The critics who have tried to shew that the Pentateuch is composed of miscellaneous docu ments and by various authors, have more difficulty in applying their theory to this book than to any other of the series. [PENTATEuch.] Indeed the most sceptical critics admit that, with the exception of a few interpolations (comp. for instance, De Wette, Introd. sec. 154, sq.), the whole of this book was moulded, as it were, in one single cast. The date, however, of the composition of Deu teronomy, as well as its authenticity, has given rise to a far greater variety of opinion, more especially among those who are opposed to the authorship of Moses. The older critics, such as Wette, Gesenius, etc., considered Deuteronomy as the latest production of all the books of the Pentateuch ; while the more recent critics, such as Von Bohlen, Vatice, George, etc., have come to just the con trary opinion, and declare it to be the earliest of the Mosaic writings. The whole of their disputes on this head turn chiefly on the prophetic character of Deuteronomy. Some find that this peculiar feature characterizes the book as contemporary with the later prophets, and that it contains reflec tions on the law, as on a thing long in existence others, however, are of a quite contrary opinion, and discover in this subjective character, so pre dominant in Deuteronomy, the very proof of its prior and early composition ; and they consider, moreover, that the prophetic enunciations contained in it were afterwards developed into objective, rigid, and matter-of-fact laws, such as we find them in Exodus and Numbers. For this reason, they acid, is the legislative tone in Deuteronomy more simple than in the other books, embracing merely the incipient elements and suggestive notes of a com plete code of law.
A very strong proof of the genuineness of the book lies in its relation to the later writings of the prophets. Of all the books of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy has been made most use of by the prophets, simply because it is best calculated to serve as a model for prophetic declarations, as also because of the inward harmony that exists between the prophecies and the laws upon which they are based.
Deuteronomy exercised a most decisive and re markable influence more especially on Jeremiah, owing not only to his priestly character, but also and chiefly to the peculiar circumstances of his time, so admirably suited to illustrate the threats and warnings contained in that book, in the strongest light of sacred and immutable truth. Deuteronomy was a book altogether written for the times of Jeremiah, who could therefore do nothing better than resume the old text, and bring it home impressively to the people. The influence which the spirit of Deuteronomy thus exercised on that prophet, extended even to the adoption, on his part, of a considerable number of its ex pressions and phraseological terms. These lin guistical coincidences have been most erroneously accounted for by some, by assuming the contem porary origin of both books, while others (Von Bohlen) have gone so far in their speculations as even to allot to Jeremiah a share in the composi tion, or rather interpolation, of Deuteronomy. Such
views betray total ignorance of the peculiar and strictly defined character of Deuteronomy, so dif ferent in many respects, even as regards the style and language, from the book of Jeremiah, though it cannot be denied that no prophet ever adhered more closely to the prototypes of the earlier periods, or ever repeated more frequently the earlier enun ciations, than did Jeremiah.
Among the arguments advanced against the authenticity of Deuteronomy, are : 1. The contradictions said to exist between this and the other books of Moses ; 2. Certain anachronisms committed by the author.
These contradictions are more especially alleged to exist in the festival laws, where but arbitrary and unwarranted views are mostly entertained by such critics with regard to the nature and original meaning of'the festivals, which they identify alto gether with natural or season festivals, and without lending to them a more spiritual character and signification.
3. That the Sinai of the other books is always called Horeb in Deuteronomy.—They forget, how ever, that Horeb is the general name of the whole mountain, while Sinai is the special name of a particular part of it. This distinction is, indeed, most scrupulously observed everywhere in the Pentateuch.
4. That Priests and Levites are used as synony mous terms in, Deuteronomy (on account of the expression n an) ; while, in the other books of the Pentateuch, they are used as terms distinct from each other.—By that expression, how ever, can only be meant the Levitical priests, z.e. the only legitimate priests ; this meaning is borne out by Deuteronomy xviii. 3-S, where a clear dis tinction is made between Priests and Levrtes.
5. That in Deuteronomy i. 44, are mentioned the Amorites instead of the Amalekites as in Num. xiv. 45.—Here also they have forgotten to notice that, in the sequel of the very passage alluded to in Deuteronomy, both the Amorites and Amalekites are mentioned.
6. That the cause of the punishment of Moses is differently stated in Num. xxvii. 14, and Deut.
26.—To this objection we reply, that both the guilt and punishment of Moses are described in both books as originating with the people ; comp. also Deut. xxxii. 51, etc.
Among the anachronisms in Deuteronomy are reckoned the allusions made in it to the Temple (xii. xvi. r sqq.), to the royal and prophetic powers (xiii. xvii. xviii.), to the different modes of idol worship (iv. 19 ; xvii. 3), and to the exile (xxviii. sq.) In suggesting these critical points, however, they do not consider that all these subjects are most closely and intimately connected with the spirit and principles of the law itself, and that all these regulations and prophecies appear here in Deuter onomy, as necessary finishing-points to the Law, so indispensable for the better consolidation of the subsequent and later relations of the theocracy.