In answer to the evidence of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch based on the statements of Jesus, it is constantly affirmed by the "critics" that the question of authorship was never brought before Jesus.

      In the sense of being propounded formally, as the question, "What is the great commandment?" it was not. Neither did he ever formally bring it before himself as a question to be discussed pro and con. How, then, demands the "critic," can he be said to have settled the [256] question? How can a man settle a question which was never propounded to him, and which he never propounded to himself, or to those with whom he conversed?

      I answer, that a man may make indirect affirmations which are as positive as any uttered in direct propositions. For example, I may say such and such a proposition affirmed by Wellhausen is false. Here the question of the falsity of the proposition is the one formally before me, yet I indirectly declare that Wellhausen affirmed the proposition; and if he did not, I have slandered him. I can not defend myself against the charge of slander by saying that the question whether Wellhausen so affirmed was not before me. I placed it before me. Again, our Lord says: "Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon the earth, where moth and rust do consume and where thieves break through and steal." Here the subject formally presented is that of laying up treasures; but it is indirectly affirmed that moth and rust consume earthly treasures, and that thieves break through and steal them. Now, if it should be found that moth and rust never do consume such treasures, and that thieves never do steal them, we could not defend the Lord from a charge of misstatement by saying that the question about moths and rust and thieves was not the question before him. In like manner, when he says to the healed leper, "Show thyself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them," his affirmation that Moses so commanded is as positive as his command to offer the gift; and if a man says that Moses did not so command, he has contradicted a positive statement of the Lord.

      Take another example. Jesus says: "The works that the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works [257] that I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me." Here the main question before him is the evidence furnished by his works; but he no less positively affirms, though indirectly, that the Father gave him those works to accomplish; and his veracity is pledged to that fact as well as to the other. So, when he says in the same chapter, "If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" does he affirm nothing in respect to writing done by Moses? This is not exactly a parallel case; for the assertion about Moses and his writings is not made indirectly; it is the main thing before Jesus. His sole argument turns on it; for he introduces the subject by saying: "Think not that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye put your hope. For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" The question whether Moses wrote was not brought before him; but he took it up himself as an unquestioned fact, affirmed it to be such, and based his argument upon it as such. Let the "critics" put their hands on their mouths in the presence of such evidence as this.

[SEBC 256-258]