General Information
Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament in the Bible, is so named because it opens with an account of the creation of the world. The first 11 chapters, which are heavily indebted to Mesopotamian tradition, trace the gradual expansion of humankind and the development of human culture. But they show the ambiguity of this development by incorporating stories about the sin of Adam and Eve and about the Deluge, both of which illustrate humankind's growing alienation from God and one another.
Following the call of Abraham in chapter 12, this universal outlook appears to be lost; the focus narrows to one man and his family. Yet the traditions about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's 12 sons are linked to the earlier chapters by God's promise to bless the whole world through Abraham's descendants. Furthermore, the Covenant established with Israel through the promise made to Abraham (22:15 - 18) is fundamentally the same as the covenant established with all of humankind through Noah (9:1 - 17).
Although Moses has traditionally been considered the author of Genesis, modern scholars generally agree that the book is a composite of at least three different literary strands: J (10th century BC), E (9th century), and P (5th century). The interpretation of the book has led to many controversies. One of the most difficult problems has been distinguishing historical fact from symbolic narration intended to convey a religious message.
| BELIEVE Religious Information Source web-site |
| Our List of 1,300 Religious Subjects |
Bibliography
H Bloom, Book of J (1990); G von Rad, Genesis: A
Commentary (1972); E A Speiser, ed., Genesis (1964); R Youngblood,
ed., The Genesis Debate (1986).
Consider the practical issues of that ancient time. At Moses' time (maybe around 1600 BC), there were actually not yet even any organized written languages yet! (They would develop around 400 to 600 years later. Only symbol systems such as Egyptian hieroglyphics yet existed, and they were not languages at all. Worse, they were not capable of expressing sophisticated concepts such as the Sabbath. It would likely take hundreds of picture symbols to express the single sentence, Honor the Sabbath. ) It would be hard to imagine Moses taking the time to carve thousands of picture symbols into blocks of stone, along the lines of the heiroglyphics that existed at that time. So, for very practical reasons, it seems almost certain that (a) Moses was certainly the "author" of the First Five Books of the Bible, but that (b) he did not actually write them down. After all, he was leading a group of people across a desert and in even more dire situations, and had many more urgent things to be dealing with that carving symbols into stones! (And then carrying large numbers of such stones with them through the desert!)
So it seems almost certain that Moses (physically) did NOT write down those texts, but instead passed them along orally, in the same way that countless societies before and since have done. By around 1000 BC, written language had developed in the region, including Ancient Hebrew, and it seems clear that people thought it important to then write down, in a permanent form, the words of Moses. Over the 600-year period between Moses and them (around 30 generations of people) many people had had to memorize and repeat, exactly, all the thousands of words of Moses to the next generation. They were certainly extremely good at preserving those "oral traditions" but human beings are not perfect. And so it seems very reasonable to me that (at least) two SLIGHTLY different oral traditions of Moses' words could easily have existed by thirty generations later in 1000 BC.
It therefore seems reasonable to me that two separate people (around that time) would have written down slightly different texts. One of those people might easily have heard the oral tradition where God was referred to as Elohim, and so he might easily have written down a text that only refers to Elohim. The other might have heard and memorized an oral tradition where God was referred to as Jehovah/Yahweh. (both of which are in our Bibles today.)
Note that this reasoning does NOT ever question or even doubt that Moses was the actual source author of the texts! It is really just noting that humans are not perfect, but that the Scribes of that time each wanted to record EXACTLY what they had been told and memorized. If they knew each other, they might not have been able to figure out which of the two was actually correct, regarding the small details where they seem to slightly disagree. So both texts were written down and then preserved. It seems to me that this reasoning is totally compatible with Moses being the actual author, but that there were two slightly different texts finally written down, and that, for want of an actual name for those Scribes, we tend to call them J and E. In my opinion, to call them "authors" or "writers" is inappropriate, but to see them as Scribes seems to make excellent sense.
Continue this reasoning a little further and we would have a situation where two slightly different (written) texts of Moses' words were being circulated. It seems reasonable to think that someone would have decided to combine them. A logical move would be to select which of the two precise texts was actually correct, but there was no way of knowing that. Therefore, the text was threaded together in a manner as it is today, where both texts were therefore included, and which therefore certainly includes whichever happens to be the precisely correct wording.
We included a portion of the actual Bible text below, along with the way that some analysts have divided it up, alternately, between the nearly identical texts. (Genesis 7 and 8 excellently show the duplication of story and the slight differences.) To look at this from another view, if there is some other explanation, then there needs to be an explanation for why the story is so clearly duplicated in those Bible Verses, as well as why there are slight differences. In this the JEDPR concept seems to provide a logical explanation.
By the way, we encourage that you also read the Genesis presentation from the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia (nearly 100 years ago) (presented below) which contains an extensive discussion of J, E, D and P, so this is not just a frivolous idea of some recent people. The duplication of so many wordings, particularly in Genesis, has had the attention of Biblical scholars for a long time, and the JEDP reasoning has been around for a long time. However, the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia article describes the JEDP concept as eliminating Moses as the actual author, which seems not to be the situation. There seems no doubt whatever that Moses was the source of these texts.
Also included below is the 1906 Genesis article from the Jewish Encyclopedia, which discusses extensively these matters, and even expands them to include additional sources, such as P1, P2 and P3. Many of the other Jewish Encyclopedia articles from a hundred years ago (on other Bible Books) also extensively discuss these subjects.
Grammatical analysis has shown that the Book of Deuteronomy appears to have been (actually) written down by an early Scribe that was not either J or E, and so a third, D, is suggested. The reasoning regarding a fourth source, P, allegedly Priests of several hundred years later, has not been deeply pursued by me, so I can offer no opinion. However, I see great logic in there having been 'R', a redactor (which means editor). Devout Jews by then must have been troubled by the fact that there seemed to be two slightly different texts. Keep in mind that this was all WAY before any Books were collected to form a Bible or even a Torah. Early Jews were known for being fanatical about details, and so it seems to make sense that a Redactor would (later) combine the J, E, D and P (possibly then still separate accounts) into the "inter-threaded" text that we see today. Again, I do not see such a Redactor as an "author" but more as a Scribe who attempted to combine two nearly identical texts, and related texts.
In recent years, there seem to be absolutely ferocious Christian attacks on the JEDP approach. Rather than even trying to see that the words clearly seem to have been written by two separate people (as seems obvious in Genesis 7 or 8 below, if you read each column separately), there appears to just be an assumption that "anything different from what I believe must be an attack!" It seems to me that if those Christian counter-attackers could just calm down (and consider my comments here), they might see that there is NO attack on Moses' being the one and only source of those texts, and so most of their criticisms lose all their steam!
In conclusion, I am tempted to think that BOTH of the following two articles are absolutely correct! Yes, Moses DID author it so "The author of this Book was Moses." is absolutely true! However, for logistical reasons, two or more "strands" got eventually written down hundreds of years later. I do not really see why this (scholarly) concept is taken as so offensive by so many Christian writers!<
Modern analysis indicates that the book of Genesis (and the other
four Books of the Pentateuch) were written by a
number of authors who assembled material from three traditions:
J seems to be a writer who focuses on humanity in his writing. His writing shows much greater sensitivity towards women than does E. He regularly used "Yahweh" as God's name. He describes God in anthropomorphic terms: God forms Adam from clay; he waked and talked with Adam and Eve in the garden; he spoke to Moses.
J lived in the southern kingdom of Judah, during an early period of Israel's history when many followed a nature/fertility religion. He may have been a member of the Judean court. He wrote a more or less complete story of the history of the Israelites from a Judean perspective. J was probably written between 848 BC (when King Jehoram gained power in Judah) and 722 BC when the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom Israel and took its people into exile. Some scholars date J to the 10th century BC.
E was a writer who writes about religious and moralistic concerns. He consistently used "Elohim" as God's name. He lived in the northern kingdom of Israel. He wrote a more or less complete story of the history of the Israelites from the perspective of the northern kingdom. E probably wrote between 922 and 722 BC. He may have been a priest from Shiloh who viewed Moses as his spiritual ancestor.
P was a writer who focused his writings on God. He added material from a priestly perspective. It discusses priests' lives, religious rituals, dates, measurements, chronologies, genealogies, worship and law. He was a priest who identified Aaron as his spiritual ancestor. He views God as a distant, transcendent deity, less personal than in J and E. P is sometimes harsh and critical. The words "mercy," "grace" and "repentance" do not appear in his writing; they appear about 70 times in J, E, and D. P was displeased with the work of J and E and wrote P as an alternative history.
P rejected the concepts of angels, dreams and talking animals that are seen in J and E. He believed that only Levites who were descended from Aaron could be priests. He lived after J, E and D because he was aware of the books of the Prophets which were unknown to the others. Lived when the country's religion reached a priestly/legal stage, before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. He patterned his writing after the topics in J and E.
Two of the additional authors are:
D was a writer who lived well after J and E, because he was familiar with later developments in Israel's history. He lived at a time when the religion of ancient Israel was in its spiritual/ethical stage, about 622 BC. He wrote almost all of the Book of Deuteronomy, as well as Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. A second writer edited the original text after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BC. This writer added the last two chapters to 2 Kings and inserted short passages elsewhere to reflect the change in circumstances brought about by the Babylonian attack.
D lived in Judah - probably in Jerusalem. He was probably a Levitical priest - perhaps Jeremiah.
R.E. Friedman suggests that when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom in 722 BC, many refugees streamed south into Judea, bringing their sacred writing "E" with them. Subsequently, E and J were combined into a single document, referred to as "JE."
D was written perhaps a century later. It was conveniently "discovered" in the temple by the priest Hilkiah in 622 BC, shortly after it was written. D was then joined with JE.
P was written before the death of King Josiah in 609 BCE, probably during the reign of King Hezekiah. It was written as an alternate to JE.
R combined J, E, P and other documents together into the first four books of the Hebrew Scriptures. To this, he added D's writings, the book of Deuteronomy, to complete the Pentateuch. By the time that he did the editing, the JE, D and P documents were in wide circulation. Each was supported by various factions. R saw his task as attempting to join these sources together into a more or less cohesive, single document. Friedmann suspects that Ezra was the redactor.
These doublets sometimes appear to contradict each other. In most cases, one referred to God as Yahweh while the other used the term Elohim.
During the 19th Century, scholars noticed that there were a few triplets in the Torah. This indicated that a third author was involved. Then, they determined that the book of Deuteronomy was written in a different language style from the remaining 4 books in the Pentateuch (implying a fourth author). Finally, by the end of the 19th Century, liberal scholars reached a consensus that 4 authors and one redactor (editor) had been actively involved in the writing of the Pentateuch.
During the 20th Century, academics identified which verses (and parts of verses) were authored by the various writers. They have also attempted to uncover the names of the authors. In 1943, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in which he urged academics to study the sources of Biblical texts. Recent archeological discoveries and new linguistic analysis tools have facilitated the research.
Moses was quite likely the original source for the information in the first five Books of the Bible, but these various "strands" or (unknown) ancient authors apparently actually wrote down various portions of what we not have as our Bible. To give an idea of how these various strands intertwine, the first ten chapters of the King James Authorized Version of the book of Genesis are presented here, with the original authors, according to the modern analyst R.E. Friedman, indicated in color: J E P R. ('E' did not contribute to this excerpt.)
1 (J) And it came to pass, when men began to
multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and
they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for
that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children
to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great
in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on
the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the
face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the
fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
9 (P) These are the generations of Noah: Noah was
a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with
violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all
flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for
the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy
them with the earth.
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark,
and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of
the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and
the height of it thirty cubits.
16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish
it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with
lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to
destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and
every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into
the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou
bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male
and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every
creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come
unto thee, to keep them alive.
21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt
gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
A slight conflict seems to exist:
| Verses by J | Verses by P and by R |
| 1
And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark;
for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him. |
|
| 6 (R) And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. | |
| 7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. | |
| 8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that
are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, 9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. |
|
| 10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. | |
| 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. | |
| 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. | |
| 13 In the selfsame day entered Noah,
and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the
three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: | |
| 16 (Cont'd) and the LORD shut him in. 17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. |
|
| 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: | |
| 22 All in whose nostrils was the
breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. |
|
| 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. |
| Verses by J | Verses by P and by R |
| 1 And God remembered Noah, and every
living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God
made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; 2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, | |
| 2 (Cont'd) and the rain from
heaven was restrained; 3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: |
|
| 3 (Cont'd) and after the end of the
hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. 4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen. | |
| 6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: | |
| 7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth. | |
| 8 Also he sent forth a dove from
him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; 9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark. 10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; 11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. 12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more. |
|
| 13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: | |
| 13 (Cont'd)...and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. | |
| 14 And in the second month, on the
seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried. 15 And God spake unto Noah, saying, 16 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee. 17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth. 18 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him: 19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark. | |
| 20 And Noah builded an altar unto
the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and
offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. |
The five books of Moses were collectively called the Pentateuch, a word of Greek origin meaning "the five-fold book." The Jews called them the Torah, i.e., "the law." It is probable that the division of the Torah into five books proceeded from the Greek translators of the Old Testament. The names by which these several books are generally known are Greek. The first book of the Pentateuch (q.v.) is called by the Jews Bereshith, i.e., "in the beginning", because this is the first word of the book. It is generally known among Christians by the name of Genesis, i.e., "creation" or "generation," being the name given to it in the LXX. as designating its character, because it gives an account of the origin of all things. It contains, according to the usual computation, the history of about two thousand three hundred and sixty-nine years.
Genesis is divided into two principal parts. The first part (1-11) gives a general history of mankind down to the time of the Dispersion. The second part presents the early history of Israel down to the death and burial of Joseph (12-50). There are five principal persons brought in succession under our notice in this book, and around these persons the history of the successive periods is grouped, viz., Adam (1-3), Noah (4-9), Abraham (10-25:18), Isaac (25:19-35:29), and Jacob (36-50). In this book we have several prophecies concerning Christ (3:15; 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10). The author of this book was Moses. Under divine guidance he may indeed have been led to make use of materials already existing in primeval documents, or even of traditions in a trustworthy form that had come down to his time, purifying them from all that was unworthy; but the hand of Moses is clearly seen throughout in its composition.
(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)
From: Home Bible Study Commentary by James M. Gray
Professor Guyot adds that whenever the simple form of "bara" is used in the Bible it always refers to work made by God and never by man. These considerations, with others, justify the statement that "created" here means created out of nothing. But when was the "beginning"? The margin indicates a period about 4,000 years before Christ, but these marginal notes are not part of the divine text, but the work of uninspired minds and therefore open to debate. Should science ultimately determine on millions of years ago as the period of the creation there is nothing in this verse of the Bible it would contradict.
The word "earth" in this verse, however, must not be understood to mean our globe with its land and seas, which was not made till the third day, but simply matter in general, that is, the cosmic material out of which the Holy Spirit organized the whole universe, including the earth of to-day. "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." "Moved upon" means brooded over as a bird on its nest. "Waters" means not the oceans and seas as we know them, but the gaseous condition of the matter before spoken of. The Spirit of God moved "upon" the waters, and not "inside of" them, showing that God is a personal Being separate from His work. As the result of this brooding, what appeared?
We need not suppose that God spake just as a human being speaks, but the coming forth of light out of thick darkness would have seemed to a spectator as the effect of a divine command (Ps. 33:6-9). On the natural plane of things vibration is light or produces light, which illustrates the relation between the moving of the Spirit upon inert matter and the effect it produced. "And God called the light day." The Hebrew word "yom," translated "day," is used in five different senses in the first two chapters of Genesis. Here it means light without reference to time. Later in the same verse it means the period covered by "the evening and the morning" mentioned, the exact duration of which we do not know.
At verse 14 it stands for what we know as 24 hours, at verse 16 it means the light part of the day of 24 hours, and at 2:4 the whole period during which the heaven and the earth were created. All this bears on the question whether creation was wrought in 6 days of 24 hours or 6 day-periods of unknown length; and it will be seen that one does not necessarily contradict the Bible if he believes the latter. When we recall that days of 12 and 24 hours were altogether excluded before the appearance of the sun on the fourth day, the latter hypothesis receives the stronger confirmation.
It is interesting to note: (a) that this peopling of the water, the air and the land is in the precise order indicated by the science of geology; (b) that the plant life of the third day was the preparation for the animal life of the fifth day; (c) that the plant is now in the animal shaped into new forms, and subservient to higher functions than it could ever perform by itself; (d) that two powers which place the animal on a higher platform than the lower grades of existence are sensation, by which it perceives the world around it, and will, by which it reacts upon it. This is life, and is not the result of chemical elements left to themselves, but the effect of previously existing life. In other words, the Bible and science agree in declaring that "spontaneous generation is an untenable hypothesis," and life only begets life.
Note: (a) that the consultation in the Godhead regarding man's creation foreshadows the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity; (b) that the "image of God" may mean the trinity in man represented by body, soul and spirit (2:7; 1 Thess. 5:23), but especially that moral image suggested in Colossians 3:10; (c) that the dominion of man over the lower creation has in some measure been lost through sin, but will be restored again in Christ (Psalm 8); (d) that the creation of matter, of life and of man are three distinct creations out of nothing, and that God's action in them is direct, hence evolution from one into the other is impossible. There may be evolution within any one of these systems of existence considered by itself, but this is different from that other evolution which would make man the descendant of an ape and rule God out of the universe which He made.
Questions 1. What does "create" probably mean in this chapter, and why do you think so? 2. When may "the beginning" have been? 3. What does "earth" mean in verse 2? 4. What word in verse 2 opposes pantheism by showing God to be a Person? 5. If the creation days were not limited to 24 hours, why do you think so? 6. What does "heaven" of the second day stand for? 7. What two works were accomplished on the third day? 8. What two powers in the animal define life? 9. Quote Colossians 3:10. 10. How would you distinguish between a rationalistic and a possibly Biblical evolution?
"In the beginning" God created, i.e., called into being, all things out of nothing. This creative act on the part of God was absolutely free, and for infinitely wise reasons. The cause of all things exists only in the will of God. The work of creation is attributed (1) to the Godhead (Gen. 1:1, 26); (2) to the Father (1 Cor. 8:6); (3) to the Son (John 1:3; Col. 1:16, 17); (4) to the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2; Job 26:13; Ps. 104:30). The fact that he is the Creator distinguishes Jehovah as the true God (Isa. 37:16; 40:12, 13; 54:5; Ps. 96:5; Jer. 10:11, 12). The one great end in the work of creation is the manifestation of the glory of the Creator (Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11; Rom. 11:36).
God's works, equally with God's word, are a revelation from him; and between the teachings of the one and those of the other, when rightly understood, there can be no contradiction. Traditions of the creation, disfigured by corruptions, are found among the records of ancient Eastern nations. (See ACCAD.) A peculiar interest belongs to the traditions of the Accadians, the primitive inhabitants of the plains of Lower Mesopotamia. These within the last few years have been brought to light in the tablets and cylinders which have been rescued from the long-buried palaces and temples of Assyria. They bear a remarkable resemblance to the record of Genesis.
The Book of Genesis prepares the reader for the Pentateuchal legislation; it tells us how God chose a particular family to keep His Revelation, and how He trained the Chosen People to fulfil its mission. From the nature of its contents the book consists of two rather unequal parts; cc. i-xi present the features of a general history, while cc. xii-1 contain the particular history of the Chosen People. By a literary device, each of these parts is subdivided into five sections differing in length. The sections are introduced by the phrase elleh tholedhoth (these are the generations) or its variant zeh sepher toledhoth (this is the book of the generations). "Generations", however, is only the etymological meaning of the Hebrew toledhoth; in its context the formula can hardly signify a mere genealogical table, for it is neither preceded nor followed by such tables. As early Oriental history usually begins with genealogical records, and consists to a large extend of such records, one naturally interprets the above introductory formula and its variant as meaning, "this is the history" or "this is the book of the history." History in these phrases is not to be understood as a narrative resting on folklore, as Fr. Von Hummelauer believes ("Exegetisches zur Inspirationsfrage, Biblische Studien", Freiburg, 1904, IX, 4, pp. 26-32); but as a record based on genealogies. Moreover, the introductory formula often refers back to some principal feature of the preceding section, thus forming a transition and connection between the successive parts. Gen., v, 1, e.g., refers back to Gen., ii, 7 sqq.; vi, 9 to v, 29 sqq. and vi, 8; x, 1 to ix, 18, 19, etc. Finally, the sacred writer deals very briefly with the non-chosen families or tribes, and he always considers them before the chosen branch of the family. He treats of Cain before he speaks of Seth; similarly, Cham and Japhet precede Sem; the rest of Sem's posterity precedes Abraham; Ismael precedes Isaac; Esau precedes Jacob. Bearing in mind these general outlines of the contents and the literary structure of Genesis, we shall easily understand the following analytical table.
Introduction (Genesis 1:1-2:3) -- Consists of the Hexaemeron; it teaches the power and goodness of God as manifested in the creation of the world, and also the dependence of creatures on the dominion of the Creator.
General History (2:4-11:26) -- Man did not acknowledge his dependence on God. Hence, leaving the disobedient to their own devices, God chose one special family or one individual as the depositary of His Revelation.
History of Heaven and Earth (2:4-4:26) -- Here we have the story of the fall of our first parents, ii, 5-iii, 24; of the fratricide of Cain, iv, 1-16; the posterity of Cain and its elimination, iv, 17-26.
History of Adam (5:1-6:8) -- The writer enumerates the Sethites, another line of Adam's descendants, v, 1-32, but shows that they too became so corrupt that only one among them found favour before God, vi, 1-8.
History of Noah (6:9-9:29) -- Neither the Deluge which destroyed the whole human race excepting Noah's family, vi, 11-viii, 19, nor God's covenant with Noah and his sons, viii, 20-ix, 17, brought about the amendment of the human family, and only one of Noah's sons was chosen as the bearer of the Divine blessings, ix, 18-29.
History of the Sons of Noah (10:1-11:9) -- The posterity of the non-chosen sons, x, 1-32, brought a new punishment on the human race by its pride, xi, 1-9.
History of Sem (11:10-26) -- The posterity of Sem is enumerated down to Thare the father of Abraham, in whose seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.
Special History (11:27-50:26) -- Here the inspired writer describes the special Providence watching over Abraham and his offspring which developed in Egypt into a large nation. At the same time, he eliminates the sons of Abraham who were not children of God's promise. This teaches the Israelites that carnal descent from Abraham does not suffice to make them true sons of Abraham.
History of Thare (11:27-25:11) -- This section tells of the call of Abraham, his transmigration into Chanaan, his covenant with God, and His promises.
History of Ismael (25:12-28) -- This section eliminates the tribes springing from Ismael.
History of Isaac (25:19-35:29 -- Here we have the history of Isaac's sons, Esau and Jacob.
History of Esau (36:1-37:1) -- The sacred writer gives a list of Esau's posterity; it does not belong to the number of the Chosen People.
History of Jacob (37:2-50:26) -- This final portion of Genesis tells of the fate of Jacob's family down to the death of the Patriarch and of Joseph.
What has been said shows a uniform plan in the structure of Genesis, which some scholars prefer to call "schematism". (i) The whole book is divided into ten sections. (ii) Each section is introduced by the same formula. (iii) The sections are arranged according to a definite plan, the history of the lateral genealogical branches always preceding that of the corresponding part of the main line. (iv) Within the sections, the introductory formula or the title is usually followed by a brief repetition of some prominent feature of the preceding section, a fact duly noted and explained by as early a writer as Rhabanus Maurus (Comment. In Gen., II, xii; P.G., CVII, 531-2), but misconstrued by our recent critics into an argument for a diversity of sources. (v) The history of each Patriarch tells of the development of his family during his lifetime, while the account of his life varies between a bare notice consisting of a few words or lines, and a more lengthy description. (vi) When the life of the Patriarch is given more in detail, the account usually ends in an almost uniform way, indicating the length of his life and his burial with his ancestors (cf. ix, 29; xi, 32; xxv, 7; xxxv, 28; xlvii, 28). Such a definite plan of the book shows that it was written with a definite end in view and according to preconceived arrangement. The critics attribute this to the final "redactor" of the Pentateuch who adopted, according to their views, the genealogical framework and the "schematism" from the Priestly Code. The value of these views will be discussed later; for the present, it suffices to know that a striking unity prevails throughout the Book of Genesis (cf. Kurtrz, "Die Einheit der Genesis", Berlin, 1846; Delattre, "Plan de la Genèse" in "Revue des quest. hist.", July, 1876; XX, pp. 5-43; Delattre, "Le plan de la Genese et les generations du ciel et de la terre" in "La science cath.", 15 Oct., 1891, V, pp. 978-89; de Broglie, "Etude sur les genealogies bibliques" in "Le congres scientif. internat. des catholiques de 1888", Paris, 1889, I, pp. 94-101; Julian, "Etude critique sur la composition de la Genese", Paris, 1888, pp. 232-50).
III. AUTHENTICITY
The contents of the Pentateuch furnish the basis for the history, the law, the worship, and the life of the Chosen People of God. Hence the authorship of the work, the time and manner of its origin, and its historicity are of paramount importance. These are not merely literary problems, but questions belonging to the fields of history of religion and theology. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is inseparably connected with the question, whether and in what sense Moses was the author or intermediary of the Old-Testament legislation, and the bearer of pre-Mosaic tradition. According to the trend of both Old and New Testament, and according to Jewish and Christian theology, the work of the great lawgiver Moses is the origin of the history of Israel and the basis of its development down to the time of Jesus Christ; but modern criticism sees in all this only the result, or the precipitate, of a purely natural historical development. The question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch leads us, therefore, to the alternative, revelation or historical evolution; it touches the historical and theological foundation of both the Jewish and the Christian dispensation. We shall consider the subject first in the light of Scripture; secondly, in the light of Jewish and Christian tradition; thirdly, in the light of internal evidence, furnished by the Pentateuch; finally, in the light of ecclesiastical decisions.
A. TESTIMONY OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
It will be found convenient to divide the Biblical evidence for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch into three parts: (1) Testimony of the Pentateuch;
(2) Testimony of the other Old-Testament books; (3) Testimony of the New Testament.
(1) Witness of the Pentateuch
The Pentateuch in its present form does not present itself as a complete literary production of Moses. It contains an account of Moses' death, it tells the story of his life in the third person and in an indirect form, and the last four books do not exhibit the literary form of memoirs of the great lawgiver; besides, the expression "God said to Moses" shows only the Divine origin of the Mosaic laws but does not prove that Moses himself codified in the Pentateuch the various laws promulgated by him. On the other hand, the Pentateuch ascribes to Moses the literary authorship of at least four sections, partly historical, partly legal, partly poetical. (a) After Israel's victory over the Amalecites near Raphidim, the Lord said to Moses (Exodus 17:14): "Write this for a memorial in a book, and deliver it to the ears of Josue." This order is naturally restricted to Amalec's defeat, a benefit which God wished to keep alive in the memory of the people (Deuteronomy 25:17-19). The present pointing of the Hebrew text reads "in the book", but the Septuagint version omits the definite article. Even if we suppose that the Massoretic pointing gives the original text, we can hardly prove that the book referred to is the Pentateuch, though this is highly probable (cf. von Hummelauer "Exodus et Leviticus", Paris, 1897, p. 182; Idem, "Deuteronomium", Paris, 1901, p. 152; Kley, "Die Pentateuchfrage", Munster, 1903, p. 217). (b) Again, Ex., xxiv, 4: "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord." The context does not allow us to understand these words in an indefinite manner, but as referring to the words of the Lord immediately preceding or to the so-called "Book of the Covenant", Ex., xx-xxiii. (c) Ex., xxxiv, 27: "And the Lord said to Moses: Write thee these words by which I have made a covenant both with thee and with Israel." The next verse adds: "and he wrote upon the tables the ten words of the covenant." Ex., xxxiv, 1, 4, shows how Moses had prepared the tables, and Ex., xxxiv, 10-26, gives us the contents of the ten words. (d) Num., xxxiii, 1-2: "These are the mansions of the children of Israel, who went out of Egypt by their troops under the conduct of Moses and Aaron, which Moses wrote down according to the places of their encamping." Here we are informed that Moses wrote the list of the people's encampments in the desert; but where it this list to be found? Most probably it is given in Num., xxxiii, 3-49, or the immediate context of the passage telling of Moses' literary activity; there are, however, scholars who understand this latter passage as referring to the history of Israel's departure from Egypt written in the order of the people's encampments, so that it would be our present Book of Exodus. But this view is hardly probable; for its assumption that Num., xxxiii, 3-49, is a summary of Exodus cannot be upheld, as the chapter of Numbers mentions several encampments not occurring in Exodus.
Besides these four passages there are certain indications in Deuteronomy which point to the literary activity of Moses. Deut., i, 5: "And Moses began to expound the law and to say"; even if the "law" in this text refer to the whole of the Pentateuchal legislation, which is not very probable, it shows only that Moses promulgated the whole law, but not that he necessarily wrote it. Practically the entire Book of Deuteronomy claims to be a special legislation promulgated by Moses in the land of Moab: iv, 1-40; 44-49; v, 1 sqq.; xii, 1 sqq. But there is a suggestion of writing too: xvii, 18-9, enjoins that the future kings are to receive a copy of this law from the priests in order to read and observe it; xxvii, 1-8, commands that on the west side of the Jordan "all the words of this law" be written on stones set up in Mount Hebal; xxviii, 58, speaks of "all the words of this law, that are written in this volume" after enumerating the blessings and curses which will come upon the observers and violators of the law respectively, and which are again referred to as written in a book in xxix, 20, 21, 27, and xxxii, 46, 47; now, the law repeatedly referred to as written in a book must be at least the Deuteronomic legislation. Moreover, xxxi, 9-13 states, "and Moses wrote this law", and xxxi, 26, adds, "take this book, and put it in the side of the ark. . .that it may be there for a testimony against thee"; to explain these texts as fiction or as anachronisms is hardly compatible with the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. Finally, xxxi, 19, commands Moses to write the canticle contained in Deut., xxxii, 1-43.
The Scriptural scholar will not complain that there are so few express indications in the Pentateuch of Moses' literary activity; he will rather be surprised at their number. As far as explicit testimony for its own, at least partial, authorship is concerned, the Pentateuch compares rather favourably with many other books of the Old Testament.
(2) Witness of other Old-Testament Books
(a) Josue.-The narrative of the Book of Josue presupposes not merely the facts and essential ordinances contained in the Pentateuch, but also the law given by Moses and written in the book of the law of Moses: Jos., i, 7-8; viii, 31; xxii, 5; xxiii, 6. Josue himself "wrote all these things in the volume of the law of the Lord" (xxiv, 26). Prof. Hobverg maintains that this "volume of the law of the Lord" is the Pentateuch ("Über den Ursprung des Pentateuchs" in "Biblische Zeitschrift", 1906, IV, 340); Mangenot believes that it refers at least to Deuteronomy (Dict. de la Bible, V, 66). At any rate, Josue and his contemporaries were acquainted with a written Mosaic legislation, which was divinely revealed.
(b) Judges; I, II Kings.-In the Book of Judges and the first two Books of Kings there is no explicit reference to Moses and the book of the law, but a number of incidents and statements presuppose the existence of the Pentateuchal legislation and institutions. Thus Judges, xv, 8-10, recalls Israel's delivery from Egypt and its conquest of the Promised Land; Judges, xi, 12-28, states incidents recorded in Num., xx, 14; xxi, 13,24; xxii, 2; Judges, xiii, 4, states a practice founded on the law of the Nazarites in Num., vi, 1-21; Judges, xviii, 31, speaks of the tabernacle existing in the times when there was no king in Israel; Judges, xx, 26-8 mentions the ark of the covenant, the various kinds of sacrifices, and the Aaronic priesthood. The Pentateuchal history and laws are similarly presupposed in 1 Samuel 10:18; 15:1-10; 10:25; 21:1-6; 22:6 sqq.; 23:6-9; 2 Samuel 6.
(c) 1 and 2 Kings.-The last two Books of Kings repeatedly speak of the law of Moses. To restrict the meaning of this term to Deuteronomy is an arbitrary exegesis (cf. 1 Kings 2:3; 10:31); Amasias showed mercy to the children of the murderers "according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses" (2 Kings 14:6); the sacred writer records the Divine promise of protecting the Israelites "Only if they will observe to do all that I have commanded them according to the law which my servant Moses commanded them" (2 Kings 21:8). In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josias was found the book of the law (2 Kings 22:8, 11), or the book of the covenant (2 Kings 23:2), according to which he conducted his religious reform (2 Kings 23:10-24), and which is identified with "the law of Moses" (2 Kings 23:25). Catholic commentators are not at one whether this law-book was Deuteronomy (von Hummelauer, "Deuteronomium", Paris, 1901, p. 40-60, 83-7) or the entire Pentateuch (Clair, "Les livres des Rois", Paris, 1884, II, p. 557 seq.; Hoberg, "Moses und der Pentateuch", Frieburg, 1905, p. 17 seq.; "uber den Ursprung des Pentateuchs" in "Biblische Zeitschrift", 1906, IV, pp. 338-40).
(d) Paralipomenon.-The inspired writer of Paralipomenon refers to the law and the book of Moses much more frequently and clearly. The objectionable names and numbers occurring in these books are mostly due to transcribers. The omission of incidents which would detract from the glory of the Israelite kings or would not edify the reader is not detrimental to the credibility or veracity of the work. Otherwise one should have to place among works of fiction a number of biographical or patriotic publications intended for the young or for the common reader. On their part, the modern critics are too eager to discredit the authority of Paralipomena. "After removing the account of Paralipomena", writes de Wette (Beitrage, I, 135), "the whole Jewish history assumes another form, and the Pentateuchal investigations take another turn; a number of strong proofs, hard to explain away, for the early existence of the Mosaic books have disappeared, the other vestiges of their existence are placed in a different light." A glance at the contents of Parlipomenon suffices to explain the efforts of de Witte and Wellhausen to disprove the historicity of the books. Not only are the genealogies (1 Chronicles 1-9) and the descriptions of worship traced after the data and laws of the Pentateuch, but the sacred writer expressly points out their conformity with what is written in the law of the Lord (1 Chronicles 16:40), in the law of Moses (2 Chronicles 23:18; 31:3), thus identifying the law of the Lord with that written by Moses (cf. 2 Chronicles 25:4). The reader will find similar indications of the existence and the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch in I Par., xxii, 12 seq.; II Par., xvii, 9; xxxiii, 4; xxxiv, 14; xxv, 12. By an artificial interpretation, indeed, the Books of Paralipomenon may be construed to represent the Pentateuch as a book containing the law promulgated by Moses; but the natural sense of the foregoing passages regards the Pentateuch as a book edited by Moses.
(e) I, II Esdras.-The Books of Esdras and Nehemias, too, taken in their natural and commonly accepted sense, consider the Pentateuch as the book of Moses, not merely as a book containing the law of Moses. This contention is based on the study of the following texts: I Esd., iii, 2 sqq.; vi, 18; vii, 14; II Esd., i, 7 sqq.; viii, 1, 8, 14; ix, 3; x, 34, 36; xiii, 1-3. Graf and his followers expressed the view that the book of Moses referred to in these texts is not the Pentateuch, but only the Priestly Code; but when we keep in mind that the book in question contained the laws of Lev., xxiii, and Deut., vii, 2-4; xv, 2, we perceive at once that the book of Moses cannot be restricted to the Priestly Code. To the witness of the historical books we may add II Mach., ii, 4; vii, 6; Judith, viii, 23; Ecclus., xxiv, 33; xlv, 1-6; xlv, 18, and especially the Preface of Ecclus.
(f) Prophetic Books.-Express reference to the written law of Moses is found only in the later Prophets: Bar., ii, 2, 28; Dan., ix, 11, 13; Mal., iv, 4. Among these, Baruch knows that Moses has been commanded to write the law, and though his expressions run parallel to those of Deut., xxviii, 15, 53, 62-64, his threats contain allusions to those contained in other parts of the Pentateuch. The other Prophets frequently refer to the law of the Lord guarded by the priests (cf. Deuteronomy 31:9), and they put it on the same level with Divine Revelation and the eternal covenant of the Lord. They appeal to God's covenant, the sacrificial laws the calendar of feasts, and other laws of the Pentateuch in such a way as to render it probable that a written legislation formed the basis of their prophetic admonitions (cf. Hosea 8:12), and that they were acquainted with verbal expressions of the book of the law. Thus in the northern kingdom Amos (iv, 4-5; v, 22 sqq.) and Isaias in the south (i, 11 sqq.) employ expressions which are practically technical words for sacrifice occurring in Lev., i-iii; vii, 12, 16; and Deut., xii, 6.
(3) Witness of the New Testament
We need not show that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the whole of the Pentateuch as written by Moses. If they attributed to Moses all the passages which they happen to cite, if they ascribe the Pentateuch to Moses whenever there is question of its authorship, even the most exacting critics must admit that they express their conviction that the work was indeed written by Moses. When the Sadducees quote against Jesus the marriage law of Deut., xxv, 5, as written by Moses (Matthew 22:24; Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28), Jesus does not deny the Mosaic authorship, but appeals to Ex., iii, 6, as equally written by Moses (Mark 12:26; Matthew 22:31; Luke 20:37). Again, in the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16:29), He speaks of "Moses and the prophets", while on other occasions He speaks of "the law and the prophets" (Luke 16:16), thus showing that in His mind the law, or the Pentateuch, and Moses are identical. The same expressions reappear in the last discourse addressed by Christ to His disciples (Luke 24:44-6; cf. 27): "which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me". Finally, in John, v, 45-7, Jesus is more explicit in asserting the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch: "There is one that accuseth you, Moses. . .for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" Nor can it be maintained that Christ merely accommodated himself to the current beliefs of his contemporaries who considered Moses as the author of the Pentateuch not merely in a moral but also in the literary sense of authorship. Jesus did not need to enter into the critical study of the nature of Mosaic authorship, but He could not expressly endorse the popular belief, if it was erroneous.
The Apostles too felt convinced of, and testified to, the Mosaic authorship. "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him: We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write." St. Peter introduces a quotation from Deut., xviii, 15, with the words: "For Moses said" (Acts 3:22). St. James and St. Paul relate that Moses is read in the synagogues on the Sabbath day (Acts 15:21; 2 Corinthians 3:15). The great Apostle speaks in other passages of the law of Moses (Acts 13:33; 1 Corinthians 9:9); he preaches Jesus according to the law of Moses and the Prophets (Acts 28:23), and cites passages from the Pentateuch as words written by Moses (Romans 10:5-8; 19). St. John mentions the canticle of Moses (Revelation 15:3).
B. WITNESS OF TRADITION
The voice of tradition, both Jewish and Christian, is so unanimous and constant in proclaiming the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch that down to the seventeenth century it did not allow the rise of any serious doubt. The following paragraphs are only a meagre outline of this living tradition.
(1) Jewish Tradition
It has been seen that the books of the Old Testament, beginning with those of the Pentateuch, present Moses as the author of at least parts of the Pentateuch. The writer of the Books of Kings believes that Moses is the author of Deuteronomy at least. Esdras, Nehemias, Malachias, the author of Paralipomena, and the Greek authors of the Septuagint Version consider Moses as the author of the whole Pentateuch. At the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles friend and foe take the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch for granted; neither our Lord nor His enemies take exception to this assumption. In the first century of the Christian era, Josephus ascribes to Moses the authorship of the entire Pentateuch, not excepting the account of the lawgiver's death ("Antiq. Jud.", IV, viii, 3-48; cf. I Procem., 4; "Contra Apion.", I, 8). The Alexandrian philosopher Philo is convinced that the entire Pentateuch is the work of Moses, and that the latter wrote a prophetic account of his death under the influence of a special divine inspiration ("De vita Mosis", ll. II, III in "Opera", Geneva, 1613, pp. 511, 538). The Babylonian Talmud ("Baba-Bathra", II, col. 140; "Makkoth", fol. IIa; "Menachoth", fol. 30a; cf. Vogue, "Hist. de la Bible et de l'exegese biblique jusqua'a nos jours", Paris, 1881, p. 21), the Talmud of Jerusalem (Sota, v, 5), the rabbis, and the doctors of Israel (cf. Furst, "Der Kanon des Alten Testaments nach den Überlieferungen im Talmud und Midrasch", Leipzig, 1868, pp. 7-9) bear testimony to the continuance of this tradition for the first thousand years. Though Isaac ben Jasus in the eleventh century and Abenesra in the twelfth admitted certain post-Mosaic additions in the Pentateuch, still they as well as Maimonides upheld its Mosaic authorship, and did not substantially differ in this point from the teaching of R. Becchai (thirteenth cent.), Joseph Karo, and Abarbanel (fifteenth cent.; cf. Richard Simon, "Critique de la Bibl. des aut. eccles. de E. Dupin", Paris, 1730, III, pp. 215-20). Only in the seventeenth century, Baruch Spinoza rejected the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, pointing out the possibility that the work might have been written by Esdras ("Tract. Theol.-politicus", c. viii, ed. Tauchnitz, III, p. 125). Among the more recent Jewish writers several have adopted the results of the critics, thus abandoning the tradition of their forefathers.
(2) Christian Tradition
The Jewish tradition concerning the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was brought in to the Christian Church by Christ Himself and the Apostles. No one will seriously deny the existence and continuance of such a tradition from the patristic period onward; one might indeed be curious about the interval between the time of the Apostles and beginning of the third century. For this period we may appeal to the "Epistle of Barnabus" (x, 1-12; Funk, "Patres apostol.", 2nd ed., Tübingen, 1901, I, p. 66-70; xii, 2-9k; ibid., p. 74-6), to St. Clement of Rome (1 Corinthians 41:1; ibid., p. 152), St. Justin ("Apol. I", 59; P. G., VI, 416; I, 32, 54; ibid., 377, 409; "Dial.", 29; ibid., 537), to the author of "Cohort. Ad Graec." (9, 28, 30, 33, 34; ibid., 257, 293, 296-7, 361), to St. Theophilus ("Ad Autol.", III, 23; ibid., 1156; 11, 30; ibid., 1100), to St. Irenæus (Cont. haer., I, ii, 6; P.G., VII, 715-6), to St. Hippolytus of Rome ("Comment. In Deut.", xxxi, 9, 31, 35; cf. Achelis, "Arabische Fragmente etc.", Leipzig, 1897, I, 118; "Philosophumena", VIII, 8; X, 33; P.G., XVI, 3350, 3448), to Tertullian of Carthage (Adv. Hermog., XIX; P. L., II, 214), to Origen of Alexandria (Contra. Cels., III, 5-6; P. G., XI, 928; etc.), to St. Eusthatius of Antioch (De engastrimytha c. Orig., 21; P.G., XVIII, 656); for all these writers, and others might be added, bear witness to the continuance of the Christian tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. A list of the later Fathers who bear witness to the same truth may be found in Mangenot's article in the "Dict. de la Bible" (V, 74 seq.). Hoberg (Moses und der Pentateuch, 72 seq.) has collected the testimony for the existence of the tradition during the Middle Ages and in more recent times.
But Catholic tradition does not necessarily maintain that Moses wrote every letter of the Pentateuch as it is today, and that the work has come down to us in an absolutely unchanged form. This rigid view of the Mosaic authorship began to develop in the eighteenth century, and practically gained the upper hand in the nineteenth. The arbitrary treatment of Scripture on the part of Protestants, and the succession of the various destructive systems advanced by Biblical criticism, caused this change of front in the Catholic camp. In the sixteenth century Card. Bellarmine, who may be considered as a reliable exponent of Catholic tradition, expressed the opinion that Esdras had collected, readjusted, and corrected the scattered parts of the Pentateuch, and had even added the parts necessary for the completion of the Pentateuchal history (De verbo Dei, II, I; cf. III, iv). The views of Génebrard, Pereira, Bonfrere, a Lapide, Masius, Jansenius, and of other notable Biblicists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are equally elastic with regard to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Not that they agree with the contentions of our modern Biblical criticism; but they show that today's Pentateuchal problems were not wholly unknown to Catholic scholars, and that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch as determined by the Biblical Commission is no concession forced on the Church by unbelieving Bible students.
C. VOICE OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE
The possibility of producing a written record at the time of Moses is no longer contested. The art of writing was known long before the time of the great lawgiver, and was extensively practised both in Egypt and Babylon. As to the Israelites, Flinders Petrie infers from certain Semitic inscriptions found in 1905 on the Sinaitic peninsula, that they kept written accounts of their national history from the time of their captivity under Ramses II. The Tell-el-Amarna tablets show the language of Babylon was in a way the official language at the time of Moses, known in Western Asia, Palestine, and Egypt; the finds of Taanek have confirmed this fact. But it cannot be inferred from this that the Egyptians and Israelites employed this sacred or official language among themselves and in their religious documents (cf. Benzinger, "Hebraische Archaologie", 2nd ed., Tübingen, 1907, p. 172 sqq.). It is not merely the possibility of writing at the time of Moses and the question of language that confronts us here; there is the further problem of the kind of written signs used in the Mosaic documents. The hieroglyphic and cuneiform signs were widely employed at that early date; the oldest inscriptions written in alphabetical characters date only from the ninth century B.C. But there can hardly be any doubt as to the higher antiquity of alphabetic writing, and there seems to be nothing to prevent our extending it back to the time of Moses. Finally, the Code of Hammurabi, discovered in Susa in 1901 by the French expedition funded by Mr. And Mrs. Dieulafoy, shows that even in pre-Mosaic times legal enactments were committed to, and preserved in, writing; for the Code antedates Moses some five centuries, and contains about 282 regulations concerning various contingencies in the civic life.
Thus far it has been shown negatively that an historic and legal document claiming to be written at the time of Moses involves no antecedent improbability of its authenticity. But the internal characteristics of the Pentateuch show also positively that the work is at least probably Mosaic. It is true that the Pentateuch contains no express declaration of its entire Mosaic authorship; but even the most exacting of critics will hardly require such testimony. It is practically lacking in all other books, whether sacred or profane. On the other hand, it has already been shown that four distinct passages of the Pentateuch are expressly ascribed to the authorship of Moses. Deut., xxxi, 24-9, is especially noted; for it knows that Moses wrote the "words of this law in a volume" and commanded it to be placed in the ark of the covenant as a testimony against the people who have been so rebellious during the lawgiver's life and will "do wickedly" after his death. Again, a number of legal sections, though not explicitly ascribed to the writing of Moses, are distinctly derived from Moses as the lawgiver. Besides, many of the Pentateuchal laws bear evidence of their origin in the desert; hence they too lay an indirect claim to Mosaic origin. What has been said of a number of Pentateuchal laws is equally true of several historical sections. These contain in the Book of Numbers, for instance, so many names and numbers that they must have been handed down in writing. Unless the critics can bring irrefutable evidence showing that in these sections we have only fiction, they must grant that these historical details were written down in contemporary documents, and not transmitted by mere oral tradition. Moreover, Hommel ("Die altisraelitische Überlieferung in inschriftlicher Beleuchtung", p. 302) has shown that the names in the lists of the Book of Numbers bear the character of the Arabian names of the second millennium before Christ, and can have originated only in the time of Moses, though it must be admitted that the text of certain portions, e.g., Num., xiii, has suffered in its transmission. We need not remind the reader that numerous Pentateuchal laws and data imply the conditions of a nomadic life of Israel. Finally, both the author of the Pentateuch and its first readers must have been more familiar with the topography and the social conditions of Egypt and with the Sinaitic peninsula than with the land of Chanaan. Cf., e.g., Deut., viii, 7-10; xi, 10 sqq. These internal characteristics of the Pentateuch have been developed at greater length by Smith, "The Book of Moses or the Pentateuch in its Authorship, Credibility, and Civilisation", London, 1868; Vigouroux, "La Bible et les decouvertes modernes", 6th ed., Paris, 1896, I, 453-80; II, 1-213, 529-47, 586-91; Idem, "Les Livres Saints et la critique rationaliste", Paris, 1902, III, 28-46, 79-99, 122-6; Heyes, "Bibel und Ægypten", Munster, 1904, p. 142; Cornely, "Introductio specialis in histor. Vet. Test. libros", I, Paris, 1887, pp. 57-60; Poole, "Ancient Egypt" in "Contemporary Review", March, 1879, pp. 757-9.
D. ECCLESIASTICAL DECISIONS
In accordance with the voice of the triple argument thus far advanced for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the Biblical Commission on 27 June, 1906, answered a series of questions concerning this subject in the following way:
(1) The arguments accumulated by the critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the sacred books designated by the name Pentateuch are not of such weight as to give us the right, after setting aside numerous passages of both Testaments taken collectively, the continuous consensus of the Jewish people, the constant tradition of the Church, and internal indications derived from the text itself, to maintain that these books have not Moses as their author, but are compiled from sources for the greatest part later than the Mosaic age.
(2) The Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch does not necessarily require such a redaction of the whole work as to render it absolutely imperative to maintain that Moses wrote all and everything with his own hand or dictated it to his secretaries; the hypothesis of those can be admitted who believe that he entrusted the composition of the work itself, conceived by him under the influence of Divine inspiration, to others, but in such a way that they were to express faithfully his own thoughts, were to write nothing against his will, were to omit nothing; and that finally the work thus produced should be approved by the same Moses, its principal and inspired author, and published under his name.
(3) It may be granted without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch, that Moses employed sources in the production of his work, i.e., written documents or oral traditions, from which he may have drawn a number of things in accordance with the end he had in view and under the influence of Divine inspiration, and inserted them in his work either literally or according to their sense, in an abbreviated or amplified form.
(4) The substantial Mosaic authenticity and integrity of the Pentateuch remains intact if it be granted that in the long course of centuries the work has suffered several modifications, as; post-Mosaic additions either appended by an inspired author or inserted into the text as glosses and explanations; the translation of certain words and forms out of an antiquated language into the recent form of speech; finally, wrong readings due to the fault of transcribers, which one may investigate and pass sentence on according to the laws of criticism.
The post-Mosaic additions and modifications allowed by the Biblical Commission in the Pentateuch without removing it from the range of substantial integrity and Mosaic authenticity are variously interpreted by Catholic scholars.
(1) We should have to understand them in a rather wide sense, if we were to defend the views of von Hummelauer or Vetter. This latter writer admits legal and historical documents based on Mosaic tradition, but written only in the times of the Judges; he places the first redaction of the Pentateuch in the time of the erection of Solomon's temple, and its last redaction in the time of Esdras. Vetter died in 1906, the year in which the Biblical Commission issued the above Decree; it is an interesting question, whether and how the scholar would have modified his theory, if time had been granted him to do so.
(2) A less liberal interpretation of the Decree is implied in the Pentateuchal hypotheses advanced by Hobert ("Moses und der Pentateuch; Die Pentateuch Frage" in "Biblische Studien", X, 4, Freiburg, 1907; "Erklarung des Genesis", 1908, Freiburg, I-L), Schopfer (Geschichte des Alten Testamentes, 4th ed., 226 sqq.), Hopfl ("Die hohere Bibelkritik", 2nd ed., Paderborn, 1906), Brucker ("L'eglise et la critique", Paris, 1907, 103 sqq.), and Selbst (Schuster and Holzammer's "Handbuch zur Biblischen Geschichte", 7th ed., Freiburg, 1910, II, 94, 96). The last-named writer believes that Moses left a written law-book to which Josue and Samuel added supplementary sections and regulations, while David and Solomon supplied new statutes concerning worship and priesthood, and other kings introduced certain religious reforms, until Esdras promulgated the whole law and made it the basis of Israel's restoration after the Exile. Our present Pentateuch is, therefore, an Esdrine edition of the work. Dr. Selbst feels convinced that his admission of both textual changes and material additions in the Pentateuch agrees with the law of historical development and with the results of literary criticism. Historical development adapts laws and regulations to the religious, civil, and social conditions of successive ages, while literary criticism discovers in our actual Pentateuch peculiarities of words and phrases which can hardly have been original, and also historical additions or notices, legal modifications, and signs of more recent administration of justice and of later forms of worship. But Dr. Selbst believes that these peculiarities do not offer a sufficient basis for a distinction of different sources in the Pentateuch.
(3) A strict interpretation of the words of the Decree is implied in the views of Kaulen (Einleitung, n. 193 sqq.), Key ("Die Pentateuchfrage, ihre Geschichte un ihre System", Munster, 1903), Flunk (Kirchenlexicon, IX, 1782 sqq.), and Mangenot ("L'authenticite mosaique du Pentateuque", Paris, 1907; Idem, "Dict. de la Bible", V, 50-119. With the exception of those portions that belong to the time after the death of Moses, and of certain accidental changes of the text due to transcribers, the whole of the Pentateuch is the work of Moses who composed the work in one of the ways suggested by the Biblical Commission. Finally, there is the question as the theological certainty of the thesis maintaining the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch.
(1) Certain Catholic scholars who wrote between 1887 and 1906 expressed their opinion that the thesis in question is not revealed in Scripture nor taught by the Church; that it expresses a truth not contained in Revelation, but a tenet which may be freely contested and discussed. At that time, ecclesiastical authority had issued no pronouncement on the question.
(2) Other writers grant that the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is not explicitly revealed, but they consider it as a truth revealed formally implicitly, being derived from the revealed formulae not by a syllogism in the strict sense of the word, but by a simple explanation of the terms. The denial of the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is an error, and the contradictory of the thesis maintaining the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is considered erronea in fide (cf. Mechineau, "L'origine mosaique du Pentateuque", p. 34).
(3) A third class of scholars considers the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch neither as a freely debatable tenet, nor as a truth formally implicitly revealed; they believe it has been virtually revealed, or that it is inferred from revealed truth by truly syllogistic deduction. It is, therefore, a theologically certain truth, and its contradictory is a rash (temeraria) or even erroneous proposition (cf. Brucker, "Authenticite des livres de Moise" in "Etudes", March, 1888, p. 327; ibid., January, 1897, p. 122-3; Mangenot, "L'authenticité mosaïque du Pentateuque", pp. 267-310.
Whatever effect the ecclesiastical decision concerning the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch may have had, or will have, on the opinion of students of the Pentateuchal question, it cannot be said to have occasioned the conservative attitude of scholars who wrote before the promulgation of the Decree. The following list contains the names of the principal recent defenders of Mosaic authenticity: Hengstenberg, "Die Bucher Moses und Aegypten", Berlin, 1841; Smith, "The Book of Moses or the Pentateuch in its Authorship, Credibility, and Civilisation", London, 1868; C. Schobel, "Demonstration de l'authenticite du Deuteronome", Paris, 1868; Idem, "Demonstration de l'authenticite mosaique de l'Exode", Paris, 1871; Idem, "Demonstration de l'authenticite mosaique du Levitique et des Nombres", Paris, 1869; Idem, "Demonstration de l'authenticite de la Genese", Paris, 1872; Idem, "Le Moise historique et la redaction mosaique du Pentateuque", Paris, 1875; Knabenbauer, "Der Pentateuch und die unglaubige Bibelkritik" in "Stimmen aus Maria-Laach", 1873, IV; Bredenkamp, "Gesetz und Propheten", Erlangen, 1881; Green, "Moses and the Prophets", New York, 1883; Idem, "The Hebrew Feasts", New York, 1885; Idem, "The Pentateuchal Question" in "Hebraica", 1889-92; Idem, "The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch", New York, 1895; Idem, "The Unity of the Book of Genesis", New York, 1895; C. Elliot, "Vindication of the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch", Cincinnati, 1884; Bissel, "The Pentateuch, its Origin and Structure", New York, 1885; Ubaldi, "Introductio in Sacram Scripturam", 2nd ed., Rome, 1882, I, 452- 509; Cornely, "Introductio specialis in historicos V. T. libros", Paris, 1887, pp. 19-160; Vos, "Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes", London, 1886; Bohl, "Zum Gesetz und zum Zeugniss", Vienna, 1883; Zah, "Erneste Blicke in den Wahn der modernen Kritik des A. T.", Gutersloh, 1893; Idem, "Das Deuteronomium", 1890; Idem, "Israelitische und judische Geschichte", 1895; Rupprecht, "Die Anschauung der kritischen Schule Wellhausens vom Pentateuch", Leipzig, 1893; Idem, "Das Rathsel des Funfbuches Mose und seine falsche Losung", Gutersloh, 1894; Idem, "Des Rathsels Losung order Beitrage zur richtigen Losung des Pentateuchrathsels", 1897; Idem, "Die Kritik nach ihrem Recht uknd Unrecht", 1897; "Lex Mosaica, or the Law of Moses and the Higher Criticism" (by Sayce, Rawlinson, Trench, Lias, Wace, etc.), London, 1894; Card. Meignan, "De L'Eden a Moise", Paris, 1895, 1-88; Baxter, "Sanctuary and Sacrifice", London, 1896; Abbé de Broglie, "Questions bibliques", Paris, 1897, pp. 89-169; Pelt, "Histoire de l'A.T.", 3rd ed., Paris, 1901, I, pp. 291-326; Vigouroux, "Les Livres Saints et la critique ratioinaliste", Paris, 1902, III, 1-226; IV, 239-53, 405-15; Idem, "Manuel biblique", 12th ed., Paris, 1906, I, 397-478; Kley, "Die Pentateuchfrage, ihre Geschichte und ihre Systeme", Munster, 1903; Hopfl, "Die hohere Bibelkritik", Paderborn, 1902; Thomas, "The Organic Unity of the Pentateuch", London, 1904; Wiener, "Studies in Biblical Law", London, 1904; Rouse, "The Old Testament in New Testament Light", London, 1905; Redpath, "Modern Criticism and the Book of Genesis", London, 1905; Hoberg, "Moses und der Pentateuch", Freiburg, 1905; Orr, "The Problem of the Old Testament considered with reference to Recent Criticism", London, 1906.
E. OPPONENTS OF THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH
A detailed account of the opposition to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is neither desirable nor necessary in this article. In itself it would form only a noisome history of human errors; each little system has had its day, and its successors have tried their best to bury it in hushed oblivion. The actual difficulties we have to consider are those advanced by our actual opponents of today; only the fact that the systems of the past show us the fleeting and transitory character of the actual theories now in vogue can induce us to briefly enumerate the successive views upheld by the opponents of the Mosaic authorship.
(1) Abandoned Theories
The views advanced by the Valentinian Ptolemy, the Nazarites, Abenesra, Carlstadt, Isaac Peyrerius, Baruch Spinoza, Jean Leclerc are sporadic phenomena. Not all of them were wholly incompatible with the Mosaic authorship as now understood, and the others have found their answer in their own time.-With the work of John Astrue, published in 1753, began the so-called Hypothesis of Documents which was further developed by Eichhorn and Ilgen. But the works of the suspended priest, Alexander Geddes, published in 1792 and 1800, introduced the Hypothesis of Fragments, which in its day was elaborated and championed by Vater, de Wette (temporarily at least), Berthold, Hartmann, and von Bohlen. This theory was soon confronted by, and had to yield to the Hypothesis of Complements or Interpolations which numbered among its patrons Kelle, Ewald, Stahelin, Bleek, Tuch, de Wette, von Lengerke, and for a brief period also Franz Delitzsch. The theory of interpolations again had hardly found any adherents before Gramberg (1828), Stahelin (1830), and Bleek (1831) returned to the Hypothesis of Documents, proposing it in a somewhat modified form. Subsequently, Ewald, Knobel, Hupfeld, Noldeke, and Schrader advanced each a different explanation of the documentary hypothesis. But all of these are at present only of an historical interest.
(2) Present Hypothesis of Documents
A course of religious development in Israel had been proposed by Reuss in 1830 and 1834, by Vatke in 1835, and by George in the same year. In 1865-66 Graf took up this idea and applied it to the literary criticism of the Hexateuch; for the critics had begun to consider the Book of Josue as belonging to the preceding five books, so that the collection formed a Hexateuch instead of a Pentateuch. The same application was made by Merx in 1869. Thus modified the documentary theory continued in its development until it reached the state described in the translation of the Bible by Kautzsch (3rd ed., with Introduction and Annotations, Tübingen, 1908 sqq.). In itself there is nothing against the assumption of documents written by Moses; but we cannot ascribe with certainty anything of our literary remains to the hands of the Hebrew lawgiver. The beginning of written accounts must be placed towards the end of the time of Judges; only then were fulfilled the conditions which must precede the origin of a literature properly so called, i.e., a general acquaintance with the art of writing and reading, stationary settlement of the people, and national prosperity. What then are the oldest literary remains of the Hebrews? They are the collections of the songs dating from the heroic time of the nation, e.g., the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14), the Book of the Just (Joshua 10:12 sqq.), the Book of Songs (1 Kings 8:53; cf. Budde, "Geschichte der althebr. Literature", Leipzig, 1906, 17). The Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:24-23:19) too must have existed before the other sources of the Pentateuch. The oldest historical work is probably the book of the Yahwist, designated by J, and ascribed to the priesthood of Juda, belonging most probably to the ninth century B.C.
Akin to this is the Elohim document, designated by E, and written probably in the northern kingdom (Ephraim) about a century after the production of the Yahweh document. These two sources were combined by a redactor into one work soon after the middle of the sixth century. Next follows the law-book, almost entirely embodied in our actual Book of Deuteronomy, discovered in the temple 621 B.C., and containing the precipitate of the prophetic teaching which advocated the abolition of the sacrifices in the so- called high places and the centralization of worship in the temple of Jerusalem. During the Exile originated the Priestly Code, P, based on the so-called law of holiness, Lev., xvii-xxvi, and the programme of Ezechiel, xl-xlviii; the substance of P was read before the post-exilic community by Esdras about 444 B.C. (Nehemiah 8-10), and was accepted by the multitude. History does not tell us when and how these divers historical and legal sources were combined into our present Pentateuch; but it is generally assumed that there was an urgent call for a compilation of the tradition and pre-exilic history of the people. The only indication of time may be found in the fact that the Samaritans accepted the Pentateuch as a sacred book probably in the fourth century B.C. Considering their hatred for the Jews, one must conclude that they would not have taken this step, unless they had felt certain of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. Hence a considerable time must have intervened between the compilation of the Pentateuch and its acceptance by the Samaritans, so that the work of combining must be placed in the fifth century. It is quite generally agreed that the last redactor of the Pentateuch completed his task with great adroitness. Without altering the text of the older sources, he did all within man's power to fuse the heterogeneous elements into one apparent (?) whole, with such success that not only the Jews after the fourth century B.C., but also the Christians for many centuries could maintain their conviction that the entire Pentateuch was written by Moses.
(3) Deficiencies of the Critical Hypothesis
As several Pentateuchal critics have endeavoured to assign the last redaction of the Pentateuch to more recent dates, its placement in the fifth century may be regarded as rather favourable to conservative views. But it is hard to understand why the patrons of this opinion should not agree in considering Esdras as the last editor. Again, it is quite certain that the last editor of the Pentateuch must have notably preceded its acceptance on the part of the Samaritans as a sacred book; bit is it probably that the Samaritans would have accepted the Pentateuch as such in the fourth century B.C., when the national and religious opposition between them and Jews was well developed? Is it not more probable that the mixed nation of Samaria received the Pentateuch through the priest sent to them from Assyria? Cf. 2 Kings 17:27. Or again, as this priest instructed the Samaritan population in the law of the god of the country, is it not reasonable to suppose that he taught them the Pentateuchal law which the ten tribes carried with them when they separated from Juda? At any rate, the fact that the Samaritans accepted as sacred only the Pentateuch, but not the Prophets, leads us to infer that the Pentateuch existed among the Jews before a collection of the prophetic writings was made, and that Samaria chose its sacred book before even Juda placed the works of the Prophets on the same level with the work of Moses. But this natural inference finds no favour among the critics; for it implies that the historical and legal traditions codified in the Pentateuch, described the beginning, and not the end, of Israel's religious development. The view of Israel's religious development prevalent among the critics implies that the Pentateuch is later than the Prophets, and that the Psalms are later than both. After these general considerations, we shall briefly examine the main principles, the methods, the results, and the arguments of the critical theory.
(a) Principles of the Critics
Without pretending to review all the principles involved in the theories of the critics, we draw attention to two: the historical development of religion, and the comparative value of internal evidence and tradition.
(i) The theory of the historical evolution of Israelitic religions leads us from Mosaic Yahwehism to the ethical monotheism of the Prophets, from this to the universalist conception of God developed during the Exile, and from this again to the ossified Phariseeism of later days. This religion of the Jews is codified in our actual Pentateuch, but has been fictitiously projected backwards in the historical books into the Mosaic and pre-prophetic times. The idea of development is not a purely modern discovery. Meyer ("Der Entwicklungsgedanke bei Aristoteles", Bonn, 1909) shows that Aristotle was acquainted with it; Gunkel ("Weiterbildung der Religion", Munich, 1905, 64) maintains that its application to religion is as old as Christianity, and that St. Paul has enunciated this principle; Diestel ("Geschichte des A.T. in der chrislichen Kirche", Jena, 1869, 56 sqq.), Willmann ("Geschichte des Idealismus", 2nd ed., II, 23 sqq.), and Schanz ("Apologie des Christentums", 3rd ed. II, 4 sqq., 376) find the same application in the writings of the Fathers, though Hoberg ("Die Forschritte der bibl. Wissenschaften", Freiburg, 1902, 10) grants that the patristic writers often neglect the external forms which influenced the ideas the Chosen People. The Fathers were not fully acquainted with profane history, and were more concerned about the contents of Revelation than about its historical development. Pesch ("Glaube, Dogmen und geschichtliche Thatsachen" in "Theol. Zeitfragen", IV, Freiburg, 1908, 183) discovers that St. Thomas, too, admits the principle of development in his "Summa" (II-II, Q. i, a. 9, 10; Q. ii, a. 3; etc.). But the Catholic conception of this principle avoids two extremes:
the theory of degeneracy, based on the teaching of the early Lutheran theologians (cf. Giesebrecht, "Die Degradationshypothese und die altl. Geschichte", Leipzig, 1905; Steude, "Entwicklung und Offenbarung", Stuttgart, 1905, 18 sqq.);
the theory of evolution which dissolves all truth and history into purely natural development to the exclusion of everything supernatural.
It is this latter extreme that is advocated by the Biblical critics. Their description of the early religion of Israel is contradicted by the testimony of the oldest Prophets whose authority is not questioned by them. These inspired seers know of the fall of Adam (Hosea 6:7), the call of Abraham (Isaiah 29:23; Micah 7:20), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha (Hosea 11:8; Isaiah 1:9; Amos 4:11), the history of Jacob and his struggle with the angel (Hosea 12:2 sqq.), Israel's exodus from Egypt and dwelling in the desert (Hosea 2:14; 7:16; 11:1; 12:9, 13; 13:4, 5; Amos 2:10; 3:1; 9:7), the activity of Moses (Hosea 12:13; Micah 6:4; Isaiah 63:11-12), a written legislation (Hosea 8:12), and a number of particular statutes (cf. Kley, "Die Pentateuchfrage", Munster, 1903, 223 sqq.). Again, the theory of development is more and more contradicted by the results of historical investigation. Weber ("Theologie und Assyriologie im Streit um Babel und Bibel", Leipzig, 1904, 17) points out that the recent historical results imply decadence rather than development in ancient oriental art, science, and religion; Winckler ("Religionsgeschichtler und geschichtl. Orient", Leipzig, 1906, 33) considers the evolutionary view of the primitive state of man as false, and believes that the development theory has, at least, been badly shaken, if not actually destroyed by recent Oriental research (cf. Bantsch, "Altorientalischer und israelitischer Monothesismus", Tübingen, 1906). Köberle ("Die Theologie der Gegenwart", Leipzig, 1907, I, 2) says that the development theory has exhausted itself, reproducing only the thoughts of Wellhausen, and deciding particular questions not in the light of facts, but according to the postulates of the theory. Finally, even the rationalistic writers have thought it necessary to replace the development theory by another more in