Deuteronomy (Hastings' Dictionary)

i. The Name of the Book. — The n.iuie Deuteronomy is taken from the Lat. ' Deuterononiium,' which transliterated the Gr. wonl AevTepovip.ioi'. This Gr. word apjiears in the LXX of Dt 17", where the words ' a copy of this law' {nA-.ri rrfnn .ijf'?) are incorrectly tr'' rd Aeurepo- vufuor TouTo, as if the Heb. had been ' this copy of the law ' (ni.T .i-i'in.T nj;'p). The word also occurs, with the same error of tr°, in Jos 9" [Heb. 8"].

Though the word was a mistranslation, it fur- nished an appropriate title to a book which in a large measure ' reformulated ' previous laws. The book is referred to by this name in the writings of Philo (Leg. Allcgor. iii. § 61, i. 121, Quod Dens immutab. § 10, i. 280), although that writer also quotes it by the iijinie of ' Tlie Appen- dix to the Laws,' ii 'ETrivoidi {Quis rer. dives hwrea § 33. i. 495). DEUTEKONOMY DEUTEKO>vOMY 597 In Heb.

lit«nCure the book waa known by a title taken from Its opening word, "These are the words' (Olj^n nJ'K), or, atmply, 'word' (C'n5^> In Rabbinic writing it ia sometimea cited aM 'The book of Threatening^' (n^np'B TJ:?); but in such I the reference is to the latter portion of the book, which also appean to have been known to Philo as ' The Curses ' (eu 'AftOy. See Leg. AUegoT. Vu. i 35, i. 10«, quoting Dt 2"!' ; De PotteriU Caini, i 8, i. 230, quotine Dt 28<».

(Kyle's Philo and Boly Scripture, Introd. p. xxiiif.) ii. The Contents of the Book.— The book purports to contain the last utterances of Moses, delivered in the plains of Moab just before his death. The historical position is delined by the brief Introduction (1'') and by the Ej)ilo<;ue (34), which narrates the death of Moses. The utter- ances of Moses comprise three main discourses : (1) The first is chiefly historical, reviewing the life of Israel in the wilderness, l'-***.

(2) The second, which has a brief historical preface (i""'*"), is, at first, hortatory (5-11), but is chiefly taken op with the legislation (12-26), i.e. the code of laws which constitutes the nucleus of the whole work. To this is appended the description of a ceremony which was to symbolize the popular ratification of the laws in the land of Canaan (27), and a rehearsal of warnings and blessings that should ensue upon the neglect and observ- ance of these laws (20).

(3) The third address is an additional exhortation urging tlie people to keep the covenant with J", promising restoration even after relapse into idolatry, and offering the alternatives of obedience or disloyalty to J (29. 30). These three addresses to the people are followed by a collection of more miscellaneous materials, such as Moses' farewell, his deliverance of the Deut. law to the priests, his commission to Joshua, the Song of Moses, the Blessing of Moses (31-33).

The whole is concluded by an account of the Death of Moses (34). Although it is true to say that the legislation constitutes the nucleus of the book, the character of the writing is very far from being that of a legal work. The tone of exliortation which runs through the earlier and later addresses, pervades also tlie legislative portion. The laws are not systematically and technically stated.

They are ethically expounded in order to set forth their relation to the theocratic principles laid down in chs. 6-11. The purpose of the book is thus, practically, wholly 'hortatory,' or, as it has been termed, 'parenetic'; and its 'parcnetic' aim ac- counts for the dill'use and somewhat discursive treatment which is found in tlio liistorical and legislative, no less than in the directly homiletical passages.

A very cursory perusal enables us to see that the writer is neither historian nor jurist, but a religious teacher. When we investigate Dt in relation to the book* which immediately precede and follow it in the Hex., we cannot fail to be struck by tlie general unity of its composition, and by the dis- tinctiveness of its character and style. In Nu 27'-'- it has already been said, ' And the LOKD said unto Mo.

ses, Get thee up into this mountain of Aharim, and behold the land which I have given unto the cliildren of Israel. And when thou hast seen it, thou also shalt be gathered unto thy people, as Aaron thy brother was gathered.' Again, in Nu 27"*' we find the commis.siun to Joshua thus described, ' And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him, etc.

And Moses did as the Lord commamled him ; and he took Joshua and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation ; and he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge, as the LoRD spake, by the hand of Moses.' Now, at the close of Dt we find in 32«" ' And the Lord spake unto Moses that self-same day, saying. Get thee up into this mountain of Aharim . .

and behold the land of Canaan, which I yive unto the children of Israel for a possession ; and die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people ; as Aaron thy brother died in Mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people.' Again, we find in 31'*'^ the charge given to Joshua, 'And the Lord said unto Moses, Be- hold, thy days approach that thou must die ; call Joshua, an(l present yourselves in the tent of meeting, etc. And he gave Joshua the son of Nun a charge, and said.

Be strong and of a good courage.' Dt thus practically repeats the in- cidents which have already been recorded in Nu 27 ; and the whole work, which intervenes between the two commands to Moses to prepare for death, presents the appearance of a great parenthesis, interrupting the main thread of the narrative. The command to go up to the heights of Abariiu, in Dt 32, is followed almost immediately by the narrative, in Dt 34, of the death of Moses.

The same command has occurred in Nu 27 ; but be- tween the two commands is interposed the series of three addresses which were given, according to Dt P, on the first day of the eleventh month of the fortieth year. Not only, however, has the Book of Dt all the ajjpearance of a parenthesis, but it is rendered dis- tinct from the other books of the Pent, by its very clearly marked characteristics of style and diction. These will require fuller consideration later on.

But they are so distinct and so obvious to the reader, whether of the original or of a translation, that they inevitably contribute very largely to the general impression that Dt represents a work in some way separate from the rest of the Penta- teuch. The same general impression is produced by a comparison of the laws in Dt with the three principal groups of laws contained in Ex, Lv, and Nu. The Deut.

legislation ' stands in a diliereut relation to each of the three codes referred to j it is an expansion of that in Ex 20-23 ; it is, in several features, parallel to that in Lv 17-26 ; it contains allusions to laws such as those codified in the rest of Lv-Nu ' (Driver, s.v. ' Deuteronomy ' in Smith's DB'). The legislative section of Dt is distinct in contents and treatment from the parallel sections in Ex-Nu.

The principal historical allusions in Dt (as pre- sented by Driver) are the following : — IS (and frequently) the oath to the path- On 161° 22iu mt 29. archs 43 (Ha al-peor) Nu 251-». 4iiiri r;-« 18i« delivery at Decalogue, etc Ex 193-20»1. 61" (Maji.sah) Ex 177. U''^!!- uiul elsewhere (deliverance from Ex 13i4 li>0. ICgyi't) 83 '"(thenianna) Ex 16 ». 8"> (fiery serpent ; and rock (TIX) of Nu 'il" and Ex \1. flint) (A.B. In Nu 2011 (P) the term for ' rock * is vVd, not 11X.

J 9Z> Tab'«rilh, Uaaaah, (^ibroth-hatt4't- Nu 111 ', Ex IT, vah) Nu 11". 11 (pa««afc'e of the Red 8ea) Ex 14«. 119 (Duthan and Abiram) Nu l«i'> 2">- » M«. 23" («' ) lialtt'am) Nu 22'^24». 24' (Miriam's leprosy) Nu 121'. 261"" (omiosition of ' Amaiek) Ex 17'». 200-0 (allliction and deliverance from Ex l'- » V- * etc 2923 (S^ ^overthrow o( Sodom and Oo- On igMf. morran) An investigation of the historical allusions in Dt confirms the impression produced by the legis- lative portion.

The references are, almost with- out exception, made to events recorded in those portions of Ex and Nu which scholars assi^'n to .IK, or the 'prophetic' group of narratives incor- 598 DEUTERONOMY DEUTEEONOMY porated in the Pentateuch. The other main group of narratives in the Pent., denoiuinated P from its generally 'priestly' cliaracteristics, does not appear to have supi)Iied the foundation for the treatment of the history in D. Thus in !

*> tlie reader notices that Caleh alone is mentioned as the recipient of especial favour ; there is no men- tion made of Joshua. In the Book of Nu the passage which records the favour granted to Caleb alone (Nu 14") belongs to JE, the passage which associates Joshua with Caleb (Nu H™) belongs to P. Similarly, in 1 1« we find mention of Dathan and Abiram, but not of Korah, who figures so conspicuously in Nu 16.

Bat in Nu 16 the Korali passages are assigned by scholars to P ; the J E portion of the narrative speaks only of Dathan and Abiram. There are only three incidents in the historical references of Dt which are to be found in the P and not in the JE narrative of the Pentateuch. These are (1) the mention of the number 'twelve,' of the spies, Dt 1=», cf. Nu 13', i«; (2) the mention of the number ' seventy,' of the family of Jacob, Dt 10", cf.

Gn 46", Ex 1» ; (3) the mention of acacia-wood as the material of which the ark was made, Dt lO^, cf. Ex 25'°. But it is to be remem- bered that these facts may have been recorded in JE, but have been preserved to ns only in the excerpts from the P narrative.

Assuming the correctness of the general pro- position, which is universally admitted by modern scholars, that the Pent, is of composite origin, we are brought, by a consideration of the distinctive- ness in D's treatment and style, to the opinion that D must take rank with JE and P as one of the component elements of the Pentateuch.

Not, of course, that D should necessarily be assigned any more than J, or E, or P, to any one writer or author, but only that in style and treatment it may be attributed to a literary source, representing the influence of a particular period, or of particular circumstances, upon a writer, or a school, or a succession of writers. iii. The Unity of the Book.

— Though we have hitherto spoken of Dt as if it were a unity in itself, it would be a mistake to suppose that it presents an unbroken homogeneous piece of litera- ture written by a single person. There is good reason to suppose that the same kind of literary history is to be attributed to D as to JE and P. The original nucleus of writing has been revised, expanded, and modified.

It is not difficult to indicate poitions which could hardly have worn their present appearance if from the first they had been part of a consecutive piece of writing. It appears the most probable view that Dt 5-26 (27». 10). 28 represent the original work, either in part or in its entirety. In this work chs. 5-11 formed tlie introduction ; ch. 28 the peroration. Wellhausen, indeed, limiu the ori^nal work of Dt to ch». 12-26.

liut tliere seenis no sullloient ground for separating 5-11 from 12-20. The style and diction are in marked agreement; and the ditTerences which have been detected in the two flections are only those which might b« expected to arise Irom the difler- ence of subject-matter. With regard to chs. 1-4 doubts have been more generally expressed. It has seemed to many improbable that the Intro- duction, consisting of 5-11, should have oeen precejtd by a long prefatory section.

It is objected that the arrangement is loo cumbrous to be the oripnal one ; that the awkwardness of the present arrangement is emphasized by the presence of two formal headings, 11* and 4«-«>. Moreover, the absence in the bortatorj' passage 41-w of any allusion to the preceding historical summary lias suggested a doubt whether ch. 4 could be homo- geneous with chs. 1-3.

On the other haml, the style is admittedly Deuteronomic ; and it is dilllcult to believe that 1-4 did not come in some form or another from the some writer or school as the contents of 5-20. 28. Uillmann baa made the suggestion that 1-3 formed originally the hist, introduction, which was written in the third person, and that this was altered in character from narrative into a speech by the redactor of the Pent., who incorjiorated Dt into the main work. Dilliu.

also considered that 4i-x> orit;iually belonged to the conclusion of the book, and that it was trans f erred from that position by the redactor : for confirmation 04 this view, he appealed to the disordered and inconsecutive con- dition of cha. 2y. 30, and to the use of the past tense in 4^, whicb seemed to imply ihat the legislative portion had already beea recorded, and waa present to the reader's mind.

It may, however, be doubted whether there is not a danger of too great ingenuity in the h>-potlietical rearrangement of the original materials. Taking into consideration (I) the very close resembKance of style, and (2) the absence of any serious con- tradiction in statement between the diflerent portions, there is not room for any confident theory of different authorship for 1-4, though it may have been composed at a later time than the rest, and prefixed afterwards.

When, however, we come to consider the question of chs. 29-34, it is impossible not to admit tliat we have there to deal with materials widely diliering in origin. One passage in particular, SO'"", obviously has no direct connexion with tlie section 30""'", which immediately follows ; 31""-' interrupts the thread of the narrative ; whUe 32'"''' and 33, two lyrical pieces, have evidently been derived from some independent collection of early Heb. songs.

A few portions of 32 and 34 (32*»-»' and 34i»- »''■'-») are, on literary grounds, assigned with great probability to P as their original source. The most reasonable explanation of the history of the structure of the book is excellently summarised in Driver's Deuteronomy (p. Ixxvii). 'Some little time after the kernel [chs. 5-26.

28) of Dt waa composed, it was enlarged by a second Deuteronomic writer (or writers), D2, who (1) supplemented the work of D by adding the passages indicated ; (2) incorporated, with additions of his (or their) own, the exceriits from JE, and (taking it probably from a separate source) the Song 321^, with the his- torical notices belonging to it, Sl^J-^a 32+*.

Finally, at a still later date, the whole thus constituted was brought formally into relation with the literary framework of the Hexateuch as a whole by the addition of the extracts from P.' iv. The Religious Teaching of Deuter- 0N05IY. — The characteristics of the religious thought of this book are very marked. Tliey exercised a profound influence upon the religious development of the people.

The great lessons of the spirituality of the Godhead (4'-), and the uniqueness of J", and His absolute unity (4™' 6 7' 10"), are strongly and impressively taught. We pass from the older conception of ' monolatry ' into the fuller and deeper thought of 'nionotlieism.' The relation in which the God of the people stands to the people is represented primarily as one of love rather than of law.

The thouglit of the love of Israel towards her God, which is indeed laid down in the words of the Decalogue (Ex 20°, Dt 5'°), is not required else- where in the Pent., but in Dt it is earnestly in- sisted on as the basis of faithful service on the part of the creature to the Creator and of the redeemed to the Deliverer (cf. 10" 12'- "• *" 13» 19« 306. 16.

ao) Appeals made to Israel to keep the com- mandments are, it is true, often based on the recol- lection of God's might and of His terrible visitation, on motives of awe and fear ; but the highest appeal is made to the consciousness of J"'8 love, in that He had chosen Israel, not for Israel's greatness or goodness, but out of Ilis own free love (Dt 7' 8" %-').

The love and all'ection of God towards the nation, as distinguished from His love towards individuals, constitutes an especial feature in Dt (4" 7" 23« 33') ; and Dt shares with Hosea (3' 11' 14*) the distinction of first familiarizing Israel with tlie thought and teaching that underlie so much of NT theology (cf. 1 K 10», 2 Ch 2" 9«, Mai P). Again, love as indicating the people's affection and devotion to .1" is again and again insisted on as the true spring of all liuman action (cf.

5'° 6' V 1012. 18 11'- "• -' 13s 19" 30''- '"• 2"). This teaching of the reciprocal relation of love between J" and Israel lias left the mark of Dt deeply impressed ui)on or theology. It is this whicii leads more directly than any other line of OT teaching to the revelation ultimately contained in the words, ' God so loved the world,' etc. (Jn 3"). JJEUTKKUXO.

MY DKUTKKONOMY "/J9 As the outcome of the thought of the divine love which Israel has enjoyed, there also conica into view the consideration of Israel as ' the son ' and of J " as the people's Father. The loving God had given Israel life by redemption from Egypt ; He had brought Israel up and educated him in the wilderness (see Dt 14^ and 8, '• "^). The intimacj' of the relation between J" and Isr.

emphasizes the demand that Israel should also ' cleave' to J" (11^ IS''), and not follow ' other gods ' (6"- » 7* 8"- =» ll'o- "• ^ 30"- '»). Idolatry is the great peril ; its temptations must be resisted with ruthless severity (IS""'" 17') ; no compromise is to be allowed nor alliance struck with the idolater (7- SO'"'"). The inducements to yield to superstitious practices are pictured as strong and numerous ; out to yield is fatal.

J""8 wrath and Uis just punishment are the nation's penalty, and will be ita extermination (6">-"> S"-"" ll'"-" 31"»). The alternative between obedience and disobedience, between the service of J" and the serrice of ' other gods,' constitutes the theme of the great passage of warning and denunciation which is presented in ch. 28.

The holiness of the people is another chief thought, the prominence of^ which is a marked feature in this oook, resulting from the conception of the close relationship between Israel and J" the Holy One. The people are holy to J", and cannot therefore join themselves to ' other gods ' (7'). It is this ' holiness ' which should prevent them from bodily mutilation as a sign of mourning ; for such behaviour was the mark of a nation serving ' other gods' (14').

This 'holiness' is the reason for which the people must refrain from food that would render unclean those who were J'"s pos- session (14"'). God has chosen His people, not only to make them ' high above all nations which be hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour ' ; but also that they may be ' an holy people' unto J" (26'"). The 'holiness' of the people depends upon its obedience (28°).

The spirit of 'holiness' to J" is ethically to be ex- pressed by the observance of love towards the neighbour, and by kindness and charity towards the poor, the wicfow, the orphan, the Levite, and the stranger (lO'"-'" 24""'). The millstone was never to be taken in pledge ; the garment taken in pledge was to be returned before nightfall (24'- "■''•).

Feelings of humanity were to be ex- tended towards the animals ; the ox treading out the com was not to be muzzled {25') ; and thought was even given to the bird and its young ones (22«-'). In outward worship the ' holiness ' of the people can be adequately safeguarded only by worsliip at the central sanctuary chosen by J". This regu- lation, which is laid down in ch. 12, is repeated In connexion with the laws of tithe (14"" etc.)

, the firstliom (IS""), the festivals (16'- "• "), the Urstlings (26";, the judges (17'- '"). So long as worship was carried on at local shrines, on the high-places, and under trees (12"), it was inevitably tainted with heathenism ; the hearts of the people would be alienated from the service of J" ; and the moral purity of the nation would bo corrupted by the assimilation of idolatrous practices.

Thus the relationship oi Israel to J" is asserted as the spiritual priiicijile which must animate the people's whole existence. The laws which are mentioned illustrate how the high mission of Israel is to be interpreted in daily life. Thene laws are no formal code.

The blessing for obedience is promised as a reward for particular acts, and for the whole regulation of life; and the blcssin;^ promised is expressed in terms which Israel could understand ami appreciate, — outward prosperity and length of life (12"-"8 13" 14=» 15'»-'» 16* 19'» 23-' 24'" 25").

It is to preserve unimpaired the recollection of their spiritual relation to J " that so much stress is laid upon the training of the children (4» e'-;" 11"); while provision is also made, that even in the dress and the dwellings of individuals (C»- " ll"-™ 22'-) the people should be reminded of their spiritual duties. v. Language and Style of Deuteronomy. — The style in which the book is written has very clearly marked characteristics of its own.

It is quite distinct, and easily recognizable. It bears no resemblance to the style of r, nor does it show any likeness to the narrative style of JE. In certain hortatory passages of JE there may be noticed ' an approximation to the stvie of L)t ; and these sections [Gn 26», Ex 13'"' 15"° l9»-», parts of 20"-" 23-';-^ 34"'-^] appear to have been the source from which the author of Dt adopted some of the expressions currently used by him' (Driver).

The style of Dt is remarkable for its command of rich and efl'ective periods, in which the sen- tences are framed with great oratorical skill. They are rhythmical without being tedious ; and copious without being shallow and rhetorical. Some of the writing of Jeremiah approaches most closely in style to Dt ; and the influence of Dt upon subsequent Heb. literature was very marked. The Deut. style was imitated and adopted by a group or succession of writers in and after the days of the exile.

The Deut. passages in Jos, Jg, and K are easily distinguishable ; they are gener- ally of a hortatory character, and represent a particular attitude of fervent patriotism and religious thought, expressed witu considerable redundancy of language, and with the use of certain characteristic phrases. Very full and complet* lists of the characterifltic Deut words aod phnises have tjeen drawn up hy Driver {Deut. Introd. p. Ixjts iii If.) and llulzinger (iiVn/Wf. in d. Hex.)

The following are instances of words perfectly simple in themselves, but used with great frequency or with marked effect in Dt, though else- where not found, or only used with ^reat rareness, in the Uexateuch : — Thif {your) gaU4 ( = citie8)L A miijMu hand and a stretched out arm. The land whiihfr thou goejit in to pogsesi it. Statute and jmlijm^ntt : cointnajuttnentt and ttatuU. With all youT heart and vith all i/ifur toui. the priejitjt the Levitet. observe to do.

that it may be well for thee. a peculiar people. to make- his name to dwell there. to do that ichich u ri^ht {good or evil) in the eye of J as J" hath tnmken. to walk in the wayit o.fj". to hearken to the voice. Under this head should be noticed the use o( 3{if to hv (a) with God as obj. ; (6) of God's love to Uis peoplt, onoi! O-n'SK other god. IjnKH to prolong (of dayi), ^nin toditpoueu, T? toehooee, f pS'i to cleave to. DC'ri thorour/hli/. "jlj^ [n; to deliver up before.

nip to rantom, in; n'j:f'9 that to which thou putteet thine Aond, TQ^n to destroy. mrr n3^'^B the abomination iff J" (ol tdoUtiTX jnn 1V5 '0 root out the eviL nin cvj (U of thie day. D'v;n"'?5 continually. trnj oy o holy people Other characteristics of his style ■ (1) The preference for •3;i< (6fl times) abort •») 0** tB") ; the use of '1(1 in the Song 82"- »» and Si" " Is not from th< same hand as 1).

(2) Tlie preference for 3;7 («7 time8)above DJ («>' W SD» '8), (3) The une of the empbatlo p In tb Znd and 8rd p«r. plur of the impf. 600 DEUTERONOMY DEUTERONOMY (i) The frequent empIojTnent of the reflexive dative. (6) The coUocatioQ of words without the conjunction {asittuUta). («) The fern, form of the infln. n^',, njqS, ni}p. The following words or phrases are found in Dt only (see Driver, Deut. p. IxxxivX hV} 19S28). n;j 279. B3V 15» 8 24ll>- U. 15^ rith'hji^ 221-'- 17.

TSjj^iri 21124'. p-jl^n 151. ngj!^? 228. n'li^^y 7" 28- 18- a •qi nn;; 23' 241. 1X5 24). Ssi"? 28«. >fj5 977. ni 2S8». H'fJlK IjV 713 28. 18. n. IHfp;^' 15i»-»Slio. [IK 231. T?Nn 2B17.U. DV'i? 25". r-j;;;? 28». 1^3X1 2S«5. nip -IS 288». n^J^ 2Sa. pnn 11. Spo 28». ^p-]ri 169 23«. Tn-iri 28aa. O-jn 28»'. 'jvh 2518. Kjo 261«28»-". n^ j 283". "5 34'. n^'^D 23»(BV»1 nsp 1610. 0<n!J TJ 2>« 8« (cf. Jgr 20«).

The following expressions, occurring mostly only once in Dt, vn more or less frequent in subsequent writers, esp. those of the Deuteronomic school : — 0''7<V3 and O'Vpa 29i« " ; rrjy 28a» ; D'l'J.T to vex (esp. by IdolatryX 4» 918 81» 32'« (cf. Dyj v.ai) ; ijnn to expel (from Canaan), 301, cf. v. ; the name to be called over, 2g"> ; ^'^^'il? i'T SS* ; n-jp, nj'jy' 28"; nnn^ 29i8i9 ; Bin; 292'.' (Driver f6.) vi. The Legislation of Deuteronomy.

— Turning to the subject of the laws contained in Dt, we have only space to make the following general observations : — (1) The laws are arranged upon a rough general plan, in which the order observed is that of (a) religious duties, clis. 12-16; (6) civil ordin- ances, ens. 17-20 ; (c) rules for social and domestic life, chs. 21-25. But the reader will notice that there is no strict aJlierence to orderly arrange- ment.

(2) The language in which the laws recorded in 12-20 are written is, as a rule, somewhat diffuse and hortatory ; but in 21-25 tliere are many pas- sages having a close resemblance to the style of Ex 21-23, terse, and evidently often reproJucing the precise terms of the ancient codes. (3) The laws make no claim to be a new code.

So far as they are peculiar to D, they ' have, with very few exceptions, the appearance either of being taken directly, with unessential modifica- tions of form, from older law-books (especially many of those in 2Ii"-25'9), or else of being accepted applications of long-established prin- ciples (as 17*"'^ ig'^'-i), or the formulation of ancient customs (as 21'"' 22"'^i 2o''i'') expressed in Deuteronomic phraseology.

And such laws as are really new in Dt are but the logical and consistent development of Mosaic principles' ( Driver, ZJeutero- nomy, Introd. p. Ivi). The following outline will serve as a rough analysis of the principal laws : — A. N/TIONAL Rrlioious LlPS. 1. J*tthlic Worfthip. (a) L.aw of single 8anctuar>', 121». (h) Law against idolatry, 122»-131». 2. HflifiUnu l>utiet. (a) reraonal purity, 141-1, (b) Charity, 1422-1618. 8. Helitfiorut Obnervancee. Offering and festivals, 1519-191T.

A National Admi.vistration. L Civil Oficere. (a) Judseg, 16i»» 17»-U m King. 171«-». 8. Relioiouji. (a) Priests, lS'-8 (6) Prophets, 189-ai C. Criminal Law. (o) Murder and homicide, lOii ai-». (6) Property, 191. (c) Witness, 191^21. ((/) War, 20. 21101. D. MiscELLANEors LAWS, e.g, primogeniture, seduction, divorce, 21i'-2i 22i3-so 24i5 26i>-ii, interest and loans, 2320. 21 246. 10-13. SrTfOPSifi op Lawb in Dbuteronout (taken from Driver's Cammentarj/, pp. It-tU), JK Ex 20!"7. 2021.* cf.

2321. 3412-lM. cL 2219 (»). 2230(31). 2318b 342eb. 2310'.. 212-11. • 222s (30( 1S12 3419. 231-!' ajw nuL 22.24. DiCTKBONOUT. 66.18 (ffl) (the Decalogue). 121-28 (place of sacrifice). 1229^1 (not to imitate Canaanite rites). ch. 13 (cases of seduction to idolatry). I41-2 (disfigurement in mourn- ing). 143-20 (clean and unclean ani- mals). 1421 (food improperly killed). 1421b (kid in mother's milk). 1422-29 (tithes). 15I-II (year of release). 1512-18 (Hebrew slaves).

1518-23 (firstlinf^ of ox and sheep: cf. 126- n. 18 1423). 231 J. u. 2219(201 20» 2313 34". 22" (18| (sor- ceress aloneX 2112.1.' 281. cf. 2111>-". 23- ». 20". 22i»a«)t 22«(»). 2229 (26) r. 2111) P (noLusiNe II>, 161-1' (the three annual pilgrim- ages). 1618 (appointment of judges). 1619-20 (just judgment). 1621-22 (AshSrahs and 'pillars' prohibited). 171 (sacrifices to be without blemish ; cf. 1521). 17*-' (worship of 'other gods,' or of the host of heaven)L 178-13 (supreme tribunal).

171-1-20 (law of the king). 181-8 (rights and revenues of the tribe of Levi). 189-22 (law of the prophetX 18io» (Molech-worship ; cf. 12>1). IglOb-ll (dillereut kinds of divi- nation and magicX 191 13 (asylum tor manslayer : murder). 1914 (the landmark). 1916-21 (law of witness). ch. 20 (military service and war ; cf. 24^). 211-9 (e.xpiation of an untrmced murder). 2110-1* (treatment of female cap- tives). 2115-17 (primogenitureX 2118-21 (undutiful son). 2122.23 (body of malefactor).

221- (animal straying or fallen ; lost property). 225 (sexes not to interchange gannents). 22«- ' (bird's nest). 22s (battlement). 2'29ii (against noD-natural mix- tures). 2212 (law of 'tassels'). 2213-21 (slander against a newly- married maidenX 222227 (adultery). 222sf (sciuction). 231 (it^) (incest with step- mother). 239 (18) (conditions of admit- tance into the theocratic comnmnitv). 231018 (9 u) (cleanliness In the camp). 23I8 (15) (~ (humanity to escaped slave). 23I8 (17) r.

(against religious pro- stitution). 2320 1191 (- (usurv). 232iS |21 ill (vows). 2325 (Ui t. (regard for neighbour's crops). 241-' (divorce). 248 10-13 (pledges). 247 (inan-steaiingX 248'- (leprosy). Lv 17H.« NuSS". LvlQffl'. „ 1121 20». „ 1716 110. „ 273WB; No lg2i«.« „ 251 '. 253I»-46.» N'ul81"-(Ct Ex 131f- ; Lv 2726;Nu3H 817). Lv 2S' ; Nu 28- 29. „ 191». „ 261. 2ai'-»t. 7»"«*; 181-7. B.»>.- „ isai 20". „ 1926b. »1. 208-n. Nu 859«; L» 24170. Hi Lt 1»1». cJ. Lv tO». Lrl»19. NaUC-O.

Lr 18» tOl«. „ 18»a)i . NuW-f. Lv25»^ NuSW LtU-I^ DEUTERONOMY DEUTEROXOMY 601 JG. DKnTEROMOHT. P (Dicitnirao HX 2il4f- (wo^eA Of hired servant Lv I9i«. not to be detainwl). 24J (the family of u criminal not to 8UfTer witli liini). Kx 2Z«>^» 2il7f. (Justice towartlH stranger. !»»«■. /n Mj js». widow, und orptiau). 241 its; (ylcanini.'s). „ IV- 2SZ>. 26i-J (nuKlenitioii in infliction Of the l>astinado). tb (tiiresliin^ ox not to b« muzzled).

26-'-' (levirate marriageX 2611- 12 (modestv in womenX mlUB (lust weiithU). 26" 19 r Amalelf). „ l«»t. 17". of. »«• n»»i 261 11 (thaniisgiving at the offer of. Nu 18>». 43l9.84a».. ing of liret-fruita). 261»i»(tlianl!K|{iving at the pay- ment of tlie triennial tithe). M»». ch. 28 (peroration, presentini; motives for the observance of the Code). LtS«M». 20<.as«n. 231». of. 18 1«. 20> IS"- '«. 18". 8411 IH.. 23Mb Sill. 18«22»«. 22»(«l)«a». 2318»84«»«. I36f 23I» S41». 4IS-IB.

33 7» (a^inst images). 61b (philanthropic object of Sahlmth). 6» 11'" (law of frontlet). 014 iil« (a^inst ' other gods'X 6 (instruction to children). 7 l(no oompoct with Canaan- Itee). 7» 12s (Canaanit« altars, 'pil- lars,' fto. to be destroyed). 1 14i 21 2«i» 28» (Israel a • holy people '). (in difTerent connexionsX 1019 /to love the ' stranger'). 1210 1623 (blood not to b« eaten). 10^ (leavened bread not to be eaten with I'ajisover).

IQfbus (nnleaveiu-d cakes for seven days afterwards). ldb (flesh of F'assover not to remain till morning). IflU. 16 (feast of ' booths,' 'seven davs '). 17« 19I5 ('two o» three wit- nesses '). 1»»1 (Ux talionis). (hut in a difTerent applica- tion in each case). 27- « (altars of unhewn stonesX Lt 1S«> 201. I. »•■ Nu 83». „ 83W. Lv ll«'. 19> 20'. »; Nu 16«. 19S4 II ivio-'i 19311. fcf.SiTTMf; On I i9»). Ex 128. „ 12iB.I8-», Lt 2S«. „ 1210, No 9". Lt 2SM. 39. 41-41. NuSiM. LT241W.. eo».

{The instances in which the divergence la moat marked are indicated by an asterisk *.] vii. Date and Autiior.siiip. — The date to which tlie composition of Dt should he assigned cannot he determined witli any degree of cer- tainty. But it is clear, from what has hecn already said, that it cannot reosonahly he attri- huted to any very early period in the history of Heb. literature. a.

The testimony of the style and languaj^e connects it with the period jireccdiiit; the age in which the imitators of the Deut. style wrote and flourished. Certainly, the rich and mient oratori- cal periods of Dt belong to a period of ^i^)e literary development, and not to the rough beginnings of A national literature. It has been asserted that this is contradicted by the presence of certain archaisms.

But, even ii there were a few archaisms, their presence would not atl'cct the general impression produced by the character of the Deut. style. The alleged 'archa- iairs,' however, are not of a kind to furnish any proof of the antiquity of the book. (a) Kin. The 'epicene' use of tlie j>ronoun throws more light u|>on tlie history of the text than u[)on the antiquity of the hook. 'I'lie vowels in «in and h'.t were in all probability absent from the original autographs.

The fern, form hi seems to have existed in the earliest periods of the language. (6) Sxn for r\';iin. This form occurs 8 times in the Pent., 4 times in Dt 4^ 7-'' 9", once in 1 Ch 20" Sn. As the usual ' dissyllabic ' form occurs in the I'ent. some '260 times, and in the cognate dialects the dissyllabic form was usual, the monosj'llable is almost certainly an ortlio''r;iphical anomaly, and sliould have a second vowel, "tn, hxn ; cf. nx. (c) loi (le'" 20"'), as in Ex 23" Si^] instead of "V!

, which ia used over 50 times in the Pent. The use of T31 for iji goes back to the old law of Ex 23". (rf) im.; (32<» 34'''), as elsewhere in Pent. In Jos it is spelt 'inn; 28 times, and we have 'im- in 2 S 10», Jer 39» 52". The suggestion has been oflered that ' Israel picked up a new pronunciation after they came to tiie place,' in other words, that until the death of Moses the Israelites called the place 'Yuvcclio' incorrectly, and that this was embodied in the Pent.

, but that the local uro- nuncialion was given by Joshua. It might have been siiiiposed that the writer of the account of the death of Moses (Dt 34'-*) would have had as good ojiportunities for ' picking up a new pro- nunciation ' as the writer of Jos 2'. But the pro- nunciation followed in the Pent, is found also in K, Ezr-Neh, and Ch ; so that no argiuuent can be based upon the variety of the spelling.

Other 8Ui)po8ed archaisms seem to arise from the mannerism of the author rather than from any real antiquity in their form. The use of lui, equally for masc. or fem., appears indeed to be a genuine archaism ; but the fact that iTisi^i appears as the fem. of lyj elsewhere in the Heb. Scriptures excei)t in the Pent., is merely an indication that the text of the Pent, had be- come regarded as too sacred to modify, at an earlier date than the other books subsequently admitted into the Heb. Canon.

Finally, the presence of an archaism is no more proof of'^ a very early date than the presence of an Arainaism would be proof of a very late date. We have to account for the one as well as for the other. 6. The evidence derived from the language ia corroborated by that which the religious teaching supplies.

(1) It has already been noticed that the emphasis laid upon the love of God is a feature almost unique (except for Ex 20) ; and it is generally believed that the prophet Hosea is the first ex- ponent of thi.s teaching. Dt ' builds upon the loundation of the prophets' (Driver). (2) Tlie ' niouotheism * of Dt is an expansion of the ' monolati'y ' of early Israel ; and the command to worship at a single sanctuary expresses in a con- crete form the conception of a mDnotheistic religion.

We are confronted with a. stage of religious thought which has been reached only after a long prepara- tory period of discipline and teaching. c. A comparison of the laws with those in Ex '20-23 shows that whereas the Deut. legis- lation is founded ujioii the laws of ' the Covenant,' and often repeats them almost verbatim, e.g.

14" = Ex 23'» 342«, 7" = Ex 34", and, as a rule, merely expands them with hortatory plinusc, in other cases Dt presents us witli a moilitication of tlie earlier law, showing a more advanced and humane civilization.

Thus comparing the law of release for bondservants in Dt 15''''" with the parallel law in Ex Zl-'-, we notice (1) that female slaves are included in the law of release, (2) that pro- vision is granted to the released slave so that he should not starve, (3) that the old custom of boring the ear is not required to be done publicly.

Similarly, in Dt 5 the institution of the sabbatio year is put in force to restrain the exactions of the usurer, whereas in Ex 23*" it had only an agricultural signilicance. 602 deutp:ronomy DEUTERONOMY d. The laws in Dt re{julatin;j national worship represent a later stage of Isr. history than those in Ex 20-23. This is consjncuously shown in regard to the place of sacrilice.

In Ex 2U- an Israelite may erect local altars: 'in every place where I record my name, I will come unto thee and bless thee.' The practice of sacrificing at local altars and shrines was apparently universal from the time of Joshua (Jos 2i^- ^, 18 7" 9'"" 103-8 Ills 1435 20», 2S IS"'^-") until the days of Hezekiah, who endeavoured to centralize all wor- ship at Jerus. as the one national sanctuary (2 K IS-'). The law of Dt insists (12'-'« etc.)

upon the necessity of sacrificing at one place which J" shall have chosen 'to set his name there.' It expresses in the terms of direct injunction the change for which Hezekiah contended and which Josiah finally carried into execution. e. It may be granted that the laws of worship in Dt are quite too incomplete to be regarded as containing any exhaustive account. Thus the precise dates for the Festivals of Passover and Tabernacles are not given.

In the former case the month is given, hut not the day ; in the latter case, neither month nor day. In the description of the Passover no direction is given that every- one should partake of it ; whUe the command to observe the 7th day of Passover as * a solemn assembly ' and a day of rest is not applied to the other two feasts.

But, making all allowance for the general and fragmentary character of the reliinous legislation in Dt, we cannot pretend to be able to reconcile the discrepancies between the law of Dt and that of the (so-called) Priestly Code. The most notable discrepancy b in reference to the status of the Levite, and the provision for his maintenance.

In Dt the regular expression ' the priests, the Levites ' (17'- '* U' 24' 27'), does not seem to recog- nize the distinctitn between 'the sons of Aaron' and ' the Levites,' which is found in the priestly laws.

The Levites are pictured as wanderers and objects of Israelite charity, for which special regula- tions are laid down (12""" 14"- «> 16"" 18" 26"- ") ; there is no reference to the provision in Nu 18 for the maintenance of priests and Levites, and in Nu 35 for the reservation of 48 cities for their place of residence. A complete difference is also expressed in the laws relating to firstlings and to tithes. In Dt 12«.i7ff. isiBir.

the firstlings are to be presented at the central sanctuary, and there eaten by the owner. In Nu 18" the firstlings are pronounced to belong to Aaron, ' And the flesh of them shall be thine ; as the wave-breast and as the right thigh it shall be thine.'

In Dt (12'™- 14*") it is enjoined that a tithe of the vegetable produce is to be set aside, and to be consumed by the offerer at the central sanctuary ; while, in every third year, the tithe is to be devoted to the poor or the destitute and the Levite.

In (his there is no resemblance to the tithe law of Nu IS''"* and Lv 27'- *", according to which the titlie was to be paid of animal as well as of vegetable produce ; it was to be paid to the Levites, who, in their turn, were enjoined to render a tenth to the priests. Another instance of ritual dkcrepancy is found in the description of the priestly dues.

In Dt 18'' the sacrificing priest received as his share ' the shoulder, two cheeks, and maw ' ; in Lv 7"-' ' the wave-breast ' and ' heave-thigh ' or shoulder are assigned to the priest. Added to this, there is the argument from silence, in that Dt makes no mention of the year of jubilee, the great Day of Atonement, the Levitical cities, the meal-offenng, guilt-ottering, or sin-ofl'ering, nor even of the tent of meeting (Dt 31''- is from JE).

And it is incredible to suppose that the Levitical system, if formulated as we have it in P, should have been so wholly overlooked in an address to the people. It is impossible to resist the impression that the law of Dt represents an expansion and develop- ment of tlie ancient code contained in Ex 20-23, and precedes the final formulation of the priestly ritual, which only received its ultimate form in the last period of revising the structure of the Pentateucn.

In order to approach more nearly the limits of time within which it is reasonable to suppose that Dt was composed, we may take into consideration the further possible indications of time, and judge of them not as individually convincing items of evidence, but as collectively carrying considerable weight. (a) It was written on the W. side of the Jordan ; cf. the use of ' beyond Jordan ' in Dt !'■ • 3' 441. 46. «. 4», as in Jos 2>» 7' etc. See Beyond.

(6) The law of the kingdom, 17""", is expressed in language indicating acquaintance with the evils of Solomon's rei^. (c) The law of the judicial tribunal in l?'' does not ordain a new institution, but describes a court already existing, and having a close resemblance to the one described in 2 Ch 19- " as appointed by Jehoshaphat.

(d) Isaiah, who speaks of the erection of an ' obelisk ' (mazzcbdh) for a sacred purpose in con- nexion with tiie worship of J" in Egypt, could hardly have been acquainted with the law of Dt 16^ 'Thou shalt not set thee up an obelisk, which J" thy God hateth.' (e) Dt refers to the worship of 'the host of heaven ' as a dangerous form of idolatry (4" 17').

We do not find in the historical books any men- tion of this superstition being a source of reli- gions temptation until the days of Ahaz ; see 2 K 23". (^ The style of Jeremiah's writing shows abund- ant traces 01 the influence of Dt. If we may take these hints together, we arrive at the probability of Dt having been composed during the period which intervenes between the accession of Ahaz and the literary activity of Jeremiah.

A terminus ad quern for the composition of Dt is supplied by the discovery of ' the book of the law ' in the 18th year of the reign of Josiah (B.C. 621). There can be no manner of doubt that this book corresponded to a work practically identical with the main portion of Dt (5-26. 28). This work contained denunciations and curses, such as are found in Dt 28 (cf. 2 K 22"- "• '») ; it contained mention of the covenant with J", with clear reference to Dt 28»» (cf. 2 K 23- » ^).

The reforms instituted by Josiah are such as would be required by conformity with the law of Dt, es^iecially in regard to the centralization of wor- ship, 2K 23'- •; the prohibition of the worship of the heavenly bodies, 2 K 23''- '■ " ; the prohibition of the high-places, obelLsks, Ash^rim, etc., 2 K 23* ». 14.

16 J tije prohibition of religious prostitutes, 2 K 23' ; the maintenance of the priests ejected from the local shrines, 2 K 23'- " ; the prohibition of Molecli worship, 2 K 23" ; the celebration of the Passover in Jerusalem ' as it is written in this book of the covenant,' 2 K 23""^ ; the ejection of diviners and consulters with familiar spirits, 2 K 23«. The finding of this ' book of the law ' in the temple is described as a fortuitous occurrence.

Tliere is no foundation for the suggestion that Hilkiah himself had written the boclk, and that the story of its finding was a fabrication. The account is straightforward and natural. It is DEUTEliO^■O.MY DEVOTION 603 generally agreed that tlie book may have been writton in tne reign of Manasseh, or in the early part of the reign of Josiah. Hezekiali, who had commanded all Isr. worship to be oil'ered at the sanctuary in Jerus. (2 K IS'^- 21'), commenced the policy of removin" the high-places.

Manasseh's reign reversed all Uiat Hezekiali had done. It is thought probable that the comiMJsition of Dt was intended, in the days of Manasseh, to protest against the religious evils of that time, against tlie forms of Buperatition that had begun to tind their way into Judah from Babylonia, as well as against the corruptions and disorders at the high- places which presented a form of J" worship wholly alien to the teaching and spirit of the prophets of Israel.

Such a work, written in the troublous reign of Manasseh, may well have been deposited for safety within the (.recincts of the temple. The descrip- tion of its discovery leads the reader to suppose that the book was one that liad been written some considerable time before the 18th year of Josiah's reign. The character of Dt agrees exactly with the spirit of Iluldah's warning in 2 K iJi'-", where she speaks of the people of Judah having forsaken J", and burned incense to other gods, etc.

The traditional view, that the work in its present form was written by Moses, is now generally recognized by critical scholarship as inipo.ssible. The fact that Moses is described in Dt 31'- ** as having committed the Deut. legislation to writ- ing, wa-s, in former times, regarded as sufhcient proof that the whole work came from hia hand. The writer (Dt 31') narrates the fact that Moses ' wrote this law ' ; he also narrates the fact that Moses delivered farewell discourses to the people.

There is no appearance of autobiography in Dt. Tliere is no claim to Mosaic authorship for the whole work. A copy of the Deut. law is stated (Dt 31-°) to have been committed by Mo.ses to the keeping of the priests ' by the side of the ark.' Ileb. laws went back to the founding of the nation under Moses. The name of Moses embraced the whole legislation, both in its earlier forms and in their later expansion and modilication.

The writer of Dt employed the nucleus of ancient law as the means of conveying the teaching needed by his time. The authority of Moses is invoked as impersonating the spirit of Isr. law in its later applicatiuii, no less than in its original framing. Aloses is made to plead with his people, and to show the abiding principles of the worship of J". The work is that of a prophet, a religious teacher, not of a jurist or a statesman.

In language, in thought, and in character, it is most easily under- stooiT as the composition of one who lived in the 7th cent., and who sought, by a ' dramatic ' use of the last words of Moses, to recall his countrymen to a holier life, and a purer service of J". It has been objected that the allusions to the dwellers in Canaan, and to the Amalekites (-'» eo"-'"), would be unintelligible and unnecessary at so late a period as tlie 7th cent. B.C.

But the writer's purpose is to transfer himself to the age of Moses, and from that hi-storic standpoint to appeal to the nation's conscience. If Mo.ses were reiiresented as speaking in the plains of Moab, it would he natural for the writer to make him refer to the C'anaan- ites, and to introduce suitable local allusions. And the writer's argument was perfectly intelli- gible.

If severity of the sternest kind was tradition- ally said to have been inculcated by Moses against the idolatrous inhabitants of the land, how much more waa it required in dealing with those who, in Israel itself, had proved so faitlilc-sa to J", in spite of the warnings of the pr()])hel8 ! It has been objected that the substance of Deut. laws is alluded to in writings earlier than the 7th t. B.C. Thus 1 S 28^ has been compared with 18", Hos 4" with Dt 23'», Hos S'" with Dt lU", cent.

Dt 18" Am 8' with Dt 25^ Neh 2' with Dt 1", while 2 K 14° refers to the law contained in Dt 24". But tliis line of objection assumes that the existence of the laws is contemporaneous with the composi- tion of Dt, and it ignores the fact, which criticisn has clearly revealed and strenuously reiterated, that Dt contains and expands laws of very much greater antiquity than its own composition.

In the following passages, in which the words of the prophetical writers have been regarded as referring to Dt, it is obvious that Dt, as well as the proiihets, refers back to the older law of Ex 20-23 :— U I"- 23 10»= Ex 2221, Dt 241'. „ JVS 623 = „ 2»9 „ 16"'. Am 28 = „ 22-» „ 24H. „ 5H = „ 230 „ 1610. There are, of course, in Dt abundant allusions to offerings {e.g. ch.

12), tithes (1422-28), distinctions of 'clean' and 'unclean' (12"- » H'"), the 'solemn assembly' (16), law of leprosy (24*), and kindred topics, which show the familiarity of Dt with the national religious observances ; they do not exhibit acquaintance with the distinctive ordinances of P, although reference to them is necessarily made with technical terms. Certain words and phrases have also been adduced from the prophetical WTiters, which it is alleged must have been taken from Dt, e.g.

Hos 5" oppressed from Dt 28^ ; 8" theij shall return to Egypt from Dt 28"'; 11* Admak and Zeboim from Dt 29^ ; Am 4" blasting and mildew from Dt 28, ; 4" overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah from Dt 29'^ ; 5' wormwood from Dt 29" etc. But the occurrence of such words and phrases is not sufficient to justify the claim for direct citation. They are expressions, most of them, which would guite naturally occur independently to the writers.

Nor is tliere any means of showing that there is more probability of these writers having borrowed a phrase from Dt than of Dt having borrowed a phrase from them. Considering the resemblance of Dt's style to the writing in Jer and Kings, it would be more natural to expect Dt to have borrowed from Hosea or Amos than for Hosea or Amos to have borrowed from Dt.

The Deuteronoinic style in Jer, Jos, Jg, Kings, shows at once the inlfueiicu of Dt; but there is no clear proof of the earlier prophets having been acquainted with Dt. LiTKRATU&R. — For a fuller discussion of the aubject the reader la referred to the admirable truatincnt of It by Driver, in his commentary on 'Deuteronomy' (Jntcniationai Critical Coin. mentdTy, T. k 1. Clarl<, EdinlmrKti). in his LOT, and in hia art.

' Deuteronomy ' in Smith's Visi; U) all of which the writer of the prcsLMit article is largely indebted. Other worl<9 deahng with the same subject, t<> which reference may bo made, are the commentaries of Octtli and Harper, and Einleitungen ot Kiehm, Comlll, KoniL'. Strack, Kuenen, Ilolzinger ; Cheyne, Jeremiah (•Men of the liible ' scries) ; W. U. Smith, OTJCi; Kyle, Caiwn of the OT; Montoflorc, lidifjion 0/ the Ancient UeUrewa ; Wildcboer, LU. d.A.T.

; Picpenbring, ' La Kctomio et le Codede josiaa,' in Revue d. tUittoiie det Itetigiom, t xxix. 1894. H. E. Kyle.