•mi PRINCETON, 35T. J. u/i/rv. Shclj. ♦.' \/tuu^viJ Cy^ cL-^ A353 Xuiube") . e "2 m DEUTERONOMY THE PEOPLES BOOK DEUTERONOMY THE PEOPLE'S BOOK Its ©rijin anb iiatutt / A DEFENCE LONDON DALDY, ISBISTER & CO. 56, LUDGATE HILL 1 S77 PREFACE. rTIHE more recent origin of the Book of Deuteronomy has become an article of faith with many thinking men. Its Mosaic authorship is treated as an old world idea, entertained only by those "who ignore history." What Dean Mil man described as an arbitrary and "extraordinary" theory, the product of " peremptory — almost arrogant confidence," is now received so widely, that men's minds are disturbed by an inner conflict between the faith they were taught, and the new influence that is felt to be at work around them. It was this uneasiness of doubt that led to the writing of the following pages. It would serve no purpose to refer to many books and many writers in this inquiry. Ewald and Kuenen may be taken to represent the two poles, round which the moderate and the iv Preface. extreme assailants cluster. References to their works really exhaust all that can be said on the general question. It is a great mistake to suppose that none but those who are well read in Hebrew, have either the right or the ability to judge of the evidence advanced for and against the genuineness of Deuteronomy. Any intelligent reader of the Scriptures may, with a little trouble, speedily master most of the arguments, and form his own judgment on their value. It is well that it should be so, for the Bible is the heritage of all men without exception, not a battle-ground for a few scholars. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. THE NEW THEORY ..... 1 Origin of Modern Criticism : Bentley — Spread of the method to Books of the Bible - Our borrowing from Germany— Main positions only to be dis- cussed, not a multitude of details— Invention of " Programme "—Statement of the "Programme," or Theory — Disagreements among its supporters — Great faith required — Finding of "a" or " the Book of the Law " — Keasons for considering it to have been Deuteronomy— Difficulties of the "Pro- gramme " theory — Its two main supports in history — Forging of Books. CHAPTER II. B REACHES OF CONTINUITY IX PRIESTLY TRADITION' . 29 Ebb and flow of thought in the Hebrew priesthood — Parallel from the Christian Church — Springs of sudden upheavals in Hebrew society— Effects of destruction of Shiloh — Further effects of massacre at Nob— Exile of Abiathar — Example of breach of continuity— The ark, "a new cart," "the bearers" — Characteristics of writer of "Samuel" — Stagnation of religious life, 880-7-12— Hezekiah's revival based on the Five Books- " .\ oentra] altar," "Passover in the second month" — Josiah's revival baaed on the Five Books — The Five Books occupy the first place in revivals- Prophets occupy the second — Proof from observance of "year of release" by Zedekiah — Injustice done to Jeremiah's preaching and acts— Ezra's revival a prophet's, based on the Five Books— Absurdity of the critics' view— Ezra's revival succeeded by same events as Josiah's — Depression of the Levites before and after the captivity — Revival under the Maccabees— The two halves of Hebrew history. vi Contents. CHAPTER III. THE PROPHECY OF A KING . . . .63 The passage in Deuteronomy not a prophecy — Of the same nature as pas- sage about the judge — " The king" a subject of discussion in the wilderness — The Hebrews' idea of a king — "Why the unexpected happened : no King was chosen — Eules supposed to refer to Solomon — A "tradition" assumed, as there was no popular history — Importance attributed to the trade in horses — Its absurdity shewn— Riiles apply to other kings besides Solomon—" Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee " — The "Testimony " of Jehoiada. CHAPTER TV. THE CENTRAL ALTAR . . . . .86 Alleged appearance first in Hezekiah's reign — The riddle to be read — Period of Judges excluded — The praise of David— View taken by modern writers— The law stated — Not high places, bvit the worship condemned — Reason for the fierceness of Deuteronomy against them— Closes' preference for high places proved — Reason for worship on high places — Idea of a central altar dates from Mosaic age— Central altar on "The Mount," Sinai— Rules for the building at the great sacrifice — The riddle resumed — Difference between the Kings and the books of Samuel— The Kings' sixty pages of silence and fifty pages of speaking out— Old law of sacrifice no longer held— Divorce between the Ark and the Tabernacle— Samuel's days and Gedaliah's, 1100 B.C., and 586 B.C.— Policy of Samuel in the transition period— No-worship false worship— Samuel returns to the patriarchal model — Heathen hill-worship not dreaded by him — Consistency of the narrative in Deuteronomy. CHAPTER V. PRIESTS AND LEVITES . . . . .128 " The Priests the Levites," "Priests and Levites "—Chronicles and Deu- teronomy- The Porters (Levites) of Chronicles— Argument from the silence of " Kings " unsafe— Views of Ewald stated— Kings a " history," Chronicles a " programme "—Two views of same month of English history — A test reading in the "history" affirmed to be wrong— The two accounts of Contents. x i i Jehoiada's plot— The guard or "runners" the Temple police- "The hun- dreds" "for Cherethites and runners" -who they were "Priests keepers of the threshold" — The "Testimony" :it a coronation — The Levites "de- " graded priests " — Levitical priests as opposed to other priests Levites as singers and porters seldom mentioned Never mentioned by afalaohi Testimony of eye-witnesses of first temple — Small number of Levities! exili b who returned l Reasons of the small number who returned Levites never mentioned in the first hook of the Maccabees. CHAPTER VI. PROGRAMMES AND FEASTS . .' . 167 Is Moses a name or a person? — The Five Books a patch-work of "programmi a " — Most of these "programmes " written in Babylonia— The great novelists of the Exile -This "mental activity" doubtful— Survival of only the "programmes" — "Passover" and "Tabernacles" "programmes"- ' " over" a "sacrifice" "of the flock and the herd" — Table of order of time of Passover laws — Sacrifices at " Tabernacles" — Artistic arrangement of num- bers of victims— Absurdity of the arithmetic shewn— No one so qualified as Moses to write the Liturgy — The eighth day added to the seven days' feast The travelling days added — Parallel from records of Egypt Reason in things for eighth day always a Sabbath — Hebrew year and Calendar— Connection of Jubilee, Year of Release, and Tabernacles — Not chance— The sending away day. CHAPTER VII. AGE AND AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY . . 201 Forgery rarely thought of— View taken of forgery by men— "Why not believe the olaim of authorship in Deuteronomy? — References to former books of the Pentateuch — Quotations or allusions in Samuel— Joab's prayer — Tamar's entreaty —Argument of the critics turned against 1 1 1 •■ in • Davidson's blunders (1) about Korah — (2) "The children shall not die for the fathers"— (3) The Tabernacle of the congregation- Relation of Solomon's prayer to Deuteronomy— Argument from oam< i in the historical books — Children of Israel, or Bene-Israel and Hebrews -"Israel -All I a for the nam.' Congregation of Israel— God of Israel— Did Mos - address the whole people ? or the elders only ': viii Contents. CHAPTER VIII. STYLE AND AUTHORSHIP OP DEUTERONOMY . . 239 Style and authorship of Deuteronomy — Proof of difference of style in Five Books— Mistakes in distinguishing style : Swift— Fixity of style : Shake- speare, Carlyle, Hallam — Materials in first Four Books unlike those of Fifth — Writer, reporter, speaker — Moses as " a popular orator" — His slowness of speech — No Hebrew forger could overlook this — Aaron the speaker or reporter for Moses — The chief scribe : the clerk of court — Different styles in the Five Books — Two views of Moses' slowness of speech. — May have thrown it off — May have had a successor to Aaron as spokesman — Joshua, Eleazar, Phinehas — Deuteronomy a popular handbook of law — Great sagacity of the arrange- ments made — Comparison with the Pandects — Three thousand years in advance of its time. CHAPTER IX. EVIDENCE OP THE NEW TESTAMENT . . .281 Does the New Testament take a side or not? — Meaning of the word "Moses": a man or a system — The man Moses always referred to, not a code of laws— Moses contrasted with David, and with the Prophets — A prophet like unto me: who is "me"? — Is sinless ignorance a possible explanation? — Christ's personal knowledge of Moses, and interview with him on the Mount of Transfiguration— Summary of results. CHAPTER I. THE NEW THEORY. Origin of Modern Criticism : Bentley — Spread of the method to Hooks of the Bible -Our borrowing from Germany — Main positions only to be dis- cussed, not a multitude of details— Invention of " Programme " — Statement of the "Programme," or Theory — Disagreements among its supporters — Great faith required — Finding of "a" or " the Book of the Law " — Reasons for considering it to have been Deuteronomy— Difficulties of the "Pro- gramme" theory — Its two main supports in history — Forging of Rooks. "VTO one who lias watched the ebb and flow of opinion in our country regarding the origin of the Five Books of Moses can fail to see that, among thinking men, there is less than ever of a disposition to rely on the views and traditions of the past. Whether justly or unjustly, the attacks of many modern critics on the revered ideas of former ages respecting the writer of these books have shaken the confidence of readers and believers alike. A feeling is abroad that there must be something in what is said by so many men, and said after so much laborious investigation. And the more closely the great truths unfolded in these writings come home to our hearts, the more readily does the slightest throwing of doubt, A Origin of Modern Criticism. especially when done by learned and seemingly fair- minded inquirers, loosen the strong attachment that binds us to the old-fashioned theories of our fathers. This loosening of ancient ties is unavoidable. It may be regretted, but it cannot be helped, for it is the direction in which what is called the thought of our age and country is now running with a steady and a growing current. Whether the real fountain-head of the stream be England or Germany — and most probably it was Bentley's work on the Epistles of Phalaris — there is no doubt that the upbreak in opinion, which is startling our age and country, owes its rise to a not very creditable borrowing from German sources. Unquestionably Bentley's wealth of learning and his singular success in proof first dazzled our neighbours on the Continent into attempting with other books, what he not only attempted but did with the forgeries called the Epistles of Phalaris. "Where he struck a vein of gold, many of them, in looking for the same metal, discovered nothing better than such golden rubbish as Elizabeth's navigators brought home in their ships, to cheat their mistress and themselves into the hope that the New World's richest treasures were buried in Labrador, not in Mexico and Peru. What looks like gold is not at once discovered to be useless dirt, when spade and pickaxe have thown it out of the mine. Equally true is it that the upturnings of those who dig among the learning of past ages may bring to light far more The Xeiv Theory. rubbish than gold. Because Bentley found Wealth that made others envious of Ins greatness, it does not follow that those who wield a like spade and pickaxe must use them with the same success. An assay of the ore found by him shewed a large percentage of pure gold ; an . of the discoveries of his followers in the same field of research is known to shew a vast preponderance of rubbish. Of the remainder of the ore they have brought to light, it is hard to say whether the gold it contains is even a fair recompense for the labour and the blundering spent in the search. So long as the upturning? of the critics were confined to the literature of Greece and Rome, the world at large cared little whether gold were found or not. But when the spirit, that made them call in question almost every- thing that passed under the names of heathen writers, soared so high as to handle with like roughness the holiest books of Zion, men were shocked and afraid, for they wondered what this new thing would grow to. For- getting that if these sacred writings cannot stand rougher handling than any received by those of Homer and ( 1 icero, they would be the work of men inferior in power to heathen poets and philosophers, they may sometimes have bestowed upon the critics w\\\\>v instead of argument, or shrunk from them as from the profane, whose Win- Words were a dread and a loathing. But whoever believes that these books are built on a rock-foundation, such Bfl Spread of MctJwd to the Bible. Athens and Rome never knew in the days of their literary- greatness, will both give to the assailing critics, and look for in return, the courtesies of a fair literary war. If a man fights honestly, not twisting facts, honourably avowing the side he is on, not pretending to do battle under a banner which it is clear as noonday he is endeavouring to hurl to the ground, he is a combatant worthy of respect, however sharp his weapons, or however heavy his blows. Should the friends of these holy books of Zion be unable to give blow for blow, and to blunt the sharpest point thrust against their armour, their cause cannot be defended by abuse or reproaches. Truth is the prize at stake, and the end of strife can only be truth's triumph. The points in dispute are so many that it would but be waste of time to attempt a discussion of them in detail. No great controversy is ever settled by wrangling over the petty smallnesses into which, somehow, man's weakness always breaks it up. There is one key of the position which, if wrested from the opposing side or unsuccessfully assailed, determines the fortune of its defenders. As in a great battle so in a great controversy, the moment this key of the position is lost or won, the struggle is virtually over; the effort of the losers is to save all they can, and of the winners to reap the full fruits of their gain. A clump of trees in one place, a farm-house or two in another, a bat- tery here, and a hillock there, may all be of the highest value so long as the main key of the ground is safe ; but The New Theory. 5 as soon as the latter is lost, the former, so far from being good to hold, may be but a source of greater harm if they are not left at once. Critics have to recognise the same rule of battle as soldiers. A multitude of details may prove very cumbrous— more awkward than uselessly heavy bao-'we to a beaten army— if the leading position cannot he held. They may turn out to be nothing better than blunders of ignorance or prejudice, arising from the mis- takes the mind is driven into, when compelled to map out all its knowledge and fancies by reference to a leading position which it has once seized. Nothing can happen more fatal to a critic's success than, by taking hold of a false general idea, to be constrained to view the multitude of details which it masters, not as they are presented in nature, but as they seem to be presented from his posi- tion. He thinks he is right because he is led astray by the ground he is standing on. Fancies are mistaken for facts, illusions for truth. With misleading lights of this nature the history of all criticism is full ; and from them the life of no critic, however great, ever has been or ever will be free. The lesson of humility they teach is seldom learned ; or if learned one day, may be forgotten tie' next Among these smaller matters that have no bearing on the general result may be mentioned Ewald's sneer, " how " it could be possible for the composer of Deut. xxviii. to " conclude a long enumeration of the most various evils " with the conveyance of the people back to Egypt In ships 6 Multitude of details not to be discussed. " (ver. C8) ! ... so completely unique an idea could only " have been suggested by experience, and it was evidently f< the latest and the worst which floated in the author's " mind." 1 This is ignorance, not criticism. Egyptian kings, who lived in the days of Moses, did not look on the idea as a bad one — that is one side of it. The people of Taha, or Northern Palestine, shrank with horror from it as from a "middle passage" in ancient slavery — that is the other side. " I made thee," says Rameses III., " gallies, transports, and ships of war, with soldiers " equipped with their arms, on the Great Sea or Medi- " terranean. I gave them captains of the bowmen and " captains of gallies, provided with numerous crews with- " out number, to bring the things of the land of Taha and " the hinder parts of the earth to thy great treasuries/' 2 Kuenen's sneers at the absurdity of Levitical cities with fields around them are equally misplaced, for they had their parallels in the ancient worship of Egypt : " Given " to the temple of Amen Ra, orchards and gardens, 433 ; " fields, arouras 868,168^ ; towns of Egypt, 56." 3 Of the main positions seized by the critics who reject the traditional view of the authorship of the five books, 1 Ewald, History of Israel, vol. iv. p. 221, Note. See also Davidson, Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. i. p. 382. 2 Records of the Past, vol. vi. p. 31. 3 Ibid, vol. vi. p. 30. There seems no reason to doubt that Moses, though he never set foot on the land, was well acquainted with the geographj 7 of Canaan from Egyptian sources alone. 'The New Theory. there are perhaps none that have* wider bearing than their ideas of the origin and nature tit' the hook, of Deuteniimnn . Most readers of the Bible regard it as the last ipeeoh» the dying legacy of Moses to the people whom lie loved, and for whose welfare his life was spent. This is so elearly written on the face of the book itself, that only the strongest proof could satisfy an unbiassed reader of his error in enter- taining that opinion. The writing professes to be the work of Moses ; it was received as such for at least twent v- rive centuries; and if this view of more than seventy generations of men be wrong, the arguments by which it is overthrown must be both ample and without dispute, Mist and probabilities can have no place in the settlement of a matter so important. Nothing but the clearest and the fullest evidence ought to be put before the world if men are to throw aside as a useless thing, what all these generations of learned and unlearned cherished as a moat precious heirloom. Past ages may have been guilty of weakness in the childish simplicity of their faith, while the present age may shew the strength of the world's man- hood by cutting away the foundation, by boasting of its power to inhabit the unfounded temple of sacred truth. But the matter is one to be discussed without passion and without prejudice. Great interests are at stake in the settlement of this piece of antiquity, while the question itself is almost wholly one of historical criticism. That it has a vastly wider bearing than on mere history or anti- Invention of "Programme!' quity is dear to every one who approaches the subject. But the ordinary weapons of the critic are those that must be used in settling the point in dispute. And the most attached friend to the traditional view may be assured that, if the book of Deuteronomy cannot stand against these weapons, the sooner it is set aside from the path of man's progress the better will the removal of it be for the world. The proof then must come from the attacking party. A reason must be rendered for refusing to believe what is written, as men have believed for at least five-and-twenty centuries. But the difficulty of grasping this reason is greater than might be at first supposed, for the assailants are not agreed among themselves. On the fact of the origin of the book about 650 B.C. they are agreed ; but on the proofs and surroundings of their position they are sometimes more at variance with one another than with those who maintain the old-fashioned view. However, their disagreement must be left out of account, for it makes no difference to the defence whether the attacks come from the same or from opposing foes. That a great body of writers accept the new view of the orisrin of the book is a fact not to be denied or under- valued, but it is of small weight as an argument. Had each of them come to the same conclusion as the fruit of his own unaided studies, their learning and their agree- ment would have carried an authority far greater than they do. But this is not the case. A new and startling Tin- Nciv Theory. theory is proposed, borrowed, we shall say, from profane history; it takes the fancy of a few; the field is so fresh and untrodden tli.it the circle widens till a larger body of partisans is drawn within its influence Recently it has become fashionable to speak of the theory as a fruit of the higher or advanced criticism, a monument of the liberality of view that has at length begun to leaven the narrow conservatism of the Church. All this is wholly beside the question. The point really before the world is the truth of the historical statements made in the book of Deuter- onomy, not liberality of sentiment or novelty in criticism. Words too are used with a meaning the}' cannot and ought not to bear. According to the new view the book of 1 Deuter- onomy is a clumsy, easily-discovered forgery, imposed on the world with remarkable skill. But forgery is an ugly word to use, whether in the courts of literature or in those of law, in the things of earth or in the things of heaven. It must be avoided at all hazards, for people like it so ill that something more agreeable must be devised instead. Accordingly "programme"' is put in its place, a word which may mean anything the coiner of it el Bes, while it avoids the harsh ring of the base metal in "forgery." The first coinage then was " programme." But no sooner is a good thing like this set on tout than others must put in 1 "Accommodation " used to be the word, and is still sometimes used. But in a coniniorci.il country like England •• an accommodation " is so suggestive of business difficulties, leading sooner or later to bankruptcy, that it is well for the critics' credit to substitute another word. io Statement of the Theory. claims to a share of the spoil, though they are only- borrowers of another's discovery. " Programme " is too bald for the purpose ; but " legislative programme " and " prophetic programme," divide the complex idea so well, that they form a second step at the crossing place, much broader and more massive than the grand first. Only it has always to be borne in mind that " programme " in this sense is a decent word for " forgery," the homage, in short, that criticism is compelled to pay to the respect entertained by the unlearned crowd for truth and fairplay. We shall find that all or nearly all the five books are reckoned " pro- grammes." Borrowing another's ideas or even improving on them does not add to the weight of the argument advanced. It is thus not numbers that have to be looked at, but proofs. / Generally, then, it is held by the new critics that the book of Deuteronomy is the same, or almost the same, as the Book of the Law found by Hilkiah, the high priest, in the Temple, in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign. \ They regard it as the work of a prophet of Jehovah, who lived, some think, in Egypt, 1 and whose heart was wrung with sorrow at the impieties that had reigned in Jerusalem for sixty years before. With an imagination" 1 The allusions to Egyptian manners and customs in Deuteronomy are so manifold that this supposition seems almost indispensable to the theory. 2 Speaking of the author of the Book of Origins, that is, part of the conglomerate series which the ignorant crowd call " The Five Books," Kuenen says : — "We must at once add that the historical reality has The New Theory. i i touched by the dangers thai seemed to overhang his native land, he pictured to himself the sins that had brought her to the brink of the abyss, and the safeguards that might have warded off, or might even still ward off, her ruin. These sins and safeguards he mapped out or "pro- grammed," the latter as what might have been laid down in the far-off past, the former as what were known to have been done for ages. Had Moses, the fabled lawgiver of the Hebrew race, the mighty deliverer from bondage, the shadowy shape that filled the whole background of their heroic ase, forewarned them of these sins and ordained these safeguards eight centuries earlier, the whole course of their history might have been changed. A happy inspiration — some say as lofty as David's or Paul's — suggested to this dreamer the duty of putting in written words the fancies that floated through his brain. But poetic fire carried him a step farther. He wrote as he believed Moses would have written, or ought to have written ; he forewarned, he entreated, he reproached, he prophesied as he thought Moses would have done, or ought to have done. And when his book was finished, he named Moses as the speaker, and the plains of Muab as the scene of his oration to the people. 1 By means alto- " but little value in his eyes. He sacriliees it without hesitation ti> his M need for a minute and tangible representation <>f the past. In doing " so, therefore, he gives rein to his imagination, and is more a poet than " an historian. " — Religion <>/ Itrqn I, ii. p> 1"> S . 1 " At a time when notions about literary property were yet in their 1 2 Statement of the Theory. gether unknown this romance was conveyed from Egypt to Zion — supposing Egypt was its birthplace — perhaps several years after the poet's death, perhaps while he was still alive. The book fell into the hands of some wor- shippers of Jehovah, perhaps the high priest and the chief scribe, perhaps not. It was such a writing as they wished, if the half-heathen Jews were ever to be frightened out of their evil ways. A convenient time was chosen for hiding the romance in the Temple. Of course it was picked up during the cleaning, probably by preconcerted arrangement. It was found by Hilkiah and read by Shaphan, which seems to prove that Shaphan at least had no hand in the plot. It was then taken to the king ; it was read, to the thorough terror of both court and people, and from that time to this an Egyptian romance has passed current among the most enlightened nations of the world, and in its most enlightened ages, as a book specially written by God's inspiration to shew men the way to everlasting life. What eight centuries of revelation and teaching by priests and prophets failed to do in Israel, a dreamer is thus thought to have done at once by the publication of a "programme;" he confirmed the wavering attachment of the nation to the truth for all time. His very name is " infancy, an action of this kind was not regarded as at all unlawful. " Men used to perpetrate such fictions as these without any qualms of " conscience." — Kuenen, Religion of Israel, vol. ii. p. 18. T/ie Nctu TItcory. i 3 unknown, though ho was a greater man than Moses; for he succeeded where Moses is allowed to have flailed. Elijah, the next greatest prophet of ancient times, was baffled in his effort to turn the heart of the people back again. His life seemed wasted, his labours thrown away ; but the happy thought of a romancer, aided by the pardonable trickery of a few priests, 1 turned the hearts of the people back again with a power that has never ceased to work from that day to this. What " had already been " attempted by Hezekiah before the Deuteronomist made " it a law," the king failed to do, while a prophet-priest, though not a "practical statesman," an exile perhaps, unfriended and unknown, actually did. It is a marvellous theory, a strange result of historical criticism, the one outstanding instance in history of a lie having succeeded in permanently establishing truth, when truth had made the attempt to secure its hold, and had signally failed. Still, we live in a world of surprises and wonders ; the theory may be true ! It will not be denied that the outline thus drawn of the 1 " This provision for the delivery of the programme to the king was " of a piece with the composition of the programme itself. It is true, " this deception is much more unjustifiable still than the introduction of " Moses as speaking. But we must reflect here, also, that the ideas oi " those days were not the same as ours, but considerably less strict . . . " the victory of the Mosaic party, although gained by cunning, must '• not be attributed to the stratagem of which tiny made use, but to " the good cause which they upheld, and to the weapons with which " they defended it." BLuenen, Religion 0/ Israel, vol. ii. p. !'.». 14 Disagreements among its Supporters. origin and nature of the book of Deuteronomy approaches nearly to the ideas entertained by critics who have ceased to regard it as a work of Moses. If these writers were them- selves at one on all points, the outline might have been made more full and more accurate. But they are far from being agreed. Some of them maintain that the book is inspired, the utterance of God* himself, in an unspeakably higher degree than Homer or Shakespeare was inspired ; others do not shrink from calling the work unhistorical, a pious fraud, a writing of which this is the best that can be said, the end justifies the means. One party again holds that Hilkiah, Shaphan, Josiah, and other leading men, were ignorant of the plot so successfully carried out ; another believes that they lent themselves to the deception. Most justly then might these assailants of the Mosaic author- ship of Deuteronomy be asked to come to an agreement respecting what they affirm, before they puzzle the world with their discordant views. But this is past hoping for. On one thing all writers seem to be agreed ; Deuter- onomy is a people's book. It is not scientific, nor is it technical. Weighty thoughts, clothed in words as weighty, flow from the speaker's lips. Sometimes, as becomes a speech delivered to a whole people, words are heaped on words to shew the speaker's earnestness, and to impress his hearers with the gravity of the thoughts conveyed. No speech could win its way to the hearts of a popular audience — the peasantry, the farmers, the workers, as well 'The Xew Theory. \ ; as the learned men of the aation — that, was constructed on a different plan. Biosea was a statesman skilled in dealing with great masses of linn, and knew liow to reach their hearts. But this, which is the highest art of a speaker, one modern writer chooses to call "feeble wordi- ness." 1 It is farther plain that the new theory requires us to take a great deal on trust, far more perhaps than most people are disposed for. A few of the gulfs that thinking, though mayhap uncritical, men see no bottom to must be filled up before the world can be expected to allow its truth. The place of composition, the author, the age, the conveyer to Palestine, the concealer in the Temple, the silence of multitudes who knew of the fraud — round these points an endless war of words might be waged. But it could serve no good purpose. Whoever believes the theory may see no difficulty in accepting these first steps in the process. Manifestly the reliance of the critics is placed on other foundations. The only fact that is beyond dis- pute is the discovery of a book called "A" or " The Book of the Law," during the repairing of the Temple in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign (b.c. 623). Over every- thing else advanced by the critics rests a mist so dark, thai it needs eyes of more than ordinary keenness to discover the shapes they pretend to see. Jt is pardonable to be slow in accepting the statements made. There is a risk Davidson, Introduction, i. '-',~\. i6 Finding of the Book. of the alleged facts turning out fancies, without foundation or substance. The book of the law discovered in the Temple may not have been the book of Deuteronomy. It is as vain to think of proving that it was as to think of proving it was not. Evidence is wanting, whatever those who have committed themselves to a theory may hold. Of the rinding of a book there is no doubt; and the arguments, such as they are, which prove, or are thought to prove, that it was Deuteronomy, a part of the five books, are equally valid to prove that it was the whole five books. But it will be advisable to set down in this place all the information we have on the finding of the scroll: — 2 Kings xxii. 8-11, 15, 16. 8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hil- kiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 9 And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy ser- vants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the Lord. 10 And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it be- fore the king. 11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. 15 And she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Is- rael, Tell the man that sent you to me, 16 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read : 2 Kings xxi-ii. 1-3. 1 And the king sent, and they The New Theory. U gathered unto him all the elden of Judah and of Jerusalem. 2 and the king went up into the home of the LORD, ami all the linn of Judah ami all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great : and he read in their ears all the words of the book "I" the 001 enant which was found in the house of the Lord. 8 And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his sta- tutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this hook. And all the people stood to the covenant. 2 CHBONICLBS xxxiv. 14-19, 23, '24, 29-31. 14 And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord given by Mose3. 16 And Hilkiah answered and said to Bhaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Loud. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Bhaphan. 1G And Shaphan carried the book to the king, anil brought the king word back again, saying, All that was committed to thy servants, they do If, 17 And they have gathered ther the money that was found in the house of the Loiti), ai d have delivered it into the hand of tin; overseers, and to the hand of the workmen. 18 Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, laying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. I 'J And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. 23 And she answered them, Thus saith the Lord Qod of [«■ rael, Tell ye the man that sent you to me, 24 Thus saith the Lord, Behold. 1 will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants there, f, i r< n all the curses that are writt. n in the book which they ha>l before the king of Judah : •_'!) Then the king sent and gathered together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. 30 And the kin- went up into the house of the LOUD, and all tin' men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusali m, ami th< ; the Levites, and all the people, great and small : and he read in their ears all the words of the B V 1 8 Reasons for considering it Deuteronomy. book of the covenant that was and his testimonies, and his sta- found in the house of the Lord. tutes, with all his heart, and with 31 And the king stood in his all his soul, to perform the words place, and made a covenant before of the covenant which are written the Lord, to walk after the Lord, in this book, and to keep his commandments, The reasons for regarding the scroll found in the Temple as the Book of Deuteronomy are thus stated : — " The only " quotation in the narrative from the contents of the book " of the law does not, in fact, point to anything more than " Deuteronomy. The terrifying threats of the divine " anger, especially the threat that the sacred land, with " its inhabitants, should become a thing of horror and a " curse, refer to nothing so forcibly as to the concluding " discourses of Deuteronomy; and the name of a covenant " book, which is here interchanged with that of a book of " law, may fairly apply to Deuteronomy." ' Another writer on the same side supplies arguments equally forcible! — " The writing found by Hilkiah is called 'the book of the " ' law,' and ' the book of the covenant/ and cannot have " been of any great length, if we may believe the state- " ment that it was read by Shaphan, and then read before " Josiah in one day, and was subsequently read out from " beginning to end to the people in the Temple." 2 These arguments for identifying the scroll found by Hilkiah with the Book of Deuteronomy are three in number: — 1 Ewald, History of Israel, vol. iv. p. 234. 2 Kuenen, Religion of Israel, vol. ii. p. 15. The N cio Theory. ig First, The only quotation made from the book found is clearly taken from Deuteronomy. Second, The length of the writing can be estimated from the fact, that it was read twice by Shaphan in one day. Third, It must have been brief, for it was read from beginning to end to the people in the Temple. There is no meaning in the third reason, except it be supposed that the third reading took place on the same day with the two readings mentioned already. A long document could have been as easily read " from beginning " to end" to the people, if sufficient time were given, as a short one. But it is clearly assumed that the third reading took place on the same day as the other two. These reasons are of very little worth. It is of small consequence whether the book found in the Temple were Deuteronomy or not. But it is of the highest consequence not to allow r that to be described as fair and forcible in literature, which is really an unlawful torturing of witnesses in its courts. The poorest wretch of an author could not be worse treated than are the writers of Kings and Chronicles in the case under review. Of the firsl reason we can say, there is no quotation made from the book found by the high priest. There is only a reference to some threatenings it contained, and the reference may have been to another book than Deuteronomy. This distinction between a reference and a quotation lies it 20 Difficulties of the "Programme." the root of all accurate criticism. None insist on it more strongly than do the believers in the "programme," as soon as they begin to write about the four gospels. 1 One rule for the New Testament, and another for the Old, is neither fair nor forcible. But this distinction Ewald deliberately sets aside. There is no quotation ; there is only a brief reference in the history, and that reference may not be to Deuteronomy at all. To gain an end, Ewald sets aside a chief rule of his own art. The second reason is even more unjust than the first. A reference does not differ so much from a quotation as the assertion of two or three readings of the long lost scroll on one and the same day differs from truth. That Shaphan himself first read the book he got from Hilkiah, and that he then read it to the king, are facts no one disputes. But every reader will see there is no ground for believing that the two readings took place on one and the same day, much less that they were followed by a third public reading before sunset. A thing small in itself becomes great, 1 We need not do more than refer to the words of the author of Supernatural Religion, vol. i. p. 213: — "When, therefore, in early " writings, we meet with quotations closely resembling, or we may add, " even identical with passages which are found in our gospels, the source " of which, however, is not mentioned, nor is any author's name indi- ' ' cated, the similarity or even identity cannot by any means be admitted ' ' as evidence that the quotation is necessarily from our gospels, and not " from some other similar work now no longer extant, and more espe- " cially not when in the same writings there are other quotations from " apocryphal sources different from our gospels." The New Theory. 2 1 when to gain his end ;i write* turna what is not record, d into a historical feet. Bo^h readings may have taken place "ii one and the same day. It does not affect tbe matter in dispute though they did, for wo an- then driven to ask what a reading means. But one and the same day is an addition no critic had a right to make to the story. Can any one compare these reasons and the story of the finding of the book without feeling that the cause must be hopeless, in which the ablest counsel, at the beginning of their pleadings, commit blunders in the simplest matters of fact ? Is not a prejudice raised, by their- own putting of the case, against their fairness or their ability to handle the question ? By stumbling at the first and easiest step, they do not impart confidence that their going will be safe when they come to the z'ocks and thorns, the preci- pices and torrents, in their way. The third reason is the worst of the three. Because " all the words of the book of the covenant" found in the Temple were read before " all the people, great and small, '' it does not follow that the book was read " from beginning M to end." Even though it had been so read, the admis- sion would prove nothing. But the phrase, that is used, " all the words of the book of the covenant," proves no such thing, any more than "all the people, great and small," proves that not a soul was absent from the meeting. This use of the word "all" is common in every language: it does not mean " all without exception,'' and whoevei insists 22 Difficulties of tJie "Programme" that it must be thus understood, is guilty of torturing the word till life and meaning are wrung out of it. " All " the words of the book" may justly be taken to mean, in accordance with Hebrew language, "all the things in the " book that had alarmed the king." It was these only that he had to read, for the laws contained in Deuteronomy were otherwise well known to prince and people. " From " beginning to end" is thus a meaning which no critic ought to wring out of the word " all," unless he can defend his rendering of it by an appeal to the context. The three reasons are thus of little worth. We return to the words, " Shaphan read it before the king." Sup- pose the scroll found to have contained the whole five books, to have been, in fact, the Pentateuch, or " book of " Moses" mentioned in the same reign by the Chronicles, 1 would not he, who should deny this, from the length of time required to read it through, be as wise as the man would be who should imagine that one, who says he reads the Bible every day, means he reads it every day " from " beginning to end" ? To read a book need not mean to read the whole of it ; oftener it means to read only a part ; and in this sense Shaphan may have read the five books to the king. Critics say that Shaphan evidently read from the book of Deuteronomy. Allowing that their view is correct, which it may or may not be, manifestly then he read from the whole five books. The main argument of 1 2 Chron. xxxv. 12, 13. The New Theory. 23 the critic is therefore utterly pointless. Whoever holds that Shaphan read a portion out of Deuteronomy, holds also thai he read a portion out of the whole scroll found by Hilkiah. How, then, can it ever be proved, and how dan' it ever be asserted, that the scroll contained Deuteronomy only, and not the other four books as well ? We have a case in point in the story told by Jeremiah of the burning of his book by King Jehoiakim. 1 Jehudi, like Shaphan, is said to have read it, but immediately after, the reading is found to have extended over only " three or four leaves." Believers in the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy may allow at once that Shaphan read part of the book to the king, without letting go their conviction that the whole five books were contained on the scroll found by Hilkiah. It is necessary, then, to be cautious, for it is not the first time that the critic has made discoveries which men of affairs have set aside as dreams, or shewn to be proofs of a view the very opposite of that which they were broughl forward to support. The historian and the politician, in reviewing the poems of Homer from the ground of our Common humanity, have rejected as untenable the theories of critics who, regarding them more from the narrow field of words and phrases, made discoveries which for a season, startled the world. It is equally possible that when men of wide sympathies examine the book of Deuteronomy, and see the terrible gaps which the critic steps over with- 1 Jer. xxxvi. 2] -'.:. 24 Its tivo main Supports in History. out a thought of their breadth, they may pay as small regard to his views of its origin as they are doing in the case of Homer's poems. But it is not by demurring to the large demands made on our faith by the new theory of Deuter- onomy that we can ever hope to drive the critic from his stronghold. We simply put them forward as a body of difficulties more formidable than any that can be urged against the Mosaic authorship of the book. They are of use, in the meantime, for shewing that he labours under a grievous mistake who thinks that the new theory clears away all difficulties. On the contrary, before the real grounds on which it rests are examined, it heaps up doubts and fears to a height at least as great as the old-fashioned view. It begins badly, and does not deserve to fare better for making demands so large on its followers. But while these large demands are thus made on our faith, or our credulity, it may be allowed that there are difficulties on the side of the Mosaic authorship, which modern critics were entitled to seize hold of as weaknesses in the traditional view, or as openings through which the light of truth was allowed to shine, that it might lead them to realities beyond. To lay hold of these difficulties, and to cross-question them thoroughly, are proceedings no one can find fault with ; but to break the words on the wheel, till they are driven to say what was never thought or meant, can only shew the absurdity of the torturers. Difficulties are unavoidable in all ancient books ; much TJic New Theory. 25 more may they be looked for in a book which claims to be a revelation from God. Were everything so plain and easy in a revelation of divine truth as to give rise to neither doubts nor fears in a reader's mind, most justly would he suspect it of not being a revelation at all. Could the vastness of heaven be thus made level to the littleness of earth, the inevitable inference would be that there was nothing of heaven in it whatever. On the other hand, should the ideas of some critics be correct, that the book of Deuteronomy is inspired of God, though planned and palmed off on the world by men, then it may be most truly said that never was there such a mingling of the incomprehensible vastness of heaven with the pitiful smallness of earth. Evidence for the new views need not then be looked for in the story of the finding of the Book of the Law. The real evidence lies elsewhere. Some of it is so shadowy as clearly to be tied on as an appendage to ot Inl- and stronger proof. Critics cannot be expected to make this confession in as many words ; nor do we ask them : but the strong evidence is manifestly that which they put in the forefront for popular apprehension. Two of its out- standing pieces — it is almost right to say the only out- standing pieces — are so manifestly proofs of the Mosaic authorship, that it requires boldness or temerity beyond what is common to wrest them from their proper use. Moses' prophecy of a king, and the appointment of a 26 Forging of Books. central altar in a chosen place, are appealed to as indis- putable proofs of the origin of the book of Deuteronomy in Josiah's time. We hope to shew that the contrary meaning ought to be drawn from them. On other points it is felt, sometimes it is even allowed by deniers of the Mosaic authorship, that the evidence on their side is not of much weight. If these two chief pillars of their faith and hope be knocked from under them, they will have little else to lean their theory on. And it is possible that this may be the result of a careful investigation, for there is no reason to think that any of them has ever dreamed of their two great buttresses being really buttresses of the view they think has been demolished. Let us assume the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy, and then ascertain what rela- tion these two points stand in to the age of the great lawgiver. All who deny the Mosaic authorship hold that, as these two points were not thought of till long after his days, the book could not have been written by him. We refuse to recognise the critical accuracy of their position ; we feel that they have overlooked the plainest facts of history, and added another chapter to the curiosities of critical blunders. It would seem to be a duty, incumbent on all who believe in the " programme " theory, to prove from history that, in an age so remote as the seventh century before our era, books were palmed off on the world as the works of men who had been dead for many generations, and had The New Theory. 27 left no such writings behind tlicm. Was Deuteronomy the only example of this literary artifice ? Or was it an out- standing example among a host of others ? Every scholar is aware that, three or four centuries after Josiah's time, the chances of making money by forging books led to a deluge of manuscripts flooding the libraries of those kings, who were then the great patrons of literature. " For to forge and counterfeit books," says Bentley, with reference to Greek literature, " and father them upon " great names, has been a practice almost as old as letters. " But it was then most of all in fashion when the kings of " Pergamus and Alexandria, 1 rivalling one another in the " magnificence and copiousness of their libraries, gave great " rates for any treatises that carried the names of celebrated " authors, which was an invitation to the scribes and " copyers of those times to enhance the price of their wares, " by ascribing them to men of fame and reputation, and to " suppress the true names that would have yielded less " money." 2 Consistently with this view of matters, the apocryphal books of the Old Testament are justly imagined to have been written after the third century before Christ. There were then Jews in Alexandria and in every city of note, who might not hesitate to resort to so easy a means of making money, or of imitating a custom, in writing not 1 Ptolemy Philadelphia of Egypt, who was born 309 R. c, began to reign 283 B.C., ami died 247 b.c. The kings of Pergamus flourished about a century later. 2 Dissertation upon the Epistle of Phalaris (1G99), p. 9. Forging of Books. a few of these books, that had then become general in the feeble circles of literature. But we have no reason for believing from Hebrew history, that the custom of fathering counterfeit books on great names prevailed among the Jews as far back as Josiah's reign. It may have so prevailed, but there is no proof that it did. And this want of proof is only another gap in the evidence, which believers in the " programme " theory may reasonably be asked to fill up. CHAPTER II. BREACHES OF CONTINUITY IN PIUESTLY TRADITION. Ebb and flow of thought in the Hebrew priesthood — Parallel from the Christian Church— Springs of sudden upheavals in Hebrew society— Effects »f destruction of Shiloh — Further effects of massacre at Nob— Exile of Ahiathar -Example of breach of continuity — The ark, "a new cart," "the bearers" — Characteristics of writer of "Samuel" — Stagnation of religious life, 8S0-742— Hezekiah's revival based on the Five Books- "A central alttir," "Passover in the second month "--Josiah's revival based on the Five Books — The Five Books occupy the first place in revivals- Prophets occupy the second — Proof from observance of "year of release" by Zedekiah — Injustice done to Jeremiah's preaching and acts— Ezra's revival a prophet's, based on the Five Books — Absurdity of the critics' view — Ezra's revival succeeded by same events as Josiah's- Depression of the Levites before and after the captivity — Revival under the Maccabees — The two halves <>f I tebrew history. 1 F we assume that the Five Books -were wril ten by Moses, and that those of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel fol- lowed in order as we now have them, it is open to us to discover from their statements what indications they give of quickening or of death in the regard shewn by the Hebrews to the statutes laid down by the lawgiver. No one, at all acquainted with human life, will held that an