Authorship of the Pentateuch and Other Old Testament Histories

In the former chapter we treated of the foundations and principles of Scriptural knowledge, and showed that it consists solely in a trustworthy history of the sacred writings; such a history, in spite of its indispensability, the ancients neglected, or at any rate, whatever they may have written or handed down has perished in the lapse of time, consequently the groundwork for such an investigation is to a great extent, cut from under us. This might be put up with if succeeding generations had confined themselves within the limits of truth, and had handed down conscientiously what few particulars they had received or discovered without any additions from their own brains: as it is, the history of the Bible is not so much imperfect as untrustworthy: the foundations are not only too scanty for building upon, but are also unsound. It is part of my purpose to remedy these defects, and to remove common theological prejudices. But I fear that I am attempting my task too late, for men have arrived at the pitch of not suffering contradiction, but defending obstinately whatever they have adopted under the name of religion. So widely have these prejudices taken possession of men's minds, that very few, comparatively speaking, will listen to reason. However, I will make the attempt, and spare no efforts, for there is no positive reason for despairing of success.

In the previous chapter, we examined the foundations and principles of understanding Scripture. We showed that this understanding rests solely on a reliable history of the sacred writings. Although such a history is essential, the ancients neglected it. Or at least, whatever they may have written or passed down has been lost over time. As a result, much of the foundation for this investigation is missing. We could accept this loss if later generations had kept to the truth. They should have faithfully passed down the few details they had received or discovered, without adding inventions of their own. As things stand, however, the history of the Bible is not so much incomplete as unreliable. Its foundations are not only too meager to build on, but also unsound. Part of my purpose is to correct these defects and remove common theological prejudices. But I fear I have begun too late. People have reached the point where they will tolerate no contradiction. Instead, they stubbornly defend whatever they have accepted in the name of religion. These prejudices have taken such a firm hold on people's minds that relatively few will listen to reason. Still, I will make the attempt and spare no effort, because there is no definite reason to despair of success.

In order to treat the subject methodically, I will begin with the received opinions concerning the true authors of the sacred books, and in the first place, speak of the author of the Pentateuch, who is almost universally supposed to have been Moses. The Pharisees are so firmly convinced of his identity, that they account as a heretic anyone who differs from them on the subject. Wherefore, Aben Ezra, a man of enlightened intelligence, and no small learning, who was the first, so far as I know, to treat of this opinion, dared not express his meaning openly, but confined himself to dark hints which I shall not scruple to elucidate, thus throwing full light on the subject.

To examine the subject systematically, I will begin with the accepted views about the true authors of the sacred books. First, I will discuss the author of the Pentateuch, whom almost everyone believes to have been Moses. The Pharisees are so firmly convinced that Moses was the author that they consider anyone who disagrees a heretic. As a result, Aben Ezra dared not state his meaning openly. He was a man of keen intelligence and considerable learning. As far as I know, he was the first to examine this view. But he limited himself to obscure hints. I will not hesitate to explain those hints and so bring the subject fully to light.

The words of Aben Ezra which occur in his commentary on Deuteronomy are as follows: "Beyond Jordan, &c. . . . If so be that thou understandest the mystery of the twelve . . . moreover Moses wrote the law . . . The Canaanite was then in the land . . . . it shall be revealed on the mount of God . . . . then also behold his bed, his iron bed, then shalt thou know the truth." In these few words he hints, and also shows that it was not Moses who wrote the Pentateuch, but someone who lived long after him, and further, that the book which Moses wrote was something different from any now extant.

Aben Ezra writes the following in his commentary on Deuteronomy: "Beyond Jordan, etc. . . . If you understand the mystery of the twelve . . . moreover Moses wrote the law . . . The Canaanite was then in the land . . . it will be revealed on the mount of God . . . then also look at his bed, his iron bed, and you will know the truth." In these few words, he hints and also shows that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. Instead, someone who lived long after Moses wrote it. He further shows that the book Moses wrote was different from any book that survives today.

To prove this, I say, he draws attention to the facts:

As I say, he points to the facts to prove this:

1. That the preface to Deuteronomy could not have been written by Moses, inasmuch as he ad never crossed the Jordan.

1. Moses could not have written the preface to Deuteronomy because he had never crossed the Jordan.

II. That the whole book of Moses was written at full length on the circumference of a single altar (Deut. xxvii, and Josh. viii:37), which altar, according to the Rabbis, consisted of only twelve stones: therefore the book of Moses must have been of far less extent than the Pentateuch. This is what our author means, I think, by the mystery of the twelve, unless he is referring to the twelve curses contained in the chapter of Deuteronomy above cited, which he thought could not have been contained in the law, because Moses bade the Levites read them after the recital of the law, and so bind the people to its observance. Or again, he may have had in his mind the last chapter of Deuteronomy which treats of the death of Moses, and which contains twelve verses. But there is no need to dwell further on these and similar conjectures.

II. The whole book of Moses was written out in full around a single altar (Deut. xxvii, and Josh. viii:37). According to the Rabbis, the altar consisted of only twelve stones. Therefore, the book of Moses must have been much shorter than the Pentateuch. I think this is what our author means by the mystery of the twelve. He may instead be referring to the twelve curses in the chapter of Deuteronomy cited above. He thought these curses could not have been included in the law, because Moses told the Levites to read them afterward. Reading the curses after the law would bind the people to obey the law. Or again, he may have been thinking of the last chapter of Deuteronomy. That chapter describes the death of Moses and contains twelve verses. But there is no need to spend more time on these and similar guesses.

III. That in Deut. xxxi:9, the expression occurs, "and Moses wrote the law:" words that cannot be ascribed to Moses, but must be those of some other writer narrating the deeds and writings of Moses.

III. Deut. xxxi:9 contains the words, "and Moses wrote the law:" These words cannot be Moses’ own. They must come from another writer describing Moses’ deeds and writings.

IV. That in Genesis xii:6, the historian, after narrating that Abraham journeyed through the and of Canaan, adds, "and the Canaanite was then in the land," thus clearly excluding the time at which he wrote. So that this passage must have been written after the death of Moses, when the Canaanites had been driven out, and no longer possessed the land.

IV. In Genesis 12:6, the historian describes Abraham’s journey through the land of Canaan. He then adds, "and the Canaanite was then in the land," clearly excluding the time when he was writing. So this passage must have been written after Moses died, when the Canaanites had been driven out and no longer possessed the land.

Aben Ezra, in his commentary on the passage, alludes to the difficulty as follows:- "And the Canaanite was then in the land: it appears that Canaan, the grandson of Noah, took from another the land which bears his name; if this be not the true meaning, there lurks some mystery in the passage, and let him who understands it keep silence." That is, if Canaan invaded those regions, the sense will be, the Canaanite was then in the land, in contradistinction to the time when it had been held by another: but if, as follows from Gen. chap. x. Canaan was the first to inhabit the land, the text must mean to exclude the time present, that is the time at which it was written; therefore it cannot be the work of Moses, in whose time the Canaanites still possessed those territories: this is the mystery concerning which silence is recommended.

Aben Ezra, in his commentary on the passage, hints at the difficulty as follows: "And the Canaanite was then in the land: it appears that Canaan, Noah’s grandson, took the land named after him from someone else. If this is not the true meaning, some mystery lies hidden in the passage. Let anyone who understands the mystery remain silent." That is, if Canaan invaded those regions, the passage contrasts two periods. The Canaanite was then in the land, whereas someone else had held the land before. But suppose Canaan was the first to inhabit the land, as follows from Genesis, chapter 10. Then the text must exclude the present, meaning the time when the text was written. Therefore, Moses cannot have written the text, because the Canaanites still held those territories in his time. This is the mystery about which Aben Ezra recommends silence.

V. That in Genesis xxii:14 Mount Moriah is called the mount of God⁹ a name which it did not acquire till after the building of the Temple; the choice of the mountain was not made in the time of Moses, for Moses does not point out any spot as chosen by God; on the contrary, he foretells that God will at some future time choose a spot to which this name will be given.

V. In Genesis 22:14, Mount Moriah is called the mount of God⁹. The mountain did not receive that name until after the Temple was built. The mountain was not chosen in Moses’ time, for Moses does not identify any place as chosen by God. On the contrary, Moses predicts that God will choose a place in the future that will receive this name.

VI. Lastly, that in Deut. chap. iii., in the passage relating to Og, king of Bashan, these words are inserted: "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants: behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron: is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man." This parenthesis most plainly shows that its writer lived long after Moses; for this mode of speaking is only employed by one treating of things long past, and pointing to relics for the sake of gaining credence: moreover, this bed was almost certainly first discovered by David, who conquered the city of Rabbath (2 Sam. xii:30.) Again, the historian a little further on inserts after the words of Moses, "Jair, the son of Manasseh, took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this day." This passage, I say, is inserted to explain the words of Moses which precede it. "And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which is called the land of the giants." The Hebrews in the time of the writer indisputably knew what territories belonged to the tribe of Judah, but did not know them under the name of the jurisdiction of Argob, or the land of the giants. Therefore the writer is compelled to explain what these places were which were anciently so styled, and at the same time to point out why they were at the time of his writing known by the name of Jair, who was of the tribe of Manasseh, not of Judah. We have thus made clear the meaning of Aben Ezra and also the passages of the Pentateuch which he cites in proof of his contention. However, Aben Ezra does not call attention to every instance, or even the chief ones; there remain many of greater importance, which may be cited. Namely (I.), that the writer of the books in question not only speaks of Moses in the third person, but also bears witness to many details concerning him; for instance, "Moses talked with God;" "The Lord spoke with Moses face to face;" "Moses was the meekest of men" (Numb. xii:3); "Moses was wrath with the captains of the host; "Moses, the man of God, "Moses, the servant of the Lord, died;" "There was never a prophet in Israel like unto Moses," &c. On the other hand, in Deuteronomy, where the law which Moses had expounded to the people and written is set forth, Moses speaks and declares what he has done in the first person: "God spake with me" (Deut. ii:1, 17, &c.), "I prayed to the Lord," &c. Except at the end of the book, when the historian, after relating the words of Moses, begins again to speak in the third person, and to tell how Moses handed over the law which he had expounded to the people in writing, again admonishing them, and further, how Moses ended his life. All these details, the manner of narration, the testimony, and the context of the whole story lead to the plain conclusion that these books were written by another, and not by Moses in person.

VI. Lastly, Deuteronomy chapter iii contains an inserted passage about Og, king of Bashan: "For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the surviving giants. His bed was made of iron. Is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? It was nine cubits long and four cubits wide, measured by the ordinary human cubit." This aside shows very clearly that its writer lived long after Moses. Only someone discussing the distant past would speak this way and point to surviving objects to support his account. Moreover, the bed was almost certainly first discovered by David, who conquered the city of Rabbath (2 Sam. xii:30). Again, a little later, the historian inserts this passage after Moses' words: "Jair, the son of Manasseh, took all the country of Argob as far as the borders of Geshuri and Maachathi. He named these lands after himself, Bashan-havoth-jair, as they are called to this day." This passage, I say, was inserted to explain the preceding words of Moses: "I gave the rest of Gilead and all Bashan, the kingdom of Og, to the half tribe of Manasseh. This included the whole region of Argob, with all Bashan, which is called the land of the giants." The Hebrews in the writer's time unquestionably knew which territories belonged to the tribe of Judah. But they did not know those territories as the district of Argob or the land of the giants. The writer therefore had to explain which places had once borne those names. At the same time, he had to explain why those places were known in his day by Jair's name. Jair belonged to the tribe of Manasseh, not Judah. We have now clarified Aben Ezra's meaning and the passages from the Pentateuch he cites to support his argument. However, Aben Ezra does not draw attention to every instance, or even the most important ones. Many more important examples remain to be cited. Namely (I.), the writer of these books not only speaks of Moses in the third person. He also gives testimony about many details concerning Moses. For example: "Moses talked with God", "The Lord spoke with Moses face to face", "Moses was the humblest of men" (Numb. xii:3), "Moses was angry with the army commanders", "Moses, the man of God", "Moses, the servant of the Lord, died", "There was never a prophet in Israel like Moses", and so on. By contrast, Deuteronomy presents the law that Moses had explained to the people and written down. There Moses speaks in the first person and describes what he has done: "God spoke with me" (Deut. ii:1, 17, etc.), "I prayed to the Lord", and so on. The exception comes at the end of the book. After reporting Moses' words, the historian returns to the third person. He describes how Moses handed over in writing the law he had explained to the people, while again warning them. He then tells how Moses' life ended. All these details, the narrative style, the testimony, and the context of the whole account lead to a clear conclusion. These books were written by someone other than Moses himself.

III. We must also remark that the history relates not only the manner of Moses' death and burial, and the thirty days' mourning of the Hebrews, but further compares him with all the prophets who came after him, and states that he surpassed them all. "There was never a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." Such testimony cannot have been given of Moses by himself, nor by any who immediately succeeded him, but it must come from someone who lived centuries afterwards, especially, as the historian speaks of past times. "There was never a prophet," &c. And of the place of burial, "No one knows it to this day."

III. We must also note that the history describes Moses' death and burial, and the Hebrews' thirty days of mourning. But it also compares Moses with all the prophets who came after him and says he surpassed them all. "There was never a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." Moses could not have written this statement about himself, nor could anyone who immediately succeeded him. Instead, the statement must come from someone who lived centuries later, especially since the historian speaks of the past. "There was never a prophet," and so on. And about the burial place, "No one knows it to this day."

III. We must note that some places are not styled by the names they bore during Moses' lifetime, but by others which they obtained subsequently. For instance, Abraham is said to have pursued his enemies even unto Dan, a name not bestowed on the city till long after the death of Joshua (Gen. xiv:14, Judges xviii:29).

III. We must note that some places are not called by the names they had during Moses' lifetime. Instead, they are called by names they received later. For example, Abraham is said to have pursued his enemies as far as Dan. But the city did not receive the name Dan until long after Joshua's death (Gen. xiv:14, Judges xviii:29).

IV. The narrative is prolonged after the death of Moses, for in Exodus xvi:34 we read that "the children of Israel did eat manna forty years until they came to a land inhabited, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan." In other words, until the time alluded to in Joshua vi:12.

IV. The narrative continues beyond the death of Moses. For in Exodus xvi:34 we read that "the children of Israel ate manna for forty years until they reached inhabited land. They ate it until they reached the borders of the land of Canaan." In other words, until the time referred to in Joshua vi:12.

So, too, in Genesis xxxvi:31 it is stated, "These are the kings that reigned in Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." The historian, doubtless, here relates the kings of Idumaea before that territory was conquered by David¹⁰ and garrisoned, as we read in 2 Sam. viii:14. From what has been said, it is thus clearer than the sun at noonday that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who lived long after Moses. Let us now turn our attention to the books which Moses actually did write, and which are cited in the Pentateuch; thus, also, shall we see that they were different from the Pentateuch. Firstly, it appears from Exodus xvii:14 that Moses, by the command of God, wrote an account of the war against Amalek. The book in which he did so is not named in the chapter just quoted, but in Numb. xxi:12 a book is referred to under the title of the wars of God, and doubtless this war against Amalek and the castrametations said in Numb. xxxiii:2 to have been written by Moses are therein described. We hear also in Exod. xxiv:4 of another book called the Book of the Covenant, which Moses read before the Israelites when they first made a covenant with God. But this book or this writing contained very little, namely, the laws or commandments of God which we find in Exodus xx:22 to the end of chap. xxiv., and this no one will deny who reads the aforesaid chapter rationally and impartially. It is there stated that as soon as Moses had learnt the feeling of the people on the subject of making a covenant with God, he immediately wrote down God's laws and utterances, and in the morning, after some ceremonies had been performed, read out the conditions of the covenant to an assembly of the whole people. When these had been gone through, and doubtless understood by all, the whole people gave their assent.

Similarly, Genesis 36:31 states, "These are the kings that reigned in Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." The historian is undoubtedly listing the kings of Idumaea before David¹⁰ conquered that territory and stationed troops there. We read of this conquest and occupation in 2 Samuel 8:14. From what has been said, it is clearer than the sun at noon that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. Instead, someone who lived long after Moses wrote it. Let us now consider the books Moses actually wrote, which are cited in the Pentateuch. This will also show us that those books were different from the Pentateuch. First, Exodus 17:14 shows that Moses, at God's command, wrote an account of the war against Amalek. That chapter does not name the book containing this account. But Numbers 21:12 refers to a book called the Wars of God. Undoubtedly, that book describes the war against Amalek and the encampments that Numbers 33:2 says Moses recorded. Exodus 24:4 also mentions another book, called the Book of the Covenant. Moses read this book to the Israelites when they first made a covenant with God. But this book, or written account, contained very little. It contained only God's laws or commandments found in Exodus 20:22 through the end of chapter 24. No one who reads that chapter reasonably and impartially will deny this. The chapter says that Moses learned how the people felt about making a covenant with God. As soon as he learned their response, he wrote down God's laws and words. In the morning, after some ceremonies had been performed, Moses read the covenant's terms to an assembly of all the people. Once all the terms had been read, and undoubtedly understood by everyone, all the people gave their consent.

Now from the shortness of the time taken in its perusal and also from its nature as a compact, this document evidently contained nothing more than that which we have just described. Further, it is clear that Moses explained all the laws which he had received in the fortieth year after the exodus from Egypt; also that he bound over the people a second time to observe them, and that finally he committed them to writing (Deut. i:5; xxix:14; xxxi:9), in a book which contained these laws explained, and the new covenant, and this book was therefore called the book of the law of God: the same which was afterwards added to by Joshua when he set forth the fresh covenant with which he bound over the people and which he entered into with God (Josh. xxiv:25, 26).

The document took little time to read and was itself a covenant. These facts show clearly that it contained nothing beyond what we have just described. Further, Moses clearly explained all the laws he had received in the fortieth year after the exodus from Egypt. He also bound the people a second time to obey those laws. Finally, he put them in writing (Deut. i:5, xxix:14, xxxi:9). The resulting book contained the laws with their explanations and the new covenant. It was therefore called the book of the law of God. Joshua later added to this same book when he set out a fresh covenant. Through that covenant, Joshua bound the people and entered into an agreement with God (Josh. xxiv:25, 26).

Now, as we have extent no book containing this covenant of Moses and also the covenant of Joshua, we must perforce conclude that it has perished, unless, indeed, we adopt the wild conjecture of the Chaldean paraphrast Jonathan, and twist about the words of Scripture to our heart's content. This commentator, in the face of our present difficulty, preferred corrupting the sacred text to confessing his own ignorance. The passage in the book of Joshua which runs, "and Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God," he changes into "and Joshua wrote these words and kept them with the book of the law of God." What is to be done with persons who will only see what pleases them? What is such a proceeding if it is not denying Scripture, and inventing another Bible out of our own heads? We may therefore conclude that the book of the law of God which Moses wrote was not the Pentateuch, but something quite different, which the author of the Pentateuch duly inserted into his book. So much is abundantly plain both from what I have said and from what I am about to add. For in the passage of Deuteronomy above quoted, where it is related that Moses wrote the book of the law, the historian adds that he handed it over to the priests and bade them read it out at a stated time to the whole people. This shows that the work was of much less length than the Pentateuch, inasmuch as it could be read through at one sitting so as to be understood by all; further, we must not omit to notice that out of all the books which Moses wrote, this one book of the second covenant and the song (which latter he wrote afterwards so that all the people might learn it), was the only one which he caused to be religiously guarded and preserved. In the first covenant he had only bound over those who were present, but in the second covenant he bound over all their descendants also (Dent. xxix:14), and therefore ordered this covenant with future ages to be religiously preserved, together with the Song, which was especially addressed to posterity: as, then, we have no proof that Moses wrote any book save this of the covenant, and as he committed no other to the care of posterity; and, lastly, as there are many passages in the Pentateuch which Moses could not have written, it follows that the belief that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch is ungrounded and even irrational. Someone will perhaps ask whether Moses did not also write down other laws when they were first revealed to him - in other words, whether, during the course of forty years, he did not write down any of the laws which he promulgated, save only those few which I have stated to be contained in the book of the first covenant. To this I would answer, that although it seems reasonable to suppose that Moses wrote down the laws at the time when he wished to communicate them to the people, yet we are not warranted to take it as proved, for I have shown above that we must make no assertions in such matters which we do not gather from Scripture, or which do not flow as legitimate consequences from its fundamental principles. We must not accept whatever is reasonably probable. However even reason in this case would not force such a conclusion upon us: for it may be that the assembly of elders wrote down the decrees of Moses and communicated them to the people, and the historian collected them, and duly set them forth in his narrative of the life of Moses. So much for the five books of Moses: it is now time for us to turn to the other sacred writings.

No surviving book contains both this covenant of Moses and the covenant of Joshua. So we must conclude that the book has been lost. The only alternative is to accept the wild guess of the Chaldean paraphrast Jonathan, twisting Scripture’s words however we please. Faced with this difficulty, Jonathan preferred to corrupt the sacred text rather than admit his ignorance. The passage in Joshua reads, "and Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God," but Jonathan changes it. His version reads, "and Joshua wrote these words and kept them with the book of the law of God." What can we do with people who see only what pleases them? What is this approach but a denial of Scripture and the invention of another Bible from our own imaginations? We may therefore conclude that the book of the law of God written by Moses was not the Pentateuch. It was something quite different, which the author of the Pentateuch incorporated into his book. This conclusion is abundantly clear from both what I have said and what I am about to add. The passage from Deuteronomy quoted above says that Moses wrote the book of the law. The historian adds that Moses gave the book to the priests. Moses instructed them to read it to all the people at a set time. This shows that the book was much shorter than the Pentateuch. It could be read through in one sitting so that everyone could understand it. We must also notice something about all the books Moses wrote. Only this book of the second covenant and the song were, by his command, carefully guarded and preserved as sacred. Moses wrote the song later so that all the people could learn it. The first covenant bound only those who were present. But the second covenant also bound all their descendants (Deut. 29:14). Moses therefore ordered that this covenant with future generations be carefully preserved as sacred, together with the Song. The Song was addressed especially to future generations. We have no proof that Moses wrote any book except this book of the covenant. Nor did he entrust any other book to future generations. Finally, the Pentateuch contains many passages that Moses could not have written. It follows that the belief that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is unfounded and even irrational. Perhaps someone will ask whether Moses also wrote down other laws when they were first revealed to him. In other words, did he write down none of the laws he proclaimed over forty years, except those few already mentioned? Those are the laws I have said were contained in the book of the first covenant. My answer is that it seems reasonable to suppose Moses wrote down laws when he wished to communicate them to the people. Yet we have no grounds for treating that supposition as proven. As I showed above, we must make no claims about such matters unless Scripture supports them. Such claims must either come directly from Scripture or follow as valid conclusions from its fundamental principles. We must not accept something merely because it is reasonably probable. However, even reason would not compel us to reach that conclusion here. The assembly of elders may have written down Moses’ decrees and communicated them to the people. The historian may then have collected those decrees and presented them in his account of Moses’ life. So much for the five books of Moses. It is now time to turn to the other sacred writings.

The book of Joshua may be proved not to be an autograph by reasons similar to those we have just employed: for it must be some other than Joshua who testifies that the fame of Joshua was spread over the whole world; that he omitted nothing of what Moses had taught (Josh. vi:27; viii. last verse; xi:15); that he grew old and summoned an assembly of the whole people, and finally that he departed this life. Furthermore, events are related which took place after Joshua's death. For instance, that the Israelites worshipped God, after his death, so long as there were any old men alive who remembered him; and in chap. xvi:10, we read that "Ephraim and Manasseh did not drive out the Canaanites which dwelt in Gezer, but the Canaanite dwelt in the land of Ephraim unto this day, and was tributary to him." This is the same statement as that in Judges, chap. i., and the phrase "unto this day" shows that the writer was speaking of ancient times. With these texts we may compare the last verse of chap. xv., concerning the sons of Judah, and also the history of Caleb in the same chap. v:14. Further, the building of an altar beyond Jordan by the two tribes and a half, chap. xxii:10, sqq., seems to have taken place after the death of Joshua, for in the whole narrative his name is never mentioned, but the people alone held council as to waging war, sent out legates, waited for their return, and finally approved of their answer.

The book of Joshua can be shown not to have been written by Joshua himself, using reasons like those just given. For someone other than Joshua must have reported that Joshua’s fame spread throughout the world. The same applies to the statement that Joshua left out nothing Moses had taught (Josh. 6:27, 8, last verse, 11:15). Someone else must also have reported that Joshua grew old, assembled the whole people, and finally died. Furthermore, the book describes events that took place after Joshua’s death. For example, the Israelites worshipped God after his death as long as any elders who remembered him remained alive. And in chapter 16:10, we read that "Ephraim and Manasseh did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer. But the Canaanites lived in the land of Ephraim to this day and paid tribute to him." The same statement appears in Judges, chapter 1. The phrase "to this day" shows that the writer was speaking of ancient times. We may compare these passages with the last verse of chapter 15, concerning the sons of Judah. We may also compare them with the account of Caleb in verse 14 of the same chapter. Further, the two and a half tribes seem to have built their altar beyond Jordan after Joshua’s death (chapter 22:10 onward). For Joshua’s name never appears anywhere in the account. Instead, the people alone discussed whether to wage war, sent representatives, waited for their return, and finally approved their answer.

Lastly, from chap. x:14, it is clear that the book was written many generations after the death of Joshua, for it bears witness, there was never any, day like unto, that day, either before or after, that the Lord hearkened to the voice of a man," &c. If, therefore, Joshua wrote any book at all, it was that which is quoted in the work now before us, chap. x:13.

Finally, chapter 10:14 makes clear that the book was written many generations after Joshua’s death. For the book states, "There was never a day like that day, either before or after, when the Lord listened to a man," and so on. Therefore, if Joshua wrote any book at all, it was the book quoted in chapter 10:13 of the present work.

With regard to the book of Judges, I suppose no rational person persuades himself that it was written by the actual Judges. For the conclusion of the whole history contained in chap. ii. clearly shows that it is all the work - of a single historian. Further, inasmuch as the writer frequently tells us that there was then no king in Israel, it is evident that the book was written after the establishment of the monarchy.

As for the book of Judges, I suppose no rational person believes the actual Judges wrote it. For the conclusion of the whole history in chapter 2 clearly shows that a single historian wrote the entire book. Furthermore, the writer frequently tells us that there was no king in Israel at the time. So it is clear that the book was written after the monarchy was established.

The books of Samuel need not detain us long, inasmuch as the narrative in them is continued long after Samuel's death; but I should like to draw attention to the fact that it was written many generations after Samuel's death. For in book i. chap. ix:9, the historian remarks in a, parenthesis, "Beforetime, in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake: Come, and let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a prophet was beforetime called a seer."

The books of Samuel need not take much time, since their narrative continues long after Samuel's death. But I want to point out that these books were written many generations after Samuel's death. For in the first book, chapter 9, verse 9, the historian adds a parenthetical remark: "In earlier times in Israel, when someone went to consult God, he would say: Come, let us visit the seer. For someone now called a prophet was formerly called a seer."

Lastly, the books of Kings, as we gather from internal evidence, were compiled from the books of King Solomon (I Kings xi:41), from the chronicles of the kings of Judah (1 Kings xiv:19, 29), and the chronicles of the kings of Israel.

Finally, evidence within the books of Kings shows that they were compiled from several sources. These sources were the books of King Solomon (I Kings xi:41), the chronicles of the kings of Judah (1 Kings xiv:19, 29), and the chronicles of the kings of Israel.

We may, therefore, conclude that all the books we have considered hitherto are compilations, and that the events therein are recorded as having happened in old time. Now, if we turn our attention to the connection and argument of all these books, we shall easily see that they were all written by a single historian, who wished to relate the antiquities of the Jews from their first beginning down to the first destruction of the city. The way in which the several books are connected one with the other is alone enough to show us that they form the narrative of one and the same writer. For as soon as he has related the life of Moses, the historian thus passes on to the story of Joshua: "And it came to pass after that Moses the servant of the Lord was dead, that God spake unto Joshua," &c., so in the same way, after the death of Joshua was concluded, he passes with identically the same transition and connection to the history of the Judges: "And it came to pass after that Joshua was dead, that the children of Israel sought from God," &c. To the book of Judges he adds the story of Ruth, as a sort of appendix, in these words: "Now it came to pass in the days that the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land."

We may therefore conclude that all the books considered so far are compilations. The events in these books are presented as having happened long ago. Now, if we examine how all these books connect and how their accounts develop, we will easily see something further. All were written by a single historian. His aim was to recount the ancient history of the Jews, from their earliest beginnings to the city's first destruction. The connections between the books alone are enough to show that they form a single writer's narrative. After recounting the life of Moses, the historian moves on to the story of Joshua: "After Moses, the servant of the Lord, died, God spoke to Joshua," and so on. In the same way, after finishing his account of Joshua's death, he turns to the history of the Judges. He uses exactly the same transition and connection: "After Joshua died, the children of Israel sought guidance from God," and so on. To the book of Judges he adds the story of Ruth as a kind of appendix, with these words: "In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land."

The first book of Samuel is introduced with a similar phrase; and so is the second book of Samuel. Then, before the history of David is concluded, the historian passes in the same way to the first book of Kings, and, after David's death, to the Second book of Kings.

The first book of Samuel begins with a similar phrase, as does the second book of Samuel. Then, before finishing David's story, the historian moves in the same way to the first book of Kings. After David's death, the historian moves to the second book of Kings.

The putting together, and the order of the narratives, show that they are all the work of one man, writing with a create aim; for the historian begins with relating the first origin of the Hebrew nation, and then sets forth in order the times and the occasions in which Moses put forth his laws, and made his predictions. He then proceeds to relate how the Israelites invaded the promised land in accordance with Moses' prophecy (Deut. vii.); and how, when the land was subdued, they turned their backs on their laws, and thereby incurred many misfortunes (Deut. xxxi:16, 17). He tells how they wished to elect rulers, and how, according as these rulers observed the law, the people flourished or suffered (Deut. xxviii:36); finally, how destruction came upon the nation, even as Moses had foretold. In regard to other matters, which do not serve to confirm the law, the writer either passes over them in silence, or refers the reader to other books for information. All that is set down in the books we have conduces to the sole object of setting forth the words and laws of Moses, and proving them by subsequent events.When we put together these three considerations, namely, the unity of the subject of all the books, the connection between them, and the fact that they are compilations made many generations after the events they relate had taken place, we come to the conclusion, as I have just stated, that they are all the work of a single historian. Who this historian was, it is not so easy to show; but I suspect that he was Ezra, and there are several strong reasons for adopting this hypothesis.

The way the narratives are assembled and arranged shows that all were written by one man with a specific purpose. The historian begins by describing the origins of the Hebrew nation. He then explains, in order, when and under what circumstances Moses issued his laws and made his predictions. Next, he describes how the Israelites invaded the promised land in accordance with Moses' prophecy (Deut. vii.). Once they had conquered the land, they turned their backs on their laws and suffered many misfortunes as a result (Deut. xxxi:16, 17). He describes how they wished to choose rulers. He then shows how the people prospered or suffered depending on whether these rulers obeyed the law (Deut. xxviii:36). Finally, he describes how destruction came upon the nation, just as Moses had foretold. The writer either leaves out other matters that do not help confirm the law or directs readers to other books. Everything recorded in the books we have serves a single purpose: to present Moses' words and laws and prove them through later events. Taken together, three considerations lead us to the conclusion I have just stated. All the books share one subject, the books are connected, and they were compiled many generations after the events described. We therefore conclude that all these books are the work of a single historian. Identifying this historian is not so easy. But I suspect he was Ezra, and there are several strong reasons for accepting this hypothesis.

The historian whom we already know to be but one individual brings his history down to the liberation of Jehoiakim, and adds that he himself sat at the king's table all his life - that is, at the table either of Jehoiakim, or of the son of Nebuchadnezzar, for the sense of the passage is ambiguous: hence it follows that he did not live before the time of Ezra. But Scripture does not testify of any except of Ezra (Ezra vii:10), that he "prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to set it forth, and further that he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses." Therefore, I can not find anyone, save Ezra, to whom to attribute the sacred books.

The historian, whom we already know to be a single individual, ends his history with the liberation of Jehoiakim. He adds that he himself ate at the king's table all his life. This means either Jehoiakim's table or that of Nebuchadnezzar's son, since the passage is ambiguous. It follows that the historian did not live before Ezra's time. But Scripture says only of Ezra (Ezra vii:10) that he "devoted himself to studying the Lord's law and explaining it, and was also a skilled scribe in Moses' law." Therefore, I can find no one but Ezra to whom I can attribute the sacred books.

Further, from this testimony concerning Ezra, we see that he prepared his heart, not only to seek the law of the Lord, but also to set it forth; and, in Nehemiah viii:8, we read that "they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading."

Further, this account of Ezra shows that he prepared himself not only to study the Lord’s law but also to explain it. And in Nehemiah 8:8, we read that "they read clearly from the book of God’s law and explained its meaning. They helped the people understand what was read."

As, then, in Deuteronomy, we find not only the book of the law of Moses, or the greater part of it, but also many things inserted for its better explanation, I conjecture that this Deuteronomy is the book of the law of God, written, set forth, and explained by Ezra, which is referred to in the text above quoted. Two examples of the way matters were inserted parenthetically in the text of Deuteronomy, with a view to its fuller explanation, we have already given, in speaking of Aben Ezra's opinion. Many others are found in the course of the work: for instance, in chap. ii:12: "The Horims dwelt also in Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them." This explains verses 3 and 4 of the same chapter, where it is stated that Mount Seir, which had come to the children of Esau for a possession, did not fall into their hands uninhabited; but that they invaded it, and turned out and destroyed the Horims, who formerly dwelt therein, even as the children of Israel had done unto the Canaanites after the death of Moses.

Deuteronomy, then, contains not only the book of the law of Moses, or most of it, but also many explanatory additions. I therefore conjecture that Deuteronomy is the book of the law of God mentioned in the passage quoted above. Ezra wrote, presented, and explained that book. In discussing Aben Ezra's opinion, we have already given two examples of parenthetical additions intended to explain Deuteronomy more fully. Many others appear throughout the work. For instance, chapter ii:12 says: "The Horims also lived in Seir before that time. But the children of Esau succeeded them, destroying them and settling in their place. This was just as Israel did in the land the Lord gave them to possess." This passage explains verses 3 and 4 of the same chapter. Mount Seir had become the possession of the children of Esau, but the land was not uninhabited when they acquired it. Rather, the children of Esau invaded Seir, driving out and destroying the Horims who had previously lived there. This was just as the children of Israel had done to the Canaanites after the death of Moses.

So, also, verses 6, 7, 8, 9, of the tenth chapter are inserted parenthetically among the words of Moses. Everyone must see that verse 8, which begins, "At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi," necessarily refers to verse 5, and not to the death of Aaron, which is only mentioned here by Ezra because Moses, in telling of the golden calf worshipped by the people, stated that he had prayed for Aaron.

Likewise, verses 6, 7, 8, and 9 of chapter 10 are inserted as an aside among Moses’ words. Everyone must see that verse 8, beginning "At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi," necessarily refers to verse 5. It does not refer to Aaron’s death. Ezra mentions Aaron’s death here only because Moses said he had prayed for Aaron while describing the people’s worship of the golden calf.

He then explains that at the time at which Moses spoke, God had chosen for Himself the tribe of Levi in order that He may point out the reason for their election, and for the fact of their not sharing in the inheritance; after this digression, he resumes the thread of Moses' speech. To these parentheses we must add the preface to the book, and all the passages in which Moses is spoken of in the third person, besides many which we cannot now distinguish, though, doubtless, they would have been plainly recognized by the writer's contemporaries.

He then explains that, when Moses spoke, God had chosen the tribe of Levi for himself. He does so to explain why they were chosen and why they received no share of the inheritance. After this digression, he returns to Moses' speech. To these asides we must add the book's preface and all passages that refer to Moses in the third person. We must also add many passages we can no longer identify. The writer's contemporaries, however, would undoubtedly have recognized those passages clearly.

If, I say, we were in possession of the book of the law as Moses wrote it, I do not doubt that we should find a great difference in the words of the precepts, the order in which they are given, and the reasons by which they are supported.

As I said, if we had the book of the law as Moses wrote it, I have no doubt we would find major differences. The wording of the commands would differ greatly. So would their order and the reasons given to support them.

A comparison of the decalogue in Deuteronomy with the decalogue in Exodus, where its history is explicitly set forth, will be sufficient to show us a wide discrepancy in all these three particulars, for the fourth commandment is given not only in a different form, but at much greater length, while the reason for its observance differs wholly from that stated in Exodus. Again, the order in which the tenth commandment is explained differs in the two versions. I think that the differences here as elsewhere are the work of Ezra, who explained the law of God to his contemporaries, and who wrote this book of the law of God, before anything else; this I gather from the fact that it contains the laws of the country, of which the people stood in most need, and also because it is not joined to the book which precedes it by any connecting phrase, but begins with the independent statement, "these are the words of Moses." After this task was completed, I think Ezra set himself to give a complete account of the history of the Hebrew nation from the creation of the world to the entire destruction of the city, and in this account he inserted the book of Deuteronomy, and, possibly, he called the first five books by the name of Moses, because his life is chiefly contained therein, and forms their principal subject; for the same reason he called the sixth Joshua, the seventh Judges, the eighth Ruth, the ninth, and perhaps the tenth, Samuel, and, lastly, the eleventh and twelfth Kings. Whether Ezra put the finishing touches to this work and finished it as he intended, we will discuss in the next chapter.

Comparing the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy with those in Exodus will reveal major differences in all three respects. Exodus explicitly recounts the history of the commandments. The fourth commandment differs not only in wording but also in length, being much longer in Deuteronomy. The reason given for observing it also differs entirely from the reason in Exodus. The two versions also explain the tenth commandment in a different order. I think these differences, here as elsewhere, are the work of Ezra, who explained God's law to his contemporaries. I also think he wrote this book of God's law before anything else. I infer this because the book contains the laws of the country, which the people needed most. Also, no connecting phrase links it to the preceding book. Instead, it begins with the independent statement, "these are the words of Moses." After completing this task, I think Ezra began writing a complete history of the Hebrew nation. His account covered the period from the creation of the world to the city's complete destruction. He inserted the book of Deuteronomy into this account. Possibly, he named the first five books after Moses because they contain most of his life as their main subject. For the same reason, he called the sixth book Joshua, the seventh Judges, and the eighth Ruth. He called the ninth, and perhaps the tenth, Samuel, and finally the eleventh and twelfth Kings. In the next chapter, we will discuss whether Ezra put the finishing touches to this work and completed it as intended.