(ii) vy hanash, ‘amerce,' v.19;

(iii) bya-nhya, behulath bahal, 'possessed by a husband,' v.22 ; (iv) 777 by, hal děvar, ‘because of,' v.24.

Scarcely, however, does the author give us all which he found in the older document, but only so much of it as seemed to him to be still necessary after L.xviii.20. On the other hand, he has probably made additions, e.g. 'put evil away from among you,' v.21,22,24.

Ans. The last-mentioned phrase is certainly peculiar to the Deuteronomist, xiii.5, xvii.7,12, xix.13,19, xxi.9,21, xxii.21,22,24, xxiv.7.

With respect to the others we observe as follows:

(i) The Deuteronomist uses in, bo, 'go in' to a woman, in xxi.13, xxv.5, but not, as KNOBEL observes, instead of, karav: a little consideration will show that the latter word is used in a more restricted sense than the former; thus Ezekiel uses both, as we believe the Deuteronomist does, under different circumstances: e.g. 'Yet they went in (Nia) unto her, as they go in (Nia) unto a woman that playeth the harlot; so went they in (Ni) unto Aholah and Aholibah, the lewd women,' Ez.xxiii.44.

Here Nia, bo, is used of visiting, for improper purposes, a dissolute woman: but, karav, is used more definitely by the same writer:

Neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near (7) to a menstruous woman.' Ez.xviii.6.

So in D.xxi.13, xxv.5, the context required in only, but in xxii. 14, 172.

(ii) vɔy, hanash, ‘amerce,' appears to have been adopted, as the four words in (741), from E.xxi.22, where it occurs twice: it is a rare word in the Bible, occurring only elsewhere in Am.ii.8, Pro.xvii.26, xxi.11, xxii.3, xxvii.12, 2Ch.xxxvi.3; but way, honesh, 'tribute, fine,' is used (perhaps, by Jeremiah the Deuteronomist) in 2K.xxiii.33.

(iii) bya-nbya, behulath bahal, occurs only once besides in the Bible, viz. G.xx.3. It is impossible to found any argument upon it, more especially as it seems to be a kind of technical phrase for a married woman or femme coverte. The verb by, bahal, is found in D.xxi.13, xxii.22, xxiv.1, Jer.iii.14, xxxi.32, and

eleven times besides in the Bible.

(iv) 777 by, hal děvar, occurs also in xxiii.5, which, however, KNOBEL reckons also to the older document, but, apparently, without sufficient reason (743). We find the plural form, "777by, hal divre, in the same sense in Jer.xiv.1.

Upon the whole, we conclude that this passage also is due to the Deuteronomist.

530

CHAPTER XIII.

DEUT.XXIII.1-XXVI.19.

743. D.xxiii.1-8(2–9).

Here again, says KNOBEL, Deut.p.290:

'These words also belong probably to the Law indicated in iv.44. For the unfavourable notice in v.4 does not suit the Deuteronomist; and the expressions kěhal Yehovah, v.1,2,3,8, and 7 by, hal devar, v.4, are elsewhere unknown to him; however, v.4(b)-6 may be his. . . The second clause of v.4, -where, in variation from the first clause, 'because they met you not with bread and water,' Israel is spoken of in the singular, and because they hired against thee Balaam... to curse thee,'-seems to be a Deuteronomistic addition. The statement, that Jehovah would not listen to Balaam, and had turned his curse into a blessing, stands here quite superfluous, and is due to the Deuteronomistic speaker. Only he in the Pentateuch uses, ahav, of Jehovah 'loving' Israel (552.x), and the phrases, 'Jehovah thy God,' (554) and ¡bhp, kělalah, ‘curse’ (552.xviii), are especially current with him.'

Ans. We have a similar change of numbers in other places of Deuteronomy, e.g. xii.5, 'unto His habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come,' v.7, ‘ye and your households, wherein Jehovah thy God hath blessed thee,' xxix.5, 'your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.' we have seen

קְהַל יְהוָה iv); and as to.742) עַל־דְבַר We have already considered

(548.xii) that ↳, kahal, is the only word used by the Deuteronomist for ‘congregation,' and Jeremiah uses it also in Lam.i.10, with express reference to this very command in D.xxiii.3.

There does not appear, therefore, to be any sufficient reason for not ascribing this passage, like the rest, wholly to the Deuteronomist; though there appears to be a contradiction, as KNOBEL observes, between the statement here made, v.4, that neither Ammonite nor Moabite met the people with bread and water' on their way out of Egypt, and the fact incidentally

mentioned with respect to the Moabites in ii.29, which may be the result of inadvertence on the part of the writer.

744. The superstitious rules in xxiii.1,2, (the like to which have even been repeated in the Christian Church,) cannot certainly be ascribed without irreverence to the Gracious God and Father of all. Especially, the exclusion of a 'bastard' to the tenth generation from the privileges of the Sanctuary, while the father, the guilty cause of his child's illegitimate birth, was not excluded, and when children by a concubine, -by one, perhaps, of many belonging to the same man, - had also free access to the sacred place, seems, to our modern sense of right and equity, most unjust. The law was evidently designed to act as a check on promiscuous fornication and adulterous connexions, while polygamy and concubinage were allowed. But its action would have been directly opposed to the principles of Divine government, as announced by Ezekiel,xviii.20, and, indeed, by the Deuteronomist himself in another place, xxiv.16,

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin;’ whereas this law punished the child and his descendants for centuries for the sin of the parent.

745. The 'Ammonite' and 'Moabite' are mentioned here, in connection with the 'bastard,' &c. with manifest reference to the story of the incestuous origin of Moab and Ammon in G.xix. 30-38; and these also are to be excluded from the 'congregation of Jehovah' unto their tenth generation, v.3. There is, doubtless, here a reference also to the inveterate enmity which existed between these nations and Israel in the writer's own time. We have already quoted passages (594, 596), which show that both the Moabites and Ammonites were independent and powerful communities in the days of Jeremiah; and in 2K.xxiv.2 bands of each nation are spoken of as harassing Judah, together with the Chaldees and Syrians, shortly after the death of Josiah. We may infer that both these kindred peoples entertained the

same spirit of hostility towards the people of Jehovah, which we find expressly ascribed to Moab in Jer.xlviii.26,27,42 :—

'Make ye him drunken, for he magnified himself against Jehovah; Moab also shall wallow in his vomit, and he also shall be in derision. For was not Israel a derision unto thee? . . . Moab shall be destroyed from being a people, because he hath magnified himself against Jehovah.'

It may be with reference to this permanent state of ill feeling, which existed between Israel and these two nations, that the Deuteronomist charges the Israelites with respect to them, v.6— 'Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.'

746. D.xxiii.7,8.

'Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother. Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.'

The singular reason here given for not abhorring the Egyptian,' after all the afflictions which the people had suffered in the iron furnace,' the house of bondage,'-viz. 'because thou wast a stranger in his land,'-points, probably, as we have said (712), to some close connection with Egypt in the days of the Deuteronomist. Josiah himself was killed by Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, 2K.xxiii.29. But it is very probable that, in the earlier part of his reign of 31 years, there was a much better feeling between Judah and Egypt.

747. In the time of his grandfather Hezekiah there must have been an alliance between them; since Rabshakeh says, 2K.xviii.21,-

'Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this broken reed, even upon Egypt.' And though the Prophet did not approve of this connection, yet there was evidently a great deal of friendliness between the two peoples in the days of Isaiah. Thus he writes:

'Woe to the rebellious children . . . that walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth, to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt. . . . For the Egyptians shall help in vain and to no purpose.' Is.xxx. 2,7.

...

'Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help.

Now the Egyptians are

men, and not God, and their horses flesh, and not spirit.' Is.xxxi.1,3.

And, as observed above (746), the language of Jeremiah in ii.18,36, implies that in the early part of his reign Josiah expected friendly help from Egypt :—

What hast thou to do in the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of Sihor? Thou also shalt be ashamed of Egypt, as thou wast ashamed of Assyria.' 748. Egypt also was a place of refuge for many Jewish fugitives after the destruction of Jerusalem, in spite of the strong remonstrances of the Prophet, whom they carried with them, Jer.xliii.6,7. The reason for his opposition to this movement was, evidently, the certainty which he felt that the people would there give themselves up to gross idolatry, as, in fact, they did, Jer.xliv.7,8:

'Wherefore commit ye this great evil against your souls, to cut off from you man and woman, child and suckling, out of Judah, to leave you none to remain ; in that ye provoke me unto wrath with the works of your hands, burning incense unto other gods in the land of Egypt, whither ye be gone to dwell?'

749. Of Judah's relations with Edom we know nothing from the history in the reigns of Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah. In the days of Ahaz, Hezekiah's father, the Edomites had come, and smitten Judah, and carried away captives, according to the Chronicler, 2Ch.xxviii. 17. There may have been peace with them afterwards,-at all events, at the time when the Deuteronomist was writing; and, indeed, we hear nothing of their troubling Judah any further, till they seem to have triumphed at the Fall of Jerusalem, Lam.iv.21, Ob.10-14.

750. D.xxiii.16-26.

Here also KNOBEL observes, Deut.p.291 :—

These verses probably belong in part to the Law indicated in iv.44; at least in v.16-19 there is much which elsewhere is foreign to the language of the Deuteronomist, e.g. (i) the plural form, adonim, ‘lord,' v.15(16), used of men, (ii) ♬şin, honah, 'oppress,' v.16(17), (iiip, kědeshah, ‘prostitute,' v.17(18), (iv) 'House of Jehovah,' v.18(19).

Ans. (i) □, ădonim, is used, it is true, of a human master in G.xxiv.9,51, xxxix. 2,3,7,8,16,19,20, xl.1,7, &c., E.xxi.4,4,6,6,8,32; but the same writer uses also the singular form in G.xlii.10, xliii.20, xliv.5,7, &c., E.xxi.5, so that the plural form is not characteristic of his style. In Deuteronomy the plural occurs twice in the

N N