(4) Author Claims to be Moses. It is cer tain that the author of the Pentateuch asserts himself to be Moses. The question then arises whether it is possible to consider this assertion to be true—whether Moses can be admitted to be the author. In this question is contained an other, viz. whether the Pentateuch forms such a continuous whole that it is possible to ascribe it to one author? This question has been princi pally discussed in modern criticism. Various means have been employed to destroy the unity of the Pentateuch, and to resolve its constituent parts into a number of documents and fragments (comp. here especially the article GENESIS). Eieh horn and his followers assert that Genesis is com posed of several ancient documents only. This assertion is still reconcilable with the Mosaical origin of the Pentateuch. But Vater and others allege that the whole Pentateuch is composed of fragments; from which it necessarily follows that Moses was not the author of the whole. Modern critics are by no means unanimous in their opin ions. A representative writer on this subject, Ewald, in his history of the people of Israel (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. GOttingen, 1843), asserts that there were seven different au thors concerned in the Pentateuch. On the other hand, the internal unity of the Pentateuch has been demonstrated in many able essays. The at tempts at division arc especially supported by an appeal to the prevailing use of the different names of God in various portions of the work; but the arguments derived from this circumstance have been found insufficient to prove that the Penta teuch was written by different authors (comp. again the articles GENESIS, EXODUS, LEVITICUS, NUMBERS, and DEUTERONOMY.) (5) Unity of the Work. The inquiry con cerning the unity of the Pentateuch is intimately connected with its historical character. If there are in the Pentateuch decided contradictions, or different contradictory statements of one and the same fact, not only its unity but also its historical truth would be negatived. On the other hand, if the work is to be considered as written by NIoses, the whole style and internal veracity of the Pen tateuch must correspond with the character of Moses. Considerate critics, who are not under the sway of dogmatic prejudices, find that the passages which are produced in order to prove that the Pentateuch was written after the time of Moses by no means support such a conclusion, and that a more accurate examination of the con tents of the separate portions discovers many vestiges demonstrating that the work originated in the age of Moses (compare here again the articles on the separate books).
(6) Quoted by Prophets, Apostles, and Christ. It is certain that Joshua, who was the contempo rary of Moses, believed him to be the author of "the book of the low" (Josh. i:7, 8; 34; xxiii:6). (See also 2 Chron. xxxiv :15, 21.) In the book of Ezra the authorship was ascribed to Moses (Ezra iii:2; vi:18; vii:6). Nehemiah says that Ezra used "the book of the low of Moses" as a text book in preaching to the people (Neh. 5. 14;
During the captivity Daniel ascribed "the book of the law" to Moses (Dan. ix:11, 13).
These books are also quoted and ascribed to Moses by Christ and the apostles (Matt. xix :8; Mark x:3, xii:26; Luke xvi:2g, xxiv:44; John vii :19, viii:5; Acts xxviii:23; t COT. iX :9 ; 2 COT. iii:15).
(7) Later Testimony. In the remote times of Jewish and Christian antiquity, we find no vestiges of doubt as to the genuineness of the Mo saical books, even the enemies of the Jews ad mitting their authenticity. (See Josephus against Apion, Whiston's Josephus, p. 581.) The Gnos tics, indeed, opposed the Pentateuch, but attacked it merely on account of their dogmatical opinions concerning the Law, and Judaism in general; consequently they did not impugn the authentic ity, but merely the divine authority, of the Law. Heathen authors alone, as Celsus and Julian, rep resented the contents of the Pentateuch as being mythological, and paralleled them with Pagan mythology.
(8) First Doubts Belong to the Middle Ages. In the middle ages, but not earlier, we find some very concealed critical doubts in' the. works of some Jews—as Isaac Ben Jasos, who lived in the eleventh century, and Aben Ezra. After the ref ormation, it was sometimes attempted to demon strate the later origin of the Pentateuch. Such attempts were made by Spinoza, Richard Simon, Le Clerc, and Van Dale; but these critics were not unanimous in their results. Against them wrote Heidegger (Exercitationes Babhca-, i, 246, sq.), Witsius (Miscellanea Sacra, i, 103, sq.) and Carp zov (Introductio, i, 38, sq.).
In the period of English, French, and German deism. the Pentateuch was attacked rather by jests than by arguments. Attacks of a more sci entific nature were made about the end of the eighteenth century. But these were met by such critics as John David Michaelis and Eichhorn, who energetically and effectually defended . the genuineness of the Pentateuch. These critics, however, on account of their own false position, did as much harm as good to the cause of the Pentateuch.
A new epoch of criticism commences about the year 1803. This was produced by Vater's Commentary and De Wette's Beitrage zur leitung in, das alte Testament. Vater embodied all the arguments which had been adduced against the authenticity of the Pentateuch, and applied to the criticism of the sacred books the principles which Wolf had employed with reference to the Homeric poems. He divided the Pentateuch into fragments, to each of which lie assigned its own period, but referred the whole generally to the age of the Assyrian or Babylonian exile. Since the days of Vater, a series of the most different hy pothesis has been produced by German and other critics about the age of the Pentateuch, and that of its constituent sections. No one critic seems fully to agree with any other ; and frequently it is quite evident that the opinions advanced are destitute of any sure foundation. (See MosEs.)