5. Olijections against the Afosaic Authorship. — These have been numerous and vehemently urged, especiallv by rationalists, as we might expect from the importance of the subject. On the op))osite side, these critical doubts respecting the authenticity of the Pentateuch have produced in modern times several works in de- fence of its genuineness ; such as Kanne's Bihlische Untersitchungen (1820, 2 vols.); the observations by Jahn, Kosenmidler, and Bleek ; Ranke's Untersuchunr/en iiher den Pentateuch (2 vols.) ; Hengstenberg's Beitriine znr Einleifvnrj (vols, ii and iii) ; Hiivernick's Einleilnmj in das A Ite Testament (vol. i) ; Drechsler's Ueher die Ein- heit und A uthentie der Genesis ; Konig's A It-tesiament- liche Stndien (No. ii) ; Sack's Ajmlegetik, etc. From the most recent of these we extract the following, as pre- senting a condensed view of the argument (see Eawlin- son's Historical Evidence, |). oL 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 Home's Introd. i, 51-5(); 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 ad- mitted rule of all sound criticism that books are to be re- garded as proceeding from the writers whose names thev bear, unless very strong reasons indeed can be adduced to the contrary (comp. Gladstone, Homer, i, 3, 4), In the present instance, the reasons which have been ur^ed 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 13"a, whicli meaus as well " this side" as " the other side" of Jordan ;
Buxtorf, Lex. p. .^27); in part upon interpolations into the original text, wiiich are sometimes very palpable (e. g. Gen. xxxvi, 31-39; Exod. xvi, 35, 36; and per- haps Deut. iii, 14 ; comp. Fritzsche, Priifunr/, p. 135). Mainly, however, they have their source in arbitrary and unproved hypotheses : as that a contemporary writ- er 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. § 1G3) ; that if Moses had written the book, he would not have spoken of himself in the third person (Hart- mann, Eorschunr/en, p. 545 ; Norton, Genuineness, ii, 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 expres- sions of honor (Ilartmann, I. c. ; comp. Spinoza, /. 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, \, 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, Ijeben .fesv, i, 60), and against the Gospel of John. For Paul relates contemporary miracles; Homer and Chau- cer exhibit a culture and a tone which, but for them, we should have supposed unattainable in their age; Cwsar and Xenophon write throughout in the third per- son ; Luke omits all account of his own doings at Phi- lippi ; and John applies to himself the most honorable of all titles, " the disciple whom Jesus loved'' (xiii, 23 ; xiv, 26). In fact a jiriori 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 him- self, 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 com- plete 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 ex- ceedingly limitetl, 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 su])porting the notion that such a work as the Pentateuch could not be produced in the time of IMoses that they actually presuppose the contrary by constantly appealing to it or as being evi- dently based upon it. Wc propose to examine these objections here in detail, as they relate more or loss to all the books of the Pentateuch. For other difficidties, 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 au- thenticity 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 Alosaical age (Ewald, Geschirhte 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 con- dition 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 beyonii 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 wide- ly diffused among the Hebrews (comp. Judg. viii, 14),