Book of Deuteronomy

דברים (Hebrew)

Words (Hebrew Title)

{doot - ur - ahn' - uh - mee}

General Information

Deuteronomy is the fifth book of the Old Testament in the Bible. Its name, meaning "repeated law," is based on the book's stylistic form: a series of speeches in which the law originally given on Mount Sinai is repeated by Moses to the next generation. The book consists of a double introduction, a legal section with concluding ritual elaboration, two old poems, and an account of Moses' death. Although it is traditionally ascribed to Moses, it could not have been written much earlier than the time of King Josiah (d. c. 609 BC). However, there was probably an earlier edition of the central legal section dating to the reign of Hezekiah (c. 700 BC). The principal themes of Deuteronomy include the election of Israel by God, trust in God's power, rejection of foreign gods, and the importance of the Mosaic law.

Text Font Face
.
Text Size
.
Background
Color
.
(for printing)
BELIEVE
Religious
Information
Source
web-site
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet Our List of 2,300 Religious Subjects
E-mail
J J M Roberts

Bibliography
L Goldberg, Deuteronomy (1986); A D Phillips, Deuteronomy (1973); M Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (1972).


Book of Deuteronomy

Brief Outline

  1. First discourse (1-4)
  2. Second discourse (5-26)
  3. Third discourse (27-30)
  4. Last counsels; parting blessings (31-34)


Deuteronomy

Advanced Information

In all the Hebrew manuscripts the Pentateuch (q.v.) forms one roll or volume divided into larger and smaller sections called parshioth and sedarim. It is not easy to say when it was divided into five books. This was probably first done by the Greek translators of the book, whom the Vulgate follows. The fifth of these books was called by the Greeks Deuteronomion, i.e., the second law, hence our name Deuteronomy, or a second statement of the laws already promulgated. The Jews designated the book by the two first Hebrew words that occur, 'Elle haddabharim, i.e., "These are the words." They divided it into eleven parshioth. In the English Bible it contains thirty-four chapters. It consists chiefly of three discourses delivered by Moses a short time before his death.

They were spoken to all Israel in the plains of Moab, in the eleventh month of the last year of their wanderings. The first discourse (1-4:40) recapitulates the chief events of the last forty years in the wilderness, with earnest exhortations to obedience to the divine ordinances, and warnings against the danger of forsaking the God of their fathers. The second discourse (5-26:19) is in effect the body of the whole book. The first address is introductory to it. It contains practically a recapitulation of the law already given by God at Mount Sinai, together with many admonitions and injunctions as to the course of conduct they were to follow when they were settled in Canaan.

The concluding discourse (ch. 27-30) relates almost wholly to the solemn sanctions of the law, the blessings to the obedient, and the curse that would fall on the rebellious. He solemnly adjures them to adhere faithfully to the covenant God had made with them, and so secure for themselves and their posterity the promised blessings. These addresses to the people are followed by what may be called three appendices, namely (1), a song which God had commanded Moses to write (32:1-47); (2) the blessings he pronounced on the separate tribes (ch.33); and (3) the story of his death (32:48-52) and burial (ch. 34), written by some other hand, probably that of Joshua. These farewell addresses of Moses to the tribes of Israel he had so long led in the wilderness "glow in each line with the emotions of a great leader recounting to his contemporaries the marvellous story of their common experience.

The enthusiasm they kindle, even to-day, though obscured by translation, reveals their matchless adaptation to the circumstances under which they were first spoken. Confidence for the future is evoked by remembrance of the past. The same God who had done mighty works for the tribes since the Exodus would cover their head in the day of battle with the nations of Palestine, soon to be invaded. Their great lawgiver stands before us, vigorous in his hoary age, stern in his abhorrence of evil, earnest in his zeal for God, but mellowed in all relations to earth by his nearness to heaven. The commanding wisdom of his enactments, the dignity of his position as the founder of the nation and the first of prophets, enforce his utterances. But he touches our deepest emotions by the human tenderness that breathes in all his words.

Standing on the verge of life, he speaks as a father giving his parting counsels to those he loves; willing to depart and be with God he has served so well, but fondly lengthening out his last farewell to the dear ones of earth. No book can compare with Deuteronomy in its mingled sublimity and tenderness." Geikie, Hours, etc. The whole style and method of this book, its tone and its peculiarities of conception and expression, show that it must have come from one hand.

That the author was none other than Moses is established by the following considerations: (1.) The uniform tradition both of the Jewish and the Christian Church down to recent times. (2.) The book professes to have been written by Moses (1:1; 29:1; 31:1, 9-11, etc.), and was obviously intended to be accepted as his work. (3.) The incontrovertible testimony of our Lord and his apostles (Matt. 19:7, 8; Mark 10:3, 4; John 5:46, 47; Acts 3:22; 7:37; Rom. 10:19) establishes the same conclusion. (4.) The frequent references to it in the later books of the canon (Josh. 8:31; 1 Kings 2:9; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chr. 23:18; 25:4; 34: 14; Ezra 3:2; 7:6; Neh. 8:1; Dan. 9: 11, 13) prove its antiquity; and (5) the archaisms found in it are in harmony with the age in which Moses lived. (6.) Its style and allusions are also strikingly consistent with the circumstances and position of Moses and of the people at that time. This body of positive evidence cannot be set aside by the conjectures and reasonings of modern critics, who contended that the book was somewhat like a forgery, introduced among the Jews some seven or eight centuries after the Exodus.

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)


Deuteronomy

Catholic Information

Deuteronomy is a partial repetition and explanation of the foregoing legislation together with an urgent exhortation to be faithful to it. The main body of the book consists of three discourses delivered by Moses to the people in the eleventh month of the fortieth year; but the discourses are precede by a short introduction, and they are followed by several appendices.

Introduction, i, 1-5.-Brief indication of the subject matter, the time, and the place of the following discourses.

(1) First Discourse, i, 6-iv, 40.-God's benefits are enumerated, and the people are exhorted to keep the law.

(a) i, 6-iii, 29.-The main occurrences during the time of the wandering in the desert are recalled as showing the goodness and justice of God.

(b) iv, 1-40.-Hence the covenant with God must be kept. By way of parenthesis, the sacred writer adds here (i) the appointment of three cities of refuge across the Jordan, iv, 41-43; (ii) an historical preamble, preparing us for the second discourse, iv, 44-49.

(2) Second Discourse, v, 1-xxvi, 19.-This forms almost the bulk of Deuteronomy. It rehearses the whole economy of the covenant in two sections, the one general, the other particular.

(a) The General Repetition, v, 1-xi, 32.-Repetition of the decalogue, and reasons for the promulgation of the law through Moses; explanation of the first commandment, and prohibitions of all intercourse with the gentiles; reminder of the Divine favours and punishments; promise of victory over the Chanaanites; God's blessing on the observance of the Law, His curse on the transgressors.

(b) Special Laws, xii, 1-xxvi, 19.-(i) Duties towards God: He is to be duly worshiped, never to be abandoned; distinction of clean and unclean meats; tithes and first-fruits; the three principal solemnities of the year. (ii) Duties towards God's representatives: toward the judges, the future kings, the priests, and Prophets. (iii) Duties towards the neighbour: as to life, external possessions, marriage, and various other particulars.

(3) Third Discourse, xxvii, 1-xxx, 20.-A renewed exhortation to keep the law, based on diverse reasons.

(a) xxvii, 1-26.-Command to inscribe the law on stones after crossing the Jordan, and to promulgate the blessings and curses connected with the observance or non-observance of the law.

(b) xxviii, 1-68.-A more minute statement of the good or evil depending on the observance or violation of the law.

(c) xxix, 1-xxx, 20.-The goodness of God is extolled; all are urged to be faithful to God.

(4) Historical Appendix, xxxi, 1-xxxiv, 12.

(a) xxxi, 1-27.-Moses appoints Josue as his successor, orders him to read the law to the people every seven years, and to place a copy of the same in the ark.

(b) xxxi, 28-xxxii, 47.-Moses calls an assembly of the Ancients and recites his canticle.

(c) xxxii, 48-52.-Moses views the Promised Land from a distance.

(d) xxxiii, 1-29.-He blesses the tribes of Israel.

(e) xxxiv, 1-12.-His death, burial, and special eulogium.

III. AUTHENTICITY

The contents of the Pentateuch furnish the basis for the history, the law, the worship, and the life of the Chosen People of God. Hence the authorship of the work, the time and manner of its origin, and its historicity are of paramount importance. These are not merely literary problems, but questions belonging to the fields of history of religion and theology. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is inseparably connected with the question, whether and in what sense Moses was the author or intermediary of the Old-Testament legislation, and the bearer of pre-Mosaic tradition. According to the trend of both Old and New Testament, and according to Jewish and Christian theology, the work of the great lawgiver Moses is the origin of the history of Israel and the basis of its development down to the time of Jesus Christ; but modern criticism sees in all this only the result, or the precipitate, of a purely natural historical development. The question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch leads us, therefore, to the alternative, revelation or historical evolution; it touches the historical and theological foundation of both the Jewish and the Christian dispensation. We shall consider the subject first in the light of Scripture; secondly, in the light of Jewish and Christian tradition; thirdly, in the light of internal evidence, furnished by the Pentateuch; finally, in the light of ecclesiastical decisions.

A. TESTIMONY OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

It will be found convenient to divide the Biblical evidence for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch into three parts: (1) Testimony of the Pentateuch;

(2) Testimony of the other Old-Testament books; (3) Testimony of the New Testament.

(1) Witness of the Pentateuch

The Pentateuch in its present form does not present itself as a complete literary production of Moses. It contains an account of Moses' death, it tells the story of his life in the third person and in an indirect form, and the last four books do not exhibit the literary form of memoirs of the great lawgiver; besides, the expression "God said to Moses" shows only the Divine origin of the Mosaic laws but does not prove that Moses himself codified in the Pentateuch the various laws promulgated by him. On the other hand, the Pentateuch ascribes to Moses the literary authorship of at least four sections, partly historical, partly legal, partly poetical. (a) After Israel's victory over the Amalecites near Raphidim, the Lord said to Moses (Exodus 17:14): "Write this for a memorial in a book, and deliver it to the ears of Josue." This order is naturally restricted to Amalec's defeat, a benefit which God wished to keep alive in the memory of the people (Deuteronomy 25:17-19). The present pointing of the Hebrew text reads "in the book", but the Septuagint version omits the definite article. Even if we suppose that the Massoretic pointing gives the original text, we can hardly prove that the book referred to is the Pentateuch, though this is highly probable (cf. von Hummelauer "Exodus et Leviticus", Paris, 1897, p. 182; Idem, "Deuteronomium", Paris, 1901, p. 152; Kley, "Die Pentateuchfrage", Munster, 1903, p. 217). (b) Again, Ex., xxiv, 4: "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord." The context does not allow us to understand these words in an indefinite manner, but as referring to the words of the Lord immediately preceding or to the so-called "Book of the Covenant", Ex., xx-xxiii. (c) Ex., xxxiv, 27: "And the Lord said to Moses: Write thee these words by which I have made a covenant both with thee and with Israel." The next verse adds: "and he wrote upon the tables the ten words of the covenant." Ex., xxxiv, 1, 4, shows how Moses had prepared the tables, and Ex., xxxiv, 10-26, gives us the contents of the ten words. (d) Num., xxxiii, 1-2: "These are the mansions of the children of Israel, who went out of Egypt by their troops under the conduct of Moses and Aaron, which Moses wrote down according to the places of their encamping." Here we are informed that Moses wrote the list of the people's encampments in the desert; but where it this list to be found? Most probably it is given in Num., xxxiii, 3-49, or the immediate context of the passage telling of Moses' literary activity; there are, however, scholars who understand this latter passage as referring to the history of Israel's departure from Egypt written in the order of the people's encampments, so that it would be our present Book of Exodus. But this view is hardly probable; for its assumption that Num., xxxiii, 3-49, is a summary of Exodus cannot be upheld, as the chapter of Numbers mentions several encampments not occurring in Exodus.

Besides these four passages there are certain indications in Deuteronomy which point to the literary activity of Moses. Deut., i, 5: "And Moses began to expound the law and to say"; even if the "law" in this text refer to the whole of the Pentateuchal legislation, which is not very probable, it shows only that Moses promulgated the whole law, but not that he necessarily wrote it. Practically the entire Book of Deuteronomy claims to be a special legislation promulgated by Moses in the land of Moab: iv, 1-40; 44-49; v, 1 sqq.; xii, 1 sqq. But there is a suggestion of writing too: xvii, 18-9, enjoins that the future kings are to receive a copy of this law from the priests in order to read and observe it; xxvii, 1-8, commands that on the west side of the Jordan "all the words of this law" be written on stones set up in Mount Hebal; xxviii, 58, speaks of "all the words of this law, that are written in this volume" after enumerating the blessings and curses which will come upon the observers and violators of the law respectively, and which are again referred to as written in a book in xxix, 20, 21, 27, and xxxii, 46, 47; now, the law repeatedly referred to as written in a book must be at least the Deuteronomic legislation. Moreover, xxxi, 9-13 states, "and Moses wrote this law", and xxxi, 26, adds, "take this book, and put it in the side of the ark. . .that it may be there for a testimony against thee"; to explain these texts as fiction or as anachronisms is hardly compatible with the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. Finally, xxxi, 19, commands Moses to write the canticle contained in Deut., xxxii, 1-43.

The Scriptural scholar will not complain that there are so few express indications in the Pentateuch of Moses' literary activity; he will rather be surprised at their number. As far as explicit testimony for its own, at least partial, authorship is concerned, the Pentateuch compares rather favourably with many other books of the Old Testament.

(2) Witness of other Old-Testament Books

(a) Josue.-The narrative of the Book of Josue presupposes not merely the facts and essential ordinances contained in the Pentateuch, but also the law given by Moses and written in the book of the law of Moses: Jos., i, 7-8; viii, 31; xxii, 5; xxiii, 6. Josue himself "wrote all these things in the volume of the law of the Lord" (xxiv, 26). Prof. Hobverg maintains that this "volume of the law of the Lord" is the Pentateuch ("Über den Ursprung des Pentateuchs" in "Biblische Zeitschrift", 1906, IV, 340); Mangenot believes that it refers at least to Deuteronomy (Dict. de la Bible, V, 66). At any rate, Josue and his contemporaries were acquainted with a written Mosaic legislation, which was divinely revealed.

(b) Judges; I, II Kings.-In the Book of Judges and the first two Books of Kings there is no explicit reference to Moses and the book of the law, but a number of incidents and statements presuppose the existence of the Pentateuchal legislation and institutions. Thus Judges, xv, 8-10, recalls Israel's delivery from Egypt and its conquest of the Promised Land; Judges, xi, 12-28, states incidents recorded in Num., xx, 14; xxi, 13,24; xxii, 2; Judges, xiii, 4, states a practice founded on the law of the Nazarites in Num., vi, 1-21; Judges, xviii, 31, speaks of the tabernacle existing in the times when there was no king in Israel; Judges, xx, 26-8 mentions the ark of the covenant, the various kinds of sacrifices, and the Aaronic priesthood. The Pentateuchal history and laws are similarly presupposed in 1 Samuel 10:18; 15:1-10; 10:25; 21:1-6; 22:6 sqq.; 23:6-9; 2 Samuel 6.

(c) 1 and 2 Kings.-The last two Books of Kings repeatedly speak of the law of Moses. To restrict the meaning of this term to Deuteronomy is an arbitrary exegesis (cf. 1 Kings 2:3; 10:31); Amasias showed mercy to the children of the murderers "according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses" (2 Kings 14:6); the sacred writer records the Divine promise of protecting the Israelites "Only if they will observe to do all that I have commanded them according to the law which my servant Moses commanded them" (2 Kings 21:8). In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josias was found the book of the law (2 Kings 22:8, 11), or the book of the covenant (2 Kings 23:2), according to which he conducted his religious reform (2 Kings 23:10-24), and which is identified with "the law of Moses" (2 Kings 23:25). Catholic commentators are not at one whether this law-book was Deuteronomy (von Hummelauer, "Deuteronomium", Paris, 1901, p. 40-60, 83-7) or the entire Pentateuch (Clair, "Les livres des Rois", Paris, 1884, II, p. 557 seq.; Hoberg, "Moses und der Pentateuch", Frieburg, 1905, p. 17 seq.; "uber den Ursprung des Pentateuchs" in "Biblische Zeitschrift", 1906, IV, pp. 338-40).

(d) Paralipomenon.-The inspired writer of Paralipomenon refers to the law and the book of Moses much more frequently and clearly. The objectionable names and numbers occurring in these books are mostly due to transcribers. The omission of incidents which would detract from the glory of the Israelite kings or would not edify the reader is not detrimental to the credibility or veracity of the work. Otherwise one should have to place among works of fiction a number of biographical or patriotic publications intended for the young or for the common reader. On their part, the modern critics are too eager to discredit the authority of Paralipomena. "After removing the account of Paralipomena", writes de Wette (Beitrage, I, 135), "the whole Jewish history assumes another form, and the Pentateuchal investigations take another turn; a number of strong proofs, hard to explain away, for the early existence of the Mosaic books have disappeared, the other vestiges of their existence are placed in a different light." A glance at the contents of Parlipomenon suffices to explain the efforts of de Witte and Wellhausen to disprove the historicity of the books. Not only are the genealogies (1 Chronicles 1-9) and the descriptions of worship traced after the data and laws of the Pentateuch, but the sacred writer expressly points out their conformity with what is written in the law of the Lord (1 Chronicles 16:40), in the law of Moses (2 Chronicles 23:18; 31:3), thus identifying the law of the Lord with that written by Moses (cf. 2 Chronicles 25:4). The reader will find similar indications of the existence and the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch in I Par., xxii, 12 seq.; II Par., xvii, 9; xxxiii, 4; xxxiv, 14; xxv, 12. By an artificial interpretation, indeed, the Books of Paralipomenon may be construed to represent the Pentateuch as a book containing the law promulgated by Moses; but the natural sense of the foregoing passages regards the Pentateuch as a book edited by Moses.

(e) I, II Esdras.-The Books of Esdras and Nehemias, too, taken in their natural and commonly accepted sense, consider the Pentateuch as the book of Moses, not merely as a book containing the law of Moses. This contention is based on the study of the following texts: I Esd., iii, 2 sqq.; vi, 18; vii, 14; II Esd., i, 7 sqq.; viii, 1, 8, 14; ix, 3; x, 34, 36; xiii, 1-3. Graf and his followers expressed the view that the book of Moses referred to in these texts is not the Pentateuch, but only the Priestly Code; but when we keep in mind that the book in question contained the laws of Lev., xxiii, and Deut., vii, 2-4; xv, 2, we perceive at once that the book of Moses cannot be restricted to the Priestly Code. To the witness of the historical books we may add II Mach., ii, 4; vii, 6; Judith, viii, 23; Ecclus., xxiv, 33; xlv, 1-6; xlv, 18, and especially the Preface of Ecclus.

(f) Prophetic Books.-Express reference to the written law of Moses is found only in the later Prophets: Bar., ii, 2, 28; Dan., ix, 11, 13; Mal., iv, 4. Among these, Baruch knows that Moses has been commanded to write the law, and though his expressions run parallel to those of Deut., xxviii, 15, 53, 62-64, his threats contain allusions to those contained in other parts of the Pentateuch. The other Prophets frequently refer to the law of the Lord guarded by the priests (cf. Deuteronomy 31:9), and they put it on the same level with Divine Revelation and the eternal covenant of the Lord. They appeal to God's covenant, the sacrificial laws the calendar of feasts, and other laws of the Pentateuch in such a way as to render it probable that a written legislation formed the basis of their prophetic admonitions (cf. Hosea 8:12), and that they were acquainted with verbal expressions of the book of the law. Thus in the northern kingdom Amos (iv, 4-5; v, 22 sqq.) and Isaias in the south (i, 11 sqq.) employ expressions which are practically technical words for sacrifice occurring in Lev., i-iii; vii, 12, 16; and Deut., xii, 6.

(3) Witness of the New Testament

We need not show that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the whole of the Pentateuch as written by Moses. If they attributed to Moses all the passages which they happen to cite, if they ascribe the Pentateuch to Moses whenever there is question of its authorship, even the most exacting critics must admit that they express their conviction that the work was indeed written by Moses. When the Sadducees quote against Jesus the marriage law of Deut., xxv, 5, as written by Moses (Matthew 22:24; Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28), Jesus does not deny the Mosaic authorship, but appeals to Ex., iii, 6, as equally written by Moses (Mark 12:26; Matthew 22:31; Luke 20:37). Again, in the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16:29), He speaks of "Moses and the prophets", while on other occasions He speaks of "the law and the prophets" (Luke 16:16), thus showing that in His mind the law, or the Pentateuch, and Moses are identical. The same expressions reappear in the last discourse addressed by Christ to His disciples (Luke 24:44-6; cf. 27): "which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me". Finally, in John, v, 45-7, Jesus is more explicit in asserting the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch: "There is one that accuseth you, Moses. . .for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" Nor can it be maintained that Christ merely accommodated himself to the current beliefs of his contemporaries who considered Moses as the author of the Pentateuch not merely in a moral but also in the literary sense of authorship. Jesus did not need to enter into the critical study of the nature of Mosaic authorship, but He could not expressly endorse the popular belief, if it was erroneous.

The Apostles too felt convinced of, and testified to, the Mosaic authorship. "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him: We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write." St. Peter introduces a quotation from Deut., xviii, 15, with the words: "For Moses said" (Acts 3:22). St. James and St. Paul relate that Moses is read in the synagogues on the Sabbath day (Acts 15:21; 2 Corinthians 3:15). The great Apostle speaks in other passages of the law of Moses (Acts 13:33; 1 Corinthians 9:9); he preaches Jesus according to the law of Moses and the Prophets (Acts 28:23), and cites passages from the Pentateuch as words written by Moses (Romans 10:5-8; 19). St. John mentions the canticle of Moses (Revelation 15:3).

B. WITNESS OF TRADITION

The voice of tradition, both Jewish and Christian, is so unanimous and constant in proclaiming the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch that down to the seventeenth century it did not allow the rise of any serious doubt. The following paragraphs are only a meagre outline of this living tradition.

(1) Jewish Tradition

It has been seen that the books of the Old Testament, beginning with those of the Pentateuch, present Moses as the author of at least parts of the Pentateuch. The writer of the Books of Kings believes that Moses is the author of Deuteronomy at least. Esdras, Nehemias, Malachias, the author of Paralipomena, and the Greek authors of the Septuagint Version consider Moses as the author of the whole Pentateuch. At the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles friend and foe take the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch for granted; neither our Lord nor His enemies take exception to this assumption. In the first century of the Christian era, Josephus ascribes to Moses the authorship of the entire Pentateuch, not excepting the account of the lawgiver's death ("Antiq. Jud.", IV, viii, 3-48; cf. I Procem., 4; "Contra Apion.", I, 8). The Alexandrian philosopher Philo is convinced that the entire Pentateuch is the work of Moses, and that the latter wrote a prophetic account of his death under the influence of a special divine inspiration ("De vita Mosis", ll. II, III in "Opera", Geneva, 1613, pp. 511, 538). The Babylonian Talmud ("Baba-Bathra", II, col. 140; "Makkoth", fol. IIa; "Menachoth", fol. 30a; cf. Vogue, "Hist. de la Bible et de l'exegese biblique jusqua'a nos jours", Paris, 1881, p. 21), the Talmud of Jerusalem (Sota, v, 5), the rabbis, and the doctors of Israel (cf. Furst, "Der Kanon des Alten Testaments nach den Überlieferungen im Talmud und Midrasch", Leipzig, 1868, pp. 7-9) bear testimony to the continuance of this tradition for the first thousand years. Though Isaac ben Jasus in the eleventh century and Abenesra in the twelfth admitted certain post-Mosaic additions in the Pentateuch, still they as well as Maimonides upheld its Mosaic authorship, and did not substantially differ in this point from the teaching of R. Becchai (thirteenth cent.), Joseph Karo, and Abarbanel (fifteenth cent.; cf. Richard Simon, "Critique de la Bibl. des aut. eccles. de E. Dupin", Paris, 1730, III, pp. 215-20). Only in the seventeenth century, Baruch Spinoza rejected the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, pointing out the possibility that the work might have been written by Esdras ("Tract. Theol.-politicus", c. viii, ed. Tauchnitz, III, p. 125). Among the more recent Jewish writers several have adopted the results of the critics, thus abandoning the tradition of their forefathers.

(2) Christian Tradition

The Jewish tradition concerning the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was brought in to the Christian Church by Christ Himself and the Apostles. No one will seriously deny the existence and continuance of such a tradition from the patristic period onward; one might indeed be curious about the interval between the time of the Apostles and beginning of the third century. For this period we may appeal to the "Epistle of Barnabus" (x, 1-12; Funk, "Patres apostol.", 2nd ed., Tübingen, 1901, I, p. 66-70; xii, 2-9k; ibid., p. 74-6), to St. Clement of Rome (1 Corinthians 41:1; ibid., p. 152), St. Justin ("Apol. I", 59; P. G., VI, 416; I, 32, 54; ibid., 377, 409; "Dial.", 29; ibid., 537), to the author of "Cohort. Ad Graec." (9, 28, 30, 33, 34; ibid., 257, 293, 296-7, 361), to St. Theophilus ("Ad Autol.", III, 23; ibid., 1156; 11, 30; ibid., 1100), to St. Irenæus (Cont. haer., I, ii, 6; P.G., VII, 715-6), to St. Hippolytus of Rome ("Comment. In Deut.", xxxi, 9, 31, 35; cf. Achelis, "Arabische Fragmente etc.", Leipzig, 1897, I, 118; "Philosophumena", VIII, 8; X, 33; P.G., XVI, 3350, 3448), to Tertullian of Carthage (Adv. Hermog., XIX; P. L., II, 214), to Origen of Alexandria (Contra. Cels., III, 5-6; P. G., XI, 928; etc.), to St. Eusthatius of Antioch (De engastrimytha c. Orig., 21; P.G., XVIII, 656); for all these writers, and others might be added, bear witness to the continuance of the Christian tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. A list of the later Fathers who bear witness to the same truth may be found in Mangenot's article in the "Dict. de la Bible" (V, 74 seq.). Hoberg (Moses und der Pentateuch, 72 seq.) has collected the testimony for the existence of the tradition during the Middle Ages and in more recent times.

But Catholic tradition does not necessarily maintain that Moses wrote every letter of the Pentateuch as it is today, and that the work has come down to us in an absolutely unchanged form. This rigid view of the Mosaic authorship began to develop in the eighteenth century, and practically gained the upper hand in the nineteenth. The arbitrary treatment of Scripture on the part of Protestants, and the succession of the various destructive systems advanced by Biblical criticism, caused this change of front in the Catholic camp. In the sixteenth century Card. Bellarmine, who may be considered as a reliable exponent of Catholic tradition, expressed the opinion that Esdras had collected, readjusted, and corrected the scattered parts of the Pentateuch, and had even added the parts necessary for the completion of the Pentateuchal history (De verbo Dei, II, I; cf. III, iv). The views of Génebrard, Pereira, Bonfrere, a Lapide, Masius, Jansenius, and of other notable Biblicists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are equally elastic with regard to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Not that they agree with the contentions of our modern Biblical criticism; but they show that today's Pentateuchal problems were not wholly unknown to Catholic scholars, and that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch as determined by the Biblical Commission is no concession forced on the Church by unbelieving Bible students.

C. VOICE OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE

The possibility of producing a written record at the time of Moses is no longer contested. The art of writing was known long before the time of the great lawgiver, and was extensively practised both in Egypt and Babylon. As to the Israelites, Flinders Petrie infers from certain Semitic inscriptions found in 1905 on the Sinaitic peninsula, that they kept written accounts of their national history from the time of their captivity under Ramses II. The Tell-el-Amarna tablets show the language of Babylon was in a way the official language at the time of Moses, known in Western Asia, Palestine, and Egypt; the finds of Taanek have confirmed this fact. But it cannot be inferred from this that the Egyptians and Israelites employed this sacred or official language among themselves and in their religious documents (cf. Benzinger, "Hebraische Archaologie", 2nd ed., Tübingen, 1907, p. 172 sqq.). It is not merely the possibility of writing at the time of Moses and the question of language that confronts us here; there is the further problem of the kind of written signs used in the Mosaic documents. The hieroglyphic and cuneiform signs were widely employed at that early date; the oldest inscriptions written in alphabetical characters date only from the ninth century B.C. But there can hardly be any doubt as to the higher antiquity of alphabetic writing, and there seems to be nothing to prevent our extending it back to the time of Moses. Finally, the Code of Hammurabi, discovered in Susa in 1901 by the French expedition funded by Mr. And Mrs. Dieulafoy, shows that even in pre-Mosaic times legal enactments were committed to, and preserved in, writing; for the Code antedates Moses some five centuries, and contains about 282 regulations concerning various contingencies in the civic life.

Thus far it has been shown negatively that an historic and legal document claiming to be written at the time of Moses involves no antecedent improbability of its authenticity. But the internal characteristics of the Pentateuch show also positively that the work is at least probably Mosaic. It is true that the Pentateuch contains no express declaration of its entire Mosaic authorship; but even the most exacting of critics will hardly require such testimony. It is practically lacking in all other books, whether sacred or profane. On the other hand, it has already been shown that four distinct passages of the Pentateuch are expressly ascribed to the authorship of Moses. Deut., xxxi, 24-9, is especially noted; for it knows that Moses wrote the "words of this law in a volume" and commanded it to be placed in the ark of the covenant as a testimony against the people who have been so rebellious during the lawgiver's life and will "do wickedly" after his death. Again, a number of legal sections, though not explicitly ascribed to the writing of Moses, are distinctly derived from Moses as the lawgiver. Besides, many of the Pentateuchal laws bear evidence of their origin in the desert; hence they too lay an indirect claim to Mosaic origin. What has been said of a number of Pentateuchal laws is equally true of several historical sections. These contain in the Book of Numbers, for instance, so many names and numbers that they must have been handed down in writing. Unless the critics can bring irrefutable evidence showing that in these sections we have only fiction, they must grant that these historical details were written down in contemporary documents, and not transmitted by mere oral tradition. Moreover, Hommel ("Die altisraelitische Überlieferung in inschriftlicher Beleuchtung", p. 302) has shown that the names in the lists of the Book of Numbers bear the character of the Arabian names of the second millennium before Christ, and can have originated only in the time of Moses, though it must be admitted that the text of certain portions, e.g., Num., xiii, has suffered in its transmission. We need not remind the reader that numerous Pentateuchal laws and data imply the conditions of a nomadic life of Israel. Finally, both the author of the Pentateuch and its first readers must have been more familiar with the topography and the social conditions of Egypt and with the Sinaitic peninsula than with the land of Chanaan. Cf., e.g., Deut., viii, 7-10; xi, 10 sqq. These internal characteristics of the Pentateuch have been developed at greater length by Smith, "The Book of Moses or the Pentateuch in its Authorship, Credibility, and Civilisation", London, 1868; Vigouroux, "La Bible et les decouvertes modernes", 6th ed., Paris, 1896, I, 453-80; II, 1-213, 529-47, 586-91; Idem, "Les Livres Saints et la critique rationaliste", Paris, 1902, III, 28-46, 79-99, 122-6; Heyes, "Bibel und Ægypten", Munster, 1904, p. 142; Cornely, "Introductio specialis in histor. Vet. Test. libros", I, Paris, 1887, pp. 57-60; Poole, "Ancient Egypt" in "Contemporary Review", March, 1879, pp. 757-9.

D. ECCLESIASTICAL DECISIONS

In accordance with the voice of the triple argument thus far advanced for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the Biblical Commission on 27 June, 1906, answered a series of questions concerning this subject in the following way:

(1) The arguments accumulated by the critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the sacred books designated by the name Pentateuch are not of such weight as to give us the right, after setting aside numerous passages of both Testaments taken collectively, the continuous consensus of the Jewish people, the constant tradition of the Church, and internal indications derived from the text itself, to maintain that these books have not Moses as their author, but are compiled from sources for the greatest part later than the Mosaic age.

(2) The Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch does not necessarily require such a redaction of the whole work as to render it absolutely imperative to maintain that Moses wrote all and everything with his own hand or dictated it to his secretaries; the hypothesis of those can be admitted who believe that he entrusted the composition of the work itself, conceived by him under the influence of Divine inspiration, to others, but in such a way that they were to express faithfully his own thoughts, were to write nothing against his will, were to omit nothing; and that finally the work thus produced should be approved by the same Moses, its principal and inspired author, and published under his name.

(3) It may be granted without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch, that Moses employed sources in the production of his work, i.e., written documents or oral traditions, from which he may have drawn a number of things in accordance with the end he had in view and under the influence of Divine inspiration, and inserted them in his work either literally or according to their sense, in an abbreviated or amplified form.

(4) The substantial Mosaic authenticity and integrity of the Pentateuch remains intact if it be granted that in the long course of centuries the work has suffered several modifications, as; post-Mosaic additions either appended by an inspired author or inserted into the text as glosses and explanations; the translation of certain words and forms out of an antiquated language into the recent form of speech; finally, wrong readings due to the fault of transcribers, which one may investigate and pass sentence on according to the laws of criticism.

The post-Mosaic additions and modifications allowed by the Biblical Commission in the Pentateuch without removing it from the range of substantial integrity and Mosaic authenticity are variously interpreted by Catholic scholars.

(1) We should have to understand them in a rather wide sense, if we were to defend the views of von Hummelauer or Vetter. This latter writer admits legal and historical documents based on Mosaic tradition, but written only in the times of the Judges; he places the first redaction of the Pentateuch in the time of the erection of Solomon's temple, and its last redaction in the time of Esdras. Vetter died in 1906, the year in which the Biblical Commission issued the above Decree; it is an interesting question, whether and how the scholar would have modified his theory, if time had been granted him to do so.

(2) A less liberal interpretation of the Decree is implied in the Pentateuchal hypotheses advanced by Hobert ("Moses und der Pentateuch; Die Pentateuch Frage" in "Biblische Studien", X, 4, Freiburg, 1907; "Erklarung des Genesis", 1908, Freiburg, I-L), Schopfer (Geschichte des Alten Testamentes, 4th ed., 226 sqq.), Hopfl ("Die hohere Bibelkritik", 2nd ed., Paderborn, 1906), Brucker ("L'eglise et la critique", Paris, 1907, 103 sqq.), and Selbst (Schuster and Holzammer's "Handbuch zur Biblischen Geschichte", 7th ed., Freiburg, 1910, II, 94, 96). The last-named writer believes that Moses left a written law-book to which Josue and Samuel added supplementary sections and regulations, while David and Solomon supplied new statutes concerning worship and priesthood, and other kings introduced certain religious reforms, until Esdras promulgated the whole law and made it the basis of Israel's restoration after the Exile. Our present Pentateuch is, therefore, an Esdrine edition of the work. Dr. Selbst feels convinced that his admission of both textual changes and material additions in the Pentateuch agrees with the law of historical development and with the results of literary criticism. Historical development adapts laws and regulations to the religious, civil, and social conditions of successive ages, while literary criticism discovers in our actual Pentateuch peculiarities of words and phrases which can hardly have been original, and also historical additions or notices, legal modifications, and signs of more recent administration of justice and of later forms of worship. But Dr. Selbst believes that these peculiarities do not offer a sufficient basis for a distinction of different sources in the Pentateuch.

(3) A strict interpretation of the words of the Decree is implied in the views of Kaulen (Einleitung, n. 193 sqq.), Key ("Die Pentateuchfrage, ihre Geschichte un ihre System", Munster, 1903), Flunk (Kirchenlexicon, IX, 1782 sqq.), and Mangenot ("L'authenticite mosaique du Pentateuque", Paris, 1907; Idem, "Dict. de la Bible", V, 50-119. With the exception of those portions that belong to the time after the death of Moses, and of certain accidental changes of the text due to transcribers, the whole of the Pentateuch is the work of Moses who composed the work in one of the ways suggested by the Biblical Commission. Finally, there is the question as the theological certainty of the thesis maintaining the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch.

(1) Certain Catholic scholars who wrote between 1887 and 1906 expressed their opinion that the thesis in question is not revealed in Scripture nor taught by the Church; that it expresses a truth not contained in Revelation, but a tenet which may be freely contested and discussed. At that time, ecclesiastical authority had issued no pronouncement on the question.

(2) Other writers grant that the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is not explicitly revealed, but they consider it as a truth revealed formally implicitly, being derived from the revealed formulae not by a syllogism in the strict sense of the word, but by a simple explanation of the terms. The denial of the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is an error, and the contradictory of the thesis maintaining the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch is considered erronea in fide (cf. Mechineau, "L'origine mosaique du Pentateuque", p. 34).

(3) A third class of scholars considers the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch neither as a freely debatable tenet, nor as a truth formally implicitly revealed; they believe it has been virtually revealed, or that it is inferred from revealed truth by truly syllogistic deduction. It is, therefore, a theologically certain truth, and its contradictory is a rash (temeraria) or even erroneous proposition (cf. Brucker, "Authenticite des livres de Moise" in "Etudes", March, 1888, p. 327; ibid., January, 1897, p. 122-3; Mangenot, "L'authenticité mosaïque du Pentateuque", pp. 267-310.

Whatever effect the ecclesiastical decision concerning the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch may have had, or will have, on the opinion of students of the Pentateuchal question, it cannot be said to have occasioned the conservative attitude of scholars who wrote before the promulgation of the Decree. The following list contains the names of the principal recent defenders of Mosaic authenticity: Hengstenberg, "Die Bucher Moses und Aegypten", Berlin, 1841; Smith, "The Book of Moses or the Pentateuch in its Authorship, Credibility, and Civilisation", London, 1868; C. Schobel, "Demonstration de l'authenticite du Deuteronome", Paris, 1868; Idem, "Demonstration de l'authenticite mosaique de l'Exode", Paris, 1871; Idem, "Demonstration de l'authenticite mosaique du Levitique et des Nombres", Paris, 1869; Idem, "Demonstration de l'authenticite de la Genese", Paris, 1872; Idem, "Le Moise historique et la redaction mosaique du Pentateuque", Paris, 1875; Knabenbauer, "Der Pentateuch und die unglaubige Bibelkritik" in "Stimmen aus Maria-Laach", 1873, IV; Bredenkamp, "Gesetz und Propheten", Erlangen, 1881; Green, "Moses and the Prophets", New York, 1883; Idem, "The Hebrew Feasts", New York, 1885; Idem, "The Pentateuchal Question" in "Hebraica", 1889-92; Idem, "The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch", New York, 1895; Idem, "The Unity of the Book of Genesis", New York, 1895; C. Elliot, "Vindication of the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch", Cincinnati, 1884; Bissel, "The Pentateuch, its Origin and Structure", New York, 1885; Ubaldi, "Introductio in Sacram Scripturam", 2nd ed., Rome, 1882, I, 452- 509; Cornely, "Introductio specialis in historicos V. T. libros", Paris, 1887, pp. 19-160; Vos, "Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes", London, 1886; Bohl, "Zum Gesetz und zum Zeugniss", Vienna, 1883; Zah, "Erneste Blicke in den Wahn der modernen Kritik des A. T.", Gutersloh, 1893; Idem, "Das Deuteronomium", 1890; Idem, "Israelitische und judische Geschichte", 1895; Rupprecht, "Die Anschauung der kritischen Schule Wellhausens vom Pentateuch", Leipzig, 1893; Idem, "Das Rathsel des Funfbuches Mose und seine falsche Losung", Gutersloh, 1894; Idem, "Des Rathsels Losung order Beitrage zur richtigen Losung des Pentateuchrathsels", 1897; Idem, "Die Kritik nach ihrem Recht uknd Unrecht", 1897; "Lex Mosaica, or the Law of Moses and the Higher Criticism" (by Sayce, Rawlinson, Trench, Lias, Wace, etc.), London, 1894; Card. Meignan, "De L'Eden a Moise", Paris, 1895, 1-88; Baxter, "Sanctuary and Sacrifice", London, 1896; Abbé de Broglie, "Questions bibliques", Paris, 1897, pp. 89-169; Pelt, "Histoire de l'A.T.", 3rd ed., Paris, 1901, I, pp. 291-326; Vigouroux, "Les Livres Saints et la critique ratioinaliste", Paris, 1902, III, 1-226; IV, 239-53, 405-15; Idem, "Manuel biblique", 12th ed., Paris, 1906, I, 397-478; Kley, "Die Pentateuchfrage, ihre Geschichte und ihre Systeme", Munster, 1903; Hopfl, "Die hohere Bibelkritik", Paderborn, 1902; Thomas, "The Organic Unity of the Pentateuch", London, 1904; Wiener, "Studies in Biblical Law", London, 1904; Rouse, "The Old Testament in New Testament Light", London, 1905; Redpath, "Modern Criticism and the Book of Genesis", London, 1905; Hoberg, "Moses und der Pentateuch", Freiburg, 1905; Orr, "The Problem of the Old Testament considered with reference to Recent Criticism", London, 1906.

E. OPPONENTS OF THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH

A detailed account of the opposition to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is neither desirable nor necessary in this article. In itself it would form only a noisome history of human errors; each little system has had its day, and its successors have tried their best to bury it in hushed oblivion. The actual difficulties we have to consider are those advanced by our actual opponents of today; only the fact that the systems of the past show us the fleeting and transitory character of the actual theories now in vogue can induce us to briefly enumerate the successive views upheld by the opponents of the Mosaic authorship.

(1) Abandoned Theories

The views advanced by the Valentinian Ptolemy, the Nazarites, Abenesra, Carlstadt, Isaac Peyrerius, Baruch Spinoza, Jean Leclerc are sporadic phenomena. Not all of them were wholly incompatible with the Mosaic authorship as now understood, and the others have found their answer in their own time.-With the work of John Astrue, published in 1753, began the so-called Hypothesis of Documents which was further developed by Eichhorn and Ilgen. But the works of the suspended priest, Alexander Geddes, published in 1792 and 1800, introduced the Hypothesis of Fragments, which in its day was elaborated and championed by Vater, de Wette (temporarily at least), Berthold, Hartmann, and von Bohlen. This theory was soon confronted by, and had to yield to the Hypothesis of Complements or Interpolations which numbered among its patrons Kelle, Ewald, Stahelin, Bleek, Tuch, de Wette, von Lengerke, and for a brief period also Franz Delitzsch. The theory of interpolations again had hardly found any adherents before Gramberg (1828), Stahelin (1830), and Bleek (1831) returned to the Hypothesis of Documents, proposing it in a somewhat modified form. Subsequently, Ewald, Knobel, Hupfeld, Noldeke, and Schrader advanced each a different explanation of the documentary hypothesis. But all of these are at present only of an historical interest.

(2) Present Hypothesis of Documents

A course of religious development in Israel had been proposed by Reuss in 1830 and 1834, by Vatke in 1835, and by George in the same year. In 1865-66 Graf took up this idea and applied it to the literary criticism of the Hexateuch; for the critics had begun to consider the Book of Josue as belonging to the preceding five books, so that the collection formed a Hexateuch instead of a Pentateuch. The same application was made by Merx in 1869. Thus modified the documentary theory continued in its development until it reached the state described in the translation of the Bible by Kautzsch (3rd ed., with Introduction and Annotations, Tübingen, 1908 sqq.). In itself there is nothing against the assumption of documents written by Moses; but we cannot ascribe with certainty anything of our literary remains to the hands of the Hebrew lawgiver. The beginning of written accounts must be placed towards the end of the time of Judges; only then were fulfilled the conditions which must precede the origin of a literature properly so called, i.e., a general acquaintance with the art of writing and reading, stationary settlement of the people, and national prosperity. What then are the oldest literary remains of the Hebrews? They are the collections of the songs dating from the heroic time of the nation, e.g., the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14), the Book of the Just (Joshua 10:12 sqq.), the Book of Songs (1 Kings 8:53; cf. Budde, "Geschichte der althebr. Literature", Leipzig, 1906, 17). The Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:24-23:19) too must have existed before the other sources of the Pentateuch. The oldest historical work is probably the book of the Yahwist, designated by J, and ascribed to the priesthood of Juda, belonging most probably to the ninth century B.C.

Akin to this is the Elohim document, designated by E, and written probably in the northern kingdom (Ephraim) about a century after the production of the Yahweh document. These two sources were combined by a redactor into one work soon after the middle of the sixth century. Next follows the law-book, almost entirely embodied in our actual Book of Deuteronomy, discovered in the temple 621 B.C., and containing the precipitate of the prophetic teaching which advocated the abolition of the sacrifices in the so- called high places and the centralization of worship in the temple of Jerusalem. During the Exile originated the Priestly Code, P, based on the so-called law of holiness, Lev., xvii-xxvi, and the programme of Ezechiel, xl-xlviii; the substance of P was read before the post-exilic community by Esdras about 444 B.C. (Nehemiah 8-10), and was accepted by the multitude. History does not tell us when and how these divers historical and legal sources were combined into our present Pentateuch; but it is generally assumed that there was an urgent call for a compilation of the tradition and pre-exilic history of the people. The only indication of time may be found in the fact that the Samaritans accepted the Pentateuch as a sacred book probably in the fourth century B.C. Considering their hatred for the Jews, one must conclude that they would not have taken this step, unless they had felt certain of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. Hence a considerable time must have intervened between the compilation of the Pentateuch and its acceptance by the Samaritans, so that the work of combining must be placed in the fifth century. It is quite generally agreed that the last redactor of the Pentateuch completed his task with great adroitness. Without altering the text of the older sources, he did all within man's power to fuse the heterogeneous elements into one apparent (?) whole, with such success that not only the Jews after the fourth century B.C., but also the Christians for many centuries could maintain their conviction that the entire Pentateuch was written by Moses.

(3) Deficiencies of the Critical Hypothesis

As several Pentateuchal critics have endeavoured to assign the last redaction of the Pentateuch to more recent dates, its placement in the fifth century may be regarded as rather favourable to conservative views. But it is hard to understand why the patrons of this opinion should not agree in considering Esdras as the last editor. Again, it is quite certain that the last editor of the Pentateuch must have notably preceded its acceptance on the part of the Samaritans as a sacred book; bit is it probably that the Samaritans would have accepted the Pentateuch as such in the fourth century B.C., when the national and religious opposition between them and Jews was well developed? Is it not more probable that the mixed nation of Samaria received the Pentateuch through the priest sent to them from Assyria? Cf. 2 Kings 17:27. Or again, as this priest instructed the Samaritan population in the law of the god of the country, is it not reasonable to suppose that he taught them the Pentateuchal law which the ten tribes carried with them when they separated from Juda? At any rate, the fact that the Samaritans accepted as sacred only the Pentateuch, but not the Prophets, leads us to infer that the Pentateuch existed among the Jews before a collection of the prophetic writings was made, and that Samaria chose its sacred book before even Juda placed the works of the Prophets on the same level with the work of Moses. But this natural inference finds no favour among the critics; for it implies that the historical and legal traditions codified in the Pentateuch, described the beginning, and not the end, of Israel's religious development. The view of Israel's religious development prevalent among the critics implies that the Pentateuch is later than the Prophets, and that the Psalms are later than both. After these general considerations, we shall briefly examine the main principles, the methods, the results, and the arguments of the critical theory.

(a) Principles of the Critics

Without pretending to review all the principles involved in the theories of the critics, we draw attention to two: the historical development of religion, and the comparative value of internal evidence and tradition.

(i) The theory of the historical evolution of Israelitic religions leads us from Mosaic Yahwehism to the ethical monotheism of the Prophets, from this to the universalist conception of God developed during the Exile, and from this again to the ossified Phariseeism of later days. This religion of the Jews is codified in our actual Pentateuch, but has been fictitiously projected backwards in the historical books into the Mosaic and pre-prophetic times. The idea of development is not a purely modern discovery. Meyer ("Der Entwicklungsgedanke bei Aristoteles", Bonn, 1909) shows that Aristotle was acquainted with it; Gunkel ("Weiterbildung der Religion", Munich, 1905, 64) maintains that its application to religion is as old as Christianity, and that St. Paul has enunciated this principle; Diestel ("Geschichte des A.T. in der chrislichen Kirche", Jena, 1869, 56 sqq.), Willmann ("Geschichte des Idealismus", 2nd ed., II, 23 sqq.), and Schanz ("Apologie des Christentums", 3rd ed. II, 4 sqq., 376) find the same application in the writings of the Fathers, though Hoberg ("Die Forschritte der bibl. Wissenschaften", Freiburg, 1902, 10) grants that the patristic writers often neglect the external forms which influenced the ideas the Chosen People. The Fathers were not fully acquainted with profane history, and were more concerned about the contents of Revelation than about its historical development. Pesch ("Glaube, Dogmen und geschichtliche Thatsachen" in "Theol. Zeitfragen", IV, Freiburg, 1908, 183) discovers that St. Thomas, too, admits the principle of development in his "Summa" (II-II, Q. i, a. 9, 10; Q. ii, a. 3; etc.). But the Catholic conception of this principle avoids two extremes:

the theory of degeneracy, based on the teaching of the early Lutheran theologians (cf. Giesebrecht, "Die Degradationshypothese und die altl. Geschichte", Leipzig, 1905; Steude, "Entwicklung und Offenbarung", Stuttgart, 1905, 18 sqq.);

the theory of evolution which dissolves all truth and history into purely natural development to the exclusion of everything supernatural.

It is this latter extreme that is advocated by the Biblical critics. Their description of the early religion of Israel is contradicted by the testimony of the oldest Prophets whose authority is not questioned by them. These inspired seers know of the fall of Adam (Hosea 6:7), the call of Abraham (Isaiah 29:23; Micah 7:20), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha (Hosea 11:8; Isaiah 1:9; Amos 4:11), the history of Jacob and his struggle with the angel (Hosea 12:2 sqq.), Israel's exodus from Egypt and dwelling in the desert (Hosea 2:14; 7:16; 11:1; 12:9, 13; 13:4, 5; Amos 2:10; 3:1; 9:7), the activity of Moses (Hosea 12:13; Micah 6:4; Isaiah 63:11-12), a written legislation (Hosea 8:12), and a number of particular statutes (cf. Kley, "Die Pentateuchfrage", Munster, 1903, 223 sqq.). Again, the theory of development is more and more contradicted by the results of historical investigation. Weber ("Theologie und Assyriologie im Streit um Babel und Bibel", Leipzig, 1904, 17) points out that the recent historical results imply decadence rather than development in ancient oriental art, science, and religion; Winckler ("Religionsgeschichtler und geschichtl. Orient", Leipzig, 1906, 33) considers the evolutionary view of the primitive state of man as false, and believes that the development theory has, at least, been badly shaken, if not actually destroyed by recent Oriental research (cf. Bantsch, "Altorientalischer und israelitischer Monothesismus", Tübingen, 1906). Köberle ("Die Theologie der Gegenwart", Leipzig, 1907, I, 2) says that the development theory has exhausted itself, reproducing only the thoughts of Wellhausen, and deciding particular questions not in the light of facts, but according to the postulates of the theory. Finally, even the rationalistic writers have thought it necessary to replace the development theory by another more in agreement with historical facts. Hence Winckler ("Ex Oriente lux", Leipzig, 1905- 6; Idem, "Der Alte Orient", III, 2-3; Idem, "Die babylonische Geisteskultur in ihren Beziehungen zur Kulturentwicklung der Menschheit" in "Wissenschaft und Bildung", Leipzig, 1907; cf. Landersdorfer in "Historisch-Politische Blatter", 1909, 144) has originated the theory of pan-Babelism according to which Biblical religion is conceived as a conscious and express reaction against the Babylonian polytheistic state religion. It was not the common property of Israel, but of a religious sect which was supported in Babylon by certain monotheistic circles irrespective of nationality. This theory has found powerful opponents in Budde, Stade, Bezold, Köberle, Kugler, Wilke, and others; but it has also a number of adherents. Though wholly untenable from a Christian point of view, it shows at least the weakness of the historical development theory.

(ii) Another principle involved in the critical theory of the Pentateuch supposes that the internal evidence of literary criticism is of higher value than the evidence of tradition. But thus far the results of excavations and historical research have been favourable to tradition rather than to internal evidence. Let the reader only remember the case of Troy, Tiryns, Mycenae, and Orchomenos (in Greece); the excavations of the English explorer Evans in Crete have shown the historical character of King Minos and his labyrinth; Assyrian inscriptions have re-established the historical credit of King Midas of Phrygia; similarly, Menes of Thebes and Sargon of Agade have been shown to belong to history; in general, the more accurate have been the scientific investigations, the more clearly have they shown the reliability of even the most slender traditions. In the field of New-Testament criticism the call "back to tradition" has begun to be heeded, and has been endorsed by such authorities as Harnack and Deissmann. In the study of the Old Testament too there are unmistakable signs of a coming change. Hommel ("Die altisrealitische Überlieferung in inschriftlicher Beleuchtung", Munich, 1897) maintains that Old- Testament tradition, both as a whole and in its details, proves to be reliable, even in the light of critical research. Meyer ("Die Entstehung des Judentums", Halle, 1896) comes to the conclusion that the foundations of the critical Pentateuchal theory are destroyed, if it can be proved that even part of the impugned Hebrew tradition is reliable; the same writer proves the credibility of the sources of the Books of Esdras (cf. "Grundriss der Geographie und Geschichte des alten Orientes", Munich, 1904, 167 sqq.). S.A. Fries has been led by his critical studies, and without being influenced by dogmatic bias, to accept the whole traditional view of the history of Israel. Cornill and Oettli express the conviction that Israel's traditions concerning even its earliest history are reliable and will withstand the bitterest attacks of criticism; Dawson (cf. Fonck, "Kritik und Tradition im A.T." in "Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie", 1899, 262-81) and others apply to tradition the old principle which has been so frequently misapplied, "magna est veritas, et praevalebit"; Gunkel ("Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbucher", II, Tübingen, 1906, 8) grants that Old-Testament criticism has gone a little too far, and that many Biblical traditions now rejected will be re-established.

(b) Critical Method

The falsehood of the critical method does not consist in the use of criticism as such, but in its illegitimate use. Criticism became more common in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; at the end of the eighteenth it was applied to classical antiquity. Bernheim ("Lehrbuch der historischen Methode", Leipzig, 1903, 296) believes that by this means alone history first became a science. In the application of criticism to the Bible was are limited, indeed, by the inspiration and the canonicity of its books; but there is an ample field left for our critical investigations (Pesch, "Theol. Zeitfragen", III, 48).

Some of the principal sins of the critics in their treatment of Sacred Scripture are the following:

They deny everything supernatural, so that they reject not merely inspiration and canonicity, but also prophecy and miracle a priori (cf. Metzler, "Das Wunder vor dem Forum der modernen Geschichtswissenschaft" in "Katholik", 1908, II, 241 sqq.).

They seem to be convinced a priori of the credibility of non-Biblical historical documents, while they are prejudiced against the truthfulness of Biblical accounts. (Cf. Stade, "Geschichte Israel's", I, 86 seq., 88, 101.) Depreciating external evidence almost entirely, they consider the questions of the origin, the integrity, and the authenticity of the sacred books in the light of internal evidence (Encycl. Prov. Deus, 52).

They overestimate the critical analysis of the sources, without considering the chief point, i.e., the credibility of the sources (Lorenz, "Die Geschichtswissenschaft in ihren Hauptrichtungen und Aufgaben", ii, 329 sqq.). Recent documents may contain reliable reports of ancient history. Some of the critics begin to acknowledge that the historical credibility of the sources is of greater importance than their division and dating (Stark, "Die Entstehung des A.T.", Leipzig, 1905, 29; cf. Vetter, "Tübinger theologische Quartalschrift", 1899, 552).

The critical division of sources is based on the Hebrew text, though it is not certain how far the present Massoretic text differs from that, for instance, followed by the Septuagint translators, and how far the latter differed form the Hebrew text before its redaction in the fifth century B.C. Dahse ("Textkritische Bedenken gegen den Ausgangspunkt der heutigen Pentateuchkritik" in "Archiv fur Religionsgeschichte", VI, 1903, 305 sqq.) shows that the Divine names in the Greek translation of the Pentateuch differ in about 180 cases from those of the Hebrew text (cf. Hoberg, "Die Genesis", 2nd ed., p. xxii sqq.); in other words and phrases the changes may be fewer, but it would be unreasonable to deny the existence of any. Again, it is antecedently probable that the Septuagint text differs less from the Massoretic than from the ante-Esdrine text, which must have been closer to the original. The starting point of literary criticism is therefore uncertain. It is not an inherent fault of literary criticism that it was applied to the Pentateuch after it had become practically antiquated in the study of Homer and the Nibelungenlied (cf. Katholik, 1896, I, 303, 306 sqq.), nor that Reuss considered it as more productive of difference of opinion than of results (cf. Katholik, 1896, I, 304 seq.), nor again that Wellhausen thought it had degenerated into childish play. Among Bible students, Klostermann ("Der Pentateuch", Leipzig, 1893), Konig ("Falsche Extreme im Gebiete der neueren Kritik des A.T.", Leipzig, 1885; "Neueste Prinzipien der alt. Kritik", Berlin, 1902; "Im Kampfe um das A.T.", Berlin, 1903), Bugge ("Die Hauptparabeln Jesu", Giessen, 1903) are sceptical as to the results of literary criticism, while Orelli ("Der Prophet Jesaja", 1904, V), Jeremias ("Das alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients", 1906, VIII), and Oettli ("Geschichte Israels", V) wish to insist more on the exegesis of the text than on the criss-cross roads of criticism. G. Jacob ("Der Pentateuch", Göttingen, 1905) thinks that the past Pentateuchal criticism needs a thorough revision; Eerdmans ("Die Komposition der Genesis", Giessen, 1908) feels convinced that criticism has been misled into wrong paths by Astrue. Merx expresses the opinion that the next generation will have to revise backwards many of the present historico-literary views of the Old Testament ("Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbucher", II, 1907, 3, 132 sqq.).

(c) Critical Results

Here we must distinguish between the principles of criticism and its results; the principles of the historical development of religion, for instance, and of the inferiority of tradition to internal evidence, are not the outcome of literary analysis, but are its partial basis. Again, we must distinguish between those results of literary criticism which are compatible with the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch and those that contradict it. The patrons of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and even the ecclesiastical Decree relating to this subject, plainly admit that Moses or his secretaries may have utilized sources or documents in the composition of the Pentateuch; both admit also that the sacred text has suffered in its transmission and may have received additions, in the form of either inspired appendices or exegetical glosses. If the critics, therefore, can succeed in determining the number and the limits of the documentary sources, and of the post-Mosaic additions, whether inspired or profane, they render an important service to the traditional tenet of Pentateuchal authenticity. The same must be said with regard to the successive laws established by Moses, and the gradual fidelity of the Jewish people to the Mosaic law. Here again the certain or even probable results of sane literary and historical criticism will aid greatly the conservative commentator of the Pentateuch. We do not quarrel with the legitimate conclusions of the critics, if the critics do not quarrel with each other. But they do quarrel with each other. According to Merx (loc. cit.) there is nothing certain in the field of criticism except its uncertainty; each critic proclaims his views with the greatest self-reliance, but without any regard to the consistency of the whole. Former views are simply killed by silence; even Reuss and Dillmann are junk-iron, and there is a noticeable lack of judgment as to what can or cannot be known. Hence the critical results, in as far as they consist merely in the distinction of documentary sources, in the determination of post-Mosaic materials, e.g., textual changes, and profane or inspired additions, in the description of various legal codes, are not at variance with the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch. Nor can an anti-Mosaic character be pointed out in the facts or phenomena from which criticism legitimately infers the foregoing conclusions; such facts or phenomena are, for instance, the change of the Divine names in the text, the use of certain words, the difference of style, the so-called double accounts of really, not merely apparently, identical events; the truth of falsehood of these and similar details does not directly affect the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. In which results then does criticism clash with tradition? Criticism and tradition are incompatible in their views as to the age and sequence of the documentary sources, as to the origin of the various legal codes, and as to the time and manner of the redaction of the Pentateuch.

(i) Pentateuchal Documents.-As to the age and sequence of the various documents, the critics do not agree. Dillmann, Kittel, Konig, and Winckler place the Elohist, who is subdivided by several writers into the first, second, and third Elohist, before the Yahwist, who also is divided into the first and second Yahwist; but Wellhausen and most critics believe that the Elohist is about a century younger than the Yahwist. At any rate, both are assigned to about the ninth and eight centuries B.C.; both too incorporate earlier traditions or even documents.

All critics appear to agree as to the composite character of Deuteronomy; they admit rather a Deuteronomist school than single writers. Still, the successive layers composing the whole book are briefly designated by D1, D2, D3, etc. As to the character of these layers, the critics do not agree: Montet and Driver, for instance, assigned to the first Deuteronomist cc. i-xxi; Kuenen, Konig, Reuss, Renan, Westphal ascribe to DN, iv, 45-9, and v-xxvi; a third class of critics reduce D1 to xii, 1-xxvi, 19, allowing it a double edition: according to Wellhausen, the first edition contained i, 1-iv, 44; xii-xxvi; xxvii, while the second comprised iv, 45-xi, 39; xii-xxvi; xxviii-xxx; both editions were combined by the redactor who inserted Deuteronomy into the Hexateuch. Cornill arranges the two editions somewhat differently. Horst considers even cc. xii-xxvi as a compilation of pre-existing elements, gathered together without order and often by chance. Wellhausen and his adherents do not wish to assign to D1 a higher age than 621 B.C., Cornill and Bertholet consider the document as a summary of the prophetic teaching, Colenso and Renan ascribe it to Jeremias, others place its origin in the reign of Ezechias or Manasses, Klostermann identifies the document with the book read before the people in the time of Josaphat, while Kleinert refers it back to the end of the time of the Judges. The Deuteronomist depends on the two preceding documents, J and E, both for his history land his legislation; the historical details not found in these may have been derived from other sources not known to us, and the laws not contained in the Sinaitic legislation and the decalogue are either pure fiction or a crystallization of the prophetic teaching.

Finally, the Priestly Code, P, is also a compilation: the first stratum of the book, both historical and legal in its character, is designated by P1 or P2; the second stratum is the law of holiness, H or Lev., xvii-xxvi, and is the work of a contemporary of Ezechiel, or perhaps of the Prophet himself (H, P2, Ph); besides, there are additional elements springing rather from a school than from any single writer, and designated by Kunen as P3, P4, P5, but by other critics as Ps and Px. Bertholet and Bantsch speak of two other collections of laws: the law of sacrifices, Lev., i-vii, designated as Po; and the law of purity, Lev., xi-xv, designated as Pr. The first documentary hypothesis considered PN as the oldest part of the Pentateuch; Duston and Dillmann place it before the Deuteronomic code, but most recent critics regard it as more recent than the other documents of the Pentateuch, and even later than Ezech., xliv, 10-xlvi, 15 (573-2 B.C.); the followers of Wellhausen date the Priestly Code after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, while Wildeboer places it either after or towards the end of the captivity. The historical parts of the Priestly Code depend on the Yahwistic and the Elohistic documents, but Wellhausen's adherents believe that the material of these documents has been manipulated so as to fit it for the special purpose of the Priestly Code; Dillmann and Drive maintain that facts have not been invented or falsified by P, but that the latter had at hand other historical documents besides J and E. As to the legal part of P, Wellhausen considers it as an a priori programme for the Jewish priesthood after the return from the captivity, projected backwards into the past, and attributed to Moses; but other critics believe that P has systematized the pre-exilic customs of worship, developing then, and adapting them to the new circumstances.

What has been said clearly shows that the critics are at variance in many respects, but they are at one in maintaining the post- Mosaic origin of the Pentateuchal documents. What is the weight of the reasons on which they base their opinion?

The conditions laid down by the critics as prerequisites to literature do not prove that the sources of the Pentateuch must be post-Mosaic. The Hebrew people had lived for, at least, two hundred years in Egypt; besides, most of the forty years spent in the desert were passed in the neighbourhood of Cades, so that the Israelites were not longer a nomadic people. Whatever may be said of their material prosperity, or of their proficiency in writing and reading, the above-mentioned researches of Flinders Petrie show that they kept records of their national traditions at the time of Moses.

If the Hebrew contemporaries of Moses kept written records, why should not the Pentateuchal sources be among these documents? It is true that in our actual Pentateuch we find non-Mosaic and post- Mosaic indications; but, then, the non-Mosaic, impersonal style may be due to a literary device, or to the pen of secretaries; the post-Mosaic geographical and historical indications may have crept into the text by way of glosses, or errors of the transcribers, or even inspired additions. The critics cannot reject these suggestions as mere subterfuges; for they should have to grant a continuous miracle in the preservation of the Pentateuchal text, if they were to deny the moral certainty of the presence of such textual changes.

But would not the Pentateuch have been known to the earlier Prophets, if it had been handed down from the time of Moses? This critical exception is really an argument e silentio which is very apt to be fallacious, unless it be most carefully handled. Besides, if we keep in mind the labour involved in multiplying copies of the Pentateuch, we cannot be wrong in assuming that they were very rare in the interval between Moses and the Prophets, so that few were able to read the actual text. Again, it has been pointed out that at least one of the earlier Prophets appeals to a written mosaic law, and that all appeal to such a national conscience as presupposes the Pentateuchal history and law. Finally, some of the critics maintain the J views the history of man and of Israel according to the religious and the moral ideas of the Prophets; if there be such an agreement, why not say that the Prophets write according to the religious and moral ideas of the Pentateuch?

The critics urge the fact that the Pentateuchal laws concerning the sanctuary, the sacrifices, the feasts, and the priesthood agree with different stages of post-Mosaic historical development; that the second stage agrees with the reform of Josias, and the third with the enactments enforced after the time of the Babylonian Exile. But it must be kept in mind that the Mosaic law was intended for Israel as the Christian law is intended for the whole world; if then 1900 years after Christ the greater part of the world is still un-Christian, it is not astonishing that the Mosaic law required centuries before it penetrated the whole nation. Besides, there were, no doubt, many violations of the law, just as the Ten Commandments are violated today without detriment to their legal promulgation. Again there were times of religious reforms and disasters as there are periods of religious fervour and coldness in the history of the Christian Church; but such human frailties do not imply the non-existence of the law, either Mosaic or Christian. As to the particular laws in question, it will be found more satisfactory to examine them more in detail.

(ii) Pentateuchal Codes.-The critics endeavour to establish a triple Pentateuchal code: the Book of the Covenant, Deuteronomy, and the Priestly Code. Instead of regarding this legislation as applying to different phases in the forty years' wandering in the desert, they consider it as agreeing with three historical stages in the national history. As stated above, the main objects of this triple legislation are the sanctuary, the feast, and the priesthood.

(a) The Sanctuary

At first, so the critics say, sacrifices were allowed to be offered in any place where the Lord had manifested his name (Exodus 20:24-6); then the sanctuary was limited to the one place chosen by God (Deuteronomy 12:5); thirdly, the Priestly Code supposes the unity of sanctuary, and prescribes the proper religious rites to be observed. Moreover, the critics point out historical incidents showing that before the enforcement of the Deuteronomic law sacrifices were offered in various places quite distinct from the resting place of the ark. What do the defenders of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch answer? First, as to the triple law, it points to three different stages in Israel's desert life: before the erection of the tabernacle at the foot of Mt. Sinai, the people were allowed to erect altars and to offer sacrifices everywhere provided the name of the Lord had been manifested; next, after the people had adored the golden calf, and the tabernacle had been erected, sacrifice could be offered only before the tabernacle, and even the cattle killed for consumption had to be slaughtered in the same place, in order to prevent a relapse into idolatry; finally, when the people were about to enter the promised land, the last law was abolished, being then quite impossible, but the unity of sanctuary was kept in the place which God would choose. Secondly, as to the historical facts urged by the critics, some of them are caused by direct Divine intervention, miracle or prophetic inspiration, and as such are fully legitimate; others are evidently violations of the law, and are not sanctioned by the inspired writers; a third class of facts may be explained in one of three ways:

Poels ("Le sanctuaire de Kirjath Jeraim", Louvain, 1894; "Examen critique de l'histoire du sanctuaire de l'arche", Louvain, 1897) endeavours to prove that Gabaon, Masphath, and Kiriath-Jarim denote the same place, so that the multiplicity of sanctuaries is only apparent, not real.

Van Hoonacker ("Le Lieu du culte dans la legislation rituelle des Hebreux" in "Musceeon", April-Oct., 1894, XIII, 195-204, 299- 320, 533-41; XIV, 17-38) distinguishes between private and public altars; the public and national worship is legally centralized in one sanctuary and around one altar, while private altars may be had for domestic worship.

But more commonly it is admitted that before God had chosen the site of national sanctuary, it was not forbidden by law to sacrifice anywhere, even away from the place of the ark. After the building of the temple the law was not considered so stringent as to bind under all circumstances. Thus far then the argument of the critics is not conclusive.

(b) The Sacrifices

According to the critics, the Book of the Covenant enjoined only the offering of the first-fruits and the first-born of animals, the redemption of the first-born of men, and a free-will offering on visiting the sanctuary (Ex., xxii, 28-9; xxiii, 15, [Heb., xxiii, 19]); Deuteronomy more clearly defines some of these laws (xv, 19-23; xxvi, 1-11), and imposes the law of tithes for the benefit of the poor, the widows, the orphans, and the Levites (xxvi, 12-5); the Priestly Code distinguishes different kinds of sacrifices, determines their rites, and introduces also incense offering. But history hardly bears out this view: as there existed a permanent priesthood in Silo, and later on in Jerusalem, we may safely infer that there existed a permanent sacrifice. The earliest prophets are acquainted with an excess of care bestowed on the sacrificial rites (cf. Amos 4:4, 5; 5:21-22, 25; Hosea passim). The expressions of Jeremias (vii, 21-3) may be explained in the same sense. Sin offering was known long before the critics introduce their Priestly Code (Osee, iv, 8; Mich., vi, 7; Ps., xxxix [xl], 7; 1 Kings, iii, 14). Trespass offering is formally distinguished from sin offering in 2 Kings 13:16 (cf. 1 Samuel 6:3-15; Isaiah 53:10). Hence the distinction between the different kinds of sacrifice is due neither to Ezekiel 45:22-5, nor to the Priestly Code.

(c) The Feasts

The Book of the Covenant, so the critics tell us, knows only three feasts: the seven-days feast of the azymes in memory of the exodus form Egypt, the feast of the harvest, and that of the end of the harvest (Exodus 23:14-7); Deuteronomy ordains the keeping of the feasts at the central sanctuary adds to Pasch to the feast of the azymes, places the second feast seven weeks after the first, and calls the third, "feast of tabernacles", extending its duration to seven days (Deuteronomy 16:1-17); the Priestly Code prescribes the exact ritual for five feasts, adding the feast of trumpets and of atonement, all of which must be kept at the central sanctuary. Moreover, history appears to endorse the contention of the critics: Judges, xxi, 19 knows of only one annual feast in Silo; 1 Samuel 1:3, 7, 21 testifies that the parents of Samuel went every year to Silo to the sanctuary; Jeroboam I established in his kingdom one annual feast similar to that celebrated in Jerusalem (1 Kings 12:32-3); the earliest Prophets do not mention the names of the religious feasts; the Pasch is celebrated for the first time after the discovery of Deuteronomy (2 Kings 23:21-3); Ezechiel knows only three feasts and a sin offering on the first day of the first and the seventh month. But here again, the critics use the argument e silentio which is not conclusive in this case. The feast of atonement, for instance, is not mentioned in the Old Testament outside the Pentateuch; only Josephus refers to its celebration in the time of John Hyrcanus or Herod. Will the critics infer from this, that the feast was not kept throughout the Old Testament? History does not record facts generally known. As to the one annual feast mentioned in the early records, weighty commentators are of opinion that after the settlement of the people in the promised land, the custom was gradually introduced of going to the central sanctuary only once a year. This custom prevailed before the critics allow the existence of the Deuteronomic law (1 Kings 12:26-31), so that the latter cannot have introduced it. Isaias (xxix, 1; xxx, 29) speaks of a cycle of feasts, but Osee, xii, 9 alludes already to the feast of tabernacles, so that its establishment cannot be due to the Priestly Code as the critics describe it. Ezechiel (xlv, 18-25) speaks only of the three feasts which had to be kept at the central sanctuary.

(d) The Priesthood

The critics contend that the Book of the Covenant knows nothing of an Aaronitic priesthood (Exodus 24:5); that Deuteronomy mentions priests and Levites without any hierarchical distinction and without any high priest, determines their rights, and distinguishes only between the Levite living in the country and the Levite attached to the central sanctuary; finally, that the Priestly Code represents the priesthood as a social and hierarchical institution, with legally determined duties, rights, and revenues. This theory is said to be borne out by the evidence of history. But the testimony of history points in the opposite direction. At the time of Josue and the early Judges, Eleazar and Phinees, the son and nephew of Aaron, were priests (Numbers 26:1; Deuteronomy 10:6; Joshua 14:1 sqq.; 22:13, 21; 24:33; Judges 20:28). From the end of the time of Judges to Solomon, the priesthood was in the hands of Heli and his descendants (1 Samuel 1:3 sqq.; 14:3; 21:1; 22:1) who sprang from Ithamar the younger son of Aaron (1 Chronicles 24:3; cf. 1 Samuel 22:29; 14:3; 2:7 sqq.). Solomon raised Sadoc, the son of Achitob, to the dignity of the high priesthood, and his descendants held the office down to the time of the Babylonian Captivity (2 Samuel 8:17; 15:24 sqq.; 20:25; 1 Kings 2:26, 27, 35; Ezekiel 44:15); that Sadoc too was of Aaronic descent is attested by I Par., vi, 8. Besides the Books of Josue and Paralipomenon acknowledge the distinction between priests and Levites; according to 1 Samuel 6:15, the Levites handled the ark, but the Bethsamites, the inhabitants of a priestly city (Joshua 21:13-6), offered sacrifice. A similar distinction is made in 2 Samuel 15:24; 1 Kings 8:3 sq.; Isaiah 66:21. Van Hoonacker ("Les pretres et les levites dans le livre d'Ezechiel" in "Revue biblique", 1899, VIII, 180-189, 192-194) shows that Ezechiel did not create the distinction between priests and Levites, but that supposing the traditional distinction in existence, he suggested a divisions in to these classes according to merit, and not according to birth (xliv, 15-xlv, 5). Unless the critics simply set aside all this historical evidence, they must grant the existence of an Aaronitic priesthood in Israel, and its division into priests and Levites, long before the D and P codes were promulgated according to the critical theory. It is true that in a number of passages persons are said to offer sacrifice who are not of Aaronitic descent: Judges, vi, 25 sqq.; xiii, 9; 1 Samuel 7:9; 10:8; 13:9; 2 Samuel 6:17; 24:25; 1 Kings 8:5, 62; etc. But in the first place, the phrase "to offer sacrifice" means either to furnish the victim (Leviticus 1:2, 5) or to perform the sacrificial rite; the victim might be furnished by any devout layman; secondly, it would be hard to prove that God committed the priestly office in such a way to Aaron and his sons as not to reserve to himself the liberty of delegating in extraordinary cases a non-Aaronite to perform the priestly functions.

(iii) Pentateuchal Redaction.-The four documentary sources of the Pentateuch thus far descried were combined not by any one individual; critics require rather three different stages of combination: first, a Yahwistic redactor RXX or RX combined J and E with a view of harmonizing them, and adapting them to Deuteronomic ideas; this happened either before or after the redaction of D. Secondly, after D had been completed in the sixth century B.C., a redactor, or perhaps a school of redactors, imbued with the spirit of D combined the documents JE into JED, introducing however the modifications necessary to secure consistency. Thirdly, a last redactor RX imbued with the letter and the spirit of P, combined this document with JED, introducing again the necessary changes. The table of nations in Gen., xiv was according to Kunen added by this last redactor.

At first sight, one is struck by the complex character of this theory; as a rule, truth is of a more simple texture. Secondly, one is impressed by the unique nature of the hypothesis; antiquity has nothing to equal it. Thirdly, if one reads or studies the Pentateuch in the light of this theory, one is impressed by the whimsical character of the redactor; he often retained what should have been omitted, and omitted what should have been retained. The critics themselves have to take refuge, time and time again, in the work of the redactor, in order save their own views of the Pentateuch. A recent writer does not hesitate to call the complex redactor ein genialer Esel. Fourthly, a truth-loving, straightforward reader is naturally shocked by the literary fictions and forgeries, the editorial changes and subterfuges implied in the critical theory of the Pentateuchal documents and redaction. The more moderate critics endeavour to escape this inconvenience: some appeal to the difference between the ancient and the modern standard of literary property and editorial accuracy; others practically sanctify the means by the end. Oettli considers the dilemma "either the work of Moses or the work of a deceiver" as the expression of sheer imprudence; Kautzsch unctuously points to the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God whose ways we cannot fathom, but must admire. The left wing of criticism openly acknowledges that there is no use in hushing up matters; it actually is the result of scientific research that both form and contents of a great part of the Old Testament are based on conscious fiction and forgery.

IV. STYLE OF THE PENTATEUCH

In some general introductions to the Pentateuch its messianic prophecies are specially considered, i.e., the so-called proto-evangelium, Gen., iii, 15; the blessing of Sem, Gen., ix, 26-7; the patriarchal promises, Gen., xii, 2; xiii, 16; xv, 5; xvii, 4-6, 16; xviii, 10-15; xxii, 17; xxvi, 4; xxviii, 14; the blessing of the dying Jacob, Gen., xlix, 8-10; the Prophecy of Balaam, Num., xxiv, 15 sqq.; and the great Prophet announced by Moses, Deut., xviii, 15-19. But these prophecies belong rather to the province of exegesis than introduction. Again, the text of the Pentateuch has been considered in some general introductions to the work. We have seen already that besides the Massoretic Text we have to take into account the earlier text followed by the Septuagint translators, and the still earlier readings of the Samaritan Pentateuch; a detailed investigation of this subject belongs to the field of textual or lower criticism. But the style of the Pentateuch can hardly be referred to any other department of Pentateuchal study.

As Moses employed no doubt pre-existent documents in the composition of his work, and as he must have made use too of the aid of secretaries, we expect antecedently a variety of style in the Pentateuch. It is no doubt due to the presence of this literary phenomenon that the critics have found so many points of support in their minute analysis. But in general, the style of the work is in keeping with its contents. There are three kinds of material in the Pentateuch: first, there are statistics, genealogies, and legal formularies; secondly, there are narrative portions; thirdly, there are parenthetic sections.

No reader will find fault with the writer's dry and simple style in his genealogical and ethnographic lists, in his table of encampments in the desert, or his legal enactments. Any other literary expression would be out of place in records of this kind. The narrative style of the Pentateuch is simple and natural, but also lively and picturesque. It abounds in simple character sketches, dialogues, and anecdotes. The accounts of Abraham's purchase of a burying-ground, of the history of Joseph, and of the Egyptian plagues are also dramatic. Deuteronomy has its peculiar style on account of the exhortations it contains. Moses explains the laws he promulgates, but urges also, and mainly, their practice. As an orator, he shows a great deal of unction and persuasiveness, but is not destitute of the earnestness of the Prophets. His long sentences remain at times incomplete, thus giving rise to so-called anacolutha (cf. Deuteronomy 6:10-12; 8:11-17; 9:9-11; 11:2-7; 24:1-4). Being necessarily a popular preacher, he is not lacking in repetitions. But his earnestness, persuasiveness, and unction do not interfere with the clearness of his statements. He is not merely a rigid legislator, but he shows his love for the people, and in turn wins their love and confidence.

Decisions of the Biblical Commission

Some decisions of the Biblical Commission in regards to the chief subject of this article, viz., Genesis, are as follows: The various exegetical systems which exclude the literal and historical sense of the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis are not based on solid foundation. It should not be taught that these three chapters do not contain true narrations of facts, but only fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of earlier peoples, purged of the polytheistic errors and accommodated to monotheism; or allegories and symbols, with no objective reality, set forth in the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends partly historical and partly fictitious put together for instruction and edification. In particular, doubt should not be cast on the literal and historical sense of passages which touch on the foundations of the Christian religion, as, for instance, the creation of the universe by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness, integrity, and immortality of our first parents in the state of justice; the precept given by God to man to try his obedience; the transgression of the Divine precept, at the suggestion of the Devil, under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their original state of justice; the promise of a future Redeemer.

In explaining such passages in these chapters as the Fathers and Doctors interpreted differently, one may follow and defend the opinion which meets his approval. Not every word or phrase in these chapters is always necessarily to be taken in its literal sense so that it may never have another, as when it is manifestly used metaphorically or anthropomorphically. The literal and historical meaning of some passages in these chapters presupposed, an allegorical and prophetical meaning may wisely and usefully be employed. As in writing the first chapter of Genesis the purpose of the sacred author was not to expound in a scientific manner the constitution of the universe or the complete order of creation, but rather to give to the people popular information in the ordinary language of the day, adapted to the intelligence of all, the strict propriety of scientific language is not always to be looked for in their terminology. The expression six days and their division may be taken in the ordinary sense of a natural day, or for a certain period of time, and exegetes may dispute about this question.

Publication information Written by A.J. Moss. Transcribed by Thomas M. Barrett & Michael T. Barrett. Dedicated to the Poor Souls in Purgatory The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Published 1911. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Bibliography

Many works referring to the Pentateuch have been cited throughout the course of this article. We shall here add a list of mainly exegetical works, both ancient and modern, without attempting to give a complete catalogue.

PATRISTIC WRITERS."Eastern Church:--ORIGEN, Selecta in Gen., P. G., XII, 91- 145; IDEM, Homil. in Gen., ibid., 145-62; IDEM, Selecta et homil, in Ex., Lev., Num., Deut., ibid., 263-818; IDEM, Fragmenta in P.G., XVII, 11-36; ST. BASIL, Homil. in Hexaemer. in P.G., XXIX, 3-208; ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, In Hexaemer. in P.G., XLIV, 61-124; IDEM, De homin. Opific., ibid., 124-297; IDEM, De vita Moysis, ibid., 297-430; ST. JOHN CHRYS., Homil. in Gen. in P.G., LIII, LIV, 23- 580; IDEM, Serm. In Gen. in P.G., LIV, 581-630; ST. EPHR., Comment in Pentat. in Oper. Syr., I, 1-115; ST. CYRIL OF ALEX., De adoratione in spiritu in P.G., LXVIII, 133-1125; Glaphyra in P.G., LXIX, 13-677; THEODORETUS, Quaest. in Gen., Ex., Lev., Num., Deut. in P.G., LXXX, 76-456; PROCOPIUS OF GAZA, Comment. in Octateuch. in P.G., LXXXVII, 21-992; NICEPHORUS, Catena in Octateuch. et libros Reg. (Leipzig, 1772).

Western Church: ST. AMBROSE, In Hexaemer. in P.L., XIV, 123-274; IDEM, De Paradiso terrestri, ibid., 275-314; IDEM, De Cain et Abel, ibid., 315-60; IDEM, De Noe et arca, ibid., 361-416; IDEM, De Abraham, ibid., 419-500; IDEM, De Isaac et anima, ibid., 501-34; IDEM, De Joseph patriarcha, ibid., 641-72; IDEM, De benedictionibus patriarcharum, ibid., 673-94; ST. JEROME, Liber quaest. hebraic. in Gen. in P.L., XXIII, 935-1010; ST. AUGUSTINE, De Gen. c. Manich. ll. due in P.L., XXXIV, 173-220; IDEM, De Ger. ad lit., ibid., 219-46; IDEM, De Ger. ad lit. ll. duodecim, ibid., 245-486; IDEM, Quaest in Heptateuch., ibid., 547-776; RUFINUS, De benedictionibus patriarcharum in P.L., XXI, 295-336; ST. VEN. BEDE, Hexaemeron in P.L., XCI, 9-190; IDEM, In Pentateuch. Commentarii, ibid., 189-394; IDEM, De tabernaculo et vasibus ejus, ibid., 393-498; RHABANUS MAURUS, Comm. in Gen. in P.L., CVII, 443-670; IDEM, Comment. in Ez., Lev., Num., Deut. in P.L., CVIII, 9-998; WALAFRID STRABO, Glossa ordinaria in P.L., CXIII, 67-506.

MIDDLE AGES:-ST. BRUNO OF ASTI, Expositio in Pentateuch. in P.L., RUPERT OF DEUTZ, De SS. Trinitate et operib. Ejus in P.L., CLXVII, 197-1000; HUGH OF ST. VICTOR, Adnotationes elucidatoriae in Pent. in P.L., CLXXV, 29-86; HONORIUS OF AUTUN, Hexameron in P.L., CLXXII, 253-66; IDEM, De decem plagis Aegypti, ibid., 265-70; ABELARD, Expositio in Hexaemeron in P.L., CLXXVII, 731-84; HUGH OF ST. CHER, Postilla (Venice, 1588); NICOLAUS OF LYRA, Postilla (Rome, 1471); TOSTATUS, Opera, I-IV (Venice, 1728); DIONYSIUS THE CARTHUSIAN, Comment. in Pentateuch. in Opera omnia, I, II (Montreuil, 1896-7).

MORE RECENT WORKS.-Jewish Writers:-The Commentaries of RASHI (1040-1150), ABENASRA (1092-1167), and DAVID KIMCHI, (1160-1235) are contained in the Rabbinic Bibles; ABARBANEL, Comment. (Venice, 5539 A.M.; 1579 B.C.); CAHEN, French tr. of Pent. (Paris, 1831); KALISCH, Historical and Critical Comment on the Old Test. (London), Gen. (1885); Lev. (1867, 1872); Ez. (1855); HIRSCH, Der Pent. ubersetzt und erklart (2nd ed., Frankfurt, 1893, 1895); HOFFMANN, Das Buch Lev. ubersetz und erklart (Berlin, 1906).

Protestant Writers:-The works of LUTHER, MELANCHTHON, CALVIN, GERHART, CALOVIUS, DRUSIUS, DE DIEU, CAPPEL, COCCEIUS, MICHAELIS, LE CLERC, ROSENMULLER, and even of TUCH and BAUMGARTEN, are of minor importance in our days; KNOBEL, Gen. (6th ed., by DILLMANN, 1892; tr., Edinburgh, 1897); RYSSEL, Ez. and Lev. (3rd ed., 1897); DILLMANN, Numbers, deut., Jos. (2nd ed., 1886); LANGE, Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk (Bielefeld and Leipzig); IDEM, Gen. (2nd ed., 1877); IDEM, Ez., Lev., and Numbers (1874); STOSCH, Deut. (2nd ed., 1902); KEIL and FRANZ DELITZSCH, Biblischer Comment. uber das A.T.; KEIL, Gen. and Ex. (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1878); IDEM, Lev., Numbers, Deut. (2nd ed., 1870; tr., Edinburgh, 1881, 1885); STRACK and ZOCKLER, Kurzgefasster Komment. zu den h. Schriften A. und N.T. (Munich); STRACK, Gen. (2nd ed., 1905); IDEM, Ez., Lev., Numbers (1894); OETTLI, Deut. (1893); NOWACK, Handkomment. zum A.T. (Gottingen); GUNKEL, Gen. (1901); BANTSCH, Ez., Lev., Numbers (1903); Deut. by STEUERNAGEL (1900); MARTI, Kurtzer Handommentar z. A.T. (Freiburg): HOLZINGER, Gen. (1898), Ez. (1900), Numbers (1903); BERTHOLET, Lev. (1901), Deut. (1899); BOHMER, Das erste Buch Mose (Stuttgart, 1905); COOK, The Holy Bible according to the Authorized Version, I-II (London, 1877); SPENCE and EXELL, The Pulpit Commentary (London): WHITELAW, Gen.; RAWLINSON, Ex.; MEYRICK, Lev.; WINTERBOTHAM, Numbers; ALEXANDER, Deut.; The Expositor's Bible (London): DODS, Gen. (1887); CHADWICK, Exod. (1890); KELLOGG, Lev. (1891); WATSON, Numbers (1889); HARPER, Deut. (1895); The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh): GRAY, Numbers (1903); DRIVER, Deut. (1895); SPURRELL, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Gen. (2nd ed., Oxford, 1896); GINSBURG, The Third Book of Moses (London, 1904); MACLAREN, The Books of Ex., Lev., and Numbers (London, 1906); IDEM, Deut. (London, 1906); REUSS, L'histoire sainte et la loi (Paris, 1879); KUENEN, HOSYKAAS, and OORT, Het Oude Testament (Leyden, 1900-1).

Catholic Works:-The works of CAJETAN, OLEASTER, STEUCHUS EUGUBINUS, SANTE PAGINO, LIPPOMANNUS, HAMMER, B. POREIRA, ASORIUS MARTINENGUS, LORINUS, TIRINUS, A LAPIDE, CORN, JANSENIUS, BONFRERE, FRASSEN, CALMET, BRENTANO, DERESER, and SCHOLZ are either too well known or too unimportant to need further notice. La Sainte Bible (Paris); CHELIER, La Genese (1889); IDEM, l'Exode et la Levitique (1886); TROCHON, Les Nombres et le Deuteronome (1887-8); Cursus Scripturae Sacrae (Paris); VON HUMMELAUER, Gen. (1895); Ex., Lev. (1897); Num. (1899); Deut. (1901); SCHRANK, Comment. literal. in Gen. (1835); LAMY, Comment in l. Gen. (Mechlin, 1883-4); TAPPEHORN, Erklarung der Gen. (Paderborn, 1888); HOBERG, Die Gen. nach dem Literalsinn erklart (Freiburg, 1899); FILLION, La Sainte Bible, I (Paris, 1888); NETELER, Das Buch Genesis der Vulgata und des hebraischen Textes ubersetzt und erklart (Munster, 1905); GIGOT, Special Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament, I (New York, 1901). Biblical Commission: Acta Apostolicoe Sedis (15 July, 1908); Rome (17 July, 1909).


Deuteronomy

Jewish Perspective Information

ARTICLE HEADINGS:

-Biblical Data:

The Laws in Deuteronomy.

-Critical View:

Relation to Other Codes.

Aim and Scope of Deuteronomy.

The Love of God.

Love of Neighbors.

Song and Blessing of Moses.

Age and Authorship of Deuteronomy.

Influence on Subsequent Writers.

Its Composite Character.

Style of Deuteronomy.

-Critical View:

Analysis of Sources.

Variations of Analysis.

Supposed Sources of xxvii.-xxx.

Date and Tendency.

Different Dates Assigned.

Sources and Redaction.

The fifth book of the Pentateuch, called in Hebrew "Debarim" (Words), from the opening phrase "Eleh ha-debarim."; in Rabbinical Hebrew it is known also as "Mishneh Torah." The English appellation is derived from the name which the book bears in the Septuagint (Δευτερουόμιου) and in the Vulgate (Deuteronomium); and this is based upon the erroneous Septuagint rendering of "mishnch ha-torah ha-zot" (xvii. 18), which grammatically can mean only "a repetition [that is, a copy] of this law," but which is rendered by the Septuagint τὸ Δευτερουόμιου τοῦτο, as though the expression meant "this repetition of the law." While, however, the name is thus a mistranslation, it is not inappropriate; for the book does include, by the side of much new matter, a repetition or reformulation of a large part of the laws found in the non-priestly sections (known as "JE") of Exodus.

-Biblical Data:

The book of Deuteronomy consists in the main of the discourses which Moses is represented as having delivered, immediately before his death (i. 3), on the other side of Jordan for the purpose of teaching the Israelites the laws which theywere to obey, and the spirit in which they were to obey them, when they should be settled in the Promised Land. Disregarding introductions and other subsidiary matter, the contents of the book may be summarized as follows:

Ch. i. 6-iv. 40: Moses' first discourse, consisting (i.-iii.) of a review of the providential guidance of the Israelites through the wilderness to the border of the Promised Land, and concluding (iv.) with an eloquent appeal not to forget the great truths, especially the spirituality of their God, impressed upon them at Horeb. Ch. v.-xxvi., xxviii. 1-xxix. 1: Moses' second discourse, containing the exposition of the Deuteronomic law, and forming the central and most characteristic portion of the book. It consists of two parts:

(1) ch. v.-xi., a hortatory introduction, developing the first commandment of the Decalogue, and inculcating the general theocratic principles by which Israel, as a nation, is to be governed;

(2) ch. xii.-xxvi., the code of special laws, followed (xxviii. 1-xxix. 1) by a solenm rehearsal of the blessings and curses attached respectively to the observance and neglect of the Deuteronomic law. [Ch. xxvii. consists of instructions (interrupting the discourse of Moses, and narrated in the third person) relative to a ceremony by which the nation, after entering Canaan, is to symbolize its ratification of the preceding code; see Josh. viii, 30-35.] Ch. xxix. 2-xxx. 20: Moses' third discourse, emphasizing afresh the fundamental duty of loyalty to Yhwh and the dangers of apostasy. Ch. xxxi.-xxxiv.: Moses' last words of encouragement addressed to the people and to Joshua; his song (xxxii. 1-43) and blessing (xxxiii.); the account of his death (xxxiv.).

It is characteristic of the discourses of Deuteronomy that the writer's aim is throughout parenctic: both in the two historical retrospects (i.-iii., ix. 9-x. 11), and in passing allusions elsewhere (as xi. 2-6; xxiii. 4, 5; xxiv. 9), he appeals to history for the sake of the lessons deducible from it; and in his treatment of the laws, he does not merely collect or repeat a series of legal enactments, but he "expounds" them (i. 5); that is, he develops them with reference to the moral and religious purposes which they subserve, and to the motives from which the Israelite ought to obey them. It is a further characteristic of the discourses that they are, in both the historical and the legal parts, dependent upon the narrative and laws, respectively, of JE in Exodus and Numbers; entire phrases from the earlier document being frequently embedded in them (compare Deut. i. 33, 35, 36 with Ex. xiii. 21, and Num. xiv. 23, 24 respectively; and Deut. xvi. 16, 19 with Ex. xxiii. 6, 8, 17).

The Laws in Deuteronomy.

The following is an outline of the laws in Deuteronomy, the asterisk (*) denoting those laws which are peculiar to Deuteronomy, and the dagger († or ‡) those which differ more or less materially in their provisions from those in JE and P respectively. For a more complete synoptical table see Driver's "Introduction to the Literature of the O. T." 7th ed., pp. 73 et seq., or his Commentary on Deuteronomy, pp. iv. et seq.

i. Religious Observances:

1. Law of single sanctuary, xii. 1-28‡ (burnt offerings, sacrifices [i.e., peace-offerings, tithes, heave-offerings [first-fruits and other offerings from the produce of the soil], vows, free-will offerings, and firstlings, all to be offered at the central sanctuary).

2. Laws against the worship of "other gods," xii. 29-31, xiii*.

3. Sanctity of the laity, xiv. 1-21 (person not to be disfigured in mourning, xiv. 1-2; law of clean and unclean animals, xiv. 3-20; flesh of animals dying a natural death not to be eaten, xiv. 21).

4. Laws tending to ameliorate the condition of the poor, xiv. 22-xv. 18 (disposition of the charitable tithe, xiv. 22-29‡; relief secured to debtors every seventh year, xv. 1-11†‡; law of slavery, xv. 12-18†‡).

5. Offerings and festivals (firstling males to be offered to Yhwh, xv. 19-23‡; regulations respecting the observance of the three annual pilgrimages, xvi. 1-17‡).

ii. The Office-Bearers of the Theocracy:

1. Judges to be appointed in every city, xvi. 18*; and judgment to be impartial, xvi. 19, 20. [Ch. xvi. 21-22, asherahs and "pillars" prohibited; xvii. 1, sacrifices to be without blemish; xvii. 2-7, an Israelite convicted of idolatry to be stoned to death*.]

2. The supreme central tribunal, xvii. 8-13*.

3. The king, xvii. 14-20 (theocratic conditions which the monarchy is to satisfy*).

4. Rights and revenues of the priestly tribe, xviii. 1-8*.

5. The prophet, xviii. 9-22* (verses 10, 11 against different forms of magic and divination-expansion of Ex. xxii. 18).

iii. Criminal Law:

1. Manslaughter and murder, xix. 1-13 (cities of refuge†).

2. Against removal of boundary-stones, xix. 14*.

3. Law of witness, xix. 15-21 (compare xvii. 6). [Four laws designed to secure self-control and forbearance in the conduct of war, xx.* and xxi. 10-14*; compare xxiv. 5*.]

iv. Miscellaneous Laws Relating Chiefly to Civil and Domestic Life: Symbolical rite of expiation for an untraced murder, xxi. 1-9*; primogeniture, xxi. 15-17*; treatment of an undutiful son, xxi. 18-21*; treatment of the body of a malefactor, xxi. 22-23*; lost cattle or other property to be restored to owner, xxii. 1-4; sexes not to interchange garments, xxii. 5*; motherbird not to be taken with nest, xxii 6, 7*; parapets on roofs, xxii. 8*; prohibition of non-natural mixtures and combinations, xxii. 9-11; law of fringes, xxii. 12; slander against a newly married maiden, xxii. 13-21*; adultery and seduction, xxii. 22-29; prohibition of marriage with stepmother, xxii. 30; conditions of admittance into the theocratic community, xxiii. 1-8*; cleanliness in the camp, xxiii. 9-14‡; humanity to escaped slave, xxiii. 15-16*; religious prostitution forbidden, xxiii. 17-18*; usury (interest), xxiii. 19-20; vows, xxiii. 21-23; regard for neighbor's crops, xxiii. 24-25*; divorce, xxiv. 1-4*; pledges, xxiv. 6, 10-13; man-stealing, xxiv. 7; leprosy, xxiv. 8-9; wages of hired servant not to be detained, xxiv. 14-15; criminal's family not to be punished with him, xxiv. 16*; justice toward "stranger" (i.e., resident foreigner), widow, and orphan, xxiv. 17-18; gleanings, xxiv. 19-22; limit to stripes xxv. 1-3*; ox not to be muzzled while threshing, xxv. 4*; levirate marriage, xxv. 5-10*; modesty in women xxv. 11, 12* just weights and measures, xxv. 13-16; liturgical directions for the offering of first-fruits and of the triennial tithe, xxvi. 1-15*.

The moral and religious duties which form the subject of the imprecations in xxvii. 15-26 should likewise be noted, as also the injunctions occurring in other parts of the book, or introduced more or less incidentally in xii.-xxvi-as v. 6-21 (the Decalogue, repeated, with variations in the subordinate clauses, from Ex. xx. 2-17); vi. 8 and xi. 18 (the law of frontlets); vi. 14 and xi. 16 (against "other gods"); xii. 16, 23-25, and xv. 23 (blood not to be eaten); xix. 21 ("the lex talionis)."

-Critical View:

I. If the Deutcronomic laws are compared carefully with the three codes contained in Exodus and Numbers, it will be apparent that they stand in a different relation to each:

(1) The laws in JE-namely, Ex. xx-xxiii. (repeated partially in Ex. xxxiv. 10-26), and the kindred section, Ex. xiii. 3-16-form the foundation of the Deuteronomic legislation. This is evident partly from the numerous verbal coincidences referred to above-whole clauses, and sometimes even an entire law, being repeated verbatim-and partly from the fact that frequently a law in Deuteronomy consists of an expansion, or application to particular cases, of a principle laid down more briefly in Exodus (compare, for instance, Deut. xiii., xvii. 2-7, withEx. xxii. 20; Deut. xvi. 1-17 with Ex. xxiii. 14-17; and Deut. xviii. 10, 11 with Ex. xxii. 18). The civil and social enactments which are new in Deuteronomy make provision chiefly for cases likely to arise in a more highly organized community than is contemplated in the legislation of Ex. xx.-xxiii.

(2) With the laws contained principally in Lev. xvii.-xxvi. (the law of holiness, known as "H"), there are parallels in Deuteronomy (chiefly moral injunctions); but though in such cases the substance is often similar, the expression is nearly always different (compare, for instance, Deut. xiv. 1 with Lev. xix. 28; Deut. xvi. 19, 20 with Lev. xix. 15; Deut. xxiv. 19-22 with Lev. xix. 9, 10); and it can not be said that the legislation of Deuteronomy is in any sense an expansion or development of that in Lev. xvii.-xxvi. The one exception is the description of clean and unclean animals in xiv. 4a, 6-19a, which agrees in the main verbally with Lev. xi. 2b-20.

Relation to Other Codes.

(3) With the ceremonial laws contained in the other parts of Leviticus, and in Numbers (P), Deuteronomy is only remotely related: there are no verbal parallels. Some of the institutions and observances codified in P are indeed mentioned, as, for instance burnt and peace-offerings, fire-sacrifices, heave-offerings, the distinction between clean and unclean, a Torah for leprosy (xxiv. 8); but they are destitute of the central significance which they hold in the system of P; while many of the fundamental institutions of P-as the distinction between the priests and the common Levites; the Levitical cities and the year of jubilee; the cereal-offering; the guilt and sin-offering; the great Day of Atonement-are not referred to in Deuteronomy at all; and in the laws which do touch common ground, great, and, indeed, in some cases, irreconcilable, discrepancies frequently display themselves. Thus the Deuteronomic legislation may be termed an expansion of the body of laws contained in JE; it is, in several features, parallel to that contained in H; it contains allusions to laws similar to-it can not be said identical with-those codified in some parts of P; while its provisions sometimes differ widely from those found in other parts of P.

Aim and Scope of Deuteronomy.

The Deuteronomic discourses may be said to comprise three elements-a historical, a legislative, and a parenctic. Of these the parenctic element is both the most characteristic and the most important; for it is devoted to the inculcation of certain fundamental religious and moral principles upon which the writer lays great stress. The historical element is subservient to the parenctic, the references to history, as has been already remarked, having nearly always a didactic aim. The legislative element, though obviously, in many of its features, tending directly to secure the national well-being, and possessing consequently an independent value of its own, is by the writer of Deuteronomy viewed primarily as a vehicle for exemplifying the principles which it is the main object of his book to enforce. The author wrote, it is evident, under a keen sense of the perils of idolatry; and to guard Israel against this, by insisting earnestly on the debt of gratitude and obedience which it owes to its sovereign Lord, is the fundamental teaching of his book. Accordingly the truths on which he loves to dwell are the sole godhead of Yhwh, His spirituality (Deut. iv.), His choice of Israel, and the love and faithfulness which He has manifested toward it; from which are deduced the great practical duties of loyal and loving devotion to Him, an absolute and uncompromising repudiation of all false gods, a warm and spontaneous obedience to His will, and a large-hearted and generous attitude toward men.

The Love of God.

The central and principal discourse (v.-xxvi., xxviii.) opens with the Decalogue; and the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," may be said to be the text which in the rest of ch. v.-xi. is eloquently and movingly expanded. Yhwh is, moreover, a spiritual being: hence no sensible representation can be framed of Him. Still less should Israel's devotions be paid to any other material object (iv. 12, 15-19). Yhwh has chosen Israel; and, in fulfilment of the promises given to its forefathers, has wonderfully delivered it from its bondage in Egypt, and assigned it a home in a bounteous and fertile land, to take possession of which it is now on the point of crossing the Jordan (vi. 10, 11; viii. 7-10). In return for all these benefits it is the Israelite's duty to fear and to love Yhwh-to fear Him as the great and mighty God, whose judgments strike terror into all beholders (iv. 32-36, xi. 2-7); and to love Him on account of the affection and constancy with which, even as a father, He has ever dealt with Israel. The love of God, an all-absorbing sense of personal devotion to Him, is propounded in Deuteronomy as the primary spring of human duty (vi. 5); it is the duty which is the direct corollary of the character of God and of Israel's relation to Him; the Israelite is to love Him with undivided affection ("with all thine heart, and with all thy soul," vi. 5; xiii. 3; xxx. 6; and elsewhere-an expression characteristic of Deuteronomy), renouncing everything that is in any degree inconsistent with loyalty to Him.

This brings with it, on the one hand, an earnest and entire repudiation of all false gods, and of every rite or practise connected with idolatry; and, on the other hand, a cheerful and ready acquiescence in the positive commandments which He has laid down. Of nothing is the Israelite more repeatedly and emphatically warned in Deuteronomy than of the temptations to idolatry, and of the perils of yielding to them. The heathen populations of Canaan are to be exterminated; no intermarriage, or other intercourse with them, is to be permitted; and their places of worship and religious symbols are to be ruthlessly destroyed (vii. 2-5; xii. 2, 3). Israel must ever remember that it is "holy" to Yhwh (vii. 6; xiv. 2, 21; xxvi. 19; xxviii. 9). Canaanitish forms of divination and magic are not to be tolerated; an authorized order of prophets is to supply in Israel, so far as Yhwh permits it, the information and counsel for which other nations resorted to augurs and soothsayers (xviii. 9-19). Local shrines and altars, even though ostensibly dedicated to the worship of the true God, were liable to contamination, on the part of the unspiritual Israelites, by the admixtureof heathen rites; accordingly, the three great annual feasts are to be observed, and all sacrifices and other religious dues are to be rendered, it is repeatedly and strongly insisted, at a single central sanctuary, "the place which Yhwh shall choose . . . to set his name there" (xii. 5-7, 11, 14, 18, 26, and elsewhere). Obedience to these commands, if it come from the heart and be sincere, will bring with it the blessing of Yhwh: disobedience will end in national disaster and exile (vi. 14-15, vii. 12-16, viii. 19, and especially xxviii.).

Love of Neighbors.

The practical form which devotion to Yhwh is to take is not, however, to be confined to religious duties, strictly so called. It is to embrace also the Israelite's social and domestic life, and it is to determine his attitude toward the moral and civil ordinances prescribed to him. The individual laws contained in ch. xii.-xxvi. are designed for the moral and social well-being of the nation; and it is the Israelite's duty to obey them accordingly. Love of God involves the love of one's neighbor, and the avoidance of any act which may be detrimental to a neighbors' welfare. The Israelite must comport himself accordingly. Duties involving directly the application of a moral principle are especially insisted on, particularly justice, integrity, equity, philanthropy, and generosity; and the laws embodying such principles are manifestly of paramount importance in the writer's eyes. Judges are to be appointed in every city, who are to administer justice with the strictest impartiality (xvi. 18-20). Fathers are not to be condemned judicially for the crimes of their children; nor children for the crimes of their fathers (xxiv.16). Just weights and measures are to be used in all commercial transactions (xxv. 13-16); grave moral offenses are punished severely; death is the penalty not only for murder, but also for incorrigible behavior in a son, for unchastity, for adultery, and for man-stealing (xxi. 18-21, xxii. 20-27, xxiv. 7).

But the author's ruling motive is humanity, whereever considerations of religion or morality do not force him to repress it. Thus philanthropy, promptitude, and liberality are to be shown toward those in difficulty and want-as the indigent in need of a loan (xv. 7-11); a slave at the time of his manumission (xv. 13-15); a fugitive (xxiii. 15, 16); a hired servant (xxiv. 14, 15); the "stranger [i.e., resident foreigner], the fatherless, and the widow" (xiv. 29, and frequently elsewhere). Gratitude and a sense of sympathy, evoked by the recollection of Israel's own past, are frequently appealed to as the motives by which the Israelite should in such cases be actuated (x. 19, "For ye were strangers in the land of Egypt"; xv. 15; xvi. 12; xxiv. 18, 22, "and thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt"). A spirit of forbearance, equity, and regard for the feelings or welfare of others underlies also many of the other regulations of Deuteronomy. Nowhere else in the Old Testament does there breathe such an atmosphere of generous devotion to God and of large-hearted benevolence toward men; nowhere else are duties and motives set forth with deeper feeling or with more moving eloquence; and nowhere else is it shown so fully how high and noble principles may be made to elevate and refine the entire life of the community.

Song and Blessing of Moses.

The Song of Moses, contained in chap. xxxii. 1-34, is a didactic poem, the aim of which (verses 4-6) is to exemplify the rectitude and faithfulness of Yhwh as manifested in His dealings with a corrupt and ungrateful nation. Looking back upon the past, the poet, after the exordium (verses 1-3), describes, first, the providence that had brought Israel safely through the wilderness, and planted it in a land blessed abundantly by the goodness of Yhwh (verses 7-14); secondly, Israel's ingratitude and lapse into idolatry (verses 15-18), which had obliged Yhwh to threaten it with national disaster, and to bring it almost to the verge of ruin (verses 19-30); and thirdly, Yhwh's determination not to allow an unworthy foe to triumph over His people, but by speaking to them through the extremity of their need to bring them to a better mind, and so to make it possible for Himself to interpose and save them (verses 31-43). The thought underlying the poem is thus the rescue of the people, by an act of grace, at the moment when annihilation seems imminent. The author develops this theme with a glow of impassioned earnestness, and also with great literary and artistic skill. Chap. xxxiii. contains the "Blessing of Moses," consisting of a series of benedictions, or eulogies, pronounced upon the different tribes (Simeon excepted), with an exordium (verses 2-5) and it conclusion (verses 26-29). The method of the author is to signalize some distinctive feature in the character, or occupation, or geographical situation of each tribe, with allusion, by preference, to the theocratic function discharged by it, and at the same time to celebrate the felicity, material and spiritual, of the nation as a whole, secured to it originally by Yhwh's goodness in the wilderness (verses 2-5), and maintained afterward, through the continuance of his protecting care, in Canaan (verses 26-29). In general character it resembles the blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix. 1-27); but if the two be compared attentively, there will be seen to be some noticeable points of difference. The most salient features in Deut. xxxiii. are the isolation and depression of Judah (verse 7; contrast the warm eulogy in Gen. xlix. 8-12), the honor and respect with which Levi is viewed (verses 8-11; contrast the unfavorable terms of Gen. xlix. 5-7), the strength and splendor of the double tribe of Joseph (verses 13-17; compare Gen. xlix. 22-26, with which there are some verbal resemblances), and the burst of grateful enthusiasm with which the poet celebrates the fortune of his nation, settled and secure, with the aid of its God, in its promised home. The tone of the blessing is very different from that of the song (xxxii.): the one reflects national happiness; the other, national disaster. The two, it is evident, must have been composed at times in which the circumstances of the nation were very different.

Age and Authorship of Deuteronomy.

It is the unanimous opinion of modern critics that Deuteronomy is not the work of Moses, but that it was, in its main parts, written in the seventh century B.C., either during the reign of Manasseh, or during that of Josiah (but before his eighteenth year, the Book of the Law found in that year in theTemple [see II Kings xxii.-xxiii.] clearly containing Deuteronomy, if indeed it included anything more). The reasons for this conclusion, stated here in the briefest outline, are as follows: (1) Even upon the assumption that JE in Exodus and Numbers is Mosaic, the historical discrepancies in Deut. i-iv. and ix.-x., and the terms in which incidents belonging to the fortieth year of the Exodus are referred to, preclude the possibility of Deuteronomy being Mosaic likewise; while the use of the expression "beyond Jordan" in i. 1, 5; iii. 8; iv. 41, 46, 47, 49, for eastern Palestine, implies that the author was a resident in western Palestine. (2) The same conclusion follows, a fortiori, for those who allow that JE is a post-Mosaic document, from the fact, noticed above, that JE itself, both in the narrative parts and in the laws, is repeatedly quoted in Deuteronomy. (3) In Deuteronomy it is strictly laid down that sacrifice is to be offered at a single central sanctuary (xii. 5, 11, 14, etc.); whereas in Joshua to I Kings vi. sacrifices are frequently described as offered in various parts of the land (in accordance with the law of Ex. xx. 24), without any indication on the part of either the actor or the narrator that a law such as that of Deuteronomy is being infringed. (4) The other differences between the legislation of Deuteronomy and that of Ex. xxi.-xxiii. point with some cogency to the conclusion that the laws of Deuteronomy originated in a later and more highly developed stage of society than the laws of Exodus. (5) The law of the kingdom (xvii. 14-20) is colored by reminiscences of the monarchy of Solomon. (6) The forms of idolatry referred to-especially the worship of the "host of heaven" (iv. 19, xvii. 7)-point to a date not earlier than the reign of Ahaz, and more probably to one in the seventh century B. C.

Influence on Subsequent Writers.

(7) The influence of Deuteronomy upon subsequent writers is clear and indisputable. It is remarkable that Amos, Hosea, and the undisputed portions of Isaiah show no certain traces of this influence, while Jeremiah exhibits marks of it on nearly every page. If Deuteronomy had been composed between Isaiah and Jeremiah, these facts would be exactly accounted for. (8) Tile language and style of Deuteronomy-clear and flowing, free from archaisms, but purer than that of Jeremiah-would suit the same period. (9) The prophetic teachings of Deuteronomy-the leading theological ideas and the principles which the author seeks to inculcate-exhibit many points of contact with that of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and especially with the characteristic principles of the compiler of the Book of Kings (who must have lived in the same age).

Upon these grounds (which, when studied in detail, are seen to possess far greater cogency than can be conveyed by a mere summary) it is concluded by modern critics that Deuteronomy is in reality a work of the seventh century B.C. It is not difficult to realize the significance which the book must have had if it were written at this time. It was a great protest against the prevalent tendencies of the age. It laid down the lines of a great religious reform. The century was one in which-as Jeremiah and the Books of Kings sufficiently testify-heathenism was making serious encroachments in Judah. The Book of Deuteronomy was an endeavor by means of a dramatic use of the last words of Moses-based, not improbably, upon an actual tradition of a concluding address delivered by the great leader to his people-to reaffirm the fundamental principles of Israel's religion (namely, loyalty to Yhwh and the repudiation of all false gods) and to recall the people to a holier life and to a purer service of Yhwh. So far as its more distinctively legal parts are concerned, Deuteronomy may be described as the prophetic reformulation and adaptation to new needs of an older legislation (namely, the laws contained in JE). It is essentially the work not of a jurist or statesman, but of a prophet; a system of wise laws (iv. 6-8), consistently obeyed, is indeed, as explained above, a condition of the welfare of the community; but the points of view from which these laws are presented, the principles which the author evidently has at heart, the oratorical treatment, and the warm parenctic tone, are all characteristic of the prophet, and are all the creation of the prophetic spirit.

Its Composite Character.

[For reasons which can not be here developed, the discourses of Deuteronomy do not appear to be all from the same hand. The kernel of the book consists of ch. v.-xxvi. and xxviii., and this, no doubt, constituted the book found in the Temple by Hilkiah. It was probably preceded by ch. i.-iv. (with the exception of a few verses here and there which seem to be of later origin), though most modern critics are of opinion that these chapters were preflxed to it afterward. Some little time after the kernel of Deuteronomy was composed, it appears to have been enlarged by a second Deuteronomic writer (D2), who supplemented the work of his predecessor (D1) by adding ch. xxvii., xxix. 10-29, xxx. 1-10, and some other short passages in xxix.-xxxiv., together with the song (xxxii. 1-43) and the historical notices belonging to it (xxxi. 16-22, xxxii. 44). Finally, at it still later date, the whole thus formed was brought formally into relation with the literary framework of the Hexateuch as an entirety by the addition of some brief extracts from P (i. 3, xxxiv. 1 and 5 [partly], 7-9). At what stage in the history of the text the blessing (xxxiii.) was introduced is uncertain. The song was probably written in the age of Jeremiah; the blessing is earlier, being assigned by most critics to the reign of Jeroboam II.]

Style of Deuteronomy.

The style of the Deuteronomic discourses is very marked. Not only do particular words and expressions, embodying often the writer's characteristic thoughts, recur with remarkable frequency, giving a distinctive coloring to every part of his work, but the long and rolling periods in which the author expresses himself-which have the effect of carrying the reader with them and holding him enthralled by their oratorical power-are a new feature in Hebrew literature. The author has a wonderful command of Hebrew style. His practical aims, and the parenctic treatment which as a rule his subject demands, oblige him naturally to expand and reiterate more than is usually the case with Hebrew writers; nevertheless, his discourse, while never (in the bad sense of the term) rhetorical, always maintains its freshness, and is never monotonous or prolix. The influence of Deuteronomy upon the later literature of the Old Testament is very perceptible. Upon its promulgation it speedily became the book which both gave the religious ideals of the age andmolded the phraseology in which these ideals were expressed. The style of Deuteronomy, when once it had been found, lent itself readily to adoption; and thus a school of writers, imbued with its spirit, quickly arose, who have stamped their mark upon many parts of the Old Testament. As has been just, remarked, even the original Deuteronomy itself seems in places to have received expansion at the hands of a Deuteronomic editor (or editors). In the historical books, especially Joshua, Judges, and Kings, passages-consisting usually of speeches, or additions to speeches, placed in the mouths of prominent historical characters, or of reflections upon the religious aspects of the history-constantly recur, distinguished from the general current of the narrative by their strongly marked Deuteronomic phraseology, and evidently either composed entirely, or expanded from a narrative originally brief, by a distinct writer; namely, the Deuteronomic compiler or editor. Among the Prophets, Jeremiah, especially in his prose passages, shows most conspicuously the influence of Deuteronomy; but it is also perceptible in many later writings, as in parts of Chronicles, and in the prayers in Neh. i., ix., and Dan. ix.

Bibliography:

Of recent commentaries reference may be made to those of Dillmann (1886), Driver (1895; 2d ed., 1896), Steuernagel (1898), and Bertholet (1899); and with reference to sources, the Oxford Hexateuch (1900), i. 70-97, 200 et seq., ii. 246 et seq., may be mentioned.J. Jr. S. R. D.

-Critical View:

II. Scientific criticism denies both the unity and the authenticity of Deuteronomy, and brings forward definite theories regarding its composition, date of writing, and place in the development of law and religion. The critical problems presented by this book are especially difficult, and the way in which they are solved is decisive not only for the criticism of the whole of the Pentateuch, but for the total conception of the religion of the O. T. and its development. The book is divided on the whole as follows: the Deuteronomic law proper, xii.-xxvi.; the parenctic introduction, v.-xi., and peroration, xxvii.(xxviii)-xxx.; and the historical setting; that is, the introduction, i.-iv., and the peroration to the whole book, xxxi. to end.

Analysis of Sources.

Nearly all critics agree that the introduction, i.-iv. 40 (43), can not be the work of the author of v.-xi., or v.-xxvi., as (1) it contains contradictions to that portion, namely, ii. 14 (also i. 35-39) to v. 3 (also vii. 19-ix. 2-23, xi. 2), ii. 29 to xxiii. 5, and iv. 41-43 to xix. 2; (2) iv. 45-49, the superscription, is incompatible with that in i. 5; (3) the introduction i.-iv. is different in motive, being historic and not parenctic. This historical introduction was written by a Deuteronomist (D2); that is, an author writing in the style and spirit of Deuteronomy at a time when the Jahvist-Elohist narrative (JE) of the preceding books, Exodus-Numbers, was not yet united with Deuteronomy (Reuss, Hollenberg, Kuenen, Wellhausen, Cornill, Steuernagel, etc.). But as, after the combination of JE with Deuteronomy the narrative portion in the latter was duplicated, the original narrative, which also included iv. 41-43 and ix. 25-x. 11, was, according to Dillmann, changed by the Deuteronomic editor (Rd) into a speech by Moses, excepting the passages ii. 10-12, 20-23; iii. 9, 11, 14; iv. 41-43; x. 6, 7, which were not suited for the purpose. Therefore i.-iii. are by the author of Deuteronomy and iv. 1-40 was added by Rd in order to give a parenctic ending to his speech of Moses. Horst also separates i.-iii. from iv. 1-40. Portions from. ch. ix. and x. also belong to i.-iii., in the following sequence: ix. 9b, 11, 12-14, 25-29, 15, 16, 21, 18-20; x. 1-5, 10, 11; then followed i. 6-iii. 29, i. 6-8 preceding i. 9-18. Ch. ii. 10-12, 20-23; iii. 9, 11b, 13b-14; x. 6-9 are marginal notes by a learned reader. Ch. iii. 29 is followed by xxxi. 1-8, and ch. xxxiv. constitutes the end. Horst, in other words, constructs from the historical notes in i.-xi. a chronological account of the events in the wilderness after the Law had been promulgated. Steuernagel, finally, considers all the passages with the address in the singular (i. 21, 31a; ii. 7, etc.) as later interpolations.

All these source-analyses, and the separation of i.-iv. from the rest of the book, to which only Hoonacker has hitherto objected, are inadmissible, for (1) the supposed contradictions do not exist; (2) i. 5 is no superscription, while i. 1 is an epilogue to Num. (Knobel, Herxheimer, Klostermann); and (3) all the critics have misunderstood the import of the introduction, ch. i.-iv., which is not a historical or chronological account, but in its general character and in its details a single and continuous reproof based upon Israel's guilt contrasted with God's manifold mercies, and therefore as clearly of a parenctic nature as are the other parts of the book.

Variations of Analysis.

Ch. v.-xi.: Wellhausen holds that this passage does not belong to the original Deuteronomy as it is too long for an introduction: "Moses is forever trying to get at his point, but never gets to it." Wellhausen is followed by Valeton, who designates v. 5, vii. 17-26, ix. 18-20, 22, 23, x. 1-10a, 18-20, xi. 13-21 as interpolations, and by Cornill, who considers only x. 1-9 as such, and designates this parenctic introduction as Dp in contrast to the historical i.-iv., Dh.; D'Eichthal, on the other hand, distinguishes three documents: (1) a glorification of God and Israel-v. 1-3, 29 et seq.; vi. 1-25; vii. 7-24, 1-6, 25, 26; (2) exhortations to humility-viii. 1-20; ix. 1-8, 22-24; (3) a further glorification of Israel-x. 21 et seq.; xi. 1-28, 32. According to Horst, the Law begins in ch. v., into which parenctic insertions (vii. 6b-10, 17-24; viii.; ix. 1-9a, 10, 22-24; x. 12-xi. 12, 22-25 [26-32]) have been forced. Steuernagel distinguishes in v.-xi. two combined introductions to the Law-namely, one with the plural form of address: v. 1-4, 20-28; ix. 9, 11, 13-17, 21, 25-29; x. 1-5, 11, 16, 17; xi. 2-5, 7, 16-17, 22-28; and another with the singular form of address: vi. 4-5, 10-13, 15; vii. 1-4a, 6, 9, 12b-16a, 17-21, 23-24; viii. 2-5, 7-14, 17-18; ix. 1-4a, 5-7a; x. 12, 14-15, 21 (22?); xi. 10-12, 14-15. Kuenen, Oettli, König, and Strack ("Einleitung," 4th ed., p. 42) object to the separation of v.-xi., which is in fact entirely unnecessary, and makes of xii.-xxvi. a fragment, this splitting up into fragments resting on no other foundation than the fiction that a briefer original Deuteronomy had been in existence to accommodate an impatient reader limited in time.

Ch. xii.-xxvi.: Since the assertion of Wellhausen ("Composition des Hexateuchs," p. 194), that themain division of the book has also been worked over, sources, interpolations, etc., have likewise been discovered within this part. In ch. xii. Vater had already assumed two duplicates-verses 5-7 parallel to 11, 12, and 15-19 parallel to 20-28-this opinion being shared by Cornill and in part by Stade ("Gesch. Israels," i. 658). Steinthal even distinguishes seven fragments in this chapter: (1) 1-7; (2) 8-12; (3) 13-16; (4) 17-19; (5) 20, 26-28; (6) 21-25; (7) 29-31 and xiii. 1. Nearly the same is assumed by Stärk. D'Eichthal divides xii. into two documents: (1) 1-3, 29-31; (2) 4-28. Horst thinks that 4-28 is a combination of four different texts. Steuernagel divides the chapter thus: (1) 1; (2) 2-12, subdivided into (3) 2; (4) 4-7; (5) 8-10; (6) 13-27, subdivided into (7) 15, 16; (8) 22-25; and (9) 28. Underlying all these efforts to split its chapters into fragments and parts of fragments is a misconception of the style of Deuteronomy.

The following, among other criticisms, may be mentioned: Beginning with Wellhausen, almost all critics consider xv. 4, 5 as a gloss or correction to xv. 7, 11, because they do not take into account the meaning and connection. The passage xvi. 21-xvii. 7 is in the wrong place, according to Wellhausen, Cornill, Stärk, and others, while Valeton and Kuenen admit this only of xvi. 21-xvii. 1. Wellhausen, Stade, Cornill, and others do not include the "king's law," xvii. 4-20, in Deuteronomy. In ch. xxiii. verses 3-9 have been objected to by Geiger, Wellhausen, Stade, and Valeton, while Kuenen rejects their criticism. D'Eichthal finds contradictions between xxvi. 3, 4 and xxvi. 11; Horst, between xxvi. 1-15 and xiv. 22-29. The latest critics, Stärk and Steuernagel, have gone furthest in rearranging and cutting up the text. Starting with the twofold mode of address-singular and plural-both assume that two works were combined, each of which again, according to Steuernagel, was based on a number of different sources. These and other critics (1) forget that the categories of the critic are not necessarily those of the author; (2) fail to explain how the present discrepancies were derived from a previous orderly arrangement, for in view of the continual change of address a separation of passages based on it can be effected only by resorting to violence; (3) should first have examined whether the noteworthy changes in the forms of address have no internal warrant. While it is possible that xii.-xxvi. has been subjected to many revisions, changes, and interpolations, as a legal code naturally would be, nothing to that effect can be proved.

Supposed Sources of xxvii.-xxx.

Ch. xxvii-xxx.: Kuenen criticizes xxvii. as follows: Not attributable to the Deuteronomist are: (1) 1-8, because they include an earlier account-5-7a; and (2) 11-13, because they refer back to xi. 29-30, although misunderstanding the passage. Verses 14-26 constitute a later interpolation; hence only 9, 10 remain for D1. This opinion is shared by Ewald, Kleinert, Kayser, Dillmann. According to Wellhausen, xxviii. does not agree with xxvii.; xxviii.-xxx. are parallel to xxvii., each being a different conclusion to two different editions of the chief part, xii.-xxvi. corresponding to the two prefaces i-iv. and v.-xi. Ch. xxviii. itself lacks unity. Valeton ascribes only 1-6, 15-19 to the author of the hortatory v.-xi., considering all else as later expansions. Kleinert considers 28-37 and 49-57 as later interpolations. Dillmann also assumes numerous interpolations by a later editor. In the two following chapters Kleinert considers xxix. 21-27 and xxx. 1-10 as interpolations. Kuenen ascribes both chapters to another author. Ch. xxi-xxxiv.: Not only the critics but also the apologists refuse to consider these closing chapters, wholly or in part, as due to the author of Deuteronomy proper. (1) xxxi. 1-8, parallel to Num. xxvii. 15-23, is a continuation of iii. 28 et seq., by the same author; xxxi. 9-13 forms the close of the law-book, xxx. 20; (2) xxxi. 14-30 serves as introduction to the song of Moses, belonging with it to the passages incorporated later in Deuteronomy; ch. xxxii. 44-47 is the ending to the song, and to xxxi. 15-29; 48-52 are taken from the Priestly Code (P); (3) xxxiii. is an old document incorporated by the editor; (4) xxxiv., Moses' death, is combined from different accounts; the following verses are taken from P: 1a and 5 (revised), 7-9 (Dillmann); 1-7a, 8, 9 (Wellhausen); 1a, 8, 9, 1a, 7a, 8, 9 (Kuenen); 1a, 8, 9 (Cornill). To J belong: 1b, 4(Dilimann); lb-7 (Cornill). To JE belong: 10 (Dillmann); 2-7, 10-12 (Wellhausen; revised); 1b-3, 5-7b, 10 (Kuenen). To D belong: 1a β 6 (revised), 11, 12 (Dillmann); and lb β 2-3, an interpolation. According to Wellhausen, 2-7, 10-12, Kuenen 4-6, 7a, 11-12, Cornill 10-12, are editorial interpolations.

Date and Tendency.

Ranke, Hävernick, Hengstenberg, Baumgarten, Fr. W. Schultz, Keil, Kühel, Bissel, and other apologists ascribe the book to Moses. This view is criticized on the following grounds: (1) The account of the discourses of Moses, their writing and transmission (xxxi. 9, 24-26; xxviii. 58, 61; xxix. 19, 20, 26; xxx. 11; xvii. 18 et seq.), can not be by Moses. (2) Moses can not possibly have written the story of his death, nor compared himself with later prophets (ch. xxxiv.). (3) A later time is indicated by ii. 12 ("as Israel did"), by iii. 9-11, 14 ("unto this day"; comp. Judges x. 4 and i. 44 with i. 17); and by xix. 14 ("of old time"). (4) The writer speaks of the country east of the Jordan as "on this side" (i. 1, 5; iv. 41-49), though referring in the speeches to the western country (iii. 20, 25; xi. 30: in iii. 8 vice versa): therefore, he is in Palestine. (5) Although Israel is represented as about to enter Canaan, the language necessitates the inference that Israel is already settled in that country, engaged in agricul ture or living in cities, under an organized government. (6) The book assumes a long period of development as regards politics and the state ("king's law": supreme court), religion (allusions to fundamental religious principles and the law of the Prophets; emphasis on the centralization of worship), and worship (position of the priests and Levites; gifts to the sanctuary). (7) The book uses sources that can be proved to be post-Mosaic. The precise dates given, however, vary.

Kleinert is of the opinion that the book was composed about the end of the period of the Judges, perhaps even by Samuel or by a contemporary of Samuel, and certainly in a truly Mosaic spirit. Thelegislation occupies a middle ground in relation to that of the earlier books. As pre-Deuteronomic may be proved: Ex. xx.-xxiii., xxxiv. 11-26, xix. 5 et seq., xiii. 1-13; Lev. xvii. 18 et seq.; Num. xxxiii. 50 et seq., iii. 12 et seq.; the principal enactments in Lev. xviii.-xx.; the content of Ex. xii. 1-14, 21-23, 43-50; Lev. xiii. xiv. Post-Deuteronomic: Lev. xi., xv. 16 et seq., xvii. 15 et seq., xxii. 17 et seq., xxiii., xxv. 39 et-seq., xxvii. 26-30 et seq.; Num. xv. 37 et seq.; xviii. 15, 21 et seq.; xxviii., xxix. Moses' blessing, xxxiii., dates from the early time of the Judges. Ch. xxxi. 14-29, xxxii. 1-43, 48-52, xxxiv. must be separated as non-Deuteronomic.

Different Dates Assigned.

The book is assumed to have been composed during the earlier, but post-Solomonic, time of the Kings, by Delitzsch and Oettli; under Hezekiah, by Vaihinger and König; under Manasseh, by Ewald, Riehm, W. R. Smith, Wildeboer, Kautzsch, Kittel, Dernier, Valeton; under Josiah, by De Wette, Bleck, George, Vatke, Graf, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Dillmann, Cornill, Stade, Reuss, and nearly all critics since Graf-Wellhausen. Gesenius and the more recent French critics, as D'Eichthal, Havet, Vernes, Horst, have assumed a date during, or later than, the Exile.

The assumption that the book was composed under Hezekiah, Manasseh, or Josiah is based on the hypothesis that the law-book which was discovered in the Temple by the priest Hilkiah in the eighteenth year of the reign of King Josiah, 621 B.C., as narrated in II Kings xxii. et seq., was virtually the present Deuteronomy, the only difference of opinion being as to how long it had been composed. Most of the advocates of the Josianic period even say that the book was composed and hidden with the definite intention that it should be brought to light in that way. This hypothesis is difficult to maintain, for a number of improbabilities must be assumed in order to prove that the code found at the time of Josiah was Deuteronomy. All that can be claimed is that the narrator of the story of the finding and of the reforms attendant upon it adopts in part the language of Deut. This view is exposed to the insuperable objection that the religion which brought truth into the world can not have been founded upon a deception. That this fundamental book of religion, containing such a free and pure stream of truth, could be pseudepigraphic, and that the whole nation should have considered as of Mosaic origin and of divine authority, and have adopted at once, without objection or criticism, a book which was a forgery, of the existence of which no one knew anything before that time, and which demanded radical modifications of the religious life, and especially of worship, is inconceivable.

Those critics who recognize these objections, but for critical reasons hesitate to take Moses as the author, assert, therefore, that the book is in its essentials a faithful reproduction of the teaching of Moses, filling in the outlines given by the latter; and that there are no objections to assuming that inspired men, working in the spirit of Moses, and sustaining to him the uninterrupted relation of spiritual succession, should feel justified in rendering his teaching and his law comprehensible for their own time, supplementing and developing them, and that the book thus composed is none the less Mosaic in spirit. Modern criticism holds that the book was prepared for the purpose of realizing the ideals of the Prophets in the national life of Israel. It is the summary of the prophetic deliverances of the eighth and seventh centuries, though not altogether free from impairments of the prophetic ideals. Some critics (Cheyne, "Jeremiah," pp. 65 et seq.) consider it as a product of the priestly-prophetic circles, an assumption that is certainly correct (comp. xvii. 9 et seq., xxiv. 8).

Sources and Redaction.

Although the place assigned traditionally to Deut. as containing the end of the Mosaic legislation, and as presupposing the existence of Ex.-Num., is disputed by modern criticism, yet all critics agree that it is based on previous sources that have in part been preserved. This applies certainly to J and to E, both in the narrative and the legal portions. J in the narrative: i. 8, comp. Gen. xv. 18; i. 45, comp. Num. xiv. 16; iii. 15 et seq., comp. Num. xxxii. 29; otherwise the story is recapitulated from E. In the Law the close relation and connection with the Book of the Covenant contained in E (Ex. xx. 24-xxiii. 19) is most noticeable, Steuernagel being the only one to dispute this, and the so-called Decalogue in J (Ex. xxxiv.). It is a matter of dispute whether the author of Deuteronomy knew J and E as separate works, or after they had been united into JE and incorporated into the Tetrateuch. The priority of the Decalogue of Ex. xx. or that of Deut. v. is also a much disputed question. Deuteronomy takes a very independent stand toward its sources, the reproduction being a free modification or enlargement. Wellhausen and Stade have therefore assumed it to be an enlarged edition of the old Book of the Covenant, and Kuenen, followed especially by Cornill, has brought forward the hypothesis that Deut. supplanted the Book of the Covenant.

It is a very important question under discussion, whether the author of Deuteronomy was acquainted with P; whether, therefore, the latter was the earlier book, if not in its present codification, at least in content. P is asserted to be older by Dillmann, Delitzsch, Oettli, and, of course, by the traditionalists. As regards history they quote iv. 3 = Num. xxv. (leading astray of the Israelites); i. 37, iii. 26, iv. 21 (Aaron and Moses forbidden to enter Canaan) = Num. xx. 12, 24, xxvii. 14; i. 23 (number of the spies) = Num. xiii. 1 et seq.; x. 3 (the Ark of shittim-wood) = Ex. xxxvii. 1; x. 22 (the number "70") = Gen. xlvi. 27; xxxi. 2, xxxiv. 7 (the age of Moses) = Ex. vii. 7. In the Law the many allusions to the law of holiness belonging to P (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.), the assumption of several "torot," and especially Deut. xiv. in comparison with Lev. xi., confirm this view. According to other critics the historical references are derived from notes in JE, no longer extant, and as regards the Law they reverse the relation in every case. P presupposes Deut.; so that, for instance, Lev. xi. was modeled upon Deut. xiv.

The redaction of Deut. passed, according to Wellhausen, through three stages: (1) the original Deut.-xii.-xxvi.; (2) two enlarged editions independentof each other-i.-iv., xii.-xxvi., xvii., and v.-xi., xii.-xxvi., xxviii.-xxx.; (3) combination of the two editions and incorporation of the work so formed into the Hexateuchic code. Deuteronomy was in the first place combined only with JE; a later editor combined this work with P after the component parts of the latter had been put together. Dillmann assumes the following three stages of redaction down to Ezra: (1) Pg + E + J; (2) PgEJ + D; (3) PgEJD + Ph (law of holiness). The views in regard to the redaction depend on what is considered as the original Deut. and into what and how many parts it is divided. According to the Graf-Wellhausen theory of the relation of Deut. to the Prophets, and its priority to P, the book marks a radical change in the Israelitic religion. Through the centralization of worship the popular exercise of religion, closely connected with the daily life, the home, and the house, is uprooted and all the sacred poetry of life destroyed. Worship is separated from life, and the sharp contrast of holy and profane arises between the two. The idea of the Church comes into existence; then a separate profession, that of the clergy, is created; and by transferring the priestly ideal to the whole people the way is prepared for the exclusive and particularistic character of later Judaism. As the prophetic ideas are formulated into concrete laws, religion is externalized and becomes a religion of law, an opus operatum. The people now know exactly what they have to do, for "it is written." Deuteronomy marks the beginning of the canon; religion becomes a book religion, an object of study, a theology. The people know what they may expect if they keep the Law. Religion assumes the nature of a covenant, a contract, and the doctrine of retribution becomes paramount. Further conclusions are then drawn by P as to post-exilic Judaism, Pharisaism, the Talmud, Rabbinism.

This whole conception is based on literary and religio-historical assumptions that are either wrong or doubtful. The doctrines and demands of Deut. have always been fundamental in Israel's religion. The book condemns and abolishes paganism. The alleged legitimacy of the decentralization and popularization of worship is based entirely upon a wrong interpretation of Ex. xx. 24. Centralization is the necessary consequence of monotheism and of the actual or ideal unity of the people. Law and prophecy are closely connected from the foundation of Judaism, beginning with Moses. The regulation of life according to divine law, the contrast between holy and profane, the rise of a canon and a theology, are incidental to the development of every religion that has ever controlled and modified the life of a people.E. G. H. B. J.

Morris Jastrow Jr., S. R. Driver, Emil G. Hirsch, Benno Jacob

Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906.


The individual articles presented here were generally first published in the early 1980s. This subject presentation was first placed on the Internet in May 1997.

This page - - - - is at
This subject presentation was last updated on - -


Copyright Information

Send an e-mail question or comment to us: E-mail

The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at: BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html