Studies in Deuteronomy

'
fl
'^$}'^fe>#>4<h
{
i-
V/'!;^'^/
l
f
'
c/
;^''f
'
l!
^ *jV^'>*f'\^ \
1
ll
'>
'*'<
'"i
*tfe%
I
*'
i4v$/#>
iJ.i
'
U^lW UV
//'?
'',
.I^V/,
fP
X % fVy^
V'
"
1
;
^
>/' Vv/f^v'
.//'
tV"S
^W.Ai-
"%<fl
,
;/
';'
.
xO^'V'..'^ v
'
/;
!(
'
?"!'
.".".
;/
A
'
'A
(/
s>
'
^/p
r^
*sf
'
./
?f< r ^'^^4i^ ?y\

(
w*
jK*ffi$^
62-14378 222.15 R12s Rad Studies in Deuteronomy
Kansas city
public library
Kansas
nity,
missouri
on presentation of library card.

Please report lost cards and
change
of residence promptly.
Card holders are responsible for

all
books, records, films, pictures
or other library materials
checked out on their cards.
STUDIES IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
STUDIES IN
DEUTERONOMY
GERHARD VON RAD
Translated by
DAVID STALKER
SCM PRESS LTD

56
BLOOMSBURY STREET
LONDON
This English translation was prepared from the

revised edition of
DEUTERONOMIUM-STUDIEN
Ritprecbt,
published in
1948 by Vandenhoek and
Gottingen
First published February
Reprinted June 1956
Reprinted April 196
Printed in Great "Britain by
Robert Cunningham and Sons
Ltd
Longbank Works,
Aha
To
OTTO EISSFELDT HALLE

for 1st September, 1947
with grateful respect
CONTENTS
Author's Foreword
I
THE CHARACTER OF DEUTERONOMY AND ITS SACRAL TRADITIONS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF
n
25
FORM-CRITICISM H FORM-CRITICISM OF THE HOLINESS
CODE HE DEUTERONOMY'S 'NAME' THEOLOGY AND THE PRIESTLY DOCUMENT'S 'KABOD' THEOLOGY IV DEUTERONOMY AND THE HOLY WAR V THEPROVENANCE OF DEUTERONOMY VI THE PURPOSE OF DEUTERONOMY VE THE DEUTERONOMISTIC THEOLOGY OF HISTORY IN THE BOOKS OF
KINGS
Index of biblical references
37
45
60
70
74
93
AUTHOR'S FOREWORD
IT
is
with some diffidence that

unchanged. The
I see this little
again has advanced both in the Anglo-Saxon world and in Germany and, moreover, in the winter of 1945-6, when I was
study of the
book appear Book of Deuteronomy
preparing these pages, I was cut off from nearly all the more recent foreign literature on the subject. I regret particularly that I was not then able to consult the important work of Adam Welch. Nevertheless I should be glad if this little
book, in spite of its deficiencies, could make some contribution to the interaction in Old Testament studies in both
lands.
G.
Heidelberg,
v. R.
nth
December^ 1952
CHAPTER ONE
THE CHARACTER OF DEUTERONOMY
AND ITS SACRAL TRADITIONS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW

OF FORM-CRITICISM
make
a fresh attack
it
IF
we
are to
on the problem of Deuter-
purpose to begin with a quite statement: Deuteronomy is composed as a speech general of Moses to the people. 1 That is something striking and,
onomy,
will best serve our
law books of the Old Testament. Both the Book of the Covenant and the Holiness Code, as well as the laws of the Priestly Document, purport to be
in fact, unique, in the
utterances of
God to
it
Covenant, since
utterance of
absolutely
Moses, Disregarding the Book of the was obviously not composed as an
God, and the subsequent adaptation has had no effect on the corpus itself, the picture of the Priestly Document, viewed as a whole, is as follows: 2. The decrees received are i. Jahweh addresses Moses. then transmitted by Moses either (a) to the Israelites or (F) to Aaron. In the latter case, which is less frequent, it is
normally a question of instructions pertaining to ritual celebration, the observance of which is incumbent upon the 2 priesthood alone. Here too, of course, only the minority
the singular
far as literary criticism is concerned, we too regard the parts in number from 6.4 onwards as the oldest constituent of Deuteronomy. But the way in which the question of the original form
1
As
of the book (TJrdeuteronomium) is often put seems to us much too exclusive (quite apart from any confidence in the possibility of sifting out this corpus down to verse and half verse by literary means). This question involves a conception of 'redaction', which it then equates with a complete state (and then, where possible, with the law-book of
Josiah); but this draws far too much upon our western ways of still know very little about the origin and the stages authorship.
We
of expansion of such old sacral works. Can we then really maintain that Urdeuteronomium arose as a 'private writing* (Steuernagel Das
:
Deuteronomiutn, 2nd
2
ed., p. 15)?
e.g.,
Lev. 6.8
ff;
10.8
ff;
16;
Num.
ii
8.1
ffAn
utterance of
God
Studies in Deuteronomy
of the individual units themselves are actually composed as direct speech of God, that is, in the I-style and with the statutes couched in designation Ye. The greater part are the impersonal style and speaking of Jahweh in the third viewed as a whole, Jahweh person. In the Holiness Code, in detail the situation is But likewise addresses Moses. rather complicated here. One part of the statutes is direct of God in the I-style, while other units are formuspeech
and speak of Jahweh in the third person. The Sit^ im Leben of these two classes is also obviously one hand, there are ordinances radically different. On the that can at once be recognised as technical instructions for
lated impersonally
broken up by and arranged in parenesis (i.e. by hortatory material) series reveal the cult assembly, where they were presented to the people, as their place of origin. In divergence from Deuteronomy, however, these commandments broken up of God. by parenesis also appear as direct speech In this sketch is involved a number of questions that have to do with the criticism of classes of material (gattungsand they would require to be followed geschichtliche Fragen\
Let the sketch suffice here in the first instance to demonstrate the contrast, for Deuteronomy is different: it 1 We saw a moment is definitely not an utterance of God.
up.
up priests: they are cases only; on the other, commandments
drawn
for consideration in special
Code that ago in the Priestly Document and the Holiness as the Jahweh gave instructions to Moses (and Aaron) But then the divine proper recipients of cultic revelation. came to the transmitted were decrees laity. (Transmission
to
command to transmit it: Lev. 13; 14.33 ff; Num. 19. Here too it of course, only matters of purely priestly observance. is, 1 The few exceptions, already noticed by Klostermann (Pentateuch, N.F., pp. 1 86 ff) in which Jahweh and not Moses is the speaker 7.4; as something like 11.15-15; 17.3; 28.20; 294f are to be regarded aberrations and carry absolutely no weight in face of the whole.
the
stylistic
On is found only in Lev. 10.8; Num. 18.1 ff, 8 ff, 20 ff. without an occasion injunction is given to Moses and Aaron together
Aaron
12
Sacral Traditions and Form-Criticism

in question, of course, only with specific subject-matters.)
Now the method of transmission varied greatly.

possibly at the
Sometimes
proclamation of the commandments at the Feast of Tabernacles the priest simply acted as the spokesman of the Godhead and transmitted the injunctions
to the listening community as direct speech of God. But that will only have happened now and again at the high points of cultic celebrations and, moreover., only in a later period. There was a different form of address to the com-
munity used when the divine decrees were issued through the medium of priestly interpretation that is, when they were broken up to a certain extent by priestly parenesis.
Now Deuteronomy is obviously of this nature;
it is
a divine
charge of the kind given to the lay community at second hand. That in itself explains why all that is ritual in the technical sense, so far as it concerns only the cult personnel,
is
absent.
As
is
the case with so
many
manifestations of Israel's
cultic life, information in the records
about the
is
way
in
which such instruction in the law was

completely wanting.
ticular attention,
carried out
almost
One
namely Neh.
passage, however, deserves par8.7 f. In it we have the two
things
was made on
the direct proclamation of the will of Jahweh as it special occasions, before the whole cultic
too, and then the instruction at second hand;
.
.
community
the Levites instructed "But Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah (D*T3/9) the people in the law, while the people stood in
.
their place.
And
they read from the
book of
Dl^)
the
it,
law of
so that
God
interpreted^?)
and explained
read.'
(*?5&?
they understood what was
Unfortunately two difficulties stand in the way of the understanding of the passage. In spite of Schaeder's brilliant 1 argument, it is still a question whether the expression
1
H. H. Schaeder: Esra
der Scbrriber,
Tubingen, 1930, pp. 51
is
to be understood, like 2faQ9 in Ezra 4.18, as the
Hebraised form of the King's Aramaic term used in the

Persian diplomatic language. 1 If it is, then the meaning would be that the Hebrew original was rendered into c Aramaic. But who did the reading? Whether Ezra (v. 3)
not perfectly clear/ 2 The text is heavily overloaded, and even to assume interpolation by the Chronicler does not remove all the roughnesses. And even if the passage about the Levites work of instruction is an addition by the Chronicler, who was specially interested in the Levites' duties, we still cannot be expected to believe that the ad hoc invention of something completely novel is implied. On the contrary, this was certainly not
or the Levites
(v. 8) is
5
occasion, or the only one, on which the Levites in the Law in the way here represented. instruction gave of the kind an approved technique a function for After all,
the
first
special tradition are required, and it is not to be presumed that a beginning was made with these only in
and a
Besides, we have to bear in mind that there are other passages in the Chronicler's history where the Levites are designated as 'those who instructed the
the time of Ezra.
3 people* (Q*T5!?). But I admit that if we are to have any right to understand Deuteronomy along the lines of an
interpretation
on the Law for the

first
laity,
be demonstrated in the
instance
that would have to from the book itself.
begin this aspect of our investigation by obthe class of material to which Deuteronomy, serving viewed as a whole, belongs. The remarkable way in which parenesis, laws, binding by covenant, blessing and cursing follow upon one another points (just like the Sinai pericope
shall
We
in Ex. 19-24) to the course of a great cultic celebration,
namely, the old festival of the renewal of the Covenant at
Shechem. Deuteronomy in
1
its
present form
is
undoubtedly
in loc.
O. Eissfeldt: TheoL Lit.-Ztg., 1931, pp. 243 A. Bertholet: Die tucker Esra und Nehemia, Tubingen, 1902,
2 Chron. 35.3.
14
Sacral Traditions and form-Criticism
a literary production, but

1
it still
bears the stamp of a cultic

its
form that has exercised an extraordinary influence on

style.
Now
for the
this suggests a definite line of interpretation becomponent parts as well. Only to-day are
we
ginning to see how accurate Klostermann's diagnosis of the situation was years ago, when he declared that Deut.
12
S was
not a law book
3 ,
but a 'collection of material for
the public proclamation of the Law'. 2 So our task is to take the laws in Deuteronomy too and consider them still more critically from the standpoint of rhetoric and homiletics
as,
netic
form
indeed, is particularly approprkte to the parein which even the so-called law-code itself in
chapters 12-26 appears. For, actually, the most elementary difference between the Book of the Covenant and Deuter-
onomy
the
a difference that
is
two books do contain
so
particularly striking just because much common material lies
Deuteronomy is not divine law in codified but form, preaching about the commandments at least, the commandments appear in a form where they are very much interspersed with parenesis. Let us take for an example the passage about the Release. 3
in the fact that
"At the end of seven years thou shalt make a release" (15.1). That is an ordinance belonging to the very oldest
divine law; its validity is not under discussion. But it requires to be interpreted, it needs to be made relevant to
the special needs of the audience. So we now see how, in what follows, the institution which, as such, is taken for granted as known, is immediately given a new form and
adapted to
v. 2
new
conditions.
At
the same time,

release
*
.
.
we
can take
"And
in the
1
this is the
manner of the
way Horst
does, as pre-deuteronomic "legal interdes Hexateucb, Stuttgart,
von Rad: Das formgeschichtliche Problem

A. Klostermann:
Horst: Das
Pentateuch,
1938, pp. 23
2 3
Vrivilegrecbt Jatwes,
N.F. (1907) p. 344. Gottingen, 1930, pp.

15
59, 65.
The impersonal formulation of the clause would favour that. But the manner in which, from v. 3 onwards,
pretation*.
the single points in question are unfolded and explained
enough: 'Only if thou hearken unto the voice of Jahweh thy God, to observe to do all these commandments which I command thee this day, then Jahweh thy God will bless thee, as he hath promised thee. ..." 7. 'If there be among thou shalt not harden thine heart and you a poor man
5
.
.
is
clear
shut thine hand from thy poor brother;
8.
But thou
shalt
'
.
.
open thine hand wide and shalt gladly lend to him. wicked thought come not up in thy 9. 'Beware that the * 10. But thou shalt surely give him, and when heart. ...
.
thou givest him, thine heart shall not be grieved, for because of this thing Jahweh thy God shall bless thee', etc. Are we to take this as legal diction, these words of
exhortation, warning and promise, which drive the demands home upon the hearer's conscience in the most personal way ? It is law preached. It was in some such way as this
law which Nehemiah had were brought home and expounded to the people by the Levites. At the same time, the passage still makes it apparent that the actual new application of the old law of the release to the sphere of the law of debt
that the statutes of the old divine
at first only read out
not the work of the preachers; v. 2 is certainly predeuteronomic. When old commandments were thus brought up to date, the work was certainly done by people of higher The latter's special authority than preaching Levites. achievement lay solely in the deliberate intensifying of the meaning, and the definite application to the individual conscience. Thus, a certain loss of sublimity which the commandment suffered through being applied to the sphere of law of debt,1 was compensated in another direction.
is
1
The fundamental norm

is
lying behind the
fallow year 'the land mutandis to loans, etc.
mine' (Lev. 25.23)
demand for a sacral cannot be applied mutatis
16
Deuteronomic
later.
criticism has,
of course, for long been
recently introduced a fruitful viewpoint with his distinction between the old statutes on the one
later legal interpretations on the other. Adthe fact that statutes with a definite centralising mittedly, tendency stand side by side with others that are completely unaffected by this aim was a difficulty to which Oestreicher and Welch were the first really to draw attention. 1
working But Horst
at the separation
of the older material from the
hand and the
Now, however,
it is
as clear as
sanctifying of the firstlings 15.19, for example, has no
noonday that the apodeictic demanded by Jahweh in Deut. knowledge of the demand for
centralisation. But w. 20-23 interpret the commandment from the point of view of the new demand. A similar state of affairs is found in the passage concerning the tithe: 14.22
2 It has 23-27 the interpretation. been that these are not already emphasised interpretations to be understood as legal sections or supplementary laws,
is
the old statute,
w.
the urgent of the argument point, in respect of class of material, to a different sphere from that of law. 3 Horst, however, draws too fine a disstyle,
but as homiletics. The definite preaching

as well as the
form of address,
whole
style
tinction with his division into single literary strands, and the criteria which he names for determining the age of a
above
series
strand in question are often not at all convincing. But all else, his derivation of Deuteronomy from a single
of commandments only can hardly be right. Now that Alt has shown us how these apodeictic series are to be 4 taken, a keen eye can still penetrate behind the homiletic dress and sort out materials of many different kinds. Between the order to appoint judges and officers in 1 6.1 8
1
2
A. Welch: The Code of Deuteronomy, London, 1924. Horst: op. cit., pp. 87, 99. On this preaching style cp. L. Kohler: Die bebrdische
Rtcbtsgetneinde.
J. Hempel: Jahresbericht der Universitat Zurich, 1930/31, pp. 17 alihebrttische ILiteratur, p. 140. 4 A. Alt.: Die Urspriinge des israelitiscben TL&cbts, Leipzig, 1934.
Die
and the admonition to execute righteous judgement in 16.20 is inserted a small section obviously derived from an
old exemplar for judges
:
Thou Thou Thou
shalt shalt shalt
not wrest judgement. not respect persons. not take a bribe.
The fragment immediately takes its place alongside the short apodeictic series in Ex. 23.1 & and is certainly not an 1 independent coinage of the author of Deuteronomy.
Immediately thereafter follow cultic ordinances; if we detach the unimportant parenetic phraseology, we have the
following
:
rnn;
nap
^x psr ?? n^s *j*?~Bfl

nt2?i
tf?
16 21
>
nln?
ma la
Thou
TO n^s
nia?
nln^ nain-^^
17,1
not plant thee any asheray any tree near unto the altar of Jahweh. Thou shalt not set up unto thee any masseba, which
shalt
Jahweh
hateth.
Thou
It
not sacrifice unto Jahweh any bullock or sheep wherein is blemish.

shalt
has always excited comment that Deuteronomy contains a command not to plant an ashera beside Jahweh's
altar.
It is obviously pre-deuteronomic., and not as yet discarded because the demand for centralisation is pre-
supposed.
1 2
Of
the three statutes Horst

23.1
ff:
would allow only

cp, Alt, op.
ctt. y
For the exemplar for judges in Ex.

e.g. Steuernagel:
p.
1.
Komm. (znd
ed.), in kco\
Sternberg: Z.D.M.G.,
1928, pp. 125
18

i j.i
to rank as old. 1
But the reasons he
alleges against a
pre-deuteronomic origin are unconvincing. Besides, the statutes are homogeneous to a degree that makes it impossible to separate them; what is true of one is true of the others as well. In respect of subject, it is a fragment of an
apodeictic series inculcating cultic obligations. It reaches back apparently to old times when individuals were still
allowed very considerable freedom in the form they gave their cult. In the time of Deuteronomy that form had been
long universally removed from individuals* free disposition, and consequently from the arbitrament of their caprice, by
the priesthood.
Another
series
can certainly be detached from 22.5-11

2
? nsjrtf
22 5a
>
?
1
10
TJDSJE? #3*?r)
tf
A woman shall not wear men's clothes. A man shall not put on women's garments.
Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with two kinds. Thou shalt not yoke ox and ass together in the plough. Thou shalt not clothe thyself with a garment made of
wool and
flax.
The
extent
statutes are separated from one another to some by regulations of a different kind, but their uniformity
hi style and content argues that they originally formed a self-contained series, the more so in that the regulations
which come between have a

else,
all
different style.
But above
it
all
the series
is strictly
self-contained in theme;
checks
It is not, of course, possible to say perturbatio sacrorum. all objectivity for the writer of lost that such laws had
1
Horst:
op. cit.,
pp. 98
Deuteronomy, for
cultic
norms of the kind
retain
an
astonishing vitality even in times that are very changed. But a time in which statutes like these are grouped in
special apodeictic series
for this formation of series is the outcome of later collection by a redactor not certainly is obviously a time in which men are still conscious of
serious cultic risks in this sphere, and, whenever else it was, it was certainly not that of the writer of Deuteronomy.
Without exhausting the material, 1 series from 23.1 ff:
let
us take one
more
rns
irr *?nj?3
tzrK
n-tf?
Ktoj
23,1
7092? nnrpi
nsn-^p
Kin
rrn
(A man
shall
nr
11
not marry
his father's wife.)

his
A man who
privy
is wounded in the stones, or has member cut off, shall not enter into
the
congregation of Jahweh.
bastard shall not enter into the congregation of
Jahweh.
or a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of Jahweh. Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy
brother.
An Ammonite
Thou
It is
shalt
not abhor an Egyptian, for thou wast
a stranger in his land.
questionable if 23.1 (E.V., 22.30) belonged to what follows it; the vetse is rather out of line with the rest of
the group in theme. Still, it opens the series now. There is no doubt, however, that w. 2, 3, 4 and 8 (E.V., i, 2, 3
1
The numbering
is
ftom the Hebrew, not the English, 20
Bible.
and
old.
7)
The
present a self-contained group that is certainly very series sets authoritative limits to the Kahaly the
1
assembly of full citizens, and defines its relation to the neighbouring peoples. So much for the apodeictic series of which the writer of Deuteronomy makes use. In contrast with them, the number of conditional statutes
broken up in the preaching style is insignificant. That is understandable, for the Mishpatim were anything but a traditional material used by the priests. The only actual case where the procedure has been adopted and comparison with an older formulation is possible, is the law concerning the Hebrew in 15.12-18. comparison with
the precise and strictly objective formulation found in the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 21.2-11) shows that in
Deuteronomy it is no longer a matter of a "law", a legal definition. The very composition as personal address gives the whole thing a completely different stamp. And then: 'Remember that thou too wast a slave in the land of
thou shalt not think it hard when thou sendest Egypt/ and Jahweh thy God will him away from thee free',
.
.
.
bless thee in all that
thou doest/
What
place is there for language like that in a law ? This is the style used in addressing a 'thou' who is present and
listening.
other hand, there are not a few conditional laws 2 that have been adapted to suit the whole simply by being
On the
turned into the personal style characteristic of Deuteronomy,

the only further alteration being the introduction throughout of little homiletic flourishes. Examples are 21.22-23
(death
22.6-7 (taking of birds' nests), 22.8 (providing balustrades on roofs), 23.22-24 (E.V., 21-23) (payment of vows), 23.25-26 (E.V., 24-25) (eating in vkie-
by hanging),
L. Rost: Die Vorstufe von Kirche und Sjnagoge im A.T., Stuttgart,

3 1 f-
pp.
2
On the distinction between apodeictic and conditional statutes see

des israelitischen TLtcbts, Leipzig, 1934.
A. Alt: Die Ursprttnge
21
yards and cornfields), 24.10-12 (retention of the pledge), 24.19 (forgotten sheaves). In these instances, the fact that the cases are trivial or of rare occurrence may have been the
It is to justification for presenting the material so briefly.
be
noticed, however, that we also come across pure conditional laws in Deuteronomy that is, legal formulations where
there
is
no breaking up with
parenesis.
Examples are
21.15-17 (rights of inheritance of sons), 21.18-22 (the death

penalty for a disobedient son), 22.13-29 (commandments concerning sexual matters), 24.1-4 (divorce), 25.1-3 (beating
by the
magistrate),
25.5-10 (the law concerning levirate
marriage). The fact that odd statutes have been taken into Deuteronomy and left without interpretation need not cause
But since they appear exclusively towards the end of Deuteronomy, and since, further, what is characteristic of the main part of the book are the great homiletic passages, we may certainly conclude that the whole has been submitted to a process of redaction. But two further specifically deuteronomic classes of material fall to be mentioned. We find the one again in those parenetic 'laws' which offer a broad thematic treatment of a subject without having a discernible basis in any old legal statute. The law concerning the prophet in 13.1-6 (E.V., 1-5) and the law of the king in 17.14-20 would fall to be reckoned amongst them; but the decrees concerning defection to idolatry in 13.7-19 (E.V., 6-18) and the prohibition of Canaanite divination and the promise of the
surprise.
mediating prophet in 18.9-22 belong to them also; probably, too, the section about the cities of refuge in 19.1-13, which cannot be taken as the interpretation of an old legal statute. Now these are the sections in Deuteronomy which
are at farthest
remove from what
is
legal
is
and for which the

the king, pro-
conventional designation of 'laws'
utterly unsuitable.
e.g.,
The
1
subjects are also to
some
extent
The laws comprised by
in a personal parenetic phrase in
24.1-4 and 25.1-3 issue thek last sentence.
somewhat
inaptly
22
Sacral Traditions and 'Form-Criticism

subjects concerning which old norms could not possibly have been extant. What we have in these cases is
phets
sermon-like utterances of the writer of Deuteronomy
upon
questions which were vital in his own time. The second group of laws which we still want briefly to delimit is essentially of a different kind. Old traditional
material certainly lies at their root, but it is not material of a legal kind, at any rate not of the kind composed in conditional or apodeictic form. The section dealing with
the procedure in the case of an unknown murder, 29.1-9, unquestionably contains very old traditional material; the
same
is
cultic celebration at the offering
true of the regulation in 26.1-11 dealing with the of the first-fruits. Verses
:
form a group by themselves in them the writer of Deuteronomy has taken up what are obviously very old norms from the Holy War and made them relevant to his own time. The transmitters of these traditions were certainly not the law-courts which sat at the gate; we could
1-9 of chapter 20
sooner think of the shrines
as the custodians
of such old
prescriptions coming down from early times. For what the units here mentioned have in common is that, in parenetic form, they make obligatory on the present not any norms of
a legal kind, but old cultic usages. If we review the series of homiletic interpretations which Deuteronomy offers and the list could certainly still be expanded and improved then the wide range of the book
In this respect Deuteronomy bears a strong eclectic stamp again in striking contrast with P., which is compendious apodeictic series of commandments and cultic and ritual toroth of the priests deriving from the speciemerges.
:
fically priestly tradition;
legal
material,
the transmitters
sat at the gates; of which were the courts of lay ancient traditions and customs once observed by the army
judges who
Holy War all this and much else was available for the Deuteronomic preacher, and at his disposal for homiletic use. In face of this, the complete Deuteronomy must
in the
23
be regarded
that the
deictic
as a
comparatively late document.
It is true
Book of
and
the Covenant had already brought apoconditional statutes into literary co-ordination,
thus relating two cycles of material which lay far apart in actual life. But the basis of the traditions which Deuter-
onomy took up is very much broader. The comprehensive way in which it revives the old norms of the Holy War is
show that Deuteronomy lays claim to the of departments people's life that lay quite outside what the Book of the Covenant set its seal upon. 1 But more than anything else, it is the perfect freedom with which it handles the old traditions and intersperses them with homiletics that is something completely new compared with the Book of the Covenant. 2 At all events, the writer of Deuteronomy is in a position where he had access to traditions of extremely varied provenance, and where he had an authoritative interpretation of them and a presentation adapted to the
itself sufficient to
times.
1
Where may
that have been?
That makes it very questionable if D. can be designated simply most considerable priestly collection of laws' (G. Holscher, Z.A.W., 1922, p. 255). 2 This activity of the Levites is therefore to be clearly distinguished from the priestly giving of torotb, as Begrich explains the latter (in Werden und Wesen des A.T., 1936, pp. 63 fF), and of which P. speaks in
'the
.
. .
Lev. 10.10
Giving of torotb comprises instruction in the distinction between sacred and secular, and clean and unclean. Its general form is that of a command in which God speaks in the first person.
CHAPTER TWO
FORM-CRITICISM OF THE HOLINESS CODE

BEFORE tackling the Deuteronomic question proper, let us now, with a view to broadening the basis of our discussion,
survey the Holiness Code, though only in regard to the question just touched upon. It is perfectly clear that, because of its pronounced parenetic character, the Holiness
Code
at
stands
much
nearer to
Deuteronomy than does the
Priestly
which we would first of all record as such. simply 1. The Holiness Code is not, like Deuteronomy, instruction for the community throughout, but it comprises a
differences
Document. once appear two
On
closer inspection, however, there
instruction for priests. The introductory formulae one hand: 'speak to the children of Israel and say to
constant alternation of instruction for the community and on the
them
3 ,
other: 'speak to Aaron and say* clearly differentiate the materials according to their content. The greater part of them are addressed to the Israelites, a smaller part concerns
on the
the priests only. For example, Lev. 22.2 ff contains all kinds of ritual matter having to do with the eating of the gifts brought by the community, Lev, 21.1 ff instruction about
the cleanness and uncleanness of priests matters, that is, which obviously did not require to be brought to the notice
of the general public. In a few instances only Aaron and Israel are addressed together, and that happens in the case of ordinances, the observance of which is obligatory alike
for clergy
and community. 2. In its present form the Holiness Code taken as a whole is presented as an utterance of God and not an address of Moses. On closer inspection, however, a most complicated Sections seen to be in picture emerges in this respect. the from God of actual fact utterances beginning do not at
all
predominate. Rather
is it
plain to see that very
many
25
have only been given the form of divine utterance at a later date. If we disregard the form of address, which 5 <thou and 'y e '> we &*& that constantly alternates between as the real facts are these. On the one hand, such passages redrafted been have sermons as were originally composed which as utterances of God. On the other, it is ordinances
texts
were originally couched in perfectly impersonal terms which have been subjected to this transformation; and this has in fact been done mostly simply by making God speak in the introductory and concluding senin the first
tences.
person C that helps Indeed, it is the repeated I am Jahweh' the Holiness Code to give the now dominant impression
of being direct speech of God. The degree of parenetic interspersion varies, of course,
in detail.
Lev. 18 exhibits a form which is already well known to us from Deuteronomy: w. 2-5 contain a general formal admonition to keep commandments, the substance of which, to start with, is not more closely defined. At v, 6 itself. Its content is a rather long we come to the
of commandments concerning sexual matters, now formulated tersely and objectively in the <thou* form. The conclusion in w. 24-30 makes another exhortation in
series
corpus
beginning c 3 while the corpus itself is in the thou form. The corpus is^ to be interpreted in the sense that the statute in v. 6, which alone is written in the *ye' form, presents the chief com-
these commandments. Chapter 18 is general terms to keep therefore clearly a liturgical whole, or, to put it better, it is celebrations of still couched in the form used for liturgical the parenetic that fact the the kind. This is not gainsaid by and the end are in the *y e? form, sections at the
mandment, properly speaking

approach any that blood, to have sexual relations/
'None
shall
is
nearly related to
him by
But the statutes in v. 7 ff are particular regulations explaining

this
summary
statute in detail in all
its
aspects.
26
Form-Criticism of the Holiness Code
somewhat different with the well-known cult law in chapter 17. Here v. 3 f sets forth the chief regulation, properly speaking. Verses 5-7 add nothing in the way of real amplification; they only give its reason and add points of detail. A new commandment comes only with
situation
is
The
v. 8
3 deals with killing of animals in general, v. 8 deals with a specific sacrificial act: both make it necessary to go to the shrine. Verse 10 brings a further chief norm,
f.
If v.
forbidding any manner of eating of blood. In the very next verses, 11-12, this is explained and expanded. The last cultic commandment in the more restricted sense appears in v. 13, (concerning beasts or fowl taken in hunting) ; v. 14 even is no longer on the same plane; it substantiates, and in v. 1 5 f there is a further expansion. Chapter 19 introduces us to an entirely different department of instruction for the community. The passage is particularly well known because of the high 'ethical' demands with which it regulates the relationship of man to man within the community. Although it is a rather formless utterance of God as it stands before us now,
well-defined forms lying behind
to
it
are nevertheless easy
recognise.
They
probably
looked
something
like
this:
1 ** ~~
?!!
tf?
Thou Thou Thou Thou
shalt
not reap thy field into the corners. shalt not glean after thy harvest.
shalt
shalt
not gather thy vineyard bare. not gather the fallen grapes of thy vine27
yard.
A slightly different series appears to begin at
19.11
12a
Ye Ye Ye Ye
shall shall
shall shall
not steal. not disavow. not lie. not swear falsely.
13b
1
2^)0 ^î?^"^ ?
i4a
16a
16b
.3
UK hbn
Thou Thou Thou

Thou Thou
shalt
shalt
not oppress thy neighbour. not rob. shalt not keep the wages of a
till
hireling with
thee
the morning. shalt not curse a deaf man.

shalt
not put anything in a blind man's way, (but thou shalt fear thy God). Thou shalt not do unjustly in judgement.
28
form-Criticism of the Holiness Code
Thou shalt not respect the person of the unimportant. Thou shalt not favour the powerful, (thou shalt judge
thy neighbour
justly).
Thou
shalt
not go about as a slanderer
among
thy
people.
Thou Thou
not proceed against thy neighbour's life. shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart, (thou shalt set thy neighbour right, so that thou bringest not sin upon thee because of him). Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against thy fellow-countryman, (but thou shalt love thy
shalt
neighbour
It is fascinating to
as thyself).
how the preacher, like Luther in his expositions of the Commandments, has sometimes on his own account given the prohibitions positive form, and so intensified them. The procedure as such is already
watch
familiar to us
from the fourth and
fifth
commandments
in
the Decalogue. It means that there was an age which the negative style no longer satisfied, because to the more
mature understanding of the later generations it was not adequate to describe the whole compass of Jahweh's will for man. The whole section is rounded off with a parenetic statute in general terms, (v. i9a), with which clearly any such recital of commandments ended. Another series where the emphasis is exclusively cultic can easily be extracted from w. 19.26-28. We take i9b with it because of its similarity:
19b
"rn
..
T^
.*
n*?sr ~"
tf
Thou Thou Thou
not let two kinds of cattle gender. not sow thy field with two kinds of seed. shalt not put on a garment woven of two different kinds of thread.
shalt
shalt
29
26b
26c
DKS 1D?n
tf *?
27a
28a
Ye Ye Ye Ye
shall shall
shall shall
not eat anything together with the blood. not practise soothsaying. not practise augury. not cut off the corners of the hair of your
head.
In
Ye shall not trim the corners of your beard. Ye shall not make cuttings in your flesh for the dead. Ye shall not print a mark upon you. w. 29-36 of chapter 19 too we clearly find misceland do according
or
laneous fragments of such series of commandments. Verse formula: 37 then brings once again the usual concluding
to them. had some such form not have These may may of be several series which as this originally; they may parts have been compiled here; the nlfT? "US which sounds especi-
Keep my
statutes
statutes
ally frequently
to the redactor of the well have Holiness Code, or it may belonged to the original form and then spread from here throughout the Holiness Code: but there can certainly be no doubt about the fundain
them may be due
mental conclusion.
One
question
may however be
asked.
Is
what we have
here really series in the old sense as in Deut. 27.15 ff or Ex. 20.2 ff, or is it not rather a case of an undoubtedly old form being employed by a more or less late generation ? If
that
were
so,
then the SiP^ im Leben for these units would

3
not be the rare cultic festival following its grand liturgical course, but rather the occasions of community-instruction of a popular character carried out by the Levites. There is in favour of this assumption first and foremost the fact
that, as regards contents, it is not a question here of the few elementary commandments which constitute the com-
but of standards of a non-differentiated nature, very lofty. Nevertheless it must be observed that the style as utterance of God is retained, and this circumstance dissuades us in turn from making too wide a separation of these series from the old classical liturgical form. Nevertheless, there is a difference between
munity's
life,
which are
also, in part,
the Decalogue and Dodecalogue series on the one hand and these series taken from Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code on the other, and this enriches our of the
knowledge
Jahweh cult. Alongside the basic series of commandments which outline the sum total of Jahweh's demands upon the individual in as few statutes as possible, there are others which refer only to definite spheres of life, and which
accordingly have an essentially narrower range of subjects. we found in Deut. 23 a series concerned with the membership of the /Hj?, and in Deut. 22 a series, which
old
Thus,
gives the impression of being particularly old, concerned with the forbidden perturbatio sacrorum. In Lev. 19 there were ancient regulations concerning the harvest, etc. It is impossible to deny their cultic character; only these units would not have had such an extraordinary cultic setting as we may assume for the Decalogue and the Dodecalogue. Lev. 20.1-8 is probably to be taken as a unit; it deals with sacrifice to Moloch. Verse 2 contains the chief commandment, properly speaking. It is followed by a long admoni-
community Jahweh's relentless this commandment; v. 8 etc. gives the usual conclusion, Keep my statutes Verse 9 begins what is in fact something new, namely, a succession of commandments of very diverse kinds which
severity towards transgressors of
.
tion
making
clear to the
3*
are
shown
in turn to be
members of a
larity in style (they
begin the analysis no word has been added on in principle, and left out. only the expansions which break the regular pattern
1#8 &$
series by their simiand end n/W nl/3). In
(nar ala)
na^r nla
laarnsi i'3*Tnx Vppj; n#g tzrx aft* insn ft$rn$ ntfs ETK
20,9
^
.
10
naT nia T
'nav nta*
fi/ar
h
*i
3^ y T n^x^nK
.
..
25tzr
nt2?'x y .
B^K
n
12
13
nla*
(nar nla)
1
^K nfK 5?t^^ "i^trix astz^ 11^^ ^K n^K-nî n^'n^ n^ -ngs Bftj

injs'fig 25^? ifjs
S
14
is
nto
nri33 T**I*
inaDt^ w? ITll
*
n^K
tz^^K
nla) nla)
1a$~H3-1x
nj^ mfK-nn: ns^'?"i^
1
^
20
21
naT
1
'nia
Inii^n^;
13^
1
"i^s ^""K
nla
THK
nt??K-nK
rii?
11*5 B^
(Whoso curseth
death.)
his father or his
mother
shall die the
adultery with his neighbour's wife shall die the death. Whoso lieth with the wife of his father shall die the
Whoso committed!
death.
Whoso
Whoso
lieth
with his daughter-in-law
shall die the
death.
lieth
with a
man
as
one
lieth
with a
woman
shall die the death. Whoso marrieth a wife
and her mother
as well shall
die the death.
Whoso
hath intercourse with a beast shall die the
death.
32
Whoso
marrieth his sister, the daughter of his father or his mother, shall die the death. Whoso lieth with a wife at the time of her uncleanness shall die the death.
Whoso Whoso
lieth
with the wife of
his uncle shall die the
death.
marrieth the wife of his brother shall die the
death.
Over against the present text, only a few amplifying observations are omitted, and further, in a few instances, the n/ffP nlO which had fallen out when the strict series formation was broken up, has been restored; finally, in w. 12 and 13 the penalty clause has been turned into the singular. The text at present puts the woman on the same footing of responsibility that clearly corresponds with the outlook of a more mature period. Thus we have once more a block of old commandments
:
1 concerning sexual matters.
Then
as conclusion
in this
22-24 g*ve a final parenesis, which in this instance clearly takes its key from the preceding series of commandments uncleanness makes the land unclean; it was because of such sins that the Canaanites
case
more
extensive
w.
lost their land.
Verses 25-27 are some further commandments which have been tacked on.
:
isolated
Lev. 21 presents instructions for priests w. ib-4 is a unit by itself dealing with defilement for the dead. The series of
prohibitions which follows in w. 5-7 is in a rather different style. In neither section is there the divine I nor an address.
Not
till
v. 8
do we have an admonition (addressed to the
community) to regard the priest as holy. Verse 9 is an addition dealing with the case of unchastity in the daughter of a priest. The directions for the high priest in w. 10-15 are once more wholly in the impersonal 'he' form. The
1 Is it by chance that the series comprises ten cerning sexual matters ?
commandments con-
33
from
verses concerning the bodily defects which debar a active service as a priest (w. 16-23) are in the
man
form.
*thou* in the first half of the first conclusion in the second half of the last verse personal 5 that he (' profane not my sanctuaries ) quite obviously betray themselves as later adaptation. The analysis of chapter 22 has little to contribute to our
.
The
same verse and the
purpose either. Verses 2-16 are again pure teaching for priests, and the composition as an utterance of God in the first and last sentences, (as well as in w. 3 and 8 f), comes from a later hand. Verses 17-25, laying down that animals offered in sacrifice must be free from blemish, are addressed to Aaron and the community. Here the *y e? form is probably original. Jahweh is only spoken of in the third person. The same holds true for the decrees in w. 26-30. Finally, these instructions too for the priests and the community close with a general parenesis which, in keeping with the main contents of the whole passage, is addressed here to the priests. This was clearly an integral part the communication of divine regulations issues in a parenesis. We can deal with the rest of the chapters of the Holiness Code quite briefly. None of the various units in chapter 23 dealing with regulations concerning the festivals was originally composed as utterance of Jahweh; there are still too obvious traces of the older form which spoke of Jahweh
But they were teaching for the comnot find, as was not infrequently munity, although the case elsewhere, a main statute of community teaching set down to be expounded and explained. In chapter 24, the section made up of w. 1-14 and v. 23 has for long now been separated off as belonging to P. In w. 15-22 there are some old apodeictic statutes turned into the parenetic form. The sabbath of the seventh year is the subject of 25.2-7, 1 (though the section may be composite) ; w. 18-24 add a general admonition, the purpose of which is to do away
in the third person.
we do
Both
sections contain
not laws' but parenetic addresses.
34
with sceptical scruples. The regulation about the year of jubilee in w. 8-13 fits badly into the present context, which is the sabbath of the seventh year; that suggests that this was not its original setting. In w. 25-28 and 29-34 we have two separate laws concerning the year of jubilee, both of them casuistic and impersonal: their terse formulation recalls the best examples of the old conditional form. But we could hardly bring ourselves to range them alongside these as regards either age or subject. And, in any case, w. 25-28 and 29-34 are not teaching for the community. But teaching for the community does follow in w. 35-38, which deal quite generally with the prohibition against taking interest
Israelite. Any special connection with the sabbath of the seventh year or the year of jubilee is certainly not apparent here. There is much to be said for the conjecture which has often been made that in the two last sections, w. 39-46 and 47-5 5, the adaptation to the year of jubilee arises only from a late redaction. If that is so, then we would have two sermonic sections of teaching, (a) for the case in which an Israelite has sold himself into slavery with another Israelite because of debt, and () for the case in which an Israelite is in the same condition with a stranger. Both pieces of teaching were originally derived from the institution of the sabbath of the seventh year. When we review our results, we discover that the Holi-
from an
contains for the most part teaching for the comin munity parenetic form, and that this teaching is based on various older statutes. The most conspicuous part of this given material was the various apodeictic command-
ness
Code
ment
is
series which sometimes issued in a final parenesis. (It not easy to account for their later transformation into direct utterance of Jahweh, a transformation imposed upon the parenetic material too, and even upon material that was in the impersonal style to begin with. In this respect
Deuteronomy has obviously preserved the purer form,

35
which was perhaps the

is
None
which have been interspersed with parenesis, the Holiness Code is very closely akin to Deuteronomy. The parenetic style is thus not peculiar to Deuteronomy, and so it is not a suitable starting-point for an investigation of the special nature of Deuteronomy and its provenance. Nevertheless, there are, of course, plenty of differences to be found.
given, which, the less, as a collection of older statutes
as such, is
older, for parenesis only uses what not direct speech of Jahweh.)
CHAPTER THREE
DEUTERONOMY'S 'NAME THEOLOGY AND THE PRIESTLY DOCUMENT'S 'KABOD' THEOLOGY

3
appearance at a definite point in the history of Israel's faith. It makes its appearance as a finished, mature, beautifully proportioned and theologically clear work. Because of these characteristics it is in all circumstances to be taken as, in one respect, the final product
its
DEUTERONOMY makes
of a long and extremely complex development. At a
rela-
tively late date it gathers together practically the whole of the assets of the faith of Israel, re-sifting them and purifying them theologically. The most varied groups of traditions
and welded together can well be conceived. (In this respect, as in others, it is comparable with John's Gospel in the New Testament corpus?) On the other side, incalculable influences have proceeded from it; we can indeed follow the broad stream of Deuteronomic trait,
are harmonised to one another in

into as complete
and perfect unity
as
dition in the exilic and post-exilic age much more clearly than that which issues ostensibly from the Priestly Document. 1 Deuteronomy is the beginning of a completely new epoch in Israel. In every respect, therefore, Deuteronomy is to be designated as the middle point of the Old Testament. The question of its derivation is possibly the most difficult in the history of the Old Testament traditions. We said that it was to be understood as a final product. And yet, in
view of
its
sudden appearance in history,

as
it
has been
apparently &nara>p d^rcop KOI ayeweaAoVqros. seeking to answer the question of its provenance, we must proceed with great caution; on the one side, we must bring ourselves to cut loose from all
correctly
described
2
In
Von
W.
Rad: Das
Geschichtsbild des chronistischen
Werkes, Stuttgart,
930, passim.
2
Eichrodt: Neve Kirchliche Zeitschrift,
3,
1921, p. 41.
37
and fixed views, and yet avoid all arbitrary reconstructions. We shaE attempt in what follows to note characteristics of Deuteronomy briefly the most outstanding which are, in our view, certain and palpable. How and where will Israel, which is, in fact, only aphave communion with proaching her own consolidation, with the Jahweh? How and where will her intercourse God by whom she was conscious of being chosen, be contraditional
summated? It is well known that Deuteronomy gives this the whole existence of Israel question, on which plainly will choose a place depended, a definite answer Jahweh to 'cause' his name to 'dwell there' (]5?r?) or to 'put'
1
(D
!^)
his
name
there.
1
In contrast with the later Deuter-
onomistic histories, Deuteronomy never speaks of the city of Jerusalem, but only of the place (Dip?) at which the name will dwell. It has often been assumed that by the latter
term Jerusalem was thought of from the very beginning; that is, however, only one possibility. The idea of the
name
as the characteristic form in which Jahweh reveals himself is not in itself anything new we have 'only to think of the law of the altar in Ex. 20.24. But what is and almost decidedly new is the assumption of a constant material presence of the name at the shrine. Earlier refer-
ences speak
its
c
more
loosely of the name, in such a
way
that
easy to its of a has it cometh from afar', it define 'recording' place 2 As we see etc. Hirp the in it is ^tf?ft, earth, present upon
relationship with the
is
human world
much
less
it
in
Deuteronomy,
it
may be
place, the conception
is definite
established in a particular and within fixed limits; it
theoverges closely upon a hypostasis. The Deuteronomic a holds polemic logumenon of the name of Jahweh clearly element, or, to put it better, is a theological corrective. It
is
not Jahweh himself who

1 i
is
present at the shrine, but only

2
Kings 11.36; 14.21;
Kings
21.4, 7.
Isa. 30.27;
Ex. 20.24; 23.21.
'Nami
his
Theology
and 'Kabod* Theology
name
as the guarantee
of his will to save; to
it
and
it
only Israel has to hold fast as the sufficient form in which Jahweh reveals himself. Deuteronomy is replacing the old
crude idea of Jahweh's presence and dwelling at the shrine by a theologically sublimated idea. Can we show the traditions
which Deuteronomy is taking up in so doing, and the traditions from which it is dissociating itself?
The conception of Jahweh's presence at the shrine is so well attested for us in the pre-deuteronomic period that know there is no need to give references in detail here.
We
it
chiefly in connection with the Ark. Where the Ark is, Jahweh is too ; in the older period the Ark was understood
as the throne of the invisibly present God. 1 But this conception is vouched for so often elsewhere that it could be
thought of as the one and only conception obtaining in ancient Israel. And yet that cannot have been the case. The
Priestly Document represents a totally different theology here. The Tabernacle is neither the dwelling place of Jahweh himself nor of his name, but the place on earth
where, for the time being, the appearance of Jahweh's glory meets with his people. "I??^ ^DK, Tent of Meeting, is the proper designation most corresponding with the facts. This conception is carried through with great consistency in the in the Priestly Document; the stories of the wanderings wilderness give several accounts of this wonderful way in
which Jahweh kept coming down. 2 What constitutes it is, first, the descent of the Hln^ TO? upon the Tent, second, the phenomenon of the cloud which accompanies it. The fire phenomenon of the "T^-p, which emits a brightness too
eye to look upon, is enveloped by the cloud by means of which Jahweh himself graciously protects men from being destroyed by the form in which he
great for the
appears.
1
2
human
We may
say that this
Kabod-Moed conception
f.
is
Num.
10.35 f; i Sam. 4.4 ff; 2 Kings 19.14 f; Jer. 3.16 Ex. 16.10; 29.43; Num. 14.10; 16.19; 17.7; 20.6.
39
in very
marked
of a
0$
contrast to any conception of the dwelling we must go on to say (even of the divine 05?). But
that traces of a
view presupposing Jahweh as present and the Priestly Docudwelling at the shrine are found within ment also. Within the individual rituals there are exceedcult activities were performed ingly frequent indications that there is mention of occasion on 'before indeed,
Jahweh'; 1 an actual dwelling of Jahweh. Obviously these are cases where older views have had a view derived from theological reflection, which now claims to be standard, superimposed
upon them. At the same time, this Kabod-Moed conception but is in no wise a new creation of the Priestly Document,
interests of greater spirituonly the întroduction, in the the same thing, indeed, sacral old a of tradition, very ality, it when its did on as Deuteronomy purified the theology part these traditions the of of old cultic traditions. In respect be clear; it can hardly provenance of Deuteronomy should be judged as standing apart from the main stream of the sacral traditions of Israel. This stream of tradition springs
amphictyony; its ^sacral centre was the cult of the holy Ark. Now it is significant that Deuteronomy knows and mentions the Ark. Even if Deuterits conception of the Ark is considerably different the law of tables the for a onomy's view of it as receptacle is an obvious 'demythologising' and rationalising of the old view still, that very fact allows it to be seen how bound Deuteronomy was to the Ark tradition, and how obliged it was somehow or other to come to terms with it. Another consideration leads to the same result. We have already
for
its
part
from the old
Israelite
mentioned in what has gone before the fact that, to judge by form, the sequence of the single units in Deuteronomy the making of a covenant, parenesis, commandments, back to a great liturgical blessing and cursing points celebration, and a comparison between the formal charac1
Ex. 29.45;
Num.
16.3.
40
'Name
teristics
Theology
of the Jehovistic Sinai pericope, on the one hand, S on the other, shows us that that cultic celebration, the Gattung of which can be fairly exactly reconstructed, was the great Covenant Festival of the Jahweh amphictyony at Shechem. We thus arrive at the first firm conclusion which we can make in regard to the provenance of the Deuteronomic traditions. Deuteronomy stands in the tradition of the old Jahweh amphictyony of Shechem.
and Deut. 27.12
Or
rather,
its
it
proposes to re-introduce
this
old cultic tradithe
tion in
own advanced
period and to
set it forth as
form obligatory upon Israel for its life before Jahweh. The same cannot be maintained for the Priestly Document. In the form in which that work now lies before us, it is, of course, of late date, and therefore a very comprehensive production, in which traditional elements of many
kinds, some, too, of very varied origin, are fused together. Thus, for instance, P., too, has given the Ark no unimportant function in
its cultic arrangements. But the view taken has really been changed considerably in relation to earlier conceptions because of the dominant Kabod-Moed
of the
Ark
Kabod. 1 A further indication that the theological point of view which P. wished to promote and with it alone are we concerned here clearly derives from a different stream of tradition, lies in the fact that, from the point of view of form-criticism,
theology. The mercy seat of the Ark is now the most holy place, in which the mysterious meeting of Jahweh with Moses takes place, and out of which Jahweh speaks to
Moses when he has appeared
in the
the construction of the Sinai pericope has no recognisable relations with the Covenant Festival at Shechem. The
question of the provenance of P. resolves itself, in our opinion, fundamentally into the question of the provenance of this Kabod-Moed theology which is dominant in it. One
1 Ex. different the conception of the revela25.22; Num. 7.89. tion of Jahweh's will to Israel in Deut.: Deut. was received by Moses on the mountain.
How
41
Studies In Deuteronomy
meet with the immediately thinks of Ezekiel, for we again from heaven Kabod the of conception of the coming down 2 1 in him ; there is also mention of the enveloping cloud. The prophet goes beyond P.'s presentation and is bold TI35 more enough to describe the appearance of the Hin^
closely
:
he
sees
is
it
as a light
phenomenon with almost human
contours. It
remarkable
how
this 'appearance'
theology
:
issues at the very

'glory'
end into a conception of 'dwelling' the

dwell
there for ever' 3 ; then the
comes to the new eschatological Jerusalem 'to name of the city will be HfttZ? nln*.*
of the traditions contained Perhaps only an exact analysis of the in the individual elements Priestly Document will as to the ultimate origin of the 'Kabod' the
clarify
question
and 'appearance' theology, which was quite obviously rethe high-church priestly circles presented and evolved by Solomon's in Jerusalem. temple was built as a so-called also understood as such by 'dwelling temple' and was 5 That is not at all surprising when we consider that Israel. with it was intended to conceal in its Holy of Holies the Ark the old sources attest, presence unanimously which, as the of Jahweh was so closely bound up. The old accounts 6 about the Tent are scanty and far from easy to understand. All that is clear is that they do not fit in with this 'dwelling' outside the camp, while the conception. The Tent stands the Ark was always within camp. It is not to be assumed
the Tent. One's general impression is that this Tent only served as an oracular shrine for the decisions. From time to time the reception of the divine the cloud descends upon Tent, in which the then old narrator
that the
Ark stood in
The distinctively alien imagines Jahweh to be present. character of the few passages about the Tent of Meeting
1 *
5
2 Ezek. 1.4; 10.4. Ezek. 1.25 ff; 8.4, 9.3. 4 Esek. Ezek. 43.4, 7. 48.35. K. Mohlenbrink: Der Tempel Salomos, p. 136.
Kings
8.12;
Kings
6
19.15. Ex. 33.7 8;
Num.
11.24
ff;
Deut. 31.14 f (E).
4*
'Name
Theology
within the other old Hexateuch traditions prompts the question whether an addition from some quite different sphere of tradition is not present here. Is it not possible that the Tent, which was obviously foreign to the Shechem
amphictyony, belonged originally to the South, perhaps as the sanctuary of the old amphictyony of the six tribes in or near Hebron?1 Hempel has postulated the presence of
Hebron traditions in P. on other grounds. 2 At that rate it would therefore be an old tradition observed in South Israel which appears resuscitated in Ezekiel and P. The
specifically southern Israelite institutions. The traditions about them were first of all completely overlaid by the much more puissant traditions of the Shechem amphictyony, and then, later, the written tradition was once more subjected to criticism and
why research we know so little
reason
into these matters
is
so difficult
is
that
about the old
interpreted by the school of Deuteronomy. What a thorough Deuteronomic re-editing there has been, for instance, of the accounts of the building, furnishings and consecration of Solomon's temple, and what a different picture would conceivably rise before us, were we to succeed in re-
the weight of this all-powerful later tradition! Is not significant that we hear a clear rejection of the Temple in favour of the Tent from the mouth of the prophet Nathan, that is, once more, a south Israelite ? 3 This protest cannot have been made on the basis of the actual practice of the amphictyony, since the Ark had been resting, as we
moving
it
know, in a temple for generations. We find in the Psalms, on a relatively broad basis, a well-nigh mystical spiritualisation of the place of refuge concept:
Similarly Lohr has maintained that the empty Tent belongs to 'South Ark to North Israel. OX.Z., 1926, pp. 5 f ; cp. the further R. Kittel, Religion des Volkes Israel^ (2nd ed.), p. 45. amphictyony of the six tribes see M. Noth: Das System der
1
Israel* as sanctuary, the
On
Stdmme
2
Israels,
pp. 75
flf.
J. 8 2
Hempel: Die
Sam.
7.6.
althebrctische Iîteratur^
pp. 152
f.
43
'He hides
Let
me
me in his pavilion in the day of trouble; hide in the covert of thy wings/
is
:
And
then, in
what
obviously canonical language, comes
mention of the Tent

'He
shields
me in the shield of his tent; be a guest in thy tent for evermore!' 1 What is the source of the mention of the Tent ? Is reference intended to the Tent in which the Ark was housed in the time of David until the building of the Temple ? 2 It is hard to believe that this short-term temporary provision could have given rise to such important cultic terminology. Is it not more likely that an essentially more firmly established tradition stands behind it, the one with which the symbolic name of Oholibah for Jerusalem is still linked? 3 But in contrast to our previous researches into Deuteronomy, in this investigation into the traditional backgrounds of the Priestly Document we do not yet move on solid enough
Let
me
ground.
1
Ps. 27.5
61.4: the Psalms are, as the addition in Ps. 61,7 f shows,
pre-exilic and therefore pre-P. 2 2 Sam. 6.17; i Kings 2.28, 30.

3
Ezek. 23.4.
44
CHAPTER FOUR
DEUTERONOMY AND THE HOLY WAR

were able in what has gone before to maintain with confidence that, in respect of its broad legal basis, its whole form and, last, its conception of the dwelling of Jahweh in Israel, Deuteronomy renews the cultic tradition of the old
WE
Shechem amphictyony. But an important question now These elements restored by Deuteronomy, of which we have so far spoken, are far from comprehending the whole character of the amphictyony and its institutions. The amphictyony was not, in the last analysis, a religious union assembling simply for the communal performance of sacrifice and for hearing the rules which God gave it for its life. Rather was it a band of tribes which, besides enarises.
gaging in cultic activities in the narrower sense, also safeguarded and defended its whole political existence, sword in hand. Now, of course, this second side of its activity was not secular, but cultic just like the other, and subject
to definite laws
and
ideas.
We
refer to the institution to
which we give the name, the Holy War. Perhaps it was in the Holy War even more than the Covenant Festival at Shechem that ancient Israel really first entered into her
grand form. We need not here enter into detail on points of cultural and religious development. Nor need we be concerned with the difficulty that all manner of old and extremely primitive tabu and mana conceptions lie behind the stories of the Holy War, which, as we have them now, have undoubtedly been spiritualised in the telling. This much, however, should be said. In his well-known monograph, Schwally puts the 1 Gideon's religious level of ancient Israel much too low. Israelites were no Fiji islanders ; their sacral usages in war, with their background of primitive tabus, point, in turn,
1
Israel.
Fr. Schwally, Semitische T&iegsaltertiimer. Leipzig, 1901.
i.
Der
beilige
Krzeg im alten
45
further back to a
much
older stage of religious cultural
development. However, since our only concern with this subject is in so far as the question of a survival of such sacral conceptions arises, we may apply ourselves without more ado to the references, even if they in their turn already
represent a higher or
more
spiritual perception.
The proper period of the Holy War was the period of the
old Israelite Amphictyony, that is, the period of the Judges. c Caspari was right in reading into the cry, jahweh is a man of war/ 1 the moment of astonishment called forth by a
new experience of Jahweh which Israel had been allowed to make; for the wilderness does not know the Holy War in its proper form. The end of this institution was irrevocably sealed by the formation of the state. From then onwards the wars were no longer waged under a charismatic leader but, in Judah, under an hereditary king, and they were fought by him at the head of an army which became more and more mercenary in character, a new development in Israel. That meant, naturally, the undermining of the old organisation. The old wars had been waged by the militias of the tribes raised from levies of the free citizens possessed of property. None the less, we see
discovery, a
thoroughly alive in the time of David. But after that the old sacral form of warfare apparently broke down under the impact of rational and This does not tactical, that is, secular, considerations. of this old institution mean, of course, that odd elements did not persist for long enough. But as a totality in its great obligatory sacral form it was obsolete. To deal with c the inexorable utopian' demands of the prophets who, regardless of all the changes that had taken place, declared that old patriarchal form of defence binding for their own time too, would require a chapter for itself. Not every recourse to arms in the older time was a Holy War. It is obvious that a very clear distinction was drawn
still
i
the concept of the
Holy War
Ex.
15.3.
46
Deuteronomy and the Holy
War
which was a secular undertaking, and such a one as took place under cultic auspices. 1 In the Holy War, the first action, it would seem, was regularly consultation of the deity, whereby Israel or the tribe concerned made certain of Jahweh's readiness to help and save2 ; then the trumpets were blown and the reassuring cry which anticipated victory was raised, 'Jahweh hath delivered the 3 enemy into our hands'. The men themselves submitted to certain restrictions, they were 'consecrated',4 and it was
between a
y
"n ^y^
put away anything that might offend For those Jahweh. taking part in a Holy War were immediately in the sphere of the divine activity Jahweh goes before the host; he dwells with them in the camp. 6 The leader in such a war acted under the compulsion of a definite charisma, which invested him with full powers for the
5
:
specially essential to
office, but the 'willing offering of himself' by the individual warrior was also praised as a special gift from Jahweh. 7 If the initiative lay wholly with Jahweh, he also determined what actually happened in the action. That is the reason why the numbers engaged in the Holy War are never a
decisive factor. 8
The
stories intentionally exaggerate the
numerical disparity in order to give the honour of the victory to Jahweh alone. In the Gideon story that consideration is so much in the forefront that it concedes no participation to the fighters themselves; they stay directly before the
enemy's camp making the strangest gestures to accompany in. The climax of the Holy War is that terror sent by God the regular term is HlQin^ QDH
the divine action which sets
comes upon the enemy, a numinous panic in which they

1 i Sam. 21.6. David's sending back of the Ark in 2 Sam. 15.24 ff belongs here too. Holy Wars proper are called 'Jahweh's wars*, i Sam.
18.17; 25.28. 2 i Sam. 28.6; 30.7; 2 Sam. 5.19, 23. 3 Judg. 3.27; 6.3; i Sam. 13.3; Judg. 7.15. 4 i Sam. 21.6; 2 Sam. n.ii; Isa. 13.3; Jer. 6.4.
5 7
Deut. 23.10-15. (E.V., 9-14.) 8 Judg. 7.2 Judg. 5.2, 9.
ff; i
Deut. 23.14; Judg. 4.14. Sam. 13.15 ff; 14.6, 17.
47
act blindly and accomplish their at the culminating point of the
own
destruction. 1
Thus,
is
engagement the action
wrested from the leader's hands without his knowing it, and a miracle from Jahweh drops as it were into empty has been scrupulously space from which all human activity stories there is Gideon the in removed. Unquestionably but they do emalready a certain theologising tendency, bolder relief what faith phasise and throw into only slightly the conception of from inalienable as absolutely regarded sole the that the Holy War, namely, agent in it was Jahweh; the fighters' chief duty was to submit confidently to Jahweh's sway and not to be afraid in face of the enemy's to have faith. proper superior numbers in a word, individual which would the in of spirit subjective attitude
enable
ently
him to play his part in the undertaking was apparmore important than arms or military skill. The
of those who were afraid took conjecture that the exclusion will prove that the measure ideas demonistic its origin in was a means of self-protection for the league-at-arms. But we must assume that this demand was at a very early date
by the Jahweh faith in the light of its specific and amongst the most noticeable characterassumptions; istics of that faith is the absence of a demonology. The result was that the demand was given a positive turn: it 5 2 and in all became a Be not afraid, a 'Hold your peace
re-interpreted
,
for faith has its proper probability the biblical demand Israel. ancient of War origin here in the Holy taken in such a war was O'DD, "under the ban*, The
spoil
that is, the exclusive property of Jahweh,
and in consequence to the range of As human outwith disposal. completely what fell under the ban, the accounts vary. On occasion
the enemy's men, women and children, their cattle and all 3 their valuables are mentioned, on occasion the women or
1
2
Josh. 10.10; Judg. 4.15;
Sam. 7.10;
5.11, etc.
14.9; Judg. 7.3; Ex. 14.14. 3 ff; i Sam. 15.3. 6.17 Josh.
Num.
48
War
the cattle are excepted. It is doubtful whether the usage as a whole can be brought within the category of the vow; if
it
can, then that would certainly be a more mature conception1 ; it presupposes also that men are free to choose
whether they wifl perform the ban or not. The conception in i Sam. 15.3, where the banning originates in a demand from Jahweh and where it appears as the real purpose of the war, is certainly more ancient. The most important thing for us is that the obligation to put under the ban was conceived by the Jahweh faith as an act of acknowledgement of Jahweh and his help. How Saul was thereby brought into a status confessionis and then resiled, is shown in the story in i Sam. 1 5 We have given this brief synopsis of the basic conceptions of the Holy War almost without references to it from
.
Deuteronomy. The question

not
this a sacral institution
is all the more urgent now; is and concept with which the traditions contained in Deuteronomy stand in essential relationship? Deuteronomy is the one corpus in the Old Testament containing numerous laws about war, regula-
tions about the investment of cities, prisoners of war, etc., at the back of which stand traditions which are without
doubt old. But in our opinion it is of as great import that the whole parenetic diction is sustained in the strongest possible way by an ideology inspired by war. Let it not be said that these are ordinary Israelite articles of faith and
that, therefore, it is
no wonder
if
we come across them also

in time.
Deuteronomy so much later Priestly Code shows us a very

in
glance at the
back
different world, pointing for the origin of its traditions and institutions to quite
other spheres of the life of ancient Israel. We cannot help but notice the difference from the Holiness Code, which we have, after all, approximated so closely to Deuteronomy in another respect. The cultic peasant life of that Code has
absolutely
1
no
trace of the things of war in
it.
And yet how

21.2.
Stade: BtbL Tbeologie des A.T., p. 155;
Num.
49
dominating it is in Deuteronomy! under three heads in Deuteronomy:

(a)
It
can be comprised
The Deuteronomic laws concerning war:

laws concerning war, 20.1-9; investment of cities, 20.10-18, 19-20; female prisoners of war, 21.10-14; the law concerning the camp, 23.10-14; exemption for the newly-married, 24.5 ; the law concerning Amalek, 25.17-19.
complete agreement to-day that these laws are not the composition of the author of Deuteronomy, and that fairly old, indeed in part very old, material is present in them. Individually they certainly vary in age. The law concerning the camp will be older than that forbidding the cutting down of fruit trees. But all of them presuppose
is
There
the settlement in Canaan

craft, alien labourers
they reckon with cities, siegeand so on. But for our purpose here
is
the most important thing to notice about them the cultic regulations in Deuteronomy,
that, like
they
leave
us
the one hand, they contain what is very ancient; indeed, we can still trace in them the outlines of ideas that reach back into the prejahwistic period. On the other hand, this has all been
different impressions.
acteristic
it is permeated with the conceptions charof Deuteronomy and so brought up to date. We cannot enter into detail here to show how this re-interpretation has led, to some extent, to a humanising and, to some extent, to a rational demateriaBsing of the old ordinances.
with two
On
re-interpreted:
But even
there
is
what touches the institution itself changed. For example, in the old Holy Wars of the amphictyonic period it was obviously the armies of
in regard to
much
the tribes that carried matters through, as the levy of the
whole amphictyony did not go into action on every particular occasion, but often enough only individual tribes. In Deuteronomy there is no longer any trace of this; there

Israel is
War
thought of as a unity, taking the field, if at all, as a This reflects military conditions which came into body. being, at the earliest, with the formation of the kingdom, but probably, as we shall see further on, considerably later. On the other hand, it is noticeable that none of these laws give the king the role of authority in the conduct of war which he had in fact. This gives the impression that, in all these ordinances which Deuteronomy re-introduced, there is at work a strong tendency towards the re-institution of what obtained in the past. In detail the question of the age of the material taken up has to be answered differently from case to case. But only the law concerning Amalek (25.17-19) admits of the suspicion of being pure doctrine.
() The Deuteronomic speeches concerning war: the law concerning war in 20.1-9 * s composite. It begins with an
address in the singular in v. i when Israel goes into battle, it is not to be afraid if the enemy is numerically stronger or
:
better equipped.
plural
priest
At v. z commences a passage with the form of address immediately before the battle, the
:
is
to address the host thus :
'Hear, Israel, ye approach now unto battle with your enemies. Let not your hearts faint, fear not, do not tremble
and be not terrified because of them, for Jahweh your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your
enemies, to save you/
follows the speech of the 'officers',1 exempting such as have built a house or planted a vineyard, or those who have just married. Those, too, that are fearful are to
at v.
5
Then
leave the host.

troops.
Then the
officers are to
go
to the
head of the
to be
The redundancies
1
are obvious.
The order not
On
the officers (D*HC?ttf) as the officials charged with the recruit-
ment of the
levy, see most recently E. Junge: Der Wtederaufbau des Heenvesens des Ejsiches Juda mter Josia, 1937, pp. 48 ff.
51
afraid
given three times first by the Deuteronomic 'lawthe priest (v. 3), and thirdly by the giver' (v. i), second by officers (v. 8). The easiest to remove as secondary is the
is
:
the
section giving the priest's address, w. 2-4. But v. 8, too, officers' admonition not to be afraid, looks very like an
addition, since it is introduced anew as a speech of the officers to the warriors. There are therefore three strands.
The
oldest
is
the officers' address in
w.
5-7; this speech,
concerned with objective ritual facts, has v. 8 by a question concerning the subin been expanded the warriors. The question about fear jective condition of is really already akin here to a question about the warriors'
which
is strictly
completing the the ideology of the Holy with whole the of impregnation War. Here then we can very easily mark the stages in the
faith.
Finally, the priest's address is added,
growth of a
religious revival,
which was
also, in this case,
a spiritualisation. Our concern is with the last strand, in which, of course, Deuteronomy's aim to conceive war as a Holy War in the
is quite clearly expressed. The in principle exactly the same as we recognised procedure it to be in the case of the cultic laws' of Deuteronomy: old
sense of the old institution

is
ordinances were taken up by Deuteronomy, and remoulded in parenetic form and brought up to date in the light of its
peculiar theology.
Gattung., this parenetic form letic method of instruction
found further that, in respect of goes back to a definite homiused by the priests. Can we find something of the same sort being done in the case of
We
the speeches about war, too ? The actual literary form in which we find the law does not in itself favour any such assumption. But the conjecture that the priest's address in this passage is not a pure invention of Deuteronomy's
has some antecedent justification. For we have at last learned to differentiate between a purely literary judgement and one arrived at on the basis of form-criticism,
for even decidedly late texts representing theoretical theo5*

logical standpoints can be which actually did obtain. 1
War
made
to disclose cultic usages
Let us look
onomy,
section
at the great parenetic introduction to Deuterchapters i-n. It can be taken as certain that this
not to be claimed as a homogeneous structure either from the form-critical or the literary point of view, but it represents a compilation of several liturgical "formularies' for the festival of the reading of the law. This is
is
i-u particularly clear, for example, in chapter 7.1-15: of are parenesis, 12-15 promises blessing; between the two sections we are to imagine the reading of the law. The
w.
w.
case
keeps closer to history;
the same in chapter 11.1-21 the parenesis in w. 1-12 w. 13-21 are blessing and cursing. 10.12-22 some verses in the plural inserted) (with Chapter
is
:
and 8.1-20
also appear to Similarly chapter 11.22-28:
have been parenetic
sections.
w.
26-28 blessing and cursing. Now, and the ends of the sections are frequently blurred, for in its present form the whole has become literature and divorced from its Sify im Leben, the actual usages of the cult. But in
spite
22-25 are parenesis, w. no doubt, the beginnings
of that
this analysis is
undoubtedly
correct. 2
however, some passages in the great block of made up chapters 6-n which are extremely difficult to fit in with the sketch just given. For example, 7.16-26: 'Thou shalt exterminate all the peoples which Jahweh thy God delivers up to thee. Thou shalt not spare them and shalt not serve their gods, but that would be a snare to thee. Shouldest thou say to thyself: these peoples are greater in number than I, how can I drive them out? be not afraid of them, but remember what Jahweh thy God did to Pharaoh and all Egypt, the great proofs which thou sawest
There
are,
with thine eyes, the strong hand and the outstretched arm
1 Consider Deut. 31.10-13, and the custom of reading the law at the Feast of Tabernacles; A. Alt, op. cit. y pp. 53 f. 2 A. Klosterrnann : Der Pentateuch, N.F., p. 273. v. Had, Das S. formgescbicbtUcbe "Problem des Hexateucb, pp. 27
53
with which Jahweh thy God led thee out. So will Jahweh thy God deal with all the peoples of whom thou art afraid. Moreover Jahweh thy God will send disheartening1 against
them, until they that are left and hide themselves from thee are perished. Be not in dread of them, for Jahweh thy God
is
in thy midst, a mighty and terrible God. And Jahweh thy God will drive out these peoples before thee bit by bit;
thou canst not destroy them quickly, else the wild beasts would become too many. Jahweh thy God will deliver
them
to thee.
He
will cause a great panic (H/MTUD Oft^T),
until they are destroyed, and he will put their kings into thy hand and thou shalt obliterate their name under heaven.
None
with
will
be able to hold their
own
before thee, until thou
hast destroyed them.
shall ye burn the silver and thou shalt not desire fire, gold that is upon them, and shalt not take it unto thee, that it may not become a snare to thee, for it is an abomination for Jahweh thy God. And an abomination shalt thou not bring into thy house, lest thou fall forthwith under the ban (Q^D
The images of their gods
0*7'7]y
Thou
shalt banish it
it is
from thee with abhorrence and

1
loathing, for
fallen
under the ban (^H G^fT ?)/

itself.
The passage
is
a unit in
It
was preceded by the
proclamation of blessing in w. 12-15, the conclusion, that fresh warning is, of the parenetic unit mentioned above.
to obey the divine
at 8.1. But the most marked difference in the warning with which we have to do here lies in the fact that there is absolutely no mention of commandments, the law which I command thee this day',
commandments begins
obedience,
etc. Not the slightest account is taken of will revealed as in law. the contrary, what is Jahweh's
On
proclaimed exclusively here is the fundamental principles of the Holy War: thou shalt not be afraid even in face of superior numbers Jahweh himself fighteth he is in the midst of thee in battle he will bring the divine panic upon
1
L. Kohler:
Z.A.W., 1936,
54
p. 191.

the
War
from what is under the ban. Do not these completely delineate the whole range of the conceptions connected with the Holy War? And further: is it not conceivable that this is the kind of language which would actually have been used in a period whose chief aim it was
enemy
abstain
to re-introduce sacral regulations of periods long past? One is all the more inclined to answer this question in the
affirmative
when
it is
seen that this passage of ours
is
not
the only one of its kind in Deuteronomy, but that there are several similar 'formularies' as speeches concerning war.
to
"Hear, Israel, thou art this day to pass over the Jordan, go in and overthrow peoples that are greater and stronger
cities that
than thyself, great

great and
tall
are fortified
up
to heaven, a
of
whom
people, the Anakim, whom thou knowest and thou hast heard said, Who can stand before the
Anakim?
But thou wilt
this
day
know
that
it is
Jahweh
thy goeth before thee as a consuming fire. He will destroy them, he will cast them down before thee, that thou mayest drive them out and quickly destroy them, as
God who
Jahweh hath promised thee. Think not to thyself, when Jahweh thy God dispossessed them before thee, for my desert hath Jahweh brought me in, to take this land in possession, whereas Jahweh driveth out these peoples because of their wickedness.
heart dost thou
Not
come
in, to
for thy desert or thy pure take their land in possession,
but because of their wickedness Jahweh thy God driveth out these people before thee, to fulfil the word that Jahweh sware to thy fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Know therefore, that Jahweh thy God giveth thee this fair land in possession not for thy desert, for thou art a stiff-necked
people" Deut. 9.1-6. Here, too, the law given
by Moses and the question of
obedience lies completely outwith the range of the speech. It, too, seems to us to have its place within the framework of the ideology of the Holy War which Deuteronomy brought to life again. Even if it does not comprehend the concep55
tions of the
it
Holy War so completely as the previous passage, does revolve emphatically round what is most important it is Jahweh who does the fighting and gains the victory, so that any self-glorification and any boasting about their own achievement would be a great sin. We must not fail to appreciate here the speaker's position in a more advanced stage in history he is reckoning with the possibility that his audience may have a very different conception of warlike events they may regard them from a very human stand:
point; his attitude is accordingly apologetic; and he does not hesitate to slip over into what is rationalising argu-
mentation ('not for thy desert, but because of their wickedness

3
).
'Jahweh thy God, he will go over before thee; he will destroy these peoples before thee, that thou overcomest them. (Joshua will go over before thee, as Jahweh hath commanded) and Jahweh will deal with them as he dealt with Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, and their land, whom he destroyed. And when Jahweh giveth them over to you, ye shall deal with them exactly according to the commandment which I have given you. Be ye strong and of good courage, fear them not and be not in dread of them, for Jahweh thy God goeth with thee; he will not fail thee nor forsake thee/ And Moses called to Joshua and spake to him before the whole of Israel: Be strong and of good courage, for thou shalt bring the people into the land which Jahweh sware to their fathers to give them, and thou wilt allot it to them as an inheritance. But Jahweh, he goeth before thee; he will not fail thee nor forsake thee. Fear not and be not dismayed!' Deut. 31.3-6, 7-8. These are clearly two formularies, which are well nigh parallel in content and phraseology. Such passages inevitably raise the form-critical question of their derivation. In our opinion, we have here and in the previously quoted texts Deuteronomic war speeches in a fair degree of oriwith ginality, adapted only very slight revision to the
c
56

historical situation -which
War
that
Deuteronomy is supposed to have
before the conquest of the land.
The assumption
no
priests assisted at military operations presents
difficulties.
In the older period it was probably the regular practice for a man of God to seek to determine the issue of military operations by blessing his own people and putting the
and the subsequent ; and of an old spiritualising theologising usage would corwith the author of respond perfectly Deuteronomy's
sacral
enemy under
proscription
practice.
(f) Deuteronomy's atmosphere of war is, however, far from coming to expression only in the so-called laws concerning war and the speeches concerning war, but it stands on a much broader basis it permeates the whole corpus as an unmistakable adjunct and gives it a very specific impress. There are examples on every hand in Deuteronomy
:
6.18:
.
.
'
... ye shall keep the
commandments of Jahweh
.
it
that thou mayest come into the fair land and take in possession, driving out all thine enemies before thee,
. .
.
Jahweh hath promised thee. 'When Jahweh thy God bringeth thee into the land, 7. i f to which thou goest now, to possess it, and casteth out and Jahweh thy God putteth many peoples before thee
as
: . .
Ex. 17.11: Judg. 5.12; Num. 22 F. would not be difficult to extract some material on the subject of such war speeches, or at least elements which, as far as language goes, derive from such speeches, from the Deuteronomistic histories as well: 'Every place whereon the sole of your feet shall tread, give I unto you ... no one is to be able to stand before thee thy whole life long. As I ' * was with Moses, so will I be with thee. . Josh. 1.3, 5. Jahweh will himself them before and God drive them out before you your expel you, and ye shall take possession of their land, as Jahweh your God hath promised you ... a single man of you chases a thousand before you; for Jahweh your God himself fighteth for you, as he hath promised you*. Josh. 23.5, 10. We find the direct continuation of this tradition in the war speeches of the Chronicler's work: 2 Chi on. 1 5.1 flf; 16.71!; 2o.i5fT; 3 2.7 If. Cp. von Rad, 'Die levitische Predigt in den Bucbern der Chronik\ festschrift Otto Proeksch, 1934, pp. 113 ff.
1
It
57
them into thy hand, thou ban <tnn5 cnnn).'

11.23
shalt utterly
put them under the
lf ye fulfil this whole law ... , (E.V., 22 fi): all these peoples before you, and ye Jahweh will drive out and stronger than will overcome peoples that are greater No one will be able to stand against you; fear and y OU
dread of you will Jahweh your that ye tread upon/

12.29:
God
lay
upon
all
the land
whom
19.1:
'When Jahweh thy God cutteth off the peoples to thou wilt go, to overcome them, and thou oversettle in their land.
c
comest them, to
When Jahweh
thy
whose 'land Jahweh thy

overcomest.
20.16 f
:
God cutteth God will give
off the peoples,
thee,
and thou
thy
God
'But in the cities of these people, which Jahweh not shall give thee for an inheritance, thou shall
thou shalt utterly leave alive anything that hath breath, but them under the ban (Dff^ffi) tnijiJ).'
put
We are not to take these and similar statutes

hind
this
as
meaning-
them as a leading less adjuncts, but must understand and tolerably characteristic element in Deuteronomy. Bea perfectly definite ideology phraseology stands and behind the ideology stand, as its representatives and definite groups in the nation. Glancchampions, perfectly at the Priestly Document or the ing again for comparison look for Holiness Code, we see that we have obviously to which in those from different groups these
amongst quite both these works emanated. A much more marked political Oae evidence of it atmosphere permeates Deuteronomy. of the other peoples is the large part which the consideration The of Deuteronomy. being and duty plays in the thought with the relation into of Israel are brought
constantly
existence of other peoples, and with the judgement passed 1 customs and sins. Men speak to us upon them, and their
i
e.g., 8.20; 12.2; 15.6; 18.9, 14;
23.20; 25.19; 26.19; 28.10; 29.2-4-
58
War
from the pages of Deuteronomy

concern with
Israel's existence
who have a very pressing over against foreign nations ; it is for that reason that the question too of delimitation outward plays so great a role, 1 that the possibility of an extension of the territory occupied by Israel is envisaged, 2 etc. Deuteronomy is making a bold bid for the unification of all departments of life in IsraeL In a previous work I have tried to show how this was effected by means of stressing the idea of a national community, an idea which comes to expression throughout and which has been subsequently 3 imposed even upon the very much older legal material.
1
2
23.1 ff; 7.1 ff. 12.20; 19.8.
v. Rad: Das Gotfesvolk im Deuferonomum, Stuttgart, 1929. The present work may however be regarded as, in substantial points, a correction of that earlier production.
59
CHAPTER FIVE
THE PROVENANCE OF
DEUTERONOMY
So far, the results of our whole examination are by no means unambiguous. We saw in Deuteronomy a great deal of old cultic material worked over and presented homiletically. Who were the people who had access to such a wide range of this matter and who possessed, further, the full right to make so incisive and striking an interpretation of these cul-
They can only have been priests. On the other hand, we met a decidedly martial spirit in Deuteronomy. Its whole parenetic content was, so to speak, saturated with the ideas associated with the Holy War; behind the Deuteronomic parenesis we can descry an audience with weapons
tic traditions ?
in
its
hands as
it
listens to
of
this national
and warlike
the divine injunctions. In respect spirit, we might look for the

the militia.
originators of
:
Deuteronomy amongst
This
problem of Deuterto the and answer any onomy question of its provenance must prove true for this peculiar double form. As to the very decided martial spirit in Deuteronomy, our own conclusions agree significantly with the results
Janus-like quality
arrived at in E. Junge's work on the Wiederaufbau des Heerwesens des 'Ketches Juda unter ]osia^ Junge sees in the events of the year 701 the decisive break in the evolution
we take
to be the real
of the army of Judah. The disciplined mercenary troops had been surrendered to the Assyrian king. During the period when the Assyrian power was in decline, the state had absolutely no resources from which to re-form troops of the kind, including chariots and horses. 2 'There was probably then only one single other way for the kingdom of Judah to overcome the lack of financial resources and build up a new military force, namely, to raise no troops
1
2
Bettrqge %ur Wissenschaft vom ^4.T. Junge, op. tit., pp. 26, 97.
und JV,T. 3 Stuttgart,
60
The Provenance of Deuteronomy
and make no purchases from abroad, but to build up from what the country itself offered. That means, the population capable of bearing arms had to be called up for military service. Such service could be demanded of every subject as a civil liability, and allowed of the formation of an army that was adequate in strength and yet not costly. In other words, the old militia which had passed into oblivion had to be recalled to life.' 1 Those especially who have no doubt about the close connection of Deuteronomy with the time of Josiah must give special consideration to this thesis,
demonstrated as it clearly is by much in the sources, especially those of the time of Josiah. We took a different line of approach above and enquired about the representatives of Deuteronomy's martial ideology. But the institution of the
Holy War, which we saw so determinedly re-introduced by Deuteronomy, is something directly connected with the old militia, and only fell victim to dissolution and secularisation
with the emergence of the mercenary army in the period of
the kings. 2 So, we suggest, the circle is to some extent now closed we have to look within Judah's revived militia for
:
the representatives of the religious ideas expressed in Deuteronomy. It is certainly very likely that when the old tribes
moved into
and amphictyonies became active, religious forces, too, the centre which had been either eliminated for
centuries, or at least drastically
pushed to the circumference Of course, while of the under the ascendancy capital. maintaining this, we wish to leave the question of cause and effect open: was it the conservative circles of the country nobility, whose religious outlook was still largely patri-
hour had struck after 701 and envisaged regeneration from within as the only possible way
archal,
who saw
that their
of salvation, or did
these circles
this patriarchal
element only attain to
new influence in the wake of the military teform ? Obviously

were the representatives of a determination to
reconstruct over against the desultory political experiments 2 1 See above p. 60. Junge, of, rif., p. 29.
61
orthodox according to the standards of the patriarchal calling-out of the Jahweh amphictyony, or, rather, they wished so to be. That Deuteronomy is the product of a revival movement is
of the
capital.
still
They were
beyond question. And so
it is
easily established that it
was
not in actual fact the genuinely old, the restoration of which was effected in Deuteronomy. On the one hand, really
important elements of the old institution (e.g., the charismatic leadership) were not resurrected, while on the other, many later features (e.g., the kingship and prophecy) have asserted themselves in Deuteronomy. This determination of Deuteronomy's to reconstruct moved wholly within the ambit of the traditions of the old
Jahweh amphictyony. The amphictyony was the original of the new order for Israel, and its goal. That was not a matter of course. Theoretically it would have been perfectly conceivable for a revival movement to envisage the hey-day of national prosperity under David as its standard. But it
is
quite impossible to construe
Deuteronomy along these
insignificant position that the king the occupies, nay more, complete absence of the tradition of the Davidic covenant with all its Messianic consequences,
lines.
The extremely
and,
finally,
Deuteronomy's noticeable
silence
on important
political functions of the king, can only be taken to mean that Deuteronomy originated in circles where sacral con-
ceptions of the "anointed of Jahweh' had perhaps never really gained a footing. But above all, there is positive proof
traditions in
of Deuteronomy's provenance from the amphictyonic its form and content. As far as concerns adherence to the amphiccontent, Deuteronomy's general
tyonic traditions is shown chiefly in the fact that when, in the later regal period, Israel's life had become drastically
broken down and disintegrated, the book makes a comprehensive attempt to gather her into new unity by designating her as the people of God. But this very expression
nin* DS?
is
given in the older period as a designation for the

62
amphictyonic
and that in connection with the Sam. I.I2. 1 That brings us now to one final consideration. The accounts of what took place at the removal of Athaliah and the raising of Joash to the throne contain one or two particulars which are of value now for helping us to answer the question about the provenance of Deuteronomy. One at least of the forces which took a hand in affairs then was
militia,
militia in the field: Judg. 5.11; 20.2; 2
manifestly the
f^Xn
D$7.
We may take it as certain that the
term means the free, property-owning, full citizens of Judah, that is, the section of the people which we have already mentioned above as the proper people liable for military service, who in the event of war made their appearance in the levy of the militia. 2 The accounts furnish a clear enough picture of what took place, and they are thoroughly trustworthy, even the parallel account which Stade calls later, 2 Kings n.i3-i8a. 3 The initiative lay no doubt with the high priest Jehoiada, but he alone with the palace guard cannot have set things in motion without a previous underwith some influential political group, and that standing group was the property-owning citizens of the country districts. Their presence in the Temple while the dramatic events were enacted was certainly no accident. 'The city
was
quiet*, but, 'the
f D$7 D ^
tejoiced',
who through
throne.
their acclamation set the
was they young king on the

that
is, it
Then came the making of a solemn covenant between Jahweh on the one^side and the king and the people on the other HiiT*? Dl? ? Tfrtf? (2 Kings 11.17), A covenant in these terms certainly implied far-reaching policies to be into for the of a covenant between conclusion effect, put the Jahweh, king and the people was certainly no everyday
1
1
2
M. Noth: Das System

E. Wiirthwein: Der
e
amm
ff.
der sgvolf Stamme Israels^ pp. 120
ha'arez im A.T., Ifoitrage ûr Wissen-
schaft
3 4
vom A.v.N.T. IV,
p. 17, 1936.
Z.A.W.
2
1885, pp. 280

11.20.
Kings
occurrence: clearly, a break was to be made with the past 1 and a new beginning entered upon with Jahweh. Unforto tell us at this very tunately the sources have very little
that what took place even on point, but we think it certain that occasion was a reform in the sense of a harking back to
2 the ordinances of the old Jahweh amphictyony. That the and people then took on were obligations which the king be inferred from the fact in the main cultic can
probably
at
all,
that a covenant
was made
for in those times
when the
cult was already so drastically disintegrated a covenant with the Jahweh implied an adherence to religious aims. For same reason, we cannot seriously call in question the
destruction of the temple genuineness of the notice about the 1 and its Unfortunately the text in 2 Kings 11.17 is not certain,
^
the one hand between Jahweh, the king and the two covenants, between the king and the people? But fy\ other and on the people,
originality is suspect. Is
it,
as Kittel (Com*, in loco] thinks, a
matter of
on
DSJTJ
pDI l^SH
in v. ijb
is
rather to be regarded as simply ditto-
But then the passage is different in Chronicles; Chronicles account not of a covenant of the king and the people with an gives Jahweh (HIPP ^Sl), but of one made by Jehoiada between himself in loco) and others (1r3) and the king and people. Benzinger (Com.., but they can hardly be regarded this account as older and original, it is a case of a theological correction due to Chronicles With right. bias this covenant making was to be set apart from the great canonigraphy.
cal covenants.
2
M. Noth
In comparison, 2 Kings 11.17 is decidedly more ancient. has represented the view, in Die Gesetê im Pentateuch,,
Schriften
Ktasse,
der Kb'nigsberger Gekhrten-Geselkchaft., 17. ]ahr y Geisteswiss. Heft 2, pp. 22 rr, that the sacral union of the tribes was neither end by the formation of the state, but that replaced nor brought to an even in the period of the monarchy the Temple with the Ark remained the Amphictyonic central shrine of the tribes till the end. The account of the making of the covenant in 2 Kings 11.17 appears to justify this still not certain whether, in the references and interpretation. But I am a case of an Amphictyonic arguments adduced by Noth, it is not intention breaking out here and there, which was to some extent conexistent and functioning sciously archaising, rather than an actually institution. Applied to Deuteronomy, that would mean that Deuteronomy desires by a 'utopian* anachronism to impose the old order of the upon the state of the later monarchical period.
Amphictyony

the Judeans of the took a stand against the syncretism precountry vailing in the capital. What political consequences the reform had we are not told, but they were seemingly a drastic curtailment of the king's absolute powers.
It is perfectly credible that
of Baal.
districts
Taken
all
in
all,
the accounts reveal a serious
crisis
in the
life of the Judean state, which did not develop fully because Q 5?. And of the active intervention in politics of the
T^H
add that king Joash, too, later turned his attention to the Temple, 1 the whole thing looks, does it not, like a little prelude to what took place afterwards under Josiah? Even by this time the political tension between Jerusalem with its court and officials "on the one hand, and the peasant full-citizens of the country districts on the other, was already considerable, and in the two centuries following it can only have been still further
to
intensified.
when we now go on
The parallels between the two incidents compel attention when we call to mind the part played by the peasant proprietors in the time of Josiah. Josiah's father, Amon, fell
victim to a palace revolution, the background of which we do not know. Here, too, the VD$5 E5? intervened. They
Jerusalem clique of traitors, that is, they political programme (which is not known to 2 raised and Josiah to the throne. Now, it is manifestly us) impossible to miss the connection between this elevation of Josiah to the throne by the f p$H QS? and the whole policy,
set aside the
baulked their
including the reform, which this king pursued. Oestreicher and, after him, Procksch, have shown convincingly, the latter in detail, that it was a foreign policy of emancipation and national self-determination, and at the same time one of internal renewal. 3 How definitely national inde&? aimed with pendence was the goal at which the
TÔ
1 3
1 Kings 12.4 S.
Kings 21.24.
Proksch: Kon.
Josia, festschrift fur
TL
Zabn, pp. 19 ft
65
can be gathered indirectly from 2 Kings 23.33 After Josiah's death, in what we may be sure was a last
their policy
desperate attempt, after the catastrophe, to keep continuity with the tradition that had been so abruptly broken off, the y^KH DS7 raised Jehoahaz, a son of Josiah's, to the throne.
But Pharaoh Necho at once intervened, and replaced this group's candidate with a man of his own choice, who
pursued,
we may
1
political policy.
The
certainly infer, a completely different fact that this T??'7 BS7 as always
especially singled out when the enemy levied indemnities points in the same direction; their opposition was evidently
taken specially seriously as representing the heart and soul of the resistance. 2 We thus arrive, from a totally different angle of approach, at the same result as we gained from the analysis of Deuteronomy: the old patriarchal traditions of the strict Jahweh
had long remained alive amongst the free peasant population, and given rise to an opposition to the capital which expressed itself in strong impulses towards revival both in the cult and in politics. These impulses are plain for us to see partly in reforms that were set afoot to modify the cult and politics bit by bit, as it were, and partly in the
faith
cultic, martial
it
programme of Deuteronomy.
We
can take
for granted that with the revival of the institution of the militia after 701 a momentous hour struck for these people. The actual spokesmen of this movement were the country
Levites, whom Deuteronomy presumes to be living here and there in the country towns. 3 At any rate, the authors of
this
Deuteronomy are to be sought amongst those Levites. But means that we have also found a tenable explanation
of Deuteronomy's remarkable Janus-like character, its combination of what is priestly and cultic with a national
1
Wutthwein:
op. tit.,
pp. 33
ff;
Kittel: Geschicbte des Volkes Israel, II,

fF,
6th ed., p. 419.

2
Deut. 12.12, 18
2 Kings 23.30; 25.18-21. Wiitthwein: op. cit.> pp. 34 f; 14.27, 29; 16.11, 14; 26.12.
44
f.
66
and martial spirit. Such tolerably clear indications as we have of the provenance of Deuteronomy narrow the circle of possible "authors as follows: first, they must have been men invested with full priestly powers who had access to a copious sacral literature, and who also possessed this disparate material in a form in which it was powerfully impregnated with, and integrated by means of, a theology. These cannot have been laymen. But furthermore, in the second place, they must have been the representatives of a passionate movement for national and military rehabilitation. Indeed, we may perhaps go even a little further still in this question of authorship. Just as old painters and sculptors sometimes put a self-portrait hidden away in the corner of
5
a big composition, so we could perhaps see in the priestly preacher of the Holy War, as he is shown us in Deut. 20,
certainly to be credited with the of out Deuteronomy. The Levites had a close working connection with the Holy War, for the Levites and the Ark 1 belong together, and the Ark was plainly the Palladium of
one of the Levites who are
the Holy War. Only we must always bear in mind in this whole connection that we are dealing with traditions that have been revived. The most obvious objection to this view is that the country Levites would have been the last persons to compose Deuteronomy, for in so doing they would have been sawing off the branch upon which they sat. But it is being
increasingly recognised that the demand for centralisation in Deuteronomy rests upon a very narrow basis only, and
is,
from the point of view of literary criticism, comparatively easy to remove as a late and final adaptation of many layers of material. But, apart from that, it is increasingly a question
whether the country Levites, whom Deuteronomy presumes everywhere as living in the country towns, were before this time purely cult-personnel and therefore chiefly
interested in the cult.
The whole
1
spiritual
atmosphere per-
2 Sam. 15.24.
vading the book, the 'protestant* atmosphere., as it has been designated, was not something of the present and the immediate past. Behind it, as its representatives, stands a body of Levites, perhaps turned proletarian, which had
evidently long
outgrown the
cultic
sphere proper and was
busying itself with the scholarly preservation and transmission of the old traditions. 1 This brings us to the end of our investigation: it discloses, of course, only the most immediate and nearest backgrounds of Deuteronomy. If we wanted to try to reach further back still, we should probably stumble very
specifically North Israelite traditions, that is to 2 The Shechem tradisay, specifically Israelite traditions. are tions contained in chapter 27 obviously at odds with the
soon upon
demand
for centralisation. (By this token, the separation of the centralising laws proper from the older traditions, which are only to be interpreted secondarily in the light of
in general proved itself a very fruitful of Deuteronomy.)3 And, further, the for analysis principle the North explains the striking connections apparent bethis
demand, has
Of course, having regard the the difference in to great subject matter compared, we can only warn against assuming a direct dependence: but
tween Deuteronomy and Hosea.
in the general spiritual atmosphere, in the the question, Jahweh or Baal, and in single
is
way both pose

demands, there
much
1
akin.
That brings us
his
now
to a last point.
After this was written, my attention was drawn to the fact that in work, Die ]osianische Reform und ihre Vomussetûngen, Copenhagen, 1926, Aage Bentzen had already adduced what are to some extent very considerable arguments in support of the thesis which derives Deuteronomy from the circles of the country Levites, and had sketched a history of the Levitical reform movement. I did not have access to the book while the present work was in preparation. 2 Particularly A. Welch: The Code of Deuteronomy> passim. Lohr (and others) are quite wrong, that the 'Jahwism observed in South Israel* comes to expression in Deuteronomy. S.K.G.G., 1925, p. 203. 3 Especially with A. Welch, op. tit.
68

objected that, in defining the provenance of Deutetonomy as we have, we have taken no account of the possibility that it might have originated in prophetic circles.
seriously possible to consider the prophets, of any description, as the representatives of the traditions which Deuteronomy brought to life again? Furthermore, the
is it
It
may be
But
prophetic element in Deuteronomy is no stream of tradition, the contents of which can be precisely determined and
defined:
it is
found more or
it is
rather of the nature of a general religious trend less everywhere in Deuteronomy. In so far,
no more than a sign of the time in which Deuteronomy is speaking. The faith of that time had the phenomenon of prophecy so strongly stamped upon it that it would rather
be surprising
if so
broadly based a presentation of the faith
had been able to escape this contemporary influence. It is far from easy to determine what the prophetic contribution
to
Deuteronomy
is; it is at its clearest, relatively,
in the
picture of Moses, where he is drawn as the ideal man of God. 1 That in itself, however, shows that Deuteronomy cannot be assuming a specifically prophetic tradition, for it is concerned much more with Moses than with what is
prophetic.
The
case
is
that
when
the author of Deuter-
onomy represented Moses as the ideal man of God, the categories and conceptions which lay to hand were those derived from the prophetic movements dominant in his
time.
it thus: the prophetic in a form of Deuteronomy merely expression, and a means of making the book's claim to be Mosaic real. We certainly cannot convert this proposition, for it is impossible to
We may
therefore put
is
designate the prophets in this case it would concern rather the prophets of salvation as the representatives of specifically
1
Mosaic
traditions.
Especially Deut 18.15 f; but cp. also the picture of the suffering intercessor, Deut. 9 passim.
CHAPTER
SIX
THE PURPOSE OF
DEUTERONOMY
DEUTERONOMY purports
Israel.
to be Moses' farewell speech to which is addressed by Moses is, of course, completely different from the one which stood at
Now this
Israel
tradition.
the foot of Mt. Horeb, as the latter is represented in the It knows Palestine with all its religious tempta-
tions, it has a
its life is
king and a graded civil service; economically no longer the patriarchal, but it has entered upon
economy based on currency, with all its it knows the prophets, and has perilous consequences; indeed already had unpleasant experiences with these men;
the stage of an
and so on. These facts raise in the simplest terms the one big question which lay behind Deuteronomy. It is this: this Israel has in actual fact no longer any points of comparison with the Israel which in the past stood at Horeb; is it separated from the events at Horeb by a very long and
extremely incriminating history; in the later regal period its whole religious and political life had been called in question; is it then still Jahweh's people? The answer is clear and unambiguous it is to this Israel, the people just as it was,
:
that
Deuteronomy proclaims Jahweh's
election
of salvation.
We
and promise
phenomenon:
are thus confronted with the following six centuries wasted in sin and constant
apostacy are cancelled out and Israel is set once more at Horeb to hear Jahweh's word of salvation, which has not
yet lost
its
power. This
word of
salvation runs
'This day
become the people of Jahweh thy God.' 1 'This thou day' appears throughout the Deuteronomic utterances, and it directs a particularly forcible emphasis on the existential quality of this fonn&praedicatio impii. It is the tremendous 'here and now' in the divine election that lies at the back of
art
Deuteronomy's attempt to re-comprehend the

1
Israel that
Deut. 27.9; cp. 26.16-19.
70
The Purpose of Deuteronomy
was now in the grip of an inner disintegration people of God. All the departments of Israel's
as the
life
holy
are laid
claim to in the light of this great new order, in which the statute (6.4) about the unity and the singleness of Jahweh
operates specially for the cult, as the means by which all is bound together and united. 1 Deuteronomy is particularly
its polemic against any syncretism with the Canaanite nature religions. Jahweh is also the bestower of all the natural blessings. Indeed, one can actually designate Deuteronomy's programme as the establishment of the pure 2 Jahweh faith in the agricultural environment of Canaan. Thus we have in Deuteronomy the most comprehensive
severe in
example of a theological re-statement of old traditions in which the later Israel could become at the same time the message of Jahweh.
With the
relation to
election of Israel
is
dawned
salvation.
IsraeFs
without tension, because Jahweh's Jahweh offer is an all-sufficient one. There is no need on man's part to seek, or to strive by means of religious works which might or might not achieve thek purpose, to compel
salvation
and partake in it. law which I give thee this day is not too hard for thee, and not too far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest have to say, Who will go up for us to heaven, to bring it to us and proclaim to us, that we may do according to it ? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest have
Tor
this
1 In the means used to create the strong impression of unity, and bind so many disparate materials together, a special part is pkyed by conceptual generalisations which appear for the first time in Deuteronomy: mifi now designates the revelation of the will of Jahweh
simply, n^fll the land which

revelation (O. Grether
etc. 2 P.
:
all Israel is
to inherit,
ÔT
the
word of
120
ff),
Name und Wort Gottes, B.Z.A.W. 64, pp.
on the other hand seems completely uninterested in the problem of Israel's settlement in Canaan. Consequently it holds on to tie camp round the Tabernacle conception. For P. the tribes in camp grouped are the original form of Israel's life laid down by Jahweh.
sea for us, to bring it to us, we that and proclaim it to us, may do according to it ? But the word is very nigh to thee, in thy mouth and in thine heart, so that thou art able to do according to it" (30.11-14).
to say,
will
Who
go over the
of the commandments is thus in no wise the pre-supposition of salvation; indeed, the proclamation of the commandments takes place contemporaneously with the election, and therefore obedience can in any case only
Fulfilling
the divine saving activity. may say that that its of this question is, obedience, possibilities and limits, are no problem at all for Deuteronomy. To be sure,
follow
upon
We
the divine proclamation of salvation has occasionally a certain conditional note in it, too, in Deuteronomy; then,
the realisation of the salvation, especially the promise of the land, is certainly not independent of the accomplishment
of obedience. 1 The legal element is stronger in the proclamation of the blessings and curses. On the one side, the promise of blessing means merely that, in case of obedience, Jahweh's proclamation of salvation remains constant over Israel; on the other, since the chapter containing
has been expanded and overloaded with secondary additions, there is a considerable narrowing of the present salvation offered to the people of God by 2 Deuteronomy. Thus Deuteronomy shows, especially in
the curses, 28
f,
its
later additions,
a certain preponderance of
Law
over
Gospel.
The relation of Deuteronomy to eschatology is a problem in more respects than one. It can be said at once that the book stands absolutely apart from all the broad popular
eschatological conceptions that we find taken up by the prophets and modified by them as they wanted, conceptions
which obviously occupied a large place in the thought of

1
2
e.g., 6.18; 8.1; ii. 8 ff;
16.20; 19.8
M. Noth:
In
Herder-Gesellschaft
md des
piam memoriam (A.
ûlmerinc^). Abbandlungen der Herder-Institutes %u Riga, 6 Bd., Nr. 3,
1938, pp. 127
ff.
7*
The Purpose of Deuteronomy

Israel in the period of the
monarchy.
When we
read the
prophets, Deuteronomy's
proclamation of salvation as a
None
present reality seems to come as if from another world. the less, Deuteronomy is not without the element of
expectation.
The
situation in
which
Israel is
imagined to
be, listening to the book itself, is characteristic: at Horeb Israel receives its election at the hands of Jahweh as a present
and already
fiÎB,
to salvation
fully achieved reality, but the gifts appertaining which are connected with the election, the
only with the entry into the Promised Land. We have to remember that, while the Israel which Deuteronomy addresses is in actual fact the Israel of the later regal period, the book contends paradoxically that Israel is still faced with the full realisation of Jahweh's promise of salvation.
the
HDl? and
the HrHl/p,
become
effective
73
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE DEUTERONOMISTIC THEOLOGY OF HISTORY IN THE BOOKS OF KINGS

A
in
SHORT time ago a

appeared
it
histories
Studien:
detailed study of the Deuteronomistic in Noth's l]berliefemngsgeschichtliche
closed what was a grievous and mortifying gap our writing on the Old Testament. 1 Noth subjected the literary question to a fresh revision, but what has now
become abundantly and conclusively clear is that this great work is not the outcome of a literary 'process of redaction' it merits without qualification the rare and exalted title of historical writing. On the one hand, all kinds of older historical material have been gathered together and combined into a thematic unity by means of a comprehensive
:
On the other, the choice of material is obviously and for all that lies beyond the theology of history which is to be demonstrated, the reader is continually
framework.
restricted,
directed to the sources. This
is
the exercise of the function of

It is cer-
the historian in the strictest sense of the word.

tainly historical writing claiming to
be very distinctive in kind it has actually a unique theological stamp upon it and that explains why it was misconceived in the period which kept believing that it had to measure it only by the positivist ideal of an 'exact writing of history'. It is only this specific theological claim which the work makes that is to be discussed here. The literary technique of the Deuteronomist the way in which he welds together into unity, with the help of a comprehensive framework, all kinds of sources
for a king's reign and, apart from that, refrains from any contribution of his own except occasional parenthetical
observations and
comments
that literary technique
must
1 M. Noth: UberKeferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Schriften der Konigsberger Gel. GeselL, 18. Jahr9 Geisteswiss. K/asse, Heft 2, 1943.
74
The Deuteronomistic Theology of History

here be taken for granted as known. 1 We call these histories Deuteronomistic because they take as normative for their judgement of the past certain standards laid down either
2 exclusively or chiefly in Deuteronomy. know that through Deuteronomy the question of the pure Jahweh cult in Jerusalem, as against all the Canaanite
We
cults
of the high places, became

It is
articulus stantis et cadentis
eccksiae.
by
this criterion,
which had become absolutely
obligatory for his own time, that the Deuteronomist now measures the past; and it is well known that, in the light of
the sovereigns of the kingdom of Israel are judged c negatively, because they all walked in the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat*. Of the sovereigns of the kingdom o
it,
all
Judah, however, five receive qualified approval, and two (Hezekiah and Josiah) actually unrestricted approval. To the secular historian such a method of judgement will appear unjust and crude. As a matter of fact, the Deuteronomist makes absolutely no claim to appraise the kings at a given moment in relation to the particular historical situation confronting them. 3 The judgement passed on the kings is not arrived at on the basis of a balanced reckoning of a number opros and wns, by means of an average, as it were, of their achievements and their sins of omission. It is in keeping with this work's peculiar theological claim, which
The present investigation is restricted in principle to the Deuteronomistic parts of the great historical complex. We can dispense with an exact and detailed delimitation of the Deuteronomistic framework and the other Deuteronomistic additions because, in all that is essential, the O.T. Introductions are in agreement about the literary division of
these parts.
The justification for confining our study to the Books of Kings is that in every respect a new section begins for the Deuteronomist with Solomon, and it is only then that the histories come to their real
2
subject.
3
completely different is the way in which the author of the history of the succession of David is able to let the reader see the import of the political and human complications in which the king was involved as a chain, of sombre necessity 1 von Rad: Archivfur ~Kulturgeschichte,
How
1944, pp. 33 S.
75
is
that
it
presumes to
know the final judgement of God, that
about the kings in the sense of or' than in the sense of "and and*. It follows that 'either the Deuteronomist is not concerned with the various good and evil actions, but with the one fundamental decision on which he was convinced judgement and salvation finally depended. In this respect the Deuteronomistic histories definitely allow the kings the moment of a free decision for or against Jahweh, while the so-called classical histories in
so
is said
much more
Israel
had portrayed men really more as the passive objects of God's designs in history. The question whether objective justice was done to these kings, in that they were measured against a norm which did
fact
not in
apply in their time, is possibly a specifically modern one. None the less, the question does present itself here in this form: was the standard applied by the Deuteronomist, viz. the insistence on centralised worship, something absolutely new in Israel? Admittedly it was 'unknown' in the monarchical period, but we did see that Deuteronomy does not conceive of itself as something new, and it is, moreover, in fact only a large-scale up-to-date readaptation of the most varied standards that did apply in the past. And the
history of the cult shows us that in its early period, the period of the old amphictyony, Israel was in fact conscious
to a great extent of her necessary conformity to this
norm.
The Deuteronomistic standard of judgement thus appears in a somewhat different light from that in which we previously believed it necessary to view it. With all that, one may safely reckon that possibly at all periods of
history, the past,
viewed in the
light of criteria
which have
become obligatory
for a later age, has always to a certain extent been put in the wrong subjectively, but that nevertheless from that time onwards the objective right and
necessity of such judgements cannot be doubted. The great events in the shadow of which the Deuter-
onomist wrote were the catastrophes of 721 and 586,

76
happenings which in his eyes had undoubted theological significance; they expressed Jahweh's rejection of both kingdoms; ever since, saving history with Israel had been at a standstill. This is the clue to the understanding of the Deuteronomist: he is writing at a time when there was distress and perplexity because no saving history was taking place. It is possible to connect the lacunae which have often been noticed in these histories with this quite unprecedented situation. In the circumstances, the correct standards for many of the facts of the past may actually no longer have been at the Deuteronomist's disposal. But of course the Deuteronomist's sole concern is a theological interpretation of the catastrophes which befell the two kingdoms. Consequently, he examined past history page by page with that
in view, and the result was quite unambiguous the fault was not Jahweh's; but for generations Israel had been piling up an ever-increasing burden of guilt and faithlessness, so that in the end Jahweh had had to reject his people. The demand for centralised worship is certainly not the only one which the Deuteronomist, following Deuteronomy, makes of the kings; he asks if the kings trusted Jahweh (HD2 z Kings 18.5), he asks if they were 'perfect' with
:
Kings 11.4; 15.3, 14). Of course it 1 is predominantly cultic sins which he mentions. He is very often content with the awkwardly redundant statement that a king had not followed the 'ordinances, commandments and statutes of Jahweh*. A very decided flagging of descriptive power is noticeable here. What the Deuteronomist means is obviously that the king in question and his period had not been able to satisfy the whole of the divine demand
Jahweh
(Till?
tf?#
for obedience.
It is therefore the question concerning that the Deuteronomist puts to the obedience complete
kings.
1
Israel in
Especially in the great epilogue to the 2. Kings 17.7 flf.
fall
of the kingdom of
77
This question of obedience is the first fundamental element in the Deuteronomistic presentation of the history.
and continually in to now Israel's history there it, appears corresponding when we enquire meet one. it an another, objective in history. of the divine intervention the manner about
But alongside
this subjective co-efficient,
We
The Deuteronomist's conception is manifestly this Jahweh revealed his commandments to Israel; in case of disobedience
:
he threatened her with severe punishment, with the judgement of total destruction, in fact. That had now actually 3 taken place. Jahweh's words had been "fulfilled in history they had not Tailed', as the Deuteronomist is also fond of 1 There thus exists, the Deuteronomist means, an saying. inter-relationship between the words of Jahweh and history in the sense that Jahweh's word, once uttered, reaches its goal under all circumstances in history by virtue of the 2 power inherent in it. This conception can be reconstructed very clearly from the Deuteronomist's work. We refer to that system of prophetic predictions and exactly noted fulfilments which runs through the Deuteronomist's work. With it we may speak of a theological schema^ no less than in the case of the "framework schema\ even if it is used more freely and with greater elasticity, corresponding to the nature of the subject.
(i) Prophecy:
Jahweh establishes the kingdom of David at the hand of Nathan. His son will build a house for Jahweh. 2 Sam. 7.13.
Fulfilment:
Jahweh hath fulfilled the word that he Solomon has ascended the throne and built spake/
i
Kings
8.20:
'
the temple.
1
Josh. 21.45; 2 3
I 4J J
Kings 8.56;
Kings
10.10.
Deut. 32.47: Jahweh's
word
7
is
not Vain'

(2) Prophecy:
Kings 11.29 ff: Ahijah the Shilonite: ten tribes will be taken from Solomon's kingdom, because he has forsaken Jahweh, worshipped other gods and not walked in Jahweh's ways.
i
Fulfilment:
Kings 12.15^: Rehoboam rends the kingdom, bringing on the catastrophe: "but the cause was from Jahweh n to establish (2 |?n) the word which he spake by Ahijah
i
the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat/

(3) Prophecy:
1 Kings 13 An unknown prophet: At Bethel a descendant of David Josiah will slay the priests of the high places on the altar, and burn men's bones upon it.
:
Fulfilment:
2 Kings 23.16-18: Josiah pollutes the altar at Bethel by burning men's bones upon it 'according to the word of Jahweh which the man of God had proclaimed . '.
.
(4) Prophecy:
Ahijah the Shilonite: Jeroboam, whom prince over Israel, has done evil above all that were before him. Therefore Jeroboam's kingdom will be rooted up, cas a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone'.
i
Kings
14.6
ff:
Jahweh made
Fulfilment:
Kings 15.29: The usurper Baasha exterminates the house of Jeroboam 'according to the word of Jahweh which he had spoken by his servant Ahijah the
i
Shilonite
(5) Prophecy:
i
'.
Kings
1 6. i ff:
Jehu ben Hanani: Baasha, raised by
Jahweh to be prince over Israel, has walked in the ways of Jeroboam and made Israel to sin, therefore it will
befall
him in his house as befell the house of Jeroboam*

79
Fulfilment:
i Kings 16.12: "Thus did Zimri destroy all the house of Baasha, according to the word of Jahweh which he had spoken to Baasha by the prophet Jehu/
(6) Prophecy:
Josh. 6.26: 'Whoso rebuildeth Jericho, let the foundation stone cost him his first-born, and the setting up of the gates his youngest/
Fulfilment:
Kings 16.34: Hiel rebuilds Jericho: 'At the cost of his first-born Abiram did he lay the foundation, and at the cost of his youngest Segub did he set up the gates, according to the word of Jahweh which he had spoken
i
by Joshua the son of Nun/

(7) Prophecy:
i Kings 22.17: Micaiah ben Imlah: Israel will be scattered and without shepherds; let every man return to
his
house in peace.
Fulfilment:
Kings 22.35 f: (without being specially pointed tfut by the Deuteronomist) Ahab succumbs to his wound. Every man to his house!
i
(8) Prophecy:
Kings 2i.2i f Elijah's prophecy of Ahab and his house.

i
:
doom
against
Fulfilment:
1
Kings 21.27-29: Because Ahab humbled himself
at
the
word of judgement,
Kings
9.7
)
it
will only overtake his son.
(Cp. 2
(9) Prophecy:
Kings
1.6
Elijah:
Ahaziah of Judah will not recover;

80
he must
die.

Fulfilment:
2 Kings 1.17: Ahaziah died 'according to the
word of
Jahweh
2
that Elijah
had spoken'.
(10) Prophecy:
sins
the Kings 21.10 ff: Unknown jptophets Because of c

:
of ManasseB.
that
whoso
upon Jerusalem, such heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle'.
evil will co'me
Fulfilment:
Kings 24.2: Jahweh summons the Chaldeans, etc., against Judah, 'according to the word of Jahweh which he had spoken by his servants the prophets'. 2 Kings
2
23.26
is
Jahweh
also important: in spite of Josiah's reform does not leave off his great wrath. Because of
Manasseh's provocations, Jahweh had resolved to

destroy Judah as well.
(n) Prophecy: 2 Kings 22.15 ff: Huldah: Josiah will be gathered to his fathers and not see die evil that comes upon
Jerusalem.
Fulfilment:
2 Kings 23.30:
The body of Josiah, who had
fallen at
Megiddo,
is
brought to Jerusalem and buried there.
Of course, this conspectus can only give a rough indication of the theological structure of the Deuteronomistic historical work within the Books of Kings. In actual fact,
Deuteronomist demands the keenest attentiveness on the part of his readers they are to discern this all-prevailing correspondence between the divine word spoken by prophets and the historical events even in those cases where notice is not expressly drawn to it. (It was to illustrate it that the Deuteronomist took in the 1 general we may Elijah and the Isaiah stories as well.)
in this connection the
:
Shilonite as a 'well-rounded unit'
Whether we can speak of an account of the prophet Ahijah the and put it on the same plane as the
81
take
axiomatic that the Deuteronomist has given explicit notices of a fulfilment mostly in those cases where the matter was not so directly obvious to the reader,
it
as
while he could dispense with them at any point where the history spoke for itself. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that on the literary side the Deuteronomist is working almost exclusively with traditional material which in its turn does not now everywhere fit in quite smoothly with the Deuteronomist's theological principles. In many respects it has its own import and then again cannot be easily adapted to the Deuteronomistic schema. We tend to
overestimate the freedom which antiquity used with traditional material.
Taken individually, these prophecies raise a considerable number of questions. There need be no doubt that, as far as concerns source, these citations go back in most cases to genuine prophetic words. That is evidenced by the pictorial phraseology, which is quite undeuteronomic, and the farallelismus membrorum in which to some extent these oracles are still preserved. 1 There cannot, however, have
been a very large store of such sources accessible to our and author, else he would not have cited three times c indeed against three different kings the words him that
dieth
,
.
.
in the city shall the dogs eat,
and him that dieth
in the field shall the fowls of the air eat/ 2
As
to
who
this
'Deuteronomistic' prophet was, the material at our disposal is altogether too slight to allow conclusions to be drawn.
One would be
reluctant to set the
prophecy of an Ahijah or
accounts of Elijah, Elisha and Isaiah, as Noth does (pp. tit., p. 121), seems very questionable to me. At least the literary question is then completely different, for, contrary to what we find in the other accounts, in the account of Ahijah the Deuteronomist's hand has had the decisive part. Ahijah's prophecy now stands entirely within the context of the specifically Deuteronomistic question as to Jahweh's plans with the heirs to the throne and kingdom of David.
1
e.g. in i
2 i
Kings Kings 14.11;
14.10, 15; 16.4; 2

16.4; 21.24.
Kings
21.13.
82

a Jehu ben Hanani or the unknown prophet of 2 Kings 21.10 ff on the same plane as that of the so-called writing
prophets. That prophecy seems to be entirely lacking in the wider conceptions of history. The focus is solely on the national history of Israel, and there it speaks of Jahweh immanent in history, acting in judgement or mercy. None the less, it could well be that prophecy of a fairly distinct is discernible behind this stamp body of prediction outlined in rigid schematic form. The Deuteronomist' s own conception of the main element in the prophetic office comes
to expression in 2 Kings 17.1 3: Jahweh gives testimony C^VD) through it, in virtue of which the prophets call for
repentance and the keeping of the commandments. This Deuteronomistic theology of history, the theology of the word finding certain fulfilment in history, and on that account the creative word in history, may be described, in respect of its origin, as pertaining to old prophecy. It is
now to observe how fundamental the Deuteronomist makes this presupposition of his that the history of the two kingdoms is simply the will of Jahweh and the word of Jahweh actualised in history. As such it is meaningful; thus, the course of events in both the kingdoms is to be 'read* looking backwards. The way in which the Deuteronomist uses the actual course of history as a theological criterion appears in his presentation of the history of the two kingdoms from quite different standpoints. The doom of the northern kingdom is really sealed with the first sin, the apostacy of Jeroboam I. 1 The stereotyped observation about the real guilt of all the other kings is that they walked in the sin of Jeroboam. However, the Deuteronomist had to reckon with the complication
interesting
that
Jahweh had in actual fact spared this kingdom for another two centuries. This enigma, which was in reality,
i Kings 14.16: '(Jahweh) shall give Israel up because of the which Jeroboam committed and which he led Istael to commit.* 1
sins
8?
of course, no more than a postponement of punishment, finds

its
explanation in Jahweh's grace, through was not passed over good, even in kings who were rejected, uncredited. Ahab humbled himself at the word of judge-
which
relative
not fulfilled ment, and so the judgement upon his house was in his own lifetime (i Kings 21.29). Jehu had, in spite of
his rejection,
done some things which were well-pleasing to Jahweh, and therefore his children unto the fourth the throne of Israel (2 Kings generation were to sit upon
at the During a time of severe oppression had hands of the Syrians, Jehoahaz implored Jahweh's out his hand in grace held had and thereupon Jahweh help, over the sinful kingdom (2 Kings 13.23; 14.26). But then the tragic end did come, and in his great epilogue in 2 Kings how transgression of ly.yff the Deuteronomist shows in its Jahweh's commandments had brought judgement
10.30; 15.12).
train.
The
sources
theological sources, that
is
"which the
Deuteronomist uses to build up his picture are perfectly to him Jahweh' s will as shown in the plain: he had given commandments in Deuteronomy, and the actual course of the history of the northern kingdom, as Jahweh's word which is creative of history, had shaped it. With the history of the kingdom of Judah the position is different. That history, too, appears in the first instance as a story of human disobedience, with the cloud of God's
judgement gathering ever thicker.
How
in this case
is
the
divine forbearance, the much more extended span of divine This leads us to mention an patience, to be explained?
element in the Deuteronomist' s theology of history which we have so far left out of consideration. c ... but I will says to Solomon in i Kings 11.13
:
Jahweh not rend away all the kingdom; one tribe will I leave to thy son, for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, which I have chosen/ i Ahijah the Shilonite says to Jeroboam in Kings 11.32: for David my to him remain tribe shall the one "... but
84

servant's sake, chosen.*
*
and for Jerusalem's sake, which

but one tribe will
n
have
son,
11.36: that a light
leave to his
may
always (Q
^D"73)
:
remain before
me
for
city
my
servant David
I
C^^ ^-7
*^) in Jerusalem, the
have chosen, to let my name dwell there/ Of Abijam the Deuteronomist says in i Kings 15.4: ' but for David's sake Jahweh left him a light in Jerusalem, in that he set up his son and let Jerusalem remain.' Of Jehoram the Deuteronomist says in 2 Kings 8. 19: * but Jahweh would not destroy Judah for his servant David's sake, as he had promised to give him always a light
which
(for his children)/
By the light which Jahweh promised to David the Deuteronomist means, of course, what is said in the Nathan prophecy in 2 Sam. 7, where Jahweh legitimises and guarantees the Davidic dynasty, 1 It is interesting to see how in the Deuteronomist this prophetic tradition is fused with the Deuteronomic theology of the cult-place and the name;
of completely different a whole (cp. especially provenance are here united into i Kings 11.36). But the Deuteronomist does not mention this deuteronomised Nathan prophecy simply to give the
that
is,
how two traditional elements
reason for Jahweh's patient forbearance with the kingdom of Judah. This traditional element has an essentially greater part to play.
David says to Solomon in i Kings 2.4: ' there shall not fail a establish the word:
.
.
May Jahweh man to sit on
the throne of Israel.'
of the says in his prayer at the consecration the temple in i Kings 8.20: "Now hath Jahweh fulfilled word that he spake; for I am risen up in the room of
Solomon
my
father
1
and have
set
myself on the throne of Israel, as Jahweh

this expression are 2
Ps. 132.17 (cp. 2
Pre-deuteronomic references for Sam. 14.7).

85
Sam. 21.17;
of Jahweh, promised, and have built the house for the name the God of Israel/ On the same occasion in i Kings 8.25 "And now, Jahweh, thou God of Israel, keep with thy servant David the promise thou gavest him: there shall never fail thee a man to sit before me on the throne of Israel/ Jahweh says to Solomon in i Kings 9.5 "... so will I
:
let
kingdom remain upon Israel for ever, as I promised thy father David: there shall never fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel/ These passages, like the others quoted above, all belong, from the point of view of literary criticism, to the special which the Deutertheological schema within and around have a special therefore and onomist built his work, view. They exhibit a significance for the ends he had in
the throne of thy
traditional element
which is wholly undeuteronomic, namely,
a cycle of definite Messianic conceptions. This leads us at once to ask how the picture of
built
particular. The actual history free from Deuteronomistic additions. noticeably
up
in
David of David
This
is
is is
astonishing in view of the constant mention of David in the course of the history that follows as the prototype of a
king who was well-pleasing to Jahweh. The reasons for it however, probably only literary: David was treated in a document which was of such range and so well constructed that in face of it the Deuteronomist had to refrain from his usual technique of inserting theological glosses
are,
and comments in brackets. Apart from the well-known distortion of the meaning of the Nathan prophecy in 2 Sam. 7.13, it is only at the end of the history of David that the Deuteronomist makes any comment, and even so the picture which he himself had of David is not made dear. But the case is remarkably different in the Deuteronomistic
presentation of post-Davidic history. i Kings 3.3 : Solomon walked in the statutes of his father
David (TT?
nljJUfl).
86
The Deuteronomhtic Theology of History

5.17: David was prevented from building the temple by his wars, but David is still the spiritual originator of the
building of the temple.

S.iyf: David proposed to build the temple; in that he did well.
9.4: David walked before Jahweh and uprightness' 0^51 22V
"in integrity
of heart
11.4: David's heart
was perfect with Jahweh

(njrr
1 1. 6:
David followed Jahweh completely
David walked in Jahweh's ways and did what was well-pleasing to him (HlH? TS7? Iftftj rnfc).
11.33:
David walked in Jahweh's ways, did what was well-pleasing to him, and kept his statutes and command11.38:
ments.
David kept Jahweh's commandments and followed him with all his heart, doing only what was well-pleasing to
14.8
:
Jahweh
15.3
:
ptn pn nfosft m'rte ^08
David's heart was perfect with Jahweh.
David did what was well-pleasing to Jahweh and 15.5 turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the
:
Hittite (T*n
'
*7
15.11:
Asa did what was

David.
:
well-pleasing to Jahweh, like
his ancestor
Kings 14.3 Amaziah did what was well-pleasing to Jahweh, but not like his ancestor David.
2
16.2
:
Ahaz did not do what was well-pleasing to Jahweh,

David.
like his ancestor
18.3:
Hezekiah did what was well-pleasing to Jahweh
wholly as
David
did.
21.7: Jahweh said to David (sic) and his son Solomon: In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I cause name to dwell
my
for ever.
22.2
:
Josiah walked wholly in the
way of
his ancestor
David. This list, too, is wholly made up of sentences of the Deuteronomist. The picture has only one conceivable
it is David, and not, as was often said, Solomon, the king after the heart of the Deuteronomist. He is the prototype of the perfectly obedient anointed, and therefore the model for all succeeding kings in Jerusalem.
meaning:
is
who
But what kind of a David
is
this,
who walked
is
before
Jahweh 112^ perfect with Jahweh, and who did only (pD) what was well-pleasing to Jahweh ? Unquestionably it is not the David of the succesessentially contradictory personality, tenacious, persevering and vigorous in public life, but dangerously weak in his own household, a man who was
M^Dp^
whose heart
sion
stories,
that
many
a time ensnared in guilt, yet in the end graciously led
by Jahweh through every entanglement. This quite human picture has now had a completely independent cycle of conceptions superimposed upon it, namely, that of the ideal, theocratic David, exemplary in obedience. The Deuteronomist thus brings evidence in the first place for a cycle
of Messianic conceptions which must have been living in his time. It is hard to and how where this say picture originated, of a David whose dross was all refined away. In Ps. 132 we meet again the picture of the David who was in obedience. But above all it seems to preexemplary 1 suppose Isaiah too. Be that as it may; in the acceptance of
1
e.g. Isa. 1.2 1.
88
The
Denteronomistic Theology of History
this strong tradition the Deuteronomist has gone farthest from the theological rock whence he was hewn, namely 1 Deuteronomy and the large place which the Deuteronomist gives this tradition in his work shows that the Deuteronomic tradition had not been able to assert itself in all its purity. The Messianic cycle of conceptions, which was obviously very strong, had forced its way into it and made itself good. The attempt so deliberately to set the whole
;
business of the temple to David's credit is truly astonishing. Perhaps there was something which made it necessary for
the temple tradition with its comprehensive cultic content to be brought still more under the aegis of David and so gain fresh authorisation.
Finally, the Deuteronomist for his part was only being true to the tradition given to him. There was given to him as a principle creative in history not only the word of curse the Jahweh's upon transgressors of his command-
word of promise
appears in Deuteronomy, but also the prophetic in the Davidic covenant. The Deuteronomistic presentation of the history had to reckon with both of these given quantities; the Deuteronomist in fact attributes the form and the course of the history of the
ments, as
it
to their mutual creative power. This enables us to set down an important conclusion: according to the Deuteronomistic presentation, Jahweh's word is active in the history of Judah, creating that history, and that
in a double capacity: i. as law, judging and destroying; 2. as gospel i.e., in the David prophecy, which was constantly
kingdom of Judah
being fulfilled saving and forgiving. It is the Nathan promise which runs through the history of Judah like a Kar^v and wards off the long merited judgement from the kingdom Tor the sake of David*. Immediately the question arises But how did it turn out
:
1 According to the Deuteronomist's writing, the representative concern for maintaining the relation between God and people lies* on the king (Noth, op. #>., p. 137), a thoroughly undeuteronomic idea.
in the
end? Was the word of grace after all the weaker and was it finally driven from the field of history by the word of judgement ? The actual end of the history of
coefficient
the
kingdom of Judah, as well as the fact that in the later monarchical period the Deuteronomist no longer says anything about the saving function of the Nathan promise,
seem to point in
lost their
this direction.
It is as if
the *"07
^PD
power to protect as human guilt grew ever greater. Surely the theological dilemma in which the Deuteronomist finds himself at the end of his work is palpable: on the one hand, he was the last person to reduce any of the terrible severity of the judgement; on the other, he could not, nay
dared not, believe that Jahweh's promise, i.e., the light of David, had died out for ever; for a word of Jahweh's uttered into history never fails. Thus there can be no doubt, in our opinion, that we can attribute a special theological significance to the final sentences of the Deuteronomist's
work, the notice about the release of Jehoiachin from

prison.
In the thirty-seventh year after the deportation of king Jehoiachin of Judah, on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month, Evil Merodach, the king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, granted amnesty to king Jehoiachin
of Judah and released him from prison.

to
him and assigned him
He spoke kindly a place above the place of the
other kings that were with
him in Babylon. He was allowed
to put off his prison clothes and eat constantly at the king's table his life long. His maintenance, the settled daily main-
tenance,
was
certified to
life
him by the
king, as
much
as
he
required, his
long.
nothing is expressed in theological terms but here, something is just hinted at, and with great reserve. But for all that a happening is mentioned which had the significance of .an omen for the Deuteronomist, a fact from which Jahweh can start again, if it be his will. At all events, the passage must be interpreted by every reader as an
sure,
To be
90

indication that the line of
David has not yet come
to an
irrevocable end. 1
Noth
verdicts
in his essay has already cut the ground away from which in the main are absolutely unfair to this
historical writing. Refusal to enter into the great problems of internal politics is not to be explained simply as incapa-
on the part of the Deuteronomist. What the Deuteronomist presents is really a history of the creative word of Jahweh. What fascinated him was, we might say, the 2 And so, in functioning of the divine word in history. reality, there lies in this limitation a tremendous claim. The decisive factor for Israel does not lie in the things which ordinarily cause a stir in history, nor in the vast problems inherent in history, but it lies in applying a few very simple theological and prophetic fundamental axioms about the nature of the divine word. And so it is only this word of
city
Jahweh which gives continuity and aspiration to the phenomenon of history, which unites the varied and individual phenomena to form a whole in the sight of God. Thus the Deuteronomist shows with exemplary validity what saving history is in the Old Testament: that is, a process of history which is formed by the word of Jahweh continually intervening in towards a fulfilment.
c
judgement and salvation and directed

hope in God's
grace*.
1 The verses contain a note which allows for L. Kohler: Theol. d. A.T., p. 77. 2
The Deuteronomist makes King Solomon give
clear expression
:
to this relation of correspondence between word and history 'what thou 9 hast promised with thy mouth, thou hast fulfilled with thy hand, i Kings
8.24.
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

Bible R*f.
Page
Exodus
14.14
*5-3
48 n
46 a
16.10
17.11
57*
14 30 38 21
21 21 21
18
19.24 20.2 ff
2O.24 2I.2-II
21.22-23 22.6-7 22.8
23.1 ff
23.21
25.22
29.43
29.45
n n 41 39 n 40 n 42 n
38
Leviticus
6.8 ff
ii
n
n
10.8 ff
11 n, 12
IO.IO f
13
14.33 ff 16
24 n 12 n 12 n ii n
18
26
31
20
21
21. 1 ff
II ff' 33 f 34 34 34 34 f
16
22
22.2 ff
24
*5
25.23
n
93
Index of Biblical References
94
Index of Biblical Referents

Btb/eRef.
Page
cont.
Bible Ref.
i
Page
cont.
Judges
4-15
Kings
3.3
48 n
86
87 42 87
5.2,9
47 n
5-n
5-12
6.3
7.2
7-3
7-i5 20.2
1
& 47 n 47 n 48 n 47 n
63
63 57
5.17 8,12
8.17 f 8.20
78, 85
8.24
8.25
91
n
n
86
78 87 86
8.56 9.4
9-5
Samuel
4.4 ff 11 ii
39 48
7.10
13-3
13-15
15.3
14.6,17
18.17 21.6
25.28 28.6
30.7
2
48 47 47 47 48 47 47 47 47 47
n n n * n n
f
11.4 11.6
11.13
77, 87
n.29fF n-3 2
11.33 11.36 11.38 12.15 13 14.6 14.8
n n n n n
87 84 79 84 f 87 3811,85 87 79 79 79 87
82 82
83
14.10,15
14.11 14.16 14.21
15.3
15.3, 14
Samuel
1.
n n n
n
12
63
38
5.19,23
6.17
47 n
440
85
87 77
85
7
7.6
15.4
43
n
n
15.5
7.13 ii. ii
78, 86
15.11
47 n
85
flf
15.29
16.1
F
14.7
15. 24
21.17
470,670 85 n
68
16.4 16.12
27
i
16.34 21.21 f
Kings
2.4
85
2.28,30
44 n
95
21.24 21.27-29 21.29
87 87 79 79 82 n 80 80 80 82 n 80
84
Index of biblical References

BttkRef.
i
Page
cont.
Kings
Bible Ref. 2 Chronicles

15. iff
Page
57 57 57 57
I4
16.7 20.15 ff 32.7 ff 35-3
ff
n n n n
]
Ezra
4>3
4 8 4 I8
.
I4 14 I4
Nehemiah
8.7 f
13
Psalms
-5
44 n
85
n n
n n
i-ai
J 3-3
88
38
47 n
30^7
.
Jeremiah
3.16 f 6.4
39
47 n
Ezekiel
1.4 1.25 ff
8.4, 9, 3
10.4 23.4
43-4, 7
4^ 42 42 42
48.35
n n n n 44 n 42 n 42 n
CD
5m
<
126592

Studies in Deuteronomy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in Deuteronomy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in Deuteronomy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

'

?f< r ^'^^4i^ ?y\

62-14378 222.15 R12s Rad Studies in Deuteronomy

on presentation of library card.

Card holders are responsible for

books, records, films, pictures

or other library materials

checked out on their cards.

STUDIES IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

SCM PRESS LTD

This English translation was prepared from the

1948 by Vandenhoek and

First published February

Reprinted June 1956

Reprinted April 196

Printed in Great "Britain by

Robert Cunningham and Sons

OTTO EISSFELDT HALLE

with grateful respect

FORM-CRITICISM H FORM-CRITICISM OF THE HOLINESS

with some diffidence that

I see this little

book appear Book of Deuteronomy

THE CHARACTER OF DEUTERONOMY

AND ITS SACRAL TRADITIONS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW

on the problem of Deuter-

will best serve our

Moses, Disregarding the Book of the was obviously not composed as an

up priests: they are cases only; on the other, commandments

for consideration in special

Sacral Traditions and Form-Criticism

Now the method of transmission varied greatly.

Now Deuteronomy is obviously of this nature;

the case with so

cultic life, information in the records

which such instruction in the law was

passage, however, deserves par8.7 f. In it we have the two

they read from the

they understood what was

Tubingen, 1930, pp. 51

to be understood, like 2faQ9 in Ezra 4.18, as the

Hebraised form of the King's Aramaic term used in the

the time of Ezra.

on the Law for the

that would have to from the book itself.

in Ex. 19-24) to the course of a great cultic celebration,

namely, the old festival of the renewal of the Covenant at

Sacral Traditions and form-Criticism

a literary production, but

bears the stamp of a cultic

form that has exercised an extraordinary influence on

not a law book

but a 'collection of material for

two books do contain

particularly striking just because much common material lies

the same time,

does, as pre-deuteronomic "legal interdes Hexateucb, Stuttgart,

von Rad: Das formgeschichtliche Problem

N.F. (1907) p. 344. Gottingen, 1930, pp.

^x psr ?? n^s j?~Bfl