Vers. 18 and 19. Zebulun and Issachar. — " Rejoice, Zebulun, at thy going out; and, Issachar, at thy tents. Nations will they invite to the mountain; there offer the sacrifices of righteousness: for they suck the affluence of the seas, and the hidden treasures of the sand,^* The tribes of the last two sons of Leah Moses unites together, and, like Jacob in Gen. xlix. 13, places Zebulun the younger first. He first of all confirms the blessing which Jacob pronounced through simply interpreting their names as omina, by calling upon them to rejoice in their undertakings abroad and at home. " At thy tents" corresponds to " at thy going out" (tents being used poetically for dwellings, as in chap. xvi. 7); like " sitting" to " going out and coming in" in 2 Kings xix. 27, Isa. xxxvii. 28, Ps. cxxxix. 2; and describes life in its two aspects of work and production, rest and recreation. Although " going out" (enterprise and labour) is attributed to Zebulun, and " remaining in tents" (the comfortable enjoyment of life) to Issachar, in accordance with the delineation of their respective characters in the blessing of Jacob, this is to be attributed to the poetical parallelism of the clauses, and the whole is to be understood as applying to both in the sense suggested by Graf, " Rejoice, Zebulun and Issachar, in your labour and your rest." This peculiarit}^, which is founded in the very nature of poetical parallelism, which is to individualize the thought by distributing it into parallel members, has been entirely overlooked by all the commentators w^ho have given a historical interpretation to each, referring the " going out" to the shipping trade and commercial pursuits of the Zebulunites, and the expression " in thy tents " either to the spending of a nomad life in tents, for the purpose of performing a subordinate part in connection with trade (^Schultz), or to the quiet pursuits of agriculture and grazing (Knobel). They were to rejoice in their undertakings at home and abroad; for they would be successful. The good things of life would flow to them in rich abundance; they would not make them into mammon, however, but would invite nations to the mountain, and there offer sacrifices of righteousness. " The peoples" are nations generally, not the tribes of Israel, still less the members of their own tribes. By the " mountain^^ without any more precise definition, we are not to understand Tabor or Carmel any more than the mountain land of Canaan. It is rather " the mountain of the Lord's inheritance" (Ex. XV. 17), upon which the Lord was about to plant His people, the mountain which the Lord had chosen for His sanctuary, and in which His people were to dwell with Him, and rejoice in sacrificial meals of fellowship with Him (see vol. ii. p. 55). To this end the Lord had sanctified Moriah through the sacrifice of Isaac which He required of Abraham, though it had not been revealed to Moses that it was there that the temple, in which the name of the Lord in Israel would dwell, was afterw^ards to be built. There is no distinct or direct allusion to Moriah or Zion, as the temple-mountain, involved in the words of Moses. It was only by later revelations and appointments on the part of God that this was to be made known. The words simply contain the Messianic thought that Zebulun and Issachar would offer rich praise-offerings and thankofferings to the Lord, irom the abundant supply of earthly good that would flow to them, upon the mountain which He would make ready as the seat of His gracious presence, and would call, i.e. invite the nations to the sacrificial meals connected with them, to delight themselves with them in the rich gifts of the Lord, and worship the Lord who blessed His people thus. For the explanation of this thought, see Ps. xxii. 28-31. Sacrifice is mentioned here as an expression of divine worship, which culminated in sacrifice; and slain-offerings are mentioned, not burnt-offerings, to set forth the worship of God under the aspect of blessedness in fellowship with the Lord. " Slain-offerings of righteousness" are not merely outwardly legal sacrifices, in conformity with the ritual of the law, but such as were offered in a right spirit, which was well-pleasing to God (as in Ps. iv. 6, li. 21). It follows as a matter of course, therefore, that by the abundance of the seas we are not merely to understand the profits of trade upon the Mediterranean Sea; and that we are still less to understand by the hidden treasures of the sand "the fish, the purple snails, and sponges" {KiioheV}^ or " tunny-fish, purple shells, and glass" {Ps. Jon.); but that the words receiv-e their best exposition from Isa. Ix. 5, 6, 16, and Ixvi. 11, 12, i.e. that the thought expressed is, that the riches and treasures of both sea and land would flow to the tribes of Israel.
Vers. 20 and 21. Gad. — "Blessed be He that enlargeth Gad: like a lioness he lieth down, and teareth the arm, yea, the crown of the head. And he chose his first-fruit territory, for there was the leader s portion kept; and he came to the heads of the people, he executed the justice of the Lord, and his rights with Israeir Just as in the blessing of Noah (Gen. ix. 26) the God of Shem is praised, to point out the salvation appointed by God for Shem, so here Moses praises the Lord, who enlarged Gad, i.e. who not only gave him a broad territory in the conquered kingdom of Sihon, but furnished generally an unlimited space for his development (yid. Gen. xxvi. 22), so that he might unfold his lion-like nature in conflict with his foes. On the figure of a lioness, see Gen. xlix. 9; and on the warlike character of the Gadites, the remarks on the blessing of Jacob upon Gad (Gen. xlix. 19). The second part of the blessing treats of the inheritance which Gad obtained from Moses at his own request beyond Jordan. HN^j with an accusative and i?, signifies to look out something for oneself (Gen. xxii. 8; 1 Sam. xvi. 17). The " first-fruit" refers here to the first portion of the land which Israel received for a possession; this is evident from the reason assigned, nj^pn W ^3^ whilst the statement that Gad chose the hereditary possession is in harmony with Num. xxxii. 2, 6, 25 sqq., where the children of Gad are described as being at the head of the tribes, who came before Moses to ask for the conquered land as their possession. The meaning of the next clause, of which very different explanations have been given, can only be, that Gad chose such a territory for its inheritance as became a leader of the tribes. PPpP, he who determines, commands, organizes; hence both a commander and also a leader in war. It is in the latter sense that it occurs both here and in Judg. V. 14. P?PP ^i??D> the field, or territory of the header, may either be the territory appointed or assigned by the lawgiver, or the territory falling to the lot of the leader. According to the former view, Moses would be the mechokek. But the thought, that Moses appointed or asi:igned him his inheritance, could be no reason why Gad should choose it for himself. Consequently ppnp T\\br\ can only mean the possession which the mechokek chose for himself, as befitting him, or specially adapted for him. Consequently the mecliokek was not Moses, but the tribe of Gad, which was so called because it unfolded such activity and bravery at the head of the tribes in connection with the conquest of the land, that it could be regarded as their leader. This peculiar prominence on the part of the Gadites may be inferred from the fact, that they distinguished themselves above the Keubenites in the fortification of the conquered land (Num. xxxii. 34 sqq.). I^SD, from jSD, to Cover, hide, preserve, is a predicate, and construed as a noun, " a thing preserved." — On the other hand, the opinion has been very widely spread, from the time of Onkelo3 down to Baumgarten and Ewald, that this hemistich refers to Moses: " there is the portion of the lawgiver hidden," or " the field of the hidden leader," and that it contains an allusion to the fact that the grave of Moses was hidden in the inheritance of Gad. But this is not only at variance with the circumstance, that a prophetic allusion to the grave of Moses such as Baumgarten assumes is apparently inconceivable, from the simple fact that we cannot imagine the Gadites to have foreseen the situation of Moses' grave at the time when they selected their territory, but also w4th the fact that, according to Josh. xiii. 20, the spot where this grave was situated (chap, xxxiv. 5) was not allotted to the tribe of Gad, but to that of Reuben; and lastly, with the use of the word chelkahy which does not signify a burial-ground or grave. — But although Gad chose out an inheritance for himself, he still went before his brethren, i.e. along with the rest of the tribes, into Canaan, to perform, in connection with them, what the Lord demanded of His people as a right. This is the meaning of the second half of the verse. The clause,
" he came to the heads of the people," does not refer to the fact that the Gadites came to Moses and the heads of the congregation, to ask for the conquered land as a possession (Num. xxxii. 2), but expresses the thought that Gad joined the heads of the people to go at the head of the tribes of Israel (comp. Josh. i. 14, iv. 12, with Num. xxxii. 17, 21, 32), to conquer Canaan with the whole nation, and root out the Canaanites. The Gadites had promised this to Moses and the heads of the people; and this promise Moses regarded as an accomplished act, and praised in these words with prophetic foresight as having been already performed, and that not merely as one single manifestation of their obedience towards the word of the Lord, but rather as a pledge that Gad would always manifest the same disposition. " To do the righteousness of Jehovah," {,e, to do what Jehovah requires of His people as righteousness,— namely, to fulfil the commandments of God, in which the righteousness of Israel was to consist (chap. vi. 25). t^ri."!, imperfect Kal for nm; or nm;;; see Ges, § 76, 2, c, and Ewald, § 142, c. " With Israel:" in fellowship with (the rest of) Israel.
Ver. 22. Dan is " a young lion which springs out of Bashan^ Whilst Jacob compared him to a serpent by the way, which suddenly bites a l^orsei's feet, so that its rider falls backward, Moses gives greater prominence to the strength which Dan would display in conflict with foes, by calling him a young lion which suddenly springs out of its ambush. The reference to Bashan has nothing to do with the expedition of the Danites against Laish, in the valley of Rehoboth (Judg. xviii. 28), as this valley did not belong to Bashan. It is to be explained from the simple fact, that in the regions of eastern Bashan, which abound with caves, and more especially in the woody western slopes of Jebel Hauran, many lions harboured, which rushed forth from the thicket, and were very dangerous enemies to the herds of Bashan. Even if no other express testimonies to this fact are to be found, it may be inferred from the description gi /en of the eastern spurs of Antilibanus in the Song of Sol. (iv. 8), as the abodes of lions and leopards. The meaning leap forth, spring out, is confirmed by both the context and dialects, though the word only occurs here.
Yer. 23. Naphtalt. — " 0 Naphtali, satisfied with favour, and full of the blessing of Jehovah; of sea and south shall he take possession^ If the gracefulness of Naphtali is set forth in the blessing of Jacob, by comparing it to a gazelle, here Moses assures the same tribe of satisfaction with the favour and blessing of God, and promises it the possession of the sea and of the south, i.e, an inheritance which should combine the advantages of the sea — a healthysea-breeze — with the grateful warmth of the south. This blessing is expressed in far too general terms for it to be possible to interpret it historically, as relating to the natural characteristics of the inheritance of the Naphtalites in Canaan, or to regard it as based upon them, apart altogether from the fact, that the territory of Naphtali was situated in the north-east of Canaan, and reached as far as the sea of Galilee, and that it was for the most part mountainous, though it was a very fertile hill-country (Josh, xviii. 32-39). n^^ is a very unique form of the imperative, though this does not warrant an alteration of the text.
Vers. 24 and 25. Asher. — " Blessed before the sons be Asher; let him be the favoured among his brethren^ and dipping his foot in oil. Iron and brass be thy castle; and as the days of thy life let thy rest continue.^^ Asher, the prosperous (see at Gen. xxx. 15), was justly to bear the name. He was to be a child of prosperity; blessed vvith earthly good, he was to enjoy rest all his life long in strong fortresses. It is evident enough that this blessing is simply an exposition of the name Asher, and that Moses here promises the tribe h verification of the omen contained in its name. D''i3D 7]^"13 does not mean " blessed with children," or " praised because of his children," in which case we should have VJ3; but " blessed before the sons"
(cf. Judg. V. 24), i.e, blessed before the sons of Jacob, who were peculiarly blessed, equivalent to the most blessed of all the sons of Israel, vnx ''^y^ does not mean the beloved among his brethren, acceptable to his brethren, but the one who enjoyed the favour of the Lord, i,e. the one peculiarly favoured by the Lord. Dipping the foot in oil points to a land flowing with oil (Job xxix. 6), i.e, fat or fertile throughout, which Jacob had already promised to Asher (see Gen. xlix. 20). To complete the prosperity, however, security and rest were required for the enjoyment of the blessings bestowed by God; and these are promised in ver. 25. pV^^ (air. \ey.) does not mean a shoe, but is derived from 7^^, to bolt (Judg. iii. 23), and signifies either a bolt, or that which is shut fast; a poetical expression for a castle or fortress. Asher's dwellings were to be castles, fortresses of iron and brass; i.e. as strong and impregnable as if they were built of iron and brass. The pursuit of mining is not to be thought of as referred to here, even though the territory of Asher, which reached to Lebanon, may have contained brass and iron (see at chap. viii. 9). Luther follows the LXX. and Vulgate, and renders this clause, " iron and brass be upon his shoes;" but this is undoubtedly wrong, as the custom of fastening the shoes or sandals with brass or iron was quite unknown to the Israelites; and even Goliath, who was clothed in brass from head to foot, and wore iron greaves, had no iron sandals, though the military shoes of the ancient Romans had nails in the soles. Moreover, the context contains no reference to war, so as to suggest the idea that the treading down and crushing of the foe are intended. " As thy days," i.e. as long as the days of thy life last, let thy rest be (continue). Luther s rendering, " let thine old age be as thy youth," which follows the Vulgate, cannot be^sustained; for although ^<l'^, derived from 3^"^, to vanish away, certainly might signify old age, the expression " thy days" cannot possibly be understood as signifying youth.
Vers. 26-29. The conclusion of the blessing corresponds to the introduction. As Moses commenced with the glorious fact of the f oui.ding of the kingdom of Jehovah in Israel, as the firm foundation of the salvation of His people, so he also concludes with a refe 'ence to the Lord their eternal refuge, and with a congratulation of Israel which could find refuge in such a God. — Vers. 26, 27. " WIio is as God, a righteous nation, who rides in heaven to thy help, and in His exaltation upon the clouds. A biding is the God of olden time, and beneath are everlasting arms: and He drives the enemy before thee, and says, DestroyV The meaning is: No other nation has a God who rules in heaven with almighty power, and is a refuge and help to his people against every foe. Jeshurun is a vocative, and the alteration of ^S3 into p^^, " as the God of Jeshurun," according to the ancient versions, is to be rejected on the simple ground that the expression " in thy help," which follows immediately afterwards, is an address to Israel. Riding upon the heaven and the clouds is a figure used to denote the unlimited omnipotence with which God rules the world out of heaven, and is the helper of His people. " In thy help," i.e. as thy helper. This God is a dwelling to His people. "^JVp, like the masculine t^VO in Ps. xc. 1, and xci. 9, signifies " dwelling," — a genuine Mosaic figure, to which, in all probability, the houseless wandering of the people in the desert, which made them feel the full worth of a dwelling, first gave rise. The figure not only implies that God grants protection and a refuge to His people in the storms of life (Ps. xci. 1, 2, cf. Isa. iv. 6), but also that He supplies His people with everything that can afford a safe abode. " The God of old," i.e, who has proved Himself to be God from the very beginning of the world (vid. Ps. xc. 1; Hab. i. 12). The expression " underneath" is to be explained from the antithesis to the heaven where God is enthroned above mankind. He who is enthroned in heaven above is also the God who is with His people upon the earth below, and holds and bears them in His arms. *^ Everlasting arms'* are arms whose strength is never exhausted. There is no need to supply " thee" after " underneath;" the expression should rather be left in its general form,. " upon the earth beneath." The reference to Israel is obvious from the context. The driving of the enemy before Israel is not to be restricted to the rooting out of the Canaanites, but applies to every enemy of the congregation of the Lord. — Ver. 28. " And Israel dwells safely, alone the fountain of Jacob, in a land full of com and wine; his heavens also drop doTJbn dew^ Because the God of old was the dwelling and help of Israel, it dwelt safely and separate from the other nations, in a land abounding with corn and wine. " The fountain of Jacob" is parallel to " Israel;" " alone (separate) dwells the fountain of Jacobs This title is given to Israel as having sprung from the patriarch Jacob, in whom it had its source. A similar expression occurs in Ps. Ixviii. 27. It completely destroys the symmetry of the clauses of the verse to connect the words, as Luther does, with what follows, in the sense of " the eye of Jacob is directed upon a land." The construction of |?K^ with p^, to dwell into a land, may be explained on the ground that the dwelling involves the idea of spreading out over the land. On the " land of corn," etc., see chap. viii. 7 and 8. ^K is emphatic: yea his heaven, Le. the heaven of this land drops down dew {yid. Gen. xxvii. 28). Israel was to be congratulated upon this. — Ver. 29. ^' Hail to thee, 0 Israel! who is like thee, a people saved in the Lord, the shield of thy help, and who (is) the sword of thine eminence. Thine enemies will deny themselves to thee, and thou ridest upon their heights^ " Saved;" not merely delivered from danger and distress, but in general endowed with salvation (like Zech. ix. 9; see also Isa. xlv. 17). The salvation of Israel rested in the Lord, as the ground out of which it grew, from which it descended, because the Lord was its help and shield, as He had already promised Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and " the sword of his eminence," i.e. the sword which had fought for the eminence of Israel. But because the Lord was Israel's shield and sword, or, so to speak, both an offensive and defensive weapon, his enemies denied themselves to him, i.e. feigned friendship, did not venture to appear openly as enemies (for the meaning " feign," act the hypocrite, see
Ps. xviii. 45, Ixxxi. 16). But Israel would ride upon their heights, the high places of their land, Le. would triumph over all its foes (see at chap, xxxii. 13).
Vers. 1-8. After blessing the people, Moses ascended Mount Nebo, according to the command of God (chap, xxxii. 48-51), and there the Lord showed him, in all its length and breadth, that promised land into which he was not to enter. From Nebo, a peak of Pisgah, which affords a very extensive prospect on all sides (see p. 214), he saw the land of Gilead, the land to the east of the Jordan as far as Dan, Le. not Laish-Dan near the central source of the Jordan (Judg. xviii. 27), which did not belong to Gilead, but a Dan in northern Persea, which has not yet been discovered (see at Gen. xiv. 14); and the whole of the land on the west of the Jordan, Canaan proper, in all its different districts, namely, " the whole of Naphtali^^ i.e, the later Galilee on the north, " the land of JEphraim and Manasseh^^ in the centre, and ^Uhe whole of the land of Judah,^ the southern portion of Canaan, in all its breadth, " to the hinder (Mediterranean) sm" (see chap. xi. 24); also " the south land" {Negeh: see at Num. xiii. 17), the southern land of steppe towards the Arabian desert, and " the valley of the Jordan" (see Gen. xiii. 10), Le. the deep valley from Jericho the palm-city (so called from the palms which grew there, in the valley of the Jordan: Judg. i. 16, iii. 43; 2 Chron. xxviii. 15) " to Zoar" at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea (see at Gen. xix. 22). This sight of every part of the land on the east and west was not an ecstatic vision, but a sight with the bodily eyes, whose natural power of vision was miraculously increased by God, to give Moses a glimpse at least of the glorious land which he was not to tread, and delight his eye with a view of the inheritance intended for his people. — Vers. 5, 6. After this favour had been granted him, the aged servant of the Lord was to taste death as the wages of sin. There, Le. upon Mount Nebo, he died, ''at the mouth" Le. according to the commandment, " of the Lord" (not " by a kiss of the Lord," as the Kabbins interpret it), in the land of Moab, not in Canaan (see at Num. xxvii. 12-14). " And He buried him in the land of Moab, over against Beth Peor." The subject in this sentence is Jehovah. Though the third person singular would allow of the verb being taken as impersonal {eOay^rav avrov, LXX.: they buried him).
such a rendering is precluded by the statement which follows, " no nian knoweth of his sepulchre unto this dayT " The valley" where the Lord buried Moses was certainly not the Jordan valley, as in chap. iii. 29, but most probably " the valley in the field of Moab, upon the top of Pisgah," mentioned in Num. xxi. 20, near to Nebo (see p. 148); in any case, a valley on the mountain, not far from the top of Nebo. — The Israelites inferred what is related in vers. 1-6 respecting the end of Moses' life, from the promise of God in chap, xxxii. 49, and Num. xxvii. 12, 13, which was communicated to them by Moses himself (chap. iii. 27), and from the fact that Moses went up Mount Nebo, from which he never returned. On his ascending the mountain, the eyes of the people would certainly follow him as far as they possibly could. It is also very possible that there were many parts of the Israelitish camp from which the top of Nebo was visible, so that the eyes of his people could not only accompany him thither, but could also see that when the Lord had shown him the promised land. He went down with him into the neighbouring valley, where Moses was taken for ever out of their sight. There is not a word in the text about God having brought the body of Moses down from the mountain and buried it in the valley. This " romantic idea " is invented by Knohel, for the purpose of throwing suspicion upon the historical truth of a fact which is offensive to him. The fact itself that the Lord buried His servant Moses, and no man knows of his sepulchre, is in perfect keeping with the relation in which Moses stood to the Lord while he was alive. Even if his sin at the water of strife rendered it necessary that he should suffer the punishment of death, as a memorable example of the terrible severity of the holy God against sin, even in the case of His faithful servant; yet after the justice of God had been satisfied by this punishment, he was to be distinguished in death before all the people, and glorified as the servant who had been found faithful in all the house of God, whom the Lord had known face to face (ver. 10), and to whom He had spoken mouth to mouth (Num. xii. 7, 8). The burial of Moses by the hand of Jehovah was not intended to conceal his grave, for the purpose of guarding against a superstitious and idolatrous reverence for his grave; for with the opinion held by the Israelites, that corpses and graves defiled, there was but little fear of this; but, as we may infer from the account of the transfiguration of Jesus, the intention was to place him in the same category with Enoch and Elijah. As Kurtz observes, " The purpose of God was to prepare
for him a condition, both of body and soul, resembling that of these two men of God. Men bury a corpse that it may pass into corruption. If Jehovah, therefore, would not suffer the body of Moses to be buried by men, it is but natural to seek for the reason in the fact that He did not intend to leave him to corruption, but, when burying it with His own hand, imparted a power to it which preserved it from corruption, and prepared the way for it to pass into the same form of existence to which Enoch and Elijah were taken, without
either death or burial." — There can be no doubt that this truth lies at the foundation of the Jewish theologoumenon mentioned in the Epistle of Jude, concerning the contest between Michael the archangel and the devil for the body of Moses. — Vers. 7, 8. Though he died at the age of one hundred and twenty (see at chap. xxxi. 2), Moses' eyes had not become dim, and his freshness had not abated Qj?. air Xey.y connected with n? in Gen. xxx. 37, signifies freshness). Thus had the Lord preserved the full vital energy of His servant, even till the time of his death. The mourning of the people lasted thirty days, as in the case of Aaron (Num. xx. 29).
Vers. 9-12. Joshua now took Moses' place as the leader of the people, filled with the spirit of wisdom (practical wisdom, manifesting itself in action), because Moses had ordained him to his office by the laying on of hands (Num. xxvii. 18). And the people obeyed him; but he was not like Moses. " There arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face,^ i.e, so far as the miracles and signs were concerned which Moses did, by virtue of his divine mission, upon Pharaoh, his servants, and his land, and the terrible acts which he performed before the eyes of Israel (vers. 11 and 12; vid, chap. xxvi. 8, and iv. 34). " Whom Jehovah knew;" not who knew Him, the Lord. "To know," like yLV(i)(TKetv in 1 Cor. viii. 3, relates to the divine knowledge, which not only involves a careful observance (chap. ii. 7), but is also a manifestation of Himself to man, a penetration of man with the spiritual power of God. Because he was thus known by the Lord, Moses was able to perform signs and wonders, and mighty, terrible acts, such as no other performed either before or after him. In this respect Joshua stood far below Moses, and no prophet arose in Israel like unto Moses. — This remark concerning Moses does not presuppose that a long series of prophets had already risen up since the time of Moses. When Joshua had defeated the Canaanites, and conquered their land with the powerful help of the Lord, which was still manifested in signs and wonders, and had divided it among the children of Israel, and when the tribes had settled down in their inheritance, so that the different portions of the land began to be called by the names of Naphtali, Ephraim, Manasseh, and Judah, as is the case in ver. 2; the conviction might already have become established in Israel, that no other })rophet would arise like Moses, to whom the Lord had manifested Himself with such signs and wonders before the Egyptians and the eyes of Israel. The position occupied by Joshua in relation to this his predecessor, as the continuer of his work, would necessarily awaken and confirm this conviction, in connection with what the Lord had said as to the superiority of Moses to all the prophets (Num. xii. 6 sqq.). Moses was the founder and mediator of the old covenant. As lon^ as this covenant was to last, no prophet could arise in Israel like unto Moses. There is but One who is worthy of greater honour than Moses, namely, the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, who is placed as the Son over all the house of God, in which Moses was found faithful as a servant (compare Heb. iii. 2-6 with Num. xii. 7), Jesus Christ, the founder and mediator of the new and everlasting covenant.
If we close our commentary with another survey of tne entire work, viz. the five books of Moses, we may sum up the result of our detailed exposition, so far as critical opinions respecting its origin are concerned, in these words: We have found the decision which we pronounced in our General Introduction, as to the internal unity and system of the whole Thorahj a^ well as its Mosaic origin, thoroughly confirmed. With the exception of the»last chapters of the fifth book, which are distinctly shown to be an appendix to the Mosaic Thorah^ added by a different hand, by the statement in Deut. xxxi. 24 sqq., that when the book of the law was finished Moses handed it over to the Levites to keep, there is nothing in the whole of the five books which Moses might not have written. There are no historical circumstances or events either mentioned or assumed, which occurred for the first time after Moses was dead. Neither the allusion to the place called Dan in Gen. xiv. 14 (cf. Deut. xxxiv. 1); nor the remark in Gen. xxxvi. 1, that there were kings in the land of Edom before the children of Israel had a king over them; nor the statement that the monument which Jacob erected over Rachel's grave remained " to this day " (Gen. xxxv. 20); nor even the assertion in Deut. iii. 14, that Jair called Bashan ^* Chavvoth Jair " after his own name, furnishes any definite and unmistakeable indication of a post-Mosaic time.^ And the account in Ex. xvi. 35, that the Israelites ate the manna forty years, till they came to an inhabited land, " to the end," i.e, the extreme boundary, of the land of Canaan, could only be adduced by Bleek (^EinL p. 204) as an evident proof that " this could not have been written before the arrival of the Israelites in the land of Canaan," tlirough a irapepfjLTjveca, or misinterpretation of the words, " into the land of their dwelling." For were not the Israelites on the border of the land when they were encamped in the steppes of Moab by the Jordan opposite to Jericho 1 Or are we to suppose that the kingdoms of Sihon and Og with their cities, which the Israelites had already conquered under Moses, were an uninhabited land? The passage mentioned last simply proves, that in the middle books of the Pentateuch we have not simple diaries before us containing the historical occurrences of the Mosaic times, but a work drawn up according to a definite plan, and written in the last year of Moses' life. This is apparent from the remarks about the shining face of Moses (Ex. xxxiv. 33—35), and the guidance of Israel in all its journeys by the pillar of cloud (Ex. xl. 38, cf. Num. x. 34), as well as from the systematic arrangement and distribution of the materials according to certain well-defined and obvious points of view, as we have already endeavoured to show in the introductions to the different books, and in the exposition itself.
If, however, the composition of the whole Thorah by Moses is thus firmly established, in accordance with the statements in Deut. xxxi. 9 and 24, it by no means follows that Moses wrote the ^hole
^ But even if the remarks in Gen. xxxv. 20 and Deut. iii. 14 concerning the preservation of the monument over Rachel's grave, and the retention of the names which Jair gave to the towns of Bashan, should really point to a post- Mosaic time, no modest critic would ever think of adducing two such gloss-like notices as a proof of the later origin of the whole Pentateuch, but would regard these notices as nothing more than a gloss interpolated by a later hand. In the case of the monument upon Rachel's grave, however, if it continued in existence for centuries, it is not only conceivable, but by no means improbable, that the spies sent into Canaan from Kadesh, who passed through the land from Hebron to Hamath, saw it by the high road where the grave was situated, and brought the intelligence of its preservation to Moses and the people.
work from Gen. i. to Deut. xxxi. uno tenore, and in the closinir days of his life. Even in this case it may have been written step by step; and not only Genesis, but the three middle books, may liave been composed before the discourses in the fifth book, so that the whole work was simply finished and closed after the renewal of the covenant recorded in Deut. xxix. and xxx. Again, such statements as that Moses wrote this law, and made an end of writing the words of this law in a book till they were finished (Deut. xxxi. 9 and 24), by no means require us to assume that Moses wrote it all with his own hand. The epistles which the Apostle Paul sent to the different churches were rarely written with his own hand, but were dictated to one of his assistants; yet their Pauline origin is not called in question in consequence. And so Moses may have employed some assistant, either a priest or scribe (shoter), in the composition of the book of the law, without its therefore failing to be his own work. Still less is the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch rendered doubtful by the fact that he availed himself of written documents from earlier times in writing the primeval history, and incorporated them to some extent in the book of Genesis without alteration; and that in the history of his own time, and when introducing the laws into his work, he inserted documents in the middle books which had been prepared by the priests and shoterim at his own command, — such, for example, as the lists of the numbering of the people (Num. i.-iii. and xxvi.), the account of the dedicatory offerings of the tnbe-princes (Num. vii.), and of the committee of heads of tribes appointed for the purpose of dividing the land of Canaan (Num. xxxiv. 16 sqq.), — in the exact form in which they had been drawn up for public use. This conjecture is rendered very natural by the contents and form of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch contains historical narrative and law, answering to the character of the divine revelation, which consisted in historical facts, and received a development in accordance with the times. And on closer inspection we find that several different elements may be distinguished in each of these. The historical contents are divisible into an annalistic or monumental portion, and into prophetico-historical accounts. The former includes the simple notices of the most important events from the creation of the world to the death of Moses, with their exact chronological, ethnographical, and geographical data; also the numerous genealogical documents introduced into the history. To the latter belong statements, whether shorter or longer, respecting those revelations and promises of God, by which the Creator of the heaven and the earth prepared the way from the very earHest time for the redemption of the fallen human race, and which, after laying the foundation for the Old Testament kingdom of God by the guidance of the patriarchs and the redemption of Israel out of the bondage of Egypt, He eventually carried out at Sinai by the conclusion of a covenant and the giving of a law. In the same way, we may distinguish a twofold element in the legal portion of the Pentateuch. The kernel of the Sinaitic legislation is to be found in the decalogue, with the moral and rightful conditions upon the basis of which the Lord concluded the covenant with Israel. The religious and moral truths and commandments, which, as being the absolute demands of the holiness and justice, the love and mercy of God, constitute the very essence of true religion, are surrounded in the covenant economy of the Old Testament by certain religious statutes and institutions, which were imposed upon the people of God simply for the time of its infancy, and constituted that " shadow of things to come" which was to pass away when the "body" appeared. This "shadow" embraces all the special theocratic ordinances and precepts of the so-called Levitical law (whether ecclesiastical, disciplinary, or magisterial), in which religious and ethical ideas were symbolically incorporated; so that they contained within them eternal truths, whilst their earthly form was to pass away. These covenant statutes are so intimately bound up with the general religious doctrines and the purely moral commands, by virtue of their symbolical significance, that in many respects they interlace one another, the moral commands being enclosed and pervaded by the covenant statutes, and the latter again being sanctified and transformed by the former, so that the entire law assumes the form of a complete organic whole. A similar organic connection is also apparent between the historical and legal constituents of the Pentateuch. The historical narrative not only supplied the framework or outward setting for the covenant legislation, but it also prepared the way for that legislation, just as God Himself prepared the way for concluding the covenant with Israel by His guidance of the human race and the patriarchs of Israel; and it so pervades every portion of it also, that, on the one hand, the historical circumstances form the groundwork for the legal institutions, and on the other hand a light is thrown by the historical occurrences upon the covenant ordinances and laws. Just as nature and spirit interpenetrate each other in the world around us and in human life, and the spirit not only comes to view in the life of nature, but transforms it at the same time; so has God planted His kingdom of grace in the natural order of the world, that nature may be sanctified by grace. But, notwithstanding this organic connection between the various constituents of the Pentateuch, from the very nature of the case not only are the historical and legal portions kept quite distinct from one another in many passages, but the distinctions between these two constituents are here and there brought very clearly out to view.
The material differences necessarily determined in various ways the form of the narrative, the phraseology, and even the words employed. In the historical portions many words and expressions occur which are never met with in the legal sections, and vice versa. The same remark also applies to the different portions in which we have either historical narrative, or the promulgation of laws. In addition to this, we might reasonably expect to find whole sections also, in which the ideas and verbal peculiarities of the different constituents are combined. And this is really the case. The differences stand out very sharply in the earliest chapters of Genesis, where the account of paradise and the fall, together with the promise of the victory of the seed of the woman over the serpent, which contains the germ of all future revelations of God (chap. ii. 4 sqq.), is appended immediately to the history of the creation of the world (chap. i. 1-ii. 3); whilst in the mode of narration it differs considerably from the style of the first chapter. Whereas in chap. i. the Creator of the heaven and the earth is called IJloJiim simply; in the history of paradise and the fall, not to mention other differences, we meet with the composite name Jehovah Elohim; and, after this, the two names Elohim and Jehovah are used interchangeably, so that in many chapters the former only occurs, and in others again only the latter, until the statement in Ex. vi., that God appeared to Moses and commissioned him to bring the people of Israel out of Egypt, after which the name Jehovah predominates, so that henceforth, with but few exceptions, Elohim is only used in an appellative sense.
Upon this interchange in the names of God in the book of Genesis, modern critics have built up their hypothesis as to the composition of Genesis, and in fact of the entire Pentateuch, either from different documents, or from repeated supplementary additions, in accordance with which they discover an outward cause for the change of names, viz. the variety of editors, instead of deducing it from the different meanings of the names themselves; whilst they also adduce, in support of their view, the fact that certain ideas and expressions change in connection with the name of God. The fact is obvious enough. But the change in the use of the different names of God is associated with the gradual development of the saving purposes of God; and as we have already shown in vol. i. pp. 73 sqq., the names Elohim and Jeliovah are expressive of different relations on the part of God to the world. Now, as God did not reveal Himself in the full significance of His name Jehovah till the time of the exodus of Israel out of Egypt, and the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai, we could expect nothing else than what we actually find in Genesis, namely, that this name is not used by the author of the book of Genesis before the call of Abraham, except in connection with such facts as were directly preparatory to the call of Abraham to be the father of the covenant nation; and that even in the history of the patriarchs, in which it predominates from Gen. xii.— xvi., it is used less frequently again after Jehovah revealed Himself to Abraham as El Shaddai, and other titles of God sprang out of the continued manifestations of God to the patriarchs, which could take the place of that name. (For more detailed remarks, see vol. i. pp. 330 sqq.). It would not have been by any means strange, therefore, if the name Jehovah had not occurred at all in the account of the creation of the world, in the genealogies of the patriarchs of the primeval and preparatory age (Gen. v. and xi.), in the table of nations (Gen. x.), in the account of the negotiations of Abraham with the Hittites concerning the purchase of the cave of Machpelah for a family sepulchre (Gen. xxiii.), in the notices respecting Esau and the Edomitish tribe-princes and kings (Gen. xxxvi.), and other narratives of similar import. Nevertheless we find it in the genealogy in Gen. v. 29, and in the table of nations in Gen. x. 9, where the critics, in order to save their hypothesis, are obliged to have recourse to an assumption of glosses, or editorial revisions. They have dealt still more violently with Gen. xvii. 1. There Jehovah appears to Abram, and manifests Himself to him as El Shaddai, from which it is very evident that the name El Shaddai simply expresses one particular feature in the manifestation of Jehovah, and describes a preliminary stage, anticipatory of the full development of the nature of the absolute God, as expressed in the name Jehovah. This is put beyond all doubt by the declaration of God to Moses in Ex. vi. 3, " I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as El Shaddaij and by My name Jehovah was I not known to them."
Even Astruc observes, with reference to these words, " The passage in Exodus, when properly understood, does not prove that the name of Jehovah was a name of God unknown to the patriarchs, and revealed for the first time to Moses; it simply proves that God had not shown the patriarchs the full extent of the meaning of this name, as He had made it known to Moses." The modern critics, on the other hand, have erased Jehovah from the text in Gen. xvii. 1, and substituted Elohim in its place, and then declare El Shaddai synonymous with Elohim^ whilst they have so perverted Ex. vi. 3 as to make the name Jehovah utterly unknown to the patriarchs. By similar acts of violence they have mangled the text in very many other passages, for the purpose of carrying out the distinction between the Elohim and Jehovah documents; and yet for all that they cannot escape the admission, that there are certain portions or sections of the book of Genesis in which the separation is impossible.
It is just the same with the supposed " favourite expressions" of the Elohistic and Jehovistic sections, as with the names of God. " There are certain favourite expressions, it is said, which are common to the Elohistic portions; and the same things are frequently called by different names in the Elohistic and Jehovistic sections. Among the Elohistic expressions are: njnx (possession), D''"}^ip pS (land of the stranger s sojourn), DJ^n^i'^l', ^'^'9^, njn Di^n D^y3 (the selfsame day), Padan-Aram (the Jehovistic for this is always (?) Aram- Naharainij or simply Aram),^ ^y]] nns^ rT'lB D^ipn (the Jehovistic is JT'lll nis); wherever the name Elohim occurs, these expressions also appear as its inseparable satellites." This statement is in part incorrect, and not in accordance with fact; and even where there is any foundation for it, it really proves nothing. In the first place, it is not correct that n^riK and Dnijp px are only to be met with in Elohistic portions. In the very first passage in which we meet with this word in the Pentateuch (Gen. xvii. 8), it is not Elohim, but Jehovah, w^ho appears as El Shaddai, and promises Abraham and his seed the land of his pilgrimage, the land of Canaan, u?)V J^^n^i*.
* The actual fact is, that Aram- Nahar aim only occurs twice in the Pentateuch, viz. Gren. xxiv. 10 and Deut. xxiii. 5, for which Aram alone occurs in Num. xxiii. 7, which is well known to apply not merely to Mesopotamia, but to Syria as well, and is used here simply as a poetical term for Aram- NaJiar aim. Moreover, Padan-Aram and Aram-Naharaim are not identical; but the former merely denotes one particular district of " Aram of the two rivers," or Mesopotamia.
This passage is clearly pointed to in Gen. xlviii. 4. In addition to this, the word achuzzah occurs in Gen. xxiii. 4, 9, 20, xlix. 30, 1. 13, in connection with the family sepulchre which Abraham had acquired as a possession by purchase; also in the laws concerning the sale and redemption of landed property (Lev. xxv. and xxvii. very frequently), and in those concerning the division of the land as a possession among the tribes and families of Israel (Num. xxvii. 7, xxxii. 5 sqq., xxxv. 2, 8); also in Lev. xxv. 34 and Gen. xxxvi. 43, — in both passages with reference to property or a fixed landed possession, for which there was no other word in the Hebrew language that could be used in these passages; not to mention the fact, that Stdhelin, Knobel, and others, pronounce Num. xxxii. 32 a Jehovistic passage. So again the expressions ri"'"i3 D''pn (to set up a covenant) and D^ii'ip (in their generations) occur in Gen. xvii. 7 in a Jehovistic framework; for it was not Elohim, but Jehovah, who appeared to Abram (see ver. 1), to set up (not conclude) His covenant with him and his posterity as an everlasting covenant, according to their generations. To set up (i.e, realize, carry out) a covenant, and to conclude a covenant, are certainly two distinct ideas. — In Gen. xlvii. 27, again, and Lev. xxvi. 9, we meet with nnni nna in two sections, which are pronounced Jehovistic. The other three, no doubt, occur in Genesis in connection with Elohim; but the expression, " in the self-same day," could not be expected in Jehovistic sections, for the simple reason, that the time of the revelations and promises of God is not generally reckoned by day and hour. " After his kind" is only met with in four sections in the whole of the Pentateuch, — in the accounts of the creation and that of the flood (Gen. i. and vi. vii.), and in thp laws concerning clean and unclean beasts (Lev. xi. and Dent, xiv.), where it is simply the species of animals that are referred to. Can this word then be called a favourite Elohistic expression, which constantly appears like an inseparable satellite, wherever the name Elohim occurs? The same remarks apply to other words and phrases described as Elohistic: e.g, tholedoth (which stands at the head of a Jehovistic account, however, in Gen. ii. 4), ^^ father s house,^ " in their families" (mishpachoth), and many others. But just as such expressions as these are not to be expected in the prophetico-historical sections, for the simple reason that the ideas which they express belong to a totally different sphere, so, on the other hand, a considerable number of notions and words, which are associated with the visible manifestations of God, the promises to the patriarchs, their worship, etc., are found in the book of Genesis always In connection with the name Jehovah: see, for example, njn^ DKO Nnp^ (ni^V) n^iy ni^yn, nmn nn, and others of the same kind. And yet the last two occur in the laws of the middle books, which the critics attribute to the Elohist much more frequently than many of the so-called Elohistic expressions and formulas of the book of Genesis. This fact clearly shows, that there are no such things as favourite expressions of the Elohist and Jehovist, but that the words are always adapted to the subject. In the covenant statutes of the middle books, we find Elohistic and Jehovistic expressions combined, because the economy of the Sinaltic covenant was anticipated on the one hand by the patriarchal revelations of Jehovah the covenant God, and established on the other hand upon the natural foundations of the Israelitish commonwealth. The covenant which Jehovah concluded with the people of Israel at Sinai (Ex. xxiv.) was simply the setting up and full realization of the covenant which He made with Abram (Gen. xv.), and had already begun to set up with him by the promise of a son, and the institution of circumcision as the covenant sign (Gen. xvii.). The indispensable condition of membership in the covenant was circumcision, which Jehovah commanded to Abraham when He made Himself known to him as Ul Shaddai (Gen. xvii.), and in connection with which we meet for the first time with the legal formulas, " a statute for ever," " in your generations," and " that soul shall be cut off," which recur so constantly in the covenant statutes of the middle books, but so arranged, that the expression " a statute for ever" is never used in connection with general religious precepts or purely moral commandments, the eternal significance of which did not need to be enjoined, since it naturally followed from the unchangeable holiness and justice of the eternal God, whilst this could not be assumed without further ground of the statutory law^s and ordinances of the covenant. But these covenant ordinances also had their roots in the natural order oi the world and of the national life. The nation of Israel which sprang from the twelve sons of Israel by natural generation, received its division into tribes, and the constitution founded upon this, as a covenant nation and congregation of Jehovah. The numbering of the people was taken in tribes, according to the families and fathers' houses of the different tribes; and the land of Canaan, which was promised them for an inheritance, was to be divided among the tribes, with special reference to the number and magnitude of their families. It is perfectly natural, therefore, that in the laws and statements concerning these things, words and formularies should be repeated which already occur in the book of Genesis in connection with the genealogical notices.
Modern critics, as is well known, regard the whole of the Sinaitic legislation, from Ex. xxv. to Num. x. 28, as an essential part of the original work, with the exception of Ex. xx.— xxiii.. Lev. xvii.-xx. and xxvi., and a few verses in Lev. x., xxiii., xxiv., xxv., and Num. iv. and viii. Now, as a great variety of things are noticed in this law — such as the building and setting up of the tabernacle, the description of the priests' clothes, the order of sacrifice — which are not mentioned again in the other parts of the Pentateuch, it was very easy for Knohel to fill several pages with expressions from th6 original Elohistic work, which are neither to be found in the Jehovistic historical narratives, nor in the general commands of a religious and moral character, by simply collecting together all the names of these particular things. But what does such a collection prove? Nothing further than that the contents of the Pentateuch are very varied, and the same things are not repeated throughout. Could we expect to find beams, pillars, coverings, tapestries, and the vessels of the sanctuary, or priests' dresses and sacrificial objects, mentioned in the ten commandments, or among the rights of Israel (Ex. xx.-xxiii.), or in the laws of marriage and chastity and the moral commandments (Lev. xvii.-xx.)? With the exception of the absence of certain expressions and formulas, which are of frequent occurrence in the covenant statutes, the critics are unable to adduce any other ground for excluding the general religious and moral commandments from the legislation of the so-called original work, than the a priori axiom, " The Elohist had respect simply to the theocratic law; and such laws as are introduced in Ex. xxi.-xxiii., in connection with moral and civil life, lay altogether outside his plan." These are assertions, not proofs. The use of words in the Pentateuch could only furnish conclusive evidence that it had been composed by various authors, if the assertion were a well founded one, that different expressions are employed for the same thing in different parts of the work. But all that has hitherto been adduced in proof of this amounts to nothing more than a few words, chiefly in the early chapters of Genesis; whilst it is assumed at the same time that Gen. ii. 4 sqq. contains a second account of the creation, whereas it simply gives a description of paradise, ard a more minute account of the creation of man than is to be found in Gen. i., the difference in the point of view requiring different words.
To this we have to add the fact, that by no means a small number of sections exhibit, so far as the language is concerned, the peculiarities of the two original documents or main sources, and render a division utterly impossible. The critics have therefore found themselves compelled to assume that there was a third or even a fourth source, to which they refer whatever cannot be assigned to the other two. This assumption is a pure offshoot of critical difficulty, whilst the fact itself is a proof that the Pentateuch is founded upon unity of language, and that the differences which occur here and there arise for the most part from the variety and diversity of the actual contents; whilst in a very few instances they may be attributable to the fact that Moses availed himself, of existing writings in the composition of the book of Genesis, and in the middle books inserted public documents without alteration in his historical account.
The other proofs adduced, for the purpose of supporting the evidence from language, viz. the frequent repetitions of the same thing and the actual discrepancies, are even weaker still. No doubt the Pentateuch abounds in repetitions. The longest and most important is the description of the tabernacle, where we have, first of all, the command to prepare this sanctuary given in Ex. «xxv.— xxxi., with a detailed description of all the different parts, and all the articles of furniture, as well as of the priests' clothing and the consecration of the priests and the altar; and then again, in Ex. xxxv.-xxxix. and Lev. viii., a detailed account of the fulfilment of these instructions in almost the same words. The holy candlestick is mentioned five times (Ex. xxv. 31-40, xxvii. 20, 21, xxx. 7, 8, Lev. xxiv. 1-4, and Num. viii. 1—4); the command not to eat blood occurs as many as eight times (Gen. ix. 4; Lev. iii. 17, vii. 26, 27, xvii. 10-14; Deut. xii. 16, 23, 24, and xv. 23), and on the first three occasions, at all events, in passages belonging to the so-called original work. Now, if these repetitions have not been regarded by any of the critics, with the exception of J, Popper^ as furnishing proofs of difference of authorship, what right can we have to adduce other repetitions of a similar kind as possessing any such significance? — But lastly, the critics have involved themselves in almost incomprehensible contradictions, through the supposed contradictions in the Pentateuch. Some of them, e.g, Stdhelin and BertheaUj think these discrepancies only apparent, or at least as of such a character that the last editor saw no discrepancies in them, otherwise he would have expunged them. Others, such as Knohel and Hupfeld^ place them in the foreground, as the main proofs of a plurality of authors; whilst Hupfeld especially, by a truly inquisitorial process, has made even the smallest differences into irreconcilable contradictions. Yet, for all that, he maintains that the Pentateuch, in its present form, is a work characterized by unity, arranged and carried out according to a definite plan, in which the different portions are so arranged and connected together, " with an intelligent regard to connection and unity or plan," yea, " dovetailed together in so harmonious a way, that they have the deceptive appearance of a united whole " {Hupfeld, die Quellen der Genes, p. 196). In working up the different sources, the editor, it is said, " did not hesitate to make systematic corrections of the one to bring it into harmony with the other," as, for example, in the names Abram and Sarai, which he copied from the original document into the Jehovistic portions before Gen. xvii., because " he would not allow of any discrepancy between his sources in these points, and in fact could not have allowed it without a manifest contradiction, and the consequent confusion of his readers'' (p. 198). How then does it square with so intelligent a procedure, to assume that there are irreconcilable contradictions in the work? An editor who worked with so much intelligence and reflection would never have left actual contradictions standing; and modem critics have been able to discover them simply because they judge the biblical writings according to modern notions, and start in their operations from a fundamental opinion which is directly at variance with the revelation of the Bible.
The strength of the opposition to the unity and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch arises much less from the peculiarities of form, which the critics have placed in the foreground, than from the offence which they take at the contents of the books of Moses, which are irreconcilable with the naturalism of the modern views of the world. To the leaders of modern criticism, not only is the spuriousness, or post-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, an established fact, but the gradual rise of the Mosaic laws in connection with the natural development of the Hebrew people, without any direct or supernatural interposition on the part of God, is also firmly established a priori On dogmatical grounds. This is openly expressed by De Wette in the three first editions of his Introduction, in which he opens the critical inquiry concerning the Pentateuch with this observation (§ 145): " Many occurrences are opposed to the laws of nature, and presuppose a direct interposition on the part of
God;*' and then proceeds to say, that " if to an educated mind it is a decided fact that such miracles have never really occurred, the question arises whether, perhaps, they may have appeared to do so to the eye-witnesses and persons immediately concerned; but to this also we must give a negative reply. And thus we are brought to the conclusion that the narrative is not contemporaneous, or derived from contemporaneous sources." Ewald has expressed his naturalistic views, which acknowledge no supernatural rev^elation from God, in his " History of the People of Israel," and developed the gradual formation of the Pentateuch from the principles involved in these fundamental views. But just as De Wette expressed this candid confession in a much more cautious and discruised manner in the later editions of his Introduction, so have his successors endeavoured more and more to conceal the naturalistic background of their critical operations, and restricted themselves to arguments, the weakness and worthlessness of which they themselves admit in connection with critical questions which do not affect their naturalistic views. So long as biblical criticism is fettered by naturalism, it will never rise to a recognition of the genuineness and internal unity of the Pentateuch. For if the miraculous acts of the living God recorded in it are not true, and did not actually occur, the account of them cannot have come down from eye-witnesses, but can only be myths, which grew up in the popular belief long after the events refeiTed to. And if there is no prophetic foresight of the future produced by the Spirit of God, Moses cannot have foretold the rejection of Israel and their dispersion among the heathen even before their entrance into Canaan, whereas they did not take place till many centuries afterwards.
If, on the other hand, the reality of the supernatural revelations of God, together with miracles and prophecies, be admitted, not only are the contents of the Pentateuch in harmony with its Mosaic authorship, but even its formal arrangement can be understood and scientifically vindicated, provided only we suppose the work to have originated in the following manner. After the exodus of the tribes of Israel -from Egypt, and their adoption as the people of Jehovah through the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai, when Moses had been commanded by God to write down the covenant rights'"(Ex. xxiv. 4, and xxxiv. 27), and then formed the resolution not only to ensure the laws which the Lord had given to the people through his mediation against alteration and distortion, and hand them down to futurity by committing them to writing, but to write down all the great and glorious things that the Lord had done for His people, for the instruction of his own and succeeding generations, and set himself to carry out this resolution; he collected together the traditions of the olden time, which had been handed down in Israel from the days of the patriarchs, partly orally, and partly in writings and records, for the purpose of combining them into a preliminary history of the kingdom of God, which was founded by the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai. Accordingly, in all probability during the stay at Sinai, in the five or six months which were occupied in building the tabernacle, he wrote not only the book of Genesis, but the history of the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt and the march to Sinai (Ex. xix.), to which the decalogue, with the book of the covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii.), is attached, according to that plan of the kingdom of God which had then been fully revealed, or, in other words, from a theocratic point of view. As he had written the covenant rights in a book by the command of God, as a preliminary to the conclusion of the covenant itself (Ex. xxiv. 4), there can be no doubt whatever that he did not merely publish to the people by word of mouth the very elaborate revelation and directions of God concerning the construction of the tabernacle and the apparatus of worship, which he had received upon the mountain (Ex. xxv.-xxxi.), as well as all the rest of the laws, but either committed them to writing himself directly after he had received them from the Lord, or had them written out by one of his assistants, and collected together for the purpose of forming them eventually into a complete work. We may make the same assumption with reference to the most important events which occurred during the forty years* journey through the desert, so that, on the arrival of the camp in the steppes of Moab, the whole of the historical and legal materials for the three middle books of the Pentateuch were already collected together, and all that remained to be done was to form them into a united whole, and give them a final revision. The collection, arrangement, and final working up of these materials would be accomplished in a very short time, since Moses had, at all events, the priests and shoterim by his side. — All this had probably taken place before the last addresses of Moses, which compose the book of Deuteronomy, so that nothing further remained to be done but to write down these addresses, and append them as a fifth book to the four already in existence. With this the writing of " all the words of this book of the law" was finished, so that the whole book of the law could be handed over in a ct)inj)loto state to the priests, to be properly taken care of by them (Deut. xxxi. 24 sqq.).
A copy of the song of Moses was axldeJ to this written work, in all probability immediately after it had been deposited by the side of the ark of the covenant; and, after his death, the blessing pronounced upon the tribes before his departure was also committed to writing. Finally, after the conquest of Canaan, possibly on the renewal of the covenant under Joshua, an account of the death of Moses was added to these last two testimonies of the man of God, and adopted along with them, in the form of an appendix, into his book of the law.