The final book of Moses, giving a "second" or "supplemental" law

In Hebrew, elle had-debarim from the opening words; in LXX Deuteronomion, a title which is due to a false rendering of 17:18, which should be translated "according to a copy of this law;" from a similar translation in Jos. 8:32, it is clear that the word "Deuteronomy" in Greek was taken as meaning "copy," but its ordinary meaning would rather be "second law." Philo uses the title "Deuteronomy" some times, but also that of the "supplement to the law," a title which fairly well expresses the character of the book.

Major Sections of Deuteronomy:

Chapter 1:1-5, an introduction describing with great precision the time and place of delivery of the discourses which follow.

Chapters 1:6-4:40. The first discourse, an historical retrospect; Moses passes in review the principal events which the Israelites had witnessed since their arrival at Sinai.

iv. 41-43 looks like an interruption of the orderly sequel of events, Moses sets aside the cities of refuge on the east of Jordan.

iv. 44-49 still further determines the time arid place of delivery of the following discourse.

Chapters 12-26. The great sermon; it falls naturally into two parts:

v-xi. A general discourse concerning their duties towards God, it may be regarded as introductory to the next portion,

xii-xxyi. in which more precise details are given. It is true, too, that whereas chapters 5-11 give a recapitulation of past legislation, chapters 12-26 look forward rather than backward, and deal with the future rather than with the past; it is important to notice this since upon its due understanding depends the whole question of the date and authorship of the book.

Chapters 27-28 (29:1) may possibly be regarded as a separate discourse, it deals with the ceremonies to be performed when the Law is graven upon stones on the west of Jordan after they have occupied the land, cf. Joshua 8:30-35. The connection between this discourse, however, and the preceding, seems to be clearly indicated in the closing words of chapter 26, and in the opening words of ch. xxviii. make thee higher than all the nations. Chapters 27 and 28, then, may be regarded as the expression of the covenant (29:1), which the people made at that time with God.

Chapters 29-30 constitutes a species of supplementary discourse to the details about the covenant.

Chapters 31-33 is an historical appendix containing Moses final exhortation, his canticle and blessing.

Chapter 34 is an epilogue recounting his death.

The Character of the Book

It is usual to speak of Deuteronomy as though it was purely exhortation, a collection of sermons and nothing more. While there is much truth in this, it should be noted that we are given many historical details which are not found in the preceding books, and it is important to notice these since neglect of them will lead to a false idea of the real purport and character of the book. Thus note in 1:6-7, the command to leave Horeb which is not found in Numbers 10:11; in 1:45, the repentance of the Israelites after their defeat at Hormah is mentioned, not in Numbers 14:45; in 9:20, Moses is represented as interceding for Aaron, this is not in Exodus 32-33; in 2:9 and 19, the people are told not to fight against Moab and Ammon, in 2:4-8, nor against Edom, these points are omitted in the previous books; in 2:10-13, we have an account of the aboriginal inhabitants of Palestine which is not given elsewhere; similarly., in 3:4, mention is made of the sixty cities of Bashan, not elsewhere; in 3:9, two variant names for Hermon are given, viz., Sanir or Sirion; 2:26, the wilderness of Cademoth, otherwise unknown; in 25:17-18, the attack of the Amalecites is more fully narrated than in Exodus 17:8, etc. The same must be said of the legal portion of the book; it is not, as so many seem to think, a mere recapitulation of laws already given; as suggested above, the laws look backwards and forwards some are entirely new, the older ones are often presented in a new setting. It will suffice here to point out the following additions to the legislation previously given: in chapters 12 and 16, the unity of the place of the sanctuary is insisted on, this is the most important of all the Deuteronomic additions; in chapter 13, laws for the suppression of false prophets; in 17:14, the law of the kingdom; in chapter 21 a whole series of precepts found nowhere else; in 24:1-3, the law with regard to divorce; in 31:10, the command to read the law on the Feast of Tabernacles, etc.

Date, Authenticity, and Modern Criticism

Taking Deuteronomy for what it professes to be, viz., Moses last words before departing this life, everything in the book falls into its natural place. Its historical connection with the preceding events is indicated in 32:48-50, which should be compared with Numbers 27:12. Similarly 31:14-23, should be compared with Numbers 27:18-23; these two points indicate the historical framework of the book; the question is, however, whether they also serve to indicate the literary connection between the foregoing portions of the Pentateuch. Modern critics answer in the negative, and insist that we are to see in this close historical connection nothing more than a literary device by which the author strove to make his work look as like a work of Moses as possible, for modern critics attribute Deuteronomy to the days of Josias 641-610 B.C. This is not the place to discuss this question at length. It will suffice to point out here some of the intrinsic arguments which support the Mosaic date, and which have to be explained away in some fashion or other by those who hold the late date of the book:

(a) JERUSALEM

The city is never mentioned as the site of the central sanctuary; this cannot be because it was unknown, the Tell-el-Amarna tablets, q.v., show us how well known the city was to the Egyptians of the fifteenth century B.C. We can only explain the silence of the author of Deuteronomy by supposing that he did not mention Jerusalem simply because he did not know that it was to be the site of the central sanctuary indeed he probably thought the latter was to be at Silo; but if he did not know it he cannot have lived as late as the time of Josias. Nor is it sufficient answer to this that he hid his knowledge of its identity because he wanted to represent himself as Moses, who of course did not know it; this answer is insufficient because, though a natural one, it affords no solution of the other difficulties which the supporters of the late date of the book must remove,

(b) JEBUSITES

In the same connection it should be noted that the Jebusites themselves, though known to the author, have no special interest for him such as they would have had for one who knew them as the race dispossessed by David.

(c) PHILISTINES

The Philistines were, from the time subsequent to Josue, the great enemies of the Israelites; how remarkable it is, then, that they are never included in Deuteronomy among the nations which are to be destroyed!

(d) EDOMITES

In 2:4-8, the Edomites are spoken of in a way which would have been impossible after the commencement of the monarchy.

(e) ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS

The aboriginal inhabitants who are mentioned in 2:10-12 are not spoken of elsewhere.

(f) CITIES OF REFUGE TO THE WEST OF JORDAN

These cities are not given.

(g) SCHISM

There is no hint that the author knew anything of the SCHISM.

(h) JUDA

Juda has no pre-eminence.

(i) DIVINE APPELATIVES

The Divine Appelatives the Lord of Hosts and the Holy One of Israel, so common in writers of the times of the monarchy, are never found in Deuteronomy.

(j) ABIB

The use of the name Abib for the first month is remarkable, it is never found after the time of Josue, when the Babylonian name NISAN came into use.

The argument, then, is that a later writer, who wished to palm off his work as due to Moses, would hardly have been able to avoid giving some hint of the period at which he lived. It is asserted by recent critics that the Deuteronomist puts Moses on the stage to plead the cause of Monotheism with degenerate Israel; but to do that seven hundred years after the date of Moses and never betray himself argues a literary power and skill which has never been surpassed. In this connection should be noted the Egyptian coloring of the book; in 6:21-23, the sojourn in Egypt is referred to in the most natural way; in 7:8-18, 11:3, we find the same unconscious allusions which suppose that the facts referred to are recent and familiar to, all, cf. 7:15, 28:60; and for Egyptian customs see 11:10, 20:5, 25:2.

Critics who hold that Deuteronomy is the offspring of Osee and Amos, and the parent of Jeremias and Ezechiel, have to explain the relationship between Jeremias and Deuteronomy. Now there is an undoubted similarity between the two; Jeremias shows a real familiarity with Deuteronomy; but this is just what we should expect when we reflect that it was in his life-time that Deuteronomy was discovered in the temple, cf. 4 Kings, chapters 22-23. But on the critical hypothesis we should have to explain how it is that (a) there are a number of expressions in Jeremias which are never found in Deuteronomy, e.g. "an oracle of the Lord," in Hebrew "ne'um," commonly translated "saith the Lord"; "the Lord of Hosts," cf. supra-, the expression "house of Jacob"; also that of "virgin of Israel"; "to root up, pull down, waste and destroy"; etc. If Deuteronomy was composed about the time of Jeremias, as is supposed by modern critics, it is strange that words and expressions which are of such common occurrence in his writings should be conspicuous in Deuteronomy by their absence. (b) And conversely, there are certain Deuteronomic expressions which are absent from Jeremias, but which we should expect to find in his writings if Deuteronomy was really the creation of his age, e.g. Israel used so often in Deuteronomy in an absolute sense of the nation, see 9:1, etc.; "adhere to the Lord" often in Deuteronomy, never in Jeremias, yet certainly an expression which we should have expected him to use had it just come into fashion as is maintained. Lastly, the question of language is a delicate one, and it is unwise to attempt to dogmatise with regard to it, but there can be little doubt that the language of Jeremias marks a later date than that presented in Deuteronomy, though it is remarkable that the portions of the latter book which contain the greatest number of so-called Aramaisms are precisely those which are by recent critics acknowledged to be the earliest, e.g., the Canticle and the Blessing.


By Very Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P., S.T.M.
Doctor in Sacred Scripture,
Member of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, and
late Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Collegio Angelico, Rome.