(OS 067) Ausloos - The Deuteronomist's History - The Role of Deuteronomist in Historical-Critical Research Into Genesis-Numbers 2015 PDF

The Deuteronomists History
Oudtestamentische Studin
Old Testament Studies
published on behalf of the Societies for
Old Testament Studies in the Netherlands and
Belgium, South Africa, the United Kingdom
and Ireland
Editor
B. Becking (Utrecht)
Editorial Board
P. van Hecke (Leuven)

H.F. Van Rooy (Potchefstroom)
H.G.M. Williamson (Oxford )
volume 67
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ots

The Deuteronomists History

The Role of the Deuteronomist in Historical-Critical
Research into Genesis-Numbers
By
Hans Ausloos
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Ausloos, Hans.
The Deuteronomists history : the role of the Deuteronomist in historical-critical research into Genesis-
Numbers / by Hans Ausloos.
pages cm. (Oudtestamentische studin = Old Testament studies, ISSN 01697226 ; volume 67)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-29676-3 (hardback : alk. paper) ISBN 978-90-04-30704-9 (e-book) 1. Bible.
PentateuchCriticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Deuteronomistic history (Biblical criticism) I. Title.
BS1225.52.A96 2015
222.1067dc23
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual Brill typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering
Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities.
For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 0169-7226
isbn 978-90-04-29676-3 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-30704-9 (e-book)
Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and
Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
ortransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Contents
Prefaceix
Abbreviationsxiv
1 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers: Origin and Evolution

of a Problem1
1 A Critical Approach to the Old Testament: Early Initiatives3
2 The Fragmentary Hypothesis and the Emergence of the
Deuteronomist5
3 The Deuteronomist and the Supplementary Hypothesis14
4 John William Colenso and the Deuteronomist19
4.1 Colenso and the Origin of the Pentateuch21
4.2 Colensos Deuteronomist29
4.3 Overview of the Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in
GenesisNumbers34
4.4 Colensos Argumentation in Support of the Deuteronom(ist)ic
Elements in GenesisNumbers38
4.5 The Deuteronomist as Editor41
4.6 Conclusion43
5 RD and the New Documentary Hypothesis44
6 Conclusion53
2 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers since the Beginning

of the 20th Century56
1 General Observations Regarding the Nature of the Deuteronom(ist)ic
Elements in GenesisNumbers58
2 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers in Exegetical
Research from the Beginning of the 20th Century65
2.1 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in the Book of Genesis66
2.2 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in the Book of Exodus73
2.3 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in the Book of Numbers94
3 The Absence of Solid Argumentation on the Deuteronom(ist)ic
Character of Passages in GenesisNumbers98
4 Exod. 23:2033 as a Deuteronom(ist)ic Composition100
4.1 Deuteronom(ist)ic Motifs in Exod. 23:2033104
4.2 The Deuteronom(ist)ic Style of Exod. 23:2033106
4.3 Deuteronom(ist)ic Language in Exod. 23:2033107
4.4 Conclusion111
vi contents
3 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers: A Unique

Aspect of Research into the So-Called Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements
since 1963113
1 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers: Early
Initiatives114
1.1 The JE Redactor and the Deuteronom(ist)ic School114
1.2 Brekelmans and Lohfink: In Search of Substantial Criteria117
2 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers129
2.1 Proto-Deuteronomic Passages in the Book of Exodus133
2.2 Brekelmans School137
2.3 An Inclusive Proto-Deuteronomic Redaction149
2.4 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers from the
Perspective of Deuteronomy Research152
3 Exod. 23:2033 as a Proto-Deuteronomic Passage158
4 Conclusion164
4 The Deuteronom(ist)ic Problem since the Second Half of the

20th Century167
1 The So-Called Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers as
the Work of a late Deuteronomistic Author or Redactor169
1.1 The Post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist Thesis170
1.2 GenesisNumbers as the Result of a Post-Deuteronomistic
Redaction202
Part of One or More Deuteronomistic Redactions229
2.1 Deuteronomistic Redaction(s) in GenesisNumbers230
2.2 GenesisNumbers as the Result of a Deuteronomistic Redaction
or Author. Extra Tentative Approaches242
3 A Post-Deuteronomistic, Post-Priestly Pentateuch Redaction250
4 The Epilogue to the Book of the Covenant and Present Day
Pentateuch Research253
5 Conclusion256
5 The Deuteronom(ist)ic ProblemA Review and a Preview258

1 The Deuteronomist. Whats in a Name?259
1.1 The Inflation of a Concept259
1.2 Towards an Unambiguous Terminology278
2 Criteria for Characterising Elements as Deuteronom(ist)ic285
2.1 Criteria from the Past286
2.2 Usable CriteriaDraft Proposal288
2.3 The Direction of Dependence: Supporting Well-Founded
Judgements297
contents vii
3 Old Testament Textual Criticism and the Deuteronomist299

4 Is Exod. 23:2033 a Deuteronomistic Epilogue to the Book of the
Covenant?300
4.1 Can Linguistic Analysis Provide Sound Indications Supporting the
Deuteronomistic Characterisation of Exod. 23:2033?301
4.2 Compositional Patterns and the Characterisation of
Exod. 23:2033 as Deuteronomistic310
4.3 A Deuteronomistic Theology in Exod. 23:2033?317
4.4 Deuteronomistic Tendencies in the Versiones of
Exod. 23:2033326
5 Conclusion335
Bibliography339
Index of Authors396
Index of Biblical References404
Preface
In 1943, Martin Noth observed in his work berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien:

In den Bchern Gen.Num. fehlt jede Spur einer deuteronomistischen
Redaktion, wie allgemein anerkannt ist.1 He added in a footnote: Da es ein-
zelne Stellen gibt, an denen der alte Text im deuteronomistischen Stil erweitert
ist, wie etwa Ex. 23,20ff. und Ex. 34,10ff., hat mit Recht meines Wissens noch
niemand fr ein Merkmal einer durchgehenden Redaktion gehalten.
This statement placed Noth at a considerable distance from the then pre-
vailing tendency in historical-critical research into the first five books of the
Old Testament. Indeed, the Deuteronomist had been considered almost
universally present within the books of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers since
the end of the 19th century. Interest in the relationship between passages in
GenesisNumbers, the first four books of the Old Testament, and the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, of which the book of Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomistic History serve as a prototype, was not new, however.2 On the
contrary, scholars had been exhibiting particular interest in the question as
early as the beginning of the 19th century. The present volume is an endeavour
to reconstruct and critically evaluate this history of the Deuteronomist.3
Awareness that the first five books of the Old Testament, the so-called
Pentateuch, present themselves as a complex literary work has always been
present to a greater or lesser degree. With the emergence of Biblical Criticism
at the beginning of the 18th century, scholars endeavoured to provide a more
systematic explanation for the irregularities evident in this literary complex.
Relatively early in this process, attention was drawn to the unique place
1 M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichts-

werke im Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1943, 13.
2 The terminology employed in current research is often desperately confusing. The present
work will make use of the term Deuteronom(ist)ic. This perhaps slightly vague word contains
two elements. In the first instance it is used to refer to passages from GenesisNumbers that
are related to (a form of) the book of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomic). In the early stages,
several scholars proposed that passages in the Tetrateuch that were akin to Deuteronomy
should be ascribed to the latters author. Secondly, the concept Deuteronomistic refers to
the reworking in line with the so-called Ur-Deuteronomy of both GenesisNumbers and
the Ur-Deuteronomy itself. The final chapter of the present study discussed the possibility of
establishing a transparent terminology in this regard.
3 This study focuses exclusively on interest in Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in Genesis
Numbers. Attention will only be drawn in passing to the Deuteronomistic redaction of the
other books of the Old Testament.
x preface
occupied by the book of Deuteronomy within the Pentateuch on account of

its characteristic style, language and theology.4 The insights of Wilhelm Martin
Leberecht de Wette represented a milepost in this regard. In 1805, he isolated
the book of Deuteronomy as an independent work and identified it with the
legal code found during the reign of King Josiah (8th century bce), the account
of which is to be found in 2 Kgs 2223. At the same time, De Wette not only
suggested that Deuteronomy was discovered during Josiahs reign but that it
had in fact come into existence by his agency. The question of Deuteronomy
also played an important role when Abraham Kuenen and Julius Wellhausen
succeeded in refining the source-critical model at the end of the 19th century,
thereby charting the genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch. In spite of the fact
that the said book had been separated from the other books of the Pentateuch,
scholars became increasingly interested in a number of passages in Genesis
Numbers that exhibited a relationship with the book of Deuteronomy. Texts
from the so-called Tetrateuch,5 which appeared to have a strong association
with Deuteronomy in terms of vocabulary, style and theology, were ascribed
to a redactor (RD) who was said to have revised and supplemented the work
of the so-called Jehovist (JE) along Deuteronomic lines. In the wake of the
Documentary Hypothesis, this position became widely accepted in the first
half of the 20th century.
In 1943, Noth characterised the book of Deuteronomy as the inception of
an extensive Deuteronomistic History detached from GenesisNumbers. As
a result, the question of the presence of so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements
in the first four books of the Old Testament became all the more pressing. As
we observed in our opening quotation, Noth denied that the Tetrateuch had
been reworked by a sweeping Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction. Nevertheless, he
did not deny the possibility that certain pericopes in GenesisNumbers may
have been extended in a Deuteronomistic fashion. In so doing, he aligned him-
self with the vision of the demonstrability of Deuteronom(ist)ic influence on
the Tetrateuch that prevailed during the first half of the 20th century.
In spite of the self-evident acceptance of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in
GenesisNumbers, some scholars, following in the wake of the protagonists
of the Documentary Hypothesis, continued to draw attention to an affinity
4 Little has been suggested since that would undermine the fact that Deuteronomy is distinct
from the rest of the Pentateuch on account of its own characteristic features.
5 The term Tetrateuch is used in the present volumealbeit somewhat anachronistically
as a neutral reference to the first four books of the Old Testament. The terms Pentateuch,
Hexateuch and Henneateuch likewise serve as neutral terms for referring to the first five
(GenesisDeuteronomy), six (GenesisJoshua) or nine (GenesisKings) books respectively.
preface xi
in style and ideas associated with the JE redactor with the language, style
and theological convictions of the Deuteronomist. It was thus claimed that
one could discern evidence of a preliminary stage of the Deuteronomic tra-
dition in certain passages from the Tetrateuch. In was only in 1963, however,
that this possibility was explored anew. In that year, and independently of
one another, Chris Brekelmans and Norbert Lohfink suggested the possibility
that the texts in GenesisNumbers that had been associated with a Deutero
nom(ist)ic redaction should be considered rather as preparatory to the typi-
cal and stereotype language of the Deuteronomist. Together they introduced
the term proto-Deuteronomic, a generic name that fits into the encom-
passing Deuteronom(ist)ic line of tradition, thus referring to the beginnings
of that tradition, which also may be found outside the compositional unit
DeuteronomyKings.
An important turning-point was reached in the seventies of 20th century
with respect to the study of the origins of the Pentateuch. A variety of schol-
ars, of whom Erhard Blum, Rolf Rendtorff, Martin Rose, Heinrich Schmid and
John Van Seters can be considered pioneers, came to associate more and more
pericopes from GenesisNumbers with a sweeping Deuteronom(ist)ic redac-
tional process, and even linked the genesis of the Pentateuch with a redac-
tion or an author dependent on Deuteronomy and/or the Deuteronomistic
History. Under the influence of these studies it almost became a moral
obligation to label Old Testament texts Deuteronom(ist)icor better still:
post-Deuteronomistic.6 This tendency, however, appears to have channelled
research into the origin and identity of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in Genesis
Numbers into something of an impasse. From the beginning of the 1960s,
researchers who typified passages from this complex as proto-Deuteronomic,
substantiated their claims by referring to other passages from the Tetrateuch
that were considered, according to the communis opinio, to be JE and thus
older than the book of Deuteronomy. Since the entire Pentateuch is now char-
acterised as a relatively young composition, which is considered dependent
in se on the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, the hypothesis of a proto-Deuter-
onomic redaction, as it has generally been defended up to the present, has
become problematic. Moreover, the proposition that the said proto-Deutero-
nomic redaction did not yet reflect the stereotype language and theology of the
6 N. Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, in: W. Gross (ed.), Jeremia und die
deuteronomistische Bewegung (BBB, 98), Weinheim 1995, 313382, esp. 316 aptly articulates
this tendency: Wie vor Jahren ein gestandene Alttestamentler einen Urdekalog oder eine neue
kultische Begehung rekonstruiert haben mute, so mu ein anstndiger Doktorand heute
irgendwo in der Bibel eine deuteronomistische Hand entdecken. Dann erst gehrt er zur Zunft.
xii preface
Deuteronomist can easily be turned on its head: a text is probably dependent

on the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature when one can no longer discern stereo
typical Deuteronom(ist)ic language and themes.
The present study, which sets out to chart the history of the Deuteronomist,
aims for the first time to provide a detailed status quaestionis concerning
the relationship between the books GenesisNumbers and the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic literaturereferring thereby in the first instance to the
book of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History. The first chap-
ter draws attention to exegetical studies from the 18th and 19th centuries in
which the roots of the issue become evident. Indeed, it was in this period that
scholars exhibited specific interest in the presence of aso-calledtypically
Deuteronom(ist)ic language and set of ideas in the books that were later to be
styled the Tetrateuch.
The second chapter provides an inventory of the scholars who, in the course
of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21stand for the most part in
line with the traditional Documentary Hypothesis, have explicitly ascribed
certain passages in GenesisNumbers to an author or redactor working under
the influence of Deuteronomy or the literature related thereto. The chapter not
only offers an overview of the texts that are associated with a Deuteronom(ist)
ic redaction, it also explores the related argumentation on the basis of an anal-
ysis of the way in which a passage considered exemplary for the themethe
epilogue of the so-called Book of the Covenant (Exod. 23:2033) is character-
ised as Deuteronom(ist)ic.
We observed above how, in roughly the middle of the 20th century, certain
pericopes in the literary complex GenesisNumbers, which had hitherto been
more or less uncritically associated with a Deuteronom(ist)ic redactional pro-
cess, came to be situated in the prehistory of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature,
resulting thereby in the introduction of the term proto-Deuteronomic into
the research domain. The third chapter focuses in detail on the authors who
thus referred to pericopes from Genesis, Exodus or Numbers. As with chapter
two, the associated argumentation is likewise critically explored and evaluated
on the basis of our analysis of Exod. 23:2033.
The fourth chapter offers an overview of the variousmostly tentative
approaches to the genesis and composition of the Pentateuch that have taken
root since the beginning of the 1970s. These studies have had a considerable
effect on research into the texts and text segments in GenesisNumbers that
were considered to be Deuteronom(ist)ic and are constitutive of present day
perspectives on the origins of the Pentateuch. The way in which the epilogue
of the Book of the Covenant is discussed within these new tendencies in
Pentateuch criticism is also treated in this chapter.
preface xiii
The fifth and final chapter offers a critical review of the history of the
Deuteronomist. We do so in the first instance on the basis of an endeavour
to develop a univocal terminology in relation to the issue. We then propose,
against the background of the criteria that have emerged in the history of
researchor rather the absence thereof, a specific criteriology designed
to allow a more grounded judgement as to whether a text should be consid-
ered to belong to the pre-history of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature or to its
post-history. The further textual history of the passages in question (textual
criticism) also calls for attention at this juncture. If nothing else, our history
of the Deuteronomist should convince the reader of one thing: his story is far
from over...
Few things within current research into the origins and composition of
the Pentateuch are undisputed. Nevertheless, in the midst of these disputes,
the Deuteronomist seems to be a constant. His history, however, has never
been written. The present study aims to fill this lacuna. Its nucleus was estab-
lished in the context of my doctoral dissertation, which I defended almost
two decades ago at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the KU
Leuven (Belgium) with Prof. Dr. Marc Vervenne as my Doktorvater. Strongly
influenced by his Doktorvater, Prof. Dr. Chris Brekelmans, he encouraged and
stimulated me in the study of the Old Testament and its Deuteronomic constit-
uents. He thus deserves my sincere gratitude and appreciation. I am also much
indebted to the Research FoundationFlanders and the Fonds de la Recherche
Scientifique (F.R.S.-FNRS) of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation of Belgium for
their decades-long investment in my research. My gratitude is also due to Prof.
Dr. Brian Doyle for his careful translation of the original Dutch manuscript.
Although scientific research is often a solitarily activity, I have been fortu-
nate nevertheless to enjoy the ongoing accompaniment of someone who really
knows and understands this particular metier, particularly during the last
stages of the preparation of this manuscript. Therefore, my most warm-hearted
thanks and appreciation are due to my wife, Prof. Dr. Bndicte Lemmelijn. To
her and to our teenagers Matthias, Elke and Ruben I dedicate this monograph.
Hans Ausloos
Universit catholique de Louvain
Chercheur qualifi F.R.S.-FNRS
Abbreviations
AASF Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae

AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary
ACEBT Amsterdamse cahiers voor exegese en bijbelse theologie
AJBI Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute
AnBib Analecta Biblica
ANL Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute (in Jerusalem)
ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
ATSAT Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament
BA The Biblical Archaeologist
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBB Bonner biblische Beitrge
BCAT Biblischer Commentar ber das Alte Testament
BEATAJ Beitrge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken
Judentums
BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium
BEvT Beitrge zur evangelischen Theologie
Bib Biblica
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament
BN Biblische Notizen
BOT De Boeken van het Oude Testament
BWANT Beitrge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZABR Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr Altorientalische und Biblische
Rechtsgeschichte
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAT Commentaire de lAncien Testament
CB OT Coniectanea biblica. Old Testament Series
CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQ MS Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Monograph Series
CTEP Centre dtudes Thologiques et Pastorales
COT Commentaar op het Oude Testament
abbreviations xv
CRB Cahiers de la Revue Biblique

DBAT Dielheimer Bltter zum Alten Testament
DBS Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplment
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
B tudes Bibliques
EdF Ertrge der Forschung
ErfTS Erfurter theologische Studien
ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
EstBb Estudios Bblicos
TR tudes Theologiques et Religieuses
EurHS Europische Hochschulschriften. Reihe 23: Theologie
EvT Evangelische Theologie
ExpT Expository Times
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
FzB Forschung zur Bibel
GTW Grundri der theologischen Wissenschaften
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HTS Hervormde Theologische Studies
HTKAT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC The International Critical Commentary
IrBSt Irish Biblical Studies
JAOS Journal of the Americal Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JPT Jahrbcher fr Protestantische Theologie
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSNT SS Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOT SS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament
KEHAT Kurzgefates exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament
xvi abbreviations
KHCAT Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament

LD Lectio divina
MarTS Marburger theologische Studien
MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
NICOT The New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NTT Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
OTE Old Testament Essays
OTE SS Old Testament Essays. Supplement Series
OTL Old Testament Library
OTM Old Testament Message. A Biblical Theological Commentary
OTS Oudtestamentische Studin
POT De prediking van het Oude Testament
QD Quaestiones Disputatae
RB Revue Biblique
RBL Review of Biblical Literature
RJ Revue des tudes Juives
RHPR Revue dhistoire et de philosophie religieuses
RIC Revue de lInstitut Catholique
RQ Revue de Qumrn
RSR Recherches de science religieuse
RTL Revue thologique de Louvain
SBi Sources Bibliques
SBL DS Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series
SBL MS Society of Biblical Literature. Monograph Series
SBL SCS Society of Biblical Literature. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series
SBL SP Society of Biblical Literature. Seminar Papers Series
SBL SS Society of Biblical Literature. Symposium Series
SBL RBS Society of Biblical Literature. Resources for Biblical Study
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
ScrHie Scripta Hierosolymitana
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
StB Studia Biblica
SVT Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
TB Theologische Bcherei
TBl Theologische Bltter
THAT Theologisches Handwrterbuch zum Alten Testament
abbreviations xvii
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung

TP Theologie und Philosophie
TR Theologische Rundschau
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopdie
TSAJ Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism
TSt Theologische Studien
TvT Tijdschrift voor Theologie
TW Theologische Wissenschaft
TWAT Theologisches Wrterbuch zum Alten Testament
TynB Tyndale Bulletin
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
UTB Uni-Taschenbcher
VT Vetus Testamentum
VuF Verkundigung und Forschung
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes
ZABR Zeitschrift fr Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte
ZAH Zeitschrift fr Althebraistik
ZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZBK Zrcher Bibelkommentare
ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlndischen Gesellschaft
ZKT Zeitschrift fr katholische Theologie
ZTK Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche
Chapter 1
Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers:

Origin and Evolution of a Problem
This opening chapter sketches a picture of what occasioned and contrib

uted to the evolution of the study of the relationship between the books of
GenesisNumbers on the one hand, and the book of Deuteronomy and the
literature closely related thereto on the other.1 Particular attention is focused
1 Cf. O. Artus, Le Pentateuque (Cahiers vangile, 106), Paris 1998; J. Blenkinsopp, The
Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (AB Reference Library), New
York 1992; J. Briend, La crise du Pentateuque, RIC 29 (1989) 4962; Idem, La composition
du Pentateuque entre hier et aujourdhui, in Naissance de la mthode critique: Colloque
du centenaire de lcole biblique et archologique franaise de Jrusalem (Patrimoines
christianisme), Paris 1992, 197204; H. Cazelles, Pentateuque. T. 4: Le nouveau status
quaestionis, DBS 7 (1966) 687858; R. David, Le Pentateuque: Tendances actuelles
concernant les traditions littraires, in: Idem et al., De bien des manires: La recherche
biblique aux abords du xxi me sicle (LD, 163) Montreal 1995, 1746; G.I. Davies, Introduction
to the Pentateuch, in: J. Barton, J. Muddiman (eds), The Oxford Bible Commentary, Oxford
2001, 1238; A. De Pury, T. Rmer, Le Pentateuque en question: position du problme et
brve histoire de la recherche, in: Idem (eds), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et
la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible la lumire des recherches rcentes. 3me
dition augmente (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genve 2002, 980; O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung
in das Alte Testament unter Einschluss der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der
apokryphen- und pseudepigraphenartigen Qumran-Schriften (Neue Theologische Grund
risse), Tbingen 31964, 205234; F. Garca Lpez, De la antigua a la nueva critica literaria
del Pentateuco, EstBb 52 (1994) 735; Idem, Comment lire le Pentateuque (Le monde de la
Bible, 53), Genve 2005, 3363; A.H.J. Gunneweg, Anmerkungen und Anfragen zur neueren
Pentateuchforschung, Theologische Rundschau 48 (1983) 227253; 50 (1985) 107131; O. Kaiser,
Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einfhrung in ihre Ergebnisse und Probleme, Gtersloh
51984, 90138; Idem, The Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History, in: A.D.H. Mayes
(ed.), Text in Context:. Essays by Members of the Society of Old Testament Studies, Oxford
2000, 289322; R. Kratz, The Pentateuch in Current Research: Consensus and Debate, in:
T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research
(FAT, 78), Tbingen 2011, 3161, esp. 4649; H.-J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen
Erforschung des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn 21969, 44294; D.J. McCarthy, Twenty-
five Years of Pentateuchal Study, in: J.J. Collins, J.D. Crossan (eds), The Biblical Heritage in
Modern Catholic Scholarship, Wilmington, DE 1986, 3457; E.W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch
in Recent Research: A Time for Caution, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven
1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 1021; E.W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century:
koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 5|doi .63/9789004307049_002

2 Chapter 1
on the discoveries of 18th and 19th century academic biblical research in rela
tion to the presence of a so-called stereotypical Deuteronom(ist)ic language
and a typical stock of Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas in the first four books of the
The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, Oxford 1998; C. Nihan, T. Rmer, Le dbat actuel sur la
formation du Pentateuque, in: T. Rmer et al. (eds), Introduction lAncien Testament (Le
monde de la Bible, 49), Genve 2004, 85113; E. Otto, Stehen wir vor einem Umbruch in der
Pentateuchkritik?, VuF 22 (1977) 8297; Idem, Kritik der Pentateuchkomposition, TR 60
(1995) 163191; Idem, Deuteronomium und Pentateuch: Aspekte der gegenwrtigen Debatte,
ZABR 6 (2000) 222284; B. Seidel, Entwicklungslinien der neueren Pentateuchforschung im
20. Jahrhundert, ZAW 106 (1994) 476485; R. Rendtorff, Directions in Pentateuchal Studies,
Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 5 (1997) 4365; T. Rmer, Brve prsentation du dbat
actuel sur le Pentateuque: Le Pentateuque toujours en question, in De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le
Pentateuque en question, viixxxix; T. Rmer, Le Pentateuque toujours en question: Bilan
et perspectives aprs un quart de sicle de dbat, in: A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Basel
2001 (SVT, 92), Leiden 2002, 343374; T. Rmer, La formation du Pentateuque: histoire de
la recherche, in: Rmer et al. (eds.), Introduction, 6784; T. Rmer, The Elusive Yahwist: A
Short History of Research, in: T.B. Dozeman & K. Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist?
The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (Symposium, 34),
Atlanta, GA 2006, 927; W. Roth, Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk/Deuteronomis
tische Schule, TRE 8 (1981) 543552; K. Schmid, The Emergence and Disappearance of the
Separatioin between the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History in Biblical Studies, in:
T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works
in Genesis through Kings (SBL Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 8), Atlanta, GA 2011, 1124;
L. Schmidt, Zur Entstehung des Pentateuch. Ein kritischer Literaturbericht, VuF 40 (1995)
328; H. Seebass, Pentateuch, TRE 26 (1996) 185209; J.L. Ska, Rcit et rcit mtadigtique
en Ex. 115: Remarques critiques et essai dinterprtation de Ex. 4,1622, in: P. Haudebert
(ed.), Le Pentateuque: Dbats et recherches. xiv me congrs de lACFEB, Angers (1991) (LD, 151),
Paris 1992, 135171, esp. 135147; J.L. Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, Winona Lake,
IN 2006, 1164; Idem, The Study of the Book of Genesis: The Beginning of Critical Reading,
in: C. Evans et al. (eds), The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation
(SVT, 152), Leiden 2012, 326; R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Theologische
Wissenschaft, 1), Stuttgart 31984, 6269; J.A. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament. From
its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon, London 31989, 143145; H. Utzschneider,
Die Renaissance der alttestamentlichen Literaturwissenschaft und das Buch Exodus:
berlegungen zu Hermeneutik und Geschichte der Forschung, ZAW 106 (1994) 197223;
J. Van Seters, The Pentateuch. A Social-Science Commentary (Trajectories, 1), Sheffield 1999;
M. Vervenne, Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus,
in Idem (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL,
126) Leuven 1996, 2159; R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study
(JSOT SS, 53), Sheffield 1987, 21131; E. Zenger, Wo steht die Pentateuchforschung heute?,
BZ 24 (1980) 101116; Idem, G. Braulik, Die Bcher der Tora/des Pentateuch, in E. Zenger
(ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Fnfte, grndlich berarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage
(Kohlhammer Studienbcher Theologie, 1,1), Stuttgart 2004, 60187.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 3
Old Testament. Such a sketch would be impossible, however, without provid

ing a parallel historical sketch of the pioneering developments that took place
withinitself evolvinghistorical-critical biblical research as such, without
of course attempting to be exhaustive.2 Consequently, we will limit ourselves
to authors who are interested in the question of the relationship between
GenesisNumbers and the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
1 A Critical Approach to the Old Testament: Early Initiatives
It is sufficiently well known that problems relating to the Pentateuchs his

tory of origin remained rather limited until the beginning of the 19th century:
Moses was traditionally understood to be the author of the first five books of
the Old Testament and this conviction was only rarely questioned. A critical
approach began to evolve, however, in the first phase of which Moses retained
a place as co-author of the Pentateuch. Primary reference can be made in
this regard to the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and Richard Simon in the 17th and
18th centuries.3 It is generally acknowledged, moreover, that Jean Astruc was
the first to draw explicit attention to the alternative use of divine names in
the book of Genesis, in addition to the large number of repetitions, anach
ronisms and errors in the said book.4 While Astruc did not fundamentally
challenge Mosaic authorship, he nevertheless provided what was to become
2 For the history of research into the Pentateuch as such, reference can be made to the work
of C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch. Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung
(CBET, 9), Kampen 1994. Important initiatives related to the study of the history of the
Deuteronomist can be ascribed to J. Leman, Kan en moet er van een deuteronom(ist)isch
redactie, herschrijvings- of inlassingswerk gesproken worden in de eerste vier boeken van
de Pentateuch? Een literatuurstudie van de exegese van de negentiende eeuw (unpublished
Masters thesis KU Leuven), Leuven, 1973.
3 T. Hobbes, Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and
Civill, London 1651; R. Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, Paris 1678.
4 J. Astruc, Conjectures sur les mmoires originaux dont il parait que Mose sest servi pour
composer le livre de la Gnse: Avec des remarques, qui appuient ou qui claircissent ces
conjectures, Bruxelles 1753. Already prior to Astruc, Henning Bernward Witter pointed
to the presence of two different sources in Gen. 13: H.B. Witter, Jura Israelitarum in
Palaestinam terram Chananaeam commentatione in Genesin perpetua sic demonstrata, ut
Idiomatis authentici nativus sensus fideliter delegatur, Mosis autoris primaeva intentio sollicite
definiatur, adeoque corpus doctrinae et juris cum antiquissimum, tum consummatissimum
tandem eruatur: Accedit in paginarum fronte ipse textus Hebraeus cum versione Latina autore
Henningo Bernhardo Witter, Hildesheim 1711cf. more recently P. Gibert, De lintuition
lvidence: La multiplicit documentaire dans la Gnse chez H.B. Witter et Jean Astruc, in:
4 Chapter 1
source-critical exegesis with an important initial impetus.5 But Astruc was not
looking in the first instance for a specific literary approach to the documents
Moses is said to have used in composing the book of the Genesis and the first
chapters of Exodus.
Interest in literary arguments, in particular the style and vocabulary of the
so-called sources, emerged at the end of the 18th century in the work of Johann
Gottfried Eichhorn. At the same time, Eichhorn did not limit himself to the
book of Genesis, but focused his attention on the Pentateuch as a whole.6
Based on repetitions, the alternation of the divine name, varying vocabulary
and shifting style, Eichhorn concluded that the book of Genesis had two histor
ical works at its foundations. Depending on the use of the divine name he dis
tinguished an Urkunde Elohim and an Urkunde Jehovathe names Elohist
and Jehovist were to be introduced later by Karl David Ilgen.7 Eichhorn con
sidered it possible that Moses was responsible for bringing both together. He
considered Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers to be older than the books that fol
lowed, bearing in mind that whoever compiled them, in his opinion, could not
have lived later than Moses. Eichhorn was also among the first to insist that the
book of Deuteronomy differed from the other books of the Pentateuch.8 In his
mind this was to be explained by the specific character of the book: an address
delivered by Moses based on the narratives in Exodus and Numbers.
A few years later, Ilgen went a step further with respect to the Elohistic pas
sages, dividing Eichhorns Elohistic document into two Elohists.9 Bearing in
J. Jarick (ed.), Sacred Conjectures. The Context and Legacy of Robert Lowth and Jean Astruc
(Library of Hebrew Bible. Old Testament Studies, 457), New York 2007, 174189.
5 Astruc explains the irregularities in the text of Genesis as follows: On na pour cela, qua
supposer que Moyse avait rang ses diffrents Mmoires sur quatre colonnes distinctes, en
forme de Ttraples (Astruc, Conjectures, 431). Astruc claimed to be able to distinguish these
four mmoires, which Moses employed in his own composition, throughout the book of
Genesis and in the first two chapters of the book of Exodus. For the remainder of Exodus
Moses had no need of mmoires, since his report was that of an eye witness.
6 J.G. Eichhorn, Einleitung ins Alte Testament, Leipzig, 17801783; 418231824.
7 The use of the term Jehovist stems from the fact that the tetragrammaton was originally
vocalised as Jehova. Cf. J.L. Ska, The Yahwist, a Hero with a Thousand Faces: A Chapter in the
History of Modern Exegesis, in J.C. Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition
des Hexateuch in der jngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002, 123, esp. 34.
8 According to Eichhorn it was to become clear that Deuteronomy was a book that was written
am Rande des Grabes (Eichhorn, Einleitung, Tl. 2, Leipzig 1781, 422).
9 K.D. Ilgen, Die Urkunden des Jerusalemischen Tempelarchivs in ihrer Urgestalt, als Beitrag
zur Berichtung der Geschichte der Religion und Politik, Tl 1: Die Urkunden des ersten Buches
von Mose, Halle 1798. See B. Seidel, Karl David Ilgen und die Pentateuchforschung im Umkreis
der sogenannten lteren Urkundenhypothese: Studien zur Geschichte der exegetischen
Hermeneutik in der spten Aufklrung (BZAW, 213), Berlin 1993.
mind that the older Documentary Hypothesis was quickly replaced by the
Fragmentary Hypothesis, Ilgens model was only to find its way into Pentateuch
Criticism a number of decades later.
2 The Fragmentary Hypothesis and the Emergence of the

Deuteronomist
The first major academic objections to the division of the Pentateuch into
independent continuous source texts surfaced as a result of the Fragmentary
Hypothesis. The adherents of this model saw the Pentateuch as the result of
the merging of various larger and smaller fragments. The fragments in ques
tion were considered to be occasionally contradictory texts that circulated
for the most part independently of one another and were brought together.
While the Fragmentary Hypothesis originated with the Scottish Catholic priest
Alexander Geddes, it was his German colleague Johann Severin Vater who fur
ther developed and promoted it.10 According to Vater, the complex Genesis
Numbers is made up of a combination of two parallel series of fragments in
which God is referred to as and respectively. He likewise considered
the book of Deuteronomy to be made up of a number of fragments, twenty in
total.11 He explained the emergence of the Pentateuch in the following way.
During the reigns of kings David and Solomon, a collection of laws was estab
lished that was included in the book of Deuteronomy. This collection of laws
was discovered during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kgs 2223). In the meantime,
a number of narrative and legislative texts had also emerged that were gradu
ally added to the said collection of laws. In his commentary on the Pentateuch,
Vater also observed that Deuteronomy designates Horeb as the place in which
Israel was given its laws, while the other books refer as a rule to Sinai. Where
the divine mountain is referred to in Exodus as Horeb, this is always done in
10 A. Geddes, The Holy Bible or the Books Accounted Sacred by Jews and Christians, Otherwise
called the Books of the Old and the New Covenants, Faithfully Translated from Corrected
Text of the Originals; with Various Readings, Explanatory Notes and Critical Remarks,
Vol. 1: Pentateuch and Josua, London 1792; Idem, Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures,
Corresponding with a New Translation of the Bible, Vol. 1: Containing Remarks on the
Pentateuch, London 1800; J.S. Vater, Commentar ber den Pentateuch mit Einleitungen in
den einzelnen Abschnitten der eingeschalteten bersetzung von Dr. Alexander Geddess
merkwrdigen critischen und exegetischen Anmerkungen und einer Abhandlung ber Mose
und die Verfasser des Pentateuchs, Halle 18021805. For Geddes, see W. Johnstone (ed.), The
Bible and the Enlightenment: A Case StudyDr. Alexander Geddes (17371802) (JSOT SS,
377), London 2004.
11 Vater, Commentar. Bd. 3, 458.
6 Chapter 1
a context distinct from the giving of the law. Moreover, Vater pointed out that
from Num. 22 onwards reference is made to , while Deuteronomy
speaks of . The only conclusion Vater would draw from this observa
tion was that each book had its own characteristic vocabulary.
Geddes, and in his wake Vater, also focussed their attention on the Samaritan
Pentateuch (SamP), both scholars exhibiting an explicit interest in the pres
ence of what we nowadays characterise as a typically Deuteronom(ist)ic range
of ideas in the Samaritan version of GenesisDeuteronomy. This is evident
from their comparative study of the Decalogue (Exod. 20) in mt and SamP. In
Exod. 20:17, for example, SamP has replaced ( mt) and ( mt) with
and by analogy with Deut. 5:21(18). In addition, a major inter
polation follows Exod. 20:17 in SamP, which in its turn is supplemented with
large segments from Deut. 27:27. By placing the emphasis on interpolations in
the Samaritan version of Exodus that harmonised with Deuteronomy, neither
Geddes nor Vater intended to claim that one ought to speak of carefully consid
ered Deuteronom(ist)ic redactional activity in the Tetrateuch.12 Nevertheless,
their observation remains interesting from the perspective of later research
since it demonstrates that Deuteronom(ist)ic issues are likewise active at
the intersection between literary criticism and textual criticism. Moreover,
the emphasis placed by Geddes and Vater on the harmonising interpolations
in SamP rooted in Deuteronomy leads one to ask whether the procedure of
harmonising interpolation might not be able to offer a point of reference for
12 Vater studied Exod. 20 and Exod. 23:2033 from this perspective (Vater, Commentar, Bd. 2,
1802, 8485; 98). Almost a century later, August Klostermann was to focus attention on
harmonising interpolations in Exodus rooted in Deuteronomy, without insisting on a
Deuteronom(ist)ic reworking or redaction: A. Klostermann, Der Pentateuch: Beitrge zu
seinem Verstndnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte, Leipzig 1893; Idem, Der Pentateuch:
Beitrge zu seinem Verstndnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte. Neue Folge, Leipzig
1907. Klostermann saw Exod. 32:9, for example, which interrupts a divine speech, as a
harmonising interpolation based on Deut. 9:13. To reinforce his view, Klostermann turned
to the lxx and observed that it had no equivalent for Exod. 32:9(mt). In lxx, v. 10 is
simply a continuation of v. 8. He also claimed that the word added between and
in the SamP of Exod. 34:24 was borrowed from Deut. 7:1.
August Dillmann was also to appeal to the procedure of harmonising interpolations
based on Deuteronomy, claiming, for example, that in Exod. 20:10 was a later
interpolation based on Deut. 5:14. (A. Dillmann, V. Ryssel, Die Bcher Exodus und Leviticus
[KEHAT], Leipzig 1857; 31897). For the importance of harmonising interpolations for the
characterisation of so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic language in GenesisNumbers, see:
H. Ausloos, Traces of Deuteronomic Influence in the Septuagint: A Text-Critical Analysis of
Exodus 33:16, JNSL 35 (2009) 2744, esp. 4243.
explaining the presence of so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic material in the proto

mt text form of GenesisNumbers. We will return to this topic at a later stage
from the perspective of the Septuagint (lxx).
In addition to Geddes and Vater, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette should
likewise be counted among the early representatives of the Fragmentary
Hypothesis. His work is of particular interest because it introduces a turning
point in research into the origins and evolution of the Pentateuch thanks to
his vision of the book of Deuteronomy.13 De Wette isolated Deuteronomy as
an independent work and identified it with the book of the law found during
the reign of King Josiah, the account of which is to be found in 2 Kgs 2223.14
For the first time, his position posited a point of departure for the origin of
the Pentateuch outside the Pentateuch itself. Moreover, Deuteronomy, its
author, according to De Wette, having close links with the prophet Jeremiah,
thus became one of the youngest books of the Pentateuch.15 De Wette also
13 W.M.L. de Wette, Dissertatio critico-exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi

libris diversum, alius cuisdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur, Jena 1805;
Idem, Beitrge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Bd 1: Kritischer Versuch ber die
Glaubwrdigkeit der Bcher der Chronik mit Hinsicht auf die Geschichte der Mosaischen
Bcher und Gesetzgebung; Bd. 2: Kritik der Israelitischen Geschichte, Halle 18061807.
According to Eissfeldt, Einleitung, 1964, 227 De Wettes works provided an archimedean
point in the study of the origin and composition of the Pentateuch. Cf. J.W. Rogerson,
W.M.L. de Wette: Founder of Modern Biblical CriticismAn Intellectual Biography
(JSOT SS, 126), Sheffield, 1992; E. Otto, A Hidden Truth Behind the Text or the Truth of
the Text: At a Turning Point in Biblical Scholarship Two Hundred Years after De Wettes
Dissertatio critico-exegetica, in J.H. Le Roux, E. Otto (eds), South African Perspectives
on the Pentateuch Between Synchrony and Diachrony (Library of the Hebrew Bible. Old
Testament Studies, 463), Sheffield 2007, 1928; R. Smend, From Astruc to Zimmerli,
Tbingen 2007, 4356.
14 This hypothesis likewise suggests that the narrative of 2 Kgs 2223, which had been
understood since De Wette as a demand in support of the centralisation of the cult,
could be considered a report written with the provision of historical information in
mind (cf.among others, Kaiser, Einleitung, 133). Mart-Jan Pauls somewhat conservative
perspective has been critical of this classical view. Based on a study of Exod. 20:2426
and Deut. 12, the author argues that we should account for one single sanctuary at the
national level. The establishment of altars at the local level, however, was not forbidden.
In addition to the central sanctuary, therefore, the establishment of multiple altars was
permitted. (M.-J. Paul, Het archimedisch punt van de Pentateuchkritiek. Een historisch en
exegetisch onderzoek naar de verhouding van Deuteronomium en de reformatie van koning
Josia [2 Kon 2223], s-Gravenhage 1988). For a survey of the issues surrounding the book
of Deuteronomy, reference should be made to Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 279342.
15 W.M.L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und
apokryphischen Bcher des Alten Testaments sowie in die Bibelsammlung berhaupt, Berlin
8 Chapter 1
compared texts from Deuteronomy with related texts from GenesisNumbers

in an effort to distil the characteristic features of a typically Deuteronom(ist)
ic style. At the same time, he was convinced that these Tetrateuch texts were
partly determinative of the materialization of Deuteronomy. De Wette was
also interested in similarities in style between Deuteronomy, Joshua and Kings,
thus placing him at the cradle of the Deuteronomistic History hypothesis, par
ticularly as it was to be elaborated in the first half of the 20th century.
While De Wette originally supported the Fragmentary Hypothesis, he
remained aware of its shortcomings and as early as 1840 he was to become an
advocate of a three phase Supplementary Hypothesis: a basic Elohistic docu
ment, a Jahwist supplement, and a Deuteronomist.16 In De Wettes opinion, the
latter was responsible for the insertion of the book of Deuteronomy, among
other things, and for the adjustments to the end of the book of Numbers
required to accommodate it.
At the beginning of the 19th century, Leonard Bertholdt took a step back
towards the recognition of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.17 In line
with De Wette, however, Bertholdt insisted nevertheless on the unique charac
ter of the book of Deuteronomy. According to him, Deuteronomy represented
the work of one or more extraordinary author-collectors who had assembled
a number of post-Mosaic and reworked Mosaic laws and speeches. In contrast
to De Wette, Bertholdt was far from inclined to suggest that Deuteronomy was
(much) younger than the remaining books of the Pentateuch. In spite of his
admission of the unique character of Deuteronomy, he also pointed to a degree
of unity between the latter and the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers.
We can argue, in sum, that scholars at the beginning of the 19th century
understood the Pentateuch as a complex that had been subject to redac
tion according to a particular plan. Within this complex, Deuteronomy had
steadily distinguished itself as a book that established its own accents. It is also
1817, 323: Seine [i.e. DeuteronomyH.A.] Entstehung ist (...) zu setzen in die letzten Jahre
vor der Cultusreform des Josia (im J. 622), und sein Verfasser also zugleich der Redaktor
unseres jetzigen, damals aber noch nicht (...) als ein selbstndiges Ganzes abgesonderten,
Pentateuches war ein dem Jeremia sehr nahestehender, gottbegeisterter Mann, der
durch eine Erneuerung des Gesetzes im prophetischen Geiste eine Regenerierung des
ganzes damaligen religisen, sittlichen, politischen und socialen Lebens herbeizufhren
bestrebt war.
16 W.M.L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und
apokryphischen Bcher des Alten Testamentes. Fnfte, verbesserte und vermehrte Ausgabe,
Berlin 1840, 208211.
17 L. Bertholdt, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die smmtlichen kanonischen und apokryphi
schen Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Erlangen 1813.
worthy of note that the question of specifically Deuteronom(ist)ic language

and ideas within GenesisNumbersas it was later to be describedwas
not approached (systematically) to any serious degree. This particular issue,
however, was to play a role in the work of Friedrich Bleek. It is remarkable,
however, that the Deuteronomic quest first found its way into biblical research
via the book of Leviticus. The remaining books of the Tetrateuch only became
involved in the question at a later date.
In a contribution published in 1822, Bleek proposed a twofold redaction
within the books of GenesisJoshua,18 locating the firstencompassing the
Hexateuchduring the still undivided kingdom, and the second, towards
the end of the Southern Kingdom. Bleek ascribed this second redaction
to the author of Deuteronomy, whereby the latter introduced his work as a
whole into the Hexateuch.19 To this end, the redactor relocated the final chap
ters of Numbers to the end of Deut. 30.20 According to Bleek, a number of
interpolations in Leviticus (Lev. 17; 26:345) were also to be ascribed to the
Deuteronomist.21
Without going into detail, Bleek considered the emphasis on cultic unity as
one of the typical characteristics of this second redaction.22 He also observed
Deuteronomys unusual conceptualisation of the relationship between priests
and Levites,23 together with its parenetic and threatening tone, reminiscent
18 F. Bleek, Einige aphoristische Beitrge zu den Untersuchungen ber den Pentateuch, in:
E.F.K. Rosenmller, G.H. Rosenmller (eds), Biblisch-exegetisches Repertorium oder die
neuesten Fortschritte in Erklrung der heiligen Schrift, Bd. 1, Leipzig 1822, 179.
19 Bleek, Aphoristische Beitrge, 52. This still pre-exilic dating of the final redaction
of Deuteronomy and the Pentateuch as a whole sets Bleek apart from Gesenius and
De Wette.
20 De Wette had also made the same observation. Heinrich Holzinger and Bruno Baentsch
were later to argue along similar lines.
21 Bleek, Aphoristische Beitrge, 5455.
22 In contrast to Deut. 12; 16:117, in which Jerusalem is recommended or presumed to be
the cultic centre, one has the freedom, according to Exod. 20, to sacrifice wherever one
wishes (Bleek, Aphoristische Beitrge, 18). Bleek later argued that cultic unity was not
to be considered a characteristic of the Deuteronomist. While the form in which the
precepts on the subject are presently found in the Pentateuch may stem from a later date,
the theme itself is undoubtedly Mosaic (F. Bleek, Beitrge zu den Forschungen ber den
Pentateuch, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 4 [1831] 488524, esp. 501).
23 Bleek, Aphoristische Beitrge, 1617. While the Levites in the frheren BcherBleek
refers, for example, to Num. 18appear as an inferior class of temple officials when
compared to the priests as descendents of Aaron, the book of Deuteronomy appears to
place them on an equal footing () . Furthermore, while Num. 35 appears to
10 Chapter 1
of the language of Jeremiah.24 Bleek thus ascribed Lev. 17 to the Deuterono

mist because of the fact that the chapter in questionthe only chapter in
the entire book of Leviticuspermitted only one single cultic location (the
tent of meeting) in line with Deuteronomy.25 He also ascribed Lev. 26:345 to
the Deuteronomist because of the parenetic style it shared with the book of
Deuteronomy.26
In spite of the limited attention Bleek devoted to the role of the Deuteronomist
in the emergence and development of the books GenesisNumbersin the
last analysis he only observed the work of the Deuteronomist at the beginning
suggest that the Levites lived in their own Levite cities, Deuteronomy presents them for
the most part as living among the Israelites.
24 Dazu kommt, da das Deuteronomium, wenigstens bis zoweit die Wiederhohlung des
Gesetzes geht, durch seine Sprache und durch seinen ganzen Charakter von den anderen
Bcher so sehr verschieden ist; es hat ganz den ermahnenden und warnenden Ton der
um die Zeit des Exils lebenden Propheten, und schliet sich besonders dem Tone und
der Sprache nach an den Jeremiah an, mit dem es auch manche Ausdrucke und Phrasen
gemein hat die sonst selten oder gar nicht vorkommen, woraus man wenigstens auf eine
nicht groe Distanz des Zeitalters beider schlieen kann (Bleek, Aphoristische Beitrge,
19)De Wette had already observed the relationship between the Deuteronomist and
Jeremiah. John W. Colenso was later to identify both figures.
25 Bleek, Aphoristische Beitrge, 4555. Bleek was later to reconsider his assignation of
Lev. 17 to the Deuteronomist (Bleek, Beitrge zu den Forschungen, 492). In contrast to
Deuteronomy, Lev. 17 instructs the sacrifices are not to be brought to the sanctuary, but
to its entrance (vv. 46, 9). At the same time, Lev. 17 lacks the element of chosen place, a
theme that is central in Deuteronomy (12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21; 16:2, 6).
26 Bleek, Aphoristische Beitrge, 55: Kap. xxvi,345 eine Ermahnungsrede Mosis an das
Volk; diese ist dem Tone und ganzen Chrakter nach dem Deuteronomium so verwandt,
und setzt so sehr dieselben Verhltnisse voraus, da es wenigstens hgst wahrscheinlich
ist, da sie von dem Verfaer des Deuteronomiums eingeschaltet sey. In contrast to
Lev. 17, however, Bleek continued to ascribe Lev. 26:345 to the author of Deuteronomy:
cf. Idem, Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift, Bd. 1: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 1860,
331332 (this work was published posthumously by J.F. Bleek and A. Kamphausen): Daran
schliesst sich die letzte Redaction des Werkes durch den Verfasser des Deuteronomiums,
durch den das Werk ganz den Umfang und die Gestalt erhalten hat, worin es uns jetzt
in unserm Pentateuche und dem Buche Josua vorliegt. Der Urheber dieser Redaction
hat das eben genannte Werk (des Jehovisten) wol vollstndig aufgenommen, wie er es
vorfand, nur hin und wieder sich einzelne Aenderungen und Zustze erlaubt, besonders
in der Geschichte zur Zeit Josuas, bei den ersten Bchern des Pentateuchs vielleicht nur
durch Einschaltung von Lev. 26,345, und durch einige Umstellungen, wie wol dessen,
was sich jetzt Deut. 4,4143 (ber die drei Freistdte jenseit des Jordan) und 27,18 (ber
den auf dem Ebal zu errichtenden Altar) findet. Die Hauptvernderung aber bestand in
der Vermehrung des Werkes durch Aufnahme des Deuteronomiums selbst (Kpp. 133).
of Leviticusthere can be little doubt nonetheless that he pioneered the con

cept of the Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction. Actually it was Bleek who introduced
the idea of the Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of the Pentateuch into historical-
critical research.
A few years after Bleeks Aphoristische Beitrge, the Deuteronom(ist)ic
redaction came to the foreground once again in the work of Ernst Bertheau.27
Bertheau, who was something of a maverick in his domain, studied the laws
in the Pentateuch independent of the narrative passages. For Bertheau, there
fore, the question of a continuous narrative line in the Pentateuch was not
primary. His main interest rather was in the structure and the systematic
arrangement of the text as we now have it. While Bleek regarded Lev. 17 and 26
as Deuteronomic passages, Bertheau was possible the first scholar to observe
Deuteronomic elements in the book of Exodus. Against the background of his
research into the legislation found in Exod. 19:124:11, Bertheau presumed that
the author of Exod. 2023 had deliberately and meticulously structured the pre
cepts included in the said chapters and that such a painstaking author would
not have been prone to repetition. Bearing this in mind, Bertheau concluded
that Exod. 23:913 contained precepts that ursprnglich nicht in der Reihe
der Bundesgesetze gestanden haben.28 Exod. 23:9, moreover, was an almost
literal repetition of Exod. 22:20, and the Sabbath command in Exod. 23:12 was a
redundant repetition of Exod. 20:910. Bertheau also considered Exod. 23:1011
to be out of the ordinary, given its reference to the jubilee year. The einseitige
Forderung Gottes in verse 13, he concluded, was in stark contrast to the vol
untary assent of the people in Exod. 19:8; 24:3.7. Bertheau similarly observed
with reference to Exod. 23:913: So viel ich sehe ist in dem Inhalte dieser weni
gen Verse so viel auffallendes, dass die Annahme in ihnen einen fremdartigen
Zusatz zu haben, sich aufdrngen muss.29
On this point, the Deuteronomist avant la lettre steps into the limelight in
the work of Bertheau. While the command relating to the Sabbath (Exod. 23:10
11) is also found in Lev. 25:17, the degree of agreement with Deut. 15:114 is
much stronger. Exod. 23:1011 and Deut 15:111 do not only leave the theme of
the jubilee year unmentionedin contrast to Lev. 25:17, the term
(related to in Exod. 23:11) also occurs with frequency in Deuteronomy,
but is attested nowhere in Leviticus. Bertheau goes on to observe that the
exhortation of Exod. 23:13 (Be attentive to all that I have said to you) also
27 E. Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen mosascher Gesetze in den drei mittleren Bchern des
Pentateuchs: Ein Beitrag zur Kritik des Pentateuchs, Gttingen 1840.
28 Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen, 42.
12 Chapter 1
occurs often in Deuteronomy.30 In addition, it is striking that the precepts that

follow Exod. 23:13 (vv. 1419) are also present at least in part in Deut. 16:117
(compare Exod. 23:15.17 with Deut. 16:16). From the perspective of composition,
moreover, the sequence Deut. 15:111 (sabbatical year) and Deut. 16:117, which
is only interrupted by Deut. 15:1223, exhibits a clear parallel with the sequence
Exod. 23:13 (sabbatical year) and the precepts in Exod. 23:1419. Agreements
between Exod. 23:1011, 13 and Deuteronomy also allow Bertheau to conclude:
Fassen wir alle diese Erscheinungen zusammen, so wird es wahrscheinlich,
dass auf das Hineinkommen von v. 10. und 11. und v. 13. in die Bundesgesetze
das Deuteron. Einfluss gehabt habe.31 Bertheau also considers einfluss des
Deuteron probable with respect to Exod. 23:12. Indeed, Exod. 23:12 shares the
explicit emphasis on the purpose of the Sabbath (so that your [...] may have
relief) with Deut. 5:14, in contrast to Exod. 20:910.
In addition to Exod. 23:913, Bertheau focused attention on Exod. 23:2033,
the epilogue of the so-called Covenant Code. The said pericope would often
be associated with a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction in the course of the history
of research. While Bertheau focused explicitly on the similarities between
Exod. 23:2033 and Deuteronomy, he himself was not to attribute Exod. 23:20
33 to a Deuteronom(ist)ic redactor. He distinguished ten promises within the
present form of Exod. 23:2033, promises that constituted a necessary part of
the preconditions for establishing the covenant.32 He thus subdivided the peri
cope as follows:
1. Exod. 23:2022 Deut. 6:102633

2. Exod. 23:2324 Deut. 7:11134
3. Exod. 23:25a.b Deut. 7:13
4. Exod. 23:25c Deut. 7:15
5. Exod. 23:26a Deut. 7:14
30 Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen, 46 refers to Deut. 5:29; 6:2, 3, 17; 7:11; 8:1, 11; 10:13; 11:1, 32;
12:1 und sonst. At the same time, the expression is reminiscent an solche in Stcken im
Exodus, welche (...) nicht in die eigentliche Sammlung der Gesetze hineingehren, z.B.
an Exod. 34,11. an 31,13.14.16.
33 Without mention of the .
34 No mention of the . Addition of the Girgasites, whereby Exod. 23 comes to agree
with Exod. 34:11. In addition, the command of Exod. 23:2324 is extended and provided
with arguments.
6. Exod. 23:26b 35
7. Exod. 23:27 Deut. 7:1619
8. Exod. 23:28 Deut. 7:2021
9. Exod. 23:293036 Deut. 7:22
10. Exod. 23:3133 Deut. 7:2325
These ten promises clearly differ from one another. The first and the second,
for example, are more extensive than the third, fourth, fifth and sixth. They
also differ in terms of form, and in the third there is unexpected reference to
yhwh in the third person. In the tenth promise, moreover, Israels territory is
visualised as much more extensive than in the second and the eighth.
In spite of the differences in form and content he claimed to be able to dis
cern between these ten promises, Bertheau did not conclude that the pericope
was composite in nature. With respect to associations with Deuteronomy,
however, he is particularly unequivocal: the author of Deut. 67 was familiar
with Exod. 23:2033 in its present form and used it without taking over its ten-
part structure: Fr uns gibt es keine ursprnglichere Form derselben als die
im Exodus.
We can observe, in sum, that Bertheaus work served to introduce interest
in Deuteronom(ist)ic influence on the book of Exodus. Nevertheless, the con
tribution of the DeuteronomistBertheau addresses Exod. 23:913 and to
a lesser extent Exod. 34:11and argumentation in support thereof remained
extremely limited. It should also be observed that Bertheau did not consider
every parallel he claimed to have discerned between Exodus and Deuteronomy
as Deuteronom(ist)ic influence. This is especially clear with respect to the
epilogue of the Covenant Code, which Bertheau understood as a Vorlage of
Deuteronomy. Both lines of approach continued to exist side by side in later
35 Exod 23:26b is not recapitulated in Deuteronomy. The author of Deuteronomy probably

thought that the theme of Exod. 23:26b had already been dealt with in Deut. 7:1215: Die
Zehnzahl im Exodus hat der Verf. des Deuteron. hiernach nicht beachtet (Bertheau, Die
sieben Gruppen, 76 n. 1).
36 The form in Exod. 23:29 appears to be related to in Exod. 23:28. As a result
it is possible to see verses 2830 taken together as constituting part of one and the same
promise. Bertheau is reluctant to abandon his ten-part structure, however, and argues
on the basis of content that it is necessary to speak of two promises here. Moreover,
vv. 2930 states that yhwh will gradually drive out the peoples, while v. 28 claims that
is responsible for driving them out. Furthermore, it would appear from Deut. 7:20,
22 that the author of Deut. 67 also made a distinction between two different promises
in Exod. 23:2830. Indeed, the expression is added in both Deut. 7:20 and
Deut. 7:22.
14 Chapter 1
research into the presence of alleged Deuteronom(ist)ic language in the first

four books of the Old Testament.
3 The Deuteronomist and the Supplementary Hypothesis
In contrast to the Fragmentary Hypothesis, which saw the Pentateuch as a col

lection of relatively independent fragmentsand as such was unable to offer
sufficient explanation for the degree of structure the Pentateuch exhibits,
the Supplementary Hypothesis took its point of departure in a continuous
basic narrativean Elohist Grundschriftthat was progressively expanded
by the Jehovist with the help of the literary procedure of supplementa
tion. Considered up to that point as the youngest book of the Pentateuch,
Deuteronomy was then understood to have been incorporated in the latter as
part of the said procedure.
With regard to Deuteronom(ist)ic issues, particular reference should be
made to the work of Johann Jakob Sthelin in this context.37 Sthelin identified
the Jehovist who supplemented the Elohist basic narrative with the author of
Deuteronomy. Using a number of examples, Sthelin tried to demonstrate that
the theology of Deuteronomy was identical to that of the Jehovistic Ergnzer.38
Gen. 15:16, for example, clearly states that the Israelites were to be Gods instru
ments in punishing the Canaanites, a motif also found in Deut. 9:45. The
theme of God treating Israel well on account of Abraham (Gen. 22:18; 26:5)
is also to be found in Deut. 7:8; 10:15. Thanks to Gods promises to the patri
archs, Israels religion was to spread among the pagans as the true religion, a
motif that is also present in Exod. 19:6, albeit in different words, and parallel
with Deut. 30 in which God promises to bring Israel back to its land. In addi
tion to the theological similarities between the Jehovistic Ergnzer and the
author of Deuteronomy, Sthelin also pointed to similarities in terms of lan
guage. The formula , for example, is to be found in Deut. 4,9, 23 and
37 J.J. Sthelin, Beitrge zu den kritischen Untersuchungen ber den Pentateuch, die Bcher
Josua und die Richter, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 8 (1835) 461477; Idem, Kritische
Untersuchungen ber den Pentateuch, die Bcher Josua, Richter, Samuels und der Knige,
Berlin 1843, 80: Wir wollen nun voraussetzen, der Ergnzer der vier ersten Bcher des
Pentat. und der Verfasser des Deut. sei einer und derselbe.
38 Sthelin, Kritische Untersuchungen, 80: Auch die Theologie des Deuteron. ist die des
Ergnzers, denn sie hat im Deuteron. keine weitre Ausbildung erhalten, und man kann
sagen, was der Ergnzer in den frhern Bchern, in seinem geschichtlichen Theile
andeute, das spreche er hier, im gesetzlichen Theile seines Werkes, klar aus.
in Exod. 23:21; 34:12. Nevertheless, Sthelin was also conscious of linguistic dif
ferences between the Jehovistic Ergnzer and Deuteronomy. He ascribes this,
however, to the specific nature of Deuteronomy as an exhortatory address.39
The only potentially problematic difference between the supplementer
of the Tetrateuch and the author of Deuteronomy was to be found in the fact
that the latter book does not ascribe a role to the , while frequent ref
erence is made to the said messenger of God in the Tetrateuch. Here Sthelin
observes, however, that in Deut. 31:15 the pillar of cloud functions as divine
intermediary, as it does in Num. 12:5 or Exod. 33:9. The relationship between
the Jehovist and the Deuteronomist upon which Sthelin focused tentative
attention, was later to play an important role in the work of Heinrich Hol
zinger, Abraham Kuenen, Samuel Rolles Driver and Gerrit Wildeboer.
The work of the otherwise conservative scholar Franz Delitzschin his
view the core of the Pentateuch, i.e. Exod. 1924, was written by Mosesalso
contains interesting insights that would later will be omnipresent within the
debate surrounding the Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of the Pentateuch.40
Delitzsch likewise presented himself as a proponent of the Supplementary
Hypothesis, although he rejected Sthelins identification of the Jehovist with
the Deuteronomist.41 He remained on the surface when it came to the presence
of Deuteronom(ist)ic features in Genesis, observing simply in his Die Genesis
ausgelegt that the expression ( Gen. 26:5) occurred hufig
beim Deuteronomiker.42 A few years later, he explicitly referred to a number of
passages in Genesis as deuteronomisch. He begins by describing Lev. 1720; 26
as jehovistisch-deuteronomisch gefrbt.43 In the appendix to his commentary
39 Sthelin, Kritische Untersuchungen, 82: Haben wir immer die doppelte Rcksicht vor
Augen, dass der Ergnzer eigentlich erst im Deut. seine Legislation geben konnte, und
dass er sie nicht wie die Grundschrift in der Form von Gesetzen geben wollte, sondern die
einer der ermahnender Rede whlte, so werden wir gewiss die kleinere Differenzen, die
sich zwischen dem Deut. und den Abschnitten der frhern Bcher finden, die wir dem
Ergnzer zugeschrieben, leicht begreifen und natrlich finden. On the other hand, see
De Wette, Lehrbuch, 204208.
40 H. Bardtke, Franz Delitzsch geb. 23.2.1813. Ein Gedenkwort zur einhunderfnfzigsten
Wiederkehr seines Geburtstages, TLZ 88 (1963) 161170; S. Wagner, Franz Delitzsch: Leben
und Werk (Beitrge zur evangelischen Theologie, 80), Mnchen 1978; Gieen, 21991.
41 F. Delitzsch, Die Genesis ausgelegt, Leipzig 1852, 2930: (...) seine Absicht, dass der
Jehovist und der Deuteronomiker eine Person seien, sicher unhaltbar und auch von de
Wette nicht angeeignet worden ist.
42 Delitzsch, Die Genesis ausgelegt, 315.
43 F. Delitzsch, Commentar ber die Genesis, Leipzig 31860, 37.
16 Chapter 1
he alludes to the divine name in Gen. 15 as deuteronomisch.44

Delitzsch also speaks of the use of the term in Gen. 21:10, 13 (instead of
, a term that only occurs in Deuteronomy in 28:68), as deuteronomisch45
and labels Gen. 26:16 as eigenthmlich gefrbt.46 Within the expression
, used to refer to Canaan, he designates as an archaic term
that Gen. 26:3 shares with Gen. 19:8, 25 and Deut. 4:42; 7:22; 19:11. Delitzsch
also speaks of the formula in Gen. 26:5 as a deuterono
misch klingende Zusammenstellung, although he notes that while the plu
ral form is found in Exod. 16:28; 18:16, 20; Lev. 26:46, it is not attested in
Deuteronomy.
While Delitzsch restricted the contribution of the Deuteronomist to a
number of isolated verses in Genesis, it is with him nevertheless that literary
argumentation found its way into Pentateuch research. It should come as no
surprise, therefore, that Wellhausen was to explicitly refer to Delitzsch a cou
ple of decades later when he spoke of RD.47
Heinrich Ewald, whose hypothesis Delitzsch called the Krystallisations
hypothese,48 is also of indirect importance for the question of the presence
of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in GenesisNumbers. Ewald referred to his
basic document as the Buch der Ursprnge (= later P)49 into which seventy
44 Delitzsch, Commentar, 643. Delitzsch paid no attention to this specific divine name in his
commentary on Gen. 15.
45 Delitzsch, Commentar, 644.
46 Delitzsch, Commentar, 446; 644.
47 At a later stage, Delitzsch became a supporter of Karl Heinrich Grafs hypothesisCf.
F. Delitzsch, Pentateuch-kritische Studien ixii, Zeitschrift fr kirchliche Wissenschaft
und kirchliches Leben 1 (1880), 110; 5766; 113121; 173183; 223234; 279289; 337347;
393399; 445449; 503509; 559567; 617626; Idem, Urmosaisches im Pentateuch iiv,
Zeitschrift fr kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben 3 (1882), 113136; 225235;
281299; 337347; 449457; 561573; Idem, Neuer Kommentar ber die Genesis, Leipzig
1887, 1719.
48 Delitzsch, Commentar, 29.
49 Ewald did not adequately distinguish between the historical and the literary basic
document. A certain layer in the Pentateuch might provide the pattern upon which the
material is ordered in literary terms, but this need not imply that the layer in question
is also the oldest from the historical perspective, to which all the remaining material
was later added. This presupossition explains why the literature designated with the
letter P in contemporary Pentateuch research was more or less consistently understood
to be the oldest component of the Pentateuch prior to the insights of Graf and Willem
Hendrik Kosters. Cf. Eissfeldt, Einleitung, 213: In der Tat sind die Analyse einerseits und
die zeitliche Ansetzung der Genesis oder des Pentateuchs bzw ihrer durch die Analyse
gefundenen Quellen anderseits zwei zunchst ganz verschiedene Dinge, und man tut
historical works had been incorporated. One of the narrators of the primeval
history first collected all the sources he had at his disposal and revised them.
When reference was made to one of the major heroes from Israels history, he
invariably preceded the episode with a sort of programmatic sketch intended
to evoke the magnificence of the character from the outset. He thus introduced
the three parts of Abrahams life, for example, with ein eingreifendes prophe
tisches Bild50 in Gen. 12:13; 15; 22:119. Isaacs life is prefaced by Gen. 26:15
and Jacobs in Gen. 28:1022 with prophetische Farbe. Such passages were not
necessarily created by the narrator who may have found them elsewhere and
relocated them, as is the case with Gen. 15, which originally followed Gen. 17. It
is striking to say the least that each of these prophetic passages was later asso
ciated by Ewalds successors with a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of Genesis.
August Knobel, to conclude, can be considered a representative of the
Supplementary Hypothesis. According to Knobel, a Jehovistic redactor
added a Rechtsbuch and a Kriegsbuch to an already existing Elohistic basic
document.51 As such, the final form of GenesisNumbers was to be ascribed to
this Jehovistic redactor. As a consequence, Knobel was unable to distinguish
strictly Deuteronom(ist)ic verses in the first four books of the Old Testament,
although many of the passages he ascribed to the Jehovistic redactor52 were
gut, diese beiden Aufgaben der Pentateuchkritik auch bei einem berblick ber ihre
Geschichte auseinanderzuhalten.
50 H. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis Christus. Bd. 1, Gttingen 1843, 140.
51 A. Knobel, Die Genesis (KEHAT, 11), Leipzig 1852; Idem, Die Bcher Exodus und Leviticus
(KEHAT, 12), Leipzig 1857; Idem, Die Bcher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua erklrt nebst
einer Kritik des Pentateuch und Josua (KEHAT, 13), Leipzig 1861. In the Vorrede of Genesis,
iiiiv, Knobel describes the method and goal of his research as follows: Die alte Schrift
(...), welche den Bchern Mosis und Josuas zum Grunde liegt, macht sich durch ihren
festen Zweck und Plan und durch ihre stets gleich bleibende Manier und Sprache dem
kritischen Auge leicht kenntlich und lsst sich meines Erachtens mit ziemlicher Sicher
heit herausfinden, zumal sie abgesehen von einzelnen Angaben vollstndig erhalten zu
sein scheint. Aber desto schwieriger ist das Geschft der Kritik bei den Stcken, welche
durch die Hand des Bearbeiters der alten Grundschrift hinzugekommen sind.
52 See, for example, Knobel, Exodus, 105 in relation to Exod. 12:2427: Eine Vorschrift ber
die knftige Haltung des Passah, welche neben der elohistischen Verordnung V. 14.43ff.
als volkommen berflssig und darnach wie nach der Sprache, auch nach der schlechten
Anschluss von V. 28. als jehovistische Einschaltung erscheint. Exod. 13:310 is likewise
ascribed to the Jehovist (128). Kinship between the Jehovist and the Deuteronomist,
moreover, would appear to be clear in respect to the latter text: die fgrlichen
Redensarten 13,9.16 und 13,12., welche dann der Deuteronomiker sich angeeignet hat
(112). Exod. 32:714 (316: freie Zuthat des Jehovisten) can be added here.
18 Chapter 1
later labelled Deuteronom(ist)ic by other scholars.53 Knobels conviction

that the author considered responsible for large portions of Deuteronomy
and smaller passages of Joshuathe Deuteronomistwas closely aligned
in terms of language with the Rechtsbuch and the Jehovist is also worthy of
note.54 Nonetheless, Knobel excluded the possibility that the Jehovist and the
Deuteronomist were one and the same person, which implies that one would
be searching in vain if one were to look for the presence of the Deuteronomist
in the first four books of the Pentateuch.55
53 Reference can be made, for example, to Exod. 3; 12:2427; 13:316; 2023; 24:38; 33:111;
Num. 14:1125.
54 Knobel pointed in the first instance to similarities between the language of der
Deuteronomiker and his predecessors, namely the Elohistic basic document and the
Kriegsbuch. Nonetheless, im Ganzen steht die deuteronomische Ausdrucksweise von
der elohistischen weit ab und schliesst sich mehr an die der Spteren an (Knobel, Numeri,
586). According to Knobel, however, the most striking agreements are those between the
Deuteronomist, the Rechtsbuch and the Jehovist. Knobel lists the following examples:
( Deut. 3:24; 4:34; 5:15; 6:21; 7:8, 19; 9:26; 11:2; 26:8; 34:12); ( Deut. 1:17; 16:19;
21:14); ( Deut. 7:2; 28:50); ( Deut. 25:9); in relation to the commission of Moses
(Deut. 34:11); ( Deut. 6:11; 28:47); ( Deut. 4:26; 7:4, 22; 9:3, 12, 16; 28:20 together with
Exod. 32:8; Josh. 2:5). A considerable amount of material is also to be found in the work
of the Deuteronomist that is also used by the Jehovist. For example: ( Deut. 5:33;
8:6; 9:12, 16; 10:12; 11:22, 28; 13:6; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 31:29; Josh. 22:5); ( Deut. 5:32;
9:12, 16; 11:28; 17:20; 31:29; Josh. 1,7); ( Deut. 17:8; 30:11); ( Deut. 7:17; 8:17;
9:4; 18:21); ( Deut. 4:40; 5:16, 29; 6:3, 18; 12:25, 28; 22:7); ( Deut. 9:27);
(Deut. 28:29; Josh. 1:8); ( Deut. 11:26, 28, 29; 21:23; 23:6; 27:13; 28:15, 45; 29:26; 30:1, 19;
Josh. 8:34); ( Deut. 28:5, 17); ( Deut. 1:37; 15:10; 18:12). Knobel concludes: Der
Deuteronomiker hat also im Ausdrucke von allen Vorgngern Einzelnes angenommen
und trifft in andern Fllen wenigstens mit ihnen zusammen; am nchsten steht er in der
Sprache dem Rechtsbuche und dem Jehovisten (Knobel, Numeri, 587).
55 The argument used by Knobel in support of this position runs as follows: Die Frage, ob
der Jehovist und der Deuteronomiker dieselbe Person seien, ist aus folgenden Grunden
zu verneinen. a) wollte der Jehovist offenbar nicht Gesetze geben, sondern nur die
lteren Gesetze zusammenarbeiten, wogegen es dem Deut. neben der Einschrfung auf
eine Vermehrung der lteren Gesetze ankam. Beide verfolgten verschiedene Aufgaben.
b) verfolgte der Jehovist seine Aufgabe in der Weise, dass er, zumal bei den mosaische
Dingen, die lteren Quellen mglichst wrtlich beibehielt und so zusammenfgte, ohne
sie viel mit eigenen Zuthaten zu versetzen, whrend der Deut. sich viel freier bewegt und
das Aeltere selbststndiger verarbeitet. c) wrden die 4 ersten Bcher, wren sie durch die
Hand des eifrigen und rednerischen Deut. geworden, gewiss viel deuteronom. Zugaben,
namentlich parnetischer Art enthalten; davon ist aber nichts wahrzunehmen, vielmehr
seine Hand erst von Dt. 1. anzu bemerken. d) entscheiden gewisse Ansichten gegen die
Identitt z.B. dass der Jehovist Kibroth Taava und Tabeera als einerlei nimmt (...), der
A completely unique version of the Supplementary Hypothesis was devised

by John William Colenso to whom we shall devote more detailed attention in
the following pages. While Colenso may have been considered something of a
maverick, he was still to have an enormous influence on the emergence of the
so-called New Documentary Hypothesis, in addition to being the first scholar
to argue for an extensive Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of GenesisNumbers.
4 John William Colenso and the Deuteronomist
The one-hundred and fiftieth anniversary of John William Colensos appoint

ment as Anglican Bishop of Natal (South Africa) was celebrated in 2003.56
Deut. aber unterscheidet (Dt. 9,22) und das Jener den Bericht von Mosis Verfehlung
in Kades in den elohist. Bericht von Israels zweitem Aufenthalte zu Kades einfgt und
somit einen zweimalgen Aufenthalt zu Kades angenommen hat, whrend der Deut. nur
Einen angenommen hat (...). Der Letztere wrde auch bei seinen strengen Ansicht von
der Einheit des Gottesdienstes (Cap. 12) das Gesetz Ex. 20,24ff weggelassen und kaum
mit Eifer von den Altren der Erzvter an den verschiedenen Orten des Landes erzhlt
haben wie der Jehovist es thut. Unmglich kann man auch den Zusammenarbeiter von
Ex. 3234. als dieselbe Person mit dem Darsteller von Dt. 9,710,11. ansehen. e) ist ohne
Unterscheidung des Jehovisten und Deut. bei manchen Stellen z.B. Dt. 32,44f. Jos 13,6f
kritisch nicht zurechtzukommen. f) besttigen sprachliche Grnde die Unterscheidung
beider Verff. Die eben dargelegte zahlreichen und stehenden Spracheigenheiten des
Deut. sind dem Jehovisten fremd und umgekehrt (...). Der Jehovist hat auch viele ganz
gewhnliche Ausdrcke z.B. , , , , , , und mit
seinen Urkunden gemein (...), welche der Deut. nicht braucht, und er meidet Manches
z.B. mit , was diesem gelufig ist (Knobel, Numeri, 589590). Thus the Jehovist
always uses ( Gen. 12:16; 16:2, 5, 6, 8; 24:35; 29:23; 32:23; 33:1, 2, 6), while the said
term only occurs once in Deuteronomy (Deut. 28:68). Furthermore, reference should be
made to the Elohist who always uses ( Gen. 6:5, 6; 8:21; 18:5; 24:45; 27:41; Exod. 4:14;
7:14, 23; 10:1), while Deuteronomy mostly employs ( Deut. 1:28; 2:13; 4:9, 29, 39; 5:26;
6:5, 6; 7:17; 8:2, 5, 14, 17; 9:4.5; 10:12, 16; 11:13, 16, 18; 13:4; 15:7, 9, 10; 17:17, 20; 18:21; 19:6; 20:3, 8;
26:16; 28:28, 47, 67; 29:17, 18; 30:1, 2, 6, 10, 14, 17; 32:46; Josh. 22,5) and only by exception
(Deut. 4:11; 28:65; 29:3, 18). Moreover, the Jehovist prefixes with or ( Gen. 12:16;
32:10, 13), while the Deuteronomist by contrast uses an accusative (Deut 8,16; 28,63; 30,5).
To conclude, the Jehovist uses to express act perversely (Exod. 32:7; compare with
Deut. 32:5); the Deuteronomist uses the hiphil ( Deut. 4:16, 25; 31:29; Deut. 9:12 is a
repetition of Jehovistic terminology).
56 In 1853 Colenso ended his career as a mathematics teacher and as vicar to take up his
appointment as the first bishop of the recently established diocese of Natal, which,
together with the episcopal see of Grahamstown, was dependent on the Bishop of Cape
Town. Colenso moved to Natal in 1855 together with his wife and daughter. Although he
20 Chapter 1
For the occasionwhich it was hoped would include the cancelation of

his excommunication dating back to 1866, an anthology was published
in which prominent academics offered reflections on various aspects of
Colensos career, as bishop, teacher, and most prominently as biblical exegete.57
From the very moment Colenso arrived in South Africa, the Old Testament,
and in particular the so-called Hexateuch, played an extremely important
role in his life. Moreover, the remainder of his life and career were to be
determined to a significant degree by his approach to the first books of the
Judaeo-Christian Bible.58
It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that none of the contributors to
the aforementioned anthology pays any specific attention to Colensos vision
of the Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of GenesisJoshua. Nonetheless, decades
before the theme of an all-embracing Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction came to
dominate research into the emergence and evolution of the literature of the
Old Testament, Colenso spent his entire career focusing explicit and con
vinced attention on similarities between texts from GenesisNumbers and the
was to return to England on several occasions, he continued to live in South Africa until
his death (cf. in this regard J.W. Colenso, Ten Weeks in Natal, Cambridge 1855). For further
biographical information reference should be made to G.W. Cox, The Life of John William
Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal, London 1888; Idem, Colenso, John William, Dictionary of
National Biography 4 (1908), 746749; F.E. Deist, John William Colenso: Biblical Scholar,
OTE 2 (1984), 98132; J. Guy, The Heretic: A Study of the Life of John William Colenso 1814
1883, Johannesburg 1983; P. Hinchliff, John William Colenso Bishop of Natal, London 1964;
J.H. Le Roux, A Story of Two Ways: Thirty Years of Old Testament Scholarship in South Africa
(OTE SS, 2), Pretoria 1993, 91107; G. Mitchell, A Hermeneutic of Intercultural Learnings:
The Writings of John Colenso, OTE 10 (1997), 449458; J. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism
in the Nineteenth Century, London 1984, 220237; B. Sundkler, C. Steed, A History of the
Church in Africa (Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia, 74), Cambridge 2000, 371372. See also
H. Ausloos, John William Colenso (18141883) and the Deuteronomist, RB 113 (2006), 372
397; T.K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament Criticism, London 1893, 196204; Houtman,
Der Pentateuch, 102; R.J. Thompson, Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism since Graf
(SVT, 19), Leiden 1970, 4344; 5455.
57 J. Draper (ed.), The Eye of the Storm; Bishop John William Colenso and the Crisis of Biblical
Inspiration (JSOT SS, 386), London 2003.
58 J.W. Colenso, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, London, 18621879
(vol. 1: 1862; vol. 2: 1863; vol. 3: 1863; vol. 4: 1863; vol. 5: 1865; vol. 6: 1871; vol. 7: 1879). Colensos
scholarly biblical works include: The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans: Newly Translated
and Explained from a Missionary Point of View, Cambridge 1861; The Worship of Baalism in
Israel, Londen 1863; Natal Sermons, London 18661868; Lectures on the Pentateuch and the
Moabite Stone, London 1873. For a complete bibliography, see F. Bell et al., Bibliography of
Colensos Work and Publications on Colenso, in Draper, The Eye of the Storm, 365377.
book of Deuteronomy. Furthermore, Colenso was in fact the first to introduce

the concept of an all-embracing Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of the books
GenesisNumbers into scholarly biblical research.59
In order to situate Colensos interest in the contribution of the Deuteronomist
to the origin and evolution of the first four books of the Old Testament, we must
first briefly explore his vision of the genesis and composition of the Pentateuch
and the book of Joshua. It is also important to bear in mind in this regard that
Colenso repeatedly changed his vision in the course of his exegetical research
activities. This should come as no surprise, given the fact that he published his
seven volume magnum opus on the Hexateuch over a period of eighteen years.
We will then examine Colensos approach to the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic
elements in GenesisNumbers in more detail.
4.1 Colenso and the Origin of the Pentateuch

Referring to the intention of the Anglican Church to be a free, Protestant,
nation, Colenso saw it as his responsibility, as in the days of the Reformation,
to protest against all perversion of the Truth, and all suppression of it, for the
sake of Peace, or by mere Authority.60 This search for the truth was to govern
his entire life, even when it led to serious conflict with the churchs hierarchy
in England and South Africa.
After spending his first years in Natal familiarising himself with the Zulu
language, Colenso initiated a plan to translate both the Old and the New
Testaments into Zulu.61 As he worked on his translation, assisted by a sim
ple minded, but intelligent native,one with the docility of a child, but the
reasoning powers of mature age,62 he came into contact for the first time in
his life with the countless historical inaccuracies and contradictionsand
immorality!to be found within the Old Testament.63 Colenso penned the
results of what for his time and situation was a risky undertaking in the first vol
ume of The Pentateuch.64 He drew attention in the first instance to the historical
59 Furthermore, Colenso, together with Geddes, is among the most authoritative Anglo-
Saxon Old Testament scholars of the 19th century. It is all the more surprising, therefore,
that he does not even get a mention in Kraus, Geschichte or D.K. McKim (ed.), Historical
Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, Downers Grove, IL 1998.
60 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, xxxiiixxxiv.
61 Colensa published a Zulu grammar as early as 1859, followed by a Zulu-English dictionary
in 1861.
62 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, vii.
63 Cf. Le Roux, A Story of Two Ways, 9495.
64 Colenso initially based himself on the final text of the Pentateuch and as such paid little
if any attention to text-critical issues (cf. Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 163; compare,
22 Chapter 1
inaccuracy he had encountered in the books of Exodus and Numbers. As such,

Colenso was a child of his time and of his environment. While 19th century
Anglican England was answering questions about the historicity of the Genesis
narratives on creation, the fall and the flood for the most part by allegorical bib
lical exegesis, few if any questions were being asked about the Mosaic author
ship of the Pentateuch or the historical reliability of the narratives concerning
Israels slavery and liberation related in the books of Exodus and Numbers.65 In
this regard, Colensos observations on the number of Israelites that participated
in the exodus and on the impossibility for the three priests Aaron, Eleazar and
Itamar to have performed all the prescribed sacrifices are worthy of note.66 As
will be evident from our description of the origins of historical-critical biblical
exegesis, Colenso was far from being a pioneer with respect to the question
ing of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or the historical reliability of
the narratives transmitted therein.67 Nevertheless, Colensos radical emphasis
however, with The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 151: The lxx shows the original form of
this [Gen. 47:4bH.A.] passage).
65 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, xxixxii.
66 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, esp. 102106; 122130. Colenso was well aware of the
fact that his reflections on the historicity of the biblical traditions were not innovative.
They nevertheless opened an entirely new world for him: The very point, indeed, of
my argument in part I was this,that these difficulties were not new, though many of
them were new to me, when I first began to engage in these investigations, as, I believe,
notwithstanding the assertions of not a few of my critics, they were new to very many of
my readers, lay and clerical, when first laid before them (The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, vii).
67 Reference was already made to the contestation of Mosaic authorship by Hobbes, Simon,
Witter and Astruc in the 17th and 18th centuries. In their wake, the old Documentary
Hypothesis (Eichhorn and Ilgen), together with the Fragmentary Hypothesis (Geddes and
Vater) and the 19th century Supplementary Hypothesis (De Wette, Sthelin, Delitzsch,
Ewald and Knobel) had considered the Pentateuch to be the result of a complex process
of composition. Nevertheless, such historical-critical insights were often rejected by the
official doctrine of the church, or at the very least kept under wraps. As a result, doubts
concerning the historicity of the Pentateuch and the Mosaic authorship thereof were
entirely new to Colenso. Cf. Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, xiv: And, though these views
are, comparatively speaking, new to me,and will be new, as I believe, to most of my
English readers, even to many of the Clergy, of whom, probably, few have examined the
Pentateuch closely since they took Orders, while parts of it some of them may never
really have studied at all,yet I am by this time well aware that most of the points here
considered have been already brought forward, though not exactly in the present form, by
various continental writers, with whom the critical and scientific study of the Scriptures
has made more progress than it has yet done in England. See also Colenso, The Pentateuch,
Vol. 1, vivii: Engrossed with parochial and other work in England, I did what, probably,
many other clergyman have done under similar circumstances,I contented myself with
on the unhistorical character of GenesisDeuteronomy provided an effective

stimulus to the development of the classical New Documentary Hypothesis.
Indeed, the latter would no longer accept Hupfelds Grundschrift (E1) as the
oldest foundation of GenesisNumbers.68 Even when Graf and Kosterswho
were pioneers in questioning the early dating of the Grundschrift by locating
some of the legal texts and narrative passages after the exilecontinued to
accept a Grundschrift,69 Colenso was already arguing that specifically these
texts in GenesisNumbers, which presented themselves as authentic and par
ticularly accurate, were in reality the least historical passages, while one would
expect the oldest documents to also be the most reliable.70 At the beginning,
however, Colenso continued to adhere to the dating and specific character of
the Grundschrift and did not take the step towards the reversal of the sequence
of emergence of the texts. This step was first taken by Kuenen when he, with
explicit reference to the Bishop of Natal, designated the entire Grundschrift as
one of the latest segments of the Pentateuch: with one single exception the
twenty chapters of his [= Colensos] book are devoted to an absolutely pul
verising criticism of the data of the Grundschrift.71
silencing, by means of the specious explanations, which are given in most commentaries,
the ordinary objections against the historical character of the early portions of the Old
Testament, and settled down into a willing acquiescence in the general truth of the
narrative, whatever difficulties might still hang about particular parts of it. In short, the
doctrinal and devotional portions of the Bible were what were needed most in parochial
duty. And, if a passage of the Old Testament formed at any time the subject of a sermon, it
was easy to draw from it practical lessons of daily life, without examining closely into the
historical truth of the narrative.
68 Cf. H. Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung von neuem
untersucht, Berlin 1853.
69 K.H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bcher des Alten Testaments: Zwei historisch-kritische
Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1866, 1113; W.H. Kosters, De historie-beschouwing van den
Deuteronomist met de berichten in GenesisNumeri vergeleken, Leiden 1868.
70 In the first twenty chapters of the first volume of The Pentateuch, Colenso offers a crushing
and highly detailed analysis of the historical reliability of the Grundschrift.
71 Reference should be made to the introduction to the English translation of Kuenens
Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des
Ouden Verbonds, Dl 1: De thora en de historische boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Amsterdam
21884: An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch,
London 1886, xivxvii, esp. xvi. Compare with A. Kuenen, Critische bijdragen tot de
geschiedenis van den Isralietischen godsdienst. Dl. 5: De priesterlijke bestanddeelen
van Pentateuch en Josua, Theologisch Tijdschrift 4 (1870), 391426, esp. 399: Criticism of
the Pentateuch on the continent focuses on construction, butuses materials that were
rejected by Colenso for very sound reasons. As far as I am concerned, I happily recognise
24 Chapter 1
The importance of the first volume of Colensos The Pentateuch cannot be

underestimated. It not only underlines thefor him newinsight that the
first books of the Bible are unreliable from a historical perspective, it also
serves as a catalyst for his historical-critical positions with respect to the origin
of GenesisNumbers presented in the following volumes. After demonstrat
ing (once again) that the final redaction of the Hexateuch had to be ascribed
a post-Mosaic dating, Colenso sets about the elaboration of his vision of the
composition of the Pentateuch based on an analysis of the book of Genesis.
Here he proves himself to be an evident supporter of the classical 19th century
Supplementary Hypothesis. Moreover, he considers it unlikely that two inde
pendent documents ever existed that contained identical and often mythical
and fictional narratives. For this reason he considers it more plausible that a
basic document was supplemented by one or more authors, who sometimes
radically changed the basic document they had at their disposal. Colenso
ascribes this Grundschrift to the Elohist, which was later supplemented and
changed by the Jehovist.72 It should be clear therefore that Colenso did not
develop a new hypothesis, but was indebted to and built on foundations that
had been established a number of decades before him.73
The use of the divine names and serves as Colensos most impor
tant argument for distinguishing between the Elohist and the Jehovist. He ten
tatively identifies the author of the Elohistic basic narrative with the prophet
Samuel and is also of the opinion that Samuel was the first to use the tetragram
as a new name for the God of Israel.74 His argument here is twofold. First he
points out that within the book of Judges there is no evidence of proper names
with a component,75 while there are several that contain the theophoric
the fact that he brought objections to my attention that I had not accounted for in the
past, or not acccounted for enough. And with respect to the perspective predominant
in Germanywhen it becomes evident that Ewald, Bunsen, Bleek and Knobel, the one
after the other, were forced to revise their theories by the English bishop, then one truly
has no reason to refer to his method as obsolete and his objections as worn out. On the
relationship between Kuenen and Colenso, see C. Houtman, Colenso as Seen by Kuenen,
and as Known from Colensos Letters to Kuenen, in: Draper, The Eye of the Storm, 76103,
esp. 8792.
72 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 175185. Colenso was probably influenced by Bleek,
Einleitung. Whatever the case, Colenso was able to acquire the work of European scholars
thanks to Bleeks son Wilhelm, curator of the library in Cape Town.
73 Nevertheless, Colenso was to follow his own path in volumes 5 and 6.
74 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 223229; 358.
75 Colenso argued that three of the four names that apeared to be compounds
Joash (6:11), Jotham (9:5) Micah = Michaiah (17:1) and Jonathan (18:30)should not be
element .76 Colenso then refers to the fact that King Davids early psalms,77
those he wrote for the most part before he became king,78 likewise make little
if any use of the tetragram, while its presence is frequent in his later psalms.79
Based on these two presuppositions, Colenso concludes that the Jehovist
wrote at a time in which the divine name had become generally accepted
and also formed an important element in the composition of proper names. In
his opinion this could not have been earlier than the final years of Davids life.
He maintained, furthermore, that it would be difficult to situate the Jehovist
long after the death of Samuel and his introduction of the divine name .
Moreover, although the Jehovist made frequent use of , only two proper
names are attributed to him that contain an element of the tetragrammaton
Joshua and Jochebed.80 Colenso thus concludes that every passage in Genesis
Numbers and in Joshua that does not belong to the Elohistic basic document,
and with the exception of some Deuteronomistic interpolationsaccord
ing to Colenso, Deuteronomy was probably written by the prophet Jeremiah
during the reign of King Josiah, should be ascribed to one or more Jehovist
authors who were active during the final years of King Davids life or the early
years of the reign of his successor Samuel.81
After studying Gen. 111 in the second volume of The Pentateuch,82 Colenso
introduced a slightly emended form of his hypotheses in the fifth volume
dating from 1865. In his analysis of the book of Genesis, he follows the sub
division of the Elohistic material as proposed by Hupfeld. As a consequence,
and in addition to the Jehovist, he also distinguishes between an older and
considered as such. According to Colenso, the name Jonathan only occured in passages
taken to have been written by the late Samuel (Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 330343,
esp. 333334).
76 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 344352.
77 Cf. Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 270: (...) supposing that these Psalms were really
written by David, whether he wrote them on the occasions mentioned in the titles, or not,
and even if they were not written by David at all, but by some other person of that age.
80 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 244352. With respect to the name Moriah in Gen. 22:2,
cf. 240247.
82 In The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 1490, Colensos primary goal is to demonstrate the composite
character of Gen. 111. In the following pages (91284), he provides an extremely detailed
analysis of Gen. 111, his main purpose here being to demonstrate that the chapters in
question should not be taken literaly.
26 Chapter 1
a younger Elohist.83 However, Colensos opinion differs from that of Hupfeld

on three points. First, when Hupfeld speaks of the younger Elohistic sections on
the one hand and the Jehovistic passages on the other as original and indepen
dent documentsthereby giving an initial impetus to the New Documentary
Hypothesis, Colenso continues to insist that the Elohistic basic document
was supplemented by the younger Elohist (E2) in a similar fashion to the way
the Jehovist had supplemented E or E2, or as D had done with the EJ narrative.84
Second, Colenso distinguishes between J1, J2, J3 and J4, in contrast to Hupfeld
who limits himself to one single Jehovist.85 Third, according to Colenso, E2
should not be seen as an author who can be strictly distinguished from the
Jehovist. As a matter of fact, Colenso identifies E2 with J1, whereby E2 is taken
to be an earlier stage within the literary activity of J.86 In addition to J and E,
Colenso also recognises the work of a Later Editor to be identified with the
Deuteronomist. The latter not only expanded the EJ Tetrateuch to a substantial
degree by adding the book of Deuteronomy, he also significantly revised and
retouched the said EJ Tetrateuch.87
Having ascribed E and D in the second volume of The Pentateuch to the
prophets Samuel and Jeremiah respectively, Colenso is inclined in the fifth vol
ume to ascribe J to the prophet Nathan and J2 to Gad.88 While he does not argue
that these individuals themselves were the authors of GenesisNumbers, he is
convinced nevertheless that these components of the Pentateuch were writ
ten by some great and good menas great and good as theseleading men
of the respective ages, bearing in mind that no other writers of history out of
those ages are named in the Bible.89
83 Cf. Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis.

85 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 4852; 187195. Colensos distinction between J1, J2, J3 and
J4 is based for the most part on the way in which the divine names and are
used. J3 and J4, for example, use the tetragram almost exclusively, while J2 uses 7x
and or 67x.
88 Cf. Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 180. Compare, however: It is possible, of course, that
(...) J1, J2, J3, J4, may have been written by more than one hand in the slightly-different ages
to which we assign them,as this would sufficiently account for the similarity of style
which exists between them. But there are no distinct indications of this. And the interval
of 40 years, assigned as the duration of Davids reign (...) would allow of the same writer
(Nathan, suppose) having written the first of these sets of passages under Saul at the age
of 20, and the last under Solomon at the age of 70 (195).
Colensos hypothesis concerning the origins of the Pentateuch as it crystal

lized in the fifth volume of The Pentateuch can be summarised as follows:
E1 11001060 (during the time of) Samuel

J1 (= E2) 10601010 Nathan (during the final years of Sauls rule)
J2 1035 in the second decade of Davids rule (Gad)
J3 during the final years of Davids rule
J4 at the beginning of Solomons rule
D 641624 Jeremiah
Between the publication of the fifth (1865) and sixth (1871) volumes of The Pen
tateuch, however, Colensos vision of the origins of the Pentateuch changed
radically, a fact that can be ascribed with little doubt to his research into the
books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Joshua. Indeed, in contrast to Genesis,
the books in question contained a large number of cultic texts and law col
lections. Colenso begins his analysis of ExodusJoshua with Lev. 26. Based on
the fact that the said chapterand in extensu Lev. 1820exhibits significant
agreement in terms of vocabulary with the prophetic book Ezekiel,90 a specific
vocabulary that does not appear elsewhere in the Old Testament, Colenso con
cludes that these chapters of Leviticus were written by Ezekiel in the last years
of King Jehoiachins imprisonment.91 Ezekiels work was continued during the
Babylonian exile by priestly authors who supplemented GenesisJoshua with
typically priestly material. Colenso calls these elements the Later or Levitical
Legislation (L.L.).
Colenso determines L.L.s contribution to the corpus GenesisJoshua via an
analysis of the book of Deuteronomy. He considers the original form of the
latter to consist of Deut. 526; 28, Deut. 14; 27; 2930 being added later by
the same author. Deut. 3134 likewise contain Deuteronomic material, but
this has been mixed together with passages of varying age and authorships.92
Colenso is also convinced that the Deuteronomist was familiar with various
segments of the Exodus narrative, given that he repeatedly alludes to it. Since
Deuteronomy appears to be unfamiliar with other segments of Exoduse.g.
the passages concerning the construction of the ark and the tent of meeting in
Exod. 25:131:17 and 3540, the episodes in question cannot have belonged
to what Colenso calls the Original Story (O.S.)i.e. the EJ narrative. On the
90 According to Colenso, almost every specific expression in Lev. 26 can be shown to have a
parallel in Ezekiel. Compare, for example, Lev. 26:6 with Ezek. 34:28; 39:26.
28 Chapter 1
contrary, they must have been written at a later stage than Deuteronomy.
Colenso mentions the period during or after the exile in this regard. Moreover,
other passages in the Pentateuch that presuppose the existence of these cultic
objects must, for Colenso, be located in the (pre-)exilic period.93
Having isolated the L.L. passages within the Pentateuch, Colenso then
attempts to reconstruct the aforementioned O.S. in the books of Exodus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua. Within the said O.S., he continues to
maintain the presence of an Elohistic basic narrative, referring to Exod. 6:25 as
its conclusion,94 a basic narrative that was supplemented by various Jehovistic
authors. Once the O.S. was complete, possibly in the early years of Solomons
rule, it remained untouched and intact for some time. Colenso suggests it may
have been deposited next to the ark in the temple, where it remained until
Jeremiahi.e. the Deuteronomist, who, as a temple priest must have had more
or less free access to the manuscript.reworked and expanded it in his unique
prophetic style and supplemented it with his own unique creation, namely the
book of Deuteronomy. Finally, as we already observed, Ezekiel added the L.L.
material to the document, with the priestly authors following in his footsteps.
Four years before his death in 1883, Colenso published the seventh and final
volume of The Pentateuch in which he explores the authorship of the books
Judges, Samuel and Kings. The volume also takes a closer look at other Old
Testament books such as Chronicles, Job, Proverbs, Qoheleth, Song of Songs
and the Psalms. Nevertheless, the volume is important primarily because of
Colensos vision of the genesis and composition of the Pentateuch. Indeed,
appendix 152 provides a global overview of the bishops approach to the origins
of GenesisNumbers.95 Here he states explicitly that the Elohistic narrative
segments in Gen. 1:1Exod. 6:5 are the oldest, while the legislative elements
L.L.should be understood as the youngest segments of the Pentateuch.
While Colenso, as we have already observed, played an extremely important
role in the dating of the so-called priestly material within the Pentateuchwe
noted above that Kuenen was to admit explicitly that Colenso had inspired
him to reverse the sequence of the sources, he did not follow Kuenen when
the latter identified P as the author of both the legislative and the narrative

94 While E, according to Colenso, established the basis of the Exodus narrative, he did not
complete it. Colenso becomes enormously speculative at this juncture: the author of E
may have fallen ill or died prematurely; perhaps he believed he had written the most
important part of the storyhe had arrived at the revelation of the divine name
and wanted to pass it on to a successor (Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 616617).
95 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, 129139.
passages. On the contrary: Colenso remained a support of the Grundschrift to

the very end.
In summary, Colensos final vision of the origins of the Pentateuch can be
presented as follows. The Elohistic basic narrative (E), which is to be found
in Gen. 1:1Exod. 6:5 emerged during the reign of King Saul and was probably
written by or on the orders of the prophet Samuel (11001060 bce). The second
Elohist (E) and the Jahwist (J)96potentially relating to different phases of the
literary activity of one and the same authorsupplemented the E basic narra
tive. He/they wrote with intervening breaks during the reign of King David and
the early years of King Solomon (10601010 bce). While the second Elohist only
intervened in Gen. 1:1Exod. 6:5 in a fragmentary way, his contribution to what
follows is to be found throughout a continuous narrative that runs as far as the
announcement of Davids conquests in the oracles of Balaam. The Jahwists
presence in GenesisExodus is likewise fragmentary. The Jahwist provided a
continuous narrative from Balaams prophecies in Num. 22 to 1 Kgs 9:25.
At a later stage, this EEJ narrative was supplemented with unrelated
Deuteronomistic interpolations (D) and finally with L.L., which likewise con
sisted of separate passages and never existed as a coherent continuous narra
tive or formed part thereof. Colenso puts the agreements between L.L. and E
down to the fact that L.L. made use of the archaic terminology throughout the
Pentateuch to give the impression that its sections were old.
Thus far attention has been focused only in passing on the place of the Deu
teronomist within Colensos hypothesis on the origins and composition of
GenesisNumbers. Nonethelessand as far as the present author is aware
Colenso was the first biblical scholar to adhere to an extensive Deuteronom(ist)
ic redaction of the Tetrateuch, long before the outbreak of pan-Deuterono
mism, and long before the word itself found acceptance. His vision of the so-
called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements within GenesisNumbers will be explored
in the following paragraph.
4.2 Colensos Deuteronomist

The Deuteronomist as co-author of the Pentateuch first makes his appearance
in the second volume of Colensos The Pentateuch.97 Within the framework
of his hypothesis of an Elohistic basic narrative with Jehovistic supplements,
Colenso makes vague reference to some interpolations. He encounters the
saidotherwise limitedinterpolations in Genesis and more extensively
in the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. He ascribes them all to the
96 In the seventh volume Colenso no longer refers to the Jehovist.

30 Chapter 1
Deuteronomist, who had not only supplemented GenesisNumbers but had

also added the entire book of Deuteronomy, his own work. In other words,
the D elements within GenesisNumbers stem from the author who also wrote
Deuteronomy.
Basing himself on the similarities between the versions of the Decalogue in
Exodus and Deuteronomy, Colenso insists that the Deuteronomist was depen
dent on the text of Exodus, from which he borrowed the best part of his ideas
and formulations. In contrast to E and J, the Deuteronomist was not particu
larly sensitive to the sacred character of the text. According to Colenso, this is
evident from the fact that he sometimes dealt freely with the text he had at
his disposal. Emended expressions together with a radically different Sabbath
command point in this direction.98
With a view to discerning the presence of the Deuteronomist within the
Tetrateuch, Colenso considered it necessary to ascertain the characteristic fea
tures of his style and theology. He does this in the third volume of The Penta
teuch, in which he closely inspects each pericope of Deuteronomy. With the
exception of the final chapter of the book,99 as well as Deut. 31:14*, 15*100 and
32:4852,101 Colenso considers Deuteronomy to have been written by a single
author. His style and tenor clearly distinguishes him from the Elohist and the
Jehovist who wrote the larger part of the Tetrateuch in a different period. Given
that the language of the Deuteronomist exhibits strong similarities with that
of the prophet Jeremiah, he tentatively concludes that both authors can be
98 Colensos rejection of the traditional church vision of a single author being responsible
for the Pentateuch is likewise apparent from the emphasis he places on the considerable
difference between the language of Deuteronomy and that of the remaining books of the
Pentateuch (Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 399).
99 Moab is referred to as only in Deut. 34:1, 8, in contrast to commonly
used elsewhere in the book (cf. Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 401).
100 Given the fact that ( )is only used in Deut 31:14, 15 and nowhere else in the
book, Colenso considers these verses to be a remnant of an older document. The
Deuteronomist never refers to the tabernacleprobably because he was not involved
with it on a daily basisin contrast to the ark, which he mentions in Deut. 10:1, 2, 3, 5, 8;
31:9, 25, 26 (Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 401; 558559).
101 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 391392. With the exception of ( v. 49)
Deut. 32:4852 cannot be ascribed to the Deuteronomist. On account of the terminology
(v. 48: ; v. 49: ; ;v. 50: , which is also found in
other places in GenesisNumbers but not elsewhere in Deuteronomy, Colenso considers
this passage to be a component of an older narrative referring to the death of Moses and
in parallel with Num. 20:2229, where Aarons death is described in similar terms. The
said verses were incorporated by the Deuteronomist into his work (397399; 402; 568).
identified with one another. This implies that Jeremiah wrote Deuteronomy
during the last five years of his prophetic career.102
Because of his interest in the language and terminology of Deuteronomy,
Colenso can be considered one of the first scholars to attempt to chart so-called
Deuteronomic language.103 Accordingly, he lists terms and expression that are
used with frequency by the Deuteronomist but occur only exceptionally or not
at all in the other books of the Pentateuch.104 Vice versa, Colenso also provides
an overview of phrases that occur with frequency in the Tetrateuch but are
never used in Deuteronomy.105
Colensos otherwise cautious suggestion from the second volume of The
Pentateuch, namely that there is evidence of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements
in GenesisNumbers, is also to be found in the third volume of his magnum
opus. Here too, however, the bishop pays only in passing attention to the issue.106
102 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 617618: (...) the man who could conceive, and carry
out so effectively, the idea of adding another book to the existing Tetrateuch, must have
been, indeed, a remarkable person. A writer of such originality, power, and eloquence,
of such earnest piety, such ardent patriotism, such tender human affections,must have
surely filled a very prominent position in the age in which he lived. As we have said, he
can hardly have disappeared so completely from the stage of Jewish history, in an age
when historical records were diligently kept, without leaving behind any other trace of
his existence and activity than this book of Deuteronomy. That Jeremiah lived in this very
age we know, and that he began to prophesy in the thirteenth year of king Josia, Jer.i.2,
four or five years before this book was found in the Temple; and we have also seen, as our
investigations have advanced, not a few very striking indications of a close resemblance
between the language of Jeremiah and that of the Deuteronomist. For similarities
between Jeremiah and D, see Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 407414.
103 Also in the 19th century see, for example, C. Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium (HKAT, 1/3/1),
Gttingen 1898, xxxiixli; 21923, 4147; Knobel, Die Bcher Numeri, Deuteronomium und
Josua, 586589; P. Kleinert, Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker: Untersuchungen
zur alttestamentlichen Rechts- und Literaturgeschichte, Leipzig 1872, 214235. In contrast
to Colenso, Kleinert insisted that there were no visible traces of a Deuteronom(ist)ic
redaction in GenesisNumbers: Die ersten vier Bcher dagegen des Pentateuchs, sowie
das Buch Samuels blieben von diesen Zuge der Zeit unberhrt, und erst in der exilischen
und nachexilischen Literatur taucht die sptere, aber um so eindringlichere Nachwirkung
des Leviticus auf (253).
106 There are several (...) expressions, which occur freely in all parts of Deuteronomy, but
are found also in certain well-defined portions of the other books [of the Pentateuch];
that is to say, they do not appear in all parts of these books, as they do in Deuteronomy,
but only in those particular sections, limited in extent, which betray also, when carefully
examined, other close affinities with the style of the Deuteronomist. We can scarcely
32 Chapter 1
We have to wait until the fifth volume for Colenso to focus closer attention
on his proposed Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of GenesisNumbers. He does
this in the first instance in the context of his analysis of the book of Genesis.107
Colenso finds it hard to imagine that the Deuteronomistwho supplemented
the EJ Tetrateuch with his own work, namely the book Deuteronomy, did
not revise or change the older EJ. For this very reason, he considers it plausible
that the writing activity of the Deuteronomist should be present in the first
four books of the Pentateuch, just as the hand of the Deuteronomist is evident
in large parts of the book of Joshua.108 Given that Colenso is a supporter of the
Supplementary Hypothesis, according to which the Elohistic basic narrative
was supplemented by Jwhich never existed as an independent document,
he sees the Deuteronomist, in contrast to the later Documentary Hypothesis,
more as an editor of the EJ Tetrateuch he had at his disposal than as its
compiler.109 According to the New Documentary Hypothesis, RD was to intro
duce a Deuteronom(ist)ic vocabulary and a Deuteronom(ist)ic theology at the
moment he combined the JE with the already existing D source. According to
Colenso, by contrast, the Deuteronomist did not combine two independent
documents, rather he edited the EJ Tetrateuch, introduced numerous inter
polations, and expanded the whole with his own work, namely the book of
doubt that such passages are interpolations by his hand. And, indeed, it would be strange
if there were no such insertions. The writer, who could conceive the grand idea of adding
the whole book of Deuteronomy to the existing roll of the Tetrateuch, would be almost
certain, we may well believe, to have first revised the work of the older writers which had
come into his hands, and to have inserted passages, here and there, if he saw any reason
for so doing, in the original document. The wonder, we repeat, would be, if he did not do
this (Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 413414).
109 Cf. also Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, 135: The insertions of the Deuteronomist in
GenesisJoshua, which are fragmentary and unconnected, were undoubtedly written to
supplement a continuous story already existing.
Colenso is clearly reacting here to Eduard Boehmer and Hermann Hupfeld, although
they agreed with each other on the passages to be ascribed to E, E2 and J. Boehmer, for
example, saw the Later Editor as responsible for the combination of three originally
independent narratives: A (= E), B (= E2) and C (= J). Like Colenso, he situates the
compiler in the time of Josiah, but he does not identify him with the Deuteronomist,
for the character of Deuteronomy, which has not without reason been styled as in a
certain sense evangelical, is quite distinct from the spirit of the Compiler, which (...)
is on the whole altogether dry and unrefreshing (E. Boehmer, Das erste Buch der Thora:
bersetzung seiner drei Quellen und Redactionszustze mit kritischen, exegetischen und
historischen Errterungen, Halle 1862, 123).
Deuteronomy. The said Deuteronom(ist)ic additions, which were written in

the style of Deuteronomy, are the most spirited and refreshing passages in
the whole narrative.110 It appears, broadly speaking, that these passages seem
to have been inserted for the very purpose of quickening the history with a
deeper spiritual meaning, and stirring more effectually the readers heart with
words of religious life and earnestness.111 Colenso likewise suggests that the
Deuteronomist revised the EJ Tetrateuch before he started writing the book
of Deuteronomy.112
Gen. 14 has an important role to play within Colensos analysis, a chapter he
considers to be part of neither E, J nor D. Because of its specific style features,
which are not evident elsewhere in the Pentateuch, Colenso sees Gen. 14 as
the work of a separate author (J2), although in the context of his analysis of
the chapter in question he points to similarities between the said J2 and D.113
As such, he anticipates the work of Kuenen and Holzinger. They too were to
allude to similarities between JE and D in their analysis of some JE passages,
although this did not lead them to conclude that the passages in question were
Deuteronom(ist)ic.114
In the seventh volume of The Pentateuch, in which Colenso ascribes many
more verses to D than in the preceding volumes, he insists that the siglum
D should not be understood in an overly restrictive manner. In other words,
D for Colenso does not only refer to the Deuteronomist stricto sensu, but
also to any Deuteronomistic Editor or Editors, including Jeremiah, who on
our view himself wrote the Book of the Law and most of the two Books of
Kings, and retouched the whole from Genesis to 2 Kings.115 At the same time,
Colenso states that Jeremiahas author of the D passages in Exoduswas
dependent on the prophetic book Nahum from which he borrowed a number
of expressions.116

112 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, Critical Analysis of the Book of Genesis (further abbreviated
as CA), 19.
113 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, CA, 5253.
114 Cf. H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch, mit Tabellen ber Quellenscheidung, Freiburg
i.B. 1893, 490: Weiter liegt die Verwandschaft der von RJE komponierten Reden mit den
dtistischen Predigten auf der Hand; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 249: Het
spraakgebruik van JE getuigt van zijne nauwe verwantschap met D1 en diens navolgers.
115 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 145.
116 Compare, for example, in Exod. 34:6 and in Exod. 34:7 with
Nah. 1:3. Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 161162.
34 Chapter 1
In what follows we provide an exhaustive overview of all (parts of) verses

Colenso ascribes to the Deuteronomist throughout the different volumes of
The Pentateuch. This is followed by a discussion of the arguments and criteria
on which he bases himself.
4.3 Overview of the Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers

It should be evident from the preceding paragraph that Colenso paid little
attention to the Deuteronomist from a theoretical and systematic point of
view. Nevertheless, the number of verse segments, verses and sometimes
entire passages he ascribes to D is staggering to say the least. The following
tables contain an overview of all the verses Colenso characterised as D in the
various volumes of his opus magnum. When he only considers part of a verse
to be D, I provide the precise details in a footnote.
Genesis Volumes 2 & 3 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7
some 6:4 6:4 6:4

interpolations 10:812 10:812 10:812
14:2*, 3*, 7*, 8*, 15:121 11:2830
17*117 18:1819 12:14a, 68, 920118
15:121 22:1418 13:15, 7b,119 1417
18:1819 24:5960 15:121
22:1418 26:45 16:10
117 Gen. 14 does not exhibit affinity with the Elohist, the Jehovist or the Deuteronomist.
Because of its unique characteristics, Colenso ascribes Gen. 14 to a fourth author, the
Second Jehovist, evidence of whom is not to be found in the Pentateuch outside Gen. 14.
While the chapter in question is not part of E, J or D, it exhibits nevertheless a number
of agreements with each of these three authors. Similarities between J2 and D are:
( v. 2): cf. Deut: 20:12, 20; ( v. 22): cf. Deut. 32:40. Colenso considers
the explanatory notes in vv. 2, 8 () , v. 3 () , v. 7
( ) and v. 17 ( ) to be D.
118 Gen. 12:4a: to . Gen. 12:920 is probably one of Ds later interpolations,
based on the E version in Gen. 20:117, which was doubtless intended to be cancelled,
and replaced by this of D, as more in accordance with the age and circumstances of the
Patriarch (The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, 146).
119 .
Genesis Volumes 2 & 3 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7
23:2, 19*120 28:15, 2022 18:1319, 22b,124 33

24:5960 31:13 19:2728
26:45 35:24 22:1418
35:6*, 8*, 19*121 24:48, 3841, 5960
36:43*122 26:1*, 25, 2425a125
48:7*123 28:1315, 2022
30:27b126
31:3.13
32:712
34:2b, 3b, 5, 7b, 13b,
2531127
35:24, 8
39:3, 5, 23
47:30a128
48:1516, 2122
50:24
120 The explanation of older names (v. 2: ; v. 19: ) ,

which were no longer in use at the time of the Deuteronomist, is the work of D (cf.
Gen. 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 17; 35:6, 19; 36:43; 48:7).
121 The explanatory interpolations in Gen. 35:6 ( ) and in Gen. 35:19
( ) are from the Deuteronomistic editor (cf. Gen. 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 17; 23:2,
19; 36:43; 48:7). In CA 181182, however, Colenso considers the entire pericope Gen. 35:17
to be Jehovistic.
122 The explantory note probably stems from the Deuteronomistic editor,
given that it agrees with other notes Colenso ascribes to him (cf. Gen. 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 17; 23:2,
19; 35:6, 19; 48:7).
123 in Gen. 48:7 is nothing more than an explantory note from the
Deuteronomistic editor, who lived after J at a time in which such explanation was
probably necessary (cf. Gen. 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 17; 23:2, 19; 35:6, 19; 36:43).
124 .
125 Gen. 26:1: ; Gen. 26:25a:
.
126 .
127 Gen. 34:2b: ;Gen. 34:3b: ; Gen. 34:7b: ; Gen. 34:13b:
.
128 .
36 Chapter 1
Exodus Volumes 2 & 3 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7
some 32:13 3:1*129 1:6

interpolations 13:316 3:1*, 24a, 5, 6b8, 17b,134
15:25b,130 26 1922
17:6*,131 14 4:15b135
19:3b8, 9b132 6:1
20:117 7:17a136
23:13, 15bc,133 8:10b, 22b137
19, 2233 9:1416, 18b, 24b, 29b138
24:12 10:1, 2, 6a, 7b, 14b139
32:714, 34 11:18a140
33:36 13:316
34:927 14:1314, 25, 3031
15:25b,141 26
17:6,142 1314
18:1*, 2*,143 811
19:3b9144
20:117, 20, 22b,145 23
129 cf. Appendix, 76.

130 . Verse 25b:
131 .
132 . is D; Exod 19,9b: Exod. 19:3b:
133 .
134 ; Exod. 3:6b: ; Exod. 3:4a: Exod. 3:1*:
. ; Exod. 3:17b:
. 135
. 136
; Exod. 8:22b [= 18b]: 137 Exod. 8:10b [= 6b]:
.
; Exod. 9:24b: 138 Exod. 9:18b:
. ; Exod. 9:29b:
; Exod. 10:7b: 139 Exod. 10:6a: the entire verse with the exception of
. ; Exod. 10:14b:
. 140 The entire verse, except
. 141 Verse 25b:
. 142
. ; Exod. 18:2*: 143 Exod. 18:1*:
. 144 Exod. 19:3b:
. 145
Exodus Volumes 2 & 3 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7
22:20, 21b22, 2425b,146

31
23:9, 1314, 15b,147 1733
24:12
32:714, 34
33:1b1486, 1223
34:5b28a, 28b*149
Leviticus Volumes 2 & 3 Volume 5
some interpolations 26
Numbers Volume 2 & 3 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7
some 10:3336 10:3336 10:2932

interpolations 14:4045 21:14, 15, 2730 11:13, 4,150 12, 1823
13:22b,151 2831
14:11b, 12b, 1519,
20*,152 2125, 3945
16:2831
20:1421
21:13, 4b9, 1218a,153
146 Exod. 22:21b [= 20b]: ; Exod. 22:25b [= 24b]:

.
147 .
148 .
149 Exod. 34:5b: ; Exod. 34:28a: tot ; Exod. 34:28b*:
.
150 .
151 From .
152 Num. 14:11b: the entire verse, except ; Num. 14:12b:
; Num. 14:20*: .
153 Num. 21:4b: ; Num. 21:18a: the entire verse segment with the
exception of .
38 Chapter 1
(cont.)
Numbers Volume 2 & 3 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7
2135
22:2, 819, 2235, 3738
23:130
24:1, 1013, 1824
25:4
32:21b,154 33, 3942
4.4 Colensos Argumentation in Support of the Deuteronom(ist)ic

Elements in GenesisNumbers
The above overview makes it immediately clear that the majority of passages or
verses Colenso ascribes to D continue to the present day to be associated with
the Deuteronom(ist)ic question. What is remarkable, however, is that in later
research into the origins of the Pentateuch reference is seldom if ever made
to Colenso himself or his argumentation. Colenso differs from later research
by his attribution of almost the entire Balaam narrative in Num. 2224 to D,
although he admits that the use of the divine name or excluding
Num. 22:2235 where is usedwould incline one at first sight to attribute
the passage to E.155 Nevertheless, similarities with a number of expressions in
Jeremiah, Deuteronomy, JoshuaKings and other D texts within the Tetrateuch
lead him to ascribe the Balaam pericope to the Deuteronomist.
It is also striking that Colenso does not only ascribe passages from the
books of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers to D. As a matter of fact, in the fifth
volume of The Pentateuch he also considers Lev. 26 to be a Deuteronom(ist)ic
interpolation.156 The bishop discusses this passage against the background of
his analysis of Num. 14:4045 in which the expression is found
as in Lev. 26:17.157 With the exception of Lev. 26 and Num. 14, this expression
154 .
155 Colenso, The Pentateuch. Vol. 7, Appendix, 169172.
156 Delitzsch likewise described Lev. 26 as jehovistisch-deuteronomisch gefrbt.
157 The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, Appendix II, 302303. For a detailed discussion of Colensos
arguments in relation to Num. 1314 reference should be made to H. Ausloos,
Deuteronomistic Elements in Numbers 1314. Colensos View on the Deuteronomist, OTE
19 (2006), 558572.
is only found elsewhere in the entire literary complex GenesisDeuteronomy

in Deut. 1:42; 28:7, 25. Accordingly, Colenso sees this word combination as
a specific characteristic of the Deuteronomist. In the sixth volume of The
Pentateuch, however, Colenso adjusts his opinion, explaining the similari
ties between Deuteronomy and Lev. 26which he now associates with the
prophet Ezekielin a slightly different way. The presence of Deuteronom(ist)
ic expressions in Lev. 26, he now argues, is due in part to the fact that the author
of this chapter was familiar with the language of the Deuteronomist and imi
tated it on occasion, and in part to the fact that he lived in the same period and
moved in the same prophetic circles.158
Colensos argumentation in support of the attribution of (parts of) peri
copes in GenesisNumbers to D is often based on lists of words and expres
sions that occur with frequencyor even exclusivelyin Deuteronomy or
within the so-called Deuteronomistic passages of JoshuaKings and Jeremiah.
Accepting that it would be impossible to deal with each and every argument
within the limits of the present study, I will restrict myself here to a number of
significant examples that clearly illustrate the tenor of Colensos perspective. It
should also be observed that Colenso makes frequent use of the English trans
lation of the Old Testament, thus not basing himself on the Hebrew basic text.
This approach has a regular and irrefutable influence on his argumentation. An
example should suffice to clarify what I mean. According to Colenso, the theme
of the giants ( or ) is almost exclusively Deuteronom(ist)ic. As a
result, Gen. 6:4 also has to be attributed to D. In order to substantiate his argu
ment, he appeals to the term in Deut. 2:11, 20, 20; 3:11, 13; Josh. 12:4; 13:12;
17:15; 18:16 and Gen. 15:20, all passages he maintains to be Deuteronom(ist)ic.
The are mentioned in Deut 1:28; 2:10, 10, 21; 9:2; Josh. 11:21, 22; 14:12,
15; 15:13, 14, passages that are likewise said to be Deuteronom(ist)ic. The word
combination is only found elsewhere in the Old Testament in Num. 13:22, 28, 33
and Judg. 1:20. In Gen. 6:4, however, neither the nor the are men
tioned. The fact that the noun in Gen. 6:4; 10:8, 9 also occurs in Deut. 10:17;
Josh. 1:14; 6:2; 8:3; 10:2, 7according to Colenso all D passagesis sufficient
for him to designate the term as typically Deuteronom(ist)ic and to conclude
that the use of the term in the book of Genesis stems from the Deuteronomist.
Based on the observation that the so-called prophetic expression
( Gen. 15:1, 4) is not used elsewhere in the Pentateuch, Colenso con
cludes that the formula in question should probably not be understood as
part of the vocabulary of J. On the other hand, the expression appears to
be used with frequency by Jeremiah,the contemporary, at all events, of
158 The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 910, Appendix, 34.

40 Chapter 1
the Deuteronomistand often in places, where it must have been used by the
prophet himself.159 Colenso thus designates the expression as Deuteronomistic
in origin. He likewise points to similarities between Num. 21:2829 and
Jer. 47:4546, concluding that the Deuteronomist introduced the story of Sihon
and Og into the EJ narrative.160
In addition, Colensos argumentation is often characterised by circular rea
soning, a procedure that continues to be deployed even today. Examples in
The Pentateuch are numerous to say the least, so I will limit myself here to a
number of more striking cases. According to Colenso, the comparison of the
children of Israel with the in Gen. 15:5 is typically Deuteronom(ist)
ic, not only because a similar expression is also found in Deut. 1:10; 7:13; 10:22;
13:17; 28:6263; 30:5, but also because it is attested in Gen. 22:17; 26:4 and in
Exod. 32:13, which Colenso likewise designates as D passages. In the process
of substantiating his claim that Gen. 22:17; 26:4 and Exod. 32:13 are D texts,
however, he appeals to Gen. 15:5 as a typically Deuteronom(ist)ic verse. On
occasion Colenso goes a step further. He demonstrates the Deuteronom(ist)ic
origin of the messenger of yhwh ( ) in Gen. 24:7 by basing himself on
the so-called D passages Gen. 48:16; Exod. 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2, without making
a single reference to a passage in Deuteronomyin which the does
not occur!or in the complex JoshuaKings. And in order to demonstrate
the Deuteronom(ist)ic origin of Exod. 23:20, for example, he simply points to
Gen. 24:7!
Colenso also considers the characterisation of the promised land as
as typical for D. The fact that the expression occurs several times in
Deuteronomy clearly does not contradict his conclusion, but Colenso fails to
observe the variant manner with which this formula is employed throughout
the literature of the Old Testament.161 Once again, many have followed him in
this regard.
A further example of circular reasoning can be found in the way in which
Colenso characterises the expression in Gen. 18:18 as D.162 With
the exception of Deut. 4:38; 7:1; 9:1, 14; 11:23; 26:5; Josh. 23:9(D); Num. 14:12, the
formula is found nowhere else in the Old Testament. As a result, according
159 The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, CA, 57. According to Colenso, the formula in Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1;
Jon. 1:1; Mic. 1:1; Zeph. 1:1 was probably interpolated by the editor of compiler of these
prophecies.
160 The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 318; Vol. 7, Appendix, 168.
161 Cf. H. Ausloos, A Land Flowing with Milk and Honey. Indicative of a Deuteronomistic
Redaction?, ETL 75 (1999), 297314.
162 The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, CA, 73.
to Colenso, it has to be of Deuteronom(ist)ic origin. A detailed analy

sis of Gen. 18:18, however, nuances Colensos somewhat hasty conclusion.
(1) In Deut. 4:38; 9:1; 11:23 the expression ( plural!) refers to the
native population of Canaan in relation to Israel, in contrast to Gen. 18:18, in
which it refers to the descendents of Abraham. (2) While Deut. 9:14 refers to the
Israelites, the people are not characterised here as , but as , a character
istic that is only mentioned in the second instance: . Moreover,
the Israelites, in line with Deut. 4:38; 9:1; 11:23 are compared with the native
peoples. (3) In Deut. 7:1 (... ) the adjective is lacking. The
verse, in addition, clearly provides a list of the Canaanite peoples. (4) While
Deut. 26:5 ( ) refers to the Israelites, it does so using clearly
divergent terminology. (5) Only Num. 14:12 has a formula identical to that in
Gen. 18:18 () . Nevertheless, Num. 14:12 compares Israel with
the native peoples. Colenso initially did not consider Num. 14:12 to be D, but his
perspective changes in the seventh volume of The Pentateuch. The attribution
of the verse is not based so much on the presence of the formula ,
however, as it is on the agreements the verse exhibits with Exod. 32:10 (D) and
Deut. 9:14, in which the verb is used (I will make you a great nation ...).
One can argue in summary that Colensos emphasis on vocabulary as
the most important argument for considering verses or segments of verses
as Deuteronom(ist)ic is often extremely precarious. It will be evident, nev
ertheless, in the remainder of the present overview of the history of the
Deuteronomist in GenesisNumbers that precisely this imprudently employed
lexicographical argument continued to dominate later research into the pres
ence of Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas and Deuteronom(ist)ic language in the
Tetrateuch (and the rest of the Old Testament).
4.5 The Deuteronomist as Editor

We already observed that Colenso ascribed the D passages in Genesis
Numbers to a Deuteronom(ist)ic editor, who supplemented and reworked the
Tetrateuch he had at his disposal. While Colenso does not focus systematic
attention on the characteristics of the said editor, we are nevertheless provided
with a more or less clear picture of Colensos vision of the editor in his analysis
of the Deuteronom(ist)ic texts in the appendix to the seventh volume of The
Pentateuch. The activities of D as editor can be summarised in five categories.
It should be noted, however, especially when we compare the first two cat
egories, that the allegedly considered methodology of D would appear on the
contrary to be somewhat ambiguous.
(a) D was determined, on the one hand, to eradicate the lack of consistency
he encountered in the EJ work he had at his disposal. He thus introduced
42 Chapter 1
Gen. 11:2830, for example, in order to explain why Terach took his grandson
Lot (v. 31) with him and not Haran.163 Furthermore, Colensos Deuteronomist
sometimes appears to be intent on accuracy in his work. His use of the literary
technique of Wiederaufnahme in Gen. 13:15following his interpolation of
Gen. 12:920 with the intention of recalling the situation in Gen. 12:8serves
to illustrate this modus operandi.164 In Exod. 10:12, D harmonises his EJ text
with the remainder of the so-called Plagues Narrative in Exod. 711, since
each plague in the older narrative was introduced by a divine command up to
Exod. 10.165
According to Colenso, Ds activity does not appear to have been limited to
isolated interpolations. On the contrary, D explicitly refers to other D passages
on occasion. With the interpolation of
in Gen. 26:1, for example, he alludes to a preceding interpolation in Gen. 12:10
for which he was also responsible.
(b) On the other hand, Colensos Deuteronomist disturbed a number of
harmoniously composed and logically structured texts as a result of numer
ous disjointed interpolations, which he sometimes appears to have located
in the wrong place. A few examples should suffice by way of illustration.
Colenso states in relation to Exod. 3:4a: the tetragramsuggests interpola
tion, bearing in mind that v. 4b has . He likewise considers Exod. 4:15b
( ) to be an expansion by D, which inter
rupts the context.166 Furthermore, he considers Num. 25:4 (D)in which
yhwh commands that all the leaders of the people should be impaledto be
superfluous and in contradiction to v. 5, in which Moses commands that only
the guilty Israelites should be put to death.167
(c) At the level of content, Colenso is convinced that the Deuteronomist
exhibits particular sympathy for widows, orphans and foreigners. This, he
maintains, is supported by interpolations such as Exod. 21:2122.168 It would
appear from Ds additions to Exod. 33:16, 1223, moreover, that he wanted
to reacted to what he considered an excessively anthropomorphic presenta
tion of the divine in EJ, according to which yhwh descended in the cloud
and stood there with Moses (Exod. 34:5).169 Colenso discusses Exod. 33:1b,
163 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 145146; ii.

164 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 147.
165 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 155 (making reference to Wellhausen).
26, 1223 in an analogous way. In the interpolation in question, D wishes to

correct the anthropomorphic statement of the older writer in xxxiv.5a, that
Jahveh came-down in the cloud and stood there with Moses.170 On similarly
theological grounds, D is described as lashing out in Gen. 34 against mixed
marriages, which, according to EJ, were legitimate on the condition that the
non-Israelite partner submitted to circumcision.171
(d) A further characteristic of the Deuteronomist is his strong interest in the
antique. While Colenso understands Gen. 6:18 (the pericope on the sons of
God and the daughters of human beings) to be Jehovistic in the fourth volume
of The Pentateuch, subsequent volumes consider Gen. 6:4 to be an interpola
tion on the part of D, resulting from the latters interest in the early history of
Canaans inhabitants, a feature also evident in Deuteronomy (cf. Deut. 2:1012,
2021, 23).172 A further example of this antiquarian disposition is to be found
in Num. 13:22b.173
(e) D is likewise typified by the interpolation of a number of explanatory
notes. Geographical names that had fallen into disuse in the period in which
D lived, for example, are often supplemented by the name current at the time.
Colenso ascribes responsibility to D in this regard when it comes to the desig
nations found in Gen. 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 17, for example.
4.6 Conclusion
Our discussion of Colensos opus magnum should have made it clear that in
spite of its agedating back more than one hundred and fifty yearshis work
has not lost its topicality on several points, although some might argue that
his work died with him.174 It can be argued, therefore, that Colensos contri
bution continues to be of particular interest, especially in light of later devel
opments in relation to the Deuteronom(ist)ic question. In the first instance,
his emphasis on the possibility that the Deuteronomistunderstood here as
the author of Deuteronomybased himself on existing traditions that had
been taken up into the Tetrateuch. Secondly, we must account for Colensos
implicit allusion to the possibility that the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic pas
sages in GenesisNumbers might be seen as precursors of the first steps in the
development of what has come to be described as typical and stereotypical

172 The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 54; 183; CA, 2; 1720; The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, Appendix, 2; The
Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, ii.
174 Le Roux, A Story of Two Ways, 106.
44 Chapter 1
Deuteronom(ist)ic vocabulary. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Colensos

frequently unfounded use of criteria was to serve as a warning to those schol
ars who, without a solid criteriology, came to support an ever-expanding pan-
Deuteronomism.175 The said pan-Deuteronomism was only to manifest itself,
however, after the New Documentary Hypothesis established itself as the
explanatory model for the origin and composition of the Pentateuch.
5 RD and the New Documentary Hypothesis
Up to this point, Deuteronomy was understood more or less consistently as one

of the youngest parts of the Pentateuch, and the passages related thereto in
other biblical books have been approached as redactional interventions. This
position changed significantly with the emergence of the New Documentary
Hypothesis. In the second half of the 19th century, scholars were once again
drawn in increasing numbers to the idea that the Pentateuch had been put
together on the basis of several continuous and entirely independent sources
or documents and not from a continuous basis document that was progres
sively expanded, as the Supplementary Hypothesis presupposed. This New
Documentary Hypothesis was introduced by Hermann Hupfeld,176 whose
work already contained the initial echoes of the so-called Four Source theory.
Independently and in parallel with one another, an Elohistic basic document
emerged (E1, later to be referred to as P), a second Elohistic document (E2)
and a source characterised by its use of the divine name . Deuteronomy
also existed as an independent document, although it was not parallel with the
other documents. Like Colenso, Hupfeld thus splits the Elohistic basic docu
ment E into two parts. In so doing, the segment of the basic document thus
far considered the oldest acquired an independent place vis--vis the younger
part related to J. Hupfeld did not take the step of reversing the chronological
order of the sources, however, and continued to see E1 as the oldest document.
This decisive step was to be taken as a result of the work of Karl Heinrich Graf
and Julius Wellhausen. In the Dutch speaking world, Willem Hendrik Kosters
and Abraham Kuenen were of particular importance in the debate.
175 It should be observed that Colensos contemporary, T. Nldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik
des Alten Testaments. 1: Die s.g. Grundschrift des Pentateuchs, Kiel 1869, 12 considered the
Deuteronomist to be completely absent from GenesisNumbers.
176 Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis. Eduard Riehm, one of Hupfelds students, was to focus
considerable attention on Deuteronomy as an independent source. As a result, the theory
that the Pentateuch was composed on the basis of four independent documents acquired
its full force (cf. E. Riehm, Die Gesetzgebung Mosis im Lande Moab, Gotha 1854).
Graf demonstrated that neither Deuteronomy nor the prophets nor the his
torical books (Joshua to Kings) were familiar with the priestly laws.177 These
laws and their narrative framework were thus to be dated in the exilic or post-
exilic period. Graf associated the Deuteronomic law with the details found
in 2 Kgs 2223. Based on this information, he endeavoured to indentify the
laws and narratives of the Hexateuch that the author of the Deuteronomic
law used and those he appeared to be unfamiliar with. Graf concluded from
his study that only the provisions in Exod. 2023; 13:116; 34:1027 were pre-
Deuteronomic. The Jehovistic work that the Deuteronomist had at his dis
posal was also more of ein historisches Werk und hat erst durch die sptere
Erweiterung den Charakter eines Gesetzbuches erhalten. Graf identified this
interpolation in the book of Leviticus, as well as Exod. 12:128, 4351; 2531;
3540; Num. 1:110:28; 1517; 18*; 19*; 2831*; 35:1636:13*.178 As such, Graf
reacted against the identification of the Jehovist and the Deuteronomist, in
contrast to Sthelin.179
Kosters took matters a step further.180 Graf was primarily interested in
determining which laws from ExodusNumbers were presupposed by the
Deuteronomist and which were not, but Kosters was also interested in the nar
rative passages. He concluded that the pericopes with which the Deuteronomist
appeared to be unfamiliar stemmed from the work of the Elohist (= P).181 The
reports upon which the Deuteronomist appeared to be dependent, belonged
to the work of the Jehovist (= JE). He thus maintained that it was impossible
for Deuteronom(ist)ic elements to be present in GenesisNumbers. On the
contrary, the Deuteronomist leaned for support on the material associated
with the Jehovist.182
177 Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bcher.

178 Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bcher, 9495.
179 Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bcher, 15.
180 Kosters, De historie-beschouwing van den Deuteronomist.
181 It is evident: the so-called Grundschrift is shrinking as time passes. Graf more or less
emptied it of legal material together with a number of narratives (...); our own research
has also removed a considerable number. Has the time not come to ask whether there is
much still remaining in the said Grundschrift? Is it not time to revise the foundations
upon which the recognition of its priority rests? (Kosters, De historie-beschouwing
van den Deuteronomist, 136translation mine). Cf. K.H. Graf, Die s.g. Grundschrift
des Pentateuchs, in: A. Merx (ed.), Archiv fr wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten
Testaments, Bd. 1, Halle 1867, 466477.
182 Of all the Elohistic narratives we have encountered on our way, not one proved to have
been known or used by the Deuteronomist. This result allows us the freedom to conclude:
the said segments also did not belong to the Grundschrift of the Jhvhist (Kosters, De
historie-beschouwing van den Deuteronomist, 136translation mine); If I had only
46 Chapter 1
Because of changes in relation to the understanding of the basic document,

the conditions were created that would support the hypotheses of Kuenen
and Wellhausen who were to reverse the sequence of the sources proposed
by Hupfeld. At the same time, they drew renewed attention to the question
of the presence of Deuteronom(ist)ic material in GenesisNumbers. As we
have observed, however, potential similarities between GenesisNumbers and
Deuteronomy did not draw attention away from the work of scholars such as
Hupfeld, Graf and Kosters. It was only when the New Documentary Hypothesis
came to crystallize as a result of the endeavours of Kuenen and Wellhausen
that space was created for further reflection on the question.
In his An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of
the Hexateuch, Kuenen provided a detailed outline of the genesis of the
Hexateuch.183 He saw the Hexateuch as we now know it as the work of one or
more redactors. The priestly laws and narratives that had been dated by Graf as
late are designated as P. All the laws and narratives redacted by the Deuterono
mist or in his spirit and/or under his influence are designated by the letter D.
What remains is referred to as JE, the so-called prophetic components of the
Hexateuch.184 These JE components do not constitute a well-formed literary
succeeded in demonstrating that the Deuteronomists view of history does not presuppose
the so-called Grundschrift, but is based in its entirety on the historical information of
the Jhvhist, then I would consider my research to have been amply rewarded (137). See
also A. Kayser, Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels, Strasbourg 1874, 141.
183 A. Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch,
London 1886. Published in Dutch as Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en
de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Dl. 1: De thora en de historische boeken
des Ouden Verbonds, Amsterdam 21884. For the life and work of Kuenen, reference can
be made to A. van der Kooij, Abraham Kuenen: 189110 december1991, in: Abraham
Kuenen (18281891). Uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van een tentoonstelling gehouden in de
Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden van 10 december 1991 tot 14 januari 1992 (Kleine publikaties
van de Leidse Universiteitsbibliotheek, 11), Leiden 1991, 2531; Idem, Abraham Kuenen
(18281891): De Pentateuch en de godsdienst van Isral, NTT 45 (1991), 279292. See also:
P.B. Dirksen, A. van der Kooij (eds), Abraham Kuenen (18281891): His Major Contributions
to the Study of the Old TestamentA Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the
Occasion of the Centenary of Abraham Kuenens Death (10 December 1991) (OTS, 29), Leiden
1993. For the correspondence between Kuenen and Colenso see C. Houtman, Colenso as
Seen by Kuenen, and as Known from Colensos Letters to Kuenen, in Draper, The Eye of the
Storm, 76103.
184 On the characterisation of these passages as prophetic Kuenen writes: The designation
of prophetic, which is here applied to all that remains of the Hexateuch when the
priestly and the deuteronomic elements are removed, must be regarded as altogether
unity. Indeed, JE only came into existence when the documents J and E were
combined into a single whole by the Jehovistic redactor (RJE) after a long pro
cess of transmission. According to Kuenen, the Deuteronomic laws are younger
than the prescripts taken up in JE (the Decalogue and the so-called Book of the
Covenant). The same is true in his opinion for the narrative material with a
Deuteronomic flavour.185 He was also convinced that the Deuteronomist was
not dependent on the priestly laws and narratives.186
JE probably came into existence towards the end of the 7th century or the
beginning of the 6th century bce. The Deuteronomist in the strict sense of the
termi.e. the author of Deut. 526probably did not have JE in its entirety
at his disposal. On the other hand, the authors who worked in his spirit, and
were responsible among other things for Deut. 14 and the book of Joshua, did
make use of JE as a whole. This led Kuenen to presuppose that RJE put together
JE after 621 bce and before the beginning of the Babylonian exile. This is in line
with the fact that RJE, though not directly dependent on the Deuteronomist
(...), has nevertheless a close affinity to him, and incorporates at any rate some
few fragments that issued from deuteronomic circles.187
If JE had been preserved in its original form there would not have been a
problem. In the Pentateuch as we now have it, however, JE has been combined
with still further documents. The combination of JE and D by RD is of particu
lar interest for the present study. Indeed, the question arises as to whether and
to what extent the amalgamation of JE and D by RD had radical consequences
for JE. Based on the conclusion that RD radically reworked Joshua, Kuenen
asks himself whether the deuteronomic recension was confined to that book
alone, or whether it embraced GenesisNumbers also. The latter hypothesis
cannot be rejected or even pronounced improbable a priori.188 Kuenen refers
in this regard to Colenso, who believes he has recognised the hand of the
provisional. It rests upon the indisputable relationship between some of the passages
in question and the writings of the prophets of the eighth and seventh centuries before
Christ, but in no way prejudges the question whether these passages were actually written
by prophets (An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 138).
185 The deuteronomic history [de deuteronomisch-gekleurde historische stukken in
the original Dutch edition (p. 165)] consists in part of recensions and amplifications of
prophetic narratives, necessarily involving the priority of the latter; in part of more
indemendent compositions, which, however, still run parallel, in almost every case, with
JE, and are dependent on it (Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 168169).
186 Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 166.
187 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 249.
48 Chapter 1
Deuteronomist in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, and assigns to this source

no inconsiderable portion of the law and narratives they containfour hun
dred and twelve Masoretic verses in all.189 Kuenen concluded nevertheless:
Deuteronomic ideas, and the terms and expressions inseparable from them,
are comparatively rare in the prophetic portions of the Hexateuch. They are
not altogether wanting, however, and they demand an explanation.190
According to Kuenen, RD limits itself in GenesisNumbers to a few very
clearly distinguishable (and thus separable) Deuteronomic passages. He
considers Gen. 26:1a(?), 3b4(?), 5; Exod. 15:26 to be RD and adds: The deu
teronomic colouring is not to be mistaken.191 Moreover, on account of the sim
ilarities Kuenen claims to be able to discern between JE and RD, it is not always
clear to him whether the given verses should be ascribed to JE or D. He argues
with respect to the use of the list of the nations in Exod. 23:23, for example, that
his linguistic usage also testifies to JEs close affinity with D1 and its followers.192
He also observes elsewhere: But I imagine thatpartly because JE and D
are separated by so short a periodan intimate deuteronomic recension is
incapable of being striclty proved, and I shall therefore content myself with
enumerating the passages that might be referred to it.193 This kinship shows
how natural it is that there should still be some want of agreement whether
certain verses should be assigned to JE or to one of the followers of D1.194 On
one single point, the said redactor allowed himself a little more freedom:
he expands the Sinaitic law, which hitherto consisted of the Decalogue and

193 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 259. He refers in this regard to Exod. 3:1822;
4:2123; 8:18b; 9:14b, 16, 29b; 10:1b2; 12:42. Kuenen also points to the kinship between
Exod. 12:2127; 13:116, 17a; 15:25b; 17:14b, 16 and D, without thereby ascribing the said
passages to RD. He refers moreover to numerous and distinct traces of a deuteronomic
recension in Exod. 19:3b8; 20:117, 22b, 23; 23:2033; 34:1013, 24, which make it highly
probable that Ex. xix.xxiv. and xxxii.xxxiv. were brought into their present form by a
deuteronomic reviser, and more specifically yet that it was this reviser who lashed the
Book and the Words of the Covenant into their present connection (Kuenen, An Historico-
Critical Inquiry, 262). See also 258: In the preceding books [GenesisNumbersH.A.]
the redactor confined himself to adding a few deuteronomic touches, which show, by
the comparative ease with which we can separate them, that the contents of JE have
remained otherwise unaltered.
nothing more, by relocating the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:2223:33) and
the so-called words of the covenant (Exod. 34:1028) from their original place
in JE to Mount Sinai.195
The reader will be familiar enough with the fact that the New Documentary
Hypothesis reached its synthesis and high point thanks to the work of Julius
Wellhausen.196 Wellhausens synthesis can be summarised as follows: P is
younger than D; JE, which is the result of a process of development, comes close
to D in theology and vocabulary; JE precedes D and is exploited thereby, while
at the same time D influenced the work of JE. When we return to the specific
theme of the present study, i.e. the presence of so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic
verses in the first four books of the Old Testament, Wellhausens position, like
that of Kuenen, tends to be ambiguous. He is convinced on the one hand that
some passages can be considered as RD without further ado.197 At the same
time, however, he focuses attention on the kinship between JE and D, which
sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish the one from the other with clarity.198

196 J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin 1883; 31886; Idem, Die Composition
des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bcher des Alten Testaments, Berlin 31899. Cf. H. Graf
Reventlow, Epochen der Biblelauslegung. 4. Von der Aufklrung bis zum 20. Jahrhundert,
Mnchen 2001, 302316; R. Smend, Julius Wellhausen: ein Bahnbrecher in drei Disziplinen,
Mnchen 2006.
197 Wellhausen, Die Composition, 205206: Der Deuteronomist, d.h. der Schriftsteller, der
das Deuteronomium in das hexateuchische Geschichtsbuch eingesetzt hat, hat zugleich
das letztere in deuteronomischem Sinne berarbeitet; von dieser berarbeitung ist
nun aber nicht Q, sondern vielmehr JE betroffen. Schon Gen. 26,5 findet sich ein Spur
derselben (...). Strker werden die Spuren im Exodus seit dem Auszuge aus gypten
Exod. 13. Kap. 16. Kap. 1924. Kap. 3234 (...). Am strksten hat der Deuteronomist die
jehovistische Erzhlung im Buche Numeri und im Josua beeinflusst und vermehrt. Ein
sicheres Beispiel, dass er auch auf Q eingewirkt habe, ist nicht aufzutreiben, weder im
Pentateuch noch auchwo man es am ehesten zu finden erwarten sollteim Josua.
198 See, for example, Wellhausen, Die Composition, 74: Der Verfasser von Ex. 13,316 ist, wenn
nicht der Jehovist selber, ein deuteronomistischer Bearbeiter desselben. Er ist sowohl von
manchen charakteristischen Ausdrcken abhngig von den jehovistischen Quellen, als
auch in den Elementen selber, die seiner ermahnenden Rede zu Grunde liegen und das
einzig Inhaltliche darin bilden; Auch in 15,2227 scheint der Jehovist (Deuteronomist?)
v. 26 frei zugesetzt zu haben (79); Wir haben hier [i.e. in Exod. 34H.A.] den Jehovisten,
dessen (?) Verwandschaft mit dem Deuteronomium wir bereits fter Gelegenheit
gehabt zu constatieren (86); Einige Stellen des Dekalogs sind deuteronomisch gefrbt,
so v. 10, v. 2 und ganz v. 6 (besonders auffallend ).
Es hat also wohl eine Rckstrmung aus Deut. 5 in Exod. 20 stattgefunden: der Jehovist
50 Chapter 1
Heinrich Holzinger can be named in one and the same breath with Kuenen
and Wellhausen199 as an important representative of the Documentary
(?) hat deuteronomische Zustze nachgetragen (89); Dessen [i.e. der JehovistH.A.]
Geistesverwandtschaft mit dem Deuteronomium tritt wiederum auffallend hervor
wenn nicht ausser ihm noch ein Deuteronomist anzunehmen ist (94 n. 2); Zum Schlusse
spielt JE wieder strker ein, namentlich in Deut. 34. Hier ist Q [i.e. PH.A.] nur in v. 1a
und 8.9(7a?) zu erkennen; brigens sprechen smtliche Ausdrcke und Vorstellungen,
aus denen man berhaupt etwas schliessen kann, gegen Q und fr JE, bez. fr den
deuteronom. Bearbeiter von JE (115).
199 The GrafKuenenWellhausen hypothesis was not welcomed with general consent
in the exegetical world. Some were unable to accept P as a late document, given that
it situates his material in the time of Moses. It was suggested, for example, that P was
originally the private document used by priestly circles, older than and unknown to
the so-called prophetic authors, and introduced as such into JED by a redactor. August
Dillmann, among others, supported the idea that P was older than JED. While this in
itself is of little importance for our present study, Dillmanns vision of the origins of the
Hexateuch is nevertheless worthy of mention. He distinguishes a priestly Grundschrift (A),
an Elohist (B) and a Jahwist (C). He ascribes Deuteronomy to the Deuteronomist (D) or to
RD, which inserted D into the Hexateuch. A, B and C were originally three independent
and unrelated documents that were reworked into a single whole by a lone redactor (R)
between 700 bce and the emergence of D. Dillmann thus sets out to determine whether
R was already familiar with the book of Deuteronomy and whether RD, which combined
D with the other documents of the Hexateuch, can be identified with the redactor who
brought together A B and C: Die letztere Vermutung hat eineigen Schein von Recht fr
sich, weil in der That es eine Anzahl von Stellen in Gen. Ex. Num. gibt, welche durch ihre
deuteronomische Farbe auffallen, allerdings nicht so viele, wie Wl. u.a., oder gar Colenso
angenommen haben (...), namentlich nicht Ex. 13 (...) u. Ex. 32,714, aber zB. in Gen.
26,5; 45,19f; Ex. 15,26; Num 14,1123. Aber dieser Schein muss doch schwinden, wenn man
bedenkt, welche ganz andern Spuren seiner Thtigkeit RD denjenigen Stcken des Hexat.
aufgedrckt hat, welche unbezweifelt durch seine Hand gegangen sind, nmlich Dt. 31;
33; 32,4452; 27,18 u. B. Josua (A. Dillmann, Die Bcher Numeri, Deuteronomium und
Josua [KEHAT], Leipzig 21886, 681). According to Dillman, therefore, the redactor who
combined A, B and C is not to be identified with RD, who combined Deuteronomy with
the rest of the Hexateuch. He leaves open the possibility nevertheless that with regard
to certain passagese.g. Num. 21R and RD ought to be considered one and the same
(681). See also Idem, Die Genesis (KEHAT), Leipzig 1882; Dillmann, Ryssel, Die Bcher
Exodus und Leviticus.
Wellhausen explains the presence of Ds range of ideas in P with a quotation from
Jlicher: (...) die frhe Hochstellung des deuteronomistischen Gesetzes hat eine Menge
von Wendungen, Manieren, Gedanken in den Sprachgebrauch eingefhrt, so dass wir
dieselben bis in die spteste Erzeugnissen der Hebraschen Literatur hinein immer
wieder finden und uns gar nicht Wundern drfen ihnen auch in dem so viel verbesserten,
erweiterten, berarbeiteten Priestercodex zu begegnen (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 374).
Hypothesis according to the Wellhausian model.200 In line with Kuenen and

Wellhausen, moreover, he was aware of the presence of material related to
Deuteronomy in GenesisNumbers, but he considered it difficult to strictly
separate JE from D. Holzinger thus likewise pointed to a strong kinship
between RJE and the ideology and language of D. As typical linguistic features
of RJE, for example, Holzinger refers to the list of the Canaanite peoples and
the designation of Canaan as a land of milk and honey, two formulas that
he also considered to be characteristically dtstischen Sprache. Furthermore,
Holzinger points to the kinship between the speeches composed by RJE and
the typically dtistischen Predigten. The fact that RJE includes prescripts that
are extremely close to the Deuteronom(ist)ic law textse.g. Exod. 13:116
also appears to point in this direction. Holzinger understood the relationship
between RJE and D to be evidence of a movementHolzinger even uses the
expression dtischen Schule201that resulted in Deuteronomy. Within this
school J and E were first to be amalgamated. It should be noted at this junc
ture that Holzinger did not consider RJE as a single compiler of the material
available to him, but as die Arbeit verschiedener Hnde,202 which told its own
story making use of the material it had at its disposal. It is probable that this
JE redaction then transitioned into the combination of JE with the already
extensive Deuteronomy. Whatever the case, JE was already reworked in the
spirit of Deuteronomy when the latter was inserted. Holzinger also argues for
eine fortgesetzte redaktionelle Arbeit (...), welche von RJE allmhlich zu RD
weiterfhrt.203 Holzinger likewise considers JES, a secondary expansion of JE,
to be akin to D.204
Holzinger even took matters a step further when he proposed the possibility
that RJE be identified with D: Der Verwandschaft [between RJE and RDH.A.]
ist so gross, dass man im einzelnen oft schwanken kann, ob ein sekundres
Stuck RJE oder dem dtistischen Bearbeiter zuzuweisen ist (...). Man muss sich
fragen, ob es unter diesen Umstnden nicht berhaupt einfacher ist, RJE mit
200 Holzinger, Einleitung; Idem, Genesis (KHCAT, 1), Leipzig 1898; Idem, Exodus (KHCAT, 2),
Leipzig 1900; Idem, Numeri (KHCAT, 4), Tbingen 1903.
201 Holzinger, Einleitung, 490. Holzinger states with respect to RJE: Jedenfalls (...) ist die
Verbindung von J und E in die dtistische Zeit zu versetzen (491).
202 Holzinger, Einleitung, 484. See also, for example, Holzinger, Exodus, xiii, where he
characterises RJE as die schliesslich an die dtnistische Redaktion sich annhernde Arbeit
verschiedener Hnde.
203 Holzinger, Einleitung, 491.
204 Holzinger, Exodus, xi. Holzinger associates passages such as Gen. 18:119; 22:1518;
Exod. 19:46; 32:714; Num. 14:1220, which later research often ascribes to RD, with the
aforesaid JES.
52 Chapter 1
RD zu identifizieren.205 Holzingers work is important, moreover, because he

endeavoured to chart Deuteronom(ist)ic language in the form of a list of words
and expressions characteristic of D.206
Interest in Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas and idiom also gained currency out
side continental Europe. We have already explored the vision of Colenso in
this regard, who as supporter of the Supplementary Hypothesisalbeit in
dialogue with Kuenenconcluded that D had extensively reworked Genesis
Numbers. The British exegete Samuel Rolles Driver is likewise of importance
within the context.
In line with many before him, Driver drew attention in the third edition of
his commentary on the book of Deuteronomy to the distinct style of D with
respect to JE and P.207 He remained convinced, nevertheless, that there are
segments in JE in which the author or compiler evidently changes to a pare
netic tone characteristic of D and to a style approaching that of D.208 As
with Kuenen, Wellhausen and especially Holzinger, Drivers work displays an
explicit interest in the relationship between the so-called older JE passages
205 Holzinger, Einleitung, 490. It should be noted nevertheless that Holzinger argues die
beiden Redaktionsstadien J+E und JE+D auseinander zu halten (491). As RD passages
(Holzinger sometimes hesitates between RD, JES and RJE) in GenesisNumbers, Holzinger
refers among others to Gen. 15:18*; 18:1719; 19:1819; 26:3a5; Exod. 3:8, 12b; 10:2; 15:26;
23:2728; 24:38*; Num. 14:44*; 21:3335; 32:17.
206 Holzinger, Einleitung, 284291. Here he distinguishes between D1 (Deut. 1226), D2
(Deut. 511), D3 (Deut. 14) and DS (expressions that occur in den Schlusskapitels und
dtistischen Stcken von Jos284). At the same time, he draws attention in his survey to
expressions that D shares with J, E or P.
207 S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC), Edinburgh 1895;
31902, lxxvii: In its predominant features, the style of Dt. is strongly original, entirely
unlike that of P, and very dissimilar to the normal style of JE; Those who have by this
course familiarized themselves with the style of the Deuteronomic discourses, will
be conscious how greatly it differs from that of any other part of the Pent.,even the
parenetic sections of JE (lxxxv).
208 Driver, Deuteronomy, lxxviilxxviii: There are (...) certain sections of JE (in particular,
Gn. 26; Ex. 13,216; 15,26; 19,36, parts of 20,217; 23,2033; 34,1026), in which the author
(or compiler) adopts a parenetic tone, and where his style displays what may be termed
an approximation to the style of Dt.; and these sections appear to have been the source
from which the author of Dt. adopted some of the expressions currently used by him;
(...) the parenetic sections of JE, which show a tendency to approach it [i.e. the style of
the Deuteronomic discoursesH.A.], not exhibiting the complete Deuteronomic rythm
or expression (lxxxv).
and D.209 Driver considered these JE pericopes as the source from which the
author of Deuteronomy drew as he elaborated his own style and vocabulary.210
As with Colenso and Holzinger, Driver also drew up a list of words and
phrasesseventy in numberthat he considered characteristic of D.211 He
considered sixteen of the seventy to have been based on JE. He refers to a num
ber of the elements from the Tetrateuch, which he considered to be a source
used by the Deuteronomist, as pre-Deuteronomic. On the other hand, Driver
also argues that changes were made to GenesisNumbers under the influence
of D. Indeed, the influence of D was so great that its language and ideas were
taken over later by other authors. In Exod. 20:217, for example, we encounter
expressions that sound so clearly Deuteronom(ist)ic that we are obliged, in his
opinion, to accept the fact that an original shorter Decalogue appears to have
existed that was supplemented by an author dependent on D.212
6 Conclusion
Having presented the work of Kuenen, Wellhausen, Holzinger and Driver,

we can draw this overview of the origins of the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic
209 S.R. Driver, The Book of Exodus in the Revised Version with Introduction and Notes (The
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), Cambridge 1911, xviixviii: Many of
these [i.e. RJE passagesH.A.] approximate in style and tone to Deuteronomy; these
are, no doubt, pre-Deuteronomic; but those with a strong Deuteronomic colouring
(as xx,2b.4b.5a.10b.12) will have been written under the influence of Dt., and be
post-Deuteronomic.
210 Driver, Deuteronomy, lxxxvi: The style of Dt. could not have been formed without
precedents; and it is probable that these parts of JE (and perhaps other writings not now
extant, the style of which was similar) formed the basis upon which the Deuteronomist
developed his own literary style, and supplied elements which, in moulding it, he
assimilated.
211 Drivers matter-of-fact observation with regard to the mechanistic use of such lists is
worthy of note: Of course a tabulated list of idioms cannot adequately characterize the
style of an author (Driver, Deuteronomy, lxxxv).
212 The work of Dutch scholar Gerrit Wildeboer is in close keeping with that of Driver. In
his De letterkunde des Ouden Verbonds naar de tijdsorde van haar ontstaan, Groningen
1893; 31903 he argues that the Deuteronomist borrowed from pre-Deuteronomic laws
in the book of Exodus. D, moreover, appears to have had a typical vocabulary and a
characteristic sentence structure at his disposal. In Wildeboers view, the said Deute
ronomist only intervened sporadically in the first four books of the Pentateuch, and in
an extremely unobtrusive manner. This is the case, for example, in Exod. 15:26 and in a
number of passages in the Sinai pericope in Exod. 1924; 3234.
54 Chapter 1
question to a close. We have demonstrated that the issue developed gradu

ally, from early interest in harmonising interpolations in SamP on which
Geddes and Vater focused their attention, to the moment that the classical
Documentary Hypothesis started to draw particular attention to the presence
of RD elements in the Tetrateuch. Of particular interest is the fact that the
pioneers of this hypothesis adopted a highly nuanced opinion with respect to
RD. Kuenen and Wellhausen, and in their wake Holzinger and Driver, clearly
left room in their approach to the origins of GenesisNumbers for the sugges
tion that Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology had undergone an
evolution and had drawn from older material. On this point, issues surround
ing JE and RJE and the potential relationship with RD had an important role
to play.213
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Documentary Hypothesis reached
its zenith. Over a period of decades, and in spite of the sometimes radical
changes it was to undergo, it served as the generally accepted model for the
origin of the Pentateuch. As this Documentary Hypothesis established itself,
the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic redactor gained more and more prominence
in Pentateuch research (and elsewhere). While RD was still seen by Kuenen,
Wellhausen, Holzinger and Driver as a dynamic and pluriform process, this
perspective appears to have narrowed in a very short period of time into
that of a static and unimaginative redactor, called in to explain every verse,
verse segment, expression and even word that was reminiscent in one way or
another of Deuteronomy. The conviction grew, moreover, that it was impos
sible for Deuteronomy to have borrowed from passages outside Deuteronomy,
and the latter once more became die Mitte des Alten Testaments.214 Scholars
endeavoured to explain anything that exhibited even the remotest similar
ity to the language and ideas of Deuteronomy from within the book itself. At
the end of the 19th century, the Documentary Hypothesis had imposed itself
as the explanatory model par excellence for the genesis and evolution of the
Pentateuch. At the same time, however, RD succeeded in carving a place for
itself within the said hypothesis because material akin to Deuteronomy within
the first four books of the Pentateuch was ascribed with little hesitation to a
redactor working under the influence of Deuteronomy. As a result, support
213 Cf. recently L. Schmidt, Im Dickicht der Pentateuchforschung: Ein Pldoyer fur die
umstrittene Neuere Urkundenhypothese, VT 60 (2010), 400420, esp. 418: Da die
Ergnzungen der jehowistischen Redaktion eine Nhe zur Deuteronomistik aufweisen
(...), kann sie erst in der Exilszeit angesetzt werden.
214 Cf. R. Smend, Die Mitte des Alten Testaments: Exegetische Aufstze, Tbingen 2002.
for an extremely inclusive Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of GenesisNumbers,

which Colenso had initiated, continued to gain strength.215
215 This tendency is already evident at the end of the 19th century in the work of A. Jlicher,
Die Quellen von Exodus vii,8xxiv,11, JPT 8 (1882), 79127; 273315. Jlicher had studied
Exod. 1,17,7 in his doctoral dissertation Die Quellen von Exodus ivii,7, Halle 1880, and
provided extensive argumentation in support of RD. He considered the following features
typical of RD: the search for the meaning of everything that happens, an elaborately
theological way of looking at things, a strong emphasis on the unicity of God, the
Numeruswechsel, a parenetic tone, etc. He considers the following as RD (or as written by
a hand akin to D), sometimes with reservations: Exod. 8:18b; 9:14, 16, 29; 10:1b2; 12:2127,
42; 13:310, 1117a; 15:25b26; 16:45, 20, 27, 2830, 3234; 17:14, 16b; 19:3b8, 9b; 20:117*,
22, 23; 22:1926; 23:812; 23:2033*. Exegetes at the end of the 19th century who favoured
an extensive Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction include: B.W. Bacon, JE in the Middle Books of
the Pentateuch. Analysis of Exodus vii.xii, JBL 9 (1890), 161200; Idem, JE in the Middle
Books of the Pentateuch. Analysis of Exodus i.vii, JBL 10 (1891), 107130; Idem, JE in the
Middle Books of the Pentateuch. From Egypt to Sinai. Analysis of Exodus xii.37xvii.16,
JBL 11 (1892), 177200; Idem, JE in the Middle Books of the Pentateuch. SinaiHoreb.
Analysis of Exodus xviii.xxxiv., JBL 12 (1893), 2346; B. Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch Ex.
xx,22xxiii,33: Seine Ursprngliche Gestalt, sein Verhltnis zu den es umgebenden Quellen
schriften und seine Stellung in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung, Halle 1892; C.A. Briggs,
The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, New York 21897, 68; C.H. Cornill, Einleitung in das
Alte Testament (GTW, 2/1), Freiburg im Breisgau 1891; Tbingen 71913, 8182; E.I. Fripp,
Note on Genesis xviii.xix, ZAW 12 (1892), 2329.
Chapter 2
Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers

since the Beginning of the 20th Century
In the preceding chapter we sketched the emergence and evolution of scholarly

interest in the Deuteronom(ist)ic question with respect to GenesisNumbers
in the 19th century, together with the pioneering developments related thereto.
In the present chapter we offer an analysis of the way in which scholars have
claimed evidence of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the Tetrateuch since
the beginning of the 20th century, i.e. from the moment the Documentary
Hypothesis acquired general acceptance as a model for explaining the origins
and literary development of the Pentateuch.
In the first part of the chapter I will present a number of general obser-
vations concerning the Deuteronom(ist)ic question as they developed in the
course of the 20th century and in particular its early decades. In the second
part I will assemble a register of the verse segments, verses and pericopes that
have been associated with a Deuteronom(ist)ic reworking since the beginning
of the 20th century. This overview will mainly focus on authors who support
a source-critical approach to the Pentateuch. Indeed, after the Documentary
Hypothesis reached its culmination with Kuenen and Wellhausen at the end
of the 19th century and was able to position itself as the model par excellence
for explaining the genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch, more than a few
scholars at work in the first half of the 20th century readily sided with the said
hypothesis.1 Even to the present dayalthough a minority, authors can
1 Cf., for example, W. Baumgartner, Wellhausen und der heutige Stand der alttestamentlichen
Wissenschaft, TR 2 (1930), 287307; Idem, Alttestamentliche Einleitung und Literaturge
schichte, TR 8 (1936), 179222; A. Bea, Der heutige Stand der Pentateuchfrage, Bib 16 (1935),
175200; O. Eissfeldt, Die literarkritische Arbeit am Alten Testament in den letzten 12 Jahren,
TR 10 (1938), 255291; Idem, Die neueste Phase in der Entwicklung der Pentateuchkritik,
TR 18 (1950), 91112; 179215; 267287; H. Gressmann, Die Aufgaben der alttestamentlichen
Forschung, ZAW 42 (1924), 133; P. Humbert, Die neuere Genesis-Forschung, TR 6 (1934),
147160; 207228; R. Kittel, Die Zukunft der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft, ZAW 39
(1921), 8499; A. Noordtzij, Das Rtsel des Alten Testamentes, Braunschweig 1927; C.R. North,
Pentateuchal Criticism, in: H.H. Rowley (ed.), The Old Testament and Modern Study:
A Generation of Discovery and Research, Oxford 1951, 4883. According to E. Nicholson,
The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, Oxford 1998, the
Wellhausian Documentary Hypothesis remains the most adequate model for explaining

Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 57
be found who still support the Wellhausian Documentary Hypothesis almost

without question.2 The dominance of what came to be seen as classical source
criticism implied, at the same time, that attention for the presence of so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in GenesisNumbers became a constant feature
of critical study of the Pentateuch.
In the third part of the chapter I will critically explore the argumentation
presented in support of the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of texts from the
Tetrateuch. The fourth and final part will focus in detail, and by way of illustra-
tion, on a specific pericope from the book of Exodus that has been more or less
consistently associated with a Deuteronomistic intervention in the course of
scholarly research, namely the epilogue of the so-called Book of the Covenant
(Exod. 23:2033).
Exegetes who allude to characteristically Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in
GenesisNumbers, but explicitly reject the Documentary Hypothesis in terms
of method, are not included in the following overview. This implies that the
most important studies that have appeared in the last forty years, in which
Pentateuch research has taken a completely different path, are not represented
in the present chapter. I return to these works, however, in chapter four, in which
I present a number of recent tendencies and developments that have made
their mark within Pentateuch research, especially since the 1970s. Indeed, their
influence on the way scholars approach the Deuteronom(ist)ic question can-
not be emphasised enough. Authors who have engaged in systematic research
into the origins and composition of the Pentateuch and employed the conven-
tional sigla J, E, D and P in their work while interpreting them as a whole or in
part in a different manner, will also be examined in chapter four. Scholars who
consider the texts in question to be proto-Deuteronomici.e. as preparatory
to the formation of the Deuteronomic language, style and theologywill be
treated in chapter three.
the origins of the Pentateuch. A quite different opinion can be found in R.N. Whybray,
The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOT SS, 53), Sheffield 1987.
2 See, for example, the popularising work of F. Comte, De heilige boeken (Prisma), Utrecht
1995, 145148 or K. Vansteenhuyse, Van Abraham tot Jezebel. Wat archeologie ons leert over
de verhalen van de Bijbel, Leuven, 2010, 159 n. 5, in which the Wellhausian Documentary
Hypothesis is presented without further nuance as the generally held explanatory model for
the origins of the Pentateuch.
58 Chapter 2
1 General Observations Regarding the Nature of the

Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers
No genuinely new insights have emerged within the Documentary Hypothesis

since it reached its high point with the work of Kuenen and Wellhausen.
The framework of four independent sources (J, E, D and P) is found more
or less consistently in the work of scholars who support the Documentary
Hypothesis, although highly critical voices already emerged early in the 20th
century concerning the independence of the Elohist as source.3 It also goes
without saying that form criticism, and later tradition criticism, introduced
fundamental changes.4 But the broad schema remained unchanged, even
among scholars interested in the oral prehistory of the documents or the tradi-
tions they incorporated.
The following elements within the Documentary Hypothesis can be consid-
ered of importance in relation to the Deuteronom(ist)ic question. It is accepted
that the ancient sources J and E were brought together by RJE. The result
JEwas then associated with a form of the book of Deuteronomy by one or
more Deuteronom(ist)ic redactors.5 This or these Deuteronom(ist)ic redactor or
redactors introduced changes to JE.6 Two primary tendencies can be observed
3 Cf. P. Volz, W. Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzhler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (BZAW,
63), Giessen 1933; W. Rudolph, Der Elohist von Exodus bis Jozua (BZAW, 68), Berlin 1938. Cf.
also H. Seebass, Que reste-t-il du Yahwiste et de llohiste?, in: A. De Pury, T. Rmer (eds),
Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible
la lumire des recherches rcentes. 3me dition augmente (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genve
2002, 199230.
4 Cf. T. Rmer, La formation du Pentateuque: histoire de la recherche, in: T. Rmer et al.
(eds), Introduction lAncien Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 49), Genve 2004, 6784,
esp. 7276; T. Rmer, Le Pentateuque en question: Position du problme et brve histoire de
la recherche, in: Idem (eds), Le Pentateuque en question, 2943; F. Garca Lpez, Comment lire
le Pentateuque (Le monde de la Bible, 53), Genve 2005, 4245.
5 According to B. Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri (HKAT, 1/2), Gttingen 1903, lxv,
not all of the verses in GenesisNumbers that can be linked with the language or theology
of Deuteronomy should be ascribed to one and the same redactor: Jedenfalls sind auch
die deuteronomistischen Spuren nicht alle auf eine Hand zurckzufhren, sondern einer
fortgesetzten Bearbeitung der alten Berichte zuzuschreiben. He thus aligns himself with
Holzinger, who likewise accounted for an ongoing redactional process.
6 At the beginning of the 20th century, scholars occasionally reacted against the acceptance of
a radical and far-reaching RD. J.E. Carpenter, G. Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch: An
Introduction with Select Lists of Words and Phrases, London 1902, 336, for example, resolutely
reject Colenso: There seems (...) no sufficient reason for regarding it as so far-reaching. The
with respect to RD. Sometimes RD limited itself to retouching JE in order to bring

it into line with its own language and ideas. In other instances, RD introduced
pericopes into JE that he himself had created. In any event, verses or verse
segments in GenesisNumbers that exhibited similarities with Deuteronomy
came to be treated as dependent on the latter without further ado. This implied
that the concept of a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of GenesisNumbers had
become a matter of course in research into the origins of the Tetrateuch. It should
be noted, nevertheless, that several commentaries on the books of Genesis,7
approximation of the later J (including Rje) to the Deuteronomic position, both in thought
and language, sufficiently accounts for the stylistic resemblances; and the tendency of recent
criticism has been to confine the revision of Rd within much narrower limits. It is suggested
in the analysis that his activity prior to the Sinai-Horeb scenes may be traced in Gen. 15,1821;
26,5; Ex. 12,25; 13,3.1416; 15,26, but it does not appear that he actually recast any extensive
passages, or made any serious changes in the order of the narrative.
7 See, for example: G.C. Aalders, Genesis (Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift), Kampen 1949;
W. Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching),
Atlanta, GA 1982; Idem, Genesis, in: B.W. Anderson (ed.), The Books of the Bible, Part 1: The Old
Testament/The Hebrew Bible, New York 1989, 2144; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of
Genesis, Jerusalem 19611964; R. Davidson, Genesis 111 (The Cambridge Bible Commentary),
Cambridge 1973; Idem, Genesis 1250 (The Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge 1979;
H. Frey, Das Buch der Anfnge. Kapitel 111 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten
Testaments, 1), Stuttgart 41950; Idem, Das Buch des Glaubens. Kapitel 1225 des ersten Buches
Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 2), Stuttgart 31950; Idem, Das Buch des Kampfes.
Kapitel 2535 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 3), Stuttgart
41964; Idem, Das Buch der Fhrung. Kapitel 2650 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft
des Alten Testaments, 4), Stuttgart 41964; W.H. Gispen, Genesis vertaald en verklaard (COT),
Kampen 19741983; A.S. Herbert, Genesis 1250: Introduction and Commentary (Torch Bible
Commentaries), London 1962; G. Hoberg, Die Genesis nach dem Literalsinn erklrt, Freiburg
im Breisgau 21908; H. Jagersma, Abraham (Verklaring van een bijbelgedeelte), Kampen
1977; Idem, Numeri (POT), Nijkerk 19831990; Idem, Genesis 1:125:11 (Verklaring van de
Hebreeuwse Bijbel. Commentaar voor bijbelstudie, onderwijs en prediking), Nijkerk 1995;
H. Junker, Das Buch Genesis (Echter Bibel), Wrzburg 1949; E. Kalt, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus
(Herders Bibelkommentar. Die heilige Schrift fr das Leben erklrt, 1), Freiburg 1948;
D. Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale Old Testament Commenta
ries), London 21971; M. Maher, Genesis (OTM, 2), Wilmington, DE 1982; K. Rabast, Die Genesis,
Berlin 1951; A. Richardson, Genesis 111 (Torch Bible Commentaries), London 1953; L. Ruppert,
Das Buch Genesis (Geistliche Schriftlesung, 6), Dsseldorf 1984; H.E. Ryle, The Book of Genesis
(The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), Cambridge 1914; J.H. Sailhamer, Genesis (The
Expositors Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI 1990, 1284; Idem, The Pentateuch as
Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI 1992; N.M. Sarna, Genesis
( The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary), Philadelphia 1989; J.C. Sikkel,
60 Chapter 2
Exodus,8 and Numbers9 appearin more or less equal measureto pay lit-
tle if any attention to the question of the presence of Deuteronom(ist)ic ele-
ments in the Tetrateuch. Likewise, many introductions to the Old Testament
and monographs focusing on pericopes that have frequently been associated
with a Deuteronomistic redaction, often pay no particular attention to the
Het boek der geboorten: Verklaring van het boek Genesis, Amsterdam 1906; C.A. Simpson,
W.R. Bowie, The Book of Genesis (The Interpreters Bible, 1), New York 1952; A. van Selms,
Genesis, Nijkerk 1967; C. Van Ongeval, Liber Genesis, Gent 1902; G. von Rad, Das erste Buch
Mose: Genesis bersetzt und erklrt (ATD, 2/4), Gttingen 91972; C. Westermann, Genesis
111 (EdF, 7), Darmstadt 1972; Idem, Genesis 1250 (EdF, 48), Darmstadt 1975; Idem, Genesis
(Tekst en toelichting), Kampen 1986; Idem, Am Anfang. 1. Mose (Genesis) (Kleine Biblische
Bibliothek), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986; W. Zimmerli, 1. Mose 111: die Urgeschichte (Zrcher
Bibelkommentare Altes Testament, 1/1), Zrich 31967; Idem, 1. Mose 1225: Abraham (Zrcher
Bibelkommentare Altes Testament, 1/2), Zrich 1976.
8 See, for example: R.B. Allen, Exodus (The Expositors Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI
1990, 6551008; F.M.T. Bhl, Exodus (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische bijbelverklaring), Groningen
1928; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Jerusalem 1967; R. de Pury, Der Exodus
(Biblische Studien, 30), Neukirchen 1961; H.L. Ellison, Exodus (The Daily Study Bible Series),
Philadelphia 1982; J. Finegan, Let My People Go: A Journey Through Exodus, New York 1963;
H. Frey, Das Buch der Heimsuchung und des Auszugs: Kapitel 118 des zweiten Buches Mose
(Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 5), Stuttgart 1957; Idem, Das Buch der Verbindung
Gottes mit seiner Gemeinde: Kapitel 1924 des zweiten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten
Testaments, 6), Stuttgart 31963; Idem, Das Buch der Gegenwart Gottes unter seiner Gemeinde:
Kapitel 2540 des zweiten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 6), Stuttgart
31963; W.H. Gispen, Het boek Exodus opnieuw uit den grondtekst vertaald en verklaard, Deel
1: Hoofdstuk 1:115:21 (Korte verklaring der heilige Schrift), Kampen 1932; W.C. Kaiser, Exodus
(The Expositors Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI 1990, 285497; Kalt, Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus; N.M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus. The Heritage of Biblical Israel, New York 1986;
Idem, Exodus, in: Anderson (ed.), The Books of the Bible, 4762; N.M. Sarna, Exodus
(The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary), Philadelphia 1991.
9 See, for example: A.H. Edelkoort, Numeri (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische bijbelverklaring),
Groningen 1930; R.L. Honeycutt, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Laymans Bible Book
Commentary, 3), Nashville, TN 1979; B. Maarsingh, Numeri. Een praktische bijbelverklaring
(Tekst en toelichting), Kampen 1984; J. Milgrom, Numbers( The Jewish Publication
Society Torah Commentary), Philadelphia 1990; A. Noordtzij, Het boek Numeri opnieuw uit
den grondtekst vertaald en verklaard (Korte verklaring der heilige Schrift), Kampen 1941;
K.D. Sakenfeld, Numbers, in: Anderson (ed.), The Books of the Bible, 7187; K.D. Sakenfeld,
Journeying with God. A Commentary on the Book of Numbers (International Theological
Commentary), Grand Rapids 1995.
presence of verses related to Deuteronomy within the first four books of the
Old Testament10 or believe that a vague reference to the issue is sufficient.11
One might have expected the theory developed by Martin Noth in 1943 in
relation to the complex DeuteronomyKings to have introduced a new era in
research into the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in GenesisNumbers,12
but this did not appear to happen. Indeed, it was only a number of decades
10 Reference can be made, for example, to: J.A. Bewer, The Literature of the Old Testament
in its Historical Development (Records of Civilization. Sources and Studies, 5), New York
71947; L. Boadt, Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction, New York: 1984; H. Cazelles, La
Torah ou Pentateuque, in: Idem (ed.), Introduction la Bible, T. 2: Introduction lAncien
Testament, Paris 1973, 95244; A.R. Ceresko, Introduction to the Old Testament: A Liberation
Perspective, New York 1992; R. Coggins, Introducing the Old Testament (Oxford Bible
Series), Oxford 1990; J. Coppens, Introduction ltude historique de lAncien Testament, T. 1:
Histoire critique des livres de lAncien Testament, Brugge 31942; L. Dennefeld, Introduction
lAncien Testament, Paris 1934; M. Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in
the Book of Numbers (JSOT SS, 158), Sheffield 1993; W. Eichrodt, Die Quellen der Genesis von
neuem untersucht (BZAW, 31), Gieen 1916; O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung; P. Fargues, Introduction
lAncien Testament, Paris 1923; W. Fell, Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Einleitung in das Alten
Testament (Wissenschaftliche Handbibliothek. Theologische Lehrbucher, 25), Paderborn
1906; J. Goettsberger, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Herders theologische Grundrisse),
Freiburg 1928; R.K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, London 1970; J.H. Hayes,
An Introduction to Old Testament Study, Nashville 1979; C. Kuhl, Die Entstehung des
Alten Testaments, Bern 1953; H. Kosak, Wegweisung in das Alte Testament, Stuttgart 1968;
J. Meinhold, Einfhrung in das Alte Testament (Die Theologie im Abri, 1), Gieen 1926;
M.H. Segal, The Pentateuch. Its Composition and Its Authorship and Other Biblical Studies,
Jerusalem 1967; J.M. Sprinkle, The Book of the Covenant: A Literary Approach (JSOT SS,
174), Sheffield 1994; P.N. Tarazi, The Old Testament. Introduction, Vol. 1: Historical Traditions,
New York 1991; A. Weiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (TW), Stuttgart 1939; J.K. West,
Introduction to the Old Testament, New York 21981.
11 See, for example: J.C. Gertz, Die Literatur des Alten Testaments. I. Tora und Vordere
Propheten, in Idem (ed.), Grundinformation Altes Testament: Eine Einfhrung in
Literatur, Religion und Geschichte des Alten Testaments (Uni-Taschenbcher, 2745),
Gttingen 32009, 193311, esp. 292 and T.C. Vriezen, A.S. van der Woude, Oudisralitische
en vroegjoodse literatuur: Tiende, geheel herziene druk van De literatuur van Oud-Isral
(Ontwerpen, 1), Kampen 2000, 184. In recent work, allusion is commonly made to the
presence of Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas in GenesisNumbers via references to thealbeit
pioneeringstudies of E. Blum. See, for example, J.-D. Macchi, Exode, in: Rmer et al.
(eds), Introduction, 173195, esp. 181.
12 M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden
Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Schriften der Knigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft.
Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse, 18), Stuttgart 1943.
62 Chapter 2
later that the consequences of Noths vision for the Deuteronom(ist)ic ques-
tion in the Tetrateuch were to be fully expressed. Noth himself was of the
opinion that the books of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings were written by one singe
author, the Deuteronomist, using sources of a variety of origins. In his view,
the Deuteronomistic History came into existence shortly after 561 bce.13
Noth thus denied that the sources of GenesisNumbers continued into the
Deuteronomistic History. As a result, a strict division was established between
GenesisNumbers and DeuteronomyKings.14 This theory, however, did
not answer the question of the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the
Tetrateuch.15 Noth himself simply stated that in the first four books of the
Old Testament, and in spite of the separation between GenesisNumbers and
the Deuteronomistic History, Deuteronom(ist)ic elements can nevertheless
be traced here and there.16 This stance is characteristic of the way in which
13 For literature on the Deuteronomistic History, reference can be made to the following
overviews: E. Jenni, Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den Bchern Josua bis Knige,
TR 27 (1961), 132; 97146; A.N. Radjawane, Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk.
Ein Forschungsbericht, TR 38 (1974), 177216; H. Weippert, Das deuteronomistische
Geschichtswerk. Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren Forschung, TR 50 (1985), 213249;
H.D. Preuss, Zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, TR 58 (1993), 229264; 341395;
T. Veijola, Deuteronomismusforschung zwischen Tradition und Innovation, TR 67 (2002),
273327; 391424; 68 (2003), 144; T. Rmer, Lhistoire deutronomiste, in Rmer et al.
(eds), Introduction, 234250; T. Rmer, Lhistoriographie deutronomiste (HD). Histoire
de la recherche et enjeu du dbat, in: A. de Pury et al. (eds), Isral construit son histoire:
Lhistoriographie deutronomiste la lunire des recherches rcentes (Le monde de la bible,
34), Genve 1996, 9120; T. Rmer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological
and Literary Introduction, London 2007, 1343.
14 For Noths vision of the origins of the Tetrateuch, see M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte
des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948.
15 With reservations, M. Noth, Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri bersetzt und erklrt (ATD,
7), Gttingen 1966, 12 ascribes a number of passages from Numbers to the redactor
who combined the Tetrateuch and DtrG: Dann kommen in 33,5035,34 die vom
deuterono mistischen Geschichtswerk abhngigen und auf die deuteronomistische
Landnahmeerzhlung hinziehlenden Anordnungen fr die knftige Landnahme,
die gewiss zurckzufhren sind auf einen Redaktor, der die Zusammenfgung von
Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk vornahm oder aber voraussetzte.
16 Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 3233 nn. 106; 108; 109; 111; 112; 113; 114 speaks of a number
of deuteronomistisch stilisierte Zustze. In his opinion, however, these Deuteronomis
tic interpolations in GenesisNumbers cannot be seen as evidence of a far-reaching
Deuteronomistic redaction of GenesisNumbers. Noth offers no further explanation of
the specific nature of these Deuteronomistic additions or the nature of the relationship
with DtrG. See also Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 13: Denn in den Bchern
Gen.Num. fehlt jede Spur einer deuteronomistischen Redaktion. He adds in a
the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in GenesisNumbers tended to be

approached around the middle of the 20th century and associated with a
Deuteronom(ist)ic reworking of the text with little if any fuss.
The relationship between the Deuteronom(ist)ic and the Priestly litera-
ture appears to have been particularly problematic.17 Indeed, the question of
footnote: Da es einzelne Stellen gibt, an denen der alte Text im deuteronomistischen

Stile erweitert worden ist, wie etwa Ex. 23,20ff. und Ex. 34,10ff., hat mit Recht meines
Wissens noch niemand fr ein Merkmal einer durchgehenden Redaktion gehalten.
Num. 21,3335 ist sekundr wrtlich aus Dtn. 3,13 bernommen worden.
17 For an overview of the complex and problematic nature of P, see, for example:
M. Vervenne, The P Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction? The
Sea Narrative (Ex. 13,1714,31) as a Test Case, in: C. Brekelmans, J. Lust (eds), Pentateuchal
and Deuteronomistic Studies. Papers Read at the xiiith IOSOT Congress. Leuven 1989 (BETL,
94), Leuven 1990, 6790 and E. Zenger, Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P), in: E. Zenger
(ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Fnfte, grndlich berarbeitete und erweiterte
Auflage (Kohlhammer Studienbcher Theologie, 1,1), Stuttgart 2004, 156175. See also
B. Lemmelijn, The So-Called Priestly Layer in Exod 7:1411:10. Source and/or/nor
Redaction?, RB 109 (2002), 481511.
The question of the so-called Holiness Code (Lev. 1726) plays a crucial role
within the framework of the relationship between D and P. For the problem of the
relationship between D and H, see, for example: C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: Die
Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung (CBET, 9), Kampen 1994, 288
289. The following explore the relationship between D and H: L.E. Elliot-Binns, Some
Problems of the Holiness Code, ZAW 67 (1955), 2640; A. Cholewnski, Heiligkeitsgesetz
und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie (AnBib, 66), Roma 1976; G. Bettenzoli,
Deuteronomium und Heiligkeitsgezetz, VT 34 (1984), 385398; J. Milgrom, Leviticus
1722 (AB, 3a), New York 2000, 13571361. See also B. Baentsch, Das Heiligkeits-Gesetz Lev.
xviixxvi: Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung, Erfurt 1893, 152, who concludes: Das
H. ist geschichtlich nur zu begreifen als ein Mittelgleid zwischen Deut. und P. Es ist mit
einem Worte die Gesetzgebung des Exils. It is remarkable, however, that the majority of
commentaries on Leviticus only pay a very limited degree of attention to this issue. See,
for example: A.T. Chapman, A.W. Streane, The Book of Leviticus (The Cambridge Bible for
Schools and Colleges), Cambridge 1914; J.W. de Wilde, Leviticus (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische
bijbelverklaring), Groningen 1937; W.H. Gispen, Het boek Leviticus (COT), Kampen 1950;
R.L. Harris, Leviticus (The Expositors Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI 1990, 500
654; P. Heinisch, Das Buch Leviticus (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes, 1/3), Bonn
1935; A.R.S. Kennedy, Leviticus and Numbers (The Century Bible), London s.d.; W. Kornfeld,
Levitikus (Die Neue Echter Bibel, 6), Wrzburg 1983; B. Maarsingh, Leviticus (POT),
Nijkerk 1974; N. Micklem, The Book of Leviticus (The Interpreters Bible, 2), New York 1953;
D. Monshouwer, Leviticus (Verklaring van een bijbelgedeelte), Kampen, s.d.; A. Noordtzij,
Levitikus (Korte verklaring der heilige Schrift), Kampen 1940; B.A. Levine, Leviticus
(The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary), Philadelphia 1989; M. Noth, Das
dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus (ATD, 6), Gttingen 1962; J.R. Porter, Leviticus (The Cambridge
64 Chapter 2
the Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers tended to

be limited to the verses that had been introduced into the so-called JE seg-
ments of the books in question. Given that JE was traditionally understood
to be older than D, the question of Deuteronom(ist)ic language and theol-
ogy could be solved by the hypothesis of a redactor working under the influ-
ence of D. The problem arises when one encounters material reminiscent of
Deuteronom(ist)ic language and theology in pericopes traditionally consid-
ered to be Priestly. Moreover, since Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen, the Priestly
contribution to the Pentateuch had been taken to be the youngest. The pres-
ence of Deuteronom(ist)ic material in the Priestly passages thus required an
alternative explanation to the appeal to a Deuteronom(ist)ic redactor. The
majority position was that the Priestly authors had familiarised themselves
with the Deuteronom(ist)ic style and language. Some scholars explicitly
referred, for example, to similarities between certain pericopes in the book of
Numbers that were to be ascribed to P and the style and language of D. These
similarities were then explained on the basis of Ps familiarity with the spe-
cific language and theology of D.18 By contrast, a number of authors were more
Bible Commentary), Cambridge 1976; N.H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (The Century
Bible), London 1967; J.G. Vink, Leviticus (BOT), Roermond 1962; G.J. Wenham, The Book
of Leviticus (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament), Grand Rapids,
MI 1979. J.E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC, 4), Dallas, TX 1992, esp. 257 points out that because
the HG [i.e. HeiligkeitsgezetzH.A.] redactors were members of the deuteronomistic
circle, there are many characteristics of the deuteronomistic circle in this corpus. They
took the deuteronomistic legal corpus as a model for assembling these documents into
the Holiness Code. These redactors were in agreement with many of the tenets of the
deuteronomistic movement; nevertheless, they sought to correct prescriptions considered
too radical or inadequately grounded from a theological perspective. (...) So the Holiness
Code both supplemented and modified the legislation of Deuteronomy.
18 See, for example, S. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (AnBib, 50),
Roma 1971, 115 n. 32b: The priestly writer [of Num. 1314*H.A.] might have learned
the technique of montage from Dtr (...), but in applying the technique to the spy-story
he does not seem to be directly influenced by Dtr. Likewise J. De Vaulx, Les Nombres
(SBi), Paris 1972, 383 in connection with Num. 33:5056: Sans recopier aucun texte, il
[i.e. the Priestly authorH.A.] utilise un vocabulaire caractristique du Deutronome
et des rdactions JE. W.H. Schmidt, Exodus (BKAT, 2/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1995, 320 also
appears to share this opinion: Die Priesterschrift selbst scheint nicht nur die Redaktion
(JE), sondern auch das Deuteronomium vorauszusetzen, die von ihm empfangenen
Anregungen selbstndig weiterzudenken und auszugestalten.
inclined to reverse the sequence DP to PD,19 whereby P was once again no

longer considered the youngest tradition in the Pentateuch. This rather mar-
ginal perspective also implied that D was younger than and dependent on the
Priestly literature.20
2 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers in Exegetical

Research from the Beginning of the 20th Century
The survey of scholarly research into the Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in

GenesisNumber presented in this second paragraph is intended in the
first instance as an inventory of the verses that are generally considered
19 Cf. Y. Kaufmann, Probleme der israelitisch-jdischen Religionsgeschichte, ZAW 48 (1930),

2343; 51 (1933) 3547; Idem, The Religion of Israel. From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian
Exile, London 1961, 175200; A. Hurvitz, The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly
Code. A Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology, RB 81 (1974), 2456;
J. Milgrom, Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of Pre-Monarchic
Israel, JQR 69 (1978), 6581; Idem, The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance, RB 82 (1975),
186205; Idem, Numbers, xxxiixxxv; on the other hand, M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy
and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972, 179181 sees D and P as concurrent rather
than successive documents. Reference can also be made in this regard to the vision of
A. Van Hoonacker, De compositione litteraria et de origine Mosaica Hexateuchi disquisitio
historico-critica: Een historisch-kritisch onderzoek van Professor Van Hoonacker naar het
ontstaan van de Hexateuch op grond van verspreide nagelaten aantekeningen samengesteld
en ingeleid door J. Coppens (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor
Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgi. Klasse der Letteren, 11), Brussel
1949, 911: The chronological sequence should be: J, E, P, D (...). A reader familiar with
the most recent critical discoveries will be struck in the first instance by the fact that Van
Hoonacker does not designate the final redaction of the Mosaic books and the book of
Joshua as Priestly but as Deuteronomic. For Van Hoonacker, see P.M. Bogaert, Albin van
Hoonacker, Biographie nationale publi par lAcadmie Royale des sciences, des lettres et
des beaux-arts de Belgique 44 (1985), 633640; J. Coppens, Le chanoine van Hoonacker. Son
enseignement, son uvre et sa mthode exgtiques, Paris 1935; J. Lust, A. Van Hoonacker
and Deuteronomy, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und
Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 1323; J. Lust, A. Van Hoonacker. Bibliography, in
Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, 363368; J. Lust, Hoonacker, Albin van, (18571933),
in: J.H. Hayes (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Vol. 1, Nashville, TN 1999, 508519.
20 See J. Milgrom, Leviticus 116. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 3),
New York 1991, 9: There is not one demonstrable case in which P shows the influence of
D (...). The reverse situation, howeverthat D is dependent on P (and H)is manifest
in many instances.
66 Chapter 2
to be Deuteronom(ist)ic.21 The nature of the argumentation employed to

substantiate the presence of Deuteronom(ist)ic language style and theology in
GenesisNumbers will be explored in paragraph three.
The present paragraph is subject to practical restrictions. An endeavour
has been made to provide as global as possible a picture of the passages in
GenesisNumbers that scholars have associated with the Deuteronom(ist)ic
question in the course of the 20th century. As a primary point of departure, the
most authoritative commentaries available on the books of Genesis, Exodus
and Numbers are presented. In addition, a limited selection of monographs
and articles have been incorporated into the survey. Reference is also made to
a number of introductions to the study of the Pentateuch.22 Given the scope of
the material, it should be evident that what follows is not and does not intend
to be an exhaustive overview of every author who has associated one or other
verse (segment) in GenesisNumbers with a Deuteronom(ist)ic intervention.
I am convinced, nevertheless, that the survey presented in the following pages
certainly charts the most important elements in the Tetrateuch that have been
linked with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
2.1 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in the Book of Genesis
Genesis 2
Gen. 2:49*, 16*, 18*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,

20*, 2225* 390391; 393394; 395399.
21 Given the complexity of the question of the Priestly literature in se, and bearing in mind
that the question of the relationship between D and P tends to occupy a distinct place
in research into the origins of the Pentateuch, the present study will not devote further
attention to the connection between both corpora.
22 Complete references to the commentaries, monographs and articles on which the
present inventory is based can be found in the bibliography at the end of this study. For
the compilation of the survey in relation to the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements
in the book of Exodus, I was given access to the copious notes collected by M. Vervenne
in the course of the 1980s. A question mark (?) indicates that an author only suggests
the possibility that a given verse should be ascribed to a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction.
The question mark is also present where it is not immediately clear whether an author
ascribes a verse to a Deuteronom(ist)ic intervention.
Genesis 3
Gen. 3:13*, 6*, 1114*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,

1719*, 2224* 390397; 405.
Genesis 10
Gen. 10:812, 1619 Witte, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 1998, 301.
Genesis 11
Gen. 11:19* Eerdmans, Genesis, 1908, 90; 93.
Genesis 12
Gen. 12:1* De Fraine, Genesis, 1963, 198.

Gen. 12:23*, 7*, 10* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
392; 403404.
Genesis 13
Gen. 13:1417* De Fraine, Genesis, 1963, 198; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische

Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 403404; Smend, Entstehung,
1984, 65 (?).
Genesis 14
Gen. 14* Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364.

68 Chapter 2
Genesis 15
Gen. 15* Anbar, Genesis 15, 1982, 3955; Berge, Die Zeit des
Jahwisten, 1990, 4042; De Fraine, Genesis, 1963, 198;
Emerton, The Origin of the Promises, 1982, 17; Kaiser,
Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, 1958, 107126;
Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Soggin,
Introduction, 1989, 144145.
Gen. 15:5* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
404.
403; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 71; Procksch, Genesis,
1913, 102105; Skinner, Genesis, 1910, 284 (?).
Gen. 15:1821* Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999,
97; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the
Hexateuch, 1902, 336; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische
Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 403; Holzinger, Genesis, 1898,
xxiv; xxv; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 71; Procksch,
Genesis, 1913, 102105.
Genesis 16
Gen. 16* Eerdmans, Genesis, 1908, 90; 93.

404.
Genesis 18

392.
Gen. 18:1719* Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten, 1990, 301 n. 73; Bhl,
Genesis, 1923, 16; De Fraine, Genesis, 1963, 154155; Fuss,
Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 404;
405; Gautier, Introduction, 1939, 68 n. 1; Gunkel, Genesis,
1901, lxiv; 184187; Gunkel, Die Urgeschichte, 1911, 47; 153;
Genesis 18
Holzinger, Genesis, 1898, xxiv; 154; Kaiser, Grundriss

der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Kilian, Die vorpriesterlichen
Abrahamsberlieferungen, 1966, 106; Procksch, Genesis,
1913, 116117; Scharbert, Genesis, 1986, 149 (?); Simpson,
The Early Traditions, 1948, 76; Skinner, Genesis, 1910, 298;
304306; Smend, Entstehung, 1984, 6465.
390395; 397; Gunkel, Genesis, 1901, lxiv; 184187; Kaiser,
Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Scharbert, Genesis,
1986, 149 (?); Skinner, Genesis, 1910, 298; 304306.
Genesis 19
Gen. 19:129* Eerdmans, Genesis, 1908, 90; 93.
Genesis 21

404.
Genesis 22
Gen. 22:1*, 7*, 11* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,

404405.
Gen. 22:1518* Procksch, Genesis, 1913, 116117; Kaiser,
Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, 1958, 118; Kilian, Die
vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsberlieferungen, 1966, 205; Fuss,
404405; Anbar, Genesis 15, 1982, 43 n. 30; Smend, Entste
hung, 1984, 65 (?); Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992,
6364.
70 Chapter 2
Genesis 24
Gen. 24:1*, 6* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,

403404.
391; 395396; 403; 405; Kilian, Die vorpriesterlichen Abra
hamsberlieferungen, 1966, 205; Perlitt, Bundestheologie,
1969, 67; Procksch, Genesis, 1913, 143.
Gen. 24:1213*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
2627*, 31*, 40*, 4243*, 402405.
48*, 60*
Genesis 26

Gen. 26:1* Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten, 1990, 78; Fuss, Die
deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 392;
Holzinger, Genesis, 1898, xxiv; xxvi; 175.
Gen. 26:3b5* Anbar, Genesis 15, 1982, 43 n. 30; Berge, Die Zeit des
Jahwisten, 1990, 88; 9293; 307 (?); Boecker, Isaak und
Jakob, 1992, 35; Bhl, Genesis, 1923, 16; Carpenter, Harford,
The Composition of the Hexateuch, 1902, 336; Clamer,
Gense, 1953, 349 (?); De Fraine, Genesis, 1963, 198; De Vaux,
Gense, 1953, 122; Driver, Genesis, 1916, 250 (?); Eerdmans,
Genesis, 1908, 74; 90; Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, 1922,
261*; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972, 403; 404; Gautier, Introduction, 1939, 68 n. 1; Gunkel,
Genesis, 1901, lxiv; 275; Gunkel, Die Urgeschichte, 1911, 47;
201; Holzinger, Genesis, 1898, xxiv; xxvi; 175176; Janzen,
Genesis 1250, 1993, 100;
Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Kaiser,
Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, 1958, 118; Kilian, Die
vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsberlieferungen, 1966, 106; 205;
Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 6667; Pfeiffer, Introduction,
1941, 285;
Procksch, Genesis, 1913, 116117; Scharbert, Genesis, 1986,
186; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 92; Skinner,
Genesis 26
Genesis, 1910, 364; Smend, Entstehung, 1984, 65; Vawter,

Genesis, 1977, 291;
Westermann, Genesis, 1981, 518.
404.
403404; Gunkel, Genesis, 1901, 276 (?); Kaiser, Grundriss
der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Scharbert, Genesis, 1986,
188189; Smend, Entstehung, 1984, 65 (?).
Genesis 27
Gen. 27:10*, 2930*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 404.

33*, 41*
Genesis 28

403404.
Gen. 28:19* Scharbert, Genesis, 1986, 199 (?).
Genesis 29
Gen. 29:3233* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 395.
Genesis 31
Gen. 31:5*, 29*, 42*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 403.
53*
72 Chapter 2
Genesis 32
Gen. 32:1013* Boecker, Isaak und Jakob, 1992, 98; Fuss, Die deuterono-
mistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 403404; Smend,
Entstehung, 1984, 65 (?).
Genesis 3750
Gen. 3750 Carasik, A Deuteronomic Voice, 2009, 314.
Genesis 39
Gen. 39:2*.21* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,

391.
Genesis 43

391; 403.
Genesis 45
Gen. 45:19* Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 144 (?).
Genesis 46

403404.
Genesis 48

403404.
Genesis 50

403.
Gen. 50:20* Plger, Deuteronomium, 1967, 12.
Gen. 50:2426* Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 49 n. 80; Blenkinsopp,
Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 92 n. 18 (?); Fuss, Die
deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 392; Kilian,
Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsberlieferungen, 1966, 205;
Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 2930; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969,
67; Procksch, Genesis, 1913, 417; Scharbert, Genesis, 1986,
301; Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1995, 58.
2.2 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in the Book of Exodus
Exodus 1
Exod. 1:68* Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 92 n. 18 (?).

Exod. 1:14* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
392.
Exodus 2
Exod. 2:1416*, 23*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,

25* 391; 393395; 397; 400; 403404.
74 Chapter 2
Exodus 3
Exod. 3:1* Becker, Sinaitheophanie, 1973, 119; Fuss, Die deuteronomis

tische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 390391; 393; 395397;
401; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 18; Schmidt, Exodus, 1988,
136142 (?).
392; 393399; 401405.
Exod. 3:8* Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 97;
Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
391394; 397400; 402403; 405; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900,
xv (?); Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 1920; 37; Kohata, Verzicht
auf die Quellenschriften, 1986, 2021; McNeile, Exodus,
1908, 2 xiii; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Richter,
Die Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964, 41; Schmidt,
Einfhrung, 1995, 58; Schmidt, Exodus, 1988, 136142 (?);
Scharbert, Exodus, 22; Simpson, The Early Traditions,
1948, 163; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 22;
Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose, 1980, 319328; Weimar,
Untersuchungen, 1977, 169; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 48;
Zenger, Le thme de la sortie dgypte, 1989, 325.
Exod. 3:911* 391395; 397399; 401405.
390399; 401402; 405406; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, xv (?).
394395; 397399; 402403; 406.
Exod. 3:1517* Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 97; Fuss,
396399; 402403; 405; McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 xv;
Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Procksch, Das nordhe-
brische Sagenbuch, 1906, 64; Richter, Die Bearbeitungen
des Retterbuches, 1964, 41; Scharbert, Exodus, 24; Schmidt,
Exodus, 1988, 136142 (?); Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1995, 58;
Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 164; Stolz, Jahwes und
Israels Kriege, 1972, 22; Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose,
1980, 319328; Weimar, Untersuchungen, 1977, 169; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 48; Zenger, Le thme de la sortie dgypte,
1989, 325326 n. 77.
Exodus 3

391; 397402; 405; Schmidt, Exodus, 1988, 142143 (?);
Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 54.
391392; 394; 396399; 403; Procksch, Das nordhebrische
Sagenbuch, 1906, 64; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972,
51; Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose, 1980, 319328; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 55; Zenger, Le thme de la sortie dgypte,
1989, 325326 n. 77.
390395; 397; 399; 403; Procksch, Das nordhebrische
Sagenbuch, 1906, 64; Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose, 1980,
319328; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 56.
Exod. 3:2122* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972, 390391; 393394; 396399; 401; 403; Weimar,
Untersuchungen, 1977, 169.
Exodus 4
Exod. 4:16*, 816* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,

390406.
390394; 399; Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch,
1906, 64.
Exod. 4:1820*: Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 393395; 397399; 401403.
Exod. 4:2123* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 3435; Fuss, Die deuteronomis
Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 64.
390395; 397399; 401402; 405406.
392393; 399; 402403; 405; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 323;
Kohata, Verzicht auf die Quellenschriften, 1986, 2021.
76 Chapter 2
Exodus 5

391; 394400; 403; 405406.
Exod. 5:3 Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
391393; 396; 399400; Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose,
1980, 319331; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 67; Zenger, Le thme de
la sortie dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
390404; 406.
390406; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 69.
Exodus 6

390392; 394395; 397399; 403404;
Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 51;
Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose, 1980, 330 n. 45;
Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 70;
Zenger, Le thme de la sortie dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
Exod. 6:6*, 8* Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 2930;37; Kohata, Verzicht auf die
Quellenschriften, 1986, 2021.
Exodus 7
Exod. 7:3* Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 37 (?); Kohata, Verzicht auf die
Quellenschriften, 1986, 2021.
391; 393394; 397; 399; 401; 403405.
Exod. 7:17* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 60 (?); Fuss, Die deuteronomistische
Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 393394; 399; 401; Simpson, The
Early Traditions, 1948, 170 (?).
2329* 390399; 401; 403; 404.
Exodus 8

393; 394; 395; 396; 397; 399; 401; 406.
Exod. 8:6* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 65 (?); Fuss, Die deuteronomis
tische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 394; 396397; 403; 405;
Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 171.
1617* 390391; 393402; 404; 406.
Exod. 8:18* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 68 (?); Fuss, Die deuteronomistische
Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 390391; 393394; 395399; 403;
405.
tische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 392394; 397; 401403.
390391; 393394; 397399; 401; 406.
390391; 393399; 401; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948,
171 (?).
390399; 401; 403404.
Exodus 9

390395; 397399; 401403; 405.
390399; 401; 403405; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948,
171 (?); Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose, 1980, 329; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 272 n. 58; Zenger, Le thme de la sortie
dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
390391; 393394; 396405.
390393; 395; 397; 400; 403; 406; Zenger, Le thme de la
sortie dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
78 Chapter 2
(cont.)
Exodus 9

397398.
401; 403405; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 172 (?);
Weimar, Untersuchungen, 1977, 113114.
392; 397401; 403404.
Exodus 10
Exod. 10:12* Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961, 145; Baentsch,

Exodus, 1900, 7879; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 5455; Bennett,
Exodus, ca 1910, 31; 102; Childs, Exodus, 1974, 142; Fuss, Die
396401; 403; 405; Gressmann, Mose, 1913, 67; Heinisch,
Exodus, 16; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, xvi; 29; Hyatt, Exodus,
1971, 27; 124125; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 120121; 319320;
Kohata, Verzicht auf die Quellenschriften, 1986, 2021;
McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 xvii; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952,
835; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 172 (?); Smend,
Entstehung, 1984, 65 (?); Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 80;
392; 394; 397; 401404; 406; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 105106;
Zenger, Le thme de la sortie dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
390391; 393394; 397399; 403; 405.
Exod. 10:710* Floss, Jahwe dienen, 1975; 221; 520; Fuss, Die deuteronomisti
sche Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 390394; 397401; 403404;
406; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 105106; Zenger, Le thme de la
sortie dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
390391; 394401; 403; 406.
Exodus 10

391397; 404; 406; Weimar, Untersuchungen, 1977, 133;
Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 105106; Zenger, Le thme de la sortie
dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
2829* 390391; 393403.
Exodus 11

391399; 401403.
tische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 394396; 398; 403.
390403; 405.
Exodus 12

390392; 394; 396; 399; 401402; 405.
Exod. 12:2427a* Anderson, Introduction, 1972, 38 n. 1; Auzou, De la
servitude au service, 1961, 169171; Baentsch, Exodus
LeviticusNumeri, 1903, lxv; Baentsch, Exodus, 1900,
100; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 61; Bennett, Exodus, ca 1910,
31; 117; Brown, Exodus, 1928, 77; Burns, Exodus, 1983, 97;
Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch,
1902, 336; Childs, Exodus, 1974, 184; Couroyer, LExode,
1952, 67; Eerdmans, Exodus, 1910, 39; Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-
Synopse, 1922, 270*; Fohrer, Introduction, 1968, 166; Fohrer,
berlieferung und Geschichte, 1964, 87; Fohrer, Werden
und Verstehen, 1986, 57; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische
Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 391; 393394; 397; 404; Gautier,
Introduction, 1939; 68 n. 1; Heinisch, Exodus, 1934, 16; Hyatt,
Exodus, 1971, 27; 48; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 120121;
80 Chapter 2
(cont.)
Exodus 12
Laaf, Die Pascha-Feier, 1970, 21; 126130; 166; McNeile,

Exodus, 1908, 2 xix; Michali, LExode, 1974, 107 (?); Noth,
Exodus, 1959, 72; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948, 32
n. 106; Oesterley, Robinson, Introduction, 1935, 37; 48 n. 1;
Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Plastaras, Exodus, 1966,
158; Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 7677;
Rudolph, Der Elohist, 1938, 24; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952,
835; Schreiner, Exodus 12,2123, 1977, 75; Simpson, The
Early Traditions, 1948, 181; Smend, Die Entstehung, 1984,
65; Smend, Die Erzhlung des Hexateuch, 1912, 134; Soggin,
Kulttiologische Sagen, 1960, 342; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966,
83; 93; Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 113;
Vriezen, Van der Woude, Oud-Isralitische en vroeg-joodse
literatuur, 2000, 184. Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose, 1980,
323; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 128; Zenger, Le thme de la sortie
dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
Exod. 12:29* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 103 (?); Fuss, Die deuterono-
mistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 390391; 394; 396;
398399.
390398; 402403; 406.
390391; 393; 395399; 401; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285;
396; 399.
393394; 403; Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch,
1906, 76.
392393; 395; 397; 403.
390392; 394395; 397400; 402; Zenger, Exodus, 128.
Exodus 13
Exod. 13:116* Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 49 n. 80; Anderson, Introduction,

1972, 38 n. 1; Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961,
173177; Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903,
lxv; Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 109; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 61;
Bennett, Exodus, ca 1910, 31; 122124; Bennett, Introduction,
1899, 65; Bentzen, Introduction, 1948, 40; Blenkinsopp,
Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 97; Burns, Exodus,
1983, 102; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the
Hexateuch, 1902, 516; Childs, Exodus, 1974, 184; 195; Clamer,
Exode, 1956, 135; Couroyer, LExode, 1952, 7071; Eerdmans
Exodus, 1910, 39; Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, 1922, 270*;
Fensham, Exodus, 1970, 55; Floss, Jahwe dienen, 1975, 56;
Fohrer, Introduction, 1968, 166; Fohrer, berlieferung und
Geschichte, 1964, 8687; 125; Fohrer, Werden und Verstehen,
1986, 57; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972, 391392; Gautier, Introduction, 1939; 68 n. 1;
Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit, 1913, 98; 102; Heinisch,
Exodus, 1934, 16; Hoftijzer, Die Verheissungen, 1956, 32
n. 6; Houston, Exodus, 2001, 76 (?); Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27;
48; 142143; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 1920; 2930; 120121;
274275; Laaf, Die Pascha-Feier, 1970, 29; 76; McNeile,
Exodus, 1908, 2 xix; Michali, LExode, 1974, 111 (?);
Noth, Exodus, 1959, 72; 79; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte,
1948, 32 n. 106; Oesterley, Robinson, Introduction, 1935,
48 n. 1; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 65; 227228 n. 5;
Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Plastaras, Exodus, 1966,
153160; Plger, Deuteronomium, 1967, 7177; Procksch,
Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 76; Richter, Die
Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964, 41; Rudolph,
Der Elohist, 1938, 27; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835;
Scharbert, Exodus, 56; Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1995, 58;
Schreiner, Exodus 12,2123, 1977, 75; Seitz, Deuteronomium,
1971, 9899 (?); Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 181;
415416; Smend, Die Entstehung, 1984, 6566; Smend, Die
Erzhlung des Hexateuch, 1912, 134; Soggin, Kulttiologische
Sagen, 1960, 342; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972,
82 Chapter 2
(cont.)
Exodus 13
22; 51; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 83; 9697; Vriezen, Van

der Woude, Oudisralitische en vroegjoodse literatuur,
2000, 183; Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 113;
Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 134136; Zenger, Le thme de la sortie
dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
390392; 397399; 403404.
Exod. 13:19* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972,391394; 396397; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1984, 105.
393; 395396; 398; 402; 405; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 294 (?).
Exodus 14
Exod. 14:3*, 5, 12* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,

390405.
390391; 393394; 397399; 403404; Stolz, Jahwes und
Israels Kriege, 1972, 9496 (?).
395; 397; 400; 402; 404405.
390391; 398399; 402; 405; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 144145.
394; 398399.
390395; 397398; 402403; 405; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 287
(?); Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 51; 9697 (?).
393; 395396; 398; 403.
Exod. 14:28* Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 9697 (?).
393394; 398399; 403.
Exodus 14
Exod. 14:31* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 127 (?); Floss, Jahwe dienen, 1975, 47
(?); Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 393394; 398399; 403405; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986,
294295 (?); McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 xxi; Simpson, The
Early Traditions, 1948, 181182; 186; Smend, Die Erzhlung
des Hexateuch, 1912, 137138; Smend, Entstehung, 1984, 66;
Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 9697 (?).
Exodus 15
Exod. 15:119* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 128137; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12;
7882; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 416 (?).
391; 393; 398399; 402404.
Exod. 15:25b26* Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961, 221; Baentsch,
Exodus, 1900, 140143; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 8586; Brown,
Exodus, 1928, 80; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of
the Hexateuch, 1902, 336; 404; Childs, Exodus, 1974, 267;
Clamer, Exode, 1956, 153; Coats, Rebellion, 1968, 49; Cole,
Exodus, 1973, 129; Durham, Exodus, 1987, 212; Eissfeldt,
Hexateuch-Synopse, 1922, 271*; Fritz, Israel in der Wste,
1972, 390392; 394400; 402; 404405; Gautier,
Introduction, 1939; 68 n. 1; Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit,
1913, 121 n. 1; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, xvii (?); Hossfeld, Der
Dekalog, 1982, 187; Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; 49; 171172; Jaro,
Die Stellung des Elohisten, 1974, 61; McNeile, Exodus, 1908,
2 xxix; Michali, LExode, 1974, 141 (?); Noth, Exodus, 1959,
102; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948, 32 n. 108;
Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 268269; Pfeiffer,
Introduction, 1941, 285; Procksch, Das nordhebrische
Sagenbuch, 1906, 80; Ruprecht, Stellung und Bedeutung,
1974, 299301; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835; Scharbert,
Exodus, 56; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 188; Te
Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 117118; Vriezen, Van der Woude,
84 Chapter 2
(cont.)
Exodus 15
Oudisralitische en vroegjoodse literatuur, 2000, 183;

Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 113; Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 1972, 335 (?);
393; 397; 398; 402.
Exodus 16

392394; 397; 403404.
Exod. 16:4*, 5* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 147; Coats, Rebellion, 1968, 8384;
390394; 397399; 402; 404; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 37;
Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948, 32 n. 109; Procksch,
Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 82; Ruprecht,
Stellung und Bedeutung, 1974, 299301; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 188; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 120; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 163.
Exod. 16:15*, 22*, 2526* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 394; 397398; 402; 404.
Exod. 16:2730* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 154155; Coats, Rebellion, 1968,
8687; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972, 390399; 404; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 37; Noth,
Exodus, 1959, 108; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948,
32 n. 9; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Procksch, Das
nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 82; Ruprecht, Stellung
und Bedeutung, 1974, 274; 298301; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 189; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 123; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 163.
Exod. 16:3132* Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 37; Ruprecht, Stellung und
Bedeutung, 1974, 276; 298301.
398399; 403.
Exodus 17
Exod. 17:12* Coats, Rebellion, 1968, 55; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische

Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 394398; 402; 404; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 176.
392393; 403404.
Exod. 17:47* Becker, Sinaitheophanie, 1973, 119; Childs, Exodus, 1974, 306;
Coats, Rebellion, 1968, 55; Fritz, Israel in der Wste, 1970,
12; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 393400; 402404; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 18; Noth,
Exodus, 1952, 111; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948, 32
n. 111; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 176177.
Exodus, 1900, 161162; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 9192;
Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 92 n. 18
(?); Childs, Exodus, 1974, 313; Fuss, Die deuteronomis
404405; Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; Procksch, Das nordhe-
brische Sagenbuch, 1906, 84; Rudolph, Der Elohist, 1938,
37; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 193; Smend, Die Erzhlung des Hexateuch,
1912, 147; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 180.
Exodus 18
Exod. 18:1326* Carasik, A Deuteronomic Voice, 2009, 5 n. 9; Scharbert,

Exodus, 77; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 188189.
Exodus 19
Exod. 19:38* Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961, 246 n. 1; Baentsch,

ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903, lxv; Baentsch, Exodus,
1900, 170173; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 96; Blenkinsopp,
Introduction, 1992, 187188; Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic
Contribution, 1999, 8791; Brown, Exodus, 1928, 83;
Rudolph, Der Elohist, 1938, 40; Burns, Exodus, 1983, 145;
86 Chapter 2
(cont.)
Exodus 19
Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch,

1902, 198; Childs, Exodus, 1974, 360361; Cole, Exodus,
1973, 144; Couroyer, LExode, 1952, 93; Dohmen, Der
Sinaibund, 1993, 83; Eerdmans, Exodus, 1910, 39; 64;
Gautier, Introduction, 1939; 68 n. 1; Graupner, Ihr sollt
mir ein Knigreich, 2007, 4445; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900,
64; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog, 1982, 185188; Hyatt, Exodus,
1971, 27; 200; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1978, 6869; Kaiser,
Einleitung, 1984, 76; Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992,
6364; McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 xxxvii; 110; Nicholson,
Exodus and Sinai, 1973, 3031; 64 n. 27; Nicholson,
God and His People, 1986, 174; Noth, Exodus, 1959, 157;
Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948, 33 n. 112; Perlitt,
Bundestheologie, 1969, 167181; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941,
285; Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 85;
Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835; Seebass, Mose und Aaron,
1962, 101; 109; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 199; Ska,
Exod. 19,38, 1993, 311; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 142143;
Vriezen, Van der Woude, Oudisralitische en vroegjoodse
literatuur, 2000, 183; Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral,
1961, 113114; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 191; 283 n. 103; Zenger,
Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165; 207.
Exod. 19:18* Becker, Sinaitheophanie, 1973, 118.
Exod. 19:2025* Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961, 246 n. 1; Procksch,
Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 85; Zenger,
Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 210; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 202.
Exodus 2023
Exod. 20:117* Auzou, De la servitude au sevice, 1961, 284287; Baentsch,

Exodus, 1900, 178184; Becker, Sinaitheophanie, 1973, 119;
Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 98102 (?); Bennett, Exodus, ca
1910, 32; 163; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the
Hexateuch, 1902, 224225; 336; 517; Driver, Exodus, 1911,
xvii; 191201; Eerdmans, Exodus, 1910, 131; Eissfeldt,
Exodus 2023
Hexateuch-Synopse, 1922, 273*; Floss, Jahwe dienen, 1975,

56; 254; Fohrer, Introduction, 1968, 166; Fohrer, Werden
und Verstehen, 1986, 57; Gautier, Introduction, 1939; 68
n. 1; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, 70; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog,
1982, 283; Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1978,
6869; Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364;
McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 lix; Noth, Exodus, 1959, 130131;
Oesterley, Robinson, Introduction, 1935, 48 n. 1; Otto,
Das Mazzotfest, 1975, 255; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969,
77102; Richter, Die Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964,
59 n. 179; Rcker, Die Begrndungen, 1973, 105107; 145
n. 523; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 203; Smend, Entstehung, 1984, 108;
Soggin, Introduction, 1989, 145; Weimar, Untersuchungen,
1977, 169; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School, 1972, 318; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 164; 210211;
Zenger, Exodus, 1978; 202.
Exod. 20:1821* Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 1992, 189; Dohmen, Der
Sinaibund, 1993, 83; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165;
212213; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 216.
Exod. 20:2223:12* Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 83; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1984,
76; Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Scharbert,
Exodus, 1989, 79; Smend, Die Erzhlung des Hexateuch,
1912, 182; Weimar, Untersuchungen, 1977, 169.
Exod. 20:22*, 23* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 185187; Blenkinsopp,
Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 9495; Gautier,
Introduction, 1939; 68 n. 1; Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; 225;
Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927, 71; Zenger,
Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 213; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 217.
Exod. 20:2426* Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 213.
Exod. 21:1* Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 218; 227.
Exod. 21:26* Auzou, La tradition biblique, 1957, 184 n. 2.
Exod. 21:6* Smend, Die Erzhlung des Hexateuch, 1912, 183.
Exod. 21:16 Auzou, La tradition biblique, 1957, 184 n. 2.
Exod. 22:1920* Auzou, La tradition biblique, 1957, 184 n. 2; Baentsch,
Exodus, 1900, 185; 201202; Bentzen, Introduction, 1948,
40; Couroyer, LExode, 1952, 108; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900,
92; Otto, Wandel der Rechtsbegrndungen, 1988, 5; Pfeiffer,
88 Chapter 2
(cont.)
Exodus 2023

Exodus, 1900, 185; 202203; Bentzen, Introduction, 1948,
40; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch,
1902, 336; Gautier, Introduction, 1939; 68 n. 1; Holzinger,
Exodus, 1900, 92; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog, 1982, 178 (?); Hyatt,
Exodus, 1971, pp.218; 242; McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 xxix;
Otto, Wandel der Rechtsbegrndungen, 1988, 5; Pfeiffer,
Exodus, 1900, 205.
Exod. 23:9* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 185; 206; Bentzen, Introduction,
1948, 40; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the
Hexateuch, 1902, 336; Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 218; 246; McNeile,
Exodus, 1908, 2 xxix; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 225.
Exod. 23:10* Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927, 58; 92.
Exod. 23:1112* Bentzen, Introduction, 1948, 40; Gautier, Introduction,
1939; 68 n. 1; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, 96; Morgenstern, The
Oldest Document, 1927, 58; 93.
Exod. 23:13* Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch,
1902, 336; Eerdmans, Exodus, 1910, 94; McNeile, Exodus,
1908, 2 xxix; Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927,
58; 7071.
Exod. 23:15* Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch,
1902, 336 (?); Horn, Traditionsschichten 1971, 210;
Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927, 7478.
Exod. 23:17*, 19* Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927, 6061.
Exod. 23:2033* Achenbach, Israel, 1991, 268269; Auzou, De la servitude
au service, 1961, 262; Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 209210; Beer,
Exodus, 1939, 121; Bennett, Exodus, ca 1910, 32; Blenkinsopp,
Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 9497; Brown, Exodus,
1928, 90; Cazelles, Histoire, 1991, 56; Childs, Exodus, 1974,
460461; Cole, Exodus, 1973, 181; Cornill, Einleitung, 1913,
7475; Eerdmans, Exodus, 1910, 97; Fensham, Exodus, 1970,
Exodus 2023
178; Floss, Jahwe dienen, 1975; 247277; Gressmann, Mose

und seine Zeit, 1913, p.239; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, 102 (?);
Horn, Traditionsschichten 1971, 203222; Hyatt, Exodus,
1971, 250251; McNeile, Exodus, 1908, vi; Morgenstern,
The Book of the Covenant, 1928, 4; Noth, Exodus, 1959,
140; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 157 n. 6; Pfeiffer,
Introduction, 1941, 285; Plastaras, Exodus, 1966, 262 n. 12;
Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 165;
Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835; Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1995,
58; Seitz, Deuteronomium, 1971, 7778; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 218; Smend, Die Erzhlung des Hexateuch,
1912, 175 n. 2; Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 1912, 157; Stolz, Jahwes
und Israels Kriege, 1972, 7576; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966,
180; Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 113; Vriezen,
Van der Woude, Oudisralitische en vroegjoodse liter-
atuur, 2000, 184; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 164165;
Westermann, Genesis, 1981, 472.
Exodus 24
Exod. 24:12* Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 215; Zenger, Exodus, 1978,

218.
Exod. 24:38* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 214 (?); Blenkinsopp, Introduction,
1992, 190192; Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 83; Holzinger,
Exodus, 1900, xviii; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog, 1982, 191194;
Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; 49; 253257; Kaiser, Einleitung,
1978, 6869; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1984, 76; Kaiser, Grundriss
der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Nicholson, Exodus and
Sinai, 1973, 7177; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 191202;
Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book?, 124; Smend,
Die Entstehung, 1984, 67; Smend, Entstehung, 1978, 67;
Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 113115; Vriezen,
Van der Woude, Oudisralitische en vroegjoodse literatuur,
2000, 184; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 218220; 286 n. 114; Zenger,
90 Chapter 2
(cont.)
Exodus 24
Exod. 24:12* Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903, lxv (?);

Eissfeldt, Die Komposition der Sinai-Erzhlung, 1966, 10 (?).
396.
Exodus 32
Exod. 32* Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 1992, 192; Blenkinsopp,

Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 102108 (?); Childs,
Exodus, 1974, 610; Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 83;
Hoffmann, Reform, 1980, 307308; Hossfeld, Der
Dekalog, 1982, 283; Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992,
6364; Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai, 1973, 75; Perlitt,
Bundestheologie, 1969, 207228; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie,
1971, 165.
Exod. 32:4* Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 74; Seebass, Mose und
Aaron, 1962, 38; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 219; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 227228; 288 n. 117.
Exod. 32:56 Zenger, Exodus, 227; 288 (?); 288 n. 117.
Exod. 32:714 Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 43 n. 30; Anderson, Introduction,
1972, 38 n. 1; Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999,
104107 (?); Burns, Exodus, 1983, 166167; Childs, Exodus,
1974, 558559; Coats, Rebellion, 1968, 147; 186; Davenport,
A Study of the Golden Calph, 1973, 3336; 180182(?);
Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte, 1972, 96; Dohmen,
Der Sinaibund, 1993, 74; Donner, Josephsgeschichte,
1976, 35 n. 65; Durham, Exodus, 1987, 427 (?); Fuss, Die
Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, 108 (?); Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27;
49; 301; 306; Jaro, Die Stellung des Elohisten, 1974, 374375;
Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 2930; McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2
xxxvii; Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai, 1973, 75 n. 49; Noth,
Exodus, 1959, 200; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948,
33 n. 113; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 65; 203216; Pfeiffer,
Exodus 32

Sagenbuch, 1906, 90; Scharbert, Exodus, 1989, 122; Schmidt,
De Deo, 1976, 137 n. 26; Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1995, 58;
Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962, 38; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 208; Smend, Die Entstehung, 1984, 68;
Smend, Entstehung, 1978, 68; Weimar, Das goldene Kalb,
1987, 124125; 151155; Weimar, Untersuchungen, 1977,
83; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 229230; 287 n. 117; Zenger,
Exod. 32:19* Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962, 38; Perlitt, Bundestheologie,
1969, 215 n. 5.
Exod. 32:2024* Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 74; Pfeiffer, Introduction,
1941, 285; Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962, 38.
Exod. 32:2527* Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285.
Exod. 32:3034* Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 74; Otto, Wandel der
Rechtsbegrndungen, 1988, 5; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 209;
Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Procksch, Das nordhe-
brische Sagenbuch, 1906, 90; Westermann, Genesis, 1981,
472.
392; Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962, 38; Zenger, Exodus, 235.
Exod. 32:40* Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285.
Exodus 33
Exod. 33* Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 83; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog,
1982, 283; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 215; Zenger,
Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165.
Exod. 33:16* Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 49 n. 80; Becker, Sinaitheophanie,
1973, 119; Bentzen, Introduction, 1948, 40; Blenkinsopp,
Introduction, 1992, 195; Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic
Contribution, 1999, 97; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition
of the Hexateuch, 1902, 517; Donner, Josephsgeschichte, 1976,
35 n. 65; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972, 392393; 395; 397398; 403; Gautier, Introduction,
1939; 68 n. 1; Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1978,
92 Chapter 2
(cont.)
Exodus 33
6869 (?); Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 1820; 2930; Noth,

Exodus, 1959, 208209; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte,
1948, 33 n. 114; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 6465; 80;
213; 215 n. 9; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Richter,
Die Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964, 41; Rudolph,
Der Elohist, 1938, 54; Scharbert, Exodus, 1989, 125; Schmidt,
Einfhrung, 1995, 58; Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962,
47; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 22; Vriezen,
De literatuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 115; Westermann,
Genesis, 1981, 472; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 223224;
Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 237; 289 n. 129.
Exod. 33:11* Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 216.
Exod. 33:1523* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 279 (?); Becker, Sinaitheophanie,
1973, 119; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 215 n. 5; Zenger,
Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 225226; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 239;
290 n. 129.
Exodus 34
Exod. 34* Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 1992, 193; Childs, Exodus,

1974, 610; Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 83; Horn,
Traditionsschichten, 1971, 216; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog,
1982, 283; Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927,
58; Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai, 1973, 7577; Perlitt,
Bundestheologie, 1969, 205; Schmitt, Du sollst keinen
Frieden schliessen, 1970, 24; Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962,
4650; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165; Zenger, Exodus,
1978, 243244.
Exod. 34:1* Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 74; McNeile, Exodus, 1908,
2 xxxiv; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 212213; Rylaarsdam,
Exodus, 1952, 1077; Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962, 47;
Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165; 226.
Exodus 34
Exod. 34:45* Becker, Sinaitheophanie, 1973, 119; Dohmen, Der Sinaibund,

1972, 405; McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 xxxiv; Perlitt,
Bundestheologie, 212213; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 1077;
Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165; 227.
ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903, lxv; Baentsch, Exodus,
1900, 281285; Becker, Sinaitheophanie, 1973, 119; Beer,
Exodus, 1939, 1213; 158163; Bentzen, Introduction,
1948, 40; Beyerlin, Sinaitraditionen, 1961, 100 n. 1 (?);
Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 108111;
Burns, Exodus, 1983, 176; Carpenter, Harford, The
Composition of the Hexateuch, 1902, 336; 517; Childs,
Exodus, 1974, 608; 615; Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 74;
Eerdmans, Exodus, 1910, 91; Fensham, Exodus, 1970, 231;
391; Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 1975, 162169; 197;
256; Hoffmann, Reform, 1980, 341; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900,
117; Horn, Traditionsschichten, 1971; 219220; Houston,
Exodus, 2001, 90 (?); Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; Jaro, Die
Stellung des Elohisten, 1974, 28; 166; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1978,
6869 (?); Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364;
Kosmala, The So-Called Ritual Decalogue, 1962, 34; Laaf,
Die Pascha-Feier, 1970, 4344; 50; McNeile, Exodus, 1908,
2 xxix; Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927, 23;
58; 60; Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai, 1973, 76; Nicholson,
God and His People, 1986, 149; Noth, Exodus, 1959, 215216;
218; Otto, Das Mazzotfest, 1975, 208211; 246247; Perlitt,
Bundestheologie, 1969, 205206; 211; 214216; 219220;
223232; 254255; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 221225; 285;
Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 87; Richter,
Die Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964, 41; 59 n. 179;
Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835; Scharbert, Exodus, 1989,
129; Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1995, 58; Schmitt, Der Landtag
von Sichem, 1964, 97; Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden
schliessen, 1970, 2430; Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962, 47;
94 Chapter 2
(cont.)
Exodus 34
Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 4344; 215 (?); Smend,

Erzhlung, 1912, 172; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972,
22; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 233234; Vriezen, De lite
ratuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 113; Vriezen, Van der Woude,
Oudisralitische literatuur, 2000, 184; Zenger, Exodus, 1978,
250; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165; 228230.
2.3 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in the Book of Numbers
Numbers 10
Num. 10:33* Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903, lxv;

Baentsch, Numeri, 1903, 501; Holzinger, Numeri, 1903, xv
(?); Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 241; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 222.
Num. 10:35* Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 71 (?).
Numbers 11
Num. 11:46* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,

404.
Num. 11:12* Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 49 n. 80; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986,
2930; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 6465; Seebass,
Numeri, 1993, 3839; 50.
Num. 11:14.16* Smend, Die Erzhlung, 1912, 190 (?).
Num. 11:21* Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 76.
Num. 11:30* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
398.
Numbers 12
Num. 12:78* Perlitt, Mose, 1971, 592596.
Numbers 13
Num. 13:2223*, 2629* Artus, tudes, 1997, 252 (?).
Numbers 14
Num. 14:610* Artus, tudes, 1997, 252 (?).

Num. 14:8* Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 37 (?); Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1989, 55.
Num. 14:1126* Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 49 n. 80; Artus, tudes, 1997, 253
(?); Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903, 532;
Budd, Numbers, 1984, 152; 162; Coats, Rebellion, 1986, 147;
Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 2930; 37; Noth, Numeri, 1966, 96;
Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 6465; 215216; Pfeiffer,
Sagenbuch, 1906, 105; Schmidt, De Deo, 1976, 137 n. 26;
Seebass, Numeri, 1995, 117; Simpson, The Early Traditions,
1948, 233236; 416; Smend, Die Entstehung, 1978, 68.
Num. 14:30* De Vaulx, Nombres, 1972, 174.
Num. 14:38* Artus, tudes, 1997, 252 (?).
Baentsch, Numeri, 1903, 532; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941,
285; Seebass, Numeri, 1995, 125126; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 235236; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege,
1972, 71 (?).
Numbers 18
Num. 18:2024* Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 215 n. 5.

96 Chapter 2
Numbers 20
Num. 20:89*,11* Artus, tudes, 1997, 242; 253 ( ?)

Num. 20:16* Westermann, Genesis, 1981, 472.
Num. 20:20* Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 249; 415 (?).
Numbers 21
Num. 21:49* Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364.

Num. 21:3235* Anderson, Introduction, 1972, 38 n. 1; Ashley, Numbers,
1993, 429; Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903,
lxv; Baentsch, Numeri, 1903, 588; Bentzen, Introduction,
1948, 40; Binns, Numbers, 1927, xxii; xxxiv; 148; Budd,
Numbers, 1984, 247; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition
of the Hexateuch, 1902, 337; De Vaulx, Nombres, 1972, 249;
Drubbel, Numeri, 1963, 110 (?); Gautier, Introduction, 1939;
68 n. 1; Gispen, Numeri, 1964, 55 (?); Gray, Numbers, 1903,
306 (?); Heinisch, Numeri, 1936, 14; Holzinger, Numeri, 1903,
xvi; 91 (?); Kennedy, Leviticus and Numbers, ca 1910, 32;
315; Krmer, Numeri und Deuteronomium, 1955, 136; Marsh,
Butzer, Numbers, 1953, 137; 247; McNeile, Numbers, 1911,
xiii; 122123; Noth, Num. 21, 1940/41, 162; Noth, Numeri,
1966, 11; 145; Oesterley, Robinson, Introduction, 1935, 48
n. 1; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Procksch, Das nord
hebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 110; Rudolph, Der Elohist,
1938, 97; Scharbert, Numeri, 1992, 87; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 257; 415; Seebass, Numeri, 2002, 362;
Smend, Die Erzhlung, 1912, 211; 214; Snaith, Leviticus and
Numbers, 1967, 10 (?); Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972,
7475; Sturdy, Numbers, 1976, 155156.
Numbers 25
Num. 25:3* Richter, Die Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964, 56

n. 161.
Numbers 27
Num. 27:1523* Noth, Numeri, 1966, 12; 185 (?).
Numbers 32
Num. 32* Binns, Numbers, 1927, xxii; 208216.

Num. 32:515* Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 49 n. 80; Binns, Numbers, 1927,
xxii; 210; Budd, Numbers, 1984, 342; De Vaulx, Nombres,
1972, 369; Gray, Numbers, 1903, 430 (?); Holzinger,
Numeri, 1903, 153; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 2930; Marsh,
Butzer, Numbers, 1953, 137; 289290; Noth, Numeri, 1966,
206; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 6465; Procksch,
Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 119; Richter, Die
Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964, 56 n. 161; Scharbert,
Numeri, 1992, 126.
Num. 32:17* Holzinger, Numeri, 1903, xvii (?).
Num. 32:2023* Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Richter, Die Bearbeitungen
des Retterbuches, 1964, 56 n. 161.
Num. 32:2527* Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285.
Baentsch, Numeri, 1903, 669; Bentzen, Introduction, 1948,
40; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285.
Baentsch, Numeri, 1903, 670; Bentzen, Introduction, 1948,
40; Budd, Numbers, 1984, 342; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285.
Numbers 3335
Num. 33:89* Plger, Deuteronomium, 1967, 15 (?).

Num. 33:3033* Smend, Die Erzhlung, 1912, 216 n. 2.
Num. 33:5056* Ashley, Numbers, 1993, 634 (?); Auld, Joshua, Moses and the
Land, 1980, 7475; 81; Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961,
262; Binns, Numbers, 1927, xxxviii; Budd, Numbers, 1984,
359; Marsh, Butzer, Numbers, 1953, 137; 298; Noth, Numeri,
1966, 12; 214; Scharbert, Numeri, 1992, 132133.
98 Chapter 2
(cont.)
Numbers 3335
Num. 33:5035:34* Noth, Numeri, 1966, 12.

Num. 34:12* Auld, Joshua, Moses and the Land, 1980, 81.
Num. 34:1315* Noth, Numeri, 1966, 12; 214.
3 The Absence of Solid Argumentation on the Deuteronom(ist)ic

Character of Passages in GenesisNumbers
From the beginning of the 20th century, and in the wake of what had become
the classical Documentary Hypothesis, scholars accounted for the presence
of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the Tetrateuch more or less continuously
and with a considerable degree of self-evidence. For the books of Genesis and
Numbers their number is relatively limited when compared with the book of
Exodus. Many authors appear to consider it sufficient to simply observe that
a given verse should (probably) be ascribed to a Deuteronom(ist)ic rework-
ing. While most align themselves in one way or another with the classical
Documentary Hypothesis, it is striking that only sporadic mention is made of
the works of pioneers such as Kuenen and Wellhausen.23 The same is true for
Holzinger and Driver, who tabulated what they considered to be the typical fea-
tures of Deuteronomic literature. It would appear that these important figures,
who were responsible for the breakthrough of the Documentary Hypothesis
and tended to be somewhat reserved on the presence of Deuteronom(ist)ic
elements in the Tetrateuch, have been forgotten by their successors. It was
only with the emergence of the hypothesis that several of the passages in ques-
tion in fact represented a sort of overture to the Deuteronomic language and
ideasthe JE passages as proto-Deuteronomic texts, that the insights that
were present in essence in the work of Wellhausen, Kuenen, Holzinger and
Driver acquired new life.
In addition to the authors who offer no argumentation whatsoever for
ascribing Deuteronom(ist)ic influence to a verse or pericope, several exegetes
limit themselves to a reference to passages related thereto. The references in
23 Even Colenso, who considered the Deuteronomist responsible for a very extensive number
of verses and tried, in addition, to substantiate this attribution to the Deuteronomist with
arguments, is only very occasionally referred to.
question tend for the most part to relate to vocabulary, pointingin an often
arbitrary fashionto Deuteronomy, Joshua2 Kings and, albeit to a much
lesser extent, to the passages considered Deuteronomisticespecially after
Bernhard Duhms commentaryin the book of Jeremiah.24 It is also significant,
particularly with respect to the book of Exodus, that reference is often made
to other passages in the same book that are also characterised as Deuterono
m(ist)ic, thus multiplying the presence of circular reasoning. A detailed study
of the vocabulary and the way in which it is used in a specific context, however,
has not been forthcoming.
Frequent reference is also made to the thematic and content-related depen-
dence of verses from GenesisNumbers on Deuteronomy and related litera-
ture. The combination of the oath motif with the theme of the fathers, for
example, appears to have been a favourite topic in the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature.25 It is striking in this regard that descriptions are rarely given of
what we should understand to be characteristic of Deuteronom(ist)ic theol-
ogy. In the same context, it is particularly strikingat least in literature after
1972that little if any reference is made to the study of Moshe Weinfeld, who,
in line with Holzinger and Driver, endeavoured to inventory a number of char-
acteristic features of Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.26 This implies that authors
have rarely been concerned with the provision of solid arguments in support
of characterising a text as Deuteronom(ist)ic.
24 B. Duhm, Jeremia (KHCAT), Tbingen 1901.

25 Cf., for example, L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT, 36), Neukirchen
1969, 65 n. 1. Reference can be made in this regard to the contribution of M. Carasik, A
Deuteronomic Voice in the Joseph Story, in: N.S. Fox et al. (eds), Mishneh Todah: Studies
in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, Winona Lake, IN
2009, 314. Carasik argues that the Joseph story in Gen. 3750 is not only characterised
by Deuteronom(ist)ic language, but also by a particular deuteronomic attitude that (it
seems to me) has been neglected as a tool for discovering deuteronomic influence in
other books of the BibleDeuteronomys psychological orientation (5). Carasik even
speaks of a psychological obsession that distinguishes the Deuteronomist from the other
authors of the Pentateuch (8), one that expresses itself in a particular interest in what
Israel thinks and feels: Unlike the authors of the rest of Genesis, unlike the author of
the exodus story, the author of Genesis 3750 shares with the Deuteronomist an interest
in the life of the mind (12). See also M. Carasik, Theologies of the Mind in Biblical Israel
(Studies in Biblical Literature, 85), New York 2005, 177215.
26 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 320365. See on Weinfeld:
Z. Weisman, Prof. Moshe Weinfelds Contribution to Biblical Scholarship: An Apprecia-
tion, in: C. Cohen et al. (eds), Sefer MosheThe Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume: Studies in
the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran and Post-Biblical Judaism, Winona Lake, IN
2004, xiixviii.
100 Chapter 2
The same lack of substantiated argumentation is evident with respect to

the style features of a pericope. Indeed, pericopes are often characterized as
exhibiting Deuteronom(ist)ic style, but only rarely do we find further specifi-
cation of what exactly this Deuteronom(ist)ic style might imply.27 The major-
ity of scholars limit themselves to the observation that so-called parenesis is
a characteristic Deuteronom(ist)ic style feature. A linguistic study that allows
us to determine the typically Deuteronom(ist)ic style features of the passages
in question, however, is not presently available. These general remarks con-
cerning the Deuteronomistic character of verses in GenesisNumbers will be
further concretised in the following paragraph on the basis of a discussion
of the way in which Exod. 23:2033, the epilogue of the so-called Book of the
Covenant, came to be associated with a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction.
4 Exod. 23:2033 as a Deuteronom(ist)ic Composition
Based on a number of literary criteria, historical-critical analysis has consis-

tently associated Exod. 23:2033 with a complex history of development.28
27 Even where an endeavour is made to specify what is meant by this parenetic

Deuteronom(ist)ic style, the discussion tends to remain somewhat shallow. With respect
to Exod. 19:46, for example, see J. Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution to the
Narrative in GenesisNumbers: A Test Case, in: L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those
Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield
1999, 84115, esp. 87: The address follows the familiar pattern of Deuteronomic parenesis:
appeal to collective experience, immediate or vicarious, followed by the promise of a
special relationship contingent on obedience and covenant-keeping.
The arbitrary character of the prevailing argumentation with respect to style is evident
in the variety of perspectives on the Numeruswechsel. The Numeruswechsel in Exod. 12:24
27a, for example, is seen by G. Auzou, De la servitude au service (Connaissance de la Bible,
3), Paris 1961, 169171 as a typical characteristic of Deuteronom(ist)ic style. M. Noth, Das
zweite Buch Mose. Exodus bersetzt und erklrt (ATD, 5), Gttingen 1959, 76, which ascribes
this pericope to a Deuteronomistic intervention, considers the Numeruswechsel as an
indication of several (Deuteronomistic) reworkings that he claims made a contribution
to the materialisation of this passage. As a result, the Numeruswechsel in Noths view
cannot be seen as a carefully considered procedure on the part of the Deuteronomistic
redaction.
28 See, in particular, the analyses of B. Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch Ex. xx,22xxiii,33: Seine
ursprngliche Gestalt, sein Verhltnis zu den es umgebenden Quellenschriften und seine
Stellung in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung, Halle 1892; G. Schmitt, Du sollst keinen
Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die Weisungen gegen die Kanaaner
in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung (BWANT, 91), Stuttgart 1970; J.P. Floss,
Jahwe dienenGttern dienen: Terminologische und semantische Untersuchung einer
At the same time, almost every scholar who has explored this epilogue
to the Book of the Covenant has drawn attention to its relationship
with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. It is significant in this regard that
Exod. 23:2033, at least in part, tends, almost unquestioningly, to be consid-
ered Deuteronom(ist)ic, without the provision of substantial arguments
in support of such a claim. Throughout almost the entire 20th century,
Exod. 23:2033 has been ascribed as a whole or in part to a Deuteronom(ist)
ic redaction in a variety of studies, and rarely with much in the way of argu-
mentation. Examples include J.E. Carpenter and G. Harford,29 O. Procksch,30
C. Steuernagel,31 C.H. Cornill,32 J. Morgenstern,33 W. Rudolph,34 A. Bentzen,35
theologischen Aussage zum Gottesverhltnis im Alten Testament (BBB, 45), Bonn 1975;
J. Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex. 34,1026: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in
vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT, 114), Gttingen 1975; L. Schwienhorst-Schnberger,
Das Bundesbuch (Ex. 20,2223,33): Studien zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie (BZAW, 188),
Berlin 1990; Y. Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b23,33
(OBO, 105), Fribourg 1991.
29 Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch, 336: The process of revision
and extension was probably continued by RD (...) in the Deuteronomic point of view;
while the remarkable affinities of 23,2325a.27.31b33 with Deut 7 suggest considerable
extensions in Es hortatory conclusion; The hand of a Deuteronomic reviser is probably
to be seen in (...) 23,2325a.27.31b33 (209). On 517, however, Carpenter ascribes the said
verses to RJE.
30 O. Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch: Die Elohimquelle bersetzt und untersucht,
Leipzig 1906, 165: c. 23,20ff. ist deuteronomisch.
31 C. Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit einem Anhang ber die
Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen (Sammlung Theologischer Lehrbucher), Tbingen
1912, 157: Von diesen Zustzen tragen einige deuteronomischen Charakter (...) in der
Schluparnese 23,2324.28.31b.32.33).
32 C.H. Cornill, Einleitung in die kanonischen Bcher des Alten Testaments (Grundriss der
theologischen Wissenschaften, 2/1), Freiburg im Breisgau 1891; Tbingen, 71913, 75: (...)
die sekundren Stcke des Bb und namentlich die Ueberarbeitung der Schluverse
23,2033 tragen ausgeprgt deuteronomistischen Charakter. Compare, however, Die (...)
Schluverse 23,2033 (...) tragen so deutlick die charakteristischen Merkmale von E, da
seine Zugehrigkeit zu E ber jedem Zweifel steht (74).
33 J. Morgenstern, The Book of the Covenant: Part 1, HUCA 5 (1928), 1151, esp. 4: Scholars
have long recognized that Ex. 23.2033 (...) are partly Elohistic and partly Deuteronomic.
34 Rudolph, Der Elohist, 61: Exod. 23:2033 ist ein Zusatz im Stil des Deuteronomiums.
35 A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. 2: The Books of the Old Testament,
Kbenhavn 1948, 40: Scholars generally assume a deuteronomistic redaction of
the Pentateuch, taking the whole Pentateuch to have been incorporated in the
Deuteronomistic Work of History. (...) I think that there are distinct traces in (...)
Ex. 23,2426; 23,3233 (...).
102 Chapter 2
C.A. Simpson,36 W. Beyerlin,37 T.C. Vriezen,38 E. Zenger,39 W.H. Schmidt,40

T.C. Vriezen and A.S. van der Woude,41 P. Weimar42 and T.B. Dozeman.43
Moreover, several commentaries on the book of Exodus characterise the
epilogue of the Book of the Covenant as self-evidently Deuteronom(ist)ic.
36 C.A. Simpson, The Early Traditions of Israel: A Critical Analysis of the Predeuteronomic
Narrative of the Hexateuch, Oxford 1948, 218: Exod. 23:31b33 are from RD.
37 W. Beyerlin, Herkunft und Geschichte der ltesten Sinaitraditionen, Tbingen 1961, 9:
Exod. 23:2033 is a segment dass fraglos auch deuteronomistische Spuren aufweist.
38 T.C. Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud Isral, Den Haag 21961, 113: With the Deuteronomistic
author (Dt.) to whom we referred above [in the context of Exod. 12,2427a and 13,116
H.A.], we encounter a new hand in the narratives. Dt. is a representative of the so-called
Deuteronomistic reformation, which went hand in hand with the appearance of the book
of Deuteronomy (D.). (...) Evidence of this circle of authors can be found in a variety of
places in the stories of Exodus, e.g. 15:25b, 26, probably (...) 23:2033 (...).
39 E. Zenger, Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen
Geschichtswerk (FzB, 3), Wrzburg 1971, 164: Die Bundesbuch-Schicht (zweite
deuteronomistische Redaktion) ist eine weitere Bearbeitungsstufe der frhnachexilischen
Zeit, welche die Rckkehr in die Idealzeit des Anfangs proklamiert (vgl. hnliche Tendenz
bei Ezechiel!). Diesem theologischen Programm entspringt: a) der Einschub 19,3b9b;
20,18.19 (vgl. den Einflu priesterlicher Theologie!); b) der Einbau des Bundesbuchs mit
den entsprechenden redaktionellen Klammern (z.B. 23:2033; 24,3.4a.7; 34,27).
40 W.H. Schmidt, Einfhrung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 1979; 51995, 58: Insbesondere
stellen gewisse Textpartien, deren Themen und Sprache dem Deuteronomium oder der
deuteronomistischen Literatur nahestehen, ein Problem der Literarkritik dar. Gewi
gibt es im Pentateuch nicht so umfangreiche und gleichmig verteilte Redestcke in
dieser Ausdrucksweise wie zwischen dem Deuteronomium und den Knigsbchern
(oder auch im Jeremiabuch); insofern ist die Situation anders. Jedoch finden sich Zustze
von Einzelbemerkungen deutero nomisch-deuteronomisti scher Art (wie Gen. 50,24;
Ex. 3,8.17) bis zu ausgedehnteren Abschnitten (wie in Ex. 13; 23,20ff; 32,7ff; 33; 34,10ff u.a.).
Solche Ergnzungen nehmen anscheinend von Moses Berufung ab zuan ihm hat die
deuteronomisch-deuteronomistische Literatur berragendes Interesse.
41 T.C. Vriezen, A.S. van der Woude, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, Wassenaar 61980, 187: The
conclusion 23:2033 is an exhortation reworked in a Deuteronomistic spirit. See, however,
the more nuanced vision in Vriezen, Van der Woude, Oudisralitische en vroegjoodse
literatuur, 184.
42 P. Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose: Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,235,5
(OBO, 32), Freiburg 1980, 326 n. 32: Doch wird Ex. 23,2333 weniger der Vorgeschichte der
dtr. berlieferung (...) zugerechnet werden knnen, als vielmehr der Nachgeschichten
worauf deutlich der sprachliche Befund schlieen lt. The list of the nations in
Exod. 23:23, 28 is likewise nach-dtr. Herkunft (326 n. 32).
43 T.B. Dozeman, God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus
1924 (SBL MS, 37), Atlanta, GA 1989, 61: Exod. 23:2033 is a parenetic conclusion in
deuteronomistic style.
Reference can be made in this regard to the commentaries of B.D. Eerdmans,44

S.L. Brown,45 M. Noth,46 J. Plastaras,47 G. te Stroete48 and F.C. Fensham.49
Other scholars, however, have endeavoured to substantiate their thesis
that (parts of) Exod. 23:2033 should be ascribed to a writing redactor who
was influenced by Deuteronomy and/or related literature. It should be noted
in passing that the Pentateuchanalyses of Erhard Blum published at the end
of the 20th century, to which I will return below, have steered research into
the so-called Deuteronomistic elements in GenesisNumbers in general,
and in Exod. 23:2033 in particular, in a very particular direction. These new
approaches will be treated in a following chapter.
In what follows I provide an inventory of the arguments employed by
exegetes substantiating the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of (elements from)
Exod. 23:2033. These can be considered representative of the modus operandi
employed by scholars since the beginning of the 20th century to designate
verses or verse segments from GenesisNumbers as Deuteronom(ist)ic. I begin
with a number of general remarks concerning the alleged Deuteronom(ist)ic
content of Exod. 23:2033. It will then become evident that the arguments
employed tend to be threefold in character: in addition to thematic arguments,
scholars appeal to supposed Deuteronom(ist)ic style and Deuteronom(ist)ic
vocabulary as indications of the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of Exod. 23:2033.
44 B.D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien. Tl. 3: Das Buch Exodus, Gieen, 1910, 97:
Kuenen (...) schreibt diesen Abschnitt einem deut. Redaktor zu [sic!H.A.]. Der deut.
Charakter dieses Abschnittes liegt so offen zu Tage, da es befremdend ist, da andere
diesen Abschnitt dem Redaktor von JE zuschreiben. Man ist jedoch darber einig, da
diese Verse mit dem alten Bundesbuch nichts zu tun haben.
45 S.L. Brown, Exodus (A New Commentary on Holy Scripture Including the Apocrypha),
London 1928, 90: Exod. 23:2033 is E, except 2325a and 31b33, which are Deuteronomic
expansions.
46 Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose, 140: Exod. 23:2033 is a secondary appendix, which in
deuteronomistischem Stil formuliert ist.
47 J. Plastaras, The God of Exodus: The Theology of the Exodus Narratives, Milwaukee 1966,
262 n. 12: This passage may represent E material, but it has received its present form from
the deuteronomic school.
48 G. te Stroete, Exodus uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (BOT, 1/2), Roermond 1966,
180: The entirety carries a clear Deuteronomistic hallmark. Some detect the presence of
an Elohistic tradition, but in our opinion this is barely recognisable.
49 F.C. Fensham, Exodus (POT), Nijkerk, 1970, 178: The last segment of the Book of the
Covenant, which has the character of an appendix, and in terms of style and content
bears the primary features of a Deuteronomistic hallmark, does not contain laws, but
rather promises, warnings and exhortations.
104 Chapter 2
4.1 Deuteronom(ist)ic Motifs in Exod. 23:2033

In addition to scholars who ascribe Exod. 23:2033 or elements thereof to a
Deuteronom(ist)ic editor or author as a matter of course and without further
argumentation, a number of exegetes endeavour to substantiate this hypoth-
esis with arguments. Nevertheless, a distinction has to be made in this regard
between studies that treat the issue in a detailed manner and studies that are
content with an otherwise unspecified designation of the Deuteronom(ist)ic
character of Exod. 23:2033.
Several scholars consider it justified to conclude the Deuteronom(ist)ic
character of Exod. 23:2033 on the basis of a few extremely general observa-
tions. In addition to the otherwise vague remark that the pericope in question
exhibits parallels at certain points with Deuteronomy, various scholars point
to thematic and content-related similarities between Exod. 23:2033 and the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.50 In doing so, a number of authors simply point
in general terms to the said similarities without providing exact references to
parallel locations in Deuteronomy or texts related thereto.
Reference can be made in this regard to the Deuteronom(ist)ic interest in
the promised land,51 the instruction to destroy the cultic objects of the native
population,52 the command to serve YHWH alone,53 as well as the warn-
ing against idolatry in general.54 Reference is also made to the ban on mak-
ing covenants with the local inhabitants of Canaan,55 to Gods promise that
Israel will prosper in the promised land56 and to the list of the nations57 as
50 See, for example, F. Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen
im Glauben des alten Israels (ATANT, 60), Zrich 1972, 75.
51 Cf., for example, Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 157 n. 6.
52 See J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible
(AB Reference Library), New York 1992., 189; G. Chamberlain, Exodus 2123 and Deuter-
onomy 1226: A Form-Critical Study, Boston, 1977, 156; E. Fox, The Five Books of Moses:
A New Translation with Introductions, Commentary, and Notes, London 1995, 384; J.P. Hyatt,
Commentary on Exodus (New Century Bible), London 1971, 27; A.H. McNeile, The Book of
Exodus with Introduction and Notes (Westminster Commentaries), London 1908, 144.
53 Chamberlain, Exodus 2123, 156.
54 Cf. G. Beer, Exodus: Mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling (HAT, 1/3), Tbingen 1939, 12; 121.
According to Floss, Jahwe dienen, 274, the author of Exod. 23:31b33 sees religious apostasy
as the reason for political decline. These verses display ein geschichtstheologisches
Denken, wie es der dtn-dtr Theologie eigen ist.
55 Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189; Chamberlain, Exodus 2123, 1977, 156; Hyatt, Exodus, 27.
56 Auzou, De la servitude au service, 262263; Chamberlain, Exodus 2123, 156; Hyatt,
Exodus, 27.
57 Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 95; H. Cazelles, Histoire et institutions dans
la place et la composition dEx. 20,2223,19, in: R. Liwak, S. Wagner (eds), Prophetie und
geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im Alten Israel: Festschrift fur Siegfried Herrmann zum 65.
focal points understood to be characteristic of the Deuteronom(ist)ic redac-

tor or author. In addition, some scholars consider the motif of the protection
of the people by the ,58 the presentation of foreign gods as a snare for
Israel,59 the elimination of the Canaanite population together with the rea-
son given for their gradual expulsion,60 as indications of the Deuteronom(ist)
ic origin of Exod. 23:2033. The divine name 61 and the description
of the future boundaries of the promised land62 are also taken to be typically
Deuteronom(ist)ic.
Other scholars focus on thematic agreements and point to passages agreed
to be Deuteronom(ist)ic by way of argument. The following motifs are thus
considered to specify the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of Exod. 23:2033*:
Israel shall return under protection to the land promised to the patriarchs;63
the gradual expulsion of the native Canaanite population;64 obedience to the
( i.e. to YHWH) will bring blessing;65 the listing of the Canaanite peoples;66
the combination of the list of the peoples with the notion of .67
Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1991, 5264, esp. 56; Chamberlain, Exodus 2123, 156; P. Horn, Tra-
ditionsschichten in Ex. 23,1033 und Ex. 34,1026, BZ 15 (1971), 203222, esp. 217218;
Floss, Jahwe dienen, 251; G. Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium
(BWANT, 93), Stuttgart 1971, 78.
58 According to H. Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit. Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen
(FRLANT, 18), Gttingen, 1913, 239, the expressions , and
are evidence of the late character of Exod. 23:2033: Die Redseligkeit des Deu
teronomiums kndet sich an. It is also possible, however, that Gressmann hereby
considers Exod. 23:2033 to be preliminary to Deuteronomy.
59 Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189.
60 Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189; Idem, Deuteronomic Contribution, 95.
61 Baentsch, Exodus, 209; Cazelles, Histoire et institutions, 56.
62 Fox, The Five Books of Moses, 384.
63 Cf. Gen. 50:24; Exod. 32:13; 33:2; Deut. 1:8; 6:10. See, for example, Hyatt, Exodus, 27.
64 Cf. Deut. 7:22; Judg. 2:2728; Josh. 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:1113, 1418. See, for example,
Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189.
65 Cf. Deut. 7:1315; 28:114. See Hyatt, Exodus, 251.
66 Similarities with the lists of the nations in Gen. 15:20, 21; Exod. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:2; 34:11;
Deut. 7:1; 20:17; Judg. 3:5; Josh. 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11; 1 Kgs 9:20 are observed, for example,
by Baentsch, Exodus, 209; Cazelles, Histoire et institutions, 56; Chamberlain, Exodus
2123, 156; W. Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 317 (BZAW,
126), Berlin 1972, 37; Horn, Traditionsschichten, 217218; Hyatt, Exodus, 251; McNeile,
Exodus, vi; R.H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, New York 1941, 285; W. Richter
Die Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches in der deuteronomischen Epoche (BBB, 21), Bonn
1964, 41; J.C. Rylaarsdam, The Book of Exodus. Introduction and Exegesis (The Interpreters
Bible, 1), New York 1952, 1014; Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, 78; Stolz, Jahwes und
Israels Kriege, 22.
67 Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 55 refers in this regard to Gen. 15.
106 Chapter 2
4.2 The Deuteronom(ist)ic Style of Exod. 23:2033

In addition to general thematic similarities between the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature and Exod. 23:2033, a variety of scholars also label the style in which
the pericope is composed as characteristically Deuteronom(ist)ic. Reference
is made in this regard to the Numeruswechsel,68 for example, and to the pare-
netic tone in which the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant is cast,69 without
clarifying how one should recognise it. The language of holy war recogni-
sable in certain segments of Exod. 23:2033 is also considered to be typically
Deuteronom(ist)ic,70 along with the phraseology employed therein.71 In addi-
tion, the repetition of the same theme in different wording is taken to be a
characteristic feature of Deuteronom(ist)ic style.72 Some scholars are also
inclined to see the fact that the Book of the Covenant has been provided with
an epilogue as Deuteronom(ist)ic feature, appealing for support to Deut. 28.73
It should be clear thus far that few if any tangible arguments have been
provided with respect to the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic style in which
Exod. 23:2033 is said to have been put together. Scholars point out that
Exod. 23:2033 exhibits the Deuteronom(ist)ic parenetic style, but never
explain what such typically Deuteronom(ist)ic parenesis specifically implies.
What argumentation there is remains extremely shallow, especially when
one considers, as I am inclined to do, that the style in which a text has been
written can only be traced on the basis of a thorough syntactical and linguis-
tic analysis. As far as I am aware, the syntactic organisation and grammati-
cal constructions employed in the composition of Exod. 23:2033 and the
comparison thereof with the syntactic features of the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature has not been employed thus far as a criterion for designating the
epilogue of the Book of the Covenant as Deuteronom(ist)ic. At the same
time, the Numeruswechsel argument would appear to be employed in a
contradictory manner. Michali, for example, sees the interchange of number
68 F. Michali, Le livre de lExode (CAT, 2), Paris 1974, 217. Compare with Simpson, Early Tradi-
tions, 218: 24 is a deuteronomic addition, as in 25aa (to God), though possibly because of
the plural and the reference to Jahveh in the third person (...) from another hand than 24.
26a, which breaks the connection between 25b and 26b, is a deuteronomist gloss.
69 Auzou, De la servitude au service, 262; B.S. Childs, Exodus. A Commentary (OTL), London
1974, 460461; R.A. Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, London 1973, 181; Fox,
The Five Books of Moses, 384.
70 Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189.
71 Cf., for example, Hyatt, Exodus, 251; compare the syntax with that of Deut. 7:15, 1226; see
also Childs, Exodus, 461; Michali, LExode, 217.
72 Michali, LExode, 217.
73 Auzou, De la servitude au service, 263; Hyatt, Exodus, 250; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 225.
as a typical feature of Deuteronom(ist)ic style. Noth, on the other hand,

who likewise ascribes Exod. 23:2033 to a Deuteronomistic redaction,
considers the Numeruswechsel to be an indication of the redactional character
of the pericope.74
4.3 Deuteronom(ist)ic Language in Exod. 23:2033

The bulk of the argumentation employed by biblical exegetes to demonstrate
the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of Exod. 23:2033 is based, nevertheless,
on the designation of what is claimed to be typical Deuteronom(ist)ic vocabu-
lary, the said scholars believe they have observed in the pericope. In the process,
reference is mostly made to other passages in the Deuteronom(ist)ic corpus in
which the language in question is employed. The following overview includes
the most frequently used linguistic arguments. The right hand column lists the
biblical passages to which appeal is made to substantiate the Deuteronom(ist)-
ic character of the word(s) listed in the left hand column.75
( Exod. 23:20, 23) Gen. 24:7; Exod. 14:19; 32:34; 33:2;

Num. 20:16; Judg. 2:1576
( Exod. 23:20) Deut. 8:277
( Exod. 23:20, 23) Often in Deut.78
( Exod. 23:20) Deut. 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21; Pss. 48:9; 87:579
( Exod. 23:21) Cf. in Deut. 4:9; 6:12; 8:11
et al.80
( Exod. 23:21) Exod. 15:26; 19:5; Deut 8:20; 9:20; 13:5,
19; 15:5 et al.; Judg. 2:281
74 Michali, LExode, 217: Le changement de personnes (singulier ou pluriel) (...) font

penser aux crivains deutronomistes; Noth, Exodus, 156: V. 25.26; dieser Passus ist nicht
ganz glatt, es fllt pluralische neben singularische Anrede und Jahwe in 3. Pers. neben 1.
Pers. auf.
75 A number of 19th century works are also included in this overview in an effort to provide as
complete a picture as possible of the vocabulary scholars consider to be Deuteronom(ist)ic.
76 Hyatt, Exodus, 250251; C. Westermann, Genesis, Tl. 2: Genesis 1236 (BKAT, 1/2), Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1981, 472.
77 R. Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu
Deuteronomium 111 (EurHS, 422), Frankfurt am Main 1991, 263.
78 Baentsch, Exodus, 210; Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 263.
79 Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 76; Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 263.
80 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 263.
81 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 263; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 76.
108 Chapter 2
( Exod. 23:21) Deut. 1:26, 43; 9:7, 23, 24; 31:27;

Josh. 1:18; 1 Sam. 12:482
( Exod. 23:21) Deut. 12:5, 11; 1 Kgs 8:2983
( Exod. 23:22) Exod. 15:26; 19:5; Deut. 8:20; 11:13; 13:18;
15:5; 26:14; 27:10; 28:1, 2, 15, 45, 62;
30:1084
( Exod. 23:22) Exod. 19:8; 24:3, 7; Deut. 2:37; 5:27;
12:11, 14b; (18:18); Josh. 22:2; 1 Kgs 11:38;
2 Kgs 18:3; Jer. 1:7; 32:23; Ezek. 44:5;
2 Chron. 33:885
( Exod. 23:22) Deut. 20:486
Expulsion of the peoples (Exod. 23:23) Synonyms in Deuteronomy;
cf. 1 Kgs 13:34: Ps. 83:5; Zech. 11:887
( Exod. 23:24) Deut. 4:19; 5:9; 8:9; 11:16; 17:3; 29:25;
30:17; Exod. 20:5; Jer.; 1 Kgs; 2 Kgs88
( Exod. 23:24) Deut. 12:30.89
( Exod. 23:24) Exod. 34:14; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 2 Kgs 18:4;
23:1490
( Exod. 23:24) Exod. 34:13; Lev. 26:1; Deut. 7:5; 12:3;
16:22; 2 Kgs 23:12, 2091
( Exod. 23:25) Deut. 6:13; 10:12, 20; 11:13; 13:5; 28:4792

83 Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit, 239; Hyatt, Exodus, 251.
84 J.W. Colenso, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, Vol. 6, London 1871,
103; A. Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de
boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Dl. 1: De thora en de historische boeken des Ouden Verbonds,
Amsterdam 21884, 254 n. 32.
85 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103; Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 262.
87 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 263; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 22.
88 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 254; Schmitt, Du
sollst keinen Frieden schliessen, 16; Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, 78.
89 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 264; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103;
Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 254.
91 Baentsch, Exodus, 211; Beer, Exodus, 121; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103; Hyatt, Exodus,
250251; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 254; McNeile, Exodus, 144.
( Exod. 23:25) Deut. 7:13; 11:13; 28:5, 8, 1193

( Exod. 23:25) Exod. 15:26; Deut. 7:15; 28:2122,
272994
Deut. 7:1, 1415; 28:1, 4, 11; 30:995
(Exod. 23:26)
( Exod. 23:26) Deut. 4:40; 6:296
Exod. 23:2728 Deut. 2:25; 7:20; Josh. 24:1297
( Exod. 23:27) Gen. 15:12; Exod. 15:16; Deut. 2:25;
11:25; 32:25; Josh. 2:998
( Exod. 23:27) Deut. 2:15; 7:23;
Josh. 10:10; Judg. 4:15; 1 Sam. 5:9, 11;
7:10; 2 Sam. 22:15; Pss. 18:15; 144:6;
Est. 9:24; 2 Chron 15:699
( Exod. 23:27) Josh. 7:8100
( Exod. 23:28) Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12, 18101
( Exod. 23:28, 29, 30) Gen. 3:20; 4:14; 21:10; Exod. 2:17;
6:1; 10:11; 11:1; 33:2; Num. 22:6, 11;
Judg. 2:3102
( Exod. 23:30) Deut. 7:22103
93 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 265266; Colenso, The Pentateuch,
Vol. 6, 103.
94 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 265266; Baentsch, Exodus, 211; Colenso,
The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103; Holzinger, Exodus, 102.
95 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103; Holzinger, Exodus, 102.
97 Auzou, De la servitude au service, 262.
98 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 265; Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic
Contribution, 95; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103; Hyatt, Exodus, 250251 (the concept
of holy war); Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte, 215 (compare with the reference to the
Plagues of Egypt in Deut. 7:1819); Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 20 (Jerusalem as place of
origin).
99 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 265; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103;
Hyatt, Exodus, 250251.
101 Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189 (language of holy war); Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic
Contribution, 95; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103.
102 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Weimar, Untersuchungen, 129130 n. 76 ( is found in
younger texts).
103 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Hyatt, Exodus, 250; Simpson, Early Traditions, 218; Stolz,
Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 76.
110 Chapter 2
( Exod. 23:30) Exod. 32:19; 34:9; Num. 18:20, 23104

The demarcation of the land Deut. 1:7; 11:24; Josh. 1:4105
(Exod. 23:31)
( Exod. 23:31) Deut. 2:24, 30; 3:2, 8; 7:24106
Exod. 34:12, 15; Deut. 7:2; Josh. 9:6, 7,
(Exod. 23:32) 11, 15, 16; 24:25; Judg. 2:2; 1 Sam. 11:1;
2 Sam 5:3; 1 Kgs 20:34; 2 Kgs 11:4107
The combination of and Deut. 7:2; Josh. 9108
( Exod. 23:3233)
( Exod. 23:33) Judg. 2:2:109 compare with the
command to annihilate the
Canaanites in Deut. 7:2, 16, 23; 9:3;
20:16, 17110
( Exod. 23:33) Deut. 7:4; 12:31; 20:18; 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:26,
30, 34; 16:2, 13, 19, 26; 21:22; 22:53;
2 Kgs 3:3; 10:20, 31; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24;
15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:21; 21:11, 16; 23:15;
Jer. 32:35; Eccl. 5:5; Neh. 13:26111
( Exod. 23:33) Exod. 20:5; Deut. 4:19, 28; 5:9; 7:4, 16;
8:19; 11:16; 12:2, 30; 13:2, 6, 13; 17:3; 28:14,
36, 64; 29:18, 26; 30:17; 31:20112
( Exod. 23:33) Exod. 10:7; 34:12; Deut. 6:15; 7:4,
16; 12:30; Josh. 23:13; Judg. 8:27;
104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 Ps. 106:36.113
104 Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 215 n. 5.

105 Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 95; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104.
106 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 254.
107 Baentsch, Exodus, 209; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch
onderzoek, 254; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 215 n. 5 (- with human subject: later
also in Ezra 10:3; 2 Chron. 29:10; Job 31:1).
111 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 268; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104.
112 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 254.
113 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 268; Baentsch, Exodus, 209; Colenso,
The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 254. Fuss, Die
deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 390391 points to the use of with
in Exod. 10:7; 34:12; Deut. 7:16; Josh. 23:13; Judg. 2:3; 8:27. Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189
considers the designation of alien gods as to be a Deuteronomic theme (cf. Deut. 7:16).
It should be evident from our overview that vocabulary-based argumenta-

tion in support of the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of Exod. 23:2033 tends to
consist of a listing of parallel texts in Deuteronomium and Joshua2 Kings. A
detailed study of the vocabulary in question, however, is as yet unavailable.
Furthermore, scholars tend to limit themselves to the identification of isolated
words without paying attention to the context in which they function. As a
result, they do not include the way in which a word is used or the significance
thereof in their research.
4.4 Conclusion
By way of conclusion, reference deserves to be made to two striking short-
comings that typify (current) research into the Deuteronom(ist)ic charac-
ter of Exod. 23:2033, which also apply mutatis mutandis to other allegedly
Deuteronom(ist)ic passages within GenesisNumbers. First, it is significant
that in terms of both themes and vocabulary various exegetes refer to other
passages from GenesisNumbers (e.g. Gen. 15; Exod. 20:117; 33:13; Num. 20),
the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of which is often taken largely for granted.
The fact that such reasoning does not wash with respect to the hypothesis
that Exod. 23:2033 should be ascribed to a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction goes
without saying. Moreover, if one closely examines the argumentation used to
endeavour to substantiate the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of the said pas-
sages, it becomes immediately apparent that it includes frequent reference to
Exod. 23:2033.
A second important shortcoming in the argumentation of those studies
that characterise (parts of) Exod. 23:2033 as Deuteronom(ist)ic is the
absence of comparison with, for example, the prophetic books of the Old
Testament. Indeed, it is also possible that a motif, an expression, and even
the so-called parenetic style portrayed as frequently attested in the Deutero
nom(ist)ic was employed elsewhere and as a result need not necessarily be
typically Deuteronom(ist)ic.114
It can be stated in summary that in terms of both form and content, current
research into the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of Exod. 23:2033and mutatis
mutandis for all the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in the Tetrateuch
rarely provides convincing argumentation. In most instances it is limited to
114 See Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 111: The predominance of parenesis (...)
would by itself lead us to suspect a debt to Deuteronomy, that most homiletic of books
known to Philo under the title of The Protreptics. See also T. Rmer, J.-D. Macchi, Luke,
Disciple of the Deuteronomistic School, in C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Lukes Literary Achievement:
Collected Essays (JSNT SS, 116), Sheffield 1995, 178187.
112 Chapter 2
vague allusions to Deuteronomy, Joshua2 Kings andrarelyother so-called

late literature. The question of the identification of what one should consider
typically Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic is ultimately left unresolved. In
the present authors opinion, it is almost impossible to designate a passage as
Deuteronom(ist)ic when one cannot properly indicate what one understands
to be the characteristic features of Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and the-
ology. There can be little doubt that the critical voices that have been raised
against the premature attribution of texts to the Deuteronomist, especially
since the second half of the 20th century, are at least in part a reaction to this
inadequate argumentation, although they do not thereby call source-critical
analysis as such into question. The following chapter focuses in more detail on
this tendency.
Chapter 3
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis

Numbers: A Unique Aspect of Research into the
So-Called Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements since 1963
In the previous chapter, we provided an overview of the way in which pas-

sages within GenesisNumbers that exhibit kinship with the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature have been ascribed to a redaction dependent
thereon since the beginning of the 20th century. It became clear that scholars
in the first half of the 20th century were increasingly inclined to associate pas-
sages from GenesisNumbers with Deuteronom(ist)ic redactional activity and
that a great many did so as a matter of course. Nevertheless, several of these
Deuteronom(ist)ic passages were initially characterised by a number of exe-
getes as part of the Jahwist, the Elohist or RJE. This tendency likewise contin-
ued through the course of the 20th century. Indeed, many scholars refused to
accept the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of certain pericopes, considering them
to be ancient components of the Pentateuch.1 At the same time, however, a
1 W. Beyerlin, Herkunft und Geschichte der ltesten Sinaitraditionen, Tbingen 1961, 27 ascribed
Exod. 32:714, a pericope normally ascribed to D or RD, to E: Sie [i.e. Exod. 32:714H.A.]
wird vielfach als Zusatz deuteronomistischen Stils angesehen,wie sich noch zeigen
wird, schwerlich zu Recht. In der Sache jedenfalls sind in den Versen 714 keine spezifisch
deuteronomischen Elemente fest zustel
len. Insofern Mose hier wie in dem E-Schicht
zugehrigen berlieferungsstck 32,3034 in der prophetischen Funktion der Frbitte
dargestellt wird, mchte man eher an elohistische Quellenzugehrigkeit denken, da E
verschiedentlich eine gewisse Nhe zur prophetischen Bewegung aufweist. With respect to
the alleged Deuteronomic parenesis in the Book of the Covenant he argues: Nicht eine spte,
literarische Bearbeitung hat im Anschluss an die im Deuteronomium fixierten Gedanken
und sprachlichen Formen jene parnetischen Elemente im Bundesbuch nachgetragen. Diese
wurzeln viel mehr im Festkult der frhen Jahwegemeinde, vor allem in den Wallfahrtsfesten
der AmphiktyonieIdem, Die Parnese im Bundesbuch und ihre Herkunft, in H. Graf
Reventlow (ed.), Gottes Wort und Gottes Land: Hans-Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70. Geburtstag am
16. Januar 1965 dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schlern, Gttingen 1966, 929, esp. 28.
H. Wildberger, Jahwes Eigentumsvolk: Eine Studie zur Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des
Erwhlungsgedankens (ATANT, 37), Zrich 1960, 914, esp. 14 likewise insists that nicht der
Deuteronomist spricht in Exod. 19:38, similarly taken to be a typically Deuteronom(ist)ic
passage, and that the pericope in question Begriffe enthlt, die offensichtlich nicht in der
deuteronomischen Welt beheimatet sind. J. Muilenberg, The Form and Structure of the
Covenant Formulations, VT 9 (1959), 347365 esp. 351 is even inclined to argue: it is doubtful,

114 Chapter 3
new tendency evolved, likewise in reaction to the self-evidence with which an

ever increasing number of verses from GenesisNumbers was being ascribed
to the Deuteronomist, a tendency that sought to return anew to the pioneers
of the classical Documentary Hypothesis who had originally pointed to the
apparent kinship between JE and D.
1 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers: Early

Initiatives
In line with Kuenen, Wellhausen, Holzinger, Driver and Wildeboer, Henri

Cazelles would appear to be the first to focus renewed attention on the ques-
tion of the relationship between the JE redaction and the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature at the beginning of the 1960s. In 1963, Chris Brekelmans and Norbert
Lohfink likewise insisted that it was unlikely that Deuteronom(ist)ic language
and theology would have emerged without preparatory development. In their
opinion, Deuteronom(ist)ic style and ideas underwent a lengthy process of
development, certain facets of which are to be traced in the passages from
GenesisNumbers that are considered to be Deuteronom(ist)ic.
1.1 The JE Redactor and the Deuteronom(ist)ic School

After more than fifty years, Cazelles drew attention once again to the relation-
ship between JE and D on the basis of a literary analysis of Gen. 15. In an arti-
cle from 1962, he distinguishes two consistent layers in the said passage, one
whether the hand of the Deuteronomist is to be found anywhere in the Tetrateuch. He adds
that the line which separates the literary style of the Elohist from the Deuteronomist is often
hard to define. With regard to Num. 21:3334, reference can be made by way of example
to B.D. Eerdmans, The Composition of Numbers (OTS, 6), Leiden 1949, 101216, esp. 200: It
is noteworthy that (...) Deut. iii,1.2 is verbally identical with Numb. xxi,33.34. Therefore
some scholars have suggested that there can be little doubt that the story of Og has been
incorporated in Numb. from Deut. (Gray, 306). But in view of the differences (...) this seems
improbable. Here, too, Deut. gave its own version adding the particulars of the annihilation
of all inhabitants. Numb. did not mention the application of the herem in Hesbon, but seems
to assume it for Bashan (xxi,35). On the characterisation of Gen. 26:5 as Deuteronom(ist)ic
see, for example, E. Knig, Die Genesis. Eingeleitet, bersetzt und erklrt, Gtersloh 1919, 563
n. 2: Zu der Behauptung (...), da dies [i.e. the interpolation of H.A.]
von der deuteronomischen Schule (...) geschehen sei, bilden die drei Ausdrcke keinen
hinreichenden Grund (cf. also S. Nomoto, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Erzhlung von
der Gefhrdung der Ahnfrau, AJBI 2 [1976], 327, esp. 9, among others).
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 115
Jahwistic and one Elohistic.2 In his opinion, the J narrative related the promise
of descendants to Abraham, while the E narrative addresses the conflict in
which Abraham would have to engage with the neighbouring nations. Cazelles
maintains that these two narratives were combined by a JE redactor (RJE) who
made no significant changes to the texts he had at his disposal. RJE took the
E narrative as the framework for his composition. While Cazelles admits that
this JE redaction exhibits kinship with Deuteronomy, he does not consider
it appropriate to identify RJE with the author of Deuteronomy.3 Moreover,
he denies the possibility of a Deuteronom(ist)ic reworking of Gen. 15, argu-
ing that many passages in GenesisNumbers that are commonly hallmarked
as Deuteronom(ist)ic, should be seen rather as prophetic, Elohistic or
pre-Deuteronomic.4
In 1966, Cazelles published an extensive overview of research into the
Pentateuch in the Supplment au Dictionnaire de la Bible in which he further
develops his own hypothesis.5 He does not see the Elohist as much as a source,
but more as a prophetic redaction of ancient texts. Within this E redaction,
he also sees agreements with RD.6 He goes on to argue that the JE redactor
2 H. Cazelles, Connexions et structure de Gen., xv, RB 69 (1962), 321349.

3 Cazelles, Connexions, 325: Il me semble que par ce travail on aboutit deux sources,
cohrentes lune et lautre, unies et trs lgrement retravailles par un thologien proche du
Deutronome, mais non deutronomiste.
4 Cazelles, Connexions, 334335: (...) il ne faut pas oublier que le Deutronome nest pas
un commencement absolu, mais puise bien des lments de phrasologie dans les textes
lohistes. (...) Il semble quon parle trop facilement de deutronomique l o il faudrait dire
prophtique, ou lohiste ou prdeutronomique. Les exigences morales de Jahv, chtiment
du peuple, rtribution, histoire conditionne, ne sont pas lapanage du Deutronome. Il
faut rserver le mot deutronomique aux doctrines spcifiques comme la centralisation du
culte, la thologie du Nom, la gratuit de lamour divin, llection (bhar). Avant quil y ait
Deutronome, il y a une histoire, une alliance, des maldictions (Sichem, Deut., xxvii, de
couche prdeutronomique) et bndictions (Jacob ou Mose). Entre le Deutronome et les
traits dalliance du Proche Orient il y a la couche lohiste, parfois difficile saisir, mais qui
nest ni jahviste ni deutronomiste (italics H.A.).
5 Cazelles, Pentateuque, T. 4: Le nouveau status quaestionis, DBS 7 (1966), 687858, esp
736858.
6 Cazelles, Pentateuque, 812: (...) la rdaction et linsertion des textes deutronomiques
allaient bouleverser la physionomie du texte lohiste. bien des points de vue ils en sont trs
proches, mais cest une autre rdaction, qui suppose la chute du royaume du Nord. La difficult
de ltude des textes lohistes vient, mon avis, de ce que cest une rdaction prophtique de
textes anciens, rdaction qui elle-mme a d subir deux autres rdactions: fusion des textes
lohistes avec les textes jahvistes, fusion de ce JE avec la littrature deutronomique. More
recently, in his commentary on Exodus, W.H.C. Propp likewise points to the relationship
116 Chapter 3
endeavoured to amalgamate J and E while trying to preserve the uniqueness

of both documents as much as possible.7 It was thus extremely difficult for
RJE to juxtapose the Elohist narrative of the Decalogue in Exod. 20 and the
Jahwist version in Exod. 34. According to Cazelles, the passages in which the
redactional activity of the JE redactor is most tangible, namely Exod. 23:2133*
and Exod. 34:1426*, are the very passages in which one encounters the most
typical Deuteronom(ist)ic language usage outside the book of Deuteronomy.
In addition, the Parisian exegete also discerned traces of Deuteronom(ist)ic
language in Exod. 12:2527. These few passages were enough for Cazelles to
posit the claim that the JE redactor should be located within the Deuterono
m(ist)ic school.8
Two important tendencies are evident in the work of Cazelles. On the
one hand, he considered much of the material from the complex Genesis
Numbers that was usually considered to be Deuteronom(ist)ic, as belonging to
between E and D, calling passages tradionally as characterised Deuteronomisticsuch as

Exod. 12:2527; 13:1116; 15:2225; 19:3b8; 32:713E or E/D-like: W.H.C. Propp, Exodus 118
(AB 2), New York 1998; Idem, Exodus 1940 (AB 2A), New York 2006. See also his introduction
in Exodus 118, 49: D appears to be a rewritten law code of Norhern origin, with stylistic and
ideological affinities to E (...) Some think JE was also reworked , so that the Deuteronomistic
work properly began with Creation (...). If so, however, the editor added relatively little
to GenesisNumbers. See also Propps very tentative opinion in Exodus 1940, 729, where
he argues that probably the Yahwist and Elohist drew upon a common D-like preaching
tradition, a tradition that more strongly influenced the D-like supplementer of JE (= Redaktor
JE?), in addition to the Book of Deuteronomy and ultimately the Deuteronomistic History of
Deuteronomy2 Kings. That is to say, D-like language and ideas entered the text through
diverse routes.
7 On the work of the JE redactor and the redactor who combined JE with D Cazelles writes:
Son uvre rdactionnelle a t faite avec discrtion, pit et intelligence. Cest cette fidlit
ces sources qui est lorigine des heurts littraires, si frappants, de la Gense, de lExode
et des Nombres; elle nous permet aussi, non sans difficult, de retrouver ces sourses. Cette
difficult sest vue accrue du fait que, finalement, D fut incorpor JE et a entran la
perturbation des chapitres relatifs au Sina. La seconde dition du Deutronome doit tre
contemporaine de linsertion des sections tu dans la grande histoire deutronomique. Nous
sommes lexil, au moment de ldition dfinitive du livre des Rois, sans doute sous le rgne
dEvil Mrodach (II Reg., xxv, 2730), vers 562. Mais cette grande histoire allait tre ampute
de son frontispice; le Deutronome. Celui-ci allait tre fondu avec JE, incorporant dans son
sein des blocs erratiques de E (Cazelles, Pentateuque, 821822).
8 Cazelles, Pentateuque, 821: Souvent des formules quon dit deutronomistes sont
simplement lohistes. Mais dans des cas comme ceux qui viennent dtre cits, la parent
avec D est telle quil faut admettre que le scribe jhoviste qui a fusionn J et E tait de
lcole deutronomiste. Il a fait son uvre pour insrer dans le grand texte J de Jrusalem les
traditions du Nord. Ce sont les faits rligieux majeurs de lhistoire dIsral qui lintraissaient.
the Elohist document.9 While similarity in the said instances with the Deutero
nom(ist)ic literature was strikingly evident, he did not consider it desirable to
designate the texts as Deuteronom(ist)ic without further ado, in part because
they did not (yet) reflect the central themes of Deuteronomy.10 On the other
hand, he observed strong evidence of Deuteronom(ist)ic language in relation
to RJE, so much so that he was inclined to situate the latter within the realm of
the Deuteronomistic school.
1.2 Brekelmans and Lohfink: In Search of Substantial Criteria

Also at the beginning of the 1960s (1963 to be precise) Brekelmans and
Lohfink focused anew on the issue of the Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in
GenesisNumbers, albeit independently of one another.11 For the first time,
9 More recently, J.S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT, 68), Tbingen
2009 argues that D simply used as his main source the independent E document (188).
D preferred E as his source, precisely because of the fact that specific attributes of E
not found in J (...) fit precisely the model that the author of D required; further Idem,
The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, New Haven
2012, 139146, claiming that Ds historical retrospective is basesd on E and J in their
independent forms (141)see also J.E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic
Historians Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives, London 2004. E as a source is also present in
the work of Y.H. Chung, The Sin of the Calf: the Rise of the Bibles Negative Attitude Toward
the Golden Calf (Library of Hebrew Bible: Old Testament Studies, 523), New York 2010,
3058; 206.
10 Cazelles also defends his position in other publications. He writes the following in 1968,
for example, in relation to E: Certes, il [i.e. the ElohistH.A.] a beaucoup souffert
dans sa fusion avec son gnial prdcesseur [i.e. the JahwistH.A.] et il nest pas facile
a tudier, dautant que sa parent reconnue avec le Deutronome conduit beaucoup
qualifier de deutronomiste ce qui pourrait bien lui appartenir (H. Cazelles, Positions
actuelles dans lexgse du Pentateuque, ETL 44 (1968), 5578, esp. 72, with reference
to Brekelmans); Le Deutronome est la fois trs proche et trs loin de llohiste. Lui
aussi est bti sur le schma des traits dalliance et dune manire beaucoup plus claire.
Il connat un renouveau dintrt mrit. Sinon nouvelle alliance (et encore!), cest une
alliance renouvele et une reprise de la Loi. Ce qui tait peine esquiss dans llohiste
sur lamour de Dieu devient ici le centre de la thologie (7475).
In an article on the redactions and traditions associated with the exodus, Cazelles
considers E to be a redaction of two traditions on the Mountain of God: H. Cazelles,
Rdactions et traditions dans lExode, in: G. Braulik (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter
Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, Wien 1977, 3758, esp. 42.
11 Brekelmans presented his ideas on the proto-Deuteronomic character of the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in the Tetrateuch during the 15th meeting of the Colloquium
Biblicum Lovaniense on August 27th 1963 (cf. E. Lipiski, Les quinzimes journes bibliques
de Louvain, ETL 39 [1963], 827837, esp. 831: Le confrencier examina la nature et lorigine
118 Chapter 3
both exegetes make use of the term proto-Deuteronomic to refer to pericopes

that have tended to be characterised as self-evidently Deuteronom(ist)ic in
the course of exegetical research, but in their opinion should be seen as pre-
paratory to a later Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology.12 The lan-
guage and ideas of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature here acquire their earliest
expression, although not as yet in the stereotype form of the typically Deute
ronom(ist)ic traditions. Therefore, the term proto-Deuteronomic is used as a
generic name that fits into the encompassing Deuteronom(ist)ic line of tradi-
tion, thus referring to the beginnings of that tradition, that is believed also to
be found outside the compositional unit DeuteronomyKings.
Brekelmans began by formulating a number of useful criteria for determin-
ing whether a text should be characterised as proto-Deuteronomic. In an arti-
cle on Deut. 26:59 from 1963, he underlined the complexity involved in dating
des lments prtendment deutronomistes dans le Pentateuque ou, plus exactement,

dans le Ttrateuque, puisque seuls entrrent en ligne de compte les livres de la Gense,
de lExode, du Lvitique et des Nombres. Ces lments dits deutronomistes, estima
M. Brekelmans, ne dpendent pas en fait de la tradition proprement deutronomiste,
plus rcente que les documents yahwiste et lohiste du Pentateuque. Ils refltent une
terminologie cultuelle et prsentent un stade prparatoire, une premire bauche de la
thologie et du style propres luvre deutronomiste. Les lments en question, opina
le confrencier, appartiennent probablement la tradition lohiste. On pourrait les
qualifier de prdeutronomistes (cf. also M. Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic
Elements in Genesis to Numbers, in: F. Garca Martnez et al. [eds], Studies in Deuteronomy
in Honour of C.J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday [SVT, 53)] Leiden
1994, 243268, esp. 248249 n. 16see F. Neyrinck, G. Van Belle, Colloquium Biblicum
Lovaniense. Journes Bibliques de LouvainBijbelse Studiedagen te Leuven. 19491993 [ANL,
19], Leuven 1994, 26)C. Brekelmans, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Elemente in
Gen.Num: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Deuteronomiums, in: Volume du Congrs
Genve 1965 (SVT, 15), Leiden 1966, 9096; C. Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques
dans le Pentateuque, in: C. Hauret (ed.), Aux grands carrefours de la rvlation et de lex
gse de lAncien Testament (Recherches Bibliques, 8), Leuven 1967, 7791; N. Lohfink, Das
Hauptgebot. Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 511 (AnBib, 20)
Roma 1963. See also C.H.W. Brekelmans, Deuteronomisch. Deuteronomium, in H. Haag
(ed.), Bibel-Lexikon, Einsiedeln 21968, 326330.
12 The term itself is already employed in the literature. See, for example, L. Wallis, God
and the Social ProcessA Study in Hebrew History, Chicago 1935, 89 (cf. the review of
this work in International Journal of Ethics 45 [1935], 486488, esp. 486). The term was
later to be used to refer to passages in the prophetic literature as well. See, for example,
A.S. van der Woude, Micha (POT), Nijkerk 1976, 202204, or A.P.B. Breytenbach, The
Churchs Responsibility Towards Social Order: An Old Testament Hermeneutic Problem,
Hervormde teologiese studies 61 (2005), 877, who talks about Hosea and other proto-
Deuteronomic literature.
the style of D.13 The fact that a text is written in a Deuteronom(ist)ic style need
not necessarily imply that it should also be dated late. He insisted, moreover,
that the liturgical, solemn formulatory style characteristic of D could not have
come into existence without a prehistory. In his opinion, the Deuteronom(ist)ic
style is better explained as the result of a lengthy liturgical tradition. Indeed,
the Deuteronom(ist)ic tradition clearly made use of older material.
Brekelmans further elaborated these intuitions, likewise in 1963. He observes,
for example, that exegesis tends to be more or less consistent in placing the
emphasis on the unique style, characteristic language, and specific theology of
the book of Deuteronomy.14 At the same time, however, little interest appears
to have been demonstrated in the prehistory of this Deuteronom(ist)ic style
and theology. While some authors admitted that Deuteronomy could not have
fallen from the sky in monolithic form, little if anything was done with this
observation.15 The pericopes in GenesisNumbers that exhibited a degree of
kinship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature tend to be seen for the most
part as the result of a reworking or interpolation in line with Deuteronomy.
Brekelmans wanted to determine, nevertheless, whether the said pericopes
might not better be identified as belonging to the prehistory of Deuteronomy.
In order to draw reliable conclusions in this regard, he set out to establish a
number of criteria that could be used to support ascribing a given text to the
prehistory of Deuteronomy or to its later influence.16
Cazelles had already pointed to distinctive theology as a criterion with
respect to the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of a pericope. According to Brekel
mans this is a valuable criterion, although it remains vague. He thus adds
13 C. Brekelmans, Het historische Credo van Isral, TvT 3 (1963), 111, esp. 4.
14 Cf., for example, S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC),
Edinburgh 1895; 31902 and G. von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT, 58), Gttingen
1947.
15 Cf. S. Mowinkel, Le Dcalogue (tudes dhistoire et de philosophie religieuses, 16), Paris
1927, 7: Le caractre deutronomique dune expression ne prouve pas ncessairement
quelle est dorigine rcente. Il peut prouver seulement que cette expression faisait partie
du langage cultuel. A. Weiser, Der Prophet Jeremia (ATD, 20), Gttingen 51966, xxxvii, n. 1
is likewise of the opinion that the liturgical-parenetic style nicht erst in deuteronomi
schen Kreisen entstanden sein kann, da diese schon im Deuteronomium als vorgegebene
Stilform zu erkennen gibt.
16 Brekelmans, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Elemente, 92: Wenn man so weit
einverstanden ist [namely that Deuteronomy also had a prehistoryH.A.], erhebt sich
die Frage, ob es mglich ist, bestimmte Kriterien aufzufinden, die es uns gestatten mit
einiger Sicherheit festzustellen, ob bestimmte Texte als postdeuteronomisch oder als
protodeuteronomisch gelten sollen.
120 Chapter 3
the criterion of style. In addition to stylistic agreements between passages in

GenesisNumbers and Deuteronomy, it is also important to be aware of stylis-
tic differences between the two. Moreover, where agreement becomes appar-
ent between passages in the Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy, it is still essential
to determine the extent to which the style of the former already exhibits the
fixed form and clarity of the formulations found in the latter. When it becomes
evident that the Deuteronom(ist)ic style is not present in its fully developed
form, this may indicate that the texts in question are preparatory to the more
developed Deuteronom(ist)ic style. At the same time, it is of vital importance
that one checks whether the points of difference between the said passages
and Deuteronomy agree with details from other texts that are presumed to be
pre-Deuteronomic.17
Brekelmans tested these three criteria for determining whether a text is
proto-Deuteronomic or not on the basis of a number of pericopes from the
book of Exodus that have been regularlyand more or less self-evidently
designated as Deuteronom(ist)ic in 19th and 20th century exegesis.18 His
analysis resulted in the formulation of two conclusions. First, he observes that
research into a number of typically Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in Exodus
demonstrates that the language, style and theology of Deuteronomy under-
went a process of development. Second, he insists that the analysis of the
vocabulary of many of the said so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic pericopes makes
it clear that they exhibit an explicit relationship with the so-called Elohistic
literature.19
17 Brekelmans, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Elemente, 9394cf. Idem, lments

deutronomiques, 80: Will man also beweisen, dass die sogenannten deuteronomischen
Elemente in Gen.Num. protodeuteronomisch sind, dann muss man dabei mit den
nachfolgenden Kriterien rechnen:
1. Die deuteronomische Theologie in ihrer ausgebildeten Form soll fehlen.
2. Es sollen bereinstimmungen in Stil und Form mit dem Deuteronomium auftreten,
aber ohne dass immer die Festigkeit der Formu lierung des Deuteronomiums
vorhanden ist.
3. Die brigen Elemente, die keine Verbindung mit Deuteronomium aufweisen, sollen
Verbindungen mit der predeuteronomischen Literatur haben.
18 Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 8489. The texts in question: Exod. 12:2427a
(8082), Exod. 13:316 (8284) and Exod. 23:2033 (8489).
19 The tendency to associate E with D is also to be found, for example, in A.W. Jenks, The
Elohist and North Israelite Traditions (SBL MS, 22), Missoula 1977, 7778 n. 170: If we
could identify this passage [Exod. 23:2033H.A.] as the contribution of the E tradition,
this would indicate an extremely close relationship between the E school and the
Deuteronomic circles, for points of contact with Deuteronomic style and phraseology have
At the same time as Brekelmans, Lohfink likewise spurred on the use of the
term proto-Deuteronomic with the publication in 1963 of a detailed study
long been noted in the passage. Exod. 15:26 exhibits many contacts with Deuteronomic
theology and style, but more directly with E (43cf. also 117124). In addition, G.E.
Wright, Deuteronomy (The Interpreters Bible, 2), New York 1953, 320, had also already
underlined the link between E and D: This affinity would have been more evident in the
past, if scholars had not shown a tendency to ascribe to a Deuteronomic redactor those
passages in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers which sound somewhat like Deuteronomy. Yet
most of them occur in a predominantly E context, and view that there was a thorough
Deuteronomic redaction of JE appears increasingly subjective and difficult to prove.
Likewise according to P. Buis, J. Leclercq, La Deutronome (SBi), Paris 1963, 15, kinship
between E and D is so considerable, quil est souvent difficile de les distinguer. According
to Buis and Leclercq, moreover, Deuteronomy was familiar with the homiletic elements of
the E tradition and made use of them (14). Cf. also L. Rost, Sinaibund und Davidsbund,
TLZ 72 (1947), 130134, who insists that E and Hosea, like Deuteronomy, have a preference
for tradition and Sinabund. G. Auzou, De la servitude au service: tude du livre de lExode
(Connaissance de la Bible, 3), Paris 1961, 28 also sees E as a tradition qui annonce le
Deutronome. Cf., in addition, F. Dumermuth, Zur deuteronomischen Kulttheologie und
ihren Voraussetzungen, ZAW 70 (1958), 5998, esp. 59; L. Rost, Zum geschichtlichen Ort
der Pentateuchquellen, ZTK 53 (1956) 110, esp. 7; Muilenberg, Form and Structure, 351, as
well as Cazelles, Connexions et structure, 334335 and Kaiser, O., Traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung von Genesis 15, ZAW 70 (1958), 107126, esp 118 n. 57: Das in der Entstehung
des deuteronomistischen Stils und seinem Zusammenhang mit der israeliti schen
Bundestradition zumal elohistischer Frbung ein noch offenen Problem liegt, sei aus
drcklich angemerkt; J. Scharbert, Genesis 111 (Die neue Echter Bibel, 5), Wrzburg 1983.
11: Der Elohist und das Deuteronomium mssen aus Theologenkreisen stammen, die in
der sprachlichen Formulierung und in manchen Grundgedanken verwandt waren.
In later publications, Brekelmans only refers in passing to the Deuteronomistic
question: cf. C. Brekelmans, Wisdom Influence in Deuteronomy, in: M. Gilbert (ed.), La
Sagesse de lAncien Testament. Nouvelle dition mise jour (BETL, 51), Leuven 1990, 2838,
esp. 31. In a study of Josh. 5, he leaves room for the activities of a redaction, traces of
which can be discerned in both GenesisNumbers and the Deuteronomistic history.
According to Brekelmans, Josh. 5:1012 and Exod. 16, for example, should be ascribed to
the same redactor, whereby Josh. 5:1012 is understood as a continuation and completion
of what was said in Exod. 16: This means that there is here a redactional element which
shows a relationship between the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. If the book of
Joshua is part of the Deuteronomistic history, there is at some level a common redaction
with the Pentateuch (Tetrateuch) too. It seems that this conclusion cannot be avoided
(C. Brekelmans, Joshua v 112. Another Approach, in: A.S. van der Woude [ed.], New
Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published
on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap and
the Retirement of Prof. Dr. M.J. Mulder [OTS, 25], Leiden 1989, 8995, esp. 94). In relation to
the so-called Deuteronomistic redaction(s) in Isa. 112, Brekelmans is likewise somewhat
122 Chapter 3
of Exod. 13:316.20 As was evident in the preceding chapter, the passage had
served in the course of exegetical research as a typically Deuteronom(ist)ic text
which, it was claimed, had been added by a Deuteronom(ist)ic redactor. While
Exod. 13:316 exhibits similarities with the Deuteronomic style, Lohfink was
convinced that the pericope should not be characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic
under any circumstances. On the contrary. In his opinion, research into the
vocabulary of the text clearly demonstrated the proto-Deuteronomic char-
acter of Exod. 13:316.21 Both Lohfink and Brekelmans thus used the term to
underline their conviction that Exod. 13:316 exhibited traces of an early stage
in the development of the Deuteronomic style.22
reticent: At least in ch. 112 of the book of Isaiah I cannot find a redaction that could be
called deuteronomistic. I am inclined to think that we ascribe too many things to the
deuteronomistic movement. The reason for this may be that we seem to know exactly
what deuteronomic or deuteronomistic means, whereas we seem to know ever less about
the prophets and the prophetic literature, which remains nevertheless one of the most
characteristic parts of the Old Testament literature. My intention was to react in my own
way against a kind of pandeuteronomism which is pervading nowadays quite a number
of Old Testament studies. (C. Brekelmans, Deuteronomistic Influence in Isaiah 112, in:
J. Vermeylen [ed.], The Book of IsaiahLe Livre dIsae: Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unit
et complexit de louvrage [BETL, 81], Leuven 1989, 167176, esp. 176).
20 Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 121124.
21 Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 121: Ex 13,316 gehrt zwar in den Bereich des deuterono
mischen Stils, ist aber weder deuteronomistisch (dh. dem Rahmen des Dtn oder
charakteristischen Stellen von Jos2 K und Jer zuzuordnen) noch im strengen Sinn
deuteronomisch (dh. Dtn 528 zuzuordnen), sondernum einen entsprechen den
Ausdruck zu prgenproto-deuteronomisch.
22 Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 121122: Ex 13,316 ist vielleicht das schlagendste Beispiel fr
ein vor dem jetzigen Dt liegendes, noch reineres und jngeres Stadium des typischen
Stils der dt Schule der Predigt Israels. Wir sagten schlagend, denn wir dachten an
den Glcksfall, da wir in Dtn 6 ein formal so hnliches Stck zum Sprachvergleich
heranziehen knnen. In the same context, Lohfink also mentions Exod. 12:2427a as a
non-Deuteronomic passage, pointing out that only the inclusion technique in relation to
the great command is related to Deuteronomy and that the language of the said pericope
does not exhibit similarities with that of the latter: Aufs Ganze fehlt Ex 12,2427a in seiner
Knappheit und Przision ganz der lange Atem dt Perioden, es fehlen Doppelausdrcke
und Zerdehnungen und vieles andere, woran man den dt Stil erkennt. (...) Selbst wenn
es Zustz bleibt, drfte sein nichtdeuteronomischer Charakter erwiesen sein (122).
Elsewhere, Lohfink refers to JE as entirely proto-Deuteronomic: Ich betrachte das
jehovistische Geschichtsbuch als den deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Texten
und erst recht den priesterschriftlichen vorgegeben und bin hchstens bei einzelnen
Texten bereit, darber zu streiten, ob sie pentateuchischen sptredaktion angehren.
Die Haupt- oder Schlussredaktion des Geschichtsbuchs oder wenigstens seine letzte
The hypothesis proposed by Brekelmans and Lohfink explicitly fore-

grounded the notion that the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature could not simply be
taken as ,23 but had to be understood rather as
having a prehistory. Both scholars thought it plausible, moreover, that careful
research into the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in GenesisNumbers
would be able to trace the preliminary stages in the development of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
Throughout his career, Lohfink focused with some frequency in his
research and publications on the relationship between passages in Genesis
Numbers often characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic and the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature.24 His primary concern in this regard was the establishment of func-
tional criteria for determining the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of a given peri-
cope. In 1977, for example, he pointed to the ambiguity of statistical data. While
he considered it necessary to subject Deuteronom(ist)ic material to a word by
word analysishe speaks of atomistische Sprachstatistik25he insisted nev-
ertheless that the results of such statistical analyses were far from trustworthy.
Lohfink refers in this regard to the Decalogue in Exod. 20, which is often con-
sidered a Deuteronom(ist)ic creation based on a statistical comparison of the
vocabulary.26 It is striking, however, that the expression ( Exod. 20:2,
deutende Glossierung drfte in protodeuteronomischen Hnden gelegen haben,also

gerade jene Aktivitt sein, bein der die Deuteronomisten ihre ersten Gehversuche
machtenN. Lohfink, Die Schichten des Pentateuch und der Krieg, in Idem (ed.),
Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit im Alten Testament (QD, 96), Freiburg 1983, 51110, esp. 5556.
23 Cf. Von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien, 25.
24 Cf. N. Lohfink, Die These vom deuteronomischen Dekaloganfangein fragwrdiges
Ergebnis atomistischer Sprachstatistik, in: G. Braulik (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch:
Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, Wien 1977, 99109; N. Lohfink, Ich bin Jahwe,
dein Arzt (Ex 15,26): Gott, Gesellschaft und menschliche Gesundheit in der Theologie
einer nachexilischen Pentateuchbearbeitung, in: Idem. et al., Ich will euer Gott werden:
Beispiele biblischen Redens von Gott (SBS, 100), Stuttgart 1981, 1173; N. Lohfink, Die
Schichten des Pentateuch und der Krieg, 69; Idem, Gibt es eine deuteronomistische
Bearbeitung im Bundesbuch?, in: C. Brekel mans, J. Lust (eds), Pentateuchal and
Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the xiiith IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989 (BETL,
94), Leuven 1990, 91113; N. Lohfink, Deutronome et Pentateuque: tat de la recherche,
in: P. Haudebert (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Dbats et recherchesXIVeme Congrs de lACFEB,
Angers (1991), (LD, 151), Paris 1992, 3564, esp. 5264. See his collected works: N. Lohfink,
Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur (Stuttgarter biblische
Aufstzbnde. Altes Testament, 8, 12, 20, 31 and 38), Stuttgart 19902005.
25 Lohfink, Die These vom deuteronomischen Dekaloganfang, 99109.
26 For a list of so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic expressions in the Decalogue, Lohfink refers
to H. Schmidt, Mose und der Dekalog, in : Studien zur Religion und
124 Chapter 3
5, 7, 10, 12) occurs 210 times in Deuteronomy, while ( Exod. 20:6) is only
used four times in the context of human love for God. On this basis, Lohfink
called for a painstaking study of the texts to which scholars appealed in char-
acterising a pericope as Deuteronom(ist)ic. Such texts often represented an
amalgamation of different motifs, a fact that could not be observed on the
basis of word statistics alone.27 Lohfink applied his proposal by way of exam-
ple to the Decalogue. Based on a study of the texts related to the Decalogue, he
concludes that the latter should perhaps not be considered a concentrate of
so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic passages. Instead, he maintained, the passages in
question would appear to presuppose the Decalogue.28
In 1995, and in line with his criticism of the ill-considered attribution of
verses from GenesisNumbers to the Deuteronomist, Lohfink published a
controversial article in which he focused particular attention on the crite-
ria to be employed in the discernment of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in
biblical passages.29 His article insists on the need for meticulous stylistic
research within the discussion concerning the presence of Deuteronom(ist)ic
elements.30 At the same time, it reiterates the authors misgivings with respect
Literatur des Alten und Neuen TestamentsHermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstag, dem 23.
Mai 1922 dargebracht von seinen Schlern und Freunden, Tl. 1: Zur Religion und Literatur
des Alten Testaments (FRLANT, 36), Gttingen 1923, 78119, esp. 85.
27 Lohfink, Die These vom deuteronomischen Dekaloganfang, 101: Das sollte schon
dazu fhren, nicht nur statistisch zu arbeiten, sondern mindestens bei den weniger
hufig belegten Ausdrcken die Belegtexte zu studieren. Dabei zeigt sich bald etwas,
das die atomistische Statistik verbirgt: es gibt einige Texte, in denen mehrere dieser
deuteronomischen Ausdrcke geballt vereinigt sind. T. Rmer, Provisorische
berlegungen zur Entstehung von Exodus 1824, in R. Achenbach, M. Arneth (eds),
Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu ben (Gen 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen
Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur ReligionssoziologieFestschrift
fr Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (BZABR, 13), Wiesbaden 2009, 128154, esp. 129 has
recently argued that Wortstatistik should go hand in hand with Tendenzkritik, (...) das
heit die Erhebung der Textintention.
28 Lohfink, Die These vom deuteronomischen Dekaloganfang, 109.
29 N. Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, in: W. Gross (ed.), Jeremia und
die deuteronomistische Bewegung (BBB, 98), Weinheim 1995, 313382, esp. 323333. For
an abbreviated English version, see N. Lohfink, Was There a Deuteronomistic Movement,
in: L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of
Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 3666.
30 As early as 1981, and in part on the basis of a stylistic study, Lohfink characterised Exod
15:26traditionally understood to be Deuteronom(ist)icas a verse associated with
the Priestly literature. He observed that Deuteronom(ist)ic rhetorical texts make use of
a list of infinitives, while the Priestly literature constructs parallel clauses on the basis
to statistical research into isolated items of vocabulary and calls for attention
to be focused rather on the study of word groups and combinations of words,31
pointing out in addition that developments in the domain of Bible and infor-
mation technology might offer useful assistance in this regard.
In the same contribution, Lohfink also poses questions with respect to
prevailing hypotheses on the link between the emergence of Deuteronomy
and its associated literature, and thedemonstrable?literary activity of a
Deuteronomic school or movement.32 Basing himself on the essential char-
acteristics of a movement, he reveals himself to be sceptical in this regard.
of finite verbs. Lohfink, Ich bin Jahwe, dein Arzt, 3339: Ex 15,26 hat in der Form, im
Wortgebrauch und in der Aussage vielfache Beziehungen zu den deuteronomischen und
deuteronomistischen Texten. Darin liegt der Wahrheitskern der blichen Etikettierung
als deuteronomistisch o.. Doch liegen zugleich so tiefgreifenden, fast stets in die Nhe
spterer, priesterschriftlicher Stil- und Sprachdokumente weisende Unterschiede zu
allem Deuteronomischen vor, da man diese Etikettierung dann doch ablehnen mu. Der
Verfasser mu vielmehr einem Raum entstammen, der schon ber Deuteronomisches
und Priesterschriftliches zugleich verfgte. Genauer: Dieser Vers ist wohl in Anlehnung an
und im Blick auf Deuteronomisches von jemand formuliert worden, der selbst schon eher
von priesterschriftlichem Sprachgefhl herkam. Zwar nicht absolut notwendig, aber doch
mit groer Wahrscheinlichkeit haben wir also an die eigentliche Pentateuchredaktion
oder eine noch nach ihr liegende berarbeitung zu denken (39). A variety of scholars
were later to associate verses traditionally understood as Deuteronom(ist)ic with a late
stage in the evolution of the Pentateuch on account of their kinship with both D and P.
See, for example, Rmer, Provisorische berlegungen, 133134 with respect to Exod. 19:3
8, the Decalogue in Exod. 20:118 and 24:111*, among others.
31 Reference should be made in this regard to Weinfelds extremely important study of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic idiom (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 320365). In an
appendix on deuteronomic phraseology, and in contrast to the prevailing tendency, he
focuses attention on expressions and combinations of words. Occasioned by Weinfelds
study, Lohfink also dryly observed in 1995: Seine Praxis scheint bei den deuterono
mistischen Goldsuchern noch kaum Schule gemacht zu haben (N. Lohfink, Gab es eine
deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 324).
32 See, for example, G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, Bd 1: Die Theologie
der geschichtlichen berlieferungen Israels, Munich 1957, 79; O.H. Steck, Israel und
das Gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur berlieferung des
deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbild im Alten Testament, Sptjudentum und Urchristentum
(WMANT, 23), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1967, 196199; J.O. Akao, In Search of the Origin of the
Deuteronomic Movement, in IrBSt 16 (1994), 174189 and to some extent the related
term Deuteronomismus introduced by L. Perlitt, HebraismusDeuteronomismus
Judasmus, in: G. Braulik et al., Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Fr
Norbert Lohfink s.J., Freiburg 1993, 297295 and associated with the theme of the
Deuteronomistic movement.
126 Chapter 3
In his opinion, a primary and essential characteristic feature of a movement

is that it is more than an ad hoc association, political party or organisation. A
variety of groups, moreover, can belong to a movement, as well as indepen-
dent individuals who do not belong to one or other subgroup. A second impor-
tant feature of a movement, according to Lohfink, is the innere Bewegung of
the people associated with it.33 This implies, in addition, that a movement is
not destined to last forever. Indeed, a movement without innere Bewegung
is more or less doomed. Thirdly, every movement has a goal, something it
sets out to achieve. In line with this goal, a unique manner of speaking and
writing evolves. Bearing in mind that a movement goes beyond and encom-
passes different groups, however, its unique goal will inevitably be expressed
in a variety of ways.34 Thus defined, it is a priori not impossible that move-
ments also constituted a part of ancient Israels social fabric, although they
did not tend to take shape among the ordinary people, but rather within the
socially and politically influential layer of the population, certainly towards
the end of the monarchy and in the post-exilic period. This need not imply,
nevertheless, that such movements did not enjoy the support and approval of
the general population.
Against the background of his analysis of the essential features of a move-
ment, Lohfink also focuses attention on the way in which the idea of a move-
ment spread in ancient Israel. He presupposes that private book ownership
was as good as non-existent in the 8th century bce. This implies that the
literary materials included in the biblical text we know today most probably
existed in only one single copy.35 According to Lohfink, it would only have
33 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 333.

34 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 335: Bewegung besagt also
nicht sprachliche Uniformitt, selbst wenn im Rahmen einer Bewegung die Sprachen
verschiedener beteiligter Gruppen sich gegenseitig beeinflussen und sich auch zumindest
einige gemeinsame Schlagworte herausbilden werden.
35 Against this background, Lohfink fulminates against the frequently used argumentum e
silentio, which several scholars employ to support their conviction that GenesisNumbers
should be considered young. They base themselves, moreover, on the hypothesis that a
tradition that has no evident echoes in the prophetic literature, for example, did not have
a prior existence. If, however, and in line with Lohfink, we accept that only one copy of
a text existed in the 8th century bce, then it becomes quite plausible that the material
related therein was not familiar to everyone. For this same reason, the explanation based
on the argumentum e silentio for the absence of important themes from Genesis
Numbers in the prophets found in J. Van Seters, The So-Called Deuteronomistic
Redaction of the Pentateuch, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (SVT,
43), Leiden 1991, 5877 is untenable.
been during the exile in Babylon that copies of a text found their way into the
hands of a few families or religious centres. This does not imply, however, that
private ownership of biblical manuscripts was a general phenomenon. With
the exception of the so-called Ur-Deuteronomium, which was read in public
every seven years,36 existing texts tended to be very thinly spread and little
known. This situation is likely to have continued into the 3rd or 2nd century
bce, Lohfink maintains. At the same time, the relatively wide distribution
of Deuteronomy implies that both its content and its language was broadly
known and was no longer unique to a limited movement.37 As a result, anyone
familiar with the Deuteronomic law, language, style and ideas was free to make
use of them in new compositions.
Based on these presuppositions, Lohfink concludes that a genuine
Deuteronomistic movement with its roots in the preaching of the prophet
Hosea probably never existed. Pre-exilic and exilic (Deuteronomic) may well
have referred to and made use of texts from the prophet Hosea that they had
at their disposal. It is also possible that the language of Hosea had become
accessible to them via their reading of Jeremiah, who was apparently likewise
familiar with texts of Hosea. The fact that the Deuteronomic authors made
use of Hosea, however, does not imply that Hosea should be seen of necessity
as the prototype of the Deuteronomistic movement.38 In Lohfinks opinion,
the reform of Hezekiah is also unrelated to the existence of a Deuteronomistic
movement. In response to the threat from Assyrian, and for political and mili-
tary reasons, Hezekiah had endeavoured to centralise the population of Judah
in Jerusalem. For similarly tactical reasons he also wanted to centralise the cult
by ascribing a special place to Jerusalem, so that the population would be con-
centrated in Jerusalem in the event of war with Assyria.39 It is probable that
the oldest layer of Deut. 12with its exclusive focus on the centralisation of
sacrificestems from this period. It is also possible that an older form of the
books of Kings came into existence during the reign of Hezekiah, a form we
36 The so-called Ur-Deuteronomium is presented in the narrative of 2 Kgs 2223 as a

document, an original work, and not as one or other copy thereof (2 Kgs 22:8: ) .
King Josiah himself was the first to have a duplicate made (Deut. 17:18:
)Cf. Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 339.
39 Lohfink refers to H.H. Rowley, Hezekiahs Reform and Rebellion, Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library 44 (1962), 395431; B. Halpern, Jerusalem and the Lineages in the
Seventh Century bce: Kingship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability, in: B. Halpern,
D.W. Hobson (eds), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOT SS, 124), Sheffield 1991,
11107.
128 Chapter 3
can already style Deuteronomistic.40 According to Lohfink, however, all these

elements do not allow us to speak of a movement. They are more likely to be
associated with the measures taken by a king, in this instance Hezekiah, with a
view to the realization of military goals.41
Lohfink is of the opinion that we can probably only speak of a de facto
movement in the time of King Josiah and he refers in this regard to the studies
of Frank Crsemann and Rainer Albertz.42 The said movement, which came
to its end with the death of Josiah at Megiddo around 609 bce, probably did
not lay exclusive claim to a form of Deuteronomy as its manifesto, but would
have referred to other textsAbertz mentions Zephaniah and texts from
the early Jeremiah. While Lohfink considers it justified to speak of a move-
ment from the period of Josiah, he is reluctant nevertheless to characterise it
as Deuteronomic. Indeed, the already existing form of Deuteronomy under-
went a redaction immediately after its solemn promulgation. At the same
time, a start was already made under Josiahs reign on the compilation of the
Deuteronomistic history, and even of GenesisKings as a whole. Nevertheless,
the authors responsible for this literary composition only represent one aspect
of the Josian movement. For this reason, Lohfink considers it more opportune
to avoid speaking of a Deuteronomic movement. He prefers rather to charac-
terise it as a restoration movement from the period of Josiah, a movement that
40 In this hypothesis, Lohfink followseither as a whole or in partA.F. Campbell, Of

Prophets and Kings. A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 12 Kings 10) (CBQ MS,
17), Washington 1986, esp. 186187; 200201; M.A. OBrien, The Deuteronomistic History
Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO, 92), Fribourg, 1989, esp. 225226; H. Weippert, Die
deuteronomistischen Beurteilungen der Knige von Israel und Juda und das Problem
der Redaktion der Knigsbcher, Bib 53 (1972), 301339; W.B. Barrick, On the Removal
of the High-Places in 12 Kings, Bib 55 (1974), 257259; B. Peckham, The Composition of
the Deuteronomistic History (HSM, 35), Atlanta, GA 1985; A. Lemaire, Vers lhistoire de la
rdaction des livres des Rois, ZAW 98 (1986), 221236; I.W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Book
of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History
(BZAW, 172), Berlin 1988, among others.
41 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 352: Wenn wir damit nicht schon
zuviel behaupten, handelte es sich um einen aus dem Bundestext von Ex 34 und dem
Bundesbuch weiterentwickelten Tora-Text, der wahrscheinlich nicht sehr umfangreich
war und vielleicht berhaupt nur Fragen der Kultreform berhrte, blicherweise das
Urdeuteronomium genannt, und um eine Geschichte der letzten Jahrhunderte, die den
regierenden Knig und seine Opferzetralisation ins rechte Licht stellte. Das war Initiative
von oben, nicht Beiprodukt einer Bewegung.
42 Cf. F. Crsemann, Die Tora. Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes,
Munich 1992, 311314; R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamenticher Zeit (ATD.
Ergnzungsreihe, 8), Gttingen 1992, 310316.
was kept alive by a number of families in Jerusalem and was concerned with
bringing the entire population together under one king, namely Josiah.43
According the Lohfink, Deu te
ronomistic texts were not only used as
a source of inspiration during and after the Babylonian exile, they were
also imitated.44 This implies that a text exhibiting similarities with Deute
ronomy or the Deuteronomistic history should not simply be characterised as
Deuteronomistic without further ado.45 Moreover, an author who draws inspi-
ration from the Deuteronomistic literature is not thereby a Deuteronomist,
nor can he be identified as a member of an (organised) movement.46
2 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers
Thanks to the publications of Brekelmans and Lohfink from 1963, renewed

attention was justifiably focused on the possibility that what had come to
43 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 356356. Compare, however,

O. Kaiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einfhrung in ihre Ergebnisse und
Probleme, Gtersloh 1969; 51984, 136: Das Programm des Deuteronomiums, das wohl eher
den Namen eines Reformations- als eines Restaurationsversuches verdient (...).
45 This idea is also found in R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah (Old Testament Guides), Sheffield 21993,
42: Allowance should be made for the existence of post-Deuteronomistic material in the
book which may have been influenced by Deuteronomistic ideas but not have emanated
from such circles.
46 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 371: Was die weiteren deuterono
mistischen Schriften angeht, so mssen wir zumindest damit rechnen, da in Jerusalem
[c.q. in the Persian periodH.A.] in der Tempelbibliothek und -schule der ganze
Grundkanon der deuteronomistischen Schriften vorhanden war und als Bildungsgut
diente. Er besa also eine dementsprechende zu definierende ffentlichkeit. Gebildete,
die neue Texte verfaten oder alttradiert neu redigierten, kannten die deuteronomisti-
schen Schriften oder doch Texte aus denselben auswendig und konnten sie auch jederzeit
wieder lesen. Daher stellt es kein Problem dar, wenn sie sich inhaltlich und sprachlich in
ihren eigenen Produktionen an einzelnen Stellen oder auch durchgehend davon prgen
lieen. Das scheint mir die Sprache der Chronik ebenso wie die vieler spt anzusetzen
der deuteronomistischer Texte im Pentateuch voll zu erklren. Erst recht viele Qumran-
Texte. Solche Autoren oder berarbeiter konnten auch die zu erwartenden, ebenso wie
sie selbst ausgebildeten Leser ihrer Texte durch Anspielungen und Zitate direkt auf das
Deuteronomium oder deuteronomistische Schriften verweisen. (...) Wer sich derart von
Deuteronomistischen inspirieren lie oder sogar darauf verwies, mute deshalb keines-
wegs selbst ein Deuteronomist seinwas immer dieses Wort in diesem Kontext ber
haupt noch besagen knnteoder gar einer deuteronomistischen Schule angehren.
The tendency within lxx and SamP to harmonise with Deuteronomy might also be
explained against this background.
130 Chapter 3
be known as typically Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology did

not come into existence without a prehistory of any kind.47 Their claim to be
able to recognise the preliminary stages of the said Deuteronomic features in
significant passages in the books of GenesisNumbers was nevertheless rela-
tively new.
Of greater importance for our status quaestionis is the (re)new(ed) impe-
tus Brekelmans and Lohfink gave to scholarly research into the presence of
Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the Tetrateuch. Indeed, after the appearance
of their studies it was no longer possible to ascribe a number of pericopes
in GenesisNumbers, as a matter of course and without further ado, to a
Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction. At the same time the term proto-Deuteronomic
firmly established itself and several scholars have endeavoured since then
to demonstrate the proto-Deuteronomic character of a number of passages
from GenesisNumbers. Although some scholars sporadically investigate
parts of Genesis and Numbers, the specific attention to the book of Exodus is
remarkable.48 In the following paragraph we will briefly explore the work of a
47 Scholars had made sporadic reference to their conviction that the specific language of
Deuteronomy could not have emerged unprepared. See, for example, E.W. Nicholson,
Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford 1967, 3757; 119124. F. Horst, Das Privilegrecht
Jahwes: Rechtsgeschichtli che Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium (FRLANT, 45),
Gttingen 1930 conducted a systematic study of the incorporation of legal texts into
Deuteronomy. Prophetic components were also recognised in Deuteronomy (cf. Driver,
Deuteronomy, xxvi; A.C. Welch, The Code of Deuteronomy: A New Theory of its Origins,
London 1924, 3233; A. Alt, Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums, in: Idem, Kleine Schriften
zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Bd. 2, Munich 1953, 250275; G. von Rad, Das Gottesvolk im
Deuteronomium [BWANT, 47], Stuttgart 1929, 72100; H.-W. Wolff, Hoseas geistige Heimat,
TLZ 81 [1956], 8394). Other scholars pointed to poetic material said to have been used
by the authors of Deuteronomy (e.g. H. Junker, Die Entstehungszeit des Ps. 78 und des
Deuteronomiums, Bib 34 [1953], 487500). For the influence of Wisdom Literature on the
genesis and evolution of Deuteronomy, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School.
48 Scholars tend only rarely to explore verses from Genesis and Numbers, and often only
in passing. See, for example, J.G. Plger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkriti
sche Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium (BBB, 26), Bonn 1967, 71: Man wird (...) in Gen
50,24 mit einer der deuteronomischen Schule zwar verwandten, ihr vorausgehenden,
aber nicht sicher identischen berarbeitung zu rechnen haben. According to H. Donner,
Die literarische Gestalt der alttestamentlichen Josephsgeschichte (Sitzungsberichte der
Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976/2), Heidelberg 1976, 35, the language
of Gen. 50:2325 points auf den Elohisten. Zu erwgen wre allenfalls eine protodeu
teronomische Konstruktion. L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT,
36), Neukirchen 1969, 6768 considers Gen. 12:7 to be proto-Deuteronomic: Die (vor-)
selection of exegetes who are explicitly interested in the proto-Deuteronomic

character of passages from GenesisNumbers and refer to these elements as
proto-Deuteronomic.49 I consider it justified to limit myself to the presenta-
tion of a selection of exegetes, bearing in mind that the way they conduct their
jahwistische Grundschicht der Landverheiung an Abraham findet sich in Gn 12,7a ohne

jede theologisch-terminologische Aufhhung (...) zwar lokalisiert, aber ohne Anla
und ohne Schwur, ein verbum nudum; das gengte der alten Zeit. Gn 12,7 ist knapper
und authentischer Nachhall der Verheissung an Abraham, in deren Schatten David als
Abrahams Erbe ( das Reich baute. Im Jh. der Siege gengte Jahwes Wort, denn er
erwies sich gegen die Philister als Gott Israels, wie er sichgem dem anderen Typ
der Kulturlandverheiung von Ex 3,8vom Auszug her erwiesen hatte. Erst als das
Reich krank und die Feinde bermchtig wurden, mute Jahwe den Besitz des Landes
garantieren, eben beschwren; und das war im 7. Jh. eher fllig als im 10. Jh. Vielleicht
diente die ausdrckliche Beschwrung aber auch schon im Kampf der Jahwe-Theologen
gegen Baal als Hilfe: Jahwe, Jahwe allein, verdankt Israel jene Gabe. Dann knnte das
Anwachsen der Landschwur-berlieferung weitrumiger und kontinuierlicher gewesen
sein. Nur soviel ist sicher: Bei J hat dieser Proze noch nicht begonnen, bei Dt dagegen
ist er abgeschlossen, wie die unreflektierte Selbstverstndlichkeit der Wendung von Dtn
7,13b beweist. Also liegt die kreative Epoche dieser Formel auf dem Wege zu Dt hin; und
wegen der sprachlichen und gedanklichen Nhe zu Dt eben mehr bei Dt als bei J, wie
Gn 24,7; 26,3; 50,24; Ex 13,5.11 und andere Rckverweise nahelegten. So erweist sich auch
von diesem Durchlick her das Recht des Ausdrucks frh-oder protodeuteronomisch.
For the proto-Deuteronomic content of Num. 14:9, see, for example, F. Stolz, Jahwes
und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen im Glauben des alten Israels
(ATANT, 60), Zrich 1972, 70: Die seltsame Formulierung Kalebs, da das Volk des Landes
Israel Fra sei, ist nur hier und Dtn 7,16 belegt, wo gesagt wird, Israel fresse (akal)
die Einheimischen. (...) Die Formulierung des Mit-Seins Jahwes ist insofern interessant,
als sie durch den Ausdruck et bezeichnet ist; die deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen
entsprechenden Aussagen verwenden immer im. et begegnet auer an dieser Stelle nur
noch in Jdc 1,19 einer protodeuterononomischen Stelle.
49 This means in concreto that authors who speak of the dependence of Deuteronomy on
GenesisNumbers without referring to passages from the Tetrateuch as proto-Deutero
nomic will not be included in our survey. J.L. Ska, Exode xiv contient-il un rcit de guerre
sainte de style deutronomistique?, VT 33 (1983), 454467, for example, likewise set out
to demonstrate that the Sea Narrative in Exod. 14 should not be understood as Deutero
nom(ist)ic but rather as the foundation of Deuteronom(ist)ic texts, without, however,
characterising Exod. 14* as a proto-Deuteronomic text. Ska takes the opinion of those
scholars who support a late dating for the Jahwist (e.g. Van Seters and Schmid) as his point
of departure. According to such scholars, the Jahwist exhibits very close kinship with
the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. Ska wants to determine whether the discernment of
typically Deuteronom(ist)ic characteristics in Exod. 14 can be justified. His study explores
whether the Jahwistic narrative in Exod. 14 deals with a holy war, which is said to be a
characteristic feature of Deuteronom(ist)ic texts. Exod. 14:1314, 24b, 25b, 28b, 3031 are
132 Chapter 3
research as well as its results are more or less identical.50 The said scholars
focus in the first instance on language and vocabulary, while style tends to
occupy a much narrower place in their research. The results they achieve, how-
ever, tend to be parallel. The pericopes they study, are not considered the result
of a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction.51 On the contrary, the scholars in question
of particular interest in this regard. Skas answer, nevertheless is negative. In his opinion,
Exod. 14 is much closer to the theophany narratives.
Based on a study of the vocabulary of Exod. 14, Ska concludes that the passage in
question is not dependent on Deuteronomy. In several instances, the opposite appears
in fact to be the case. In Deut. 20:4, for example, two important ideas are associated with
one another, namely the presentation of God in battle and the presentation of God who
accompanies his people. According to Ska, these themes come from the Sea Narrative
in Exod. 1314. The formula ( Deut. 20:4) is probably a mixture of
(Exod. 13:21) and ( Num. 14:9, Deut. 20:1; 31:8; 2 Chron. 20:17; 32:8). It is stated in
Deut. 20:4, moreover, that God battles on behalf of his people. The theme of the cloud in
Exod. 1314 serves as a key to Skas interpretation. In the Sea Narrative in Exodus we are
told how God is present in the cloud that precedes the Israelites and how he goes to battle
against Egypt on their behalf: Deut. xx,4 a thmatis en une phrase ce qui tait simple
ment juxtapos dans le rcit de lExode, le fait que Dieu combat pour Isral et le fait que
ce Dieu soit prsent dans la nue. Cette conscience rflexe, dans le Deut., laisse supposer
quil est postrieur au rcit de lExode (461). According to Ska, other details also suggest
that Deut. 20:14 was inspired by Exodus, namely the explicit mention of the exodus (v. 1),
the chariots and horses (v. 1) and the hiphil of ( v. 4): Lexhortation, daprs le v. 1,
est place tout entire sous le signe de lexode. Isral doit puiser sa confiance dans le
souvenir de cet vnement. Le Dt. reprend donc une tradition connue, tout en utilisant
un vocabulaire propre (461 n. 28). Deut. 1:2933 and 2:1415 likewise appear to recapture
the old text of Exod. 14 and give it their own interpretation.
Skas findings with respect to the Sea Narrative in Exod. 14 can be summarised as
follows. A J narrative in Exod. 14 is more in keeping with the theophany narratives
than the war narratives. At the same time, the vocabulary of Exod. 14 is independent of
Deuteronom(ist)ic texts. Deuteronomy on the contrary builds on Exod. 14. To conclude,
and in line with Skas conviction, we must also ask whether the theme of holy war was
invented by the Deuteronom(ist)ic school. Moreover, war and stories of war are much
older than the reform of Josiah: Somme toute, lanalyse du thme de Dieu qui combat
pour son peuple fait pencher la balance plutt dans le sens dune dpendance des textes
Dt.-Dtr par rapport ceux dExode (462). Cf. also J.L. Ska, Le passage de la Mer: tude de la
construction, du style et de la symbolique dEx 14,131 (AnBib, 109), Roma 1986.
50 In the present survey we will focus on the studies of C. Labuschagne, M. Caloz, M. Vervenne
and C. Begg. We will also look at the work of D.E. Skweres whose study of Deuteronomy
produced similar results.
51 We have not included studies that deny any relationship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature and argue for the non-Deuteronom(ist)ic character of a pericope. Examples
of the latter include F. Langlamet, Isral et lhabitant du pays, RB 76 (1969), 321350,
believe it possible to discern here traces of a preliminary stage in the develop-

ment of Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology outside the corpus
of DeuteronomyKings. Beyond some extremely tentative observations, how-
ever, the said authors never provide detailed hypotheses explaining the emer-
gence and composition of the Pentateuch as such.
2.1 Proto-Deuteronomic Passages in the Book of Exodus

After a somewhat tentative analysis both Brekelmans and Lohfink presented
Exod. 13:316, a pericope consistently characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic
throughout the first half of the 20th century, as an example of a proto-
Deuteronomic text. A few years later, Masso Caloz focused in detail on this
passage and in so doing gave a firm and substantiated boost to the hypoth-
esis of Brekelmans and Lohfink.52 Calozs primary goal was to test the criteria
drafted by Brekelmans in an extensive three-part study.
In the first part he examines the vocabulary of Exod. 13:316, counting the
number of times almost every word in the pericope is used in a given source
(the Documentary Hypothesis is still the dominant interpretative model at
a highly detailed study of the vocabulary of Exod. 34,1116 geared to determining the
pericope in question can be described as pre-Deuteronomic. The author prefers to use the
term pre-Deuteronomic instead of proto-Deuteronomic, arguing that Exod. 34:1116 is an
extremely old text and thus far from Deuteronomy. According to Langlamet, Exod. 34:11
16 is a parenesis from before the time of Solomon, warning against integration with the
Canaanites. See also J. Loza, Les catchses tiologiques dans lAncien Testament, RB 78
(1971), 481500 and Exode xxxii et la rdaction JE, VT 23 (1973), 3155 who underlines the
non-Deuteronomic character of Exod. 12:2427 and Exod. 32:714.
A number of authors observe in passing that certain passages in GenesisNumbers
should be considered preliminary to the Deuteronom(ist)ic language and theology. See,
for example, W.H. Schmidt, Exodus (BKAT, 2/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988, 197: Typisch
deuteronomistische Sprache zeigt Ex 4 jedoch nicht (...). So mag die jehowistische
Redaktion eher auf dem Weg zur deuteronomistischen (...) als mit ihr identisch sein
(cf. also 163142). See Idem, Einfhrung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 1979; 51995, 58 n. 2.
52 M. Caloz, Exode xiii,316 et son rapport au Deutronome, RB 75 (1968), 562. On
Exod. 13,316, see also, for example, Plger, Deuteronomium, 6877, esp. 77: Zusammen-
fassend lt sich feststellen, da Ex 13,316 neben lteren Texten proto-deuteronomisches
und deuteronomisch-deuteronomistisches Material enthlt. Mehrfache sukzessive Erwei
terungen scheinen darum nicht ausgeschlossen. Die in unserem Zusammenhang interes-
sierenden Formulierungen des Rckverweis auf den Vterschwur Ex 13,5.11 weisen groe
Verwandschaft zu Dt auf. Bedeutsam ist vor allem, da die Nhe zu Dt grer ist als zu
einer anderen Quelle.
134 Chapter 3
this juncture).53 The results of his statistical analysis already allow him to
draw a number of conclusions. Within GenesisNumbers, there would appear
to be several agreements between Exod. 13:316 and the Jahwistic literature.
At the same time, Caloz insists that we should pay particular attention to the
differences between the vocabulary in Deuteronomy and the vocabulary in
Exod. 13:316, in spite of the fact that there appears at first sight to be more
contacts with Deuteronomy.54 He also observed that a number of words and
expressions in Exod. 13 appear to be related to J, E or L, but to have no asso-
ciation to Deuteronomy. The pericope, moreover, contains two words that do
not occur elsewhere.55 Caloz concludes on the basis of his detailed vocabu-
lary study that the terminology of Exod. 13:316 should not be characterised as
Deuteronom(ist)ic.56
An analysis that studies every word of a text in itself, however, cannot be
sufficient. Indeed, one can only determine the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of
a text when one pays attention to the literary context. This provides the focus
in the second part of Caloz study, namely the structure of the pericope and its
framing formulas. He begins by trying to ascertain whether the introductory
formulas (Exod. 13:5, 1112a) that locate the laws (Exod. 13:67, 1112a) within a
53 For source subdivision, Caloz makes use of Eissfeldts Hexateuch-Synopse: Die Erzhlung
der fnf Bcher Mose und des Buches Josua mit dem Anfange des Richterbuches in ihre
vier Quellen zerlegt und in Deutscher bersetzung dargeboten samt einer in Einleitung
und Anmerkungen gegebenen Begrndung, Leipzig 1922. He thus makes a distinction
between L, J, E and P. In addition to Deuteronomy, Caloz also includes material from
the Deuteronomistic History in his research, which he further subdivides into pre-
Deuteronomistic, Deuteronomistic, post-Deuteronomistic and special material.
54 Exod. 13:316 contains a few phrases that only occur elsewhere in Deuteronomy. On closer
inspection, however, the said material appears not to be completely identical. The word
( Exod. 13:12), for example, is only found elsewhere in Deut. 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51. In Deute
ronomy, however, the term is always accompanied by , is in the status constructus,
and always occurs in formulas of blessing and curse (Caloz, Exode xiii,316, 42). With
respect to the words and , Caloz observes that la formule na pas en Ex.,
xiii,9.16 la fixit du Dtn et elle ne se rapporte pas la Loi mais lobservance de deux
rites particuliers (42). Caloz also sees Brekelmans criteria with respect to style confirmed
in words and phrases that occur in Deuteronomy and in other traditions. Many words
and formulations Exod. 13 shares with Deuteronomy appear, moreover, to differ from one
another in terms of meaning or formulation. The word in Exod. 13, for example, is
used for sacrifices in honour of YHWH. In Deuteronomy, by contrast, the term refers to
household sacrifices.
55 ( Exod. 13:3, 14, 16) and ( Exod. 13:12).
56 Caloz, Exode xiii,316, 43: (...) on conviendra quil reste assez peu darguments pour
attribuer notre pricope une rdaction deutronomiste.
historical framework reflect the characteristic modus operandi of the so-called

Deuteronomic school. His answer here is negative. He observes similarities
between Exod. 13:5, 11 and Deuteronomy, but on closer analysis there would also
appear to be many differences.57 Caloz then discusses whether the catecheti-
cal exhortations in Exod. 13:(8), 14 point of necessity to a Deuteronom(ist)ic
hand. Here also he concludes in the negative.58 Even the formulas that serve to
conclude the said exhortations (Exod. 13:9, 16) exhibit not only similarities but
also striking differences with Deuteronomy.59
In the third and final part of his study, Caloz compares the stipulations
of Exod. 13:316, namely the laws concerning unleavened bread and first-
borns, with other Old Testament texts in an endeavour to situate the Exodus
57 Some arguments: (1) According to Caloz, the framing of laws in a historical context takes
place once in J (Exod. 23:23), three times in L (Exod. 12:25; 13:5, 11), nine times in P (Lev. 25:2;
14:34; 19:23; 23:10; Num. 15:2, 18; 33:51; 34:2; 35:10) and twelve times in Deuteronomy
(Deut. 6:10; 7:1; 8:7; 11:29, 31; 12:20, 29; 17:14; 18:9; 19:1; 26:1; 27:2). In his opinion, this is a usage
peculiar to Priestly circles and thus not typically Deuteronomic. (2) In nine of the twelve
in Deuteronomyand only in those in Deuteronomiumwe find the formula when
YHWH your God.... This expression does not occur in Exod. 13. (3) The list of the nations
in Exod. 13 runs parallel with the lists in Exodus and not those in Deuteronomy. Caloz,
Exode xiii,316, 47 also concludes: Il nous semble trs difficile dattribuer les formules
dEx 13,5.11 une rdaction deutronomiste. Il y a certes une parent, troite mme sur
certains points, mais labsence de dtails significatifs nous empche de voir dans notre
pricope une dpendance du Deutronome.
58 With respect to the non-Deuteronomic origin of the catechetic exhortation with which
a father instructs his child reference can be made to J.A. Soggin, Kulttiologische Sagen
und Katechese im Hexateuch, VT 10 (1960), 341347. According to Soggin, this literary
technique is always deployed in relation to central and essential elements of the law and
is thus at home in the cult. The catechetical exhortation, moreover, is not a discovery of
Deuteronomy, as is evident from Ancient Near Easter vassal treaties.
59 Caloz, Exode xiii,316, 53: En Dtn., vi,8 et xi,18, nous avons les meilleurs parallles pour
le vocabulaire, mais avec les diffrences que nous avons notes [in contrast to Deut. 6:8
and 11:18, Exod. 13:9, 16 has to do with the maintenance of a specific riteH.A.]. Dtn.,
vi,25, au contraire nous offre un bon parallle quant au sens mais dans un vocabulaire
trs diffrent. Caloz also turns his attention to the introduction (vv. 34). If we compare
v. 3a with similar introductory formulas in Deuteronomy (Deut. 1:1; 4:44.45; 5:1; 29:1;
31:1; 32:44) we observes a difference in tonality between the passages in question and
Exod. 13. While it is true that the expression is also found in Deut. 16:3, the
latter passage already testifies to Josiahs reform, a feature that is completely absent in
Exod. 13:3: Il semble donc que nous avons ici deux textes apparents remontant une
source commune. (...) moins que le Dtn (sa formulation ici) ne dpende dEx., xiii!
(54). Based on the vocabulary, the transition between the two laws in v. 10 can likewise not
be characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic.
136 Chapter 3
pericope in the evolution of Israels religious legislation. The two laws appear
to be relatively old, allowing Caloz to date Exod. 13:316 to a period prior to
Josiahs reforms.
The three parts of Caloz study thus point in one and the same direction. In
his opinion, Exod. 13:316 is not dependent on Deuteronomy and should not
therefore be referred to as Deuteronom(ist)ic.60 According to Caloz, the data
demonstrates that the pericope under analysis is a proto-Deuteronomic text.
There can be little doubt that Caloz detailed analysis helped the hypothesis
of Brekelmans and Lohfink to gain ground in the 1970s and continue to do so
even into the beginning of the 1990s. This is evident from the fact that a num-
ber of scholarly analysesprimarily of texts from the book of Exoduswere
no longer inclined to assign passages to a Deuteronom(ist)ic redactor without
further reflection, at the very least accounting on occasion for the possibility of
a proto-Deuteronomic author. Prime examples of this tendency can be found
in the studies of Joseph T.-K. Chan on Exod. 34, of Ludger Schwienhorst-
Schnberger and Yuichi Osumi on the Book of the Covenant in Exod. 20:22
23:33 and of Jrn Halbe on Exod. 34.61 Particular attention should be paid in this
context on those exegetes who studied under Brekelmans himself and focused
their research on the proto-Deuteronomic elements in GenesisNumbers.
60 Caloz, Exode xiii,316, 62: En conclusion: cette recherche nous a convaincu que le
qualificatif de deutronomique ou deutronomistedans le sens o on les prend
habituellement, cest dire impliquant une dpendance par rapport au Dtnne se
justifie pas pour Ex., xiii,316, et nous serions prt accepter la qualification de proto-
deutronomique (ou pr-deutronomique) propose par Lohfink, qui, outre la prcision
quelle apporte, nous rappelle que le style et la thologie du Dtn ont suivi une loi de
croissance et de progrs avant de produire le livre que nous admirons.
61 J.T.-K. Chan, La vocation de Mose (Ex 3 & 4): Recherche sur la rdaction dite deutronomique
du Ttrateuque (Facults de Thologie et de Droit Canonique. Travaux de doctorat.
Nouvelle srie, 15/8), Louvain-la-Neuve 1993; J. Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex 34,10
26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT, 114),
Gttingen 1975; Y. Osumi, Die kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b
23,33 (OBO, 105), Fribourg 1991; L. Schwienhorst-Schnberger, Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,22
23,33): Studien zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie (BZAW, 188), Berlin 1990. See also D.P.
Wright, Inventing Gods Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the
Laws of Hammurabi, Oxford 2009, 332333, considering the Book of the Covenant as pre-
Deuteronomic. As to the Sinai-pericope, see e.g. also A. Phillips, A Fresh Look at the Sinai
Pericope, VT 34 (1984), 3952; 282294.
2.2 Brekelmans School

In 1978, Christopher T. Begg defended his doctoral dissertation on the
Numeruswechsel in the book of Deuteronomy, which he had prepared under
Brekelmans direction.62 In the years that followed, Begg was to publish a num-
ber of articles in which he would test the hypothesis of his Doktorvater regard-
ing the proto-Deuteronomic elements in GenesisNumbers on the basis of a
study of the destruction of the golden calf in Exod. 32:20 and Deut. 9:21.63 He
focuses in particular on the verse segment in Exodus where we read that Moses
made the Israelites drink the water on which the ashes of the golden calf were
sprinkled, observing the difficulties created by the fact that the reference is not
included in the account found in Deuteronomy.
Begg begins from a comparison of Exod. 32:20 and Deut. 9:21 with a num-
ber of Ancient Near Eastern texts. Each of the destructive actions found in
Exod. 32:20 and Deut. 9:21 has parallels in Ugaritic, Egyptian, Mesopotamian
and Hittite culture. He observes, however, that the biblical text and its paral-
lels are not concerned about the reality of the situation being described but
emphasise rather the total destruction of a given object. As such, Begg notes,
it makes no sense to seek a solution to the apparent contradictions between
Exod. 32:20 and Deut. 9:21.64
Begg then goes on to explore the relationship between Exod. 32:20 and
Deut. 9:21 in greater detail. Similarities between Exodus and Deuteronomy
62 C.T. Begg, Contributions to the Elucidation of the Composition of Deuteronomy with Special
Attention to the Significance of the Numeruswechsel (unpublished Doctoral dissertation
KU Leuven), Leuven 1978. See also Idem, The Significance of the Numeruswechsel
in Deuteronomy. The Pre-History of the Question, ETL 55 (1979), 116124; Idem, A
Significant Anniversary in the History of Deuteronomy Research, in: Garca Martnez
et al. (eds.), Studies in Deuteronomy, 111.
63 C.T. Begg, The Destruction of the Calf (Exod 32,20/Deut 9,21), in N. Lohfink (ed.), Das
Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 208251. Begg
poses the question with clarity in the introduction to his article: How is the relationship
between the two verses to be understood, given both their considerable verbal similarity,
as well as their divergences? Is the one literarily dependent on the other, and if so, in
which direction does the dependence lie? Under this head it is especially the absence in
Deut 9,21 of anything corresponding to the giving-to-drink motif of Exod 32,20 which
calls for explanation. Did the author of Deuteronomy deliberately eliminate that motif
in his rewriting of the text of Exodus, or does it, rather, represent an amplification by the
writer of Exod 32,20 (or by a later redactor of that verse) of an earlier, shorter formulation
preserved in Deuteronomy? (209).
64 Begg, The Destruction of the Calf, 229: (...) the Biblical authors, like those of the
extra-Biblical passages were not primarilyif at allconcerned with the realistic
considerations which have long troubled interpreters of the calf accounts, Exod 32,20
138 Chapter 3
suggest that there is literary dependence between the two verses: (1) Both
Exodus and Deuteronomy employ the verb with as its object. (2) Both
verses employ a relative clause with as verb and the people as subject.
(3) Exod. 32:20 and Deut. 9:21 use the clause . (4) Both employ with
reference to Moses third action ( only occurs 7 times in the Old Testament,
and only in Exod. 32 and Deut. 9 with as object). (5) Both Exodus and
Deuteronomy employ the construction to designate the result of
Moses third action (moreover the qal infinitive of is only found in these
two passages together with ) .
In spite of these striking similarities, there are also a number of equally
striking differences: (1) In Deuteronomy, the statue is referred to as sin.
(2) Exodus uses for Moses second action while Deuteronomy uses
. (3) With respect to Moses third and fourth action, Exodus and
Deuteronomy likewise differ: Exodus has and ,
Deuteronomy and
. (4) As we noted above, Deuteronomy does not mention Moses
making the children of Israel drink the water.
Likewise, in spite of the similarities between Exodus and Deuteronomy, the
text of the latter appears to employ a richer vocabulary and to be more elabo-
rate. (1) Where Exodus employs five words to describe Moses first and third
action, Deuteronomy describes the same events with seven and eight words
respectively. (2) In the second, third and fifth of Moses actions, Deuteronomy
makes explicit reference to the object: and . (3) The unspecific
in Exodus is more clearly described in Deuteronomy as .
(4) The description of Moses first and third action is more elaborate in literary
terms in the Deuteronomy version. (5) Deut. 9:21 is much more negative with
respect to the people; the peoples sin is named before the calf is mentioned.
According to Begg, this inventory of similarities and differences indicates
that Deut. 9:21 is secondary with respect to Exod. 32:20 and is a reworking
thereof. His conclusion, however, does not solve the problem of the verse seg-
ment in which Moses makes the Israelites drink the water mixed with ashes.
Begg still has to demonstrate that the author of Deut. 9:21 did not take the
fifth action over from Exod. 32:20, but opted rather to drop thisand precisely
thisaction, in contrast to his tendency to present the other actions in more
colourful and elaborate terms. Begg appeals at this juncture to Noths theory of
in particular. Rather, both the Biblical and extra-Biblical writers wanted above all to
underscore, by their piling up of a whole series of destructive acts that the reprobate
being described was, in fact, thoroughly, utterly annihilated.
the Deuteronomistic History. Noth had ascribed portions of Deut. 13(4); 31; 34
to the same author who wrote the Deuteronomistic passages in JoshuaKings,
namely the Deuteronomist. Georges Minette de Tillesse had suggested in addi-
tion that the segments of Deut. 511 written in the second person plural also stem
from the same Deuteronomist.65 According to Minette de Tillesse, Deut. 9:21 is
to be ascribed to the Deuteronomist, who set out establishing a link between
this verse and the story of Josiah scattering the rubble of the sacrificial altars
in the Kedron brook (2 Kgs 23:12).66 Begg takes this hypothesis as the point of
departure for the continuation of his study of the character of Deut. 9:21.67 For
each of the points in which Deut. 9:21 and Exod. 32:20 differ from one another,
he goes in search of points of reference in the Deuteronomistic History: (1) The
qualification of the calf as agrees with the description of the calf that
Jeroboam had had drawn up.68 (2) In Deut 9,21 the term is appositional and
is not used as the primary verb as in Exod. 32:20. The primary verb in Deut. 9:21
is . By using this verb here, the Deuteronomist already intends to establish
a link with 2 Kgs 18:4b, where reference is made to the reform of Hezekiah.
The similarity is all the more striking when one observes that only occurs
elsewhere in 2 Chron. 34:7 and Mic. 1:7 in an idolatry context. (3) The term
is used only in Deut. 9:21 and in one other verse in the Old Testament to
allude to the total destruction of forbidden cultic objects. The verse in ques-
tion is 2 Kgs 11:18, a text that deals with the elimination of the cult of Baal in
Judah. (4) The Deuteronomist also added in Deut. 9:21, thus creating a
link with 2 Kgs 23:4, 6, 12, 15, the story of the reforms of Josiah. The term
is only used in these five instances in relation to the smashing of illicit cultic
65 G. Minette de Tillesse, Sections tu et sections vous dans le Deutronome, VT 12 (1962),

2987. See also Idem, Tu & vous dans le Deutronome, in: R.G. Kratz, H. Spieckermann
(eds), Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum DeuteronomiumFestschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von
Lothar Perlitt (FRLANT, 190), Gttingen 2000, 156163.
66 Minette de Tillesse, Sections tu et sections vous, 60.
67 Begg, The Destruction of the Calf, 236: What emerges from the investigations of these
authors [including Minette de TillesseH.A.] is that, not only in its introduction of a
brook as the place where the calfs remains are disposed, but also in a whole series of
other instances where its wording diverges from that of Exod 32,20, Deut 9,21 evidences
verbal links with the wide range of texts in Kings recounting significant moments (both
positive and negative) in the cultic history of Israel, so that the verse appears as a very
deliberate rewriting of the text of Exodus with a view to setting up and fore-shadowing
those various later moments.
68 Cf. 1 Kgs 12:30; 13:34; 14:16, 22; 15:3, 26, 30, 34; 16:2, 13, 19, 26, 31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24; 15:9,
18, 24, 28; 17:22.
140 Chapter 3
objects. (5) Moses fourth action as described in Deut. 9:21 is word for word the
same as the formulation in 2 Kgs 23:12: . Moreover, the combination
of and is only found elsewhere in 2 Kgs 23:6. The term employed
in Exod. 32:20, by contrast, is not attested in the Deuteronomistic literature.
(6) With respect to the formula of Deut. 9:21, Begg likewise
refers to 2 Kgs 23:12, where it is stated that Josiah scattered the ashes in the
. The Deuteronomist also employs the preferred ( )elsewhere
with reference to the destruction of forbidden cultic objects (cf. 1 Kgs 15:13;
2 Kgs 23:6).
Begg thus concludes that the Deuteronomist wrote Deut. 9:21 in prepara-
tion of a number of crucial themes from the Deuteronomistic History. With
this observation in mind, it becomes clear why the Deuteronomist dropped
Moses fifth actionthe reference to the Israelites drinking the water in which
the ashes of the calf had been scatteredfrom his version of the destruc-
tion of the calf. The Deuteronomistic literature on post-Mosaic cultic reform
does not speak of an obligation to drink the water with the ashes. If it was the
intention of the Deuteronomistic author of Deut. 9:21 to use the said verse to
anticipate the major cultic reforms in the history of Israel, then it would have
been unnecessary for him to include this motif in his version of the narrative.69
Deut. 9:21 appears, moreover, to be a carefully written composition, mak-
ing use of Exod. 32:20 to anticipate a number of important events that were
to emerge in the Deuteronomistic History.70 This conclusion allows Begg to
characterise Exod. 32:20with reference to his teacher Brekelmansas a
69 With reference to S.L. Loewenstamm, The Making and Destruction of the Golden CalfA
Rejoinder, Bib 56 (1975), 330348, Begg also claims that there is evidence of a rationalising
tendency that can be understood to be a characteristic of the Deuteronomist. Deut. 9,21,
he thus observes, uses to explain the presence of water in the
wilderness. Moreover, the ashes are quickly carried away by the rivers currents making
the image of the Israelites drinking the water easier to erase.
70 Begg, The Destruction of the Calf, 241: (...) each particular term/motif proper to
Deut 9,21 has been chosen with a view to setting up a definite verbal contact between
its account of the destruction of the calf and various significant cultic developments in
the period of the divided monarchy, i.e. Jerobeams fatal offense in erecting the calves
(1 Kgs 12,26ff. etc.) and the four major Judean cultic reforms of Asa (see 1 Kgs 15,13), Joas
(see 2 Kgs 11,18b), Hezekiah (see 2 Kgs 18,4b) and Josiah (see 2 Kgs 23,4ff., passim). And
it is, we propose, the same all-dominant interest on the part of the author of Deut 9,21
which explains why he simply passes over the (unusable) concluding notice of Exod 32,20
in his presentation.
proto-Deuteronomic text, a vision he still maintained ten years later in his

The Destruction of the Golden Calf Revisited.71
In 1986, Marc Vervenne defended a dissertation on the composition and
genesis of the Sea Narrative in Exod. 1314 with Brekelmans as his supervisor.72
His analysis follows in the footsteps of his mentor. On the basis of a form-
critical study and a tradition-critical analysis, Vervenne was able to discern the
presence of two narrative layers in the Sea Narrative, thus demonstrating that
71 Begg, The Destruction of the Calf, 249: In our view, the basic narrative in Exod 3234*, to
which 32,20 certainly belongs, is better denominated with the term favored by Brekelmans
and others for those Hexateuchal passages frequently labelled Deuteronomistic, e.g.
Exod 12,2427; 13,316; 19,38; 23,2033; 34,1116; Jos 24, i.e. proto-Deuteronomic. Such
a designation is appropriate in that, in their wording and theological emphases, Exod
3234*, and 32,20 in particular, approximate, but do not attain, the fullness, and fixity of
the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic strata in Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets.
See C.T. Begg, The Destruction of the Golden Calf Revisited (Exod 32,20/Deut 9,21),
in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W.
Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 469479, esp. 479 n. 30: To hold, as I do, that Exodus
32, v. 20 in particular, is protodeuteronomic (...).
See also E. Eynikel, who likewise prepared his doctoral dissertation (defended in 1989)
under Brekelmans: Exod 32,20 can best be called proto-deuteronom(ist)icE. Eynikel,
The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS, 33),
Leiden 1996, 211.
72 M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal (Exodus 13,1714,31): Een literaire studie. Status Quaestionis
van het onderzoek. Tekstkritiek. Vormstudie. Traditie en redactie (unpublished Doctoral
dissertation KU Leuven), Leuven 1986. Vervenne has continued to explore the results of his
research in a number of articles. For the question of the Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of
the Pentateuch, reference should be made to M. Vervenne, The Protest Motive in the Sea
Narrative (Ex 14,1112): Form and Structure of a Pentateuchal Pattern, ETL 63 (1987), 257
271; Idem, Zij stelden vertrouwen in Jahwe en in Mozes zijn dienaar. Kanttekeningen bij
het Zeeverhaal (Ex 13,1714,31), in Idem (ed.), Exodus: Verhaal en leidmotief, Leuven 1989,
101120; Idem, Tora (Pentateuch), in H. Jagersma, M. Vervenne (eds), Inleiding in het Oude
Testament, Kampen 1992, 219235, esp. 235; M. Vervenne, The Sea Narrative Revisited, Bib
75 (1994) 8098; Idem, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements, 243268, esp. 254
268; Idem, Le rcit de la Mer (Exode xiii 17xiv 31) reflte-t-il une rdaction de type
deutronomique? Quelques remarques sur le problme de lidentification des lments
deutronomiqes contenus dans le Ttrateuque, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume:
Cambridge 1995 (SVT, 66), Leiden, 1997, 365380; M. Vervenne, Current Tendencies and
Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus, in Idem (ed.), Studies in the Book of
Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 2155, esp. 4754.
For a description of Vervennes study see likewise U.F.W. Bauer, . All diese
Worte: Impulse zur Schriftauslegung aus Amsterdam. Expliziert an der Schilfmeererzhlung
in Exodus 13,1714,31 (EurHS, 442), Frankfurt am Main 1991, 203204.
142 Chapter 3
Exod. 1314 was an artificial unity, a synthetic narrative in which elements of

various origins had been reworked to form a coherent composition.73 In the
first narrative layer (A), which is strongly reminiscent of a miracle story, Moses
plays the central role as intermediary between YHWH and the people. The sec-
ond narrative layer (B) provides a description of the Egyptian pursuit.74 YHWH
brings relief by destroying the enemy. This layer would appear to be a didactic
legend in which it is stated that Israel should have faith in YHWH in difficult
times. From the tradition-critical perspective, the Sea Narrative functions as a
hinge between the exodus tradition in Exod. 711 and the wilderness tradition
in Exod. 1518.
Supported by acquired insights, Vervenne distinguishes two redactions in
the narrative under analysis, which are characterised by their own style, form
and theology. Based on its language and style, narrative layer A can be charac-
terised as Priestly.75 This does not imply, however, that we are dealing with an
independent Priestly narrative. Vervenne is more inclined to suggest a Priestly
redaction that reworked existing material based on its own propositions and
with its own images: the intervention of YHWH at the sea is a judgement in
which YHWH reveals himself as YHWH.76 Vervenne refers to the narrative layer
B as JE and characterises it as proto-Deuteronomic, a term he understand as
referring to an initial impulse to the formation of a Deuteronomic school.77 His
argumentation runs as follows.
73 Vervenne, Zij stelden vertrouwen in Jahwe, 114115.

74 The following material belongs to the first narrative layer (A): Exod. 13:20; 14:14, 8ab, 9b*,
10a, 1112*, 1518, 21a, 21bc*, 21d, 2223, 26, 27a, 27bd*, 28ab, 29, 31*. The second layer (B)
consists of Exod. 13:1719, 2122; 14:57, 8c, 9ab*, 10be, 1112*, 1314, 1920, 21bc*, 2425,
27bd*, 28c, 30, 31Vervenne, The Sea Narrative Revisited, 85 nn. 12; 13.
75 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 784790. For questions concerning P: see Idem, The P
Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction? The Sea Narrative (Ex 13,17
14,31) as a Test Case, in: C. Brekelmans, J. Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic
Studies. Papers Read at the xiiith IOSOT Congress. Leuven 1989 (BETL, 94), Leuven 1990,
6790; M. Vervenne, Genesis 1,12,4: The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Ouverture
to the Pentateuch, in: A. Wnin, Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and
History (BETL, 155), Leuven 2001, 3579.
76 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 790.
77 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 774830. In relation to the proto-Deuteronomic character of
JE see also M. Vervenne, Het boek Exodus. Lijnen en standpunten in het onderzoek naar
een gegroeid geschrift, in Idem (ed.), Exodus, 949, esp. 3435: The (...) composition that
is integrated into the Priestly Pentateuch is probably the result of significant redactional
activity that took place around the fall of the Northern Kingdom. I refer to this redaction
with the conventional siglum JE (cf. Kuenen and Wellhausen!), which I describe with
the usual qualifications as: a pre- or proto-Deuteronomic redaction, i.e. an initial impulse to
While the B layer of Exod. 14* exhibits features of a war narrative, it cannot
be considered a standard war narrative as such. The YHWH-war narrative in
Exod. 14* (B) is close in terms of form and vocabulary to a number of narra-
tives from the Deuteronomistic History, namely Josh. 10; Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7.
These four narratives exhibit an analogous framework, but they are filled out
differently in each instance. This is a characteristic of the Deuteronom(ist)
ic literature. Exod. 14* (B) nevertheless lacks a typical element of the YHWH-
war report: no mention is made of the struggle between Israel and the enemy.
Exod. 14* (B) thus appears to present itself as the description of an interven-
tion on the part of YHWH in the style of a war. At the same time, the war theme
in Exod. 14 is intermingled with a theophany report. As a result, there are not
only similarities with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature but also striking differ-
ences. Vervenne is of the opinion that the B narrative can best be situated after
the fall of the Northern Kingdom. It contains a strong appeal to trust exclu-
sively in YHWH, a tenor that is also evident in Isa. 7.
Vervenne then goes on to explore the vocabulary of Exod. 14* (B) at closer
quarters. Here we focus the arguments he deploys to demonstrate the proto-
Deuteronomic character of Exod. 14* (B). Based on the faith motif in Exod. 14:31
it would appear that Exod. 14* (B) is structurally and verbally linked with
Gen. 15; Num. 14; Deut. 1:26; 2 Chron. 20:15; Isa. 7. In all of these passages, the
reassurance formula ( ) occurs side by side with the faith motif ().
At the same time, the terminology of war is employed as a stylistic device to
present the deeds of YHWH as central. Kindred texts at the literary level, they
also exhibit traces of a stereotype framework, although it is clothed in a variety
of ways. Points of contact with Isa. 7 suggest that Gen. 15; Num. 14,1; Deut. 1:26;
2 Chron. 20:15 are not so old and are related to prophetic preaching. In his
form-critical study of the Sea Narrative, moreover, Vervenne demonstrated
that was not used in its theological sense prior to Isaiah. The agreements
between Exod. 14* (B), Deuteronomy and 2 Chronicles, he claims, point to
ideas that have become characteristic of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. The
similarities between Gen. 15 and Num. 14 point to a similar flow of tradition
in which all of the said texts took shape. Believing in Moses in Exod. 14:31(B)
cannot be disassociated from believing in YHWH. On this point, Exod. 14:31(B)
exhibits striking agreements with 1 Sam. 12:18. Furthermore, the presentation
the formation of a Deuteronomic school (translation mine). See also Idem, Mens, kosmos
en aarde: Een exegetische reflectie over Genesis 13, in: J. De Tavernier, M. Vervenne (eds),
De mens: verrader of hoeder van de schepping (Nik-reeks, 26), Leuven 1991, 2761, esp. 53:
We can argue with the usual qualifications that a redactor is at work in Gen. 2:53:24 who
is aligned with the evolving Deuteronomic tradition (translation mine).
144 Chapter 3
of Moses as servant of YHWH ( ) in Exod. 14:31(B) bears a close resem-

blance to the use of the same title in the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.78 With
this in mind Vervenne concludes that the motifs in Exod. 14:31 are akin to for-
mulations in the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, but lack the stereotype form
thereof. These motives, therefore, can be defined as proto-Deuteronomic in
the sense proposed by Brekelmans.79
The reassurance formula ( ) in Exod. 14:13(B) also exhibits similari-
ties with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.80 In both instances the expression
is accompanied by other expressions that offer courage in battle: in Vervennes
view, the link between and other formulations that reinforce the reas-
surance is quite clearly in line with Deuteronom(ist)ic phraseology.81 The
interpretation of in Exod. 14:13(B), however, agrees best with passages
such as Isa. 7:4 and 2 Chron. 20:15, 17.
The expression ( Exod. 14:13) is related to in Exod. 14:30.
The verb is not attested prior to Exod. 14 where is employed. Both
verbs are chiefly found in Judges and Kings in the context of war and con-
flict. In Judges and Kings, however, is never used in relation to the
exodus. Exod. 14* (B) is likewise not attuned to the exodus, but rather to the
wilderness tradition. The term , moreover, is used almost exclusively with
YHWH as subject. We encounter the word in this sense roughly forty times in
the Deuteronomistic History. On the other hand, the expression ,
which does have a role to play in the exodus, occurs only fourteen times in the
Deuteronomistic History. In other words, the expression in
Exod. 14:30a is in keeping with the range of ideas of Deuteronom(ist)ic litera-
ture, and the same would also appear to be the case with the expression
in Exod. 14:13.82
In terms of form, the formula -( Exod. 14:14, 25) agrees best
with Josh. 10:4 and Neh. 4:14. The other similar formulations in Deuteronomy
and Joshua are structured in the same stereotype manner but are lengthier
formulations.83 Vervenne thus assumes that the formula in Exod. 14:14,
78 Other motifs from Exod. 14:31(B) similarly allude to the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature:
; ; seeing the deeds of YHWHVervenne, Het Zeeverhaal,
800801.
79 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 801with reference to the criteriology of Brekelmans.
80 See Num. 14:9; 21:34; Deut. 1:21; 3:21; 20:34; 31:6; Josh. 8:1; 10:8, 25; 11:6; Judg. 4:18;
1 Sam. 22:23; 23:17; 2 Sam. 13:28; 2 Kgs 6:16. The formula is also found in Isa. 7:4; Jer. 40:9;
Neh. 4:8; 2 Chron. 20:15, 17; 32:7.
83 Cf. Deut. 1:30; 3:22; 20:4; Josh. 10:42.
25 reflects a vocabulary that was given fuller expression in Deuteronom(ist)ic

literature (lengthier formulations).84
The -motif in Exod. 14:13, 30 (B) is likewise found repeatedly in the context
of a YHWH war in the Deuteronomistic History. Moses address in Exod. 14:13
14 exhibits striking similarities with Deut. 17:16; 28:68.85 The conceptual paral-
lel with Isa. 7:4 in relation to the concept ( Exod. 14:14) is similarly striking
and agrees to a certain degree with Judg. 16:2; 1 Sam. 7:8.
Several motifs characteristic of the wilderness tradition in Exod. 23:2033;
3234; Num. 14:14; Deut. 1:33 are also evident in Exod. 13:2122; 14:1920, 24.
According to Vervenne, both Exod. 23:2033 and 3234 as well as Num. 14:14
would appear to have undergone a proto-Deuteronomic redaction.86 Moreover,
the kinship between Deut. 1; Exod. 14; Num. 14 and between 2 Chron. 20;
Gen. 15; Isa. 7 is striking. One encounters here a language and range of ideas
that slowly acquired form.87 Vervenne also focuses attention on the formulas
( Exod. 13:21; 14:19) and ( Exod 14:19), both of which point
to the proto-Deuteronomic character of Exod. 14* (B).88
The exposition of the Sea Narrative (Exod. 13:1722) and the pursuit
scene would also appear to contain material that would permit Vervenne to
define Exod. 14* (B) in the proto-Deuteronomic sense, namely
(Exod. 13:17), ( Exod. 13:18),89 ( Exod. 13:18), ( Exod. 13:18), the
note on the bones of Joseph (Exod. 13:19), -( Exod. 14:5), ...-
( Exod. 14:5), ( Exod. 14:5), ( Exod. 14:6), in
a context of war or conflict (Exod. 14:6) ( Exod. 14:8), the notion of
lifting the eyes and seeing in the context of conflict (Exod. 14:10), the -
motif as the moment of divine deliverance in the sense of a military victory

85 According to Dieter E. Skweres, the similarities between Exod. 14:13 and Deut. 28:68 are so
conspicuous that the latter text is probably a Rckverweis to Exod. 14,13 (cf. infra).
86 Vervenne refers in this regard to Brekelmans, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen
Elemente; G. Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die
Weisungen gegen die Kanaaner in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung (BWANT,
91), Stuttgart 1970; Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes; Jenks, The Elohist; D.E. Skweres, Die
Rckverweise im Buch Deuteronomium (AnBib, 79), Roma 1979; Begg, The Destruction of
the Calf, 208251.
89 See also in this regard M. Vervenne, The Lexeme sph and the Phrase yam sph:
A Brief Reflection on the Etymology and Semantics of a Key Word in the Hebrew Exodus
Tradition, in: K. Van Lerberghe, A. Schoors (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the
Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipiski (OLA, 65), Leuven 1995, 403429.
146 Chapter 3
(Exod. 14:24a, 27b), -( Exod. 14:24), the combination

(Exod. 14:24), the phrase and the term ( Exod. 14:25), ( piel)
in the context of a YHWH war (Exod. 14:25) and the expression
( Exod. 14:28).
Based on the agreements between Exod. 14* (B) and other proto-
Deuteronomic texts in GenesisNumbers, in addition to various points of
contact with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, Vervenne concludes that we are
dealing here with a proto-Deuteronomic JE-redaction: the language and range
of ideas characteristic of Deuteronom(ist)ic literature are given initial expres-
sion here in a form that does not yet match the stereotype form of the typi-
cally Deuteronom(ist)ic traditions. According to Vervenne, the JE-redactors
have clearly incorporated existing (oral and/or written) traditions in their Sea
Narrative. Moreover, Exod. 13:1714:31* (JE) is not an original unity but rather
a constructed narrative. The redactors in question were not simply collectors
of old material, but authors in their own right who created an original com-
position. They shaped the narrative along the lines of the YHWH war tradi-
tions; the form itself is so stylised, however, that it no longer has to do with
a YHWH war in the real sense of the term. The Israelites are mere observers
of YHWHs deeds; the Egyptians are fighting an invisible adversary; YHWH
decides the battle by performing a miracle whereby the Egyptians are covered
with water. The narrative uses the language of war, but it is used exclusively as
a stylistic device to proclaim the power of YHWH. Based on their theological
conviction that Israel must trust in YHWH and in his designated intermedi-
ary, the proto-Deuteronomic JE-redactors created a type narrative that could
be used to proclaim the power of YHWH in every analogous crisis situation.
Just as YHWH intervened in the past on Israels behalf, so YHWH intervenes
now. It is Vervennes conviction that the historical context of this redaction
is the murky period surrounding the fall of the Northern Kingdom (722 bce).
Agreements between this redaction and the language and style of texts in
Deuteronomy and in JoshuaKings, together with associations with texts in
GenesisNumbers that have been designated proto-Deuteronomic on the
basis of serious arguments, allow him to define JE as a proto-Deuteronomic
redaction.90 Vervenne tentatively concludes that the JE-redaction of the Sea
Narrative is part of an extensive redaction with pillars of support in, for exam-
ple, Gen. 50:24, Exod. 13:19 and Josh. 24:32.91 It was the Priestly redaction that
reworked the proto-Deuteronomic JE-redaction to form a new composition,

91 Vervenne, Zij stelden vertrouwen in Jahwe, 118.
attuning it with the traditions of creation and flood in Genesis. This Priestly
redaction was probably occasioned by the fall of Jerusalem in 587 bce.92
In line with his Doktorvater, Vervenne focuses particular attention on the for-
mulation of reliable criteria that can be used to determine whether a passage is
to be characterised as proto-Deuteronomic or not.93 In his opinion, attention
should be paid in the first instance to the form of a pericope. This implies
detailed linguistic analysis with attention to verbal statistics, expressions and
phrases.94 In addition to a study of the style in a pericope, the structure of
the said composition is also an essential criterion in determining the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic character of a passage. The next step is to closely exam-
ine the content of a given text. The ultimate goal of following these various
procedures is to determine whether it is possible to say something about the
Deuteronom(ist)ic character of a pericope or not.95 In later research, Vervenne
92 Vervenne, De uittocht uit Egypte, 404.

93 Here he enters into dialogue with Van Seters who had been critical of the possibility
of characterising a passage as proto-Deuteronomic. According to Van Seters, authors
who underline the proto-Deuteronomic nature of a pericope continually involve other
pericopes in their comparison that are generally understood by the Documentary
Hypothesis to be older than D. Van Seters, The So-Called Deuteronomistic Redaction, 59
argues: It seems to me methodologically dubious to use the language and terminology
of Dtn/Dtr to identify a group of texts as proto-D simply because they are imbedded
within that part of the Pentateuch that has been considered by the documentary
hypothesis as earlier than Dtn. (cf. also Idem, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian
in Genesis, Louisville 1992, 228). Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements,
251 n. 24 points out that this line of argument applies equally to authors who support a
late dating of the material: One could remark that it is methodologically dubious to use
the language and terminology of Dtn/Dtr to identify a group of texts as post-Dtr simply
because they are embedded within that part of the Pentateuch that has been considered
by the documentary hypothesis as J which is now regarded by several scholars as a late,
post-exilic literary composition.
94 Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements, 253. Cf. also E. Talstra, Solomons
Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8, 1461 (CBET, 3), Kampen
1993, 5382 and Lohfink, Deutronome et Pentateuque, 46. See in addition Vervenne in
F. Postma et al., Exodus: Materials in Automatic Text Processing, Part 1: Morphological,
Syntactical and Literary Case Studies (Instrumenta Biblica, 1/1), Amsterdam 1983, 98108,
esp. 9899: Most striking is the lack of objective criteria in determining their dt-dtr
literary origin. Many scholars neglect to examine in a detailed way the vocabulary and
the grammar of these passages. We believe that a thorough linguistic investigation must
precede a judgement on the literary-critical character of a text.
95 Cf. Vervenne, Le rcit de la Mer, 373374: Cest avec deux critres de base que je propose
de travailler pour juger du caractre dt/dtr (ou non-dt/non-dtr) dun texte non sacerdotal
dans le Tetrateuque:
148 Chapter 3
has been more reserved with respect to the global characterisation of Exod. 14
(JE) as proto-Deuteronomic.96 Based among other things on text-critical data,
for example, he is presently much more inclined to designate Exod. 13:2122 as
post-Deuteronomistic.97 This implies that Vervenne is convinced that the study
of the material text (textual criticism) can also make an essential contribution
(1) Le critre portant sur la forme du texte, cest--dire:

le critre linguistique: le dnombrement statistique des occurences de mots,
dexpressions et de phrases, et la contre-preuve laide dun corpus tmoin
(par ex. le Pentateuque, la collection Josu-Rois);
le critre du style;
le critre de la structure compositionelle.
(2) Le critre portant sur le contenu du texte, cest--dire: les thmes et conceptions
thologiques.
Lapplication de ces critresqui sont complmentairespeut nous renseigner sur
le caractre dt/dtr ou non-dt/non-dtr du texte. Si un texte ou un lment du texte ne
prsente ni la forme pleine ni le contenu tabli du langage et de la thologie dt/dtr, mais
uniquement un accord partiel et fragmentaire, alors ce texte ou cet lment ne peut pas
tre considr comme un tmoin direct et authentique de la tradition dt/dtr.
96 Vervenne, Current Tendencies, 4142: Until recently, I was convinced that a first
redaction, constituting a relatively autonomous story, could be characterised as resulting
from a proto-Deuteronomic redactional reworking (JE) of existing materials. It appears
to me today, however, that this hypothesis needs much closer examination in order to
make a more precise identification of the various elements that remind us of the Dt/
Dtr traditions. Cf. also Idem, Le rcit de la Mer, 379: Reste la question essentielle, celle
de lidentification et de la dtermination prcises de lorigine de cette rdaction de type
deutronomique: le JE (ou RJE, si lon veut) du rcit de la Mer doit-il tre situ laube,
au znith ou au crpuscule du deutronomisme? La rflexion que jai faite ce sujet a
abouti, me semble-t-il, un largissement et un apport de nuances. Il est clair quEx.
xiii 17xiv 31 contient des lments de type deutronomique. Il est trs vraisemblable
que ces lments relvent dune rdaction qui est aussi loeuvre dans dautres textes du
Pentateuque (ou faut-il dire: de lHexateuque?). Mais je me hte de rappeler quil faut
encore faire une tude approfondie des composants deutronomiques dans le rcit de
la Mer, en rapport avec les autres textes de lExode, qui prsentent des caractristiques
deutronomiques.
97 Vervenne, Le rcit de la Mer, 378: Exod. 13:21 (lxx) agrees with Deut. 1:33 (mt). Exod. 13:21
(mt) corresponds with Neh. 9:12, 19. As a result, Exod. 13:21 can best be seen as un
remaniement tardif en vue de faire concorder les textes dEx. xiii 21 et de Nh. ix 12,
19. See also Idem, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements, 267. Vervenne makes
the same observation with respect to Exod. 14:20: M. Vervenne, Exodus 14,20 mtlxx:
Textual or Literary Variation, in J.-M. Auwers, A. Wnin (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la
Bible: Festschrift P.M. Bogaert (BETL, 144), Leuven 1999, 325, esp. 24.
to research into the proto-Deuteronom(ist)ic or post-Deuteronom(ist)ic char-

acter of a pericope.98
2.3 An Inclusive Proto-Deuteronomic Redaction

Vervenne had tentatively indicated that the proto-Deuteronomic JE-redaction
of the Sea Narrative may also be discernible in Gen. 50:24 and Josh. 24:32.
In line with this, a number of scholars advance the possibility of a proto-
Deuteronomic redaction of the Pentateuch as a whole.99 Andreas Reichert and
Casper Labuschagne are worth particular mention in this regard.
In his doctoral dissertation dating from 1972, Reichert explores a number
of passages from the book of Exodus that have been associated with the Deu
teronom(ist)ic question in the course of exegetical research.100 In addition to
Exod. 13:316, he also focussed his attention on 12:2427; 15:2227; 16; 17:17;
1924*, all text fragments in which scholars in the first decades of the 20th cen-
tury discerned a Deuteronom(ist)ic hand at work. Reichert characterises these
interpolationssome can be considered theologische Lehrerzhlung101
not as Deuteronom(ist)ic but rather as (in part) proto-Deuteronomic, whereby
he argues for the plausibility of an inclusive proto-Deuteronomic redaction
of the Pentateuch.102 The fact that a word or expression only occurs once in
98 Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements, 253: Linguistic determination of

the nature of deuteronomic elements in GenesisNumbers must also take account of
the physical form of the text (text-criticism).
99 With extreme caution, Vervenne also considers a proto-Deuteronomic, Hexateuch
inclusive JE- redaction demonstrable in Gen. 50:24; Exod. 13:19; Josh. 24:32.
100 A. Reichert, Der Jehowist und die sogenannten deuteronomistischen Erweiterungen im
Buch Exodus (unpublished Doctoral dissertation Eberhard-Karls-Universitt Tbingen),
Tbingen 1972cf. also TLZ 98 (1973), 957960.
101 Reichert, Der Jehowist, 188.
102 Reichert, Der Jehowist, 95 (Exod. 15:2227); 100 (Exod. 16) 104 (Exod. 17:17); 180
(Exod. 23:2033); in the synoptic survey (Tafel 3) Exod. 19:3b9; 24:38 are designated
proto-dt. Reichert also refers to Gen. 22:18; 26:5; Exod. 5:2 as (proto-)deuteronomischen
Zusatz (97; 127). With respect to Exod. 12:2427; 13:316, Reichert, Der Jehowist, 70 argues:
Die bisherigen Untersuchungen des Wortschatzes von Ex 12,2427 und Ex 13,116 (...)
haben (...) zu dem eindeutigen Ergebnis gefhrt, da die bliche Klassifizierung als
Zustze in deuteronomistischen Stil dahingehend przisiert werden mu, da die in
Dt und Dtr vorliegenden Wort- und Formelprgungen in den meisten Fllen noch nicht
erreicht, da sie aber in Anstzen vorgebildet sind, und da man diese Stufe am besten als
proto- oder prdeuteronomisch bezeichnen kann. His vision of the concept of redac-
tion is also remarkable: Das alles erfordert ein sehr differenziertes Bild dieser Redaktions-
arbeit, die nicht nur mechanisch kompiliert und glossiert, harmonisiert und pedantisch
nachtrgt, sonders groenteils als ein kontinuierlicher organischer Wachstumsproze
150 Chapter 3
Exodus, but is used repeatedly in Deuteronomy, Reichert sees as evidence

in support of the idea that Deuteronomy reflects a more developed stage in
terms of word usage.103 He immediately adds, nevertheless, that this criterion
is only valid if the context in which the word occurs can also be characterised
as proto-Deuteronomic.
Also Casper Labuschagne revealed himself to be a supporter of an inclusive
proto-Deuteronomic redaction of the Pentateuch. Here Labuschagne takes
something akin to a Supplementary Hypothesis as his point of departure.104
Around the middle of the 10th century bce, a sort of Jahwistic basic document
came into existence, dealing with the period from the patriarchs to Solomons
accession to the throne. Its author, who used existing traditions in creating his
work, should probably be identified with the author of the succession narrative
(2 Sam. 9:120:22; 1 Kgs 1:12:46).105 After the separation of the Northern and
mit flieenden bergangen zu verstehen ist (190). Further, Reichert speaks of das beste-
hen einer breiten, noch vor dem Dt anzusetzenden protodeuteronomischen Traditions
schicht, die in einem eng verflochtenen Zusammenhang mit sekundr-jehowistischen
Ergnzungsschichten steht und daraus erwachsen ist (191).
103 See, for example, Reichert, Der Jehowist, 73: Das dreifache Vorkommen von ( Ex
13,3.14.16) ist ein guter Beleg fr eine eigenwillige proto-deuteronomische Form, denn sie
taucht nur hier auf, whrend im Dt hufig und nur noch gebraucht wird und dort
die Tendenz hat, Reihenbildungen mit u.. einzugehen (italics H.A.). See also
75: In erstaunlich hohem Mae konnte (...) aufgewiesen werden, da in diesen Texten
[Exod. 12:2427 and Exod. 13:116H.A.] morphologisch und/oder semantisch singulre
Belege einem hufigen und geprgten und anderen Sprachgebrauch in spteren Texten
und Schichten gegenberstehen. Das scheint eine der wenigen sicheren Mglichkeiten zu
sein, eine sprachliche Entwicklung, die allmhliche Ausprgung eines bestimmten, sich
fast normierenden Wortgebrauchs und formelhafter Wendungen nachzuweisen. Reichert
adds the following reservation here: Natrlich kann es auch ein spteres bewutes
Abweichen von der Norm geben, aber das mu im Kontext inhaltlich begrndet und in
der Tendenz nachweisbar sein.
104 C.J. Labuschagne, Gods oude plakboek: Visie op het Oude Testament, s-Gravenhage 1978,
21979.
105 Labuschagne arrives at this conclusion based on the observation that there are
several agreements in terms of narrative style between the succession history and, for
example, Gen. 12:1913:18; 14:1824; 19:23; 24; 25:1934; 27; 2931; 34; 3750. Labuschagne
argues (translation mine): It thus seems reasonable to conclude that the author of
the succession narrative gave significant impetus to historiography and that he had
considerable influence on the materialization of the Pentateuch. (...) The said author
must have been the one who wrote a continuous narrative history from the time of the
patriarchs to Solomons accession to the throne. His goal was to make clear who Israel
was, where it came from, how it became the people of God Jahweh, how it acquired its
land, and how the hereditary monarchy was established in the country. His task was to
Southern Kingdoms, literary formation also continued for two hundred years in
separation. In the Northern Kingdom, for example, there was particular inter-
est in the wars of YHWH tradition that grew up around the figure of Joshua, a
hero of the Northern Kingdom who, according to the said tradition, took a por-
tion of the land manu militari from its original inhabitants. At the same time
the presentation of Moses as a prophetic figure also developed in the Northern
Kingdom, later to be extensively elaborated in Deuteronomy. Labuschagne has
little to say about the development of literature in Judah after the schism. He
insists nevertheless that the Southern Kingdom developed its own royal theol-
ogy, whereby Gods promises to David acquired a central position. The fall of the
Northern Kingdom in 722 bce drove many refugees south into Judah. It is likely,
he argues, that this event occasioned a proto-Deuteronomic redaction whereby
the narrative material from the Northern Kingdom was incorporated into the
more developed Jahwistic history. Labuschagne considers Gen. 20:117; 21:821;
22:118; 35; Exod. 3:1, 4b, 6b, 1015 to have been part of this proto-Deuteonomic
redaction. He refers to the redaction as proto-Deuteronomic because the tradi-
tions from the Northern Kingdom were incorporated into the basic narrative
in the spirit of the body of thought that was later to find a home in the book of
Deuteronomy.106 He adds, however, that it cannot be said unequivocally what
is proto-Deuteronomic and what Deuteronomistic, i.e. under the influence of
the book of Deuteronomy. He only accentuates that we are given some idea
organize the multiplicity of tribal and regional traditions that were in circulation and
present these stories from the past in such a way that it would become clear that the
different tribes, united in a new state, had a common past, and that the new state had
every right to exist, a right sanctioned by God Yahweh (9596). Labuschagne ascribes
the following passages to this Jahwistic History which covered the entire Henneateuch:
Gen. 1216*; 1819*; 21:17*; 22:2024*; 24*; 25:111*; 25:1934*; 26:1234*; 27*; 2934*;
35:1629*; 37*; 3950*; Exod. 12*; 3:19, 1617*; 4:1920*; 5*; 7:1410:29*; 11:48; 12:2933,
3751*; 13:20*; 14*; 16:119:2*; 19:1020*; 24:12, 915*; 31:18*; 33:16; Num. 10:2936*; 1114*;
16*; 20:1424:25*; 32*; Deut. 34:16*; Judg. 1:12:1*; 312*; 1 Sam. 914*; 28*; 31*; 1 Sam. 162
Sam. 8*; 2 Sam. 9:120:22*; 1 Kgs 1:12:46.
106 Labuschagne, Gods oude plakboek, 104105: The best hypothesis (...) is (...) that the
dominant clergy in Jerusalem and their co-religionists emigrated from the North came
to an agreement on the integration of northern traditions into Judahs existing religious
literature, namely the Jahwistic History that had in the meantime been further enlarged in
the Pentateuch. The most significant consequence of this compromise was the reworking
of the material in the Jahwistic History: the proto-Deuteronomic reworking. We call
this reworking proto-Deuteronomic because the new elements therein exhibit strong
kinship with the book of Deuteronomy, which came into existence some time later. The
more common term associated with this reworking Elohistic, is one sided in my opinion
and thus less accurate (translation mine).
152 Chapter 3
of the beginning of this process of reworking under the influence of input

from Northern Israel.107 The said proto-Deuteronomic redaction was also
the driving force behind the materialization of a first edition of the book of
Deuteronomy around 700 bce.108 In terms of its content, structure, language
and style, this book strongly influenced the later development of Israels litera-
ture. Labuschagne is likewise convinced that the books ExodusNumbers also
underwent a reworking in the spirit of Deuteronomy, which, he maintains, is
still clearly evident in Exod. 1924; 3234; Num. 12; 14; 2224; 33:5056 in par-
ticular.109 In his opinion, this Deuteronomistic reworking coincides with the
specific points of interest of the authors of Deuteronomy. Emphasis is thus
placed on YHWHs election of Israel, on the covenant relationship between
YHWH and his people, and on the idea that the division of the kingdom is
a consequence of infidelity to YHWH. The role of Moses as a prophet is also
forcefully underlined. During the exile, the inclusive Deuteronomistic History
was then put together by authors influenced by the book of Deuteronomy. In
the period between the 7th century and the 2nd century bce, Priestly rework-
ers then composed the Pentateuch as we now have it.110
2.4 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers from the

Perspective of Deuteronomy Research
Thus far we have explored the work of authors who, based on their analy-
sis of passages in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers often considered to be
107 Labuschagne, Gods oude plakboek, 106.

108 This may have consisted of a shorter version of Deut. 528.
109 Labuschagne, Gods oude plakboek, 108109 considers Exod. 19:38; 20:2224; 23:1333;
24:38; 34:126* to be part of the Deuteronomistic reworking. Here Labuschagne
seriously limits his suggestion from a number of years earlier, namely that many so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic passages belong de facto to the prehistory of Deuteronomy: With
respect to the prehistory of the book [DeuteronomyH.A.] it should be sufficient to
observe at this juncture that Deuteronomy contains a great deal of old material that stems
from the Northern Kingdom, that it exhibits clear agreements with the Elohistic tradition
in the Pentateuch, and that it is far from proven that the so-called Deuteronomistic
elements in GenesisNumbers should indeed be seen as later reworkings by a Deuterono
mistic hand, because the typically Deuteronomistic features in the Tetrateuch can be
better explained as belonging to the prehistory of Deuteronomy and not later history.
Passages such as Exod. 19:38; 24:38 and 23:2033, which are all closely related to Deu
teronomy, cannot be considered Deuteronomistic, because they undoubtedly belong
to pre-Deuteronomic traditions (translation mine)C.J. Labuschagne, Redactie en
Theologie van het boek Deuteronomium, Vox Theologica 43 (1973), 171184, esp. 174, with
reference to C. Brekelmans, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Elemente.
110 Labuschagne, Gods oude plakboek, 113118.
Deuteronomistic, concluded that the texts in question exhibited a proto-

Deuteronomic character. The said passages do not confront us with an author
or redactor influenced by Deuteronomy; on the contrary, they bear witness to
the growth and development of Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theol-
ogy outside Deuteronomy. In turning now to Dieter E. Skweres we explore the
work of an exegete who achieved almost identical results on the basis of his
research into the composition of the book of Deuteronomy.111
Skweres associates himself with the work of Moshe Weinfeld. In his extremely
important Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School published in 1972, the
latter focused particular attention on the origins of the Deuteronom(ist)ic
characteristics.112 According to Weinfeld, the origins of the book of Deuteron-
omy are to be sought in scribal circles associated with the court in Jerusalem.
In order to reinforce his hypothesis, he set out to demonstrate that the origin
of the various discourses in Deuteronomy (farewell, prophetic, liturgical, mili-
tary) should not be sought in the cult. In his opinion, they are literary, program-
matic compositions that were never proclaimed in a concrete situation as an
actual address.113 Moreover, the study of the structure of ancient non-biblical
treaty texts from the 9th to the 7th century bce demonstrates that the literary
structure of the Deuteronomic texts concerning the covenant de facto imi-
tates these treaties.114 In addition, the elaborate use of rhetorical technique
evident in Deuteronomy appears from a stylistic perspective to exhibit major
similarities with extra-biblical treaty texts.115 Weinfeld also points to simi-
larities between Deuteronomy and Wisdom Literature.116 In his opinion, the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature was strongly influenced by the latter, although
111 Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 1979.

112 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 1: The main characteristic of
deuteronomic phraseology is not the employment of new idioms and expressions,
because many of these could be found in the earlier sources and especially in the Elohistic
source. Indeed, it would be nonsense to say that all of a sudden in the seventh century
a new vocabulary and new expressions were created. Language grows in an organic and
natural way and is not created artificiallysee also Idem, The Origin of Humanism in
Deuteronomy, JBL 80 (1961), 241252.
113 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 53: The orations as they have come
down to us in Deuteronomy, are undoubtedly the product of speculative thought and do
not derive from cultic reality.
114 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 59157, esp. 146.
115 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 171175.
116 Compare, for example, the use of in Prov. 7:2425 with the expression
in Deut. 4:1, orwithout in Deut. 6:4; 9:1; 20:3.Weinfeld, Deuteronomy
and the Deuteronomic School, 175177.
154 Chapter 3
the Deuteronomist profoundly reworked and reoriented the themes in ques-

tion. Weinfeld does not hesitate, therefore, to identify the with
the authors of Deuteronomy.117
Against this background, Skweres was also of the opinion that Deuterono
m(ist)ic language could not have fallen from the sky in monolithic form.118 He
goes further than Weinfeld, however, who did not address attention to Genesis
Numbers in identifying the early stages of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.119
117 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 177178: The authors of Deuter-
onomy and the deuteronomic school must be sought for (...) among circles which held
public office, among persons who had at their command a vast reservoir of literary mate-
rial, who had developed and were capable of developing a literary technique of their own,
those experienced in literary composition, and skilled with the pen and the book: these
authors must consequently have been the sferim-akamim.
118 Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 1112: Das Dtn unterscheidet sich nicht zuletzt durch seine
ihm eigentmliche Sprache von den anderen Bchern des AT. Das bedeutet jedoch nicht,
dass sich diese Sprache gleichsam im luftleeren Raum gebildet habe oder vom Himmel
gefallen sei. Die dtn Autoren haben bei der Bildung ihrer Sprache aus verschiedenen
Quellen geschpft: aus kultischen, rechtlichen, poetischen, weisheitlichen. (...) Es geht
uns um die Nachweis, dass bestimmte dtn Sprachelemente in den anderen literarischen
Schichten des Pentateuch ihre Grundlage haben.
119 Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 13: Die Mglichkeit eines Vorlufers der dtn Sprache in den
Bchern GenNum scheint M. Weinfeld zu verneinen. Besonders an dieser Stelle mchte
unsere Untersuchung weiterfhren, indem sie anhand der dtn Rckverweise zeigt, dass
bestimmte Elemente der dtn Sprache ihren Vorlufer in frhdt Texten und ihre Grundlage
in den noch lteren literarischen Schichten des Pentateuch haben. Weinfeld believed it
was possible to discern a degree of evolution between Deuteronomy, Joshua2 Kings and
the Deuteronomistic passages in Jeremiah, but he did not pay specific attention to the
possibility of tracing an early stage in the evolution of the Deuteronomic language and
style in GenesisNumbers: The fact that the Deuteronomist and the editor of the prose
sermons in Jeremiah used idioms and expressions not found in the book of Deuteronomy
proper points to a continuous ideological and literary development within the
deuteronomic circle and attests to the dynamism of the school. Indeed, an examination
of the linguistic and ideological fabric of the deuteronomic movement shows that its
development progressed from Deuteronomy through deuteronomic historiography to the
prose sermons in the book of JeremiahWeinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School, 4.
Brekelmans formulated a similar critical remark in relation to Weinfelds comparison
of Deuteronomic style with extra-biblical treaty texts as a means of tracing the early
stages of Deuteronomy. According to Brekelmans, Wisdom Influence in Deuteronomy,
3031 one must first focus attention on the biblical tradition itself before involving extra-
biblical literature in our research into the prehistory of the Deuteronomic style. In his
opinion we must account for the possibility of finding the early stages of Deuteronomic
Like Weinfeld, Skweres underlines the fact that the authors of Deuteronomy
drew from a variety of sources he characterises as early Deuteronomic.
According to him, however, one of these sources consisted of passages from
GenesisNumbers to which the author of Deuteronomy referred. Skweres sets
out to demonstrate that some characteristics of the Deuteronomic vocabu-
lary have precursors in a number of so-called early Deuteronomic texts in the
Tetrateuch and at the same time in still older layers of the said Tetrateuch.120
He also sets out to argue that the innerdeuteronomische Rckverweisei.e.
verses in Deuteronomy alluding to other verses with the same bookis depen-
dent on Rckverweise within GenesisNumbers, which Skweres characterises
as early Deuteronomic.121
style and theology in the said tradition: The literary style of Dt has been compared with
certain extra-biblical texts that are written in the same kind of highly rhetorical style and
show many similarities with Dt not only in form but also in content. The main example
of this seems to be the so-called vassal treaties of Esarhaddon. But before we conclude
that the rhetorical style of Dt was borrowed, taken over, or even strongly influenced by
Assyrian documents like the vassal treaties, it seems to me that the proper method of
Old Testament study requires the study of the Israelite tradition first. We have to ask if
there is a possibility that the style of Dt is the result of that tradition. And it does seem
that there was indeed a preaching tradition in Israel that prepared the way for the highly
developed rhetorical style of Dt. It has been shown in recent years that such texts as Ex.,
12,2527; 13,316; 19,38; 23,2033; 32,714; 34,1016; Jos., 24; part of 1 Sam., 12 and so on
are to be considered protodeuteronomic. Thus, there is perhaps an Israelite tradition
that could explain the style of Dt. Only in passing Weinfeld refers to the dependence
of Deuteronomy on passages from GenesisNumbers. See, for example, his reference to
Exod. 13:316 in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 301.
120 For his research into the Rckverweise, Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 1518 bases himself on
his own methodology. He believes it is possible to search for the literary texts referred to
in Deuteronomy. At the same time, he identifies a fixed technique used by the biblical
authors in their references. Skweres points, for example, to the use of clauses. He
then asks: to which literary layer does the text being referred to belong?
121 Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 100: Bereits innerhalb des jahwistischen Geschichtswerkes
gibt es das Phnomen des literarischen Rckverweises. Already within the Jahwistic opus,
for example, Gen. 24:7 and Gen. 26:3b refer to Gen. 15:18 via the term . The promise
of the land to Isaac (Gen. 26:34) and to Jacob (Gen. 28:13) is thus linked with Abraham
(and Isaac). In so doing, the redactorprobably RJEwas able to state in summary form
in Gen. 50:24; Exod. 33:1; Num. 31:11; Deut. 34:4 that YHWH had promised the land under
oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: Es handelt sich dabei um literarische Rckverweise.
Denn ihr Autor will seine Adressaten auf das hinweisen, was seiner Meinung nach in den
von ihm bearbeiteten Texten steht (101). Skweres likewise argues: Da die nichtdt/dtr
Rckverweise den dt/dtr Rckverweisen des Buches Dtn zum Vorbild dienten, knnen
sie als frhdt bezeichnet werden. Die dt/dtr Rckverweise sind ebenso wie ihre frhdt
156 Chapter 3
Skweres begins by turning his attention to the so-called innerdeuterono

mische Rckverweise. This leads him to the conclusion that the literary proce-
dure of reference is part of the central theological approach of Deuteronomy.
Such references are not only more frequent in Deuteronomy, they also occupy
key positions within the book.122 The major part of Skweres study, however,
deals with references in Deuteronomy to the books of GenesisNumbers (the
so-called ausserdeuteronomische Rckverweise). Striking here is his observa-
tion that Deuteronomy does not refer to the Priestly texts from the Tetrateuch.
With this in mind, Skweres argues that the authors of Deuteronomy refer to J
and E or to one or more early Deuteronomic reworking thereof.123
Vorbilder literarische Rckverweise. Sie sind nicht nur von den frhdt Rckverweise,
literarisch abhngig, sondern beziehen sich wie diese auf die Patriarchenverheissungen,
welche die frhdt Redaktoren bearbeitet haben, d.h. auf die Erzhlungen des
jahwistischen Geschichtswerkes.
123 Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 199200: Die Stellen Gen 50,24; Ex 13,5.11; 32,13; 33,1; Num
11,12; 14,16.23 gehren nicht zu den lteren literarischen Schichten des Pentateuch. Sie
sind auch nicht als dtr, sondern als frhdt zu bezeichnen. Denn die zusammenfassende
Redeweise von einem Jahweeid allen drei Patriarchen gegenber wre dem Jahwisten und
Elohisten als Nachlssigkeit anzurechnen. Sie ist am ehesten als das Werk eines Redaktors
zu verstehen, der die Aussagen in den von ihm bearbeiteten Texte zusammenfasst. Da
diese Rckverweise sich in einigen Fllen deutlich als Vorstufe zu den dtn Rckverweisen
erkennen lassen (...), knnen wir sie als frhdt ansehen. Die Frage, ob sie nur einem
Redaktor, und zwar dem Jehowisten, oder mehreren Redaktoren zu verdanken sind,
mussten wir unbeantwortet lassen.
According to Skweres, the passages in Deuteronomy that (probably) refer to Genesis
Numbers are the following: (1) Deut. 1:8 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (2)
Deut. 1:11 refers to Exod. 23:2529(?); (3) Deut. 1:35 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34;
28:13; (4) Deut. 1:39 refers to Num 14:3; (5) Deut. 4:31 refers to Gen. 12:2, 7; 13:15, 17; 15:5, 18;
22:1617; 26:34, 24; 28:13; (6) Deut. 6:3 refers to Exod. 3:8 (or Gen. 12:2; 15:5; 22:1617; 26:4;
28:14); (7) Deut. 6:10 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (8) Deut. 6:18 refers to
Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (9) Deut. 6:19 refers to Exod. 23:27(?); (10) Deut. 6:23
refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (11) Deut. 7:8 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17;
15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (12) Deut. 7:12 refers to Gen. 12:2, 7; 13:15, 17; 15:5, 18; 22:1617; 26:34;
28:1314; (13) Deut. 7:13 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (14) Deut. 8:1 refers
to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (15) Deut. 8:18 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18;
26:34; 28:13; (16) Deut. 9:5 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (17) Deut. 9:28
refers to Exod. 3:8; (18) Deut. 10:9 refers to Num. 18:20 (without PG); (19) Deut. 10:11 refers
26:34; 28:13; (21) Deut. 11:21 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (22) Deut. 12:20
refers to Exod. 3:8 (or Exod. 34:24a); (23) Deut. 13:18 refers to Gen. 12:2; 13:16; 15:5; 22:1617;
26:4, 24; 28:14; (24) Deut. 18:2 refers to Num. 18:20 (without PG); (25) Deut. 19:8a refers
According to Skweres, these observations make it clear that a part of the

vocabulary of Deuteronomy stems in fact from older texts in the Tetrateuch.
He also wants to demonstrate that the authors of Deuteronomy belong to
a literary school that had already left its traces in these older layers of the
Tetrateuch. In terms of literary technique, ideas and language, the inner
deuteronomische Rckverweise are on the same line with the Rckverweise
within GenesisNumbers. At certain points, however, the latter differ from the
Deuteronom(ist)ic Rckverweise to such a degree that he prefers to character-
ise them as a precursor (Vorstufe) to the Deuteronom(ist)ic Rckverweise.124
At the same time, associations are observable between the early-Deuteronomic
Rckverweise in GenesisNumbers and the Deuteronomic Rckverweise in
Deuteronomy on the one hand, and the older layers in the Tetrateuch, par-
ticularly the Jahwist, on the otheras child of his time, Skweres also accepts
the framework of source criticism. According to Skweres this demonstrates
that the early-Deuteronomic authors in GenesisNumbers, together with the
Deuteronomic authors of Deuteronomy linked up with the older layers of the
Tetrateuch. The redactor/s of the JE passages was/were in his view responsible
for the early-Deuteronomic Rckverweise. Skweres thus appears to consider
the JE redaction as a preamble to the Deuteronom(ist)ic language and theol-
ogy, albeit implicitly. One thing is clear, however: Zum Problem der Herkunft
der dtn Sprache lsst sich abschliessend sagen: Die dtn Sprache ist nicht vom
Himmel gefallen.125
to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (26) Deut. 19:8b refers to Gen. 13:1417; 15:1821;
26:34; 28:1314; (27) Deut. 24:8 refers to Lev. 1314 (without PG); (28) Deut. 26:3 refers
26:34; 28:13; (30) Deut. 26:1819 refers to Exod. 19:56; (31) Deut. 27:3 refers to Exod. 3:8;
(32) Deut. 28:11 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (33) Deut. 28:68 refers to
Exod. 14:13(?); (34) Deut. 29:12 refers to Gen. 12:2, 7; 13:15, 17; 15:5, 18; 22:1617; 26:34, 24;
28:1314; (35) Deut. 29:12 refers to Exod. 19:56; (36) Deut. 30:20 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17;
15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (37) Deut. 31:7 refers to Exod. 19:56; (38) Deut. 31:20 refers to Gen. 12:7;
13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (39) Deut. 31:21 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13;
(40) Deut. 31:23 refers to Exod. 34:10; (41) Deut. 34:4 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3
4; 28:13 (Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 232233).
124 Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 217: Sie knnen deswegen als frhdt bezeichnet werden.
Einige frhdt Rckverweise gibt es auch im Buch Dtn selbst. Die dt/dtr Rckverweise
stehen nicht nur auf einer Linie mit den frhdt Rckverweisen. Sie sind auch von den
frhdt Rckverweisen literarisch abhngig.
158 Chapter 3
3 Exod. 23:2033 as a Proto-Deuteronomic Passage
In the previous chapter we briefly discussed the arguments used to charac-

terise Exod. 23:2033 as a Deuteronom(ist)ic passage. With the attention
drawn by Brekelmans and Lohfink to the possibility of detecting the prehis-
tory of the Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology in the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic corpus, a number of studies emerged in the 1960s that
interpreted the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant along these lines. It
should be observed in this regard that Exod. 23:2033 was not alwaysand in
its entiretydesignated as a Deuteronom(ist)ic text. Wellhausen, for exam-
ple, had discerned a J stratum (Exod. 23:2022a, 25b31a), supplemented with
verses 22b25a, 31b33 by RJE.126 Kuenen likewise considered at least part of
Exod. 23:2033 as older than D, although he claimed to be able to discern traces
of a Deuteronomic redaction therein.127 Budde likewise considered the E doc-
ument to be identifiable in Exod. 23:2033, although he saw vv. 31b33 as a
supplement along Deuteronomistic lines.128 Dillmann, on the other hand, was
inclined to ascribe the entire pericope to E.129 Initially, Baentsch likewise asso-
ciated a significant part of Exod. 23:2033 with the E document.130 In addition
to the idea that Exod. 23:2033 consists in large part of Deuteronom(ist)ic ele-
ments, approaches seeing the text as an interplay of J, E and RJE continue to
typify research in the first decades of the 20th century.
126 J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bcher des Alten
Testaments, Berlin 31899, 9091.
127 A. Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de
boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Dl. 1: De thora en de historische boeken des Ouden Verbonds,
Amsterdam 21884, 164; 254 n. 2.
128 K. Budde, Die Gesetzgebung der mittleren Bcher des Pentateuchs, insbesondere der
Quellen J und E, ZAW 11 (1891), 193234.
129 A. Dillmann, V. Ryssel, Die Bcher Exodus und Leviticus (KEHAT), Leipzig 1857; 31897,
219221; 251254. Dillmann prefers to speak of B and C, B being equivalent to E, and C
equivalent to J.
130 B. Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch Ex. xx,22xxiii,33: Seine ursprngliche Gestalt, sein Verhltnis
zu den es umgebenden Quellenschriften und seine Stellung in der alttestamentlichen
Gesetzgebung, Halle 1892, 5458. In his commentary on Exodus (1900), however, Baentsch
is much more radical with respect to the Deuteronomic characteristics in Exod. 23:2033.
Indeed, he ascribes every redactional verse in the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant to
RD without hesitationB. Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri (HKAT, 1/2), Gttingen
1903, 209: Dieser Schluss ist wie schon der Eingang des Bb. von deuteronomistischen
Zustzen berwuchert, vgl. vv. 2325aa und 31b33.
A few examples should serve to illustrate the point. J. Estlin Carpenter, to

begin with, sees Exod. 23:2022, 25b26, 2831a as Elohistic and ascribes the
remaining verses (vv. 2325a, 27, 31b33) to RJE.131 Bernard Couroyer and Albert
Clamer likewise divide the pericope into Elohistic and redactional material,
without further identifying the said redactor.132 Both point to the repetitions
(vv. 20, 23) and the contradictions in the text (vv. 2728 and vv. 2930). Cazelles
also sees E at work in Exod. 23:2026. He maintains, however, that the verses
were later supplemented by RJE with vv. 2733.133
Some authors continue to ascribe Exod. 23:2033 in its entirety to E. Studies
by Wolf Wilhelm Graf Baudissin,134 Hermann L. Strack,135 Eckart Otto,136 and
Alan W. Jenks137 are worthy of note in this regard.
Franz M.Th. Bhl and Paul Heinisch see Exod. 23:2033 as a JE composition.138
According to Heinisch, a redactor supplemented the core of the story (vv. 2022,
25a28) on the basis of Exod. 34:1116. In his commentary on Deuteronomy,
Samuel R. Driver likewise considers Exod. 23:2033 to be a JE composition with
a unique parenetic tone, the style of which exhibits similarities with that of
Deuteronomy.139 He claims, moreover, that the passage is one of the texts from
which the author of Deuteronomy borrowed expressions, which he was to use
with frequency in the composition of his own work. In his commentary on
Exodus dating from 1911, Driver ascribes vv. 2022, 25b31a to E, while chalking
131 This is how it is presented in the synoptic overview on 517. On 209 it is stated: The hand of
a Deuteronomic reviser is probably to be seen in (...) 23,2325a.27.31b33 (J.E. Carpenter,
G. Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch: An Introduction with Select Lists of Words
and Phrases, London 1902). It should be observed nevertheless that Carpenter alludes to
the kinship between RJE and D (336).
132 B. Couroyer, LExode (La Sainte Bible), Paris 1952, 112; A. Clamer, LExode (La Sainte Bible
1/2), Paris 1956, 210211.
133 Cazelles, Rdactions et traditions, 54.
134 W.W. Graf Baudissin, Einleitung in die Bcher des Alten Testaments, Leipzig 1901, 129 n. 5.
135 H.L. Strack, Einleitung in das Alte Testament einschliesslich Apokryphen und Pseudepi
graphen: mit eingehender Angabde der Literatur, Mnchen, 61906, 45.
136 E. Otto, Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal (BWANT, 107), Stuttgart 1975. According to Otto,
Exod. 23:2033; 34:11b16 and Deut. 7 are not dependent on one another at the literary
level, but were drafted on the basis of a common Vorlage.
137 Jenks, The Elohist, 7778 n. 170.
138 F.M.T. Bhl, Exodus (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische bijbelverklaring), Groningen 1928,
160; P. Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus bersetzt und erklrt (Die heilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments 1/2), Bonn 1934, 191.
139 Driver, Deuteronomy, lxxvii.
160 Chapter 3
down the remaining verses (vv. 2325a, 31b33) to RJE.140 Gtz Schmitt argues
along similar lines, considering Exod. 23:2033 as a predominantly Elohistic
passage and a source from which Deuteronomy drew material.141 Moshe
Weinfeld is of the same opinion, arguing that Deut. 7 is an elaboration of the
JE passage Exod. 23:2033.142
Otto Eissfeldt divides Exod. 23:2033 into Elohistic and Jahwistic material
transformed by RB, the redactor who located the Book of the Covenant in the
Sinai pericope, into the conclusion of the Book of the Covenant.143 Franz
Elmar Wilms considers the Landgabetext Exod. 23:2033 as an E passage.
Given the doublets in vv. 2730, however, he also thinks that we should account
for a J component in the passage.144 Wilms is of the opinion that in terms of
content and style Exod. 23:2033 is older than Deut. 7 and thus cannot possibly
be characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic. More recently, Joel S. Baden, considers
Exod. 23:2023 as Elohistic.145
140 S.R. Driver, The Book of Exodus: In the Revised Version With Introduction and Notes (The
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), Cambridge 1911, 247251.
141 Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen, 2021; 24.
142 M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB, 5), New York 1991, 377384. See also A. Rof, Introduction to the Composition of the
Pentateuch (The Biblical Seminar 58), Sheffield 1999, 51 and R.D. Nelson, The Double
Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOT SS, 18), Sheffield 1981, 46.
143 O. Eissfeldt, Die Komposition der Sinai-Erzhlung Exodus 1934 (Sitzungsberichte der
Schsischen Akademie der Wissenschafte zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Klasse
113/1), Berlin 1966, 11; 1718; 20. In Die lteste Erzhlung vom Sinaibund: William Foxwell
Albright zum 24. Mai 1961, seinem 70. Geburtstag, ZAW 73 (1961), 137146, 137, Eissfeldt
divides the material over E and J. Exod. 23:2022c, 2526, 28, 33 are Elohistic, the
remaining verses Jahwistic. Cf. also Eissfeldts Hexateuch-Synopse, 150*151*; 273*, where
he ascribes vv. 24de, 31bc to a redactor.
144 F.E. Wilms, Das jahwistische Bundesbuch in Exodus 34 (Studien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament, 32), Mnchen 1973, 189. See also Idem, Das jahwistische Bundesbuch in Ex
34, BZ 16 (1972), 2453.
145 Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, 141: In J it is YHWH himself who leads
the Israelites, as it is stated clearly in Exod 33:13 (...) and 33:1517 (...). In E, however, it
is a messanger who goes before the people, by the word of YHWH (Exod 23:2022). See
also Idem, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 139146. Although not directly referring to
Exod. 23:2033, his judgment about so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in Genesis
Numbers is worth quoting: If the parallel stories in D and ExodusNumbers were from
the same deuteronomic hand or school, then there would be no accounting for the wide
variety of differences, some quite important, between them. Because D incorporates
stories from both J and E, while neither J nor E shows any knowledge of each other,
and because D explicitly eliminates the central law code E, while E does not explicitly
reject D, it is clear that D is written not to supplement the earlier texts, but to replace
In spite of these approaches, all of which associate Exod. 23:2033 as a whole

or in part with E, the approach proposed by Chris Brekelmans in 1963 remains
innovative. Based on an analysis of the vocabulary, Brekelmans concludes that
Exod. 23:2033 is a proto-Deuteronomic passage in which one can discern
evidence of a preamble to the formation of the Deuteronom(ist)ic language,
style and theology.146 Brekelmans was struck by the fact that Exod. 23:2033
exhibited clear similarities with Deut. 7; Josh. 24 and to a lesser degree with
Exod. 19:38. For him the important thing is that well-nigh the only contacts
with D are to be found in Deut. 7 and that Exod. 23:2033 contained a number
of hapax legomena. The theme of warning against the original inhabitants of
the land is already found in Josh. 24an early text, in the Decalogue, and
in the Elijah narrative cycle. He thus argues that it is plausible that such warn-
ings were already in circulation, even before they were written down in the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.147 Based on the combination of these elements,
Brekelmans concludes that Exod. 23:2023 was probably part of a proto-
Deuteronomic redaction. Jrn Halbe agrees.148 He considers Exod. 23:2027,
31b33 as a unit that exhibits in its entirety the characteristics of a proto-
Deuteronomist composition, the focal points of which are to be found in the
first instance in the oldest layers of Deuteronomy, offering a new reflection on
the latter tradition. Andreas Reichert, Ludger Schwienhorst-Schnberger and
Yuichi Osumi likewise accept the presence of proto-Deuteronomic elements
Exod 23:2033.149
them (145). See also Idem, The Deuteronomic Evidence for the Documentary Theory, in:
(FAT, 78), Tbingen 2011, 327344, esp. 343, who qualifies the presumed D-redactor of
Exod. 34 and Num. 11 as a bad Deuteronomist, one who either does not understand D or
does not agree with it. See most recently J.S. Baden, The Promise to the Patriarchs, Oxford
2013, esp. 3237; 169171.
146 Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 7791; Idem, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen
Elemente, 95.
147 In this context, Brekelmans quotes T. Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, Den Haag
1961, 109: While Js spiritual ambiance is closely related to the deep and broad piety of
the David narratives (...) and in line with the earnest judgement preaching of the major
prophets, the piety of E evolved in the context of the struggle against syncretism in
Northern Israel; it is akin to the spirit of the prophetic disciples from Elijah and Elisha in
which the antithesis idea took root.
148 Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes.
149 Reichert, Der Jehowist, 180: Ex 23,2033 gehrt zu den in Aufbau, Stil und Inhalt am
strksten dt geprgten Stcken der Sinaiperikope. Ausfhrliche Wortschatzanalysen
haben jedoch gezeigt, da mindestens grere Teile dieser Rede vordeuteronomisch und
jedenfalls vom Dt unabhngig sind. Sie ist im Ganzen genauer als proto-deuteronomisch
162 Chapter 3
The arguments given in support of the pre- or proto-Deuteronomic charac-

ter of Exod. 23:2033 tend on the whole to be the same.150 In both instances,
scholars point out that the pericope is to be situated in the prehistory of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. The scholars who characterise Exod. 23:2033 as
pre-Deuteronomic insist without qualification, based almost exclusively on
the vocabulary, which they designate as Jahwist, Elohist or RJE on the basis
of comparisons with other texts from GenesisNumbers, that the passage is
older than Deuteronomy and that the authors of Deuteronomy made use of
Exod. 23:2033 (source text). The authors who typify the epilogue of the Book
of the Covenant as proto-Deuteronomic are of the opinion that a preamble to
the Deuteronomic language, style and theology is evident in the pericope and
consider it a witness to a language and theology that contained in nuce the
language and theological visions of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, without
attempting to prove that the Deuteronom(ist)ic authors were also dependent
on Exod. 23:2033 (proto-Deuteronomic).
Two components can be distinguished in the argumentation. On the one
hand, authors insist that elements from Exod. 23:2033 bear no relation-
ship whatsoever with what one would typically be inclined to designate
Deuteronom(ist)ic. In addition to thematic differences, reference is made
to discrepancies at the level of vocabulary and phrasing. While Brekelmans
accepts that the personification of the is a Deuteronomic concept,
he insists nevertheless that this theology of the name in Exod. 23:21 is not
associated with the temple as it is in the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.151 At
the same time, regular reference is made to the presence of hapax legomena,
zu charakterisieren; Schwienhorst-Schnberger, Das Bundesbuch, 410: Wie immer man

den Grundbestand von Ex 23,2033 abgrenzen mag, der Text enthlt kein Element, das
den Fluch-Partien in den Epilogen altorientalischer Vertrags- oder Gesetzeswerke ent
spricht, worauf J. Halbe hingewiesen hat. Diese Redaktion erweist sich auch insofern als
protodeuteronomisch, als das joschijanische Ur-Deuteronomium (Dtn 6,426,16*) im
Epilog keinen Fluch enthlt; Osumi, Die kompositionsgeschichte, 161: Der Inhalt von Ex
20,2426; 23,2023a ist daher durchsichtig. Das Deuteronomium stellt den terminus ante
quem dieses Textes dar. Dieser aber wiederspricht keineswegs dem Deuteronomium,
sondern kann als protodeuteronomisch angesehen werden. See also H.D. Neef, Ich
selber bin in ihm (Ex 23,21): Exegetische Beobachtungen zur Rede vom Engel des Herrn
in Ex 23,2022; 32,34; 33,2; Jdc 2,15; 5,23, BZ 39 (1995), 5475.
150 See also H. Ausloos, What Happened to the Proto-Deuteronomist? The Epilogue to the
Book of the Covenant (Exod 23,2033) as a Test Case, in: H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn
(eds), A Pillar of Cloud to Guide (Exod 13,21): Old Testament Text-Critical, Redactional and
Linguistic Perspectives in Honour of Marc Vervenne (BETL, 269), Leuven 2014, 1729.
151 Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 84.
which can function as a criterion contra the characterisation of Exod. 23:20

33 as Deuteronom(ist)ic. The terms and with as subject
(Exod. 23:22), for example, do not occur in Deuteronom(ist)ic passages.152
On the other hand, scholars accentuate similarities with other non-
Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in GenesisNumbers that are considered older
(J, E or RJE) than the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.153 In this regard, reference is
also regularly made to agreements with Josh. 24, which passes as the prototype
of an Elohistic text, as well as to a number of reputedly older passages from
the book of Deuteronomy itself.154 Authors repeatedly observe that a term and
a certain construction is attested outside the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature in
other Ancient Near Eastern texts, thus implying that the term or construction
is not typically Deuteronom(ist)ic. Comparison is only rarely made, however,
with the Old Testament prophetic books.
Some argue, furthermore, that a passage considered more elaborate than
another should also of necessity be considered younger. In addition, the
absence of typical stereotype Deuteronom(ist)ic phrases is seen by others as
evidence of the fact that the expressions in Exod. 23:2033 have not yet under-
gone complete Deuteronom(ist)ic development. Others still frequently associ-
ate (parts of) Exod. 23:2033 with the (old) holy war tradition.155
The value of the aforementioned arguments becomes apparent when we
compare them with the arguments used to claim the Deuteronom(ist)ic char-
acter of Exod. 23:2033. Indeed, several elements from the said pericope are
used by those who support the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of the pericope as
well as those who consider Exod. 23:2033 to be a pre- or proto-Deuteronomic
text. Two categories of arguments can be distinguished here. First, scholars
refer to the same passages from GenesisNumbers or other Old Testament
literature, which they characterise as either Deuteronom(ist)ic or as older
than Deuteronomy, depending on the hypothesis they support. The presence
of the in Exod. 23:20.23, for example, is used both as an argument
in the characterisation of the text as Deuteronomistic, and as an indication of
the pre- or proto-Deuteronomic character thereof. In addition, both perspec-
tives base themselves on texts such as Exod. 14:19, 32:34; 33:2 and Num. 20:16,

154 See, for example, Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 87 with reference to serving
YHWH in Exod 23:25. On the relationship between Exod. 23:2033 and Josh. 24, see also
H. Ausloos, The Book of Joshua, Exodus 23 and the Hexateuch, in: E. Noort (ed.), The Book
of Joshua (BETL, 250), Leuven 2012, 259266.
155 Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 87 on the term in Exod 23:27.
164 Chapter 3
for one to be seen as typically Deuteronom(ist)ic, for the other, by contrast, as

evidence of ancient traditions.
It is striking, moreover, that while the scholars who characterise
Exod. 23:2033 as pre- or proto-Deuteronomic focus attention on similarities
with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, they also place considerable emphasis
on the evident points of difference. Those exegetes who associate the passage
with a Deuteronom(ist)ic reworking, on the other hand, tend to be primar-
ily interested inoften very vaguesimilarities with the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature.156 With these observations in mind, it seems clear that the argu-
ments used to characterise Exod. 23:2033 as pre- or proto-Deuteronomic are
far from conclusive. In light of recent developments in Pentateuchforschung,
moreover, one can no longer appeal to allegedly old texts in GenesisNumbers.
It is positive, nevertheless, that the argumentation in support of the proto-
Deuteronomic character of Exod. 23:2033 does not limit itself to identifying
and listing parallels, but has come to focus much more attention on the way in
which a term or formula functions in the context. As such, it is better placed to
discern the differences with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
4 Conclusion
The authors whose insights we have explored in the preceding pages share a
common feature: they depart from the self-evident assignment of verses and
text segments, primarily from the book of Exodus, to an author or redactor
working under the influence of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. All of them
are of the opinion that the characteristic language and specific theology of
Deuteronomyrecognised now for decadesdid not came into existence
without preparation.157 All likewise agree that the prior stages of this specifi-
cally Deuteronom(ist)ic language and theology can still be traced within the
Old Testament itself, namely in passages from GenesisNumbers that exhibit
156 For example, the expression . In Deuteronomy, the theology of the name
plays an important role (Deuteronom[ist]ic). In the Deuterono m(ist)ic literature,
however, Gods is associated with the sanctuary and not with the ( pre- or
proto-Deuteronomic).
157 See also e.g. K.L. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study
of Ethnic Sentiments and their Expression in the Hebrew Bible, Winona Lake 1998, 128:
I use proto-Deuteronomic to refer to the ideas that eventually took shape in the book of
Deuteronomy, whose ideas I classify as Deuteronomic.
an explicit kinship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.158 If scholars in

the first decades of the 20th century were primarily inclined to focus their
attentionin the wake of the Wellhausenian Documentary Hypothesis
on the similarities between the reputedly Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in the
Tetrateuch and the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, then the authors addressed
in the present chapter deserve some credit at least for drawing scholarly atten-
tion to important points of difference between the two. Moreover, and often
in contrast to the then customary assignment of verses to a Deuteronom(ist)ic
redaction, the said scholars also endeavoured to underpin their hypotheses
with detailed argumentation. It is striking nevertheless that the proponents of
a proto-Deuteronomic redaction within GenesisNumbers, by analogy with
those who argue in favour of the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of a pericope,
seldom if ever draw attention to the study of the grammatical singularities of
the text. They generally restrict themselves to demonstrating that a word or
expression are not yet marked by the full Deuteronomic range and the stereo-
type Deuteronomic usage. Research into the style of a passage tends thereby to
be narrowed to a study of vocabulary and the use formulas.159
It goes without saying that the concern to guard against an overly facile
assignment of verses from GenesisNumbers to a Deuteronom(ist)ic author or
redactor addressed in the present chapter was clearly justified. However, with
the entirely new stimuli acquired by Pentateuch criticism more or less simul-
taneously in the last decades of the 20th century and the associated emphasis
on an all-inclusive (post-)Deuteronomistic redaction of the first five books
of the Old Testament in which exegetes such as H.H. Schmid, J. Van Seters,
158 S. Schweitzer, Deuteronomy 32 and 33 as Proto-Deuteronomic Texts, in Eastern Great

Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies: Proceedings 22 (2002), 7998 argues that Deut. 3233,
two poems at the end of Deuteronomy that in general are considered as appendices
to the book, should be seen as proto-Deuteronomic: This interpretation suggests
different stages in the development of the Deuteronomic movement. The earliest stage is
represented by the two poems. These proto-Deuteronomic texts advocate all the tenets
of the Deuteronm(ist)ic ideology, except for its most well known topics: centralization,
monarchy and prophecy (85).
159 Cf., for example, Reichert, Der Jehowist, 79: Ex 12,2427 ist eine Ergnzung zur alten Passa-
Anordnung 2123 J, die in Form (Gebotsumrahmung) und Stil (Wortschatz, Formelge
brauch) aus einer prdeuteronomischen Phase stammt und doch schon ansatzweise von
Intentionen geleitet ist, die dann im Dt zur Entfaltung kommen.
Vervennes critique of authors who support the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of the
Sea Narrative is also relevant here: What is conspicuously absent is a meticulous inquiry
into the phraseology of the related texts. (Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic
Elements, 266).
166 Chapter 3
R. Rendtorff and E. Blum played an eminent role in the 1970s and 1980s, inter-
est in the possibility that one can discern a preamble to the formation of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic language and theology disappeared almost completely
from the scholarly horizon.160 The pan-Deuteronomism that was in danger of
dominating Pentateuch research in the first half of the 20th centuryagainst
which the proto-Deuteronomists rightly reactedbegins to exhibit exponen-
tial growth from the beginning of the 1970s.
160 The term proto-Deuteronomic nevertheless did not completely disappear. See e.g.
M. Brinkschrder, Sodom als Symptom: Gleichgeschlechtliche Sexualitt im christlichen
Imaginreneine religionsgeschichtliche Anamnese (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche
und Vorarbeiten, 55), Berlin 2006, 242.
Chapter 4
The Deuteronom(ist)ic Problem since the Second

Half of the 20th Century
In the second chapter we demonstrated how biblical scholarship, still follow-

ing to a greater or lesser degree in the wake of the Documentary Hypothesis,
had ascribed an important role to a Deuteronom(ist)ic author or redactor
in the genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch. In the preceding chapter it
became clear that scholars became critical of this perspective from the 1960s
onwards, pointing to passages in GenesisNumbers in which a precursor to the
formation of the Deuteronom(ist)ic language and ideas could be discerned.
In many instances, the analysis focused on individual texts only, but there
were also scholars who were inclined to speak of a Pentateuch- or Hexateuch-
inclusive proto-Deuteronomic redaction.
In the present chapter we offer a survey of the various approaches to the
genesis and composition of the Pentateuch that gained in popularity from
the beginning of the 1970s. The studies in question, moreover, have also, and
to a very considerable degree, changed and redefined research into those
texts and text segments in the books GenesisNumbers considered to have a
Deuteronom(ist)ic flavour. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning
of the 20th, interest in Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in GenesisNumbers was
limited to the identification of (a few) Deuteronom(ist)ic interpolations in the
said books. From the 1960s onwards, these elements were seen as a precur-
sor to the Deuteronomic language and theology. Since the 1970s, more and
more attention has been focused on the possibility of an inclusive (post-)
Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction that is said to have been at the origins of the
Pentateuch as a whole or to have played an important role in the completion
of the so-called final redaction of the said corpus.
In presenting recent developments in research into the Deuteronom(ist)ic
problem, any attempt to provide a comprehensive picture would be ultimately
doomed to failure. The present chapter is an endeavour to present an over-
view of the way in which the presence of language and ideas in Genesis
Numbers reminiscent of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature has been dealt with
since circa 1970 on the basis of a number of related studies. Pride of place is
granted to authors who have given significant and innovative impetus to this
research domain. I make a distinction in this regard between two tenden-
cies that share a common distance, albeit in varying degrees, from the classic

168 Chapter 4
Documentary Hypothesis with its roots in the 19th century. In the first section
I deal with authors who ascribe the materialization of the Tetrateuch to a post-
Deuteronomistic redactor or author. This means that the redactional activity
the scholars in question maintain they are able to discern in GenesisNumbers
is later than and dependent on the Deuteronomistic History. The authors who
maintain the terminology of the documentary hypothesis, but ascribe it a
fundamentally different meaningnamely the suggestion that a late post-
Deuteronomistic Yahwist was responsible for GenesisNumbersdistinguish
themselves thereby from scholars who likewise recognise traces of an inclusive
post-Deuteronomistic redaction, but at the same time radically distance them-
selves from the prevailing Documentary Hypothesis.
In the second section, I offer a description of the work of a number of exe-
getes relating the materialization of the Tetrateuch to one or more Deuterono
mistic redactions or to a Deuteronomistic author. This implies that they locate
the origin of the Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in GenesisNumbers on one
and the same line with the author(s)/redactor(s) responsible for (a part of)
the Deuteronomistic History.1
A new shift is particularly evident since the final decade of the last cen-
tury. Various passages traditionally considered Deuteronom(ist)ic but at the
same time anterior to the Priestly reworking, now tend to be relocated to an
extremely late stage in the process of the Pentateuchs genesis. They are not
only considered dependent on the Deuteronomistic History, they are also con-
sidered dependent on the late Priestly layer or redaction of the Pentateuch.
Moreover, some associated these post-Priestly, post-Deuteronomistic texts
with the final redaction of the Pentateuch. A few examples of this approach
will be briefly explored in the third section of the chapter.
1 I am well aware that some scholars do not fit with ease into the outlined division. I maintain
this distinction nevertheless, convinced as I am that the framework it provides helps us to
chart contemporary tendencies in relation to the Deuteronom(ist)ic problem in Genesis
Numbers in the clearest possible way. It is important to remember thereby that approaches
often partially overlap one another and that authors frequently adjust their perspective on a
given issue as years pass. It should be noted, in addition, that attention is primarily focused
on authors who deal explicitly with the Deuteronom(ist)ic problem in GenesisNumbers.
Cf. also M. Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis to Numbers, in:
F. Garca Martnez et al. (eds), Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C.J. Labuschagne on the
Occasion of his 65th Birthday (SVT, 53), Leiden 1994, 243268.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 169

the Work of a late Deuteronomistic Author or Redactor
Critical objections were voiced within the Documentary Hypothesis with

respect to the so-called Elohist document at a relatively early stage. Reference
can be made in this regard to the work of Wilhelm Rudolph and Paul Volz.2
According to these authors, E should only be seen as a supplement to the work
of the Yahwist and thus not as an independent literary document.3 Discussion
concerning the character of the Elohist will only be treated in passing here,
as it emerges in the work of the authors treated in the following pages.4 Their
primary focus, after all, is the status of the Yahwist.
2 W. Rudolph, P. Volz, Der Elohist als Erzhler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (BZAW, 63),
Berlin 1933 study Gen. 1550 in relation to the existence of an Elohistic document. Later
Rudolphs Der Elohist von Exodus bis Jozua (BZAW, 68), Berlin 1938 focused on the rest of
the Hexateuch from this perspective. In an early review of O. Eissfeldts Hexateuchsynopse
(in TLZ 48 [1923] 389391, esp. 390), Volz expressed criticism of the prevailing subdivision
of the Pentateuch into independent sources: Ich sehe in dieser Synopse den Schlusspunkt
der bisherigen Methode und finde, dass sie gerade das Gegenteil von dem beweist, was sie
beweisen will, denn die kmmerlichen Brocken von Erzhlunng, die meist in den Spalten
stehen, beweisen eben, dass nicht vier [i.e. L, J, E and PH.A.] ursprngliche Erzhlungen
bestanden, und dass die ganze Synopse des Pentateuchs das knstliche Gebilde heutiger
Gelehrsamkeit ist.
3 Volz set out to demonstrate dass wir in der Genesis nur einen einzigen Erzhler vor
uns haben (den wir den Jahwisten nennen wollen), dass vor allem der sog. Elohist kein
selbstndiger Erzhler war, dass der sog. Elohist, wenn er berhaupt existierte, hchstens
Neuherausgeber des grossen (jahwistischen) Erzhlungswerkes war, dass in das grosse
ursprngliche (jahwistische) Erzhlungswerk (sei es von einem sog. Elohisten, sei es von
einem deuteronomistischen Redaktor) einzelne Abschnitte aus bestimmten Erwgungen
heraus eingefgt wurden (Rudolph, Volz, Der Elohist als Erzhler, 13). According to Volz,
we even need to be careful in our dealings with the idea that E is a reworker of the J nar-
rative: Denn wenn ein solcher Bearbeiter oder die Mnner einer Schule sich des grossen
alten Erzhlungswerkes spter angenommen haben, um es auf diese Weise [i.e. the re-
working thereofH.A.] der Gemeinde zu erhalten, warum haben sie dann das Anstssige
nicht einfach durch eigene Parallelen ersetzt usw.? Hier bleiben noch manche ungelste
Fragen (24).
4 For issues related to the so-called Elohistic elements in GenesisNumbers, see, for example,
A. de Pury, T. Rmer, Le Pentateuque en question: Position du problme et brve histoire
de la recherche, in: Idem (eds), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des
cinq premiers livres de la Bible la lumire des recherches rcentes. 3me dition augmente (Le
monde de la Bible, 19), Genve 2002, 980, esp. 4546; K. Jaro, Die Stellung des Elohisten
zur Kanaanischen Religion (OBO, 4), Freiburg 1974; A.W. Jenks, The Elohist and North
Israelite Traditions (SBL MS, 22), Missoula MT 1977; H. Seebass, Que reste-t-il du Yahwiste
170 Chapter 4
1.1 The Post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist Thesis

As long as the tradition that scholars have referred to since the end of the
19th century as Priestly was considered the oldest document, emerging
during the presumed reigns of David and Solomon (10th century bce), the
Yahwist tended for the most part to be situated in the 8th century bce.5 When
P came to be characterised as the youngest document by the hypothesis
of Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen, J was dated in the 9th century or the begin-
ning of the 8th century bce.6 In the course of the 20th century, J was generally
understood to have emerged at the end of the 10th century or the begin-
ning of the 9th.7 Gerhard von Rad associated the Yahwist narrative with the
time of Solomon, which he believed was characterised by an Aufklrung in
Israels social and religious life.8
et de llohiste?, in: De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question, 199214; H.W. Wolff,
Zur Thematik der elohistischen Fragmente im Pentateuch, EvT 29 (1969), 5972; E. Zenger,
Le thme de la sortie dgypte et la naissance du Pentateuque, in: De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le
Pentateuque en question, 301331, esp. 327328. See also A. Graupner, Der Elohist: Gegenwart
und Wirksamkeit des tranzendenten Gottes in der Geschichte (WMANT, 97), Neukirchen-Vluyn
2002.
5 See, for example, A. Knobel, Die Bcher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua erklrt nebst einer
Kritik des Pentateuch und Josua (KEHAT, 13), Leipzig 1861, 579.
6 Cf. A. Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken
des Ouden Verbonds, Dl. 1: De thora en de historische boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Amsterdam
21884, 241.
7 See, for example, K. Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten: Ein Beitrag zur Datierung jahwistischer
Vtertexte (BZAW, 186), Berlin 1990; O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter
Einschluss der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der apokryphen- und pseud
epigraphenartigen Qumran-Schriften (Neue Theologische Grundrisse), Tbingen 31964, 266;
O. Kaiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einfhrung in ihre Ergebnisse und Probleme,
Gtersloh 1969; 51984, 93; M. Kckert, Auf der Suche nach dem Jahwisten: Aporien in der
Begrndung einer Grundthese alttestamentlicher Exegese, in Theologische Versuche 14
(1985), 3964; H. Schmkel, Zur Datierung der Pentateuchquelle J, ZAW 62 (1950), 319321.
8 G. von Rad, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs (BWANT, 4/26), Stuttgart 1938,
7581. He was followed in this regard by, among others, M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte
des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948, 249 and H.W. Wolff, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testa
ment (TB, 22), Mnchen 1964, 348351. See also, for example, Zenger, Le thme de la sortie
dgypte , 327328. Studies on the Yahwist are legion: see, for example, A.F. Campbell, The
Yahwist Revisited, Australian Biblical Review 27 (1979), 214; L. Schmidt, berlegungen
zum Jahwisten, EvT 37 (1977), 230247; W.H. Schmidt, Ein Theologe in salomonischer Zeit?
Pldoyer fr den Jahwisten, BZ 25 (1981), 82102; H. Seebass, Zur geistigen Welt des sog.
Jahwisten, BN 4 (1977), 3947; Idem, Jahwist, TRE 16 (1987), 441451; Idem, Que reste-t-il du
Yahwiste et de Llohiste?, 207; H.W. Wolff, Das Kerygma des Jahwisten, EvT 24 (1964), 7398;
E. Zenger, Das jahwistische Werkein Wegbereiter des jahwistischen Monotheismus?, in
Critical voices were gradually raised against the early dating of the Yahwist
tradition. This took place primarily in relation to the study of the book of
Genesis, although it was later extended to the remaining portions of the
Tetrateuch. As early as 1939, for example, Julian Morgenstern insisted that
the Yahwist material in Gen. 111 should be dated late, namely between 516
and 485 bce.9 Carmino J. de Catanzaro likewise insisted in 1957 that a much
younger date should be considered for the Yahwist than generally accepted.10
The impulse given by these authors to a late dating of the Yahwist was further
elaborated in 1965 by Frederick V. Winnett.
1.1.1 The Birth of the Late Yahwist

In 1965, Winnett defended the hypothesis that the book of Genesisexcluding
the later P additionswas the work of an author who was active in the period
E. Haag (ed.), Gott, der einzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheismus in Israel (QD, 104),
Freiburg 1985, 2653. For an overview of the place and function of J within Pentateuch
research, see in particular J.L. Ska, The Yahwist, a Hero with a Thousand Faces: A Chapter
in the History of Modern Exegesis, in: J.C. Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die
Komposition des Hexateuch in der jngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002, 123.
9 J. Morgenstern, The Mythological Background of Psalm 82, HUCA 14 (1939), 2998, esp.
9394 n. 114. I provide the complete quotation from Morgenstern at this juncture, bearing
in mind that it already settles scores with an early dating of the Yahwist in a particularly
radical manner: For many and to me very cogent considerations I can not share in the
opinion of practically all biblical scholars that the several J strata of Gen. 111 must neces-
sarily be pre-exilic by virtue of their being indisputably a part of J. The assumption that
all strata of J must be under all conditions pre-exilic and that the entire J school of writing
came to an end with the Babylonian Exile or, as most scholars hold, even somewhat ear-
lier, previous to the rise of the Deuteronomic school, is altogether gratuitous. There is not
the slighest reason why the two schools may not have existed side by side for quite some
time, and even have persisted into the post-exilic period, and even why the J school of
thought and literary style should not have continued to express itself in the eschatological
and apocalyptic writings of the third and second centuries bc and thereafter. At any rate,
for compelling reasons I must assign the J strata in Gen. 111 to the universalistic period
of Jewish thought and practice, 516485 bc, the period when the influence of Deutero-
Isaiah was preponderant and when likewise the influence of North-Semitic religion and
mythology pervaded Jewish thought, literature and religious practice.
10 Cf. C.J. de Catanzaro, A Literary Analysis of Genesis ixi, Toronto 1957. See in this regard
N.E. Wagner, A Literary Analysis of Genesis 1236, Toronto 1965, 122: C.J. de Catanzaro has
demonstrated that a likely date for the so-called Yahwistic material is no earlier than the
time of Josiah, perhaps shortly after 625 bc. Some of the implications of such a view have
been worked out by F.V. Winnett.
172 Chapter 4
of the exile. In so doing, he introduced the theory of the so-called late Yahwist.11
Winnett arrived at this conclusion on the basis of a rudimentary study of the
primeval history narratives, the patriarchal narratives and the Joseph narra-
tive. A detailed exploration of his article makes sense at this juncture because,
although often overlooked, it already contains in nuce the concepts and ideas
associated with the late character of the Pentateuch as a whole, as Schmid, Van
Seters, Rendtorff and Blum were to formulate it in the decades to come.
Winnett begins by examining the stories concerning Israels primeval
history (Gen. 111). In so doing he suggests that these chapters, even when
we exclude the Priestly components thereof, are the work of one single cre-
ative author who selected originally existing material, adapted and reordered
it to create a running narrative.12 Winnett names this author the Yahwist. He
then goes on to accuse the classical Documentary Hypothesis of not basing its
early dating of the Yahwist passages in Gen. 111 on text-immanent data, but
11 F.V. Winnett, ReExamining the Foundations, JBL 84 (1965), 119. In his The Mosaic
Tradition (Near and Middle East Series, 1), Toronto 1949, Winnett had already denied
the existence of two independent sources J and E. He observes on the basis of his study
of the Plagues Narrative: The fact that the literary phenomena presented by the nar-
rative can be explained more naturally by a theory of stylistic arrangement than by a
theory of documentary admixture raises doubts as to whether two such documents ever
existed (15). In Winnetts view, the Mosaic Tradition doubtless took shape under the
reigns of David and Solomon and was written down in the midle of the 9th century bce
(Exod. 3:14, 18, 27, 31; 5:16:1; 7:1411:8; 12:2939; 13:1722; 14:118*; 14:19b15:1; 15:2227*;
16:14*, 1315*, 21, 31; 17:116; 18:127*; 19:23a*, 919*; 20:1, 1821, 2326; 22:2023:19*; 24:1
2, 915, 18b; 31:19*; 33:1, 711; Num. 10:2932*; 11:16*, 11*, 13*, 16*, 1824a*, 3135; 12:16*;
13:1718*, 2223*, 2628*, 3031, 33; 14:24*, 2324*, 25b, 31, 3945*; 16:17*, 1218, 25, 27b-
35*; 20:1b, 1424*; 21:413*, 16*, 18b, 1935; Deut. 27:18; 31:1415, 23; 34:1*, 46*). After the
fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 bce, Hezekiah wanted to extend the popularity of the
sanctuary in Jerusalem by instituting a spring festival that combined Pesach and Mazzot.
At the same time, he published a revised version of the national law book in which
the cult and priests of the Northern Kingdom were presented in a negative light
(Exod. 12:2127; 13:316; 32:124; 34:1, 4*, 28). In reaction, the priests in Jerusalem cre-
ated Deut. 4:4426:19, which was concealed in the temple. Shortly thereafter, King Josiah
found the said lawbook and proclaimed it as national law. As a result, two versions of
the national tradition circulated simultaneously: a tradition on the exodus reworked
by Hezekiah and a Deuteronomic law. After the exile (circa 397 bce), the two versions
were harmonised by priests in Jerusalem (P), whereby material from a variety of origins
was combined (166171). For the origin of the late Yahwist, see also E. Nicholson, The
Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, Oxford 1998, 132160.
About Winnett as the initiator of the theory of the late Yahwist, see J. Van Seters, The
Yahwist: A Historian of Israelite Origins, Winona Lake, IN 2013, 78.
12 Winnett, Re-Examining the Foundations, 23.
rather on the conviction that the Yahwist of Gen. 111 was identical with the
Yahwist of the patriarchal narratives. The information provided by the texts
themselves, he insists, does not support such an identification. He claims, for
example, that the expression Ur in Chaldea in Gen. 11:28, 31 refers to a period
in which the Babylonian empire was at its height. This was not in the 10th or
9th century, he observes, but rather at the end of the 7th century bce. The list
of the sons of Japheth in Gen. 10:25, furthermore, alludes to an even later date,
if we bear in mind that the Israelites had not come into contact with the said
nations prior to the period of Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiahi.e. the period of
the Babylonian exile. According to Winnett, the strongest argument in support
of a (post-)exilic date for Gen. 111 is to be found in the authors universalistic
and monotheistic concerns. For the author in question, the concept of sin-
fulness no longer had to do with the apostasy of the nation with respect to
yhwh, but was understood to be a universally human phenomenon. Based on
these facts, Winnett pleads for a (post-)exilic dating of the Yahwist.
Winnett then turns his attention to Gen. 1236. He begins by debunking the
hypothesis of an Elohist version of the patriarchal narratives independent of J.
He agrees, nevertheless, that the Yahwist narratives may contain a number
of Elohist corrections.13 Winnett then sets out in search of a solution for the
elements in the J narrative that are apparently of a later date. According to
the scholarship of his day, three passages from Gen. 1236 tended consistently
to be characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic, namely Gen. 15:7; 18:1719 and 26:5b.
In Winnetts opinion, these passages cannot possibly be written off as later
interpolations, because theyand this certainly applies to Gen. 15:7 and 18:17
19form an integral part of the context in which they stand.14 The most logi-
cal solution, therefore, is to account for an author who was responsible for the
entire context and who only became active after the publication of the book of
Deuteronomy.15 In Winnetts approach to Gen. 12:23, an element emerges that
13 With respect to the E elements in the Abraham narratives Winnett writes: There can be
no question that E was a reviser, whatever else he may have been. (...) E left the J stories
unaltered but neutralized them by composing similar episodes in a new setting, and in
these Abrahams behavior is above reproach (Re-Examining the Foundations, 6; for the E
passages in the Jacob tradition, cf. 710).
14 The predisposition to see verses or verse segments as interpolations is a common feature
of scholarly research in this domain. I react against this approach in H. Ausloos, The
Deuteronomist and the Account of Josephs Death (Gen. 50,2226), in: A. Wnin (ed.),
Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (BETL, 155), Leuven 2001,
381395.
15 Winnett does not account for the possiblity that these passages from Genesis may repre-
sent a preliminary stage leading up to the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
174 Chapter 4
was later to be employed extensively in demonstrating the late character of the

texts, the so-called argumentum e silentio. The argument in question is based
on the fact that a given datum is not mentioned. The theme of Gen. 12:23, for
example, in which Israel is presented as a source of blessing for all the nations,
is found nowhere prior to Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 42:17; 49:6; 52:1353:12).16
In addition, a great deal of J material appears to be close to P or at least to
anticipate P.17
The fact that clearly late elements can be discerned within Gen. 1236 does
not yet lead Winnett to conclude that the said narrativesby analogy with
Gen. 111are the work of a single late author who used older material in the
process. Winnett is of the opinion, moreover, that an old Yahwist basic narra-
tive probably already existed. As observed above, this old narrative was supple-
mented in an official manner by the Elohist. In the early post-exilic period, a
late Yahwist introduced a second official revision. This late Yahwist was one
single person, a fact made clear by the well-considered theme of the promise.18
16 Winnett, Re-Examining the Foundations, 11: It is such a striking idea that if it had been
present in the early J story of Abraham it is inconceivable that none of the prophets
before Deutero-Isaiah would have referred to it. This is all the more true if the story was
recited to the people on festival occasions.
17 It is stated in Gen. 12:8; 13:4; 26:25, for example, that Abraham and Isaac established an
altar, but no mention is made of the patriarch offering sacrifice. Instead it is stated that
the said partriarch called upon the name of yhwh. This observation leads Winnett,
Re-Examining the Foundations, 11 to conclude: As is well known, P also avoids any refer-
ence to the patriarchs offering sacrifice since the Torah had not yet been revealed. It is
probable, therefore, that the author of the three passages mentioned lived not too far
removed from that of P.
18 Winnett, Re-Examining the Foundations, 1213: Evidence that an important section of
this supplementary material comes from one hand is provided by an examination of the
divine promises to the patriarchs. The basic J story contained only a brief promise of the
land made to Abraham: To thy seed I will give this land (12,7) and a promise in ch. 18
that he and his wife Sarah would have a son despite their advanced age. These references
were far too meager to satisfy later generations, and the theme of the promises was taken
up and expanded by Late J. The promise to the patriarchs is thus made seven times in
the patriarchal narratives (Gen. 12:23; 13:1417; 15; 22:1418; 26:35, 24; 28:1315): May
we not see in Late Js concern with the divine promises to the patriarchs an historians
way of conceiving a message of comfort and hope to his people in a time of gloom and
despair? If Late J be of postexilic date, the whole matter becomes readily intelligible (13).
Futhermore, Winnett ascribes the following passages, among others, to his late Yahwist:
Gen. 11:2831; 14; 18:22a-32; 24; 25:2223; 26; 28:1315; 32:414a; 33:1920; 34; 35:18, 1622a
(1415).
With respect to the Joseph story, Winnett claims that the late Yahwist used
an E narrative, which he largely reworked. According to Winnett, however, the
said E narrative has nothing to do with the E supplements in Gen. 1236.19
Winnett thus discerns the presence of a late Yahwist throughout the book
of Genesis.20 This late Yahwist carried out his work inspired by a concern to
commit the traditions concerning the beginning of humanity and the patri-
archs to writing. Up to that point, the traditions in question had been trans-
mitted orally. According to Winnett, there can be little doubt that the fall of
Jerusalem in 587 bce and the exile that followed occasioned this concern.
In Winnetts view, the Yahwist narrative underwent a P revision around
400 bce, at which point Genesis was placed before ExodusNumbers and
Deuteronomy was detached from the Deuteronomistic History and attached
to the Moses tradition. Prior to P, therefore, we cannot speak of the Pentateuch
or the Tetrateuch. Since Winnett, the Yahwist is no longer associated of neces-
sity with the early monarchy, but linked rather with the Deuteronom(ist)ic lit-
erature and the exile.
Without necessarily paying explicit attention to Deuteronom(ist)ic elements
in GenesisNumbers, several exegetesin line with Winnettpropose a late
(post-)exilic date for the non-Priestly material in this composition. Norman E.
Wagner, for example, one of Winnetts students, has proposed a (post-)exilic
date for the pre-Priestly patriarch traditions. In his study A Literary Analysis
of Genesis 1236, Wagner insists that much of the material traditionally con-
sidered to be Yahwistic should, de facto, be ascribed to a Judean author (C)
from the 6th century bce whose religious convictions exhibit similarities with
those of Deutero-Isaiah. At the same time, Wagner argues, C contains traces of
Deuteronomic influence.21
19 The E supplements to Gen. 1236 came into existence in Judah. The Elohist basic narra-
tive in the Joseph cycle, by contrast, is evidently of Israelite origin: It is not surprising,
then, that such widely divergent views regarding the date and provenance of E have been
championed by scholars. They have been treating as one two quite disparate elements
Winnett, Re-Examining the Foundations, 18.
20 Winnett, Re-Examining the Foundations, 17: The fact that a late J hand supplemented
the patriarchal narratives and that a late J hand supplemented the Joseph story raises the
possibility that they are one and the same person. When it is recalled that the primeval
history is also by a late J author, one must consider the further possibility that the whole
of the Book of Genesis, apart from later P supplements, is his handiwork. A comparison of
the late J materials in the three sections of the book does suggest that they proceed from
the same hand.
21 N.E. Wagner, A Literary Analysis of Genesis 1236, Toronto 1965, 2: C attempted to present a
full-fledged life of the patriarch by adding material which seems to have been drawn from
176 Chapter 4
Likewise in the footsteps of Winnett, Donald B. Redford concludes on

the basis of a study of the Egyptian elements in the Joseph narrative that a
dating thereof prior to the 7th century bce is impossible.22 Lexicographical
research also appears to suggest a close relationship between the vocabu-
lary of the Joseph narrative and the late books of the Old Testamenti.e.
the books written around the time of the Babylonian exile.23 According to
Redford, at least fifty words or expressions are thus attested in the (post-)exilic
literature.24 Redford points out, in addition, that neither the prophets nor the
Deuteronomistic History make reference to Joseph, suggesting perhaps that
oral tradition. If any of his additions, such as ch. 14, was derived from a written source it
has been so recast that it is not possible to recover its original form. C takes up the theme
of the divine promises to the patriarcha subject touched upon only lightly by Jand
develops it at some length, relating no fewer than four such promises (12:23; 14:1417;
15,121; 22:1718). C is strongly pro-Jerusalem and pro-Judaean in his sympathies. (...) One
of the most noteworthy findings is that a considerable amount of the material usually
assigned to J must be attributed to a late Judaean author (labelled C) whose religious
concepts show affinities with those of Deutero-Isaiah (6th century bc) and later authors.
He also shows some traces of Deuteronomic influence and shares some vocabulary with
P. Wagner also defends the hypothesis of a late dating of the patriarchal traditions in his
articles Abraham and David?, in: J.W. Wevers, D.B. Redford (eds), Studies on the Ancient
Palestinian World: Presented to Professor F.V. Winnett on the Occasion of his Retirement 1
July 1971 (Toronto Semitic Texts and Studies, 2), Toronto 1972, 117140 and A Response to
Professor Rolf Rendtorff, JSOT 3 (1977), 2027.
22 D.B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 3750) (SVT, 20), Leiden 1970,
241242: Two conclusions seem justified by our examination of the background detail.
First, the Hebrew writer was not so well acquainted with Egypt as has often been imag-
ined. Not a few of the supposed Egyptian parallels, especially titles, vanish under close
inspection. On the other hand there are indications here and there that the writer was
familiar with the Judaean royal court. And second, those Egyptian elements which do
appear to be genuine cannot be dated with any degree of likehood before the seventh
century bc. Redford understands the literary genesis of the Joseph narrative as follows.
First he recognises an original Joseph narrative independent of the patriarchal traditions
that was a Hebrew variant of the universally applicable theme of a young boy with big
dreams. The narrative then underwent a Judah expansion and additional elements were
later added to the story. The story was finally reworked by the redactor of Genesis (P).
23 Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph, 54. Redford considers Leviticus,
Deuteronomy, the Priestly components of the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic frame-
work of the Historical books, Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms,
Proverbs, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah,
Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi to be late.
24 Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph, 5465.
they did not know the story because it did not yet exist. Once again the argu-
mentum e silentio puts in an appearance.25
Reference can also be made in this regard and by way of conclusion to the
work of Hermann Vorlnder. According to Vorlnder the passages generally
ascribed to RJE cannot have been written prior to the exilic period.26 This
is evident from the fact, among others, that the pre-exilic literature outside
GenesisNumbers makes no mention of the material transmitted in JE.27 By
dating JE in the (post-)exilic period, Vorlnder immediately situates this work
in den Umkreis des dtr Geschichtswerkes und der es tragenden Bewegung.28
He also sees the Deuteronomist not so much as a single author, but rather as
a school.
The work of the scholars we have mentioned introduces a new phase in
Pentateuch research. Texts that were once taken to be the earliest now sud-
denly belong to the latest layers of the Pentateuch. There can be little doubt
25 Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph, 250. J. Blenkinsopp, A Post-Exilic Lay
Source in Genesis 111, in: Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten, 4961 has recently
associated himself with this Canadian School of which Winnett can be said to have been
the founder.
26 The passages in question are Gen. 2:4b-25; 4:126; 6:18; 7:15, 710, 12, 2324; 8:2b-3,
612, 13b, 2022; 9:1827; 10:819, 21, 24, 30; 11:19; 12:14a, 620; 13:15, 711, 1318; 16:2,
414; 18:133; 19:128, 3038; 20:118; 21:12a, 634; 22:124; 24:167; 25:16, 11, 18, 2134;
26:133; 27:145; 28:1022; 29:128a, 3035; 30:143; 31:154; 32:133; 33:120; 34:131; 35:1
5, 6b-8, 14, 1622; 36(?); 37:336; 3845; 46:15, 2834; 47:15, 1231; 48:13, 821; 50:111,
1426; Exod. 1:6, 812, 1522; 2:123a; 3:16:1; 7:1418, 21, 2329; 8:411, 1628; 9:17, 1335;
10:129; 11:18; 12:2123, 2939; 13:1722; 14:131; 15:2027; 16:3b-5, 1336; 1718; 19:23a,
925; 20:1821; 24:115b; 32:16, 1520, 3035(?); 33:711(?); Num. 10:2936; 11:112, 16(?);
13:17b, 1820, 2224, 2731, 33; 14:89, 24, 3945; 16:1215, 2526, 27b-34; 20:1b, 3a, 5, 8b-9,
11, 1421; 21:132; 22:224, 25; 25:15; 32:16, 1642; Deut. 34:16. Vorlnder explores the
passages in question: im Vergleich zur auertetrateuchischen Literatur im Rahmen der
alttestamentlichen Religions- und Literaturgeschichte den Zeitpunkt zu bestimmen, zu
dem die jehowistischen Texte in der jetzt vorliegenden Form zuerst niedergeschrieben
wrden: H. Vorlnder, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (EurHS,
109), Frankfurt am Main 1978, 17.
27 Vorlnder, Die Entstehungszeit, 367: Die auertetrateuchische Literatur enthlt kein-
erlei sicheren Hinweise darauf, da Werke wie J oder E vor 600 v.Chr. verfat wurden.
Andernfalls wre ein hufigerer Bezug der Propheten auf diese Weise bzw. die in ihnen
enthaltenen Stoffe und theologischen Aussagen zu erwarten.
28 Vorlnder, Die Entstehungszeit, 368. Another example of an author who already supported
the late dating of the Pentateuch in the 1970s is B. Zuber, Vier Studien zu den Ursprngen
Israels: Die Sinaifrage und Probleme der Volks- und Traditionsbildung (OBO, 9), Freiburg
1976; Idem, Marginalien zur Quellentheorie, in: DBAT 12 (1977), 1429.
178 Chapter 4
that the most important contribution to this exegetical turnabout is to be

located in the work of John Van Seters.
1.1.2 John Van Seters Post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist

Few will dispute the fact that John Van Seters has been a major mover and
shaker in the field of Pentateuch studies.29 His innovating approach was
announced in a publication from 1972 in which he explored the Old Testament
use of the terms Amorites and Hittites.30 He starts by pointing out that the
use of this vocabulary in the Old Testament, designating the native population
of Palestine, does not correspond to what we know from the historical perspec-
tive concerning these peoples during the second millennium bce. According
to Van Seters, an explanation for the biblical use of the said terminology should
be sought rather in parallel with Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions from
the first millennium bce, in which the designations Hittite or Amorite are
employed in a rhetorical and archaizing fashion to refer to the combined pop-
ulation of Syro-Palestine.31
29 D. Edelman, Review of J. Van Seters, Changing Perspectives I: Studies in the History,
Literature and Religion of Biblical Israel (Copenhagen International Seminar; London,
2011), RBL 05 (2012) (http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/8201_8964.pdfaccess 24 March
2015). See further T.L. Thompson, Tradition and History: The Scholarship of John Van
Seters, in: S.L. McKenzie et al. (eds), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the
Ancient World and in the Bible (BZAW, 294), Berlin 2000, 921.
30 J. Van Seters, The Terms Amorite and Hittite in the Old Testament, VT 22 (1972), 6481.
The first volume of Van Seters collected studies appeared in 2011: J. Van Seters, Changing
Perspectives I. Studies in the History, Literature and Religion of Biblical Israel (Copenhagen
International Seminar), London 2011.
31 This idea is already to be found in A.T. Clay, The Empire of the Amorites (Yale Oriental
Series, 6), New Haven 1919, 161 [reprinted in the Yale Oriental Series. Researches, 6,
New York, 1980]; M.C. Astour, Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and its
Babylonian Sources, in: A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical Motifs, Origins and Transformations,
Cambridge 1966, 65112, esp. 7881; M. Noth, Die Welt des Alten Testaments: Einfhrung
in die Grenzgebiete der Alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft (Sammlung Tppelmann, 2/3),
Berlin 1962, 70. From Tiglath-Pileser (circa 1100 bce) to Shalmaneser III (circa 850 bce),
the expression the land of the Amorites refered to a region of Syria between the western
Upper Euphrates and the Mediterranean. The southern border of this region depended
on the extent to which Assyria enjoyed domination of the West. As a result, from the
8th bce, the description the land of the Amorites no longer referred to Syria alone but
also applied to Palestine, including Phoenicia, Israel, Moab, Ammon, Edom and the cities
of the Philistines. Sennacherib thus refered to the kings of all these cities as Amorites.
As a term designating the population of Syro-Palestine, the term Amorite was used until
The terms Amorite and Hittite are used in the Old Testament as part of
the lists of nations that originally populated Palestine. The list of nations in
Deut. 7:12 is clearly introduced for ideological reasons. The author of Deut. 7,
moreover, is interested in the foreign nations with whom he was confronted
in his own time, nations he considered to be a threat to Israels religious life.
The author of the Deuteronomistic History interpreted the list of nations from
Deuteronomy as referring to all non-Israelites from whatever the period.32
In Exod. 3:8; 23:2033; 33:13; 34:11, passages often seen as JE, the theme of
Deuteronomy is adapted to the contemporary situation.33 The author of these
passages thus sees the foreign nations as those who occupy the land rather than
its native population. At the same time, he places more emphasis on divine
intervention and less on the military capacities of the Israelites. According
to Van Seters, this tendency corresponds with a period in which Israel was
extremely weak in military terms. As a result, the texts in question are best
situated in the exilic period and understood to be post-Deuteronomistic. In
the list of nations found in Ezra 9,1, the Ammonites, Moabites and Egyptians
are added to the series. As such, the list of nations in Ezra no longer reflects the
peoples of the land, but rather the peoples of the lands, a fact that fits ideally
into the situation of the diaspora and the post-exilic period, in which concerns
related to the purity of the people no longer focused on life in Palestine. In the
context of the diaspora, furthermore, the people were confronted in like mea-
sure with foreign nations outside Palestine. It is thus clear to Van Seters that
the list of nations was not introduced into the text for historical reasons. By
analogy with the inscriptions from the first millennium bce, it should rather
be understood as an ideologising element in the biblical tradition.
the end of Assyrian power. In the Persian period, Van Seters maintains, the term Amorite
applied to the Arabic population of North Arabia.
In the Assyrian inscriptions dating from before the 9th century bce, Van Seters is of the
opinion that the term Hittite referred to a number of neo-Hittite states (e.g. Carchemish)
in Northen Syria that came into existence after the fall of the Hittite empire. From the end
of the 9th century bce, the said states gradually lost their independence. In the period
of Sargon (circa 720 bce) the terms Amorite and Hittite were both used for the native
population of Syro-Palestine. In a number of Sargons inscriptions, moreover, the term
Hittite has a pejoritive significance. All the peoples who resisted Assyrian authority were
simply designated Hittite, which served as a rhetorical term of abuse.
32 Cf. Judg. 3:35; 1 Kgs 11:12.
33 Van Seters, The Terms Amorite and Hittite , 7172 mentions three exceptions. In
Gen. 10:1518; 15:2021; Num. 13:29 the list of the nations is seen as a source of information
concerning the geographical and ethnographical siutuation in Palestine at the time, in
contrast to the use thereof in Deuteronomy.
180 Chapter 4
It should be clear by this juncture that with Van Seters dating of the list of
nations in the book of Exodus to around the Babylonian exile, the convictions
he was to develop in the remainder of his career concerning the late Yahwist
are already present in nuce.34 It was another publication from 1972, however,
namely Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period, that was to be deci-
sive in this regard. Van Seters used the publication to explore the relationship
between the theme of the promise to the patriarchs (Genesis) on the one hand,
and the traditions concerning the exodus from Egypt and the occupation of
the land (Exodus and Numbers) on the other.35 According to given opinion,
both tradition complexes were combined at a very early point in the (oral
preliminary stage) of the Yahwists work. According to Van Seters, however,
this hypothesis is extremely problematic. In Ezek. 20:56, reference is made
to yhwhs promise to the fathers who experienced the exodus from Egypt
without any mention of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.36 According to Ezekiel, this
promise to the fathers of the exodus is formulated in a conditional manner.
Indeed, the possession of the land depends, according to the prophet, on obe-
dience to the law. Van Seters also discerns a clear reference to the fathers of the
exodus in Jer. 2:46.37 In other oracles occurring in Jeremiah where reference
is made to a promise, however, it is not immediately clear whether the fathers
of the exodus are its recipient or the so-called patriarchs.38
34 Van Seters, The Terms Amorite and Hittite, 81: We have hinted that there seems to be
a substantial portion of the JE corpus, Late J?, which seems to stand in its outlook and
terminology in the exilic period midway between Deuteronomy and the Priestly writer.
35 J. Van Seters, Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period, VT 22 (1972), 448459.
36 Cf. also Ezek. 20:15, 28, 42; 36:28; 37:2526. He returns to this in later writing. See, for
example, J. Van Seters, The So-Called Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch, in:
J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 5877, esp. 6466;
J. Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Louisville 1992,
233235; Idem, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in ExodusNumbers (CBET, 10),
Kampen 1994, 47.
37 Cf. also Jer. 7:14, 2223; 11:7, 10; 16:1013; 23:39; 24:10; 34:13; 44:10.
38 The texts in question are: Jer. 3:18; 7:17; 11:7; 16:1415; 25:5; 30:3; 32:32; 35:15. According to
Van Seters, all these passages should be considered Deuteronomistic additions without
further ado. Jer. 33:26 makes explicit mention of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. According
to Van Seters the expression should be dated to the period of the reconstruction of the
temple (cf. also E.W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the
Book of Jeremiah, Oxford 1970, esp. 9192).
Van Seters concludes as a result that both Ezekiel and Jeremiah refer in
each instance to the promise to the fathers who experienced the exodus from
Egypt and not to the patriarchs. According to them, the people of the exodus
and their children acquired possession of the land on the condition that they
were obedient to yhwh. This, however, was not the case. On account of their
disobedience, expulsion from the land was inevitable. The question thus arises:
how was it possible for Ezekiel and Jeremiah to set aside an extremely ancient
tradition concerning an unconditional promise to the patriarchs without
scruples and as if it had never existed. The answer, for Van Seters, is obvious:
this ancient tradition did not de facto exist. Once again we are dealing here
with the argumentum e silentio.
In Van Seters opinion, this intuition is confirmed by his study of the texts
in Deuteronomy that deal with the promise. The promise in Deuteronomy,
is indeed formulated in a conditional manner as in Ezekiel and Jeremiah.39
Moreover, in some references to the promise of land in Deuteronomy, the
names of the patriarchs are only present in loose association with the word
fathers,40 in contrast to the so-called JE-passages in the Pentateuch where the
names of the patriarchs, according to Van Seters, are intrinsically bound with
the context.41 As a result, he is convinced that the names of the patriarchs in
these passages in Deuteronomy are later exilic interpolations and the prom-
ise in questionas in Ezekiel and Jeremiahwas originally addressed to the
fathers of the exodus.42
39 According to Van Seters, Confessional Reformulation, 451, one finds in Deuteronomy a

theological perspective in Jerusalem prior to, and concurrent with, Jeremiah and Ezekiel,
and of which they could scarcely have been ignorant.
40 Cf. Deut. 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; 29:12; 30:20.
41 Exod. 33:1; Num. 32:1; Deut. 34:4.
42 Van Seters, Confessional Reformulation, 452: So if we were to regard the names of the
patriarchs in Deuteronomy as later additions, then unlike JE, the construction would still
remain in tact, but the fathers would then mean the forefathers of the exodus genera-
tion. The contradition created by the conditional tenure of the land would be removed
and Deuteronomy would be in complete agreement with Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Van Seters
viewpoint was later supported by the study of T. Rmer, Israels Vter: Untersuchungen
zur Vterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99),
Freiburg 1990.
182 Chapter 4
Given the fact that the references to the patriarchs in the JE texts of the
Pentateuch are intrinsically bound with the context, in contrast to Deuteronomy
and the prophets, the passages in question certainly have to be seen as post-
Deuteronomistic and dated around the Babylonian exile.43 In this context, Van
Seters discusses Exod. 3:11544 among others. The passage in question holds
an exemplary position in demonstrating the transition from the confession of
yhwh as the God of the exodus to yhwh as the God of the patriarchs. Indeed,
in Exod. 3:13 we encounter the same theme as in Ezek. 20:56. In contrast to
Ezekiel, however, the role of the patriarchs is firmly underlined in Exod. 3:6,
15. This is a well-considered datum. Moreover, according to Ezekiel, Jeremiah
and Deuteronomy, the bond between yhwh and the people was broken when
Israel was not obedient. As a result, the people found itself in the historical
context of the exile in a more or less hopeless situation and people asked
themselves what kind of God the God of the fathers (of the exile) actually was.
It is to this very question that Exod. 3, among other texts, sets out to give and
answer. yhwh is presented here as the God of the patriarchs and his promises
to them are unconditional and remain valid for ever, even in exceptional situa-
tions of crisis. Van Seters calls this datum from the period of the exile a confes-
sional reformulation.45
43 Van Seters, Confessional Reformulation, 454: The socalled JE corpus of the Pentateuch
is in marked contrast to Deuteronomy in its treatment of the patriarchs. JE develops at
considerable length the theme of the patriarchal promises in Genesis, and it reiterates
that theme elsewhere in Exodus and Numbers. If we disregard the presupposition from
classical literary criticism that JE must be older than Deuteronomy, then the process of
modification of the promise tradition within Deuteronomy itself would strongly suggest
that the patriarchal promise tradition in JE is later and exilic at least.
44 Cf. also Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 4648.
45 According to Van Seters, a similar confessional reformulation can be found in the pro-
phetic literature. While Ezekiel and Jeremiah speak of a conditional promise to the
fathers of the exodus, Deutero-Isaiah speaks of the election of Israel as a consequence
of Gods choice of the patriarchs (Cf. Isa. 41:89; 51:12see Van Seters, Confessional
Reformulation, 457458). Van Seters writes on Gen. 15:7: What this pericope indicates
is that, in the period of the exile, there was a conscious confessional shift from Yahweh
as the God of the exodus to Yahweh as the God of the patriarchs and to base Gods cov-
enantal promises on identity with them (456; Idem, Prologue to History, 248251). Van
Seters, Confessional Reformulation, 459 concludes as follows: It seems to me that the
confession of Yahweh as the God of the patriarchs and the association of the promises
to the fathers with the patriarchs is a specific development of Israels sacred traditions
during the exilic period and directly related to the needs of that period. The identity
Van Seters Abraham in History and Tradition appeared in 1975 and offered a
detailed evaluation of the insights garnered from his 1972 articles.46 In the first
part of the study, Van Seters argues on the basis of non-literary arguments that
the narratives concerning the Patriarchs in Genesis reflect the historical, social
and political background of the first millennium bce.47 In the second part, the
author provides a detailed analysis of the narratives surrounding Abraham.48
crisis which the exile created both for Israel and for Yahweh, her God, demanded a new
traditional basis which was formulated in terms of the patriarchs. The god of the fathers
religion and the promises of land and numerous progeny which are integrally related to it,
are not the remnant of an early pre-settlement religion of landless nomads, but the basic
components of an exilic religion of homeless exiles. Furthermore, the JE corpus in the
Pentateuch which reflects this development of Israels sacred tradition in the direction
of giving a national identity to the patriarchs must be post-deuteronomic and exilic. See
also J. Van Seters, The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch: The Case Against it,
in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W.
Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 301319, esp. 313.
46 J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, New Haven 1975.
47 Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 7122. Van Seters concludes the first part of
his study as follows: Attempts to portray a Patriarchal Age as a historical context for the
stories of Genesis in the second millennium bc must be viewed as failures. The Abraham
of history can no longer be recovered from the traditions as we now have them, even to
the limited extend of reconstructing his life and times (120121).
48 Van Seters sets aside the axiom accepted since Wellhausen of independent sources.
He also minimises the contribution of the oral tradition to a few folkloristic motifs that
have been absorbed into the text. Only the narratives that meet the criteria established in
A. Olrik, Epische Gesetze der Volksdichtung, Zeitschrift fr deutschen Altertum 51 (1909),
112 can be traced back to the oral tradition. For Van Seters this means Gen. 12:1020;
16:13a, 49, 11ab, narratives that may already have circulated in the form of popular pre-
sentations before they were taken up into the pre-Yahwist work. Cf. Van Seters, Abraham
in History and Tradition, 132138; 160161; 168170; 195196; for critical remarks addressed
to the supporters of the oral tradition, see also Idem, The Conquest of Sihons Kingdom:
A Literary Examination, JBL 91 (1972), 182197, esp. 197; Idem, Oral Patterns of Literary
Conventions in Biblical Narrative, Semeia 5 (1976), 139154; Idem, Problems in the
Literary Analysis of the Court History of David, JSOT 1 (1976), 2229; Idem, The Yahwist as
Theologian? A Response, JSOT 3 (1977), 1520. Van Seters considers it more useful to speak
of distinct literary layers, athough the said layers should always be considered in relation
to one another.Cf. Idem, Abraham in History and Tradition, 125166.
184 Chapter 4
The analysis suggests that a Yahwist author made use of pre-Yahwist material.49
This Yahwist material was later reworked by a priestly author.50
Bearing in mind the results of his research in the first part of his study, it is
logical that Van Seters rejects a dating of the Yahwist in the time of Solomon
and supports a dating during the exile.51 As he does in his 1972 article, Van Seters
argues that the promises to the patriarchs are best understood in the context of
the exile. Indeed, in this period of deep crisis, the promise of descendants had
become extremely important.52
In a following major study from 1983, entitled In Search of History, Van Seters
sets out to explore Ancient Near Eastern, Greek and Israelite historiography.53
49 Van Seters distinguishes a pre-Yahwist narrative (Gen. 12:1, 4a*, 6a, 7, 1020; 13:1*-2; 16:1
12*; 13:18; 18:1a, 1014; 21:2, 67), together with a limited pre-Yahwist Elohist (Gen. 20:117;
21:2526; 2831a)cf. Idem, Abraham in History and Tradition, 311; 313. He says nothing,
however, about the dating of this pre-Yahwist material. See the review of A. De Pury, in
RB 85 (1978), 589618, esp. 604 n. 40: Van Seters ne se prononce pas sur la date des deux
couches pr-yahvistes. Mais le cours de son argumentation laisse supposer quil songe, au
mieux, la fin de la monarchie judenne. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition,
313 ascribes the passages Gen. 12:23, 6b, 89; 13:35, 717; 15; 16:7b, 10, 11c, 1314; 18:1b-9,
1533; 19; 20:1a; 21:1, 824, 27, 31b-34; 22; 24; 25:16, 11; 26 to the Yahwist. On the literary
activity of the said Yahwist Van Seters observes: What the Yahwist received in a written
form he rearranged and supplemented to express in it his own concerns. He also added
further stories and episodes of his own (311).
50 Van Seters considers the Priestly author to be reponsible for the genealogical and chrono-
logical interpolations in Gen. 11:2632; 12:4b-5; 13:6; 16:3b, 1516; 21:36; 25:710, and in
Gen. 17 and 23. He also accounts for a post-Priestly interpolation of Gen. 14, of which
vv. 1820 are a secondary addition (Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 279295;
311; 313). Cf. also Idem, Der Jahwist als Historiker (TSt, 134), Zrich 1987, 89.
51 Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 310.
52 Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 310311. According to Van Seters, the way in
which the religion of the patriarchs is alluded to in Genesis should not be considered evi-
dence of an early date. See in this regard Idem, The Religion of the Patriarchs in Genesis,
Bib 61 (1980), 220233.
53 J. Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins
of Biblical History, New Haven 1983. For his description of historiography (45) he is
indebted to J. Huizinga, A Definition of the Concept of History, in: R. Klibansky, H.J. Paton
(eds), Philosophy and History: Essays Presented to Ernst Cassirer, New York 1963, 110, esp.
9: History is the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its
past. In other studies, Van Seters also makes frequent comparison between biblical infor-
mation and extra-biblical texts from the first millennium bce. See, for example, J. Van
Seters, The Problem of Childlessness in Near Easters Law and the Patriarchs of Israel,
JBL 87 (1968), 401408; A.K. Grauson, J. Van Seters, The Childless Wife in Assyria and the
Stories of Genesis, Orientalia 44 (1975), 485486; J. Van Seters, The Primeval Histories of
Although the study in question focuses on Joshua2 Kings,54 Van Seters raises
the question of the late Yahwist in passing nevertheless.55
Van Seters combines his approach to the Yahwist as a late author and the
qualification thereof as a historiographer in his essay Der Jahwist als Historiker
from 1987.56 In like fashion to the Deuteronomist who was responsible for
the Deuteronomistic History, the activity of the late Yahwist also exhibits a
Greece and Israel Compared, ZAW 100 (1988), 122; Idem, The Creation of Man and the
Creation of the King (Gen. 12; Ez 28), ZAW 101 (1989), 333342. See also Idem, The Edited
Bible: The Curious History of the Editor in Biblical Criticism, Winona Lake, IN 2006, pas-
sim. On the influence of Van Seters work on research into the historicity of the biblical
traditions, see H.M. Barstad, History and the Hebrew Bible (FAT, 61), Tbingen 2008, 72.
See also J. Van Seters, Is there Any Historiography in the Hebrew Bible? A HebrewGreek
Comparison, JNSL 28 (2002), 125.
54 Van Seters, In Search of History, 249353. According to Van Seters, Josh. 2; 7; 24 are not
part of the Deuteronomistic History. He ascribes these chapters rather to the post-
Deuteronomistic Yahwist (325; 327328; 336337). 2 Sam. 920; 1 Kgs 12 are also to be con-
sidered posterior interpolations. Cf. also Idem, Histories and Historians of the Ancient
Near East: The Israelites, Orientalia 50 (1981), 137185, esp. 156167; Idem, Joshua 24 and
the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament, in: W.B. Barrick, J.R. Spencer (eds), In the
Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlstrm
(JSOT SS, 31), Trowbridge 1984, 39158; J. Van Seters, Joshuas Campaign of Canaan and
Near Eastern Historiography, SJOT 2 (1990) 112. See also Idem, The Deuteronomist from
Joshua to Samuel, in: G.N. Knoppers, J.G. McConville (eds), Reconsidering Israel and
Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (Sources for Biblical and Theological
Study, 8), Winona Lake, IN 2000, 204239.
55 Van Seters, In Search of History, 361: Yet other histories were written subsequent to Dtrs
work and are directly related to it. One is the work of the Yahwist, who supplemented Dtr
by extending the history back in time to the beginning of the world.
56 Van Seters, Der Jahwist als Historiker, Zrich 1987 consists of a collection of lectures
given in Geneva and Zrich in 19851986. See also Idem, The Yahwist as Historian, in:
K.H. Richards (ed.), One Hundred Twenty-Second Annual Meeting, November 2225, 1986,
Atlanta (SBL SP, 25), Atlanta, GA 1986, 3755. According to Van Seters, the concept of the
Yahwist as historian is in se not new. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels,
Berlin 1883; 31886, 308378 saw JE as a Geschichtsbuch: The only new suggestion since
Wellhausen (...) is that the Yahwist is much later in date and part of a larger development
of Israelite historiography in the early exilic period (Van Seters, The Yahwist as Historian,
45). With respect to the mythical and legendary material that the Yahwist historiographer
included in his work reference can be made to Van Seters, Prologue to History, 1992, 2444,
a reworking of two lectures given in Geneva and published in A. De Pury, Histoire et con-
science historique dans les civilizations du Proche-Orient ancien (Les Cahiers du Centre
dtude du Proche-Orient Ancien, 5), Leuven 1989, 4961; 6374, under the titles Myth and
History. The Problem of Origins and Tradition and History. History as National Tradition.
See more recently Van Seters, The Yahwist, A Historian of Israelite Origins, 124127.
186 Chapter 4
considerable number of formal and content-related similarities with the his-

toriography of the Ancient Near East and Greece. The said Yahwist intended
his work to serve as a prologue to the already existing Deuteronomistic
History.57 To this end he made use of oral traditions, which he tried to follow
faithfully. At the same time, he built further on the written traditions of the
Deuteronomistic History and the prophetic literature, which had acquired
written form during the Babylonian exile.58 As observed above, Van Seters also
accounts for a Priestly author who supplemented the Yahwist narrative at a
number of points.59
In his following studies, Van Seters elaborates systematically on the hypoth-
esis of a post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist historiographer on the basis of the
remaining narratives from the book of Genesis,60 together with the books of
Exodus and Numbers.61 In each instance he concludes that J is dependent on
the Deuteronomistic History.
57 Cf., for example, Van Seters, Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition, 149; 154; Idem, The
Yahwist as Historian, 50. Van Seters is in keeping here with the vision M. Rose (see infra).
58 For a description of the literary activity of the Yahwist as historian see Van Seters, Joshua
24 and the Problem of Tradition, 154155; Idem, The Yahwist as Historian, 5051; Idem,
The Life of Moses, 457. Cf. also Idem, Der Jahwist als Historiker, 8391.
59 For the activity of this Priestly supplementer, see Van Seters, In Search of History, 2729;
325337; Idem, Der Jahwist als Historiker, 8991; Idem, The Life of Moses, 100112; Idem,
A Contest of Magicians? The Plague Stories in P, in: D.P. Wright et al. (eds), Pomegranates
and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in
Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN 1995, 569580.
60 Van Seters, Prologue to History. Here too, Van Seters makes frequent comparison with
extra-biblical data (cf. also Idem, The Creation of Man, 333342; Idem, Prologue to
History, 4798).
61 Van Seters, The Life of Moses. Here too, Van Seters reaches the conclusion that the detailed
comparison of each parallel episode in J and Dtr as well as a comparison of the larger struc-
ture of the narrative describing the journey from Sinai/Horeb to the Plains of Moab con-
firms the priority of the Dtr account and its use as a source by the Yahwist. (461). See also
Van Seters remaining studies on the work of the Yahwist who produced his own composi-
tion in the exilic period making use of older material. Without intending to be complete,
reference can be made in particular to: J. Van Seters, Recent Studies on the Pentateuch:
A Crisis in Method?, JAOS 99 (1979), 663673; Idem, The Religion of the Patriarchs in
Genesis, Bib 61 (1980), 220233; Idem, Once AgainThe Conquest of Sihons Kingdom,
JBL 99 (1980), 117124; Idem, Tradition and Social Change in Ancient Israel, Perspectives
in Religious Studies 7 (1980), 96113; Idem, The Place of the Yahwist in the History of Pass
over and Massot, ZAW 95 (1983), 167182; Idem, Comparing Scripture with Scripture.
Some Observations on the Sinai Pericope of Exodus 1924, in: G.M. Tucker et al. (eds),
Canon, Theology and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Brevard S. Childs,
Philadelphia 1988, 111130; J. Van Seters, From Faithful Prophet to Villain: Observations
In what follows, I will endeavour to illustrate Van Seters approach on

the basis of a concrete example, namely the narrative of the golden calf in
Exod. 32.62 I focus on this specific narrative text because it allows us to com-
pare Van Seters criteriology with that of Begg, who characterised the pericope
on the Tradition History of the Balaam Story, in: E.E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary:
In Search of Method, Form and ContentFS G.W. Coats (JSOT SS, 240), Sheffield 1997,
126132; J. Van Seters, Divine Encounter at Bethel (Gen. 28,1022) in Recent Literary-
Critical Study of Genesis, ZAW 110 (1998) 503513; Idem, Some Observations on the Lex
Talionis in Exod. 21:2325, in: S. Beyerle et al. (eds), Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament:
Gestalt und WirkungFestschrift fr Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukrichen-
Vluyn 1999, pp. 2737; J. Van Seters, The Silence of Dinah (Genesis 34), in: J.-D. Macchi,
T. Rmer (eds), Jacob: Commentaire plusieurs voix de Gen. 2536Mlanges offerts
Albert de Pury, Genve 2001, 239247; J. Van Seters, Deuteronomy between Pentateuch
and the Deuteronomistic History, HTS 59 (2003), 947956; Idem, Von Child Sacrifice to
Paschal Lamb. A Remarkable Transformation, OTE 16 (2003), 453463; Idem, The Report
of the Yahwists Demise Has Been Greatly Exaggerated!, in: T.D. Dozeman, K. Schmid
(eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European
Interpretation (SBL SS, 34), Atlanta, GA 2006, 143157; J. Van Seters, The Patriarchs and
the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between Two Origin Traditions, in: R. Roukema (ed.), The
Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman (CBET, 44), Leuven 2006,
115; J. Van Seters, The Altar Law of Ex. 20,2426 in Critical Debate, in: M. Beck, U. Schorn
(eds), Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum: Festschrift Hans-Christoph
Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 370), Berlin 2006, 157174.
For the specific theology of the Yahwist, indebted to the Deuteronomistic History, the
prophetic literature and the Wisdom traditions, see J. Van Seters, The Theology of the
Yahwist. A Preliminary Sketch, in: I. Kottsieper et al. (eds), Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter
den Gttern? Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels fr Otto Kaiser zum 70.
Geburtstag, Gttingen 1994, 219228. In his contribution Cultic Laws in the Covenant
Code and their Relationship to Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code, in: M. Vervenne
(ed.), The Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven
1996, 319345, Van Seters defends the hypothesis that the Book of the Covenant is depen-
dent on both Deuteronomy and the so-called Holiness Code and should thus be seen as
a composition of the exilic Yahwist. See also J. Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora:
Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code, Oxford 2003.
62 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 290318; cf. also Idem, Histories and Historians, 170184;
Idem, Law and the Wilderness Rebellion Tradition: Exodus 32, in: D.J. Lull (ed.), Society
of Biblical Literature 1990 Semiar Papers. One Hundred Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting,
November 1720, 1990 (SBL SP, 29), Atlanta, GA 1990, 583591See also K. Schmid, Israel
am Sinai: Etappen der Forschungsgeschichte zu Ex. 3234 in seinen Kontexten, in:
M. Kckert, E. Blum (eds), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex. 3234 und Dtn 910
(Verffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fr Theologie, 18), Gtersloh
2001, 940.
188 Chapter 4
as proto-Deuteronomic, and whose argumentation we explored in the preced-

ing chapter.
Van Seters observes that in the history of research into Exod. 32, schol-
ars have never paid close attention to the parallel tradition in Deut. 910
and 1 Kgs 12, except in order to demonstrate that Exod. 32 has demonstrably
Deuteronom(ist)ic characteristics. From the methodological perspective, Van
Seters considers it necessary to begin by cataloguing the various literary prob-
lems in Exod. 32.63 On this basis it appears that Exod. 32:18, 15a*, 1724, 3034
should be considered the original narrative. According to Van Seters, however,
the original narrative is part of a larger whole, which he ascribes to the exilic
post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist. Exod. 32* is thus said to have links with the nar-
ratives concerning the exodus, as well as the traditions of the murmuring of
the people and the giving of the law on Sinai. From the perspective of the pres-
ent exploration of the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of passages from Genesis
63 (1) In Exod. 32:16 one can discern lines of connection with Exod. 24:1215a, 18b; 31:18*.
In addition, links are also evident from the thematic perspective with the theme of the
exodus if we bear in mind that Moses is brought forward in v. 1 as the man who brought
the people out of Egypt. Vv. 16 are likewise in keeping with the tradition of the murmur-
ing of the people in Numbers. (2) Exod. 32:714 is mostly described in the literature as
a later interpolation. First, the verses anticipate Moses discovery of the peoples apos-
tasy in vv. 1519; second, vv. 714 are written in a language akin to the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature. Within the said verses, however, vv. 910 appear to be out of place since they
represent a second statement on the part of yhwh. Nevertheless, according to Van Seters
Moses response in vv. 1114 follows better on the second statement than the first in
vv. 78. Moreover, Moses prayer in vv. 1113 is a doublet of vv. 3034. According to Van
Seters, vv. 78 function as a transition between the scene on the mountain and Moses
motivation for having to return from the mountain. As a result, Van Seters claims, it is only
the parallels with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature that can serve as an argument against
the attribution of these verses to an early document. It thus appears that only vv. 914
should be considered an irregularity. (3) Moses return in vv. 1520 contains a number
of glosses from P in relation to the nature of the stone tablets. The original text probably
read: Moses turned and went down the mountain with two tablets in his hands. In v.
17, Joshua, who accompanied Moses when he ascended the mountain (Exod. 24:1314),
is reintroduced. The dialogue between Moses and Joshua intends to draw attention to
the discovery of the golden calf and to Moses reaction thereto (vv. 1724). Vv. 2529 are
probably an etiology intended to legitimate the priestly service of the Levites and as such
are not likely to have formed part of the orginal narrative. (4) According to Van Seters,
Exod. 32:3034 are part of the original narrative. V. 35 on the other hand is probably a
later addition, intended as an immediate implementation of the punishment threatened
in v. 34 (Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 290295). See also Idem, The Yahwist. A Historian of
Israelite Origin, 9496.
Numbers, Van Seters comparative study of Exod. 32* with the narratives of
1 Kgs 12:2632; 13:34 and Deut. 910 deserves particular attention.
In the first instance, parallels with 1 Kings are examined. Three elements
emerge here as significant. First, both Exod. 32 and 1 Kgs 12 speak of god/gods
that lead Israel out of Egypt.64 Second, reference is made to the fact that the
calf/calves is/are fashioned from gold. Third, mention is made of a feast on
the occasion of a sacrificial ritual. It is striking to note that none of these three
details is to be found in the narrative of Deut. 9.
In the history of research, there has been a consistent tendency to associate
the narrative in 1 Kgs 12 with a historical cultic reform implemented by King
Jeroboam. Van Seters, however, disagrees with this traditional interpretation.
In his opinion, there is no reason to suggest that the material in 1 Kgs 12 mirrors
a historical event. According to Van Seters, the cultic reform spoken of 1 Kgs 12
is a creation of the author of the Deuteronomistic History.65 This also implies
64 Compare / in Exod. 32:4 and 1 Kgs 12:28.

65 According to Van Seters, the narrative of the golden calves in 1 Kgs 12:2632 does not fol-
low on from v. 25, which is part of a different narrative, namely the so-called chronicles
of the kings of Israel. Reference is continually made in the said chronicles to the conflict
between Jeroboam and Abijah, the king of Judah. In 1 Kgs 12:2632 by contrast, it is sug-
gested that peaceful visits to Jerusalem are still possible. In the text as we now have it,
1 Kgs 12:2632 functions as an introduction to the man of God from Judah (1 Kgs 12:33
13:33), concluding with a reference to the incident with the golden calves (1 Kgs 13:34).
According to Van Seters, however, the tradition of the man of God is secondary in the
context. As a result, the orginal unit consists of 1 Kgs 12:2632; 13:34. This sheds a different
light on the narrative of the golden calves. The author of the Deuteronomistic History
is convinced that since Solomon had constructed the temple in Jerusalem the cult had
been centralised and all Israel had to make an annual pilgrimage to the city. It is for this
reason also that he accuses Jeroboam of subverting this practice at the beginning of his
reign. According to Van Seters, however, there is no evidence to suggest that the cult had
been centralised prior to Josiahs Deuteronomic reform. As a result, the narrative in 1 Kgs
12:2632; 13:34 has to be understood as an anachronistic creation of the Deuteronomist.
In the first instance, the latter wanted to anticipate the reform of Josiah. At the same time,
he wanted to use the narrative as a prototype for the vicissitudes of the kings of Israel.
The images set up by Jerobeam also inspired his successors to do the same and this atti-
tude ultimately led to the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 bce (2 Kgs 17:2123). Van
Seters concludes as follows: The story of Jerobeam and the golden calves is so thoroughly
anachronistic and propagandistic that one must judge it as being a complete fabrication
(Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 299). Moreover, the author of the Deuteronomistic History
characterises Jeroboams sin as the sin par excellence against the divine commandments.
In his presentation of events, the images Jeroboam had set up are not only representa-
tions of foreign gods, they serve as a substitute for the God of Israel: These are your gods,
190 Chapter 4
that the narrative in Exod. 32on account of its literary dependence on

1 Kgs 12should be seen as a post-Deuteronomistic composition.66 The said
literary dependence appears clear from what Van Seters considers to be a
literal quotation from 1 Kgs 12:28 in Exod. 32:4: These are your gods (plural),
O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. In Exod. 32, however, ref-
erence is made to one single image. In addition, the verse in question appears
to contradict Exod. 32:1, in which the people recognise that Moses (and thus
yhwh) brought them out of Egypt. Furthermore, the construction of an altar
and the proclamation of a pilgrim festival does not square with the immedi-
ate desire of the people to have a god to go before them on their journey.67 In
addition to literal agreements with 1 Kgs 12, the reference to the
in vv. 21, 31, 32 also appears to favour the post-Deuteronomistic character
Exod. 32.68
This has important implications for the dating of Exod. 32. In Van Seters
understanding, the narrative should not only be dated after the fall of the
Northern Kingdom, but also after the interpretation of the reasons given for
the fall by the Deuteronomistic History. This also implies that Exod. 32 does
not contain a polemic against the Northern Kingdom, which is then past his-
tory. The Israel of the wilderness alludes to the entire people, including Judah.
The relationship between Exod. 32 and Deut. 910 also deserves to be exam-
ined more closely within this context.69 Van Seters makes a distinction between
Deut. 9:89, 1117, 21, 2529; 10:1011 and secondary additions Deut. 9:10, 1819,
20, 2224; 10:19.70 Compared with Exod. 32, the details contained in the nar-
rative of Deut. 910 are very few and far between. If Deut. 9 was dependent on
Exod. 32, then one would have to presume that the author/redactor of Deut. 9
left all the said details to one side. Scholars often argue that this was due to
the fact that Deut. 9 was no longer interested in polemic against the Northern
O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt (cf. also Van Seters, Histories and
Historians, 170147).
66 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 299: Since the making of a golden calf for all Israel to wor-
ship, the ascription to it of deliverance from Egypt, and the establishment of a festival for
it are all creations of the DrtH, the Exodus 32 account must be post-DtrH and literarily
dependent upon the account in 1 Kings 12.
67 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 300, concludes as follows: All these items derive from the
original context in 1 Kings 12.
68 The identification of the apostasy as is also to be found in 2 Kgs 17:2123.
69 On the relationsip between these passages, see also V. Snchal, Rtribution et intercession
dans le Deutronome (BZAW, 408), Berlin 2009, 363433.
70 Compare with Van Seters, The Yahwist. A Historian of Israelite Origin, 95 n. 13, where he
mentions some non-Dtr additions in Deut. 9:20, 2224, 27a; 10:69.
Kingdom, which they claim is central to Exod. 32. Van Seters had already dem-
onstrated, however, that there was no trace of such a polemic in Exod. 32. As a
result, Van Seters presumes that the author(s) of Deut. 9 was (were) unaware of
the existence of Exod. 32once again an argumentum e silentio.
Van Seters then explores the parallels between Deut. 910 and Exod. 32, point-
ing to the reference to Moses destroying the two stone tablets. Supplementary
to Deuteronomy, Van Seters Yahwist points out that Moses smashed the tab-
lets in anger at the foot of the mountain (Exod. 32:19). By locating the event
at the foot of the mountain, the smashing of the tablets is incorporated within
the broader J narrative in which the camp is likewise located at the foot of the
mountain.
The destruction of the calf is mentioned in Deut. 9:21 and in Exod. 32:20.
In both passages the image is burnt, crushed to a powder, and its ashes are
sprinkled on water. In Exod. 32, however, the people are also made to drink of
the water. On this point, Van Seters enters into dialogue with Begg, who, as a
disciple of Brekelmans, has argued in favour of the presence of proto-Deutero-
nomic elements within GenesisNumbers.
As noted above, Begg appeals to Ancient Near Eastern literature (Ugarit)
to illustrate that the list of the various parallel actions to which the image is
subjected is not intended to be a realistic report of its destruction. The purpose
thereof was rather to emphasise the total destruction of the calf. Van Seters
reaction to Beggs proposition is twofold.
In the first instance, Van Seters points to what he believes to be a crucial dif-
ference between Exod. 32:20/Deut. 9:21 and the material from Ugarit, although
the texts in question match significantly in terms of content. The Ugaritic texts,
he observes, are poetic. In such texts, logical inconsistency can be expected
and the parallel representation of actions can be seen as normal.71 The biblical
texts, on the other hand, are prose. As a result, Beggs solution loses stability,
according to Van Seters.
Second, Begg also cites a considerable amount of non-Ugaritic comparative
material from the Ancient Near East that deals with the destruction of gods
and cultic objects. Begg refers, for example, to a number of examples of neo-
Assyrian texts that describe the destruction of foreign cultic objects and loca-
tions by fire, followed by the obliteration and scattering of what remains on
water. According to Van Seters, these parallels are more closely related to the
biblical text at a variety of levels than the texts from Ugarit. First, the texts in
71 It is striking that Van Seters rejects the relationship with material from Ugaritwhich
shares the same Umwelt as Israeland, albeit it with reference to other Old Testament
pericopes, appeals with ease to late Greek material.
192 Chapter 4
question speak exclusively of the destruction of cultic objects and not of the
divinities themselves. Second, the said material is to be situated in the same
period as the Deuteronomistic History (8th to 6th century bce). Furthermore,
it would appear that it is not unusual for the Deuteronomistic History to
exhibit agreements with Assyrian literature. Van Seters concludes as follows:
Consequently, it is not so clear that Beggs solution to the problem of heaping
up destructive methods of disposing of the calf is entirely satisfactory.72
Van Seters then focuses on the relationship between Exod. 32:20 and
Deut. 9:21. Given the parallel presence of four of the five actions, it seems
more or less unavoidable that one should account for the possibility of liter-
ary dependence between the said texts. According to Begg, however, the for-
mulation of Deut. 9:21 is much more elaborate than the corresponding text
in Exodus.73 As a result, he is inclined to consider Deut. 9:21 as a secondary
rewriting of Exod. 32:20.74 Van Seters is not inclined to agree. He observes, for
example, that later copies of Assyrian royal inscriptions often render mate-
rial from older texts in a more summary manner to allow for the addition of
new material.75 Van Seters concludes: Since Exodus 32 adds the whole scene of
the making of the golden calf, which is not in Deuteronomy 9, the writers
method is very similar to that of the Synoptic Gospels and of the Assyrian
inscriptions.76
Begg is also of the opinion that the scattering of the remains of the image
in the river in Deut. 9:21 represents an imitation of the reform of Josiah
(2 Kgs 23:1112). He thus concludes that Deut 9:21 is a free rewriting of the
text of Exod. 32 with a view to preparing for a number of crucial themes
of the Deuteronomistic History. Based on this observation, it becomes clear
why the Deuteronomist omitted Moses fifth actionmaking the Israelites
drink the water in which the ashes had been sprinkledfrom his version
of the destruction of the golden calf. Indeed, the Deuteronomistic literature
72 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 305.

73 Cf. C.T. Begg, The Destruction of the Calf (Exod. 32,20/Deut 9,21), in: N. Lohfink (ed.),
Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 208251,
esp. 235.
74 According to Begg, The Destruction of the Calf, 235, it would be impossible for the presen-
tation in Deut. 9:21 to have been ... rendered deliberately less definite, less expansive, and
less theologically qualified than in Exod. 32:20.
75 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 306 also alludes to the synoptic question: In the discussion
of the Synoptic Gospels it is widely held that Mark is prior to Matthew and Luke, yet
where the latter two agree with the former they are often shorter and less specific.
concerning the reform of the cult never speaks of the obligation to drink the
water with the ashes in it.
According to Van Seters, however, the main problem with this line of argu-
ment can be found in the following question: if the Deuteronomist had the
reforms of Kings in his mind, why did he omit Exod. 32:16, which corresponds
exceptionally well with the narrative in 1 Kgs 12:2632. Van Seters answers
this question as follows. In his opinion, Deut. 9 is completely in line with the
Deuteronomistic tradition of cultic reform. In Exod. 32, the Yahwist imitated
the same Deuteronomistic procedure for the destruction of the cult except
for the last element, the sprinkling of the ashes on the water. According to
Van Seters, however, the water alludes to the river mentioned in Deut. 9:21.
In Exod. 17:17, the Yahwist has already alluded to the origin of the said river,
namely the water that flowed in Horeb when Moses struck the rock so that
the people could drink. When Moses then went on to sprinkle the ashes of the
calf in the water, the people had no choice: this was the only water they had to
drink. According to Van Seters, therefore, we should not be too eager to ascribe
ritual significance to the drinking of the water.77
Exod. 32:20 made use of the motifs of destruction in Deut. 9:21, with minor
emendation and a certain tension with Exod. 32:16. In the context of the
destruction of the image in Exod. 32:20, one might have expected reference
to the altar associated with the image in verse 5. According to Van Seters,
however, the Yahwist preferred to stay particularly close to Deut. 9:21 in his
narrative of the destruction of the calf.78 Moreover, for the accumulation of
destructive terminology, J was probably dependent on the Deuteronomistic
presentation of events.79
The way in which Van Seters analyses Exod. 32 and considers it to be the
work of a post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist can be understood as representa
tive of his working hypothesis. Time and again, and often on the basis of pas-
sages considered in the course of the 20th century to be Deuteronom(ist)ic,
he endeavours to demonstrate that the non-Priestly Tetrateuch was the work
of a late post-Deuteronomistic Yahwistan author, not a redactor80who
77 Van Seters does not exclude the possibility that Jer. 8:14; 9:14; 23:15 allude to the said poi-
soned water.
78 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 307: Consequently, the dependence of J on D is clearly
established.
80 Cf. B.M. Levinson, Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van
Seters, in Idem, The Right Chorale: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation (FAT, 54),
Tbingen 2008, 276330, esp. 281295.
194 Chapter 4
was dependent on the Deuteronomistic History.81 This does not imply that
the said Yahwist should be considered a Deuteronomistic final redactor of
the Pentateuch.82 Moreover, leaving aside the fact that J is not part of the
corpus of Deuteronomistic literature, it has to be observed that the Yahwist
rarely if ever exhibits interest in typically Deuteronomistic points of inter-
est, such as the centralisation of the cult. Parenesis concerning obedience to
the law is also rarely present in the Yahwistic work. Furthermore, the Yahwist
speaks of the promise of the land in a very different manner.83 Van Seters is
thus convinced: I believe that a final dtr redactor of the Pentateuch is not a
viable solution to the deuteronomic elements of the Pentateuch.84 Indeed,
Van Seters even goes so far as to characterise his post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist
as un-Deuteronomistic,85 although Deuteronomy has to be considered to be
the most important source for Van Seters Yahwist, whos work is seen as an
early form of antiquarian historiography, later than Ezekiel, but earlier than
Deutero-Isaiah.86
1.1.3 The Late Yahwist of Hans Heinrich Schmid

The hypothesis of a later dating of (parts of) the Pentateuch supported by
Winnett, Wagner and Redfordand initially also Van Seterswas based for
the most part on the study of passages from the book of Genesis. Hans Heinrich
Schmids sensational if relatively tentative 1976 study, however, was also to
81 Cf. Van Seters, The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch, 302303: The non-P
(J) work was composed as a prologue to the national history of DtrH and never existed as
a separate corpus. Ps expansion of the Tetrateuch was therefore an expansion of the total
history.
82 Van Seters, The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch, 318. See also Idem, The
Patriarchs and the Exodus, 15: P must be viewed as an extensive revisionist supplement.
In Idem, The Redactor in Biblical Studies: a Nineteenth Century Anachronism, JNSL 29
(2003) 119, the author strongly reacts gainst the use of the term redactor. For Van Seters,
the Yahwist is an author.
83 Van Seters, The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch, 318319.
84 Van Seters, The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch, 319.
85 J. Van Seters, In the Babylonian Exile with J: Between Judgment in Ezekiel and Salvation
in Second Isaiah, in B. Becking, M.C.A Korpel (eds), The Crisis of Israelite Religion:
Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS, 42), Leiden 1999,
7189, esp. 71. In his analysis, Van Seters is particularly sceptical on the criterion of termi-
nology. See, for example, Van Seters, The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch,
319: We are left only with dtr terminology which (...) is the most dubious criterion of all.
Critique of the absence of linguistic arguments in Van Seters can be found, for example,
in Z. Zevit, Clio, I Presume, BASOR 260 (1985), 7182, esp. 7677.
86 Van Seters, The Yahwist. A Historian of Israelite Origin, 132.
involve the book of Exodus in scholarly research into the status of J.87 At the
same time, the (post-)exilic and post-Deuteronomistic dating of the Yahwist
maintained by Winnett and Van Seters, among others, was further nuanced.
According to Schmid, the Yahwists affinity with the Deuteronom(ist)ic litera-
ture locates his emergence in more or less the same period as the latter. Schmid
makes no comment, however, in relation to an absolute chronology.
Schmid sets out to demonstrate that the share of GenesisNumbers tra-
ditionally characterised by the Documentary Hypothesis as Yahwistic could
not belong to the period of Solomon. To this end he studies the call narrative
of Moses (Exod. 34*), the Plague Narrative (Exod. 710*), the Sea Narrative
(Exod. 14*), a few texts from the wilderness tradition (Exod. 15*; 17*; Num. 11*;
12*; 21*), the Sinai pericope (Exod. 1924*; 3234*) and the promises to the
patriarchs (Gen. 15*). Schmid focuses attention on style, literary genre and
the theme of the said texts, which are generally considered the apex of
Yahwistic literature. Time and again he observes that all these passages presup-
pose classical prophecy, as it manifested itself in the 8th and 7th centuries bce,
and exhibit, furthermore, remarkable similarities with the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature. As a result, Schmid is far from critical of those authors who claim
to discern Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the books of Genesis to Numbers.
Nevertheless, he is critical of those who insist that these passages should be
seen as later interpolations in a text stemming from the time of Solomon.88
Like Van Seters, Schmid ascribes a significant role to the argumenta e silentio.
It is striking, he observes, that all the fundamental traditions inscribed in the
Pentateuch are never mentioned in the pre-exilic literature.89 In particular,
87 H.H. Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung,
Zrich 1976. Cf. also Idem, In Search of New Approaches in Pentateuchal Research, JSOT 3
(1977) 3342; Idem, Auf der Suche nach neuen Perspektiven fr die Pentateuchforschung,
in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (SVT, 32), Leiden 1981, 375394.
88 Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist, 30 n. 43 articulates this position very effectively with ref-
erence to the list of the nations in Exod. 3: Die deuteronomistische Heimat der Liste ist so
unbestritten, dass sie in Ex. 3,8 von den meisten auslegern literarkritisch eliminiert wird.
Literarkritik wird dabei aber nicht von einem Zwang des Textes, sondern vom Axiom des
salomonisch datierten Jahwisten her getrieben!.
89 The events at Sinai play an exceptional role in the Yahwistic narrative. In the remaining
pre-Deuteronomic literature, however, the Sinai traditions position is only nominal. To
quote Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist, 154155: Im ganzen vorexilischen Prophetenkanon
wird kein einziges Mal auf den Sinai und die Sinaitradition angespieltweder implizit
noch explizit. Die drei einigen, wenn auch nicht alle literarisch, so doch motivlich vor-
deuteronomischen Erwhnungen des Sinai [Judg. 5:5; Ps. 68:9, 18; Deut. 33:2H.A.] sind
von den Pentateucherzhlungen unbeeinflusst: Sie wissen nichts von einem Aufenthalt
196 Chapter 4
he sees this Schweigen of the prophets from the 8th and 7th centuries
as extremely telling evidence against a dating of the Yahwist at the time of
Solomon. According to Schmid, moreover, the so-called Yahwist should not
be considered a single individual author. On the contrary, and in literary and
theological terms, Schmids Yahwistic history is more the result of an (inner)
jahwistischen Redaktions- und Interpretationsprozess.90
As noted, Schmid associates the Yahwist with the Deuteronom(ist)ic liter-
ature, but he does not explore the relationship between the late Yahwist in
GenesisNumbers and the Deuteronomistic History in any further depth. All
he does in fact is point to similarities.91
1.1.4 The Relationship between the Yahwist and the Deuteronomistic

History
The relationship between the late Yahwist, as proposed by Schmid, and the
Deuteronomistic History served as material for a study by Martin Rose, one of
Schmids students.92 Rose distinguishes two Deuteronomistic layers, both
of which, in his opinion, went to work retrogressively. On the eve of the
Babylonian exile, and making use of older material, the first Deuteronomist
composed a narrative about Israels recent history, a narrative that acquired
written form in 1 and 2 Kings. But the same Deuteronomist wanted to delve
further and further back and thereby supplemented his narrative with 1 and
2 Samuel, Judges, Joshua and Deuteronomy.93 In so doing he was the first to
Israels am Sinai, nichts von einer Gebotsverkndigung, nichts von Mose und nichts von
einem Bundesschluss. The same can be said for the exodus tradition, the patriarchal tradi-
tion and theme of passing through the sea. The connection between the exodus tradition
and the Sinai tradition is also not attested in the Deuteronomic literature. At the same
time, the figure of Moses is more or less absent outside the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
90 According to Schmid, it is beyond dispute that the late Yahwist made use of already exist-
ing material. See Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist, 167.
91 For his vision of the origins of the Pentateuch, reference can be made to H.H. Schmid,
Vers une thologie du Pentateuque, in De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question,
361386.
92 M. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berhrungspunkten beider
Literaturwerke (ATANT, 67), Zrich 1981. For a general presentation of the relationship
between the Deuteronomistic History and GenesisNumbers, see Idem, La croissance
du corpus historiographique de la Bibleune proposition, Revue du Thologie et de
Philosophie 118 (1986), 217236. See also M. Rose, LAncien Testament Neuchtel 1984
2001un bilan, TZ 57 (2001), 210220, esp. 218219.
93 On the complex genesis and evolution of the book of Deuteronomy itself, see M. Rose,
Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes: Deuteronomische Schultheologie und die Volks
frmmigkeit in der spten Knigszeit (BWANT, 106), Stuttgart 1975.
create a framework for the Deuteronomistic History, running from Deuteron

omy to 2 Kings.94
This first Deuteronomistic layer was revised by a second Deuteronomist,95
who was disappointed in the positive portrayal of humanity offered by the
first Deuteronomist in Deuteronomy2 Kings. As a result, he preceded this
positive portrayal with a series of narratives that present a positive image of
yhwh (Exodus and Numbers). He then expanded this with the theme of cre-
ation (Genesis).96 Rose suggests thereby that the second Deuteronomist can
be identified with what is traditionally designated as the Yahwist.97
In resistance to this pessimistic Deuteronomistic/Yahwistic theology, a
Priestly work incorporating older material placed the emphasis once again
on the positive aspects of humanity that come to the fore in the light of the
cult.98 The Deuteronomistic/Yahwistic and Priestly work were later conjoined
in a redactional synthesis.99
94 Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist, 325.

95 Rose, Die Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes, 9094; 9899.
96 Rose, La croissance du corpus historiografique de la Bible, 231232: Lide centrale de ma
thse cest que lhistoriographie deutronomiste allant primitivement du Deutronome
jusqau livres des Rois, a t plus tard remanie successivement jusqu finalement
prsenter une historiographie depuis la Gnse jusqu la chute de Jrusalem. Cela
tant, les considrations historiques orientes en arrire ont intgr successivement des
matriaux du pass et finalement mme des lgendes et des mythes de la cration. The
hypothesis that the Tetrateuch forms a prologue to the Deuteronomistic History can also
be found in A.D.H. Mayes, The Story of Israel Between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional
Study of the Deuteronomic History, London 1983, 139149, esp. 141: The Tetrateuch should
be approached in the first instance as a literary entity which had no independent exis-
tence but which was composed primarily as an introduction to the already existing deu-
teronomistic history.
97 Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist argues in a number of places against the idea of a
Yahwistic work stemming from the period of the kings. He suggests, for example, that the
oldest layer in Gen. 34 derart nah an deuteronomisch-deuteronomistisches Gedankengut
[rcktH.A.], da die Suche nach einem der frhen Knigszeit entstammenden J-Text
illusorisch wird (209).
98 Cf. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist, 328.
99 In his article Empoigner le Pentateuque par sa fin! Linvestiture de Josu et la mort de
Mose, in: De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question, 129147, Rose explores his
hypothesis further on the basis of passages that deal with the death of Moses. He thus
claims that Deut. 3:2129; 31:18 are part of the oldest Deuteronomistic layer (DtrH), in
whichin a profane contextMoses succession is central. The second Deuteronomistic
layer (Exod. 33*; Num. 1112*; Deut. 31:13, 15, 23) accents the divine vocation of Joshua:
Le cercle qui est responsable de la deuxime rdaction de lHistoriographie deutrono-
miste, aselon ma thsegalement cre son introduction yahwiste (140). The Priestly
and the Yahwistic/Deuteronomistic work were later combined by a redactor. Rose also
198 Chapter 4
1.1.5 A Late Yahwistic Redaction in the Spirit of the Prophets

In his 1982 article entitled Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie,
HansChristoph Schmitt provides a tentative but inclusive picture of the
origins of the Pentateuch, further elaborated in other studies.100 From a meth-
odological perspective, he bases himself on the Pentateuch as we now have
it. In his opinion, it is first necessary to trace the theology of the redaction
before we can say anything about the theology of the sources upon which the
redaction was based. In dialogue with Rendtorff (cf. infra), Schmitt is inclined
to align himself with the latters vision of a redaction of the Pentateuch that
is akin to the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. Nevertheless, he is also intent on
taking the insights of the classical Documentary Hypothesis into account, in
distinguishes a number of glosses in the Priestly style. He writes with respect to the
Priestly work: En ce qui concerne la source sacerdotale (P), je la comprends comme une
uvre concurrente qui a pour but douvrir, nouveau, des possibilits pour une activit
positive de lhomme devant Dieu; car une thologie du sola gratia court le risque de
favoriser linertie complte de lhomme. La nouvelle possibilit positive de lhomme, cest
le culte (142).
100 H.-C. Schmitt, Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie: Beobachtungen zur
Bedeutung der Glaubens-Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des Pentateuch, VT 32
(1982), 170189. The article in question is based on a lecture given in 1979 in Gttingen.
The springboard to Schmitts hypothesis can already be found in his Die nichtpriesterliche
Josephsgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur neuesten Pentateuchkritik (BZAW, 154), Berlin, 1980. In
this study he distinguishes between the original Joseph story (the Judah-Israel-layer) from
the period of the early kings and an Elohistic reworking thereof from after 750 bce (the
Ruben-Jacob-layer). The Elohist work then underwent multipe (post-)exilic Yahwistic
reworkings that had points of contact with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. Schmitt
refers in this regard to the link between the expression in Gen. 18:18; 22:18;
26:4 and Deut. 28:1 (172). Schmitt also discerns the presence of Priestly elements as well as
other additions that he cannot further define. For the dating of the material, see 130198.
Cf. also Idem, Die Hintergrunde der neuesten Pentateuchkritik und der literarische
Befund der Josephsgeschichte Gen. 3750, ZAW 97 (1985), 161179 and Idem, Die Suche
nach der Identitt des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel: Bemerkungen zur theolo-
gischen Intention der Endredaktion des Pentateuch, in: J. Mehlhausen (ed.), Pluralismus
und Identitt (Verffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fr Theologie,
8), Gtersloh 1995, 259278. See likewise H.-C. Schmitt, Der heidnische Mantiker als
eschatologischer Jahweprophet, in: I. Kottsieper et al. (eds), Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter
den Gttern? , 181198; H.-C. Schmitt, Eschatologie im Enneateuch Gen. 12 Kn 25:
Bedeutung und Funktion der Moselieder Dtn 32,143* und Ex. 15,121*, in: C. Diller
et al. (eds), Studien zu Psalmen und Propheten (Herders Biblische Studien/Herders
Biblical Studies, 64), Freiburg 2010, 131149.
which scholars have endeavoured to distinguish three central theological pro-

files: the Yahwistic, the Elohistic and the Priestly one.101
Schmitt takes the narrative of the exodus (Exod. 114) as his point of
departure. The first part of this textual complex is constituted by Exod. 14,
whereby particular emphasis is placed on the faith of the people in Exod. 4:31
(-) . Schmitt thus discerns a narrative tension in Exod. 14, which deals
with affliction, promise and faith. He finds the same narrative tension in Exod.
514, where the faith of the people (- ) is underlined in Exod. 14:31. The
miraculous signs likewise have a crucial role to play here. Accounting for all
these elements, it would appear that Exod. 114 exhibits important points of
comparison with Isa. 7:117*. Both instances refer to a sign as confirmation
of a proclaimed word. Schmitt claims that this theme can also be demonstrated
in the event on Sinai (Exod. 19:9a),102 in the wilderness tradition (Num. 14:11b;
20:12),103 and in the patriarchal narratives (Gen. 15:6), whereby the repeated
terminus technicus - is particularly conspicuous.104 Similarities with
the prophetic literature are also to be found here, namely with Isa. 61:6 and
Ezek. 20. According to Schmitt, this reveals tracesat least with respect to
Exod. 114of a post-exilic prophetic redaction of a Priestly narrative.105
101 Schmitt, Redaktion des Pentateuch, 173174.

102 According to Schmitt, Redaktion des Pentateuch, 177, Exod. 19:9a is part of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic passage Exod. 19:3b-8. On Exod. 19, see H.-C. Schmitt, Das Gesetz
aber ist neben eingekommen. Sptdeuteronomistische nachpriesterschriftliche
Redaktion und ihre vorexilische Vorlage in Ex. 1920, in: R. Achenbach, M. Arneth (eds),
Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu ben (Gen. 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen
Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur ReligionssoziologieFestschrift
fr Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (BZABR, 13), Wiesbaden, 2009, 155170.
103 On the basis of Num. 20:12, Schmitt, Redaktion des Pentateuch, 179180 postulates that
the redaction responsible for the theme of the faith of the people is best situated dur-
ing the Babylonian exile. The same passage, moreover, which deals with the unbelief of
Moses and Aaron, exhibits close affinity with the Priestly layer of the Pentateuch, ber
deren Existenz und ber deren exilisch-nachexilische Entstehungszeit zum Glck noch
weitgehender Konsens besteht.
104 In Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW, 147), Berlin 1977, p. 155
R. Rendtorff argues that the theme of faith only plays a structuring role in Exod. 114(15).
Some years later, however, Rendtorff associated the said theme with the wider context
of Gen. 15:6 to 2 Kgs 17:14Idem, Genesis 15 im Rahmen der theologischen Bearbeitung
der Vtergeschichten, in: R. Albertz et al. (eds), Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments:
Festschrift fr Claus Westermann zum 70. Geburtstag, Gttingen 1980, 7481, esp. 8081.
105 Schmitt sketched the unique character of the prophetic final redaction of the Priestly
narrative in his article Priesterliches und prophetisches Geschichtsverstndnis in der
Meerwundererzhlung Ex. 13,1714,31: Beobachtungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch,
200 Chapter 4
In the final part of his programmatic article, Schmitt endeavours to deter-

mine the extent of this prophetic redaction. In the context of a study of
Exod. 34, he reacts to H.H. Schmid who is intent on ascribing Exod. 34* to
a Yahwist associated with the Deuteronom(ist)ic movement on account of its
presentation of Moses as a prophet. According to Schmitt, insufficient atten-
tion is paid in this regard to the presentation of Moses as a charismatic leader,
an image that is also to be found in Exod. 3. It is at this juncture that Schmitt
in: A.H.J. Gunneweg, O. Kaiser (eds), Textgemss: Aufstze und Beitrge zur Hermeneutik
des Alten TestamentsFestschrift fr Ernst Wrthwein zum 70. Geburtstag, Gttingen 1979,
139155. He sets out here in the first instance to make a redaction-critical study of the
Sea Narrative in Exod. 13:1714:31, basing himself on an analysis of the Priestly layer of
the said pericope in which the Israelites pass through the sea and Moses functions as a
central intermediary between God and the people (Exod. 13:20; 14:14, 8, 9ab, 10*, 1518,
21ab, 22, 23, 26, 27a, 28, 29). Here he discerns a carefully considered theological purpose
that comes to light throughout the texts finely composed cyclical structure. The charac-
teristic features of this Priestly narrative are as follows. A stable, systematic world order
is presented, established by God once and forever, in which little attention is given to
the contribution of humanity. In addition, direct contact between God and the people
is impossible. This explains the exceptional emphasis on Moses role as intermediary.
Schmitt goes on to explore the final redaction of this pericope and detects a number of
remarkable shifts when compared with the P narrative. God is no longer bound to the
office of Moses. Humanitys tragic nature, moreover, has acquired its own place as a result
of a more open outlook on history. He concludes his study by raising the question as to
when the P material and the non-P material were combined, or in other words the ques-
tion of the Tradentenkreis that should be considered responsible for the reworking of the
P narrative. According to Schmitt we are dealing here with post-exilic groups who exhibit
kinship with the tradents of the prophetic books and perhaps also with the tradents of
the Deuteronomistic History. The Jahwekriegsvorstellungen, the centrality of the theme of
faith and the related unconditional character of the promise, among other things, point
in this direction. Schmitt is thus convinced that the purpose of prophecy is given particu-
larly strong expression in the final redaction of the Sea Narrative.
In a similar fashion, and on the basis of its kinship with 1 Sam. 7:213, Schmitt
is inclined to associate the narrative in Exod. 17:816* with an exilic or post-exilic
Deuteronomistic tenor. Moreover, the narrative presupposes the image given of Joshua
by the Deuteronomistic History as military commander-in-chief of all Israel as it does
the presentation of Chur in the P tradition. This aus dem Bereich der Deuteronomistik
stammende Lehrerzhlung was then given its present place in the final redaction of the
Pentateuch. See H.-C. Schmitt, Die Geschichte vom Sieg ber die Amalekieter: Ex. 17,816
als theologische Lehrerzhlung, ZAW 102 (1990), 335344, esp. 344 n. 44; see further Idem,
Tradition der Prophetenbcher in den Schichten der Plagenerzhlung Ex. 7,111,10, in
V. Fritz et al. (eds), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift fr Otto Kaiser zum 65.
Geburtstag (BZAW, 185), Berlin 1989, 196216.
returns to the classical Documentary Hypothesis. In his opinion it is accept-

able to make a distinction between a Yahwist and an Elohist layer, whereby the
former uses the divine name yhwh and presents Moses as a prophet, and
the latter Elohist layer in which Moses emerges as a charismatic leader.106
Schmitt offers a further clarification of the character of the said layers on
basis of a brief discussion of Exod. 3:115. In his opinion, Exod. 3:2a, 4a, 5 are
to be ascribed to a Yahwist reworking of the Elohist narrative of Exod. 3:115*,
which is intent on underlining the greatness of God. Schmitt thus comes to
a conclusion similar to that of Winnett and Van Seters: a late Yahwist layer
redacted an Elohist layer, whereby the theme of the promise acquired par-
ticular emphasis.107 As a result, Schmitt accounts not only for a post-Priestly
prophetic redaction in which the theme of the promise is emphasised, he is
also obliged to account for a Yahwist prophetic redaction of Elohist material,
perhaps to be identified with the post-Priestly prophetic redaction.108 Each
of the three layers Schmitt distinguishes offers its own theological perspec-
tive. In the Elohist layer, Moses emerges as a charismatic leader, while in the
Priestly work he is considered an intermediary between God and the people.
The Yahwistic prophetic redaction(s) set(s) out to reconcile both presenta-
tions with one another.
Schmitt further elaborates his hypothesis concerning the origins of the
Pentateuch in further studies. He considers the late Deuteronomistic layer
that connected the Tetrateuch and the Deuteronomistic History as a redaction
that presupposed the Priestly material as well as the late Priestly additions.
According to Schmitt we here encounter die letzte umfassende Bearbeitung
des Pentateuch und auch des Enneateuch (...), die im wesentlichen die vor-
liegende Gestalt von Gen. i2 Reg. xxv geschaffen hat.109 As such, he aligns
106 On the specificity of Elohistic theology, cf. H.-C. Schmitt, Die Erzhlung von der
Versuchung Abrahams: Gen. 22,119* und das Problem einer Theologie der elohistischen
Pentateuchtexte, BN 34 (1986), 82109.
107 In 1985, Schmitt no longer accounted for a post-Priestly DeuteronomistSchmitt, Die
Hintergrunde der neuesten Pentateuchkritik, 171.
108 Cf. Schmitt, Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie, 186187; Schmitt, Die
nichtpriesterliche Josephsgeschichte, 177.
109 H.-C. Schmitt, Das sptdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk Gen. i2 Regum xxv und
seine theologische Intention, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Cambridge 1995
(SVT, 66), Leiden 1997, 261279. See in addition H.-C. Schmitt, Die Josephsgeschichte und
das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. Genesis 38 und 4850, in: Vervenne, Lust (eds),
Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, 391405; H.-C. Schmitt, Die Erzhlung vom
Goldenen Kalb Ex. 32* und das Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, in: S.L. McKenzie
et al. (eds), Rethinking the Foundations, 235250; H.-C. Schmitt, Theologie in Prophetie
202 Chapter 4
himself with the hypothesis formulated by Cornelius Houtman at the begin-

ning of the 1980s. Indeed, this idea of a post-Deuteronomistic post-Priestly
redaction within the Pentateuch has gained more and more ground since the
end of the last century.
One can observe in the margins of the work of those scholars who favour
a late dating for the Yahwist and point in support thereof to similarities with
the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature that they do not tend to engage in an explo-
ration of the forerunners of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature as initiated by
Brekelmans and Lohfink.110 This is all the more apparent when one bears in
mind that all of the aforementioned authors provide relatively tentative stud-
ies in which no conclusive research is offered on the relationship they claim
to exist between the late Yahwist and the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. In the
following pages we will focus attention on authors who distance themselves
radically from the Documentary Hypothesis within the framework of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic problem.
1.2 GenesisNumbers as the Result of a Post-Deuteronomistic Redaction

In the following pages I plan to explore a number of approaches to the gen-
esis and evolution of the Pentateuch in so far as they are important for the
und Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften (BZAW, 310), Berlin 2001; Idem, Das sogenannte
jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex. 34,1028 als Komposition der sptdeuteronomistischen
Endredaktion des Pentateuch, in: Gertz et al. (eds) Abschied vom Jahwisten, 157171;
H.-C. Schmitt, Dtn 34 als Verbindungsstck zwischen Tetrateuch und Deuteronomist
ischem Geschichtswerk, in: E. Otto, R. Achenbach (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen
Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Gttingen 2004,
181192; Schmitt, Das Gesetz aber ist neben eingekommen, 155170; H.-C. Schmitt,
Erzvtergeschichte und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende Ursprungslegenden Israels:
Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchforschung, in A.C. Hagedorn, H. Pfeiffer (eds), Die Erzvter in
der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift fr Matthias Kckert (BZAW, 400), Berlin 2009, 241266.
110 C. Levin, Der Jahwist (FRLANT, 157), Gttingen 1993 also concedes a late dating for
the Yahwist. In his opinion, however, the said Yahwist cannot be associated with
Deuteronom(ist)ic concerns. According to Levin, moreover, the Yahwistic work emerged
outside of Palestine. He characterises the work nonetheless as nachdeuteronomisch, weil
es die vom Deuteronomium geforderte Einrichtung eines einzigen, zentralen Kultorts fr
den Jahwekult kennt und bewut ablehnt. (...) Das bewute Eintreten fr die Verehrung
Jahwes an beliebiger Sttte ist besonders daran als antideuteronomisch zu erkennen,
da es sich mit der nachtrglichen antideuteronomischen Rahmung des Bundesbuches
sachlich und sprachlich aufs engst berhrt (430431). He maintains at the same time that
the Yahwistic work is pre-Deuteronomistic as well as pre-Deutero-Isaian (432433). See
also C. Levin, The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch, JBL 126 (2007), 209230.
Deuteronom(ist)ic problem, namely the work of Rolf Rendtorff, Erhard Blum,

R. Norman Whybray and William Johnstone. I am particularly interesting
in providing a picture of the general framework sketched by these scholars
with respect to the development of the Pentateuch, in which context the
Deuteronomistic problem was ascribed an important role. With the exception
of Rendtorff, each of the authors in question ascribes a significant share in the
materialisation of the Tetrateuch to an author or redaction that is to be dated
later than DtrG.
1.2.1 Rolf Rendtorff and the Heidelberg school

In a programmatic article from 1975, Rendtorff presented his own vision on
the genesis and composition of the Pentateuch. The point of departure of
his study is formed by a number of observations on the impossibility of the
classical Documentary Hypothesis.111 To this end, he aligned himself with
the work of Gerhard von Rad, who had understood the growth of the Hexateuch
as a large-scale composition in which smaller, originally independent tradition
complexes were brought together to form a unity with a well thought-out theo-
logical purpose.112 Von Rad ascribed this composition to the Yahwist against
the background of the Documentary Hypothesis. According to Rendtorff,
however, Von Rads Yahwist has little in common with the Yahwist of the
Documentary Hypothesis. According to Rendtorff, moreover, the presentation
of Von Rad is irreconcilable with that of the Documentary Hypothesis.113 In
line with Von Rad, Noth focussed his interest in the Yahwist as theologian.114
111 R. Rendtorff, Der Jahwist als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik, in:
Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974 (SVT, 28), Leiden 1975, 158166see also Idem, The
Yahwist as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism, JSOT 3 (1977), 210. Cf.
also Rendtorffs valedictory address at the theology faculty of the Universty of Heidelberg
on July 19th 1990: Idem, Nach vierzig Jahren: Vier Jahrzehnte selbsterlebte alttesta
mentliche Wissenschaftin Heidelberg und anderswo, in Idem, Kanon und Theologie:
Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991, 2939, esp.
3637. For a bibliography of Rendtorff, see J. Miltenberger, Bibliographie Rolf Rendtorff
zum 65. Geburtstag am 10. Mai 1990 (DBAT. Beihefte, 11), Heidelberg 1990.
112 Cf. Von Rad, Das formgeschichtliche Problem.
113 Rendtorff, Der Jahwist als Theologe?, 160 calls the fact that Von Rad ascribes the emer-
gence of the Pentateuch to the Yahwist ein historischer Zufall.
114 Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte. According to Noth, the theological concern of the Yahwist
comes mainly to the fore at the beginning of the Yahwistic work, namely in Gen. 12:13. In
the remainder of his work hat er sich dann fast ausschlielich an das berkommene Gut
der Pentateucherzhlung gehalten, ohne ndernd oder erweiternd in dessen Substanz
204 Chapter 4
In contrast to Von Rad, however, Noth ascribed a much more limited range
of activity to the Yahwist. According to Rendtorff, furthermore, little attention
had been given since Noth to literary criteria in support of source division.
On the one hand, the theology of the Yahwist had taken pride of place. On
the other hand, everything that could not be ascribed to the Priestly docu-
ment or the Elohist was ascribed to the Yahwist. As a result, a variety of styles
were to be discerned in the Yahwists work. In Rendtorffs understanding, it
is here that the dilemma of Pentateuch studies raises its head. Two sorts of
questionto be located at completely different levelshad been mixed
together. On the one hand, the Documentary Hypothesis demonstrated the
absence of a literary unity within the Yahwistic document. On the other hand,
scholars explored J on the basis of a theological concept they considered to be
discernible throughout the document. Moreover, extremely divergent answers
had been given to the question of the theology of the Yahwist.
Taking these observations as his point of departure, Rendtorff sets out to
present a new paradigm. If it is justified to say that the different sources do
not exhibit internal unity because they contain disparate material, then one
is obliged to look at the theological intention of the composition and the
arrangement of the said material in the greater whole. Moreover, the composi-
tion appears to have been finished according to a well-conceived plan. Once
we agree on this, traces of different sorts of redactional activity can quickly be
discerned in the different sections of the Pentateuch.115 Studies of the compo-
sition and growth of the Pentateuch must thus take account of different tradi-
tion complexes that can be distinguished from one another. The question one
must then ask is what brought these originally distinct tradition complexes
together.
Rendtorff sets out to test the thesis of distinct tradition complexes on the
basis of a number of observations on the theological composition of the nar-
ratives concerning the patriarchs in the book of Genesis. In the narratives in
einzugreifen. Es gengte ihm, im Eingang eindeutig gesagt zu haben, wie er alles weitere
verstanden wissen wollteNoth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 258.
115 This position brings Rendtorff back to the point of departure of Von Rad, who had also
distinguished tradition complexes in the Pentateuch that were originally independent
of one another: Die theologische Bearbeitung der Vterberlieferung ist offenbar ganz
anderer Art als die der Mose-und Exodustradition, diese ist wiederum anders als die
der Sinaiberlieferung und der Traditionen von Israel in der Wste. Wir mssen uns
deshalb diesen einzelnen Traditionskomplexen zuwendenRendtorff, Der Jahwist als
Theologe?, 162.
question, the passages concerning the promise of land, descendants and bless-
ing to the patriarchs stand out as playing a central role in the composition.116
Rendtorff then asks himself whether this feature is also evident in the rest of
the Pentateuch. The answer to this question, however, is negative. The theme
of the promise, for example, is not present in the other tradition complexes
of the Pentateuch. It is striking in this regard that no mention is made of the
promise of the land made to the patriarchs in the context of the exodus from
Egypt and the occupation of the land.117 This observation leads Rendtorff to
conclude that the patriarchs and those surrounding the exodus were con-
ceived of independently. It was only as a result of the Priestly redaction that
both tradition complexes were brought together in a theological manner.
Consequently, Rendtorffs proposal has no room for a Yahwist whose theologi-
cal ideas are discernible throughout the Pentateuch.
Rendtorff details his hypothesis in his Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche
Problem des Pentateuch, a book that caused something of a stir on publication.118
Here too he presents and critiques the perspectives of Von Rad and Noth. With
the emergence of Formgeschichte and berlieferungsgeschichte, scholars
tended to take smaller units in the Pentateuch as their point of departure
in sketching the origins of larger textual complexes and of the Pentateuch
as a whole. In the process they introduced traditional information from
source criticism into the equation, i.e. the existence of continuous indepen-
dent sources. According to Rendtorff, however, a formgeschichtliche and
berlieferungsgeschichtliche approach to the Pentateuch can only uphold
116 Rendtorff, Der Jahwist als Theologe?, 165: thus zeigt sich ganz eindeutig, da die
Verheiungsreden ein Element der planmigen theologischen Bearbeitung der
Vtergeschichten sindund zwar einerseits zu Gliederung und Rahmung jeder
einzelnen Vtergeschichte, andererseits aber auch zur Zusammenfassung aller drei
Vtergeschichten unter einem bergreifenden theologischen Leitgedanken.
117 The first reference to the promised land in Exod. 3:8 is thus all the more surprising: [I will]
bring them up out of that land [Egypt] to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk
and honey, to the country of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the
Hivites and the Jebusites. Not a single word is said about the promise to the patriarchs.
118 Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem. For a concise presentation of
Rendtorffs standpoint, reference can be made to his introduction to the Old Testament:
Idem, Das Alte Testament: Eine Einfhrung, Neukirchen 1983, 170173. See also L. Zaman,
R. Rendtorff en zijn Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch: Schets van
een Maccaber binnen de hedendaagse Pentateuchexegese (unpublished Masters thesis
Universitaire Faculteit voor Protestantse Godgeleerdheid), Brussel 1984; Nicholson, The
Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century, 95131.
206 Chapter 4
the traditional Documentary Hypothesis if it turns out that four separate

and independent documents once actually existed. In his opinion, this is not
the case. Rendtorff argues to the contrary that the Pentateuch consists of a
number of independent and self-contained units that have been placed side
by side and linked together with a few redactional notes rather than strong
lines of connection.119 By way of example, Rendtorff explores the narratives
concerning the patriarchs in Gen. 1250.120 The texts in question, he observes,
are related via the theme of the promise. The emphasis on the promise, how-
ever, is absent outside this complex. Exodus, for example, makes no reference
to the promises to the patriarchs. The passages in Exodus and Numbers in
which a connection is established with Genesis, however, belong to a differ-
ent berlieferungsgeschichtlich level. They are part of a Bearbeitungsschicht
that set out to connect the different tradition complexes to one another. The
passages concerning yhwhs vow to the fathers in relation to the promise of
the land are of particular importance in this regard (Gen. 22:16; 24:7; 26:3; 50:24;
Exod. 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:13a; Num. 11:1115; 14:23; 32:11).121 According to Rendtorff,
this Bearbeitungsschicht exhibits clear Deuteronomic characteristics.122
119 As texts that can be read as independent units, Rendtorff mentions the primeval history
(Gen. 111), the narratives concerning the patriarchs (Gen. 1250), the narratives concern-
ing Moses and the exodus (Exod. 115), the Sinai pericope (Exod. 1924), the narratives
concerning the period in the wilderness (Exod. 1618; Num. 1120) and the narratives con-
cerning the occupation of the land in Numbers.
120 In a similar fashion, Frank Crsemann explores the pre-Priestly narrative of the primeval
history in Gen. 111. Crsemann considers the said narrative to be an autonomous reflec-
tion on the human condition. The composition was linked with the narratives concern-
ing the patriarchs by a post-exilic redaction by way of Gen. 12:13: F. Crsemann, Die
Eigenstndigkeit der Urgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den Jahwisten, in:
J. Jeremias, L. Perlitt (eds), Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift fr Hans Walter Wolff
zum 70. Geburtstag, Neukirchen 1981, 1129.
121 Cf. also Rendtorffs study Genesis 15 im Rahmen der theologische Bearbeitung der
Vtergeschichten, 7481, in which he suggests that Gen. 15 functions in its entirety as a
means of connecting with old narratives.
122 Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 79: Die Bearbeitungsschicht, von
der hier die Rede ist, pflegt man als deuteronomistisch oder neuerdings auch als frh-
deuteronomisch oder protodeuteronomisch zu bezeichnen. Jedenfalls handelt es sich
um eine Bearbeitung, die ihren Vorstellungen und ihrer Sprache dem Deuteronomium
nahe verwandt ist. Es hat sich gezeigt, da diese Bearbeitung die vorliegenden Texte im
wesentlichen unverndert gelassen und ihre interpretierende Zustze an bestimmten
Stellen eingefgt hat. Sie setzt also in etwa die uns vorliegende Gestalt des Textes voraus
(italics H.A.).
Based on his study of Gen. 1250 and succinct comparison with other tra-
ditional complexes, Rendtorff denies the existence of a continuous Yahwist
narrative in the Pentateuch.123 Moreover, he also denies the existence of a con-
tinuous Priestly patriarchal narrative. In his opinion, we are dealing here with a
number of Priestly texts that belong to a Priestly Bearbeitungsschicht, shaped
by means of chronological notes and a few theological passages. While this
Priestly Bearbeitungsschicht extends beyond the boundaries of one single tra-
dition complex, it does not embrace the entire Pentateuch.124 The same cannot
be said for the aforementioned Deuteronomically tinted Bearbeitungsschicht,
which stretches across the entire Pentateuch, with the exception of Gen. 111.
This latter Bearbeitungsschicht is the only, and probably the first, to embrace
the Pentateuch as a whole.125 According to Rendtorff, however, it is not clear
whether the Deuteronomically tinted Bearbeitungsschicht was responsible
for connecting the various tradition complexes or whether we are dealing with
an interpretative reworking of an already existing whole.126 Furthermore, the
texts Rendtorff associates with this Bearbeitungsschicht should not be iden-
tified without reservation with other Deuteronom(ist)ic texts from Genesis
Numbers.127 Likewise, the relationship with Deuteronomy and Joshua2 Kings
123 Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 86112.

126 R. Rendtorff, Covenant as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus, JBL 108 (1989),
385393 refers, for example, to the as a connecting concept between Gen. 111 and
Exod. 1924.
127 Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 165: Ich habe diese Texte als deute
ronomisch geprgt bezeichnet, um eine vorzeitige Festlegung zu vermeiden, wie sie etwa
in dem Begriff deuteronomistisch liegen knnte. Ich habe schon auf die Diskussion ber
die Frage hingewiesen, ob man hier eher von frhdeuteronomisch oder protodeute
ronomisch reden sollte; allerdings lge auch darin wieder eine bestimmte Festlegung, die
man besser zunchst vermeiden sollte. Diese Texte enthalten nmlich keineswegs ein-
fach gngige deuteronomische oder deuteronomistische Aussagen. (...) Es wre deshalb
methodisch nicht zulssig, diese Gruppe von Texten mit anderen deuteronomistischen
Texten innerhalb der ersten vier Bcher des Pentateuch einfach zu einer deuteronomis-
tischen Redaktionsschicht zusammenzufassen, ohne die Zusammengehrigkeit nher
zu berprfen und zu begrnden. (...) Diese Mglichkeit ist zwar keineswegs auszu
schlieen, bedarf aber sorgfltiger Prfung. Dies ist auch deshalb notwendig, weil die
Kriterien dafr, was als deuteronomistisch zu gelten hat bzw. wie in diesem Bereich zu dif-
ferenzieren ist, noch keineswegs hinreichend geklrt sind. (italics H.A.).
208 Chapter 4
still remains unclear.128 Nevertheless, Rendtorffs scholarly influence has been

enormous and he can rightly be designated the founder of the Heidelberg
school in matters of Pentateuchresearch.129
128 Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 167168 maintains nevertheless da

zunchst der Pentateuch ohne das Deuteronomium als selbstndige Gre existierte,
bevor er in einem spteren Akt der Redaktion mit dem Deuteronomium und damit wom-
glich mit dem deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk verbunden wurde. In his Das Alte
Testament: Eine Einfhrung, 173, Rendtorff offers a potential, albeit vague formulated solu-
tion: Die deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Kreise, die an der Gestaltung der folgen-
den Bcher [i.e. Joshua to 2 KingsH.A.] mageblich beteiligt waren, haben auch den
Aufri des Pentateuch wesentlich mitgestaltet. Hier wie dort haben sie ltere berliefe
rungen unterschiedlicher Art theologisch bearbeitet und interpretiert. Der bergang
vom Pentateuch zu den folgenden Bchern bedeutete fr ihre Arbeit zunchst keinen
grundstzlichen Einschnitt.
In The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, Part 1: The Literary Formation of Genesis and
Exodus 123 (JSOT SS, 55), Sheffield 1987, Thomas L. Thompson concurs with Rendtorffs
thesis concerning the formation of Genesis and Exod. 123 from smaller units. Based on
a number of smaller narrative units, he maintains, five complex-chain-narratives were
composed (namely those concerning Abraham, Jacob-Esau, Joseph, the exodus and
Pesach, and the laws). These were then combined via the toledot formula and the interpo-
lation of a variety of other material to form the narrative as we now know it. Thompson is
extremely cautious concerning the dating of this sequence of stages in the development
of the text. He insists that the original smaller units have to be examined individually. In
his opinion, the complex-chain-narratives presuppose the existence of Israel as a people.
The final redaction should be located between the end of the 7th century and the middle
of the 6th century bce. The traditions used by the final redaction of the Pentateuch, such
as the complex-chain-narratives for example, are not necessarily much older than the
final redaction itself.
129 Cf. T. Rmer, Lcole de Heidelberg a 15 ans ...: A propos de deux ouvrages sur une nouvelle
approche de la formation du Pentateuque, TR 67 (1992), 7781. While Rendtorff ascribes
the passages concerning the promises of yhwh to the patriarchs to a Deuteronomically
tinted redactional layer, S. Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation
of the Pentateuch (BZAW, 205), Berlin 1992 focuses on the passages that formulate the
promise of land to the patriarchs on the basis of the term and that are closely asso-
ciated with the Deuteronom(ist)ic problem. Her research explores Gen. 50:24; Exod. 13:5,
11; 32:13; 33:1; Num. 11:12; 14:23; 32:11. Each of these texts speak of Gods promise of land to
the patriarchs using exactly the same language. The said theme only occurs outside of
GenesisNumbers in Deuteronomy and in those segments of Jeremiah characterised as
Deuteronomistic: This distribution indicates that it was not a common expression used
universally in Israel but was peculiar to more narrowly defined circles of thought that can
be designated as a Dtr school (37). She concludes that Exod. 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1 and Num.
14:23 should be characterised as pre-Deuteronom(ist)ic. Num. 32:11, by contrast, is later
than the latest layer in Deut. 910 and is as a result post-Deuteronomistic. Cf. also Idem,
1.2.2 The D-Komposition of Erhard Blum

A student of Rendtorff, Erhard Blumcharacterised by Ska as un nouveau
Wellhausen130was to give significant impetus to research into the origins
and composition of the Pentateuch. In the first part of his 1984 Die Komposition
der Vtergeschichte, he explores the Jacob tradition.131 The oldest elements of
the said tradition consist of a number of sagas, of which both passages con-
cerning the conflict between Jacob and Esau (Gen. 25:2934; 27), the legend
of Bethel (Gen. 28:1113a, 1619) and the account of the agreement between
Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:46, 51, 53*) were probably originally independent
narratives. Blum also discernskompositionsgeschichtlicha Jacob-Esau-
Laban tradition,132 which cannot be located prior to the subjection of Edom
by David on account of Gen. 27:29.40a.133 The narrative in question underwent
further development and thus gave rise to the Jacob narrative (Gen. 25:1934;
2733*). The narrative then evolved via a Kompositionsschicht, which is bet-
ter ascribed to a narrator than to a reworker, into a programme declaration
stemming from the period of Jeroboam I and serving the political consolidation
of the Northern Kingdom.134 Still during the period of the Northern Kingdom,
Gen. 2550* then emerged via the interpolation of the originally independent
Joseph narrative from the 8th century bce.135 During the reign of Josiah, to
The Importance of a Diachronic Approach: The Case of GenesisKings, CBQ 51 (1989),

195208. See also J.S. Baden, The Promise to the Patriarchs, Osford 2013.
130 J.L. Ska, Un nouveau Wellhausen?, Bib 72 (1991), 253263. About the work of Blum,
see, moreover, D.J. Wynn-Williams, The State of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the
Approaches of M. Noth and E. Blum (BZAW, 249), Berlin 1997.
131 E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vtergeschichte (WMANT, 57), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984.
See, more recently, E. Blum, The Jacob Tradition, in: C.A. Evans et al. (eds), The Book of
Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (SVT, 152), Leiden 2012, 181211. For a
collection of some of Blums most important contributions, see E. Blum, Textgestalt und
Komposition: Exegetische Beitrge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten (FAT, 69), Tbingen 2010.
132 One can probably also account for an independent tradition concerning Jacob and Esau
from the period of the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom (Blum, Die Komposition, 202).
133 Blum, Die Komposition, 70.
134 This Kompositionsschicht is to be found in Gen. 28:2022*; 29:24, 29 (30), 31; (25); 31:116*,
24, 29b, 33, 3844*; 32:2b33:17. The narrator responsible for this Kompositionsschicht
deals with the material he had at his disposal in an extremely varied manner. Here and
there he adds a narrative (Gen. 28) and elsewhere he expands the material passed on to
him or corrects it. In some instances he also gives an entirely new account of certain nar-
ratives (Gen. 3233)Blum, Die Komposition, 171; 180; 203.
135 Blum, Die Komposition, 204263.
210 Chapter 4
conclude, the narrative that had thus evolved was supplemented in Judah with
texts that accented the primacy of Judah.136
In the second part of his study, Blum deals with the composition of the narra-
tives concerning the patriarchs. In the period between the fall of the Northern
and Southern kingdoms, the Jacob narrative was adjoined to the Judean tradi-
tion concerning Abraham and Lot via the promises in Gen. 13:1417 and 28:13*,
14a. According to Blum, this connection of the Northern Israelite Jacob tradi-
tion with the Judean Abraham tradition represented the first step in the com-
position of the present complex of narratives concerning the patriarchs. Blum
designates the narrative thus evolved with the siglum Vg1 (Vtergeschichte 1).
During the time of the exile, a second version of these narratives emerged
that was framed by four divine addresses (Gen. 12:13; 26:23*; 31:13b; 46:34*)
thereby leading to the inclusion of the passages Gen. 12:69*; 12:1020; 16*;
21:821; 22*; 26 in the inclusive composition Gen. 1250*. Blum desig-
nates the composition that resulted from this process with the siglum Vg2
(Vtergeschichte 2). At this point in time, Blum argues, there were as yet no
connections between the patriarchal narratives and the rest of the Pentateuch.
Moreover, and in line with Rendtorff, Blum suggests that the Deuteronomistic
composition was the first to establish a literary bond between the patriarchal
narratives and the traditions related to exodus, the wilderness and Sinai.137
Blum thus ascribes Gen. 12:7; 15; 16:10; 22:1518, 2024; 24; 26:3b-5, 24; 28:15, 21b;
31:3; 32:1013; 33:19; 34:9, 3031; 35:15; 48:21; 50:2425 to the DBearbeitung,138
which he dates in the post-exilic period.139 Firstly, it presupposes the
136 Gen. 34*; 35:21, 22a; 38; 49*.

137 Blum, Die Komposition, 361. It should be noted that Rendtorff was more careful to a cer-
tain extent with respect to the characterisation of these passages as Deuteronomistic.
138 For Gen. 12:7: see Blum, Die Komposition, 383; for Gen. 15: see 366371; 377382; for
Gen. 16:10: see 365; for Gen. 22:1518, 2024: see 363365; 388389; for Gen. 24: see 383
389; for Gen. 26:3b-5, 24: see 362365; for Gen. 28:15, 21b: see 90; 158164; for Gen. 31:3: see
158164; for Gen. 32:1013: see 154158; for Gen. 33:19: see 4445; for Gen. 34:9, 3031: see
217222; for Gen. 35:15: see 3945; 218; for Gen. 48:21: see 257; for Gen. 50:2425: see 45;
255257. D.M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches,
Louisville, KY 1996, was later to see Gen. 9:18b, 22a*, 2527*; 10:1618a; 14:115:21; 18:1718,
19, 22b-33; 22:1518; 26:3b-5; 28:18(?), 21b; 32:1013; 35:2*, 4a*(?); 50:2425 as pre-Priestly
semi-Deuteronomistic additions to Genesis (158), to a degree in line with Blum.
139 On the lack of Deuteronomistic elements in the book of Genesis, see recently
D.V. Edelman et al., Opening the Books of Moses, Sheffield, 2012, 4647: The new model
that regards the Pentateuch as a combination of D and P texts is problematic in regard
to the book of Genesis, a book that can hardly be considered as having been edited by
exilic patriarchal narratives (Vg2). Secondly, the analysis of Gen. 24, for
example, reveals the post-exilic concerns of the DBearbeitung.140 Blum
points in addition to the lines of connection running from the D-Bearbeitung
in Genesis to the remaining books of the Pentateuch and even to the
Deuteronomistic History.141 Moreover, this reworking presupposes the Deuter
onomistic History.142 Blum mentions a number of passages posterior to this
D-Bearbeitung and related thereto,143 and concludes by discerning a post-
exilic layer that continues to build on top of the DBearbeitung.144
Deuteronomistic scribes. The patriarchal narrative contains almost no Deuteronomistic

stylistic markers or Deuteronomistic theology (election, segregation, military land prom-
ises) and offers a very different account of Israels origin and relation to the land than the
exodus tradition.
140 For example, the post-exilic problem of mixed marriages. While the ban on exogamy
probably has its roots in the Deuteronom(ist)ic tradition, it was only rigorously applied
in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 910; Neh. 9:2; 10:31; 13:23)Blum, Die
Komposition, 387.
141 Blum, Die Komposition, 4561; 371372; 396399 points, for example, to connections
between Gen. 35:15 and Josh. 24, between Gen. 33:19; 50:25 and Exod. 13:19 and Josh. 24:32.
For the theme of yhwhs vow to the patriarchs, Blum also refers to parallels between Gen.
26:4; 24:7; 50:24 and Exod. 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1; Num. 11:12; 14:16, 23; 32:11; Deut. 9:28; 19:8;
27:3 et al.; Josh. 1:6; 5:6; 21:4344. Furthermore, Blum accentuates the cohesion between
Gen. 22:15 and Exod. 32:13 and points to lines of connection running from Exod. 32:914
to Num. 14:1124; 32:11; Deut. 1:35; Josh. 14:615. In addition, the formula - connects
Num. 14:11 and Gen. 15:6; Exod. 4:31; 14:31, as well as 2 Kgs 17:14. On the character of these
D elements Blum says the following: Diese wenigen Hinweise zielen nun selbstverstn-
dlich nicht darauf, die genannten Belege unversehens einer dtr Redaktion von Genesis bis
2Knige zuzuweisen (399).
142 Blum, Die Komposition, 65 argues, for example that Gen. 33:19; 35:1; 50:25; Exod. 13:19 are
part of einer D-Bearbeitungsschicht, deren kompositioneller Bogen erst in Josh. 24 zu
einem Abschlu gelangt. Blum sees the berlieferungsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang
between the D-Bearbeitung and the Deuteronomistic History as the subject for further
study (399).
143 Blum, Die Komposition, 400419. The passages in questionGen. 18:1719, 22b32; 20;
21:2224, 27, 34setzen (...) die groe deuteronomistische Traditionsbildung schon
voraus, verraten ihr gegenber gleichwohl eigenstndige Interessen (vgl. vor allem die
Einstellung gegenber den Vlkern) (419).
144 Blum uses the term P(riestly) as Bezeichnung der Redaktions- und Traditionsarbeit einer
priesterlichen Schule, fr deren Komplexitt es wohl Anzeichen gibt, ohne da hier aber
der Charakter dieser Komplexitt nachgezeichnet werden knnte (Blum, Die Komposition,
451). For his arguments concerning P continuing to build on the D-Bearbeitung, see
452 n. 30.
212 Chapter 4
In his Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch from 1990, Blum sets out to
test the hypothesis he constructed on the basis of the book of Genesis against
the books of Exodus to Deuteronomy.145 By analogy with his research into the
composition of the book of Genesis, Blum likewise distinguishes a Priestly com-
position in ExodusNumbers that incorporated an earlier Deuteronomistic
work. In the first part of his study Blum explores the D-Komposition (Kd). He
begins with an extensive synchronic literary analysis of Exod. 114(15), observ-
ing that the narrative of the call of Moses (Exod. 3:14:18) does not fit in the con-
text. The same is true, he argues, for Exod. 11:13. Both passages are reminiscent
of the language and theology of the Deuteronom(ist)ic tradition. According to
Blum, Exod. 1:6, 8; 4:3031; 5:226:1; 12:2127; 13:5, 616; 14:1314, 3031 are also
passages that were added in part by Kd on the basis of existing traditions, and
in part created by Kd itself. Blum also encounters Kd in the Sinai pericope
(Exod. 1924; 3234)146 in texts such as Exod. 19:3b-8; 20:22; 24:38, 1215a, 18b;
32:714; 33:1, 5, 11, 13, 16, 17; 34:9, 10.147 In his analysis of Exod. 3334, he argues
that it has become virtually impossible to distinguish tradition and composi-
tion from one another.148 He also claims to be able to discern traces of Kd in
Num. 11*; 12*; 14:1125,149 as well as in Deut. 31:1415, 23; 34:10(-12).150
The compositional coherence of this D-Komposition is apparent from
the lines of connection that run from Gen. 50:24 to Exod. 3:16, 17 and from
145 E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189), Berlin 1990.
146 Cf. also the succinct representation of Blums research into the Sinai event: E. Blum,
Isral la montagne de Dieu: Remarques sur Ex. 1924; 3234 et sur le contexte littraire
et historique de sa composition, in: De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question,
pp. 271295.
147 For Exod. 19:3b-8: see Blum, Studien, 9899; 169172; for Exod. 20:22: see 9597; for
Exod. 24*: see 8999; for Exod. 3234*: see 6364; 7375; 98; 181188.
148 Blums Kd is almost exactly accepted by R. Albertz, Exodus 118 (ZBK, 2/1), Zrich 2012, 23,
who accepts a spt-deuteronomistische Bearbeitung (D).
149 For Num. 11: see Blum, Studien, 8283; for Num. 12: see 8485; for Num. 14:1125: see 74.
150 From a kompositionsgeschichtlich perspective, Deut. 31:1415, 23; 34:10 are of excep-
tional importance in Blums presentation. Deut. 31:1415, 23 links die (bislang) in Exodus
und Numeri ausgemachte Komposition mit dem Ende des Deuteronomiums (Blum,
Studien, 8788). Deut. 34:10 is ein Element, mit dem die Kompositionsschicht an hchst
exponierender Stelle und in profielierendem Kontrast zu Dtn 18,18 ihr Verstndnis
von Moses Bedeutung als berprophet formuliert. Kompositionell wird damit die
Verklammerung mit dem Deuteronomium (bzw. DtrG) verstrkt und zugleich ein
Abschlu markiert: Das Tora-buch Moses klingt mit einem neuen krftigen Akkord
aus (88).
Exod. 1:6, 8 to Judg. 2:8a, 10.151 Kd is also responsible for the texts concern-
ing the promises that connect Genesis with Exodus. Blum refers in this regard
to the promisesformulated as oathsconcerning the gift of the land and
numerous descendents. In his 1984 monograph, he ascribed Gen. 22:1518;
24:7; 26:3b-5(, 24*); 50:24 to Kd in addition to Gen. 15, whereby he already
observed that the oath theme in Exodus and Numbers had been continued,
namely in Exod. 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1; Num. 11:12; 14:16, 23 (Deut. 31,23). In the anal-
ysis of the texts, moreover, all these passages had emerged as belonging to the
D-Komposition.152 In addition to the oath theme as a characteristic feature
of this inclusive composition, Blum also points to the theme of faith and the
combination of sign/miracleseeingIsrael believing/fearing, which is evi-
dent in Gen. 15:6; Exod. 4:19, 31; 14:31; 19:9; 34:10; 33:16; Num. 14:11, 22. Blum also
makes reference to the texts concerning the tent of meeting in Exod. 3334*;
Num. 11*; Deut. 31; 34*.
The question of the magnitude and scope of Kd goes hand in hand with
the endeavour to discern its compositional characteristics. According to
Blum, Kd begins with the story of Abraham in Gen. 12, thus implying that
Gen. 111 are not included as part of the composition.153 Blum argues, in addi-
tion, that there are no lines of connection discernible between Gen. 111 and
Gen. 12. Furthermore, no elements can be pointed to in Gen. 111with a few
exceptionsthat stem from the Deuteronom(ist)ic school that was respon-
sible for Kd. It is likewise striking that the theme of creation does not have a
role to play in Deuteronomy or in Joshua2 Kings. In Blums view, moreover,
the connection between the primeval history and the patriarchal tradition
only emerged in the Priestly composition.154 At the same time, Kd already pre-
supposes the existence of the Deuteronomistic History,155 which Kd precedes
with an entire salvation history, two works linked together by Kd in the last
151 For the compositional character of the Kd, see Blum, Studien, 102107.
152 Also the transformation of the Heptalogue in the text of Exod. 20 into a Decalogue is
considered as part of the early postexilic D-Composition: E. Blum, The Decalogue and
the Composition History of the Pentateuch, in T.B. Dozeman, et al. (eds), The Pentateuch:
International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT, 78), Tbingen 2011, 289301, esp. 298.
153 Blum, Studien, 359.
154 Blum, Studien, 108. Cf. also Crsemann, Die Eigenstndigkeit der Urgeschichte, 1129,
who considered the non-Priestly primeval history in Gen. 111 to be an independent unity.
155 Blum, Studien, 109. According to Blum, the important thing is the delimitation of the end
of Kd and not the search for das mutmaliche Ende eines selbstndigen Werkes (...).
Vielmehr hatte sich bei Dtn 31,14f.23; 34,10 ergeben (...) da diese Kd-Komponenten als
unselbstndige Ergnzungen in einen vorgegebenen Zusammenhang eingebettet sind,
214 Chapter 4
chapters of Deuteronomy. Blum is convinced, in any case, that Deuteronomy

came into existence independently of Kd, and he finds evidence of this in the
absence of Rckverweise in Deuteronomy that refer to the DKomposition.156
Up to this point, Blum had only made vague allusions to the Deuteronomistic
character of the passages in question,157 speaking in the first instance of the
kinship between the Komposition and the Deuterono m(ist)ic literature
without further reference to the significance of the said kinship.158 In this
context, Blum entered into debate with scholars who maintain that a consid-
erable amount of the material in GenesisNumbers is proto-Deuteronomic.
In his opinion, it is beyond question that the passages he characterises kom-
positionsgeschichtlich as Kd cannot simply be identified with the style of
the Deuteronomistic History. Nevertheless, he does not consider it advis-
able to thus conclude that these pericopes should be characterised as proto-
Deuteronomic.159 According to Blum, analysis of the language and styleand
nherhin in den Zusammenhang des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes (im Sinne

von M. Noth).
157 With respect to Exod. 14:1314, 3031, see Blum, Studien, 3031. Blum associates Exod. 3
with the deuteronomisch/deuterono mistischer Sprach- und Vorstellungswelt (32).
Based on this relationship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, Blum concludes: Ent
sprechend der durchgehenden Nhe der Kompositionsschicht zur deuteronomischen
bzw. deuteronomistischen Traditionsbildung sprechen wir im folgenden (...) von der
D-Komposition (Kd) (36).
159 Blum comes to this conclusion on the basis of a study of Exod. 12:2427a; 13:316; 19:3b-6
(Blum, Studien, 166172). His objections to the hypothesis of a proto-Deuteronomic
redaction of GenesisNumbers are for the most part methodological. In his opinion,
expressions characterised by scholars such as Lohfink, Plger, Caloz and Reichert as
proto-Deuteronomic are not Deuteronom(ist)ic in the fullest sense. Blum accuses these
authors of basing themselves on the presuposition of a linear development from simple
to complex and from succinct to detailed. At the same time he finds it methodologically
incorrect for supporters of a proto-Deuteronomic redaction to focus exclusive atten-
tion on the similarities and differences between passages from GenesisNumbers and
Deuteronomy without involving the Deuteronomistic History or the (post-)exilic pro-
phetic literature in the analysis.
On Blums objections to the hypothesis of proto-Deuteronomic elements in Genesis
Numbers, see also Blum, Die Komposition, 374375. For some critical observation in
this regard, see M. Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis to
Numbers, in: F. Garca Martnez et al. (eds), Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C.J.
Labuschagne on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (SVT, 53), Leiden 1994, 243268, esp.
kinship with the (post-)exilic prophetic literaturereveals that the pericopes

that belong kompositionsgeschichtlich to Kd can be characterised as post-
Deuteronomistic. Within the framework of the Deuteronomistic features of
the passages Blum ascribes to the D-Komposition, the relationship between
Kd and Deuteronomy calls for closer analysis. According to Blum, this relation-
ship is particularly complex, especially with regard to the traditions that have
been transmitted in parallel such as Deut. 1,1946 and Num. 114; Deut. 45
and Exod. 20; Deut. 9:710:11 and Exod. 3234. We shall explore the relationship
here between Deut. 45 and Exod. 20 by way of example. The Deuteronomy
pericope appears to provide an interpretation of the Exodus narrative in this
instance. At the same time, however, Exodus would appear to hark back to
Deuteronomy. According to Blum, this mutual relationship explains one of the
essential characteristics of Kd. Both Deut. 45 as Kd in Exod. 20 build further
on an older, pre-Deuteronomic tradition. Deut. 45 represents a free adapta-
tion of this tradition, while Kd is more rigidly attached thereto, although it was
influenced at the same time by the version of Deut. 45.160
At the end of his study on the pre-Priestly D-Komposition, Blum sets out
to explore the origins and identity of this composition, which he maintains
is responsible for the realization of the Pentateuch.161 In his opinion, Kd is
best situated at the time of the first generation of those who returned from
exile.162 After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and the exile associ-
ated therewith, Kd wanted to demonstrate the foundation of Israels existence.
This consisted of the relationship between yhwh and his people. Although
the patriarchal narrativesin the form Kd incorporated themwere already
determined in essence by the promises of land and of abundant descendants,
253254; G.I. Davies, The Composition of the Book of Exodus: Reflections on the Theses
of Erhard Blum, in: M.V. Fox et al. (eds), Texts, Temples and Traditions: A Tribute to
Menahem Haran, Winona Lake, IN 1996, 7185, esp. 8485. See also H. Ausloos, The Need
for Linguistic Criteria in Characterising Biblical Pericopes as Deuteronomistic. A Critical
Note to Erhard Blums Methodology, JNSL 23 (1997) 4756.
160 According to Blum, Studien, 178, we must thus account for die Mglichkeit komplexerer
wechselseitiger beziehungen.
162 Blum, Studien, 164165 offers the following argumentation for this post-exilic dating. First,
the Deuteronomistic Historyto be dated, according to Blum, after 560 bceis to be
presumed the terminus post quem. Second, the pre-D-Bearbeitung in Genesis is already
to be dated in the exilic period (cf. supra). Third, there are striking parallels with the post-
exilic prophetic literature.
216 Chapter 4
this dimension was not only extensively developed in Kd in the context of

a narrative (Gen. 15). Kd also developed the promise into a festal, self-obli-
gating vow on the part of yhwh (Gen. 15; 22:1518; 24:7; 26:3b5; 50:24). As
such, a foundation was established by yhwh himself upon which Israel could
advance, even in the most dreadful of crises. If Kd places such uncommon
emphasis on the promise to the patriarchs in Genesis, then it is striking that
the same Kd makes no reference to the said promise at the beginning of the
liberation from Egypt in Exodus. According to Blum, this exposes a second fun-
damental perspective of Kd on the relationship between yhwh and Israel.
Kd underlines, namely, that the liberation from Egypt had to do with yhwhs
concern for his people, which is distinct from the promise to the patriarchs.163
Moreover, and in like fashion to the Deuteronomistic History, Kd subordinates
the prophets in Num. 1112 to Moses and situates them in the latters wake.
Finally, Blum argues, the DKomposition sees itself as torah, which is evident
from the specific arrangement of laws and narrative segments.
In an appendix to the first part of his study, Blum discusses the relationship
between tradition and composition. For the patriarchal narratives, the mate-
rial Kd employed appears to be reasonably recognisable. For the exodus, Sinai
and wilderness traditions, Kd probably made use of a more or less coherent
Moses account, probably to be dated after 722 bce but containing older mate-
rial, which Blum considers to be discernible.164
In addition to Kd, Blum also accounts for a PKomposition or Kp.165 In
his opinion, however, the latter should be considered neither a redaction
nor a source,166 nor should it be identified with the final redaction of the
163 Blum, Studien, 190: Die Befreiung aus gypten wird eben nicht einfach abgeleitet aus der
vorlaufenden Verpflichtung Gottes, sondern betont als erneute Zuwendung jhwhs zu dem
bedrngten Israel (3,7ff.16) eingefhrt.
164 On the basis of his study of Exod. 4:2426, Blum thus proposes that this passage is part
of the Moses tradition: cf. E. Blum & R. Blum, Zippora und ihr ( Ex. 4,2426),
in: E. Blum et al. (eds), Die Hebrische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift
fr Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen 1990, 4154. Similarly to Blum, J. Jeon,
The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-critical Study in Exodus 34 and 513
(FAT, 60), Tbingen 2013 argues that the three layers he distinguishes within the call nar-
rative exhibit a very close affinity to Dt/Dtr literature (243).
166 Blum, Studien, 222: M.E. handelt es sich bei den priesterlichen Texten aufs Ganze gesehen
um eine nicht-selbstndige Textschicht (...). Zugleich freilich will sich die eigentmliche
Geschlossenheit und Sperrigkeit zentraler priesterlicher Texte gegenber der vorgegebe
nen berlieferung (Kd) nicht in das bliche Bild einer Redaktion fgen. (...) Z.T.
Pentateuch.167 Indeed, Blum situates the composition of the Pentateuch as we

now have it in the Persian period. The Persian Empire set out to establish a
single official version of the regional laws of each of its subject peoples. To
this end, the Deuteronomistic and Priestly circles were obliged to reach a
compromise,168 a compromise that was to serve as the foundation for the pres-
ent structure of the Pentateuch.169
erweisen sich die priesterlichen Texte eben als Bearbeitungen, die in Anlehnung an und
im Zusammenspiel mit der vor-priesterlichen berlieferung gedeutet werden wollen, z.T.
aber stehen sie distanziert, kontrastierend oder gar korrigierend neben der vorgegebenen
berlieferung, ohne mit dieser harmonisiert werden zu wollenund zwischen diesen
Mglichkeiten ist wiederum mit einer Reihe von Zwischentnen zu rechnen (italics
H.A.). Blum chooses to speak of a Komposition. In the present authors opinion, however,
the fact that he does not consider Kp to be a redaction, implies a particularly narrow
understanding of the concept redaction. If we define the term redaction as a process
whereby two or more independent sources or traditions are bound together on the basis
of minor interventions and redactional notes, without the redactor making creative use of
the material he had at his disposal, then Blums reluctance to use the term is completely
justified. Rmer, Lcole de Heidelberg, 80 represents Blums perspective as follows: Si KP
est bel et bien une rdaction par rapport KD, lcole sacerdotale a en mme temps utilis
des textes qui avaient t crits auparavant et des documents indpendants.
167 Blum, Studien, 285. It should also be clear that Blum rejects the hypothesis of an author
who collected disparate material upon which basis he drafted his own work. See in
this regard, E. Blum, Historiographie oder Dichtung? Zur Eigenart alttestamentlicher
Prosaberlieferung, in E. Blum et al. (eds), Das Alte Testamentein Geschichtsbuch?
Beitrge des Symposiums Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne anlsslich
des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (19011971), Heidelberg, 18.21. Oktober 2001 (Altes
Testament und Moderne, 10), Mnster 2005, 6586.
168 Compare, however, with E. Otto, Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im
Buch Exodus, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReception
Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 61111.
169 To a certain degree, similar reference to a D work and a P work can be found in the writ-
ings of the Swedish exegete I. Engnell. For a solid and detailed overview of Engnells
Gamla Testamentet. En Traditionshistorik Inledning i, Stockholm, 1945 (part ii never
appeared) reference can be made to D.A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel:
The Development of the Traditio-Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special
Consideration of Scandinavian Contributions (SBL DS, 9), Missoula, MT 1975, 261274. See
also Engnells articles The Tradition-Historical Method in Old Testament Research and
The Pentateuch in Y. Engnell, A Rigid Scrutiny, Nashville, TN 1969, 5067. For Engnells
standpoints in general, reference can be made to Methodological Aspects of Old
Testament Study, in Congress Volume. Oxford 1959 (SVT, 7), Leiden 1960, 1330.
218 Chapter 4
In the last analysis, Blum considers it impossible to speak of the final

redaction of the Pentateuch. Indeed, after the emergence of the P
Komposition, a variety of hands introduced changes to the text. Blum
thus recognises a variety of reworkings and additions that can be broadly
characterised as Priestly or Deuteronomistic170Blum speaks here of
170 Blum identifies a number of post-Priestly Deuteronomistic additions (Exod. 15:25b-

26[27]; 16:45, 2829; 18). He suggests, for example, with respect to Exod. 16: Sie [i.e. the
redactional verses 45, 2829H.A.] setzen unverkennbar die priesterliche Erzhlung als
Grundlage voraus, fhren diese aber in der Diktion und in der Motivik dtr berlieferung
weiter (Blum, Studien, 361). Blum also speaks of a Joshua 24-reworking. Thus Gen. 35:17
does not only constitute the prototypical representation of Josh. 24, both pericopes are
connected to one another via the theme of Josephs grave at Shechem (Gen. 33:19; 50:25b,
26; Exod. 13:19; Josh. 24:32). In contrast to Die Komposition der Vtergeschichte, Blum sees
this Joshua 24-reworking as eine Bearbeitung aus der deuteronomistischen Schule, der
nicht nur das DtrG und die D-Komposition im Pentateuch vorgegeben war, sondern (...)
auch die priesterliche Hauptkomposition im Pentateuch (Blum, Studien, 363365, esp.
364). He also speaks of a -reworking (Exod. 14:19a; 23:2033*; (32:34a); 33:2, 3b*, 4;
34:1127; Judg. 2:15), all the elements of which are mostly associated with the Deuterono
m(ist)ic problem. This -reworking presupposes both the Deuteronomistic History
and Kd, but it was unfamiliar with the Joshua 24-reworking and the Priestly elements in
Joshua, and probably also with Kp (365378). In line with Blum, also Albertz, Exodus 118,
24 accepts a Malak Redaktion. On the relationship between Deuteronom(ist)ic parts
in the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua, see H. Ausloos, The Book of Joshua, Exodus
23 and the Hexateuch, in: E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua (BETL, 250), Leuven 2012,
259266.
Blum concludes as follows: Wollen wir dennoch ein verallgemeinerndes Urteil ber
die Traditionsbildung nach den Hauptkompositionen wagen, dann dies, da die greren
Beitrge sozusagen den Bahnen von Kd bzw. Kp folgen: Neben den zur D-Familie
gehrenden Malak-Texten und der Jos-24-Bearbeitung stehen die Weiterfhrungen
der priesterlichen Hauptkomposition im Pentateuch und in Josua. Mit dem Befund der
D- und P-Kompositionen zusammengenommen ergibt sich daraus fr die nachexilische
Zeit das komplexe Bildin sich wohl differenzierterdeuteronomistischer und pries-
terlicher Kreise, die vermutlich ber lngere Zeit nebeneinander (...) die berlieferung
der Mose-Tora weiterfhrten und ausgestalteten (378).
In his article Das sog. Privilegrecht in Exodus 34,1126: Ein Fixpunkt der Komposition
des Exodusbuches, in Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus, 347366, Blum situ-
ates the so-called Privilegrecht (Exod. 34:1126) as a late development within the evo-
lution of the Pentateuch, in contrast to the accepted position that the said pericope
represents the basic text from which themes such as covenant theology and the Sabbath
command developed. Kompositionsgeschichtlich, Exod. 34:1126, moreover, presup-
poses Kd. Exod. 34:1126 is part of einer Traditionsbildung, die literarisch im Horizont
eines Gro-Kontextes vom (Proto-)Pentateuch [i.e. KdH.A.] und Vorderen Propheten
eine postdeuteronomistische Fortschreibung.171 He thus concludes: Die

Endredaktion gibt es nicht.172
In later studies, Blum distances himself to a degree from the initial magni-
tude of his Kd. The D-Komposition no longer includes texts from Genesis:
It seems that the Priestly editor(s)/author(s) was (were) the first to bring
together into one continuous literary opus the three major traditions of the
Pentateuch: the primeval history, the narratives of the patriarchs, and the exo-
dus narrative.173
1.2.3 GenesisNumbers as Deuteronomistic Introduction to the

Deuteronomistic History
Roger N. Whybray takes a unique position in Pentateuch research, aligning
himself with a number of authors who consider the Pentateuch to be a late
composition.174 He thus adopts the proposition of Mayesin his turn indebted
to Rendtorff, namely that the composition GenesisNumbers never existed
as an independent entity.175 According to Mayes, GenesisNumbers was cre-
ated as an introduction to the Deuteronomistic History. This view explains
the fact that the Pentateuch does not contain a complete presentation
of the settlement of the Promised Land. Since the narrative segment of the
arbeitet und die mit ihrem theologischen Anliegen unmittelbar auf die Situation ihrer
Zeitgenossen im frhnachexilischen Juda zielt (366).
171 E. Blum, Der kompositionelle Knoten am bergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein
Entflechtungsvorschlag, in Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic
Literature, 181212, esp. 192. See also E. Blum, Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvtern
und Exodus. Ein Gesprch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen, in Gertz et al. (eds),
Abschied vom Jahwisten, 119156. See also E. Blum, Zwischen Literarkritik und Stilkritik.
Die diachrone Analyse der literarischen Verbindung von Genesis und Exodusim
Gesprach mit Ludwig Schmidt, ZAW 124 (2012), 492515, esp. 508511.
172 Blum, Studien, 380. Cf. also Idem, Gibt es die Endgestalt des Pentateuch?, in J.A.
Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume. Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 4657 and E. Blum,
Die Feuersule in Ex. 1314eine Spur der Endredaktion?, in Roukema (ed.), The
Interpretation of Exodus, 117138.
173 E. Blum, The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the
End of the Book of Joshua, in Dozeman, Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist?, 89106,
esp. 106.
174 R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOT SS, 53),
Sheffield 1987. Cf. also Idem, A Response to Professor Rendtorffs The Yahwist as
Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism, JSOT 3 (1977), 1114.
175 Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 167168. Whybray also refers to the
study of Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist. Cf. Mayes, The Story of Israel between Settlement
and Exile, 139149.
220 Chapter 4
Deuteronomistic History already commenced with the narrative of the settle-

ment of the land, the author of the Pentateuch no longer needed to repeat
it. The latters responsibility, rather, was to write a narrative dealing with the
history of the people to the point at which it reached the borders of Canaan.176
Whybray also agrees with the position of Van Seters, according to whom
a historiographer (the Yahwist)using disparate materialwas responsible
for the realisation of the Pentateuch.177 Van Seters appealed in this regard to
the analogy between the Pentateuch and Greek historiographers, in particu-
lar Herodotus. While Herodotus almost certainly made use of already existing
material, his work must be seen nevertheless as that of a single creative author
who used literary techniques that are also characteristic of the Pentateuch.
According to Whybray, the Pentateuch is thus the result of the writing activ-
ity of one single author, who borrowed from material transmitted in oral and
written form.178 In this respect, Whybray in fact offers a new version of the
Fragment Hypothesis. At the same time, however, he diverges from Van Seters.
Van Seters accounted for Priestly and even post-Priestly additions and as a
result his Yahwist was not responsible for the final form of the Pentateuch. For
the dating of the Pentateuch, Whybray also refers to the work of Van Seters, as
well as the position of Rendtorff and Schmid, who associate the said composi-
tion with the Babylonian exile.
Whybray refuses to make definitive statements concerning the Deuter
onom(ist)ic character of the books GenesisNumbers. Each in their own
176 Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 224; Idem, Introduction to the Pentateuch, Grand
Rapids, MI 1995, 137.
177 Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 222: It is (...) the (...) approach of seeking to dis-
cover whether, despite many inconsistencies, the Pentateuch as a whole bears the marks
of a single distinctive purpose which offers the best hope of arriving at the truth of the
matter.
178 Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 232233: There appears to be no reasons why
(allowing for the possibility of a few additions) the first edition of the Pentateuch as a
comprehensive work should not also have been the final edition, a work composed by
a single historian. (...) The analogy with Herodotus suggests that insufficient allowance
has been made for deliberate variations of style and compositional method on the part
of a single author. On the discussion concerning the material used by the author of the
Pentateuch, see 235242. Whybray reacted here against the vision of S. Sandmel, The
Haggada Within Scripture, JBL 80 (1961) 105122, among others. According to Sandmel,
the Pentateuch came into existence by analogy with the Midrash. He thus denies the exis-
tence of a single author and sees the Pentateuch more as the result of a constant process
of correction and supplementation of existing material.
way, and in line with Perlitt, Schmid and Rendtorff had pointed to the
Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in GenesisNumbers. While Whybray does not
set out to deny a Deuteronom(ist)ic influence in GenesisNumbers,179 he
considers it rash nevertheless to ascribe GenesisNumbers to a Deuterono-
m(ist)ic author simply on the basis of its kinship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature.180 Whybrays primary intention is to demonstrate that the books in
question never existed as an independent entity, but that they were written
by a single author as an introduction to the Deuteronomistic History, making
use of material from a variety of sources. He refuses to adopt a standpoint on
the Deuteronom(ist)ic features of GenesisNumbers.
1.2.4 Deuteronomist and Chronist

Similar to Whybray, William Johnstones perspective can also be considered
somewhat unconventional. At the beginning of the 1970s, Johnstone became
intrigued by the presence of so-called Deuteronomistic additions in the book
of Exodus.181 His intuition convinced him that the said passages had to be
more than individual and otherwise accidental interpolations. The point of
departure for Johnstones understanding of the Deuteronomistic components
in GenesisNumbers is unusual, however, namely the structure and thematic
content of Chronicles. According to Johnstone, the final redactor of Chronicles,
who was part of the Levitical school,182 wanted to offer a considered theo-
logical perspective on the exile and on pre-exilic Israel. This unique concept
was created on the basis of material available to him from SamuelKings
and reworked in an original manner and with a characteristically theological
179 Whybray, Introduction, 138: Both works, the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History,
are didactic, concerned to inculcate variety of lessons to their readers.
180 Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 225: To prove that the Pentateuch as we have it
is basically a Deuteronomic work it would be necessary to demonstrate that the material
which it contains has been arranged and edited in its entirety in accordance with a com-
prehensive and consistent plan and has a structure which is wholly in accordance with a
Deuteronomic theology; and this neither Schmid nor Rendtorff has succeeded in doing.
181 Cf. W. Johnstone, The Use of the Reminiscences in Deuteronomy in Recovering the Two
Main Literary Phases in the Production of the Pentateuch, in Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied
vom Jahwisten, 247273.
182 W. Johnstone, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy in Pentateuchal Studies, with Special
Reference to the Sinai Pericope in Exodus, ZAW 99 (1987), 1637, esp. 19. Cf. also Idem,
Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application (JSOT SS, 275), Sheffield 1998.
222 Chapter 4
concern into an independent composition.183 In the genealogical section

1 Chron. 19the Chronist thus underlined Israels vocation to holiness in
the midst of the alien nations. Using a stylistic construction that located the
tribe of Levi in a central position among the other tribes, the Chronist set out
to designate the ideal mechanism whereby Israel could best fulfil its vocation
to holiness: the tribe of Levi acquired the task of standing guard of Israels
holiness. In Johnstones view, Chronicles is also a theological reflection on the
fact that the definitive eschatological return from exile depends on Israels
reconciliation,184 although the actual return had already taken place from a
historical perspective in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Every initiative for
this reconciliation, however, belongs to God. Thus, while it waits for this escha-
tological return, Israel is expected to maintain the Levitical holiness precepts.
The priests, after all, were not spared the exile.185
Johnstone begins by exposing the analogy between the Levitical final
redactor of Chronicles and the Priestly final redactor of the Sinai pericope.
According to Johnstone, the characteristic intention found with the Chronist,
whereby 1 Chron. 19 presents itself as a composite narrative with theological
rather than historical concerns and with a stylised construction of the tribes
around Levi as accentuation of Israels vocation to holiness, can also be found
in substance in the way the final redactor (P) put together the Sinai narrative
in ExodusNumbers. In Num. 4, the tribes of Israel are clearly structured. At
the same time, the root appears as a constant in Exod. 19:1Num. 10:10.
Furthermore, the Sinai pericope is alsoin the first instancea theologi-
cal narrative in which Israels call to holiness is central. Moreover, both the
external framework of the Sinai pericope (Exod. 15:2218:27 and Num. 10:1136)
and the central portion thereof are composed exclusively with a view to
proclamationand not the transmission of historical information, by anal-
ogy with Chronicles.186
With respect to the framing narrative, the said intention is evident in the
first instance in the inadequate chronology. Too many events are situated
183 W. Johnstone, Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles, in: J.D. Martin,
P.R. Davies (eds), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane (JSOT SS, 42),
Sheffield 1986, 113138, esp. 113.
184 According to Johnstone, Guilt and Atonement, 114115 Chronicles presupposes the books
of EzraNehemiah.
185 Cf. 1 Chron. 5:2741.
186 One the historical range of the events narrated in the book of Exodus, see W. Johnstone,
The Exodus as Process, ExpT 91 (1980), 358363; Idem, Reactivating the Chronicles
Analogy, 3134.
between the fifteenth day of the second month (Exod. 16:1) and the beginning
of the third month (Exod. 19:1). In addition, certain institutions are presup-
posed that de facto did not yet exist. Reference can be made in this regard to
Exod. 16:3334, a passage that alludes to both the tabernacle (Exod. 2540) and
the Decalogue (Exod. 20:117).
The emphasis placed on the tabernacle by the final redactor via the reca-
pitulation of Exod. 2531 in Exod. 3540 is evidence that the central segment
is also written with theological concerns. As a result, the tabernacle becomes
the central element in the Sinai narrative.187 The Sinai pericope also exhibits
a clear analogy with the eschatological emphasis established by the Chronist.
The priests, moreover, are also presented in Exodus in a similarly negative man-
ner: they are held responsible for Israels apostasy in worshipping the golden
calf (Exod. 3234), which was to result in the exile (Exod. 32:34). At the same
time, and in parallel with 1 Chronicles, the Levites are elevated in rank above
the priests in Exod. 32. Against this background, Exod. 3540, which deals
with the tabernacle, also acquires its own function. In the plan of the final
redactor, the tabernacle is much more than a mere prefiguration of the
(second) temple. On the contrary, the Priestly final redactor of the Pentateuch
uses it to allude to the spiritual exile and to the future awaiting those in exile.
His concern is the way God is present in the wilderness, even before the spiri-
tual return to an eschatological home.188
In Johnstones view, therefore, the claim that Chronicles, in its final form, is
an ideologically inspired, theologically and eschatologically oriented work can
also be made by analogy for the Sinai pericope.
After alluding to the (synchronic) analogy that exists between the modus
operandi and intention of the final redactors of Chronicles and the Sinai peri-
cope, Johnstone sets out to determine whether this analogy can be extended to
the diachronic level. As already stated, the Chronist was familiar with the Deu
teronomistic History, namely SamuelKings, and offers a reworking thereof.
As a result, Johnstone considers it plausible that the Priestly final redactor was
187 Johnstone points, furthemore, to the analogy between 1 Chron. and Exod. 24, for example,
with respect to the hierarchical presentation of Moses as mediator between yhwh and
the people. After Moses comes Joshua, then Aaron and Hur, and while the elders climb
the mountain, the young remain at its foot with the people. The house of David is pre-
sented in a similar fashion in 1 Chron. 24: At the apex by means of the symmetrical
arrangement of successive groups of the House of Judah (Johnstone, Reactivating the
Chronicles Analogy, 22).
188 Johnstone, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 24. This was also the purpose of the
Chronist: cf. Idem, Guilt and Atonement, 134.
224 Chapter 4
also familiar with an earlier Deuteronomistic edition of the Sinai pericope and
made use of it in the composition of his work.189
Johnstone begins by underlining a number of connections between Exodus
and the Deuteronomistic History. Reference can be made here to the simi-
larity between the golden calf worshiped by Israel at Sinai (Exod. 32:4) and
the golden images at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:28; 2 Kgs 17:16). Johnstone also
emphasises the relationship between the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant
(Exod. 23:2033) and the conclusion of the conquest narrative in Judg. 2:15.190
Furthermore, the similarity between the references to the construction of
store cities in Exod. 1:11 and 1 Kgs 9:19 is striking. According to Johnstone, to
conclude, the Sea Narrative can be conceived by analogy with the narrative
of crossing the Jordan in Josh. 34.191 In Johnstones opinion, these connec-
tions between Exodus and the Deuteronomistic History cannot simply be dis-
missed as sporadic glosses.192 On the contrary, the Deuteronomistic History
should be given chronological priority with respect to Exodus.193 Johnstones
189 Johnstone, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 25.

190 Johnstone, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 2526. Johnstone considers Exod.
23:2033, because of the connection with the language and function of Judg. 2:15, the
prima facie indication for the Deuteronomistic redaction of Exodus: The relationship
between the two passages is established not simply by the coincidence of vocabulary
but by the corresponding key function which they both discharge within their contexts:
Ex. 23,2033 is the coda to the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 20,2223,33); Jdc 2,15 is the
coda to the account of the Settlement in the Land (Jos 1,1Jdc 2,5). Further, Ex. 23,2033
functions in a way similar to Deut 27f. As the code in Deut 12,126,15 is succeeded by a
paraenetic section promising the blessing of the covenant on an obedient people and
threatening the curse of the covenant on a disobedient people, the blessing and curse
being then demonstrated in the ensuing Deuteronomistic history, so the Code in Exodus
20,2323,19 is bound by the Deuteronomist into his presentation of covenant and of the
course of the history of Israel as dominated by the blessing and curse of the covenant by
this passage, Ex. 23,2033, and its counterpart, Jdc 2,15. See also Idem, The Use of the
Reminiscenses in Deuteronomy, 250 on the parallels between Exod. 23:2033 and Judg.
2:15: It seemed to me that a fresh unbiassed eye could only regard these two passages as
coming from the same source.
191 Johnstone refers in this regard to R. De Vaux, Histoire ancienne dIsral: Des origines
linstallation en Canaan, Paris 1971, esp. 361364.
192 W. Johnstone, The Deuteronomistic Cycles of Signs and Wonders in Exodus 113, in:
A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart
Anderson (JSOT SS, 152), Sheffield 1993, 166185, esp. 167.
193 W. Johnstone, Exodus (Old Testament Guides), Sheffield 1990; 21995, 79: That the pen-
ultimate redaction of Exodus should be termed Dtr (Deuteronomistic) rather than
simply D (Deuteronomic) is indicated in a number of places in the Horeb pericope
argumentation for this position runs as follows: (1) Johnstone begins by deduc-
ing the post-Deuteronomistic character of the pre-Priestly redaction of Exodus
from the analogyin terms of both content and functionbetween Exod.
23:2033 and Deut. 2728; Judg. 2:15.194 (2) He then points to literal agree-
ments between Exod. 32:4b, 8b and 1 Kgs 12:28b.195 (3) According to Deut.
4:1015:5 the basis of the covenant was formed by the Decalogue God himself
had written.196 The ( Deut. 5:31) are only referred to in passing.197
In the Deuteronomistic edition of Exodus, however, the acquire
their full scope via the inclusion of the Book of the Covenant. Reference
is likewise made in Exod. 24:3 to that Moses wrote down. As a
result, both the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant are the foundations
on which the covenant rests in the Deuteronomistic edition of Exodus. In a
similar way, the Decalogue is once again ascribed a central position in Deut.
10:15 in the renewal of the covenant after the incident with the golden calf.
(as we should now call it in the D-version). Cf. also Idem, Reactivating the Chronicles
Analogy, 27. In The Two Theological Versions of the Passover Pericope in Exodus, in:
R.P.Carroll et al. (eds), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson (JSOT SS, 138),
Sheffield 1992, 160178, esp. 167, Johnstone makes no apparent distinction in his use of the
terms Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic. He speaks, for example, of a Deuteronomic/
Deuteronomistic text underlying in Exod. 13:37. A few lines further he refers to an
underlying Deuteronomic text in Exod. 13,37.
194 Johnstone, Exodus, 79: The promise (and implied threat) at the conclusion of the Book
of the Covenant (Exod. 23,2033), which corresponds to the blessing and curse of the
covenant in the full-scale D presentation of covenant in Deuteronomy 2728, includes
that of the presence of the angel to lead the people into the land, if they will be obedient
(cf. Exod. 33,26). This promise is explicitly taken up in thought and expression in Judg.
2,15, which is the epilogue precisely to DtrH-s account of Israels actual experience at
the entry into the land. The present author considers it particulary premature to charac-
terise the pericope Exod. 23:2033and on that basis the entire pre-Priestly redaction of
the Pentateuchas Deuteronomistic without further ado, on account of the similarities
between Deut. 2728 and Judg. 2:15See e.g. H. Ausloos, The Angel of yhwh in Exod.
xxiii 2033 and Judg. ii 15. A Clue to the Deuteronom(ist)ic Puzzle?, VT 58 (2008) 112.
195 Cf. the reference to gods in the plural, which is unusual for Exod. 32 given that the nar-
rative deals with only one golden calf. At the same time, Johnstone points to the strong
simlilarities between Exod. 32:5 and 1 Kgs 12:32 (Johnstone, Reactivating the Chronicles
Analogy, 27).
196 Johnstone, Exodus, 78: According to the D scenario, Mosess task is to muster the people
to the foot of the mountain, where the Ten Commandements are spoken directly to
them out of the awesome fire and other accompaniments of theophany as the basis of the
covenant relationship between God and people.
226 Chapter 4
In Exod. 34, by contrast, both the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant
are seen as the basis for the renewed covenant. Indeed, Exod. 34:67, 14, 17
contains a clear reference to the first commandment of the Decalogue in Deut
5:710. According to Johnstone, Exod. 34:1826 quotes a large portion of Exod.
23:1219. By referring to the beginning of the Decalogue and the end of the
Book of the Covenant, the Deuteronomistic redactor of Exod. 34 sets out to
emphasise thatby analogy with the first covenantthe Decalogue together
with the Book of the Covenant should be considered the basis for the renewed
covenant.198
Based on the parallels between Exodus on the one hand, and Deuteronomy
and the Deuteronomistic History on the other, Johnstone considers it possible
to trace the original Deuteronomistic edition of the book of Exodus, before
it was reworked by the Priestly final redactor.199 He elaborates this claim for
198 This disctinction between Ds approach and the approach of the Deuteronomistic
redactor of Exodus of the foundation of the original and the renewed covenant provides
the key to the interpretation of the problematic verse
( Exod. 34:28b). Who wrote the ten words according to Exod: 34:28 and
what was their intention? Based in the analogy between Exod. 34:1, 4*, 28 and Deut.
10:14, Johnstone deduces that yhwh should be seen as the subject of . At the
same time, it is evident from Deut. 10:14 that the expression refers to the
Decalogue: It may be doubted whether Dtr intended to convey anything different in Ex.
34,28bthat, exceptionally, Moses was the writer of the ten words and that the ten
words were other than the Decalogue. Rather, into his accurate transcription of his D
source, he has incorporated the wider conception of the written basis of the covenant, as
it was originally made and as it was renewed, which is evident in his edition of Ex. 1924*;
31,1834,28* (W. Johnstone, The Decalogue and the Redaction of the Sinai Pericope in
Exodus, ZAW 100 [1988], 361385, esp. 363)For the inclusive Deuteronomistic redaction
of Exod. 1934*, reference can be made to Idem, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy,
2731. The Deuteronomistic redactor of Exodus added v. 27, a verse that has no parallel in
Deuteronomy, to Exod. 34:28. In so doing, the said Deuteronomistic redactor wanted to
point out that the Book of the Covenant also formed the basis of the renewed covenant in
addition to the Decalogue. At the same time, Exod. 34:27 thus corresponds to Exod. 24:3,
which, according to Johnstone, refers to the Book of the Covenant as co-foundation of the
original covenant (cf. Idem, The Decalogue, 362365; Idem, Exodus, 8081).
199 According to Johnstone, moreover, several passages from Exodus display evidence of
typically Deuteronom(ist)ic language. Johnstone also considers this phenomenon as not
simply a matter of sporadic glosses but of deliberate editorial design (Johnstone, The
Deuteronomistic Cycles, 167). The language and style related arguments he uses in sup-
port of the Deuteronomistic character of the texts in question, however, are extremely
vague and thus in line with prevailing argumentation. In Exod. 24:1518, for example,
Johnstone discerns some Dc. colouring and Exod. 20:1821, he claims, has affinities with
the Dc. account of the theophany especially in Deut 5,2227. Exod. 19:37(9?) is widely
the most part on the basis of similarities between passages in Exod. 13:38*
and Deut. 16:18,200 between Exod. 20:217* and Deut. 5:621,201 and between
Exod. 34:1, 4*, 2728 and Deut. 10:14.202 In later studies, he also includes the
book of Numbers in his research.203 In each instance he insists that these
accepted by commentators as Dc. (Idem, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 2829

nn. 1718). Johnstone is of the opinion that these similarities corroborate his position with
respect to a pre-Priestly Deuteronomistic redaction of Exodus, by analogy with the modus
operandi of Chronicles: As the extant S-K text attests the text received by the Chronicler
and modified for his purpose, so (...) a text still extant in Deut enables the reconstruction
of the text of the D-writer in Ex, which the P-writer has received and reconceived for his
purpose (26). Cf. also Idem, The Deuteronomistic Cycles, p. 167: Deuteronomy provides
material that enables the reconstruction of a pre-final edition text (I should call it pre-P)
in Exodus. Further Idem, The Two Theological Versions, 161: The book of Deuteronomy,
more broadly, the Deuteronomistic History, provides a text parallel to material in the
book of Exodus which enables a pre-P Deuteronomistic text to be recovered in the book
of Exodus which was subsequently re-edited by the P-writer.
200 Johnstone, The Two Theological Versions, 166170.
201 Johnstone, The Decalogue, 361385.
202 Johnstone, The Two Theological Versions, 161162; Idem, The Decalogue, 361365. See
also Idem, Exodus, 7778 on Exod. 31:18 and Deut. 9:10; Exod. 32:15 and Deut. 9:15; Exod.
24:12, 18 and Deut. 9:9. For the reconstruction of the D version of Exod. 32:20 on the basis
of Deut. 9:21, and of Exod. 32:2529 on the basis of Deut. 10:8 reference should be made
to Idem, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 2627. Johnstone also claims to be able
to reconstruct the pre-Priestly Deuteronomistic redaction of Exod. 118 on the basis of
material transmitted in D. For Exod. 15:2218:27, for example, he points to the difference
between D and Ps view of the expedition in the wilderness, from the crossing of the Sea to
the arrival at Mount Sinai (Idem, Exodus, 8182; cf. Idem, From the Sea to the Mountain:
Exodus 15,2219,2A Case-Study in Editorial Techniques, in Vervenne (ed.), Studies in
the Book of Exodus, 245263; for Exod. 3234, see Idem, From the Mountain to Kadesh:
With Special Reference to Exodus 32,3034,29, in: Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy
and Deuteronomic Literature, 449467. Johnstone also claims to be able to reconstruct
the original Deuteronomistic composition of the Plagues Narrative in Exod. 711 on the
basis of material from Deuteronomy and Joshua2 Kings (cf. Idem, The Deuteronomistic
Cycles, 169184). See also Idem, The Ten Commandments. Some Recent Interpretations,
ExpT 100 (1989), 453459; 461; Idem, The Portrayal of Moses as Deuteronomic Archetypal
Prophet in Exodus and Its Revisal, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.), The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet
as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist (OTS, 45), Leiden 2001,
159174; W. Johnstone, The Revision of Festivals in Exodus 124, in: R. Albertz, B. Becking
(eds), Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era (Studies
in Theology and Religion, 5), Assen 2003, 99114.
203 See, for example, Johnstone, The Use of the Reminiscences in Deuteronomy, 247273;
Idem, Recounting the Tetrateuch, in: A.D.H. Mayes, R.B. Salters (eds), Covenant as
Context: Essays in Honour of E.W. Nicholson, Oxford 2003, 209234.
228 Chapter 4
conclusionsthe thoroughgoing editing by the P-edition of an existing

coherent version of Israels past down to the exile, the D-version, which com-
prised the Tetrateuch of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy itself, so
far as these are Deuteronom(ist)ic and led on the end of II Regum, by means
of substantial interpolations, reuse and transpositions, so that that Tetrateuch
becomes the present Pentateuchare not surprising (...) in the light of the
Chronicles analogy.204
It should be noted by way of conclusion that Johnstone does not consider
the Deuteronomistic or the Priestly versions of GenesisNumbers to be inde-
pendent sources. He underlines, by contrast that both editions should be
approached as a redaction in the fullest sense of the word.205 In addition,
Johnstone also considers it plausible that one single Deuteronomistic redac-
tion was responsible for the realisation of the Deuteronomistic composition.206
In a creative manner, P reworked the Deuteronomistic redaction of Exodus,
just as the Deuteronomistic redaction introduced its own accents to the mate-
rial it had at his disposal.207
204 Johnstone, The Use of the Reminiscenses in Deuteronomy, 272273. According to

Johnstone, however, it is not always possible to distinguish Ps unique contribution
unequivocally from the Deuteronomistic redaction employed: Since the P-writer may
quote, and write in the manner of, the D-writer, it may on occasion be virtually impos-
sible, where external evidence is lacking, to disentangle the two (Idem, Reactivating the
Chronicles Analogy, 28 n. 17). Cf. also what Johnstone writes about the lists of nations
in Exod. 13:5: Ex. 13,5a is pure Deuteronomic and may have belonged to the underly-
ing D-version (although it could be P-reuse of Deuteronomic clichs) (Idem, The Two
Theological Versions, 168).
205 Johnstone, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 28 n. 17; Idem, Exodus, 86. See also Idem,
Chronicles and Exodus, 12. On the pre-Deuteronomistic origins of the material used by the
Deuteronomistic redactor, see 3437 and Idem, Exodus, 78. See also Idem, The Use of the
Reminiscences in Deuteronomy, 250.
206 W. Johnstone, Review of B. Renaud, La thophanie du Sina. Ex. 1924 (Paris, 1991), JTS 43
(1992), 550555, esp. 554.
207 For a general picture of the theological accents unique to the Deuteronomistic and
Priestly redactions, the reader is referred to Johnstone, Exodus, 105113. See further
W. Johnstone, P as Editor: The Case of Exodus 4:1826, in: J. Aitken et al. (eds), On Stone
and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies (BZAW, 420), Berlin 2011, 225238.

Part of One or More Deuteronomistic Redactions
In the preceding paragraph we focussed our attention on exegetes who

associated the origins of a form of GenesisNumbers with a late, post-
Deuteronomistic redaction or author. In the present paragraph we will briefly
present a selection of studies in which the composition of the Pentateuch is
associated with one or more Deuteronomistic redactions or Deuteronomistic
authors. In other words, the biblical scholars to be explored in the follow-
ing pages locate Deu teronomistic redactional activity within Genesis
Numbers on the same level as (part of) the Deuteronomistic activities in the
Deuteronomistic History. At the same time, a distinction can be made between
two major tendencies. A few examples of each of these tendencies will be
treated below.
Bernard Renaud, Jacques Vermeylen, Thomas B. Dozeman and Peter Weimar
place the emphasis on one or more Deuteronomistic redactions of Genesis
Numbers.208 In the second part of the present paragraph we present two
authorsthe Dutch exegetes Casper J. Labuschagne and Cornelis Houtman
who likewise ascribe an important role to the Deuteronomistic redaction with
respect to the genesis and evolution of GenesisNumbers. Their hypotheses,
however, are clearly much more tentative in nature.
208 The view of Reinhard Kratz can also be introduced here. Kratz accepts three independent
Ursprungslegenden (1 Sam.2 Kgs*; Gen. 235*; Exod. 2Josh. 12*), which were com-
bined in early post-exilic times to form a Henneateuch encompassing Exodus2 Kings:
R.G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzhlenden Bcher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der
Bibelkritik (UTB, 2157), Gttingen 2000. Es exodus narrative (ExodusJoshua) was thus
connected to the Deuteronomistic narrative material in 1 Sam.2 Kgs (DtrG) by the book
of Judges (DtrR), woraus sich die seit Wellhausen immer wieder beobachteten (nach)
deuteronomistischen Zustse in ExNum wie auch die literarischen Querverweise auf
den Exodus in DtnReg (DtrS) erklren (312). The Priestly work (Gen. 1Exod. 40*; Lev.*)
came into existence at the same time and was incorporated relatively quickly into the
Henneateuch. This inclusive work was then subject to post-Deuteronomistic and post-
Priestly additions. For Kratz model, see also E. Zenger, G. Braulik, Die Bcher der Tora/des
Pentateuch, in: E. Zenger (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Fnfte, grndlich berar-
beitete und erweiterte Auflage (Kohlhammer Studienbcher Theologie, 1,1), Stuttgart 2004,
60187, esp. 118122.
230 Chapter 4
2.1 Deuteronomistic Redaction(s) in GenesisNumbers

The studies of Renaud and Vermeylen, which we will address first, can be char-
acterised as a sort of Supplementary Hypothesis. In other words, they consider
GenesisNumbers, or at least part of this corpus, to be the result of a gradual
supplementation of one or more documents. Both scholars thus set out to
distance themselves in a critical manner from the Documentary Hypothesis.
On the other hand, and this is important for the Deuteronom(ist)ic question,
they pay a great deal of attention to the contribution of various consecutive
Deuteronom(ist)ic redactions.209 A similar interest in Deuteronomistic redac-
tion can be found in the work of Dozeman, who focuses particular attention
on the contribution of the said redaction to the wording of the Sinai pericope.
Weimar in his turn distinguishes two Deuteronomistic reworkings of the
Pentateuch.210
2.1.1 J. Vermeylens Four Deuteronomistic Redactions

Vermeylen rejects the position defended by Rendtorff that the tradition of the
patriarchs (Gen. 1236)characterised by the theme of the promiseand
the tradition of the exodus from Egypt (Exod. 114) were only combined at a
relatively late date.211 Indeed, the exodus from Egypt is not presented in the
book of Exodus as a return to the land promised to the patriarchs. Rendtorff
was also of the opinion that the narratives concerning Abraham, Isaac and
209 S. Tengstrm, Die Hexateucherzhlung, Lund 1976, 16 also supports eine literaturgeschichtli
che Erweiterungstheorie. According to him, the Hexateuch is based on eine grosse
Israelsage from the first half of the 11th century bce (14). The Deuteronomists built fur-
ther on this ancient account. On the one hand, they created the book of Deuteronomy
and ascribed it a place in the whole, while on the other they conceived of the work fol-
lowing on from the Hexateuch as far as 2 Kings. It should be emphasised, however, that
both works came into existence gradually. Reference should also be made to the activity
of the Priestly authors who reworked and supplemented the material left behind by the
Deuteronomists.
210 Equally A. Schart, Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie
zu den Wustenerzhlungen (OBO, 98), Gttingen 1990. Schart distinguishes two
Deuteronomistic redactions: Dje, der dem deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen
Traditionsraum zuzurechnen ist, sich aber in manchem auch von der dtn-dtr Literatur
und ihren Konzeptionen unterscheidet, reworked the JE-layer in Exod. 17:2, 7; Num.
10:33, 3536(?); 11(?); 14:1125, 3945(?). Subsequent to P and the Endredaktion, a second
D-layer can be seen at work in Exod. 15:25b-26; 16:45, 2829.
211 J. Vermeylen, La formation du Pentateuque la lumire de lexgse historico-critique,
RTL 12 (1981), 324346, esp. 331; cf. Idem, La Formation du Pentateuque: Bref historique de
la recherche et essai de solution cohrente (CTEP), Bruxelles 1990, 4245. (henceforth La
Formation du PentateuqueCTEP).
Jacob were linked to one another via the theme of the promise, and that dif-
ferent layers ought to be distinguished from one another where reference is
made to the promise in Gen. 1236. This position forms the point of depar-
ture for Vermeylens approach to the origins of the Pentateuch. The promises
spoken of Gen. 1236 can be distinguished from one another on a variety of
points. At the same time, each of the different promises has its own Sitz im
Leben. The promise of an abundance of descendents, for example, is to be
situated within the groups questioning of its future and can best be under-
stood against the background of the exile, when the people of Israel was facing
crisis.212 The promise of a son underlines the communitys need for an indi-
vidual leader, suggesting that the context is one of dynastic succession and
the problems associated therewith.213 According to Vermeylen, this was the
central concern of a Yahwist who wrote at the time of Solomon. The motif
of the promise of the land requires further subdivision. The promise is made
to Abraham in Shechem, Bethel and Hebron respectively that the land shall
belong to his descendants. The narratives intention is to provide a theological
legitimation for the sovereignty of the king of Hebron with respect to the tribes
in the remained of Palestine. It corresponds thereby with the story of David
in 1 and 2 Samuel.214 According to Vermeylen, other promises in the book of
Genesis that also refer to a promise of the land to the patriarchs are clearly to
be ascribed to the Deuteronomistic school.215 In Vermeylens opinion, this dis-
tinction between different promises in Genesis leaves space for passages of the
Yahwist type within a hypothesis on the origins of the Pentateuch as a whole.
According to Vermeylen, the literary genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch
can be understood as follows. First we should account for a number of sto-
ries that circulated at the time of David (Dv).216 A Yahwist (J) from the time
212 This promise occurs in different forms: the promise of ( Gen. 15:5; 16:10; 22:17; 26:4, 24;
28:14; 32:13); the promise that the people will become a great nation (Gen. 12:2; 18:18; 21:13,
18; 46:3); Gen. 48:16 (Vermeylen, La formation du Pentateuque, 330331 n. 19).
213 Cf. Gen. 15:4; 18:914.
214 For Vermeylen, the argumentum e silentio also plays a not unimportant role: Le silence
des traditions anciennes de lExode concernant la promesse de la terre est donc logique:
cette promesse nest pas ralise par la conqute; mais par la politique de David; elle na
rien voir avec la sortie dgypte (Vermeylen, La formation du Pentateuque, 331).
215 Cf. Gen. 15:7; 24:7; 26:3; (28:13?)Vermeylen, La formation du Pentateuque, 331: Cette
reprise insistante de lancienne promesse de la terre a trouv un cho trs naturel au
moment o Isral tait priv de sa terre. Cette fois, il sagit bien de loccupation de la terre
promise, et il est significatif que cette promesse est reprise en Ex. 32,13 et 33,1, Dtr.
216 These originally independent stories from the time of David (Dv) comprise (1) a narra-
tive of origin, the structure of which is more or less identical to that of the Atrahasis
232 Chapter 4
of Solomon then grafted his own material to the said stories.217 As such, the
Yahwist in question put togetherfor the first timea coherent narrative
extending from Gen. 2:4b to (probably) 1 Kgs 2.218 This Solomonic Yahwist
was primarily interested in dynastic succession: the successor to the throne
is not the person the people expect, but the one yhwh has chosen, in spite
of the fact that he is not the oldest. Around 700 bce, the Yahwistic document
Epic (Gen. 2:4b-5*, 78*, 1823; 6:13*, 78*; 7:12*, 45, 10a, 12a, 17b, 23*; 8:23*, 6, 813*,
2022*, 2122*; 9:2025*) (2) a narrative concerning Abrahams migrations (Gen. 12:1*,
47*, 8*; 13:1417*, 18; 15:912*, 1718*); (3) a narrative about Isaac (Gen. 26:1*, 710, 16a,
17a, 23.25*, 2629a, 3031); (4) a narrative about Jacob (Gen. 25:21, 2428*; 27:114*,
1623, 3034, 3944*; 29:115, 18b-20a, 28b, 30a; 30:2324; 31:3, 2123, 4653*; 32:1, 14,
2332*; 33:1*, 4, 1618); (5) a Joseph story (Gen. 37:3a, 4, 12, 13, 14b, 18, 25b-27, 28b; 39:1b,
2123; 40*; 41:136*, 39ab, 40, 4243a, 4748, 5354a; 42:57*). It is possible that the story
of the exodus was also committed to writing at the time of David (Exod. 1:8, 11; 12:2133*;
14:530*; 15:2021)Idem, Le Dieu de la promesse et le Dieu de lAlliance: Le dialogue des
grandes intuitions thologiques de lAncien Testament (LD, 126), Paris 1986, 2328. In La
formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 6063, Vermeylen also ascribed Gen. 28:1019*; 45:4,
913*, 21a, 26a, 28; 46:1a, 2830 to Dv.For Dv, see also Idem, Les premires tapes lit-
traires de la formation du Pentateuque, in: De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en ques-
tion, 149197, esp. 169174; 182187. For the study of Gen. 27, reference can be made to
Idem, Le vol de la bndiction paternelle: Une lecture de Gen. 27, in: C.H.W. Brekelmans,
J. Lust (eds), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the xiiith IOSOT
Congress Leuven 1989 (BETL, 94), Leuven 1990, 2340. See also J. Vermeylen, Lcole deu-
trnomiste aurait-elle imagin un premier canon des critures?, in: T. Rmer (ed.), The
Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147), Leuven 2000, 223240; J. Vermeylen,
Une tape majeure dans la formation du canon des critures: luvre deutronomiste, in:
J.M. Auwers, H.J. de Jonge (eds), The Biblical Canons (BETL, 163), Leuven 2003, 213226.
217 Vermeylen ascribes the following narratives to J: (1) In Gen. 23*, J connects the Dv nar-
rative of creation (Gen. 2*) to an ancient paradise narrative and addsmaking use of an
old tradition relating to the Kenitesa narrative concerning Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:15*,
810, 12b, 16a); in addition, J incorporates an old narrative concerning the tower of Babel
(Gen. 11:19*); (2) J takes over the Dv narratives concerning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
and expands them (Gen. 1236*); (3) J also expands the Joseph story (Gen. 37:58; 38;
48*); (4) J supplements the primitive exodus narrative (Exod. 1:6*, 8, 22; 2:13, 56a, 10b,
1113*, 14a, 15b-22a; 3:14, 7a*, 1617a; 4:14*, 67, 1016*, 2426a, 2730, 31b; 15:2225a;
17:17*)Vermeylen, La formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 6669 (cf. Idem, Le Dieu de
la promesse, 2832). See also Idem, Les premires tapes littraires, 160168; 179182;
187191.
218 Vermeylen, La formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 68 refers, for example, to Judg. 6:1516,
21; 13:2, 7, 21; 1 Sam. 16:113; 17:1231; 2 Sam. 7:5b, 12a.
underwent an Elohistic redaction.219 As a result, Vermeylen considers neither

E nor J to be independent documents. He sees them rather as authors who
supplemented the texts they had at their disposal with their own material.
The JE-work that thus came into being was then subject to four Deutero
nomistic revisions (Dtr585; Dtr575, Dtr560 en Dtr525),220 all to be ascribed
to the movement that was responsible for the composition or reworking of
Joshua2 Kings and of the old prophetic books (including Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Amos and Micah) during the exile. Vermeylen further elaborates his hypoth-
esis of four Deuteronomistic reworkings on the basis of a study of the story of
the golden calf in Exod. 32.221
Setting aside the Elohistic222 and Priestly223 components that can still be
found in the text of Exod. 3234, Vermeylen is of the opinion that the nar-
rative in question can be characterised in its entirety as Deuteronomistic.
Taking irregularities in the text as his point of departure, he distinguishes
four Deuteronomistic redactions, each of which introducing its own accent to
the narrative. (1) Exod. 32:34 states that yhwh will postpone the punishment
until the day of accounting. (2) Exod. 32:14 insists that yhwh grants forgive-
ness without further ado. (3) According to Exod. 32:35ab, yhwh punishes
219 Vermeylen considersprovisionallythe following passages to be Elohistic: Gen. 20:1

18*; 21:821*, 2234*; 22:119*; 25:2934*; 28:2022*; 31:1113*; 35:1, 7, 1618; 37:3b, 1925a,
28a, 2936; 39:720; 40:1, 3*, 5*, 15; 41:12a*, 14a*; 42:7, 924, 2937*; 43:15*; 45:13*; 46:25*;
Exod. 1:1520*; 2:4, 6b-10a; 3:1b*, 4.6a, 10*; 13:1718a; 18:127*; 19:2b-3a, 16a, 19; 20:121*;
31:18*; 32:15*. Certain passages from Gen. 3750 and Numbers are probably also part of E
(see Vermeylen, La formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 7475).
220 Vermeylen, Le Dieu de la promesse, 113114. With respect to the Deuteronomistic compo-
nents of GenesisNumbers, see also J. Vermeylen, Dix cls pour ouvrir la bible (Bible de
Jrusalem), Paris 1999.
221 J. Vermeylen, Laffaire du veau dor (Ex. 3234): Une cl pour la question deutrono-
miste?, ZAW 97 (1985), 123. Cf. also Idem, Les sections narratives de Deut 511 et leur
relation Ex. 1934, in: Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, 174207; Idem, LExode, chemin
de libert, Bruxelles 1992, 229245.
222 After E had related that Moses ascended the mountain (Exod. 24:13b) and that he had
received the stone tablets (Exod. 31:18b*), E still had to make mention of Moses descent
from the mountain. This is found in Exod. 32:1516* (Vermeylen, Laffaire du veau dor,
12). As a result, Vermeylen denies the existence of an underlying J layer: Nous navons
donc en Ex. 3234 aucune trace dun rcit crit antrieur au vii e ou mme vi e sicle (2).
223 Vermeylen distinguishes two Priestly redactions (P1 and P2). In Exod. 32, he only discerns
traces of P1. With respect to Exod. 3334 he states: La rpartition des lments de type
sacerdotal entre P1 et P2 est plus difficile ici quailleurs (Vermeylen, LExode, 255). P1 con-
sists of: Exod. 32:16*, 15a*, 2124; 33:1820, 22a, 23; 34:5. Exod. 33:711; 34:23, 2935 are
probably to be ascribed to P2 (232233; 244245; 255256).
234 Chapter 4
the guilty people immediately. (4) Exod. 32:2529, 35b, to conclude, makes
a distinction between the guilty and the innocent. Thus Aaronand not the
peopleis held responsible for the golden calf in Exod. 32:35b. According to
Vermeylen, these different perspectives correspond to the four different redac-
tions that the narrative has undergone.
In the first version (Dtr585)characterised by Deuteronomistic language
and themes224Moses intervenes on behalf of the guilty people.225 As a result
of his intervention, yhwh does not punish immediately; Israel is only to be
punished on the day of accounting (Exod. 32:34). With the fall of Jerusalem, the
day of accounting has apparently dawned. It is probable that the redactor thus
wanted to explain why yhwh had rejected his people. It is also probable that
he wrote shortly after this event, when yhwh was being accused of dealing
unjustly with his people. As a result, the author of the basic Deuteronomistic
narrative wanted to make it clear that the inception of Israels sin was already
very early.
In the second Deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr575)likewise characterised
by Deuteronomistic language and theologyyhwh is presented as a gentle
and merciful God.226 This redaction sets out to give an answer to the persistent
reproach placed by the exiles at yhwhs door with respect to the destruction
of Jerusalem.
The third Deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr560) reacted to the protest of the
second generation of exiles227 who did not consider themselves to blame for
the exile. The redaction in question thus set out to bring hope to the exiles by
stating that punishment was restricted to the first generation and that the exile
itself would soon come to an end.
According to the fourth Deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr525), yhwh makes
a distinction between guilty and innocent Israelites, postulating that only the
group associated with Aaron could be held responsible for the incident with
the golden calf.228 According to Vermeylen, the Sitz im Leben of this redaction
is to be located in the situation that emerged after the return from exile, when
224 Vermeylen, Laffaire du veau dor, 67.

225 The Deuteronomistic redaction covers Exod. 32:710*(, 1516(E)), 19, 20*, 3032a, 33a, 34*.
226 This redaction covers Exod. 32:1112, 14, 34*.
227 Dtr560 consisted of Exod. 32:20b, 32b, 33.35aba. Also Exod. 33:1, 56, 1214; 34:828a is
part of Dtr560. According to Vermeylen, this redaction also exhibits clear agreements
with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
228 Dtr525 can be found in Exod. 32:16*, 8b, 10*, 13, 1718, 2529, 35.
the returning exiles were confronted with those who had remained in Judah.229
The former group was held to blame for the sin of Israel, while the latter was
spared because of its fidelity to yhwh.
Vermeylen thus claims to be able to discern four different Deuteronomistic
redactions at work in Exod. 32, which he designates with their presumed
date, Dtr585, Dtr575, Dtr560 and Dtr525 respectively. Vermeylen is convinced
that the said Deuteronomistic redactions can be discerned throughout the
Pentateuch as a whole.230
Vermeylen is also of the opinion that his position on the aforementioned
related yet distinct Deuteronomistic redactions, each with its own focus
of interest, undermines the argumentation of those authors who speak of
229 For the dating of the return from exile around 525 bce, Vermeylen concurs with the posi-
tion of S. Herrmann, Geschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit, Mnchen 1973, 368370.
230 I limit myself here to a summary of the successive Deuteronomistic redactions in Genesis
Numbers. The respective passages from Exod. 32 are not included in the following over-
view. According to Vermeylen, Dtr585 and Dtr575 are not always easy to distinguish from
one another. Exod. 20:26; 24:3b are almost certainly from Dtr585. Dtr575 can be found
in Gen. 3:14, 1618a, 2021; 4:1b, 67, 1112a, 1315, 16b; 6:56; 8:21a; 13:513*; 18:1633;
19:127; Exod. 5:13, 5; 7:1424*; 7:258:11*; 8:1628*; 9:17, 1335*; 10:129*; 20:22a, 2426
and 23:20, 23 as framework of the Book of the Covenant; 24:35*, 8, 1213*; 33:24, 12a,
1517, 21, 22b; 34:67; Num. 13*; 14*. Dtr560 can be found in Exod. 3:78*; 4:1*, 5, 89,
31*; 12:2527a, 34, 39; 13:316; 14:1014, 31; 15:25b-26; 16:45, 2931, 35a; 23:2122*, 2433*;
24:35, 8; 23:2133*; 33:1, 56, 12b14; 34:810a, 11, 12, 1428a; Num. 11:46, 1016a, 1823,
3134. Dtr 525 is evident in Gen. 4:1726; 5:28b-29; 12:2*, 3b; 13:316*; 15:1b-2, 56; 16:10;
21:13, 18; 22:1518; 26:45, 25; 28:14; 46:3; Exod. 3:2122; 11:23; 12:3536; 19:3b-8; 20:22a-23;
23:21b, 25, 31b; 24:67, 13*, 1415a (Vermeylen, Le Dieu de la promesse, 114118; see also
Idem, Laffaire du veau dor, 21; Idem, La formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 8487). In
LExode, passim, Vermeylen ascribes additional passages to the Deuteronomistic redac-
tions, including Exod. 1:9, 10, 12, 20*, 21; 2:10*, 21; 3:1*, 6*, 15, 16*, 1720*; 11:1, 46*; 14:7; 15:19,
23*; 17:1, 2, 6*, 713, 15, 16; 18,:1*, 24, 6*, 811, 21*, 25*; 20:710, 12*, 17*; 21:1*, 1517; 22:1719,
2021*, 2324*, 2630; 23:9*, 1213; 24:18; 34:1.4see also Idem, LExode, chemin de libert.
SupplmentEssai de rpartition du texte selon ses rdactions successives, Bruxelles 1992,
1122; Idem, Lcole deutrnomiste aurait-elle imagin un premier canon des critures?,
in: Rmer (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, 223240, esp. 234235. For a
study of Gen. 4:1726; 5:28b-29, reference can be made to Idem, La descendance de Can
et la descendance dAbel (Gen. 4,1726 + 5,28b-29), ZAW 103 (1991), 175193.
According to Vermeylen, the thesis of consecutive Deuteronomistic redactions in
GenesisNumbers opens new perspectives with respect to the genesis and composition
of the book of Deuteronomy and the remainder of the Deuteronomistic History, as well as
the passages in the prophetic books considered to be Deuteronomistic. See in this regard
J. Vermeylen, Les sections narratives de Deut 511, 174207.
236 Chapter 4
proto-Deuteronomic elements in GenesisNumbers. The scholars in question

used elements in support of their thesis akin to but not identical with the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.231 Nevertheless, Vermeylen likewise argues that
the Deuteronom(ist)ic language did not appear out of the blue in monolithic
form. Indeed, the Deuteronomic movement drew upon the thought of the
major prophets for its ideas, particularly, in Vermeylens view, the prophet
Jeremiah.232
Vermeylen, to conclude, also discerns Priestly components in the Penta
teuch, whereby he distinguishes between P1, P2 and the Holiness Code (Lev.
1726).233 In his opinion, P1 should not be considered an autonomous and orig-
inally independent document. He prefers to see it as a redaction of the existing
Deuteronomistic composition from the Persian period,234 a period character-
ised by disillusionment after the euphoric return from exile. The returnees
had hoped that Israel would recover the glory it had known under David and
Solomon. With the exception of the reconstruction of the temple, however,
there was little evidence of the expected glory. In this context, P1 rewrote the
Pentateuch with the intention of bringing renewed hope to a discouraged peo-
ple. In spite of evidence to the contrary, the worldof which God is the cre-
atoris perfect. According to Vermeylen, a number of elements were added to
the text (P2) in the final phase, at the time of Ezra.235

233 Here Vermyelen concurs with the distinction made between Pg and Ps. According to
Vermeylen, La formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 9495, the following verses belong
to the basic Priestly narrative (P1): Gen. 1:12:3; 2:44:26; 5:132*; 6:98:22*; 9:14, 817*,
2829; 10:132; 11:1026, 27a, 3132; 12:4b-5; 13:6, 11b-12*; 16:3, 1516; 17:127*; 21:17*; 23:12*,
19; 25:711*, 1220, 26b; 28:1022*; 29:24, 29; 30:122; 31:120*, 24, 29, 3842; 32:23, 2333*;
33:111*; 35:3, 6, 915, 2729; 36:143; 37:12, 911; 41:136*, 3757*; 45:58; 46:67; 47:5b-
12, 27b-28; 48:34, 57*; 49:1a, 2933; 50:1213, 26; Exod. 1:1a, 24, 5b, 6b-7; 2:23b-25; 3:13,
15ab; 4:14*, 17; 6:212; 7:17, 813, 15b, 17a, 1820a, 2122, 29; 8:13, 10, 11b, 1215, 1819;
9:45, 6b-7, 812, 1416, 2223a, 25b-26, 3132, 35; 10:13a*, 1213a, 19b-20, 2123, 27; 11:1b,
4a*, 710; 12:3738, 4042; 13:20; 14:12, 4b, 1517, 21*, 2223, 25a, 2627a, 2829; 15:27;
16:13, 618, 2126, 35b-36; 17:1a, 5b*, 8b*, 9b*; 19:1, 1013a, 1415a, 16a, 1718; 20:11, 1819;
24:15b-16, 18a; 25:131:11*; 32:2124*; 3540*; Lev. 9*; Num. 10:1112*; 13:121*, 2526, 32a;
14*; 20, 121*, 2229; 27:1223*; Deut. 34:19*.
234 In its reworking of the Deuteronomistic Pentateuch, P1 probably made use of already
existing material (cf. Vermeylen, La formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 101).
235 Including Gen. 3:15; 6:11, 13b; 9:56; 15:23; 26:3435; 27:46; 28:19; 34; 35:5*; Exod. 1:13
14; 5:4, 623; 6:25; 7:3; 9:12; 10:20, 27; 14:4; Num. 25:618 (Vermeylen, La formation du
PentateuqueCTEP, 104).
2.1.2 Two Deuteronomistic Redactions of an Elohist Basic Narrative

In a study from 1991, Renaud explored the Sinai theophany pericope.236 His
work likewise takes leave of a source-critical approach and he tends rather to
support a combination of a Supplementary Hypothesis and a Fragmentary
Hypothesis. In Exod. 1924, Renaud discerns a pre-exilic Elohist basic narra-
tive from the beginning of the 8th century bce that speaks about a theophany
on the mountain (Exod. 19:2b-3a, 1011a, 13b, 1417, 19; 20:18b, 20), and prob-
ably contains an elementary Decalogue, reference to a meal in the presence of
God (integrated into Exod. 24:911) and a ritual (integrated into Exod. 24:48).
In Renauds view, this basic Elohistic narrative does not extend to include the
entire Pentateuch. He sees it rather as an isolated tradition that later under-
went a number of reworkings. A first Deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr1) (Exod.
19:2b, 38, 1011a, 13b, 1417, 19; 20:17, 910, 1217, 18b, 20; 24:48) preserved
the basic Elohistic narrative, but provided it with a framework in Exod. 19:3b8
and 24:48, thereby underlining the theme of the covenant.237 Dtr1 was depen-
dent on the first layer of Deut. 5 (Deut 5:1, 611, 1421). The Decalogue has a
central place in Dtr1. Moreover, Exod. 1924 is given its definitive structure by
Dtr1 at the end of the exile.
The second Deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr2) (Exod. 19:2b11, 13b, 1419;
20:17, 910, 1217, 1821; 20:2223:33) retouched Dtr1 and added the so-called
Book of the Covenant (Exod. 21:123:19) and its framework (Exod. 20:2126;
23:2033) at the beginning of the return from exile.
The distinction Renaud makes between the two Deuteronomistic redac-
tions is based on Exod. 19:3b9. Although the pericope in question is charac-
terised in its entirety by a markedly Deuteronomistic use of language, he still
considers it impossible to ascribe it to one and the same hand. First, the intro-
ductory formula in in Exod. 19:9 is a doublet of v. 3. Second, via
the verb , v. 9 recapitulates the wording of v. 8 (). Third, there is a degree
of incoherence between vv. 3b-7, in which yhwh speaks to the people, and
v. 9, in which yhwh addresses himself to Moses. Fourth, it would appear that
v. 9 belongs with Exod. 19:38 on account of the doublet with v. 8, while it has
more to do with vv. 1013 in terms of content.
236 B. Renaud, La thophanie du Sina Ex. 1924. Exgse et thologie (CRB, 30), Paris, 1991. See
also B. Renaud, La formation de Ex. 1940: Quelques points de repre, in: P. Haudebert
(ed.), Le Pentateuque: Dbats et recherches : xivme Congrs de lACFEB, Angers (1991) (LD,
151), Paris 1992, 101133.
237 Cf. also L. Schmidt, Israel und das Gesetz: Ex. 19,3b8 und 24,38 als literarischer und
theologischer Rahmen fr das Bundesbuch, ZAW 113 (2001), 167185, esp. 177, who argues
that both pericopes, together with Exod. 20:22, 23, are due to a post-exilic redactor.
238 Chapter 4
According to Renaud, a short Priestly narrative (Exod. 24:1, 911) came

into existence in parallel with Dtr1 and Dtr2, making use of older material.
A Priestly authorthe final redactor of the Pentateuchwas responsible for
the final version of Exod. 1924 after the exile.
In Renauds view, these various steps exhibit a progressive enrichment, not
only at the literary level, but also in terms of theology. The Elohistic basic nar-
rative offered a theophany in which emphasis was placed in the religious and
moral fear of God. The two Deuteronomistic redactions used the Elohistic
narrative as the framework for a narrative concerning the conclusion of the
covenant in which the revelation of the divine law also acquired a place. With
the Priestly redaction, this law acquired a relatively autonomous place vis--
vis the covenant. The figure of Moses is likewise presented in different ways.
In the Elohistic basic narrative he is presented as the leader of the people and
privileged intermediary between God and Israel. The emphasis placed by Dtr1
on the prophetic mission of Moses was made absolute by Dtr2: Moses becomes
the prophet par excellence. According to the Priestly redaction, Moses was also
lawgiver in addition to prophet.
It should also be noted by way of conclusion that Renaud considers it dif-
ficult to say anything about the precise background and Sitz im Leben of the
Deuteronomistic redaction.238 In his opinion, the term Deuteronomist goes
hand in hand with a literary approach and has nothing to say about the histori-
cal and sociological background of the said traditions. He thus differs funda-
mentally with Vermeylen in this regard.239
238 Renaud, La thophanie du Sina, 196: Les deux rdactions deutronomistes ne doivent
gure tre loignes lune de lautre dans le temps, puisquen elles affleurent des points
de similitude avec Dt 4, un des textes les plus tardifs du Deutronome, mais aussi avec
quelques crits prophtiques du dbut du retour de captivit. On proposerait donc la
fin de lpoque exilique pour la date de composition de Dtr1, et le dbut du retour dexil
pour Dtr2. (...) Mais tout cela ne reste gure quhypothse de travail. On ne peut omettre
de mentionner aussi la difficult didentifier les milieux porteurs de ces traditions. Si lon
connat assez bien la physionomie des responsables sacerdotaux, en revanche, le back-
ground des rdactions deutronomistes reste encore trs flou. Le terme mme deut-
ronomiste relve dune approche littraire. Il ne nous claire gure sur larrire-plan
historique et sociologique de ces traditions. Quand que lon naura pas clair lorigine
du Deutronome et le milieu o est ne cette tradition, on peut craindre que la question
navance gure.
239 See also B. Renaud, Lalliance, un mystre de misricorde: Une lecture de Ex. 3234 (LD, 169),
Paris 1998; Idem, Lalliance au cur de la Torah (Cahiers vangile, 143), Paris 2008.
2.1.3 The Deuteronomist on the Mountain

The Sinai pericope in Exod. 1924(34) undoubtebdly is one of the core pas-
sages in the discussion about the Deuteronomists presence in Genesis
Numbers. Because of the close correspondences between these chapters and
Deuteronomy, Blenkinsopp, for example, considers Exod. 1934 to be basically
a Deuteronomic composition, which, at a later stage, acquired its place within
the P narrative complex.240 In a study of the composition and history of the
origin of the so-called Sinai pericope in Exod. 1924,241 Dozeman discerns a
tradition related to the mountain of God. The narrative in question begins by
announcing the arrival of the people of Israel in front of an otherwise unnamed
mountain (Exod. 19:2b-3a). It then goes on to relate two days of preparation for
a theophany (Exod. 19:1011a, 12a, 13b-15a), together with the theophany itself
(Exod. 19:1617). The theophany narrative is rounded off with a sacrificial ritual
performed by young Israelites at the foot of the mountain (Exod. 24:4ab5).
Originally, Exod. 1924 was thus a story of theophany and sacrifice and there
was no mention whatsoever of the promulgation of a divine law. According
to Dozeman, this theophany tradition is to be characterised as pre-exilic. The
static and permanent presence of God in the midst of the din of thunder and
lightning supports such a dating. This fact corresponds, moreover, with the
Zion/Zebaoth theology specific to the pre-exilic cult in Jerusalem.
The theology of divine presence was then interpreted anew by Deuterono
mistic and Priestly redactors, who simultaneously introduced their own
respective legal corpuses into the original Sinai pericope. The late (pre-)
exilic Deuteronomistic redaction expanded the narrative of the mountain of
God by introducing the Deuteronomic laws (the Book of the Covenant and
the book of Deuteronomy).242 As a result, the story of Israels stay at the foot
of the mountain of God became an ideal context for the conclusion of the
240 J. Blenkinsopp, Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative (Exodus 1934), in:
E.E. Carpenter (eds), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content. Essays in
Honor of George W. Coats (JSOT SS, 240), Sheffield 1997, 109125, ep. 115.
241 T.B. Dozeman, God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus
1924 (SBL MS, 37), Atlanta, GA 1989cf. also Idem, Spatial Form in Exod. 19,18a and in
the Larger Sinai Narrative, Semeia 46 (1989), 87101.
242 Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 37 n. 1: I have chosen to use the term deuteronomis-
tic because (...) the redaction of Exodus 1924 most likely corresponds to what has
been described as the first deuteronomistic redaction (dtr1). In contrast to E. Zenger,
Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichts
werk (FzB, 3), Wrzburg 1971, 164165, for example, Dozeman recognises only one
Deuteronomistic redaction in Exod. 1924, which took up and expanded upon the three-
fold structure of the original narrative.
240 Chapter 4
covenant and the proclamation of the law.243 At the same time, the
Deuteronomistic redaction was also critical of the static and permanent pres-
ence of yhwh as it was presented in the narrative of the divine mountain.
The Deuteronomistic redaction underlined, rather, the provisional char-
acter of Gods presence on the mountain, by analogy with the function ful-
filled by mount Horeb in the first Deuteronomistic redaction of the book of
Deuteronomy.244 As a result, the Deuteronomistic redaction placed the
emphasis on the mobility of God in contrast to the static features ascribed
to God in the original divine mountain narrative. At the same time, the
Deuteronomistic redaction relocated Gods dwelling from the mountain to
heaven.
The Priestly redaction further supplemented the Deuteronomistic narra-
tive as it had thus evolved with a view to introducing its own legal material.
Under the influence of the Priestly redaction, the narrative of divine revelation
on the mountain evolved into a Sinai narrative.245
In his commentary on the book of Exodus, Dozeman appears to be well-
disposed towards the view of Van Seters. He uses the siglum Non-P to
describe the earliest history in the Pentateuch, which likely extends into the
Deuteronomistic history.246 The Non-P history, which incorporates diverse
material from a variety of different periods, shares many of the perspectives of
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, although each body of litera-
ture undergoes a distinct history of composition.247 According to Dozeman,
this Non-P narrative is probably best dated in the post-exilic period, since in
243 Dozeman ascribes Exod. 19:3b-5ba, 6b-8a, 8b-9a, 19; 20:120; 20:2123:33; 24:34a, 7 to the
Deuteronomistic redactors.
244 Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 7071: I would identify [the Deuteronomistic redaction
in Exod. 1924H.A.] with the first redaction in the Book of Deuteronomy, probably in
the late monarchy period. This would mean that the first deuteronomistic redaction in the
Book of Deuteronomy [to be found, for example in Deut. 5:16:3H.A.] is pentateuchal
in nature, that is, the revelation of the Decalogue at Mount Horeb in Deuteronomy is
simultaneously anchored in Exodus 1924. In that case, the Book of Deuteronomy is not
meant to function independently, but as part of a larger epic about Israels formative
encounter with God at the mountain. (...) The second deuteronomistic redaction is not
pentateuchal in nature. Rather it is limited primarily to the Book of Deuteronomy (Deut
4:140).
245 Dozeman ascribes Exod. 19;5b-6a, 11b, 12ab-13, 15b, 16a, 18, 2025; 24:12, 6, 8, 911, 15b18a
to the Priestly redaction.
246 T.B. Dozeman Commentary on Exodus (The Eerdmans Critical Commentary), Grand
Rapids, MI 2009, 39.
247 Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus, 39.
many places the Non-P History is clearly post-Deuteronomistic, for example,

in the story of the golden calf, where Exodus 32 is later than Deuteronomy
910 and 1 Kings 12.248 According to Dozeman, the Non-P History combined
the promise to the patriarchs in Genesis with the narrative of the exodus in
ExodusDeuteronomy. The repetition of themes such as the death of a gen-
eration (Exod. 1:6; Judg. 2:810) and the story of the golden calf (Exod. 32;
Deut. 910; 1 Kgs 12) would be indications of the post-Deuteronomistic charac-
ter of this Non-P History.249
2.1.4 The Deuteronomist and the Mnster Model

In his study entitled Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch,
Peter Weimar provided a highly detailed literary critical analysis of the narra-
tives in Gen. 12:1020; 20; 26:111.250 Making use of older material, a Yahwistic
work emerged at the time of Solomonat the earliestin which the gift of
the land to Abraham and Moses constituted the Leitmotif. An Elohistic collec-
tion of nine narratives circulated in parallel with this J account. As a result of
the Assyrian threat in the 8th century bce, influence from wisdom literature
and a preference for material from foreign countries emerged. The JE redactor
who combined J, E and the aforementioned material, however, should be seen
as a creative author rather than a mere collector of material. Indeed, the said
RJE elaborated its own theological programme in the service of the reform of
Hezekiah. The conclusion to this JE account is to be found in Josh. 24, thus
allowing one to speak already of a Hexateuch at the pre-Priestly level. Under
the influence of the fall of Jerusalem in 587 bce, the JE account underwent a
first Deuteronomistic reworking in the early exilic period. This reworking was
inspired by the so-called Ur-Deuteronomy and was responsible for, among
other things, the introduction of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:217). A second
exilic or early post-exilic Deuteronomistic reworking introduced the Book of
the Covenant together with Exod. 3:8b, 17, 21, 22. This reworking was part
of an extensive reworking that combined JE with the Deuteronomistic History
to form an entirely new historical work extending from Gen. 2:4b to 2 Kgs 25:30.
A variety of texts in the Priestly tradition also came into existence during the
248 Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus, 40.

249 See also T.B. Dozeman, The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis, in Dozeman,
Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist?, 107129. On the Deuteronomistic redaction in
Exodus, see also T.B. Dozeman, God at War: Power in the Exodus Tradition, New York 1996,
passim.
250 P. Weimar, Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch (BZAW, 146), Berlin
1977.
242 Chapter 4
exile. In the early post-exilic period, a Priestly historical work emerged, based
on the original form of JE. Secondary elements (PS) were added to this PG.
Around 400 bce, this P work was combined with the Deuteronomistic History
by RP.251
Weimars view forms the basis of the so-called Mnster model that recog-
nised two major phases in the genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch: when
the Jerusalemer Geschichtswerk consisted of Gen. 2:4bJosh. 24*, then the
deuteronomistisch inspirierte Exilische Geschichtswerk extended from Gen.
2:4b* to 2 Kgs 25.252 According to the model, it was only around 400 bce that
the Pentateuch was detached herefrom by the Pentateuchredaktion. Various
passages traditionally associated with the Deuteronomist are now ascribed to
this post-Priestly, post-Deuteronomistic Pentateuch redaction.253
2.2 GenesisNumbers as the Result of a Deuteronomistic Redaction or

Author. Extra Tentative Approaches
The atomising subdivision of the Pentateuch into a variety of sources, lay-
ers and redactions has led some scholars to distance themselves in a radi-
cal fashion from detailed and detailistic redaction-critical research, without
lapsing thereby into an exclusively synchronic approach to the text, which is
no longer interested in its origins and development. Cornelis Houtman and
Casper Labuschagne deserve particular mention in this regard.254 In spite of
251 In a study of the narrative of the golden calf in Exod. 32, Weimar comes to similar conclu-
sions: a JE-narrative undergoes two Deuteronomistic reworkings: DtrP, which is strongly
influenced by prophetic thought, and DtrN, which is particularly interested in legislation;
in addition to a few explanatory glosses, there are also still traces of RPP. Weimar, Das
Goldene Kalb: Redaktionskritische Erwgungen zu Ex. 32, BN 38/39 (1987), 117160.
252 See in this regard E. Zenger, Theorien ber die Entstehung des Pentateuch im Wandel
der Forschung and Die vor-priester(schrift)lichen Pentateuchtexte, in Zenger, Einleitung,
74123; 176187. See also P. Weimar, E. Zenger, Exodus: Geschichten und Geschichte der
Befreiung Israels (SBS, 75), Stuttgart 1975. With respect to P, see P. Weimar, Studien zur
Priesterschrift (FAT, 56), Tbingen 2008.
253 See, for example, P. Weimar, Exodus 12,2427a: Ein Zusatz nachdeuteronomistischer
Provenienz aus der Hand der Pentateuchredaktion, in Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy
and Deuteronomic Literature, 421448. See further R. Albertz, Der Beginn der vorpries-
terlichen Exodus-komposition (KEX): Eine Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von
Ex. 15, TZ 67 (2011), 223262, esp. 261, who sees a post-priestly spt-dtr. Bearbeitung in
Exod. 3:1*; 3:8b, 17*; 4:117, 20b, 2123, 2731; 5:12, 4, 20.
254 Here, also B. Adamczewski, Retelling the Law: Genesis, ExodusNumbers, and Samuel
Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (European Studies in
Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions, 1), Frankfurt am Main 2012 can be men-
tioned. In an oversimplified way, the author argues that, probably around 400 bce the
their critique of prevailing Pentateuchscholarship, they continue, neverthe-

less, to be interested in the relationship between GenesisNumbers and the
2.2.1 GenesisNumbers as part of the Deuteronomistic History

Whereas, following the narrative line of the first books of the Old Testament,
the so-called Historical books (JoshuaKings) are the continuation of the
Pentateuch, several scholars are convinced that, from a literary-historical
perspective, the Historical books came first.255 The Pentateuch was thus
conceived to be the prologue to this literary complex. As such, the origi-
nal link between Pentateuch and Historical books was highlighted. Within
this scope, several scholars revitalised the hypothesis of a Henneateuch.
In this respect, Houtman should be mentioned as one of the pioneers of this
hypothesis. Houtman is opposed in the first instance to the criteria upon which
the Documentary Hypothesis leans for support in distinguishing the various
sources.256 Objecting fundamentally to the use of the divine name, language
Israelite author of Genesis in a sequential hypertextual way reworked the contents of

Deuteronomy, in order to present its ideas in the form of a widely understandable, para-
historical narrative, which refers to humankind and Israels prehistory. Probably roughly
at the same time, the likewise Israelite author of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers com-
posed his set of writings as another sequential hypertextual reworking of Deuteronomy,
this time functioning as an extended, narrative introduction to Deuteronomy, an intro-
duction which systematically clarified and reformulated its ideas. In this way, the great
Israelite para-historical Heptateuch (GenJudg), whose stories began with the creation of
the world and ended in the transitory sanctuary at Siloh (...) came into being and could
be regarded as the narrative-rhetorical foundation of the religion of the postexilic Israel.
Still later, probably c.300 bc, the Judaean author of the books of Samuel and Kings in a
sequential hypertextual way once more reworked the contents of Deuteronomy, in order
to compose a great foundational history of Judaea, which could follow and supplement
the story of the Israelite Heptateuch (GenJudg). On this author, see O. Artus, Bulletin
dAncien Testament I: Pentateuque, RSR 100 (2012), 577588, esp. 582583.
255 See e.g. E. Aurelius, Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie
zum Enneateuch (BZAW, 319), Berlin 2003. In his view, the Deuteronomistic History
of SamuelKings gradually became expanded, thus resulting in the complex Exodus
2 Kings, thus being enclosed by Exod. 19:3b-8 and 2 Kgs 18:12. On Aurelius thesis, see
a.o. E. Blum, PentateuchHexateuchEnneateuch? Oder: woran erkennt man ein lit-
erarisches Werk in der Hebrischen Bibel?, in: T. Rmer, K. Schmid (eds), Les dernires
rdactions du Pentateuque, de lHexateuque et de lEnnateuque (BETL 203), Leuven 2007,
6797, esp. 7379.
256 C. Houtman, Inleiding in de Pentateuch: Een beschrijving van de geschiedenis van het
onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de compositie van de eerste vijf boeken van het Oude
244 Chapter 4
and style, religious conceptual universe, doubles and triplets as criteria for dis-
tinguishing between the sources, Houtman concludes that the Documentary
Hypothesis does not provide a sufficient answer to the question of the origins
and composition of the Pentateuch.
According to Houtman, the Pentateuch is best seen as a complex literary
unity, whereby scholars in the past have correctly drawn attention to irregu-
larities and tensions within the whole. Rooted in literary-critical analysis, how-
ever, this information should not lead us to the conclusion that the Pentateuch
came into existence via a combination of distinct sources that were indepen-
dent of one another.
Houtman no longer considers it possible to reconstruct the process whereby
the books of GenesisDeuteronomy emerged and evolved with any degree of
detail. It is clear to him, nevertheless, that the Pentateuch was composed on
the basis of (elements from) small(er) and large(r) narrative segments and
legal complexes, each with its own history.257 What is important here is the
fact that the Pentateuch as we now have it constitutes a substantial unity. In
the study of the composition and origins of the Pentateuch, therefore, we must
be aware of the heterogeneity of the material from which it was constructed
and of the homogeneity of the final result.
Within the form in which the Pentateuch now presents itself, Houtman
distinguishes three larger units: Genesis, ExodusNumbers and Deuteronomy.
Each of these three units has its own specific features and contains material
Testament met een terugblik en een evaluatie, Kampen 1980, 201258This monograph
has been translated into German, and published as Der Pentateuch: Die Geschichte seiner
Erforschung neben einer Auswertung (CBET, 9), Kampen 1994 (for the presentation of his
ideas on the formation of the Pentateuch, see 421455); Idem, De geschriften van het
Oude Testament. A: De Pentateuch, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Bijbels Handboek, Dl. 2A:
Het Oude Testament, Kampen 1982, 279335. Reference can also be made to Houtmans
article Verkiezing en verbintenis. Eenheid en samenhang in Exodus 1940, in: H. Baarlink
et al. (eds), Christologische perspectieven: Exegetische en hermeneutische studies. Artikelen
van en voor prof. dr. Heinrich Baarlink, uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van zijn afscheid als
hoogleraar in de nieuwtestamentische vakken aan de Theologische Universiteit van de
Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland te Kampen, Kampen 1992, 221240, in which the author
emphasis that Exod. 1940 is the result of redactional activity and is intended as a unit
(226). See also C. Houtman, Hardnekkig geloven in de minderheid: Het Oude Testament aan
het woord, in: F. de Lange (ed.), Geloven in de minderheid? Een bundel opstellen ter gelegen-
heid van het 140-jarig bestaan van de Theologische Universiteit der Gereformeerde Kerken te
Kampen, Kampen 1994, 5367, esp. 64.
257 Houtman, Inleiding, 243; cf. also Idem, De geschriften van het Oude Testament, 327;
Idem, Der Pentateuch, 422.
from a variety of origins with their own prehistory. Genesis, for example, is
a well-structured unit within which the material has been organised around
the formulas. With the exception of Num. 3:11, the formula no
longer has a role to play in ExodusNumbers. In contrast to Genesis, Exodus
Numbers speaks more or less constantly of Israel as a whole,258 whereby sub-
division into tribes has virtually no role to play. As Moses farewell address on
the plains of Moab, the book of Deuteronomy likewise exhibits characteristics
clearly distinguishable from GenesisNumbers.
Nevertheless, these three components of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus
Numbers and Deuteronomy) are clearly attuned to one another and only
have meaning in relation to one another, in spite of their specific charac-
teristics. Moreover, the promise of land made to the patriarchs throughout
GenesisDeuteronomy presupposes the book of Joshua and the books that
follow. At the same time, clear lines of connection run from one book to the
other in GenesisJoshua.259 In addition, the book of Joshua serves as a hinge
between GenesisDeuteronomy and Judges2 Kings. Houtman thus suggests
that Genesis to 2 Kgs 25 stem from the same author(s), namely the author(s)
we are inclined to designate with the predicate Deuteronomistic.260 These
258 With the exception, for example, of Exod. 1:16 and Num. 1; 32; 34.
259 Reference is made (a) in Josh. 24:32 to Exod. 13:19; Gen. 50:25; 33:19; (b) in Gen. 50:24; Exod.
13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:13a; Num. 14:23; 32:11 reference is made to the promise to the patriarchs;
(c) in Exod. 3:6, 13, 15; 4:5, yhwh is designated the God of the fathers by analogy with
Genesis; (e) Josh. 2:1; 3:1 harks back to Num. 25:1, just as Josh. 14:6 harks back to Num.
14:24,30; (f) Num. 27:18; Deut. 3:21; 31:7, 23; 34:9 refer to Joshua as the successor of Moses,
which implies the conquest of the land (compare also Num. 32:16; Deut. 3:18 with Josh.
1:12; 4:12; 22); (g) the presentation of the twelve tribes of Israel is a constant in Genesis
and Joshua; (h) Deuteronomy is entirely oriented towards the occupation of the land,
recounted in Joshua (cf. Houtman, De geschriften van het Oude Testament, 328; Idem,
Inleiding, 246; Idem, Der Pentateuch, 426327). Therefore, Houtman is more inclined to
account for the existence of the Hexateuch as a unit rather than the Pentateuch (Idem,
Inleiding, 246; Idem, Der Pentateuch, 427). As a result, he rejects the hypothesis of an
independent Deuteronomistic History. Deuteronomy cannot have been composed as
the introduction to an independent work since its content presupposes a prehistory (cf.
Idem, Inleiding, 247; Idem, Der Pentateuch, 428429).
260 Houtman, Inleiding, 247. Cf. also Idem, Verkiezing en verbintenis, 240: The heart of the
Pentateuch beats thanks to Deuteronom(ist)ic blood (translation mine). A variety of
authors had already pointed to lines of connection binding GenesisKings as a whole.
Reference can be made, for example, to A. Masius, Josuae imperatoris historia illustrata
atque explicata, Antwerpen 1574; B. Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Hamburg,
1670; J.J. Sthelin, Kritische Untersuchungen ber den Pentateuch, die Bcher Josua,
Richter, Samuels und der Knige, Berlin 1843, 1; E. Bertheau, Das Buch der Richter und Ruth
246 Chapter 4
Deuteronomistic author(s) used material from different sources and of differ-

ent ages in the composition of their inclusive work.261 It is probable that cer-
tain passages already constituted a coherent whole before they were taken up
in the inclusive composition GenesisKings.262
Given the fact that Houtman ascribes the historical work running from
Genesis to Kings to the same author(s), the work as a whole must thus be
dated after the amnesty of Jehoiakin in the second half of the 6th century bce.
Houtman has nothing to say about the dating of the material used by the said
author(s).263
(KEHAT), Leipzig 1845, xxvii. More recently, T.C. Vriezen, A.S. van der Woude, Van der
Woude, A.S., De literatuur van Oud-Isral, Wassenaar 61980, 197198 also support the exis-
tence of a Deuteronomistic work extending from Gen. 2:4b to 2 Kgs 25 (with the exception
of the Priestly passages). Cf. also D.N. Freedman, The Law and the Prophets, in Congress
Volume. Bonn 1962 (SVT, 9), Leiden 1963, 250265, esp. 264. Within the context of the study
of Exod. 115, see also G. Fischer, Exodus 115Eine Erzhlung, in: Vervenne (ed.), Studies
in the Book of Exodus, 149178, esp. 177 n. 101. See also C. Houtman, Zwei Sichtweisen
von Israel als Minderheit inmitten der Bewohner Kanaans: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zum
Verhltnis von J und Dtr(G), in Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic
Literature, 213231, esp. 230, in which Houtman consideres, for example, Gen. 15:1316,
1821; 50:24; Exod. 12:2527; 13:316; 15:25b-26; 16:4, 5; 19:3b-6; 23:2033; 24:38; 32:714;
33:13a; 34:1116; Num. 14:23; 32:11 as redactional Deuteronom(ist)ic elements that das
Lesen in Richtung auf das Deuteronomium und die folgenden Bcher steuern.
261 On the actual contribution of this/these author(s) to the realization of GenesisKings,
see Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 429430: Vielleicht wurde von ihm bzw. ihnen der Stoff
aufeinander abgestimmt und die Linien im Hexateuch durchgezogen. Er bzw. sie sind
nicht als diejenigen anzusehen, die lediglich die letzten Bauteile in ein bereits beste-
hendes Bauwerk eingefgt haben (...) oder nur bestehende Bauwerke miteinander ver-
bunden haben (...), sondern von ihm (bzw. ihnen) wurde auch das Fundament errichtet,
auf dem das Gebude errichtet wurde, wobei Stoff unterschiedlicher Herkunft, verschie-
denartigem Charakter und unterschiedlichem Alter verwendet wurde.
262 As to the material possiblility of such an encompassing literary work, see K. Schmid,
Buchtechnische und sachliche Prolegomena zur Enneateuchfrage, in: Beck, Schorn
(eds), Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt, 114, esp. 7: Von der antiken Buchrollenherstellung
her zu urteilen, ist somit eine den gesamten Textumfang von GenII Reg umfassende
Rolle zwar nicht ohne weiteres zu erwarten, auf der anderen Seite aber auch kein Ding
der Unmglichkeitsee also K. Schmid, Une grande historiographie allant de Gense
2 Rois a-t-elle un jour exist?, in: Rmer, Schmid (eds), Les dernires rdactions, 3545,
esp. 37.
263 Cf. Houtman, Inleiding, 251. In the introduction to his commentary on the book of
Exodus, Houtman summarises his thesis, drawing particular attention to the intention
of the biblical author(s), as follows. Exodus in his view is part of a comprehensive his-
torical work encompassing all the books from Genesis to 2 Kings. This work narrated the
2.2.2 The Deuteronomist and Numerical Analysis

Initially, Labuschagne, who is widely known for his numerical analysis of the
biblical text,264 supported a proto-Deuteronomic redaction of the Pentateuch
(cf. supra), which supplemented a basic Yahwistic document with traditions
from the Northern Kingdom and reworked them in the spirit of what was
later to developed as the typically Deuteronomic vision. In more recent stud-
ies, however, Labuschagne has turned his back to source criticism and form
criticism, both of which had become obsessed with the reconstruction of
the preliminary stages of the biblical text.265 His goal rather is to focus atten-
tion on the final product as we now have it, which is probably the result of a
carefully considered final redaction.266 According to Labuschagne, this final
election of Israel from among the nations for service to yhwh in the land which he has
given them, the settlement of the people in the land, and their unfaithfulness to yhwh
which results in the exile of the people. It focuses attention on the calling of the people
of Israel throughout history and thereby wishes to make plain to the contemporaries of
the author(s) (in the midle of the sixth century bc) how and why the catastrophe of 586,
the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of Judah, came about. As such, the document
is at once an ongoing call to conversion, to findelity to yhwh and his commandments.
Only when the people change their ways can there be hope in restoration at the hand of
yhwh. (...) In my opinion, the work is also a continual summons to repentance and to
faithfulness to yhwh and to his commandmentsC. Houtman, Exodus, Vol. 1 (HCOT),
Kampen 1993, 1; cf. also Idem, Exodus I: Een praktische bijbelverklaring (Tekst en Toelich
ting), Kampen 1988, 11. See also the original Dutch version Exodus, vertaald en verklaard,
Deel 1: Exodus, 1,17,13 (COT), Kampen 1986, 21. In his commentary on Exodus, Houtman
does not offer further exploration of the genesis and evolution of the book. On how we
have come to consider GenesisDeuteronomy as an independent corpus, reference can
be made to Idem, Inleiding, 252254; Idem, De geschriften van het Oude Testament, 330;
Idem, Der Pentateuch, 441446.
264 See in particular C.J. Labuschagne, Numerical Secrets of the Bible: Rediscovering the Bible
Codes, North Richland Hills, TX 2000 (= Vertellen met getallen: functie en symboliek van
getallen in de bijbelse oudheid, Zoetermeer 1992) and his particular analysis on http://
www.labuschagne.nl (access 12 June 2015).
265 Cf. C.J. Labuschagne, Neue Wege und Perspektiven in der Pentateuchforschung, VT 36
(1986), 146162.
266 Labuschagne, Neue Wege, 148149: Fordern wir die historisch-kritische Bibelwissen
schaft, insbesondere die Pentateuchforschung, auf, an ihren historischen und kri-
tischen Ansprchen festzuhalten und rufen wir sie auf, den Bibeltext, so wie dieser uns
berliefert worden ist, nmlich als historisches Dokument zu akzeptieren, dass heisst
letzteres als ein Stck Literatur zu betrachten, das irgendwann in der Geschichte seine
Endphase erreicht und wahrscheinlich auch eine eingreifende Endredaktion erlebt hat.
So sollte also nachdrcklich die Aufmerksamkeit auf den Text in seiner historischen
248 Chapter 4
redaction was also guided by, among other things, a strict numerical structure.267
Labuschagne argues that the numbers 17 and 26,268 as well as 23 and 32269 have
a very important function and provide, as it were, the composition-technical
plan upon which basis the entire book of Deuteronomy is conceived.270 Via
the symbolic numbers 17 and 26, the name of yhwh is evoked, just as the num-
bers 23 and 32 accentuate the glory of yhwh.271 According to Labuschagne,
the same compositional technique can also be found in GenesisNumbers.272
Endgestalt gelenkt werden, ohne dass gleich wieder nach seinem Werdegang gefragt
wird.
267 The phenomenon of numerical composition has long been familiar to scholars working on
the literature of Antiquity and the Middle Ages (cf., for example, E.R. Curtius, Europische
Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, BernMunich 81973, 491498). The method has only
rarely been applied to biblical literature and with few imitators (cf. O. Goldberg, Die fnf
Bcher Mosis ein Zahlengebude, Berlin 1908; P. Friesenhahn, Hellenistische Wortzahlen
mystik im Neuen Testament, Leipzig, 1935). Labuschagnes research builds further on the
work of Austrian C. Schedl, Bauplne des Wortes: Einfhrung in die biblische Logotechnik,
Wien, 1974. In analysing the numerical structure of the Pentateuch, however, one should
make a distinction between (1) the technical function of numbers as a structuring ele-
ment of a text; (2) the theological symbolism of numbers; (3) number mysticism, whereby
subjective interpretation has an important role to play. Labuschagne does not account for
the latter. Based on the hypothesis that a text is a numerical composition, Schedl devel-
oped his logotechnical method whereby the number of words in a text is registered and
inventarised per syntactic and content-based subdivision.
268 The numbers 17 and 26 represent the divine name = ( 1 or 10; = 5; = 6) or the
scriptio defectiva of = ( 11 of 20; = 2; = 4)cf. Labuschagne, Neue Wege, 155; 160.
269 The numbers 23 and 32 represent the numerical value of the word = ( 11 of 20; b =
2; w = 6; d = 4)Labuschagne, Neue Wege, 160.
270 Cf. C. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, Nijkerk 19871997. For the logotechnical method see
also Idem, On the Structural Use of Numbers as a Composition Technique, JNSL 12 (1984),
8799; Idem, Divine Speech in Deuteronomy, in: Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium,
111126; C. Labuschagne, The Literary and Theological Function of Divine Speech in the
Pentateuch, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Salamanca 1983 (SVT, 36), Leiden 1985,
154173; C. Labuschagne, Some Significant Composition Techniques in Deuteronomy, in:
H.L.J. Vanstiphout et al. (eds), Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes
and Languages in the Near East Presented to J.H. Hospers by His Pupils, Colleagues and
Friends, Groningen 1986, 121131; C. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium (Belichting van het bij-
belboek), s-Hertogenbosch 1993.
271 The symbolic number 13, which underlines the unity ( )of yhwh ( = 1; = 8; =
4), gives expression to the central theme of Deuteronomy: ( 26 + 13 = 39)
Labuschagne, Neue Wege, 162.
272 Labuschagne draws this conclusion on the basis of a sample survey of texts from Genesis
Numbers in which the numbers 23 and 32, as well as 17 and 26 emerge from the analysis
This observation leads him to the tentative conclusion that GenesisNumbers

can probably be understood as the result of an inclusive Deuteronomistic
redaction.273
see also C. Labuschagne, The Life Spans of the Patriarchs, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), New
Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published
on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap and the
Retirement of Prof. Dr. M.J. Mulder (OTS, 25), Leiden 1989, pp. 121127.
273 Labuschagne, Neue Wege, 162: Was die Pentateuchkritik anbelangt, kann schon jetzt
aufgrund einer grossen Anzahl von Stichproben im Tetrateuch gesagt werden, dass die
gleichen Kompositionstechnieken auch dort begegnen. Eerst nach einer detaillierten
logotechnischen Analyse dieses Korpus, durch die wir exakt feststellen knnen, wie
alles sich genau verhlt, knnen wir zur Auswertung gelangen und Folgerungen hinsich-
tlich des Verhltnisses zwischen Tetrateuch und Deuteronomium ziehen, wobei mit der
Mglichkeit einer sehr umfassenden und durchgreifenden deuteronomistischen Redaktion
des Tetrateuchs ernsthaft gerechnet werden sollte. Auf diese Grundlage kann der histo-
rische Werdegang des Pentateuchs aufs neue studiert werden (italics H.A.). Likewise
in Idem, The Literary and Theological Function, 169171: The great majority of all the
D-passages we have noticed from Ex. iii to Numb. xxvii have one thing in common:
their total number of words is a multiple of either 17 or 26, which render them recog-
nizable in their context. (...) Evaluating the evidence at this stage of my investigation, I
cannot escape the impression that the use of the divine numbers 17 and 26 was a tech-
nique employed specifically by the Deuteronomists, and, consequently, that there was a
radical redaction by the Deuteronomists of the Tetrateuch at the time when the book of
Deuteronomy was fused with it to form the literary unit now known as the Pentateuch.
The passages in question are: Exod. 3:1517; 4:1428; 13:119; 15:25b-26; 17:816; 19:38; 20:1
26; 24:38; 34:526; Lev. 11:4445; 14:3335; 16; 17:1014; 1826; Num. 22:2225; 27:1223.
Labuschagne adds the following remark, however: This does not mean that the list is
complete. The D-redaction of the Tetrateuch has to be restudied on the basis of this evi-
dence (170 n. 36).
In The Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch, VT 32 (1982), 268296
and Additional Remarks on the Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch,
VT 34 (1984), 9195, Labuschagne had already indicated a number of elements related
to the Pentateuchs origins. He presupposes that the formulas employed to introduce a
divine utterance (, , and )are employed consistently throughout Genesis
Numbers and can be characterised as Priestly. This Priestly redaction made use of already
existing (J and E?) material. Labuschagne adds at this juncture that the structure thus cre-
ated was disrupted by Deuteronom(ist)ic interpolations. He concludes therefore that the
elements in GenesisNumbers generally taken to be Deuteronom(ist)ic, should be dated
de facto later than the Priestly redaction. He adds the following reservation: This does not
imply, however, that the Deuteronomists were responsible for the final redaction of the
Pentateuch, since another Priestly redaction in late post-exilic times could have accepted
these additions for some reason or other. The problem of the relationship between P and
D remains (Labuschagne, The Pattern of Divine Speech Formulas, 281).
250 Chapter 4
3 A Post-Deuteronomistic, Post-Priestly Pentateuch Redaction
In the preceding paragraphs several references were made to authors who

account for post-Priestly, post-Deuteronomistic additions and even for a post-
Priestly, post-Deuteronomistic Pentateuch redaction. Blum, for example, saw
Exod. 15:25b26(27); 16:45, 2829; 18 as post-Priestly Deuteronomistic supple-
ments.274 Weimar associated Exod. 12:2427a, with the post-Deuteronomis-
tic post-Priestly Pentateuch redaction that detached the Pentateuch from
a larger work extending from Genesis to 2 Kings.275 Schmitt considered the
late-Deuteronomistic layer that connected the Tetrateuch with the Deuter
onomistic History as a redaction that even presupposed late-Priestly addi-
tions. To this P-presuming sptdeuteronomistische Redaktion he ascribes, for
example, Gen. 15:1921; 50:2426; Exod. 3:8, 17; 19:3b9; 13:5; 20:2426; 23:2033;
33:2; 34:1027; Num. 13:29.276 In a number of contributions, Ska likewise sees a
number of classical Deuteronom(ist)ic passages within GenesisNumbers
such as Gen. 12:14a; 18:19; 22:1518; 26:36; 31:3; 46:24; Exod. 19:36as part
of a rdaction postsacerdotale et postdeutronomiste.277 In his analysis of
274 Blum, Studien, 361. See also the critical observation in D.M. Carr, What is Required to
Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections between Genesis and Exodus? Some General
Reflections and Specific Cases, in: Dozeman, Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist?,
159180.
275 Weimar, Exodus 12,2427a, 421448.
276 Schmitt, Die Josephsgeschichte, 394395. See also, for example, H.-C. Schmitt, Das
Altargesetz und seine Redaktionsgeschichtlichen Bezge, in: J.F. Diehl et al. (eds), Einen
Altar von Erde mache mir...: Festschrift fr Diethelm Conrad zu seinem 70. Geburtstag
(Kleine Arbeiten zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 4/5), Waltrop 2003, 269289; Schmitt,
Schmitt, Das Gesetz aber ist neben eingekommen, 155170; Schmitt, Die Erzhlung
vom Goldenen Kalb, 248249.
277 See J.L. Ska, Review of D.M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary
Approaches (Louisville, KY 1996), Bib 79 (1998), 120124, esp. 123. See also, for example,
J.L. Ska, Exode 19,3b6 et lidentit de lIsral postexilique, in: Vervenne (ed.), The Book
of Exodus, 289317; J.L. Ska, Lappel dAbraham et lacte de naissance dIsral. Gense
12,14a, in: Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, 367289,
in which he considers Gen. 12:14a to be un texte postexilique, proche dun carre-
four o se rencontrent les traditions deutronomistes et sacerdotales (388). See also
K. Schmid, who sees Gen. 15 and Exod. 34, among others, as post-Priestly: K. Schmid,
Erzvter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begrndung der Ursprunge Israels
innerhalb der Geschichtsbcher des Alten Testaments (WMANT, 81), Neukirchen-Vluyn
1999; Idem, Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Eine Einfhrung, Darmstadt 2008;
Idem, The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus, in:
Dozeman, Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist?, 2950. See also J.C. Gertz, Tradition
Num. 1314, Olivier Artus also argued that the P-narrative has been the
object of a subsequent additional post-Deuteronomistic interpretation by a
layperson.278 Markus Witte goes even further in labeling Gen. 50:2426; Exod.
13:19 (and Josh. 24:32), all texts often related to D, as (nach)endredaktionell
anzusehenden Abschnitte (...) ins ausgehende 4. Jh. v.Chr..279
Also the extensive output of Otto deserves mention in this context.280.
Otto speaks of three Ursprungsmythenthe Jacob narratives (Gen. 2550*),
the Moses-Exodus narratives (Exod. 234) and the Deuteronomistic Deute
ronomy (DtrD) (Deut. 4:4528:68). Still during the exile, DtrL, responsible
for re-editing DtrD, created a narrative frameworkDeut. 13*; 2930*
around DtrD and connected it with the Deuteronomistically edited book of
Joshua (Josh. 111*; 23*; Judg. 2:69). In the late-exilic or post-exilic period, a
Priestly work (PG: Gen. 1:1Exod. 29:45*; PS: Gen. 1Lev. 9) emerged in com-
petition with DtrD/DtrL that connected the patriarchal traditions with the
Moses-Exodus traditions. In Ottos opinion, the question of the presence of so-
called Deuteronom(ist)ic material in the present form of the Pentateuch only
becomes relevant when DtrL and P were combined by the Hexateuchredaktion
in the post-exilic period (5th century bce), which, in addition to the incorpo-
ration of new material, gave rise to a work running from Gen. 1:1 to Judg. 2:9.
The pillars of this work, namely Gen. 15 and Josh. 24, were composed by the
und Redaktion in der Exoduserzhlung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch

(FRLANT, 186), Gttingen 2000, who ascribes, for example, Exod. 12:2427a; 13:116 to a
post-Priestly Endredaktion. These passages are also considered as Teil einer vornehm-
lich dtr geprgten, nachpriesterschriftlichen Bearbeitungsphase von Ex. 12f. by C. Berner,
Die Exoduserzhlung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels (FAT, 73),
Tbingen 2010, 441. Further M. Konkel, Snde und Vergebung: Eine Rekonstruktion der
Redaktionsgeschichte der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 3234) vor dem Hintergrund der
aktuellen Pentateuchmodelle (FAT, 58), Tbingen 2008, who sees three Kompositionsstufen
in Exod. 3234: eine vordeuteronomische, eine deuteronomische und eine nach-priester-
schriftlich-nachdeuteronomistische Komposition (301). In his view, Exod. 32:715a, for
example, is sptdeuteronomistisch and presupposes P (168).
278 O. Artus, tudes sur le livre des Nombres : Rcit, histoire et Loi en Nb 13,120,13 (OBO, 157),
Fribourg 1997, esp. 122159. See also Idem, Les dernires rdactions du livre des Nombres
et lunit littraire du livre, in: Rmer, Schmid (eds), Les dernires rdactions, 129144.
279 M. Witte, Die Gebeine Josefs, in: Beck, Schorn (eds), Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt, 155.
280 For a summary of the view of Otto, see Zenger, Braulik, Die Bcher der Tora, 112118.
See, for example, E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium in Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur
Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens
(FAT, 30), Tbingen 2000; Idem, Gottes Recht als Menschenrecht: Rechts- und literaturhis-
torische Studien zum Deuteronomium (BZABR, 2), Wiesbaden 2002; Idem, Deuteronomium
1,14,43 (HTKAT), Freiburg 2012, 231257.
252 Chapter 4
Hexateuchredaktion itself. Gen. 50:2425 and Exod. 13:19 are also part of this
redaction.281 Around 400 bce, the Pentateuchredaktion, which also incorpo-
rated the ancient Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:2223:19) and the Holiness
Code (Lev. 1726), detached the Pentateuch from the books that followed by
interpolating Deut. 34:1012. Otto ascribes Exod. 19:3b9, for example, to this
nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion.282 According to Otto, how-
ever, the detachment of the Pentateuch was not the final step in its evolution.
Indeed, he accounts for postredactional additions, which he sees as the result
of differences of opinion between different groups.283
The perspective of Thomas Rmer is likewise relevant in the present
context.284 Although accepting some passages in the Tetrateuch as
Deuteronomistic,285 in his recent contribution to the festschrift for Otto, he
281 See e.g. also J. Ebach, Genesis 3750 (HTKAT), Freiburg 2007, 667.
282 E. Otto, Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus, in Vervenne
(ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus, 61111. Similarly E. Otto, Die Paradieserzhlung
Genesis 23: Eine nachpriesterliche Lehrerzhlung und ihrem religionshistorischen
Kontext, in A.A. Diesel et al. (eds), Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit .... Studien zur israelitischen
und altorientalischen WeisheitDiethelm Michel zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 241), Berlin
1996, 167192; E. Otto, Das postdeuteronomistische Deuteronomium als integrierender
Schlustein der Tora, in M. Witte et al. (ed.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke:
Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur Deuteronomismus-Diskussion in
Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW, 365), Berlin 2006, 71102.
283 See also Ottos student: R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur
Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch
(BZABR, 3), Wiesbaden 2003 or Idem, The Story of the Revelation at the Mountain of God
and the Redactional Editions of the Hexateuch and the Pentateuch, in E. Otto, J. Le Roux
(eds), A Critical Study of the Pentateuch: An Encounter Between Europe and Africa (Altes
Testament und Moderne, 20), Mnster 2005, 126151, esp. 127: It is reasonable to assume,
that the expansion of the story into a convenant-story in Ex. 24,34a,68 is post-dtr and
post-P.
284 See Rmer, Israels Vter. In Rmers footsteps also R. Albertz, Ex. 33,711, ein Schlsseltext
fr die Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch, BN 149 (2011), 1343. In
his view, Exod. 33,711 is part of a post-Deuteronomistic redaction, which, presupposes
the early Priestly layers in GenesisLeviticus on the one hand, and precedes the first
Priestly layer of Numbers on the other. See further Idem, The Late Exilic Book of Exodus
(Exodus 134*): A Contribution to the Pentateuchal Discussion, in: Dozeman et al. (eds),
The Pentateuch, 243256.
285 Cf. on Exod. 34, T. Rmer, Exodus 34 und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion, in
R. Roukema (ed.), The Interpretation of Exodus. Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman
(CBET, 44), Leuven 2006, 6579, esp. 77. See also T. Rmer, La construction du
Pentateuque, de lHexateuque et de lEnnateuque: Investigations prliminaires sur la
formation des grands ensembles littraires de la Bible hbraque, in: T. Rmer, K. Schmid
(eds), Les dernires rdactions, 934, esp. 2730 and T. Rmer, How Many Books (teuchs):
likewise identifies Exod. 19:39; 24:111, passages hitherto characterised as

typically Deuteronom(ist)ic, as nach-dtr und nach-priesterlich. Rmer, who
dates the said passages to the Persian period, even suggests we speak of this
redaction as part of a Heiligkeitsredaktion.286 Rmer also accounts for anti-
Deuteronomistic passages in GenesisNumbers, whereby particular reference
is made to Exod. 20:2226.287
4 The Epilogue to the Book of the Covenant and Present Day

Pentateuch Research
In the second and third chapter, we explored the arguments of scholars

who characterised the epilogue of the so-called Book of the Covenant
(Exod. 23:2033) as either a Deuteronom(ist)ic composition or a proto-
Deuteronomic composition, the passage serving as an example to demonstrate
each perspective.
Among the pioneers of the post-1970s renewal in Pentateuch research,
Exod. 23:2033 has also enjoyed considerable attention in relative terms.
The approach of Johnstone deserves our initial consideration in this regard.288
Johnstone saw Exod. 23:2033 as a prima facie case for a Deuteronomistic
redaction of Exodus289 precisely because of its kinship with Judg. 2:15, a pas-
sage taken to be Deuteronomistic.290 Rather than considering Exod. 23:2033
Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History, or Enneateuch, in T.B. Dozeman et al.

(eds), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through
Kings (SBL Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 8), Atlanta GA 2011, 2542, esp. 3739. See
further a.o. T. Rmer, Recherches actuelles sur le cycle dAbraham, in: Wnin (ed.), Studies
in the Book of Genesis, 179211, esp. 196: Gen. 12:14a(, 69?); 18:1633*; 21:820*; 22:114, 19
are due to une rdaction post-sacerdotale, deutronomisante(?).
286 T. Rmer, Provisorische berlegungen zur Entstehung von Exodus 1824, in: Achenbach,
Arneth (eds), Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu ben, 128154, esp. 153154. See also, for example,
T. Rmer, Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten. Anfragen zur Quellenscheidung
im vierten Buch des Pentateuch, in: Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten, 215231.
287 T. Rmer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological Historical and Literary
Introduction, London 2005, 59. Here he speaks of numerous Deuteronomistic texts and fea-
tures in Exodus (34). See also Rmer, Exodus 34 und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion,
77: Ex. 3* gehrt somit zu einer dtr berarbeitung der Moseerzhlung, welche man in
das ausgehende 6. Jh. v.u.Z; ansetzen kann.
290 Cf. J.A. Soggin, Judges: A Commentary (OTL), London 21987, 31.
254 Chapter 4
as nothing more than a Deuteronomic insertion at the end of Exodus 23,

however, Johnstone sees the epilogue to the Book of the Covenant as evi-
dence of a Deuteronomistic recension, which seems (...) to be suggested by
the rather clear way in which the passage is picked up in the Deuteronomistic
History in Judg. 2.15.291 Kinship between Exod. 23:2033 and Judg. 2:15 is
established not simply by the coincidence of vocabulary.292 According to
Johnstone, the key position of both pericopes within their respective con-
texts is of greater importance. Exod. 23:2033 functions as the epilogue to the
Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:2223:19); Judg. 2:15 concludes the narrative
of Israels occupation of the promised land (Judg. 1). In addition, Johnstone
also compares the parenetic epilogue of the Book of the Covenant with Deut.
2728, chapters that likewise function as a parenetic text, whereby blessing is
promised to those who obey Gods precepts and curse to those who do not.
As a result, Johnstone claims: The code in Exod. 20.2033 is bound by the
Deuteronomist into his presentation of covenant and of the course of the his-
tory of Israel as dominated by the blessing and curse of the covenant by this
passage, Exod. 23.2033, and its counterpart, Judg. 2.15.293
A few years after Johnstones tentative suggestion of an extensive Deutero
nomic/Deuteronomistic edition of the Horeb pericope,294 Exod. 23:2033
came to the fore once again in Blums Pentateuch model. According to him,
we encounter one of the texts in this pericope that is on its way to the kanon-
ischen Endgestalt of GenesisNumbers.295 According to Blum, Exod. 23:20
33 is neither part of the post-Deuteronomistic D composition (Kd), nor of the
P composition (Kp). Together with Judg. 2:15, rather, Exod. 23:2033 belongs
to a group of texts Blum characterises as the -group.296 According to him,
Judg. 2:15 corrects the idealised presentation given by the Deuteronomistic
History to the conquest of the promised land in Josh. 112: because of the fact
that the Israelites did not obey Gods prohibition against mixing with the native
population of the land, the original inhabitants of Canaan, in contrast to what
had been previously announced, were not to be expelled. As a result, it would
appear from Judg. 2:15 that the -edition is a correction with respect to

295 Blum, Studien, 361382. See also Idem, Der kompositionelle Knoten, 191192.
296 Johnstone, Chronicles and Exodus, 21 n. 27 tends to be sceptical when it comes to Blums
-edition: Equally dubious, it seems to me, is Blums search for a composition his-
tory of still later literary D-editions (...).
the Deuteronomistic History. This implies that the said -edition ought
to be dated later than the Deuteronomistic History. Moreover, Blum claims
that the analysis of other texts belonging to this -group (Exod. 33:2, 3b,
4*; 34:1127) demonstrates that Kd is also presupposed. Exod. 23:2033 occu-
pies an exceptional position within this contextual analysis. Indeed, it is here
that the separation between Israel and the autochthonous nations becomes a
central point of attention, a theme that is absent in the Book of the Covenant.
As such, Blum concludes that Exod. 23:2033 is part of a process of post-
Deuteronomistic Fortschreibung.297
Johnstones and Blums thesis concerning Exod. 23:2033 as a post-
Deuteronomistic text seems to have been accepted within scholarly litera-
ture without much discussion or argumentation,298 and as a result, interest in
Exod. 23:2033 within Pentateuch research appears to ebb relatively quickly.
297 With respect to Blums rejection of linguistic criteria, see Ausloos, The Need for Linguistic
Criteria, 4756.
298 See, a.o. Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 219; Schmitt, Die Erzhlung vom Goldenen Kalb
Ex. 32*, 247; T. Rmer, Entstehungsphasen des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes,
in: M. Witte et al. (eds), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und
religionsgeschicht
liche Perspektiven zur Deuteronomismus-Diskussion in Tora und
Vorderen Propheten (BZAW, 365), Berlin 2006, 4570, esp. 50; E. Otto, Scribal Scholarship
in the Formation of Torah and Prophets: A Postexilic Scribal Debate between Priestly
Scholarship and Literary ProphecyThe Example of the Book of Jeremiah and Its Relation
to the Pentateuch, in: G.N. Knoppers, B.M. Levinson (eds), The Pentateuch as Torah: New
Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake, IN 2007, 171184,
esp. 175; W. Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg: Eine Untersuchung zur Literaturgeschichte der
vorderen Sinaiperikope Ex. 1924 und deren historischem Hintergrund (OBO, 159), Fribourg
1998, 169170; Albertz, The Late Exilic Book of Exodus, 246 n. 12. See also Aurelius, Zukunft
jenseits des Gerichts, 164: Weil der Fhrungsengel keine alte, sondern eher eine ausgespro-
chen junge Erscheinung der Exodus- und Landnahmeerzhlung ist [with reference to
Exod. 14:19b; 32:34a; 33:2; Num. 20:16; Judg. 2:15, thus referring to Blums thesisH.A.],
wird Ex. 23:2033 nicht frher, sondern insgesamt spter als 19:3b-8 [a post-P pericope
H.A.] sein. See further 173174, where Aurelius argues that the term in Josh. 23 deals
with a political danger; in Exod. 23:33, however, the has a religious connotation
(and thus should be considered as a further evolution). Moreover, when Josh. 23:12 argues
against making covenants with the non-Israelite population, further elaborated in Deut.
7:23 to a prohibition to make covenants, in Exod. 23:32 this becomes a prohibition to
make covenants with their gods. Aurelius thus concludes that Josh. 23:15, 1116 ist
anscheinend eine Vorgabe der verwandten Texte Dt 7, Ex. 34:1116, 23:2033 (zumindest
23:32f), Jdc 2:15 (174). See further C. Levin, On the Cohesion and Separation of Books
within the Enneateuch, in Dozeman et al. (eds), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch?,
127154, esp. 140 n. 49, who considers Exod. 23:2333 as dependent on Judg. 2:15.
256 Chapter 4
The fact that Kratz inclusive model of the origins of GenesisKings makes
no mention of agreements between Exod. 23:2033 and Judg. 2:15 serves
to illustrate the evident decline in interest.299 This observation is doubtless
related to the fact that Kratz locates the origins of both pericopes in entirely
different phases in the development of the Henneateuch. He considers Exod.
23:2033 as one of a number of additions to the Book of the Covenant, and
Judg. 2:15which he sees as a verloren im Raum stehende Stck300as a
(post-)Deuteronomistic addition to the Hexateuch.
As far as I am aware of, Van Seters is the latest scholar dealing extensively
with Exod. 23:2033.301 In his Life of Moses, Van Seters already indicated that
the prologue (Exod. 20:2326) and the epilogue (Exod. 23:2033) should be
considered an integral part of the post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist.302 He reaches
the same conclusion after a more detailed analysis in his A Law Book for the
Diaspora.303 In his view, Deut 7 is the older, basic text and Exod. 23:2333 has
been composed as a much shorter version, following the same basic outline of
topics but with much less logical clarity. A few motifs, such as the messenger,
have been introduced from the authors broader framework, and the dimen-
sions of the land in v. 31 have been taken from elsewhere in DtrH.304
5 Conclusion
It should be clear from our discussion of the way in which the Deuteronomistic
problem has found its way into the foreground of research in recent decades
that the question of the Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in GenesisNumbers has
299 Kratz, Die Komposition der erzhlender Bcher, 204208. On 152, Kratz only says that
Exod. 23:2033 is spteren Anhang of the Book of the Covenant. See also D.M. Carr, The
Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction, Oxford 2011, 472: Some have seen
reflections of Deuteronomistic theology in (...) much of 23:2033, but most agree that
these elements are secondary to the Covenant Code and not relevant to the dating of its
earliest form.
300 Kratz, Die Komposition der erzhlender Bcher, 205.
301 Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora, 6781.
303 Thereby particularly entering in dialogue with my contributions on Exod. 23:2033:
H. Ausloos, Deuteronomi(sti)c Elements in Exod. 23,2033? Some Methodological
Remarks, in Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus, 481500; H. Ausloos, The
Need for a Controlling Framework in Determining the Relationship between Genesis
Numbers and the So-Called Deuteronomistic Literature, JNSL 24 (1998), 7789.
304 Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora, 8081.
become one of the crux interpreti of Old Testament biblical exegesis. A radi-
cal transition, however, became evident in this regard. While verses exhibit-
ing Deuteronom(ist)ic language and Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas were considered
up to circa 1970, in the wake of the Documentary Hypothesis and almost as a
matter of course, to be slightly interfering RD interpolationswith the excep-
tion of the authors who describe the said passages as proto-Deuteronomic,
one can observe that the same texts acquired much greater significance
within the various hypotheses on the origins of the Pentateuch that took
root from the 1970s onwards. Since that time, scholars have argued that the
passages in question are often evidence of the hand of one or more (post-)
Deuteronomistic redactors, or even authors, who collected available traditions,
whether or not for the first time. It is evident, nevertheless, that the recent
designation of passages traditionally understood to be Deuteronom(ist)ic as
post-Deuteronomistic post-Priestly additions, has tended to relegate interest
in their contribution to the genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch to back-
ground once again.305 Similarly, the weakness of arguments characterising
texts as dependent on the Deuteronomistic literature continues to be striking.
In any event, one thing remains certain: the enigma of the so-called Deutero
nom(ist)ic elements in GenesisNumbers is far from solved.
305 See e.g. A.C. Hagedorn, Taking the Pentateuch to the Twenty-First Century, ExpT 119
(2007), 5358, esp. 58 : Lastly we have to point to the fact that we find numerous instances
of late and post-deuteronomistic (e.g. Gen. 15; Exod. 17:8ff, etc.) and post-priestly addi-
tions to the Pentateuch so that the Bible remained in the making for an extended period
of time.
chapter 5
The Deuteronom(ist)ic ProblemA Review and a

Preview
Our survey of the origins, evolution and heyday of interest in passages akin
to Deuteronomy in GenesisNumbers should have made it clear that the
issue is and remains one of the most important difficulties facing Pentateuch
research. Both the view that these passage represent a sort of preamble to the
Deuteronomistic literature and the view that they are dependent on the said
literature encounteredand continue to encountera number of problems
for which a satisfactory solution still appears to be lacking. In most instances,
there appears to be little doubt that a (literary) relationship exists. Problems
arise, however, when scholars endeavour to interpret this relationship. Indeed,
depending on the position they are defending, scholars appeal to various texts
from GenesisNumbers that they characterise as older than or dependent
on the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. Furthermore, one cannot simply claim
that a text from GenesisNumbers belongs of necessity to the prehistory of
Deuteronomy because it does not yet exhibit typical Deuteronomic features,
just as one cannot argue that the said passage is dependent on the Deuterono
m(ist)ic literature because it no longer matches it entirely. As a consequence,
there is clearly a need from objective criteria.
Against this background, the present chapteras both review and
previewsets out to advance a number of elements that the present author
considers determinative when approaching the question of the Deuterono
m(ist)ic passages in GenesisNumbers.1 I begin by offering a number of
fundamental observations on current terminology with regard to the Deutero
nom(ist)ic problem. Against the background of an absence of solid criteria,
I then focus attention on a criteriology that has the potential to allow us to
determine whether (or not) an Old Testament text is akin to or dependent on
the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. I will conclude, in keeping with the extremely
old observation that the early textual tradition was apparently already aware
of agreements between passages in GenesisNumbers and Deuteronomy and
dealt with them in a creative manner, by demonstrating, albeit tentatively, that
1 See already H. Ausloos, Les extrmes se touchent...Proto-Deuteronomic and Simili-

Deuteronomistic Elements in GenesisNumbers, in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy
and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 341366.

The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic ProblemA Review and a Preview 259
the Deuteronomistic problem also operates at the intersection between redac

tion criticism and textual criticism. Blums claimDie Endredaktion gibt es
nicht2thus acquires an additional dimension.
1 The Deuteronomist. Whats in a Name?
It became apparent from the status quaestionis regarding the presence of so-
called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the books of GenesisNumbers that
scholars tendedand tendto deal with the said material with a high degree
of self-evidence. Terms such as pre-Deuteronomic, proto-Deu te
ronomic,
Deuteronomic, Deuteronomistic, late-Deuteronomistic, post-Deuteronomis
tic and anti-Deuteronom(ist)ic are often employed without further expla
nation. The goal of the present paragraph is to introduce a degree of clarity
into the Babel-like confusion that characterises contemporary biblical scholar
ship in this regard.
1.1 The Inflation of a Concept

Research into the Deuteronom(ist)ic problem in GenesisNumbers has
reached something of an impasse.3 The term Deuteronom(ist)ic and its
compounds are used with frequency. Biblical scholars seem to consider
themselves almost morally obligednow more than everto employ the
label Deuteronom(ist)ic.4 A number of scholars describe this tendency rightly,
2 E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189), Berlin 1990, 380.
3 The term inflation in relation to the use of the words Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic is
borrowed from N. Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, in: W. Gross (ed.),
Jeremia und die deuteronomistische Bewegung (BBB, 98), Weinheim 1995, 313382, esp. 323.
Cf. also W. Gross, Einfhrung, in: Idem (ed.), Jeremia und die deuteronomistische Bewegung,
79, esp. 9.
4 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 316. On the erosion of the term, see
also T. Rmer, D. Macchi, Luke, Disciple of the Deuteronomistic School, in: C.M. Tuckett
(ed.), Lukes Literary Achievement: Collected Essays ( JSNT SS, 116), Sheffield 1995, 178187.
See also O.H. Steck, Israel und das Gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur
berlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbild im Alten Testament, Sptjudentum und
Urchristentum (WMANT, 23), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1967. Some have even considered it possible
to demonstrate Deuteronomic style in the non-biblical texts from Qumran. See, for example,
J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD, 1), Oxford 1955, 102: Autant quon peut en juger du style et du
contenu, ces fragments pourraient appartenir au genre des Testaments et des instructions, en
style deutronomique et sapientiel.
260 chapter 5
if mockingly, as pan-Deuteronomism.5 At the same time, however, no one

seems able to state with clarity what the term Deuteronom(ist)ic precisely
alludes to. Reference is made to typically Deuteronom(ist)ic language and typ
ically Deuteronom(ist)ic style without clarification of what exactly should be
understood in this regard.6
5 Cf., for example, R.E. Clements, Prophecy and Tradition (Growing Points in Theology),
Oxford 1975, 44: a kind of pan-Deuteronomism ; G.W. Anderson, Changing Perspectives
in Old Testament Study, in: G.W. Anderson (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation. Essays by
Members of the Society of Old Testament Study, Oxford 1979, xiiixxi, esp. xix: (...) it is
not entirely out of place to speak of a pan-Deuteronomic phase in Old Testament study;
J. Day, Pre-Deuteronomic Allusions to the Covenant in Hosea and Psalm lxxviii, VT
36 (1986), 112, esp. 1: One might perhaps speak of the danger of pan-Deuteronomism in
some circles; C.H.W. Brekelmans, Deuteronomistic Inluence in Isaiah 112, in: J. Vermeylen
(ed.), The Book of IsaiahLe Livre dIsae: Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unit et complexit
de louvrage (BETL, 81), Leuven 1989, 167176, esp. 176: (...) a kind of pandeuteronomism
which is pervading nowadays quite a number of Old Testament studies. See also R.J. Coggins,
ProphecyTrue and False, in: H.A. McKay, D.J.A. Clines (eds), Of Prophets Visions and the
Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R.N. Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOT SS,
162), Sheffield 1993, 8094, esp. 85; R.J. Coggins, What Does Deuteronomistic Mean?, in:
J. Davies et al. (eds), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer
(JSOT SS, 195), Sheffield 1995, 135148, esp. 135; K. Koch, PKein Redaktor! Erinnerung an
zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung, VT 37 (1987), 446467, esp. 451: sich ausbreitenden
Deuteronomistizismus; H.-C. Schmitt, Die Erzhlung von der Versuchung Abrahams: Gen.
22,119* und das Problem einer Theologie der elohistischen Pentateuchtexte, BN 34
(1986), 82109 esp. 90: eine Art pandeuteronomistische Tendenz der alttestamentlichen
Wissenschaft. See also L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The
Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999. Further R. Albertz, In
Search of the Deuteronomists: A First Solution to a Historical Riddle, in: T. Rmer (ed.), The
Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147), Leuven 2000, 117, esp. 1 and R.F. Person,
The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature (Studies in Biblical Literature,
2), Atlanta, GA 2002, 1316.
6 Cf. H. Ausloos, Deuteronomi(sti)c Elements in Exod. 23,2033? Some Methodological
Remarks, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReception
Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 481500, esp. 486487. See also R. Albertz, Die
Intentionen und die Trger des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks, in: Idem et al. (eds),
Schpfung und Befreiung: Fr Claus Westermann zum 80. Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1989, 3753,
esp. 37: So bleibt die Bezeichnung deuteronomistisch eigenartig schwebend und diffus; sie
verdeckt mehr die literaturgeschichtlichen Probleme, als da sie sie erklrt; E.-J. Waschke,
Das Verhltnis alttestamentlicher berlieferungen im Schnittpunkt der Dynastiezusage und
die Dynastiezusage im Spiegel alttestamentlicher berlieferungen, ZAW 99 (1987), 157179,
esp. 157: (...) weil das hufig in der Diskussion gebrauchte Allheilswort deuteronomistisch, je
mehr es verwendet und je weiter es gefat wird, sich immer unbrauchbarer erweist (...). See
recently D.V. Edelman et al., Opening the Books of Moses, Sheffield 2012, 182: Deuteronomic:
Originally, however, the situation was very different. Bleek, the protagonist
of the Deuteronomic question, distinguished two redactions in the Hexateuch,
a redaction from the 10th century bce and a second redaction that he situ
ated against the background of the end of the Southern Kingdom (7th cen
tury bce). In Bleeks opinion, this second redaction of the Hexateuch was the
work of the author of Deuteronomy who simultaneously introduced the book
of Deuteronomy into his work. Colenso likewise argued that a redactor
the Deuteronomistwho was also the author of the book of Deuteronomy,
published the version of GenesisNumbers and Joshua that was familiar to
him and supplemented it with his own material. For both Bleek and Colenso,
this redaction can be characterised as Deuteronomic. Indeed, the author
of Deuteronomy himself is considered responsible for the passages akin to
Deuteronomy contained therein.
Wellhausen, on the other hand, made a clear distinction between the author
of (a form of) Deuteronomy and the author of passages akin to the said book.
It was against this background that Wellhausen made a distinction between
Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic.7 He characterised Josh. 1, for example,
as a Deuteronomistic passage, thereby suggesting that the material was to be
ascribed to the Deuteronomistic author. Wellhausen considered the latter to
be the author who incorporated the Deuteronomic law (a form of the book
of Deuteronomy) into the larger complex of the Hexateuch.8 Wellhausen very
relating to the contents or writing style of the book of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomistic:

passages that are redacted in a way that expresses style and ideology related to the book of
Deuteronomy. Cf. equally Person, The Deuteronomic School, 1721.
7 C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung
(CBET, 9), Kampen 1994, 334 n. 90, makes the same distinction: Zur Bezeichnung
deuteronomisch bzw. deuteronomistisch ist anzumerken, da man oftmals (zu Recht)
einen Unterschied zu machen pflegt zwischen deuteronomisch, einem Adjektiv, das auf
das (Ur-)Deuteronomium verweist, und deuteronomistisch, einem Adjektiv, das auf Teile
und Passagen im AT verweist, in denen ein Einflu des Dtn konstatiert werden kann. His
explanation remains ambiguous, however, with respect to the term Deuteronomic. It
seems appropriate to make a distinction between an original form of Deuteronomy and
the Deuteronomistic reworking thereof stemming from later author(s) or redactor(s) (of the
Deuteronomistic History?). In this sense we also encounter Deuteronomistic elements in
the book of Deuteronomy.
8 J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bcher des Alten
Testaments, Berlin 31899, 117: Jos. 1 ist rein deuteronomistisch, d.h. von dem Schriftsteller,
der das deuteron. Gesetz in die Geschichte eingefgt und die Geschichte nach dem
deuteron. Gesetz bearbeitet hat, von dem Deuteronomisten, wie man ihn im Unterschied
von dem Autor des eigentlichen Deut. bezeichnen kann. Deut 31, for example, is likewise
to be ascribed to the Deuteronomist, d.h. dem Schriftsteller, der das Deuteronomium
262 chapter 5
clearly insisted, moreover, that this Deuteronomistic text ought to be seen

as dependent on the Deuteronomic.9 Here Wellhausen aligns himself with
the position of Hollenberg and Kuenen.10 Against this background, Kuenen
and Wellhausen associated passages from the books of Genesis and Exodus,
together with the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings, with a Deuteronomistic
redaction.11 Kuenen observed in addition that all these Deuteronomistic
in das penatateuchische Geschichts werk einarbeitete (189). Within the present

book of Deuteronomy, Wellhausen makes a distinction between (1) the so-called
Ur-Deuteronomy (Deut. 1226), (2) two independent extended editions thereof (Deut.
14; 1226; 27 and Deut. 511; 1226; 2830) and (3) the combination of both together
with the introduction of the work thus created into the Hexateuch.
9 Wellhausen, Composition, 117: Es liegt also (...) deutlich die Benutzung der deuteron.
Schrift von Seiten eines anderen Vf. vor.
10 Cf. J. Hollenberg, Die deuteronomische Bestandteile des Buches Josua, Theologische
Studien und Kritiken 46 (1874), 462506, esp. 472478: So scheint es wahrscheinlicher,
da viele Uebereinstimmungen des Buches Josua mit dem Deuteronomium nicht auf
Gleichheit der Verfasser beruhen (472); Mithin hat sich ergeben, da das ganze erste
Kapitel mit Ausnahme vielleicht von V. 12.1011, wo die ltere Grundlage nicht ausge
schlossen bleibt, vollstndig eine Komposition des Redactors ist. Er blickt selbst zurck
auf Stellen des Deuteronomium, welche von ihm herrhren; er wendet auch Stellen des
eigentlichen Deuteronomiums fr seine anderen Zwecke an und zwar in einer Weise,
welche die Identitt des Verfassers gnzlich ausschliet (477).
A. Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the
Hexateuch, London 1886, 130132, is of a like mind. In Kuenens work, however, the
terminological distinction between Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic is not entirely
pure. He speaks, for example, of the Deuteronomic expansion and recasting of Josh.
112 (130). At the same time, Kuenen distinguishes a number of layers within the book of
Deuteronomy as it has been passed down to us. He sees Deut. (5)1226; 27:9, 10; 28; 31:913
as the original Deuteronomic law (D1). He ascribes Deut. 1:14:43 to the Deuteronomist
(D2): (...) the great similarity must be explained as the result of imitation (117). At the
same time, he also discerns a number of non-Deuteronomic passages (among them Deut.
32:4852; 34, 1a?, 7a?, 8, 9, which he ascribes to P2; the blessing of Moses in Deut. 33, and
Deut. 32:144).
11 Kuenen, Historical-Critical Inquiry, 186190. Wellhausen states: Der Deuteronomist,
d.h. der Schriftsteller, der das Deuteronomium in das hexateuchische Geschichtsbuch
eingesetzt hat, hat zugleich das letztere in deuteronomischem Sinne berarbeitet
(Wellhausen, Composition, 205). Cf. also Idem, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin
31886, 292: Wenn man darnach in vollem Masse berechtigt ist, die Bearbeitung [of the
books of Judges, Samuel and KingsH.A.] deuteronomistisch zu nennen, so darf man
damit doch keinen anderen Sinn verbinden als den, dass dieselbe unter dem Einfluss
des Deuteronomiums enstanden ist, unter dem das ganse Jahrhundert des Exils steht.
Zwischen deuteronomistisch und deuteronomisch ist ein nicht bloss zeitlicher sondern auch
inhaltlicher Unterschied; das Deuteronomium selber sieht im Kultus noch nicht so die
elements in the Historical books need not necessarily be ascribed to one

and the same Deuteronomistic redactor.12 He also did not consider it oppor
tune to establish a specific period of time within which the Deuteronomistic
redactor(s) was/were at work.13
During the first half of the 20th century, biblical scholars, as we observed in
chapter two, exhibited little interest in the question of the similarities between
certain pericopes in GenesisNumbers and Deuteronomy. The passages that
had been ascribed to a Deuteronom(ist)ic redactor since the 19th century
still tended to be designatedwithout much in the way of argumentas
Deuteronom(ist)ic. The fact that an expression found in GenesisNumbers was
also attested in Deuteronomy was sufficient to characterise the said expression
as dependent on (a form of) Deuteronomy and thus as Deuteronomistic
according to Wellhausens definition thereof.14 Since De Wettes association of
Deuteronomy with the reform of Josiah, (a form of) the book of Deuteronomy
has tended to constitute the axis around which everything turns. Thus, every
segment of a text that exhibits any degree of similarity with Deuteronomy is
explained on the basis of the latter and said to be dependent on it.
This situation applied not only to the so-called Deuteronomistic passages
in GenesisNumbers and in Joshua2 Kings. Indeed, at a relatively early stage
scholars claimed to be able to trace Deuteronomistic passages in the book
Hauptaufgabe Israels und steht noch weit mehr innerhalb des Realismus eines wirklichen
Volkslebens. Eine besonders greifbare einzelne Differenz liegt in der Datierungsweise.
Statt mit ihren althebrischen Namen Ziv Bul Ethanim bezeichnet der letzte Verfasser die
Monate mit Zahlen, die vom Frhling als Jahresanfang ausgehen. Dadurch unterscheidet
er sich nicht nur von seinen lteren Quellen (...), sondern auch vom Deuteronomium
(italics H.A.).
12 Kuenen, Historical-Critical Inquiry, 130: It seems hardly possible, however, to ascribe the
deuteronomic recension to a single author; nor is there anything against our supposing
several hands to have been at work on the same lines. See also, for example, B. Baentsch,
ExodusLeviticusNumeri (HKAT, 1/2), Gttingen 1903, lxv: Jedenfalls sind (...) die
deuteronomistische Spuren nicht alle auf eine Hand zurckzufhren, sondern einer fort
gesetzten Bearbeitung der alten Berichte zuzuschreiben.
13 Kuenen, Historical-Critical Inquiry, 219: The length of the deuteronomic period, which
begins in the year 621 bc, and which called the additions to D1 into existence, cannot yet
be determined. All we can say is that it extended beyond the beginning of the Babylonian
captivity (...). This period covers not only the activity of D1s successors, but the combina
tion of Deuteronomy, as expanded by them, with the prophetic elements.
14 G. Beer, Exodus: Mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling (HAT, 1/3), Tbingen 1939, 10, character
ises RD as an im Geist von (...) D (...) arbeitende Kollege von R.
264 chapter 5
of Jeremiah a well.15 On the one hand, the Deuteronomistic language found

in Jeremiah is often explained on the basis of the presupposition that the
prophet was familiar with Deuteronomy,16 according to some scholars as a
result of the seven-yearly public reading of the book.17 Others, by contrast, are
of the opinion that Jeremiah only supported Deuteronomy at the beginning
and that he later distanced himself from it.18 Indeed, a number of passages
from Jeremiah tend to counter the idea that the prophet was a propagandist,
as it were, of the Deuteronomic law. On the other hand, some authors sug
gest that Deuteronomy should be seen as indebted to the prophet Jeremiah
rather than the other way round.19 Certain scholars, however, deny any level
15 For an overview of research into the relationship between Jeremiah and the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, see, for example: P.R. Ackroyd, The Book of Jeremiah: Some
Recent Studies, JSOT 28 (1984), 4759; R.P. Carroll, Arguing About Jeremiah: Recent Studies
and the Nature of a Prophetic Book, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989
(SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 222235; R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah (Old Testament Guides), Sheffield
21993, 2425; L. Crenshaw, A Living Tradition: The Book of Jeremiah in Current Research,
Interpretation 37 (1983), 117129; S. Herrmann, Forschung am Jeremiabuch: Probleme und
Tendenzen ihrer neueren Entwicklung, TLZ 102 (1977), 481490; Idem, JeremiahDer
Prophet und die Verfasser des Buches Jeremiah, in: P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Le livre de Jrmie:
Le prophte et son milieuLes oracles et leur transmission (BETL, 54), Leuven 1981, 197214,
esp. 197201; S. Herrmann, Jeremia/Jeremiabuch, TRE 16 (1987), 568586; Idem, Jeremia.
Der Prophet und das Buch (EdF, 271), Darmstadt 1990, 53181; Houtman, Der Pentateuch,
332342; E. Kragelund Holt, The Chicken and the EggOr: Was Jeremiah a Member of
the Deuteronomist Party?, JSOT 44 (1989), 109122; B.J. Oosterhoff, Jeremia 110 (COT),
Kampen 1990, 3949; T. Rmer, How Did Jeremiah Become a Convert to Deuteronomistic
Ideology?, in Schearing, McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 189199; C.R.
Seitz, Mose als Prophet: Redaktionsthemen und Gesamtstruktur des Jeremiabuches, BZ
34 (1990), 234245; W. Thiel, Ein vierteljahrhundert Jeremia-Forschung, VuF 31 (1986),
3252; H. Weippert, Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (BZAW, 132), Berlin 1973, 121.
16 Cf., for example, J. Scharbert, Jeremia und die Reform des Joschija, in Bogaert (ed.), Le
livre de Jrmie, 4057, esp. 57.
17 See, for example, W. Holladay, The Years of Jeremiahs Preaching, Interpretation 37
(1983), 146159; Idem, A Proposal for Reflections in the Book of Jeremiah of the Seven-
Year Recitation of the Law in Deuteronomy (Deut 31,1013), in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das
Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 326328;
W. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet JeremiahChapters
125, Philadelphia 1986, 110; Idem, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet
JeremiahChapters 2652, Philadelphia 1989, 195.
18 See, for example, J. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah, Cam
bridge, 91961, 102107.
19 See, for example, G.R. Berry, The Code Found in the Temple, JBL 39 (1920), 4451, 4648;
H. Cazelles, Jrmie et le Deutronome, RSR 38 (1951), 536. See also Wellhausen, Die
of kinship whatsoever between Deuteronomy and Jeremiah.20 Others argue in

support of a Deuteronomistic reworking of the prophetic book.21 The fact that
Composition, 192 n. 1: Die Vorhaut und Beschneidung des Herzens 10,16; 30,6 ist wol bei
Jeremias ursprnglich, denn bei ihm sieht man den Ausdruck entstehn, der im Deute
ronomium bereits fertig ist. So mgen noch andere deuteronomische Phrasen mit
dem color Hieremianus aus Jeremias entlehnt sein und um so sicherer der Bearbeitung
angehren.Zu der blichen Charakteristik des Deuteronomium sind die Materialien
gewhnlich nicht aus Kap. 12 bis 26 hergenommenSee also Idem, Prolegomena, 50:
Amos Hosea Jesaias sind es, welche die Bewegung gegen den alten volkstmlichen
Gottesdienst auf den Hhen eingeleitet haben. (...) Von diesem absolut originellen
Anfange ist aber nun die folgende Entwicklung abhngig, und diese luft nicht auf den
Priesterkodex aus, sondern auf das Deuteronomium, ein Buch, das bei aller billigen
Rcksichtnahme fr die Priester (...) doch seinen prophetischen Ursprung nicht verleug
net und vor allen Dingen von all und jeder hierokratischen Neigung volkommen frei ist.
Und das Deuteronomium endlich ist es gewesen, welches den geschichtlichen Erfolg der
Reformation Josias gehabt hatC.H.W. Brekelmans, Jeremiah 18,112 and Its Redaction,
in: Bogaert (ed.), Le livre de Jrmie, 343350, esp. 349 likewise suggests the possibility that
the school of Jeremiah has influenced later redactions of the dtrc history.
20 According to Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 342, we cannot state with certainty that Jeremia
mit Dtn. bekannt gewesen war. Es scheint keine spezifische Verbindung zwischen Jeremia
und Dtn. festgestellt werden zu knnen.
21 Reference should be made in this regard to the pioneering study of S. Mowinckel, Zur
Komposition des Buches Jeremia, Kristiana 1914, 35: Nicht nur sprachlich, sondern auch
inhaltlich berhren diese Reden sich eng mit dem DeuteronomistenMowinckel
almost certainly ascribed Jer. 3:613; 7:18:3; 11:15, 914; 18:112; 21:110; 22:15; 25:111a;
27; 29:123; 32:12, 616, 2444; 34:17; 34:822; 35:119; 39:1518; 44:122; 45 to his
Deuteronomistic Quelle C. He later nuanced his position to the extent that he no longer
ascribed the Deuteronomistic material in Jeremiah to a literary source, but saw the prose
passages rather as a circle of tradition of their own (S. Mowinckel, Prophecy and Tradition:
The Prophetic Books in the Light of the Study of the Growth and History of the Tradition
[Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, 2/3], Oslo 1946, 62).
Mowinckel continued nevertheless to qualify this circle of tradition as Deuteronomistic:
These prose speeches are neither planned, literary, editorial adaptations of an existing
book, as held by Duhm, nor a separate literary source, as previously maintained by the
present author, but they represent exactly a circle of tradition of their own, within which
certain of the sayings by Jeremiah have been transmitted and transformed according to
the ideas and the style which prevailed in the circle, exactly the deuteronomistic ideas
and forms of style and interests.
The most cited works dealing with the Deuteronomistic redaction of Jeremiah are:
B. Duhm, Jeremia (KHCAT), Tbingen 1901; J.P. Hyatt, Jeremiah and Deuteronomy,
JNES 1 (1942), 156173; Idem, The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah, in: L.G. Perdue,
W. Kovacs (eds), A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies, Winona Lake, IN
1984, 247267 (= Vanderbilt Studies in the Humanities 1 [1951] 7195); S. Herrmann, Die
266 chapter 5
attention is focused on the relationship between certain passages in Jeremiah

and Deuteronomy is nothing new. Indeed, Bleek was among the first to identify
similarities between the Deuteronomistic redaction of GenesisJoshua and
the prophetic book Jeremiah.22 Colenso, for example, even considered it plau
sible that the Deuteronomist and Jeremiah were one and the same person.23
After 1943, however, the term Deuteronomistic acquired a completely
different meaning. The theory developed by Noth ushered in a new era with
respect to the Deuteronomistic question.24 Noth is of the opinion that the
books of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings were written by one and the same author,
namely the Deuteronomist, making use of material from a variety of sources.
The Deuteronomistic History thus came into existence shortly after 561 bce.
Noth denies thereby that the classical sources of GenesisNumbers con
tinue into the Deuteronomistic History, resulting in a strict division between
GenesisNumbers on the one hand, and Deuteronomy2 Kings on the other.
Although Noths theory does not provide an answer to the question of the so-
called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in GenesisNumbers25he still states
prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament: Ursprung und Gestaltwandel (BWANT,

85), Stuttgart, 1965, 155195; W. Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT, 1/12), Tbingen 1947; 31968;
M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972, 2732; W. Thiel, Die
deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 125 (WMANT, 41), Neukirchen, 1973; Idem,
Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 2645 (WMANT, 52), Neukirchen 1981.
See also J. Vermeylen, Essai de Redaktionsgeschichte des Confessions de Jrmie, in:
Bogaert (ed.), Le livre de Jrmie, 239270.
22 F. Bleek, Einige aphoristische Beitrge zu den Untersuchungen ber den Pentateuch,
in: E.F.K. Rosenmller, G.H. Rosenmller (ed.), Biblisch-exegetisches Repertorium oder
die neuesten Fortschritte in Erklrung der heiligen Schrift, Bd. 1, Leipzig 1822, 179, esp. 18,
refers, for example, to the similarity with the exhortatory and warning tone der um die
Zeit des Exils lebenden Propheten, more specifically with the phraseology and tenor of
the prophet Jeremiahlikewise A. Knobel, Die Bcher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua
erklrt nebst einer Kritik des Pentateuch und Josua (KEHAT, 13), Leipzig 1861, 591: Der Verf.
[des DeuteronomiumsH.A.] trifft oft mit Jeremia zusammen.
23 J.W. Colenso, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, Vol. 2, London 1863,
359; Idem, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, London, 1863, 419429; 618. Cf. A.F. Puukko, Jeremias
Stellung zum Deuteronomium, in: A. Alt et al., Alttestamentliche Studien: Rudolph Kittel
zum 60. Geburtstag, Leipzig 1913, 126153, esp. 126127.
24 M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden
Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1943, 3110.
25 According to Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 13 n. 1, the Deuteronom(ist)ic
elements in the Tetrateuch cannot be ascribed to the Deuteronomist who wrote
the Deuteronomistic History: Nun ist (...) die Meinung, Dtr habe mit dem Buche
Gen. begonnen, offenkundig irrig. Denn in den Bchern Gen.Num. fehlt jede Spur
that Deuteronomistic elements can be observed here and there in the first four
books of the Old Testament, in spite of the separation between the Tetrateuch
and the Deuteronomistic Historyit was determinative nevertheless for the
characterisation of elements as Deuteronomistic throughout the entire Old
Testament. Indeed, with Noths hypothesis of the Deuteronomistic History, it
would appear that a new distinctive reference point had been discovered in
the Deuteronomistic literature to which scholars could turn in the characteri
sation of given passages.
One can state, in summary, that around the middle of the 20th century,
Joshua2 Kings and the Deuteronomistic passages from Jeremiah together
with Deuteronomy have become, as it were, to the norm against which it was
possible to measure whether a passagein particular passages in Genesis
Numbersshould be seen as Deuteronomistic. As we have demonstrated, this
was based for the most part on agreements at the level of vocabulary. Attention
was given to a much lesser extent to content related similarities while the style
component was more or less ignored all together.26
einer deuteronomistischen Redaktion, wie allgemein anerkannt ist; Da es einzelne

Stellen gibt, an denen der alte Text im deuteronomistischen Stil erweitert ist, wie etwa
Ex. 23,20ff. und Ex. 34,10ff., hat mit Recht meines Wissens noch niemand fr ein Merkmal
einer durchgehenden Redaktion gehalten. Num 21,3335 ist sekundr wrtlich aus Dtn.
3,13 bernommen worden.
Cf. also, for example, A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, Vol. 2: The Books
of the Old Testament, Kbenhavn 1948, 40: Scholars generally assume a deuteronomistic
redaction of the Pentateuch, taking the whole Pentateuch to have been incorporated in
the Deuteronomistic Work of History, to which P was later added. But it must be admitted
that the traces of the deuteronomistic redaction in the four first books (The Tetrateuch
of Engnell) are very scanty in comparison with the books outside the Pentateuch, where
this material may be separated rather easily in Jos., Judg. and Kings, especially in the so-
called framework. (...) The traces of deuteronomistic phraseology in Ex.Num. do not
prove a deuteronomistic redaction of the books, but at most deuteronomistic work upon
some sections.
26 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 318 speaks in this context of
Ausbaugestalt I: In der Ausbaugestalt I geht man nicht mehr vom deuteronomischem
Gesetz oder vom Buch Deuteronomium aus, sondern setzt bereits einen greren
Grundkanon nachge wiesener deuteronomistischer Texte voraus. Neben das Buch
Deuteronomium treten das Geschichtswerk bis 2 Knige und die deuteronomistischen
Bestandteile des Jeremiabuchs. Auf dieser breiteren Grundlage kann man Texte als
deuteronomistisch beweisen, fr die das von Deuteronomium 1226 aus vielleicht gar
nicht mglich gewesen wre. Against this background, Lohfink refers to the deute
ronomistische Geschichtsbild that was brought to the fore in Steck, Israel und das Gewalt
same Geschick der Propheten, 6680, and for which no point of contact can be found in
268 chapter 5
Since the second half of the 20th century, scholars have been convinced that
the typically Deuteronom(ist)ic characteristics are also to be discerned in the
remaining books of the Old Testament. Werner H. Schmidt set the process in
motion when he spoke of a Deuteronomistic redaction of the book of Amos.27
Other scholars have discerned Deuteronomistic ideas28 in the books of Isaiah29
the book Deuteronomy. Even within the Deuteronomistic History it is only found in
one single pericope, namely 2 Kgs. 17:720. Stecks position on the deuteronomistische
Geschichtsbild, however, is based entirely on deuteronomistic passages in Jeremiah.
27 W.H. Schmidt, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches: Zu den theolo
gischen Unterschieden zwischen Prophetenwort und seinem Sammler, ZAW 77 (1965),
168193. Cf. also H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2. Joel und Amos (BKAT, 14/2), Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1969, 137138; J. Vermeylen, Du prophte Isae lApocalyptique: Isae, ixxxv,
miroir dun demi-millnaire dexprience religieuse en Isral (B), Paris 1978, 519569;
O. Kaiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einfhrung in ihre Ergebnisse und Probleme,
Gtersloh 51984, 223224. On the Deuteronomist and the Prophetic books, see also
R.R. Wilson, Who Was the Deuteronomist? (Who Was Not the Deuteronomist?):
Reflections on Pan-Deuteronomism, in: Schearing, McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive
Deuteronomists, 7377; R.A. Kugler, The Deuteronomists and the Latter Prophets, in:
Schearing, McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 127144.
28 Cf. Anderson, Changing Perspectives, xix: One of the most important aspects of this
development [i.e. pan-DeuteronomismH.A.] is the claim that there are signs in the
prophetic corpus of a far-reaching Deuteronomic redaction. Coggins, What Does
Deuteronomistic Mean?, 135 also observes: The problem has been steadily increasing.
Not just the book of Deuteronomy and the Pentateuchal source D (if a four-document
hypothesis relating to the Pentateuch is still accepted), but also the Former Prophets,
Joshua2 Kings, the editing of Jeremiah, the editing of other pre-exilic prophetic collec
tions (?Amos ?Hosea ?Parts of Isaiah ?a major part of the book of the Twelve) can all
be attributed to the work of Deuteronomists. In addition Deuteronomistic influence is
claimed for or detected in practically every part of the Hebrew Bible, so that one may
note with an element of surprise that the books of Job or Ecclesiastes are said to be free
from, or perhaps are only rebelling against, Deuteronomistic influence or tendencies. See,
however, J.L. Crenshaw, The Deuteronomist and the Writings, in: Schearing, McKenzie
(eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 145158.
29 See, for example, Vermeylen, Du prophte Isae, 693709; Idem, Des rdactions deut
ronomistes dans le livre dEsae?, in : J.-D. Macchi et al. (eds), Les recueils prophtiques de
la Bible: Origines, milieux, et contexte procheoriental (Le Monde de la Bible, 64), Genve
2012, 145187; O. Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja: Kapitel 112 (ATD, 17), Gttingen
51981, 19 (compare, however, with the tenor of O. Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja.
Kapitel 112 [ATD, 17], Gttingen, 1960). Cf., however, Brekelmans, Deuteronomistic
Influence, 167176.
and Ezekiel,30 as well as the Book of the Twelve.31 In so doing, however, they are
less and less inclined to take the book of Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomistic
History or the Deuteronomistic component in Jeremiah as the standard for
discerning Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. In this regard, the study of Lothar
Perlitt has enjoyed exceptional influence.32 He defended the hypothesis that
the idea of the ( covenant) emerged for the first time as a means to express
the relationship between yhwh and the people in the so-called Deuterono
m(ist)ic movement.33 The 8th century bce prophets, moreover, appear not to
mention the between God and Israel. According to Perlitt, this implies
that every pericope in which reference is made to the between yhwh
and his people should be related to the Deuteronom(ist)ic movement.34
The Psalms, to conclude, likewise do not appear to have remained free of
30 A good survey of the questions surrounding the Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in Ezekiel

can be found in F.-L. Hossfeld, Ezechiel und die deuteronomisch-deuteronomistische
Bewegung, in: Gross (ed.), Jeremia und die deuteronomistische Bewegung, 271295. See
also C.L. Patton, Pan-Deuteronomism and the Book of Ezekiel, in: Schearing & McKenzie
(eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 200215.
31 Cf., for example, E. Ben Zvi, A Deuteronomistic Redaction in/among The Twelve? A
Contribution from the Standpoint of the Book of Micah, Zephaniah and Obadiah, in:
Schearing, McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 232261; S.L. Cook, Micahs
Deuteronomistic Redaction and the Deuteronomists, in: Schearing, McKenzie (eds),
Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 216231; J. Jeremias, Die Deutung der Gerichtsworte
Michas in der Exilszeit, ZAW 83 (1971), 330354; Kaiser, Einleitung, 237; R.F. Person, Second
Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School (JSOT SS, 167), Sheffield 1993; B. Renaud, La forma-
tion du livre de Miche: Tradition et actualisation (B), Paris 1977, 387399; Idem, Miche,
Sophonie, Nahum (SBi), Paris 1987, 169; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School, 366370; H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 1. Hosea (BKAT, 14/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn
21965, xxvii; Idem, Dodekapropheton 4. Micha (BKAT, 14/4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982,
xxviii.
32 L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT, 36), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969.
33 Cf. in his wake, for example, D.J. McCarthy, Bert in Old Testament History and Theology,
Bib 53 (1972), 110121; E.W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the
Old Testament, Oxford 1986.
34 Cf., however, the critical observations in Brekelmans, Deuteronomic Influence, 170:
How can scholars continue to say that the covenant-idea is not found in Proto-Isaiah,
if the rib-pattern includes a reaction after the breaking of the covenant? Or one could
ask: If the covenant has such an important place in the deuteronomistic theology, how
can one explain that this idea seems to be absent in the deuteronomistic redaction of
Proto-Isaiah?
270 chapter 5
Deuteronomstic influence,35 nor do the books of Baruch,36 Judith,37 or even

Tobit.38
As indicated in the second chapter, one can observe that more and more
Old Testament passages came to be characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic in the
course of the 20th century.39 The point of reference to which scholars alluded in
order to characterise a given pericope or a portion thereof as Deuteronomistic,
however, became more and more vague.40 This was reinforced by the fact that
scholars claimed they were able to discern various layers in the Deuteronomistic
History that Noth had ascribed to a single Deuteronomistic author, layers that
35 Wilson, Who Was the Deuteronomist?, 7778. Cf. T. Rmer, Lcole deutronomiste et la
formation de la bible hbraique, in: Idem (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History,
179193, esp. 192193.
36 M. Marttila, The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch, in
H. von Weissenberg et al. (eds), Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting
Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW, 419), Berlin 2011, pp. 321346.
37 A. Voitila, Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage, in: Von Weissenberg et al. (eds), Changes
in Scripture, 369388.
38 S. Weeks, A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?, in: Von Weissenberg et al. (eds), Changes in
Scripture, 389404.
39 Cf. J.A. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament: From its Origins to the Closing of the
Alexandrian Canon, London 31989, 143: (...) the question changed once the number of
passages involved proved to be greater and their content to be relevant from a histori
cal and religious point of view. Kaiser, Einleitung, 177 thus gave priority to the follow
ing in the context of Old Testament biblical study: Schlielich stellt sich angesichts der
deuteronomistischen Zustze im Tetrateuch und der deuteronomistischen Redaktionen
des Jeremiabuches, der von Kaiser unterstellten Beziehungen der Grundschrift des
Jesajabuches zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Bewegung, der wohl allgemein
anerkannten deuteronomistischen Bearbeitung des Amosund der von Vermeylen
ins Gesprch gebrachten des Michabuches, die Aufgabe, dieses alles weiterhin analyt
isch abzuklren und dann in einem Gesamtbild der Ttigkeit der Deuteronomisten
zusammenzufassen.
40 It is against this background that Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?,
318320 situates his Ausbaugestalt ii: Hier werden (...) auch noch Texte als deute
ronomistisch identifiziert, die nichts typisch deuteronomistisches mehr an sich tragen.
Es gengt, wenn sie in irgendeinem Zusammenhang mit Texten stehen, die zum deute-
ronomistischen Grundkanon gehren oder mithilfe der ersten Ausbaugestalt der Methode
als deuteronomistisch klassifiziert wurden. Cf. also Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 342 n. 109:
Verschiedentlich versteht man die Begriffe deuteronomisch bzw. deuteronomistisch in
so breitem Sinne und verwendet sie zur Bezeichnung eines solch groen Komplexes von
Literatur, daum es etwa berspitzt zu sagenbeinahe jede Vorstellungswelt und jede
Passage des AT darin untergebracht werden knnen.
were potentially to be ascribed to a later stage in the activity of the author or

redactor.41
Scholars likewise claimed to be able to discern distinct Deuteronomistic
reworkings in the Deuteronomistic passages in the prophetic books.42 The
said redactions were considered part of the activity of the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic school or Deuteronom(ist)ic movement.43
As we demonstrated in the third chapter, fundamental criticism of this
Deuteronomistic proliferation and an endeavour to reorient it emerged at
the beginning of the 1960s when Brekelmans and Lohfink introduced the
term proto-Deuteronomic into academic research in relation to a num
ber of passages in GenesisNumbers considered to be Deuteronom(ist)ic.
The term was intended to illustrate that a given pericope was dependent
on the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, but represented rather a prior stage
thereof. According to theseand otherauthors, it was possible to discern
41 See in this regard: R. Smend, Das Gesetz und die Vlker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomist
ischen Redaktionsgeschichte, in: H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard
von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, Mnchen 1971, 494509; W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte:
Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk
(FRLANT, 108), Gttingen 1972; T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung
seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF, 193), Helsinki 1975; Idem,
Das Knigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktions
geschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF, 198), Helsinki 1977; F.M. Cross, The Themes of the
Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History, in: Idem, Canaanite
Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge 1973, 274
289. See also Y. Hoffmann, The Deuteronomist and the Exile, in D.P. Wright et al. (eds),
Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law,
and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN 1995 659675. A good survey of
the various hypothesis concerning the growth and composition of the Deuteronomistic
History can be found in T. Rmer, Lhistoriographie deutronomiste (HD): Histoire de
la recherche et enjeu du dbat, in: A. De Pury et al. (eds), Isral construit son histoire:
Lhistoriographie deutronomiste la lunire des recherches rcentes (Le monde de la bible,
34), Genve 1996, 9120; T. Rmer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological
Historical and Literary Introduction, London 2005, 1343.
42 Herrmann, Jeremia, 209 discerns in Jer 2,2028, for example, eine deuteronomistische
Erweiterung (...), die aber hchstwahrscheinlich frher anzusetzen wre als eine deute
ronomistische Gesamtredaktion des Jeremiabuches.
43 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 333373 argues against the exis
tence of a Deuteronomistic movement.
272 chapter 5
the antecedent of Deuteronomic language, style and theology in a proto-

Deuteronomic text or redaction.44
In the present state of research, scholars are also confronted with a plural
ity of terms. In addition to early Deuteronomic and proto-Deuteronomic,45
the term pre-Deuteronomic is also employed, although it is not interpreted
in the same way by all. Reichert considered a text to be pre-Deuteronomic
when it could be temporally located prior to Deuteronomy.46 According to
44 Brekelmans remained critical with respect to the proliferation of Deuteronomistic ele

ments. See, for example, C. Brekelmans, Some Considerations on the Prose Sermons in
the Book of Jeremiah, Bijdragen 34 (1973), 204211, esp. 210: It would seem (...) that the
style, the literary forms and the theology of the prose tradition in the Book of Jeremiah are
perhaps too easily considered to be deuteronomistic; Idem, Jeremiah 18,112, 350: (...)
we have to be much more prudent in assigning so many texts in Jer to the dtrc redaction,
even if such texts are from the exilic period.
Weippert, Die Prosareden, 229, for example, exhorts caution with regard to the iden
tification of a Deuteronomistic redaction in Jeremiah: Entgegen der weitverbreiteten
Meinung, da die Prosapartien eine deuteronomisch-deuteronomistische Sprache zeig
ten, erwiesen sich die Beziehungen zum deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Bereich
als recht schwach und gingen nicht ber das hinaus, was man bei zeitlich nahestehenden
Schriften sowieso zu erwarten hat. Cf., among others, P.C. Craigie et al., Jeremiah 125
(WBC, 26), Dallas TX 1991, xxxv.
45 M. Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis to Numbers, in:
F. Garca Martnez et al. (eds), Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C.J. Labuschagne
on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (SVT, 53), Leiden 1994, 243268, esp. 251: Proto-dt
redaction: Non Priestly Tetrateuchal texts displaying deuteronomicin the most
general sense of the wordaffinities belong to a deuteronomic redaction previous
to Deut and should therefore be characterized as proto- or early-deuteronomic. (...) It
seems that this school of writers launched, sometime around the end of the 8th cen
tury bce, the language, style and theology characteristic of the established dt/dtr tradi
tions. Proto-dt texts approximate but do not attain the fullness and fixity of the dt/dtr
strata in Deuteronomy and Joshua-Kings. The fact that the term proto-Deuteronomic is
not always understood as intended by Brekelmans and Lohfink is evident from, among
others, B.S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL), London 1974, 184: Lohfink (...) has
used the term proto-deuteronomic [in relation to Exod. 13H.A.] in an attempt to iden
tify the style as Deuteronomic without accepting a late dating.
46 A. Reichert, Der Jehowist und die sogenannten deuteronomistischen Erweiterungen im
Buch Exodus (unpublished Doctoral dissertation Eberhard-Karls-Universitt Tbingen),
Tbingen 1972, 34. According to Reichert the term pre-Deuteronomic is intended vor
allem die zeitliche Ansetzung vor dem Dt betonen. Proto-Deuteronomic, by constrast,
designates eine inhaltliche Bestimmung einer dem Dt unmittelbar vorangehenden,
seinen Stil und Theologie vorbereitenden Vorstufe.
Vervenne, by contrast, the term pre-Deuteronomic should be used to desig

nate a text used by the Deuteronomic tradition (source text).47 In addition,
the terms Deuteronomic,48 post-Deuteronomic,49 early-Deuteronomistic,50
47 M. Vervenne, Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of
Exodus, in: Idem (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation
(BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 2159 esp. 51 makes a distinction between the concept pre-
Deuteronomic, which he characterises as source-elements and proto-Deuteronomic,
which designates impulse-elements.
48 It is not completely clear what many authors understand de facto by the terms
Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic. Cf., for example, A.H. McNeile, The Book of Exodus
with Introduction and Notes (Westminster Commentaries), London 1908, vvi: The por
tions of Exodus which can be pronounced Deuteronomic are comparatively few. They
belong to a period before, and perhaps during, the exile, and emanate from a reforming,
prophetical atmosphere in which history was regarded from a moral and spiritual point
of view; and in their editing of early documents the writers followed the same line of
thought, and employed the same kind of language, as the writer or writers of the book
of Deuteronomy (...); P. Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus bersetzt und erklrt (Die heilige
Schrift des Alten Testaments 1/2), Bonn 1934, 16: D: 10,2 [i.e. Exod. 10:2H.A.], auerdem
werden deuteronomistische Formeln in den Gesetzen 12,2427a; 13,310.1116 gefunden.
Furthermore, the terms Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic are often used interchange
ably. Reference can be made, for example to P. Horn, Traditionsschichten in Ex. 23,1033
und Ex. 34,1026, BZ 15 (1971), 203222, esp. 218 and H. Cazelles, Histoire et institutions
dans la place et la composition dEx. 20,2223,19, in: R. Liwak, S. Wagner (eds), Prophetie
und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im Alten Israel: Festschrift fur Siegfried Herrmann zum 65.
Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1991, 5264, esp. 56. Person, The Deuteronomic School, 6 even argues
that we should abandon the distinction between Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic
and only to use the notion Deuteronomic. As such he speaks about the Deuteronomic
History (8).
49 Brekelmans makes a simple distinction between pre- and proto-Deuteronomic on the
one hand and post-Deuteronomic on the other. The term post-Deuteronomic can
be understood in this context as a collective term under which we can classify every
thing dependent on (a form of Deuteronomy). Cf. C.H.W. Brekelmans, Die soge
nannten deuteronomischen Elemente in Gen.Num. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte
des Deuteronomiums, in: Volume du Congrs Genve 1965 (SVT, 15), Leiden 1966, 9096,
esp. 92 and Idem, lments deutronomiques dans le Pentateuque, in: C. Hauret (ed.),
Aux grands carrefours de la rvlation et de lexgse de lAncien Testament (Recherches
Bibliques, 8), Leuven 1967, 7791, esp. 80.
50 Cf., for example, Kaiser, Einleitung, 136: Die Geleichsetzung des Bundes mit dem
Geschehen am Horeb und die Identifikation der Bundesurkunde mit dem Dekalog
stellt demgegenber eine weitere Entwicklung dar, die man als (frh)deuteronomistisch
bezeichnen kann. In this context, Kaiser refers to Deut. 5:23; 4:12; 31:9, 26.
274 chapter 5
Deuteronomistic,51 late-Deuteronomistic,52 post-Deuteronomistic,53 and

recently even anti-Deuteronomistic,54 have been employed.55 The fact that
this accumulation of concepts has made it difficult to see the wood for the
51 Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements, 251: Dtr redaction: The deutero
nomic affinities in Genesis to Numbers are considered as part of a (late) deuteronomis-
tic redaction of the Pentateuch as a whole, and, more particularly, the redaction which
was also responsible for composing the so-called Deuteronomistic History (DtrH)
Cf., for example, R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Theologische Wissen
schaft, 1), Stuttgart 31984, 63: Durch deuteronomistische (dtr) Arbeit hat offenbar auch
der Pentateuch seine vorpriesterschrftl. Endgestalt bekommen. Das ist auch von da her
wahrscheinlich, da dieser der Priesterschrift vorliegende Pentateuch bereits mit dem
Dt verbunden gewesen sein drfte, oder wohl richtiger mit dem groen Geschichtswerk,
das die Bcher Dtn-Kn enthalten. Diese Bcher aber sind anerkanntermaen dtr
redigiert. So mu von vornherein damit gerechnet werden, da sptestens bei seiner
Zusammenfgung mit diesen Bchern auch der vorpriesterschriftl. Bestand von Gen-
Num eine dtr Redaktion erfahren hat.
52 Cf. Vervenne, Current Tendencies, 51: (...) late flowerer (late -Dtr).
53 Cf. Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements, 251: Post-dtr redaction:
Deuteronomic elements in the Tetrateuch do not stem from a dtr redaction, but result
from post-dtr reworkings, which can be identified with either a late J, i.e. a creative author
imbued with the spirit of DtrH, or a post-exilic theological composer.
54 Cf. T. Rmer, Israels Sojourn in the Wilderness and the Construction of the Book
of Numbers, in R. Rezetko et al. (eds), Reflection and Refractio:. Studies in Biblical
Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (SVT, 113), Leiden 2006, 419446, esp. 438: (...)
the author of Numbers 11 also emphasises an anti-deuteronomistic view of prophecy;
J.T. Willis, Yahweh and Moses in Conflict: The Role of Exod. 4:2426 in the Book of Exodus
(Bible in History), Bern 2010, 174: (...) Exod. 4:2426 advocates anti-Deuteronomistic
thinking, including making a foreigner conspicuous and presenting Yahweh as seeking to
destroy his servant Moses.
55 Cf. also J. Van Seters, The So-Called Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch, in:
J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 5877, esp. 58: I
wish to address a problem that seems to me particularly pressing in current discussion
in Pentateuchal studies. I refer to the question of the nature and extent of the so-called
Dtr redaction within the pre-Priestly corpus of the Pentateuch and its relationship to
Deuteronomy and the Dtr tradition in the rest of the OT. These texts have been treated in
a variety of ways by scholars. Some have regarded them as belonging to a redaction that
is earlier that Deuteronomy and characterize them as proto- or early Deuteronomic,
often identified with the redactor of the older sources known as the Jehovist. Others
have considered them as part of a late Dtr redaction of the Pentateuch as a whole, the
same as, or later than, those responsible for the corpus from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings. A
third possibility is to consider the composition of the Tetrateuch in its Yahwistic from as
quite late and therefore to view the Dtr elements not as redactional but as reflectioning
an author contemporary with, or later than, the DtrH.
trees can no longer be called into question. It is striking, moreover, that the
authors who use the Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic literature as their
frame of reference rarely explain precisely which texts should be classified
under the designation Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic. It is for this rea
son that a clear indication of what one understands by the Deuteronomic or
Deuteronomistic literature one employs as a frame reference has become a
conditio sine qua non. As a result, the establishment of what Lohfink called a
deuteronomistische Grundkanon has become essential.56 In the first instance
this should be understood as the book of Deuteronomy in its present form.
Given that biblical scholarship tends to be more or less unanimous in ascribing
the books Joshua2 Kings to one or more Deuteronomistic authors or redac
tors, the Deuteronomistic History can also be considered a component of this
Deuteronomistic Canon. Finally, and against the background of research into
the composition of the book Jeremiah, the elements of this prophetic work
traditionally characterised as Deuteronomistic can also be seen as part of the
said Canon, albeit with the necessary reservations.57
The acceptance of a Deuteronomistic Canon as frame of reference does
not take away the ongoing need to pay attention to the literary-critical difficul
ties inherently related to this Deuteronomistic corpus. It is important that we
remain aware of the fact that the book of Deuteronomy, the complex Joshua
2 Kings, and the segments of the book of Jeremiah typified as Deuteronomistic
56 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 318 n. 21.

57 The study of Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School is also conceived in this
sense. While there can be doubt as to the existence of a Deuteronomic school, Weinfelds
description of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature is worth citing nevertheless: The use of
oration is equally characteristic of all branches of deuteronomic writingthe book of
Deuteronomy, the editorial framework of JoshuaKings (= Dtr) and the prose sermons in
the book of Jeremiah (source C)and was adopted by the deuteronomic circle as a liter
ary device throughout the entire period of its activity (4). Weinfeld thus describes the his
torical development of the Deuteronomic school as follows: 1. The book of Deuteronomy,
composed in the latter half of the seventh century bc 2. The deuteronomic edition of
JoshuaKings, which received its fixed form in the first half of the sixth century. 3. The
deuteronomic prose sermons in Jeremiah, which were apparently composed during the
second half of the sixth century. Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?,
318 n. 21 likewise accepts the existence of a Deuteronomistic Canon as a working hypoth
esis: Ich problematisier in dieser Studie die Definition dieses deuteronomistischen
Grundkanons nicht. Sie entspricht der vorherrschenden berzeugung.
For the Deuteronomistic elements in Jeremiah: cf. supra. It should be stipulated once
again, however, that not everyone agrees without further discussion with the Deutero
nomistic character of the passages typified as such.
276 chapter 5
underwent several demonstrable reworkings or redactions.58 This implies that

we can only speak of Deuteronomistic literature with reservation. Moreover,
58 Cf. Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 322: Abgesehen von den
Grundtexten der deuteronomischen Kultregelung und vielleicht der Sozialgesetzgebung
knnte im Geseztz des joschijanischen Bundesschlusses mglicherweise gar nicht so
viel gestanden haben. Aber nur dan, was damals da stand, wre nach dem Ansatz Well
hausens deuteronomisch zu nennen. Der Rest wre deuteronomistisch. Dann wre
aber die sprachliche, theologische und literarische Eigenart dessen, was man deuterono
mistisch nennt, nur im ganz wenigen von Deuteronomischem abgeleitet, sie wre eher
in sich etwas Ursprngliches. So ist es ganz und gar sachgem, wenn man von einem
weiteren Grundkanon deuteronomistischer Schriften ausgeht. Umso wichtiger werden
dann allerdings Fragen nach Schichtungen innerhalb des deuteronomistischen Grund
kanons, will man abermals weitere Texte als deuteronomistisch identifizierensee
also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 78: Though the Book of Deu
teronomy quite probably consists of different editorial strands, no established criterion
exists by which we can determine either the extent of each strand of its composition or its
ideological teaching. Many scholars assert that two editorial strands may be discerned in
the deuteronomic history, which is not improbable, considering that it contains different
literary strata. But again we have no fixed criterion by which we may differentiate between
two editorial stages. Reference can be made in this regard, for example, to Deut. 5:5,
which, according to C.H.W. Brekelmans, Deuteronomy 5: Its Place and Function, in:
Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, 164173, esp. 165 is a post-Deuteronomistic addition.
In the present authors opinion, and for a variety of reasons, Deut. 26:9 should also not be
considered typically Deuteronomic (cf. Ausloos, Deuteronomi(sti)c Elements, 493494).
Against this background, Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 322 is
critical of Blums approachin the present authors view justifiably: (...) Erhard Blum
enthebt sich neuerdings bei der Rekonstruktion seiner pentateuchischen Komposition
D jeder Frage nach der innerdeuteronomistischen Textgeschichte, indem er fr sie ein
fach das abgeschlossene Geschichtswerk Noths voraussetzt. Ich fnde es, wenn man
schon Riesentextbestnde wie eine Komposition D deuteronomistischen Hnden zu-
schreiben will, angebrachter, innerhalb der innerdeuteronomistischen Textgeschichte
nach jener Schicht zu suchen, die von der Komposition D nun genau vorausgesetzt wird
oder gar auf die gleichen Hnde zurckgefhrt werden kann. Ist das nicht mglich, dann
mu man berlegen, ob man nicht schon in eine Periode geraten ist, wo die deuterono
mistische Literatur bereits ffentliche Domne war un deshalb jeder Textverfasser auf
ihre Sprache und ihre Ideen zurckgreifen konnte, ohne deshalb zu einer eingrenzbaren
deuteronomistischen Gruppe, Bewegung oder Schule gehren zu mssen. Dann ist die
Bezeichnung Komposition D aber irrefhrend. Cf. also N. Lohfink, Deutronome et
Pentateuque: tat de la recherche, in: P. Haudebert (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Dbats et recher-
ches. xiv me Congrs de lACFEB, Angers 1991 (LD, 151), Paris 1992, 3564, esp. 37: La thorie
rcente la plus dveloppe sur le Pentateuque se trouve sans conteste dans les deux tomes
de Erhard Blum des annes 1984 et 1990. Cela fait en tout plus de mille pages. Pourtant,
on ny trouve quune seule note de bas de page concernant la critique interne et lhistoire
rdactionelle du Deutronome!.
the Deuteronomistic literatureeven when we limit ourselves to the so-called

Deuteronomistic Canonis far from being monolithic. On the contrary, one
has to be continually alert to the presence of the various different layers upon
which the texts are constructed.59
These observations imply that a careful description of the terminology
related to the Deuteronom(ist)ic problem will be far from simple. Since the
hypothesis of De Wette, in which (a form of) Deuteronomy was considered to
be the book of the law found under the reign of King Josiah and thus poten
tially datable, the book of Deuteronomy has been elevated to Mitte der Bibel.60
Scholars believed they had discovered an incontestable foundation on which
basis not only the rest of the Pentateuch, but also the remaining texts of the
Bible could and should be explained.61 This explains the accumulation of con
cepts such as pre-Deuteronomic, proto-Deuteronomic, early-Deuteronomic
and late-Deuteronomic, often used in an interchangeable way.62 When Noth
mentioned the book of Deuteronomy in the same breath as the books Joshua
2 Kings and drafted the theory of the Deuteronomistic History, the latter thus
came to share in the fame of Deuteronomy. Scholars then started to speak of
Deuteronomistic, late-Deuteronomistic and post-Deuteronomistic. In spite of
the historical tensions inherent in this terminology, the present author consid
ers it advisable to maintain the conventional designations in continuity with a
tried and tested research tradition. One has to be particularly careful, however,
59 Cf. in this regard W.H. Schmidt, Einfhrung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 51995, 54: Wie
hngt die deuteronomisch-deuteronomistische Redaktion mit der Einfgung des
Deuteronomiums in den Pentateuch zusammengeschah sie gleichzeitig, oder setzt sie
diese voraus? Zumindest gelegentlich erinnert die Redaktion mehr an spte Schichten
des Deuteronomiums oder an deuteronomistische Texte. P. Weimar, Untersuchungen zur
Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch (BZAW, 146), Berlin 1977, 169170 clearly associates
his first Deuteronomistic redaction with the so-called Ur-Deuteronomy.
60 The hypothesis that the book of the law found during the reign of Josiah can be identified
with (a form of) Deuteronomy was already called into question at the beginning of the
20th century by, among others, Berry, The Code Found in the Temple, 4451; G. Hlscher,
Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums, ZAW 40 (1922), 161255.
61 See, for example, H. Schmidt, Stehen wir vor einer neuen Periode der Literarkritik im
Alten Testament?, Theologische Bltter 2 (1923), 223226, esp. 223 with respect to Hlschers
hypothesis: Jedem Kundigen ist deutlich, was dieser Nachweis, wenn er Hlscher geglckt
ist, bedeutet. Er strtzt eine Hypothese, die seit De Wette (...) allmhlich zu einer fast
allgemeinen Anerkennung gelangt und die eigentlich tragende Sule des kunstvolles
Baues ist, den die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft der letzten Generation, den besonders
Julius Wellhausen errichtet hat.
62 See e.g. B.M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, New York
1997, 1213; 65; 68, who switches between proto- and pre-Deuteronomic.
278 chapter 5
as to what exactly each of the terms is intended to cover. In what follows, there
fore, I will endeavour to provide, as careful as possible, a description of the
aforementioned terms, bearing in mind the problems potentially associated
with each. In so doing, I take the presupposition that a typically Deuteronomic
basic text once existed as my point of departure. If one accepts this possibility,
then one is also obliged to acceptmore or lessthe stages I will discuss in
the following pages.
1.2 Towards an Unambiguous Terminology

In the following pages we will endeavour to introduce clarity to the Babel-like
confusion that presently typifies the Deuteronom(ist)ic question. We distin
guish three stages.63 The first stage relates to the pre-history of the Deuterono
m(ist)ic literature. The second stage addresses the Deuteronomic literature as
well the material directly dependent on it. The third stage focuses on potential
further evolution.
1.2.1 Stage 1: Pre-History

As we have already observed, the question of the proto-Deuteronomic con
tent of certain passages, especially in GenesisNumbers, was thematized for
the first time by Brekelmans and Lohfink. In a text characterised as proto-
Deuteronomic, the typical features of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature are
already demonstrably present, but they lack the full development specific
to the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. In concrete terms, this means that
the stereotype language, particular style and characteristic ideas of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature are not yet evident, although they are already
evolving towards their characteristic form.64 At this point, however, and as
noted above, it is important that we account for the complex genesis of the
so-called typical Deuteronom(ist)ic literature and of the various layers within
it. Even within the so-called Deuteronomistic Canon, moreover, we encounter
elements that cannot be characterised as typically Deuteronom(ist)ic.
63 See also M. Vervenne, Le rcit de la Mer (Exode xiii 17xiv 31) reflte-t-il une rdaction
de type deutronomique? Quelques remarques sur le problme de lidentification des
lments deutronomiqes contenus dans le Ttrateuque, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress
Volume: Cambridge 1995 (SVT, 66), Leiden 1997, 365380.
64 Undoubtedly, the Deuteronomist also has made use of non-biblical, i.c. neo-Assyrian
traditions. See in this regard K. Schmid, Hatte Wellhausen Recht? Das Problem der lite
rarhistorischen Anfnge des Deuteronomismus in den Knigsbchern, in M. Witte et al.
(eds), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche
Perspektiven zur Deuteronomismus-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW,
365), Berlin 2006, 1943, esp. 2122.
Furthermore, it should be mentioned that a pericope could have been a

source-text of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. This means that the language,
style and/or theology in this passage are not necessarily a first step in the devel
opment of the typical Deuteronom(ist)ic characteristics (pre-Deuteronomic).
Indeed, it is possible that the Deuteronom(ist)ic author(s) or redactor(s)
based themselves on a certain passage in relation to their own composition
and restructured it in a completely different direction.65 In light of this, the
terminological distinction between proto-Deuteronomic (preamble to) and
pre-Deuteronomic (source of) is thus a necessity.66 I am well aware, however,
that this is only a theoretical distinction. Indeed, it is possible that a text char
acterised as proto-Deuteronomic may also have functioned as a source text for
the Deuteronomic author(s) or redactor(s).
1.2.2 Stage 2: The Deuteronomistic Canon

If we want to use the terms Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic, then we must
first clearly determinealbeit theoreticallythe Old Testament material we
want to characterise with the terms in question. For this reason it is also nec
essary to unambiguously demarcate what we intend by Deuteronomic and
Deuteronomistic.
The designation Deuteronomic is a term with a multitude of connotations.

For as long as the so-called Ur-Deuteronomy was ascribed to one single
author, as was the case with Kuenen, for example, the problems were hardly
worth a mention.67 For this reason it was possible to characterise this
65 Attention to the possibility that a redactor turned away from the ideas of his source text
can also be found in Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 79: Sans doute, il nest
pas exclu qugalement des textes postdeutronomiques reprennent des lments deut
ronomiques, tout en abandonnant ou en modifiant dautres lments conformment
leur propre point de vue. See also supra in relation to the concept anti-Deuteronom(ist)ic.
See a.o. J.E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historians Use of Tetrateuchal
Narratives, London 2004.
66 An example might help to clarify the distinction. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deutero
nomic School, 34 claims that the redactor of Deut. 7 made use of Exod. 23:2033. Given his
aversion to the role of the angel he left the latter out of his own composition. It is for this
reason also that Weinfelds approach considers it incorrect to characterise the position
held by the angel in Exod. 23:2033 as proto-Deuteronomic. See Idem, The Emergence
of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents, in Lohfink (ed.), Das
Deuteronomium, 7698, esp. 84.
67 Kuenen, Historical-Critical Inquiry, 107 considered Deut. 1226 as stemming from one
author. He adds, however that the author of xii.xxvi. composed the introduction
280 chapter 5
Ur-Deuteronomy as the Deuteronomic law. If we accept that the author of

the law was also responsible for other passages from the Old Testament,
then we can also refer to them as Deuteronomic.68 The issue, however, is
far more complex. Indeed, one can ask whether an Ur-Deuteronomy ever
existed. In addition, the magnitude and dating thereof is also far from
undisputed.69 Furthermore, one might also suggest that the so-called
Ur-Deuteronomy itself underwent a complex genesis and evolution.70
This implies that significant themes from Deuteronomy were probably
already important before they were taken up in the larger whole.71
The term Deuteronomistic applies to the author(s) and/or redactor(s)
responsible for (a part of) the Deuteronomistic History, bearing in mind
that they were dependent on the language and ideas of the Deuteronomic
literature.72 At the same time, the framing of the so-called Ur-Deuteronomy
(v.xi.) subsequently, with his eye upon the laws that he had already collected (112113).
Deut. 1:14:40, furthermore, is composed by a writer whose spirit responded to that of D1,
and whose interest in history and archaeology made him feel the absence of all mention
of the historical antecedents of the legislative discourse of v.xxvi. He therefore sup
plied the defect through the mouth of Moses himself. (...) These chapters, then, are the
work of one of the followers of D1, whom we may designate provisionally as D2 (117118).
Cf., however: Now it is perfectly true that D1 himself is not always consistent. For exam
ple, he insists, according to the changing needs of his admonitions, now upon the great
ness (Deut. x. 22; xxvi. 5) and now upon the smallness (vii. 7, cf. i, 17, 22; ix. 1; xi. 23) of
Israels numbers (135 n. 31).
68 It should be noted against this background, however, that agreement between a
Deuteronom(ist)ic text and another Old Testament passage may be due to the fact that a
common source text lies at the basis of both.
69 As W. Baumgartner, Der Kampf um das Deuteronomium, TR 1 (1929), 725, esp. 19
already noted: Schien bis vor kurzem die Frage nach dem Alter des Dt. entschieden zu
sein, indem man das Urdt. kurz vor der Auffindung, als Reaktion gegen die Zustnde
unter Manasse, frhestens in Zusammenhang mit der Reform des Hiskia, entstanden
sein lie, so bietet sich heute eine reiche Musterkarte von Anstzen darCf., however,
M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, ABD 2 (1992), 168183, esp. 171: There is a general agreement
in regards to chaps. 4:4428:68. It is believed that these chapters constituted the original
book, which was later supplemented by an additional introduction (1:64:40) and by var
iegated material at the end of the book (chaps. 2930).
70 For the problems associated with the genesis of the book of Deuteronomy, reference
should be made to Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 279342.
71 Cf. against this background the remark of Lohfink, Gab es eine Deuteronomistische
Bewegung?, 351.
72 Cf. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 4: Die Aussonderung einer deuterono
mistischen Schicht in den genannten Bchern ist auf Grund sprachlicher Indizien
erfolgt, und der Sprachbeweis bleibt auch die sicherste Grundlage fr die Zuweisung der
likewise falls under this heading. Should it appear that certain Old Testament
passages deserve to be ascribed to one or more authors or redactors who
edited the Deuteronomistic History, then such pericopes ought also to be
considered Deuteronomistic.73 Here too we are presented with the difficulty
that the Deuteronomistic language and ideas developed gradually
(early-Deuteronomistic).
The category post-Deuteronomistic is to be ascribed a relatively unique
place. Texts composed under the influence of, with the use of, referring to
and exhibiting direct (literary) dependent on the Deuteronomistic litera
ture are to be included under this heading. Reference can be made in this
regard to the studies of Blum, Van Seters, Rose and Johnstone, among oth
ers. Each of these authors is convinced that the author, redaction or compo
sition on which their study focuses was directly dependent on and made use
of the Deuteronomistic History.
1.2.3 Stage 3: Further Evolution

Scholars have argued that a preamble to the formation of a typically
Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology can be discerned in the so-
called proto-Deuteronomic passages. Just as it is logical to argue that the char
acteristic features of a certain sort of literature did not simply appear out of
nowhere without any kind of prehistory, so it almost goes without saying that
these characteristics will still be distinguishable in later texts, albeit without
the singularity and stereotype expressions thereof so undilutedly present at the
time when the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature was at its peak. At this juncture,
however, it is essential that we distinguish between late-Deuteronomistic and
what I would like to designate with the neologism simili-Deuteronomistic.74
einzelnen berlieferungselemente an Dtr.cf. A.N. Radjawane, Das deuteronomist

ische Geschichtswerk: Ein Forschungsbericht, TR 38 (1974), 177216, esp. 180: Der lite
rarische Komplex des AT, der sich von Deuteronomium 1 bis 2. Knige 25 (...) erstreckt,
ist ein fr seine Zeit einzigartiges (...) Geschichts- oder Sammelwerk. Es mu als eine
geschlossene und selbstndige literarische Einheit (...) angesehen werden und ver
dient den Namen das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, weil die Sprache und die
Gedankenwelt des Deuteronomiums, d.h. des deuteronomischen Gesetzescorpus (Dtn
1226) und der es umrahmenden Reden (Dtn 4,4411,32 und 27,130,20), den ganzen
Inhalt dieser Bchersammlung deutlich prgen (...).
73 Cf., for example, the hypotheses of Renaud and Vermeylen.
74 Cf., however, Labuschagnes cautionary words during his valedictory lecture Hoe heilzaam
is bijbelwetenschap? De bijdrage van de bijbel(wetenschap) aan de cultuurHow Salutary
is (the study of the) Bible? The Contribution of (the study of the) Bible to Culture delivered on
282 chapter 5
In the late-Deuteronomistic literature, the typical features of Deuteronom(ist)

ic language, style and theology are no longer so unequivocally distinguish
able. In this sense, late-Deuteronomistic literature constitutes the counter
pole of the proto-Deuteronomic texts. When we use the latter to argue that
a given style feature or linguistic feature or theological idea is not yet attested
to the full extent or in the same stereotype fashion, a late-Deuteronomistic
text is characterised by the fact that it no longer possesses the same intensity
as the Deuteronomic, Deuteronomistic and post-Deuteronomistic litera
ture, but represents more of a waning reflection thereof, which nevertheless
can still be situated in the same line as the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
The term simili-Deuteronomistic can refer to a passage that came into exis
tence as an imitation of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, even without the
author being conscious of the fact that he was imitating an existing model.75
Moreover, if the Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology had found
its way into common parlance, it is extremely plausible that authorsno
doubt often without being aware of itwould have started to write in a
similar fashion. The expression (a land flowing with) milk and honey, for
example, is still used in the advertising world even today.76 But it would be
somewhat far-fetched to claim that such publicity campaigns should be
classified as Deuteronomistic!
September 17th 1991: This crisis [in biblical studiesH.A.] cannot be overcome (...) by
inventing ever more complicated and semi-mysterious terms for already familiar matters.
75 I borrow the idea of imitating Deuteronom(ist)ic literature from Lohfink, Gab es eine
Deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 366. See also, in line with Lohfink, Vervenne, Current
Tendencies, 51. Vervenne does not distinguish, however, between post-Deuteronomistic
texts and passages in which the Deuteronomistic literature is imitated: As a consequence,
one may characterise such elements as (...) imitation (post-Dtr). Lohfink also employs
the term Fort schreibung (Lohfink, Gab es eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung?,
358; 367). See also in this regard, R. Kossmann, Die Esthernovelle: Vom Erzhlten zur
ErzhlungStudien zur Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte des Estherbuches (SVT, 79),
Leiden 2000, who argues that the vocabulary of the book of Esther exhibits significant
agreement with the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic vocabulary. She observes, however, that
in terms of content the book of Esther moves in precisely the opposite direction. She
ascribes the similarity tentatively to the Fortschreibung of the Deuteronom(ist)ic lan
guage in the diaspora. Also according to J. Van Seters, Creative Imitation in the Hebrew
Bible, Studies in Religion 29 (2000), 395409, esp. 400402, creative imitation likewise
explains the parallels between Deuteronomy and ExodusNumbers (400). As a matter of
fact, Van Seters Yahwist can be considered a skillful historian and imitator (400).
76 For the use of the expression in the Old Testament literature, see H. Ausloos, A Land
Flowing with Milk and Honey. Indicative of a Deuteronomistic Redaction?, ETL 75
(1999), 297314.
This terminological sketch of the growth, flourishing, decline and ongo

ing influence of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature should not leave the
reader with the impression that the present author is convinced of the
existence of a Deuteronom(ist)ic school or movement that can be consid
ered responsible for a large segment of the Old Testament. Nevertheless,
I have endeavoured to sketch a framework with a view to introducing a
degree of clarity in the confusion of terminology employed in relation to
the texts associated with the Deuteronom(ist)ic problem. The terms proto-
Deuteronomic, Deuteronomic, early-Deuteronomistic, Deuteronomistic, post-
Deuteronomistic, late-Deuteronomistic and simili-Deuteronomistic (perhaps
also the term anti-Deuteronom[ist]ic should be mentioned here) serve exclu
sively to designate the textual relationship existing between an Old Testament
text and the Deuteronomic basic text. Moreover, should one be inclined to
believe that such a thing as a Deuteronomic corpusin spite of its potential
complexity and that of its genesis and evolutiononce existed, then one is
obliged to conclude that this Deuteronomic basic text had a prehistory and
a post-history. It is precisely this textual relationship that is at stake in relation
to the aforementioned concepts.
The said textual relationship can be presented schematically as follows:

1. Text x is primary in relation to the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature:
text x is a preamble to the Deuteronomic literature (proto-Deuteronomic)
text x is posterior to the Deuteronomic literature; the specific and stereo
type language, style and theology of the Deuteronomistic literature is not
yet fully developed (early-Deuteronomistic)
text x is the source text used by the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature (pre-
Deuteronom[ist]ic):
the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature made use of source text x and took it
over (literally)
the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature made use of source text x, but elabo
rated it in the opposite direction
2. The Deuteronom(ist)ic literature is primary in relation to text x:
text x is post-Deuteronomistic
text x is late-Deuteronomistic
text x is simili-Deuteronomistic77
77 We should also consider the possibility of an anti-Deuteronom(ist)ic tendency.

284 chapter 5
3. Text x and the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature are on the same level:

text x is contemporaneous with the Deuteronomic basic text (text x is
Deuteronomic)
text x is contemporaneous with the Deuteronomistic Canon (text x is
Deuteronomistic)
text x and the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature hark back to a common
source.78
I am conscious of the fact that this schema tends to simplify a complex issue.
Indeed, in studying a pericope one must always account for die Mglichkeit
komplexerer wechselseitiger Beziehungen.79 A pericope in which one char
acterises certain elements as proto-Deuteronomic, for example, may have
been reworked at a later stage by a Deuteronomistic or post-Deuteronomistic
redactor.80
78 At the same time, one has to account for the possibility that certain elements character
ised as Deuteronom(ist)ic were part de facto of the accepted religious language of the
period in question.
79 Cf. Blum, Studien, 178. Cf. also the objection of Schmidt, Einfhrung, 54: Fhren die
Zustze auf das Deuteronomium hin, bieten sie also eine sog. vor- bzw. protodeute
ronomische Sprache (des 7. JH. v.Chr.), oder gehren sie nicht vielmehr der exilisch-
nachexilischen Zeit an? Hat man eventuell eine mehrstufige Redaktion anzunehmen,
die sich vom sog. Protodeuteronomischen bis zum Deuteronomistischen erstreckt?
Reicht fr eine solche Differenzierung aber der Sprachbeweis aus?.
80 Given the fact that the majority of the aforementioned terms (proto-Deuteronomic,
early-Deuteronomistic, post-Deuterono mistic, late-Deuteronomistic and simili-
Deuteronomistic) are well established in Old Testament research, I am not inclined to
distance myself from them completely. I am convinced, nevertheless, that the
said concepts are artificial constructions, used to explain everything related to
the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature which has been exalted as the norm. This is particularly
striking in relation to the term proto-Deuteronomic. It is only from the perspective of the
researcher, moreover, that a pericope is characterised as proto-Deuteronomic. It is for this
reason I would argue that one cannot simply designate a passage as proto-Deuteronomic
without the awareness that the said passage is an entity in itself, albeit one in which a
preamble to the Deuteronomic literature can be distinguished. An example might help to
clarify this position. A contribution penned by M. Vervenne appeared in L. Leijssen et al.
(eds), Geloven als toekomst: Godsdienstpedagogische visies en bijdragen aangeboden aan
Professor Jozef Bulckens bij zijn emeritaat, Leuven 1995, 7994 under the title: To Bind
or Not to Bind, that is the Question. Een exegetische oefening over Genesis 22. For the
current reader of the said article, the title clearly makes reference to the words To be or
not to be: that is the question from the first scene of the third act of Shakespeares Hamlet
This observation implies the need to explore how one can determine
whether a relationship exists between a pericope and the so-called
Deuteronomistic Canon. It goes without say, moreover, that the presence of
the word in Gen. 24:7; Exod. 23:31; Deut. 12:10; Josh. 17:16; Judg. 2:1; 1 Sam.
9:4; 2 Sam. 18:9; 1 Kgs. 8:41; 2 Kgs. 13:20 and Jer. 34:13all passages that have
been associated with the Deuteronom(ist)ic question to one extent or
anotherdoes not mean that the texts in question are related to one another,
dependent on one another, or even simply Deuteronomistic. There is thus a
need to focus sufficient attention on establishing workable criteria that must
allow us to make a well-founded judgement on the relationship between
texts and more specifically between the Deuteronomistic Canon and other
Old Testament pericopes. This issue will be addressed in the following pages.
2 Criteria for Characterising Elements as Deuteronom(ist)ic
It appeared from our exploration of the status quaestionis on research into

the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in GenesisNumbers that a passage
is most often characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic on the basis of a vague kin
ship with the book of Deuteronomy and the rest of the so-called Deuterono
mistic literature.81 However, attention is rarely given to the criteria upon
which such associations are based.82
[cf. W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, in W.J. Craig (ed.), Shakespeare: Complete Works, London
1993, 870907, esp. 886]. It would be ridiculous in the extreme, however, if one were to
characterise this Shakespearean statement as proto-Vervennian. Cf. also Lohfink, Gab es
eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung, 349.
81 Lohfink, Gab es eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung, 320 speaks in this regard of the
geheime Regel der Ausbaugestalt II.
82 This vagueness does not disappear in actual research. See e.g. T.B. Dozeman, Commentary
on Exodus (The Eerdmans Critical Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI 2009, 40: The impor
tant point for interpreting the Non-P History is its close relationship to Deuteronomy and
to the Deuteronomistic History. Although these bodies of literature do not represent a
single, unified composition, they share a religious outlook in their late stages of composi
tion, which make it possible to read Genesis through Kings loosely as a broad history of
salvation.
286 chapter 5
In the following pages we will begin with a brief review of the few scholars
who nevertheless make the effort to address this question. Although the pri
mary aspects of their research was already treated in the context of the status
quaestionis, it seems appropriate at this present juncture to focus explicitly
on the criteria they deployed in their work. Building on these insights, we will
then turn our attention to a number of specific accents to be found in our own
criteriology.
2.1 Criteria from the Past

Interest in drafting an explicit criteriology can be discerned for the first
time in Brekelmans pioneering articles, in which he discussed the issue of
the proto-Deuteronomic elements in GenesisNumbers.83 In line with
Cazelles, Brekelmans first underlined the theological accents that emerge
when one studies an Old Testament pericope as an important crite
rion. Indeed, should the typical, stereotype theological concerns of the
Deuteronomic literature not be present in their entirety in a passage, this was
for him already an indication that the passage in question was not unequivo
cally Deuteronomic. Brekelmans also claimed to be able to identify a criterion
in the stylistic characteristics of a given passage. Given his specific interest in
demonstrating the proto-Deuteronomic character of Old Testament passages,
he adds a third criterion: style features that are not found in the Deutero
nom(ist)ic literature must exhibit agreements with other pre-Deuteronomic
texts.84
83 E. Talstra, E., Solomons Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings
8,1461 (CBET, 3), Kampen 1993, 2282 has also devoted attention to the question of (lin
guistic) criteria, primarily against the background of his research into the composition of
the Deuteronomistic History.
84 Within the framework of a study of the Deuteronomistic character of Jer. 18:112,
Brekelmans states concisely what he considers the essential criteria for establishing a
relationship between the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature and the rest of the Old Testament:
(...) arguments from terminology and theology must go together with the literary form
in order to prove the dtrc or non-dtrc origin (...) (Brekelmans, Jeremiah 18,112, 347).
Lohfink also strongly insisted on the need for such a criteriology,85 focusing
particular attention on the aspect of style.86 He pointed to the fact that some
Deuteronom(ist)ic passages consistently employ series of infinitives, in con
trast to the Priestly literature in which parallel statements tend to be expressed
using finite verbal forms.87 Lohfink is also of the opinion that composition-
technical elementssuch as the framing of texts with parenetic formulas
likewise deserve particular attention.
85 Lohfink, Gab es eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung, 323324: (...) so komme ich

nun (...) zur Frage nach den Kriterien, mit denen das wirklich Deuteronomistische
identifiziert werden kann. Sie sind vornehmlich sprachlicher Art. Denn im Normalfall
zhlt man Wrter und Wendungen auf, zu denen es innerhalb des deuteronomist
ischen Grundkanons Parallelen gibt. Doch erschpft sich die Methode darin nicht.
Selbstverstndlich wird auch auf gemeinsame Inhalte und Interessen hingewiesen, etwa
auf die Themen Kultzentralisation, Jahweallein ver ehrung, Torabeobachtung, verhe
iener und gefhrdeter Landbesitz. Oder gemeinsame Vorstellungskomplexe werden ent
deckt, etwa von Gesetzen des Geschichtsablaufs, die zu Segen oder Fluch fhren. Etwas
zu wenig wird nach meiner Meinung auf Stilistisches geachtet, etwa auf die Tatsache, da
bei rhetorischer Zerdehnung in deuteronomistischen Texten Infinitivanschlsse bevor
zugt werden, whrend priesterschriftliche Texte dann eher parallele Stze mit finiten
Verben bauen. Es kommen kompositorische Schemata auf verschiedensten Ebenen hinzu,
etwa die Rahmung von Texten durch parnetische Formeln oder die Gliederung grerer
Geschichtsdarstellungen durch eingefgte deutende Reden. In Einzelfllen glaubt man
auch dem Leser signalisierte Anlehnungen an bestimmte deuteronomistische Einzeltexte
anweisen zu knnen. Grundstzlich ist einer solchen Kriterienliste natrlich zuzustim
men. Aber wie wird sie in die Praxis umgesetzt? (italics H.A.). This summary agrees to a
significant degree with the objections I formulated a number of years ago in relation to
an earlier status quaestionis on research into the Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the book
of Exodus (H. Ausloos, Deuteronomi[sti]sche elementen in GenesisNumeri: Een onder-
zoek naar criteria voor identificatie op basis van een literaire analyse van de epiloog van het
Verbondsboek [Exodus 23,2033] [unpublished Doctoral dissertation KU Leuven], Leuven
1996, 7989), which were confirmed by research into the remaining narrative passages in
GenesisNumbers that have been linked with a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction.
86 Lohfink, Gab es eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 323325. Cf. also Idem, Ich bin
Jahwe, dein Artzt (Ex. 15,26): Gott, Gesellschaft und menschliche Gesundheit in der
Theologie einer nachexilischen Pentateuchbearbeitung, in: N. Lohfink et al. (eds), Ich
will euer Gott werden: Beispiele biblischen Redens von Gott (SBS, 100), Stuttgart 1981, 1173,
esp. 3339.
87 Compare, for example, Deut. 28:1 with Lev. 26:3.
288 chapter 5
In an effort to adjust and refine Brekelmans criteria, Vervenne also offered

some suggestions in support of establishing a grounded criteriology,88 clearly
inspired by Lohfinks criteria. Vervenne makes a distinction between two
groups of criteria. On the one hand, it is important that we study the form
of a text.89 Three criteria are employed in this process. First, the study of the
form of a text includes a linguistic criterion, whereby vocabulary, phrases and
entire sentences have to be studied. Second, there is an evident need to focus
attention on the criterion of style. Third, the texts compositional structure has
to be accounted for as an important yardstick. On the other hand, it is also
important to focus attention on the content of a textits themes and theologi
cal conceptsas an important criterion. Making use of the aforementioned
criteria has the potential to allow scholars to determine whether or not a given
Old Testament pericope is Deuteronom(ist)ic.90
2.2 Usable CriteriaDraft Proposal

In my draft proposal for a criteriology with respect to the potential determina
tion of the relationship between the text of the Old Testament, in particular
the Tetrateuch, and the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, I endorse in the
first instance the two major criteria suggested by Vervenne, namely the form
and the content of the text. The initial goal in this regard is to establish whether
a given pericope isor is notrelated to the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
Moreover, the presence of a word in both contexts not necessarily implies
that the passages in question are related, let alone that one is dependent on
the other. It is only when a comparative study is complete that we can see
whether a given Old Testament pericope is identical to, very similar to, or at
variance with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. Only when a detailed com
88 Vervenne, Current Tendencies, 51; Idem, Le rcit de la Mer. A first version of the said
criteriain dialogue for the most part with Blum and Van Seterscan be found in Idem,
The Question of Deuteronomic Elements, 252254.
89 In his doctoral dissertation, Vervenne already defined form study as follows: The term
form applies (...) not only to the structure of the segment but more importantly to its
syntax and vocabulary, which ought to be studied in relationship with the rest of the OT.
(M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal [Exodus 13,1714,31]: Een literaire studie. Status Quaestionis
van het onderzoek. Tekstkritiek. Vormstudie. Traditie en redactie [unpublished Doctoral dis
sertation KU Leuven], Leuven 1986, 186).
90 Vervenne, Current Tendencies, 51: If a text or some of its elements show neither the
full form nor the fixed language and theology of Dt/Dtr tradition but only a partial or
fragmentary agreement, that text or element cannot then be considered as an authentic
witness of the Dt/Dtr tradition. The only thing one can claim is that such a textual com
ponent has an indirect relationship with the Dt/Dtr tradition.
parative study of the form and content of a pericope is complete can we draw
conclusions on whether a text can be typified as Deuteronom(ist)ic.
When this has been done, we can then move on to the next step, namely
determining whether texts are dependent on one another and if so the direc
tion of the said dependence.91 In other words, we have to establish the nature
of the relationship between the texts in question. This implies that we focus
attention on the context, and, moreover, not only on the similarities between
two texts but also on the differences. In addition, such a study implies that
we do not limit ourselves to a comparison with texts already characterised
as Deuteronom(ist)ic, but include rather the entire Old Testament in the
analysis.92 A given style feature may be explicitly present in the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature while also being plainly attested in Priestly or
prophetic texts. This observation implies, however, that the style feature in
question can no longer be seen as exclusively Deuteronom(ist)ic.
In summary: in our analysis of a given text we must first determine whether
there is evidence of a relationship with the Deuteronomistic Canon. If we can
respond positively to this question on the basis of a form-related and content-
related study of the text then we can move on to explore the nature of the said
relationship.
2.2.1 The Form of the Text

The analysis of the form of a text includes linguistic data, stylistic features and
its compositional structure.
2.2.1.1 Linguistic Criteria

The study of the characteristics of Deuteronom(ist)ic languages pre
supposes a great deal more than a summary of all possible references in
which a particular word is attested. In the past, scholars believed they
were able to provide a correct picture of the features of Deuteronom(ist)ic
language by putting together lists of what were said to be typically
91 See, in this regard, D.M. Carr, Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence:

An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,1126 and its Parallels, in:
M. Kckert, E. Blum (eds), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex. 3234 und Dtn 910
(Verffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fr Theologie, 18), Gtersloh
2001, 107140; M. Zahn, Reexamining Empirical Models: The Case of Exodus 13, in: E. Otto,
R. Achenbach (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem
Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Gttingen 2004, 3655.
92 Cf. e.g. also J. Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant
Code, Oxford 2003, 7071 (in discussion with me).
290 chapter 5
Deuteronom(ist)ic terms.93 It is striking, moreover, that in the course of

studies focusing on passages in GenesisNumbers that exhibit similarities
with the Deuteronom(ist)ic language, scholars tended to limit themselves to
statistical references to Deuteronom(ist)ic vocabulary. It is hardly surprising,
therefore, that this procedure solicited a negative reaction and inspired some
scholars to set aside linguistic criteria completely.
While statistical surveys are useful for providing information on the fre
quency with which a given word occurs in a given biblical book, this criterion
must be employed nevertheless with the greatest caution.94 In the present
authors opinion, importance should be attached to the meaning of a word in
93 Cf., for example, C Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium (HKAT, 1/3/1), Gttingen 1898;
xxxiixli; 21923, 4147; Knobel, Numeri, 586589; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3,
402405; P. Kleinert, Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker: Untersuchungen zur
alttestamentlichen Rechts- und Literaturgeschichte, Leipzig 1872, 214235; J.E. Carpenter,
G. Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch: An Introduction with Select Lists of Words
and Phrases, London 1902, 399408. J.E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic
Historians Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives, London 2004, 9798 is rather sceptical with
regard to the use of language as a criterion, because of its reductionistic character.
94 See also Lohfink, Gab es eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 324A clear example
of the dangers lurking behind the use of statistical data can be found in N. Lohfink, Die
These vom deuteronomischen Dekaloganfangein fragwrdiges Ergebnis atomis
tischer Sprachstatistik, in: G. Braulik (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum
60. Geburtstag, Basel 1977, 99109; N. Lohfink, Lexeme und Lexemengruppen in Ps 25: Ein
Beitrag zur Technik der Gattunsbestimmung und der Feststellung literarischer Abhngig
keiten, in: W. Gross et al. (eds), Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65.
Geburtstag, St. Ottilien, 1991, 271295. Lohfink argues nicht nur statistisch zu arbeiten,
sondern mindestens bei den weniger hufig belegten Ausdrcken die Belegtexte zu stu
dieren. Dabei zeigt sich bald etwas, das die atomistische Statistik verbirgt: es gibt einige
Texte, in denen mehrere (...) deuteronomischen Ausdrucke geballt vereinigt sind
(Lohfink, Die These vom deuteronomischen Dekaloganfang, 101).
Fundamental observations with respect to the use of statistics in biblical studies have
been formulated by S. Deck, WortstatistikEin immer beliebter werdendes exegetisches
Handwerkzeug auf dem (mathematischen) Prfstand, BN 60 (1991), 712. The author first
points out that the Hebrew Bible (hebrische BibelB) is only oneand moreover not
representativefacet of a greater whole (GrundgesamtheitG) of the Hebrew lan
guage spoken and written in every possible Sitze im Leben in the course of several cen
turies. Within this partial collection B there are also various other partial collections
(UntermengeU) of words that should be ascribed to a single author, such as Isaiah. The
partial collections, however, are in their turn not representative. What has been trans
mitted of the partial collection Isaiah, for example, does not coincide with everything
ever preached by Isaiah. Furthermore, we must also account for the fact that we are only
familiar with certain facets of the partial collection U (U). U as a result is an unknown
quantity, meaning that we only have a partial collection (U) at our disposal, namely the
its context and the way it functions in its context.95 This implies that it is more
or less impossible to draw up unequivocal lists of what we should consider to
be typically Deuteronom(ist)ic vocabulary.96 It is only when we involve the
context in our analysis that we can state with any degree of certainty that there
is a relationship between the linguistic usage of the Deuteronom(ist)ic litera
ture and a text outside the Deuteronomistic canon.97 This implies in turn than
pericopes (P) that can be ascribed with reasonable certainty to a given author, in our
example Isaiah.
95 Deck, Wortstatistik, 12 exhorts das Handwerkzeug Wortstatistik ganz vorsichtig und
behutsam zu benutzen, weil sonst Fehlschlsse geradezu vorprogrammiert sind. Hilfrei
cher als Beobachtungen zum rein quantitativen Gebrauch eines Wortes, sind sicher
inhaltliche und am jeweiligen Kontext orientierte Beobachtungen zum Sprachgebrauch
eines Wortes in verschiedenen Zeiten oder literarische Schichten.
Cf. also Caloz, M., Exode xiii,316 et son rapport au Deutronome, RB 75 (1968), 562,
esp. 10: Nous rduirons parfois la statistique un sens prcis du mot ou son emploi
dans une expression dtermine. Nous ne pensons pas par ces restrictions fausser
la statistique; au contraire, nous croyons quun calcul tout matriel des mots pourrait
nous mettre sur de fausses pistes, car le style dun crivain (ou dune cole) se remarque
moins par lemploi de tel ou tel mot que par le sens prcis dans lequel il les utilise (ital
ics mine). Reference can also be made in this regard to Weippert, Die Prosareden, 2125.
See also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 12: What makes a phrase
deuteronomic is not its mere occurrence in Deuteronomy, but its meaning within the
framework of deuteronomic theology. Neutral phrases as: you are not allowed;
you must show not pity; how; greatness; thorougly;
the midst; work of the hands; to be willing; to destroy;
to eat and be satisfied; foreign gods; the desire of the soul,
although they occur in Deuteronomy very frequently, are part and parcel of the common
Hebrew vocabulary and cannot be considered specifically deuteronomic phrases. Their
more frequent appearance in Deuteronomy than elsewhere may be explained by the spe
cial context in which they appear.
96 See Kuenen, Historical-Critical Inquiry, 110 n. 4, who warns against the use of statistical
information in the endeavour to characterise an authors writing style: I need hardly say
that such a list as this [of the principal expressions and turns of language which con
stantly occur in Deut. 1226H.A.] even were it far more complete, could never ade
quately characterise the style of the author, a true impression of which cannot really be
gained except by repeated perusal of his work.
97 Cf., for example, the lists of Deuteronom(ist)ic word use in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and
the Deuteronomic School, 320365. In spite of the fact that Weinfelds study of the ques
tion of Deuteronom(ist)ic language and ideas is un excellent instrument de travail
(F. Langlamet, Review of M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford
1972], RB 79 [1972], 605609, esp. 606), reference is only very rarely made to his work. See
also W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft: Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Litera
turtheorie und Methodologie, Gttingen 1971, 99: (...) die Wortverbindung lt (...) den
fr ein Wort oder einen Begriff typischen Kontext erkennen und zeigt seine sprachliche
292 chapter 5
when we explore a biblical text we should not limit ourselves (exclusively) to

the micro level of vocabulary study, but should focus attention rather on for
mulas and expressions, together with their meaning and the way in which they
function in the wider context.98
In recent years, especially since the Pentateuch analyses of Blum, scholars
have tended to exhibit considerable scepticism with regard to the linguistic
comparison of texts. Blum himself, moreover, favours a contextual approach
to the text,99 presenting his argument on the basis of an example. If we base
ourselves on a linguistic comparison between Deut. 7 and the other chapters
of the Deuteronomy, he insists, then we are obliged to characterise Deut. 7
as un-Deuteronomic. Indeed, the verbal form ( qal) with nations as its
object only occurs in Deut. 7:1, 22. The term ( pielDeut. 7:22), further
more, is a hapax legomenon in the book of Deuteronomy, as are ( qal
Deut. 7:20) and the sending of the ( Deut. 7:20). According to Blum, we
cannot argue on the basis of such linguistic observations that Deut. 7 did not
originally belong to the book of Deuteronomy. He asks himself the question:
Sollten die Deuteronomisten sich mitunten also auch Abweichungen von
ihren Sprachstereotypen zugestanden haben?.100 While such questions are
perfectly legitimate, the present author would argue that they do not chal
lenge the intrinsic value of linguistic research. Indeed, when an expression
or a word only occurs once in the book of Deuteronomy, there is no reason
Eingeflochtenheit und stilistische Besonderheiten des Gebrauchs. Eine Hufung solcher

Besonderheiten fhrt so zum Schlu auf Eigentmlichkeiten von Autoren.
98 Lohfink, Gab es eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 1995, 324325 refers in this regard
to the importance of the study of F.I. Andersen, A.D. Forbes, The Vocabulary of the Old
Testament, Roma 1989, 265447, together with the fact that computer technology has
a great deal to offer in this domain. One of the first works to make use of the latter is
F. Postma, et al., Exodus: Materials in Automatic Text Processing, Vol. 1: Morphological,
Syntactical and Literary Case Studies (Instrumenta Biblica, 1/1), Amsterdam 1983. The
Centre Informatique et Bible under the leadership of R.-F. Poswick (Abbey of Maredsous)
has been active in this domain for decades and also deserves mention. See R.-F. Poswick,
Marc Vervenne et la numrrisation de lhbreu massortique chez Informatique & Bible
(Maredsous): Une longue collaboration, in: H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn (eds), A Pillar
of Cloud to Guide (Exod. 13,21): Old Testament Text-Critical, Redactional and Linguistic
Perspectives in Honour of Marc Vervenne (BETL, 269), Leuven 2014, 525535.
99 Blum, Studien, 370371. See also Idem, Der kompositionelle Knoten am bergang von
Josua zu Richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag, in M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy
and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 181
212, esp. 211212.
whatsoever to consider it typically Deuteronomic.101 Furthermore, one should

not appeal with excessive ease to the freedom of the Deuteronomic author
since we know well enough that material from a variety of origins has to be
accounted for in the present book of Deuteronomy. This implies that certain
expressions in the book of Deuteronomy need not necessarily be character
ised as compatible with what we consider to be typically Deuteronomic lan
guage. If we consider a term or expression that only occurs once in the book
of Deuteronomy as a characteristic feature of the Deuteronomic author, then
we run the risk of typifying every word we find in Deuteronomyor in the
rest of the Deuteronomistic Canonas Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic.102
From a methodological perspective, moreover, it is incorrect to use a concept
or expression that is not typically Deuteronom(ist)ic as a criterion for associat
ing other Old Testament pericopes with a Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic
reworking.103 In our opinion, therefore, the value of thorough linguistic analy
sis should not be tampered with.104
2.2.1.2 Stylistic Features

The study of the style in which a pericope is written is perhaps the most dif
ficult step in the process since it includes grammatical analysis together with
101 See, for example, my observation concerning the term in Deut. 26:9 in Ausloos,
Deuteronomi(sti)c Elements, 493494.
102 Cf. the tendency Lohfink designates as Ausbaugestallt II, whereby Old Testament texts
are characterised as Deuteronomistic even when there is no relationship with the so-
called Deuteronomistic Canon.
103 It is also important that we account for the possibility that texts developed on the basis of
a common Vorlage. A critical note with respect to Blums critique of the use of linguistic
criteria can also be found in Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements, 253
254. See also Talstra, Solomons Prayer, 81: (...) the method of Brekelmans, Langlamet, and
others (...) is characterized by the fact that it not only uses linguistic arguments more
extenxively and carefully but above all with priority. Precisely on account of the impor
tant linguistic component in this method, I believe it deserves further application and
elaboration in the inquiry into the nature of dtr language and the composition of the
DtrH.
104 In H. Ausloos, The Need for a Linguistic Argumentation in Characterizing Biblical
Pericopes as Deuteronomistic: A Critical Note to E. Blums Methodology, JNSL 23
(1997), 4756 I engage with Blum in further discussion. J. Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic
Contribution to the Narrative in GenesisNumbers: A Test Case, in: L.S. Schearing,
S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-
Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 8115 likewise ascribes an important place
to linguistic analysis.
294 chapter 5
an analysis of the syntactic structure of the text.105 This implies, among other
things, that we should avoid getting bogged down in shallow designations by
alluding, for example, to the parenetic Deuteronomic style. Indeed, any attempt
to provide a concrete definition of the latter would be a perilous undertaking.
It is for this reason that a stylistic study has to be based on tangible data, and
this is only possible when we include the syntactical and grammatical features
of a given text as part of the analysis.106 It is possible, for instance, that a given
pericope is characterised by the frequent use of nominal clauses when one
might expectaccording to classical syntaxverbal clauses. It is also pos
sible that a text contains an unusual number of paranomastic constructions.
Reference can be made in addition to the use of interjections, inversions, ver
bal elipsis, metonymy and compound clauses. The stylistic domain likewise
includes the Numeruswechsel question, although it has to be determined on
a case by case basis whether this is a stylistic characteristic or a criterion for
distinguishing different layers or reworkings in a given text.
2.2.1.3 Compositional Structure

In addition to the study of the vocabulary and stylistic characteristics of a text,
our analysis of the form thereof also requires an exploration of the compo
sitional structure in which a given pericope or part thereof is constructed.107
We refer here by way of example to Exod. 13:316. This pericope consists of
a diptych that contains the law concerning unleavened bread and the law
105 Cf. Rmer, Lcole deutronomiste et la formation de la bible hbraique, 179181. See Idem,
Nombres 1112 et la question dune rdaction deutronomique dans le Pentateuque, in
Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, 481498, esp. 484485.
106 For an overview of the style features said to be characteristic of the Deuteronomistic
redaction of Exod. 317, reference can be made to the work of W. Fuss, Die deuteronomis
tische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 317 (BZAW, 126), Berlin 1972, 395399. The approach
to style found in Fuss is, as such, worthy of imitation. It has to be noted, however, that
Fuss ascribes the characteristic style to the Deuteronomistic RJE. Fuss would have been
better advised to determine whether the stylistic characteristics he claims to discern in
RJE actually exhibit agreement with the style of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature before
characterising this JE redaction as Deuteronomistic. A fine example of the use of this sty
listic criterion is given by M. Anbar, Linfluence deutronomique sur le Code de lAlliance:
Le cas dExode 21:1217, ZABR 5 (1999), 165166.
107 Cf. also Lohfink, Gab es eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 324 with respect to the
kompositorische Schemata in a text. See equally the remarks by J.L. Ska, Le Pentateuque:
tat de la recherche partir de quelques rcentes Introductions, Bib 77 (1996), 245265,
esp. 257 who speaks about techniques rdactionnelles.
concerning the firstborn.108 The said laws are presented according to the same
four-part structure. Both consist of an introductory formula followed by the
legal prescription as such,109 which is then followed by a catechetical exhorta
tion. At the end of each panel of the diptych we find a concluding formula.
In addition to structural elements, frequently repeated words can give a text
a strong sense of inner cohesion and may also serve to indicate aspects of its
compositional structure.110
After having thoroughly analysed the form of a given a pericope and deter
mined that it exhibits clear associations with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature
in terms of its language, style and compositional features, we are then at lib
erty to decide whether the text in question should be characterised as being of
the Deuteronom(ist)ic type or not. It must be noted in addition, however, that
the various elements in the text need not all be pointing in the same direc
tion. It is plausible, for example, that a passage only exhibits kinship with the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature at the linguistic level while no agreement can be
demonstrated at the level of style or compositional structure.111
2.2.2 Theological Themes and Concepts

In addition to the study of the form of a text, it is also important to focus
attention on its content.112 A number of themes and theological concepts
108 Cf. Caloz, Exode, xiii,316, 4344.

109 N. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 511
(AnBib, 20), Roma 1963, 113120 speaks in this context of the Gebotsumrahmung.
110 See also H. Ausloos, Exod. 23,2033 and the War of yhwh , Bib 80 (1999), 555563.
111 See Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 340 on the Deuteronomistic flavour of certain passages
from Jeremiah: Nun haben wir es mit dem bemerkenswerten Phnomen zu tun, da
gerade diese Passagen, die gegen die These einer Affinitt von Dtn. und Jeremia vorge
bracht werden knnen, hinsichtlich ihrer Sprache deuteronomisch gefrbt sind. D.h.
nichtdeutero nomische Konzeptionen werden hier mit deuteronomischer Idiomatik
vorgetragen.
112 Herrmann, Jeremia, 202 even argues that the content of a text should have priority over
its style. In his opinion, the latter is of secondary importance in the transmission of a
message: Im Prinzip waren es doch die Inhalte der Texte, an denen seinen Tradenten lag
und die darum auch zu ihrer Aufzeichnung, zu ihrer Komposition und Redaktion fhrten,
whrend die formalen, sozusagen sprachstatistisch erhebbaren Kriterien mitwirkend
waren, ohne recht eigentlich den schpferischen Proze zu beherrschen, als ob man nur
schne Literatur produzieren wollte! Es mag gegen den unter uns herrschenden Zeitgeist
verstoen, so zu reden, wo doch der linguistischen Beobachtung und Entdeckung zuwei
len fast die Qualitt einer selbstndigen Offenbarung zuerkannt wird. So gewi das lin
guistische Instrumentarium fr die Wirkung eines Textes von Bedeutung ist, so wenig
darf die Sache, die zur Wirkung kommen soll, auer Acht gelassen werden.In the
296 chapter 5
are important in this regard. This implies, however, that one has an over-
view at ones disposal of the various themes that are specific to the
As far as the content-related Deuteronom(ist)ic characteristics are
concerned,113 reference can be made to themes such as the centralisation of
the cult, the theological concept of Gods name, the rejection of the temple
as the dwelling place of God, the approach to the ark, the attitude towards
sacrifice, and the ban under which the Canaanite population is to be placed.
Furthermore, the nationalistic and patriotic attitude of Deuteronomy is recog
nisable in the establishment of the borders of the Promised Land. Reference
can be made in addition to the conditional character of the gift of the land in
the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. It is likewise remarkable in this regard that
the loss of the land is never seen as definitive.
Should a close analysis of a pericope reveal that it bears close resemblance
in thematic terms to the content of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, then
we can say that the text in question is of the Deuteronom(ist)ic type. By anal
ogy with the observations made with respect to the form-related study of
a pericope, we must also account here for the possibility that (part of)114 the
said pericope may agree with the Deuteronom(ist)ic theology and Deutero
nom(ist)ic concepts, while in terms of form it does not or only partly exhibits
agreement with the Deuteronom(ist)ic characteristics. Indeed, the opposite is
also equally possible. It is only when we examine a text from the perspective of
both form and content that we are at liberty to characterise it as being of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic type or not.115 Nothing has been said thus far, however, with
present authors opinion, however, this observation does not undermine the intrinsic
value of form study. The latter is of crucial importance in our endeavour to trace a rela
tionship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
113 Cf. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 175181.
114 It is probable that the study of the form and content of a given pericope will also have
historical-critical implications. Indeed, it is possible that only a portion of a pericope
exhibits kinship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology while the
remained appears to have no link whatsoever with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. The
layered character of a text can thus be determined in part on this basis. On the use of
linguistic arguments, see recently R. Rezetko, The Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges:
Literary Formation, Textual Criticism, and Historical Linguistics, Journal of Hebrew
Scriptures 13 (2013), article 2 (http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_182.pdflast
access 05 June 2014).
115 We do not wish to imply here that such language and such content-related points of
interest were the exclusive monopoly of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. Indeed, one
has to account for the possibility that a certain linguistic feature and certain theological
respect to potential dependence let alone the nature of such a dependence

between the passages being studied and the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
2.3 The Direction of Dependence: Supporting Well-Founded Judgements

Once a text has been characterised as being of the Deuteronom(ist)ic type
on the basis of a study of its form and an examination of its content-related
themes and concepts, we can move on to explore the question of the direction
of dependence.116 It should be evident from the following observations that
the answer to this question is far from simple.117
As we observed on a number of occasions in the course of the present vol
ume, Brekelmans argued that a pericope from GenesisNumbers could be
considered as proto-Deuteronomic when it fulfilled three conditions. First,
the passage in question should exhibit a not yet fully elaborated form of the
Deuteronomic theology. Second, the passage in question should employ
vocabulary and expressions akin to the Deuteronomic formulas, but not yet
in an identical stereotype fashion. Third, according to Brekelmans a proto-
Deuteronomic text should contain elements that exhibit no agreement with
the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, while exhibiting parallels with other texts
that can be considered pre-Deuteronomic.
The intrinsic value of Brekelmans suggestion that we can trace evidence
of the lead-up to the Deuteronomic literature in GenesisNumber is beyond
question. Given the current state of Pentateuchforschung, however, the cri
teria he formulated for characterising a pericope in the Tetrateuch as proto-
Deuteronomic would seem to be particularly difficult to maintain, unless
ideas were part of the accepted religious idiom without thereby characterising the latter
as exclusively Deuteronom(ist)ic. Cf. Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 341 in this regard: Von
Wichtigkeit ist (...) die Datierungsfrage der in beiden Schriften gebrauchten Idiome.
Gewhnlich ist man der Ansicht, da sich der deuteronomische-deuteronomistische
Sprachgebrauch in den Sptschriften stark durchgesetzt habe (z.B. Dan. 9,4ff.; Esr. 9,6ff.;
Neh. 1,5ff.; 9,6ff.). Man kann sich die Frage stellen, ob deshalb nicht zumindest auch die
Mglichkeit in Betracht gezogen werden mu, da betreffende Idiome auch schon vor
dem 7./6.Jh. gebruchlich waren und wir es hier mit dem Phnomen einer religisen
Sprache zu tun haben, die ber Jahrhunderte aufrechterhalten wurde und mehr oder
weniger das gemeinschaftliche Gut eines groes Teils der z.T. kontrren und in diversen
Epochen entstandenen alttestamentlichen berlieferungen ausmacht.
116 J. Lust, Exodus 6,28 and Ezekiel, in Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus, 209
224 has focused attention on the complex question of direction of dependence within the
framework of the relationship between Exod. 6:28 (P) and Ezekiel.
117 Cf. Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 340341: (...) da hchste Vorsicht geboten ist, will man
eine literarische Abhngigkeit aufgrund von Stil- und Wortschatzanalysen postulieren.
298 chapter 5
we cut across the traditional approach and no longer limit ourselves to the
books of GenesisNumbers as the corpus we should employ for comparison
when studying the vocabulary, language and theology of a given pericope.
Moreover, if we refer exclusively to the Deuteronomistic History and the rest
of the Tetrateuch as our point of comparison in relation to a pericope from
GenesisNumbers then Brekelmans first two criteria can be reversed with
out further ado. The italicised not yet can be replaced in both instances by no
longer, whereby a passage should then be characterised as post-deuteronomic:
a passage is post-Deuteronomic when it no longer exhibits a fully elaborated
form of the Deuteronomic theology. Furthermore, it is possible to encounter
vocabulary and expressions akin to the Deuteronomic formulations in a
post-Deuteronomic pericope, which are no longer employed in an identical
stereotype fashion. Brekelmans third criterion, in which similarity between a
proto-Deuteronomic text and other pre-Deuteronomic texts is postulated and
whereby only the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History are included in
the study, is also problematic. Since the 1970s, moreover, large segments of the
Pentateuch and even the Pentateuch as a whole have been considered in an
increasing degree (with or without sound arguments) as a late creation.
These critical remarks in relation to Brekelmans criteriology imply a need
to be more thorough when dealing with the problem of dependence than has
hitherto been the case. There is a clear need for a much broader controlling
framework, that includes the entire Old Testament.118 Moreover, given con
temporary controversy among exegetes concerning the so-called early seg
ments of the Tetrateuch (J, E or RJE), it would seem that we no longer have a
solid foundation on which to rely when dating the largest part of the material
118 Cf. J. Van Seters, The So-called Deuteronomistic Redaction, 59: It seems to me metho
dologically dubious to use the language and terminology of Dtn/Dtr to identify a group of
texts as proto-D simply because they are embedded within that part of the Pentateuch
that has been considered by the documentary hypothesis as earlier than Dtn. The only
way that one could properly make such judgments would be to see how the Pentateuchal
texts fit into a stream of development or history of tradition in non-Pentateuchal texts
that clearly begins before Deuteronomy and proceeds beyond Dtr into the exilic and
post-exilic periods. The controlling framework of texts by which to construct the his
tory of tradition must have the support of a broad consensus of scholarship. See also
J. Van Seters, In the Babylonian Exile with J: Between Judgment in Ezekiel and Salvation
in Second Isaiah, in: B. Becking, M.C.A. Korpel (eds), The Crisis of Israelite Religion:
Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS, 42), Leiden
1999, 7189, 87 and Van Seters A Law Book for the Diaspora, 7071. For further observa
tions concerning the need for a controlling framework, see H. Ausloos, The Need for
a Controlling Framework in Determining the Relationship between GenesisNumbers
and the So-Called Deuteronomistic Literature, JNSL 24 (1998), 7789.
in the Tetrateuch. For this reason it seems necessary to involve the remain
ing books of the Old Testament in the analysis, devoting special attention
to the prophetic literature, although here as well the issue of the dating
becomes more and more disputed.119 It would be possible in theory to limit
oneself in such a comparison to non-Priestly literature. I am more inclined
to argue, however, that one would adopt a less prejudiced position in such
a study if one were to involve the entire Old Testament. Indeed, there is a
steadily increasinglack of unanimity with regard to the scope of the Priestly
material.120 Furthermore, texts traditionally characterised as Priestly can also
contain significant clues with respect to the nature of the relationship between
the pericope under analysis and the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, which has
recently led scholars to characterise some traditionally Deuteronom(ist)ic pas
sages as post-Deuteronomistic/post-Priestly.
In the present authors opinion, the evolution of the Hebrew language can
also function as an additional argument for relating a given passage to the pre-
and post-history of the Deuteronomic literature.121 Without going into detail
on the concrete feasibility of this criterion, I am convinced nevertheless that
further research needs to be done at this level. Relatedly, the historical Sitz
im Leben to which a pericope refers can also function as an added argument.122
It should also be noted in this regard, however, that I suggest this criterion
as a theoretical possibility without making a statement about its concrete
applicability.
3 Old Testament Textual Criticism and the Deuteronomist
At the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, Geddes and
Vater had already started to focus attention on the presence of what was later
119 See also D.M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction, Oxford 2011,
321323.
120 See, for example, the position of G. Fischer, Zur Lage der Pentateuchforschung, ZAW 115
(2003), 608616.
121 Cf. against this background J. Hoftijzer, Holistic or Compositional Approach? Linguistic
Remarks to the Problem, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate
on Method in Old Testament Exegesis: Papers Read at the Ninth Joint Meeting of Het
Oudtestamentische Werkgezel schap in Nederland en Belgi and The Society for Old
Testament Study Held at Kampen, 1994 (SVT, 34), Leiden 1995, 98114; Rezetko, The
Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges, 3161. See also, for example, H. Bauer, P. Leander,
Historische Grammatik der Hebrischen Sprache des Alten Testaments, Bd. 1: Einleitung,
Schriftlehre, Laut- und Formenlehre, Halle 1922.
122 Cf., for example, Schmidt, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches.
300 chapter 5
to be designated typically Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas within the Samaritan

Pentateuch. By emphasising interpolations in the Samaritan version of the
book of Exodus that harmonised with Deuteronomy, neither Geddes nor
Vater intended to claim that we should account for a deliberate and conscious
Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of the Tetrateuch. Their observation remains
interesting nevertheless from the perspective of later research. It demonstrates,
moreover, that the Deuteronom(ist)ic question is active at the point where
literary criticism and textual criticism meet. The emphasis placed by Geddes
and Vater on the interpolations in the Samaritan Pentateuch that harmonise
with Deuteronomy also raises questions concerning the possibility that this
harmonising interpolation approach may offer clues that might help explain
the presence of so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic material in the protoMasoretic
text of GenesisNumbers.123
4 Is Exod. 23,2033 a Deuteronomistic Epilogue to the Book of the

Covenant?
In parallel to our presentation of the status quaestionis of the Deuterono

m(ist)ic character of Exod. 23:2033 in chapters 2, 3 and 4, we now turn to
an evaluation of the proposed criteriology, making use of several elements
from the said pericope. A complete and detailed analysis of all elements is
not possible within the scope of this work. We will focus rather on a selec
tion of elements by way of example in order to clarify the complexity of the
relationship between GenesisNumbers and what is generally characterised
as typically Deuteronom(ist)ic. Firstly, several elements characteristic of the
form of Exod. 23:2033 will be analysed: linguistic elements, stylistic features
and compositional structures. Secondly, the theological concept of the angel
of yhwh will be dealt with, in order to determine whether this criterion can
function as an indication supporting the Deuteronomistic characterisation of
the pericope. Finally, and on the basis of the list of the peoples in Exod. 23:23,
28, we will illustrate how the ancient versions (or their Vorlage) already reveal
a tendency to harmonise with Deuteronomistic literature.
123 See also in this regard E. Tov, The Septuagint and the Deuteronomists, in Idem, Hebrew
Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSAJ, 121), Tbingen 2008, 398417 on
Deuteronom(ist)ic reworkings in the lxx of the books JoshuaKings.
4.1 Can Linguistic Analysis Provide Sound Indications Supporting the

Deuteronomistic Characterisation of Exod. 23:2033?
Throughout the history of research, linguistic elementsmostly restricted to
the analysis of the vocabularyhave played a consistent role in the characteri
sation of Exod. 23:2033 as belonging to a Deuteronom(ist)ic layer or redac
tion. Nevertheless, this vocabulary argument has to be used with caution,
as can be exemplified with reference to the use of the noun ( place) in
Exod. 23:20.124
In his Jahwes und Israels Kriege, Stolz uses the formula
in Exod. 23:20 as an argument in favour of the Deuteronomi(ist)ic char
acter of Exod. 23:2033, linking it to the (Deuteronomic) expression
( Deut. 12:5, 11, 21 et al.).125 In his wake, Crsemann argues
that the term in Exod. 23:20 does not refer to the Promised Land, as had
been generally accepted.126 On the contrary, in his view, the author of this
verse wanted to allude to the sanctuary. Crsemanns thesis is based on four
arguments. Firstly, he contends that it is uncommon in the Old Testament
tradition to designate the Promised Land as .127 Secondly, the word is
often used in constructions concerning the sanctuary.128 Thirdly, the combina
tion and , as found in Exod. 23:20, is completely absent from the other
books of the Old Testament, with the exception of 1 and 2 Chronicles, where the
formula is applied to the temple in Jerusalem.129 Fourthly, Crsemann points
out the parallelism between Exod. 23:20 and Exod. 20:24; 21:13, both passages
124 For this section, see Ausloos, Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in Exod. 23,2033?, 489500.
125 F. Stolz Jahwes und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen im Glauben des
alten Israels (ATANT, 60), Zrich 1972, 76: Das Wort hekn (bzw. knen) entstammt dabei
der Jerusalemer Kulttradition und wird fr die gttliche Grndung der Stadt bzw. des
Tempels verwendet (Ps. 48,9; 87,5).
126 F. Crsemann, Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes,
Mnchen 1992, 209213.
127 Crsemann refers to J. Gamberoni, , TWAT 4 (1984), 11131124, esp. 1118, who states
that is used as the land in Gen. 13:3, 4, 1417; Exod. 3:8, 17; 23:20; Ezek. 21:35.
Crsemann contradicts this statement, however, by arguing that only Exod. 3:8 can be
understood in this particular way. He concludes: die Sonderrolle von maqom in Exod.
23,20 hngt allein am Kontext, der auf Landnahme hinzuweisen scheint (Crsemann, Die
Tora, 210 n. 358).
128 With reference to K. Koch, , TWAT 4 (1984), 95107.
129 According to Crsemann, the expression only occurs in 1 Chron. 15:1, 3; 2 Chron.
3:1; 33:19 [i.e. 33:16]; 35:20. In these passages, however, the combination of both words is
only present in 1 Chron. 15:1, 3; 2 Chron. 3:1. Cf. 2 Chron. 33:16: ; 2 Chron.
35:20: .
302 chapter 5
dealing with the sanctuary.130 These four elements lead him to the conclusion
that the term in Exod. 23:20 does not refer to the Promised Land, but
points to the sanctuary.131 As a result, and within the context of the epilogue
of the Book of the Covenant, Exod. 23:20 would appear to allude to Israels
protection by the angel of yhwh on their way to the sanctuary. According to
Crsemann, Exod. 23:23 uses an almost identical formulation to say that the
angel will accompany the people on their journey to the foreign nations, away
from the sanctuary.132 As a consequence, the main theme of Exod. 23:2033*
in Crsemanns view is Gods protection of Israel, even when it is not yet or no
longer in the sanctuary, but in the midst of non-Israelite peoples.
Despite Crsemanns interesting suggestion, there remain sound arguments
that make it plausible to consider the word as being used in relation to
the Promised Land.133 Firstly, the combination only occurs in Exod.
23:20; 1 Chron. 15:1, 3; 2 Chron. 3:1. In contrast to Exod. 23:20, however, David
is mentioned as the subject of in 1 and 2 Chronicles. In Chronicles, more
over, an explicit reference is made to the sanctuary.134 Secondly, it is unusual
in the Old Testament for God or his angel to lead (hifil) the people to or
away from the sanctuary.135 It is more common, especially in the Pentateuch,
for God to conduct the people to the Promised Land.136 A third argument in
130 As to Exod. 20:24; 21:13, cf. Crsemann, Die Tora, 201208.
131 Crsemann, Die Tora, 211: (...) dann liegen so massive Grnde vor, den Ort von 23,20 auf
ein Heiligtum bzw. einen Tempel zu beziehen.
132 Crsemann, Die Tora, 211212: Der ltere Text [i.e. Exod. 23:20, 21 (without
;)Exod. 23:22, 23 (without ;)Exod. 23:24, 32, 33d (])
spricht nicht von einen fiktiven Punkt auerhalb des Landes und weit vor der jetzigen
Zeit. Es geht vielmehr um Menschen und Vlker, mit denen man im Lande lebt. Wenn
in V. 20 der Zug ins Heiligtum angesprochen ist (...), dann ist in Ex. 23,23 derselbe Weg
in der anderen Richtung gemeint. Es geht um die Begleitung vom Heiligtum, in dem die
Gegenwart Gottes zugesagt ist, nach Hause. Die Angeredeten leben jedenfalls potenti
ell und grundstzlich mit Menschen zusammen, die andere Gtter verehren. Zu ihnen
begleitet sie der Gottesbote.
133 H.-D. Neef, Ich selber bin in ihm (Ex. 23,21): Exegetische Beobachtungen zur Rede vom
Engel des Herrn in Ex. 23,2022; 32,34; 33,2; Jdc 2,15; 5,23, BZ 39 (1995), 5475 likewise
argues against Crsemanns thesis.
134 Cf. ( 1 Chron. 15:1); ( 1 Chron. 15:1); ( 2 Chron. 3:1).
135 See Isa. 56:7; Ps. 43:3; 78:54. Cf. also Ezek. 11:1; 8:7, 14, 16; 40:17, 28, 35, 48; 41:1; 42:1; 43:5; 44:4;
46:19. Ezekiel recounts that yhwh takes the prophet in a vision into the new temple. This,
however, has nothing in common with the tendency to bring the people to the temple to
worship yhwh. Cf. also Exod. 15:17, where is parallel with , and
also, according to Preu in Exod. 19:4: E. Preu, , TWAT 1 (1973), 542.
136 ( hifil) with yhwh as subject and the land as object: Exod. 6:8; 13:5, 11; 23:23;
Lev. 18:3; 20:22; 26:41; Num. 14:3, 8, 16, 24, 31; 15:18; Deut. 4:38; 6:10, 23; 7:1; 8:7; 9:4, 28; 11:29;
favour of the meaning land can be found in the use of the list of peoples.
In Crsemanns view, the angel will protect the Israelites in the land when they
go to and return from the sanctuary. In the context of the journey to the for
eign peoples, however, the list of peoples is only summed up when the giving/
taking possession of their land is the focal point.137 None of the passages con
taining a list of peoples deals with a cultic activity of Israel. The final argument
concerns the close connection with Deut. 26:9 and Judg. 2:1, dealing with the
taking possession of the land. In my view, therefore, these four arguments lead
to the conclusion that the term in Exod. 23:20 cannot be linked to Israels
sanctuary. It refers, on the contrary, to Israels taking possession of the land.
This example illustrates the importance of detecting the exact meaning
of the word in its context. Only after this analysis has been done, can
we closely examine the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic character of the word.
At this point, it becomes methodologically significant to compare the use of
the term in Exod. 23:20 with the way it is employed in Deuteronomy
and the so-called Deuteronomistic History, but equally with the sections out
side this complex traditionally considered Deuteronomistic (the controlling
framework of the Deuteronomistic canon).138
Although used for the most part in relation to the Israelite sanctuary,139
Deuteronomy also uses the word in a more neutral sense.140 In Deut.
12:2, 3, the term occurs with the connotation of a pagan sanctuary.141 There is
26:9; 30:5; 31:20, 21; Josh. 24:8; Judg. 2:1; Jer. 2:7 ( ;) 3:14 ( ;)23:8 (;)
Ezek. 20:15 ( ... ;)20:28 (;)
34:13 ( ;) 37:21 ( ;) 39:2 ( ;) 40:2 (;)
Neh. 9:23 () .
137 Exod. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:2; 34:11; Deut. 7:12; 20:17; Josh. 3,10.
138 Cf. Van Seters, The So-called Deuteronomistic Redaction, 59.
139 as the sanctuary of yhwh in Deuteronomy: Deut. 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23, 24,
25; 15:20; 16:2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11. As indicating the sanctuary of
yhwh, in Deuteronomy is always used as an element of a vey stereotypical expres
sion: , to which sometimes more specific information is added.
This typical Deuteronomic expression can only be found in Deuteronomy. See, for
example, B. Halpern, The Centralization Formula in Deuteronomy, VT 31 (1981), 2038;
N. Lohfink, Zur deuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel, Bib 65 (1984), 297329; E. Otto,
Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal (BWANT, 107), Stuttgart 1975, 204; H. Weippert, Der Ort, den
Jahwe erwhlen wird, um dort seinen Namen wohnen zu lassen: Die Geschichte einer
alltestamentlichen Formel, BZ 24 (1980), 7694; H. Wildberger, Neuinterpretation des
Erwhlungsglaubens: Israel in der Krise der Exilszeit, in: H.J. Stoebe et al. (eds) Wort
Gebot Glaube: Beitrge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments Walter Eichrodt zum 80.
Geburtstag (ATANT, 59), Zrich 1970, 307324, esp. 311313.
140 as a profan term: Deut. 1:31, 33; 9:7; 11:5; 11:24; 21:19; 23:17; 29:6.
141 as a pagan sanctuary: Deut. 12:2, 3. Cf. also Deut. 12:13.
304 chapter 5
only one passage within the book of Deuteronomy where the term might
refer to the Promised Land, as is the case in Exod. 23:20, namely Deut. 26:9:
. In this instance, the word is used
in a parallel sense to . Nevertheless, it remains possible that the author
of Deut. 26:9 used as refering to the sanctuary which was mentioned
in Deut. 26:2. Whatever the case, the use of in Deut. 26:9 cannot be
considered as typically Deuteronomic.142 Firstly, if the term were to refer to
the sanctuary, it would not correspond to the stereotypical Deuteronomic
formula . As already observed, moreover, it would be
extraordinary in Deuteronomy that God would lead the people to the sanc
tuary. Secondly, if in Deut. 26:9in parallel to were
to refer to the Promised Land, even then it would not conform to the way
in which Deuteronomy deals with the land.143 As a result, the occurence
of in Exod. 23:20, alluding to the Promised Land, can be labelled as
non-Deuteronomic.144
The use of the term to signify land is also evident elsewhere in
GenesisNumbers.145 Although some of these passages have been labeled
Deuteronom(ist)ic for other reasons, they do not suppport the characterisa
tion of the term in Exod. 23:20 as Deuteronomistic. Similar conclusions
can be drawn from an analysis of the term in the so-called Deuteronomistic
History and the rest of the Old Testament: is a commonly used word with
many different meanings.146
142 Cf. Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 85: La liaison [de ]avec el hammaqm
qui ne se rencontre quici et en Deut., xxvi,9, nest pas prcisment deutronomique,
tant donn quen D, hammaqm dsigne habituellement le temple et non le pays.
143 See, e.g. J.G. Plger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen
zum Deuteronomium (BBB, 26), Bonn 1967, 61100.
144 See also Lohfink, Zur deuteronomischen Zentralizationsformel, 302.
145 Gen. 13:14; Exod. 3:8; Num. 10:29; 14:40; 32:17.
146 Cf. also W. Richter, , TWAT 4 (1984), 11131125. In reference to the land, the term is
used in Judg. 11:19; 18:10; 1 Sam. 12:8; 2 Sam. 7:10//1 Chron. 17:9; 2 Kgs. 18:25. There is no
close relationship, however, between Exod. 23:20 and these passages. In addition, as in
Exod. 23:20, it is impossible to link the use of in the so-called Deuteronomistic
History with the way Deuteronomy deals with the land. Furthermore, for the occurences
in the so-called Deuteronomistic History, it is important to be aware of the fact that a
term is not typically Deuteronomistic if it occurs a few times in a specific meaning in the
Deuteronomistic History (in this corpus, the term occurs more than one hundred
times in a myriad of different meanings!). See also the use of in Jer. 7:3, 6, 7, 12, 14, 20).
Scholars do not agree, however, on the exact meaning of the word in this context. In some
instances the term refers to the land, but in such cases refers to Judah and not to the
Promised Land as a whole. See, for example, Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von
As a result of this brief investigation of the use of the term , meaning

land, it can be stated that the occurence of the word in Exod. 23:20 cannot
be used as an argument confirming the so-called Deuteronomistic character
of Exod. 23:2033: the term does not occur in that meaning in Deuteronomy
and there is no close relationship between its usage in Exod. 23:20 and the
Deuteronomistic History.
A further example, also taken from the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant,
provides an even better clarification of the difficulties related to character
ising a Pentateuchal text as Deuteronomistic. The clause
(Exod. 23:33) has often been labeled as part of the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic
insertion Exod. 23:31b33.147 In this respect, scholars are accustomed to refer
ing to passages such as Exod. 34:12; Deut. 7:16; Josh. 23:13; Judg. 2:3; 8:27, and
even Ps. 10:36, all passages that are considered Deuteronom(ist)ic.148 But a
more detailed analysis in support of the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of this
expression remains absent.
Since the studies of Brekelmans and Lohfink, which pointed to proto-
Deuteronomic elements in GenesisNumbers, some scholars have tried
to provide more elaborate arguments in order to accentuate the pre- or
Jeremia 125, 109; 224; M. Rose, Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes: Deuteronomische

Schultheologie und die Volksfrmmigkeit in der spten Knigszeit (BWANT, 106), Stuttgart
1975, 217220.
147 Baentsch, Exodus, 212 uses Exod. 10:7; 34:12; Deut. 7:16; Josh. 23:13 as an argument for
the Deuteronomistic character of . According to W. Richter, Die Bearbeitungen des
Retterbuches in der deuteronomischen Epoche (BBB, 21), Bonn 1964, 109, the expression is
used in Exod. 10:7(J) in a concrete and profane way; in the (Deuteronomistic) verses Exod.
34:12; 23:33; Deut. 7:16; Josh. 23:13; Judg. 2:3; 8:27, however, the term occurs in relation to the
gods. For the combination , Fuss, Die Deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
390391 refers to Exod. 10:7; 34:12; Deut. 7:16; Josh. 23:13; Judg. 2:3; 8:27. According to
J.P. Floss, Jahwe dienen Gttern dienen: Terminologische, literarische und semantische
Untersuchung einer theologischen Aussage zum Gottesverhltnis im Alten Testament (BBB,
45), Bonn 1975, 274; 512, one discovers a geschichtstheologische Betrachtungsweise in
Exod. 23:31b33, which is typical for the Deuteronom(ist)ic theology. Relations with for
eign gods will become the cause of political downfall. J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An
Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (AB Reference Library), New York 1992, 189,
designates the representation of the foreign gods as a as a Deuteronomic theme,
referring to Deut. 7:16.
148 See J. Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex. 34,1026: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken
in vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT, 114), Gttingen 1975, 128: Da dieser Verteilung
[i.e. Exod. 23:33; 34:12; Deut. 7:16; Josh. 23:13; Judg. 2:3; Ps. 106:36] an deuteronomistisches
Sprachgebrauch hat denken lassen, ist verstndlich.
306 chapter 5
proto-Deuteronomic character of Exod. 23:33.149 However, only Halbe and

Osumi have focuses on the use of in an extensive way.
According to Halbe, the term is often used in the language of hunt
ing, especially in Wisdom literature. In relation to the danger of mixing with
foreign peoples, however, only occurs in Exod. 23:33; 34:12; Deut. 7:16(25);
(12:30); Josh. 23:13; Judg. 2:3; Ps. 106:36.150 In Halbes opinion, moreover, a
distinction should be made between the four original passages in which
occurs. He thus underlines a development in the use of the expression.
According to him, Exod. 34:12 contrasts sharply with Exod. 23:33; Judg. 2:3 and
Deut. 7:16. In Exod. 34:12, the subject of the expression is formed explicitly by
149 Brekelmans, lmnts deutronomiques, 88; Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 172176. Follow
ing in their footsteps, F. Langlamet, Isral et lhabitant du pays, RB 76 (1969), 321350,
esp. 345, writes: Quant aux textes situer dans le voisinage de Dtr, leur parent avec
Dtr peut varier considrablement. Il aurait fallu distinguer: Ex., xxiii,33; xxxiv,12; Jug.,
ii,3; viii,27 (le Ps., cvi,36 dpend des textes prcdents) qui pourraient tre antrieurs
Dtr, et Jos., xxiii,13, texte Dtr, o est associ a , comme en Is., viii,14. Le fait que
Dtr, en Jos., xxiii,13, ne reprenne pas telle quelle lexpression traditionelle nous invite
la prudence en ce qui concerne les autres textes. Ajoutons que ces passages se rattachent
presque tous au texte dalliance Gilgal (Lohfink). Cest une raison de plus pour viter
de trancher prmaturement une question aussi dlicate. Otto, Das Mazzotfest, 221 argues
in favour of a common Vorlage of Exod. 23; 34; Deut. 7. His arguments concerning Exod.
23:33 are as follows: Exod. 23:3233; 34:16 and Deut. 7 have a prohibition on making cov
enants with the inhabitants of the land. Exod. 34:16 and Deut. 7:3 agree with each other
in introducing this prohibition in relation to the theme of the connubium. Exod. 23:32
adds , giving the commandment a cultic accent. In Exod. 23:33, however, the
prohibition concerning the connubium is no longer present. If Exod. 23 was the Vorlage
of Exod. 34 and Deut. 7, it is not clear why the cultic accent of Exod. 23 disappeared. If
Exod. 23 is dependent on Deut. 7, why was the prohibition concerning the connubium not
integrated? In addition, if Exod. 34 explicitly accentuates cultic apostacy and regards the
connubium as the immediate cause, the interdiction in Deut. 7 thus becomes the most
central topic. On the basis of theses elements, Otto decides that Exod. 23; 34; Deut. 7 have
a common Vorlage: Ex. 23; 34; Dtn 7 haben also auf je verschiedene Weise das alle drei
berlieferungen zugrunde liegende Bundesschluverbot kultisch akzentuiert (221).
150 Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 128: (...) Beziehungen zum deuteronomisch-deutero
nomistischen Bereich sind nach all unsere Feststellungen ohnehin zu erwarten. Nur ist
ebenso begrndet zu fragen, ob sie nicht etwa ins Vorfeld des Deuteronomium fhren.
See, however, also the use of in relation to idolatry in Judg. 8:27. Reference should
also be made to ( qal: lay a trap in Jer. 50:24; Ps. 124:7; 141,9; nifal: get trapped in Deut.
7:25; Isa. 8:15; 28:13; Prov. 6:2; pual: get trapped in Eccl. 9:12) and ( qal: capture in
Ps.9:17; nifal: to get trapped in Deut. 12:30; piel: lay a trap in Ps. 38:13; hitpael: lay a trap
in 1 Sam. 28:9). In Halbes view, the expression in Deut. 7:25; 12:30 became part of a later
parenesis.
the inhabitants of the land () . In the other passages, however, refer

ence is made to the religious danger of syncretism. As a result, the said pas
sages testify to a more developed reflection. Whereas Judg. 2:3 still functions
as an explanation of Exod. 34:12, Exod. 23:33 and Deut. 7:16 are only concerned
about religious syncretism. Halbe does not give an explanation for the com
mon use of , however, neither in Exod. 23:33 nor in Deut. 7:16.
Osumi considers Exod. 32:32, 33d to be a pre-Deuteronomic unit belonging
to what he calls the second person singular layer.151 Exod. 23:33ac, which is
later than and a further development of Deut. 7:16, accentuates the aversion
to the inhabitants of the land.152 In similar fashion to Halbes interpretation,
Osumis solution does not give a satisfactionary explanation for the use of
in Exod. 23,33d and Deut 7,16. Nevertheless, the grammatical difficulties
in Exod. 23:33d are significant.153 The problem concerns the use of the form
( yiqtol 3 masculine singular). In this respect, it is important to determine
the precise subject of , which will thus be a for Israel. We observed
above that Osumi considers Exod. 23:33ac to be an insertion later than
Deut. 7. According to him, in Exod. 23:32 refers to . As a result, the
covenant with the inhabitants of the land and their gods will be a snare for
Israel. The word , however, is a feminine noun, followed by the masculine
form of the verb (). In Osumis view, Gesenius-Kautzsch offers a solution
to this difficulty. According to Gesenius-Kautzsch, it is possible that the first
position of the verb in a clause often causes a masculine singular form.154 This
151 Y. Osumi, Die kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b23,33 (OBO, 105),
Fribourg 1991, 6368. The 2nd person singular layer consists of Exod. 23:2021c, e, 2223b,
24, 32, 33d.
152 Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte, 215: V. 33a.b stellt eine entwickeltere Traditionsphase
als Dtn 7,16 dar. In Osumis view, both commands are parallel in Deut. 7:16 (you have to
exterminate the population and it is forbidden to worship their gods). In Exod. 23:33,
however, the presence of the population in se will be a snare for Israel (the population
cant stay in the country, because you will worship their gods).
153 The syntactic hierarchy of Exod. 23:3233 can be presented as follows:
v. 32a:
v. 33a:
v. 33b:
v. 33c:
v. 33d:
154 According to Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte, 67 n. 159, who refers to W. Gesenius,
E. Kautzsch, Hebrische Grammatik, Leipzig 281909, 145o, die Voranstellung des Prdikats
in einen Satz verursache oft die unregelmige Masculinform des verbs. Compare,
however, with the grammar itself: Sehr hufig finden Abweichungen von der Grundregel
[cf. 145a: Wie in anderen Sprachen richtet sich auch im Hebrischen Genus und
308 chapter 5
option, however, cannot be considered as an argument in support of Osumis

theory: in his reconstruction of the text, the verb does not come in the first
position. On the contrary, in Osumis view, the first place is taken by the subject
().155 Joon-Muraoka mentions the possibility that - can be preceded
by a feminine, but also by a plural noun.156
This grammatical consideration leads to a second possibility. In this
instance, is to be identified as the subject of - and not . This
interpretation is also present in the lxx and in SamP.157 Both versions explic
itly relate to ( ) .158 In
my opinion, those two textual witnesses are not very helpful for the interpreta
tion of the mt, precisely because of their harmonising tendency with the book
of Deuteronomy (cf. infra), in this case with Deut. 7 in particular.
There are, however, some additional potential solutions. The verb
can also be used as an expression for the impersonal neuter (masculin
singular): it will be a snare for you.159 In this respect, can refer to each
of the foregoing clauses. As a consequence, reference can be made to
Numerus des Prdikats (...) im allgemeinen nach dem Subjekts] statt, wenn das Prdikat
dem (tierischen oder sachlichen) Subjekt vorangeht. Der Redende oder Schreibende
beginnt mit der nchstliegenden Form des Prdikats, der flexionslosen 3. Sing. masc. und
lt es gleichsam in suspenso, durch welches nachfolgende Subjekt, resp. durch welches
Genus oder welchen Numerus, das vorlufig unbestimmt gelassene Prdikat seine
Nherbestimmung erhalten soll.
155 Cf. especially in this respect Gesenius, Kautzsch, Hebrische Grammatik, 145u: Die Flle,
in welchen Genus oder Numerus des nachstehenden Prdikats von dem des Subjekts
abzuweichen scheint, beruhen teils auf offenbaren Textfehlern (...) oder auf besond.
Grnde. It is interesting that this grammar does not mention Exod. 23:33 in its list of
examples.
156 P. Joon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 14), Rome 1993,
150k: Even in the singular, the feminine is sometimes neglected (...). In simple prose
is found after a fem. noun; Not only the feminine, but also the plural is neglected
with ( 150 l).
157 Cf. Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements, 253: Linguistic determination
of the nature of deuteronomic elements in GenesisNumbers must also take account of
the physical form of the text (text-criticism).
158 According to J.W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBL SCS, 30), Atlanta, GA
1990, 378, refers to , i.e. the inhabitants of the land.
159 Cf. Joon, Muraoka, Grammar, 152d: (...) with verbs which take a more impersonal con
struction, the masculine is more usual by far. This is especially true of verbs expressing an
emotion. Thus one always has and it came to pass, and it shall come to pass.
(1) ,160 (2) , (3) , and

(4) .
This example illustrates the necessity of a thourough and detailed analysis
of the vocabulary of a pericope and its usage within it. Only after this inves
tigation has been completed can the question of the so-called Deuterono-
m(ist)ic character be brought to the fore. Where a word or expression are
always used within a particular context, we are obliged to study this con
text and its structure. The example of demonstrates the complexity of
the problem. Although the term is used in a very similar way in Exod. 23:33;
34:12; Deut. 7:16; Judg. 2:3, more research must be done into the relationship
between these pericopes. There can be no doubt that the said passages are
related to one another at some level. As Halbe pointed out, it is important to
investigate the precise meaning of in each periocope. In Judg. 2:3, it is
obvious that the would be a snare for Israel. This straightforwardness,
however, cannot be found in the other passages.161 As in Exod. 23:33, in
Exod. 34:12 can be rendered by an impersonal it. This implies that the whole
sentence ( ) could be the subject and not necessarily the
.162 The same may be true for Deut. 7:16, where can also refer
to the entire clause , and not only to .163 So, although
there is a close link between Deut. 7:16 and Exod. 23:33; 34:12, these two Exodus
passages do not explicitly state that the foreign gods themselves or idolatry
itself will become a for Israel. On the contrary, the text of Exod. 23:33;
160 According to Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 88, the inhabitants of the land are
the cause of the .
161 Nevertheless, according to W. Johnstone, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy in
Pentateuchal Studies, with Special Reference to the Sinai Pericope in Exodus, ZAW 99
(1987), 1637, esp. 2526, the relationship between Exod. 23:33 and Judg. 2:3 is self-evident.
However, he does not take into account the differences between both texts.
162 While I agree with Halbe that the use of in Exod. 23:33; Deut. 7:16; Judg. 2:3 is
related to the religious danger of worshipping foreign gods, I am not convinced that a
religious connotation is completely absent from Exod. 34:12. In Exod. 34:15, the expression
is taken up again in combination with the notion of idolatry.
163 Cf. B.K. Waltke, M. OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, Winona Lake, IN 1990,
16.3.5c: The third-person singular pronoun, masculine or feminin, may serve as a neu-
trum with respect to some vague action or circumstance; see also Gesenius, Kautsch,
Hebrische Grammatik, 136a: Das Pronomen demonstr. ( ...) und das gleichfalls als
Demonstrativum gebrauchte Pron. personale ( ...) unterscheiden sich so, da ( ...)
fast stets auf eine vorliegende (neue), dag. ( ...) auf eine schon erwhnte oder schon
bekannte Person oder Sache hinweist (...).
310 chapter 5
34:12 is more vague, which implies at least that these verses cannot be seen as
Deuteronom(ist)ic pur sang.
4.2 Compositional Patterns and the Characterisation of Exod. 23:2033

as Deuteronomistic
Within the debate on the Deuteronomistic origin of Exod. 23:2033*, the dis
cussion surrounding the recovery of a so-called independent war of yhwh
tradition has played an important role.164 Several elements are referred
to as indicative of this tradition. As such, the use of the terms ( v. 20),165
( vv. 20, 23),166 ( v. 23),167 ( v. 27),168 ( v. 27),169
(v. 28),170 ( v. 28),171 ( vv. 2831)172 and ( v. 31)173 is referred to
as characteristic of the yhwh-war tradition. According to some scholars, the
elements related to this tradition clearly demonstrate the antiquityi.e.
the proto-Deuteronomic characterof the pericope,174 whereas others point
to the similarities with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature and consider several
of these elements to be peculiar to Deuteronomistic circles.175
164 For this section, see Ausloos, Exod. 23,2033 and the War of yhwh, 555563.
165 Horn, Traditionsschichten, 221.
166 Horn, Traditionsschichten, 217. See also T.B. Dozeman, God at War: Power in the Exodus
Tradition, New York 1996, 97 nn. 189190.
168 Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 87; J.P. Hyatt, Commentary on Exodus (New
Century Bible), London 1971, 250; G. von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel (ATANT, 20),
Zrich 1951, 1011.
169 Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 87; Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 495;
F. Stolz, , THAT 2 (1971), 502504, esp. 503; Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 628; Dozeman,
God at War, 38 n. 55. For Horn, Traditionsschichten, 221, vv. 2728 as a whole reflect the
tradition of the holy war.
170 G. Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die
Weisungen gegen die Kanaaner in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung (BWANT,
91), Stuttgart 1970, 18; Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch, 189.
171 Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden schliesen, 18.
172 Dozeman, God at War, 33 n. 29.
175 : Hyatt, Exodus, 250251; R. Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des
Pentateuch (BZAW, 147), Berlin 1977, 152153; J. Vermeylen, Les sections narratives de Deut
511 et leur relation Ex. 1934, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung,
Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 174207, esp. 184; Johnstone, Reactivating
the Chronicles Analogy, 25; B. Renaud, La thophanie du Sina Ex. 1924: Exgse et
In reaction against the tendency to characterise Tetrateuch texts as depen

dent on Deuteronom(ist)ic literature simply because of similarities between
a few disparate words, some have insisted that one has to ask whether there
are compositional schemes that will allow us to determine the relationship
of a passage in GenesisNumbers with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
Although much attention has been paid to the vocabulary of Exod. 23:2033
in the past, as far as I am aware only Halbe has dealt with the presence of a
compositional pattern within this pericope.176 Against the background of his
analysis of Exod. 34:1126, he points to the syntactical scheme Interjektion
FeststellungssatzImperativ, which is often used in the Old Testament and
can likewise be found in the first verses of Exod. 23:2033.177
The relationship between Exod. 23 and a more encompassing composi
tional pattern that plays an important role within the Deuteronomistic liter
ature can be clarified by examining the aforementioned terminology of the
war of yhwh. In a preliminary phase, however, attention will be paid to this
stereotypical scheme within the Deuteronomistic literature.
4.2.1 The Scheme of the War of yhwh in Exod. 14; Josh. 10;
Judg. 4; 1 Sam. 7
It has been convincingly demonstrated by Richter, Weimar and Vervenne, that
the narratives of the crossing of the sea in Exod. 1314, the taking possession
of the South in Josh. 10, Deborah and Baraks victory over Sisera in Judg. 4 and
Israels triumph over the Philistines in 1 Sam. 7, are closely related to each
other.178 In all these pericopes not only does the motif of the war of yhwh
play an important role, but a similar compositional pattern can also be found.
thologie (CRB, 30), Paris 1991, 65; : Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Hyatt, Exodus,
250251; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 20; Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte, 215;
R. Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu
Deuteronomium 111 (EurHS, 422), Frankfurt am Main 1991, 265; Renaud, La thophanie du
Sina, 65; : Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Hyatt, Exodus, 250251; Achenbach,
Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 265; : Achenbach, Israel zwischen
Verheissung und Gebot, 265; : Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Blenkinsopp, The
Pentateuch, 189; : Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104.
176 Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 98107.
177 In v. 20, is followed by the participle ( v. 20) and the imperative
(v. 21).
178 W. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (BBB, 18), Bonn
21966, 180186; P. Weimar, Die Jahwekriegerzhlungen in Exodus 14, Josua 10, Richter 4
und 1 Samuel 7, Bib 57 (1976), 3873; Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 796799.
312 chapter 5
Although these four texts are not entirely identical,179 the scheme according
to which they are composed is remarkable: threatspeech or complaint
action of yhwh.
According to Vervenne, the pattern that Exod. 14, Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and
1 Sam. 7 have in common can be sketched as follows:180
Exod. 14 Josh. 10 Judg. 4 1 Sam. 7
1a. Israels action 12a

5ab
1a 7a
1b. The enemys reaction 5c10c 56 13 7b
2. Fear 10d 2 7c
3. Encouragment
Reassurance 1314 8
Exhortation to fight 14
Complaintresult 1112 89
4. yhwhs action 24c 10a 15 10
5. The enemys defeat 10
Israels action
10bd 11c
16b
10c 16a 11b
Result: 28c 16c
Description 11 1314
In Vervennes view, there can be no doubt that the similarities between

Exod. 14, Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7 are the result of a literary relationship,
and not of a common literary scheme on which all these texts are dependent.181
Referring to Smelik, who states that it is more plausible to speak about the lit
erary genius of the Israelites in the seventh and sixth century bce than about
179 Cf. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 181: Alle Texte zeichnen sich durch
sehr individuelles Geprge aus.
a great historian of the tenth century,182 Vervenne disagrees with Weimar,

who dates the origin of this war of yhwh scheme in the early monarchy.183
According to Vervenne, the pattern is characteristic of the Deuteronomistic
literature.184 He also points, however, to a fundamental difference between
Exod. 14 on the one hand, and Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7 on the other. While it
is indicated in the Sea Narrativein parallel with the latter textsthat yhwh
will fight on Israels side, Israels active involvement is never stated explicitly.
In Vervennes view, the particular version of the war story as it is found in
Exod. 14* fits best after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 bce, since it
contains a strong appeal to trust in yhwh alone.185 As a result, the absence
of the typical feature that Israel itself, as an allied force, takes part in the
war, would, according to Vervenne, be an indication in favour of the proto-
Deuteronomic character of Exod. 14*.186
Foregoing the question whether the origin of the scheme of the war of
yhwh in Exod. 14 is (proto-)Deuteronom(ist)ic or much older, I will indicate
that some crucial elements of this compositional structure can also be found
in Exod. 23:2033, which is a divine speech in which yhwh announces the tak
ing possession of the Promised Land.
4.2.2 The Scheme of the War of yhwh in Exod. 23:2033

At least three important elements of the aforementioned scheme occur
in Exod. 23:2033, (1) yhwh will cause confusion within the enemys camp
(v. 27: ( ;)2) the enemies will turn their backs to the Israelites (v. 27:
( ;) 3) yhwh will hand over the inhabitants of the land to the Israelites
(v. 31: ) .
(ad 1) Analogous to the war of yhwh pattern in Exod. 14, Josh. 10, Judg. 4
and 1 Sam. 7, it is said in Exod. 23:27 that yhwh will throw each people that
Israel fights against into confusion () .187 The vocabulary used
182 K.A.D. Smelik, Profetische reflectie op het verleden: Bijbelse verhalen tussen fictie en
geschiedenis, in: K. Deurloo, R. Zuurmond (eds), De bijbel maakt school: Een Amsterdamse
weg in de exegese, Baarn 1984, 6075, esp. 68.
183 Weimar, Die Jahwekriegerzhlungen, 7273.
184 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 798. About the affinity of Exod. 1314* with the Deuterono
m(ist)ic language, style and theology, see 796.
185 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 799. Compare with Isa. 7. Are there not, however, several other
periods within the history of Israel into which this theme would fit?
186 As already indicated, in his later publications Vervenne became more cautious in deter
mining a passage as proto-Deuteronomic. Cf. Vervenne, Current Tendencies, 4142.
187 Here, is used in a distributive sense.
314 chapter 5
is identical with Exod. 14:24, Josh. 10:10, Judg. 4:15 and 1 Sam. 7:10. In all these
passages, the term occurs. This is significant, since the verb is not fre
quently used in the Old Testament. With yhwh as subject, as is the case
in Exod. 23:27, it is only found in the aforesaid verses and in Pss. 18:15
(= 2 Sam. 22:15); 144:6; 2 Chron. 15:6. Contrary to the latter verse, the two former
passages undoubtedly function within the context of yhwh-war.
(ad 2) Taking into account the context of the term in Exod. 23:27,
the expression also points in the direction of a relationship between
Exod. 23 and the scheme of the war of yhwh, since the formula plays a role
in Josh. 10 and Judg. 4.188 In this respect, however, it is important to note that
the said expression occurs with frequency throughout the Old Testament to
indicate that yhwh does or does not deliver the enemies to Israel189 or vice
versa.190 Moreover, in a profane context, the expression can mean entrust,191
put something at someones disposal,192 oroften in a military context
deliver.193 Although the utterance is almost exclusively found within the
Deuteronomistic literature with yhwh as subject and the enemies of Israel
as object, it seems, however, to be the most appropriate Hebrew expression to
render the idea of handing over.
(ad 3) Besides and , the motif of the flight of the enemies (v. 31:
) fits very well into the line of thought that is developed in the scheme
of the war of yhwh, although it cannot be found literally in Exod. 14, Josh. 10,
Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7. In the Sea Narrative, the Israelites are first fleeing from
the Egyptians. Afterwards, when the Israelites have crossed the sea and the
Egyptians are pursuing them, they do not even have the opportunity to flee.
Notwithstanding the fact that the expression is not used in Josh. 10:10,
188 Josh. 10:8, 19, 30, 32; Judg. 4;7, 14.

189 Exod. 23:31; Num. 21:2, 34; Deut. 2:24, 30; 3:2, 3; 7:24; 20:13; 21:10; Josh. 2:24; 6:2; 8:1, 7, 18; 10:8,
19, 30, 32; 11:8; 21:44; 24:8, 11; Judg. 1:2; 3:10, 28; 4:7, 14; 7:2, 7, 9, 14, 15, 16; 8:3, 15; 11:30, 32; 12:3;
18:10; 20:28; 1 Sam. 14:10, 12, 37; 17:47; 23:4, 14; 24:5, 11; 26:23; 30:23; 2 Sam. 5:19; 1 Kgs. 20:13;
22:6, 12, 15; 2 Kgs. 3:10, 13, 18; 17:20; Ezra 9:24; 1 Chron. 14:10; 22:18; 2 Chron. 16:8; 18:5, 11, 14;
28:9 (cf. also Gen. 9:2).
190 Deut. 1:27; 7:7; Judg. 2:14; 6:1; 13:1; 1 Sam. 28:19; 2 Kgs. 13:3; 21:14; Jer. 20:4.5; 21:10; 22:25; 27:6;
29:21; 32:3, 4, 24, 25, 28, 36, 43; 34:2, 3, 20, 21; 37:17; 38:3, 16; 39:17; 44:30; 46:26; Ezek. 7:21;
16:39; 21:36; 23:9, 28; 31:11; 39:23; Pss. 78: 61; 106:41; Lam. 2:7; Dan. 1:2; 9:10; Ezra 9:7; 10:30;
2 Chron. 13:16; 25:20; 28:5; 36:17. Judg. 16:23, 24 mention how the Philistine deity Dagon
delivered Samson to the Philistines.
191 Gen. 30:35; 32:17; 39:4, 8, 22; 2 Sam. 10:10; 16:8; 1 Kgs. 15:18; 1 Chron. 19:11; 2 Chron. 34:16.
192 Gen. 40:13; Exod. 5:21; 10:25; Deut. 24:1, 3; Judg. 9:29; Isa. 22:21; Jer. 23:31; 30:24, 25.
193 Deut. 19:12; Judg. 15:12, 13, 18; 2 Sam. 20:21; 21:9; 1 Kgs. 18:9; 2 Kgs. 18:30; 19:10; Isa. 36:15; Jer.
26:24; 38:18, 19; 43:3; 46:24; Ps. 10:14; Job 9:24; Dan. 11:11; 1 Chron. 5:20.
Judg. 4:16 and 1 Sam. 7:11, the activity of flight is clearly suggested in these pas
sages by making use of the verb .
Contrary to the expression , which plays an important role in
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, the formula only
occurs in Exod. 23:27 and Ps. 18:41 (= 2 Sam. 22:41).194 Within the Deuteronomistic
canon,195 however, the noun is frequently used.196 With the exception of
Josh. 7:8, 12; 2 Sam. 22:41; Jer. 32:33, in which has the connotation to turn
away from, the term is often linked with the term ,197 thus referring to
Israels obstinacy. In Jer. 32:33, the expression is applied to the inhabitants of
Judah who turned away from yhwh () . Josh. 7:8 ( ) and 7:12
( ) deal with Israel taking refuge in order to be saved from hostile peo
ples. In these passages, the ones who are running away are at the same time the
subject of the verb that accompanies the term. In Exod. 23:27, however, yhwh
is responsible for the flight of Israels enemies.
In short, although Exod. 23, Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7 have the theme
of the flight of Israels enemies in a context of yhwh-war in common, Exod.
23:27 holds a unique place in this series of texts because of the particular
use of the term . Outside Exod. 23:27, the expression only occurs
in the psalm in 2 Sam. 22:41 (= Ps. 18:41). Because of the special character of
2 Sam. 22, it is questionable whether the expression here can be characterised
as Deuteronom(ist)ic.198 Moreover, in 2 Sam. 22:41b, its meaning is different
since this verse does not deal with the expulsion of an enemy, but with their
destruction.199
Taking these elements together, one can conclude that, although Exod.
23:2033 resembles the scheme of yhwh-war as it can be found in Exod. 14,
194 In 2 Chron. 29:6, the expression metaphorically refers to Israels apostasy of yhwh (cf.
M. Zipor, , TWAT 6 (1989), 392397, esp. 394.
195 On this concept, see supra.
196 Deut. 9:6, 13; 10:16; 31:27; Josh. 7:8, 12; 2 Sam. 22:41; 2 Kgs. 17:41; Jer. 7:26; 17:23; 32:33.
197 Referring to Deut. 10:16; 2 Kgs. 17:14; Jer. 7:26; 17:23; 19:15, Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic School, 341 characterises the expression as a stereotypical feature
of Deuteronomic language.
198 Cf. also Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 87; Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes,
142; Otto, Das Mazzotfest, 206; U. Kppel, Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk und
seine Quellen: Die Absicht der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsdarstellung aufgrund des
Vergleichs zwischen Num 21,2135 und Dtn 2,263,3 (EurHS, 122), Bern 1979, 186.
199 Cf. also A.A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (WBC, 11), Dallas, TX 1989, 265: The scene depicted is
either that of retreat (cf. Exod. 23:27) or of total defeat of the enemies (i.e., the victor
places his foot on the neck of the enemy, as in Josh. 10:24). V 41b seems to suggest the latter
alternative.
316 chapter 5
Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7, it also differs from it on significant points. First,
contrary to these pericopes, in which a battle between Israel and the hostile
nations is narrated, the aforementioned elements reflecting the war of yhwh
scheme in Exod. 23:2033 are all part of a divine command. Secondly, the
specific scheme that structures the narratives of Exod. 14, Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and
1 Sam. 7 is entirely absent from Exod. 23, since only somenevertheless very
importantfragments of it can be found in the latter pericope. Thirdly, paral
lel to Exod. 14, the Israelites do not have to take part in the war against the
foreign peoples, unless v. 24 is taken into consideration. Moreover, because of
the fact that is not characteristic of the scheme and is absent
from it, it seems doubtful whether the author(s) of Exod. 23 can be consid
ered to be literarily dependent on the more or less stereotypical scheme that
can be found in Exod. 14, Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7. It is probable that the
compositor(s) of the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant applied it more
rigorously to his/their own composition. As such, even if the loose com
bination of elements from the scheme in Exod. 23 can be seen either as an
early preamble to the (Deuteronomistic) pattern or as a late imitation of it
(simili-Deuteronomistic), there is more evidence in my view to consider both
Exod. 23 on the one hand, and Exod. 14, Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7 on the
other as separate witnesses to a tradition about the war of yhwh.200
Against this background, it is interesting to recall the other elements
scholars have brought into relation with the war of yhwh tradition within
Exod. 23:2033. The elements in question, however, do not play a role in the
(Deuteronomistic) scheme. Moreover, none of these elements points to a
dependency on Deuteronomistic literature. There are no good reasons to con
sider the ( vv. 20, 23), leading the Israelites into the Promised Land, to
be a typical Deuteronom(ist)ic theme.201 The construction ( v. 23),
200 Cf. also the already mentioned similarities with Ps. 18:15: ;Ps. 18:41: . According
to M. Dahood, Psalms 150 (AB, 16), New York 1965, 104, this royal song of thanksgiving can
be attributed to David. Dahoods explanation of , suggesting that it should not be
interpreted as denoting the flight of enemies, but rather as evoking the image of the vic
tor placing his foot on the neck of the vanquished, as represented on reliefs and described
in literary texts (116) is not convincing. In order to defend this thesis, Dahood refers to
Josh. 10:24, in which Joshua summons the chiefs of the men of war to put their feet upon
the necks of the defeated kings. In this text, however, the noun is not used.
For the relationship between Exod. 23:2033 and Deut. 7 with regard to the war of
yhwh theme, see esp. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 4648,
who indicates that in the latter text the sayings from Exod. 23 have been reworked and
expanded into a military oration of consummate construction (46).
201 See the next paragraph.
with a divine messenger as subject, only occurs in the book of Exodus (Exod.
14:19; 23:23; 32:34). Within the Deuteronomistic canon, the noun ( v. 27)
is only found in Deut. 32:25 and Josh. 2:9. In the former passage, however, the
term functions as a threat to Israel. According to the latter text, the Israelites
themselves are a threat to the enemy, contrary to Exod. 23:27 in which God
will send his terror ahead of the Israelites. Finally, the noun ( v. 28) occurs
only three times in the Old Testament (Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).
Although these passages have several elements in common, this term cannot
be considered to be typically Deuteronom(ist)ic.202
The comparison of Exod. 23 with the (Deuteronomistic) yhwh-war scheme
in Exod. 14, Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7, together with a brief investigation of
the other elements within the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant, which
scholars have indicated as related to the motif of the war of yhwh, is not truly
indicative for the dependence of Exod. 23 on the Deuteronomistic literature.
On the contrary, the language that seems to be connected with the war of
yhwh suggests rather that the author(s) of Exod. 23 has/have made use of a
teminology that was peculiar to a tradition about yhwh as warrior, which was
probably used by the author(s) of the (Deuteronomistic) scheme also.
4.3 A Deuteronomistic Theology in Exod. 23:2033?

When W. Johnstone introduced his hypothesis concerning the Deuterono
m(ist)ic edition of the Pentateuch some twenty-five years ago, Exod. 23:2033
became explicitely linked with Judg. 2:15.203 Johnstone labeled Exod. 23:2033
as providing a prima facie case for a Deuteronomistic redaction of Exodus204
because of its relationship with Judg. 2:15.205 In his view, rather than merely
202 With regard to use of the verb with yhwh or his messenger as subject, it should be
noted that, contrary to the expulsion of the autochthonous peoples in Exod. 23:2831, in
Deuteronomy their destruction is accentuated. Compare Deut. 33:27, where and
are used together. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 346347.
203 Johnstone, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 2526. In the introduction to Chronicles
and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application (JSOT SS, 275), Sheffield 1998, 11, Johnstone
writes: The catalyst for me (...) was the chance homiletical observation of the inter
connection between Exod. 23.2033 and Judg. 2.15For this section, see already
H. Ausloos, The Angel of yhwh in Exod. xxiii 2033 and Judg. ii 15: A Clue to the
Deuteronom(ist)ic Puzzle?, VT 58 (2008), 112.
205 The thesis pointing to the Deuteronomistic origin of Judg. 2,15 is not new, thereby refer
ring to so-called Deuteronomistic phraseology and thought. See, for example, J.A. Soggin,
Judges: A Commentary (OTL), London 21987, 31: These verses imply that the requirements
of Josiahs reform were not carried out and that punishment followed: the exile. So here
318 chapter 5
being a Deuteronomic insertion at the end of Exodus 23, the so-called epilogue
of the Book of the Covenant gives evidence of a Deuteronomistic recension,
which seems (...) to be suggested by the rather clear way in which the pas
sage is picked up in the Deuteronomistic History in Judg. 2.15.206 According
to Johnstone, the relationship between Exod. 23:2033 and Judg. 2:15 is
established not simply by the coincidence of vocabulary.207 Much more
important in his view is the presupposition that both pericopes seem to have
a key function within their respective contexts: the former is the epilogue of
the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:2223:19); the latter closes the account
of Israels settlement in the Promised Land (Judg. 1). Moreover, Johnstone com
pares the parenetic epilogue of the Book of the Covenant with Deut. 2728.
These chapters are also a parenetic text, announce blessing for obedience,
and curse for disobedience. As such, the code in Exod. 20.2033 is bound by
the Deuteronomist into his presentation of covenant and of the course of the
history of Israel as dominated by the blessing and curse of the covenant by
this passage, Exod. 23.2033, and its counterpart, Judg. 2.15.208
One of the reasons to link Exod. 23:2033 to Judg. 2:15 was the men
tion of the .209 It comes as no surprise, therefore, that some years
after Johnstones preliminary suggestion of an extensive Deuteronomic/
Deuteronomistic edition of the Horeb pericope,210 the in Exod. 23:20
33 came to the fore anew in Blums theory on the origins and composition of
the Pentateuch. The epilogue of the Book of the Covenant could be one
of those texts on the Weg zur kanonischen Endgestalt of Genesis
Numbers.211 According to Blum, the pericope is neither part of the post-
Deuteronomistic D-composition (KD), nor of the P-composition (KP). Together
with Judg. 2:15, it is said to belong to a group of texts that Blum characterises
we find evidence of the last phase of Dtr redaction, that of so-called DtrN (Smend). This
will certainly have worked with earlier material, which it now wants to be understood in
accordance with 2.15.
209 See, however, Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora, 75: In contrast to the full comple
ment of previous J texts, the messenger here [in Judg. 2:15] has no association with the
vanguard theme, the pillar of cloud and fire. Instead, it is treated in the same way as a
prophet or man of God who reprimands the people for their wrongdoing and predicts
divine judgment. This piece belongs closely with Judg 1 and the P texts of Joshua.
211 Blum, Studien, p. 377. See also Idem, Der kompositionelle Knoten, 191192.
as the -group.212 Blum argues that Judg. 2:15 is correcting and modifying
the ideal view of the Deuteronomistic History concerning the acquisition of
the Promised Land in Josh. 112: because of the fact that the Israelites in
fact violated Gods command not to mix with the autochthonous popula
tion of the land, the original inhabitants of Canaan will not be expelled as
was previously announced. The -edition is not only a corrective to the
Deuteronomistic History, as Judg. 2:15 indicates, and must thus be later than
the Deuteronomistic History. Moreover, the analysis of other texts of this group
(Exod. 33:2, 3b, 4* and Exod. 34:1127) leads Blum to the conclusion that it also
presupposes KD, which is posterior to the Deuteronomistic History. Within this
contextual analysis, Exod. 23 takes a specific place, since here the emphasis
on the demarcation between Israel and the peoples, which is missing in the
Book of the Covenant, is made a central theme.213 As a result, Exod. 23:2033
is considered to be part of a post-Deuteronomistic Fortschreibung. It has to be
remarked, however, that Blum does not argue that all texts of the -edition
have been written by one and the same author.214
Similar to Johnstone and Blum, Neef has argued for a -Bearbeitung.215
Contrary to both scholars, however, Neef does not consider this reworking as
(post-)Deuteronomistic. He characterises it as Jehovistisch, vordeuterono
misch and protodeuteronomisch, thus previous in any case to the book of
Deuteronomy and even a preparatory stage thereto.216 Similar to Blum, Neef
212 Johnstone, Chronicles and Exodus, 21 n. 27 is rather sceptical with regard to Blums -
edition: Equally dubious, it seems to me, is Blums search for a composition history of
still later literary Deditions (...).
213 Exod. 23,2033 is, according to Blum, weder einen Segen-Fluch-Abschlu fr das
Bundesbuch (...) noch einen mehr oder weniger zufllig plazierten Findling (Studien,
375376).
215 Neef, Ich selber bin in ihm , 72.
216 Cf. also Reichert, Der Jehowist, 195196. Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte, 161: Der
-Text von Ex. 23,2023a [geht] dem von (...) Jdc 2,15 voraus (160). According to
A. Rof, Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch (The Biblical Seminar 58),
Sheffield 1999, 51, the ancient sources that preceded D often spoke about Yhwhs angel,
who led the Israelites in the wilderness, brought them to the land and drove out the
other nations (Exod. 23.2021, 23; 32:34; 33.2; Judg. 2.15). D was acquainted with these
traditions, and with at least some of them in written form, but completely silenced all
mention of this angel, since in his monotheistic zeal, rejected all belief in the existence
of angels who go on missions for Yhwh. For R.D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the
Deuteronomistic History (JSOT SS, 18), Sheffield 1981, 46, Judg. 2:15 is (...) the work of
an editor secondary to the main edition of the Deuteronomistic history with a more pes
simistic view of the conquest and of the behavior of the people before the completion
320 chapter 5
suggests that this -redaction originated from different authors. This

already becomes clear from the fact that Judg. 2:15 particularly accentu
ates Israels sin, whereas in Exod. 23:2033* this theme is absent. The nucleus
of this -reworking is still present in Exod. 23:2022; 32:34; 33:2, all pas
sages that deal with Israels protection by the on its journey through
the desert. This core has been expanded later by the motif of the unfaithful
ness of the Israelites (cf. Exod. 23:21b; Judg. 2,2b). Neef, however, does not
argue that this expansion is due to a Deuteronomistic redactor.
In identifying Exod. 23:2033, together with Judg. 2:15, as belonging to the
prehistory of the Deuteronom(ist)ic corpus, Neef is in line with Halbes analysis
of Exod. 34:1026.217 Within a tradition-historical perspective, Judg. 2:15a
text that is considered as eine ursprnglich geschloene Traditionsarbeit218
should be situated somewhere between Exod. 34 and Exod. 23:2033,219 both
texts on der Weg bis hin zur deuteronomischen Reformation.220 The link
between the and the tradition of the covenant is much stronger in
Exod. 23 than in Judg. 2, since in the latter passage, the is not yet an
integral part of the covenant tradition.221
The preceding survey has demonstrated the increasing role that the
and the passages in which the is present tend to play within the discus
sion on the composition of the Pentateuch/Hexateuch. Against this back
ground, it is interesting that Kratz does not mention points of contacts between
Exod. 23:2033 and Judg. 2:15 in his encompassing theory on the develop
ment of GenesisKings.222 This can be explained against the background of
his hypothesis on the growth of the Henneateuch, since, according to Kratz,
both pericopes were composed in entirely different phases of the textual
composition. Whereas Kratz considers Exod. 23:2033 to be part of a series of
supplements to the Book of the Covenant,223 Judg. 2:15characterised as a
of the conquest. Moreover, in his view, the conceptual dependence upon Exodus is as
striking as the verbal.
219 Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 108147; 363; 367368.
222 R.G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzhlenden Bcher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der
Bibelkritik (UTB, 2157), Gttingen 2000, 204208.
223 Kratz, Die Komposition, 146: Die 2. Sg.-Zustze sind vor allem am Ende des Bundesbuches
angebracht, ein erster Anhang in Ex. 22,2023,19, ein zweiter in 23,2033. Compare,
however, with 148: Ein Schritt weiter gehen im Rahmen des Bundesbuches der zweite
Nachtrag Ex. 23,2033. Similarly, on 150, Exod. 23:2033 is considered to be a Nachtrag.
verloren im Raum stehende Stck224is regarded as a Deuteronomistic/post-

Deuteronomistic addition to the main portion of the Hexateuch.
The common view that the messengers words in Judg. 2:3 are to be con
sidered as an announcement of future punishment, in which God proclaims
that He will (future!) not expel the remaining peoples, because the Israelites
have broken Gods covenant by making covenants with the autochthonous
population, has been contested by Van der Kooij.225 He argues that the two
fold speech of the , each introduced by a form of the verb ( v. 1: ;
v. 3 ) and followed by the negation ( and
) , both refer to earlier sayings of yhwh, aiming at remind
ing Israel of the warnings given in the Epilogue to the Book of the Covenant
(Exod. xxiii 28ff.).226 As such, Van der Kooij states that, these passages of
Exod. xxiii and Judg. ii are part of a literary stratum which expresses an ear
lier theological view than does the late-exilic DtrN.227
Within the context of his analysis of Judg. 2:15, Van der Kooij does not pay
specific attention to the motif of the . He simply mentions it as one of the
elements that Judg. 2 and Exod. 23 have in common.228 Nevertheless, the motif
of the itself allows us to gain a more precise insight into the relationship
between both texts. Although the is one of the most remarkable links
between both passages, it also seems to be an important distinctive element.
4.3.1 The Angel of yhwh and the Deuteronom(ist)ic Literature

In the foregoing paragraph, reference was made to a number of scholars who
claim a (post-)Deuteronomistic origin for the epilogue of the Book of the
Later, Kratz characterises Exod. 23:2033 as spterem Anhang (152). In the schematic
presentation (155), Exod. 23:2033 appears to be more recent than Kratzs so-called
Urdeuteronomium. See further his summary on 322, where Exod. 23:2033 is considered
as a pre-Exilic text.
224 Kratz, Die Komposition, 205. See also: Auf die Grundschrift im Sam-Reg (DtrG) und die
erste Verbindung (DtrR) folgt eine Flle weiterer deuteronomistischer und nachdeu
teronomistischer (darunter auch priesterlicher) Ergnzungen, die die Maschen des
Enneateuchs (Gen-Reg) immer enger knpfen (Dtrs), indem sie (...) das Gesetz und die
Vlker und ihre Gebiete (Jos. 1,3f.79); 11,1622; 12,18; 13,16; 23f; Jdc 2,16; 2,203,6) und
vieles andere mehr hinzufgen (216).
225 A. van der Kooij, And I also Said: A New Interpretation of Judges ii 3, VT 45 (1995),
294306.
226 Van der Kooij, And I also Said, 304.
322 chapter 5
Covenant, including the motif of the .229 In this respect, two major argu
ments are given. First, reference is made to similarities with Judg. 2, taking for
granted that this pericope is likewise a typically Deuteronomistic creation.
Second, scholars often mention the so-called other Deuteronom(ist)ic pas
sages in the Tetrateuch, such as Gen. 24:7; Exod. 32:34; 33:2; Num. 20:16 as an
argument in favour of this thesis. The primary argument supporting the char
acterisation of these verses as Deuteronom(ist)ic, however, is found in their
resemblance to the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic passage Exod. 23:20, 23.
A concise survey of the use of the term , which plays a key role within
Exod. 23:2033, might be helpful at this juncture. Within the Old Testament,
the noun occurs 216 times. It is used to designate human as well as
divine messengers. In the latter category, the is considered as a super
natural, unidentifiable manifestation of yhwhan angel, thus accentuat
ing that the in fact is representing yhwh, in his guidance of the Israelites
into the Promised Land. Moreover, as Vervenne has rightly observed, a distinc
tion has to be made between different traditions in which the angel plays a
role as an unidentifiable, divine figure.230 The comes to the fore in tradi
tions about the patriarchs,231 in the Balaam tradition,232 in traditions about
Israels judges,233 kings234 and prophets.235 The also has a role to play
in the Psalms236 and in the book of Job.237 It is only in Exod. 23:2033 and
Judg. 2:15, together with Exod. 14:19; 32:34; 33:2; Num. 20:16 and Judg. 5:23, that
the functions within the tradition concerning the exodus, the journey
to the Promised Land and its conquest.238
Colenso already observed that the motif of the leading and pro
tecting the Israelites on their journey through the desert and into the Promised
Land, did not fit within the Deuteronomic language and theology.239 As a
matter of fact, the plays no role at all within the book of Deuteronomy.
On the contrary, it seems to be part of the Deuteronomic theology to accen
tuate that it was God in person who led the Israelites out of Egypt and into
229 Cf. e.g. Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 260; Rendtorff, Das berliefe
rungsgeschichtliche Problem, 152153; Vermeylen, Les sections narratives, 181 n. 18.
230 Cf. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 578.
231 Gen. 16:712; 19:129; 21:120; 22:119; 24:7, 40; 28:1122; 31:11; 32:23; 48:16.
232 Num. 22:2234.
233 Judg. 6; 13.
234 2 Sam. 24//1 Chron. 21.
235 1 Kgs. 13:18; 2 Kgs. 1; 19:35//Isa. 37:36//2 Chron. 32:21; Hos. 12; Ezek. 30:9; Zech. 16.
236 Pss. 34:8; 35:5, 6; 91:11; 103:20; 148:2.
237 Job 4:18; 33:23.
238 In Exod. 3:2, the plays a role in the appointment of a saviour (cf. Judg. 6).
the Promised Land (cf. Isa. 63:9). This has been accentuated by the author of
Deut. 4:37: God brought the Israelites out of Egypt with his own presence, by
his great power () . Furthermore, as Vervenne has demon
strated, the motif of the in its specific role of saviour and leader of the
Israelites likewise cannot be found in the rest of the so-called Deuteronomistic
literature,except in Judg. 2:15.240
In order to maintain the late, Deuteronomistic character of the , there
fore, two main positions have been defended. On the one hand, scholars argue
that the motif of the as a divine messenger is a late one. Reference is
made in this respect to other so-called post-exilic passages, in which this figure
seems to play a specific role. Van Seters links the as a symbol of the divine
presence and revealer of the divine will with Isa. 63:9; Zech. 1:1117 and Mal.
3:15.241 These pericopes, however, are not a valid point of reference, since, as
has we noted above, the is not linked here with the exodus or the jour
ney into the land. According to Blum, Isa. 63:9 indicates that in the post-exilic
period there was some discussion about the position of the :242 It was no
messenger or angel, but his presence that saved them. As to this discussion,
however, no elements can be found in Exod. 23. It seems more plausible that
Second Isaiah favoured Deuteronomys theologyin Deut. 4:37and thus
reacted against the presentation of the as representing yhwh. Moreover,
it is not because of the fact that the in Exod. 23 and in the rest of the
-group plays an important role that it should be the subject of potential
debate concerning its function.243 Blum suggests in this regard that attention
should be paid to the tradition history of the figure of the . It is precisely
with respect to this issue that a comparison between Exod. 23 and Judg. 2 can
play a significant role.
On the other hand, in order to avoid the problem of the absence of the
in Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, scholars suggest that the ( in Exod.
23:20.23) does not refer to a supernatural messengeran angel, but to a
human one. As such, it is argued that the in Exod. 23:20, 23 should be

241 Van Seters, The So-Called Deuteronomistic Redaction, 74. Cf. also Van Seters, A Law Book
for the Diaspora, 76. However, Isa. 63:9 explicitly ignores the angels role (It was not a mes
senger or angel but his presence that saved them), whereas Mal. 3:1 does not deal with the
exodus, even if he is called .
242 Blum, Studien, 376: Viele Fragen zu unseren Texten bleiben Gleichwohl immer noch
offen. So die Traditionsgeschichte der Gestalt des Fhrungsengels, das Interesse an eben
dieser Gestalt.
243 In my opinion, Blums suggestion of a struggle between the status of the and Moses
is more plausible (Blum, Studien, 377 n. 63).
324 chapter 5
identified with a human leader, in particular Moses or Joshua.244 On some

occasions, the is identified with the pillar of cloud or fire from Exod.
13:2122; 14:19; 33:9.245 In a similar way, Blenkinsopp tries to solve the problem
atic issue of the messenger as a supernatural angel.246 According to him, there
is not necessarily a contradiction between the and Deuteronom(ist)ic
theology, if one considers the to be synonymous with , since
Deuteronomy understands prophecy as the continuation of the role and
mission of Moses.247 Blenkinsopp argues that all characteristics of the
(the malk is sent by yhwh, communicates divine commands and must be
heeded and obeyed since the angel-messenger speaks in yhwhs name)248 as
they are underlined in Exod. 23:20, 23, have a parallel with the Deuteronomic
view of prophecy as it can be found in Deut. 18:1520. In sum, the in
Exod. 23:2033 (and in 33:16) is a theologoumenon, which Blenkinsopp char
acterises as a derivate of the Deuteronomic understanding of the prophetic
office.249 Moreover, by making reference to Hos. 12:13, Blenkinsopp maintains
that Moses was considered as Israels prophetic guide during the exodus and
the wilderness period.250
Against Blenkinsopps thesis, however, two fundamental objections can be
made. Firstly, Exod. 23:21 does not say that the speaks in the name of
God, but that Gods name is in him () .251 Secondly, Blenkinsopp
does not refer to the fact that the , according to Exod. 23:21, is able to
forgive Israels trespasses () . It can be stated with regard to
Exod. 23:2033 that the has to be considered as a substitute for yhwh
and thus not as a mere humannot even propheticmessenger.252 On the
244 Cf. R.A. Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, London 1973, 181.
245 Cf. A. Knobel, Die Bcher Exodus und Leviticus (KEHAT, 12), Leipzig, 1857, 238. Although
not identifying them, Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora, 7273 also sees a close link
between the and the pillar of fire and cloud.
246 Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 9497.
250 According to B. Lindars, Judges 15: A New Translation and Commentary, Edinburgh 1995,
75, the probably has to be interpreted as Yahwehs spokesman.
251 With regard to the lxxs rendering of this verse, see infra.
252 The Septuagint points in a similar direction. In Judg. 2:1(B), lxxs plus ( )
clearly interprets the messenger as a prophet, making use of the typically prophetic intro
ductory formula. The Targum even explicitly replaces the . Judg. 2:1(A) like
wise has a plus, which implies that it is who speaks the following words. Moreover,
basis of the strong similarities between Exod. 23:2033 and Judg. 2:15,
the same can be said about the in the latter passage.253
4.3.2 The Angel of yhwh in Exod. 23 and Judg. 2

It has been argued that the in Exod. 23 and Judg. 2 has to be interpreted
as referring to an angel of yhwh. Moreover, it is beyond dispute that Exod. 23
and Judg. 2and also the other texts Blum considers to belong to the so-
called -editionare related to each other from a literary perspective.
Almost all of them deal with the prohibition against making a covenant with
the Canaanite population.254 Furthermore, in order to indicate the expulsion
of the Canaanites, the verb is used.255 The instruction is given to destroy
local cult objects256 and the Israelites are warned that the violation of this
command will be a .257 What remains is the question whether the motif
of the can be helpful in determining the direction of the relationship
between both pericopes.258 All things considered, Blums characterisation
of Judg. 2:15 as eine postdeuteronomistische Fortschreibung259 does not
necessarily imply that the theme in Exod. 23:2033 must also be post-
Deuteronomistic. In this respect, the differences between Exod. 23 and Judg. 2
can play a decisive role.
Firstly, it is remarkable that in Judg. 2:15as well as in Judg. 5:23, the
appears against the background of a threat to the Israelites, whereas
in Exod. 23 the messenger is at their side. Secondly, it is significant that
the in Judg. 2:15 presents himself as having a double function.
According to Judg. 2:1, he was not only charged with leading the Israelites
out of Egypt () , he was also charged with bringing the
people into the promised land () . This means that in
lxx(B) changes the first person ( )into the third person:

.
253 Contrary to Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 95 n. 24: At Judg. 2.15 a malk
yhwh delivers a prophetic address in the Deuteronomic fashion.
254 Exod. 23:3233; 34:12, 15; Judg. 2:2 (cf. also Deut. 7:2).
255 Exod. 23:2831; 33:2; 34:1112; Judg. 2:3.
256 Exod. 23:24; 34:13; Judg. 2:2 (cf. Deut. 7:5).
257 Exod. 23:33; 34:12; Judg. 2:3 (cf. also Deut. 7:16; Josh. 23:13).
258 Without entering into the discussion about the Deuteronomistic character of either
Exod. 23:2033 or Judg. 2:15, A. Marx, Forme et Fonction de Juges 2,15, RHPR 34 (1979),
341350, esp. 346 considers the figure of the in Judg. 2:15 to be dependent on the
in Exod. 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2 and Num. 20:16.
259 Blum, Der kompositionelle Knoten, 191192.
326 chapter 5
Judg. 2 a combination can be found of the theme of the deliverance from

Egypt (Exod. 14:19; Num. 20:16) and the motif of leading into the Promised
Land (Exod. 23:20; 32:34; 33:2). Moreover, it is important to note that
the expression in Judg. 2:1 resembles the
Deuteronomic phraseology much more than Exod. 23.260 Therefore, it seems
to be a plausible conclusion that the author or redactor of Judg. 2 combined
the separate components of exodus and journey as they can be found in the
traditions in Exodus and Numbers.261
Theoretically, the direction of dependence can be reversed. In other
words, one could argue that a late Deuteronomistic author or redactor of
Exod. 23, who was working under the influence of Judg. 2, only made use of the
element of the exodus and thus split up his source narrative. However, it is
difficult as such to explain why this author did not take up the Deuteronomic
stereotypical way of speaking about the land, since, although the theme of
the inheritance of the land takes a central place in the Deuteronom(ist)ic lit
erature, the language that is used to give expression to this motif in Exod. 23
( ) is not at all in conformity with the characteristics of this
corpus.
In conclusion, there can be no doubt that in the final text of the Pentateuch
the motif of the who leads the Israelites out of Egypt and brings them
into the Promised Land links several passages or verses in ExodusNumbers
on the one hand and the first chapters of Judges on the other. Taking a closer
look at two of these passagesExod. 23:2033 and Judg. 2:15reveals that
there are some indications about the development of this tradition: although
the motif of the as yhwhs Stellvertreter in Judg. 2:15 is absent within
Deuteronomic thought, the passage as a whole seems to be much more in
line with the Deuteronom(ist)ic way of speaking than Exod. 23:2033, thus
giving evidence to those hypotheses dealing with a development within
Deuteronom(ist)ic thought.
4.4 Deuteronomistic Tendencies in the Versiones of Exod. 23:2033

We noted above that the list of the peoples in Exod. 23:23, 28 has been con
siderd a typical feature of a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of the book of
260 Cf. e.g. Deut. 1:8; 6:10, 18, 23; 8:710; 9:5; 10:11; 26:3; 31:7, 20, 21, 23.
261 Compare with U. Becker, Richterzeit und Knigtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum
Richterbuch (BZAW, 192), Berlin 1990, 54: Offenbar bildete u.a. dieser Text [Exod. 23:20
33] die Vorlage fr Ri 2,15 oder stammt aus demselben Literaturbereich. According to
Becker, Judg. 2:15 has been composed by a spt-dtr Autor (57).
Exodus.262 However, little attention has been paid to the text-critical study
of these lists. Nevertheless, an analysis of the versiones has the potential to lead
to interesting insights from a text-critical perspective, and it might function
as an eye-opener for viewing the Deuteronomistic quest in a broader perspec
tive. Therefore, it will be necessary to make a full survey of the text-critical
witnesses of the lists of the peoples. In a first stage, however, a survey of the
textual instances of these lists in the mt of the book of Exodus ought to be
offered:
Exod. 3:8
Exod. 3:17
Exod. 13:5
Exod. 23:23
Exod. 23:28
Exod. 33:2
Exod. 34:11
With the exception of Exod. 13:5 and Exod. 23:28, all lists of peoples in the mt
of Exodus enumerate six peoplesAmorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites,
Hivites, and Jebusitesalthough not always in the same order. In Exod. 13:5
(mt), the Perizzites are missing, whereas in Exod. 23:28 the enumeration is
limited to three peoples. However, in comparing the lists of mt with the other
textual witnesses, important differences come to the fore. These elements can
be presented schematically as follows:263
Textual witness Peoples Minus
Exod. 3:8 mt C-H-A-P-V-J G

lxx C-H-A-P-V-G-J
4QGenExoda C-H-P-A-V-G-J
SamP C-H-A-P-G-V-J
Exod. 3:17 mt C-H-A-P-V-J G
lxx C-H-V-A-P-G-J
4QExodb [C - H - A -]P - V - J [- G]
SamP C-H-A-P-G-V-J
262 See already Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103. For this section, see H. Ausloos, The
Septuagint Version of Exod. 23:2033: A Deuteronomist at Work?, JNSL 22 (1996), 89106.
263 The different peoples are referred to by their initials: Canaanites (C), Hittites (H),
Amorites (A), Perizzites (P), Jebusites (J), Girgashites (G). The letter V stands for Hivites.
328 chapter 5
(cont.)
Textual witness Peoples Minus
Exod. 13:15 mt C-H-A-V-J G-P

lxx C-H-V-G-A-P-J
4QExode C-H-V-A-J G-P
4Q paleoExodm C-H[]
4Q Dtj [C -]H - [A - P - V - J -]G
SamP C-H-A-P-G-V-J
Exod. 23:23264 mt A-H-P-C-V-J G
lxx A-H-P-C-G-V-J
SamP C-A-H-G-P-V-J
Exod. 2328 mt V-C-H G-A-P-J
lxx A-V-C-H G-P-J
SamP C-A-H-G-P-V-J
Exod. 34:11 mt A-C-H-P-V-J G
lxx A-C-H-P-V-G-J
4QpaleoExodm []-G-[]
SamP C-A-H-G-P-V-J
264
The order of the peoples enumerated in this list will not be the subject of our
present investigation. However, the number of peoples listed seems to be rel
evant from a text-critical perspective. In this respect, attention should be paid
to an article by OConnell,265 written as a supplement to and a correction of
Ishidas contribution.266 In fact, Ishida only studied the lists of the peoples in
264 4QpaleoExodm xxvi,45 (Exod. 23:23.28) probably contained a list of seven peoples. Cf.
P.W. Skehan et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 4. iv: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts
(DJD, 9), Oxford 1992, 108: Lines 112 would have contained the text of Exod. 23:1928
plus the first word of v. 29. L. 45, 1112 (23:23 and 28): The complete list of seven indig
enous peoples is in SamP in both verses. Its presence in this ms in both verses is assumed
because ( ]the only name lacking in mt at 23:23) occurs at Exod. 34:11 (col. xl 29).
The Girgashites are never listed in mt of Exodus.
265 K.G. OConnell, The List of Seven Peoples in Canaan: A Fresh Analysis, in H.O. Thompson
(ed.), The Answers Lie Below: Essays in Honour of Edmund Toombs, Lanham 1994, 221241.
266 T. Ishida, The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations,
Bib 60 (1979), 461490. According to Ishida, the order of the peoples in the list is an impor
tant criterion concerning its historical development.
the mt.267 As a consequence, the immediate occasion of OConnells investiga

tion is justified. Nevertheless, his elaboration of the problem gives evidence of
an uncritical approach to the textual witnesses.
According to OConnell, the original list contained the names of seven
peoples. This would mean that the Girgashites formed an integral part of the
original list of seven peoples together with the other six peoples. The changes
to the original seven-people list would stem from mistakes, because, accord
ing to OConnell, the seven-name list is vulnerable to haplographies, displace
ments and misspellings.268 In an appendix to the article, OConnell offers a
survey of the lists of the peoples in the Bible. OConnell deduces some conclu
sions from this survey. Firstly, he considers it obvious that mt when compared
with SamP or lxx omits one or more peoples from the list with remarkable
frequency.269 In this respect, the Girgashites are the most common omission
in mt.270 There are only three instances in mt where a complete list of seven
peoples occurs.271 It appears, however, that there are no grounds for such an
explanation, since it is methodologically incorrect to characterise every minus
in the text in se and a priori as an omission. Moreover, in OConnells view,
the majority of the lxx witnesses have the complete list of seven peoples, in
contrast to mt. Also in this respect, there is a serious flaw in OConnells argu
ment. He considers the different lxx manuscripts as fully independent textual
witnesses, without taking into account that these texts may be copies of one
and the same Greek translation of a Hebrew text. In other words, OConnell
conceives the textual witnesses of lxx as autonomous indications of an
267 According to OConnell, The List, 223, Ishidas analysis is seriously weakened by the
unaccountable failure to look critically at all the primary textual evidence (and not just
mt) for various occurrences of the lists of the pre-Israelite peoples (...).
268 OConnell, The List, 226227: Given the repetitious quality of names linked by the con
junction and, all beginning with the definite article and all ending with the same gentilic
- (-), it is not surprising that individual names were frequently left out (by haplography)
and sometimes restored to different positions within the sequence.
269 OConnell, The List, 224: mt is far more likely to omit one ore more names in the list than
are either sp or lxx. mt has all seven names only three times. The most common omis-
sion is G [Girgashites]. It alone is omitted ten times and together with other names it is
omitted six more times (italics mine).
270 The Girgashites are omitted in mt in Exod. 3:8, 17; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Deut. 20:17; Josh.
9:1; 11:3; 12:8; Judg. 3:5. Moreover, the Girgashites are also omitted together with other
peoples in Exod. 13:15 (Girgashites and Perizzites), 23:28 (Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites
and Jebusites), Num. 13:29 (Girgashites, Perizzites and Hivites), 1 Kgs 9:20 (Girgashites
and Canaanites); 2 Chron. 8:7 (Girgashites and Canaanites), and Ezra 9:1 (Girgashites and
Hivites).
271 Deut. 7:1; Josh. 3:10; 24:11.
330 chapter 5
original seven-name list, whereas he takes mt as a single text, which, when

compared with the many Greek textual witnesses (and with SamP), has to be
considered as the exception.272
Taking into consideration this comparison between the list in mt (miss
ing the Girgashites) on the one hand, and the many lxx manuscripts and
SamP (including the Girgashites) on the other, OConnell concludes that
the Girgashites formed an original part of the list of the peoples.273 If the
Girgashites were not an original part of the list of the peoples, their presence
in all the witnesses of lxx and SamP would be difficult to account for. The rea
son for the omission in mt is caused, in his opinion, by their position at the
fourth or fifth place in the list. This position might have caused the omission
accidentally far more often than the preceding or final names.274
In OConnells view, the seven-name list was deeply rooted in the tradition
of Israel prior to the period of the Judges. It was a stereotypical formula that
was analoguous to the expressions and .
Consequently, the already fixed formula would have been taken up by the
Yahwist.275
272 As far as the Dead Sea Scrolls are concerned, OConnell only mentions 4QpaleoExodm.
273 OConnell, The List, 226: While the frequent absence of G, Girgashite (), from mt
remains puzzling, there is no reason to deny its place within what appears to have been
an originally standard list of seven gentilic names.
274 OConnell, The List, 231232, n. 61.
275 OConnell, The List, 228: This is shown especially by the fact that only seven names figure
repeatedly in the many occurrences of the list. Any other name that joins the list does so
once, or at least twice in parallel citations, but in general, the boundaries of the seven-
name set were clearly regarded as fixed and closed. For this reason, the Girgashites
recurring so often and yet not well attested elsewherecan be understood as an integral
part of the set of names from the beginning. Otherwise there would be no reason for their
name to be added so often and in so many different positions, while other additions are
never repeated.
OConnell finds an additional reason for the original seven-name list in the Egyptian
pattern of the nine bows, which stood for nine peoples who may have represented the
submission of the whole world to the Pharaoh (W. Wifall, The Foreign NationsIsraels
nine bows, Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 3 [1981], 113124, esp. 120). When lists
of such peoples began to appear in the Middle Kingdom, they named seven foreign peo
ples and apparently presupposed (or sometimes explicitely mentioned) the Two Lands
of Upper and Lower Egypt as the two other bows. Late, in the 18th and 19th dynasties,
all nine peoples mentioned were foreign enemies, not friends or peaceful neighbors (...)
Almost in passing Wifall (...) also suggests that several Hexateuchal instances of a stereo
typed list of six or seven foreign nations in Exod. 23:23; 33:2; 34:11, and Josh 24:11all of
which he attributes to the Elohistmay reflect a similar list of bows in Syria-Palestine
Apart from the methodological objections to OConnells theory, some criti

cal remarks have to be advanced concerning his premise that the six-name
list came into being by misreading of the copyists. It has to be stressed in this
respect that a mistake is always made accidentally. It is thus impossible that
precisely the Girgashites were always accidentally omitted in all the lists of the
peoples where the reader is confronted with a minus.276 OConnels explana
tion that these omissions are due to the fact that the Girgashites were origi
nally at the fourth or fifth position in the list cuts no ice. Moreover, it is striking
that SamP never omits a single name in the process of copying the text.
Contrary to OConnells view, I would propose that the list of seven peoples,
including the Girgashites, in Exod. 23:23 (lxx, 4Q paleoExodm and SamP) and
in Exod. 23:28 (4QpaleoExodm and SamP) is a harmonisation with the text
of Deut. 7:1 where a list of seven peoples occurs in all the extant witnesses
(mt, lxx and SamP).277 This is also the case for the other textual instances
in the book of Exodus, namely Exod. 3:8 (lxx, 4QGenExoda, SamP), 3:17
(lxx, 4QExodb), 13:5 (lxx, 4QDtj), 33:2 (SamP), and 34:11 (lxx, SamP), which
contain a list of seven peoples.278 This hypothesis can be confirmed by
taking Deut. 20:17 (mt) into consideration. The verse in question contains
a list of only six peoples in which are missing.279 lxx and SamP, how
ever, harmonise this verse in the same way with Deut. 7:1, and as a result enu
merate all seven peoples.
The fact that (the Vorlage of) the lxx version of Exod. 23:2033 harmon
ises with Deut. 7 is supported by some other important differences between
(in which, as in Middle Kingdom Egyptian lists, the two peoples of ones own land
here Israel and Judahare left unmentioned), and seven foreign nations or peoples are
detailed. While this is not the place to critique Wifalls argument, it is significant that the
standard seven-name list established in this article would be more suitable for his anal
ogy than a six-name one (OConnell, The List, 233 n. 73). However, OConnells theory
about the two missing elements (Judah and Israel) does not fit very well with his postula
tion of a seven-name list in the period of the Judges.
276 With the exception of Exod. 33:2 (lxx), were the Canaanites are missing.
277 Concerning the list of seven peoples in 4Q paleoExodm, cf., however, supra.
278 However, this hypothesis does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the textual
problems in the lxx of Exod. 23:28; 33:2. Exod. 23:28 (mt) reads three peoples (Hivites,
Canaanites, and Hittites). The lxx version has a plus (Amorites). Exod. 33:2 (lxx) reads
together with mt six peoples, but it mentions the Girgashites instead of the Canaanites.
279 A fragment of Deut. 20:619 is also extant in 4QDeutk2. Similar to mt, the text in this
manuscript lacks the Girgashites. For the critical edition of 4QDeutk2, see E. Ulrich
et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 4. ix: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD, 14), Oxford 1995,
99105.
332 chapter 5
mt and lxx. In Exod. 23:24, three prohibitions are given: Israel must not wor
ship the gods of the foreign peoples () , they must not serve
them () , and must not follow their practices (). mt and
SamP read three successive prohibitions, each time introduced by the particle
and connected by the conjunction -. In the lxx, however, the second and
third prohibition are disconnected since the conjunction particle is missing.
As a result, the first and the second prohibition form a closed pair. Moreover,
the second prohibition ( , followed by a subjunctive) is more strongly
formulated than the third (, followed by an indicative).280
It is significant that the wordpair and can be found several times
in the book of Deuteronomy in the context of worship of foreign gods.281
It is probable, therefore, that (the Vorlage of) lxx aimed at harmonising
Exod. 23:24 with this Deuteronomic formula, creating a close relationship
between the two verbs.
Similarly, the lxx rendering does not corre
spond to the readings of the mt and SamP, i.e. . The participle
is derived from the verb ( to miscarry). The word means
infertile. According to Le Boulluec and Sandevoir, the term is not used
in classical or Koin Greek to denote a women who miscarries. The term, how
ever, can be used to designate infertility. If this is the case, the term is a
synonym for .282
It is significant that the same expression can
be found exclusively in Deut. 7:14 (lxx). In this passage, the Greek formula is
the correct rendering of the Hebrew , i.e. male and female infertility.
The fact that the same Greek expression can only be found in Exod. 23:26 and
Deut. 7:14, is a supplementary indication of the relationship between these two
biblical texts.
280 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew
Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (AASF, 31), Helsinki, 1982, 4950 and Wevers,
Notes, 372.
281 Deut. 4:19; 5:9; 8:19; 11:16; 17:3; 29:25; 30:17; cf. also Exod. 20:5.
282 A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, LExode (La Bible dAlexandrie, 2), Paris 1989, 240: Dans
lexpression grecque ouk stai gonos oud stera, gonos peut tre masculin ou fminin.
Toutefois, le terme peut sappliquer en grec classique et dans la koin une femme inf
conde, mais non pas celle qui avorte. Il serait superflu ici, sil avait le mme sens que
stera. On est amen poser un cart entre la lxx et le tm et considrer que le couple
gonosstera dsigne la strilit masculine et fminine, comme en Dt 7,14, o gonos
et stera correspondent aqar et aqarah, cest--dire au mme mot masculin, puis au
fminin. See also Wevers, Notes, 373.
Two hypotheses are possible. Firstly, the Greek translator of Exod. 23:26 may
not have sufficiently understood his Hebrew Vorlage, thus leading him to ren
der the phrase as , avoiding the problem by
using two synonyms.
Within this hypothesis, however, one has to explain the similarity with
Deut. 7:14. This again can be done in two different ways. On the one hand, one
might suppose that the lxx translator of Deut. 7:14 based himself on the ren
dering of Exod. 23:26. However, this supposition would imply that the Vorlage
of Deut. 7:14 read instead of . On the other hand, it
is equally possible that the translatorwithout reference to Exod. 23:26
uncounsciously used the combination as a correct transla
tion of the expression . In that case, the lxx translator was faithful
to his Vorlage and rendered the formula by .
An additional argument can be found in the way the lxx deals with the
concept of the of yhwh in Exod. 23:20.23. In the mt (and SamP),
the protects ( )the Israelites on their journey into the land and even
brings the people to the land () . The people for their part
must listen to his voice () , because the angel will not forgive their
trespasses () . Moreover, the mt (and SamP) posits that
yhwh is present in the angel () .
In the lxx, however, some of these elements are weakened. Firstly, instead
of the capacity to forgive sins, it is said that the angel will not shrink away
( ).283 Secondly, in Exod. 23:21 (lxx), it is stressed that
the name of yhwh is not in the angel ( ), but on him ( ). Thirdly,
according to the lxx, the people did not have to listen to the voice of the angel,
but to yhwh himself (Exod. 23:22: ).284 In restrict
ing the role of the angel, the lxx translator seems to link up with the tenor of
the book of Deuteronomy, since here the angel is not mentioned at all.285 This
283 See also Wevers, Notes, 370: Since only God can forgive sins Exod. avoids a statement that
the angel does so. As Gods messenger he can, however, be involved in mans lot and will
not turn aside, will not be overawed by you.
284 The variant may have been caused by the interchange of and . See E. Tov,
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Third Edition, Revised and Expanded, Minneapolis,
MN 2012, 227.
285 It is sometimes argued that the author(s) of Deuteronomy deliberately omitted the
motif of the angel. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 34; Idem,
The Emergence, 84; Idem, Deuteronomy 111: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB, 5), New York 1991, 379. See also M. Lana, Deuteronomio e angelologia
alla luce di une variante qumranica (4QDt 32,8), Henoch 5 (1983), 179207.
334 chapter 5
conclusion is not incompatible with Van der Kooijs thesis that the lxx transla
tor understood the text as referring to the High Priest.286
While studying some variant readings of mt and lxx (and SamP) in Exod.
23:2033, a number of relevant variants that can be explained as harmoni
sations with the book of Deuteronomy came to the fore. These harmonisa
tions, which can also be detected in other passages of the book of Exodus
and even in the book of Numbers,287 demonstrate that the (theological)
influence of Deuteronomy was very important. These instances suggest that
the close relationship between certain pericopes of GenesisNumbers
with the fifth book of the Pentateuch was already recognised at a very early
stage in the transmission and/or translation of the biblical text on the basis
of their similar style, vocabulary and content.288 However, these harmonisa
tions do not allow us to characterise the Hebrew Vorlage of the lxx or the
lxx translator himself as a Deuteronomist, since a copyist or a transla
tor who was influenced by Deuteronomy or inspired by it, is not necessarily
a Deuteronomist.289 Moreover, based on these text-critical studies, it has
become clear thatfrom the redaction-critical perspectivewe must at
least account for the possibility of an extended process of Deuteronom(ist)ic
reworkings of the text, without considering the latter to be Deuteronom(ist)ic
stricto sensu. Should traces be evident of a process of harmonisation with
286 A. van der Kooij, lxx Exodus 23 and the Figure of the High Priest, in: J.K. Aitken et al.
(eds), On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies (BZAW, 420), Berlin
2011, 537549; A. van der Kooij, The Septuagint of the Pentateuch, in: J. Cook, A. van der
Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the
Septuagint Version (CBET, 68), Leuven 2012, 1562, esp. 4449.
287 H. Ausloos, LXX Num 14:23: Once More a Deuteronomist at Work?, in: B. Taylor (ed.),
Proceedings of the Xth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate StudiesOslo 1998 (SBL SCS, 51), Atlanta, GA 2001, 415427; H. Ausloos, Traces of
Deuteronomic Influence in the Septuagint: A Text-Critical Analysis of Exodus 33:16, JNSL
35 (2009), 2744. See also H. Ausloos, The Risks of Rash Textual Criticism Illustrated on
the Basis of the Numeruswechsel in Exod. 23:2033, BN 97 (1999), 512. See, moreover,
Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 171177.
288 On the inner-Deuteronomic harmonisations in the lxx version of Deuteronomy, see
H. Ausloos, lxxs Rendering of the Numeruswechsel in the Book of Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 12 as a Test Case, in: J.M. Robker et al. (eds), TextTextgeschichte
Textwirkung: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Siegfried Kreuzer (AOAT, 419), Mnster
2014, 303313.
289 Cf. Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 371: Wer sich derart von
Deuteronomistischem inspirieren lie oder sogar darauf verwies, mute deshalb
keineswegs selbst ein Deuteronomist seinwas immer dieses Wort in diesem Kontext
berhaupt nog besagen knnteoder gar einer deuteronomistischen Schule angehren.
Deuteronomy within (the Vorlage of) the lxx as well as the SamP, then it is
equally plausible that elements of the mt, normally taken to be characteristic
of a (post-)Deuteronomistic author or redactor, found their way into the text
on the basis of a concern for transmitting harmonious texts, without insisting
on a (post-)Deuteronom(ist)ic author or redactor.290 It is thus clear that redac
tion criticism and textual criticism also go hand in hand at this juncture.291
5 Conclusion
In this closing chapter we have explored two fundamental questions with a

view to future research. In the first paragraph we endeavoured to establish
some degree of clarity in the complex and often confusing terminology sur
rounding the Deuteronom(ist)ic problem. In the process, and presuming we
accept that such a thing as a well-defined Deuteronomic law once existed
(a form of the present book of Deuteronomy) that had an extremely signif
icant influence on the rest of the literature of the Old Testament, we argue
for the need to account for successive phases in the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature:292 prehistory, prime and (pro- or contra-Deuteronom[ist]ic)
290 Cf. E. Ottos review article Jeseits der Suche nach dem ursprnglichen Text in der
Textkritik: Fortschreibungen und Textautoritt in der nachexilischen Zeit, ZABR 18 (2012),
365371.
291 Cf. E. Blum, The Decalogue and the Composition History of the Pentateuch, in:
(FAT, 78), Tbingen 2011, 289301: There is evidence of a continued selective rework
ing and mutual adaptation of the protocanonical Decalogue versions, until the text-
critically documented process of transmission (301). See also H. Ausloos, Literary
Criticism and Textual Criticism in Judg. 6:114 in Light of 4QJudga, OTE 27 (2014),
358376 on the Deuteronomistic insertion in Judg. 6:710. See further on the role of
the Dead Sea scrolls and textual criticism for theories regarding the origins and dating
of the Pentateuch: A. Lange, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Date of the Final Stage of
the Pentateuch, in Aitken et al. (eds), On Stone and Scroll, 287304; E. Ulrich, Multiple
Literary Editions: Reflections Toward a Theory of the History of the Biblical Text, in:
Idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls
and Related Literature), Grand Rapids, MI 1999, 99120; A. van der Kooij, Zur Verhltnis
von Textkritik und Literarkritik: berlegungen anhand einiger Beispiele, in: J.A. Emerton
(ed.), Congress Volume Cambridge 1995 (SVT, 66), Leiden 1997, 185202.
292 Cf. T. Rmer, Du Temple au Livre: lidologie de la centralisation dans lhistoire deut
ronomiste, in S.L. McKenzie et al. (eds), Rethinking the Foundation: Historiography in the
Ancient World and in the Bible (BZAW, 294), Berlin 2000, 206225, esp. 225: La thologie
deutronomiste est une thologie en mouvement.
336 chapter 5
continuing influence. In line with a number of authors who support the

possibility that the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature was imitated in the ongo
ing genesis and evolution of the Old Testament books, I introduced the term
simili-Deuteronomistic into the research domain. The harmonising tendency
that seems to characterise various versiones should also be mentioned in
this regard.
In the second paragraph, we subjected the criteria one can employ in
making well-founded statements about the relationship between a given
passage (from the Tetrateuch) and the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature and the
characterisation of the link between them to a thorough examination. We
argued for the necessity of a well-defined reference framework with which
a passage can be compared. We defined the said reference frameworkin
agreement with Lohfink and othersas the Deuteronomistic Canon, which
includeswith the necessary reservationsthe book of Deuteronomy, the
books of Joshua2 Kings and the passages from Jeremiah characterised as
Deuteronomistic. With respect to establishing criteria upon which one can
base oneself in studying a pericope with a view to drawing conclusions as to
its Deuteronom(ist)ic character we proposed a two phased distinction. In a
first phase, a comprehensive analysis must be made of the form and content
of the passage in question, thus contesting a overly rash attribution of texts to a
(post-)Deuteronomist, a tendency that broadly characterises Pentateuch stud
ies from the last decennia. The analysis of form consists in the first instance
of a detailed study of vocabulary. Statistical data play only a secondary role in
this regard. The primary goal is to determine the meaning according to which
a given word functions in the context, both in the pericope under analysis
and in the Deuteronomistic Canon. In addition, the text has to be compared
with the Deuteronomistic Canon from the perspective of syntax. A final step
in the process will then determine whether specific compositional schemas
are evident in the text and whether the said schemas can also be identified in
the Deuteronomistic Canon.
In addition to the study of form, content-related points of interest have to
be confronted with the thematic accents evident in the Deuteronomistic
Canon. Based on a study of form and content, we can determine whether a
given pericope or part thereof can be said to be of the Deuteronom(ist)ic type
or not.
Only when the results of our research into form and contentas exempli
fied on the basis of an analysis of some formal and content-related elements
within the epilogue of the Book of the Covenantpermit us to characterise
(part of) a pericope as being of the Deuteronomistic type, can we pose ques
tions in the second phase as to the nature of the relationship between the
passage under analysis and the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. At this stage,
however, it is essential that we include the rest of the Old Testament as a

controlling framework. It is only when we have completed both phases that
we are at liberty to look for conclusions about whether (part of) a pericope
should be understood as proto-Deuteronomic, pre-Deuteronomic, Deuterono
mic, early-Deute ronomis tic, Deuteronomistic, post-Deuteronomistic, late-
Deuteronomistic, simili-Deuteronomistic or even anti-Deuteronom(ist)ic. In
addition, the final paragraph of the present chapter tentatively proposed
against the background of text-critical analysis of allegedly Deuteronom(ist)ic
textsthat the process of continued harmonisation within the process of
transmission of the text should also be kept in mind when explaining so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic language and ideas in GenesisNumbers. It should be clear
once again that the history of the Deuteronomist has not yet reached its end ...
Bibliography
Aalders, G.C., Genesis (Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift), Kampen 1949.
Achenbach, R., Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen
zu Deuteronomium 111 (EurHS, 422), Frankfurt am Main 1991.
, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches
im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZABR, 3), Wiesbaden 2003.
, The Story of the Revelation at the Mountain of God and the Redactional
Editions of the Hexateuch and the Pentateuch, in: E. Otto, J. Le Roux (eds), A Critical
Study of the Pentateuch: An Encounter Between Europe and Africa (Altes Testament
und Moderne, 20), Mnster 2005, 126151.
Achenbach, R., Arneth, M. (eds), Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu ben (Gen 18,19): Studien
zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels
und zur Religionssoziologie. Festschrift fr Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (BZABR,
13), Wiesbaden 2009.
Ackroyd, P.R., The Book of Jeremiah: Some Recent Studies, JSOT 28 (1984), 4759.
Adamczewski, B., Retelling the Law: Genesis, ExodusNumbers, and SamuelKings as
Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (European Studies in Theology,
Philosophy and History of Religions, 1), Frankfurt am Main 2012.
Aejmelaeus, A., Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew
Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (AASF, 31), Helsinki, 1982.
Akao, J.O., In Search of the Origin of the Deuteronomic Movement, IrBSt 16 (1994),
174189.
Albertz, R. et al. (eds), Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments: Festschrift fr Claus
Westermann zum 70. Geburtstag, Gttingen 1980.
, Die Intentionen und die Trger des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks,
in: R. Albertz et al. (eds), Schpfung und Befreiung: Fr Claus Westermann zum 80.
Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1989, 3753.
, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamenticher Zeit (ATD. Ergnzungsreihe, 8),
Gttingen 1992.
, Der Beginn der vorpriesterlichen Exodus-komposition (KEX): Eine
Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von Ex. 15, TZ 67 (2011), 223262.
, Ex. 33,711: Ein Schlsseltext fr die Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte
des Pentateuch, BN 149 (2011), 1343.
, The Late Exilic Book of Exodus (Exodus 134*): A Contribution to the
Pentateuchal Discussion, in: T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds), The Pentateuch: International
Perspectives on Current Research (FAT, 78), Tbingen 2011, 243256.
, Exodus 118 (ZBK, 2/1), Zrich 2012.
340 Bibliography
et al. (eds), Schpfung und Befreiung: Fr Claus Westermann zum 80. Geburtstag,
Stuttgart 1989.
, Becking, B. (eds), Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in
the Persian Era (Studies in Theology and Religion, 5), Assen 2003.
Allen, R.B., Exodus (The Expositors Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids MI 1990,
6551008.
Alt, A., Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums, in: Idem, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, Bd. 2, Mnchen 1953, 250275.
, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Mnchen 1953.
et al. (eds), Alttestamentliche Studien: Fr Rudolph Kittel zum 60. Geburtstag,
Leipzig 1913.
Altmann, A. (ed.), Biblical Motifs, Origins and Transformations, Cambridge 1966.
Anbar, M., Genesis 15: A Conflation of Two Deuteronomic Narratives, JBL 101 (1982),
3955.
, Linfluence deutronomique sur le Code de lAlliance: Le cas dExode 21:1217,
ZABR 5 (1999), 16516.
Andersen, F.I., Forbes, A.D., The Vocabulary of the Old Testament, Roma 1989.
Anderson, A.A., 2 Samuel (WBC, 11), Dallas TX 1989.
Anderson, B.W. (ed.), The Books of the Bible, Part 1: The Old Testament/The Hebrew Bible,
New York 1989.
Anderson, G.W., A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament, London 71972.
, Changing Perspectives in Old Testament Study, in: Idem (ed.), Tradition and
Interpretation: Essays by Members of the Society of Old Testament Study, Oxford 1979,
xiiixxi.
(ed.), Tradition and Interpretation: Essays by Members of the Society of Old
Testament Study, Oxford 1979.
Artus, O., tudes sur le livre des Nombres: Rcit, histoire et Loi en Nb 13,120,13 (OBO, 157),
Fribourg 1997.
, Les dernires rdactions du livre des Nombres et lunit littraire du livre, in:
T. Rmer, K. Schmid (eds), Les dernires rdactions du Pentateuque, de lHexateuque
et de lEnnateuque (BETL, 203), Leuven 2007, 129144.
, Bulletin dAncien Testament I: Pentateuque, RSR 100 (2012), 577588.
Ashley, T.R., The Book of Numbers (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI 1993.
Astour, M.C., Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and its Babylonian Sources,
in: A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical Motifs, Origins and Transformations, Cambridge 1966,
65112.
Astruc, J., Conjectures sur les mmoires originaux dont il parait que Mose sest servi pour
composer le livre de la Gnse: Avec des remarques, qui appuient ou qui claircissent
ces conjectures, Bruxelles 1753.
Bibliography 341
Auld, A.G., Joshua, Moses and the Land: TetrateuchPentateuchHexateuch in a

Generation since 1938, Edinburgh 1980.
(ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart
Anderson (JSOT SS, 152), Sheffield 1993.
Aurelius, E., Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zum
Enneateuch (BZAW, 319), Berlin 2003.
Ausloos, H., De deuteronomische redactie van de Pentateuch. Een kritische status quaes-
tionis van het onderzoek naar het boek Exodus (unpublished Masters thesis KU
Leuven), Leuven 1992.
, Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in Exod 23,2033? Some Methodological
Remarks, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction
ReceptionInterpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 481500.
, Deuteronomisti)sche elementen in GenesisNumeri: Een onderzoek naar cri-
teria voor identificatie op basis van een literaire analyse van de epiloog van het
Verbondsboek (Exodus 23,2033) (unpublished Doctoral dissertation KU Leuven),
Leuven 1996.
, The Septuagint Version of Exod 23:2033: A Deuteronomist at Work?, JNSL
22 (1996), 89106.
, The Need for Linguistic Criteria in Characterising Biblical Pericopes as
Deuteronomistic: A Critical Note to Erhard Blums Methodology, JNSL 23 (1997),
4756.
, Les extrmes se touchent...Proto-Deuteronomic and Simili-Deuteronomistic
Elements in GenesisNumbers, in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and
Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997,
341366.
, The Need for a Controlling Framework in Determining the Relationship
between GenesisNumbers and the So-Called Deuteronomistic Literature, JNSL 24
(1998), 7789.
, A Land Flowing with Milk and Honey: Indicative of a Deuteronomistic
Redaction?, ETL 75 (1999), 297314.
, Exod. 23,2033 and the War of Yhwh, Bib 80 (1999), 55563.
, The Risks of Rash Textual Criticism Illustrated on the Basis of the
Numeruswechsel in Exod. 23:2033, BN 97 (1999), 512.
, LXX Num 14:23: Once More a Deuteronomist at Work?, in: B. Taylor (ed.),
Proceedings of the Xth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies: Oslo 1998 (SBL SCS, 51), Atlanta GA 2001, 415427.
, The Deuteronomist and the Account of Josephs Death (Gen 50,2226), in:
A. Wnin (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History
(BETL, 155), Leuven 2001, 381395.
342 Bibliography
, Deuteronomistic Elements in Numbers 1314: Colensos View on the

Deuteronomist, OTE 19 (2006), 558572.
, John William Colenso (18141883) and the Deuteronomist, RB 113 (2006),
372397.
, The Angel of Yhwh in Exod. xxiii 2033 and Judg. ii 15: A Clue to the
Deuteronom(ist)ic Puzzle?, VT 58 (2008), 112.
, Traces of Deuteronomic Influence in the Septuagint: A Text-Critical Analysis
of Exodus 33:16, JNSL 35 (2009), 2744.
, The Book of Joshua, Exodus 23 and the Hexateuch, in: E. Noort (ed.), The Book
of Joshua (BETL, 250), Leuven 2012, 259266.
, The Proto-Deuteronomist: Fifty Years Later, OTE 26 (2013), 531558.
, Literary Criticism and Textual Criticism in Judg. 6:114 in Light of 4QJudga,
OTE 27 (2014), 358376.
, lxxs Rendering of the Numeruswechsel in the Book of Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 12 as a Test Case, in: J.M. Robker et al. (eds), TextTextgeschichte
Textwirkung: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Siegfried Kreuzer (AOAT, 419),
Mnster 2014, 303313.
, What Happened to the Proto-Deuteronomist? The Epilogue to the Book of
the Covenant (Exod 23,2033) as a Test Case, in: H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn (eds),
A Pillar of Cloud to Guide (Exod. 13,21): Old Testament Text-Critical, Redactional and
Linguistic Perspectives in Honour of Marc Vervenne (BETL, 269), Leuven 2014, 1729.
Ausloos, H., Lemmelijn, B. (eds), A Pillar of Cloud to Guide (Exod. 13,21): Old Testament
Text-Critical, Redactional and Linguistic Perspectives in Honour of Marc Vervenne
(BETL, 269), Leuven 2014.
Auwers, J.-M., Wnin, A. (eds), Lectures et relectures de la Bible: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert
Auzou, G., La tradition biblique: Histoire des crits sacrs du peuple de Dieu (Connaissance
de la Bible, 2), Paris 1957.
, De la servitude au service: tude du livre de lExode (Connaissance de la Bible,
3), Paris 1961.
Baarlink, H. et al. (eds), Christologische perspectieven: Exegetische en hermeneutische
studies. Artikelen van en voor prof. dr. Heinrich Baarlink, uitgegeven ter gelegenheid
van zijn afscheid als hoogleraar in de nieuwtestamentische vakken aan de Theologische
Universiteit van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland te Kampen, Kampen 1992.
Bacon, B.W., JE in the Middle Books of the Pentateuch: Analysis of Exodus vii.xii.,
JBL 9 (1890), 161200.
, JE in the Middle Books of the Pentateuch: Analysis of Exodus i.vii., JBL 10
(1891), 107130.
, JE in the Middle Books of the Pentateuch: From Egypt to Sinai. Analysis of
Exodus xii.37xvii.16, JBL 11 (1892), 177200.
Bibliography 343
, JE in the Middle Books of the Pentateuch: SinaiHoreb. Analysis of Exodus

xviii.xxxiv., JBL 12 (1893), 2346.
Baden, J.S., J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT, 68), Tbingen 2009.
, The Deuteronomic Evidence for the Documentary Theory, in: T.B. Dozeman
et al. (eds), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT, 78),
Tbingen 2011, 327344.
, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis,
New Haven 2012.
, The Promise to the Patriarchs, Oxford 2013.
Baentsch, B., Das Bundesbuch Ex. xx,22xxiii,33: Seine ursprngliche Gestalt, sein
Verhltnis zu den es umgebenden Quellenschriften und seine Stellung in der alttesta-
mentlichen Gesetzgebung, Halle 1892.
, Das Heiligkeits-Gesetz Lev. xviixxvi: Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung,
Erfurt 1893.
, ExodusLeviticusNumeri (HKAT, 1/2), Gttingen 1903.
Bardtke, H., Franz Delitzsch geb. 23.2.1813: Ein Gedenkwort zur einhunderfnfzigsten
Wiederkehr seines Geburtstages, TLZ 88 (1963), 161170.
Barrick, W.B., On the Removal of the High-Places in 12 Kings, Bib 55 (1974), 257259.
, Spencer, J.R. (eds), In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and
Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlstrm (JSOT SS, 31), Trowbridge 1984.
Barstad, H.W., History and the Hebrew Bible (FAT, 61), Tbingen 2008.
Barton, J., Muddiman, J. (eds), The Oxford Bible Commentary, Oxford 2001.
Baudissin, Graf W.W., Einleitung in die Bcher des Alten Testaments, Leipzig 1901.
Bauer, H., Leander, P., Historische Grammatik der Hebrischen Sprache des Alten
Testaments, Bd. 1: Einleitung, Schriftlehre, Laut- und Formenlehre, Halle 1922.
Bauer, U.F.W., All diese Worte: Impulse zur Schriftauslegung aus
Amsterdam. Expliziert an der Schilfmeererzhlung in Exodus 13,1714,31 (EurHS, 442),
Frankfurt am Main 1991.
Baumgartner, W., Der Kampf um das Deuteronomium, TR 1 (1929), 725.
, Wellhausen und der heutige Stand der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft, TR
2 (1930), 287307.
, Alttestamentliche Einleitung und Literaturgeschichte, TR 8 (1936), 179222.
Bea, A., Der heutige Stand der Pentateuchfrage, Bib 16 (1935), 175200.
Becker, J., Review of E. Zenger, Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen
und elohistischen Geschichtswerk (Wrzburg 1971), TP 48 (1973), 115.
Becker, U., Richterzeit und Knigtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch
(BZAW, 192), Berlin 1990.
Becking, B., Korpel, M.C.A. (eds), The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of
Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS, 42), Leiden 1999.
Beer, G., Exodus: Mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling (HAT, 1/3), Tbingen 1939.
344 Bibliography
Begg, C.T., Contributions to the Elucidation of the Composition of Deuteronomy with

Special Attention to the Significance of the Numeruswechsel (unpublished Doctoral
dissertation KU Leuven), Leuven 1978.
, The Significance of the Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy: The Pre-History
of the Question, ETL 55 (1979), 116124.
, The Destruction of the Calf (Exod 32,20/Deut 9,21), in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das
Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 208251.
, 1994: A Significant Anniversary in the History of Deuteronomy Research, in:
F. Garca Martnez et al. (eds), Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C.J. Labuschagne
on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (SVT, 53), Leiden 1994, 111.
, The Destruction of the Golden Calf Revisited (Exod 32,20/Deut 9,21), in:
M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift
C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 469479.
Bell, F. et al., Bibliography of Colensos Work and Publications on Colenso, in: J. Draper
(ed.), The Eye of the Storm: Bishop John William Colenso and the Crisis of Biblical
Inspiration (JSOT SS, 386), London 2003, 365377.
Bennett, W.H., Biblical Introduction: Old Testament, London 1899.
, Exodus: Introduction. Revised Version with Notes, Giving an Analysis Showing
from which of the Original Documents Each Portion of the Text is Taken; Index and
Map Illustrations (Century Bible), London s.d. ( 1910).
Bentzen, A., Introduction to the Old Testament, Vol. 2: The Books of the Old Testament,
Kbenhavn 1948.
Ben Zvi, E., A Deuteronomistic Redaction in/among The Twelve? A Contribution
from the Standpoint of the Book of Micah, Zephaniah and Obadiah, in: L.S.
Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of
Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 232261.
Berge, K., Die Zeit des Jahwisten: Ein Beitrag zur Datierung jahwistischer Vtertexte
Berner, C., Die Exoduserzhlung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels
(FAT, 73), Tbingen 2010.
Berry, G.R., The Code Found in the Temple, JBL 39 (1920), 4451.
Bertheau, E., Die sieben Gruppen mosascher Gesetze in den drei mittleren Bchern des
Pentateuchs: Ein Beitrag zur Kritik des Pentateuchs, Gttingen 1840.
, Das Buch der Richter und Ruth (KEHAT), Leipzig 1845.
Bertholdt, L., Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die smmtlichen kanonischen und apo
kryphischen Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Erlangen 1813.
Bettenzoli, G., Deuteronomium und Heiligkeitsgezetz, VT 34 (1984), 385398.
Bewer, J.A., The Literature of the Old Testament in its Historical Development (Records
of Civilization. Sources and Studies, 5), New York 71947.
Beyerlin, W., Herkunft und Geschichte der ltesten Sinaitraditionen, Tbingen 1961.
Bibliography 345
, Die Parnese im Bundesbuch und ihre Herkunft, in: H. Graf Reventlow

(ed.), Gottes Wort und Gottes Land: Hans-Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70. Geburtstag am
16. Januar 1965 dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schlern, Gttingen 1966,
929.
Binns, L.E., The Book of Numbers with Introduction and Notes (Westminster Com
mentaries), London 1927.
Bleek, F., Einige aphoristische Beitrge zu den Untersuchungen ber den Pentateuch,
in: E.F.K. Rosenmller, G.H. Rosenmller (ed.), Biblisch-exegetisches Repertorium
oder die neuesten Fortschritte in Erklrung der heiligen Schrift, Bd. 1, Leipzig 1822,
179.
, Beitrge zu den Forschungen ber den Pentateuch, Theologische Studien und
Kritiken 4 (1831), 488524.
, Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift, Bd. 1: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Berlin
1860.
Blenkinsopp, J., The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible
(AB Reference Library), New York 1992.
, Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative (Exodus 1934), in:
E.E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content.
Essays in Honor of George W. Coats (JSOT SS, 240), Sheffield 1997, 109125.
, Deuteronomic Contribution to the Narrative in GenesisNumbers: A Test
Case, in: L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The
Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 84115.
, A Post-Exilic Lay Source in Genesis 111, in: J.C. Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom
Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 313),
Berlin 2002, 4961.
Blum, E., Die Komposition der Vtergeschichte (WMANT, 57), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984.
, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189), Berlin 1990.
, Gibt es die Endgestalt des Pentateuch?, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress
Volume: Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 4657.
, Das sog. Privilegrecht in Exodus 34,1126: Ein Fixpunkt der Komposition
des Exodusbuches, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction
, Der kompositionelle Knoten am bergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein
Entflechtungsvorschlag, in M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and
181212.
, Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvtern und Exodus. Ein Gesprch
mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen, in: J.C. Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom
Berlin 2002, 119156.
346 Bibliography
, Isral la montagne de Dieu: Remarques sur Ex. 1924; 3234 et sur le

contexte littraire et historique de sa composition, in: A. De Pury, T. Rmer (eds),
Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de
la Bible la lumire des recherches rcentes. 3me dition augmente (Le monde de la
Bible, 19), Genve 2002, 271295.
, Historiographie oder Dichtung? Zur Eigenart alttestamentlicher Prosa
berlieferung, in: Idem et al. (eds), Das Alte Testamentein Geschichtsbuch?
Beitrge des Symposiums Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne anlsslich
des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (19011971), Heidelberg, 18.21. Oktober 2001
(Altes Testament und Moderne, 10), Mnster 2005, 6586.
, The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the
End of the Book of Joshua, in: T.B. Dozeman, K. Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the
Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBL
SS, 34), Atlanta GA 2006, 89106.
, Pentateuch Hexateuch Enneateuch? Oder. woran erkennt man ein lite
rarisches Werk in der Hebrischen Bibel?, in: T. Rmer, K. Schmid (eds), Les
dernires rdactions du Pentateuque, de lHexateuque et de lEnnateuque (BETL
203), Leuven 2007, 6797.
, Textgestalt und Komposition: Exegetische Beitrge zu Tora und Vordere
Propheten (FAT, 69), Tbingen 2010.
, The Decalogue and the Composition History of the Pentateuch, in: T.B.
Dozeman et al. (eds), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research
(FAT, 78), Tbingen 2011, 289301.
, The Jacob Tradition, in: C.A. Evans et al. (eds), The Book of Genesis: Composition,
Reception, and Interpretation (SVT, 152), Leiden 2012, 181211.
, Zwischen Literarkritik und Stilkritik: Die diachrone Analyse der literarischen
Verbindung von Genesis und Exodusim Gesprach mit Ludwig Schmidt, ZAW 124
(2012), 492515.
, Blum, R., Zippora und ihr ( Ex. 4,2426), in: E. Blum et al. (eds), Die
Hebrische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift fr Rolf Rendtorff
zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen 1990, 4154.
et al. (eds), Die Hebrische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift
fr Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen 1990.
et al. (eds), Das Alte Testament ein Geschichtsbuch? Beitrge des Symposiums
Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne anlsslich des 100. Geburtstags
Gerhard von Rads (19011971), Heidelberg, 18.21. Oktober 2001 (Altes Testament und
Moderne, 10), Mnster 2005.
Boadt, L., Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction, New York 1984.
Boecker, H.J., 1. Mose 25,1237,1: Isaak und Jakob (ZBK Altes Testament, 1/3), Zrich
1992.
Bibliography 347
Boehmer, E., Das erste Buch der Thora: bersetzung seiner drei Quellen und
Redactionszustze mit kritischen, exegetischen und historischen Errterungen, Halle
1862.
Bogaert, P.-M. (ed.), Le livre de Jrmie: Le prophte et son milieu. Les oracles et leur
transmission (BETL, 54), Leuven 1981.
, Albin van Hoonacker, Biographie nationale publi par lAcadmie Royale des
sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique 44 (1985), 633640.
Bhl, F.M.T., Genesis (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische bijbelverklaring), Groningen 19231925.
, Exodus (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische bijbelverklaring), Groningen 1928.
Boorer, S., The Importance of a Diachronic Approach: The Case of GenesisKings,
CBQ 51 (1989), 195208.
, The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch
Braulik, G., Studien zu den Methoden der Deuteronomiumsexegese (Stuttgarter biblische
Aufsatzbnde, 42), Stuttgart 2006.
(ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, Basel 1977.
et al. (eds), Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Fr Norbert
Lohfink s.J., Freiburg 1993.
Brekelmans, C.H.W., Het historische credo van Isral, TvT 3 (1963), 111.
, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Elemente in Gen.Num. Ein Beitrag zur
Vorgeschichte des Deuteronomiums, in: Volume du Congrs Genve 1965 (SVT, 15),
Leiden 1966, 9096.
, lments deutronomiques dans le Pentateuque, in: C. Hauret (ed.), Aux
grands carrefours de la rvlation et de lexgse de lAncien Testament (Recherches
Bibliques, 8), Leuven 1967, 7791.
, Deuteronomisch. Deuteronomium, in: H. Haag (ed.), Bibel-Lexikon, Einsiedeln
21968, 326330.
, Some Considerations on the Prose Sermons in the Book of Jeremiah, Bijdragen
34 (1973), 204211.
, Jeremiah 18,112 and Its Redaction, in: P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Le livre de Jrmie:
Le prophte et son milieu. Les oracles et leur transmission (BETL, 54), Leuven 1981,
343350.
, Deuteronomy 5: Its Place and Function, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das
Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 164173.
, Deuteronomistic Inluence in Isaiah 112, in: J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of
IsaiahLe Livre dIsae: Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unit et complexit de louvrage
(BETL, 81), Leuven 1989, 167176.
, Joshua V 112: Another Approach, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), New Avenues
in the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published
on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap
and the Retirement of Prof. Dr. M.J. Mulder (OTS, 25), Leiden 1989, 8995.
348 Bibliography
, Wisdom Influence in Deuteronomy, in: M. Gilbert (ed.), La Sagesse de lAncien

Testament: Nouvelle dition mise jour (BETL, 51), Leuven 1990, 2838.
, Lust, J. (eds), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the
xiiith IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989 (BETL, 94), Leuven 1990.
Breytenbach, A.P.B., The Churchs Responsibility Towards Social Order: An Old
Testament Hermeneutic Problem, Hervormde teologiese studies 61 (2005), 861881.
Briend, J., La crise du Pentateuque, RIC 29 (1989), 4962.
, La composition du Pentateuque entre hier et aujourdhui, in: Naissance de la
mthode critique: Colloque du centenaire de lcole biblique et archologique franaise
de Jrusalem (Patrimoines christianisme), Paris 1992.
Briggs, C.A., The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, New York 21897.
Brinkschrder, M., Sodom als Symptom: Gleichgeschlechtliche Sexualitt im christli-
chen Imaginreneine religionsgeschichtliche Anamnese (Religionsgeschichtliche
Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 55), Berlin 2006.
Brown, S.L., Exodus (A New Commentary on Holy Scripture Including the Apocrypha),
London 1928.
Brueggemann, W., Genesis (Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and
Preaching), Atlanta GA 1982.
, Genesis, in: B.W. Anderson (ed.), The Books of the Bible, Part 1: The Old
Testament/The Hebrew Bible, New York 1989, 2144.
Budd, P.J., Numbers (WBC, 5), Waco TX 1984.
Budde, K., Die Gesetzgebung der mittleren Bcher des Pentateuchs, insbesondere der
Quellen J und E, ZAW 11 (1891), 193234.
Buis, P., Leclerq, J., La Deutronome (SBi), Paris 1963.
Burns, R.J., Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers: With Excursuses on Feasts/Ritual and Typology
(OTM, 3), Wilmington, DE 1983.
Caloz, M., Exode xiii,316 et son rapport au Deutronome, RB 75 (1968), 562.
Campbell, A.F., The Yahwist Revisited, Australian Biblical Review 27 (1979), 214.
, Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 12 Kings 10)
(CBQ MS, 17), Washington 1986.
Carasik, M., Theologies of the Mind in Biblical Israel (Studies in Biblical Literature, 85),
New York 2005.
, A Deuteronomic Voice in the Joseph Story, in: N.S. Fox et al. (eds), Mishneh
Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H.
Tigay, Winona Lake IN 2009, 314.
Carpenter, J.E., Harford, G., The Composition of the Hexateuch: An Introduction with
Select Lists of Words and Phrases, London 1902.
Carr, D.M., Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches,
Louisville KY 1996.
Bibliography 349
, Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of

Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,1126 and its Parallels, in: M. Kckert, E. Blum (eds),
Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex. 3234 und Dtn. 910 (Verffentlichungen
der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fr Theologie, 18), Gtersloh 2001, 107140.
, What is Required to Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections between
Genesis and Exodus? Some General Reflections and Specific Cases, in: T.B. Dozeman,
K. Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in
Recent European Interpretation (SBL SS, 34), Atlanta, GA 2006, 159180.
, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction, Oxford 2011.
Carroll, R.P., Arguing About Jeremiah: Recent Studies and the Nature of a Prophetic
Book, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991,
222235.
, Jeremiah (Old Testament Guides), Sheffield 21993.
et al. (eds), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson (JSOT SS, 138),
Sheffield 1992.
Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Jerusalem 19611964.
, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Jerusalem 1967.
Cazelles, H., Jrmie et le Deutronome, RSR 38 (1951), 536.
, Connexions et structure de Gen., xv, RB 69 (1962), 321349.
, Pentateuque, T. 4: Le nouveau status quaestionis, DBS 7 (1966), 687858.
, Positions actuelles dans lexgse du Pentateuque, ETL 44 (1968), 5578.
, La Torah ou Pentateuque, in: Idem (ed.), Introduction la Bible, T. 2:
Introduction lAncien Testament, Paris 1973, 95244.
, Rdactions et traditions dans lExode, in: G. Braulik (ed.), Studien zum
Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, Wien 1977, 3758.
, Histoire et institutions dans la place et la composition dEx. 20,2223,19, in:
R. Liwak, S. Wagner (eds), Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im Alten Israel:
Festschrift fur Siegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1991, 5264.
(ed.), Introduction la Bible, T. 2: Introduction lAncien Testament, Paris 1973.
Ceresko, A.R., Introduction to the Old Testament: A Liberation Perspective, New York
1992.
Chamberlain, G., Exodus 2123 and Deuteronomy 1226: A Form-Critical Study, Boston
1977.
Chan, J.T.-K., La vocation de Mose (Ex. 3 & 4): Recherche sur la rdaction dite deut-
ronomique du Ttrateuque (Facults de Thologie et de Droit Canonique. Travaux
de doctorat. Nouvelle srie, 15/8), Louvain-la-Neuve 1993.
Chapman, A.T., Streane, A.W., The Book of Leviticus (The Cambridge Bible for Schools
and Colleges), Cambridge 1914.
Cheyne, T.K., Founders of Old Testament Criticism, London 1893.
350 Bibliography
Childs, B.S., Exodus: A Commentary (OTL), London 1974.

Cholewnski, A., Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie
(AnBib, 66), Roma 1976.
Chung, Y.H., The Sin of the Calf: The Rise of the Bibles Negative Attitude Toward the
Golden Calf (Library of Hebrew Bible: Old Testament Studies, 523), New York 2010.
Clamer, A., La Gense (La Sainte Bible 1/1), Paris 1953.
, LExode (La Sainte Bible 1/2), Paris 1956.
Clay, A.T., The Empire of the Amorites (Yale Oriental Series, 6), New Haven 1919.
Clements, R.E., Prophecy and Tradition (Growing Points in Theology), Oxford 1975.
Coats, G.W., Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness
Traditions of the Old Testament, New York 1968.
Coggins, R., Introducing the Old Testament (Oxford Bible Series), Oxford 1990.
, ProphecyTrue and False, in: H.A. McKay, D.J.A. Clines (eds), Of Prophets
Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R.N. Whybray on his Seventieth
Birthday (JSOT SS, 162), Sheffield 1993, 8094.
, What Does Deuteronomistic Mean?, in: J. Davies et al. (eds), Words
Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer (JSOT SS, 195),
Sheffield 1995, 135148.
Cole, R.A., Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, London 1973.
Colenso, J.W., Ten Weeks in Natal, Cambridge 1855.
, The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans: Newly Translated and Explained from a
Missionary Point of View, Cambridge 1861.
, Natal Sermons, London 18661868.
, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, London 18621879.
, The Worship of Baalism in Israel, London 1863.
, Lectures on the Pentateuch and the Moabite Stone, London 1873.
Comte, F., De heilige boeken (Prisma), Utrecht 1995.
Cook, S.L., Micahs Deuteronomistic Redaction and the Deuteronomists, in:
L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon
of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 216231.
Coppens, J., Le chanoine van Hoonacker: Son enseignement, son uvre et sa mthode
exgtiques, Paris 1935.
, Introduction ltude historique de lAncien Testament, T. 1: Histoire critique des
livres de lAncien Testament, Brugge 31942.
Cornill, C.H., Einleitung in die kanonischen Bcher des Alte Testament (GTW, 2/1),
Tbingen 71913.
Couroyer, B., LExode (La Sainte Bible), Paris 1952.
Cox, G.W., The Life of John William Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal, London 1888.
, Colenso, John William, Dictionary of National Biography 4 (1908), 746749.
Craigie, P.C. et al., Jeremiah 125 (WBC, 26), Dallas TX 1991.
Bibliography 351
Crenshaw, L., A Living Tradition: The Book of Jeremiah in Current Research,

Interpretation 37 (1983), 117129.
, The Deuteronomist and the Writings, in: L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds),
Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS,
268), Sheffield 1999, 145158.
Cross, F.M., The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuterono
mistic History, in: Idem, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of
the Religion of Israel, Cambridge 1973, 274289.
, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel,
Cambridge 1973.
Crsemann, F., Die Eigenstndigkeit der Urgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion
um den Jahwisten, in: J. Jeremias, L. Perlitt (eds), Die Botschaft und die Boten:
Festschrift fr Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag, Neukirchen 1981, 1129.
, Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes,
Mnchen 1992.
Curtius, E.R., Europische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, Bern 81973.
Davenport, J.W., A Study of the Golden Calf Tradition in Exodus 32, Princeton 1973.
David, R., Le Pentateuque: Tendances actuelles concernant les traditions littraires, in:
Idem et al. (eds), De bien des manires: La recherche biblique aux abords du xxi me
sicle (LD, 163), Montreal 1995, 1746.
Davidson, R., Genesis 111 (The Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge 1973.
, Genesis 1250 (The Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge 1979.
Davies, G.I., The Composition of the Book of Exodus: Reflections on the Theses of
Erhard Blum, in: M.V. Fox et al. (eds), Texts, Temples and Traditions: A Tribute to
Menahem Haran, Winona Lake, IN 1996, 7185.
, Introduction to the Pentateuch, in: J. Barton, J. Muddiman (eds), The Oxford
Bible Commentary, Oxford 2001, 1238.
Davies, J. et al. (eds), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A.
Sawyer (JSOT SS, 195), Sheffield 1995.
Day, J., Pre-Deuteronomic Allusions to the Covenant in Hosea and Psalm lxxviii, VT
36 (1986), 112.
De Catanzaro, C.J., A Literary Analysis of Genesis ixi, Toronto 1957.
Deck, S., Wortstatistik: Ein immer beliebter werdendes exegetisches Handwerkzeug
auf dem (mathematischen) Prfstand, BN 60 (1991), 712.
De Fraine, J., Genesis uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (BOT), Roermond 1963.
Deist, F.E., John William Colenso: Biblical Scholar, OTE 2 (1984), 98132.
De Lange, F. (ed.), Geloven in de minderheid? Een bundel opstellen ter gelegenheid van
het 140-jarig bestaan van de Theologische Universiteit der Gereformeerde Kerken te
Kampen, Kampen 1994.
Delitzsch, F., Die Genesis ausgelegt, Leipzig 1852.
352 Bibliography
, Commentar ber die Genesis, Leipzig 31860.

, Pentateuch-kritische Studien ixii, Zeitschrift fr kirchliche Wissenschaft und
kirchliches Leben 1 (1880), 110; 5766; 113121; 173183; 223234; 279289; 337347;
393399; 445449; 503509; 559567; 617626.
, Urmosaisches im Pentateuch iiv, Zeitschrift fr kirchliche Wissenschaft und
kirchliches Leben 3 (1882), 113136; 225235; 281299; 337347; 449457; 561573.
, Neuer Kommentar ber die Genesis, Leipzig 1887.
De Moor, J.C. (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament
Exegesis: Papers Read at the Ninth Joint Meeting of Het Oudtestamentische
Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgi and The Society for Old Testament Study Held
at Kampen, 1994 (SVT, 34), Leiden 1995.
, The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and
Anonymous Artist (OTS, 45), Leiden 2001.
Dennefeld, L., Introduction lAncien Testament, Paris 1934.
De Pury, A., Review of J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven
1975), RB 85 (1978), 589618.
(ed.), Histoire et conscience historique dans les civilizations du Proche-Orient
ancien (Les Cahiers du Centre dtude du Proche-Orient Ancien, 5), Leuven 1989.
, Rmer, T., Le Pentateuque en question: Position du problme et brve histoire
de la recherche, in: Idem (eds), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la com-
position des cinq premiers livres de la Bible la lumire des recherches rcentes. 3me
dition augmente (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genve 2002, 980.
, Rmer, T. (eds), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des
cinq premiers livres de la Bible la lumire des recherches rcentes. 3me dition aug-
mente (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genve 2002.
De Pury, R., Der Exodus (Biblische Studien, 30), Neukirchen 1961.
De Tavernier, J., Vervenne, M. (eds), De mens: Verrader of hoeder van de schepping
(Nik-reeks, 26), Leuven 1991.
De Vaulx, J., Les Nombres (SBi), Paris 1972.
De Vaux, R., La Gense (La Sainte Bible), Paris 1953.
, Histoire ancienne dIsral: Des origines linstallation en Canaan, Paris 1971.
De Wette, W.M.L., Dissertatio critico-exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus
Pentateuchi libris diversum, alius cuisdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur,
Jena 1805.
, Beitrge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Bd. 1: Kritischer Versuch ber
die Glaubwrdigkeit der Bcher der Chronik mit Hinsicht auf die Geschichte der
Mosaischen Bcher und Gesetzgebung; Bd. 2: Kritik der Israelitischen Geschichte,
Halle 18061807.
, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokry-
phischen Bcher des Alten Testaments sowie in die Bibelsammlung berhaupt. Fnfte,
verbesserte und vermehrte Ausgabe, Berlin 1840.
Bibliography 353
De Wilde, J.W., Leviticus (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische bijbelverklaring), Groningen 1937.

Diehl, J.F. et al. (eds), Einen Altar von Erde mache mir...: Festschrift fr Diethelm Conrad
zu seinem 70. Geburtstag (Kleine Arbeiten zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 4/5),
Waltrop 2003.
Dietrich, W., Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung
zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 108), Gttingen 1972.
Dillmann, A., Die Genesis (KEHAT), Leipzig 1882.
, Die Bcher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua (KEHAT), Leipzig 21886.
, Ryssel, V., Die Bcher Exodus und Leviticus (KEHAT), Leipzig 1857; 31897.
Dirksen, P.B., van der Kooij, A. (eds), Abraham Kuenen (18281891): His Major
Contributions to the Study of the Old TestamentA Collection of Old Testament
Studies Published on the Occasion of the Centenary of Abraham Kuenens Death
(10 December 1991) (OTS, 29), Leiden 1993.
Dohmen, C., Der Sinaibund als Neuer Bund nach Ex. 1934, in: E. Zenger (ed.), Der
Neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD, 146),
Freiburg 1993, 5183.
Donner, H., Die literarische Gestalt der alttestamentlichen Josephsgeschichte
(Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976/2),
Heidelberg 1976.
Douglas, M., In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (JSOT
SS, 158), Sheffield 1993.
Dozeman, T.B., God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in
Exodus 1924 (SBL MS, 37), Atlanta GA 1989.
, Spatial Form in Exod 19,18a and in the Larger Sinai Narrative, Semeia 46
(1989), 87101.
, God at War: Power in the Exodus Tradition, New York 1996.
, Commentary on Exodus (The Eerdmans Critical Commentary), Grand Rapids,
MI 2009.
, Schmid, K. (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch
in Recent European Interpretation (SBL SS, 34), Atlanta, GA 2006.
Draper, J. (ed.), The Eye of the Storm: Bishop John William Colenso and the Crisis of
Biblical Inspiration (JSOT SS, 386), London 2003.
Driver, S.R., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC), Edinburgh
1895; 31902.
, The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes (Westminster Commentaries),
London 1904; 101916.
, The Book of Exodus: In the Revised Version With Introduction and Notes (The
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), Cambridge 1911.
Drubbel, A., Numeri (BOT), Roermond 1963.
Duhm, B., Jeremia (KHCAT), Tbingen 1901.
354 Bibliography
Dumermuth, F., Zur deuteronomischen Kulttheologie und ihren Voraussetzungen,

ZAW 70 (1958), 5998.
Durham, J.I., Exodus (WBC, 3), Waco, TX 1987.
Ebach, J., Genesis 3750 (HTKAT), Freiburg 2007.
Edelkoort, A.H., Numeri (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische bijbelverklaring), Groningen 1930.
Edelman, D.V. et al., Opening the Books of Moses, Sheffield 2012.
, Review of J. Van Seters, Changing Perspectives I: Studies in the History, Literature
and Religion of Biblical Israel (Copenhagen International Seminar; London 2011),
RBL 05 (2012) (http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/8201_8964.pdflast access
24 March 2015).
Eerdmans, B.D., Alttestamentliche Studien, Tl. 1: Die Komposition der Genesis, Gieen
1908.
, Alttestamentliche Studien, Tl. 3: Das Buch Exodus, Gieen 1910.
, The Composition of Numbers (OTS, 6), Leiden 1949.
Eichhorn, J.G., Einleitung ins Alte Testament, Leipzig 17801783; 418231824.
Eichrodt, W., Die Quellen der Genesis von neuem untersucht (BZAW, 31), Gieen 1916.
Eissfeldt, O., Hexateuch-Synopse: Die Erzhlung der fnf Bcher Mose und des Buches
Josua mit dem Anfange des Richterbuches in ihre vier Quellen zerlegt und in Deutscher
bersetzung dargeboten samt einer in Einleitung und Anmerkungen gegebenen
Begrndung, Leipzig 1922.
, Die literarkritische Arbeit am Alten Testament in den letzten 12 Jahren, TR 10
(1938), 255291.
, Die neueste Phase in der Entwicklung der Pentateuchkritik, TR 18 (1950),
91112; 179215; 267287.
, Die lteste Erzhlung vom Sinaibund: William Foxwell Albright zum 24. Mai
1961, seinem 70. Geburtstag, ZAW 73 (1961), 137146.
, Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschluss der Apokryphen und
Pseudepigraphen sowie der apokryphen- und pseudepigraphenartigen Qumran-
Schriften (Neue Theologische Grundrisse), Tbingen 31964.
, Die Komposition der Sinai-Erzhlung Exodus 1934 (Sitzungsberichte der
Schsischen Akademie der Wissenschafte zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische
Klasse 113/1), Berlin 1966.
Elliot-Binns, L.E, Some Problems of the Holiness Code, ZAW 67 (1955), 2640.
Ellison, H.L., Exodus (The Daily Study Bible Series), Philadelphia 1982.
Emerton, J.A. (ed.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (SVT, 32), Leiden 1981.
, The Origin of the Promises to the Patriarchs in the Older Sources of the Book
of Genesis, VT 32 (1982), 1432.
(ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991.
(ed.), Congress Volume Cambridge 1995 (SVT, 66), Leiden 1997.
Engnell, I., Gamla Testamentet: En Traditionshistorik Inledning, Vol. 1, Stockholm 1945.
Bibliography 355
, The Tradition-Historical Method in Old Testament Research, in: Idem (ed.),

A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays On The Old Testament, Nashville 1969, 5067.
, A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays On The Old Testament, Nashville 1969.
Ewald, H., Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis Christus, Bd. 1, Gttingen, 1843.
Eynikel, E., The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic
History (OTS, 33), Leiden 1996.
Fargues, P., Introduction lAncien Testament, Paris 1923.
Fell, W., Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Einleitung in das Alten Testament (Wissenschaftliche
Handbibliothek. Theologische Lehrbucher, 25), Paderborn 1906.
Fensham, F.C., Exodus (POT), Nijkerk 1970.
Finegan, J., Let My People Go: A Journey Through Exodus, New York 1963.
Fischer, G., Exodus 115: Eine Erzhlung, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of
Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 149178.
, Zur Lage der Pentateuchforschung, ZAW 115 (2003), 608616.
Floss, J.P., Jahwe dienenGttern dienen: Terminologische, literarische und semantische
Untersuchung einer theologischen Aussage zum Gottesverhltnis im Alten Testament
(BBB, 45), Bonn 1975.
Fohrer, G., berlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus: Eine Analyse von Ex. 115 (BZAW,
91), Berlin 1964.
, Introduction to the Old Testament, Abingdon 1968.
, Vom Werden und Verstehen des Alten Testaments (Gtersloher Taschenbcher/
Siebenstern, 1414), Gtersloh 1986.
Fox, E., The Five Books of Moses: A New Translation with Introductions, Commentary, and
Notes, London 1995.
Fox, M.V. et al. (eds), Texts, Temples and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran,
Winona Lake, IN 1996.
Fox, N.S. et al. (eds), Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural
Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, Winona Lake, IN 2009.
Freedman, D.N., The Law and the Prophets, in: Congress Volume Bonn 1962 (SVT, 9),
Leiden 1963, 250265.
Frey, H., Das Buch der Anfnge: Kapitel 111 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des
Alten Testaments, 1), Stuttgart 41950.
, Das Buch des Glaubens: Kapitel 1225 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des
, Das Buch der Heimsuchung und des Auszugs: Kapitel 118 des zweiten Buches
Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 5), Stuttgart 1957.
, Das Buch der Verbindung Gottes mit seiner Gemeinde: Kapitel 1924 des zweiten
Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 6), Stuttgart 31963.
, Das Buch der Gegenwart Gottes unter seiner Gemeinde: Kapitel 2540 des
zweiten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 6), Stuttgart 31963.
356 Bibliography
, Das Buch der Fhrung: Kapitel 2650 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des
, Das Buch des Kampfes: Kapitel 2535 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des
Friesenhahn, P., Hellenistische Wortzahlenmystik im Neuen Testament, Leipzig 1935.
Fripp, E.I., Note on Genesis xviii.xix, ZAW 12 (1892), 239.
Fritz, V., Israel in der Wste: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wstenber
lieferung des Jahwisten (MarTS, 7), Marburg 1970.
et al. (eds), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift fr Otto Kaiser zum 65.
Geburtstag (BZAW, 185), Berlin 1989.
Fuss, W., Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 317 (BZAW, 126), Berlin
1972.
Garca Lpez, F., De la antigua a la nueva critica literaria del Pentateuco, EstBb 52
(1994), 735.
, Comment lire le Pentateuque (Le monde de la Bible, 53), Genve 2005.
Garca Martnez, F. et al. (eds), Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C.J. Labuschagne
on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (SVT, 53), Leiden 1994.
Gautier, L., Introduction lAncien Testament, Lausanne 31939.
Geddes, A., The Holy Bible or the Books Accounted Sacred by Jews and Christians,
Otherwise called the Books of the Old and the New Covenants, Faithfully Translated
from Corrected Text of the Originals; with Various Readings, Explanatory Notes and
Critical Remarks, Vol. 1: Pentateuch and Josua, London 1792.
, Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures, Corresponding with a New Translation
of the Bible, Vol. 1: Containing Remarks on the Pentateuch, London 1800.
Gertz, J.C., Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzhlung: Untersuchungen zur
Endredaktion des Pentateuch (FRLANT, 186), Gttingen 2000.
, Die Literatur des Alten Testaments. I. Tora und Vordere Propheten, in: Idem
(ed.), Grundinformation Altes Testament: Eine Einfhrung in Literatur, Religion und
Geschichte des Alten Testaments (UTB, 2745), Gttingen 32009, 193311.
et al. (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der
jngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002.
(ed.), Grundinformation Altes Testament: Eine Einfhrung in Literatur, Religion
und Geschichte des Alten Testaments (UTB, 2745), Gttingen 32009.
Gibert, P., De lintuition lvidence: La multiplicit documentaire dans la Gnse chez
H.B. Witter et Jean Astruc, in: J. Jarick (ed.), Sacred Conjectures: The Context and
Legacy of Roberth Lowth and Jean Astruc (Library of Hebrew Bible. Old Testament
Studies, 457), New York 2007, 174189.
Gilbert, M. (ed.), La Sagesse de lAncien Testament: Nouvelle dition mise jour
Bibliography 357
Gispen, W.H., Het boek Exodus opnieuw uit den grondtekst vertaald en verklaard, Deel 1:
Hoofdstuk 1:115:21 (Korte verklaring der heilige Schrift), Kampen 1932.
, Het boek Leviticus (COT), Kampen 1950.
, Numeri (COT), Kampen 19591964.
, Genesis vertaald en verklaard (COT), Kampen 19741983.
Gnuse, R.K., The Elohist: A 7th Century bce Theological Tradition, Biblical Theology
Bulletin 42 (2012), 5969.
Goettsberger, J., Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Herders theologische Grundrisse),
Freiburg 1928.
Goldberg, O., Die fnf Bcher Mosis: Ein Zahlengebude, Berlin 1908.
Graf, K.H., Die geschichtlichen Bcher des Alten Testaments: Zwei historisch-kritische
Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1866.
, Die s.g. Grundschrift des Pentateuchs, in: A. Merx (ed.), Archiv fr wissen-
schaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments, Bd. 1, Halle 1867, 466477.
Graupner, A., Der Elohist: Gegenwart und Wirksamkeit des tranzendenten Gottes in der
Geschichte (WMANT, 97), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002.
, Ihr sollt mir ein Knigreich von Priestern und ein heiliges Volk sein:
Erwgungen zur Funktion von Ex. 19,3b8 innerhalb der Sinaiperikope, in: Idem,
M. Wolter (eds), Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions (BZAW, 372), Berlin
2007, 3349.
Grauson, A.K., Van Seters, J., The Childless Wife in Assyria and the Stories of Genesis,
Orientalia 44 (1975), 485486.
Gray, G.B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC), Edinburgh 1903.
Gressmann, H., Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen (FRLANT, 18),
Gttingen 1913.
, Die Aufgaben der alttestamentlichen Forschung, ZAW 42 (1924), 133.
Gross, W. (ed.), Jeremia und die deuteronomistische Bewegung (BBB, 98), Weinheim
1995.
et al. (eds), Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag,
St. Ottilien 1991.
Gunkel, H., Die Urgeschichte und die Patriarchen (das erste Buch Mosis) bersetzt und
erklrt und mit Einleitungen in die fnf Bcher Mosis und in die Sagen des ersten
Buches Mosis versehen, Gttingen 1911.
, Genesis bersetzt und erklrt (HAT), Gttingen 1901.
Gunneweg, A.H.J., Anmerkungen und Anfragen zur neueren Pentateuchforschung, TR
48 (1983), 227253; 50 (1985), 107131.
, Kaiser, O. (eds), Textgemss: Aufstze und Beitrge zur Hermeneutik des Alten
TestamentsFestschrift fr Ernst Wrthwein zum 70. Geburtstag, Gttingen 1979.
Guy, J., The Heretic: A Study of the Life of John William Colenso 18141883, Johannesburg
1983.
358 Bibliography
Haag, E. (ed.), Gott, der einzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheismus in Israel (QD, 104),
Freiburg 1985.
Haag, H. (ed.), Bibel-Lexikon, Einsiedeln 21968.
Hagedorn, A.C., Taking the Pentateuch to the Twenty-First Century, ExpT 119 (2007),
5358.
Halbe, J., Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex. 34,1026: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken
in vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT, 114), Gttingen 1975.
Halpern, B., The Centralization Formula in Deuteronomy, VT 31 (1981), 2038.
, Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century BCE: Kingship and the
Rise of Individual Moral Liability, in: Idem, D.W. Hobson (eds), Law and Ideology in
Monarchic Israel (JSOT SS, 124), Sheffield 1991, 11107.
, Hobson, D.W. (eds), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOT SS, 124),
Sheffield 1991.
Harris, R.L., Leviticus (The Expositors Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids MI 1990.
Harrison, R.K., Introduction to the Old Testament, London 1970.
Hartley, J.E., Leviticus (WBC, 4), Dallas TX 1992.
Harvey, J.E., Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historians Use of Tetrateuchal
Narratives, London 2004.
Haudebert, P. (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Dbats et recherchesxiv me congrs de lACFEB,
Angers 1991 (LD, 151), Paris 1992.
Hauret, C. (ed.), Aux grands carrefours de la rvlation et de lexgse de lAncien
Testament (Recherches Bibliques, 8), Leuven 1967.
Hayes, J.H., An Introduction to Old Testament Study, Nashville TN 1979.
Heinisch, P., Das Buch Exodus bersetzt und erklrt (Die heilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments 1/2), Bonn 1934.
, Das Buch Leviticus bersetzt und erklrt (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten
Testamentes, 1/3), Bonn 1935.
, Das Buch Numeri bersetzt und erklrt (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten
Testamentes, 2/1), Bonn 1936.
Herbert, A.S., Genesis 1250: Introduction and Commentary (Torch Bible Commentaries),
London 1962.
Herrmann, S., Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament: Ursprung und
Gestaltwandel (BWANT, 85), Stuttgart 1965.
, Geschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit, Mnchen 1973.
, Forschung am Jeremiabuch: Probleme und Tendenzen ihrer neueren
Entwicklung, TLZ 102 (1977), 481490.
, Jeremiah: Der Prophet und die Verfasser des Buches Jeremiah, in: P.-M.
Bogaert (ed.), Le livre de Jrmie: Le prophte et son milieuLes oracles et leur trans-
mission (BETL, 54), Leuven 1981, 197214.
, Jeremia/Jeremiabuch, TRE 16 (1987), 568586.
Bibliography 359
, Jeremia: Der Prophet und das Buch (EdF, 271), Darmstadt 1990.
Hinchliff, P., John William Colenso Bishop of Natal, London 1964.
Hobbes, T., Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall
and Civill, London 1651.
Hoberg, G., Die Genesis nach dem Literalsinn erklrt, Freiburg 21908.
Hoffmann, H.-D., Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der
deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT, 66), Zrich 1980.
Hoffmann, Y., The Deuteronomist and the Exile, in: D.P. Wright et al. (eds),
Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual,
Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN 1995, 65975.
Hoftijzer, J., Die Verheissungen an die drei Erzvter, Leiden 1956.
, Holistic or Compositional Approach? Linguistic Remarks to the Problem,
in: J.C. De Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old
Testament Exegesis: Papers Read at the Ninth Joint Meeting of Het Oudtestamentische
Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgi and The Society for Old Testament Study Held
at Kampen, 1994 (SVT, 34), Leiden 1995, 98114.
Holladay, W., The Years of Jeremiahs Preaching, Interpretation 37 (1983), 146159.
, A Proposal for Reflections in the Book of Jeremiah of the Seven-Year Recitation
of the Law in Deuteronomy (Deut 31,1013), in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium:
Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 326328.
, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet JeremiahChapters 125,
Philadelphia 1986.
, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet JeremiahChapters
2652, Philadelphia 1989.
Hollenberg, J., Die deuteronomische Bestandteile des Buches Josua, Theologische
Studien und Kritiken 46 (1874), 462506.
Hlscher, G., Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums, ZAW 40 (1922),
161255.
Holzinger, H., Einleitung in den Hexateuch, mit Tabellen ber Quellenscheidung,
Freiburg i. B. 1893.
, Genesis (KHCAT, 1), Leipzig 1898.
, Exodus (KHCAT, 2), Leipzig 1900.
, Numeri (KHCAT, 4), Tbingen 1903.
Honeycutt, R.L., Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Laymans Bible Book Commentary,
3), Nashville, TN 1979.
Horn, P., Traditionsschichten in Ex. 23,1033 und Ex. 34,1026, BZ 15 (1971), 203222.
Horst, F., Das Privilegrecht Jahwes: Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum
Deuteronomium (FRLANT, 45), Gttingen 1930.
Hossfeld, F.-L., Der Dekalog: Seine spten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und
seine Vorstufen (OBO, 45), Freiburg 1982.
360 Bibliography
, Ezechiel und die deuteronomisch-deuteronomistische Bewegung, in:

W. Gross (ed.), Jeremia und die deuteronomistische Bewegung (BBB, 98), Weinheim
1995, 271295.
Houston, W., Exodus, in: J. Barton, J. Muddiman (eds), The Oxford Bible Commentary,
Oxford 2001, 6791.
Houtman, C., De geschriften van het Oude Testament. A: De Pentateuch, in:
A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Bijbels Handboek, Dl. 2A: Het Oude Testament, Kampen
1982, 279335.
, Exodus, vertaald en verklaard (COT), Kampen 19861996.
, Exodus I: Een praktische bijbelverklaring (Tekst en Toelichting), Kampen 1988.
, Verkiezing en verbintenis: Eenheid en samenhang in Exodus 1940, in:
H. Baarlink et al. (eds), Christologische perspectieven: Exegetische en herme-
neutische studies. Artikelen van en voor prof. dr. Heinrich Baarlink, uitgegeven ter
gelegenheid van zijn afscheid als hoogleraar in de nieuwtestamentische vakken aan
de Theologische Universiteit van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland te Kampen,
Kampen 1992, 221240.
, Exodus (HCOT), Kampen 19932002.
, Der Pentateuch: Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung
(CBET, 9), Kampen 1994 [= Inleiding in de Pentateuch: Een beschrijving van de
geschiedenis van het onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de compositie van de eerste vijf
boeken van het Oude Testament met een terugblik en een evaluatie, Kampen 1980].
, Hardnekkig geloven in de minderheid: Het Oude Testament aan het woord,
in: F. De Lange (ed.), Geloven in de minderheid? Een bundel opstellen ter gelegenheid
van het 140-jarig bestaan van de Theologische Universiteit der Gereformeerde Kerken
te Kampen, Kampen 1994, 5367.
, Zwei Sichtweisen von Israel als Minderheit inmitten der Bewohner Kanaans:
Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zum Verhltnis von J und Dtr(G), in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust
(eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans
(BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 213231.
, Colenso as Seen by Kuenen, and as Known from Colensos Letters to Kuenen,
in: J. Draper (ed.), The Eye of the Storm: Bishop John William Colenso and the Crisis of
Biblical Inspiration (JSOT SS, 386), London 2003, 76103.
Huizinga, J., A Definition of the Concept of History, in: R. Klibansky, H.J. Paton (eds),
Philosophy and History: Essays Presented to Ernst Cassirer, New York 1963, 110.
Humbert, P., Die neuere Genesis-Forschung, TR 6 (1934), 147160; 207228.
Hupfeld, H., Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung von neuem
untersucht, Berlin 1853.
Hurvitz, A., The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: A Linguistic Study
in Technical Idioms and Terminology, RB 81 (1974), 2456.
Hyatt, J.P., Jeremiah and Deuteronomy, JNES 1 (1942), 156173.
Bibliography 361
, Commentary on Exodus (New Century Bible), London 1971.

, The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah, in: L.G. Perdue, W. Kovacs (eds),
A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies, Winona Lake, IN 1984, 24767.
Ilgen, K.D., Die Urkunden des Jerusalemischen Tempelarchivs in ihrer Urgestalt, als
Beitrag zur Berichtung der Geschichte der Religion und Politik, Tl. 1: Die Urkunden des
ersten Buches von Mose, Halle 1798.
Ishida, T., The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite
Nations, Bib 60 (1979), 461490.
Jagersma, H., Abraham (Verklaring van een bijbelgedeelte), Kampen 1977.
, Numeri (POT), Nijkerk 19831990.
, Genesis 1:125:11 (Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel. Commentaar voor
bijbelstudie, onderwijs en prediking), Nijkerk 1995.
, Vervenne, M. (eds), Inleiding in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992.
Janzen, J.G., Abraham and All the Families of the Earth: A Commentary on the Book of
Genesis 1250 (International Theological Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI 1993.
Jarick, J. (ed.), Sacred Conjectures: The Context and Legacy of Roberth Lowth and Jean
Astruc (Library of Hebrew Bible. Old Testament Studies, 457), New York 2007.
Jaro, K., Die Stellung des Elohisten zur Kanaanischen Religion (OBO, 4), Freiburg 1974.
Jenks, A.W., The Elohist and North Israelite Traditions (SBL MS, 22), Missoula MT 1977.
Jenni, E., Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den Bchern Josua bis Knige, TR 27 (1961),
132; 97146.
Jeon, J., The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-critical Study in Exodus
34 and 513 (FAT, 60), Tbingen 2013.
Jeremias, J., Die Deutung der Gerichtsworte Michas in der Exilszeit, ZAW 83 (1971),
330354.
, Perlitt, L. (eds), Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift fr Hans Walter Wolff
zum 70. Geburtstag, Neukirchen 1981.
Johnstone, W., The Exodus as Process, ExpT 91 (1980), 358363.
, Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles, in: J.D. Martin,
P.R. Davies (eds), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane (JSOT SS,
42), Sheffield 1986, 113138.
, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy in Pentateuchal Studies, with Special
Reference to the Sinai Pericope in Exodus, ZAW 99 (1987), 1637.
, The Decalogue and the Redaction of the Sinai Pericope in Exodus, ZAW 100
(1988), 361385.
, The Ten Commandments: Some Recent Interpretations, ExpT 100 (1989),
453461.
, Exodus (Old Testament Guides), Sheffield 1990; 21995.
, Review of B. Renaud, La thophanie du Sina Ex. 1924 Exgse et thologie
(Paris, 1991), JTS 43 (1992), 550555.
362 Bibliography
, The Two Theological Versions of the Passover Pericope in Exodus, in:

R.P. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of R. Davidson (JSOT SS, 138),
Sheffield 1992, 160178.
, The Deuteronomistic Cycles of Signs and Wonders in Exodus 113, in:
A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George
Wishart Anderson (JSOT SS, 152), Sheffield 1993, 166185.
, From the Sea to the Mountain: Exodus 15,2219,2A Case-Study in Editorial
Techniques, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction
, From the Mountain to Kadesh: With Special Reference to Exodus 32,30
34,29, in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature:
Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 449467.
, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application (JSOT SS, 275), Sheffield
1998.
, The Portrayal of Moses as Deuteronomic Archetypal Prophet in Exodus and
Its Revisal, in: J.C. De Moor (ed.), The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical
Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist (OTS, 45), Leiden 2001, 159174.
, The Use of the Reminiscences in Deuteronomy in Recovering the Two Main
Literary Phases in the Production of the Pentateuch, in: J.C. Gertz et al. (eds),
Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jngsten Diskussion
(BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002, 247273.
, Recounting the Tetrateuch, in: A.D.H. Mayes, R.B. Salters (eds), Covenant as
Context: Essays in Honour of E.W. Nicholson, Oxford 2003, 209234.
, The Revision of Festivals in Exodus 124, in: R. Albertz, B. Becking (eds),
Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era (Studies
in Theology and Religion, 5), Assen 2003, 99114.
, P as Editor: The Case of Exodus 4:1826, in: J.K. Aitken et al. (eds), On Stone
and Scroll: Essays in Honour of G.I. Davies (BZAW, 420), Berlin 2011, 225238.
(ed.), The Bible and the Enlightenment: A Case StudyDr. Alexander Geddes (1737
1802) (JSOT SS, 377), London 2004.
Jlicher, A., Die Quellen von Exodus ivii,7, Halle 1880.
, Die Quellen von Exodus vii,8xxiv,11, JPT 8 (1882), 79127; 273315.
Junker, H., Das Buch Genesis (Echter Bibel), Wrzburg 1949.
, Die Entstehungszeit des Ps. 78 und des Deuteronomiums, Bib 34 (1953),
487500.
Kaiser, O., Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Genesis 15, ZAW 70 (1958),
107126.
, Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einfhrung in ihre Ergebnisse und
Probleme, Gtersloh 1969; 51984.
, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja Kapitel 112 (ATD, 17), Gttingen 51981.
Bibliography 363
, Grundriss der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften

des Alten Testaments, Bd. 1: Die erzhlenden Werke, Gtersloh 1992.
, The Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History, in: A.D.H. Mayes (ed.), Text
in Context: Essays by Members of the Society of Old Testament Studies, Oxford 2000,
289322.
Kaiser, W.C., Exodus (The Expositors Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI 1990.
Kalt, E., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus (Herders Bibelkommentar. Die heilige Schrift fr das
Leben erklrt, 1), Freiburg 1948.
Kaufmann, Y., Probleme der israelitisch-jdischen Religionsgeschichte, ZAW 48 (1930),
2343; 51 (1933), 3547.
, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, London 1961.
Kayser, A., Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels, Strasbourg 1874.
Kennedy, A.R.S., Leviticus and Numbers: Introduction. Revised Version with Notes.
Illustrations (The Century Bible. A Modern Commentary), London s.d. (1910).
Kidner, D., Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries), London 21971.
Kilian, R., Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsberlieferungen literarkritisch und tradition-
sgeschichtlich untersucht (BBB, 24), Bonn 1966.
Kittel, R., Die Zukunft der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft, ZAW 39 (1921), 8499.
Kleinert, P., Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker: Untersuchungen zur alttesta-
mentlichen Rechts- und Literaturgeschichte, Leipzig 1872.
Klibansky, R., Paton, H.J. (eds), Philosophy and History: Essays Presented to Ernst
Cassirer, New York 1963.
Klostermann, A., Der Pentateuch: Beitrge zu seinem Verstndnis und seiner
Entstehungsgeschichte, Leipzig 1893.
, Der Pentateuch: Beitrge zu seinem Verstndnis und seiner Entstehungs
geschichte. Neue Folge, Leipzig 1907.
Knight, D.A., Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel: The Development of the Traditio-
Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special Consideration of Scandinavian
Contributions (SBL DS, 9), Missoula, MT 1975.
Knobel, A., Die Genesis (KEHAT, 11), Leipzig 1852.
, Die Bcher Exodus und Leviticus (KEHAT, 12), Leipzig 1857.
, Die Bcher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua erklrt nebst einer Kritik des
Pentateuch und Josua (KEHAT, 13), Leipzig 1861.
Knoppers, G.N., McConville, J.G. (eds), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies
on the Deuteronomistic History (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 8),
Koch, K., P Kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung, VT
37 (1987), 446467.
364 Bibliography
Kckert, M., Auf der Suche nach dem Jahwisten. Aporien in der Begrndung einer
Grundthese alttestamentlicher Exegese, Theologische Versuche 14 (1985), 3964.
, Blum, E. (eds), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex. 3234 und Dtn
910 (Verffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fr Theologie, 18),
Gtersloh 2001.
Kohata, F., Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 314 (BZAW, 166), Berlin 1986.
, Verzicht auf die Quellenschriften im Pentateuch? Konzequenzen aus
Textbeobachtungen in Exodus 314, AJBI 12 (1986), 328.
Knig, E., Die Genesis: Eingeleitet, bersetzt und erklrt, Gtersloh 1919.
Konkel, M., Snde und Vergebung: Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte
der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 3234) vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen
Pentateuchmodelle (FAT, 58), Tbingen 2008.
Kppel, U., Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk und seine Quellen: Die Absicht
der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsdarstellung aufgrund des Vergleichs zwischen
Num. 21,2135 und Dtn. 2,263,3 (EurHS, 122), Bern 1979.
Kornfeld, W., Levitikus (Die Neue Echter Bibel, 6), Wrzburg 1983.
Kosak, H., Wegweisung in das Alte Testament, Stuttgart 1968.
Kosmala, H., The So-Called Ritual Decalogue, ASTI 1 (1962), 3161.
Kossmann, R., Die Esthernovelle: Vom Erzhlten zur Erzhlung Studien zur Traditions-
und Redaktionsgeschichte des Estherbuches (SVT, 79), Leiden 2000.
Kosters, W.H., De historie-beschouwing van den Deuteronomist met de berichten in
GenesisNumeri vergeleken, Leiden 1868.
Kottsieper, I. et al. (eds), Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Gttern? Studien zur Theologie
und Religionsgeschichte Israels fr Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, Gttingen 1994.
Kragelund Holt, E., The Chicken and the EggOr: Was Jeremiah a Member of the
Deuteronomist Party?, JSOT 44 (1989), 109122.
Krmer, K.F., Numeri und Deuteronomium (Herders Bibelkommentar. Die Heilige
Schrift fr das Leben erklrt, 2/1), Freiburg 1955.
Kratz, R.G., Die Komposition der erzhlenden Bcher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen
der Bibelkritik (UTB, 2157), Gttingen 2000.
, The Pentateuch in Current Research: Consensus and Debate, in: T.B. Dozeman
et al. (eds), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT, 78),
Tbingen 2011, 3161.
, Spieckermann, H. (eds), Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium.
Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar Perlitt (FRLANT, 190), Gttingen 2000.
Kraus, H.J., Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments,
Neukirchen-Vluyn 21969.
Kuenen, A., An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the
Hexateuch, London 1886.
Bibliography 365
, Critische bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van den Isralietischen godsdienst,

Dl 5: De priesterlijke bestanddeelen van Pentateuch en Josua, Theologisch Tijdschrift
4 (1870), 391426.
, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken
des Ouden Verbonds, Dl. 1: De thora en de historische boeken des Ouden Verbonds,
Amsterdam 21884.
Kugler, R.A. The Deuteronomists and the Latter Prophets, in: L.S. Schearing,
Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 127144.
Kuhl, C., Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments, Bern 1953.
Laaf, P., Die Pascha-Feier Israels. Eine literarkritische und berlieferungsgeschichtliche
Studie (BBB, 36), Bonn 1970.
Labuschagne, C.J., The Origin of Humanism in Deuteronomy, JBL 80 (1961), 241252.
, Redactie en Theologie van het boek Deuteronomium, Vox Theologica 43
(1973), 171184.
, Gods oude plakboek: Visie op het Oude Testament, Den Haag 1978; 21979.
, The Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch, VT 32 (1982),
268296.
, Additional Remarks on the Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the
Pentateuch, VT 34 (1984), 9195.
, On the Structural Use of Numbers as a Composition Technique, JNSL 12
(1984), 8799.
, The Literary and Theological Function of Divine Speech in the Pentateuch, in:
J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Salamanca 1983 (SVT, 36), Leiden 1985, 154173.
, Divine Speech in Deuteronomy, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium:
, Some Significant Composition Techniques in Deuteronomy, in: H.L.J.
Vanstiphout et al. (eds), Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes
and Languages in the Near East Presented to J.H. Hospers by His Pupils, Colleagues
and Friends, Groningen 1986, 121131.
, Neue Wege und Perspektiven in der Pentateuchforschung, VT 36 (1986),
146162.
, De literair-kritische methode, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Inleiding tot de
studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986, 102127.
, Deuteronomium, Nijkerk 19871997.
, The Life Spans of the Patriarchs, in: A.S. Van der Woude (ed.), New Avenues in
the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the
Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap and the
Retirement of Prof. Dr. M.J. Mulder (OTS, 25), Leiden 1989, 121127.
366 Bibliography
, Hoe heilzaam is bijbelwetenschap? De bijdrage van de bijbel(wetenschap) aan

de cultuur, s.l. 1991.
, Vertellen met getallen: Functie en symboliek van getallen in de bijbelse oudheid,
Zoetermeer 1992.
, Deuteronomium (Belichting van het bijbelboek), Den Bosch 1993.
, Numerical Secrets of the Bible: Rediscovering the Bible Codes, North Richland
Hills, TX 2000.
Lange, A., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Date of the Final Stage of the Pentateuch, in:
J.K. Aitken et al. (eds), On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies
(BZAW, 420), Berlin 2011, 287304.
Langlamet, F., Isral et lhabitant du pays, RB 76 (1969), 321350.
, Review of M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford
1972), RB 79 (1972), 605609.
Le Boulluec, A., Sandevoir, P., LExode (La Bible dAlexandrie, 2), Paris 1989.
Leijssen, L. et al. (eds), Geloven als toekomst: Godsdienstpedagogische visies en bijdra-
gen aangeboden aan Professor Jozef Bulckens bij zijn emeritaat, Leuven 1995.
Lemaire, A. (ed.), Congress Volume Basel 2001 (SVT, 92), Leiden 2002.
, Vers lhistoire de la rdaction des livres des Rois, ZAW 98 (1986), 221236.
, Vues nouvelles sur la tradition biblique dAbraham, in: Idem (ed.), Les routes
du Proche-Orient: Des sjours dAbraham aux caravanes de lencens, Paris 2000, 2131;
11721.
(ed.), Les routes du Proche-Orient: Des sjours dAbraham aux caravanes de
lencens, Paris 2000.
Leman, J., Kan en moet er van een deuteronom(ist)isch redactie, herschrijvings- of inlass-
ingswerk gesproken worden in de eerste vier boeken van de Pentateuch? Een literatuur
studie van de exegese van de negentiende eeuw (unpublished Masters thesis KU
Leuven), Leuven 1973.
Lemmelijn, B., The So-Called Priestly Layer in Exod 7:1411:10: Source and/or/nor
Redaction?, RB 109 (2002), 481511.
Le Roux, J.H., A Story of Two Ways: Thirty Years of Old Testament Scholarship in South
Africa (OTE SS, 2), Pretoria 1993.
, Otto, E. (eds), South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch Between Synchrony
and Diachrony (Library of the Hebrew Bible. Old Testament Studies, 463), Sheffield
2007.
Levin, C., Der Jahwist (FRLANT, 157), Gttingen 1993.
, The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch, JBL 126 (2007), 209230.
, On the Cohesion and Separation of Books within the Enneateuch, in: T.B.
Dozeman et al. (eds), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary
Works in Genesis through Kings (SBL. Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 8), Leiden
2012, 127154.
Bibliography 367
Levine, B.A., Leviticus( The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary),

Jerusalem 1989.
Levinson, B.M., Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, Oxford 1997.
, Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van Seters,
in: Idem, The Right Chorale. Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation (FAT, 54),
Tbingen 2008, 276330.
Lindars, B., Judges 15: A New Translation and Commentary, Edinburgh 1995.
Lipiski, E., Les quinzimes journes bibliques de Louvain, ETL 39 (1963), 827837.
Loewenstamm, S.L., The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf: A Rejoinder, Bib
56 (1975), 330348.
Lohfink, N., Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn
511 (AnBib, 20), Roma 1963.
, Die These vom deuteronomischen Dekaloganfang ein fragwrdiges
Ergebnis atomistischer Sprachstatistik, in: G. Braulik (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch:
Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, Basel 1977, 99109.
, Ich bin Jahwe, dein Artzt (Ex. 15,26): Gott, Gesellschaft und menschliche
Gesundheit in der Theologie einer nachexilischen Pentateuchbearbeitung, in:
N. Lohfink et al. (eds), Ich will euer Gott werden: Beispiele biblischen Redens von Gott
(SBS, 100), Stuttgart 1981, 1173.
, Die Schichten des Pentateuch und der Krieg, in: Idem (ed.), Gewalt und
Gewaltlosigkeit im Alten Testament (QD, 96), Freiburg 1983, 51110.
, (ed.), Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit im Alten Testament (QD, 96), Freiburg 1983.
, Zur deuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel, Bib 65 (1984), 297329.
, Gibt es eine deuteronomistische Bearbeitung im Bundesbuch?, in: C.H.W.
Brekelmans, J. Lust (eds), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at
the xiiith IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989 (BETL, 94), Leuven 1990, 91113.
, Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur (Stuttgarter
biblische Aufstzbnde. Altes Testament, 8, 12, 20, 31 en 38), Stuttgart 19902005.
, Lexeme und Lexemengruppen in Ps 25: Ein Beitrag zur Technik der
Gattunsbestimmung und der Feststellung literarischer Abhngigkeiten, in: W. Gross
et al. (eds), Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag,
St Ottilien 1991, 271295.
, Deutronome et Pentateuque: tat de la recherche, in: P. Haudebert (ed.), Le
Pentateuque: Dbats et recherches. xiv me Congrs de lACFEB, Angers 1991 (LD, 151),
Paris 1992, 3564.
, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, in: W. Gross (ed.), Jeremia und
die deuteronomistische Bewegung (BBB, 98), Weinheim 1995, 313382.
, Was There a Deuteronomistic Movement?, in: L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie
(eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT
SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 3666.
368 Bibliography
, et al. (eds), Ich will euer Gott werden: Beispiele biblischen Redens von Gott
(SBS, 100), Stuttgart 1981.
Loza, J., Les catchses tiologiques dans lAncien Testament, RB 78 (1971), 481500.
, Exode xxxii et la rdaction JE, VT 23 (1973), 3155.
Lull, D.J. (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers: One Hundred Twenty-
Sixth Annual Meeting, November 1720, 1990 (SBL SP, 29), Atlanta GA 1990.
Lust, J., A. Van Hoonacker: Bibliography, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium:
, A. Van Hoonacker and Deuteronomy, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium:
, Hoonacker, Albin van, (18571933), in: J.H. Hayes (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical
Interpretation. Vol. 1, Nashville, TN 1999, 508519.
Maarsingh, B., Numeri: Een praktische bijbelverklaring (Tekst en toelichting), Kampen
1984.
Macchi, J.-D., Exode, in: T. Rmer et al. (eds), Introduction lAncien Testament (Le
monde de la Bible, 49), Genve 2004, 173195.
Maher, M., Genesis (OTM, 2), Wilmington, DE 1982.
Marsh, J., Butzer, A.G., The Book of Numbers (The Interpreters Bible, 2), New York 1953.
Martin, J.D., Davies, P.R. (eds), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane
(JSOT SS, 42), Sheffield 1986.
Marttila, M., The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch,
in: H. von Weissenberg et al. (eds), Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting
Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW, 419), Berlin 2011, 321346.
Marx, A., Forme et Fonction de Juges 2,15, RHPR 34 (1979), 341350.
Masius, A., Josuae imperatoris historia illustrata atque explicata, Antwerpen 1574.
Mayes, A.D.H., The Story of Israel Between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of
the Deuteronomic History, London 1983.
, Salters, R.B. (eds), Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E.W. Nicholson,
Oxford 2003.
McCarthy, D.J., Bert in Old Testament History and Theology, Bib 53 (1972), 110121.
, Twenty-five Years of Pentateuchal Study, in: J.J. Collins, J.D. Crossan (eds), The
Biblical Heritage in Modern Catholic Scholarship, Wilmington, DE 1986, 3457.
McEvenue, S., The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (AnBib, 50), Roma 1971.
McKay, H.A., Clines, D.J.A. (eds), Of Prophets Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays
in Honour of R.N. Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOT SS, 162), Sheffield 1993.
McKim, D.K. (ed.), Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, Downers Grove,
IL 1998.
McNeile, A.H., The Book of Exodus with Introduc tion and Notes (Westminster
Commentaries), London 1908.
Bibliography 369
, The Book of Numbers: In the Revised Version with Introduction and Notes (The
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), Cambridge, UK 1911.
Mehlhausen, J. (ed.), Pluralismus und Identitt (Verffentlichungen der Wissen
schaftlichen Gesellschaft fr Theologie, 8), Gtersloh 1995.
Meinhold, J., Einfhrung in das Alte Testament (Die Theologie im Abri, 1), Gieen 1926.
Merx, A. (ed.), Archiv fr wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments I, Halle
1867.
Michali, F., Le livre de lExode (CAT, 2), Paris 1974.
Micklem, N., The Book of Leviticus (The Interpreters Bible, 2), New York 1953.
Milgrom, J., The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance, RB 82 (1975), 186205.
, Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of Pre-Monarchic
Israel, JQR 69 (1978), 6581.
, Numbers( The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary),
Philadelphia 1990.
, Leviticus 116: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 3),
New York 1991.
, Leviticus 1722 (AB, 3a), New York 2000.
Milik, J.T., Qumran Cave 1 (DJD, 1), Oxford 1955.
Miltenberger, J., Bibliographie Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag am 10. Mai 1990 (DBAT
Beihefte, 11), Heidelberg 1990.
Minette de Tillesse, G., Sections tu et sections vous dans le Deutronome, VT 12
(1962), 2987.
, Tu & vous dans le Deutronome, in: R.G. Kratz, H. Spieckermann (eds), Liebe
und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar
Perlitt (FRLANT, 190), Gttingen 2000, 156163.
Mitchell, G., A Hermeneutic of Intercultural Learnings: The Writings of John Colenso,
OTE 10 (1997), 449458.
Monshouwer, D., Leviticus (Verklaring van een bijbelgedeelte), Kampen, s.d.
Morgenstern, J., The Oldest Document of the Hexateuch, HUCA 4 (1927), 1138.
, The Book of the Covenant: Part 1, HUCA 5 (1928), 1151.
, The Mythological Background of Psalm 82, HUCA 14 (1939), 2998.
Mowinckel, S., Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia, Kristiana 1914.
, Le Dcalogue (tudes dhistoire et de philosophie religieuses, 16), Paris 1927.
, Prophecy and Tradition: The Prophetic Books in the Light of the Study of the
Growth and History of the Tradition (Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-
Akademi i Oslo, 2/3), Oslo 1946.
Muilenberg, J., The Form and Structure of the Covenant Formulations, VT 9 (1959),
347365.
Neef, H.-D., Ich selber bin in ihm (Ex. 23,21): Exegetische Beobachtungen zur Rede
vom Engel des Herrn in Ex. 23,2022; 32,34; 33,2; Jdc 2,15; 5,23, BZ 39 (1995), 5475.
370 Bibliography
Nelson, R.D., The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOT SS, 18),
Sheffield 1981.
Neyrinck, F., Van Belle, G., Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense. Journes Bibliques de
LouvainBijbelse Studiedagen te Leuven: 19491993 (ANL, 29), Leuven 1994.
Nicholson, E.W., Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford 1967.
, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah,
Oxford 1970.
, Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition: Growing Points in Theology, Oxford
1973.
, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament, Oxford 1986.
, The Pentateuch in Recent Research: A Time for Caution, in: J.A. Emerton
(ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 1021.
, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen,
Oxford 1998.
Nihan, C., From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of
Leviticus (FAT, 25), Tbingen 2007.
, Rmer, T., Le dbat actuel sur la formation du Pentateuque, in: T. Rmer
et al. (eds), Introduction lAncien Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 49), Genve
2004, 85113.
Nldeke, T., Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments. 1: Die s.g. Grundschrift des
Pentateuchs, Kiel 1869.
Nomoto, S., Entstehung und Entwicklung der Erzhlung von der Gefhrdung der
Ahnfrau, AJBI 2 (1976), 327.
Noordtzij, A., Das Rtsel des Alten Testamentes, Braunschweig 1927.
, Levitikus (Korte verklaring der heilige Schrift), Kampen 1940.
, Het boek Numeri opnieuw uit den grondtekst vertaald en verklaard (Korte
verklaring der heilige Schrift), Kampen 1941.
North, C.R., Pentateuchal Criticism, in: H.H. Rowley (ed.), The Old Testament and
Modern Study: A Generation of Discovery and Research, Oxford 1951, 4883.
Noth, M., Num. 21 als Glied der Hexateuch-Erzhlung, ZAW 17 (19401941), 161189.
, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden
Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1943.
, berlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948.
, Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus bersetzt und erklrt (ATD, 5), Gttingen 1959.
, Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus (ATD, 6), Gttingen 1962.
, Die Welt des Alten Testaments: Einfhrung in die Grenzgebiete der Alt
testamentlichen Wissenschaft (Sammlung Tppelmann, 2/3), Berlin 1962.
, Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri bersetzt und erklrt (ATD, 7), Gttingen 1966.
OBrien, M.A., The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO, 92),
Fribourg 1989.
Bibliography 371
OConnell, K.G., The List of Seven Peoples in Canaan: A Fresh Analysis, in: H.O.
Thompson (ed.), The Answers Lie Below: Essays in Honour of Edmund Toombs,
London 1994, 221241.
Oesterley, W.O.E., Robinson, T.H., An Introduction to the Books of the Old Testament,
London 1934; 21935.
Olrik, A., Epische Gesetze der Volksdichtung, Zeitschrift fr deutschen Altertum 51
(1909), 112.
Oosterhoff, B.J., Jeremia 110 (COT), Kampen 1990.
Osumi, Y., Die kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b23,33 (OBO,
105), Fribourg 1991.
Oswald, W., Israel am Gottesberg: Eine Untersuchung zur Literaturgeschichte der vor-
deren Sinaiperikope Ex. 1924 und deren historischem Hintergrund (OBO, 159),
Fribourg 1998.
Otto, E., Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal (BWANT, 107), Stuttgart 1975.
, Stehen wir vor einem Umbruch in der Pentateuchkritik?, Verkndigung und
Forschung 22 (1977), 8297.
, Wandel der Rechtsbegrndungen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des antiken
Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte des Bundesbuches (Ex. xx,22xxiii,13) (StB, 3), Leiden
1988.
, Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchre daktion im Buch Exodus, in:
M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReception
Interpretation (BETL, 126) Leuven 1996, 61111.
, Die Paradieserzhlung Genesis 23: Eine nachpriesterliche Lehrerzhlung
und ihrem religionshistorischen Kontext, in: A.A. Diesel et al. (eds), Jedes Ding hat
seine Zeit...: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen WeisheitDiethelm
Michel zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 241), Berlin 1996, 167192.
, Deuteronomium und Pentateuch: Aspekte der gegenwrtigen Debatte, ZABR
6 (2000), 222284.
, Das Deuteronomium in Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literatur
geschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens
(FAT, 30), Tbingen 2000.
, Gottes Recht als Menschenrecht: Rechts- und literaturhistorische Studien zum
Deuteronomium (BZABR, 2), Wiesbaden 2002.
, Das postdeuteronomistische Deuteronomium als integrierender Schlustein
der Tora, in: M. Witte et al. (eds), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke:
Redaktions- und reli gions
geschichtliche Perspektiven zur Deuteronomismus-
Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW, 365), Berlin 2006, 71102.
, A Hidden Truth Behind the Text or the Truth of the Text: At a Turning Point
in Biblical Scholarship Two Hundred Years after De Wettes Dissertatio critico-
exegetica, in: J.H. Le Roux, E. Otto (eds), South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch
372 Bibliography
Between Synchrony and Diachrony (Library of the Hebrew Bible. Old Testament
Studies, 463), Sheffield 2007, 1928.
, Scribal Scholarship in the Formation of Torah and Prophets: A Postexilic
Scribal Debate between Priestly Scholarship and Literary ProphecyThe Example
of the Book of Jeremiah and Its Relation to the Pentateuch, in: G.N. Knoppers,
B.M. Levinson (eds), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its
Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake, IN 2007, 171184.
, Die Tora: Studien zum PentateuchGesammelte Aufstze (BZAR, 9), Wiesbaden
2009.
, Deuteronomium 1,14,43 (HTKAT), Freiburg 2012.
, Jeseits der Suche nach dem ursprnglichen Text in der Textkritik:
Fortschreibungen und Textautoritt in der nachexilischen Zeit, ZABR 18 (2012),
365371.
, Achenbach, R. (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und
Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Gttingen 2004.
Patton, C.L., Pan-Deuteronomism and the Book of Ezekiel, in: L.S. Schearing,
Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 200215.
Paul, M.-J., Het archimedisch punt van de Pentateuchkritiek: Een historisch en exegetisch
onderzoek naar de verhouding van Deuteronomium en de reformatie van koning Josia
(2 Kon 2223), s-Gravenhage 1988.
Peckham, B., The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM, 35), Atlanta, GA
1985.
Perdue, L.G., Kovacs, W. (eds), A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies,
Perlitt L., Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT, 36), Neukirchen 1969.
, Mose als Prophet, EvT 31 (1971), 588608.
, HebraismusDeuteronomismusJudasmus, in: G. Braulik et al. (eds),
Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Fr Norbert Lohfink s.J., Freiburg
1993, 297295.
Person, R.F., Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School (JSOT SS, 167), Sheffield
1993.
, The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature (Studies in
Biblical Literature, 2), Atlanta, GA 2002.
Pfeiffer, R.H., Introduction to the Old Testament, New York 1941.
Phillips, A., A Fresh Look at the Sinai Pericope, VT 34 (1984), 3952; 282294.
Plastaras, J., The God of Exodus: The Theology of the Exodus Narratives, Milwaukee 1966.
Plger, J.G., Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum
Deuteronomium (BBB, 26), Bonn 1967.
Porter, J.R., Leviticus (The Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge 1976.
Bibliography 373
Postma, F. et al., Exodus: Materials in Automatic Text Processing, Vol. 1: Morphological,

Syntactical and Literary Case Studies (Instrumenta Biblica, 1/1), Amsterdam 1983.
Poswick, R.-F., Marc Vervenne et la numrisation de lhbreu massortique chez
Informatique & Bible (Maredsous): Une longue collaboration, in: H. Ausloos,
B. Lemmelijn (eds), A Pillar of Cloud to Guide (Exod 13,21): Old Testament Text-
Critical, Redactional and Linguistic Perspectives in Honour of Marc Vervenne (BETL,
269), Leuven 2014, 525535.
Preuss, H.D., Zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, TR 58 (1993), 229264;
341395.
Procksch, O., Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch: Die Elohimquelle bersetzt und unter-
sucht, Leipzig 1906.
, Die Genesis bersetzt und erklrt (KAT, 1), Leipzig 1913.
Propp, W.H.C., Exodus 118 (AB 2), New York 1998.
, Exodus 1940 (AB 2A), New York 2006.
Provan, I.W., Hezekiah and the Book of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about the
Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW, 172), Berlin 1988.
Puukko, A.F., Jeremias Stellung zum Deuteronomium, in: A. Alt et al., Alttestamentliche
Studien: Rudolph Kittel zum 60. Geburtstag, Leipzig 1913, 126153.
Rabast, K., Die Genesis, Berlin 1951.
Radjawane, A.N., Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Ein Forschungsbericht, TR
38 (1974), 177216.
Redford, D.B., A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 3750) (SVT, 20), Leiden
1970.
Reichert, A., Der Jehowist und die sogenannten deuteronomistischen Erweiterungen
im Buch Exodus (unpublished Doctoral dissertation Eberhard-Karls-Universitt
Tbingen), Tbingen 1972.
Renaud, B., La formation du livre de Miche: Tradition et actualisation (B), Paris 1977.
, Miche, Sophonie, Nahum (SBi), Paris 1987.
, La thophanie du Sina Ex. 1924: Exgse et thologie (CRB, 30), Paris 1991.
, La formation de Ex. 1940: Quelques points de repre, in: P. Haudebert (ed.),
Le Pentateuque: Dbats et recherches : xiv me Congrs de lACFEB, Angers (1991) (LD,
151), Paris 1992, 101133.
, Lalliance, un mystre de misricorde: Une lecture de Ex. 3234 (LD, 169), Paris
1998.
, Lalliance au cur de la Torah (Cahiers vangile, 143), Paris 2008.
Rendtorff, R., Der Jahwist als Theologe?: Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik, in:
Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974 (SVT, 28), Leiden 1975, 158166.
, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW, 147), Berlin
1977.
374 Bibliography
, The Yahwist as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism, JSOT

3 (1977), 210.
, Genesis 15 im Rahmen der theologische Bearbeitung der Vtergeschichten, in:
R. Albertz et al. (eds), Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments: Festschrift fr Claus
Westermann zum 70. Geburtstag, Gttingen 1980, 7481.
, Das Alte Testament: Eine Einfhrung, Neukirchen 1983.
, Covenant as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus, JBL 108 (1989),
385393.
, Kanon und Theologie: Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments,
Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1991.
, Nach vierzig Jahren: Vier Jahrzehnte selbsterlebte alttesta mentliche
Wissenschaftin Heidelberg und anderswo, in: Idem, Kanon und Theologie:
Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991, 2939.
, Directions in Pentateuchal Studies, Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 5
(1997), 4365.
Reventlow, H. Graf., Epochen der Biblelauslegung, Bd. 4: Von der Aufklrung bis zum 20.
Jahrhundert, Mnchen 2001.
Rezetko, R., The Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges: Literary Formation, Textual
Criticism, and Historical Linguistics, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 13 (2013), article 2
(http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_182.pdflast access 05 June 2014).
Richards, K.H. (ed.), One Hundred Twenty-Second Annual Meeting, November 2225,
1986, Atlanta (SBL SP, 25), Atlanta, GA 1986.
Richardson, A., Genesis 111 (Torch Bible Commentaries), London 1953.
Richter, W., Die Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches in der deuteronomischen Epoche (BBB,
21), Bonn 1964.
, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (BBB, 18), Bonn
21966.
, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft: Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literatur
theorie und Methodologie, Gttingen 1971.
Riehm, E., Die Gesetzgebung Mosis im Lande Moab, Gotha 1854.
Rof, A., Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch (The Biblical Seminar 58),
Sheffield 1999.
Rogerson, J.W., Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century, London 1984.
, W.M.L. de Wette: Founder of Modern Biblical CriticismAn Intellectual
Biography (JSOT SS, 126), Sheffield 1992.
Rmer, T., Israels Vter: Untersuchungen zur Vterthematik im Deuteronomium und in
der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99), Fribourg 1990.
, Lcole de Heidelberg a 15 ans ...: A propos de deux ouvrages sur une nouvelle
approche de la formation du Pentateuque, TR 67 (1992), 7781.
Bibliography 375
, Lhistoriographie deutronomiste (HD): Histoire de la recherche et enjeu du

dbat, in: A. De Pury et al. (eds), Isral construit son histoire: Lhistoriographie deut
ronomiste la lunire des recherches rcentes (Le monde de la bible, 34), Genve
1996, 9120.
, Nombres 1112 et la question dune rdaction deutronomique dans le
Pentateuque, in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic
Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 481498.
, How Did Jeremiah Become a Convert to Deuteronomistic Ideology?, in:
L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon
of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 189199.
, Lcole deutronomiste et la formation de la bible hbraique, in: Idem (ed.),
The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147), Leuven 2000, 179193.
, Du Temple au Livre: lidologie de la centralisation dans lhistoire deutrono-
miste, in: S.L. McKenzie et al. (eds), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in
the Ancient World and in the Bible (BZAW, 294), Berlin 2000, 206225.
, Brve prsentation du dbat actuel sur le Pentateuque: Le Pentateuque tou-
jours en question, in: A. De Pury, T. Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question: Les
origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible la lumire des recher-
ches rcentes. 3me dition augmente (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genve 2002,
viixxxix.
, Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten: Anfragen zur Quellen
scheidung im vierten Buch des Pentateuch, in: J.C. Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom
Berlin 2002, 215231.
, Le Pentateuque toujours en question: Bilan et perspectives aprs un quart de
sicle de dbat, in: A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Basel 2001 (SVT, 92), Leiden
2002, 343374.
, Lhistoire deutronomiste, in: T. Rmer et al. (eds), Introduction lAncien
Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 49), Genve 2004, 234250.
, La formation du Pentateuque: histoire de la recherche, in: T. Rmer et al.
(eds), Introduction lAncien Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 49), Genve 2004,
6784.
, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological Historical and Literary
Introduction, London 2005.
, Israels Sojourn in the Wilderness and the Construction of the Book of
Numbers, in: R. Rezetko et al. (eds), Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical
Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (SVT, 113), Leiden 2006, 419446.
, Exodus 34 und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion, in: R. Roukema (ed.),
The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman (CBET, 44),
Leuven 2006, 6579.
376 Bibliography
, La construction du Pentateuque, de lHexateuque et de lEnnateuque:

Investigations prliminaires sur la formation des grands ensembles littraires de la
Bible hbraque, in: Idem, K. Schmid (eds), Les dernires rdactions du Pentateuque,
de lHexateuque et de lEnnateuque (BETL, 203), Leuven 2007, 934.
, Provisorische berlegungen zur Entstehung von Exodus 1824, in:
R. Achenbach, M. Arneth (eds), Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu ben (Gen 18,19): Studien
und zur Religionssoziologie: Festschrift fr Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (BZABR,
13), Wiesbaden 2009, 128154.
, How Many Books (teuchs): Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History,
or Enneateuch, in: T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch?
Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (SBL Ancient Israel and Its
Literature, 8), Atlanta, GA 2011, 2542.
, Macchi, J.-D., Luke, Disciple of the Deuteronomistic School, in: C.M. Tuckett
(ed.), Lukes Literary Achievement: Collected Essays (JSNT SS, 116), Sheffield 1995,
178187.
et al. (eds), Introduction lAncien Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 49),
Genve 2004.
Rose, M., Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes: Deuteronomische Schultheologie und
die Volksfrmmigkeit in der spten Knigszeit (BWANT, 106), Stuttgart 1975.
, Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berhrungspunkten beider
Literaturwerke (ATANT, 67), Zrich 1981.
, La croissance du corpus historiographique de la Bibleune proposition,
Revue du Thologie et de Philosophie 118 (1986), 217236.
, LAncien Testament Neuchtel 19842001un bilan, TZ 57 (2001), 210220.
, Empoigner le Pentateuque par sa fin! Linvestiture de Josu et la mort de
Mose, in: A. De Pury, T. Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la
composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible la lumire des recherches rcentes.
3me dition augmente (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genve 2002, 129147.
Rosenmller, E.F.K., Rosenmller, G.H. (eds), Biblisch-exegetisches Repertorium oder
die neuesten Fortschritte in Erklrung der heiligen Schrift, Bd. 1, Leipzig 1822.
Rost, L., Sinaibund und Davidsbund, TLZ 72 (1947), 130134.
, Zum geschichtlichen Ort der Pentateuchquellen, ZTK 53 (1956), 110.
Roth, W., Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk/Deuteronomistische Schule, TRE 8
(1981), 543552.
Roukema, R. (ed.), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman
(CBET, 44), Leuven 2006.
Rowley, H.H., Hezekiahs Reform and Rebellion, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 44
(1962), 395431.
Bibliography 377
Rcker, H., Die Begrndungen der Weisungen Jahwes im Pentateuch (ErfTS, 30), Leipzig
1973.
Rudolph, W., Der Elohist von Exodus bis Jozua (BZAW, 68), Berlin 1938.
, Jeremia (HAT, 1/12), Tbingen 1947.
, Volz, P., Der Elohist als Erzhler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? An der Genesis
erlautert (BZAW, 63), Berlin 1933.
Ruppert, L., Das Buch Genesis (Geistliche Schriftlesung, 6), Dsseldorf 1984.
Ruprecht, E., Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzhlung vom Mannawunder (Ex. 16) im
Aufbau der Priesterschrift, ZAW 86 (1974), 269307.
Rylaarsdam, J.C., The Book of Exodus: Introduction and Exegesis (The Interpreters
Bible, 1), New York 1952.
Ryle, H.E., The Book of Genesis (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges),
Cambridge 1914.
Sailhamer, J.H., Genesis (The Expositors Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI 1990.
, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary, Grand Rapids,
MI, 1992.
Sakenfeld, K.D., Numbers, in: B.W. Anderson (ed.), The Books of the Bible, Part 1: The
Old Testament/The Hebrew Bible, New York 1989, 4762.
, Journeying with God: A Commentary on the Book of Numbers (International
Theological Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI 1995.
Sandmel, S., The Haggada Within Scripture, JBL 80 (1961), 105122.
Sarna, N.M., Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel, New York 1986.
, Exodus, in: B.W. Anderson (ed.), The Books of the Bible, Part 1: The Old Testa
ment/The Hebrew Bible, New York 1989, 4762.
, Genesis( The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary),
Philadelphia 1989.
, Exodus( The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary), Philadel
phia 1991.
Scharbert, J., Jeremia und die Reform des Joschija, in: P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Le livre
de Jrmie: Le prophte et son milieuLes oracles et leur transmission (BETL, 54),
Leuven 1981, 4057.
, Genesis 111 (Die neue Echter Bibel, 5), Wrzburg 1983.
, Genesis 1250 (Die neue Echter Bibel, 16), Wrzburg 1986.
, Exodus (Die neue Echter Bibel, 24), Wrzburg 1989.
Schart, A., Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den
Wstenerzhlungen (OBO, 98), Gttingen 1990.
Schearing, L.S., McKenzie, S.L. (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of
Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999.
Schedl, C., Bauplne des Wortes: Einfhrung in die biblische Logotechnik, Wien 1974.
378 Bibliography
Schmid, H.H., Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuch
forschung, Zrich 1976.
, In Search of New Approaches in Pentateuchal Research, JSOT 3 (1977), 3342.
, Auf der Suche nach neuen Perspektiven fr die Pentateuchforschung, in:
J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (SVT, 32), Leiden 1981, 375394.
, Vers une thologie du Pentateuque, in: A. De Pury, T. Rmer (eds), Le
Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de
la Bible la lumire des recherches rcentes. 3me dition augmente (Le monde de la
Bible, 19), Genve 2002, 361386.
Schmid, K., Erzvter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begrndung der
Ursprunge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbcher des Alten Testaments (WMANT,
81), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999.
, The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus,
in: T.B. Dozeman, K. Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition
of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBL SS, 34), Atlanta, GA 2006,
2950.
, Hatte Wellhausen Recht? Das Problem der literarhistorischen Anfnge des
Deuteronomismus in den Knigsbchern, in: M. Witte et al., Die deuteronomist-
ischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur
Deuteronomismus-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW, 365), Berlin
2006, 1943.
, Buchtechnische und sachliche Prolegomena zur Enneateuchfrage, in:
M. Beck, U. Schorn (eds), Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von GenII Regum: Festschrift
Hans-Christoph Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 370), Berlin 2006, 114.
, Une grande historiographie allant de Gense 2 Rois a-t-elle un jour exist?, in:
T. Rmer, K. Schmid (eds), Les dernires rdactions du Pentateuque, de lHexateuque
et de lEnnateuque (BETL 203), Leuven 2007, 3545.
, Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Eine Einfhrung, Darmstadt 2008.
, The Emergence and Disappearance of the Separation between the Pentateuch
and the Deuteronomistic History in Biblical Studies, in: T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds),
Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through
Kings (SBL Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 8), Atlanta, GA 2011, 1124.
Schmidt, H., Mose und der Dekalog, in: H. Schmidt (ed.), II: Studien
zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Hermann Gunkel zum
60. Geburtstag, dem 23. Mai 1922 dargebracht von seinen Schlern und Freunden,
Tl. 1: Zur Religion und Literatur des Alten Testaments (FRLANT, 36), Gttingen 1923,
78119.
, Stehen wir vor einer neuen Periode der Literarkritik im Alten Testament?,
Theologische Bltter 2 (1923), 223226.
Bibliography 379
Schmidt, L., De Deo: Studien zur Literarkritik und Theologie des Buches Jona, des
Gesprchs zwischen Abraham und Jahwe in Gen 18,22ff. und von Hi 1 (BZAW, 143),
Berlin 1976.
, berlegungen zum Jahwisten, EvT 37 (1977), 230247.
, Zur Entstehung des Pentateuch: Ein kritischer Literaturbericht, VuF 40 (1995),
328.
, Israel und das Gesetz: Ex. 19,3b8 und 24,38 als literarischer und theolo-
gischer Rahmen fr das Bundesbuch, ZAW 113 (2001), 167185.
, Im Dickicht der Pentateuchforschung: Ein Pldoyer fur die umstrittene
Neuere Urkundenhypothese, VT 60 (2010), 400420.
Schmidt, W.H., Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches: Zu den theolo-
gischen Unterschieden zwischen Prophetenwort und seinem Sammler, ZAW 77
(1965), 168193.
, Einfhrung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 1979; 51995.
, Ein Theologe in salomonischer Zeit? Pldoyer fr den Jahwisten, BZ 25 (1981),
82102.
, Exodus (BKAT, 2/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988.
, Exodus (BKAT, 2/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1995.
Schmitt, G., Der Landtag von Sichem (Arbeiten zur Theologie, 15), Stuttgart 1964.
, Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die Weisungen
gegen die Kanaaner in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung (BWANT, 91),
Stuttgart 1970.
Schmitt, H.-C., Priesterliches und prophetisches Geschichtsverstndnis in der
Meerwunder erzhlung Ex. 13,1714,31: Beobachtungen zur Endredaktion des
Pentateuch, in: A.H.J. Gunneweg, O. Kaiser (eds), Textgemss: Aufstze und Beitrge
zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments Festschrift fr Ernst Wrthwein zum 70.
Geburtstag, Gttingen 1979, 139155.
, Die nichtpriesterliche Josephsgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur neuesten Pentateuch
kritik (BZAW, 154), Berlin 1980.
, Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie: Beobachtungen zur
Bedeutung der Glaubens-Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des Pentateuch, VT
32 (1982), 170189.
, Die Hintergrunde der neuesten Pentateuchkritik und der literarische
Befund der Josephsgeschichte Gen. 3750, ZAW 97 (1985), 161179.
, Die Erzhlung von der Versuchung Abrahams: Gen. 22,119* und das Problem
einer Theologie der elohistischen Pentateuchtexte, BN 34 (1986), 82109.
, Tradition der Prophetenbcher in den Schichten der Plagenerzhlung Ex. 7,1
11,10, in: V. Fritz et al. (eds), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift fr Otto Kaiser
zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 185), Berlin 1989, 196216.
380 Bibliography
, Die Geschichte vom Sieg ber die Amalekieter: Ex. 17,816 als theologische
Lehrerzhlung, ZAW 102 (1990), 335344.
, Der heidnische Mantiker als eschatologischer Jahweprophet, in: I. Kottsieper
et al. (eds), Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Gttern?: Studien zur Theologie und
Religionsgeschichte Israels fr Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, Gttingen 1994,
181198.
, Die Suche nach der Identitt des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel:
Bemerkungen zur theologischen Intention der Endredaktion des Pentateuch, in:
J. Mehlhausen (ed.), Pluralismus und Identitt (Verffentlichungen der Wissen
schaftlichen Gesellschaft fr Theologie, 8), Gtersloh 1995, 259278.
, Die Josephsgeschichte und das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Genesis
38 und 4850, in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic
Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 391405.
, Das sptdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk Gen. i2 Regum xxv und seine
theologische Intention, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Cambridge 1995
(SVT, 66), Leiden 1997, 261279.
, Die Erzhlung vom Goldenen Kalb Ex. 32* und das Deuteronomistische
Geschichtswerk, in: S.L. McKenzie et al. (eds), Rethinking the Foundations:
Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible (BZAW, 294), Berlin 2000,
235250.
, Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften (BZAW, 310),
Berlin 2001.
, Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex. 34,1028 als Komposition der
sptdeuteronomistischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch, in: J.C. Gertz et al. (eds),
Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jngsten Diskussion
(BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002, 157171.
, Das Altargesetz und seine Redaktionsgeschichtlichen Bezge, in: J.F. Diehl
et al. (eds), Einen Altar von Erde mache mir ...: Festschrift fr Diethelm Conrad
zu seinem 70. Geburtstag (Kleine Arbeiten zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 4/5),
Waltrop 2003, 269289.
, Dtn 34 als Verbindungsstck zwischen Tetrateuch und Deuteronomistischem
Geschichtswerk, in: E. Otto, R. Achenbach (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen
Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Gttingen
2004, 181192.
, Menschliche Schuld, gttliche Fhrung und ethische Wandlung: Zur
Theologie von Gen 20,121,21 und zum Problem des Beginns des Elohistischen
Geschichtswerks, in: M. Witte (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog (BZAW, 345), Berlin
2004, 259270.
, Erzvtergeschichte und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende Ursprungs
legenden Israels: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchforschung, in: A.C. Hagedorn, H. Pfeiffer
Bibliography 381
(eds), Die Erzvter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift fr Matthias Kckert (BZAW,
400), Berlin 2009, 241266.
, Das Gesetz aber ist neben eingekommen: Sptdeuteronomistische
nachpriesterschriftliche Redaktion und ihre vorexilische Vorlage in Ex. 1920, in:
R. Achenbach, M. Arneth (eds), Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu ben (Gen 18,19): Studien
und zur Religionssoziologie Festschrift fr Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (BZABR,
13), Wiesbaden 2009, 155170.
, Eschatologie im Enneateuch Gen. 12 Kn 25: Bedeutung und Funktion
der Moselieder Dtn. 32,143* und Ex. 15,121*, in: C. Diller et al. (eds), Studien zu
Psalmen und Propheten (Herders Biblische Studien, 64), Freiburg 2010, 131149.
Schmkel, H., Zur Datierung der Pentateuchquelle J, ZAW 62 (1950), 319321.
Schniedewind, W.M., How the Bible Became a Book?, Cambridge 2004.
Schreiner, J., Exodus 12,2123 und das israelitische Pascha, in: G. Braulik (ed.), Studien
zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, Wien 1977, 6990.
Schweitzer, S., Deuteronomy 32 and 33 as Proto-Deuteronomic Texts, Eastern Great
Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies: Proceedings 22 (2002), 7998.
Schwienhorst-Schnberger, L., Das Bundesbuch (Ex. 20,2223,33): Studien zu seiner
Entstehung und Theologie (BZAW, 188), Berlin 1990.
Seebass, H., Mose und Aaron, Sinai und Gottesberg (Abhandlungen zur Evangelischen
Theologie, 2), Bonn 1962.
, Zur geistigen Welt des sog. Jahwisten, BN 4 (1977), 3947.
, Jahwist, TRE 16 (1987), 441451.
, Numeri (BKAT, 4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 19932007.
, Pentateuch, TRE 26 (1996), 185209.
, Que reste-t-il du Yahwiste et de llohiste?, in: A. De Pury, T. Rmer (eds), Le
Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la
Bible la lumire des recherches rcentes. 3me dition augmente (Le monde de la
Bible, 19), Genve 2002, 199230.
Segal, M.H., The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship and Other Biblical
Studies, Jerusalem 1967.
Seidel, B., Karl David Ilgen und die Pentateuchforschung im Umkreis der sogenannten
lteren Urkundenhypothese: Studien zur Geschichte der exegetischen Hermeneutik in
der spten Aufklrung (BZAW, 213), Berlin 1993.
, Entwicklungslinien der neueren Pentateuchforschung im 20. Jahrhundert,
ZAW 106 (1994), 476485.
Seitz, C.R., Mose als Prophet: Redaktionsthemen und Gesamtstruk tur des
Jeremiabuches, BZ 34 (1990), 234245.
Seitz, G., Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium (BWANT, 93), Stuttgart
1971.
382 Bibliography
Snchal, V., Rtribution et intercession dans le Deutronome (BZAW, 408), Berlin 2009.
Sikkel, J.C., Het boek der geboorten: Verklaring van het boek Genesis, Amsterdam 1906.
Simon, R., Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, Paris 1678.
Simpson, C.A., The Early Traditions of Israel: A Critical Analysis of the Predeuteronomic
Narrative of the Hexateuch, Oxford 1948.
, Bowie, W.R., The Book of Genesis (The Interpreters Bible, 1), New York 1952.
Ska, J.L., Exode xiv contient-il un rcit de guerre sainte de style deutronomistique?,
VT 33 (1983), 454467.
, Le passage de la Mer: tude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique
dEx. 14,131 (AnBib, 109), Roma 1986.
, Un nouveau Wellhausen?, Bib 72 (1991), 253263.
, Rcit et rcit mtadigtique en Ex. 115: Remarques critiques et essai
dinterprtation de Ex. 4,1622, in: P. Haudebert (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Dbats et
recherches: xiv me congrs de lACFEB, Angers (1991) (LD, 151), Paris 1992, 135171.
, Ex. 19,38 et les parnses deutronomiques, in: G. Braulik et al. (eds),
Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Fr Norbert Lohfink s.J., Freiburg
1993, 307314.
, Exode 19,3b6 et lidentit de lIsral postexilique, in: M. Vervenne (ed.),
Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL, 126)
Leuven 1996, 289317.
, Le Pentateuque: tat de la recherche partir de quelques rcentes Introductions,
Bib 77 (1996), 245265.
, Lappel dAbraham et lacte de naissance dIsral: Gense 12,14a, in:
, Review of D.M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary
Approaches (Louisville, KY, 1996), Bib 79 (1998), 120124.
, The Yahwist, a Hero with a Thousand Faces: A Chapter in the History of
Modern Exegesis, in: J.C. Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition
des Hexateuch in der jngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002, 123.
, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, Winona Lake, IN 2006.
, The Study of the Book of Genesis: The Beginning of Critical Reading, in:
C. Evans et al. (eds), The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation
(SVT, 152), Leiden 2012, 326.
Skehan, P.W. et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 4. iv: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts
(DJD, 9), Oxford 1992.
Skinner, J., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC), Edinburgh 1910.
, Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah, Cambridge 91961.
Skweres, D.E., Die Rckverweise im Buch Deuteronomium (AnBib, 79), Roma, 1979.
Bibliography 383
Smelik, K.A.D., Profetische reflectie op het verleden: Bijbelse verhalen tussen fictie
en geschiedenis, in: K. Deurloo, R. Zuurmond (eds), De bijbel maakt school: Een
Amsterdamse weg in de exegese, Baarn 1984, 6075.
Smend, R., Die Erzhlung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht, Berlin 1912.
Smend, R., Das Gesetz und die Vlker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen
Redaktionsgeschichte, in: H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard
von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, Mnchen 1971, 494509.
, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Theologische Wissenschaft, 1), Stuttgart
1978; 31984.
, Die Mitte des Alten Testaments: Exegetische Aufstze, Tbingen 2002.
, Julius Wellhausen: ein Bahnbrecher in drei Disziplinen, Mnchen 2006.
, From Astruc to Zimmerli, Tbingen 2007.
Snaith, N.H., Leviticus and Numbers (The Century Bible. New Edition), London 1967.
Soggin, J.A., Kulttiologische Sagen und Katechese im Hexateuch, VT 10 (1960),
341347.
, Introduction to the Old Testament: From its Origins to the Closing of the
Alexandrian Canon, London 1976; 31989.
, Judges: A Commentary (OTL), London 1981; 21987.
Sparks, K.L., Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic
Sentiments and their Expression in the Hebrew Bible, Winona Lake, IN 1998.
Spinoza, B., Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Hamburg 1670.
Sprinkle, J.M., The Book of the Covenant: A Literary Approach (JSOT SS, 174), Sheffield
1994.
Sthelin, J.J., Beitrge zu den kritischen Untersuchungen ber den Pentateuch, die
Bcher Josua und die Richter, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 8 (1835), 461477.
, Kritische Untersuchungen ber den Pentateuch, die Bcher Josua, Richter,
Samuels und der Knige, Berlin 1843.
Steck, O.H., Israel und das Gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur
berlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbild im Alten Testament, Sptjuden
tum und Urchristentum (WMANT, 23), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1967.
Steuernagel, C., Das Deuteronomium (HKAT, 1/3/1), Gttingen 1898; 21923.
, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit einem Anhang ber die Apo
kryphen und Pseudepigraphen (Sammlung Theologischer Lehrbcher), Tbingen
1912.
Stolz, F., Jahwes und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen im Glauben
des alten Israels (ATANT, 60), Zrich 1972.
Strack, H.L., Einleitung in das Alte Testament einschlielich Apokryphen und Pseudepi
graphen: mit eingehender Angabe der Literatur, Mnchen 61906.
Sturdy, J., Numbers (The Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge 1976.
384 Bibliography
Sundkler, B., Steed, C., A History of the Church in Africa (Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia,
74), Cambridge 2000.
Talstra, E., Solomons Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings
8,1461 (CBET, 3), Kampen 1993.
Tarazi, P.N., The Old Testament: Introduction, Vol. 1: Historical Traditions, New York 1991.
Taylor, B. (ed.), Proceedings of the xth Congress of the International Organization for
Septuagint and Cognate StudiesOslo 1998 (SBL SCS, 51), Atlanta, GA 2001.
Te Stroete, G., Exodus uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (BOT, 1/2), Roermond 1966.
Tengstrm, S., Die Hexateucherzhlung, Lund 1976.
Thiel, W., Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 125 (WMANT, 41), Neukirchen
1973.
, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 2645 (WMANT, 52), Neukirchen
1981.
, Ein vierteljahrhundert Jeremia-Forschung, VuF 31 (1986), 3252.
Thompson, R.J., Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism since Graf (SVT, 19), Leiden
1970.
Thompson, T.L., The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, Part 1: The Literary Formation of
Genesis and Exodus 123 (JSOT SS, 55), Sheffield 1987.
, Tradition and History: The Scholarship of John Van Seters, in: S.L. McKenzie
et al. (eds), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in
the Bible (BZAW, 294), Berlin 2000, 921.
Tov, E., The Septuagint and the Deuteronomists, in: Idem, Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible,
and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSAJ, 121), Tbingen 2008, 398417.
, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Third Edition, Revised and Expanded,
Minneapolis, MN 2012.
Tuckett, C.M. (ed.), Lukes Literary Achievement: Collected Essays (JSNT SS, 116),
Sheffield 1995.
Ulrich, E., Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections Toward a Theory of the History of the
Biblical Text, in: Idem (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Studies
in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature), Grand Rapids, MI 1999, 99120.
et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 4. ix: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD, 14),
Oxford 1995.
Utzschneider, H., Die Renaissance der alttestamentlichen Literaturwissenschaft und
das Buch Exodus: berlegungen zu Hermeneutik und Geschichte der Forschung,
ZAW 106 (1994), 197223.
Van der Kooij, A., Abraham Kuenen (18281891): De Pentateuch en de godsdienst van
Isral, NTT 45 (1991), 279292.
, Abraham Kuenen: 189110 december1991, in: Abraham Kuenen (18281891):
Uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van een tentoonstelling gehouden in de Universiteitsbiblio
theek Leiden van 10 december 1991 tot 14 januari 1992 (Kleine publikaties van de Leidse
Universiteitsbibliotheek, 11), Leiden 1991, 2531.
Bibliography 385
, And I also Said: A New Interpretation of Judges ii 3, VT 45 (1995), 294306.

, LXX Exodus 23 and the Figure of the High Priest, in: J.K. Aitken et al. (eds), On
Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies (BZAW, 420), Berlin 2011,
537549.
, The Septuagint of the Pentateuch, in: J. Cook, A. van der Kooij, Law, Prophets,
and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint
Version (CBET, 68), Leuven 2012, 1562.
Van der Woude, A.S., Micha (POT), Nijkerk 1976.
, (ed.), New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection of Old
Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the
Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap and the Retirement of Prof. Dr. M.J. Mulder (OTS,
25), Leiden 1989.
Van Hoonacker, A., De compositione litteraria et de origine Mosaica Hexateuchi disqui-
sitio historico-critica: Een historisch-kritisch onderzoek van Professor Van Hoonacker
naar het ontstaan van de Hexateuch op grond van verspreide nagelaten aantekenin-
gen samengesteld en ingeleid door J. Coppens (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke
Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgi.
Klasse der Letteren, 11), Brussel 1949.
Van Lerberghe, K., Schoors, A. (eds), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient
Near East: Festschrift E. Lipiski (OLA, 65), Leuven 1995.
Van Ongeval, C., Liber Genesis, Gent 1902.
Van Selms, A., Genesis, Nijkerk 1967.
Van Seters, J., The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of
Israel, JBL 87 (1968), 401408.
, The Terms Amorite and Hittite in the Old Testament, VT 22 (1972), 6481.
, The Conquest of Sihons Kingdom: A Literary Examination, JBL 91 (1972),
182197.
, Abraham in History and Tradition, London 1975.
, Oral Patterns of Literary Conventions in Biblical Narrative, Semeia 5 (1976),
139154.
, Problems in the Literary Analysis of the Court History of David, JSOT 1 (1976),
2229.
, The Yahwist as Theologian? A Response, JSOT 3 (1977), 1520.
, Recent Studies on the Pentateuch: A Crisis in Method?, JAOS 99 (1979),
663673.
, Tradition and Social Change in Ancient Israel, Perspectives in Religious Studies
7 (1980), 96113.
, Once AgainThe Conquest of Sihons Kingdom, JBL 99 (1980), 117124.
, The Religion of the Patriarchs in Genesis, Bib 61 (1980), 220233.
, Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near East: The Israelites, Orientalia
50 (1981), 137185.
386 Bibliography
, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of

Biblical History, London 1983.
, The Place of the Yahwist in the History of Passover and Massot, ZAW 95 (1983),
167182.
, Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament, in: W.B. Barrick,
J.R. Spencer (eds), In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and
Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlstrm (JSOT SS, 31), Trowbridge 1984, 139158.
, The Yahwist as Historian, in: K.H. Richards (ed.), One Hundred Twenty-Second
Annual Meeting, November 2225, 1986, Atlanta (SBL SP, 25), Atlanta, GA 1986, 3755.
, Der Jahwist als Historiker (TSt, 134), Zrich 1987.
, Comparing Scripture with Scripture: Some Observations on the Sinai
Pericope of Exodus 1924, in: G.W. Tucker et al. (eds), Canon, Theology and Old
Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Brevard S. Childs, Philadelphia 1988,
111130.
, The Primeval Histories of Greece and Israel Compared, ZAW 100 (1988), 122.
, The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King (Gen 12; Ez 28), ZAW 101
(1989), 333342.
, Law and the Wilderness Rebellion Tradition: Exodus 32, in: D.J. Lull (ed.),
Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers: One Hundred Twenty-Sixth Annual
Meeting, November 1720, 1990 (SBL SP, 29), Atlanta, GA 1990, 583591.
, Joshuas Campaign of Canaan and Near Eastern Historiography, SJOT 2 (1990),
112.
, The So-Called Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch, in: J.A. Emerton
(ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 5877.
, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Louisville 1992.
, The Theology of the Yahwist: A Preliminary Sketch, in: I. Kottsieper
et al. (eds), Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Gttern?: Studien zur Theologie und
Religionsgeschichte Israels fr Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, Gttingen 1994,
219228.
, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in ExodusNumbers (CBET, 10),
Kampen 1994.
, A Contest of Magicians? The Plague Stories in P, in: D.P. Wright et al. (eds),
Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual,
Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN 1995, 569580.
, Cultic Laws in the Covenant Code and their Relationship to Deuteronomy
and the Holiness Code, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), The Book of Exodus: Redaction
, From Faithful Prophet to Villain: Observations on the Tradition History of the
Balaam Story, in: E.E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form
and ContentEssays in Honor of G.W. Coats (JSOT SS, 240), Sheffield 1997, 126132.
Bibliography 387
, The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch: The Case Against it, in:
, Divine Encounter at Bethel (Gen. 28,1022) in Recent Literary-Critical Study
of Genesis, ZAW 110 (1998), 503513.
, Some Observations on the Lex Talionis in Exod 21:2325, in: S. Beyerle et al.
(eds), Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament: Gestalt und Wirkung Festschrift fr
Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukrichen-Vluyn 1999, 2737.
, The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (Trajectories, 1), Sheffield 1999.
, In the Babylonian Exile with J: Between Judgment in Ezekiel and Salvation
in Second Isaiah, in: B. Becking, M.C.A. Korpel (eds), The Crisis of Israelite Religion:
Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS, 42), Leiden
1999, 7189.
, Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible, Studies in Religion 29 (2000),
395409.
, The Deuteronomist from Joshua to Samuel, in: G.N. Knoppers,
J.G. McConville (eds), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the
Deuteronomistic History (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 8), Winona
Lake, IN 2000, 204239.
, The Silence of Dinah (Genesis 34), in: J.-D. Macchi, T. Rmer (eds), Jacob:
Commentaire plusieurs voix de Gen 2536 Mlanges offerts Albert de Pury (Le
monde de la Bible, 44), Genve 2001, 239247.
, Is there Any Historiography in the Hebrew Bible? A HebrewGreek
Comparison, JNSL 28 (2002), 125.
, Deuteronomy between Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History,
Hervormde Teologiese Studies 59 (2003), 947956.
, The Redactor in Biblical Studies: A Nineteenth Century Anachronism, JNSL
29 (2003), 119.
, From Child Sacrifice to Paschal Lamb: A Remarkable Transformation, OTE 16
(2003), 453463.
, A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code, Oxford
2003.
, The Altar Law of Ex. 20,2426 in Critical Debate, in: M. Beck, U. Schorn (eds),
Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum: Festschrift Hans-Christoph
Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 370), Berlin 2006, 157174.
, The Report of the Yahwists Demise Has Been Greatly Exaggerated!, in:
T.D. Dozeman, K. Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the
Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBL SS, 34), Atlanta, GA 2006, 143157.
, The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between Two Origin
Traditions, in: R. Roukema (ed.), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of
Cornelis Houtman (CBET, 44), Leuven 2006, 115.
388 Bibliography
, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the Editor in Biblical Criticism, Winona
Lake, IN 2006.
, Changing Perspectives I: Studies in the History, Literature and Religion of Biblical
Israel (Copenhagen International Seminar), London 2011.
, The Yahwist: A Historian of Israelite Origins, Winona Lake, IN 2013.
Vansteenhuyse, K., Van Abraham tot Jezebel: Wat archeologie ons leert over de verhalen
van de Bijbel, Leuven 2010.
Vanstiphout, H.L.J. et al. (eds), Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures,
Scribes and Languages in the Near East Presented to J.H. Hospers by His Pupils,
Colleagues and Friends, Groningen 1986.
Vater, J.S., Commentar ber den Pentateuch mit Einleitungen in den einzelnen Abschnit
ten der eingeschalteten bersetzung von Dr. Alexander Geddess merkwrdigen cri-
tischen und exegetischen Anmerkungen und einer Abhandlung ber Mose und die
Verfasser des Pentateuchs, Halle 18021805.
Vawter, B., On Genesis: A New Reading, New York 1977.
Veijola, T., Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der
deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF, 193), Helsinki 1975.
, Das Knigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine
redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF, 198), Helsinki 1977.
, Deuteronomismusforschung zwischen Tradition und Innovation, TR 67
(2002), 273327; 391424; 68 (2003), 144.
Vermeylen, J., Du prophte Isae lApocalyptique: Isae, ixxxv, miroir dun demi-
millnaire dexprience religieuse en Isral (B), Paris 1978.
, La formation du Pentateuque la lumire de lexgse historico-critique, RTL
12 (1981), 324346.
, Essai de Redaktionsgeschichte des Confessions de Jrmie, in: P.-M. Bogaert
(ed.), Le livre de JrmieLe prophte et son milieu: Les oracles et leur transmission
(BETL, 54), Leuven 1981, 239270.
, Laffaire du veau dor (Ex. 3234): Une cl pour la question deutronomiste?,
ZAW 97 (1985), 123.
, Les sections narratives de Deut 511 et leur relation Ex. 1934, in: N. Lohfink
(ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven
1985, 174207.
, Le Dieu de la promesse et le Dieu de lAlliance: Le dialogue des grandes intuitions
thologiques de lAncien Testament (LD, 126), Paris 1986.
, Het geloof van Isral: Theologie van het Oude Testament, Brugge 1989.
(ed.), The Book of IsaiahLe Livre dIsae: Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unit et
complexit de louvrage (BETL, 81), Leuven 1989.
, Le vol de la bndiction paternelle: Une lecture de Gen 27, in: C. Brekelmans,
J. Lust (eds), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the xiiith
IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989 (BETL, 94), Leuven 1990, 2340.
Bibliography 389
, La Formation du Pentateuque: Bref historique de la recherche et essai de solution

cohrente (CTEP), Bruxelles 1990.
, La descendance de Can et la descendance dAbel (Gen. 4,1726 + 5,28b29),
ZAW 103 (1991), 175193.
, LExode, chemin de libert, Bruxelles 1992.
, LExode, chemin de libert: Supplment Essai de rpartition du texte selon ses
rdactions successives, Bruxelles 1992.
, Dix cls pour ouvrir la Bible (Bible de Jrusalem), Paris 1999.
, Lcole deutrnomiste aurait-elle imagin un premier canon des critures?,
in: T. Rmer (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147), Leuven
2000, 223240.
, Les premires tapes littraires de la formation du Pentateuque, in: A. De
Pury, T. Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des
cinq premiers livres de la Bible la lumire des recherches rcentes. 3me dition aug-
mente (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genve 2002, 149197.
, Une tape majeure dans la formation du canon des critures: luvre deut-
ronomiste, in: J.-M. Auwers, H.-J. De Jonge, (eds), The Biblical Canons (BETL, 163),
Leuven 2003, 213226.
, Des rdactions deutronomistes dans le livre dEsae?, in: J.-D. Macchi et al.
(eds), Les recueils prophtiques de la Bible: Origines, milieux, et contexte proche
oriental (Le Monde de la Bible, 64), Genve 2012, 145187.
Vervenne, M., Het Zeeverhaal (Exodus 13,1714,31): Een literaire studie. Status Quaestionis
van het onderzoek. Tekstkritiek. Vormstudie. Traditie en redactie (unpublished
Doctoral dissertation KU Leuven), Leuven 1986.
, The Protest Motive in the Sea Narrative (Ex. 14,1112): Form and Structure of a
Pentateuchal Pattern, ETL 63 (1987), 257271.
, Zij stelden vertrouwen in Jahwe en in Mozes zijn dienaar: Kanttekeningen
bij het Zeeverhaal (Ex. 13,1714,31), in: Idem (ed.), Exodus: Verhaal en leidmotief,
Leuven 1989, 101120.
, Het boek Exodus: Lijnen en standpunten in het onderzoek naar een gegroeid
geschrift, in: Idem (ed.), Exodus: Verhaal en leidmotief, Leuven 1989, 949.
, Exodus: Verhaal en leidmotief, Leuven 1989.
, The P Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction? The
Sea Narrative (Ex. 13,1714,31) as a Test Case, in: C. Brekelmans, J. Lust (eds.),
Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies. Papers Read at the xiiith IOSOT Congress.
Leuven 1989 (BETL, 94), Leuven 1990, 6790.
, Mens, kosmos en aarde: Een exegetische reflectie over Genesis 13, in: J. De
Tavernier, M. Vervenne (eds), De mens: verrader of hoeder van de schepping (Nik-
reeks, 26), Leuven 1991, 2761.
, Tora (Pentateuch), in: H. Jagersma, M. Vervenne (eds), Inleiding in het Oude
Testament, Kampen 1992, 219235.
390 Bibliography
, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis to Numbers, in:

F. Garca Martnez et al. (eds), Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C.J. Labuschagne
on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (SVT, 53), Leiden 1994, 243268.
, The Sea Narrative Revisited, Bib 75 (1994), 8098.
, The Lexeme sph and the Phrase yam sph: A Brief Reflection on the
Etymology and Semantics of a Key Word in the Hebrew Exodus Tradition, in: K. van
Lerberghe, A. Schoors (eds), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near
East: Festschrift E. Lipiski (OLA, 65), Leuven 1995, 403429.
, To Bind or Not to Bind, that is the Question: Een exegetische oefening over
Genesis 22, in: L. Leijssen et al. (eds), Geloven als toekomst: Godsdienstpedagogische
visies en bijdragen aangeboden aan Professor Jozef Bulckens bij zijn emeritaat, Leuven
1995, 7994.
, (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation
, Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus,
in: Idem (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation
(BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 2159.
, Le rcit de la Mer (Exode xiii 17xiv 31) reflte-t-il une rdaction de type
deutronomique? Quelques remarques sur le problme de lidentification des
lments deutronomiqes contenus dans le Ttrateuque, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.),
Congress Volume: Cambridge 1995 (SVT, 66), Leiden 1997, 365380.
, Exodus 14,20 mtlxx: Textual or Literary Variation, in: J.-M. Auwers,
A. Wnin (eds), Lectures et relectures de la Bible: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert (BETL, 144),
Leuven 1999, 325.
, Genesis 1,12,4: The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Ouverture to the
Pentateuch, in: A. Wnin, Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and
History (BETL, 155), Leuven 2001, 3579.
, Lust, J. (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W.
Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997.
Vink, J.G., Leviticus (BOT), Roermond 1962.
Voitila, A., Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage, in: H. von Weissenberg et al. (eds),
Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the
Second Temple Period (BZAW, 419), Berlin 2011, 369388.
Volz, P., Review of O. Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse: Die Erzhlung der fnf Bcher Mose
und des Buches Josua mit dem Anfange des Richterbuches in ihre vier Quellen zer-
legt und in Deutscher bersetzung dargeboten samt einer in Einleitung und Anmer
kungen gegebenen Begrndung (Leipzig, 1922), TLZ 48 (1923), 389391.
, W. Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzhler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (BZAW,
63), Gieen 1933.
Von Rad, G., Das Gottesvolk im Deuteronomium (BWANT, 47), Stuttgart 1929.
Bibliography 391
, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs (BWANT, 4/26), Stuttgart 1938.

, Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT, 58), Gttingen 1947.
, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel (ATANT, 20), Zrich 1951.
, Theologie des Alten Testaments, Bd. 1: Die Theologie der geschichtlichen
berlieferungen Israels, Mnchen 1957.
, Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis bersetzt und erklrt (ATD, 2/4), Gttingen 91972.
Vorlnder, H., Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (EurHS, 109),
Frankfurt am Main 1978.
Vriezen, T.C., De literatuur van Oud-Isral, Den Haag 21961.
, Van der Woude, A.S., De literatuur van Oud-Isral, Wassenaar 61980.
, Van der Woude, A.S., Oudisralitische en vroegjoodse literatuur: Tiende, geheel
herziene druk van De literatuur van Oud-Isral (Ontwerpen, 1), Kampen 2000.
Wagner, N.E., A Literary Analysis of Genesis 1236, Toronto 1965.
, Abraham and David?, in: J.W. Wevers, D.B. Redford (eds), Studies on the
Ancient Palestinian World: Presented to Professor F.V. Winnett on the Occasion of his
Retirement 1 July 1971 (Toronto Semitic Texts and Studies, 2), Toronto 1972, 117140.
, A Response to Professor Rolf Rendtorff, JSOT 3 (1977), 2027.
Wagner, S., Franz Delitzsch: Leben und Werk (Beitrge zur evangelischen Theologie, 80),
Mnchen 1978; Gieen 21991.
Wallis, L., God and the Social Process: A Study in Hebrew History, Chicago 1935.
Waschke, E.-J., Das Verhltnis alttestamentlicher berlieferungen im Schnittpunkt
der Dynastiezusage und die Dynastiezu sage im Spiegel alttestamentlicher
berlieferungen, ZAW 99 (1987), 157179.
Weeks, S.D., A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?, in: H. von Weissenberg et al. (eds),
Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the
Second Temple Period (BZAW, 419), Berlin 2011, 389404.
Weimar, P., Die Jahwekriegerzhlungen in Exodus 14, Josua 10, Richter 4 und 1 Samuel
7, Bib 57 (1976), 3873.
, Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch (BZAW, 146), Berlin
1977.
, Die Berufung des Mose: Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,235,5
(OBO, 32), Freiburg 1980.
, Das Goldene Kalb: Redaktionskritische Erwgungen zu Ex. 32, BN 38/39
(1987), 117160.
, Exodus 12,2427a: Ein Zusatz nachdeuteronomistischer Provenienz aus der
Hand der Pentateuchredaktion, in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and
421448.
, Studien zur Priesterschrift (FAT, 56), Tbingen 2008.
392 Bibliography
, Zenger, E., Exodus: Geschichten und Geschichte der Befreiung Israels (SBS, 75),
Stuttgart 1975.
Weinfeld, M., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972.
, The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents,
in: N. Lohfink (ed), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL,
68), Leuven 1985, 7698.
, Deuteronomy 111: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB,
5), New York 1991.
, Deuteronomy, ABD 2 (1992), 168183.
Weippert, H., Die deuteronomistischen Beurteilungen der Knige von Israel und
Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Knigsbcher, Bib 53 (1972), 301339.
, Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (BZAW, 132), Berlin 1973.
, Der Ort, den Jahwe erwhlen wird, um dort seinen Namen wohnen zu las-
sen: Die Geschichte einer alltestamentlichen Formel, BZ 24 (1980), 7694.
, Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren
Forschung, TR 50 (1985), 213249.
Weiser, A., Einleitung in das Alte Testament (TW), Stuttgart 1939.
, Der Prophet Jeremia (ATD, 20), Gttingen 51966.
Weisman, Z., Prof. Moshe Weinfelds Contribution to Biblical Scholarship: An
Appreciation, in: C. Cohen et al. (eds), Sefer MosheThe Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee
Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran and Post-Biblical
Judaism, Winona Lake, IN 2004, xiixviii.
Welch, A.C., The Code of Deuteronomy: A New Theory of its Origins, London 1924.
Wellhausen, J., Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin 1883; 31886.
, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bcher des Alten
Testaments, Berlin 31899.
Wenham, G.J., The Book of Leviticus (The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament), Grand Rapids, MI 1979.
West, J.K., Introduction to the Old Testament, New York 21981.
Westermann, C., Am Anfang: 1. Mose (Genesis) (Kleine Biblische Bibliothek),
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986.
, Genesis 111 (EdF, 7), Darmstadt 1972.
, Genesis, Tl. 1: Genesis 111 (BKAT, 1/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974.
, Genesis 1250 (EdF, 48), Darmstadt 1975.
, Genesis (Tekst en toelichting), Kampen 1986.
Wevers, J.W., Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBL SCS, 30), Atlanta, GA 1990.
Wevers, J.W. , Redford, D.B. (eds), Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World: Presented to
Professor F.V. Winnett on the Occasion of his Retirement 1 July 1971 (Toronto Semitic
Texts and Studies, 2), Toronto 1972.
Bibliography 393
Whybray, R.N., A Response to Professor Rendtorffs The Yahwist as Theologian? The

Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism, JSOT 3 (1977), 1114.
, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOT SS, 53), Sheffield
1987.
Wildberger, H., Jahwes Eigentumsvolk: Eine Studie zur Traditionsgeschichte und
Theologie des Erwhlungsgedankens (ATANT, 37), Zrich 1960.
, Neuinterpretation des Erwhlungsglaubens: Israel in der Krise der Exilszeit,
in: H.J. Stoebe et al. (eds) Wort Gebot Glaube: Beitrge zur Theologie des Alten
Testaments Walter Eichrodt zum 80. Geburtstag (ATANT, 59), Zrich 1970,
307324.
Wildeboer, G., De letterkunde des Ouden Verbonds naar de tijdsorde van haar ontstaan,
Groningen, 1893; 31903.
Willis, J.T., Yahweh and Moses in Conflict: The Role of Exod. 4:2426 in the Book of Exodus
(Bible in History), Bern 2010.
Wilms, F.-E., Das jahwistische Bundesbuch in Ex. 34, BZ 16 (1972), 2453.
, Das jahwistische Bundesbuch in Exodus 34 (Studien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament, 32), Mnchen 1973.
Wilson, R.R., Who Was the Deuteronomist? (Who Was Not the Deuteronomist?):
Reflections on Pan-Deuteronomism, in: L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those
Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268),
Sheffield 1999, 6782.
Winnett, F.V., The Mosaic Tradition (Near and Middle East Series, 1), Toronto 1949.
, ReExamining the Foundations, JBL 84 (1965), 119.
Witte, M., Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche
Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,111,26 (BZAW, 265), Berlin 1998.
, Die Gebeine Josefs, in: M. Beck, U. Schorn (eds), Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt
von Gen II Regum: Festschrift Hans-Christoph Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW,
370), Berlin 2006, 139156.
Witter, H.B., Jura Israelitarum in Palaestinam terram Chananaeam commentatione in
Genesin perpetua sic demonstrata, ut Idiomatis authentici nativus sensus fideliter
delegatur, Mosis autoris primaeva intentio sollicite definiatur, adeoque corpus doctri-
nae et juris cum antiquissimum, tum consummatissimum tandem eruatur: Accedit
in paginarum fronte ipse textus Hebraeus cum versione Latina autore Henningo
Bernhardo Witter, Hildesheim 1711.
Wolff, H.W., Hoseas geistige Heimat, TLZ 81 (1956), 8394.
, Das Kerygma des Jahwisten, EvT 24 (1964), 7398.
, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (TB, 22), Mnchen 1964.
, Dodekapropheton 1: Hosea (BKAT, 14/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 21965.
, Dodekapropheton 2: Joel und Amos (BKAT, 14/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969.
, Zur Thematik der elohistischen Fragmente im Pentateuch, EvT 29 (1969),
5972.
394 Bibliography
(ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag,
Mnchen 1971.
, Dodekapropheton 4: Micha (BKAT, 14/4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982.
Wright, D.P., Inventing Gods Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised
the Laws of Hammurabi, Oxford 2009.
et al. (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near
Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN 1995.
Wright, G.E., Deuteronomy (The Interpreters Bible, 2), New York 1953.
Wynn-Williams, D.J., The State of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the Approaches of
M. Noth and E. Blum (BZAW, 249), Berlin 1997.
xxx, Abraham Kuenen (18281891): Uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van een tentoonstelling
gehouden in de Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden van 10 december 1991 tot 14 januari 1992
(Kleine publikaties van de Leidse Universiteitsbibliotheek, 11), Leiden 1991.
xxx, Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974 (SVT, 28), Leiden 1975.
xxx, Congress Volume: Bonn 1962 (SVT, 9), Leiden 1963.
xxx, Naissance de la mthode critique: Colloque du centenaire de lcole biblique et
archologique franaise de Jrusalem (Patrimoines christianisme), Paris 1992.
xxx, Volume du Congrs Genve 1965 (SVT, 15), Leiden 1966.
xxx, II: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments: Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstag, dem 23. Mai 1922 dargebracht von
seinen Schlern und Freunden, Tl. 1: Zur Religion und Literatur des Alten Testaments
(FRLANT, 36), Gttingen 1923.
Zahn, M., Reexamining Empirical Models: The Case of Exodus 13, in: E. Otto,
R. Achenbach (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuterono
mistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Gttingen 2004, 3655.
Zaman, L., R. Rendtorff en zijn Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch:
Schets van een Maccaber binnen de hedendaagse Pentateuchexegese (unpublished
Masters thesis Universitaire Faculteit voor Protestantse Godgeleerdheid), Brussel
1984.
Zenger, E., Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen
Geschichtswerk (FzB, 3), Wrzburg 1971.
, Das Buch Exodus (Geistliche Schriftlesung, 7), Dsseldorf 1978.
, Wo steht die Pentateuchforschung heute?, BZ 24 (1980), 101116.
, Das jahwistische Werk ein Wegbereiter des jahwistischen Monotheismus?,
in: E. Haag (ed.), Gott, der einzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheismus in Israel (QD,
104), Freiburg 1985, 2653.
, Le thme de la sortie dgypte et la naissance du Pentateuque, in: A. De Pury,
T. Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq
premiers livres de la Bible la lumire des recherches rcentes. 3me dition augmente
(Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genve 2002, 301331.
Bibliography 395
(ed.), Der Neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden
Testamente (QD, 146), Freiburg 1993.
(ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Fnfte, grndlich berarbeitete und
erweiterte Auflage (Kohlhammer Studienbcher Theologie, 1,1), Stuttgart 2004.
, Braulik, G., Die Bcher der Tora/des Pentateuch, in: E. Zenger (ed.), Einleitung
in das Alte Testament: Fnfte, grndlich berarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage
(Kohlhammer Studienbcher Theologie, 1,1), Stuttgart 2004, 60187.
Zevit, Z., Clio, I Presume, BASOR 260 (1985), 7182.
Zimmerli, W., 1. Mose 111: die Urgeschichte (ZBK. Altes Testament, 1/1), Zrich 31967.
, 1. Mose 1225: Abraham (ZBK. Altes Testament, 1/2), Zrich 1976.
Zuber, B., Vier Studien zu den Ursprngen Israels: Die Sinaifrage und Probleme der Volks-
und Traditionsbildung (OBO, 9), Freiburg 1976.
, Marginalien zur Quellentheorie, DBAT 12 (1977), 1429.
Index of Authors
Aalders, G.C.59 Bauer, H.299

Achenbach, R.88, 107, 108, 109, 110, 124, 199, Bauer, U.F.W.141
202, 252, 253, 311, 322 Baumgartner, W.56, 280
Ackroyd, P.R.264 Bea, A.56
Adamczewski, B.242 Beck, M.187, 246, 251
Aejmelaeus, A.332 Becker, J.74, 85, 86, 91, 92, 93
Aitken, J.K.228, 334 Becker, U.326
Akao, J.O.125 Becking, B.194, 227, 298
Albertz, R.128, 199, 212, 227, 242, 252, 255, Beer, G.79, 83, 85, 86, 88, 93, 104, 263
260 Begg, C.T.132, 137141, 187, 191193
Allen, R.B.60 Bell, F.20
Alt, A.130, 266 Ben Zvi, E.269
Altmann, A.178 Bennett, W.H.78, 79, 81, 86, 88
Anbar, M.68, 69, 70, 73, 80, 90, 91, 94, 95, 97, Bentzen, A.81, 87, 88, 91, 93, 96, 97, 101, 267
294 Berge, K.68, 70, 170
Andersen, F.I.292 Berner, C.251
Anderson, A.A.315 Berry, G.R.264, 277
Anderson, B.W.59, 60 Bertheau, E.1113, 245
Anderson, G.W.79, 81, 90, 96, 260, 268 Bertholdt, L.8
Arneth, M.124, 199 Bettenzoli, G.63
Artus, O.1, 95, 96, 243, 251 Bewer, J.A.61
Ashley, T.R.96, 97 Beyerle, S.187
Astour, M.C.178 Beyerlin, W.93, 102, 113
Astruc, J.34, 22 Binns, L.E.96, 97, 97
Auld, A.G.97, 98, 224 Bleek, F.911, 24, 261, 266
Aurelius, E.143, 255 Blenkinsopp, J.1, 68, 73, 74, 81, 85, 87, 88, 89,
Ausloos, H.6, 20, 38, 40, 162, 163, 173, 215, 90, 91, 92, 93, 100, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110,
218, 225, 255, 256, 258, 260, 282, 287, 111, 239, 293, 305, 311, 324, 325
292, 293, 295, 298, 301, 310, 317, 327, 334, Blum, E.61, 103, 166, 172, 187, 203, 209219,
335 243, 250, 254255, 259, 276, 281, 284,
Auwers, J.-M.148, 232 288, 289, 292, 293, 318, 323, 325, 335
Auzou, G.78, 79, 81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 93, 97, Blum, R.216
100, 104, 106, 109, 121 Boadt, L.61
Boecker, H.J.70, 72
Baarlink, H.244 Boehmer, E.32
Bacon, B.W.55 Bogaert, P.-M.65, 264
Baden, J.S.117, 160161, 209 Bhl, F.M.T.60, 68, 70, 159
Baentsch, B.58, 63, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, Boorer, S.208209
83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, Bowie, W.R.60
95, 96, 97, 100, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 158, Braulik, G.2, 117, 123, 125, 229, 251, 290
263, 305 Brekelmans, C.H.W.63, 114, 117121, 123, 130,
Bardtke, H.15 133, 134, 136, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 152,
Barrick, W.B.128, 185 154, 161, 162, 163, 191, 232, 260, 265, 268,
Barstad, H.W.185 269, 271272, 273, 276, 279, 286, 293,
Barton, J.1 297, 298, 304, 306, 309, 310, 315
Baudissin, Graf W.W.159 Breytenbach, A.P.B.118
Index Of Authors 397
Briend, J.1 Cox, G.W.20

Briggs, C.A.55 Craigie, P.C.272
Brinkschrder, M.166 Crenshaw, L.264, 268
Brown, S.L.79, 83, 85, 88, 103 Cross, F.M.271
Brueggemann, W.59 Crossan, J.D.1
Budd, P.J.95, 96, 97 Crsemann, F.128, 206, 213, 301303
Budde, K.158 Curtius, E.R.248
Buis, P.121
Burns, R.J.79, 81, 85, 90, 93 Dahood, M.316
Butzer, A.G.96, 97 Davenport, J.W.90
David, R.1
Caloz, M.132, 133136, 214, 291, 295 Davidson, R.59
Campbell, A.F.128, 170 Davies, G.I.1, 215
Carasik, M.72, 85, 99 Davies, J.260
Carpenter, E.E.187, 239 Davies, P.R.222
Carpenter, J.E.58, 68, 70, 79, 81, 83, 86, 88, Day, J.260
91, 93, 96, 101, 159, 290 De Catanzaro, C.J.171
Carr, D.M.250, 256, 289, 299, 334 De Fraine, J.67, 68, 70
Carroll, R.P.129, 225, 264 De Jonge, H.-J.232
Cassuto, U.59, 60 De Lange, F.244
Cazelles, H.1, 61, 88, 104, 105, 114117, 119, 121, De Moor, J.C.227, 299
159, 264, 286 De Pury, A.1, 2, 58, 60, 62, 169, 170, 184, 185,
Ceresko, A.R.61 196, 197, 212, 232, 271
Chamberlain, G.104, 105 De Tavernier, J.143
Chan, J.T.-K.136 De Vaulx, J.64, 95, 96, 97
Chapman, A.T.63 De Vaux, R.70, 224
Cheyne, T.K.20 De Wette, W.M.L.78, 10, 22, 263, 277
Childs, B.S.78, 79, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 90, 92, De Wilde, J.W.63
93, 106, 272 Deck, S.290291
Cholewnski, A.63 Deist, F.E.20
Chung, Y.H.117 Delitzsch, F.1516, 22, 38
Clamer, A.70, 81, 83, 159 Dennefeld, L.61
Clay, A.T.178 Deurloo, K.313
Clements, R.E.260 Diehl, J.F.250
Clines, D.J.A.260 Diesel, A.A.252
Coats, G.W.83, 84, 85, 90, 95 Dietrich, W.90, 271
Coggins, R.61, 260, 268 Diller, C.198
Cohen, C99 Dillmann, A.6, 50, 158
Cole, R.A.83, 86, 88, 106, 324 Dirksen, P.B.46
Colenso, J.W.10, 1944, 47, 5253, 55, 58, 98, Dohmen, C.86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93
108, 109, 110, 261, 266, 290, 311, 322, 327 Donner, H.90, 91, 130
Collins, J.J.1 Douglas, M.61
Comte, F.57 Dozeman, T.B.1, 2, 102, 187, 213, 219, 229, 230,
Cook, J.334 239241, 250, 253, 255, 285, 310, 335
Cook, S.L.269 Draper, J.20, 24, 46
Coppens, J.61, 65 Driver, S.R.15, 5254, 70, 86, 98, 99, 114, 119,
Cornill, C.H.55, 88, 101 130, 159
Couroyer, B.79, 81, 86, 87, 159 Drubbel, A.96
398 Index of Authors
Duhm, B.99, 265 Gibert, P.3

Dumermuth, F.121 Gilbert, M.121
Durham, J.I.83, 90 Gispen, W.H.59, 60, 63, 96
Goettsberger, J.61
Ebach, J.252 Goldberg, O.248
Edelkoort, A.H.60 Graf, K.H.16, 23, 4446, 50, 64, 170
Edelman, D.V.178, 210211, 260 Graupner, A.86, 170
Eerdmans, B.D.67, 68, 69, 70, 79, 81, 86, 88, Grauson, A.K.184
93, 103, 114 Gray, G.B.96, 97
Eichhorn, J.G.4, 22 Gressmann, H.56, 78, 81, 83, 89, 105, 108
Eichrodt, W.61 Gross, W.124, 259, 269, 290
Eissfeldt, O.1, 7, 16, 56, 61, 70, 79, 81, 83, 86, Gunkel, H.68, 69, 70, 71
90, 134, 160, 169, 170 Gunneweg, A.H.J.1, 200
Elliot-Binns, L.E.63 Guy, J.20
Ellison, H.L.60
Emerton, J.A.1, 68, 126, 141, 180, 195, 201, 219, Haag, E.171
248, 264, 274, 278, 335 Haag, H.118
Engnell, I.217 Hagedorn, A.C.202, 256
Evans, C.A.2, 209 Halbe, J.93, 101, 136, 145, 161, 162, 305, 309,
Ewald, H.1617, 22, 24 310, 311, 315
Eynikel, E.141 Halpern, B.127, 303
Harford, G.58, 68, 70, 79, 81, 83, 86, 88, 91,
Fargues, P.61 93, 96, 101, 159, 290
Fell, W.61 Harris, R.L.63
Fensham, F.C.88, 93, 103 Harrison, R.K.61
Finegan, J.60 Hartley, J.E.64
Fischer, G.246, 299 Harvey, J.E.117, 279, 290
Floss, J.P.81, 83, 87, 89, 100, 104, 105, 305 Haudebert, P.2, 123, 237, 276
Fohrer, G.79, 81, 87 Hauret, C.118, 273
Forbes, A.D.292 Hayes, J.H.61, 65
Fox, E.104, 105, 106 Heinisch, P.63, 78, 79, 96, 159, 273
Fox, M.V.215 Herbert, A.S.59
Fox, N.S.99 Herrmann, S.235, 264, 265, 271, 295
Freedman, D.N.246 Hinchliff, P.20
Frey, H.59, 60 Hobbes, T.3
Friesenhahn, P.248 Hoberg, G.59
Fripp, E.I.55 Hobson, D.W.127
Fritz, V.83, 85, 200 Hoffmann, H.-D.90, 93
Fuss, W.66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, Hoffmann, Y.271
76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 90, 91, Hoftijzer, J.81, 299
93, 94, 105, 110, 294 Holladay, W.264
Hollenberg, J.262
Garca Lpez, F.1, 58 Hlscher, G.277
Garca Martnez, F.118, 137, 168, 214, 272 Holzinger, H.15, 33, 5054, 58, 68, 69, 70, 74,
Gautier, L.68, 70, 79, 81, 83, 86, 87, 88, 91, 96 78, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 96, 97,
Geddes, A.57, 21, 22, 54, 299300 98, 99, 109, 114
Gertz, J.C.4, 61, 202, 219, 250, 253, 255 Honeycutt, R.L.60
Gesenius, W.307308 Horn, P.88, 92, 93, 105, 310
Horst, F.130 Knight, D.A.217

Hossfeld, F.-L.83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, Knobel, A.1718, 22, 24, 31, 170, 266, 290, 324
269 Knoppers, G.N.185, 255
Houston, W.81, 93 Koch, K.260
Houtman, C.3, 7, 24, 46, 63, 202, 229, Kckert, M.170, 187, 289
243247, 261, 264, 265, 270, 280, 295, Kohata, F.73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84,
297 85, 90, 92, 94, 95, 97
Huizinga, J.184 Knig, E.114
Humbert, P.56 Konkel, M.251
Hupfeld, H.23, 2526, 32, 44, 46 Kppel, U.315
Hurvitz, A.65 Kornfeld, W.63
Hyatt, J.P.79, 81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, Korpel, M.C.A.194, 298
93, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 265, 310, Kosak, H.61
311 Kosmala, H.93
Kossmann, R.282
Ilgen, K.D.45, 22 Kosters, W.H.16, 23, 4446
Ishida, T.328 Kottsieper, I.187, 198
Kovacs, W.265
Jagersma, H.59, 141 Kragelund Holt, E.264
Janzen, J.G.70 Krmer, K.F.96
Jarick, J.4 Kratz, R.G.1, 139, 229, 256, 320321
Jaro, K.83, 90, 93, 169 Kraus, H.J.1
Jenks, A.W.120, 145, 169 Kuenen, A.15, 23, 28, 33, 44, 4654, 56, 58,
Jenni, E.62 64, 98, 103, 108, 110, 114, 142, 158, 170,
Jeon, J.216 262263, 279, 291
Jeremias, J.206, 269 Kugler, R.A.268
Johnstone, W.5, 203, 220228, 253254, 255, Kuhl, C.61
281, 309, 310, 317318
Joon, P.308 Laaf, P.80, 81, 93
Jlicher, A.55 Labuschagne, C.J.132, 149, 150152, 229,
Junker, H.59, 130 247249, 281
Lana, M.333
Kaiser, O.1, 7, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 82, 86, 87, 90, Lange, A.335
91, 93, 96, 129, 170, 200, 268, 269, 270, Langlamet, F.132133, 291, 293, 306
273 Le Boulluec, A.332
Kaiser, W.C.60 Le Roux, J.H.7, 20, 21, 43, 252
Kalt, E.59, 60 Leander, P299
Kamphausen, A10 Leclerq, J.121
Kaufmann, Y.65 Leijssen, L.284
Kautzsch, E.307308 Lemaire, A.128
Kayser, A.46 Leman, J.3
Kennedy, A.R.S.63, 96 Lemmelijn, B.63, 162, 292
Kidner, D.59 Levin, C.202, 255
Kilian, R.69, 70, 73 Levine, B.A.63
Kittel, R.56 Levinson, B.M.193, 255, 277
Kleinert, P.31, 290 Lindars, B.324
Klibansky, R.184 Lipiski, E.117
Klostermann, A.6 Liwak, R.104, 273
Loewenstamm, S.L.140 Neyrinck, F.118

Lohfink, N.65, 114, 117118, 121129, 130, 133, Nicholson, E.W.1, 56, 86, 89, 90, 92, 93, 130,
136, 137, 147, 192, 214, 232, 248, 259, 264, 172, 180, 205, 269
267, 270, 271272, 275276, 279, 280, Nihan, C.2
282, 285, 287, 290, 292, 293, 294, 295, Nldeke, T.44
303, 304, 306, 310, 334 Nomoto, S.114
Loza, J.133 Noordtzij, A.56, 60, 63
Lull, D.J.187 Noort, E.163, 218
Lust, J.63, 65, 123, 141, 142, 183, 201, 219, 227, North, C.R.56
232, 242, 246, 250, 258, 292, 294, 297 Noth, M.6162, 63, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87,
89, 90, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 100, 103, 107, 138,
Maarsingh, B.60, 63 170, 178, 203204, 205, 266, 270, 277, 280
Macchi, J.D.61, 111, 187, 259, 268
Maher, M.59 OBrien, M.A.128
Marsh, J.96, 97 OConnell, K.G.328331
Martin, J.D.222 OConnor, M.309
Marttila, M.270 Oesterley, W.O.E.80, 81, 87, 96
Marx, A.325 Olrik, A.183
Masius, A.245 Oosterhoff, B.J.264
Mayes, A.D.H.1, 197, 219, 227 Osumi, Y.101, 109, 136, 161, 162, 307308, 311
McCarthy, D.J.1, 269 Oswald, W.255
McConville, J.G.185 Otto, E.2, 7, 87, 88, 91, 93, 159, 202, 217,
McEvenue, S.64 251252, 255, 289, 303, 306, 315, 335
McKay, H.A.260
McKenzie, S.L.100, 124, 178, 201, 260, 264, Paton, H.J.184
268, 269, 293, 335 Patton, C.L.269
McKim, D.K.21 Paul, M.J.7
McNeile, A.H.74, 78, 80, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, Peckham, B.128
90, 92, 93, 96, 104, 105, 108, 273 Perdue, L.G.265
Mehlhausen, J.198 Perlitt, L.68, 70, 73, 81, 83, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91,
Meinhold, J.61 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 99, 104, 105, 110, 125,
Merx, A.45 130, 206, 269
Michali, F.80, 81, 83, 106, 107 Person, R.F.260, 261, 269
Micklem, N.63 Pfeiffer, H.202
Milgrom, J.60, 63, 65 Pfeiffer, R.H.70, 74, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88,
Milik, J.T.259 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 105, 106
Miltenberger, J.203 Phillips, A.136
Minette de Tillesse, G.139 Plastaras, J.80, 81, 89, 103
Mitchell, G.20 Plger, J.G.73, 81, 97, 130, 133, 214, 304
Monshouwer, D.63 Porter, J.R.63
Morgenstern, J.87, 88, 89, 92, 93, 101, 171 Postma, F.147, 292
Mowinckel, S.119, 265 Poswick, R.-F.292
Muraoka, T.308 Preuss, H.D.62
Muddiman, J.1 Procksch, O.68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81, 83,
Muilenberg, J.113, 121 84, 85, 86, 89, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101
Propp, W.H.C.115116
Neef, H.D.162, 302, 318 Provan, I.W.128
Nelson, R.D.160, 318 Puukko, A.F.266
Rabast, K.59 Schart, A.230

Radjawane, A.N.62, 281 Schearing, L.S.100, 124, 260, 264, 268, 269,
Redford, D.B.176177, 194 293
Reichert, A.149150, 161162, 165, 214, 272, 318 Schedl, C.248
Renaud, B.228, 229, 230, 237238, 269, 281, Schmid, H.H.131, 165, 172, 194196, 200, 219,
310, 311 220
Rendtorff, R.2, 166, 172, 198, 199, 203208, Schmid, K.2, 187, 219, 243, 246, 250, 251, 252,
209, 210, 219, 220, 230, 310, 322 278
Reventlow, Graf H.49, 113 Schmidt, H.123, 277
Rezetko, R.274, 296, 299 Schmidt, L.2, 54, 91, 95, 170, 237
Richards, K.H.185 Schmidt, W.H.64, 73, 74, 75, 81, 89, 91, 92, 93,
Richardson, A.59 95, 102, 133, 170, 268, 277, 284, 299
Richter, W.74, 81, 87, 92, 93, 96, 97, 105, 291, Schmitt, G.92, 93, 100, 108, 145, 160, 310
304, 311312 Schmitt, H.C.198202, 250, 255, 260
Riehm, E.44 Schmkel, H.170
Robinson, T.H.80, 81, 87, 96 Schniedewind, W.M.89
Robker, J.M.334 Schoors, A.145
Rof, A.160, 318 Schorn, U.187, 246, 251
Rogerson, J.W.7, 20 Schreiner, J.80, 81
Rmer, T.1, 2, 58, 61, 62, 111, 124, 124, 169, 170, Schweitzer, S.165
180, 187, 196, 197, 208, 212, 217, 232, 235, Schwienhorst-Schnberger, L.101, 136, 161
243, 246, 251, 252253, 255, 259, 260, Seebass, H.2, 58, 86, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96,
264, 270, 271, 274, 294, 335 169, 170
Rose, M.186, 196197, 281, 305 Segal, M.H.61
Rosenmller, E.F.K.9, 266 Seidel, B.2, 4
Rosenmller, G.H.9, 266 Seitz, C.R.264
Rost, L.121 Seitz, G.81, 89, 105, 108
Roth, W.2 Snchal, V.190
Roukema, R.187, 219, 252 Sikkel, J.C.59
Rowley, H.H.56, 127 Simon, R.3, 22
Rcker, H.87 Simpson, C.A.60, 69, 70, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78,
Rudolph, W.58, 80, 81, 85, 92, 96, 101, 169, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 94,
266 95, 96, 102, 109
Ruppert, L.59 Ska, J.L.2, 4, 86, 131132, 171, 209, 250, 294
Ruprecht, E.83, 84 Skehan, P.W.328
Rylaarsdam, J.C.78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, Skinner, J.68, 69, 70, 264
92, 93, 105 Skweres, D.E.145, 153, 154157
Ryle, H.E.59 Smelik, K.A.D.313
Ryssel, V.6, 50, 158 Smend, R.80, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89
Smend, R.2, 7, 49, 54, 67, 69, 71, 72, 78, 91, 94,
Sailhamer, J.H.59 95, 96, 97, 271, 274
Sakenfeld, K.D.60 Snaith, N.H.64, 96
Salters, R.B.227 Soggin, J.A.68, 80, 81, 87, 135, 253, 270, 317
Sandevoir, P.332 Sparks, K.L.164
Sandmel, S.220 Spencer, J.R.185
Sarna, N.M.59, 60 Spieckermann, H.139
Scharbert, J.69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 81, 83, 85, 87, 91, Spinoza, B.245
92, 93, 96, 97, 121, 264 Sprinkle, J.M.61
Sthelin, J.J.1415, 22, 45, 245 246, 250, 252, 256, 258, 260, 272273,
Steck, O.H.125, 259, 267 274, 278, 282, 284, 288, 292, 293, 294,
Steed, C.20 297, 308, 310, 313, 322, 323
Steuernagel, C.31, 89, 101, 290 Vink, J.G.64
Stoebe, H.J.303 Voitila, A.270
Stolz, F.74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, 89, 92, 94, 95, 96, Volz, P.58, 169
104, 107, 108, 109, 131, 301, 310, 311 Von Rad, G.60, 119, 123, 125, 130, 170, 203204,
Strack, H.L.159 205, 310
Streane, A.W.63 von Weissenberg, H.270
Sturdy, J.96 Vorlnder, H.177
Sundkler, B.20 Vriezen, T.C.61, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 89, 92, 94,
102, 161, 246
Talstra, E.147, 286, 293
Tarazi, P.N.61 Wagner, N.E.171, 175176, 194
Taylor, B.334 Wagner, S.15, 104, 273
Te Stroete, G.78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 89, 94, Wallis, L.118
103 Waltke, B.K.309
Tengstrm, S.230 Waschke, E.-J.260
Thiel, W.264, 266, 304 Weeks, S.D.270
Thompson, H.O.328 Weimar, P.74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 87, 91,
Thompson, R.J.20 102, 109, 229, 241242, 250, 277, 311, 313
Thompson, T.L.178, 208 Weinfeld, M.65, 84, 87, 99, 125, 153154, 155,
Tov, E.300, 333 160, 266, 269, 275, 276, 279, 280, 291, 296,
Tucker, G.W.186 315, 333
Tuckett, C.M.111, 259 Weippert, H.62, 128, 264, 272, 291, 303
Weiser, A.61, 119
Ulrich, E.331, 335 Weisman, Z.99
Utzschneider, H.2 Welch, A.C.130
Wellhausen, J.16, 42, 44, 46, 4951, 5354,
Van Belle, G.118 5657, 58, 64, 98, 114, 142, 158, 170, 183,
Van der Kooij, A.46, 321, 334, 335 185, 261262, 263, 264265
Van der Woude, A.S.61, 80, 82, 83, 86, 89, 94, Wenham, G.J.64
102, 118, 121, 244, 246, 249 Wnin, A.142, 148, 173, 253
Van Hoonacker, A.65 West, J.K.61
Van Lerberghe, K.145 Westermann, C.60, 71, 89, 91, 92, 96, 107
Van Ongeval, C.60 Wevers, J.W.176, 308, 332, 333
Van Selms, A.60 Whybray, R.N.2, 57, 203, 219221
Van Seters, J.2, 126, 131, 147, 165, 172, 178194, Wildberger, H.113, 303
195, 201, 220, 240, 256, 274, 281, 282, 288, Wildeboer, G.15, 53, 114
289, 298, 303, 318, 323, 324 Willis, J.T.274
Vansteenhuyse, K.57 Wilms, F.-E.160
Vanstiphout, H.L.J.248 Wilson, R.R.268, 270
Vater, J.S.57, 22, 54, 299300 Winnett, F.V.171176, 194, 195, 201
Vawter, B.71 Witte, M.67, 251, 252, 255, 278
Veijola, T.62, 271 Witter, H.B.3, 22
Vermeylen, J.122, 229, 230236, 266, 268, 281, Wolff, H.W.130, 170, 268, 269, 271
310, 322 Wright, D.P.136, 186, 271
Vervenne, M.2, 63, 66, 118, 132, 141149, 165, Wright, G.E.121
168, 183, 187, 201, 214, 217, 219, 227, 242, Wynn-Williams, D.J.209
Zahn, M.289 Zevit, Z.194

Zaman, L.205 Zimmerli, W.60
Zenger, E.2, 63, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, Zipor, M.315
84, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 102, 170, Zuber, B.177
229, 239, 242, 251 Zuurmond, R.313
Index of Biblical References
Genesis 7:12 232

7:45 232
111 25, 171, 172173, 206, 7:710 177
207, 213 7:10 232
1:12:3 236 7:12 177, 232
1:1 251 7:17 232
23 232 7:2324 177
2:44:26 236 7:23 232
2:49 66 8:23 177, 232
2:425 177 8:612 177
2:45 232 8:6, 813 232
2:4 241, 242, 246 8:13 177
2:53:24 143 8:2022 177, 232
2:78 232 8:2122 232
2:16 66 8:21 19, 235
2:1823 232 9:14 236
2:18, 20, 2225 66 9:2 314
3:13, 6, 1114 67 9:56 236
3:14 235 9:817 236
3:15 236 9:1827 177
3:1618 235 9:18 210
3:1719 67 9:2025 232
3:2021 235 9:22, 2527 210
3:20 109 9:2829 236
3:2224 67 10:132 236
4 177 10:25 173
4:15 232 10:812 34, 67
4:1, 67 235 10:819 177
4:810 232 10:8, 9 39
4:1112 235 10:1518 179
4:12 232 10:1619 67
4:1315 235 10:1618 210
4:14 109 10:21, 24, 30 177
4:16 232, 235 11:19 67, 177, 232
4:1726 235 11:1026 236
5 236 11:2632 184
5:2829 235 11:27 236
6:18 43, 177 11:2831 174
6:13 232 11:2830 34, 42
6:4 34, 39, 43 11:28 173
6:56 19, 235 11:3132 236
6:78 232 11:31 173
6:98:22 236 1250 206, 210
6:11, 13 236 1236 173175, 230, 231,
7:15 177 232
Index Of Biblical References 405
1216 151 14:1820 184

12 213 1550 169
12:1 232 15 16, 17, 34, 68, 105,
12:14 34, 177, 250, 253, 111, 114, 115, 143, 145,
253 174, 176, 184, 195,
12:13 17, 203, 206, 210 206, 210, 213, 216,
12:1 67, 184 250, 251, 257
12:23 67, 173174, 176, 184, 15:12 235
235 15:1 39
12:2 156, 231 15:4 39, 231
12:47 232 15:5 40, 68, 156, 230, 235
12:45 184, 236 15:6 199, 211, 213, 235
12:620 177 15:7 68, 173, 182, 231
12:69 210, 253 15:912 232
12:68 34 15:12 109
12:6 184 15:1316 246
12:7 67, 130131, 156, 157, 15:1718 232
174, 184, 210 15:16 14
12:89 184 15:1821 59, 68, 157, 246
12:8 42, 174, 232 15:18 52, 155, 156, 157
12:920 34, 42 15:1921 250
12:1020 183, 184, 210, 241 15:2021 179
12:10 67 15:20 39, 105
12:15 17 16 68, 210
12:16 19 16:112 184
12:1913:18 150 16:13 183
13:15 34, 42, 177 16:2 19, 177
13:12 184 16:3 184, 236
13:316 235 16:414 177
13:35 184 16:49 183
13:3 301 16:5, 6 19
13:4 174, 301 16:712 184, 322
13:513 235 16:8 19
13:6 184, 236 16:10 184, 210, 235
13:717 184 16:11 183, 184
13:711 172 16:1314, 1516 184
13:7 34 16:15 236
13:1112 236 16:20 68, 231
13:1318 177 17 17, 184, 236
13:1417 34, 67, 157, 174, 176, 1819 151
210, 232, 301 18 68, 177
13:14 304 18:119 51
13:15, 17 156, 157 18:19 184
13:18 232 18:1 68, 184
1415 210 18:5 19
14 33, 34, 67, 174 18:914 231
14:2, 3, 7, 8, 17 34, 35, 43 18:1014 184
14:1824 150 18:1319 35
406 Index of Biblical References
Genesis (cont.) 22:1518 51, 69, 210, 213, 216,

18:1531 184 235, 250
18:1633 235, 253 22:15 211
18:1719 52, 68, 173, 210, 211 22:1617 156
18:1819 34 22:16 206
18:18 40, 41, 198, 231 22:1718 176
18:19 250 22:17 40, 231
18:2233 69, 210 22:18 14, 149, 198
18:2232 174, 211 22:19 253
18:22 35 22:2024 151, 210
18:33 35 23 184
19 184 23:12 236
19:129 69, 322 23:2 35
19:128 177 23:19 35, 236
19:127 235 24 150, 174, 177, 184,
19:8 16 210, 211
19:1819 52 24:1 70
19:23 150 24:48 35
19:25 16 24:6 70
19:2728 35 24:7 40, 70, 107, 131, 155,
19:3038 177 206, 211, 213, 216,
20 177, 211, 233, 241 231, 285, 322
21:120 322 24:1213, 2627, 31 70
20:117 34, 151, 184 24:35 19
20:1 184 24:3841 35
21:17 151, 236 24:40 70, 322
21:12 177 24:4243 70
21:1, 2, 36 184 24:45 19
21:634 177 24:48 70
21:67, 824 184 24:5960 34, 35
21:821 151, 210, 233 24:60 70
21:820 253 2550 209, 251
21:10 16, 109 25:111 151
21:13 16, 231, 235 25:16 177, 184
21:18 69, 231, 235 25:711 236
21:2234 233 25:710 184
21:2224 211 25:11 177, 184
21:2526 184 25:1220 236
21:27 184, 211 25:18 177
21:2834 184 25:1934 150, 151, 209
21:34 211 25:2134 177
22 177, 184, 210 25:21 232
22:119 17, 233, 322 25:2223 174
22:118 151 25:2428 232
22:114 253 25:26 184, 236
22:1 69 25:2733 209
22:2 25 25:2934 209, 233
22:7, 11 69 26 52, 70, 174, 210
22:1418 34, 35, 174 26:133 177
26:111 241 28:14 156, 210, 231, 235

26:16 16 28:15 35, 210
26:15 17 28:1619 209
26:1 35, 42, 48, 70, 232 28:18 210
26:25 35 28:19 71
26:23 210 28:2022 35, 209, 233
26:36 250 28:21 210
26:35 52, 70, 174, 210, 213, 2934 151
216 2931 150
26:34 48, 155, 156, 157 29:128 177
26:3 131, 155, 206, 231 29:115 232
26:45 34, 35, 235 29:1820 232
26:4 40, 156, 198, 211, 231 29:3035 177
26:5 14, 15, 48, 49, 50, 59, 29:23 19
114, 149, 173 29:24 209, 236
26:710 232 29:28 232
26:1234 151 29:29 209, 236
26:12 71 29:30 232
26:16 232 29:31 209
26:17 232 29:3233 71
26:2325 71, 232 30 177
26:2425 35 30:120 236
26:24 156, 174, 210, 213, 231 30:2324 232
26:25 174, 235 30:24 236
26:2629, 3031 232 30:27 35
26:3435 236 30:29 236
27 150, 151, 209, 232 30:35 314
27:145 177 30:3842 236
27:114 232 31 177
27:10 71 31:116 209
27:1623 232 31:3 35, 210, 232, 250
27:2930 71 31:5 71
27:29 209 31:1113 233
27:3034 232 31:11 322
27:33 71 31:13 35, 210
27:3944 232 31:2123 232
27:40 209 31:24 209
27:41 19, 71 31:29 71, 209
27:46 236 31:3844 209
28 209 31:42 71
28:19 236 31:4653 232
28:1022 17, 177, 236 31:46, 51 209
28:1019 232 31:53 71, 209
28:1122 322 3233 209
28:1113 209 32 177
28:1315 35, 174 32:1 232
28:1314 71, 157 32:233:17 209
28:13 155, 156, 157, 210, 32:23 236, 322
231 32:414 174
Genesis (cont.) 36:43 35

32:712 35 3750 72, 99, 150, 233
32:1013 72, 210 37 151
32:10 19 37:12 236
32:13 19, 231 37:336 177
32:14 232 37:34 232
32:17 314 37:3 233
32:2333 236 37:58 232
32:2332 232 37:911 236
32:23 19 37:1214, 18 232
33 177 37:1925 233
33:111 236 37:28 232, 233
33:1 19, 232 37:2936 233
33:2 19 3845 177
33:4 232 38 210, 232
33:6 19 3950 151
33:1618 232 39:2 72, 232
33:1920 174 39:3 35
33:19 210, 211, 218, 245 39:4 314
34 42, 150, 174, 177, 39:5 35
197, 210, 236 39:720 233
34:2, 3, 5, 7 35 39:8 314
34:9 210 39:2123 232
34:13, 2531 35 39:21 72
34:3031 210 39:22 314
35 151 39:23 35
35:18 174 40 232
35:17 35, 218 40:1, 3, 5 233
35:15 177, 210, 211 40:13 314
35:1 211, 233 40:15 233
35:24 35 41:136 232, 236
35:2 210 41:12, 14 233
35:3 236 41:3757 236
35:4 210 41:3943, 4748, 5354 232
35:5 236 42:57 232
35:68 177 42:7, 924, 2937 233
35:6 35, 236 43:15 233
35:7 233 43:23, 28 72
35:8 35 45:13 233
35:915 236 45:4 232
35:14 177 45:58 236
35:1629 151 45:913 232
35:1622 174, 177 45:1920 50
35:1618 233 45:19 72
35:19 35 45:21, 26, 28 232
35:2122 210 46:15 177
35:2729 236 46:1 72, 232
36 177, 236 46:25 233
46:24 250 1:16 245

46:34 210 1:1, 25 236
46:3 72, 231, 235 1:68 73
46:67 236 1:67 236
46:2834 177 1:6 36, 177, 212, 213,
46:2830 232 232
47:15 177 1:812 177
47:4 22 1:8 212, 213, 232
47:512 236 1:910 235
47:1231 177 1:11 232
47:2728 236 1:12 235
47:30 35 1:1314 236
48 232 1:14 73
48:13 177 1:1522 177
48:37 236 1:1520 233
48:7 35 1:2021 235
48:9 73 1:22 232
48:821 177 234 251
48:1516 35, 73 2:123 177
48:16 40, 231, 322 2:13 232
48:2122 35 2:4 233
48:21 210 2:56 232
49 210 2:610 233
49:1, 2933 236 2:10 232, 235
50:111 177 2:1113 232
50:1213 236 2:1416 73
50:1426 177 2:14, 1522 232
50:17, 20 73 2:17 109
50:2325 130 2:21 235
50:2426 73, 250, 251 2:2325 236
50:2425 210, 252 2:23, 25 73
50:24 35, 102, 105, 130, 317 294
131, 146, 149, 155, 34 136, 195, 200,
156, 206, 208, 250, 253
211, 212, 213, 216, 3:14:18 212
245, 246 3 18, 182, 214
50:2526 218 3:115 182, 201
50:25 211, 245 3:19 151
3:16 177
3:14 172, 232
Exodus 3:1 36, 74, 151, 233,
235, 242
123 208 3:27 74
118 227 3:24 36
115 206, 112, 246 3:2 201, 322
114 199, 230 3:4 42, 151, 201, 233
12 151 3:5 36, 201
1:17:7 55 3:68 36
Exodus (cont.) 4:20 242

3:6 151, 182, 233, 235, 4:2123 48, 75, 242
245 4:2430 75
3:78 235 4:2426 216, 232, 274
3:7 232 4:2731 242
3:8 52, 74, 102, 105, 131, 4:2730 232
156, 157, 179, 195, 4:3031 212
205, 241, 242, 250, 4:31 75, 199, 211, 213, 232,
301, 303, 304, 327, 235
329, 331 5:16:1 172
3:911 74 5 151
3:1015 151 5:13 235
3:10 233 5:12 76, 242
3:1213 74 5:2 149
3:12 52 5:3, 411 76
3:13 182, 236, 245 5:4 236, 242
3:1416 74 5:5 235
3:1517 74, 249 5:623 236
3:15 182, 235, 236, 245 5:1315, 1623 76
3:1617 151, 232 5:20 242
3:16 212, 235 5:21 314
3:17 36, 102, 105, 212, 5:226:1 212
235, 241, 242, 250, 6:1 36, 76, 109
301, 303, 327, 329, 6:212 236
331 6:28 297
3:1820 48, 235 6:25 28
3:18 75, 172 6:6 76
3:1922 36 6:8 76, 302
3:19, 20 75 6:25 236
3:2122 75, 235, 241 711 42, 142, 227
3:27, 31 172 710 195
4 133 7:113 236
4:117 242 7:3 76, 236
4:19 213 7:1411:8 172
4:16 75 7:1410:29 151
4:14 232 7:1424 235
4:1 235 7:1418 177
4:5 235, 245 7:1416 76
4:67 232 7:14 19
4:816 75 7:15 236
4:89 235 7:17 36, 76, 236
4:1016 232 7:1822 236
4:1428 429 7:18, 2021 76
4:14 19, 236 7:21 177
4:15 36, 42 7:2329 76, 177
4:17 75, 236 7:23 19
4:1820 75 7:258:11 235
4:1920 151 7:29 236
8:13 236 10:2829 79

8:411 177 11:18 36, 177
8:45, 6, 79 77 11:14 79
8:10 36, 236 11:13 212
8:11 77, 236 11:1 109, 235, 236
8:1215 236 11:23 235
8:1628 177, 235 11:48 151
8:1617 77 11:46 235
8:1819 236 11:4 236
8:18 48, 55, 77 11:5, 68 79
8:19, 2021 77 11:710 236
8:22 36, 77 12:128 45
8:2325, 2728 77 12:2133 232
9:17 77, 177, 235 12:2127 48, 55, 172, 212
9:412 236 12:2123 79, 177
9:1335 177, 235 12:2427 17, 18, 79, 100, 102,
9:1417 77 120, 122, 133, 141,
9:1416 36, 236 149, 150, 165, 214,
9:14, 16 48, 55 250, 273
9:1826 77 12:2527 116, 155, 235, 246
9:18 36 12:25 59, 135
9:2223 236 12:2939 172, 177
9:24 36 12:2933 151
9:2526 236 12:29, 3032, 3335 80
9:27 77 12:34, 3536 235
9:28, 2930 78 12:36 80
9:29 36, 48, 55 12:3751 151
9:3132 236 12:3738 236
9:3334 78 12:37, 38, 3941 80
9:35 236 12:39 235
10 177, 235 12:4042 236
10:12 42, 48, 55, 78 12:42 48, 55
10:1 19, 36 12:4351 45
10:2 36, 52, 273 1314 132, 141149
10:3, 56 78 13 49, 50, 102
10:6 36 13:119 249
10:710 78 13:116 45, 48, 51, 8182,
10:7 36, 110, 305 102, 150
10:1115 78 13:1 36
10:11 109 13:216 52
10:1213 236 13:316 18, 36, 49, 120, 122,
10:14 36 133136, 140, 149,
10:1617, 18 79 155, 172, 235, 246,
10:1920 236 294
10:2026 79 13:310 17, 55
10:20, 2123 236 13:38 227
10:25 314 13:34 135
10:27 236 13:3 59, 134, 150
Exodus (cont.) 14:1014 235

13:5 105, 131, 133, 134, 14:10 142, 145, 200
135, 156, 206, 208, 14:1112 142
211, 212, 213, 228, 14:12 82
245, 250, 302, 303, 14:1314 36, 82, 131, 142, 145,
327, 331 212, 214
13:316 212, 214 14:13 144, 145, 157
13:310 273 14:14 144, 145
13:67 134 14:1518 142, 200
13:8 135 14:1517 236
13:9 17, 134, 135 14:15 82
13:10 135 14:1920 82, 142, 145
13:1117 55 14:19 107, 145, 163, 218,
13:1116 116, 273 255, 317, 322, 324,
13:1112 134 326
13:11 131, 133, 135, 156, 14:21 82, 142, 200, 236
206, 208, 211, 213, 14:2223 142, 200, 236
245, 302 14:23 82
13:12 17, 134 14:2425 82, 142
13:1416 59 14:24 131, 145, 146
13:14 134, 135, 150 14:25 36, 131, 144, 146, 236
13:15 328, 329 14:2627 82, 236
13:16 17, 134, 135, 150 14:26 142, 200
13:1714:31 146, 148, 199200 14:27 142, 146, 200
13:1722 145, 172, 177 14:2829 236
13:1719 142 14:28 82, 131, 142, 146, 200
13:1718 82, 233 14:2915:1 172
13:17 48, 145, 302 14:29 142, 200
13:18 145 14:3031 36, 131, 212, 214
13:19 82, 145, 146, 149, 211, 14:30 82, 142, 144, 145
218, 245, 251, 252 14:31 83, 142, 143144, 211,
13:20 142, 151, 200, 236 235
13:2122 82, 142, 145, 148, 324 1518 142
13:21 132, 145, 148 15 195
14 131132, 151, 177, 195, 15:119 83
311317 15:16 109
14:118 172 15:19 235
14:14 142, 200 15:2027 177
14:12 236 15:2021 83, 232
14:3 82 15:2218:27 222, 227
14:4 236 15:2227 49
14:530 232 15:2225 116, 213
14:57 142 15:2227 149, 172
14:5 82, 145 15:23 235
14:6 145 15:24 83
14:7 235 15:2526 36, 55, 83, 102, 218,
14:8 142, 145 230, 235, 246, 249,
14:9 142, 200 250
15:25 48 17:15 235

15:26 48, 50, 52, 59, 107, 17:16 48, 55, 235
108, 109, 121, 18 172, 218, 233
124125 18:1 36, 235
15:27 84, 218, 236, 250 18:24 235
16:119:2 151 18:2 36
1618 206 18:6 235
16 49, 121, 149 18:811 36, 235
16:14 172 18:16 16
16:13 236 18:20 16
16:1 223 18:21 235
16:23 84 18:2326 85
16:35 177 18:25 235
16:45 55, 84, 218, 230, 235, 1940 244
246, 250 1934 226, 239
16:618 236 1924 15, 48, 49, 53, 149,
16:1336 177 152, 195, 206, 207,
16:1315 172 212, 226, 237, 239,
16:15 84 240
16:2126 236 19:124:11 11
16:21 172 19:1 222, 223, 236
16:22 55, 84 19:211 237
16:2526, 2730 84 19:23 172, 177, 233, 237,
16:27, 2830 55 239
16:2829 218, 230, 250 19:2 237
16:28 16 19:39 36, 102, 226, 250,
16:2931 235 252
16:3132 84 19:38 48, 55, 8586, 113,
16:31 172 116, 141, 149, 152,
16:3234 55 155, 161, 199, 212,
16:3334 223 235, 237, 243, 249,
16:3536 236 255
16:35 84, 235 19:36 52, 214, 246, 250
1718 177 19:35 240
17 172, 195 19:46 51, 100
17:17 149, 193, 232 19:4 302
17:12 85, 235 19:56 157, 240
17:1 236 19:5 107, 108
17:2 230 19:68 240
17:3, 47 85 19:6 14
17:5 236 19:89 240
17:6 36, 235 19:8 11, 108
17:713 235 19:925 177
17:7 230 19:919 172
17:816 85, 200, 249, 257 19:9 55, 199, 199, 213, 237
17:8, 9 236 19:1013 236
17:1314 36 19:1011 237, 239
17:14 48, 55 19:11, 1213 240
Exodus (cont.) 20:23 36, 48, 55, 87, 237

19:12 239 20:2426 7, 19, 87, 162, 235,
19:1317 237 250
19:1315 239 20:24 302
19:13, 1419 237 21:123:19 237
19:1415 236 21:1 87, 235
19:15 240 21:26 87
19:1617 239 21:6 87
19:16 233, 236, 240 21:13 302
19:1718 236 21:1517 235
19:18 86, 240 21:16 87
19:19 233, 237, 240 21:2122 42
19:2025 86, 240 22:1719 235
2023 11, 18, 45 22:1926 55
20 6, 9, 49, 116, 123, 22:1920 87
215, 249 22:2023:19 172
20:121 233 22:2021 235
20:120 240 22:20 11, 37
20:117 36, 48, 55, 8687, 22:2124 88
111, 223 22:2122 37
20:17 237 22:2324 235
20:1 172 22:2425 37
20:217 52, 53, 227, 241 22:2630 235
20:26 235 22:30 88
20:2 123 22:31 37
20:5 108, 110, 124, 332 23:45 88
20:6 124 23:812 55
20:710 235 23:8 88
20:7 124 23:913 1113
20:910 1112, 237 23:9 37, 88, 235
20:10 6, 124 23:10, 1112 88
20:11 236 23:1219 226
20:1217 237 23:1213 235
20:12 124, 235 23:1333 152
20:17 6, 235 23:1314 37
20:1821 87, 172, 177, 226, 237 23:13 36, 88
20:1819 102, 236 23:1419 12
20:18 237 23:15 36, 37, 88
20:20 36, 237 23:1733 37
20:2123:33 240 23:17, 19 88
20:2126 237 23:2033 6, 1213, 48, 52, 55,
20:2223:33 49, 136, 224, 237 57, 63, 8889,
20:2223:19 252, 254, 318 100112, 120, 141,
20:2223:12 87 145, 149, 152, 155,
20:2224 152 158164, 179, 218,
20:2223 235 224, 225, 237, 246,
20:22 36, 48, 55, 87, 212, 250, 253256, 267,
235, 237 279, 300337
20:2323:19 224 23:2027 161
20:2326 172, 256 23:2026 159
23:2023 162 24:34 102, 240, 252

23:2022 12, 158, 159, 160, 320 24:3 11, 108, 225, 226, 235
23:2021 319 24:48 237
23:20 40, 107, 163, 235, 24:45 239
301305, 316, 325, 24:68 252
326, 333 24:67 235
23:2133 116 24:4 240
23:2122 235 24:7 11, 102, 108, 240
23:21 15, 107108, 162, 24:8 235, 240
235, 320, 324, 333 24:915 151, 172
23:2225 158 24:911 237, 238, 240
23:22 108, 163, 302, 333 24:1215 188, 212
23:2333 102, 256 24:1213 235
23:2325 101, 103, 159, 160 24:12 36, 37, 90, 227
23:2324 12, 101 24:1314 188
23:23 40, 48, 102, 107108, 24:13 233, 235
135, 163, 235, 300, 24:1415 235
302, 316317, 319, 24:1518 226, 240
325, 328331, 333 24:1516 236
23:2433 235 24:18 172, 188, 212, 227,
23:2426 101 235, 236
23:24 108, 302, 325, 332 24:40 90
23:2531 158 2540 223
23:2529 156 25:131:11 236
23:2526 159 2531 223
23:25 12, 108109, 235 25:131:17 27, 45
23:26 1213, 109, 333 29:45 251
23:2733 159 31:1316 12
23:2728 52, 109 31:1834:28 226
23:27 13, 101, 109, 156, 159, 31:18 181, 188, 227, 233
163, 313315 31:19 172
23:2831 159, 325 3234 19, 48, 49, 53, 141,
23:28 13, 101, 102, 109, 300, 145, 152, 195, 212,
317, 327328, 329, 215, 223, 233, 251
331 32 90, 187194, 241
23:2930 13 32:124 172
23:30 109110 32:18 188
23:3133 13, 101, 102, 103, 158, 32:16 177, 188, 193, 233,
159, 160, 161, 305 234
23:31 110, 235, 285, 314 32:26 225
23:32 110, 255, 302 32:4 90, 189, 190, 224,
23:3233 101, 110, 325 225
23:33 110, 255, 302, 32:56 90
305310, 325 32:5 225
24:115 177 32:715 251
24:12 89, 151, 172, 240 32:714 17, 36, 37, 50, 51,
24:1 238 9091, 102, 113, 133,
24:38 18, 52, 89, 149, 152, 155, 188, 212, 246
212, 246, 249 32:713 116
24:35 235 32:710 234
Exodus (cont.) 322, 325, 326,

32:7 19 329331
32:8 18, 225, 234 33:36 36
32:914 211 33:3, 4 218, 255
32:9 6 32:56 234, 235
32:10 41, 234 33:5 212
32:1112 234 33:711 172, 177, 233, 252
32:13 36, 40, 105, 156, 206, 33:9 15, 324
208, 211, 213, 231, 33:11 92, 212
234, 245 33:1223 37, 42, 43
32:14 233, 234 33:1214 234, 235
32:1520 177, 188 33:12 235
32:1519 188 33:1523 92
32:1516 233, 234 33:1517 160, 235
32:15 188, 227, 233, 245 33:16 212, 213
32:1724 188 33:17 212
32:1718 234 33:1820 233
32:19 91, 110, 234 33:21 235
32:2024 91 33:2223 233
32:20 137141, 191193, 33:22 235
227, 234 34 49, 92, 116, 128, 136,
32:2124 233, 236 152, 161, 226
32:24 156 34:1 92, 172, 226, 227,
32:2529 227, 234 235
32:2527 91 34:23 233
32:3035 177 34:45 93
32:3034 91, 113, 188 34:4 172, 226, 227, 235
32:3032, 3335 234 34:528 37, 9394
32:34 36, 37, 40, 107, 163, 34:526 249
218, 223, 233, 234, 34:5 42, 233
255, 317, 319, 320, 34:67 33, 226, 235
322, 325, 326 34:828 234
32:35 91, 188, 233, 234 34:810 235
32:40 91 34:927 37
3334 212, 213 34:9 110, 212
33 91, 102, 197 34:1028 49, 63
33:111 18 34:1027 45, 102, 250, 267
33:16 37, 42, 9192, 151, 34:1026 52, 320
324 34:1016 155
33:13 111, 160, 179, 206, 34:1013 48
246 34:10 157, 212, 213
33:1 42, 155, 156, 172, 181, 34:1127 218, 255, 319
208, 211, 212, 213, 34:1126 218219, 311
231, 234, 235 34:1116 141, 159, 246
33:26 43 34:11 1213, 105, 179, 235,
33:24 235, 319 303, 328331
33:2 40, 105, 107, 109, 34:12 15, 110, 235,
163, 218, 250, 253, 305307, 310, 325
255, 303, 319, 320, 34:13 108
34:1428 235 10:10, 1136 222

34:1426 116 10:1112 236
34:14 108, 226 10:2936 151, 177
34:15 110, 309, 325 10:2932 37, 172
34:17, 1826 226 10:29 304
34:24 6, 48 10:3336 37
34:2728 227 10:33 94, 230
34:27 102, 226 10:3536 230
34:28 172, 226 10:35 94
34:2935 233 1114 151
3540 27, 45, 223, 236 1112 197, 216
11 161, 195, 212, 213,
230
Leviticus 11:112 177
11:16 172
9 236, 251 11:13 37
11:4445 249 11:46 94, 235
1314 157 11:4 37
14:3335 249 11:1016 235
14:34 135 11:1115 206
16 249 11:11 172
1726 63, 252 11:12 37, 94, 156, 208, 211,
1720 15 213
17 911 11:13 172
17:1014, 1826 249 11:14 94
1820 27 11:16 94, 172, 177
18:3 302 11:1624 172
19:23 135 11:1823 37, 235
20:22 302 11:21, 30 94
23:10 135 11:3135 172
25:17 11 11:3134 235
25:2 135 12 152, 195, 212
26 11, 15, 27, 37, 38, 39 12:5 15
26:1 108 12:78 95
26:345 910 12:16 172
26:3 287 1314 38, 64, 235, 251
26:6 27 13:121 236
26:17 38 13:1718 172
26:41 302 13:17, 1820, 2224 177
26:46 16 13:2223 95, 172
13:22 39
13:2526 236
Numbers 13:2629 95
13:2628 172
114 215 13:2731 177
1:110:28 45 13:28 39
1 245 13:29 179, 250, 329
3:11 245 13:3031 172
4 222 13:32 236
Numbers (cont.) 19 45
13:33 39, 172, 177 20 111
14 38, 143, 145, 152, 236 20:121 236
14:1 143 20:1 172, 177
14:24 172 20:3, 5 177
14:3 156, 302 20:89 96, 177
14:610 95 20:11 177
14:89 177 20:12 199
14:8 95, 302 20:1424:25 151
14:9 131, 132, 144 20:1424 172
14:1126 95 20:1421 37, 177
14:1125 18, 212, 230 20:16 96, 107, 163, 255,
14:1124 211 322, 325, 326
14:1123 50 20:20 96
14:11 37, 199, 211, 213 20:2229 30, 236
14:1220 51 21 50, 195
14:12 37, 40, 41 21:132 177
14:14 145 21:13 37
14:1519 37 21:2 314
14:16 156, 211, 213, 302 21:413 172
14:20 37 21:49 37, 96
14:2125 37 21:1218 37
14:22 213 21:14 27
14:2324 172 21:15 37
14:23 156, 206, 208, 211, 21:16, 18, 1935 172
213, 245, 246 21:2135 38
14:24 177, 245, 302 21:2730 37
14:25 172 21:2829 40
14:30 95, 245 21:3235 96
14:31 172, 302 21:3335 52, 267
14:38 95 21:3334 114
14:3945 37, 95, 172, 177, 230 21:34 144, 314
14:4045 37, 38 2224 38, 152
14:40 304 22 6, 29
14:44 52 22:224 177
1517 45 22:2 38
15:2 135 22:6 109
15:18 135, 302 22:819 38
16 151 22:11 109
16:17, 1218 172 22:2235 38
16:1215, 2526 177 22:2234 322
16:25, 2735 172 22:2225 249
16:2734 177 22:25 177
16:2831 37 22:3738 38
18 9, 45 23:130 38
18:2024 95 24:1, 1013, 1824 38
18:20 110, 156 25:15 177
18:23 110 25:1 245
25:3 96 1:1946 215

25:4 38, 42 1:21 144
25:5 42 1:26 108, 143
25:618 236 1:27 314
27:1223 236 1:28 19, 39
27:1213 249 1:2933 132
27:1523 97 1:30 144
27:18 245 1:31 303
2831 45 1:33 145, 148, 303
31:11 155 1:35 156, 211
32 97, 151, 245 1:37 18
32:16 177 1:39 156
32:1 181 1:42 39
32:515 97 2:1012 43
32:11 206, 208, 211, 245, 2:10, 11 39
246 2:13 19
32:1642 177 2:1415 132
32:16 245 2:15 109
32:17 52, 97, 304 2:2021 43
32:2023 97 2:20, 21 39
32:21 38 2:23 43
32:2527 97 2:24 110, 314
32:33, 3942 38, 97 2:25 109
33:89, 3033 97 2:30 110, 314
33:5035:34 62, 98 2:37 108
33:5056 64, 97, 152 3:13 63
33:51 135 3:2 110, 314
34 245 3:3 314
34:12 98 3:8 110
34:2 135 3:11, 13 39
34:1315 98 3:18 245
35 9 3:2129 197
35:10 135 3:21 144, 245
35:1636:13 45 3:22 144
3:24 18
411 281
Deuteronomy 45 215
4:12 273
14 27, 52, 139, 262 4:1 153
1:14:43 262 4:3 108
13 251 4:9 14, 19, 107
1 18, 145 4:1015:5 225
1:1 135 4:11, 16 19
1:7 110 4:19 108, 110, 332
1:8 105, 156, 181, 326 4:23 14
1:10 40 4:25 19
1:11 156 4:26 18
1:17 18 4:28 110
Deuteronomy (cont.) 6:15 110

4:29 19 6:17 12
4:31 156 6:18 18, 156, 326
4:37 323 6:19 156
4:38 40, 41, 302 6:21 18
4:39 19 6:23 156, 302, 326
4:34 18 6:25 135
4:40 18, 109 7 101, 159, 160, 161,
4:4143 10 179, 256, 279, 292,
4:42 16 308, 316, 331
4:4445 135 7:111 12
4:4528:68 251 7:15 106
528 122, 152 7:12 179, 303
526 27, 47 7:1 6, 40, 41, 105, 109,
511 52, 139, 262 135, 292, 302, 329,
5:16:3 240 331
5 49 7:23 255
5:1 135, 237 7:2 18, 110, 325
5:23 273 7:4 18, 110
5:621 227 7:5 108, 325
5:611 237 7:7 314
5:710 226 7:8 14, 18, 156
5:9 108, 110, 332 7:11 12
5:1421 237 7:1226 106
5:14 6, 12 7:12 156
5:15, 16 18 7:1215 13
5:21 6 7:1315 105
5:19 12 7:13 156
5:2227 226 7:1415 109
5:26 19 7:13 12, 40, 109, 131, 134
5:27 108 7:14 12, 332333
5:29 18 7:15 12, 109
5:31 225 7:1619 13
5:32, 33 18 7:16 110, 131, 305307,
67 13 309, 325
6 122 7:17 18, 19
6:23 12 7:19 18
6:2 109 7:2021 13
6:3 18, 156 7:20 109, 292, 317
6:426:16 162 7:22 13, 16, 18, 105, 109,
6:4 153 292
6:56 19 7:2325 13
6:8 135 7:23 109, 110
6:1026 12 7:24 110, 314
6:10 105, 135, 156, 181, 7:25 3068:112, 156
302, 326 8:2 19, 107
6:11 18 8:5 19
6:12 107 8:6 18
6:13 108 8:110 326
8:7 135, 302 10:12 18, 19, 108

8:9 108 10:13 12
8:11 12, 107 10:15 14
8:14, 16 19 10:16 19, 315
8:17 18, 19 10:17 39
8:18 156 10:20 108
8:19 110 10:22 40
8:20 107, 108 11:1 12
8:29 332 11:2 18
910 188, 189, 190194, 11:5 303
208, 241 11:9 156
9:1 40, 41, 153 11:11 39
9:2 39 11:13 19, 40, 108, 109
9:3 18, 110 11:16 19, 108, 110, 332
9:45 14, 19 11:18 19, 135
9:4 18, 302 11:21 156
9:5 156, 181, 326 11:22 18
9:6 315 11:23 41
9:710:11 19, 215 11:24 110, 303
9:7 108, 303 11:25 109
9:89 190 11:26, 28 18
9:9 227 11:28 18
9:10 190, 227 11:29 18, 135, 302
9:1117 190 11:31 135
9:12 18, 19 11:32 12
9:13 6, 315 1226 52, 262, 279, 281,
9:14 40, 41 291
9:15 227 12:126:15 224
9:16 18 12 7, 9, 19, 127
9:1819 190 12:1 12
9:20 107, 190 12:2 110, 303
9:21 137, 190, 191193, 12:3 108, 303
227 12:5 107, 108, 301, 303
9:2224 190 12:10 285
9:22 19 12:11 107, 108, 301, 303
9:23, 24 108 12:13 303
9:2529 190 12:14 107, 108, 303
9:26 18 12:18 107, 303
9:27 18, 190 12:20 135, 156
9:28 156, 211, 302 12:21 107, 301, 303
10:19 190 12:25 18
10:15 225 12:26 303
10:14 227 12:28 18
10:1, 2, 3, 5 30 12:29 135
10:69 190 12:30 108, 110, 306
10:8 30, 227 12:31 110
10:9 156 13:2 110
10:1011 190 13:4 19
10:11 156, 326 13:5 107, 108
Deuteronomy (cont.) 20:16 110

13:6 18, 110 20:17 105, 110, 303, 329
13:13 110 20:18 110
13:17 40 20:20 34
13:18 108, 156 21:10 314
13:19 107 21:14 18
14:2325 303 21:19 303
15:114 11 21:23 18
15:5 107, 108 22:7 18
15:7 19 23:17 303
15:9 19 24:1, 3 314
15:10 18, 19 24:8 157
15:1223 12 25:9 18
15:20 303 26:2 135, 304
16:18 227 26:3 157, 326
16:217 9, 12 26:59 118
16:2, 57, 11, 1516 303 26:5 40, 41
16:19 18 26:8 18
16:22 108 26:9 303304
17:3 108, 110, 332 26:14 108
17:8 18, 303 26:15 157
17:10 303 26:16 19
17:14 135 26:17 18
17:16 145 26:1819 157
17:17 19 2730 281
17:18 127 2728 224, 225, 318
17:20 18, 19 27 27, 115, 262
18:2 156 27:18 10, 50, 172
18:6 303 27:27 6
18:9 135 27:2 135
18:12 18 27:3 157, 211
18:1520 324 27:9 262
18:18 108, 212 27:10 108, 262
18:21 18, 19 2830 262
19:1 135 28 27, 106, 262
19:6 19 28:114 105
19:8 156, 211 28:1 108, 109, 198, 287
19:11 16 28:2 108, 303
19:12 314 28:4 109, 134
19:19 18 28:5 18, 109
20:14 132 28:7 39
20:34 144 28:8 109
20:3 19, 153 28:9 18
20:4 108, 132, 144 28:11 109, 157
20:8 19 28:14 110
6:19 331 28:15 18, 108
20:12 34 28:17 18
20:13 314 28:18 134
28:20 18 31:13 197

28:2122 109 31:1415 172, 212, 213
28:25 39 31:14 30
28:2729 109 31:15 15, 30
28:28 19 31:20 110, 157, 303, 326
28:29 18 31:21 157, 303, 326
28:36 110 31:23 157, 172, 197, 212,
28:45 18, 108 213, 245, 326
28:47 18, 19, 108 31:25 30
28:50 18 31:26 30, 273
28:51 134 31:27 108, 315
28:6263 40 31:29 18, 19
28:62 108 3233 165
28:63 19 32:5 19
28:64 110 32:25 109, 317
28:65, 67 19 32:40 34
28:68 16, 19, 145, 157 32:4452 50
2930 27, 251 32:4445 19
29:1 135 32:44 135
29:3 19 32:46 19
29:6 303 32:4852 30, 262
29:12 157, 181 33 50, 262
29:1718 19 33:2 195
29:18 110 34 139, 213
29:25 108, 332 34:19 236
29:26 18, 110 34:16 151, 177
30 7, 14 34:1 30, 50, 172, 262
30:1 18, 19 34:46 172
30:2 19 34:4 155, 157, 181
30:5 19, 40, 303 34:7 50, 262
30:6 19 34:8 30, 50, 262
30:9 109 34:9 50, 245, 262
30:10 19, 108 34:1012 212
30:11 18 34:10 213
30:14 19 34:11, 12 18
30:17 19, 108, 110, 332 34:14, 15 30
30:19 18
30:20 157, 181
3134 27 Joshua
31 50, 139, 213, 261
31:18 197 112 319
31:1 135 111 251
31:6 144 1 261
31:7 157, 245, 326 1:34 321
31:8 132 1:4 110
31:913 262 1:6 211
31:9 30, 273 1:79 321
31:11 303 1:7, 8 18
Joshua (cont.) 13:13 105

1:12 245 14:615 211
1:14 39 14:6 245
1:18 108 14:12, 15 39
2 185 15:13, 14 39
2:1 245 15:63 105
2:5 18 16:10 105
2:9 109, 317 17:1113, 1418 105
2:24 314 17:15 39
34 224 17:16 285
3:1 245 18:16 39
3:10 105, 303, 329 21:4344 211
4:12 245 21:44 314
5 121 22 245
5:6 211 22:2 108
5:1012 121 22:5 18, 19
6:2 39, 314 23 251, 255
7 185 23:15, 1116 255
7:8 109, 315 23:9 40
7:12 315 23:13 110, 305306, 325
8:1 144, 314 24 141, 155, 161, 163,
8:7 314 185, 211, 242, 251
8:3 39 24:8 303, 314
8:18 314 24:11 105, 314, 329, 330
8:34 18 24:12 109, 317
9 110 24:18 109
9:1 105, 329 24:25 110
9:6, 7, 11, 15, 16 110 24:32 146, 149, 211, 218,
10 143, 311317 245, 251
10:2 39
10:4 144
10:7 39 Judges
10:8 144, 314
10:10 109 1:12:1 151
10:19 314 1 254, 318
10:25 144 1:2 314
10:30, 32 314 1:20 39
10:42 144 2:15 107, 218, 224, 225,
11:3 105, 329 253256, 317326
11:6 144 2:1 285, 303, 324, 326
11:8 314 2:2 107, 110, 320, 325
11:1622 321 2:3 109, 110, 305307,
11:21, 22 39 309, 321
12:18 321 2:69 251
12:4 39 2:8 213
12:8 105, 329 2:9 251
13:16 321 2:10 213
13:67 19 2:14 314
13:12 39 2:203:6 321
2:2728 105 12:18 143

312 151 14:10, 12, 37 314
3:35 179 16:113 232
3:5 105, 329 16:8 314
3:10, 28 314 17:1231 232
4 143, 311317 17:47 314
4:7, 14 314 20:21 314
4:15 109 21:9 314
4:18 144 22:23 144
5:5 195 22:41 315
5:23 322 23:4, 14 314
6 322 23:17 177
6:2 314 24:5, 11, 23 314
6:11 24 28 151
6:1516, 21 232 28:9 306
7:2, 7, 9, 1416 314 28:29 314
8:3, 15 314 30:23 314
8:27 110, 305306 31 151
9:5 24
9:29 314
11:19 304 2 Samuel
11:30, 32 314
12:3 314 5:3 110
13 322 5:19 314
13:1 314 7:5 232
13:2, 7, 21 232 7:10 304
15:1213, 18 314 7:12 232
16:2 145 920 185
16:2324 314 9:120:22 150, 151
17:1 24 13:28 144
18:10 304, 314 18:9 285
18:30 24 22:15 109
20:28 314 24 322
1 Samuel 1 Kings
5:9, 11 109 12 150, 151, 185

7 143, 311317 8:29 108
7:213 200 5:41 285
7:8 145 9:20 105, 329
7:10 109 9:25 29
914 151 11:12 179
9:4 285 11:38 108
10:10 314 12 188, 189190, 241
11:1 110 12:21 190
12 155 12:2632 189, 193
12:4 108 12:2627 140
12:8 304 12:28 189, 190, 224, 225
1 Kings (cont.) 18:30 314

12:30 139 19:10 314
12:3132 190 19:35 322
12:32 225 21:11, 16 110
13:3 314 2223 5, 7, 45, 127
13:18 322 22:8 127
13:34 108, 139, 189 23:4, 6 139, 140
14:16 110, 139 23:1112 192
14:22 139 23:12 108, 139, 140
15:3 139 23:14 108
15:13 140 23:15 110, 139
15:18 314 23:20 108
15:26, 30, 34 110, 139 25 242, 245, 246
16:2, 13, 19, 26 110, 139 25:2730 116
18:9 314 25:30 241
19:19 224
20:13 314
20:34 110 1 Chronicles
21:14 314
21:22 110 19 222
22:6, 12, 15 314 24 223
22:53 110 5:20 314
31:2 139 5:2741 222
14:10 314
15:1, 3 301302
2 Kings 17:9 304
19:11 314
1 322 21 322
3:3 110, 139 22:18 314
3:10, 13, 18 314
6:16 144
10:20, 31 110 2 Chronicles
11:4 110
11:18 139, 140 3:1 301302
13:2, 6, 11 110, 139 8:7 329
13:20 285 13:16 314
14:24 110, 139 15:6 109
15:9, 18, 24, 28 110, 139 16:8 314
17:14 199, 211 18:5, 11, 14 314
17:16 224 20 145
17:720 268 20:15 143, 144
17:20 314 20:17 132, 144
17:2123 189, 190 25:20 314
17:21 110 28:5, 9 314
17:22 139 29:6 315
18:3 108 29:10 110
18:4 108, 139, 140 32:7 144
18:12 243 32:8 132
18:25 304 32:21 322
33:8 108 18:15 109

33:16 301 18:41 315
34:7 139 34:8 322
34:16 314 35:56 322
35:20 301 38:13 306
36:17 314 43:3 302
48:9 107
68:9, 18 195
Ezra 78 130
78:54 302
910 211 78:61 314
9:1 179, 329 83:5 108
9:7, 24 314 87:5 107
10:3 110 91:11 322
10:30 314 103:20 322
106:36 110
106:41 314
Nehemiah 124:7 306
141:9 306
1:56 297 144:6 109
4:8, 14 144 148:2 322
9:2 211
9:67 297
9:12, 19 148 Proverbs
9:23 303
10:31 211 6:2 306
13:23 211 7:2425 153
13:26 110
Ecclesiastes (Qohelet)
Esther
5:5 110
9:67 297 9:12 306
9:24 109
Isaiah
Job
112 121122
4:18 322 7 143, 145
9:24 314 7:4 144, 145
31:1 110 8:15 306
33:23 322 22:21 314
28:13 306
36:15 314
Psalms 37:36 322
41:89 182
9:17 306 42:17 174
10:14 314 49:6 174
10:36 305 51:12 182
Isaiah (cont.) 32:34 314

52:1353:12 174 32:616 265
56:7 302 32:23 108
61:6 199 32:2444 265
63:9 323 32:2425, 28 314
32:32 180
32:33 315
Jeremiah 32:35 110
32:43 314
1:7 108 33:26 180
2:46 180 34:23 314
2:7 303 34:822 265
2:2028 271 34:13 285
3:613 265 34:2021 314
3:14 303 35:119 265
7:18:3 265 35:15 180
7:117 199 37:17 314
7:37, 12 304 38:3, 16, 1819 314
7:14 180, 304 39:1518 265
7:20 304 39:17 314
7:2223 180 43:3 314
7:26 315 44 265
8:14 193 44:30 314
9:14 193 45 265
11:15 265 46:24, 26 314
11:7 180 47:4546 40
11:914 265 50:24 306
16:1415 180
17:23 315
18:112 265, 286 Lamentations
19:15 315
20:45 314 2:7 314
21:110 265
21:10 314
22:15 265 Ezekiel
22:25 314
23:8 303 7:21 314
23:15 193 11:1 302
23:31 314 8:7, 14, 16 302
25:111 265 16:39 314
25:5 180 20 199
26:24 314 20:56 180, 182
27 265 20:15, 28 180, 303
27:6 314 20:42 180
29:123 265 21:35 301
29:21 314 21:36 314
30:3 180 23:9, 28 314
30:2425 314 30:9 322
32:12 265 31:11 314
34:13 303 Micah

34:28 27
36:28 180 1:1 40
37:21 303 1:7 139
37:2526 180
39:2 303
39:23 314 Nahum
39:26 27
40:2 303 1:3 33
40:17, 28, 35, 48 302
41:1 302
43:5 302 Zephaniah
44:4 302
44:5 108 1:1 40
46:19 302
Zechariah
Daniel
16 322
1:2 314 1:1117 323
6:45 297 11:8 108
9:10 314
11:11 314
Malachi
Hosea 3:15 323
1:1 40
12 322
12:13 324

(OS 067) Ausloos - The Deuteronomist's History - The Role of Deuteronomist in Historical-Critical Research Into Genesis-Numbers 2015 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

(OS 067) Ausloos - The Deuteronomist's History - The Role of Deuteronomist in Historical-Critical Research Into Genesis-Numbers 2015 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Deuteronomists History

P. van Hecke (Leuven)

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ots

The Deuteronomists History

Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

1 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers: Origin and Evolution

2 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers since the Beginning

3 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers: A Unique

4 The Deuteronom(ist)ic Problem since the Second Half of the

5 The Deuteronom(ist)ic ProblemA Review and a Preview258

3 Old Testament Textual Criticism and the Deuteronomist299

In 1943, Martin Noth observed in his work berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien:

1 M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichts-

occupied by the book of Deuteronomy within the Pentateuch on account of

Deuteronomist can easily be turned on its head: a text is probably dependent

AASF Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae

CRB Cahiers de la Revue Biblique

KHCAT Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament

TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung

Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers:

This opening chapter sketches a picture of what occasioned and contrib

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 5|doi .63/9789004307049_002

Old Testament. Such a sketch would be impossible, however, without provid

1 A Critical Approach to the Old Testament: Early Initiatives

It is sufficiently well known that problems relating to the Pentateuchs his

2 The Fragmentary Hypothesis and the Emergence of the

explaining the presence of so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic material in the proto

13 W.M.L. de Wette, Dissertatio critico-exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi

compared texts from Deuteronomy with related texts from GenesisNumbers

worthy of note that the question of specifically Deuteronom(ist)ic language

of the language of Jeremiah.24 Bleek thus ascribed Lev. 17 to the Deuterono

of Leviticusthere can be little doubt nonetheless that he pioneered the con

occurs often in Deuteronomy.30 In addition, it is striking that the precepts that

1. Exod. 23:2022 Deut. 6:102633

35 Exod 23:26b is not recapitulated in Deuteronomy. The author of Deuteronomy probably

research into the presence of alleged Deuteronom(ist)ic language in the first

3 The Deuteronomist and the Supplementary Hypothesis

In contrast to the Fragmentary Hypothesis, which saw the Pentateuch as a col

he alludes to the divine name in Gen. 15 as deuteronomisch.44

later labelled Deuteronom(ist)ic by other scholars.53 Knobels conviction

A completely unique version of the Supplementary Hypothesis was devised

4 John William Colenso and the Deuteronomist

The one-hundred and fiftieth anniversary of John William Colensos appoint

For the occasionwhich it was hoped would include the cancelation of

book of Deuteronomy. Furthermore, Colenso was in fact the first to introduce

4.1 Colenso and the Origin of the Pentateuch

inaccuracy he had encountered in the books of Exodus and Numbers. As such,

on the unhistorical character of GenesisDeuteronomy provided an effective

The importance of the first volume of Colensos The Pentateuch cannot be

a younger Elohist.83 However, Colensos opinion differs from that of Hupfeld

83 Cf. Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis.

Colensos hypothesis concerning the origins of the Pentateuch as it crystal

E1 11001060 (during the time of) Samuel

93 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 4344.

passages. On the contrary: Colenso remained a support of the Grundschrift to

4.2 Colensos Deuteronomist

96 In the seventh volume Colenso no longer refers to the Jehovist.

Deuteronomist, who had not only supplemented GenesisNumbers but had

Deuteronomy. The said Deuteronom(ist)ic additions, which were written in

110 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 53.

In what follows we provide an exhaustive overview of all (parts of) verses

4.3 Overview of the Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers

Gen. 2:49, 16, 18*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,

Gen. 3:13, 6, 1114*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,

Gen. 22:1, 7, 11* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,

Gen. 24:1, 6 Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,

Gen. 27:10, 2930, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 404.