diminished by Joshua or Caleb being its author instead of Moses. Could we suppose it written by a mere ordinary Israelite, the case would be some- what different; but it is evidently impossible, considering the circumstances of the time, to ascribe a work of such high literary merit, and one evidencing such varied and extensive knowledge. to any one below the rank of a high officer, a leading man among the people. The absolute Mosaic authorship of Exodus is thus a matter not so much of historical importance as of literary curiosity. Still it is of interest to know the real author of any great book, and essential to a right estimate of the character and work of l\foses that we should understand whether or no he added to his other eminent qualities the literary ability and power which " Exodus" displays. What then does the Book itself reveal to us on this subject? In the first place it shows us the ability of Moses to write ( eh. xxiv. 4); in the next it informs us that he was expressly commanded by God to write an account of some of those very matters which are contained in Exodus ( eh. xvii. 14; xx.xiv. 27); in the third place it distinctly tells us in one passage that he" wrote all the words of the Lord " ( eh. xxxiv. 4 ), these " words " being ( according to al.most all commentators) the passage which ex.tends from eh. x.x.. 22 to the end of eh. xxiii; finally, it speaks of a "book" which it calls "the book" 1 (the expression used being i~~~ and not i~!;l~). wherein one of his writings was to be inserted, whereby it would seem that at the time of the war with Amalek ( eh. xvii 8-14) Moses already had a book in which he was putting on record the circumstances of the Israelites' deliverance---a book, as Keil says,2 " appointed for the record of the glorious works of God." The question naturally occurs to a candid mind, Why should not this be the book which we possess? why go out of our way to suppose a second author unnamed and unnameable, when here is one distinctly proclaimed-an author more competent to the task than any other Israelite then living- and moreover the very man to whom an ancient and uniform tradition has always ascribed the work in question? There should be some very cogent arguments, derivable from the contents of the book, to set against this evident prima facie probability, in order even to raise a doubt on the subject, and make it wcrth while to pursue the inquiry any further. What then is there said to be of this kind, constituting a difficulty in our acceptance of the Mosaic authorship? First, the fact that Moses is always spoken of in the third person. Now, as Xenophon and Cresar, in writing histories of which they were the heroes, spoke of themselves always 1 Knobel ..rgues that the expression, "write this in the book," merely means "put this into writir.g" (' Exegetischcs Handbuch,' vol. ii. p. 178), and quotes Num. v. 23; 1 Sam. x. 25; J er. XY..x.i.i. 10 ; and Job xix. 23, as bearing out this explanation; but of these passages onlJ the last iii to the point, and there the LXX. have ,., /31/31'.lq,, not iv T<f 13•13"-''t', u.s if their copie. bad bad the reading i;ii;;,:;i ' 'Co'11Dlenta.ry 011 the Old Testament,' vol. ii p 81 l.NTIWDUC'flON. ----- ------------------·---------- Ill tho third person, it is at least not unnatural for a man who has to write this ,,mrt of history to do so. Nay, it may rather be said to be distinctly natur11l. Perpetual egotism is wearisome to the reader, and disagreeablo to the writer who is not puffed-up by a sense of his own importance. The use of the third person throws a veil, at any rate, over the egotistic character of a work, softens it down, half obliterates it. We forget the writer in his work, when the first person does not constantly obtrude him on us, and pardon his being the hero of his own narrative when he is sufficiently modest to preserve an incognito. Moreover, speaking of oneself in the third person was common in Egypt in Moses' day. The inscriptions which kings set up to commemorate their conquests were sometimes written wholly in the third person, 1 sometimes partly in the third and partly in the first. 2 The inscriptions placed by private individuals on their tombs generally began in the third person. 3 With such examples before him, it cannot be regarded as surprising that Moses avoided altogether the use of the first person in his narrative and confined himself wholly to the third. Secondly, it lll said that Moses is spoken of-at any rate in one place (eh. xi. 3), perhaps also in eh. vi. 26, 27-in a way in which he would not be likely to have spoken of himself. The objection taken may, in both instances, be allowed, but without the conclusion following which is sup- posed to follow. For the passages are both of them parenthetic, and also abnormal. They do not speak of Moses as he is commonly spoken of; anc they are so isolated from the context that their removal would leave no gap, produce no difficulty. They are thus exactly such passages as may have been introduced on that review of the book which is ascribed to Ezra by ancient authorities, 4 and generally allowed to have taken place by modems. 'l'he question whether Moses or a nameless contemporary is to be regarded as the author of Exodus cannot properly be ruled by reference to one or two passages-especially parenthetic passages. We must look upon the matter more broadly. We must ask ourselves, Is the entire presentation of the personal character and qualifications of the great Israelite leader which the book offers more consonant with the view that Moses himself wrote it, or with the theory that it was composed by one of the younger and subordinate Israelite leaders, as Joshua or Caleb? Now, nothing is more striking in that presentation than the humble estimate made of the character, gifts, powers,
1 As the statistical tablet of Kamak, or 'Annals of Thothmes III.,' published in the • Recurcts of the Past,' vol. ii. pp. 19-28, and the inscription of Pianchi l\Icr-amon in the same volume (pp. 81-104). 2 This is the case in the long inscription of Thothmes II~. (' Records of the Past,' vol. ii. Pl,.
35-58), where the person changes on page 53; and again m the ' Annals of Rameses III (' Records,' vol. vi. pp. 23-70), whe:c changes of person occur on pp. 3-!, 50, 52, 59, and 69. • For specimen~, seo the 'Records,' vol. vi. p. 7; vol. x. pp. 3, 7, etc. Sometimes a funereal inscription is entirely in the third ~erson, as that of Ameni (' Records,' YO). vi. pp. 3, 4 ). • Tcrtullian, 'Do Cu!tu FellliU, § 3; Clem. Alex. 'Strom.' i. 22; Hieronyrn. 'Ad Ii:dYid vol. ii. p. 212; etc INTRODUCTION.