I. Name

The Hebrew name given to the first five books of the Old Testament is Torah, Law, Neh. 8:2, or more fully, 'This Book of the Law," Deut. 31:26. This is sometimes modified so as to read "The Book of the Law of Moses," Josh. 8:31; or simply "The Book of Moses," Ezra 6:18. The later Jews frequently speak of it as the Five-fifths of the Law, in allusion to the fact that the entire Pentateuch is divided into five books. The term Pentateuch comes to us through the Latin from the Greek, being the name given this portion of the Bible in the Alexandrian or Septuagint version, and meaning the five-fold book.

Although the Pentateuch is now divided into five books, there are many indications that it was originally one connected work. Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are connected to the books before them by the conjunction and, as if they simply continued the narrative of the former book. But on the other hand there is an individuality about each part which might easily explain their separate existence from the beginning. It is certain that Josephus (Contra Apion I, 8) mentions the division into five books, and it was recognized by the Septuagint translators, 250 B. C. This is also probably the occasion of the five-fold division of the Book of Psalms in the Hebrew Bible, a division now recognized in our Revised Version.

II. Scope

The single design of the Pentateuch is to explain the origin and religion of the Jewish people. To do this it follows two lines, historical and religious.

Historically it traces the origin of the world as preparatory to the advent of man and then tells of man's history down to the deluge. From that point the field of observation is contracted so as to cover only the origin and history of the Jews until they are ready to enter Canaan.

The religious development of the people is carried along with the historical. We learn of man's creation, how sin entered with its disastrous results, and how God revealed Himself to the patriarchs and then to Moses, providing a well-organized form of worship and revealing the gracious purpose of God in providing salvation for His people.

Although these two currents flow along side by side, there is such perfect subordination of both to the one grand purpose for which the book was written that its unity has never been successfully assailed. In its present form it betrays so plainly the presence of one mind that we cannot conceive that the five books have been written independently and then for convenience brought together.

III. Author

The question as to the authorship of the Pentateuch is one of the most difficult to determine of all those connected with Old Testament criticism. Against the traditional view, which ascribes it wholly to Moses, stands the radical criticism which claims that the Pentateuch, in its present form at least, is the gradual accumulation of ages long subsequent to the time of Moses and having no separate existence until after the exile.

From a very early period doubts were expressed as to the Mosaic origin of such passages as the narrative of the death of Moses, but not until the seventeenth century did these assaults assume a very serious form. In 1753 Astruc, a Roman Catholic physician in France, issued the first volume of a series of assaults against the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, which have been growing rapidly in numbers and in fierceness, until almost nothing has been left without challenge. All such critics contend that the Pentateuch is a composite work, put together from different documents by a succession of editors who, in succeeding ages, have sought to give completeness to their work. They claim that it did not assume anything like its present form until the period following the exile, when the priestly influence gained the supremacy and the Levitical legislation was skillfully connected with a historical statement to give it greater authority.

Their more important reasons are as follows:

1. Unnecessary repetitions, as in the account of the creation in Genesis, first and second chapters; three repetitions of the story of the laughter which occasioned the naming of Isaac, Gen. 17:17, 18:12, 21:6, 7; the laws in regard to the burnt offering found in Lev. I and repeated in chapter 22:17ff.

2. Frequent discrepancies and inconsistencies, as in the account of the flood. Gen. 7 and 8; and the materials for building an altar in Ex. 20:24 and 27:1-8.

3. Want of continuity. The history of Noah, they tell us, is strangely confused, and the Song of Moses, in Deuteronomy, is out of place.

4. Differences of style and conception, as seen in the creation story and the statements of Ex. 4:10-17 and Num. 12:3 in regard to the character of Moses, compared with his eloquence in Deuteronomy.

5. Long periods, especially in the times succeeding Moses, which show no evidence of the practical operation of such a law.

These difficulties have arisen, according to these critics, from the fact that different documents were used by successive redactors who were so careless or unskilled that they did not observe the contradictions or did not know how to correct them.

The difficulties connected with such criticism arise chiefly from the fact that it is so largely subjective, and its weakness is seen in the fact that the conclusions of one critic are set aside by the next, so that the course of this method of criticism is marked by an almost innumerable number of theories which have been cast aside and now serve only as skeletons marking the path along which the critics have passed.

We may perhaps sum up the general conclusions of the school, so far as at present defined and agreed upon by themselves, in the statement that the Pentateuch is composed of certain more or less independent documents, dealing largely with the same series of events, but composed at different periods or under different auspices, and afterward revised and combined so as to form the book as it now exists. (Hastings, Die. of the Bible II., 365.)

In favor of the Mosaic origin of the book we submit the following:

1. In the New Testament it is uniformly ascribed to Moses. Christ calls it "The Book of Moses," Mark 12:26, and it is alluded to by Paul, 2 Cor. 3:15, by James, Acts 15:21, and by Luke, 24:27. Christ says Moses gave the Law, John 7:19, and in Mark 10:4, 5 that Moses wrote the Law, as also in John 5:46, 47. If we say that Christ here simply accommodates Himself to popular opinion, we make use of an assumption which generally applied would lead to disastrous results. Christ's apparent reason for the mention of the name of Moses is the great respect the Jews had for that name, and we can hardly suppose that He would try to enforce an argument by pleading as a fact what He knew to be a fiction.

On this point Canon Liddon says (The Worth of the Old Testament, p. 12): "His (Christ's) authority is as vital an element in the settlement of controverted matters respecting the Old Testament as is the science of language or the science of history . . . . The appeal to Him in these Old Testament questions really corresponds to a reference to an axiom in mathematics, or to a first principle in morals." And Abp. W. Smith (The Book of Moses, or the Pentateuch in Its Authorship, p.25ff.) shows that Christ's reference to the Book of Moses could have but one meaning, namely to assert directly that Moses wrote it.

2. The Pentateuch claims for itself, in part at least, a Mosaic origin. In Ex. 24:3, 4 we read that Moses came from the presence of Jehovah and told the people what God had said to him and then wrote all the words. Admitting for the present that these words refer not to the completed book of the law, as the Jews have always known it, but only to Chs. 20 to 23 immediately preceding, a point by no means conclusively shown, they do at least show that these laws, which confessedly are among the most important in the Pentateuch, were written by Moses himself. Again in Ex. 34:27 Jehovah directs Moses to write these words. Looking at the context we find that these words must include at least the legislation included in the preceding chapters, which form what is called "The Priest's Code." Passing on to Deut. 31:9 the statement is made, "And Moses wrote this law and delivered it unto the priests," and in verses 24-26, when he had finished the writing of the law in a book, or as the Hebrew says, in the book, he gave an emphatic charge for its guarding. On the most limited construction this must mean the law he had just been expounding and which constitutes a large part of the present Book of Deuteronomy, so that in these references we cover the essential parts of the legislation found in the Pentateuch.

But there are other references. In Ex. 17:14 Moses is told to write in a book the story of Israel's discomfiture of Amalek, and in Num. 33:2 we learn that Moses wrote the account of the wanderings of Israel in the wilderness. If there was a reason for recording such events surely there was a much stronger reason why Moses should write the more important matters pertaining to their history.

Those who object to the Mosaic origin here call attention, as an offset, to other passages which seem to imply that Moses did not write them. Ex. 11:3 speaks of Moses as a very great man in Egypt, and Num. 12:3 refers to his meekness, and Deut. 34:10 to his remarkable position as a prophet before Jehovah. Such expressions, they tell us, could not come from the pen of a man like Moses. In other places explanations are made, as Gen. 12:6; genealogies are introduced, as Gen. 36; places are given names they did not have till a much later period, as Deut. 34:1; and the death of Moses is recorded in Deut. 34. These and other similar objections are hard to meet with a positive answer, but so far as they relate to Moses himself do not present any serious difficulty, for the assertion that he did not write them is at least no stronger than the contrary assertion that he did write them. As for the change of names and anachronisms, these are exceedingly frail foundations for an argument, since we are confessedly so ignorant of the conditions then existing; and it may easily be that the same place had two names, one popular, the other official, as we now call our greatest metropolis New York or Gotham, or later copyists may have given the names common in their day.

3. When we examine the later books of the Old Testament we find constant reference to the Pentateuch in a way which proves that it was a well-known work. Joshua is directed to regulate his conduct by it, 1:7, 8. David observes Mosaic regulations when removing the ark, 1 Chron. 15:15. Solomon arranged the temple service according to the commandment of Moses, 2 Chron. 8:13. David charges Solomon to live as it is written in the Law of Moses, 1 Kings 2:3. So with Amaziah, 2 Kings 14:6, and Hezekiah, 2 Kings 18:6. In Josiah's time the finding of a copy of it resulted in a great reformation, 2 Kings 22:8ff.

But it was known far beyond such limits. The High Priest, Jehoiada, arranged the ritual services "as it is written in the Law of Moses," 2 Chron. 23:18. We are told that Ezra was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses, Ezra 7:6. And the last utterance of the last prophet was an injunction to remember the Law of Moses, Mal. 4:4.

If we examine these and similar references in these later books we find they take us to almost every part of the Pentateuch, thus linking the name of Moses with the entire work. To say that in all these allusions the thought of the writer does not go beyond the immediate words quoted and that he does not intend to ascribe the entire book to Moses, is simply begging the question. If Moses wrote the passages quoted the reasonable inference is that he wrote the books in which they occur.

4. Still further evidence for the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch is found in its unique manner of statement. In the references to Egypt there is the freshness of personal experience. The wilderness life bears all the marks of a personal narrative prepared while yet it was in progress. The call of Moses, the consecration of Aaron and his sons, the allusions to Canaan as a land yet to be possessed, the details of their camp life, the construction of the tabernacle with the account of the voluntary gifts of the people for its furnishing, and the remarkably personal character of the Book of Deuteronomy, with many other items, reveal the work of a personal actor and one deeply interested in the preservation of their records. It is autobiographical rather than historical in form, and there is no one around whom all this centers as around Moses. Bleek, in his bit. Old Test. I., p. 212, while doubting that the Pentateuch, in its present form, came directly from the hand of Moses, adds that "The laws, as they stand in these books, make, as a whole, one and the same claim to have proceeded from Moses"; and then he says, "It is in the highest degree likely that these laws, not only in their essential purport proceeded from Moses, but also that they were written down by Moses, or at least in the Mosaic age."

5. Lastly, the failure of other theories drives us back to the plain utterance of the book itself. The theory that the Pentateuch was produced after the captivity, either by Ezra or those who succeeded him, does not suit the conditions then existing. Literary production was not a characteristic of that period. The original work of Ezra, the most literary man among them, is represented at best by the historical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, mainly a record of contemporary events. The post-exilic prophets, as contrasted with those before the exile, are not only inferior in amount but still more in their power of literary expression. To suppose that these men would attempt such a work as the production of a book like the Pentateuch is to give them an importance which they neither claim nor deserve.

Nor can we find a probable author in the priestly character of Ezekiel; for his book is plainly based on the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch is not the outgrowth of Ezekiel. And the same difficulty meets us if we try to locate the book in the days of Josiah, 2 Kings 22; for the entire account there shows that the interest aroused grew out of the fact that an old book had been discovered, not a new one written. And if we say that there was an intentional deception in this matter, the priests actually writing it but putting it in the name of Moses to give it authority, we come to a result which vitiates the entire assumption. It would be amazing if the Israelitish nation, then far gone in idolatry, having the rich and the learned and the noble elements in thorough sympathy with their idolatrous customs, should hear such denunciation of their course and never raise a protest against such teachings, as they could easily have done if they were something entirely new. There must have been a knowledge of such a book, although it might have been long hidden in the dark days of Manasseh, and now when it was brought to light it had a power which swept everything before it.

Nor can we appeal to the idea that such teaching as we find in the Pentateuch is too far advanced for the Mosaic era. The theory of an ethical development of the religious idea underlies all the objections raised against the early origin of the book. The literary activities, the religious ideas, and the social conditions, they tell us, make it impossible that anyone living in the Mosaic age should produce such an elaborate and finished structure. These ideas of government, of social life, of religion and of God were of slow growth so that generations and centuries were necessary before they could formulate such lofty and spiritual conceptions. The laws would not be made until they were needed, and they were not needed until by long deliberation and wise selection the right idea had at last been reached. Recent archaeological research, showing similar advancement in Egypt and Assyria, breaks the force of this argument. Such questions were largely discussed at that time. Further, this reasoning is so directly opposed to the entire teaching of the Scriptures that it refutes itself. Our knowledge of God and of the fit manner of His worship, as well as our knowledge of ourselves and of our relations to our fellow men, is not a matter of development or wise deliberation but of direct revelation. God Himself is the fountain of truth and of His fullness have we received. And there can be no reason given why He should not have imparted that knowledge to Moses. It was then preeminently needed, and God always responds to man's need. It is not true therefore that centuries of human struggle must precede a true knowledge of God. He speaks and the truth becomes the light of life in which all generations can walk.

IV. Sources of the Pentateuch

The length of time embraced in the Pentateuch precludes the idea that one author could produce it from his own observation. How then did he obtain his facts? This question has been discussed by those who refer the Pentateuch to Moses, as well as by those who deny his authorship of it.

According to the critical theories now so largely entertained there is properly no author. It is a growth or a systematizing of facts or traditions in which many men have had a part not so much in the way of original investigation as of editorial elaboration and comment. Hence they speak of different editors or redactors. Around an original nucleus these men have added items from various sources until the present work is the result. This work of editing went on down to post-exilic times, and the different documents making up the present book are still so clearly marked that they can be separated from each other and their age determined.

These different documents have received different names according to some peculiarity they possess; as, the Jehovist document, because the name of God found in it is Jehovah; the Elohist, because the name of God in it is Elohim; the Priestly code, because the contents relate largely to the ceremonial law; or the Deuteronomic code, because it constitutes a large part of our present Book of Deuteronomy.

There is the greatest variety of opinion as to what the original basis of the Pentateuch was, or where these different documents originated or when they were first put into their present shape. The theory of one critic frequently destroys that of another. The only point on which they are all agreed is that they are all much later than the time of Moses.

Those who hold to the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch have likewise had different ideas as to the manner in which he came into possession of his facts. Some, like Carpzov, have held that Moses received the entire contents by immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Others hold that he obtained his historical facts either from oral tradition or from written documents, while the Holy Spirit directed him in the selection of the truth and the proper expression of it. As for the legal or religious ordinances the fact is often stated that he received them directly from God who told him to write carefully what he had seen and heard. The creation narrative must have been revealed either to Moses personally or to some one before him.

The most probable theory is that written documents existed and were used by Moses as the basis of the narrative composing the Pentateuch. That such documents were in existence we may infer from what we have learned from the monuments and records in Egypt and Babylon concerning the knowledge of that age.

Out of such material Moses selected the facts and wrote the record under divine direction, not joining different and sometimes conflicting statements as the critics contend, but so arranging the facts as to present the subject in its proper light when seen from different directions. He was a historian, basing his record on facts, and not an editor, clumsily patching together documents which had no mutual relation. Hence his work has a unity and a clearly seen purpose, and is worthy of its position at the head of the divine revelation.

We conclude then that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, that he used either written documents or oral tradition as the historical basis of his work, that he received the legal portions directly from God, and that in writing it he was constantly guided by the Holy Spirit both in the selection and preparation of his material.

In thus asserting the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch we do not mean that every word of it, in just the form in which we now have it, is just as he left it. The account of the death of Moses, Deut. 34, is plainly a supplement; the personal allusion to the exalted position of Moses in Egypt, Ex. 11:3, and to his excessive meekness, Num. 12:3, may have been inserted by some one anxious to call attention to his splendid character; although we see no reason for such an admission, some passages which are supposed to refer to later events in their history, Gen. 12:6, 14:14, Ex. 16:35, Deut. 33:1, may have been inserted as explanations. Such incidental references do not affect the main proposition, which is that in the Pentateuch as it now exists we have a work which has come down to us from Moses as an original composition, not as the result of successive redactions and piecing together of undigested documents. Using the term as we are accustomed to use it, we say that Moses wrote it. If in the course of time certain words became obscure and an explanation was inserted, or if changes in their national life called for modification of their older customs it would not be strange if they were inserted, but such a fact does not discredit its Mosaic origin.

V. Outline of the Separate Books

The fundamental character of the Pentateuch may be learned from the following general outline of the separate books:

(SEE NEXT 5 CHAPTERS FOR OUTLINES)

Works of Reference on the Pentateuch.

Commentaries: Delitzsch, Dillmann, and older, Lange and Bush.

Introductions: Driver, Keil, Bleek and Kautzsch's Literature of the Old Testament.

Criticism: Green's Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch and Unity of the Book of Genesis. Bissell's Genesis Printed in Colors. Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Monuments. W. R. Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church. Gigot, Special Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament. Chambers, Moses and His Recent Critics. The article "Pentateuch," in Smith's Bible Dictionary, and "Hexateuch," in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. See also an article by Dr. A. J. F. Behrends in Methodist Review, Sept. to Oct., 1902, p. 785. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands in the 19th Century.