Other 8Ui)po8ed archaisms seem to arise from the mannerism of the author rather than from any real antiquity in their form.
The use of lui, equally for masc. or fem., appears indeed to be a genuine archaism ; but the fact that iTisi^i appears as the fem. of lyj elsewhere in the Heb. Scriptures excei)t in the Pent., is merely an indication that the text of the Pent, had be- come regarded as too sacred to modify, at an earlier date than the other books subsequently admitted into the Heb. Canon.
Finally, the presence of an archaism is no more proof of'^ a very early date than the presence of an Arainaism would be proof of a very late date. We have to account for the one as well as for the other.
6. The evidence derived from the language ia corroborated by that which the religious teaching supplies.
(1) It has already been noticed that the emphasis laid upon the love of God is a feature almost unique (except for Ex 20) ; and it is generally believed that the prophet Hosea is the first ex- ponent of thi.s teaching. Dt ' builds upon the loundation of the prophets' (Driver).
(2) Tlie ' niouotheism * of Dt is an expansion of the ' monolati'y ' of early Israel ; and the command to worship at a single sanctuary expresses in a con- crete form the conception of a mDnotheistic religion. We are confronted with a. stage of religious thought which has been reached only after a long prepara- tory period of discipline and teaching.
c. A comparison of the laws with those in Ex '20-23 shows that whereas the Deut. legis- lation is founded ujioii the laws of ' the Covenant,' and often repeats them almost verbatim, e.g. 14" = Ex 23'» 342«, 7" = Ex 34", and, as a rule, merely expands them with hortatory plinusc, in other cases Dt presents us witli a moilitication of tlie earlier law, showing a more advanced and humane civilization. Thus comparing the law of release for bondservants in Dt 15''''" with the parallel law in Ex Zl-'-, we notice (1) that female slaves are included in the law of release, (2) that pro- vision is granted to the released slave so that he should not starve, (3) that the old custom of boring the ear is not required to be done publicly. Similarly, in Dt 5 the institution of the sabbatio year is put in force to restrain the exactions of the usurer, whereas in Ex 23*" it had only an agricultural signilicance.
602
deutp:ronomy
DEUTERONOMY
d. The laws in Dt re{julatin;j national worship represent a later stage of Isr. history than those in Ex 20-23. This is consjncuously shown in regard to the place of sacrilice. In Ex 2U-* an Israelite may erect local altars: 'in every place where I record my name, I will come unto thee and bless thee.' The practice of sacrificing at local altars and shrines was apparently universal from the time of Joshua (Jos 2i^- ^, 18 7" 9'"" 103-8 Ills 1435 20», 2S IS"'^-*") until the days of Hezekiah, who endeavoured to centralize all wor- ship at Jerus. as the one national sanctuary (2 K IS*-*'). The law of Dt insists (12'-'« etc.) upon the necessity of sacrificing at one place which J" shall have chosen 'to set his name there.' It expresses in the terms of direct injunction the change for which Hezekiah contended and which Josiah finally carried into execution.
e. It may be granted that the laws of worship in Dt are quite too incomplete to be regarded as containing any exhaustive account. Thus the precise dates for the Festivals of Passover and Tabernacles are not given. In the former case the month is given, hut not the day ; in the latter case, neither month nor day. In the description of the Passover no direction is given that every- one should partake of it ; whUe the command to observe the 7th day of Passover as * a solemn assembly ' and a day of rest is not applied to the other two feasts.
But, making all allowance for the general and fragmentary character of the reliinous legislation in Dt, we cannot pretend to be able to reconcile the discrepancies between the law of Dt and that of the (so-called) Priestly Code. The most notable discrepancy b in reference to the status of the Levite, and the provision for his maintenance. In Dt the regular expression ' the priests, the Levites ' (17'- '* U' 24' 27'), does not seem to recog- nize the distinctitn between 'the sons of Aaron' and ' the Levites,' which is found in the priestly laws. The Levites are pictured as wanderers and objects of Israelite charity, for which special regula- tions are laid down (12""" 14"- «> 16"" 18" 26"- ") ; there is no reference to the provision in Nu 18 for the maintenance of priests and Levites, and in Nu 35 for the reservation of 48 cities for their place of residence.
A complete difference is also expressed in the laws relating to firstlings and to tithes. In Dt 12«.i7ff. isiBir. the firstlings are to be presented at the central sanctuary, and there eaten by the owner. In Nu 18" the firstlings are pronounced to belong to Aaron, ' And the flesh of them shall be thine ; as the wave-breast and as the right thigh it shall be thine.' In Dt (12'™- 14*") it is enjoined that a tithe of the vegetable produce is to be set aside, and to be consumed by the offerer at the central sanctuary ; while, in every third year, the tithe is to be devoted to the poor or the destitute and the Levite. In (his there is no resemblance to the tithe law of Nu IS''"** and Lv 27*'- *", according to which the titlie was to be paid of animal as well as of vegetable produce ; it was to be paid to the Levites, who, in their turn, were enjoined to render a tenth to the priests.