DEUTERONOMY PRESUPPOSES OTHER PENTATEUCHAL BOOKS

That Deuteronomy presupposes other Pentateuchal books has already been suggested, but is worthy of further consideration.

That Deuteronomy is, in the judgment of Christendom, a repetition of previously existing laws, the name itself indicates. This is also the judgment of the analytics themselves. Reuss, speaking of Deuteronomy in the time of Josiah, says, "Il n'y avait done là de nouveau que la form"¹ ("There was nothing new in it except the form"). Graf presents the same view, as follows: "Das Buch lehrte ja nichts an und für sich Neues, . . . und der Verfasser, indem er Mose seine Ermahnungen in den Mund legte, hatte nur den Zweck, dass Jeder aufs Neue daran gemahnt würde dem alten Gesetze treu zu bleiben. . . . Wie hätte auch Josia so darüber erschrecken können, dass das in diesem Buche Vorgeschriebene von den Vätern nicht beobachtet worden und darum das Volk den Zorn Jahwe's auf sich geladen, wenn er sich nicht bewusst gewesen wäre, dass ihnen diese Gebote bekannt waren?"² ("The book teaches nothing that is really new, . . . and the composer, while he put his exhortations in the mouth of Moses, had in mind only to admonish anew every one to be faithful to the old law. . . . How could Josiah have been so alarmed at non-observance, by the fathers, of the things written in this book and at the wrath of Jehovah brought upon the people by themselves, if he himself had not been aware that these commands were known to them?") Wellhausen makes similar declarations: "Die literarische Abhängigkeit des Deuteronomiums von den jehovistischen Gesetzen und Erzählungen ohnehin erwiesen und anerkannt ist"³ ("The literary dependence of Deuteronomy on the Jehovistic laws and narratives is independently shown and is acknowledged"). Wellhausen, unwilling to admit that any of the first four books of the Pentateuch had an existence before Deuteronomy, supposes that the prophets had written down some of their speeches, and the priests some of their precepts, and that Deuteronomy presupposes still earlier documents and borrows materials largely from them.

Though Kuenen dogmatically asserts that "a written regulation of the cultus did not exist in the pre-Deuteronomic times,"⁴ he admits that Deuteronomy is largely a repetition of what is contained in the preceding books. Some of his declarations are as follows:* ' Deuteronomy 2:2-23 is a free recension of Numbers 20:14-23; 21:1 sqq.; and Deuteronomy 2:24-3:11, of Numbers 21:21-25. Beneath Deuteronomy 3:12-20 lies the same conception of the settlement in the transjordanic district which we find in Numbers 32. With regard to the events at Sinai, Deuteronomy 5, 9, 10 reproduce the representations of Exodus 19, 24, 32, 34."⁵

Many other such statements are made by this author. He, of course, does not mean that Deuteronomy refers to and quotes Exodus and Numbers, yet such are his declarations. According to the rigid law of criticism laid down by the analytic critics, Kuenen's book on the Pentateuch must have been written by two authors, or at least been worked over by a redactor. Though he, of course, stoutly maintains that Exodus and Numbers came into existence centuries after Deuteronomy, he makes various declarations which literally affirm the fact that the latter refers to and quotes from the former.

The fact thus admitted by the leaders of the analytic school of critics, that the laws contained in the middle books of the Pentateuch are recognized in Deuteronomy by repetition, quotation, reproduction, and reference, demonstrates the prior existence of these laws, and also suggests, and at least renders probable, the prior existence of the books containing them.

To escape the latter conclusion, the analytic critics maintain that the Deuteronomists did not refer to, quote, and reproduce laws as they are contained in the middle books, but as contained in older documents that have perished. But the existence of such documents is a mere hypothesis, and is one of the points in dispute. Thus we have here one hypothesis brought in and employed to help prove another. To this procedure, so vicious from a logical point of view, there are serious objections. In the first place, the laws as reproduced in Deuteronomy are found in the middle books, as is admitted; and they are found nowhere else. They are not found in the prophetic books, nor in any known document other than the middle books of the Pentateuch. Of the many books referred to and quoted in Chronicles, it is not claimed that any of them contained the laws reproduced in Deuteronomy. If the Deuteronomist did not reproduce these laws from Exodus and Numbers, he copied them from an utterly unknown book, by an utterly unknown author.

Besides, there are clear indications that the laws as contained in Deuteronomy are of a later form than as contained in Exodus and Numbers. Take, as an example, the legislation in regard to the avenger of blood and the cities of refuge. In Exodus it is simply provided that there should be a place of refuge for the unintentional homicide, and that the altar should be no protection to the willful murderer.⁶ In Numbers it is enacted that there shall be six cities of refuge, three on each side of the Jordan, and regulations are established for the treatment both of intentional and unintentional manslayers.⁷ In the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy there is an account of the actual appointment of three cities of refuge east of the Jordan, and their names are given.⁸ This was done at the time when the Israelites were in possession only of the transjordanic portion of Canaan. Further on in Deuteronomy the appointment of three cities of refuge in western Canaan is enjoined, together with the construction of roads to facilitate the flight of the manslayer. There is also this additional regulation, that in case of the future enlargement of territory three additional cities of refuge should be appointed. Another supplementary regulation set forth in this passage is the intervention of the elders in the trial of cases as the representatives of the congregation.⁹ Then, in Joshua the record is completed by the account of the appointment of three refuge cities in west Palestine. Thus the progressive history of the institution of refuge cities and of the legislation pertaining thereto proves that what is contained in Deuteronomy on this subject presupposes and continues what is contained in Numbers.

The institution of the Passover furnishes a similar illustration. We have the first account of it in Exodus, where many laws are enacted with regard to it.¹⁰ In Leviticus it is referred to as already a well-known institution,¹¹ and is mentioned in order to be placed on a legal footing along with the other feasts. Again, in Numbers the Passover is referred to as being well-known, and as being kept according to laws previously enacted;¹² yet there is supplementary legislation in Numbers on this subject. It is enacted that those who, by reason of uncleanness, or by reason of being on a journey, could not keep the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month should keep it on the fourteenth day of the second. Deuteronomy also contains supplementary legislation on this subject. In Exodus, while as yet the tabernacle had no existence, the Israelites were allowed to kill and eat the passover at their own homes. In Leviticus, after the erection of the tabernacle, it was enacted that the Israelite should kill neither ox, nor lamb, nor goat, either in the camp or out of it, but should bring all animals for slaughter to the door of the tabernacle.¹³ But the tabernacle in the wilderness was constantly moving from one place to another, hence the place of sacrifice and of killing the paschal lamb was constantly changing. What, then, was to be done when the Israelites should be settled in Canaan, and the tabernacle cease to wander and be fixed in one place, and many Israelitish families be living at great distances from it? This emergency is provided for by supplementary legislation in Deuteronomy. It mentions the Passover as established and known, enjoins its observance (without mentioning on what day of the month), and prescribes that in Canaan the place of observance should be that chosen for sacrifice and worship.¹⁴ This supplementary regulation implies and presupposes the legislation contained in the preceding books on the same subject.

Again, Exodus forbids the loaning of money on interest to Hebrews, but says nothing about foreigners.¹⁵ Leviticus forbids the loaning of money or of food on interest to a poor Israelite or a poor sojourning stranger, but is silent in regard to foreigners in general.¹⁶ Deuteronomy forbids the lending of money, food, or anything to a Hebrew on interest, but allows the lending on interest to foreigners in general.¹⁷ We have here repetition, but also supplementary additions. Exodus forbids the charging of interest on money. Leviticus forbids it on money and food. Deuteronomy forbids it on money, food, and everything else. Here is progress in legislation, suggesting the order of enactment as being the same as that of the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.

Once more, two entire chapters (one hundred and sixteen verses) of Leviticus are taken up with the subject of leprosy, giving minute directions as to how it is to be detected and treated.¹⁸ Deuteronomy contains but one verse in regard to this subject, as follows: "Take heed in the plague of leprosy, that thou observe diligently, and do according to all that the priests the Levites shall teach you: as I commanded them, so ye shall observe to do."¹⁹ This is an exact reference to the laws in Leviticus, which were extensive and minute, and were committed to Aaron and his successors,²⁰ Take another example of progressive legislation: In Numbers it is enacted that the death penalty shall not be inflicted on the testimony of one witness; there must be witnesses, but how many is not specified.²¹ This law is supplemented in Deuteronomy with two additions, one of which fixes the minimum number of witnesses at not less than two, and the other requires the witnesses to be foremost in the execution.²²

Thus it is shown that the laws are reproduced in Deuteronomy in their complete and latest form, and that the laws as set forth in Numbers and Exodus are clearly in their earlier and less complete form. This fact clearly proves that the middle books preceded Deuteronomy in time, unless it can be shown that the laws and history reproduced in Deuteronomy were copied from another source. Of our argument, then, this is the sum:

1. Deuteronomy is largely a reproduction of preexisting laws.

2. These are found in Exodus and Numbers, and are found nowhere else.

3. The literary dependence of Deuteronomy on these middle books, or on what is contained in them, is thus demonstrated, and is also admitted by some of the analytic school.

4. Deuteronomy reproduces the laws in supplemented and extended, and hence later, forms. Exodus and Numbers set forth these laws evidently in their earlier forms.

5. It is natural and logical to conclude that the books which contain the laws in their older form are the older books, and the book which reproduces these laws in their later form is the later book.

6. The opposite opinion, namely, that Deuteronomy preceded Exodus and Numbers, involves the conclusion that the writer of these two books recorded the laws in their more ancient form for the purpose of deceiving mankind in regard to the time of his writing. How very shrewd, skillful, and far-seeing he must have been, though not entirely honest!

As an offset to these undeniable facts the analytic critics bring in an hypothesis, or rather a series of hypotheses equal in number to the plagues of Egypt. That Deuteronomy was unknown until the time of King Josiah, is an hypothesis; that the preceding books were not written until several centuries afterward, is an hypothesis; that before Josiah 's time there were documents in circulation, but which afterward perished, that embodied much of the history and legislation contained in Exodus and Numbers, is an hypothesis; that these documents were amalgamated in time into one, is an hypothesis; and there are many points that come in as hypotheses subsidiary to the above. The authors and amalgamators, editors and redactors, of these documents are utterly unknown; their names are not even conjectured. The existence of these writers and their writings is, at best, a mere matter of inference, and is a subject of dispute.

Now, this bringing in of mere hypotheses in order to set aside the fact that Deuteronomy does in reality reproduce much of the history and legislation recorded in Exodus and Numbers, is not a procedure that will commend itself to the sober judgment of thinking men. Such argumentation may be interesting and convincing to critics, who have an overweening confidence in their own methods, but will assuredly be repudiated in the end by the common sense and logical thinking of mankind. Since every subsidiary hypothesis is a weak point, it is seen that the analytic theory and argumentation are largely made up of weak points.

1) L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. I., Int., p. 160.

2) Die Geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments, p. 25.

3) Prolegomena, p. 34.

4) Hexateuch, p. 273,

5) Hexateuch, p. 169.

6) Ex. 21:13, 14.

7) Num. 35:1 1-29.

8) Deut. 4:41-43.

9) Deut. 19:1-13.

10) Ex. 12:1-28.

11) Lev. 23:4-8.

12) Num. 9:1-5.

13) Lev. 17:3, 4.

14) Deut. 16:1-8.

15) Ex. 22; 25.

16) Lev. 25:35-37.

17) Deut. 23:19, 20.

18) Chs. 13, 14.

19) Deut. 24:8.

20) Lev. 13:2.

21) Num. 35:30.

22) Deut. 17:6, 7.