A CRITICAL AND HERMENEUTICAL INTRO-

DUCTION TO THE PENTATEUCH

By PROFESSOR SAMUEL DAVID LUZZA1'TO.

Translated from the Italian

[Some time ago I made use of the columns of the J <wisH Record,
with the view of inducing my colleagues to purchase inedited works of
the late Professor at Padua. In response to my call, a few among the
lovers of Jewish literature in this country agreed to buy bis Hebrew
comment on the Pentateuch. This, however, has an Italian translation
on the opposite side of the text, and it contains, moreover, in the same
language, an exegetical essay, intended. originally as a preliminary
instruction to the critical study of the five books of Moses, pursued at
the Padua college. I think it due to those who have bespoken the
work aforenamed, and who are not conversant with the Italian, that I
should supply them, at least, with an English version of the essay, since,
it would be impossible, and not quite as necessary. to undertake the
rendition into our vernacular tongue of the Italian translation of the
text itself.
Will you permit me to let The Record be the means of offering this
voluntary labor of mine to the subscribers to one of Luzzatto's pos-
thumous writings? I can assure your readers that the subject treated
is well deserving of the attention not only of Hebraists, but of all our
brethren who feel interested in the history of their Holy Law and reo
ligion.
.A few prefatory sentences, as well as several expressions, in the course
of this writing, addressed by the Professor to his students, have been
omitted. Hebrew quotations, have also, so far as practicable, been
translated" into English, to lessen typographical labor, and enable the
largest number of readers to understand the contents.]
In every age, the belief that the Pentateuch could claim
altogether as its author and compiler the Arch·Prophet, was
universal. The last chapter of Deuteronomy formed an
exception, because, as it tells of the death of the writer, the
.sages of the Talmud themselves raised the question," whether
it should be attributed to Moses, or not rather to Joshua. We
read in Baba Batra, p. 15: "Can it be possible that Moses,
having departed this life, wrote this; •Moses, the servant
94 ITALIAN HEBREW LITERATURE

of the Lord, died '? No; the Seer recorded as far as the
preceding verse, the rest must have been added by Joshua."
Against a universal and firm belief among Jews and
Christians, and we may even include heathens, Father
Richard Simon' set himself up a century and a half ago.
He asserted, in his critical history of the Old Testa-
ment, that, in fact, Moses is the author of only such por-
tions of the Pentateuch as belong to Divine institutions and
ordinances, that whatever relates to history has been set
forth by persons whom he calls "Scribes," or public writers,
known also by the title of prophets; persons who were, in
fact, nothing else, according to his hypothesis, than officers
charged by the authorities to act in the capacity of historio-
graphers.
That such a position has no ground to stand on, will
become very obvious when we look to the simple fact that the
preceptive, or legal parts, and the historical passages, are
never disjoined in the Pentateuch, nor in the least manner
distinct from one another,-a circumstance which could not
possibly have happened ·if various authors had recorded
various events. We perceive, on the contrary, that in
almost every page of the sacred code, Divine commands flow
from narratives, with which they are inseparably connected
and naturally interwoven. Thus, for instance, the civil
law about inheritance, chronicled in Numbers, Chap. 27,
is contained· in eleven sentences, five of which are a com-
plaint of the daughters of Zelophehad, properly pertaining
to the historical part, while the six which follow constitute
the preceptive part. But the law, beginning with the words,
"the daughters of Zelophehad speak rightly," refers sovery
plainly to a piece of history, that our giving credence to
, Richard Simon (1683-1721) was a French scholar and orientalist
who wrote the first extensive critical introduction to the Bible. His
UHistoire Critique du Vieux Testament" (1678) aroused the ire of the
Church, through whose inftuence the first edition of 1300 copies was
..,ized and destroyed. Other editions of the book later appeared in
Holland. Simon is the author of several other books and pamphlets in
which he defend. his views. Gew. Ency., s. v.) [G)
 LUZZATrO'S INTRODUCTION TO THE PENTATEUCH 95

the theory that Moses wrote only the legal portion of the
sacred text and not the. historical, would be a voluntary
'surrender of our common sense. So, again, the criminal
laws concerning homicide, as registered in Leviticus, xxiv,
are thoroughly intermingled with the incident relative
to the misdeed of the blasphemer. The passage commences
with these words, .. Bring forth him that cursed," and then
proceeds to define the laws of murder, or the intliction of
severe injuries, and so forth.
It would be useless for me to descant further to show
that in the divine code ordinances and narratives form
an inseparable whole, and that they would have been pre-
sented in an entirely different garb, if the legal portion
had had an origin distinct from the historical. StilI, I wiII
add three more remarks upon this score. The first is, that
the book of Joshua furnishes some clear information res-
pecting the contents of .. the book of the Jaw of God" as
far" back as the days very near those in which Moses lived,",
. thus proving that it did not hold merely a set of rules, but
also a vast deal belonging to history. When Joshua was
about to leave the world, he received from the tribes, as a
result of his paternal admonition, the promise that they
would remain ever faithful to the worship of the true Gad.
We see that on the same occasion the worthy pupil and
.successor of Moses put down the solemn declaration which
our ancestors made in the Pentateuch. We read" Joshua
wrote these things in the book of the law of God." He
certainly would never have thought of subjoining the epi-
sode to the end of the Mosaic volumes, if these had held
nothing but mere ordinances, and did not embody, as they
do now, and as they truly always did embody, a variety of
records, touching the most important of our national events.
The second remark is, that the ancients among our
people, cherishing the highest senile of veneration for the
Arch-prophet, would on no account have tolerated that"
narratives traced by other hands than his own, be incor-
porated into the Divine laws which they had received
through his agency. If Joshua allowed himself to insert in
96 ITALIAN HEBREW LITERATURE

the sacred code the above-named admonition and the as-

surance of fidelity obtained, he did not place them in the
body of the inspired volumes, but simply at the end there-
of;' as was done with the narrative of the death of Moses,
conformably to the opinion of some Talmudical sages, who
ascribe its authorship to Joshua. Clearly it is one thing,
after the conclusion of a book, to speak of the decease of
its writer-a circumstance which can never mislead nor
create misgivings-and it is another thing to engraft, as it
were, on the body of the work itself, whole accounts by way
of interlineation or otherwise.
My third remark has reference to the hypothesis that
Scribes were clothed by the authorities with the office of
historiographers; and I purpose to show that it lacks the
slightest support from any part of the holy volume called
the Pentateuch. After the defeat of Amalek, God said to
Moses, "Write this as a record in the book."(Exodus xvii.
14).' The Lord does not ask him to confide the task to any
one else. Besides, I ask, would that trusty minister,
Joshua-so very jealous of his master's authority, that,
at the slightest fear of the impairment of its supremacy, he
cried out (against Eldad and Medad), "Moses, my lord,
forbid them," (Numbers xi, 28)-would that trusty minister,
I say, have suffered any mortal to write not only the history
of his master's life and marvellous deeds, but also that of the
creation and of the flood, which presupposes the possession

, I suppose that Luzzatto means to convey this idea. As the book

of Joshua had not yet been compiled, the leader of the tribes, anxious to
preserve the memory of the last act of his administration-so instructive
to posterity-gave it himself temporarily a place in the Pentateuch as
an appendix. (Translator).
, Luzzatto seems doubtful about the precise meaning of the unusual
expression following immediately the above . ... H and put it in the ear3
of Joshua" (lit.). In his Italian translation he renders it "Call to it
Joshua's special attention," but in his Hebrew commentary, after hay·
iog quoted several opinions, he says, It appears to me that the phrase
II

implies the dictating of the events to Joshua, while the latter acted the
·honorable part of Secretary, likely in recognition of his military services.
(Translator).
 LUZZATTO'S INTRODUCTION TO THE PENTATEUCH 97

of an inspired mind? Would he not have repeated against

such historiographers, his exclamation: "Moses, my lord,
forbid them?" And further: could these historians trans-
mit many events with a detailed precision, and yet forget to
chronicle the public act-needfully performed in a very
solemn manner-the act which clothed them with the
office of authentic and heaven-gifted scribes of the nation?
I have dwelt too long on the refutation of a hypothesis
which cannot be sustained in any shape or form.
I will not, however, let pass unnoticed, a matter which
the critic brings forth as a strong support to his position.
He finds that the sacred text, speaking of Moses, invariably
makes use of the third person, and not of the first. He does
not know-for knowing it, he should not hide it-that the
example of Julius Caesar and Josephus' overthrows his
argument. But in connection with this very same mode
of reasoning, I shall offer an observation, which will reduce
the hypothesis of our critic to a perfect absurdity, because
self-contradictory. Now: it is not only in the historiciil
part-fancied to have been written by Scribes-that the
sacred text uses the third person, when alluding to the Arch-
prophet, but also in the preceptive part, where we constantly
meet with the expression, "The Lord spoke unto Moses, as
follows." If then this manner of speaking proves nothing
in the legal portion of the Scriptures, nothing antagonistic
to the common, ~y, universal, belief that Moses was the
inspired compiler of the Pentateuch, it proves absolutely
nothing against it in the historical portion thereof.
Our critic is again at fault when he points to the seem-
ing want of order in some of the narratives of the Pentateuch
as carrying out his hypothesis. This argument, like the
preceding, belongs to that mode of reasoning that, aiming
to prove too much, proves nothing. If want of order in
the narratives ofthe sacred code is a reality, then those nar-
•
I See Julius Caesar's llCommentaries," and Josephus' "Wars of the
Jews" in which the writers recount in the third person events where
they played the most important part. (Translator).
98 ITALIAN HEBREW LITERATURE

ratives could not have been chronicled by authorized beings

writing under an inspired imluence, surely not by wise
.. Scribes." It follows, that the lack of a proper arrange-
ment pointed at is only apparent, and -it is just as willed by
the Lord. It follows, again, that the narratives may have
been-as they actually were-put down by the heaven-
directed hand of the Arch-prophet, and placed by him to-
gether with the legal or preceptive parts.
Equally unhappy in his choice of arguments is the
author of whom we speak, when he brings forth a few
verses, on which some ancient commentators among our
people have looked with a suspicious eye, as interpolations
(which verses will engage our attention hereafter) for
the very reason that he who contends that -several
lines, in any book whatever, have been interpolated, gives
inferentially his support to the authenticity of the bulk
of the work. Nor can it be asserted that in a volume, as-
sumed to have issued from various and uncertain writers-
as our critic, with little judgment, claims the sacred code
to have corne into existence-scattered sentences have been
surreptitiously introduced.'
But more clashing with accepted notions than even the
hypothesis controverted in preceding paragraphs, is an ex-
ceedingly heterodox opinion, advanced by some of the most
learned Orientalists among the Protestant theologians of
Germany. It is needful to guard against the impression
which the perusal of works flowing, confessedly from deep
scholarship and, apparently, far-reaching reflection, may
create. I deem it a duty to lend others the arms which
my mental efforts have supplied me with, to defend the
good cause.
Well, several of the modern linguists allege that his-
tory does not present a single instance in which a language
I Luzzatto means, I conceive, that interpolations can only be said
to exist, in a writing, the author of which is generally acknowledged
but not in a mere compilation, where a number of unknown hands have
been at work. (Translator).
 LUZZATIO'S INTRODUCTION TO THE PENTATEUCH 99

could continue during the space of fully a thousand years, so

uniformly alike, as we see the Hebrew language to have
remained from the first to the last writer of the sacred
Canon; from Moses to Nehemiah, two personages living
at the distance of a thousand years. From the pretended
impossibility of a uniformity of such duration in the
language, they have dared to infer that the Pentateuch
could not have been written until ages after the time of Moses,
that is, in the days of David, or even later. The reason-
ing is specious and seductive, for such an instance is really
extraordinary. The languages known do not, in fact, offer
a similar example. But when we go back and look for
the causes, we will find that the alterations which ages work
in a language are not made principally by the running stream
of time, but by outside influences that foreign nations,
whether inimical or friendly, bring to bear on it.
An inimical race will alter the language of the nation
conquered, as Northern peoples altered the Latin tongue and
gave rise to modern European languages; while friendly'
nations will occasion changes in their respective languages,
by the mutual exchange of learning, customs, habits; and, as
a result thereof, also of their mode of speaking, and even
of single words.' It is thus that in our own days the Italian,
the French, the English and the German, continually inter-
change terms and phrases, each lending, and again, in
tum receiving, by reason of the very state of amicable in-
tercourse that exists.
Now, little as one may have considered the political
condition of our people, when settled in Palestine, he cannot
J The implication is, that the Hebrew in the time of Moses must
have differed materially from the Hebrew in the days of the Monarchy,
as, by way of illustration, the English of Chaucer differs from that of
Tennyson. But as a diversity so strikingly remarkable, cannot be
traced between the diction of the Arch-prophet and that of the royal
psalmist, the Pentateuch must have emanated {rom some clever pen iq
the palmy days of the language. So would modern critics make us
believe. The reader may also find sensibly written remarks on this topic,
in Munk's "Palestine." (Translator).
100 ITALIAN HEBREW LITERATURE

have failed to perceive that during the whole of that period

we had no intercourse, l'Ir almost none, with those
whose vernacular tongue was not the Hebrew. Inimical
invasions and conquests made, had relation only to the
various populations of Canaan and its vicinity; populations
that spoke the same Hebrew language, called by Isaiah
himself .. the language of Canaan" (Isaiah xix, 18). No
other language but the Hebrew was used by the Phoenicians,
that is, the people of Tyre and Sidon, whose every record
unearthed may be readily interpreted by means of a know-
ledge of Hebrew. Social and commercial transactions were
rare with neighboring peoples, and extremely rare with dis-
tant ones. Hence the influence of strange nations could not
produce any modification or alteration in the Hebrew ton-
gue. But we, indeed, perceive that no sooner had a people
from a rather far off country, speaking a different language
intervened; no sooner, I say, had the Babylonian invasion of
Judea taken place, than the Hebrew began to lose its purity, -
and to adopt a quantity of Chaldaisms, from which it never
freed itself. Until that happened, the people of God, keep-
ing purposely aloof, because of its theocratic constitution,
from idolatrous nations and not having suffered from the in-
roads of a horde of tribes that hailed from remote lands,
and spoke diverse tongues-could, without our being
surprised at the circumstance, retain its own language
intact. Let then the truth prevail, and let this be acknow-
ledged as a firmly settled fact; the sacred volumes of the
Pentateuch belong altogether-as the ancients always be-
lieved-to the Arch-prophet Moses.
There remains now for us to speak of the genuineness
of the same holy book in its entirety. This part of our
introduction will be the longest, but that which affords the
greatest instruction, while it is the most delightful. The
absurd charge brought against our people in the early days
of Christianity by some of its followers, as for instance by
Justin the Martyr, and by Irenaeus, and afterwards, in
later times, by men of our Qwn faith, who lapsed into that