supposition that it is the production of a ·writer of an age later than that of MoBeB. JI. TheBe oonsiderations give strong support to the traditional belief that this book is what it professes to be-the work of Moses. It is possible, however, that other considerations, drawn from the book itself, may outweigh these, so as to make it uncertain whether Moses wrote this book or not if they do not render it highly probable that it must be ascribed to some late1· writer. Such oonsiderations, it is maintained, are to be found, and they have been strenuously urged by many critics of note ae fatal to the olaims of the book to be regarded as the genuine work of MoseB, To these attention must now be directed. 1. It is alleged that not only is this book in style, phraseology, and manner of thought different from the other Pentateuohal books, but that its contents present so many discrepancies to the other books that it cannot be regarded as the product of the same author. This consideration, it is obvious, is of force as against the genuineness of Deuteronomy only on the assumption tliat the other books of the Pentateuoh are the writing of Moses. If this be denied or questioned, the objection becomes invalid. For in that case any alleged discrepancies would prove nothing more than that this book is not from the same hand as the other books; they would leave the claims of this book, which professes to be the work of Moses, unaffected. It may also occur to the inquirer that, even on the assumption just referred to, the force of an argument of this sort is not great. For whilst it is quite conceivable that the style and phraseology and manner of thought of an author may differ at one period of his life from what they were at another, or may acquire a different character as they are used on dijferent subjects or with a different purpose, and that in the course of forty years such changes may take place in the condition, circumstances, and relations of a community that an author writing near the end of that period may have much to narrate concerning them that is not in accordance with what he has narrated in books written long before; it is to be noted that such discrepancies are the very things a forger would be most careful to avoid. His aim would be to imitate the style and manner of thought of his author as closely 8j; possible, and as he would have before him what that author had written, he would be careful to conform all his own statementB to what he found set forth by him. If discrepancies, then, are found to exist between Deuteronomy and the other Mosaic writings, this would rather be in favour of the genuineness of the former than otherwise. As respects style and method and manner of thought, such variations as may be detected in this book from the earlier books are sufficiently accounted for by the fact that, whilst the latter are purely narrative or didactic, this is hortatory and admonitory. The style and manner of a legislative code, or even of simple nan-ation, must needs be departed from in a popular address, unless the speaker means to exhaust the patience of his audience and thereby fru.strate his own effort. THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOM~. xxi
"A good example of the fundamental difference in legal style between the Levitioal Law and the Deuteronomio code is found in Numb. uxv. compared with eh. xix." (Robertson Smith, p. 433). That differences of expression and phraseology are to be found in these two passages is manifest at e. glance; but that they are "fundamental," or such as would disprove identity of authorship in the two writings, may be denied. For these differences are only such as may be found in the writings of any author who has occasion to repeat in substance what he had put forth more at large in an earlier writing. In Numbers the cities are called throughout •• cities of refuge," in Deuteronomy they are described as cities to which the homicide may flee (for refuge, of course); in Numbers the man for whom a place of refuge was to be provided is described as one who had slain another " at unawares" (bishgaga, through error or mistake), in Deuteronomy he is described as one who killeth his neighbour "ignorantly" (bibhli da' ath, without knowledge, unintentionally), but also as one who had done it "unawares" (eh.iv. 42); in Numbers it is "any person" who is supposed to be killed, in Deuteronomy it is "his neighbour" whom the homicide is said to slay; in Numbers the murderer is described as one who "thrust him [his victim] of hatred" (b'Bin'ah), in Deuteronomy it is said "if any man hate" (sonay)-in the one place the noun is used, in the other the cognate verb. Such differences surely cannot be regarded as "fnnda- mental." Of more weight, apparently, is the difference in the description of what constitutes murder as distinguished from simple homicide, given in the two books respectively; the one book giving a detailed description, while the other furnishes only one exemplary illustration from actual experience of what is intended. But this is only such a difference as might be expected between a legal document and a popular address in reference to the same subject. Another difference alleged is that " the judges in the one are 'the congregation,' in the other ' the elders of the city.' " Bnt there is a mistake here. JR. Deuteronomy nothing is said about "judges;" the function assigned to the elders is executive, not judicial; they are to apprehend the criminal and bring him to suffer the penalty to which he had been adjudged. "In addition," it is said, "there is a substantial difference in the la.~s themselves, inasmuch as Deuteronomy says nothing about remaining in the city of refuge till the death of the high priest." Had Deuteronomy said that the refugee was to remain till his own death in the city of refuge, or till the death of some other person than the high priest, there would have been a substantial difference between the two laws; as it is, Deuteronomy only omits what it was not needful for the speaker to state. When it is remembered that these differences are alleged as "fundamental," it will be seen of how little moment are the other differences in style and phraseology which may be adduced between Deuteronomy and the other Pentateuohal books. Of the material disorepanoies alleged, the following are the most important:- :nii INTRODUCTION TO