It is true that there are passages in the Pentateuch which could not have been written by Moses. But there is no difficulty In explaining these passages as interpolations, inserted by a copyist with a view to make the author's meaning clearer. The following passages have been placed in this class ; but some of them may bo explained otherwise : Dent. 1. 1.4; iv. 44-49; Exod. vi. 13-29; vii. 7; xi. 1.3; Dent. IL 10.12, 20-23 ; iii. 9, 11, 13-14; x. 6-9 ; Numb. xxxii. 41 ; Deut. lib 14; Numb. xii. 3. To these may be added the 34th chapter of Doutero ',only, which, as it contains an account of the death and burial of Moses, was not written by himself. In some parts, however, of his narratives, Moses appears to have made use of previously existing documents, especially at tho beginning of the book of Genesis. [Ge.vssus.] The Pentateuch was tho only part of the Old Testament which the Samaritans received ; and as, from feelings of national animosity, they held no Intercourse with the Jews, their copies of the Pentateuch were preserved independently of the Hebrew copies. The Samaritan Penta teuch is mentioned by several ancient writers ; but it was unknown in modern times till copies were obtained from the cast by Archbishop Usher and Pietro della Vale. It was printed from the copy procured by the latter in the Paris Polyglot of Morinus, from which it was reprinted in Walton's Polyglot. It was also edited by Dr. Blayne} in Hebrew characters, at Oxford, 1790. Tho original is m the Samaritan or old Hebrew character.
The Samaritan Pentateuch is quite entitled to rank with the Hebrew as ass independent source for settliug the sacred text. In
some places It gives readings manifestly superior to those of the Hebrew. In many passages, in which it differs from the latter, it agrees with the Septuagint. Its chronology differs from that of the Hebrew Pentateuch. (Hales's `Analysis of Chronology,' vol. i., p.272.) In Deut. xxvii. the Samaritan differs from the Hebrew by having Ebal for Gorizim, and vice verse'. This has been regarded as an intentional corruption, made for the purpose of humouring national prejudices ; but Dr. Kennicott has shown good reasons for preferring the Samaritan to the Hebrew in this case. Dias.' ii., pp. 20-165.) The authenticity of the Pentateuch is also substantiated by passages in the later books of Holy Scripture, showing that there had been an uninterrupted belief in its authenticity. Thus it is quoted in 2 Kings xiv. 6, and xxiii. 2 ; 2 Chron. xxxv. 6 ; Ezra iii. 2, and vi. 18 • Nehemiah i. 7; Amos ii. 9 and 10 ; Isaiah i. 9 and 14; and Dliah vi. 5, where the books of Moses are directly quoted or alluded to. Christ and his apostles also acknowledge their authority by quoting them. Thus we have all the evidence of their authenticity that the nature of the case admits.
An account of the institutions recorded in the Pentateuch has been given under blosos, in Bmo.
(Rosenmfiller, Scholia in Vet. Test., vol. i., Prolcg. in Pent., and others quoted by him ; Jahn, Introd. in Lib. Sac. Vet. Feed. ; Hong stenberg, Die Authentic dcs Pentateuch, 1836; Graves'a Lectures on the Pentateuch ; Bp. Marsh's Authenticity of the Fire Books of Moses vindi cated; Horne's Introduction, vol. i.; and Blunt, Veracity of the Fire Books of Moses.)