THE POINTS IN DISPUTE

I. The Points Advocated by the Analytic Critics.

The non-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, as contended for at the present time, involves many points and propositions, which may be stated as follows:

1. The whole discussion, as carried on by the leading analytic critics, is permeated by the doctrine of evolution. Their aim and effort are to show, by means of this doctrine, that God Almighty had nothing to do in the production of the Pentateuch or any other portion of the Bible, just as the atheistic evolutionists have been endeavoring to eliminate from the minds of men all belief in the theistic origin and government of the universe.

2. Since, according to the theory of development and growth, the Pentateuch cannot be the production of a single mind, nor of one age, there naturally emerges the hypothesis that it is made up of documents written by different authors, who lived in different ages. These documents and their authors are represented by the letters D, E, J, P, and Q. The critics further suppose that these original documents were combined and dovetailed together by writers acting as editors, compilers, and revisers. These are designated by the letters d, e, j, R, P¹ P², P³, etc. A tabular presentation of the letters which represent the supposed authors, editors, compilers, revisers, and redactors of the Pentateuch, looks a good deal like a complicated algebraic equation, or a binomial raised to the fifth power. An American follower of the analytic critics actually presents the following formula:

In this fractional equation the denominators represent compilers and editors.¹

3. In regard to the times in which the supposed authors, compilers, and redactors lived and wrote, these critics hold, or rather suppose, as follows: that J lived in the ninth century B.C.;² E in the eighth century B.C.;³ D in the seventh,⁴ probably during the reign of King Manasseh; and P in the fifth.⁵ The times of the other writers are scarcely even conjectured, the most of the critics not venturing to propose an hypothesis concerning them.

4. In regard to the times in which the Pentateuchal books, as we have them, were produced, the views of the analysts are as follows: They hold that Deuteronomy, written as they claim by an unknown author, whom they call D, is the book that was found by Hilkiah in the temple, in the time of King Josiah.⁶ They suppose that J and E, original documents by unknown and nameless authors, were amalgamated, by another unknown and nameless author, so as to form one book, JE, at some unknown time, either before or after the book of the law was found in the temple. They claim that Deuteronomy is the oldest book of the Pentateuch, the other four books, as we have them, having originated during the exile, or after it.

5. If the origin of the Pentateuchal laws is to be accounted for by the doctrine of evolution, they, too, must have come into existence at different times. The hypothesis of the analysts is that there are three groups of laws, which they designate as the book of the covenant, the law of holiness, and the Deuteronomic legislation; and that these constitute, as it were, three distinct strata deposited in different ages.

6. In the advocacy of these points and propositions, critics are led by logical necessity to introduce many subsidiary hypotheses and subordinate propositions. Much is made of supposed discrepancies and contradictions, both in the historical and in the legislative portions of the Pentateuch. And not only is the historical integrity of the Pentateuch impeached in order to show that Moses did not write it, but also the trustworthiness of other scriptures is impeached, because they bear testimony to the early existence of the Pentateuchal laws and books. The denial of the early existence of the Levitical ritual and legislation involves the conclusion that the Mosaic tabernacle never existed at all. Hence the necessity for the hypothesis that the tabernacle, with its whole history, as embraced in the Pentateuch and other parts of the Bible, is but the idea of the temple of Solomon projected back into the past by the Jewish imagination. Another hypothesis necessitated by the rejection of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is, that the formulae, "The Lord said unto Moses," and "God spake unto Moses, saying," are a legal fiction, gotten up as an expedient to impart the name and authority of Moses to laws enacted long after his time.

Such, in the main, are the views and hypotheses which the analytic critics propose and maintain in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch.

II. The Traditional View.

The traditional view, as it is often called, may be stated as follows:

1. That Moses is the author of the Pentateuch substantially as we have it. It is not denied that Moses may have employed amanuenses, nor that these may have sometimes employed their own style of thought and language. But the acceptance and approval of what they wrote, by Moses, as his own, would make the whole Mosaic.

2. That the last eight verses of the last chapter of Deuteronomy, probably the whole chapter, and possibly some brief passages found scattered through the Pentateuchal books (equivalent to modern editorial and marginal notes) were written by Ezra or some other duly qualified and authorized person. Such additions by a post-Mosaic hand do not destroy the integrity of the work. The. traditional theory is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch substantially as we have it.

3. Some of the conservative critics are willing to concede that several documents are embodied in the Pentateuch. On antecedent grounds we incline to think this probable. At least we do not repel the suggestion that there may be several original documents combined-in Genesis. Who more likely to have such documents and to utilize them than Moses, who was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians? He may have had in his possession family registers and other memorials brought by Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees. He may have had access in Egypt to old documents, which he carried in memory and afterward reproduced with omissions, additions, and other emendations, according to the wisdom and inspiration which God vouchsafed to him. He may have obtained ancient narratives and songs or other traditional lore from his father-in-law, who was priest (or prince) of Midian, a statesman, and a worshiper of the true God.

We do not believe that the analysts have proved the existence of the documents which they denominate J, E, and P, but the evidence they adduce for this is much more respectable than for most of their other hypotheses.

4. That there are errors in the Pentateuch, as we have it, is admitted on all hands. There is no faultless copy of it, nor of any other portion of the Bible. Errors, however, in modern copies and in the ancient manuscripts do not prove that there were errors in the original autographs of the biblical authors.

5. The question of plenary inspiration is not involved in this discussion. This doctrine is not necessary to the defense of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Indeed, much of the reasoning on the other side derives all its plausibility from the doctrine of plenary inspiration and its corollaries, the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures. The analytic critics argue thus: There are errors in the Pentateuch; therefore, Moses did not write it. Were it not for the inerrancy of Moses as a biblical writer, the battering-ram of these critics would often swing without anything to strike. It is very remarkable that even the most skeptical critics, in their argumentation, assume as their major premise that Moses was plenarily inspired, or was in some other way secured, as an author and legislator, against self-inconsistency and all other

1) Bacon's Genesis of Genesis, p. 66.

2) Kautzsch-Socin, Die Heilige Schrift des Allen Testaments, Erkärung, p. xiv.

3) Abriss, p. 156.

4) Erkärung, p. xiv.

5) Abriss, p. 188.

6) II. Kings 22:8-11; II. Chr. 34:15-19.