This title should be noted. The books referred to are in our day generally known as the Pentateuch, a word meaning literally, five-fifths, i.e., in this case, five books. Greek translators of the Old Testament are supposed to have introduced that title. It was not used at the time of Lehi.
Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities, calls this part of the Old Testament, the “Holy Books of Moses,” and in his treatise against Apion, in enumerating the sacred books of the Jews, he says, “five of them belong to Moses.” In the New Testament this section is merely called the “Law.” (2 Chron. 25:4). When they speak of the “Book of Moses,” singular, they do so consistently, because in all ancient Hebrew manuscripts, what we know as five books was one single roll. The division into books is a later arrangement. The Jews generally call the entire book, or books, the Torah, which means the “Law;” or, the “Torah of Moses.” Some Jewish writers call them the “Five-fifths of the Law.”
From all this we may conclude that, if the Book of Mormon were a modern composition, as some suppose, the author would, in this verse, have made use of the comparatively modern designation, “Pentateuch,” rather than the more ancient “Five Books of Moses.”
When Nephi gives us the information that the metal plates of Laban contained the Five Books of Moses, he ends, as far as the Latter-day Saints are concerned, a controversy still dividing Bible scholars of the world. He tells us, first, that Moses is the responsible author of those books; and, secondly, that there are only five “Books of Moses,” not six, as those exceedingly learned men assure us, who throw the Book of Joshua in the Pentateuch, for good measure. Nephi is right. And that is proved by the fact that the Samaritan Pentateuch, which in all probability came into existence at the time of the separation of Israel and Judah, during the reign of Rehoboam, does not include the Book of Joshua, although the Samaritans also had a copy of the latter book.
That Nephi is right also in ascribing the authorship to Moses is as certain.
As is well known, there is a class of critics who claim to have discovered that the Pentateuch is a mixtum composition, consisting of a number of literary fragments, no less than four, probably many more, all of which belong to a post-Mosaic time, and some to a time as late as Ezekiel. They surmise that, centuries after Moses, an author arose in the kingdom of Judah, who in his historic compositions referred to the Deity as Jehovah, while another historian in the kingdom of Israel used the name Elohim. Some time after these authors, an editor cut these histories to pieces and put the fragments together in an abbreviated form, in order to make a continuous story of the two. Then, they claim, there is a priestly code which came into existence during the time of Ezekiel and was woven into the story of the two other documents. Finally, the Deuteronomy was written by someone during the time of King Josiah.
There was a time when the many arguments needed to support this theory were regarded as the very quintessence of erudition, particularly among young atheists and rationalists. But they have been weighed and found wanting.
For instance, Professor George Frederick Wright, D.D., LL.D., Oberlin College, Ohio, has pointed out that:
“On consulting the evidence it appears that in Genesis and the first three chapters of Exodus [where this—the Jehovah-Elohim—clue was supposed to be most decisive] Jehovah occurs in the Hebrew text 148 times, but in 118 of these places other texts 2 have either Elohim or Jehovah Elohim. In the same section, while Elohim alone occurs 179 times in the Hebrew, in 49 of the passages one or the other designation takes its place; and in the second and third chapters of Genesis where the Hebrew text has Jehovah Elohim (Lord God) 23 times, there is only one passage in which all the texts are unanimous on this point.”
It requires no great learning to see that, unless the critics can furnish an infallibly correct Hebrew text—one that will stand the test of real textual criticism—their argument from words or names is the flimsiest of fallacies.
That Moses had access to many records and documents now lost is certain. Noah must have left some records to his descendants. We know that Abraham wrote books. And so did Joseph. Even in Egypt, the Israelites had their recorders (shoterim, badly translated “officers”), and they, naturally, would preserve in writing such judicial decisions as were rendered by their magistrates, especially by Joseph. Moses would, of course, have access to these records. Then there were Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian tablets by the hundreds. There was the law of Hammurabi, and many other documents. And Moses would certainly avail himself of all literary helps within his reach, treasuring up the pearls and consigning the remainder to the shell heap.
A theory that deserves some consideration may be stated somewhat like this: Moses may have compiled the Book of the Covenants which occupies the section from Ex. 2:15-25)
There are some peculiarities connected with the Pentateuch, which the critics have ignored. One is the absence of the name Jerusalem from that part of the Bible. If it were true that a great part of it was written by an author in the capital of Judah, that city would have been given a prominent place in the document. Mr. Andrew Craig Robinson, M.A., Ballineen, Ireland, argues:
“It seems strange then to find the Yahvist [document] supposed to have been written in the southern kingdom, and to have been imbued with all its prejudices, consecrating Bethel by a notable theophany (15), and he never mentions Jerusalem. What is the explanation of all this? What is the inner meaning of this absence of the name Jerusalem from the Pentateuch? Is it not this: that at the time the Pentateuch was written, Jerusalem, with all her sacred glories, had not entered yet into the life of Israel
In other words, the Pentateuch must have been composed before Israel had become settled in Canaan.
Another notable fact, which justifies the same conclusion, is the absence in the Pentateuch of all reference to ritual song and music, such as constituted part of the divine service in Judah at the time when the critics suppose the “priestly” code was written. At that time, the people had harps, timbrels, cymbals, psalteries, songs and singers, but no such instruments and no sweet vocalists, are mentioned in the Books of Moses as belonging to the Tabernacle and the sacred ritual. That proves that they must have been composed long before the date assigned to them by the critics.
There is another omission. The title “Lord of Hosts” is not found in the Pentateuch, for the simple reason that the book was composed before the time of Samuel, when that appellation was first applied as a title of the Almighty.
The creation of the world and Adam and Eve. This is the beginning of Genesis, the First Book of Moses. It is the first authoritative information given to the race concerning the origin of the universe and man, the fall and the promise of redemption.
Some regard this wonderful story as myth. But from the Pearl of Great Price we learn that God himself, in a vision on a high mountain revealed to Moses what he afterwards wrote concerning a new heaven and earth, man and the plan of salvation. (See the “Writings of Moses,” as revealed to Joseph Smith in June and December, 1830). That is how he got his information. There is no more important part of the Bible than this.
Somebody has said:
“The Bible as a whole is like a chain hanging upon two staples. The Book of Genesis is the one staple, the Book of Revelation the other. Take away either staple, the chain falls in confusion. If the first chapters of Genesis are unreliable, the revelation of the beginning of the universe, the origin of the race, and the reason of its redemption is gone. If the last chapters of Revelation are displaced the consummation of all things is unknown.”
Except, of course, it is revealed again by the source of all truth.
The importance of this “chain” in the plan of salvation is evidenced by the fact that God again revealed both the first and the last link of it to the Prophet Joseph Smith—both the visions of Moses and the visions of John the Revelator. (D. & C., Sec. 77)