[Footnote 59: Lev. 24. 15; Num. 9. 10; 15. 35; 27. 8; 36. 8.] And this is confirmed by the fact that in some cases the same laws are referred to both in Leviticus, (near the beginning) and in Deuteronomy (at the end) of the forty years in the Desert, but with slight differences between them. And these _exactly correspond_ to such a difference in date. One instance, that referring to the _slaughter of animals_, has been already alluded to. Another has to do with the animals, which might, and might not, be _eaten_. Leviticus includes among the former, several kinds of locusts, and among the latter the mouse, weasel, and lizard; all of which Deuteronomy omits. Clearly then, when Leviticus was written, the people were in the desert, and there was a lack of animal food, which might tempt them to eat locusts or mice; but when Deuteronomy was written, animal food was plentiful, and laws as to these were quite unnecessary. In each of these cases, then, and there are others like them, the differences must be due either to the various laws dating from the times they profess to, when all is plain and consistent; or else to the carefully planned work of some late writer, who was trying in this way to pretend that they did. Still more important is the fact that in several places stress is laid on the people's _personal knowledge_ of the events referred to; _e.g._, 'The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.'[60] And what is more, this personal knowledge is often appealed to as a special reason for obeying the laws.[61] For instance, 'I speak not with your children which have not known, and which have not seen the chastisement of the Lord, ... but your eyes have seen all the great work of the Lord which He did. _Therefore_ shall ye keep all the commandments,' etc. Plainly this would have had no force in later times; indeed it would have provided an excuse for _not_ obeying the laws, since the people of those days had no personal knowledge of the events referred to. And we may ask, is it likely that a late author, who falsely ascribed his laws to Moses, in order to get them obeyed, should yet put into the mouth of Moses himself an excuse for not obeying them? [Footnote 60: Deut. 5. 3; 24. 9, 18, 22; 25. 17.] [Footnote 61: Deut. 11. 2-8; 4. 3-15; 29. 2-9.]