1. Does a relative unity exist?
1. Does a relative unity exist?(TOC)
The peculiar character of Deuteronomy has been defined in various ways, owing to the fact that individual traits have been exclusively emphasized, and made to account for all the others. Kurtz and Riehm describe it as the people's Code, and find in this destination the main distinction from the Levitical legislation. Keil speaks of "a hortatory description, explanation, and enforcement of the most essential contents of the Covenant relation and Covenant-laws, with emphatic prominence given to the spiritual principle of the law and its fulfillment." Ewald as "a fresh and independent law, standing side by side with the earlier one—a transformation of the old law, to suit altered circumstances." Schultz gives as the aim of the book, "to secure by supplementary regulations that the laws and institutions of the previous books, whose full validity is presupposed, shall be observed, not only in an external way, but as to their inner significance, their higher aim, their spiritual principle, etc.
A comparison of all these definitions will be the best test of their accuracy. Once admitted that each of them has some support in the book, their deficiency will immediately appear by observing that they do not cover each other. That Deuteronomy is the people's Code, does not explain why it should not only interpret, but also enlarge and add. The same objection may be raised against Schultz's definition and that of Keil. The supplementary character of the Code is by no means so accidental and secondary that it can be overlooked in a definition.
Another inference is, how little right we have to determine the date of a book from the indications of a single feature. All these traits must have an underlying common cause. Their bearing upon the critical question of authenticity can be truly estimated only when this deeper principle has been recognized. Individual features derive their true significance from their common source, and severed from this are very likely to be misinterpreted.
This one principal tendency seems to have been best appreciated by Hävernick. He recognizes two prominent contrasts with the Levitical law—subjectivity and parenesis or hortatory character. Proceeding on this observation, Hävernick finds in Deuteronomy the fundamental type of all Old-Testament prophecy. "Moses appears here as a prophet, )ybn; and subsequent prophetism is considered as nothing but the development of his work, standing with it in the most intimate and vital connection."
It is remarkable how much light is shed by a just appreciation of this principle on all other features of the Code. That it addresses the people, no longer awakens surprise. Prophecy roots itself in the law, not abolishing, counteracting, or modifying it, but explaining, exhorting, enforcing, above all things evolving the spiritual kernel from the objective external form. Subjectivity and a reflective character are adequately explained. Once more, prophecy does not indulge in scholastic repetition of separate statutes, but seizes upon the prominent points, which, under the circumstances of the time, need special elucidation and enforcement. Thus also for what the Code passes by in silence, Hävernick's view assigns a satisfactory ground of omission. How it embraces the features which Schultz has so well brought out, is self-evident. Not less does it include the view of Ewald and Riehm, for Moses is prophet and legislator at the same time. Hävernick says, "As mediator of the Old Covenant, he stands at the summit of all prophecy:... the distinctive character of his work is, that it not merely approaches the law from the stand-point of subjective application, but also develops and completes it."
The correctness of this view may further be tested by its applicability to all the phenomena. We cannot enter upon the matter in detail, but only indicate the rough outlines along which the argument ought to proceed.
(1) Instead of God speaking to Moses, and Moses to Aaron and his sons, Moses speaks here directly as God's mouthpiece in long discourses to the people. That such is the conception of prophecy, the book states itself (18:15, seqq.).
(2) The hortatory, parenetical style exhibits a mind not bound by the letter of the law, but aroused and swayed by the powerful impulse of direct inspiration.
(3) The generalizing method, which seizes upon points of present practical importance, adapts and applies the law to the wants of contemporary history, and emphasizes principles instead of giving legal minutiae, exhibits a striking conformity to the work of the later prophets.
(4) The generic treatment of the future. Where there is foresight, and provision is made for remote conditions, they are still such as will be the natural outgrowth of the present, and germinally contained in it. This is the case with the law of the kingdom (chapter 17) and of prophecy (18). The prophetic eye saw the future in the present, since the former was conditioned by the latter. This accounts for the emphasis laid on centralization of worship, and for the possibility of making regulations now which could be used centuries after as reformatory rules.
(5) The same principle may have caused the general treatment of certain classes—e.g., the priests as Levites—and a few other peculiarities.
We are now enabled to put the question more definitely. Does the diversity of character preclude the unity of authorship? In other words, is it unthinkable that one and the same person should combine in himself the qualifications of a legislator and a prophet? That the modern criticism has answered this question in the negative, is enough to show how incapable it is of a deeper philosophical conception and appreciation of the Old Testament. It deals with phenomena as if they were the ultimate data; mathematical figures, which can be made to represent whatever value the critic ascribes to them. At the bottom of all this lies the naturalistic denial of those great principles whose recognition is absolutely necessary to a right understanding of the Old Testament. "In all induction, theory leads." Dr. Kuenen himself declares it impossible to argue from facts alone. He admits, that from certain indubitable points the chief lines must be drawn, and that these must guide in our interpretation of the rest. But whilst he accuses Schrader of having disregarded this principle, we might retort the charge upon himself and the newer criticism in general. In using the facts to establish its theory of development, this criticism has already violated the rule, that they are not to be interpreted outside of their legitimate sphere, or in the light of a naturalistic philosophy, but by the relation they sustain to the system of God's revelation of which Scripture is the record.
We believe, that, on the basis of a sound psychology, nothing can be said against the union of these qualifications in Moses. The example of Ezekiel, of whose Thora the critics have made such an extensive use, is enough to decide the question. Looked at from an historical standpoint, the combination was favored by all the circumstances. Israel was at the eve of a new period in its history, which would bring the final realization of long delayed promises, but at the same time expose to new and unknown allurements from the heathen world. It entered with the possession of Canaan upon a crisis of the same kind as those which in later ages called forth the warning and consoling voice of prophecy. It would have been anomalous, had it made this transition so far-reaching in its consequences without the attending light of a prophetical interpretation of the law to guide it. Not less obvious were these circumstances with regard to Moses himself, which favored this result. He had now nearly attained the end of his labors; and as, before his death, he saw the promised land from the top of Nebo, so in the sphere of time the range of his vision is widened. As the dying patriarchs saw and foretold the future fate of their descendants, and blessed their house in their last moments, so Moses, the greatest of all Old-Testament saints, left to the whole house of Israel, as a dying father, the best of all blessings, a law adapted to all future conditions. His work was not for one generation: "mediator of the Old Covenant," he stands high above all other prophets and saints; already half glorified, no longer subject to the limitations of time, he surveys the Israel of all ages until the coming of Christ, and accordingly his work assumes a prospective and ideal character, so striking that unbelieving critics could not but mistake it as the evidence of a much later origin.
Even a man like Dr. Kuenen admits that these formal characteristics of Deuteronomy do not necessarily prove that it was written by another hand than the intermediate books. It is only in connection with other material points that they obtain significance and convincing power. We need not examine all the arguments that have been adduced to prove the diversity of authorship, such as the peculiar style and language, the silence of Deuteronomy with regard to certain laws, the modification of previous laws, addition of some entirely new laws, etc. Some of these points have been partially discussed before; and all of them have been so exhaustively treated by Hengstenberg, Hävernick, Keil, Schultz, and others, that our remarks could be nothing more than a repetition of their statements.
We pass on to the second question involved—