§ 12. Arguments urged against the genuineness of the Pentateuch.

The proofs by which some writers have satisfied themselves that Moses wrote nothing more than the laws which are contained in the Pentateuch, and that the historical parts have been added in a more modern age from traditions or mythi,* turn principally on the narration of miracles: the remainder of the work they readily leave to Moses. The implied syllogism,† therefore, upon which they rely, is the following: "If Moses had written these accounts of miracles, the miracles which they describe must have been true and divine: but miracles are impossible; therefore Moses did not write these accounts." The very point, therefore, which was to be proved, is taken for granted; taken for granted, I say, for the arguments by which they endeavour to shew that miracles are impossible, are nothing but vain play upon words, with which the schools of philosophy have always abounded, as the history of ancient and modern philosophy, and even of that of the present day, abundantly evinces. However this may be, all such arguments, grounded on philosophical dogmas, are entirely without weight in critical and historical discussions. The rest of the arguments which they offer, only go to prove that the Pentateuch may possibly be, or may possibly on historic grounds be conceived to be, a spurious work, or a compilation from the traditions of a modern age: a conclusion which, if similar indulgence be given to suspicion and conjecture may in like manner be formed of almost any other ancient book. The point to be proved is, that it is impossible that the Pentateuch should be, or, on historic grounds should be conceived to be, the genuine work of Moses, and that it must necessarily be a more recent work, and be so reputed: this is what should have been proved by historical and critical arguments. It is by no means sufficient to have started doubts, to have urged suspicions, to

* [This word is retained, as no English word is known which exactly corresponds to its signification in its peculiar acceptation among the German Theologians. Tr.] t[This is the openly avowed course of reasoning of De Wette. 'Common sense determines' says he 'that such miracles are impossible. It may, however, be inquired whether some events did not really happen which to eye-witnesses and contemporaries seemed to be miraculous. This also must receive an answer in the negative, as soon as we inspect the narration with any degree of closeness.-The result is already obtained, that the narration is not contemporary, nor derived from contemporary sources.'! Einleit. 145. Tr

have framed conjectures, to have found fault with the fragmentary arrangement of the work, to have observed some variation in the style and language, and to have picked out some passage not suiting Moses or his age, but interpolated. It should be shewn that the character of the writer, the subject, the language, the style, the form and disposition of the work, and the object of the whole or of its parts, are altogether irreconcilable with the character of Moses, with his age and with his places of residence, so that they can not possibly have originated from that author or in that age, and can not possibly be historically considered as the work of Moses or of his age. For let it be remembered that in this controversy the opponents and defenders are by no means similarly situated. The latter have for their strong hold the subscription of the author, Deut. xxxi. 9-13, 22, 24. ss., and the mention of him Num. xxxiii. 1. s. Ex. xvii. 14. xxiv. 4—7. xxxiv. 27; as also, the testimonies of others, from Joshua downwards (Comp. above § 5-8): this strong hold is impregnable, inasmuch as no contrary testimony can be adduced to prove that the Pentateuch was compiled at a later period, nor even any certain grounds for suspicion that this has been the case, e. g. such as would be afforded by historical testimony that disputes had at any time arisen concerning the form, contents, and size, of the Mosaic books. That the testimony rendered suspicious

for the genuineness of these books may be by little sophisms, proves nothing, since it is possible, by conjectures and artifices of this sort, to render the veracity of the most honest man so doubtful as that even an upright judge may hesitate. The least that can be required, is to prove, first, that the author himself and all subsequent witnesses either could not, or would not, speak the truth, and, secondly, that the Pentateuch can in nowise be, or be considered, a production of Moses or his age. If, from the arrangement in broken fragments, from the repetitions, from laws which in subsequent passages are to be met with in an altered form, from the sometimes unnatural order, and from other similar circumstances, it is concluded that the work cannot be the production of Moses; it ought to be shown, that Moses could not have composed a work in that manner. If a diversity of authors is to be inferred from the diver sity of style; it must be shown that the style of Moses could not and ought not to be expected to change during forty years spent in so

many and so great vicissitudes as he experienced, and that he neither could nor might be expected to make occasional use of an amanuensis, or make extracts from the records of his secretaries. And after all, what is the diversity of style? Not such, in fact, as that which is observed between the Syriac history of Dynasties written by Bar Hebraeus, and its continuation from p. 573; not such as there is between the genuine works of Cicero and the book de Consolatione ascribed to him; nor yet such as there is between the book of Deuteronomy and its two last chapters. The differences which are urged are mere minutiæ, for instance such as these: that the same mountain is in Exodus always called Sinai, in Deuteronomy Horeb; that

to remove the evil) בער הרע משראל in Deuteronomy the phrase

away from Israel) is frequently applied to capital punishment, (comp. xiii. 6. xvii. 7, 12. xix. 19. xxi. 21,) whereas in the other books

-to cut of the soul from its peo) נכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה and הכרית

ple, or, the soul is cut off,) are substituted. But to derive any advantage from these, it must be previously shown that Moses neither could nor ought to have used different words to express the same thing at different intervals during many years. Add to this that mention of Horeb does occur in Exodus c. iii. 1. xvii. 6. xxxiii. 6 ; namely, when the foot of the mountain is referred to, it is called Horeb; when the summit, Sinai.—That a great deal too much stress has been laid upon the slightness of the difference between the language of the Pentateuch and that of the later books, has been already shown § 3, and P. I. § 75: it may be not amiss, however, to add some further observations. A difference between the language of the Pentateuch and that of the Psalms and the more ancient prophets, and again between the language of these and that of the books which were written during or after the captivity, does certainly exist: it is not, indeed, great, but, as all who are competent to judge of the subject allow, sufficient to attract the attention of an observant reader. Now the Psalms of David preceded the writings of Nehemiah and Malachi almost 600 years, during which period both the nation and its language suffered considerable shocks: yet the difference between the language of the Psalms and that of the later works is not much greater than that which exists between the language of the former

and the language of the Pentateuch, although only 500 years elapsed between the two, and through that time the nation and language were by no means subjected to such injuries as during the other period. The small degree of change is easily accounted for by the facts, that the orientals prefer adherence to ancient customs before innovation, that the Hebrews were encircled by nations who used the same dialect or one very little different, and that their writers were accustomed to form their style by reading the Pentateuch. [a] Lastly, even on the supposition of our opponents, Moses wrote the laws which are contained in the Pentateuch and yet the difference between the language in which they are embodied and that of the subsequent books is not greater than that between the historical parts and the same books: so that the hypothesis in question does not at all lessen the difficulty. In fine, let those who find difficulty in the number of miracles, and on that account endeavour to deliver Moses from the imputation of having recorded them, recollect, that numerous as they were, they scarcely sufficed to keep the Hebrews in order. [b] Moreover, we must not suppose that in every place where it is said that God spake to Moses, an extraordinary communication is intended, as the contrary appears from Deut. i. 22. s. comp. Num. xiii. 2. Moses, clothed with a divine commission, had a right to set forth even those things the propriety of which he saw of himself, under the sanction of divine authority. Comp. Exod. xxiv. 12. xxxi. 18. xxxii. 16. and Deut. ix. 10. x. 2. with Ex. xxxiv. 1, 27. s. viii. 19. I Chr. xxviii. 19. and Lu. xi. 20, and see below, § 79, where more is said on this subject. Comp. KELLE Vorurtheilsfreie Würdigung der Mosäischen Schriften, I. Heft. 1811. GRIESINGER über den Pentateuch, 1806.

It is strange that men of so much acuteness as Vater and De Wette should use arguments, the complete nullity of which any one can discern: as, for instance, when they urge that it is impossible that the law which prescribes one altar for the whole nation can be of great antiquity, because it was customary to sacrifice on high places: as if the violation of a law were a proof that the law had never existed! If that were the case we must conclude that the decalogue in the two tables never existed, since the nation frequently relapsed into idolatry, and murders, thefts, and adulteries were committed. Again, they contend that the Pentateuch did not exist as a whole, because it is not mentioned as such. The same argument would prove the non-existence of the decalogue, as

it is not mentioned from the time of its first being given until the removal of the ark of the covenant, I Ki. viii. 9; and of the sabbath, which is not noticed until the time of Isaiah. The rest of their arguments are mostly of the same sort. These learned men seem to think that the genuineness of ancient books is to be proved by the same arguments that are required to substantiate recent events in civil or criminal courts, without reflecting that no such arguments can be applied in all ancient history, and that they cannot be adduced in favour of any book. It is undeniable that the arguments for the Mosaic origin of these books greatly preponderate, and that their adversaries are unable to bring the testimony of any ancient writer to prove their recent origin. Vater has imitated Wolf, who impugned the genuineness of the Iliad and Odyssey, with similar and even with somewhat stronger arguments: yet he did not satisfy the learned, and shall we allow the far-fetched conjectures of Vater? Let those decide who are not led by preconceived opinion.[c]

[a) Add to this, that the written language of the Shemitic nations was far less liable to change than our western languages, on account of its embracing only the consonants, while the vowels are left to be supplied by the reader. So the Arabic of the Koran and of the most ancient Arabian poems, differs very little from the written language of the modern Arabians, although when pronounced they are widely different. ROSEN. Scholia. I. p. 32. The infrequency of intercourse with remote nations, and the agricultural and pastoral habits of the nation, would also tend strongly to prevent any considerable change of their language. PAREAU, Inst. Int. V. T. p. 102. Tr.]

[b) For a vindication of the Mosaic miracles from the attacks of Dr. Geddes and others, see GRAVES on the Pentateuch, Vol. I. App. ii. pp. 413. ss. See also Lect. IV. and V. of the same work, for an examination of the accounts of miracles contained in the four last books of the Pentateuch, and of the connexion of those miracles with the ordinary history of the Jews. Tr.]

[c) A brief, but judicious and highly valuable, examination of De Wette's hypothesis, may be found in GRAVES' Lectures on the Pentateuch, Vol. I. App. i. pp. 398. ss. Tr.]

§ 13.

The Pentateuch has not been re-written.

The arguments already adduced are abundantly sufficient to prove that the Pentateuch was written by Moses: but as our opponents strenuously maintain that the work has been re-written in a later age, their hypothesis-on this subject must be examined.[a] We must premise, however, such objections as occur to the supposition