106 YEN. ARCHDEACON WILLIAM SINCLAIR, D.D., ON 



that age. The ideas of Deuteronomy no doubt lay behind 

 Hezekiah's reformation, but there is no evidence of the presence 

 of the book, or of its composition, at or about that time. Had 

 it been newly composed, or then appeared for the first time, 

 we should have expected it to make a sensation, as it did 

 afterwards in the time of Josiah. The question also would 

 again arise as to its Mosaic claim, and the acknowledgment of 

 his by Hezekiah and his circle. 



3. From Hezekiah upwards till at least the time of the 

 Judges, or the immediately post-Mosaic age, there is no period 

 to which the composition of the book can suitably be referred, 

 nor is there any evidence of its composition in that interval. 



4. The Book definitely gives itself out as a reproduction of 

 the speeches which Moses delivered in the Arcibah of Moab 

 before his death, and expressly declares that Moses wrote his 

 addresses (" this law "), and gave the book into custody of the 

 priests. 



5. The internal character of the book, in its Mosaic stand- 

 point, in its absence of reference to the division of the kingdom, 

 and the archaic and obsolete character of many of its laws, 

 supports the claim to a high antiquity and to a Mosaic origin. 



6. The supposition that Deuteronomy is a " free reproduction," 

 or elaboration, of written addresses left by Moses, by one who 

 has fully entered into liis spirit, and continues his work, while 

 not inadmissible, if the facts are shown to require it, is unneces- 

 sary, and in view of the actual character of the book, not 

 probable. The literary gifts of Moses were amply adequate to 

 the writing of his own discourses in their present form. This 

 is not to deny editorial revision and annotation. 



7. There are no conclusive reasons in the character of the 

 laws or of the historical retrospects for denying the authorship 

 of the discourses, in this sense, to Moses. 



8. It seems implied in Deuteronomy xxxi, 9, 24-26, that 

 Deuteronomy originally subsisted as a separate book. It may 

 have done so for a longer or a shorter peiiod, and separate copies 

 may have continued to circulate even after its union with other 

 parts of the Pentateuch. It was probably a separate authentic 

 copy which was deposited in the temple, and was found there 

 by Hilkiah. 



9-10 The historical laws and narratives which Deuteronomy 

 presupposes must, in some form, have existed earlier than the 

 present book, if not earlier than the delivery of the discourses. 

 These also, therefore, are pushed back, in essentials, into the 

 Mosaic age. They need not, however, have been then completed, or 



