The book contains, in addition, not a small number of plain, though indhrect traces, indicative of its Mo- saic origin (see Jour, Sac, Lit. Jan. 1858, p. 818 sq.). We thus find in it : 1. Numerous notices concerning nations with whom the Israelites had then come in contact, but who, after the Mosaic period, entirely dis- appeared from the pages of history : such are the ao- oounts of the residences of the kings of Bashan (i, 4). 2. The appellation of " mountain of the Amorites," used throughout the whole book (i, 7, 19, 20, 44), while even in the book Joshua, soon after the conquest of the land, the name is already exchanged for ** moun- tains of Judah" (Josh, xi, 16, 21). 8. The observation (ii, 10) that the Emim had formerly dwelt in the pUin of Moab : they were a great people, equal to the Anct- km. This observation quite accords with Gen. xiv, 6. 4. A detailed account (ii, 11) concerning the Ho- rim and their relations to the Edomites. 5. An ac- count of the Zamzummim (ii, 20, 21), one of the earli- est races of Canaan, though mentioned nowhere else. 6. A very circumstantial account of the Bephaim (iii, 8 sq.), with whose concerns the author seems to have been well acquainted.
The standing-point also of the author of Deuterono- my is altogether in the Mosaic time, and, had it been assumed and fictitious, there must necessarily have been moments when the spurious author would have been off his guard, and unmindftil of the part he had to play. But no discrepancies of this kind can be traced ; and this Is in itself an evidence of the genu- ineness of the book.
A great number of other passages force us likewise to the conclusion that the whole of Deuteronomy orig- inated in the time of Moses. Such are the passages where: 1. A comparison b drawn between Canaan and £gyt>t (xi, 10 sq.), with the latter of which the author seems thoroughly acquainted. 2. DetaUed de- scriptions are given of the fertility and productions of Egypt (viii, 7 sq.)< 8. Begnlations are given relating to tiie conquest of Canaan (xii, 1 sq. ; xx, 1 sq.), which cannot be understood otherwise than by assuming that they had been framed in the Mosaic time, since they could be of no use after tliat period.
Besides, whole pieces and chapters in Deuteronomy, such as xxxii, xxxiii, betray in form, language, and tenor, a very early period in Hebrew literature. Nor are the laws and regulations in Deuteronomy less de- cisive of the authenticity of the book. We are struck with the most remarkable phenomenon that many laws fit>m the previous books are here partly repeated and impressed with more energy, partiy modified, and partly altogether abolished, according to the. contin- gencies of the time, or as the new aspect of circum- stances among the Jews rendered such steps necessary (comp. e. g. Dent xv, 17, with Exod. xxi, 7 ; Deut xii with Lev. xvii). Such pretensions to raise, or even to oppose his own private opinions to the author- ity of divine law, are found in no author of the subse- quent periods, since the whole of the sacred literature of the later times is, on the contrary, rather the echo than otherwise of the Pentateuch, and is altogether founded on it. Add to this the fiiot that the law itself forbids most Impressively to add to, or take anything from it, a prohibition which is repeated even in Den-
DEUTERONOMY
772
DEVAY
teronomy (comp. iv, 2 ; xiii, 1) ; so that on tbe theoiy that this book containii nothing more than a gradual development of the law, it clashes too often with its own principles, and thus pronounces its own sentence of condemnation.
The part of Deuteronomy (xxxiv) respecting the death of Moses requires a particular explanation. That the whole of this section is to be regarded as a piece altogether apart from what precedes it, or as a supplement by another writer, is a ready solution maintained by the older theologians (comp. e. g. Carp- ZOY, IrUrod. in libr. V, T, i, 187) ; and tbb opinion is confirmed not only by the contents of the chapter, but also by the express declaration of the book itself on that event and its relations ; for chapter xxxi con- tains the conclusion of the work, where Moses describes himself as the author of the previous contents, as also of the Song (ch. xxxii), and the blessings (ch. xxxiii) belonging to it. All that follows is, consequently, not from Moses, the work being completed and conduded with chapter xxxiii. There is another circumstance which favors this opinion, namely, the close connec- tion that exists between the last section of Deuterono- my and the beginning of Joshua (comp. Dent, xxxiv, 9 with Josh, i, 1, where also the connective force of the term ^'tl^l, ^^and it came to pass," in the latter passage, must not be overlooked), plainly showing that ch. xxxiv of Deuteronomy is intended to serve as a poinU of trantUion to the book of Joshua, and that it was written by the same author as the latter. The correct view of this chapter, therefore, is to consider it as a real tupplemerU, but by no means as an kUerpolti' tion (such as some critics erroneously suppose to exist in the Pentateuch in general). To apply to it the term interpolation would be as wrong as to give that appellation, e. g., to the 8th book of Ciesar^s work De Bella GalHco^ simply because it was written by an un- known author, for the very purpose of serving as a supplemerU to the previous books. — Kitto, s. v. See Pentateuch.