CHAPTER IV

Efforts of Infidels to show that the books of the Old Testament are forgeries of comparative modern date. Their objections considered. Curious discovery illustrative of the antiquity and exactness of the Mosaic writings. The utter impossibility of the books being forgeries proven.--Mr. Olmsted's argument to prove that the book of the law was forged by Ezra. Confutation of his argument. Proofs that the law could not have been forged by Daniel nor by any of the captives in Babylon; that it could not have been forged by Isaiah. A forgery could not have been effected after the revolt of the ten tribes. It could not have been forged by David; nor by Saul: nor by any of the Judges who preceded Samuel. The law existed in Joshua's time. Joshua could not have forged the law. The impossibility of practicing a fraud upon the Israelites during a sojourn in the wilderness.--The books of the Pentateuch have internal marks, which demonstrate that they were written by Moses. The book of Genesis included by the Jews in the book of the law. Evidences of its antiquity and genuineness. --Profane testimony to the genuineness of the Mosaic writings. Objection on the ground that although Moses wrote a book called the book of the law, we have no evidence that it was the book now current in his name. The objection considered and answered 193

SECTION I.--Objection of Infidels against the books of Judges, Kings, and Chronicles, because they are anonymous. The objection answered.--The objections against the genuineness of the other books of the Old Testament. In effect answered in the foregoing arguments.--Mr. Paine's argument to prove that the Mosaic writings are spurious, founded upon the style. Confutation of his argument. His argument founded on the passage "Now the man Moses was very meek," etc. Its confutation.--His argument founded on the statement that Abraham pursued the four kings unto Dan. Its fallacy.--His argument founded on what is said of the descendants of Esau. The argument considered, confuted.--His argument founded on the passage "The children of Israel did eat manna until they came to a land inhabited," etc. Its fallacy. His argument founded on what is said concerning Og's bedstead. The argument confuted.--The argument founded on the record of the death of Moses being contained in the books attributed to him. The argument confuted.--The evidence adduced establishes the genuineness and credibility of the books.--Objection that Moses must have borrowed the history of the creation from the traditions which obtained in his time. Reply to the objection.--The question, Whence did Moses derive the materials of his history? Answered by Mr. Horne.--Objections on the ground that no dependence is to be placed in the present text of the Old Testament Scriptures. Its fallacy 227