As the outcome of the thought of the divine love which Israel has enjoyed, there also comes into view the consideration of Israel as 'the son and of J" as the people's Father. The loving God had given Israel life by redemption from Egypt; He had brought Israel up and educated him in the wilderness (see Dt 142 and 82. 3. 16). The intimacy of the relation between J" and Isr. emphasizes the demand that Israel should also 'cleave' to J" (1122 134), and not follow other gods' (614. 15 74819. 20 1116. 17. 20 3017. 18). Idolatry is the great peril; its temptations must be resisted with ruthless severity (132-12 175) ; no compromise is to be allowed nor alliance struck with the idolater (72 2016-18). The inducements to yield to superstitious practices are pictured as strong and numerous; but to yield is fatal. J's wrath and His just punishment are the nation's penalty, and will be its extermination (610-15 811-20 1116. 17 3129). The alternative between obedience and disobedience, between the service of J" and the service of other gods,' constitutes the theme of the great passage of warning and denunciation which is presented in ch. 28. 2321 2419 2515). It is to preserve unimpaired the recollection of their spiritual relation to J" that so much stress is laid upon the training of the children (49 67.20-25 1119); while provision is also made, that even in the dress and the dwellings of individuals (68.9 1119.20 2212) the people should be reminded of their spiritual duties. v. LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF DEUTERONOMY. The style in which the book is written has very clearly marked characteristics of its own. It is quite distinct, and easily recognizable. It bears no resemblance to the style of P, nor does it show any likeness to the narrative style of JE. In certain hortatory passages of JE there may be noticed an approximation to the style of Dt; and these sections [Gn 265, Ex 133-16 156 193-6, parts of 20-17 230-333410-26] appear to have been the source from which the author of Dt adopted some of the expressions currently used by him' (Driver). The style of Dt is remarkable for its command of rich and effective periods, in which the sentences are framed with great oratorical skill. They are rhythmical without being tedious; and copious without being shallow and rhetorical. The holiness of the people is another chief Some of the writing of Jeremiah approaches most thought, the prominence of which is a marked closely in style to Dt; and the influence of Dt feature in this book, resulting from the conception upon subsequent Heb. literature was very marked. of the close relationship between Israel and J" the The Deut. style was imitated and adopted by a Holy One. The people are holy to J", and cannot group or succession of writers in and after the therefore join themselves to 'other gods' (76). It days of the exile. The Deut. passages in Jos, Jg, is this holiness' which should prevent them from and K are easily distinguishable; they are generbodily mutilation as a sign of mourning; for such ally of a hortatory character, and represent a behaviour was the mark of a nation serving 'other particular attitude of fervent patriotism and gods' (142). This holiness' is the reason for religious thought, expressed with considerable which the people must refrain from food that redundancy of language, and with the use of would render unclean those who were J"s pos- certain characteristic phrases. session (1421). God has chosen His people, not only to make them 'high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour'; but also that they may be an holy people' unto J"' (261). The holiness' of the people depends upon its obedience (289). The spirit of holiness to J" is ethically to be expressed by the observance of love towards the neighbour, and by kindness and charity towards the poor, the widow, the orphan, the Levite, and the stranger (1018. 19 2417-21). The millstone was never to be taken in pledge; the garment taken in pledge was to be returned before nightfall (246-10-13). Feelings of humanity were to be extended towards the animals; the ox treading out the corn was not to be muzzled (254); and thought was even given to the bird and its young ones (226.7). In outward worship the 'holiness' of the people can be adequately safeguarded only by worship at the central sanctuary chosen by J". This regulation, which is laid down in ch. 12, is repeated in connexion with the laws of tithe (1423 etc.), the firstborn (15), the festivals (162. 6. 11), the firstlings (262), the judges (178. 10). So long as worship was carried on at local shrines, on the high-places, and under trees (122), it was inevitably tainted with heathenism; the hearts of the people would be alienated from the service of J"; and the moral purity of the nation would be corrupted by the assimilation of idolatrous practices. Thus the relationship of Israel to J" is asserted as the spiritual principle which must animate the people's whole existence. The laws which are inentioned illustrate how the high mission of Israel is to be interpreted in daily life. These laws are no formal code. The blessing for obedience is promised as a reward for particular acts, and for the whole regulation of life; and the blessing promised is expressed in terms which Israel could understand and appreciate, outward prosperity and length of life (1225. 28 1318 149 1510. 18 16 1913 Very full and complete lists of the characteristic Deut. words and phrases have been drawn up by Driver (Deut. Introd. p. lxxviii ff.) and Holzinger (Einleit. in d. Lex.). The following are instances of words perfectly simple in themselves, but used with great frequency or with marked effect in Dt, though elsewhere not found, or only used with great rareness, in the Hexateuch : (a) Thy (your) gates (=cities). A mighty hand and a stretched out arm. Statutes and judgments; commandments and statutes. the priests the Levites. observe to do. that it may be well for thee. a peculiar people. to make his name to dwell there. your soul. to do that which is right (good or evil) in the eyes of J" to walk in the ways of J". to hearken to the voice. with God as obj. ; (b) of God's love to His people. Under this head should be noticed the use of to love .other gods אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים to prolong (of days). to dispossess. P to cleave to. vi. THE LEGISLATION OF DEUTERONOMY.- Turning to the subject of the laws contained in Dt, we have only space to make the following general observations: (1) The laws are arranged upon a rough general plan, in which the order observed is that of (a) religious duties, chs. 12-16; (b) civil ordinances, chs. 17-20; (c) rules for social and domestic life, chs. 21-25. But the reader will notice that there is no strict adherence to orderly arrangement. 1512-18 (Hebrew slaves). 2229 (30) 1312 1519-23 (firstlings of ox and sheep: Nu 1817* (cf. Ex 3419. 2314-17 3418-20 end, 22-24. 231-3.6-8. 2219 (20) 203 2313 3414. cf. 126. 17. 18 1423). 161-17 (the three annual pilgrim- 1618 (appointment of judges). 1619 20 (just judgment). 1621-22 (Asherahs and pillars' 171 (sacrifices to be without 1314; Lv 2726; Nu 313 817). Lv 23*; Nu 28 29.* 1915 » 261. 1810a (Molech-worship; cf. 1231). 2217 (18) (sor-1810b. 11 (different kinds of divination and magic). ceress alone). 2112.14. (2) The language in which the laws recorded in 12-20 are written is, as a rule, somewhat diffuse 231. and hortatory; but in 21-25 there are many passages having a close resemblance to the style of Ex 21-23, terse, and evidently often reproducing the precise terms of the ancient codes. (3) The laws make no claim to be a new code. So far as they are peculiar to D, they have, with very few exceptions, the appearance either of being taken directly, with unessential modifica tions of form, from older law-books (especially many of those in 210-2519), or else of being accepted applications of long-established principles (as 178-13 1916-21), or the formulation of ancient customs (as 211-9 2213-21 255-10) expressed in Deuteronomic phraseology. And such laws as are really new in Dt are but the logical and consistent development of Mosaic principles' (Driver, Deuteronomy, Introd. p. lvi). The following outline will serve as a rough analysis of the principal laws :— 206 27. Nu 35934; LI 2417-21 Lv 1916b. cf. Lv 209. 229 11 (against non-natural mix- Lv 1919. tures). 2212 (law of tassels). 2213-21 (slander against a newly married maiden). 2222-27 (adultery). 2228f. (seduction). 231 (2230) (incest with stepmother). 232-9 (1-8) (conditions of admit tance into the theocratic community). Nu 15574 Lv 1820 204. 2925 (26) f.. 2116, 247 (man-stealing). 248f. (leprosy). Lv 2535-$7 Nu 302. Lv 12-14 vii. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP. The date to which the composition of Dt should be assigned cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. But it is clear, from what has been already said, that it cannot reasonably be attributed to any very early period in the history of Heb. literature. a. The testimony of the style and language connects it with the period preceding the age in which the imitators of the Deut. style wrote and flourished. Certainly, the rich and fluent oratorical periods of Dt belong to a period of ripe literary development, and not to the rough beginnings of a national literature. It has been asserted that this is contradicted by the presence of certain archaisms. But, even if there were a few archaisins, their presence would not affect the general impression produced by the character of the Deut. style. The alleged 'archaisms,' however, are not of a kind to furnish any proof of the antiquity of the book. .הוּא (a) The 'epicene' use of the pronoun throws more light upon the history of the text than upon the antiquity of the book. The vowels in and were in all probability absent from the original autographs. The fem. form hi seems to have existed in the earliest periods of the language. | This form occurs 8 times in .הָאֵלָה for הָאֵל (6) the Pent., 4 times in Dt 442 72 911, once in 1 Ch 20a . As the usual ‘dissyllabic' form occurs in the Pent. some 260 times, and in the cognate dialects the dissyllabic form was usual, the monosyllable is almost certainly an orthographical anomaly, and should have a second vowel, 5, 7; cf. N. (c) (1616 2013), as in Ex 2317 343, instead of , which is used over 50 times in the Pent. The use of for goes back to the old law of Ex 2317. (d) in (3249 341.3), as elsewhere in Pent. In Jos it is spelt in 28 times, and we have in in 2S 105, Jer 395 528. The suggestion has been offered that Israel picked up a new pronunciation after they came to the place,' in other words, that until the death of Moses the Israelites called the place Yěrechō' incorrectly, and that this was embodied in the Pent., but that the local pronunciation was given by Joshua. It might liave been supposed that the writer of the account of the death of Moses (Dt 341.3) would have had as good opportunities for 'picking up a new pronunciation' as the writer of Jos 21. But the pronunciation followed in the Pent. is found also in K, Ezr-Neh, and Ch; so that no argument can be based upon the variety of the spelling. Other supposed archaisms seem to arise from the mannerism of the author rather than from any real antiquity in their form. The use of y, equally for masc. or fem., appears indeed to be a genuine archaism; but the fact that appears as the fem. of elsewhere in the Heb. Scriptures except in the Pent., is merely an indication that the text of the Pent. had become regarded as too sacred to modify, at an earlier date than the other books subsequently admitted into the Heb. Canon. Finally, the presence of an archaism is no more proof of a very early date than the presence of an Aramaism would be proof of a very late date. We have to account for the one as well as for the other. b. The evidence derived from the language is corroborated by that which the religious teaching supplies. (1) It has already been noticed that the emphasis laid upon the love of God is a feature almost unique (except for Ex 20); and it is generally believed that the prophet Hosea is the first exDt builds upon the ponent of this teaching. foundation of the prophets' (Driver). (2) The monotheism' of Dt is an expansion of the monolatry' of early Israel; and the command to worship at a single sanctuary expresses in a concrete form the conception of a monotheistic religion. We are confronted with a stage of religious thought which has been reached only after a long preparatory period of discipline and teaching. c. A comparison of the laws with those in Ex 20-23 shows that whereas the Deut. legislation is founded upon the laws of the Covenant,' and often repeats them almost verbatim, e.g. 1421 = Ex 2319 346, 75 Ex 3413, and, as a rule, merely expands them with hortatory phrase, in other cases Dt presents us with a modification of the earlier law, showing a more advanced and humane civilization. Thus comparing the law of release for bondservants in Dt 15-17 with the parallel law in Ex 21, we notice (1) that female slaves are included in the law of release, (2) that provision is granted to the released slave so that he should not starve, (3) that the old custom of boring the ear is not required to be done publicly. Similarly, in Dt 5 the institution of the sabbatic year is put in force to restrain the exactions of the usurer, whereas in Ex 2310 it had only ar agricultural significance. d. The laws in Dt regulating national worship represent a later stage of Isr. history than those in Ex 20-23. This is conspicuously shown in regard to the place of sacrifice. In Ex 202 an Israelite may erect local altars: 'in every place where I record my name, I will come unto thee and bless thee.' The practice of sacrificing at local altars and shrines was apparently universal from the time of Joshua (Jos 241.26, IS 79 912-14 103-8 1115 145 206, 2S 1512.32) until the days of Hezekiah, who endeavoured to centralize all worship at Jerus. as the one national sanctuary (2 K 184.22). The law of Dt insists (12-18 etc.) upon the necessity of sacrificing at one place which J" shall have chosen to set his naine there.' It expresses in the terms of direct injunction the change for which Hezekiah contended and which Josiah finally carried into execution. e. It may be granted that the laws of worship in Dt are quite too incomplete to be regarded as containing any exhaustive account. Thus the precise dates for the Festivals of Passover and Tabernacles are not given. In the former case the month is given, but not the day; in the latter case, neither month nor day. In the description of the Passover no direction is given that everyone should partake of it; while the command to observe the 7th day of Passover as a solemn assembly' and a day of rest is not applied to the other two feasts. But, making all allowance for the general and fragmentary character of the religious legislation in Dt, we cannot pretend to be able to reconcile the discrepancies between the law of Dt and that of the (so-called) Priestly Code. The most notable discrepancy is in reference to the status of the Levite, and the provision for his maintenance. In Dt the regular expression 'the priests, the Levites' (179. 18 181 248 279), does not seem to recognize the distinction between the sons of Aaron' and the Levites,' which is found in the priestly laws. The Levites are pictured as wanderers and objects of Israelite charity, for which special regula tions are laid down (1212-19 1427. 29 1611. 14 186 2611. 12); there is no reference to the provision in Nu 18 for the maintenance of priests and Levites, and in Nu 35 for the reservation of 48 cities for their place of residence. A complete difference is also expressed in the laws relating to firstlings and to tithes. In Dt 126. 17. 1519. the firstlings are to be presented at the central sanctuary, and there eaten by the owner. In Nu 1818 the firstlings are pronounced to belong to Aaron, 'And the flesh of them shall be thine; as the wave-breast and as the right thigh it shall be thine.' In Dt (1217. 1422) it is enjoined that a tithe of the vegetable produce is to be set aside, and to be consumed by the offerer at the central sanctuary; while, in every third year, the tithe is to be devoted to the poor | or the destitute and the Levite. In this there is no resemblance to the tithe law of Nu 1821-28 and Lv 2730. 32, according to which the tithe was to be paid of animal as well as of vegetable produce; it was to be paid to the Levites, who, in their turn, were enjoined to render a tenth to the priests. Another instance of ritual discrepancy is found in the description of the priestly dues. In Dt 183-5 the sacrificing priest received as his share the shoulder, two cheeks, and maw'; in Lv 731-34 the wave-breast' and 'heave-thigh' or shoulder are assigned to the priest. Added to this, there is the argument from silence, in that Dt makes no mention of the year of jubilee, the great Day of Atonement, the Levitical cities, the meal-offering, guilt-offering, or sin-offering, nor even of the tent of meeting (Dt 311. is from JE). And it is incredible to suppose that the Levitical system, if formulated as we have it in P, should have been so wholly overlooked in an address to the people. It is impossible to resist the impression that the law of Dt represents an expansion and development of the ancient code contained in Ex 20-23, and precedes the final formulation of the priestly ritual, which only received its ultimate form in the last period of revising the structure of the Pentateuch. In order to approach more nearly the limits of time within which it is reasonable to suppose that/ Dt was composed, we may take into consideration the further possible indications of time, and judge of them not as individually convincing itens of evidence, but as collectively carrying considerable weight. (a) It was written on the W. side of the Jordan; cf. the use of beyond Jordan' in Dt 1.5 38 441. 46. 47. 49, as in Jos 210 77 etc. See BEYOND. (b) The law of the kingdom, 1714-20, is expressed in language indicating acquaintance with the evils of Solomon's reign. (c) The law of the judicial tribunal in 178-13 does not ordain a new institution, but describes a court already existing, and having a close resemblance to the one described in 2 Ch 198.11 as appointed by Jehoshaphat. (d) Isaiah, who speaks of the erection of an 'obelisk' (mazzēbâh) for a sacred purpose in connexion with the worship of J" in Egypt, could hardly have been acquainted with the law of Dt_1622 Thou shalt not set thee up an obelisk, which J" thy God hateth.' (e) Dt refers to the worship of 'the host of heaven' as a dangerous form of idolatry (41o 173). We do not find in the historical books any mention of this superstition being a source of religious temptation until the days of Ahaz; see 2 K 2312 The style of Jeremiah's writing shows abundant traces of the influence of Dt. If we may take these hints together, we arrive at the probability of Dt having been composed during the period which intervenes between the accession of Ahaz and the literary activity of Jeremiali. A terminus ad quem for the composition of Dt is supplied by the discovery of the book of the law in the 18th year of the reign of Josiah (B.C. 621). There can be no manner of doubt that this book corresponded to a work practically identical with the main portion of Dt (5-26. 28). This work contained denunciations and curses, such as are found in Dt 28 (cf. 2 K 2211. 13. 13. 19); it contained mention of the covenant with J", with clear reference to Dt 2869 (cf. 2 K 232.3. 21). The reforms instituted by Josiah are such as would be required by conformity with the law of Dt, especially in regard to the centralization of worship, 2 K 238.9; the prohibition of the worship of the heavenly bodies, 2 K 23.5.11; the prohibition of the high-places, obelisks, Ashérim, etc., 2 K 234.5.14.15; the prohibition of religious prostitutes, 2 K 237; the maintenance of the priests ejected from the local shrines, 2 K 235.9; the prohibition of Molech worship, 2K 230; the celebration of the Passover in Jerusalem as it is written in this book of the covenant,' 2 K 2321-3; the ejection of diviners and consulters with familiar spirits, 2 K 23. The finding of this book of the law' in the temple is described as a fortuitous occurrence. There is no foundation for the suggestion that Hilkiah himself had written the book, and that the story of its finding was a fabrication. The account is straightforward and natural. It is generally agreed that the book may have been written in the reign of Manasseh, or in the early part of the reign of Josiah. Hezekiah, who had commanded all Isr. worship to be offered at the sanctuary in Jerus. (2 K 1822 213), commenced the policy of removing the high-places. Manasseh's reign reversed all that Hezekiah had done. It is thought probable that the composition of Dt was intended, in the days of Manasseh, to protest against the religious evils of that time, against the forms of superstition that had begun to find their way into Judah from Babylonia, as well as against the corruptions and disorders at the highplaces which presented a form of J" worship wholly alien to the teaching and spirit of the prophets of Israel. Such a work, written in the troublous reign of Manassel, may well have been deposited for safety within the precincts of the temple. The description of its discovery leads the reader to suppose that the book was one that had been written some considerable time before the 18th year of Josiah's reign. The character of Dt agrees exactly with the spirit of Huldal's warning in 2 K 2216-20, where she speaks of the people of Judah having forsaken J", and burned incense to other gods, etc. The traditional view, that the work in its present form was written by Moses, is now generally recognized by critical scholarship as impossible. The fact that Moses is described in Dt 319.2 as having committed the Deut. legislation to writing, was, in former times, regarded as sufficient proof that the whole work came from his hand. The writer (Dt 319) narrates the fact that Moses 'wrote this law'; he also narrates the fact that Moses delivered farewell discourses to the people. There is no appearance of autobiography in Dt. There is no claim to Mosaic authorship for the whole work. A copy of the Deut. law is stated (Dt 3126) to have been committed by Moses to the keeping of the priests by the side of the ark.' Heb. laws went back to the founding of the nation under Moses. The name of Moses embraced the whole legislation, both in its earlier forms and in their later expansion and modification. The writer of Dt employed the nucleus of ancient law as the means of conveying the teaching needed by his time. The authority of Moses is invoked as impersonating the spirit of Isr. law in its later application, no less than in its original framing. Moses is made to plead with his people, and to show the abiding principles of the worship of J". cent. B. C. Thus IS 283 has been compared with Dt 1811, Hos 414 with Dt 2318, Hos 510 with Dt 1914, Am 85 with Dt 25, Neh 21 with Dt 115, while 2 K 146 refers to the law contained in Dt 241. But this line of objection assumes that the existence of the laws is contemporaneous with the composi tion of Dt, and it ignores the fact, which criticisn has clearly revealed and strenuously reiterated, that Dt contains and expands laws of very much greater antiquity than its own composition. In the following passages, in which the words of the prophetical writers have been regarded as referring to Dt, it is obvious that Dt, as well as the prophets, refers back to the older law of Ex 20–23 :— There are, of course, in Dt abundant allusions to offerings (e.g. ch. 12), tithes (1422-29), distinctions of 'clean' and 'unclean' (1215.22 143-20), the solemn assembly' (168), law of leprosy (248), and kindred topics, which show the familiarity of Dt with the national religious observances; they do not exhibit acquaintance with the distinctive ordinances of P, although reference to them is necessarily made with technical terms. Certain words and phrases have also been adduced from the prophetical writers, which it is alleged must have been taken from Dt, e.g. Hos 511 oppressed from Dt 283; 813 they shall return to Egypt from Dt 2868; 118 Admah and Zeboim from Dt 2922; Am 4o blasting and mildew from Dt 282; 4" overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah from Ut 292; 57 wormwood from Dt 2917 etc. But the occurrence of such words and phrases is not sufficient to justify the claim for direct citation. They are expressions, most of them, which would quite naturally occur independently to the writers. Nor is there any means of showing that there is more probability of these writers having borrowed a phrase from Dt than of Dt having borrowed a phrase from them. Considering the resemblance of Dt's style to the writing in Jer and Kings, it would be more natural to expect Dt to have borrowed from Hosea or Amos than for Hosea or Amos to have borrowed from Dt. The Deuteronomic style in Jer, Jos, Jg, Kings, shows at once the influence of Dt; but there is no clear proof of the earlier prophets having been acquainted with Dt. is referred to the admirable treatment of it by Driver, in his LITERATURE.-For a fuller discussion of the subject the reader commentary on 'Deuteronomy' (International Critical Com mentary, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh), in his LOT, and in his art. Deuteronomy' in Smith's DB2; to all of which the writer of the present article is largely indebted. Other works dealing with the same subject, to which reference may be made, are the commentaries of Oettli and Harper, and Einleitungen of Riehm, Cornill, König, Strack, Kuenen, Holzinger; Cheyne, Jeremiah (Men of the Bible' series); W. R. Smith, OTJC; Ryle, Canon of the OT; Montefiore, Religion of the Ancient Hebrews; Wildeboer, Lit. d. A.T.; Piepenbring, 'La Reforme et le Code de Josias,' in Revue d. l'Histoire des Religions, t. xxix. 1894. H. E. RYLE. DEVIL. See DEMON, SATAN. DEVOTED THINGS.-See ACCURSED, CURSE. The work is that of a prophet, a religious teacher, not of a jurist or a statesman. In language, in thought, and in character, it is most easily understood as the composition of one who lived in the 7th cent., and who sought, by a dramatic' use of the last words of Moses, to recall his countrymen to a holier life, and a purer service of J". It has been objected that the allusions to the dwellers in Canaan, and to the Amalekites (71-5 2016-19), would be unintelligible and unnecessary at so late a period as the 7th cent. B.C. But the writer's purpose is to transfer himself to the age of Moses, and from that historic standpoint to appeal to the nation's conscience. If Moses were represented as speaking in the plains of Moab, it would be natural DEVOTION. RV gives 'devotion' for AV for the writer to make him refer to the Canaan-prayer' in Job 15 (). In AV the word is ites, and to introduce suitable local allusions. found only Ac 17 as I passed by, and beheld And the writer's argument was perfectly intelli- your devotions,' Gr. rà σeßáoμara iμar, RV the gible. If severity of the sternest kind was tradition-objects of your worship.' ally said to have been inculcated by Moses against the idolatrous inhabitants of the land, how much more was it required in dealing with those who, in Israel itself, had proved so faithless to J", in spite of the warnings of the prophets! It has been objected that the substance of Deut. laws is alluded to in writings earlier than the 7th That RV gives the meaning of the Greek there is no doubt. The same Gr. word occurs Wis 1420 (Vulg. deus, AV a god,' RV object of devotion'), 1517 (Vulg. quos colit, AV the things which he worshippeth," RV object of his worship'); Bel 27 (EV the gods ye worship'); and 2 Th 24 (EV that is worshipped," RVm an object of worship'). Did the AV trans lators understand 'devotions' in the sense of objects of wor ship,' then? Aldis Wright (Bible Word-Book,2 p. 198 f.), after a |
