PENTATEUCH
651
PENTATEUCH
xxix, 20, 21, 27, and xxxii, 4(5, 47; now, the law repeat-
edly referred to as written in a book must be at least
the Deuteronomic legislation. Moreover, xxxi, 9-13
states, "and INIoses wrote this law", and xxxi, 26, adds,
"take this book, and put it in the side of the ark . . .
that it may be there for a testimony against thee";
to explain these texts as fiction or as anachronisms
is hardly compatible with the inerrancy of Sacred
Scripture. Finally, xxxi, 19, commands Moses to
write the canticle contained in Deut., xxxii, 1-43.
The Scriptural scholar will not complain that there are so few express indications in the Pentateuch of Moses' literary activity; he will rather be surprised at their number. As far as explicit testimony for its own, at least partial, authorship is concerned, the Penta- teuch compares rather favourably with many other books of the Old Testament.
(2) Witness of other Old-Testament Books, (a) Josue. — The narrative of the Book of Josue presupposes not merely the facts and essential ordinances contained in the Pentateuch, but also the law given by Moses and written in the book of the law of Mo.ses: Jos., i, 7-8; viii, 31; xxii, 5; xxiii, 6. Josue himself "wrote all these things in the volume of the law of the Lord" (xxiv, 26). Prof. Hoberg maintains that this '_' volume of the law of the Lord" is the Pentateuch ("tjberden Ursprung dcs Pent at euchs " in " Biblische Zeitschrif t ' ' , 1906, IV, 340); Mangenot believes that it refers at least to Deuteronomj' (Diet, de la Bible, V, 66). At any rate, Josue and his contemporaries were ac- quainted with a written Mosaic legislation, which was divinely revealed.
(b) Judges; I, II Kings. — In the Book of Judges and the first two Books of Kings there is no explicit reference to Moses and the book of the law, but a num- ber of incidents and statements presuppose the exist- ence of the Pentateuchal legislation and institutions. Thus Judges, xv, 8-10, recalls Israel's delivery from Egypt and its conquest of the Promised Land; Judges, xi, 12-28, states incidents recorded in Num., xx, 14; xxi, 13, 24; xxii, 2; Judges, xiii, 4, states a practice founded on the law of the Nazarites in Num., vi, 1-21; Judges, X viii, 31, speaks of the tabernacle existing in the times when there was no king in Israel; Judges, xx, 26-8, mentions the ark of the covenant, the various kinds of sacrifices, and the .\aronic priesthood. The Pentateuchal history and laws are similarly presup- posed in I Kings, x, 18; xv, 1-10; x, 25; xxi, 1-6; xxii, 6 sqq.; x.xiii, 6-9; II Kings, vi.
(c) ///, IV Kings. — The last two Books of Kings repeatedly speak of the law of Moses. To restrict the meaning of this term to Deuteronomy is an arbitrary exegesis (cf. Ill Kings, ii, 3; x, 31); Amasias showed mercy to the children of the murderers "according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses" (IV Kings, xiv, 6); the sacred writer records the Di- vine promise of protecting the Israelites "only if they will observe to do all that I have commanded them according to the law which my servant Moses com- manded them" (IV Kings, xxi, 8). In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josias was found the book of the law (IV Kings, xxii, 8, 11), or the book of the covenant (IV Kings, xxiii, 2), according to which he conducted his religious reform (IV Kings, xxiii, 1-24), and which is identified with "the law of Moses" (IV Kings, xxiii, 25). Catholic commentators are not at one whether this law-book was Deuteronomy (von Hummelauer, "Deuteronomium", Paris, 1901. pp. 40-60, 83-7) or the entire Pentateuch (Clair, "Les livres des Rois", Paris, 1884, II, p. 557 seq.; Hoberg, "Moses und der Pentateuch", Freiburg, 1905, p. 17 seq.; "Uber den Ursprung des Pentateuchs " in Biblische Zeitschrift ", 1906, IV, pp. 338-40).
(d) Paralipomenon. — The inspired writer of Parali- pomenon refers to the law and the book of Moses much more frequently and clearly. The objectionable names and numbers occurring in these books are
mostly due to transcribers. The omission of incidents
which would detract from the glory of the Israelite
kings or would not edify the reader is not detrimental
to the credibility or veracity of the work Otherwise
one should have to place among works of fiction a
number of biographical or patriotic publications in-
tended for the young or for the common reader. On
their part, the modern critics are too eager to dis-
credit the authority of Paralipomena. " After re-
moving the account of Paralipomena", writes de
Wette (Beitrage, I, 135), "the whole Jewish history
assumes another form, and the Pentateuchal investi-
gations take another turn; a number of strong proofs,
hard to explain away, for the early existence of the
Mosaic books have disappeared, the other vestiges of
their existence are placed in a different light." A
glance at the contents of Paralipomenon suffices to
explain the efforts of de Wette and Wellhausen to dis-
prove the historicity of the books. Not only are the
genealogies (I Par., i-ix) and the description of wor-
ship traced after the data and laws of the Pentateuch,
but the sacred writer expressly points out their con-
formity with what is written in the law of the Lord
(I Par., xvi, 40), in the law of Moses (II Par., xxiii, 18;
xxxi, 3), thus identifying the law of the Lord with that
written by Moses (cf . II Par., xxv, 4). The reader will
find similar indications of the existence and the Mo-
saic origin of the Pentateuch in I Par., xxii, 12 seq.;
II Par., xvii, 9; xxxiii, 4; xxxiv, 14; xxv, 12. By an
artificial interpretation, indeed, the Books of Parali-
pomenon may be construed to represent the Penta-
teuch as a book containing the law promulgated by
Moses; but the natural sense of the foregoing passages
regards the Pentateuch as a book edited by Closes.
(e) /, // Esdras. — The Books of Esdras and Nehe- mias, too, taken in their natural and commonly accepted sense, consider the Pentateuch as the book of Moses, not merely as a book containing the law of Moses. This contention is based on the study of the following texts: I Esd., iii, 2 sqq.; vi, 18; vii, 14; II Esd., i, 7 sqq.; viii, 1, 8, 14; ix, 3; x, 34, 36; xiii, 1-3. Graf and his followers expressed the view that the book of Moses referrred to in these texts is not the Pentateuch, but only the Priestly Code; but when we keep in mind that the book in question contained the laws of Lev., xxiii, and Deut., vii, 2—4; xv, 2, we perceive at once that the book of Moses cannot be restricted to the Priestly Code. To the witness of the historical books we may add II Mach., ii, 4; vii, 6; Judith, viii, 23; Ecclus., xxiv, 33; xlv, 1-6; xlv, 18, and especially the Preface of Ecclus.
(f ) Prophetic Books. — Express reference to the writ- ten law of Moses is found only in the later Prophets: Bar., ii, 2, 28; Dan., ix, 11, 13; Mai., iv, 4. Among these, Baruch knows that Moses has been commanded to write the law, and though his expressions run i)aral- lel to those of Deut., xxviii, 15, 53, 62-4, his threats contain allusions to those contained in other parts of the Pentateuch. The other Prophets frequently refer to the law of the Lord guarded by the priests (cf. Deut., xxxi, 9), and they put it on the same level with Divine Revelation and the eternal covenant of the Lord. They appeal to God's covenant, the sacrificial laws, the calendar of feasts, and other laws of the Pentateuch in such a way as to render it jjrobable that a written legislation formed the basis of their prophetic admonitions (cf. Osee, viii, 12), and that they were acquainted with verbal expressions of the book of the law. Thus in the northern kingdom Amos (iv, 4-5; V, 22 sqq.) and Isaias in the south (i, 11 sqq.) employ expressions which are practically technical words for sacrifice occurring in Lev., i-iii; vii, 12, 16; and Deut., xii, 6.
(3) Witness of the New Testament — We need not show that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the whole of the Pentateuch as written by Moses. If they attrib- uted to Moses all the passages which they happen
