De Moor II:12: The Instrumental Cause of Scripture: The Amanuenses (Part 2)

Next, our AUTHOR observes that it is not necessary for us to know the names of the individual Writers of the individual Books; as in the case of several Historical Books of the Old Testament and various Psalms the authors remain uncertain:  since the authority of the sacred Books depends, not upon the Amanuenses, but upon God, the principal author; just as upon the King depends the authority of a certificate of safe passage which he publishes, whence it makes no difference whether I know by what Secretary he arranged to have such a certificate written and published, or not.  GREGORY THE GREAT, præfatio expositionis in Jobum, chapter I, opera, tome 2, column 5:  “It is quite unnecessarily inquired who wrote these things, since the author of the book is earnestly believed to be the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, He wrote, who dictated these things to be written.”  It suffices that at that time, in which the individual Books were added and received unto the same, it was evident to the Church, and especially to those that presided over the collection of the Canon, that by the Holy Spirit the authors of those Books enjoyed the gift of θεοπνευστίας/inspiration in the writing of them, and that those Books were intended by the same Spirit to enlarge the Canon; neither are those destitute at this day of the Marks of θεοπνευστίας/inspiration:  see HARTMAN’S Huysbybel in Epistolam ad Hebræos, pages 225, 226.

Nevertheless, it is to be held without wavering that those are the Writers of the Books (as our AUTHOR proceeds), that are set forth to us in the Books themselves, or in the Scripture of the New Testament, as such, if confidence in the divine Word has not given way altogether:  compare GROTIUS’ de Veritate Religionis, book III, § 2.

And our AUTHOR desires it to be observed against the Atheists of our time, who, so that they might subvert Scripture by subterranean tunnels, maintain that only Fragments of the Old Writers survive for us today (compare BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VI, § 12, tome 2, pages 827, 829b—831a), and thus they have the audacity to teach even concerning the PENTATEUCH of MOSES (compare STAPFER, in his Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter VI, § 19, 219, who then proves against the Atheists, 1.  that Moses was not an Imposter, § 224-255; 2.  that, what Books are circulated under the name of Moses, were not written in a later age but by Moses himself, § 256-265:  The same, in his Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter X, § 233-277, pages 1034-1067, vindicates the truth of the Mosaic History over against that of Foreigners against the charges of the Naturalists).  Here they have regard to the opinion of:

1.  Hobbes, who contends that they were thus called the books of Moses, not after their author, but after their object; although he does admit it to be possible that it happened that he wrote those things that in these books are related to have been written by him, Leviathan, part III, chapter XXXIII:  COCQUIUS comes against this hypothesis, in Anatome Hobbesianismi, locus III, chapter V, pages 43-45, who, in Anatome Hobbesianismi, locus III, chapter V, pages 46-48, repudiates Hobbes’ similar rubbish concerning several other Books of the Sacred Codex.  See also LELAND’S Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, epistle 3, pages 62, 63.

2.  The Author of the opinion of the Pre-Adamites,[1] who, in his Systeme Præadamitarum, book IV, chapter I, maintains that the books written by Moses have perished, and that now only certain excerpts and randoms pieces of writing composed upon emergent circumstances.  Charles Blount among the Deists heartily follows this in his Oraculis Rationis; see LELAND’S Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 1, epistle 4, pages 84, 85.

3.  Spinoza, who, in his Tractatu Historico-politico, chapter VIII, maintains that Ezra was the writer of the Pentateuch; but of his labor applied to this matter he speaks very contemptuously and shamefully:  compare WALCH’S Miscellanea Sacra, book I, exercitation VI, § 3, pages 146, 147.

4.  Richard Simon, who, in his Historia Critica Veteris Testamenti, book I, chapters II, V, contends that the argument of the books of Moses was first committed to writing by Scribes and public notaries, whose records were then entered into a briefer register by one ignorant; which comes to us in a very disordered state from disjointed volumes poorly stitched together:  see WALCH’S Miscellanea Sacra, book I, exercitation VI, § 8, pages 153, 154; MILL’S[2] Orationem de Fatis Theologiæ exegeticæ, pages XLII-XLIV, in Miscellaneis Sacris.

5.  Jean Le Clerc, who, in his Sententiis Theologorum quorundam Batavorum super Simonii historia Critica, pages 128 and following, ridicules Simon’s Scribes indeed; but he no less absurdly celebrates that Israelite Priest, sent from Babylon so that he might instruct the new inhabitants of Palestine in the ritual by which the God of that nation was fond of being worshipped, 2 Kings 17, as the author of the Pentateuch.  However, Le Clerc thereafter, with his opinion changed for the better, acknowledged Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch and tried to build upon it in Dissertatione III, which he set before his Commentario in Genesin:  compare WITSIUS’ Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, preface, § 8; Brieven van eenige Joden aan de Voltaire, part II, epistle VIII, § 3, pages 195-198, compared with epistle II, page 73.  That Le Clerc discusses the writing of the Pentateuch no less irreverently in a different regard, in the cited Dissertation, § 2, 6, 7, CARPZOV observes in his Introductione ad Libros Historicos Veteris Testamenti, chapter III, § 2, page 41, § 8-10, pages 46-50.

Against whom we hold that the Pentateuch was written by Moses himself, and that it survives intact to the present day.

We urge, 1.  That the author of Genesis is the same as the author of the remaining books of the Pentateuch:  for no one denies that this book was delivered to the Israelites at the same time with the rest; it is cited by the same appellation of Moses and תורה/Law, both in the Old Testament and in the New, Luke 24:27, 44; Galatians 4:21, 22; it was also received by the Israelitish Church with the same reverence; indeed, it is the basis and foundation of the rest of the books; while the connection of the history between the end of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus is all too evident.

2.  We infer that the remaining Books, from Exodus onward, are most certainly of Moses, even from the infallible citation of the New Testament:  for example, Exodus from Mark 12:26 compared with Exodus 3:6; Leviticus from Romans 10:5 compared with Leviticus 18:5; Numbers from John 3:14, for these are among those things which the Lord elsewhere affirms that Moses wrote concerning Him, John 5:46, but are found in Numbers 21:6-9:  compare WALCH’S Miscellanea Sacra, book I, exercitation VI, § 18-24, pages 165-172.  So also Moses himself expressly states, Numbers 33:2, Now, Moses wrote their goings out unto their journeys by the determination of Jehovah.  Deuteronomy from Mark 12:19 compared with Deuteronomy 25:5, 6; indeed, the entire Pentateuch according to Acts 15:21; 2 Corinthians 3:14, 15; Luke 16:29; John 1:45.

3.  Moses wrote Laws, Exodus 24:4, 7; 34:27, not only all those that are the norm of uprightness and government and are extant in Deuteronomy, according to Deuteronomy 31:24-26 compared with Joshua 1:7, 8 and 2 Chronicles 17:9; but also the ceremonial Laws scattered throughout the other books, according to 2 Chronicles 23:18 and Ezra 6:18 compared with Numbers 3; 8.  But he also wrote Prophecies, Deuteronomy 28-31, from which last chapter observe verses 19, 22; and from these a certain pericope is commended as Mosaic, Nehemiah 1:8, 9;[3] and the testimony of the Lord is express, John 5:46, 47, for had ye believed Moses, etc., for he wrote of me, etc., in which manner it is easily proven that Moses wrote of Christ through all five of his Books.  Finally, he also wrote Histories; not only those few, Exodus 17:14; Numbers 33:2, etc., but a great many, no less worthy of commemoration, without which other things, certainly written by him, would not be able to be understood; it was necessary to join with the Laws the history of the wonderful works of God, and whatever motives were able to lead Israel to render obedience to the Law.  But these things constitute the argument of the whole Pentateuch.

4.  At all times, that Pentateuch stood forth as Mosaic, next in the time of Joshua, Joshua 8:34, 35, of David, 1 Kings 2:3, of Amaziah, 2 Chronicles 25:4:  the αὐτόγραφον/autograph of this Pentateuch was found in the age of Josiah, 2 Chronicles 34:14; JOSEPHUS does not deny that this discovered book was τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους τὰς Μωυσέως, the holy books of Moses, Antiquities, book X, chapter V.

In support of the Mosaic autograph of the Pentateuch being found in the time of Josiah, see SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, epoch VI, chapter III, § 14, 16, column 384; MEYER’S de Temporibus Sacris et festis Diebus Hebræorum, part II, chapter IX, § 106-122, pages 216-225; DINANT’S de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter V, § 13, 96, pages 761, 925, 926; LUNDIUS’[4] Joodsche Heiligdommen, book I, chapter XVI, tome I, pages 121-125, book II, chapter X, page 437, compared with chapter VIII, page 430; LUSSING’S de Noodzekelykheid van den Godtsdienst in ’t gemeen, en de Zekerheid van den Christelyken, part II, dissertation VI, chapter IV, § 744, 745, pages 178-184; PRIDEAUX’S Het Oude en Nieuwe Verbond aan een geschakelt, Dutch Edition, in folio, columns 51, 574; yet not from this history, which came to pass in the time of King Josiah, by deduction of the consequence, which PRIDEAUX thence elicits, Het Oude en Nieuwe Verbond aan een geschakelt, column 54, following the similar argumentation of VITRINGA in the place cited by MEYER in the pericope cited above.

Nevertheless, by the Book of the Law found in the House of Jehovah in the time of Josiah, others understand as only the last Chapters of Deuteronomy, from chapter 27 onward perhaps; which opinion the Reverend HERMANN WESSEL, afterwards a most worthy Pastor of the Church of Leiden, snatched away from us by a most untimely death, commended by various arguments in his Dissertatione, publicly defended at Lugduno-Batava[5] in 1739:  while BUDDEUS thinks, on the other hand, that this discovered Book of the Law is to be taken in a broader sense, Historia ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, period II, section IV, § 26, tome 2, pages 447, 448.  Daniel in the captivity cites the same, Daniel 9:11, and the same is extolled soon after the captivity as the ancient standard of religion, Ezra 3:2; 6:18.

5.  The ἀρχαιότης/antiquity of the Pentateuch is also proven,

              α.  From the antiquity of the Jewish Church and commonwealth, from the first beginnings of which and the entrance into Canaan the Laws written in the Pentateuch and the truths related there were the basis of the faith and polity of the Jews.

              β.  From the argument of the history of the creation, of the flood, of the covenant with Abraham, of the institution of the Levitical worship, the belief of which was thereupon always the same in Israel.  Which were drawn from the Books of Moses, and without which they would have been consigned to oblivion, disregarded, etc.

6.  Christ and the Apostles esteemed our Pentateuch as truly Mosaic, extolling the same, Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46, 47; Acts 15:21, not merely as an epitome of the same, or as the composition of a later age; of which there is no evidence.  Contrariwise, they cite texts as express from Moses:  they even have regard unto the particular phrases in the Pentateuch, their words and emphasis; compare Mark 12:26; Galatians 3:10, 12, 13, 16, etc., indeed, the Lord said in Matthew 5:18, Ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται, For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.  And, although Christ and His Apostles did not come into the world to teach the Jews the art of Criticism; neither did they come so that they might foster vulgar errors and fortify them by their authority:  but they were teachers of truth, in whom we have far greater confidence than in a thousand Spinozas, Hobbes, Simons, and Le Clercs, who scarcely have any foundation for their conjectures than Critical audacity, and against whose rash and hardly pious assertions we suppose that enough has been said in the preceding observations.  So that it is not necessary in addition to appeal to the consent of all Jews of whatever Sect in the time of Christ and the Apostles, by whom the oracles of God were at that time believed.

Neither is this hindered by, α.  certain Briefer Writings included in the Pentateuch, for example, Exodus 24:4, 7; 34:27; 17:14; Numbers 33:2, etc.; which certainly do not exclude a larger Writing:  but, 1.  that Moses thus committed again and again the Laws successively received to writing, even at the command of God; until finally, after all the commandments of God were set forth, he brought them together in one volume, to be deposited by the side of the ark, for a testimony against Israel, Deuteronomy 31:24-26:  but in this volume Prophesies were also inserted, comparing Deuteronomy 31:19, 22.  2.  From the commandment in Exodus 17:14, one may reason from the lesser to the greater; if God expressly willed that this history concerning the Amalekite war be written, no less by His will were written the many, far more memorable (as it seems) Historical matters:  neither was the history of this war, if it should be understood, able to be written alone; but it supposes that many more things were also to be written at the command of God regarding the history of the Israelites.  But when in Numbers 33:2 we read, Now, Moses wrote their goings out unto their journeys by the determination of Jehovah, etc., it is not credible that Moses wrote the journeys of the Israelites in the desert in such a way that he did not at the same time write those things which very notably happened to them; and of which the memory was infinitely more worthy of conservation than of the bare journeys.  3.  Many more things are expressly cited in the New Testament as having been written by Moses, than of which we read that he received from God a commandment to write:  but, while Moses is praised in Hebrews 3:5 as he that was πιστὸς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ ὡς θεράπων, faithful in all His house as a servant, he is to be supposed to have committed to writing neither these things, nor the other things conjoined, without the commandment of God.  And so the positing of the one here is not the exclusion of the other.

β.  Neither is this any more hindered by the fact that Moses speaks of himself in the Third Person and with such a high Opinion, for example, Exodus 6:26, 27; etc.; Numbers 12:3; etc.  But the former is found to obtain among many sacred Writers; take, for example, John, John 19:35; 21:20, 23, 24:  neither is the latter out of accord with the style of the sacred Writers; in that Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah narrate great things concerning themselves, and, while glorying in the Lord, Paul also, in 2 Corinthians 11; 12, and in other passages, narrates what things could make for his own commendation.  One may do even this, when it tends toward the glory of God.  Indeed, this is a proof of the honesty of the Sacred Writers, and among them of Moses also; in that he no less openly acknowledges his vices and infirmities.

γ.  Finally, certain Additions, either Parenthetical, or Attached at the end by some subsequent Prophet, do not constitute the Principal Work, nor take the same from Moses.  For those Parenthetical Additions are not so numerous as indeed they are sometimes imagined:  and from all the examples carefully gathered by Le Clerc, Men, erudite and pious, acknowledge no more than four in which there may be evidence of a parenthetical addition inserted later or of a name changed; for example, Genesis 14:14, in which Abraham is said to have pursued his enemies unto Dan, which is a later name of a city more anciently called Laish;[6] although we are not compelled necessarily to acknowledge that any change was made in the name Dan, see BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period I, section III, § 2, tome I, page 210; which LILIENTHAL equally concerning Hebron and Dan, Oordeelk Bybelverklar, chapter XV, § 11, 12, part 8, pages 20-24.  Thus several times in the place of Kiriath-Arba is substituted Hebron,[7] which name was at length given to the city by Caleb.[8]  Thus in Deuteronomy 3:14, unto this day appears to have been added to the text later, where there is talk concerning the name of the villages of Jair.  To learned men what in Exodus 16:35 is narrated concerning the forty years, through which the gift and use of the Manna continued, appears to be of the same stamp; since that did not cease before the death of Moses, who less aptly also, as it has appeared to some, would have next added here, at the first giving of the Manna, its duration.  However, MARCKIUS judges that this conclusion is not necessary, since Moses lived with Israel for almost the entirety of those forty years of the giving of the Manna, until the eleventh, or perhaps the twelfth, month of the fortieth year:  which forty years of lodging in the desert God had expressly determined, after which the Manna would no longer be necessary.  Therefore, Moses, shortly before his death, was able, so that the entire history of the Manna might be exhibited here, to add this concerning the duration of the giving of it by prolepsis; equally also what things are mentioned in verses 33 and 34, concerning the placing of the Manna before the testimony for safe keeping, were added here by prolepsis:  see MARCKIUS’ Exercitationes textuales I, Part III, Exercise XI, § 18, page 237, 238.  But, although JOSEPHUS, in Antiquities of the Jews, book IV, last chapter, thinks that the very death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34 was written by Moses by way of anticipation, which opinion ORIGEN also supports, book II of contra Celsum, page 93, Spencer’s edition; nevertheless, I should think that it is able to be admitted without difficulty that the argument of that Chapter 34 concerning the Death and Burial of Moses with its consequences was added to the Principal Book in the form of a Conclusion or Appendix by another, but with the Spirit of God impelling:[9]  which, no more than a brief prologue or epilogue added to any book, makes for the denial of the writing of the entire Pentateuch to Moses.  This is also related by our DUTCH interpreters as the most common opinion in their Marginal Notes.  The Most Illustrious SPANHEIM the Younger not without reasons asks in his Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, column 265, at the beginning:  “Because the last things, death, burial, and commendations of Moses were added at the end of Deuteronomy, whether by Joshua, or by Eleazar, or by Ezra the Scribe and Priest (just as the supplements of that sort at the end of Joshua and Nehemiah, so also on the Commentaries of Cæsar, etc.), shall it be concluded from this that the book of Deuteronomy is not Moses’; a book so frequently to be read to the people, to be inculcated, with blessings and curses, Deuteronomy 27 and 28, and with its prophetic Song, Deuteronomy 32?”  For Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch consult SPANHEIM, in the beginning of his Historiaæ Ecclesiasticæ Veteris Testamenti, columns 260-270, and Epoch IV, chapter VII, § 1-4, columns 329-332; GULIELMUS SALDENUS’ Otia Theologica, book I, Exercitation II; WITSIUS’ Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome I, book I, chapter XIV, and Præfationem § 7; MARCKIUS’ Commentarium in præcipuas quasdam partes Pentateuchi ad Deuteronomium 31:9, 24, § VIII, XXI, pages 726-729, 752, 753; DEYLING’S Observationes Sacras, part I, observation II, pages 8-17; BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section I, § XI, pages 425-436, and Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 3, tome 2, pages 1442-1447; likewise de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter VII, § 6, page 456; LULOFS’ Annotationes ad eum (350), pages 465, 466; JOHANN GOTTLOB CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Historicos Veteris Testamenti, chapter III, § 2-10, pages 38-50, chapter IV, § 2, 3, 6, pages 57-64, 71-73, chapter V, § 2, 4, pages 83-86, 88, 89, chapter VII, § 2, 4, pages 121-125, chapter VIII, § 2, pages 136-139; LUSSING’S de Noodzekelykheid van den Godtsdienst in ’t gemeen, en de Zekerheid van den Christelyken in’t byzonder beweert, part 2, dissertation 6, chapters I, II, pages 4-69.  For the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch and the ἀξιοπιστίᾳ/trustworthiness of the argument of these Books against Bolingbroke, read LELAND’S Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, tome 2, chapter 2, letter 11, pages 406-476.  Concerning the Holy Writers of the Books of the Old Testament in general, against Spinoza and Richard Simon, JOHANN HEINRICH HEIDEGGER discourses at length, Exercitationibus Biblicis, VIII, pages 213-244.  The same disputes in favor of the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch, Exercitationibus Biblicis, IX, pages 244-275.  He asserts the Divinity of the Pentateuch, Exercitationibus Biblicis, X, pages 275-350.  He similarly vindicates the remaining Books of the Old Testament from the calumnies of Spinoza and Simon, Exercitationibus Biblicis, XI, pages 350-389.

[1] Namely, Isaac La Peyrère.

[2] David Mill (1692-1756) was a Dutch Orientalist and Reformed Theologian.  He served as Professor of Oriental Languages (1718-1727), and as Professor of Hebrew Antiquities (1727-1756) at Utrecht.

[3] See Deuteronomy 28:64; 30:1-4.

[4] Johannes Lundius (1638-1686) was a Lutheran pastor and Hebraist, and expert on the Jewish Temple and worship.

[5] That is, Leiden.

[6] See Judges 18.

[7] See, for example, Genesis 13:18; 23:2, 19; 35:27; 37:14.

[8] See Joshua 14:13-15; 15:13, 14.

[9] 2 Peter 1:21.