Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-07-29

In the fret place, it In admitted by
oil tina. there are some parts Of the
Pentaieuch wEich Moses never wrote.
The narrative Of his death and subqc-
quent events were added probably by
Joshua, and some verses were evident
ly explanatory interpretations by later
| tfanscribers. "Ani the Canaanite
was then Ia the land" and "M0sos
was the meokest n men," mAy he
expressions Of this Clnss. When aided,
or by whom, l. impossible to ascor ain
by any ordinary means OF historical tc.
search, but such passages may have
been inserted by Inspired men and
therefore be Of equal authority 10 tie
original text. At all events, they DO
not prove that Moses is not the
author Of the Pontateuch any more
lnan tho foot notes in tho Doctrine
and Covenants prove that book TO be
spurious. Such additions and explain.
atory interpretations d. MT amount
to huJ IN all.
A. TO the ffagmontary character of
the bOokf, 1t IL not denied that the au.
thor consulted various documents for
the historical part. Nitringi, VIC be-
liove, was the frat who made this
suggestion, but he was far from con-
tending that Moses was not the author
This questionable honor belongs To
later ami lc,s profound scholars.
Moses was a very learned man aud it
il but reasonable to suppo.o that ho
should have awaited himself Of all that
WIS written before him aud which
was within his reach. II IL also req.
sounhlu 10 suppose that the clrcum.
stances under which he wrote would
bo reflected boz his competitions AMI
render them 10 some extent
ffagmentary. hut to conclude
from these promises that Moses
was not the author IL about % logical
NJ 10 say that Prescott Is not the
author Of his famous hlstorlos Of the
conquest Of Mexico and Peru, because
he made use Of various other books
and documents Tor his great work.
The argument based on tue names
Tor God does not prove all that l.
claimed Tor H. II ASSUMES that the
two names refer to the same person
In the Godhead and hcncs concludes
that We have tho compositions OF two
different authors. hut II II should be-
proven that Elohim stands for one
Divine person aud Jehovah Tor au-
other, the whole argument becomes
invalid.
Those who deny the authorship Of
Mos1u feel the necessity OF naming
someone ~ the probable author And
Ezra IL supposed To have written n
great part OF the pcntsleuch, "the
prIestly code" aud perhaps to have
edited all VI It, and then published II
m tho work OF Moses In order 10 secure
for II acceptance.
Who was EzrA2 According 10 history
| he was iincai descendant OF Aaron,
born, probably, In Babylon during the
| captivity. Hp was one OF the most
learned jews Of his age, aud his chief
characteristics were humility anu
iervent zeal for the glory Of God. He
was eminent for his researches In law
and for his sense uf honor, aud has
always been regarded "a inferior only
TO Moses. Tnis h the answer Of hlr-
tory. Certain modern critics add
that he was also literary iorgcr, q
cheat, a fraud. Can anybody believe
lhat2
But even " Ezra should have con.
o1lvod the idea Of iramng "prlosuy
code" and forging a groot name to It,
he could not have done H. AZ that
time great many OF the Elders Of
Israel were living who had scen the
old Temple anu participated In the
tervices. Tho ancient law had boon
read 10 them periodically aui i,s pro.
visions were well Imprinted ON their
miuds. They had tiught them to their
children and relatcj the circum.
stances under which they were given.
Anything now that Ezra might have
been disposed to engra.l upon this code
would at once have boon detected.
Those who would like to have a
practical illustration o, tho force OF
this argument might try the expert.
mont Of publishing new edition Of
the Constitution OF the United States
and "ellt' It according to their own
noiious, How long would It take before
their fraud would be exposed2
Then, Ez,a had no object 10 gain BY
forging the namo OF Israe's great law q.
| giver When he arrived In Jerusalem
the Temple, seems, was all finished
and priests and Lgvites ordained TO the
service (Ezu *, ~ His great work
was not therefore Of a ritualistic but OF
moral character. He found on HE
arrival that great number OF the PEG.
pile, including tho priests, had violates
tho law Of Moses by inter.
marrying with the Csnsanlles and
a reformation was therefore commenced
in which he took leading pag0 He
did not need Tor this work any new
ritual, The question was not OF "a
separation from the Jewish church
aud the adoption Of now rites but OF
cleansing AMI purifying Che existing
church through the enforcement Of