A Discourse Against The Catholic Dogma Of Purgatory

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to rebut a number of arguments made in defense of the Roman Catholic dogma of purgatory as well as attempts to answer objections to that dogma. Following are a few excerpts from Kevin Tierney along with a critique of his assertions:

          "...the sacrifice of Christ is no longer there for one "who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified"; such a one can "throw away [one's] confidence" and "shrink back" and be "destroyed" (Hebrews 10:28-39). The only thing such a sinner looks forward to is judgment, for "the Lord will judge his people" (cf. Romans 2:5-10). We are to keep faith and endure to the end to be saved, "so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised" (cf. Matthew 24:13; 2 Peter 1:10f)."

          The text from Hebrews addresses people who knowingly and willingly reject the atonement for sin that God provides. It is about persevering in the faith, not purification of souls after death. The author of Hebrews addresses an audience who professes Christ without providing specific commentary on how things work in the afterlife.

          The text from Matthew is descriptive, not prescriptive, in nature. The text from 2 Peter simply gives us a picture of what takes place in sanctification and does not concern the instance of justification itself.

          "...the final step into heaven would require us to be perfectly purified and made completely holy through Christ’s grace, since the church in heaven, where "nothing unclean can enter" contains holy and perfected people (cf. Matthew 5:48; Hebrews 12:14, 23; 1 Thess 5:23; Eph 5:26f; Rev 21:27). So we DO "need to be purified" according to Scripture (cf. Mal 3:2-3; 1 Peter 1:6-9; 1 Cor 3:12-15; Hebrews 12:29), and Christ's one sacrifice is the application of that final purification and sanctification necessary for heaven -- which Catholics call "purgatory."

          Certainly, we must persevere in faith. Nothing unclean can enter heaven. However, the point of contention is whether good works are to be seen as meritorious. Christians are forgiven of their sins by God and covered in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. He therefore already sees us as perfect in His sight. Purgatory is something created by Roman Catholicism to meet a need that does not exist. It exists only in the minds of people who choose to believe it.

          "There is no evidence in Scripture of the infamous mantra “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” (some say it is implied in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 which actually reads: "we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord" -- RSV). There is often desire to be away from the body and be with Christ, but what believer wouldn’t desire this?"

           In context, Paul sets forth a contrast between an earthly "tent" that is subject to destruction and an eternal "tent" prepared by God (2 Corinthians 5:1). He is speaking in reference to our bodies. He speaks of the believer's longing to be "clothed" with a glorified body rather than being "in this house" (2 Corinthians 5:2). Paul says we shall not be "naked" but clothed in heavenly glory (2 Corinthians 5:3). We are troubled in our mortal bodies, but will put on life and immortality at the final resurrection. This context is full of contrasts between the temporal and eternal realms. We walk by faith, not sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). Paul clearly sets up a twofold division between absence and presence (2 Corinthians 5:6-8). It is therefore foolish to assert that this "famous mantra" has "no evidence" in Scripture.

          There are a number of passages in Scripture that pertain to the intermediate state without any idea of purgatory even being hinted at (John 14:1-4; Revelation 7:14-17; 20:11-15). All these texts point to the souls of believers going directly to be with God in heaven after physical death. Nowhere is a temporary abode that exists to purify our souls of venial sin spoken of. The repentant thief on the cross was promised eternal bliss that same day by Jesus Christ Himself (Luke 23:39-43).

          "...If this argument is turned around on the Protestant who uses Church history, it hurts him even more. What about those prayers for the dead? Of course they are depicted as being in a place of happiness! They were going to heaven! Nowhere does the Catholic Church deny this. There is also the Latin used, which Webster says only refers to “refreshment” or to “refresh.”

          The above assertions are a red herring. The view of purgatory that has been a tradition of Roman Catholicism for centuries is that it is a place of intense suffering to satisfy divine justice. According to this view, it is anything but pleasant. In Catholic theology, purgatory exists for people to make atonement for the remaining guilt of venial sin committed during their earthly lives. Purgatory has been described as a sin purifying fire. It is from this point of view that authors like Webster critique purgatory. Catholic apologists who describe purgatory in terms of peace, bliss, and excitement are not representing historic belief. Primitive writers such as Clement of Rome and Polycarp refer to Christians as being in heaven without any mention of purgatory.

Of Inequality

Plutarch somewhere says that he finds no such great difference between beast and beast as between man and man. He speaks of the mind and internal qualities. I could find in my heart to say there is more difference between one man and another than between such a man and such a beast; and that there are as many degrees of spirits as steps between earth and heaven.

But concerning the estimation of men, it is marvellous that we ourselves are the only things not esteemed for their proper qualities. We commend a horse for his strength and speed, not for his trappings; a greyhound for his swiftness, not his collar; a hawk for her wing, not for her bells. Why do we not likewise esteem a man for that which is his own? He has a goodly train of followers, a stately palace, so much rent coming in, so much credit among men. Alas, all that is about him, not in him. If you buy a horse you see him bare of saddle and cloths. When you judge of a man, why consider his wrappings only? In a sword it is the quality of the blade, not the value of the scabbard, to which you give heed. A man should be judged by what he is himself, not by his appurtenances. 

Let him lay aside his riches and external honours and show himself in his shirt. Has he a sound body? What mind has he? Is it fair, capable, and unpolluted, and happily equipped in all its parts? Is it a mind to be settled, equable, contented, and courageous in any circumstances? Is he-

 A wise man, of himself commander high, Whom want, nor death, nor bands can terrify, Resolved t'affront desires, honours to scorn, All in himself, close, round, and neatly borne, Against whose front externals idly play, And even fortune makes a lame essay? 

Such a man is five hundred degrees beyond kingdoms and principalities; himself is a kingdom unto himself. Compare with him the vulgar troop--stupid, base, servile, warring, floating on the sea of passions, depending wholly on others. There is more difference than between heaven and earth, yet in a blindness of custom we take little or no account of it. Whereas, if we consider a cottage and a king, a noble and a workman, a rich man and a poor, we at once recognise disparity, although, as one might say, they differ in nothing but their clothes. 

An emperor, whose pomp so dazzles us in public, view him behind the curtain is but an ordinary man, and peradventure viler and sillier than the least of his subjects! Cowardice, irresolution, ambition, spite, anger, envy, move and work in him as in another man. Fear, care, and suspicion haunt him even in the midst of his armed troops. Does the ague, the headache, or the gout spare him more than us? When age seizes on his shoulders, can the tall yeoman of his guard rid him of it? His bedstead encased with gold and pearls cannot allay the pinching pangs of colic!

The flatterers of Alexander the Great assured him he was the son of Jupiter, but being hurt one day, and the blood gushing from the wound, "What think you of this?" said he to them. "Is not this blood of a lively red hue, and merely human?" If a king have the ague or the gout what avail his titles of majesty? But if he be a man of worth, royalty and glorious titles will add but little to good fortune.

Truly, to see our princes all alone, sitting at their meat, though beleaguered with talkers, whisperers, and gazing beholders, I have often rather pitied than envied them. The honour we receive from those who fear and stand in awe of us is no true honour.

"Service holds few, though many hold service." Every man's manners and his mind His fortune for him frame and find.

Of the Inequality that is Between Us, Michel de Montaigne 

The World's Greatest Books (Philosophy and Economics), Vol. XIV, p. 68-70

The Superiority Of The Gift Of Love

1 Corinthians 13:1

"Love."

The word rendered "charity" in the Old Version, and "love" in the Revised Version of our New Testament, is not a classical substantive. It is emphatically a Christian term. And this need not be wondered at; for as the virtue itself is one, if not created, yet developed by Christianity, it is what might have been expected to find that the thing gave rise to the name. This chapter has been called a psalm of love, and is admired both for its elevated thinking and its melodious diction, whilst to such as are imbued with the true Christian spirit it is especially congenial and delightful.

I. MISCONCEPTIONS HAVE TO BE REMOVED. E.g.:

1. The use of the word "charity" is ambiguous. It is often used as equivalent to tolerance, as in the phrase, "the judgment of charity;" and often as synonymous with "almsgiving," as in the sad proverb, "Cold as charity." Neither of these uses meets the requirements of the text.

2. "Love" is also an ambiguous word, being commonly applied to the feeling of attraction and attachment between young people of opposite sexes—a usage which evidently has no applicability here.

II. THE NATURE OF CHRISTIAN LOVE HAS TO BE EXPLAINED.

1. It is between one human being and another. The question is not of reverent love to God, but of the mutual feelings of those endowed with the same spiritual nature.

2. It is a sentiment, and there is no love where there is simply a principle of action, cold and unimpassioned.

3. It is a sentiment which governs conduct, restraining men from injuring or slandering one another, and impelling them to mutual assistance.

III. THE SOURCE OF CHRISTIAN LOVE HAS TO BE TRACED.

1. Its true and ultimate origin is in the nature of God, who is love.

2. Its introduction among men is chiefly owing to the Lord Jesus, who was the gift of the Father's love, whose whole ministry to earth was a revelation of love, and whose benevolent conduct and sacrificial death were the fruit of love.

3. Its individual power and social efficacy are owing to the presence and operation of the Spirit of God. Not without significance is love mentioned first in the inventory of the fruits of the Spirit, which are these: love, joy, peace, etc.

IV. THE EXCELLENCY OF CHRISTIAN LOVE HAS TO BE EXHIBITED. This is done in this chapter, systematically, in several ways.

1. It is superior to the supernatural gifts generously bestowed upon the Church in the first age.

2. It is the motive to dispositions and actions of the highest degree of moral beauty.

3. It will survive all that is most prized by man as intellectually precious and desirable.

4. It is superior even to gifts, or rather graces, so lovely and admirable as are faith and hope.—T.

1 Corinthians 13:1

Love and language.

It would seem that, of all gifts, the gift of speech, and especially that variety of it known as the gift of tongues, was most prized by the Christians of Corinth. Probably for this reason the apostle puts this in the forefront, when he compares other possessions and virtues with the grace of love.

I. IN WHAT THE SUPERIORITY OF LOVE OVER SPEECH CONSISTS.

1. In the fact that the gift of tongues draws attention to the possessor himself, whilst charity goes forth from him who cultivates it to others. The gift in question was one splendid and dazzling. Whether it consisted in a power to speak intelligibly in foreign languages, or in the pouring forth of sounds—articulate, indeed, but not corresponding with any language known to the auditors—in either case it was a brilliant faculty, drawing all eyes to the speaker and all ears to his voice. On the other hand, the affectionate ministrant to the wants of his poor or afflicted neighbours would usually go his way unnoticed and unadmired. It is better that a man should be drawn out, as it were, from himself, than that his attention should be, because the attention of others is, concentrated upon himself.

2. In the fact that the grace of love is far more serviceable to the Church and to the world than the gift of tongues. There was a purpose subserved by this gift—it impressed carnal listeners, it was a proof to the Church itself of a special Divine presence. But love led men and women to sympathize with one another, to minister to the wants of the needy, to raise the fallen, to strengthen the weak, to nurse the sick, to comfort the bereaved, to rear the orphan. Thus its fruits vindicated its supremacy.

3. In the fact that the Lord Jesus loved, but never spake with tongues.

4. In the fact that the gift of tongues is but for a season, whilst love is indestructible and eternal.

II. BY WHAT COMPARISON THE SUPERIORITY OF LOVE IS ILLUSTRATED. The gift without the grace is likened to the sounding of brass, to the clashing of a cymbal of bronze. There is noise, but it is vex et proeterea nihil; there is no melody and no meaning. On the other hand, love is like a strain of exquisite music vibrating from the strings, warbling from a flute, or pealing from the pipes of an organ; or, better still, it is like the clear bell-like voice of a boy in some cathedral choir, rendering an immortal passage of sacred poetry to an air sounding like an echo from the minstrelsy of Paradise. The former arrests attention; the gong when struck produces a shock; but the latter sweetly satisfies the soul, then soothing and refreshing the spirit's longings for a heaven bern strain, and leaving behind the precious memory of a melting cadence.—T.

1 Corinthians 13:2

Love and knowledge.

Different gifts have attractions for different minds. To the Corinthians the charisms of language seem to have had an especial charm and value. It might be supposed that those possessions here mentioned—prophecy, unravelling of mysteries, and knowledge, especially of spiritual things—would have a deeper interest for such a one as Paul. And that he did prize these is not to be questioned. Yet such was his appreciation of love, that in this eulogium of it he sets it above those half intellectual, half spiritual gifts.

I. THESE GIFTS ARE IN THEMSELVES VALUABLE. There is nothing here said to disparage the gifts. On the contrary, they are introduced in a way which witnesses to their excellence. Prophecy is the speaking forth of the mind of God—a function the most honourable the mind can conceive. To understand and reveal mysteries would universally be acknowledged to be a high distinction. Knowledge ranks high in connection with a religion which addresses man's intelligence. All these are, so to speak, aspects of religion peculiarly congenial to a thoughtful Christian, and peculiarly advantageous to a Christian community.

II. BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THESE GIFTS MAY BE OF NO VALUE TO THE POSSESSOR. That is, in case they be unaccompanied by love. The purely intellectual character is the unlovely character. The man may be the vehicle of truth, and yet the truth may pass through him without affecting his character, his spiritual position. Who does not know such men—men of Biblical scholarship, sound theology, great teaching power, yet loveless, and because loveless unlovely? To themselves they may be great men, and in the view of the Church; but in reality, and before God, they are nothing!

III. IT IS LOVE WHICH MAKES THESE GIFTS VALUABLE TO THEIR POSSESSOR. How needful love is to impart a spiritual flavour and quality to these great endowments, is clear enough, i.e. to every enlightened mind.

1. Love infuses the spirit in which they are to be used. How differently the man of intellect or of learning uses his powers when his soul is pervaded by the spirit of brotherly love, every observer must have noticed. "Let all your things be done in charity" is an admonition appropriate to all, but especially so to the man of genius or of ability.

2. Love controls the purpose to which they are to be applied. Not for self exaltation, not for the advancement of a great cause, but for the general welfare, will love inspire the great to consecrate their talents, according to the mind and method of the great Master himself.—T.

1 Corinthians 13:2

Love and faith.

St. Paul was so emphatically the apostle of faith, that it is hard to believe that he wrote anything approaching to disparagement of that great and efficacious virtue. If he devoted a great part of his chief Epistle—that to the Romans—to an exhibition of the power of faith, it is not likely that here or anywhere he should write one word which could cast faith into the shade. And, in fact, the reference of the apostle in this passage is not to faith in Christ as a Saviour, but to that special faith m a special promise which was the means of enabling the possessor to perform great marvels—in the figurative language of Scripture, to remove mountains.

I. THIS LANGUAGE IS NOT IN DISPARAGEMENT OF THE FAITH WHICH WORKS BY LOVE. It is always taught in Scripture that faith precedes love; the heart must find Christ and rest in him and live from him, in order that it may love him. Confidence in a personal Saviour revealed in his words and life, in his sacrifice and triumph, will certainly awaken affection, more or less ardent according to the temperament and history of the individual believer. Strong faith is fitted to enkindle warm love.

II. WE ARE TAUGHT THAT "GIFTS" ARE NOT ALWAYS A SIGN OF PIETY. The faith which was so much admired and coveted in the primitive Church was confidence in a certain definite promise of the Lord of supernatural aid to those whose position rendered such aid expedient. The removal of mountains is, of course, a figure for the vanquishing of difficulties, and probably for the performance of miracles. It would seem that there were in the early Churches some who possessed this gift who had not the spiritual qualifications which were far more to be desired. And it is not to be denied that even now there are in all Christian communities men largely endowed with gifts of administration, learning, and eloquence, who yet are lacking in those first qualities of Christian character which are a sign of the Spirit's indwelling. Far more to be desired is simple faith in the Saviour than the faith which removes mountains and dazzles multitudes.

III. THESE LESSONS ARE ENFORCED BY THE CONSIDERATION THAT PAUL POSSESSED BOTH SUPERNATURAL GIFTS AND FERVENT CHARITY, AND WAS WELL ABLE TO COMPARE THE TWO. Never were wonders, miracles of moral power, wrought more manifestly, more repeatedly, than in the ministry of the great apostle of the Gentiles. If any had reason to boast, he had more. Yet to him his love to the Saviour, and his devotion to those for whom that Saviour died, were of far more consequence and value than all his supernatural gifts.

"Love is the brightest of the train,

And strengthens all the rest."

T.

1 Corinthians 13:3

Love and almsgiving.

Of all the comparisons between love and other qualities, gifts, or practices, this is the one which sounds most strange to our ears. For in our minds charity and almsgiving are so closely associated that it scarcely seems possible that they should be placed in contrast one with the other. Yet so it is; and every observer of human nature and society can recognize both the insight and the foresight of the apostle in this striking, almost startling comparison.

I. ALMSGIVING MAY ORIGINATE IN INFERIOR AND UNWORTHY MOTIVES. The apostle supposes an extreme case, viz. that one should give away all his substance in doles to the poor; and he gives his judgment that such a course of action may be loveless, and, if loveless, then worthless. For it may proceed from:

1. Ostentation. That this is the explanation of many of the handsome and even munificent gifts of the wealthy, we are obliged to believe. A rich man sometimes likes his name to figure in a subscription list for an amount which no man of moderate means can afford. The publication of such a gift gratifies his vanity and self importance. His name may figure side by side with that of a well known millionaire.

2. Custom. A commentator has illustrated this passage by reference to the crowds of beggars who gather in the court of a great bishop's palace in Spain or Sicily, to each of whom a coin is given, in so-called charity. Such pernicious and indiscriminate almsgiving is expected of those in a high position in the Church, and they give from custom. The same principle explains probably much of our eleemosynary bestowment.

3. Love of power. As in the feudal days a great lord had his retinue and his retainers, multitudes depending upon his bounty, so there can be no question that individuals and Churches often give generously for the sake of the hold they thus gain upon the dependent, who become in turn in many ways their adherents and supporters.

II. ALMSGIVING MAY IN SOME CASES BE INJURIOUS. In fact, it often is so.

1. To the recipient. The wretch who lives in idleness on rich men's doles is degraded in the process, and becomes lost to all self respect, and habituated to an ignominious and base contentedness with his position.

2. To society generally. When it is known that the man who begs is as well supported as the man who works, how can it be otherwise than that demoralization should ensue? The system of indiscriminate almsgiving is a wrong to the industrious poor.

3. To the giver. For such gifts as are supposed, instead of calling forth the finer qualities of the nature, awaken in the breast of the bestower a cynical contempt of mankind.

III. NEVERTHELESS, TRUE CHARITY MAY EXPRESS ITSELF IN GIFTS. The man who doles away his substance in almsgiving, and has all the while no charity, is nothing; but if there be love, that love sanctifieth both the giver and the gift. For he who loves and gives resembles that Divine Being whose heart is ever filled with love, whose hands are ever filled with gifts.—T.

1 Corinthians 13:3

Love and self immolation.

It would seem that Paul had some anticipation of the approaching developments of Christian society. There is no ground for believing that, at the time when he wrote, any member of the Church of Christ had suffered at the stake for fidelity to principle and to faith. Such martyrdoms had occurred in Palestine, when the enemies of Jehovah had been triumphant and had wreaked their vengeance upon the faithful Jews. And even before Paul's decease, in Rome itself, Christians came to be the victims of the infamous Nero's brutality, and perished in the flames. Stronger language could not be used to set forth the superiority of love to zeal, fidelity, and devotion than this of St. Paul: "Though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing!"

I. THE READINESS TO DIE, AT THE STAKE OR OTHERWISE, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, IS GOOD. As the three Hebrew children were content to be cast into the burning, fiery furnace, as the faithful Jews died at the stake under the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, as Polycarp at over four score years of age gave his body to be burned, as the holy Perpetua suffered this martyrdom with willing mind, as in our own country at the Reformation many suffered in the fires of Oxford and Smithfield, so have multitudes counted their lives as not dear to them for the blessed Saviour's sake. It cannot but be that such sacrifice of self, such holy martyrdom, ever has been and is acceptable to Christ, who gave himself for us. For he himself has said, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

II. THE ABSENCE OF LOVE TAKES AWAY EVEN FROM THE VIRTUE OF MARTYRDOM. There is a story of a Christian of Antioch who, on his way to martyrdom, refused to forgive and be reconciled to a brother Christian. Such a case is an exact example of the zeal without love which the apostle here pronounces worthless. If Christian charity be absent where zeal is present, there seems reason to fear that the motives which induce to self immolation are pride, self glorification, and an inflexible obstinacy. If there be not love to Christ's people, there is no real love to Christ: "He that loveth God loves his brother also." It is strange to think that self delusion may go so far that men may suffer martyrdom without being truly Christ's. Yet so it is. And we may be reminded, from the possibility of this extreme case, how readily men deceive themselves and suppose that they are influenced by truly religious and distinctly Christian motives, when all the while self is the pivot upon which their whole conduct revolves. And it may be suggested to us how inexpressibly essential, in the judgment of our Lord and his Spirit, is that grace of love, the absence of which cannot be atoned for even by a passage through the fiery flames of martyrdom.—T.

1 Corinthians 13:4, 1 Corinthians 13:5

Love and our fellow men.

In this panegyric of charity, we find,

I. LOVE IS LONG SUFFERING AS OPPOSED TO IMPATIENCE. There is no possibility of mixing with human society without encountering many occasions of irritation. Human nature is such that conflicts of disposition and of habits will and must occur. It is so in the family, in civil life, and even in the Church. Hence impatience and irritability are among the most common of infirmities. And there is no more sure sign of a disciplined and morally cultured mind than a habit of forbearance, tolerance, and patience. But Christianity supplies a motive and power of long suffering which can act in the case of persons of every variety of temperament and of every position of life. "Love suffereth long."

II. LOVE IS GRACIOUS AND KIND AS OPPOSED TO MALICE AND ILL WILL. There is no disposition known to human nature which is a more awful proof of the enormity of sin than malevolence. And the religion of the Lord Christ in nothing more signally proves its divinity than in its power to expel this demoniacal spirit from the breast of humanity. In fact, benevolence is the admitted "note" of this religion. The sterner virtues, as fortitude and justice, were admired and practised among the heathen, and celebrated by the moralists of antiquity. These and others were assumed by Christianity, which added to them the softer grace of love—love which justifies itself in deeds of benignity and loving kindness.

III. LOVE IS OPPOSED TO ENVY AID JEALOUSY. These are vices which arise from discontent with one's own condition as compared with that of others, and are justly deemed among the meanest and basest of which man is capable. Christianity proves its power of spiritual transformation by suppressing, and indeed in many cases by extirpating, these evil passions from the heart, and by teaching and enabling men to rejoice in their neighbours' prosperity.

IV. LOVE, AS OPPOSED TO ANGER, IS NOT PROVOKED WITH THE CONDUCT OF OTHERS. This must not be pressed too far, as though anger in itself were an evil, as though there were no such thing as righteous indignation. Christ himself was angry with hypocrites and deceivers; his indignation and wrath were aroused again and again. But the moral distinction lies here: to be provoked with those who injure us or pass a slight upon our dignity and self importance, is unchristian, but it is not so to cherish indignation with the conduct of God's wilful enemies.

V. LOVE KEEPS NO ACCOUNT OF EVIL RENDERED. This trait in the character of the Christian is very beautiful. It is customary with sinful men to cherish the memory of wrongs done to them, against a day of retribution. Love wipes out the record of wrong doing from the memory, and knows nothing of vindictiveness or ill will.—T.

1 Corinthians 13:4, 1 Corinthians 13:5

Love and self abnegation.

Where there is sincere Christian love, that grace will not only affect for good the intercourse of human society, it will exercise a most powerful and beneficial influence over the nature of which it takes possession; changing pride into humility, and selfishness into self denial. And this is not to be wondered at by him who considers that for the Christian the spiritual centre of gravity is changed—is no longer self, but Christ.

I. LOVE DESTROYS BOASTFULNESS. It "vaunteth not itself." In some characters more than in others there is observable a disposition towards display. There may be real ability, and yet there may be the vanity which obtrudes the proofs of that ability; or there may, on the other hand, be an absence of ability, and yet the fool may not be able to conceal his folly, but must needs make himself the laughing stock of all. Love delights not in the display of real power or the assumption of what does not exist. How can it? When love seeks the good of others, how can it seek their admiration?

II. LOVE IS OPPOSED TO PRIDE. It "is not puffed up." The expression is a strong one; it has been rendered, "does not swell and swagger," "is not inflated with vanity." The explanation of this is clear enough. The pretentious and arrogant man has a mind full of himself, of thoughts of his own greatness and importance, Now, love is the outflowing of the heart's affection in kindliness and benevolence towards others. He who is always thinking of the welfare of his fellow men has no time and no inclination for thoughts of self exaltation, aggrandizement, and ambition. It is plain, then, how wholesome, purifying, and sweetening an influence Christianity introduces into human society; and how much it tends to the happiness of individuals, cooling the fever of restless rivalry and ambition.

III. LOVE IS INCONSISTENT WITH ALL UNSEEMLINESS OF DEPORTMENT. There is an indefiniteness about the language: "Doth not behave itself unseemly." Possibly there is a special reference to the discreditable scenes which were to be witnessed in the Corinthian congregation, in consequence of their party spirit, rivalry, and discord. But there is always in every community room for the inculcation of considerateness, courtesy, self restraint, and dignity. And the apostle points out, with evident justice, that what no rules or custom can produce is the spontaneous and natural result of the operation of Christian love.

IV. LOVE IS, IN A WORD, UNSELFISH; i.e. "seeketh not her own." Here is the broadest basis of the new life of humanity. Love gives, and does not grasp; has an eye for others' wants and sorrows, but turns not her glance towards herself; moves among men with gracious mien and open hands.—T.

1 Corinthians 13:6

The joy of love.

There is, perhaps, no test of character more decisive than this: in what is the chief pleasure of life placed? Where is satisfaction of the soul? Whence does joy proceed? If Christianity is indeed a revolutionary religion, it will effect a change here—in this vital respect. Even in St. Paul's time, it appeared that with Christianity a new force—the force of love—had been introduced into humanity, a force able to direct human delight into another and purer and nobler channel than that in which it had been wont to flow.

I. JOY NO LONGER FLOWS FROM THE PRESENCE AND PREVALENCE OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. It seems to attribute a fiendish spirit to human beings to suppose that they can anywhere and at any time be found to rejoice in wrong doing and unrighteousness. Yet it is, alas! possible for sinful men to take a malignant pleasure in the prevalence of sin; for it is the proof of the power of the moral forces with which they have allied themselves, of the victory of their own party. The iniquity of others serves to support and justify their own iniquity. And it must be borne in mind that there are cases in which designing men profit by deeds of unrighteousness, take the very wages of iniquity. Against such dispositions Christian love must needs set itself; for when iniquities prevail, happiness and hope take wings and fly away.

II. JOY FLOWS TO THE CHRISTIAN HEART FROM THE PROGRESS OF TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS. Truth is the intellectual side of righteousness, and righteousness the moral side of truth. There is, accordingly, a real antithesis between the two clauses of the text.

1. This joy is akin to the joy of God. The Father rejoices over the repenting and recovered child, the Shepherd over the restored, once wandering, sheep. "There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." And they who themselves are enjoying peace and fellowship with a reconciled God cannot but participate in the satisfaction with which that holy Being views the progress of truth and religion among men.

2. It is sympathetic with the gladness of the Saviour in the accomplishment of his gracious purposes. As Christ sees of the travail of his soul, he is satisfied; for the joy set before him, i.e. in the salvation of men, he endured the cross. And all who owe salvation to what Jesus did and suffered for man must needs experience a thrill of gratification when a rebel is changed into a subject by the grace of God.

3. It springs from the triumph of that cause which of all on earth is the greatest and most glorious. Every noble soul finds satisfaction in witnessing the advance of truth from the dim dawn towards the full meridian day for which he, in common with all God's people in every age, is ever toiling, hoping, and praying.—T.

1 Corinthians 13:7

Love and the conduct of life.

We are born into, and we live in the midst of, a system, vast and incomprehensible. Man is related to a thousand circumstances, and his moral life depends upon the principles which govern these relationships. It is by a sublime and spiritual intuition, itself an evidence of a Divine commission and apostolate, that St. Paul discerns the truth that love, when it takes possession of the Christian's nature, relates him anew and aright to "all things," i.e. to the whole system in which he finds himself, and of which indeed he forms a part.

I. Love "CONCEALETH ALL THINGS." The word is one which, perhaps, cannot be confidently interpreted. But it may and probably does mean "conceal "or "cover." And so rendered, how appropriate is it in this place! What so characteristic of true charity as the habit of covering up and concealing the faults and infirmities of our brethren? It is a difficult exercise, especially to an acute and candid mind; but because we see an error it is not necessary to publish it. There may be good done and harm avoided by hiding good men's infirmities and the human defects which are to be found even in an excellent cause.

II. Love "BELIEVETH ALL THINGS." There is no point at which the wisdom of this world and the wisdom which is of God come more violently into conflict than here. To worldly men it seems the height of folly to proceed in human life upon the principle of believing all things. This is, in their view, credulity which will make a man the prey of knaves and impostors. Now, the words of the text must not be taken literally. They commend a disposition opposed to suspicion. A suspicious man is wretched himself, and he is universally distrusted and disliked. Where there is reason to distrust a person, even charity will distrust. But, on the other hand, charity cultivates that strain of nobleness in character which prefers to think well of others, and to give credit rather than to question and disbelieve.

III. LOVE "HOPETH ALL THINGS." Here again we have portrayed a feature of Christian character which it needs some spiritual discipline and culture to appreciate. A sanguine disposition is often distrusted, and not unjustly. But we may understand that temper of mind which leads us to hope good things of our fellow men, and to view with confident expectation the progress of the truth over their nature.

IV. LOVE "ENDURETH ALL THINGS." This is to most men the hardest lesson of all. Many will cheerfully work from love, who find it no easy matter to suffer calumny, coldness, hatred, persecution, in a loving spirit and for Christ's sake. But we need the spirit of Divine charity to overlook all the assaults of men, and to pray for those who despitefully use us. This can and may be done when the whole nature is inspired with love to God and love to man.—T.

Exell, Joseph S; Spence-Jones, Henry Donald Maurice. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:4". The Pulpit Commentary. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tpc/1-corinthians-13.html. 1897.

Easter And The King James Version

        "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." (Acts 12:4)

        The Passover, rendered as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 of the King James Version, was designated for the Jewish people to bring into mind and regard as sacred the time God had rescued them from Egypt by parting the Red Sea. It was during this festival that Herod had ordered the execution of James and the arrest of Peter for preaching the gospel.

        Easter is a Germanic word for "resurrection," which was in common use in the era that this translation of the Bible was brought into completion. That is why the translators of the Authorized Version used it, most likely viewing the Passover as a Jewish observance whereas the resurrection of Christ was celebrated by Christians.

        The Greek Pascha is a transliteration of the Hebrew Pesach. Interestingly, this term is translated as "Passover" every other instance that it occurs in the King James Version. Easter is a later tradition taken up by Christians. Consequently, "Passover" is a better choice of words than is "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

Joshua's Conquest Of Canaan And Evidence

“(1) Usually less than about 5 or 10 percent of any given mound is ever dug down to Late Bronze (or any other) levels; hence between 85 to 95 percent of our potential source of evidence is never seen.(2)The principal Hebrew policy under Joshua was to kill leaders and inhabitants, not to destroy the cities, but eventually to occupy them (cf. Deut 6:10-11), destroying only the alien cult places (Deut 12:2-3). (3) Conquests, even historically well-known examples, often do not leave behind the sorts of traces that modern scholars overconfidently expect...” (p. 189-190)

“See B.S. J. Isserlin…quoting the Norman Conquest, the Anglo-Saxon settlement in England, and the Muslim Arab invasion of Syria-Palestine. One may also cite the innumerable campaigns of Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian, and Neo-Babylonian armies in the Levant, of whose encampments and battlefields almost no traces are ever found...” (p. 545, note 84)

“No total conquest and occupation. The book of Joshua does not describe a total Hebrew conquest and occupation of Canaan, real or imaginary. Read straight, its narratives describe an entry (from over the Jordan), full destruction of two minor centers (Jericho, Ai; burned), then defeat of local kings and raids through south Canaan. Towns are attacked, taken, and damaged (“destroyed”), kings and subjects killed and then left behind, not held on to. The same in north Canaan; strategic Hazor is fully destroyed (burned), but no others. The rest are treated like the southern towns, and again left, not held...” (p. 234-235)

“...external data for Joshua and Numbers. We have no direct exter nal textual references to the Israelite entry or raids or initial settlement from Gilgal to Shechem. In the later thirteenth century, Mesopotamia - in the guise of Assyria - never penetrated beyond the Euphrates into Syria proper; Hittite power at Carchemish stood against them. So no data can come on south Palestinian events (especially in the inner highlands) from that quarter. Egypt officially was overlord of Canaan, but her main interest was in the productive coastal plains, lowland hills, and Jezreel, not in the economically poorer highland, and in keeping hold on the main routes north into Phoenicia (to Tyre, Sidon, Babylos, &c) and to Damascus in Upe...” (p. 235)

Excerpts taken from K.A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament

The Exodus And Evidence

The setting presented in Exod. 1-14 is indubitably that of Egypt’s East Delta, whence the Hebrews are shown going directly into the Sinai Peninsula first of all. Background data may well be drawn from Egypt overall, but for locating the biblical Hebrews and their movements “on the ground” in Egypt we are restricted to the East Delta zone geographically.

This fact imposes further severe limitations upon all inquiry into the subject. The Delta is an alluvial fan of mud deposited through many millenia by the annual flooding of the Nile; it has no source of stone within it. Mud, mud and wattle, and mud-brick structures were of limited duration and use, and were repeatedly leveled and replaced, and very largely merged once more with the mud of the fields. So those who squawk intermittently, “No trace of the Hebrews has ever been found” (so, of course, no exodus!), are wasting their breath. The mud hovels of brickfield slaves and humble cultivators have long since gone back to their mud origins, never to be seen again. Even stone structures (such as temples) hardly survive, in striking contrast to sites in the cliff-enclosed valley of Upper Egypt to the south. All stone was anciently shipped in from the south, and repeatedly recycled from one period to another. Thus Eighteenth Dynasty blocks were reused in Ramesside temples; Ramesside temples were replaced under later dynasties largely by reuse of existing stones again; and periods through Saite, Ptolemaic, Romano-Byzantine, and Islamic times repeated the process. In more recent centuries, limestone has been largely burned for lime, and harder stones often reused for millstones or whatever.

Scarce wonder that practically no written records of any extent have been retrieved from Delta sites reduced to brick mounds (whose very bricks are despoiled for fertilizer, sebakh), with even great temples reduced to heaps of tumbled stones. And in the mud, 99 percent of discarded papyri have perished forever; a tiny fraction (of late date) have been found carbonized (burned) — like some at Pompeii — but can only be opened or read with immense difficulty. A tiny fraction of reports from the East Delta occur in papyri recovered from the desert near Memphis. Otherwise, the entirety of Egypt’s administrative records at all periods in the Delta is lost (fig. 32B); and monumental texts are also nearly nil. And, as pharaohs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, no record of the successful exit of a large bunch of foreign slaves (with loss of a full chariot squadron) would ever have been memorialized by any king, in temples in the Delta or anywhere else. On these matters, once and for all, biblicists must shed their naive attitudes and cease demanding “evidence” that cannot exist. Only radically different approaches can yield anything whatsoever. “Archaeology” that limits its blinkered evidence solely to what comes out of modest holes dug in the ground can have no final say in the matter.

K.A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, p. 245-246

The Transfiguration Of Jesus Christ

       The Transfiguration directs our attention to the suffering that Jesus Christ underwent on the Cross (Luke 9:31). He communicated with Moses who had already been dead for thousands of years (Deuteronomy 34:5-7). He also spoke with Elijah who was long before translated into heaven (2 Kings 2:11). The New English Translation has this footnote:

        "sn In 1st century Judaism and in the NT, it was believed that the righteous would be given new, glorified bodies in order to enter heaven (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-49; 2 Cor 5:1-10). This transformation meant that the righteous will share the glory of God. The account of Jesus’ transfiguration here recalls the way Moses shared the Lord’s glory after his visit to the mountain in Exod 34:28-35. So the disciples saw Jesus transfigured, and they were getting a private preview of the great glory that Jesus would have following his exaltation."

        But how could Peter, James, and John recognize Moses when they never encountered him previously? How did they know that the two mysterious figures were actually Moses and Elijah? They could have appeared with Christ in a manner that the disciples could identify. Scripture does not supply us with a tome of information concerning the "mechanics" of the soul. 

        The implication of Luke 16:19-31 is that our souls remain conscious after physical death and are recognizable to each other. If God has not definitively revealed something to us, then we ought not be dogmatic on the matter (Deuteronomy 29:29). The point of the Transfiguration is to demonstrate the preeminence of Jesus Christ. He is not controlled or influenced by created beings. Christ addressed Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration in His glory. The appearance of these two men signifies Him being the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets.

        God announced His approval of Jesus Christ from heaven (Matthew 17:5-6). He is the perfect and acceptable sacrifice for sin. Christ will restore peace and reign for eternity as the King of kings and Lord of lords. Stephen N. Williams gives the following commentary on the Transfiguration:

        "There may be reminders or echoes of the scene of transfiguration elsewhere in the NT, of course; the stories of Paul’s own conversion, in the Book of Acts that combine Jesus, light and a voice from heaven; the very rare (NT) word ‘transfigure’ is the one used by Paul when he tells the Corinthians that we ‘are being transformed [‘transfigured’] into his likeness with ever-increasing glory’ (2 Cor. 3:18); the first chapter of Revelation, with its dramatic portrayal of Jesus, has resonances. John’s Gospel is intriguing on this score. It contains no reference to the transfiguration, but it is a Gospel all about ‘glory’ and a voice from heaven thunders that God has glorified his name ‘and will glorify it again’ (12:28). The question about why John does not specifically mention transfiguration belongs to the wider discussion of its relationship to the Synoptics. We must bear in mind that John does not refer directly to the Last Supper either or directly report the actual baptism of Jesus, where the Synoptics do. John can be concerned with the surrounding interpretation of events that he does not report as do the Synoptists."

Psalms Of Praise

"...Except where intolerably adverse circumstances interfere, praise almost seems to be inner health made audible. Nor does it cease to be so when, through lack of skill, the forms of its expression are very uncouth or even ridiculous. Heaven knows, many poems of praise addressed to an earthly beloved are as bad as our bad hymns, and an anthology of love poems for public and perpetual use would probably be as sore a trial to literary taste as Hymns Ancient and Modern. I had not noticed either that just as men spontaneously praise whatever they value, so they spontaneously urge us to join them in praising it: “Isn’t she lovely? Wasn’t it glorious? Don’t you think that magnificent?” The Psalmists in telling everyone to praise God are doing what all men do when they speak of what they care about. My whole, more general, difficulty about the praise of God depended on my absurdly denying to us, as regards the supremely Valuable, what we delight to do, what indeed we can’t help doing, about everything else we value.

I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation. It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete till it is expressed."

C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms, p. 94-95

Does Paul Teach Against Justification By Works Or Works Of The Law Only?

• Discussion:

          -Tim Staples wrote an article in which he attempts to rebut common biblical texts cited against the Catholic view of justification such as Romans 3:28 and 4:4-5. Following are a handful of excerpts from the author along with a critique:

          "...First, it is true that St. Paul does not say works of law in Romans 4:5. But the context makes it very clear that St. Paul was referring to circumcision in particular and the same “works of law” he was referring to in Romans 3:28. Romans 3:28 down to Romans 4:5 represents one continuous thought in answering the Judaizers and their insistence upon circumcision and keeping the Old Covenant in order to be saved."

          Even assuming that Paul is addressing circumcision in Romans 4:5, that would have no bearing on the argument for Sola Fide because that ritual is a good work and can still be utilized as an example of works not contributing to our justification. The apostle deals with the Jewish Law and good works as a category.

          In verse two, Paul says "justified by works." In verse four, he refers to "the one who works." In verse six, Paul says that one is justified by faith "apart from works." In this context, he even uses Abraham who was not under the Levitical system as his first example. There is no reason to believe that "works of the Law" applies only to works of the ceremonial law. Also, the New English Translation has this footnote on Romans 3:20:

          "...interpreters, like C. E. B. Cranfield (“‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 [1991]: 89–101) reject this narrow interpretation for a number of reasons, among which the most important are: (1) The second half of v. 20, “for through the law comes the knowledge of sin,” is hard to explain if the phrase “works of the law” is understood in a restricted sense; (2) the plural phrase “works of the law” would have to be understood in a different sense from the singular phrase “the work of the law” in 2:15; (3) similar phrases involving the law in Romans (2:13, 14; 2:25, 26, 27; 7:25; 8:4; and 13:8) which are naturally related to the phrase “works of the law” cannot be taken to refer to circumcision (in fact, in 2:25 circumcision is explicitly contrasted with keeping the law). Those interpreters who reject the “narrow” interpretation of “works of the law” understand the phrase to refer to obedience to the Mosaic law in general."

          Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, in their book titled When Cultists Ask, p. 214, notes concerning the Apostle Paul's use of works of the Law:

          "To limit all of Paul's condemnations of "works" to only works of the law of Moses is like limiting God's condemnation of homosexuality in the Old Testament (cf. Lev. 18, 20) to Jews since these passages occur only in the Mosaic law which was written to Jews. And, to grant that a moral law (e.g., natural law) exists outside the law of Moses is to grant the Protestant point that "works" here are not just limited to works of the Mosaic law. The truth is that the condemnations are more broadly applicable than the immediate context in which they arose. The same is true of Paul's condemnation of meritorious "works" as a means of salvation. To limit Paul's condemnation to works of self-righteousness as opposed to meritorious works is reading into the text a distinction that is not there."

          There are other passages in Pauline writings that outwardly deny "works" as being the basis of justification, rather than apart from the "works of the Law" (Ephesians 2:8-10; 2 Timothy 1:9-10; Titus 3:5-7). The context of those verses is not about Jewish Law. Rather, they speak of our calling to holiness, God's mercy, and genuine conversion of heart. Thus, we further reason to believe that the terms "works" and "works of the Law" are synonymous.

          It would be foolish to limit the phrases "works" and "works of the Law" in the context of Romans to only meaning the exclusion of boundary-markers, since the immediate context refers to obedience to the Ten Commandments (Romans 2:20-25). The wrath of God is revealed against all sin (Romans 1:18), which includes both Jews and Gentiles.

          William D. Barrick, in his essay titled The New Perspective and "Works of the Law" (Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20), p. 278-279, writes:

          "In the intertestamental period, sectarian authors at Qumran spoke of the members of their community as "doers/workers of the law" (ośê hattorāh, 1QpHab 7:11; 8:1; 12:4). They did not indicate that "the law” in such cases was limited to circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, or dietary regulations. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, one of the world's leading authorities on Qumran, Aramaic, and the intertestamental period, concludes that Qumran materials (especially 4QMMT 3.29) rule out the suggestion of both Dunn, about a restricted sense of erga nomou, ..., and Gaston, that the gen. nomou is a subjective gen[itive]."

          "When it comes to Romans 7:6-7, we need to go a bit deeper in our response. St. Paul does use the ninth and tenth commandments as examples of “law” that cannot save us. St. Paul is using the example of the “Judaizers” to teach all of us a deeper truth about the nature of justification and works. The works that justify us (as we saw in Romans 2:6-7) are works done in Christ. When the “Judaizers” were insisting a return to the Old Covenant was necessary for salvation, they were, in essence, saying Christ and the New Covenant are not enough. And in so doing, they were ipso facto rejecting Jesus Christ and the New Covenant."

          Paul says that the Law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12; 16). In other words, it reflects the character of God. Thus, there exists no new law by which we can be justified. Romans 7:6-7 is a problem for Tim's position because it shows us that Paul had much more than circumcision in mind when mentioning works of the Law. He even distinguishes between circumcision and following commandments (1 Corinthians 7:19). Consequently, Paul excludes the moral aspects of the Law as grounds for justification before God. He goes as far as to say that love fulfills the Law (Galatians 5:14). There is not a single good work that does not fit into that category. The Apostle Paul does not say that we "can only perform salvific acts in Christ." It is always by faith (Galatians 3:1-3).

          "Just so no one would get the wrong idea of what St. Paul was saying, it seems, he put it plain and simple in Galatians 5:19-21 and 6:7-9. There is no way we can get “justification by faith alone” that excludes works as necessary for justification in any and every sense if we read these texts carefully. St. Paul makes clear that if Christians allow themselves to be dominated by their “flesh,” or lower nature, they will not make it to heaven."

          In Galatians 5:19-21, the Apostle Paul contrasts works of the flesh with works of the Spirit. In Galatians 6:7-9, he states that the wicked will face eternal judgement. These passages, however, are not related to the instance of justification. They are different contexts. Galatians 2:16, 3:11, and 3:22 are clear that justification is not obtained by works.

          In Romans 3:27, Paul raises a rhetorical question: "By what kind of law? Of works?" If there was some new law which we could obey to get saved from eternal condemnation, then this would have been the ideal place for him to mention it. But that does not happen. What Paul is arguing against is the law of works. He is excluding works in general.

          The Roman Catholic Church shares a glaring parallel with the Judaizers, who claimed that believers needed to revert to observing the Law in addition to faith in Christ for salvation. The Roman Catholic Church denies the sufficiency of faith as the instrument of justification by adding sacraments. Both groups mix Law with grace. Such was categorically condemned by the Apostle Paul as a false gospel (Galatians 1:6-12).

Mosaic Authorship Of The Pentateuch

Pentateuch, the. The Greek name given to the five books commonly called the Five Books of Moses. The present Jews usually call the whole by the name of Torak, i.e. "the LAW," or Torath Moshek, " the Law of Moses." The rabbinical title is "the five-fifths of the Law." The division of the whole work into five parts has by some writers been supposed to be original. Others, with more probability, think that the division was made by the Greek translators; for the titles of the several books are not of Hebrew but of Greek origin. The Hebrew names are merely taken from the first words of each book, and in the first instance only designated particular sections, and not whole books. The MSS. of the Pentateuch form a single roll or volume, and are divided, not into books, but into the larger and smaller sections called Parshiyath and Sedarim. For the several names and contents of the Five Books, we refer to the articles on each book, where questions affecting their integrity and genuineness are also discussed. The unity of the work in its existing form is now generally recognized. It is not a mere collection of loose fragments carelessly put together at different times, but bears evident traces of design and purpose in its composition. The question has been raised, whether the Book of Joshua does not, properly speaking, constitute an integral portion of this work. All that seems probable is, that the Book of Joshua received a final revision at the hands of Ezra, or some earlier prophet, at the same time with the books of the Law. At different times, suspicions have been entertained that the Pentateuch as we now have it is not the Pentateuch of the earliest age, and that the work must have undergone various modifications and additions before it assumed its present shape. So early as the second century, we find the author of the Clementine Homilies calling in question the authenticity of the Mosaic writings. Jerome, there can be little doubt, had seen the difficulty of supposing the Pentateuch to be altogether, in its present forms, the work of Moses. Aben Ezra (1167), in his Com. on Deut. i. 1, threw out some doubts as to the Mosaic authorship of certain passages, such as Gen. xii. 6, Deut. iii. 10, 11, xxxi. 9. For centuries, however, the Pentateuch was generally received in the Church without question as written by Moses. The Age of criticism had not yet come. The first signs of its approach were seen in the 17th century. Spinoza (Tract. Theol.-Palit. c. 8, 9, published in 1679) set himself boldly to controvert the received authorship of the Pentateuch. But it was not till the middle of the last century that the question as to the authorship of the Pentateuch was handled with anything like a discerning criticism. In the year 1753 there appeared at Brussels a work entitled "Conjectures sur les Mémoires originaux, dont il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le Livre de Genèse." It was written in his in his 69th year by Astruc, Doctor and Professor of Medicine in the Royal College at Paris, and Court Physician to Louis XIV. 

His critical eye had observed that throughout the Book of Genesis, and as far as the 6th chapter of Exodus, traces were to be found of two original documents, each characterized by a distinct use of the names of God; the one by the name Elohim, and the other by the name Jehovah. Besides these two principal documents, he supposed Moses to have made use of ten others in the composition of the earlier part of his work. But this documentary hypothesis," as it is called, was too conservative and too rational for some critics. Vater And A. T. Hartmann maintained that the Pentateuch consisted merely of a number of fragments loosely strung together without order or design. This has been called the "fragmentary hypothesis." Both of these have now been superseded by the supplementary hypothesis, which has been adopted with various modifications by De Wette, Bleek, Stahelin, Tuch, Lengerke, Hupfeld, Knobel, Bunsen, Kurta, Delitzsch, Schultz, Vaihinger, and others. They all alike recognize two documents in the Pentateuch. "They suppose the narrative of the Elohist, the more ancient writer, to have been the foundation of the work, and that the Jehovist, or later writer making use of this document, added to and commented upon it, sometimes transcribing portions of it intact, and sometimes incorporating the substance of it into his own work But though thus arriving in the main, they differ widely in the application of the theory. Thus, for instance, De Wette distinguishes between the Elohist and the Jehovist to the first four books, and attributes Deuteronomy to a differ ent writer altogether. S helin, on the other hand, declares for the identity of the Deuteronomist and the Jehovist and supposes the last to have written in the reign of Saul, and the Elohist in the time of the Judges. Hopfeld finds, in general at least, traces of three authors, an earlier and later Elohist, as well as the Jehovist. Delitesch agrees with the authors above mentioned in recognizing two distinct documents as the basis of the Pentateuch, especially in its earlier portions, but he entirely severs himself from them in maintaining that Deuteronomy is the work of Moses. Ewald distinguishes seven different authors in the great book of Origines or l'rimitive History (comprising the Pentateuch and Joshua). 

On the other side, however, stands an array of names scarcely less distinguished for learning, who maintain not only that there is unity of design in the Pentateuch which is granted by many of those before mentioned but who contend that this unity of design can only be explained on the supposition of . single author, and that this author could have been none other than Moses. This is the ground taken by Hengstenberg, Havernick, Drechsler, Ranke, Welte, and Keil. 

II. We ask in the next place, What is the testimony of the Pentateuch itself with regard to is authorship? 1. We find on reference to Ex. xxiv. 3, 4, that "Moses came and told the people all the words of Jehovah and all the judgments, and that he subsequently wrote down all the words of Jehovah. These were written on a roll called the book of the covenant, the ten commandments. Leaving Deuteronomy aside for the present, there are only two other passages in which mention is made of the writing of any part of the Law and those are Ex. xvii. 14, where Moss is commanded to write the defeat of Amalek in book (or rather in the book, one already in use for the purpose and Num. xxxiii. 1, where we are informed that Moss wrote the journeyings of the children of Israel in the desert, and the various stations at which they cramped. It obviously does not follow from the statements that Moses wrote all the rest of the first four books which bear his name. Nor on the other hand does this specific testimony with regard to certain portions justify us in coming to an opposite conclusion. So far, nothing can be determined positively one way or the other. 

But it may be said that we have an express testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the Law in Deut. xxxi. 9-12, where we are told that " Moses wrote this Law," and delivered it to the custody of the priests, with a command that it should be read before all the people at the end of every seven years, on the Feast of Tabernacles. In ver. 24 it is further said, that when he "had made an end of writing the words of this Law in a book till they were finished," he delivered it to the Levites to be placed in the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, that it might be preserved as a witness against the people. Such a statement is no doubt decisive; but the question is, how far does it extend? Do the words  'this Law ' comprise all the Mosaic legislation as contained in the last four books of the Pentateuch, or must they be confined only to Deuteronomy 1? The last is apparently the only tenable view. So far, the direct evidence from the Pentateuch itself is not sufficient to establish the Mosaic authorship of every portion of Five Books. Certain parts of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, and the whole of Deuteronomy to the end of chap, xxx., are all that are expressly said to have been written by Moses. Two questions are yet to be answered. Is there evidence that parts of the work were not written by Moses? Is there evidence that parts of the work are later than his time? 

2. The next question we ask is this: Is there any evidence to show that he did not write portions of the work which goes by his name? We have already referred to the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which gives an account of his death. Is it probable that Moses wrote the words in Ex. xi. 3, or those in Num. xii. 3? On the other hand, are not such words of praise just what we might expect from the friend and disciple who pronounced his eulogium after his death? (Deut. xxxiv. 10.) 3. But there is other evidence, to a critical eye not a whit less convincing, which points in the same direction. If, without any theory casting its shadow upon us, and without any fear of consequences before our eyes, we read thoughtfully only the Book of Genesis, we can hardly escape the conviction that it partakes of the nature of a compilation. It has indeed a unity of plan, a coherence of parts, a shapeliness and an order, which satisfy us that as it stands it is the creation of a single mind. But it bears also manifest traces of having been based upon an earlier work  and that earlier work itself seems to have had cm- bedded in it fragments of still more ancient documents. Before proceeding to prove this, it may not be unnecessary to state, in order to avoid misconstruction, that such a theory docs not in the least militate against the divine authority of the book. The history contained in Genesis could not have been narrated by Moses from personal knowledge; but whether he was taught it by immediate divine suggestion, or was directed by the Holy Spirit to the use of earlier documents, is immaterial in reference to the inspiration of the work. The question may therefore be safely discussed on critical grounds alone. 

The language of chapter i. I-ii. 3 is totally unlike that of the section which follows, ii. 4- iii. 23. This last is not only distinguished by a peculiar use of the Divine Names — for here and nowhere else in the whole Pentateuch, except Ex. ix. 30, have we the combination of the two, Jehovah Elohim — but also by a mode of expression peculiar to itself. It is also remarkable for preserving an account of the Creation distinct from that contained in the first chapter. It may be said, indeed, that this account does not contradict the former, and knight therefore have proceeded from the same pen. But, fully admitting that there is no contradiction, the representation is so different, that it is far more natural to conclude that it was derived from some other, though not antagonistic source. To take another instance. Chapter xiv. is, beyond all doubt, an ancient monument, — papyrus-roll it may have been, or inscription on stone, — which has been copied and transplanted in its original form into our present Book of Genesis. Archaic it is in its whole character; distinct too, again, from the rest of the book in its use of the name of God. We believe, then, that at least these two portions of Genesis — chap. ii. 4-iii. 24, and chap, xiv. — are original documents, preserved, it may have been, like the genealogies, which are also a very prominent feature of the book, in the tents of the patriarchs, and made use of either by the Elohist or the Jehovist for his history. We come now to a more ample examination of the question as to the distinctive use of the Divine Names. Is it the fact, as Astruc was the first to surmise, that this early portion of the Pentateuch, extending from Gen. l. to Ex. vi., does contain two original documents characterized by their separate use of the Divine Names and by other peculiarities of style? Of this there can be no reasonable doubt. We do find, not only scattered verses, but whole sections, thus characterized. Through out this portion of the Pentateuch, the name Jehovah prevails in some sections, and Elohim in others. There are a few sections where both are employed indifferently ; and there are, finally, sections of some length in which neither the one nor the other occurs. And we find moreover that in connection with this use of the Divine Names there is also a distinctive and characteristic phraseology. The style and idiom of the Jehovah sections is not the same as the style and idiom of the Elohim sections. After Ex. vi. 2-vii. 7, the name Elohim almost ceases to be characteristic of whole sections; the only exceptions to this rule being Ex. xiii. 17-19 and chap, xviii. Such a phenomenon as this cannot be without significance. If, as Hengstenberg and those who agree with him would persuade us, the use of the Divine Names is to be accounted for throughout by a reference to their etymology — if the author uses the one when his design is to speak of God as the Creator and the Judge, and the other when his object is to set forth God as the Redeemer — then it still cannot but appear remarkable that only up to a particular point do these names stamp separate sections of the narrative, where as afterwards all such distinctive criterion fails. Still this phenomenon of the distinct use of the Divine Names would scarcely of itself prove the point, that there are two documents which form the groundwork of the existing Pentateuch. But there is other evidence pointing the same way. We find, for instance, the same story told by the two writers, and their two accounts manifestly interwoven; and we find also certain favorite words and phrases which distinguish the one writer from the other. (1.) In proof of the first, it is sufficient to read the history of Noah. In order to make this more clear, we will separate the two documents, and arrange them in parallel columns : —

Jehovah.	Elohim.
Gen. vi. 5. And Jehovah 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. And it repented Jehovah &c.	Gen. vi. 12. And Elohim saw the earth, and behold it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
7. And Jehovah said, I will blot out man whom I have created from on the face of the ground.	13. And Elohim said to Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold I will destroy them with the earth.
vii. 1. And Jehovah said to Noah ... Thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.	vi. 9. Noah a righteous man was perfect in his generation. With Elohim did Noah walk.
vii. 2. Of all cattle which is clean thou shalt take to thee by sevens, male and his female; and of all cattle which is not clean, two, male and his female.	vi. 19. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of all shalt thou bring into the ark to preserve alive with thee: male and female shall they be.
3. Also of fowl of the air by sevens, male and female, to preserve seed alive on the face of all the earth.	20. Of fowl after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every thing that creepeth on the ground after his kind, two of all shall come unto thee that thou mayest preserve (them) alive.
vii. 4. For in yet seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will blot out all the substance which I have made from or the face of the ground.	vi. 17. And I, behold I do bring the flood, waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven: all that is in the earth shall perish.
vii. 5. And Noah did according to all that Jehovah commanded him.	vi. 22. And Noah did according to all that Elohim commanded him; so did he.

Without carrying this parallelism farther at length, we will merely indicate by references the traces of the two documents in the rest of the narrative of the Flood : — vii. 1,6, on the Jehovah side, answer to vi. 18, vii. 11, on the Elohim side; vii. 7, 8, 9, 17, 23, to vii. 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22; viii. 21, 22, to ix. 8, 9, 10, 1 1. (2.) But again we find that these duplicate narratives are characterized by peculiar modes of expression; and that, generally, the Elolistic and Jehovistic sections have their own distinct and individual coloring. There is therefore, it seems, good ground for concluding that, besides some smaller independent documents, traces may be discovered of two original historical works, which form the basis of the present Book of Genesis and of the earlier chapters of Exodus. Of these there can be no doubt that the Elohistic is the earlier. The passage in Ex. vi. establishes this, as well as the matter and style of the document itself. Whether Moses himself was the author of either of these works is a different question. Both are probably in the main as old as his time; the Elohistic certainly is, and perhaps older. 4. But we may now advance a step farther. There are certain references of time and place which clearly prove that the work, in its present form, is later than the time of Moses. When, for instance, it is said (Gen. xii. 6, comp. xiii. 7), "And the Canaanitc was then in the land," toe obvious meaning of such a remark seems to be that the state of things was different in the time of the writer; and the conclusion is, that the words must have been written after the occupation of the land by the Israelites. The principal notices of time and place which have been alleged as bespeaking for the Pentateuch a later date are the following : — (a.) References of time. Ex. vi. 26, 27, need not be regarded as a later addition, for it obviously sums up the genealogical register given just before, and refers back to ver. 13. But it is more naturally reconcilable with some other authorship than that of Moses. Again, Ex. xvi. 33-36, though it must have been introduced after the rest of the look was written, may have been added by Moses himself, supposing him to have composed the rest of the book. Moses there directs him to have composed the rest of the book. Moses there directs Aaron to lay up the manna before Jehovah, and then we read : "As Jehovah commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony " (i.e. the Ark) "to be kept. And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited ; they did eat manna until they come unto the borders of the land of Canaan." Then follows the remark, "Now an omer is the tenth part of an ephah." It is clear then that this passage was written not only after the Ark was made, but after the Israelites had entered the Promised Land. The difficulty is greater with a passage in the Book of Genesis. The genealogical table of Esau's family (chap, xxxvi.) can scarcely be regarded as a later interpolation. It docs not interrupt the order and connection of the book; on the contrary, it is a most es sential part of its structure; it is one of the ten "generations" or genealogical registers which form, so to speak, the backbone of the whole. Here we find the remark (ver. 31), "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." No unprejudiced person can read the words, " before there reigned any king over the children of Israel," with out feeling that, when they were written, kings had already begun to reign over Israel. Either then we must admit that the Book of Genesis did not exist as a whole till the times of David and Solomon, or we must regard this particular verse as the interpolation of a later editor. 

Similar remarks may perhaps apply to Lev. xviii. 28. This undoubtedly assumes the occupation of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites. The great difficulty connected with this pas sage, however, is that it is not a supplementary remark of the writer's, but that the words arc the words of God directing Moses what he is to say to the children of Israel (ver. 1 ). (4.) In several instances, older names of places give place to those which came later into use in Canaan. In Gen. xiv. 14 and in Deut. xxxiv. I, occurs the name of the well-known city of Dan. In Genesis, we can only fairly account for its appearance by supposing that the old name Laish originally stood in the MS., and that Dan was substituted for it on some later revision. In Josh. xiv. 15 (comp. xv. 13, 54) and Judg: i. 10, we are told that the original name of Hebron before the conquest of Canaan was Kirjath-Arba. In Gen. xxiii. 2, the older name occurs, and the explanation is added evidently by some one who wrote later than the occupation of Canaan), " the same is Hebron." Another instance of a similar kind is the occurrence of Hormah in Num. xiv. 45, xxi. 1-3, compared with Judg. i. 17. So far, then, judging the work simply by what we find in it, there is abundant evidence to show that, though the main bulk of it is Mosaic, certain detached portions of it are of later growth. We are not obliged, because of the late date of these portions, to bring down the rest of the book to later times. 

III. We are now to consider the evidence lying outside of the Pentateuch itself, which bears upon its authorship and the probable date of its composition. This evidence is of three kinds : first, direct mention of the work as already existing in the later books of the Bible; secondly, the existence of a book substantially the same as the present Pentateuch amongst the Samaritans ; and, lastly, allusions less direct, such as historical references, quotations, and the like, which presuppose its existence. 1. We have direct evidence for the authorship of the Law in Josh i. 7, 8, and viii. 31, 34, xxiii. 6, xxiv. 26, in all which places Moses is said to have written it. The Book of Judges does not speak of the Book of the Law. No direct mention of it occurs in the Books of Samuel. The first mention of the Law of Moses after the establishment of the monarchy is in David's charge to his son Solomon, on his deathbed (1 K. ii. 3). The allusion seems to be to parts of Deuteronomy, and therefore favors the Mosaic authorship of that book (comp. viii. 9, 53). In 2 K. xi. 12, "the testimony is put into the hands of Joash at his coronation. This must have been a book containing either the whole of the Mosaic law, or at least the Book of Deuteronomy. Ir. the Books of Chronicles, far more frequent mention is made of " the Law of Jehovah," or " the book of the Law of Moses " — a fact which may be accounted for partly by the priestly character of those books (comp. 1 Chr. xvi. 40, xxii. 12, 13; 2 Chr. xii. 1, xiv. 4, xv. 3, xvii. 9, xxv. 4, xxxi. 3, 4, 21, xxxiii. 8, xxxiv. 14, xxxv. 26). In Ezra and Nehemiah, we have mention several times made of the Law of Moses, and here there can be no doubt that our present Pentateuch is meant; for we have no reason to suppose that any later revision of it took place. At this time, then, the existing Pentateuch was regarded as the work of Moses. The Books of Chronicles, though undoubtedly based upon ancient records, are probably in their present form as late as the time of Ezra. Hence it might be supposed that if the reference is to the present Pentateuch in Ezra, the present Pentateuch must also be referred to in Chronicles. But this does not follow. The Book of Ezra speaks of the Law as it existed in the time of the writer; the Books of Chronicles speak of it as it existed long before. Hence the author of the latter (who may have been Ezra), in making mention of the Law of Moses, refers of course to that recension of it which existed at the particular periods over which his history travels. In Dan. ix. 11, 13, the Law of Moses is mentioned; and here again a book differing in nothing from our f resent Pentateuch is probably meant. In the Prophets and in the Psalms, though there are many allusions to the Law, evidently as a written document, there are none as to its authorship. 

2. Conclusive proof of the early composition of the Pentateuch, it has been argued, exists in the fact that the Samaritans had their own copies of it, not differing very materially from those possessed by the Jews, except in a few passages which had probably been purposely tampered with and altered: such for instance as Ex. xii. 40; Deut. xxvii. 4. If this point could be satisfactorily established, we should have a limit of time in one direction for the composition of the Pentateuch. It could not have been later than the times of the earliest kings. It must have been earlier than the reign of Solomon, and indeed than that of Saul. History leaves us altogether in doubt as to the time at which the Pentateuch was received by the Samaritans. Copies of it might have been left in the northern kingdom after Shalmaneser's invasion, though this is hardly probable; or they might have been introduced thither daring the religious reforms of Hezekiah or Josiah. But the actual condition of the Samaritan Pentateuch is against any such supposition. It agrees so remarkably with the existing Hebrew Pentateuch, and that too in those passages which are manifestly interpolations and corrections as late as the time of Ezra, that we must look for some other period to which to refer the adoption of the Books of Moses by the Samaritans. This we find after the Babylonish exile, at the time of the institution of the rival worship on Gerizim. Till the return from Babylon, there is no evidence that the Samaritans regarded the Jews with any extraordinary dislike or hostility. But the manifest distrust and suspicion with which Nehemiah met their advances when he was rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem provoked their wrath. From this time forward, they were declared and open enemies. A full discussion of this question would be out of place here. We incline to the view of Prideaux, that the Samaritan Pentateuch was in fact a transcript of Ezra's revised copy. The saint view is virtually adopted by Gesenius. 

3. We are now to consider evidence of a more indirect kind, which bears not so much on the Mosaic authorship as on the early existence of the work as a whole. This last circumstance, however, if satisfactorily made out, is, indirectly at least, an argument that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Hengstenberg has tried to show that all the later books, by their allusions and quotations, presuppose the existence of the Books of the Law. He traces, moreover, the influence of the Law upon the whole life, civil and religious, of the nation after their settlement in the land of Canaan. Now, beyond all doubt, there are numerous most striking references, both in the Prophets and in the Books of Kings, to passages which are found in our present Pentateuch. It is established in the most convincing manner that the legal portions of the Pentateuch already existed in writing before the separation of the two kingdoms. Even as regards the historical portions, there are often in the later books almost verbal coincidences of expression, which render it more than probable that these also existed in writing. But now if, as appears from the examination of all the extant Jewish literature, the Pentateuch existed as a canonical book; if, moreover, it was a book so well known that its words had become household words among the people; and if the prophets could appeal to it as a recognized and well-known document, — how comes it to pass that in the reign of Josiah, one of the latest kings, its existence as a canonical book seems to have been almost forgotten? Yet such was evidently the fact. How are we to explain this surprise and alarm in the mind of Josiah, betraying as it does such utter ignorance of the Book of the Law, and of the severity of its threatening, except on the supposition that, as a written document, it had well-nigh perished? This must have been the case, and it is not so extraordinary a fact perhaps as it appears at first sight. It is quite true that, in the reign of Ahaz, the prophet Isaiah directed the people to turn "to the Law and to the Testimony;" and Hezekiah, who succeeded Ahaz, had no doubt reigned in the spirit of the prophet's advice. But the next monarch was guilty of outrageous wickedness, and filled Jerusalem with idols. How great a desolation might one wicked prince effect, especially during a lengthened reign! To this we must add, that at no time, in all probability, were there many copies of the Law existing in writing. It was probably then the custom, as it still is in the East, to trust largely to the memory for its transmission. The ritual would easily be perpetuated by the mere force of observance, though much of it doubtless became perverted, and some part of it perhaps obsolete, through the neglect of the priests. The command of Moses, which laid upon the king the obligation of making a copy of the Law for himself, had of course long been disregarded. Here and there perhaps only some prophet or righteous man possessed a copy of the sacred book. The bulk of the nation were without it. The oral transmission of the Law and the living witness of the prophets had superseded the written document, till at last it had become so scarce as to be almost unknown. 

On carefully weighing all the evidence hither to adduced, we can hardly question, without a literary skepticism which would be most unreasonable, that the Pentateuch is to a very considerable extent as early as the time of Moses, though it may have undergone many later revisions and corrections, the last of these being certainly as late as the time of Ezra. But as regards any direct and unimpeachable testimony to the composition of the whole work by Moses, we have it not. Only one book out of the five — that of Deuteronomy — claims in express terms to be from his hand. And yet, strange to say, this is the very book in which modern criticism refuses most peremptorily to admit the claim. It is of importance therefore to consider this question separately. All allow that the Book of the Covenant id Exodus, perhaps a great part of Leviticus and some part of Numbers, were written by Israel's greatest leader and prophet. But Deuteronomy, it is alleged, is in style and purpose so utterly unlike the genuine writings of Moses, that it is quite impossible to believe that he is the author. But how then set aside the express testimony of the book itself? How explain the fact that Moses is there said to have written all the words of this law, to have consigned it to the custody of the priests, and to have charged the Levites sedulously to preserve it by the side of the ark? Only by the bold assertion that the fiction was invented by a later writer, who chose to personate the great Lawgiver in order to give the more color of consistency to His work! But, besides the fact that Deuteronomy claims to have been written by Moses there is other evidence which establishes the great antiquity of the book. 

1. It is remarkable for its allusions to Egypt, which ore just what would be expected sup posing Moses to have been the author. In xi. 10, there is an allusion to the Egyptian mode of irrigation; in xx. 5, to Egyptian regulations in time of war; in xxv. 2, to the Egyptian bastinado. Again, among the curses threatened are the sicknesses of Egypt, xxviii. 60 (comp. vii. 15). According to xxviii. 68, Egypt is the type of all the oppressors of Israel. Lastly, references to the sojourning in Egypt are numerous (vi. 21-23 ; see also vii. 8, 18, xi. 3). The phraseology of the book, and the archaisms found in it, stamp it as of the same age with the rest of the Pentateuch. 2. A fondness for the use of figures is another peculiarity of Deuteronomy. See i. 31, 44, viii. 5, xxviii. 13, 29, 44, 49, xxxix. 17, 18. The results are most surprising when we compare Deuteronomy with the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xix.-xxiv.) on the one hand, and with Ps. xc. (which is said to be Mosaic) on the other. In addition to all these peculiarities which are arguments for the Mosaic authorship of the book, we have here, too, the evidence strong and clear, of post-Mosaic times and writings. The attempt by a wrong interpretation of 2 K. xxii. and 2 Chr. xxxiv. to bring down Deuteronomy as low as the time of Manasseh fails utterly. A century earlier, the Jewish prophets borrow their words and their thoughts from Deuteronomy. Since, then, not only Jeremiah and Ezekiel, but Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and Micah, speak in the words of Deuteronomy, as well as in words borrowed from other portions of the Pentateuch, we see at once how untenable is the theory of those who, like Ewald, maintain that Deuteronomy was composed during the reign of Manasseh, or, as Vaihinger does, during that of Hezekiah. But, in truth, the book speaks for itself. No imitator could have written in such a strain. We scarcely need the express testimony of the work to its own authorship. But, having it, we find all the internal evidence conspiring to show that it came from Moses. We therefore declare unhesitatingly for the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. Briefly, then, to sum up the results of our inquiry. 1. The Book of Genesis rests chiefly on documents much earlier than the time of Moses, though it was probably brought to very nearly its present shape either by Moses himself, or by one of the elders who acted under him. 2. The Books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, are to a great extent Mosaic. Besides those portions which are expressly declared to have been written by him, other portions, and especially the legal sections, were, if not actually written, in all probability dictated by him. 3. Deuteronomy, excepting the concluding part, is entirely the work of Moses, as it professes to be. 4. It is not probable that this was written before the three preceding books, because the legislation in Exodus and Leviticus as being the more formal is manifestly the earlier, whilst Deuteronomy is the spiritual interpretation and application of the Law. But the letter is always before the spirit; the thing before its interpretation. 5. The first composition of the Pentateuch as a whole could not have taken place till after the Israelites entered Canaan. It is probable that Joshua, and the elders who were associated with him, would provide for its formal arrangement, custody, and transmission. 6. The whole work did not finally assume its present shape till its revision was undertaken by Ezra after the return from the Babylonish Captivity.

William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 715-721