The following passage is the chief argument relied upon to prove the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch:

“And it came to pass, that when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee” (Deut. xxxi, 24–26).

This was written for a purpose. Its sequel appears in 2 Kings. During the reign of Josiah, Hilkiah the high priest discovered a “book of the law” in the temple. “And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord” (2 Kings xxii, 8).

This book was the book of Deuteronomy, written, not in the time of Moses, but in the time of Josiah, more than eight centuries later. Hilkiah needed the book and he “found” it. It was written by him or for him. Holland’s great critic, Dr. Kuenen, says: “There is no room to doubt that the book was written with a view to the use that Hilkiah made of it” (Kuenen’s Hexateuch, p. 215).

Dr. Oort, another able Dutch scholar, professor of Oriental languages at Amsterdam, says: “The book was certainly written about the time of its discovery. It is true that it introduces Moses as uttering the precepts and exhortations of which it consists, just before the people enter Canaan. But this is no more than a literary fiction. The position of affairs assumed throughout the book is that of Judah in the time of Josiah” (Bible for Learners, vol. ii, p. 331).

In support of this unanimous conclusion of the critics, Dr. Briggs presents the following long array of irrefutable arguments:

“The reasons for the composition of Deuteronomy in the time of Josiah according to the later hypothesis are: (1) Expressions which indicate a period subsequent to the Conquest (ii, 12; xix, 14); (2) the law of the king, which implies the reign of Solomon (xvii, 14–20); (3) the one supreme judicatory of the time of Jehoshaphat (xvii, 8); (4) the one central altar of the times of Hezekiah (xii, 5 seq.); (5) the return to Egypt in ships not conceivable before the time of Manasseh (xxviii, 68); (6) the forms of idolatry of the middle period of the monarchy (iv, 19; xvii, 3); (7) no trace of Deuteronomy in writings prior to Jeremiah; (8) the point of view indicates an advanced style of theological reflection; (9) the prohibition of Mazzebah (xvi, 22) regarded as lawful in Isaiah (xix, 19); (10) the style implies a long development of the art of Hebrew oratory, and the language is free from archaism, and suits the times preceding Jeremiah; (11) the doctrine of the love of God and his faithfulness with the term ‘Yahweh thy God’ presuppose the experience of the prophet Hosea; (12) the humanitarianism of Deuteronomy shows an ethical advance beyond Amos and Isaiah and prepares the way for Jeremiah and Ezekiel; (13) ancient laws embedded in the code account for the penalties for their infraction in 2 Kings xxii; (14) ancient laws of war are associated with laws which imply the wars of the monarchy, and have been influenced by Amos” (The Hexateuch, p. 261).

No book had been deposited in the ark as the writer stated. At the dedication of Solomon’s temple the ark was opened, but it contained no book. “There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb” (1 Kings viii, 5–9).

In the Pentateuch it is also stated that Moses, at the command of God, wrote certain covenants (Ex. xxxiv, 27), recorded the curse of Amalek (Ex. xvii, 14), and made a list of the stations between the Red Sea and the Jordan (Num. xxxiii); likewise that he wrote a song (Deut. xxxi, 22). The absurdity of adducing these to prove that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is thus exposed by Briggs:

“When the author of the Pentateuch says that Moses wrote one or more codes of law, that he wrote a song, that he recorded a certain memorandum, it would appear that having specified such of his materials as were written by Moses, he would have us infer that the other materials came from other sources of information. But it has been urged the other way; namely, that, because it is said that Moses wrote the codes of the covenant and the Deuteronomic code, he also wrote all the laws of the Pentateuch; that because he wrote the song Deut. xxxii, he wrote all the other pieces of poetry in the Pentateuch, that because he recorded the list of stations and the memorial against Amalek, he recorded all the other historical events of the Pentateuch. It is probable that no one would so argue did he not suppose it was necessary to maintain the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch at every cost” (Hexateuch, pp. 10, 11).

Again, it has been argued that Christ and some of the writers of the New Testament recognize Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. Such expressions as “the law of Moses,” “the book of Moses,” “Moses said,” etc., occur a few times. These expressions are explained and this argument answered by the following: 1. It is not denied by critics that Moses was the legislator of the Jews and promulgated certain laws. 2. An anonymous book is usually called after the leading character of the book. 3. At this time the traditional theory of the Mosaic authorship was generally accepted. Of Christ’s mention of Moses, Dr. Davidson says: “The venerable authority of Christ himself has no proper bearing on the question.”

That the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, that it is an anonymous work belonging to a later age, is clearly proven by the following:

1. There is no proof that Moses ever claimed to be the author of the Pentateuch. There is nothing in the work, neither is there anything outside of it, to indicate that he was its author.

2. The ancient Hebrews did not believe that he wrote it. Renan says: “The opinion which attributes the composition of the Pentateuch to Moses seems quite modern; it is very certain that the ancient Hebrews never dreamed of regarding their legislator as their historian. The ancient documents appeared to them absolutely impersonal, and they attached to them no author’s name” (History of Semitic Languages, Book II., chapter i).

3. The Pentateuch was written in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew of the Bible did not exist in the time of Moses. Language is a growth. It takes centuries to develop it. It took a thousand years to develop the English language. The Hebrew of the Bible was not brought from Egypt, but grew in Palestine. Referring to this language, De Wette says: “Without doubt it originated in the land [Canaan] or was still further developed therein after the Hebrew and other Canaanitish people had migrated thither from the Northern country” (Old Testament, Part II.). Gesenius says that the Hebrew language scarcely antedates the time of David.

4. Not only is it true that the Hebrew language did not exist, but it is urged by critics that no written language, as we understand it, existed in Western Asia in the time of Moses. Prof. Andrew Norton says: “For a long time after the supposed date of the Pentateuch we find no proof of the existence of a book or even an inscription in proper alphabetical characters among the nations by whom the Hebrews were surrounded” (The Pentateuch, p. 44). Hieroglyphics were then in use, and it is not to be supposed that a work as large as the Pentateuch was written or engraved in hieroglyphics and carried about by this wandering tribe of ignorant Israelites.

5. Much of the Pentateuch is devoted to the history of Moses; but excepting a few brief compositions attributed to him and quoted by the author he is always referred to in the third person. The Pentateuch contains a biography, not an autobiography of Moses.

6. It contains an account of the death and burial of Moses which he could not have written:

“So Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab.... And he buried him in a valley of the land of Moab” (Deut. xxxiv, 5, 6).

“And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days” (8).

Orthodox commentators attempt to remove this difficulty by supposing that the last chapter of Deuteronomy belongs to the book of Joshua, and that Joshua recorded the death of Moses. The same writer, referring to the appointment of Joshua as the successor of Moses, says: “And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom” (Deut. xxxiv, 9). If Joshua wrote this, however full of the spirit of wisdom he may have been, he certainly was not full of the spirit of modesty. Joshua did not write this chapter.

7. “No man knoweth of his [Moses’] sepulchre unto this day” (Deut. xxxiv, 6).

That the authorship of this chapter should ever have been attributed to either Moses or Joshua is incomprehensible. The language plainly shows that not merely one but many generations had elapsed between the time of Moses and the time that it was written.

8. While the advocates of the Mosaic authorship have, without proof, asserted that Joshua wrote the book of Joshua and the conclusion of Deuteronomy, the Higher Critics have demonstrated the common authorship of Deuteronomy and a large portion of Joshua. As all the events recorded in Joshua occurred after the death of Moses, he could not have been the author of Deuteronomy.

9. “They [the Israelites] did eat manna until they came unto the borders of Canaan” (Ex. xvi, 35).

This passage was written after the Israelites settled in Canaan and ceased to subsist on manna. And this was not until after the death of Moses.

10. “The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them” (Deut. ii, 12).

This refers to the conquest of Canaan and was written after that event.

11. “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day” (Num. xv, 32).

When this was written the children of Israel were no longer in the wilderness. Their sojourn there is referred to as a past event. As Moses died while they were still in the wilderness—that is, before they had entered the promised land—it could not have been written by him.

12. “Thou shalt eat it within thy gates” (Deut. xv, 22).

The phrase, “within thy gates,” occurs in the Pentateuch about twenty-five times. It refers to the gates of the cities of the Israelites, which they did not inhabit until after the death of Moses.

13. “Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, ... that the land spew not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you” (Lev. xviii, 26, 28).

When Moses died the nations alluded to still occupied the land and had not been expelled.

14. “And Abraham called the name of the place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen” (Gen. xxii, 14).

This is one of the passages adduced by the critics of the seventeenth century against the Mosaic authorship of these books. It implies the conquest and a long occupancy of the land by the Israelites.

15. “And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan” (Gen. xxiii, 2). “And Jacob came ... unto the city of Arbah, which is Hebron” (xxxv, 27).

Moses’ uncle was named Hebron, and from him the Hebronites were descended. After the Conquest this family settled in Kirjath-arba and changed the name of the city to Hebron.

16. “And Rachel died and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem” (Gen. xxxv, 19).

The Hebrew name of Bethlehem was not given to this city until after the Israelites had conquered and occupied it.

17. “For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon?” (Deut. iii, 11.)

This is another passage relied upon by the early critics to disprove the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The writer’s reference to the bedstead of Og, which was still preserved as a relic at Rabbath, indicates a time long subsequent to the conquest of Bashan.

18. “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance” (Deut. xix, 14).

This refers to the ancient landmarks set by the Israelites when they obtained possession of Canaan, and was written centuries after that time.

19. “And Jair the son of Manasseh went and took the small towns thereof, and called them Havoth-jair” (Num. xxxii, 41).

The above is evidently a misstatement of an event recorded in Judges:

“And after him [Tola] arose Jair, a Gileadite, and judged Israel twenty and two years. And he had thirty sons, ... and they had thirty cities, which are called Havoth-jair unto this day” (Jud. x, 3, 4).

Jair was judge of Israel from 1210 to 1188 b.c., or from 241 to 263 years after the date assigned for the writing of the Pentateuch.

20. “And Nobah went and took Kenath, and the villages thereof, and called it Nobah, after his own name” (Num. xxxii, 42).

Referring to this and the preceding passage, Dr. Oort says: “It is certain that Jair, the Gileadite, the conqueror of Bashan, after whom thirty places were called Jair’s villages, lived in the time of the Judges, and that a part of Bashan was conquered at a still later period by a certain Nobah” (Bible for Learners, vol. i, p. 329).

21. “Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this day” (Deut. iii, 14).

Even if Jair had lived in the time of Moses, the phrase “unto this day” shows that it was written long after the event described.

22. “And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan” (Gen. xiv, 14).

This passage could not have been written before Dan existed. In Judges (xviii, 26–29) the following account of the origin of this place is given: “And the children of Dan went their way; ... and came unto Laish, unto a people that were at quiet and secure; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire.... And they built a city, and dwelt therein. And they called the name of the city Dan.” This is placed after the death of Samson, and Samson died, according to Bible chronology, 1120 B.C.—331 years after Moses died.

23. “And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel” (Gen. xxxvi, 31).

This could not have been written before the kingdom of Israel was established; for the writer is familiar with the fact that kings have reigned in Israel. Saul, the first king of Israel, began to reign 356 years after Moses.

24. “And his [Israel’s] king shall be higher than Agag” (Num. xxiv, 7).

This refers to Saul’s defeat of Agag. “And he [Saul] took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword” (1 Sam. xv, 8). The defeat of Agag is placed in 1067 B.C., 384 years after Moses.

25. “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, ... until Shiloh come” (Gen. xlix, 10).

These words are ascribed to Jacob; but they could not have been written before Judah received the sceptre, which was not until David ascended the throne, 396 years after the death of Moses.

26. “And the Canaanite was then in the land” (Gen. xii, 6).

When this was written the Canaanite had ceased to be an inhabitant of Palestine. As a remnant of the Canaanites inhabited this country up to the time of David, it could not have been written prior to his time.

27. “The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land” (Gen. xiii, 7).

This, like the preceding passage, could not have been written before the time of David. The Perizzites, also, inhabited Palestine for a long period after the conquest. In the time of the Judges “the children of Israel dwelt among the ... Perizzites” (Jud. iii, 5).

28. “The first of the first fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord thy God” (Ex. xxiii, 19).

This was not written before the time of Solomon; for God had no house prior to the erection of the temple, 1004 B.C., 447 years after Moses. When David proposed to build him a house, he forbade it and said:

“I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle” (2 Sam. vii, 6).

The tabernacle itself was a tent (Tent of Meeting). During all this time no house was ever used as a sanctuary.

29. “One from among the brethren shalt thou set king over thee.... But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold” (Deut. xvii, 15–17).

“And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses” (1 Kings iv, 26). “And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt” (x, 28). “And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart” (xi, 3). “The weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred three score and six talents of gold” (x, 14). “And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones” (27).

Nothing can be plainer than that this statute in Deuteronomy was written after Solomon’s reign. The extravagance and debaucheries of this monarch had greatly impoverished and corrupted the kingdom, and to prevent a recurrence of such excesses this law was enacted.

30. “If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, ... thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment” (Deut. xvii, 8, 9).

This court was established by Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. xix, 8–11). Jehoshaphat commenced his reign 914 B.C., 537 years after Moses.

31. “But in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there shalt thou do all that I command thee” (Deut. xii, 14).

“Is it not he [the Lord] whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?” (Is. xxxvi, 7).

Up to the time of Hezekiah the Hebrews worshiped at many altars. Hezekiah removed these altars and established the one central altar at Jerusalem. This was in 726 B.C.—725 years after Moses.

32. “And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships” (Deut. xxviii, 68).

This, critics affirm, was written when Psameticus was king of Egypt. He reigned from 663 to 609 B.C.

33. “Neither shalt thou set thee up any image [pillar]” (Deut. xvi, 22).

This proves the late origin of the Pentateuch, or at least of Deuteronomy. Isaiah (xix, 19) instructs them to do the very thing which they are here forbidden to do, and as he would not have advised a violation of the law it is evident that this statute could not have existed in his time. Isaiah died about 750 years after Moses died.

34. The worship of the sun, moon, and stars by the Jews, is mentioned and condemned (Deut. iv, 19; xvii, 3). This nature worship was adopted by them in the reign of Manasseh, 800 years after Moses.

35. “Wherefore it is said in the book of the Wars of the Lord, what he did in the Red Sea, and in the brooks of Arnon” (Num. xxi, 14).

The author of the Pentateuch here cites a book older than the Pentateuch, which gives an account of the journeyings of the Israelites from Egypt to Moab—from the Exodus to the end of Moses’ career.

36. “And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly” (Deut. xxvii, 8).

“And he [Joshua] wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses” (Josh. viii, 32).

Christians affirm that the Law of Moses and the Pentateuch are one. That this Law of Moses was not the one hundred and fifty thousand words of the Pentateuch is shown by the fact that after the death of Moses it was all engraved upon a stone altar.

37. “Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth” (Num. xii, 3).

No writer would bestow such fulsome praise upon himself. This was written by a devout admirer of Moses, but it was not written by Moses.

38. “And this is the blessing wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death” (Deut. xxxiii, 1).

There are three reasons for rejecting the Mosaic authorship of this: Moses is spoken of in laudatory terms; he is spoken of in the third person; his death is referred to as an event that is already past.

39. “And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses” (Deut. xxxiv, 10).

Not only is the highest praise bestowed upon Moses, a thing which he would not have done, but the language clearly shows that it was written centuries after the time he lived.

40. The religious history of the Hebrews embraces three periods of time, each covering centuries. During the first period the worship of Jehovah was confined to no particular place; during the second it was confined to the holy city, Jerusalem; during the third it was confined, not merely to Jerusalem, but to the temple itself. There are writings in the Pentateuch belonging to each of these periods. The Encyclopedia Britannica declares that this fact alone affords overwhelming disproof of Mosaic authorship.

41. The religion of the Pentateuch was not a revelation, but an evolution. The priestly offices, the feasts, the sacrifices, and other religious observances underwent many changes, these changes representing different stages of development in Israel’s religion and requiring centuries of time to effect.

42. The legislation of the Pentateuch was also the growth of centuries. Some of the minor codes are much older than the documents containing them. There is legislation older than David, 1055 B.C.—probably as old as Moses, 1451 B.C. There is legislation belonging to the time of Josiah, 626 B.C., of Ezekiel, 575 B.C., of Ezra, 456 B.C. Would it not be absurd to claim that all the laws of England from Alfred to Victoria were the work of one mind, Alfred? And is it less absurd to claim that all the laws of the Jews from Moses to Ezra were instituted by Moses?

43. The Pentateuch abounds with repetitions and contradictions. The first two chapters of Genesis contain two accounts of the Creation differing in every important particular. In the sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of Genesis two different and contradictory accounts of the Deluge are intermingled. Exodus and Deuteronomy each contain a copy of the Decalogue, the two differing as to the reason assigned for the institution of the Sabbath. There are several different versions of the call of Abraham; different and conflicting stories of the Egyptian plagues; contradictory accounts of the conquest of Canaan.

44. The four preceding arguments suggest the concluding and most important one. The character of the writings of the Pentateuch preclude the possibility of unity of authorship, and consequently the Mosaic authorship of the work as a whole. The books of the Pentateuch were not all composed by one author. The book of Genesis is not the work of one author. The first two chapters of Genesis were not written by the same writer. The Pentateuch was written by various writers and at various times.

The Pentateuch comprises four large documents known as the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents, and the Deuteronomic and Priestly Codes. They are distinguished by the initial letters E, J, D, and P. E and J include the greater portion of Genesis and extend through the other books of the Pentateuch, as well as through Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. D includes the greater portion of Deuteronomy, fragments of the preceding books, and a large portion of Joshua. P includes the greater portion of the middle books of the Pentateuch and smaller portions of the other books.

The author of each of these documents incorporated into his work one or more older documents. These four works were afterwards united by successive editors or redactors. E and J were first fused into one. A subsequent redactor united D with this, and still later another united this compilation with P.

In addition to these principal documents there are several minor codes, chief of which is the Holiness Code comprising ten chapters of Leviticus, xvii-xxvi. There are also several poems written by various authors. Thus the Pentateuch instead of being the product of one mind is the work of many writers and compilers, probably twenty or more.

These documents, especially the principal ones, notwithstanding the intermingling of their contents, are easily distinguished and separated from each other by Bible critics. The thoughts of the human mind, like the features of the human face, controlled by the law of variation, assume different forms. We who are familiar with faces have no difficulty in distinguishing one face from another. No two faces are alike. Critics who have devoted their lives to literature can distinguish the writings of individuals almost as readily as we distinguish the faces of individuals. There are certain idioms of language, certain peculiarities of style, belonging to each writer. The language and style of these documents are quite dissimilar. To quote Dr. Briggs: “There is as great a difference in style between the documents of the Hexateuch as there is between the Four Gospels.” The principal documents are thus described by this critic:

“E is brief, terse, and archaic; graphic, plastic, and realistic; written in the theocratic interest of the kingdom of God. J is poetical and descriptive, the best narrative in the Bible, giving us the history of the kingdom of redemption. D is rhetorical and hortatory, practical and earnest, written in the more theological interest of the training of the nation in the fatherly instruction of God. P is annalistic and diffuse, fond of names and dates, written in the interest of the priestly order, and emphasizing the sovereignty of the Holy God and the sanctity of the divine institutions” (Hexateuch, p. 265).

Each document abounds with characteristic words and phrases peculiar to that document. Holzinger notes 108 belonging to E and 125 belonging to J. Canon Driver gives 41 belonging to D and 50 belonging to P. One of the chief distinguishing marks is the term used to designate the Deity. In E it is Elohim, translated God; in J, Jehovah (Yahveh) Elohim, translated Lord God. In D the writer continually uses the phrase “The Lord thy God,” this phrase occurring more than 200 times. “I am Jehovah” is a phrase used by P, including the Holiness Code, 70 times. It is never used by E or D. “God of the Fathers” is frequently used by E and D; never by P.

Bishop Colenso’s analysis of Genesis is as follows: Elohist, 336 verses; Jehovist, 1,052 verses; Deuteronomist, 39 verses; Priestly writer, 106 verses.

The Pentateuch was chiefly written and compiled from seven to ten centuries after the time claimed. The Elohistic and Jehovistic documents, the oldest of the four, were written at least 300 years after the time of David and 700 years after the time of Moses. They were probably written at about the same time. E belongs to the Northern Kingdom of Israel, J to the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The unanimous verdict of critics is that Deuteronomy was written during the reign of Josiah, about 626 B.C., 825 years after Moses died. The Holiness Code belongs to the age of Ezekiel, about fifty years later. The Priestly Code was written after the Exile, in the time of Ezra, 1,000 years after Moses. Important changes and additions were made as late as the third century B.C., so that, excepting the variations and interpolations of later times, the Pentateuch in something like its present form appeared about 1,200 years after the time of Moses.

The certainty and the consequences of the Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch are thus expressed by Hupfeld:

“The discovery that the Pentateuch is put together out of various sources, or original documents, is beyond all doubt not only one of the most important and most pregnant with consequences for the interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament, or rather for the whole of theology and history, but it is also one of the most certain discoveries which have been made in the domain of criticism and the history of literature. Whatever the anti-critical party may bring forward to the contrary, it will maintain itself, and not retrograde again through anything, so long as there exists such a thing as criticism, and it will not be easy for a reader upon the stage of culture on which we stand in the present day, if he goes to the examination unprejudiced, and with an uncorrupted power of appreciating the truth, to be able to ward off its influence.”

The critical labors of Hobbes, Spinoza, Peyrerius, Simon, Astruc, Eichorn, Paine, Bauer, (G. L.) De Wette, Ewald, Geddes, Vater, Reuss, Graf, Davidson, Colenso, Hupfeld, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Briggs, and others, have overthrown the old notions concerning the authenticity of the Pentateuch. There is not one eminent Bible scholar in Europe, and scarcely one in America, who any longer contends that Moses wrote this work.

The pioneers in the field of the Higher Criticism were the Rationalists Hobbes and Spinoza and the Catholics Peyrerius, Simon, and Astruc. More than two hundred years ago Benedict Spinoza, the greatest of modern Jews, with his own race and the entire Christian church against him, made this declaration, which the scholarship of the whole world now accepts:

“It is as clear as the noonday light that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses” (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Chap, viii, Sec. 20).

A century passed, and Thomas Paine in France, in the most potent volume of Higher Criticism ever penned, exposed in all their nakedness the wretched claims of the traditionalists. He read the Pentateuch and wrote:

“Those books are spurious.” “Moses is not the author of them.” “The style and manner in which those books are written give no room to believe, or even to suppose, they were written by Moses.” “They were not written in the time of Moses, nor till several hundred years afterwards” (Age of Reason).

About the same time German scholars, ever foremost in the domain of critical analysis, took up the work. The writings of Eichorn, Bauer, Vater, and De Wette, “swept the field in Germany.” De Wette, one of her greatest theologians, thus presents the conclusion of German critics:

“The opinion that Moses composed these books is not only opposed by all the signs of a later date which occur in the work itself, but also by the entire analogy of the history of Hebrew literature and language” (Books of Moses, Sec. 163).

Fifty years or more elapsed and Davidson and Colenso studied and wrote, and British scholarship was soon arrayed against the old in favor of the new. Dr. Davidson, in the following words, voices the opinion of England’s learned:

“There is little external evidence for the Mosaic authorship, and what little there is does not stand the test of criticism. The succeeding writers of the Old Testament do not confirm it.... The objections derived from internal structure are conclusive against the Mosaic authorship” (Introduction to the Old Testament).

At last, in our own land and in our own time, Dr. Briggs and others attack the Mosaic theories, and, in spite of the efforts of Princeton’s fossils, the intelligence of America acknowledges the force of their reasoning and accepts their conclusions. The Higher Criticism has triumphed. Spinoza’s judgment is confirmed, and the American critic pronounces the verdict of the intellectual world:

“In the field of scholarship the question is settled. It only remains for the ministry and people to accept it and adapt themselves to it” (Hexateuch, p. 144).

But this is not the end. A victory has been achieved, but its full results remain to be realized. The clergy, against their will, and the laity, who are subservient to the clergy’s will, are yet to be enlightened and convinced. Even then, when the facts disclosed by the Higher Criticism have gained popular acceptance, another task remains—the task of showing men the real significance of these facts. The critics themselves, many of them, do not seem to realize the consequences of their work. The Rationalistic critics, like Hobbes, Spinoza, Paine, Reuss, Wellhausen, Kuenen and others, have measured the consequences of their criticisms and accepted them. The orthodox critics have not. Some of them, like Dr. Briggs, while denying the Mosaic authorship and great antiquity of the Pentateuch, while maintaining its anonymous and fragmentary character, and conceding its contradictions and errors, are yet loath to reject its divinity and authority. But these also must be given up. This work as a divine revelation and authentic record must go. Its chief theological doctrine, the Fall of Man, is a myth. With this doctrine falls the Atonement, and with the Atonement orthodox Christianity. This is the logical sequence of the Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. To these critics, and to all who are intelligent enough to discern the truth and courageous enough to meet it, I would repeat and press home the admonition of our critic, “to accept it and adapt themselves to it.”