priest or prophet of that or the immediately preceding period.

* Comp. here even the emphatic language of Ewald (Gesch. d. V. Isr. III, p. 754). See also

Kautzsch in Herzog's Real Encykl. VII., p. 119. We refer the more readily to these critics that their

views in regard to this "book of the Law" widely differ from those expressed in this History.

Assuming, as there is every reason to do, that certainly it contained the Book of Deuteronomy, and

probably also other portions, if n ot the whole, of the Law,* we cannot imagine any reasonable

motive on the part of the priesthood, and still less of the prophets, for the invention of such a

* Most German writers regard it as comprising Deuteronomy, or the parts of the Pentateuch which

they designate as the work of the Deuteronomist. But this is not the place for critical discussions,

and we have only generally indicated in the text the differing views propounded.

** See Kautzsch, u.s.

And plainly it must have been accepted and its genuineness attested by Jeremiah, who at that time

had already been five years in the prophetic office. The further question of the precise contents of

the book is both difficult of discussion and not of great practical importance. Irrespective of the

time* which the reading of the whole Pentateuch would have occupied (comp. here 2 Kings 23:2),

the wording of Holy Scripture scarcely conveys in the first instance that the Book comprised the

strictly historical portions of the Pentateuch (such as Genesis), but, as we expressly read, "the

Book of the Covenant,"** and "the Book of the Law."

* Kautzsch (u.s., p. 118) calculates it as occupying at least ten hours.

** But in 2 Kings 23:25 we read of "all the law of Moses." And in regard to the "Book of the

Covenant," we have to recall the expression in Deuteronomy 29:1, with which we have further to

connect Deuteronomy 31:24-26. Bahr (in Lange's Bibelwerk, VII., pp. 455, 456, 464, 465) ably

contends that the "book" comprised the whole Pentateuch. Kleinert holds that it embraced "certain

parts" of the books of Moses, but including ritual laws. The very interesting Art., "Gesetzbuch,"

by Riehm (Worterb. I., pp. 501-507) represents another aspect.

The latter expression leads us in the present case to think, first of all, of that aspect of the law

which specially affected the people, and the breach of which entailed the national judgment that

Huldah had announced, and the apprehension of which had caused such consternation to the king.

If so, we should perhaps not have to think in the first place of those ritual ordinances found in the

central portions of the Pentateuch, which are now commonly called the "Priest Code." These

would chiefly affect the priesthood, nor perhaps could the people have followed with complete

understanding the mere reading of their complicated ritual details. Besides, the previous history

has furnished us with sufficient instances to show that, unlike the Law, the provisions and

ordinances of the "Priest Code" must have been well known .*

* See also p. 189, note 3b. Many corroborative instances will here recur to the mind, such as the

various sacrifices, the Paschal observances, and even the punishment of Uzziah, 2 Chronicles

26:18, 19.

On the other hand, the main contents of the Book of the Law read in hearing of the people must

have concerned the whole fundamental relation between Israel and Jehovah. Hence we conclude

that it must have contained, besides the Book of Deuteronomy, at any rate those portions of the

Pentateuch which related to the same all-important subject. Beyond these suggestions, which are

necessarily in the nature of conjectures, we cannot here discuss this question. But on the main

points we cannot have any hesitation. In Deuteronomy 31:25, 26, we find directions for depositing

the Book of the Law in the innermost Sanctuary, as indeed might have been expected. That in the