The conjectures [are] various. First: [that] the five books of Moses were written on these stones. So the book Teʿamim [Ṭaʿamim, “of the accents”], or “of the apices [points],” and, in the tractate Sotah, some of the Talmudists. Second: only Deuteronomy, but the whole [of it]. [So] Abulensis (Deut., ch. 27, q. 1; here, q. 27 and 28). Third: only a portion of this [Deuteronomy] and of the other books of Moses, in a fourfold [manner]. For some inscribe only the ten precepts [the Decalogue] — as Lyranus and some of the Hebrews. To others [it] seems [that] those precepts were inscribed which Moses explained in Deut., ch. 6 — namely, concerning the unity of God, and concerning the love of God. For these are the chief [precepts], and [were] chiefly explained in the secondary delivery of the law which Moses made, as a doctor of the law delivered by God. So Cajetan. Others [understand] a compendium of all the Mosaic laws, which they say consists of 613 precepts, of which the affirmative are 248, the denying and prohibiting 365. So R. Abenezra [Ibn Ezra], and the many who followed him. Finally, others place [only] the blessings alone upon the same [stones] — among whom is Masius, and the already-cited Josephus seems [to belong]. But what Calvin wishes, [he] does not sufficiently explain. “To the opinion,” he says, “of those I willingly subscribe, who [understand] by the repeated law (and written on the stones)
(col. 949)
…understand a copied exemplar [transcript], which the common [people] name a ‘copy’ or ‘duplicate.’” But whichever of all these conjectures thou follow, always on the stones was a copied exemplar — not the autograph itself of Moses. Yet he [Calvin] adds [that] it is not credible to him [that] the whole volume was there engraved. But concerning which volume — of the whole law (which the Jews comprehend in 5 books), or of Deuteronomy alone? At length, “by the name of ‘law,’” he says, “I think the summary and the sanctions are denoted.” But which summary? Whether as Lyranus, or Cajetan, or Abenezra [Ibn Ezra], or Josephus expounded [it]? So, when he seems to explain the matter, he either passes it over in silence, or entangles it. But to me the second conjecture is pleasing — [namely] that these stones, I say, were inscribed [with] the whole [of] Deuteronomy. For thus [is it] expressly [stated] here (v. 3): in the Hebrew, mishneh torath mosheh [the copy/repetition of the law of Moses], which is “Deuteronomy,” as our [Vulgate] renders [it], and the Greeks in the royal copies. And it is confirmed from Deut. 17, v. 18, where [is] the same Hebrew word, and the Greek [word] in the 70 [LXX] themselves; and here (v. 32) is added: “which he [Moses] had digested [set in order] before the sons of Israel” — in Hebrew and Greek, “[that] which he had written.” Secondly: The cause which frightens most [people, so that] they do not here establish the whole [of] Deuteronomy, is its magnitude, which could not be contained by these stones. And indeed Origen thought (homily 9) [that] the matter could not be explained without allegory. But in truth [it] could easily be contained. For they were, as I said above (q. 19), quite large, and many in number, and all well incrusted and leveled on each side, so that on them as much as possible could be written. For I cannot approve [that] which Masius reckons without any argument — [that] the same thing and the same words [were] depicted on all [the stones]. For to what end the same cabbage [reheated] so many times? [Anyone] who had read one or another stone would have passed over the rest, wearied and nauseated. Not so. But on one stone was one twelfth portion of the whole [of] Deuteronomy, on another the [next], and so on in order — whether these twelfths be taken precisely, or not, as the sense would bear a little more or less. Thirdly: That cause too could frighten some — [namely] that too much time would have to be spent on writing Deuteronomy. But in truth that is nothing. For it was not necessary [that] only one [person] write; but there could have been several — for example, twelve, single scribes for the single stones. Nay indeed, perhaps single tribes furnished, for their [own] stone, six writers each, so that to one of the writers, [when] wearied, another might at once succeed; and thus the whole matter would at once be accomplished. And, that this and the reasoning adduced above may be more evident, let us take all the verses of Deuteronomy. These are 1055 in number. On the single stones, therefore, there will be 87 verses — 43 on one side of it, and a half [43½], [and] on the other just as many. And if there were six writers for each of the stones, each [writer] had 14 and a half verses to write. How expeditiously and quickly could all these [things] be done? Fourthly: In the other conjectures there are some [points] that are disapproved. For neither into any [of them] does the proper meaning of the Hebrew and Greek word placed here fall; nor is there any [conjecture] which does not, of its own accord, select — or rather feign — something which it would prefer [to be] the thing described, as is taught in the cited place of Abulensis: that meanwhile I may now say nothing of the little-accurate numeration of the 613 precepts, concerning which I have said a good deal in Exodus.