What evidence do we have that the first Five Books of the Old Testament were written by Moses?

Full Question

Answer

“Higher Criticism”, which seeks to establish questions of date and authorship, alleges that “the Hebrew traditions respecting Israel’s origins and early history were probably first cast into a written form in the 10th or 9th c. B.C., by a Prophet living in Judah”, and added to by other writers up to as late as the 5th c. B.C. If this view is correct Moses could not have written the Pentateuch.

Opposed to the Higher critical view is the one expressed by Adam Clarke who wrote about a hundred years ago : “Every believer in divine revelation, finds himself amply justified in taking for granted that the Pentateuch is the work of Moses. For more than 3,000 years this has been the invariable opin­ion of those who were best qualified to form a correct judgment on the subject. The Jewish Church, from its most remote antiquity, has ascribed the work to no other hand; and the Christian Church, from its foundation, has attributed it to the Jewish Lawgiver alone. The most respectable heathens have concurred in this testimony, and Jesus Christ and his Apostles have completed the evidence, and have put the question beyond the possibility of being doubted by those who profess to believe the divine authenticity of the New Testament.”

Most readers of this Magazine will probably have strong leanings toward the view expressed by the commentator referred to above, but will beg leave to ask “What are the facts?” A belief so dogmatically expressed must surely rest upon a stronger basis than tradition, although it is often found that tradition itself rests upon foundation of half-forgotten fact.

So far as external evidence is concerned, there appears to be none outside tradition.

Leaving Genesis for the time being, and considering the last four books of the Pentateuch, we shall find that the internal evidence is sufficient to warrant the belief that the major portion was written at a time closely related to the events recorded. The following references, which accord with the general impression given by the books, will confirm this : Ex. 14, 2; 15, 27; 17, 7; Num. 20, 21; 33.

Further evidence of a narrative, much of which was written contemporaneously with the events recorded, lies in the repetition of various matters, with additions as occasion arose. For instance : The Passover, origin­ally referred to in Ex. 12, 1-28, and resumed in vs. 43-51, is again alluded to in ch. 13, and also in Numbers 9, 1-14, in the latter place additional directions being given. Again, the work of the Sons of Gershom and Merari in connection with the removal of the Tabernacle (Num. 4, 21-33) is referred to again in ch. 7, 7-8, in consequence of the gifts of wagons by the princes of Israel.

The books under consideration always face the fact that a journey is being made to a land which will be the settled habitation of the Tribes of Israel. Two interesting cases of the choice of cities being left in abeyance until the land should be reached, occur in connection with the Cities of Refuge (Num. 35, 14; Deut. 4, 41-43; Josh. 21, 13, 21, 27, 32, 38) and the appointment of “a place which the Lord shall choose” (Deut. 12, 5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26, etc., 1 Kings 8, 29).

A compiler of later times, “casting into a written form the story as tradition told it of Moses and the Exodus”, would surely have avoided repetitions by bringing together all available data relating to particular events, ordinances, etc. and a writer of the 10th or 9th c. B.C. would probably have added information in appropriate places regarding the names of the Cities of Refuge selected when the land had been reached, and the fact that it was Jerusalem that God had chosen.

One further point before leaving this aspect of the matter. The laws given to Israel, their journey to the land of Canaan, and the adventures which befell them on that journey, all hinge upon a single event—the Exodus from Egypt the detailed circumstances of which, both tactical and geographical, argue that they were recorded by one who took part in that event.

Coming to the question of authorship, the last four books of the Pentateuch will be found to contain very little which could have come otherwise than from Moses himself, and there are several references to the writing of books by him.

Exodus commences with a record of happenings anterior to the birth of Moses, yet they are such as could easily have been ascertained by him without superhuman aid; nor do we proceed far before we are in the midst of events, of which Moses himself is the very centre. Ch. 17, 14, contains an express command from God that Moses should write a record of the defeat of the Amalekites in a book. Some authorities contend that the reading should be “in the book”, i.e., a book already in existence for the purpose of making such records. If this is so, it is significant that the event occurred only a few months after the departure from Egypt, so that in those very early days of their freedom, Israel’s National Records had commenced. Chs. 24, 4, and 34, 27-8, again refer to writing by Moses, the latter instance being at the command of God.

Leviticus is filled with such expressions as “The Lord spake unto Moses”, covering the whole contents of the book, but sometimes Aaron is coupled with the formula.

Numbers continues the formula “The Lord spake unto Moses” throughout, interspersed with a record of events in the wilderness journey, while ch. 33, 2, states that “Moses wrote the goings out (of the children of Israel) according to their journeys, by the commandment of the Lord.”

Deuteronomy claims to be a record of the “words of Moses” (ch. 1, 1) and consists of four Mosaic “Speeches”, a “Song”, and a “Bles­sing”, viz., chs. 1, 6-4, 40; 5, 1-26,

19; 27,9 29, 1; 29, 2-30, 20; 32; 33. In ch. 27, 3, Moses, speaking of the then future event of passing_over the Jordan, commands that “this law” be written upon a monument to be built of “great stones”, which is strong in­ferential evidence of the existence in a written form of whatever portion of the ordinances of God was indicated by “the words of this law”. Ch. 31, 9, records that “Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests”, with the command that every seven years it should be read in the hearing of all Israel; v. 22 states that Moses wrote “a Song”, found at length in ch. 32.

In view of allusions to written records made by Moses, we should naturally expect to find references to them in later times. The account of the defeat of the Amalekites is definitely stated to have been made for the benefit of Joshua, but Josh. 1, 8, shews that “This book of the law” was also enjoined upon him. Ch. 8, 31, refers to the incident foreshadowed in Deut. 27, 3, and proves that the writing on the stones was copied from a book of the Law written by Moses. Many references to “the Law of Moses” are to be found in the later historical books, but of particular interest is the matter referred to in the parallel pas­sages of 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chron. 34. “The Book of the Law” was found in the Temple, causing great consternation to those who heard it read. It is impossible for us to appreciate to its fullest extent the significance of the discovery of this great religious and literary treasure, but the description applied to it, “The Book of the Law of the Lord by Moses” appears to have been sufficient evidence to those who had it in their possession that not only was it the “law of the Lord”, but also that it, i.e., the book, was “by Moses”. In this connection it is of interest to remember that the British Museum possesses Egyptian papyri of great age; also that recently a MS. of the Scriptures has been discovered, part of which is ascribed to the 2nd c. A.D.-1,800 years ago a period more than twice as long as that separating Moses from Josiah.

The Book of Genesis presents a problem of its own. It is evidently a compilation, and although it records the earliest events in the history of the human race, it definitely leads up to the four books following. Whoever wrote it must have been inspired in a very real sense to be able to record the Story of the Creation, something beyond the experience of man. It cannot, however, be assumed that during those early times no records were kept which could form the basis of such a work as Genesis; indeed, some see in chs. 2, 4-3, 24, and ch. 14, instances of the inclusion of original documents. From the earliest times Genesis has been regarded as a part of the Pentateuch, and can, therefore, hardly be considered by itself. A strong argument in favour of Moses being its compiler is found in the fact that it shews a first-hand acquaintance with the land of Egypt.

Our survey of the individual books of the Pentateuch leaves us with a clear impression that they must be almost entirely Mosaic in authorship, and when once the idea is grasped that Moses, like other legislators, kept records, then it seems strange that any should suppose that such important matters as those contained in the books we have been considering should be left to tradition. This view is strengthened when it is remembered that in the country of Moses’ birth, records, both on stone and papyrus, abounded. The Egyptians were a literary people, their literature covering almost as many subjects as our own, “and Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7, v. 22). While, however, for all practical purposes it may be said that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, the evidence falls short of definite proof that the whole book, as a literary production, is from his hand. References to Moses, both acting and speaking, in the third person are very numerous, whereas we should expect the personal pronoun to be used, as it is on a few occasions (e.g., Deut. 30, 1, 8, 11, etc., 31, 1, 5, etc.). “The Lord spake unto Moses” “The Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron”, and similar expressions, suggest an “Editorial” hand, bringing together into one book the vast amount of material for which he was dependant upon Moses. The “Higher Critics” think they see several contributors to the book, and possibly this view has arisen as the result of exaggerating the fact that certain additions have to be admitted. It is impossible for Moses to have written the account of his own death and burial, and it is improbable that he would refer to his own meekness (Num. 12, 3) or to his own greatness (Ex. 11, 3-7). The following further examples might also be noted : Gen. 12, 6; 13, 7; Ex. 6. 26-7.

It has been suggested that the last chapter of Deuteronomy should be transferred to the beginning of Joshua, but it has been pointed out that it is all one with the book to which it forms such a fitting conclusion. Who wrote that chapter? We do not know, but the impression certainly remains in the mind after going through the Five Books very carefully, that whoever did so was probably the “Edi­tor” to whom reference has been made. His eulogy of Moses, contained in v. 10-12, suggests someone who was personally acquainted with him, and is strongly reminiscent of the references to “meekness” and “greatness” noted above; also of the explanatory words of Ex. 6, 26-7.

If we accept the higher critical view we cannot avoid feeling that a strange conspiracy of circumstances has left posterity with a series of writings of the most serious character, which, taken at their face value, are what they claim to the, written at the time they claim to have been written, and, for all practical purposes, by the man whose name runs throughout : and if the people who have for 3,000 years cherished them as being a record of their unique beginning as a Nation have been deceived, history loses its significance.

One other important point should be touched upon before we conclude. The commentator referred to above states “Jesus Christ and his Apostles have completed the evidence, and put the question beyond the possibility of being doubted by those who profess to believe the divine authenticity of the New Testament”. It is to be doubted whether the Lord Jesus did, in fact, specifically refer to the Old Testament for the purpose of establishing the human instrument of authorship of any of the inspired books; it was of greater importance that he should establish their divine origin. In using such expressions as “Moses”, “The Law”, etc., he was accepting the division of the Scriptures into three parts that had for so long been in vogue among the Jews. At the same time such a statement as “Moses wrote of me” (John 5, v. 46) cannot he disregarded as proof of Christ’s concurrence with the evidence that Moses did write, but it cannot, therefore, be argued that the words must he extended so as to apply to the whole of the Pentateuch as a literary production.