MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY : 
 
 THE PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION AS TO THE DATE 
 AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 By moderator. 
 
^ PRINCETON, N. J. "^ 
 
 Di'visioM. J^J-.Trr- I ^-— i O 
 Section fr'« I 1 I j 
 
OCU I I -^ ^ 1 
 
 '■Y 
 
 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY: 
 
 THE PRESENT STATE OP THE QUESTION AS TO THE DATE 
 AND AUTHORSHIP OP THE BOOK OP DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 By moderator. 
 
 " Search the Scriptures." — John v. 39. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 JOHN MENZIES & CO. ; ANDREW ELLIOTT. 
 
 ABERDEEN : A. BROWN & CO. 
 
 1880. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following essay is a humble attempt to state briefly, compre- 
 hensively, and impartially the chief difficulties of the Deuteronomic 
 question, and the chief theories which have been framed for the 
 explanation of the difficulties. It was drawn up about a year ago, 
 not with any polemical purpose, nor yet with a view to publica- 
 tion, but solely for the satisfaction of the writer and a few of his 
 intimate friends who take a great interest in the general question, 
 but who have no connexion with existin;]; Deuteronomic contro- 
 versies or controversialists. 
 
 It is not without considerable hesitation and misgiving that 
 the writer commits his humble attempt to the press. The great 
 difficulty and complexity of the subject, the risk of falling into 
 error and one-sidedness, in even the most singleminded endeavour 
 to discuss it, and the still greater risk in the present excited state 
 of the ecclesiastical mind, of incurring grievous misunderstanding, 
 misconstruction and misrepresentation of motive — these were all 
 powerful dissuasives. On the other hand, the writer was moved 
 to publication by the strong conviction which possessed him that, 
 as a whvle, the Deuteronomic question is still but very imperfectly 
 understood in this country, even by men of education, and that 
 much good might be done by a short, succinct, and " all-round " 
 view of it contained in a small pamphlet — such a brief statement, 
 in fact, as a busy man might easily run over at tine close of a long 
 day's work. A hasty, though comprehensive, glance of this sort 
 may not greatly enlarge a man's knoidedge ; but it will bring 
 home to him the extent of his ignorance. Like the view 
 from the top of a high mountain, it shows to him, in a hazy 
 and indistinct way, the wide extent of the field that has to 
 be explored. It dues not qualify him to pass a judgment on the 
 
iv PREFACE. 
 
 subject, but it puts him on his guard against passing a rash^ 
 narrow, and ignorant judgment. It teaches him humilit}^ care, 
 and caution. It impresses on him the wisdom of trusting chiefly, 
 in a matter of science and learning, to patient investigation and 
 " the long results of time." 
 
 The writer hopes that what he has written will be read with 
 " the combination of the open eye with the devout heart," and by 
 Christians of all denominations. The subject is entirely unsec- 
 tarian, and the interest in it is greatly enhanced by the approaching 
 issue of a revised translation of the Scriptures — the result of the 
 combined labours, for many j^ears, of the leading scholars of most 
 of the leading denominations of English-speaking Christians, both 
 in this country and in America. The new version would be re- 
 ceived with greatly increased satisfaction should the dark cloud 
 raised by these unsettling questions begin to " lift" previous to its 
 issue. The study of these que.stions must also form an excellent 
 preparation for the due appreciation of the superiority of an im- 
 proved translation. The new version and the new views may, 
 between them, stir men up to a more general, a more systematic, 
 a more critical, and a more profitable " searching" of the 
 " Scriptures." 
 
/■'PBIITC 
 
 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 Part First— THE DIFFICULTIES. 
 
 ' Only let critical researches into the origin and character of the sacred docu- 
 ments be conducted on the principle here laid down, which combines 
 reverence for spiritual truth with freedom of intellectual enquiry, and 
 we need have neither bitter recriminations between our divines nor ap- 
 prehensions for the faith, which is equally dear to all. It is indeed only 
 through the combination of the open ej'e, with the devout heart, that 
 the highest truth can be obtained." — Quartcrli/ Review, cxlvii. 336. 
 
 The writer has devoted a good deal of time and thought to 
 the question of the Authorship of Deuteronomy, using every 
 means and appliance at his command, and consulting im- 
 partially critics and commentators of every variety of view. 
 His object has oeen to know all that can with certainty be 
 known in explanation of an interesting but obscure Biblical 
 problem. He began his researches without any conscious 
 bias, unless it might be the natural hope that he might end 
 by finding that but little modification of the old accepted 
 doctrine was necessary in order to reconcile criticism and 
 tradition. He had no theory of his own upon the subject ; 
 neither did he expect that amongst the theories of the day 
 he should find any one that could be deemed entirely satis- 
 factory or capable of explaining the whole of the facts. 
 
 Still less did he dream of achieving the discovery of such 
 a theory himself, or even of making any solid contribution to 
 the solution of the question. It was a negative rather than a 
 positive result that he chiefly aimed at — the avoidance of mis- 
 leading error rather than the attainment of certain truth. 
 
 In a question of this sort this result, as it appeared to 
 him, is about the utmost that is attainable, at least, at an 
 early stage of the investigation, by any one who is not a 
 specialist. And even this is not little. Next to the power of 
 
6 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 establishing the true theory is that of detecting and avoiding 
 false theories, and refusing to close the investigation till 
 sufficient light has been obtained. This power cannot be 
 expected but as the result of patient dispassionate and im- 
 partial study of the whole question from every point of view. 
 Even then it may not be attained ; so apt is a man to be 
 misled by his sympathies and preconceptions, and by the con- 
 fident dogmatism of out and out patisans, on one side or the 
 other. 
 
 Such misleading may be said to be courted, and to be 
 altogether inevitable in every case where the inquirer sets 
 out with a very strong prejudice or prepossession in favour of 
 the establishment of any one particular conclusion ; for, from 
 the first, he looks at the evidence with the eye of an advocate 
 rather than with that of a judge ; he commits himself to a 
 view before he has any adequate knowledge of the arguments 
 for and against — and once committed to it he sticks to it to 
 the last against all counter-evidence short of absolute demon- 
 stration. 
 
 Instances of such rash self-committal — tending from the 
 high authority of the parties to a decided committal of the 
 Scriptures themselves, in the eye of the uninstructed, to one par- 
 ticular untenable interpretation — were, as every one knows, 
 very common in the early days of every modern science which 
 has a bearing on the interpretation of Scripture, astronomy, 
 geology, and biology. Take the first two, astronomy and geology. 
 As these two sciences, one after the other, struggled into light, 
 they established conclusions which were at variance with the 
 traditional interpretation of Scripture. In general, therefore, 
 the authorized interpreters of Scripture set themselves at once 
 without due inquiry or consideration to deny and denounce 
 the conclusions in question as contrary to the teaching of 
 Scripture, and therefore untrue. If anytliing could have acted 
 as a sufficient warning and deterrent against such rashness, it 
 would have been the infatuated condemnation of Galileo for 
 maintaining the Copernicau truth, that the sun and not the 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 7 
 
 earth is the centre of the solar system — an act, the rashness of 
 "which has been made only more glaring and compromising by 
 recent laboured attempts to explain it away.* But the warn- 
 ing was little heeded. When after another century and a- 
 half, geologists began to unfold like undreamt of truths 
 regarding the earth, as astronomers had done regarding the 
 heavens, a like blind and shortsighted course was taken. 
 Geologists were denounced as not only wrong, but wicked. 
 The literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis was 
 declared to be the only true interpretation, and figurative in- 
 terpretations devised with the view of reconciling Scripture 
 and science were scouted as utterly inadmissible, even by such 
 a man as Bishop Horsley.'*' But science only requires time 
 to ensure the general acceptance of its demonstrated truths. 
 In the long run no authority or prejudice can withstand the con- 
 sensus of competent judges. Thus the once banned and pro- 
 
 * " It is of course a matter of life and death to modern Ultramontanes to 
 show that the Popes were never officially committed to the condemnation of 
 Galileo's teaching, and Gebler, as we have seen, acquiesces in their verdict. 
 But it is in fact based on the merest ex post facto special pleading, as was con- 
 clusively shown in a pamphlet on the Pontifical Decrees Against the Motion of 
 the Earth, published in the year of the Vatican Council, 'by a Priest of the 
 Province of Westminster.' The author first explains that the magical clause 
 ' Sanctissimus conjirmavit,' &c., said to be providentially wanting to the decree, 
 is wanting only because it did not come into use till ■ many years after the 
 condemnation of Galileo, while on the other hand there is abundant evi- 
 dence that the decree of 1616 — reaffirmed and enforced in 1632— was, and was 
 intended and known to be, a strictly Papal judgment, emanating from 
 Paul V. himself, who had expressly applied his mind to the doctrinal question 
 at issue. It is further shown that the theory thus solemnly condemned aa 
 'false, pernicious, heretical, and wholly opposed to Holy Scripture,' and or- 
 dered to be 'utterly abolished' {ut prorsxis tolleretur) by Paul V., and which 
 Galileo was required by his successor Urban VIII., on the strength of that 
 decree, to ' abjure, curse, and detest' as ' an error and heresy,' had been for 
 seventy years before the Church as a tolerated hypothesis, and was now for- 
 mally and deliberately adjudicated upon because scientific men were coming to 
 believe that it would or might turn out to be true."— Sat. Review, 1247, p. 357. 
 
 + They who seek or achnit figurative expositions of such expressions as 
 these seem to be not sufficiently aware that it is one thing to write a hiatory/ 
 and quite another to compose riddles. — Ilorslcy, Sermon xxiii. 
 
8 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY 
 
 scribed dogmas of astronomy and geology are now accepted 
 truths. To doubt or disbelieve them argues a man either too 
 ignorant or too eccentric for serious argument. Yet the 
 lesson of caution which this triumph of science was so well 
 fitted to teach interpreters, was but very imperfectly learnt. 
 Scarcely had opposition to the latter of the two sciences, 
 geology, died out, when other two sciences — biology, with its 
 doctrine of evolution, and " the higher criticism," with its 
 unsettling theories regarding the composition and authorship 
 of the Books of Scripture, and of Deuteionomy in particular, 
 drew down on themselves a succession of almost equally blind 
 and ill-considered attacks. Again, instead of patiently and 
 confidently abiding the result of investigation and discussion, 
 men made haste to condemn and denounce, and to proclaim 
 that if those views were true, the Scriptures must be false. 
 
 This was the first and natural impulse. Already, how- 
 ever, while these later new views are still under discussion, 
 and are at best but plausible hypotheses, time has done much 
 to modify the intolerant attitude of their most earnest op- 
 ponents, especially as regards evolution. Theologians, who 
 at first thought the evolution theory altogether irreconcilable 
 with the Scriptural account of creation, now take an entirely 
 different view of the whole question ; and no longer hold that 
 any particular mode of creation — whether by progressive evo- 
 lution, or by separate acts — is necessarily implied in the 
 Scripture narrative. The evolution difficulty is in fact fast 
 coming to be regarded by theologians with as much calm in- 
 difierence as the astronomical and geological difficulties. 
 
 It is somewhat different with the critical theories, which 
 to the people of this country may be said to be comparatively 
 -new. Though it is very long since the existence of the diffi- 
 culties on which the theories are based was first pointed out, 
 and though the difficulties and the theories have been dis- 
 cussed fully and freely in Germany, for at least the last 
 sixty or seventy years, and in England by a few critics, 
 ■^uostly on one side, for the last twenty, it is not too much to 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 9 
 
 say that it is only within the last two or three years that 
 even the theological world has awoke to the gravity and 
 importance of the subject, especially as regards Deuteronomy. 
 English critics and commentators on the orthodox or traditional 
 side have, as a rule, for some reason or other, scarcely ever 
 grappled with the subject. Not only have they in most cases 
 made no contribution of their own to the solution of the ques- 
 tion ; but they have generally, either by altogether ignoring the 
 difficulty, or by slurring it over, so misrepresented the nature 
 of it, as to mislead the ignorant and tantalize the studious. 
 
 This sort of treatment cannot be longer pursued without- 
 discrediting a commentator's authority, not only on this but 
 on all cognate subjects, and, what is more serious, exciting 
 an unwarrantable prejudice against the Scriptures, as if those 
 who knew the sacred writings best, deemed them unfit to bear 
 the light of science. Times have greatly changed of late. 
 By the publication of Professor Eobertson Smith's articles in 
 the " Encyclopaedia Britannica," and the controversies and 
 legal proceedings consequent thereon, the gravity of the ques- 
 tion has been made fully known to the whole reading public, 
 at least in this northern part of the island. It is now the 
 plainest policy to look the difficulty in the face, extenuating 
 nothing, and courting rather than shunning investigation and 
 discussion. The writer believes that if this course is boldly 
 taken, and it is made plain that the question is entirely an 
 open one, a far more satisfactory state of feeling would soon 
 prevail in regard to it. It would come to be calmly and 
 quietly discussed, and looked at from every point of view, and 
 then, as was the case with those similar questions of former 
 days, in course of time, more than one sufficiently satisfactory 
 solution for it might be evolved by believing and reverent 
 scholars. Above all, men would come to see that Christianity 
 is not bound " to answer with its life " for the accuracy of 
 any one solution. 
 
 The writer, therefore, hopes that he may be able to do a 
 humble but real service to the calm and deliberate elucidation 
 
to MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 of Bible truth, by endeavouring to state in the plainest and 
 most direct way, the actual state of the important question 
 as to the date and authorship of Deuteronomy. 
 
 In doing so, he will avoid, as far as possible, details and 
 doubtful points, and try to fix attention on the chief difficulties 
 as to the Mosaic authorship of the main part of Deuteronomy 
 — those which after the most careful pondering of all explana- 
 tions which have been offered, still stand out to his mind 
 substantially unreduced, and calling for further explanation. 
 
 The difficulties divide themselves naturally into three 
 classes, corresponding to the three books or sets of books in 
 which they occur, viz. : — Difficulties arising 
 
 I. From the book of Deuteronomy itself. 
 
 II. From] the books which precede Deuteronomy in the 
 canon. 
 
 III. From the books which follow it in the canon. 
 
 In other words, there are difficulties in reconciling the Mosaic 
 authorship of Deuteronomy. 
 
 I. — With certain chronological and historical statements 
 in Deuteronomy. 
 
 II. — With the style of the book of Deuteronomy, and with 
 the provisions of some of the laws which are recorded, as given 
 by Moses, in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. 
 
 III. — With the history and the ceremonial or ritual 
 practice of Israel as recorded in Judges, and the books of 
 Samuel and Kings, &c. 
 
 Taking these three sets of difficulties in their order, it 
 will be found that they increase in force, but decrease in 
 obviousness. 
 
 I. — The difficulties of the first class are obvious on a little 
 reflection, especiall}'' to the Hebrew reader ; but most, if not 
 all, of them when taken by themselves appear capable of 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 11 
 
 reasonable explanation with the lights which we now possess, 
 and making allowance for alterations by editors and copyists. 
 
 II. — The second class are not nearly so obvious, demand- 
 ing, as they do, for their appreciation very careful comparison 
 of book with book, law with law, style with style, &c. 
 
 III. — The difficulties of the third class are still less obvi- 
 ous than those of the second ; for to have any due conception 
 of their weight and force demands an intimate acquaintance and 
 careful comparison of Deuteronomy with many of the subse- 
 quent historical and prophetical books of the Bible ; demands, in 
 short, a minute and accurate knowledge, a firm and comprehen- 
 sive grasp of the history, the polity, and the language of Israel. 
 
 I. — The difficulties in the way of accepting the Mosaic 
 authorship of Deuteronomy, contained in Deuteronomy itself, 
 are of two classes : — 
 
 1. Those passages which plainly bear to have been written 
 after the time of Moses, and after the people had settled in 
 Canaan. 
 
 a. The very first passage in the book, "These are the 
 words which Moses spake to the whole of Israel on the other* 
 side of Jordan," &c. 
 
 The writer of this passage, according to the literal mean- 
 ing, wrote on the west or Canaan side of Jordan ; and Moses 
 spoke " the words" on the east or Moab side. Therefore, in- 
 ferentially, Moses was not the writer. 
 
 h. The passage which gives an account of the death and 
 burial of Moses — xxxiv., 5 and 6. 
 
 c. The passage (xxxiv. 1) where the Lord is said to have 
 showed Moses "all the land of Gilead unto Dan" — Dan, it is 
 maintained, was not known as Dan at that time, but as Laish 
 (Judges xviii. 27-29). 
 
 2. Other passages, which though not distinctly anacliron- 
 
 * " On this iiide" in the authorised version. 
 
12 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 isms, yet in their natural meaning, imply that a considerable 
 time had elapsed between the period at which the events hap- 
 pened and that at which they were recorded. 
 
 a. Thus, iii. 14, " Jair the son of Manasseh took all the coun- 
 try of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi, and 
 called them " after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto 
 this day." The time that elapsed between the taking of the 
 Bashan cities, or " Jair's livings," and the date of Moses 
 speech was at most only a few months. Moses could hardly 
 have used such an expression as " to this day" in such a case- 
 
 h. Again, xxxiv. 6, " No man knoweth of his sepulchre unto 
 this day ;" and verse 10, " And there arose not a prophet since 
 in Israel like unto Moses." 
 
 c. " The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime ; but the 
 children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed 
 them from before them, and dwelt in their stead, as Israel did 
 unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto 
 them" (ii. 12). The natural inference from the words in 
 italics is that the whole passage was written after Israel had 
 " destroyed " the Canaanites and " dwelt in their stead." 
 
 d. " Only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of 
 giants ; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron ; is it not 
 in Rahbath of the children of Ammon ? "(iii. 11) The natural 
 inference here is that the writer was " referring to an anti- 
 quarian curiosity" instead of something which had been 
 quite recently in use, and probably seen, as Og himself had 
 been seen and slain by the people whom Moses was now 
 addressing. 
 
 These anachronisms, real or apparent, present no serious 
 difficulty ^vhe7i taJcen hy themselves. Apart from possible in- 
 dividual explanations, there is nothing unnatural in the sup- 
 position that a later inspired writer, or writers, should have 
 re-edited the Book, contributing explanatory notes, and after 
 the manner of the time, inserting them in the text instead of 
 putting them in the margin — nay, that such writer, or writers, 
 should have compiled both the beginning and the end of the 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 13 
 
 book, or the whole historical setting of the Central Law 
 Book (ch. V. 1 to xxvi. IG).* 
 
 II. — The difficulties of the second class, or those which we 
 encounter in attempting to reconcile the law as given in Deuter- 
 onomy with the law as given in Exodus, Leviticus, and Num- 
 bers, are not in themselves very serious matters. They are 
 considerably more serious, however, in their combined, or 
 cumulative, than in their individual aspect ; and then they 
 are much less easily disposed of than the first class, because 
 they are of a more systematic character, and inhere in the 
 substance of the work. 
 
 They consist of discrepancies which more or less pervade 
 the whole of the Law Books : 
 
 1. The provisions of the Laws : 
 
 2. The tone of the Laws : 
 
 3. The style and diction of the Books : 
 all differ to some extent. 
 
 1. The chief differences in the legal provisions are almost 
 all connected with the priests and the Levites — their position 
 with respect to each other, and the tithes and dues or perqui- 
 sites by which they were maintained. 
 
 a. The emoluments of the priests are to some extent dif- 
 ferent from those which are assigned to them in the previous 
 books. 
 
 1). The emoluments of the Levites are different, their habi- 
 tations also, and their general position. 
 
 c. But what differs most, and is most significant, is the 
 relative position of priests and Levites in Deuteronomy and 
 in the former books. 
 
 In the former books the priests are " the sons of Aaron ;" 
 in Deuteronomy they are " the sons of Levi," or the Levites. 
 
 * " It is indeed possible that some, or perhaps all of the archaeological and 
 topographical remarks, which are interwoven in several places, e. g. ii. 10-12, 
 20-23 ; iii. 9, are insertions made by a later reviser, perhaps a much later reviser, 
 after the book was complete." — Speaker's Commentary, Deuteronomy, p. 799. 
 
14 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 In the former books, the priests are the servants of Jehovah 
 — they " stand before Him to minister unto Him." The 
 Levites are the servants of the priests, ^iven to them to 
 minister unto them. In short, in Leviticus " there is a 
 sharp distinction drawn" between the priests and the Levites ; 
 in Deuteronomy there is no distinction whatever. All priests 
 are Levites, and all Levites may become priests. 
 
 There is apparently no danger now", as there was in the 
 days of Korah, of the earth opening her mouth and swallow- 
 ing up a Levite who " sought the priesthood." 
 
 2. The tone of the laws in Deuteronomy, it seems to be 
 admitted on all hands, is different from that of the laws in 
 the previous books — being more advanced, more humane, 
 more merciful, more spiritual. 
 
 3. Then the style of Deuteronomy differs undoubtedly 
 from the style of the former books of the Pentateuch, in a way 
 that gives the impression that the book is the work of a dif- 
 ferent writer, and of a somewhat different age. It is more 
 rounded, more flowing and sustained, more cultivated, more 
 modern — displaying, if with reverence it may be spoken, more 
 literary art. 
 
 The diction also, though not differing much from that of 
 the previous books, is nevertheless marked by certain fre- 
 quently recurring phrases which are not to be met with in 
 those books. 
 
 Explanations of all these discrepancies have been offered 
 by the learned Hengstenbergs, Hiivernicks, and Keils of Ger- 
 many ; and also by learned and able critics and commenta- 
 tors in this country. It cannot be said, however, that any 
 one of these explanations is altogether satisfactory. Most of 
 them are hypothetical or conjectural — drawn from what is 
 probable rather than from what is known. 
 
 1. With regard to the discrepancies in the legal provisions, 
 
 A. It is argued generally that these are such as, from the 
 nature of the case, are likely to be found in a summary of 
 the law deliveied in a short parting address. On such an oc- 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 15 
 
 casion it was only to be expected that the great lawgiver 
 should overlook minute details and nice distinctions, and 
 dwell only on the leading provisions. 
 
 B. It was natural also for two obvious reasons, that Moses 
 should at the last opportunity make some alterations in the 
 law and some additions to it. 
 
 a. After forty years' experience of their working, some 
 modification in the laws would suggest themselves. 
 
 1). Then the entire change in the condition and circum- 
 stances of the people consequent on the approaching change 
 from the wilderness to Canaan, would almost necessitate some 
 corresponding changes in the laws. What suited the one con- 
 dition would not suit the other. 
 
 2. A change in the tone of the laws was also most natural. 
 The people were being gradually educated up to a higher 
 moral and spiritual level, and forty years'must have produced 
 a considerable difference in their state. 
 
 3. As to style, there are two obvious reasons why the 
 style of Deuteronomy should differ from that of the previous 
 books, though the whole were written by Moses : 
 
 a. The style of most writers changes with age and ex- 
 perience, and that of Moses could^hardly be the same at the 
 close of his long career as it had been in his earlier days. 
 
 Certain improvements in the matter of ease and flow, and 
 strict accuracy of expression were almost inevitable. 
 
 &. Farther, the solemnity of the occasion — that of Moses' 
 final address to the people at the close of their long wander- 
 ings, and on the eve of his own death, could not fail to lend a 
 colour and complexion to his style, imparting to it increased 
 warmth and flow. 
 
 These reasons for a difference in the laws and in the style 
 and tone of Moses' address, seem so natural and probable, that 
 we are apt to take it for granted that they are, of themselves, 
 quite sufficient to account for any apparent discrepancy or in- 
 congruity. But the critic takes nothing for granted. He 
 examines the different books with the exact methods, and 
 
1 6 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 the great and ever-growing interpretative aids of the present 
 day ; and he inquires if the apparent discrepancies are such 
 as are likely to have been caused by the above preconceived 
 causes. His answer, in most cases, is in the negative. 
 1. As to the discrepancies in the Laws — 
 
 A. The compression necessary in an abridgement would 
 cause the occasional omission of details, but not the substitu- 
 tion of one thing for another. 
 
 Nor can it be said that any space is saved by calling 
 a. The priests " sons of Levi," instead of " sons of Aaron ; "* 
 h. Or by stating the priests' portion of a peace-offering as 
 " the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw " (Deut. xviii. 3), 
 instead of as " the breast and the right leg"-|- (Lev. vii. 31-34) ; 
 c. Or by enacting that the people should eat the firstlings 
 in a feast at the sanctuary (Deut. xiv. 23, x'v. 20), instead of 
 assigning them entirely to the priest (Numbers xviii. 8). Such 
 discrepancies cannot be explained as omissions of unimport- 
 ant details due to compression. 
 
 B. Neither can they be accounted for as alterations of the 
 laws or additions thereto necessitated by the transition from 
 the wilderness to Canaan. 
 
 a. There is nothing in the nature of the discrepant pro- 
 visions to give colour to such an assumption. 
 
 h. Neither is it consonant with the tenor of the history of 
 the legislation to expect that any changes should be made in 
 
 * Principal Douglas argues as if the distinction between priests and Levites 
 was a mere matter of detail — " Concerning the internal organization of the 
 tribe" [of Levi], which Moses " did not need or eare to refer to," as " all 
 knew" it. 
 
 " Let any one," says Professor A. B. Davidson, " consider the sharp dis- 
 tinction drawn in the middle books, with the tragic histories connected with 
 it, and then say, whether it is probable that a few years after no allusion to 
 the distinction should appear in the course of a whole book." — Britiih awd 
 Foreign Evangelical Review, April, 1879. 
 
 t " Right shoulder " in the authorised version of the Bible ; but it seems 
 to be admitted on all hands that that rendering is incorrect ; and that the 
 word (shoq) ought to be translated leg. The word for shoulder in the passage 
 in Deuteronomy is admittedly the right word (zeroa). See also Numbers vi. 20. 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 17 
 
 the laws ; those in the middle books as well as those in 
 Deuteronomy were given for the use of the people when 
 they entered Canaan ; many of them, in fact, were in- 
 capable of being put in force in the Wilderness. 
 
 2. As to the different, the more humane and spiritual 
 tone of Deuteronomy, this, it is maintained, can hardly be 
 accounted for on the supposition that the interval between 
 the writing of the books was so short, as it must have been, 
 if they were all written in the Wilderness. 
 
 3. The difference of style again, is such as to infer not only 
 a much greater difference of time, but also a difference of 
 writer. The last chapters of Numbers date from the same 
 place (the plains of ]\Ioab), and within a few weeks of the 
 same time as Deuteronomy. 
 
 The style of these chapters differs as much from the style 
 of Deuteronomy as does that of any other part of the middle 
 books, and agrees with the latter rather than with the former. 
 Time can have had little to do with the difference of style 
 here.* 
 
 h. But again, it is denied that in point of fact the style of 
 Deuteronomy does differ from the style of the middle books, 
 as the style of an old man differs from the style of the same 
 man when young, or as the style of the same man differs on 
 an ordinary and on a solemn and affecting occasion. On the 
 contrary, it differs rather as the style of one man differs from 
 the style of another man of a different cast of mind, of a 
 different degree of culture, and also of a different and probably 
 a somewhat later age. 
 
 Thus, it is argued, the facts of the case do not on a patient 
 comparison of the two law books warrant the natural pre- 
 sumption as to the origin of the discrepancies in the laws. 
 It is impossible to reconcile the discrepancies on the 
 
 * The difference, not only in style, but also in diction and phraseology, is very 
 marked in the two versions of the Law as to the cities of refuge, as given in 
 Numbers (xxxv. 11-33) and Deuteronomy (xix. 1-14). See Professor R. SmitJi's 
 Additional Answer, p. 22. 
 
18 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 hypothesis that all the laws, in the two sets of books, were 
 written down in their present form by Moses during the 
 forty years. But once accept the hypothesis that a consider- 
 able period in the history of the nation elapsed between the 
 writing of Deuteronomy in its present form and the issue of 
 Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers in their present form, and all 
 difficulty disappears. There is then an obvious reason not only 
 for a difference in the tone and provisions of the laws, but also 
 for a difference in the style in which they are expressed. We 
 have then simply the case of the laws being brought " down to 
 date " by a different inspired writer, who uses his own different 
 style. This mode of accounting for the discrepancies between 
 the law books is not inconsistent, as will be seen, with a belief 
 that Moses was the giver of the Deuteronomic version of 
 the law ; nay, on one hypothesis, that he delivered and wrote 
 down that law much as we now have it. 
 
 III. — Difficulties which arise from the books which follow 
 Deuteronomy in the canon. 
 
 The argument here falls naturally under two heads : — 
 
 I. — The books which, so far as they refer to the law as given 
 in Deuteronomy, appear to agree with the hypothesis that 
 Moses was the giver of thai; law, and delivered it much as we 
 now have it, to Israel at the close of the forty years' wanderings. 
 
 II. — The Books which do not agree with this hypothesis, 
 not exhibiting either the agreements or the contrasts Avhich 
 we naturally look for, on the supposition that the people of 
 Israel were at the time in possession of the Deuteronomic law. 
 
 I. — The Books which agree are : — 
 
 1. The book of Joshua. 
 
 2. Some of the books of the New Testament. 
 
 I. — The book of Joshua, which is a sort of continuation 
 of Deuteronomy, and is now generally by critics classed with 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 19 
 
 the five books of tlie Pentateuch (the whole being spoken of 
 as the Hexateucli), is the book to whicli we naturally turn 
 first for proof that the law which Deuteronomy represents as 
 having been given by Moses to the people, was known and in 
 force among the people. Such proof we do find, though it is 
 not quite sufficiently distinct and definite, nor yet so free of 
 doubt as to the date of the passages, as to be altogether con- 
 clusive. 
 
 Besides undoubted references and quotations, there are two 
 important instances of agreement. 
 
 1. The first is the carrying out by Joshua (Joshua 
 viii. 30 seq.) of the command given by Moses in Deut. 
 xxvii., 2nd. seq., as to what the people should do when they 
 passed over Jordan. 
 
 2. The second is the prompt and determined resistance 
 made by the majority of the tribes of Israel, to an attempt 
 made by the two and a-half trans- Jordanic tribes to break the 
 most important and distinctive law of Deuteronomy — the law 
 of the one Altar. 
 
 1. — The commandment of Moses in Deut. xxvii. embraces 
 a great many particulars ; the setting up of great stones on 
 Mount Ebal, and plastering them ; the writing upon them of 
 " all the words of the law ;" the building an altar to the Lord 
 of " whole stones " on which no iron tool should be lifted up j 
 the placing of six tribes on ]\Iount Gerizim to bless the people, 
 and six upon Mount Ebal to curse them. This command is 
 carried out to the letter in almost every particular by Joshua,* 
 and the reason assigned is that it was a command of IMoses 
 " written in the book of the law of Moses" (Josh. viii. 31). 
 Joshua read on the occasion all the words of the law. " There 
 was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua 
 read not " (34-35). 
 
 * The only material difference between the injunction and the execution lies 
 
 apparently in the stones. Moses enjoins for the inscription of the Law the erec- 
 tion and plastering of "great stones" different from those of the altar. Joshua 
 setms to inscribe the Law on the stones of the altar. 
 
20 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 This passage is, as it stands, one of undoubted weight. 
 It bears clear witness apparently to the existence in the time of 
 Joshua, of a part of Deuteronomy which is quoted as the Book 
 of the law of Moses. The natural inference is that the whole 
 book of Deuteronomy was, at the time, in the keeping of the 
 priests, to whom Moses in Deuteronomy is represented as 
 having committed it ; and that Joshua had it before him 
 when he was thus carrying out its instructions to the very 
 letter. This is the natural inference, but it does not amount 
 to a certainty. The language is not sufficiently precise. 
 " The Book of the Law of Moses" may have been considerably 
 different from the present book of Deuteronomy. " The Law 
 of Moses," which Joshua wrote " upon the stones," may have 
 differed considerably from the present law book of Deuter- 
 onomy (v. 1., to xxvi. 16). 
 
 It may have been only the short law of Sinai (Exodus 
 xx.-xxiii.) ; or even but a part of the same — little more possibly 
 than " The ten words." 
 
 Then, it is affirmed, there is an element of uncertainty 
 as to the date of the passage which tends to detract from its 
 authority. The passage does not accord well with its present 
 position in the book, and it is found in a different place in 
 the Septuagint, and hence it has been argued that, judging from 
 analogy, it is possibly an interpolation from Deuteronomy by 
 a late writer ; and that anyhow its authority is doubtful. The 
 reasoning in the matter of this objection rests too much on 
 assumption to carry conclusive weight. Besides, at whatever 
 time the passage may have been inserted, it cannot be proved 
 that the writer had not inspired authority for the insertion of it. 
 
 2. The only other books which appear to manifest any- 
 thing approaching to a distinct agreement with Deuteronomy 
 as to the Mosaic authorship of that book, are certain books of 
 the New Testament. 
 
 There are two passages of Deuteronomy, each of which 
 appears to be referred to, in two places of the New Testa- 
 ment — viz., Deuteronomy xxiv. 1, and Deuteronomy xviii. 15. 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 21 
 
 1. Deut. xxiv. 1., contains a precept regarding divorce — 
 strictly speaking, forbidding re-marriage of a divorced woman 
 with the man from wliom she has been divorced. This pas- 
 sage seems to be cited by our Lord as Moses' permission of 
 divorce (Matthew xix. 8). St. Mark's (x. 5) report of our Lord's 
 words makes the citation still more distinct, for it contains 
 the words " he (Moses) wrote you this precept." 
 
 2. Again the passage, Deuteronomy xviii. 15, " The Lord 
 thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet, from the midst of 
 thee, of thy brethren like unto me, unto him, ye shall hearken," 
 is quoted almost vcrhativi twice, in the book of Acts (iii. 22 ; 
 vii. 37) by St. Peter and St. Stephen, as the words of Moses — 
 " Moses truly said," &c. 
 
 Now the natural conclusion undoubtedly is that all these 
 sacred autliorities are quoting Deuteronomy as the actual 
 composition of Moses. Yet the conclusion, though natural, 
 is not inevitable. Setting aside the difference in the precept 
 in Deuteronomy and that in the Gospels, and also the dif- 
 ference in the report of our Lord's words as given by the two 
 Evangelists — points on which the critics lay some stress — 
 granting in fact that our Lord and Saints Peter and Stephen 
 quoted the passages as Moses' words, still the inference would 
 not necessarily follow that Moses was tlie author of Deuter- 
 onomy as it now is. It may be that Moses wrote "that precept," 
 but yet did not write that book ; he may have delivered that 
 prophecy, and yet, if he wrote it down at all, he may have 
 done so in a book which has been embodied in or superseded 
 by the present book of Deuteronomy. There is nothing un- 
 reasonable in the supposition that any publication or re-pub- 
 lication of the Laws of Moses might be cited in the New 
 Testament as Moses' work. Thus, though these New Testa- 
 ment passages harmonise best with the theory that IMoses 
 was the actual writer of Deuteronomy, they do not actually 
 establish that theory. 
 
 IL — The books following Deuteronomy in the canon, and 
 which do not exhibit an agreement witli it, are the historical 
 
22 3I0SES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 books, which give account of the affairs of the people from the 
 period of their settlement in Canaan by Joshua till the time 
 of Josiah, and also the prophetical books which date from the 
 same period. 
 
 The difficulty is that the practice of Israel, as seen even in 
 its leading men, its prophets, priests, judges, kings, does not 
 accord with the precepts laid down in Deuteronomy, either in 
 ecclesiastical or in civil matters. If the Deuteronomic law 
 was known at all, it appears to have been almost entirely 
 ignored in practice. 
 
 1. In ecclesiastical matters the chief rules laid down in 
 Deuteronomy regarding sacrifice, the great act of solemn 
 worship, the meeting point between Jehovah and his people, 
 appear to have been almost entirely neglected. According to 
 Deuteronomy there was to be — 
 
 a. Only one altar for the whole nation. 
 
 l. One set of sacrificing priests — the Levite priests. 
 
 In both these particulars, the Deuteronomic law was more 
 or less ignored. 
 
 a. Instead of there being only one altar for the nation, the 
 people continued to offer sacrifice as they had done all along 
 at a multitude of shrines— such as Shechem, Mizpeh, Bethel, 
 Gilgal, Hebron, Bethlehem, Beersheba, Kadesh, &c., and all 
 this, while there was a central sanctuary at Shiloh, afterwards 
 at Nob, and finally at Mount Zion. 
 
 h. And the offering of sacrifice, instead of being confined 
 to the Levite priests, appears to have been practised almost 
 indiscriminately by men of all the tribes — by kings, by 
 leaders, by judges, by fathers of families — 
 
 By Gideon, of the tribe of Manasseh (Judges vi. 25). 
 
 By Manoah, aDanite (Judges xiii. 16-19). 
 
 By Ahithophel, the Gideonite (2 Sam. xv. 12) ; also, 
 
 By Absalom, by David, by Elijah, &c. 
 
 On these and other points, the critics maintain that, so 
 far as can be judged by t\xQ practice of the people, including its 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 23 
 
 leading officials, the law of Deuterouomy was not known to 
 Israel at tins period — only the short code in Exodus xx.-xxiii. 
 
 Answers. 
 
 Separate answers are given by the upholders of the old 
 views to each of the critical objections. Most of these an- 
 swers, however, are purely hypothetical, based chiefly on the 
 state of unsettlement and confusion which prevailed in Israel 
 during great part of the period in question. 
 
 a. As to the use of a plurality of sanctuaries, Keil and 
 writers of his school refuse to admit the alleged fact, explain- 
 ing away the instances which are cited in proof — some o 
 them as being doubtful, others as being exceptional, "justified 
 by the appearance of an angel of God ; " but Principal Douglas, 
 one of the very latest writers on that side, does not dispute 
 the fact, tliougli he explains it in a way which is not alto- 
 gether satisfactory. He maintains that this sacrificing at a 
 number of the old patriarchal shrines was an irregular ex- 
 pedient, to which Samuel and other pious men were driven by 
 the necessities of the times, in order to prevent the total ces- 
 sation of all public worship — a temporary falling back on the 
 old law, when the new law had, by the full of Shiloh, and tlie 
 captivity of the ark, become impracticable. It is possible that 
 this explanation may be the true one ; but it is altogether 
 hypothetical. There is nothing in the history to afford it any 
 distinct countenance or support. There is no indication that 
 Samuel knew the Deuteronomic law of one sanctuary, or 
 fancied that he was in any way contravening any law whatever 
 by offering sacrifice at three or four different shrines. The 
 same is true of other offerers of sacrifice. None of them betray 
 the slightest consciousness of there being anything irregular in 
 what they do. They offer no explanation or apology, nor is 
 any offered for them. But further, the hypothesis does not 
 tally with the leading facts as to time. It is by no means 
 clear, either that the use of a plurality of altars did not begin 
 
24 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 till after the fall of Sliiloh, or that there was not after the fall 
 of Shiloh an accessible and available chief sanctuary at Nob, 
 to which Samuel and other good men, had they known it to be 
 their duty, would have limited their sacrifices. This hypothesis 
 therefore is, to say the least, by no means irrefragable. 
 
 h. As to the offering of sacrifices by men not belonging to 
 the Levitical priesthood, the natural impression which the 
 history leaves on the mind is that this was the case. There 
 are two general arguments, however, which to some minds, 
 appear sufficient to dispose of most of the cases in point. 
 
 1, When a king or a prophet is said to offer sacrifice, this 
 may mean no more than that he did so through the regular 
 Levitical priest. Qui facit per alium facit per sc — Pharaoh 
 '•'hanged the chief baker" (Gen. xi. 22), but not surely with 
 his own hands. When Solomon offered a thousand burnt- 
 offerings on the altar at Gibeon (1 Kings iii. 4), he cannot 
 have done so with his own hands. 
 
 2. Again, the greater includes the less. Prophets like 
 Samuel, Elijah, and even David— men inspired by God, and 
 in continual direct communication with him — were more than 
 priests, and were exempt from ceremonial laws which bound 
 ordinary men. They might at any moment obtain the Al- 
 mighty's direct command or permission to offer sacrifice, or 
 perform any sacred rite. 1'he peculiar and exceptional posi- 
 tion of these men took their case out of the ordinary category. 
 The Almighty can at any time dispense with His own laws. 
 
 There are of course some cases which do not come dis- 
 tinctly under either of the above heads, such as that of the 
 sons of David, who are called priests (2 Sam. viii. 18), and 
 who performed sacrifice. 
 
 Probably, however, the main defect in the evidence for 
 the prevalence at tins period of a knowledge and practice of 
 the Deuteronomic law, lies here as under the last head, in the 
 absence of all indication in the sacred text that there was 
 in any of the cases referred to, the slightest departure from law 
 or ordinary practice. It seemed a matter of course, that the 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 23 
 
 ministry of Levitical priests was not regarded as necessary, at 
 least at the old sanctuaries. 
 
 Minor Discrepancies. 
 Besides these Deuteronomic rules regulating the essentials 
 of sacrifice, there are at least other two rules bearing on sacrifice 
 which seem to have been equally unknown to the writers and 
 actors of the middle period. 
 
 c. There is the prohibition (Deut. xvi. 22) against the 
 erection of a mag^eba,* or sacred pillar, or stone set up like 
 Jacob's pillar, in connection with a sanctuary, yet Joshua 
 (Josh. xxiv. 26) erects such a ma99eba at Shechem. 
 
 Samuel erects one between Mizpeh and Shen, and calls it 
 his Eben-ezer (1 Sam. vii. 12). Solovwn erected two in the 
 porch of the temple, and named them Jacliin and Boaz 
 (1 Kings vii. 21). Isaiah foretells the erection of such a 
 ma99eba as a sign of the conversion of Egypt (Is. xix. 19). 
 
 d. The permission given (Deut. xii. 15) to kill and eat 
 animals without first offering them in sacrifice. It is inferred 
 from what Hosea says (chap. ix. 3 and 4) that that prophet 
 had no knowledge of any such permission. Thus far as to 
 the disagreements in these books, between the ceremonial prac- 
 tice of the people and the ceremonial law laid down in 
 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
 Civil Affairs. 
 
 In civil matters the only very important disagreement 
 regards the law of the kingdom, which appears to have been 
 altogether unknown. 
 
 The law in Deuteronomy (chap. xvii. 14) not only sanc- 
 tions the appointment of a king by the people of God, but 
 lays down rules to regulate the appointment. Yet when, in 
 course of time, the people demand to have a king appointed, 
 the demand is treated as an unheard of thing, and a grievous 
 
 * Or mattsebbah— sometimes translated image. Doubtless, in the new ver- 
 sion this word will always be rendered by one and the same English word-an 
 improvement much to be desired in regard to many other words. 
 
26 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 insult to tlie majest}^ of Jehovab, who is regarded as the pro- 
 per king of His people. The demand is so treated not only 
 by the leaders of the people — Samuel and Gideon — but also 
 by Jehovah himself (Judges viii. 23), " And Gideon said 
 unto them, I will not rule over you . . . : the Lord shall 
 rule over you." " And the Lord said unto Samuel, ... for 
 they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I 
 should not reign over them " (1 Sam. viii. 7). 
 
 Uklooked for Agreements. 
 
 Thus far as to the disagreements that are met with in the 
 subsequent books where agreements are looked for. 
 
 The agreements that are met with, where not agreements 
 but rather disagreements or contrasts are looked for, are the 
 following — 
 
 1. Style — The style of Deuteronomy, instead of differing 
 from the style of these later books, agrees wonderfully with 
 the style of certain of them that date 700 or 800 years 
 after, or about the time of the captivity, especially with the 
 style of Jeremiah, and the books of Kings. It is the lofty, 
 impressive poetical style of Jeremiah. 
 
 2. Diction and phraseology — There is a striking resem- 
 blance between the diction and phraseology of Deuteronomy 
 and those of these books. The number of phrases and images 
 common to both sets of books may be seen at full length 
 (with chapter and verse) in several critical works (Davidson, 
 Colenso). 
 
 3. Then apart from laws — The subjects on which Moses 
 dwells by precept and prophecy and warning seem to indicate 
 that many of the events in the history of the kingdom of 
 Israel and Judah had already happened, and were known to 
 the writer as facts — such as for example — 
 
 a. " The reference to the danger likely to arise to the state 
 from the king multiplying to himself ' wives ' and ' silver and 
 gold ' and ' horses.' " This warning, it is thought, was suggested 
 by the case of Solomon. 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 2? 
 
 h. The reference to " the worship of the sun and moon and 
 the host of heaven." This again is believed to have been sug- 
 gested by the idolatries of Manasseh's reign. 
 
 c. Then Deuteronomy iv. 25-28, is thought too distinct a 
 reference to the captivity of the ten tribes to have been writ- 
 ten before that event. The ten tribes were tlien " scattered 
 among the nations, and left few in number among the 
 heathen," &c. 
 
 Explanations. 
 
 These alleged agreements are thus explained by the critics 
 on the other side. 
 
 a and h. The agreement between the style, diction, and 
 phraseology of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy arises merely from 
 imitation. The book of Deuteronomy had been rescued from 
 its long neglect by Hilkiah, when Jeremiah was a compara- 
 tively young man. It doubtless made a great impression 
 upon him, as it did upon others, and nothing was more natural 
 than that he should seek to form his style in every way upon 
 such an excellent model. 
 
 c. As to the apparent reference to events in the history of 
 the kingdoms, they are simply ^jrojj/iccz'cs. Moses, as an in- 
 spired prophet, saw into the future, and knew what trans- 
 gressions the people would fall into, and warned them be- 
 forehand of the consequences. 
 
 Eejoinders. 
 
 a h. To these answers, the critics rejoin that if Jeremiah 
 was so great an imitator of Deuteronomy, it is strange that he 
 makes no direct reference to the book — a fact which, how- 
 ever, would be very natural on the supposition that he was 
 himself the writer of it. 
 
 c. As to the explanation of the historical allusions by 
 prophecy, it is maintained that it is contrary to prophetic 
 practice to predict with any circumstantiality of detail things 
 which are yet in the womb of the far future. 
 
 " A prophecy springs out of, or directs itself to meet the 
 circumstances of the time." 
 
28 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 Paet Second— the THEOEIES. 
 
 If the above presentment of the apparent discrepancies be- 
 t^^•een Deuteronomy and the foregoing and following books is 
 sufficiently correct and clear, it will be admitted that the 
 Deuteronomic question is, at least, one of great difficulty and 
 complexity — a question which demands for its solution 
 not only great learning and great critical acumen, long 
 and patient investigation, research and study, but also 
 a candid and judicial mind, and a reverent and believing 
 spirit. Much has been done of late, and more, it is plain, will 
 be done in the near future, to press the question towards a solu- 
 tion. Various theories for the reconciliation of the dis- 
 crepancies have been suggested ; some involving much, some 
 comparatively little departure from the old belief as to the 
 Mosaic authorship, but yet none of them altogether satis- 
 factory, or quite free from great difficulties of their own. The 
 theory which first suggests itself to an earnest and reverent 
 mind, which is convinced of the reality of the alleged dis- 
 crepancies, is what may be termed — 
 
 1. The interpolation theory. This theory assumes that 
 Moses is the original author of Deuteronomy, and also of the 
 other four books of the Pentateuch, yet the books have 
 undergone many and great alterations since they left his hand ; 
 other inspired men having at different times introduced 
 additions and modification^ of the laws, to adapt them to 
 changed times. This theory has been suggested frequently, 
 and by men of very different schools. 
 
 In his History of the Jews (p. xxvii.). Dean Milman 
 states, as the second of " two theories, between which range 
 all the conclusions, of what may be called the Critical School," 
 " That the Pentateuch, even in its present form, is of very 
 high antiquity, as high as the time of Moses, but that it has 
 undergone many interpolations, some additions, and much 
 modification, extending to the language in successive ages." 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 29 
 
 " It is by no means unlikely, that there are insertions of a 
 later date, which were written or sanctioned by the prophets 
 and holy men, who, after the captivity, arranged and edited 
 tlie Scriptures of the Old Testament" (Speaker's Commentary, 
 I, p. 49-i). 
 
 This theory appnars also to be suggested in recent publi- 
 -cations by two learned Principals of Free Church Colleges, 
 who have had the Deuteronomic question forced upon their 
 attention. In his pamphlet (" Why I still believe that Moses 
 wrote Deuteronomy ?" p. 5), Principal Douglas says — " Nor 
 sliall I take up any extreme view, nor deny that there may 
 perhaps have been considerable editing of the work of Moses, 
 however far I am from being convinced of this by any evi- 
 dence that I have seen. Xor shall I deny the possibility of 
 the Mosaic laws having been given orally, between the Exodus 
 and the conquest of Canaan, and yet having remained for the 
 most part unwritten, till ages afterwards." Principal Eainy 
 says (" The Bible and Criticism," p. 145) — " You have heard 
 of discussions about the date and authorship of Deuteronomy, 
 now, if you exclude the idea of re-editing, I do not see how 
 the evidence of a late date and authorship of Deuteronomy 
 can be resisted." 
 
 This remark the Principal means evidently to apply to 
 the central or legal part of the book ; for he says further 
 (p. 146), " Those who think it important to defend the jNIosaic 
 origin of the main substance of Deuteronomy, cannot exclude 
 the idea of later editing." 
 
 This theory has probably been seldom carried beyond the 
 stage of suggestion, and some of those who suggest it (Principal 
 Douglas for instance), would apparently shrink from admitting 
 its applicability to the explanation of any particular dis- 
 crepancies. It is difficult to see, as Dr. Eainy says, how 
 interpolation can be denied, except by the admission of the 
 much more radical alternative of late authorship. Interpo- 
 lation must, in fact, form part of an}- adequate theory that 
 may be devised; but of itself, interpolation cannot explain 
 
so MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 some of the difficulties, such as the discrepancy between the 
 style of Deuteronomy and that of the foregoing books, and 
 the discrepancy between the precepts of Deuteronomy and the 
 'practice of the following books. The theory of interpolation 
 may, however, be supplemented by what may be called — 
 
 2. The late Codification theory, generally known as the 
 theory of Delitzsch, though in substance it was suggested two 
 hundred years ago by Witsius.* 
 
 This theory entirely explains the diversity of style and the 
 discrepancy in law between Deuteronomy and the following 
 books. It assumes that Moses spoke and wrote down the 
 Deuteronomic law, as in Deuteronomy he is represented to 
 have done, but maintains that he did not write down the law 
 as given in the foregoing books, having only delivered it orally 
 to the priests, who, as several passages show (Deut. xvii. 11, 
 xxiv. 8, xxxiii. 10 ; Lev. x. 11, xv. 31), were bound to keep 
 up and communicate to the people a knowledge of the law. 
 The priests either committed the laws to memory ,•]* or took 
 notes of them. In whatever way the laws were preserved, 
 however, they were not fully written out, or reduced to a 
 system, or " codified," till some time after the people were settled 
 in Canaan — perhaps " ages after." Before the time for codi- 
 fication came, a number of changes may have been made in 
 the laws by divine authority ; and tlius there is shown a 
 probable cause for the difference both of style and of law 
 between Deuteronomy and the previous books. 
 
 There are two facts which lend great probability to the 
 chief assumption on which this theory rests, viz., that Moses 
 did not himself write the law in Exodus, Leviticus, and 
 Numbers. 
 
 1. In the text of these books Moses is only said to have 
 
 • Hermann Wits, professor of divinity in succession at Franeker, Utrecht, 
 and Leyden— born, 1636— died, 1708. 
 
 + The Samaritans of the present day can recite the whole of the Pentateuch 
 from memory. 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 3t 
 
 written small specified portions of them (Ex. xxiv. 4-7, 
 xxxiv. 27, xvii. 14 ; Num. xxxiii. 2). 
 
 2. The very fact of his delivering to the people and writing 
 down the law in' considerable detail on the eve of his death, 
 seems to imply that he had not written it down before. 
 
 The only serious difficulties which this theory does not 
 account for, are the discrepancies between Deuteronomy and 
 the subsequent books, viz., the want of agreement between 
 the practice of the people and the precepts of Deuteronomy, 
 and the want of contrast between the style of Deuteronomy 
 and that of the subsequent books. Here is, no doubt, a con- 
 siderable defect in the theory, for these discrepancies with the 
 later books, though of a negative rather than of a positive 
 character, are yet regarded as of even greater weight than the 
 discrepancies with the earlier books, being of a more pervading 
 and comprehensive nature, more deeply-seated, and less likely 
 to be the result of mere accident.* The two sets of dis- 
 crepancies pointing in the same direction, the latter set is 
 regarded as corroborative of the former : and the united 
 witness of the two is held by a large proportion of critics to 
 be conclusive as to the late composition and authorship of 
 Deuteronomy. This conclusion it is admitted is at first sight 
 undoubtedly startling and unsettling. The non-Mosaic 
 authorship of Deuteronomy is a very different thing from the 
 non-Mosaic authorship of any of the other four books of the 
 Pentateuch. To deny that Moses is the author of a book, 
 great part of which consists professedly of verlatim reports 
 of Moses' speeches, written down by INloses himself, is ap- 
 parently to offer a flat contradiction to the plain testimony of 
 the book itself. 
 
 It is maintained, however, that this difficulty is, in reality, 
 
 • Professor A. B. Davidson, New College, Edinburgh, speaUng of the two 
 seta of discrepancies, calls the latter set " constitutional ; " while the former 
 set, though great, are " superficial — although they may be considered sympto- 
 matic of a general condition of the system, like an outbreak on the skin." — 
 British and Foreign Evangelical Review, April, 1879. 
 
32 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 much less serious tlian at first siglit it appears, and that in 
 judging of it, we are too apt to be misled by our modern 
 notions and traditional prejudices. The difficulty is capable, 
 it is argued, of an explanation which is in no way derogatory 
 to the authority or the inspiration of Scripture. The mode of 
 this explanation constitutes — 
 
 3. The literary expedient, or literary fiction theory. Accord- 
 ing to this theory, the chief part of Deuteronomy is put into 
 the mouth of Moses — not because Moses actually spoke or 
 wrote it, but because the laws are substantially the laws of 
 Moses — laws for which " ]Moses left the materials ; " and 
 which it was expedient to continue to publish under the 
 name of Moses. Some prophet (probably Jeremiah) was com- 
 missioned by the Almighty to prepare this new edition ; and 
 of course he was authorised and instructed to make certain 
 alterations in the laws to adapt them to the changed times. 
 Now ancient writers, in expounding a man's ideas or prin- 
 ciples, naturally threw their exposition into the form of a 
 speech delivered by the man himself. Hence the many 
 eloquent speeches in Livy and other ancient historians, which 
 are plainly the composition of the historian himself, no report 
 having ever been preserved of them. 
 
 Again, ancient writers had no idea of the modern ex- 
 pedients of notes and appendices ; and hence an editor simply 
 interwove his corrections and additions with the text of his 
 author, just as the author would have done had he re-pub- 
 lished his work himself. 
 
 Thus the modern prophet or editor re-cast the laws of 
 Moses much as ]\Ioses himself would have re- cast them, had 
 it fallen to him to publish a new edition of them during his 
 own lifetime ; and the editor wrote them in Moses' name, 
 both because Moses was, under God, the real author of the 
 laws, and because Moses' name would carry greater weight 
 than his own. With the exception, in short, of the use of the 
 first person, or the form of direct speech, the supposed late 
 editor of Moses acted exactly as the editor of a text book of 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 33 
 
 science at the present day does, correcting and adding to the 
 work, but not changing its title. An exact parallel of this use 
 of the speech form is not indeed to be found in other parts of 
 Scripture. The nearest approach to it is St. Paul's speech be- 
 fore King Agrippa, giving an account of his conversion, in 
 which he "represents a series of revelations as having hap- 
 pened at one time and place," including his mission to the 
 Gentiles, which was not given till three years after his con- 
 version. ISTo one will suppose that St. Paul had here the 
 slightest idea of deceiving or misleading his hearers. He 
 thouglit only of setting before them as rapidly and forcibly as 
 possible the leading events of his miraculous career. He gave 
 them the whole substance of the truth, with, for the sake of 
 convenience, a slight departure from the form. Thus, it is 
 argued, the late editor of Moses deviated from the form of 
 strict truth in putting the new edition of the laws into Moses' 
 mouth ; but the substance of his work was as true as if Moses 
 himself had spoken and written it. If we have difficulty in 
 accepting this view, it is because we are " guilty of the mis- 
 taken practice of taking our modern notions of literary form 
 and propriety, and thrusting them back into the simplicity 
 of early times." * 
 
 No doubt there is much force in this reasoning. Yet tliis 
 theory is so opposed to our modern notions of fitness and 
 propriety, that only the most rigorous and conclusive demon- 
 stration of its truth will ever secure for it general acceptance 
 by the Church. Its advocates, however, maintain that the 
 
 * When the science of Biblical criticism was in its cradle, two centuries a:^o, 
 and speculations about the ideal character of the Book of Job began to be 
 circulated, alarm was excited. When it was suggested that the events narrated 
 in the prologue never happened, and did not happen in the ideal way they are 
 recorded, and that the speeches were never spoken, it was thought that revela- 
 tion was endangered, and so self-i)os3e3seil a theologian as F. Spanheim, in his 
 " Historia Jobi," was driven to meet the new views with the inexorable prin- 
 ciple, Nixl Historia sit, fraus scriptoris. Whatever seems history, and is not, 
 can only be the fraud of the writer. We are beyond this in Job, though at the 
 same point still elsewhere. — Prof. A. B. Davidson. 
 
34 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 only difficulty connected with the theory is this initial one. 
 Once admit, say they, the possibility of a new edition of Moses' 
 law having been published hundreds of years after Moses' death 
 by an inspired editor writing under Moses' name, and all 
 other difficulties attaching to the book are explained at once 
 — interpolations in narrative, discrepancies in laws, diversity 
 of style, incongruity of practice, everything becomes plain. 
 
 The above three theories appear to embrace and cover all 
 the leading suggestions which have been made on the subject, 
 and each of the three can claim not only able and learned, but 
 also apparently sound, pious, and reverent supporters — men 
 who appear to be actuated by an ardent love for truth in 
 general, and Bible truth in particular ; and also possessed by 
 a constraining desire to see the Book of God entirely set 
 free from all obstacles which hinder its full and complete 
 acceptance by men of every degree of culture in this age of 
 ever-growing intelligence, ever-quickening thought, and rest- 
 less inquiry. 
 
 In the opinion of the writer the time is not yet come for 
 pronouncing with any confidence on the comparative merits 
 and claims of these three theories, far less for deciding that 
 any one of them supplies a full and adequate explanation for 
 all the complex facts. 
 
 1. It may, however, be safely assumed that the first or 
 Interpolation theory will never be generally accepted as 
 entirely adequate by itself. 
 
 2. The late Codification theory of Delitzsch, as accounting 
 for a large proportion of the facts without any startling as- 
 sumptions or bewildering reversal of established beliefs, 
 commends itself naturally to all candid and earnest men who 
 have weighed carefully the difficulties of the question. To 
 see this theory established by irrefragable proofs would afford 
 undoubted satisfaction to many anxious inquiring minds. 
 
 It must not be concealed, however, that the third or literary 
 expedient theory is by far the more popular amongst critics. 
 The more advanced amongst them — all, without doubt, men 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 33 
 
 of great learning and ability — regard this tlieory, in fact, as 
 a settled point — " one of the most certain conclusions of 
 modern Biblical criticism."* 
 
 But not to mention the objectionable assumptions on 
 which many of them proceed — the more advanced of the ad- 
 vanced critics enlarge greatly the scope of the argument. 
 With them the Deuteronomic question becomes merged in 
 the general question of the origin of the whole historical books. 
 The writer of Deuteronomy, according to these authorities, 
 was only one of at least four or five writers, who at different 
 periods, as original writers or as supplementers, took part in 
 the composition of the historical books, and he, like the 
 others, can be tracked by peculiarities of style, diction, and 
 phraseology through most of tlie books, from the commence- 
 ment till near the period of the captivity. 
 
 This theory is of a more sweeping character than any of 
 those wliich have been framed for the solution of the mere 
 Deuteronomic difficulty; but, in reality it cannot be said to 
 involve much if any additional difficulty. It is of compara- 
 tively small importance to what author or authors we are, 
 
 * Ueber -den Ursprung' des Deuteronomiums herrsclit noch weniger 
 Zweifel ; in alien Kreisen, wo iiberhaupt auf Anerkennung wissenschaftlicher 
 Resultate zu rechnen ist wird anerkannt dass as in der Zeit verfasst ist, in der 
 ■es entdeekt und der Reformation des Konigs Josia zu Grunde gelegt wiirde. — 
 Wdlhauscn — Geschichte Israels, I., Einleitiing, p. 9. 
 
 It certainly cannot be charged upon Wellhausen, himself — the most recent, 
 and perhaps the most advanced of German critics — that he is backward in ad- 
 mitting " scientific results." He makes the whole minute and complicated 
 ritual system of Israel, as contained in the books of the Pentateuch, a product 
 of evolution — developed gradually in three marked stages — the last and most 
 exclusive not being completed till after the captivity. His view does not ap- 
 parently differ materially from that of Kuenen, Colenso, Kalisch, and others. 
 
 These critics undoubtedly overvalue human science, and tend to reduce the 
 Bible to a mere " evolution of human thought." But nothing will ever be ac- 
 complished against such critics, by men who manifestly undervalue human 
 science, and go on obstinately ignoring its demonstrated results ; refusing, to 
 use the words of the Quarterly Reviewer, to admit " the real magnitude of diffi- 
 culties which their school has been in the habit of glossing over, with conven- 
 tional but inadequate explanations." 
 
36 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 under the guidance of the Spirit, indebted for the composition 
 of those books which claim for themselves no particular 
 author, one inspired writer being, for purposes of revelation, 
 as good as another. Then as to the composite nature of the 
 books — the alleged fact that different parts have been written 
 by different prophets and at different times — this fact, keep- 
 ing inspiration in view, can in no wise detract from the 
 authority of the books ; while it helps greatly to explain 
 apparent anomalies and contradictions. In short, it is rather 
 in its wider divergence from traditional belief, than in any 
 necessary consequences which are involved in it, that the 
 alarming feature of this theory consists. 
 
 It is a theory, nevertheless, whicli will never be generally 
 accepted without the most complete and rigorous demonstra- 
 tion, should such be possible. The means are being rapidly 
 accumulated for enabling even moderately equipped scholars 
 to judge of the truth or falsehood of it. In the works of 
 several living critics the text of the whole, or almost the 
 whole, of the historical books is to be found regularly mapped 
 out ; the sections which belong to each of the supposed dif- 
 ferent writers being indicated to a verse or part of a verse, 
 and words and phrases which characterise each of the different 
 writers noted and numbered. 
 
 In short, there is a complete critical analysis of the text 
 of each book, and a statement of the relation of each of its 
 parts to the corresponding parts of the other books, the whole 
 being accompanied by a literal translation of the text, which 
 makes manifest the peculiar style and diction of each section 
 thus enabling even the mere English reader to attain to a pretty 
 correct estimate of the scope and force of the argument. 
 
 Such is the present position of the general question as to 
 the origin of the whole of the historical books. The particular 
 question as to the origin of Deuteronomy is manifestly so 
 bound up with the general question as to be incapable of a 
 complete or satisfactory solution apart from it. Till it can be 
 proved or shown to be incapable of proof that the historica 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 37 
 
 books are all or almost all more or less the work of different 
 sacred scribes, writing at different times, the true state of the 
 case as to Deuteronomy cannot be said to be placed beyond 
 doubt. 
 
 The complexity or non-complexity of the early historical 
 books forms in fact the great Biblical problem of the day. It 
 is a problem, which, from the interest it excites and the 
 number of able and learned critics who have devoted them- 
 selves to the exposition of it, is pretty certain, in no long time, 
 to be settled somehow to the satisfaction of the scientific 
 world, whose conclusions will in the end infallibly be ac- 
 cepted by the whole community. 
 
38 MOSES AND BEUTERONOMT. 
 
 Paet Third— treatment OF THEORIES AND 
 THEORISTS. 
 
 Such being the theories, what treatment is due to the theories 
 and the theorists by the Church, or by the different branches 
 of the Church ? Surely a solemn and positive duty is laid 
 upon every Church to give willing and active aid in the in- 
 vestigation of this great question — neither permitting it, so to 
 speak, to drift, nor yet attempting to anchor it to the irre- 
 vocable past, but taking the lead and guidance in the free dis- 
 cussion of the whole subject, and positively encouraging pious 
 and reverent scholars to sift every doubtful matter to the 
 bottom, and frankly and fearlessly set before the Church the 
 results of their researches whatever they may be. 
 
 Now it appears to the writer, that the course which the 
 Church has actually taken has been about the direct reverss 
 of this, through its authoritative mouthpieces. 
 
 1. The Church, speaking generally, has either discouraged 
 all investigation of the critical question, on the ground that 
 there was really no question at all at issue, the pretended critical 
 difficulties being " but a repetition of old and often answered 
 cavils,"* springing from a sceptical and rationalistic spirit. 
 
 2. Or it has, in essaying to answer the critical questions 
 evaded all the real difficulties, grappling only with secondary 
 and subordinate points. 
 
 1. The fact of the almost entire ignoring by theologians 
 of the alleged results of Biblical research within com- 
 paratively recent times, will not probably be denied by 
 any one who is moderately well acquainted with recent 
 Church history. The fact, and the consequences of the 
 fact, have been made very painfully manifest at three or four 
 different periods, by the occurrence of a sort of panic in the 
 religious world, on the publication of a rather advanced 
 critical work, such as " Essays and Reviews;" Bishop Colenso's 
 
 * Bishop Wilberforce (then of Oxford). 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 39 
 
 work on the Pentateuch ; Professor Eobertson Smith's articles 
 in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Some of these works were, 
 it may be said, in some respects, highly objectionable, de- 
 cidedly rationalistic, not taking due account of the super- 
 natural and prophetical elements in Scripture, and generally 
 treating the sacred books with scant reverence and respect. 
 However true this may be, not one of those publications 
 would probably have caused the slightest panic, had the 
 minds of the clergy been duly prepared for its reception, by 
 a competent knowledge of the nature and progress of modern 
 Biblical criticism. Had they known the critical pros and 
 cons, they would have taken a calm and intelligent view of 
 the conclusions laid before them, distinguishing between 
 what was well-founded and what was ill-founded, and 
 bringing forward perhaps more than one probable explana- 
 tion of the alleged difficulties. Having been, however, 
 invariably taught on the contrary, to regard all the new Bibli- 
 cal views as so much unmitigated rationalism — every depar- 
 ture from the traditional views as to the composition and 
 authorship of the sacred books being unsound, unfounded, and 
 dangerous, and long ago proved to be so, by departed 
 champions of the truth — what could they do when a sudden 
 and unexpected attack fell on their views ? — what, but 
 fall into confusion, and make "rash and ill-advised" as- 
 sertions ; taking up the old attitude of indiscriminate 
 denial and denunciation ! Eighteen years ago this was, with 
 probably only one single exception, the course taken by the 
 English Bishops, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and 
 Bishop Wilberforce at their head. All the critical argu- 
 ments of any importance, it was affirmed, had been answered 
 and refuted by former Apologists — " by Archbishop Ussher, 
 more recently by Bishop Watson."* A few years afterwards 
 
 * Much the same language is held even now by men whose reading on the 
 subject has stood stilL An English gentleman, who visited the North of Scotland 
 last autumn, wrote to the Aberdeen Free Press, stating that he had been greatly 
 interested in the local controversy regarding Deuteronomy, but that he felt 
 
40 iMOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 Bishop Wilberforce came to see — what probably most intel- 
 ligent laymen saw at the time — the futility of thus looking to 
 pre-scientific commentators for answers to scientific critics ; 
 and confessed that the old answers were as useless against 
 the new arguments, as smooth-bores against needle-guns.* 
 
 No doubt there were, as there still are, theologians and 
 commentators who went on denying indiscriminately every 
 new critical conclusion ; nay, maintaining that the grounds 
 
 convinced that all Professor Smitli's arguments and objections had been 
 answered beforehand by Dean Graves, whose lectures on the Pentateuch he, 
 himself, had first read about fifty years before. He advised the disputants, 
 on both sides, to read Dean Graves. Graves' Lectures were published in 
 1807. It is needless to say that at that time the more recondite arguments in 
 sujjp jrt of the theory of a late date of Deuteronomy, which have been so much 
 developed by recent research, had been merely indicated. The works of 
 Geddes and De Wette had been published before the lectures came out, and 
 some notice is taken of them in the Appendix. The notice, however, is slight 
 and superficial particularly as regards De Wette, of whose work Graves knew 
 nothing more than what he had gathered from a notice of it in the Critical 
 Review. Graves never seems to have pursued the subject any further. See 
 the 4th edition of the Lectures published in 1S31, two years after his death. 
 The more obvious Deuteronomic difficulties Graves treated in a discriminating 
 way — holding that four passages were interpolations, or " explanatory additions 
 by a later hand." It need hardly be added that Ussher and Watson, prior in 
 time to Graves, (this year forms the three hundredth anniversary of Ussher's 
 birth ! ) knew even less of the deep-seated difficulties than he did. 
 
 * In his address at the Southampton Church Congress (1870) — " The ever 
 changing play of life gives such a new colour to old difficulties, that old answers 
 will no more meet new objections, than old fire-arms will meet modern battles." 
 Since the above was written, there has appeared a volume of the Life of 
 Bishop Wilberforce. The brilliant prelate, as therein delineated, appears the 
 very last man in the world to deal effectually with new and difficult Biblical 
 problems, demanding for their solution, deep learning, patient investigation, 
 and calm reflection. He seems, during his whole Episcopate, to have been 
 over head and ears in administrative activities — hurrying from place to place, 
 and " habitually /orc/«^ " into the twelve working hours of the day, "the work 
 of eighteen, if not of four-and-twenty ; " and having nothing but the merest 
 snatches of time for reading, or reflection of any sort. Then the very brilliancy 
 of his rhetoric — the readiness with which, from the fertile soil of his own mind, 
 he could bring up plausible arguments, clothed in beautiful language, in support 
 of any view of any question, concealed from himself and his hearers, or 
 readers, any defects there might be in the foundations of his reasoning. — See 
 Quarterly Review, January, 1880. 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 41 
 
 on which the critical arguments were based, not only did not 
 prove the critic's case, but proved, in fact, the dii-ect reverse.* 
 2. But it soon became plain that if the critical argument 
 was to be shaken at all in the minds of intelligent and un- 
 biassed Christian men, it must be met, not by the denials and 
 denunciations of busy divines and dignitaries, relying chiefly 
 on obsolete and comparatively uncritical authorities, but by 
 scholars familiar with the most recent results of scientific 
 investigation and research — orthodox critics occupying the 
 same high level of scholarship as the critics, whose conclusions 
 it was their business to rebut. Hence the publication called 
 the " Speaker's Commentary," a book which may be said not 
 only to have the imprimatur of the Church of England, but 
 to have been planned and executed under the authority and 
 supervision of that Church. The idea of this work is excellent, 
 and in some respects the execution is equally so. On the 
 whole, as a commentary, it is much superior to any previous 
 work of the sort in the English language. In future editions 
 it will doubtless eventually attain to the accomplishment of 
 its great object of furnishing, as far as possible, an answer to 
 all objections and difficulties. But as yet its chief writers 
 have never seriously addressed themselves to that great task. 
 In the opinion alike of friendly reviewer,-f- and of antagonistic 
 
 * See, for instance, "The Pentateuch and its Anatomists" (Birks), 1869. 
 
 t See a review of the " Speaker's Commentary " in the Quarterly Review for 
 April, 1879. The reviewer manifests throughout a very reverent and conserva- 
 tive spirit, and he touches with great delicacy and tenderness on the defects of 
 the commentary. Yet he makes his opinion of it sufficiently clear. He thinks 
 the commentary, on the whole, not up to " the level of modern scholarshi])," 
 and says in effect that the writers in it have laboured to shut out from its pages 
 as much as possible the results of modern scientific research. In regard to the 
 '' astonishing " assumptions with which it is attempted to " stifle discussion " 
 regarding the authorship of Deuteronomy, he speaks very decidedly indeed. 
 " It may be imagined how the Bishop [Thirlwall] would have characterised the 
 quotation of the text, ' The law was given by Moses,' as helping to prove that 
 Moses wrote the narrative of the delivery of the law, and indeed the whole 
 Pentateuch (see I. 14), and what he would have thought of the astonishing 
 statement with which Mr. Espin closes his Introduction to Deuteronomy, to the 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 critic, they have evaded rather than grappled with all the great 
 Biblical problems. Where they have discussed these problems 
 at all with any fulness, it has been rather as advocates of the 
 old views than as dispassionate judges between the old and the 
 new, " barring out " the latter " at all hazards." Certainly the 
 purely literary and historical questions as to the origin of the 
 early books, and especially of Deuteronomy, are treated in a 
 most superficial and disappointing way. The commentator 
 sometimes passes over important branches of the evidence on 
 the subject in silence,* or he disposes of them with what 
 appears to the writer as a very superficial and inconclusive 
 notice, assuming the whole point in dispute, or declining to 
 " enter on" the full discussion of it, on some unsatisfactory 
 plea, such as want of space, or because there is no agreement 
 on the point between the critics themselves — the one con- 
 tradicting and answering the other — or because some ortho- 
 dox writer to whom he refers has published an " unanswerable" 
 work on the subject. 
 
 In short, the very conservative writers of this commentary 
 have carried their reasonable caution against the admission of 
 new views to an unreasonable length, and have thereby, to a 
 great extent, defeated their own excellent purpose, and lost a 
 golden opportunity of guiding ecclesiastical opinion in a diffi- 
 cult crisis. 
 
 2. Instead of guiding, they have probably to no small 
 extent misled opinion. Had the English panic been met in a 
 bolder and fairer, a more straightforward and discriminating 
 
 effect, that this book has the attestation of the Lord to its Mosaic authorship, 
 to question which is ' to impeach the perfection and sinlessness of His nature, 
 and seems thus to gainsay the first principles of Christianity.'" — (I. — 800). 
 
 * Another and more recent Commentary — Blunt's Annotated Bible (1S78-9) 
 — ignores it seems the critical theories still more decidedly. " In describing 
 the contents of Deuteronomy, he speaks as though Bishop C.olenso and those 
 he imitated had never existed." — Sat. Review, 1242, p. 212. And "even in a 
 commentary designed for family use, it seems strange to find but one poor foot- 
 note about theories once so rife . . . asserting the composite character of the 
 most venerable book (Genesis)." — Ibid. 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 43 
 
 way, there would liave probably been no Scotch panic. Had 
 the English apologists, in discussing the views of Bishop 
 Colenso and those of the writers of "Essays and lieviews," drawn 
 a clear line between the literary and historical, and the 
 merely rationalistic objections — between arguments drawn 
 from similarity of style, diction, and phraseology, or from con- 
 trariety of law, custom, or fact on the one side, and arguments 
 on the other side, based on such assumptions as that a miracle 
 is necessarily " unhistorical," and a prophecy merely a bit of 
 history — vaticinatio jpost cventum ; had they thus put the 
 true state of the critical argument before the ecclesiastical 
 public, exaggerating nothing, extenuating nothing, assuming 
 nothing, they would have done the Church at large a most 
 needful and seasonable service. They would have forewarned 
 and thereby forearmed it. They would have prepared the 
 clergy of all denominations, and in both ends of the island, 
 for the possible, nay the probable rise — not in Germany, 
 or in Holland, or in South Africa, but in their own midst 
 — of a more discriminating and therefore a more formid- 
 able opponent of the traditional view of the origin of the 
 early Scripture books — one denying the strict Mosaic author- 
 ship of Deuteronomy ; but yet not denying the inspiration 
 or the historic truth of Deuteronomy or of any of the other 
 books — a critic, in fact, making no unsound or unwarrantable 
 assumptions, and who must therefore, be met and confronted 
 solely by argument and scholarship. 
 
 Such a critic has arisen in the person of Professor Eobert- 
 son Smith, of the Eree Church College, Aberdeen — a scholar 
 who in learning, ability, and thorough mastery of his subject 
 may take rank with the most eminent critics of Germany. 
 
 It is not necessary to enter upon the merits of Professor 
 Smith's case, which is still sub judicc, to show that it is pre- 
 cisely such a case as has been supposed — a case of startling 
 revolt against intolerant and undiscriminating traditionalism, 
 by a critic of apparently unimpeachable orthodoxy, judged by 
 the standards of his Church. 
 
44 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 Such a case was certain to arise sooner or later witliin 
 some Church in this country ; and it was equally certain, 
 when it did arise, to operate like a night attack upon a camp, 
 throwing the Church into a state of alarm and confusion in- 
 compatible with deliberate thought, and judicial action. 
 
 On this occasion certainly it seemed that the great ma- 
 jority of those to whom it fell to deal with the case in the 
 Supreme Court* were, at first, altogether unprepared to take a 
 calm and judicial view of it. They appeared anxious to 
 hurry it to a decision and a condemnation at once, and very 
 few of them seemed to have an adequate idea of the great 
 difficulty and complexity of the momentous critical questions 
 at issue, and the formidable array of arguments and authori- 
 ties which could be marshalled in support of the impugned 
 theory. The delays, however, caused by the observance of 
 legal forms, giving time for reflection and study, the enforced 
 attention to both sides of every question, and the necessity 
 for careful statement and wary reasoning in coming to close 
 quarters with such a master of fence as Professor Smith ; these 
 and other concurring causes gradually produced a manifest 
 and powerful effect. The great difficulties which beset the 
 whole subject making the choice of theories, with our present 
 lights, only a choice of perplexities, were doubtless now, for 
 the first time, brought home to many earnest and candid minds. 
 Men — especially men in advanced life — who were naturally 
 repelled by every theory, save the old accepted traditional 
 one, realised now, in all its gravity, the great responsibility 
 which would attach to an authoritative proscription, at this 
 stage of investigation, and in face of the highest critical 
 authority, of any theory, which claimed to explain the facts, 
 without absolute and manifest contradiction to Scripture. 
 They saw that only absolute necessity could justify the 
 shutting up of a door, which left a needful opening to even 
 
 * The subject of Professor Smith's Biblical articles was first brought be- 
 fore " The College Committee ; " but that body gave its voice against prose- 
 cution. 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 45 
 
 a single faithful soul ; a door which the progress of investiga- 
 tion might, after all, prove to be the only true one. 
 
 Hence, as the case proceeded, opposition relaxed, and a 
 more judicial tone, and more tolerant spirit prevailed in the 
 courts. The change is clearly traceable in the course of the 
 procedure, step by step. It is seen in the protracted duration 
 of the case; in the gradually dwindling majorities against the 
 Professor ; in the abandonment, one after another, of all the 
 charges but one; and finally, in the difficulty, not yet ap- 
 parently altogether surmounted, of coming to an agreement 
 as to the relevancy of even that one charge. 
 
 No doubt, upon the whole, considering all the circum- 
 stances, the conduct of the case has been creditable to the Free 
 Church Courts, the clerical members of which appear to be ex- 
 ceptionally well qualified, by their careful training in Hebrew 
 and in Biblical criticism, for forming an intelligent opinion of 
 the merits of such a case, when properly set before them.* 
 
 No doubt, also, in spite of temporary excitement, unsettle- 
 ment, and dissension, the case will eventually do more good 
 than evil. It will help to " clear the air." 
 
 Whatever the legal and formal issue of it may be, the in- 
 direct result will undoubtedly be, to open up to a great 
 extent, all these Biblical questions to the light ; dispelling a 
 mass of dangerously narrow and exclusive views, liable at 
 any moment, if stirred up, to cause another such panic. In 
 short, the case can hardly fail to contribute largely to the very 
 needful work of placing the whole subject of Biblical criti- 
 cism in this country on a sounder and more solid basis. 
 
 The evil in this, as in other matters of a like sort, will un- 
 doubtedly be over-ruled by Providence for good. 
 
 But the question naturally arises, is it not possible, at 
 once, to put criticism on the soundest and safest basis, and cut 
 away all occasion for these ever-recurring alarms and unsettle- 
 ments. Would not full and free discussion — bold and fear- 
 less facing of the question be as wise a policy in this dilliculty, 
 
 See the Catholic Presbyterian, Hfovemher, 1879, p. 364. 
 
46 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 as it would have been in the astronomical, the georogical, and 
 the biological difficulties ? Would it not be the policy of 
 faith, as well as that of wisdom and prudence ? — the surest 
 way to allay and avert dangerous excitements ; to manifest 
 just confidence in the Scriptures, and to guard the Church 
 against rashly committing itself to an untenable position ? 
 Not indeed that there is much, if any risk, that the Church 
 (speaking generally) will ever commit itself to a narrow view 
 of a question of this sort, by a regular authoritative decision. 
 Certainly no branch of the: Church in England or in the 
 Colonies will do so. It is by the g^^'^^s^i-authoritative and 
 semi-official acts of her leading ecclesiastics that the English 
 Church has been, and is only too likely to be committed 
 in the eyes of the world. The Speaker's Commentary carries 
 the moral weight of the chief Clergy and Divinity Profes- 
 sors of the English Church.* On the question of the date 
 and authorship of Deuteronomy, this Commentary conveys 
 the idea, that only one theory is consistent with the truth 
 of Scripture, and tenable within the Church. Consider what 
 would be the consequence of such teaching, should the advanc- 
 ing tide of criticism render this one theory no longer tenable 
 — or consider its possible consequences even now on an 
 intelligent reader, wdio has not studied the question for 
 himself, and has to trust to this Comm^entary entirely for his 
 guidance in critical exposition. Suppose him relying in full 
 trust on the assumptions of Mr. Espin and Bishop Harold 
 Browne,-|- that the theory that Deuteronomy was not written 
 
 * " The plan of the work has been settled, and the writers have been 
 appointed under the sanction of a Committee, consisting of the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of 
 Llandaflf, the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, the Bishop of Chester, &c., 
 &c." And the general editor "has been advised by a small Committee, con- 
 sisting of the Archbishop of York, and the Regius Professors of Divinity 
 of Oxford and Cambridge, 'upon questions arising during the progress of the 
 work.' " — Advertisement. 
 
 t Dr. Harold Bro^vne has, during the Biblical controversies of the last 
 twenty years, frequently set a much-needed example of calm aud courteous 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 47 
 
 by Moses, but by a later prophet, necessarily implies that 
 Deuteronomy is a " forgery," and seems to " gainsay tlie first 
 principles of Cliristianity." Suppose him then to meet, as he 
 any day may do, in a trustworthy publication, the state- 
 ment that the majority of eminent critics are agreed that 
 Deuteronomy was not written by Moses but by a later pro- 
 phet, what conclusion is he likely to form on the subject ? 
 
 Putting the two statements together, is it not very possible 
 that he may conclude that Deuteronomy is a " forgery," and 
 that this fact saps " the first principles of Christianity ? " On 
 the principle that " cuique in arte sua credendum " is he not 
 fully as likely to trust the eminent critics as the mere commen- 
 tators — that is, the experts rather than the amateurs in critical 
 science ? Surely in a work professing to represent the mind 
 of the Church, and not that of a mere narrow sect or party, 
 all feasible and tenable theories on such a most complex and 
 difficult subject should be fairly stated and expounded with 
 all their 'pros and cons. It should be made plain that the 
 Church has never yet committed itself to any one theory, and 
 that every Christian man is free to adopt any theory which 
 to his mind appears most satisfactorily to explain the facts . 
 so long of course as he does not deny or contravene any 
 article of the Church's teaching regarding Scripture. 
 
 Surely this is the safest and wisest course under any 
 circumstances. Even were the balance of critical authority 
 
 reasoning. He would have done a great service to English Biblical criticism 
 had he set the yet more needed example of carefully distinguishing between 
 sound and unsound critical positions. Labouring, however, as he has almost 
 invarial^ly done, to prove the critics to be wron'j in eva-ythinrj, he has frequently 
 employed a style of reasoning which can only damage his own cause. In two 
 or three instances, in his zeal to prove a critic wrong when he was perfectly 
 right, he has fallen into errors, which betray almost inconceivable carelessnesi 
 or ignorance, and which the critics have not failed to turn to the utmost 
 account in casting discredit on his authority. See his Elohistic Psahnt, p. 26, 
 for his opinion regarding the 600,000 warriors of Israel ; and the " Speaker's 
 Commentary," I. 6, for his yet more unaccountable blunder regarding the 
 passage in 1 Samuel, which seems to prove a difference between the Tabernacle 
 in the Wilderness and the Tabernacle at Shiloh. 
 
48 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 not against but in favour of the traditional theory, would it 
 not, while the question is still undecided, be safer not only to 
 tolerate but even to encourage competing theories ? However 
 strong his position may be the wise general alwa5^s takes care 
 to have a line of retreat open. He takes nothing for granted, 
 but prepares for all contingencies. He does not wantonly 
 " burn his boats and bridges." 
 
 Certainly a very grave responsibility attaches to the words 
 of a commentator who, without any necessity laid upon him, 
 stakes the truth of Scripture and the authority of the Church 
 on a single much controverted theory. 
 
 The writer has often been greatly pained and shocked by 
 the assumptions of extreme rationalists ; he is only one degree 
 less pained and alarmed by such an assumption as this on 
 the part of the orthodox. 
 
 A Suggestion. 
 
 It has frequently occurred to the writer that a most desir- 
 able scheme for bringing about a sounder and soberer state of 
 the ecclesiastical mind on this subject — for circumscribing the 
 limits of controversy, for silencing extreme theorists on either 
 side, and generally reducing the questions to their true dimen- 
 sions — would be to endeavour to procure a deliberate opinion 
 on the chief controverted points from such a body of experts 
 as the Committee for the Eevision of the Old Testament 
 Scriptures. An opinion from the actual Committee which 
 has gone over line by line the whole of the original text of 
 those books, in correspondence with the most eminent critics 
 of the Continent and of America, could not but carry great 
 weight with every intelligent Christian. It would at 
 least command respect. Those who could not accept the 
 opinion would yet feel that it could not be easily or lightly 
 disposed of — could not be set aside or evaded by an assump- 
 tion, an assertion, or an epithet, but must be met by calm, 
 careful, and circumspect reasoning. Some questions, the 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 49 
 
 opinion, if unanimous and expressed with decision, might set 
 at rest altogether and at once. Other questions, though leav- 
 ing undecided, it might yet advance a stage towards solution 
 by indicating distinctly the key of the position — the points 
 on which the solution hinged, and to the elucidation of which 
 critics should alone address themselves. 
 
 Certain other questions it might pronounce incapable of 
 solution on any data now accessible. 
 
 Thus in various ways the opinion of the Revisers would 
 tend to narrow the field of controversy. It would also almost 
 infallibly moderate the tone and language of controversialists ; 
 the combined authority of such a body of experts imposing 
 restraint on the utterances of even the most confident theorists 
 on either side. Thus might the llevisers crown their main 
 work of revision with an additional service, which to many 
 earnest and intelligent Christians would greatly enhance its 
 interest and value. Bible readers would look forward with 
 double interest and expectation to the issue of a new version 
 of the Old Testament if they were to receive along with it* a 
 key to these perplexing preliminary difficulties. 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 The writer concludes with a summary of liis argument in 
 the shape of a few rules for the guidance of a student of these 
 important Biblical problems. The rules are in fact those by 
 which he himself has sought to be suided in his own investi- 
 
 * It is not meant of course that the Revisers' explanation should be bound up 
 with the Bible. The writer is convinced that many readers of all classes in this 
 country would read such a learned and authoritative explanation with profit as 
 well as with pleasure. He was much struck by an iustance of eager desire to 
 obtain information on the question, which came under his notice soon after the 
 commencement of the Smith case. He overheard an excellent and pious 
 woman saying to a neighbour, reverently dropping her voice at the time — " I 
 canna understan' what they're makin' sic a wark about Deuteronomy for. I 
 took doon my Bible the other nicht when tliey were a' to bed and read Deu- 
 teronomy from beginnin' to end. I saw uaething wrang wi' Deuteronomy." 
 
so MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 gations, and he humbly recommends them to the consideration 
 of the reader : — 
 
 1. Beware of taking up an attitude of blind and undiscri- 
 minating opposition to any critical theory on the subject of the 
 authorship, composition, or date of the books of Scripture, 
 merely because such theory is opposed to the traditional 
 belief of the Church on the subject, especially if the theory 
 can claim the support of the majority of eminent living critics. 
 Try the theory. Examine into its trath with all the means 
 and appliances at your command. If you have not time or 
 opportunity to examine duly, suspend your judgment. Be in 
 no hurry for a solution. Abide patiently " the long results " 
 of investigation and research. Have no fear of them. 
 
 2. Even should you, at last, be convinced that the theory 
 is ill-founded and altogether objectionable, nevertheless ab- 
 stain most religiously from assailing it with any other weapons 
 than those of legitimate reason and argument. Avoid all mere 
 assertions, assumptions, evasions ; all vague declamation and 
 denunciation. 
 
 3. Be careful not to confound legitimate criticism — deduc- 
 tions from tangible literary, philological, or historical data — 
 with sceptical assumptions or speculations. 
 
 4. Be equally careful not to class orthodox critics, men 
 who admit the inspiration, the historic truth, and the super- 
 natural element in Scripture, with sceptical or rationalistic 
 writers, men who treat the Bible as an ordinary book. 
 Never impute to such critics views or sentiments which 
 they themselves repudiate, or which are not founded on any 
 statements of theirs, but on your own inferences from their 
 statements. Never charge them with any doctriue which 
 does not necessarily flow from their views. 
 
 5. Beware of abetting by word or deed any sort of oppo- 
 sition to the full and free discussion of any of these critical 
 theories by critics of any class. Rest assured that the only 
 result of such opposition will be to raise an unjust prejudice 
 
MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. Bl 
 
 against the Scriptures, and hurt rather than help the cause 
 you seek to promote. Tolerate all critics. Let them say 
 their say. 
 
 6. Aud not only tolerate, but positively encourage every 
 learned orthodox critic who attempts to provide a satisfactory 
 explanation of the scriptural difficulties, whether the theory 
 which he advocates appears to you sound and satisfactory or 
 the reverse. Doubt not that his labours will produce some 
 good eff'ect, direct or indirect. The errors in his theory will 
 be corrected by some other orthodox critic ; and the more 
 orthodox critics, and the greater number of explanations that 
 can in any way be reconciled with orthodoxy, the better. 
 
 7. Have no fear of any permanent evil resulting from the 
 criticism of even the most unsound critics. Critics " can do 
 nothing against the truth, but for the truth." ISTo critic can 
 tamper with the original text of Scripture. Nothing tliat any 
 critic may think or say of Scripture can alter the meaning of 
 Scripture. False interpretations may be assigned by critics 
 and for a time may prevail widely, but they are sure in these 
 days to be quickly challenged by other critics. There is 
 every year less and less risk of the prolonged prevalence of 
 false critical views. 
 
 8. Distinguish carefully between the critical faculty, which 
 is essential for the due analysis of the complexities of the 
 earlier books of Scripture, and the faculty of spiritual insight 
 necessary for a saving apprehension of the truths of tlie Chris- 
 tian faith. The two faculties belong to a diff'erent order, and 
 may or may not co-exist in the same mind. The form 3r, from 
 the nature of the case, must be rare, the latter is within the 
 reach of every faithful soul. 
 
 9. Whether you do or do not find a satisfactory key to 
 the seeming discrepancies between the different sets of these 
 ceremonial laws of old Israel, beware of attaching an exagger- 
 ated importance to them. Never lose sight of the fact that 
 these laws have all been long abrogated and obsolete, and 
 have for us in these latter days only a general interest. Had 
 
S2 MOSES AND DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 they been meant to be binding on us as on God's ancient 
 people some adequate means of distinguishing between them 
 would have been supplied to us — something equivalent to the 
 living prophetic voice of old — something that would have indi- 
 cated clearly what was obsolete and what was in force. 
 
 10. Eear ever in mind that the laws which bind us, under 
 this more advanced and final dispensation, are written in 
 sacred books, whose meaning in all matters essential to salva- 
 tion is clear and distinct — books which have been carefully 
 collected and guarded, and authoritatively expounded by " the 
 Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth," 
 and " a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ." 
 
DATE DUE 1 
 
 !^>M»^^ 
 
 «ffe't..w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLOPD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U S A 
 
BS1275.4.M91 
 
 Moses and Deuteronomy: or. The present 
 
 1 1012 00037 0603