FOOTNOTES:

The result of all the indications is that the story of Moses, as the author of Deuteronomy knew it, rests upon authentic information handed down somehow, probably in written documents, from the earliest time. Apart from the question of inspiration, therefore, we may rest upon it as reliable in all essentials. Only in him, and the revelation he received, have we an adequate cause for the great upheaval of religious feeling which shaped and characterised all the after-history of Israel.

FOOTNOTES:[1]Driver,Introduction, 5th Ed., p. 84.[2]Cf. Deut. i. 1-5, iv. 41-43, iv. 44, v. 1, xxvii. 1, 9-11, xxix. 1, xxxi. 1-30.[3]Cf. Deut. i. 1, 5, iv. 41, 46, 47, 49.[4]iii. 20, 25, and xi. 30.[5]Cf.Pentateuch Kritische Studienin Luthardt'sZeitschrift, 1880.[6]It is scarcely necessary to remind readers that, from the point of view of the critics, J signifies one of the constituent documents of the Pentateuch which uses the name Yahweh for God. Its date is about 850B.C.E is that document which uses the name Elohim, and may be dated about the same period as J. D is the author of Deuteronomy, who wrote, it is supposed, in the reign of Manasseh, perhaps about 670B.C.P is the Priestly document, which Dillmann dates before Deuteronomy, but which most critics think was brought substantially into its present shape by Ezra. The portions of the Pentateuch assigned to these various documents will be found in Driver'sIntroduction.[7]Driver,Introduction, p. 76.[8]Josh. xxiv. 30.[9]Introduction, p. 117.[10]Cf. for the passages on which this statement is founded Driver'sIntroduction, p. 80, and note in small print.[11]Dillmann,Exodus and Leviticus, p. 199.[12]Josh. iii. 14-17 andpassim.[13]Driver,Introduction, p. 145; Oettli,Deuteronomy, p. 7; Kuenen,H.K.O., p. 113.[14]See further in exposition of chapter xvii; xviii.[15]Ezekiel, Introduction, p. liv. f.[16]Additional Answer to the Libel, p. 80.[17]Cf. Driver, art. "Deuteronomy," Smith'sDictionary, p. 770.[18]Pentateuch Kritische Studien, X.[19]Answer to the Form of Libel, p. 34. Note: where Arnold and Masson'sLife of Miltonare referred to.[20]Art. "Deuteronomy," Smith'sBible Dict., pp. 769 ff.[21]Answer, pp. 41 f.[22]See this brought out in detail in Robertson Smith,Old Testament in Jewish Church, p. 431.[23]Wellhausen,Prolegomena, p. 439.[24]Ency. Brit., vol. xx., p. 670.[25]Granting that the commandment did not exist, one asks,Whatwas it in Yahwism which determined the Jerusalem Sanctuary to be imageless?[26]iii. 14.[27]Exod. xxi. 7.[28]Numb. xxx. 6.[29]Deut. xxi. 8.[30]Kalisch,Exodus, p. 364:—yet taught in all Victorian State schools under the vicious system at present admitted.[31]Journal Anthropological Institute, May 1884, p. 28.[32]See Page Renouf,Hibbert Lectures.[33]Browning'sPoetical Works, vol. vi., p. 69.[34]Cf. Schultz,Alttestamentliche Theologie, p. 92.[35]Browning, "James Lee's Wife," VII.[36]Augustine'sConfessions, p. 64.[37]Lev. xix. 18, 34.[38]Geschichte des Alterthums, p. 249.[39]Religion of the Semites, p. 330.[40]Cf. Wiedemann,Religion der alten Aegypter, p. 3.[41]Wiedemann, p. 1, 35.[42]Cf. Meyer, p. 71.[43]Egypt under the Pharaohs, Brodick's edition p. 423.[44]Meyer, p. 117.[45]Sayce,Babylonian Literature, p. 36. Both poems here referred to are pre-Assyrian, being found as translations in the library of Assurbanipal. But Assyrian religion made no progress; it seems to have remained always dependent on Babylonian, even in details.[46]Meyer, p. 178. Cf. however Sayce,The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, p. 114. Sayce maintains that the Assyrian epic attributes the flood to the moral guilt of men. But that is by no means proved, for it is more than doubtful whether sin to the Assyrian was not always mainly a ceremonial matter.[47]Browning's Poems, "The Boy and the Angel."[48]Theol., Ethiki., p. 515.[49]Doctrine of Sin, vol. i., p. 114.[50]Jewish Quarterly Review, October 1888, p. 55, where Professor Schechter finds himself compelled to discuss the question whether a man may be a good Jew and yet deny the existence of God.[51]For an illustration of the way in which land-hunger and the rush to satisfy it operates on men, see the account of "The Invasion of Oklahoma" (a territory lately thrown open to occupation in the United States),Spectator, April 27th, 1889.[52]The Caliphate, by Sir William Muir, p. 185.[53]Central and Eastern Arabia, vol. i., p. 373.[54]This shows how precarious the fundamental principle of much new criticism is. The non-observance of rites laid down as Divine commands, and the appearance of ancient superstitions such as the worship of the dead at any period, are held sufficient in the history of Israel to prove that monotheism did not then exist, and that ancestor-worship was then the prevailing cult. If applied to Islam that principle would lead to utterly false conclusions. Is there any reason for thinking that it may not give similar results when applied to the history of Israel?[55]Driver,Notes on Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, p. 101, note.[56]Cf. Dillmann,Exodus and Leviticus, p. 634.[57]Mozley'sLectures on the Old Testament, p. 102.[58]Driver,Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, p. 101.[59]Riehm,Old Testament Theology, p. 98.[60]The Social Movements of the Age, by Professor Pearson, Melbourne Church Congress, 1882.[61]Vide Church'sSpenser, p. 16.[62]Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson, by his wife.[63]History of Rome, vol. iv., Part II., p. 467.[64]Contemporary Review, August 1893 p. 293.[65]"Heures d'Histoire."[66]Cf. Lange,Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. ii., pp. 510, 528.[67]Chap. x. 12.[68]Old Testament in Jewish Church, 2nd edition, p. 308.[69]Cathedral Sermons, p. 26.[70]Ritschl'sRechtfertigung und Versöhnung, vol. ii., pp. 311 ff.[71]Cf. Riehm,Old Testament Theology, p. 25.[72]Wellhausen,History, p. 420.[73]Luke xiv. 26.[74]Ency. Brit., vol. xxi., p. 138.[75]Tupper,Our Indian Protectorate, p. 248.[76]Commentary on Pentateuch, vol. i., p. 448.[77]The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 366.[78]Religion of the Semites, p. 304.[79]Ibid., p. 306.[80]Smith'sDictionary of the Bible, vol. iii. p. 1589.[81]Dillmann,Deuteronomy, p. 483.[82]This, of course, does not show that P must have been known to D, but it proves that as regards material P and D have drawn from the same source, and that older documents, or customs at least, underlie both.[83]Tupper,Our Indian Protectorate, pp. 248, 249.[84]Ibid., p. 321.[85]Kuenen,H. K. O., Eerste Deel, p. 113.[86]The same conclusion must be come to in connection with the sanitary duties of the priesthood as laid down, or rather as alluded to, in Deut. xxiv. 8, 9. This implies that the Levitical priests had special duties in connection with such matters, duties which, if not precisely the same as those laid down in the Law of Leprosy (Lev. xiii., xiv.), must have nearly resembled them. Semi-medical skill must have been necessary for the satisfactory discharge of these duties, and we must suppose that the priests who discharged them were selected from the tribe of Levi on some principle either of special proved knowledge and fitness, or on the ground of hereditary devotion to such work.[87]History of Israel, p. 145.[88]Cf. also Muirhead, article "Roman Law," inEncy. Brit., vol. xx. p. 669, 2nd col., and Ramsay,Church in Roman Empire, p. 190.[89]Rägelsbach,Homerische Theologie, p. 198.[90]Exod. xxiv. 5.[91]Exod. xxxiii. 11.[92]Cf. Kittel'sGeschichte der Hebräër, II., p. 63.[93]Cf. Exod. xxxii. 15-20.[94]Only two in any one law; Lev. xviii. 21, xix. 26, 31, xx. 6, 27.[95]Lehrbuch der Alt-Testamentlichen Religion's Geschichte, pp. 169 ff.[96]Prophecy and History in Relation to the Messiah, p. 150.[97]Cf. Numb. xxvi. 53-55 from P and Josh. xvii. 14 ff. from JE.[98]The questions connected with the jubilee year are numerous and intricate, and it may be for ever impossible, from lack of data, to decide at what period in Israelite history it originated, or whether it was ever actually observed; but it undoubtedly expressed the spirit of the Israelite legislation and customary law at all times. It is the natural culmination of tendencies and ideas which were always present. That it is not mentioned in Deuteronomy at all is surprising, if it had been previously to Manasseh's day embodied either in custom or in law; yet, on the other hand, there are references in Ezekiel and other exilic books which are almost unintelligible except on the supposition that the jubilee year was a perfectly well-known institution (cf. Jer. xxxiv. 8 ff.; Ezek. vii. 12 f.; Ezek. xlvi. 16 ff.; Isa. lxi. 1 ff.). It is referred to in a merely allusive way, which implies that every hearer or reader of the prophetic warnings would know at once the full scope and meaning of the reference. Now, had the jubilee year been unknown before the Exile, had it been introduced by the author of Lev. xxv. just before Ezekiel, no such assumption could have been made. It would, therefore, seem necessary to suppose that the ordinance for a jubilee year must have existed in pre-exilic time; for, strange as Deuteronomy's silence in regard to it is, theargumentum e silentiocannot weigh against indications of a positive kind, were they even fainter than those we have in regard to this matter.[99]Cf. Kübel,Die sociale und wirthschaftliche Gesetzgebung des Alten Testamentsp. 47.[100]Prophets of Israel, p. 88.[101]Cf. Jer. xxxiv. 8 ff.[102]Cf. Amos ii. 6 ff.[103]Neh. v. 1 seq.[104]Contemp. Rev., 1880, April, p. 681.[105]Essays on Political Economy, p. 201.[106]Wallace,Land Nationalisation, p. 16.[107]Seeante, p. 304.[108]Cf.Oud-Israël Rechtswezen, pp. 10 ff.[109]Cf. Doughty,Arabia Deserta, vol. i., p. 249.[110]Cf. Nowack,Die sozialen Probleme in Israel, p. 5.[111]Oort,Oud-Israël Rechtswezen, p. 14.[112]A probable parallel to these may be found in the non-official arbiters mentioned by Doughty,Arabia Deserta, vol. i. pp. 145 and 502-3.[113]Doughty, vol. i., p. 249.[114]Riehm,Handwörterbuch, Baethgen, vol. i., p. 463.[115]Cf. Renan,Philosophic Dialogues, iii. p. 26: "La nature a intérêt à ce que la femme soit chaste et à ce que l'homme ne le soit pas trop. De là un ensemble d'opinions qui couvre d'infamie la femme non chaste, et frappe presque de ridicule l'homme chaste. Et l'opinion quand elle est profonde, obstinée, c'est la nature même."[116]Cf. 1 Sam. xxv. 18 ff; 2 Sam. xiv. 1 ff.[117]Cf. Exod. xv. and 1 Sam. xviii. 6 f.[118]Chap. xxii. 13-18.[119]Hosea ii. 19.[120]The Primitive Family, Starcke, p. 141.[121]Indeed in India it was not only the widow of the childless man who might bear him a son whose real father was a near relation, but his childless wife also.—Maine,Early Law, p. 102.[122]That the latter course may in some cases have been unpopular with the sonless man's nearest kin is clear, since under it the inheritance must be divided, and it might pass to remoter connections, though not beyond the tribe. The nearer relations would, therefore, probably prefer that their brother's property should be kept intact and be transmitted with his name, and this ancient custom, sanctioned and modified by Mosaism, would give them that choice.[123]Especially in some of the Southern Colonies in one of which this exposition is written.[124]Buddhism, by T. W. Rhys Davids, p. 29.[125]Sir W. Muir,Caliphate, pp. 26 and 33.[126]Cf. Dillmann,Deuteronomy, pp. 178 ff.[127]LeDeuteronome(Toulouse, 1891), pp. 62-75. The order in which he disposes of the verses is as follows: Deut. xxxi. 24-29, xxix. 1-15, iv. 1, 2, xxix. 16-21, iv. 3-30, xxix. 22-28, iv. 30, 31, xxx. 1-10, iv. 32-40, xxx. 11-20, xxxii. 45-47. If before this we place xxxi. 1-13, we shall probably have the original sequence fully restored.[128]Cf. Recent fiction,e.g.The African Farm,Tess of the D'Urbevilles,The Heavenly Twins.[129]A Year Among the Persians, E. G. Browne, p. 406.[130]The song is described, in the narrative framework, as delivered through Moses to the children of Israel. On the other hand, internal evidence points to a date after the establishment of the monarchy—when the days of Moses and the events of the wilderness were old, when the fruits of the land were gifts of God in present use, and when ingratitude and rebellion had become conspicuous, so that judgment was impending. Either, then, Moses took his stand, in the spirit, at a point of time long subsequent to his own death, adapted the song to its circumstances, and spoke not to his own generation but to one much later; or a later prophet must be the writer. The objection to the former view is supported by arguments drawn from various features in the language and the allusions of the song, which are asserted to be indicative of the later origin. On the detail of these we cannot dwell. But the most interesting part of the argument is the position that the transference of the prophetic consciousness to a remote future period, in order to give hope and guidance to a generation not the prophet's own, is too improbable to be admitted.Such a process is now generally regarded as not impossible indeed, but unheard of in the history of prophecy. The examination of the prophets of the Old Testament has convinced students that the prophet's vision starts from his own time, and is primarily for the comfort and warning of his contemporaries. His words may have a more remote reference, but must have the nearer one. Hence Isa. xl.-lxvi. is now ascribed to a prophet or prophets of the Exile. The principle is really the same as that which determines the authorship of Deut. xxxiv. 5-12. No one now holds the view of some Jews, that Moses by the spirit of prophecy wrote this himself. Yet if Moses could in a poem address his people as sinning and suffering through rebellions induced by their prosperity in Canaan, which they had not entered when he died, one might as well believe him to describe his own decease. In both cases we have to suppose the mind of Moses transported to a period when he had been removed by death, that he might look back upon and speak of events which when he wrote were still future. Now in both cases a reason is lacking. Every one accepts the view that since Joshua or Eleazar was there to write the account of Moses' death, it is unlikely the lawgiver should have been inspired to write it himself. Just so, since Yahweh inspired new prophets at every crisis of His people's history, it seems unlikely that the spirit of Moses should be transferred to, and made at home in, the circumstances of a distant generation, in order to deliver to it a message which could have been made known by a prophet to whom the time was present. Neither Kamphausen nor Oettli nor Dillmann nor the English expositors who accept the non-Mosaic authorship of the song have any doubt as to the supernatural character of prophecy. They found upon observations as to the manner of Old Testament prophecy, which ought to regulate interpretation.According to critical views the ascription to Moses of the reception and delivery of this song was taken by the Deuteronomist from JE. Kautzsch supposes that an editor to whom the song was known as passing under the name of Moses may have inserted it. Dillmann suggests grounds for believing that several prayers and poems ascribed to Moses (including Psalm xc.) were in circulation in prophetic circles in the Northern Kingdom, and that this one of them was inserted here as its appropriate place. The case would be parallel to the ascription of various later Psalms to David. Compare also the discussions as to the song of Hannah, 1 Sam. ii.The view that a mistake as to the Mosaic authorship, for which the writers of JE were not responsible, was handed on in perfect good faith, is compatible with the doctrine of inspiration as held by representatives of the orthodox Evangelical school in Germany, and by the newer Evangelicals in England. Cf. Oettli,Deuteronomy, p. 22, and Sanday'sBampton Lecture.[131]Cf. Driver'sIntroduction, 5th edition, p. 340.[132]Cf. Driver,cit.loc.[133]The blessing of Moses was certainly not written by the author of Deuteronomy: the vocabulary and the style are different from his. Nor probably was the poem inserted here by him, but rather by the final editor of the Pentateuch who is believed to have brought these closing chapters into their present shape (cf. Chap. XXIV.). The authority on which he relied may have been E.As to the authorship of the blessing, Volck and Keil ascribe it to Moses. The great majority of recent students regard it, at all events in its present form, as post-Mosaic, on grounds drawn from features in the poem, and from the principles of prophetic exegesis referred to in the note (p. 452). Opinions differ much as to the date to be assigned, varying from the time of David to that of Jeroboam II. The general assumption is that the blessing is the work of a Northern Israelite; and the feeling for the tribes of Levi and Judah which it embodies is the chief indication on which a conjecture can be hazarded. That would agree with a date later than Solomon and not later than Jehoshaphat—a period when many in the Northern Kingdom still looked with reverence to the sanctuary at Jerusalem, and when the Northern Levites still resented the intrusion by Jeroboam of a mixed multitude into the priesthood.As to form, and partly as to contents, the blessing of Moses is modelled on the blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix). One conspicuous difference is the introduction into that before us of a prose heading before most of the sections, analogous to the headings which appear in Arabic poetry (as theHamasa) before each quatrain or longer poem. There is no ground for treating these as later insertions, nor for separating other portions, as some have proposed, as later than the main composition.[134]Dillmann,Deuteronomy, p. 420.[135]Baethgen's Riehm,Handwörterbuch, p. 1321.[136]"Moses' God,"British Weekly, February 2, 1893.[137]Convito of Dante, Morley'sUniversal Library, Introduction, pp. 6 ff.

[1]Driver,Introduction, 5th Ed., p. 84.

[2]Cf. Deut. i. 1-5, iv. 41-43, iv. 44, v. 1, xxvii. 1, 9-11, xxix. 1, xxxi. 1-30.

[3]Cf. Deut. i. 1, 5, iv. 41, 46, 47, 49.

[4]iii. 20, 25, and xi. 30.

[5]Cf.Pentateuch Kritische Studienin Luthardt'sZeitschrift, 1880.

[6]It is scarcely necessary to remind readers that, from the point of view of the critics, J signifies one of the constituent documents of the Pentateuch which uses the name Yahweh for God. Its date is about 850B.C.E is that document which uses the name Elohim, and may be dated about the same period as J. D is the author of Deuteronomy, who wrote, it is supposed, in the reign of Manasseh, perhaps about 670B.C.P is the Priestly document, which Dillmann dates before Deuteronomy, but which most critics think was brought substantially into its present shape by Ezra. The portions of the Pentateuch assigned to these various documents will be found in Driver'sIntroduction.

[7]Driver,Introduction, p. 76.

[8]Josh. xxiv. 30.

[9]Introduction, p. 117.

[10]Cf. for the passages on which this statement is founded Driver'sIntroduction, p. 80, and note in small print.

[11]Dillmann,Exodus and Leviticus, p. 199.

[12]Josh. iii. 14-17 andpassim.

[13]Driver,Introduction, p. 145; Oettli,Deuteronomy, p. 7; Kuenen,H.K.O., p. 113.

[14]See further in exposition of chapter xvii; xviii.

[15]Ezekiel, Introduction, p. liv. f.

[16]Additional Answer to the Libel, p. 80.

[17]Cf. Driver, art. "Deuteronomy," Smith'sDictionary, p. 770.

[18]Pentateuch Kritische Studien, X.

[19]Answer to the Form of Libel, p. 34. Note: where Arnold and Masson'sLife of Miltonare referred to.

[20]Art. "Deuteronomy," Smith'sBible Dict., pp. 769 ff.

[21]Answer, pp. 41 f.

[22]See this brought out in detail in Robertson Smith,Old Testament in Jewish Church, p. 431.

[23]Wellhausen,Prolegomena, p. 439.

[24]Ency. Brit., vol. xx., p. 670.

[25]Granting that the commandment did not exist, one asks,Whatwas it in Yahwism which determined the Jerusalem Sanctuary to be imageless?

[26]iii. 14.

[27]Exod. xxi. 7.

[28]Numb. xxx. 6.

[29]Deut. xxi. 8.

[30]Kalisch,Exodus, p. 364:—yet taught in all Victorian State schools under the vicious system at present admitted.

[31]Journal Anthropological Institute, May 1884, p. 28.

[32]See Page Renouf,Hibbert Lectures.

[33]Browning'sPoetical Works, vol. vi., p. 69.

[34]Cf. Schultz,Alttestamentliche Theologie, p. 92.

[35]Browning, "James Lee's Wife," VII.

[36]Augustine'sConfessions, p. 64.

[37]Lev. xix. 18, 34.

[38]Geschichte des Alterthums, p. 249.

[39]Religion of the Semites, p. 330.

[40]Cf. Wiedemann,Religion der alten Aegypter, p. 3.

[41]Wiedemann, p. 1, 35.

[42]Cf. Meyer, p. 71.

[43]Egypt under the Pharaohs, Brodick's edition p. 423.

[44]Meyer, p. 117.

[45]Sayce,Babylonian Literature, p. 36. Both poems here referred to are pre-Assyrian, being found as translations in the library of Assurbanipal. But Assyrian religion made no progress; it seems to have remained always dependent on Babylonian, even in details.

[46]Meyer, p. 178. Cf. however Sayce,The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, p. 114. Sayce maintains that the Assyrian epic attributes the flood to the moral guilt of men. But that is by no means proved, for it is more than doubtful whether sin to the Assyrian was not always mainly a ceremonial matter.

[47]Browning's Poems, "The Boy and the Angel."

[48]Theol., Ethiki., p. 515.

[49]Doctrine of Sin, vol. i., p. 114.

[50]Jewish Quarterly Review, October 1888, p. 55, where Professor Schechter finds himself compelled to discuss the question whether a man may be a good Jew and yet deny the existence of God.

[51]For an illustration of the way in which land-hunger and the rush to satisfy it operates on men, see the account of "The Invasion of Oklahoma" (a territory lately thrown open to occupation in the United States),Spectator, April 27th, 1889.

[52]The Caliphate, by Sir William Muir, p. 185.

[53]Central and Eastern Arabia, vol. i., p. 373.

[54]This shows how precarious the fundamental principle of much new criticism is. The non-observance of rites laid down as Divine commands, and the appearance of ancient superstitions such as the worship of the dead at any period, are held sufficient in the history of Israel to prove that monotheism did not then exist, and that ancestor-worship was then the prevailing cult. If applied to Islam that principle would lead to utterly false conclusions. Is there any reason for thinking that it may not give similar results when applied to the history of Israel?

[55]Driver,Notes on Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, p. 101, note.

[56]Cf. Dillmann,Exodus and Leviticus, p. 634.

[57]Mozley'sLectures on the Old Testament, p. 102.

[58]Driver,Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, p. 101.

[59]Riehm,Old Testament Theology, p. 98.

[60]The Social Movements of the Age, by Professor Pearson, Melbourne Church Congress, 1882.

[61]Vide Church'sSpenser, p. 16.

[62]Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson, by his wife.

[63]History of Rome, vol. iv., Part II., p. 467.

[64]Contemporary Review, August 1893 p. 293.

[65]"Heures d'Histoire."

[66]Cf. Lange,Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. ii., pp. 510, 528.

[67]Chap. x. 12.

[68]Old Testament in Jewish Church, 2nd edition, p. 308.

[69]Cathedral Sermons, p. 26.

[70]Ritschl'sRechtfertigung und Versöhnung, vol. ii., pp. 311 ff.

[71]Cf. Riehm,Old Testament Theology, p. 25.

[72]Wellhausen,History, p. 420.

[73]Luke xiv. 26.

[74]Ency. Brit., vol. xxi., p. 138.

[75]Tupper,Our Indian Protectorate, p. 248.

[76]Commentary on Pentateuch, vol. i., p. 448.

[77]The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 366.

[78]Religion of the Semites, p. 304.

[79]Ibid., p. 306.

[80]Smith'sDictionary of the Bible, vol. iii. p. 1589.

[81]Dillmann,Deuteronomy, p. 483.

[82]This, of course, does not show that P must have been known to D, but it proves that as regards material P and D have drawn from the same source, and that older documents, or customs at least, underlie both.

[83]Tupper,Our Indian Protectorate, pp. 248, 249.

[84]Ibid., p. 321.

[85]Kuenen,H. K. O., Eerste Deel, p. 113.

[86]The same conclusion must be come to in connection with the sanitary duties of the priesthood as laid down, or rather as alluded to, in Deut. xxiv. 8, 9. This implies that the Levitical priests had special duties in connection with such matters, duties which, if not precisely the same as those laid down in the Law of Leprosy (Lev. xiii., xiv.), must have nearly resembled them. Semi-medical skill must have been necessary for the satisfactory discharge of these duties, and we must suppose that the priests who discharged them were selected from the tribe of Levi on some principle either of special proved knowledge and fitness, or on the ground of hereditary devotion to such work.

[87]History of Israel, p. 145.

[88]Cf. also Muirhead, article "Roman Law," inEncy. Brit., vol. xx. p. 669, 2nd col., and Ramsay,Church in Roman Empire, p. 190.

[89]Rägelsbach,Homerische Theologie, p. 198.

[90]Exod. xxiv. 5.

[91]Exod. xxxiii. 11.

[92]Cf. Kittel'sGeschichte der Hebräër, II., p. 63.

[93]Cf. Exod. xxxii. 15-20.

[94]Only two in any one law; Lev. xviii. 21, xix. 26, 31, xx. 6, 27.

[95]Lehrbuch der Alt-Testamentlichen Religion's Geschichte, pp. 169 ff.

[96]Prophecy and History in Relation to the Messiah, p. 150.

[97]Cf. Numb. xxvi. 53-55 from P and Josh. xvii. 14 ff. from JE.

[98]The questions connected with the jubilee year are numerous and intricate, and it may be for ever impossible, from lack of data, to decide at what period in Israelite history it originated, or whether it was ever actually observed; but it undoubtedly expressed the spirit of the Israelite legislation and customary law at all times. It is the natural culmination of tendencies and ideas which were always present. That it is not mentioned in Deuteronomy at all is surprising, if it had been previously to Manasseh's day embodied either in custom or in law; yet, on the other hand, there are references in Ezekiel and other exilic books which are almost unintelligible except on the supposition that the jubilee year was a perfectly well-known institution (cf. Jer. xxxiv. 8 ff.; Ezek. vii. 12 f.; Ezek. xlvi. 16 ff.; Isa. lxi. 1 ff.). It is referred to in a merely allusive way, which implies that every hearer or reader of the prophetic warnings would know at once the full scope and meaning of the reference. Now, had the jubilee year been unknown before the Exile, had it been introduced by the author of Lev. xxv. just before Ezekiel, no such assumption could have been made. It would, therefore, seem necessary to suppose that the ordinance for a jubilee year must have existed in pre-exilic time; for, strange as Deuteronomy's silence in regard to it is, theargumentum e silentiocannot weigh against indications of a positive kind, were they even fainter than those we have in regard to this matter.

[99]Cf. Kübel,Die sociale und wirthschaftliche Gesetzgebung des Alten Testamentsp. 47.

[100]Prophets of Israel, p. 88.

[101]Cf. Jer. xxxiv. 8 ff.

[102]Cf. Amos ii. 6 ff.

[103]Neh. v. 1 seq.

[104]Contemp. Rev., 1880, April, p. 681.

[105]Essays on Political Economy, p. 201.

[106]Wallace,Land Nationalisation, p. 16.

[107]Seeante, p. 304.

[108]Cf.Oud-Israël Rechtswezen, pp. 10 ff.

[109]Cf. Doughty,Arabia Deserta, vol. i., p. 249.

[110]Cf. Nowack,Die sozialen Probleme in Israel, p. 5.

[111]Oort,Oud-Israël Rechtswezen, p. 14.

[112]A probable parallel to these may be found in the non-official arbiters mentioned by Doughty,Arabia Deserta, vol. i. pp. 145 and 502-3.

[113]Doughty, vol. i., p. 249.

[114]Riehm,Handwörterbuch, Baethgen, vol. i., p. 463.

[115]Cf. Renan,Philosophic Dialogues, iii. p. 26: "La nature a intérêt à ce que la femme soit chaste et à ce que l'homme ne le soit pas trop. De là un ensemble d'opinions qui couvre d'infamie la femme non chaste, et frappe presque de ridicule l'homme chaste. Et l'opinion quand elle est profonde, obstinée, c'est la nature même."

[116]Cf. 1 Sam. xxv. 18 ff; 2 Sam. xiv. 1 ff.

[117]Cf. Exod. xv. and 1 Sam. xviii. 6 f.

[118]Chap. xxii. 13-18.

[119]Hosea ii. 19.

[120]The Primitive Family, Starcke, p. 141.

[121]Indeed in India it was not only the widow of the childless man who might bear him a son whose real father was a near relation, but his childless wife also.—Maine,Early Law, p. 102.

[122]That the latter course may in some cases have been unpopular with the sonless man's nearest kin is clear, since under it the inheritance must be divided, and it might pass to remoter connections, though not beyond the tribe. The nearer relations would, therefore, probably prefer that their brother's property should be kept intact and be transmitted with his name, and this ancient custom, sanctioned and modified by Mosaism, would give them that choice.

[123]Especially in some of the Southern Colonies in one of which this exposition is written.

[124]Buddhism, by T. W. Rhys Davids, p. 29.

[125]Sir W. Muir,Caliphate, pp. 26 and 33.

[126]Cf. Dillmann,Deuteronomy, pp. 178 ff.

[127]LeDeuteronome(Toulouse, 1891), pp. 62-75. The order in which he disposes of the verses is as follows: Deut. xxxi. 24-29, xxix. 1-15, iv. 1, 2, xxix. 16-21, iv. 3-30, xxix. 22-28, iv. 30, 31, xxx. 1-10, iv. 32-40, xxx. 11-20, xxxii. 45-47. If before this we place xxxi. 1-13, we shall probably have the original sequence fully restored.

[128]Cf. Recent fiction,e.g.The African Farm,Tess of the D'Urbevilles,The Heavenly Twins.

[129]A Year Among the Persians, E. G. Browne, p. 406.

[130]The song is described, in the narrative framework, as delivered through Moses to the children of Israel. On the other hand, internal evidence points to a date after the establishment of the monarchy—when the days of Moses and the events of the wilderness were old, when the fruits of the land were gifts of God in present use, and when ingratitude and rebellion had become conspicuous, so that judgment was impending. Either, then, Moses took his stand, in the spirit, at a point of time long subsequent to his own death, adapted the song to its circumstances, and spoke not to his own generation but to one much later; or a later prophet must be the writer. The objection to the former view is supported by arguments drawn from various features in the language and the allusions of the song, which are asserted to be indicative of the later origin. On the detail of these we cannot dwell. But the most interesting part of the argument is the position that the transference of the prophetic consciousness to a remote future period, in order to give hope and guidance to a generation not the prophet's own, is too improbable to be admitted.Such a process is now generally regarded as not impossible indeed, but unheard of in the history of prophecy. The examination of the prophets of the Old Testament has convinced students that the prophet's vision starts from his own time, and is primarily for the comfort and warning of his contemporaries. His words may have a more remote reference, but must have the nearer one. Hence Isa. xl.-lxvi. is now ascribed to a prophet or prophets of the Exile. The principle is really the same as that which determines the authorship of Deut. xxxiv. 5-12. No one now holds the view of some Jews, that Moses by the spirit of prophecy wrote this himself. Yet if Moses could in a poem address his people as sinning and suffering through rebellions induced by their prosperity in Canaan, which they had not entered when he died, one might as well believe him to describe his own decease. In both cases we have to suppose the mind of Moses transported to a period when he had been removed by death, that he might look back upon and speak of events which when he wrote were still future. Now in both cases a reason is lacking. Every one accepts the view that since Joshua or Eleazar was there to write the account of Moses' death, it is unlikely the lawgiver should have been inspired to write it himself. Just so, since Yahweh inspired new prophets at every crisis of His people's history, it seems unlikely that the spirit of Moses should be transferred to, and made at home in, the circumstances of a distant generation, in order to deliver to it a message which could have been made known by a prophet to whom the time was present. Neither Kamphausen nor Oettli nor Dillmann nor the English expositors who accept the non-Mosaic authorship of the song have any doubt as to the supernatural character of prophecy. They found upon observations as to the manner of Old Testament prophecy, which ought to regulate interpretation.According to critical views the ascription to Moses of the reception and delivery of this song was taken by the Deuteronomist from JE. Kautzsch supposes that an editor to whom the song was known as passing under the name of Moses may have inserted it. Dillmann suggests grounds for believing that several prayers and poems ascribed to Moses (including Psalm xc.) were in circulation in prophetic circles in the Northern Kingdom, and that this one of them was inserted here as its appropriate place. The case would be parallel to the ascription of various later Psalms to David. Compare also the discussions as to the song of Hannah, 1 Sam. ii.The view that a mistake as to the Mosaic authorship, for which the writers of JE were not responsible, was handed on in perfect good faith, is compatible with the doctrine of inspiration as held by representatives of the orthodox Evangelical school in Germany, and by the newer Evangelicals in England. Cf. Oettli,Deuteronomy, p. 22, and Sanday'sBampton Lecture.

Such a process is now generally regarded as not impossible indeed, but unheard of in the history of prophecy. The examination of the prophets of the Old Testament has convinced students that the prophet's vision starts from his own time, and is primarily for the comfort and warning of his contemporaries. His words may have a more remote reference, but must have the nearer one. Hence Isa. xl.-lxvi. is now ascribed to a prophet or prophets of the Exile. The principle is really the same as that which determines the authorship of Deut. xxxiv. 5-12. No one now holds the view of some Jews, that Moses by the spirit of prophecy wrote this himself. Yet if Moses could in a poem address his people as sinning and suffering through rebellions induced by their prosperity in Canaan, which they had not entered when he died, one might as well believe him to describe his own decease. In both cases we have to suppose the mind of Moses transported to a period when he had been removed by death, that he might look back upon and speak of events which when he wrote were still future. Now in both cases a reason is lacking. Every one accepts the view that since Joshua or Eleazar was there to write the account of Moses' death, it is unlikely the lawgiver should have been inspired to write it himself. Just so, since Yahweh inspired new prophets at every crisis of His people's history, it seems unlikely that the spirit of Moses should be transferred to, and made at home in, the circumstances of a distant generation, in order to deliver to it a message which could have been made known by a prophet to whom the time was present. Neither Kamphausen nor Oettli nor Dillmann nor the English expositors who accept the non-Mosaic authorship of the song have any doubt as to the supernatural character of prophecy. They found upon observations as to the manner of Old Testament prophecy, which ought to regulate interpretation.

According to critical views the ascription to Moses of the reception and delivery of this song was taken by the Deuteronomist from JE. Kautzsch supposes that an editor to whom the song was known as passing under the name of Moses may have inserted it. Dillmann suggests grounds for believing that several prayers and poems ascribed to Moses (including Psalm xc.) were in circulation in prophetic circles in the Northern Kingdom, and that this one of them was inserted here as its appropriate place. The case would be parallel to the ascription of various later Psalms to David. Compare also the discussions as to the song of Hannah, 1 Sam. ii.

The view that a mistake as to the Mosaic authorship, for which the writers of JE were not responsible, was handed on in perfect good faith, is compatible with the doctrine of inspiration as held by representatives of the orthodox Evangelical school in Germany, and by the newer Evangelicals in England. Cf. Oettli,Deuteronomy, p. 22, and Sanday'sBampton Lecture.

[131]Cf. Driver'sIntroduction, 5th edition, p. 340.

[132]Cf. Driver,cit.loc.

[133]The blessing of Moses was certainly not written by the author of Deuteronomy: the vocabulary and the style are different from his. Nor probably was the poem inserted here by him, but rather by the final editor of the Pentateuch who is believed to have brought these closing chapters into their present shape (cf. Chap. XXIV.). The authority on which he relied may have been E.As to the authorship of the blessing, Volck and Keil ascribe it to Moses. The great majority of recent students regard it, at all events in its present form, as post-Mosaic, on grounds drawn from features in the poem, and from the principles of prophetic exegesis referred to in the note (p. 452). Opinions differ much as to the date to be assigned, varying from the time of David to that of Jeroboam II. The general assumption is that the blessing is the work of a Northern Israelite; and the feeling for the tribes of Levi and Judah which it embodies is the chief indication on which a conjecture can be hazarded. That would agree with a date later than Solomon and not later than Jehoshaphat—a period when many in the Northern Kingdom still looked with reverence to the sanctuary at Jerusalem, and when the Northern Levites still resented the intrusion by Jeroboam of a mixed multitude into the priesthood.As to form, and partly as to contents, the blessing of Moses is modelled on the blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix). One conspicuous difference is the introduction into that before us of a prose heading before most of the sections, analogous to the headings which appear in Arabic poetry (as theHamasa) before each quatrain or longer poem. There is no ground for treating these as later insertions, nor for separating other portions, as some have proposed, as later than the main composition.

As to the authorship of the blessing, Volck and Keil ascribe it to Moses. The great majority of recent students regard it, at all events in its present form, as post-Mosaic, on grounds drawn from features in the poem, and from the principles of prophetic exegesis referred to in the note (p. 452). Opinions differ much as to the date to be assigned, varying from the time of David to that of Jeroboam II. The general assumption is that the blessing is the work of a Northern Israelite; and the feeling for the tribes of Levi and Judah which it embodies is the chief indication on which a conjecture can be hazarded. That would agree with a date later than Solomon and not later than Jehoshaphat—a period when many in the Northern Kingdom still looked with reverence to the sanctuary at Jerusalem, and when the Northern Levites still resented the intrusion by Jeroboam of a mixed multitude into the priesthood.

As to form, and partly as to contents, the blessing of Moses is modelled on the blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix). One conspicuous difference is the introduction into that before us of a prose heading before most of the sections, analogous to the headings which appear in Arabic poetry (as theHamasa) before each quatrain or longer poem. There is no ground for treating these as later insertions, nor for separating other portions, as some have proposed, as later than the main composition.

[134]Dillmann,Deuteronomy, p. 420.

[135]Baethgen's Riehm,Handwörterbuch, p. 1321.

[136]"Moses' God,"British Weekly, February 2, 1893.

[137]Convito of Dante, Morley'sUniversal Library, Introduction, pp. 6 ff.

THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.Crown 8vo, cloth, price $1.50 each vol.

First Series, 1887-8.

Colossians,ByA. Maclaren, D.D.St. Mark,By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.Genesis,By Prof.Marcus Dods, D.D.1 Samuel,By Prof.W. G. Blaikie, D.D.2 Samuel,By the same Author.Hebrews,By PrincipalT.C. Edwards, D.D.

Second Series, 1888-9.

Galatians,By Prof.G. G. Findlay, B.A.The Pastoral Epistles,By Rev.A. Plummer, D.D.Isaiah I.-XXXIX.By Prof.G. A. Smith, D.D.Vol. I.The Book of Revelation,By Prof.W. Milligan, D.D.1 Corinthians,By Prof.Marcus Dods, D.D.The Epistles of St. John,By Rt. Rev.W. Alexander, D.D.

Third Series, 1889-90.

Judges and Ruth,ByR. A. Watson, M.A., D.D.Jeremiah,By Rev.C. J. Ball, M.A.Isaiah XL.-LXVI,By Prof.G. A. Smith, D.D.Vol. II.St. Matthew,By Rev.J. Monro Gibson, D.D.Exodus,By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.St. Luke,By Rev.H. Burton, M.A.

Fourth Series, 1890-1.

Ecclesiastes,By Rev.Samuel Cox, D.D.St. James and St. Jude,By Rev.A. Plummer, D.D.Proverbs,By Rev.R. F. Horton, D.D.Leviticus,By Rev.S. H. Kellogg, D.D.The Gospel of St. John,By Prof.M. Dods, D.D. Vol. I.The Acts of the Apostles,By Prof.Stokes, D.D. Vol. I.

Fifth Series, 1891-2.

The Psalms,ByA. Maclaren, D.D. Vol. I.1 and 2 Thessalonians,ByJames Denney, D.D.The Book of Job,ByR. A. Watson, M.A., D.D.Ephesians,By Prof.G. G. Findlay, B.A.The Gospel of St. John,By Prof.M. Dods, D.D. Vol. II.The Acts of the Apostles,By Prof.Stokes, D.D. Vol. II.

Sixth Series, 1892-3.

1 Kings,By Ven. ArchdeaconFarrar.Philippians,By PrincipalRainy, D.D.Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,By Prof.W. F. Adeney, M.A.Joshua,By Prof.W. G. Blaikie, D.D.The Psalms,ByA. Maclaren, D.D. Vol. II.The Epistles of St. Peter,By Prof.Rawson Lumby, D.D.

Seventh Series, 1893-4.

2 Kings,By Ven. ArchdeaconFarrar.Romans,ByH. C. G. Moule, M.A.The Books of Chronicles,By Prof.W. H. Bennett, M.A.2 Corinthians,ByJames Denney, D.D.Numbers,ByR. A. Watson, M.A., D.D.The Psalms,ByA. Maclaren, D.D. Vol. III.

Eighth Series, 1895-6.

Daniel,By Ven. ArchdeaconFarrar.The Book of Jeremiah.By Prof.W. H. Bennett, M.A.Deuteronomy,By Prof.Andrew Harper, B.D.The Song of Solomon andLamentations,By Prof.W. F. Adeney, M.A.Ezekiel,By Prof.John Skinner, M.A.The Minor Prophets,By Prof.G. A. Smith, D.D.Two Vols.

Back to Index Next