8 (20), 25; xix: 1; xx:7, 12, 23; xxv: 10, 16; xxvi: 1, 52; xxvii : 6, 12, 18; xxviii: 1; xxx: 1; xxxi: 1, 25; xxxii: 10; xxxiii: 50; xxxiv: 1, 16; xxxv: 1; xxxvi: 13 (a general summary); Deut. i: I (title of whole book). But of course it would be unfair to conclude, even from this mass of evidence, that Moses must be regarded as the medium through whom Jehovah revealed every word and syllable that we have then in our present Pentateuch. From these statements alone we have, for instance, no right to claim that the book of Genesis is his work. That book directly states that certain of the patriarchs were in constant communion with God, and received from him commands and promises. But who it was that preserved these commands and promises and collected and arranged them in their present form in Genesis is nowhere stated in so many words. Moses did this or caused it to be done we must base our acceptance of this thesis on indirect and not on direct evidence. Again, it is seen by a reference to the list above that Moses is nowhere declared to be the recipient of the whole Pentateuch as such, but, as was the case in the passages which spoke of Moses writing parts of the law, of certain parts or portions of the five books. And here the question in each case arises, whether the testimony to the Mosaic source that heads each section covers all the ground, until the same declaration is made of a new section. In a number, probably in many instances, this is doubtless the intention; in other cases this is not so certain, If and in some quite doubtful. The limitation and extent of such warrants are not clear in every case. But so much is certain beyond a doubt, that these claims, repeated sometimes in a single chapter two and three times, fully justify the assertion that the great bulk and mass of the Pentateuch, from that period on when Moses first was called to his mission, Ex. iii: 2 sqq., both the legal portion and also the historical narratives, claim to be the revelation of Jehovah given to his servant Moses. This of course still leaves open the critical and literary question as to whether into this Mosaic bulk or mass foreign elements were introduced then or later, and also the historical question as to the time and manner in which these Mosaic revelations were written, collected, or received their present shape, and the changes, if any, which they may have undergone in this process. But the central and most important fact remains fixed and firm, that the direct evidences of the Pentateuch are overwhelming in vindicating to the great lawgiver of Israel, the reception of the great bulk of the last four books of the Pentateuch. These books claim in essence and substance to be Mosaic. So far the direct testimony of the Pentateuch itself, cautiously used, justifies us in going; and naturally this testimony does not exclude the Mosaic character also of the rest of these books or of the whole Pentateuch. There simply is no direct internal testimony on the problem in this wide range. If it can be proved in this range at all, the testimony must be drawn from other sources. 4. The indirect evidence on this point is also abundant. We will be able to give it only in a few of its leading features. The Pentateuch contains a large number of laws and narrates numerous events which can be understood only from the historical background of the sojourn and journey of the children of Israel through the desert under the leadership of Moses. From the standpoint of the advanced critics these laws and events are glaring anachronisms, and could be explained only as bold fraudes piæ. Bleek, in his Introduction, § 12, has emphasized the importance of. this argument, and he is correct in saying that "it would be difficult to overthrow it." Among these laws that by their very character and surroundings indirectly testify to a Mosaic source is the whole group with which the book of Leviticus begins, extending to chapter vii, cf. particularly 4, 12 and 21, where it is commanded that certain portions of the sacrifices shall be carried "forth without the camp." This shows that the whole law to which these verses belong was given in the desert. Again, in i 5, 7, 11; ii: 2, 10; iii: 2, 5, 13; vi: 2, 7, 9; xi: 13, 18; vii: 10, 31, 33, 34, Aaron and his sons are mentioned as the priests who shall perform these sacrifices; which again points to the Mosaic era. The law of the great day of atonement given in Lev. xvi. is based on a similar historical status. Cf. vv. 10, 21, 22, 26-28. The same is the case in Lev. chaps. xiii and xiv, containing the law on leprosy. Cf. xiii: 46; xiv: 2, 3,8 (33-53). In the ninth chapter of Numbers These com we have the same indirect evidence. mands can be understood only as having been given when Israel lived in tents, and when Aaron and his son Eleazar were their priests. Cf. vv. 3, 4, 7, 9, 14. Good evidence in this respect is furnished also by Lev. xvii. Cf. vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9. This chapter would be meaningless if given any later date. Indeed the whole section from Lev. c. xi to c. xvi presupposes the desert journey of Israel as its historical background. Then there are other laws which, if not in their own character indicative of the Mosaic age, yet in the occasion which caused their promulgation connect with that age and can be rationally and reasonably understood only from this point of view. Thus the law on the great day of atonement (Lev. xvi) is based upon the historical events recorded in Lev. x: 1 sqq., in which the death of Aaron's two sons, Nabad and Abihu, is recorded. Cf. Lev. xvi: I. Then the whole section, Ex. xxv to xxxi, in which the command concerning the erection of the tabernacle and the account of this erection are given in detail, are intelligible only from a Mosaic era. The wonderful handsprings made by some modern critics who regard this description as an ex post facto concern and as an imaginary picture transferred into the Mosaic age after the model of Solomon's temple, are interesting psychologically and theologically, but are based on eisegesis and not on exegesis. This inversion of history cannot possibly be reconciled with the office and work of the priest there described. Cf. xxvii: 21; xxviii: 4, 12, 41, 43; xxix: 4, 5; xxx: 7, 10, 19, 30. In Num. x: 1-8, in which the method of calling together the congregation is described, we have again the Mosaic age presupposed. The same is true of Num. i: I sqq., with its statistics; also ch. ii, containing the description of the arrangement of the people's camp in the wilderness; as also ch. iv, with its regulations concerning the services of the Levites in the camp. It is further highly probable that the Mosaic age is the historical background of the three songs found in Num. xxi. Negatively applied, this indirect evidence argues also that in many other cases, where it cannot positively be shown that the laws or the history proceed from the premises of a Mosaic age, they contain no evidences to the contrary. As far as indirect evidence is concerned their testimony at most is non-committal. (Cf. also Bleek, Introduction, § 11-17.) The direct and the indirect evidence of the Pentateuch concerning itself may then be summed up in the following proposition: Directly it is claimed that the great bulk of the last four books of the Pentateuch are Mosaic in the sense that they are revelations of God to Moses, and portions of them are Mosaic in the sense that Moses himself wrote these or caused them to be written. Indirectly the testimony points to the author of the last four books. as also the author of the first, as also that a large number of the laws and much of the history in these four books presuppose the Mosaic age. Whether these conclusions are applicable to the |