xi. 8, etc., 30, 31 ; xiii. 12; xviii. 9; xix. 1; xxvii. 2). UnlCBB, then, the book be rnt aside as a pure fiction, it must be accepted ft.B of an age not later than the time of the arrival of the Israelites on the eastern side of the Jordan. From these considerations the high antiquity of this book may be fairly inferred. This not only falls in with the supposition that it is in the main the writing of Mos~s, but lends support to that supposition; for Moses is the only person of whom we know anything who at that eady period can be ~upposed to have composed such a book, and as the book professes to be his, the presumption is very strong that he and no other is the author of it. 4. The aspect and attitude of the writer, both retrospective and prospec- tive, are those of one in the position of Moses at the time imJilediately before the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan. The book presents itself as Mosaic, and with this the entire costume and colouring of the book is in keeping. "There is nowhere even a single expression whioh is not suited to the position of Moses at that time; the standpoint throughout the whole hook is the same; the i;ituation is ever that of one on the borders of the promised land. To that which in later times was the centre of the popular life-to Jerusalem and its temple, to the kingdom of David-there is not a single reference such as would transgress historical limits. The occupation of the land is ouly in the general assumed as about to take place; nothing is said as to the special relations of Israel in the land when conquered. The principal foes are the Canaanites, who, from the beginning of the period of the judges, retire into the background, and, after Judg. v., nowhere play any notable part. (For exact acquaintance with the early relations of the peoples in the Mosaic times, see eh. ii.; in respect of the geography of the scene of the last wandering, eh. i. 1, etc.) Specially noticeable are the very vivid reminiscences of Egypt; the motives to kindness towards servants thence taken ( eh. v. 15; xv. 15; xvi. 12; xxiv. 18); the references to diseases peculiar to Egypt in the threatening of punishments ( eh. x:xviii. 27, 35); the refer- ences to deliverance from thence in the promises (eh. vii. 15; xxviii. 60); the exaltation of Canaan by comparison with Egypt ( eh. xi. 10); a highly graphic representation of the old Egyptian agriculture, to whioh the monu- ments bear witness." Besides these references to Egyptian usages, etc., may be mentioned the command to bear the words of the Law as an amulet on the han:l and breast ( eh. vi. 8, etc.; xi, 18; cf. Exod. xiii. 16), and to inscribe them on the door-posts of the house ( eh. xi. 20); the command to write the Law on stones pl"astered with mortar ( eh. xxvii. 18); the mode of punishment by the stick, the Egyptian bastinado ( eh. xxv. 2, 3); the method of irrigation ( eh. xi. 10); the function of the scribe in the military arrange- lllents of the Egyptians ( eh. xx. 5). There are also frequent retrospective glances in the book to the residence of the Israelites in Egypt as of recent occurrence ( eh. vi. 21, etc.; vii. 8, 18; xi. 3). Such a statement also as the following is intelligible only on the supposition that it is the utterance of one addressing those who were contemporaneous with the THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY.
event referred to:-" Your eyes, h,a.ve seen what the Lord did because of Baal-peor: for all the men that followed Baal-peor, the Lord thy Gorl hath destroyed them from among you. But ye that did cleave unto tho Lord your God are alive every one of you this day" (eh. iv. 3, 4). The inference is irresistible: either these words were uttered at the time indicated by "this day" or the statement is a fiction. These allusions are so numerous and precise that it may with justice be said, "If Deuteronomy is not the work of Moses, there is here the most exquisite of literary frauds, and that in an age which had not as yet acquired the art of transporting itself into foreign individualities and situations" (Hengstenberg). 5. The passage just quoted suggests a weighty consideration in favour of the Mosaio authorship of this book. If the book is not by him, if it is the production of a later age, it must be regarded as a forgery. For beyond all question, the book not only contains discourses alleged to have been uttered by Moses, but also claims to have been written by him (cf. eh. i. I; xxix. 1; xxxi. 1, 9-11, 24). Are we, then, to pronounce this book a. forgery? If so, the hook cannot be regarded as one of the iipa. -ypap.p.a.Ta,, the sacred writings-as really belonging to the -ypa.cf>1 Ekmrua-To~, as being a book given by Divine inspiration. For the religious consciousness recoils from the thought that God would either originate or sanction a deliberate untruth. We may admire the genius of the man who could produce so consummately skilful a fiction; but we can never believe that it was by Divine direction and with help from above that he composed it, or that it was sent forth. with the authorization of him "all whose words are true." Nor is it easy to conceive how what must have been known to be a fraud could have found acceptance and been reckoned among the sacred writings of the Jews. It has, indeed, been pleaded that there was no fraud in the case; 'that, as all knew that the book was not written by Moses, none were deceived by the ascription ofit to him, any more than those who heard Herodotus read his history at the Olympic games were deceived by the ascription to his heroes of the speeches which he had himself composed. But on this supposition, how ax:e we to account for the author of the book ascribing it to Moses at all? He1·odotus made speeches for his characters and inserted them in his history, merely to give completeness to his story and as a display of literary skill. But no such motive could have induced the author of Deuteronomy, supposing him to be some prophet or scribe of a later age, to have ascribed his work as a whole to Moses. He could do this only in the hope of thereby investing it with greater authority, and procuring for it a more ready acceptance and deferential regard. But for this it was essential that the book should be believed to be by Moses; the moment it was known not to be by him, the author's design would be wholly frustrated. The author must, therefore, have intended it to be accepted as really the work of Moses; and if it was not so accepted, it must have been repudiated as a too manifest forgery to be endured. Its acceptance by the Jews and its place in the canon is thus utterly unaccountable on the XX INTRODUCTION TO