ft. The opinion of De Wette, Geeenhia, tfd ¥^ that the Deuteronomist is a distinct writer frw ^ Jehovist. De Wette's arguments are baaed (1) ^ the difference in style ; (2) on the cootadtctks ^ ready referred to as existing in matters of hiitfliy.f well as in the legislatioo, when coo^ared with tbtf ^ Exodus; (8) on the pecnliarity noticeable in tfatftvo^ that God does not speak by Moses, bat that Veee* ias^ self speaks to the people, and that there b no w^^
DEXJTERONOMY
771
DEUTERONOMY
tbe ansel of Jehovah (eomp. i, 80; vii, 20-23 ; zi, 17, with Exod. xxiii, 20-38) ; and (4) lastly, on the t that the Deuteronomist aacribee Ids whole work Bloses, -while the Jehovist assigns him only certain
5. From the &ct that certain phases occurring in ut. are found also in the prophecy of Jeremiah, it 9 been too hastily conclnded by some critics that th books were the work of the prophet. So Von •hlen, Gesenins {Gtach. d, Hebr,Spr, p. 82), and Hart- inn (^Hist. Krk, Fortch, p. 660). KOnig, on the oth- hond (^A litest. Stud, ii, 12 sq.), has shown not only at this idiomatic resemblance has been made too uch of (see also Keil, JEmL p. 117), but that there is e greatest possible difference of style between the ro books. De Wette expresses himself similarly :wi/. p. 191).
d. Cwald is of opinion that it was written by a Jew eing in Egypt during the latter half of the reign of anasseh (^Gesdi, desV.Li, 171). He thinks that a iOns Jeir of that age, gifted with prophetic power, od fblly alive to all the evils of his time, sought thus » revive and to impress more powerfhlly upon the kinds of his countrymen the great lessons of that law ^hich he saw they were in danger of ibrgetting. He vails himself, therefore, of the groundwork of the arUer history, and also of the Mosaic mode of ezpree- lon. Bat as his object is to rouse a corrupt nation, « only makes use of historical notices for the purpose f introdncing his warnings and exhortations with the nore effect. This he does with great skill and as a naster of his subject, while at the same time he gives ^esh vigor and life to the old law by means of tiiose lew prophetic truths which had so lately become the leritage of his people. Ewald Airther considers that iiere are passages in Deuteronomy borrowed from the tMx>ks of Job and Isaiah (iv, 32, from Job viii, 8 ; and sxviii, 29, 80, 85, from Job v,U; xxxi, 10; ii, 7 ; and ULviii, 49, etc. ftt>m Isa. v, 26 sq. ; xxxiii, 19), and much of it akm to Jeremiah {Geseh, i, 171, note). The M>ng of Moees (xxxii) is, according to him, not by the Deuteronomist, but b nevertheless later than the time of Solomon.
e. The old traditional view that this book, like the other books of the Pentateuch, is the work of Moses himself. Of the later critics, Hengstenberg, H&ver- nick, Ranke, and others, have maintained this view. Moses Stuart writes: "Deuteronomy appears to my mind, as it did to that of Eichhbm and Herder, as the earnest outpourings and admonitions of a heart which felt the deepest interest in the welfiure of the Jewish nation, and which realized that it must soon bid fare- well to them . . . Instead of bearing upon its fiice, as is alleged by some, evidences of another authorship than that of Moses, I must regard this book as being so deeply ftuught with holy and patriotic feeling as to convince any unprejudiced reader who is competent to judge of its style, that it cannot, with any tolerable degree of probability, be attributed to an j pretender to legislation, or to any mere imkaior of the great legis- lator. Such a glow as runs through all this book it is in vain to seek for in any artificial or supposititious composition" {Hist, of the 0. T, Canon, § 8).
In support of this opinion, it is said : 1. That, sup- posing the whole Pentateuch to have been written by Hoses, the change in style is easily accounted for when we remember that the last book is hortatory in its character, that it consists chiefly of orations, and that these were delivered under very peculiar circum- stances. 2. That the lutu loquendi is not only gener- ally in accordance with that of the earlier books, and that as well hi thehr Elohistic as in their Jehovistie portions, but that there are certain peculiar fbrms of expression common only to these five books. 8. That tbe alleged variations in matters of fact between this and tbe earlier books may all be reconciled (see above), and that the amplifications and corrections in the leg-
islation are onfy such as would necessarily be made when the people were just about to enter the promised land. Thus Bertheau observes : *' It is hazardous to conclude from contradictions in the laws that they are to be ascribed to a different age ... He who made additions must have Icnown what it was he was making additions to, and would either have avoided all contra- diction, or would have altered the earlier laws to make them agree with the later'* (jHe 8ieben Omppen Mos, Gesetee, p. 19, note). 4. That the book bears witness to its own authorship (xxxi, 19), and is expressly cited in the N. T. as the work of Moses (Matt xix, 7, 8; Mark x, 8; Acts iii, 22; vii, 87).-^mith, s. v.