besides the longer lebab occurs several times in i.—iv. (ii. 30, iv. 9, 29, 39) just as throughout the rest of Deuteronomy. Again ‘am nahalah, people of inheritance, closely resembles its equivalents in v.-xxvi. etc., especially thy people and thine inheritance, ix. 29. Little can be inferred from the use of arag leyóμeva like torah and tahînu, most writings have one or two; and ragan and he'ezin may be ignored as marks of difference in view of the general tendency of the deuteronomic style to employ rare poetic words for commoner ones. That leaves us with not more than 5 or 6 terms for which the rest of Deuteronomy employs others, surely by themselves an insufficient basis for a theory of dual authorship, especially when they are so greatly outnumbered by the characteristic deuteronomic phrases, which we have just seen that chs. i.-iv. have in common with chs. v.-xxvi., xxviii.-xxx. The group of terms characteristic of P are more puzzling, and will be dealt with later; note in the meantime that with the exception of tûr they are confined to one section iv. 16—32 of the hortatory part of the First Discourse.

Nor can more weight be attached to the alleged discrepancies of fact between the First Discourse i. 6—iv. 40 and chs. v.—xxvi.1 They are only three and each of them is susceptible of a reasonable explanation.

The alleged discrepancies and the explanations of them are: (a) It is said that in chs. i.—iii. the name Amorite is employed, as in E, in a general sense for all the peoples encountered by Israel in Palestine, in i. 7, 19, 20, 27, 44 for those W. of Jordan and in iii. 2, 8, 9 for others in E. Palestine; while in vii. 1, xx. 17, as in J, the Amorite is but one of the seven nations occupying the Promised Land before the coming of Israel. If this interpretation of Amorite in i.—iii. be correct, we may explain the difference of meaning from that in vii. I and xx. 7 as follows. It would be natural for the same author, when writing narrative to employ Amorite generally (especially as his narrative is mainly based on E, which so employs the name), but when he came to exhortation and his particular purpose was to forbid all heathen rites, it would be appropriate for him to give an exhaustive list of the particular nations who practised there. Yet it is not clear that the writer of the narrative in chs. i.-iii. uses the name in so general a sense as is alleged. For even in W. Palestine he speaks of the Amorites only as in the hill country ch. i. and even once mentions along with them the Canaanites of the sea shore; cp. xi. 30. (b). In ii. 14 Moses is made to say that all the generation of the men of war in Israel were consumed in the wilderness by the time Israel crossed the brook Zered, thirty-eight years after leaving Horeb; while the Second Discourse, in v. 2-5, etc. and xi. 2-7, represents him as explicitly addressing in Moab the same Israel which had taken part in the covenant at Horeb and had seen with their own eyes

This against Moore, E. B. 1087.

the events there and throughout the journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. Cornill (Introd. Eng. Tr. p. 59) calls this difference 'insoluble.' But this difference is one not of fact but of purpose. For ii. 14 belongs to the narrative part of the First Discourse where the purpose is to relate fact; while v. 2 and xi. 2-7 belong to a more hortatory part of the Second Discourse in which Israel is suitably treated as a moral whole, and the particular purpose of v. 2 is to distinguish the generation under Moses with the covenants they received at Horeb and in Moab from their forefathers before the Egyptian servitude and the Covenant God had made with them. Besides even the First Discourse, when it becomes hortatory in iv. 1-40, also assumes the moral unity of Israel throughout the wilderness wanderings:-iv. 10, the day thou stoodest before Jehovah thy God in Horeb, and so down to v. 15; v. 23, the covenant...which he made with you; v. 33, God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard; v. 34, all that Jehovah your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes; v. 36, he made thee to hear his voice and thou heardest his words out of the fire. This conception of Israel, as throughout many generations the same Israel, appears in all the hortatory discourses, even when the speaker forecasts the nation's far future, e.g. iv. 25, when...ye shall have been long in the land, and iv. 27-31 in the time of exile; cp. vi. 20-25, xxvi. 3-9, and xxviii. throughout; indeed this conception of a moral unity persists in the same passages which threaten deaths innumerable, e.g. xxviii. 62 ff. But it is needless to multiply examples. The same speaker who has in narrative, as in ii. 14, emphasised the destruction of one generation for their sins may in exhortation equally emphasise the identity of Israel throughout successive generations. Moreover even the narrative portion of the First Discourse tends to assume, though less explicitly, Israel's sameness throughout, i. 9, 19, 20, 22, 26, 46. (c) In ii. 29 the Moabites, along with the children of Esau, are represented as having sold food and water to Israel, while xxiii. 4a states as a reason for excluding an Ammonite and a Moabite from the Assembly of Jehovah (v. 3), that they met you not with bread and water in the way when ye came forth out of Egypt. But as there are signs of xxiii. 4 a being a later addition to the text (see notes to xxiii. 3-6) it is not certain that this discrepancy is due to the original author or authors of Deuteronomy. In any case this is the only real discrepancy between i.-iv. and v.-xxvi, as these chapters now stand. For the description of the herem or ban upon Sihon and ‘Og, ii. 34 ff., and iii. 6 f.-though it agrees exactly neither with the treatment of the seven nations of Palestine, enjoined in vii. 2, 25 f. nor with that of distant enemies enjoined in xx. 10 ff., but combines features of both. (see note on ii. 34)-falls before the period for which the Law was designed.

We are thus left first with a great array of features of style, language and doctrine, both general and particular, which are common to the First Discourse chs. i.-iv., and to chs. v.-xxvi., xxviii.---xxx. ; second with no real discrepancy of fact between the

two divisions; and third (if we except the group of words characteristic of Ezekiel and P which all occur in the section iv. 16—32) there are only some 5 or 6 terms peculiar to i.—iv. for which others are found in v.-xxvi., xxviii.-xxx. That is a very slender basis on which to argue for a different authorship for the First Discourse from v.-xxvi. etc.; and we can hardly think that the argument would have been maintained, but for the facts that the two Introductory Discourses i. 6—iv. 40, and v. xi. have each of them a title of its own, i. 5 and iv. 44-49, and that the First Discourse is further separated from the Second by the historical fragment on the Cities of Refuge, iv. 41-43. The two titles, it has been reasonably argued, surely signify that the Discourses which they start were originally independent compositions-different introductions, as they are both entitled, to the same Code. Attempts to meet this argument cannot be said to be satisfactory. The separate title to the Second Discourse, iv. 44-49, is a composite one (see notes to it); and Professor Driver claimed1 'that there is nothing unreasonable in the supposition that, as formulated by the original author (whether preceded by iv. 41-43 or not), this title was considerably briefer than it now is and not longer than was sufficient to break the commencement of the actual 'exposition' of the law, promised in i. 5, as opposed to the introductory matter contained in i. 6-iv. 40.' This is far from convincing. For it evades the question, why did the historical fragment iv. 41-43 (to which by the way the Code in its law on the Cities of Refuge, ch. xix., makes no reference) come to be inserted just here? And it raises a kindred question:-if iv. 44-49 was originally, as suggested, a brief sub-title in the middle of a work from the same hand, why was it so largely expanded by later editors?

It is therefore not surprising that there has been considerable divergence of opinion as to the relations of the First Discourse to the Second and to the Code. The majority of critics,

1 Deuteronomy, p. lxviii.

emphasising the evidence of differences in style and standpoint between the two Discourses-and in the present writer's opinion seriously exaggerating them-rightly however laid stress on the presence and independence of the two titles, and had no doubt that the First Discourse could not be by the same author as the Second. These, it was held, were different prefaces either to the same or to different editions of the Code; and the First was accounted to be the later of the two because of its reference to the Exile, iv. 27-31 (or at least because it includes in this a promise of Israel's recovery from exile1), or because it was alleged to show signs of using the two main sources common to both Discourses, viz. J and E, only after these were combined, whereas the Second appears to contain no such reflections of J and E as interwoven with each other. On the other hand,

1 See the notes to iv. 27-31, and below p. xcviii.

2 The principal advocates of a different authorship for the First Discourse from that of the Second have been these :-Colenso, Pentateuch, Pt VI. 1871, though he had previously affirmed the opposite, 1864; Klostermann in the Studien und Kritiken for 1871, 253 ft.; Reuss, La Bible, 1879, I. 207; Valeton, Studien, VI., VII., 1880-81, not seen; Wellhausen, Comp. des Hex. 1885, p. 192 footnote, 'chs. i.-iv. and chs. v. xi. have among other ends this one in common, to indicate a historical situation for the deuteronomic legislation, they are properly two different prefaces to different editions' of the latter; Kuenen, Hex. 1886, lays stress on the linguistic peculiarities of chs. i.-iv. and on the fact that while their author is particularly anxious to distinguish the two generations whom Moses addressed at Horeb and in Moab respectively, the author of chs. v.--xi., though aware that these generations are different still wishes to identify them.' 'Is it not clear that [the author of chs. i.-iv.] cannot also be the author of chs. v.-xi.?' (for answer to which see above pp lvii f.); L. Horst, Revue de l'Histoire des Religions, xxIII. 1891, 184 ff. (not seen, cited by Driver and Bertholet); Westphal, Les Sources du Pent. 11. 1892, 66 ff., 80 ff., emphasises the fact of the two independent introductions, and separating the narrative, chs. i. 6—iii. 29 from the hortatory ch. iv. I— -40, regards the former as due to a later deuteronomic writer who desired to add a historical, to the hortatory, preface to the Code; Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, 11. 1898, pp. 19 ff., who had formerly (1. 1892, pp. lxiv f.) with Kuenen relied on the strength of discrepancies between chs. i.—iii. and v.-xi. (e.g. in the conceptions of Israel held respectively in the two discourses) now lays less or no stress on these; but because of the two independent titles i. 5, and iv. 44-49, because iv. 9--40 betrays familiarity with the style of Ezek. and P, and because of other divergences in language (admitted even

a smaller number of critics, minimising or attempting to explain away the fact of two separate and independent titles, laid stress— and as we have seen reasonable stress-on the general, and especially on the particular, agreement between the two Discourses in substance as in style and held-some absolutely but the most with reservations-that chs. i. 6-iv. must be from the same author as_chs. v.-xxvi. etc. That some reservations are necessary is obvious; the archaeological notes in chs. i.--iii. are doubtless due to an editor, and to editors also some ascribed the features in iv. 16-- 32 and elsewhere which are akin to P, and, if not the threat of Exile in iv. 26 f., the promise of conversion and the restoration of the converted in iv. 28 ff. The presence of the two independent titles, and the loose connection between the narrative i. 6-iii. 29 and the hortatory i.-iv. 40, which makes no use of the preceding narrative, but treats of subjects chronologically anterior to the events there narrated, led to other reservations of a more complicated kind. Dillmann for instance, who believed that the alleged discrepancies of fact between i.-iv. 40 and v.-xxvi., etc. are reconcileable, that 'no mere imitator could have throughout [i.—iv. 40] and to the minutest particulars hit upon the tone and style of D'; and who therefore assigns all the substance of the First Discourse to the same

·

by Dillmann) feels himself 'justified in regarding the authors of i. 1-iv. 40 as later disciples of the Deuteronomic school'; Moore, Deuteronomy,' in E. B. 1. 1899, 'the diversity of historical representation is decisive,' i.e. between i.-iii. and v.-xxvi., and ‘iv. goes beyond v.-xi. in that its monotheism takes a loftier tone like that of Is. xl.—lv.' and it presupposes the Exile; Steuernagel, Deut.-Jos. 1898, pp. xv f., decides for a different author because of differences between the two discourses, especially ii. 14 and v. 3, and because of the separate titles, but Wellhausen's theory that i.—iv. 40 and v.—xi. formed introductions to different editions of the Law cannot be correct 'for xii.-xxvi. never existed without v.-xi.'; Bertholet, Deut. 1899, pp. xxii f., because of differences in language and substance, and still more because of the separate titles, and the author of the First Discourse must be the later for i. 19-ii. I compared with Nu. xiii. ff. shows him acquainted with J and E in their combined form; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch, 1900, 1. p. 92: i. 6-iii. is with much probability referred to another edition of the Book' than v.-xi. and xii.—xxvi.; cp. vol. II. p. 248; Robinson, Deuteronomy, Joshua, p. 13.