pre1,umed acque.intanoe on the part of the later writer with the writings of the earlier. It would be otherwise were thero a large number of words, phrases, and sentiments pec,iliar to both writings,'_i.e. found in both of them but nowhere else. This, however, is not the case with the writings of Jeremiah and Deut,eronomy. On the contrary, a large number of words peculiar t.o the one aro not found in the other, and in respect of sentiment nlso considerable diversity prevails. The discord between the two is thus greater than the agreement; so that if the question of authorship is to be determined by such considerations-and by these alone is it proposed to determine it-the only conclusion to which we can come is that tho Book of Deuteronomy and the writings of Jeremiah are not from the same author nor are e'l"en of contemporary authorsbip. 1 Before passing from this part of the subject, it is necessary to advert to the reproach which is cast upon the prophet by the supposition that he was the author of the Book of Deuteronomy. Whether he wrote this book of his own accord, or, as has been suggested, conspired with his relative Hilkiah to produce it and give it forth as the Book of the Law found in the temple, the prophet must be regarded as having deliberately lent himself to false- hood, to practise an imposition in the name of God upon the people. Can this be believed of one like Jeremiah, or indeed of any one who was a true prophet of Jehovah? It has indeed been said that, in that early age, "when notions of literary property were yet in their infaney-, an action of this kind was not regarded as unlawful. Men used to perpetrate such fictions as these without any qualms of conscience." 1 This may be true of the later times of ancient literature, when the making of books had become a source of livelihood, and was practised by many who, not having power enough to write what would command attention of itself, used to send forth their productions under the veil of some great and venerable name; but of the early age of literature it is not true, nor was the practice at any time regarded as laudable, 8 and least of all is it true in respect of the sacred literature of the Hebrews. There is not the shadow of evidence that such practices were known among the Hebrews of the time of Jeremiah o:r any earlier time, and one can hardly conceive the possibility of such a thing being tolerated among them. Be this, however, as it may, the faot remains that if Jeremiah wrote this book and issued it as a writing of 1 For the detaile bee.ring on this question, see Konig, 'Alt-test. Studien,' 2 Heft.;
• The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuch, considered by a Layman of the Church of England,' pp. 179-189; 'Speaker's Commentary,' vol. i. pt. ii. p. 795. 2 Kuenen, 'Religion of Israel,' ii. 18, 19.
• Galen, a very competent witness, says that it was not till the age of the Ptolemies, when kings were rivalling ea.eh other in the collecting of libraries,. that the roguery (j,~wup-yla.) of forging writings ond titles began ; and this was done by those who hoped thereby to obtain money by presenting to the kings books pretending to be written by illustrious men (Galen,' Comment. ii. in Hip. de Nat. Hom.'). It is plain from this that even when this practice was most common it was not regarded as lawful ; but, on tho contrary, was even among heathens denounced as a "roguery." 'l'IIE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY, XXXV
Moses, he was guilty of a forgery and a falsehood ; and thus not only is a ehudow cast over his character as a man, but bis reputation aR a prophet is cbm!1ged. For if he could publish as from Moses what was not from Moses but from himself, what security is there that what he uttern as a message from the Lord is not merely some invention of his own? To those who look upon the ancient Hebrew prophets as mere littera/eu,rs, who exercised their craft as they best could, according to the measure of their own powers, this may seem a very small matter; but those who believe that the prophet of old was one chosen by God to be the medium of communication between God and man, one who was moved by the Holy Ghost to speak what he uttered, and who was bound under the most solemn sanctions to speak God's word faithfully to the people, will not so regard it. To them it will appear nothing less than an impeaching of the claims of one of the greatest of the prophets to be an ambassador from God and interpreter of his mind to men, and by consequence a detracting from the authorship of his writings as Divine, and not of his only, but by implication of all the prophetic Seri ptures.
§ 6. INTEGRITY oF THE Boox:. Whilst accepting the book as, on the whole, the writing of Moses, it may yet be fairly inquired whether every part of it as we now have it proceeded from his pen, or whether there may not be portions of it which are additions to the original writing, or interpolations introduced by some later writer. That there are such has been confidently affirmed. The parts which have been thus stigmatized are chiefly these: the titlo and introduction ( eh. i. 1-5; the ethnological notices (eh.ii. 10-12, 20- 23); the account·of the cities of refuge on the east of Jordan (eh. iv. 41-43); Moses' song (eh. xxxii.1-43); the blessing of the tribes (eh. xxxiii. 1-29); the account of Moses' last journey, death, and burial ( eh. xx.xiv. 1-12). Regarding the first of these, it ruay suffice to say that, though it is quite possible that the title and introduction may have been prefixed to the original work by a later hand, there is nothing to show that this is really the case; and whilst, on the one hand, there is no reason why this may not have been written by the author of the work himself, it is, on the other, probable that it was placed there by him, since without it his work com- mences so abruptly that it is inconceivable that any skilled writer should hi.ve allowed it to go forth in such condition. 'l'he passages containing the ethnographical notices have, it must be confessed, very much the appearance of being interpolations, and may possibly be glosses that have been introduced by some editor of the work into-the text. At the same time, it is not incredible that Moses may have inserted, parenthetically, the notices which these passages contain. The mention of tl\e Moabites, to whom God had given a possession by expelling from the land its former occupants, not unnaturally leads to a. description xxxvi INTRODUCTION TO