4. Internal Testimony
From the contents, and especially from the composition of the Pentateuch, reasons appear which
show that the Pentateuch is neither
by Moses nor by a contemporary, nor
indeed the
work of one hand. (1)
Moses would not have written concerning his own Egyptian name as the passage
Ex. ii. 10
is worded; moreover, he would have called by their
proper names both the king's daughter who rescued
him and the Pharaoh of the oppression and of the
exodus, while in the Pentateuch Pharaoh is used
as
though it were a proper name; he would have
made known the identity of Reguel and Jethro,
would not have mentioned the Cushite woman in
the manner of
Num. xii. 1;
and he can not have
written the conclusion of the genealogy found in
Es. vi. 26-27. (2) Numerous geographical, archeological, and historical
details indicate post-Mosaic
times. Such are the mention of Hormah,
Num. xxi. 3;
Deut. i. 44;
and the villages of Jair,
Deut. iii. 14
(cf.
Num. xxxii. 41;
Josh. xiii. 30;
Judges x. 4).
The passage which cites the Book of the Wars of
Yahweh,
Num. xxi. 14-15,
must be post-Mosaic,
since the contemporaries of Moses who were led
across the Arnon did not need a testimony that this
river was in their time the northern
border of Moab.
The summary of stations in Num. xxxiii., even
though with Ewald verses 36b-41 a are put after verse
30a, gives no clear picture of the journey through
the wilderness; moreover, it is strange that Hadesh
is mentioned only once, though elsewhere it is stated
that the Israelites were there in the second and in
the fortieth year. (3) That the Pentateuch is not
by one hand, but a composite, follows from the fact
that there is a lack of relationship between parts
which, were they by the same author, would have
been brought into express connection by crossreference. How strongly the reader of Gen. xxvi.
is reminded of Gen. xx.-xxi., where the similar
experiences of Abraham and Isaac are recorded I
And yet the later narrative contains no reference
to that containing the earlier event. With reference
to Genesis, this objection may be answered by the
supposition that Moses employed earlier sources,
as Campegius Vitringa supposed regarding the relation of
Gen. ii. 4
sqq. to
Gen. i. 1-ii.
3. But the
same phenomenon is met in Exodus. There are
two reports of the call of Moses; and while they
are not contradictory, they in no way cross-refer.
Moses
could be considered the author of two reports,
but there would be needed a later hand to bring
them together. And further examination shows
that the second report belongs to P, while the first is
a composite of the work of E and J. Difference of
authorship here is indicated both by linguistic differences and by other peculiarities; and just this
difference in presentation is, as will be shown, a
weighty ground for holding to the compositeness
of the Pentateuch.
