made. A later writer would never have committed the gross absurdity of representing Moses as encouraging the people to undertake the conquest of Canaan, by telling them that they had already conquered that land and were in possession of it. Ch. xix. 14 and xx, 5, 6. Here, it is alleged, certain relations which imply a later period are assumed as present. But this overlooks the ideal standpoint of the Deuteronomic legislation, which is that of faith in the Di ,·ine promise that Israel should certainly possess and dwell in the land of Canaan. Hence the speaker throughout speaks as if the people were already settled there, and legislates accordingly. In the passages cited he simply assumes that certain relations, which were sure to exist after the people w-ere settled in the land, already existed. Ch. xx1ii. 12, 13. This is adduced as in itself a very convincing proof of the unhistorical character of the whole narrative, because it involves the absurdity of enacting what was obviously impracticable (Colenso). But this assumes that the enactment has reference to the conduct of the people whilst encamped in the wilderness, whereas the precept has reference to a camp such as soldiers might form should they at any time march out against their enemies. It is to the preservation of the purity of a military camp in the time of war that the injunction has respect, and not to any- thing connected with the domestic encampment of the people, either in the wilderness or elsewhere. It would have been absurd had Moses given such an instruction as this to the whole camp of the Israelites during their wanderings, especially had he reserved it till the very close of their wander- ings, just when instructions of this sort became unnecessary. In eh. xxxii. and xxxiii. are passages which have been alleged as against the genuineness of the book. AB these apply specially to that part of the book, and do not directly affect the book as a whole, the consideration of them may be deferred till the question of the integrity of the book comes under notice. (See§ 6.) 3. As against the antiquity of the book, it is alleged that certain things forbidden or denounced in the book were done by individuals in times subsequent to those of Moses; and this, it is alleged, would not have been had the book been in existence at the time in which these persons lived. Thus in eh. xvi. 22 it is enjoined, "Neither shalt thou set up a ma,;9eba; which the Lord thy God hateth." A ma,;,;eba was a pillar, usually of rough, unhewn stone, and when set up beside an altar was there for idolatrous purposes; and this is what is forbidden here. Notwithstanding this, mar;i;ebas it is alleged, continued to be set up fw worship even by men of eminent piety among the Israelites; in proof of which the following passages are referred to :-Josh. xxiv. 26; 1 Sam. vi. 14; vii. 12; 2 Sam. xx. 8 ; 1 Kings i. 9 ; vii. 21 ; Hos. iii. 4. "This detail is one of the clearest proofs," it is said, " that Deuteronomy was unknown till long after the days of Moses. How could Joshua, if he had known such a law, have erected a ma9feba, or sacred pillar of unhewn stone, under the sacred tree THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. :1Xix
by the sanotuary at Shechem? " 1 But what proof is there that it was a nia<;<;cba which Joshua erected? The record simply says it was "a great stone," and the same is the expression used in the majority of the other passages, in some without the epithet "great;" in none but the last does the term ma99eba occur. By what right, then, is it assumed that these stones were of the kind forbidden in Deuteronomy? All m~9ebaa, it may be supposed, were stones, but all monumental stones were not ma99ebas. The word used in 1 Kings vii. 21 is "pillar" ('amud), and this certainly was not a ma<;<;eba; what Solomon set up by Divine direction "in the porch of the temple " were pillars, monumental as well as ornamental, but not in any way connected with worship except as they stood at the entrance tot.he place of worship.I' As for the Hosea passage, it has no bearing on the point at issue; in declaring that Israel should be without worship of any kind, sacred or idolatrous, it only declares implicitly what the history attests explicitly, that idolatrous usages had been in Israel, not that these were ever regarded as lawful, or were practised by those who professed to be worshippers of Jehovah. But "this law," it is added, "was unknown to Isaiah, who attacks idolatry, but recognizes ma99eba and altar as the marks of the sanctuary of Jehovah," and in proof of this Isa. xix. 19 is adduced, " In that day there shall be an altar to Jehovah within the land of Egypt, and a pillar (ma99eba) at the border thereof to Jehovah." But this passage asserts something very different from what it is adduced to prove; it asserts that the pillar was erected, not at the sanctuary of Jehovah, but at the border of the land of Egypt. It is not, therefore, e. ma99eba of the kind condemned in Deuteronomy that is here referred to, but a stone set up as a landmark or terminal index. The reference, consequently, is irrelevant to the present discussion. 4. Much weight is attached to the fact that, not only during the unsettled times of the judges, when "there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was· right in his own eyes," but on to a later period, even to the time of David, the law of a central sanctuary at which alone sacrifice was to be offered was disregarded, and even pious men, like Samuel and David, scrupl8d not to offer sacrifice at any place where they might chance to be at the time; conduct which, it is maintained, argues on their part a total ignorance of any such law as that in eh. :xii. 6, 11, and by consequence the non-existence of that law, or of the book in which it is recorded, in their day, seeing, had the book existed, they could not have been ignorant of what it prescribes. 'fhis has been put forth as conclusive against the pretensions of the book to be of a date as 1 •The Old Testament in the Jewish Churoh,' p. 854. 1 The significance of the pillars appears from their nnmes. "They were the monumental witnesses that the God of the oovennnt had now taken for ever his abode in this sanctuary in the midst of his people, and would manifest thence his might e.nd majesty for their liclp" (Riehm, 'He.ndwijrterb. des Bibi, Altertums,' s. 658), nx lN'l'RODUCTION TO