es between D and the Book of the Covenant (Ex.
xx.-xxiii.) it is clear that D was acquainted with E, the prophetic
narrative of the Northern kingdom; but it is not quite clear whether D
knew E as an independent work, or after its combination with J, the
somewhat earlier prophetic narrative of the Southern kingdom, the
combined form of which is now indicated by the symbol JE. Kittel
certainly puts it too strongly when he asserts that D quotes always from
E and never from J, for some of the passages alluded to in D may just as
readily be ascribed to J as to E, cf. Deut. i. 7 and Gen. xv. 18; Deut.
x. 14 and Ex. xxxiv. 1-4. Consequently D must have been written
certainly after E and possibly after E was combined with J.

In Amos, Hosea and Isaiah there are no traces of D's ideas, whereas in
Jeremiah and Ezekiel their influence is everywhere manifest. Hence this
school of thought arose between the age of Isaiah and that of Jeremiah;
but how long D itself may have been in existence before it was read in
622 to Josiah cannot be determined with certainty. Many argue that D was
written immediately before it was found and that, in fact, it was put
into the temple for the purpose of being "found." This theory gives some
plausibility to the charge that the book is a pious fraud. But the
narrative in 2 Kings xxii. warrants no such inference. The more natural
explanation is that it was written not in the early years of Josiah's
reign, and with the cognizance of the temple priests then in office, but
some time during the long reign of Manasseh, probably when his policy
was most reactionary and when he favoured the worship of the "host of
heaven" and set up altars to strange gods in Jerusalem itself. This
explains why the author did not publish his work immediately, but placed
it where he hoped it would be safely preserved till opportunity should
arise for its publication. One need not suppose that he actually foresaw
how favourable that opportunity would prove, and that, as soon as
discovered, his work would be promulgated as law by the king and
willingly accepted by the people. The author believed that everything he
wrote was in full accordance with the mind of Moses, and would
contribute to the national weal of Yahweh's covenant people, and
therefore he did not scruple to represent Moses as the speaker. It is
not to be expected that modern scholars should be able to fix the exact
year or even decade in which such a book was written.