In Hebrew אלה הדּברים, 'ēlleh hă-d ebhārīm , “these are the words”; in Greek, Δευτερονόμιον, Deuteronómion, “second law”; whence the Latin deuteronomii, and the English Deuteronomy. The Greek title is due to a mistranslation by the Septuagint of the clause in Deu 17:18 rendered, “and he shall write for himself this repetition of the law.” The Hebrew really means “and he shall write out for himself a copy of this law.” However, the error on which the English title rests is not serious, as Deuteronomy is in a very true sense a repetition of the law.

Deuteronomy is the last of the five books of the Pentateuch, or “five-fifths of the Law.” It possesses an individuality and impressiveness of its own. In Exodus - Numbers Yahweh is represented as speaking unto Moses, whereas in Deuteronomy, Moses is represented as speaking at Yahweh's command to Israel (Deu 1:1-4; Deu 5:1; Deu 29:1). It is a hortatory recapitulation of various addresses delivered at various times and places in the desert wanderings - a sort of homily on the constitution, the essence or gist of Moses' instructions to Israel during the forty years of their desert experience. It is “a Book of Reviews”; a translation of Israel's redemptive history into living principles; not so much a history as a commentary. There is much of retrospect in it, but its main outlook is forward. The rabbins speak of it as “the Book of Reproofs.” It is the text of all prophecy; a manual of evangelical oratory; possessing “all the warmth of a Bernard, the flaming zeal of a Savonarola, and the tender, gracious sympathy of a Francis of Assisi.” The author's interest is entirely moral. His one supreme purpose is to arouse Israel's loyalty to Yahweh and to His revealed law. Taken as a whole the book is an exposition of the great commandment, “Thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” It was from Deuteronomy that Jesus summarized the whole of the Old Covenant in a single sentence (Mat 22:37; compare Deu 6:5), and from it He drew His weapons with which to vanquish the tempter (Mat 4:4, Mat 4:7, Mat 4:10; compare Deu 8:3; Deu 6:16, Deu 6:13).

Deuteronomy is composed of three discourses, followed by three short appendices: (1) 1:1 through 4:43, historical; a review of God's dealings with Israel, specifying in great detail where and when delivered (Deu 1:1-5), recounting in broad oratorical outlines the chief events in the nation's experience from Horeb to Moab (1:6 through 3:29), on which the author bases an earnest appeal to the people to be faithful and obedient, and in particular to keep clear of all possible idolatry (4:1-40). Appended to this first discourse is a brief note (Deu 4:41-43) concerning Moses' appointment of three cities of refuge on the East side of the Jordan. (2) Deu 4:44 through Deu 26:19, hortatory and legal; introduced by a superscription (Deu 4:44-49), and consisting of a resume of Israel's moral and civil statutes, testimonies and judgments. Analyzed in greater detail, this second discourse is composed of two main sections: (a) chapters 5 through 11, an extended exposition of the Ten Commandments on which theocracy was based; (b) chapters 12 through 26, a code of special statutes concerning worship, purity, tithes, the three annual feasts, the administration of justice, kings, priests, prophets, war, and the private and social life of the people. The spirit of this discourse is most ethical and religious. The tone is that of a father no less than that of a legislator. A spirit of humanity pervades the entire discourse. Holiness is its ideal. (3) Deu 27:1 through Deu 31:30, predictive and minatory; the subject of this third discourse being “the blessings of obedience and the curses of disobedience.” This section begins with directions to inscribe these laws on plastered stones to be set up on Mt. Ebal (Deu 27:1-10), to be ratified by an antiphonal ritual of blessings and cursings from the two adjacent mountains, Gerizim and Ebal (27:11-26). These are followed by solemn warnings against disobedience (Deu 28:1 through Deu 29:1), and fresh exhortations to accept the terms of the new covenant made in Moab, and to choose between life and death (Deu 29:2 through Deu 30:20). Moses' farewell charge to Israel and his formal commission of Joshua close the discourse (Dt 31). The section is filled with predictions, which were woefully verified in Israel's later history. The three appendices, spoken of above, close the book: (a) Moses' Song (Dt 32), which the great Lawgiver taught the people (the Law was given to the priests, Deu 31:24-27); (b) Moses' Blessing (Dt 33), which forecast the future for the various tribes (Simeon only being omitted); (c) a brief account of Moses' death and burial (Deu 34:1-12) with a noble panegyric on him as the greatest prophet Israel ever had. Thus closes this majestic and marvelously interesting and practical book. Its keyword is “possess”; its central thought is “Yahweh has chosen Israel, let Israel choose Yahweh.”

Yahweh is the only God, “There is none else besides him” Dt (Deu 4:35, Deu 4:39; Deu 6:4; Deu 32:39), “He is God of gods, and Lord of lords” (Deu 10:17), “the living God” (Deu 5:26), “the faithful God, who keepeth covenant and lovingkindness with them that love him and keep his commandments” (Deu 7:9), who abominates graven images and every species of idolatry (Deu 7:25, Deu 7:26; Deu 12:31; Deu 13:14; Deu 18:12; Deu 20:18; Deu 27:15), to whom belong the heavens and the earth (Deu 10:14), who rules over all the nations (Deu 7:19), whose relation to Israel is near and personal (Deu 28:58), even that of a Father (Deu 32:6), whose being is spiritual (Deu 4:12, Deu 4:15), and whose name is “Rock” (Deu 32:4, Deu 32:15, Deu 32:18, Deu 32:30, Deu 32:31). Being such a God, He is jealous of all rivals (Deu 7:4; Deu 29:24-26; Deu 31:16, Deu 31:17), and hence, all temptations to idolatry must be utterly removed from the land, the Canaanites must be completely exterminated and all their altars, pillars, Asherim and images destroyed (Deu 7:1-5, Deu 7:16; Deu 20:16-18; Deu 12:2, Deu 12:3).

The old Israel had become unique through the covenant which Yahweh made with them at Horeb, creating out of them “a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” (Exo 19:6). The new Israel who had been born in the desert were to inherit the blessings vouchsafed to their fathers, through the covenant just now being made in Moab (Deu 26:16-19; Deu 27:9; Deu 29:1; Deu 5:2, Deu 5:3). By means of it they became the heirs of all the promises given unto their fathers the patriarchs (Deu 4:31; Deu 7:12; Deu 8:18; Deu 29:13); they too became holy and peculiar, and especially beloved of Yahweh (Deu 7:6; Deu 14:2, Deu 14:21; Deu 26:18, Deu 26:19; Deu 28:9; Deu 4:37), disciplined, indeed, but for their own good (Deu 8:2, Deu 8:3, Deu 8:5, Deu 8:16), to be established as a people, as Yahweh's peculiar lot and inheritance (Deu 32:6, Deu 32:9; Deu 4:7).

Other nations feared their deities; Israel was expected not only to fear Yahweh but to love Him and cleave to Him (Deu 4:10; Deu 5:29; Deu 6:5; Deu 10:12, Deu 10:20; Deu 11:1, Deu 11:13, Deu 11:12; Deu 13:3, Deu 13:4; Deu 17:19; Deu 19:9; Deu 28:58; Deu 30:6, Deu 30:16, Deu 30:20; Deu 31:12, Deu 31:13). The highest privileges are theirs because they are partakers of the covenant blessings; all others are strangers and foreigners, except they be admitted into Israel by special permission (Deu 23:1-8).

The essential unity of the great kernel of Deuteronomy (Dt 5 through 26) is recognized and freely allowed by nearly everyone (e.g. Kautzsch, Kuënen, Dillmann, Driver). Some would even defend the unity of the whole of Dt 1 through 26 (Knobel, Graf, Kosters, Colenso, Kleinert). No other book of the Old Testament, unless it be the prophecies of Ezekiel, bears such unmistakable signs of unity in aim, language and thought. “The literary style of Deuteronomy,” says Driver, “is very marked and individual; in his command of a chaste, yet warm and persuasive eloquence, the author of Deuteronomy stands unique among the writers of the OT” (Deuteronomy, lxxvii, lxxxviii). Many striking expressions characterize the style of this wonderful book of oratory: e.g. “cause to inherit”; “Hear O Israel”; the oft-repeated root, meaning in the Ḳal verb-species “learn,” and in the Piel verb-species “teach”; “be willing”; “so shalt thou exterminate the evil from thy midst”; “as at this day”; “that it may be well with thee”; “the land whither thou goest in to possess it”; “with all thy heart and with all thy soul”; and many others, all of which occur frequently in Deuteronomy and rarely elsewhere in the Old Testament, Thus binding, so far as style can, the different sections of the book into one solid unit. Barring various titles and editorial additions (Deu 1:1-5; Deu 4:44-49; Deu 29:1; Deu 33:1, Deu 33:7, Deu 33:9, Deu 33:22; Deu 34:1) and a few archaeological notes such as Deu 2:10-12, Deu 2:20-23; Deu 3:9, Deu 3:11, Deu 3:14; Deu 10:6-9, and of course the last chapter, which gives an account of Moses' death, there is every reason necessary for supposing that the book is a unit. Few writings in the entire field of literature have so clear a unity of purpose or so uniform a style of address.

There is one passage bearing upon the authorship of Deuteronomy wherein it is stated most explicitly that Moses wrote “this law.” It reads, “And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi.... And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished (i.e. to the end), that Moses commanded the Levites, that bare the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of Yahweh your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee” (Deu 31:9, Deu 31:24-27). This passage is of more than traditional value, and should not be ignored as is so often done (e.g. by Ryle, article “Deuteronomy,” HDB). It is not enough to say that Moses was the great fountain-head of Hebrew law, that he gave oral but not written statutes, or, that Moses was only the traditional source of these statutes. For it is distinctly and emphatically stated that “Moses wrote this law.” And it is further declared (Deu 31:22) that “Moses wrote this song,” contained in Dt 32. Now, these statements are either true, or they are false. There is no escape. The authorship of no other book in the Old Testament is so explicitly emphasized. The present writer believes that Moses actually wrote the great body of Deuteronomy, and for the following general reasons:

It closes most fittingly the formative period of Israel's history. The historical situation from first to last is that of Moses. The references to foreign neighbors - Egypt, Canaan, Amalek, Ammon, Moab, Edom - are in every case to those who flourished in Moses' own times. As a law book its teaching is based upon the Ten Commandments. If Moses gave the Ten Commandments, then surely he may have written the Book of Deuteronomy also. Besides, the Code of H̬ammurabi, which antedates Moses by at least 700 years, makes it possible certainly that Moses also left laws in codified or written form.

The language is language put into Moses' mouth. Nearly forty times his name occurs, and in the majority of instances as the authoritative author of the subject-matter. The first person is used predominatingly throughout: “I commanded Joshua at that time” Dt (Deu 3:21); and “I charged your judges at that time” (Deu 1:16); “And I commanded you at that time” (Deu 1:18); “I have led you forty years in the wilderness” (Deu 29:5). “The language surely purports to come from Moses; and if it was not actually used by him, it is a most remarkable case of impersonation, if not of literary forgery, for the writer represents himself as reproducing, not what Moses might have said, but the exact words of Moses” (Zerbe, The Antiquity of Hebrew Writing and Lit., 1911, 261).

It was intended primarily neither for Israel in the desert nor for Israel settled in Canaan, but for Israel on the borderland, eager for conquest. It is expressly stated that Moses taught Israel these statutes and judgments in order that they should obey them in the land which they were about to enter (Deu 4:5, Deu 4:14; Deu 5:31). They must expel the aborigines (Deu 7:1; Deu 9:1-3; Deu 20:17; Deu 31:3), but in their warfare they must observe certain laws in keeping with theocracy (20:1-20; Deu 23:9-14; Deu 21:10-14; Deu 31:6, Deu 31:7), and, when they have finally dispossessed their enemies, they must settle down to agricultural life and live no longer as nomads but as citizens of a civilized land (Deu 19:14; Deu 22:8-10; Deu 24:19-21). All these laws are regulations which should become binding in the future only (compare Kittel, History Of the Hebrews, I, 32). Coupled with them are prophetic exhortations which seem to be genuine, and to have had their birth in Moses' soul. Indeed the great outstanding feature of Deuteronomy is its parenetic or hortatory character. Its exhortations have not only a military ring as though written on the eve of battle, but again and again warn Israel against allowing themselves to be conquered in religion through the seductions of idolatry. The book in short is the message of one who is interested in Israel's political and religious future. There is a paternal vein running throughout it which marks it with a genuine Mosaic, not a merely fictitious or artificial, stamp. It is these general features, so characteristic of the entire book, which compel one to believe in its Mosaic authorship.

(1) The Names of the Widely Separated Geographical Places Mentioned in The Title (Deu 1:1, Deu 1:2)

(2) The Double Allusion to the Cities of Refuge (Deu 4:41-43; Deu 19:1-13)

On the supposition that Dt 5 through 26 were spoken first between Horeb and Kadesh-barnea, in the 2nd year of the Exodus, it could not be expected that in this section the names of the three cities chosen east of the Jordan should be given, and in fact they are not (Deu 19:1-13); the territory of Sihon and Og had not yet been conquered and the cities of refuge, accordingly, had not yet been designated (compare Num 35:2 :14). But in Deu 4:41-43, on the contrary, which forms a part of the historical introduction, which ex hypothesi was delivered just at the end of the 39 years' wanderings, after Sihon and Og had been subdued and their territory divided, the three cities of refuge east of the Jordan are actually named, just as might be expected.

(3) Section Deu 4:44-49

The section Deu 4:44-49, which, in its original form, very probably introduced chapters 5 through 26 before these chapters were adapted to the new situation in Moab.

(4) The Phrase “Began Moses to Declare This Law” (Deu 1:5)

The phrase “began Moses to declare this law” (Deu 1:5), suggesting that the great lawgiver found it necessary to expound what he had delivered at some previous time. The Hebrew word translated “to declare” is found elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Deu 27:8 and in Hab 2:2, and signifies “to make plain.”

“Yahweh made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day,” i.e. with us who have survived the desert discipline (Deu 5:3). In view of these facts, we conclude that the book in its present form (barring the exceptions above mentioned) is the product of the whole 39 years of desert experience from Horeb on, adapted, however, to meet the exigencies of the Israelites as they stood between the victories already won on the east of the Jordan and those anticipated on the West. The impression given throughout is that the aged lawgiver's work is done, and that a new era in the people's history is about to begin.

The influence of Deuteronomy began to be felt from the very beginning of Israel's career in Canaan. Though the references to Deuteronomy in Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings are comparatively few, yet they are sufficient to show that not only the principles of Deuteronomy were known and observed but that they were known in written form as codified statutes. For example, when Jericho was taken, the city and its spoil were “devoted” (Jos 6:17, Jos 6:18) in keeping with Deu 13:15 (compare Jos 10:40; Jos 11:12, Jos 11:15 with Deu 7:2; Deu 20:16, Deu 20:17). Achan trespassed and he and his household were stoned, and afterward burned with fire (Jos 7:25; compare Deu 13:10; Deu 17:5). The fact that his sons and his daughters were put to death with him seems at first sight to contradict Deu 24:16, but there is no proof that they suffered for their father's sin (see ACHAN; ACHOR); besides the Hebrews recognized the unity of the household, even that of Rahab the harlot (Jos 6:17). Again when Ai was taken, “only the cattle and the spoil” did Israel take for a prey unto themselves (Jos 8:27), in keeping with Deu 20:14; also, the body of the king of Ai was taken down before nightfall from the tree on which he had been hanged (Jos 8:29), which was in keeping with Deu 21:23 (compare Jos 10:26, Jos 10:27). As in warfare, so in worship. For instance, Joshua built an altar on Mt. Ebal (Jos 8:30, Jos 8:31), “as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded” (Deu 27:4-6), and he wrote on them a copy of the law (Jos 8:32), as Moses had also enjoined (Deu 27:3, Deu 27:8). Moreover, the elders and officers and judges stood on either side of the ark of the covenant between Ebal and Gerizim (Jos 8:33), as directed in Deu 11:29; Deu 27:12, Deu 27:13, and Joshua read to all the congregation of Israel all the words of the law, the blessings and the cursings (Jos 8:34, Jos 8:35), in strict accord with Deu 31:11, Deu 31:12.

But the passage of paramount importance is the story of the two and a half tribes who, on their return to their home on the East side of the Jordan, erected a memorial at the Jordan, and, when accused by their fellow-tribesmen of plurality of sanctuary, emphatically disavowed it (Jos 22:29; compare Deu 12:5). Obviously, therefore, Deuteronomy was known in the days of Joshua. A very few instances in the history of the Judges point in the same direction: e.g. the utter destruction of Zephath (Jdg 1:17; compare Deu 7:2; Deu 20:16 f); Gideon's elimination of the fearful and faint-hearted from his army (Jdg 7:1-7; compare Deu 20:1-9); the author's studied concern to justify Gideon and Manoah for sacrificing at altars other than at Shiloh on the ground that they acted in obedience to Yahweh's direct commands (Jdg 6:25-27; Jdg 13:16); especially the case of Micah, who congratulated himself that Yahweh would do him good seeing he had a Levite for a priest, is clear evidence that Deuteronomy was known in the days of the Judges (Jdg 17:13; compare Deu 10:8; Deu 18:1-8; Deu 33:8-11). In 1Sa 1:1-9, 1Sa 1:21, 1Sa 1:24 the pious Elkanah is pictured as going yearly to worship Yahweh at Shiloh, the central sanctuary at that time. After the destruction of Shiloh, when the ark of the covenant had been captured by the Philistines, Samuel indeed sacrificed at Mizpah, Ramah and Bethlehem (1Sa 7:7-9, 1Sa 7:17; 1Sa 16:5), but in doing so he only took advantage of the elasticity of the Deuteronomic law: “When ... he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then it shall come to pass that to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there, thither shall ye bring all that I command you: your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices” (Deu 12:10, Deu 12:11). It was not until Solomon's time that Israel's enemies were all subdued, and even then Solomon did not observe strictly the teachings of Deuteronomy; “His wives turned away his heart,” so that he did not faithfully keep Yahweh's “covenant” and “statutes” (1Ki 11:3, 1Ki 11:11). Political disruption followed, and religion necessarily suffered. Yet Jehoiada the priest gave the youthful Joash “the crown” and “the testimony” (2Ki 11:12; compare Deu 17:18). King Amaziah did not slay the children of the murderers who slew his father, in conscious obedience apparently to the law of Deuteronomy (2Ki 14:6; compare Deu 24:16). Later on, Hezekiah, the cultured king of Judah, reformed the cult of his day by removing the high places, breaking down the pillars, cutting down the Asherahs, and even breaking in pieces the brazen serpent which Moses had made (2Ki 18:4, 2Ki 18:22). Hezekiah's reforms were unquestionably carried through under the influence of Deuteronomy.

It is equally certain that the prophets of the 8th century were not ignorant of this book. For example, Hosea complains of Israel's sacrificing upon the tops of the mountains and burning incense upon the hills, and warns Judah not to follow Israel's example in coming up to worship at Gilgal and Beth-aven (Hos 4:13, Hos 4:15). He also alludes to striving with priests (Hos 4:4; compare Deu 17:12), removing landmarks (Hos 5:10; compare Deu 19:14), returning to Egypt (Hos 8:13; Hos 9:3; compare Deu 28:68), and of Yahweh's tender dealing with Ephraim (Hos 11:3; compare Deu 1:31; Deu 32:10). The courage of Amos, the shepherd-prophet of Tekoa, can best be explained, also, on the basis of a written law such as that of Deuteronomy with which he and his hearers were already more or less familiar (Amo 3:2; compare Deu 7:6; Deu 4:7, Deu 4:8). He condemns Israel's inhumanity and adultery in the name of religion, and complains of their retaining overnight pledges wrested from the poor, which was distinctly forbidden in Deuteronomy (Amo 2:6-8; compare Deu 24:12-15; Deu 23:17). Likewise, in the prophecies of Isaiah there are conscious reflections of Deuteronomy's thought and teaching. Zion is constantly pictured as the center of the nation's religion and as Yahweh's secure dwellingplace (Isa 2:2-4; Isa 8:18; Isa 28:16; Isa 29:1, Isa 29:2; compare Mic 4:1-4). In short, no one of the four great prophets of the 8th century bc - Isaiah, Micah, Amos, Hosea - ever recognized “high places” as legitimate centers of worship.

Over against the Biblical view, certain modern critics since De Wette (1805) advocate a late origin of Deuteronomy, claiming that it was first published in 621 bc, when Hilkiah found “the book of the law” in the temple in the 18th year of King Josiah (2Ki 22:8). The kernel of Deuteronomy and “the book of the law” discovered by Hilkiah are said to be identical. Thus, Dr. G. A. Smith claims that “a code like the Book of Deuteronomy was not brought forth at a stroke, but was the expression of the gradual results of the age-long working of the Spirit of the Living God in the hearts of His people” (Jerusalem, II, 115). According to Dr. Driver, “Deuteronomy may be described as the prophetic reformulation and adaptation to new needs, of an older legislation. It is probable that there was a tradition, if not a written record, of a final legislative address delivered by Moses in the steppes of Moab: the plan followed by the author would rest upon a more obvious motive, if he Thus worked upon a traditional basis. But be that as it may, the bulk of the laws contained in Deuteronomy is undoubtedly far more ancient than the author himself.... What is essentially new in Deuteronomy is not the matter, but the form.... The new element in Deuteronomy is Thus not the laws, but their parenetic setting” (Deuteronomy, lxi, lvi). This refined presentation of the matter would not be so very objectionable, were Drs. Smith and Driver's theory not linked up with certain other claims and allegations to the effect that Moses in the 15th century bc could not possibly have promulgated such a lofty monotheism, that in theological teaching “the author of Deuteronomy is the spiritual heir of Hosea,” that there are discrepancies between it and other parts of the Pentateuch, that in the early history of Israel down to the 8th century plurality of sanctuaries was legally permissible, that there are no traces of the influence of the principal teachings of a written Deuteronomy discoverable in Hebrew literature until the time of Jeremiah, and that the book as we possess it was originally composed as a program of reform, not by Moses but in the name of Moses as a forgery or pseudepigraph. For example, F. H. Woods says, “Although not a necessary result of accepting the later date, the majority of critics believe this book of the law to have been the result of a pious fraud promulgated by Hilkiah and Shaphan with the retention of deceiving Josiah into the belief that the reforms which they desired were the express command of God revealed to Moses” (HDB, II, 368). Some are unwilling to go so far. But in any case, it is claimed that the law book discovered and published by Hilkiah, which brought about the reformation by Josiah in 621 bc, was no other than some portion of the Book of Deuteronomy, and of Deuteronomy alone. But there are several considerations which are opposed to this theory: (1) Deuteronomy emphasizes centralization of worship at one sanctuary (Deu 12:5); Josiah's reformation was directed rather against idolatry in general (2Ki 23:4). (2) In Deu 18:6-8, a Levite coming from the country to Jerusalem was allowed to minister and share in the priestly perquisites; but in 2Ki 23:9, “the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of Yahweh in Jerusalem, but they did eat unleavened bread among their brethren.” And according to the critical theory, “Levites” and “priests” are interchangeable terms. (3) The following passages in Exodus might almost equally with Deuteronomy account for Josiah's reformation: Exo 20:3; Exo 22:18, Exo 22:20; Exo 23:13, Exo 23:14, Exo 23:32, Exo 23:33; Exo 34:13, Exo 34:14-17. (4) The law book discovered by Hilkiah was recognized at once as an ancient code which the fathers had disobeyed (2Ki 22:13). Were they all deceived? Even Jeremiah (compare Jer 11:3, Jer 11:4)? “There were many persons in Judah who had powerful motives for exposing this forgery if it was one” (Raven, Old Testament Introduction, 112). (5) One wonders why so many archaic and, in Josiah's time, apparently obsolete laws should have been incorporated in a code whose express motive was to reform an otherwise hopeless age: e.g. the command to exterminate the Canaanites, who had long since ceased to exist (Deu 7:18, Deu 7:22), and to blot out Amalek (Deu 25:17-19), the last remnants of whom were completely destroyed in Hezekiah's time (1Ch 4:41-43). Especially is this true of the score and more of laws peculiar to Deuteronomy, concerning building battlements on the roofs of houses (Deu 22:8), robbing birds' nests (Deu 22:6, Deu 22:7), the sexes exchanging garments (Deu 22:5), going out to war (Deu 20:1), etc. (6) Especially remarkable is it that if Deuteronomy were written, as alleged, shortly before the reign of Josiah, there should be no anachronisms in it betraying a post-Mosaic origin. There are no allusions to the schism between Judah and Israel, no hint of Assyrian oppression through the exaction of tribute, nor any threats of Israel's exile either to Assyria or Babylonia, but rather to Egypt (Deu 28:68). “Jerusalem” is never mentioned. From a literary point of view, it is psychologically and historically well-nigh impossible for a writer to conceal all traces of his age and circumstances. On the other hand, no Egyptologist has ever discovered any anachronisms in Deuteronomy touching Egyptian matters. From first to last the author depicts the actual situation of the times of Moses. It is consequently hard to believe, as is alleged, that a later writer is studying to give “an imaginative revivification of the past.”

(7) The chief argument in favor of Deuteronomy's late origin is its alleged teaching concerning the unity of the sanctuary. Wellhausen lays special emphasis upon this point. Prior to Josiah's reformation, it is claimed, plurality of sanctuaries was allowed. But in opposition to this, it is possible to point victoriously to Hezekiah's reformation (2Ki 18:4, 2Ki 18:22), as a movement in the direction of unity; and especially to Exo 20:24, which is so frequently misinterpreted as allowing a multiplicity of sanctuaries. This classical passage when correctly interpreted allows only that altars shall be erected in every place where Yahweh records His name, “which presumably during the wanderings and the time of the judges would mean wherever the Tabernacle was” (Mackay, Introduction to Old Testament, 110). This interpretation of this passage is confirmed and made practically certain, indeed, by the command in Exo 23:14-19 that Israel shall repair three times each year to the house of Yahweh and there present their offering. On the other hand, Deuteronomy's emphasis upon unity of sanctuary is often exaggerated. The Book of Deuteronomy requires unity only after Israel's enemies are all overcome (Deu 12:10, Deu 12:11). “When” Yahweh giveth them rest, “then” they shall repair for worship to the place which “God shall choose.” As Davidson remarks: “It is not a law that is to come into effect on their entry into Canaan; it is to be observed from the time that Yahweh shall have given them rest from all their enemies round about; that is, from the times of David, or more particularly, Solomon; for only when the temple was built did that place become known which Yahweh had chosen to place His name there” (Old Testament Theology, 361). Besides, it should not be forgotten that in Deuteronomy itself the command is given to build an altar in Mt. Ebal (Mat 27:5-7). As a matter of fact, the unity of sanctuary follows as a necessary consequence of monotheism; and if Moses taught monotheism, he probably also enjoined unity of worship. If, on the other hand, monotheism was first evolved by the prophets of the 8th century, then, of course, unity of sanctuary was of 8th-century origin also.

(8) Another argument advanced in favor of the later origin of Deuteronomy is the contradiction between the laws of Deuteronomy and those of Lev-Nu concerning the priests and Levites. In Num 16:10, Num 16:35, Num 16:40, a sharp distinction is drawn, it is alleged, between the priests and common Levites, whereas in Deu 18:1-8, all priests are Levites and all Levites are priests. But as a matter of fact, the passage in Deuteronomy does not invest a Levite with priestly but with Levitical functions (compare Deu 18:7). “The point insisted upon is that all Levites shall receive full recognition at the sanctuary and be accorded their prerogatives. It goes without saying that if the Levite be a priest he shall serve and fare like his brethren the priests; if he be not a priest, he shall enjoy the privileges that belong to his brethren who are Levites, but not priests” (J. D. Davis, article “Deuteronomy,” in Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, 117). The Book of Deuteronomy teaches not that all the tribe, but only the tribe of Levi may exercise priestly functions, Thus restricting the exercise of priestly prerogatives to one and only one tribe. This was in perfect harmony with Lev-Nu and also in keeping with the style of popular discourse.

But why not ascribe the book to the traditional author? Surely there can be no philosophical objection to doing so, in view of the now-known Code of H̬ammurabi, which antedates Moses by so many hundreds of years! No other age accounts so well for its origin as that of the great lawgiver who claims to have written the bulk of it. And the history of the disintegration of the book only shows to what extremes a false method may lead; for example, Steuernagel separates the “Thou” and “Ye” sections from each other and assigns them to different authors of late date: Kennett, on the other hand, assigns the earliest strata to the period of the Exile (Jour. of Theol. Studies, 1904), On the whole, no theory is so satisfactory as that which, in keeping with Deu 31:22, Deu 31:24, ascribes to Moses the great bulk of the book. See also CRITICISM; PENTATEUCH.

In German: De Wette, Dissert. crit-exeget., 1805; Kleinert, Das Dt u. d. Deuteronomiker, 1872; Wellhausen, Die Comp. des Hexateuch. u. d. hist. Bücher des Altes Testament, 1889; Gesch. Israels, 1895; Steuernagel, Der Rahmen des Deuteronomy, 1894; Entsteh. des dt. Gesetzes, 1896.

This page uses the TITUS Cyberbit Basic font for the Greek & Hebrew letters. If the Greek & Hebrew text doesn't display right then you can download the free font here