The Pulpit Commentary — Deuteronomy — Section 475

'crs. (), 24-26.-.The autl1orship of the book. A clear testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the Book or Deuteronomy. 'l'he book, as Moses gave it to the priests, has plainly been re-edited, with the additions of Moses' song, Moses' blessin", and tho account or his death; but only the wantonness of criticism can see" a differe;t band or hands" in eh. xii.-xxvi. from that employed upon the earlier chapters, or discern prohability in the assumption that eh. iv. 4.4-xxvi. 19 once constituted a separate book. 'J'hc unity in style and treatment is so conspicuous throughout-" the same -vein of thought, the i:amc tone and tenor of feeling, the same peculiarities or conception and expression "-that unity of authorship follows as a thing of course. '.l.'be denial of it is incomprehensible. It is less certain whether the "Book of the Law" (ver. 26) comprehends Deuter~nomy only, or the bulk of the other books of the Pentateuch as well. That Deuteronomy is represented as existing in a written form is plain from eh. xu-iii. 58, 61; xxix. 20, 21, 27; and Moses had probably the written discourses in his hand when he delivered them. But Deuteronomy, as a written book rests so entirely on the history as we have it in the previous books; is so steeped in 'allusions to it; implies so full and accurate a knowledge of it, from the days of the patriarchs dowrnrnrds ;-that the presumption in favour of that history also existing in a written form, in an then tic records, which subsequent generations could consult, is so stron" as almost to amount to certainty. It is incredible that Moses should have taken p~ins to write out these long discouraes-discourses based on the history, and inculcatina so earnestly the keeping of its facts and lessons in remembrance-and yet have take1~ no pains to secure an authentic record of the history itself; that he should not have com- piled or composed, out of the abundant materials at his command, a connected narrative of God's dealings with the nation, down to the point at which he addressed it; incorporating with that narrati,c the body of his legislation. Confining our attention to Deuteronomy, there can be no fair question but that it gives itself out as from the pen of Moses. This claim is disputed, and the book referred to about the time of Josiah on grounds of style, of discrepancies with the Levitical laws, and of laws and allusions im1ilying the later date. On the contrary, we hold that the critical hypothesis can be shown to raise greater difficulties than it lays, and that the difficulties in the way of accepting the book as a composition of Moses have been greatly exaggerated, We glance at a few or these difficnl ties. I. STYLE. Professor W. R. Smith (' Old Testament,' p. 433) notes as a crucial instance the laws about the cities of refuge in Numb. xxxv., and Deut. xix. These laws are supposed to have been penned by tbe same hand within a few m:mths of each other; yet, it is alleged, the vocabulary, structure of sentences, and cast of expression widely differ. But allowance must surely be made for the difference between a careful ori2:iual statement of a law, and a later general rehearsal of its sub- stance in the roundel style of free, popular discourse. And what are the specific differ- ences~ Deuteronomy, we are told, does not use the term "refuge," but "the cities are always described by a periphrasis." But the Deuteronomist simply says," Thou sbalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land" (eh. xix. 2); "thou shalt separate three cities for thee" (eh. xix. 7); "thou shalt add three cities more for thee" (eh. xix.9); and there is 110 periphrasis. The phrase, "that every slayer may flee thither" (eh. xiL 3), "the slayer which shall flee thither" (eh. xix. 4), is derived from Numb. xx:xv. 11, 15. But Deuteronomy and Numbers use differe:i.t words for" accidentally." Admitted, but the words used are synonymous, and are only used in each case twice altogether-in Numb. mv. 11, 15, and in Deut. iv. 42; xix. 4. "The judges in the one are 'the con..,.rei:ation,' in the other 'the elders of his city,'" But Deuteronomy says nothing aboiu "judges," and "the elders" who arc once referred to in oh. xix. Ii, plainly act in the name of the congregation. "'l'he verb for ' hate' is different." Rather, " the verb for ' bate'" docs not occur at all in Numb. xxxv., but the noun dc- ri ved from it does (Numb. xxxv. 20), and is trans).atc<). "hatred," while in vers. 21, 22, a different term, translated "enmity," is employed, which expresses nearly the samo 8e:ll.Se. Had these words appeared, one in Numbers and the other in Deuteronomy, instead of 8tanding io coni;ecuLive verscs of one chapter, they would doubtless have been. otr. n:n 1-80,] TBE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. 487