C. Extent of D. — Hitherto we have spoken of D as though it coincided exactly with Dt ; but, as a fact, we find on examination i/i) that the peculiar characteristics which mark D are not found in some few sections of Dt at all. (6) In other parts of Dt they are found less constantly, and these have also some peculiarities of their own. (c) The characteristics of D, or some of them, are found also in some other parts of the Hexateuch. In other wor>ls, D may be used in a narrower and a wider sense. In the narrower sense it includes only Dt 5-34 (or perhaps 12-34), except at least 3114-23 32«-" 347-9 (see below, iii. 2 C). The i)or- tions of Hex. outside of Dt belonging to D in the wider sense are not so easily determined, though the f.'ict that some do so belong may be regarded as certain. The reason is that in other parts of the Hex. we find very few passa"es which ajipear to have been originally written by D, but several which seem to have been revised by one or more writers in the spirit and style of D, because we find in them traces also of the characters which distinguish the earlier documents. Such revisions give rise to some of the greatest ditliculties of hililical criticism, and it requires very nice handliii"; to disentangle the various literary elements, but their extent is not large emmgh to throw the least serious doubt on the larger results of criticism, nor can there be any serious doubt of the fact of such revisions hiiving taken place. As far as D is con- cerned, the revision seems to have varied very much in difl'erent cases. Sometimes a mere characteristic touch is added. Sometimes D must have rewritten passages altogether. Sometimes again D ajipears to nave expanded the narratives, etc., by considerable insertions. This being the case, we can hardlj- \n- surprised at a considerable difference of opinion among critics. Thus Dillraann hnds in Genesis a large number of passages belonging to D, whereas several critics find none at all. Tlie most charac- teristic I) pa.s.sage of Genesis is 18'". The sugges tion that Abraham would or should command his children reminds us of Dt 4'" 6' 11'" etc. 'Keeping' (of God's commandments) and 'doing judgment,' etc., are characteristically Deuteronomic ; for the latter cf . Dt 6'. Notice also the use of the synonym.- 'justice' and 'judgment.' Ex IS'"" is believed by many critics to liave been revised by D. The solemn injunction to remember a great event in v.', the emphatic use of ' this day' in vv.*- ', the direction to instruct the children in v.", the striking meta- phors of vv." and ", are all familiar characters of D (.see Dt 16' 6'* 6» 11"), though it is, of course, [Kissible, on the other hand, that Dt 6'- """^ are in reality exuan.sions of this very pa.ssage. There are a^so cnaracteristic D touclies in Ex 15^''"-*, ' a statute and an ordinance,' 'diligently hearken,' ' .1" thy (iod,' ' commandmeiit.s an<l statutes.' When several touches of this sort occur together, it is extremely imiuobable that they are the result of a mere coincidence. I'erhaps the most instruc- tive example of a D revision is in the Decalocin in Ex '2(1. The expansion of the Decalogue, as dis- I tinct from the short commandments, which probal>l.^
368
HEXATEUCH
HEXATEUCH
were tlie original ' ten words,' is full of D phrases : for example, 'J" thy God' (vv.'-- '■ '"■ '-), ' jealous God' (v.°), 'love me and keep uiy commandments' (v."), and especially ' that thy days may be long ' (v.'-). There appear to be traces of a similar revision in Ex 34'<>'^"> ; and Nu 21*'-» is by several critics regarded as interpolated from Dt 3'"*. When we come to Joshua we lind that passages so charac- terized, instead of being as it were sporailic, become frequent; but except in 23, which is throughout Deuteronomic in style, they are mostly conlined to the first 13 chapters. This seems to show that previous accounts of the conquest of Canaan were rewritten by D, who also added supple- mentary passages, such as IS' 21"-22* 23 and parts of 24, while in the earlier liooks, as in some of the Exodus passages already cited, tlie 1) elements are so fused as to make an exact analysis very ililhcult and uncertain.
Z). Date and Origin of D.—T), or part of D, has lonij been recognized as the book found in the temple in .Josiah's reign, the account of which is given in 2 Iv 22, chieflj' on the following grounds. (1) The whole of the Pentateuch, or even of tlie legal portions of it, could not have been read tivicc in one li'ii/, as was apparently the case with this book (2 K 22" 23^). (2) Josiah's reforms, confessedly based upon this discovered book, were, in fact, carried out in the spirit of Dt (ce) bj' the destruction of tlie high places, not only idolatrous, but those in which J" had been worshipped (2 K 2:!'- *), so that the one single sanctuary, so emphatieally ordered in Dt, then first became an established fact (it is clear that the attempt of Hezekiah, 2 K is*, to put down the high places was only ]iartial or tentative) ; and (A) in connexion with tliis by the keeping of the passover at Jerusalem, ef. 2 k 23-'-^ with Dt 16^- « ; (c) by the abolition of the Asherira and of all idolatrous images and symbols of worship. (3) The stress laid upon the prophetic order is specially suitable to this period, when the prophets exercised so great and wide an inlluence. That Jeremiah should have been permitted to utter such prophecies as those contained in chs. 7 and 22 with reference to the temple worship and the royal house without molestation, shows the awe which the prophet's office inspired. (4) The peculiar ideas and tiioughts, and to a certain extent the phraseology, of D pene- trate Jeremiali's prophecies, and in a less degree those of Ezekiel, as we should expect from a newly- written, epoch-making book. Take, for example, such remarkable thoughts as the spiritual cir- cumcision, cf. Dt 10'« 30" with Jer 6'" 9=»- =«, Ezk 44', and the law written in the heart, cf. Dt 30"'" with Jer 31'>-»* and Ezk 36". But in both cases, the latter especiallv, the peculiarities in the stt/le, etc., of these prophetic WTiters forbid our ascrib- ing Dt to either prophet. And yet some of the ideas of Dt are to be found in a less complete form in Isaiah, and in this connexion we may bear in mind the first attempts by Hezekiah to put down the worship of the high places. From these facts we may conclude that Dt, or the essential part of it, was written either in the reign of M.anasseh, or very early in that of Josiah. ( 1 ) If the former, it may have been the work of some priest or priests, who employed the time sjjent in forced seclusion in committing to writing their view of the law, derived partly from earlier documents, partly from the traditional teaching of the priests, and coloured largely, no doubt, by the religious ideas and feelings ot their own time. In this waj' round an earlier n\icleus a new body of laws might have gathered, which would naturally have de- veloped all the more rapidly, as the priests, unable during the long reign ot Manasseh to perform their ordinary functions, had more leisure for spiritual