.1 
 
 C 74* £ 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 <y<* 
 
 
 
 .-as! 
 
 
 
 
 
//./////** 
 
THE 
 
 FABRICATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PENTATEUCH 
 
 PROVED, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 ANACHRONISMS 
 
 CONTAINED IN THOSE BOOKS 
 
 BY THOMAS COOPER, LL. D. 
 
 •» « 
 
 Late President of Columbia College, S. C. 
 
 . •* .• . ■ 
 
 ' 
 
 SECOND EDITION* 
 
 t y£~ <r 
 
 
 r f* r * 
 
 GRANVILLE, MIDDLETOWN, N ? J 
 
 GEORGE H. EVANS. 
 
 1840. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The first edition of this work was published by me, in 1829, from the manu¬ 
 script of the author, but, at the suggestion of a mutual friend, and, for some 
 reason which I do not now recollect, without the author’s name. The recent 
 decease of Dr. Cooper having rendered any further reservation as to author¬ 
 ship unnecessary, and a new edition having for some time been called for, is 
 now offered to the public. The work was much sought after in its anony¬ 
 mous form, and will no doubt be received with additional interest under sanc¬ 
 tion of the author’s well known reputation for learning. * 
 
 THE PUBLISHER. 
 
u 
 
 1 
 
 
 rtt., \ =*- 1 ■■ ■ 
 
 \ \ €fi£ \ 
 
 <S> 
 
 v V e 
 
 
 THE 
 
 FABRICATION 
 
 OF THE PENTATEUCH 
 
 PROVED. 
 
 v> 
 
 c 
 
 A) 
 
 ■Ci 
 
 5 
 
 0? 
 
 In England, geological and physiological disquisitions are 
 manifestly trammelled by the influence of the priesthood of 
 that country. Men of science, such as Dr. Kidd and Dr, 
 Knight, differ from the Mosaic chronology and cosmogony 
 with hesitation. Others, such as Dr. Richardson, Mr. 
 Townsend,* Mr. Kirwan, Mr. Buckland, think themselves 
 obliged to preserve their orthodoxy at all events, and to force 
 their facts into a conformity with the Mosaic account. # 
 
 I have heard the question put so frequently, “ How do 
 your opinions agree with the account given by Moses?” that 
 I am almost compelled in self defence to meet this difficulty 
 in all its strength. I have had repeated and practical expe¬ 
 rience, that the interference of the clergy in questions of 
 
 * 
 
 <r 
 
 c) 
 
 p 
 
 f 1 
 
 
 JK 
 
 4 
 
 of 
 
 Of 
 
 * [The following article, from the New York Morning Herald, of April 7, 1829, is an 
 evidence that men of science are, in this country, as much trammelled by priestly influence 
 as in England.] 
 
 Modern Geology. —Public taste has been very much modified within the last thirty years, 
 by the advances made in the exact sciences. The interest excited by the discoveries in 
 natural history—the novelties and mysteries which chemistry has developed, by unravelling 
 the properties of matter—the improvements in mechanics—and the splendid theories of 
 geology, have assumed the first rank in the phalanx.of letters; while the prettiness and the 
 garish rhetoric of Della Cruscan orators and poets, have quietly retired, as these strong 
 armed legions of truth presented their demonstiatious, and arrayed their proofs. 
 
 The series of lectures lately commenced by the New York Lyceum, is an evidence of the 
 ascendancy gained by subjects which appeal to the understanding, in place of those imagir 
 nary vagaries, which agitate the heart with fictitious emotions without enlarging the mind, 
 or providing means to fortify it against real tioubles. 
 
 [ have been led to these remarks by the perusal of a work lately published, which does 
 not forget the claims of polite literature in the severity of science; but adhering to fact, and 
 in most instances to regular induction, is yet adorned with deep feeling and genuine elo¬ 
 quence. I allude to professor Silliman’s “Outline of Geology.” This work is so divested of 
 technicalities, and written in so perspicuous a manner, that it is perfectly intelligible to 
 educated people, and displays that sublime department of science in most interesting lights. 
 The system is proved by professor S. to be consistent with the Mosaic account of the creation 
 and the deluge; thus relieving the apprehensions of those who suspect that modern geology 
 trenches upon revelation; while it furnishes facts corr -berating the verity of the scripture 
 history. It is a most ennobling study—not of the works and ingenuity of man, or of the 
 influences of his interests and humors—it is an approach towards the presence of the crea¬ 
 tor—the confines of the burning bush. It presents to our contemplation the primeval chaos, 
 and permits us to an examination of the agencies by which he perfected the astonishing 
 frame of our planet, and the laws by which lie sustains it in symmetry and grandeur. 
 
 The Lyceum lecturer, Mr. Featherstonhaugh, is a learned geologist, and Irom his per¬ 
 formances much entertainment arid information is anticipated. 
 
 As geology at present engages the particular attention of scientific investigators in various 
 and remote parts of the globe, it is bedeved that actual observation will soon complete the 
 development of the system, and brush away any remaining speculations of a visionary or 
 doubtful philosophy. G : 
 
 r 
 
 45 
 
 * 5 . 1 ' 
 
4 
 
 science, is always for the purpose of suppressing and not of 
 promoting knowledge; and, on the point now before us, I 
 feel it absolutely necessary for my own peace, that those gen¬ 
 tlemen and I should understand one another. 
 
 I say, then, that the five books called the Pentateuch , viz* 
 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, 
 contain undeniable evidence that they were not and could not 
 have been written by Moses : they are never cited or referred 
 to in the subsequent books of the Did Testament, nor is 
 Moses once alluded to as their author* That they are the 
 compilation of some unknown person—unknown as to the 
 country where he lived, the time when he lived, his name, 
 age, and profession ; and the credit due to him. That being 
 destitute of all historical evidence to support them, they are 
 unworthy of credit* 
 
 The objections I propose to make to these books, are not 
 entirely my own : I fend them partly in the Tractatus Theo- 
 Jogico Politicws of Spinosa; partly in the Dubia Evangelica 
 of Spanheim ; partly retailed in the Histoire Critique du 
 Vieux Testament of Pere Simon ; and partly in the first vor 
 lume of Recherche* Nouvelles sur VHistoire Ancienne of C. 
 F. Volney, to which I am principally indebted. I have pen¬ 
 ned these objections with the Bible before me; and I have 
 taken care to verify, by reference to that book, the facts 
 stated. Of the conclusions from these facts, the reader 
 must judge for himself. I present them not for the purpose 
 of needless disputation, but in sincere and anxious desire to 
 discover truth if I can ; and to defend what appears to me, 
 after laborious investigation, deserving of that name. 
 
 I. In the 34th chapter of Deuteronomy, ver. 5, 6, it is 
 said, “ Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land 
 of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried 
 him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor ; 
 but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.” 
 
 It is manifest Moses could not have written this account of 
 
 9 
 
 his own death and burial; but there is no hint or suggestion 
 that it has been subsequently added to the main narration. 
 
 The phrase, u unto this day™ implies a considerable time 
 past between the event narrated, and this narration of it* 
 This is not a solitary passage that might have been interpo¬ 
 lated at the end of the book; for it is so often repeated that 
 it is interwoven with the book itself. Thus, Deut. in. 14, 
 “ unto this day.” Gen. xxii. 14, “ to this day.” 
 
 II. Deut. xxiv. 10. ‘ And there arose not a prophet 
 
 # 
 
5 
 
 ' " r -*■ 
 
 since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to 
 Face.” Compare this with 1 Sam. ix. 9. “ Beforetime in 
 
 Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, 
 Come and let us go to the seer ; for he that is note called a 
 prophet was beforetime called a seer*” So Samuel, in the 
 19 th verse of the same chapter, says, “ £ am the seer.” 
 This application of seer continued in use till after the time 
 of David, who calls Gad, seer ; not prophet. Now, as Mo¬ 
 ses, throughout the Pentateuch, is called prophet, and not 
 seer, the Pentateuch must have been compiled by some one 
 accustomed to the term prophet, after seer had gone out of 
 use ; that is, after the time of David. 
 
 ■i 
 
 III. But the Pentateuch must have been compiled by 
 some person who probably lived even later: Gen. xxxvi. 31, 
 4i And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom; 
 before there reigned any king over the children of Israel 
 The compiler, therefore, lived after *ungs were common in 
 Israel. 
 
 IV. Moses was not permitted to Cross the river Jordan: 
 he was permitted to ascend mount Pisgah, and view the 
 promised land before he died; but he never entered it. 
 Deut. iii. 27—iv. 21, 22*—xxxiv. 1, 2, 3, 4. 
 
 But the compiler or fabricator of the Pentateuch lived on 
 the other side of Jordan, in the promised land; for he speaks 
 of the country where the transactions of Moses happened, 
 and where Moses lived, as beyond Jordan, on the other side 
 of Jordan. See Deut. iv. throughout. Our translators, 
 aware of the objection, have wilfully mistranslated the ori¬ 
 ginal, which means the other side , by this side. The original 
 is the other side ; the vulgate translation of St. Jerom, is 
 trans Jordanum; the Greek of the Septuagint is ^av roy 
 'Io^Javoui 
 
 . < . . ^ ■ x t 
 
 V. Exod. vi. 2, 3. u And God spake unto Moses, and 
 said unto him. I am the Lord : and I appeared unto Abra¬ 
 ham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Al¬ 
 mighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them,” 
 
 The compiler forgot himself either in the preceding pas¬ 
 sage, or in the following: Gen. xxii. 14, “And Abraham 
 called the name of that place Jehovahfireh : as it is said to 
 this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.” 
 
 VI. Gen. xiv. 14. Abraham pursued them unto Dan w 
 Now, there was no city named Dan, till in the time of the 
 
6 
 
 Judges; the tribe of Dan having surprised and destroyed 
 Laish, they built a city, and called it Dan. Judges, xviii. 
 27, 29. The book of Genesis, therefore, was not written 
 till after the time of the Judges. 
 
 VII. Gen. xii. 6; “And Abraham passed through the 
 land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. 
 And the Canaanite was then in the land.” In conformity 
 whereto, is Gen. xiii. 7 : “ and the Canaanite and the Periz- 
 zite dwelled then in the land.” 
 
 Now, the Canaanites were not driven out till the time of 
 Joshua ; therefore, the compiler of these books lived after 
 the Canaanites were driven out. 
 
 VIII. Deut. ii. 12. “The Horims also dwelt in Seir 
 beforetime, but the children of Esau succeeded them, when 
 they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in 
 their stead ; as Israel did unto the land of his possession , 
 which the Lord gave unto them” Put Israel did not dwell in 
 the land of his possession, which the Lord had given him, 
 until after the victories of Joshua. The compiler, there¬ 
 fore. lived when Israel was in peaceable possession of what 
 had been the land of Canaan. 
 
 IX. It is strange that no mention or allusion to these five 
 books of Moses can be found* either in the book of Joshua, 
 or of Judges, or in the two books of Samuel, or in the early 
 part of the books of Kings or Chronicles, until the time of 
 Josias, about 850 years after the flight from Egypt! 
 
 Solomon preserved the tables of the law, but not a word is 
 mentioned in his day, or the histories of his reign, of these 
 five books of Moses. When Hilkiah the priest found or 
 pretended to have found them, not a man among the Jews, 
 high or low, learned or unlearned, pretended to have any 
 knowledge of them, except the prophetess Huldah, who 
 being placed in the confidence of Hilkiah, adapted her ex¬ 
 hortations to his views and wishes, as is manifest from the 
 narration. 
 
 That a book of such size, of such importance, the w r ork 
 of the national lawgiver, should he unnoticed and unknown 
 for upwards of 809 years, is absolutely incredible, had it 
 really existed previous to the time of its pretended discovery. 
 
 X. Mo ses is said to have written the following works : 
 
 a . An account of the two and forty journeys of the Israelites 
 
 out of Egypt, comprised in the 33d chapter of Numbers. 
 
h. The book of the law which the Levites were ordered to 
 read to the people every seventh year, at the feast of the 
 tabernacle. Deut. xxxi. 11. This law seems to have 
 been the curses contained in Dent, xxvii. 15, <fcc. 
 
 €. The ten commandments, written on the two tables of 
 stone, Pe-utw v. 6—x. 4—Exod. xxxiv. 1, &c. These 
 seem to have been the same with the ten commandments 
 mentioned in Exod. xxiv. 3, &c.; except that in one of 
 the passages, Jehovah is said to have written them on the 
 stone tables, and in the account in Exodus, Moses is said 
 to have written them. At any rate, they were short; for 
 Moses appears to have detailed them to the people in the 
 morning, and to have written them afterwards on the same 
 day. Exod. xxiv. 3, 4. 
 
 d. It should seem, also, that Moses kept an account of the 
 battles in which the children of Israel were engaged du¬ 
 ring his time ; for the compiler of the Pentateuch refers 
 to some such account under the title of the book of the 
 wars of the Lord, Exod. xvii. 14—Numb. xxi. 14. But 
 this is uncertain, for the book of the wars of the Lord is 
 manifestly cited as extant by the compiler of the Penta¬ 
 teuch, who could not have been Moses, from the explana¬ 
 tory notes added in verses 13, 14, 15, which were unne¬ 
 cessary if written by Moses. 
 
 e. Moses is said to have written the song in Deut. xxii. See 
 Deut. xxi. 22. The book of the law mentioned in v. 24 
 of the same chapter, must have been the same already 
 noticed (in b. and c.) 
 
 All the other exhortations of Moses in the Pentateuch are 
 detailed to us as having been spoken by Moses, but not writ¬ 
 ten. Nor were any of these extant in the time of Solomon, 
 who would have preserved them if they could have been 
 found. 1 Kings, ch. 8, v« 9, is conclusive upon this point* 
 Now, I say, the Pentateuch could not have been written by 
 him; for the people were to be instructed in the command¬ 
 ments of God, and the exhortations of Moses, not by copies 
 of a book distributed that they could read themselves, but 
 by having these commandments periodically read to them by 
 the priests and Levites; so that they must necessarily have 
 been short and concise. Indeed there is not the slightest 
 evidence, now extant, that alphabetical writing was prac¬ 
 tised or known in the time of Moses any where. An igno¬ 
 rant people constantly engaged in wars with their neighbors, 
 whom they were bent on exterminating, slaves to the Egyp¬ 
 tians, then slaves for eight years under Kersan, then for 
 eighteen under Eglon, then for twenty under Jabin, then for 
 
8 
 
 c » » 
 
 seven under the Midianites, then for eighteen under the Phi¬ 
 listines and Ammonites, then for forty under the Philistines, 
 then for seventy under the Babylonians, &c. could have no 
 time or inclination to cultivate letters among the mass of the 
 nation. What knowledge of letters they did possess, must 
 have been confined to their priesthood, with whom alone 
 the sacred books were deposited. 
 
 But what is conclusive that the Pentateuch could not have 
 been written by Moses, comprising, as it does, a large vo¬ 
 lume, is, that there were only two modes of writing known to 
 Moses : one by cutting the words in stone, and the other by 
 tracing them on soft mortar or plaster, which last method he 
 expressly recommends to the Jews. Perhaps the tables of 
 stone used on Mount Horeb were also plastered ; for Moses 
 wrote thereon the commandments in one morning, as ap¬ 
 pears by the passage already cited. 1 Kings, ch. 8, v. 9, it 
 is said, Solomon could find in the ark nothing but the two 
 tables of stone produced at Horeb. That he would re¬ 
 commend to his people the most convenient method of 
 writing then known, there can be no doubt. That method 
 is thus detailed: “thou (the people) shalt set thee up great 
 stones, and plaster them with plaster, and thou shalt write 
 upon them all the words of this law.” Deut. xxvii. 2, 3. 
 
 To have written all the didactic part of the Pentateuch, 
 either in one way or the other, would have been nearly im¬ 
 possible; and when written what building could contain this 
 heap of stones, or how were they to be transported ? The 
 methods employed preclude the supposition of more than 
 half a dozen pages. When, therefore, the compiler of this 
 collection, or his translator, makes Moses write the law in a 
 hook, he conforms himself to the language and ideas of his 
 own day, not of the days of Moses. The compiler com¬ 
 piled it, therefore, when books were in common use, if the 
 passage be faithfully translated. There is no evidence of the 
 papyrus being used for writing in the time of Moses, nor for 
 a long time after: had it been used, he would not have re¬ 
 commended plaster or mortar spread upon the surface of a 
 large stone. This is too evident to require further elucida¬ 
 tion ; but it may be observed, that when Esdras, nine hun¬ 
 dred years afterwards, wished to rewrite the law from 
 memory, after it had been burnt, as he declared and alleged, 
 he made use of box wood, and employed five secretaries forty 
 days. Amid these alterations, where shall we find the ge¬ 
 nuine law of Moses ? 
 
 XI. But how would a book of papyrus have kept for 
 
9 
 
 eight hundred years, buried in dust and dirt, neglected and 
 unknown? For if it had been carefully kept, it would have 
 been known, resorted to, referred to, cited, read, copied, 
 extracted, reverenced. But we have nothing of the book of 
 the law, till first brought to light by Hilkiah, who took his 
 own time to compose or compile it, as might best suit his 
 own purposes. 
 
 Hence, as the priests of Baal and other Phenician deities 
 interfered greatly with the interest and influence of the Jew¬ 
 ish priests of the Mosaic law, in the time of Ammon and 
 Manasseh, the immediate predecessors of Josiah, and also 
 at the commencement of Josiah’s reign, we can well account 
 for all the violent denunciations against the Israelites for 
 going whoring after other gods; and particularly the Jere¬ 
 miad in Deut. xxxviii. 48, Ac., which, with strange coinci¬ 
 dence, Jeremiah himself has adopted as descriptive of the 
 incursions of the northern Scythee. Vol. I of Volney’s 
 Recherches, 89. 
 
 These proofs might be extended satisfactorily to establish 
 the absolute worthlessness, in point of historical credit, of 
 the five books of Moses, as they are very improperly called. 
 But I shall proceed to accumulate a few more objections, that 
 the question may be set at rest. 
 
 XII. Shaphan the scribe w T entto the king and said, Hil¬ 
 kiah the priest hath given me a book ; no enquiry was made, 
 no account was given, how or where Hilkiah found it, or oil 
 what authority he presumed it was written by Moses. “ And 
 Shaphan read it before the king.” Now 1 appeal to any 
 person, in the slightest degree conversant with languages, 
 whether any man could read off, or any other man under¬ 
 stand at once, a book written eight hundred years before ! 
 The language and phraseology would necessarily be so al¬ 
 tered by time, as to render it unintelligible. It is so with 
 the Latin, French, English, of two or three hundred years 
 interval. Compare the language of the twelve tables with 
 the code of Justinian ; the Poesies de Clotilde, with the 
 verses of Delisle, or even Chaucer with Dryden and Pope. 
 The whole story shows manifest concert and contrivance be¬ 
 tween the high priest Hilkiah, his pupil Josiah, the scribe 
 Shaphan, the prophetess Huldah, and the prophet Jeremiah, 
 who appears, from 1 Jerern., to have been a relation. All 
 meant to exasperate the people against the priests of Baal, 
 and frighten them into obedience to the priests of Moses. 
 I beg of the unprejudiced reader to peruse the account in the 
 2d Kings, ch. 22, and in 2 Chron. ch. 34 and 35, and he will 
 
io 
 
 be convinced that this is a fair conclusion, manifestly result' 
 ing from the facts recounted. 
 
 Suppose any person of the present day were to produce a 
 book of laws, written in the time of king Ethelbert of En¬ 
 gland, and promulgated by his authority, would not the 
 learned world require a full and particular account of the 
 book, and the discovery of it, and undeniable evidences of 
 its authenticity, before they would admit it? 
 
 But here is a book produced, claiming to be the autograph 
 of the great national lawgiver of the Jews—containing the 
 only authentic history of the transactions of their ancestors— 
 the only title to the national possessions—the only justifica¬ 
 tion of the national incursions into the dominions of their 
 neighbors—their onlv code of laws, religious and civil—the 
 only authority for the claims of the priesthood—a book that 
 ought to have been periodically read to the people by their 
 clergy appointed so to do—that ought to have been familiar 
 to their learned men and men of rank—produced, for the 
 first time, after an interval of eight hundred years, by Hil- 
 kiah, the priest, who gives no other account of it than, I 
 found it! ! ! 
 
 And is this the authority upon which we are required to 
 believe that the Pentateuch, such as we have it, is the real 
 composition of the lawgiver, Moses, penned under the influ¬ 
 ence of divine inspiration, and upon which we are to be de¬ 
 nounced, if we suspect it as deficient in historical authenti¬ 
 city, or scientific infallibility ! 
 
 But other difficulties remain. 
 
 • ■* 
 
 XIII. It is a fact, not disputed at the present day, that 
 the Hebrew spoken by the tribe of Judah, was not the same 
 with the Samaritan dialect used by the other tribes of Is¬ 
 rael. This last was the language of the Canaanites or 
 Phenicians, which continued in use in Samaria from the ear¬ 
 liest times, and in which the Samaritan copy of the Penta¬ 
 teuch was written, and is still extant. The language used 
 by the tribe of Judah after the captivity, was contaminated 
 with the Chaldee; and written, not in the Phenician, but in 
 the Chaldee character still adopted ; while the old Samari¬ 
 tan w r as the Phenician, or a dialect of the Phenician. There 
 is still extant, also, a Pentateuch in the Hebrew or Chaldee 
 dialect. Now r , the Samaritan being the oldest language, and 
 the Chaldaic Hebrew, a dialect gradually introduced among 
 the Jews to its exclusion, it is more likely that the law 7 of 3Io- 
 ses should be written in the older, than in the later language. 
 But the book of Hilkiah was not written in the Samaritan 
 
11 
 
 . > 
 
 language, or character, which was held in great disrepute id 
 
 Judah. It was written in a dialect varying from the Sama- 
 ritan, and in a character introduced long after the time of 
 Moses. 
 
 XIV. But whatever might be the authority, or the con¬ 
 tents of the book produced by Hilkiah, it exists no more— 
 it was burnt . Hilkiah produced this book about a dozen 
 years before the Jews were carried into captivity to Babylon 
 by Nebuchadnezzar. After many'years of Jewish captivity, 
 Artaxerxes and Cyrus sent Ezra, or Esdras, to settle again 
 in Jerusalem, with the remnant that could be collected of 
 the Jewish captivesi An account of this return is given in 
 the book of Ezra, among the canonical books of the Bible ; 
 and a fuller and more particular account of the same transac¬ 
 tion in the two books of Esdras* in the Apocrypha. There 
 are some differences in names and minor particulars, but 
 they are substantially the same. 
 
 Esdras gives the following information. 2 Esdras, ch. 
 xiv. v. 19. “ Then answered 1 before thee, and said, Be¬ 
 
 hold, Lord, I will go, as thou hast commanded me, and re¬ 
 prove the people which are present: but they that shall be 
 born afterward, who shall admonish them ? thus the world is 
 set in darkness* and they that dwell therein are without 
 light. For thy law is burnt; therefore, no man knoweth the 
 things that are done of thee, or the works that shall begin. 
 But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost 
 into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world 
 since the beginning, which were written in thy law, thac men 
 may find thy path, and that they which live in the latter days 
 may live. And he answered me, saying, Go thy way, gather 
 the people together, and say unto them, that they seek thee 
 not for forty days. But look thou prepare thee many box 
 trees, and take with thee Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Ecanus, 
 and Asiel, these five which are ready to write swiftly, (v. 
 42.) And they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day, 
 and at night they ate bread, (v. 43.) As for me, l spake in 
 the day, and I held not my tongue at night, (v. 44.) In 
 forty days, they wrote two hundred and four books of 
 these Esdras was directed to publish openly, all but the 
 seventy last books, which he was to deliver only to such as be 
 wise among the people ; and he did so. This is the last 
 passage that relates to the subject. So that the history of 
 the Law of Moses, as contained in the Bible, informs us, 
 
 1st. That Moses wrote no long composition; none that 
 would occupy more than a day to read or to write. 
 
2d. That what he did write was either cut upon two ta¬ 
 bles of stone, or placed in plaster while it was soft; for he 
 would naturally prefer that mode of writing which he chose to 
 recommend to others as the most convenient. 
 
 3d. That we have no account of these books of Moses in 
 a.ny part of the Bible, from the time of their original composi¬ 
 tion till the priest Hilkiah said that he had found them. What 
 Hilkiah found, or what he composed, whether it was in any 
 respect the same as the ancient or modern Pentateuch, no 
 one can tell; for it does not appear that it was ever published, 
 and no trace of it remains; 
 
 4 ' * 
 
 4th. A few years after Hilkiah had produced this, his edi¬ 
 tion of the Law of Moses, the Jews were carried into capti¬ 
 vity, where they had no means of becoming acquainted with 
 the law, or of observing it; indeed, either during the inva¬ 
 sion of the Babylonians, or during this captivity, the lawtra# 
 burnt , and no copy of it remained ; and Ezra, or Esdras, was 
 obliged to dictate from memory the whole history of the 
 world from the beginning, as well as the history and law of 
 the Jewish nation. Except this book, so dictated by Esdras, 
 we know of no other that relates to this question; and he, 
 therefore, was the probable author of the present Penta¬ 
 teuch, so far as history throws any light on the question. I 
 say the probable author, because there is nothing like cer¬ 
 tainty attached to any part of the historical testimony rela¬ 
 ting to the books called the Pentateuch. All that is certain 
 about them, is, that they are forgeries ; but when, or by 
 whom, depends upon uncertain evidence. The following 
 considerations also induce me to regard Esdras as the author 
 of them: 
 
 Because, no book of the law existed when he undertook to 
 compose one from recollection; the book that did exist was 
 
 burnt. This is likelv to have been the case. 
 
 %>* 
 
 Because, as Esdras suggested, the Pentateuch begins with 
 a history of the world from the creation, manifestly Chaldean; 
 
 Because, the book of the law compiled by Ezra, or Es¬ 
 dras, took him seven days to read to the people; which agrees 
 with the size of the present Pentateuch. Nehem. viii. 18. 
 
 Because, the double account of the creation in our com¬ 
 mon Bibles, is manifestly a Chaldee tradition, tacked to the 
 Jewish history, without any connection with it. Chaldee, 
 from speaking of God in the plural, Elohim, gods—Chaldee, 
 because it agrees with the Phenician and Chaldee writers as 
 cited by Josephus, Alexander Polyhistor, and Eusebius— 
 Chaldee, because Ezra, or Esdras. who was educated if not 
 born in Babylon during the captivity, would derive all his 
 
13 
 
 knowledge from the Chaldee writers of repute in his day— 
 Chaldee, because it is manifestly no part of the Jewish his¬ 
 tory or traditions ; Moses would never have used the expres¬ 
 sion Elohim, the gods— Chaldee, also, because the Jews du¬ 
 ring their captivity, those who attended to literature at all, 
 would be conversant in the Chaldee literature ; and the Chal¬ 
 dee traditionary cosmogony would be fashionable in the time 
 of Esdras. I am aware that to these objections four replies 
 will be made ; perhaps many more. 
 
 It will be said , that all these are old objections, that have 
 been often and long ago refuted. To this I answer, it is not 
 true. They never have been refuted, and cannot be refuted 
 by fair argument. The hardihood of assertion applied tp 
 them would astonish any unprejudiced reader, not acquainted 
 with the clerical mode of treating these subjects. 
 
 It will be said , the contradictory passages are interpola¬ 
 tions, To this I answer, they are incorporated with the rest 
 of the books ; they are founded on the same evidence ; they 
 appear as parts of one whole; there is no mark but the for¬ 
 getfulness that dictated them, by w T hich they are to be distin* 
 guished from the rest of the works wherein they are found. 
 Such an objection would prevent all examination of the au¬ 
 thenticity of testimony or evidence, from the contradictions 
 or inconsistencies it may contain. Those who tell us these 
 are interpolations, should inform us when they took place, 
 how, by whom, and for what purpose. The passages object^ 
 ed to are no more than reasonable explanations of the text, 
 if written, as I presume they were, by some author long after 
 the date of the original transactions. 
 
 It will be said , that the book of Esdras is an apocryphal 
 book. To this I answer, there is no known criterion of the 
 books called apocryphal; every ancient ecclesiastical author, 
 and every great division of Christians, have different notions 
 of books canonical and books apocryphal. There was no 
 proposal of a Christian canon till Melito, Bishop of Sardis, 
 in the year 170; nor any canon settled on ecclesistical au¬ 
 thority till the council of Laodicea, in 463, P. C. Further, 
 the book of Esdras is considered as canonical by the Greek 
 church, who are just as competent judges as any other church. 
 Further, it is of more authority than the book of Ezra; the 
 book of Ezra is canonical; the book of Nehemiah is canoni¬ 
 cal ; both of these books give an account of the same trans¬ 
 actions that Esdras does. The books of Ezra and Nehe¬ 
 miah are quite contradictory, each being the hero of his own 
 story, and the prime agent in the transactions narrated, and 
 hardly making mention of the other. So that, though both 
 
14 
 
 be canonical, it is impossible that both should be true. The 
 reader can compare them in an hour’s time. Esdras gives 
 an account of* the same transactions, with fewer contradic¬ 
 tions; he is therefore more worthy of credit than either. 
 The common opinion is, that Esdras and Ezra are the same 
 person. As to Nehemiah the Tirshatha, as he calls himself, 
 he could not have been the author of the book ascribed to 
 him, as it now appears; for in Nehem. xii. 22, he mentions 
 Jaddua the priest, and Darius the Persian, (Darius Codo- 
 rnannus,) who did not flourish in the world for one hundred 
 years afterwards. 
 
 It will be said , that there is as good evidence of the au¬ 
 thenticity of the Pentateuch, as of the works of Herodotus, 
 Livy, Plutarch, and many other ancient historians, whose 
 writings are now generally believed to contain faithful ac¬ 
 counts of the facts which they detail. To this 1 answer, that 
 in so far as these historians narrate occurrences within the 
 bounds of probability, nothing can be said against admitting 
 their testimony. But whenever they exceed this ; whenever 
 they speak of events taking place which are known to be 
 contrary to the laws of Nature, and, therefore, false, we re¬ 
 ject these parts of their histories. In like manner, we refuse 
 to credit the wonderful and miraculous stories told in the 
 Jewish books, while we readily assent to anything they con¬ 
 tain which we know, from experience and observation, to 
 be founded in truth. 
 
 Herodotus informs us that, on one occasion an ox spoke 
 when they were leading it to be sacrificed; and on another, 
 that a crow prognosticated or foretold the misfortunes which 
 attended the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian. The 
 same historian gravely assures us, that the marble statues of 
 the gods, which had been set up in the temples, at one time 
 sweat great drops of blood. Vic at once smile on reading 
 these absurdities; but what is there more absurd in the nar¬ 
 rative than in that of the Bible, where we are as gravely told 
 that a serpent and an ass spoke; that all the water in the 
 land of Egypt was turned into blood ; that the Lord rained 
 bread from heaven for forty years, and that, during the 
 whole of that period, the shoes and garments of the Israelites 
 neither needed to be repaired nor renewed. The individual 
 who is so credulous as to believe all this on the authority of 
 the Jewish books, has no better evidence of its truth than he 
 has of the truth of what the Roman historian has written. If 
 one ought to be rejected as fabulous, so ought the other. 
 
 There is also this difference between the works of Hero¬ 
 dotus, Livy, and Plutarch, and the books attributed to Moses: 
 
15 
 
 that the latter is said to have been specially commissioned* 
 and instructed by God himself to write these books* while 
 the former have no such pretensions. It therefore requires 
 evidence to support the authenticity of the Pentateuch, of a 
 nature far more conclusive and satisfactory than that requi¬ 
 red to give currency to the works of mere historians. Be¬ 
 fore we can believe that Deity inspired any writer to commu¬ 
 nicate his will to man, w 7 e must be satisfied, from internal 
 as well as external evidence, that the writing offered us* 
 claiming so high a character, is every way worthy of an infi¬ 
 nitely wise and perfect being. Does our examination of the 
 five Jewish books convince us that we ought to view them in 
 that favorable light? Or, rather, have we not seen that they 
 are totally destitute of that sort of evidence which would en¬ 
 title them to be received in any court of judicature in the 
 world ? Independent of the numerous facts, by which it is 
 demonstrated that Moses could not be their author, do not 
 the books themselves afford sufficient evidence that thev are 
 unworthy of the countenance of any intelligent being? Is not 
 the book of Genesis a collection of absurd and frivolous tales? 
 And where is the history to be found to corroborate the state¬ 
 ments of the book of Exodus, or any other of the books com¬ 
 posing the Pentateuch ? Can any one, possessing common 
 sense, believe that the Almighty w ould dictate such ridiculous 
 things concerning himself as are narrated in these books ? 
 Sometimes he is represented as a laborer, toiling and exhaust¬ 
 ing himself to such a degree that he requires rest to recruit him¬ 
 self ; sometimes as a tailor, regulating the dresses of the crea¬ 
 tures he had formed ; sometimes as a fringe or tassel maker, 
 decorating a petty box of wood called their ark, or taberna¬ 
 cle; sometimes as their warrior and generalissimo, when, 
 without provocation, they invaded and plundered their neigh¬ 
 bors. When they prayed, he came and talked to them; 
 when they sacrificed, he came and eat with them ; and, as is 
 even at this day ignorantly imagined, God had nothing to do 
 but to be constantly at the elbows, and to attend to the wants 
 and wishes of the most savage, barbarous, and ignorant na¬ 
 tion of which we have any account in history. 
 
 Mr. Jones, in his account of the canon of the Holy Scrip¬ 
 tures, lays down the following criteria or tests, by which we 
 may determine whether books are apocryphal or spurious, 
 viz. 
 
 That book is apocryphal which contains any contradic¬ 
 tions. 
 
 Or, any histories contrary to those known to be true. 
 
 Or, any doctrines contrary to those known to be true. 
 
16 
 
 Or, relations ludicrous, trifling, fabulous, or silly. 
 
 Or, which mentions facts that occurred later than the time 
 of the author to whom it is ascribed. 
 
 Or, whose style is manifestly different from the known 
 style of its supposed author. 
 
 Or, which is written in an idiom or dialect different from 
 that of the author to whom it is ascribed, or different from 
 the idiom of his country. 
 
 Or, that manifests a disposition different from the known 
 disposition of the supposed author. 
 
 Or, which for the most part is transcribed from some other 
 author. 
 
 To all this I accede; but I fear, if all these tests of au¬ 
 thenticity should be adopted and insisted on, we should have 
 dreadful havoc made in the canonical authority of many 
 books that now pass through the world with a very orthodox 
 character. I might use many of these criteria in the pre¬ 
 sent controversy ; but I want to intermeddle no farther than 
 to secure my professional opinions, as a geologist, from un¬ 
 fair and unfounded denunciation. 
 
 The cosmogony attributed to Moses, I regard as the tra¬ 
 ditionary account of the Chaldee sages; containing some 
 absurdities too manifest to require exposition or refutation ; 
 at the same time, as an account agreeing in many points, 
 also, with the best observed facts of modern science. 
 
 But whether my own opinions agree or disagree with the 
 account given in the book of Genesis, is to me matter of no 
 moment; because I consider that book, and the other four 
 books attributed to Moses, and called the Pentateuch, as 
 placed to his credit without any sufficient authority for so 
 doing. In this respect, they are, in my view of the subject, 
 forgeries . I therefore hold it needless to enquire how far 
 they would have been binding, had Moses really been the 
 author.