§ 1. The distinction made by the Law a special mark of the chosen people. § 2. Different theories of the details. § 3. The primary distinction, that between Life and Death. § 4. Con- ditions of animal food. § 5. The distinction on its practical side not peculiar to the Law. § 6. The wis- dom of it on sanitary grounds. § 7. In what was the Mosaic Law of dis- On the Laws relating to Leprosy-Pre- § 1. Importance of the subject. § 2. Names of the Disease. § 3. Its na- ture. § 4. The Tuberculated variety. § 5. The Anæsthetic variety. § 6. Each form recognized by the ancients. § 7. Subordinate varieties. § 8. Is it 555 circumstances foster it? § 12. Is it On the Treatment of Lepers, and the grounds of the Laws respecting them. 1. The Leprosy in Egypt. § 2. The 570 COMMENTARY AND CRITICAL NOTES. BY T. E. ESPIN, B.D., On the words "Tent of the Testimony." On the words "unto the wilderness of On the words "ye rebels." Chap. xx. 10 On the words "by the way of the spies." On the rendering "Red sea" in Chap. On Ar-Rabbath-Moab or Areopolis (?). On the meaning of D. Chap. xxi. 30 733 743 749 On the ellipse in Chap. xxvi. 59 . 788 732 HE title, Pentateuch, is the Greek THE name given by the LXX. translators to the five books of Moses, the name by which they were known among the Jews being "the Law," Torah. In the Scriptures it is called "the Book of the Law" (2 K. xxii. 8), "the Book of the Covenant" (2 K. xxiii. 2, 21; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 30), "the Book of the Law of the Lord" (2 Chr. xvii. 9, xxxiv. 14), "The Law of Moses," "The Book of Moses," or "The Book of the Law of Moses." (See 2 Chr. xxv. 4, xxxv. 12; Ezra vi. 18, vii. 6; Neh. viii. 1, xiii. 1). The division into five books is by many thought to be also due to the LXX. interpp. The Jews, however, retain the division, calling the whole chamishah chomeshe torah, "The five quinquernions of the Law," though they only distinguish the several books by names derived from a leading word in the first verse in each. Thus Genesis they call Bereshith, i.e. "in the Beginning," Exodus Shemoth, "the Names," &c. VOL. I. Captivity and Return New Testament (3) Internal Evidence of Mosaic Authorship. Acquaintance with Egypt with Sinai and Wilderness. Canaan in prospect Language Question of Post-Mosaic Authorship considered The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuch. That Moses was the author and writer of the Pentateuch was the belief of all Jewish and Christian antiquity, if at least we except some heretical sects in the early Christian centuries, who desired in all ways to disparage the Old Testament. The sacred narrative itself contains assertions of this authorship. Thus, Ex. xvii. 14, after a memorable battle, "The LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in the book ();" as though there were a regular account kept in a wellknown book. Again, Ex. xxiv. 4, "Moses wrote all the words of the LORD." So Ex. xxxiv. 27, "The LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words." In Num. xxxiii. 2, we read that "Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the LORD." In Deut. xvii. 18, 19, it is commanded that the king, who should hereafter reign, should "write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites;" and in Deut. xxxi. 9, 10, 11, A at the very end of the Pentateuch, we read, "Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi," commanding, that "at the end of every seven years" they should "read this law before all Israel in their hearing." Several times Moses himself in Deuteronomy names "this law," and "the Book of this law" (Deut. xxviii. 61, xxix. 19, 20, 29), as though he had written a book for his people to keep. With this uniformity of tradition and these claims, there is at least a presumption in favour of the Mosaic authorship. It will however be well to shew, 1. That Moses could have written the Pentateuch. 2. That the concurrent testimony of all subsequent times proves that he did write the Pentateuch. 3. That the internal evidence points to him, and to him only, as the writer of the Pentateuch. Let it only be understood, in limine, that this authorship thus claimed for Moses is not inconsistent with certain admissions. (a) For instance, it is not necessary to insist, that every word of the Pentateuch was written down by the hand of Moses in his own autograph. He may have dictated much, or all of it, to Joshua, or to some secretary or scribe. He may have merely superintended its writing, and stamped it with his own authority, as perhaps St Peter did the Gospel according to St Mark. This may explain (though it is not necessary to assume this in order to explain) the fact, that Moses is always spoken of in the third person'. This may explain also some things said concerning Moses, which he might have allowed others to write, but would not have been likely to write himself. This may explain the difficulty, if difficulty indeed it be, that the last chapter of Deuteronomy relates the death of Moses; for what more likely, than that he, who wrote at Moses' dictation the acts and the words of Moses, should have finished the work by recording Moses' death? 1 When Caesar always writes of himself in the third person, and when the like practice has been known to most nations, it seems hard to deny that Moses could have so written. (b) It is not necessary to deny, that the Pentateuch, though the work of the great Prophet and Lawgiver whose name it bears, may have undergone some recension in after times, as by Ezra or others. The Jews hold that all the books of the Old Testament were submitted to a careful review by Ezra and the Great Synagogue (Buxtorf, Tiberias,' Lib. I. c. 10); and the fathers of the Church generally believed in some such supervision. "Omne instrumentum Judaicæ literaturæ per Esdram constat restauratum" (Tertull. 'De Cultu Femin.' c. 3). "Sive Mosen dicere volueris auctorem Pentateuchi, sive Esram ejusdem instauratorem operis, non recuso" (Hieron. 'ad Helvidium,' edit. Vall. Tom. II. p. 212). If Ezra collated MSS. and carefully edited the books of Moses, it is not impossible, and is not inconsistent with the original authorship, that he should have admitted explanatory notes, which some think (rightly or wrongly) to betray a post-Mosaic hand. (c) It is not necessary to deny that Moses had certain documents or traditions referring to the patriarchal ages, which he incorporated into his history. Indeed it is most likely that such traditions should have come down through Shem and Abraham to Joseph and the Israelites in Egypt: and there can be no reason why an inspired historian should not have worked up such trustworthy materials into the history of the ancestors of his people. 1. Moses could have written the Pentateuch. The most sceptical of modern objectors do not deny the existence of Moses, nor that he was the leader of his own people out of Egypt into Canaan. We have then the fact, that there was a man, evidently of some genius and energy, who led a nation out of captivity, and settled them in a state of civil government in another land. He came out of the most civilized country in the world, and he most probably had acquired much of its civilization. The first question then, which naturally occurs is, Was the art of writing known so early as Moses? and especially was it known to the Egyptians and the Jews? |