I do not yet see how these names are to be reconciled. And these and similar passages increase the suspicion that the writings of Moses which we have, have been put together by compilers and that errors in writing have crept in at some time.
Finally the most conclusive argument against the authenticity of Moses is the excessive tautology and useless repetition, with always the same amount of difference, as if different passages had been collected from different authors.
(II.) To prove that Moses is subject to suspicion from the testimony, not of his enemies only, but from that of those who openly professed to be his followers and disciples. And this testimony is
(g.) Of Peter, [Acts xv. 10],[14] calling the yoke of Moses insupportable: and hence either God must be a tyrant, which would be inconsistent with his nature, or Peter speaks falsely, or the laws of Moses are not divine.
(h.) Of Paul always speaking slightingly of the laws of Moses, which he would not do if he considered them divine. Thus [Gal. iv].[15] he calls them
(a.) Bondage v. 3, 4, but who would have so called the laws of God.
(b.) Beggarly commands v. 9.[16]
(c.) V. 30,[16] he writes: Cast out the bondwoman and her son. Hagar, the bondwoman, is the covenant of Mount Sinai, which is the law of Moses according to v. 24.[16] But who would tolerate the saying, cast out the law of God and its children, and followers, although Paul himself, as he asserts here and in the following chapter [Gal. iv. 2, 3],[16] does not permit Timothy to be circumcised. Act xvi.[17]
(d.) He calls the law a dead letter, and what else does he not call it? [II. Cor. iii., 6–10][16] and following. Likewise he did not consider its glory worth considering. c. v., 10. Who would say such things of the most holy law of God? If it is just as divine as the gospel it ought to have equal glory, etc., etc.
The testimony of those who are outside of the Jewish or Christian church, is etc., etc.