Deut Weinfeld ABD

G. Deuteronomy—The Archimedean Point of the History of the Pentateuchal Literature

The Greek appellation of the book, to deuteronomion (hence Latin Deuteronomium), as well as the Hebrew appellation, Mishneh Torah (Sipre, section 160 based on Deut 17:18; Josh 8:32), means “repeated law” or “second law” and alludes to the fact that Deuteronomy is a (revised) repetition of the large part of the law and history of the Tetrateuch (the first four books), cf. Nahmanides to Deut 1:1 and Ibn Ezra to Deut 1:5. Although the words mšnh htwrh hz˒t in Deut 17:18 may mean “a copy of this Torah” (see commentaries) and thus may be rightly considered of secondary nature, it is also true that Deuteronomy constitutes a second covenant besides the Sinaitic one (28:69). Although all the laws were delivered to Moses at Sinai, the people in fact received them only at the plains of Moab and a covenant, besides the one concluded at Sinai (28:69), was established there.

Deuteronomy indeed draws upon the previous traditions of the Pentateuch, but was revised according to the principles of the Hezekianic-Josianic reforms. Thus, for example, the laws of tithe, of šĕmiṭṭah (the year of the release of debts, 15:1–11) and the rules of the release of slaves (15:12–19), of the firstborn animal (15:19–23), and of the three festivals (16:1–17) are all ancient laws (Exod 21:1–11; 22:28–29; 23:10–11, 14–19; 34:19–26). They appear however in Deuteronomy in a new form, adjusted to the principles of centralization of cult as well as to the social-humane tendency which is characteristic of Deuteronomy.

There was thus an awareness of this book being secondary. A similar categorization of stabilized canonic tradition versus secondary, later-added tradition is found in Mesopotamia. There we find the term šanû (“second”/“another”) for literary sacred material distinct from the original canonic one (Rochberg-Halton 1984). An Akkadian term which overlaps šanû is aḫû (“external”) (140–44), an expression which equals late Hebrew ḥiṣôn for which one is to explain the expression sĕparı̂m ḥiṣonı̂m, “extraneous books,” which defines noncanonical literature (m. Sanh. 10:1). In the Qumran literature, we find the term seper hattôrâ hašenît referring apparently to a noncanonical Torah (4Q177:14), 67–68 in Allegro 1968). Similar thematic appellations are found for the other books of the Pentateuch: Genesis (= Creation); Exodus (= exit from Egypt); Leviticus (= priestly laws, cf. Hebrew tôrāt kôhanı̂m, “priestly laws”); Numbers (= the census of the Israelites, cf. Hebrew ḥômeš hapĕludı̂m, “one-fifth [of the Pentateuch] concerning census” [m. Yoma 7:1; m. Soṭa 7:7]).

Alongside the Hebrew name Mishne-Torah (Deuteronomium), the prevalent name for the book was Dĕbārim (“the Words”). This was taken from the incipit of the Hebrew book, as was the case with the names of the other books of the Pentateuch: Bĕrēšı̂t, “In the beginning,” for Genesis; Šĕmôt, “The Names,” for Exodus; Wayyiqā˒, “He called,” for Leviticus; and Bĕmidbar, “In the Desert,” for Numbers. The system for naming a literary creation after its incipit is very ancient; compare the Babylonian creation epic named after its opening: enuma eliš, “when above,” and the so-called creation “Righteous Sufferer,” the ancient title of which was ludlul bēl nemēqi, “I praise the lord of wisdom,” after the opening words of the work.

Deuteronomy is presented as a farewell speech delivered by Moses shortly before his death. The form of the “testament” given to the book looks peculiar but has possible antecedents in the Egyptian method of diffusing moral teaching. Most of the Egyptian wisdom instructions were dressed in the form of testaments of kings and viziers to their successors.

This technique may have exerted its influence on Israel’s literature, especially since there exist affinities between Deuteronomy and the didactic Wisdom Literature (see L. below). Indeed the book of Deuteronomy is a kind of manual for the future kings of Israel (17:14–23), written by scribes just as were the instructions for the Egyptian kings as well as those for the Mesopotamian ones. As will be shown below, the valedictory speeches in the Deuteronomic corpus are linked to a ceremony of succession bound by covenant, a ceremony attested in the neo-Assyrian Empire in the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon (= VTE). This concept of covenantal succession is reflected in the Greek rendering of biblical bĕrı̂t, diathēke or “testament.” It seems that the basic sense underlying diathēke in the LXX is “imposed obligation” which is semantically true for the Hebrew bĕrı̂t. It is hard to decide whether the valedictory speeches were modeled on the ethical wills of the Egyptian type or rather belong to the covenantal scene of royal succession of the Assyrian type.

At any rate Deuteronomy adopted the form of speech as a literary device for the dissemination of its message. The practice of ascribing religious-ethical valedictories to leaders and kings was also used by the editors of the Israelite historiography who were influenced by the book of Deuteronomy. Thus the Deuteronomic writers end the period of the Conquest with a farewell speech of Joshua (chap. 23), the period of the judges concludes with a valedictory speech of Samuel (1 Samuel 12), and the description of David’s life in the Deuteronomic edition ends with a religious-ethical will of David (1 Kgs 2:3–4; Weinfeld 1972a: 10–14). Besides the valedictory speeches, the Deuteronomic school ascribed to the national leaders speeches of prophetic nature, liturgical orations, and military addresses (Weinfeld 1972a: 10–14).

A similar literary method is found in Greek historiography. Numerous speeches are cited in the works of Herodotus and Thucydides, supposedly delivered by national heroes. Thucydides himself declares that it was his habit to make the speeches say what, in his opinion, was demanded by them by the various occasions (i. 22.1) (Weinfeld 1972a: 51–53).

Expressing ideology by means of programmatic speeches put into the mouths of leaders and great personalities continued in Israelite historiography of the Second Temple period. Thus the Chronicles put into the mouth of King Abijah, the son of Rehoboam, a speech that emphasizes the eternity of the Davidic dynasty and the sole legitimacy of the Jerusalemite temple (2 Chr 13:4–12). This was done in order to show that the objection of the northern kingdom to the Davidic Kingdom and to the Jerusalemite temple is a rebellion against God.

The same system is found in the apocryphal literature. Two speeches are ascribed to Judith, the heroine, before acting against the enemy. The first speech (8:11–27) comes to implant faith and confidence in her action by citing the tests to which God put Israel in the past, while the second (9:2–14), which is a prayer, invokes the greatness of the God of Israel and his deeds in the past. Similarly, we find in the farewell speech of Mattathias, the Hasmonean, an enumeration of the faithful ancestors and their keeping God’s covenant (1 Macc 2:48–67). This system of programmatic speeches can be traced down to the speeches of Peter and Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles (2:14–16; 7:2–53). These speeches survey Israel’s past (Weinfeld fc.) and thus serve a didactic purpose.

The change of leadership in the ANE was accompanied by a pledge of loyalty on behalf of the people. The so-called vassal treaties of Esarhaddon (= VTE) which have so much in common with Deuteronomy are none other than fealty oaths imposed by the retiring king on his vassals concerning his successor (Assurbanipal). The covenant in the land of Moab, which is concluded at the time when Moses nominates Joshua as his successor (Deut 3:23–29; 31:1–8), resembles then formally the situation found in VTE. The difference is only that the contents of the Mosaic covenant are divine law and the sworn pledge refers to God whereas VTE is concerned with stipulations of a political nature, referring to the human suzerain. Formally, however, the two documents are of similar nature. Especially striking is the covenantal scene in VTE and in Deuteronomy. Both scenes have the entire population gathered: young and old (Deut 29:9–11, cf. 2 Kgs 23:1–3, and VTE 4–5; for the Assyrian covenantal ceremony, see Weinfeld 1976: 392–93). In both scenes the gathered take the pledge not only for themselves but also for the future generations (Deut 29:14, VTE 6–7, cf. Sefire treaty I A 1–5 [Fitzmyer 1967: 12–13]).

In fact, even before the discovery of the Esarhaddon treaties the particular formal structure of the book of Deuteronomy had been recognized. G. von Rad (1958: 1–78) inquired into the significance of the peculiar structure of Deuteronomy: history (chaps. 1–11), laws (chaps. 12:1–26:15), mutual obligations (26:16–19), and blessings and curses (chaps. 27–28) suggested that the structure reflects the procedure of a formal cultic ceremony. According to von Rad, this ceremony opened with a recital of history, proceeded with the proclamation of law, accompanied by a pledge, and ended with blessings and curses. Since according to Deuteronomy 27 the blessings and curses have to be recited between Mts. Gerizim and Ebal, von Rad identified Shechem as the scene of periodic covenant renewal in ancient Israel (Joshua 24). Although no real evidence for a covenant festival has been discovered so far, the observation made by von Rad that the literary structure of Deuteronomy reflects a covenantal procedure has been confirmed by subsequent investigations. It has become clear that the covenant form as presented in Deuteronomy was in use for centuries in the ANE. G. Mendenhall in 1954 (66–87) found that the Hittite suzerainty treaties have a structure identical with that of the biblical covenant. The basic elements are: titulary; historical introduction, which served as motivation for the vassal’s loyalty; stipulations of the treaty; a list of divine witnesses; blessings and curses; recital of the covenant and deposit of its tablets.

However, the treaties of Esarhaddon (dated 672 b.c.e.), discovered in 1956, provided new material and a better understanding of the Deuteronomic covenant. It transpires now that like VTE, Deuteronomy is not a covenant between two parties but a loyalty oath imposed by the sovereign on his vassal. The demands of loyalty are expressed in Deuteronomy and in the VTE in identical terms. “Love” stands in both sources for loyalty and the subjects in both documents are commanded “to love” their suzerain “with all the heart and all the soul” (Deut 6:5; Weinfeld 1976: 384–85). The standard terms for being loyal to the sovereign in both documents are: “to go after” (= “to follow”), “to fear,” and “to hearken to the voice of.”

Furthermore, even in the contents there is identity between the Assyrian oath and that of Deuteronomy. The whole series of curses in Deut 28:23–35 is paralleled in VTE lines 419–30 and even the order of curses is the same in both documents. While the order of the curses, as for example, leprosy and blindness in the Assyrian treaties, can be explained in that the order follows the hierarchy of the gods Sin and Šamaš who are associated each with a specific curse (leprosy and blindness respectively), the order of the same curses in Deuteronomy cannot be explained, which shows that the curses originated in the Mesopotamian tradition (Weinfeld 1972a: 116–26). Indeed it has been suggested that the Deuteronomic covenant was a substitution for the Judean loyalty oath to the king of Assyria (the time of Manasseh) and hence the identity in the curses (Frankena 1965).

After the discovery of VTE, it became clear that a distinction should be made between a covenant between two equal parties and an oath of loyalty imposed by the suzerain on his vassals. The latter corresponds to the form of Deuteronomy, which is a loyalty oath imposed by God on his vassal, Israel. Such loyalty oaths were prevalent from the days of the Hittite Empire in the 15th–14th centuries through the Assyrian Empire down to the Roman Empire (Weinfeld 1976: 381–83). The Hittites included in their oath a historical introduction in which the benevolence of the suzerain toward the vassal was stressed, which came to justify their demands for loyalty. A similar element is found in Deuteronomy, which has a long historical introduction (chaps. 1–11), an element not attested in the usual Assyrian treaties. It seems that the Assyrian emperor who saw himself as king of the universe felt that it would be both unnecessary and humiliating to justify his demand of loyalty by referring to the benevolence of the suzerain to the vassal in the manner of the Hittite kings. This assumption may also explain the lack of the blessings in the Assyrian treaties on the one hand and the long list of curses on the other. The Hittites felt it necessary not only to justify their demands for loyalty but also to give promises of help in time of danger, as well as to bestow divine blessings for loyal service. The Assyrians neither gave promises to the vassal nor bestowed blessings but, on the contrary, increased and expanded the list of threats and curses in order to terrorize him.

The arrogance of the Assyrian king may also explain the lack of any sign of affection of the sovereign to his vassal. In the Hittite treaties and in the Israelite covenant (Weinfeld 1972a: 69), along with the demand of “love” (loyalty) on the part of the vassal come expressions of affection from the side of the sovereign. The Assyrian king, however, demands scrupulous “love” (= loyalty) from the vassals but no sign of affection on the king’ side. In this matter of affection, Deuteronomy follows the Hittite line and not the Assyrian one.

Another parallel feature between the Assyrian oath of loyalty and the one of Deuteronomy is the theme of self-condemnation in connection with the violation of the oath. The end of Deuteronomy 29 reads: “And the generations to come . . . will ask: ‘Why did YHWH do thus to this land?’ and they will say: ‘Because they forsook the covenant of YHWH’” (vv 21–24). The same motif is found in the neo-Assyrian texts concerning the breach of the oath. Thus the annals of Assurbanipal state: “the people of Arabia asked one another saying: ‘Why is it that such evil has befallen Arabia?’ and they say ‘Because we did not observe the obligation sworn to the god of Ashur’” (IX, 68–72 in Streck 1916: 78–79; for an additional example see Weinfeld 1972a: 115).

The pattern which served a political need in the ANE came to serve a religious need in Israel. The religious use of this pattern was especially possible in Israel because the religion of Israel was the only religion that demanded exclusive loyalty to the God of Israel, a jealous God, who would suffer no rival. The religion of Israel therefore precluded the possibility of dual or multiple loyalties, such as were permitted in other religions where the believer was found in diverse relationships to many gods. So the stipulation in political treaties demanding exclusive loyalty to one king corresponds strikingly to the religious belief in one single, exclusive deity.

The idea of the kingship of God seems also to have contributed to the concept of Israel as the vassal of YHWH, the King. It is true that the idea of the kingship of God was prevalent all over the ANE (Frankfort 1948). There was, nevertheless, an important difference between the Israelite notion of divine kingship and the corresponding idea in other nations. Israel adopted the idea of the kingship of God a long time before establishing the human institution of kingship. As a result, for hundreds of years the only kingship recognized and institutionalized in Israel was the kingship of God. According to Israelite tradition (Crüsemann 1978 and Weinfeld 1981) during the period of the judges, YHWH was actually the King of Israel (Judg 8:23; 1 Sam 8:7; 10:19).

Because of the concept of the kingship of God, the relations between the people and their God had to be patterned after the conventional model of relations between a king and his subjects, a written treaty. It is no wonder, then, that the pattern of the vassal treaty found a permanent place in the Israelite religion; nor is it a coincidence that this treaty pattern was adopted in its entirety precisely by the book of Deuteronomy. The pattern of a state treaty based on the demand for exclusive allegiance is well suited to a book in which the concept of the unity of God reaches the apogee of expression. Nicholson’s skepticism about the ANE parallel to the covenant of God with Israel (1986) is based on a misunderstanding. The covenant of God with Israel is not to be paralleled to political pacts between states in the ANE but is to be compared with the loyalty oaths of vassals to their suzerains, as indicated above.

In spite of its apparent formal unity, the book is not a homogeneous piece of work. It has two introductions (1:1–4:40; 4:44–11:32), two different kinds of blessings and curses (27:11–13 with 28:3–6, 16–19, and the curses in the rest of chap. 28 [see below]). In addition we find appendixes of various kinds: the Song of Moses (32:1–33) and the Blessing of Moses (chap. 33) which are old poems ascribed to Moses and appended to the book by the editor of Deuteronomy. Similar appendixes were added by the Deuteronomic historiographer to the stories about David in the books of Samuel. The Song of David (2 Samuel 22) and his last prophetic blessing (2 Sam 23:1–7) were appended to the books of Samuel after they had assumed their basic structure (Weinfeld 1972a: 11–12). The Deuteronomic redaction of the Davidic stories ended the account of David’s life with a farewell address (1 Kgs 2:3–4), which was incorporated in the old Davidic testament (1 Kgs 2:1–2, 5–9).

The Song of Moses (32:1–43) had been preceded by an elohistic introduction (31:16–22) which presented the song as a written prophetic witness (˓ēd) for the next generations when troubles might befall Israel as a result of violating the covenant. This stimulated the author of Deuteronomy to present also the Deuteronomic Torah as a prophetic witness for the future generations (32:26–29). Both the song and the Torah were said to be written by Moses (cf. 31:9 with 31:22) and taught by him to Israel (31:22; 32:46).

The composite nature of the book of Deuteronomy has been dealt with by many modern scholars, but no final solution has been reached. There is a general agreement in regards to chaps. 4:44–28:68. It is believed that these chapters constituted the original book, which was later supplemented by an additional introduction (1:6–4:40) and by variegated material at the end of the book (chaps. 29–30). The rest of the book is usually divided into two categories: (1) The Deuteronomic material dealing with the commissioning of Joshua (31:1–8), the writing of the Torah, its use in the future (31:8–13), the depositing of it at the ark (31:24–29; 32:45–47), and the death of Moses (chapter 34). (2) Ancient material appended to the book as indicated above such as the Song of Moses (32:1–43) with its elohistic introduction (31:14–23), the blessing of Moses (33:9–29), and the priestly passage in 32:48–52 which recaptures the priestly tradition about the death of Moses in Num 27:12–14 in order to connect it with chap. 34, the account of the death of Moses.

However, it should be recognized that chaps. 5–28 are also not homogeneous. The law code that constitutes the main part of the book was originally put into a framework of the ceremony of blessings and curses of Gerizim and Ebal. The theme of this ceremony appears at the opening of the code (11:26–32) and at its conclusion (26:16–27:26). This enclosure adds significance to the code of laws. The old Shechemite ceremony which is an act of foundation (Weinfeld 1988a) and which parallels the Gilgal tradition, which also has a ceremony of erecting monuments (Joshua 3–5), was linked by Deuteronomy to the covenant of the plains of Moab. Moses’ proclamations about Israel becoming a nation “this day” (26:16–19; 27:9–10) are thus interwoven with the ceremony at Mts. Gerizim and Ebal. The first proclamation in Deut 26:16–19 comes before the command about the erection of the stones and building the altar at Ebal, while the second proclamation in 27:9–10 comes before the blessings and the curses at Gerizim and Ebal (27:11–26). By this combination the author makes it clear that the establishment of the people of Israel at the plains of Moab cannot be dissociated from the foundation ceremony at Mt. Ebal. Moses’ farewell address in Deuteronomy is a kind of preparation for the ceremony at Gerizim and Ebal.

Deuteronomy 27 preserved a very old tradition about the establishment of the nation at Shechem, the capital of the house of Joseph. Foundation stories of the Greek world (Weinfeld 1988a) indicate that settlers whose colonization was based on divine instigation used to perform ceremonies accompanied by blessings and curses by writing the sacred laws on stelae and by building an altar and sacrificing. Deuteronomy 27 indeed revolves around the following elements: (1) erecting stones on Mt. Ebal in order to write upon them the words of the covenant (vv 1–4, 8); (2) building an altar and offering sacrifices on it (vv 5–7); (3) the proclamation of the act of foundation (vv 9–10); and (4) blessings and curses (vv 11–13). In addition to these we find there curses for transgressors who perpetrate crimes clandestinely (vv 14–26). The blessings and curses in vv 11–13 actually refer to Deut 28:3–6, 16–19:

Blessed shall you be in the city and blessed shall you be in the country. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb, the fruit of your soil and the offspring of your cattle, the fruit of your herd, and the lambing of your flock. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be in your comings and blessed shall you be in your goings.

Their reversal, i.e., the curses, occur in 28:16–19: “Cursed shall you be in the city . . .” That the ceremony of blessing and cursing on Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal respectively refers to the series of blessings and curses in Deut 28:3–6, 16–19 was already observed by Ibn Ezra. It was also Ibn Ezra who saw that the curse proclamations in Deut 27:14–26 apply to transgressions perpetrated in secrecy.

It is indeed interesting that both types of public anathema—cursing the violators of the oath and banning transgressors—are attested in Greek amphictyonic oaths, concerning the temple of Apollo of Delphi. Thus, for instance, in the oath taken by the members of the amphictyony against Cirrha (the first “holy war,” 590 b.c.e.) we read:

If anyone should violate this, whether city, private man or tribe let them be under the curse . . . that their land bear no fruit; that their wives bear children not like those who begat them, but monsters; that their flocks yield not their natural increase; that defeat await them in camp and court and their gathering place.

Similarly in the Greeks’ oath at Plataeia before the battle with the Persians (479 b.c.e.):

If I observe what is written in the oath my city will be free of disease: if not it shall be sick . . . ; and my [land] shall bear [fruits]: if not, it shall be barren; and the women shall bear children like their parents; if not they shall bear monsters; and the flock shall bear like the flock; if not [they shall be] monsters.

These blessings and curses are strikingly similar to the series of blessings and curses in Deut 28:3–6, 16–19 quoted above.

As in the Greek oath at Plataeia, every blessing in Deut 28:16–19 has its corresponding curse. And the content of the series is identical with that of the Greek oath: fertility of the soil, women, and the flock. The element of coming and going in Deuteronomy is identical with the element of success and failure in camp, court, and agora in the Greek oath. Furthermore the element of sickness which occurs in the oath of Plataeia appears in an identical series of blessings and curses in the ancient epilogue to the Covenant Code in Exod 23:25–26:

I shall remove illness from your midst. None will miscarry or go barren in your land.

This is elaborated in Deut 7:13–15 in a chapter which depends on the peroration of Exod 23:25–26. The passage in Deuteronomy reads:

He will bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your soil . . . the increase of your herds, and your flock of sheep . . . there will be neither male nor female barren among you and your livestock and YHWH will remove from you all sickness.

To all appearance, this genre of blessings and curses has its origin in the tribal confederation based on covenant; hence the similarity to the blessings and curses of the amphictyonic oaths in Greece. The stereotyped series of blessings and curses in Deut 28:3–6, 16–19 thus belongs to the ancient Shechemite covenant ceremony which is elaborated by the Deuteronomic author of 28:7–14, 20–69. These Deuteronomic expansions have a lot in common with the Assyrian and Aramaic treaties of the 8th–7th centuries b.c.e. and thus are clearly later than the short stereotypic blessings and curses which have their parallels in the Greek tribal milieu.

The “curses” in 27:14–26 represent a different genre. These are not threats of punishment as are those in 28:16–19, but legal proclamations accompanied by a curse and addressed to those who commit crimes clandestinely which cannot be punished by the authorities. Such “curses” are also attested in the Greek tribal culture. In Greece those who violated the law were eparatos, “accursed.” So, for example, it is related of Alcibiades (Plut. Alc. 22) that he was found liable at law for desecrating the sacra of Demeter. After placing his property under the “ban,” his judges decided that the priests and priestesses should curse him. Aristides is said to have suggested that the priests should cast curses on anyone who abandoned the war treaty with the Greeks (Plut. Arist. 10). As in Greece so in Israel it is the sacred group (the Levites) who have the authority to “revile,” i.e., excommunicate, the transgressors.

However, early Israel’s affinities to the Greek tradition are most clearly expressed in the foundation ceremony found in Deuteronomy 27. As indicated above, oath taking, erecting stones during foundation ceremonies, inscribing sacred laws on stelae, and building altars and sacrificing on them are attested in Greek colonization. Indeed, the Greeks as well as the Israelites had elaborate foundation traditions. Israel nurtured divergent traditions about their first settlements in the land. Besides the Shechemite tradition recounted in Deuteronomy 27, we find other versions describing foundation ceremonies linked to other places. According to a cycle of traditions crystallized at Gilgal, the children of Israel crossed the Jordan at Gilgal and erected stones there (Joshua 3–4). Instead of a written covenant, we find there the ceremony of circumcision, which is considered the sign of the covenant in Genesis 17, and the celebration of the Passover, which is the oldest ritual connected with the Exodus. The mentioning of Gilgal in Deut 11:30 in connection with the ceremony of Gerizim and Ebal might be a reflection of the divergent Benjaminite tradition about the foundation of Israel at its beginning.

In light of all this, it is clear that two different traditions are combined in chaps. 27–28. Deut 27:1–26; 28:3–6, 16–19, although slightly reworked by the Deuteronomic author (Weinfeld 1972a: 164–277), constitute an ancient Shechemite tradition of the premonarchic period, while 28:7–14, 20–68 reflect the neo-Assyrian period. The neo-Assyrian period is also reflected in Deut 29:9–28. The scene of the covenant in vv 9–14 resembles the Josianic covenant in 2 Kgs 23:1–3 and also the neo-Assyrian covenantal gatherings (see above), while the punishment for violation of the covenant in vv 19–28 has much in common with the Neo-Assyrian loyalty oaths to the Assyrian king (Weinfeld 1972a: 114–16). It seems that the exile referred to in 29:27 reflects the fall of the N kingdom, which serves as an example for the punishment of Judah in case of a violation of the covenant.

According to M. Noth (ÜgS, 12–18) Deuteronomy is a part of the Deuteronomic historiography which started with Deut 1:1 and concluded with 2 Kings 25. See also DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY. Deut 4:44–30:20, in his view, was incorporated en bloc by the Deuteronomic historiographer into his work. Deuteronomy 1–3 is, according to Noth, a historical account which has nothing to do with the code of law of Deuteronomy. Just as the book of Joshua is concerned with the conquest of the promised land in Cisjordan so is Deuteronomy 1–3 concerned with the conquest of Transjordan by Moses. Indeed, for the Deuteronomic historiographer, the beginning of the realization of the promise of the land is the crossing of the Arnon river (2:24–25) and not just the crossing of the Jordan as in the old conventional sources. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 1–3 is linked to 31:1–8 and both form a Deuteronomistic framework for 4:44–30:20. The central concern of this framework is the succession of Joshua. The commissioning of Joshua for the conquest of the land beyond the Jordan is repeated several times in Deuteronomy 1–3 (1:38; 3:21–22, 28) and appears as well in 31:3, 7–8 and this topic opens the book of Joshua. In Deuteronomy 1–3 and 31:1–8 we encounter the same phrases which occur in Joshua 1; compare especially the phrases in Josh 1:5–6, 7, 9 with those of Deut 1–3; 31:1–8: ḥzq w˒mṣ, “be strong and courageous” (Josh 1:9; Deut 3:28; 31:6, 7, 23); ˒l t˒rṣ, “have no dread” (Josh 1:9; Deut 31:6); l˒ ˒rpk wl˒ ˒˓zbk, “I will not fail you and not forsake you” (Josh 1:5; Deut 31:6, 8); l˒ tyr˒ wl˒ tḥt, “fear not and be not dismayed” (Josh 8:1; 10:25; Deut 1:21; 31:8); ˒th/hw˒ tnḥyl/ynḥyl (h˒rṣ), “You/he [Joshua] will give the land as inheritance” (Josh 1:6, 7; Deut 1:38; 3:28; 31:7). By the same token the conquest of Transjordan by the two and a half tribes in Josh 1:12–18 corresponds to Deut 3:12–20, cf. especially Deut 3:18–20 with Josh 1:14–15.

The Deuteronomistic framework of the book should not be, however, limited to chaps. 1–3 and 31:1–8. Deut 4:1–40 and especially 4:25–31 correspond to Deut 30:1–10, 15–20. Both sermons foresee the repentance of Israel and the return to its land (4:25–31; 30:1–10). This is actually envisaged in the Deuteronomistic prayer ascribed to Solomon in 1 Kgs 8:44–53 (Wolff 1972).

One should, however, take account of the fact that chaps. 1–3, in spite of being historical in nature, are styled in the first person (as a discourse of Moses) just as are the other chapters of Deuteronomy. Besides, unlike the historiographic accounts of the Deuteronomist in Joshua 1:2ff. which mainly narrate events, chaps. 1–3 are homiletic in character and have much in common with the hortatory of chaps. 5–28. Thus we find here, as in chaps. 5–28, admonitions (cf. 1:26, 43 with 9:7, 23–24), examples of divine care (cf. 1:31 with 8:5), divine blessing (cf. 2:7 with 12:7, 14–24, 29; 15:4, 6, 10, 14, 18, etc.), and similes of different kinds, which are also found in the second introduction, such as “great numerous and tall” (cf. 1:28; 2:10, 21; 4:38 with 9:1–2; 11:23), “large cities fenced into heaven” (˓rym gdwlt wbṣrwt bšmym, cf. 1:28 with 9:1), “it is forty years” (zh ˒rb˓ym šnh, cf. 2:7 with 8:2, 4), “so much as foot can tread” (mdrk kp rgl, cf. 2:5 with 11:24). One must admit, therefore, that although Deuteronomy 1–4 is to be dated in the exilic period, that is the period of the crystallization of the Deuteronomistic literature, from the point of view of genre it belongs to Deuteronomy and not to the historiography of the Former Prophets.

The composite nature of the book is recognizable not only in its framework but also in the code which forms the basic section of the book. Thus in chap. 12, two parallel sets of prescriptions about the centralization of the cult are found: vv 1–12 and 13–25. The two sets are distinguished by their styles: in the former the people are addressed mainly in the second person plural (exceptions: vv 12:1a, 7b) while in the latter the address in mainly in the second person singular (except v 24a). The distinction between the singular and plural addresses was observed and used as a criterion for establishing different layers in the book already in 1861 (Begg 1979). This theory was sytematically applied by W. Staerk (1894), by C. Steuernagel (1894; 1923), and later by G. Minnette de Tillesse (1962). Indeed one must admit that there are duplicates and overlapping in Deuteronomy which can be explained by the existence of two separate sources: “singular” and “plural”; compare Deut 6:7–9 with 11:18–20; 12:1–12 with 12:13-25. However, not all of the interchanges of second person singular and plural in Deuteronomy can be explained on literary-critical grounds. The change may simply be a didactic device to impress the individual or collective listener, or it may reflect the urge for literary variation. Certain changes in stylistic addresses can be explained by the supposition that an expression is being quoted (Begg 1980): e.g., 11:19b singular in a plural context which seems to be a quotation from 6:7b. Shifts from singular to plural and vice versa come often in order to heighten the tension, as the example in 4:19, where after the reference in singular to the apostate nations comes the address in plural to Israel which was chosen from other nations (v 20). The author shifts to plural in order to create a contrast between Israel and the nations.

The change in the form of address may be recognized also in the pre-Deuteronomic sources, such as Exod 22:21–23:

A stranger shall thou not wrong, neither shall thou oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt . . . if thou dost afflict him . . . I will surely hear . . . his cry and my anger shall blaze forth and I will kill you with the sword . . .

The shift from plural to singular and vice versa is also found in the ANE covenantal documents, e.g., the Aramaic Sefire treaties III: 4, 16, 23: šqrtm, “you will trespass” and in the continuation III: 9, 14, 20 and 27: šqrt, “thou will trespass” (Fitzmyer 1967: 96–100). Even in places where the distinction between singular and plural forms of address seems to indicate layers like the repetition in chap. 12 (see above), there are still interchanges which cannot be explained by the literary-critical criterion. Repetitions are encountered within units of common style. Thus in the plural section of chap. 12, vv 11–12 repeat vv 4–7. Steuernagel considered these as two different sources and therefore maintained that there were three strands in the chapter. In truth a repetition appears also within the singular section itself: vv 15–16 = vv 20, 22–24; one may, therefore, postulate the existence of 4 layers in chap. 12.

Furthermore, within the plural sections of Deuteronomy 12, singular addresses may be found, as 12:1a and 7b, and vice versa the passage in singular (vv 13–25) contains an address in plural (v 16a). Similar inconsistencies are to be found in the parallel passage of 6:7–9, and in 11:18–20 a singular address is attested in 19b which might be seen as a quotation from 6:7b.

In some instances the verse would lose its sense completely if one isolates sources as, e.g., in 4:25: “when thou shall beget children and children’s children and you shall be long established . . . in the land and ye shall act wickedly.” The singular without the continuing plural does not make any sense. The singular of the first clause seems to be influenced by the previous verse, which is styled in singular.

In sum, although in some cases the interchange of singular and plural addresses may indicate the existence of different layers, in general the interchange reflects stylistic variations introduced by the same author.

G. Deuteronomy—The Archimedean Point of the History of the Pentateuchal Literature

1. Date of Deuteronomy. The existence of sources in the Pentateuch had been established since J. Astruc in 1753, but no clue for the dates of the composition of the sources had been found. The one who supplied the clue was W. M. L. de Wette in his work of 1805. Trying to trace the historical circumstances underlying the book of Deuteronomy, de Wette found a correspondence between the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah and the legislation of Deuteronomy. Hezekiah was the first to centralize worship in Israel (2 Kgs 18:4, 22). Before the time of Hezekiah, places of worship throughout the land were considered indispensable for the religious life of Israel, so that, for Elijah, destroying altars of YHWH was tantamount to slaying his prophets (1 Kgs 19:10, 14). On the other hand, in the legislative literature in Israel the demand for cult centralization occurs for the first time in Deuteronomy. This book would therefore be a model or inspiration, or a reflection of them, for reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. These reforms are reflected in Deuteronomy not only in the law of centralization but also in: (1) the prohibition against pillars in the worship of YHWH (16:22), which according to the older sources is legitimate and even desirable (Gen 28:18; 35:14; Exod 24:4; Josh 24:26); (2) the references to “astral worship” (ṣb˒ hšmym, Deut 4:19; 17:3), which is not mentioned in the earlier parts of the Pentateuch and seems to have been introduced into Judah through Assyrian influence in the 8th century b.c.e. (Weinfeld 1972b: 133–54); (3) the correspondence between the manner of celebrating Passover in the days of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 30) and Josiah (see below) and the prescription in Deut 16:1–8. According to 2 Kgs 23:22, Passover had not been celebrated in such a manner since the times of the judges.

No less important for the date of Deuteronomy is the unique style of this book, both in its phraseology and manner of discourse (rhetoric). Style such as that was not found in any of the historical and prophetic traditions before the 7th century b.c.e. Conversely, from the 7th century onward almost all of the historical and the prophetical literature is permeated by this style. Theologically and stylistically Deuteronomy has become the touchstone for dating the sources in the Pentateuch and the historical books of the Old Testament. The legal codes which do not presuppose centralization of cult must therefore be from pre-Hezekianic times. On the other hand, the editorial passages of Kings which evaluate the kings of Judah in accordance with their observance of centralization of cult, and the passages in Joshua and Judges which are styled in Deuteronomic phraseology, cannot be from before the time of Hezekiah. An objective clue has thus been established for fixing the date of the editorial part of the historic literature.

A new dimension has been added to the dating of Deuteronomy by the discovery of the vassal treaties of Essarhaddon (= VTE) of the year 672 b.c.e. Many affinities between VTE and the Deuteronomic covenant have been established (see C. above) and these support the dating of Deuteronomy in the 7th century b.c.e.

2. The Book of Law (Torah). The term “Book of the Law” (seper hattôrâ) as a sanctified authoritative work which contains all the divine law is encountered for the first time in Israel’s history in the account of the reform of Josiah (2 Kings 22–23). In the Pentateuch the term is attested only in Deuteronomy (17:19–20; 28:58; 29:19; 31:11–12) and from here it passed to the Deuteronomistic editorial framework in the Former Prophets (Josh 1:8; 8:34; 23:6; 2 Kgs 14:6). There it is also designated as “the book of law of Moses” (seper tôrat Mošeh, Josh 8:31; 23:6; 2 Kgs 14:6). Deuteronomy is, in fact, the only book of the Pentateuch to be ascribed to Moses (Deut 31:9) and the first book to have been sanctified publicly (2 Kgs 23:1–3). Only after the other books were appended to Deuteronomy was the term “Torah” applied to the whole Pentateuch. In the Tetrateuch the term “Torah” designates specific instructions such as “the Torah of the burnt offering/meal offering/sin offering” (Lev 6:2; 7, 18), “the Torah of the guilt offering/well-being offering” (Lev 7:1, 11), “the Torah of the woman in confinement” (Lev 12:7), “the Torah of the leprosy/leper” (Lev 13:9; 14:2, 32, 54), “the Torah of jealousy” (Num 5:29), and “the Torah for the Nazirite (Num 6:13, 21), cf. also the tôrôth as general instructions in Gen 26:5; Exod 16:28; 18:20; Lev 26:46. The transition from Torah as a specific instruction to the sacred “Book of the Torah” of the Josianic period marked a turning point in Israel’s spiritual life. The ritual instructions which were kept in priestly circles were written by scribes and wise men (Jer 8:8) and became part of the national lore. This enabled the transfer of the Torah from the priest to the scribe and the sage, as was the case in the Second Temple period. Indeed Ezra, who introduced the Book of Torah into Judah of the Second Temple period, functioned as a scribe (sôpēr) (Ezra 7:6, 11, 12; Neh 8:1, 4, etc.). In spite of being a priest, he is named scribe and he performs his religious functions as such. But one should keep in mind that Ezra’s function as “scribe of the Torah” (Ezra 7:6, 11) is not a new phenomenon in Israel’s life, as H. N. Schaeder (1930) contends, but rather an intensification of the process already started at the time of Josiah. It was the sanctification and publication of “the Book of the Torah” in the time of Josiah that gave rise to scribes with the ability and competence to handle Scripture. Although the real turning point in Torah teaching took place in the period of the Second Temple, it had its roots in the time of Josiah when the process of canonization of Scripture started.

There is a further analogy between Josiah and Ezra. Josiah enforced the law of the “Book of the Torah” both by his royal authority and by means of a pledge taken by the people (2 Kgs 23:1–3). Likewise in the period of Ezra and Nehemiah “the law of Moses” was enforced both on behalf of the Persian crown (Ezra 7:12–26) and on the authority of a pledge, to which the people had agreed in a formal ceremony (˒ămānāh, Nehemiah 10).

3. The Discovery of the Book of the Torah. The discovery of ancient sacred documents in a temple was always a thrilling event. Thus we read in the Hittite accounts of the 14th–13th centuries b.c.e. that King Muwatalli presents a prayer of confession for negligence in observing the laws of divinity, as written in the law of covenant (išḫiul) in the ancient scripture, and promises to do his utmost to rediscover the written covenant of the gods, and to fulfil it:

Whatever I . . . now find from written records, this I shall carry out and [what] I have [not] brought into correspondence with the ceremonial rites (šaklai) of the gods, you, O storm-god, my lord, know it. And whenever I shall examine (punušk-) a venerable old man, as they remember a (certain) rite and tell it, I shall also carry it out . . . I shall follow the (covenantal) bond (išḫiul) of the gods that I am rediscovering, and it shall be henceforth carried on.

The written instructions of the gods which the king is to rediscover are defined here as išḫiul, which like Hebrew bĕrı̂t represents the covenantal law imposed on the people.

Furthermore, just as Josiah, king of Judah, in the 7th century b.c.e., when he rediscovers the ancient law, promises to fulfill it and asks for forgiveness for the violations of the covenant written in the rediscovered book (2 Kgs 22:13), so also does Muwatalli, saying “I ask for forgiveness of the sin of the country.”

Very instructive from the point of view of comparison with Hebrew traditions is the king’s declaration that he will carry out whatever had been referred to him through the recollection of a venerable old man. This corresponds to the tradition preserved in the Mishnah tractate of Eduyyot concerning the collection of testimonies given by sages on legal matters and not attested to in the conventional written lore.

The Josianic reform revolutionized all aspects of Israelite religion. The centralization of the cult was in itself a sweeping innovation in the history of the Israelite cult, but its consequences were, as we shall see, decisively more revolutionary in nature, in that they involved the collapse of an entire system of concepts which for centuries had been regarded as sacrosanct. The elimination of the provincial cult made possible the transformation of Israel’s religion into a religion which minimized external expression. Indeed the very purpose of the book of Deuteronomy was to curtail and circumvent the cult and not to extend or enhance it. The Deuteronomic conception of cult is, as we shall show, vastly different from that reflected in the Tetrateuchal sources. It represents a turning point in the evolution of the faith of Israel. Let us start with the concept of the divine abode.

Deuteronomy defines the sanctuary as “the place where YHWH chose to cause his name to dwell there.” It has been rightly observed (von Rad 1953: 38–39) that the expression “to cause his name to dwell” (lškn šmw) reflects a new theological conception of the Deity and that the repeated consistent employment of this and similar expression (śwm šmw; i hyh šmw; qr˒ šmw; bnh lšmw; hqdyš lšmw) by the author of Deuteronomy and his followers is intended to combat the ancient popular belief that the Deity actually dwelt within the sanctuary. The Deuteronomic school used this “name” phraseology in a very consistent manner and never made the slightest digression from it. There is not one example in the Deuteronomic literature of God’s dwelling in the temple or the building of a house of God. The Temple is always the dwelling of his name and the house is always built for his name. This consistency is seen most clearly when a Deuteronomic text is interwoven with an earlier text which does not know the “name theology.” Thus, for example, in the authentic part of Nathan’s prophecy the main issue is the building of a house for God’s dwelling (lšbtw, 2 Sam 7:5, 7) while the Deuteronomist (v 13a) (Driver 1913: 276 n. 1.; McCarter 2 Samuel AB, 205–6) speaks about building a house for his name. Similarly the building account of the Temple and the ancient story of the dedication of the Temple speak plainly about building a house for God (1 Kgs 6:1, 2; 8:13) while the Deuteronomist, whenever he mentions the building, describes it as being built “for the name of God” (1 Kings 3:2; 5:17, 19; 8:17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 48).

The most definite expression of this theology is to be found in the Deuteronomic litany of Solomon in 1 Kings 8. According to the Deuteronomistic prayer (vv 14–69), the Temple is not God’s place of habitation but serves only as a house of worship in which Israelites and foreigners alike may deliver their prayers to the God who dwells in heaven. The idea that God’s habitation is in heaven is here expressed most emphatically in order to eradicate the belief that the Deity sat enthroned between the cherubim in the Temple. Whenever the expression “your dwelling place” (mkwn šbtk) is employed, it is accompanied by the word “in heaven” (vv 30, 39, 43, 49). The Deuteronomist is clearly disputing the view implied by the ancient song that opens the prayer (vv 12–13) and designates the Temple as God’s exalted house (byt zbl) and a dwelling place (mkn šbt) forever. The Deuteronomist in the prayer ascribed to Solomon appended consistently to the expression mkwn šbtk the word “in heaven” (hšmym) in order to inform us that it is heaven which is meant here and not the Temple as the ancient song implies. In actual fact, however, the term “your dwelling place” (mkwn šbtk) in early sources as well as in Solomon’s song (vv 12–13) denotes the sanctuary and it is the Deuteronomist who is here attempting to alter this meaning and thereby wrests the song from its original sense.

The theological corrective, i.e. the addition of “heaven” to the phrase “holy habitation,” occurs in Deuteronomy itself. In Deut 26:15 the Israelite in his prayer says: “Look down from your holy habitation [m˓wn qdšk], from heaven.” The words “from heaven” seem to be an explanatory gloss intended to prevent misconstruing the expression “holy habitation” as referring to the sanctuary. Indeed, the fact that the earlier, prevailing conception was that God’s habitation (m˒wn) was in Zion may be inferred from Ps 76:3: “His abode has been established in Šalem, his habitation [m˒wntw] in Zion.” This abstract view of the heavenly abode is also reflected in the Deuteronomic account of the Sinaitic revelation. In contrast to the account in Exodus 19 of God’s descent upon Mt. Sinai (19:11–20) we read in Deut 4:36 “Out of heaven he let you hear his voice . . . and on the earth he let you see his great fire and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire.” Deuteronomy has, furthermore, taken care to shift the center of gravity of the theophany from the visual to the aural plane. In Exodus 19, the principal danger confronting the people was the likelihood that they might “break through to the Lord to gaze” (v 21); it was to prevent this that there was need to “set bounds for the people round about” (v 12) and to caution them not to ascend the mountain. Indeed, the pre-Deuteronomic texts always invariably speak of the danger of seeing the Deity: “For man shall not see me and live” (Exod 33:20) and similarly in Gen 32:31: “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved” (cf. Judg 13:22; Isa 6:5). The book of Deuteronomy, on the other hand, cannot conceive of the possibility of seeing the Divinity. The Israelites saw only “his great fire” which symbolizes his essence and qualities (4:24: “For YHWH your God himself remains in his heavenly abode”). The danger threatening the people here, and the greatness of the miracle, is that of hearing the voice of the Deity: “Did any people even hear the voice of a god speaking out of the midst of the fire as you have heard, and survived?” (4:32; cf. 5:23).

This attempt to eliminate the inherent corporality of the traditional imagery also finds expression in Deuteronomy’s conception of the ark. The specific and exclusive function of the ark, according to the book of Deuteronomy, is to house the tables of the covenant (10:1–5). No mention is made of the ark cover (kprt) and the cherubim which endow the ark with the semblance of a divine chariot or throne (cf. Exod 25:10–22 = P). The holiest vessel to the Israelite cult, in the Deuteronomic view, performs nothing more than an educational function. It houses the tablets upon which the words of God are engraved and at its side is laid the Book of the Torah, from which one reads to the people so that they may learn to fear the Lord (Deut 31:26; cf. vv 12 and 13). The ark does not serve as God’s seat upon which he journeys forth to disperse his enemies (Num 10:33–36), but only as the vessel in which the tables of the covenant are deposited. This becomes quite clear when we compare Deut 1:42–43 with Num 14:42–44, a tradition on which the Deuteronomic account is based. In Num 14:44, we read that after the sinful incident of the spies “the ark of the covenant of YHWH departed not out of the camp” and this was the reason for the Israelites’ defeat in their subsequent battle with the Amalekites and Canaanites. The Deuteronomic account, on the other hand, completely omits the detail of the ark and ascribes the Israelite defeat to the fact that God was not in their midst without referring to the whereabouts of the ark.

The author of Deuteronomy similarly relates that it was God who went before the people to seek out new resting places (1:33), whereas the earlier source, upon which Deuteronomy depends, relates that it was the ark which journeyed forth before the people to seek out new resting places for them (Num 10:33). The absence of the ark is especially striking in the Deuteronomic law of warfare (23:15). One would expect a passage which speaks of the presence of the Divinity within the military encampment to make some mention of the ark which accompanies the warriors on their expeditions, as in 1 Sam 4:6–7, “And when they learned that the ark of YHWH had come to the camp . . . they said, the gods have come into the camp.” The Deuteronomic law, however, speaks of YHWH as moving about the camp (23:15), but does not make the slightest allusion to the ark or the holy vessels.

A similar conception is encountered in the book of Jeremiah, for instance at 3:16–17, “They shall say no more: ‘The ark of the covenant of YHWH.’ It shall not come to mind . . . At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of YHWH.” In other words, the ark of the covenant shall no longer serve as God’s seat, as the people were previously accustomed to believe, but all of Jerusalem shall be “the seat of YHWH,” that is in a symbolic sense.

In another passage the prophet declares: “ ‘Do I not fill heaven and earth?’ says the Lord” (23:24). This reminds one of the words of Deutero- (or Trito-) Isaiah when he expressly repudiates the notion of the sanctuary as the place of God’s habitation: “Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool, what is the house which you build for me? and what is the place of my rest?” (66:1). This view is also met within the Deuteronomic prayer of Solomon: “Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built” (1 Kgs 8:27). The sanctuary is here conceived as a house of prayer and not as a cultic center. This tendency to minimize the cult is manifest in the book of Deuteronomy and signifies a religious turning point which occurred following the abolition of the high places and the provincial sanctuaries.

The first thing that strikes our attention when endeavoring to grasp the significance of sacrifice in the book of Deuteronomy is that we do not find sacrifice practiced for its own sake. The Deity, in the Deuteronomic view, has no need of the “pleasing odor,” (ryḥ nyḥḥ) of sacrifices and no mention is made of the “food of God,” which is amply attested in the Priestly Code (Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 21:6, 8, 17, 21). Neither is there any mention of the sin-and-guilt offerings designed to atone for involuntary sins, ritual impurity, perjury, theft, and deception (Leviticus 4–5). The author’s view seems to be that spiritual purification and repentance—consisting of confession and prayer—and not sacrificial offerings expiate sin. The sole instance in which the book of Deuteronomy does mention a rite analogous in character to the sin-and-guilt offering is in the law of unsolved murder (Deut 21:1–9). Yet interestingly enough it is precisely this law which reflects Deuteronomy’s special attitude toward sacrifice. The rite conducted here does not consist of a sacrificial offering complete with ceremonial slaughter and blood sprinkling, but calls only for the breaking of the heifer’s neck in an uncultivated valley. The priests are present during this act, not because they play any part in the execution of the ritual, for this is carried out entirely by the elders, but merely to guarantee the religious aspect of the ceremony by presiding over it. The entire act has a symbolic value: the heifer’s neck is broken at the scene of the crime, as it were, and the elders cleanse their hands only as a purificatory expression of their innocence (Pss 24:4; 26:6–10; 73:13; etc.). There is no laying of the hands on the heifer nor a transference of the sin to it as in the case of the ritual scapegoat (Lev 16:21), because its beheading as such does not atone for the sin; expiation is effected only by the confession and prayer uttered at the close of the ceremony (vv 7–8). It is true, the custom itself originated in a rite of elimination (Wright 1987), however, in the present formulation nothing is said about removal of impurity or sin by the priest as in Lev 14:53, 16:22, or about transferring the evil to the open country as in Lev 16:22 and in the Mesopotamian incantations (Wright 1987). In this rite, God absolves the sin himself without recourse to any intermediary; whereas in P all expiatory sacrifices are executed by the priests, whose mediation alone effects the expiation of the sin (cf. the common priestly expression in the book of Leviticus: “and the priest shall make atonement for him”). In the Deuteronomic law, atonement is possible only through the confession of the elders of the city, who, as representatives of the guilty city, beseech absolution through prayers; in P expiation is effected through ritual sacrifice and incense burning which are mostly not accompanied by prayer on the part of the penitent.

Deuteronomic sacrifice consists primarily of offerings which are consumed by the offerer in the sanctuary and are designed to be shared with the poor, the Levite, the alien resident, the orphan, and the widow. The constant emphasis on the obligation to share the sacrificial repast with indigent persons creates the impression that the principal purpose of the offering is to provide nutriment for the destitute elements of Israelite society. The author of Deuteronomy alludes to this himself when, after prescribing that the joyful nature of the festival be shared with the personae miserabiles, he goes on to say: “You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt; and you shall be careful to observe these statutes” (16:22). It is indeed remarkable that the very book which promulgates the law of centralized worship at the “chosen place” has not so much as a word to say about the presentation of communal sacrifices (the daily and seasonal offerings) which constituted the principal mode of worship at this exclusive sanctuary.

Sacrifice according to Deuteronomy is not an institutional practice but a personal one, which has two principal objects: (a) a humanitarian—to share the sacrificial repast with the poor, as noted above; (b) a private—to fulfill a religious obligation and express one’s gratitude to the Deity by means of votive offerings (12:6, 11, 17, 26; 23:22–24). God has no need of the sacrifice itself; it is only an expression of gratitude to the Deity, and this constitutes its entire significance. We may perhaps note in passing that the expression šlm ndr, “to pay a vow,” found in Wisdom Literature (Prov 7:14; Eccl 5:4) is not found in any book of the Pentateuch except Deuteronomy (23:22).

The same attitude is revealed in the only passage in Deuteronomy (12:27) that describes the manner in which the sacrifice is to be offered. The verse differentiates between nonburnt offerings and burnt offerings (˓wlh), and ordains that the flesh and blood of the burnt offering be offered up entirely on the altar, whereas the blood of the nonburnt is to be poured upon the altar and the meat eaten. It is most surprising that the author makes no mention of the burning of the suet, the fat piece which is set aside for God and which thus renders the meat permissible for priestly and lay consumption (1 Sam 2:12–17).

Sacrifice, however, is not the only rite to be conceived differently by the book of Deuteronomy, for all laws pertaining to cult and ritual are here conceived more rationally than in the earlier sources. This is particularly evident in the laws contained in chaps. 12–19, laws which are a direct consequence of the implementation of cult centralization and form the legal basis of the religious reformation. These laws clearly mirror the change in religious beliefs and attitudes which occurred in the wake of the reform.

Chapter 12 promulgates the law of centralized worship at the chosen place, but alongside this law or as a result of it, we find the authorization permitting nonsacrificial slaughter. Whereas before the reform all slaughter—except that of game animals—was deemed to be a sacral act and was prohibited even for nonsacrificial purposes unless the blood was sprinkled upon the altar (Lev 17:1–7; cf. 1 Sam 14:32–35), it was now permissible to perform nonsacrificial slaughter without being obliged to sprinkle the blood upon an altar (Deut 12:15, 16, 20–24). It need hardly be said that the sanctioning of profane slaughter freed a significant aspect of Israelite daily life from its ties to the cultus. The more crucial import of the law, however, is that by sanctioning nonsacrificial slaughter it repudiates the hallowed Israelite dogma which ascribed a sacral quality to the blood and prohibited one from pouring it upon the ground. According to the Priestly Document or, to be more precise, the Holiness Code, the blood of slaughtered animals potentially valid for sacrifice must be sprinkled upon the altar, whereas the blood of game animals—which are invalid for sacrifice—must be covered with dust (Lev 17:13): for all spilt blood, even of fowl and beasts of prey, cries out for vengeance and satisfaction, and if the shedding of blood cannot be atoned by offering it upon the altar, then it must be covered up. Uncovered blood begs, as it were, for an avenger (Job 16:18, “O earth, cover not my blood . . .” cf. Isa 26:21; Ezek 24:7–8), a role which, in the case of homicide, is assumed by the Deity. The author of Deuteronomy, on the other hand, declares that the blood of all animals slaughtered for nonsacrificial purposes may be poured upon the ground like water (12:16 and 24), thereby asserting that blood has no more a sacral value than water has. He does, to be sure, retain the interdiction on the eating of blood (cf. Deut 12:23 with Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11), but he absolutely repudiates the concept that the spilt blood of animals requires satisfaction.

The book of Deuteronomy also contains a less sacral conception of the tithes than the other Pentateuchal sources. The tithe, which the Priestly Document designates as “holy to the Lord” (Lev 27:30–33), and which according to a second tradition accrues to the Levites (Num 18:21–32), remains by Deuteronomic legislation the property of the original owner (14:22–27). Furthermore, it may be secularized and employed for profane purposes on payment of its equivalent monetary value (without the addition of the fifth part required by P [Lev 27:31]). This provision seems to be yet another expression of the liberation of the cultus from its intimate ties to nature. The sanctity of the tithe is not conceived as an inherent quality of the grain or animal, as in the Priestly Document (Lev 27:30–33); for it is man who consecrates it and may, if he wishes, secularize it through redemption. In the Deuteronomic view, sanctity is not a taboo that inheres in things which by nature belong to the divine realm but is rather a consequence of the religious intentions of the person who consecrates it.

Like the tithe, the firstling is also taken from the possession of the priest and is restored to the owner. According to JE (Exod 22:29; 34:19) and P (Num 18:15–17) the firstling is “holy to YHWH” whether it is given to the Lord (Exod 22:29) or presented to his servants (i.e., the priests, according to P, Num 18:17–18), while according to Deuteronomy it remains in the possession of its original owner, although he is obliged to consume it at the chosen place. Indeed, it is the law of the firstlings which informs us of the author’s negative attitude toward holy taboo. In the earlier laws the regulations pertaining to the redemption of the firstlings of clean animals are always accompanied by regulations concerning the firstborn of humans and the firstlings of unclean animals (Exod 13:2, 12, 15; 22:28–29; 34:19–20; Lev 27:26–27; Num 18:15–18). The book of Deuteronomy, however, omits the laws of the human firstborn and the firstlings of unclean animals, because these regulations in no way advance its humanitarian purposes (the participation of the personae miserabiles in the consumption of the firstlings), and because they are based on mythical and magical conception which the author of Deuteronomy does not share.

The severance of these laws from the realm of myth and magic finds its clearest expression in the Deuteronomic ordinances concerning the paschal sacrifice. According to the JE and P documents, the paschal sacrifice is a domestic celebration accompanied by apotropaic rites of an animistic nature: the paschal blood is daubed upon the lintel and doorposts (Exod 12:7 [= P], 22 [= JE]), the animal must be roasted together with its head, legs, and inner parts (Exod 12:11). In the Deuteronomic law, however, not the slightest reminiscence of these magical prescriptions has been preserved. The paschal ritual has instead been converted into a communal sacrifice which must be offered up at the central sanctuary like all other sacrifices. The paschal offering—which is the most ancient sacrifice in Israel’s tradition and which apparently originates from the tribes’ former nomadic life—succeeded in preserving its early primitive character until it was here divested of its original import and recast in a form more consistent with the spirit of the times. Even the earliest features of the sacrifice, such as the requirement that it be selected only from sheep or goats, or that it be roasted by fire—which attest to the nomadic origin of the ritual—have been completely obscured by the Deuteronomic law. The new provision allows the Israelite to select the animal from cattle as well as sheep and goats (Deut 16:2) and permits it to be cooked like any other ordinary sacrifice (v 7).

After the fall of Samaria, Hezekiah, king of Judah, made efforts to draw the northern population toward Jerusalem, as may be learned from 2 Chronicles 30. Although the book of Chronicles is a tendentious work we have no right to see the events themselves as fiction. The flow of northerners to Jerusalem in those days is now attested archaeologically. At the end of the 8th century b.c.e., Jerusalem underwent an expansion never encountered before; the same applies to the territory of Judah. As shown by Avigad (1980: 23ff.), Jerusalem of that time included the western hill of the city, now the Jewish quarter. By the same token, the settlement of Judah grew immensely at this period and the population doubled (Kochavi 1972: 20–21). The only explanation for this situation is that after the fall of the N kingdom Israelites began to migrate to the S to the territories under the control of their brethren (Broshi 1974: 23–26). People from the N were attached after the fall of the N kingdom to Jerusalem and its cult. This appears evident from the fact that after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, people from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria made pilgrimages to the Temple site (Jer 41:5). It seems that in this period, the hatred between Judah and Israel vanished and some kind of symbiosis of the sister nations was established. This is reflected perhaps in Isaiah’s consolation oracle of this time:

Ephraim’s jealousy shall vanish and Judah’s enmity shall end, Ephraim shall not envy Judah and Judah shall not harass Ephraim.

In the continuation of this oracle we read about the expansion of Israel and Judah toward the Philistine territory in the W on the one hand and Ammon, Moab, and Edom in the E on the other (v 14). The period of Hezekiah was indeed a period of great expansion. In 2 Kgs 18:8 we hear about Hezekiah overrunning Philistia as far as Gaza and, from 1 Chr 4:41–43, we learn about his incursion toward Seir in the S. It is this period that “the remnant of Israel . . . and the house of Jacob” return to the Lord and to “mighty God” (˒l gbwr); this equals “Hezek-iah” and seems to allude to King Hezekiah (Isa 10:20–21). As has been recently seen by H. Cazelles (1982), the remnant which returns (š˒r yšwb) represents the Israelites from the N who join Judah and accept the authority of Hezekiah, styled—among other things—“El Gibbor” (cf. Isa 9:5). The same imagery is found in Micah 5:1. Micah speaks about the youngest of the clans of Judah, who will rule Israel (5:1–2). This rectifies the earlier situation when Judah was cut off from the other tribes (Deut 33:7: “Hear, O Lord, the voice of Judah and bring him back to his people”). Micah goes on to say that the leader of Judah “will stand and shepherd by the might of YHWH . . . Assyria with the sword” (vv 4–6). This suits Hezekiah, who rebelled against the king of Assyria and expanded the territory of his kingdom (before the invasion of Sennacherib).

This period of national revival may explain the nationalistic and patriotic atmosphere prevailing in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic literature. The book of Deuteronomy abounds with military speeches aimed at strengthening the people in their future wars with their enemies (Weinfeld 1972a: 45–59). These in fact reflect the national fervor of the times of Hezekiah-Josiah. Remarks such as “be strong and courageous” (ḥzq w˒mṣ), “no man shall be able to stand against you” (l˒ ytyṣb ˒yš bpnykm), “every spot on which your foot treads shall be yours,” and “YHWH your God will put the dread and the fear on you over the land in which you set foot” (11:24–25) seem to express the national enthusiasm of the period of Hezekiah-Josiah. I refer to the Hezekianic or Josianic period because it is very hard to date the various layers of Deuteronomic literature. Since the book of Deuteronomy was discovered in the days of Josiah (622 b.c.e.) we must suppose that the main layout of the book was existent long before that time—that is, at the time of Hezekiah. However, we still do not know what belongs to later Josianic elaboration and what existed before.

The idea of the ban on all Canaanite population also seems to have crystallized at this time. According to the book of Deuteronomy, the Israelites are commanded to exterminate all the Canaanites and not to leave a soul of them living (Deut 7:1–2; 20:16–17). Such a policy, obliging the extermination of the whole population of the land whether fighting or passive, is utopian and is indeed unheard of in the historical accounts of Israel. On the contrary, from 1 Kgs 9:21 we learn that the Israelites were unable to annihilate the inhabitants of Canaan, and Solomon subjected them to corvée labor. The command of ban (ḥerem) of all the Canaanites in Deuteronomy is a utopian program which reflects the bitter struggle with the Canaanite religion and culture ongoing from the time of Elijah until the time of Josiah. Indeed the reason for the annihilation of the Canaanites in Deut 20:18 is one of Kulturkampf: “lest they [the Canaanites] lead you into doing all the abominable things that they have done for their gods and you shall be sinful to YHWH your God.” One should acknowledge that the ḥerem as such was practiced in ancient Israel as elsewhere in the ancient world. It is found in connection with Jericho (Josh 6:17), Amalek (1 Samuel 15) and is also applied to apostate or treacherous cities within Israel such as the city condemned for idolatry in Deut 13:16 and the cities of Benjamin which were banned because of the sin of Gibeah (Judg 20:40, 48). It seems that Deuteronomy adopted the ancient doctrine of ḥerem from the North (cf. also 1 Kgs 20:42) and applied it theoretically toward the seven nations of the land of Canaan. The original ḥerem referred to hostile cities, banned by means of votive proclamations (Josh 6:17; Num 21:2–3), whereas Deuteronomy conceived ḥerem as an automatic decree which applied to a whole country and its inhabitants. This sort of ḥerem is not dependent on any vow or dedication, but is an a priori decree which belongs more to theory than to practice.

The national patriotic attitude of Deuteronomy may also be recognized in its conception of the extent of the promised land. According to the ancient sources of the Pentateuch and, especially, the list of boundaries in Num 34:1–15, Transjordan was not part of the land of Israel. The request of the Gadites and Reubenites to settle in Transjordan was considered by Moses as a sin (Num 32:14), and from Josh 22:19 we may deduce that Transjordan was considered “impure land.” The stories of the Conquest in Joshua 2–9 also make it clear that the Conquest started with the crossing of the Jordan. The passage of the Jordan and the erecting of the stones at Gilgal actually commemorate the entrance into the promised land (Josh 3:10; 5:1 etc.). This old conception about the Jordan being the border of the land was not accepted by Deuteronomy. According to Deuteronomy 1–3, the Conquest of the land started with the crossing of the river Arnon (Deut 2:24) at the border between Moab and the Mishor, the territory of King Sihon. In accordance with this view, the Israelites apply the law of ḥerem to these territories (2:34; 3:6) just as they are commanded to do to the peoples of the western side of the Jordan (Deut 20:16–17). The conquered territories of the eastern side of the Jordan are divided among the tribes as are the other parts of the promised land, and are not just a gift on condition as in Numbers 32. The author of Deuteronomy accepted the ideal borders of Gen 15:18, which reflected the borders of the Davidic kingdom, as binding borders (Deut 1:7; 11:24); for him, therefore, Transjordan was an integral part of the land (Deut 34:1). In this manner, the author of Deuteronomy affords Transjordan a status equal with that of Cisjordan; this looks like an endeavor to restore Israel to its ideal borders of the Davidic-Salomonic period (Weinfeld 1983).

The national resurgence of the period of Hezekiah and Josiah explains the feelings of superiority expressed in Deuteronomy. Israel is promised exaltation above all nations of the earth (26:19), to be always at the top and never at the bottom (28:13); people who hear the laws of Israel will say: “That great nation is a wise and understanding people” (4:6); “Israel will rule many nations but they will not rule it” (15:6). The book of Deuteronomy depicts Israel as a proud nation unfearful but feared. In accordance with this, it changes and reworks old sources. In Numbers, the Israelites asked permission from Edom to cross its territory. The Edomites refused and went out against the Israelites in force (Num 20:14–21). In the book of Deuteronomy, the opposite happens: not only do the Israelites pass Edom and buy food there (2:6, 29), but the Edomites fear the Israelites and the Israelites are asked not to exploit this fact in order to provoke the Edomites (2:4–5) (Weinfeld 1967).

The national pride prevailing in Deuteronomy comes to bold expression in the account of Moses’ appointing officers for judging the people. According to Exodus 18 the appointment arose from the advice of Jethro the priest of Midian. In Deut 1:13–17, Moses appoints the officers on his own initiative. Jethro is not mentioned at all because, as A. B. Ehrlich says in regard to Deut 1:9: “in the Deuteronomist’s days it was not glorious to tell the people that a foreigner contrived such a plan” (1908–14).

The gift of the land to Israel, according to the old sources, is a perpetual, unconditional gift (Gen 13:15; 17:8; 48:4). Similarly David was given a dynasty forever (2 Sam 7:13, 16; 23:5; Ps 89:30, etc.) because he served God with loyalty (1 Kgs 3:6; 9:4; 11:4, etc.). As I have shown elsewhere (Weinfeld 1970), the promises to Abraham and to David belong to the type of “grant” to royal servants who devoted themselves to their master, the king. These “grant” documents were common in the ANE from the middle of the second millennium onward, and like the biblical promises (Gen 17:8; 48:4) contained the phrase: “I grant it to you for your descendants after you throughout the generation” (Gen 17:7–8) or “for your descendants forever” (lzr˓k ˓d ˓wlm) (Gen 13:15); compare Deut 1:8 (for these legal formulae in Alalakh, Ugarit, and Elephantine, see Weinfeld 1970). In contrast to the vassal treaty, which constitutes an obligation of the vassal to his sovereign, the royal “grant” constitutes an obligation of the sovereign to his vassal.

However, following the fall of the N kingdom an explanation was sought for the failure of the promise and the explanation given was that the realization of the promise to the patriarchs was conditioned a priori by the fulfillment of the obligatory covenant of the Israelites at Sinai in which they committed themselves to keep the laws of God. Two covenants which existed separately—the covenant of God with the patriarchs on land (grant type) and the covenant of Israel with God on law (vassal type)—were thus combined and were seen as dependent on one another (4:25–27; 8:19–20; 11:8–10, 13–17, 22–25; 28:63; 29:24–27; 30:17–18). The same thing happened with the Davidic covenant. After the fall of Jerusalem the divine promise for an eternal dynasty to David which was originally unconditioned (2 Sam 7:13–15) was understood as conditional by the fulfillment of the Sinaitic covenant (1 Kgs 2:3–4; 8:23–25).

Although the loss of land is a punishment for the violation of the covenant, which means abrogation of the law in general, principal sins are specified for which the people will go into exile. Thus, according to the Holiness Code, the land will be desolate and the people will go into exile because of not keeping the laws of land release (Lev 26:34–35). Deuteronomy, however, specifies idolatry as the principal sin for losing the land: “Beware lest your heart be seduced and you turn away to serve other gods . . . for YHWH’s anger will flame up against you and he will shut up the skies and there will be no rain and the land will not yield its produce and you will perish from the good land that YHWH is giving you” (11:16–17, cf. 4:25–28; 29:23–27; 30:17–18).

Going in exile and desolation of the land are also specified as punishment for betrayal in the vassal treaties. Thus we read in VTE liness 538–44: “may your seed and the seed [of your sons] and daughters perish from the land (if you violate the treaty)” (Weinfeld 1972a: 133). Similar threats occur in the Hittite treaties with their vassals: “may they break you like reeds, may your name and your seed . . . perish from the land” (Weidner 1923: 34–35, lines 64–66). The latter two curses: “breaking like a reed” and “perishing from the land” are found both together in Deuteronomic historiography: “YHWH will strike Israel . . . like a reed in water and will uproot Israel from this good land which he gave to their fathers” (1 Kgs 14:16).

The whole Deuteronomic corpus actually revolves around the fate of the land of Israel. As has been indicated above, the Deuteronomic law is given to the people for its observance after the entrance into the land (Deut 12:1). The promised land and the occupation of the land is dependent upon the observance of the law (4:26; 11:17; 28:63; 30:19). The aim of the Deuteronomic historiography is to describe the fate of the land of Israel following the sins of the nations. The sins of the period of the judges caused the curtailment of the land in its ideal borders. The “remaining land” (h˒rṣ hnš˒rt, Josh 13:2), i.e., the coastal area and the Lebanon (Josh 13:2–5; Judg 3:3) was taken away from the Israelites forever because of their sins after the Conquest (Josh 23:12; Judg 2:21–29). By the same token, the sin of the northern Israelites caused the loss of the territories of the north (2 Kgs 17:7–23) while the fall of Jerusalem and the exile of Judah was caused by the sins of Judah (2 Kgs 21:12–15; Weinfeld 1984: 120–22). It is this consciousness of sin of the Israelites from the Conquest to the Exile that motivated the writing of the Deuteronomic historiography.

It should be remarked, however, that the loss of land is not presented in Deuteronomy as final. If Israel returns to God in the Exile God will recall the promise to the patriarchs and will bring them back to their land (Deut 4:27–31; 30:1–10). It is true that these are late texts (see above) but the idea itself may be of early origin (Hos 13:2–8).

In Deuteronomy the land is depicted not just as “a land of milk and honey” as in the previous sources (Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev 20:24; Num 13:27; 14:8) but as a rich land in every respect: a land of grain, wines, and all sorts of fruits and also of natural resources as iron and copper (8:7–9). Unlike Egypt, which is flat, rainless with only the Nile incessantly flowing through a monotonous landscape, the promised land has a nice variegated landscape: “hills and valleys” through which brooks spring forth (8:7), soaking water from heaven (11:11). The comparison is a theological and not an empirical one: the rain from heaven expresses divine providence. The Egyptians developed a theology of opposite nature. According to their view, the barbarians and the animals depend on the water from heaven, whereas for the Egyptians the water comes from the underground (see notes to 11:10–12 in Deuteronomy AB). Moreover, Deuteronomy’s view on Egypt stands in opposition to the other sources of the Pentateuch where Egypt is represented as a most fertile land: “as the garden of YHWH” (Gen 13:10, cf. Exod 16:3; Num 16:13; 20:5).

The particularity of Israel was expressed in the ancient Israelite sources by expressions such as “knew” (yd˓) and “separated” (hbdyl). Thus Abraham was “known” by God, which means “singled out” in order that his descendants will keep justice and righteousness (Gen 18:19). The same expression is found in Amos 3:2: “you alone have I known [= singled out] from all the families of the earth.” In the Holiness Code the particularity of Israel is expressed by the phrases “separate”/“set apart” (hbdyl): “I have set you apart from other peoples to be mine” (Lev 20:26). In Deuteronomy this idea is for the first time expressed by the verb “elect” (bḥr). This is linked here (7:6; 14:2; 26:18) to the idea of sĕgullāh (“special possession,” sigiltu in Akkadian) which is rooted in the ANE political sphere where the sovereign singles out his vassal by giving him a status of sglt (PRU V No. 60:7–12, see note to 7:6) which means peculium, “special property.” Theologically, the peculiar status of the people was defined as “holy people” (mqdwš, Deut 7:6; 14:1, 21). In Exod 19:5–6 the sĕgullāh is linked to gôy qdwš, “holy nation,” but there the special status of the people serves as reward for being loyal to the covenant (19:5a) while in Deuteronomy the election serves as a motivation for observing the laws and especially laws of purity and rejection of pagan practices: “You shall not eat nebelah . . . because you are a holy people to YHWH your God” (14:21; cf. 14:1–2 against self-mutilation and 7:1–5 against idolatry).

A distinction should also be made between the Holiness Code concept of holiness and the Deuteronomic one. While the Holiness Code urges the people to sanctify themselves and to be holy: “you shall be holy” (qdšym thyw, Lev 19:2) or “you shall be holy to me” (Lev 20:26), “you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy” (whtqdštm whyytm qdšym, Lev 11:44)—hence not to contaminate their souls with impurity, Deuteronomy reverses the order and urges the people not to contaminate themselves because they are holy to God by virtue of their election “because you are holy people to YHWH your God” (ky ˒m qdwš ˒th lYHWH ˒lhyk, 7:6; 14:1, 21). In the Holiness Code holiness depends on observing purity (Exod 22:30: “You shall be holy to me, you should not eat flesh torn by beasts . . .”), whereas according to Deuteronomy observance of purity is bound to the holiness of the people which is an established fact. It is true, from the point of view of piety, that the concept of holiness in the Holiness Code is more intense: Israel has to deserve to be holy and is not holy automatically (Milgrom 1973: 158), whereas in Deuteronomy the holiness is inherent in the people and is not conditioned by preserving purity. One should admit, however, that in both cases the privilege of being holy involves obligation: noblesse oblige. This applies also to Gen 18:19 and Amos 3:2 where the singling out of the people means responsibility and self-perfection.

It should be added here that there was awareness of the moral danger that the election might involve. The consciousness of election is apt to foster a superiority complex and therefore the author of Deuteronomy, when speaking about election, is eager to add that it is not the virtue and strength of the nation that caused the election, but that the love of God to the patriarchs is the main reason for choosing their descendants (Deut 7:7–8; 9:4–5).

In the Second Temple period the election of Israel was interpreted as God’s giving of Torah and Sabbath to Israel. God’s bestowal of Torah and Sabbath upon Israel was seen as a graceful act and a sign of election (Neh 9:7–14). This is also attested in a passage from the book of Jubilees of liturgical nature (2:31–33) and constitutes an important element in the festive prayers of Qumran (4Q503:24–25 in Baillet 1982) and in the conventional Jewish liturgy for Sabbaths and festivals (Kosmala 1959: 339; Weinfeld 1988b).

The book of Deuteronomy has a lot of verbal and conceptional affinities to Wisdom Literature. Thus, for example, the term “abomination of YHWH” (tw˓bt YHWH), which is found in the OT only in Deuteronomy and in the book of Proverbs, has its parallels in Sumerian wisdom literature, in the Akkadian proverbs (Hallo 1985), and in the Egyptian wisdom instructions of Amenemope (Weinfeld 1972a: 265–69).

As R. Yaron (1985) has demonstrated, many abomination proverbs are structured as tricolons, as for example Prov 17:15:

You shall not have in your bag alternate weight (˒bn w˒bn), great and small . . .

In order to adjust the matter to the spirit of the book Deuteronomy adds the motive clause of retribution (v 15).

There are also other significant overlappings in content between Deuteronomy and Wisdom. Laws which have no parallels in the Tetrateuch have their parallels in Wisdom Literature. Thus the injunctions about “neither adding nor detracting” of the word of God is found only in Deut 4:2; 13:1; and in Prov 30:5–6 (cf. Eccl 3:14; Weinfeld 1972a: 261–65). The injunction about removal of boundaries (Deut 19:14; 27:17) and falsification of weights and measures (25:13–16) have their verbal parallels in Prov 22:28; 23:10; 11:1; 20:10, 23 and in Egyptian wisdom (Amenemope XVII:15–XIX:3; Lichtheim, AEL 2:157). Furthermore, like in Deuteronomy and in Proverbs the Amenemope exhortations about falsifying weights and measures are motivated, as indicated above, by the same rationale: “for it is an abomination to YHWH” (Deut 25:13–16; Prov 11:1; 20:10, 23) and “abomination of Re” in the Egyptian wisdom of Amenemope (XVIII:15–XIX:3).

The warning against vows and cultic commitments in Deut 23:22–26 has its parallel in Eccl 5:1–5. Although Ecclesiastes is a late book it contains a great deal of early material (cf. 9:7–9 with the Gilgamesh epic, NET 90, and with the Egyptian Song of the Harper [Lichtheim, AEL 1: 193–97] and cf. the Mesopotamian parallel to Eccl 4:9–12 [Shaffer 1967; 1969]). Warnings against rash declarations and vows are a frequent topic of Israelite wisdom (Prov 20:13; 18:7) and non-Israelite wisdom as well, cf. the Babylonian injunction: “guard your lips, do not utter solemn oaths . . . for what you say in a moment will follow you afterwards” (BWL 104, 131–33). The motivation for restraint in this area is distinctly utilitarian, typical of sapiential literature. There is consequently no reason to see Pentateuchal influence on this passage in Qoheleth. The style of the exhortation in Qoheleth: “It is better (ṭwb) that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay” (5:4) is sapiential and is characterized by the gnomic dicta which begins with the word “better” (ṭwb) (on the ṭwb sayings see Zimmerli 1933: 192–94). While using this maxim, Deuteronomy reworked it in order to accommodate it to the religious aims of the book. In place of the neutral sapiential rationale: “for (God) has no pleasure with fools” (5:3) the author of Deuteronomy supplied it with a religious rationale: “for YHWH your God will surely require it from you” (23:22).

Another law which parallels a sapiential exhortation is Deut 23:16: “You shall not extradite a slave to his master,” which corresponds to Prov 30:10: “do not slander a servant to his master” (LXX, Syriac, and Weinfeld 1972a: 272–73). Such prescriptions of humane nature are characteristic of Wisdom Literature and are quite strange to be found in a legal code which by nature is concerned with stabilizing interclass relationships rather than prescribing laws which would undermine them (for the duty to extradite slaves, see ANET, 166–167 [#15–20], 190 [#22–24]).

The predilection for wisdom in Deuteronomy is recognized in several other places:

(1) Observance of the commandments equals wisdom and understanding (4:6) and the people of Israel who observe the laws and the commandments are considered “a wise and understanding people” (˓m ḥkm wnbwn; 4:6b). (The same term is applied to Joseph [Gen 41:39] and to Solomon [1 Kgs 3:12].) This equation implies some kind of identification of wisdom with law which took place in Israel in the 7th century b.c.e., the period in which scribes and wise men began to take an active part in the composition of legal literature (Jer 8:8; see above; Weinfeld 1972a: 150–51).

(2) According to Deut 1:9–18, Moses appoints “men of understanding and full of knowledge” (ḥkmym, nbwnym, yd˓ym) in order to judge the people. In the old tradition of Exod 18:13–27, the appointed judges are to possess different qualities: “capable men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate gain.” According to Deuteronomy leaders and judges must possess intellectual qualities: wisdom, understanding, and knowledge—traits which characterize the leader and judge in Wisdom Literature (Prov 8:15–16). The same attitude is revealed when Deut 16:19 is compared with Exod 23:8. While Exodus 23 reads: “You should take no bribes for a bribe blinds them that have sight” (pqḥym), the parallel in Deuteronomy 16 reads: “You shall take no bribes for a bribe blinds the wise” (ḥkmym). The author of Deuteronomy believes that the qualification of a judge must be intellectual in character.

The same conception is met in the Deuteronomic historiography. Solomon is given wisdom and understanding so that he might judge the people (1 Kgs 3:4–15). Like Moses who complains of the burden of governing a people who are “as the stars of heaven for multitude” (Deut 1:9–10), Solomon speaks of the difficulty to judge a people “that cannot be counted . . . for multitude” (1 Kgs 3:8–9). Like the author of 1:9–18, the Deuteronomic editor in 1 Kgs 3:4–15 regards wisdom as the principal requisite for the complete functioning of the judiciary.

Astruc, J. 1753. Conjectures sur les mémiores originaux dont il parait que Moyse s’est servi, pour compose le livre de la Genèse. Brussels.

Avigad, N. 1980. The Upper City of Jerusalem. Jerusalem (in Hebrew). ET Nashville, 1983.

Begg, C. T. 1979. The Significance of Numeruswechsel in Dt: The Pre-History of the Question. ETL 55: 116–24.

———. 1980. The Literary Criticism of Deut 4:1–40. Contributions to a Continuing Discussion. ETL 56: 10–55.

Broshi, M. 1974. Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh. IEJ 24: 21–26.

Cazelles, H. 1982. Le nom de shear Yashub, fils d’Isaie concerne-t-il tout Israël ou seulement le royaume de Nord? PWCJS 8: 47–50.

Driver, S. R. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. 2d ed. Oxford.

Frankena, R. 1965. The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy. OTS 14: 122–54.

Hallo, W. H. 1985. Biblical Abominations and Sumerian Taboos. JQR 76: 21–40.

Kochavi, M., ed. 1972. Judaea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968. Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

Milgrom, J. 1973. The Alleged “Demythologization and Secularization” in Deuteronomy. IEJ 23: 156–61.

Minnette de Tillesse, G. 1962. Sections “tu” et sections “vous” dans le Deutéronome. VT 12: 29–87.

———. 1958. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. SCM. London. ET 1984.

Shaffer, A. 1967. The Mesopotamian Background of Lamentations 4:9–12. EI 8: 246–50.

———. 1969. New Light on the “Three-Ply Cord.” EI 9: 159–60 (in Hebrew).

Streck, M. 1916. Vol 2 of Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige. 3 vols. Leipzig.

Weidner, E. F. 1923. Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien. Leipzig. Repr. Hildesheim, 1970.

Weinfeld, M. 1967. The Awakening of National Consciousness in Israel in the 7th Century. Pp. 412ff. in Oz LeDavid. Jerusalem.

———. 1970. The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East. JAOS 90: 184–203.

———. 1972b. The Worship of Molech and the Queen of Heaven and Its Background. UF 4: 133–54.

———. 1973. On “Demythologization and Secularization” in Deuteronomy. IEJ 23: 230–33.

———. 1983. The Extent of the Promised Land—The Status of Transjordan. Pp. 59–75 in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit, ed. G. Strecker. Gottingen.

———. 1988a. The Pattern of the Israelite Settlement in Canaan. Pp. 270–83 in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986 VTSup 40. Leiden.

———. 1988b. Prayer and Religious Practices in the Qumran Sect. In Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Haifa.

Wette, W. M. L., de. 1805. Dissertatio critica exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi libris diversum, alius cujusdam recentioris actoris opus esse monstratur. Halle.

Wolff, H. W. 1972. Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks. Pp. 308–24 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Munich.

Wright, D. P. 1987. Deuteronomy 21:1–9 as a Rite of Elimination. CBQ 49: 387–403.

Zimmerli, W. 1933. Zur Struktur der alttestamentlichen Weisheit. ZAW 51: 177–204.

cf. confer, compare

Sanh. Sanhedrin

Yoma Yoma (= Kippurim)

LXX Septuagint

fc. forthcoming (publication)

ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

b.c.e. before the common (or Christian) era

N north(ern)

ÜgS, M. Noth. 1967. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. 3d ed. Tübingen

ff. following pages

etc. et cetera (and so forth)

e.g. exempli gratia (for example)

KB Keilschriftliche Bibliothek, ed. E. Schra- Ÿ der. Berlin, 1889–1915

n. note(s)

AB Anchor Bible

P “Priestly” source

S south(ern)

W west(ern)

E east(ern); or “Elohist” source

PRU Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit, ed. C. F. A. Schaeffer and J. Nougayrol. Paris

OT Old Testament

AEL M. Lichtheim. 1971–80. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley

BWL W. G. Lambert. 1960. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford

ANET, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. with suppl., ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969

DJD Discoveries in the Judean Desert

ET English translation

ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Louvain

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal, Jerusalem

PWCJS Proceedings of the . . . World Congress of Jewish Studies

2d second

ed. editor(s); edition; edited by

OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën

JQR Jewish Quarterly Review

SPB Studia postbiblica

BA Biblical Archaeologist

VT Vetus Testamentum, Leiden

SBT Studies in Biblical Theology

JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies

EI Eretz Israel

vols. volumes

Pp. pages; past

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society, New Haven

UF Ugarit-Forschungen

VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Washington, DC

JJS Journal of Jewish Studies, Oxford

ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin

Moshe Weinfeld Professor, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

Freedman, D. N. 1996, c1992. The Anchor Bible Dictionary (electronic ed.). Doubleday: New York