This material is excerpted from Daniel I. Block and Richard L. Schultz, eds.

, Sepher Torath Mosheh:

Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2017).
Copying or distribution is prohibited.
 Sepher Torath Mosheh: Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of
Deuteronomy
© 2017 by Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC
P. O. Box 3473
Peabody, Massachusetts 01961-3473
ISBN 978-1-68307-066-5
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by
any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publisher.
Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International
Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by per-
mission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com. The “NIV”
and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent
and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™
Scripture quotations marked (NRSV) are taken from the New Revised Standard Version
of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National
Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, and are used by
permission.
Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are taken from the Holy Bible, English Standard
Version (ESV®), copyright © 2001, by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News
Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (NASB) are taken from the New American Standard
Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by
The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. (www.lockman.org)
Scripture quotations marked RSV are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the
Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by
permission., All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked NJPS are reproduced from the Tanakh: The Holy Scrip-
tures. Copyright 1985 by The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia.
Scripture quotations marked CEB are taken from the Common English Bible®, CEB®
Copyright © 2010, 2011 by Common English Bible.™ Used by permission. All rights
reserved worldwide.
Cover Art: Shraga Weil, “Phoenix I–Out of the Past.” Used by permission of the Safrai
Fine Art Gallery, Jerusalem.
Cover Design: Karol Bailey

Printed in the United States of America

First Printing—December 2017

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

A catalog record for this title is available from the Library of Congress.
Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC ISBN 978-1-68307-066-5

This material is excerpted from Daniel I. Block and Richard L. Schultz, eds., Sepher Torath Mosheh:
Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2017).
Copying or distribution is prohibited.
 Contents

Editors’ Preface and Acknowledgments ix

Contributors xiii
Abbreviations xv
Introduction 1
Daniel I. Block

1. Deuteronomy: A History of Interpretation and

Evangelical Responses 7
Peter T. Vogt

2. Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Traditions and Their Implications

for Interpreting Deuteronomy 30
Neal A. Huddleston

3. Challenges to the Use of Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Forms

for Dating and Interpreting Deuteronomy 78
K. Lawson Younger Jr. and Neal A. Huddleston

4. Josiah and the Composition of Deuteronomy 110

Michael A. Grisanti

5. The Book of Deuteronomy: Pseudepigraphy, Pseudonymity, or

Something Else Altogether? 139
Bill T. Arnold

6. Slaves and Rebels: Inscription, Identity, and Time in the

Rhetoric of Deuteronomy 161
Brent A. Strawn

7. Literary and Other Observations on Passages Dealing with

Foreigners in the Book of Deuteronomy: The Command
to Love the gēr Read in Context 192
Markus Zehnder

This material is excerpted from Daniel I. Block and Richard L. Schultz, eds., Sepher Torath Mosheh:
Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2017).
Copying or distribution is prohibited.
 viii Sepher Torath Mosheh

8. The Cult in Deuteronomy and Its Relationship to the Book of

the Covenant and the Holiness Code 232
Richard E. Averbeck

9. Wisdom and Torah in Deuteronomy 261

J. Gordon McConville

10. When a Prophet Quotes Moses: On the Relationship between

the Book of Hosea and Deuteronomy 277
Carsten Vang

11. The Archaeology of Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim and

Why It Matters 304
Sandra L. Richter

12. Hearing Galatians with Moses: An Examination of Paul as a

Second and Seconding Moses 338
Daniel I. Block

13. Concluding Reflections 375

Richard L. Schultz

Bibliography 379
Index of Modern Authors 419
Index of Ancient Sources 427

This material is excerpted from Daniel I. Block and Richard L. Schultz, eds., Sepher Torath Mosheh:
Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2017).
Copying or distribution is prohibited.
 CHA PT ER 5

The Book of Deuteronomy:

Pseudepigraphy, Pseudonymity,
or Something Else Altogether?
Bill T. Arnold

The book of Deuteronomy has been called the Archimedean point of

pentateuchal research.1 The metaphor is derived from Archimedes’ alleged
saying that, if he had a fulcrum and a lever long enough, he could move
the earth. Thus, an Archimedean point is an objective point of reference
from which a truer picture of something is obtainable.2 Most scholars who
use the metaphor are affirming the critical assessment of Deuteronomy
as a book generally fixed to 622 BCE, which provides the reference point
for a relative chronology for other sources of the Pentateuch. And yet it
seems that the metaphor is relevant to our discussions more broadly. Our
interpretation of this book has implications far beyond a simple chrono-
logical arrangement of pentateuchal sources. This book, like no other in
the Old Testament’s Primary History, presents us with a convergence of
issues demanding our attention, requiring us to answer questions of com-
position, date, and methodology. Once we have done the hard work of

1 
Eissfeldt appears to have been the first to use the metaphor. He accepted de
Wette’s theory that the book was written not long before its discovery in 622 BCE,
which establishes the precise time of origin of Deuteronomy and therefore a fixed
point by which the age of the other component parts of the Pentateuch could be
determined. “De Wette’s thesis thus provided Pentateuchal criticism with ‘a point
of Archimedes’ to which it could attach itself in order to deliver it from the bonds
of church and synagogue tradition, and put in its place an alternative dating of the
Pentateuch and its parts” (Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans.
Peter R. Ackroyd [New York: Harper & Row, 1965], 171). Others have followed;
e.g., Eckart Otto, “Das Deuteronomium als archimedischer Punkt der Pentateuch-
kritik: Auf dem Wege zu einer Neubegründung der de Wette’schen Hypothese,”
in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans, ed.
M. Vervenne and J. Lust, BETL 133 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 321–40; and Moshe
Weinfeld, “Deuteronomy, Book of,” ABD 2:168–83, esp. 174–75.
2 
Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2008), 21–22.
This material is excerpted from Daniel I. Block and Richard L. Schultz, eds., Sepher Torath Mosheh:
Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2017).
Copying or distribution is prohibited.
 140 Sepher Torath Mosheh

answering these questions, Deuteronomy provides a point of reference

for discerning a truer picture of the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic His-
tory, and, indeed, biblical theology more generally. Our answers to the
many questions on Deuteronomy bring into clearer focus almost all other
questions related to the Torah and its interpretation, truly serving as an
Archimedean point for biblical studies.
The following anecdote is unexceptional, but it illustrates the role of
Deuteronomy in our field, and interestingly has significance for the his-
tory of Old Testament interpretation itself.
Some years ago, a young student walked into a classroom where the
topic was Old Testament Introduction. The instructor was a well-known
and respected scholar. One day in the course, the student heard that Deu-
teronomy was not entirely authored by Moses, even though the book
seems to present itself as authored by him. Instead, the student learned
that Deuteronomy was first composed centuries after Moses, perhaps six
or seven centuries later, and that it addressed circumstances well defined
for that much later historical context. Having come from an orthodox Lu-
theran family, the student was unsettled by the lecture precisely because,
as he would say later, he found it compelling and persuasive. And so the
student went to the professor’s office later that day during his regular
office hours. In their conversation about the class, the subject of Deuter-
onomy’s origins came up naturally.
“So then, is Deuteronomy what we might call a forgery?” the student asked.

“For heaven’s sake!” the professor replied. “That might be true, but one
would never say such a thing!”

That brief conversation left an impact on the student. He remarked

many years later that it seemed disingenuous for the professor to hesitate
to say something he believed to be true. In fact, his teacher’s words, “For
heaven’s sake,” stayed with the man throughout his life. And, as he would
say in his declining years, this conversation became something of a defin-
ing moment for him. It took place sometime in the early 1870s, and the
young student became the renowned Friedrich Delitzsch, for whom his
teacher’s words “Um Gottes willen” would become an epigraph for his
final work, Die grosse Täuschung.3 Of course, Delitzsch went on to achieve

This version of the encounter with his professor follows closely Delitzsch’s
3 

own recounting of the conversation and its significance for him personally (Fried-
rich Delitzsch, Die grosse Täuschung [Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1921],
5–6). Delitzsch does not give the name of the celebrated professor, but it seems
likely to have been Eberhard Schrader in Berlin. On the other hand, he may have
taken Old Testament Introduction even earlier, in Leipzig, with his own father,
Franz Delitzsch.
This material is excerpted from Daniel I. Block and Richard L. Schultz, eds., Sepher Torath Mosheh:
Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2017).
Copying or distribution is prohibited.
 The Book of Deuteronomy: Pseudepigraphy, Pseudonymity, or Something Else? 141

international fame as one of the fathers of modern Assyriology and the

author of the “Babel und Bibel” lectures.4 Sadly, in his last publication
Delitzsch came to reject the Old Testament altogether, calling it com-
pletely unnecessary for Christian faith.5
With this crucial role of Deuteronomy in mind, I return in this study
to my previous proposal to take Deuteronomy as the ipsissima vox of
Moses rather than as his ipsissima verba. I will first explore the opening
paragraph of the book (1:1–5) and its significance for the vox approach,
especially in order to address the question of inspiration as a relevant
factor. The paper will then briefly clarify the way in which Michael Fish-
bane’s method informs such a vox approach. This is followed by a dis-
cussion of the bankrupt terminology used in biblical studies to describe
Deuteronomy, and, finally, by a few concluding remarks.

The Vox Approach and the Nature

of Divine Inspiration

Deuteronomy’s first line throws us into the deep end of the pool:
“These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel” (Deut 1:1). In Exodus–
Numbers, Moses’ role is defined as the lawgiver, summoned by YHWH to
serve as a mouthpiece for divine proclamation (Exod 19:3, 7, 25; 25:1–2a;
Lev 1:1; passim). In such cases, God speaks through Moses (Exod 20:1).6
By contrast, Deuteronomy’s opening line signals that the book presents
the words of Moses rather than the “words of YHWH” through Moses. To a
degree, Moses’ function remains the same, since he is speaking to the Isra-
elites “according to all that YHWH commanded him” (1:3). The narrator
of Deut 1:1–5 explains that what follows is a confirmation and implemen-
tation of the Torah, since Moses undertook “to put this Torah into effect”

4 
And an advocate of so-called “Pan-Babylonianism”—see Bill T. Arnold and
David B. Weisberg, “A Centennial Review of Friedrich Delitzsch’s ‘Babel und Bibel’
Lectures,” JBL 121 (2002): 441–57.
5 
“Das sogenannte ‘Alte Testament’ ist für die christliche Kirche und damit
auch für die christliche Familie vollkommen entbehrlich” (Delitzsch, Die grosse
Täuschung, 97).
6 
At times, God speaks to Moses and tells him what to say to the Israelites, al-
though we are not shown Moses speaking (Lev 1:1–2a; 4:1–2a; 11:1–2a; 12:1–2a;
etc.). So ‘mosaicity’ involves a set of nuancing ideas in the Pentateuch: Moses as
author, Moses as auditor, Moses as actor, Moses as speaker, etc. (Lawson G. Stone,
personal communication). Additionally, we might note that Moses’ role of speak-
ing the word of YHWH to Pharaoh foreshadows his role of speaking before all
Israel (Exod 3:10; 5:1; 7:1, 2; passim).
This material is excerpted from Daniel I. Block and Richard L. Schultz, eds., Sepher Torath Mosheh:
Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2017).
Copying or distribution is prohibited.
 142 Sepher Torath Mosheh

(‫ באר‬i, D-stem, Deut 1:5).7 Moses the lawgiver has become Moses the
first enforcer of the law; he functions here as the first Torah promulgator
by formally putting the law into effect.8 And related to the nuance of the
verb is the debate that continues to confound scholars on the deictic refer-
ent of ‫ּתֹורה ַהּזֹאת‬
ָ ‫ ַה‬, “this Torah,” which seems to have a disproportionate
significance in the scholarship, considering the otherwise simple gram-
matical issues involved. On the one hand, “this Torah” may be anaphoric,
referring back to Num 36:13 (and thus also to Lev 26:46 and 27:34), and
therefore having in view the law revealed at Mount Sinai. In this case, the
verb ‫ באר‬means simply to expound or interpret that law. At Sinai the law
was introduced and proclaimed; here it is interpreted and explained.9 On
the other hand, “this Torah” may be cataphoric or anticipatory, referring
forward to what follows in Deut 4:44 (and thus to Deut 5–26), and there-
fore having in view the law to be confirmed at Moab and put into full
legal force at Mount Ebal (Deut 27:1–8). This yields the meaning of Deut
27:8 as “write upon the stones all the words of this Torah, thus correctly
putting them in force.”10 Thus Deuteronomy relates to the Torah either as

On the specific nuance of ‫ באר‬i in Deut 1:5 (and cf. 27:8) as either “to
7 

expound” or “to give legal force to [this Torah],” and the implications of the de-
bate discussed in this paragraph, see Joachim Schaper, “The ‘Publication’ of Legal
Texts in Ancient Judah,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding
Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 225–36, esp. 225–31. See now also Benja-
min Kilchör, who rejects the “give legal force” interpretation (Benjamin Kilchör,
Mosetora und Jahwetora: Das Verhältnis von Deuteronomium 12–26 zu Exodus, Levi-
tikus und Numeri, BZABR 21 [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015], 4).
8 
Some would say that Moses was the first law interpreter or exegete, as Israel’s
“first scribe”; see Eckart Otto, “Mose, der erste Schriftgelehrte: Deuteronomium
1,5 in der Fabel des Pentateuch,” in L’Écrit et L’Esprit: Études d’histoire du texte et
de théologie biblique en hommage à Adrian Schenker, ed. Dieter Böhler, Innocent
Himbaza, and Philippe Hugo, OBO 214 (Fribourg and Göttingen: Academic Press
and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 273–84. For a different interpretation, see
Georg Braulik and Norbert Lohfink, “Deuteronomium 1,5 ‫באר את־התורה הזאת‬: ‘er
verlieh dieser Tora Rechtskraft,’ ” in Textarbeit: Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezep-
tion aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels: Festschrift für Peter Weimar zur
Vollendung seines 60. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen,
ed. Klaus Kiesow and Thomas Meurer, AOAT 294 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2003),
34–51; repr. in Norbert Lohfink, Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomis-
tischen Literatur, 5, SBAB 38 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 233–41.
9 
So Jean Louis Ska, “La structure du Pentateuque dans sa forme canonique,”
ZAW 113 (2001): 331–52, esp. 351, where Ska compares Deuteronomy to com-
mentary on a text. See also Otto, “Mose, der erste Schriftgelehrte.”
10 
Braulik and Lohfink, “Deuteronomium 1,5,” esp. 240. Perhaps it is also
suggestive that ‫ּתֹורה ַהּזֹאת‬
ָ ‫ה‬, ַ “this Torah,” occurs only once in the Tetrateuch in a
completely non-paradigmatic way (Num 5:30), but 18 times in Deuteronomy (1:5;
4:8; 17:18, 19; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58, 61; 29:20, 28[ET 21, 29]; 30:10; 31:9, 11, 12,
24, 26; 32:46).
This material is excerpted from Daniel I. Block and Richard L. Schultz, eds., Sepher Torath Mosheh:
Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2017).
Copying or distribution is prohibited.