author as that of chs. v.--xxvi., etc., argues that the form is due to the following drastic changes by the editor. He suggests that the editor found the substance of i.-iii. 29 as the original author's historical introduction to chs. v.-xxvi., in which Moses was represented in the third person and also found iv. 1—40 (except vv. 28 ff.) among the concluding enforcements of the Law (note I have taught in iv. 5) and that he changed the former into a speech by Moses, as it now stands, and transferred the latter from the close, to the beginning, of the exposition of the Law, as a suitable hortatory conclusion to i.-iii. 29. This subtle theory well illustrates the great difficulty about the First Discourse on the one hand its substantial and detailed agreement with chs. v.-xxvi., on the other hand its separation in form from these chapters, as well as the looseness of connection between its own two parts1.

These then were the results of the earlier and broader stage of the controversy upon the unity of Deuteronomy i.—xxx., viz. that concerned mainly with the relations of the two Introductory Discourses, the Code, and its concluding enforcements. But in our review of this stage of the controversy it has become clear

1 In the modern critical school the principal supporters of the unity of the authorship of i.—iv. and v.-xxvi. have been Dillmann, Nu.Deut.-Jos. 1886, pp. 228-231, as set forth above; Van Hoonacker, L'Origine des Quatre Premiers Chapitres du Deuteronome, 1889 (not seen; a summary of his arguments is given by Driver, pp. lxvii ff.) ; Oettli, Das Deut. u. die Bb. Jos. u. Richter, 1893; Driver, Deuteronomy, 1st ed. 1895, 3rd 1902, pp. lxvii-lxxiii, thus summed up: To the present writer there appears to be no conclusive reason why c. 1-3 should not be by the same hand as c. 5 ff.; and the only reason of any weight for doubting whether c. 4. 1-40 is by the same hand also, seems to him to be one which after all may not be conclusive either, viz. that the author of c. 5-26, desiring to say what now forms c. 4. I— -40, might have been expected, instead of inserting it between c. 1-3 and the body of his discourse (c. 5 ff.), to have incorporated it, with his other similar exhortations, in the latter.' On Driver's explanation of the separate titles to the two Discourses see above p. lviii.-Kittel, Gesch. der Hebr. I. pp. 46–50, while recognising the strength of Dillmann's arguments, would-on the grounds of the separate titles to i. 6-iv., and of the fact that v.-xi. is a sufficient introduction to the Code but that Kuenen's theory also presents difficulties-leave the question open.

that the question of unity cannot be confined to the relations of these main divisions to each other, but must be carried into investigation of differences and lines of cleavage apparent within each division, and moreover similar in all. In other words, in addition to the main divisions of Deuteronomy i.—xxx., there are many cross-divisions running through the whole Book, and it is these with which the later and more minute investigations of its unity have been engaged. We shall consider them in the next Paragraph.

$7.

The Cross Divisions and Distinctions.

The distinctions and differences, which are found within each of the main Divisions of Deuteronomy i.-xxx., some of them running through all these, and which have been taken to be evidences of different hands, are of five kinds. It does not matter in what order they are treated as they often both coincide with and cross each other. First, the distinction (already discussed) between the two conceptions of Israel of the wilderness, now as separate generations and now as one and the same; second, the division of both Introductory Discourses into historical and hortatory parts; third, the evidence of doublets within the Code and of independent groups of laws, distinguished by differences of form and phraseology; fourth, the distinction, sometimes coincident with the foregoing and sometimes crossing them, between the Singular and Plural forms of address; and fifth, the evidences all through the Book of editorial re-arrangements and additions, some of them reflecting the Exile.

First, the distinction between the two conceptions of Israel in the wilderness, as two successive generations, especially at Horeb and in Moab, and as one and the same people, who have witnessed with their own eyes all the events between the passage of the Red Sea and the crossing of Jordan, has already been sufficiently treated (pp. Ivi f.). This distinction is present in both Introductory Discourses, though less explicitly in chs. i.—-iii. than in chs. v.-xi. It is clearly a distinction of attitude or

rhetorical purpose and no conclusion of a difference of authorship can be drawn from it.

Second, each of the Introductory Discourses is divided between a historical and a hortatory part1. In the First Discourse chs. i. 6—iii. are historical, ch. iv. I-40 is hortatory; in the Second the historical parts, chs. v. and ix. 8—x. 112, appear before and within the hortatory, vi.-ix. 7 and x. 12-xi. In each Discourse the connection between the historical and hortatory though not unnatural is loose, and in the Second marked by a jerk in the grammar, ix. 7. And while the historical parts are, except for isolated and detachable passages in the Pl. form of address, the two hortatory parts are mainly in the Sg., yet with several Pl. passages. But, as we have seen, all alike are in the deuteronomic style and spirit and replete with the deuteronomic formulas (pp. liii-lvi), except that curiously enough the historical part, chs. ix. 8-x. 11, only twice gives the full deuteronomic title Jehovah your God (ix. 16 and 23). The historical parts are evidently based on JE and equally so, yet they are occasionally divergent from these older documents in the statement of facts. None betrays any dependence on P, and, with most of the general and particular differences of the deuteronomic style from that of P, all show also differences of fact, and their accounts both of the divine manifestations in the wilderness and the origin of the institutions of Israel belong, with the Code and the hortatory addresses, to a school of religion very different from P's; yet curiously they also share with P a few touches of language and substance. Finally, the historical parts suitably supplement each other, but it is the two which now stand in

1 Calvin in his Preface to his Harmony of the Pentateuch (1564) draws attention to the fact that the books Exodus to Deuteronomy are 'composed of two principal parts The Historical Narrative and The Doctrine.'... 'This distinction Moses does not observe in his Books, not even relating the history in a continuous form, and delivering the doctrine unconnectedly as opportunity occurred.' Nowhere else, however, do these contrast and in arrangement clash with one another as they do in Deuteronomy. 2 Calvin's Harmony (Eng. trans. pp. 294 ff.) gives it as a separate section ix. 7-x. 11. The proper beginning of it is ix. 76, on which see note below.

the Second Discourse, which treat of the events in Horeb, while that which opens the First Discourse follows the later events from the departure from Horeb to the arrival at Beth-peor in Moab. This is a strange reversal of the proper order.

For the connection between the historical and hortatory parts of the First Discourse see pp. lxiii, xciii; for the same in the Second see notes to ix. 7 and x. 6-11.-The uniformity of the deuteronomic style throughout all the parts of the Discourses has been already shown in detail, pp. xlix f., liii f.-As for the forms of address, the only Sg. forms in the historical parts, are in i.—iii. 29 these scattered and more or less detachable fragments, i. 21, 31α, ii. 7, 24b, 25, 30b, 37, in ch. v. only the quoted Decalogue, and in ix. 8—x. 11 only x. 106, for which however nearly all MSS of LXX have the Pl.; while the hortatory parts of the two Discourses differ within themselves and from each other thus; iv. 1-40 Pl. except for explicable instances of Sg. in the section vv. 9-24, and for a consistent Sg. through vv. 29-40; ch. vi. mixed, but the Sg. prevails throughout the rest of the hortatory part of the Second Discourse, except for editorial additions in chs. vii., viii. and these other passages, x. 16-19, xi. 2—9, 21—28, 31 f.—For the dependence of the historical parts on JE, especially E, see above pp. xvif.; and for the discrepancies from JE, pp.

Whether the author or authors of the historical parts used J and E before these documents were combined (Dillmann and Kittel) or after (Bertholet), the present writer does not deem it possible on the evidence to decide. The general and particular differences of language and style which distinguish Deuteronomy from P (see pp. xv, xxi) are sustained throughout the historical parts. So too the difference of religious standpoint and ethical spirit: e.g. the emphasis on the spoken word of God rather than on the physical manifestation accompanying, see notes introductory to i. 6-8; the ascription of the mission of the spies to the initiative of the people, i. 22, instead of, as in P, to the divine command; also the notes on i. 34-40, Further Note to i. 36—38, and notes to iii. 23-29; the different treatment of the gêr or stranger, see on x. 19, cp. on xiv. 21; the different conception of the Priests and Levites, see above pp. xxiii f. and below on x. 8-10; the absence of P's constant emphasis on Aaron's association with Moses, though, with P, x. 6 recognises him as the founder of a hereditary priesthood. For differences with P in details of fact see above pp. xix-xxii and below pp. 133 ff. On the other hand, the historical parts of the Deuteronomic Discourses agree with P in the name Kaḍesh-barnea see on i. 2; and in other place-names, if the fragment of an itinerary x. 6-8 belongs to ix. 8-x. 11 and is not a later insertion; in the addition of Joshua's name to that of Kaleb, i. 37 f. but see note there; and in the use once of P's term tûr=explore, i. 33. Also alone with P the historical parts of the Discourses record that the spies were twelve, i. 23, cp. Nu. xiii. 2, and that the ark was of acacia wood, x. 3, cp. Ex. xxv. 10 (but see introductory note to x.

1-3, pp. 131 f. where P's elaborate additions are pointed out). These of course were probably elements of common tradition and form no proof that the historical sections in Deuteronomy depend on or reflect P.

These phenomena raise several questions. Were the narrative and exhortation, between which the two Introductory Discourses are each divided, once independent of each other-forming as some maintain different introductions, historical and hortatory, to the same or different editions of the Code? It would be difficult if not impossible to relate the hortatory contents of the First Discourse, iv. 1—40, with those of the Second. But the detachableness of the historical parts from their context is clear, and most manifest are their affinities with each other; their common style even to details, their use of the same form of address, their dependence on the same sources, their similar treatment of their materials, and their complementary character. Were they originally one work? The evidence is so clear that this question is answered in the affirmative not only by those who take the whole of the two Introductory Discourses to be from the same hand1, but even by those who ascribe the rest of the two Discourses to different hands. All conceive it at least probable, that ix. 8-x. 11 and i.-iii., of course in that order, formed once a (separate?) historical introduction to the Code. But if so, how came the two parts to be divorced and placed in different Divisions of our Deuteronomy, with what should have been the earlier in the later place? This is but one of many questions which illustrate the truth that the difficulties about the unity of Deuteronomy i.-xxx. arise not from its substance nor from its style, but from that structure and arrangement of its parts, in which it has come down to us.

Third, the Code itself, chs. xii.-xxvi. Although the Laws are arranged on the whole with regard to their subjects—I. Religious Institutions and Worship, II. Offices of Authority, III. Crime, War, Property, the Family, etc.-yet this plan is not consistently

1 Dillmann, for whose theory on the subject see above pp. lx f. and Kittel.

DEUTERONOMY