Page:The Books of Chronicles (1916).djvu/402

form, with which the Chronicler was familiar, is of post-exilic date. His Pentateuch was quite certainly not "the book" found by Hilkiah. (2) It is extremely interesting to observe that the first step towards the judgement of modern criticism was taken at a very early date and by certain of the Christian Fathers—Jerome, Procopius of Gaza, Chrysostom—who put forward the view that the book in question was not the whole Pentateuch but only the Book of Deuteronomy. [For the details the student must be referred to articles in the Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1902, pp. 170 f., 312 f., and the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1903, p. 50.] This view, first developed scientifically by De Wette, gained eventually a very wide acceptance amongst scholars. Stress is laid upon the resemblance between the reforms ascribed to Josiah and the exhortations and injunctions of Deuteronomy, particularly as regards the restriction of sacrificial worship to one sanctuary (i.e. Jerusalem; cp. Deut. xii. 10—14). For the evidence the student may consult Chapman, Introd. to the Pentateuch, pp. 135—146, esp. pp. 142—145 (in this series); or Driver, Deuteronomy (International Critical Commentaries), pp. xliv ff. (3) Further, internal consideration of the Book of Deuteronomy has led to the conclusion that it cannot all date from the time of Josiah: and thus it is now generally held that Hilkiah's "book of the law" was not the final form of Deuteronomy, but only the nucleus of that Book—probably chs. v.—xxvi. and xxviii., or xii.—xxvi. and xxviii., or even certain passages from those chapters (see Chapman, op. cit., pp. 144, 145; or Driver, op. cit., pp. lxv ff.). (4) Finally, there are grounds for doubting whether any part of Deuteronomy can be dated from the time of Josiah. It is suggested that the Deuteronomic code is not earlier than Jeremiah but later. Although this view does not yet command general acceptance, it is fair to insist that it rests upon evidence which cannot be so lightly set aside as is occasionally supposed. The student may conveniently refer to remarks by R. H. Kennett in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. VII., s.v. Israel p. 447, and to the references there given, esp. the Journal of Theological Studies, VII. [1906], pp. 481 ff. If Deuteronomy be later than the time of Josiah, what then can we suppose this "book of the law" (sēpher hattōrah) to have been; for there is no reason to question the accuracy of the tradition that some impressive writing was discovered in the Temple? The answer will be—in all probability—some scroll of prophetic teaching, in which the abuses of worship (perhaps in Manasseh's reign) and in particular the corruptions of the country "high places" were searchingly denounced and an appeal made for reform. Since at that date the term tōrah was applicable to prophetic teaching as well as to legal instruction, such a work would be known as "a book of tōrah." It is not a very serious objection that the text here and in Kings reads "the book of the law (hattōrah)," partly because a peculiarity of Hebrew grammar would still allow the translation "a book of tōrah," partly because the introduction of the definite article into the text would be most natural, so soon as it came to be thought that the phrase referred to Deuteronomy or the Pentateuch. We may summarise as follows:—