haddebarim or simply debarim. Though these were the ordinary Hebrew titles of the successive Pentateuchal books, certain Rabbinic writers denote the last three according to their contents; they called the third book torath kohanim, or law of priests; the fourth, homesh happiqqudhim, or book of census; the fifth, mishneh thorah, or repetition of the law. The Alexandrian Jews derived their Greek names of the five books from the contents of either the whole or the beginning of each division. Thus the first book is called Genesis kosmou or simply Genesis; the second, Exodus Aigyptou or Exodus; the third, Leueitikon; the fourth, Arithmoi; and the fifth, Deuteronomion. These names passed from the Septuagint into the Latin Vulgate, and from this into most of the translations of the Vulgate. Arithmoi however was replaced by the Latin equivalent Numeri, while the other names retained their form.

II. ANALYSIS

The contents of the Pentateuch are partly of an historical, partly of a legal character. They give us the history of the Chosen People from the creation of the world to the death of Moses, and acquaint us too with the civil and religious legislation of the Israelites during the life of their great lawgiver. Genesis may be considered as the introduction to the other four books; it contains the early history down to the preparation of Israel’s exit form Egypt. Deuteronomy, consisting mainly of discourses, is practically a summary repetition of the Mosaic legislation, and concludes also the history of the people under the leadership of Moses. The three intervening books consider the wanderings of Israel in the desert and the successive legal enactments. Each of these three great divisions has its own special introduction (Genesis 1:1-2:3; Exodus 1:1-1:7; Deuteronomy 1:1-5); and since the subject matter distinguishes Leviticus from Exodus and Numbers, not to mention the literary terminations of the third and fourth books (Leviticus 27:34; Numbers 26:13), the present form of the Pentateuch exhibits both a literary unity and a division into five minor parts.

A. GENESIS

The Book of Genesis prepares the reader for the Pentateuchal legislation; it tells us how God chose a particular family to keep His Revelation, and how He trained the Chosen People to fulfil its mission. From the nature of its contents the book consists of two rather unequal parts; cc. i-xi present the features of a general history, while cc. xii-1 contain the particular history of the Chosen People. By a literary device, each of these parts is subdivided into five sections differing in length. The sections are introduced by the phrase elleh tholedhoth (these are the generations) or its variant zeh sepher toledhoth (this is the book of the generations). “Generations”, however, is only the etymological meaning of the Hebrew toledhoth; in its context the formula can hardly signify a mere genealogical table, for it is neither preceded nor followed by such tables. As early Oriental history usually begins with genealogical records, and consists to a large extend of such records, one naturally interprets the above introductory formula and its variant as meaning, “this is the history” or “this is the book of the history.” History in these phrases is not to be understood as a narrative resting on folklore, as Fr. Von Hummelauer believes (“Exegetisches zur Inspirationsfrage, Biblische Studien”, Freiburg, 1904, IX, 4, pp. 26-32); but as a record based on genealogies. Moreover, the introductory formula often refers back to some principal feature of the preceding section, thus forming a transition and connection between the successive parts. Gen., v, 1, e. g., refers back to Gen., ii, 7 sqq.; vi, 9 to v, 29 sqq. and vi, 8; x, 1 to ix, 18, 19, etc. Finally, the sacred writer deals very briefly with the non-chosen families or tribes, and he always considers them before the chosen branch of the family. He treats of Cain before he speaks of Seth; similarly, Cham and Japhet precede Sem; the rest of Sem’s posterity precedes Abraham; Ismael precedes Isaac; Esau precedes Jacob.

Bearing in mind these general outlines of the contents and the literary structure of Genesis, we shall easily understand the following analytical table. Introduction (Genesis 1:1-2:3) — Consists of the Hexaemeron; it teaches the power and goodness of God as manifested in the creation of the world, and also the dependence of creatures on the dominion of the Creator. General History (2:4-11:26) — Man did not acknowledge his dependence on God. Hence, leaving the disobedient to their own devices, God chose one special family or one individual as the depositary of His Revelation. History of Heaven and Earth (2:4-4:26) — Here we have the story of the fall of our first parents, ii, 5-iii, 24; of the fratricide of Cain, iv, 1-16; the posterity of Cain and its elimination, iv, 17-26. History of Adam (5:1-6:8) — The writer enumerates the Sethites, another line of Adam’s descendants, v, 1-32, but shows that they too became so corrupt that only one among them found favour before God, vi, 1-8. History of Noe (6:9-9:29) — Neither the Deluge which destroyed the whole human race excepting Noe’s family, vi, 11-viii, 19, nor God’s covenant with Noe and his sons, viii, 20-ix, 17, brought about the amendment of the human family, and only one of Noe’s sons was chosen as the bearer of the Divine blessings, ix, 18-29. History of the Sons of Noe (10:1-11:9) — The posterity of the non-chosen sons, x, 1-32, brought a new punishment on the human race by its pride, xi, 1-9. History of Sem (11:10-26) — The posterity of Sem is enumerated down to Thare the father of Abraham, in whose seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. Special History (11:27-50:26) — Here the inspired writer describes the special Providence watching over Abraham and his offspring which developed in Egypt into a large nation. At the same time, he eliminates the sons of Abraham who were not children of God’s promise. This teaches the Israelites that carnal descent from Abraham does not suffice to make them true sons of Abraham. History of Thare (11:27-25:11) — This section tells of the call of Abraham, his transmigration into Chanaan, his covenant with God, and His promises. History of Ismael (25:12-28) — This section eliminates the tribes springing from Ismael. History of Isaac (25:19-35:29 — Here we have the history of Isaac’s sons, Esau and Jacob. History of Esau (36:1-37:1) — The sacred writer gives a list of Esau’s posterity; it does not belong to the number of the Chosen People. History of Jacob (37:2-50:26) — This final portion of Genesis tells of the fate of Jacob’s family down to the death of the Patriarch and of Joseph. What has been said shows a uniform plan in the structure of Genesis, which some scholars prefer to call “schematism”. (i) The whole book is divided into ten sections. (ii) Each section is introduced by the same formula. (iii) The sections are arranged according to a definite plan, the history of the lateral genealogical branches always preceding that of the corresponding part of the main line. (iv) Within the sections, the introductory formula or the title is usually followed by a brief repetition of some prominent feature of the preceding section, a fact duly noted and explained by as early a writer as Rhabanus Maurus (Comment. In Gen., II, xii; P.G., CVII, 531-2), but misconstrued by our recent critics into an argument for a diversity of sources. (v) The history of each Patriarch tells of the development of his family during his lifetime, while the account of his life varies between a bare notice consisting of a few words or lines, and a more lengthy description. (vi) When the life of the Patriarch is given more in detail, the account usually ends in an almost uniform way, indicating the length of his life and his burial with his ancestors (cf. ix, 29; xi, 32; xxv, 7; xxxv, 28; xlvii, 28). Such a definite plan of the book shows that it was written with a definite end in view and according to preconceived arrangement. The critics attribute this to the final “redactor” of the Pentateuch who adopted, according to their views, the genealogical framework and the “schematism” from the Priestly Code. The value of these views will be discussed later; for the present, it suffices to know that a striking unity prevails throughout the Book of Genesis (cf. Kurtrz, “Die Einheit der Genesis”, Berlin, 1846; Delattre, “Plan de la Genèse” in “Revue des quest. hist.”, July, 1876; XX, pp. 5-43; Delattre, “Le plan de la Genese et les generations du ciel et de la terre” in “La science cath.”, 15 Oct., 1891, V, pp. 978-89; de Broglie, “Etude sur les genealogies bibliques” in “Le congres scientif. internat. des catholiques de 1888”, Paris, 1889, I, pp. 94-101; Julian, “Etude critique sur la composition de la Genese”, Paris, 1888, pp. 232-50).

B. EXODUS

After the death of Joseph, Israel had grown into a people, and its history deals no longer with mere genealogies, but with the people’s national and religious development. The various laws are given and promulgated as occasion required them; hence they are intimately connected with the history of the people, and the Pentateuchal books in which they are recorded are rightly numbered among the historical books of Scripture. Only the third book of the Pentateuch exhibits rather the features of a legal code. The Book of Exodus consists of a brief introduction and three main parts: Introduction, i, 1-7.- A brief summary of the history of Jacob connects Genesis with Exodus, and serves at the same time as transition from the former to the latter. (1) First Part, i, 8-xiii, 16.- It treats of the events preceding and preparing the exit of Israel from Egypt. (a) Ex., i, 8-ii, 25; the Israelites are oppressed by the new Pharao “that knew not Joseph”, but God prepares them a liberator in Moses. (b) Ex., iii, 1-iv, 31.-Moses is called to free his people; his brother Aaron is given him as companion; their reception by the Israelites. (c) v, 1-x, 29.-Pharao refuses to listen to Moses and Aaron; God renews his promises; genealogies of Moses and Aaron; the heart of Pharao is not moved by the first nine plagues. (d) xi, 1-xiii, 16.-The tenth plaque consists in the death of the first-born; Pharao dismisses the people; law of the annual celebration of the pasch in memory of the liberation from Egypt. (2) Second Part, xiii, 17-xviii, 27.- Journey of Israel to Mt. Sinai and miracles preparing the people for the Sinaitic Law. (a) xiii, 1-xv, 21.-The Israelites, led and protected by a pillar of cloud and fire, cross the Red Sea, but the persecuting Egyptians perish in the waters. (b) xv, 22-xvii, 16.-The route of Israel is passing through Sur, Mara, Elim, Sin, Rephidim. At Mara the bitter waters are made sweet; in the Desert of Sin God sent quails and manna to the children of Israel; at Raphidim God gave them water form the rock, and defeated Amalec through the prayers of Moses. (c) xviii, 1-27.-Jethro visits his kinsmen, and at his suggestion Moses institutes the judges of the people. (3) Third Part, xix, 1-xl, 38.- Conclusion of the Sinaitic covenant and its renewal. Here Exodus assumes more the character of a legal code. (a) xix, 1-xx, 21.-The people journey to Sinai, prepare for the coming legislation, receive the decalogue, and ask to have the future laws promulgated through Moses. (b) xx, 22-xxiv, 8.-Moses promulgates certain laws together with promises for their observance, and confirms the covenant between God and the people with a sacrifice. The portion xx, 1-xxiii, 33, is also called the Book of the Covenant. (c) xxiv, 9-xxxi, 18.-Moses alone remains with God on the mountain for forty days, and receives various instructions about the tabernacle and other points pertaining to Divine worship. (d) xxxii, 1-xxxiv, 35.-The people adore the golden calf; at this sight, Moses breaks the divinely given tables of the law, punishes the idolaters, obtains pardon from God for the survivors, and, renewing the covenant, receives other tables of the law. (e) xxxv, 1-xl, 38.-The tabernacle with its appurtenances is prepared, the priests are anointed, and the cloud of the Lord covers the tabernacle, thus showing that He had made the people His own.

C. LEVITICUS

Leviticus, called by Rabbinic writers “Law of the Priests” or “Law of the Sacrifices”, contains nearly a complete collection of laws concerning the Levitical ministry. They are not codified in any logical order, but still we may discern certain groups of regulations touching the same subject. The Book of Exodus shows what God had done and was doing for His people; the Book of Leviticus prescribes what the people must do for God, and how they must render themselves worthy of His constant presence. (1) First Part, i, 1-x, 20.-Duties of Israel toward God living in their midst. (a) i, 1-vi, 7.-The different kinds of sacrifices are enumerated, and their rites are described. (b) vi, 8-vii, 36.-The duties and rights of the priests, the official offerers of the sacrifices, are stated. (c) viii, 1-x, 20.-The first priests are consecrated and introduced into their office. (2) Second Part, xi, 1-xxvii, 34.-Legal cleanness demanded by the Divine presence. (a) xi, 1-xx, 27.-The entire people must be legally clean; the various ways in which cleanness must be kept; interior cleanness must be added to external cleanness. (b) xxi, 1-xxii, 33.-Priests must excel in both internal and external cleanness; hence they have to keep special regulations. (c) xxiii, 1-xxvii, 34.-The other laws, and the promises and threats made for the observance or the violation of the laws, belong to both priests and people.

D. NUMBERS

Numbers, at times called “In the Desert” by certain Rabbinic writers because it covers practically the whole time of Israel’s wanderings in the desert. Their story was begun in Exodus, but interrupted by the Sinaitic legislation; Numbers takes up the account from the first month of the second year, and brings it down to the eleventh month of the fortieth year. But the period of 38 years is briefly treated, only its beginning and end being touched upon; for this span of time was occupied by the generation of Israelites that had been condemned by God. (1) First Part, i, 1-xiv, 45.-Summary of the happenings before the rejection of the rebellious generation, especially during the first two months of the second year. The writer inverts the chronological order of these two months, or order not to interrupt the account of the people’s wanderings by a description of the census, of the arrangement of the tribes, of the duties of the various families of the Levites, all of which occurrences or ordinances belong to the second month. Thus he first states what remained unchanged throughout the desert life of the people, and then reverts to the account of the wanderings from the first month of the second year. (a) i, 1-vi, 27.-The census is taken, the tribes are arranged in their proper order, the duties of the Levites are defined, the regulations concerning cleanness is the camp are promulgated. (b) vii, 1-ix, 14.-Occurrences belonging to the first month: offerings of the princes at the dedication of the tabernacle, consecration of the Levites and duration of their ministry, celebration of the second pasch. (c) ix, 15-xiv, 45.-Signals for breaking up the camp; the people leave Sinai on the twenty-second day of the second month, and journey towards Cades in the desert Pharan; they murmur against Moses on account of fatigue, want of flesh-meat, etc.; deceived by faithless spies, they refuse to enter into the Promised Land, and the whole living generation is rejected by God. (2) Second Part, xv, 1-xix, 22.-Events pertaining to the rejected generation. (a) xv, 1-41.-Certain laws concerning sacrifices; Sabbath-breaking is punished with death; the law of fringes on the garments. (b) xvi, 1-xvii, 13.-The schism of Core and his adherents; their punishment; the priesthood is confirmed to Aaron by the blooming rod which is kept for a remembrance in the tabernacle. (c) xviii, 1-xix, 22.-The charges of the priests and Levites, and their portion; the law of the sacrifice of the red cow, and the water of expiation. (3) Third Part, xx, 1-xxxvi, 13.-History of the journey from the first to the eleventh month of the fortieth year. (a) xx, 1-xxi, 20.-Death of Mary, sister of Moses; God again gives the murmuring people water from the rock, but refuses Moses and Aaron entrance to the Promised Land on account of their doubt; Aaron dies while the people go around the Idumean mountains; the malcontents are punished with fiery serpents. (b) xxi, 21-xxv, 18.-The land of the Amorrhites is seized; the Moabites vainly attempt to destroy Israel by the curse of Balaam; the Madianites lead the people into idolatry. (c) xxvi, 1-xxvii, 23.-A new census is taken with a view of dividing the land; the law of inheritance; Josue is appointed to succeed Moses. (d) xxviii, 1-xxx, 17.-Certain laws concerning sacrifices, vows, and feasts are repeated and completed. (e) xxxi, 1-xxxii, 40.-After the defeat of the Madianites, the country across Jordan is given to the tribes of Ruben and Gad, and to half of the tribe of Manasses. (f) xxxiii, 1-40.-List of encampments of people of Israel during their wandering in the desert. (g) xxxiii, 50-xxxvi, 13.-Command to destroy the Chanaanites; limits of the Promised Land and names of the men who are to divide it; Levitical cities, and cities of refuge; law concerning murder and manslaughter; ordinance concerning the marriage of heiresses.

E. DEUTERONOMY

Deuteronomy is a partial repetition and explanation of the foregoing legislation together with an urgent exhortation to be faithful to it. The main body of the book consists of three discourses delivered by Moses to the people in the eleventh month of the fortieth year; but the discourses are precede by a short introduction, and they are followed by several appendices. Introduction, i, 1-5.-Brief indication of the subject matter, the time, and the place of the following discourses. (1) First Discourse, i, 6-iv, 40.-God’s benefits are enumerated, and the people are exhorted to keep the law. (a) i, 6-iii, 29.-The main occurrences during the time of the wandering in the desert are recalled as showing the goodness and justice of God. (b) iv, 1-40.-Hence the covenant with God must be kept. By way of parenthesis, the sacred writer adds here (i) the appointment of three cities of refuge across the Jordan, iv, 41-43; (ii) an historical preamble, preparing us for the second discourse, iv, 44-49. (2) Second Discourse, v, 1-xxvi, 19.-This forms almost the bulk of Deuteronomy. It rehearses the whole economy of the covenant in two sections, the one general, the other particular. (a) The General Repetition, v, 1-xi, 32.-Repetition of the decalogue, and reasons for the promulgation of the law through Moses; explanation of the first commandment, and prohibitions of all intercourse with the gentiles; reminder of the Divine favours and punishments; promise of victory over the Chanaanites; God’s blessing on the observance of the Law, His curse on the transgressors. (b) Special Laws, xii, 1-xxvi, 19.-(i) Duties towards God: He is to be duly worshiped, never to be abandoned; distinction of clean and unclean meats; tithes and first-fruits; the three principal solemnities of the year. (ii) Duties towards God’s representatives: toward the judges, the future kings, the priests, and Prophets. (iii) Duties towards the neighbour: as to life, external possessions, marriage, and various other particulars. (3) Third Discourse, xxvii, 1-xxx, 20.-A renewed exhortation to keep the law, based on diverse reasons. (a) xxvii, 1-26.-Command to inscribe the law on stones after crossing the Jordan, and to promulgate the blessings and curses connected with the observance or non-observance of the law. (b) xxviii, 1-68.-A more minute statement of the good or evil depending on the observance or violation of the law. (c) xxix, 1-xxx, 20.-The goodness of God is extolled; all are urged to be faithful to God. (4) Historical Appendix, xxxi, 1-xxxiv, 12. (a) xxxi, 1-27.-Moses appoints Josue as his successor, orders him to read the law to the people every seven years, and to place a copy of the same in the ark. (b) xxxi, 28-xxxii, 47.-Moses calls an assembly of the Ancients and recites his canticle. (c) xxxii, 48-52.-Moses views the Promised Land from a distance. (d) xxxiii, 1-29.-He blesses the tribes of Israel. (e) xxxiv, 1-12.-His death, burial, and special eulogium.

III. AUTHENTICITY

The contents of the Pentateuch furnish the basis for the history, the law, the worship, and the life of the Chosen People of God. Hence the authorship of the work, the time and manner of its origin, and its historicity are of paramount importance. These are not merely literary problems, but questions belonging to the fields of history of religion and theology. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is inseparably connected with the question, whether and in what sense Moses was the author or intermediary of the Old-Testament legislation, and the bearer of pre-Mosaic tradition. According to the trend of both Old and New Testament, and according to Jewish and Christian theology, the work of the great lawgiver Moses is the origin of the history of Israel and the basis of its development down to the time of Jesus Christ; but modern criticism sees in all this only the result, or the precipitate, of a purely natural historical development. The question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch leads us, therefore, to the alternative, revelation or historical evolution; it touches the historical and theological foundation of both the Jewish and the Christian dispensation. We shall consider the subject first in the light of Scripture; secondly, in the light of Jewish and Christian tradition; thirdly, in the light of internal evidence, furnished by the Pentateuch; finally, in the light of ecclesiastical decisions.

A. TESTIMONY OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

It will be found convenient to divide the Biblical evidence for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch into three parts: (1) Testimony of the Pentateuch; (2) Testimony of the other Old-Testament books; (3) Testimony of the New Testament.

(1) Witness of the Pentateuch

The Pentateuch in its present form does not present itself as a complete literary production of Moses. It contains an account of Moses’ death, it tells the story of his life in the third person and in an indirect form, and the last four books do not exhibit the literary form of memoirs of the great lawgiver; besides, the expression “God said to Moses” shows only the Divine origin of the Mosaic laws, but does not prove that Moses himself codified in the Pentateuch the various laws promulgated by him. On the other hand, the Pentateuch ascribes to Moses the literary authorship of at least four sections, partly historical, partly legal, partly poetical. (a) After Israel’s victory over the Amalecites near Raphidim, the Lord said to Moses (Exodus 17:14): “Write this for a memorial in a book, and deliver it to the ears of Josue.” This order is naturally restricted to Amalec’s defeat, a benefit which God wished to keep alive in the memory of the people (Deuteronomy 25:17-19). The present pointing of the Hebrew text reads “in the book”, but the Septuagint version omits the definite article. Even if we suppose that the Massoretic pointing gives the original text, we can hardly prove that the book referred to is the Pentateuch, though this is highly probable (cf. von Hummelauer “Exodus et Leviticus”, Paris, 1897, p. 182; Idem, “Deuteronomium”, Paris, 1901, p. 152; Kley, “Die Pentateuchfrage”, Munster, 1903, p. 217). (b) Again, Ex., xxiv, 4: “And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.” The context does not allow us to understand these words in an indefinite manner, but as referring to the words of the Lord immediately preceding or to the so-called “Book of the Covenant”, Ex., xx-xxiii. (c) Ex., xxxiv, 27: “And the Lord said to Moses: Write thee these words by which I have made a covenant both with thee and with Israel.” The next verse adds: “and he wrote upon the tables the ten words of the covenant.” Ex., xxxiv, 1, 4, shows how Moses had prepared the tables, and Ex., xxxiv, 10-26, gives us the contents of the ten words. (d) Num., xxxiii, 1-2: “These are the mansions of the children of Israel, who went out of Egypt by their troops under the conduct of Moses and Aaron, which Moses wrote down according to the places of their encamping.” Here we are informed that Moses wrote the list of the people’s encampments in the desert; but where it this list to be found? Most probably it is given in Num., xxxiii, 3-49, or the immediate context of the passage telling of Moses’ literary activity; there are, however, scholars who understand this latter passage as referring to the history of Israel’s departure from Egypt written in the order of the people’s encampments, so that it would be our present Book of Exodus. But this view is hardly probable; for its assumption that Num., xxxiii, 3-49, is a summary of Exodus cannot be upheld, as the chapter of Numbers mentions several encampments not occurring in Exodus.

Besides these four passages there are certain indications in Deuteronomy which point to the literary activity of Moses. Deut., i, 5: “And Moses began to expound the law and to say”; even if the “law” in this text refer to the whole of the Pentateuchal legislation, which is not very probable, it shows only that Moses promulgated the whole law, but not that he necessarily wrote it. Practically the entire Book of Deuteronomy claims to be a special legislation promulgated by Moses in the land of Moab: iv, 1-40; 44-49; v, 1 sqq.; xii, 1 sqq. But there is a suggestion of writing too: xvii, 18-9, enjoins that the future kings are to receive a copy of this law from the priests in order to read and observe it; xxvii, 1-8, commands that on the west side of the Jordan “all the words of this law” be written on stones set up in Mount Hebal; xxviii, 58, speaks of “all the words of this law, that are written in this volume” after enumerating the blessings and curses which will come upon the observers and violators of the law respectively, and which are again referred to as written in a book in xxix, 20, 21, 27, and xxxii, 46, 47; now, the law repeatedly referred to as written in a book must be at least the Deuteronomic legislation. Moreover, xxxi, 9-13 states, “and Moses wrote this law”, and xxxi, 26, adds, “take this book, and put it in the side of the ark. . .that it may be there for a testimony against thee”; to explain these texts as fiction or as anachronisms is hardly compatible with the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. Finally, xxxi, 19, commands Moses to write the canticle contained in Deut., xxxii, 1-43.

The Scriptural scholar will not complain that there are so few express indications in the Pentateuch of Moses’ literary activity; he will rather be surprised at their number. As far as explicit testimony for its own, at least partial, authorship is concerned, the Pentateuch compares rather favourably with many other books of the Old Testament.

(2) Witness of other Old-Testament Books (a) Josue.-The narrative of the Book of Josue presupposes not merely the facts and essential ordinances contained in the Pentateuch, but also the law given by Moses and written in the book of the law of Moses: Jos., i, 7-8; viii, 31; xxii, 5; xxiii, 6. Josue himself “wrote all these things in the volume of the law of the Lord” (xxiv, 26). Prof. Hobverg maintains that this “volume of the law of the Lord” is the Pentateuch (“Über den Ursprung des Pentateuchs” in “Biblische Zeitschrift”, 1906, IV, 340); Mangenot believes that it refers at least to Deuteronomy (Dict. de la Bible, V, 66). At any rate, Josue and his contemporaries were acquainted with a written Mosaic legislation, which was divinely revealed.

(b) Judges; I, II Kings.-In the Book of Judges and the first two Books of Kings there is no explicit reference to Moses and the book of the law, but a number of incidents and statements presuppose the existence of the Pentateuchal legislation and institutions. Thus Judges, xv, 8-10, recalls Israel’s delivery from Egypt and its conquest of the Promised Land; Judges, xi, 12-28, states incidents recorded in Num., xx, 14; xxi, 13,24; xxii, 2; Judges, xiii, 4, states a practice founded on the law of the Nazarites in Num., vi, 1-21; Judges, xviii, 31, speaks of the tabernacle existing in the times when there was no king in Israel; Judges, xx, 26-8 mentions the ark of the covenant, the various kinds of sacrifices, and the Aaronic priesthood. The Pentateuchal history and laws are similarly presupposed in I Kings, x, 18; xv, 1-10; x, 25; xxi, 1-6; xxii, 6 sqq.; xxiii, 6-9; II Kings, vi.

(c) III, IV Kings.-The last two Books of Kings repeatedly speak of the law of Moses. To restrict the meaning of this term to Deuteronomy is an arbitrary exegesis (cf. 1 Kings 2:3; 10:31); Amasias showed mercy to the children of the murderers “according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses” (2 Kings 14:6); the sacred writer records the Divine promise of protecting the Israelites “Only if they will observe to do all that I have commanded them according to the law which my servant Moses commanded them” (2 Kings 21:8). In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josias was found the book of the law (2 Kings 22:8, 11), or the book of the covenant (2 Kings 23:2), according to which he conducted his religious reform (IV Kings, xxiii, 1024), and which is identified with “the law of Moses” (2 Kings 23:25). Catholic commentators are not at one whether this law-book was Deuteronomy (von Hummelauer, “Deuteronomium”, Paris, 1901, p. 40-60, 83-7) or the entire Pentateuch (Clair, “Les livres des Rois”, Paris, 1884, II, p. 557 seq.; Hoberg, “Moses und der Pentateuch”, Frieburg, 1905, p. 17 seq.; “uber den Ursprung des Pentateuchs” in “Biblische Zeitschrift”, 1906, IV, pp. 338-40).

(d) Paralipomenon.-The inspired writer of Paralipomenon refers to the law and the book of Moses much more frequently and clearly. The objectionable names and numbers occurring in these books are mostly due to transcribers. The omission of incidents which would detract from the glory of the Israelite kings or would not edify the reader is not detrimental to the credibility or veracity of the work. Otherwise one should have to place among works of fiction a number of biographical or patriotic publications intended for the young or for the common reader. On their part, the modern critics are too eager to discredit the authority of Paralipomena. “After removing the account of Paralipomena”, writes de Wette (Beitrage, I, 135), “the whole Jewish history assumes another form, and the Pentateuchal investigations take another turn; a number of strong proofs, hard to explain away, for the early existence of the Mosaic books have disappeared, the other vestiges of their existence are placed in a different light.” A glance at the contents of Parlipomenon suffices to explain the efforts of de Witte and Wellhausen to disprove the historicity of the books. Not only are the genealogies (1 Chronicles 1-9) and the descriptions of worship traced after the data and laws of the Pentateuch, but the sacred writer expressly points out their conformity with what is written in the law of the Lord (1 Chronicles 16:40), in the law of Moses (2 Chronicles 23:18; 31:3), thus identifying the law of the Lord with that written by Moses (cf. 2 Chronicles 25:4). The reader will find similar indications of the existence and the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch in I Par., xxii, 12 seq.; II Par., xvii, 9; xxxiii, 4; xxxiv, 14; xxv, 12. By an artificial interpretation, indeed, the Books of Paralipomenon may be construed to represent the Pentateuch as a book containing the law promulgated by Moses; but the natural sense of the foregoing passages regards the Pentateuch as a book edited by Moses.

(e) I, II Esdras.-The Books of Esdras and Nehemias, too, taken in their natural and commonly accepted sense, consider the Pentateuch as the book of Moses, not merely as a book containing the law of Moses. This contention is based on the study of the following texts: I Esd., iii, 2 sqq.; vi, 18; vii, 14; II Esd., i, 7 sqq.; viii, 1, 8, 14; ix, 3; x, 34, 36; xiii, 1-3. Graf and his followers expressed the view that the book of Moses referred to in these texts is not the Pentateuch, but only the Priestly Code; but when we keep in mind that the book in question contained the laws of Lev., xxiii, and Deut., vii, 2-4; xv, 2, we perceive at once that the book of Moses cannot be restricted to the Priestly Code. To the witness of the historical books we may add II Mach., ii, 4; vii, 6; Judith, viii, 23; Ecclus., xxiv, 33; xlv, 1-6; xlv, 18, and especially the Preface of Ecclus.

(f) Prophetic Books.-Express reference to the written law of Moses is found only in the later Prophets: Bar., ii, 2, 28; Dan., ix, 11, 13; Mal., iv, 4. Among these, Baruch knows that Moses has been commanded to write the law, and though his expressions run parallel to those of Deut., xxviii, 15, 53, 62-64, his threats contain allusions to those contained in other parts of the Pentateuch. The other Prophets frequently refer to the law of the Lord guarded by the priests (cf. Deuteronomy 31:9), and they put it on the same level with Divine Revelation and the eternal covenant of the Lord. They appeal to God’s covenant, the sacrificial laws, the calendar of feasts, and other laws of the Pentateuch in such a way as to render it probable that a written legislation formed the basis of their prophetic admonitions (cf. Hosea 8:12), and that they were acquainted with verbal expressions of the book of the law. Thus in the northern kingdom Amos (iv, 4-5; v, 22 sqq.) and Isaias in the south (i, 11 sqq.) employ expressions which are practically technical words for sacrifice occurring in Lev., i-iii; vii, 12, 16; and Deut., xii, 6.

(3) Witness of the New Testament

We need not show that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the whole of the Pentateuch as written by Moses. If they attributed to Moses all the passages which they happen to cite, if they ascribe the Pentateuch to Moses whenever there is question of its authorship, even the most exacting critics must admit that they express their conviction that the work was indeed written by Moses. When the Sadducees quote against Jesus the marriage law of Deut., xxv, 5, as written by Moses (Matthew 22:24; Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28), Jesus does not deny the Mosaic authorship, but appeals to Ex., iii, 6, as equally written by Moses (Mark 12:26; Matthew 22:31; Luke 20:37). Again, in the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16:29), He speaks of “Moses and the prophets”, while on other occasions He speaks of “the law and the prophets” (Luke 16:16), thus showing that in His mind the law, or the Pentateuch, and Moses are identical. The same expressions reappear in the last discourse addressed by Christ to His disciples (Luke 24:44-6; cf. 27): “which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me”. Finally, in John, v, 45-7, Jesus is more explicit in asserting the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch: “There is one that accuseth you, Moses. . .for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” Nor can it be maintained that Christ merely accommodated himself to the current beliefs of his contemporaries who considered Moses as the author of the Pentateuch not merely in a moral but also in the literary sense of authorship. Jesus did not need to enter into the critical study of the nature of Mosaic authorship, but He could not expressly endorse the popular belief, if it was erroneous.

The Apostles too felt convinced of, and testified to, the Mosaic authorship. “Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him: We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write.” St. Peter introduces a quotation from Deut., xviii, 15, with the words: “For Moses said” (Acts 3:22). St. James and St. Paul relate that Moses is read in the synagogues on the Sabbath day (Acts 15:21; 2 Corinthians 3:15). The great Apostle speaks in other passages of the law of Moses (Acts 13:33; 1 Corinthians 9:9); he preaches Jesus according to the law of Moses and the Prophets (Acts 28:23), and cites passages from the Pentateuch as words written by Moses (Romans 10:5-8; 19). St. John mentions the canticle of Moses (Revelation 15:3).

B. WITNESS OF TRADITION

The voice of tradition, both Jewish and Christian, is so unanimous and constant in proclaiming the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch that down to the seventeenth century it did not allow the rise of any serious doubt. The following paragraphs are only a meagre outline of this living tradition.

(1) Jewish Tradition

It has been seen that the books of the Old Testament, beginning with those of the Pentateuch, present Moses as the author of at least parts of the Pentateuch. The writer of the Books of Kings believes that Moses is the author of Deuteronomy at least. Esdras, Nehemias, Malachias, the author of Paralipomena, and the Greek authors of the Septuagint Version consider Moses as the author of the whole Pentateuch. At the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles friend and foe take the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch for granted; neither our Lord nor His enemies take exception to this assumption. In the first century of the Christian era, Josephus ascribes to Moses the authorship of the entire Pentateuch, not excepting the account of the lawgiver’s death (“Antiq. Jud.”, IV, viii, 3-48; cf. I Procem., 4; “Contra Apion.”, I, 8). The Alexandrian philosopher Philo is convinced that the entire Pentateuch is the work of Moses, and that the latter wrote a prophetic account of his death under the influence of a special divine inspiration (“De vita Mosis”, ll. II, III in “Opera”, Geneva, 1613, pp. 511, 538). The Babylonian Talmud (“Baba-Bathra”, II, col. 140; “Makkoth”, fol. IIa; “Menachoth”, fol. 30a; cf. Vogue, “Hist. de la Bible et de l’exegese biblique jusqua’a nos jours”, Paris, 1881, p. 21), the Talmud of Jerusalem (Sota, v, 5), the rabbis, and the doctors of Israel (cf. Furst, “Der Kanon des Alten Testaments nach den Überlieferungen im Talmud und Midrasch”, Leipzig, 1868, pp. 7-9) bear testimony to the continuance of this tradition for the first thousand years. Though Isaac ben Jasus in the eleventh century and Abenesra in the twelfth admitted certain post-Mosaic additions in the Pentateuch, still they as well as Maimonides upheld its Mosaic authorship, and did not substantially differ in this point from the teaching of R. Becchai (thirteenth cent.), Joseph Karo, and Abarbanel (fifteenth cent.; cf. Richard Simon, “Critique de la Bibl. des aut. eccles. de E. Dupin”, Paris, 1730, III, pp. 215-20). Only in the seventeenth century, Baruch Spinoza rejected the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, pointing out the possibility that the work might have been written by Esdras (“Tract. Theol.-politicus”, c. viii, ed. Tauchnitz, III, p. 125). Among the more recent Jewish writers several have adopted the results of the critics, thus abandoning the tradition of their forefathers.

(2) Christian Tradition

The Jewish tradition concerning the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was brought in to the Christian Church by Christ Himself and the Apostles. No one will seriously deny the existence and continuance of such a tradition from the patristic period onward; one might indeed be curious about the interval between the time of the Apostles and beginning of the third century. For this period we may appeal to the “Epistle of Barnabus” (x, 1-12; Funk, “Patres apostol.”, 2nd ed., Tubingen, 1901, I, p. 66-70; xii, 2-9k; ibid., p. 74-6), to St. Clement of Rome (1 Corinthians 41:1; ibid., p. 152), St. Justin (“Apol. I”, 59; P. G., VI, 416; I, 32, 54; ibid., 377, 409; “Dial.”, 29; ibid., 537), to the author of “Cohort. Ad Graec.” (9, 28, 30, 33, 34; ibid., 257, 293, 296-7, 361), to St. Theophilus (“Ad Autol.”, III, 23; ibid., 1156; 11, 30; ibid., 1100), to St. Irenaeus (Cont. haer., I, ii, 6; P.G., VII, 715-6), to St. Hippolytus of Rome (“Comment. In Deut.”, xxxi, 9, 31, 35; cf. Achelis, “Arabische Fragmente etc.”, Leipzig, 1897, I, 118; “Philosophumena”, VIII, 8; X, 33; P.G., XVI, 3350, 3448), to Tertullian of Carthage (Adv. Hermog., XIX; P. L., II, 214), to Origen of Alexandria (Contra. Cels., III, 5-6; P. G., XI, 928; etc.), to St. Eusthatius of Antioch (De engastrimytha c. Orig., 21; P.G., XVIII, 656); for all these writers, and others might be added, bear witness to the continuance of the Christian tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. A list of the later Fathers who bear witness to the same truth may be found in Mangenot’s article in the “Dict. de la Bible” (V, 74 seq.). Hoberg (Moses und der Pentateuch, 72 seq.) has collected the testimony for the existence of the tradition during the Middle Ages and in more recent times.

But Catholic tradition does not necessarily maintain that Moses wrote every letter of the Pentateuch as it is to-day, and that the work has come down to us in an absolutely unchanged form. This rigid view of the Mosaic authorship began to develop in the eighteenth century, and practically gained the upper hand in the nineteenth. The arbitrary treatment of Scripture on the part of Protestants, and the succession of the various destructive systems advanced by Biblical criticism, caused this change of front in the Catholic camp. In the sixteenth century Card. Bellarmine, who may be considered as a reliable exponent of Catholic tradition, expressed the opinion that Esdras had collected, readjusted, and corrected the scattered parts of the Pentateuch, and had even added the parts necessary for the completion of the Pentateuchal history (De verbo Dei, II, I; cf. III, iv). The views of Genebrard, Pereira, Bonfrere, a Lapide, Masius, Jansenius, and of other notable Biblicists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are equally elastic with regard to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Not that they agree with the contentions of our modern Biblical criticism; but they show that to-day’s Pentateuchal problems were not wholly unknown to Catholic scholars, and that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch as determined by the Biblical Commission is no concession forced on the Church by unbelieving Bible students.

C. VOICE OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE

The possibility of producing a written record at the time of Moses is no longer contested. The art of writing was known long before the time of the great lawgiver, and was extensively practised both in Egypt and Babylon. As to the Israelites, Flinders Petrie infers from certain Semitic inscriptions found in 1905 on the Sinaitic peninsula, that they kept written accounts of their national history from the time of their captivity under Ramses II. The Tell-el-Amarna tablets show the language of Babylon was in a way the official language at the time of Moses, known in Western Asia, Palestine, and Egypt; the finds of Taanek have confirmed this fact. But it cannot be inferred from this that the Egyptians and Israelites employed this sacred or official language among themselves and in their religious documents (cf. Benzinger, “Hebraische Archaologie”, 2nd ed., Tubingen, 1907, p. 172 sqq.). It is not merely the possibility of writing at the time of Moses and the question of language that confronts us here; there is the further problem of the kind of written signs used in the Mosaic documents. The hieroglyphic and cuneiform signs were widely employed at that early date; the oldest inscriptions written in alphabetical characters date only from the ninth century B.C. But there can hardly be any doubt as to the higher antiquity of alphabetic writing, and there seems to be nothing to prevent our extending it back to the time of Moses. Finally, the Code of Hammurabi, discovered in Susa in 1901 by the French expedition funded by Mr. And Mrs. Dieulafoy, shows that even in pre-Mosaic times legal enactments were committed to, and preserved in, writing; for the Code antedates Moses some five centuries, and contains about 282 regulations concerning various contingencies in the civic life.

Thus far it has been shown negatively that an historic and legal document claiming to be written at the time of Moses involves no antecedent improbability of its authenticity. But the internal characteristics of the Pentateuch show also positively that the work is at least probably Mosaic. It is true that the Pentateuch contains no express declaration of its entire Mosaic authorship; but even the most exacting of critics will hardly require such testimony. It is practically lacking in all other books, whether sacred or profane. On the other hand, it has already been shown that four distinct passages of the Pentateuch are expressly ascribed to the authorship of Moses. Deut., xxxi, 24-9, is especially noted; for it knows that Moses wrote the “words of this law in a volume” and commanded it to be placed in the ark of the covenant as a testimony against the people who have been so rebellious during the lawgiver’s life and will “do wickedly” after his death. Again, a number of legal sections, though not explicitly ascribed to the writing of Moses, are distinctly derived from Moses as the lawgiver. Besides, many of the Pentateuchal laws bear evidence of their origin in the desert; hence they too lay an indirect claim to Mosaic origin. What has been said of a number of Pentateuchal laws is equally true of several historical sections. These contain in the Book of Numbers, for instance, so many names and numbers that they must have been handed down in writing. Unless the critics can bring irrefutable evidence showing that in these sections we have only fiction, they must grant that these historical details were written down in contemporary documents, and not transmitted by mere oral tradition. Moreover, Hommel (“Die altisraelitische Überlieferung in inschriftlicher Beleuchtung”, p. 302) has shown that the names in the lists of the Book of Numbers bear the character of the Arabian names of the second millennium before Christ, and can have originated only in the time of Moses, though it must be admitted that the text of certain portions, e. g., Num., xiii, has suffered in its transmission. We need not remind the reader that numerous Pentateuchal laws and data imply the conditions of a nomadic life of Israel. Finally, both the author of the Pentateuch and its first readers must have been more familiar with the topography and the social conditions of Egypt and with the Sinaitic peninsula than with the land of Chanaan. Cf., e. g., Deut., viii, 7-10; xi, 10 sqq. These internal characteristics of the Pentateuch have been developed at greater length by Smith, “The Book of Moses or the Pentateuch in its Authorship, Credibility, and Civilisation”, London, 1868; Vigouroux, “La Bible et les decouvertes modernes”, 6th ed., Paris, 1896, I, 453-80; II, 1-213, 529-47, 586-91; Idem, “Les Livres Saints et la critique rationaliste”, Paris, 1902, III, 28-46, 79-99, 122-6; Heyes, “Bibel und AEgypten”, Munster, 1904, p. 142; Cornely, “Introductio specialis in histor. Vet. Test. libros”, I, Paris, 1887, pp. 57-60; Poole, “Ancient Egypt” in “Contemporary Review”, March, 1879, pp. 757-9.

D. ECCLESIASTICAL DECISIONS

In accordance with the voice of the triple argument thus far advanced for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the Biblical Commission on 27 June, 1906, answered a series of questions concerning this subject in the following way:

(1) The arguments accumulated by the critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the sacred books designated by the name Pentateuch are not of such weight as to give us the right, after setting aside numerous passages of both Testaments taken collectively, the continuous consensus of the Jewish people, the constant tradition of the Church, and internal indications derived from the text itself, to maintain that these books have not Moses as their author, but are compiled from sources for the greatest part later than the Mosaic age.

(2) The Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch does not necessarily require such a redaction of the whole work as to render it absolutely imperative to maintain that Moses wrote all and everything with his own hand or dictated it to his secretaries; the hypothesis of those can be admitted who believe that he entrusted the composition of the work itself, conceived by him under the influence of Divine inspiration, to others, but in such a way that they were to express faithfully his own thoughts, were to write nothing against his will, were to omit nothing; and that finally the work thus produced should be approved by the same Moses, its principal and inspired author, and published under his name.

(3) It may be granted without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch, that Moses employed sources in the production of his work, i.e., written documents or oral traditions, from which he may have drawn a number of things in accordance with the end he had in view and under the influence of Divine inspiration, and inserted them in his work either literally or according to their sense, in an abbreviated or amplified form.

(4) The substantial Mosaic authenticity and integrity of the Pentateuch remains intact if it be granted that in the long course of centuries the work has suffered several modifications, as; post-Mosaic additions either appended by an inspired author or inserted into the text as glosses and explanations; the translation of certain words and forms out of an antiquated language into the recent form of speech; finally, wrong readings due to the fault of transcribers, which one may investigate and pass sentence on according to the laws of criticism.

The post-Mosaic additions and modifications allowed by the Biblical Commission in the Pentateuch without removing it from the range of substantial integrity and Mosaic authenticity are variously interpreted by Catholic scholars.

(1) We should have to understand them in a rather wide sense, if we were to defend the views of von Hummelauer or Vetter. This latter writer admits legal and historical documents based on Mosaic tradition, but written only in the times of the Judges; he places the first redaction of the Pentateuch in the time of the erection of Solomon’s temple, and its last redaction in the time of Esdras. Vetter died in 1906, the year in which the Biblical Commission issued the above Decree; it is an interesting question, whether and how the scholar would have modified his theory, if time had been granted him to do so.

(2) A less liberal interpretation of the Decree is implied in the Pentateuchal hypotheses advanced by Hobert (“Moses und der Pentateuch; Die Pentateuch Frage” in “Biblische Studien”, X, 4, Freiburg, 1907; “Erklarung des Genesis”, 1908, Freiburg, I-L), Schopfer (Geschichte des Alten Testamentes, 4th ed., 226 sqq.), Hopfl (“Die hohere Bibelkritik”, 2nd ed., Paderborn, 1906), Brucker (“L’eglise et la critique”, Paris, 1907, 103 sqq.), and Selbst (Schuster and Holzammer’s “Handbuch zur Biblischen Geschichte”, 7th ed., Freiburg, 1910, II, 94, 96). The last-named writer believes that Moses left a written law-book to which Josue and Samuel added supplementary sections and regulations, while David and Solomon supplied new statutes concerning worship and priesthood, and other kings introduced certain religious reforms, until Esdras promulgated the whole law and made it the basis of Israel’s restoration after the Exile. Our present Pentateuch is, therefore, an Esdrine edition of the work. Dr. Selbst feels convinced that his admission of both textual changes and material additions in the Pentateuch agrees with the law of historical development and with the results of literary criticism. Historical development adapts laws and regulations to the religious, civil, and social conditions of successive ages, while literary criticism discovers in our actual Pentateuch peculiarities of words and phrases which can hardly have been original, and also historical additions or notices, legal modifications, and signs of more recent administration of justice and of later forms of worship. But Dr. Selbst believes that these peculiarities do not offer a sufficient basis for a distinction of different sources in the Pentateuch.

(3) A strict interpretation of the words of the Decree is implied in the views of Kaulen (Einleitung, n. 193 sqq.), Key (“Die Pentateuchfrage, ihre Geschichte un ihre System”, Munster, 1903), Flunk (Kirchenlexicon, IX, 1782 sqq.), and Mangenot (“L’authenticite mosaique du Pentateuque”, Paris, 1907; Idem, “Dict. de la Bible”, V, 50-119. With the exception of those portions that belong to the time after the death of Moses, and of certain accidental changes of the text due to transcribers, the whole of the Pentateuch is the work of Moses who composed the work in one of the ways suggested by the Biblical Commission.

Finally, there is the question as the theological certainty of the thesis maintaining the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch.

(1) Certain Catholic scholars who wrote between 1887 and 1906 expressed their opinion that the thesis in question is not revealed in Scripture nor taught by the Church; that it expresses a truth not contained in Revelation, but a tenet which may be freely contested and discussed. At that time, ecclesiastical authority had issued no pronouncement on the question.

(2) Other writers grant that the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is not explicitly revealed, but they consider it as a truth revealed formally implicitly, being derived from the revealed formulae not by a syllogism in the strict sense of the word, but by a simple explanation of the terms. The denial of the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is an error, and the contradictory of the thesis maintaining the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is considered erronea in fide (cf. Mechineau, “L’origine mosaique du Pentateuque”, p. 34).

(3) A third class of scholars considers the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch neither as a freely debatable tenet, nor as a truth formally implicitly revealed; they believe it has been virtually revealed, or that it is inferred from revealed truth by truly syllogistic deduction. It is, therefore, a theologically certain truth, and its contradictory is a rash (temeraria) or even erroneous proposition (cf. Brucker, “Authenticite des livres de Moise” in “Etudes”, March, 1888, p. 327; ibid., January, 1897, p. 122-3; Mangenot, “L’authenticité mosaïque du Pentateuque”, pp. 267-310.

Whatever effect the ecclesiastical decision concerning the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch may have had, or will have, on the opinion of students of the Pentateuchal question, it cannot be said to have occasioned the conservative attitude of scholars who wrote before the promulgation of the Decree. The following list contains the names of the principal recent defenders of Mosaic authenticity: Hengstenberg, “Die Bucher Moses und Aegypten”, Berlin, 1841; Smith, “The Book of Moses or the Pentateuch in its Authorship, Credibility, and Civilisation”, London, 1868; C. Schobel, “Demonstration de l’authenticite du Deuteronome”, Paris, 1868; Idem, “Demonstration de l’authenticite mosaique de l’Exode”, Paris, 1871; Idem, “Demonstration de l’authenticite mosaique du Levitique et des Nombres”, Paris, 1869; Idem, “Demonstration de l’authenticite de la Genese”, Paris, 1872; Idem, “Le Moise historique et la redaction mosaique du Pentateuque”, Paris, 1875; Knabenbauer, “Der Pentateuch und die unglaubige Bibelkritik” in “Stimmen aus Maria-Laach”, 1873, IV; Bredenkamp, “Gesetz und Propheten”, Erlangen, 1881; Green, “Moses and the Prophets”, New York, 1883; Idem, “The Hebrew Feasts”, New York, 1885; Idem, “The Pentateuchal Question” in “Hebraica”, 1889-92; Idem, “The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch”, New York, 1895; Idem, “The Unity of the Book of Genesis”, New York, 1895; C. Elliot, “Vindication of the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch”, Cincinnati, 1884; Bissel, “The Pentateuch, its Origin and Structure”, New York, 1885; Ubaldi, “Introductio in Sacram Scripturam”, 2nd ed., Rome, 1882, I, 452- 509; Cornely, “Introductio specialis in historicos V. T. libros”, Paris, 1887, pp. 19-160; Vos, “Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes”, London, 1886; Bohl, “Zum Gesetz und zum Zeugniss”, Vienna, 1883; Zah, “Erneste Blicke in den Wahn der modernen Kritik des A. T.”, Gutersloh, 1893; Idem, “Das Deuteronomium”, 1890; Idem, “Israelitische und judische Geschichte”, 1895; Rupprecht, “Die Anschauung der kritischen Schule Wellhausens vom Pentateuch”, Leipzig, 1893; Idem, “Das Rathsel des Funfbuches Mose und seine falsche Losung”, Gutersloh, 1894; Idem, “Des Rathsels Losung order Beitrage zur richtigen Losung des Pentateuchrathsels”, 1897; Idem, “Die Kritik nach ihrem Recht uknd Unrecht”, 1897; “Lex Mosaica, or the Law of Moses and the Higher Criticism” (by Sayce, Rawlinson, Trench, Lias, Wace, etc.), London, 1894; Card. Meignan, “De L’Eden a Moise”, Paris, 1895, 1-88; Baxter, “Sanctuary and Sacrifice”, London, 1896; Abbe de Broglie, “Questions bibliques”, Paris, 1897, pp. 89-169; Pelt, “Histoire de l’A.T.”, 3rd ed., Paris, 1901, I, pp. 291-326; Vigouroux, “Les Livres Saints et la critique ratioinaliste”, Paris, 1902, III, 1-226; IV, 239-53, 405-15; Idem, “Manuel biblique”, 12th ed., Paris, 1906, I, 397-478; Kley, “Die Pentateuchfrage, ihre Geschichte und ihre Systeme”, Munster, 1903; Hopfl, “Die hohere Bibelkritik”, Paderborn, 1902; Thomas, “The Organic Unity of the Pentateuch”, London, 1904; Wiener, “Studies in Biblical Law”, London, 1904; Rouse, “The Old Testament in New Testament Light”, London, 1905; Redpath, “Modern Criticism and the Book of Genesis”, London, 1905; Hoberg, “Moses und der Pentateuch”, Freiburg, 1905; Orr, “The Problem of the Old Testament considered with reference to Recent Criticism”, London, 1906.

E. OPPONENTS OF THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH

A detailed account of the opposition to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is neither desirable nor necessary in this article. In itself it would form only a noisome history of human errors; each little system has had its day, and its successors have tried their best to bury it in hushed oblivion. The actual difficulties we have to consider are those advanced by our actual opponents of to- day; only the fact that the systems of the past show us the fleeting and transitory character of the actual theories now in vogue can induce us to briefly enumerate the successive views upheld by the opponents of the Mosaic authorship.

(1) Abandoned Theories

The views advanced by the Valentinian Ptolemy, the Nazarites, Abenesra, Carlstadt, Isaac Peyrerius, Baruch Spinoza, Jean Leclerc are sporadic phenomena. Not all of them were wholly incompatible with the Mosaic authorship as now understood, and the others have found their answer in their own time.-With the work of John Astrue, published in 1753, began the so-called Hypothesis of Documents which was further developed by Eichhorn and Ilgen. But the works of the suspended priest, Alexander Geddes, published in 1792 and 1800, introduced the Hypothesis of Fragments, which in its day was elaborated and championed by Vater, de Wette (temporarily at least), Berthold, Hartmann, and von Bohlen. This theory was soon confronted by, and had to yield to the Hypothesis of Complements or Interpolations which numbered among its patrons Kelle, Ewald, Stahelin, Bleek, Tuch, de Wette, von Lengerke, and for a brief period also Franz Delitzsch. The theory of interpolations again had hardly found any adherents before Gramberg (1828), Stahelin (1830), and Bleek (1831) returned to the Hypothesis of Documents, proposing it in a somewhat modified form. Subsequently, Ewald, Knobel, Hupfeld, Noldeke, and Schrader advanced each a different explanation of the documentary hypothesis. But all of these are at present only of an historical interest.

(2) Present Hypothesis of Documents

A course of religious development in Israel had been proposed by Reuss in 1830 and 1834, by Vatke in 1835, and by George in the same year. In 1865-66 Graf took up this idea and applied it to the literary criticism of the Hexateuch; for the critics had begun to consider the Book of Josue as belonging to the preceding five books, so that the collection formed a Hexateuch instead of a Pentateuch. The same application was made by Merx in 1869. Thus modified the documentary theory continued in its development until it reached the state described in the translation of the Bible by Kautzsch (3rd ed., with Introduction and Annotations, Tubingen, 1908 sqq.). In itself there is nothing against the assumption of documents written by Moses; but we cannot ascribe with certainty anything of our literary remains to the hands of the Hebrew lawgiver. The beginning of written accounts must be placed towards the end of the time of Judges; only then were fulfilled the conditions which must precede the origin of a literature properly so called, i.e., a general acquaintance with the art of writing and reading, stationary settlement of the people, and national prosperity. What then are the oldest literary remains of the Hebrews? They are the collections of the songs dating from the heroic time of the nation, e.g., the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14), the Book of the Just (Joshua 10:12 sqq.), the Book of Songs (1 Kings 8:53; cf. Budde, “Geschichte der althebr. Literature”, Leipzig, 1906, 17). The Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:24-23:19) too must have existed before the other sources of the Pentateuch. The oldest historical work is probably the book of the Yahwist, designated by J, and ascribed to the priesthood of Juda, belonging most probably to the ninth century B.C.

Akin to this is the Elohim document, designated by E, and written probably in the northern kingdom (Ephraim) about a century after the production of the Yahweh document. These two sources were combined by a redactor into one work soon after the middle of the sixth century. Next follows the law-book, almost entirely embodied in our actual Book of Deuteronomy, discovered in the temple 621 B.C., and containing the precipitate of the prophetic teaching which advocated the abolition of the sacrifices in the so- called high places and the centralization of worship in the temple of Jerusalem. During the Exile originated the Priestly Code, P, based on the so-called law of holiness, Lev., xvii-xxvi, and the programme of Ezechiel, xl-xlviii; the substance of P was read before the post-exilic community by Esdras about 444 B.C. (Nehemiah 8-10), and was accepted by the multitude. History does not tell us when and how these divers historical and legal sources were combined into our present Pentateuch; but it is generally assumed that there was an urgent call for a compilation of the tradition and pre-exilic history of the people. The only indication of time may be found in the fact that the Samaritans accepted the Pentateuch as a sacred book probably in the fourth century B.C. Considering their hatred for the Jews, one must conclude that they would not have taken this step, unless they had felt certain of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. Hence a considerable time must have intervened between the compilation of the Pentateuch and its acceptance by the Samaritans, so that the work of combining must be placed in the fifth century. It is quite generally agreed that the last redactor of the Pentateuch completed his task with great adroitness. Without altering the text of the older sources, he did all within man’s power to fuse the heterogeneous elements into one apparent (?) whole, with such success that not only the Jews after the fourth century B.C., but also the Christians for many centuries could maintain their conviction that the entire Pentateuch was written by Moses.

(3) Deficiencies of the Critical Hypothesis

As several Pentateuchal critics have endeavoured to assign the last redaction of the Pentateuch to more recent dates, its placement in the fifth century may be regarded as rather favourable to conservative views. But it is hard to understand why the patrons of this opinion should not agree in considering Esdras as the last editor. Again, it is quite certain that the last editor of the Pentateuch must have notably preceded its acceptance on the part of the Samaritans as a sacred book; bit is it probably that the Samaritans would have accepted the Pentateuch as such in the fourth century B.C., when the national and religious opposition between them and Jews was well developed? Is it not more probable that the mixed nation of Samaria received the Pentateuch through the priest sent to them from Assyria? Cf. IV Kings, xvii, 27. Or again, as this priest instructed the Samaritan population in the law of the god of the country, is it not reasonable to suppose that he taught them the Pentateuchal law which the ten tribes carried with them when they separated from Juda? At any rate, the fact that the Samaritans accepted as sacred only the Pentateuch, but not the Prophets, leads us to infer that the Pentateuch existed among the Jews before a collection of the prophetic writings was made, and that Samaria chose its sacred book before even Juda placed the works of the Prophets on the same level with the work of Moses. But this natural inference finds no favour among the critics; for it implies that the historical and legal traditions codified in the Pentateuch, described the beginning, and not the end, of Israel’s religious development. The view of Israel’s religious development prevalent among the critics implies that the Pentateuch is later than the Prophets, and that the Psalms are later than both. After these general considerations, we shall briefly examine the main principles, the methods, the results, and the arguments of the critical theory.

(a) Principles of the Critics

Without pretending to review all the principles involved in the theories of the critics, we draw attention to two: the historical development of religion, and the comparative value of internal evidence and tradition.

(i) The theory of the historical evolution of Israelitic religions leads us from Mosaic Yahwehism to the ethical monotheism of the Prophets, from this to the universalist conception of God developed during the Exile, and from this again to the ossified Phariseeism of later days. This religion of the Jews is codified in our actual Pentateuch, but has been fictitiously projected backwards in the historical books into the Mosaic and pre-prophetic times.

The idea of development is not a purely modern discovery. Meyer (“Der Entwicklungsgedanke bei Aristoteles”, Bonn, 1909) shows that Aristotle was acquainted with it; Gunkel (“Weiterbildung der Religion”, Munich, 1905, 64) maintains that its application to religion is as old as Christianity, and that St. Paul has enunciated this principle; Diestel (“Geschichte des A.T. in der chrislichen Kirche”, Jena, 1869, 56 sqq.), Willmann (“Geschichte des Idealismus”, 2nd ed., II, 23 sqq.), and Schanz (“Apologie des Christentums”, 3rd ed. II, 4 sqq., 376) find the same application in the writings of the Fathers, though Hoberg (“Die Forschritte der bibl. Wissenschaften”, Freiburg, 1902, 10) grants that the patristic writers often neglect the external forms which influenced the ideas the Chosen People. The Fathers were not fully acquainted with profane history, and were more concerned about the contents of Revelation than about its historical development. Pesch (“Glaube, Dogmen und geschichtliche Thatsachen” in “Theol. Zeitfragen”, IV, Freiburg, 1908, 183) discovers that St. Thomas, too, admits the principle of development in his “Summa” (II-II, Q. i, a. 9, 10; Q. ii, a. 3; etc.). But the Catholic conception of this principle avoids two extremes: the theory of degeneracy, based on the teaching of the early Lutheran theologians (cf. Giesebrecht, “Die Degradationshypothese und die altl. Geschichte”, Leipzig, 1905; Steude, “Entwicklung und Offenbarung”, Stuttgart, 1905, 18 sqq.); the theory of evolution which dissolves all truth and history into purely natural development to the exclusion of everything supernatural. It is this latter extreme that is advocated by the Biblical critics. Their description of the early religion of Israel is contradicted by the testimony of the oldest Prophets whose authority is not questioned by them. These inspired seers know of the fall of Adam (Hosea 6:7), the call of Abraham (Isaiah 29:23; Micah 7:20), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha (Hosea 11:8; Isaiah 1:9; Amos 4:11), the history of Jacob and his struggle with the angel (Hosea 12:2 sqq.), Israel’s exodus from Egypt and dwelling in the desert (Hosea 2:14; 7:16; 11:1; 12:9, 13; 13:4, 5; Amos 2:10; 3:1; 9:7), the activity of Moses (Hosea 12:13; Micah 6:4; Isaiah 63:11-12), a written legislation (Hosea 8:12), and a number of particular statutes (cf. Kley, “Die Pentateuchfrage”, Munster, 1903, 223 sqq.). Again, the theory of development is more and more contradicted by the results of historical investigation. Weber (“Theologie und Assyriologie im Streit um Babel und Bibel”, Leipzig, 1904, 17) points out that the recent historical results imply decadence rather than development in ancient oriental art, science, and religion; Winckler (“Religionsgeschichtler und geschichtl. Orient”, Leipzig, 1906, 33) considers the evolutionary view of the primitive state of man as false, and believes that the development theory has, at least, been badly shaken, if not actually destroyed by recent Oriental research (cf. Bantsch, “Altorientalischer und israelitischer Monothesismus”, Tubingen, 1906). Köberle (“Die Theologie der Gegenwart”, Leipzig, 1907, I, 2) says that the development theory has exhausted itself, reproducing only the thoughts of Wellhausen, and deciding particular questions not in the light of facts, but according to the postulates of the theory. Finally, even the rationalistic writers have thought it necessary to replace the development theory by another more in agreement with historical facts. Hence Winckler (“Ex Oriente lux”, Leipzig, 1905- 6; Idem, “Der Alte Orient”, III, 2-3; Idem, “Die babylonische Geisteskultur in ihren Beziehungen zur Kulturentwicklung der Menschheit” in “Wissenschaft und Bildung”, Leipzig, 1907; cf. Landersdorfer in “Historisch-Politische Blatter”, 1909, 144) has originated the theory of pan-Babelism according to which Biblical religion is conceived as a conscious and express reaction against the Babylonian polytheistic state religion. It was not the common property of Israel, but of a religious sect which was supported in Babylon by certain monotheistic circles irrespective of nationality. This theory has found powerful opponents in Budde, Stade, Bezold, Köberle, Kugler, Wilke, and others; but it has also a number of adherents. Though wholly untenable from a Christian point of view, it shows at least the weakness of the historical development theory.

(ii) Another principle involved in the critical theory of the Pentateuch supposes that the internal evidence of literary criticism is of higher value than the evidence of tradition. But thus far the results of excavations and historical research have been favourable to tradition rather than to internal evidence. Let the reader only remember the case of Troy, Tiryns, Mycenae, and Orchomenos (in Greece); the excavations of the English explorer Evans in Crete have shown the historical character of King Minos and his labyrinth; Assyrian inscriptions have re-established the historical credit of King Midas of Phrygia; similarly, Menes of Thebes and Sargon of Agade have been shown to belong to history; in general, the more accurate have been the scientific investigations, the more clearly have they shown the reliability of even the most slender traditions. In the field of New-Testament criticism the call “back to tradition” has begun to be heeded, and has been endorsed by such authorities as Harnack and Deissmann. In the study of the Old Testament too there are unmistakable signs of a coming change. Hommel (“Die altisrealitische Überlieferung in inschriftlicher Beleuchtung”, Munich, 1897) maintains that Old- Testament tradition, both as a whole and in its details, proves to be reliable, even in the light of critical research. Meyer (“Die Entstehung des Judentums”, Halle, 1896) comes to the conclusion that the foundations of the critical Pentateuchal theory are destroyed, if it can be proved that even part of the impugned Hebrew tradition is reliable; the same writer proves the credibility of the sources of the Books of Esdras (cf. “Grundriss der Geographie und Geschichte des alten Orientes”, Munich, 1904, 167 sqq.). S.A. Fries has been led by his critical studies, and without being influenced by dogmatic bias, to accept the whole traditional view of the history of Israel. Cornill and Oettli express the conviction that Israel’s traditions concerning even its earliest history are reliable and will withstand the bitterest attacks of criticism; Dawson (cf. Fonck, “Kritik und Tradition im A.T.” in “Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie”, 1899, 262-81) and others apply to tradition the old principle which has been so frequently misapplied, “magna est veritas, et praevalebit”; Gunkel (“Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbucher”, II, Tubingen, 1906, 8) grants that Old-Testament criticism has gone a little too far, and that many Biblical traditions now rejected will be re-established.

(b) Critical Method

The falsehood of the critical method does not consist in the use of criticism as such, but in its illegitimate use. Criticism became more common in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; at the end of the eighteenth it was applied to classical antiquity. Bernheim (“Lehrbuch der historischen Methode”, Leipzig, 1903, 296) believes that by this means alone history first became a science. In the application of criticism to the Bible was are limited, indeed, by the inspiration and the canonicity of its books; but there is an ample field left for our critical investigations (Pesch, “Theol. Zeitfragen”, III, 48).

Some of the principal sins of the critics in their treatment of Sacred Scripture are the following: They deny everything supernatural, so that they reject not merely inspiration and canonicity, but also prophecy and miracle a priori (cf. Metzler, “Das Wunder vor dem Forum der modernen Geschichtswissenschaft” in “Katholik”, 1908, II, 241 sqq.). They seem to be convinced a priori of the credibility of non-Biblical historical documents, while they are prejudiced against the truthfulness of Biblical accounts. (Cf. Stade, “Geschichte Israel’s”, I, 86 seq., 88, 101.) Depreciating external evidence almost entirely, they consider the questions of the origin, the integrity, and the authenticity of the sacred books in the light of internal evidence (Encycl. Prov. Deus, 52). They overestimate the critical analysis of the sources, without considering the chief point, i.e., the credibility of the sources (Lorenz, “Die Geschichtswissenschaft in ihren Hauptrichtungen und Aufgaben”, ii, 329 sqq.). Recent documents may contain reliable reports of ancient history. Some of the critics begin to acknowledge that the historical credibility of the sources is of greater importance than their division and dating (Stark, “Die Entstehung des A.T.”, Leipzig, 1905, 29; cf. Vetter, “Tübinger theologische Quartalschrift”, 1899, 552). The critical division of sources is based on the Hebrew text, though it is not certain how far the present Massoretic text differs from that, for instance, followed by the Septuagint translators, and how far the latter differed form the Hebrew text before its redaction in the fifth century B.C. Dahse (“Textkritische Bedenken gegen den Ausgangspunkt der heutigen Pentateuchkritik” in “Archiv fur Religionsgeschichte”, VI, 1903, 305 sqq.) shows that the Divine names in the Greek translation of the Pentateuch differ in about 180 cases from those of the Hebrew text (cf. Hoberg, “Die Genesis”, 2nd ed., p. xxii sqq.); in other words and phrases the changes may be fewer, but it would be unreasonable to deny the existence of any. Again, it is antecedently probable that the Septuagint text differs less from the Massoretic than from the ante-Esdrine text, which must have been closer to the original. The starting point of literary criticism is therefore uncertain. It is not an inherent fault of literary criticism that it was applied to the Pentateuch after it had become practically antiquated in the study of Homer and the Nibelungenlied (cf. Katholik, 1896, I, 303, 306 sqq.), nor that Reuss considered it as more productive of difference of opinion than of results (cf. Katholik, 1896, I, 304 seq.), nor again that Wellhausen thought it had degenerated into childish play. Among Bible students, Klostermann (“Der Pentateuch”, Leipzig, 1893), Konig (“Falsche Extreme im Gebiete der neueren Kritik des A.T.”, Leipzig, 1885; “Neueste Prinzipien der alt. Kritik”, Berlin, 1902; “Im Kampfe um das A.T.”, Berlin, 1903), Bugge (“Die Hauptparabeln Jesu”, Giessen, 1903) are sceptical as to the results of literary criticism, while Orelli (“Der Prophet Jesaja”, 1904, V), Jeremias (“Das alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients”, 1906, VIII), and Oettli (“Geschichte Israels”, V) wish to insist more on the exegesis of the text than on the criss-cross roads of criticism. G. Jacob (“Der Pentateuch”, Göttingen, 1905) thinks that the past Pentateuchal criticism needs a thorough revision; Eerdmans (“Die Komposition der Genesis”, Giessen, 1908) feels convinced that criticism has been misled into wrong paths by Astrue. Merx expresses the opinion that the next generation will have to revise backwards many of the present historico-literary views of the Old Testament (“Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbucher”, II, 1907, 3, 132 sqq.).

(c) Critical Results

Here we must distinguish between the principles of criticism and its results; the principles of the historical development of religion, for instance, and of the inferiority of tradition to internal evidence, are not the outcome of literary analysis, but are its partial basis. Again, we must distinguish between those results of literary criticism which are compatible with the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch and those that contradict it. The patrons of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and even the ecclesiastical Decree relating to this subject, plainly admit that Moses or his secretaries may have utilized sources or documents in the composition of the Pentateuch; both admit also that the sacred text has suffered in its transmission and may have received additions, in the form of either inspired appendices or exegetical glosses. If the critics, therefore, can succeed in determining the number and the limits of the documentary sources, and of the post-Mosaic additions, whether inspired or profane, they render an important service to the traditional tenet of Pentateuchal authenticity. The same must be said with regard to the successive laws established by Moses, and the gradual fidelity of the Jewish people to the Mosaic law. Here again the certain or even probable results of sane literary and historical criticism will aid greatly the conservative commentator of the Pentateuch. We do not quarrel with the legitimate conclusions of the critics, if the critics do not quarrel with each other. But they do quarrel with each other. According to Merx (loc. cit.) there is nothing certain in the field of criticism except its uncertainty; each critic proclaims his views with the greatest self-reliance, but without any regard to the consistency of the whole. Former views are simply killed by silence; even Reuss and Dillmann are junk-iron, and there is a noticeable lack of judgment as to what can or cannot be known.

Hence the critical results, in as far as they consist merely in the distinction of documentary sources, in the determination of post-Mosaic materials, e.g., textual changes, and profane or inspired additions, in the description of various legal codes, are not at variance with the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch. Nor can an anti-Mosaic character be pointed out in the facts or phenomena from which criticism legitimately infers the foregoing conclusions; such facts or phenomena are, for instance, the change of the Divine names in the text, the use of certain words, the difference of style, the so-called double accounts of really, not merely apparently, identical events; the truth of falsehood of these and similar details does not directly affect the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. In which results then does criticism clash with tradition? Criticism and tradition are incompatible in their views as to the age and sequence of the documentary sources, as to the origin of the various legal codes, and as to the time and manner of the redaction of the Pentateuch.

(i) Pentateuchal Documents.-As to the age and sequence of the various documents, the critics do not agree. Dillmann, Kittel, Konig, and Winckler place the Elohist, who is subdivided by several writers into the first, second, and third Elohist, before the Yahwist, who also is divided into the first and second Yahwist; but Wellhausen and most critics believe that the Elohist is about a century younger than the Yahwist. At any rate, both are assigned to about the ninth and eight centuries B.C.; both too incorporate earlier traditions or even documents.

All critics appear to agree as to the composite character of Deuteronomy; they admit rather a Deuteronomist school than single writers. Still, the successive layers composing the whole book are briefly designated by D1, D2, D3, etc. As to the character of these layers, the critics do not agree: Montet and Driver, for instance, assigned to the first Deuteronomist cc. i-xxi; Kuenen, Konig, Reuss, Renan, Westphal ascribe to DN, iv, 45-9, and v-xxvi; a third class of critics reduce D1 to xii, 1-xxvi, 19, allowing it a double edition: according to Wellhausen, the first edition contained i, 1-iv, 44; xii-xxvi; xxvii, while the second comprised iv, 45-xi, 39; xii-xxvi; xxviii-xxx; both editions were combined by the redactor who inserted Deuteronomy into the Hexateuch. Cornill arranges the two editions somewhat differently. Horst considers even cc. xii-xxvi as a compilation of pre-existing elements, gathered together without order and often by chance. Wellhausen and his adherents do not wish to assign to D1 a higher age than 621 B.C., Cornill and Bertholet consider the document as a summary of the prophetic teaching, Colenso and Renan ascribe it to Jeremias, others place its origin in the reign of Ezechias or Manasses, Klostermann identifies the document with the book read before the people in the time of Josaphat, while Kleinert refers it back to the end of the time of the Judges. The Deuteronomist depends on the two preceding documents, J and E, both for his history land his legislation; the historical details not found in these may have been derived from other sources not known to us, and the laws not contained in the Sinaitic legislation and the decalogue are either pure fiction or a crystallization of the prophetic teaching.

Finally, the Priestly Code, P, is also a compilation: the first stratum of the book, both historical and legal in its character, is designated by P1 or P2; the second stratum is the law of holiness, H or Lev., xvii-xxvi, and is the work of a contemporary of Ezechiel, or perhaps of the Prophet himself (H, P2, Ph); besides, there are additional elements springing rather from a school than from any single writer, and designated by Kunen as P3, P4, P5, but by other critics as Ps and Px. Bertholet and Bantsch speak of two other collections of laws: the law of sacrifices, Lev., i-vii, designated as Po; and the law of purity, Lev., xi-xv, designated as Pr. The first documentary hypothesis considered PN as the oldest part of the Pentateuch; Duston and Dillmann place it before the Deuteronomic code, but most recent critics regard it as more recent than the other documents of the Pentateuch, and even later than Ezech., xliv, 10-xlvi, 15 (573-2 B.C.); the followers of Wellhausen date the Priestly Code after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, while Wildeboer places it either after or towards the end of the captivity. The historical parts of the Priestly Code depend on the Yahwistic and the Elohistic documents, but Wellhausen’s adherents believe that the material of these documents has been manipulated so as to fit it for the special purpose of the Priestly Code; Dillmann and Drive maintain that facts have not been invented or falsified by P, but that the latter had at hand other historical documents besides J and E. As to the legal part of P, Wellhausen considers it as an a priori programme for the Jewish priesthood after the return from the captivity, projected backwards into the past, and attributed to Moses; but other critics believe that P has systematized the pre-exilic customs of worship, developing then, and adapting them to the new circumstances.

What has been said clearly shows that the critics are at variance in many respects, but they are at one in maintaining the post- Mosaic origin of the Pentateuchal documents. What is the weight of the reasons on which they base their opinion? The conditions laid down by the critics as prerequisites to literature do not prove that the sources of the Pentateuch must be post-Mosaic. The Hebrew people had lived for, at least, two hundred years in Egypt; besides, most of the forty years spent in the desert were passed in the neighbourhood of Cades, so that the Israelites were not longer a nomadic people. Whatever may be said of their material prosperity, or of their proficiency in writing and reading, the above-mentioned researches of Flinders Petrie show that they kept records of their national traditions at the time of Moses. If the Hebrew contemporaries of Moses kept written records, why should not the Pentateuchal sources be among these documents? It is true that in our actual Pentateuch we find non-Mosaic and post- Mosaic indications; but, then, the non-Mosaic, impersonal style may be due to a literary device, or to the pen of secretaries; the post-Mosaic geographical and historical indications may have crept into the text by way of glosses, or errors of the transcribers, or even inspired additions. The critics cannot reject these suggestions as mere subterfuges; for they should have to grant a continuous miracle in the preservation of the Pentateuchal text, if they were to deny the moral certainty of the presence of such textual changes. But would not the Pentateuch have been known to the earlier Prophets, if it had been handed down from the time of Moses? This critical exception is really an argument e silentio which is very apt to be fallacious, unless it be most carefully handled. Besides, if we keep in mind the labour involved in multiplying copies of the Pentateuch, we cannot be wrong in assuming that they were very rare in the interval between Moses and the Prophets, so that few were able to read the actual text. Again, it has been pointed out that at least one of the earlier Prophets appeals to a written mosaic law, and that all appeal to such a national conscience as presupposes the Pentateuchal history and law. Finally, some of the critics maintain the J views the history of man and of Israel according to the religious and the moral ideas of the Prophets; if there be such an agreement, why not say that the Prophets write according to the religious and moral ideas of the Pentateuch? The critics urge the fact that the Pentateuchal laws concerning the sanctuary, the sacrifices, the feasts, and the priesthood agree with different stages of post-Mosaic historical development; that the second stage agrees with the reform of Josias, and the third with the enactments enforced after the time of the Babylonian Exile. But it must be kept in mind that the Mosaic law was intended for Israel as the Christian law is intended for the whole world; if then 1900 years after Christ the greater part of the world is still un-Christian, it is not astonishing that the Mosaic law required centuries before it penetrated the whole nation. Besides, there were, no doubt, many violations of the law, just as the Ten Commandments are violated to-day without detriment to their legal promulgation. Again there were times of religious reforms and disasters as there are periods of religious fervour and coldness in the history of the Christian Church; but such human frailties do not imply the non-existence of the law, either Mosaic or Christian. As to the particular laws in question, it will be found more satisfactory to examine them more in detail. (ii) Pentateuchal Codes.-The critics endeavour to establish a triple Pentateuchal code: the Book of the Covenant, Deuteronomy, and the Priestly Code. Instead of regarding this legislation as applying to different phases in the forty years’ wandering in the desert, they consider it as agreeing with three historical stages in the national history. As stated above, the main objects of this triple legislation are the sanctuary, the feast, and the priesthood.

(a) The Sanctuary

At first, so the critics say, sacrifices were allowed to be offered in any place where the Lord had manifested his name (Exodus 20:24-6); then the sanctuary was limited to the one place chosen by God (Deuteronomy 12:5); thirdly, the Priestly Code supposes the unity of sanctuary, and prescribes the proper religious rites to be observed. Moreover, the critics point out historical incidents showing that before the enforcement of the Deuteronomic law sacrifices were offered in various places quite distinct from the resting place of the ark. What do the defenders of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch answer? First, as to the triple law, it points to three different stages in Israel’s desert life: before the erection of the tabernacle at the foot of Mt. Sinai, the people were allowed to erect altars and to offer sacrifices everywhere provided the name of the Lord had been manifested; next, after the people had adored the golden calf, and the tabernacle had been erected, sacrifice could be offered only before the tabernacle, and even the cattle killed for consumption had to be slaughtered in the same place, in order to prevent a relapse into idolatry; finally, when the people were about to enter the promised land, the last law was abolished, being then quite impossible, but the unity of sanctuary was kept in the place which God would choose. Secondly, as to the historical facts urged by the critics, some of them are caused by direct Divine intervention, miracle or prophetic inspiration, and as such are fully legitimate; others are evidently violations of the law, and are not sanctioned by the inspired writers; a third class of facts may be explained in one of three ways: Poels (“Le sanctuaire de Kirjath Jeraim”, Louvain, 1894; “Examen critique de l’histoire du sanctuaire de l’arche”, Louvain, 1897) endeavours to prove that Gabaon, Masphath, and Kiriath-Jarim denote the same place, so that the multiplicity of sanctuaries is only apparent, not real. Van Hoonacker (“Le Lieu du culte dans la legislation rituelle des Hebreux” in “Musceeon”, April-Oct., 1894, XIII, 195-204, 299- 320, 533-41; XIV, 17-38) distinguishes between private and public altars; the public and national worship is legally centralized in one sanctuary and around one altar, while private altars may be had for domestic worship. But more commonly it is admitted that before God had chosen the site of national sanctuary, it was not forbidden by law to sacrifice anywhere, even away from the place of the ark. After the building of the temple the law was not considered so stringent as to bind under all circumstances. Thus far then the argument of the critics is not conclusive.

(b) The Sacrifices

According to the critics, the Book of the Covenant enjoined only the offering of the first-fruits and the first-born of animals, the redemption of the first-born of men, and a free-will offering on visiting the sanctuary (Ex., xxii, 28-9; xxiii, 15, [Heb., xxiii, 19]); Deuteronomy more clearly defines some of these laws (xv, 19-23; xxvi, 1-11), and imposes the law of tithes for the benefit of the poor, the widows, the orphans, and the Levites (xxvi, 12-5); the Priestly Code distinguishes different kinds of sacrifices, determines their rites, and introduces also incense offering. But history hardly bears out this view: as there existed a permanent priesthood in Silo, and later on in Jerusalem, we may safely infer that there existed a permanent sacrifice. The earliest prophets are acquainted with an excess of care bestowed on the sacrificial rites (cf. Amos 4:4, 5; 5:21-22, 25; Hosea passim). The expressions of Jeremias (vii, 21-3) may be explained in the same sense. Sin offering was known long before the critics introduce their Priestly Code (Osee, iv, 8; Mich., vi, 7; Ps., xxxix [xl], 7; 1 Kings, iii, 14). Trespass offering is formally distinguished from sin offering in IV Kings, xiii, 16 (cf. 1 Samuel 6:3-15; Isaiah 53:10). Hence the distinction between the different kinds of sacrifice is due neither to Ezech., xlv, 22- 5, nor to the Priestly Code.

(c) The Feasts

The Book of the Covenant, so the critics tell us, knows only three feasts: the seven-days feast of the azymes in memory of the exodus form Egypt, the feast of the harvest, and that of the end of the harvest (Exodus 23:14-7); Deuteronomy ordains the keeping of the feasts at the central sanctuary adds to Pasch to the feast of the azymes, places the second feast seven weeks after the first, and calls the third, “feast of tabernacles”, extending its duration to seven days (Deuteronomy 16:1-17); the Priestly Code prescribes the exact ritual for five feasts, adding the feast of trumpets and of atonement, all of which must be kept at the central sanctuary. Moreover, history appears to endorse the contention of the critics: Judges, xxi, 19 knows of only one annual feast in Silo; I Kings, i, 3, 7, 21 testifies that the parents of Samuel went every year to Silo to the sanctuary; Jeroboam I established in his kingdom one annual feast similar to that celebrated in Jerusalem (1 Kings 12:32-3); the earliest Prophets do not mention the names of the religious feasts; the Pasch is celebrated for the first time after the discovery of Deuteronomy (2 Kings 23:21-3); Ezechiel knows only three feasts and a sin offering on the first day of the first and the seventh month. But here again, the critics use the argument e silentio which is not conclusive in this case. The feast of atonement, for instance, is not mentioned in the Old Testament outside the Pentateuch; only Josephus refers to its celebration in the time of John Hyrcanus or Herod. Will the critics infer from this, that the feast was not kept throughout the Old Testament? History does not record facts generally known. As to the one annual feast mentioned in the early records, weighty commentators are of opinion that after the settlement of the people in the promised land, the custom was gradually introduced of going to the central sanctuary only once a year. This custom prevailed before the critics allow the existence of the Deuteronomic law (1 Kings 12:26-31), so that the latter cannot have introduced it. Isaias (xxix, 1; xxx, 29) speaks of a cycle of feasts, but Osee, xii, 9 alludes already to the feast of tabernacles, so that its establishment cannot be due to the Priestly Code as the critics describe it. Ezechiel (xlv, 18-25) speaks only of the three feasts which had to be kept at the central sanctuary.

(d) The Priesthood

The critics contend that the Book of the Covenant knows nothing of an Aaronitic priesthood (Exodus 24:5); that Deuteronomy mentions priests and Levites without any hierarchical distinction and without any high priest, determines their rights, and distinguishes only between the Levite living in the country and the Levite attached to the central sanctuary; finally, that the Priestly Code represents the priesthood as a social and hierarchical institution, with legally determined duties, rights, and revenues. This theory is said to be borne out by the evidence of history. But the testimony of history points in the opposite direction. At the time of Josue and the early Judges, Eleazar and Phinees, the son and nephew of Aaron, were priests (Numbers 26:1; Deuteronomy 10:6; Joshua 14:1 sqq.; 22:13, 21; 24:33; Judges 20:28). From the end of the time of Judges to Solomon, the priesthood was in the hands of Heli and his descendants (1 Samuel 1:3 sqq.; 14:3; 21:1; 22:1) who sprang from Ithamar the younger son of Aaron (1 Chronicles 24:3; cf. 1 Samuel 22:29; 14:3; 2:7 sqq.). Solomon raised Sadoc, the son of Achitob, to the dignity of the high priesthood, and his descendants held the office down to the time of the Babylonian Captivity (2 Samuel 8:17; 15:24 sqq.; 20:25; 1 Kings 2:26, 27, 35; Ezekiel 44:15); that Sadoc too was of Aaronic descent is attested by I Par., vi, 8. Besides the Books of Josue and Paralipomenon acknowledge the distinction between priests and Levites; according to I Kings, vi, 15, the Levites handled the ark, but the Bethsamites, the inhabitants of a priestly city (Joshua 21:13-6), offered sacrifice.

A similar distinction is made in II Kings, xv, 24; III Kings, viii, 3 sq.; Is., lxvi, 21. Van Hoonacker (“Les pretres et les levites dans le livre d’Ezechiel” in “Revue biblique”, 1899, VIII, 180-189, 192-194) shows that Ezechiel did not create the distinction between priests and Levites, but that supposing the traditional distinction in existence, he suggested a divisions in to these classes according to merit, and not according to birth (xliv, 15-xlv, 5). Unless the critics simply set aside all this historical evidence, they must grant the existence of an Aaronitic priesthood in Israel, and its division into priests and Levites, long before the D and P codes were promulgated according to the critical theory. It is true that in a number of passages persons are said to offer sacrifice who are not of Aaronitic descent: Judges, vi, 25 sqq.; xiii, 9; I Kings, vii, 9; x, 8; xiii, 9; II Kings, vi, 17; xxiv, 25; III Kings, viii, 5, 62; etc. But in the first place, the phrase “to offer sacrifice” means either to furnish the victim (Leviticus 1:2, 5) or to perform the sacrificial rite; the victim might be furnished by any devout layman; secondly, it would be hard to prove that God committed the priestly office in such a way to Aaron and his sons as not to reserve to himself the liberty of delegating in extraordinary cases a non-Aaronite to perform the priestly functions.

(iii) Pentateuchal Redaction.-The four documentary sources of the Pentateuch thus far descried were combined not by any one individual; critics require rather three different stages of combination: first, a Yahwistic redactor RXX or RX combined J and E with a view of harmonizing them, and adapting them to Deuteronomic ideas; this happened either before or after the redaction of D. Secondly, after D had been completed in the sixth century B.C., a redactor, or perhaps a school of redactors, imbued with the spirit of D combined the documents JE into JED, introducing however the modifications necessary to secure consistency. Thirdly, a last redactor RX imbued with the letter and the spirit of P, combined this document with JED, introducing again the necessary changes. The table of nations in Gen., xiv was according to Kunen added by this last redactor.

At first sight, one is struck by the complex character of this theory; as a rule, truth is of a more simple texture. Secondly, one is impressed by the unique nature of the hypothesis; antiquity has nothing to equal it. Thirdly, if one reads or studies the Pentateuch in the light of this theory, one is impressed by the whimsical character of the redactor; he often retained what should have been omitted, and omitted what should have been retained. The critics themselves have to take refuge, time and time again, in the work of the redactor, in order save their own views of the Pentateuch. A recent writer does not hesitate to call the complex redactor ein genialer Esel. Fourthly, a truth-loving, straightforward reader is naturally shocked by the literary fictions and forgeries, the editorial changes and subterfuges implied in the critical theory of the Pentateuchal documents and redaction. The more moderate critics endeavour to escape this inconvenience: some appeal to the difference between the ancient and the modern standard of literary property and editorial accuracy; others practically sanctify the means by the end. Oettli considers the dilemma “either the work of Moses or the work of a deceiver” as the expression of sheer imprudence; Kautzsch unctuously points to the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God whose ways we cannot fathom, but must admire. The left wing of criticism openly acknowledges that there is no use in hushing up matters; it actually is the result of scientific research that both form and contents of a great part of the Old Testament are based on conscious fiction and forgery.

IV. STYLE OF THE PENTATEUCH

In some general introductions to the Pentateuch its messianic prophecies are specially considered, i.e., the so-called proto-evangelium, Gen., iii, 15; the blessing of Sem, Gen., ix, 26-7; the patriarchal promises, Gen., xii, 2; xiii, 16; xv, 5; xvii, 4-6, 16; xviii, 10-15; xxii, 17; xxvi, 4; xxviii, 14; the blessing of the dying Jacob, Gen., xlix, 8-10; the Prophecy of Balaam, Num., xxiv, 15 sqq.; and the great Prophet announced by Moses, Deut., xviii, 15-19. But these prophecies belong rather to the province of exegesis than introduction. Again, the text of the Pentateuch has been considered in some general introductions to the work. We have seen already that besides the Massoretic Text we have to take into account the earlier text followed by the Septuagint translators, and the still earlier readings of the Samaritan Pentateuch; a detailed investigation of this subject belongs to the field of textual or lower criticism. But the style of the Pentateuch can hardly be referred to any other department of Pentateuchal study.

As Moses employed no doubt pre-existent documents in the composition of his work, and as he must have made use too of the aid of secretaries, we expect antecedently a variety of style in the Pentateuch. It is no doubt due to the presence of this literary phenomenon that the critics have found so many points of support in their minute analysis. But in general, the style of the work is in keeping with its contents. There are three kinds of material in the Pentateuch: first, there are statistics, genealogies, and legal formularies; secondly, there are narrative portions; thirdly, there are parenthetic sections.

No reader will find fault with the writer’s dry and simple style in his genealogical and ethnographic lists, in his table of encampments in the desert, or his legal enactments. Any other literary expression would be out of place in records of this kind. The narrative style of the Pentateuch is simple and natural, but also lively and picturesque. It abounds in simple character sketches, dialogues, and anecdotes. The accounts of Abraham’s purchase of a burying-ground, of the history of Joseph, and of the Egyptian plagues are also dramatic. Deuteronomy has its peculiar style on account of the exhortations it contains. Moses explains the laws he promulgates, but urges also, and mainly, their practice. As an orator, he shows a great deal of unction and persuasiveness, but is not destitute of the earnestness of the Prophets. His long sentences remain at times incomplete, thus giving rise to so-called anacolutha (cf. Deuteronomy 6:10-12; 8:11-17; 9:9-11; 11:2-7; 24:1-4). Being necessarily a popular preacher, he is not lacking in repetitions. But his earnestness, persuasiveness, and unction do not interfere with the clearness of his statements. He is not merely a rigid legislator, but he shows his love for the people, and in turn wins their love and confidence.

Decisions of the Biblical Commission

Some decisions of the Biblical Commission (q.v.) in regards to the chief subject of this article, viz., Genesis, are as follows: The various exegetical systems which exclude the literal and historical sense of the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis are not based on solid foundation. It should not be taught that these three chapters do not contain true narrations of facts, but only fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of earlier peoples, purged of the polytheistic errors and accommodated to monotheism; or allegories and symbols, with no objective reality, set forth in the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends partly historical and partly fictitious put together for instruction and edification. In particular, doubt should not be cast on the literal and historical sense of passages which touch on the foundations of the Christian religion, as, for instance, the creation of the universe by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness, integrity, and immortality of our first parents in the state of justice; the precept given by God to man to try his obedience; the transgression of the Divine precept, at the suggestion of the Devil, under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their original state of justice; the promise of a future Redeemer.

In explaining such passages in these chapters as the Fathers and Doctors interpreted differently, one may follow and defend the opinion which meets his approval. Not every word or phrase in these chapters is always necessarily to be taken in its literal sense so that it may never have another, as when it is manifestly used metaphorically or anthropomorphically. The literal and historical meaning of some passages in these chapters presupposed, an allegorical and prophetical meaning may wisely and usefully be employed. As in writing the first chapter of Genesis the purpose of the sacred author was not to expound in a scientific manner the constitution of the universe or the complete order of creation, but rather to give to the people popular information in the ordinary language of the day, adapted to the intelligence of all, the strict propriety of scientific language is not always to be looked for in their terminology. The expression six days and their division may be taken in the ordinary sense of a natural day, or for a certain period of time, and exegetes may dispute about this question.

———————————–

Many works referring to the Pentateuch have been cited throughout the course of this article. We shall here add a list of mainly exegetical works, both ancient and modern, without attempting to give a complete catalogue.

PATRISTIC WRITERS.”Eastern Church:–ORIGEN, Selecta in Gen., P. G., XII, 91- 145; IDEM, Homil. in Gen., ibid., 145-62; IDEM, Selecta et homil, in Ex., Lev., Num., Deut., ibid., 263-818; IDEM, Fragmenta in P.G., XVII, 11-36; ST. BASIL, Homil. in Hexaemer. in P.G., XXIX, 3-208; ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, In Hexaemer. in P.G., XLIV, 61-124; IDEM, De homin. Opific., ibid., 124-297; IDEM, De vita Moysis, ibid., 297-430; ST. JOHN CHRYS., Homil. in Gen. in P.G., LIII, LIV, 23- 580; IDEM, Serm. In Gen. in P.G., LIV, 581-630; ST. EPHR., Comment in Pentat. in Oper. Syr., I, 1-115; ST. CYRIL OF ALEX., De adoratione in spiritu in P.G., LXVIII, 133-1125; Glaphyra in P.G., LXIX, 13-677; THEODORETUS, Quaest. in Gen., Ex., Lev., Num., Deut. in P.G., LXXX, 76-456; PROCOPIUS OF GAZA, Comment. in Octateuch. in P.G., LXXXVII, 21-992; NICEPHORUS, Catena in Octateuch. et libros Reg. (Leipzig, 1772).

Western Church: ST. AMBROSE, In Hexaemer. in P.L., XIV, 123-274; IDEM, De Paradiso terrestri, ibid., 275-314; IDEM, De Cain et Abel, ibid., 315-60; IDEM, De Noe et arca, ibid., 361-416; IDEM, De Abraham, ibid., 419-500; IDEM, De Isaac et anima, ibid., 501-34; IDEM, De Joseph patriarcha, ibid., 641-72; IDEM, De benedictionibus patriarcharum, ibid., 673-94; ST. JEROME, Liber quaest. hebraic. in Gen. in P.L., XXIII, 935-1010; ST. AUGUSTINE, De Gen. c. Manich. ll. due in P.L., XXXIV, 173-220; IDEM, De Ger. ad lit., ibid., 219-46; IDEM, De Ger. ad lit. ll. duodecim, ibid., 245-486; IDEM, Quaest in Heptateuch., ibid., 547-776; RUFINUS, De benedictionibus patriarcharum in P.L., XXI, 295-336; ST. VEN. BEDE, Hexaemeron in P.L., XCI, 9-190; IDEM, In Pentateuch. Commentarii, ibid., 189-394; IDEM, De tabernaculo et vasibus ejus, ibid., 393-498; RHABANUS MAURUS, Comm. in Gen. in P.L., CVII, 443-670; IDEM, Comment. in Ez., Lev., Num., Deut. in P.L., CVIII, 9-998; WALAFRID STRABO, Glossa ordinaria in P.L., CXIII, 67-506.

MIDDLE AGES:-ST. BRUNO OF ASTI, Expositio in Pentateuch. in P.L., RUPERT OF DEUTZ, De SS. Trinitate et operib. Ejus in P.L., CLXVII, 197-1000; HUGH OF ST. VICTOR, Adnotationes elucidatoriae in Pent. in P.L., CLXXV, 29-86; HONORIUS OF AUTUN, Hexameron in P.L., CLXXII, 253-66; IDEM, De decem plagis Aegypti, ibid., 265-70; ABELARD, Expositio in Hexaemeron in P.L., CLXXVII, 731-84; HUGH OF ST. CHER, Postilla (Venice, 1588); NICOLAUS OF LYRA, Postilla (Rome, 1471); TOSTATUS, Opera, I-IV (Venice, 1728); DIONYSIUS THE CARTHUSIAN, Comment. in Pentateuch. in Opera omnia, I, II (Montreuil, 1896-7).

MORE RECENT WORKS.-Jewish Writers:-The Commentaries of RASHI (1040-1150), ABENASRA (1092-1167), and DAVID KIMCHI, (1160-1235) are contained in the Rabbinic Bibles; ABARBANEL, Comment. (Venice, 5539 A.M.; 1579 B.C.); CAHEN, French tr. of Pent. (Paris, 1831); KALISCH, Historical and Critical Comment on the Old Test. (London), Gen. (1885); Lev. (1867, 1872); Ez. (1855); HIRSCH, Der Pent. ubersetzt und erklart (2nd ed., Frankfurt, 1893, 1895); HOFFMANN, Das Buch Lev. ubersetz und erklart (Berlin, 1906).

Protestant Writers:-The works of LUTHER, MELANCHTHON, CALVIN, GERHART, CALOVIUS, DRUSIUS, DE DIEU, CAPPEL, COCCEIUS, MICHAELIS, LE CLERC, ROSENMULLER, and even of TUCH and BAUMGARTEN, are of minor importance in our days; KNOBEL, Gen. (6th ed., by DILLMANN, 1892; tr., Edinburgh, 1897); RYSSEL, Ez. and Lev. (3rd ed., 1897); DILLMANN, Numbers, deut., Jos. (2nd ed., 1886); LANGE, Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk (Bielefeld and Leipzig); IDEM, Gen. (2nd ed., 1877); IDEM, Ez., Lev., and Numbers (1874); STOSCH, Deut. (2nd ed., 1902); KEIL and FRANZ DELITZSCH, Biblischer Comment. uber das A.T.; KEIL, Gen. and Ex. (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1878); IDEM, Lev., Numbers, Deut. (2nd ed., 1870; tr., Edinburgh, 1881, 1885); STRACK and ZOCKLER, Kurzgefasster Komment. zu den h. Schriften A. und N.T. (Munich); STRACK, Gen. (2nd ed., 1905); IDEM, Ez., Lev., Numbers (1894); OETTLI, Deut. (1893); NOWACK, Handkomment. zum A.T. (Gottingen); GUNKEL, Gen. (1901); BANTSCH, Ez., Lev., Numbers (1903); Deut. by STEUERNAGEL (1900); MARTI, Kurtzer Handommentar z. A.T. (Freiburg): HOLZINGER, Gen. (1898), Ez. (1900), Numbers (1903); BERTHOLET, Lev. (1901), Deut. (1899); BOHMER, Das erste Buch Mose (Stuttgart, 1905); COOK, The Holy Bible according to the Authorized Version, I-II (London, 1877); SPENCE and EXELL, The Pulpit Commentary (London): WHITELAW, Gen.; RAWLINSON, Ex.; MEYRICK, Lev.; WINTERBOTHAM, Numbers; ALEXANDER, Deut.; The Expositor’s Bible (London): DODS, Gen. (1887); CHADWICK, Exod. (1890); KELLOGG, Lev. (1891); WATSON, Numbers (1889); HARPER, Deut. (1895); The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh): GRAY, Numbers (1903); DRIVER, Deut. (1895); SPURRELL, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Gen. (2nd ed., Oxford, 1896); GINSBURG, The Third Book of Moses (London, 1904); MACLAREN, The Books of Ex., Lev., and Numbers (London, 1906); IDEM, Deut. (London, 1906); REUSS, L’histoire sainte et la loi (Paris, 1879); KUENEN, HOSYKAAS, and OORT, Het Oude Testament (Leyden, 1900-1).

Catholic Works:-The works of CAJETAN, OLEASTER, STEUCHUS EUGUBINUS, SANTE PAGINO, LIPPOMANNUS, HAMMER, B. POREIRA, ASORIUS MARTINENGUS, LORINUS, TIRINUS, A LAPIDE, CORN, JANSENIUS, BONFRERE, FRASSEN, CALMET, BRENTANO, DERESER, and SCHOLZ are either too well known or too unimportant to need further notice. La Sainte Bible (Paris); CHELIER, La Genese (1889); IDEM, l’Exode et la Levitique (1886); TROCHON, Les Nombres et le Deuteronome (1887-8); Cursus Scripturae Sacrae (Paris); VON HUMMELAUER, Gen. (1895); Ex., Lev. (1897); Num. (1899); Deut. (1901); SCHRANK, Comment. literal. in Gen. (1835); LAMY, Comment in l. Gen. (Mechlin, 1883-4); TAPPEHORN, Erklarung der Gen. (Paderborn, 1888); HOBERG, Die Gen. nach dem Literalsinn erklart (Freiburg, 1899); FILLION, La Sainte Bible, I (Paris, 1888); NETELER, Das Buch Genesis der Vulgata und des hebraischen Textes ubersetzt und erklart (Munster, 1905); GIGOT, Special Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament, I (New York, 1901).

Biblical Commission: Acta Apostolicoe Sedis (15 July, 1908); Rome (17 July, 1909).

A.J. MOSS Transcribed by Thomas M. Barrett & Michael T. Barrett Dedicated to the Poor Souls in Purgatory

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XICopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Pentateuch (1)

In Greek pentateuchos, is the name of the first five books of the Old Testament.

I. NAME

Though it is not certain whether the word originally was an adjective, qualifying the omitted noun biblos, or a substantive, its literal meaning “five cases” appears to refer to the sheaths or boxes in which the separate rolls or volumes were kept. At what precise time the first part of the Bible was divided into five books is a question not yet finally settled. Some regard the division as antedating the Septuagint translation; others attribute it to the authors of this translation; St. Jerome was of opinion (Ep. 52, ad Paulin., 8; P.L., XXII, 545) that St. Paul alluded to such a division into five books in I Cor., xiv, 19; at any rate, Philo and Josephus are familiar with the division now in question (“De Abrahamo”, I; “Cont. Apion.”, I, 8). However ancient may be the custom of dividing the initial portion of the Old Testament into five parts, the early Jews had no name indicating the partition. They called this part of the Bible hattorah (the law), or torah (law), or sepher hattorah (book of the law), from the nature of its contents (Joshua 8:34; 1:8; Ezra 10:3; Nehemiah 8:2, 3, 14; 10:35, 37; 2 Chronicles 25:4); they named it torath Mosheh (law of Moses), sepher Mosheh (book of Moses), sepher torath Mosheh (book of the law of Moses) on account of its authorship (Joshua 8:31, 32; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:16; 23:25; Daniel 9:11; Ezra 3:2; 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; etc.); finally, the Divine origin of the Mosaic Law was implied in the names: law of Yahweh (Ezra 7:10; etc.), law of God (Nehemiah 8:18; etc.), book of the law of Yahweh (2 Chronicles 17:9; etc.), book of the law of God (Joshua 24:26; etc.). The word law in the foregoing expressions has been rendered by nomos, with or without the article, in the Septuagint version. The New Testament refers to the Mosaic law in various ways: the law (Matthew 5:17; Romans 2:12; etc.); the law of Moses (Luke 2:22; 24:44; Acts 28:23); the book of Moses (Mark 12:26); or simply, Moses (Luke 24:2; Acts 15:21). Even the Talmud and the older Rabbinic writings call the first part of the Bible the book of the law, while in Aramaic it is simply termed law (cf. Buxtorf, “Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum Rabbinicum”, 791, 983; Levy, “Chaldaisches Worterbuch”, 268, 16; Aicher, “Das Alte Testament in der Mischna”, Freiburg, 1906, p. 16).

The Greek name pentateuchos, implying a division of the law into five parts, occurs for the first time about A. D. 150-75 in the letter to Flora by the Valentinian Ptolemy (cf. St. Epiphan., “Haer.”, XXXIII, iv; P.G., XLI, 560). An earlier occurrence of the name was supposed to exist in a passage of Hippolytus where the Psalter is called kai auto allon pentateuchon (cf. edition of de Lagarde, Leipzig and London, 1858 p. 193); but the passage has been found to belong to Epiphanius (cf. “Hippolytus” in “Die griechischen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte”, Leipzig, 1897, t. I, 143). The name is used again by Origen (Comment. in Ev. Jo., t. II; P.G., XIV, 192; cf. P.G., XIII, 444), St. Athanasius (Ep. ad Marcellin., 5; P.G., XXVII, 12), and several times by St. Epiphanius (De mensur. et ponderib., 4, 6; P.G., XLIII, 244). In Latin, Tertullian uses the masculine form Pentateuchus (Adv. Marcion., I, 10; P.L., II, 257), while St. Isidore of Seville prefers the neuter Pentateuchum (Etym., VI, ii, 1, 2; P.L., LXXXII, 230). The analogous forms Octateuch, Heptateuch, and Hexateuch have been used to refer to the first, eight, seven, and six books of the Bible respectively. The Rabbinic writers adopted the expression “the five-fifths of the law” or simply “the five-fifths” to denote the five books of the Pentateuch.

Both the Palestinian and the Alexandrian Jews had distinct names for each of the five books of the Pentateuch. In Palestine, the opening words of the several books served as their titles; hence we have the names: bereshith, we’elleh shemoth or simply shemoth, wayyiqra, wayedhabber, and elleh haddebarim or simply debarim. Though these were the ordinary Hebrew titles of the successive Pentateuchal books, certain Rabbinic writers denote the last three according to their contents; they called the third book torath kohanim, or law of priests; the fourth, homesh happiqqudhim, or book of census; the fifth, mishneh thorah, or repetition of the law. The Alexandrian Jews derived their Greek names of the five books from the contents of either the whole or the beginning of each division. Thus the first book is called Genesis kosmou or simply Genesis; the second, Exodus Aigyptou or Exodus; the third, Leueitikon; the fourth, Arithmoi; and the fifth, Deuteronomion. These names passed from the Septuagint into the Latin Vulgate, and from this into most of the translations of the Vulgate. Arithmoi however was replaced by the Latin equivalent Numeri, while the other names retained their form.

II. ANALYSIS

The contents of the Pentateuch are partly of an historical, partly of a legal character. They give us the history of the Chosen People from the creation of the world to the death of Moses, and acquaint us too with the civil and religious legislation of the Israelites during the life of their great lawgiver. Genesis may be considered as the introduction to the other four books; it contains the early history down to the preparation of Israel’s exit form Egypt. Deuteronomy, consisting mainly of discourses, is practically a summary repetition of the Mosaic legislation, and concludes also the history of the people under the leadership of Moses. The three intervening books consider the wanderings of Israel in the desert and the successive legal enactments. Each of these three great divisions has its own special introduction (Genesis 1:1-2:3; Exodus 1:1-1:7; Deuteronomy 1:1-5); and since the subject matter distinguishes Leviticus from Exodus and Numbers, not to mention the literary terminations of the third and fourth books (Leviticus 27:34; Numbers 26:13), the present form of the Pentateuch exhibits both a literary unity and a division into five minor parts.

A. GENESIS

The Book of Genesis prepares the reader for the Pentateuchal legislation; it tells us how God chose a particular family to keep His Revelation, and how He trained the Chosen People to fulfil its mission. From the nature of its contents the book consists of two rather unequal parts; cc. i-xi present the features of a general history, while cc. xii-1 contain the particular history of the Chosen People. By a literary device, each of these parts is subdivided into five sections differing in length. The sections are introduced by the phrase elleh tholedhoth (these are the generations) or its variant zeh sepher toledhoth (this is the book of the generations). “Generations”, however, is only the etymological meaning of the Hebrew toledhoth; in its context the formula can hardly signify a mere genealogical table, for it is neither preceded nor followed by such tables. As early Oriental history usually begins with genealogical records, and consists to a large extend of such records, one naturally interprets the above introductory formula and its variant as meaning, “this is the history” or “this is the book of the history.” History in these phrases is not to be understood as a narrative resting on folklore, as Fr. Von Hummelauer believes (“Exegetisches zur Inspirationsfrage, Biblische Studien”, Freiburg, 1904, IX, 4, pp. 26-32); but as a record based on genealogies. Moreover, the introductory formula often refers back to some principal feature of the preceding section, thus forming a transition and connection between the successive parts. Gen., v, 1, e. g., refers back to Gen., ii, 7 sqq.; vi, 9 to v, 29 sqq. and vi, 8; x, 1 to ix, 18, 19, etc. Finally, the sacred writer deals very briefly with the non-chosen families or tribes, and he always considers them before the chosen branch of the family. He treats of Cain before he speaks of Seth; similarly, Cham and Japhet precede Sem; the rest of Sem’s posterity precedes Abraham; Ismael precedes Isaac; Esau precedes Jacob.

Bearing in mind these general outlines of the contents and the literary structure of Genesis, we shall easily understand the following analytical table. Introduction (Genesis 1:1-2:3) — Consists of the Hexaemeron; it teaches the power and goodness of God as manifested in the creation of the world, and also the dependence of creatures on the dominion of the Creator. General History (2:4-11:26) — Man did not acknowledge his dependence on God. Hence, leaving the disobedient to their own devices, God chose one special family or one individual as the depositary of His Revelation. History of Heaven and Earth (2:4-4:26) — Here we have the story of the fall of our first parents, ii, 5-iii, 24; of the fratricide of Cain, iv, 1-16; the posterity of Cain and its elimination, iv, 17-26. History of Adam (5:1-6:8) — The writer enumerates the Sethites, another line of Adam’s descendants, v, 1-32, but shows that they too became so corrupt that only one among them found favour before God, vi, 1-8. History of Noe (6:9-9:29) — Neither the Deluge which destroyed the whole human race excepting Noe’s family, vi, 11-viii, 19, nor God’s covenant with Noe and his sons, viii, 20-ix, 17, brought about the amendment of the human family, and only one of Noe’s sons was chosen as the bearer of the Divine blessings, ix, 18-29. History of the Sons of Noe (10:1-11:9) — The posterity of the non-chosen sons, x, 1-32, brought a new punishment on the human race by its pride, xi, 1-9. History of Sem (11:10-26) — The posterity of Sem is enumerated down to Thare the father of Abraham, in whose seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. Special History (11:27-50:26) — Here the inspired writer describes the special Providence watching over Abraham and his offspring which developed in Egypt into a large nation. At the same time, he eliminates the sons of Abraham who were not children of God’s promise. This teaches the Israelites that carnal descent from Abraham does not suffice to make them true sons of Abraham. History of Thare (11:27-25:11) — This section tells of the call of Abraham, his transmigration into Chanaan, his covenant with God, and His promises. History of Ismael (25:12-28) — This section eliminates the tribes springing from Ismael. History of Isaac (25:19-35:29 — Here we have the history of Isaac’s sons, Esau and Jacob. History of Esau (36:1-37:1) — The sacred writer gives a list of Esau’s posterity; it does not belong to the number of the Chosen People. History of Jacob (37:2-50:26) — This final portion of Genesis tells of the fate of Jacob’s family down to the death of the Patriarch and of Joseph. What has been said shows a uniform plan in the structure of Genesis, which some scholars prefer to call “schematism”. (i) The whole book is divided into ten sections. (ii) Each section is introduced by the same formula. (iii) The sections are arranged according to a definite plan, the history of the lateral genealogical branches always preceding that of the corresponding part of the main line. (iv) Within the sections, the introductory formula or the title is usually followed by a brief repetition of some prominent feature of the preceding section, a fact duly noted and explained by as early a writer as Rhabanus Maurus (Comment. In Gen., II, xii; P.G., CVII, 531-2), but misconstrued by our recent critics into an argument for a diversity of sources. (v) The history of each Patriarch tells of the development of his family during his lifetime, while the account of his life varies between a bare notice consisting of a few words or lines, and a more lengthy description. (vi) When the life of the Patriarch is given more in detail, the account usually ends in an almost uniform way, indicating the length of his life and his burial with his ancestors (cf. ix, 29; xi, 32; xxv, 7; xxxv, 28; xlvii, 28). Such a definite plan of the book shows that it was written with a definite end in view and according to preconceived arrangement. The critics attribute this to the final “redactor” of the Pentateuch who adopted, according to their views, the genealogical framework and the “schematism” from the Priestly Code. The value of these views will be discussed later; for the present, it suffices to know that a striking unity prevails throughout the Book of Genesis (cf. Kurtrz, “Die Einheit der Genesis”, Berlin, 1846; Delattre, “Plan de la Genèse” in “Revue des quest. hist.”, July, 1876; XX, pp. 5-43; Delattre, “Le plan de la Genese et les generations du ciel et de la terre” in “La science cath.”, 15 Oct., 1891, V, pp. 978-89; de Broglie, “Etude sur les genealogies bibliques” in “Le congres scientif. internat. des catholiques de 1888”, Paris, 1889, I, pp. 94-101; Julian, “Etude critique sur la composition de la Genese”, Paris, 1888, pp. 232-50).

B. EXODUS

After the death of Joseph, Israel had grown into a people, and its history deals no longer with mere genealogies, but with the people’s national and religious development. The various laws are given and promulgated as occasion required them; hence they are intimately connected with the history of the people, and the Pentateuchal books in which they are recorded are rightly numbered among the historical books of Scripture. Only the third book of the Pentateuch exhibits rather the features of a legal code. The Book of Exodus consists of a brief introduction and three main parts: Introduction, i, 1-7.- A brief summary of the history of Jacob connects Genesis with Exodus, and serves at the same time as transition from the former to the latter. (1) First Part, i, 8-xiii, 16.- It treats of the events preceding and preparing the exit of Israel from Egypt. (a) Ex., i, 8-ii, 25; the Israelites are oppressed by the new Pharao “that knew not Joseph”, but God prepares them a liberator in Moses. (b) Ex., iii, 1-iv, 31.-Moses is called to free his people; his brother Aaron is given him as companion; their reception by the Israelites. (c) v, 1-x, 29.-Pharao refuses to listen to Moses and Aaron; God renews his promises; genealogies of Moses and Aaron; the heart of Pharao is not moved by the first nine plagues. (d) xi, 1-xiii, 16.-The tenth plaque consists in the death of the first-born; Pharao dismisses the people; law of the annual celebration of the pasch in memory of the liberation from Egypt. (2) Second Part, xiii, 17-xviii, 27.- Journey of Israel to Mt. Sinai and miracles preparing the people for the Sinaitic Law. (a) xiii, 1-xv, 21.-The Israelites, led and protected by a pillar of cloud and fire, cross the Red Sea, but the persecuting Egyptians perish in the waters. (b) xv, 22-xvii, 16.-The route of Israel is passing through Sur, Mara, Elim, Sin, Rephidim. At Mara the bitter waters are made sweet; in the Desert of Sin God sent quails and manna to the children of Israel; at Raphidim God gave them water form the rock, and defeated Amalec through the prayers of Moses. (c) xviii, 1-27.-Jethro visits his kinsmen, and at his suggestion Moses institutes the judges of the people. (3) Third Part, xix, 1-xl, 38.- Conclusion of the Sinaitic covenant and its renewal. Here Exodus assumes more the character of a legal code. (a) xix, 1-xx, 21.-The people journey to Sinai, prepare for the coming legislation, receive the decalogue, and ask to have the future laws promulgated through Moses. (b) xx, 22-xxiv, 8.-Moses promulgates certain laws together with promises for their observance, and confirms the covenant between God and the people with a sacrifice. The portion xx, 1-xxiii, 33, is also called the Book of the Covenant. (c) xxiv, 9-xxxi, 18.-Moses alone remains with God on the mountain for forty days, and receives various instructions about the tabernacle and other points pertaining to Divine worship. (d) xxxii, 1-xxxiv, 35.-The people adore the golden calf; at this sight, Moses breaks the divinely given tables of the law, punishes the idolaters, obtains pardon from God for the survivors, and, renewing the covenant, receives other tables of the law. (e) xxxv, 1-xl, 38.-The tabernacle with its appurtenances is prepared, the priests are anointed, and the cloud of the Lord covers the tabernacle, thus showing that He had made the people His own.

C. LEVITICUS

Leviticus, called by Rabbinic writers “Law of the Priests” or “Law of the Sacrifices”, contains nearly a complete collection of laws concerning the Levitical ministry. They are not codified in any logical order, but still we may discern certain groups of regulations touching the same subject. The Book of Exodus shows what God had done and was doing for His people; the Book of Leviticus prescribes what the people must do for God, and how they must render themselves worthy of His constant presence. (1) First Part, i, 1-x, 20.-Duties of Israel toward God living in their midst. (a) i, 1-vi, 7.-The different kinds of sacrifices are enumerated, and their rites are described. (b) vi, 8-vii, 36.-The duties and rights of the priests, the official offerers of the sacrifices, are stated. (c) viii, 1-x, 20.-The first priests are consecrated and introduced into their office. (2) Second Part, xi, 1-xxvii, 34.-Legal cleanness demanded by the Divine presence. (a) xi, 1-xx, 27.-The entire people must be legally clean; the various ways in which cleanness must be kept; interior cleanness must be added to external cleanness. (b) xxi, 1-xxii, 33.-Priests must excel in both internal and external cleanness; hence they have to keep special regulations. (c) xxiii, 1-xxvii, 34.-The other laws, and the promises and threats made for the observance or the violation of the laws, belong to both priests and people.

D. NUMBERS

Numbers, at times called “In the Desert” by certain Rabbinic writers because it covers practically the whole time of Israel’s wanderings in the desert. Their story was begun in Exodus, but interrupted by the Sinaitic legislation; Numbers takes up the account from the first month of the second year, and brings it down to the eleventh month of the fortieth year. But the period of 38 years is briefly treated, only its beginning and end being touched upon; for this span of time was occupied by the generation of Israelites that had been condemned by God. (1) First Part, i, 1-xiv, 45.-Summary of the happenings before the rejection of the rebellious generation, especially during the first two months of the second year. The writer inverts the chronological order of these two months, or order not to interrupt the account of the people’s wanderings by a description of the census, of the arrangement of the tribes, of the duties of the various families of the Levites, all of which occurrences or ordinances belong to the second month. Thus he first states what remained unchanged throughout the desert life of the people, and then reverts to the account of the wanderings from the first month of the second year. (a) i, 1-vi, 27.-The census is taken, the tribes are arranged in their proper order, the duties of the Levites are defined, the regulations concerning cleanness is the camp are promulgated. (b) vii, 1-ix, 14.-Occurrences belonging to the first month: offerings of the princes at the dedication of the tabernacle, consecration of the Levites and duration of their ministry, celebration of the second pasch. (c) ix, 15-xiv, 45.-Signals for breaking up the camp; the people leave Sinai on the twenty-second day of the second month, and journey towards Cades in the desert Pharan; they murmur against Moses on account of fatigue, want of flesh-meat, etc.; deceived by faithless spies, they refuse to enter into the Promised Land, and the whole living generation is rejected by God. (2) Second Part, xv, 1-xix, 22.-Events pertaining to the rejected generation. (a) xv, 1-41.-Certain laws concerning sacrifices; Sabbath-breaking is punished with death; the law of fringes on the garments. (b) xvi, 1-xvii, 13.-The schism of Core and his adherents; their punishment; the priesthood is confirmed to Aaron by the blooming rod which is kept for a remembrance in the tabernacle. (c) xviii, 1-xix, 22.-The charges of the priests and Levites, and their portion; the law of the sacrifice of the red cow, and the water of expiation. (3) Third Part, xx, 1-xxxvi, 13.-History of the journey from the first to the eleventh month of the fortieth year. (a) xx, 1-xxi, 20.-Death of Mary, sister of Moses; God again gives the murmuring people water from the rock, but refuses Moses and Aaron entrance to the Promised Land on account of their doubt; Aaron dies while the people go around the Idumean mountains; the malcontents are punished with fiery serpents. (b) xxi, 21-xxv, 18.-The land of the Amorrhites is seized; the Moabites vainly attempt to destroy Israel by the curse of Balaam; the Madianites lead the people into idolatry. (c) xxvi, 1-xxvii, 23.-A new census is taken with a view of dividing the land; the law of inheritance; Josue is appointed to succeed Moses. (d) xxviii, 1-xxx, 17.-Certain laws concerning sacrifices, vows, and feasts are repeated and completed. (e) xxxi, 1-xxxii, 40.-After the defeat of the Madianites, the country across Jordan is given to the tribes of Ruben and Gad, and to half of the tribe of Manasses. (f) xxxiii, 1-40.-List of encampments of people of Israel during their wandering in the desert. (g) xxxiii, 50-xxxvi, 13.-Command to destroy the Chanaanites; limits of the Promised Land and names of the men who are to divide it; Levitical cities, and cities of refuge; law concerning murder and manslaughter; ordinance concerning the marriage of heiresses.

E. DEUTERONOMY

Deuteronomy is a partial repetition and explanation of the foregoing legislation together with an urgent exhortation to be faithful to it. The main body of the book consists of three discourses delivered by Moses to the people in the eleventh month of the fortieth year; but the discourses are precede by a short introduction, and they are followed by several appendices. Introduction, i, 1-5.-Brief indication of the subject matter, the time, and the place of the following discourses. (1) First Discourse, i, 6-iv, 40.-God’s benefits are enumerated, and the people are exhorted to keep the law. (a) i, 6-iii, 29.-The main occurrences during the time of the wandering in the desert are recalled as showing the goodness and justice of God. (b) iv, 1-40.-Hence the covenant with God must be kept. By way of parenthesis, the sacred writer adds here (i) the appointment of three cities of refuge across the Jordan, iv, 41-43; (ii) an historical preamble, preparing us for the second discourse, iv, 44-49. (2) Second Discourse, v, 1-xxvi, 19.-This forms almost the bulk of Deuteronomy. It rehearses the whole economy of the covenant in two sections, the one general, the other particular. (a) The General Repetition, v, 1-xi, 32.-Repetition of the decalogue, and reasons for the promulgation of the law through Moses; explanation of the first commandment, and prohibitions of all intercourse with the gentiles; reminder of the Divine favours and punishments; promise of victory over the Chanaanites; God’s blessing on the observance of the Law, His curse on the transgressors. (b) Special Laws, xii, 1-xxvi, 19.-(i) Duties towards God: He is to be duly worshiped, never to be abandoned; distinction of clean and unclean meats; tithes and first-fruits; the three principal solemnities of the year. (ii) Duties towards God’s representatives: toward the judges, the future kings, the priests, and Prophets. (iii) Duties towards the neighbour: as to life, external possessions, marriage, and various other particulars. (3) Third Discourse, xxvii, 1-xxx, 20.-A renewed exhortation to keep the law, based on diverse reasons. (a) xxvii, 1-26.-Command to inscribe the law on stones after crossing the Jordan, and to promulgate the blessings and curses connected with the observance or non-observance of the law. (b) xxviii, 1-68.-A more minute statement of the good or evil depending on the observance or violation of the law. (c) xxix, 1-xxx, 20.-The goodness of God is extolled; all are urged to be faithful to God. (4) Historical Appendix, xxxi, 1-xxxiv, 12. (a) xxxi, 1-27.-Moses appoints Josue as his successor, orders him to read the law to the people every seven years, and to place a copy of the same in the ark. (b) xxxi, 28-xxxii, 47.-Moses calls an assembly of the Ancients and recites his canticle. (c) xxxii, 48-52.-Moses views the Promised Land from a distance. (d) xxxiii, 1-29.-He blesses the tribes of Israel. (e) xxxiv, 1-12.-His death, burial, and special eulogium.

III. AUTHENTICITY

The contents of the Pentateuch furnish the basis for the history, the law, the worship, and the life of the Chosen People of God. Hence the authorship of the work, the time and manner of its origin, and its historicity are of paramount importance. These are not merely literary problems, but questions belonging to the fields of history of religion and theology. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is inseparably connected with the question, whether and in what sense Moses was the author or intermediary of the Old-Testament legislation, and the bearer of pre-Mosaic tradition. According to the trend of both Old and New Testament, and according to Jewish and Christian theology, the work of the great lawgiver Moses is the origin of the history of Israel and the basis of its development down to the time of Jesus Christ; but modern criticism sees in all this only the result, or the precipitate, of a purely natural historical development. The question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch leads us, therefore, to the alternative, revelation or historical evolution; it touches the historical and theological foundation of both the Jewish and the Christian dispensation. We shall consider the subject first in the light of Scripture; secondly, in the light of Jewish and Christian tradition; thirdly, in the light of internal evidence, furnished by the Pentateuch; finally, in the light of ecclesiastical decisions.

A. TESTIMONY OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

It will be found convenient to divide the Biblical evidence for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch into three parts: (1) Testimony of the Pentateuch; (2) Testimony of the other Old-Testament books; (3) Testimony of the New Testament.

(1) Witness of the Pentateuch

The Pentateuch in its present form does not present itself as a complete literary production of Moses. It contains an account of Moses’ death, it tells the story of his life in the third person and in an indirect form, and the last four books do not exhibit the literary form of memoirs of the great lawgiver; besides, the expression “God said to Moses” shows only the Divine origin of the Mosaic laws, but does not prove that Moses himself codified in the Pentateuch the various laws promulgated by him. On the other hand, the Pentateuch ascribes to Moses the literary authorship of at least four sections, partly historical, partly legal, partly poetical. (a) After Israel’s victory over the Amalecites near Raphidim, the Lord said to Moses (Exodus 17:14): “Write this for a memorial in a book, and deliver it to the ears of Josue.” This order is naturally restricted to Amalec’s defeat, a benefit which God wished to keep alive in the memory of the people (Deuteronomy 25:17-19). The present pointing of the Hebrew text reads “in the book”, but the Septuagint version omits the definite article. Even if we suppose that the Massoretic pointing gives the original text, we can hardly prove that the book referred to is the Pentateuch, though this is highly probable (cf. von Hummelauer “Exodus et Leviticus”, Paris, 1897, p. 182; Idem, “Deuteronomium”, Paris, 1901, p. 152; Kley, “Die Pentateuchfrage”, Munster, 1903, p. 217). (b) Again, Ex., xxiv, 4: “And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.” The context does not allow us to understand these words in an indefinite manner, but as referring to the words of the Lord immediately preceding or to the so-called “Book of the Covenant”, Ex., xx-xxiii. (c) Ex., xxxiv, 27: “And the Lord said to Moses: Write thee these words by which I have made a covenant both with thee and with Israel.” The next verse adds: “and he wrote upon the tables the ten words of the covenant.” Ex., xxxiv, 1, 4, shows how Moses had prepared the tables, and Ex., xxxiv, 10-26, gives us the contents of the ten words. (d) Num., xxxiii, 1-2: “These are the mansions of the children of Israel, who went out of Egypt by their troops under the conduct of Moses and Aaron, which Moses wrote down according to the places of their encamping.” Here we are informed that Moses wrote the list of the people’s encampments in the desert; but where it this list to be found? Most probably it is given in Num., xxxiii, 3-49, or the immediate context of the passage telling of Moses’ literary activity; there are, however, scholars who understand this latter passage as referring to the history of Israel’s departure from Egypt written in the order of the people’s encampments, so that it would be our present Book of Exodus. But this view is hardly probable; for its assumption that Num., xxxiii, 3-49, is a summary of Exodus cannot be upheld, as the chapter of Numbers mentions several encampments not occurring in Exodus.

Besides these four passages there are certain indications in Deuteronomy which point to the literary activity of Moses. Deut., i, 5: “And Moses began to expound the law and to say”; even if the “law” in this text refer to the whole of the Pentateuchal legislation, which is not very probable, it shows only that Moses promulgated the whole law, but not that he necessarily wrote it. Practically the entire Book of Deuteronomy claims to be a special legislation promulgated by Moses in the land of Moab: iv, 1-40; 44-49; v, 1 sqq.; xii, 1 sqq. But there is a suggestion of writing too: xvii, 18-9, enjoins that the future kings are to receive a copy of this law from the priests in order to read and observe it; xxvii, 1-8, commands that on the west side of the Jordan “all the words of this law” be written on stones set up in Mount Hebal; xxviii, 58, speaks of “all the words of this law, that are written in this volume” after enumerating the blessings and curses which will come upon the observers and violators of the law respectively, and which are again referred to as written in a book in xxix, 20, 21, 27, and xxxii, 46, 47; now, the law repeatedly referred to as written in a book must be at least the Deuteronomic legislation. Moreover, xxxi, 9-13 states, “and Moses wrote this law”, and xxxi, 26, adds, “take this book, and put it in the side of the ark. . .that it may be there for a testimony against thee”; to explain these texts as fiction or as anachronisms is hardly compatible with the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. Finally, xxxi, 19, commands Moses to write the canticle contained in Deut., xxxii, 1-43.

The Scriptural scholar will not complain that there are so few express indications in the Pentateuch of Moses’ literary activity; he will rather be surprised at their number. As far as explicit testimony for its own, at least partial, authorship is concerned, the Pentateuch compares rather favourably with many other books of the Old Testament.

(2) Witness of other Old-Testament Books (a) Josue.-The narrative of the Book of Josue presupposes not merely the facts and essential ordinances contained in the Pentateuch, but also the law given by Moses and written in the book of the law of Moses: Jos., i, 7-8; viii, 31; xxii, 5; xxiii, 6. Josue himself “wrote all these things in the volume of the law of the Lord” (xxiv, 26). Prof. Hobverg maintains that this “volume of the law of the Lord” is the Pentateuch (“Über den Ursprung des Pentateuchs” in “Biblische Zeitschrift”, 1906, IV, 340); Mangenot believes that it refers at least to Deuteronomy (Dict. de la Bible, V, 66). At any rate, Josue and his contemporaries were acquainted with a written Mosaic legislation, which was divinely revealed.

(b) Judges; I, II Kings.-In the Book of Judges and the first two Books of Kings there is no explicit reference to Moses and the book of the law, but a number of incidents and statements presuppose the existence of the Pentateuchal legislation and institutions. Thus Judges, xv, 8-10, recalls Israel’s delivery from Egypt and its conquest of the Promised Land; Judges, xi, 12-28, states incidents recorded in Num., xx, 14; xxi, 13,24; xxii, 2; Judges, xiii, 4, states a practice founded on the law of the Nazarites in Num., vi, 1-21; Judges, xviii, 31, speaks of the tabernacle existing in the times when there was no king in Israel; Judges, xx, 26-8 mentions the ark of the covenant, the various kinds of sacrifices, and the Aaronic priesthood. The Pentateuchal history and laws are similarly presupposed in I Kings, x, 18; xv, 1-10; x, 25; xxi, 1-6; xxii, 6 sqq.; xxiii, 6-9; II Kings, vi.

(c) III, IV Kings.-The last two Books of Kings repeatedly speak of the law of Moses. To restrict the meaning of this term to Deuteronomy is an arbitrary exegesis (cf. 1 Kings 2:3; 10:31); Amasias showed mercy to the children of the murderers “according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses” (2 Kings 14:6); the sacred writer records the Divine promise of protecting the Israelites “Only if they will observe to do all that I have commanded them according to the law which my servant Moses commanded them” (2 Kings 21:8). In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josias was found the book of the law (2 Kings 22:8, 11), or the book of the covenant (2 Kings 23:2), according to which he conducted his religious reform (IV Kings, xxiii, 1024), and which is identified with “the law of Moses” (2 Kings 23:25). Catholic commentators are not at one whether this law-book was Deuteronomy (von Hummelauer, “Deuteronomium”, Paris, 1901, p. 40-60, 83-7) or the entire Pentateuch (Clair, “Les livres des Rois”, Paris, 1884, II, p. 557 seq.; Hoberg, “Moses und der Pentateuch”, Frieburg, 1905, p. 17 seq.; “uber den Ursprung des Pentateuchs” in “Biblische Zeitschrift”, 1906, IV, pp. 338-40).

(d) Paralipomenon.-The inspired writer of Paralipomenon refers to the law and the book of Moses much more frequently and clearly. The objectionable names and numbers occurring in these books are mostly due to transcribers. The omission of incidents which would detract from the glory of the Israelite kings or would not edify the reader is not detrimental to the credibility or veracity of the work. Otherwise one should have to place among works of fiction a number of biographical or patriotic publications intended for the young or for the common reader. On their part, the modern critics are too eager to discredit the authority of Paralipomena. “After removing the account of Paralipomena”, writes de Wette (Beitrage, I, 135), “the whole Jewish history assumes another form, and the Pentateuchal investigations take another turn; a number of strong proofs, hard to explain away, for the early existence of the Mosaic books have disappeared, the other vestiges of their existence are placed in a different light.” A glance at the contents of Parlipomenon suffices to explain the efforts of de Witte and Wellhausen to disprove the historicity of the books. Not only are the genealogies (1 Chronicles 1-9) and the descriptions of worship traced after the data and laws of the Pentateuch, but the sacred writer expressly points out their conformity with what is written in the law of the Lord (1 Chronicles 16:40), in the law of Moses (2 Chronicles 23:18; 31:3), thus identifying the law of the Lord with that written by Moses (cf. 2 Chronicles 25:4). The reader will find similar indications of the existence and the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch in I Par., xxii, 12 seq.; II Par., xvii, 9; xxxiii, 4; xxxiv, 14; xxv, 12. By an artificial interpretation, indeed, the Books of Paralipomenon may be construed to represent the Pentateuch as a book containing the law promulgated by Moses; but the natural sense of the foregoing passages regards the Pentateuch as a book edited by Moses.

(e) I, II Esdras.-The Books of Esdras and Nehemias, too, taken in their natural and commonly accepted sense, consider the Pentateuch as the book of Moses, not merely as a book containing the law of Moses. This contention is based on the study of the following texts: I Esd., iii, 2 sqq.; vi, 18; vii, 14; II Esd., i, 7 sqq.; viii, 1, 8, 14; ix, 3; x, 34, 36; xiii, 1-3. Graf and his followers expressed the view that the book of Moses referred to in these texts is not the Pentateuch, but only the Priestly Code; but when we keep in mind that the book in question contained the laws of Lev., xxiii, and Deut., vii, 2-4; xv, 2, we perceive at once that the book of Moses cannot be restricted to the Priestly Code. To the witness of the historical books we may add II Mach., ii, 4; vii, 6; Judith, viii, 23; Ecclus., xxiv, 33; xlv, 1-6; xlv, 18, and especially the Preface of Ecclus.

(f) Prophetic Books.-Express reference to the written law of Moses is found only in the later Prophets: Bar., ii, 2, 28; Dan., ix, 11, 13; Mal., iv, 4. Among these, Baruch knows that Moses has been commanded to write the law, and though his expressions run parallel to those of Deut., xxviii, 15, 53, 62-64, his threats contain allusions to those contained in other parts of the Pentateuch. The other Prophets frequently refer to the law of the Lord guarded by the priests (cf. Deuteronomy 31:9), and they put it on the same level with Divine Revelation and the eternal covenant of the Lord. They appeal to God’s covenant, the sacrificial laws, the calendar of feasts, and other laws of the Pentateuch in such a way as to render it probable that a written legislation formed the basis of their prophetic admonitions (cf. Hosea 8:12), and that they were acquainted with verbal expressions of the book of the law. Thus in the northern kingdom Amos (iv, 4-5; v, 22 sqq.) and Isaias in the south (i, 11 sqq.) employ expressions which are practically technical words for sacrifice occurring in Lev., i-iii; vii, 12, 16; and Deut., xii, 6.

(3) Witness of the New Testament

We need not show that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the whole of the Pentateuch as written by Moses. If they attributed to Moses all the passages which they happen to cite, if they ascribe the Pentateuch to Moses whenever there is question of its authorship, even the most exacting critics must admit that they express their conviction that the work was indeed written by Moses. When the Sadducees quote against Jesus the marriage law of Deut., xxv, 5, as written by Moses (Matthew 22:24; Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28), Jesus does not deny the Mosaic authorship, but appeals to Ex., iii, 6, as equally written by Moses (Mark 12:26; Matthew 22:31; Luke 20:37). Again, in the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16:29), He speaks of “Moses and the prophets”, while on other occasions He speaks of “the law and the prophets” (Luke 16:16), thus showing that in His mind the law, or the Pentateuch, and Moses are identical. The same expressions reappear in the last discourse addressed by Christ to His disciples (Luke 24:44-6; cf. 27): “which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me”. Finally, in John, v, 45-7, Jesus is more explicit in asserting the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch: “There is one that accuseth you, Moses. . .for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” Nor can it be maintained that Christ merely accommodated himself to the current beliefs of his contemporaries who considered Moses as the author of the Pentateuch not merely in a moral but also in the literary sense of authorship. Jesus did not need to enter into the critical study of the nature of Mosaic authorship, but He could not expressly endorse the popular belief, if it was erroneous.

The Apostles too felt convinced of, and testified to, the Mosaic authorship. “Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him: We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write.” St. Peter introduces a quotation from Deut., xviii, 15, with the words: “For Moses said” (Acts 3:22). St. James and St. Paul relate that Moses is read in the synagogues on the Sabbath day (Acts 15:21; 2 Corinthians 3:15). The great Apostle speaks in other passages of the law of Moses (Acts 13:33; 1 Corinthians 9:9); he preaches Jesus according to the law of Moses and the Prophets (Acts 28:23), and cites passages from the Pentateuch as words written by Moses (Romans 10:5-8; 19). St. John mentions the canticle of Moses (Revelation 15:3).

B. WITNESS OF TRADITION

The voice of tradition, both Jewish and Christian, is so unanimous and constant in proclaiming the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch that down to the seventeenth century it did not allow the rise of any serious doubt. The following paragraphs are only a meagre outline of this living tradition.

(1) Jewish Tradition

It has been seen that the books of the Old Testament, beginning with those of the Pentateuch, present Moses as the author of at least parts of the Pentateuch. The writer of the Books of Kings believes that Moses is the author of Deuteronomy at least. Esdras, Nehemias, Malachias, the author of Paralipomena, and the Greek authors of the Septuagint Version consider Moses as the author of the whole Pentateuch. At the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles friend and foe take the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch for granted; neither our Lord nor His enemies take exception to this assumption. In the first century of the Christian era, Josephus ascribes to Moses the authorship of the entire Pentateuch, not excepting the account of the lawgiver’s death (“Antiq. Jud.”, IV, viii, 3-48; cf. I Procem., 4; “Contra Apion.”, I, 8). The Alexandrian philosopher Philo is convinced that the entire Pentateuch is the work of Moses, and that the latter wrote a prophetic account of his death under the influence of a special divine inspiration (“De vita Mosis”, ll. II, III in “Opera”, Geneva, 1613, pp. 511, 538). The Babylonian Talmud (“Baba-Bathra”, II, col. 140; “Makkoth”, fol. IIa; “Menachoth”, fol. 30a; cf. Vogue, “Hist. de la Bible et de l’exegese biblique jusqua’a nos jours”, Paris, 1881, p. 21), the Talmud of Jerusalem (Sota, v, 5), the rabbis, and the doctors of Israel (cf. Furst, “Der Kanon des Alten Testaments nach den Überlieferungen im Talmud und Midrasch”, Leipzig, 1868, pp. 7-9) bear testimony to the continuance of this tradition for the first thousand years. Though Isaac ben Jasus in the eleventh century and Abenesra in the twelfth admitted certain post-Mosaic additions in the Pentateuch, still they as well as Maimonides upheld its Mosaic authorship, and did not substantially differ in this point from the teaching of R. Becchai (thirteenth cent.), Joseph Karo, and Abarbanel (fifteenth cent.; cf. Richard Simon, “Critique de la Bibl. des aut. eccles. de E. Dupin”, Paris, 1730, III, pp. 215-20). Only in the seventeenth century, Baruch Spinoza rejected the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, pointing out the possibility that the work might have been written by Esdras (“Tract. Theol.-politicus”, c. viii, ed. Tauchnitz, III, p. 125). Among the more recent Jewish writers several have adopted the results of the critics, thus abandoning the tradition of their forefathers.

(2) Christian Tradition

The Jewish tradition concerning the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was brought in to the Christian Church by Christ Himself and the Apostles. No one will seriously deny the existence and continuance of such a tradition from the patristic period onward; one might indeed be curious about the interval between the time of the Apostles and beginning of the third century. For this period we may appeal to the “Epistle of Barnabus” (x, 1-12; Funk, “Patres apostol.”, 2nd ed., Tubingen, 1901, I, p. 66-70; xii, 2-9k; ibid., p. 74-6), to St. Clement of Rome (1 Corinthians 41:1; ibid., p. 152), St. Justin (“Apol. I”, 59; P. G., VI, 416; I, 32, 54; ibid., 377, 409; “Dial.”, 29; ibid., 537), to the author of “Cohort. Ad Graec.” (9, 28, 30, 33, 34; ibid., 257, 293, 296-7, 361), to St. Theophilus (“Ad Autol.”, III, 23; ibid., 1156; 11, 30; ibid., 1100), to St. Irenaeus (Cont. haer., I, ii, 6; P.G., VII, 715-6), to St. Hippolytus of Rome (“Comment. In Deut.”, xxxi, 9, 31, 35; cf. Achelis, “Arabische Fragmente etc.”, Leipzig, 1897, I, 118; “Philosophumena”, VIII, 8; X, 33; P.G., XVI, 3350, 3448), to Tertullian of Carthage (Adv. Hermog., XIX; P. L., II, 214), to Origen of Alexandria (Contra. Cels., III, 5-6; P. G., XI, 928; etc.), to St. Eusthatius of Antioch (De engastrimytha c. Orig., 21; P.G., XVIII, 656); for all these writers, and others might be added, bear witness to the continuance of the Christian tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. A list of the later Fathers who bear witness to the same truth may be found in Mangenot’s article in the “Dict. de la Bible” (V, 74 seq.). Hoberg (Moses und der Pentateuch, 72 seq.) has collected the testimony for the existence of the tradition during the Middle Ages and in more recent times.

But Catholic tradition does not necessarily maintain that Moses wrote every letter of the Pentateuch as it is to-day, and that the work has come down to us in an absolutely unchanged form. This rigid view of the Mosaic authorship began to develop in the eighteenth century, and practically gained the upper hand in the nineteenth. The arbitrary treatment of Scripture on the part of Protestants, and the succession of the various destructive systems advanced by Biblical criticism, caused this change of front in the Catholic camp. In the sixteenth century Card. Bellarmine, who may be considered as a reliable exponent of Catholic tradition, expressed the opinion that Esdras had collected, readjusted, and corrected the scattered parts of the Pentateuch, and had even added the parts necessary for the completion of the Pentateuchal history (De verbo Dei, II, I; cf. III, iv). The views of Genebrard, Pereira, Bonfrere, a Lapide, Masius, Jansenius, and of other notable Biblicists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are equally elastic with regard to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Not that they agree with the contentions of our modern Biblical criticism; but they show that to-day’s Pentateuchal problems were not wholly unknown to Catholic scholars, and that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch as determined by the Biblical Commission is no concession forced on the Church by unbelieving Bible students.

C. VOICE OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE

The possibility of producing a written record at the time of Moses is no longer contested. The art of writing was known long before the time of the great lawgiver, and was extensively practised both in Egypt and Babylon. As to the Israelites, Flinders Petrie infers from certain Semitic inscriptions found in 1905 on the Sinaitic peninsula, that they kept written accounts of their national history from the time of their captivity under Ramses II. The Tell-el-Amarna tablets show the language of Babylon was in a way the official language at the time of Moses, known in Western Asia, Palestine, and Egypt; the finds of Taanek have confirmed this fact. But it cannot be inferred from this that the Egyptians and Israelites employed this sacred or official language among themselves and in their religious documents (cf. Benzinger, “Hebraische Archaologie”, 2nd ed., Tubingen, 1907, p. 172 sqq.). It is not merely the possibility of writing at the time of Moses and the question of language that confronts us here; there is the further problem of the kind of written signs used in the Mosaic documents. The hieroglyphic and cuneiform signs were widely employed at that early date; the oldest inscriptions written in alphabetical characters date only from the ninth century B.C. But there can hardly be any doubt as to the higher antiquity of alphabetic writing, and there seems to be nothing to prevent our extending it back to the time of Moses. Finally, the Code of Hammurabi, discovered in Susa in 1901 by the French expedition funded by Mr. And Mrs. Dieulafoy, shows that even in pre-Mosaic times legal enactments were committed to, and preserved in, writing; for the Code antedates Moses some five centuries, and contains about 282 regulations concerning various contingencies in the civic life.

Thus far it has been shown negatively that an historic and legal document claiming to be written at the time of Moses involves no antecedent improbability of its authenticity. But the internal characteristics of the Pentateuch show also positively that the work is at least probably Mosaic. It is true that the Pentateuch contains no express declaration of its entire Mosaic authorship; but even the most exacting of critics will hardly require such testimony. It is practically lacking in all other books, whether sacred or profane. On the other hand, it has already been shown that four distinct passages of the Pentateuch are expressly ascribed to the authorship of Moses. Deut., xxxi, 24-9, is especially noted; for it knows that Moses wrote the “words of this law in a volume” and commanded it to be placed in the ark of the covenant as a testimony against the people who have been so rebellious during the lawgiver’s life and will “do wickedly” after his death. Again, a number of legal sections, though not explicitly ascribed to the writing of Moses, are distinctly derived from Moses as the lawgiver. Besides, many of the Pentateuchal laws bear evidence of their origin in the desert; hence they too lay an indirect claim to Mosaic origin. What has been said of a number of Pentateuchal laws is equally true of several historical sections. These contain in the Book of Numbers, for instance, so many names and numbers that they must have been handed down in writing. Unless the critics can bring irrefutable evidence showing that in these sections we have only fiction, they must grant that these historical details were written down in contemporary documents, and not transmitted by mere oral tradition. Moreover, Hommel (“Die altisraelitische Überlieferung in inschriftlicher Beleuchtung”, p. 302) has shown that the names in the lists of the Book of Numbers bear the character of the Arabian names of the second millennium before Christ, and can have originated only in the time of Moses, though it must be admitted that the text of certain portions, e. g., Num., xiii, has suffered in its transmission. We need not remind the reader that numerous Pentateuchal laws and data imply the conditions of a nomadic life of Israel. Finally, both the author of the Pentateuch and its first readers must have been more familiar with the topography and the social conditions of Egypt and with the Sinaitic peninsula than with the land of Chanaan. Cf., e. g., Deut., viii, 7-10; xi, 10 sqq. These internal characteristics of the Pentateuch have been developed at greater length by Smith, “The Book of Moses or the Pentateuch in its Authorship, Credibility, and Civilisation”, London, 1868; Vigouroux, “La Bible et les decouvertes modernes”, 6th ed., Paris, 1896, I, 453-80; II, 1-213, 529-47, 586-91; Idem, “Les Livres Saints et la critique rationaliste”, Paris, 1902, III, 28-46, 79-99, 122-6; Heyes, “Bibel und AEgypten”, Munster, 1904, p. 142; Cornely, “Introductio specialis in histor. Vet. Test. libros”, I, Paris, 1887, pp. 57-60; Poole, “Ancient Egypt” in “Contemporary Review”, March, 1879, pp. 757-9.

D. ECCLESIASTICAL DECISIONS

In accordance with the voice of the triple argument thus far advanced for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the Biblical Commission on 27 June, 1906, answered a series of questions concerning this subject in the following way:

(1) The arguments accumulated by the critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the sacred books designated by the name Pentateuch are not of such weight as to give us the right, after setting aside numerous passages of both Testaments taken collectively, the continuous consensus of the Jewish people, the constant tradition of the Church, and internal indications derived from the text itself, to maintain that these books have not Moses as their author, but are compiled from sources for the greatest part later than the Mosaic age.

(2) The Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch does not necessarily require such a redaction of the whole work as to render it absolutely imperative to maintain that Moses wrote all and everything with his own hand or dictated it to his secretaries; the hypothesis of those can be admitted who believe that he entrusted the composition of the work itself, conceived by him under the influence of Divine inspiration, to others, but in such a way that they were to express faithfully his own thoughts, were to write nothing against his will, were to omit nothing; and that finally the work thus produced should be approved by the same Moses, its principal and inspired author, and published under his name.

(3) It may be granted without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch, that Moses employed sources in the production of his work, i.e., written documents or oral traditions, from which he may have drawn a number of things in accordance with the end he had in view and under the influence of Divine inspiration, and inserted them in his work either literally or according to their sense, in an abbreviated or amplified form.

(4) The substantial Mosaic authenticity and integrity of the Pentateuch remains intact if it be granted that in the long course of centuries the work has suffered several modifications, as; post-Mosaic additions either appended by an inspired author or inserted into the text as glosses and explanations; the translation of certain words and forms out of an antiquated language into the recent form of speech; finally, wrong readings due to the fault of transcribers, which one may investigate and pass sentence on according to the laws of criticism.

The post-Mosaic additions and modifications allowed by the Biblical Commission in the Pentateuch without removing it from the range of substantial integrity and Mosaic authenticity are variously interpreted by Catholic scholars.

(1) We should have to understand them in a rather wide sense, if we were to defend the views of von Hummelauer or Vetter. This latter writer admits legal and historical documents based on Mosaic tradition, but written only in the times of the Judges; he places the first redaction of the Pentateuch in the time of the erection of Solomon’s temple, and its last redaction in the time of Esdras. Vetter died in 1906, the year in which the Biblical Commission issued the above Decree; it is an interesting question, whether and how the scholar would have modified his theory, if time had been granted him to do so.

(2) A less liberal interpretation of the Decree is implied in the Pentateuchal hypotheses advanced by Hobert (“Moses und der Pentateuch; Die Pentateuch Frage” in “Biblische Studien”, X, 4, Freiburg, 1907; “Erklarung des Genesis”, 1908, Freiburg, I-L), Schopfer (Geschichte des Alten Testamentes, 4th ed., 226 sqq.), Hopfl (“Die hohere Bibelkritik”, 2nd ed., Paderborn, 1906), Brucker (“L’eglise et la critique”, Paris, 1907, 103 sqq.), and Selbst (Schuster and Holzammer’s “Handbuch zur Biblischen Geschichte”, 7th ed., Freiburg, 1910, II, 94, 96). The last-named writer believes that Moses left a written law-book to which Josue and Samuel added supplementary sections and regulations, while David and Solomon supplied new statutes concerning worship and priesthood, and other kings introduced certain religious reforms, until Esdras promulgated the whole law and made it the basis of Israel’s restoration after the Exile. Our present Pentateuch is, therefore, an Esdrine edition of the work. Dr. Selbst feels convinced that his admission of both textual changes and material additions in the Pentateuch agrees with the law of historical development and with the results of literary criticism. Historical development adapts laws and regulations to the religious, civil, and social conditions of successive ages, while literary criticism discovers in our actual Pentateuch peculiarities of words and phrases which can hardly have been original, and also historical additions or notices, legal modifications, and signs of more recent administration of justice and of later forms of worship. But Dr. Selbst believes that these peculiarities do not offer a sufficient basis for a distinction of different sources in the Pentateuch.

(3) A strict interpretation of the words of the Decree is implied in the views of Kaulen (Einleitung, n. 193 sqq.), Key (“Die Pentateuchfrage, ihre Geschichte un ihre System”, Munster, 1903), Flunk (Kirchenlexicon, IX, 1782 sqq.), and Mangenot (“L’authenticite mosaique du Pentateuque”, Paris, 1907; Idem, “Dict. de la Bible”, V, 50-119. With the exception of those portions that belong to the time after the death of Moses, and of certain accidental changes of the text due to transcribers, the whole of the Pentateuch is the work of Moses who composed the work in one of the ways suggested by the Biblical Commission.

Finally, there is the question as the theological certainty of the thesis maintaining the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch.

(1) Certain Catholic scholars who wrote between 1887 and 1906 expressed their opinion that the thesis in question is not revealed in Scripture nor taught by the Church; that it expresses a truth not contained in Revelation, but a tenet which may be freely contested and discussed. At that time, ecclesiastical authority had issued no pronouncement on the question.

(2) Other writers grant that the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is not explicitly revealed, but they consider it as a truth revealed formally implicitly, being derived from the revealed formulae not by a syllogism in the strict sense of the word, but by a simple explanation of the terms. The denial of the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is an error, and the contradictory of the thesis maintaining the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is considered erronea in fide (cf. Mechineau, “L’origine mosaique du Pentateuque”, p. 34).

(3) A third class of scholars considers the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch neither as a freely debatable tenet, nor as a truth formally implicitly revealed; they believe it has been virtually revealed, or that it is inferred from revealed truth by truly syllogistic deduction. It is, therefore, a theologically certain truth, and its contradictory is a rash (temeraria) or even erroneous proposition (cf. Brucker, “Authenticite des livres de Moise” in “Etudes”, March, 1888, p. 327; ibid., January, 1897, p. 122-3; Mangenot, “L’authenticité mosaïque du Pentateuque”, pp. 267-310.

Whatever effect the ecclesiastical decision concerning the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch may have had, or will have, on the opinion of students of the Pentateuchal question, it cannot be said to have occasioned the conservative attitude of scholars who wrote before the promulgation of the Decree. The following list contains the names of the principal recent defenders of Mosaic authenticity: Hengstenberg, “Die Bucher Moses und Aegypten”, Berlin, 1841; Smith, “The Book of Moses or the Pentateuch in its Authorship, Credibility, and Civilisation”, London, 1868; C. Schobel, “Demonstration de l’authenticite du Deuteronome”, Paris, 1868; Idem, “Demonstration de l’authenticite mosaique de l’Exode”, Paris, 1871; Idem, “Demonstration de l’authenticite mosaique du Levitique et des Nombres”, Paris, 1869; Idem, “Demonstration de l’authenticite de la Genese”, Paris, 1872; Idem, “Le Moise historique et la redaction mosaique du Pentateuque”, Paris, 1875; Knabenbauer, “Der Pentateuch und die unglaubige Bibelkritik” in “Stimmen aus Maria-Laach”, 1873, IV; Bredenkamp, “Gesetz und Propheten”, Erlangen, 1881; Green, “Moses and the Prophets”, New York, 1883; Idem, “The Hebrew Feasts”, New York, 1885; Idem, “The Pentateuchal Question” in “Hebraica”, 1889-92; Idem, “The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch”, New York, 1895; Idem, “The Unity of the Book of Genesis”, New York, 1895; C. Elliot, “Vindication of the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch”, Cincinnati, 1884; Bissel, “The Pentateuch, its Origin and Structure”, New York, 1885; Ubaldi, “Introductio in Sacram Scripturam”, 2nd ed., Rome, 1882, I, 452- 509; Cornely, “Introductio specialis in historicos V. T. libros”, Paris, 1887, pp. 19-160; Vos, “Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes”, London, 1886; Bohl, “Zum Gesetz und zum Zeugniss”, Vienna, 1883; Zah, “Erneste Blicke in den Wahn der modernen Kritik des A. T.”, Gutersloh, 1893; Idem, “Das Deuteronomium”, 1890; Idem, “Israelitische und judische Geschichte”, 1895; Rupprecht, “Die Anschauung der kritischen Schule Wellhausens vom Pentateuch”, Leipzig, 1893; Idem, “Das Rathsel des Funfbuches Mose und seine falsche Losung”, Gutersloh, 1894; Idem, “Des Rathsels Losung order Beitrage zur richtigen Losung des Pentateuchrathsels”, 1897; Idem, “Die Kritik nach ihrem Recht uknd Unrecht”, 1897; “Lex Mosaica, or the Law of Moses and the Higher Criticism” (by Sayce, Rawlinson, Trench, Lias, Wace, etc.), London, 1894; Card. Meignan, “De L’Eden a Moise”, Paris, 1895, 1-88; Baxter, “Sanctuary and Sacrifice”, London, 1896; Abbe de Broglie, “Questions bibliques”, Paris, 1897, pp. 89-169; Pelt, “Histoire de l’A.T.”, 3rd ed., Paris, 1901, I, pp. 291-326; Vigouroux, “Les Livres Saints et la critique ratioinaliste”, Paris, 1902, III, 1-226; IV, 239-53, 405-15; Idem, “Manuel biblique”, 12th ed., Paris, 1906, I, 397-478; Kley, “Die Pentateuchfrage, ihre Geschichte und ihre Systeme”, Munster, 1903; Hopfl, “Die hohere Bibelkritik”, Paderborn, 1902; Thomas, “The Organic Unity of the Pentateuch”, London, 1904; Wiener, “Studies in Biblical Law”, London, 1904; Rouse, “The Old Testament in New Testament Light”, London, 1905; Redpath, “Modern Criticism and the Book of Genesis”, London, 1905; Hoberg, “Moses und der Pentateuch”, Freiburg, 1905; Orr, “The Problem of the Old Testament considered with reference to Recent Criticism”, London, 1906.

E. OPPONENTS OF THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH

A detailed account of the opposition to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is neither desirable nor necessary in this article. In itself it would form only a noisome history of human errors; each little system has had its day, and its successors have tried their best to bury it in hushed oblivion. The actual difficulties we have to consider are those advanced by our actual opponents of to- day; only the fact that the systems of the past show us the fleeting and transitory character of the actual theories now in vogue can induce us to briefly enumerate the successive views upheld by the opponents of the Mosaic authorship.

(1) Abandoned Theories

The views advanced by the Valentinian Ptolemy, the Nazarites, Abenesra, Carlstadt, Isaac Peyrerius, Baruch Spinoza, Jean Leclerc are sporadic phenomena. Not all of them were wholly incompatible with the Mosaic authorship as now understood, and the others have found their answer in their own time.-With the work of John Astrue, published in 1753, began the so-called Hypothesis of Documents which was further developed by Eichhorn and Ilgen. But the works of the suspended priest, Alexander Geddes, published in 1792 and 1800, introduced the Hypothesis of Fragments, which in its day was elaborated and championed by Vater, de Wette (temporarily at least), Berthold, Hartmann, and von Bohlen. This theory was soon confronted by, and had to yield to the Hypothesis of Complements or Interpolations which numbered among its patrons Kelle, Ewald, Stahelin, Bleek, Tuch, de Wette, von Lengerke, and for a brief period also Franz Delitzsch. The theory of interpolations again had hardly found any adherents before Gramberg (1828), Stahelin (1830), and Bleek (1831) returned to the Hypothesis of Documents, proposing it in a somewhat modified form. Subsequently, Ewald, Knobel, Hupfeld, Noldeke, and Schrader advanced each a different explanation of the documentary hypothesis. But all of these are at present only of an historical interest.

(2) Present Hypothesis of Documents

A course of religious development in Israel had been proposed by Reuss in 1830 and 1834, by Vatke in 1835, and by George in the same year. In 1865-66 Graf took up this idea and applied it to the literary criticism of the Hexateuch; for the critics had begun to consider the Book of Josue as belonging to the preceding five books, so that the collection formed a Hexateuch instead of a Pentateuch. The same application was made by Merx in 1869. Thus modified the documentary theory continued in its development until it reached the state described in the translation of the Bible by Kautzsch (3rd ed., with Introduction and Annotations, Tubingen, 1908 sqq.). In itself there is nothing against the assumption of documents written by Moses; but we cannot ascribe with certainty anything of our literary remains to the hands of the Hebrew lawgiver. The beginning of written accounts must be placed towards the end of the time of Judges; only then were fulfilled the conditions which must precede the origin of a literature properly so called, i.e., a general acquaintance with the art of writing and reading, stationary settlement of the people, and national prosperity. What then are the oldest literary remains of the Hebrews? They are the collections of the songs dating from the heroic time of the nation, e.g., the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14), the Book of the Just (Joshua 10:12 sqq.), the Book of Songs (1 Kings 8:53; cf. Budde, “Geschichte der althebr. Literature”, Leipzig, 1906, 17). The Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:24-23:19) too must have existed before the other sources of the Pentateuch. The oldest historical work is probably the book of the Yahwist, designated by J, and ascribed to the priesthood of Juda, belonging most probably to the ninth century B.C.

Akin to this is the Elohim document, designated by E, and written probably in the northern kingdom (Ephraim) about a century after the production of the Yahweh document. These two sources were combined by a redactor into one work soon after the middle of the sixth century. Next follows the law-book, almost entirely embodied in our actual Book of Deuteronomy, discovered in the temple 621 B.C., and containing the precipitate of the prophetic teaching which advocated the abolition of the sacrifices in the so- called high places and the centralization of worship in the temple of Jerusalem. During the Exile originated the Priestly Code, P, based on the so-called law of holiness, Lev., xvii-xxvi, and the programme of Ezechiel, xl-xlviii; the substance of P was read before the post-exilic community by Esdras about 444 B.C. (Nehemiah 8-10), and was accepted by the multitude. History does not tell us when and how these divers historical and legal sources were combined into our present Pentateuch; but it is generally assumed that there was an urgent call for a compilation of the tradition and pre-exilic history of the people. The only indication of time may be found in the fact that the Samaritans accepted the Pentateuch as a sacred book probably in the fourth century B.C. Considering their hatred for the Jews, one must conclude that they would not have taken this step, unless they had felt certain of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. Hence a considerable time must have intervened between the compilation of the Pentateuch and its acceptance by the Samaritans, so that the work of combining must be placed in the fifth century. It is quite generally agreed that the last redactor of the Pentateuch completed his task with great adroitness. Without altering the text of the older sources, he did all within man’s power to fuse the heterogeneous elements into one apparent (?) whole, with such success that not only the Jews after the fourth century B.C., but also the Christians for many centuries could maintain their conviction that the entire Pentateuch was written by Moses.

(3) Deficiencies of the Critical Hypothesis

As several Pentateuchal critics have endeavoured to assign the last redaction of the Pentateuch to more recent dates, its placement in the fifth century may be regarded as rather favourable to conservative views. But it is hard to understand why the patrons of this opinion should not agree in considering Esdras as the last editor. Again, it is quite certain that the last editor of the Pentateuch must have notably preceded its acceptance on the part of the Samaritans as a sacred book; bit is it probably that the Samaritans would have accepted the Pentateuch as such in the fourth century B.C., when the national and religious opposition between them and Jews was well developed? Is it not more probable that the mixed nation of Samaria received the Pentateuch through the priest sent to them from Assyria? Cf. IV Kings, xvii, 27. Or again, as this priest instructed the Samaritan population in the law of the god of the country, is it not reasonable to suppose that he taught them the Pentateuchal law which the ten tribes carried with them when they separated from Juda? At any rate, the fact that the Samaritans accepted as sacred only the Pentateuch, but not the Prophets, leads us to infer that the Pentateuch existed among the Jews before a collection of the prophetic writings was made, and that Samaria chose its sacred book before even Juda placed the works of the Prophets on the same level with the work of Moses. But this natural inference finds no favour among the critics; for it implies that the historical and legal traditions codified in the Pentateuch, described the beginning, and not the end, of Israel’s religious development. The view of Israel’s religious development prevalent among the critics implies that the Pentateuch is later than the Prophets, and that the Psalms are later than both. After these general considerations, we shall briefly examine the main principles, the methods, the results, and the arguments of the critical theory.

(a) Principles of the Critics

Without pretending to review all the principles involved in the theories of the critics, we draw attention to two: the historical development of religion, and the comparative value of internal evidence and tradition.

(i) The theory of the historical evolution of Israelitic religions leads us from Mosaic Yahwehism to the ethical monotheism of the Prophets, from this to the universalist conception of God developed during the Exile, and from this again to the ossified Phariseeism of later days. This religion of the Jews is codified in our actual Pentateuch, but has been fictitiously projected backwards in the historical books into the Mosaic and pre-prophetic times.

The idea of development is not a purely modern discovery. Meyer (“Der Entwicklungsgedanke bei Aristoteles”, Bonn, 1909) shows that Aristotle was acquainted with it; Gunkel (“Weiterbildung der Religion”, Munich, 1905, 64) maintains that its application to religion is as old as Christianity, and that St. Paul has enunciated this principle; Diestel (“Geschichte des A.T. in der chrislichen Kirche”, Jena, 1869, 56 sqq.), Willmann (“Geschichte des Idealismus”, 2nd ed., II, 23 sqq.), and Schanz (“Apologie des Christentums”, 3rd ed. II, 4 sqq., 376) find the same application in the writings of the Fathers, though Hoberg (“Die Forschritte der bibl. Wissenschaften”, Freiburg, 1902, 10) grants that the patristic writers often neglect the external forms which influenced the ideas the Chosen People. The Fathers were not fully acquainted with profane history, and were more concerned about the contents of Revelation than about its historical development. Pesch (“Glaube, Dogmen und geschichtliche Thatsachen” in “Theol. Zeitfragen”, IV, Freiburg, 1908, 183) discovers that St. Thomas, too, admits the principle of development in his “Summa” (II-II, Q. i, a. 9, 10; Q. ii, a. 3; etc.). But the Catholic conception of this principle avoids two extremes: the theory of degeneracy, based on the teaching of the early Lutheran theologians (cf. Giesebrecht, “Die Degradationshypothese und die altl. Geschichte”, Leipzig, 1905; Steude, “Entwicklung und Offenbarung”, Stuttgart, 1905, 18 sqq.); the theory of evolution which dissolves all truth and history into purely natural development to the exclusion of everything supernatural. It is this latter extreme that is advocated by the Biblical critics. Their description of the early religion of Israel is contradicted by the testimony of the oldest Prophets whose authority is not questioned by them. These inspired seers know of the fall of Adam (Hosea 6:7), the call of Abraham (Isaiah 29:23; Micah 7:20), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha (Hosea 11:8; Isaiah 1:9; Amos 4:11), the history of Jacob and his struggle with the angel (Hosea 12:2 sqq.), Israel’s exodus from Egypt and dwelling in the desert (Hosea 2:14; 7:16; 11:1; 12:9, 13; 13:4, 5; Amos 2:10; 3:1; 9:7), the activity of Moses (Hosea 12:13; Micah 6:4; Isaiah 63:11-12), a written legislation (Hosea 8:12), and a number of particular statutes (cf. Kley, “Die Pentateuchfrage”, Munster, 1903, 223 sqq.). Again, the theory of development is more and more contradicted by the results of historical investigation. Weber (“Theologie und Assyriologie im Streit um Babel und Bibel”, Leipzig, 1904, 17) points out that the recent historical results imply decadence rather than development in ancient oriental art, science, and religion; Winckler (“Religionsgeschichtler und geschichtl. Orient”, Leipzig, 1906, 33) considers the evolutionary view of the primitive state of man as false, and believes that the development theory has, at least, been badly shaken, if not actually destroyed by recent Oriental research (cf. Bantsch, “Altorientalischer und israelitischer Monothesismus”, Tubingen, 1906). Köberle (“Die Theologie der Gegenwart”, Leipzig, 1907, I, 2) says that the development theory has exhausted itself, reproducing only the thoughts of Wellhausen, and deciding particular questions not in the light of facts, but according to the postulates of the theory. Finally, even the rationalistic writers have thought it necessary to replace the development theory by another more in agreement with historical facts. Hence Winckler (“Ex Oriente lux”, Leipzig, 1905- 6; Idem, “Der Alte Orient”, III, 2-3; Idem, “Die babylonische Geisteskultur in ihren Beziehungen zur Kulturentwicklung der Menschheit” in “Wissenschaft und Bildung”, Leipzig, 1907; cf. Landersdorfer in “Historisch-Politische Blatter”, 1909, 144) has originated the theory of pan-Babelism according to which Biblical religion is conceived as a conscious and express reaction against the Babylonian polytheistic state religion. It was not the common property of Israel, but of a religious sect which was supported in Babylon by certain monotheistic circles irrespective of nationality. This theory has found powerful opponents in Budde, Stade, Bezold, Köberle, Kugler, Wilke, and others; but it has also a number of adherents. Though wholly untenable from a Christian point of view, it shows at least the weakness of the historical development theory.

(ii) Another principle involved in the critical theory of the Pentateuch supposes that the internal evidence of literary criticism is of higher value than the evidence of tradition. But thus far the results of excavations and historical research have been favourable to tradition rather than to internal evidence. Let the reader only remember the case of Troy, Tiryns, Mycenae, and Orchomenos (in Greece); the excavations of the English explorer Evans in Crete have shown the historical character of King Minos and his labyrinth; Assyrian inscriptions have re-established the historical credit of King Midas of Phrygia; similarly, Menes of Thebes and Sargon of Agade have been shown to belong to history; in general, the more accurate have been the scientific investigations, the more clearly have they shown the reliability of even the most slender traditions. In the field of New-Testament criticism the call “back to tradition” has begun to be heeded, and has been endorsed by such authorities as Harnack and Deissmann. In the study of the Old Testament too there are unmistakable signs of a coming change. Hommel (“Die altisrealitische Überlieferung in inschriftlicher Beleuchtung”, Munich, 1897) maintains that Old- Testament tradition, both as a whole and in its details, proves to be reliable, even in the light of critical research. Meyer (“Die Entstehung des Judentums”, Halle, 1896) comes to the conclusion that the foundations of the critical Pentateuchal theory are destroyed, if it can be proved that even part of the impugned Hebrew tradition is reliable; the same writer proves the credibility of the sources of the Books of Esdras (cf. “Grundriss der Geographie und Geschichte des alten Orientes”, Munich, 1904, 167 sqq.). S.A. Fries has been led by his critical studies, and without being influenced by dogmatic bias, to accept the whole traditional view of the history of Israel. Cornill and Oettli express the conviction that Israel’s traditions concerning even its earliest history are reliable and will withstand the bitterest attacks of criticism; Dawson (cf. Fonck, “Kritik und Tradition im A.T.” in “Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie”, 1899, 262-81) and others apply to tradition the old principle which has been so frequently misapplied, “magna est veritas, et praevalebit”; Gunkel (“Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbucher”, II, Tubingen, 1906, 8) grants that Old-Testament criticism has gone a little too far, and that many Biblical traditions now rejected will be re-established.

(b) Critical Method

The falsehood of the critical method does not consist in the use of criticism as such, but in its illegitimate use. Criticism became more common in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; at the end of the eighteenth it was applied to classical antiquity. Bernheim (“Lehrbuch der historischen Methode”, Leipzig, 1903, 296) believes that by this means alone history first became a science. In the application of criticism to the Bible was are limited, indeed, by the inspiration and the canonicity of its books; but there is an ample field left for our critical investigations (Pesch, “Theol. Zeitfragen”, III, 48).

Some of the principal sins of the critics in their treatment of Sacred Scripture are the following: They deny everything supernatural, so that they reject not merely inspiration and canonicity, but also prophecy and miracle a priori (cf. Metzler, “Das Wunder vor dem Forum der modernen Geschichtswissenschaft” in “Katholik”, 1908, II, 241 sqq.). They seem to be convinced a priori of the credibility of non-Biblical historical documents, while they are prejudiced against the truthfulness of Biblical accounts. (Cf. Stade, “Geschichte Israel’s”, I, 86 seq., 88, 101.) Depreciating external evidence almost entirely, they consider the questions of the origin, the integrity, and the authenticity of the sacred books in the light of internal evidence (Encycl. Prov. Deus, 52). They overestimate the critical analysis of the sources, without considering the chief point, i.e., the credibility of the sources (Lorenz, “Die Geschichtswissenschaft in ihren Hauptrichtungen und Aufgaben”, ii, 329 sqq.). Recent documents may contain reliable reports of ancient history. Some of the critics begin to acknowledge that the historical credibility of the sources is of greater importance than their division and dating (Stark, “Die Entstehung des A.T.”, Leipzig, 1905, 29; cf. Vetter, “Tübinger theologische Quartalschrift”, 1899, 552). The critical division of sources is based on the Hebrew text, though it is not certain how far the present Massoretic text differs from that, for instance, followed by the Septuagint translators, and how far the latter differed form the Hebrew text before its redaction in the fifth century B.C. Dahse (“Textkritische Bedenken gegen den Ausgangspunkt der heutigen Pentateuchkritik” in “Archiv fur Religionsgeschichte”, VI, 1903, 305 sqq.) shows that the Divine names in the Greek translation of the Pentateuch differ in about 180 cases from those of the Hebrew text (cf. Hoberg, “Die Genesis”, 2nd ed., p. xxii sqq.); in other words and phrases the changes may be fewer, but it would be unreasonable to deny the existence of any. Again, it is antecedently probable that the Septuagint text differs less from the Massoretic than from the ante-Esdrine text, which must have been closer to the original. The starting point of literary criticism is therefore uncertain. It is not an inherent fault of literary criticism that it was applied to the Pentateuch after it had become practically antiquated in the study of Homer and the Nibelungenlied (cf. Katholik, 1896, I, 303, 306 sqq.), nor that Reuss considered it as more productive of difference of opinion than of results (cf. Katholik, 1896, I, 304 seq.), nor again that Wellhausen thought it had degenerated into childish play. Among Bible students, Klostermann (“Der Pentateuch”, Leipzig, 1893), Konig (“Falsche Extreme im Gebiete der neueren Kritik des A.T.”, Leipzig, 1885; “Neueste Prinzipien der alt. Kritik”, Berlin, 1902; “Im Kampfe um das A.T.”, Berlin, 1903), Bugge (“Die Hauptparabeln Jesu”, Giessen, 1903) are sceptical as to the results of literary criticism, while Orelli (“Der Prophet Jesaja”, 1904, V), Jeremias (“Das alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients”, 1906, VIII), and Oettli (“Geschichte Israels”, V) wish to insist more on the exegesis of the text than on the criss-cross roads of criticism. G. Jacob (“Der Pentateuch”, Göttingen, 1905) thinks that the past Pentateuchal criticism needs a thorough revision; Eerdmans (“Die Komposition der Genesis”, Giessen, 1908) feels convinced that criticism has been misled into wrong paths by Astrue. Merx expresses the opinion that the next generation will have to revise backwards many of the present historico-literary views of the Old Testament (“Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbucher”, II, 1907, 3, 132 sqq.).

(c) Critical Results

Here we must distinguish between the principles of criticism and its results; the principles of the historical development of religion, for instance, and of the inferiority of tradition to internal evidence, are not the outcome of literary analysis, but are its partial basis. Again, we must distinguish between those results of literary criticism which are compatible with the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch and those that contradict it. The patrons of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and even the ecclesiastical Decree relating to this subject, plainly admit that Moses or his secretaries may have utilized sources or documents in the composition of the Pentateuch; both admit also that the sacred text has suffered in its transmission and may have received additions, in the form of either inspired appendices or exegetical glosses. If the critics, therefore, can succeed in determining the number and the limits of the documentary sources, and of the post-Mosaic additions, whether inspired or profane, they render an important service to the traditional tenet of Pentateuchal authenticity. The same must be said with regard to the successive laws established by Moses, and the gradual fidelity of the Jewish people to the Mosaic law. Here again the certain or even probable results of sane literary and historical criticism will aid greatly the conservative commentator of the Pentateuch. We do not quarrel with the legitimate conclusions of the critics, if the critics do not quarrel with each other. But they do quarrel with each other. According to Merx (loc. cit.) there is nothing certain in the field of criticism except its uncertainty; each critic proclaims his views with the greatest self-reliance, but without any regard to the consistency of the whole. Former views are simply killed by silence; even Reuss and Dillmann are junk-iron, and there is a noticeable lack of judgment as to what can or cannot be known.

Hence the critical results, in as far as they consist merely in the distinction of documentary sources, in the determination of post-Mosaic materials, e.g., textual changes, and profane or inspired additions, in the description of various legal codes, are not at variance with the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch. Nor can an anti-Mosaic character be pointed out in the facts or phenomena from which criticism legitimately infers the foregoing conclusions; such facts or phenomena are, for instance, the change of the Divine names in the text, the use of certain words, the difference of style, the so-called double accounts of really, not merely apparently, identical events; the truth of falsehood of these and similar details does not directly affect the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. In which results then does criticism clash with tradition? Criticism and tradition are incompatible in their views as to the age and sequence of the documentary sources, as to the origin of the various legal codes, and as to the time and manner of the redaction of the Pentateuch.

(i) Pentateuchal Documents.-As to the age and sequence of the various documents, the critics do not agree. Dillmann, Kittel, Konig, and Winckler place the Elohist, who is subdivided by several writers into the first, second, and third Elohist, before the Yahwist, who also is divided into the first and second Yahwist; but Wellhausen and most critics believe that the Elohist is about a century younger than the Yahwist. At any rate, both are assigned to about the ninth and eight centuries B.C.; both too incorporate earlier traditions or even documents.

All critics appear to agree as to the composite character of Deuteronomy; they admit rather a Deuteronomist school than single writers. Still, the successive layers composing the whole book are briefly designated by D1, D2, D3, etc. As to the character of these layers, the critics do not agree: Montet and Driver, for instance, assigned to the first Deuteronomist cc. i-xxi; Kuenen, Konig, Reuss, Renan, Westphal ascribe to DN, iv, 45-9, and v-xxvi; a third class of critics reduce D1 to xii, 1-xxvi, 19, allowing it a double edition: according to Wellhausen, the first edition contained i, 1-iv, 44; xii-xxvi; xxvii, while the second comprised iv, 45-xi, 39; xii-xxvi; xxviii-xxx; both editions were combined by the redactor who inserted Deuteronomy into the Hexateuch. Cornill arranges the two editions somewhat differently. Horst considers even cc. xii-xxvi as a compilation of pre-existing elements, gathered together without order and often by chance. Wellhausen and his adherents do not wish to assign to D1 a higher age than 621 B.C., Cornill and Bertholet consider the document as a summary of the prophetic teaching, Colenso and Renan ascribe it to Jeremias, others place its origin in the reign of Ezechias or Manasses, Klostermann identifies the document with the book read before the people in the time of Josaphat, while Kleinert refers it back to the end of the time of the Judges. The Deuteronomist depends on the two preceding documents, J and E, both for his history land his legislation; the historical details not found in these may have been derived from other sources not known to us, and the laws not contained in the Sinaitic legislation and the decalogue are either pure fiction or a crystallization of the prophetic teaching.

Finally, the Priestly Code, P, is also a compilation: the first stratum of the book, both historical and legal in its character, is designated by P1 or P2; the second stratum is the law of holiness, H or Lev., xvii-xxvi, and is the work of a contemporary of Ezechiel, or perhaps of the Prophet himself (H, P2, Ph); besides, there are additional elements springing rather from a school than from any single writer, and designated by Kunen as P3, P4, P5, but by other critics as Ps and Px. Bertholet and Bantsch speak of two other collections of laws: the law of sacrifices, Lev., i-vii, designated as Po; and the law of purity, Lev., xi-xv, designated as Pr. The first documentary hypothesis considered PN as the oldest part of the Pentateuch; Duston and Dillmann place it before the Deuteronomic code, but most recent critics regard it as more recent than the other documents of the Pentateuch, and even later than Ezech., xliv, 10-xlvi, 15 (573-2 B.C.); the followers of Wellhausen date the Priestly Code after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, while Wildeboer places it either after or towards the end of the captivity. The historical parts of the Priestly Code depend on the Yahwistic and the Elohistic documents, but Wellhausen’s adherents believe that the material of these documents has been manipulated so as to fit it for the special purpose of the Priestly Code; Dillmann and Drive maintain that facts have not been invented or falsified by P, but that the latter had at hand other historical documents besides J and E. As to the legal part of P, Wellhausen considers it as an a priori programme for the Jewish priesthood after the return from the captivity, projected backwards into the past, and attributed to Moses; but other critics believe that P has systematized the pre-exilic customs of worship, developing then, and adapting them to the new circumstances.

What has been said clearly shows that the critics are at variance in many respects, but they are at one in maintaining the post- Mosaic origin of the Pentateuchal documents. What is the weight of the reasons on which they base their opinion? The conditions laid down by the critics as prerequisites to literature do not prove that the sources of the Pentateuch must be post-Mosaic. The Hebrew people had lived for, at least, two hundred years in Egypt; besides, most of the forty years spent in the desert were passed in the neighbourhood of Cades, so that the Israelites were not longer a nomadic people. Whatever may be said of their material prosperity, or of their proficiency in writing and reading, the above-mentioned researches of Flinders Petrie show that they kept records of their national traditions at the time of Moses. If the Hebrew contemporaries of Moses kept written records, why should not the Pentateuchal sources be among these documents? It is true that in our actual Pentateuch we find non-Mosaic and post- Mosaic indications; but, then, the non-Mosaic, impersonal style may be due to a literary device, or to the pen of secretaries; the post-Mosaic geographical and historical indications may have crept into the text by way of glosses, or errors of the transcribers, or even inspired additions. The critics cannot reject these suggestions as mere subterfuges; for they should have to grant a continuous miracle in the preservation of the Pentateuchal text, if they were to deny the moral certainty of the presence of such textual changes. But would not the Pentateuch have been known to the earlier Prophets, if it had been handed down from the time of Moses? This critical exception is really an argument e silentio which is very apt to be fallacious, unless it be most carefully handled. Besides, if we keep in mind the labour involved in multiplying copies of the Pentateuch, we cannot be wrong in assuming that they were very rare in the interval between Moses and the Prophets, so that few were able to read the actual text. Again, it has been pointed out that at least one of the earlier Prophets appeals to a written mosaic law, and that all appeal to such a national conscience as presupposes the Pentateuchal history and law. Finally, some of the critics maintain the J views the history of man and of Israel according to the religious and the moral ideas of the Prophets; if there be such an agreement, why not say that the Prophets write according to the religious and moral ideas of the Pentateuch? The critics urge the fact that the Pentateuchal laws concerning the sanctuary, the sacrifices, the feasts, and the priesthood agree with different stages of post-Mosaic historical development; that the second stage agrees with the reform of Josias, and the third with the enactments enforced after the time of the Babylonian Exile. But it must be kept in mind that the Mosaic law was intended for Israel as the Christian law is intended for the whole world; if then 1900 years after Christ the greater part of the world is still un-Christian, it is not astonishing that the Mosaic law required centuries before it penetrated the whole nation. Besides, there were, no doubt, many violations of the law, just as the Ten Commandments are violated to-day without detriment to their legal promulgation. Again there were times of religious reforms and disasters as there are periods of religious fervour and coldness in the history of the Christian Church; but such human frailties do not imply the non-existence of the law, either Mosaic or Christian. As to the particular laws in question, it will be found more satisfactory to examine them more in detail. (ii) Pentateuchal Codes.-The critics endeavour to establish a triple Pentateuchal code: the Book of the Covenant, Deuteronomy, and the Priestly Code. Instead of regarding this legislation as applying to different phases in the forty years’ wandering in the desert, they consider it as agreeing with three historical stages in the national history. As stated above, the main objects of this triple legislation are the sanctuary, the feast, and the priesthood.

(a) The Sanctuary

At first, so the critics say, sacrifices were allowed to be offered in any place where the Lord had manifested his name (Exodus 20:24-6); then the sanctuary was limited to the one place chosen by God (Deuteronomy 12:5); thirdly, the Priestly Code supposes the unity of sanctuary, and prescribes the proper religious rites to be observed. Moreover, the critics point out historical incidents showing that before the enforcement of the Deuteronomic law sacrifices were offered in various places quite distinct from the resting place of the ark. What do the defenders of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch answer? First, as to the triple law, it points to three different stages in Israel’s desert life: before the erection of the tabernacle at the foot of Mt. Sinai, the people were allowed to erect altars and to offer sacrifices everywhere provided the name of the Lord had been manifested; next, after the people had adored the golden calf, and the tabernacle had been erected, sacrifice could be offered only before the tabernacle, and even the cattle killed for consumption had to be slaughtered in the same place, in order to prevent a relapse into idolatry; finally, when the people were about to enter the promised land, the last law was abolished, being then quite impossible, but the unity of sanctuary was kept in the place which God would choose. Secondly, as to the historical facts urged by the critics, some of them are caused by direct Divine intervention, miracle or prophetic inspiration, and as such are fully legitimate; others are evidently violations of the law, and are not sanctioned by the inspired writers; a third class of facts may be explained in one of three ways: Poels (“Le sanctuaire de Kirjath Jeraim”, Louvain, 1894; “Examen critique de l’histoire du sanctuaire de l’arche”, Louvain, 1897) endeavours to prove that Gabaon, Masphath, and Kiriath-Jarim denote the same place, so that the multiplicity of sanctuaries is only apparent, not real. Van Hoonacker (“Le Lieu du culte dans la legislation rituelle des Hebreux” in “Musceeon”, April-Oct., 1894, XIII, 195-204, 299- 320, 533-41; XIV, 17-38) distinguishes between private and public altars; the public and national worship is legally centralized in one sanctuary and around one altar, while private altars may be had for domestic worship. But more commonly it is admitted that before God had chosen the site of national sanctuary, it was not forbidden by law to sacrifice anywhere, even away from the place of the ark. After the building of the temple the law was not considered so stringent as to bind under all circumstances. Thus far then the argument of the critics is not conclusive.

(b) The Sacrifices

According to the critics, the Book of the Covenant enjoined only the offering of the first-fruits and the first-born of animals, the redemption of the first-born of men, and a free-will offering on visiting the sanctuary (Ex., xxii, 28-9; xxiii, 15, [Heb., xxiii, 19]); Deuteronomy more clearly defines some of these laws (xv, 19-23; xxvi, 1-11), and imposes the law of tithes for the benefit of the poor, the widows, the orphans, and the Levites (xxvi, 12-5); the Priestly Code distinguishes different kinds of sacrifices, determines their rites, and introduces also incense offering. But history hardly bears out this view: as there existed a permanent priesthood in Silo, and later on in Jerusalem, we may safely infer that there existed a permanent sacrifice. The earliest prophets are acquainted with an excess of care bestowed on the sacrificial rites (cf. Amos 4:4, 5; 5:21-22, 25; Hosea passim). The expressions of Jeremias (vii, 21-3) may be explained in the same sense. Sin offering was known long before the critics introduce their Priestly Code (Osee, iv, 8; Mich., vi, 7; Ps., xxxix [xl], 7; 1 Kings, iii, 14). Trespass offering is formally distinguished from sin offering in IV Kings, xiii, 16 (cf. 1 Samuel 6:3-15; Isaiah 53:10). Hence the distinction between the different kinds of sacrifice is due neither to Ezech., xlv, 22- 5, nor to the Priestly Code.

(c) The Feasts

The Book of the Covenant, so the critics tell us, knows only three feasts: the seven-days feast of the azymes in memory of the exodus form Egypt, the feast of the harvest, and that of the end of the harvest (Exodus 23:14-7); Deuteronomy ordains the keeping of the feasts at the central sanctuary adds to Pasch to the feast of the azymes, places the second feast seven weeks after the first, and calls the third, “feast of tabernacles”, extending its duration to seven days (Deuteronomy 16:1-17); the Priestly Code prescribes the exact ritual for five feasts, adding the feast of trumpets and of atonement, all of which must be kept at the central sanctuary. Moreover, history appears to endorse the contention of the critics: Judges, xxi, 19 knows of only one annual feast in Silo; I Kings, i, 3, 7, 21 testifies that the parents of Samuel went every year to Silo to the sanctuary; Jeroboam I established in his kingdom one annual feast similar to that celebrated in Jerusalem (1 Kings 12:32-3); the earliest Prophets do not mention the names of the religious feasts; the Pasch is celebrated for the first time after the discovery of Deuteronomy (2 Kings 23:21-3); Ezechiel knows only three feasts and a sin offering on the first day of the first and the seventh month. But here again, the critics use the argument e silentio which is not conclusive in this case. The feast of atonement, for instance, is not mentioned in the Old Testament outside the Pentateuch; only Josephus refers to its celebration in the time of John Hyrcanus or Herod. Will the critics infer from this, that the feast was not kept throughout the Old Testament? History does not record facts generally known. As to the one annual feast mentioned in the early records, weighty commentators are of opinion that after the settlement of the people in the promised land, the custom was gradually introduced of going to the central sanctuary only once a year. This custom prevailed before the critics allow the existence of the Deuteronomic law (1 Kings 12:26-31), so that the latter cannot have introduced it. Isaias (xxix, 1; xxx, 29) speaks of a cycle of feasts, but Osee, xii, 9 alludes already to the feast of tabernacles, so that its establishment cannot be due to the Priestly Code as the critics describe it. Ezechiel (xlv, 18-25) speaks only of the three feasts which had to be kept at the central sanctuary.

(d) The Priesthood

The critics contend that the Book of the Covenant knows nothing of an Aaronitic priesthood (Exodus 24:5); that Deuteronomy mentions priests and Levites without any hierarchical distinction and without any high priest, determines their rights, and distinguishes only between the Levite living in the country and the Levite attached to the central sanctuary; finally, that the Priestly Code represents the priesthood as a social and hierarchical institution, with legally determined duties, rights, and revenues. This theory is said to be borne out by the evidence of history. But the testimony of history points in the opposite direction. At the time of Josue and the early Judges, Eleazar and Phinees, the son and nephew of Aaron, were priests (Numbers 26:1; Deuteronomy 10:6; Joshua 14:1 sqq.; 22:13, 21; 24:33; Judges 20:28). From the end of the time of Judges to Solomon, the priesthood was in the hands of Heli and his descendants (1 Samuel 1:3 sqq.; 14:3; 21:1; 22:1) who sprang from Ithamar the younger son of Aaron (1 Chronicles 24:3; cf. 1 Samuel 22:29; 14:3; 2:7 sqq.). Solomon raised Sadoc, the son of Achitob, to the dignity of the high priesthood, and his descendants held the office down to the time of the Babylonian Captivity (2 Samuel 8:17; 15:24 sqq.; 20:25; 1 Kings 2:26, 27, 35; Ezekiel 44:15); that Sadoc too was of Aaronic descent is attested by I Par., vi, 8. Besides the Books of Josue and Paralipomenon acknowledge the distinction between priests and Levites; according to I Kings, vi, 15, the Levites handled the ark, but the Bethsamites, the inhabitants of a priestly city (Joshua 21:13-6), offered sacrifice.

A similar distinction is made in II Kings, xv, 24; III Kings, viii, 3 sq.; Is., lxvi, 21. Van Hoonacker (“Les pretres et les levites dans le livre d’Ezechiel” in “Revue biblique”, 1899, VIII, 180-189, 192-194) shows that Ezechiel did not create the distinction between priests and Levites, but that supposing the traditional distinction in existence, he suggested a divisions in to these classes according to merit, and not according to birth (xliv, 15-xlv, 5). Unless the critics simply set aside all this historical evidence, they must grant the existence of an Aaronitic priesthood in Israel, and its division into priests and Levites, long before the D and P codes were promulgated according to the critical theory. It is true that in a number of passages persons are said to offer sacrifice who are not of Aaronitic descent: Judges, vi, 25 sqq.; xiii, 9; I Kings, vii, 9; x, 8; xiii, 9; II Kings, vi, 17; xxiv, 25; III Kings, viii, 5, 62; etc. But in the first place, the phrase “to offer sacrifice” means either to furnish the victim (Leviticus 1:2, 5) or to perform the sacrificial rite; the victim might be furnished by any devout layman; secondly, it would be hard to prove that God committed the priestly office in such a way to Aaron and his sons as not to reserve to himself the liberty of delegating in extraordinary cases a non-Aaronite to perform the priestly functions.

(iii) Pentateuchal Redaction.-The four documentary sources of the Pentateuch thus far descried were combined not by any one individual; critics require rather three different stages of combination: first, a Yahwistic redactor RXX or RX combined J and E with a view of harmonizing them, and adapting them to Deuteronomic ideas; this happened either before or after the redaction of D. Secondly, after D had been completed in the sixth century B.C., a redactor, or perhaps a school of redactors, imbued with the spirit of D combined the documents JE into JED, introducing however the modifications necessary to secure consistency. Thirdly, a last redactor RX imbued with the letter and the spirit of P, combined this document with JED, introducing again the necessary changes. The table of nations in Gen., xiv was according to Kunen added by this last redactor.

At first sight, one is struck by the complex character of this theory; as a rule, truth is of a more simple texture. Secondly, one is impressed by the unique nature of the hypothesis; antiquity has nothing to equal it. Thirdly, if one reads or studies the Pentateuch in the light of this theory, one is impressed by the whimsical character of the redactor; he often retained what should have been omitted, and omitted what should have been retained. The critics themselves have to take refuge, time and time again, in the work of the redactor, in order save their own views of the Pentateuch. A recent writer does not hesitate to call the complex redactor ein genialer Esel. Fourthly, a truth-loving, straightforward reader is naturally shocked by the literary fictions and forgeries, the editorial changes and subterfuges implied in the critical theory of the Pentateuchal documents and redaction. The more moderate critics endeavour to escape this inconvenience: some appeal to the difference between the ancient and the modern standard of literary property and editorial accuracy; others practically sanctify the means by the end. Oettli considers the dilemma “either the work of Moses or the work of a deceiver” as the expression of sheer imprudence; Kautzsch unctuously points to the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God whose ways we cannot fathom, but must admire. The left wing of criticism openly acknowledges that there is no use in hushing up matters; it actually is the result of scientific research that both form and contents of a great part of the Old Testament are based on conscious fiction and forgery.

IV. STYLE OF THE PENTATEUCH

In some general introductions to the Pentateuch its messianic prophecies are specially considered, i.e., the so-called proto-evangelium, Gen., iii, 15; the blessing of Sem, Gen., ix, 26-7; the patriarchal promises, Gen., xii, 2; xiii, 16; xv, 5; xvii, 4-6, 16; xviii, 10-15; xxii, 17; xxvi, 4; xxviii, 14; the blessing of the dying Jacob, Gen., xlix, 8-10; the Prophecy of Balaam, Num., xxiv, 15 sqq.; and the great Prophet announced by Moses, Deut., xviii, 15-19. But these prophecies belong rather to the province of exegesis than introduction. Again, the text of the Pentateuch has been considered in some general introductions to the work. We have seen already that besides the Massoretic Text we have to take into account the earlier text followed by the Septuagint translators, and the still earlier readings of the Samaritan Pentateuch; a detailed investigation of this subject belongs to the field of textual or lower criticism. But the style of the Pentateuch can hardly be referred to any other department of Pentateuchal study.

As Moses employed no doubt pre-existent documents in the composition of his work, and as he must have made use too of the aid of secretaries, we expect antecedently a variety of style in the Pentateuch. It is no doubt due to the presence of this literary phenomenon that the critics have found so many points of support in their minute analysis. But in general, the style of the work is in keeping with its contents. There are three kinds of material in the Pentateuch: first, there are statistics, genealogies, and legal formularies; secondly, there are narrative portions; thirdly, there are parenthetic sections.

No reader will find fault with the writer’s dry and simple style in his genealogical and ethnographic lists, in his table of encampments in the desert, or his legal enactments. Any other literary expression would be out of place in records of this kind. The narrative style of the Pentateuch is simple and natural, but also lively and picturesque. It abounds in simple character sketches, dialogues, and anecdotes. The accounts of Abraham’s purchase of a burying-ground, of the history of Joseph, and of the Egyptian plagues are also dramatic. Deuteronomy has its peculiar style on account of the exhortations it contains. Moses explains the laws he promulgates, but urges also, and mainly, their practice. As an orator, he shows a great deal of unction and persuasiveness, but is not destitute of the earnestness of the Prophets. His long sentences remain at times incomplete, thus giving rise to so-called anacolutha (cf. Deuteronomy 6:10-12; 8:11-17; 9:9-11; 11:2-7; 24:1-4). Being necessarily a popular preacher, he is not lacking in repetitions. But his earnestness, persuasiveness, and unction do not interfere with the clearness of his statements. He is not merely a rigid legislator, but he shows his love for the people, and in turn wins their love and confidence.

Decisions of the Biblical Commission

Some decisions of the Biblical Commission (q.v.) in regards to the chief subject of this article, viz., Genesis, are as follows: The various exegetical systems which exclude the literal and historical sense of the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis are not based on solid foundation. It should not be taught that these three chapters do not contain true narrations of facts, but only fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of earlier peoples, purged of the polytheistic errors and accommodated to monotheism; or allegories and symbols, with no objective reality, set forth in the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends partly historical and partly fictitious put together for instruction and edification. In particular, doubt should not be cast on the literal and historical sense of passages which touch on the foundations of the Christian religion, as, for instance, the creation of the universe by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness, integrity, and immortality of our first parents in the state of justice; the precept given by God to man to try his obedience; the transgression of the Divine precept, at the suggestion of the Devil, under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their original state of justice; the promise of a future Redeemer.

In explaining such passages in these chapters as the Fathers and Doctors interpreted differently, one may follow and defend the opinion which meets his approval. Not every word or phrase in these chapters is always necessarily to be taken in its literal sense so that it may never have another, as when it is manifestly used metaphorically or anthropomorphically. The literal and historical meaning of some passages in these chapters presupposed, an allegorical and prophetical meaning may wisely and usefully be employed. As in writing the first chapter of Genesis the purpose of the sacred author was not to expound in a scientific manner the constitution of the universe or the complete order of creation, but rather to give to the people popular information in the ordinary language of the day, adapted to the intelligence of all, the strict propriety of scientific language is not always to be looked for in their terminology. The expression six days and their division may be taken in the ordinary sense of a natural day, or for a certain period of time, and exegetes may dispute about this question.

———————————–

Many works referring to the Pentateuch have been cited throughout the course of this article. We shall here add a list of mainly exegetical works, both ancient and modern, without attempting to give a complete catalogue.

PATRISTIC WRITERS.”Eastern Church:–ORIGEN, Selecta in Gen., P. G., XII, 91- 145; IDEM, Homil. in Gen., ibid., 145-62; IDEM, Selecta et homil, in Ex., Lev., Num., Deut., ibid., 263-818; IDEM, Fragmenta in P.G., XVII, 11-36; ST. BASIL, Homil. in Hexaemer. in P.G., XXIX, 3-208; ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, In Hexaemer. in P.G., XLIV, 61-124; IDEM, De homin. Opific., ibid., 124-297; IDEM, De vita Moysis, ibid., 297-430; ST. JOHN CHRYS., Homil. in Gen. in P.G., LIII, LIV, 23- 580; IDEM, Serm. In Gen. in P.G., LIV, 581-630; ST. EPHR., Comment in Pentat. in Oper. Syr., I, 1-115; ST. CYRIL OF ALEX., De adoratione in spiritu in P.G., LXVIII, 133-1125; Glaphyra in P.G., LXIX, 13-677; THEODORETUS, Quaest. in Gen., Ex., Lev., Num., Deut. in P.G., LXXX, 76-456; PROCOPIUS OF GAZA, Comment. in Octateuch. in P.G., LXXXVII, 21-992; NICEPHORUS, Catena in Octateuch. et libros Reg. (Leipzig, 1772).

Western Church: ST. AMBROSE, In Hexaemer. in P.L., XIV, 123-274; IDEM, De Paradiso terrestri, ibid., 275-314; IDEM, De Cain et Abel, ibid., 315-60; IDEM, De Noe et arca, ibid., 361-416; IDEM, De Abraham, ibid., 419-500; IDEM, De Isaac et anima, ibid., 501-34; IDEM, De Joseph patriarcha, ibid., 641-72; IDEM, De benedictionibus patriarcharum, ibid., 673-94; ST. JEROME, Liber quaest. hebraic. in Gen. in P.L., XXIII, 935-1010; ST. AUGUSTINE, De Gen. c. Manich. ll. due in P.L., XXXIV, 173-220; IDEM, De Ger. ad lit., ibid., 219-46; IDEM, De Ger. ad lit. ll. duodecim, ibid., 245-486; IDEM, Quaest in Heptateuch., ibid., 547-776; RUFINUS, De benedictionibus patriarcharum in P.L., XXI, 295-336; ST. VEN. BEDE, Hexaemeron in P.L., XCI, 9-190; IDEM, In Pentateuch. Commentarii, ibid., 189-394; IDEM, De tabernaculo et vasibus ejus, ibid., 393-498; RHABANUS MAURUS, Comm. in Gen. in P.L., CVII, 443-670; IDEM, Comment. in Ez., Lev., Num., Deut. in P.L., CVIII, 9-998; WALAFRID STRABO, Glossa ordinaria in P.L., CXIII, 67-506.

MIDDLE AGES:-ST. BRUNO OF ASTI, Expositio in Pentateuch. in P.L., RUPERT OF DEUTZ, De SS. Trinitate et operib. Ejus in P.L., CLXVII, 197-1000; HUGH OF ST. VICTOR, Adnotationes elucidatoriae in Pent. in P.L., CLXXV, 29-86; HONORIUS OF AUTUN, Hexameron in P.L., CLXXII, 253-66; IDEM, De decem plagis Aegypti, ibid., 265-70; ABELARD, Expositio in Hexaemeron in P.L., CLXXVII, 731-84; HUGH OF ST. CHER, Postilla (Venice, 1588); NICOLAUS OF LYRA, Postilla (Rome, 1471); TOSTATUS, Opera, I-IV (Venice, 1728); DIONYSIUS THE CARTHUSIAN, Comment. in Pentateuch. in Opera omnia, I, II (Montreuil, 1896-7).

MORE RECENT WORKS.-Jewish Writers:-The Commentaries of RASHI (1040-1150), ABENASRA (1092-1167), and DAVID KIMCHI, (1160-1235) are contained in the Rabbinic Bibles; ABARBANEL, Comment. (Venice, 5539 A.M.; 1579 B.C.); CAHEN, French tr. of Pent. (Paris, 1831); KALISCH, Historical and Critical Comment on the Old Test. (London), Gen. (1885); Lev. (1867, 1872); Ez. (1855); HIRSCH, Der Pent. ubersetzt und erklart (2nd ed., Frankfurt, 1893, 1895); HOFFMANN, Das Buch Lev. ubersetz und erklart (Berlin, 1906).

Protestant Writers:-The works of LUTHER, MELANCHTHON, CALVIN, GERHART, CALOVIUS, DRUSIUS, DE DIEU, CAPPEL, COCCEIUS, MICHAELIS, LE CLERC, ROSENMULLER, and even of TUCH and BAUMGARTEN, are of minor importance in our days; KNOBEL, Gen. (6th ed., by DILLMANN, 1892; tr., Edinburgh, 1897); RYSSEL, Ez. and Lev. (3rd ed., 1897); DILLMANN, Numbers, deut., Jos. (2nd ed., 1886); LANGE, Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk (Bielefeld and Leipzig); IDEM, Gen. (2nd ed., 1877); IDEM, Ez., Lev., and Numbers (1874); STOSCH, Deut. (2nd ed., 1902); KEIL and FRANZ DELITZSCH, Biblischer Comment. uber das A.T.; KEIL, Gen. and Ex. (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1878); IDEM, Lev., Numbers, Deut. (2nd ed., 1870; tr., Edinburgh, 1881, 1885); STRACK and ZOCKLER, Kurzgefasster Komment. zu den h. Schriften A. und N.T. (Munich); STRACK, Gen. (2nd ed., 1905); IDEM, Ez., Lev., Numbers (1894); OETTLI, Deut. (1893); NOWACK, Handkomment. zum A.T. (Gottingen); GUNKEL, Gen. (1901); BANTSCH, Ez., Lev., Numbers (1903); Deut. by STEUERNAGEL (1900); MARTI, Kurtzer Handommentar z. A.T. (Freiburg): HOLZINGER, Gen. (1898), Ez. (1900), Numbers (1903); BERTHOLET, Lev. (1901), Deut. (1899); BOHMER, Das erste Buch Mose (Stuttgart, 1905); COOK, The Holy Bible according to the Authorized Version, I-II (London, 1877); SPENCE and EXELL, The Pulpit Commentary (London): WHITELAW, Gen.; RAWLINSON, Ex.; MEYRICK, Lev.; WINTERBOTHAM, Numbers; ALEXANDER, Deut.; The Expositor’s Bible (London): DODS, Gen. (1887); CHADWICK, Exod. (1890); KELLOGG, Lev. (1891); WATSON, Numbers (1889); HARPER, Deut. (1895); The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh): GRAY, Numbers (1903); DRIVER, Deut. (1895); SPURRELL, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Gen. (2nd ed., Oxford, 1896); GINSBURG, The Third Book of Moses (London, 1904); MACLAREN, The Books of Ex., Lev., and Numbers (London, 1906); IDEM, Deut. (London, 1906); REUSS, L’histoire sainte et la loi (Paris, 1879); KUENEN, HOSYKAAS, and OORT, Het Oude Testament (Leyden, 1900-1).

Catholic Works:-The works of CAJETAN, OLEASTER, STEUCHUS EUGUBINUS, SANTE PAGINO, LIPPOMANNUS, HAMMER, B. POREIRA, ASORIUS MARTINENGUS, LORINUS, TIRINUS, A LAPIDE, CORN, JANSENIUS, BONFRERE, FRASSEN, CALMET, BRENTANO, DERESER, and SCHOLZ are either too well known or too unimportant to need further notice. La Sainte Bible (Paris); CHELIER, La Genese (1889); IDEM, l’Exode et la Levitique (1886); TROCHON, Les Nombres et le Deuteronome (1887-8); Cursus Scripturae Sacrae (Paris); VON HUMMELAUER, Gen. (1895); Ex., Lev. (1897); Num. (1899); Deut. (1901); SCHRANK, Comment. literal. in Gen. (1835); LAMY, Comment in l. Gen. (Mechlin, 1883-4); TAPPEHORN, Erklarung der Gen. (Paderborn, 1888); HOBERG, Die Gen. nach dem Literalsinn erklart (Freiburg, 1899); FILLION, La Sainte Bible, I (Paris, 1888); NETELER, Das Buch Genesis der Vulgata und des hebraischen Textes ubersetzt und erklart (Munster, 1905); GIGOT, Special Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament, I (New York, 1901).

Biblical Commission: Acta Apostolicoe Sedis (15 July, 1908); Rome (17 July, 1909).

A.J. MOSS Transcribed by Thomas M. Barrett & Michael T. Barrett Dedicated to the Poor Souls in Purgatory

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XICopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Pentateuch

the collective title commonly given to the first five books of the O.T. In the present article we treat this important section of Scripture as a whole, in the light of modern criticism and discussion, reserving its component books for their separate heads. See Moses.

I. The Name. The above is the Greek name given to the books commonly called the Five Books of Moses ( sc. ; Pentateuchus sc. liber; the fivefold book; from , which, meaning originally vessel, instrument, etc., came in Alexandrine Greek to mean book). In the time of Ezra and Nehemiah it was called the Law of Moses (Ezr 7:6); or the book of the Law of Moses (Neh 8:1); or simply the book of Moses (Ezr 6:18; Neh 13:1; 2Ch 25:4; 2Ch 35:12). This was beyond all reasonable doubt our existing Pentateuch. The book which was discovered in the Temple in the reign of Josiah, and which is entitled (2Ch 34:14) the book of the Law of Jehovah by the hand of Moses, was substantially, it would seem, the same volume. In 2Ch 34:30 it is styled the book of the Covenant, and so also in 2Ki 23:2; 2Ki 23:21, while in 2Ki 22:8 Hilkiah says, I have found the book of the Law. Still earlier, in the reign of Jehoshaphat, we find a book of the Law of Jehovah in use (2Ch 17:9). This was probably the earliest designation, for a book of the Law is mentioned in Deuteronomy (Deu 31:26), though it is questionable whether the name as there used refers to the whole Pentateuch or only to Deuteronomy. The modern Jews usually call the whole by the name of Torah (), i.e. the Law, or Torath Mosheh ( ), the Law of Moses. The rabbinical title is the five fifths of the Law. In the preface to the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, it is called the Law, which is also a usual name for it in the New Testament (Mat 12:5; Mat 22:36; Mat 22:40; Luk 10:26; Joh 8:5; Joh 8:17). Sometimes the name of Moses stands briefly for the whole work ascribed to him (Luk 24:27). Finally, the whole Old Testament is sometimes called a potiori parte, the Law (Mat 5:18; Luk 16:17; Joh 7:49; Joh 10:34; Joh 12:34). In Joh 15:25; Rom 3:19, words from the Psalms, and in 1Co 14:21, from Isaiah, are quoted as words of the Law. SEE LAW.

II. Present Form. The division of the whole work into five parts has by some writers been supposed to be original. Others (as Leusden, Havernick, and Lengerke), with more probability, think that the division was made by the Greek translators. For the titles of the several books are not of Hebrew, but of Greek origin. The Hebrew names are merely taken from the first words of each book, and in the first instance only designated particular sections and not whole books. The MSS. of the Pentateuch form a single roll or volume, and are divided not into books, but into the larger and smaller sections called Parshiyoth and Sedarim. Besides this, the Jews distribute all the laws in the Pentateuch under the two heads of affirmative and negative precepts. Of the former they reckon 248; because, according to the anatomy of the rabbins, so many are the parts of the human body; of the latter they make 365, which is the number of days in the year, and also the number of veins in the human body. Accordingly the Jews are bound to the observance of 613 precepts; and in order that these precepts may be perpetually kept in mind, they are wont to carry a piece of cloth foursquare, at the four corners of which they have fringes consisting of eight threads apiece, fastened in five knots. These fringes are called , a word which in numbers denotes 600: add to this the eight threads and the five knots, and we get the 613 precepts.

The five knots denote the five books of Moses. (See Bab. Talmud. Maccoth, sect. 3; Maimon. Pref. to Jad Hachazakah; Leusden, Philol. p. 33.) Both Philo (de Abraham. ad init.) and Josephus (c. Apion. 1:8) recognize the division now current. Vaihinger supposes that the symbolical meaning of the number five led to its adoption; for ten is the symbol of completion or perfection, as we see in the ten commandments (and so in Genesis we have ten n generations), and therefore five is a number which, as it were, confesses imperfection and prophesies completion. The Law is not perfect without the Prophets, for the Prophets are in a special sense the bearers of the Promise; and it is the Promise which completes the Law. This is questionable. There can be no doubt, however, that this division of the Pentateuch influenced the arrangement of the Psalter in five books. The same may be said of the five Megilloth of the Hagiographa (Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther), which in many Hebrew Bibles are placed immediately after the Pentateuch. In some Jewish writers, however, there are found statements indicating that the Pentateuch was formerly divided into seven portions (comp. Jarchi, ad Proverb. 9: 1; ibique Breithaupt). In the Jewish canon the Pentateuch is kept somewhat distinct from the other sacred books of the Old Testament, because, considered with reference to its contents, it is the book of books of the ancient covenant. It is the basis of the religion of the Old Testament, and of the whole theocratical life. SEE OLD TESTAMENT.

For the several names and contents of the five books we refer to the articles on each book, where questions affecting their integrity and genuineness separately are also discussed.

III. Unity of the Pentateuch.

1. This is evinced in its general scope and contents. With a view to this point, we need only briefly observe here that this work, beginning with the record of creation and the history of the primitive world, passes on to deal more especially with the early history of the Jewish family. It gives at length the personal history of the three great fathers of the family; it then describes how the family grew into a nation in Egypt, tells us of its oppression and deliverance, of its forty years’ wandering in the wilderness, of the giving of the law, with all its enactments both civil and religious, of the construction of the tabernacle, of the numbering of the people, of the rights and duties of the priesthood, as well as of many important events which befell them before their entrance into the Land of Canaan, and finally concludes with Moses’s last discourses and his death. The unity of the work in its existing form is now generally recognised. It is not a mere collection of loose fragments carelessly put together at different times, but bears evident traces of design and purpose in its composition. Even those who discover different authors in the earlier books, and who deny that Deuteronomy was written by Moses, are still of opinion that the work in its present form is a connected whole, and was at least reduced to its present shape by a single reviser or editor (see Ewald, Geschichte, 1:170; Stfahelin, Kritische Unters. p. 1).

The question has also been raised whether the book of Joshua does not, properly speaking, constitute an integral portion of this work. To this question Ewald (Geschichte, 1:175), Knobel (Genesis, Vorbem. 1, 2), Lengerke (Kenaan, 83), and Stahelin (Kritische Unlters. p. 91) give a reply in the affirmative. They seem to have been led to do so, partly because they imagine that the two documents, the Elohistic and the Jehovistic, which characterize the earlier books of the Pentateuch, may still be traced, like two streams, the waters of which never wholly mingle though they flow in the same channel, running on through the book of Joshua; and partly because the same work which contains the promise of the land (Genesis 15) must contain also so they argue the fulfillment of the promise. But such grounds are far too arbitrary and uncertain to support the hypothesis which rests upon them. All that seems probable is that the book of Joshua received a final revision at the hands of Ezra, or some earlier prophet, at the same time with the books of the law. The fact that the Samaritans, who it is well known did not possess the other books of Scripture, have besides the Pentateuch a book of Joshua (see Chronicon Samaritanum, etc., ed. Juynboll, Lugd. Bat. 1848), indicates no doubt an early association of the one with the other, but is no proof that they originally constituted one work, but rather the contrary. Otherwise the Samaritans would naturally have adopted the canonical recension of Joshua. We may therefore regard the five books of Moses as one separate and complete work.

2. More particularly, the order which pervades the book manifests its unity, although this is not, indeed, tediously formal or monotonous.

(1.) Chiefly its chronological order, the simplest of all, and such as might be expected to be predominant in a book which is in a large measure historical. This characteristic is obvious in respect to the position of the two books of Genesis and Deuteronomy at the beginning and the end; the former serving as an introduction, and the latter as a recapitulation. In like manner the story of the family of Abraham expands, when we come to Exodus, into that of the people of Israel: first, enslaved Israel attains to redemption, and next redeemed Israel is consecrated to the service of its Lord, who meets his people, delivers his law of life to them, and instructs them to set up his tabernacle in the midst of them. The book of Leviticus contains scarcely any history, and is occupied with the rules for the service of God in this tabernacle: it is the code for the spiritual life of Israel as the congregation of the Lord code published almost at once, and in a form substantially complete. The fourth book, that of Numbers, resumes the thread of the history, and conducts the redeemed and consecrated and organized host from Mount Sinai through the wilderness to the Land of Promise; including further legislation, of which they stood in need if they were to take a suitable place among the kingdoms of the world.

(2.) Yet obviously this book is not a dry series of annals, in which the chronological order is alone observable; still less is it the mere leaves of a journal in which the narrative of the three middle books was written down at the dates of the several occurrences, and left unchanged in all time coming. Whatever may have been written down in the form of a journal at the first (of which we have possibly an instance in Numbers 33), would be revised, extended, abbreviated, and rearranged by the author, ere it came from his hands a finished history. Therefore we find a systematic order, according to the internal or logical connection of the parts, even in the purely narrative portions. Thus Genesis 38 furnishes the account of transactions in the family of Judah which cannot but have stretched over a long course of time, of years apparently, including the greater part of the time that Joseph was alone in Egypt, and which very probably extended back to a date considerably earlier than that at which his captivity began: the entire series of events, however, being recorded in this one chapter, with a twofold advantage that of being itself more distinctly set before us, and that of not interrupting the thread of Joseph’s history in Egypt. Sometimes indeed we may be unable to determine whether the order in which events are narrated is the order of time or that of logical sequence; an uncertainty which meets us in other portions of sacred history, as well as outside of the Bible. But it is not surprising that this logical order predominates in the legislation; though even here the chronological order is by no means uncommon, because the laws sprang, to a considerable extent, out of the circumstances in which the people were placed from time to time. This peculiarity has given rise to repetitions, enlargements, rearrangements, and even in a limited degree to modifications, of earlier enactments, of which we have an instructive example in the varied order in which the parts of the tabernacle and its furniture are mentioned, first in the directions given to Moses in the mount, and, secondly, in the narrative of its actual construction.

(3.) A third principle of arrangement is the rhetorical, of which the instances are fewer. Indeed it is very much confined to Deuteronomy, in which Moses appears as the great prophet of Israel. It was a corollary from the plan of these discourses that Moses should present the topics in the form likeliest to tell upon the audience to whom he was giving a parting address; that he should group incidents and laws according to certain affinities or contrasts for the purpose of effect; that he should pass over some subjects in entire silence, should touch upon others lightly, and on another class still should enlarge at some length; and that he should often present them under peculiar aspects, in forms somewhat different from those in which we should have seen them if we had known them only from the earlier books. Yet such variety, subordinate in its amount, and existing for a special purpose, is in reality an additional proof of the unity of the Pentateuch, and of the comprehensiveness of the plan on which it has been written.

IV. Authority and Date of Composition. This is preeminently the subject which calls for discussion here, as it has been largely disputed. The reply we give is the old and common one, namely, by Moses, during the wandering in the wilderness. We shall endeavor to state plainly and fairly the views and reasons both for and against it.

1. History of the Controversy.

(1.) Adverse Writers. At different times suspicions have been entertained that the Pentateuch as we now have it is not the Pentateuch of the earliest age, and that the work must have undergone various modifications and additions before it assumed its present shape.

So early as the 2d century we find the author of the Clementine Homilies calling in question the authenticity of the Mosaic writings. According to him the Law was only given orally by Moses to the seventy elders, and not consigned to writing till after his death; it subsequently underwent many changes, was corrupted more and more by means of the false prophets, and was especially filled with erroneous anthropomorphic conceptions of God, and unworthy representations of the characters of the patriarchs (Hom. 2:38, 43; 3:4, 47; Neander. Gnost. Systeme, p. 380). A statement of this kind, unsupported, and coming from a heretical, and therefore suspicious source, may seem of little moment; it is however remarkable, so far as it indicates an early tendency to cast off the received traditions respecting the books of Scripture; while at the same time it is evident that this was done cautiously, because such an opinion respecting the Pentateuch was said to be for the advanced Christian only, and not for the simple and unlearned.

Jerome, there can be little doubt, had seen some difficulty in supposing the Pentateuch to be altogether, in its present form, the work of Moses; for he observes (contra Helvid.): Sive Mosen dicere volueris auctorem Pentateuchi sive Esram ejusdem instauratorem operis, with reference apparently to the Jewish tradition on the subject. Aben-Ezra ( 1167), in his Comment. on Deu 1:1, threw out some doubts as to the Mosaic authorship of certain passages, such as Gen 12:6; Deu 3:10-11; Deu 31:9, which he either explained as later interpolations, or left as mysteries which it was beyond his power to unravel. But for centuries the Pentateuch was generally received in the Church without question as written by Moses. In the year 1651, however, we find Hobbes writing: Videtur Pentateuchus potius de Mose quam a Mose scriptus (Leviathan, c. 33). Spinoza (Tract. Theol.-Polit. c. 8, 9, published in 1679) set himself boldly to controvert the received authorship of the Pentateuch. He alleged against it (1) later names of places, as Gen 14:14 comp. with Jdg 18:29; (2) the continuation of the history beyond the days of Moses, Exo 16:35 comp. with Jos 5:12; (3) the statement in Gen 36:31, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel. Spinoza maintained that Moses issued his commands to the elders, that by them they were written down and communicated to the people, and that later they were collected and assigned to suitable passages in Moses’s life. He considered that the Pentateuch was indebted to Ezra for the form in which it now appears. Other writers began to think that the book of Genesis was composed of written documents earlier than the time of Moses. So Vitringa (Observ. Sacr. 1:3), Le Clerc (De Script. Pentateuchi, 11), and R. Simon (Hist. critique du V. T. lib. i, c. 7, Rotterdam, 1685).

According to the last of these writers, Genesis was composed of earlier documents, the laws of the Pentateuch were the work of Moses, and the greater portion of the history was written by the public scribe who is mentioned in the book. Le Clerc supposed that the priest who, according to 2Ki 17:27, was sent to instruct the Samaritan colonists, was the author of the Pentateuch. It was not till the middle of the last century, however, that the question as to the authorship of the Pentateuch was handled with anything like a bold criticism. The first attempt was made by a layman, whose studies we might have supposed would scarcely have led him to such an investigation. In the year 1753 there appeared at Brussels a work entitled Conjectures sur les memoires originaux, dont ii paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de Genese. It was written in his 69th year by Astruc, doctor and professor of medicine in the Royal College at Paris, and court physician to Louis XIV. His critical eye had observed that throughout the book of Genesis, and as far as the 6th chapter of Exodus, traces were to be found of two original documents, each characterized by a distinct use of the names of God; the one by the name Elohim, and the other by the name Jehovah. Besides these two principal documents, he supposed Moses to have made use of ten others in the composition of the earlier part of his work. Astruc was followed by several German writers on the path which he had traced; by Jerusalem, in his Letters on the Mosaic Writings and Philosophy; by Schultens, in his Dissertatio qua disquiritur, unde Moses res in libro Geneseos descriptas didicerit; and with considerable learning and critical acumen by Ilgen ( Urkunden des Jerusalemischen Tempelarchivs, 1er Theil, Halle, 1798) and Eichhorn (Einleitulng in d. A. T.).

But this documentary hypothesis, as it is called, was too conservative and too rational for some critics. Vater, in his Commentar uber den Pentateuch (1815), and A. T. Hartmann. in his Linguist. Einl. in d. Stud. der Buicher des A. Test. (1818), maintained that the Pentateuch consisted merely of a number of fragments loosely strung together without order or design. The former supposed a collection of laws, made in the times of David and Solomon, to have been the foundation of the whole: that this was the book discovered in the reign of Josiah, and that its fragments were afterwards incorporated in Deuteronomy. All the rest, consisting of fragments of history and of laws written at different periods up to this time, were, according to him, collected and shaped into their present form between the times of Josiah and the Babylonian exile. Hartmann also brings down the date of the existing Pentateuch as late as the exile. This has been called the fragmentary hypothesis. Both of these have now been superseded by the supplementary hypothesis, which has been adopted with various modifications by De Wette, Bleek, Stahelin, Tuch, Lengerke, Hupfeld, Knobel, Bunsen, Kurtz, Delitzsch, Schultz, Vaihinger, and others. They all alike recognize two documents in the Pentateuch. They suppose the narrative of the Elohlst, the more ancient writer, to have been the foundation of the work, and that the Jehovist, or later writer, making use of this document, added to and commented upon it, sometimes transcribing portions of it intact, and sometimes incorporating the substance of it into his own work.

Yet though thus agreeing in the main, they differ widely in the application of the theory. Thus, for instance, De Wette distinguishes between the Elohist and the Jehovist in the first four books, and attributes Deuteronomy to a different writer altogether (Einl. ins A. T. 150 sq.). So also Lengerke, though with some differences of detail in the portions he assigns to the two editors. The last places the Elohist in the time of Solomon, and the Jehovistic editor in that of Hezekiah; whereas Tuch puts the first under Saul, and the second under Solomon. Stahelin, on the other hand, declares for the identity of the Deuteronomist and the Jehovist, and supposes the last to have written in the reign of Saul, and the Elohist in the time of the Judges. Hupfeld (Die Quellen der Genesis) finds, in Genesis at least, traces of three authors, an earlier and a later Elohist, as well as the Jehovist. He is peculiar in regarding the Jehovistic portion as an altogether original document, written in entire independence, and without the knowledge even of the Elohistic record. A later editor or compiler, he thinks, found the two books, and threw them into one. Vaihinger (in Herzog’s Encyklopadie) is also of opinion that portions of three original documents are to be found in the first four books, to which he adds some fragments of the 32d and 34th chanters of Deuteronomy. The fifth book, according to him, is by a different and much later writer. The pre-Elohist he supposes to have flourished about 1200 B.C., the Elohist some 200 years later, the Jehovist in the first half of the 8th century B.C., and the Deuteronomist in the reign of Hezekiah.

Delitzsch agrees with the writers above mentioned in recognising two distinct documents as the basis of the Pentateuch, especially in its earlier portions; but he entirely severs himself from them in maintaining that Deuteronomy is the work of Moses. His theory is this: the kernel or first foundation of the Pentateuch is to be found in the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 19-24), which was written by Moses himself, and afterwards incorporated into the body of the Pentateuch, where it at present stands. The rest of the laws given in the wilderness, till the people reached the plains of Ioab, were communicated orally by Moses and taken down by the priests, whose business it was thus to provide for their preservation (Deu 17:11, comp. 24:8; 33:10; Lev 10:11, comp. 15:31). Inasmuch as Deuteronomy does not pre-suppose the existence in writing of the entire earlier legislation, but on the contrary recapitulates it with the greatest freedom, we are not obliged to assume that the proper codification of the law took place during the forty years’ wandering in the desert. This was done, however, shortly after the occupation of the land of Canaan. On that sacred soil was the first definite portion of the history of Israel written; and the writing of the history itself necessitated a full and complete account of the Mosaic legislation. A man, such as Eleazar the son of Aaron, the priest (see Num 26:1; Num 31:21), wrote the great work beginning with the first words of Genesis, including in it the Book of the Covenant, and perhaps gave only a short notice of the last discourses of Moses, because Moses had written them down with his own hand. A second who may have been Joshua (see especially Deu 32:44; Jos 24:26; and comp. on the other hand 1Sa 10:25), who was a prophet, and spake as a prophet, or one of the elders on whom Moses’s spirit rested (Num 11:25), and many of whom survived Joshua (Jos 24:31) completed the work, taking Deuteronomy, which Moses had written, for his model, and incorporating it into his own book. Somewhat in this manner arose the Torah (or Pentateuch), each narrator further availing himself when he thought proper of other written documents.

Such is the theory of Delitzsch, which is in many respects worthy of consideration, and which has been adopted in the main by Kurtz (Gesch. d. A. B. i, 20, and ii, 99, 6), who formerly was opposed to the theory of different documents, and sided rather with Hengstenberg and the critics of the extreme conservative school. There is this difference, however, that Kurtz objects to the view that Deuteronomy existed before the other books, and believes that the rest of the Pentateuch was committed to writing before, not after, the occupation of the Holy Land. Finally, Schultz, in his recent work on Deuteronomy, recognises two original documents in the Pentateuch, the Elohistic being the base and groundwork of the whole, but contends that the Jehovistic portions of the first four books, as well as Deuteronomy, except the concluding portion, were written by Moses. Thus he agrees with Delitzsch and Kurtz in admitting two documents and the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy, and with Stahelin in identifying the Deuteronomist with the Jehovist. One other theory has, however, to be stated before we pass on. The author of it stands quite alone, and it is not likely that he will ever find any disciple bold enough to adopt his theory: even his great admirer Bunsen forsakes him here. But it is due to Ewald’s great and deserved reputation as a scholar, and to his uncommon critical sagacity, briefly to state what that theory is. He distinguishes, then, seven different authors in the great Book of Origins or Primitive History (comprising the Pentateuch and Joshua). The oldest historical work, of which but a very few fragments remain, is the Book of the Wars of Jehovah. Then follows a biography of Moses, of which also but small portions have been preserved. The third and fourth documents are much more perfect: these consist of the Book of the Covenant, which was written in the time of Samson, and the Book of Origins, which was written by a priest in the time of Solomon. Then comes, in the fifth place, the third historian of the primitive times, or the first prophetic narrator, a subject of the northern kingdom in the days of Elijah or Joel. The sixth document is the work of the fourth historian of primitive times, or the second prophetic narrator, who lived between 800 and 750. Lastly comes the fifth historian, or third prophetic narrator, who flourished not long after Joel, and who collected and reduced into one corpus the various works of his predecessors. The real purposes of the history, both in its prophetical and its legal aspects, began now to be discerned. Some steps were taken in this direction by an unknown writer at the beginning of the 7th century B.C.; and then in a far more comprehensive manner by the Deuteronomist, who flourished in the time of Manasseh, and lived in Egypt. In the time of Jeremiah appeared the poet who wrote the Blessing of Moses, as it is given in Deuteronomy. A somewhat later editor incorporated the originally independent work of the Deuteronomist, and the lesser additions of his two colleagues, with the history as left by the fifth narrator, and thus the whole was finally completed. Such, says Ewald (and his words, seriously meant, read like delicate irony), were the strange fortunes which this great work underwent before it reached its present form.

(2.) Writers in favor of the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch. On the other side, however, stands an array of names certainly not less distinguished for learning, who maintain not only that there is a unity of design in the Pentateuch which is granted by many of those before mentioned-but who contend that this unity of design can only be explained on the supposition of a single author, and that this author could have been none other than Moses. This is the ground taken by Hengstenberg, Havernick, Drechsler, Ranke, Welte, and Keil. The first mentioned of these writers has no doubt done admirable service in reconciling and removing very many of the alleged discrepancies and contradictions in the Pentateuch: but his zeal carries him in some instances to attempt a defense, the very ingenuity of which betrays how unsatisfactory it is; and his effort to explain the use of the divine names, by showing that the writer had a special design in the use of the one or the other, is often in the last degree arbitrary. Drechsler, in his work on the Unity and Genuineness of Genesis (1838), fares no better, though his remarks are the more valuable because in many cases they coincide, quite independently, with those of Hengstenberg. Later, however, Drechsler modified his view, and supposed that the several uses of the divine names were owing to a didactic purpose on the part of the writer, according as his object was to show a particular relation of God to the world, whether as Elohim or as Jehovah. Hence he argued that, while different streams flowed through the Pentateuch, they were not from two different fountain-heads, but varied according to the motive which influenced the writer, and according to the fundamental thought in particular sections; and on this ground, too, he explained the characteristic phraseology which distinguishes such sections. Ranke’s work (Untersuchungen uber den Pentateuch) is a valuable contribution to the exegesis of the Pentateuch. He is especially successful in establishing the inward unity of the work, and in showing how inseparably the several portions, legal, genealogical, and historical, are interwoven together. Kurtz (in his Einheit der Genesis [1846], and in the first edition of his first volume of the Geschichte des Alten Bundes) followed on the same side; but he has since abandoned the attempt to explain the use of the divine names. on the principle of the different meanings which they bear, and has espoused the theory of two distinct documents. Keil, also, though he does not despair of the solution of the problem, confesses (Luther. Zeitschr. [1851-2] p. 235) that all attempts as yet made, notwithstanding the acumen which has been brought to bear to explain the interchange of the divine names in Genesis on the ground of the different meanings which they possess, must be pronounced a failure. Ebrard (Das Alter des Jehova-Namens) and Tiele (Stud. und Krit. 1852-1) make nearly the same admission. It is not fair, however, to require the advocates of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch to explain positively the reasons which impelled him to the peculiar use of these names. The causes of such a selection are often inscrutable, even to the writer himself. A sufficient reason is perhaps given in the supposition that Moses made use of documents written by different persons which contained those peculiarities. The want of uniformity observable in the same section in this respect shows that it is due to a twofold influence. It must be borne in mind that this peculiar distinction in the use of the sacred names is mostly confined to the book of Genesis (q.v.).

2. Direct Testimony of the Book to its own A uthorship and Date of Composition.

(1.) Of this character is Exo 17:14, And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua; for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven: a statement which becomes the more pointed if we read, as we have little hesitation in doing, not in a book, but in the book (). This passage shows that the account to be inserted was intended to form a portion of a more extensive work, with which the reader is supposed to be acquainted. It also proves that Moses, at an early period of his public career, was filled with the idea of leaving to his people a written memorial of the divine guidance, and that he fully understood the close and necessary connection of an authoritative law with a written code, or . At any rate, the direct testimony to the fact that particular passages were written by Moses is of vast importance as a presumption that other passages were written by him also, although the contrary assertion has often been put forward: nay, many passages may be inferred a fortiori to have come from his pen. Or, where the inference might be unsafe, as in the instance now given, it is because of the extraordinary emphasis of the testimony in such a passage; not merely that the doom of Amalek was written by Moses in the book of the Lord for Israel, but also its being so expressly recorded that it was written. See also Exo 24:4-7; Num 33:1-2; Deu 17:18-19 (a remarkable passage); 28-30, which repeatedly mention the written blessings and curses; Deu 27:1-13, a command to write all the words of this law on plastered stones, preparatory to the solemn reading of the blessings and the curses beside the altar which was to be erected when the people took possession of the center of the Promised Land (comp. the account of the fulfillment, Jos 8:30-35). The most remarkable passage, however, is at Deu 31:9 : And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it to the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel, and charged these ecclesiastical and civil heads of the community to read it to the assembled congregation of Israel during the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles, on the occasion when it was most largely attended in the seventh year, the year of rest. Further (Deu 31:24-27): And it came to pass when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in [or rather at] the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God; that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death? It has often been said that no assertion could be more explicit, or made in more solemn circumstances, or with additions more calculated for discovering and demonstrating its falsehood unless the truth had been notorious. With this mass of evidence we must connect the warnings against adding to what Moses commanded, or taking from it (Deu 4:2; Deu 12:32); the circumstantial statement as to the discourses being addressed by Moses to the people (Deu 1:1-5); and along with these opening words of Deuteronomy, the closing words of Numbers (Num 36:13), as also the last words of Leviticus (Lev 27:34; also 25:1; 26:46). If all these statements are not to be set aside as an idle dream or a tissue of deliberate falsehoods, the very least which can be inferred from them is that the Pentateuch (at all events the part of it from the time when the people came to covenant with God at Mount Sinai) is from one writer; that the divine legislation was in the first place given from that mount, the substance or essence of which was concluded in the book of Leviticus; that there were appendices to this, recorded in the book of Numbers, on to the time when Israel stood upon the eastern bank of the Jordan, ready to cross over upon Jericho; and that there was a very solemn renewal of the covenant on the part of the generation which had grown up in the wilderness, to whom, in the book of Deuteronomy, Moses repeated much of the legislation and addressed his parting counsels. It may be made a question whether the hand of a later writer, who finished the Pentateuch, is perceptible from Deu 31:24 (comp. Deu 33:1, and ch. 34), or whether the words in Deu 31:24-30 are still the words of Moses.

In the former case we have two witnesses, viz. Moses himself, and the continuator of the Pentateuch; in the latter case, which seems to us the more likely, we have the testimony of Moses alone. It is true that the above passages do not define the limits of the book, nor prove its absolute identity with the existing copies of the Pentateuch. But other evidences will be found to supply this proof. We have already the fact that a book was written by Moses under the immediate authority of God, and that this book was intended to be of perpetual obligation. Now, supposing that the scriptural testimony of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch had ended here, although we shall see this is not the case, yet, even so, no moral doubt could exist that this design was carried into effect, and that the books thus preserved were substantially identical with those which have come down to us. For at this period the Jewish people suddenly take their place amid the settled nations of the world, and enter upon that grand and mysterious national life which has continued till our own day. It will not be denied by any that this race was distinguished from all others by many peculiar characteristics. Some of their national habits exhibited affinity in various points of detail with the surrounding polytheism amid which they dwelt; but their whole system was sharply separated, alike by the grandeur of its religious monotheism and by its complex social and civil organization, from that of all other nations. Their code of laws was penetrating enough to affix its indelible peculiarities on the race who lived under them, and to endow it with a force and elevation, a perpetuity of national life, and a world-wide influence, to which no parallel can be found in history, Such an effect would itself prove the existence of a cause as permanent as itself, for the precise ritual and ceremonial enactments of the system could never have been maintained without an authorized code of directions. When we inquire into the nature of that peculiar polity to which it is to be attributed, we find it in the books of Moses. The Pentateuch contains a system which explains the national life of the Jewish race, and which, in its turn, is equally explained by it. As we know, on the one side, that the Pentateuch was reduced by Moses to a written form, and, on the other side, that the phenomena of national Jewish life can only be explained by the influence of a positive written code, it is impossible not to put the two facts together, and identify the Mosaic books of the law with the code of subsequent times. In other words, the permanence of the effect proves the permanence of the cause. The subsequent history of the Jewish race would have sufficed to prove that the Mosaic code must have existed in a permanent form from that period till the present, even if no positive external proofs of the fact had existed. From the passages adduced above it is apparent, indeed, that the most numerous and direct testimonies occur in Deuteronomy; and the opinion has had learned advocates that these testimonies are to be restricted to this one book, which is therefore admitted to be from the pen of Moses, whereas it is alleged that there is no clear evidence as to the authorship of the other four. But he who takes up this position in good faith is likely soon to discover that Deuteronomy presupposes the existence of the others, and the general knowledge of their contents, by its incidental reference to subjects which are intelligible only when we turn to the fuller accounts given in these books: for example, the dispersion and settlement of the nations by the hand of God; the call of Abraham, that in his seed the families of the earth might be blessed; the patriarchal history generally, and the result of it, the sojourn of the children of Israel in Egypt; the destruction of Sodom and the neighboring cities; the relationship of the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites to Israel; the laws in reference to leprosy; the entire rules for the sacrificial services; the consecration of Aaron’s family, and of the whole tribe of Levi in a wider sense, to these services; and the method of their support; and the laws on the subject of murder and manslaughter. Besides, the age of generalizations, such as we find in Deuteronomy, must be preceded by the age of particular enactments. Hence there are scarcely any who have intelligently believed that Deuteronomy is the work of Moses, who have not come to feel the necessity of acknowledging him to be (substantially at least) the author of the entire Pentateuch.

(2.) Pressed by these arguments, some of the sceptical critics have resorted to the opposite conclusion that the book of Deuteronomy itself, in which these striking testimonies are so largely found, is likewise not the production of Moses. It is of importance therefore to consider this question separately.

All allow that the Book of the Covenant in Exodus, perhaps a great part of Leviticus, and some part of Numbers were written by Israel’s greatest leader and prophet. But Deuteronomy, it is alleged, is in style and purpose so utterly unlike the genuine writings of Moses that it is quite impossible to believe that he is the author. But how, then, set aside the express testimony of the book itself? How explain the fact that Moses is there said to have written all the words of this law, to have consigned it to the custody of the priests, and to have charged the Levites sedulously to preserve it by the side of the ark? Only by the bold assertion that the fiction was invented by a later writer, who chose to personate the great Lawgiver in order to give the more color of consistency to his work! The author first feigns the name of Moses that he may gain the greater consideration under the shadow of his name, and then proceeds to re-enact, but in a broader and more spiritual manner, and with true prophetic inspiration, the chief portions of the earlier legislation. But such a hypothesis is devoid of all probability. For what writer in later times would ever have presumed, unless he were equal to Moses, to correct or supplement the Law of Moses? And if he were equal to Moses, why borrow his name (as Ewald supposes the Deuteronomist to have done) in order to lend greater weight and sanction to his book? The truth is, those who make such a supposition import modern ideas into ancient writings. They forget that what might be allowable in a modern writer of fiction would not have been tolerated in one who claimed to have a divine commission, who came forward as a prophet to rebuke and to reform the people. Which would be more weighty to win their obedience, Thus saith Jehovah, or Moses wrote all these words? It has been argued indeed that in thus assuming a feigned character the writer does no more than is done by the author of Ecclesiastes. He in like manner takes the name of Solomon that he may gain a better hearing for his words of wisdom. But the cases are not parallel. The Preacher only pretends to give an old man’s view of life, as seen by one who had had a large experience and no common reputation for wisdom. Deuteronomy claims to be a law imposed on the highest authority, and demanding implicit obedience. The first is a record of the struggles, disappointments, and victory of a human heart. The last is an absolute rule of life, to which nothing may be added, and from which nothing may be taken (Deu 4:2; Deu 31:1).

But, besides the fact that Deuteronomy claims to have been written by Moses, there is other evidence which establishes the great antiquity of the book.

(a) It is remarkable for its allusions to Egypt, which are just what would be expected supposing Moses to have been the author. It is a significant fact that Ewald, who will have it that Deuteronomy was written in the reign of Manasseh, is obliged to make his supposed author live in Egypt, in order to account plausibly for the acquaintance with Egyptian customs which is discernible in the book. Without insisting upon it that in such passages as Deu 4:15-18, or Deu 6:8, and Deu 11:18-20 (comp. Exo 13:16), where the command is given to wear the law after the fashion of an amulet, or Deu 27:1-8, where writing on stones covered with plaster is mentioned, are probable references to Egyptian customs, we may point to more certain examples. In Deu 20:5 there is an allusion to Egyptian regulations in time of war; in Deu 25:2, to the Egyptian bastinado; in Deu 11:10, to the Egyptian mode of irrigation. The references which Delitzsch sees in Deu 22:5 to the custom of the Egyptian priests to hold solemn processions in the masks of different deities, and in Deu 8:9 to Egyptian mining operations, are by no means so certain. Again, among the curses threatened are the sicknesses of Egypt (Deu 28:60; comp. Deu 7:15). According to Deu 28:68, Egypt is the type of all the oppressors of Israel: Remember that thou wast a slave in the land of Egypt, is an expression which is several times made use of as a motive in enforcing the obligations of the book (Deu 5:15; Deu 24:18; Deu 24:22; see the same appeal in Lev 19:34, a passage occurring in the remarkable section Leviticus 17-20, which has so much affinity with Deuteronomy). Lastly, references to the sojourning in Egypt are numerous: We were Pharaoh’s bondmen in Egypt, etc. (Lev 6:21-23; see also Lev 7:8; Lev 7:18; Lev 11:3); and these occur even in the laws, as in the law of the king (Lev 17:16), which would be very extraordinary if the book had only been written in the time of Manasseh.

(b) The phraseology of the book, and the archaisms found in it, stamp it as of the same age with the rest of the Pentateuch. The form , instead of , for the feminine of the pronoun (which occurs in all 195 times in the Pentateuch), is found thirty-six times in Deuteronomy. Nowhere do we meet with in this book, though in the rest of the Pentateuch it occurs eleven times. In the same way, like the other books, Deuteronomy has of a maiden, instead of the feminine , which is only used once (Deu 22:19). It has also the third pers. pret. , which in prose occurs only in the Pentateuch (Ewald, Lehrbuch, 142 b). The demonstrative pronoun (which, according to Ewald, 183 a, is characteristic of the Pentateuch) occurs in Deu 4:42; Deu 7:22; Deu 19:11, and nowhere else out of the books of Moses, except in the late book, 1Ch 20:8, and the Aramaic Ezr 5:15. The use of the locale, which is comparatively rare in later writings, is common to Deuteronomy with the other books of the Pentateuch; and so is the old and rare form of writing , and the termination of the future in . The last, according to Konig (A.-T. Stud. 2 Heft), is more common in the Pentateuch than in any other book: it occurs fifty-eight times in Deuteronomy. Twice even in the preterite (Deu 8:3; Deu 8:16) a like termination presents itself; on the peculiarity of which Ewald ( 190 b, note) remarks, as being the original and fuller form. Other archaisms which are common to the whole five books are: the shortening of the Hiphil, , 33; , Deu 26:12, etc.; the use of , to meet; the construction of the passive with of the object (for instance, Deu 20:8); the interchange of the older (Deu 14:4) with the more usual ; the use of . (instead of ), Deu 16:16; Deu 20:13, a form which disappears altogether after the Pentateuch; many ancient words, such as (, Exo 13:12). Among these are some which occur besides only in the book of Joshua, or else in very late writers, like Ezekiel, who, as is always the case in the decay of a language, studiously imitated the oldest forms; some which are found afterwards only in poetry, as (Eze 7:13; Eze 28:4, etc.) and , so common in Deuteronomy. Again, this book has a number of words which have an archaic character. Such are, (for the later ), (instead of ); the old Canaanitish , offspring of the flocks; , which as a name of Israel is borrowed, Isa 44:2; (Deu 1:41), to act rashly, , to be silent; , (Deu 15:14), to give, lit. to put like a collar on the neck; , to play the lord; , sickness.

(c) A fondness for the use of figures is another peculiarity of Deuteronomy. See Deu 29:17. Deuteronomy 18; Deu 28:13; Deu 28:44; Deu 1:31; Deu 1:44; Deu 8:5; Deu 28:29; Deu 28:49. Of similar comparisons there are but few (Delitzsch says but three) in the other books. The results are most surprising when we compare Deuteronomy with the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 19-24) on the one hand, and with Psalms 90 (which is said to be Mosaic) on the other. To cite but one example: the images of devouring fire and of the bearing on eagles’ wings occur only in the Book of the Covenant and in Deuteronomy. Comp. Exo 24:17 with Deu 4:24; Deu 9:3; and Exo 19:4 with Deu 22:11. So again, not to mention numberless undesigned coincidences between Psalms 90 and the book of Deuteronomy, especially chap. 32, we need only here cite the phrase (Psalms 90, 17), work of the hands, as descriptive of human action generally, which runs through the whole of Deu 2:7; Deu 14:29; Deu 16:15; Deu 24:19; Deu 28:12; Deu 30:9. The same close affinity, both as to matter and style, exists between the section to which we have already referred in Leviticus (chap. 17-20, so manifestly different from the rest of that book), the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 19-24), and Deuteronomy.

(d) In addition to all this, and very much more might be said for a whole harvest has been gleaned on this field by Schultz in the Introduction to his work on Deuteronomy in addition to all these peculiarities which are arguments for the Mosaic authorship of the book, we have here, too, the evidence strong and clear from post-Mosaic times and writings. The attempt, by a wrong interpretation of 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34, to bring down Deuteronomy as low as the time of Manasseh fails utterly. A century earlier the Jewish prophets borrow their words and their thoughts from Deuteronomy. Amos shows how intimate his acquaintance was with Deuteronomy by such passages as Deu 2:9; Deu 4:11; Deu 9:7, whose matter and form are both colored by those of that book. Hosea, who is richer than Amos in these references to the past, while full of allusions to the whole law (Hos 6:7; Hos 12:4, etc.; Hos 13:9-10), in one passage (Hos 8:12) using the remarkable expression, I have written to him the ten thousand things of my law, manifestly includes Deuteronomy (comp. 11:8 with Deu 29:22), and in many places shows that that book was in his mind. Comp. 4:13 with Deu 12:2; Deu 8:13 with Deu 28:68; Deu 11:3 with Deu 1:31; Deu 13:6 with Deu 8:11-14. Isaiah begins his prophecy with the words, Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, taken from the mouth of Moses in Deu 32:1. In fact, echoes of the tones of Deuteronomy are heard throughout the solemn and majestic discourse with which his prophecy opens. (See Caspari, Beitr age zur Eninl. in d. Buch Jesaia, p. 203-210., The same may be said of Micah. In his protest against the apostasy of the nation from the covenant with Jehovah, he appeals to the mountains as the sure foundations of the earth, in like manner as Moses (Deu 32:1) to the heavens and the earth. The controversy of Jehovah with his people (Mic 6:3-5) is a compendium, as it were, of the history of the Pentateuch from Exodus onwards, while the expression , slave-house of Egypt, is taken from Deu 7:8; Deu 13:5. In 6:8 there is no doubt an allusion to Deu 10:12, and the threatenings of 6:13-16 remind us of Deuteronomy 28 as well as of Leviticus 26. Since, then, not only Jeremiah and Ezekiel, but Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and Micah speak in the words of Deuteronomy, as well as in words borrowed from other portions of the Pentateuch, we see at once how untenable is the theory of those who, like Ewald, maintain that Deuteronomy was composed during the reign of Manasseh, or, as Vaihinger does, during that of Hezekiah.

(e) But, in truth, the book speaks for itself. No imitator could have written in such a strain. We scarcely need the express testimony of the work to its own authorship. But, having it, we find all the internal evidence conspiring to show that it came from Moses. Those magnificent discourses, the grand roll of which can be heard and felt even in a translation, came warm from the heart and fresh from the lips of Israel’s lawgiver. They are the outpourings of a solicitude which is nothing less than parental. It is the father uttering his dying advice to his children, no less than the prophet counseling and admonishing his people. What book can vie with it either in majesty or in tenderness? What words ever bore more surely the stamp of genuineness? If Deuteronomy be only the production of some timorous reformer, who, conscious of his own weakness, tried to borrow dignity and weight from the name of Moses, then assuredly all arguments drawn from internal evidence for the composition of any work are utterly useless. We can never tell whether an author is wearing the mask of another, or whether it is he himself who speaks to us. In spite, therefore, of the dogmatism of modern critics, we declare unhesitatingly for the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. SEE DEUTERONOMY.

3. Testimony of other Witnesses to the Author.

(1.) Our Lord and his Apostles. Their language is such that the hypothesis of the Pentateuch not being the work of Moses must create a very painful feeling in the mind of every true and simple-hearted follower of Christ. Comp. Mat 15:1-9 and Mar 7:1-13, where the fifth commandment and the law which sentenced to death the man who cursed his parents are ascribed indifferently to God and to Moses, and are put in opposition to the commandments of men which had grown up by a course of traditions. In Mat 22:24 we read of the Sadducees attempting to puzzle our Lord about the resurrection: Master, Moses said, etc., or as it is in Mark and Luke, Moses wrote unto us, referring to the law in Deu 25:5-10. Jesus answered them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God… But as touching the resurrection of the dead. have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, etc.; or as in Mark, Have ye not read in the book of Moses; or as in Luke, That the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, etc.; all three quoting from Exo 3:6. Again, in Mat 19:4-5, in answer to the Pharisees who tempted him on the subject of divorce, our Lord said to them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, etc., quoting Gen 2:24. Upon this they asked him, Why did Moses then commanded to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? referring to Deu 24:1. He replied, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives. The language is not less distinct in the parallel passage (Mar 10:2-9). There is also the testimony of the risen Savior to the written law of Moses as distinguished from the other Scriptures, namely, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luk 24:27; Luk 24:44-45). Without insisting on others of less distinctness (such as Luk 2:23-24; Joh 8:17; Act 7:37; Act 7:44; Act 15:21; Rom 10:5; Rom 10:19; 1Co 9:9; Heb 8:5), we ask particular attention to two statements by our Lord. In Luk 16:29; Luk 16:31, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. …. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead. Without even the slight intervention of a parable, our Lord said (Joh 5:46-47), Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? In illustration of our Lord’s argument, and as a last testimony to Moses by the apostles, we quote the confession of Paul to king Agrippa (Act 26:22), Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this (lay, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come; and his earlier confession to Felix (24:14), After the manner which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets. These two statements by Paul make it plain that what he meant by the writings of Moses was the written law as received among the Jews of his day, and not any shorter work, such as critics have imagined to be the genuine work of Moses and the germ which expanded into our present Pentateuch; a hypothesis which is also contradicted by the fact that the quotations of our Lord and his apostles are as freely made from the portions which the critics ascribe with greatest confidence to later writers as from the other portions which they concede to be more ancient. In reference to these testimonies we observe,

(a) the habitual reply has indeed been that it was not the business of our Lord and his apostles to teach Biblical criticism. But the rejoinder of Witsius is as satisfactory as ever, though the precise matter in debate has somewhat shifted since his time. Certainly Christ and his apostles were not teachers of criticism, such as those men demand that they themselves shall be considered, who at the present day claim as their own the realm of literature in every branch of knowledge whatsoever: yet they were teachers of the truth, and they did not permit themselves to be imposed upon by the ignorance of the masses or by the astuteness of the ruling class. They certainly did not come into the world to foster vulgar errors and to protect them by their authority, and to spread them, not among the Jews alone, but also far and wide among the nations who depended exclusively upon them.

(b) A fairer reply has been that the name the law of Moses, or the expression Moses wrote, etc., implies no more than the psalms of David, David said, etc.; and that if the latter class of phrases may be used without affirming the entire psalter to be David’s own composition, or without decisively attributing to David the particular psalm which is quoted, we are justified in taking the former class of phrases equally in an indeterminate sense. It is probably in this way that a man’s mind most readily finds relief when critical objections disturb his faith in the composition of the Pentateuch by Moses. and at the same time he holds fast his faith in Scripture as a whole; and it is well that there are such halting-places where one may rest in a downward course, and from which he may start in the hope of recovering himself. But we cannot concede that the phrases are really parallel. Were there no other difference, there is plainly a broad distinction between a collection of devotional poetry, which may be partly or wholly anonymous without injury to its character and usefulness, and the authoritative history of the commencement of Israel’s national existence, of its covenant relation to God, and of its constitution and laws as a state; for this is a document whose value is intimately connected with the age and circumstances of its author.

(2.) The Rest of the Old-Testament Scriptures. These were in existence centuries before these testimonies of Jesus and his apostles, and they contain copious evidence that the Pentateuch was written at the time of Moses, and by himself or under his directions. Beyond all doubt there are numerous most striking references both in the prophets and in the books of Kings to passages which are found in our present Pentateuch. One thing is certain, that the theory of men like Von Bohlen, Vatke, and others, who suppose the Pentateuch to have been written in the times of the latest kings, is utterly absurd. It is established in the most convincing manner that the legal portions of the Pentateuch already existed in writing before the separation of the two kingdoms. Even as regards the historical portions, there are often in the later books almost verbal coincidences of expression, which render it more than probable that these also existed in writing. All this has been argued with much learning, the most indefatigable research, and in some instances with great success, by Hengstenberg in his Authentie des Pentateuchs. We will satisfy ourselves by pointing out some of the most striking passages in which the coincidences between the later books and the Pentateuch (omitting Deuteronomy here) appear.

(a) Beginning with the historical books, the references to the law of Moses as a written work of supreme authority in Israel are particularly numerous and distinct in the book of Joshua, as might be expected in the history of the personal friend of Moses, and the close attendant upon him, to whom, by divine direction, Moses intrusted the completion of the work of conquering the Promised Land, and settling the people in it, and establishing among them the worship and the laws of God. The evidence is so abundant and indubitable that the only resource of our opponents has been an allegation, without any evidence, that the book of Joshua is comparatively of very recent origin, written perhaps after the Exile, or at least not long before it; an allegation which has been somewhat modified by others, but only to make it more arbitrary and improbable, when they pronounce it to be a sixth book of that history of the original of the Hebrew nation which has come down to us under the name of the five books of Moses, with certain ancient elements in it, yet wrought up to its present form only in a very late age, much as they imagine the Pentateuch to have been. The book of Judges has been said to want such clear evidence to the Pentateuch; if so, the reason must be sought, partly in the greater distance from it in point of time, and still more in its nature, as a series of sketches of the defections of the people and the chastisements which followed in order to lead them to repentance. Yet the entire work is meant to bring the conduct and condition of the people to the test of the law of God, as the known and acknowledged standard of duty: the opening account of the criminal neglect which left so many remnants of Canaanites in the midst of the tribes of Israel is meaningless except on the supposition that the law of Moses and the transactions of Joshua are already known; and some parts of it, such as the histories of Gideon and of Samson, abound in admitted references both to the facts of the Pentateuch and to its language. Nay, the cases of, grossest divergence from the law of Moses which it records are no proof that this law was unknown, or destitute of authority, at the time its author lived, as has been rashly asserted: on the contrary, they carry evidence within themselves that they were sinful; because they were the acts of men whose whole conduct was vile and disorderly, or because it is noticed that they drew down divine judgments on those who were concerned in perpetrating them. The succeeding historical books of Ruth, Samuel, and Kings present similar evidence. In the books of Kings we have references as follows: 1Ki 20:42 to Lev 27:29; Lev 21:3 to Lev 25:23, Num 36:8; Num 21:10 to Num 35:30 (comp. Deu 17:6-7; Deu 19:15); 22:17 to Num 27:16; Num 27:11; 2Ki 3:20 to Exo 29:38, etc.; Exo 4:1 to Lev 25:39, etc.; Lev 5:27 to Exo 4:6, Num 12:10; Num 6:18 to Gen 19:11 to Lev 26:29; Lev 7:2; Lev 7:19 to Gen 7:14; Gen 7:3 to Lev 13:46 (comp. Num 5:3).

(b) Especially remarkable is the testimony arising from the existence of the line of prophets in Israel; men who spoke in the style of the law of Moses, and used its language, and enforced and applied its lessons, without any civil support, often in opposition to the habits of the people and the wishes of the government; not without suffering persecution occasionally, yet without one word being uttered against the authority of the prophetic office and their abstract right to prophesy in the name of Jehovah and in support of his law. In Joel, who prophesied only in the kingdom of Judah; in Amos, who prophesied in both kingdoms; and in Hosea, whose ministry was confined to Israel, we find references which imply the existence of a written code of laws. The following comparison of passages may satisfy us on this point: Joe 2:2 with Exo 10:14; Exo 2:3 with Gen 2:8-9 (comp. Gen 13:10); Gen 2:17 with Num 14:13; Num 2:20 with Exo 10:19; Exo 3:1 [2:28, E.V.] with Gen 6:12; Gen 2:13 with Exo 34:6; Exo 4:18 [Exo 3:18], with Num 25:1. Again, Amo 2:2 with Num 21:28; Num 2:7 with Exo 23:6, Lev 20:3; Lev 2:8 with Exo 22:25, etc.; Exo 2:9 with Num 13:32, etc.; Num 3:7 with Gen 18:17; Gen 4:4 with Lev 24:3, and Deu 14:28; Deu 26:12; Deu 26:12 with Num 35:31 (comp. Exo 23:6 and Amo 2:7; Amo 5:17 with Exo 12:12; Exo 5:21, etc., with Num 29:35, Lev 23:36; Lev 6:1 with Num 1:17; Num 6:6 with Gen 37:25 (this is probably the reference: Hengstenberg’s is wrong); Gen 6:8 with Lev 26:19; Lev 6:14 with Num 34:8; Num 8:6 with Exo 21:2, Lev 25:39; Lev 9:13 with Lev 26:3-5 (comp. Exo 3:8). Again, Hos 1:2 with Lev 20:5-7; Lev 2:1; Lev 1:10] with Gen 22:17; Gen 32:12; Gen 2:2 [1:11] with Exo 1:10; Exo 3:2 with Exo 21:32; Exo 4:8 with Lev 6:17, etc., and Lev 7:1, etc.; Lev 4:10 with Lev 26:26; Lev 4:17 with Exo 32:9-10; Exo 5:6 with Exo 10:9; Exo 6:2 with Gen 17:18; Gen 7:8 with Exo 34:12-16; Exo 12:6 [A.V. Exo 12:5] with Exo 3:15; Exo 12:10 [Exo 12:9] with Lev 23:43 with Gen 9:5. This fact is the more worthy of consideration, inasmuch as these prophets were to be found actively at work, not merely in the kingdom of Judah, in which the process of elaborating the Pentateuch is imagined to have been carried on, but also in the kingdom of the ten tribes, in which the true spirit of the theocracy was confessedly at a very low ebb. Those of the prophets who have left their writings as a portion of Scripture have furnished references to facts and phrases in the books of Moses, sometimes longer and more direct, sometimes briefer and more incidental, but so various and multiplied that it has been found necessary to frame the hypothesis that the prophetic writings were the originals out of which our present Pentateuch was formed: a supposition in itself sufficiently unnatural, and, if it were admitted, still forcing us back upon the question, What, then, was the foundation of divine authority, as acknowledged by the people of Israel, on which the prophetic office rested, and to which the prophets in their teaching appealed?

(c) A strong support is also furnished by two books of Scripture which are of a very different nature from any that have yet been noticed the books of Psalms and of Proverbs: the one dealing with the devotional feelings, the other with the practical life of the people of Israel, and both often naming the law, and continually referring to it, or tacitly assuming that it was known and reverenced.

(d) It is unnecessary to speak of the testimony of books written after the return from Babylon, as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles: a testimony which is admitted to be so full and explicit that there is no way of destroying its force, or of even materially diminishing its value, unless by affirming boldly that these are such late writings that they are he authorities upon the question; as in fact the history given in the books of Chronicles is often pronounced incorrect and untrustworthy.

(e) But now if, as appears from the examination of all the extant Jewish literature, the Pentateuch existed as a canonical book; if; moreover, it was a book so well known that its words had become household words among the people; and if the prophets could appeal to it as a recognized and well- known document how comes it to pass that in the reign of Josiah, one of the latest kings, its existence as a canonical book seems to have been almost forgotten? Yet such was evidently the fact. The circumstances, as narrated in 2Ch 34:14, etc., were these: In the eighteenth year of his reign, the king, who had already taken active measures for the suppression of idolatry, determined to execute the necessary repairs of the Temple, which had become seriously dilapidated, and to restore the worship of Jehovah in its purity. He accordingly directed Hilkiah the highpriest to take charge of the moneys that were contributed for this purpose. During the progress of the work, Hilkiah, who was busy in the Temple, came upon a copy of the book of the Law which must have long lain neglected and forgotten and told Shaphan the scribe of his discovery. The effect produced by this was very remarkable. The king, to whom Shaphan read the words of the book, was filled with consternation when he learned for the first time how far the nation had departed from the law of Jehovah. He sent Hilkiah and others to consult the prophetess Huldah, who only confirmed his fears. The consequence was that he held a solemn assembly in the house of the Lord, and read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord. How are we to explain this surprise and alarm in the mind of Josiah, betraying as it does such utter ignorance of the book of the Law, and of the severity of its threatenings, except on the supposition that as a written document it had well-nigh perished? This must have been the case, and it is not so extraordinary a fact, perhaps, as it appears at first sight. It is quite true that in the reign of Jehoshaphat pains had been taken to make the nation at large acquainted with the law. That monarch not only instituted teaching priests, but we are told that as they went about the country they had the book of the Law with them. But that was 300 years before a period equal to that between the days of Luther and our own; and in such an interval great changes must have taken place. It is true that in the reign of Ahaz the prophet Isaiah directed the people, who in their hopeless infatuation were seeking counsel of ventriloquists and necromancers, to turn to the law and to the testimony; and Hezekiah, who succeeded Ahaz, had no doubt reigned in the spirit of the prophet’s advice.

But the next monarch was guilty of outrageous wickedness, and filled Jerusalem with idols. How great a desolation might one wicked prince effect, especially during a lengthened reign! To this we must add that at no time, in all probability, were there many copies of the law existing in writing. It was probably then the custom, as it still is in the East, to trust largely to the memory for its transmission. Just as at this day in Egypt persons are to be found, even illiterate in other respects, who can repeat the whole Koran by heart, and as some modern Jews are able to recite the whole of the five books of Moses, so it probably was then: the law, for the great bulk of the nation, was orally preserved and inculcated. (See Mr. Grove’s very interesting paper on Nablus and the Samaritans in Vacation Tourists, 1861. Speaking of the service of the yom kippur in the Samaritan synagogue, he says that the recitation of the Pentateuch was continued through the night, without even the feeble lamp which on every other night of the year but this burns in front of the holy books. The two priests and a few of the people know the whole of the Torah by heart [p. 346].) The ritual would easily be perpetuated by the mere force of observance, though much of it doubtless became perverted, and some part of it perhaps obsolete, through the neglect of the priests. Still it is against the perfunctory and lifeless manner of their worship, not against their total neglect, that the burning words of the prophets are directed. The command of Moses, which laid upon the king the obligation of making a copy of the law for himself, had of course long been disregarded. Here and there, perhaps, only some prophet or righteous man possessed a copy of the sacred book. The bulk of the nation were without it. Nor was there any reason why copies should be brought under the notice of the king. We may understand this by a parallel case. How easy it would have been in England, before the invention of printing, for a similar circumstance to have happened. How many copies, do we suppose, of the Scriptures were made? Such as did exist would be in the hands of a few learned men, or more probably in the libraries of monasteries. Even after a translation, like Wickliffe’s, had been made, the people as a whole would know nothing whatever of the Bible; and yet they were a Christian people, and were in some measure at least instructed out of the Scriptures, though the volume itself could scarcely ever have been seen. Even the monarch, unless he happened to be a man of learning or piety, would remain in the same ignorance as his subjects. Whatever knowledge there was of the Bible and of religion would be kept alive chiefly by means of the liturgies used in public worship. So it was in Judah. The oral transmission of the law and the living testimony, of the prophets had superseded the written document, till at last it had become so scarce as to be almost unknown. But the hand of God so ordered it that when king and people were both zealous for reformation, and ripest for the reception of the truth, the written document itself was brought to light.

If this direct verbal testimony had been absent, the entire structure of the scriptural books from Joshua to Malachi would have necessitated the same conclusion. These books never could have been written in their existing form, unless by men familiarly conversant with the Pentateuch. Thence are derived the ultimate principles which underlie the whole. They are united to it by a mass of reference so complex, intricate, and minute, as to constitute a study in itself. The grand monotheism which pervades the whole, the overruling Providence which is everywhere thrown into the foreground; the national election of the Jew, and his relation to his forefathers in the perpetual covenant sealed between God and them, would all be inexplicable without this reference to the transactions of the past. Throughout the prophetical books especially the tone of thought and feeling, the language employed, the illustrations used, the accents of blended reproach, warning, and promise, the allusions to the past, and the predictions of the future, would be unintelligible to the student if the Pentateuch were not in his possession to interpret them. This is as true, and perhaps more forcibly evident in regard to the N.T. and the teaching of our Lord and his apostles than it is in the O.T. and in the language of the prophets. The Pentateuch is the thread of gold which runs, now latent, now prominent, throughout the whole body of the Scriptures. Retain it in its place, and the whole is united by a consistent purpose from end to end; take it away, and all the rest of revelation becomes a mass of inextricable confusion. The recognition of this bearing of the authority of the Pentateuch on the authority of the other scriptural books is most necessary. For the purpose, however, of succinctly stating the positive argument in favor of the authorship and divine authority of the five books of Moses, it is sufficient to trace the line of testimony down to the time of Malachi, for here we find that firm footing in the acknowledged facts of profane history which enables us to close every avenue against the objections of unbelief.

To take the facts of the books subsequent to the Pentateuch, and reduce them to anything like consistency, on the supposition that the Pentateuch itself is mythical, framing a connected and credible story out of them, is a task which baffles all human ingenuity. The only alternative appears to be to make a clean sweep of the history altogether; but this is no sooner proposed to the mind than both the past and the present lift up their protest against it. The past forbids it, because at many points the history of the Jew has come into contact with the history of the other great nations of antiquity, and to destroy the one would involve the destruction of the other likewise; for modern research has conclusively proved the harmony of sacred history with profane in a very considerable number of instances. The Mosaic authorship is expressly affirmed by Hecataeus, Manetho, Lysimachus, Tacitus, Juvenal, and Longinus. In regard to the Pentateuch itself, the Mosaic cosmogony, the scriptural account of the deluge, and the dispersion of mankind at Babel receive confirmation from Berosus the Chaldaean; the ethnological list in Genesis is strongly corroborated by the Babylonian monuments; the account of the exodus, by the distorted narrative of Manetho the Egyptian. Coming to later times, the Jewish conquest of Canaan is confirmed by an ancient Phoenician inscription noticed by three old writers; David’s conquest of Syria by two heathen writers of repute; the history of his relations with Hiram, king of Tyre. by Herodotus, Dius, and Menander. Similar points of contact occur all down the history, till, in the period of the captivity, we emerge from the darkness of prehistoric times to the period of authentic history (see Rawlinson’s Bamnpton Lectures and Ancient Monarchies). If the Jewish history be all fabulous. what becomes of the profane? and how is it that the ancient Babylonian monuments, now yielding their precious stores of information to the diligence of modern inquiry, corroborate in so many points the statements of the sacred books. The two branches of history, the sacred and the profane, are so interwoven that the denial of the one must involve likewise the denial of the other. Say that the past history of the Jew before the times of the Ptolemies is a myth altogether, and the history of the Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Assyrian must become at least equally apocryphal. Acknowledge the history to be true, and the truth of the history involves the divine authority of the Pentateuch which records it.

But the argument is at least equally strong when we trace the line of proof upward from the time of the Ptolemies, in regard to the existence of the Jewish Scriptures, as in regard to the facts of Jewish history. The still extant Septuagint proves the existence of the O.-T. Scriptures in their completed form at this date, and that they were universally received by the Jewish race as the authoritative and divinely inspired compositions of the authors to whom they are ascribed. The Pentateuch, for instance, was implicitly received as being the work of Moses, and as supplying the divinely ordained platform on which the whole superstructure of Jewish polity and religion had been reared, and as the authoritative record of it. To cast a doubt on its genuineness and sacred authority would have been esteemed blasphemy. The case is strengthened by the position held by the Pentateuch as the most ancient of their writings, and as underlying, so to speak, all the rest. For they were accepted not only as existing from former times, but as the first of a long series of sacred books, united by a regular historical sequence with each other, and all of them received from the tradition of the preceding times. The supposition, therefore, that the Pentateuch is unhistorical does not end with the destruction of the sacred authority of the Mosaic books, but destroys the authority of all the rest of the O.-T. Scriptures likewise; for all these without exception are founded on the authority of the Pentateuch, and the historic reality of the events recorded in it. If this is denied, either the later books must be considered part of the same imposture as that which produced the Pentateuch in its connected form; or their authors must have knowingly endorsed and availed themselves of this imposture; or, lastly, they must ignorantly have received human and imaginary compositions as veritable and divinely inspired history.

The enormous difficulty of even conceiving the possibility of a fraud under such circumstances is increased by the wide dispersion of the Jewish race, and the mighty separation which had divided the original people into two jealous if not hostile nations. If one portion of the dispersed had been disposed to acquiesce in the fraud, or, in the depth of their superstitious ignorance, had been induced to accept a religious romance composed by some member of the college of the prophets as the ancient Scriptures of their nation, still it is inconceivable that all the communities of Jews established in the different cities of the known world could have been brought to the same conclusion. Or if the exclusive and intense spirit of nationality by which they were actuated, and which becomes on this supposition itself an effect without a cause, can be believed to have accomplished even this result, it still remains to be conceived how the Samaritan people could have been induced to adopt the same belief, instead of indignantly protesting, as a people so sensitively jealous would inevitably have done, against what must have been either an enormous folly or a criminal imposture. Yet an independent Samaritan version of the Pentateuch carries the evidence for the national acceptance of the Mosaic writings as high as the times of Solomon and David, within little more than 400 years of the conquest of Canaan. Every theory hitherto suggested to explain the existence of the Jewish Scriptures, and the profound veneration entertained for them during all periods by the historic Jew, bristles with difficulties which contradict every experience of human history and every known principle of human conduct.

(3.) Proof of the early composition of the Pentateuch exists in the fact that the Samaritans had their own copies of it, not differing very materially from those possessed by the Jews, except in a few passages which had probably been purposely tampered with and altered; such, for instance, as Exo 12:40; Deu 27:5. The Samaritans, it would seem, must have derived their book of the Law from the ten tribes, whose land they occupied; on the other hand, it is out of the question to suppose that the ten tribes would be willing to accept religious books from the two, unless these were already in general circulation and of long-established authority. Hence the conclusion seems to be irresistible that the Pentateuch must have existed in its present form before the separation of Israel from Judah; the only part of the O.T. which was the common heritage of both. There is not indeed any historical notice of a rupture between the Jews and Samaritans prior to the return from Babylon, except so far as the schismatic calf-worship, and the mongrel character of the inhabitants introduced by the Assyrian conquerors, would naturally produce it; and there are traces of a religious association, more or less close, during the later period of the Hebrew monarchy; but the notable fact that none of the prophetical writings were admitted by the Samaritans strongly argues that their copy dates from a very early period. This view is confirmed by the fact that it is written in the ancient character, which certainly was not in use after the Exile. The only objection of any considerable weight to this conclusion is the fact that it agrees remarkably with the existing Hebrew Pentateuch, and that, too, in those passages which are manifestly interpolations and corrections as late as the time of Ezra. Hence many incline to the view of Prideaux (Connect. bk. vi, ch. iii) that the Samaritan Pentateuch was in fact a transcript of Ezra’s revised copy. The same view is virtually adopted by Gesenius (De Pent. Sam. p. 8, 9). SEE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.

(4.) The unvarying conviction of the Jews, and of the Christian Church also, has been that the Pentateuch, substantially as we have it now, and without any alterations beyond what are conceded to be admissible in all books which have been handed down from remote antiquity, is the writing of Moses. As we have seen above, until near the end of last century the universality of this conviction may be pronounced absolute; the alleged exceptions are so trifling or so dubious that the mere mention of them, as they have been carefully hunted out, gives us an impression of the strength of the traditional belief such as we might not otherwise have had. The case of some obscure early heretical sects among so-called Christians would scarcely be to the point, even if it could be established: but really they do not seem to have denied that Moses was the author of the book; their denial had reference to its divine origin and authority. The first distinct adverse statement was made by Carlstadt, the Reformer with whom Luther was associated for a time, but from whom he was compelled to separate on account of his rashness and want of good sense. Carlstadt admitted that Moses had received the law from God, and that he communicated it to the people; but he doubted whether the words and the thread of discourse in the Pentateuch did not proceed from some later writer, though he rejected the notion that Ezra was the writer. Masius, a learned Roman Catholic, whose commentary on Joshua was published in 1574, after his death, held that at least there was rearrangement and supplementing by Ezra or some other inspired person. These two Christian writers perhaps had a predecessor among the Jewish rabbins, the learned Aben-Ezra, of Toledo, who lived probably A.D. 1095-1168; he hinted his opinion that a few passages had not come from the hand of Moses, and he notices the similar opinion, as to one passage, of another rabbin in the 11th century, a man, however, who is otherwise wholly unknown to us. Finally, about the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century, there were a few theologianis, both Romanist and Reformed Pevrerius, Richard Simon, Van Dale, and Le Clerc who adopted the opinion, more or less decidedly, that Ezra was the author of the Pentateuch. The last of these, an eminent man among the Dutch Arminianls, is by far the best known of the whole number; and he professed himself convinced by subsequent discussions that he had been in error, and in his commentary on the Pentateuch retracted his opinion.

4. Confirmation of the Mosaic Authorship. Of this confirmatory evidence we offer the following specimens, in addition to the considerations urged above to prove the unity of the entire five books.

(1.) Internal indications occur that the Pentateuch does belong to the age of Moses.

(a.) References to matters somewhat earlier than his own time, which he might well have opportunities of knowing, and which might be expected to attract the interest of the generation of Israelites who came out of Egypt and entered Canaan, while they would less probably have been incorporated into his history by a writer of a much later period. Such are the details in Genesis xiv of the wars between the four kings of the East and the five kings of Sodom, etc.; the peculiar list of nations in Canaan during the earlier part of Abraham’s sojourn (Gen 15:19-21), differing very considerably from the ordinary list of these nations in the age of Moses, several centuries later; the designation of Abraham’s original home as Ur of the Chaldees (Gen 11:31), though really in Mesopotamia (Act 7:2), in the mountains of which country it seems that the Chaldees were settled at a remote period, whereas later Jewish history represents them as settled much farther south, in the plains of Babylonia; the curious notices scattered throughout Deuteronomy 2 of the old nations in and around Canaan, who had been dispossessed by the Philistines, the Edomites, the Moabites, and the Ammonites notices well fitted, and we believe intended, to encourage Israel in rooting out their enemies the Canaanites with the promised special help of God, although the higher criticism has induced its votaries to pronounce them ill-judged interpolations.

(b.) The record of particulars respecting the origin of the people that have every token of verisimilitude, at once from the simplicity with which they are related, and from the absence of features which characterize the fabulous accounts of early things by the Greeks and others.

(c.) The prominence given to many events, and the minuteness and vividness of the descriptions, such as are common in the narratives of eye- witnesses and men personally engaged in the transactions; with which may be associated the evidence of intimate (yet not obtruded) acquaintance with both Egypt and the wilderness.

(d.) Confirmatory evidence may be found in many of the laws which were applicable to the Israelites only while in motion through the wilderness, or while gathered close together in the camp; as indeed the camp is very frequently mentioned in the course of these laws, for instance in Lev 13:46; Lev 14:8; Lev 16:26; Lev 17:3; Num 5:3. So also the commands are many a time laid, not upon the priests as a body, but upon Aaron personally, or upon Aaron and his sons. To this may be added what has already been said of certain slight modifications of laws in Deuteronomy, which were natural with the progress of events during the forty years; compare also Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11, Leviticus alone mentioning the permission to eat the locusts, which would be common in the wilderness, etc.

(e.) Add to this the antique forms of words and expressions which are generally conceded to occur throughout the Pentateuch. This is no doubt a kind of argument which must be handled with care and moderation; and it has been employed very frequently, and been pushed to a most extravagant length, by many Continental scholars in support of views which they have really adopted on other grounds. But three things may be asserted very confidently, and they are sufficiently plain to be appreciated by the mere English reader, although he is not in circumstances to verify them. First, that there are many traces of very early simple language in the Pentateuch, as the habitual use of for he and she, for young man and young woman, without the distinction of gender invariably found in the rest of the Old Testament. Secondly, that the differences of the Elohistic and the Jehovistic and the Deuteronomic vocabulary (to use the barbarous words descriptive of peculiar notions which have been introduced into this controversy) are reduced to extremely narrow limits by such a competent scholar as Delitzsch, whose peculiar theory leads him to occupy an intermediate or neutral place in these discussions. Thirdly, that a difference is at once plainly discernible when we pass from the vocabulary of the Pentateuch to that of the books generally reckoned nearest to it in point of age namely, Joshua and Judges.

(2.) If we deny that Moses was the author of this book, it is impossible to fix with satisfaction on any later age for the date of composition. This will be evident on a slight examination of the various dates proposed.

(a.) The inclination is very strong to fix the date of the composition of Deuteronomy, as well as the final arrangement of the other four books, somewhere perhaps in the reign of Hezekiah the character of whose administration, however, is inconsistent with the admission of religious novelties (emphatically in the rule of faith), since he was bent upon removing all the abuses which had crept into the institutions of Moses; or in the reign of his profligate son Manasseh, although the heathenish party in Judah were at the time so completely in the ascendant that their opponents were at their mercy, and they are thought to have subjected the prophets of Jehovah to bloody persecution; or perhaps in the reign of Josiah, when the corruption was still deeper and more widespread, and when so distinguished a prophet as Jeremiah was impotent to stem the tide of evil. It may be asserted very confidently that no one of these reigns was more favorable for interpolating or annexing a new section of the law of Moses than the age of the Reformation would have been for adding another epistle to the New Testament. Any of these dates is ridiculously ill- suited for the composition in Deuteronomy of those consecutive chapters (6, 7, 8) which are filled with warnings against worldliness in consequence of peacefully possessing the land, and an improper toleration of the doomed nations of Canaan, and pride in victories achieved and wealth enjoyed.

(b.) Or shall we assume an earlier date, the period of the first and best times of the kingdom, before the death of Jehoshaphat, which is generally regarded by the critics as a time of prophetic activity in composing the early history of the nation? The Pentateuch, however, cannot well have been composed later than the schism in religion, and the rise of two hostile kingdoms, after the death of Solomon; for it uniformly supposes Israel to be in an undivided condition, both civilly and ecclesiastically. There is never a hint of the existence of such a division; nay, after that division had taken place many of the laws must have met with impediments in their execution. Again, had the book been composed later than the date of the schism, the ten tribes would have protested, and justly too, against such laws as bore hard upon them; while at the same time we are warranted in inferring from the strong language in the acknowledged writings of the prophets, that, had they been the writers of the legislation, its language would have been found to be distinct and pointed against the schism. Similar remarks may be made upon the historical portions of the Pentateuch. A prophetic historian in the kingdom of Judah would have been likely to identify more distinctly than is done the land of Moriah, where Abraham was ready to offer Isaac, with Mount Moriah, where the Temple was built; and he would have been likely to assign less religious prominence in the patriarchal and early national history to Shechem, the scene of the revolt and the seat of Jeroboam’s government. Nor could we expect him to say nothing in praise of Levi, in Jacob’s dying blessing; nor in the blessing of Moses, while mentioning Levi, to give so slight a blessing to Judah in comparison with that given to Ephraim and Manasseh.

(c.) Nor yet is the earlier age of David and Solomon satisfactory as the assumed date of this composition. If the Pentateuch had been a recent work, of the age of these kings, it would have been wholly thrown aside by Jeroboam, who must have found inconvenience and positive danger from it; and in casting it away he would have easily and naturally represented himself as a reformer of religion, delivering the people from one of the yokes of bondage which the house of David had been imposing on them, and restoring to them their primitive civil liberty and religious simplicity, according to the genuine institutions of Moses. Instead of this, it is evident that from the first Jeroboam was condemned and resisted by the prophets and the priests and the Levites, and generally by multitudes of the people, whose hearts were reverent towards the acknowledged and established law of God. The entire law of the kingdom (Deuteronomy 17), which has been represented as furnishing evidence of late authorship, is on the contrary a witness to a much earlier date of composition. In the days of David and Solomon there would have been no need to forbid the appointment of a foreigner to the throne, since it was established in this family of the tribe of Judah, and this with divine sanctions and promises of perpetuity; while the language in which the multiplication of horses and wives and silver and gold is prohibited would have needed to be very different to suit that age. The oft-repeated command to extirpate the Canaanites, and not to let them dwell in the midst of Israel (so far from being a production of the age of David and Solomon), was no longer applicable, after it had been neglected for so many centuries: in their totally altered circumstances the remains of these nations appear to have become converts to the worship of Jehovah, and in some sense members of the congregation of Israel; and a fearful curse fell upon Saul and his bloody house on account of his zeal in exterminating the Gibeonites.

(d.) If we are thus driven back to a period indefinitely anterior to the time of David, there is no other age than that of Moses himself at which we can rest with reason or satisfaction. There is no one whose name could be suggested as the author, with any degree of probability, during the disturbed period of the judges, in the course of which religion was rather retrograding, and the revivals of it were very far from favoring new legislation. SEE JUDGES. Samuel has indeed been named, and there is no doubt of the eminent position which he occupied at the crisis in which the Hebrew republic passed into a monarchy; still there is no evidence that he was competent to write the Pentateuch. Besides there are two special objections: his closeness to the age of David and Solomon, than which the book seems much more ancient; and the necessity of supposing a known and acknowledged law of God in Israel as the basis on which all his labors rested, and the rule of life and worship to which it was his aim to bring the people back.

(e.) There are not wanting traces which point to the patriarchal age as the time in which the writer of the Pentateuch lived. A writer subsequent to the time at which the laws of Moses (rightly or wrongly so called) had taken hold of the national mind, would have been little likely to represent their ancestor Abraham as marrying his sister, half-sister though she might be; and Jacob as setting up his pillar and anointing it. The primitive age of the writer is evinced by his entire silence on the subject of temples for the worship of false gods, as well as of any house for Jehovah. It may be doubted. too, whether a later legislator would have spoken of priests in Israel prior to the institution of Aaron’s priesthood, and of young men of the children of Israel offering the sacrifices, under the direction of Moses, at the establishment of the covenant in Sinai (Exo 19:24; Exo 24:5).

(f.) Moreover, that law of Moses was very burdensome in its ritual, in respect to both trouble and expense and no one could have introduced it, thereby in fact accomplishing an unparalleled social revolution, if he had not had the support of overwhelming authority as the recognized messenger of Jehovah. Nor, when once established. could that legislation have been altered throughout successive ages by numberless nameless authors such as the critics have discovered.

(g.) The prophetic passages, those of Moses himself, and those of Balaam, have puzzled the critics when attempting to fix a later date for them.

(h.) A most tempting subject for any one who wishes to turn upon the critics is the irreconcilable diversity of the hypotheses which they have framed, in spite of every imaginable advantage enjoyed by them learning, leisure, mutual concert, and entire absence of any belief in the need of evidence for their endless suppositions. We noticed, at an early part of our argument, that there is a fundamental difference among them: much the greater number believing, as we do, that Deuteronomy was composed later than the other four books, while a small minority, comprising some distinguished scholars, invert the relation of the two parts, assigning the higher antiquity to Deuteronomy, and considering the legislation in the preceding books to be developed from it. By both schools the Deuteronomist is regarded as a different person from the Elohist and the Jehovist (or the older and younger Elohistic and Jehovistic writers, according to those critics who make each of these names represent a class rather than an individual), to whom is assigned the composition of almost the whole of the first four books and a small portion of history towards the close of the fifth. It would occupy too much space to reckon up the variety of opinions as to the number of these imaginary authors and the ages in which they respectively flourished: those who wish to see this practice of making hypotheses in its most extravagant and self-sufficient form may find it in the commencement of Ewald’s History of the People of Israel. We wish, however, to remind our readers that these varieties in the hypotheses are not to be overlooked, as if they were mere differences of detail. To us, on the contrary, they appear to be essential or fatal defects in these critical schemes; for when Moses has been denied to be the author, there is nothing on which to depend except critical sagacity; and since this critical sagacity not unfrequently contradicts itself, and is ever contradicting the sagacity of some other critic quite as much to be respected as the one we are studying at the time, it furnishes convincing evidence that it is itself an unsafe guide. The critics allege, indeed, that their testimony agrees in many points; and this is true, so long as they confine themselves to generalities, because they start from the same false principles, as to miracles, prophecy, etc. They do also agree in a great many particulars; but this is not wonderful, considering how they read one another’s productions, compare them, and dovetail their statements together, altering and amending as often as they are charged with error or confusion, by one another or by those who adhere to the old opinion. We do not blame them for this procedure; but it makes their agreement, so far as it goes, of very little worth as concurrent testimony.

(i.) There are gaps in the fundamental document which need to be filled up; and there are references in it to the so-called later or supplementary matter, which we therefore believe to be a composition as early as the other which they pronounce to be alone the original. The individual proofs of this assertion we cannot here adduce; and indeed, as often as instances are given, some new critic starts up to make a different arrangement of the original and the supplementary matter which escapes from the objection charged upon the scheme of his predecessor a process which is not so difficult after all, as nothing more is required than his own unsupported assertion. It is to be remembered, however, that a person may hold the common opinion that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and yet along with this may also hold (rightly or wrongly) that there are extents in it which are not from the hand of Moses, but which have come to be incorporated with it by accidents to which all very ancient books are liable. Thus there are various ways of dealing with near half a dozen difficulties, such as the mention of Dan, or of the district called Havoth-jair unto this day, or the testimony to the surpassing meekness of Moses, or the geographical and antiquarian statements in Deuteronomy 2. If the mind of any. one remains unsatisfied with the explanations offered, he has it in his power to cut the knot which he is not able to untie. He may say that the general and direct evidence, on account of which he believes Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch, is overwhelming; and in regard to these few incidental passages which puzzle him, he may incline to consider them glosses or explanations thrown in by some copyist or annotator, whether authorized or not, and he can imagine these removed without any serious alteration in the book, as it reverts precisely to the form in which he conceives it to have come from Moses. That unauthorized copyists might make such changes is a notion for which parallels more or less satisfactory can be adduced; yet it might be preferable to think of an editor whose annotations or alterations were authoritative, and such an editor Ezra is supposed to have been by many who follow old Jewish traditions. How far the influence of such an editor might alter the work is a matter for those to settle who embrace this opinion; certainly it ought not to be supposed to extend far, or they run the risk of virtually injuring their faith in Moses as the author. On the other hand, of course, those who adhere most strenuously to the old opinion deny that they are committed by their views to the absurdity of believing that Moses wrote the account of his own death and burial. There is a tradition in the Talmud that Joshua wrote the last eight verses of Deuteronomy; although it is now more commonly supposed that the work of Moses ends at ch. 31:23 (or even earlier,Exodus 24 :rse 8; Baumgarten says at ch. 30:20), and that Joshua, or whoever recorded these closing details, inserted the song and the blessing of Moses, along with the accounts of his final charge, his view of the Promised Land, his death, etc.

5. Objections against the Mosaic Authorship. These have been numerous and vehemently urged, especially by rationalists, as we might expect from the importance of the subject. On the opposite side, these critical doubts respecting the authenticity of the Pentateuch have produced in modern times several works in defense of its genuineness; such as Kanne’s Biblische Untersuchungen (1820, 2 vols.); the observations by Jahn, Rosenmller, and Bleek; Ranke’s Untersuchungen uber den Pentateuch (2 vols.); Hengstenberg’s Beitr agqe zur Einleitung (vols. ii and iii); Havernick’s Einleitung in daas Alte Testament (vol. i); Drechsler’s Ueber die Einheit und Authentie der Genesis; Kinig’s Alt-testamentliche Studien (No. ii); Sack’s Apolegetik, etc. From the most recent of these we extract the following, as presenting a condensed view of the argument (see RawlinSoLn’s Historical Evidence, p. 51 sq.). As above stated the ancient, positive, and uniform tradition of the Jews assigned the authorship of the Pentateuch, with the exception of the last chapter of Deuteronomy, to Moses (see Horne’s Introd. 1:51-56; Graves, Lectures; Stuart, O.T. Canon, p. 42); and this tradition is prima facie evidence of the fact, such at least as throws the burden of proof upon those who call it in question. It is an admitted rule of all sound criticism that books are to be regarded as proceeding from the writers whose names they bear, unless very strong reasons indeed can be adduced to the contrary (comp. Gladstone, Homer, 1:3, 4). In the present instance, the reasons which have been urged are weak and puerile in the extreme; they rest in part on misconception of the meaning of passages (e.g. De Wette, Einl. 147, with regard to , which means as well this side as the other side of Jordan; Buxtorf, Lex. p. 527); in part upon interpolations into the original text, which are sometimes very palpable (e.g. Gen 36:31-39; Exo 16:35-36; and perhaps Deu 2:14; comp. Fritzsche, Prufung, p. 135). Mainly, however, they have their source in arbitrary and unproved hypotheses: as that a contemporary writer would not have introduced an account of miracles (De Wette, Einl. 145); that the culture indicated by the book is beyond that of the age of Moses (ibid. 163); that if Moses had written the book, he would not have spoken of himself in the third person (Hartmann, Forschungen, p. 545; Norton, Genuineness, 2, 444; comp. Spinoza, Tractatus Theo.-Pol. p. 154); that he would have given a fuller and more complete account of his own history (De Wette, 167); and that he would not have applied to himself terms of praise and expressions of honor (Hartmann, l.c.; comp. Spinoza, l.c.). It is enough to observe of these objections that they are such as might equally be urged against the genuineness of Paul’s epistles (which is allowed even by Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1:60) against that of the works of Homer, Chaucer, and indeed of all writers in advance of their age against Caesar’s Commentaries and Xenophon’s Expedition of Cyrus against the Acts of the Apostles (which even Strauss allows may be the work of Luke, Leben Jesu, 1:60), and against the Gospel of John.

For Paul relates contemporary miracles; Homer and Chaucer exhibit a culture and a tone which, but for them, we should have supposed unattainable in their age; Caesar and Xenophon write throughout in the third person; Luke omits all account of his own doings at Philippi; and John applies to himself the most honorable of all titles, the disciple whom Jesus loved (Joh 13:23; Joh 14:26). In fact a priori conceptions as to how an author of a certain time and country would write, what he would or would not say, or how he would express himself, are among the weakest of all presumptions, and must be regarded as outweighed by a very small amount of positive testimony to authorship. Moreover, for an argument of this sort to have any force at all, it is necessary that we should possess, from other sources besides the author who is judged, a tolerably complete knowledge of the age to which he is assigned, and a fair acquaintance with the literature of his period. In the case of Moses, our knowledge of the age is exceedingly limited, while of the literature we have scarcely any knowledge at all, beyond that which is furnished by the sacred records next in succession the books of Joshua and Judges with (perhaps) that of Job and these are so far from supporting the notion that such a work as the Pentateuch could not be produced in the time of Moses that they actually presuppose the contrary by constantly appealing to it or as being evidently based upon it. We propose to examine these objections here in detail, as they relate more or less to all the books of the Pentateuch. For other difficulties, see each book in its place.

We mention here one objection of a general character. The history of the art of writing among the Hebrews has often been appealed to in order to disprove the authenticity of the Pentateuch. It is true that in our days no critic of good repute for learning ventures any longer to assert that the art of writing was invented subsequent to the Mosaical age (Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 64 sq.); but it is questioned whether the Hebrews were acquainted with that art. Such a doubt proceeds from erroneous ideas concerning the condition of this people, and concerning the civilization necessarily imparted to them in Egypt. The reality of this civilization is proved by indubitable testimony. It is said that a work of such extent as the Pentateuch was beyond the means of the primitive modes of writing then existing. But various testimonies, not merely in the Pentateuch itself, but also derived from other sources, from the period immediately subsequent to that of Moses, prove that a knowledge of the art of writing was widely diffused among the Hebrews (comp. Jdg 8:14).

If there were any knowledge of this art, its application would entirely depend upon the particular circumstances of a given period. Some writers seem to entertain the opinion that the materials for writing were yet, in the days of Moses, too clumsy for the execution of larger works. This opinion is refuted by the fact that the Hebrews became acquainted, just in the Mosaical period, with the use of very good materials for writing, such as papyrus, byssus, parchment, etc. (comp. Herodotus, v. 58). There are, indeed, mentioned in the Pentateuch some more solid materials for writing, such as tables of stone (Exo 24:12; Exo 31:18; Exo 34:1, etc.); but this does not prove that in those days nothing was written except upon stone. Stone was employed, on account of its durability, for specific purposes. SEE WRITING.

The arguments on which the authorship of the Pentateuch is denied to Moses are, it will be perceived, wholly of an internal character (except that noticed above, and the one drawn from 2Ch 34:14 sq.). They have varied considerably with the taste and the information of those who urged them. There are some which were advanced very confidently a generation ago, but now are scarcely mentioned. But of those which have been urged with greatest confidence and plausibility, and still continue to be so, we believe the following to be the chief:

(1.) The supernatural character of much of the book namely, the miracles and prophecies occurring abundantly in the history. This really is the great objection, even in many minds which have not been fully aware that it was so; and they have therefore been propping up their opinion with other arguments, that would never have had much of even apparent solidity and strength if they had been destitute of this foundation. But this objection need not be discussed in this article, for it concerns the entire Bible. SEE MIRACLE; SEE PROPHECY.

(2.) The alleged inaccuracies and impossibilities in the history, even apart from the miracles with which it is interspersed. This is a line of argument which has in general been found very difficult to manage; and in connection with which, therefore, there has not been very much attempted by learned and cautious writers. It has, however, recently attained to a temporary prominence and importance by the writings of bishop Colenso. The particular instances are not of a nature which really requires much consideration, though the most important may be briefly noticed.

(a.) The vast increase of Jacob’s descendants in Egypt, and the difficulty as to the proportion between the whole number of them and that of the first- born. On these and some other matters, SEE NUMBERS.

(b.) The chronological difficulty that the census was not taken till the second month of the second year of the Exodus, while yet the tabernacle is represented as having been finished a month sooner, and the silver used in its construction as having been obtained by a poll-tax of half a shekel on occasion of the census being taken. In this there is nothing very puzzling; for it is evident that before the formal and exact census, in the course of which all the names were written down, there was a preliminary enumeration of the people, by which a close approximation was made to their number; and if the payment of the poll-tax did not take place earlier or was not superseded as unnecessary on account of the superabundance of voluntary offerings, which the people needed to be restrained from bringing, there could be no difficulty in finding those who would advance the money in the certainty of speedy repayment.

(c.) The other chronological difficulty, that such a multitude of events are crowded into the short space between the death of Aaron on the first day of the fifth month of the last year of the wandering and the delivery of the prophetic message in Deuteronomy on the first day of the eleventh month. A calm examination, however, will show that they are not so crowded as has been supposed. Yet no doubt there was a marvelous concentration of interest and hastening of the course of Providence during those six months of grace and power manifested on behalf of the young faithful generation of Israelites who were to enjoy the blessings of their redemption from the house of bondage and to take possession of the Land of Promise. In like manner our Lord hints that events may be crowded and carried forward with marvelous rapidity when the glory of the latter day is to be ushered in, and when he is to come again (Mat 24:22).

(d.) The difficulties connected with the extent to which the sacrifices and other Levitical institutions were set up and kept up ill the wilderness. But the very letter of the law many a time shows that these institutions were not meant to be set up till the people entered the Land of Promise; and at other times the intention is at least doubtful. The difficulties are unspeakably diminished When we take into account the sin of the people in refusing to go forward after the report of the unbelieving spies, and the semi-excommunication or suspension from Church privileges for the rest of the forty years under which in consequence they were laid (comp. Jos 5:4-9).

(e.) The blank in the narrative for the thirty-eight years during which that unbelieving generation were dying out; so that the suspicion has been expressed that this space of time is fabulous, and that either vastly less than forty years elapsed between the Exodus and the conquest of Ganaan, or else that the most of that period was spent, not in the desert properly so called, but on the eastern side of the Jordan, in a protracted struggle with the kingdoms of Sihon and Og. Without giving attention to this fancy, we confine ourselves to the blank of thirty-eight years in the history, which we regard without any of the surprise and suspicion which the critics have exhibited. Had the Pentateuch been an ordinary history, it might have had much to tell of these thirty-eight years, and of the manner in which the Israelites contrived to spend the time and to support themselves; but since it is a theocratic history, an account of the progress in the kingdom of God and in the manifestation of his way of mercy to his people, a blank occurs, because there was little or nothing to tell during these years of suspended privileges. Such periods of protracted silence occur also in the history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and remarkably in the four hundred and thirty years of the sojourn in Egypt. If we go beyond the Pentateuch, we believe that the same explanation is to be given of the silence in reference to the period after the end of Joshua’s administration, the long periods between those critical times in which the Lord raised up judges to save his people, the seventy years of captivity in Babylon, the eighty years or thereabouts between Zerubbabel and Ezra, and the four hundred years between the Old-Testament Scriptures and the New.

(f.) The assumed difficulties of supporting so large a multitude in the desert, and of their setting out so suddenly and moving so rapidly, the impossibility of their entire mass assembling at the Tabernacle-door (as is incorrectly alleged to be the meaning of numerous passages), and kindred arithmetical objections, we here pass over, as they have been repeatedly and amply refuted, and many of them are noticed elsewhere in this Cyclopaedia.

(3.) There is one striking fact lying on the face of the record-the only important fact, as we believe, to which advocates for the disintegration of the Pentateuch can point as seeming to favor their views of a plurality of authors; and that is the fact, above referred to, which Astruc noticed so clearly the use of two names for the Divine Being, ELOHIM and JEHOVAH, in the Authorized Version usually God and LORD. Astruc’s theory of composition was very coarse and mechanical, that there were two documents, known by the barbarous titles of the Elohistic and the Jehovistic documents respectively, by two writers who confined themselves each to one of these names; and that from these two narratives and ten documents of small comparative importance the book of Genesis was strung together by Moses. Enormous labor, great stores of learning, and unbridled fancy have altered Astruc’s theory over and over again, in order to elaborate some satisfactory hypothesis by which to account for the existence of our present Pentateuch; but no fact of essential importance has been added; and no proof has been furnished of the truth of his assumption that the use of these two names of God is due to the existence of two different authors. The only circumstance that can even appear to be a proof of this assumption is a text, of which, accordingly, abundant use has been made in this controversy (Exo 6:2-3):, And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.

The opinion is of some antiquity, though it first obtained prominence and currency through the labors of these critics, that according to this statement the very vocable Jehovah was unknown until the revelation made of it to Moses; and the older interpreters who held this opinion supposed further that, whenever the name Jehovah had been used in earlier passages, this was done merely by anticipation a supposition which may be unnecessary, yet which is by no means very strange or unnatural. But the explanation given for near a century by one class of writers is that this text comes from the pen of the Elohist, and expresses his belief; and that where the name occurs in earlier passages, these have not been written by him, but by another author, who did not notice or did not recognize this distinction in the divine names. This explanation, however unsupported by evidence, is at least perfectly intelligible, if we adopt the exploded hypothesis of independent historians, each with his own document, and perhaps each ignorant of the document composed by the other; but it raises some curious questions in relation to the final editor who could patch together such incongruous materials, questions all the more troublesome according to the fashionable hypothesis of supplementers. Bishop Colenso, indeed, like some others, speaks very candidly of the Jehovist writing as he did, without perceiving, or at least without FEELING VERY STRONGLY [his own capitals] the contradiction thereby imported into the narrative; of which procedure he gives two parallel instances in the Jehovistic additions the Elohistic accounts of the creation and of the flood. But in these two cases the contradiction has not been perceived to this hour by many who have examined the matter as carefully as they could (and this with the advantage of having the alleged discovery pointed out to them), and whose capacities for judging are as fair as those of their neighbors, and whose conviction it is that no contradiction exists except in the imagination of these critics; whereas, in the case of the habitual use of the name Jehovah, in the age of the patriarchs, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the assertion that this name was kept a secret till that age was over, the man who combined these two things in one narrative, without seeing the flat contradiction which he introduced into it, must have been destitute of reason and commonsense.

On other occasions these critics are ready enough to affirm that the later writer (or writers) suppressed and altered portions of the original document, in order the better to fit his own story into it; and they allege that his operation has been achieved so neatly that most people have never suspected it, nor can detect it for themselves even after the sagacity of the critics has discovered it and pointed it out. But in this particular instance these critics insist on so interpreting a text, which is especially prominent and important as giving the account of the revelation of this name Jehovah from God and its introduction into use among men, that it shall be a contradiction in terms to a multitude of passages which the editor or supplementer had indulged himself by inserting amid the comparatively brief original details. The truth is given in the common old interpretation of Exo 6:2-3, that not the syllables, but the signification of the name JEHOVAH SEE JEHOVAH (q.v.), as the independent, unchangeable fulfiller of his promises to the patriarchs, was revealed to Moses at the bush. It is true that these merely natural perfections would fail to inspire right feelings towards God, if they were to be contemplated as in a state of separation from moral perfections. But the two classes of attributes are inseparable in actual reality, and probably were never even conceived of by the, Hebrew mind as separable, if we judge from the line of argument in the closing chapters of Job. Certainly Exo 34:6-7 makes an express claim for the inclusion of moral perfection, as well as omnipotence and unchangeableness, in the signification of the name Jehovah Jehovah, Jehovah El, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation]. The concluding words of this proclamation of the name Jehovah, by him to whom it belongs, make the truth apparent that the name Jehovah could not come out in its full and true meaning except through many successive generations, and therefore could not be properly known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but became known to their descendants as they observed the unchanging course of his special providence towards Israel. Once more, it must never be forgotten that God Almighty and Jehovah are not names sharply opposed to one another, much less diametrically so, as is necessarily assumed in the interpretation of Exo 6:3 which we have been controverting; on the contrary, so far as it goes, God Almighty is identical with or included under Jehovah, giving the meaning of it incompletely, as the Almighty God, yet failing to bring into view that he is unchangeable besides. Nevertheless, it is only by its incompleteness that El Shaddai differs from Jehovah; there is no antagonism between them, there is a mere difference of degree.

The children of Israel were now to think of their God as Jehovah, almighty, and also unchangeable, as he was manifesting himself to be; whereas it was his almightiness alone of which their fathers had had experience. In the age of those patriarchs, therefore, and considering the imperfect view which they could have of him, so far from El Shaddai and Jehovah being opposing titles, they were practically one and the same; precisely as a cube appears to be merely a square when we take notice of its length and breadth, but cannot observe its thickness. To bring this out is to lay bare the real source of many critical misconceptions about the text which has been so greatly misused, and about the patriarchal history. Accordingly the identity of these two names in the patriarchal times is explicitly enough asserted in Gen 17:1, And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am El Shaddai, walk before me, and be thou perfect. The critics concede that this text belongs to the fundamental document, as they call it; and since it makes their interpretation of Exo 6:3 impossible, and in fact dashes to pieces their hypothesis of a distinction of writers according to the use of the one divine name or the other, they have been driven to make a purely conjectural alteration of the text, and to read Elohim instead of Jehovah. This is a desperate expedient, which involves the confession that the facts of the case are fatal to their hypotheses, and that the editor or supplementer must be supposed to have made an intentional change of the divine name, which they detect and correct, as they restore the original word Elohim. How desperate the resource is may be understood the better when we recollect that they make the Jehovist or the editor such a simpleton as to be unaware that Exo 6:3 pours contempt upon all his previous interpolations; and yet they imagine him so wary or cunning here as to strike out the original word Elohim in order to make the better piece of patchwork by substituting his favorite title Jehovah.

The text, as it stands, is conclusive evidence that in the days of Abraham El Shaddai was identical with Jehovah so far as the signification of this latter word had then been unfolded; that is, there was then no difference in the subjective apprehension of the meaning of the two names.: But the objective significance of Jehovah was always deeper and fuller; and at the time of the mission of Moses they came to be distinguished in the apprehension of the church, for the element of unchangeableness was seen to be involved in the name Jehovah. From the time of the worship of the golden calf, and of the gracious pardon granted to the people at the intercession of Moses, to whom a new revelation of the name and character of the covenant God was vouchsafed, the moral characteristics of the name Jehovah came out more prominently still, as in Exo 34:6-7, already quoted. Yet it is only in the times of the New Testament that its full .meaning has been unfolded (that is, as fully as it can be in this world), in connection with the person and work of him who is Jehovah Tsidkenu, the LORD our Righteousness; who said of himself, Before Abraham was, I am; and who in the epistle to the Hebrew Christians has this nane applied to him and explained of him, that he is Jehovah, who in the beginning laid the foundation of heaven and earth, and who shall continue the same when they shall be folded together like a garment, the Savior who has offered one sacrifice for sins forever, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and to-day and forever.

Undoubtedly, as we have intimated above, there are questions more easily asked than answered in relation to the use of these two names, Jehovah and Elohim, in the history previous to the time of Moses. Possibly those who uphold the common belief that Moses wrote the whole of it have passed over these difficulties too lightly, or have spoken too confidently of having fully explained them; if so, their fault has really been that they have attempted more than they were under any obligation to attempt. Elohim and Jehovah have their differences, yet vastly more numerous and important are their points of agreement; and it may be too much to assert that, whenever they were used, there was retained a consideration of their distinctive meanings. This much, however, we may affirm with perfect confidence-and in doing so we go beyond any requirement which can fairly be made by those who differ from us in this discussion to a considerable extent it is very easy to show in Genesis, as well as in the later books of Scripture, that these two divine names are employed with an intentional discrimination Elohim expressing more generally the Deity, and Jehovah expressing God in covenant with Israel, possessed of every perfection, and using it for the good of his people, as his character is manifested in their history. If so, the use of the one or the other name is no proof at all of a difference of authorship.

We may moreover assert that the hypothesis of the modern critics entirely breaks down as to this text (Exo 6:3), the solitary passage in which they can even profess to find countenance given to their views; and owing to the importance which they cannot but attach to it, we have examined it at considerable length, in order to show that it is in fact opposed to them as soon as it is rightly interpreted. Moreover, when they press this argument in favor of different writers in the Pentateuch, on account of the different names for the Divine Being, they will find that they need to account for a great deal more than the use of the two words Jehovah and Elohim. There is also El, which Knobel, commenting on this text, reckons an intermediate title; and there is the occasional use of Elohim with a plural verb, as to which Gesenius and others have coarsely suggested that it may be an indication of polytheism left in the syntax of the language; there is also the variation of the presence or the absence of the article with Ei’ohimn; and there is the use of another divine title, Adonai. He who reads the history of Balaam, and observes the use of the three names Elohim, El, and Jehovah, will find difficulty in believing that these are not intentionally varied by the same writer; as indeed the critics in general do not hesitate to ascribe the entire section to the Jehovist. He who notices how Jacob and Israel are used in the closing chapters of Genesis to denote the same individual will probably hesitate to assert that a difference of names for a person, be he man or God, ought to be accounted for by the difference of authorship. This has certainly been affirmed to some extent by Colenso; but his statement will perhaps not meet with more support from those who agree with him in his leading principles than his other statement that Jehovah was a name invented about the age of Samuel and David. We have already noticed that the interpretation of Exo 6:3, to which the critical school are committed, assumes that the word Jehovah was till then unknown; whereas there is varied evidence for its earlier existence. Vaihinger indeed makes the further concession that in the original document, as is confessed by almost all, the name Jehovah is employed by Jacob a few times (Gen 28:21; Gen 32:10; Gen 49:18). SEE GOD.

(4.) Yet the admission that the name Jehovah was not unknown before the age of Moses, and the consequent impossibility of making the different divine names a proof of diversity of authorship. and of drawing confirmation of this opinion from Exo 6:3, are not felt by the critical school at the present day to be so damaging as they would have been felt by their predecessors, or as they will generally be felt by those who take an impartial view of the arguments. For the tendency now is to rest more upon an alleged difference of style and thought, which is discovered by comparing the fundamental document uith the additions. This line of reasoning necessitates a considerable amount of acquaintance with the language, and also of patient drudgery, even to understand its meaning, and to estimate its value, however roughly; it is therefore impossible to discuss it within our limits here. We have no hesitation, however, in expressing our opinion that it is excessively wearisome in the process, and so vague in the results that these are likely to be estimated very much in conformity with the previous inclinations of the investigator. One of the so- called critical commentaries may present long lists of words peculiar to the different authors; but the imposing array of evidence is collected by a vicious reasoning in a circle. The existence of different authors is inferred from the existence of different sets of words and phrases; but in order to arrive at the grouping of these words and phrases into different sets, the continuous narrative needs to be cut up in the most minute and fantastic manner among different authors. It is a mere assumption, and antecedently improbable in a high degree, that a chapter in Genesis or Exodus is a patchwork of authorship such as modern criticism pronounces it to be; but if we are to believe this on the evidence of the differences in the language and composition of the different parts, we need something more than the assertions of the critics to make us believe that these parts really are different; for all the time they appear to uninitiated readers to be one consecutive and homogeneous piece of writing. It is impossible for the critics to establish any clear usus loquendi without tearing the book often into shreds, and pronouncing passages, and single verses, and clauses of verses, and individual words to be interpolations or alterations; a process which insures its own condemnation. In fact, if there were no other difficulty, he who has attempted the humble task of following the statements of the critics on the subject must have been often brought to a stand-still by their disagreement as to the several writers to whom their respective gifts of sagacity lead them to ascribe the individual passages. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence of diversity of language in passages which they are pretty well agreed in ascribing to the same author, as well as of remarkable similarity of language in writings which they generally attribute to different authors.

In this argument from style in general, as in the previous one from the use of the divine names in particular, we have no object to gain by pressing our reply to the uttermost, and, as some might think, unduly. We might grant that there are traces of a difference of style, and yet deny that this fact is any evidence whatever of difference of authorship; and we should be supported in our denial by the common experience and opinion of men respecting parallel cases in literature, where no theological bias comes in to warp their judgment. The language of Deuteronomy furnishes by far the best case for the critics, although in it (as above detailed) we see many traces of the author of the rest of the Pentateuch; but there are certain peculiarities which we have no difficulty ill attributing to the oratorical character of the book. If anything of the same kind call be established as to certain classes of passages in the first four books, in their genealogical and legislative portions respectively, or in passages involving prophetic announcements, etc., no allegation is simpler or fairer than that the style is intentionally varied with the change of subject; in fact, many of the words paraded in lists of differences of style are naturally or even unavoidably connected with the subjects treated in only a few places. If there were evidence from some other quarter that these passages proceeded from certain different authors, modern criticism could then make use of the peculiar language with propriety in confirmation of its disintegrating hypotheses; but to do so at present is to indulge in the vicious reasoning in a circle of which we have already spoken, or to fall into another great logical vice, by begging the question, in affirming that difference of subject- matter is evidence of difference of authorship. In short, we call admit the existence of differences of style and language only within limits so narrow that they appear as nothing in comparison with the exaggerated estimate that is often given of them. In so far as comparatively trifling differences do exist, while we are ready to suggest reasons in the subject-matter (or even in external circumstances as the use of Sinai or Horeb) which may often explain them, we feel and acknowledge no incumbent duty to do so. For we hold it to be the indefeasible right of every author to change his style and language under the influence of motives which may be inappreciable to his readers; and we hold that this right is exercised by every author in proportion to the strength and freshness of his own individual mind, or of the mind of the age and nation to which he belongs, the variety and compass of the work with which he is engaged, the wealth of the language which he uses, or the culture he has received, and the demand of the human spirit that occasionally changes shall occur, for no other reason than to give it rest from the monotony of a mechanical uniformity.

Before leaving the consideration of this argument, it may be right to notice how it combines in itself so many great fallacies; for it involves also a mistake as to the point which is to be proved. The critics profess to prove that Moses is not the writer of the Pentateuch; and, on their own showing, the evidence of this fact is that there are in it traces of different authors. But this is nothing to the purpose, unless they also prove that these authors were subsequent to the time of Moses. So learned and cautious and orthodox a theologian as Vitringa long ago gave expression to the opinion that Moses may probably have made use of written documents prepared by the patriarchs and safely handed down among the Israelites, till he arose to collect and arrange and supplement them; but if we shrink from asserting that written instruction was given to the patriarchal Church, we must all the more exalt the strength and value of primeval tradition-tradition upon the very subjects which are handled in the book of Genesis. There is, then, no difficulty whatever in maintaining that, before the time of Moses, there existed a body of instruction as to the dealings of God with men, which was known and preserved ill the family that had been called to the knowledge of his grace; and the language of that instruction must have assumed a certain fixity of form, whether we affirm or deny that it was written out and laid up in the repositories of the patriarchs. When Moses began to write the Pentateuch, there was already, therefore, a religious and historical phraseology. Grant everything that the critics imagine they have established, and their original document might be nothing more than the pre-Mosaic writing or tradition; while the editor or supplementer might be Moses himself: or if there be traces of several hands and several styles, nevertheless, as Astruc himself believed, these may be no more than traces of the different (but not contradictory or untrustworthy) rills of patriarchal tradition, which he was guided to collect into one channel, and send down to posterity in the clear, continuous, consistent stream of the narrative in Genesis. The influence of these varieties of style might tell upon him still as he continued his labors in the composition of the other books. This is all a supposition; but it is a supposition vastly more modest and credible than that of the modern disintegrating criticism; and it admits everything which that criticism can even profess to have established by the most microscopic study of the language, and the most merciless vivisection of the subject of its experiments.

(5.) An objection to the unity of the authorship has been drawn from the repetitions which occur in the book; for it is said that these are a sure mark of at least two authors, whose accounts have been thrown into one. This objection presented a more formidable aspect as long as the hypothesis was in favor according to which there were two independent and continuous histories, the Elohistic and the Jehovistic, afterwards combined: the occurrence of double narratives gives an air of plausibility to this supposition. But as soon as we recollect that this hypothesis has been generally abandoned for another, according to which there is only one original continuous history, subsequently interpolated, the objection loses any prima facie verisimilitude that it ever possessed: for why should an editor burden and disfigure the clear narrative as it lay before him, by interpolating accounts which had the look of repetitions, unless the events did really occur a second time? The attempt to assign one of these double accounts to the Elohist and the other to the Jehovist breaks down from time to time by the confession of the critics themselves. Here we introduce a remark in explanation of one or two passages in which a repeated account is given of the same event: this repetition in fill, instead of a mere reference which we might prefer to make, is of a piece with the simple and uninvolved style of thought which characterizes the very structure of the Hebrew language. In cases where our Western languages would express a complex proposition by a compound sentence, in which the subordinate members are introduced and kept in their true pilce by means of relative pronouns and conjunctions, the Hebrew uses simple sentences, and unites his statements by his favorite conjunction and, to which translators assign a great variety of meanings, according to the exigencies of the moment. By this method, however, his gain in simplicity is counterbalanced by a loss of terseness; since he has often to repeat at length what might have been noticed only incidentally and by an allusion. This mode of dealing with sentences is extended to paragraphs, and has given rise to the occurrence of titles prefixed to sections, and of repeated statements, which misled the earlier disintegrating critics into the belief that here they had evidence of fragments which were afterwards brought together with little care or judgment; whereas their successors have thrown aside the hypothesis of fragments, having become more wary by experience. The clearest case of such repetition is the Elohistic account of creation (Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3), and the Jehovistic account (Gen 2:4-25). But it is surely plain enough that the second is an incomplete account, implying that the general comprehensive narrative had gone before; and throwing in additional information of a particular kind in reference to the creation of man, the creature formed in God’s image and placed under his moral government, as briefly stated in the first chapter, but now stated more fully in this introduction to the history of redemption, which throws the account of the creation of other beings more into the background.

Besides, it is an entirely erroneous philosophy which prompts men to find fault with the unity or truthfulness of a history because it contains narratives bearing a resemblance to one another. Such repetitions (if this be the correct designation of these narratives) are recorded in all histories of individuals and communities; indeed otherwise experience would not be the great means of disciplining and training mankind. To take no wider range, instances of such repetition, certainly not less remarkable than anything in the books of Moses, occur in other parts of the Bible, including the life of our Lord; and they cannot be escaped, unless by a universally destructive criticism.

Occasionally the charge is put differently in this way: instead of the allegation that there are two varying reports of one transaction, which have been erroneously understood of two different events, it is alleged that two accounts occur of what is confessedly the same matter, and that these accounts are varying or even contradictory; and the explanation given of these alleged contradictions is that they proceed from two different authors. The instances are obtained sometimes by comparing the first four books of Moses among themselves, and sometimes by comparing them with Deuteronomy.

(a.) Those of the former class, contradictions within the compass of the first four books, are of little importance, and demand no lengthened consideration in this condensed statement. Such are the two accounts of creation, to which we have had occasion to refer as illustrating the different aspects of a narrative according as logical connection or the chronological principle of arrangement predominates; the names of Esau’s wives. SEE AHOLIBAMAH.

A favorite instance is the account in Exo 33:7-11 of the tabernacle of the congregation which Moses was to pitch without the camp, afar off from the camp, whereas the ordinary accounts place the tabernacle inside the camp, at its very center. But there really is no serious difficulty in the way of accepting the common explanation that this was a preliminary tabernacle, used till the regular tabernacle was constructed, and placed outside the camp at the time when the people were saved by the special intercession of Moses, when on the point of being destroyed for the sin of the golden calf: an opinion which has been slightly modified by those who think it was the private tent of Moses which received this honor at the time when he had declined the Lord’s offer to make of him a great nation n the ruin of apostate Israel. Yet the simplest view would be to Exo 33:5-11 as one speech of the Lord to Moses, the whole being in the Hebrew in the future or unfinished tense; except Exo 33:6 parenthetically relates, in the perfect tense, how the people humbled themselves according to the opening part of the Lord’s directions, whereas the rest of these directions may never have been carried out after the intercession of Moses was completed.

(b.) Passing to the other class of alleged contradictions, in which the four earlier books are placed on the one side and Deuteronomy on the other, as if it belonged to a later age than the latest of them, and betrayed certain differences of belief and sentiment, it deserves to be noticed that a great deal used to be said of the historical contradictions; whereas the wisest of the destructive critics now concede that nothing can be made of these, especially when the oratorical nature of Deuteronomy is considered, and weight is assigned to the form which narratives would assume in a discourse whose object was exhortation. The only cases which require consideration are those in which the laws as laid down in Deuteronomy are said to be different from some in the three preceding books. We admit willingly that there are modifications, within certain comparatively narrow limits, and easily enough explained by recollecting that forty years elapsed between the covenanting in Horeb and that in the land of Moab (Deu 29:1 [28:69 in Hebrew]); the latter also taking into consideration the new circumstances of the people when they should be settled in their own land. The chief instance of this is the permission to the people to eat flesh anywhere throughout the land of Canaan, if only they took care to pour out the blood upon the earth (Deu 12:15-16; Deu 12:20-25), for the previous law upon the subject in Leviticus 17 became physically impracticable as soon as the people ceased to live together in the camp. In connection with this there is the account of the priests’ share of the sacrifices (Deu 18:3), which differs from the account in Leviticus and Numbers of the parts of sacrifices which were assigned to the priests. But this statement of the priests’ dues from the people, is in addition to the offerings of the Lord made by fire, which have already been mentioned Deu 18:1; it is a plausible conjecture that these additional dues were assigned to them on purpose to indemnify them for losses sustained by the repeal of the law in Leviticus 17, and in fact there seems to be a reference to this particular statute in Deuteronomy in the account of the evil conduct of Eli’s sons in 1Sa 2:13-16.

There is also another class of cases in which the alleged contradiction is probably the result of our ignorance, and can be at least hypothetically met and removed. A good example of this is the difficulty alleged to exist in Deu 15:19-20, as if it gave to the people at large the right to eat the firstlings of their flocks and herds in holy feasts, whereas the earlier legislation had given these firstlings to the priests (Num 18:15-18); for it is plain that the author of Deuteronomy did not contemplate any contradiction of the divine lot in this arrangement, to which he had made repeated allusion already (Deu 12:6; Deu 12:17; Deu 14:22-23). But, in point of fact, nothing is simpler than to understand the law in Deuteronomy as addressed to the collective Israelites as if they were a single individual, in thou shalt sanctify . . thou shalt eat, etc., leaving the priests and the rest of the people to adjust their respective duties and privileges by the well-known directions of the law in Numbers; and along with this to remember that the earlier law naturally suggests that the priests should make a sacred feast of the first-born animals given to them, at which feast none could more reasonably be expected to be guests than the persons to whom these animals had belonged.

The most important allegation of contradiction between the legislation in the middle books and that in Deuteronomy has reference to the three great orders in the theocracy the prophetic, the priestly, and the kingly. The first and last must be passed over almost in silence. It is enough to say that the law of the kingdom in Deuteronomy 17 need not surprise any one who observes that the king is represented as the mere viceroy of Jehovah, himself the true and everlasting King of Israel, according to Exo 15:18; Num 23:21; and who recollects the promises that kings should spring from the loins of the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob (Gen 17:16; Gen 35:11), and along with this the notice that kings had not yet arisen in Israel although they did exist in Edom (Gen 36:31). But certain passages, already considered in so far as they refer to the privileges of the priests, are brought into connection with others in such a way as to suggest the inference that a vast revolution had taken place in the position of the priests and Levites before the time when the author of Deuteronomy published his work, in which his object was to prop up the tottering institutions of his country.

The two orders of priests and Levites had come to be confused, the Levites having been all admitted to priestly functions; and the tithes having been seldom paid, they had sunk into poverty, and the scheme of this writer was to compound the matter by securing to them a certain share in these tithes, which were henceforth to be spent in religious feasts at the Temple, where the Levites should have a place along with the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. This representation must be characterized as a mass of unsupported suppositions. That the Levites might often be poor is probable enough, but there is no appearance of general starvation, such as would have been their condition if their chief support had been this share in the sacred feasts. There is no need to puzzle ourselves about the tithe which was spent at these feasts (Deu 12:6-7; Deu 12:11; Deu 12:17-19, and especially Deu 14:22-29 and Deu 26:12-15), which plainly was quite distinct from the other tithe given to the tribe of Levi as a compensation for having no share in the territorial allotment of Canaan (Num 18:20; Num 18:32). This is rightly expressed in the apocryphal book of Tobit (Tob 1:6-7), though in the original it is still more distinct than in our A.V.: But I alone went often to Jerusalem at the feasts, as it was ordained to all the people of Israel by an everlasting decree, having the first-fruits and tenths of increase, with that which was first shorn; and them gave I at the altar to the priests the children of Aaron. The first tenth part of all increase I gave to the sons of Aaron, who ministered at Jerusalem; another tenth part I sold away, and went and spent it every year at Jerusalem. This hypothesis of a radical change in the position of the priests and Levites, at that late age to which the composition of Deuteronomy is assigned, has been supposed to be supported by two expressions the priests the Levites (Deu 18:1), or the priests the sons of Levi (Deu 21:5), as if it established the conclusion that all the Levites were represented in this book as performing priestly functions. But; the priests the Levites would be a proof of this only if it meant the priestly Levites, which it does not; its only fair interpretation is the Levitical priests. Yet it is true that the offices of the Levites and of the priests did come very close to one another, the ministry of the altar being the sole exclusive prerogative of the latter.

Hence it is no wonder that in Deuteronomy, which is, comparatively speaking, the people’s book of the law, it is the points of agreement which are noted rather than the points of difference; especially since none of the regulations as to sacrifices are given anywhere in the book. The close connection of the priests and the rest of the Levites is taken for granted throughout the whole law, as in the first dedication of the entire tribe, on occasion of the worship of the golden calf (Exo 32:25-29), and this representation of them in united privileges or duties continues through the book of Joshua (in which the critics are forced to imagine absurdly that the same confusion of the two orders appears, see Jos 3:3) down to the arguments in Mal 2:1-9 and in Hebrews 7. Where, as in the earlier books of the law the sons of Aaron are mentioned very naturally, while he was living and they were literally his sons; after his death, and as a new generation of priests was growing up, it was equally natural to alter the expression into in the priests the sons of Levi, or the Levitical priests. This name was peculiarly appropriate after the revolt of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram: it reminded the Levites of their high honor as God’s servants, although the service of the altar was restricted to a single family among them (see Num 16:7-10; Num 17:3; Hebrews]); and it summoned the whole congregation of Israel to give honor in spiritual things to this tribe which had so few political advantages, and whose fortunes had undergone a marvelous revolution since the time when Jacob pronounced a curse upon them. SEE LEVI and SEE LEVITE.

(6.) It is alleged that in the Pentateuch there are distinct traces of any age later than that of Moses; and certainly, if this can be established, it follows either that Moses did not write the book, or else that it has been interpolated.

(a.) There are certain geographical names, particularly Bethel and Hebron, which are supposed not to have been in use till the Israelites took possession of the land, and so displaced the ancient names Luz and Kirjatharba. But there is no real difficulty in such cases, nor in another, for which SEE HORMAH. The only truly difficult case is that of Dan (Gen 14:14, comp. Jdg 18:29). Even of this several plausible solutions can be offered, and there is another mode of dealing with it to which we have adverted. SEE DAN.

(b.) There are sentences which are said to bear evidence that they were not written by Moses. There are but one or two of these that lend much plausibility to this argument; and deferring what may be said of them, if this be true, till we revert to the case of Dan just noticed, we reply at present that we see no serious difficulty in the way of attributing them to the pen of Moses. It is written (Exo 16:35), And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited: they did eat manna until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan. There is no reason why Moses should not have written all this, except on the unwarrantable and erroneous assumption that we make the middle books of the Pentateuch a kind of journal written at the time when each event occurred, and not even remodeled before the work was finished. Just as little do we see difficulty in attributing to Moses himself the observation (Num 12:3), Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth. It is no more a difficulty than that David should plead his righteousness and integrity as he often does; or Paul speak of his not being a whit behind the very chiefest apostles, and of his laboring more abundantly than all of them; or that John should habitually name himself the disciple whom Jesus loved, or the beloved disciple. Such language is due to the fact that the holy men of old, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, thought so little of themselves when they were writing, that they were equally ready to tell the defects of their own character and the graces bestowed on them by God, when it was fitting that such a statement should be made. In this particular case there was such a fitness, as well to show plainly how unreasonable the conduct of the brother and sister of Moses was, as to give point to the statement that Jehovah himself suddenly interposed to vindicate his faithful and honored servant, who might probably never have spoken in his own vindication.

(c.) A phrase has been thought to betray a more recent date than the age of Moses, when something is said to have occurred the results of which continue unto this day. But this is a phrase which by no means necessarily indicates any great length of time; which indicates occasionally a pretty short time, so far as we can infer from the probabilities of the case; and which sometimes must be understood of a short time, as in Jos 6:25 (for it is frequent in Joshua as well as in the Pentateuch, and the same inference has been drawn in regard to both these books), And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day. In fairness we mention one passage which may occasion serious difficulty to some minds, and we know of no other; it is Deu 3:14 : Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi, and called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this day. Yet even in this case, referring to an interval of no more than a few months, we ought to recollect how difficult it is to change the name of an entire district; if Jair succeeded in this at first, securing for the first six months both his position in the land and his new name for it by way of a memorial of himself, there was less risk of the name being subsequently lost. In general, as well as in reference to this particular case, we ought to take into account the marvelous revolution religious, social, and political which was involved in the transition occurring at the end of the life and administration of Moses, from the patriarchal period of wandering to that of Israel settled in the Land of Promise; and though a few months might be all that separated two events in point of time, yet within that little period were compressed transactions more remarkable and important than are often witnessed in whole ages of common history. At such a turning- point in the history of the Church and people of Israel, it does not surprise us that Moses should use the expression that events occurred and changes were ushered in which continued unto this day.

(d.) The quotation from the book of the wars of the Lord (Num 21:14-15), and others apparently of a similar kind in the same chapter, are thought to be incredible in a contemporary history, though natural enough in a writing of a later age, when these snatches of song might become valuable as the testimony of eye-witnesses. But there is no evidence of the assumption that it was the historian’s object to secure corroboration of his statements. While there is no obligation lying on us to assign the reason why these snatches of hymns appear where they do, the supposition is natural enough that Moses incorporated them in his history as specimens of the new spiritual life which had been wakened in the young generation of Israelites, and as evidences that God had indeed visited them with his grace, and was fitting them to take up the mission which had fallen from the unworthy hands of those who, in Exodus 15, sang his praise, but soon forgat his works (Psa 106:12-13; comp. the anticipations, Exo 15:14-16, with the fulfillments, Num 21:21-35; Num 22:2-4, etc.).

(e.) It is scarcely worth while to dwell upon certain incidental expressions which have been said to betray the hand of a later writer. Such are, that the Canaanite was then () in the land (Gen 12:6; comp. 13:7); and Joseph’s words, I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews (Gen 40:15). We select one case on account of its seeming greater strength. In Lev 18:28 the Israelites are warned to avoid the practices by which the land of Canaan had already been polluted, that the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you; from which it is inferred that this was not written till after the Canaanites had been exterminated. But in truth the Hebrew language is very poorly furnished with tenses. Had this speech been in Latin, and had the future perfect been used that the land may not spue you out, in your defiling it, as it shall have spued out the nations that were before you a translation of it into Hebrew could not have been better expressed than in the present words of the Hebrew Bible. This really future meaning we take to be the meaning of the passage. Yet if the literal past time is insisted on by any one, there are two explanations, either of which is easy enough: either the sentence received its present form of expression as Moses revised his work, after the people of Sihon and Og had been destroyed; or else the very repulsiveness of the metaphorical language was meant to teach that the strength of the Canaanites was only apparent, that the land had already vomited them forth, and that they lay upon its surface as a loathsome incumbrance which must now be removed by Israel.

(7.) Scientific Objections. Many who are able to explain to their satisfaction most of the above difficulties, are still troubled by others of a different class resting on alleged contradictions between the language of the Mosaic books and the facts of science. For instance, the Adamic creation is declared to contradict the conclusions of geology, inasmuch as the period required for bringing the crust of the earth into its existing condition must have included countless centuries, and not a brief period of six days. In the same way it is first argued that the scriptural narrative involves a universal deluge, and then, this meaning being assumed, that such a deluge, with all its accompanying circumstances, as recorded in Genesis, cannot have taken place without a miracle wholly stupendous. A third objection is grounded on the chronology of the Bible, and on the asserted fact that the duration of man upon the earth has extended to a period at least exceeding four or five times the 6000 years allotted to him in the Pentateuch. A fourth objection is directed against the descent of all mankind from a single pair, and their primary migrations as recorded by Moses. It assumes that the physical peculiarities distinguishing the various races of the world are the results of a difference in species, not of a variety caused by the influence of climatic, physical, and social circumstances. There are many other minor objections of a more frivolous character, such as that which insists on fixing upon the word firmament, in Gen 1:6, the sense of a permanent solid vault, and then pointing out the opposition in which such an idea stands to astronomical science; or such as the objection against the language of Joshua (Jos 10:12), which is sufficiently answered by reference to the language of any modern almanac, and by the observation that if the ancient Scriptures had been written in the terminology of science, they would have been simply unintelligible to the generation to which they were first given. But these captious difficulties are of little weight compared to the four objections mentioned above, all of which touch questions of the gravest importance. In addition to those general elements of error which We shall proceed to point out as belonging in common to all the modern objections urged against the Pentateuch, there are some considerations bearing specially upon this scientific class of difficulties to which it is necessary briefly to call attention.

(a.) In regard to theories of the creation and the deluge, it is necessary to distinguish with the utmost possible precision between the language of Scripture and any private interpretations of it. When the question is propounded whether the six days of the Adamic creation were literal days of one revolution of the globe, or were successive periods of time; when it is asked whether the deluge was partial or universal, the particular opinion which each man may form must not be fastened on the scriptural language, as if it were its necessary and only admissible interpretation. It must be acknowledged that opinions on either side are equally consistent with a devout acceptance of the inspired Word. Experience teaches the necessity of this caution; for the lessons of geology have compelled us to separate between the creation and the beginning of Gen 1:1, and the Adamic creation of the later verses, and to allow the existence of untold periods between them. Now that we are accustomed to this, we find that the change of interpretation has not put any dishonor on the text, and we must feel that what has happened in regard to one verse may happen in regard to others. Modern science has undoubtedly proved the pre-existence of immense geological periods; but we are quite able to reconcile them with the scriptural narrative. SEE CREATION.

(b.) The same observation applies to the question of the deluge, and however these questions may be finally solved, the apologist for the Pentateuch must stand by the text of Scripture, and, whether he believes in a partial deluge or a universal deluge, must not confuse the infallible text with his own fallible interpretation of it. SEE DELUGE.

(c.) Lastly, the state of the controversy relative to the antiquity of man and the origin of races illustrates with peculiar force the crude and incomplete state of all scientific investigation on these subjects, and the consequent rashness of all conclusions drawn from them unfavorable to the authority of the Pentateuch. For the rationalistic attack is urged from two contrary directions, and is supported by arguments directly contradictory to each other. On the one side we are told that the distinctive physical peculiarities of different human races are so deep, so irremovable, that they must be considered to indicate diversity of species, and not simply varieties of one species; that no climatic and social influences call explain them; that consequently the races of men must have been created distinct, and the scriptural narrative which asserts the common descent of all mankind must be unworthy of credit. SEE PREADAMITES.

On the other side, the very fact of an intelligent creation is called into question, on the ground that there are in the world no distinctions of fixed species, but only variations so mutable that all existing differences are the mere result of natural causes. The inevitable conclusion from such premises is that all forms of life whatever are self-developed out of one common primal form, and the idea of creation becomes superfluous, for the original monad can scarcely be considered as less self-developed than all the forms which have sprung from it. That such is the natural tendency of Mr. Darwin’s theory of the origin of species we have a most impartial witness. This theory, when fully enunciated, founds the pedigree of living nature upon the most elementary form of vitalized matter. One step farther would carry us back, without greater violence to probability, to inorganic rudiments, and then we should be called upon to recognize in ourselves, and in the exquisite elaborations of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, the ultimate results of mere material forces, left free to follow their own unaided tendencies (Sir W. Armstrong at the British Association at Newcastle, 1863). On the one side we are called to believe in the evidence of fixed species; and on the other side to believe in their non-existence. We are asked to believe that all living beings whatever, including man himself, have descended from original monads, and at the same time to believe that the races of mankind cannot have descended from a common parentage. The two arguments are totally irreconcilable and till something like congruity can be introduced into our scientific theories, it is premature even to suggest their possible contradiction to the inspired authority of the Pentateuch. SEE SPECIES, ORIGIN OF.

(8.) Alleged Moral Incongruities in the Pentateuch. This class of objections is so indefinite in its nature as to make explanation and refutation, in the brief space of an article, equally difficult. They are all founded on the sufficiency of the human consciousness to pass a verdict on the propriety or impropriety of certain acts ascribed to God in the Pentateuch. The form they take is, however, more subtle than this. Certain acts imputed to God are contrary to the ideal which the human mind frames of the Deity; therefore it is argued that God cannot have done them, and consequently the books which attribute them to him cannot declare the truth, cannot be divinely inspired. The ideal God in the human consciousness is made the standard whereby revelation is measured. For instance, it is argued that the destruction of the Canaanitish nations by the sword of Israel under express command was a cruel deed, at which the human mind revolts, and which it is impossible to believe that God could have done. Objections of the same kind are urged against the Mosaic law, both against its positive enactments, as in the case of slavery, and against the minute and apparently trivial character of many of its details; and then, in support of these allegations, a contrast is drawn between the spirit of the Mosaic code and the spirit of the Gospels and epistles. It will be enough for the present purpose to reply that these objections rest almost entirely, and derive any force they may appear to have, from a misapprehension of the facts of the case, and an erroneous estimate of the Mosaic code on the one side, and of the Christian dispensation upon the other. A candid examination of the whole narrative shows that the destruction of the Canaanitish nations was purely a judicial act, wherein God was the judge and the people of Israel the authorized and divinely appointed executioners. It will be found that the utmost care was taken to present the whole transaction in this specific aspect, and that this act of judicial severity stood in the sharpest possible contrast to the general tenor of the Mosaic law, which was tolerant, gentle, and singularly beneficent both in spirit and in. its positive provisions. Looking at the Pentateuch, we find in it the same law of love which we find in the Gospels; and looking at the Gospel, we find in God the same attribute of punitive justice which stands conspicuous in the law. The argument may be carried farther, for the analogy between God’s character and dealings in providence and his dealings in grace, as contained in the book of revelation, is close and exact in the highest degree. On this whole question Bp. Butler’s immortal Analogy may safely be referred to. SEE CANAANITE.

Into the details of these various objections critical, historical, scientific, and moral this article will not farther enter, partly from considerations of space, partly because many of them will be found treated in other articles of this Cyclopaedia. The student is referred, for their more formal refutation, to the almost voluminous literature which the controversy of the last few years has called into existence. With reference to the special form they have assumed in the Critical Examination of the Pentateuch, by Dr. Colenso, bishop of Natal, every information will be found in recent publications. The general questions of scholarship will be found ably handled in the Examination of Dr. Colenso’s work, issued by the late lamented Dr. M’Caul. Reference may also be usefully made to Colenso’s Defections Examined (Lond. 1863), by Dr. Benisch, a Jewish doctor. For the numerical calculations, the student should refer to the Exodus of Israel (Lond. 1863), by Rev. P. R. Birks, in which the are submitted to a searching examination. For questions of topography, a smaller work, entitled The Pentateuch and the Gospel (Lond. 1865), by Prof. Porter, of Belfast, the well-known author of Five Years in Damascus, Murray’s Hand-book of Syria, etc., will be found full of valuable information.

V. Literature. Some of this has been cited above; and much of the remainder is contained in general introductions or commentaries on the whole of the O.T., or on the several books of Moses. We mention here only the critical and exegetical works on the whole Pentateuch separately. De Bafiolas, (Mantua, 1476-80, fol., and later); Aben-Ezra, (Naples, 1488, fol., and often later in various formns and combinations); Fostat R. C.], Commentanus [includ. other books] (Hisp. 1491, etc., 4to); Sal. Jizchaki (Rashi), (Salonica, 1515, fol., and very often since [last ed. Berlin, 1867]; in Latin, by Breithaupt, Gotha, 1713, 4to; in German, by Haymann, Bonn, 1833, 8vo; by Dukes, Prague, 1838, 8vo); Bechor-Schor, (Constant. 1520, fol.); Aboab, (ibid. 1525, 4to; Ven. 1548; Cracow, 1587; Wilmend. 1713, fol.); D’Illescas, (Constant. 1540, 4to, and since); Achai, (ed. Chaffi, Ven. 1546; ed. Berlin, Dyckerfurt, 1786, fol.); Jehudah ben-Isaac, (ed. Jechiel ben-Jekuthiel, Venice, 1547, 4to); Oleaster [R. C.], Commentarius (Olyssop. 1556, etc., fol.); Elijah of Mantua, (Cremona, 1557, 8vo); Bresch, (ibid. 1560, fol., and later); Ferus [R. C.], Enarrationes (Colon. 1572-4, 2 vols. 8vo); Abrabanel, (Ven. 1579, 1604, fol.; ed. Van Bashuysen, Hanau, 1710, fol.; also Amst. 1768-71, 4 vols. 4to); Arvivo, (Salonica, 1583, fol.); Galesinus [R. C.], Commentarius (Romans 1587, 4to); Alscheich, (Constant. 159-, fol., and often later); Chytraeus, Narrationes (Vitemb. 1590, fol.; also in Opp. i); Capponus [R. C.], Commentarius (Ven. 1590, fol.); Junius, Explicationes (L. B. 1594, 1602; Genev. 1609, 5 vols. 4to); Marbach, Hypomnemata (Argent. 1597, 2 vols. 4to); Pelargus, Comnmentaria (Lips. 1598-1609, 5 vols. 4to); Aretius,-Commentarii (Bern 1602 8vo); Mos. Albelda, (Ven. 1603, fol.); Abigdors, (Cracow, 1604, 4to); Heerbrand, Commentarius (Tubing. 1609, fol.); Ainsworth, Annotations [includ. Psalm and Cant.] (Lond. 1612-23, 6 vols. 4to, and later; also in Dutch, Leoward. 1690, fol.); Leyser, (Venice, 1614; Frankfort-on-the- Main, 1707, fol.); Schick, (Prague, 1615, 4to); A Lapide, In Pentateuchum (Antw. 1616, 4to); Drusius, Commentarius [on difficult passages] (Franeck. 1617, 4to); Marius [R. C.], Comnmentarius (Colon. 1621, fol.); Bonfrere [R. C.], Commentarius (Antw. 1625, fol.); Cromm [R. C.], Illustrationes (Lovan. 1629, 1630, 2 vols. 4to); Alstedt, Adnotationes (Herb. 1631, 1640, 8vo); Jansenius [R. C.], Commentarius (Lovan. 1639, 1641, 1644; Par. 1649, 1661, 4to); Heilpron, (Loblin, 1639, fol.); Polno, (ibid. 1642, 4to); Walther, Spongia Mosaica (Norib. 1642, 4to); Novarinus [R. C.], Notce (Veron. 1646, 2 vols. fol.); Amato, (Venice, 1657, fol.); Varenius, Decades (Rost. 1659-75, 4 vols. 4to); Cregut, Revelator Arcanorum (Genev. 1666, 4to); Osiander, Commentarius (Tubing. 1676-8, 5 vols. fol.); Aboab [Israelite], Parafrasis (Amst. 1681, fol.); Ising, Exrercitationes (Regroin. 1683, 4to); Von der Hardt, Ephemerides Philologicce (Helmst. 1693, 8vo; 1696, 4to); Kidder, Commentary (Lond. 1694, 4to); Loria, (Herbon, 1694, 8vo); Calvoer, Gloria Mosis (Gosl. 1696, 4to); Sterring, Animadversiones (Leovard. 1696; L. B. 1721, 4to); Athar, (Venice, 17-, 4to, and often); Dupin, Notce (Par. 1702, 2 vols. 8vo); Frassen [R. C.], Disquisitiones (ibid. 1705, 4to); Meir (Rashbam), (Berl. 1705, 2 vols. 4to; Amst. 1760, 2 vols. 4to); Gensburg, (Hamb. 3708, fol.); Tomaschov, (Venice, 1710, fol.); Chefez, (ibid. 1710, fol.); Engelschall, Betracht. aus d.f. B. Mosis (Dresd. 1712, 2 vols. 8vo); Helvig [R. C.], Qucestiones (Colossians 1713, fol.); Marck, Analysis Exegetica (L. B. 1713, 4to); Zarfati, (Amst. 1718, fol.); Bender, Auslegung (F. ad M. 1721, 4to); Israel ben-Isaac, (ed. Brod, Offenb. 1722, 8vo; ed. Spetz, ibid. 1802, 4to); Landsberger, (Offenb. 1724, 4to); Abulefia, (Smyrna, 1726, fol.) also (ibid. 1731, 4to); A. Cattenburgh [R. C.], Syntagma (Amst. 1737, 4to); Jameson, E: position (Lond. 1748, fol.); Ostrob, (Zolk.. 1749, fol.); Alexander-Susskind, (ibid. 1757, fol.); Tismenitz, (Fr. ad 0. 1760, 4to); Jacob ben-Pesach, (Fiirth, 1765, 4to); Robertson, Clavis (Edinb. 1770, 8vo); Bate, Notes [includ. other books] (Lond. 1773, 4to); Moldenhauer, Commentarius (Quedlinb. 1774-5, 2 vols. 4to); Nacho mani, (Mantua, 1778, fol.); Mendelssohn, Auslegung (Berl. 1780-3, 5 vols. 8vo); Dathe, Note (Hal, 1781, 1792, 8vo); Jehudah ben-Eliezer, , also Nicola, (ed. Nunez- Vaez, Leghorn, 1783, fol.); Di Trani, (ed. Asulai, Leghorn, 1792, fol.); Marsh, Authenticity of Pentateuch (Lond. 1792, 8vo); Gaab, Erklar. (Tub. 1796, 8vo); Wittmann, Annotationes (Regensb. 1796, 8vo); Jones, Authenticity of Pentateuch (Lond. 1797, 8vo); Zebi, (Fiirth, 1798, 4to); Solestein, Erakl’r. (Berl. 1800, 8vo); Asulai, (Leghorn, 1800, 4to); Faber, Horce Mosaicce (Lond. 1801, 1818, 2 vols. 8vo); Vater, Commentar; Jacob ben-A , (ed. liBr, Zolk. 1806, 4to; ed. Rosenthal, Hanov. 1838, 4to); Griesinger, Ueb. d. Pentateuch (Stuttg. 1806, 8vo); Schrenzel, (Lemb. 1807, 1859, 4to); Morison, Introductory Key (Perth, 1810, 8vo); Meyer, Apologie d. Pentat. (Sulzb. 1811, 8vo); Kelle, Wurdigung d. Mos. Schrift. (Freib. 1811 sq., 3 vols. 8vo); also Anmerk. (ibid. 1817-21, 2 vols. 8vo); Neumann, Ansicht d. Pentat. (Bresl. 1812, 4to); Fritzsche, Aechtheit d. Pentat. (Leipz. 1814, 8vo); Aharon hal-Levi, , etc. (Leghorn, 1815, fol.); Herbst, De Pentat. auctore et editore (Elvee, 1817, 8vo); Calvo, (Rodelh. 1818, 8vo); Heiden., heim, (ibid. 1818-21, 8vo); Venusi, Uebersetz. (Prag. 1820, 4to); Aharon ben-Elia, (ed. Kosegarten, Jena, 1824, 4to); Horwitz, (Ostrob. 1824, 8vo); Pfister, Betracht. (Wurzb. 1828, 8vo); Hagel, Apologie d. Moses (Sulzb. 1828, 8vo); Schumann, Notce (vol. i, Lips. 1829, 8vo); Hartmann, Plan d. funf B. Mosis (Rost. 1831, 8vo); Heinemann [Israelite], Commentar (Berlin, 1831-3, 5 vols. 8vo); Blunt, Principles of the Mos. Writings (Lond. 1833, 8vo); Wittman, Pentat. Mosis (Lat. and Ger. Landsb. 1834, 8vo); Ranke, Unters. iib. d. Pentat. (Erlang. 1834-40, 2 vols. 8vo); Stahelin, Unters. ub. d. Pentat. (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 461 sq.); Hengstenberg, Authentie d. Pent. (Berl. 1836-9, 2 vols. 8vo; tr. Edinb. 1847, 2 vols. 8vo); also Die Biicher Mosis (Berl. 1841, 8vo; tr. Edinb. 1845, 8vo); Thistlethwaite, Sermons (Lond. 1837-8, 4 vols. 12mo); Landauer. Form d. Pentat. (Stattg. 1838, 8vo); Meklenburg, Ctommeniarius (Lips. 1839, 8vo); Caunter, Poetry of the Pentat. (Lond. 1839, 2 vols. 8vo); Arnheim [Israelite], Anmerk. (Glogau, 1839-41, 5 vols.; ibid. 1842, 7 vols. 8vo); Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen, etc. (Gott. 1840, 8vo); Herxheimer [Israelite], Erklar. (Berl. 1841,1850,1865, 8vo); Thiersch, De Pentat. versione Alex. (Berol. 1841, 8vo); Thornton, Lectures (Lond. 1843, 8vo); Kurtz, Einleit. in d. Pentat. (Leipz. 1844, 8vo); Baumgarten, Commentar (Kiel, 1844, 2 vols. 8vo); Von Gerlach, Commentary (from the Germ. Edinb. 1846, 8vo); Graves, Lectures (Lond. 1846, 8vo); Homberg, (Vienna, 1846-9, 8vo); Havernick, Introduction (from the German, Edinb. 1850, 8vo); Weiss [Israelite], Investigation of the Pentat. (Dundee, 1850, 8vo); Hamilton, Defence of the Pentat. (Lond. 1851; N. Y. 1852, 8vo); Sorensen, Inhalt u. Alter d. Pentat. (pt. i, Kiel, 1851, 8vo); Sanguinetti, (Leghorn, 1853, fol.); Riehm, Gesetzgebung Mosis (Leips. 1854. 8vo); Macdonald, Introduction to the Pent. (Edinb. 1861, 2 vols. 8vo); E. Wilna [IsraeliteJ, Commentarius (ed. Fischel, Berl. 1862, 8vo); Mosar, (Berl. 1862, 8vo); Wogue, Traduction et Notes (Par. 1862 sq., 5 vols. 8vo); Bartlett, Character and Authorship of the Pentat. (in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Apr. and July, 1863, July and Oct. 1864); De Solla, Vocabulary of the Pent. (Lond. 1865, 8vo); Hirsch, Erlaut. (vol. i and ii, F. ad M. 1867 sq. 8vo); Smith (W. J. D.), Authorship, etc., of the Pentateuch (vol. i, Lond. 1868, 8vo); Norton, The Pentateuch in relation of Jewish and Christian Dispensations (Lond. 1870, 8vo); Margoliouth, Poetry ofthe Pentateuch (ibid. 1871, 8vo). See also Rawlinson’s refutation (in Aids to Faith, a reply to the Essays and Reviews, repub. N. Y. 1852, Essay 6) of the rationalistic attacks upon the Pentateuch by Bunsen and others. Bishop Colenso’s Pentateuch and Joshua Examined (Lond. 1852, 8vo) was answered by numerous books and reviews (see a list in Low’s Publisher’s Circular, Jan. 15, 1863). SEE COMMENTARY.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Pentateuch

the five-fold volume, consisting of the first five books of the Old Testament. This word does not occur in Scripture, nor is it certainly known when the roll was thus divided into five portions Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Probably that was done by the LXX. translators. Some modern critics speak of a Hexateuch, introducing the Book of Joshua as one of the group. But this book is of an entirely different character from the other books, and has a different author. It stands by itself as the first of a series of historical books beginning with the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan. (See JOSHUA)

The books composing the Pentateuch are properly but one book, the “Law of Moses,” the “Book of the Law of Moses,” the “Book of Moses,” or, as the Jews designate it, the “Torah” or “Law.” That in its present form it “proceeds from a single author is proved by its plan and aim, according to which its whole contents refer to the covenant concluded between Jehovah and his people, by the instrumentality of Moses, in such a way that everything before his time is perceived to be preparatory to this fact, and all the rest to be the development of it. Nevertheless, this unity has not been stamped upon it as a matter of necessity by the latest redactor: it has been there from the beginning, and is visible in the first plan and in the whole execution of the work.”, Keil, Einl. i.d. A. T.

A certain school of critics have set themselves to reconstruct the books of the Old Testament. By a process of “scientific study” they have discovered that the so-called historical books of the Old Testament are not history at all, but a miscellaneous collection of stories, the inventions of many different writers, patched together by a variety of editors! As regards the Pentateuch, they are not ashamed to attribute fraud, and even conspiracy, to its authors, who sought to find acceptance to their work which was composed partly in the age of Josiah, and partly in that of Ezra and Nehemiah, by giving it out to be the work of Moses! This is not the place to enter into the details of this controversy. We may say frankly, however, that we have no faith in this “higher criticism.” It degrades the books of the Old Testament below the level of fallible human writings, and the arguments on which its speculations are built are altogether untenable.

The evidences in favour of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch are conclusive. We may thus state some of them briefly:

(1.) These books profess to have been written by Moses in the name of God (Ex. 17:14; 24:3, 4, 7; 32:7-10, 30-34; 34:27; Lev. 26:46; 27:34; Deut. 31:9, 24, 25).

(2.) This also is the uniform and persistent testimony of the Jews of all sects in all ages and countries (comp. Josh. 8:31, 32; 1 Kings 2:3; Jer. 7:22; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 8:1; Mal. 4:4; Matt. 22:24; Acts 15:21).

(3.) Our Lord plainly taught the Mosaic authorship of these books (Matt. 5:17, 18; 19:8; 22:31, 32; 23:2; Mark 10:9; 12:26; Luke 16:31; 20:37; 24:26, 27, 44; John 3:14; 5:45, 46, 47; 6:32, 49; 7:19, 22). In the face of this fact, will any one venture to allege either that Christ was ignorant of the composition of the Bible, or that, knowing the true state of the case, he yet encouraged the people in the delusion they clung to?

(4.) From the time of Joshua down to the time of Ezra there is, in the intermediate historical books, a constant reference to the Pentateuch as the “Book of the Law of Moses.” This is a point of much importance, inasmuch as the critics deny that there is any such reference; and hence they deny the historical character of the Pentateuch. As regards the Passover, e.g., we find it frequently spoken of or alluded to in the historical books following the Pentateuch, showing that the “Law of Moses” was then certainly known. It was celebrated in the time of Joshua (Josh. 5:10, cf. 4:19), Hezekiah (2 Chr. 30), Josiah (2 Kings 23; 2 Chr. 35), and Zerubbabel (Ezra 6:19-22), and is referred to in such passages as 2 Kings 23:22; 2 Chr. 35:18; 1 Kings 9:25 (“three times in a year”); 2 Chr. 8:13. Similarly we might show frequent references to the Feast of Tabernacles and other Jewish institutions, although we do not admit that any valid argument can be drawn from the silence of Scripture in such a case. An examination of the following texts, 1 Kings 2:9; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chr. 23:18; 25:4; 34:14; Ezra 3:2; 7:6; Dan. 9:11, 13, will also plainly show that the “Law of Moses” was known during all these centuries.

Granting that in the time of Moses there existed certain oral traditions or written records and documents which he was divinely led to make use of in his history, and that his writing was revised by inspired successors, this will fully account for certain peculiarities of expression which critics have called “anachronisms” and “contradictions,” but in no way militates against the doctrine that Moses was the original author of the whole of the Pentateuch. It is not necessary for us to affirm that the whole is an original composition; but we affirm that the evidences clearly demonstrate that Moses was the author of those books which have come down to us bearing his name. The Pentateuch is certainly the basis and necessary preliminary of the whole of the Old Testament history and literature. (See DEUTERONOMY)

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Pentateuch

(See MOSES; LAW; GENESIS; EXODUS; LEVITICUS; NUMBERS; DEUTERONOMY.) A term meaning “five volumes” (teuchos in Alexandrian Greek “a book”); applied to the first five books of the Bible, in Tertullian and Origen. “The book of the law” in Deu 48:61; Deu 29:21; Deu 30:10; Deu 31:26; “the book of the law of Moses,” Jos 23:6; Neh 8:1; in Ezr 7:6, “the law of Moses,” “the book of Moses” (Ezr 6:18). The Jews now call it Torah “the law,” literally, the directory in Luk 24:27 “Moses” stands for his book.

The division into five books is probably due to the Septuagint, for the names of the five books, Genesis, Exodus, etc., are Greek not Hebrew. The Jews name each book from its first word; the Pentateuch forms one roll, divided, not into books, but into larger and smaller sections Parshiyoth and Sedorim. They divide its precepts into 248 positive, and 365 negative, 248 being the number of parts the rabbis assign the body, 365 the days of the year. As a mnemonic they carry a square cloth with fringes (tsitsit = 600 in Hebrew) consisting of eight threads and five knots, 613 in all. The five of the Pentateuch answer to the five books of the psalter, and the five megilloth of the hagiographa (Song, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther).

MOSES’ AUTHORSHIP. After the battle with Amalek (Exo 17:14) “Jehovah said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in the Book,” implying there was a regular account kept in a well known book. Also Exo 24:4, “Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah”; (Exo 34:27) “Jehovah said unto Moses, Write thou these words” distinguished from Exo 34:28, “He (Jehovah) wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments” (Exo 34:1). Num 33:2 “Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Jehovah.” In Deu 17:18-19, the king is required to “write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests, the Levites”; and Deu 31:9-11, “Moses wrote this law and delivered it unto the priests, the son of Levi,” who should “at the end of every seven years read this law before all Israel in their hearing”; and Deu 31:24,” Moses made an end of writing the words of this law in a book,” namely, the whole Pentateuch (“the law,” Mat 22:40; Gal 4:21), “and commanded the Levites … put it in the side of the ark that it may be a witness against thee,” as it proved under Josiah.

The two tables of the Decalogue were IN the ark (1Ki 8:9); the book of the law, the Pentateuch, was laid up in the holy of holies, close by the ark, probably in a chest (2Ki 22:8; 2Ki 22:18-19). The book of the law thus written by Moses and handed to the priests ends at Deu 31:23; the rest of the book of Deuteronomy is an appendix added after Moses’ death by another hand, excepting the song and blessing, Moses’ own composition. Moses speaks of “this law” and “the book of this law” as some definite volume which he had written for his people (Deu 28:61; Deu 29:19-20; Deu 29:29). He uses the third person of himself, as John does in the New Testament He probably dictated much of it to Joshua or some scribe, who subsequently added the account of Moses’ death and a few explanatory insertions. The recension by Ezra (and the great synagogue, Buxtori “Tiberius,” 1:10, Tertullian De Cultu Fem. 3, Jerome ad Helvid.) may have introduced the further explanations which appear post Mosaic.

Moses probably uses patriarchal documents, as e.g. genealogies for Genesis; these came down through Shem and Abraham to Joseph and Israel in Egypt. That writing existed ages before Moses is proved by the tomb of Chnumhotep at Benihassan, of the twelfth dynasty, representing a scribe presenting to the governor a roll of papyrus covered with inscriptions dated the sixth year of Osirtasin II long before the Exodus. The papyrus found by M. Prisse in the hieratic character is considered the oldest of existing manuscripts and is attributed to a prince of the fifth dynasty; weighed down with age, he invokes Osiris to enable him to give mankind the fruits of his long experience. It contains two treatises, the first, of 12 pages, the end of a work of which the former part is lost, the second by a prince, son of the king next before Assa, in whose reign the work was composed. The Greek alphabet borrows its names of letters and order from the Semitic; those names have a meaning in Semitic, none in Greek Tradition made Cadmus (“the Eastern”) introduce them into Greece from Phoenicia (Herodot. 5:58).

Joshua took a Hittite city, Kirjath Sepher, “the city of the book” (Jos 15:15), and changed the name to Debir of kindred meaning. Pertaour, a scribe under Rameses the Great, in an Iliadlike poem engraved on the walls of Karnak mentions Chirapsar, of the Khota or Hittites, a writer of books. From the terms for “write,” “book,” “ink,” being in all Semitic dialects, it follows they must have been known to the earliest Shemites before they branched off into various tribes and nations. Moses, Israel’s wise leader, would therefore be sure to commit to writing their laws, their wonderful antecedents and ancestry, and the Divine promises from the beginning connected with them, and their fulfillment in Egypt, in the Exodus, and in the wilderness, in order to evoke their national spirit. Israel would certainly have a written history at a time when the Hittites among whom Israel settled were writers.

Moreover, from Joshua downward the Old Testament books abound in references to the laws, history, and words of Moses, as such, universally accepted. They are ordered to be read continually (Jos 1:7-8); “all the law which Moses My servant commanded … this book of the law” (Jos 8:31; Jos 8:34; Jos 23:6). In Jos 1:3-8; Jos 1:13-18 the words of Deu 11:24-25; Deu 31:6-12, and Deu 3:18-20 Num 32:20-28, are quoted. Israel’s constitution in church and state accords with that established by Moses. The priesthood is in Aaron’s family (Jos 14:1). “Eleazar,” Aaron’s son, succeeds to his father’s exalted position and with Joshua divides the land (Jos 21:1), as Num 34:17 ordained; the Levites discharge their duties, scattered among the tribes and having 48 cities, as Jehovah by Moses commanded (Num 35:7). So the tabernacle made by Moses is set up at Shiloh (Jos 18:1). The sacrifices (Jos 8:31; Jos 22:23; Jos 22:27; Jos 22:29) are those enjoined (Leviticus 1; 2; 3).

The altar built (Jos 8:30-31; Exo 20:25) is “as Moses commanded … in the book of the law of Moses.” Compare also as to the ark, Jos 3:3; Jos 3:6; Jos 3:8; Jos 7:6; circumcision, Jos 5:2; Passover, Jos 5:10; with the Pentateuch. There is the same general assembly or congregation and princes (Jos 9:18-21; Jos 20:6; Jos 20:9; Jos 22:30; Exo 16:22); the same elders of Israel (Jos 7:6; Deu 31:9); elders of the city (Deu 25:8; Jos 20:4); judges and officers (Jos 8:33; Deu 16:18); heads of thousands (Jos 22:21; Num 1:16). Bodies taken down from hanging (Jos 8:29; Jos 10:27; Deu 21:23). No league with Canaan (Joshua 9; Exo 23:32). Cities of refuge (Joshua 20; Num 35:11-15; Deu 4:41-43; Deu 19:2-7). Inheritance to Zelophebad’s daughters (Jos 17:3; Numbers 27; 36).

So in Judges Moses’ laws are referred to (Jdg 2:1-3; Jdg 2:11-12; Jdg 2:20; Jdg 6:8-10; Jdg 20:2; Jdg 20:6; Jdg 20:13; Deu 13:6; Deu 13:12-14; Deu 22:21). The same law and worship appear in Judges as in Pentateuch. Judah takes the lead (Jdg 1:2; Jdg 20:18; Gen 49:8; Num 2:3; Num 10:14). The judge’s office is as Moses defined it (Deu 17:9). Gideon recognizes the theocracy, as Moses ordained (Jdg 8:22-23; Exo 19:5-6; Deu 17:14; Deu 17:20; Deu 33:5). The tabernacle is at Shiloh (Jdg 18:31); Israel goes up to the house of God and consults the high priest with Urim and Thummim (Jdg 20:23; Jdg 20:26-28; Exo 28:30; Num 27:21; Deu 12:5). The ephod is the priest’s garment (Jdg 8:27; Jdg 17:5; Jdg 18:14-17).

The Levites scattered through Israel are the recognized ministers (Jdg 17:7-13; Jdg 19:1-2). Circumcision is Israel’s distinguishing badge (Jdg 14:3; Jdg 15:18). Historical rereferences to the Pentateuch abound (Jdg 1:16; Jdg 1:20; Jdg 1:23; Jdg 2:1; Jdg 2:10; Jdg 6:13), especially Jdg 11:15-27 epitomizes Numbers 20; 21; Deu 2:1-8; Deu 2:26-34; compare the language Jdg 2:1-23 with Exo 34:13; Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28; Deu 7:2; Deu 7:8; Deu 12:3; Jdg 5:4-5 with Deu 33:2; Deu 32:16-17. In the two books of Samuel the law and Pentateuch are the basis. Eli, high priest, is sprung from Aaron through Ithamar (1Ch 24:3; 2Sa 8:17; 1Ki 2:27). The transfer from Eli’s descendants back to Eleazar’s line fulfills Num 25:10-13.

The tabernacle is still at Shiloh, 1Sa 2:14; 1Sa 4:8; the rabbis say it had now become “a low stone wall-structure with the tent drawn over the top,” attached to it was a warder’s house where Samuel slept. The lamp in it accords with Exo 27:20-21; Lev 24:2-3; but (1Sa 3:3) let go out, either from laxity or because the law was not understood to enjoin perpetual burning day and night. The ark in the tabernacle still symbolizes God’s presence (1Sa 4:3-4; 1Sa 4:18; 1Sa 4:21-22; 1Sa 5:3-7; 1Sa 6:19). Jehovah of hosts dwells between the cherubim. The altar, incense, ephod are mentioned; also the “burnt offering” (‘owlah), the “whole burnt offering” (kalil), “peace offerings” (shelamim): 1Sa 10:8; 1Sa 11:15; 1Sa 13:9; Exo 24:5. The “bloody sacrifice” (zebach) and “unbloody offering” (minchah): 1Sa 2:19; 1Sa 3:14; 1Sa 26:19. The victims, the bullock, lamb, heifer, and ram, are those ordained in Leviticus (Lev 1:24-25; Lev 7:9; Lev 16:2; Lev 15:22).

The priest’s perquisites, etc., in Lev 6:6-7; Deu 18:1, etc., Num 18:8-19; Num 18:25; Num 18:32, are alluded to in 1Sa 2:12-13. The Levites alone should handle the sacred vessels and ark (1Sa 6:15; 1Sa 6:19). The historical facts of the Pentateuch are alluded to: Jacob’s descent to Egypt, Israel’s deliverance by Moses and Aaron (1Sa 12:8); the Egyptian plagues (1Sa 4:8; 1Sa 8:8); the Kenites’ kindness (1Sa 15:6). Language of the Pentateuch is quoted (1Sa 2:22; Exo 38:8). The request for a king (1Sa 8:5-6) accords with Moses’ words (Deu 17:14); also Deu 16:19 with 1Sa 8:3. The sacrificing in other places besides at the tabernacle was allowed because the ark was in captivity, and even when restored it was not yet in its permanent seat, Mount Zion, God’s one chosen place (1Sa 7:17; 1Sa 10:8; 1Sa 16:2-5).

Though Samuel, a Levite not a priest (1Ch 6:22-28), is said to sacrifice, it is in the sense that as prophet and judge-prince he blessed it (1Sa 9:13). Whoever might slay it, the priest alone sprinkled the blood on the altar. So Joshua (Jos 8:30-31), Saul (1Sa 13:9-10), David (2Sa 24:25), Solomon (1Ki 3:4), and the people (1Ki 3:2) sacrificed through the priest. Samuel as reformer brought all ordinances of church and state into conformity with the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch and Mosaic ordinances underlie Samuel’s work; but, while generally observing them, he so far deviates as no forger would do. The conformity is unstudied and unobtrusive, as that of one looking back to ordinances existing and recorded long before.

David’s psalms allude to and even quote the Pentateuch language (Psa 1:3, compare Gen 39:3; Gen 39:23; Psa 4:5; Deu 33:19; Psa 4:6; Num 6:26; Psa 8:6-8; Gen 1:26; Gen 1:28; Psa 9:12; Gen 9:5; Gen 15:5; Exo 22:25; Exo 23:8; Lev 25:36; Deu 16:19; Psa 16:4-5-6; Exo 23:13; Deu 32:9; Psa 17:8; Deu 32:10; Psa 24:1; Deu 10:14; Exo 19:5; Exo 26:6; Exo 30:19-20; Psalm 30 title; Deu 20:5; Psa 39:12; Lev 25:23; Psa 68:1; Psa 68:4; Psa 68:7-8; Psa 68:17; Num 10:35; Deu 33:26; Exo 13:21; Exo 19:16; Deu 33:2; Psa 86:8; Psa 86:14-15; Exo 15:11; Exo 34:6; Num 10:10; Psa 103:17-18; Exo 20:6; Deu 7:9; Psa 110:4; Gen 14:18; Psa 133:2; Exo 30:25; Exo 30:30.

When dying, he [David] charges Solomon, “keep the charge, as it is written in the law of Moses” (1Ki 2:3). The Pentateuch must have preceded the kingdom, for it supposes no such form of government. Solomon’s Proverbs similarly rest on the Pentateuch (Pro 3:9; Pro 3:18; Exo 22:29; Gen 2:9. Pro 10:18; Num 13:32; Num 14:36. Pro 11:1; Pro 20:10; Pro 20:23; Lev 19:35-36; Deu 25:13. Pro 11:13 margin; Lev 19:16,”not go up and down as a talebearer”.) Solomon’s temple is an exact doubling of the proportions of the tabernacle. No one would have built a house with the proportions of a tent, except to retain the relation of the temple to its predecessor the tabernacle (1Ki 6:1, etc.). The Pentateuch must have preceded the division between Israel and Judah, because it was acknowledged in both. Jehoshaphat in Judah used “the book of the law of Jehovah,” as the textbook for reaching the people (2Ch 17:9).

In 2Ki 11:12 “the testimony” is put in the hands of Joash at his coronation. Uzziah burning incense contrary to the law incurs leprosy (2Ch 26:16-21; Num 16:1 etc.). Hezekiah kept the commandments which Jehovah commanded Moses (2Ki 18:4; 2Ki 18:6). He destroyed the relic, the brazen serpent which remained from Moses’ time, because of its superstitious abuse. Jeroboam in northern Israel set up golden calves on Aaron’s model, with words from Exo 32:28, “behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of Egypt” (1Ki 12:28). Bethel was chosen as where God appeared to Jacob. The feast in the eighth month was in imitation of that of tabernacles in the seventh month (1Ki 12:32-38), to prevent the people going up to sacrifice at Jerusalem (1Ki 12:27); the Levites remaining faithful to the temple, Jeroboam made priests of the lowest people.

In 1 and 2, Kings references to the Pentateuch occur (1Ki 21:3; Lev 25:23; Num 36:8. 1Ki 21:10; Num 35:30; Num 22:17; Num 27:17. 2Ki 3:20; Exo 29:38, etc. 2Ki 4:1; Lev 25:39. 2Ki 6:18; Gen 19:11. 2Ki 7:3; Lev 13:46). In Isa 5:24; Isa 29:12; Isa 30:9; Hos 4:6; Hos 2:15; Hos 6:7 margin; Hos 12:3-4; Hos 11:1; Hos 8:1; Hos 8:12; Amo 2:4, references to the law as a historic record and book, and to its facts, occur (Gen 25:26; Gen 28:11; Gen 32:24. Amo 2:10; Gen 15:16. Amo 3:1; Amo 3:14; Exo 27:2; Exo 30:10; Lev 4:7. Amo 2:11-12; Num 6:1-21. Amo 4:4-5; Num 28:3-4; Deu 14:28; Lev 2:11; Lev 7:12-13; Lev 22:18-21; Deu 12:6).

Plainly Amos’ “law” was the same as ours. Mic 7:14 alludes to Gen 3:14, and Mic 7:20 to the promises to Abraham and Jacob; Mic 6:4-5, to the Exodus under Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, and to Balak’s attempt through Balaam to curse Israel. Under Josiah the Passover is held “according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Moses” (2Ch 35:1; 2Ch 35:6; 2Ch 35:2 Kings 23) on the 14th day of the first month. The sacrifices accord with the Pentateuch; priests, “the sons of Aaron,” and Levites kill the Passover and sprinkle the blood. The Passover is traced back to Samuel’s days, there being no such, Passover from that time to JOSIAH eel (?). The strange fact that the finding of the book of the law by Hilkiah in the temple so moved Josiah’s conscience, whereas the Pentateuch had all along been the statute book of the nation, is accounted for by the prevalent neglect of it during the ungodly and idolatrous preceding reigns, especially Manasseh’s long and awfully wicked one. (See HILKIAH.)

Moses had ordered the book of the law (not merely Deuteronomy) to be put in the side of the ark for preservation (Deu 31:26). The autograph from Moses was the “book” found, “the law of Jehovah by. the hand of Moses” (2Ch 34:14). Seven hundred years had elapsed, not nearly as long as many manuscripts have been preserved to, us; we have papyri older than Moses, more than 3,000 years ago. The curses in the book read to the king are in Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 27; 28; compare Deu 28:36 with 2Ki 22:13, where the king is especially mentioned as about to be punished. When the ark was removed (2Ch 35:3) during Manasseh’s sacrilegious reign the temple copy or autograph of the law was hid somewhere, probably built into the wall, and discovered in repairing the temple. Josiah, as yet young, and having been kept in ignorance of the law by the idolatrous Amon his father, was still only a babe in knowledge of spiritual truth. The immediate recognition of its authority by Hilkiah the high-priest, the scribes, priests, Levites, elders, and Huldah the prophetess (2Ki 22:8-14; 2Ki 23:1-4), when found, marks that, however kings, priests, and people had forgotten and wandered from it, they recognized it as the long established statute book of the nation.

So entirely is Jeremiah, who began prophesying the 13th year of Josiah, imbued with the language of Deuteronomy that rationalists guess him to be its author. The part of Jer 2:1-8:17 is admitted to have been written before the finding of the law by Josiah. In Jer 2:8; Jer 8:8, he alludes to the law as the established statute book. For allusions compare Jer 2:6 with Deu 8:15; Num 14:7-8; Num 35:33-34; Lev 18:25-28; also Jer 2:28, “circumcise … take away the foreskins of your heart,” with Deu 32:37-38; Deu 4:4; Deu 10:16; Deu 30:6, a figure nowhere else found in Scripture; Jer 5:15 with Deu 28:31; Deu 28:49. In Eze 22:7-12 there are 29 quotations from the Hebrew words of Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy. In Eze 22:26 four references: Lev 10:10; Lev 22:2, etc.; Lev 20:25; Exo 31:13. So in Ezekiel 16; 18; 20, a recapitulation of God’s loving and long suffering dealings with Israel as recorded in the Pentateuch.

Ezra on the return from Babylon read the book of the law of Moses at the feast of tabernacles (as enjoined Deu 31:10-13) “before the men and women who could understand (Hebrew), and the ears of all were attentive to the book of the law” (Neh 8:3). Their accepting it even at the cost of putting away their wives (Ezra 10) is the strongest proof of its universal recognition for ages by the nation. For the younger people, who had almost lost Hebrew and spoke Aramaic, Syriac, or Chaldee, he and the Levites read or gave after the Hebrew law a Chaldee paraphrase which they understood (Ezr 10:8). He arranged the older books of Old Testament, and probably with Malachi fixed the canon, and transcribed the Hebrew or Samaritan character into the modern Chaldee square letters. The ancient Jews and Christian fathers knew of the Samaritan Pentateuch. (See THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.)

It was first brought to light in modern times (A.D. 1616) by Pietro della Valle, who obtained a manuscript of it from the Samaritans of Damascus. The agreement of this with our Jewish Pentateuch is a sure proof that our Pentateuch is the same as Israel used, for no collusion could have taken place between such deadly rivals as Jews and Samaritans. (See BIBLE; OLD TESTAMENT.) Manasseh brother of Jaddua the high priest, having married Sanballat’s (“laughter” (Neh 13:28), was expelled and became the first high priest on Mount Gerizim in concert with others, priests and Levites, who would not put away their pagan wives (Josephus, Ant. 11:8, section 2, 4). (See JADDUA; GERIZIM.)

Probably he and they brought to Samaria the Samaritan Pentateuch from Jerusalem. As it testifies against their pagan marriages and schismatical worship, the Samaritans would never have accepted it if they had not believed in its genuineness and divine authority. It certainly could not have been imposed on them at a later time than Ezra; so from at least that date it is an independent witness of the integrity of the five books of Moses. This testimony may be much older for probably the Samaritan Pentateuch was carried by the priest sent by Esarhaddon in Manasseh’s reign (680 B.C.) to teach Jehovah’s worship to the Cuthire colonists planted in Samaria (2Ki 17:24; 2Ki 17:28; Ezra 2-10). The Septuagint Greek translated shows that the Egyptian Jews accepted the Pentateuch. Antiochus Epiphanes directed his fury against the books of the law (1 Maccabees 1). The Chaldee paraphrase of Onkelos in our Lord’s time agrees with our Pentateuch.

New Testament attestation. Our Lord and His apostles in New Testament refer to the Pentateuch as of divine authority and Mosaic authorship (Mat 19:4-5; Mat 19:7-8; Mat 4:4; Mat 4:7; Mat 4:10; Mat 15:1-9; Mar 10:5; Mar 10:8; Mar 12:26; Luk 16:29; Luk 16:31; Luk 20:28; Luk 20:37; Luk 24:27; Luk 24:44-45; Joh 1:17; Joh 5:45-46; Joh 8:5; Act 3:22; Act 8:37; Act 26:22). The two dispensations, separated by 1,500 years, having each its attesting miracles and prophecies since fulfilled and shedding mutual light on one another, could not possibly be impostures. The very craving of the Jews after “a sign” indicates the notoriety and reality of the miracles formerly wrought among them (Joh 6:13). The author of the Pentateuch must have been intimately acquainted with the learning, laws, manners, and religion of Egypt (Spencer, De Leg. Heb.; Hengstenberg, Egypt and Books of Moses).

The plagues were an intensification of the ordinary plagues of the country, coming and going miraculously at God’s command by Moses (Bryant, Plag. Egypt.). The making of bricks (generally found to have chopped straw) by captives is represented on the Egyptian monuments (Exo 1:14; Exo 5:7-8; Exo 5:18; Brugsch, Hist. d’Egypt., 106). Moses’ ark of papyrus suits Egypt alone (Exo 2:3); Isis was borne upon a boat of papyrus (Plutarch de Isaiah et Osiri; Herodotus ii. 37, 96). Bitumen was much used, it was a chief ingredient in embalming. The cherubim over the mercy-seat resemble Egyptian sculptures. The distinction clean and unclean was Egyptian, also the hereditary priesthood as the Aaronic. The Egyptian priesthood shaved their whole bodies and bathed continually (Herodotus ii. 37), and wore linen (the sole ancient priesthood that wore only linen except the Levites: Num 8:7; Exo 40:12-15; Exo 28:39-42).

Aaron’s anointing in his priestly robes resembles that of the king on Egyptian monuments with royal robes, cap, and crown. The scape-goat answers to the victim on the head of which the Egyptians heaped curses and sold it to foreigners or threw it into the river (Herodotus ii. 39). Answering to the Urim and Thummim on the high priest’s breast-plate was the sapphire image of truth which the Egyptian chief priest wore as judge. The temples and tombs have hieroglyphics inscribed on their doorposts, in correspondence to Deu 11:20. Pillars with inscriptions on the plaster were an Egyptian usage; so Deu 27:2-3. So the bastinado on the criminal, made to lie down, is illustrated in the Benihassan sculptures (Deu 25:2). The unmuzzled ox treading out the grain (Deu 25:4). The offerings for the dead forbidden (Deu 26:14) were such as were usual in Egypt, a table being placed in the tombs bearing cakes, etc.

Frequent memorials of Israel’s wilderness wanderings remained after their settlement in Canaan. The tabernacle in all its parts was fitted for carrying. The phrases “tents of the Lord,” applied to precincts of the temple; the cry of revolt, “to your tents O Israel”; “without the camp,” for the city, long after the expression was literally applicable, are relics of their nomadic life in the desert. So Psa 80:1; “Thou that dwellest between the cherubim, shine forth! Before Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh, stir up Thy strength, and come,” represents Israel’s three warrior tribes on march surrounding the ark, with the pillar of fire shining high above it. The elders of the synagogue succeeded to the elders or chiefs of the tribes. The ark itself was of acacia (shittim) wood of the Sinaitic peninsula, not of cedar, the usual wood for sacred purposes ill Palestine. The coverings were of goats’ hair, ramskin dyed red in Arab fashion, and sealskins from the adjoining Red Sea, and fine Egyptian linen. (See BADGER.)

So the detailed permission to eat the various game of the wilderness, wild goat, roe, deer, ibex, antelope, and chamois, applies not to Canaan; it could only have been enacted in Israel’s desert life previously. The laws and the lawgiver s language look forward to life in Canaan (Exo 12:25-27; Exo 13:1-5; Exo 23:20-23; Exo 34:11; Lev 14:34; Lev 18:3; Lev 18:24; Lev 19:23; Lev 20:22; Lev 23:10; Lev 25:2; Num 15:2; Num 15:18; Num 34:2; Num 35:2-34; Deu 4:1; Deu 6:10; Deu 7:1; Deu 9:1, etc.). The objection from the author’s knowledge of Canaan’s geography against its Mosaic authorship is answered by Moses’ knowledge of the patriarchs’ wanderings in Canaan. Further, the Egyptians knew Palestine well from the reign of Thothmes I. Moses in his 40 years in Midian and the Sinai wilderness was sure to hear much about Palestine, and probably visited it and sent agents to learn the character of the country, cities, and people.

The prophecies, as Deu 12:10, when ye go over Jordan … and He giveth you rest … round about,” are just such as would not have been written after the event. For neither at the close of Joshua’s career (Jos 23:1), nor under the judges and Samuel (to whom some rationalists assign the Pentateuch), nor in any reign before Solomon, was there a fulfillment which adequately came up to the language. No forger would put into Moses’ month words promising seemingly “rest” immediately after entering Carman, whereas it was not realized for 500 years after. The language is archaic, suiting the time of Moses. Archaisms are found in the Pentateuch not elsewhere occurring. The third person pronoun has (unpointed) no variety of gender, the one form serves both for masculine and feminine. So na’ar is both boy and girl in Pentateuch, elsewhere only “boy,” na’arah is “girl.” ‘Eel stands for the later ‘eelleh, “these.” The infinitive of verbs ending in -h ends in -o instead of -ot (Gen 31:28; Gen 48:11; Exo 18:18).

The third person plural ends in -un instead of -u. Words unique to Pentateuch are ‘abiyb, “an ear of grain”; ‘amtachath, “a sack”; bathar, “divide”; bether, “piece”; gozal, “young bird”; zebed, “present”; zabad, “to present”; hermeesh, “a sickle”; mene, “basket”; hayiqum, “substance”; keseb for kebes, “lamb”; masweh, “veil”; ‘ar for ‘ir, “city”; se’er, “blood relation.” Moses mainly moulded his people’s language for ages, so that the same Hebrew was intelligible in Malachi’s time, 1,000 years subsequently; just as the Mecca people still speak the Koran language written 1,200 years ago. Joshua the warrior had not the qualifications, still less had Samuel the knowledge of Egypt and Sinai, to write the Pentateuch. The theory of a patchwork of pieces of an Elohist and several Jehovist authors constituting our homogeneous Pentateuch which has commanded the admiration of all ages, and which is marked by unity, is too monstrous to be seriously entertained.

In Deu 17:18-19, “when he (the king) sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites, and he shall read therein all his life,” i.e. he shall have a copy written for him, namely, of the whole Pentateuch. It was as necessary for him to know Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, being that law and history on which Deuteronomy is the recapitulatory comment and supplement, as it was to know Deuteronomy. At the feast of tabernacles every seven years a reading took place, not of the whole Pentateuch, but of lessons selected out of it and representing the whole law which Israel should obey (Neh 8:18). Latterly only certain parts of Deuteronomy have been read on the first day alone. In Deu 27:3 Moses charges Israel “thou shalt write upon (great stones plastered) all the words of this law,” namely, not the historical, didactic, ethnological, and non-legislative parts, but the legal enactments of the Pentateuch (the Jews reckoned 613, see above).

In Egypt the hieroglyphics are generally graven in stone, the “plaster” being added afterward to protect the inscription from the weather (Jos 8:32). The closing words of Num 36:13, also of Lev 27:34; Lev 25:1; Lev 26:46, and the solemn warning against adding to or taking from Moses’ commands (Deu 4:2; Deu 12:32), are incompatible with a variety of authors, and imply that Moses alone is the writer of the Pentateuch as a whole. A future life not ignored, but suggested. Though Moses did not employ a future state as a sanction of his law, yet he believed it, as the history proves. The Pentateuch contains enough to suggest it to a serious mind. All other ancient legislators make a future state of reward and punishment the basis of the sanctions of their law; Moses rests his on rewards and punishments to follow visibly in this life, which proves the reality of the special divine providence which miraculously administered the law. Its one aim was obedience to Jehovah (Deu 28:58).

Many particulars were impolitic in a mere human point of view: e.g. their peculiar food, ritual, and customs, excluding strangers and impeding commerce; the prohibition of cavalry (Deu 17:16); the assembling of the males thrice a year to the sanctuary, leaving the frontier unguarded, the sole security being God’s promise that “no man should desire their land” at those sacred seasons (Exo 34:24); the command to leave their lands untilled the seventh year, with the penalty that the land should enjoy its Sabbath during their captivity if they did not allow it rest while dwelling upon it, and with the promise that God would command His blessing in the sixth year, so that the land should bring forth fruit for three years (Lev 25:21; Lev 26:32-35). Nor could human sagacity foresee, as Moses did, that not the hostile nations around them, but one from far, from the ends of the earth, the Romans (led by Vespasian and Hadrian, who both came from commanding Roman legions in Britain) whose language they understood not, whereas they understood most of the dialects around Palestine, should be their final conquerors.

Their dispersion in all lands, yet unity and distinctness, and preservation in spite of bitter persecutions for almost 1,800 years, all fulfill Deu 28:64-68; whereas in former captivities they were conveyed to one place, as in Goshen in Egypt, and in Babylon, so that their restoration as one nation was easy. “A few million, so often subjugated, stand the test of 3,000 revolving years, and the fiery ordeal of 15 centuries of persecution; we alone have been spared by the undiscriminating hand of time, like a column standing amidst the wreck of worlds.” (Transactions of the Parisian Sanhedrim, p. 68.) But Moses does not ignore spiritual sanctions to his law, while giving chief prominence to the temporal. The epistle to the Hebrew (Hebrew 11) distinctly asserts the patriarchs “all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them and embraced them, and confessed they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth … they desire a better country, that is an heavenly, wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He hath prepared for them a city” (Heb 11:13-16).

Man’s creation in God’s image, God directly breathing into him a “living soul” (Gen 1:26-27; Gen 2:7-17); his being threatened with double death if he ate the forbidden fruit, and made capable of living forever by eating of the tree of life, and after the fall promised a Deliverer, the sacrifices pointing to One who by His death should recover man’s forfeited life: all imply the hope of future immortality. So Abel’s premature death, the result of his piety, requires his being rewarded in a future life; otherwise God’s justice would be compromised (Heb 11:4). So other facts: Enoch’s translation, Abraham’s offering Isaac, symbolizing Messiah to the patriarch who “desired to see His day, and saw it and was glad” (Joh 8:56; Genesis 22); “Moses’ choosing to suffer affliction with God’s people, rather than enjoy sin’s pleasures for a season, and his esteeming Christ’s reproach greater riches than Egypt’s treasures, because he had respect to the recompence of reward” (Heb 11:24-27); God’s declaration after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead, “I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Exo 3:6), requiring a future eternal recompence in body and soul to make good God’s promise of special favor, so inadequately realized while they were in their mortal bodies (Mat 22:29); and Balaam’s prayer (Num 23:10).

ORDER. The development of God’s grace to man is the golden thread running through the whole, and binding the parts in one organic unity. Chronological sequence regulates the parts in the main, as accords with its historical character; so Genesis rightly begins, Deuteronomy closes, the whole. Grace runs through Seth’s line to Noah; thence to Abraham, whose family become heirs of the promise for the world. Israel’s birth and deliverance as a nation occupy Exodus. Leviticus follows as the code for the religious life and worship of the elect people. Numbers takes up the history again, and with renewed legislation leaves Israel at the borders of the promised land. Deuteronomy recapitulates and applies the whole. Blunt (Undesigned Coincidences) notices the incompleteness of the Pentateuch as a history, and consequently the importance of observing the glimpses given by its passing hints.

Thus Joseph’s “anguish of soul when he besought” the brothers, unnoticed in the direct story, but incidentally coming out in their confession of guilt (Gen 42:21); the overcoming of Jacob’s reluctance to give up Benjamin, briefly told in the direct account as though taking no long time, but incidentally shown to have taken as long time as would have sufficed for a journey to Egypt and back (Gen 43:10); the hints in Jacob’s deathbed prophecy of his strong feeling as to Reuben’s misconduct, not noticed in the history (Gen 35:22, compare Gen 49:4); so as to Simeon and Levi (Gen 49:6). The allusion to Anah (Gen 36:24). The introduction of Joshua as one well known in Israel, though not mentioned before (Exo 17:9). The sending back of Zipporah by Moses (Exo 18:2), noticed at Jethro’s taking them to Moses but not previously. The phrases “before the Lord,” “from the presence of the Lord,” marking the spot where sacrifices were brought and where Jehovah signified His presence, probably where the cherubim were, E. of Eden (Gen 4:16).

The minuteness of details in the Pentateuch marks truth, also the touches of nature: e.g. “the mixed multitude,” half castes or Egyptians, are the first to sigh for Egypt’s cucumbers, etc. (Num 11:4.) Aaron’s cowardly self exculpation, “there came out this calf,” as if the fire was in fault (Exo 32:24). The special cases incidentally arising and requiring to be provided for in the working of a new system; e.g. the man found gathering sticks on the Sabbath (could an impostor have devised such a trifle?); the request of Zelophehad’s daughters for the inheritance, there being no male heir (Num 15:32; Num 36:2): matters inconsiderable in themselves, but giving occasion to important laws. The simplicity and dignity throughout, without parade of language, in describing even miracles (contrast Josephus Ant. 2:16 and 3:1 with Exodus 14; 16).

Moses’ candor; as when he tells of his own want of eloquence unfitting him to be a leader (Exo 4:10; Exo 4:30); his want of faith which excluded him from the promised land, omitted by Josephus (Num 20:12); his brother Aaron’s idolatry (Exo 32:21); the profaneness of Nadab and Abihu his nephews (Leviticus 10); his sister’s jealousy and punishment (Numbers 12); his tribe Levi’s spy being faithless as the other nine; his disinterestedness, seeking no dignity for his sons, and appointing Joshua his successor, no relation of his; his prophecies fulfilled in Messiah (Deuteronomy 18) and in the fall of Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 28). The key afforded in the Pentateuch to widely scattered traditions of pagans, as the golden age, the garden of the Hesperides; the fruit tree guarded by the dragon, the deluge destroying all but two righteous persons (Ovid, Met. 1:327), the rainbow a sign set in the cloud (Homer, Iliad xi. 27-28), the seventh day sacred (Hesiod, Erga kai Hem., 770).

The onerous nature of the law, restraining their actions at every turn (Deu 22:6; Deu 22:9; Deu 22:8; Deu 22:10; Lev 17:13; Lev 19:23; Lev 19:27; Lev 19:9; Lev 19:19; Lev 25:13), implies there must have been extraordinary powers in the legislator to command acceptance for such enactments. The main facts were so public, singular, and important, affecting the interests of every order, that no man could have gained credence for a false account of them. The Pentateuch was published and received during, or immediately after, the events, and is quoted by every Jewish writer and sect from Joshua downward. A whole nation so civilized could not have been deceived as to a series of facts so public and important.

The details of the tabernacle given so minutely are utterly unfit to convey an idea of magnificence, nay are wearisome, if it were not that they are just what Moses would give, if really the author, and if he detailed the particulars for instructing the artists at the time, and according to the divine model given him (Exo 25:8-9; Exo 25:40; Exo 39:42-43). The genealogies of the Pentateuch must have existed at the first distribution of land, for the property was unalienable from the family and tribe. So also the geographical enumerations (Numbers 33-35) have that particularity which is inconsistent with imposture. The author exposes the weak and obscure origin of Israel (Deu 26:5); their ungrateful apostasy from Jehovah’s pure worship, to the calf (Exodus 32); their cowardice on the spies’ return (Numbers 13-14; Deuteronomy 9; Deuteronomy 31).

No people would have submitted to the Jubilee law (Lev 25:4-5; Lev 26:34-35) except both legislator and people were convinced that God had dictated it, and by a peculiar providence would facilitate its execution. Miraculous interpositions such as the Pentateuch details alone would produce this conviction. The law was coeval with the witnesses of the miracles; the Jews have always received it as written by the legislator at the time of the facts, and as the sole repository of their religion, laws, and history. No period can be assigned when it could have been introduced, without the greatest opposition, if it were a forgery. None can be pointed out whose interest it was to frame such a forgery. The minute particularity of time, place, person, and circumstance marks an eye witness. The natural and undesigned coincidences between Moses’ address in Deuteronomy and the direct narrative in the previous books, as regards the common facts and the miracles, point to Moses as the author (Graves, Penteuch, 6).

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

PENTATEUCH

From early Christian times, and possibly before, the first five books of the Old Testament have collectively been known as the Pentateuch. The name comes from two Greek words, penta meaning five, and teuchos meaning a volume. The Hebrews usually referred to the whole Pentateuch as the law (2Ch 17:9; Neh 8:14; Neh 8:18; Mat 5:17; Mat 11:13; Mat 12:5; Luk 24:44). It was originally one continuous book, but was divided into five sections for convenience. The English titles of the five separate books are taken from the early Greek translation known as the Septuagint.

Authorship

Age-old Hebrew and Christian tradition recognizes Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, though the Pentateuch itself nowhere names its author (2Ch 35:12; Neh 13:1; Mar 12:26; Joh 5:46). The Bible speaks frequently of Moses literary activity. He wrote down the law that Israel received from God (Exo 24:4; Exo 34:27; Deu 31:9; Deu 31:24), he kept records of Israels history (Exo 17:14; Num 33:2) and he wrote songs and poems (Exo 15:1; Deu 31:22; Deu 31:30).

Moses would certainly have been familiar with the family records, ancient songs and traditional stories that people had preserved and handed down from one generation to the next (cf. Gen 5:1; Gen 6:9; Gen 10:1; Gen 11:10; Gen 11:27). Like all writers he would have used material from a variety of sources, particularly if writing about times and places other than his own (cf. Gen 26:32-33; Gen 35:19-20; Gen 47:26; Num 21:14). In addition he received direct revelations from God and spoke with God face to face (Exo 32:7-8; Exo 33:11; Num 12:6-8).

In different eras, critics who reject Moses authorship of the Pentateuch have suggested various theories for a much later composition. Most of these theories are based on the different names used for God, the similar or contrasting features in narrative accounts, the varying features of Israels religious system, and the usage of certain words and phrases. Broadly speaking, these critics have suggested four independent documents that date no earlier than the period of Israels monarchy, and that a later editor (or editors) combined into one. The four documents are referred to respectively as J (because it speaks of God as Jehovah, or Yahweh), E (because it speaks of God as Elohim), D (because it bases its content on Deuteronomy) and P (because it deals mainly with matters of priestly interest).

These theories have been argued, answered, revised and contradicted many times over. Debating the mechanics of composition, however, may not always be profitable. The important consideration is not how the Pentateuch was written, but what it means. It stands in both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles as a book whose unity is clear and whose message is the living Word of God (Joh 5:39; Joh 5:45-47; Joh 7:19; Luk 16:31; Act 15:21).

Message

Genesis introduces the basic issues concerning God the Creator and the people and things he created. It shows that he created human beings good and wanted them to live in harmony with him. Instead of doing so, they rebelled and God punished them. In his grace, however, he did not destroy the human race, but gave it the opportunity for a fresh start. People went the same way as before, but God still extended his favour, promising to work through one of the few remaining believers (Abraham) to bring blessing to the whole world.

God promised that Abraham would produce a notable line of descendants, that those descendants would enjoy a special relationship with himself, and that he would give them a national homeland. In due course Abraham started the family and his descendants began to multiply, but through a variety of circumstances they eventually found themselves slaves in Egypt. The book of Exodus shows that God, faithful to his promise, gave them a leader (Moses) through whom he brought them out of Egypt, gave them his law, and established them in a special covenant relationship with himself. He was their God and they were his people.

Leviticus and the beginning of Numbers give details of how the people were to maintain and enjoy their covenant relationship with God. The remainder of Numbers shows how the people moved on towards the promised land, and Deuteronomy shows the life God required of them once they settled in that land.

The grace of God and the sovereign choice of God are prominent themes in the Pentateuch. The deliverance from Egypt was the turning point in the peoples history, the covenant was the basis of their existence, and the law was the framework for their behaviour. The purposes of God were on their way to fulfilment (cf. Gen 12:1-3; Gal 3:16; cf. Deu 18:18-19; Act 3:18-23).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Pentateuch

PENTATEUCH.See Hexateuch.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Pentateuch

penta-tuk:

I.TITLE, DIVISION, CONTENTS

II.AUTHORSHIP, COMPOSITION, DATE

1.The Current Critical Scheme

2.The Evidence for the Current Critical Scheme

(1)Astruc’s Clue

(2)Signs of Post-Mosaic Date

(3)Narrative Discrepancies

(4)Doublets

(5)The Laws

(6)The Argument from Style

(7)Props of the Development Hypothesis

3.The Answer to the Critical Analysis

(1)The Veto of Textual Criticism

(2)Astruc’s Clue Tested

(3)The Narrative Discrepancies and Signs of Post-Mosaic Date Examined

(4)The Argument from the Doublets Examined

(5)The Critical Argument from the Laws

(6)The Argument from Style

(7)Perplexities of the Theory

(8)Signs of Unity

(9)The Supposed Props of the Development Hypothesis

4.The Evidence of Date

(1)The Narrative of Genesis

(2)Archaeology and Genesis

(3)The Legal Evidence of Genesis

(4)The Professedly Mosaic Character of the Legislation

(5)The Historical Situation Required by Pentateuch

(6)The Hierarchical Organization in Pentateuch

(7)The Legal Evidence of Pentateuch

(8)The Evidence of D

(9)Later Allusions

(10) Other Evidence

5.The Fundamental Improbabilities of the Critical Case

(1)The Moral and Psychological Issues

(2)The Historical Improbability

(3)The Divergence between the Laws and Post-exilic Practice

(4)The Testimony of Tradition

6.The Origin and Transmission of the Pentateuch

III.SOME LITERARY POINTS

1.Style of Legislation

2.The Narrative

3.The Covenant

4.Order and Rhythm

IV.THE PENTATEUCH AS HISTORY

1.Textual Criticism and History

2.Hebrew Methods of Expression

3.Personification and Genealogies

4.Literary Form

5.The Sacred Numbers

6.Habits of Thought

7.National Coloring

8.How Far the Pentateuch Is Trustworthy

(1)Contemporaneous Information

(2)Character of Our Informants

(3)Historical Genius of the People

(4)Good Faith of Deuteronomy

(5)Nature of the Events Recorded

(6)External Corroborations

9.The Pentateuch as Reasoned History

V.THE CHARACTER OF THE PENTATEUCH

1.Hindu Law Books

2.Differences

3.Holiness

4.The Universal Aspect

5.The National Aspect

LITERATURE

I. Title, Division, Contents

(, torah, law or teaching). – It has recently been argued that the Hebrew word is really the Babylonian tertu, divinely revealed law (e.g. Sayce, Churchman, 1909, 728 ff), but such passages as Lev 14:54-57; Deu 17:11 show that the legislator connected it with , horah (from yarah), to teach. Also called by the Jews , hamishshah humesh torah, the five-fifths of the law: , ho nomos, the Law. The word Pentateuch comes from , pentateuchos, literally 5-volumed (book). The Pentateuch consists of the first five books of the Bible, and forms the first division of the Jewish Canon, and the whole of the Samaritan Canon. The 5-fold division is certainly old, since it is earlier than the Septuagint or the Sam Pentateuch. How much older it may be is unknown. It has been thought that the 5-fold division of the Psalter is based on it.

The five books into which the Pentateuch is divided are respectively Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and the separate articles should be consulted for information as to their nomenclature.

The work opens with an account of the Creation, and passes to the story of the first human couple. The narrative is carried on partly by genealogies and partly by fuller accounts to Abraham. Then comes a history of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the collateral lines of descendants being rapidly dismissed. The story of Joseph is told in detail, and Genesis closes with his death. The rest of the Pentateuch covers the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, their exodus and wanderings, the conquest of the trans-Jordanic lands and the fortunes of the people to the death of Moses. The four concluding books contain masses of legislation mingled with the narrative (for special contents, see articles on the several books).

II. Authorship, Composition, Date.

1. The Current Critical Scheme:

The view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, with the exception of the concluding verses of Deuteronomy, was once held universally. It is still believed by the great mass of Jews and Christians, but in most universities of Northern Europe and North America other theories prevail. An application of what is called higher or documentary criticism (to distinguish it from lower or textual criticism) has led to the formation of a number of hypotheses. Some of these are very widely held, but unanimity has not been attained, and recent investigations have challenged even the conclusions that are most generally accepted. In the English-speaking countries the vast majority of the critics would regard Driver’s, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament and Carpenter and Harford-Battersby’s Hexateuch as fairly representative of their position, but on the Continent of Europe the numerous school that holds some such position is dwindling alike in numbers and influence, while even in Great Britain and America some of the ablest critics are beginning to show signs of being shaken in their allegiance to cardinal points of the higher-critical case. However, at the time of writing, these latter critics have not put forward any fresh formulation of their views, and accordingly the general positions of the works named may be taken as representing with certain qualifications the general critical theory. Some of the chief stadia in the development of this may be mentioned.

After attention had been drawn by earlier writers to various signs of post-Mosaic date and extraordinary perplexities in the Pentateuch, the first real step toward what its advocates have, till within the last few years, called the modern position was taken by J. Astruc (1753). He propounded what Carpenter terms the clue to the documents, i.e. the difference of the divine appellations in Genesis as a test of authorship. On this view the word ‘Elohm (God) is characteristic of one principal source and the Tetragrammaton, i.e. the divine name YHWH represented by the LORD or GOD of the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), shows the presence of another. Despite occasional warnings, this clue was followed in the main for 150 years. It forms the starting-point of the whole current critical development, but the most recent investigations have successfully proved that it is unreliable (see below, 3, (2)) Astruc was followed by Eichhorn (1780), who made a more thorough examination of Genesis, indicating numerous differences of style, representation, etc.

Geddes (1792) and Vater (1802-1805) extended the method applied to Genesis to the other books of the Pentateuch.

In 1798 Ilgen distinguished two Elohists in Genesis, but this view did not find followers for some time. The next step of fundamental importance was the assignment of the bulk of Deuteronomy to the 7th century BC. This was due to De Wette (1806). Hupfeld (1853) again distinguished a second Elohist, and this has been accepted by most critics. Thus, there are four main documents at least: D (the bulk of Deuteronomy), two Elohists (P and E) and one document (Jahwist) that uses the Tetragrammaton in Genesis. From 1822 (Bleek) a series of writers maintained that the Book of Joshua was compounded from the same documents as the Pentateuch (see HEXATEUCH).

Two other developments call for notice: (1) there has been a tendency to subdivide these documents further, regarding them as the work of schools rather than of individuals, and resolving them into different strata (P1, Secondary Priestly Writers, P3, etc., J1, Later additions to J, etc., or in the notation of other writers Jj Je, etc.); (2) a particular scheme of dating has found wide acceptance. In the first period of the critical development it was assumed that the principal Elohist (P) was the earliest document. A succession of writers of whom Reuss, Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen are the most prominent have, however, maintained that this is not the first but the last in point of time and should be referred to the exile or later. On this view theory is in outline as follows: J and E (so called from their respective divine appellations) – on the relative dates of which opinions differ – were composed probably during the early monarchy and subsequently combined by a redactor (Rje) into a single document JE. In the 7th century D, the bulk of Deuteronomy, was composed. It was published in the 18th year of Josiah’s reign. Later it was combined with JE into JED by a redactor (Rjed). P or Priestly Code the last of all (originally the first Elohist, now the Priestly Code) incorporated an earlier code of uncertain date which consists in the main of most of Lev 17-26 and is known as the Law of Holiness (H or Ph). P itself is largely postexilic. Ultimately it was joined with JED by a priestly redactor (Rp) into substantially our present Pentateuch. As already stated, theory is subject to many minor variations. Moreover, it is admitted that not all its portions are equally well supported. The division of JE into J and E is regarded as less certain than the separation of Pentateuch. Again, there are variations in the analysis, differences of opinion as to the exact dating of the documents, and so forth. Yet the view just sketched has been held by a very numerous and influential school during recent years, nor is it altogether fair to lay stress on minor divergences of opinion. It is in the abstract conceivable that the main positions might be true, and that yet the data were inadequate to enable all the minor details to be determined with certainty. See CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE.

This theory will hereafter be discussed at length for two reasons: (1) while it is now constantly losing ground, it is still more widely held than any other; and (2) so much of the modern literature on the Old Testament has been written from this standpoint that no intelligent use can be made of the most ordinary books of reference without some acquaintance with it.

Before 1908 the conservative opposition to the dominant theory had exhibited two separate tendencies. One school of conservatives rejected the scheme in toto; the other accepted the analysis with certain modifications, but sought to throw back the dating of the documents. In both these respects it had points of contact with dissentient critics (e.g. Delitzsch, Dillmann, Baudissin, Kittel, Strack, Van Hoonacker), who sought to save for conservatism any spars they could from the general wreckage. The former school of thought was most prominently represented by the late W.H. Green, and J. Raven’s Old Testament Introduction may be regarded as a typical modern presentation of their view; the latter especially by Robertson and Orr. The scheme put forward by the last named has found many adherents. He refuses to regard J and E as two separate documents, holding that we should rather think (as in the case of the parallel Psalms) of two recensions of one document marked by the use of different divine appellations. The critical P he treats as the work of a supplemented, and thinks it never had an independent existence, while he considers the whole Pentateuch as early. He holds that the work was done by original composers, working with a common aim, and toward a common end, in contrast with the idea of late irresponsible redactors, combining, altering, manipulating, enlarging at pleasure (POT, 375).

While these were the views held among Old Testament critics, a separate opposition had been growing up among archaeologists. This was of course utilized to the utmost by the conservatives of both wings. In some ways archaeology undoubtedly has confirmed the traditional view as against the critical (see ARCHAEOLOGY AND CRITICISM); but a candid survey leads to the belief that it has not yet dealt a mortal blow, and here again it must be remembered that the critics may justly plead that they must not be judged on mistakes that they made in their earlier investigations or on refutations of the more uncertain portions of their theory, but rather on the main completed result. It may indeed be said with confidence that there are certain topics to which archaeology can never supply any conclusive answer. If it be the case that the Pentateuch contains hopelessly contradictory laws, no archaeological discovery can make them anything else; if the numbers of the Israelites are original and impossible, archaeology cannot make them possible. It is fair and right to lay stress on the instances in which archaeology has confirmed the Bible as against the critics; it is neither fair nor right to speak as if archaeology had done what it never purported to do and never could effect.

The year 1908 saw the beginning of a new critical development which makes it very difficult to speak positively of modern critical views. Kuenen has been mentioned as one of the ablest and most eminent of those who brought the Graf-Wellhausen theory into prominence. In that year B.D. Eerdmans, his pupil and successor at Leyden, began the publication of a series of Old Testament studies in which he renounces his allegiance to the line of critics that had extended from Astruc to the publications of our own day, and entered on a series of investigations that were intended to set forth a new critical view. As his labors are not yet complete, it is impossible to present any account of his scheme; but the volumes already published justify certain remarks. Eerdmans has perhaps not converted any member of the Wellhausen school, but he has made many realize that their own scheme is not the only one possible. Thus while a few years ago we were constantly assured that the main results of Old Testament criticism were unalterably settled, recent writers adopt a very different tone: e.g. Sellin (1910) says, We stand in a time of fermentation and transition, and in what follows we present our own opinion merely as the hypothesis which appears to us to be the best founded (Einleitung, 18). By general consent Eerdmans’ work contains a number of isolated shrewd remarks to which criticism will have to attend in the future; but it also contains many observations that are demonstrably unsound (for examples see BS, 1909, 744-48; 1910, 549-51). His own reconstruction is in many respects so faulty and blurred that it does not seem likely that it will ever secure a large following in its present form. On the other hand he appears to have succeeded in inducing a large number of students in various parts of the world to think along new lines and in this way may exercise a very potent influence on the future course of Old Testament study. His arguments show increasingly numerous signs of his having been influenced by the publications of conservative writers, and it seems certain that criticism will ultimately be driven to recognize the essential soundness of the conservative position. In 1912 Dahse (TMH, I) began the publication of a series of volumes attacking the Wellhausen school on textual grounds and propounding a new pericope hypothesis. In his view many phenomena are due to the influence of the pericopes of the synagogue service or the form of the text and not to the causes generally assigned.

2. The Evidence for the Current Critical Scheme:

The examination of the Graf-Wellhausen theory must now be undertaken, and attention must first be directed to the evidence which is adduced in its support. Why should it be held that the Pentateuch is composed mainly of excerpts from certain documents designated as J and E and P and D? Why is it believed that these documents are of very late date, in one case subsequent to the exile?

(1) Astruc’s Clue.

It has been said above that Astruc propounded the use of the divine appellations in Genesis as a clue to the dissection of that book. This is based on Exo 6:3, And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as ‘El Shadday (God Almighty); but by my name YHWH I was not known to them.’ In numerous passages of Genesis this name is represented as known, e.g. Gen 4:26, where we read of men beginning to call on it in the days of Enosh. The discrepancy here is very obvious, and in the view of the Astruc school can be satisfactorily removed by postulating different sources. This clue, of course, fails after Exo 6:3, but other difficulties are found, and moreover the sources already distinguished in Genesis are, it is claimed, marked by separate styles and other characteristics which enable them to be identified when they occur in the narrative of the later books. See CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE.

(2) Signs of Post-Mosaic Date.

Close inspection of the Pentateuch shows that it contains a number of passages which, it is alleged, could not have proceeded from the pen of Moses in their present form. Probably the most familiar instance is the account of the death of Moses (Deu 34:1-12). Other examples are to be found in seeming allusions to post-Mosaic events, e.g. in Gen 22 we hear of the Mount of the Lord in the land of Moriah; this apparently refers to the Temple Hill, which, however, would not have been so designated before Solomon. So too the list of kings who reigned over Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel (Gen 36:31) presumes the existence of the monarchy. The Canaanites who are referred to as being then in the land (Gen 12:6; Gen 13:7) did not disappear till the time of Solomon, and, accordingly, if this expression means then still it cannot antedate his reign. Deu 3:11 (Og’s bedstead) comes unnaturally from one who had vanquished Og but a few weeks previously, while Num 21:14 (the King James Version) contains a reference to the book of the Wars of the Lord which would hardly have been quoted in this way by a contemporary. Exo 16:35 refers to the cessation of the manna after the death of Moses. These passages, and more like them, are cited to disprove Mosaic authorship; but the main weight of the critical argument does not rest on them.

(3) Narrative Discrepancies.

While the divine appellations form the starting-point, they do not even in Genesis constitute the sole test of different documents. On the contrary, there are other narrative discrepancies, antinomies, differences of style, duplicate narratives, etc., adduced to support the critical theory. We must now glance at some of these.

In Gen 21:14 f Ishmael is a boy who can be carried on his mother’s shoulder, but from a comparison of Gen 16:3, Gen 16:16; 17, it appears that he must have been 14 when Isaac was born, and, since weaning sometimes occurs at the age of 3 in the East, may have been even as old as 17 when this incident happened. Again, We all remember the scene (Gen 27) in which Isaac in extreme old age blesses his sons; we picture him as lying on his deathbed. Do we, however, all realize that according to the chronology of the Book of Genesis he must have been thus lying on his deathbed for eighty years (compare Gen 25:26; Gen 26:34; Gen 35:28)? Yet we can only diminish this period by extending proportionately the interval between Esau marrying his Hittite wives (Gen 26:34) and Rebekah’s suggestion to Isaac to send Jacob away, lest he should follow his brother’s example (Gen 27:46); which, from the nature of the case, will not admit of any but slight extension. Keil, however, does so extend it, reducing the period of Isaac’s final illness by 43 years, and is conscious of no incongruity in supposing that Rebekah, 30 years after Esau had taken his Hittite wives, should express her fear that Jacob, then aged 77, will do the same (Driver, Contemporary Review, LVII, 221).

An important instance occurs in Numbers. According to Num 33:38, Aaron died on the 1st day of the 5th month. From Deu 1:3 it appears that 6 months later Moses delivered his speech in the plains of Moab. Into those 6 months are compressed one month’s mourning for Aaron, the Arad campaign, the wandering round by the Red Sea, the campaigns against Sihon and Og, the missions to Balaam and the whole episode of his prophecies, the painful occurrences of Nu 25, the second census, the appointment of Joshua, the expedition against Midian, besides other events. It is clearly impossible to fit all these into the time.

Other discrepancies are of the most formidable character. Aaron dies now at Mt. Hor (Num 20:28; Num 33:38), now at Moserah (Deu 10:6). According to Dt 1; Deu 2:1, Deu 2:14, the children of Israel left Kadesh-barnea in the 3rd year and never subsequently returned to it, while in Nu they apparently remain there till the journey to Mt. Hor, where Aaron dies in the 40th year. The Tent of Meeting perhaps _ provides some of the most perplexing of the discrepancies, for while according to the well-known scheme of Ex 25 ff and many other passages, it was a large and heavy erection standing in the midst of the camp, Exo 33:7-11 provides us with another Tent of Meeting that stood outside the camp at a distance and could be carried by Moses alone. The verbs used are frequentative, denoting a regular practice, and it is impossible to suppose that after receiving the commands for the Tent of Meeting Moses could have instituted a quite different tent of the same name. Joseph again is sold, now by Ishmaelites (Gen 37:27, Gen 37:28; Gen 39:1), anon by Midianites (31:28a, 36). Sometimes he is imprisoned in one place, sometimes apparently in another. The story of Korah, Dathan and Abiram in Nu 16 is equally full of difficulty. The enormous numbers of the Israelites given in Nu 1 through 4, etc., are in conflict with passages that regard them as very few.

(4) Doublets.

Another portion of the critical argument is provided by doublets or duplicate narratives of the same event, e.g. Gen 16 and 21. These are particularly numerous in Genesis, but are not confined to that book. Twice do quails appear in connection with the daily manna (Num 11:4-6, Num 11:31 ff; Exo 16:13). Twice does Moses draw water from the rock, when the strife of Israel begets the name Meribah (‘strife’) (Exo 17:1-7; Num 20:1-13) (Carpenter, Hexateuch, I, 30).

(5) The Laws.

Most stress is laid on the argument from the laws and their supposed historical setting. By far the most important portions of this are examined in SANCTUARY and PRIESTS (which see). These subjects form the two main pillars of the Graf-Wellhausen theory, and accordingly the articles in question must be read as supplementing the present article. An illustration may be taken from the slavery laws. It is claimed that Exo 21:1-6; Deu 15:12 ff permit a Hebrew to contract for life slavery after 6 years’ service, but that Lev 25:39-42 takes no notice of this law and enacts the totally different provision that Hebrews may remain in slavery only till the Year of Jubilee. While these different enactments might proceed from the same hand if properly coordinated, it is contended that this is not the case and that the legislator in Lev ignores the legislator in Exodus and is in turn ignored by the legislator in Deuteronomy, who only knows the law of Exodus.

(6) The Argument from Style.

The argument from style is less easy to exemplify shortly, since it depends so largely on an immense mass of details. It is said that each of the sources has certain characteristic phrases which either occur nowhere else or only with very much less frequency. For instance in Gen 1, where’Elohm is used throughout, we find the word create, but this is not employed in Gen 2:4 ff, where the Tetragrammaton occurs. Hence, it is argued that this word is peculiarly characteristic of P as contrasted with the other documents, and may be used to prove his presence in e.g. Gen 5:1 f.

(7) Props of the Development Hypothesis.

While the main supports of the Graf-Wellhausen theory must be sought in the articles to which reference has been made, it is necessary to mention briefly some other phenomena to which some weight is attached. Jeremiah displays many close resemblances to Deuteronomy, and the framework of Kings is written in a style that has marked similarities to the same book. Ezekiel again has notable points of contact with P and especially with H; either he was acquainted with these portions of the Pentateuch or else he must have exercised considerable influence on those who composed them. Lastly the Chronicler is obviously acquainted with the completed Pentateuch. Accordingly, it is claimed that the literature provides a sort of external standard that confirms the historical stages which the different Pentateuchal sources are said to mark. Deuteronomy influences Jeremiah and the subsequent literature. It is argued that it would equally have influenced the earlier books, had it then existed. So too the completed Pentateuch should have influenced Kings as it did Chronicles, if it had been in existence when the earlier history was composed.

3. Answer to the Critical Analysis:

(1) The Veto of Textual Criticism.

The first great objection that may be made to the higher criticism is that it starts from the Massoretic text (MT) without investigation. This is not the only text that has come down to us, and in some instances it can be shown that alternative readings that have been preserved are superior to those of the Massoretic Text. A convincing example occurs in Ex 18. According to the Hebrew, Jethro comes to Moses and says I, thy father-in-law … am come, and subsequently Moses goes out to meet his father-in-law. The critics here postulate different sources, but some of the best authorities have preserved a reading which (allowing for ancient differences of orthography) supposes an alteration of a single letter. According to this reading the text told how one (or they) came to Moses and said Behold thy father-in-law … is come. As the result of this Moses went out and met Jethro. The vast improvement in the sense is self-evident. But in weighing the change other considerations must be borne in mind. Since this is the reading of some of the most ancient authorities, only two views are possible. Either the Massoretic Text has undergone a corruption of a single letter, or else a redactor made a most improbable cento of two documents which gave a narrative of the most doubtful sense. Fortunately this was followed by textual corruption of so happy a character as to remove the difficulty by the change of a single letter; and this corruption was so widespread that it was accepted as the genuine text by some of our best authorities. There can be little doubt which of these two cases is the more credible, and with the recognition of the textual solution the particular bit of the analysis that depends on this corruption falls to the ground. This instance illustrates one branch of textual criticism; there are others. Sometimes the narrative shows with certainty that in the transmission of the text transpositions have taken place; e.g. the identification of Kadesh shows that it was South of Hormah. Consequently, a march to compass Edom by way of the Red Sea would not bring the Israelites to Hormah. Here there is no reason to doubt that the events narrated are historically true, but there is grave reason to doubt that they happened in the present order of the narrative. Further, Deuteronomy gives an account that is parallel to certain passages of Numbers; and it confirms those passages, but places the events in a different order. Such difficulties may often be solved by simple transpositions, and when transpositions in the text of Nu are made under the guidance of Deuteronomy they have a very different probability from guesses that enjoy no such sanction. Another department of textual criticism deals with the removal of glosses, i.e. notes that have crept into the text. Here the ancient versions often help us, one or other omitting some words which may be proved from other sources to be a later addition. Thus in Exo 17:7 the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) did not know the expression, and Meribah (one word in Hebrew), and calls the place Massah simply. This is confirmed by the fact that Deuteronomy habitually calls the place Massah (Deu 6:16; Deu 9:22; Deu 33:8). The true Meribah was Kadesh (Nu 20) and a glossator has here added this by mistake (see further (4) below). Thus we can say that a scientific textual criticism often opposes a real veto to the higher critical analysis by showing that the arguments rest on late corruptions and by explaining the true origin of the difficulties on which the critics rely.

(2) Astruc’s Clue Tested.

Astruc’s clue must next be examined. The critical case breaks down with extraordinary frequency. No clean division can be effected, i.e. there are cases where the Massoretic Text of Genesis makes P or E use the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) or Yahweh (Yahweh). In some of these cases the critics can suggest no reason; in others they are compelled to assume that the Massoretic Text is corrupt for no better reason than that it is in conflict with their theory. Again the exigencies of the theory frequently force the analyst to sunder verses or phrases that cannot be understood apart from their present contexts, e.g. in Gen 28:21 Carpenter assigns the words and Yahweh will be my God to J while giving the beginning and end of the verse to E; in Genesis 31, Gen 31:3 goes to a redactor, though E actually refers to the statement of Gen 31:3 in Gen 31:5; in Genesis 32, Gen 32:30 is torn from a J-context and given to E, thus leaving Gen 32:31 (Jahwist) unintelligible. When textual criticism is applied, startling facts that entirely shatter the higher critical argument are suddenly revealed. The variants to the divine appellations in Genesis are very numerous, and in some instances the new readings are clearly superior to the Massoretic Text, even when they substitute ‘Elohm for the Tetragrammaton. Thus, in Gen 16:11, the explanation of the name Ishmael requires the word ‘Elohm, as the name would otherwise have been Ishmayah, and one Hebrew MS, a recension of the Septuagint and the Old Latin do in fact preserve the reading ‘Elohm. The full facts and arguments cannot be given here, but Professor Schlogl has made an exhaustive examination of the various texts from Gen 1:1 to Exo 3:12. Out of a total of 347 occurrences of one or both words in the Massoretic Text of that passage, there are variants in 196 instances. A very important and detailed discussion, too long to be summarized here will now be found in TMH, I. Wellhausen himself has admitted that the textual evidence constitutes a sore point of the documentary theory (Expository Times, XX, 563). Again in Exo 6:3, many of the best authorities read I was not made known instead of I was not known a difference of a single letter in Hebrew. But if this be right, there is comparative evidence to suggest that to the early mind a revelation of his name by a deity meant a great deal more than a mere knowledge of the name, and involved rather a pledge of his power. Lastly the analysis may be tested in yet another way by inquiring whether it fits in with the other data, and when it is discovered (see below 4, (1)) that it involves ascribing, e.g. a passage that cannot be later than the time of Abraham to the period of the kingdom, it becomes certain that the clue and the method are alike misleading (see further EPC, chapter i; Expository Times, XX, 378 f, 473-75, 563; TMH, I; PS, 49-142; BS, 1913, 145-74; A. Troelstra, The Name of God, NKZ, XXIV (1913), 119-48; The Expositor, 1913).

(3) The Narrative Discrepancies and Signs of Post-Mosaic Date Examined.

Septuagintal manuscripts are providing very illuminating material for dealing with the chronological difficulties. It is well known that the Septuagint became corrupt and passed through various recensions (see SEPTUAGINT). The original text has not yet been reconstructed, but as the result of the great variety of recensions it happens that our various manuscripts present a wealth of alternative readings. Some of these show an intrinsic superiority to the corresponding readings of the Massoretic Text. Take the case of Ishmael’s age. We have seen (above, 2, (3)) that although in Gen 21:14 f he is a boy who can be carried by his mother even after the weaning of Isaac, his father, according to Gen 16:3, Gen 16:16, was 86 years old at the time of his birth, and, according to Genesis 17, 100 years old when Isaac was born. In Gen 17:25 we find that Ishmael is already 13 a year before Isaac’s birth. Now we are familiar with marginal notes that set forth a system of chronology in many printed English Bibles. In this case the Septuagintal variants suggest that something similar is responsible for the difficulty of our Hebrew. Two manuscripts, apparently representing a recension, omit the words, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan in Gen 16:3, and again, Gen 16:16, while in Gen 17:25 there is a variant making Ishmael only 3 years old. If these readings are correct it is easy to see how the difficulty arose. The narrative originally contained mere round numbers, like 100 years old, and these were not intended to be taken literally. A commentator constructed a scheme of chronology which was embodied in marginal notes. Then these crept into the text and such numbers as were in conflict with them were thought to be corrupt and underwent alteration. Thus the 3-year-old Ishmael became 13.

The same manuscripts that present us with the variants in Gen 16 have also preserved a suggestive reading in Gen 35:28, one of the passages that are responsible for the inference that according to the text of Genesis Isaac lay on his deathbed for 80 years (see above, 2, (3)). According to this Isaac was not 180, but 150 years old when he died. It is easy to see that this is a round number, not to be taken literally, but this is not the only source of the difficulty. In Gen 27:41, Esau, according to English Versions of the Bible, states The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob. This is a perfectly possible rendering of the Hebrew, but the Septuagint translated the text differently, and its rendering, while grammatically correct, has the double advantage of avoiding Isaac’s long lingering on a deathbed and of presenting Esau’s hatred and ferocity far more vividly. It renders, May the days of mourning for my father approach that I may slay my brother Jacob. Subsequent translators preferred the milder version, but doubtless the Septuagint has truly apprehended the real sense of the narrative. If we read the chapter with this modification, we see Isaac as an old man, not knowing when he may die, performing the equivalent of making his will. It puts no strain on our credulity to suppose that he may have lived 20 or 30 years longer. Such episodes occur constantly in everyday experience. As to the calculations based on Gen 25:26 and Gen 26:34, the numbers used are 60 and 40, which, as is well known, were frequently employed by the ancient Hebrews, not as mathematical expressions, but simply to denote unknown or unspecified periods. See NUMBER.

The other chronological difficulty cited above (namely, that there is not room between the date of Aaron’s death and the address by Moses in the plains of Moab for all the events assigned to this period by Numbers) is met partly by a reading preserved by the Peshitta and partly by a series of transpositions. In Num 33:38 Peshitta reads first for fifth as the month of Aaron’s death, thus recognizing a longer period for the subsequent events. The transpositions, however, which are largely due to the evidence of Deuteronomy, solve the most formidable and varied difficulties; e.g. a southerly march from Kadesh no longer conducts the Israelites to Arad in the north, the name Hormah is no longer used (Num 14:45) before it is explained (Num 21:3), there is no longer an account directly contradicting Dt and making the Israelites spend 38 years at Kadesh immediately after receiving a divine command to turn tomorrow (Num 14:25). A full discussion is impossible here and will be found in EPC, 114-38. The order of the narrative that emerges as probably original is as follows: Nu 12; Num 20:1, Num 20:14-21; Num 21:1-3; 13; 14; 16 through 18; Num 20:2-13, Num 20:12; Num 21:4-9, then some missing vs, bringing the Israelites to the head of the Gulf of Akabah and narrating the turn northward from Elath and Ezion-geber, then Num 20:22-29; Num 21:4, and some lost words telling of the arrival at the station before Oboth. In Num 33:40 is a gloss that is missing in Lagarde’s Septuagint, and Num 33:36-37 should probably come earlier in the chapter than they do at present.

Another example of transposition is afforded by Exo 33:7-11, the passage relating to the Tent of Meeting which is at present out of place (see above 2, (3)). It is supposed that this is E’s idea of the Tabernacle, but that, unlike the Priestly Code (P), he places it outside the camp and makes Joshua its priest. This latter view is discussed and refuted in PRIESTS, 3., where it is shown that Exo 33:7 should be rendered And Moses used to take a (or, the) tent and pitch it for himself, etc. As to theory that this is E’s account of the Tabernacle, Ex 18 has been overlooked. This chapter belongs to the same E but refers to the end of the period spent at Horeb, i.e. it is later than Exo 33:7-11. In Exo 18:13-16 we find Moses sitting with all the people standing about him because they came to require of God; i.e. the business which according to Ex 33 was transacted in solitude outside the camp was performed within the camp in the midst of the people at a later period. This agrees with the Priestly Code (P), e.g. Nu 27. If now we look at the other available clues, it appears that Exo 33:11 seems to introduce Joshua for the first time. The passage should therefore precede Exo 17:8; Exo 24:13; Exo 32:17, where he is already known. Again, if Ex 18 refers to the closing scenes at Horeb (as it clearly does), Exo 24:14 providing for the temporary transaction of judicial business reads very strangely. It ought to be preceded by some statement of the ordinary course in normal times when Moses was not absent from the camp. Exo 33:7 ff provides such a statement. The only earlier place to which it can be assigned is after Exo 13:22, but there it fits the context marvelously, for the statements as to the pillar of cloud in Exo 33:9 f attach naturally to those in Exo 13:21 f. With this change all the difficulties disappear. Immediately after leaving Egypt Moses began the practice of carrying a tent outside the camp and trying cases there. This lasted till the construction of the Tabernacle. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee (Exo 25:22). After its erection the earlier tent was disused, and the court sat at the door of the Tabernacle in the center of the camp (see, further, EPC, 93-102, 106 f) .

Some other points must be indicated more briefly. In Nu 16 important Septuagintal variants remove the main difficulties by substituting company of Korah for dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram in two verses (see EPC, 143-46). Similarly in the Joseph-story the perplexities have arisen through corruptions of verses which may still be corrected by the versional evidence (PS, 29-48). There is evidence to show that the numbers of the Israelites are probably due to textual corruption (EPC, 155-69). Further, there are numerous passages where careful examination has led critics themselves to hold that particular verses are later notes. In this way they dispose of Deu 10:6 f (Aaron’s death, etc.), the references to the Israelirish kingdom (Gen 36:31) and the Canaanites as being then in the land (Gen 12:6; Gen 13:7), the bedstead of Og (Deu 3:11) and other passages. In Gen 22, the land of Moriah is unknown to the versions which present the most diverse readings, of which the land of the Amorite is perhaps the most probable; while in Gen 22:14 the Septuagint, reading the same Hebrew consonants as Massoretic Text, translates In the Mount the Lord was seen. This probably refers to a view that God manifested Himself especially in the mountains (compare 1Ki 20:23, 1Ki 20:28) and has no reference whatever to the Temple Hill. The Massoretic pointing is presumably due to a desire to avoid what seemed to be an anthropomorphism (see further PS, 19-21) . Again, in Num 21:14, the Septuagint knows nothing of a book of the Wars of Yahweh (see Field, Hexapla, at the place). It is difficult to tell what the original reading was, especially as the succeeding words are corrupt in the Hebrew, but it appears that no genitive followed wars and it is doubtful if there was any reference to a book of wars.

(4) The Argument from the Doublets Examined.

The foregoing sections show that the documentary theory often depends on phenomena that were absent from the original Pentateuch. We are now to examine arguments that rest on other foundations. The doublets have been cited, but when we examine the instances more carefully, some curious facts emerge. Gen 16 and 21 are, to all appearance, narratives of different events; so are Exo 17:1-7 and Num 20:1-13 (the drawing of water from rocks). In the latter case the critics after rejecting this divide the passages into 5 different stories, two going to J, two to E and one to Pentateuch. If the latter also had a Rephidimnarrative (compare Num 33:14 P), there were 6 tales. In any case both J and E tell two stories each. It is impossible to assign any cogency to the argument that the author of the Pentateuch could not have told two such narratives, if not merely the redactor of the Pentateuch but also J and E could do so. The facts as to the manna stories are similar. As to the flights of quails, it is known that these do in fact occur every year, and the Pentateuch places them at almost exactly a year’s interval (see EPC, 104 f, 109 f).

(5) The Critical Argument from the Laws.

The legal arguments are due to a variety of misconceptions, the washing out of the historical background and the state of the text. Reference must be made to the separate articles (especially SANCTUARY; PRIESTS). As the slave laws were cited, it may be explained that in ancient Israel as in other communities slavery could arise or slaves be acquired in many ways: e.g. birth, purchase (Gen 14:14; Gen 17:12, etc.), gift (Gen 20:14), capture in war (Gen 14:21; Gen 34:29), kidnapping (Joseph). The law of Exodus and Deuteronomy applies only to Hebrew slaves acquired by purchase, not to slaves acquired in any other way, and least of all to those who in the eye of the law were not true slaves. Lev 25 has nothing to do with Hebrew slaves. It is concerned merely with free Israelites who become insolvent. If thy brother be waxed poor with thee, and sell himself it begins (Lev 25:39). Nobody who was already a slave could wax poor and sell himself. The law then provides that these insolvent freemen were not to be treated as slaves. In fact, they were a class of free bondsmen, i.e. they were full citizens who were compelled to perform certain duties. A similar class of free bondsmen existed in ancient Rome and were called nexi. The Egyptians who sold themselves to Pharaoh and became serfs afford another though less apt parallel In all ancient societies insolvency led to some limitations of freedom, but while in some full slavery ensued, in others a sharp distinction was drawn between the slave and the insolvent freeman (see further SBL, 5-11 ).

(6) The Argument from Style.

Just as this argument is too detailed to be set out in a work like the present, so the answer cannot be given with any degree of fullness. It may be said generally that the argument too frequently neglects differences of subject-matter and other sufficient reasons (such as considerations of euphony and slight variations of meaning) which often provide far more natural reasons for the phenomena observed. Again, the versions suggest that the Biblical text has been heavily glossed. Thus in many passages where the frequent recurrence of certain words and phrases is supposed to attest the presence of the Priestly Code (P), versional evidence seems to show that the expressions in question have been introduced by glossators, and when they are removed the narrative remains unaffected in meaning, but terser and more vigorous and greatly improved as a vehicle of expression. To take a simple instance in Gen 23:1, And the life of Sarah was a hundred and seven and twenty years:…the years of the fife of Sarah, the italicized words were missing in the Septuagint. When they are removed the meaning is unaltered, but the form of expression is far superior. They are obviously mere marginal note. Again the critical method is perpetually breaking down. It constantly occurs that redactors have to be called in to remove from a passage attributed to some source expressions that are supposed to be characteristic of another source, and this is habitually done on no other ground than that theory requires it. One instance muse be given. It is claimed that the word create is a P-word. It occurs several times in Gen 1:1 through 2:4a and Gen 2:3 times in Gen 5:1, Gen 5:2, but in Gen 6:7 it is found in a J-passage, and some critics therefore assign it to a redactor. Yet J undoubtedly uses the word in Num 16:30 and D in Dt 4:82. On the other hand, P does not use the word exclusively, even in Gen 1 through 2:4, the word make being employed in Gen 1:7, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:26, Gen 1:31; Gen 2:2, while in Gen 2:3 both words are combined. Yet all these passages are given unhesitatingly to P.

(7) Perplexities of the Theory.

The perplexities of the critical hypothesis are very striking, but a detailed discussion is impossible here. Much material will, however, be found in POT and Eerd. A few general statements may be made. The critical analysis repeatedly divides a straightforward narrative into two sets of fragments, neither of which will make sense without the other. A man will go to sleep in one document and wake in another, or a subject will belong to one source and the predicate to another. No intelligible account can be given of the proceedings of the redactors who one moment slavishly preserve their sources and at another cut them about without any necessity, who now rewrite their material and now leave it untouched. Even in the ranks of the Wellhausen critics chapters will be assigned by one writer to the post-exilic period and by another to the earliest sources (e.g. Gen 14, pre-Mosaic in the main according to Sellin (1910), post-exilic according to others), and the advent of Eerdmans and Dahse has greatly increased the perplexity. Clue after clue, both stylistic and material, is put forward, to be abandoned silently at some later stage. Circular arguments are extremely common: it is first alleged that some phenomenon is characteristic of a particular source; then passages are referred to that source for no other reason than the presence of that phenomenon; lastly these passages are cited to prove that the phenomenon in question distinguishes the source. Again theory is compelled to feed on itself; for J, E, the Priestly Code (P), etc., we have schools of J’s, E’s, etc., subsisting side by side for centuries, using the same material, employing the same ideas, yet remaining separate in minute stylistic points. This becomes impossible when viewed in the light of the evidences of pre-Mosaic date in parts of Genesis (see below 4, (1) to (3)).

(8) Signs of Unity.

It is often possible to produce very convincing internal evidence of the unity of what the critics sunder. A strong instance of this is to be found when one considers the characters portrayed. The character of Abraham or Laban, Jacob or Moses is essentially unitary. There is but one Abraham, and this would not be so if we really had a cento of different documents representing the results of the labor of various schools during different centuries. Again, there are sometimes literary marks of unity, e.g. in Nu 16, the effect of rising anger is given to the dialogue by the repetition of Ye take too much upon you (Num 16:3, Num 16:7), followed by the repetition of Is it a small thing that (Num 16:9, Num 16:13). This must be the work of a single literary artist (see further SBL, 37 f).

(9) The Supposed Props of the Development Hypothesis.

When we turn to the supposed props of the development hypothesis we see that there is nothing conclusive in the critical argument. Jeremiah and the subsequent literature certainly exhibit the influence of Deuteronomy, but a Book of the Law was admittedly found in Josiah’s reign and had lain unread for at any rate some considerable time. Some of its requirements had been in actual operation, e.g. in Naboth’s case, while others had become a dead letter. The circumstances of its discovery, the belief in its undoubted Mosaic authenticity and the subsequent course of history led to its greatly influencing contemporary and later writers, but that really proves nothing. Ezekiel again was steeped in priestly ideas, but it is shown in PRIESTS, 5b, how this may be explained. Lastly, Chronicles certainly knows the whole Pentateuch, but as certainly misinterprets it (see PRIESTS). On the other hand the Pentateuch itself always represents portions of the legislation as being intended to reach the people only through the priestly teaching, and this fully accounts for P’s lack of influence on the earlier literature. As to the differences of style within the Pentateuch itself, something is said in III, below. Hence, this branch of the critical argument really proves nothing, for the phenomena are susceptible of more than one explanation.

4. The Evidence of Date:

(1) The Narrative of Genesis.

Entirely different lines of argument are provided by the abundant internal evidences of date. In Gen 10:19, we read the phrase as thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and Admah and Zeboiim in a definition of boundary. Such language could only have originated when the places named actually existed. One does not define boundaries by reference to towns that are purely mythical or have been overthrown many centuries previously. The consistent tradition is that these towns were destroyed in the lifetime of Abraham, and the passage therefore cannot be later than his age. But the critics assign it to a late stratum of J, i.e. to a period at least 1,000 years too late. This suggests several comments. First, it may reasonably be asked whether much reliance can be placed on a method which after a century and a half of the closest investigation does not permit its exponents to arrive at results that are correct to within 1,000 years. Secondly, it shows clearly that in the composition of the Pentateuch very old materials were incorporated in their original language. Of the historical importance of this fact more will be said in IV; in this connection we must observe that it throws fresh light on expressions that point to the presence, in Genesis of sources composed in Palestine, e.g. the sea for the West indicates the probability of a Palestinian source, but once it is proved that we have materials as old as the time of Abraham such expressions do not argue post-Mosaic, but rather pre-Mosaic authorship. Thirdly, the passage demolishes theory of schools of J’s, etc. It cannot seriously be maintained that there was a school of J’s writing a particular style marked by the most delicate and subjective criteria subsisting continuously for some 10 or 12 centuries from the time of Abraham onward, side by side with other writers with whom its members never exchanged terms of even such common occurrence as handmaid.

Gen 10:19 is not the only passage of this kind. In Gen 2:14 we read of the Hiddekel (Tigris) as flowing East of Assur, though there is an alternative reading in front of. If the translation east be correct, the passage must antedate the 13th century BC, for Assur, the ancient capital, which was on the west bank of the Tigris, was abandoned at about that date for Kalkhi on the East.

(2) Archaeology and Genesis.

Closely connected with the foregoing are cases where Genesis has preserved information that is true of a very early time only. Thus in Gen 10:22 Elam figures as a son of Shem. The historical Elam was, however, an Aryan people. Recently inscriptions have been discovered which show that in very early times Elam really was inhabited by Semites. The fact, writes Driver, at the place, is not one which the writer of this verse is likely to have known. This contention falls to the ground when we find that only three verses off we have material that goes back at least as far as the time of Abraham. After all, the presumption is that the writer stated the fact because he knew it, not in spite of his not knowing it; and that knowledge must be due to the same cause as the noteworthy language of Gen 10:19, i.e. to early date.

This is merely one example of the confirmations of little touches in Genesis that are constantly being provided by archaeology. For the detailed facts see the separate articles, e.g. AMRAPHEL; JERUSALEM, and compare IV, below.

From the point of view of the critical question we note (a) that such accuracy is a natural mark of authentic early documents, and (b) that in view of the arguments already adduced and of the legal evidence to be considered, the most reasonable explanation is to be found in a theory of contemporary authorship.

(3) The Legal Evidence of Genesis.

The legal evidence is perhaps more convincing, for here no theory of late authorship can be devised to evade the natural inference. Correct information as to early names, geography, etc., might be the result of researches by an exilic writer in a Babylonian library; but early customs that are confirmed by the universal experience of primitive societies, and that point to a stage of development which had long been passed in the Babylonia even of Abraham’s day, can be due to but one cause – genuine early sources. The narratives of Genesis are certainly not the work of comparative sociologists. Two instances may be cited. The law of homicide shows us two stages that are known to be earlier than the stage attested by Exo 21:12 ff. In the story of Cain we have one stage; in Gen 9:6, which does not yet recognize any distinction between murder and other forms of homicide, we have the other.

Our other example shall be the unlimited power of life and death possessed by the head of the family (Gen 38:24; Gen 42:37, etc.), which has not yet been limited in any way by the jurisdiction of the courts as in Exodus-Deuteronomy. In both cases comparative historical jurisprudence confirms the Bible account against the critical, which would make e.g. Gen 9:6 post-exilic, while assigning Ex 21 to a much earlier period. (On the whole subject see further OP, 135 ff.)

(4) The Professedly Mosaic Character of the Legislation.

Coming now to the four concluding books of the Pentateuch, we must first observe that the legislation everywhere professes to be Mosaic. Perhaps this is not always fully realized. In critical editions of the text the rubrics and an occasional phrase are sometimes assigned to redactors, but the representation of Mosaic date is far too closely interwoven with the matter to be removed by such devices. If e.g. we take such a section as Dt 12, we shall find it full of such phrases as for ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance etc.; When ye go over Jordan, the place which the Lord shall choose (the King James Version), etc. It is important to bear this in mind throughout the succeeding discussion.

(5) The Historical Situation Required by Pentateuch.

What do we find if we ignore the Mosaic dress and seek to fit P into any other set of conditions, particularly those of the post-exilic period? The general historical situation gives a clear answer. The Israelites are represented as being so closely concentrated that they will always be able to keep the three pilgrimage festivals. One exception only is contemplated, namely, that ritual uncleanness or a journey may prevent an Israelite from keeping the Passover. Note that in that case he is most certainly to keep it one month later (Num 9:10 f). How could this law have been enacted when the great majority of the people were in Babylonia, Egypt, etc., so that attendance at the temple was impossible for them on any occasion whatever? With this exception the entire Priestly Code always supposes that the whole people are at all times dwelling within easy reach of the religious center. How strongly this view is embedded in the code may be seen especially from Lev 17, which provides that all domestic animals to be slaughtered for food must be brought to the door of the Tent of Meeting. Are we to suppose that somebody deliberately intended such legislation to apply when the Jews were scattered all over the civilized world, or even all over Canaan? If so, it means a total prohibition of animal food for all save the inhabitants of the capital.

In post-exilic days there was no more pressing danger for the religious leaders to combat than intermarriage, but this code, which is supposed to have been written for the express purpose of bringing about their action, goes out of its way to give a fictitious account of a war and incidentally to legalize some such unions (Num 31:18). And this chapter also contains a law of booty. What could be more unsuitable? How and where were the Jews to make conquests and capture booty in the days of Ezra?

Or again, pass to the last chapter of Nu and consider the historical setting. What is the complaint urged by the deputation that waits upon Moses? It is this: If heiresses ‘be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be added to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they shall belong.’ What a pressing grievance for a legislator to consider and redress when tribes and tribal lots had long since ceased to exist for ever! (OP, 121 f).

Perhaps the most informing of all the discrepancies between P and the post-exilic age is one that explains the freedom of the earlier prophets from its literary influence. According to the constant testimony of the Pentateuch, including the Priestly Code (P), portions of the law were to reach the people only through priestly teaching (Lev 10:11; Deu 24:8; Deu 33:10, etc.). Ezra on the other hand read portions of P to the whole people.

(6) The Hierarchical Organization in Pentateuch.

Much of what falls under this head is treated in PRIESTS, 2., (a), (b), and need not be repeated here. The following may be added: Urim and Thummim were not used after the Exile. In lieu of the simple conditions – a small number of priests and a body of Levites – we find a developed hierarchy, priests, Levites, singers, porters, Nethinim, sons of Solomon’s servants. The code that ex hypothesi was forged to deal with this state of affairs has no acquaintance with them. The musical services of the temple are as much beyond its line of vision as the worship of the synagogue. Even such an organization as that betrayed by the reference in 1Sa 2:36 to the appointment by the high priest to positions carrying pecuniary emoluments is far beyond the primitive simplicity of P (OP, 122).

(7) The Legal Evidence of the Pentateuch.

As this subject is technical we can only indicate the line of reasoning. Legal rules may be such as to enable the historical inquirer to say definitely that they belong to an early stage of society. Thus if we find elementary rules relating to the inheritance of a farmer who dies without leaving sons, we know that they cannot be long subsequent to the introduction of individual property in land, unless of course the law has been deliberately altered. It is an everyday occurrence for men to die without leaving sons, and the question What is to happen to their land in such cases must from the nature of the case be raised and settled before very long. When therefore we find such rules in Nu 27, etc., we know that they are either very old or else represent a deliberate change in the law. The latter is really out of the question, and we are driven back to their antiquity (see further OP, 124 ff). Again in Nu 35 we find an elaborate struggle to express a general principle which shall distinguish between two kinds of homicide. The earlier law had regarded all homicide as on the same level (Gen 9). Now, the human mind only reaches general principles through concrete cases, and other ancient legislations (e.g. the Icelandic) bear witness to the primitive character of the rules of Numbers. Thus, an expert like Dareate can say confidently that such rules as these are extremely archaic (see further SBL and OP, passim).

(8) The Evidence of Deuteronomist.

The following may be quoted: Laws are never issued to regulate a state of things which has passed away ages before, and can by no possibility be revived. What are we to think, then, of a hypothesis which assigns the code of Deuteronomy to the reign of Josiah, or shortly before it, when its injunctions to exterminate the Canaanites (Deu 20:16-18) and the Amalekites (Deu 25:17-19), who had long since disappeared, would be as utterly out of date as a law in New Jersey at the present time offering a bounty for killing wolves and bears, or a royal proclamation in Great Britain ordering the expulsion of the Danes? A law contemplating foreign conquests (Deu 20:10-15) would have been absurd when the urgent question was whether Judah could maintain its own existence against the encroachments of Babylon and Egypt. A law discriminating against Ammon and Moab (Deu 23:3, Deu 23:4), in favor of Edom (Deu 23:7, Deu 23:8), had its warrant in the Mosaic period, but not in the time of the later kings. Jeremiah discriminates precisely the other way, promising a future restoration to Moab (Jer 48:47) and Ammon (Jer 49:6), which he denies to Edom (Jer 49:17, Jer 49:18), who is also to Joel (Joe 3:19), Obadiah, and Isaiah (Isa 63:1-6), the representative foe of the people of God…. The allusions to Egypt imply familiarity with and recent residence in that land … And how can a code belong to the time of Josiah, which, while it contemplates the possible selection of a king in the future (Deu 17:14 ff), nowhere implies an actual regal government, but vests the supreme central authority in a judge and the priesthood (Deu 17:8-12; Deu 19:17); which lays special stress on the requirements that the king must be a native and not a foreigner (Deu 17:15), when the undisputed line of succession had for ages been fixed in the family of David, and that he must not ’cause the people to return to Egypt.’ (Deu 17:16), as they seemed ready to do on every grievance in the days of Moses (Num 14:4), but which no one ever dreamed of doing after they were fairly established in Canaan? (Green, Moses and the Prophets, 63 f). This too may be supplemented by legal evidence (e.g. Deu 22:26 testifies to the undeveloped intellectual condition of the people). Of JE it is unnecessary to speak, for Ex 21 f are now widely regarded as Mosaic in critical circles. Wellhausen (Prolegomena6, 392, note) now regards their main elements as pre-Mosaic Canaanitish law.

(9) Later Allusions.

These are of two kinds. Sometimes we have references to the laws, in other cases we find evidence that they were in operation. (a) By postulating redactors evidence can be banished from the Biblical text. Accordingly, reference will only be made to some passages where this procedure is not followed. Eze 22:26 clearly knows of a law that dealt with the subjects of the Priestly Code (P), used its very language (compare Lev 10:10 f), and like P was to be taught to the people by the priests. Hos 4:6 also knows of some priestly teaching, which, however, is moral and may therefore be Lev 19; but in Lev 8:11-13 he speaks of 10,000 written precepts, and here the context points to ritual. The number and the subject-matter of these precepts alike make it certain that he knew a bulky written law which was not merely identical with Ex 21 through 23, and this passage cannot be met by Wellhausen who resorts to the device of translating it with the omission of the important word write. (b) Again, in dealing with institutions the references can often be evaded. It is possible to say, Yes, this passage knows such and such a law, but this law does not really come into existence with D or the Priestly Code (P), but was an older law incorporated in these documents. That argument would apply, e.g. to the necessity for two witnesses in the case of Naboth. That is a law of D, but those who assign Deuteronomy to the reign of Josiah would assert that it is here merely incorporating older material. Again the allusions sometimes show something that differs in some way from the Pentateuch, and it is often impossible to prove that this was a development. The critics in such cases claim that it represents an earlier stage, and it frequently happens that the data are insufficient either to support or refute this view. But fortunately there are in P certain institutions of which the critics definitely assert that they are late. Accordingly, references that prove the earlier existence of such institutions have a very different probative value. Thus it is alleged that before the exile there was but one national burnt offering and one national meal offering each day: whereas Nu 28 demands two. Now in 1Ki 18:29, 1Ki 18:36, we find references to the offering of the evening oblation, but 2Ki 3:20 speaks of ‘the time of offering the oblation’ in connection with the morning. Therefore these two oblations were actually in existence centuries before the date assigned to P – who, on the critical theory, first introduced them. So 2Ki 16:15 speaks of ‘the morning burnt-offering, and the evening meal-offering … with the burnt-offering of all the people of the land, and their meal-offering.’ This again gives us the two burnt offerings, though, on the hypothesis, they were unknown to pre-exilic custom. Similarly in other cases: Jer 32 shows us the land laws in actual operation; Ezekiel is familiar with the Jubilee laws – though, on the critical hypothesis, these did not yet exist. Jeroboam was acquainted with P’s date for Tabernacles, though the critics allege that the date was first fixed in the Exile (OP, 132 f).

(10) Other Evidence.

We can only mention certain other branches of evidence. There is stylistic evidence of early date (see e.g. Lias, BS, 1910, 20-46, 299-334). Further, the minute accuracy of the narrative of Ex-Nu to local conditions, etc. (noticed below, IV, 8, (6)), affords valuable testimony. It may be said generally that the whole work – laws and narrative – mirrors early conditions, whether we regard intellectual, economic or purely legal development (see further below, IV, and OP, passim).

5. The Fundamental Improbabilities of the Critical Case:

(1) Moral and Psychological Issues.

The great fundamental improbabilities of the critical view have hitherto been kept out of sight in order that the arguments for and against the detailed case might not be prejudiced by other considerations. We must now glance at some of the broader issues. The first that occurs is the moral and psychological incredibility. On theory two great frauds were perpetrated – in each case by men of the loftiest ethical principles. Deuteronomy was deliberately written in the form of Mosaic speeches by some person or persons who well knew that their work was not Mosaic. P is a make-up – nothing more. All its references to the wilderness, the camp, the Tent of Meeting, the approaching occupation of Canaan, etc., are so many touches introduced for the purpose of deceiving. There can be no talk of literary convention, for no such convention existed in Israel. The prophets all spoke in their own names, not in the dress of Moses. David introduced a new law of booty in his own name; the Chronicler repeatedly refers temple ordinances to David and Solomon; Samuel introduced a law of the kingdom in his own name. Yet we are asked to believe that these gigantic forgeries were perpetrated without reason or precedent. Is it credible? Consider the principles inculcated, e.g. the Deuteronomic denunciations of false prophets, the prohibition of adding aught to the law, the passionate injunctions to teach children. Can it be believed that men of such principles would have been guilty of such conduct? Nemo repente fit turpissimus, says the old maxim; can we suppose that the denunciations of those who prophesy falsely in the name of the Lord proceed from the pen of one who was himself forging in that name? Or can it be that the great majority of Bible readers know so little of truth when they meet it that they cannot detect the ring of unquestionable sincerity in the references of the Deuteronomist to the historical situation? Or can we really believe that documents that originated in such a fashion could have exercised the enormous force for righteousness in the world that these documents have exercised? Ex nihilo nihil. Are literary forgeries a suitable parentage for Gen 1 or Leviticus or Deuteronomy? Are the great monotheistic ethical religions of the world, with all they have meant, really rooted in nothing better than folly and fraud?

(2) The Historical Improbability.

A second fundamental consideration is the extraordinary historical improbability that these frauds could have been successfully perpetrated. The narrative in Kings undoubtedly relates the finding of what was regarded as an authentic work. King and people, priests and prophets must have been entirely deceived if the critical theory be true. It is surely possible that Huldah and Jeremiah were better judges than modern critics. Similarly in the case of the Priestly Code (P), if e.g. there had been no Levitical cities or no such laws as to tithes and firstlings as were here contemplated, but entirely different provisions on the subjects, how came the people to accept these forgeries so readily? (See further POT, 257 f, 294-97.) It is of course quite easy to carry this argument too far. It cannot be doubted that the exile had meant a considerable break in the historical continuity of the national development; but yet once the two views are understood the choice cannot be difficult. On the critical theory elaborate literary forgeries were accepted as genuine ancient laws; on the conservative theory laws were accepted because they were in fact genuine, and interpreted as far as possible to meet the entirely different requirements of the period. This explains both the action of the people and the divergence between preexilic and post-exilic practice. The laws were the same but the interpretation was different.

(3) The Divergence Between the Laws and Post-Exilic Practice.

Thirdly, the entire perversion of the true meaning of the laws in post-exilic times makes the critical theory incredible. Examples have been given (see above, 4, (5), (6), and PRIESTS, passim). It must now suffice to take just one instance to make the argument clear. We must suppose that the author of P deliberately provided that if Levites approached the altar both they and the priests should die (Num 18:3), because he really desired that they should approach the altar and perform certain services there. We must further suppose that Ezra and the people on reading these provisions at once understood that the legislator meant the exact opposite of what he had said, and proceeded to act accordingly (1Ch 23:31). This is only one little example. It is so throughout Pentateuch. Everybody understands that the Tabernacle is really the second Temple and wilderness conditions post-exilic, and everybody acts accordingly. Can it be contended that this view is credible?

(4) The Testimony of Tradition.

Lastly the uniform testimony of tradition is in favor of Mosaic authenticity – the tradition of Jews, Samaritans and Christians alike. The national consciousness of a people, the convergent belief of Christendom for 18 centuries are not lightly to be put aside. And what is pitted against them? Theories that vary with each fresh exponent, and that take their start from textual corruption, develop through a confusion between an altar and a house, and end in misdating narratives and laws by 8 or 10 centuries! (see above 3 and 4; SANCTUARY; PRIESTS).

6. The Origin and Transmission of the Pentateuch:

If anything at all emerges from the foregoing discussion, it is the impossibility of performing any such analytical feat as the critics attempt. No critical microscope can possibly detect with any reasonable degree of certainty the joins of various sources, even if such sources really exist, and when we find that laws and narratives are constantly misdated by 8 or 10 centuries, we can only admit that no progress at all is possible along the lines that have been followed. On the other hand, certain reasonable results do appear to have been secured, and there are indications of the direction in which we must look for further light.

First, then, the Pentateuch contains various notes by later hands. Sometimes the versions enable us to detect and remove those notes, but many are pre-versional. Accordingly, it is often impossible to get beyond probable conjectures on which different minds may differ.

Secondly, Genesis contains pre-Mosaic elements, but we cannot determine the scope of these or the number and character of the sources employed, or the extent of the author’s work.

Thirdly, the whole body of the legislation is (subject only to textual criticism) Mosaic. But the laws of Dt carry with them their framework, the speeches which cannot be severed from them (see SBL, II). The speeches of Deuteronomy in turn carry with them large portions of the narrative of Exodus-Numbers which they presuppose. They do not necessarily carry with them such passages as Ex 35 through 39 or Nu 1 through 4; 7; 26, but Nu 1 through 4 contains internal evidence of Mosaic date.

At this point we turn to examine certain textual phenomena that throw light on our problem. It may be said that roughly there are two great classes of textual corruption – that which is due to the ordinary processes of copying, perishing, annotating, etc., and that which is due to a conscious and systematic effort to fix or edit a text. In the case of ancient authors, there comes a time sooner or later when scholarship, realizing the corruption that has taken place, makes a systematic attempt to produce, so far as possible, a correct standard text. Instances that will occur to many are to be found in the work of the Massoretes on the Hebrew text, that of Origen and others on the Septuagint, and that of the commission of Peisistratos and subsequently of the Alexandrian critics on Homer. There is evidence that such revisions took place in the case of the Pentateuch. A very important instance is to be found in the chronology of certain portions of Genesis of which three different versions survive , the Massoretic, Samaritan and Septuagintal. Another instance of even greater consequence for the matter in hand is to be found in Ex 35 through 39. It is well known that the Septuagint preserves an entirely different edition from that of Massoretic Text (supported in the main by the Samaritan and other VSS). Some other examples have been noticed incidentally in the preceding discussion; one other that may be proved by further research to possess enormous importance may be mentioned. It appears that in the law of the kingdom (Dt 17) and some other passages where the Massoretic and Samaritan texts speak of a hereditary king, the Septuagint knew nothing of such a person (see further PS, 157-68). The superiority of the Septuagint text in this instance appears to be attested by 1 Samuel, which is unacquainted with any law of the kingdom.

Thus, we know of at least three recensions, the M, the Samaritan and the Septuagint. While there are many minor readings (in cases of variation through accidental corruption) in which the two last-named agree, it is nevertheless true that in a general way the Samaritan belongs to the same family as the M, while the Septuagint in the crucial matters represents a different textual tradition from the other two (see The Expositor, September 1911, 200-219). How is this to be explained? According to the worthless story preserved in the letter of Aristeas the Septuagint was translated from manuscripts brought from Jerusalem at a date long subsequent to the Samaritan schism. The fact that the Septuagint preserves a recension so different from both Samaritan and (i.e. from the most authoritative Palestinian tradition of the 5th century BC and its lineal descendants) suggests that this part of the story must be rejected. If so, the Septuagint doubtless represents the text of the Pentateuch prevalent in Egypt and descends from a Hebrew that separated from the ancestor of the M before the Samaritan schism. At this point we must recall the fact that in Jeremiah the Septuagint differs rom Massoretic Text more widely than in any other Biblical book, and the current explanation is that the divergence goes back to the times of Jeremiah, his work having been preserved in two editions, an Egyptian and a Babylonian. We may be sure that if the Jews of Egypt had an edition of Jeremiah, they also had an edition of that law to which Jeremiah refers, and it is probable that the main differences between Septuagint and Massoretic Text (with its allies) are due to the two streams of tradition separating from the time of the exile – the Egyptian and the Babylonian. The narrative of the finding of the Book of the Law in the days of Josiah (2 Ki 22), which probably refers to Deuteronomy only, suggests that its text at that time depended on the single manuscript found. The phenomena presented by Genesis-Numbers certainly suggest that they too were at one time dependent on a single damaged MS, and that conscious efforts were made to restore the original order – in some cases at any rate on a wrong principle (see especially EPC, 114-38; BS, 1913, 270-90). In view of the great divergences of the Septuagint in Ex 35 through 39, it may be taken as certain that in some instances the editing went to considerable lengths.

Thus, the history of the Pentateuch, so far as it can be traced, is briefly as follows: The backbone of the book consists of pre-Mosaic sources in Genesis, and Mosaic narratives, speeches and legislation in Exodus-Deuteronomy. To this, notes, archaeological, historical, explanatory, etc., were added by successive readers. The text at one time depended on a single manuscript which was damaged, and one or more attempts were made to repair this damage by rearrangemerit of the material. It may be that some of the narrative chapters, such as Nu 1 through 4; 7; 26, were added from a separate source and amplified or rewritten in the course of some such redaction, but on this head nothing certain can be said. Within a period that is attested by the materials that survive, Ex 35 through 39 underwent one or more such redactions. Slighter redactions attested by Samaritan and Septuagint have affected the chronological data, the numbers of the Israelites and some references to post-Mosaic historical events. Further than this it is impossible to go on our present materials.

III. Some Literary Points.

1. Style of Legislation:

No general estimate of the Pentateuch as literature can or need be attempted. Probably most readers are fully sensible to its literary beauties. Anybody who is not would do well to compare the chapter on Joseph in the Koran (12) with the Biblical narrative. A few words must be said of some of the less obvious matters that would naturally fall into a literary discussion, the aim being rather to draw the reader’s attention to points that he might overlook.

Of the style of the legislation no sufficient estimate can now be formed, for the first requisite of legal style is that it should be clear and unambiguous to contemporaries, and today no judgment can be offered on that head. There is, however, one feature that is of great interest even now, namely, the prevalence in the main of three different styles, each marked by its special adaptation to the end in view. These styles are (1) mnemonic, (2) oratorical, and (3) procedural. The first is familiar in other early legislations. It is lapidary, terse in the extreme, pregnant, and from time to time marked by a rhythm that must have assisted the retention in the memory. Occasionally we meet with parallelism. This is the style of Ex 21 ff and occasional later passages, such as the judgment in the case of Shelomith’s son (Lev 24:10 ff). No doubt these laws were memorized by the elders.

Secondly, the legislation of Dt forms part of a speech and was intended for public reading. Accordingly, the laws here take on a distinctly oratorical style. Thirdly, the bulk of the rest of the legislation was intended to remain primarily in the custody of the priests who could certainly write (Num 6:23). This was taken into account, and the style is not terse or oratorical, but reasonably full. It was probably very clear to those for whom the laws were meant. There are minor varieties of style but these are the most important. (On the whole subject see especially PS, 170-224.)

2. The Narrative:

What holds good of the laws is also true with certain modifications of the narrative. The style varies with the nature of the subject, occasion and purpose. Thus, the itinerary in Nu 33 is intentionally composed in a style which undoubtedly possesses peculiar qualities when chanted to an appropriate tune. The census lists, etc., appear to be written in a formal official manner, and something similar is true of the lists of the spies in Nu 13. There is no ground for surprise in this. In the ancient world style varied according to the genre of the composition to a far greater extent than it does today.

3. The Covenant:

A literary form that is peculiar to the Pentateuch deserves special notice, namely, the covenant document as a form of literature. Many peoples have had laws that were attributed to some deity, but it is only here that laws are presented in the form of sworn agreements entered into with certain formalities between the nation and God. The literary result is that certain portions of the Pentateuch are in the form of a sort of deed with properly articulated parts. This deed would have been ratified by oath if made between men, as was the covenant between Jacob and Laban, but in a covenant with God this is inapplicable, and the place of the jurat is in each case taken by a discourse setting forth the rewards and penalties attached by God to observance and breach of the covenant respectively. The covenant conception and the idea that the laws acquire force because they are terms in an agreement between God and people, and not merely because they were commanded by God, is one of extraordinary importance in the history of thought and in theology, but we must not through absorption in these aspects of the question fail to notice that the conception found expression in a literary form that is unknown elsewhere and that it provides the key to the comprehension of large sections of the Pentateuch, including almost the whole of Dt (see in detail SBL, chapter ii).

4. Order and Rhythm:

Insufficient attention has been paid to order and rhythm generally. Two great principles must be borne in mind: (1) in really good ancient prose the artist appeals to the ear in many subtle ways, and (2) in all such prose, emphasis and meaning as well as beauty are given to a great extent by the order of the words. The figures of the old Greek rhetoricians play a considerable part. Thus the figure called kuklos, the circle, is sometimes used with great skill. In this the clause or sentence begins and ends with the same word, which denotes alike the sound and the thought. Probably the most effective instance – heightened by the meaning, the shortness and the heavy boom of the word – is to be found in Deu 4:12, where there is an impressive circle with , kol, voice – the emphasis conveyed by the sound being at least as marked as that conveyed by the sense. This is no isolated instance of the figure; compare e.g. in Num 32:1, the circle with cattle; Num 14:2 that with would that we had died. Chiasmus is a favorite figure, and assonances, plays on words, etc., are not uncommon. Such traits often add force as well as beauty to the narrative, as may be seen from instances like Gen 1:2 : , tohu wa-bhohu, waste and void; Gen 4:12 : , na wa-nadh, a fugitive and a wanderer; Gen 9:6 : , shophekh dam ha-‘adham, ba-‘adham damo, yishshaphekh, literally, shedding blood-of man, by-man his-blood shall-be-shed; Num 14:45 : , wayyakkum-wayyakkethum, and smote them and beat them down.

The prose of the Pentateuch, except in its more formal and official parts, is closely allied to poetry (compare e.g. the Aeschylean Sin coucheth at the door (Gen 4:7); The fountains of the great deep (were) broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened (Gen 7:11); how I bare you on eagles’ wings (Exo 19:4)). In the oratorical prose of Deuteronomy we find an imagery and a poetical imagination that are not common among great orators. Its rhythm is marked and the arrangement of the words is extraordinarily forcible, especially in such a chapter as Deuteronomy 28. It is difficult to convey any idea of how much the book loses in English Versions of the Bible from the changes of order. Occasionally the rendering does observe the point of the original, e.g. in Deu 4:36 : Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, and if we consider how strikingly this contrasts with the fiat He made thee to hear his voice out of heaven, some notion may perhaps be formed of the importance of retaining the order. More frequently, however, the English is false to the emphasis and spirit of the Hebrew. Sometimes, but not always, this is due to the exigencies of English idiom. This is the cardinal fault of the King James Version, which otherwise excels so greatly.

IV. The Pentateuch as History.

1. Textual Criticism and History:

Beyond all doubt, the first duty of any who would use the Pentateuch for historical purposes is to consider the light that textual criticism throws upon it. So many of the impossibilities that are relied upon by those who seek to prove that the book is historically worthless may be removed by the simplest operations of scientific textual criticism, that a neglect of this primary precaution must lead to disastrous consequences. After all, it is common experience that a man who sets out to produce a history – whether by original composition or compilation – does not intentionally make, e.g., a southward march lead to a point northward of the starting-place, or a woman carry an able-bodied lad of 16 or 17 on her shoulder, or a patriarch linger some 80 years on a deathbed. When such episodes are found, the rudiments of historical judgment require that we should first ask whether the text is in order, and if the evidence points to any easy, natural and well-supported solutions of the difficulties, we are not justified in rejecting them without inquiry and denying to the Pentateuch all historical value. It is a priori far more probable that narratives which have come down to us from a date some 3,000 years back may have suffered slightly in transmission than that the Pentateuch was in the first instance the story of a historical wonderland. It is far more reasonable, e.g., to suppose that in a couple of verses of Exodus a corruption of two letters (attested by Aquila) has taken place in the Massoretic Text than that the Pentateuch contains two absolutely inconsistent accounts of the origin of the priesthood (see PRIESTS). Accordingly, the first principle of any scientific use of the Pentateuch for historical purposes must be to take account of textual criticism.

2. Hebrew Methods of Expression:

Having discovered as nearly as may be what the author wrote, the next step must be to consider what he meant by it. Here, unfortunately, the modern inquirer is apt to neglect many most necessary precautions. It would be a truism, but for the fact that it is so often disregarded, to say that the whole of a narrative must be carefully read in order to ascertain the author’s meaning; e.g. how often we hear that Gen 14 represents Abram as having inflicted a defeat on the enemy with only 318 men (Gen 14:14), whereas from Gen 14:24 (compare Gen 14:13) it appears that in addition to these his allies Aner, Eshcol and Mature (i.e. as we shall see, the inhabitants of certain localities) had accompanied him! Sometimes the clue to the precise meaning of a story is to be found near the end: e.g. in Josh 22 we do not see clearly what kind of an altar the trans-Jordanic tribes had erected (and consequently why their conduct was open to objection) till Jos 22:28 when we learn that this was an altar of the pattern of the altar of burnt offering, and so bore not the slightest resemblance to such lawful altars as those of Moses and Joshua (see ALTAR; SANCTUARY). Nor is this the only instance in which the methods of expression adopted cause trouble to some modern readers; e.g. the word all is sometimes used in a way that apparently presents difficulties to some minds. Thus in Exo 9:6 it is possible to interpret all in the most sweeping sense and then see a contradiction in Exo 9:19, Exo 9:22, etc., which recognize that some cattle still existed. Or again the term may be regarded as limited by Exo 9:3 to all the cattle in the field. See ALL.

3. Personification and Genealogies:

At this point two further idiosyncrasies of the Semitic genius must be noted – the habits of personification and the genealogical tendency; e.g. in Num 20:12-21, Edom and Israel are personified: thy brother Israel, Edom came out against him, etc. Nobody here mistakes the meaning. Similarly with genealogical methods of expression. The Semites spoke of many relationships in a way that is foreign to occidental methods. Thus the Hebrew for 30 years old is son of 30 years. Again we read He was the father of such as dwell in tents (Gen 4:20). These habits (of personification and genealogical expression of relationships) are greatly extended, e.g. And Canaan begat Zidon his first-born (Gen 10:15). Often this leads to no trouble, yet strangely enough men who will grasp these methods when dealing with Genesis 10 will claim that Genesis 14 cannot be historical because localities are there personified and grouped in relationships. Yet if we are to estimate the historical value of the narrative, we must surely be willing to apply. the same methods to one chapter as to another if the sense appears to demand this. See, further, GENEALOGIES.

4. Literary Form:

A further consideration that is not always heeded is the exigency of literary form; e.g. in Gen 24 there occurs a dialogue. Strangely enough, an attack has been made on the historical character of Genesis on this ground. It cannot be supposed – so runs the argument – that we have here a literal report of what was said. This entirely ignores the practice of all literary artists. Such passages are to be read as giving a literary presentation of what occurred; they convey a far truer and more vivid idea of what passed than could an actual literal report of the mere words, divorced from the gestures, glances and modulations of the voice that play such an important part in conversation.

5. The Sacred Numbers:

Another matter is the influence of the sacred numbers on the text; e.g. in Nu 33 the journeys seem designed to present 40 stations and must not be held to exclude camping at other stations not mentioned; Gen 10 probably contained 70 names in the original text. This is a technical consideration which must be borne in mind, and so, too, must the Hebrew habit of using certain round numbers to express an unspecified time: When, for instance, we read that somebody was 40 or 60 years old, we are not to take these words literally. Forty years old often seems to correspond to after he had reached man’s estate. See NUMBER.

6. Habits of Thought:

Still more important is it to endeavor to appreciate the habits of thought of those for whom the Pentateuch was first intended, and to seek to read it in the light of archaic ideas. One instance must suffice. Of the many explanations of names few are philologically correct. It is certain that Noah is not connected with the Hebrew for to comfort or Moses with draw out – even if Egyptian princesses spoke Hebrew. The etymological key will not fit. Yet we must ask ourselves whether the narrator ever thought that it did. In times when names were supposed to have some mystic relation to their bearers they might be conceived as standing also in some mystic relation to events either present or future; it is not clear that the true original meaning of the narratives was not to suggest this in literary form. How far the ancient Hebrews were from regarding names in the same light as we do may be seen from such passages as Exo 23:20 f; Isa 30:27; see further EPC, 47 ff. See also NAMES, PROPER.

7. National Coloring:

The Pentateuch is beyond all doubt an intensely national work. Its outlook is so essentially Israelite that no reader could fail to notice the fact, and it is therefore unnecessary to cite proofs. Doubtless this has in many instances led to its presenting a view of history with which the contemporary peoples would not have agreed. It is not to be supposed that the exodus was an event of much significance in the Egypt of Moses, however important it may appear to the Egyptians of today; and this suggests two points. On the one hand we must admit that to most contemporaries the Pentateuchal narratives must have seemed out of all perspective; on the other the course of subsequent history has shown that the Mosaic sense of perspective was in reality the true one, however absurd it may have seemed to the nations of his own day. Consequently in using the Pentateuch for historical purposes we must always apply two standards – the contemporary and the historical. In the days of Moses the narrative might often have looked to the outsider like the attempt of the frog in the fable to attain to the size of an ox; for us, with the light of history upon it, the values are very different. The national coloring, the medium through which the events are seen, has proved to be true, and the seemingly insignificant doings of unimportant people have turned out to be events of prime historical importance.

There is another aspect of the national coloring of the Pentateuch to be borne in mind. If ever there was a book which revealed the inmost soul of a people, that book is the Pentateuch. This will be considered in V, below, but for the present we are concerned with its historical significance. In estimating actions, motives, laws, policy – all that goes to make history – character is necessarily a factor of the utmost consequence. Now here we have a book that at every point reveals and at the same t ime grips the national character. Alike in contents and in form the legislation is adapted with the utmost nicety to the nature of the people for which it was promulgated.

8. How Far the Pentateuch Is Trustworthy:

When due allowance has been made for all the various matters enumerated above, what can be said as to the trustworthiness of the Pentateuchal history? The answer is entirely favorable.

(1) Contemporaneous Information.

In the first place the discussion as to the dating of the Pentateuch (above, II, 4) has shown that we have in it documents that are in many cases certainly contemporaneous with the matters to which they relate and have been preserved in a form that is substantially original. Thus we have seen that the wording of Gen 10:19 cannot be later than the age of Abraham and that the legislation of the last four books is Mosaic. Now contemporaneousness is the first essential of credibility.

(2) Character of Our Informants.

Given the fact (guaranteed by the contemporaneousness of the sources) that our informants had the means of providing accurate information if they so desired, we have to ask whether they were truthful and able. As to the ability no doubt is possible; genius is stamped on every page of the Pentateuch. Similarly as to truthfulness. The conscience of the narrators is essentially ethical. This appears of course most strongly in the case of the legislation (compare Lev 19:11) and the attribution of truthfulness to God (Exo 34:6), but it may readily be detected throughout; e.g. in Gen 20:12 the narrative clearly shows that truthfulness was esteemed as a virtue by the ancient Hebrews. Throughout, the faults of the dramatis personae are never minimized even when the narrator’s sympathy is with them. Nor is there any attempt to belittle the opponents of Israel’s heroes. Consider on the one hand the magnanimity of Esau’s character and on the other the very glaring light that is thrown on the weaknesses of Jacob, Judah, Aaron. If we are taught to know the Moses who prays, And if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written (Exo 32:32), we are also shown his frequent complaints, and we make acquaintance with the hot-tempered manslayer and the lawgiver who disobeyed his God.

(3) Historical Genius of the People.

Strangely enough, those who desire to discuss the trustworthiness of the Pentateuch often go far afield to note the habits of other nations and, selecting according to their bias peoples that have a good or a bad reputation in the matter of historical tradition, proceed to argue for or against the Pentateuchal narrative on this basis. Such procedure is alike unjust and unscientific. It is unscientific because the object of the inquirer is to obtain knowledge as to the habits of this people, and in view of the great divergences that may be observed among different races the comparative method is clearly inapplicable; it is unjust because this people is entitled to be judged on its own merits or defects, not on the merits or defects of others. Now it is a bare statement of fact that the Jews possess the historical sense to a preeminent degree. Nobody who surveys their long history and examines their customs and practices to this day can fairly doubt that fact. This is no recent development; it is most convincingly attested by the Pentateuch itself, which here, as elsewhere, faithfully mirrors the spirit of the race. What is the highest guaranty of truth, a guaranty to which unquestioning appeal may be made in the firm assurance that it will carry conviction to all who hear? Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations: Ask thy father and he will show thee; Thine elders, and they will tell thee (Deu 32:7). For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, etc. (Deu 4:32). Conversely, the due handing down of tradition is a religious duty: And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? that ye shall say, etc. (Exo 12:26 f). Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes saw, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life; but make them known unto thy children, and thy children’s children (Deu 4:9). It is needless to multiply quotations. Enough has been said to show clearly the attitude of this people toward history.

(4) Good Faith of Deuteronomy.

Closely connected with the preceding is the argument from the very obvious good faith of the speeches in Deuteronomy. It is not possible to read the references to events in such a chapter as Deuteronomy 4 without realizing that the speaker most fully believed the truth of his statements. The most unquestionable sincerity is impressed upon the chapter. The speaker is referring to what he believes with all the faith of which he is capable. Even for those who doubt the Mosaic authenticity of these speeches there can be no doubt as to the writer’s unquestioning acceptance of the historical consciousness of the people. But once the Mosaic authenticity is established the argument becomes overwhelming. How could Moses have spoken to people of an event so impressive and unparalleled as having happened within their own recollection if it had not really occurred?

(5) Nature of the Events Recorded.

Another very important consideration arises from the nature of the events recorded. No nation, it has often been remarked, would gratuitously invent a story of its enslavement to another. The extreme sobriety of the patriarchal narratives, the absence of miracle, the lack of any tendency to display the ancestors of the people as conquerors or great personages, are marks of credibility. Many of the episodes in the Mosaic age are extraordinarily probable. Take the stories of the rebelliousness of the people, of their complaints of the water, the food, and so on: what could be more in accordance with likelihood? On the other hand there is another group of narratives to which the converse argument applies. A Sinai cannot be made part of a nation’s consciousness by a clever story-teller or a literary forger. The unparalleled nature of the events narrated was recognized quite as clearly by the ancient Hebrews as it is today (see Deu 4:32 ff). It is incredible that such a story could have been made up and successfully palmed off on the whole nation. A further point that may be mentioned in this connection is the witness of subsequent history to the truth of the narrative. Such a unique history as that of the Jews, such tremendous consequences as their religion has had on the fortunes of mankind, require for their explanation causal events of sufficient magnitude.

(6) External Corroborations.

All investigation of evidence depends on a single principle: The coincidences of the truth are infinite. In other words, a false story will sooner or later become involved in conflict with ascertained facts. The Biblical narrative has been subjected to the most rigorous cross-examination from every point of view for more than a century. Time after time confident assertions have been made that its falsehood has been definitely proved, and in each case the Pentateuch has come out from the test triumphant. The details will for the most part be found enumerated or referred to under the separate articles. Here it must suffice just to refer to a few matters. It was said that the whole local coloring of the Egyptian scenes was entirely false, e.g. that the vine did not grow in Egypt. Egyptology has in every instance vindicated the minute accuracy of the Pentateuch, down to even the non-mention of earthenware (in which the discolored Nile waters can be kept clean) in Exo 7:19 and the very food of the lower classes in Num 11:5. It was said that writing was unknown in the days of Moses, but Egyptology and Assyriology have utterly demolished this. The historical character of many of the names has been strengthened by recent discoveries (see e.g. JERUSALEM; AMRAPHEL). From another point of view modern observation of the habits of the quails has shown that the narrative of Numbers is minutely accurate and must be the work of an eyewitness. From the ends of the earth there comes confirmation of the details of the evolution of law as depicted in the Pentateuch. Finally it is worth noting that even the details of some of the covenants in Genesis are confirmed by historical parallels (Churchman, 1908, 17 f).

It is often said that history in the true sense was invented by the Greeks and that the Hebrew genius was so intent on the divine guidance that it neglected secondary causes altogether. There is a large measure of truth in this view; but so far as the Pentateuch is concerned it can be greatly overstated.

9. The Pentateuch as Reasoned History:

One great criticism that falls to be made is entirely in favor of the Hebrew as against some Greeks, namely, the superior art with which the causes are given. A Thucydides would have stated the reasons that induced Pharaoh to persecute the Israelites, or Abraham and Lot to separate, or Korah, Dathan and Abiram and their followers to rebel; but every reader would have known precisely what he was doing and many who can read the material passages of the Pentateuch with delight would have been totally unable to grapple with his presentation of the narrative. The audience is here more unsophisticated and the material presented in more artistic form. In truth, any historian who sat down to compose a philosophical history of the period covered by the Pentateuch would in many instances be surprised at the lavish material it offered to him. A second criticism is more obvious. The writer clearly had no knowledge of the other side of the case. For example, the secondary causes for the defeat near Hormah are plain enough so far as they are internal to the Israelites – lack of morale, discipline and leadership, division of opinion, discouragement produced by the divine disapproval testified by the absence from the army of Moses and the Ark, and the warnings of the former – but the secondary causes on the side of the Amalekites and Canaanites are entirely omitted. Thus it generally happens that we do not get the same kind of view of the events as might be possible if we could have both sides. Naturally this is largely the case with the work of every historian who tells the story from one side only and is not peculiar to the Pentateuch. Thirdly, the object of the Pentateuch is not merely to inform, but to persuade. It is primarily statesmanship, not literature, and its form is influenced by this fact. Seeking to sway conduct, not to provide a mere philosophical exposition of history, it belongs to a different (and higher) category from the latter, and where it has occasion to use the same material puts it in a different way, e.g. by assigning as motives for obeying laws reasons that the philosophic historian would have advanced as causes for their enactment. To some extent, therefore, an attempt to criticize the Pentateuch from the standpoint of philosophic history is an attempt to express it in terms of something that is incommensurable with it.

V. The Character of the Pentateuch.

1. Hindu Law Books:

The following sentences from Maine’s Early Law and Custom form a suggestive introduction to any consideration of the character of the Pentateuch:

The theory upon which these schools of learned men worked, from the ancient, perhaps very ancient, Apastamba and Gautama to the late Manu and the still later Narada, is perhaps still held by some persons of earnest religious convictions, but in time now buried it affected every walk of thought. The fundamental assumption is that a sacred or inspired literature being once believed to exist, all knowledge is contained in it. The Hindu way of putting it was, and is, not simply that the Scripture is true, but that everything which is true is contained in the Scripture…. It is to be observed that such a theory, firmly held during the infancy of systematic thought, tends to work itself into fact. As the human mind advances, accumulating observation and accumulating reflection, nascent philosophy and dawning science are read into the sacred literature, while they are at the same time limited by the ruling ideas of its priestly authors. But as the mass of this literature grows through the additions made to it by successive expositors, it gradually specializes itself, and subjects, at first mixed together under vague general conceptions, become separated from one another and isolated. In the history of law the most important early specialization is that which separates what a man ought to do from what he ought to know. A great part of the religious literature, including the Creation of the Universe, the structure of Heaven, Hell, and the World or Worlds, and the nature of the Gods, falls under the last head, what a man ought to know. Law-books first appear as a subdivision of the first branch, what a man should do. Thus the most ancient books of this class are short manuals of conduct for an Aryan Hindu who would lead a perfect life. They contain much more ritual than law, a great deal more about the impurity caused by touching impure things than about crime, a great deal more about penances than about punishments (pp. 16-18).

It is impossible not to see the resemblances to the Pentateuch that these sentences suggest. Particularly interesting is the commentary they provide on the attitude of Moses toward knowledge: The secret things belong unto Yahweh our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law (Deu 29:29).

But if the Pentateuch has significant resemblances to other old law books, there are differences that are even more significant.

2. Differences:

By an act that is unparalleled in history a God took to Himself a people by means of a sworn agreement. Some words that are fundamental for our purpose must be quoted from the offer; ‘Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ The views here expressed dominate the legislation. Holiness – the correlative holiness to which the Israelites must attain because the Lord their God is holy – embraces much that is not germane to our subject, but it also covers the whole field of national and individual righteousness. The duty to God that is laid upon the Israelites in these words is a duty that has practical consequences in every phase of social life. I have already quoted a sentence from Sir Henry Maine in which he speaks of the uniformity with which religion and law are implicated in archaic legislation. There is a stage in human development where life is generally seen whole, and it is to this stage that the Pentateuch belongs. But no other legislation so takes up one department of man’s life after another and impresses on them all the relationship of God and people. Perhaps nothing will so clearly bring out my meaning as a statement of some of the more fundamental differences between the Pentateuchal legislation and the old Indian law-books which often provide excellent parallels to it. Those to which I desire to draw particular attention are as follows: The Indian law-books have no idea of national (as distinct from individual) righteousness – a conception that entered the world with the Mosaic legislation and has perhaps not made very much progress there since. There is no personal God: hence, His personal interest in righteousness is lacking: hence, too, there can be no relationship between God and people: and while there is a supernatural element in the contemplated results of human actions, there is nothing that can in the slightest degree compare with the Personal Divine intervention that is so often promised in the Pentateuchal laws. The caste system, like Hammurabi’s class system, leads to distinctions that are always inequitable. The conception of loving one’s neighbour and one’s sojourner as oneself are alike lacking. The systematic provisions for poor relief are absent, and the legislation is generally on a lower ethical and moral level, while some of the penalties are distinguished by the most perverted and barbarous cruelty. All these points are embraced in the special relationship of the One God and the peculiar treasure with its resulting need for national and individual holiness (PS, 330 f).

3. Holiness:

These sentences indicate some of the most interesting of the distinguishing features of the Pentateuch – its national character, its catholic view of life, its attitude toward the Divine, and some at any rate of its most peculiar teachings. It is worth noting that Judaism, the oldest of the religions which it has influenced, attaches particular importance to one chapter, Lev 19. The keynote of that chapter is the command: ‘Holy shall ye be, for holy am I the Lord your God’ – to preserve the order and emphasis of the original words. This has been called the Jew’s imitatio Dei, though a few moments’ reflection shows that the use of the word imitation is here inaccurate. Now this book with this teaching has exercised a unique influence on the world’s history, for it must be remembered that Judaism, Christianity and Islam spring ultimately from its teachings, and it is impossible to sever it from the history of the people of the book – as Mohammed called them. It appears then that it possesses in some unique way both an intensely national and an intensely universal character and a few words must be said as to this.

4. The Universal Aspect:

The great literary qualities of the work have undoubtedly been an important factor. All readers have felt the fascination of the stories of Genesis. The Jewish character has also counted for much; so again have the moral and ethical doctrines, and the miraculous and unprecedented nature of the events narrated. And yet there is much that might have been thought to militate against the book’s obtaining any wide influence. Apart from some phrases about all the families of the earth being blessed (or blessing themselves) in the seed of Abraham, there is very little in its direct teaching to suggest that it was ever intended to be of universal application. Possibly these phrases only mean that other nations will use Israel as a typical example of greatness and happiness and pray that they may attain an equal degree of glory and prosperity. Moreover, the Pentateuch provides for a sacrificial system that has long ceased to exist, and a corpus of jural law that has not been adopted by other peoples. Of its most characteristic requirement – holiness – large elements are rejected by all save its own people. Wherein then lies its universal element? How came this the most intensely national of books to exercise a world-wide and ever-growing influence? The reason lies in the very first sentence: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This doctrine of the unity of an Almighty God is the answer to our question. Teach that there is a God and One Only All-powerful God, and the book that tells of Him acquires a message to all His creatures.

5. The National Aspect:

Of the national character of the work something has already been said. It is remarkable that for its own people it has in very truth contained life and length of days, for it has been in and through that book that the Jews have maintained themselves throughout their unique history. If it be asked wherein the secret of this strength lies, the answer is in the combination of the national and the religious. The course of history must have been entirely different if the Pentateuch had not been the book of the people long before the Jews became the people of the book.

Literature.

The current critical view is set forth in vast numbers of books. The following may be mentioned: LOT; Cornill’s Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby’s Hexateuch (a 2nd edition of the Introduction without the text has been published as The Composition of the Hexateuch); the volumes of the ICC, Westminster Comms. and Century Bible. Slightly less thoroughgoing views are put forward in the German Introductions of Konig (1893), Baudissin (1901), Sellin (1910); and Geden, Outlines of Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (1909); Kittel, Scientific Study of the Old Testament (English translation, 1910); Eerdm. has entirely divergent critical views; POT; TMH, I, and W. Moller, Are the Critics Right? and Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung; Robertson, Early Religion of Israel; Van Hoonacker, Lieu du culte, and Sacerdoce levitique are all much more conservative and valuable. J.H. Raven, Old Testament Intro, gives a good presentation of the most conservative case. The views taken in this article are represented by SBL, EPC, OP, PS, Troelstra, The Name of God, and in some matters, TMH, I.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Pentateuch

Pentateuch is the title given to the five books of Moses. The Jews usually call the Pentateuch the law.

In considering the Pentateuch, the first question which arises isWho was its author? It is of great importance to hear, first, what the book itself says on this subject. The Pentateuch does not present itself as an anonymous production. It is manifestly intended and destined to be a public monument for the whole people, and it does not veil its origin in a mysterious obscurity; on the contrary, the book speaks most clearly on this subject.

According to Exo 17:14, Moses was commanded by God to write the victory over the Amalekites in the book. This passage shows that the account to be inserted was intended to form a portion of a more extensive work, with which the reader is supposed to be acquainted. It also proves that Moses, at an early period of his public career, was filled with the idea of leaving to his people a written memorial of the Divine guidance, and that he fully understood the close and necessary connection of an authoritative law with a written code. It is, therefore, by no means surprising that the observation repeatedly occurs, that Moses wrote down the account of certain events (Exo 24:4; Exo 24:7; Exo 34:27-28; Num 33:2). Especially important are the statements in Deu 1:5; Deu 28:58. In Deu 31:9; Deu 31:24 the whole work is expressly ascribed to Moses as the author, including the poem in Deuteronomy 32. It may be made a question whether the hand of a later writer, who finished the Pentateuch, is perceptible from Deu 31:24 (comp. Deu 33:1; Deu 34:1-12), or whether the words in Deu 31:24-30 are still the words of Moses. In the former case we have two witnesses, viz. Moses himself, and the continuator of the Pentateuch; in the latter case, which seems to us the more likely, we have the testimony of Moses alone.

Modern criticism has raised many objections against these statements of the Pentateuch relative to its own origin. Many critics suppose that they can discover in the Pentateuch indications that the author intended to make himself known as a person different from Moses. The most important objection is the following: that the Pentateuch, speaking of Moses, always uses the third person, bestows praise upon him, and uses concerning him expressions of respect. The Pentateuch even exhibits Moses quite objectively in the blessing recorded in Deu 33:4-5.

To this objection we reply, that the use of the third person proves nothing. The later Hebrew writers also speak of themselves in the third person. We might adduce similar instances from the classical authors, as Caesar, Xenophon, and others. The use of the third person, instead of the first, prevails also among Oriental authors. In addition to this we should observe, that the nature of the book itself demands the use of the third person, in reference to Moses, throughout the Pentateuch. This usage entirely corresponds with the character both of the history and of the law contained in the Pentateuch. If we consider that the Pentateuch was destined to be a book of divine revelation, in which God exhibited to his people the exemplification of his providential guidance, we cannot expect that Moses, by whom the Lord had communicated his latest revelations, should be spoken of otherwise than in the third person. In the poetry contained in Deu 33:4, Moses speaks in the name of the people, which he personifies and introduces as speaking. The expressions in Exo 11:3, Num 12:3; Num 12:7, belong entirely to the context of history, and to its faithful and complete relation; consequently it is by no means vain boasting that is there expressed, but admiration of the divine mercy glorified in the people of God. In considering these passages we must also bear in mind the far greater number of other passages which speak of the feebleness and the sins of Moses.

It is certain that the author of the Pentateuch asserts himself to be Moses. The question then arises, whether it is possible to consider this assertion to be truewhether Moses can be admitted to be the author? In this question is contained another, viz. whether the Pentateuch forms such a continuous whole that it is possible to ascribe it to one author? This question has been principally discussed in modern criticism. In various manners it has been tried to destroy the unity of the Pentateuch, and to resolve its constituent parts into a number of documents and fragments. Eichhorn and his followers assert that Genesis only is composed of several ancient documents. This assertion is still reconcilable with the Mosaical origin of the Pentateuch. But Vater and others allege that the whole Pentateuch is composed of fragments; from which it necessarily follows that Moses was not the author of the whole. Modern critics are, however, by no means unanimous in their opinions. The latest writer on this subject, Ewald, in his history of the people of Israel, asserts that there were seven different authors concerned in the Pentateuch. On the other hand, the internal unity of the Pentateuch has been demonstrated in many able essays. The attempts at division are especially supported by an appeal to the prevailing use of the different names of God in various portions of the work; but the arguments derived from this circumstance have been found insufficient to prove that the Pentateuch was written by different authors.

The inquiry concerning the unity of the Pentateuch is intimately connected with its historical character. If there are in the Pentateuch decided contradictions, or different contradictory statements of one and the same fact, not only its unity but also its historical truth would be negatived. On the other hand, if the work is to be considered as written by Moses, the whole style and internal veracity of the Pentateuch must correspond with the character of Moses. Considerate critics, who are not under the sway of dogmatic prejudices, find that the passages which are produced in order to prove that the Pentateuch was written after the time of Moses, by no means support such a conclusion, and that a more accurate examination of the contents of the separate portions discovers many vestiges demonstrating that the work originated in the age of Moses.

In the remote times of Jewish and Christian antiquity, we find no vestiges of doubt as to the genuineness of the Mosaical books. The Gnostics, indeed, opposed the Pentateuch, but attacked it merely on account of their dogmatical opinions concerning the Law and Judaism in general; consequently they did not impugn the authenticity, but merely the divine authority of the Law. Heathen authors alone, as Celsus and Julian, represented the contents of the Pentateuch as being mythological, and paralleled them with Pagan mythology.

In the Middle Ages, but not earlier, we find some very concealed critical doubts in the works of some Jewsas Isaac Ben Jasos, who lived in the eleventh century, and Aben Ezra. After the Reformation, it was sometimes attempted to demonstrate the later origin of the Pentateuch. Such attempts were made by Spinoza, Richard Simon, Le Clerc, and Van Dale; but these critics were not unanimous in their results.

In the period of English, French, and German deism, the Pentateuch was attacked rather by jests than by arguments. Attacks of a more scientific nature were made about the end of the eighteenth century. But these were met by such critics as John David Michaelis and Eichhorn, who energetically and effectually defended the genuineness of the Pentateuch. These critics, however, on account of their own false position, did as much harm as good to the cause.

A new epoch of criticism commences about the year 1805. This was produced by Vater’s Commentary and de Wette’s Beitrge zur Einleitung in das alte Testament. Vater embodied all the arguments which had been adduced against the authenticity of the Pentateuch, and applied to the criticism of the sacred books the principles which Wolf had employed with reference to the Homeric poems. He divided the Pentateuch into fragments, to each of which he assigned its own period, but referred the whole generally to the age of the Assyrian or Babylonian exile. Since the days of Vater a series of the most different hypotheses has been produced by German critics about the age of the Pentateuch, and that of its constituent sections. No one critic seems fully to agree with any other; and frequently it is quite evident that the opinions advanced are quite arbitrary, and destitute of any sure foundation.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Pentateuch

The Greek name given to the first five books of the O.T., which are also called ‘the five books of Moses.’ The many references to and quotations from them in other parts of the scripture, and allusions to them by Christ under the name of Moses, show plainly that Moses was the inspired writer of them, except of course the small portion that records his death and burial. See MOSES.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Pentateuch

This word, which is derived from the Greek , from , five, and , a volume, signifies the collection of the five books of Moses, which are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. That the Jews have acknowledged the authenticity of the Pentateuch, from the present time back to the era of their return from the Babylonish captivity, a period of more than two thousand three hundred years, admits not a possibility of doubt. The five books of Moses have been during that period constantly placed at the head of the Jewish sacred volume, and divided into fixed portions, one of which was read and explained in their synagogues, not only every Sabbath with the other Scriptures, but in many places twice a week, and not unfrequently every evening, when they alone were read. They have been received as divinely inspired by every Jewish sect, even by the Sadducees, who questioned the divinity of the remaining works of the Old Testament. In truth, the veneration of the Jews for their Scriptures, and above all for the Pentateuch, seems to have risen almost to a superstitious reverence. Extracts from the Mosaic law were written on pieces of parchment, and placed on the borders of their garments, or round their wrists and foreheads: nay, they at a later period counted, with the minutest exactness, not only the chapters and paragraphs, but the words and letters, which each book of their Scriptures contains. Thus also the translation, first of the Pentateuch, and afterward of the remaining works of the Old Testament, into Greek, for the use of the Alexandrian Jews, disseminated this sacred volume over a great part of the civilized world, in the language most universally understood, and rendered it accessible to the learned and inquisitive in every country; so as to preclude all suspicion that it could be materially altered by either Jews or Christians, to support their respective opinions as to the person and character of the Messiah; the substance of the text being, by this translation, fixed and authenticated at least two hundred and seventy years before the appearance of our Lord.

But, long previous to the captivity, two particular examples, deserving peculiar attention, occur in the Jewish history, of the public and solemn homage paid to the sacredness of the Mosaic law as promulgated in the Pentateuch; and which, by consequence, afford the fullest testimony to the authenticity of the Pentateuch itself: the one in the reign of Hezekiah, while the separate kingdoms of Judah and Israel still subsisted; and the other in the reign of his great grandson Josiah, subsequent to the captivity of Israel. In the former we see the pious monarch of Judah assembling the priests and Levites and the rulers of the people; to deplore with him the trespasses of their fathers against the divine law, to acknowledge the justice of those chastisements which, according to the prophetic warnings of that law, had been inflicted upon them; to open the house of God which his father had impiously shut, and restore the true worship therein according to the Mosaic ritual, 2 Kings 18; 2 Chronicles 29; 2 Chronicles 30; with the minutest particulars of which he complied, in the sin-offerings and the peace- offerings which, in conjunction with his people, he offered for the kingdom and the sanctuary and the people, to make atonement to God for them and for all Israel; restoring the service of God as it had been performed in the purest times. And Hezekiah, says the sacred narrative, rejoiced, and all the people, that God had prepared the people; for the thing was done suddenly, 2Ch 29:36; immediately on the king’s accession to the throne, on the first declaration of his pious resolution. How clear a proof does this exhibit of the previous existence and clearly acknowledged authority of those laws which the Pentateuch contains!

But a yet more remarkable part of this transaction still remains. At this time Hoshea was king of Israel, and so far disposed to countenance the worship of the true God, that he appears to have made no opposition to the pious zeal of Hezekiah; who, with the concurrence of the whole congregation which he had assembled, sent out letters and made a proclamation, not only to his own people of Judah, 2Ch 30:1, but to Ephraim and Manasseh and all Israel, from Beersheba even unto Dan, that they should come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the passover unto the Lord God of Israel; saying, Ye children of Israel, turn again to the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and he will return to the remnant of you who are escaped out of the hands of the kings of Assyria; and be not ye like your fathers and your brethren, which trespassed against the Lord God of their fathers, who therefore gave them up to desolation as ye see.

Now be ye not stiff-necked, as your fathers were; but yield yourselves unto the Lord, and enter into his sanctuary which he hath sanctified for ever, and serve the Lord your God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you. So the posts passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh even unto Zebulun, 2Ch 30:6, &c.

Now, can we conceive that such an attempt as this could have been made, if the Pentateuch containing the Mosaic code had not been as certainly recognised through the ten tribes of Israel as in the kingdom of Judah? The success was exactly such as we might reasonably expect if it were so acknowledged; for, though many of the ten tribes laughed to scorn and mocked the messengers of Hezekiah, who invited them to the solemnity of the passover, from the impious contempt which through long disuse they had conceived for it. Nevertheless, says the sacred narrative, divers of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem; and there assembled at Jerusalem much people, to keep the feast of unleavened bread in the second month, a very great congregation; and they killed the passover, and the priests and Levites stood in their places after their manner, according to the law of Moses, the man of God. So there was great joy in Jerusalem; for since the time of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel, there was not the like at Jerusalem: and when all this was finished, all Israel that were present went out to the cities of Judah, and brake the images in pieces, and cut down the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars out of all Judah and Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manasseh, until they had utterly destroyed them all,

2Ch 30:11; 2 Chronicles 31. Can any clearer proof than this be desired of the constant and universal acknowledgment of the divine authority of the Pentateuch throughout the entire nation of the Jews, notwithstanding the idolatries and corruptions which so often prevented its receiving such obedience as that acknowledgment ought to have produced? The argument from this certain antiquity of the Pentateuch, a copy of which existed in the old Samaritan character as well as in the modern Hebrew, is most conclusive as to the numerous prophecies of Christ, and the future and present condition of the Jews which it contains. These are proved to have been delivered many ages before they were accomplished; they could be only the result of divine prescience, and the uttering of them by Moses proves therefore the inspiration and the authority of his writings. See LAW, and See MOSES.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary