70 The Fundamentals writing of it are connected with Moses, a very strong case is made out against mere accommodation. The obvious accur acy of speech observed in some of these references cannot be overlooked; e. g., “Moses, therefore, gave you circumcision (not because it is of Moses , but of the fathers).’’ Again, “There is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust; for had ye believed Moses ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me ; but if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words?” This is not the style of one who does not wish his words to be taken strictly ! TWO POSITIONS CLEAR Two positions may, I think, be affirmed: 1. The legisla tion of the Pentateuch is actually ascribed to Moses by the Lord. If this legislation is, in the main, long subsequent to Moses, and a good deal of it later than the exile, the Lord’s language is positively misleading, and endorses an error which vitiates the entire construction of Old Testament history and the development of religion in Israel. 2. Moses is to such extent the writer of the law that it may, with propriety, be spoken of as “his writings.” All admit that there are passages in the Books of Moses which were written by another hand or other hands, and should even additions other than certain brief explanatory interpolations and the last chapter of Deu teronomy have to be recognized (which has not yet been demonstrated) the Pentateuch would remain Mosaic. Should Moses have dictated much of his writings, as Paul did, they would, it is unnecessary to say, be not the less his. The words of Jesus we consider as evidence that He regarded Moses as, substantially, the writer of the books which bear his name. Less than this robs several of our Lord’s statements of their point and propriety. I t is hardly necessary to say that we have no désire to see a true and reverent criticism of the Old Testament, and of the New as well, arrested in^ts progress, or in the least hin-
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker