Part 15
(5:22—31) Moses as Mediator The idea which was only secondarily added in 5:5, that Moses is the unique mediator of YHWH's revelation of the law (cf. 34:10), is fundamental to this section of Moses' review of the events at Mount Horeb. YHWH invites Moses, 'stand here by me' (v. 31), after approving of what the people demanded of Moses (w. 28, 30). Following the people's pledge to listen and do whatever YHWH would tell Moses (v. 27, cf. Ex 19:7-8), YHWH begins to tell Moses the whole instruction (kol-hammiswd), and 'the statutes and ordinances' which Moses in turn shall teach the people (v. 31). All the laws are thus referred back to a revelation at Mount Horeb although, prior to entering the land, the Decalogue is the only law known to the people. In correspondence with this differentiation between the Decalogue and all other laws, the idea that YHWH wrote the Ten Commandments on two stone tablets further underlines their significance (v. 22; cf. 9:8—10; 10:1—5; Ex 24:12; 31:18). Scribal comments (w. 24/7, 26) on the notion of the divine voice from 'out of the fire' reflect on the uniqueness of God's revelation (cf. 4:32-3) as well as the frailty of the human being beside God (cf. Isa 40:6—7; Jer 17:5—8). v. 29, which has a close parallel in Jer 32:39—40, is a further comment on Israel's pledge to obey the laws: the ideal of 'fear of God' as the true disposition for obedience to the law was realized in an exemplary situation during the foundational theophany. This 'fear' is 'not terror but inner religious feeling' (Weinfeld 1991: 325).
v. 16, except for v. 12, this commandment of the Decalogue is the only one which is expressed in a positive form. It has a traditional background in the legal sentences in Ex 21:15, I7! cf. also Deut 21:18-21. It aims at protecting solidarity within a family and securing support for parents in their old age by their sons and daughters. The first part of the motive clause
(cf. 22:7) reflects the idea that honourable behaviour will repay the person who exercises it. The second part refers to life in Israel's land, and this shows thatthe Decalogue was given preeminence over the 'statutes and ordinances' for observance in the land (5:31; 12:1) only through the literary construction of 5:1-5, 22-31. w. 17—19, these three prohibitions are probably based on Hos 4:2 and are alluded to in Jer 7:9. Fundamental ethical criteria for accusations in prophetic speech are being refor-
(5:32—6:3) Exhortations 5:32—3 may be a reflection of liturgical practice, cf. 6:17—18; 7:11. In general terms, a scribe here relates obedience to God's will to the rewards which an obedient person will gain from it. Within the OT, such a liturgical and doctrinal tradition, which is characteristic of Deuteronomistic writing (cf. also 8:1; Josh 1:7; Jer 7:23), is questioned by the book of Job which gives expression to a different religious
DEUTERONOMY 142
as a 'jealous God' (cf. 5:9), punishes apostasy (v. 15; cf. 29:25—8 (MT 24-7)). The extraordinary thought that YHWH might 'destroy' Israel (v. 15) is made the subject of reflection in 9:7— 10:11, especially 9:13-14; cf. also Am 9:8 and Deut 28:63. 'Forgetting YHWH' while devoting oneself to the worship of local, autochthonous deities is a recurring reason for accusations in Hosea (2:13 (MT 15); 8:14; 13:6) and Jeremiah (2:32; 13:25; 18:15; 23:27)> cf8:7-20. v. 14 reflects a situation of Israel as a community not yet consolidated after the destruction of the central royal sanctuary. Like ch. 13, the verse indicates the Deuteronomists' anti-assimilationist concerns, v. 16 points back to Ex 17:1-7: YHWH's presence in Israel must not be 'put to the test'. For w. 17-18 cf. DEUT 5:32-3. v. 19 reflects the same situation as v. 14, cf. Josh 23:5 and see on 7:1—6.
experience. 6:1 marks the beginning of Moses' teaching Israel the 'instruction' (miswd) which YHWH commanded him
(5:31). A further superscription in 12:1 introduces the 'statutes and ordinances', cf. already 4:44, 45. 6:2-3 mav again reflect liturgical practice. A strong endeavour to keep the religious tradition alive throughout the generations also motivates 6:20-5.
Discourse on Faithful Obedience to the Law (6:4-11:25
(26-32))
(6:4-9) The Central Confession The opening vocative in v. 4 gives this section its name, Shema, and w. 4—9 together with 11:13—21 and Num 15:37—41 form a liturgical text of highest importance in Jewish worship. The translation of the second half of v. 4 (YHWH 'elohenu YHWH 'ehdd) is much debated and remains ambivalent. Stylistically, the words may form one prose sentence or, alternatively, two parallel hymnic exclamations. Thematically, the words may be a statement about YHWH or, alternatively, a statement about YHWH's relationship with Israel. The translation adopted by NRSV and NJPS, 'The LORD is our God, the LORD alone', is probably the best, cf. however LXX and Mk 12:29. Th£ audience is being admonished and confesses that Israel stands in an exclusive relationship with YHWH. This excludes the worship of any other deities (cf. 5:7; 17:2—7) as well as a consort of YHWH (cf. DEUT 16:21). Josh 24 reflects a similar concern regarding Israel's exclusive allegiance to YHWH. At a later stage in the history of Israel's religious thought, this fundamental confession could be accommodated to a monotheistic creed like 4:35, 39; 32:39; and in this sense Zech 14:9 unfolds the universal dimension of v. 4; cf. also i Cor 8:4. v. 5, cf. Mk 12:30. What human sentiment can correspond to the confession of v. 4? A scribe here designates the true faith commitment as 'love of God'. This notion has been further developed in 30:16-20, and it equals the notion of'fear of God' as in 5:29, see DEUT A.I. The fact that v. 5 is an injunction need not surprise. First, it may have been modelled after a demand of undivided loyalty in the political sphere (cf. Parpola and Watanabe 1988: 39 (11. 266-8); ANET537). Secondly, as faith is a human response to divine revelation (cf. 5:6, 24), it can be given guidance, and the notion of love here functions as the fundamental guiding idea; cf. also Mic 6:6-8. The scribe circumscribes the totality of the human being with three terms in order to emphasize the seriousness of a faith commitment, cf. the idealized characterization of Josiah in 2 Kings 23:25 and also i Kings 8:46— 50; contrast Jer 12:2. w. 6-9, all Israelites are asked to memorize, to teach, and to publicly confess the dogma of v. 4. As the intrusive relative clause 'that I am commanding you today' (cf. 7:11) shows, this later came to be understood of the entire law; see Veijola (19920, b) and on the customs mentioned in w. 89, Keel (1981).
(6:20-5) Basic Religious Instruction The section emphasizes that the Exodus creed is the foundation of the law, as the internal structure of the Decalogue also makes clear. The introduction shows the catechetical purpose of a unit such as w. 21-4, cf. Ex 13:14-15. The graphic elaboration in v. 22 may be secondary, cf. Garcia Lopez (1978). v. 25 formulates a fundamental theology of the law: observing the law (kol-hammiswd) will be 'righteousness (seddqd) for us' (RSV), 'to our merit before the LORD our God' (NJPS), cf. 24:13. LXX offers a remarkable translation: 'mercy (deemosyne) will be for us, if...' In the NT, Paul in Phil 3:9 expresses his acceptance and his rejection of this theological thought, cf. also Gal 2:16— 17, 21.
(7:1-11) The Election of Israel v. i takes 6:10 as a model, and v. 4 depends on 6:15. However, the perspective in which the land is seen is totally different from the one adopted in 6:10— 15 and 8:7—18 or such texts as Hos 2:2—13 (MT 4—15); Jer 2:5—7 where the wealth and fertility of the land are considered a threat to Israel's allegiance to YHWH. According to w. 1-5, the land is a territory where the religious habits of many ancient 'nations' prevail and where, because of this, Israel's identity is in danger. This idea is being expressed through the imagery of a military conquest, v. 2 represents the same concept which underlies 2:32—5; here as in 20:16—17 it is shaped as a command to 'utterly destroy' (h-r-m hifil) the nations of the land. (On the antiquarian list of names see the entries for the respective names in ABD.) The concept of'ritual destruction' of entire communities can be traced back to at least the ninth century BCE as it is also found on the Mesha stone, a Moabite royal inscription from about 830 BCE, which includes this episode:
And Chemosh said to me, 'Go, take Nebo [a town east of the Jordan] from Israel!' So I went by night and fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, taking it and slaying all, seven thousand [men and women], for I had devoted them to destruction [firm] for (the god) Ashtar-Chemosh. And I took from there the [vessels] of Yahweh, dragging them before Chemosh. (11.14—18 (abbreviated): cf. ANET320)
(6:10-19) Against Forgetting YHWH The paraenetic discourses in chs. 6-n are styled so as to correspond to the imagined situation of Moses' audience east of the Jordan (1:1-5; 3:29J 4:46). Taking possession of the promised land (cf. 1:8) is seen by the Deuteronomists as the one great threat to Israel's belief in the God of the Exodus (5:6). Looking back to the defeat of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, these scribes understand the catastrophe as caused by the 'anger' ('ctp) of YHWH who,
However, v. 2 does not intend to document ancient military practice, but rather to construe an ideal of Israel's conquest of the land. This ideal does not tell anything about Israel's early history, but mainly has two functions: it serves as a basis for explaining the defeat of Jerusalem in 587 BCE in terms of Israel's apostasy which is seen to have been induced by her assimilation to the nations of the land in defiance of a Mosaic
143 DEUTERONOMY
then you shall bless the LORD your God...'; cf. Weinfeld 1991: 391) is an exhortation to praise God for all the good which the community enjoys. In v. n, the notion of forgetting YHWH' is explained in terms of disobedience to the law. w. 12-18 enlarge on the preceding texts, notably in hymnic praise of YHWH's mighty deeds. A scribe here warns against impious arrogance (cf. Hos 13:4—6), as Israel's wealth is owed to God's blessing (7:13; cf. Hos 2:8 (MT10)). w. 19-20 add a reinterpretation of w. 7—18 on the lines of 7:1—5, turning the concept of annihilation into a conditional threat against Israel, cf. 6:15. w. i and 6 (cf. 6:1) frame the first unit of ch. 8 which demonstrates how the imagery of Israel's forty years wandering in the wilderness (cf. 1:3; 2:14; Am 2:10; Ex 15:22—17:7; Num 10:33—12:16; 20:1—21:20) should lead towards a knowledge of God. To the several interpretations of this period (cf. 1:31; 32:10-11; Hos 2:14-15 (MT 16-17); Jer 2:2)>v2 adds the aspect of God's 'testing' (n-s-h piel) Israel's faithfulness (cf. Judg 3:4). This thought may even prepare the ground for the discussion of the problem of theodicy in the book of Job. In v. 5, this interpretation is modified by the concept of God's 'disciplining' (y-s-rpiel) Israel, cf. Zeph 3:2; Jer 2:30; 30:11,14; 31:18. v. 3 is a keystone of theology within the OT A scribe here develops an understanding of religious faith and, at the same time, claims that this faith must have its foundation in God's words of promise and command; cf. 5:24; 30:15-16; also I
command (cf. 20:18; 29:25-8 (MT 24-7); Josh 23:1 to Judg 3:6), and it serves as a warning against assimilation for the community of those who are faithful to the law, probably at some time in the Second Temple period, v. 3 may be directly related to the policy of Nehemiah in the fifth century BCE, cf. Neh 13:23—7 and also Gen 24:3; 28:1. v. 5 proscribes all cultic sites besides the temple, cf. 12:3; Ex 34:13. In w. 1—2, Israel's claim to the land and fear of apostasy resulted in an ideal which induces doubt about God's relation to humankind and frightens the human being away from God. Even within Deuteronomy itself, this voice finds a theologically more promising context, cf. 4:19-20, 32-5 (however, also 36-8); 9:1-6. v. 6 can justify a separation from people who worship 'other gods' (v. 4; 20:18), but not the ideal of w. 1—2. On the exegetical problem of w. 1—2 see Barr (1993: 207—20).
v. 6 (cf. 26:16-19) Puts ^e exclusive relationship between YHWH and Israel (cf. 6:4) into a universal horizon in relating it to the entire created world (cf. Ex 19:5; Am 3:2), thus going far beyond an orientation towards Israel's land. The connection between mythological primeval history and YHWH's call of Abraham in Gen 9:18-12:3 gives a narrative representation of this creed. Its climax in Gen 12:3 (cf. Jer 4:1—2) must be considered an aspect of the canonical context of Deut 7:6. w. 7-8, Israel's election is founded solely on YHWH's love, cf. Hos 11:1, which also manifests itself in YHWH's promise to the ancestors, cf. Gen 22:16—18. A scribe here confronts the triumphant conception of w. 1—2 with a deliberate antithesis which sees Israel as 'the fewest of all peoples', w. 9-10 quote 5:9-10 but restrict YHWH's punishment to any individually responsible person.
(9:1-6) Righteousness and the Conquest of the Land Rhetorically, this section has been carefully adapted to the fictitious situation indicated by 1:1—5; 3:2$; cf also 31:3—6. It is probably an insertion, and borrows a number of motifs from its literary context. Moses 'encourages and strengthens' Israel in such a way that his words even create a contradiction between v. 3 and 7:22. However, the specific subject of w. i— 6 is the question of why YHWH would destroy the nations of the land, cf. 7:1-2; 8:19-20. Israel is being warned not to ascribe YHWH's great deeds to her own 'righteousness' (sedaqd; contrast 6:25; 8:1). Instead, the nations of the land are being qualified by a 'wickedness' (ris'a) which provokes divine punishment, cf. Ezek 18:20 and also Gen 15:16; Lev 18:24—30. There is no way of determining what the 'wickedness' of these nations who could not have offended against the laws from Mount Horeb is seen to have been, although one might refer to the 'abhorrent things' (to'lbot) according to 12:31; 18:9—12; 20:18. This problem may have motivated the scribe who, by adding v. 2, altogether transforms the imagery of conquest. Building on elements adopted from 1:28 and 7:24, this scribe imagines the entire land as populated not by ancient nations, but rather by 'the offspring of the Anakim'
(7:12-26) Hope and Israel's History This section presents further Deuteronomistic elaborations of some of the subjects addressed in 6:10-7:11. YHWH's oath to Israel's ancestors (7:8) will only motivate YHWH to keep the 'gracious covenant' if Israel observes the commandments; v. 12, together with 8:19—20, thus relate the theology of 7:7—8 to the doctrine of YHWH as a 'jealous God' (5:9—10; 6:15; 7:9—10). God's love unfolds in blessings in the spheres of daily life (w. 13-15; cf. Ex 23:25-6; Deut 28:1-14). vJ6 forms a transition to scribal reflections on the impossible vision of 7:1—2 in the light of the historical experience of a small community living amongst different peoples (cf. 6:14). Although hope remains that taking possession of the land will eventually be as successful as the Exodus from Egypt (w. 18—19; cfI:3°J Ex 13:17— 14:31), YHWH will 'clear away' (NRSV; dislodge: NJPS: nasal, v. 22 as in 7:1) the peoples only 'little by little', cf. Ex 23:28-33; Josh 23:6-13. This concept prepares for the biblical picture of Israel's early history as much as for an understanding of the post-exilic period in the light of YHWH's exuberant promises. In the realm of history, what is essential is not to allow the religions of these peoples to become a 'snare' (v. 16) for the people of YHWH. Cf. also the liturgical use of the warning example of the earlier generations in Ps 106:34—41.
(see DEUT 1:28), i.e. mythological creatures, cf. Am 2:9; Josh 11:21-2; Bar 3:24-8. Mythological imagination thus counterbalances the rhetoric of annihilation.
(9:7-10:11) YHWH's Wrath at Mount Horeb This section reads like a homily on the doctrine of YHWH as a 'jealous God' in 6:15. Looking back to Mount Horeb as the place of a 'covenant' ceremony (9:9, based on 5:2, 22), a scribe here reflects on the threat that YHWH might 'destroy' (s-m-d hifil, 6:15; 9:8, 13-14) Israel. In his representation of Israel's foundational period under Moses' leadership, he shows how, in a paradigmatic way, this threat had been averted through Moses' intercession for the people. Thus, Israel's future is
(8:1—20) Knowledge of God and Praise Characterized by its poetic beauty and a rich diversity of paraenetic verbs, ch. 8 returns to the subject of 6:10-15: the wealth of the land as a possible threat to Israel's faithful adherence to the God of the Exodus. For a critical analysis see Veijola (1995 »). w. 7—10 ('When the LORD your God brings you into a good land...
DEUTERONOMY I44
11:26—32 (cf. 27:11—13; 30:15—20). Crossing the Jordan and entering into the land marks the situation for a decision between faithful adherence to YHWH, the God of the Exodus, and apostasy: obedience or disobedience, blessing or curse are being presented as straightforward alternatives. A similar ceremony at Shechem, i.e. between Mount Gerizim to the south and Mount Ebal to the north, is narrated in Josh 24, cf. especially w. 14-15. A puzzling gloss in v. 30 transfers the ceremony of v. 29 to a location directly in the valley of the Jordan, cf. Josh 4:20; 5:10. Here as elsewhere in chs. 4-11, the great paraenetic alternative is as much a reflection of liturgical practice as it is part of the Deuteronomistic literary invention of Moses' oration.
grounded in the Mosaic age (as well as in the promise to the ancestors, 9:27; cf. 7:7—8), although the catastrophe of 587 BCE could not be averted, cf. Jer 5:18—19; 30:11, the interdiction of intercession theme in Jer 7:16; 11:14; also I5:ITh£ basic narrative, which may have included 9:7-18, 26-9; io:iofc-n, is based on an earlier version of the story of the Golden Calf in Ex 32—4; see Driver (1895 (1901)) and especially Aurelius (1988). Several additions have been joined to it, notably referring to Aaron (9:20; 10:6-7), the Levites (10:8-9), and the ark (10:1—5; cf. J Kings 8:9). The section starts from a striking reinterpretation of the period in the wilderness (9:7; cf. Jer 7:24-6, and see DEUT 8:2), and this has been enlarged by more instances of Israel's rebellious character as a 'stubborn people' (famqese-forep, 9:13) in 9:22—4 (for which cf. 1:19—46; Ex 17:1— 7; Num 11:1—34; PS 106:19—33).
Promulgation of the Laws (12:1-25:19 (26:1-15))
(12:1-32 (MT 12:1-13:1)) The Law of Centralization of Sacrificial Worship Ch. 12 contains the law which defines the place of Deuteronomy in the history of Israelite cult. It is based on an opposition between a multiplicity of cultic sites ('any place you happen to see') and 'the place that the Lo RD will choose' as the one legitimate place for performing acts of sacrificial cult
(10:12-11:32) Nomistic Paraenesis The exhortation 'So now, O Israel' opens a sequence of loosely connected paraenetic addresses which borrow many elements from the preceding chapters. Although the section may include some vague reminiscences of a treaty form (cf. Mayes 1979: 30-4, 2079), it has no overall coherence. Regarding the conquest of the land west of the Jordan, 11:22—32 returns as it were to the point where Moses' historical review had left the reader in 3:29. The first unit, 10:12—11:1, builds upon 6:2, 5 and emphasizes that 'fear of God' and 'love of God' denote a belief in God which is the basis for all faithful obedience to the divine commandments, w. 14-15 refer to Israel's election in a universal horizon (cf. 7:6—8; 4:32—5), and w. 17—18 establish a connection between election and behaviour (cf. 4:5—8; Ps 146:6-9). v. 19 gives an example of how hymnic praise of a just and benevolent God must entail practical ethical consequences for the life within a community. For the command itself cf. Lev 19:18/7, 33-4. The 'sojourner' (RSV; NRSV translates 'stranger' in 10:19, Dut 'resident alien' in 5:14; 24:17, etc.) is a typical needy person because he holds no property in land and does not belong to a landowner's household either. In dense metaphorical language, v. 16 gives a paraenetic response to 9:13 (cf. also Jer 4:4; 6:10); however, in 30:6 a scribe arrives at an even more radical understanding of human opposition to the divine word and of God's will to overcome this opposition, cf. Jer 31:33—4; Ezek 18:31; 36:26. For v. 22 cf. Gen 46:27. The second unit, 11:2—9, gives an enumeration of the mighty deeds of God (cf. esp. Ex 14; Num 16) that will contribute to an understanding of God's 'greatness', cf. 3:24. As v. 2 is an anacoluthon, it is not clear in what sense a scribe here addresses the problem of the succession of generations in Israel, cf. 29:14-15 (MT13-14); Josh 24:31; Judg 2:7,10. The liturgical fragment does not take the situation of Moses' oration into account, cf. 1:34—5,39> 2:I6. For w. 8—9 cf. 8:1. w. 10— 12, cf. 8:7-10: the praise of the land also implies a rejection of idolatrous fertility cults, cf. Hos 2:2-13 (MT 4-15). w. 13-15 cf. 7:12-15, a scribe here turns the praise into a conditional promise, cf. Jer 5:23—5. w. 16—17 are based on 6:15 and echo the curse of 28:23. For w. 18-21 see DEUT 6:6-9. w. 22~5 (cf. 7:1624; 9:1; Josh 1:1-9): this unit leads on to the conquest narratives of the book of Joshua. For the ideal delineation of Israel's territory cf. 1:7 and Josh 1:4. For the motif of the nations' dread of Israel cf. 2:25; Josh 2:9-11, 24.
(w. 13—14). On the one hand, the law contradicts that of Ex 20:22-6 which gives permission to erect 'an altar of earth' or 'an altar of stone' in many places, for that law includes the divine promise that 'in every place where I [YHWH] cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you'. On the other hand, the law is presupposed by the Priestly Document. In that code, the one single 'place' of sacrificial worship is imagined as a sanctuary the design of which was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai, and this unique sanctuary was to allow YHWH 'to dwell among the Israelites' (wesakanti betokam, Ex 25:8-9 MT). The law of Deut 12 in its hypothetical original form is often regarded as the law which caused the Judean king Josiah 'to defile the high places... from Geba to Beersheba', i.e. throughout his kingdom, and to leave only 'the altar of the LORD in Jerusalem' (2 Kings 23:8-9; see DEUT F.I), and this historical connection remains a plausible assumption. The law does not name Jerusalem directly but, instead, speaks of'the place that the LORD will choose'. This may be due to the fact that, according to Israel's historical tradition, it was David who first conquered Jerusalem and made it an Israelite city in the tenth century BCE (2 Sam 5:6—10). The temple at Jerusalem, therefore, was not a sanctuary of YHWH from time immemorial (cf. also 2 Sam 6-7; i Kings 5-9). However, there is no reason to suppose that the formula 'the place that the LORD will choose' should be interpreted in a distributive sense as 'at all the respective places that YHWH will choose', even if, according to Jer 7:12-15, Shiloh had at some time been a sanctuary of the same legitimacy as Jerusalem. Deut 12 clearly has Jerusalem in view.
The law of Deut 12 is addressed to a laity which must be seen as living outside the capital in a rural milieu (v. 17). Ithas several repetitions and employs the second person singular as well as plural. There is a broad scholarly consensus which says that the sections in the plural (or mixed forms of address) are later than those in the singular, and that the singular sections may have been part of the original Deuteronomic law code. As far as cultic matters are concerned, 12:13—19; 14:22—9; 15:19— 23; 16:1-17 representthe core ofthe Deuteronomic legislation.
145 DEUTERONOMY
reads 'to put his name there' as in 12:5 etc.). The concept of the sanctuary as dwelling-place not of the deity, but of the divine 'name' reflects a critique of a concept of holiness which is founded upon too anthropomorphic a notion of the deity (see Weinfeld 1992: 191—209; Mettinger 1982: 38—79). It counterbalances a theological understanding of the temple which may have been prevalent in the monarchic era and again in the Second Temple period (cf Ps 46:5). According to 26:15, the 'heaven' is YHWH's 'holy habitation', and this idea also underlies Solomon's prayer in i Kings 8:22—53. Th£ LXX translators may have had this prayer in mind when they translated the phrase 'to make his name dwell there' as 'for his name to be invoked there', cf. also Isa 56:7 and Mk 11:17.
A correspondence has often been noted between these laws on cultic centralization and the concept of YHWH's unity and uniqueness as expressed in 6:4. For an extensive discussion of Deut 12 see Reuter (1993), Levinson (1997).
(12:1—7) Centralization and Anti-Syncretism v. i is a superscription to the law which closely follows 5:31; cf 6:1. It introduces a second-person plural section (however, in the MT the formula relating to the land and its conquest is in the singular). w. 2—3 echo 7:5 and introduce into the Deuteronomic law a criterion for the judgement of Israel's history of the monarchic period which is pronounced in Deuteronomistic historiography (cf. i Kings 14:23—4; 2 Kings 17:7—12). The stereotypical description of the high places may be based on Hos 4:13; Jer 2:20. Their interpretation as the remains of the cult of an earlier non-Israelite population represents a distinct development within Deuteronomistic thought, which results from the concept of the legitimacy of one single sanctuary of YHWH only. In i Sam 9:11—14, for example, the fact that a country town fir) has its shrine on a hilltop (bdmd) does not worry the narrator. The list of cult-related objects in v. 3 also represents a late stage of religious polemics when compared to 16:21-2; 5:8.
w. 13—14 speak of one type of sacrifice only, the 'burnt offering' ('old), when the entire animal is presented to the deity. It gives permission to slaughter (zabah) animals for food 'within any of your towns' (v. 15) and thus makes slaughter a secular matter which does not have to be performed at an altar any more (see Maag 1956). In consequence, no ritual purity is demanded of those who eat the meat. v. 16 adds a detailed instruction concerning the blood which was formerly put on an altar, w. 17—18 deal with cultic offerings which can no longer be brought to a local shrine but are not entirely divested of their ritual quality either. On the tithe see the additional law in 14:22-9, on the firstlings the law in 15:1923, on pilgrimages to the sanctuary the laws in 16:1—17. Th£
(12:8—12) Centralization and the Periodization of Israel's History w. 8—12 are another second-person plural section. Like Jer 7:21-2, the text builds upon the idea that Israel did not receive laws concerning cultic matters prior to entering the land. However, according to this Deuteronomistic scribe, the period of cultic tolerance lasted not only until the age of Joshua (cf. Josh 21:43-5; 23:I) but until that of Solomon, during which the temple in Jerusalem was built. Like i Kings 8:16, Deut 12:8-12 identifies the moment at which YHWH 'chose' the place of the only sanctuary with the inauguration of the temple in Jerusalem, cf. i Kings 5:3-5 (MT 5:17-19); 2 Sam 7:1 for the notion of'rest'. It is clear from these links between the law and the narrative that w. 8—12 are an addition to the Deuteronomic law after it had become part of the Deuteronomistic History.
LXX has the second half of v. 17 in the second person plural which might suggest that the references to 'votive gifts' (nedarim, cf. 23:21-3 (MT 22-4)), 'freewill offerings', and 'donations' are a later addition. The law envisages cultic celebrations of the entire family and makes 'rejoicing' the main characteristic of a religious festival. In the LXX, the list of participants does not include the Levite but rather the 'resident alien', as in 5:14. v. 19 commands permanent support of the Levite who used to be the priest at a local shrine and was to lose his cultic functions through the centralization of sacrificial worship (see, however, 18:6-8).
(12:20-8) Restrictions on Profane Slaughter The section gives a restrictive interpretation of v. 15. Permission is given to 'eat' meat 'whenever you have the desire', but an animal may be 'slaughtered' (zabah) 'within your towns' only if, after the expansion of the territory, the sanctuary is 'too far from you' (v. 21; the structuring of the verse in the NRSV is not convincing), w. 23—5 show the great concern this scribe has aboutthe blood taboo (cf. Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10-12). v. 27 restores the zebah type of sacrifice as a consequence of the restrictions on the law of v. 15, and this is presupposed in the enumeration of offerings in w. 6, n. At an even later stage, the law of Lev 17:1-7 abrogates Deut 12:15 (Cholewinski 1976: 149-78; see, however, Rofe, quoted in Fishbane 1985: 228, who suggests that w. 20-8 should be understood as a late scribal harmonization of Deut 12:13—19 and Lev 17:1—7).
(12:13—19) Centralization and Sacrifices w. 13—19 are a second-person singular section and are the most original and the most radical part of the legislation of the Deuteronomic reform movement in the late-monarchic era (see DEUT F.I). The first and the last sentences of this section open with the imperative 'take care that you do not...' and it may be debated whether this is an appropriate beginning for a law (cf. 8:11; however, in 6:10-12; 12:29-31 the imperative follows a temporal clause). However, no alternative beginning suggests itself. In w. 13—14, the lawgiver commands the restriction of sacrifices to the one single place 'that the LORD will choose' and thus puts an end to all other cultic sites which used to exist in Judah. A connection between the concept of a single sanctuary and the concept of tribal territories is made only here
(and, depending on this verse, in 12:5), and the Deuteronomistic authors are not agreed on whether Jerusalem could be claimed by Judah (Josh 15:63) or by Benjamin (Judg 1:21).
(12:29—32) Anti-Syncretistic Paraenesis In a second-person singular section, the same concept as in w. 2—7 is being repeated, namely that even after the extinction of the nations in the land west of the Jordan, a temptation will remain for Israel to imitate religious rites which the divine ceremonial law does not permit. For paraenetic purposes, all 'abhorrent' rites are equated with a syncretistic corruption of Israel's
The formula concerning the chosen place of sacrificial worship in v. 14 lacks a complement as in 14:23; 16:2, 6, n; 26:2 which qualifies the chosen place as a place which YHWH chooses 'to make his name dwell there' (lesakken semo sam; also in a second-person plural text in 12:11; a later variation
DEUTERONOMY 146
religion (and vice versa). The end of v. 31 addresses a ritual practice which is severely criticized in such Deuteronomistic texts as e.g. Jer 7:30—4; 2 Kings 21:6. This type of childsacrifice may betray Phoenician influence in Judah in the period after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE (see Miiller 1997). v. 32 (MT 13:1) concludes the law of centralization with a general exhortation and a formula which serves to protect the text from any changes and thus leads towards its canonical status (cf. 4:2). The law of Deut 12 was not only of enormous importance in the religious history of ancient Israel, but it retains its theological significance as a reflection on God's presence in worship in relation to God's supreme freedom.
sympathy. In comparison to the careful legal proceeding spelled out in 17:2—7 ('... and you make a thorough inquiry, and the charge is proved true'), the instructions for punishing the offender in w. 8-9 look awkward. A double textual tradition for the beginning of v. 9 reads 'you shall surely kill him'
(MT) or, alternatively, 'you shall surely report him' (LXX). However, it is clear that the formal legal verdict 'and he shall die' (wamet, cf. 19:12 contrast 19:4 'and he shall live', wahay, and cf. 24:7 etc.) is only pronounced in v. 10 (MT n; cf. also Tigay 1996: 132). The law represents a specific conception of 'Israel' in whose midst (MT w. 2, 6, 12, 14) any attempt to incite apostasy must be punished. At a later literary stage within Deuteronomy, this is restricted to a threat of divine punishment (29:16—21 (MT 15—20)). v. 7 (28:64) may reflect an awareness of the religious world of antiquity in which Israel struggled to retain her faith. (13:12-18) An Insurrectionary Town The model idea of ritual destruction of the nations in the promised land (7:1—2) is applied to an Israelite town in the case of its turning to the worship of foreign gods. The detailed instructions about the 'ban' (herem) are reminiscent of Josh 6-7, cf. also Deut7:25-6. w. 17/7-18 prove the author to have lived some time after the fall of Jerusalem, which was explained by the Deuteronomists as the consequence of YHWH's 'fierce anger' (hdron'ap, cf. 2 Kings 23:26). The community lives in the expectation of YHWH's 'compassion' (rahamim), and faithful obedience to the law is understood as a condition for future restoration.
(13:1-18 (MT 13:2-19)) Incitement to Apostasy The law deals with incitement to apostasy or idolatry in three paragraphs and in each case commands the death penalty (w. 5,10,15) as in 17:2-7. The laws echo some motifs which are also found in Esar-haddon's succession treaty (see DEUT F.2), and thus apply instructions concerning disloyalty in the political sphere to apostasy in the religious sphere. Whether this betrays a revolutionary atmosphere in late seventh century Judah (Weinfeld 1992: 91-100; Dion 1991; Otto 1996/7) or whether a later learned scribe employed the language of political treaties for paraenetic variations on the commandment of 5:7 (Veijola 1995/7) remains open to debate. It may be useful to quote some lines from the Assyrian treaty for comparison here:
If you hear any evil, improper, ugly word which is not seemly nor good to Assurbanipal... either from the mouth of his ally, or from the mouth of his brothers... or from the mouth of your brothers, your sons, your daughters, or from the mouth of a prophet, an ecstatic, an inquirer of oracles, or from the mouth of any human being at all, you shall not conceal it but come and report it to Assurbanipal... If anyone should speak to you of rebellion and insurrection ... or if you should hear it from the mouth of anyone, you shall seize the perpetrators of insurrection, and bring them before Assurbanipal... If you are able to seize them and put them to death, then you shall destroy their name and their seed from the land... (11. 108-46: Parpola and Watanabe 1988: 33-4; ANET 535-6; an Aramaic treaty of the 8th cent, even includes the instruction to destroy a treasonous town: Sfire stela, 3. 12-13; ANET 661).
(14:1—2) Rites of Mourning This law, a late insertion into the law code, forbids two rites still considered to be habitual rites in Judah in Jer 16:6. The Israelites must neither gash their skin nor 'make baldness between the eyes', i.e. on the forehead. The kerygmatic introductory statement employs parent-child imagery in a way reminiscent of Isa 63:8-9,16. Its metaphorical aspects are more evident in 8:5; Isa 1:2-3; Jer
3:19. In the monarchic period, the title of a 'son' of YHWH could be given to the king in royal ideology (cf. Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14), and also the entire people could be called YHWH's 'son' (Hos 11:1). v. 2 is a repetition of 7:6. (14:3-21) Dietary Laws The law opens with the general instruction not to eat 'any abhorrent thing' (kol-tofeba) This is explained by detailed lists which have a more extended parallel in Lev n. The section maybe a secondary addition induced by the question of profane slaughter (12:15). A theological reason for these distinctions is given in Lev 20:22—6; for an interpretation of these rules see Douglas (1966: 41—57). v. 21, animals which have died of natural causes are a taboo for the people to which the law code is addressed but may be given as a charitable support to members of the non-landowning class, cf. 24:19—22, and may even be sold to foreigners. Later laws in Lev 11:39—40 and 17:15—16 only demand rites of purification after eating such meat. The prohibition at the end of v. 21 may reflect religious awe in regard to an animal and its mother as at 22:6-7, cfEX 23:18-19.
(13:1—5) Prophets The possibility of magic acts in the name of other gods than YHWH is also a motif in the Exodus narrative (cf. Ex 7:8-13). However, in the light of Jer 23:9-32, especially w. 25—32, it is doubtful whether prophetic incitement to apostasy was ever an issue in late-monarchic Judah. The problem of untrue oracles in the name of YHWH is addressed in Deut 18:9-22. The author of w. 1-2 interprets the criterion of fulfilment of an oracle as referring to thaumaturgic competence and decidedly subordinates it to the first commandment of the Decalogue (5:6—10). The law exhibits a concern for the exclusiveness of the worship of Israel's God, probably against a background of strong tendencies towards assimilation to foreign cults after the fall of Jerusalem (cf. 12:29—31). The second half of v. 3 which is based on 6:5 aims at a theological understanding of any conceivable enticement to a new religious allegiance.
(14:22—9) Tithes A detailed law on tithes further clarifies 12:17-19. The tithe (or a less clearly defined offering: Ex 23:19) seems to have been a conventional contribution which peasants gave for ceremonies at local shrines, cf. Am 4:4-5. Any suggestion to link it to royal taxation remains speculative
(13:6-11) Family The second law concentrates on an instigator's confidentiality with the tempted believer and is therefore supported by an explicit order to suppress any feelings of
(Crusemann 1996: 215-19). The tithe is made the subject of a
147 DEUTERONOMY
decrees: 'If an obligation came due against a seignior and he sold (the services of) his wife, his son, or his daughter... they shall work (in) the house of their purchaser... for three years, with their freedom reestablished in the fourth year' (§ 117, ANET170—1). The version in Deuteronomy puts special emphasis on the obligation to provide the slave generously with some goods on leaving, 'in proportion to YHWH's blessing' which the master had enjoyed (v. 14, following the LXX reading). However, it does not become clear on what economic basis former slaves would sustain themselves, and instead of becoming landless poor, it might be more advantageous for them to stay with their masters (w. 16-17). m me circumspect social vision of Lev 25, the release of slaves is connected to the restitution of landed property in the jubilee year; cf also Neh 5:1-13. v. 15 adduces the fundamental article of Israel's faith according to Deuteronomy in order to encourage unrestrained obedience. 'Remembering' (zakar) is a vital act of faith. Additionally, a rational argument in v. 18 says that a slave gives his master 'double the service of a hired man' (NJPS; NRSV's translation is based on a contentious interpretation ofmisneh as 'equivalent').
formal command in Deuteronomy in an attempt to abolish the traditional rites and to link the offering to the central sanctuary. A tendency towards desacralization of the tithe is reflected by the permission to turn it into money and to reserve the money for a pilgrimage. A later scribe restricted this permission by adding a conditional clause like that at 12:21 ('if/because the place... is too far from you', v. 24). In legislation of the Second Temple period, the tithe is formally declared a source of income for the Levites, cf Num 18:20-32; Neh 13:10—14. w. 28—9 (cf. 26:12—15), twice within a sevenyear cycle (15:1), the tithe must be put to charitable support of the poor in the country towns. The attached promise makes it clear that divine blessing does not depend on any fertility rites.
(15:1—11) Remission of Debts and God's Blessing Within the sequence of cultic laws, the law indicates that the divine blessing on which economic success of farming depends
(v. 10, cf. v. 18) may be won through humanitarian behaviour. w. 1—3 revise the traditional institution of a fallow year (cf. Ex 23:10—11) and either complement or even replace it by a command to remit any debts which a fellow farmer might have incurred. It is clear from the context that the law concerns a loan which helped the 'neighbour' or 'brother' (RSV) to survive until the next harvest. The law does not include 'foreigners', because they did not belong to the community of those who had to observe the 'release' (semitta) that was proclaimed in YHWH's honour. A lucid philosophical understanding of this controversial differentiation (cf. again in 23:19—20 (MT 20-1)) has been suggested by H. Grotius who says that the Israelites owed the foreigners only whatever was demanded by 'natural law' because of the unity of humankind, but not what would have been motivated by an extraordinary benevolence ('Talibus incolis debebantur ob humani generis cognationem ea quae sunt iuris naturalis: non etiam ea quae maioris sunt bonitatis,' Annotata ad Velus Testamentum, 1644). The instruction of w. 7—10 implies rich observations on the human heart and comes close to the commandment of Lev 19:18 to love one's neighbour (cf. Deut 10:17-19; Mk 12:31). In w. 4—5, a later scribe expresses a vision of the fullness of God's blessing in response to the people's faithful obedience (cf. Isa 58:6-9) and v. ii reconciles this expansion with the original intention of the law. v. 6 may be a late gloss on w. 4-5 which is partly based on 28:12 and possibly reflects a political hope of the community in the Persian empire.
(15:19—23) Firstlings Instructions for annual offerings in 14:22-7 and here form a framework for the humanitarian laws in 14:28-15:18 which refer to three-year and seven-year cycles or periods respectively. On firstlings see Ex 13:1—2; 34:19—20. (16:1-8) Pesah and the Feast of Unleavened Bread The law conflates pesah and the massot feast into one festival in the month of Abib (March/April; a later name is Nisan; see also Lev 23:5). The pesah is thus integrated into the traditional cycle of three agricultural festivals (Ex 23:14-19). For a critical analysis of w. 1-8 see Veijola (1996/7); Gertz (1996). Read in conjunction with 12:13—19, it appears that the pesah is the main zebah type offering in the original law code. It may only be offered at the central sanctuary (w. 2, 5-6). The ancient prohibition of eating leavened bread with a zebah (Ex 23:18) forms a transition to the instructions concerning the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This is to last for seven days and radiates into the entire territory (w. 3-4). At a later stage, v. 8 introduces a cultic assembly at the close of the festival week. In the history of the pesah, this law is unique in that it does not allow the slaughtering of the passover lamb in the individual homes, cf. Ex 12. For the Deuteronomic movement, this festival in spring is of foremost religious significance because it causes the participants to remember the Exodus as the foundational intervention of God in Israel's history; cf. also 2 Kings 23:21-3.
(15:12—18) Debt Servitude The law commands that any Hebrew slave is to be set free (hopsi) after six years of service. This seven-year period is not directly related to the year of release of w. i—n. The law is based on Ex 21:2—6. However, it does not take up the second law of Ex 21:7—11 (which is more a family law), but instead extends the force of the first law to apply equally to male and female slaves. The term 'Hebrew' ('iforf) is known from narratives which confront the Israelites with the Egyptians or the Philistines (e.g. Ex i; i Sam 4). It remains doubtful whether it was originally related to the term hab/piru which, in Egyptian and Near-Eastern texts of the second millennium BCE, designates a certain stratum of society (see ABD iii. 6—10, 95). The subject of the law has a parallel in the Code of Hammurabi (i8th cent. BCE) which
(16:9—12) The Feast of Weeks In Ex 23:160, the sabufot festival is called 'the feast of harvest'. The date of this feast depends on the beginning of the grain harvest which would normally fall in April. Its main characteristic is the liberal consumption of portions of the new yield, and therefore it is supposed to include all the people within the rural community. The appeal to generosity is underlined by v. 12 in a way similar to 15:15. According to the Deuteronomic law, 'rejoicing' in YHWH's presence is the primary raison d'etre of the harvest festivals (w. n, 14—15; cf 12:18, see Braulik 1970), which, in pre-Deuteronomic times, may have had numerous and confusing mythological aspects, cf. Hos 2:2-15 (MT 4-17).
DEUTERONOMY 148
a covenant can be ascribed to the Josianic age depends on the critical understanding of Hos 8:1 and 2 Kings 23:1—3; see Nicholson (1986). (17:8-13) The Authority of a High Court As the abolition of local sanctuaries eliminates the possibility of seeking an ordeal (cf. Ex 22:7—8), the law establishes the judicial authority of the priests at the central sanctuary (cf. 12:13-14). Later additions in w. 9, 12 seem to anchor the office of a judge in this text which is presupposed in the book of Judges. The death penalty for 'presumptuously' (bezadon) disregarding divine authority is commanded in a second case in 18:20-2.
(16:13-15) The Feast of Booths In Ex 23:16/7, the sukkot festival is called 'the festival of ingathering'. It is the autumn festival which follows the grape harvest. Before the beginning of the calendar year in ancient Israel was moved to spring in the late seventh or early sixth century, the festival must have coincided with the New Year and many suggestions have been made concerning its ritual aspects, notably as a celebration of YHWH's enthronement as a 'king' and 'creator god'
(Mowinckel 1962: i. 118-30; Mettinger 1982: 67-77).
(16:16-17) The Rule of Pilgrimages The law summarizes the festival calendar with a revised version of the rule of Ex 23:17. It is clear from w. n, 14; 12:18; 14:26 that 'all your males' includes entire 'households', if not entire villages. 31:10-13 gives a more extensive list of participants in a religious festival.
(17:14-20) The Israelite King The law deals with the legitimacy of the Israelite, i.e. Judean monarchy, as does the Deuteronomistic discourse in i Sam 8. It is often regarded as the core of a supposed Deuteronomic constitutional law in 16:1818:22. As such, it could be directed against revolutionary tendencies as known from the history of the northern kingdom (cf. i Kings 15:27—8; 16:9—10,16; 2 Kings 9:14; 15:10,14, 25, 30; Hos 8:4) or it could be a Utopian model for the political role of a future Israelite king after the destruction of the Judean monarchy in 587 BCE (cf. Lohfink 19710). However, a more plausible interpretation sees the law related to the diverse reflections within the Deuteronomistic representation of Israel's history (see DEUT c.2 and F.3) about the responsibility of the kings for the national disasters under the Assyrians and Babylonians (2 Kings 15:17—25:21). In any case it is worth noting that the law does not mention any royal officers
(16:18—20) Judges Possibly as one aspect of royal administration and judicature, the law institutes judges (sopetim) in the Judean country towns. These are coupled with 'officials' (soterim), i.e. a certain type of scribe, to which the specification 'according to your tribes' (RSV) may relate, possibly a secondary addition (as in 1:15) which alludes to a tribal and military model, cf 20:5-9. Th£ city gate was the normal place for trials, cf 21:19; Am 5:10. One layer of laws in Deuteronomy, esp. the collection of family laws (see DEUT G.I), is built upon the judicial authority of the 'elders' (zeqenim) of a town who may have been a more traditional body. v. 19 is a concise expression of the juridical ethos which, in 10:17-18, is even related to God as example. Taking a bribe (cf. Ex 23:8) is condemned as a threat to justice in all currents of Israel's religious thought, cf. e.g. Am 5:12; Isa 5:23; Ps 15:5; Prov 17:23; cf. also Lambert (1960: 133). v. 20 is a later addition which makes taking possession of the land depend on obedience to the law as in 6:17—18. The subject of legal procedures is further pursued in 17:8—13; 19:1—21; 21:1—9.
(cf. i Kings 4:1-6).
According to w. 14—15, instituting a monarchy was fundamentally legitimate although not without ambivalence, as it meant that Israel would become similar to 'all the nations that are around', thus verging on apostasy. The prohibition against appointing a foreigner (v. 15) as well as the reference to the king and his descendants (v. 20) intend to protect the Davidic dynasty, cf. 2 Sam 7. However, the restrictions imposed on the king in w. 16-17, 2O are an indirect critique of Solomon, cf. i Kings 9:10—11:13. They correspond to the more general paraenesis of 8:11—14 an(^ can even be traced back to prophetic criticism in Isa 31:1. The reference to a divine oracle in v. i6b (and again in 28:68) may reflect controversies which also lie behind Jer 41:16—43:7. At a later stage, the law was supplemented by w. 18—19 which emphasize the pre-eminence of the Torah in Israel. The king shall have his own copy of the law which may lead him like any Israelite to fear God (6:24) and keep God's commandments (5:31-2). Deuteronomy ideally subjects the supreme representative of political power to the same religious and ethical obligations of the highest possible moral standard (4:8) which are valid for the entire community. It is this concern which invites comparison of this law with Paul's reflections on political power under the conditions of the Roman empire (Rom 13:1-7). (18:1-8) Priests The law, which may originally have followed on 17:13, only addresses two issues which concern the typical audience of the law code in the Judean country towns. In a legislative form similar to 15:1-2, it defines the claims of the priests at the central sanctuary (cf. Ex 23:19). The priests, who are not entitled to landed property, are regarded as levitical priests, and w. 6—8 state that all Levites have a rightto perform priestly duties, even if, due to the centralization of the cult,
(16:21—2) Cultic Sites This pair of instructions concerning the features of a sanctuary is puzzling in its literary context. The reference to 'the altar that you make for the LORD your God' is reminiscent of Ex 20:24—5 rathgr than Deut 12:13—14. The temple at Jerusalem does not seem to be an obvious place for an 'asm, a sacred tree or a wooden object, nor a masslbd, a standing stone (cf, however, 2 Kings 23:6). In Deuteronomistic literature, these objects are normally connected with cultic sites in the open country (i Kings 14:23) and are ascribed to the pre-Israelite population (Deut 7:5; 12:2-3). Following recent archaeological discoveries, it is strongly debated whether an asherah might originally have been devoted to the goddess Asherah as a divine consort of YHWH, see Wiggins (1993); Frevel (1995).
(17:1) A Sacrificial Rule The mention of an altar entails a rule like that of 15:21 concerning sacrifices, cf. further Lev 22:17-25.
(17:2^7) Apostasy as a Legal Case This law may be more original in Deuteronomy than 13:1—18 from which laws it is distinguished by the prescription of a careful legal procedure. Apostasy is explicitly called a breach of the covenant (bent) between YHWH and Israel. This points back to the interpretation of the Decalogue (esp. 5:6—10) as the main stipulation of a 'covenant' in 5:2, cf. also 4:12-13. Whether or not this idea of
149 DEUTERONOMY
talionis. This rule, which applies to manslaughter and bodily harm, intends to keep punishment and revenge within strict limits (cf. Ex 21:23-5). Taken out of its original legal context, it is rejected in Mt 5:38-42, whereas within that context a line of interpretation within Judaism leads towards monetary fines (Tigay 1996: 185).
they lose their functions outside Jerusalem. The relation between this law and Josiah's actions as reported in 2 Kings 23:8—9 is a controversial issue (see DEUT F.I). In additions to the law in w. i, 2, 5, a scribe underlines YHWH's 'electing' the entire 'tribe of Levf. However, in later legal developments the priesthood is restricted to the descendants of Aaron (Num 3:9-10). (18:9-22) Prophets As sacrificial cult does not exhaust all religious energies, a section on divination and magic has been added to the law code. Like 17:14, w. 9-12 reflect the Deuteronomistic narrative framework of Deuteronomy. As in 12:2—4, 29~3J> what is 'abominable' to Israel's God is equated with the religious practices of the former inhabitants of the land, cf. also Lev 20:1-8, 22-7. Besides child sacrifice (see DEUT 12:31), seven forms of superstition make a contrast to the one exclusive form of communication between God and his people through a prophet (nabi'). w. 16-18, the author establishes the notion of a succession of prophets by the same interpretation of the events at Mount Horeb which is employed to define the relation between the Decalogue and the law code in ch. 5. The idea of a prophet in v. 18 and the law concerning a 'presumptuous' prophet in w. 20—2 are closely related to the book of Jeremiah (Jer 1:7—9; 23:9~32)- Israel's prophetic traditions are thus anchored in the Torah. However, 34:10 makes a distinction between Moses and all later prophets. On theories concerning the end of the prophetic age sometime during the Persian period see Barton (1986: 105-16). (19:1-13) Cities of Refuge The law continues the section on judicial matters which began in 16:18. However, it does not mention any judges but only the 'elders' of a city (v. 12). The introductory v. i appears to be an addition made after 17:14—20 and 18:9-22 had been inserted into the law code. The institution of three cities of refuge in Judah compensates for the abolition of local sanctuaries where, prior to the reform, an asylum-seeker could have found protection (Ex 21:13—14; cf. i Kings 1:49-53). w8-9 are an addition which provides for three cities of refuge east of the Jordan, cf. 4:41-3; Num 35; Josh 20. The central concern of the law finds expression in v. 10 and is the same as in 21:1—9.
(20:1-21:14) Laws on Warfare Except for 21:1-9, these laws
form a sequence of four laws on the army, on conquest, and on booty. Their background in antiquity is well illustrated by 2
Sam 8:2; 12:26—31, and 2 Kings 15:16; and especially in view of 20:10-14 it is w°rth comparing Thucydides, Pdoponnesian War, 5: 84-116. The first two laws have been heavily supplemented. In 20:1—9, a priest has been given a role beside the officials (sotmm) in w. 2—4, and the officials' enquiry has been reinterpreted in v. 8, cf. Judg 7:1-7. In 20:10-18, the original law of w. 10-14 has been given an opposite meaning in accordance with the idea of a military conquest of the promised land in w. 15—18 (cf. Rofe 1985/7). Whereas the original sequence of laws aimed at restricting destructive energies in case of war, the eventual result of its reworking provides another affirmation of the concept of annihilation of the peoples in the land, see DEUT 7:2. The anti-assimilationist motive for this fictitious historiographical concept is emphasized in v. 18, cf. 18:9-13. However, the authors of i Kings 14:24; 2 Kings 21:2 point towards the futility even of this concept.
(21:1-9) Expiation for Unresolved Murder Thematically contiguous to 19:1—13, the rite allows the elders of an Israelite town to make atonement for a murder in a case where the murderer cannot be identified and punished, v. 5 is a later attempt to see this unique ceremony directed by priests, cf. Lev 4:20.
(21:15—23) Family Laws w. 15—17, the rule that the firstborn son shall inherit twice as much of his father's estate as any other heirs must not be violated (cf. E. W. Davies 1986). w. 1821, conversely, parents must be able to rely on that son for support in their old age, cf. 5:16; Ex 21:15, J7The elders of a town play a remarkable role in traditional family law in Deuteronomy, cf. 22:15; 25:7The law imposes a death penalty and stresses its function as a deterrent. By association, it is followed by a regulation which limits public exhibition of an executed offender.
(19:14) Boundaries Laws such as this (cf. 27:17); 23:24—5 (MT 25-6); 24:19-22, and also 15:7-11 address likely causes of conflict in a rural community and may be compared with the laws on agriculture in Plato's Laws, 8426—84&c (Driver
(22:1-4) Fairness and Co-operation Like Ex 23:4-5, the law looks at disturbed social relations in a rural community and forbids 'ignoring' (hit'allem) obvious cases for mutual help. Although it also draws a distinction between lost property and theft, its main characteristic is the strong paraenetic tone which aims at overcoming indifference and irresponsibility.
(1895) 1901: 234). The issue is also dealt with in wisdom literature: Prov 23:10—11; the Egyptian Instruction of Amencm-opc (i2th cent. BCE: ANET422, 'Do not carry off the landmark at the boundaries of the arable land, | Nor disturb the position of the measuring-cord; | Be not greedy after a cubit of land, | Nor encroach upon the boundaries of a widow' (7.12— 13)), the Akkadian series of incantations, Shurpu (copies from the 7th cent. BCE: Reiner 1958: 14, 'He set up an untrue boundary, (but) did not set up the [trjue bound[ary], | He removed mark, frontier and boundary' [the sun god is asked to release this person] (2, 45)).
(22:5-12) Ordinances Protecting Life and Manners This section, notably w. 5, 9-12, must be seen against the background of the notion that certain practices would be 'abominable' to YHWH. Of special interest is the restriction on human greed and power over animal life in w. 6-7. It concludes with a motive clause similar to the one in 5:16, and from this one may infer that respect for the parent—child relationship stands behind the law, cf. also 14:21/7.
(19:15-21) Legal Witnesses v. 15 is of great consequence for setting up standards for legal proceedings, w. 16—21 nevertheless discuss the problem of false testimony by a single witness and threaten him with a penalty based on the lex
(22:13-30 (MT 23:1)) Family and Sex Laws Part of a more extended collection (see DEUT G.I and Otto 1993), the laws
DEUTERONOMY 150
line ofthought can be found in Mic 6:6—8. If someone made a vow, whatever had been dedicated to the deity would have to be taken to the central sanctuary (12:17-18). 23:24-5, a number of rules, such as this, in the final section of the law code (also 24:6,10—13,14~I5> I7~1^' 19—22) anticipate conflicts in a rural community. Most ofthem express the same spirit as 22:1—4 or
address issues of dishonesty and violence in sexual relations. They are arranged according to the marital status of a woman. The death penalty is imposed in most cases, although w. 23—7 reflect a development towards restricting this through careful considerations. In one case only (v. 19) a fine is imposed, even if this seems to contradict the principle expressed in 19:19. A complementary law to w. 28—9 can be found in Ex 22:16—17 (MT15-16). v. 30, if a man was married polygamously, his son must not marry any of his father's former wives; cf 27:20; Lev 18:8. (23:1-8 (MT 23:2-9)) The Assembly of the Lord The law probably concerned local assemblies in monarchic Judah (cf. Mic 2:5), however, it does not indicate what functions such an assembly (qehal YHWH) would have had. Edomites and Egyptians are to be admitted under certain conditions, whereas Ammonites and Moabites are not (see ABD). w. 1—2 may allude to cultic perversions, however, this is not entirely conclusive, and the designation 'born of an illicit union' (NRSV) follows the LXX interpretation of the unknown Hebrew word mamzer. The law originally seems to think of Jacob as Israel's ancestor (v. 7; cf. Gen 25:21-6) and, in v. 3, to express the same spirit of contempt as Gen 19:30-8. The list of peoples does not exhaustively reflect the political situation of Judah (cf. e.g. 2 Kings 23:13; Jer 27:3; Zeph 2:4—9) but concentrates on those three Transjordanian neighbours with whom 2:2-23 is also
15:7—11. They refer to the relationship between economically independent 'neighbours' (rea') as well as between such peasants and the landless poor who are employed as 'labourers' (sakir) or are not attached to any household at all (ger, also needy orphans and widows). The rules are based on an ethos of fairness and generosity, and this is an obvious moral consequence of a faith which centres on the Exodus creed (24:22; cf. 5:6—21, esp. 14—15). 24:1—4, a man had the right to divorce his wife (cases such as 22:13-19, 28-9 excepted), and he could get married to more than one woman (cf. 21:15). By implication, a woman had the right to get married more than once. However, a man did not have the right to call back his divorced wife once she had been married to and thus 'defiled' by (tame') another man. As generally in Deuteronomy, the law does not take the perspective of the woman, whose fate may be deplorable. For discussions about this law in early Christianity cf. Mk 10:2-12; Mt 19:9; 5:31-2. 24:5, cf. 20:5-7. 24:7» me death penalty is imposed on anybody who kidnaps a person, cf. Ex 21:16. In the Code of Hammurabi a similar law reads: 'If a seignior has stolen the young son of another seignior, he shall be put to death' (§ 14, ANET 166). 24:8-9, a later addition to the collection, asserts the authority of the levitical priests in cases of an infectious disease which LXX identifies as leprosy. Lev 13—14 offers detailed instructions for dealing with such diseases. The concluding exhortation points to Num 12. 24:16, capital punishment (cf. e.g. 24:7) must be executed only on the person of the offender. Thematically, this belongs to a group of laws on the administration of justice (21:22—3; 25:1—3). Although in its immediate context the term for 'crime' (hef) is also being used for 'guilt' in a religious sense (24:15), the principle of individual responsibility here does not engage with the teaching of 5:9 which states that YHWH will punish 'iniquity' (fawon) through four generations. 25:1—3, a further law on practical legal matters. The notion of 'degradation' within the community also underlies the two following laws. 25:4, proverbial from its reinterpretation in i Cor 9:9—11, may have been linked with 24:19—22. In four Hebrew words it says a lot about treatment of animals and its original sense merits pondering. Prov 12:10 may be a help. 25:5-10, if a man dies without leaving a son, his name is 'blotted out of Israel', and this is seen as a great misfortune (the same view may be implied in 24:5). Where circumstances allow, securing the continuity of a deceased man's family through levirate marriage has first priority. Fear of disgrace is to motivate a reluctant brother-in-law. 25:11—12, except for the lex talionis (19:21), this is the only instance of mutilation as punishment in the law code.
concerned, w. 4-6 are obvious secondary additions based on reinterpretations of 2:8—25 and Num 22—4. i Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:12; Neh 13:1—3 refer to this law in combination with 7:3—4. It has been suggested that Isa 56:3-7 abrogates this law (Donner 1985). (23:9-14) The Military Camp Possibly by association a transition is made from the assembly (qahal) to the camp (mahdneh). YHWH is not seen to appear in an epiphany during a campaign (cf. Judg 5:4-5; 2 Sam 22:8-16), instead, the law is intended to protect the deity's continuous presence in the camp (cf. 20:2—4).
(23:15—16) A Fugitive Slave The law may originally have followed on v. 8 since it deals with slaves who presumably have fled from a foreign country: they are given permission to settle 'in any one of your towns'. If a political dimension should be implied here, the law overturns provisions such as are known from an Aramaic treaty of the eighth century BCE which specifies that a fugitive must be returned (Sfire stela, 3, 4-6; ANET 6 6 o). If, however, the law must be understood within a domestic horizon only, it is worth comparing contrary regulations in the Code of Hammurabi (fi6, ANET 167).
(23:17—18) Laws against Prostitution As in 23:1—2, it is not clear what kind of cultic rites, if any, lie behind these laws (cf. ABD v. 505-13). Even Hos 4:13-14 and 2 Kings 23:7 hardly offer a firm basis for historical explanation.
(23:19—25:12) Religious, Economic, and Civil Laws 23:19—20, like 15:1—3, the law is intended to facilitate a fellow Israelite's economic survival. 23:21-3, the law is typical of the conflation of religious and sapiential thought in Deuteronomy (Weinfeld 1992: 270—2). On the one hand it fully recognizes and teaches the religious implications of a vow, on the other hand it asserts that this custom is dispensable, thus putting into effect the liberating power of reflection. A further development of this
(25:13-16) Fairness and Honesty The concluding paragraph of the law code is permeated by the sapiential spirit of humanism typical of many sections of Deuteronomy. The law on just weights and measures has parallels in Israelite as well as ancient Near-Eastern wisdom texts (Prov 11:1; 20:10, 23; Shurpu, 8. 64—7 (Reiner 1958: 42—3); cf. Code of Hammurabi,
151 DEUTERONOMY
spends to an exhortation such as 6:17—18. It includes a list of three forbidden abuses of the third year's tithe, which presumably are related to some form of death-cult, possibly a problem in the Second Temple period. For the designation of heaven as YHWH's dwelling place cf. i Kings 8:27—30 and also Zech 2:17; Isa 63:15; 2 Chr 30:27.
J94 (ANHTi69)). It appeals to a common sense of what is just in order to keep the human being from doing 'unrighteousness' (fawel); cf also Lev 19:35—4; Ezek 18:5—9. Moral behaviour guided by such self-evidently just principles is related to the blessing of a long life, whereas its opposite is considered an 'abomination' (tofebd) for God. However, in such laws as 15:1—11 and 23:19—20 (MT 20—1), Deuteronomy goes beyond the limits of this moral order: fairness is not enough in the service of Israel's God.
Declaration of Mutual Commitments between YHWHand Israel (26:16-19 J
In its present literary context, the passage represents the covenant ceremony which is presupposed in 29:1 (MT 28:69). It has been suggested that it originated in a cultic event and that this might even be identified with the covenant ceremony under King Josiah which is narrated in 2 Kings 23:1—3 (Smend 1963). After its introduction (v. i6a; cf. 6:1; 12:1), the declaration revolves around the solemn statements: 'You have affirmed this day that the LORD is your God', and 'And the LORD has affirmed this day that you are [...] His treasured people' (NJPS). In the unique form of a mutual declaration, this corresponds to 6:4. The covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel has an ethical dimension, and the Deuteronomists are strongly concerned with the ensuing idea of a divine law. This accounts for the first explication concerning Israel's obligation 'to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes [...] and his ordinances, and to obey his voice'. Equally, the covenant relationship has a universal dimension. This is expressed in the second explication concerning YHWH's promise to Israel 'to set you high above all nations that he has made, in praise and in fame and in honour' (cf. RSV; there are some further additions to the text which partly may depend on 7:6). God the creator of all humankind sets his people 'high above' ('dyori) all nations 'that he has made'. A similar thought is expressed in Ex 19:56, where the clause 'for all the earth is mine' also implies a theology of creation which in its hymnic form may have been a constituent motif in the cult of the Jerusalem temple even in the monarchic period (cf. Ps 24:1). Deut 7:6, too, refers to 'all the peoples that are on the face of the earth'. All these reflections (cf. also 32:8—9) should be understood in a dialectical relation to Gen 12:3 or Isa 49:6 which speak of the blessing that comes to all humankind through Israel.
(25:17-19) War against Amalek A historical reminiscence of relations between Israelites and Amalekites may have been preserved in i Sam 30, whereas the traditio-historical background behind the three texts in Ex 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19; i Sam 15:1-35 remains obscure; cf. Foresti (1984). The peculiar episode in Ex 17:8—16 is taken up here (in a secondary addition to the law code in the 2nd person pi., like 23:40 (MT5»); 24:9) and reinterpreted in terms of a lack of 'fear of God' (cf. Gen 20), in order to account for the command to exterminate the Amalekites. Looking forward to a time when Israel will enjoy 'rest from all her enemies' (cf. 12:9—10) prepares the ground for the story of i Sam 15 (although this is not coherent with 2 Sam 7:1). Cf. also the motif of just retribution in Jer 2:3; 30:16.
(26:1-11) A Form for Liturgical Recitation On a redactional level similar to 17:14—20, a Deuteronomistic scribe makes the traditional custom of taking the first fruits to a YHWH sanctuary (Ex 23:190; Deut 18:4) the occasion for a pilgrimage which seems not to coincide with one of the three main festivals (16:1—17). Th£ core of the instruction is an artistic composition in w. 5—10. In twentieth-century scholarship, it has often been considered an ancient confessional formula on which the oldest literary source of the Pentateuch was modelled (von Rad 1966). However, it is more likely that the confession did not originate in Israelite cult in pre-monarchic times, but instead within the Deuteronomistic School (cf. Richter 1967; Lohfink 1971/7). The confession starts from a reminiscence of an ancestor who was 'a perishing Aramean'
(NRSV reads 'a wandering'; see, however, Janzen 1994). As this must refer to Jacob, the scribe here integrates the Jacob tradition into the Exodus tradition and thereby to a certain degree invalidates the former which was closely linked to the sanctuary at Bethel (Gen 28; 35; cf. 2 Kings 23:15). The confession then unfolds four times in three sentences with a characteristic pause at the end of each section (cf. RSV). It is built on numerous allusions to the Exodus narrative, notably Ex 1:9—14; 3:7—10, 15 (in v. 8, 'signs and wonders' may be secondary as is 6:22). v. 10 leads up to the actual ceremony which is followed by a celebration. A scribe here designs a concise picture of Israel's salvation history and thus gives profound witness to God's mercy in a perspective of Judean theology. The basic structure of the composition reflects the conviction of biblical faith that God helps the oppressed who cry out to him (cf. Judg 3:9; Ex 22:20—3), even if his ways are inscrutable (cf. Ex 34:10; Isa 55:6—9). w. 3—4, as v. 10 instructs the farmer himself to set down his basket 'before YHWH', the reference to a priest must have been introduced at a later stage, perhaps sometime during the Second Temple period