no doubt also to the exhortations in chaps. v.–xi. Hence we may conclude that the original book consisted of a central mass of religious, civil and social laws, preceded by a hortatory introduction and followed by an effective peroration. The book read to Josiah must therefore have comprised most of what is found in Deut. v.–xxvi., xxvii. 9, 10 and xxviii. But something like two centuries elapsed before the book reached its present form, for in the closing chapter, as well as elsewhere, e.g. i. 41-43 (where the joining is not so deftly done as usual) and xxxii. 48-52, there are undoubted traces of the Priestly Code, P, which is generally acknowledged to be post-exilic.
The following is an analysis of the main divisions of the book as we now have it. There are two introductions, the first i.–iv. 44, more historical than hortatory; the second v.–xi., more hortatory than historical. These may at first have been prefixed to separate editions of the legislative portion, but were eventually combined. Then, before D was united to P, five appendices of very various dates and embracing poetry as well as prose, were added so as to give a fuller account of the last days of Moses and thus lead up to the narrative of his death with which the book closes. (1) Chap. xxvii., where the elders of Israel are introduced for the first time as acting along with Moses (xxvii. 1) and then the priests, the Levites (xxvii. 9). Some of the curses refer to laws given not in D but in Lev. xxx., so that the date of this chapter must be later than Leviticus or at any rate than the laws codified in the Law of Holiness (Lev. xvii.–xxvi.). (2) The second appendix, chaps, xxix.–xxxi. 29, xxxii. 45-47, gives us the farewell address of Moses and is certainly later than D. Moses is represented as speaking not with any hope of preventing Israel’s apostasy but because he knows that the people will eventually prove apostate (xxxi. 29), a point of view very different from D's. (3) The Song of Moses, chap. xxxii. That this didactic poem must have been written late in the nation’s history, and not at its very beginning, is evident from v. 7: “Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations.” Such words cannot be interpreted so as to fit the lips of Moses. It must have been composed in a time of natural gloom and depression, after Yahweh’s anger had been provoked by “a very froward generation,” certainly not before the Assyrian Empire had loomed up against the political horizon, aggressive and menacing. Some critics bring the date down even to the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. (4) The Blessing of Moses, chap, xxxiii. The first line proves that this poem is not by D, who speaks invariably of Horeb, never of Sinai. The situation depicted is in striking contrast with that of the Song. Everything is bright because of promises fulfilled, and the future bids fair to be brighter still. Bruston maintains with reason that the Blessing, strictly so called, consists only of vv. 6-25, and has been inserted in a Psalm celebrating the goodness of Jehovah to his people on their entrance into Canaan (vv. 1-5, 26-29). The special prominence given to Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) in vv. 13-17 has led many critics to assign this poem to the time of the greatest warrior-king of Northern Israel, Jeroboam II. (5) The account of Moses’ death, chap. xxxiv. This appendix, containing, as it does, manifest traces of P, proves that even Deuteronomy was not put into its present form until after the exile.
From the many coincidences between D and the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.–xxiii.) it is clear that D was acquainted with E, the prophetic narrative of the Northern kingdom; but it is not quite clear whether D knew E as an independent work, or after its combination with J, the somewhat earlier prophetic narrative of the Southern kingdom, the combined form of which is now indicated by the symbol JE. Kittel certainly puts it too strongly when he asserts that D quotes always from E and never from J, for some of the passages alluded to in D may just as readily be ascribed to J as to E, cf. Deut. i. 7 and Gen. xv. 18; Deut. x. 14 and Ex. xxxiv. 1-4. Consequently D must have been written certainly after E and possibly after E was combined with J.
In Amos, Hosea and Isaiah there are no traces of D’s ideas, whereas in Jeremiah and Ezekiel their influence is everywhere manifest. Hence this school of thought arose between the age of Isaiah and that of Jeremiah; but how long D itself may have been in existence before it was read in 622 to Josiah cannot be determined with certainty. Many argue that D was written immediately before it was found and that, in fact, it was put into the temple for the purpose of being “found.” This theory gives some plausibility to the charge that the book is a pious fraud. But the narrative in 2 Kings xxii. warrants no such inference. The more natural explanation is that it was written not in the early years of Josiah’s reign, and with the cognizance of the temple priests then in office, but some time during the long reign of Manasseh, probably when his policy was most reactionary and when he favoured the worship of the “host of heaven” and set up altars to strange gods in Jerusalem itself. This explains why the author did not publish his work immediately, but placed it where he hoped it would be safely preserved till opportunity should arise for its publication. One need not suppose that he actually foresaw how favourable that opportunity would prove, and that, as soon as discovered, his work would be promulgated as law by the king and willingly accepted by the people. The author believed that everything he wrote was in full accordance with the mind of Moses, and would contribute to the national weal of Yahweh’s covenant people, and therefore he did not scruple to represent Moses as the speaker. It is not to be expected that modern scholars should be able to fix the exact year or even decade in which such a book was written. It is enough to determine with something like probability the century or half-century which best fits its historical data; and these appear to point to the reign of Manasseh.
Between D and P there are no verbal parallels; but in the historical résumés JE is followed closely, whole clauses and even verses being copied practically verbatim. As Dr Driver points out in his careful analysis, there are only three facts in D which are not also found in JE, viz. the number of the spies, the number of souls that went down into Egypt with Jacob, and the ark being made of acacia wood. But even these may have been in J or E originally, and left out when JE was combined with P. Steuernagel divides the legal as well as the hortatory parts of D between two authors, one of whom uses the 2nd person plural when addressing Israel, and the other the 2nd person singular; but as a similar alternation is constantly found in writings universally acknowledged to be by the same author, this clue seems anything but trustworthy, depending as it does on the presence or absence of a single Hebrew letter, and resulting, as it frequently does, in the division of verses which otherwise seem to be from the same pen (cf. xx. 2). The inference as to diversity of authorship is much more conclusive when difference of standpoint can be proved, cf. v. 3, xi. 2 ff. with viii. 2. The first two passages represent Moses as addressing the generation that was alive at Horeb, whereas the last represents him as speaking to those who were about to pass over Jordan a full generation later; and it may well be that the one author may, in the historical and hortatory parts, have preferred the 2nd plural and the other the 2nd singular; without the further inference being justified that every law in which the 2nd singular is used must be assigned to the latter, and every law in which the 2nd plural occurs must be due to the former.
The law of the Single Sanctuary, one of D’s outstanding characteristics, is, for him, an innovation, but an innovation towards which events had long been tending. 2 Kings xxiii. 9 shows that even the zeal of Josiah could not carry out the instructions laid down in D xviii. 6-8. Josiah’s acceptance of D made it the first canonical book of scripture. Thus the religion of Judah became henceforward a religion which enabled its adherents to learn from a book exactly what was required of them. D requires the destruction not only of the high places and the idols, but of the Asheras (wooden posts) and the Mazzebas (stone pillars) often set up beside the altar of Jehovah (xvi. 21). These reforms made too heavy demands upon the people, as was proved by the reaction which set in at Josiah’s death. Indeed the country people would look on the destruction of the high places with their Asheras and Mazzebas as sacrilege and would consider Josiah’s death in battle as a divine punishment for his
