flint) (A.B. In Nu 20*11 (P)
the term for ' rock * is vVd, not 11X.J
9Z> Tab'«rilh, Uaaaah, (^ibroth-hatt4't- Nu 111 ', Ex IT*,
vah) Nu 11".
11 (pa««afc'e of the Red 8ea) Ex 14«.
119 (Duthan and Abiram) Nu l«i'> 2">- » M«.
23" («' ) lialtt'am) Nu 22'^24».
24' (Miriam's leprosy) Nu 121'.
261"" (omiosition of ' Amaiek) Ex 17*'».
200-0 (allliction and deliverance from Ex l'- » V- * etc
2923 (S^ ^overthrow o( Sodom and Oo- On igMf. morran)
An investigation of the historical allusions in Dt confirms the impression produced by the legis- lative portion. The references are, almost with- out exception, made to events recorded in those portions of Ex and Nu which scholars assi^'n to .IK, or the 'prophetic' group of narratives incor-
598
DEUTERONOMY
DEUTEEONOMY
porated in the Pentateuch. The other main group of narratives in the Pent., denoiuinated P from its generally 'priestly' cliaracteristics, does not appear to have supi)Iied the foundation for the treatment of the history in D. Thus in !*> tlie reader notices that Caleh alone is mentioned as the recipient of especial favour ; there is no men- tion made of Joshua. In the Book of Nu the passage which records the favour granted to Caleb alone (Nu 14") belongs to JE, the passage which associates Joshua with Caleb (Nu H™) belongs to P. Similarly, in 1 1« we find mention of Dathan and Abiram, but not of Korah, who figures so conspicuously in Nu 16. Bat in Nu 16 the Korali passages are assigned by scholars to P ; the J E portion of the narrative speaks only of Dathan and Abiram.
There are only three incidents in the historical references of Dt which are to be found in the P and not in the JE narrative of the Pentateuch. These are (1) the mention of the number 'twelve,' of the spies, Dt 1=», cf. Nu 13'--i«; (2) the mention of the number ' seventy,' of the family of Jacob, Dt 10", cf. Gn 46", Ex 1» ; (3) the mention of acacia-wood as the material of which the ark was made, Dt lO^, cf. Ex 25'°. But it is to be remem- bered that these facts may have been recorded in JE, but have been preserved to ns only in the excerpts from the P narrative.
Assuming the correctness of the general pro- position, which is universally admitted by modern scholars, that the Pent, is of composite origin, we are brought, by a consideration of the distinctive- ness in D's treatment and style, to the opinion that D must take rank with JE and P as one of the component elements of the Pentateuch. Not, of course, that D should necessarily be assigned any more than J, or E, or P, to any one writer or author, but only that in style and treatment it may be attributed to a literary source, representing the influence of a particular period, or of particular circumstances, upon a writer, or a school, or a succession of writers.
iii. The Unity of the Book.— Though we have hitherto spoken of Dt as if it were a unity in itself, it would be a mistake to suppose that it presents an unbroken homogeneous piece of litera- ture written by a single person. There is good reason to suppose that the same kind of literary history is to be attributed to D as to JE and P. The original nucleus of writing has been revised, expanded, and modified. It is not difficult to indicate poitions which could hardly have worn their present appearance if from the first they had been part of a consecutive piece of writing.
It appears the most probable view that Dt 5-26 (27». 10). 28 represent the original work, either in part or in its entirety. In this work chs. 5-11 formed tlie introduction ; ch. 28 the peroration.
Wellhausen, indeed, limiu the ori^nal work of Dt to ch». 12-26. liut tliere seenis no sullloient ground for separating 5-11 from 12-20. The style and diction are in marked agreement; and the ditTerences which have been detected in the two flections are only those which might b« expected to arise Irom the difler- ence of subject-matter.
With regard to chs. 1-4 doubts have been more generally expressed. It has seemed to many improbable that the Intro- duction, consisting of 5-11, should have oeen precejtd by a long prefatory section. It is objected that the arrangement is loo cumbrous to be the oripnal one ; that the awkwardness of the present arrangement is emphasized by the presence of two formal headings, 11* and 4«-«>. Moreover, the absence in the bortatorj' passage 41-w of any allusion to the preceding historical summary lias suggested a doubt whether ch. 4 could be homo- geneous with chs. 1-3. On the other haml, the style is admittedly Deuteronomic ; and it is dilllcult to believe that 1-4 did not come in some form or another from the some writer or school as the contents of 5-20. 28.
Uillmann baa made the suggestion that 1-3 formed originally the hist, introduction, which was written in the third person, and that this was altered in character from narrative into a speech by the redactor of the Pent., who incorjiorated Dt into the main work. Dilliu. also considered that 4i-x> orit;iually
belonged to the conclusion of the book, and that it was trans f erred from that position by the redactor : for confirmation 04 this view, he appealed to the disordered and inconsecutive con- dition of cha. 2y. 30, and to the use of the past tense in 4^, whicb seemed to imply ihat the legislative portion had already beea recorded, and waa present to the reader's mind.