Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 53:212 (Oct 1896)
Article: The Final Chapters Of Deuteronomy
Author: W. Scott Watson

BSac 53:212 (Oct 1896) p. 681

The Final Chapters Of Deuteronomy

Rev. W. Scott Watson

THERE is a part of the Pentateuch which even the most conservative critic must rationally attribute to another pen than that of Moses. So evident is the fact of its presence, and so short its extent, that it is not generally necessary to make any allusion to it while writing in defense of the traditional view of the origin of the rest of the five books. We propose to examine this addendum and to determine its limits and authorship. We shall find that it is exactly similar to a closing chapter added to a modern autobiography to tell of the last moments and posthumous honors of the subject of the book, and that therefore the recognition of its existence in no way compromises the theory of the Mosaic origin of all that precedes it.

Extent

There is much more unanimity in regard to the presence of an appendix to Deuteronomy than there is in regard to the amount of matter that should be embraced under that designation. Its beginning has been placed at Deut. 31:1; at 31:24; at 32:44; at 33:1; and at 34:1.

A single reading of the thirty-fourth chapter should suffice to convince any person that it was not composed by the great lawgiver of Israel. It would be absurd to say that he himself wrote the account it gives of his death and burial, including the assertion that “the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of

BSac 53:212 (Oct 1896) p. 682

weeping in the mourning for Moses were ended” (ver. 8). The record of the obedience given by the people to Joshua, and the statement that “there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses,” also clearly imply the lapse of some time since the death took place. Should any one remind me that Moses was a great prophet, and assert that God was able to qualify him to write this chapter, I would reply, that if he could, he would not. The gift of prophecy was never given to falsify history. There is nothing in the text to show that we have before us aught else than a plain post-eventum narrative of actual occurrences. We have as much reason to look upon any other apparently-historical passage of the Old Testament as having been written in anticipation of the events as we have to consider this one in such a light. If we find prophecy here, it will be difficult to prove any part of the Bible strictly historical, and to show, for instance, that what is said about the patriarchs, the judg...