Discuss the origins of the book of Deuteronomy and evaluate its main theological themes

We possess hardly any reliable criteria for dating pentateuchal literature. Every dating of the pentateuchal "sources" rests on purely hypothetical assumptions which only have any standing through the consensus of scholars.'1 In view of these words, presented by Wenham (1985) in his article on the dating of Deuteronomy, we approach the question of the origins of Deuteronomy with two clear problems. Firstly, we must at least concede that much of our dating is highly speculative, and secondly we have to recognize that much scholarship has been invested on the basis of these rather vulnerable hypotheses. Whilst fixing a particular perspective allows for more interesting and apparently revealing study built on its foundations, the volume and scope of such scholarship does not guarantee the stability of those same foundations. Wenham again points out the academic investment in a late dating of Deuteronomy proposed by Wellhausen in the prologomena is the starting point in much modern scholarship for dating and therefore interpreting the entire Pentateuch. Such leverage for one question is not necessarily conducive to the reopening of a debate.

Apparent Origin
At first sight Deuteronomy presents the reader with a series of speeches on the plains of Moab given by Moses to the people of Israel. They been rescued by God from slavery in Egypt, had wandered in the desert, and their time of wandering was now finished (1:3): it was time to enter the promised land (3:3) and Moses is preparing them for their existence there on the basis of what has gone before. The words he preaches come in the form of a covenant renewal, as 29:1 indicates: the terms of the covenant the Lord commanded...in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb . As far as the origins of the whole of Deuteronomy are concerned, in as much as they encompass the death of Moses and a striking similarity in ch 31 to the opening of Joshua it could not have been entirely written by Moses.

History of Scholarship
De Wette Recent critical scholarship about the origins of Deuteronomy usually makes reference to WML de Wette s 1805 dissertation which planted the idea that the book of the law found by Josiah in 2 Kgs 22-23 refers to Deuteronomy. He reached this R. Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), p. 169.

and indeed a classification of worship and theology along similar lines. A number of points might be noted in objection to this however: firstly the idea of the nation of Israel on the plains of Moab as a racially uniform community does not account for the description of a mixed multitude in Numbers. and thus a late 7th Century dating of Dt. the behaviour even of the sons of Abraham. deeming them to be contemporaneous as a result of their stylistic parallels. . Isaac and Jacob. All talk of covenants. Since the sanctuaries and high places had been tolerated in the history of Israel before Josiah. even leaving the issue of Israel ethnic constitution aside. an example of legislature that would seem to be promoting centralized worship. a description which groups Deuteronomy with Joshua. Nevertheless. again. This move in scholarship. as Wenham. and. we would expect the need for a covenantal relationship with YHWH to explain their unity. that Moses gave no idea of God to his people . were this group to have been ethnically non-homogenous as indicated by Numbers. Certainly there is some explanatory power in a late dating: Deut 12:5-25 emphasises the distance from the main sanctuary as grounds for permission to slaughter meant nonsacrificially which could be read as a measure to prevent the decentralization of worship. Wellhausen s opinions were backed by other evidence also: He thought the Mosaic period was at best germinal in the history of Israelite religious thought. even if the book of the law were Deuteronomy.conclusion on the basis of its deuteronomic style. must therefore be a later development of religious thought. that connected Dt with the late 7th century BC has lead to a general designation of texts as pre or post deuteronomic. meaning that Dt. and 1 & 2 Kings. he concluded. 2 Kings 22:8 can be dated to 621 BC. Wellhausen Julius Wellhausen further developed De Wette s ideas in the late 19th century and with him a general assumption of Dt s origin in Josiah s reform. 1 & 2 Samuel. the match between Josiah s reform and the content of Dt does not in itself does not necessitate Dt s composition at the time. lending credence to the account in 2 Kings. De Wette supposed that the appearance of Dt at the time of Josiah with its commands in chapter 12 to designate a single place of worship would explain this sudden change of tack. has taken hold. some scholars assert. whatever their genetic ties. It is also worth noting. This in turn drove him to look for later date when the ideas expressed in Dt could actually have been combined. Judges. Furthermore he posited that a covenant would not be necessary with a people who are only descendants of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. that Deut 27:4-8. Indeed. with its strong covenant theme must be of later origin. giving further weight to a late dating of Deuteronomy. Moreover. that the instructions for the altar at Mount Ebal show that Dt is not uniquely centralising in its themes. Deut 14:22-27 mentions converting tithe produce into money at home in order to be able to convert it back again at the temple. specifically his desire for the centralization of the cult are closely connected with this text. as their relationship with Yahweh would have been natural . In De Wette s theory the reforms of Josiah. Archaeological studies have since found a propensity of goddess figurines in the 7th Century in Israel.

p. The lack of mention of Jerusalem which might be at odds with its positioning at the heart of Josiah s reforms could be accounted for in this way. However if we step back for a moment from the Josianic milieu and contemplate the original situation described in which Moses has the challenge of expounding (1:5) the law that had already been given at Mt. It is not merely a timeless theological construct. Von Rad also pointed to hints a northern provenance before its appearance in the reforms. When he added to this the levitical influence over the king mentioned in ch. Similarly. a sealing of covenant. for example a time well after its imperial hey day when it was impoverished by Assyrian taxes.but equally one could understand it as a natural. One could compare ex 20:24 and Deut 12:5 and see a tighter control on the altar as evidence of a later priestly influence . In particular he pointed to the highly stylized curses in Deut 27 which appear within an already quite prescriptive liturgical instruction. His Sitz im Leben (History of Form) perspective analysed the patterns in the text in order to detect its origins. and this is how the covenant is regularly presented. the status of Moses over the people of Israel. Thus he could adduce evidence for a late dating as follows: Dt 3:18 gives indication of all Israel having to fight: this led to the supposition that Dt must be from a time where Israel no longer had a standing army. his role in developing the priesthood and the law would quite reasonably qualify him to apply the law of Sinai with the authority that he does. law. the variance of material. Furthermore. this must reflect a cultic ceremony in which God s law was recited by the clergy. as exemplified amongst the families of the patriarchs. and the authority with which they apply it suggested to him a period late in Israel s development. understands the need for a covenant with God. we have evidence of a well developed theology in Israel from the earliest days of the Patriarchs. One should also note that the Covenant is built on an event the deliverance of God from slavery in Egypt. p. Von Rad could not contemplate such interpretative behaviour anywhere near the original events described. 17. Of 2 3 Von Rad. Sinai in the context of new circumstances and challenges.2 He also identified a variety of genres a combination of sermon.fails to demonstrate natural unity. if Craigie is write about the dating of the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15. The apostatical nature of man in general.3 Moreover. but has its origin in concrete space and time in the history of the people of Israel. specifically the entry into the land. it makes sense that if the covenant was to mean anything in the History of Israel it would need to re-applied to new situations as they arose.25 Von Rad. Von Rad Gerhard von Rad brought a new approach to the analysis of Dt s origins.23 . whatever the nature of the community in which they live. which indicate that Dt. specific application to worship taking shape with the new challenges of being in the land. he concluded that Dt had its setting in the cult.

to the idea of a tetrateuch. giving the theological basis of that which follows and the dating of Dt with the later books of deuternomic History. 4 Instead he suggested that the covenant form should lead us to conclude its authors were a literary circle familiar with treaty writing. Weinfeld Von Rad s thesis was deemed to be less than ideal fit by Moshe Weinfeld. as Noth. He identified Von Rad s allusions to an association with a national military movement as an awkward attempt to explain national political content in Dt that issued from the cultic background he had given it. In the process its composition was affected in good part by Josiah s reforms. surely depend on the very assumption that Deuteronomy is a late book.25 . we can we see cultic abberrances in Josiah s predecessors directly corrected here the extravagances of King Solomon. could they not just as easily evidence a deliberate reference in the 7th Century to an older style that was closely associated with a particular theological view that the writers felt needed to be brought to bear on the history of Israel? Opinions such as those of Weinfeld: Style such as we have is not to be found in any of the historical and prophetical traditions before the 7th Century B. prophetic justification.C. 430 BC and 4 Christensen. p. the widespread worship at the high places but the root of such criticism could as easily come from a 600 year old code profoundly connected with the National History and identity as it could from a specially contrived Josianic revision of earlier Israelite law designed to justify Davidic rule over the north. and legal reforms that would support his efforts to reunite all Israel and Judah under his rule. Von Rad posited a Northern influence that preceeded the final Southern redaction. Thus Marvin Sweeney analyses Dt as Josiah's efforts to provide an ideologically charged history.course it could also be accounted for by crediting the alleged redactor with the good sense not to insert such an anachronism in an account relating to Moses. As discussed above. But could the similiarity not come from a respect for that earlier time? As a parallel we could note the deuternomic language in Ne 9:6-37 and Daniel 9:4-19. Whilst they could lead. for example the court scribes. followed by Deuteronomy. Sweeney The development above has lead much current scholarship to an understanding of the Hebrew Bible s composition as being led by an attempt to come to terms theologically with the exile. Origins of Pentateuch It seems the useful work done on the origins of the Pentateuch as a whole makes the jump from an identification of similarity to a conclusion of contemporaneousness too easy. In any case. The parallels of the deuteronomistic style are the stereotyped phrases with reference to the imminent entry to the promised land and the need to keep the commands of Yahweh and the repetitive sermonic style.

The consequences of such close parallels have led some to date Dt alongside the Hittite civilization from which they emerge.56 7 The Vassal is obligated to perpetual gratitude to the great king because of the benevolence. the legal language of Dt parallels Mesopotamian legal literature rather than Assyrian. 6 5 .520 BC respectively. he argues. Mendenhall (1954) identifies the suzerainty treaties of the Hittites. 534-535.11 Specific stipulations ( with provision for deposit in the temple and periodic public reading ) 12 27:8 List of gods as witnesses 29-30 Curses and blessings 27:9 28:68 This schema can be variously mapped to the structure of Deuteronomy: the differences in application are relatively minor. He also notes that it is the only civilization of that time or before that we have adequate source material for study 5. They are binding only upon the vassal. consideration. as Wenham points out. Secondly.26 9 A F. Furthermore. Assyrian treaties tend not to have a Historical prologue in this case a vital component to the structure of the work. Nevertheless. Korosec in Mendenhall 8 Christensen. Mendenhall. and favor which he has already received. In particular Weinfeld identifies the curses from Mount Ebal in 27 as being transposed directly from Esarhaddon s vassal treaties8 which lends force to the argument that the treaty model used is not the ancient Hittite one. pp. Campbell. stemming from a considerably later date. However a similar formula can also be found in Assyrian treaties. Biblica 50 (1969). p. These treaties establish a relationship of mutual support 6. and that dating is from a conservative point of view. 'An Historical Prologue in a Seventh-Century Treaty'. should persuade us of its wider use. Nevertheless its status as an international form. Treaty parallels A final piece of evidence in the dating of Deuteronomy can be found in the parallels with the formulae of Ancient Treaties.C. p. Their typical structure could be outlined as follows: Preamble 1:1-4 Historical prologue (I-thou) 7 1:5-4:44 General stipulations 5 . 1450 . but rather a neo-Assyrian one.53 ibid. whilst the King by nature of his position is disposed to protect his subjects. as contemporaneous with the beginnings of the people of Israel. Campbell notes that in all Assyrian treaties that we have there is only one with such a prologue9. there are objections that need to be dealt with: Firstly.1200 B. which gives evidence for the preservation of a particular style over a coupel of centuries at least. p. I have included one such schema above. which again should lead us to reach any conclusions with caution.

If the authors have harnessed parallels with one internationally recognized form in order to underline the distinctive differences of Israel to the nations around them (and Dt is replete with references indicating how the covenantal relationship with God differentiates them from all other nations) then we will struggle to discern what in Dt stems from the original formula in the author s mind. The idea that the powers that be in Josiah s time projected their justifications onto a scroll that modified the original covenant is by no means necessarily more convincing than a simpler understanding of the events of the reform. and what he has deliberately added. namely that they represented a genuine turning back to the law that had long been established but forgotten. Law. not only of genres but also of themes. and it seems that this argument is not given the weight it deserves in some of the scholarship. the authors are applying the formula in a very new way. War. Universal Witness and The Good Life to mention the principal one. a pattern that is repeated across the OT narrative. the same logic could be applied to the parallels with neo Assyrian forms. rather than a contemporaneous beginning. his relationship with his people. there may simply have been significant continuity in such formula throughout Ancient times. However in . whatever the parallels. the parallels between Dt and the treaty form only serve to underline the distinctiveness of Israel s situation. Conclusion to Origins In conclusion to the question of the origins of Dt we should say that both the coincidence with the language and actions of Josiah s reforms and the comparisons with the treaty formula do not give a definite answer. 17) since he will be considered equal with the brotherhood. a tendency which one could expect to be accompanied by rturn to the linguistic patterns of that same law. It would appear the scarcity of viable comparisons when it comes to the treaty form also undermine the strength of its argument as a means of dating the book. History and Future. Choice. It would not seem unreasonable then to conclude that Dt was at least written for its declared purpose. the nature of Dt as a suzerainty treaty not with a mortal King but a heavenly one immediately sets it apart the traditions mentioned. Furthermore. the character of God. When read as such. to express YHWH s programme for settling in the land rather than representing an anachronistic re-presentation of an earlier version of the law designed to justify a far later political or theological movement. is the King of Israel and this will be true even when Israel has its own earthly King (ch. This radical contrast demonstrates that. not a man. Themes Covenant as model Dt embraces a wide range. subtracted or adjusted in order to mark the distinctiveness of Israel over against the nations from whom that formula has been taken. God. So whilst some scholars argue from this idea that any similarities between Dt and 2nd millennium documents can be attributed simply to a long and old tradition.as Wenham again points out. It would not be entirely surprising for an international formulation such as these treaties to maintain its structure and usage over centuries.

Let us begin. This historical perspective is reinforced by repeated reference to the promises of God to the patriarchs (7:12. There is often a very clear either or . Such an approach might be inclined to over emphasize thematically certain elements such as ch. It is based upon deliverance in the past (5:6 is the obvious example note the parallels between past deliverance and future promises of deliverance). this is a useful paradigm if we are to treat the work as a unified whole. with Deuteronomy as Covenant. hear of God s requirements and commit themselves to him as his people. was actually spoken to the current generation who have their today in which they need to hear of God s faithfulness.order to understand the themes of Dt. This applied nature to the representation of the covenant is accompanied by a closer historical perspective. it may be helpful to view the entire work as a representation of a Covenant. Moses is given a mandate to apply this law in a new way. The earlier delivery of the covenant and law at Horeb is evidently in the mind of the authors it is mentioned on various occasions. In this sense Deuteronomy is presented simple as logical outworking of the nature of the covenant. 10:22. it is 10 The curses are precisely the reverse of the fulfillment of the promise. and requires ongoing commitment from God s people. which will change the way that the people of God live. its exclusivity is prized (hence the manifold references to idolatry and the destruction of the heathen). a series of blessing/curse prosperity/destruction parallels that underline the need for a clear and deliberate choice on the part of the people listening. Evidently such an approach immediately reveals that I do not intend to project the late dating onto the work in order to filter its themes. Thus the blessings and curses mirror one another ( compare 6:11 and 28:39) and all this is concentrated in the exhortation of 30:11-20 to choose life and prosperity over death and destruction . The Covenant is characterized by several further emphases. For example. The covenant is ongoing. cf 28:6210). This emphasis on the today an ever repeating moment of choice in the life of the community is reinforced by the binary nature of much the text. therefore. and so Dt is presented quite deliberately (29:1) as an addition to that covenant. Whilst there are naturally sections that may fit more neatly into a different schema. . It seems right to pay particular attention to those parts of Dt that represent a modification of the law in Exodus. namely the prospect of existence in the land. but not necessarily as a deliberate manipulation for the purposes of such an agenda. 5:3 posits that it is in the very nature of the covenant that it is renewed in every generation: what was said originally to the generation that have now died. the earlier Decalogue had justified the command to keep the Sabbath on the basis of creation. since there is a new situation to face (12:8 not as we do here today ). and to understand each theme in relation to this central motif. Furthermore. 12 since they can be seen to fit into the agenda of the reform of worship. alongside an obvious awareness of the history of the people of Israel there is a sense of constant renewal. Furthermore it differs in its presentation from the book of the covenant in Exodus in as much as it is more obviously a sermon of Moses rather than a simple transference of the words of God (1:5 expound ). Now Moses justifies it on the basis of the deliverance from Egypt.

its vocabulary and structure ensure that relationship.7 (note the if in contrast to the stipulations for prophet and judge) whose appointment sounds more like a concession than a command. God is present (1:30). he is a revealer and therefore makes himself known to his people and teaches them (8:3). even intimate relationship to their God. As for the relationship of the people to God. and indeed 29:15 indicates that this covenant will continue to extend beyond the generations that are not represented in Moab. as well as by reference to the character of God (10:17 who shows no partiality and accepts not bribes ). Relationship Although Dt is replete with laws. a relationship of love from God.characterized by mercy (e. Wholeheartedness characterizes the nature of many of the commands 13:3. 5:9-10 mercy outweighs judgment or 9:4 where Israel s sin does not present an obstacle to it) and works conditionally (the blessings of the living in the land are contingent on obedience to the law). Indeed the whole law is couched within the terms of relationship because of the language of covenant. he is near . 15. This overarching theme will now provide the back drop to the subthemes to be discussed. We have already mentioned the idea of the today in Dt. even the King in ch. the Levites. underlining that.g. The democratic nature of the relationship between each person and God extends to the law as well. as evidence by the repeated provision for the personae miserabiles. Each one is to die for his own sin (24:16). Ch. Nevertheless it holds such an approach in tension with a highly pragmatic approach at times. There is a distinct democracy in the relationship of the people to each other before God. namely between God and his people. Whilst God s approach faithfulness. He speaks to his people and hears his people. 6:4 and 10:12 for example and again bring a relational aspect to the legal code. Finally it is a relationship that demands wholeheartedness and repeated commitment. with a focus on virtue11. It has a strong moral basis to it. has primacy over law.g. is not to consider himself any better than his brothers. in contrast to the nations. It has strong undercurrent of human justice running through it. it faithfulness on the part of the people. hence the repeated refrain of the purging of evil (e. but it is appropriate to expand upon it in the context of the relationship between God and his people. even in the midst of law-giving (23:5). It is a Father son relationship (1:31 and 8:5 a father s discipline). But as for you says 4:20. as equal brothers in the people of God are to have their share. even of jealousy on God s part. the jubilee instructions are a good example of Words such as hardhearted or tightfisted are certainly the domain of consequentialist law making 11 . God is sovereign and therefore provides. They (29:12) are to enter into this covenant themselves they are not part of simply by birth. 17:12. His love is the basis of a relationship of mutual love (7:7). Law In the context of the strong relational element to the covenant we can now look appropriately at the Legal code in Dt. the people of Israel have close. 21:21).

there will always be poor people in the land . The law is seen as a reflection of God it is because of God s nature that the law is as it is. Its pragmatism is also evident in the references to its use as a deterrent (17:13. In this context the prescription of Deut 12 seems a logical development in the worship of Israel and indeed a practical solution to avoiding the problems of fragmentation in worship practices that could easily be foreseen. direct responsibility to God. Stability and continuity. Further to the identification of the law and the covenant it can be said that the law is a universal witness to the covenant. 2. Fear the Lord your God. Clearly the law is envisaging a very concrete outworking of the command not to steal. We read there should not be any poor among you if there is a poor man among you . keeping his decrees writes the author: that is. However none of the above can separate the law from the covenant. Within this framework of tension therefore we see a law that is both personal and political an important tension if Israel is to deal with the challenges of living in the land. the keeping of the law is an expression of the people s respect for their God. and yet making provision for disadvantaged in the community. Mendenhall12 describes the above as a tension of : 1. their laws are to reflect their identity. examples in 23:24 the prescriptions for the gathering of another s grain. will be materially enabling in the promised land. New challenges are faced as the nation of Israel expects to expand and also to come into contact with other nations and other gods in a way that it has not had to so far. For example. A theme that pervades Dt is the sense of universal scope that the Covenant is to have. calling the nations to rejoice 12 Mendenhall p. the injunction against usury so that the Lord your God may bless you embraces both supernatural blessing. Furthermore it has an evident consequentialist aspect. a testimony to his character. The code itself.76 . if observed. and the song of Moses underlines God s sovereignty over all. The experience of the past as the foundation of obligation. highly pragmatic. Similarly its observance is inextricably linked to the nation s relation to God. but also the evident advantages of community equality safeguarded by the outlawing of extortion. A similar definition of pragmatism can be applied to much of the references to worship. 10:14 refers to the full ownership of the world by God. freedom and self determination.this. Since Israel is bound to him by the covenant. but it may equally be a material consequence as well. Emphasis on either to the exclusion of the other has its risks: the first may lead to chaos and the second to stagnation or even the violent maintenance of the status quo. We can see further. 10:19 and 16:! Refer to the love for the alien. 21:21 all Israel will be afraid). reducing the actions of God to readily communicable and controlable system with the establishment of authority to hold in check the unpredictable tendencies of undisciplined humanity. 4:32 asks from one end of the heavens to the other . vs. We might read 11:8 strength as coming from God as a consequence of obedience. for the people of Israel were aliens. Thus we have the ideal and real side by side.

Similar strategies. ch. The emphasis on the past is also a logical consequence of the psychological understanding of the community that Deuteronomy presents. the prescriptions for reading the law in 31 and the song in 32. being a people holy to the Lord . defined as a witness against them . its moment of choice.. The onlookers are to behold the people of Israel and astounded at their God and their law are to ask. God s faithfulness prevailed over Israel s unfaithfulness. it makes sense that Moses sermon should focus on methods of remembrance. The beginning of their fulfillment is a token of the fulfillment that is to come. as we have noted. yet it has its roots in a very concrete time and space. The righteous decrees and laws of a wise and understanding people are not only for their benefit. Indeed in 11:2 the people are called to remember that their children will not automatically remember (!) and therefore to implement strategies for continued recounting of the past in future generations. Obedience in the land has consequences not only for those listening but to their children s children (6:2). but on a national and political rather than family level are in evidence in the liturgical instructions for the firstfruits declaration in chapter 26. This will be critical if the nature of the covenant is such that each generation will have its today. The stories of the past are also marshaled to demonstrate to the people their character 1:27 recalls their lack of trust and grumbling in the desert. The injunctions to remember in chapters 6 and 11 cover very practical methods for ensuring that the past is not forgotten in any generation but is preserved. In the context of a people whose record shows that they are prone to forget. With this in mind we can understand 4:6. The Covenant is to be timeless. Past and future Finally we shall the books treatment of the Past and the Future as a key characteristic of the covenant it seeks to present. so the future legacy of the people of the covenant is in view. but they are a testimony from God to himself. an approach justified simply by the Israel s past record at that point. the pronouncement of the curses in chapter 27. The historical prologue may fit into a particular treaty formulation but this does not deprive it of its very obvious role in the theology of Dt. and . namely that it presents the past actions of God in relation to his people as a guarantee of his future faithfulness and an encouragement to their future obedience. The victories of war against Sihon and Og are to encourage the Israelites in their understanding of the gradual fulfillment of the promises to the Patriarch to inherit the land. The future perspective is informed by the nature of the covenant. As far as the book s perspective on the future is concerned again it reflects a concrete application of the law in view of the previous behavioural patterns of the people. it seems is the fuller meaning of Israel in 14:1. since it will testify to God s actions in the past and so leave the people without the excuse of ignorance should they disobey in the future. There are more words devoted to the eventualities of disobedience rather than obedience. and. As the covenant is relevant for subsequent generations. What kind of nation ? What kind of God .with God s people. the people are to conclude.? . 9 recalls the incident of the Golden Calf. In both cases these recollections re establish the nature of the Covenant as a covenant of mercy. and this. There is provision made for a king. it will continue to do so.

Wenham added.3 (April 1985): 15-20. Weinfeld.html The Book of Deuteronomy. Philadelphia 1966 Deuteronomy Old Testament Guides. George E. P. the conclusion of how we understand the themes of Deuteronomy stems from what we make of the origins of the book. The influence of Deuteronomy's ideas and language is so pervasive in the Old Testament that it makes a tremendous difference to our evaluation of the development of Israelite theology whether we ascribe the book to the Mosaic or Josianic eras. 1805 Deuteronomy. Oxford Scholarship Online. Part One.biblicalstudies. 1976 . http://www. Craigie. The Authors are aware of the need to demonstrate how this law is to be preserved if it is to have any effect in maintaining the covenant which to which it refers. Oxford University Press. further back from from our theory of religion.there is the prediction of rebeillion in Chapter 31. Themelios 10. Marvin A. but they also represent a natural and logical progression from the Decalogue in the book of the law in Exodus that is in keeping with the new circumstances in which the people found themselves. 12:32). 18 (to ensure his orthodoxy) and the duplication by the King of the law. New York: Oxford University Press. R. the testing of the prophet in ch. These measures demonstrate a canonical awareness on the part of the authors.org/stable/3209151 A Song of power and the power of song: essays on the book of Deuteronomy * Duane L. 1993 The Date of Deuteronomy: Linch-pin of Old Testament Criticism.The Lost Messiah of Israel. Sheffield 1989 Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch (Desmond / Baker) pp181-196 Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic school. then. . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bibliography Dissertatio critico-exegitca.org/ebooks/4732 Sweeney. Clements. M. Thus it mentions the placing of the tablets in the ark of the covenant. Julius Wellhausen http://www. Gordon Wenham. makes sense of the canonical provision inherent in the text. and indeed. To read across the text or behind the text and attempt to construct a thematic schema on the basis of the hypothesis of a late dating has not been the aim of this essay. 12 October 2010 Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.org.g. WML de Wette.gutenberg. It has however hopefully shown that the broad scope of the themes that the text presents to us if we are to accept it as a whole are not only reconcilable with the real problems faced by the people in the plains of Moab as they considered their entry into the land. All of this. Gerhard von Rad.jstor. C. E. the injunctions not to add or take away from the law (e. Conclusion As Craigie points out. Christensen EISENBRAUNS. 2001. Mendenhall 1954 http://www. King Josiah of Judah . Oxford 1972 Prolegomena 1880.uk/article_deut1_wenham.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful