III. Date of CompotiHon.^WtiB the book really written, as its language certainly implies, before the entry of Israel into the Promised Land ? Not only does the writer assert that the discourses contained in the book were delivered in the plains of Moab, in the last month of the 40 years' wandering, and when the people were just about to enter Canaan (i, 1-5), but he tells us with still farther exactness that all the words of this Law were written at the same time in the book (xxxi, 9). Moreover, the fkct that the goodly land lay even now before their eyes seems everywhere to be nppermoet in the thoughts of the legislator, and to lend a peculiar solemnity to his words. Hence we continually meet with such expressions as ** when Je- hovah thy God bringeth thee into tlie land which He hath sworn to thy fathers to give thee," or ** whither thou goest in to possess it" Tliis phraseology is so constant, and seems to foil in so naturally with the general tone and character of the book, that to sup- pose it was written long after the setttement of the Israelites in Canaan, in the reign of Solomon (De Wette, Lengerke, and others), or in that of Manasseh (Ewald, as above), is not only to make the book a his- torical romance, but to attribute very considerable in- ventive skill to the author (as Ewald in fact does).
De Wette argues, indeed, tliat the character of the laws is sach as of itself to presuppose a long residence in the land of Canaan. He instances the allusion to the temple (xii, and xvi, 1-7), the provision for the right discharge of the kingly and prophetical office5,
the roles for dvil and mflitaxy oiganisation aaki state of the Levites^ who are represented at kq without cities (though soch are grastcd Id tksi Num. xxxv) and without tithes (allotted to iknn Num. xviii, 20, etc.). Bat in the psaeagcs e^a Temple is not named, mach leas is it spoken if k»i ready existing : on the contrary, the pfanse ck is * * The place which the Lord your God ^mB eft Again, to suppose that Moses was incapable of p» ing for the future and very dilTereat poeitKB tf i people as settled in tlie land of Caxuuui, is to te M even ordinary sagacity. Withovt zmiaiiig tk c^ tion aboat his divine commission, sorely it is mu much to assume that so wise and great a \e^m would foresee the growth of a polity, and wedii anxious to regulate its doe administntioB ia tk is of God. Hence he would guard against fiske pn^fat and seduoers to idolatry. As regards the Lerito.lb- ses might have expected or even desired th&t,tki^ possessing certain cities (which, however, wen aU- ited by others as well as thema«lves), they dock % be confined to those cities, but scsttared over tk ^ of the ooontry. This most have been th» case tts& owing to the very gradual occupation of the sev » ritory. The mere fact that, in giving then osn rights in DeoL, nothing is said of an esrHa* pvnis in Nam., does not by any means prove that t^ « lier iffovision was unknown or had osased tp ki force.
Other reasons for a later date, snch as the msk of the worship of the sun and moon (iv, 19; xvi^f the punishment of stoning (xvii, 5 ; xxii, 21, etc) : u name Fea$t of Tabemadet ; and the motive fcr be- ing the Sabbath, are of li^le force. In Ama Saturn is said to have been worshipped in tke t^» ness ; the punishment of stoning is Soaad slio m i older documents ; the Feast of Tabemades agm ii* Lev. xxiii, 34 ; and the motive alleged for the ebr- ance of the Sabbath, at least, does not exdade dk motives.
IV. Author,^!. It is generally agreed that bf k the greater portion of the Ixiok is the work of oae i> thor. The only parts which have been qaetkeeds possible interpolations are, according to De Wetter 41-8; X, 6-9; xxxii and xxxiiL Internal cridfKt indeed, is strongly decisive that this book of tkc Fa- tateuch was not the work of a compiler.
2. It cannot be denied that the s^ of Deatow- my is very difbrent from that of the otiier fear l»c of the Pentateuch. It is more flowing, bmr rlcffl^ ical, more sustained. The rhythm is graad^odih diction more akin to the sablimer pumg» of ik prophets than to the sober prose of the hiitBciiBs.
8. Who, then, was the author? This qaatam ^ course, is intimately connected with the pieocdiBf Sr- cusdon. We will consider, first, the views of tkv who deny its authorship by Moses. On this pdtf A* following principal hypotheses have beea siahitfiie^:
a. The opinion of St&helin (and, as it woold sea,^ Bleek), that the author is the same as the vrilar «f i^ Jehovistic portions of the other books. Be tbb^ that both the historical and legislative povtioDf plfis^*? show the hand of the supplementist (KriL Viim, ^ 76). Hence he attaches bnt little weigbt to tk il- leged discrepancies, as he considers them sU to te tk woric of the reviser, going over, oonectiiig, sad stf- ing to the older materials of the Blohistic iw^^ already in his hands.