[4] Used about 2o times in Ex. 39-40.
[5] W. H. Green, Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, p. 38.
[6] That Josephus regarded Moses as the author of Genesis is shown by the sentence which follows the one just quoted: "This interval of time was little short of three thousand years." (Against Apion, I, 6)
[7] The use of the divine name, "Most High" (32:8) is reminiscent of Gen.14 (cf. Num. 24:16), just as "Rock" (32:4, 13, etc.) is connected with Ex. 17 (cf. Gen. 49:4, "the stone of Israel"). The word "separate" (id.) suggests Gen. 5:5, 32 (P) and 25:23 (J). The reference to Sodom and Gomorsah (32:32) recalls Gen. 18-19 (J). The remark of the Jewish commentator Rashi on the Blessing is worthy of notice: "Thou wilt find in the case of all the tribes, that the blessing of Moses is drawn from the fountain of the blessing of Jacob" (cf. Waller in Ellicott's Bible Commentary).
[8] The fact that, except in Deuteronomy, Moses is regularly spoken of as "Moses" or in the third person is not a strong argument against the Mosaic authorship. Historians both anclent and modern in writing of events in which they figured prominently have employed the same objective style of writing. Julius Caesar and Josephus are two notable examples from the past. Furthermore, whatever be the force of the argument the critics are in no position to use it. For the book in the Pentateuch which they have been most emphatic in denying to Moses is Deuteronomy; and this is the very one in which he constantly uses the first person. The old argument that Moses could not have spoken of himself as the meekest of men (Num.12:3) overlooks the force of the word "suddenly" (vs. 4). It was because Moses' meekness prevented him from dealing severely with so serious a situation as the challenging of his Godgiven authority by his own sister and by his elder brother who was high priest that Jehovah "spake suddenly" and dealt severely. It is also to be noted that the Hebrew word rendered "meek" has also the meaning "afflicted." In view of the situation described in chap. 11, especially vss. 10-15, the latter rendering would be very suitable here. The attitude taken toward him by his nearest relations may well have seemed to Moses the "last straw."
[9] This is not only admitted but positively asserted by the critics. Pfeiffer tells us: "No Hebrew law, whether oral or written, was regarded as binding unless of Mosaic origin, and the ritual prescriptions of EL 40-48 were never enforced as such, even though they had a profound influence on the practices of the Second Temple" (Introduction, p.210). Yet, like all Wellhausians, Pfeiffer does not hesitate to disregard this tradition completely. This leaves the critics with a strange anomaly to account for. The laws laid down in Ezekiel are, as Pfeiffer points out, numerous and precise. But we never read of the "Law of Ezekiel." The name of Ezekiel appears only twice in the book which bears his name, and nowhere else in the Bible. The name of Moses occurs about 800 times! How is this anomaly to be explained, if little or nothing in the Pentateuch can confidently be assigned to Moses?
[10] For a summary account of objections and objectors to the Mosaic tradition, cf. W. H. Green, Higher Criticism, pp.47-52; Holzinger, Hexateuch, pp.25-40.
[11] Ecclus. 45:5. The first reference to the canon of the Old Testament as consisting of "the Law and the Prophets, and the other books of our fathers" is found in the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus written perhaps 50 years later by the grandson of the author.
[12] Cf. A. Westphal, Les Sources, p.25, who refers to the Talmudic tract Sanhedrin.
[13] Cf. R. D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, Sen-es II, pp.12-41.