It may, however, be doubted whether there is not a danger of too great ingenuity in the h>-potlietical rearrangement of the original materials. Taking into consideration (I) the very close resembKance of style, and (2) the absence of any serious con- tradiction in statement between the diflerent portions, there is not room for any confident theory of different authorship for 1-4, though it may have been composed at a later time than the rest, and prefixed afterwards.
When, however, we come to consider the question of chs. 29-34, it is impossible not to admit tliat we have there to deal with materials widely diliering in origin.
One passage in particular, SO'"", obviously has no direct connexion with tlie section 30""'", which immediately follows ; 31""-' interrupts the thread of the narrative ; whUe 32'"''' and 33, two lyrical pieces, have evidently been derived from some independent collection of early Heb. songs. A few portions of 32 and 34 (32*»-»' and 34i»- »''■'-») are, on literary grounds, assigned with great probability to P as their original source.
The most reasonable explanation of the history of the structure of the book is excellently summarised in Driver's Deuteronomy (p. Ixxvii). 'Some little time after the kernel [chs. 5-26. 28) of Dt waa composed, it was enlarged by a second Deuteronomic writer (or writers), D2, who (1) supplemented the work of D by adding the passages indicated ; (2) incorporated, with additions of his (or their) own, the exceriits from JE, and (taking it probably from a separate source) the Song 321^, with the his- torical notices belonging to it, Sl^J-^a 32+*. Finally, at a still later date, the whole thus constituted was brought formally into relation with the literary framework of the Hexateuch as a whole by the addition of the extracts from P.'
iv. The Religious Teaching of Deuter- 0N05IY. — The characteristics of the religious thought of this book are very marked. Tliey exercised a profound influence upon the religious development of the people.
The great lessons of the spirituality of the Godhead (4'-), and the uniqueness of J", and His absolute unity (4™*' 6* 7' 10"), are strongly and impressively taught. We pass from the older conception of ' monolatry ' into the fuller and deeper thought of 'nionotlieism.' The relation in which the God of the people stands to the people is represented primarily as one of love rather than of law. The thouglit of the love of Israel towards her God, which is indeed laid down in the words of the Decalogue (Ex 20°, Dt 5'°), is not required else- where in the Pent., but in Dt it is earnestly in- sisted on as the basis of faithful service on the part of the creature to the Creator and of the redeemed to the Deliverer (cf. 10" 12'- "• *" 13» 19« 306. 16. ao) Appeals made to Israel to keep the com- mandments are, it is true, often based on the recol- lection of God's might and of His terrible visitation, on motives of awe and fear ; but the highest appeal is made to the consciousness of J"'8 love, in that He had chosen Israel, not for Israel's greatness or goodness, but out of Ilis own free love (Dt 7' * 8" %*-'). The love and all'ection of God towards the nation, as distinguished from His love towards individuals, constitutes an especial feature in Dt (4" 7" 23« 33') ; and Dt shares with Hosea (3' 11' 14*) the distinction of first familiarizing Israel with tlie thought and teaching that underlie so much of NT theology (cf. 1 K 10», 2 Ch 2" 9«, Mai P). Again, love as indicating the people's affection and devotion to .1" is again and again insisted on as the true spring of all liuman action (cf. 5'° 6' V 1012. 18 11'- "• -' 13s 19" 30''- '"• 2"). This teaching of the reciprocal relation of love between J" and Israel lias left the mark of Dt deeply impressed ui)on or theology. It is this whicii leads more directly than any other line of OT teaching to the revelation ultimately contained in the words, ' God so loved the world,' etc. (Jn 3").
JJEUTKKUXO.MY
DKUTKKONOMY
"/J9
As the outcome of the thought of the divine love which Israel has enjoyed, there also conica into view the consideration of Israel as ' the son ' and of J " as the people's Father. The loving God had given Israel life by redemption from Egypt ; He had brought Israel up and educated him in the wilderness (see Dt 14^ and 8-- '• "^).
The intimacj' of the relation between J" and Isr. emphasizes the demand that Israel should also ' cleave' to J" (11^ IS''), and not follow ' other gods ' (6"- » 7* 8"- =» ll'o- "• ^ 30"- '»). Idolatry is the great peril ; its temptations must be resisted with ruthless severity (IS""'" 17') ; no compromise is to be allowed nor alliance struck with the idolater (7- SO'"'").
The inducements to yield to superstitious practices are pictured as strong and numerous ; out to yield is fatal. J""8 wrath and Uis just punishment are the nation's penalty, and will be ita extermination (6">-"> S"-"" ll'"-" 31"»). The alternative between obedience and disobedience, between the service of J" and the serrice of ' other gods,' constitutes the theme of the great passage of warning and denunciation which is presented in ch. 28.