he says, § 81 (or p. 364 in Credner), "Certum est, Mosen legem Dei, divinitus acceptam populo dedisse, verum cujus sit dictis quinque librorum atque sermonis filum, dubitare potest;" and § 85 (pp. 368-9), from Deut. xxxiv. 5 ff. he infers, "defendi posse, Mosen non fuisse scriptorem quinque librorum, quoniam sepulto Mose filum orationis idem invenimus, non eundem Mosen." But he also rejects as untenable the opinion that Ezra wrote the history in the books of Moses, on account of Deut. xxxi. 25 ff., Josh. xxiv. 26, 2 Kings xxii. 8; and the result at which he arrives is, "autorem historiæ Mosaicæ scriptorem incertum esse, neque inter Judæos convenire" (§ 87 and 89). -At a later time, A. Masius [a Roman Catholic lawyer, born in the neighbourhood of Brussels, died 1573 in the territory of Cleves, says Bleek, p. 168] expresses himself thus, Commentar. in Jos. (1574), præf. p. 2, "Pentateuchum longo post Mosen tempore, interjectis saltem hic illic verborum et sententiarum clausulis, veluti sarcitum, atque omnino explicatius redditum esse ;" and at ch. xix. 47, "Neque Mosis libros sic ut nunc habentur ab illo esse compositos certum est ; sed ab Ezdra aut alio quopiam divino viro, qui pro vetustis et exoletis locorum nominibus, quibus rerum gestarum memoria posset optime et perspici et conservari, reposuerit." If Masius accordingly assumed that the work had afterwards been re-written, Ant. van Dale [a learned Mennonite in the Netherlands, who died 1708, says Bleek, p. 170], de origine et progressu idolol. (1696), p. 71, and epistol. ad Steph. Morin. ibid. p. 686, distinguished between the codex of the Mosaic law and the Pentateuch, which latter Ezra may have composed "ex directione et instinctu divino, cum ex codice legis (quem totum huic operi inseruit) tum ex aliis libris, historicis quidem at vere propheticis." The genuineness was more decidedly rejected by Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan (1651), c. xxxiii.; and it was disputed with all sorts of shallow reasons by Is. Peyrerius, Systema theol. ex Præadamitarum hypothesi (1655), l. iv. c. i.; by Rich. Simon, hist. crit. du V. Test. i. 5; and by Clericus, Sentimens de quelques Théologiens de Hollande, etc. (1685), Lettre vi. On the other hand, it was defended by Heidegger, exercitt. bibl. i. 246 sqq.; by Herm. Witsius, l.c. t. i. p. 84 sqq. (ed. nov. 1736); and by Curpzov, Introd. i. p. 38 sqq.: so that Clericus himself, at a later time (1693, says Bleek, p. 169), in Dissert. iii., de scriptore Pent. Mose ejusque consilio, prefixed to his Commentary on the Pentateuch, retracted his doubts.

VOL. I.

ཝཱ

M

§ 36. Assaults upon the Genuineness of the Pentateuch, and

Defences of it.

On the contrary, faith in the divine revelation of the old covenant was undermined by the prevalent Naturalism and Rationalism of the second half of last century; and so, when every supernatural manifestation of God to and in Israel was denied, the genuineness of the books of Moses could not but be also disputed and rejected (1). For as success could not attend the attempt to explain the miracles in the Pentateuch on natural principles (2), there remained nothing for the understanding which had become estranged from the word of God, but to give out that the miracles were myths: and this undertaking could be attended with a measure of success, only if men started with the supposition that these narratives originated some centuries subsequent to the events; and if this axiom, settled à priori, were then clothed in the garb of historical criticism by means of various historical and linguistic arguments (3).

As soon,

(1) The foundation for the rejection of the genuineness of the Pentateuch was laid by the writings of John Spencer, de legibus Hebræorum ritualibus, etc.; of Jo. Clericus, Commentar. in Pent.; and of Joh. Dav. Michaelis, Mosaisches Recht; which did not indeed dispute the genuineness itself, yet in a deistical and naturalistic way gave a thoroughly superficial view of its divine contents. then, as faith in the divine revelation, still outwardly retained, became exposed to the attacks of Deism and Naturalism, the surrender of the genuineness of the Pentateuch was inevitable, since its contents were in contradiction to what had become the ruling ideas of the time. Comp. Hengstb. Beitrr. ii. p. ii. ff., for a comprehensive representation of the forces operating to bring on the rejection of the Pentateuch.

(2) Eichhorn persisted in this attempt in the four editions of his Introduction to the Old Testament; although in the fourth he had to make so many concessions to the opponents, that his defence of the genuineness veered round into almost the opposite. [Bleek, p. 175, sums it up in this: that all Leviticus, and Deut. i.-xxxii., were entirely by Moses; that Genesis was put together from documents older than Moses; and that the whole Pentateuch, with the exception of a few glosses, was collected and arranged between the time of Joshua and that of Samuel.]

(3) Many have openly declared that dogmatical offence at the

miracles and prophecies constitutes the strength of the resistance on the part of almost all our opponents. Comp. the collection of such declarations in Hengstb. p. xl. ff. Thus De Wette says, in the third edition of his Einl. § 145: "If it is a settled point with the educated (!) mind that such miracles (as the Pentateuch contains) cannot actually take place, the question arises, whether they might have perhaps assumed this appearance to eye-witnesses and persons taking part in the transactions; but this also must be answered in the negative, etc. . . . And consequently we arrive at this result, that the narrative is neither contemporaneous, nor derived from contemporaneous sources." This result is still placed at the head of the whole investigation in the seventh edition, as "a legitimate prejudice," although here the premiss is much more warily expressed: "If it is at least doubtful to a reflecting mind, whether such miracles can actually take place," etc. This revolution in dogmatic conviction also explains how the opponents who have appeared since 1790 have turned their weapons principally against the contents of the Pentateuch; and instead of merely disputing its Mosaic authorship, have at the same time rejected the Mosaic origin of the entire legislation, and have pronounced the whole contents of the books of Moses unhistorical. The first timid attempt [exclusive of an assault by Hasse, afterwards abandoned by him, as noticed a little further forward] was made by Fulda, [a minister in Würtemberg, who died in 1788, leaving this paper, which was published posthumously, says Bleek, p. 171], in Paulus, Neu Repert. iii. (1791), and in his Memorabil. vii. He was followed by Corrodi, [a Swiss anti-supernaturalist, who died in 1793], Beleuchtung des jüd. and christl. Bibelcanons (1792), i. p. 58 ff.; Otmar (that is, Nachtigal) [Johann Christoph Nachtigall, died 1819, says Bleek], Fragmente über die allmäl. Bildung der den Isr. heil. Schriften, in Henke's Magazin f. Kirchengesch. (1794), ii. p. 433 ff., iv. pp. 1–36, 329 ff., also v. p. 291 ff., Neuer Versuch über die eilf Abschn. d. Gen. ; against which Eckermann, Theol. Beitrr. v. p. 1 ff. (1796), in particular entered the lists [Jac. Casp. Rud. Eckermann, died 1836: he held that the Pentateuch in its present form must have been older than the division of the kingdoms, on account of the reception of it by the Samaritans, though it might perhaps be of the age of Samuel or David, says Bleek, p. 172]; G. L. Bauer, Einl. in d. Alte Testament (1801), p. 301 ff. of the second edition; E. Chr. Schuster, älteste Sagen d. Bibel, Lüneburg (1804); H. E. G. Paulus, Comment über d. N. Test. iv. pp. 230-1 (1804); and Bertholdt, Einl. iii. p. 759 ff. (1813): all of whom, however, still acknowledged many elements of the l'entateuch to be Mosaic. Bolder and more logical in their denial

that anything belonged to Moses unless a few genealogical lists, were the assaults of J. S. Vater, in his Commentary, iii. p. 393 ff. [1805; very much negative, yet asserting that a considerable part of Deuteronomy was in writing in the age of Solomon or of David, says Bleek]; De Wette, Beitrr. zur Einl. i. and ii. (1806-7), and in the various editions of his Lehrbuch d. Einl.; Augusti, Lehrbuch d. Einl. 1806 [keeping close to Vater, says Bleek]; C. F. Volney, Recherches nouv. sur l'histoire ancienne, P. i., Paris 1814; Gesenius, Gesch. d. hebräisch. Sprache, 1815, and de Pentat. Samar. 1815; Bleek, aphorist. Beitrr. zu den Unters. über den Pent., in Rosenmüller's Repert. i. p. 1 ff., 1822, whereas there is an important change for the better in his Beitrr. zu den Forsch. über den Pent., in the theol. Studien u. Krit. 1831, p. 488 ff. [Bleek, pp. 175-6, gives his own account of these two papers, as follows. In the former, occupying seventy-nine pages, he asserted, § 1, that there is a considerable portion which cannot have been composed later than the Mosaic age, such as songs and laws; § 2, that there is nothing to compel us to place the last redaction in the age of the exile; while § 3 treated of the composition or collection of the several books, and of the relation of the whole to the book of Joshua; and § 4, of the origin of the SamaritanoAlexandrine recension of the Pentateuch. In his latter paper, occupying thirty-six pages, he sought to show that Lev. xvii. and many other laws could not be later than the Mosaic age. He says that he wrote both with a reference to De Wette, who had so far modified his views in the interval between the two publications. And referring to the list of writers and their works which is given here by Keil, he says that he would certainly be astonished and shocked to find himself classed with the next three, who all held the Pentateuch to be a work chiefly of the Babylonian exile; von Bohlen and Vatke assigning Deuteronomy to the age of Josiah, and making it the earliest of the five books,-an opinion in which George coincides with them. To this peculiar view of theirs Keil has already adverted in § 28, note 1.] G. A. Schumann, Prolegg. in Pentat. p. xxxvi. sq.; P. von Bohlen, Genes. p. xxvii. sqq. [1835, he himself dying in 1839, says Bleek, p. 176]; Hartmann, hist. krit. Forsch. [ü. d. Bildung, das Zeitalter, u. d. Plan, d. 5 Bücher Mosis, 1831, says Bleek, p. 176], and in several other writings; Vatke, bibl. Theologie, i. [1835, says Bleek, p. 176], and by others: comp. the exposition of the various views in regard to both the Mosaic origin and the historical character of the Pentateuch, in Hengstb. Beitrr. ii. p. lx. ff. [Bleek, p. 177, adds Ernst Bertheau, die sieben Gruppen Mosaischer Gesetze, Göttingen 1840, according to whom the three middle books are a large, original,

genuine collection of laws; but he does not decide whether these were written down by Moses himself, or whether they were preserved by tradition. These make seven groups, each of seven series, each of ten laws; the other laws he considers to be later, and the history much later.]-The opposition took a new turn in connection with the cultivation of the hypothesis of supplements (§ 23, Note 7); since its defenders not only held the greater part of the laws to be Mosaic, and even many of the narratives to be genuine historical matter, only obscured by legends, but also moderated their scepticism considerably in respect to the time of composition. Stähelin, krit. Unters. über der Pent. pp. 97-8, places the composition of the fundamental (Elohistic) document in the earliest times of the judges; Bleek, de libri Geneseos origine atque indole crit. observationes, in the Bouner Programm for the year 1836 [directed against von Bohlen, he says himself, p. 176; and at p. 263 he repeats the opinion of the programme as apparently his own matured conviction], and Tuch, p. xci. ff., in the time of Saul; Killisch, in that of David; Ewald and v. Lengerke, pp. xci. xcii. [Bleek, p. 180, says there is not much new in him], in that of Solomon; De Wette, § 158, in that of the kings. The supplementer wrote, according to Stähelin, p. 120 ff., under Saul; according to Tuch, p. xcviii., in the age of Solomon; according to v. Lengerke, p. cii. ff., and De Wette, § 159, in the first half of the eighth century B.C. [Bleek, at p. 263 ff., having expressed his opinion that the Elohist must have written before the tribe of Judah attained to pre-eminence, and before Jerusalem became the seat of the sanctuary and of the civil government, in pp. 268-271, says the like of the Jehovist, observing that the two places which the Elohist much honoured-Bethel and Beersheba-became abominations to the Jews after the division of the kingdom. Vaihinger, p. 334 ff., follows Ewald's hypothesis in its great outlines. He makes the VorElohist, of whom we have merely fragments, write in the twelfth century before Christ, using Ewald's so-called Buch der Bündnisse and other sources of information; the Elohist, in the tenth century; the Jehovist, in the eighth; and the Harmonist, in the end of the sixth, or the beginning of the seventh.] Deuteronomy is said by De Wette, § 160, and by v. Lengerke, p. cxxi., to have been written under Josiah; by Ewald, Geschichte, i. p. 171, and by Riehm, § 18, during the second half of the reign of Manasseh, and in Egypt according to Ewald, [who, however, in his second edition, has modified his view, and thinks that the writer had gone over the entire laws of Moses, and that it was edited to its present form in the end of the seventh century: see Bleek, p. 180. Bleek himself, pp. 299-301,