Deuteronomy

VIEW:44 DATA:01-04-2020

repetition of the law
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary


DEUTERONOMY
1. Structure, Origin, Influence.—The book consists of three speeches (Deu_1:6 to Deu_4:40; Deu_4:5-26; Deu_4:28; Deu_29:2 to Deu_30:20) and two poems (chs. 32, 33), all of which are represented as having been uttered by Moses on the plains of Moab before the crossing of Jordan. The slight narrative (chs. 27, 31, 34) is concerned mainly with the last days of Moses. Chapters 1–3, however, contain an historical sketch cast into the form of a speech.
Chs. 5–26, Deu_28:1-46 are a unity with a formal opening (Deu_4:44-49) and close (Deu_29:1); and this section, apart from some later additions, is homogeneous. Thus chs. 5–11 elaborate those principles concerning Jahweh and His relation to His people which give a peculiar character to the Hebrew polity; chs. 12–26 develop these into a code of law; Deu_28:1-46 pronounces blessings on obedience, curses on disobedience. This section, it is now agreed, was the Law-book found in the Temple in the 18th year of Josiah (b.c. 622–621), which formed the basis of the reform described in 2Ki_22:1-20 f. Thus Josiah abolished the high places in Judah and Jerusalem (Deu_22:8; Deu_22:13), and confined legitimate worship to the sanctuary at Jerusalem; and this centralization of the cult is the dominating idea of Deu_5:1-33; Deu_6:1-25; Deu_7:1-26; Deu_8:1-20; Deu_9:1-29; Deu_10:1-22; Deu_11:1-32; Deu_12:1-32; Deu_13:1-18; Deu_14:1-29; Deu_15:1-23; Deu_16:1-22; Deu_17:1-20; Deu_18:1-22; Deu_19:1-21; Deu_20:1-20; Deu_21:1-23; Deu_22:1-30; Deu_23:1-25; Deu_24:1-22; Deu_25:1-19; Deu_26:1-19. Again, Josiah purified the Jahweh-worship from baser elements, destroying the Asherah (2Ki_23:6, cf. Deu_16:21 f.) and the houses of sodomy (2Ki_23:7, cf. Deu_23:17 f.). His opposition to idolatry was directed against the same forms as those denounced in Deut. (cf. the sun-worship, 2Ki_23:5; 2Ki_23:11, Deu_17:3; and the worship of Milcom, Deu_23:10; Deu_23:13, Deu_12:31). The Passover, celebrated in his day at Jerusalem, is stated to have been unique (2Ki_23:21 ff.); and Deut. forbids the celebration of the Passover elsewhere than in Jerusalem (Deu_16:5 f.). The king abolished the superstitious means of learning the Divine will (2Ki_23:24), which Deut. forbids (Deu_18:10 ff.). The demands of the Law-book and the performance of the king are parallel.
It is, however, a more difficult question how far the reforms which Josiah instituted in obedience to Deut. were new, and how far they were a return to older practices from which the nation had degenerated during the early monarchy. Three other codes can be distinguished in the Pentateuch, and a comparison of these with Deut. helps to determine its place in the development of Israel’s religion. An examination of the social legislation in Deut. leads to the conclusion that it is later than the Book of the Covenant (Exo_20:1 to Exo_23:33). Though we are not justified in calling Deut. a deliberate expansion of this legislation, it certainly represents a more developed state of society, as is seen, e.g., in its numerous laws about contracts. And in one particular it controls the cult at a cardinal point which Exod. left vague: the ‘every place where Jahweh records his name’ (Exo_20:24) has become ‘the place which Jahweh shall choose to put his name there’ (Deut. passim). When Deut. is compared with the Law of Holiness (Lev_17:1-16; Lev_18:1-30; Lev_19:1-37; Lev_20:1-27; Lev_21:1-24; Lev_22:1-33; Lev_23:1-44; Lev_24:1-23; Lev_25:1-55; Lev_26:1-46), the codes are seen to be framed for different purposes—Leviticus as a handbook for priests, Deut. as a layman’s manual. But their legislation is parallel. Compared with P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , Deut. is earlier, for questions left uncertain in Deut. are decided in P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] . See further, art. Hexateuch.
The few references in Deut. to events in Israel’s history bear out the conclusion thus reached, for they are dependent on JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] , but show no acquaintance with P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ’s history. It is difficult, e.g., to explain the absence of Korah in Deu_11:6, if the author read Num_16:1-50 in its present form, where Korah from P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] has been woven into the early story. When chs. 1–3 (see below) are included in this scrutiny, they support the inference that Deut. was an independent book, before P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] was incorporated with JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] .
There are further indications of the date at which this code was introduced. Thus Deut. insists throughout on one sanctuary, at which legitimate worship can be offered to Jahweh.
The extent to which this dominates the code is not to be measured merely by the number of times the command is repeated. Older customs are recast in consequence of this change. The Passover alters its character from a family to a national festival (Deu_16:5 f.). A central tribunal is set up to replace the decisions at the local shrines (Deu_17:8 f.). Asylums for the manslayer are needed (Deu_19:1 ff.), since the village altars where he once found safety (Exo_21:14) are abolished, etc.
Now this was an innovation in Israel. Elijah, far from condemning the high places, is indignant at the sacrilege which has thrown down the altars of Jahweh (1Ki_19:10). When he leaves the polluted land to seek Jahweh, he makes his way not to Jerusalem, but to Horeb (contrast Isa_2:2 f.). Hosea and Amos find much to condemn in the worship which was practised at Bethel and Dan, but never suggest that any worship offered at these shrines was ipso facto illegitimate. Yet these were the religious teachers of the nation. Deut., again, forbids the erection of pillars beside Jahweh’s altars (Deu_12:3 f.); it is difficult to understand how Isaiah (Isa_19:19) could have associated a pillar with Jahweh-worship, had this law been accepted in his day. The worship of the host of heaven—one of the few forms of idolatry specified in Deut.—is not mentioned till it receives severe blame from the prophets of the 7th cent. (Jer_8:2; Jer_19:13; Jer_32:29, Zep_1:3). But this Assyrian cult became a real danger to Israel’s religion, when Manasseh came under Eastern influences.
Hezekiah is the first king of whom we learn that he attempted to remove the high places (2Ki_18:14). Evidently, however, this was an unpopular step, for the Rabshakeh was able to appeal to the conservative instincts of the nation against a king who practised such questionable innovations (Deu_18:22). What impelled Hezekiah was a religious, not a political, motive. The splendid monotheistic teaching of Isaiah carried with it the Inference ‘One God, one sanctuary.’ Besides, the abuses which were associated with the local shrines compelled the religious leaders of the nation, who had been influenced by the teaching of Hosea and Amos, to go to the root and abolish such worship altogether. The one means of purifying their worship was to sever it from the high places with their Canaanite associations. Political events helped them. The fall of N. Israel (b.c. 722) carried with it the condemnation of the worship which was practised there, and swept away the worshippers who were attached to it. The deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib threw a glory round the sanctuary of which Jahweh had so signally vindicated the inviolability. Probably a body of reformers framed their code in Hezekiah’s later years. They did not create a new legislation, they recast and put a new spirit into an older code. It would have been impossible to secure the acceptance of a brand-new code from a whole people.
Efforts have been made to break up Deu_5:1-33; Deu_6:1-25; Deu_7:1-26; Deu_8:1-20; Deu_9:1-29; Deu_10:1-22; Deu_11:1-32; Deu_12:1-32; Deu_13:1-18; Deu_14:1-29; Deu_15:1-23; Deu_16:1-22; Deu_17:1-20; Deu_18:1-22; Deu_19:1-21; Deu_20:1-20; Deu_21:1-23; Deu_22:1-30; Deu_23:1-25; Deu_24:1-22; Deu_25:1-19; Deu_26:1-19 into several sections, and to trace their origin. These have not been very convincing: they have relied too much on a proof of difference of origin derived from the use of the singular or the plural number in forms of address to the people. But they have proved that older elements and varied elements have been fused together into this Law-book.
Under Manasseh there followed a strong reaction, which resorted even to persecution. The reformers’ Law-book was forgotten, the reformers themselves may have been martyred. But the code itself survived to be discovered under Josiah, and to become the basis of a pregnant reform.
Opinion is divided as to whether chs. 1–3 are by the hand which wrote the main work. The fact that in Deu_11:2 ff. Moses is represented as speaking to men who had witnessed the Exodus, while in Deu_2:14 ff. that generation is represented as dead, seems decisive that they are not. The chapters may have been added as an historical introduction to a separate edition of the code. The fact that their history is based on JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] proves that this must have been early.
Chapters Deu_4:1-40; Deu_4:29 f. belong together, and are a later addition in view of new circumstances, viz., the prospect or the reality of exile.
The Song (Deu_32:1-43), with its double introduction (Deu_31:16-22; Deu_31:30) and close (Deu_32:44), is a didactic poem, giving an interpretation of Israel’s entire history, and bearing traces of influence from the Wisdom literature. It may date from the 7th cent. or the Exile.
The Blessing (ch. 33) dates from a time when N. Israel in the flush of its vigour could anticipate further conquests (Deu_32:17), since Eastern Israel had regained part of its lost territory (Deu_32:20). It may belong to the reign of Jeroboam II. (b.c. 782–43), by whom the Syrians of Damascus were defeated.
Ch. 27 is difficult to assign. It evidently breaks the connexion of 26 and 28, and as evidently is composite. The Levites in Lev_27:14 ff. carry out what in Lev_27:12 ff. the tribes are commissioned to do, and there are no blessings uttered at all. There may be early elements in Lev_27:4 ff., but it is best to confess that the chapter is still a crux.
2. Main principles.—(a) The fundamental principle of the book is the unity of Jahweh, who is God of the whole earth (Deu_10:14), and who is more than the God of Israel, since He has relations to other nations apart from their relations to Israel (Deu_9:5, Deu_12:31). This carries with it the consequence that idolatry is the supreme sin (Deu_6:14, Deu_17:2 ff. etc.). To avoid even the possibility of such a crime, intercourse with other nations is severely restrained (Deu_7:1 ff. etc.), and older customs of worship are forbidden (Deu_16:21 etc.).—(b) As He is God of the whole earth, Jahweh’s will is the moral law, and in connexion with its requirements He rewards and punishes (cf. the teaching of Amos). As God of Israel, the fundamental principles of His relation to His people are also ethical.—(c) Yet Jahweh is not merely a lifeless moral principle or glorified code. His love to His people was shown, before they could prove any desert (Deu_9:4 f. etc.). He gave them their land—a gift they must not imagine themselves to have merited (Deu_8:7 ff.). Hence love is the supreme return for His love (Deu_6:4 f. etc., and cf. Hosea). Hence also there is room for worship and for prayer. Their cult, an expression of their loving gratitude, is to be joyous in character, not like the darker superstitions to which national disaster and foreign rites were making them incline (Deu_12:18 etc.).—(d) A religion, the heart of which is loving gratitude, naturally expresses itself in humanity towards all with whom men live, and even towards the lower animals (Deu_22:1 f. etc. Deu_22:6 f. etc.). A religion also with so strong a sense of the Divine personality brings with it respect for human personality (Deu_24:10 f.).—(e) As personal and loving, Jahweh can and does reveal Himself. Through His self-revelation He is the historic God of Israel. This is emphasized in contrast with the baalim, who, as gods of Canaan, had no historic connexion with Israel. Jahweh has made known Himself and His will by the deeds He has wrought for and among His people. (Hence it was a right instinct which led to the addition of chs. 1–3 with their record of Jahweh’s past guidance.)—(f) This element enters now into the cult. It gives fresh historic associations to the national festivals and weds them to the great events of their past. See especially ch. 26, where all Israel’s past is made to enter into the worship of the individual Israelite, and where also emphasis is laid on the truth that the fruits of the land are not from the baalim, but from Jahweh’s bounty (cf. Hos_2:8).—(g) Such a religion, with its strong sense of the historic unity of God’s dealings with His nation, and its conviction of the reasonableness of God’s demands, can and ought to be taught. Children are to have it explained to them (Deu_6:6 f., Deu_11:19); and means are to be used to bring it to men’s thoughts daily (Deu_6:9, Deu_11:20). Most of the outward observances are thus brought into connexion with great vivifying principles, so that this code becomes the finest illustration of an effort made to bring religious principles home to a nation in its entire work and life.
A. C. Welch.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

from δευτερος, second, and νομος; law; the last book of the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses. As its name imports, it contains a repetition of the civil and moral law, which was a second time delivered by Moses, with some additions and explanations, as well to impress it more forcibly upon the Israelites in general, as in particular for the benefit of those who, being born in the wilderness, were not present at the first promulgation of the law. It contains also a recapitulation of the several events which had befallen the Israelites since their departure from Egypt, with severe reproaches for their past misconduct, and earnest exhortations to future obedience. The Messiah is explicitly foretold in this book; and there are many remarkable predictions interspersed in it, particularly in the twenty-eighth, thirtieth, thirty-second, and thirty-third chapters, relative to the future condition of the Jews. The book of Deuteronomy finishes with an account of the death of Moses, which is supposed to have been added by his successor, Joshua.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

After receiving the law at Mt Sinai, Israel spent almost forty years in the wilderness region between Sinai and Canaan. During this time the adults died and a new generation grew up (cf. Num_14:28-35). Moses’ repetition of the law for this new generation is recorded in the book called Deuteronomy (from two Greek words, deuteros, meaning ‘second’, and nomos, meaning ‘law’). Concerning the authorship of the book and its relation to the previous four books see PENTATEUCH.
Characteristic style
Deuteronomy does more than simply repeat the law; it expounds the law, giving it a new emphasis. It shows that God wants more than legal correctness. He wants his people to obey him because they want to, not because they are forced to. He wants the relationship with his people to be one of warmth and love (Deu_6:3; Deu_6:5-7; Deu_7:7-8; Deu_7:11; Deu_8:5). The book’s style is that of the preacher rather than the lawgiver; its audience is the people as a whole rather than the priests and judges (Deu_6:8-9; Deu_8:6; Deu_10:12-13).
The basis of Deuteronomy is the covenant between Yahweh and his people. In his sovereign grace, God chose Israel to be his people, and promised them Canaan for a national homeland (Deu_7:7; Deu_8:1; Deu_9:4-5). Israel could do nothing but accept God’s grace and promise to serve him with loving obedience (Deu_5:6-7; Deu_6:1-3; Deu_10:12-13; see COVENANT).
In form Deuteronomy is similar to the normal covenant documents of the ancient Near East. When a sovereign overlord made a covenant with his subject peoples, he prepared a treaty document that declared his sovereignty over them and laid down the order of life he required of them. This is what God did with his people Israel, using Moses as his mediator.
Contents of the covenant document
Usually a treaty document began with an historical introduction in which the overlord, after announcing his name, recounted all he had done for his people. Deuteronomy opens with God’s recounting all he had done for Israel (1:1-3:29) and urging the people to be loyal to him in return (4:1-43).
After the introduction came a statement of the covenant’s basic requirements. For Israel the basic principles were in the form of ten commandments (4:44-5:33). Love would enable the people to do God’s will. There was to be no treachery through forming alliances with foreign powers (foreign gods) (6:1-25). God was giving his people a good land, but they had to remember that life depends on more than the food people eat. It depends on spiritual forces found only in God (7:1-8:20). The people therefore were not to be stubborn (9:1-10:11), but were to have humble purity of heart towards God and towards their fellows (10:12-11:32).
Having established the basic principles, the treaty document then set out the detailed laws. Ancient custom allowed treaties to be updated from time to time to suit changing circumstances. In the case of the Israelites, they would no longer be together as a vast crowd moving through the wilderness, but would split up, spread out and settle down in an agriculturally fertile country. Moses’ repetition of the law therefore included adjustments to fit in with the people’s new way of life (e.g. 11:10-11; 12:20-22; 14:24-27; 18:6-8).
The updated covenant document dealt with a number of matters, including faithfulness in worship (12:1-13:18), honesty in religious and social matters (14:1-16:17), justice in government (16:18-19:21), respect for human life (20:1-21:23), sexual purity (22:1-23:25), protection for the disadvantaged in society (24:1-25:4), and integrity in family relations, business dealings and religious duties (25:5-26:15). The two parties then declared their loyalty to the covenant (26:16-19).
In keeping with the form of ancient treaties, the covenant also listed the rewards and punishments (blessings and cursings) that people could expect. If they were obedient, they would enjoy increased benefits from the overlord; if they were disobedient, they would suffer severe penalties (27:1-28:68). Having stated the conditions under which the covenant operated, Moses then formally renewed it (29:1-30:20). A further feature of the covenant was the twofold provision for its maintenance. First, the people had to assemble periodically to hear it read; second, the document had to be kept in the central shrine, where it served as an absolute standard of reference (31:1-29).
Moses summarized the covenant’s contents in a song that the people were to memorize and sing (31:30-32:47). He brought the ceremony, and his leadership of Israel, to a fitting close by announcing prophetic blessings on each of Israel’s twelve tribes (32:48-33:29). After viewing the promised land, he died peacefully (34:1-12).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

dū-tẽr-on?ō̇-mi:
1. Name
2. What Deuteronomy Is
3. Analysis
4. Ruling Ideas
5. Unity
6. Authorship
7. Deuteronomy Spoken Twice
8. Deuteronomy's Influence in Israel's History
9. The Critical Theory
Literature

1. Name
In Hebrew אלה הדּברים, 'ēlleh hă-debhārı̄m, ?these are the words?; in Greek, Δευτερονόμιον, Deuteronómion, ?second law?; whence the Latin deuteronomii, and the English Deuteronomy. The Greek title is due to a mistranslation by the Septuagint of the clause in Deu_17:18 rendered, ?and he shall write for himself this repetition of the law.? The Hebrew really means ?and he shall write out for himself a copy of this law.? However, the error on which the English title rests is not serious, as Deuteronomy is in a very true sense a repetition of the law.

2. What Deuteronomy Is
Deuteronomy is the last of the five books of the Pentateuch, or ?five-fifths of the Law.? It possesses an individuality and impressiveness of its own. In Exodus - Numbers Yahweh is represented as speaking unto Moses, whereas in Deuteronomy, Moses is represented as speaking at Yahweh's command to Israel (Deu_1:1-4; Deu_5:1; Deu_29:1). It is a hortatory recapitulation of various addresses delivered at various times and places in the desert wanderings - a sort of homily on the constitution, the essence or gist of Moses' instructions to Israel during the forty years of their desert experience. It is ?a Book of Reviews?; a translation of Israel's redemptive history into living principles; not so much a history as a commentary. There is much of retrospect in it, but its main outlook is forward. The rabbins speak of it as ?the Book of Reproofs.? It is the text of all prophecy; a manual of evangelical oratory; possessing ?all the warmth of a Bernard, the flaming zeal of a Savonarola, and the tender, gracious sympathy of a Francis of Assisi.? The author's interest is entirely moral. His one supreme purpose is to arouse Israel's loyalty to Yahweh and to His revealed law. Taken as a whole the book is an exposition of the great commandment, ?Thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.? It was from Deuteronomy that Jesus summarized the whole of the Old Covenant in a single sentence (Mat_22:37; compare Deu_6:5), and from it He drew His weapons with which to vanquish the tempter (Mat_4:4, Mat_4:7, Mat_4:10; compare Deu_8:3; Deu_6:16, Deu_6:13).

3. Analysis
Deuteronomy is composed of three discourses, followed by three short appendices: (1) 1:1 through 4:43, historical; a review of God's dealings with Israel, specifying in great detail where and when delivered (Deu_1:1-5), recounting in broad oratorical outlines the chief events in the nation's experience from Horeb to Moab (1:6 through 3:29), on which the author bases an earnest appeal to the people to be faithful and obedient, and in particular to keep clear of all possible idolatry (4:1-40). Appended to this first discourse is a brief note (Deu_4:41-43) concerning Moses' appointment of three cities of refuge on the East side of the Jordan. (2) Deu_4:44 through Deu_26:19, hortatory and legal; introduced by a superscription (Deu_4:44-49), and consisting of a resume of Israel's moral and civil statutes, testimonies and judgments. Analyzed in greater detail, this second discourse is composed of two main sections: (a) chapters 5 through 11, an extended exposition of the Ten Commandments on which theocracy was based; (b) chapters 12 through 26, a code of special statutes concerning worship, purity, tithes, the three annual feasts, the administration of justice, kings, priests, prophets, war, and the private and social life of the people. The spirit of this discourse is most ethical and religious. The tone is that of a father no less than that of a legislator. A spirit of humanity pervades the entire discourse. Holiness is its ideal. (3) Deu_27:1 through Deu_31:30, predictive and minatory; the subject of this third discourse being ?the blessings of obedience and the curses of disobedience.? This section begins with directions to inscribe these laws on plastered stones to be set up on Mt. Ebal (Deu_27:1-10), to be ratified by an antiphonal ritual of blessings and cursings from the two adjacent mountains, Gerizim and Ebal (27:11-26). These are followed by solemn warnings against disobedience (Deu_28:1 through Deu_29:1), and fresh exhortations to accept the terms of the new covenant made in Moab, and to choose between life and death (Deu_29:2 through Deu_30:20). Moses' farewell charge to Israel and his formal commission of Joshua close the discourse (Dt 31). The section is filled with predictions, which were woefully verified in Israel's later history. The three appendices, spoken of above, close the book: (a) Moses' Song (Dt 32), which the great Lawgiver taught the people (the Law was given to the priests, Deu_31:24-27); (b) Moses' Blessing (Dt 33), which forecast the future for the various tribes (Simeon only being omitted); (c) a brief account of Moses' death and burial (Deu_34:1-12) with a noble panegyric on him as the greatest prophet Israel ever had. Thus closes this majestic and marvelously interesting and practical book. Its keyword is ?possess?; its central thought is ?Yahweh has chosen Israel, let Israel choose Yahweh.?

4. Ruling Ideas
The great central thought of Deuteronomy is the unique relation which Yahweh as a unique God sustains to Israel as a unique people. ?Hear O Israel; Yahweh our God is one Yahweh.? The monotheism of Deuteronomy is very explicit. Following from this, as a necessary corollary almost, is the other great teaching of the book, the unity of the sanctuary. The motto of the book might be said to be, ?One God, one sanctuary.?
(1) Yahweh, A Unique God
Yahweh is the only God, ?There is none else besides him? Dt (Deu_4:35, Deu_4:39; Deu_6:4; Deu_32:39), ?He is God of gods, and Lord of lords? (Deu_10:17), ?the living God? (Deu_5:26), ?the faithful God, who keepeth covenant and lovingkindness with them that love him and keep his commandments? (Deu_7:9), who abominates graven images and every species of idolatry (Deu_7:25, Deu_7:26; Deu_12:31; Deu_13:14; Deu_18:12; Deu_20:18; Deu_27:15), to whom belong the heavens and the earth (Deu_10:14), who rules over all the nations (Deu_7:19), whose relation to Israel is near and personal (Deu_28:58), even that of a Father (Deu_32:6), whose being is spiritual (Deu_4:12, Deu_4:15), and whose name is ?Rock? (Deu_32:4, Deu_32:15, Deu_32:18, Deu_32:30, Deu_32:31). Being such a God, He is jealous of all rivals (Deu_7:4; Deu_29:24-26; Deu_31:16, Deu_31:17), and hence, all temptations to idolatry must be utterly removed from the land, the Canaanites must be completely exterminated and all their altars, pillars, Asherim and images destroyed (Deu_7:1-5, Deu_7:16; Deu_20:16-18; Deu_12:2, Deu_12:3).
(2) Israel, A Unique People
The old Israel had become unique through the covenant which Yahweh made with them at Horeb, creating out of them ?a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation? (Exo_19:6). The new Israel who had been born in the desert were to inherit the blessings vouchsafed to their fathers, through the covenant just now being made in Moab (Deu_26:16-19; Deu_27:9; Deu_29:1; Deu_5:2, Deu_5:3). By means of it they became the heirs of all the promises given unto their fathers the patriarchs (Deu_4:31; Deu_7:12; Deu_8:18; Deu_29:13); they too became holy and peculiar, and especially beloved of Yahweh (Deu_7:6; Deu_14:2, Deu_14:21; Deu_26:18, Deu_26:19; Deu_28:9; Deu_4:37), disciplined, indeed, but for their own good (Deu_8:2, Deu_8:3, Deu_8:5, Deu_8:16), to be established as a people, as Yahweh's peculiar lot and inheritance (Deu_32:6, Deu_32:9; Deu_4:7).
(3) The Relation Between Yahweh and Israel a Unique Relation
Other nations feared their deities; Israel was expected not only to fear Yahweh but to love Him and cleave to Him (Deu_4:10; Deu_5:29; Deu_6:5; Deu_10:12, Deu_10:20; Deu_11:1, Deu_11:13, Deu_11:12; Deu_13:3, Deu_13:4; Deu_17:19; Deu_19:9; Deu_28:58; Deu_30:6, Deu_30:16, Deu_30:20; Deu_31:12, Deu_31:13). The highest privileges are theirs because they are partakers of the covenant blessings; all others are strangers and foreigners, except they be admitted into Israel by special permission (Deu_23:1-8).

5. Unity
The essential unity of the great kernel of Deuteronomy (Dt 5 through 26) is recognized and freely allowed by nearly everyone (e.g. Kautzsch, Ku?nen, Dillmann, Driver). Some would even defend the unity of the whole of Dt 1 through 26 (Knobel, Graf, Kosters, Colenso, Kleinert). No other book of the Old Testament, unless it be the prophecies of Ezekiel, bears such unmistakable signs of unity in aim, language and thought. ?The literary style of Deuteronomy,? says Driver, ?is very marked and individual; in his command of a chaste, yet warm and persuasive eloquence, the author of Deuteronomy stands unique among the writers of the OT? (Deuteronomy, lxxvii, lxxxviii). Many striking expressions characterize the style of this wonderful book of oratory: e.g. ?cause to inherit?; ?Hear O Israel?; the oft-repeated root, meaning in the Ḳal verb-species ?learn,? and in the Piel verb-species ?teach?; ?be willing?; ?so shalt thou exterminate the evil from thy midst?; ?as at this day?; ?that it may be well with thee?; ?the land whither thou goest in to possess it?; ?with all thy heart and with all thy soul?; and many others, all of which occur frequently in Deuteronomy and rarely elsewhere in the Old Testament, Thus binding, so far as style can, the different sections of the book into one solid unit. Barring various titles and editorial additions (Deu_1:1-5; Deu_4:44-49; Deu_29:1; Deu_33:1, Deu_33:7, Deu_33:9, Deu_33:22; Deu_34:1) and a few archaeological notes such as Deu_2:10-12, Deu_2:20-23; Deu_3:9, Deu_3:11, Deu_3:14; Deu_10:6-9, and of course the last chapter, which gives an account of Moses' death, there is every reason necessary for supposing that the book is a unit. Few writings in the entire field of literature have so clear a unity of purpose or so uniform a style of address.

6. Authorship
There is one passage bearing upon the authorship of Deuteronomy wherein it is stated most explicitly that Moses wrote ?this law.? It reads, ?And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi.... And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished (i.e. to the end), that Moses commanded the Levites, that bare the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of Yahweh your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee? (Deu_31:9, Deu_31:24-27). This passage is of more than traditional value, and should not be ignored as is so often done (e.g. by Ryle, article ?Deuteronomy,? HDB). It is not enough to say that Moses was the great fountain-head of Hebrew law, that he gave oral but not written statutes, or, that Moses was only the traditional source of these statutes. For it is distinctly and emphatically stated that ?Moses wrote this law.? And it is further declared (Deu_31:22) that ?Moses wrote this song,? contained in Dt 32. Now, these statements are either true, or they are false. There is no escape. The authorship of no other book in the Old Testament is so explicitly emphasized. The present writer believes that Moses actually wrote the great body of Deuteronomy, and for the following general reasons:
(1) Deuteronomy as a Whole Is Eminently Appropriate to What We Know Of Moses' Times
It closes most fittingly the formative period of Israel's history. The historical situation from first to last is that of Moses. The references to foreign neighbors - Egypt, Canaan, Amalek, Ammon, Moab, Edom - are in every case to those who flourished in Moses' own times. As a law book its teaching is based upon the Ten Commandments. If Moses gave the Ten Commandments, then surely he may have written the Book of Deuteronomy also. Besides, the Code of H̬ammurabi, which antedates Moses by at least 700 years, makes it possible certainly that Moses also left laws in codified or written form.
(2) Deuteronomy Is Represented as Emanating from Moses
The language is language put into Moses' mouth. Nearly forty times his name occurs, and in the majority of instances as the authoritative author of the subject-matter. The first person is used predominatingly throughout: ?I commanded Joshua at that time? Dt (Deu_3:21); and ?I charged your judges at that time? (Deu_1:16); ?And I commanded you at that time? (Deu_1:18); ?I have led you forty years in the wilderness? (Deu_29:5). ?The language surely purports to come from Moses; and if it was not actually used by him, it is a most remarkable case of impersonation, if not of literary forgery, for the writer represents himself as reproducing, not what Moses might have said, but the exact words of Moses? (Zerbe, The Antiquity of Hebrew Writing and Lit., 1911, 261).
(3) Deuteronomy Is a Military Law Book, a Code of Conquest, a Book Of Exhortation
It was intended primarily neither for Israel in the desert nor for Israel settled in Canaan, but for Israel on the borderland, eager for conquest. It is expressly stated that Moses taught Israel these statutes and judgments in order that they should obey them in the land which they were about to enter (Deu_4:5, Deu_4:14; Deu_5:31). They must expel the aborigines (Deu_7:1; Deu_9:1-3; Deu_20:17; Deu_31:3), but in their warfare they must observe certain laws in keeping with theocracy (20:1-20; Deu_23:9-14; Deu_21:10-14; Deu_31:6, Deu_31:7), and, when they have finally dispossessed their enemies, they must settle down to agricultural life and live no longer as nomads but as citizens of a civilized land (Deu_19:14; Deu_22:8-10; Deu_24:19-21). All these laws are regulations which should become binding in the future only (compare Kittel, History Of the Hebrews, I, 32). Coupled with them are prophetic exhortations which seem to be genuine, and to have had their birth in Moses' soul. Indeed the great outstanding feature of Deuteronomy is its parenetic or hortatory character. Its exhortations have not only a military ring as though written on the eve of battle, but again and again warn Israel against allowing themselves to be conquered in religion through the seductions of idolatry. The book in short is the message of one who is interested in Israel's political and religious future. There is a paternal vein running throughout it which marks it with a genuine Mosaic, not a merely fictitious or artificial, stamp. It is these general features, so characteristic of the entire book, which compel one to believe in its Mosaic authorship.

7. Deuteronomy Spoken Twice
Certain literary features exist in Deuteronomy which lead the present writer to think that the bulk of the book was spoken twice; once, to the first generation between Horeb and Kadesh-barnea in the 2nd year of the Exodus wanderings, and a second time to the new generation, in the plains of Moab in the 40th year. Several considerations point in this direction:
(1) The Names of the Widely Separated Geographical Places Mentioned in The Title (Deu_1:1, Deu_1:2)
?These are the words which Moses spake unto all Israel beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah over against Suph, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab?; to which is added, ?It is eleven days' journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea.? If these statements have any relevancy whatever to the contents of the book which they introduce, they point to a wide area, from Horeb to Moab, as the historico-geographical background of the book. In other words, Deuteronomy, in part at least, seems to have been spoken first on the way between Horeb and Kadesh-barnea, and later again when Israel were encamped on the plains of Moab. And, indeed, what would be more natural than for Moses when marching northward from Horeb expecting to enter Canaan from the south, to exhort the Israel of that day in terms of Dt 5 through 26? Being baffled, however, by the adverse report of the spies and the faithlessness of the people, and being forced to wait and wander for 38 years, what would be more natural than for Moses in Moab, when about to resign his position as leader, to repeat the exhortations of Dt 5 through 26, adapting them to the needs of the new desert-trained generation and prefacing the whole by a historical introduction such as that found in Dt 1 through 4?
(2) The Double Allusion to the Cities of Refuge (Deu_4:41-43; Deu_19:1-13)
On the supposition that Dt 5 through 26 were spoken first between Horeb and Kadesh-barnea, in the 2nd year of the Exodus, it could not be expected that in this section the names of the three cities chosen east of the Jordan should be given, and in fact they are not (Deu_19:1-13); the territory of Sihon and Og had not yet been conquered and the cities of refuge, accordingly, had not yet been designated (compare Num_35:2 :14). But in Deu_4:41-43, on the contrary, which forms a part of the historical introduction, which ex hypothesi was delivered just at the end of the 39 years' wanderings, after Sihon and Og had been subdued and their territory divided, the three cities of refuge east of the Jordan are actually named, just as might be expected.
(3) Section Deu_4:44-49
The section Deu_4:44-49, which, in its original form, very probably introduced chapters 5 through 26 before these chapters were adapted to the new situation in Moab.
(4) The Phrase ?Began Moses to Declare This Law? (Deu_1:5)
The phrase ?began Moses to declare this law? (Deu_1:5), suggesting that the great lawgiver found it necessary to expound what he had delivered at some previous time. The Hebrew word translated ?to declare? is found elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Deu_27:8 and in Hab_2:2, and signifies ?to make plain.?
(5) The Author's Evident Attempt to Identify the New Generation in Moab with the Patriarchs
?Yahweh made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day,? i.e. with us who have survived the desert discipline (Deu_5:3). In view of these facts, we conclude that the book in its present form (barring the exceptions above mentioned) is the product of the whole 39 years of desert experience from Horeb on, adapted, however, to meet the exigencies of the Israelites as they stood between the victories already won on the east of the Jordan and those anticipated on the West. The impression given throughout is that the aged lawgiver's work is done, and that a new era in the people's history is about to begin.

8. Deuteronomy's Influence in Israel's History
The influence of Deuteronomy began to be felt from the very beginning of Israel's career in Canaan. Though the references to Deuteronomy in Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings are comparatively few, yet they are sufficient to show that not only the principles of Deuteronomy were known and observed but that they were known in written form as codified statutes. For example, when Jericho was taken, the city and its spoil were ?devoted? (Jos_6:17, Jos_6:18) in keeping with Deu_13:15 (compare Jos_10:40; Jos_11:12, Jos_11:15 with Deu_7:2; Deu_20:16, Deu_20:17). Achan trespassed and he and his household were stoned, and afterward burned with fire (Jos_7:25; compare Deu_13:10; Deu_17:5). The fact that his sons and his daughters were put to death with him seems at first sight to contradict Deu_24:16, but there is no proof that they suffered for their father's sin (see ACHAN; ACHOR); besides the Hebrews recognized the unity of the household, even that of Rahab the harlot (Jos_6:17). Again when Ai was taken, ?only the cattle and the spoil? did Israel take for a prey unto themselves (Jos_8:27), in keeping with Deu_20:14; also, the body of the king of Ai was taken down before nightfall from the tree on which he had been hanged (Jos_8:29), which was in keeping with Deu_21:23 (compare Jos_10:26, Jos_10:27). As in warfare, so in worship. For instance, Joshua built an altar on Mt. Ebal (Jos_8:30, Jos_8:31), ?as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded? (Deu_27:4-6), and he wrote on them a copy of the law (Jos_8:32), as Moses had also enjoined (Deu_27:3, Deu_27:8). Moreover, the elders and officers and judges stood on either side of the ark of the covenant between Ebal and Gerizim (Jos_8:33), as directed in Deu_11:29; Deu_27:12, Deu_27:13, and Joshua read to all the congregation of Israel all the words of the law, the blessings and the cursings (Jos_8:34, Jos_8:35), in strict accord with Deu_31:11, Deu_31:12.
But the passage of paramount importance is the story of the two and a half tribes who, on their return to their home on the East side of the Jordan, erected a memorial at the Jordan, and, when accused by their fellow-tribesmen of plurality of sanctuary, emphatically disavowed it (Jos_22:29; compare Deu_12:5). Obviously, therefore, Deuteronomy was known in the days of Joshua. A very few instances in the history of the Judges point in the same direction: e.g. the utter destruction of Zephath (Jdg_1:17; compare Deu_7:2; Deu_20:16 f); Gideon's elimination of the fearful and faint-hearted from his army (Jdg_7:1-7; compare Deu_20:1-9); the author's studied concern to justify Gideon and Manoah for sacrificing at altars other than at Shiloh on the ground that they acted in obedience to Yahweh's direct commands (Jdg_6:25-27; Jdg_13:16); especially the case of Micah, who congratulated himself that Yahweh would do him good seeing he had a Levite for a priest, is clear evidence that Deuteronomy was known in the days of the Judges (Jdg_17:13; compare Deu_10:8; Deu_18:1-8; Deu_33:8-11). In 1Sa_1:1-9, 1Sa_1:21, 1Sa_1:24 the pious Elkanah is pictured as going yearly to worship Yahweh at Shiloh, the central sanctuary at that time. After the destruction of Shiloh, when the ark of the covenant had been captured by the Philistines, Samuel indeed sacrificed at Mizpah, Ramah and Bethlehem (1Sa_7:7-9, 1Sa_7:17; 1Sa_16:5), but in doing so he only took advantage of the elasticity of the Deuteronomic law: ?When ... he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then it shall come to pass that to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there, thither shall ye bring all that I command you: your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices? (Deu_12:10, Deu_12:11). It was not until Solomon's time that Israel's enemies were all subdued, and even then Solomon did not observe strictly the teachings of Deuteronomy; ?His wives turned away his heart,? so that he did not faithfully keep Yahweh's ?covenant? and ?statutes? (1Ki_11:3, 1Ki_11:11). Political disruption followed, and religion necessarily suffered. Yet Jehoiada the priest gave the youthful Joash ?the crown? and ?the testimony? (2Ki_11:12; compare Deu_17:18). King Amaziah did not slay the children of the murderers who slew his father, in conscious obedience apparently to the law of Deuteronomy (2Ki_14:6; compare Deu_24:16). Later on, Hezekiah, the cultured king of Judah, reformed the cult of his day by removing the high places, breaking down the pillars, cutting down the Asherahs, and even breaking in pieces the brazen serpent which Moses had made (2Ki_18:4, 2Ki_18:22). Hezekiah's reforms were unquestionably carried through under the influence of Deuteronomy.
It is equally certain that the prophets of the 8th century were not ignorant of this book. For example, Hosea complains of Israel's sacrificing upon the tops of the mountains and burning incense upon the hills, and warns Judah not to follow Israel's example in coming up to worship at Gilgal and Beth-aven (Hos_4:13, Hos_4:15). He also alludes to striving with priests (Hos_4:4; compare Deu_17:12), removing landmarks (Hos_5:10; compare Deu_19:14), returning to Egypt (Hos_8:13; Hos_9:3; compare Deu_28:68), and of Yahweh's tender dealing with Ephraim (Hos_11:3; compare Deu_1:31; Deu_32:10). The courage of Amos, the shepherd-prophet of Tekoa, can best be explained, also, on the basis of a written law such as that of Deuteronomy with which he and his hearers were already more or less familiar (Amo_3:2; compare Deu_7:6; Deu_4:7, Deu_4:8). He condemns Israel's inhumanity and adultery in the name of religion, and complains of their retaining overnight pledges wrested from the poor, which was distinctly forbidden in Deuteronomy (Amo_2:6-8; compare Deu_24:12-15; Deu_23:17). Likewise, in the prophecies of Isaiah there are conscious reflections of Deuteronomy's thought and teaching. Zion is constantly pictured as the center of the nation's religion and as Yahweh's secure dwellingplace (Isa_2:2-4; Isa_8:18; Isa_28:16; Isa_29:1, Isa_29:2; compare Mic_4:1-4). In short, no one of the four great prophets of the 8th century bc - Isaiah, Micah, Amos, Hosea - ever recognized ?high places? as legitimate centers of worship.

9. The Critical Theory
Over against the Biblical view, certain modern critics since De Wette (1805) advocate a late origin of Deuteronomy, claiming that it was first published in 621 bc, when Hilkiah found ?the book of the law? in the temple in the 18th year of King Josiah (2Ki_22:8). The kernel of Deuteronomy and ?the book of the law? discovered by Hilkiah are said to be identical. Thus, Dr. G. A. Smith claims that ?a code like the Book of Deuteronomy was not brought forth at a stroke, but was the expression of the gradual results of the age-long working of the Spirit of the Living God in the hearts of His people? (Jerusalem, II, 115). According to Dr. Driver, ?Deuteronomy may be described as the prophetic reformulation and adaptation to new needs, of an older legislation. It is probable that there was a tradition, if not a written record, of a final legislative address delivered by Moses in the steppes of Moab: the plan followed by the author would rest upon a more obvious motive, if he Thus worked upon a traditional basis. But be that as it may, the bulk of the laws contained in Deuteronomy is undoubtedly far more ancient than the author himself.... What is essentially new in Deuteronomy is not the matter, but the form.... The new element in Deuteronomy is Thus not the laws, but their parenetic setting? (Deuteronomy, lxi, lvi). This refined presentation of the matter would not be so very objectionable, were Drs. Smith and Driver's theory not linked up with certain other claims and allegations to the effect that Moses in the 15th century bc could not possibly have promulgated such a lofty monotheism, that in theological teaching ?the author of Deuteronomy is the spiritual heir of Hosea,? that there are discrepancies between it and other parts of the Pentateuch, that in the early history of Israel down to the 8th century plurality of sanctuaries was legally permissible, that there are no traces of the influence of the principal teachings of a written Deuteronomy discoverable in Hebrew literature until the time of Jeremiah, and that the book as we possess it was originally composed as a program of reform, not by Moses but in the name of Moses as a forgery or pseudepigraph. For example, F. H. Woods says, ?Although not a necessary result of accepting the later date, the majority of critics believe this book of the law to have been the result of a pious fraud promulgated by Hilkiah and Shaphan with the retention of deceiving Josiah into the belief that the reforms which they desired were the express command of God revealed to Moses? (HDB, II, 368). Some are unwilling to go so far. But in any case, it is claimed that the law book discovered and published by Hilkiah, which brought about the reformation by Josiah in 621 bc, was no other than some portion of the Book of Deuteronomy, and of Deuteronomy alone. But there are several considerations which are opposed to this theory: (1) Deuteronomy emphasizes centralization of worship at one sanctuary (Deu_12:5); Josiah's reformation was directed rather against idolatry in general (2Ki_23:4). (2) In Deu_18:6-8, a Levite coming from the country to Jerusalem was allowed to minister and share in the priestly perquisites; but in 2Ki_23:9, ?the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of Yahweh in Jerusalem, but they did eat unleavened bread among their brethren.? And according to the critical theory, ?Levites? and ?priests? are interchangeable terms. (3) The following passages in Exodus might almost equally with Deuteronomy account for Josiah's reformation: Exo_20:3; Exo_22:18, Exo_22:20; Exo_23:13, Exo_23:14, Exo_23:32, Exo_23:33; Exo_34:13, Exo_34:14-17. (4) The law book discovered by Hilkiah was recognized at once as an ancient code which the fathers had disobeyed (2Ki_22:13). Were they all deceived? Even Jeremiah (compare Jer_11:3, Jer_11:4)? ?There were many persons in Judah who had powerful motives for exposing this forgery if it was one? (Raven, Old Testament Introduction, 112). (5) One wonders why so many archaic and, in Josiah's time, apparently obsolete laws should have been incorporated in a code whose express motive was to reform an otherwise hopeless age: e.g. the command to exterminate the Canaanites, who had long since ceased to exist (Deu_7:18, Deu_7:22), and to blot out Amalek (Deu_25:17-19), the last remnants of whom were completely destroyed in Hezekiah's time (1Ch_4:41-43). Especially is this true of the score and more of laws peculiar to Deuteronomy, concerning building battlements on the roofs of houses (Deu_22:8), robbing birds' nests (Deu_22:6, Deu_22:7), the sexes exchanging garments (Deu_22:5), going out to war (Deu_20:1), etc. (6) Especially remarkable is it that if Deuteronomy were written, as alleged, shortly before the reign of Josiah, there should be no anachronisms in it betraying a post-Mosaic origin. There are no allusions to the schism between Judah and Israel, no hint of Assyrian oppression through the exaction of tribute, nor any threats of Israel's exile either to Assyria or Babylonia, but rather to Egypt (Deu_28:68). ?Jerusalem? is never mentioned. From a literary point of view, it is psychologically and historically well-nigh impossible for a writer to conceal all traces of his age and circumstances. On the other hand, no Egyptologist has ever discovered any anachronisms in Deuteronomy touching Egyptian matters. From first to last the author depicts the actual situation of the times of Moses. It is consequently hard to believe, as is alleged, that a later writer is studying to give ?an imaginative revivification of the past.?
(7) The chief argument in favor of Deuteronomy's late origin is its alleged teaching concerning the unity of the sanctuary. Wellhausen lays special emphasis upon this point. Prior to Josiah's reformation, it is claimed, plurality of sanctuaries was allowed. But in opposition to this, it is possible to point victoriously to Hezekiah's reformation (2Ki_18:4, 2Ki_18:22), as a movement in the direction of unity; and especially to Exo_20:24, which is so frequently misinterpreted as allowing a multiplicity of sanctuaries. This classical passage when correctly interpreted allows only that altars shall be erected in every place where Yahweh records His name, ?which presumably during the wanderings and the time of the judges would mean wherever the Tabernacle was? (Mackay, Introduction to Old Testament, 110). This interpretation of this passage is confirmed and made practically certain, indeed, by the command in Exo_23:14-19 that Israel shall repair three times each year to the house of Yahweh and there present their offering. On the other hand, Deuteronomy's emphasis upon unity of sanctuary is often exaggerated. The Book of Deuteronomy requires unity only after Israel's enemies are all overcome (Deu_12:10, Deu_12:11). ?When? Yahweh giveth them rest, ?then? they shall repair for worship to the place which ?God shall choose.? As Davidson remarks: ?It is not a law that is to come into effect on their entry into Canaan; it is to be observed from the time that Yahweh shall have given them rest from all their enemies round about; that is, from the times of David, or more particularly, Solomon; for only when the temple was built did that place become known which Yahweh had chosen to place His name there? (Old Testament Theology, 361). Besides, it should not be forgotten that in Deuteronomy itself the command is given to build an altar in Mt. Ebal (Mat_27:5-7). As a matter of fact, the unity of sanctuary follows as a necessary consequence of monotheism; and if Moses taught monotheism, he probably also enjoined unity of worship. If, on the other hand, monotheism was first evolved by the prophets of the 8th century, then, of course, unity of sanctuary was of 8th-century origin also.
(8) Another argument advanced in favor of the later origin of Deuteronomy is the contradiction between the laws of Deuteronomy and those of Lev-Nu concerning the priests and Levites. In Num_16:10, Num_16:35, Num_16:40, a sharp distinction is drawn, it is alleged, between the priests and common Levites, whereas in Deu_18:1-8, all priests are Levites and all Levites are priests. But as a matter of fact, the passage in Deuteronomy does not invest a Levite with priestly but with Levitical functions (compare Deu_18:7). ?The point insisted upon is that all Levites shall receive full recognition at the sanctuary and be accorded their prerogatives. It goes without saying that if the Levite be a priest he shall serve and fare like his brethren the priests; if he be not a priest, he shall enjoy the privileges that belong to his brethren who are Levites, but not priests? (J. D. Davis, article ?Deuteronomy,? in Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, 117). The Book of Deuteronomy teaches not that all the tribe, but only the tribe of Levi may exercise priestly functions, Thus restricting the exercise of priestly prerogatives to one and only one tribe. This was in perfect harmony with Lev-Nu and also in keeping with the style of popular discourse.
(9) Recently Professor Ed. Naville, the Egyptologist, has propounded a theory of the origin of ?the Book of the Law? discovered by Hilkiah, which is not without some value. On the analogy of the Egyptian custom of burying texts of portions of ?the Book of the Dead? at the foot of statues of gods and within foundations of temple walls, as at Hermopolis, he concludes that Solomon, when he constructed the Temple, probably deposited this ?Book of the Law? in the foundations, and that when Josiah's workmen were about their tasks of repairing the edifice, the long-forgotten document came to light and was given to Hilkiah the priest. Hilkiah, however, upon examination of the document found it difficult to read, and so, calling for Shaphan the scribe, who was more expert in deciphering antique letters than himself, he gave the sacred roll to him, and he in turn read it to both Hilkiah and the king. The manuscript may indeed have been written in cuneiform. Thus, according to Naville, ?the Book of the Law,? which he identifies with Deuteronomy, must be pushed back as far as the age of Solomon at the very latest. Geden shares a similar view as to its date: ?some time during the prosperous period of David and the United Monarchy? (Intro to the Hebrew Bible, 1909, 330).
But why not ascribe the book to the traditional author? Surely there can be no philosophical objection to doing so, in view of the now-known Code of H̬ammurabi, which antedates Moses by so many hundreds of years! No other age accounts so well for its origin as that of the great lawgiver who claims to have written the bulk of it. And the history of the disintegration of the book only shows to what extremes a false method may lead; for example, Steuernagel separates the ?Thou? and ?Ye? sections from each other and assigns them to different authors of late date: Kennett, on the other hand, assigns the earliest strata to the period of the Exile (Jour. of Theol. Studies, 1904), On the whole, no theory is so satisfactory as that which, in keeping with Deu_31:22, Deu_31:24, ascribes to Moses the great bulk of the book. See also CRITICISM; PENTATEUCH.

Literature
On the conservative side: James Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament, The Bross Prize, 1906; article ?Deuteronomy,? Illustrated Bible Dict., 1908; James Robertson, The Early Religion of Israel, 1892; article ?Deuteronomy,? The Temple Bible Dict., 1910; John D. Davis, article ?Deuteronomy,? Davis' Dict. of the Bible, 1911; John H. Raven, Old Testament Intro, 1906; A. S. Geden, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 1909; W. M?ller, Are the Critics Right? 1903; R. B. Girdlestone, The Student's Deuteronomy, 1899; Hugh Pope, The Date of the Composition of Deuteronomy, 1911; A. S. Zerbe, The Antiquity of Hebrew Writing and Lit., 1911; Ed. Naville, The Discovery of the Book of the Law under King Josiah, 1911; E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure, 1885; G. L. Robinson, The Expositor, ?The Genesis of Deuteronomy,? October and November, 1898, February, March, May, 1899; W. H. Green, Moses and the Prophets, 1891; The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, 1895; A. M. Mackay, The Churchman's Introduction to the Old Testament, 1901; J. W. Beardslee, Outlines of an Introduction to the Old Testament, 1903; G. Vos, The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes, 1886.
On the other side: S. R. Driver, A Crit. and Exeg. Commentary on Deuteronomy, 1895; The Hexateuch, by J. Estlin Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby, I, II, 1900; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 1908; W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 1895; A. Ku?nen, The Hexateuch, 1886; H. E. Ryle, article ?Deuteronomy,? HDB, 1898; G. F. Moore, article ?Deuteronomy,? Encyclopedia Bibl., 1899; J. A. Paterson, article ?Deuteronomy,? Encyclopedia Brit, VIII, 1910.
In German: De Wette, Dissert. crit-exeget., 1805; Kleinert, Das Dt u. d. Deuteronomiker, 1872; Wellhausen, Die Comp. des Hexateuch. u. d. hist. B?cher des Altes Testament, 1889; Gesch. Israels, 1895; Steuernagel, Der Rahmen des Deuteronomy, 1894; Entsteh. des dt. Gesetzes, 1896.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Deuteron?omy, the Greek name given by the Alexandrian Jews to the fifth book of Moses. It comprises that series of addresses which the Lawgiver delivered (orally and by writing, Deu_1:5; Deu_28:58, etc.) to assembled Israel in the second month of the fortieth year of their wandering through the desert, when the second generation was about to cross the Jordan, and when the parting hour of Moses had nearly arrived.
The speeches begin with the enumeration of the wonderful dealings of God with the chosen people in the early period of their existence. Moses clearly proves to them the punishment of unbelief, the obduracy of Israel, and the faithfulness of Jehovah with regard to his promises, which were now on the point of being accomplished. Fully aware of the tendencies of the people, and foreseeing their alienations, Moses conjures them most impressively to hold fast the commands of the Lord, and not to forget his revelations, lest curses should befall them instead of blessings (Deuteronomy 1-4). The Lawgiver then expatiates on the spirit of the law, and its reception into the hearts of men, both in a positive and negative way. Fear, he says, is the primary effect of the law, as also its aim. As Israel had once listened to the announcement of the fundamental laws of the theocracy with a sacred fear, in like manner should man also receive, through the whole system of the law, a lively and awful impression of the holiness and majesty of God (Deuteronomy 5). But as the essence and sum of the law is love to Jehovah, the only and true God, man shall by the law be reminded of the Divine mercy, so variously manifested in deeds; and this reflection is calculated to rouse in man's heart love for God. This love is the only and true source from which proper respect and obedience to the law can proceed (Deuteronomy 6).
There were, however, two tempting deviations, in following which the people were sure to be led astray. The law, in its strict rigor, was but too apt to tempt them to desert Jehovah, and to yield to idolatry (the very approval of which even in thought polluted the heart), by discontinuing to bear the heavy yoke of the law. Hence the most impressive warnings against Canaan's inhabitants and idols; and hence the declarations that Israel, in placing themselves on a par with the heathens, should have to endure an equal fate with them, and be repulsed from the presence of Jehovah (Deu_7:8).
The other, not less dangerous, deviation is that of self-righteousness?the proud fancy that all the favors Jehovah had shown to his people were merely in consequence of their own deservings. Therefore Jehovah tells them that it was not through their own worthiness and purity of heart that they inherited the land of the heathens. It was only through His free favor; for their sins bore too strong and constant testimony how little they ought to take credit to themselves for it (Deuteronomy 9).
The history of the people, before and after the exile, shows these two deviations in their fullest bearings. Idolatry we find to have been the besetting sin before that period, and presumptuous pride of heart after it; a proof how intimately acquainted the Lawgiver was with the character and disposition of his people, and how necessary therefore those warnings had been.
Therefore, adds Moses, turn to that which Jehovah, in giving you the tables of the law, and establishing the Tabernacle and priesthood, has intimated as a significant symbol, 'to circumcise the foreskin of your heart,' and to cherish love in your inward soul. Think of Jehovah, the just and merciful, whose blessings and curses shall be set before your eyes as a lasting monument upon the mounts Ebal and Gerizim (Deuteronomy 10-11).
The mention of that fact leads the Lawgiver to the domestic and practical life of the people when domesticated in their true home, the Land of Promise; which he further regulates by a fixed and solid rule, by new laws, which for this, their new design and purport, form a sort of complement to the laws already given. There, in the land of their forefathers, Jehovah will appoint one fixed place for His lasting sanctuary, when every other place dedicated to the worship of idols is to be destroyed. At that chosen spot alone are the sacrifices to be killed, while cattle in general, which are not destined for sacred purposes, but merely for food, may be slaughtered at all places according to convenience?a regulation which still leaves in full force the previous laws concerning the eating of blood, and the share of Jehovah in slaughtered cattle. This sanctuary was to be considered as the central point for all sacred objects. The whole land was, by means of the sanctuary established in the midst of it, consecrated and dedicated to Jehovah. This consecration was incompatible with any defilement whatsoever. On that account the Canaanites must be exterminated, and all idolatrous abominations destroyed, since nothing ought to be added to or taken from the laws of God (Deuteronomy 12). For the same reason (i.e. for the sake of the holiness of the land, diffused from the sacred center), no false prophets or soothsayers are to be tolerated, as they may turn the minds of the people from the law, by establishing a different one, and therefore even a whole town given to the worship of idols must be demolished by force of arms (Deuteronomy 13). Neither, in like manner, must the heathen customs of mourning be imitated, or unclean beasts eaten; but the people must always remain true to the previous laws concerning food, etc. and show their real attachment to Jehovah and his religion by willingly paying the tithe as ordained by the law (Deuteronomy 14). To the same end likewise shall the regulations concerning the years of release and the festivals of Jehovah (to be solemnized in the place of the new-chosen Sanctuary) be most scrupulously observed (Deuteronomy 15-16). Only unblemished sacrifices shall be offered, for all idol-worshippers must irrevocably be put to death by stoning. For the execution of due punishment, honest judges must govern the nation, while the highest tribunal shall exist in the place chosen for the Sanctuary, consisting of the priests and judges of the land. If a king be given by God to the people, he shall first of all accommodate himself to the laws of God, and not lead a heathen life. Next to the regal and judicial dignities, the ecclesiastical power shall exist in its full right; and again, next to it, the prophetic order (Deuteronomy 17-18). Of all these institutions, the duties of the judicial power are most clearly defined; for Jehovah does as little suffer that in His land the right of the innocent shall be turned aside, as that indulgence shall be shown to the evil-doer (Deuteronomy 19). The exposition of the civil law is followed by that of the martial law, which has some bearing upon the then impending war with Canaan, as the most important war and representing that with the heathen nations in general (Deuteronomy 20). These are again followed by a series of laws in reference to the preceding, and referring chiefly to hard cases in the judicial courts, by which Moses obviously designed to exhibit the whole of the civil life of his people in its strict application to the theocratic system of law and right. Therefore the form of prayer to be spoken at the offering up of the firstlings and tithe?the theocratic confession of faith?by which every Israelite acknowledges in person that he is what God has enjoined and called him to be, forms a beautiful conclusion of the whole legislation (Deuteronomy 21-26).
The blessings and curses of Jehovah, the two opposite extremes which were to be impressed upon the minds of the people at their entrance into Canaan, and which have hitherto been spoken of only in general terms, are now set forth in their fullest detail, picturing in the most lively colors the delightful abundance of rich blessings on the one hand, and the awful visitations of Heaven's wrath on the other. The prophetic speeches visibly and gradually increase in energy and enthusiasm, until the perspective of the remotest future of the people of God lies open to the eye of the inspired Lawgiver in all its checkered details, when his words resolve themselves into a flight of poetical ecstasy, into the strains of a splendid triumphal song in which the tone of grief and lamentation is as heart-rending as the announcement of divine salvation therein is jubilant (Deuteronomy 27-28). The history of the law concludes with a supplement concerning him who was deemed worthy by the Lord to transmit his law to Israel (Deuteronomy 34).
Thus much regarding the contents and connection of the book of Deuteronomy.
The date, however, of the composition of the book, as well as its authenticity, has given rise to a great variety of opinion, more especially among those who are opposed to the authorship of Moses. The older critics considered Deuteronomy as the latest production of all the books of the Pentateuch; while the more recent critics have come to just the contrary opinion, and declare it to be the earliest of the Mosaic writings.
A very strong proof of the genuineness of the book lies in its relation to the later writings of the prophets. Of all the books of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy has been made most use of by the prophets, simply because it is best calculated to serve as a model for prophetic declarations, as also because of the inward harmony that exists between the prophecies and the laws upon which they are based.
Among the arguments advanced against the authenticity of Deuteronomy, are:
1. The contradictions said to exist between this and the other books of Moses;
2. Certain anachronisms committed by the author.
These contradictions are more especially alleged to exist in the festival laws, where but arbitrary and unwarranted views are mostly entertained by such critics with regard to the nature and original meaning of the festivals, which they identify altogether with natural or season festivals, and without lending to them a more spiritual character and signification.
3. That the Sinai of the other books is always called Horeb in Deuteronomy.?They forget, however, that Horeb is the general name of the whole mountain, while Sinai is the special name of a particular part of it. This distinction is, indeed, most scrupulously observed everywhere in the Pentateuch.
4. That in Deu_1:44 are mentioned the Amorites, instead of the Amalekites, as in Num_14:45.?Here also they have forgotten to notice that, in the sequel of the very passage alluded to in Deuteronomy, both the Amorites and Amalekites are mentioned.
5. That the cause of the punishment of Moses is differently stated in Num_27:14, and Deu_3:26.?To this objection we reply, that both the guilt and punishment of Moses are described in both books as originating with the people; comp. also Deu_32:51, etc.
Among the anachronisms in Deuteronomy are reckoned the allusions made in it to the Temple (Deuteronomy 12; Deu_16:1, sqq.), to the royal and prophetic powers (Deuteronomy 13; Deuteronomy 17-18), to the different modes of idol-worship (Deu_4:19; Deu_17:3), and to the exile (Deuteronomy 28, sq.). In suggesting these critical points, however, they do not consider that all these subjects are most closely and intimately connected with the spirit and principles of the law itself, and that all these regulations and prophecies appear here in Deuteronomy, as necessary finishing-points to the Law, so indispensable for the better consolidation of the subsequent and later relations of the theocracy.
More anachronisms are said to be,
1. The sixty dwelling-places of Jair mentioned Deu_3:14, sq. (comp. Jdg_10:3, sq.). We consider, however, that the men mentioned in the two passages are evidently different persons, though of the same name. Nor is it difficult to prove from other sources, that there really existed at the time of Moses a man by name Jair.
2. The notice (Deu_3:11) concerning king Og, which looks more like a note of a subsequent writer in corroboration of the story told in the chapter. But this hypothesis falls to the ground when we consider that Moses did not write for his contemporaries merely, but also for late posterity. The book contains, moreover, not a small number of plain, though indirect traces, indicative of its Mosaic origin. We thus find in it:
1. Numerous notices concerning nations with whom the Israelites had then come in contact, but who, after the Mosaic period, entirely disappeared from the pages of history: such are the accounts of the residences of the kings of Bashan (Deu_1:4).
2. The appellation of 'mountain of the Amorites,' used throughout the whole book (Deu_1:7; Deu_1:19-20; Deu_1:44), while even in the book of Joshua, soon after the conquest of the land, the name is already exchanged for 'mountains of Judah' (Jos_11:16; Jos_11:21).
3. The observation (Deu_2:10), that the Emim had formerly dwelt in the plain of Moab: they were a great people, equal to the Anakim. This observation quite accords with Gen_14:5.
4. A detailed account (Deu_2:12) concerning the Horim and their relations to the Edomites.
5. An account of the Zamzummim (Deu_2:20-21), one of the earliest races of Canaan, though mentioned nowhere else.
6. A very circumstantial account of the Rephaim (Deu_3:11, sq.), with whose concerns the author seems to have been well acquainted.
The standing-point also of the author of Deuteronomy is altogether in the Mosaic time, and had it been assumed and fictitious, there must necessarily have been moments when the spurious author would have been off his guard, and unmindful of the part he had to play. But no discrepancies of this kind can be traced; and this is in itself an evidence of the genuineness of the book.
A great number of other passages force us likewise to the conclusion, that the whole of Deuteronomy originated in the time of Moses. Such are the passages where
1. A comparison is drawn between Canaan and Egypt (Deu_11:10, sq.), with the latter of which the author seems thoroughly acquainted.
2. Detailed descriptions are given of the fertility and productions of Egypt (Deu_11:10, sq.).
3. Regulations are given relating to the conquest of Canaan (Deu_12:1, sq.; 20:1, sq.), which cannot be understood otherwise than by assuming that they had been framed in the Mosaic time, since they could be of no use after that period.
Besides, whole pieces and chapters in Deuteronomy, such as Deuteronomy 32-33, betray in form, language, and tenor, a very early period in Hebrew literature. Nor are the laws and regulations in Deuteronomy less decisive of the authenticity of the book. We are struck with the most remarkable phenomenon, that many laws from the previous books are here partly repeated and impressed with more energy, partly modified, and partly altogether abolished, according to the contingencies of the time, or as the new aspect of circumstances among the Jews rendered such steps necessary (comp. e.g. Deu_15:17 with Exo_21:7; Deuteronomy 12 with Leviticus 17). Such pretensions to raise, or even to oppose his own private opinions to the authority of divine law, are found in no author of the subsequent periods, since the whole of the sacred literature of the later times is, on the contrary, rather the echo than otherwise of the Pentateuch, and is altogether founded on it. Add to this the fact, that the law itself forbids most impressively to add to, or take anything from it, a prohibition which is repeated even in Deuteronomy (comp. Deu_4:2; Deu_13:1); and it is but too evident, that, if the opinion of the critics be correct, that this book contains nothing more than a gradual development of the law?it clashes too often with its own principles, and pronounces thus its own sentence of condemnation.
The part of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 34) respecting the death of Moses requires a particular explanation. That the whole of this section is to be regarded as a piece altogether apart from what precedes it, or as a supplement from another writer, has already been maintained by the elder theologians; and this opinion is confirmed not only by the contents of the chapter, but also by the express declaration of the book itself on that event and its relations; for Deuteronomy 31 contains the conclusion of the work, where Moses describes himself as the author of the previous contents, as also of the Song (Deuteronomy 32), and the blessings (Deuteronomy 33) belonging to it. All that follows is, consequently, not from Moses, the work being completed and concluded with Deuteronomy 33. There is another circumstance which favors this opinion, namely, the close connection that exists between the last section of Deuteronomy and the beginning of Joshua (comp. Deu_34:9 with Jos_1:1), plainly shows that Deuteronomy 34 is intended to serve as a point of transition to the book of Joshua, and that it was written by the same author as the latter. The correct view of this chapter, therefore, is to consider it as a real supplement, but by no means as an interpolation.
On the literature of Deuteronomy, compare the article Pentateuch.
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Deuteronomy
(in Heb. the title is taken, like most of the other books, from the initial words, הִדְּבָרַים אֵלֶּה, “These are the words,” or simply דְּבָרַים, “Words;” in the Sept. Δευτερονόμιον, second law, as being a repetition of the Law; Vulg. Deuteronium: called also by the later Jews מַשְׁנֵה הִתּוֹרָה, duplicate of the Law, and סֵפֶר תּוֹכָהוֹת, book of admonitions), the fifth book of Moses, or the last of the Pentateucho It gives an account of the sublime and dignified manner in which Moses terminated that work, the accomplishment of which was his peculiar mission, and intersperses several additional items of history in the recapitulation of his public career. It forms a sacred legacy which he here bequeathed to his people, and very different from those laws which he had announced to them at Sinai. The tone of the law falls here considerably in the background, and the subjectivity (individuality) of the Lawgiver, and his peculiar relation to his people, stand out more prominently. A thoroughly sublime and prophetic spirit pervades all its speeches from beginning to end. The thoughts of the man of God are entirely taken up with the inward concerns of his people, their relations, future fate, and eventful vicissitudes. The Lawgiver here stands amid Israel, warning and consoling, commanding and exhorting, surveying and proclaiming the future with marvelous discernment.
I. Contents. — The book consists chiefly of three discourses delivered by Moses shortly before his death They were spoken to all Israel in the plains of Moab, on the eastern side of the Jordan (Deu_1:1), in the eleventh month of the last year of their wanderings, the fortieth year after their exodus from Egypt (Deu_1:3). Subjoined to these discourses are the Song of Moses, the Blessing of Moses, and the story of his death.
1. The first Discourse (Deu_1:1-4). — After a brief historical introduction (Deu_1:1-5), the speaker recapitulates the chief events of the past forty years in the wilderness, and especially those events which had the most immediate bearing on the entry of the people into the promised land. He enumerates the contests in which they had been engaged with the various tribes who came in their way, and in which their success had always depended upon their obedience; and reminds them of the exclusion from the promised land, first of the former generation because they had been disobedient in the matter of the spies, and next of himself, with whom the Lord was wroth for their sakes (Deu_3:26). On the appeal to the witness of this past history is then based an earnest and powerful exhortation to obedience; and especially a warning against idolatry as that which had brought God's judgment upon them in times past (Deu_4:3), and would yet bring sorer punishment in the future (Deu_4:26-28). To this discourse is appended a brief notice of the severing of the three cities of refuge on the east side of the Jordan (Deu_4:41-43).
2. The second Discourse is introduced, like the first, by an explanation of the circumstances under which it was delivered (Deu_4:44-49). It extends from Deu_5:1, to Deu_26:19, and contains a recapitulation, with some modifications and additions, of the Law already given on Mount Sinai. Yet it is no bare recapitulation or naked enactment, but every word shows the heart of the lawgiver full at once of zeal for God and of the most fervent desire for the welfare of his nation. It is the father no less than the legislator who speaks; and while obedience and life are throughout bound up together, it is the obedience of a loving heart, not a service of formal constraint which is the burden of his exhortations. The following are the principal heads of discourse:
a. He begins with that which formed the basis of the whole Mosaic code — the Ten Commandments — and impressively repeats the circumstances under which they were given (Deu_5:1-6; Deu_5:3).
3. Then follows an exposition of the spirit of the First Table. The love of Jehovah who has done so great things for them (Deuteronomy 6), and the utter uprooting of all idol-worship (Deuteronomy 7), are the points chiefly insisted upon. But they are also reminded that if idolatry be a snare on the one hand, so is self-righteousness on the other (Deu_8:10 sq.), and therefore, lest they should be lifted up, the speaker enters at length on the history of their past rebellions (Deu_9:7; Deu_9:22-24), and especially of their sin in the matter of the golden calf (Deu_9:9-21). The true nature of obedience is again emphatically urged (Deu_10:12 to Deu_11:32), and the great motives to obedience set forth in God's love and mercy to them as a people (Deu_10:15; Deu_10:21-22), as also his signal punishment of the rebellious (Deu_11:3-6). The blessing and the curse (Deu_11:26-32) are further detailed.
c. From the general spirit in which the law should be observed, Moses passes on to the several enactments. Even these are introduced by a solemn charge to the people to destroy all objects of idolatrous worship in the land (Deu_12:14). They are, upon the whole, arranged systematically. We have first the laws touching religion; then those which are to regulate the conduct of the government and the executive; and, lastly, those which concern the private and social life of the people. The whole are framed with express reference to the future occupation of the land of Canaan.
(1.) Religious Statutes (Deu_12:1 to Deu_16:17). — There is to be but one sanctuary where all offerings are to be offered. Flesh may be eaten anywhere, but sacrifices may only be slain in “the place which the Lord thy God shall choose” (Deu_12:5-32). All idol prophets, all enticers to idolatry from among themselves, even whole cities if idolatrous, are to be cut off (Deuteronomy 13), and all idolatrous practices to be eschewed (Deu_14:1-2). Next come regulations respecting clean and unclean animals, tithe, the year of release, and the three feasts of the Passover, of Weeks, and of Tabernacles (Deu_14:3 to Deu_16:17).
(2.) Governmental and Executive Functions (Deu_16:18 - Deu_21:23). — The laws affecting public personages and defining the authority of the judges (Deu_16:18-20) and the priests (Deu_17:8-13), the way of proceeding in courts of justice (Deu_17:1-13); the law of the king (Deu_17:14-20), of the priests, and Levites, and prophets (Deuteronomy 18); of the cities of refuge and of witnesses (Deuteronomy 19). The order is not very exact, but, on the whole, the section Deu_16:18 to Deu_19:21, is judicial in its character. The passage Deu_16:21 to Deu_17:1, seems strangely out of place. Baumgarten (Comm; in loc.) tries to account for it on the ground of the close connection which must subsist between the true worship of God and righteous rule and judgment. But who does not feel that this is said with more ingenuity than truth?
Next come the laws of war (Deuteronomy 20), both as waged
(a) generally with other nations, and
(b) especially with the inhabitants of Canaan (Deu_20:17).
(3.) Private and Social Injunctions, or laws touching domestic life and the relation of man to man (Deu_21:15 to Deu_26:19). So Ewald divides, assigning the former part of Deuteronomy 21 to the previous section. Havernick, on the other hand, includes it in the present. The fact is that Deu_21:10-14 belong to the laws of war, which are treated of in Deuteronomy 20, whereas 1-9 seem more naturally to come under the matters discussed in this section. It begins with the relations of the family, passes on to those of the friend and neighbor, and then touches on the general principles of justice and charity by which men should be actuated (Deu_24:16-22). It concludes with the following confession, which every Israelite is to make when he offers the first-fruits, and which reminds him of what he is as a member of the theocracy, as one in covenant with Jehovah, and greatly blessed by Jehovah.
Finally, this whole long discourse is wound up by a brief but powerful appeal (Deu_26:16-19), which reminds us of the words with which it opened. It will be observed that no pains are taken here, or indeed genes ally in the Mosaic legislation, to keep the several portions of the law, considered as moral, ritual, and ceremonial, apart from each other by any clearly-marked line. But there is in this discourse a very manifest gradual descent from the higher ground to the lower. The speaker begins by setting forth Jehovah himself as the great object of love and worship; thence he passes [1.] to the Religious, [2.] to the Political, and [3.] to the Social economy of his people..
3. In the third Discourse (Deu_27:1 to Deu_30:20), the elders of Israel are associated with Moses. The people are commanded to set up stones upon Mount Ebal, and on them to write “all the words of this law.” Then follow the several curses to be pronounced by the Levites on Ebal (Deu_27:14-26), and the blessings on Gerizim (Deu_28:1-14). How terrible will be the punishment of any neglect of this law is further portrayed in the vivid words of a prophecy but too fearfully verified in the subsequent history of the people. The subject of this discourse is briefly “The Blessing and the Curse.” The prophetic speeches visibly and gradually increase in energy and enthusiasm, until the perspective of the remotest future of the people of God lies open to the eye of the inspired lawgiver in all its checkered details, when his words resolve themselves into a flight of poetical ecstasy, into the strains of a splendid triumphal song, in which the tone of grief and lamentation is as heart- rending as the announcement of divine- salvation therein is jubilant (ch. 27, 28).
4. The delivery of the Law as written by Moses (for its still further preservation) to the custody of the Levites, and a charge to the people to hear it read once every seven years (Deuteronomy 31); the Song of Moses spoken in the ears of the people (Deuteronom 31:30-32:44); and the blessing of the twelve tribes (Deuteronomy 33).
5. The book closes (Deuteronomy 34) with an account of the death of Moses, which is first announced to him in Deu_32:48-52. On the authorship of the last chapter, see below.
II. Relation of Deuteronomy to the preceding books. It has been an opinion very generally entertained by the more modern critics, as well as by the earlier, that the book of Deuteronomy forms a complete whole in itself, and that it was appended to the other books as a later addition. Only Deuteronomy 32, 33, 34 have been in whole or in part called in question by De Wette, Ewald, and Von Lengerke. De Wette thinks that Deuteronomy 32, 33 have been borrowed from other sources, and that Deuteronomy 34 is the work of the Elohist (q.v.). Ewald also supposes Deuteronomy 32 to have been borrowed from another writer, who lived, however (in accordance with his theory, which we shall notice lower down), after Solomon. On the other hand, he considers Deuteronomy 33 to be later, whilst Bleek (Repert. 1:25) and Tuch (Gen. p. 556) decide that it is Elohistic. Some of these critics imagine that these chapters originally formed the conclusion of the book of Numbers, and that the Deuteronomist tore them away from their proper position in order the better to incorporate his own work with the rest of the Pentateuch, and to give it a fitting conclusion. Gesenius and his followers are of opinion that the whole book, as it stands at present, is by the same hand. But it is a question of some interest and importance whether the book of Deuteronomy should be assigned to the author, or one of the authors, of the former portions of the Pentateuch, or whether it is a distinct and independent work. The more conservative critics of the school of Hengstenberg contend that Deuteronomy forms an integral part of the Pentateuch, which is throughout to be ascribed to Moses. Others, as Staihelin and Delitzsch, have given reasons for believing that it was written by the Jehovist; whilst others again, as Ewald and De Wette, are in favor of a different author.
The chief grounds on which the last opinion rests on the many variations and additions to be found in Deuteronomy, both in the historical and legal portions, as well as the observable difference of style and phraseology. It is necessary, therefore, before we come to consider more directly the question of authorship, to take into account these alleged peculiarities; and it may be well to enumerate the principal discrepancies, additions, etc, as given by De Wette in the last edition of his Einleitung (many of his former objections he afterwards abandoned), and to subjoin the replies and explanations which they have called forth.
(I.) Discrepancies. — The most important discrepancies alleged to exist between the historical portions of Deuteronomy and the earlier books are the following:
(1.) The appointment of judges (Deu_1:6-18) is at variance with the account in Exodus 18 It is referred to a different time, being placed after the departure of the people from Horeb (Exo_18:6), whereas in Exodus it is said to have occurred during their encampment before the mount (Exo_18:5). The circumstances are different, and, apparently it is mixed up with the choosing of the seventy elders (Num_11:11-17). To this it has been answered, that although Deu_1:6 mentions the departure from Sinai, yet Deu_1:9-17 evidently refers to what took place during the abode there, as is shown by comparing the expression “at that time,” Deu_1:9, with the same expression in Deu_1:18. The speaker, as is not unnatural in animated discourse, checks himself and goes back to take notice of an important circumstance prior to one which he has already mentioned. This is manifest, because Deu_1:19 is so clearly resumptive of Deu_1:6. Again, there is no force in the objection that Jethro's counsel is here passed over in silence. When making allusion to a well-known historical fact, it is unnecessary for the speaker to enter into details. This at most is an omission, not a contradiction. Lastly, the story in Exodus is perfectly distinct from that in Numbers 11, and there is no confusion of the two here. Nothing is said of the institution of the seventy in Deuteronomy, probably because the office was only temporary, and if it did not cease before the death of Moses, was not intended to be perpetuated in the promised land. (So in substance Ranke, Lengerke, Hengstenberg, Havernick, Stahelin.)
(2.) Deu_1:22 is thought to be at variance with Num_13:2, because here Moses is said to have sent the spies into Canaan at the suggestion of the people, whereas there God is said to have commanded the measure. The explanation is obvious. The people make the request; Moses refers it to God, who then gives to it His sanction. In the historical book of Numbers the divine command only is mentioned. Here, where the lawgiver deals so largely with the feelings and conduct of the people themselves, he reminds them both that the request originated with themselves, and also of the circumstances out of which ,hat request sprang (Num_13:20-21). These are not mentioned in the history. The objection, it may be remarked, is precisely of the same kind as that which in the N.T. is urged against the reconciliation of Gal_2:2 with Act_15:2-3. Both admit of a similar explanation.
(3.) Deu_1:44, “And the Amorites which dwelt in that mountain,” etc, whereas in the story of the same event, Num_14:43-45, Amalekites are mentioned. Answer: in this latter passage not only Amalekites, but Canaanites, are said to have come down against the Israelites. The Amorites stand here not for “Amalekites,” but for “Canaanites,” as being the most powerful of all the Canaanitish tribes (comp. Gen_15:16; Deu_1:7); and the Amalekites are not named, but hinted at, when it is said, “they destroyed you in Seir,” where, according to 1Ch_4:42, they dwelt (so Hengst. 3, 421).
(4.) Deu_2:2-8, confused and at variance with Num_20:14-21; Num_21:4. In the former we read (Num_21:4), “Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren, the children of Esau.” In the latter (Num_21:20), “And he said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him,” etc. But, according to Deuteronomy, that part of the Edomitish territory only was traversed which lay about Elath and Ezion-geber. In this exposed part of their territory any attempt to prevent the passage of the Israelites would have been useless, whereas at Kadesh, where, according to Numbers, the opposition was offered, the rocky nature of the country was in favor of the Edomites. (So Hengst. 3, 283 sq.). To this we may add, that in Deu_2:8, when it is said “we passed by from our brethren the children of Esau... through the way of the plain from Elath,” the failure of an attempt to pass elsewhere is implied. Again, according to Deuteronomy, the Israelites purchased food and water of the Edomites and Moabites (Deu_2:6; Deu_2:28), which, it is said, contradicts the story in Num_20:19-20. But in both accounts the Israelites offer to pay for what they have (comp. Deu_2:6 with Num_20:19). And if in Deu_23:4 there seems to be a contradiction to Deu_2:29 with regard to the conduct of the Moabites, it may be removed by observing (with Hengst. 3, 286) that the unfriendliness of the Moabites in not coming out to meet the Israelites with bread and water was the very reason why the latter were obliged to buy provisions.
(5.) There is a difference in the account of the encampments of the Israelites as given Deu_10:6-7, compared with Num_20:23; Num_33:30; Num_33:37. In Deuteronomy it is said that the order of encampment was,
1. Bene-jaakan;
2. Mosera (where Aaron dies);
3. Gud. godah;
4. Jotbath.
In Numbers it is,
1. Moseroth;
2. Bene-jaakan;
3. Hor-hagidgad;
4. Jotbath.
Then follow the stations Ebronah, Ezion-geber, Kadesh, and Mount Hor, and it is at this last that Aaron dies. (It is remarkable here that no account is given of the stations between Ezion-geber and Kadesh on the return route.) Various attempts have been made to reconcile these accounts. The explanation given by Kurtz (Atlas zur Gesch. d. A. B. 20) is, on the whole, the most satisfactory. He says: “In the first month of the fortieth year the whole congregation comes a second time to the wilderness of Zin, which is Kadesh (Num_33:36). On the down-route to Ezion-geber they had encamped at the several stations Moseroth (or Moserah), Bene-jaakan, Chor-hagidgad, and Jotbath. But now, again departing from Kadesh, they go to Mount Hor, ‘in the edge of the land of Edom' (Num_33:37-38), or to Moserah (Deu_10:6-7), this last being in the desert at the foot of the mountain. Bene-jaakan, Gudgodah, and Jotbath were also visited about this time, i.e. a second time, after the second halt at Kadesh.” SEE EXODE.
(6.) But this is not so much a discrepancy as a peculiarity of the writer: in Deuteronomy the usual name for the mountain on which the law was given is Horeb, only once (Deu_33:2) Sinai; whereas in the other books Sinai is far more common than Horeb. The answer given is that Horeb was the general name of the whole mountain range, Sinai the particular mountain on which the law was delivered; and that Horeb, the more general and well-known name, was employed in accordance with the rhetorical style of this book, in order to bring out the contrast between the Sinaitic giving of the law, and the giving of the law in the land of Moab (Deu_1:5; Deu_29:1). So Keil. SEE HOREB.
(II.) Additions. —
1. In the History.
(a) The command of God to leave Horeb, Deu_1:6-7, not mentioned in Num_10:11. The repentance of the Israelites, Deu_1:45, omitted in Num_14:45. The intercession of Moses in behalf of Aaron, Deu_9:20, of which nothing is said in Exo_32:33 : — These are so slight, however, that, as Keil suggests, they might have been passed over very naturally in the earlier books, supposing both accounts to be by the same hand. But of more note are:
(b) The command not to fight with the Moabites and Ammonites, Deu_2:9; Deu_2:19, or with the Edomites, but to buy of them food and water, Deu_2:4-8; the valuable historical notices which are given respecting the earlier inhabitants of the countries of Moab, and Ammon, and of Mount Seir, Deu_2:10-12; Deu_2:20-23; the sixty fortified cities of Bashan, Deu_3:4; the king of the country who was “of the remnant of giants,” Deu_3:11; the different names of Hermon, Deu_3:9; the wilderness of Kedemoth, Deu_2:26; and the more detailed account of the attack of the Amalekites, Deu_25:17-18, compared with Exo_17:8.
2. In the Law. The appointment of the cities of refuge, Deu_19:7-9, as compared with Num_35:14 and Deu_4:41; of one particular place for the solemn worship of God, where all offerings, tithes, etc. are to be brought, Deu_12:5, etc., whilst the restriction with regard to the slaying of animals only at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation (Lev_17:3-4) is done away, 15, 20, 21; the regulations respecting tithes to be brought with the sacrifices and burnt-offerings to the appointed place, Deu_12:6; Deu_12:11; Deu_12:17; Deu_14:22, etc.; Deu_26:12; concerning false prophets and seducers to idolatry and those that hearken unto them, Deuteronomy 13; concerning the king and the manner of the kingdom, 17:14, etc.; the prophets, 18:15, etc.; war and military service, Deuteronomy 20; the expiation of secret murder; the law of female captives; of first-born sons by a double marriage; of disobedient sons; of those who suffer death by hanging, Deuteronomy 21; the laws in Deu_22:5-8; Deu_22:13-21; of divorce, Deu_24:1, and various lesser enactments, 23 and 25; the form of thanksgiving in offering the first-fruits, 26; the command to write the law upon stones, 27, and to read it before all Israel at the Feast of Tabernacles, Deu_31:10-13.
Many others are rather extensions or modifications of, than additions to, existing laws, as, for instance, the law of the Hebrew slave, Deu_15:12, etc. compared with Exo_21:2, etc. See also the fuller directions in Deu_15:19-23; Deu_26:1-11, as compared with the briefer notices, Exo_13:12; Exo_23:19.
All these, however, afford no real difficulty in identifying the author with that of the preceding books, on the supposition that it was Moses himself, who, as the propounder of the law and the director of the history, was competent to expand and illustrate both, and, indeed, could hardly fail to do so, were he other than a mechanical copyist.
III. Date of Composition. — Was the book really written, as its language certainly implies, before the entry of Israel into the Promised Land? Not only does the writer assert that the discourses contained in the book were delivered in the plains of Moab, in the last month of the 40 years' wandering, and when the people were just about to enter Canaan (Deu_1:1-5), but he tells us with still further exactness that all the words of this Law were written at the same time in the book (Deu_31:9). Moreover, the fact that the goodly land lay even now before their eyes seems everywhere to be uppermost in the thoughts of the legislator, and to lend a peculiar solemnity to his words. Hence we continually meet with such expressions as “when Jehovah thy God bringeth thee into the land which He hath sworn to thy fathers to give thee,” or “whither thou goest in to possess it.” This phraseology is so constant, and seems to fall in so naturally with the general tone and character of the book, that to suppose it was written long after the settlement of the Israelites in Canaan, in the reign of Solomon (De Wette, Lengerke, and others), or in that of Manasseh (Ewald, as above), is not only to make the book a historical romance, but to attribute very considerable inventive skill to the author (as Ewald in fact does).
De Wette argues, indeed, that the character of the laws is such as of itself to presuppose a long residence in the land of Canaan. He instances the allusion to the temple (12, and Deu_16:1-7), the provision for the right discharge of the kingly and prophetical offices, the rules for civil and military organization and the state of the Levites, who are represented as living without cities (though such are granted to them in Numbers 35) and without tithes (allotted to them in Num_18:20, etc.). But in the passages cited the Temple is not named, much less is it spoken of as already existing: on the contrary, the phrase employed is “The place which the Lord your God shall choose.” Again, to suppose that Moses was incapable of providing for the future and very different position of his people as settled in the land of Canaan, is to deny him even ordinary sagacity. Without raising the question about his divine commission, surely it is not too much to assume that so wise and great a legislator would foresee the growth of a polity, and would be anxious to regulate its due administration in the fear of God. Hence he would guard against false prophets and seducers to idolatry. As regards the Levites, Moses might have expected or even desired that, though possessing certain cities (which, however, were inhabited by others as well as themselves), they should not be confined to those cities, but scattered over the face of the country. This must have been the case at first, owing to the very gradual occupation of the new territory. The mere fact that, in giving them certain rights in Deuteronomy, nothing is said of an earlier provision in Numbers, does not by any means prove that this earlier provision was unknown or had ceased to be in force.
Other reasons for a later date, such as the mention of the worship of the sun and moon (Deu_4:19; Deu_17:3); the punishment of stoning (Deu_17:5; Deu_22:21, etc.); the name Feast of Tabernacles; and the motive for keeping the Sabbath, are of little force. In Amo_5:26, Saturn is said to have been worshipped in the wilderness; the punishment of stoning is found also in the older documents; the Feast of Tabernacles agrees with Lev_23:34; and the motive alleged for the observance of the Sabbath, at least, does not exclude other motives. IV. Author. —
1. It is generally agreed that by far the greater portion of the book is the work of one author. The only parts which have been questioned as possible interpolations are, according to De Wette, 4:41-3; 10:6-9; 32 and 33. Internal evidence, indeed, is strongly decisive that this book of the Pentateuch was not the work of a compiler.
2. It cannot be denied that the style of Deuteronomy is very different from that of the other four books of the Pentateuch. It is more flowing, more rhetorical, more sustained. The rhythm is grand, and the diction more akin to the sublimer passages of the prophets than to the sober prose of the historians.
3. Who, then, was the author? This question, of course, is intimately connected with the preceding discussion. We will consider, first, the views of those who deny its authorship by Moses. On this point the following principal hypotheses have been maintained:
a. The opinion of Stähelin (and, as it would seem, of Bleek), that the author is the same as the writer of the Jehovistic portions of the other books. He thinks that both the historical and legislative portions plainly show the hand of the supplementist (Krit. Unters. p. 76). Hence he attaches but little weight to the alleged discrepancies, as he considers them all to be the work of the reviser, going over, correcting, and adding to the older materials of the Elohistic document already in his hands.
b. The opinion of De Wette, Gesenius, and others, that the Deuteronomist is a distinct writer from the Jehovist. De Wette's arguments are based
(1) on the difference in style;
(2) on the contradictions already referred to as existing in matters of history, as well as in the legislation, when compared with that in Exodus;
(3) on the peculiarity noticeable in this book, that God does not speak by Moses, but that Moses himself speaks to the people, and that there is no mention of the angel of Jehovah (comp. 1:30; 7:20-23; 11:13-17, with Exo_23:20-33); and
(4) lastly, on the fact that the Deuteronomist ascribes his whole work to Moses, while the Jehovist assigns him only certain portions.
c. From the fact that certain phases occurring in Deuteronomy are found also in the prophecy of Jeremiah, it has been too hastily concluded by some critics that both books were the work of the prophet. — So Von Bohlen, Gesenius (Gesch d. Hebr. Spr. p. 32), and Hartmann (Hist. Krit. Forsch. p. 660). Konig, on the other hand (Alttest. Stud. 2:12 sq.), has shown not only that this idiomatic resemblance has been made too much of (see also Keil, Einl. p. 117), but that there is the greatest possible difference of style between the two books. De Wette expresses himself similarly (Einl. p. 191).
d. Ewald is of opinion that it was written by a Jew living in Egypt during the latter half of the reign of Manasseh (Gesch. des V. I. i, 171). He thinks that a pious Jew of that age, gifted with prophetic power, and fully alive to all the evils of his time, sought thus to revive and to impress more powerfully upon the minds of his countrymen the great lessons of that law which he saw they were in danger of forgetting. He avails himself, therefore, of the groundwork of the earlier history, and also of the Mosaic mode of expression. But as his object is to rouse a corrupt nation, he only makes use of historical notices for the purpose of introducing his warnings and exhortations with the more effect. This he does with great skill and as a master of his subject, while at the same time he gives fresh vigor and life to the old law by means of those new prophetic truths which had so lately become the heritage of his people. Ewald further considers that there are passages in Deuteronomy borrowed from the books of Job and Isaiah (Deu_4:32, from Job_8:8; and Deu_28:29-30; Deu_28:35, from Job_5:14; Job_31:10; Job_2:7; etc. from Isa_5:26 sq.; Isa_33:19), and much of it akin to Jeremiah (Gesch. 1:171, note). The song of Moses (32) is, according to him, not by the Deuteronomist, but is nevertheless later than the time of Solomon.
e. The old traditional view that this book, like the other books of the Pentatench, is the work of Moses himself. Of the later critics, Hengstenberg, Havernick, Ranke, and others, have maintained this view. Moses Stuart writes: “Deuteronomy appears to my mind, as it did to that of Eichhorn and Herder, as the earnest outpourings and admonitions of a heart which felt the deepest interest in the welfare of the Jewish nation, and which realized that it must soon bid farewell to them... Instead of bearing upon its face, as is alleged by some, evidences of another authorship than that of Moses, I must regard this book as being so deeply fraught with holy and patriotic feeling as to convince any unprejudiced reader who is competent to judge of its style, that it cannot, with any tolerable degree of probability, be attributed to any pretender to legislation, or to any mere imitator of the great legislator. Such a glow as runs through all this book it is in vain to seek for in any artificial or supposititious composition” (Hist. of the O.T. Canon, § 3).
In support of this opinion, it is said:
1. That, supposing the whole Pentateuch to have been written by Moses, the change in style is easily accounted for when we remember that the last book is hortatory in its character, that it consists chiefly of orations, and that these were delivered under very peculiar circumstances.
2. That the usus loquendi is not only generally in accordance with that of the earlier books, and that as well in their Elohistic as in their Jehovistic portions, but that there are certain peculiar forms of expression common only to these five books.
3. That the alleged variations in matters of fact between this and the earlier books may all be reconciled (see above), and that the amplifications and corrections in the legislation are only such as would necessarily be made when the people were just about to enter the promised land. Thus Bertheau observes: “It is hazardous to conclude from contradictions in the laws that they are to be ascribed to a different age... He who made additions must have known what it was he was making additions to, and would either have avoided all contradiction, or would have altered the earlier laws to make them agree with the later” (Die Sieben Gruppen Mos. Gesetze, p. 19, note).
4. That the book bears witness to its own authorship (31:19), and is expressly cited in the N.T. as the work of Moses (Mat_19:7-8; Mar_10:3; Act_3:22; Act_7:37).
The book contains, in addition, not a small number of plain, though indirect traces, indicative of its Mosaic origin (see Jour. Sac. Lit. Jan. 1858, p. 313 sq.). We thus find in it:
1. Numerous notices concerning nations with whom the Israelites had then come in contact, but who, after the Mosaic period, entirely disappeared from the pages of history: such are the accounts of the residences of the kings of Bashan (Deu_1:4).
2. The appellation of “mountain of the Amorites,” used throughout the whole book (Deu_1:7; Deu_1:19-20; Deu_1:44), while even in the book Joshua, soon after the conquest of the land, the name is already exchanged for “mountains of Judah” (Jos_11:16; Jos_11:21).
3. The observation (Deu_2:10) that the Emim had formerly dwelt in the plain of Moab: they were a great people, equal to the Anakim. This observation quite accords with Gen_14:5.
4. A detailed account (Deu_2:11) concerning the Horim and their relations to the Edomites.
5. An account of the Zamzummim (Deu_2:20-21), one of the earliest races of Canaan, though mentioned nowhere else.
6. A very circumstantial account of the Rephaim (Deu_3:3 sq.), with whose concerns the author seems to have been well acquainted.
The standing-point also of the author of Deuteronomy is altogether in the Mosaic time, and, had it been assumed and fictitious, there must necessarily have been moments when the spurious author would have been off his guard, and unmindful of the part he had to play. But no discrepancies of this kind can be traced; and this is in itself an evidence of the genuineness of the book.
A great number of other passages force us likewise to the conclusion that the whole of Deuteronomy originated in the time of Moses. Such are the passages where:
1. A comparison is drawn between Canaan and Egypt (Deu_11:10 sq.), with the latter of which the author seems thoroughly acquainted.
2. Detailed descriptions are given of the fertility and productions of Egypt (Deu_8:7 sq.).
3. Regulations are given relating to the conquest of Canaan (Deu_12:1 sq.; Deu_20:1 sq.), which cannot be understood otherwise than by assuming that they had been framed in the Mosaic time, since they could be of no use after that period.
Besides, whole pieces and chapters in Deuteronomy, such as 32, 33, betray in form, language, and tenor, a very early period in Hebrew literature. Nor are the laws and regulations in Deuteronomy less decisive of the authenticity of the book. We are struck with the most remaikable phenomenon that many laws from the previous books are here partly repeated and impressed with more energy, partly modified, and partly altogether abolished, according to the contingencies of the time, or as the new aspect of circumstances among the Jews rendered such steps necessary (comp. e.g. Deu_15:17, with Exo_21:7; Deuteronomy 12 with Leviticus 17). Such pretensions to raise, or even to oppose his own private opinions to the authority of divine law, are found in no author of the subsequent periods, since the whole of the sacred literature of the later times is, on the contrary, rather the echo than otherwise of the Pentateuch, and is altogether founded on it. Add to this the fact that the law itself forbids most impressively to add to, or take anything from it, a prohibition which is repeated even in Deuteronomy (comp. 4:2; 13:1); so that on the theory that this book contains nothing more than a gradual development of the law, it clashes too often with its own principles, and thus pronounces its own sentence of condemnation.
The part of Deuteronomy (34) respecting the death of Moses requires a particular explanation. That the whole of this section is to be regarded as a piece altogether apart from what precedes it, or as a supplement by another writer, is a ready solution maintained by the older theologians (comp. e.g. Carpzov, Introd. in libr. V. T. 1:137); and this opinion is confirmed not only by the contents of the chapter, but also by the express declaration of the book itself on that event and its relations; for chapter 31 contains the conclusion of the work, where Moses describes himself as the author of the previous contents, as also of the Song (ch. 32), and the blessings (ch. 33) belonging to it. All that follows is, consequently, not from Moses, the work being completed and concluded with chapter 33. There is another circumstance which favors this opinion, namely, the close connection that exists between the last section of Deuteronomy and the beginning of Joshua (comp. Deu_34:9 with Jos_1:1, where also the connective force of the term וִיְהַי “and it came to pass,” in the latter passage, must not be overlooked), plainly showing that ch. 34 of Deuteronomy is intended to serve as a point of transition to the book of Joshua, and that it was written by the same author as the latter. The correct view of this chapter, therefore, is to consider it as a real supplement, but by no means as an interpolation (such as some critics erroneously suppose to exist in the Pentateuch in general). To apply to it the term interpolation would be as wrong as to give that appellation, e.g., to the 8th book of Caesar's work De Bello Gallico, simply because it was written by an unknown author, for the very purpose of serving as a supplement to the previous books. SEE PENTATEUCH.
V. Separate commentaries upon the book of Deuteronomy are not numerous; the most important are designated by an asterisk (*) prefixed: Origen, Selecta in Deuteronomy (in Opp. 2:386); Ephraem Syrus, Explanatio in Deuteronomy (in Opp. 4:269);, Theodoret,, Questiones in Deuteronomy (in Opp. i, pt. i); Isidorus Hispalensis, Commentaria in Deuteronomy (in Opera); Bede, In Deuteronomy Explanatio (in Opp. iv); id. Quaestiones super. Deuteronomy (ib. viii); Victor Hugo, annotatiunculae in Deuteronomy (in Opp. i); Rupertus Tuitienhis, In Deuteronomy (in Opp. 1:288); Luther, Deuteronomion castigatum (Viteb. 1524, 8vo; also in Opp. 3, 76; Exeg. Opp. xiii); Bugenhagen, Commentarius in Deuteronomy (Basil. t524, Viteb. 1525, 8vo); Macchabeus, Enarratio in Deuteronomy (London, 1563, 8vo); Chytraeus, Enarrationes in Deuteronomy (Viteb. 1575, 1590, 8vo); Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomy (from the French by Golding, Lond. 1583, fol.); I3rent, Comment. in Deuteronomy (in Opp. i); Bp. Babington, Votes upon Deuteronomy (in Works, p. 149); Lorinus, Commentarii in Deuteronomy (Lugd. 1625, 1629, 2 vols. fol.); Masius, Annotationes in cap. xviii et seq. (in the Critici Sacri, i, pt. ii); Franze, Disputationes per Deuteronomy (Viteb. 1608, 4to); *Gerhard, Commentarius super Deuteronomy (Jen. 1657, 4to); Cocceius, Note in Deuteronomy (in Opp. 1:186); id. De ult. Deuteronomy capita (ib. 1:201); Alting, Commentarius in cap. i-xix (in Opp. 1:121, Amst. 1687); Duquet, Explicatio de c. xxix-xxxiii (Par. 1734, 12mo); Vitringa, Comm. in cant. Mosis (Harl. 1734, 4to); Holt, Deuteron. illustratum (Lugd. 1768, 4to); Marck, Comment. in cap. xxix-xxxiii (in Partes Pentat.); Hagemann, Betrachtungen üb. d.f. B. Mosis (Brunsw. 1744, 4to); Homberg, בְּאוּר לְסֵ8 דְּבָרַים(in Mendelssohn's Pentateuch, Berlin, 1783, etc.); *Rosenmüller, Scholia (in Schol. pt. ii); *Horsley, Notes on Deuteronomy (in Bib. Criticism, i); Riehm, Moses im lande Moab (Lpz. 1854, 8vo); Cumming, Readings on Deuteronomy (London, 1856, 12mo); *Graff, Der Segen Mosis erkldrt (Lpz. 1857, 8vo); Howard, Deut. fron the Sept. (Lond. 1857, 8vo); *Schultz Das Deuteron. erklrt (Berl. 1859, 8vo); *Knobel, Eklrung (in the Exeg. Handb. part xiv);* Schroder, Bearbeitung (in Lange's Bibelwerk, O.T. 3, Bielefeld, 1866, 8vo). SEE OLD TESTAMENT.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores