DEUTERONOMY. - The fifth book of the Pentateuch, called by the Hebrews, from its opening words, *elleh had-débhárím* («these are the words») or *had-débhárím* («the words»), by the Septuagint *Deuteronomion* («second law»); cf. Deut. 17, 18: *miš-néh hat-tóráh* («repetition of the Law»).
The people about to enter the Promised Land were for the most part born or raised in the desert, and having not witnessed the miracles of the Exodus or the events of Sinai might have been inclined to neglect the Law, especially since several of its provisions, due to the special circumstances then prevailing, had not been observed, others had been forgotten, and still others needed modification in view of the sedentary life soon to begin. Moses, in the 11th month of the 40th year after the Exodus, shortly before his death, while encamped in the plains of Moab opposite Jericho, impressed upon the people and adapted the Law, expounding it in a fatherly tone.
I. SUBJECT MATTER
In the 1st discourse, preceded by a historical account (1,4-3,29) in which he recalls the principal events of the desert, demonstrating that God was faithful to His people, he exhorts them to fidelity toward God and obedience to the divine precepts (4, 1-40). In the 2nd discourse (5,1-26,19), which is the central part of the book, he sets forth the Law for the Israelites. In the 1st section (5,1-11,31), after repeating the Decalogue, he explains and inculcates the first precepts, concerning the worship of Jahweh, the one God. He intersperses effective admonitions, recalling the divine benefits received in the desert. This is followed by special precepts (chs. 12-26): on worship (chs. 12-18), of which an important instance is that concerning the unity of the place of worship (ch. 12), on public order (19,1-21,9), on special relationships (21,10-23,17), and other laws. The legislation of D. concludes (3rd discourse: 27,1-30,20) with the command to renew the covenant as soon as the people should enter Palestine, and the urgent recommendation to observe the Law, accompanied by vigorous style with blessings and promises to the faithful Israelites, and curses against the unfaithful. The historical conclusion (31,1-34,12) recounts Moses’ final acts: the election of Joshua as his successor, the handing over of the Law to the sons of Levi, the solemn canticle, and the death of the Lawgiver.II. ORIGIN
The authenticity of D. is connected with that of the Pentateuch. Jewish tradition up to the last century and Christian tradition admit the Mosaic origin of D., basing this on data from the book itself (4,13 sqq.; 31,9-24; for 31,9 the Mosaic authenticity of our book must be held by divine faith: thus A. Bea), on the singular importance of Moses’ personal work, and on the ancient national tradition (cf. 2 Kings 14, 6 = Deut. 24, 16; Bar. 2, 2 sqq. = Deut. 28, 53; Matt. 19, 8 = Deut. 24, 1; Acts 3, 22 = Deut. 18, 15; 19, Rom. 10, 19 = Deut. 32, 21, etc.). The Mishnah, however, rightly considers the last eight verses of the book, which speak of Moses’ death, as non-Mosaic. The widely disseminated theory of J. Wellhausen holds that D. (designated by the siglum D) was the third «document» that was added to the two already combined J (Yahwistic) and E (Elohistic).Many «critics», with A. Kuenen, J. Wellhausen, O. Sellin, hold that D. was composed only shortly before the reform of Josiah, between 630 and 622 B.C., and presented as a «pious fraud» as the volume of the Law discovered in the Temple. Others, however, attribute it to the time of Hezekiah (721-693) or after 721 (C. Steuernagel, Hengel, R. Kittel); E. Naville traces it back to the time of Solomon. Recently the connection between the reform of Josiah and D. has been denied: A. Welch and W. Stark consider it more ancient, Hölscher later than the Exile (see sect. v). We set aside fragmentary theories: I. Hempel distinguishes in D. three main strata, besides secondary ones.
D. stands at the center of the Mosaic question. The «critics» indeed hold that the traditional view of the origin and development of Israel’s religion is completely overturned by D. (B. Stade). From the publication of D., according to them, a new religious, moral, and even social period begins. They have even discovered a particular manner of writing and speaking, called «Deuteronomistic», which prevails in later Israelite literature and gives rise also to glosses and revisions of earlier books. The most serious and famous variation in Israel’s legislation concerns the place of worship or sacrifice. While in Ex. 20, 24-36 the multiplicity of places of worship is assumed, in Lev. 17, 39 the altar (v.) is unique for all and no slaughter of animals is permitted except at the altar; in D. then there is absolute centralization: one sanctuary in one tribe (12, 5-14) and outside of it no victims may be offered to God.
But the entire legislation of the Pentateuch on the place of worship is centralized, and there is no contradiction between the various provisions when considered in their purpose and manner. In Ex. 20 there is no question of the regular and stable place of worship, but of extraordinary places where one had to sacrifice on account of particular theophanies or divine revelations; the simplicity of the altar tends to prevent stable worship. The unity of the public sanctuary is assumed in Ex. with the three annual pilgrimages to be made to the sanctuary. The prohibition of Leviticus against slaying outside the camp and the tabernacle confirms the unity of the place of worship and prescribes for Israel the absolute centralization of the place of worship for the time when it shall be in Palestine (vv. 8-12). Thus the sacred authors of later times have interpreted the text: cf. 1 Kings 15, 14; 22, 4; 2 Kings 12, 4; 14, 4; 15, 4-34. Special provisions allow (Deut. 12, 13-19), for the time before the complete occupation of Palestine, the private slaughter of animals not having sacrificial character, and this (Deut. 12, 20-27) even perpetually for places very distant from the one sanctuary.
The antiquity of D. is confirmed by the very nature of the book, which, for example, speaks of the Amalekites who did not exist after Hezekiah, and presents the conditions of Israel as they were at the entrance into Palestine.
The oratorical form, given the circumstances, may have been the primitive dress. But precisely because it was most suitable for public reading it lent itself more to expansions and formal retouches. The non-observance of certain of its precepts until the Babylonian exile is explained by the fact that, promulgated on the eve of entry into Palestine, it could not be fixed in the memory and common practice. In the meantime, it is known from Amos 2, 10; 4, 6-9; Hos. 5, 10; 6, 1, etc.; to speak of a «Deuteronomistic editor» is to beg the question. One cannot speak of a «pious fraud» in the account of the discovery of the Law; if sometimes in Egypt a new book was presented as found in the recesses of temples to lend it authority, it is certain that temples were the preferred places for the custody of important writings, and that these writings often disappeared from view, so that they were later actually found. The historicity of 2 Kings 22, 3-23, 24 and 2 Chron. 3, 3-35, 19 is unassailable, where probably the entire Pentateuch is in view. Nor can the widespread tradition in the people of the repetition of the Law in the land of Moab be explained without a historical basis.