The traditional view, that the work in its present form was written by Moses, is now generally recognized by critical scholarship as inipo.ssible. The fact that Moses is described in Dt 31'- ** as having committed the Deut. legislation to writ- ing, wa-s, in former times, regarded as sufhcient proof that the whole work came from hia hand. The writer (Dt 31') narrates the fact that Moses ' wrote this law ' ; he also narrates the fact that Moses delivered farewell discourses to the people. There is no appearance of autobiography in Dt. Tliere is no claim to Mosaic authorship for the whole work. A copy of the Deut. law is stated (Dt 31-°) to have been committed by Mo.ses to the keeping of the priests ' by the side of the ark.'
Ileb. laws went back to the founding of the nation under Moses. The name of Moses embraced the whole legislation, both in its earlier forms and in their later expansion and modilication. The writer of Dt employed the nucleus of ancient law as the means of conveying the teaching needed by his time. The authority of Moses is invoked as impersonating the spirit of Isr. law in its later applicatiuii, no less than in its original framing. Aloses is made to plead with his people, and to show the abiding principles of the worship of J".
The work is that of a prophet, a religious teacher, not of a jurist or a statesman. In language, in thought, and in character, it is most easily under- stooiT as the composition of one who lived in the 7th cent., and who sought, by a ' dramatic ' use of the last words of Moses, to recall his countrymen to a holier life, and a purer service of J". It has been objected that the allusions to the dwellers in Canaan, and to the Amalekites (-'» eo"-'"), would be unintelligible and unnecessary at so late a period as tlie 7th cent. B.C. But the writer's purpose is to transfer himself to the age of Moses, and from that hi-storic standpoint to appeal to the nation's conscience. If Mo.ses were reiiresented as speaking in the plains of Moab, it would he natural for the writer to make him refer to the C'anaan- ites, and to introduce suitable local allusions. And the writer's argument was perfectly intelli- gible. If severity of the sternest kind was tradition- ally said to have been inculcated by Moses against the idolatrous inhabitants of the land, how much more waa it required in dealing with those who, in Israel itself, had proved so faitlilc-sa to J", in spite of the warnings of the pr()])hel8 !
It has been objected that the substance of Deut. laws is alluded to in writings earlier than the 7th
t. B.C. Thus 1 S 28^ has been compared with 18", Hos 4" with Dt 23'», Hos S'" with Dt lU",
cent. Dt 18"
Am 8' with Dt 25^ Neh 2' with Dt 1", while 2 K 14° refers to the law contained in Dt 24". But tliis line of objection assumes that the existence of the laws is contemporaneous with the composi- tion of Dt, and it ignores the fact, which criticisn has clearly revealed and strenuously reiterated, that Dt contains and expands laws of very much greater antiquity than its own composition.
In the following passages, in which the words of the prophetical writers have been regarded as referring to Dt, it is obvious that Dt, as well as the proiihets, refers back to the older law of Ex 20-23 :—
U I"- 23 10»= Ex 2221, Dt 241'.
„ JVS 623 = „ 2»9 „ 16"'.
Am 28 = „ 22-» „ 24H.
„ 5H = „ 230 „ 1610.
There are, of course, in Dt abundant allusions to offerings {e.g. ch. 12), tithes (1422-28), distinctions of 'clean' and 'unclean' (12"- » H'"*), the 'solemn assembly' (16*), law of leprosy (24*), and kindred topics, which show the familiarity of Dt with the national religious observances ; they do not exhibit acquaintance with the distinctive ordinances of P, although reference to them is necessarily made with technical terms.
Certain words and phrases have also been adduced from the prophetical WTiters, which it is alleged must have been taken from Dt, e.g. Hos 5" oppressed from Dt 28^ ; 8" theij shall return to Egypt from Dt 28"'; 11* Admak and Zeboim from Dt 29^ ; Am 4" blasting and mildew from Dt 28-- ; 4" overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah from Dt 29'^ ; 5' wormwood from Dt 29" etc. But the occurrence of such words and phrases is not sufficient to justify the claim for direct citation. They are expressions, most of them, which would guite naturally occur independently to the writers. Nor is tliere any means of showing that there is more probability of these writers having borrowed a phrase from Dt than of Dt having borrowed a phrase from them. Considering the resemblance of Dt's style to the writing in Jer and Kings, it would be more natural to expect Dt to have borrowed from Hosea or Amos than for Hosea or Amos to have borrowed from Dt. The Deuteronoinic style in Jer, Jos, Jg, Kings, shows at once the inlfueiicu of Dt; but there is no clear proof of the earlier prophets having been acquainted with Dt.