More anachronisms are said to be I. The dwelling places of Jair mentioned in Deut. iii. r4, sq. (compare Judg. X. 3, sq.) We consider, however, that the men mentioned in the two passages are evidently different persons, though of the same name. Nor is it difficult to prove from other sources, that there really existed at the time of Moses a man by name Jair.
2. The notice (iii. r) concerning king Og, which looks more like a note of a subsequent writer in corroboration of the story told in the chapter. But this hypothesis falls to the ground when we consider that Moses did not write for his contemporaries merely, but also for late posterity.
The book contains, moreover, not a small num ber of plain, though indirect traces, indicative of its Mosaic origin. We thus find in it : 1. Numerous notices concerning nations with whom the Israelites had then come in contact, but who, after the Mosaic period, entirely disap peared from the pages of history : such are the accounts of the residences of the kings of Bashan (i. 4).
2. The appellation of `mountain of the Amo rites,' used throughout the whole book (i. 7, 19, 20, 44), while even in the book of Joshua, soon after the conquest of the land, the name is already exchanged for ' mountains of Judah' (Josh. xi. 16, 21).
3. The observation (ii. to), that the Enzivz had formerly dwelt in the plain of Moab : they were a great people, equal to the Anakim. This obser vation quite accords with Genesis xiv. 5.
4. A detailed account (ii. 12) concerning the Horim and their relations to the Edomites.
5. An account of the Zamzummim (ii. 20, 21), one of the earliest raves of Canaan, though men tioned nowhere else.
6. A very circumstantial account of the Re phaini 3, sq.), with whose concerns the author seems to have been well acquainted.
The stand-point also of the author of Deuter onomy is altogether in the Mosaic time, and had it been assumed and fictitious, there must neces sarily have been moments when the spurious author would have been off his guard, and unmindful of the part he had to play. But no discrepancies of this kind can be traced ; and this is in itself an evidence of the genuineness of the book.
A great number of other passages force us like wise to the conclusion, that the whole of Deuter onomy originated in the time of Moses. Such are the passages where r. A comparison is drawn between Canaan and Egypt (xi. ro, sq.), with the latter of which the author seems thoroughly acquainted.
2. Detailed descriptions are given of the fertility and productions of Canaan (viii. 7, sq.) " 3. Regulations are given relating to the quest of Canaan (xii. r, sq. ; xx. 1, sq.), which cannot be understood otherwise than by assuming that they had been framed in the Mosaic time, since they could be of no use after that period.
Besides whole pieces and chapters in Deutero nomy, such as xxxii. xxxiii., betray in form, lan guage, and tenor, a very early period in Hebrew literature. Nor are the laws and regulations in Deuteronomy less decisive of the authenticity of the book. We are struck with the most remarkable phenomenon, that many laws from the previous books are here partly repeated and impressed with more energy, partly modified, and partly altoge ther abolished, according to the contingencies of the time, or as the new aspect of circumstances among the Jews rendered such steps necessary (comp. e.g. Deut. xv. 17 with Exod. xxi. 6; Dent. xii. with Lev. xvii). Such pretensions to raise, or even to oppose his own private opinions to the authority of divine law, are found in no author of the subsequent periods, since the whole of the sacred literature of the later times is, on the con trary, rather the echo than otherwise of the Penta tench, and is altogether founded on it. Add to
this the fact, that the law itself forbids most im pressively to add to, or take anything from it, a prohibition which is repeated even in Deuteronomy (comp. iv. 2; xiii. I) ; and it is but too evident, that, if the opinion of the critics be correct, that this book contains nothing more than a gradual development of the law—it clashes too often with its own principles, and pronounces thus its own sentence of condemnation.
The part of Deuteronomy (xxxiv.) respecting the death of Moses requires a particular explanation. That the whole of this section is to be regarded as a piece altogether apart from what precedes it, or as a supplement from another writer, has already been maintained by the older theologians (comp. ex. gr. Carpzov, Introd. in libr. V T i. p. 137) ; and this opinion is confirmed not only by the con tents of the chapter, but also by the express decla ration of the book itself on that event and its relations ; for chapter xxxi. contains the conclusion of the work, where Moses describes himself as the author of the previous contents, as also of the Song (ch. xxxii.), and the blessings (ch. xxxiii.) belong ing to it. All that follows is, consequently, not from Moses, the work being completed and con cluded with chapter xxxiii. There is another circumstance which favours this opinion, namely, the close connection that exists between the last section of Deuteronomy and the beginning of Joshua (comp. Deut. xxxiv. 9 with Josh. i. where also the term in the latter passage, must not be overlooked) plainly shews that ch. xxxiv. of Deuteronomy is intended to serve as a point of transition to the book of Joshua, and that it was written by the same author as the latter.
The correct view of this chapter, therefore, is to consider it as a real supplement, but by no means as an inte/75o/ation (such as some critics erroneously suppose to exist in the Pentateuch in general). To apply to it the term interpolation would be as wrong as to give that appellation ex. gr. to the 8th book of Caesar's work, ' De Bello Galileo,' simply because it was equally written by an unknown author, for the very purpose of serving as a supple ment to the previous books. [PENTATEUCH.] H. A. C. H.
DEW. In Palestine the dews fall copiously at night, in spring and autumn, but scarcely any dew falls during the summer months—from the middle of May to the middle of August. It continues, however, to fall for some time after the rains of spring have ceased, and begins to fall before the rains of autumn commence, and we may from this gather the sense in which the Scriptural references to dew are to be understood. Without the dews continu ing to fall after the rains have ceased, and com mencing before the rains return, the season of actual drought, and the parched appearance of the country, would be of much longer duration than they really are. The partial refreshment thus afforded to the ground at the end of a summer with out dews or rains is of great value in Western Asia, and would alone explain all the Oriental refer ences to the effects of dew. This explanation is of farther interest as indicating the times of the year to which the Scriptural notices of dew refer ; for as it does not, in any perceptible degree, fall in sum mer, and as few would think of mentioning it in the season of rain, we may take all such notices to refer to the months of April, May, part of Au gust, and September.—J. K.