is an insertion of modern date, cannot be proved. Comp. Germ. Introd. P. II. § 10. p. 61--70. These and the other interpolations are nevertheless very ancient, since they are found also in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and must therefore have been established in the text in the reign of Rehoboam.-They who from such passages (which could not have been written by Moses, or at least would seem not to have been written by him,) however numerous they may be, conclude that others also, which labour under no similar difficulties, but merely contain accounts of miracles, were not written by him, argue from particulars to generals. This mode of argument, always illogical, is the more particularly inadmissible in the present question, as the character of the whole Pentateuch points out an author in every respect similar to Moses, and as there is a continual series of witnesses from Joshua downward through all ages, who unanimously attest that Moses was the author.- -It is possible that some things may, in the lapse of time, have fallen out of the text; as, for instance, the blessing of the tribe of Simeon, from Deut. xxxiii.[a]

[a) Comp. HORNE Introd. Vol. I. p. 64. ss. ed. 4th. TY.]

§ 11. The Pentateuch is not a compilation of a recent date.

Some have supposed that the Pentateuch was compiled in the age of David or in that of the Babylonish captivity, partly from laws, the only written documents left by Moses, and partly from oral traditions, poems, historical fragments, hieroglyphic inscriptions, and public monuments erected in memory of past events, in the use of all which the compiler was frequently obliged to resort to conjecture for their signification. This, however, is altogether repugnant to historical evidence. The Samaritans have received the same Pentateuch which the Jews possess, from a priest of the ten tribes, which tribes certainly would not have received from the kingdom of Judah a book establishing not only their religion but also the form of civil government, and the laws by which it should be administered. Hence it follows that the Pentateuch of the Samaritans must have existed in the state in which they received it for an immemorial period of time antecedent to the separation of the ten tribes. Less antiquity cannot be assigned it, inasmuch as Jeroboam, who left no means unemployed

to alienate the ten tribes from the posterity of David and the kingdom of Judah, would certainly have brought into public notice those ancient writings, which only are now by some authors allowed to have been the production of Moses, if the least knowledge of them had existed. In such case, there could not have been wanting old men of eighty or ninety years of age, who would have said that their fathers or grandfathers had spoken of other writings of Moses than those then extant, or that their fathers had heard from their ancestors of the existence of such writings. Jeroboam, that he might the more thoroughly alienate the minds of his subjects from the kingdom of Judah, would have sought out confirmation of their report, and would have found and restored the ancient work of Moses: or at least would have made use of this pretext to reject or alter parts of the Pentateuch which were contrary to his interests, such as the history of the golden calf, the laws establishing the tribe of Levi in the sacred ministry, and that determining the month in which the feast of tabernacles was to be celebrated.- -Again, as the autograph of Moses was preserved in the holy place of the tabernacle, and as it was not only read over every seven years, but copies of it were also in constant use among the priests and many of the laity, especially the judges; a new compilation of the work could not have been made without giving rise to commotions and disputes which would not have been silently passed over in the history of those times.From these remarks it follows, first, that our Pentateuch is at least 200 years, i. e. five or six generations, older than the time of Solomon; consequently that they mistake who suppose it to have been enlarged and brought into its present form in the age of David or Samuel. But as there is no reason for suspecting such a compilation to have been made 200 years before the time of Solomon (which brings us to the age of the Judges) it follows, secondly, that the book of the law of Moses, mentioned Josh. i. 3—8. viii. 31—35. xxiv. 26, was the same with the book known by that name in the age of Rehoboam, with the Samaritan Pentateuch and with ours.[a]

[a) For an excellent statement of the argument in this & see GRAVES on the Pentateuch. Lect. I. Vol. I. Tr.]

§ 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.]

[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 diversity 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

- T

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