(Πεντάτευχος, from ἕπτα, five, and τεῦχος, a volume) is the title given to the five books of Moses,—viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The division of the Book of the Law (תַּנִּינֵי דָבָר), as the Jews called the Pentateuch, into five books is alluded to in the works of Josephus and Philo. It seems that this division was first made by the Alexandrian critics. In Jewish writers are found statements indicating that the Pentateuch was formerly divided into seven portions (comp. Jarchi, ad Proverb. ix. 1; ibid. Breithaupt). In the Jewish canon the Pentateuch is kept somewhat distinct from the other sacred books of the Old Testament, because, considered with reference to its contents, it is the book of books of the ancient covenant. It is the basis of the religion of the Old Testament, and of the whole theocratical life. The term law characterizes the principal substance of the Pentateuch, but its real kernel and central point is the foundation of the Jewish theocracy, the historical demonstration of that peculiar communion into which the God of heaven and earth entered with one chosen people, through the instrumentality of Moses; the preparation for, and the development of, that communion; the covenant relation of Jehovah and Israel, from its first rise down to its complete termination.

In considering the Pentateuch, the first question which arises is—Who was its author? It is of great importance to hear, first, what the book itself says on this subject. The Pentateuch does not present itself as an anonymous production. On the contrary, it speaks most clearly on this subject. According to Exod. xvii. 14, Moses was commanded by God to write the victory over the Ama- Pentateuch lekites in the book (תּוֹרָה). This passage shows that the account to be inserted was intended to form a portion of a more extensive work, with which the reader is supposed to be acquainted. It also proves that Moses, at an early period of his public career, was filled with the idea of leaving to his people a written memorial of the Divine guidance, and that he fully understood the close and necessary connection of an authoritative law with a written code. It is therefore by no means surprising that the observation repeatedly occurs, that Moses wrote down the account of certain events (Exod. xxiv. 4; xxxiv. 27, 28; Num. xxxiii. 2). Especially important are the statements in Deut. i. 5; xxviii. 58. In Deut. xxxi. 9, 24, 30, the whole work is expressly ascribed to Moses as the author, including the poem in Deut. xxxii. It may be made a question whether the hand of a later writer, who finished the Pentateuch, is perceptible from ch. xxxi. 24 (comp. xxxiii. 1, and xxxiv.), or whether the words in xxxi. 24–30 are still the words of Moses. In the former case we have two witnesses, viz., Moses himself, and the continuator of the Pentateuch; in the latter case, which seems to us the more likely, we have the testimony of Moses alone. Modern criticism has raised many objections against these statements of the Pentateuch relative to its own origin. Many critics suppose that they can discover in the Pentateuch indications that the author intended to make himself known as a person different from Moses. The most important objection is the following,—that the Pentateuch, speaking of Moses, always uses the third person, bestows praise upon him, and uses concerning him expressions of respect. The Pentateuch even exhibits Moses quite objectively in the blessing recorded in Deut. xxxiii. 4, 5. To this objection we reply, that the use of the third person proves nothing. The later Hebrew writers also speak of themselves in the third person. We might adduce similar instances from the classical authors, as Caesar, Xenophon, and others. The use of the third person, instead of the first, prevails also among oriental authors. In addition to this we should observe, that the nature of the book itself demands the use of the third person, in reference to Moses, throughout the Pentateuch. This usage entirely corresponds with the character both of the history and of the law contained in the Pentateuch. By the use of the word I, the objective character of this history would have been destroyed, and the law of Jehovah would have been brought down to the sphere of human subjectivity. If we consider that the Pentateuch was destined to be a book of Divine revelation, in which God exhibited to his people the exemplification of his providential guidance, we cannot expect that Moses, by whom the Lord had communicated his latest revelations, should be spoken of otherwise than in the third person. In the poetry contained in Deut. xxxiii. 4, Moses speaks in the name of the people, which he personifies and introduces as speaking. The expressions in Exod. xi. 3, and Num. xii. 3 and 7, belong entirely to the context of history, and to its faithful and complete relation; consequently it is by no means vain boasting that is there expressed, but admiration of the Divine mercy glorified in the people of God. In considering these passages, we must also bear in mind the far greater number of other passages which speak of the feebleness and the sins of Moses.

It is certain that the author of the Pentateuch asserts himself to be Moses. The question then arises, Whether it is possible to consider this assertion to be true—whether Moses can be admitted to be the author? In this question is contained another, viz., Whether the Pentateuch forms such a continuous whole that it is possible to ascribe it to one author? This question has been principally discussed in modern criticism. In various manners it has been tried to destroy the unity of the Pentateuch, and to resolve its constituent parts into a number of documents and fragments. Eichhorn and his followers assert that Genesis Pentateuch only is composed of several ancient documents. This assertion is still reconcilable with the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. But Vater and others allege that the whole Pentateuch is composed of fragments; from which it necessarily follows that Moses was not the author of the whole. Modern critics are, however, by no means unanimous in their opinions. Ewald, in his history of the people of Israel (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i., Göttingen 1843), asserts that there were seven different authors concerned in the Pentateuch. On the other hand, the internal unity of the Pentateuch has been demonstrated in many able essays. The attempts at division are especially supported by an appeal to the prevailing use of the different names of God in various portions of the work; but the arguments derived from this circumstance have been found insufficient to prove that the Pentateuch was written by different authors. The inquiry concerning the unity of the Pentateuch is intimately connected with its historical character. If there are in the Pentateuch decided contradictions, or different contradictory statements of one and the same fact, not only its unity, but also its historical truth, would be negatived. On the other hand, if the work is to be considered as written by Moses, the whole style and internal veracity of the Pentateuch must correspond with the character of Moses. Considerate critics, who are not under the sway of dogmatic prejudices, find that the passages adduced to prove that the Pentateuch was written after the time of Moses by no means support such a conclusion; and that a more accurate examination of the contents of the separate portions goes to demonstrate that the work originated in the age of Moses.

The general arguments for and against the authenticity of the Pentateuch which remain to be considered are the following:—

1. The history of the art of writing among the Hebrews has often been appealed to in order to disprove the authenticity of the Pentateuch. It is true that in our days no critic of good repute for learning ventures any longer to assert that the art of writing was invented subsequent to the Mosaic age (Ewald's Geschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 64, sq.); but it is questioned whether the Hebrews were acquainted with that art. It is said that a work of such extent as the Pentateuch was beyond the means of the primitive modes of writing then existing. But various testimonies, not merely in the Pentateuch itself, but also derived from other sources, from the period immediately subsequent to that of Moses, prove that a knowledge of the art of writing was widely diffused among the Hebrews (comp. Judges viii. 14). And if there was any knowledge of this art, its application would entirely depend upon the particular circumstances of a given period. Some writers seem to entertain the opinion that the materials for writing were yet, in the days of Moses, too clumsy for the execution of larger works. This opinion is refuted by the fact, that the Hebrews became acquainted, just in the Mosaic period, with the use of very good materials for writing, such as papyrus, byssus, parchment, &c. (comp. Herodotus, v. 58.) There are, indeed, mentioned in the Pentateuch some more solid materials for writing, such as tables of stone (Exod. xxiv. 12; xxxi. 18; xxxiv. 1, &c.); but this does not prove that in those days nothing was written except upon stone. Stone was employed, on account of its durability, for specific purposes.

2. The language of the Pentateuch has also been the subject of many discussions. It has frequently been urged that it differs less from that of the later books of the Old Testament than might have been expected if this work proceeded from Moses. In this objection the characteristic stability of the oriental languages has been overlooked. The oriental languages are not, in the same degree as the Pentateuch occidental, in a state of development and constant change.

It is also overlooked that the Pentateuch itself, by its high authority, exerted a constant influence upon the whole subsequent religious literature of the Hebrews. And we do not know any other literature of the ancient Hebrews except the religious. In addition to this, we must observe that, nevertheless, the style of the Pentateuch has its distinctive features of antiquity. It contains, for example, a number of characteristic grammatical formations; it contains also words which do not occur in the other parts of the Old Testament; as well as certain characteristic phrases peculiar to the style of that time. Others have vainly endeavoured to find in the Pentateuch, and especially in Deuteronomy, vestiges of a later style. The instances produced by the opponents of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch do not stand examination, and are therefore unable to counterbalance the weight of argument deducible from the antique expressions in the Mosaic writings.

3. The historical contents of the Pentateuch are of very great importance in our present inquiry, because they constantly bear testimony in favour of its age and authenticity, and lead to the following important results:—We find, in later times, no period which we could deem capable of producing the Pentateuch as a whole; for this reason, the opponents of its authenticity are obliged to ascribe the different portions of the work to widely different periods. If we allow that the apostles were such persons as they assert themselves to be, we must admit also that the very frequent apostolical allusions to the Pentateuch are a high sanction to the work; and we cannot overlook the fact, that every opinion which, with greater or less decision, finds in the Pentateuch a work of fraud, enters into an unavoidable conflict with the New Testament itself.

In the remote times of Jewish and Christian antiquity, we find no vestiges of doubt as to the genuineness of the Mosaic books. The Gnostics, indeed, opposed the Pentateuch, but attacked it merely on account of their dogmatical opinions concerning the Law, and Judaism in general; consequently they did not impugn the authenticity, but merely the Divine authority of the Law. Heathen authors alone, as Celsus and Julian, represented the contents of the Pentateuch as being mythological, and paralleled them with pagan mythology. In the middle ages, but not earlier, we find some very concealed critical doubts in the works of some Jews—as Isaac Ben Jasos, who lived in the eleventh century, and Aben Ezra. After the Reformation, it was sometimes attempted to demonstrate the later origin of the Pentateuch. Such attempts were made by Spinoza, Richard Simon, Le Clerc, and Van Dale; but these critics were not unanimous in their results. Against them wrote Heidegger (Exercitationes Biblicae, i. 246, sq.); Witsius (Miscellanea Sacra, i. 103, sq.); and Carpius (Introductio, i. 38, sq.). In the period of English, French, and German deism, the Pentateuch was attacked rather by jests than by arguments. Attacks of a more scientific nature were made about the end of the eighteenth century. But these were met by such critics as John David Michaelis and Eichhorn, who energetically and effectually defended the genuineness of the Pentateuch. These critics, however, on account of their own false position, did as much harm as good to the cause.

A new epoch of criticism commences about the year 1805. This was produced by Vater's Commentary and De Wette's Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Vater embodied all the arguments which had been adduced against the authenticity of the Pentateuch, and applied to the criticism of the sacred books the principles which Wolf had employed with reference to the Homeric poems. He divided the Pentateuch into fragments, to each of which he assigned its own period, but referred the whole generally to the age of the Assyrian or Babylonian exile. Since the days of Vater, a series of the most different hypotheses has been produced by German critics about the age of the Pentateuch, and that of its constituent sections. No one critic seems fully to agree with any other; and frequently it is quite evident that the opinions advanced are destitute of any sure foundation—that they are quite arbitrary, and produced by merely subjective motives. We will illustrate this by a few examples relative to the Pentateuch as a whole.

Schumann makes Ezra the author of the law. According to A. T. Hartmann, the separate portions of the law sprang up gradually, some of them as late as the exile; but he does not show by what circumstances they were combined into a whole. According to Dr Ammen, the Pentateuch was planned by Moses; was gradually continued down to the times of Solomon; was entirely forgotten during the period of idolatry; was re-discovered under the reign of Josiah; and was then re-touched, and edited under the name of Moses. Von Bohlen urges the fact mentioned in the Second Book of Kings (ch. xxii.) as if it were explanatory of the origin of Deuteronomy; but he considers some portions to be of a much later origin. He asserts that the Pentateuch was partly written after the exile, that it was gradually developed, and was brought to a conclusion in the age of Christ. According to the latest statements of De Wette, in his Einleitung in das Alte Testament, § 157, sq., the Elohim portions were written in the age of Samuel and Saul, the Jehovam portions nearly about the same period, but Deuteronomy much later, under Josiah. Ewald assigns seven authors to the Pentateuch, who, however, wrote in very different periods. The first, he supposes, wrote in the days of Samson; the second in the reign of Solomon; the third in the reign of Elijah, &c.

The critical doubts respecting the authenticity of the Pentateuch have produced in modern times several works in defence of its genuineness; such as Kanne's Bibliischer Untersuchungen, 2 vols., 1820; the observations by Jahn, Rosenmüller, and Bleek; Ranké's Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch, 2 vols.; Hengstenberg's Beiträge zur Einleitung, vols. 2 and 3; Hävernick's Einleitung in das Alte Testament, vol. 1; Drechsler, Ueber die Einheit und Authentie der Genesis; König's Alt-testamentliche Studien, 2d number; Sack's Apologetik, &c.

The most important commentaries and exegetical aids for the explanation of the whole Pentateuch, and its constituent parts, are the following:—Calvini Boufrerii Pentateuchus Commentario Illustratus, 1623; Marchii Commentarius in pricipium quasdam Pentateuchi partes, 1721; Clerici Commentarius, 1710; Gerhardi Commentarius in Genesis, 1693; Merceri Commentarius in Genesis, 1593; Vater, Commentar über den Pentateuch, 1802, sq., 3 vols.; Rosenmülleri Scholia, 3d ed., 1821, sq.; Schumann, Pentateuchus Hebraice et Graece, tom. 1, 1829; Von Bohlen, Die Genesis übersetzt und erklärt, Königsberg, 1825; Tiel, Das erste Buch Mosis, &c., 1st vol., 1836; Tuch, Commentar über die Genesis, 1838, &c. The following are the principal English works on the Pentateuch:—Ainsworth, Annotations on the Five Books of Moses, 1699; Kiddler, Commentaries on the Five Books of Moses, 1713; Parker, Bibliotheca Biblica, 1720, 1733; Jamieson, Critical and Practical Exposition of the Pentateuch, 1748; Robertson, Claris Pentateuchi, 1770; Graves, Lectures on the Pentateuch, 1815; The Pentateuch and its Assailants, by Dr W. T. Hamilton, 1852; Commentary on the Pentateuch, by G. Townsend, 2 vols., 1849. There are English translations of the following German works on the Pentateuch: On the Genuineness of the Pentateuch, by E. W. Hengstenberg, 2 vols., 1847; an Historico-Critical Introduction to the Pentateuch, by H. A. Ch. Hävernick, 1850; and an Historical Introduction to the Old Testament, by H. A. Ch. Hävernick, 1852.