of the 1111tion~ so expelled; and this it was of use for Moses to give, because it showed the Israelites that the right of the children of Lot to tho undis- turbed occupancy of their territory rested on the same grounds as rosted the right of the Israelites to the lands they had taken from tho Aruoritcs, and as would rest their right to the occupancy of the land the Lord was about to give them in Canaan; and further, becauso it showed that, if the children of Lot could cast out nations so mighty and powerful as the Emim, and the children of Esau could dispossess the Horim, there was no reason to dread that Israel would be baffied in grappling with the Anakim, who then possessed Canaan and were of the same race as the Emim. There was thus a practical end to be gained by the insertion of such notices, if done by Moses; whereas if done by a later editor they would possess only a slight antiquarian interest, hardly sufficient to induce any one to take the trouble of wiiting them, certainly not sufficient to induce any judicious editor to incorporate them with the text. The presumption, therefore, is in favour of their having been inserted by Moses himself. A modern writer would have thrown them into a note; but as this method had not come into use in ancient times, it was only by way of parenthesis that Moses could intro- duce them. Whichever hypothesis be adopted, whether these passages be regarded as written by Moses or whether they be pronounced to be the insertions of a later writer, as they are manifestly excrescences, their excision would not in any way affect the integrity of the book. The passage, eh. iv. 41--43, has been supposed to be an interpolation on the ground that it has no relevance either to what goes before or to what follows. But were this the case, why should the passage have been inserted at all? It could not drop into this place by accident; and he must be a bungling editor indeed who should gratuitously insert in the body of another man's work a passage which has no relation to the context in the midst of which it is thrust. If, however, Moses himself inserted this pas- sage, we may see at once why he did so. He had just finished his first address, and was about to enter upon his second. An interval between the two thus en.sued, and during this Moses, in obedience to the Divine injunction (Numb. xx.xv. 6, 14), set apart cities of refuge in the district to the east of Jordan, recently conquered by the Israelites. Not improbably (as has been suggested) he chose this time for doing this, "not only to give the land on that side its full consecration and thoroughly confirm the possession of the two Amoritish kingdoms on the other side of the Jordan, but also to give the people, in this punctual observance of the duty devolving upon it, an example for their imitation in the conscientious observance of the commandments of the Lord, which he was now about to lay before the nation" (Keil). The passage is, therefore, not only in its proper place as part of the hii,torical narrative, but it has a close, intimate relevancy to the main theme of Moses' admonitions in his addresses to the people. The song or ode contained in eh. :xxxii., though expressly declared to have been composed by Moses, uttered by him in the hearing of the people, and 'l'l:IE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. xxxvii
written by him to be preserved in Israel as a witness against them should they apostatize from Jehovah, has been adjudged by many critic.~ to be the production of some unknown writer of a much later age. This judgment is grounded partly on tho language and style of the ode, partly on certain statements in it which it is alleged contain allusions to events and circum- stances in the later history of Israel. 1. It is alleged that the style and tooe of this composition are so different from the style and tone of the preceding part of this book, that it cannot be regarded as proceeding from the same author. This, however, is really saying nothing more than that this is a poem, whereas the preceding part of the book is in prose. For in a poem the style of language and tone of thought are necessarily different from what characterizes prose compositions ; to the poet belong " thoughts that breathe and words that burn," and he is no poet whose thoughts and words are not of this sort. When, therefore, an author passes from simple narrative or expository and hortatory discourse, to give utterance to feeling and sentiment in song, he of necessity adopts a style and mode of thought more or less differing from those of his other compositions, else his utterance ceases to be poetry. Now, this ode is poetry of a very high order; and to this its peculiarity of expression and senti- ment is due, not to its being the production of another than the author of the other parts of this book. It is further to be observed that, whilst this ode differs in diction and cast of sentiment from the preceding parts of this book, as poetry differs from prose, thel'e is nothing in it alien from or contradictory of the senti- ments and utterances of Moses in his addresses to the people, reported in the preceding parts of this book. On the contrary, there are not a few coincidences both in thought' and expression which may well be regarded as pi·o tanto proofs of an identity of authorship in this and the other parts of this book (see Keil, 'Biblical Commentary,' vol. iii. p. 466). Worthy of notice also are the coincidences between this ode and Ps. xc., a composition adrnittedly of great antiquity, and which is with much probability attributed to Moses as its author (see Ewald, 'Die Dichter des Alt. Bundes,' Bd. i. Th. ii. s. 31; Hengstenberg, 'Die Psalmen,' Bd. iii. s. 529; Bleek, 'Einleit in. d. A. T.,' s. 615, English translation, ii. p. 234). Both in mode of expression and in cast of sentiment the two odes resemble each other (comp. eh. xxxii. 7, 18, 4, 36, with Ps. xc. 1, 15, 13, 16), and thus favour the supposition that both have proceeded from one author. 2. It is urged that this song is so constructed that the Divine guidance of Israel (ver. 12, etc.) and their ingratitude (ver. 15, etc.) are referred to as things already past. But this ignores the prophetic character of the song, and mistakes the style of prophetic utterance. Moses was a prophet; and the prophets, or seers, not only looked to the future, but beheld it as present; and the energy of their perception of it stamped itself on their words so that they very frequently represent as actually before them or as already done what in reality was yet future. So familiar is this usage that gram- xxxviil INTRODUCTION TO