EVIDENCE FROM THE ACCOUNT OF HILKIAH'S DISCOVERY.

There is nothing on which destructive critics are more fully agreed, or more confident in their convictions, than that the book found in the temple by the priest Hilkiah, as described in the twenty-second chapter of II. Kings, was the legal part of the Book of Deuteronomy; and that this was the first time that a book of law existed in Israel. This conclusion is argued with great confidence from the account of the book given in the chapter named and the chapter following. I regard the second chapter of Ryle's Canon of the Old Testament as the strongest and clearest presentation of this line of argument known to me, and he shall be my guide in the discussion of it. Professor Ryle introduces the discussion with the following paragraph:

It is not till the year 621 B. C., the eighteenth year of the reign of. King Josiah, that the history of Israel presents us with the first instance of a book which was regarded by all -- king, priests, prophets and people alike -- as invested not only with sanctity, but also with supreme authority in all matters of religion and conduct (p.47.)

To avoid misunderstanding on the part of readers not familiar with the subject, I should remark that the author does not here mean to deny the previous existence of the conjectural documents J and E of the critics, which, according to the analytical theory, had been written from one to two hundred years earlier; but these documents, according to hypothesis, were historical in their contents, and not books of law. (See Int., p. ix.).

Before entering upon his argument, Professor Ryle makes another statement as to the appreciation which was at once accorded the book, in the following paragraph:

In this familiar scene, "the book of the law" stands in the position of Canonical Scripture. It is recognized as containing the words of the Lord (2 Kings xxii. 18, 19). Its authority is undisputed and indisputable. On the strength of its words the most sweeping measures are carried out by the king and accepted by the people. The whole narrative, so graphically told by one who was possibly a contemporary of the events he describes, breathes the conviction that the homage paid to "the book" was nothing more than its just due (p. 48).

These words we must not forget, for they have a potent bearing on the arguments by which the author proceeds to support his first proposition.

To the minds of all scholars opposed to destructive criticism, these words are perfectly acceptable; and all the results of finding the book are precisely what should be expected. For if, as they believe, and as the Scriptures assert, the whole Pentateuch had been in existence since the days of Moses, it would have disappeared from public view during the long reign of Manasseh, who abolished the religion which it inculcated, turned the temple of Jehovah into a heathen pantheon, practiced every idolatrous rite known to the pagan tribes around him, and shed innocent blood from one end of Jerusalem to the other. It would have been as much as the life of any Jew was worth during that period to have possessed a copy of the divine law and sought to propagate its teaching. And that period had lasted, though not in its greatest darkness, for seventy five years, including the fifty-five of Manasseh's reign, the two of his son Amon, and the first eighteen of Josiah. Josiah himself, being the son of Amon and grandson of Manasseh, had enjoyed during their lifetime no opportunity to see the book of the law, or to learn anything of its contents. It was only after his father's death, when he was eight years old, that men and women of faith who had lived through the period of apostasy, and who remembered some of the contents of the law of Moses, had an opportunity to impart to his young mind what they themselves remembered of the word of God. That some such knowledge was imparted to him is evident from the fact that in the eighth year of his reign "he began to seek after the God of his father David;" and in the twelfth year of the same "he began to purge Jerusalem and Judah from the high places, and the Asherim, and the graven images, and the molten images" (II. Chron. xxxiv. 3). At this time he had undoubtedly learned that Israel once had a law; that under the leadership of his grandfather they had departed from it; and that it was his duty to lead the people back to it. He knew from what worship his grandfather had departed, and knew that idolatry in all its forms was unlawful in Israel. He was well prepared then, should the book of the law be put into his hands, to receive it as the ancient law of his God and his country, and to give it the reverence which it deserved.

Again, when Hilkiah found the book of the law in the temple, he found it just where it ought to have been; and the finding caused no surprise, unless it was because it had not perished while the temple was so grossly defiled. For an express provision of the law required that the Book of Deuteronomy should be kept in the temple "by the side of the ark of the covenant" (Deut. xxxi. 24-26). And though we find no express command like this in regard to the preservation of the other portions of the Pentateuch, we may infer with full confidence that if they existed, the priests and Levites realized that they must be kept in the same place of security.

With all this agree perfectly the words of Hilkiah when he handed the book to Shaphan, the scribe or secretary of the king. He said, "I have found the book of the law in the house of Jehovah" (II. Kings xxii. 8). This is the style of one to whom the title of the book was familiar. He did not say, "a book containing the law of Jehovah;" nor, "a book which appeareth to be the law of Jehovah;" but, "the book of the law of Jehovah." It is not the language of one to whom the book was a new thing, but that of one to whom it was perfectly well known, but had been in some sense lost.

The words, "I have found the book," do not necessarily imply that it had been hidden, although it may have been. It may be that some faithful priest at the beginning of Manasseh's desecration of the temple, had hidden it to prevent its destruction, and that in thoroughly cleansing the walls and floor of the temple its hiding-place was disclosed; but the words may be as well accounted for if after the long time in which it was exposed to destruction, he found it where it had been kept ever since the erection of the temple. The agents of Manasseh, notwithstanding their hatred of the book and its contents, may have permitted it to remain in its place, because in that place it was out of the reach of the people and in their own possession. The history which it contained might have served as a motive for leaving it undisturbed so long as the worship which it enjoined was being effectually suppressed.

Finally, when the book was read to the king, then by the prophetess Huldah, and then by the king himself to the people, the consternation and alarm which its threatenings excited are precisely such as would naturally occur if the book was known to be the old law-book of the nation given by God through Moses; but they are unnatural, and even incredible, on any other hypothesis.

We may also remark, in addition, that every single act of the reformation which resulted from the discovery of this book would just as naturally and certainly have resulted had the book been the whole Pentateuch, as if it had been only the legal portion of the Book of Deuteronomy. What, then, can be the motive for denying that it was the whole Pentateuch, and by what course of reasoning is that denial supported? Professor Ryle undertakes to formally answer this question, and I copy his argument in full:

When we inquire what this "book of the law" comprised, the evidence at our disposal is quite sufficiently explicit to direct us to a reply. Even apart from the knowledge which we now possess of the structure of the Pentateuch, there never was much probability in the supposition that the book discovered by Hilkiah was identical with the whole Jewish "Torah," our Pentateuch. The narrative does not suggest so considerable a work. Its contents were quickly perused and readily grasped. Being read aloud, it at once left distinct impressions upon questions of national duty. Its dimensions could not have been very large nor its precepts very technical. The complex character of the Pentateuch fails to satisfy the requirements of the picture. Perhaps, too (although the argument is hardly one to be pressed), as it appears that only a single roll of the Law was found, it may not unfairly be remarked that the whole Torah was never likely to be contained in one roll; but that, if a single roll contained any portion of the Pentateuch, it was most probably the Deuteronomic portion of it; for the Book of Deuteronomy, of all the component elements of the Pentateuch, presents the most unmistakable appearance of having once formed a compact independent work (p. 48f.).

The question here raised is vital in this discussion; that is, it is vital as respects the analytical theory. With those who credit the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy, it is immaterial whether the book was the whole Pentateuch or Deuteronomy alone; but with the other party it is absolutely essential to show that it was not the whole Pentateuch, because it is an essential part of their theory that much the greater part of the Pentateuch had not been written when this book was found. For this reason nearly every writer in favor of the theory makes some attempt at argument on this point.

The first point of argument in the preceding extract is that the book was read in too short a time, and that it left impressions too distinct for the whole Pentateuch. In making this argument the professor draws on his imagination; for there is nothing said in the text about the time consumed in the reading. Mr. Addis goes further still. He says: "It would have been a sheer impossibility to read the Pentateuch, or even the legal portions of the Pentateuch, through aloud, in one day; much less could it have been read twice in one day." He says further that "the kernel of Deuteronomy (i.e., Deut.. iv. 45 to xxvi., or possibly xii. to xxvi.; xxvii. 9, 10; xxviii.; xxxi. 9-13) exactly meets the required conditions. It could be read through aloud in between three and four hours at most" (D. of H., lxxv.). Doubtless Mr. Addis is right in asserting that the portions of Deuteronomy which he selects as the probable contents of the book could be read through in between three and four hours; but, in order to reduce the time to this limit, he has to assume that the book contained only the chapters and verses which he cites. If it was the whole Book of Deuteronomy, it would have required six hours to read it through, and to have read it twice in one day would have filled the day from sun to sun. But Shaphan read it once to himself; he read it to the king once; and then Huldah either read it or pronounced judgment concerning its contents without reading it, which is highly improbable (II. Kings xxii. 8, 10, 14-16). These three readings are rather too much for one day, even if the contents were as meager as Mr. Addis supposes; and it follows either that more than one day was occupied, or that only a part of the contents of the book was read; that is, the part which alarmed the king and caused him to rend his clothes. Chapters xxviii. to xxx. would have been sufficient for this; and this part of Deuteronomy, or any other part of it, may have been read to the king if the book from which it was read was the whole Pentateuch. Indeed, this is the very part of the whole Pentateuch which it was most important for him to hear, seeing that it, above all other parts, presented the fearful penalties which God had prescribed for such an apostasy as that under Manasseh and Amon. The only thing that militates against this view of the reading is, that when the king read to the people it is said that "he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of Jehovah" (xxiii. 2). But while these words most naturally include all the contents of the book, they may refer to only those words connected immediately with "the covenant;" and the covenant is especially emphasized in the denunciatory passage just mentioned. (See xxix. 1-13). Huldah uses the same universal expression, when she says (16): "Thus saith Jehovah, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read." Here, although she says "all the words of the book," she clearly limits her meaning to those in which evil to the city and its people is predicted. This justifies us in limiting the same expression, when applied to the public reading, to the same part of the book. Unless, then, we construe this passage to mean that all the contents of the book were read, as well as the part pertaining to the covenant and its violation, the reading could have been done from a book containing the whole of the Pentateuch as well as from one containing Deuteronomy alone. It follows that whether the book was Deuteronomy alone, or part of our present Deuteronomy, is involved in great uncertainty, to say the least, and that to this extent the same uncertainty hangs over that part of the analytical theory which assigns a later date than that of Deuteronomy to the greater portion of our present Pentateuch. An adverse decision on this point would be an obstacle not to be overcome by any argumentation in favor of the analytical theory. This uncertainty is enhanced when we consider the bearing of another passage in the history of Josiah. It is said (xxiii. 25): "And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to Jehovah with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses." What is meant here by "all the law of Moses"? The expression certainly includes the book of the law found by Hilkiah; but if the analytical theory is true, it includes more; for, according to that theory, the documents J and E were already in existence, and they were well known to the author of Kings. But J contained not only his history from the creation to the death of Joshua, but also the laws now found in Ex. xx. to xxiii., originally called "The Book of the Covenant". Josiah walked, then, according to all that was written in this book, and in the whole of the books J and E. But where did he find the latter after the apostasy of his father and his grandfather, unless they were included in the book of the law found by Hilkiah? We have no hint of any other book of the law known to him. Certainly, then, the critics ought to admit that J and E were in Hilkiah's book; and if these were there, their line of argument against the presence in it of the whole Pentateuch breaks down, so far as it is derived from the account given of Hilkiah's discovery.

Before leaving this branch of the argument, I may add that Andrew Harper, who is the peer of any other writer on the analytical side, unlike Addis and many others, admits that the book in question was substantially Deuteronomy as we now have it. He says:

‘That this was Deuteronomy, if not altogether, yet practically, as we have it now, there can be but little doubt: and it immediately became the text-book of religion for all that remained of Israel’ (Expositor's Bible, Deuteronomy, p. 45).

He forgets, as his colleagues do, the "book of the covenant" embodied in J and JE.

The second point of argument in the extract which I have made from Ryle's Canon is based on the assumption that the whole Pentateuch was never likely to be contained in one roll. Unlike the majority of his class of critics, however, he admits that this argument is "hardly one to be pressed." It certainly is not for two reasons; first; that the document is nowhere called a roll, but always a book; and, second, that as the Pentateuch was always spoken of in ancient times by the Jews as one book, it follows that when written on a roll instead of leaves; it is most probable that one roll received it all. The roll would be a large one, but large rolls were no more objectionable in the time of manuscripts than large volumes were after the time of printing. But it is idle to argue about the size of a roll containing the whole Pentateuch, when the document in question was not a roll, but a book.

It is surprising with what caution Professor Ryle expresses himself on the question whether the book found by Hilkiah was our Deuteronomy, or a part of it, and, if a part, what part He says:

We seem to have convincing proof that the "book of the law" was either a portion of our Deuteronomy, or a collection of laws Deuteronomic in tone, and, in range of contents, having a close resemblance to our Book of Deuteronomy (p.49).

When we consider that it is a necessary part of the analytical theory of the Pentateuch to establish the identity of that book with Deuteronomy, or, at least, with the legal portion of it, this mode of speech is vague enough; and it shows that the writer's own convictions on the subject were in a nebulous condition. In his attempts at proof we find, as we should naturally expect, the same vagueness which characterizes his proposition. He claims that the evidence is twofold, and the first form of it he states in these words:

1. The description which is given of the book found in the temple shows that, in the most characteristic feature, it approximated more closely to portions of Deuteronomy than to any other section or the Pentateuch (ib.).

This vagueness should not be held as a reproach to Professor Ryle, but rather as an evidence of his conscientiousness, and of his logical discrimination. He is too logical to deduce positive conclusions from doubtful premises, and too conscientious to affirm what he feels that he can not prove. But he proceeds to present what proofs he has, and we patiently consider them:

(a) The book contains denunciations against the neglect of the covenant with Jehovah (II. Kings xxii. 11, 13, 16, 17). Now, the Pentateuch contains two extensive passages describing the fearful visitations that should befall the people of Israel for following after other gods (Lev. xxvi.; Deut. xxviii.-xxxi.). Of these, the passage in Deuteronomy is the longest, and while the passage in Leviticus would be calculated to make a very similar impression, it may be noticed that the words of Huldah, referring to the curse contained in "the book of the law," possibly contain a reference to Deut. xxviii. 37 and xxix. 24 (cf. II. Kings xxii. 19). It can not be doubted that one or the other, or both, of these denunciations must have been included in Josiah's "book of the law" (p. 50).

As proof that the denunciations which alarmed Josiah were those in Deuteronomy rather than those in Leviticus, this is feebleness itself. It turns upon the "possibility," not the certainty, nor even the probability, that the words of Huldah contain a reference to two particular verses in Deuteronomy. What are these particular words of Huldah? The verse cited reads: "Because thine heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before Jehovah, when thou heardst what I spake against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me; I have also heard thee, saith Jehovah." These are the words of Huldah, and the verses in Deuteronomy to which she "possibly" had reference are these: "And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all the peoples whither Jehovah shall lead thee away" (Deut. xxviii. 37); "Even all the nations shall say, wherefore hath Jehovah done this unto this land? what meaneth the heat of this great anger?" (xxix. 24). Well might the professor say that the words of Huldah possibly contain a reference to the latter two verses. When all three of the verses are merely cited by their chapter and verse numbers, the reader may possibly think that possibly there is such a reference; but when they are all quoted in full, seriatim, he can judge of this possibility, and he can see why our cautions author uses the adverb "possibly" - an expression not characteristic of conclusive reasoning.

But, apart from all this reasoning from possible premises, we may freely admit, and our position requires us to admit, what Professor Ryle states as his conclusion, that "one or the other, or both these denunciations must have been included in Josiah's 'book of the law;'" for if it was the denunciations in Lev. xxvi. that alarmed him, this would show that the Book of Leviticus was in the volume; if it was these in Deuteronomy, this would only prove that Deuteronomy was in the book; and if Shaphan read both sets of denunciations, it only proves that Leviticus and Deuteronomy were both in the book. In other words, whatever proof is found that the Book of Deuteronomy is quoted or referred to in this account is proof that the Book of Deuteronomy was in the manuscript, as it must have been if the manuscript was the whole Pentateuch; but it is not proof, it cannot be, that the other books of the Pentateuch were absent from it. It is on this last point, as we shall see again and again, that the whole line of argument which we are considering is fatally defective. The second argument under this head is stated by Professor Ryle in the following words:

(b) The reforms carried out by the king and his advisers, In order to obey the commands of the "book of the law," deal with matters all of which are mentioned, with more or less emphasis, in the Deuteronomic legislation (p. 50).

Suppose this to be true, and what does it prove? If it were found, upon further examination, that these reforms deal with matters not mentioned in any book of the Pentateuch except Deuteronomy, it would certainly prove that Deuteronomy was in the book that was found; but it would not prove that the rest of the Pentateuch was not in it The doctrinal part of Luther's reformation turned upon the teaching found in Paul's two epistles, Galatians and Romans; but this is by no means proof that Luther's New Testament contained none of the other books that are in ours.

But let us examine the specifications adduced in support of this proposition:

(i) The principal religions reform carried out by Josiah was the suppression of the worship at the high places, and concentration of the worship at the temple. No point is insisted on so frequently and so emphatically in the Deuteronomic laws as that all public worship is to be centralized at the one place which Jehovah himself should choose (Deut xii. 5 and passim).

Grant all this and what is proved by it beyond the fact that Deuteronomy was part of the book? What proof does it afford that Deuteronomy, or some part of Deuteronomy, or "a collection of laws Deuteronomic in tone," was all of the book? Should a man find a copy of Shakespeare, and, in writing about it, make allusions only to Hamlet, could we argue that his copy contained Hamlet alone, or some part of Hamlet, or a drama having a close resemblance" to Hamlet?

(ii) Josiah took measures to abolish the worship of the heavenly bodies, a form of idolatry distinct from the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth. His action is in obedience to the commands of Deuteronomic laws (Deut. iv. 19; xxvii. 3). There alone in the Pentateuch this particular form of idolatry is combated. For, although it had existed in an earlier time, it does not seem to have infected the religion of Israel until late in the monarchical period (cf. II. Kings xxi. 3, 5; xxiii. 4, 5, 12).

These considerations are not sufficient to prove that Deuteronomy was even a part of the book found; for the general prohibition of idolatry in the Decalogue was sufficient to justify Josiah in abolishing the worship of the heavenly bodies, if he had never seen Deuteronomy. And although it, is true that there is no specific mention of this kind of worship as being actually existent in Israel till late in the monarchy, the fact here admitted by Professor Ryle that "it had existed in an earlier time" shows that it could have been specifically condemned in Deuteronomy if the latter was written by Moses. This argument therefore has no bearing whatever on the date of Deuteronomy.

(iii) Josiah celebrated the feast of the Passover (II. Kings xxiii. 21-23) in accordance with the "book of the law"-we find the law of the Passover laid down in Deut. xvi. 1-8.

True, he kept the Passover "as it is written in this book of the covenant;" and it is true that the law of the Passover is laid down in the passage cited from Deuteronomy in an incomplete form; but it is also laid down in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers; and so it appears again, that if Deuteronomy had not been even a part of the book found, Josiah would have done precisely what he did. If I were trying to prove that the book found contained the rest of the Pentateuch and not Deuteronomy, see how the arguments of the critics would suit my purpose. Strange that men with so much logical acumen never turn their own arguments around, and look at them on the other side.

It is true that Josiah kept the Passover; and it is also said in the text that "there was not kept such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah" (xxiii. 22). In what did its preeminence consist if not, in part at least, in the strictness of its compliance with the law? But if Josiah had been guided by Deuteronomy alone, he would have been ignorant of some of the most essential requirements of the law respecting this feast. The passage just cited (xvi. 1-8) is the only one in Deuteronomy giving any part of this law. It shows that the feast was to be observed in the month Abib, but it does not say on which day of the month, and a wrong day would have vitiated the service. It says that the victim should be of the flock or the herd; but it does not say that it must be a lamb of the first year without blemish. It does not say that the animal was to be roasted whole, that bitter herbs were to be eaten with it as well as unleavened bread, nor does it prescribe that no bone of the victim should be broken. It says nothing at all about the burnt-offerings which were to be offered every day of the Passover week. Not half of the legal provisions for this feast are mentioned in Deuteronomy, and yet with this book alone we are to believe that Josiah kept such a Passover as had not been kept before since the days of the judges. Are we told, in reply, that those other provisions are later additions to the law, and that those mentioned in Deuteronomy are all that were at first observed? If so, he who thus replies is guilty of the oft repeated fallacy in criticism of changing history to save an argument and at the same time of assuming as the basis of argument that which is yet in dispute; for the proposition that Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers are of later date than Deuteronomy is one of the matters under discussion.

(iv) Josiah expelled wizards and diviners from the land in express fulfillment of "the book of the covenant" (II. Kings xxiii. 24); we find the prohibition of this common class of impostors in Oriental countries expressed in strong language in Deut. xviii. 9-14.

Here, again, the author makes an argument that is wholly inconsequential, for two reasons: First, if the book found was the whole Pentateuch, this passage of Deuteronomy would have been in it; and, second, if the Book of Deuteronomy had not been in the book at all, the prohibition of wizards and diviners would have been found in the part now called Leviticus, which prescribes that all such impostors must be stoned to death (Lev. xx. 27). What kind of proof is this that the book was Deuteronomy alone?

Professor Rile was too thoughtful a writer not to see and feel the weakness of this mode of reasoning; consequently the following paragraph is added to bolster it up:

It is not, of course, for a moment denied that laws dealing with these two last subjects are to be found elsewhere in the Pentateuch. But as in all four cases Josiah's action was based upon "the law,' whatever "the law" was, it must have dealt with "feasts" and with ''wizards'' as well as with ''concentration of worship'' and ''star-worship." In the Deuteronomic laws all four points are touched upon.

The weakness is not made strong; for, if the book found was the whole Pentateuch, it contained Deuteronomy with its notice of these subjects, together with the other parts in which all these subjects, except "concentration of worship," are dealt with. The attempt to show that the Book was Deuteronomy alone is still a failure as glaring as before. Moreover, so fully are all these topics, with the exception named, dealt with in other parts of the Pentateuch, that but for the latter we should have no evidence from this point of view that Deuteronomy was in the book at all.

The next argument of our author is more elaborate, and it turns upon one of the titles given to Josiah's book:

(c) The book found in the temple is designated "the book of the covenant" (II. Kings xxiii. 2, 21), and it appears that it contained a covenant to the observance of which the king solemnly pledged himself (ib. 3). In the Pentateuch we find, it is true, a mention of "the book of the covenant" (Ex. xxiv. 7), by which the substance of the Sinaitic legislation (Ex. xx.-xxiii.) seems to be denoted. But it is clear, from the fact that the section (Ex. xx.-xxiii.) contains no denunciation; from the fact that it contains only the very briefest notice of the feast of the Passover, and then under another name, "the feast of the unleavened bread" (Ex. xxiii. 15); from the fact that it makes no mention of either wizards or star-worshippers that this portion of the Israelite law can not be "the covenant" referred to in II. Kings xxiii. On the other hand, an important section at the close of our Book of Deuteronomy is occupied with a "covenant;" and it can hardly be doubted that "a book of the law" which was also "the book of the covenant," must have included such passages as Deut. xxix. 1, "These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel;" verse 9' "Keep therefore the words of this covenant;" verse 14, "Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;" verse 21, "According to all the curses of the covenant that is written in the book of the law;" verses 24, 25, "Even all the nations shall say, Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this land? . . . Then men shall say, Because they forsook the covenant of the Lord" (pp. 51, 52).

Unfortunately for this line of argument, some of the most eminent of Professor Ryle's fellow critics deny that chapter xxix., from which his last four quotations are made, was a part of the original document (See Driver, Commentary on Deuteronomy, lxxiii.-lxxvii.; Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, lxxv.) If they are correct, these citations amount to nothing, seeing that in that case these verses were never seen by Josiah, and they had therefore no influence on his conduct.

But they are doubtless wrong The whole Book of Deuteronomy, with the exception of the last chapter and a few interpolated passages not affecting the present discussion, was contained in the book found in the temple; and, if it was there as a part of the whole Pentateuch, it may have been spoken of as "the book of the covenant." But if Deuteronomy may have had this title because of the frequent reference in it to the covenant between God and Israel, how much more might the Pentateuch as a whole have been called the Book of the Covenant, seeing that it contained all of Deuteronomv and in addition to this "the book of the covenant," expressly so called, which is found in Ex. xx.-xxiii., and is constantly alluded to in all the Pentateuch. While, then, our author's argumentation, taking his own view of the contents of Josiah's book, would prove that Deuteronomy was part of the book, it stops there, and moves not a hair breadth toward showing, as the necessities of the theory require him to show, that it was Deuteronomy alone.

The next argument presented by Professor Ryle I will summanze, in order to save space. It is based on the fact that the author of Kings, in the only two passages in which he quotes expressly the law of Moses, quotes from Deuteronomy. The passages are II. Kings xiv. 6, where the quotation is undoubtedly from Deut. xxiv. 16; and I. Kings ii. 3, where David is addressing Solomon and says: "Keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his testimonies, according to that which is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself." It is claimed that this is a citation from Dent. xvii. 18-20; but if the reader will compare the two he will find that they contain very few words in common. Moreover, unless the author of Kings has falsified history in this passage, it is David, and not himself, who makes the reference; and if it is in reality a reference to Deuteronomy, it proves that Deuteronomy existed in the days of David. But in reality these words of David are an almost verbatim quotation from Josh. i. 8, where God admonished Joshua on his taking command of the army of Israel. David, in admonishing his son Solomon when about to be made king of Israel, quoted the words of the Almighty addressed to Joshua on a similar occasion. This does prove that the Book of Joshua was in existence before David's death, which is itself a deathblow to the analytical theory, but it has no bearing whatever on the identification of the book found by Hilkiah.

Professor Ryle also claims that "in numerous characteristic expressions and phrases the compiler of the Book of Kings shows a close acquaintance with the Deuteronomic portion of the Pentateuch," and he cites several passages in proof. Then he argues:

If, therefore, the compiler of the Books of Kings identified the "law of Moses" and the "book of the law" with Deuteronomy, or, at least, with a Deuteronomic version of the law, we may nearly take it for granted, that, in his narrative of the reign of Josiah, when he mentioned "the book of the law" without further description, he must have had in his mind the same Deuteronomic writings with which he was so familiar (p. 53).

Yes, "if." But, if the compiler of the Books of Kings had in his possession the whole of the Pentateuch, as we have repeatedly shown above, he would have written precisely as he does, and therefore nothing that he says can be logically held as proof that he had Deuteronomy alone.

At this point let it be carefully observed that, according to the analytical theory itself, the documents J and E were already in existence, the former containing legislation now found in Ex. xx.-xxii. If we suppose, with the analytical critics, that Deuteronomy alone was found by Hilkiah, and that it alone was known by the author of the Books of Kings as "the book of the law," what had become of these other two documents? Had they also been lost or hidden during Manasseh's apostasy? They must have been, or Deuteronomy could not have held the field alone as the law of God. But if they had thus disappeared, what was to hinder all the Pentateuch from having disappeared in like manner? Even, then, if the critics could make out their cause, that Deuteronomy alone was Josiah's book, this would by no means preclude the supposition that the other books of the Pentateuch were in existence, but hidden in some other place. Thus we see that, from every point of view, the analytical theory is involved in confusion and inconsistencies.

After denying that the Book of Deuteronomy was of Mosaic origin, and claiming that it first became known to the public in the eighteenth year of Josiah, the next task for the critics is to show us when the book was written. On this point the radicals only are able to speak definitely. They tell us that the composition of the book was a pious fraud, perpetrated by Hilkiah and others for the purpose of breaking. down the worship in the high places, and enriching the temple priests by concentrating all in their hands, (See Sec. 4 [2].) Professor Ryle, and our English and American critics, are not willing to thus asperse the character of Hilkiah, but in trying to avoid it they shroud the origin of the book in a cloud of uncertainty. I quote from Ryle, his answer to the radicals:

To these questions the scholars who suppose the composition of the book to have been the work of Hilkiah himself and his friends, and who ascribe its discovery, not to chance, but to collusion, have no difficulty in making reply. Viewed from such a point of view, the book played a part in a clever intrigue conducted by the priests at Jerusalem who aimed at dealing a finishing stroke to the rival worship at the high places. But we have no reason to impugn either the accuracy or the sincerity of the historian, who describes an incident of which he was possibly a witness. An unprejudiced perusal of his narrative leaves the impression that he has no shadow of a suspicion of the discovery having been anything else but a fortunate accident, and that, in the opinion of those living at the time, the book was supposed to have existed long ago and to have been lost (Canon of Old Testament, p.54).

This is a very unsatisfactory answer to the radicals. It is only to say that the historian, that is, the author of the Book of Kings, and "those living at the time," were so successfully deceived that they had "no shadow of a suspicion" about the discovery, and that they really supposed the book to have existed long ago. If they thus supposed, and if, as Professor Ryle believes and tries to prove, the supposition was false, it follows that whatever the motive of Hilkiah and others, the people were deceived by somebody, and most successfully deceived. In the argument thus far the radicals clearly have the advantage.

But Professor Ryle gives some reasons for not believing that the book was an ancient one when discovered:

Assuming, then, that this "Deuteronomic 'book of the law'" was honestly regarded as an ancient book in the eighteenth year of Josiah, we must take into consideration the following facts: (1) That never before, on the occasion of a religion reform, do we find, in the Books of Samuel and Kings, any appeal to the authority of a book; (2) that, even in Hezekiah's reign, the attempt to suppress the high places was not, so far as history tells us, supported by any such appeal; (3) that the earlier prophets, Amos, Hosea, Micah and Isaiah (I), give no certain sign of having been influenced by the Deuteronomic laws (p. 55).

The first two of these reasons are evasive; for in the very brief account of Hezekiah's reformation, in which he put down the high places as Josiah did, it is said of Hezekiah, "He clave to Jehovah, he departed not from following him, but kept his commandments which Jehovah commanded Moses" (II. Kings xviii. 6). Here the king is said to have clung to Jehovah in effecting this reform; he kept Jehovah's commandments which he commanded Moses; but because the word "book" is not employed, Professor Ryle would have us conclude that the commandments which were kept, and which God had commanded Moses, were not in a book. It is a common argument with believers that if you find in the second century, or in any year of the first century, quotations of passages now found in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, they prove that the epistle existed that early. But no, say the unbelievers, not unless the name of the epistle is given. Thus the infidel argument against the New Testament is taken up by "evangelical critics," when they come to the Old Testament. The man of common sense, whether a believer or an unbeliever, will, so long as he reads of men "keeping the commandments of God which he gave Moses," conclude that they had the book in which these commandments were written. As to the earlier prophets, they give abundance of evidence that they knew the ethical teachings which abound in the book of Deuteronomy; how dares Professor Ryle to assume that they were not led to do so by knowing the contents of the book? Nothing short of positive knowledge that the book had not been written in their day, would justify such an assumption; and yet the assumption is used as an argument to prove the fact on which it depends. This is too glaring a fault in logic to be excusable in such an author.

A consciousness of weakness is betrayed at this point by the professor's next sentence, in which he says:

Of course, as has already been pointed out, ancient laws are copiously incorporated in Deuteronomy, and the mere mention of institutions and customs which are spoken of in Deuteronomy, does not prove the existence of the book itself.

This is true; but it is not in point; for he is trying to prove that because the word "book" is not used in connection with them, the book did not exist. This is an argument from silence; and lest his readers should disregard it on that account, our author next attempts to bolster up this species of argument:

The force of the argument from silence, however, will at once be appreciated when the pronounced influence of the Deuteronomic writings upon the style of authors to whom the Book of Deuteronomy was well known--e.g., Books of Kings, Jeremiah and Zephaniah--is fully taken account of. There is nothing parallel to it in the earlier Hebrew literature. The inference is obvious; the Book of Deuteronomy, in the earlier period, was either not yet composed or not yet known. But, if written, could it have failed to escape the notice of Amos, Hosea and Isaiah, and to leave on them something of the mark it made on later literature? (p. 55).

This argument assumes that there was nothing, except its recent origin, to give Deuteronomy the special influence which it exerted over later writers. Without, then, pausing to show, as we can, that the statement of this influence is magnified, it is a sufficient answer to show that this influence can be otherwise accounted for. The fact that the rediscovery of the book after it had been lost to sight so long, and the fact that its teaching, whether it was alone or in company with the other hooks of the Pentateuch, was the chief instrument in bringing about the most famous religious reformation in the history of Israel, necessarily brought it into a relative influence which it had not exerted before. There is a parallel in the influence exerted by the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians during the life of Luther and afterward. Were there any ground for raising a doubt whether Luther and his generation possessed all of the books of the New Testament, or whether these two epistles had not been recently written by some theologian in the name of Paul, how readily could critics of the modern school take up the cry, and demand, Why, if those two epistles existed before Luther's day, did they not influence the style and theology of earlier writers, as they certainly did those of a later date? The answer would be, There was a special reason in the Lutheran Reformation in which salvation by works was denied, and salvation by faith insisted on, to give new prominence to the two epistles in which the latter doctrine is especially emphasized. Just so, the Josian reformation was brought about chiefly by the teaching and the warnings of Deuteronomy, and this necessarily drew to this book, rather than to any other then written, the attention of writers in the next generation. So, then, this famous argument, which is a favorite with all classes of destructive critics, proves to be faulty in the fact that it ignores completely the real cause of the fact on which it is based.

In order to fix the time previous to which the Book 0f Deuteronomy could not have been written, Professor Ryle introduces a passage from Isaiah which has been made to figure conspicuously in the discussion of this question. He argues thus:

One well-known passage (Isa. xix. 19) should be sufficient to disprove the possibility of that prophet's acquaintance with the Deuteronomic law: "In that day there shall be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar [mazzebah] at the border thereof to the Lord." Isaiah could hardly have said this if he had been acquainted with the prohibition of Deut. xvi. 22, "Thou shalt not set up a pillar [mazzebah]; which the Lord thy God hateth." Nor is the reply satisfactory which says that Isaiah refers to the soil, not of Palestine, but of Egypt; for the prophet is contemplating a time when all the world should be subject to the "law" of Israel's God. It would appear, therefore, that the Deuteronomic "book of the law" was not known to Isaiah or his prophetic predecessors, and could hardly have been written before the reign of Hezekiah. When, in addition to this, the marked characteristics of his style corresponding to those which are found in the Hebrew writing of the sixth and latter part of the seventh century B. C., it is the most natural conclusion that the literary framework of the book is not to be placed earlier than the close of Isaiah's ministry (circ. 690 B. C.).

In this argument the author starts out as if there was no possibility of his being mistaken. The passage in Isaiah "should he sufficient to disprove the possibility" of his acquaintance with Deuteronomy. But in his next sentence he lowers his tone and says, "Isaiah could hardly have said this if he had been acquainted with the prohibition of Dent xvi. 22." And his conclusion is based on the latter assertion, and not on the former. Leaving off the question of possibility, he says, "Deuteronomy could hardly have been written before the reign of Hezekiah." Such a play of diminuendo as the argument advances is clear evidence that the man who framed it began with a confidence which he could not maintain to the end.

But let us see whether, if Isaiah had known intimately the prohibition of the mazzebah in Deuteronomy, he could still have predicted the erection of one at the border of Egypt. The obvious answer is, if it were revealed to him that there would be one, of course he could have predicted it. But it is assumed that he predicted it with approval, which he could not have done had he known Deuteronomy. The prophet certainly does speak of the event as indicating a change in Egypt for the better. Taking into view the immediate context, he says: "In that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan, and swear to Jehovah of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction. In that day there shall be an altar in the midst of the land of, Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to Jehovah. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto Jehovah of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they shall cry unto Jehovah because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a defender, and he shall deliver them." This clearly indicates a time when Egypt should be sore oppressed, and should turn to Jehovah for help, offering sacrifice to him, and setting up a pillar on the border of the land to honor him. Egypt was a land of pillars, or obelisks, as the word is rendered on the margin of the Revised Version, all erected in honor of their gods, and inscribed on their sides with the praises of the god whom each sought to honor. Now, if, in a time of distress, seeing the impotency of all her gods, Egypt should erect an obelisk in honor of Jehovah, the act would be a happy move in the right direction, no matter how abominable such a pillar might be beside a Jewish altar.  She was also to erect an altar to Jehovah. Suppose that on this altar they offered the sacrifices to which they are accustomed, but which would have defiled a Jewish altar, and the text indicates nothing to the contrary; still Egypt would be congratulated for doing even this with the purpose of honoring Jehovah. Isaiah, then, could have written all that he did with a full knowledge of what is said about the mazzebah in Deuteronomy.

Let us now give more particular attention to the prohibition in Deuteronomy, and see whether, in the argument under consideration, it is properly interpreted. The subject of the mazzebah is mentioned twice in this part of the book; first in xii. 2, 3, where it is said, "Ye shall surely destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: and ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars [mazzebahs,] and burn their Asherim with fire." Now, this portion of Deuteronomy has the form of a discourse; and whether it was delivered by Moses as the text affirms, or written in the time of Hezekiah and put into the lips of Moses by imagination, the speaker, real or imaginary, after uttering the words just quoted, uttered, in less than ten minutes later, these words: "Thou shalt not plant thee an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of Jehovah thy God, which thou shalt make thee. Neither shalt thou set up a pillar [mazzebah];; which Jehovah thy God hateth" (xvi. 21, 22). Can we imagine that there was no connection of thought between the two prohibitions? Is it not morally certain that the Asherah and the pillar in both passages mean the same? And, if so, are we not compelled by the laws of interpretation, to understand that, in the latter passage as in the former, the prohibition is against such mazzebahs as the Canaanites had used, and not against such structures when used legitimately? The answer which this question demands is implied in the very wording of the text; for the words, "a pillar which the Lord thy God hateth," leave room for the supposition that there were pillars which God did not hate.

That there were pillars (mazzebahs) which Jehovah did not hate, Isaiah knew, and the author of Deuteronomy knew. For be it remembered, that even if the Book of Deuteronomy was unknown to Isaiah, the documents J and E, and the combined document JE, were known both to him and the supposed author of Deuteronomy. This the analytical theory teaches. But in JE we find several statements about the erection of pillars (mazzebahs) by Jacob at Bethel, at Mizpah, and at Rachel's grave (Gen. xxxiii. 18, 22; xxxi. 45, 51, 52; xxxv. 14, 20). Moreover, JE represents God as approving the erection of this first mazzebah in saying to Jacob, "I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointest a pillar, where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out of this land, and return to the land of thy nativity" (xxxi. 13). In view of this fact Isaiah must have known that there were mazzebahs which God approved; and the supposed author of Deuteronomy knew it as well. Is it credible, then, that the latter put into the mouth of Moses, speaking for God, a prohibition of all mazzebahs? If not, then we must believe that the prohibition in question was against such mazzebahs as the Canaanites had in use.

Finally, there is a consideration suggested by the Deuteronomic prohibition which has been entirely overlooked by destructive critics, and yet it completely refutes their theory as to the date of the book. There is a book which forbids absolutely the erection of an altar to Jehovah other than the one at his chosen place of worship; a book written with this as one of its primary purposes, if not the chief purpose; yet in the midst of it we read these words: "Thou shalt not plant thee an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of Jehovah thy God which thou shalt make thee." Notice the future tense: "The altar of Jehovah thy God which thou shalt make thee." The altar in question was yet to be made when the book was written. If Moses wrote the book, this is what he would have said: for the altar spoken of was that in Jerusalem, or both that and the earlier altar at Shiloh. The Jerusalem altar was too, according to hypothesis, the one at which the author of Deuteronomy sought to concentrate the worship as the only altar of Jehovah. This altar had been made hundreds of years before this hypothetical date of Deuteronomy, yet the writer speaks of it as "the altar of Jehovah thy God which thou shalt make thee" What clearer demonstration could we have that the book was written before the altar in Jerusalem was made; that is, before the reign of Solomon? And if it was before the reign of Solomon, there can be no reason for giving it a date later than Moses. This argument can be set aside only by charging the author with fraud in putting these words in the mouth of Moses.

I have dealt thus elaborately with this argument, from the consideration that it is made use of by all the destructive critics without an apparent suspicion that any fallacy could be found in it The result illustrates the importance of the closest scrutiny of every argument and every passage of Scripture before concluding that it contains anything inimical to the Bible's own account of itself

If it is true, as asserted by Professor Ryle, that the Book of Deuteronomy, when discovered by Hilkiah the priest, "was the first instance of a book which was regarded by all, king, priests, prophets, and people alike, as invested not only with sanctity, but also with supreme authority in all matters of religion and conduct," it becomes a matter of supreme importance to account in some satisfactory way for such a reception of the book. But even his strong statement of the case falls short of the reality. The book was not only regarded as invested with sanctity and supreme authority, but it was regarded as having come from Moses; and it was this last consideration which gave it its sanctity and authority. This must all be accounted for in order to make the critical theory of its origin credible. The necessity of this can not have escaped the minds of the acute scholars who have advocated this theory, and one would expect to find in their writings some plausible if not convincing attempt at an answer. But on this point I have searched their writings in vain. Professor Ryle shows clearly that he felt the need of such an explanation, and through several pages of his Canon he feels around the question without fairly facing it. As you read through these pages in search of it, you are inclined to exclaim alternately, "Now I see it, now I don't see it" The nearest he comes to it is on page 60, where he formally raises the question only to immediately run away from it. Having fixed the date of its composition in the closing years of Hezekiah's reign, he says:

Nor is it difficult to understand how such a work, during the reactionary reign of Manasseh, became lost to view. That its accidental discovery in the eighteenth year of King Josiah produced so astonishing an effect can well be imagined.

Of course it can. We can easily imagine almost anything. But we have no need to imagine it; it is plainly told in the text, and nobody calls the record in question. What we desire is not to imagine it, but to account for it. And how does our learned author do this? Here is what follows:

The evils which the prophet or writers had sought to combat, had grown in intensity during the seventy or eighty years which had elapsed. The reform, so necessary before, culminating in the abolition of the high places, which Hezekiah had failed to carry out successfully, had now been long delayed; the difficulty of effecting it must have become proportionately greater; the flagrant indulgence in open idolatry, under the patronage of the court, had raised yet more serious obstacles in the path of religious restoration. In a single year "the book of the law" caused the removal of every obstacle. The laws it contained must, many of them, have been familiar, by tradition, long usage, and written codes. But in this book, laws, old and new alike, lived in the spirit of Moses, and glowed with the spirit of prophecy. The tone in which the law was here expounded to the people was something new. It marked the close of one era; it heralded the beginning of another. It rang sharp and clear in the lull that so graciously intervened before the tempest of Babylonian invasion. The enthusiasm it aroused in the young king communicated itself to the people. The discovery of "the book of the law" procured at once the abolition of the high places. The book was recognized as a divine gift, and lifted, though but for a passing moment, the conception of the nation's religion above the routine of the priesthood's traditional worship.

I search in vain, through all this, for even a semblance of an answer to the question, How can the reception accorded the book be accounted for? If Hezekiah's attempt to abolish the high places had failed, this would make it only the more difficult for this book to cause their removal; and this the author freely admits. He also admits, or, rather, he tells us in plain words, that the indulgence in open idolatry under the patronage of the court had raised "yet more serious obstacles" in the path of religious restoration. This only makes more imperative the demand for the explanation which is called for, but not given.

Next we are told what we knew before, that "in a single year 'the book of the law' caused the removal of every obstacle;" and this only intensifies our desire to know how it succeeded in doing so. Next we are told that "the laws it contained must, many of them, have been familiar, by tradition, long usage, and written codes." But, if they were, why was the king so astonished at them, and why did he rend his clothes? "But," continues our author, "in this book, laws, old and new alike, lived in the spirit of Moses, and glowed with the vehemence of prophecy." Yes; they not only lived in the spirit of Moses, but they professedly came from the very lips of Moses; and the question. is, How were king and priests and prophets and people alike led to believe that they came from Moses, when many of them, and especially the most objectionable of them all, had never been heard of before? This is the question to be answered, and the author's attempt only heaps up, statement by statement, the obstacles in the way of a satisfactory answer.

Again he says, "The tone in which the law was here expounded to the people was something new." But it claimed to be as old as Moses; how, then, could it be something new? And if it was something new, why did neither king, nor priest, nor prophet, nor one of the people, see in the fact that it was new, incontestable proof that it was not spoken by Moses? But, "it marked the close of one era; it heralded the beginning of another." Suppose it did; how could all parties know this, and why should this have made them think that the book came from Moses? But, "it rang sharp and clear in the lull that so graciously intervened before the tempest of Babylonian invasion;" and "the enthusiasm it aroused in the young king communicated itself to the people." Yes; but why did it arouse any enthusiasm in the young king? And what if it did ring in that lull? If the king had suspected that the book was recently written, would it have aroused in him this enthusiasm? Would it have made him rend his clothes? Finally we are told that "the book was recognized as a divine gift, and lifted, though but for a passing moment, the conception of the nation's religion above the priesthood's traditional worship." Of course the book was received as a divine gift; but the question is, Why? And this question is not answered. Robertson Smith attempts an answer in these words:

The authority that lay behind Deuteronomy was the power or the prophetic teaching which half a century of persecution had not been able to suppress (O. T.,. 363).

But the "prophetic teaching," according to hypothesis, and according to Robertson Smith himself, had been absolutely silent about the restriction of sacrifice to a single altar, and hostile to sacrifices in general. This is, then, no answer to the question. On the critical hypothesis as to the origin of the book, may we not here venture the assertion that it can not be answered? In view of the utter failure of the ablest critics thus far to find an adequate answer, may we not safely conclude that one will never be found? There is another obstacle in the way of the answer demanded which is insuperable, and which has been created by the critics themselves. They tell us that the documents J and E had been written some hundred years or more before the discovery by Hilkiah, and they tell us that the laws of the "book of the covenant" embodied in Ex. xx.-xxiii. were preserved in J, and had come down from Moses. They tell us that in that book the law guaranteed to every Hebrew the right to build an altar and offer his sacrifice at any spot which he might choose that this had been God's recognized and well-known law down to the very day in which Hilkiah's discovery was made. But here a newly written book of the law is produced, which contradicts all this, and teaches that it is a sin to offer sacrifices on any other altar than the one in Jerusalem. And when this newly written law, contradicting what all the people had hitherto received as the law of God, was read to the king, he rent his clothes; and when he read it to the people, they entered into a covenant with him to tear down all of the altars at which they had hitherto worshipped according to God's undisputed law. How can this be accounted for? They obey the new law because they are led to believe that it came from Moses, and they reject the old law though they believed that it also came from Moses. Did they think that Moses contradicted himself? If so, why, of the two contradictory laws, did they accept the one newly brought to light, the one never heard of before, and the one most obnoxious to their cherished habits? Who will answer these questions, or who will show, if they remain unanswered, that the new theory of the origin of Deuteronomy is worth the paper it is printed on? I knew a preacher who became insane and imagined that he was made of glass. He would not allow you to shake hands with him--only a gentle touch. And when he took a seat in a wooden chair he was very careful lest he should break himself to pieces. This critical theory of Deuteronomy reminds me of him. Wherever you shake it, it breaks.(1)

1. For the arguments of other authors on the evidence discussed in this section, see Driver, Int., 86-89; Robertson Smith, O. T., 256f., 363; Addis, D. of H., lxxv.; Andrew Harper, Com. Deut., 29-33; Principal Douglas, Lex M., 63-67; Stanley Leathes, Lex M., 443ff.; Robert Sinker, Lex M., 462ff., 480; James Robertson, Early Rel. of Israel, 421; Bissell, O. and S. of Pent., 23.