DEUTERONOMY — THE PRESENT STATE OF INQUIRY MOSHE WEINFELD EDREW UNIVERSITY, JERUSALEM — JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK HE sole concern of the pentateuchal literature, as is well known, is with the period preceding the conquest of Canaan; thus any direct reference to an historical event of the later periods would be sought in it in vain. Even after different sources were distinguished in the Penta- teuch no criterion was yet available for establishing the date of the com- position of these sources. The first scholar to find this criterion was W.M.L. De Wette. It was he who raised the theory that Deuteronomy reflects the reform of Josiah, a theory which was considered a great dis- covery and was used as a key to understand the process of the composition of the Pentateuch? ‘The main argument in the thesis of De Wette was that Deuteronomy reflects the centralization of the cult. For according to the historical traditions of Israel, stemming from the times before Hezekiah-Josiah, sanctuaries and high places were not only existent and tolerated but were even considered indispensable for the religious life of Israel. Thus, we hear Elijah the prophet complaining bitterly about the destroying of altars of Yahweh in Israel by the followers of Baal, a crime which is mentioned by him in one breath with the slaying of the prophets of Yahweh? The first we hear about abolishing legitimate altars is in the time of Hezekiah! and in a more radical way in the time of Josiah.s As the demand for an exclusive center of worship is raised within the pen- Ditsertatio critico-exegetica etc, 1808. ‘That the book discovered in the temple was Deuteronomy was already surmised by Jerome (Comm, in Bsech. 1, 1), but that this book reflects a new historic religious reality from the time of Hezekiah-Josiah was for the first time suggested by De Wette. * De Wette himself considered D the last source of the Pentateuch, but the Graf- Kuenen-Wellhausen school placed the P source after D, a supposition which gained general acceptance but has been recently strongly questioned by Y, Kaufmann (see the first volume of his Toledot ha'emsunah hayisre'elit, 3937; and in English: Y. Kauf- mann, The Rdigion of Israel, tr. by M. Greenberg, 1960, pp. 178 fl.). Kaufmann’s arguments, plus the new light which has been spread on the institutions of P by com- parative evidence from the ancient Near East, do not allow us any longer to take the lateness of P for granted. 31 Kings 19 10, 411 Kings 18 4, 22. SIL Kings 23 8-9, © 1967, by the Society of Biblical Literature250 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE tateuchal literature only in Deuteronomy, there is no escaping the con- clusion that this book reflects the reform, in other words, that this book was the outcome of the reform movement flourishing in the times of Hezekiah and Josiah. The theory of De Wette stood firm and unshaken during a period of over 100 years. In the twenties of this century, for the first time, voices were raised against the theory. The objection came from two different directions. A group of scholars represented by Oestreicher* and Welch? tried to disconnect Deuteronomy from the reform by argue ing that the book of Deuteronomy does not demand centralization of cult at all. In order to prove their point which was very revolutionary, they had to resort to all kinds of doubtful and forced interpretations. So, for example, in the phrase which expresses the idea of centralization: ‘pose Ima ‘7 ana eR opps, which means literally “the place which Y. shall choose in one of your tribes," they attempted to demonstrate that not “one place” is meant here but “any place,” so that Y. could choose several places where he would establish his name. Where the evidence for centralization was too obvious to be misinterpreted, as Deut 12 5-2, where we read a2mav b2x (“from all your tribes”), they did away with it by suggesting it was a late addition.® Another faction represented by Holscher? denied the very fact of centralization of wor- ship in the time of Josiah. This was done by deleting verses in II Kings 23% and by the very radical and extreme theory that Deuteronomy is an utopian product of the second commonwealth. Neither this theory nor the other has gained real support in biblical scholarship. A sort of account settling with these dissident opinions was done in a symposium on the problem of Deuteronomy which was published in JBL in 1928." In the twenties the controversy about De Wette’s thesis was limited to the question of centralization of worship which was, in fact, the point of departure for De Wette. However, in the course of time, the ques- tion of the style of Deuteronomy turned out to be not less but even more important than centralization of cult for dating Deuteronomy. Style such as we have in Deuteronomy is not to be found in any of the historical and prophetical traditions before the seventh century B.c. Conversely, from the seventh century onwards almost all of the his- "Th, Oestreicher, Das deuleronomische Grandgesets, 1923. 7 A.C. Welch, The Code of Deuteronomy, 1924; idem, Deuteronomy, The Framework to the Code, 1932. "CI, Welch, Code, pp. $7, and his article in ZATP, 42 (1925), pp. 250. °G. Holscher, “Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums," ZA, 40 (1923), pp. 161-255. = Vs, 84, Be See the articles of Bewer, Paton, andl Dabl, pp. 305-79.WEINFELD: DEUTERONOMY 251 torical, prophetical,"* and even psalmodic literature" is permeated with this style. Indeed arguments of style and form are characteristic of the new stage in the research in the book of Deuteronomy. This new stage is a direct outcome of the new trend in biblical criticism, the so-called “history of form." By this new constructive approach in biblical re- search we were taught to look for the social circumstances which pro- duced the pattern of a piece of literature rather than for the time of its composition. Instead of asking about the historical background of a certain composition by examining its contents, the answer to which may be sometimes very subjective, we ask about the sociological background of the composition — the “Sitz im Leben" — by considering its style and forms of expression. Thus problems in biblical criticism were shifted from the question of ‘twhen"’ to the question of ‘‘where” and “who.” This was the way Gunkel investigated the Psalms, Alt the law, and von Rad Deuteronomy. And dealing with Deuteronomy one must say that thanks to von Rad the problem of Deuteronomy has undergone important changes in the last thirty years. Let us, then, glance at the theory of von Rad and survey briefly its main points. ‘As carly as 1938 G. von Rad was struck by the peculiar structure of the book of Deuteronomy: homily, laws, sealing of covenant, blessings and curses.“ He rightly observed that such a strange combination of different literary genres could hardly be invented. He assumed therefore that the complex literary structure must have been rooted in a cultic ceremony in which God’s laws were recited by clergy. Traces of an old cultic ceremony could indeed be found in Deut 27, and traditions con- nected with Shechem in Josh 24, According to von Rad Deuteronomy renews the cultic tradition of the old Shechem amphictyony, a theory which fits well the prevalent opinion about the affinities of Deuteronomy to northern traditions." As a matter of fact, already in the nineteenth century A. Klostermann” had conjectured that the preaching style of Deuteronomy reflects a public recital, but he could not yet, of course, base his thesis on form-critical observations as did von Rad, and there- fore did not connect it with the cult. In 1947 von Rad*? went a step further and identified the reciters of the law with the Levites and moreover recognized them as the actual "So Jeremiah, Ezechiel, and Second Isaiah, but the deuteronomie style is especially marked in the prose sermons in Jeremiah. °5 CE, the historic Psalms 105 and 106, “4 The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (tr. by E. W. J. Dicken), 1966, pp. 26-40. "See, for example, A. Alt, Die Heimot des Dewieronomiums, Kleine Schriften 1, pp. 250-75. * Der Pentatewch, N.P., 1997, pp. 184 f. "Studies in Deuteronomy (tr. by D. Stalker), 1958.252 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE spokesmen of the deuteronomic movement. This supposition he based mainly on Neh 87, where we read about the Levites instructing the people in law. One would shrink from such a reconstruction based upon a late text which, as von Rad himself admitted, is heavily overloaded and may be interpolated by the chronicler who was specially interested in levitical duties. But nevertheless he says that it is hard to believe that this procedure of law reading is an invention of the second com- monwealth, Now, it seems that of the two problems which von Rad tried to solve — the problems of the “where” and ‘“who” of Deuteronomy — the solution to the problem of the “where,” i.e. the cult as the life setting of Deuteronomy, has a more objective basis than does that of the “who,” viz., the Levites. For the hypothesis of a cultic covenant ceremony solves at least the problem of the peculiar structure of the book, while the second hypothesis about the Levites not only lacks any objective basis but has much against it. First of all, it is inconceivable that the Levites, who were deprived of their office through the centralization of the cult and as a result of which are considered in Deuteronomy as a part of the personae misera~ diles,"$ could be identified with the circle which stands behind Deuter- onomy. The Levites as composers of Deuteronomy would be comparable to one cutting off the branch upon which he sits. Von Rad saw this difficulty but tried to do away with it by arguing that the demand for centralization in Deuteronomy rests upon a very narrow basis and could be considered a late stratum in the book. Such an answer seems hardly satisfactory; after all, centralization serves as the guiding prin- ciple for chs. 12-19, the nucleus of the code, and therefore cannot be simply discounted.** One can even trace the history of the birth of von Rad’s theory about the Levites, In 1934, analyzing the sermons in the book of Chronicles," von Rad came to the conclusion that these sermons reflect the instruction of the Levites of the postexilic period who built their sermons on quotations from ancient authoritative texts. Asking himself about the “situation in life” of the Levitic sermon style, he said that it would be conceivable that the Levites who had been deprived of ™ Deuteronomy is the only book which adds the Levite to the personae miscrabiles known from the Tetrateuch: the poor (1p), the resident alien (a), the orphan, and the widow, ‘The rise of this new social stratum in Deuteronomy comes without doubt as a result of the abolishment of the provincial cult rites. 9 Studies in Deut., p. 67. w The laws about sacrifices, tithes, firstlings, holidays, and the cities of refuge, incorporated in this collection, are based on the principle of centralization and reflect Clearly the change these institutions underwent following the reform; see below pp. 258 ff. 4 See “The Levitical Sermon in I and If Chronicles” in The Problem of the Hexa- touch, pp. 267-80.WEINFELD: DEUTERONOMY 253 office through the centralization of the cult found a new sphere of activity in religious instruction.” This means, then, that the Levite sermon is the outcome of the reform while, as we already indicated, in his Studies in Deuteronomy in 1947 he considers the Levites a religious order from old times, responsible for the composition of Deuteronomy. This change of attitude was caused apparently by von Rad’s discovery, in the meantime, i.¢., in 1938, of the covenantal structure of Deuter- onomy; for if Deuteronomy really reflects a cultic ceremony, then it is sensible to suppose that the clerics taking part in the ceremony stand behind the book. But the whole problem was changed when attention was drawn to the structural form of treaties in the ancient Near East. Mendenhall in 1954 was the first to see the similarities between the Hittite treaties and the Israelite covenant. After the treaties of Esarhaddon with his eastern chieftains were published in 1958 and after the relationship between the ancient Near Eastern treaties and the covenant in the OT was more intensively investigated,’ it became evident that a treaty pattern with a common basic structure — historical introduction, stipulations, blessings and curses —- was prevalent in the ancient Near East for a period of over a thousand years. Von Rad's question of the peculiar structure of Deuteronomy could now be answered in a different way. Now it can be said that the structure of Deuteronomy follows a literary tradition of covenant writing rather than imitating a periodical cultic ceremony which is still unattested. And if it is unnecessary to assume a cultie ceremony for understanding the structure of Deuter- onomy, then the assumption about the Levites preserving this cultic tradition becomes dubious too, for if a literary pattern lies behind the form of Deuteronomy, then it would be much more reasonable to assume that a literary circle which was familiar with treaty writing — in other words, court scribes — composed the book of Deuteronomy. | refer to the scribes of the period of Hezekiah-Josiah, a period which should be marked as one of religious revival.:7 This hypothesis of mine, to which » Ibid., p. 279. =G. E, Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Traditions,” BA, 17 (1959), pp. 49-76. 2D. J. Wiseman, “The vassal treaties of Esarhaddon,” Zrag, 20 (1958), pp. 1-99. “CID. J. McCarthy, “Treaty and Covenant,” Analecta Biblica, 24 (1963). % The lack of this component in the Assyrian treaty does nat necessarily indicate ‘a change in the general pattern prevalent in the first millennium .c. but could rather bbe explained as originating in Assyrian political mentality. The Assyrian emperor who pretended to be the king of the world did not feel it necessary, and would even be humiliated, to justify his demand for loyalty through referring to his gracious acts for the vassal as the Hittites used to do. This was indicated by A. Goetze during a private conversation. 2 This atmosphere of revival was felt in this period all over the Near East; cf. W.F, Albright, Prom the Stone Age to Christianity, pp. 314-19.254 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE I devote a comprehensive study about seribes/wise men as composers of Deuteronomy, could explain another question of von Rad, namely, the question about the strange combination of cultie and national- political institutions which we find in Deuteronomy, a fact which led von Rac to assume a connection between the Levites and the prx7 op, the full citizens of Judah, which group constituted the national military movement in Judah.?® But if we see the scribes of Hezekiah-Josiah as responsible for the crystallization of Deuteronomy, the problem is much more simple, because only scribes who deal with literary and written documents and who have access to the court could have assembled so variegated a collection of documents as are encountered in Deuteronomy. and the whole deuteronomic composition.’ Especially instructive from this point of view is a ceries of maledictions in Deuteronomy 28 which can be proved to have been transposed directly from Assyrian con- temporary treaties into the book of Deuteronomy. Frankena’s sup- position” that Josiah’s covenant with God was considered a substitution for the former treaty with the king of Assyria, thereby expressing vassal- ship to Yahweh instead of vassalship to the king of Assyria, is very plausible and accounts for the similarities between the various Assyrian- Aramean treaty formulae from the eighth-seventh centuries 3.c. and the covenant formulations in Deuteronomy.» Deuteronomy surely pre % Studies in Denteronomy, pp. 60 f. » See especially E. Wiirthwein, Der ‘amm ha'ares in A.T., 1936. A, Bentzen (Die Sosianische Reform und ihre Voraussetsungen, 1926) who raiced before von Rad the thesis that Deuteronomy derives from the country Levites (a thesis unknown to von Rad while writing his Studies; see his note on p. 68) regarded the Levites as the authors of all deuteronomic literature, whereas von Rad docs not allide to the réle of the Levites in the composition of deuteronomic historiography. His failure to investigate the question of the deuteronomist's identity is strange, as the Levites, in his opinion, functioned es instructors from pre-exilic days until the restoration; therefore, it would be natural for him to regard them as playing an influential rOle in all deuteronomic literature. * CI, M. Weinfeld, “Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy,” Biblica, 46 (1965), pp. 417-27. #R. Frankena, “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuter- onomy." Oudtest. Studién, 14 (1965), pp. 152-54. 38 The similarity between the covenant form of the book of Deuteronomy and ancient Near Eastern treaties lies not only in their external structure but also in their basic mode of formulation, ‘The stipulation requiring exclusive allegiance to the God of Israel in Deuteronomy is formulated in the conventional manner of state treaties and documents demanding political allegiance to the suzerain. Mark for instance the expressions in Deuteronomy “to love” (=ra'dmx) in the sense of loyalty (ef. W. L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Love of God in Deuteronomy” (in CBQ, 25 [1963], pp. 77 ff); “with all your heart” (=ina kul libbi, ina gommurté ibbi; see references cited by Moran, of. cit, n. 35); "to go after” (aldku arki), meaning to serve (E] Amarna 136 111; 149 40, 280 29); “to fear the Lord’” (= palabu seey €. & Wiseman, op. cit., line 396); “to hearken to his voice,” “to do as he commands” (Wi rman, Hines 194-196: ommar igabbiini 14 tatcmmani Rf piu la teppatani); “to act inWEINFELD: DEUTERONOMY 255 serves motives of the old covenant tradition, but those were reworked and adapted to the covenant type prevalent in the eighth and seventh century B.c.# ‘An analysis of the orations in deuteronomic literatures leads us to a similar conclusion. It is in the many and diverse rhetorical addresses in deuteronomic composition (the valedictory address, the prophetic,'t liturgical,.* and military orations*) that the specific literary technique complete truth... sincerely....with him" (Wiseman, lines 96-99; cf. Deut 18 12 and I Kings 3 8, 9). The warnings against treason and inciting treason met with in Deut 13 closely resemble those found in Hittite, Aramean, and Assyrian treaties. ‘The depiction of the covenant scene in Deut 29 94. also coincides with the description of the treaty scene in the Esarhaddon treaties and in Assyrian and Aramean treaties of the eighth and seventh century B.C, Basic evidence for all these covenantal images is to he presented in my forthcoming study on Deuteronomy and the deuteronomic school. 4 Treaties of the second millennium 3.c. were made valid through ritual ceremonies, Thus in the Mari documents covenant is made by killing an ass, in Alalab by slaughter ing a sheep (D. J. Wiseman, JCunSt, 12 [1957], pp. 121 f.; Archives Royales de Mari, 2, no. 32) and similarly in the old covenant depicted in Exod 24. In the treaties of the first millennium 8.c., however, the oath constituted the principal feature, while the ritual, in the event that we meet with one, is of secondary importance and has only a symbolic significance (cf, the treaty of Aburnirari V with Mati'ilu, Arc, fiir Orient- JSerschung, 8 (1932), pp. 17 ff.). For the primary r6le of the oath in the late treaties as opposed to its secondary réle in the early treaties cf. J. Gelb, Bib/Or, 19 (1962), p. 162. % Distinction should of course be made between Deuteronomy and the deuter- onomic literature which includes the historiography in the former prophets and the editorial part of Jeremiah. But these three literary strands have a common theological outlook and identical stylistic features and therefore must be considered as a product, of a continuous scribal school. In my opiaion this school is to be connected with the family of Shaphan the scribe who took an active part in the discovery of the book in the time of Josiah. The scribal activity at court of this family persisted until after the destruction (Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, Jer 40{f.). A. Jepsen hhas also suggested that seribes from this family sitting in Mizpah were responsible for the deuteronomic historiography: see A. Jepsen, Die Quelle des Konigsbuches, 1956. These appear at the crossroads of the major periods in Israelite history. The period of Exodus and desert wanderings ends with the valedietory sermon of Moces, which is congruent with the book of Deuteronomy; the period of conquest ends with the farewell speech of Joshua (Josh 23); and the speech of Samuel in 1 Sam 12 marks the end of the period of Judges (1 Sam 12 contains ancient material but was reworked and put into its present place by the deuteronomist). Where there is no opportunity to put the sermon in the mouth of a national leader, the writer offers his own surmmary of the period in the form of a speech Judg 2116., II Kings 1774); sce M. Noth, Uberbicferungsgeschichlliche Studien, 1943, pp. $f. 27] Rings 11 32-38, 14 7-11, u-35, 162-4, 21 s0b-20; IT Kings 9 #10, 21 18, 22 16-17 and the prosaic sermons of Jeremiah. 2" A classic liturgic sermon is to be found in the mouth of Solomon in I Kings 8198. Liturgic addresses which hear the character of a “credo” occur in Deut 6 21-25 26 5-1, 18, and in other parts of the deuteronomic literature; as II Sam 7 22-20, 11 Kinge 19 16-14, Jer 32 17-22, » Cf, Deut 717-24, 91-4, 11 2-35, 203-8, 312-0, Concerning these speeches see G. von Rad, Studies in Deut., pp. $1f.256 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, of the author manifests itself. Like the ancient Greek historians, the Judean scribes of the seventh and sixth centuries also employed pro- grammatic orations to present their ideological views. Thus they put on the lips of such prominent natural figures as Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, and the various prophets, orations which gave expression to their views and aims. ‘The book of Deuteronomy and deuteronomic historiography re- veal a positive attitude towards monarchy, a fact which also informs us of the character of the circle which is responsible for deuteronomic composition. The law corpus of Deuteronomy is designed to serve as a national constitution. The situation reflected by the law code is that of an ideal political regime in which such institutions as the monarchy, the military, the judiciary, the priesthood, and the prophetic guild, which characterize the Israelite monarchic regime, act in harmonious conjunction (Deut 16 18-20 20). The law of the king reflects a positive attitude toward the monarchic institution which is given articulation in the closing verse of the law which expresses the hopes that the king “may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel” (17 20).4° The deuteronomic historian also exhibits a positive attitude toward the monarchy; he regards the Davidic dynasty as the ideal model of the desired social regime, which is difficult to comprehend unless he held a positive view of the monarchic institution. Now we shall analyze the method employed by those scribes, which reflects a connection with Wisdom. The means which the deuteronomic circle used to foster its aims are identical with those employed by Israelite wisdom teachers and by wisdom teachers of other ancient Near Eastern peoples. Like the sapiential teachers and pedagogues, the author of Deuteronomy also places great stress on the education of children. The author of the book repeatedly emphasizes that children must be taught the fear of God and that this is to be done by inculea- tion (6 7), that is to say, by formal methods of education. The book of Deuteronomy does indeed contain a wealth of didactic idioms which are not encountered in any other of the pentateuchal books, such, for example, as the use of the verbs mim 10° 192, or the expression Wo syrip, terms which constitute part and parcel of the vocabulary of sapiential literature which, to be sure, was composed with a pedagogical view in mind. It need hardly be said that deuteronomic historiographical work is a pedagogical-didactic work whose purpose was to draw an historical lesson from Israel's past errors. ©The kernel of the Jaw is ancient (cf. vs. wo with T Sam 8 5,6; vs. 19 with Hos 8 sab, 9 24), but the law in its present form comes without doubt from a deuteronomic hand. «See my article, “The Dependence of Deuteronomy upon Wisdom,” Kaufman Jubilee Vol., 1960, pp. Ap-B9 (Hebr.).WEINFELD: DEUTERONOMY 257 Like the wisdom teachers, the author of Deuteronomy holds wisdom in esteem and sets it above other spiritual qualities. This becomes particularly evident when we compare the traditions concerning the Mosaic appointment of judges in Exod 18 and Deut 1. According to Deuteronomy (11) the essential traits characterizing the judge and leader must be wisdom, understanding, and knowledge (nyx .7m2 .rwon), that is to say, the same intellectual traits possessed by the scribes, and not other personal characteristics or social standing (e. g., the bre) as in Exod 1821. The particular esteem with which the deuteronomic circle regarded wisdom explains the presence of exhortations in Deuter- onomy which have a sapiential character and formulation? and also enables us to trace the origin of the humanistic laws of Deuteronomy. Wisdom has been styled “the humanism of the Ancient East," and it is due to its impact that humanistic laws, which have no counterpart in any other of the pentateuchal books, found their way into the book of Deuteronomy. Like the wise teacher who stresses the material benefits that accrue from proper behavior, the author of Deuteronomy makes repeated references to the good fortune that will be the lot of those who observe God's commandments. The principal deuteronomic inducement to ob- serve the Torah is, as in the wisdom literature, material retribution, In no other book of the Pentateuch does the concern for material welfare ‘occupy so great a place as in the book of Deuteronomy. Life, good fortune, longevity, large families, affluence and satiety, the eudemonistic assurances which constitute an essential part of wisdom teaching — these constitute the primary motivation for the observance of God's laws (Deut 5, 16, 30 etc.).* In other pentateuchal contexts and notably in the holiness code the motivation is a theocentric one: “You shall keep my commandments and do them: I am the Lord.” Divine author- ity is enough to obligate the observance of God's commandments. In Deuteronomy, on the other hand, it is the welfare of the individual that serves as the motivation for the observance of the laws. Finally we shall point out the religious program of the circle. Deu- teronomy constitutes a great turning point in the religion and culture of Israel, The three foundations of Israelite religion: faith, the cult, and the law, have been refined in Deuteronomy and made more ab- © Compare especially Deut 85 with Prov 3 ur-iz; Deut 67-8 and 11 1-20 with Prov 6 20-22; Deut 20-4 with Prov 21.1; Deut 42 and 131 with Prov 305-8 and Eccles $14; Deut 19 1¢ with Prov 2228; Deut 2§ 13-18 with Prov 2019 and 23; Deut 24 ua with Eccles $1-s and Prov 205; Deut 23 1 with Prov 30 Cf. my artile “The Origin of the Humanism in Deuteronomy,” JBL, 81 (1961), pp. 241-47. 4 See M. Weinfeld, “The Source of the Idea of Reward in Deuteronomy," Tarbis, 30 (1960), pp. 8-15 (Hebr. with Engl. summary).