The chief grounds on which the last opimoa Rsti
DEUTERONOMY
769
DEUTERONOMY
^e many variatioiis and additions to be fotind in teronomyf both in the historical and legal portions, ell as the observable difference of style and phra- >gy. It is necessary, therefore, before we come to ider more directly the question of aathorship, to i into account these alleged peculiarities; and it ' be -well to enumerate the principal discrepancies, itions, etc, as given by De Wette in the last edition la JStnleitwug (many of his former objections be aft- ards abandoned), and to subjoin the replies and ex- lations which they have called forth. L.) IHscr^pcmciei, — The most important discrepan-
alleged to exist between the historical portions of iteronomy and the earlier books are the following : 1.) The appointment of judges (i, 6-18) is at vari- e with the account in Exod. xviiL It b referred k difierent time, being placed after the departure of
people Anom Horeb (ver. 6), whereas in Exodus it iaid to have occurred during their encampment be- 3 the mount (Exod. xviil, 6). The circumstances
differenty and apparently it is mixed up with the K>9in^ of the seventy elders (Num. xi, 11-17). To B it has been answered, tliat although Deut. i, 6 ntiona the departure firom Sinai, yet Deut. i, 9-17 idently refers to what took place dwring the abode )re, as is shown by comparing the expression *'at \X tune," ver. 9, with the same expression in ver. 18. te speaker, as is not unnatural in animated discourse, ecks himself and goes back to take notice of an im- riant drcnmstance prior to one which he has already mtioned. This is manifest, because ver. 19 is so »irly resnmptive of ver. 6. Again, there is no force
the objection that Jethro's counsel is here passed er in silence. When making allusion to a well- lown historical £»ct, it is unnecessary' for the speaker enter into details. This at most is an omission, not contradiction. Lastly, the story in Exodus is per- ctly distinct fh>m that in Num. xi., and there is no mfdsion of the two here. Nothing is said of the in- itution of the seventy in Deut., probably because the Hce was only temporary, and if it did not cease he- re the death of Moses, was not intended to be per- ^uated in the promised land. (So in substance anke, Lengerke, Hengstenberg, Hftvemick, Stfthe-
Q.)
(2.) Chap, i, 22 is thought to be at variance with Turn, xiil, 2, because here Moses is said to have sent le spies into Canaan at the suggestion of the peopk^ 'hereas there Crod is said to have commanded the leasure. The ex]danation Lb obvious. The people lake tha request ; Moses refers it to God, who then ives to it Hii sanction. In the historical book of lumbers the divine command only is mentioned, lere, where the lawgiver deals so largely with the eellngs and conduct of the people themselves, he re- oinds them both that the request originated with hemselvea, and also of the circumstances out of which hat request sprang (ver. 20, 21). These are not men- ioned in the history. The objection, it may be re- oarked, is precisely of the same kind as that which in he N. T. is urged against the reconciliation of Gal. ii, I with Acts XV, 2, 8. Both admit of a similar explan- ition.
(8.) Chap, i, 44, <' And the AmorUes which dwelt m that mountain," etc, whereas in the story of the same svent, Num. xiv, 43-46, AmalekUes are mentioned. Answer : in this latter passage not only Amalekites, but Canaanites, are said to have come down against the Israelites. The Amorites stand here not for *'Amalckite8," but for "Canaanites," as being the most powerful of all the Canaanitish tribes (corap. Gen. XV, 16 ; Deut. i, 7) ; and the Amalekites are not named, but hinted at, when ft is said, " they destroyed you f» ^r," where, according to 1 Chron. iv, 42, they dwelt (80 Hengst iii, 421).
(4.) Chap, ii, 2-8, confhsed and at variance witii Num. XX, 14-21, and xxi, 4. In the former we read II.— Ceo
(ver. 4), "Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren, the children of Esau." In the latter (ver. 20), "And he said. Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him," etc. But, according to Deuteronomy, that part of the Edomitish territory only was traversed which lay about Elath and Ezion-geber. In this exposed part of their territory any attempt to prevent the passage of the Israelites would have been useless, whereas at Kadesh, where, according to Num. hers, the opposition was offered, the rocky nature of the country was in fkvor of the Edomites. (So Hengst. iii, 288 sq.). To this we may add, that in Deut. ii, 8, when it is said " we pamed byfrofa our brethren the children of Esau . . . through the way of the plain from Elath," the fiedlure of an attempt to pass elsewhere is implied. Again, according to Deut., the Israelites purchased food and water of the Edomites and Moab- ites (ver. 6, 28), whbh, it is said, contradicts the story in Num. xx, 19, 20. But in both accounts the Israel- ites offer to pay for what they have (comp. Deut. ii, 6 with Num. xx, 19). And if in Deut. xxiii, 4 there seems to be a contradiction to Deut. ii, 29 with regard to the conduct of the Moabites, it may be removed by observing (with Hengst. iii, 286) that the unfriendli- ness of the Moabites in not coming out to meet the Is- raelites with bread and water was the very reason why the latter were obliged to buy proviiions.