PENTATEUCH (pen'ta-tiik), (Gr. vevrcireuxos, fien-tat'yoo-khos, fivefold book, in the first five books). The title given to the five books of Moses. The Jews usually call the Pentateuch 717,1r1...7, hat to-raw', the law; or, more fully, the law ofiehovah (Heb. Ps. xix:8; xxxvii:31; ls. v:24; xxx:9).
(1) Authorship. In considering the teuch, the first question which arises is—Who was its AUTHOR ? It iS of great importance to hear first what the book itself says on this subject. The Pentateuch does not present itself as an anonymous production. It is manifestly intended and destined to be a public muniment for the whole people, and it does not veil its origin in a mysterious obscurity ; on the contrary the book speaks most clearly on this subject.
(2) Moses Commanded by God. According to Exod. xvii :14, Moses was commanded by God to write the victory over the Amalekites in the book. This passage shows that the account to be inserted was intended to form a portion of a more extensive work, with which the reader is supposed to be acquainted. It also proves that Moses, at an early period of his public career, was filled with the idea of leaving to his people a written memorial of the divine guidance, and that he fully understood the close and necessary connection of an authoritative law with a written code, or iln:T. lt is, therefore, by no means surprising that the observation repeatedly occurs that Moses wrote down the account of certain events (Exod. xxiv :4, 7 ; xxxiv :27, 28 ; Num. xxxiii :2). Especially important are the ments in Deut. i :5 ; xxviii :58. In Deut. xxxi :9, 24 (3o) the whole work is expressly ascribed to Moses as the author, including the poem in Deut. xxxii. It may be made a question whether the hand of a later writer, who finished the Penta teuch, is perceptible from ch. xxxi :24 (comp. xxxiii and xxxiv.), or whether the words in xxxi :24-3o are still the words of Moses. In the former case we have two witnesses, viz. Moses himself and the continuator of the Pentateuch ; in the latter case, which seems to us the more likely, we have the testimony of NIoses alone.
(3) Objections. Modern criticism has raised many objections against these statements of the Pentateuch relative to its own origin. Many crit
ics suppose that they can discover in the Penta teuch indications that the author intended to make himself known as a person different from Moses. The most important objection is the fol lowing: that the Pentateuch, speaking of Moses, always uses the third person, bestows praise upon him, and uses concerning him expressions of re spect. The Pentateuch even exhibits Moses quite objectively in the blessing recorded in Deut. xxxiii :4, 5.
To this objection we reply that the use of the third person proves nothing. The later Hebrew writers also speak of themselves in the third per son. We might adduce similar instances from the classical authors, as Czesar, Xenophon, and others. The use of the third person, instead of the first, prevails also among Oriental authors. In addition to this we should observe that the na ture of the book itself demands the use of the third person, in reference to Moses, throughout the Pentateuch. This usage entirely corresponds with the character both of the history and of the law contained in thc Pentateuch. By the use of the word I, the objective character of this history would have been destroyed, and the law of Je hovah would have been brought down to the sphere of human subjectivity and option. If we consider that the Pentateuch was destined to be a book of divine revelation, in which God ex hibited to his people the exemplification of his providential guidance, we cannot expect that Moses, by whom the Lord had communicated his latest revelations, should be spoken of otherwise than in the third person. In the poetry contained in Deut. xxxiii:4, Nloses speaks in the name of the people, which he personifies and introduces as speaking. The expressions in Exod. xi:3, and Num. xii:3 and 7, belong entirely to the context of history, and to its faithful and complete rela tion; consequently it is by no means vain boasting that is there expressed, but admiration of the divine mercy glorified in the people of God. In considering these passages we must also bear in mind the far greater number of other passages which speak of the feebleness and the sins of Nloses.