Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Deuteronomist's History - The Role of The Deuteronomist in Historical-Critical Research Into Genesis-Numbers (PDFDrive)
The Deuteronomist's History - The Role of The Deuteronomist in Historical-Critical Research Into Genesis-Numbers (PDFDrive)
Oudtestamentische Studiën
Old Testament Studies
published on behalf of the Societies for
Old Testament Studies in the Netherlands and
Belgium, South Africa, the United Kingdom
and Ireland
Editor
B. Becking (Utrecht)
Editorial Board
volume 67
By
Hans Ausloos
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Ausloos, Hans.
The Deuteronomist’s history : the role of the Deuteronomist in historical-critical research into Genesis-
Numbers / by Hans Ausloos.
pages cm. — (Oudtestamentische studiën = Old Testament studies, ISSN 0169–7226 ; volume 67)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-29676-3 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-30704-9 (e-book) 1. Bible.
Pentateuch—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Deuteronomistic history (Biblical criticism) I. Title.
BS1225.52.A96 2015
222’.1067—dc23
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering
Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities.
For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 0169-7226
isbn 978-90-04-29676-3 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-30704-9 (e-book)
Preface ix
Abbreviations xiv
Bibliography 339
Index of Authors 396
Index of Biblical References 404
Preface
4 Little has been suggested since that would undermine the fact that Deuteronomy is distinct
from the rest of the Pentateuch on account of its own characteristic features.
5 The term ‘Tetrateuch’ is used in the present volume—albeit somewhat anachronistically—
as a neutral reference to the first four books of the Old Testament. The terms Pentateuch,
Hexateuch and Henneateuch likewise serve as neutral terms for referring to the first five
(Genesis–Deuteronomy), six (Genesis–Joshua) or nine (Genesis–Kings) books respectively.
preface xi
in style and ideas associated with the JE redactor with the language, style
and theological convictions of the Deuteronomist. It was thus claimed that
one could discern evidence of a preliminary stage of the Deuteronomic tra-
dition in certain passages from the Tetrateuch. In was only in 1963, however,
that this possibility was explored anew. In that year, and independently of
one another, Chris Brekelmans and Norbert Lohfink suggested the possibility
that the texts in Genesis–Numbers that had been associated with a Deutero
nom(ist)ic redaction should be considered rather as preparatory to the typi-
cal and stereotype language of the Deuteronomist. Together they introduced
the term ‘proto-Deuteronomic’, a generic name that fits into the encom-
passing Deuteronom(ist)ic line of tradition, thus referring to the beginnings
of that tradition, which also may be found outside the compositional unit
Deuteronomy–Kings.
An important turning-point was reached in the seventies of 20th century
with respect to the study of the origins of the Pentateuch. A variety of schol-
ars, of whom Erhard Blum, Rolf Rendtorff, Martin Rose, Heinrich Schmid and
John Van Seters can be considered pioneers, came to associate more and more
pericopes from Genesis–Numbers with a sweeping Deuteronom(ist)ic redac-
tional process, and even linked the genesis of the Pentateuch with a redac-
tion or an author dependent on Deuteronomy and/or the Deuteronomistic
History. Under the influence of these studies it almost became a moral
obligation to label Old Testament texts Deuteronom(ist)ic—or better still:
post-Deuteronomistic.6 This tendency, however, appears to have channelled
research into the origin and identity of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in Genesis–
Numbers into something of an impasse. From the beginning of the 1960s,
researchers who typified passages from this complex as proto-Deuteronomic,
substantiated their claims by referring to other passages from the Tetrateuch
that were considered, according to the communis opinio, to be JE and thus
older than the book of Deuteronomy. Since the entire Pentateuch is now char-
acterised as a relatively young composition, which is considered dependent
in se on the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, the hypothesis of a proto-Deuter-
onomic redaction, as it has generally been defended up to the present, has
become problematic. Moreover, the proposition that the said proto-Deutero-
nomic redaction did not yet reflect the stereotype language and theology of the
6 N. Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, in: W. Gross (ed.), Jeremia und die
‘deuteronomistische Bewegung’ (BBB, 98), Weinheim 1995, 313–382, esp. 316 aptly articulates
this tendency: ‘Wie vor Jahren ein gestandene Alttestamentler einen Urdekalog oder eine neue
kultische “Begehung” rekonstruiert haben mußte, so muß ein anständiger Doktorand heute
irgendwo in der Bibel eine deuteronomistische Hand entdecken. Dann erst gehört er zur Zunft’.
xii preface
The fifth and final chapter offers a critical review of the history of the
Deuteronomist. We do so in the first instance on the basis of an endeavour
to develop a univocal terminology in relation to the issue. We then propose,
against the background of the criteria that have emerged in the history of
research—or rather the absence thereof—, a specific criteriology designed
to allow a more grounded judgement as to whether a text should be consid-
ered to belong to the pre-history of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature or to its
‘post-history’. The further textual history of the passages in question (textual
criticism) also calls for attention at this juncture. If nothing else, our history
of the Deuteronomist should convince the reader of one thing: his story is far
from over . . .
Few things within current research into the origins and composition of
the Pentateuch are undisputed. Nevertheless, in the midst of these disputes,
the ‘Deuteronomist’ seems to be a constant. His history, however, has never
been written. The present study aims to fill this lacuna. It’s nucleus was estab-
lished in the context of my doctoral dissertation, which I defended almost
two decades ago at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the KU
Leuven (Belgium) with Prof. Dr. Marc Vervenne as my Doktorvater. Strongly
influenced by his Doktorvater, Prof. Dr. Chris Brekelmans, he encouraged and
stimulated me in the study of the Old Testament and its Deuteronomic constit-
uents. He thus deserves my sincere gratitude and appreciation. I am also much
indebted to the Research Foundation—Flanders and the Fonds de la Recherche
Scientifique (F.R.S.-FNRS) of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation of Belgium for
their decades-long investment in my research. My gratitude is also due to Prof.
Dr. Brian Doyle for his careful translation of the original Dutch manuscript.
Although scientific research is often a solitarily activity, I have been fortu-
nate nevertheless to enjoy the ongoing accompaniment of someone who really
knows and understands this particular metier, particularly during the last
stages of the preparation of this manuscript. Therefore, my most warm-hearted
thanks and appreciation are due to my wife, Prof. Dr. Bénédicte Lemmelijn. To
her and to our teenagers Matthias, Elke and Ruben I dedicate this monograph.
Hans Ausloos
Université catholique de Louvain
Chercheur qualifié F.R.S.-FNRS
Abbreviations
1 Cf. O. Artus, Le Pentateuque (Cahiers Évangile, 106), Paris 1998; J. Blenkinsopp, The
Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (AB Reference Library), New
York 1992; J. Briend, ‘La “crise” du Pentateuque’, RIC 29 (1989) 49–62; Idem, ‘La composition
du Pentateuque entre hier et aujourd’hui’, in Naissance de la méthode critique: Colloque
du centenaire de l’École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem (Patrimoines
christianisme), Paris 1992, 197–204; H. Cazelles, ‘Pentateuque. T. 4: ‘Le nouveau “status
quaestionis” ’, DBS 7 (1966) 687–858; R. David, ‘Le Pentateuque: Tendances actuelles
concernant les traditions littéraires’, in: Idem et al., ‘De bien des manières’: La recherche
biblique aux abords du xxi ème siècle (LD, 163) Montreal 1995, 17–46; G.I. Davies, ‘Introduction
to the Pentateuch’, in: J. Barton, J. Muddiman (eds), The Oxford Bible Commentary, Oxford
2001, 12–38; A. De Pury, T. Römer, ‘Le Pentateuque en question: position du problème et
brève histoire de la recherche’, in: Idem (eds), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et
la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes. 3ème
édition augmentée (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genève 2002, 9–80; O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung
in das Alte Testament unter Einschluss der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der
apokryphen- und pseudepigraphenartigen Qumran-Schriften (Neue Theologische Grund
risse), Tübingen 31964, 205–234; F. García López, ‘De la antigua a la nueva critica literaria
del Pentateuco’, EstBíb 52 (1994) 7–35; Idem, Comment lire le Pentateuque (Le monde de la
Bible, 53), Genève 2005, 33–63; A.H.J. Gunneweg, ‘Anmerkungen und Anfragen zur neueren
Pentateuchforschung’, Theologische Rundschau 48 (1983) 227–253; 50 (1985) 107–131; O. Kaiser,
Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einführung in ihre Ergebnisse und Probleme, Gütersloh
51984, 90–138; Idem, ‘The Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History’, in: A.D.H. Mayes
(ed.), Text in Context:. Essays by Members of the Society of Old Testament Studies, Oxford
2000, 289–322; R. Kratz, ‘The Pentateuch in Current Research: Consensus and Debate’, in:
T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research
(FAT, 78), Tübingen 2011, 31–61, esp. 46–49; H.-J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen
Erforschung des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn 21969, 44–294; D.J. McCarthy, ‘Twenty-
five Years of Pentateuchal Study’, in: J.J. Collins, J.D. Crossan (eds), The Biblical Heritage in
Modern Catholic Scholarship, Wilmington, DE 1986, 34–57; E.W. Nicholson, ‘The Pentateuch
in Recent Research: A Time for Caution’, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven
1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 10–21; E.W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century:
on the discoveries of 18th and 19th century academic biblical research in rela
tion to the presence of a so-called stereotypical Deuteronom(ist)ic language
and a typical stock of Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas in the first four books of the
The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, Oxford 1998; C. Nihan, T. Römer, ‘Le débat actuel sur la
formation du Pentateuque’, in: T. Römer et al. (eds), Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (Le
monde de la Bible, 49), Genève 2004, 85–113; E. Otto, ‘Stehen wir vor einem Umbruch in der
Pentateuchkritik?’, VuF 22 (1977) 82–97; Idem, ‘Kritik der Pentateuchkomposition’, TR 60
(1995) 163–191; Idem, ‘Deuteronomium und Pentateuch: Aspekte der gegenwärtigen Debatte’,
ZABR 6 (2000) 222–284; B. Seidel, ‘Entwicklungslinien der neueren Pentateuchforschung im
20. Jahrhundert’, ZAW 106 (1994) 476–485; R. Rendtorff, ‘Directions in Pentateuchal Studies’,
Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 5 (1997) 43–65; T. Römer, ‘Brève présentation du débat
actuel sur le Pentateuque: Le Pentateuque toujours en question’, in De Pury, Römer (eds), Le
Pentateuque en question, vii–xxxix; T. Römer, ‘Le Pentateuque toujours en question: Bilan
et perspectives après un quart de siècle de débat’, in: A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Basel
2001 (SVT, 92), Leiden 2002, 343–374; T. Römer, ‘La formation du Pentateuque: histoire de
la recherche’, in: Römer et al. (eds.), Introduction, 67–84; T. Römer, ‘The Elusive Yahwist: A
Short History of Research’, in: T.B. Dozeman & K. Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist?
The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (Symposium, 34),
Atlanta, GA 2006, 9–27; W. Roth, ‘Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk/Deuteronomis
tische Schule’, TRE 8 (1981) 543–552; K. Schmid, ‘The Emergence and Disappearance of the
Separatioin between the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History in Biblical Studies’, in:
T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works
in Genesis through Kings (SBL Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 8), Atlanta, GA 2011, 11–24;
L. Schmidt, ‘Zur Entstehung des Pentateuch. Ein kritischer Literaturbericht’, VuF 40 (1995)
3–28; H. Seebass, ‘Pentateuch’, TRE 26 (1996) 185–209; J.L. Ska, ‘Récit et récit métadiégétique
en Ex. 1–15: Remarques critiques et essai d’interprétation de Ex. 4,16–22, in: P. Haudebert
(ed.), Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches. xiv ème congrès de l’ACFEB, Angers (1991) (LD, 151),
Paris 1992, 135–171, esp. 135–147; J.L. Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, Winona Lake,
IN 2006, 1–164; Idem, ‘The Study of the Book of Genesis: The Beginning of Critical Reading’,
in: C. Evans et al. (eds), The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation
(SVT, 152), Leiden 2012, 3–26; R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Theologische
Wissenschaft, 1), Stuttgart 31984, 62–69; J.A. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament. From
its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon, London 31989, 143–145; H. Utzschneider,
‘Die Renaissance der alttestamentlichen Literaturwissenschaft und das Buch Exodus:
Überlegungen zu Hermeneutik und Geschichte der Forschung’, ZAW 106 (1994) 197–223;
J. Van Seters, The Pentateuch. A Social-Science Commentary (Trajectories, 1), Sheffield 1999;
M. Vervenne, ‘Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus’,
in Idem (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (BETL,
126) Leuven 1996, 21–59; R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study
(JSOT SS, 53), Sheffield 1987, 21–131; E. Zenger, ‘Wo steht die Pentateuchforschung heute?’,
BZ 24 (1980) 101–116; Idem, G. Braulik, ‘Die Bücher der Tora/des Pentateuch’, in E. Zenger
(ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Fünfte, gründlich überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage
(Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie, 1,1), Stuttgart 2004, 60–187.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 3
2 For the history of research into the Pentateuch as such, reference can be made to the work
of C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch. Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung
(CBET, 9), Kampen 1994. Important initiatives related to the study of the history of the
Deuteronomist can be ascribed to J. Leman, Kan en moet er van een deuteronom(ist)isch
redactie–, herschrijvings- of inlassingswerk gesproken worden in de eerste vier boeken van
de Pentateuch? Een literatuurstudie van de exegese van de negentiende eeuw (unpublished
Master’s thesis KU Leuven), Leuven, 1973.
3 T. Hobbes, Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and
Civill, London 1651; R. Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, Paris 1678.
4 J. Astruc, Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il parait que Moïse s’est servi pour
composer le livre de la Génèse: Avec des remarques, qui appuient ou qui éclaircissent ces
conjectures, Bruxelles 1753. Already prior to Astruc, Henning Bernward Witter pointed
to the presence of two different sources in Gen. 1–3: H.B. Witter, Jura Israelitarum in
Palaestinam terram Chananaeam commentatione in Genesin perpetua sic demonstrata, ut
Idiomatis authentici nativus sensus fideliter delegatur, Mosis autoris primaeva intentio sollicite
definiatur, adeoque corpus doctrinae et juris cum antiquissimum, tum consummatissimum
tandem eruatur: Accedit in paginarum fronte ipse textus Hebraeus cum versione Latina autore
Henningo Bernhardo Witter, Hildesheim 1711—cf. more recently P. Gibert, ‘De l’intuition à
l’évidence: La multiplicité documentaire dans la Génèse chez H.B. Witter et Jean Astruc, in:
4 Chapter 1
source-critical exegesis with an important initial impetus.5 But Astruc was not
looking in the first instance for a specific literary approach to the documents
Moses is said to have used in composing the book of the Genesis and the first
chapters of Exodus.
Interest in literary arguments, in particular the style and vocabulary of the
so-called sources, emerged at the end of the 18th century in the work of Johann
Gottfried Eichhorn. At the same time, Eichhorn did not limit himself to the
book of Genesis, but focused his attention on the Pentateuch as a whole.6
Based on repetitions, the alternation of the divine name, varying vocabulary
and shifting style, Eichhorn concluded that the book of Genesis had two histor
ical works at its foundations. Depending on the use of the divine name he dis
tinguished an ‘Urkunde Elohim’ and an ‘Urkunde Jehova’—the names ‘Elohist’
and ‘Jehovist’ were to be introduced later by Karl David Ilgen.7 Eichhorn con
sidered it possible that Moses was responsible for bringing both together. He
considered Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers to be older than the books that fol
lowed, bearing in mind that whoever compiled them, in his opinion, could not
have lived later than Moses. Eichhorn was also among the first to insist that the
book of Deuteronomy differed from the other books of the Pentateuch.8 In his
mind this was to be explained by the specific character of the book: an address
delivered by Moses based on the narratives in Exodus and Numbers.
A few years later, Ilgen went a step further with respect to the Elohistic pas
sages, dividing Eichhorn’s Elohistic document into two Elohists.9 Bearing in
J. Jarick (ed.), Sacred Conjectures. The Context and Legacy of Robert Lowth and Jean Astruc
(Library of Hebrew Bible. Old Testament Studies, 457), New York 2007, 174–189.
5 Astruc explains the irregularities in the text of Genesis as follows: ‘On n’a pour cela, qu’a
supposer que Moyse avait rangé ses différents Mémoires sur quatre colonnes distinctes, en
forme de Tétraples’ (Astruc, Conjectures, 431). Astruc claimed to be able to distinguish these
four ‘mémoires’, which Moses employed in his own composition, throughout the book of
Genesis and in the first two chapters of the book of Exodus. For the remainder of Exodus
Moses had no need of ‘mémoires’, since his report was that of an ‘eye witness’.
6 J.G. Eichhorn, Einleitung ins Alte Testament, Leipzig, 1780–1783; 41823–1824.
7 The use of the term ‘Jehovist’ stems from the fact that the tetragrammaton יהוהwas originally
vocalised as ‘Jehova’. Cf. J.L. Ska, ‘The Yahwist, a Hero with a Thousand Faces: A Chapter in the
History of Modern Exegesis’, in J.C. Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition
des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002, 1–23, esp. 3–4.
8 According to Eichhorn it was to become clear that Deuteronomy was a book that was written
‘am Rande des Grabes’ (Eichhorn, Einleitung, Tl. 2, Leipzig 1781, 422).
9 K.D. Ilgen, Die Urkunden des Jerusalemischen Tempelarchivs in ihrer Urgestalt, als Beitrag
zur Berichtung der Geschichte der Religion und Politik, Tl 1: Die Urkunden des ersten Buches
von Mose, Halle 1798. See B. Seidel, Karl David Ilgen und die Pentateuchforschung im Umkreis
der sogenannten älteren Urkundenhypothese: Studien zur Geschichte der exegetischen
Hermeneutik in der späten Aufklärung (BZAW, 213), Berlin 1993.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 5
mind that the older Documentary Hypothesis was quickly replaced by the
Fragmentary Hypothesis, Ilgen’s model was only to find its way into Pentateuch
Criticism a number of decades later.
The first major academic objections to the division of the Pentateuch into
independent continuous source texts surfaced as a result of the Fragmentary
Hypothesis. The adherents of this model saw the Pentateuch as the result of
the merging of various larger and smaller fragments. The fragments in ques
tion were considered to be occasionally contradictory texts that circulated
for the most part independently of one another and were brought together.
While the Fragmentary Hypothesis originated with the Scottish Catholic priest
Alexander Geddes, it was his German colleague Johann Severin Vater who fur
ther developed and promoted it.10 According to Vater, the complex Genesis–
Numbers is made up of a combination of two parallel series of fragments in
which God is referred to as אלהיםand יהוהrespectively. He likewise considered
the book of Deuteronomy to be made up of a number of fragments, twenty in
total.11 He explained the emergence of the Pentateuch in the following way.
During the reigns of kings David and Solomon, a collection of laws was estab
lished that was included in the book of Deuteronomy. This collection of laws
was discovered during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kgs 22–23). In the meantime,
a number of narrative and legislative texts had also emerged that were gradu
ally added to the said collection of laws. In his commentary on the Pentateuch,
Vater also observed that Deuteronomy designates Horeb as the place in which
Israel was given its laws, while the other books refer as a rule to Sinai. Where
the divine mountain is referred to in Exodus as Horeb, this is always done in
10 A. Geddes, The Holy Bible or the Books Accounted Sacred by Jews and Christians, Otherwise
called the Books of the Old and the New Covenants, Faithfully Translated from Corrected
Text of the Originals; with Various Readings, Explanatory Notes and Critical Remarks,
Vol. 1: Pentateuch and Josua, London 1792; Idem, Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures,
Corresponding with a New Translation of the Bible, Vol. 1: Containing Remarks on the
Pentateuch, London 1800; J.S. Vater, Commentar über den Pentateuch mit Einleitungen in
den einzelnen Abschnitten der eingeschalteten Übersetzung von Dr. Alexander Geddes’s
merkwürdigen critischen und exegetischen Anmerkungen und einer Abhandlung über Mose
und die Verfasser des Pentateuchs, Halle 1802–1805. For Geddes, see W. Johnstone (ed.), The
Bible and the Enlightenment: A Case Study—Dr. Alexander Geddes (1737–1802) (JSOT SS,
377), London 2004.
11 Vater, Commentar. Bd. 3, 458.
6 Chapter 1
a context distinct from the giving of the law. Moreover, Vater pointed out that
from Num. 22 onwards reference is made to ערבות מואב, while Deuteronomy
speaks of ארץ מואב. The only conclusion Vater would draw from this observa
tion was that each book had its own characteristic vocabulary.
Geddes, and in his wake Vater, also focussed their attention on the Samaritan
Pentateuch (SamP), both scholars exhibiting an explicit interest in the pres
ence of what we nowadays characterise as a typically Deuteronom(ist)ic range
of ideas in the Samaritan version of Genesis–Deuteronomy. This is evident
from their comparative study of the Decalogue (Exod. 20) in mt and SamP. In
Exod. 20:17, for example, SamP has replaced ( לא תחמדmt) and ( ועבדוmt) with
ולא תחמדand שדהוby analogy with Deut. 5:21(18). In addition, a major inter
polation follows Exod. 20:17 in SamP, which in its turn is supplemented with
large segments from Deut. 27:2–7. By placing the emphasis on interpolations in
the Samaritan version of Exodus that harmonised with Deuteronomy, neither
Geddes nor Vater intended to claim that one ought to speak of carefully consid
ered Deuteronom(ist)ic redactional activity in the Tetrateuch.12 Nevertheless,
their observation remains interesting from the perspective of later research
since it demonstrates that Deuteronom(ist)ic issues are likewise active at
the intersection between literary criticism and textual criticism. Moreover,
the emphasis placed by Geddes and Vater on the harmonising interpolations
in SamP rooted in Deuteronomy leads one to ask whether the procedure of
harmonising interpolation might not be able to offer a point of reference for
12 Vater studied Exod. 20 and Exod. 23:20–33 from this perspective (Vater, Commentar, Bd. 2,
1802, 84–85; 98). Almost a century later, August Klostermann was to focus attention on
harmonising interpolations in Exodus rooted in Deuteronomy, without insisting on a
Deuteronom(ist)ic reworking or redaction: A. Klostermann, Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu
seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte, Leipzig 1893; Idem, Der Pentateuch:
Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte. Neue Folge, Leipzig
1907. Klostermann saw Exod. 32:9, for example, which interrupts a divine speech, as a
harmonising interpolation based on Deut. 9:13. To reinforce his view, Klostermann turned
to the lxx and observed that it had no equivalent for Exod. 32:9(mt). In lxx, v. 10 is
simply a continuation of v. 8. He also claimed that the word רביםadded between גויםand
מפניךin the SamP of Exod. 34:24 was borrowed from Deut. 7:1.
August Dillmann was also to appeal to the procedure of harmonising interpolations
based on Deuteronomy, claiming, for example, that בשעריךin Exod. 20:10 was a later
interpolation based on Deut. 5:14. (A. Dillmann, V. Ryssel, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus
[KEHAT], Leipzig 1857; 31897). For the importance of harmonising interpolations for the
characterisation of so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic language in Genesis–Numbers, see:
H. Ausloos, Traces of Deuteronomic Influence in the Septuagint: A Text-Critical Analysis of
Exodus 33:1–6, JNSL 35 (2009) 27–44, esp. 42–43.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 7
1817, 323: ‘Seine [i.e. Deuteronomy—H.A.] Entstehung ist (. . .) zu setzen in die letzten Jahre
vor der Cultusreform des Josia (im J. 622), und sein Verfasser also zugleich der Redaktor
unseres jetzigen, damals aber noch nicht (. . .) als ein selbständiges Ganzes abgesonderten,
Pentateuches war ein dem Jeremia sehr nahestehender, gottbegeisterter Mann, der
durch eine Erneuerung des Gesetzes im prophetischen Geiste eine Regenerierung des
ganzes damaligen religiösen, sittlichen, politischen und socialen Lebens herbeizuführen
bestrebt war’.
16 W.M.L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und
apokryphischen Bücher des Alten Testamentes. Fünfte, verbesserte und vermehrte Ausgabe,
Berlin 1840, 208–211.
17 L. Bertholdt, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die sämmtlichen kanonischen und apokryphi
schen Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Erlangen 1813.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 9
18 F. Bleek, ‘Einige aphoristische Beiträge zu den Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch’, in:
E.F.K. Rosenmüller, G.H. Rosenmüller (eds), Biblisch-exegetisches Repertorium oder die
neuesten Fortschritte in Erklärung der heiligen Schrift, Bd. 1, Leipzig 1822, 1–79.
19 Bleek, ‘Aphoristische Beiträge’, 52. This still pre-exilic dating of the ‘final redaction’
of Deuteronomy and the Pentateuch as a whole sets Bleek apart from Gesenius and
De Wette.
20 De Wette had also made the same observation. Heinrich Holzinger and Bruno Baentsch
were later to argue along similar lines.
21 Bleek, ‘Aphoristische Beiträge’, 54–55.
22 In contrast to Deut. 12; 16:1–17, in which Jerusalem is recommended or presumed to be
the cultic centre, one has the freedom, according to Exod. 20, to sacrifice wherever one
wishes (Bleek, Aphoristische Beiträge, 18). Bleek later argued that cultic unity was not
to be considered a characteristic of the ‘Deuteronomist’. While the form in which the
precepts on the subject are presently found in the Pentateuch may stem from a later date,
the theme itself is undoubtedly Mosaic (F. Bleek, ‘Beiträge zu den Forschungen über den
Pentateuch’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 4 [1831] 488–524, esp. 501).
23 Bleek, ‘Aphoristische Beiträge’, 16–17. While the Levites in the ‘früheren Bücher’—Bleek
refers, for example, to Num. 18—appear as an inferior class of temple officials when
compared to the priests as descendents of Aaron, the book of Deuteronomy appears to
place them on an equal footing ()כהנים הלוים. Furthermore, while Num. 35 appears to
10 Chapter 1
suggest that the Levites lived in their own ‘Levite cities’, Deuteronomy presents them for
the most part as living among the Israelites.
24 ‘Dazu kommt, daß das Deuteronomium, wenigstens bis zoweit die Wiederhohlung des
Gesetzes geht, durch seine Sprache und durch seinen ganzen Charakter von den anderen
Bücher so sehr verschieden ist; es hat ganz den ermahnenden und warnenden Ton der
um die Zeit des Exils lebenden Propheten, und schließt sich besonders dem Tone und
der Sprache nach an den Jeremiah an, mit dem es auch manche Ausdrucke und Phrasen
gemein hat die sonst selten oder gar nicht vorkommen, woraus man wenigstens auf eine
nicht große Distanz des Zeitalters beider schließen kann’ (Bleek, ‘Aphoristische Beiträge’,
19)—De Wette had already observed the relationship between the Deuteronomist and
Jeremiah. John W. Colenso was later to identify both figures.
25 Bleek, ‘Aphoristische Beiträge’, 45–55. Bleek was later to reconsider his assignation of
Lev. 17 to the ‘Deuteronomist’ (Bleek, ‘Beiträge zu den Forschungen’, 492). In contrast to
Deuteronomy, Lev. 17 instructs the sacrifices are not to be brought to the sanctuary, but
to its entrance (vv. 4–6, 9). At the same time, Lev. 17 lacks the element of ‘chosen place’, a
theme that is central in Deuteronomy (12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21; 16:2, 6).
26 Bleek, ‘Aphoristische Beiträge’, 55: ‘Kap. xxvi,3–45 eine Ermahnungsrede Mosis an das
Volk; diese ist dem Tone und ganzen Chrakter nach dem Deuteronomium so verwandt,
und setzt so sehr dieselben Verhältnisse voraus, daß es wenigstens högst wahrscheinlich
ist, daß sie von dem Verfaßer des Deuteronomiums eingeschaltet sey’. In contrast to
Lev. 17, however, Bleek continued to ascribe Lev. 26:3–45 to the author of Deuteronomy:
cf. Idem, Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift, Bd. 1: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 1860,
331–332 (this work was published posthumously by J.F. Bleek and A. Kamphausen): ‘Daran
schliesst sich die letzte Redaction des Werkes durch den Verfasser des Deuteronomiums,
durch den das Werk ganz den Umfang und die Gestalt erhalten hat, worin es uns jetzt
in unserm Pentateuche und dem Buche Josua vorliegt. Der Urheber dieser Redaction
hat das eben genannte Werk (des Jehovisten) wol vollständig aufgenommen, wie er es
vorfand, nur hin und wieder sich einzelne Aenderungen und Zusätze erlaubt, besonders
in der Geschichte zur Zeit Josua’s, bei den ersten Büchern des Pentateuchs vielleicht nur
durch Einschaltung von Lev. 26,3–45, und durch einige Umstellungen, wie wol dessen,
was sich jetzt Deut. 4,41–43 (über die drei Freistädte jenseit des Jordan) und 27,1–8 (über
den auf dem Ebal zu errichtenden Altar) findet. Die Hauptveränderung aber bestand in
der Vermehrung des Werkes durch Aufnahme des Deuteronomiums selbst (Kpp. 1–33)’.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 11
27 E. Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen mosaïscher Gesetze in den drei mittleren Büchern des
Pentateuchs: Ein Beitrag zur Kritik des Pentateuchs, Göttingen 1840.
28 Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen, 42.
29 Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen, 44.
12 Chapter 1
30 Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen, 46 refers to Deut. 5:29; 6:2, 3, 17; 7:11; 8:1, 11; 10:13; 11:1, 32;
12:1 ‘und sonst’. At the same time, the expression is reminiscent ‘an solche in Stücken im
Exodus, welche (. . .) nicht in die eigentliche Sammlung der Gesetze hineingehören, z.B.
an Exod. 34,11. an 31,13.14.16’.
31 Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen, 47.
32 Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen, 72–76.
33 Without mention of the מלאך.
34 No mention of the מלאך. Addition of the Girgasites, whereby Exod. 23 comes to agree
with Exod. 34:11. In addition, the command of Exod. 23:23–24 is extended and provided
with arguments.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 13
These ten promises clearly differ from one another. The first and the second,
for example, are more extensive than the third, fourth, fifth and sixth. They
also differ in terms of form, and in the third there is unexpected reference to
yhwh in the third person. In the tenth promise, moreover, Israel’s territory is
visualised as much more extensive than in the second and the eighth.
In spite of the differences in form and content he claimed to be able to dis
cern between these ten promises, Bertheau did not conclude that the pericope
was composite in nature. With respect to associations with Deuteronomy,
however, he is particularly unequivocal: the author of Deut. 6–7 was familiar
with Exod. 23:20–33 in its present form and used it without taking over its ten-
part structure: ‘Für uns gibt es keine ursprünglichere Form derselben als die
im Exodus’.
We can observe, in sum, that Bertheau’s work served to introduce interest
in Deuteronom(ist)ic influence on the book of Exodus. Nevertheless, the con
tribution of the ‘Deuteronomist’—Bertheau addresses Exod. 23:9–13 and to
a lesser extent Exod. 34:11—and argumentation in support thereof remained
extremely limited. It should also be observed that Bertheau did not consider
every parallel he claimed to have discerned between Exodus and Deuteronomy
as Deuteronom(ist)ic influence. This is especially clear with respect to the
epilogue of the Covenant Code, which Bertheau understood as a Vorlage of
Deuteronomy. Both lines of approach continued to exist side by side in later
35 Exod 23:26b is not recapitulated in Deuteronomy. The author of Deuteronomy probably
thought that the theme of Exod. 23:26b had already been dealt with in Deut. 7:12–15: ‘Die
Zehnzahl im Exodus hat der Verf. des Deuteron. hiernach nicht beachtet’ (Bertheau, Die
sieben Gruppen, 76 n. 1).
36 The form אגרשנוin Exod. 23:29 appears to be related to וגרשהin Exod. 23:28. As a result
it is possible to see verses 28–30 taken together as constituting part of one and the same
promise. Bertheau is reluctant to abandon his ten-part structure, however, and argues
on the basis of content that it is necessary to speak of two promises here. Moreover,
vv. 29–30 states that yhwh will gradually drive out the peoples, while v. 28 claims that
הצרעהis responsible for driving them out. Furthermore, it would appear from Deut. 7:20,
22 that the author of Deut. 6–7 also made a distinction between two different promises
in Exod. 23:28–30. Indeed, the expression יהוה אלהיךis added in both Deut. 7:20 and
Deut. 7:22.
14 Chapter 1
37 J.J. Stähelin, ‘Beiträge zu den kritischen Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch, die Bücher
Josua und die Richter’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 8 (1835) 461–477; Idem, Kritische
Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch, die Bücher Josua, Richter, Samuels und der Könige,
Berlin 1843, 80: ‘Wir wollen nun voraussetzen, der Ergänzer der vier ersten Bücher des
Pentat. und der Verfasser des Deut. sei einer und derselbe’.
38 Stähelin, Kritische Untersuchungen, 80: ‘Auch die Theologie des Deuteron. ist die des
Ergänzers, denn sie hat im Deuteron. keine weitre Ausbildung erhalten, und man kann
sagen, was der Ergänzer in den frühern Büchern, in seinem geschichtlichen Theile
andeute, das spreche er hier, im gesetzlichen Theile seines Werkes, klar aus’.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 15
in Exod. 23:21; 34:12. Nevertheless, Stähelin was also conscious of linguistic dif
ferences between the Jehovistic ‘Ergänzer’ and Deuteronomy. He ascribes this,
however, to the specific nature of Deuteronomy as an exhortatory address.39
The only potentially problematic difference between the supplementer
of the Tetrateuch and the author of Deuteronomy was to be found in the fact
that the latter book does not ascribe a role to the מלאך יהוה, while frequent ref
erence is made to the said messenger of God in the Tetrateuch. Here Stähelin
observes, however, that in Deut. 31:15 the pillar of cloud functions as divine
intermediary, as it does in Num. 12:5 or Exod. 33:9. The relationship between
the ‘Jehovist’ and the Deuteronomist upon which Stähelin focused tentative
attention, was later to play an important role in the work of Heinrich Hol
zinger, Abraham Kuenen, Samuel Rolles Driver and Gerrit Wildeboer.
The work of the otherwise conservative scholar Franz Delitzsch—in his
view the core of the Pentateuch, i.e. Exod. 19–24, was written by Moses—also
contains interesting insights that would later will be omnipresent within the
debate surrounding the Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of the Pentateuch.40
Delitzsch likewise presented himself as a proponent of the Supplementary
Hypothesis, although he rejected Stähelin’s identification of the Jehovist with
the Deuteronomist.41 He remained on the surface when it came to the presence
of Deuteronom(ist)ic features in Genesis, observing simply in his Die Genesis
ausgelegt that the expression ( מצותי חקותי ותורתיGen. 26:5) occurred ‘häufig
beim Deuteronomiker’.42 A few years later, he explicitly referred to a number of
passages in Genesis as ‘deuteronomisch’. He begins by describing Lev. 17–20; 26
as ‘jehovistisch-deuteronomisch gefärbt’.43 In the appendix to his commentary
39 Stähelin, Kritische Untersuchungen, 82: ‘Haben wir immer die doppelte Rücksicht vor
Augen, dass der Ergänzer eigentlich erst im Deut. seine Legislation geben konnte, und
dass er sie nicht wie die Grundschrift in der Form von Gesetzen geben wollte, sondern die
einer der ermahnender Rede wählte, so werden wir gewiss die kleinere Differenzen, die
sich zwischen dem Deut. und den Abschnitten der frühern Bücher finden, die wir dem
Ergänzer zugeschrieben, leicht begreifen und natürlich finden’. On the other hand, see
De Wette, Lehrbuch, 204–208.
40 H. Bardtke, ‘Franz Delitzsch geb. 23.2.1813. Ein Gedenkwort zur einhunderfünfzigsten
Wiederkehr seines Geburtstages’, TLZ 88 (1963) 161–170; S. Wagner, Franz Delitzsch: Leben
und Werk (Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie, 80), München 1978; Gießen, 21991.
41 F. Delitzsch, Die Genesis ausgelegt, Leipzig 1852, 29–30: ‘(. . .) seine Absicht, dass der
Jehovist und der Deuteronomiker eine Person seien, sicher unhaltbar und auch von de
Wette nicht angeeignet worden ist’.
42 Delitzsch, Die Genesis ausgelegt, 315.
43 F. Delitzsch, Commentar über die Genesis, Leipzig 31860, 37.
16 Chapter 1
44 Delitzsch, Commentar, 643. Delitzsch paid no attention to this specific divine name in his
commentary on Gen. 15.
45 Delitzsch, Commentar, 644.
46 Delitzsch, Commentar, 446; 644.
47 At a later stage, Delitzsch became a supporter of Karl Heinrich Graf ’s hypothesis—Cf.
F. Delitzsch, ‘Pentateuch-kritische Studien i–xii’, Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft
und kirchliches Leben 1 (1880), 1–10; 57–66; 113–121; 173–183; 223–234; 279–289; 337–347;
393–399; 445–449; 503–509; 559–567; 617–626; Idem, ‘Urmosaisches im Pentateuch i–iv’,
Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben 3 (1882), 113–136; 225–235;
281–299; 337–347; 449–457; 561–573; Idem, Neuer Kommentar über die Genesis, Leipzig
1887, 17–19.
48 Delitzsch, Commentar, 29.
49 Ewald did not adequately distinguish between the historical and the literary basic
document. A certain layer in the Pentateuch might provide the pattern upon which the
material is ordered in literary terms, but this need not imply that the layer in question
is also the oldest from the historical perspective, to which all the remaining material
was later added. This presupossition explains why the literature designated with the
letter P in contemporary Pentateuch research was more or less consistently understood
to be the oldest component of the Pentateuch prior to the insights of Graf and Willem
Hendrik Kosters. Cf. Eissfeldt, Einleitung, 213: ‘In der Tat sind die Analyse einerseits und
die zeitliche Ansetzung der Genesis oder des Pentateuchs bzw ihrer durch die Analyse
gefundenen Quellen anderseits zwei zunächst ganz verschiedene Dinge, und man tut
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 17
‘historical works’ had been incorporated. One of the narrators of the primeval
history first collected all the sources he had at his disposal and revised them.
When reference was made to one of the major heroes from Israel’s history, he
invariably preceded the episode with a sort of programmatic sketch intended
to evoke the magnificence of the character from the outset. He thus introduced
the three parts of Abraham’s life, for example, with ‘ein eingreifendes prophe
tisches Bild’50 in Gen. 12:1–3; 15; 22:1–19. Isaac’s life is prefaced by Gen. 26:1–5
and Jacob’s in Gen. 28:10–22 with ‘prophetische Farbe’. Such passages were not
necessarily created by the narrator who may have found them elsewhere and
relocated them, as is the case with Gen. 15, which originally followed Gen. 17. It
is striking to say the least that each of these ‘prophetic’ passages was later asso
ciated by Ewald’s successors with a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of Genesis.
August Knobel, to conclude, can be considered a representative of the
Supplementary Hypothesis. According to Knobel, a ‘Jehovistic’ redactor
added a ‘Rechtsbuch’ and a ‘Kriegsbuch’ to an already existing Elohistic basic
document.51 As such, the final form of Genesis–Numbers was to be ascribed to
this ‘Jehovistic’ redactor. As a consequence, Knobel was unable to distinguish
strictly Deuteronom(ist)ic verses in the first four books of the Old Testament,
although many of the passages he ascribed to the Jehovistic redactor52 were
gut, diese beiden Aufgaben der Pentateuchkritik auch bei einem Überblick über ihre
Geschichte auseinanderzuhalten’.
50 H. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis Christus. Bd. 1, Göttingen 1843, 140.
51 A. Knobel, Die Genesis (KEHAT, 11), Leipzig 1852; Idem, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus
(KEHAT, 12), Leipzig 1857; Idem, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua erklärt nebst
einer Kritik des Pentateuch und Josua (KEHAT, 13), Leipzig 1861. In the Vorrede of Genesis,
iii–iv, Knobel describes the method and goal of his research as follows: ‘Die alte Schrift
(. . .), welche den Büchern Mosis und Josua’s zum Grunde liegt, macht sich durch ihren
festen Zweck und Plan und durch ihre stets gleich bleibende Manier und Sprache dem
kritischen Auge leicht kenntlich und lässt sich meines Erachtens mit ziemlicher Sicher
heit herausfinden, zumal sie abgesehen von einzelnen Angaben vollständig erhalten zu
sein scheint. Aber desto schwieriger ist das Geschäft der Kritik bei den Stücken, welche
durch die Hand des Bearbeiters der alten Grundschrift hinzugekommen sind’.
52 See, for example, Knobel, Exodus, 105 in relation to Exod. 12:24–27: ‘Eine Vorschrift über
die künftige Haltung des Passah, welche neben der elohistischen Verordnung V. 14.43ff.
als volkommen überflüssig und darnach wie nach der Sprache, auch nach der schlechten
Anschluss von V. 28. als jehovistische Einschaltung erscheint’. Exod. 13:3–10 is likewise
ascribed to the Jehovist (128). Kinship between the Jehovist and the Deuteronomist,
moreover, would appear to be clear in respect to the latter text: ‘die fïgürlichen
Redensarten 13,9.16 und שגר13,12., welche dann der Deuteronomiker sich angeeignet hat’
(112). Exod. 32:7–14 (316: ‘freie Zuthat des Jehovisten’) can be added here.
18 Chapter 1
53 Reference can be made, for example, to Exod. 3; 12:24–27; 13:3–16; 20–23; 24:3–8; 33:1–11;
Num. 14:11–25.
54 Knobel pointed in the first instance to similarities between the language of ‘der
Deuteronomiker’ and his predecessors, namely the Elohistic basic document and the
‘Kriegsbuch’. Nonetheless, ‘im Ganzen steht die deuteronomische Ausdrucksweise von
der elohistischen weit ab und schliesst sich mehr an die der Späteren an’ (Knobel, Numeri,
586). According to Knobel, however, the most striking agreements are those between the
Deuteronomist, the ‘Rechtsbuch’ and the Jehovist. Knobel lists the following examples:
( יד חזקהDeut. 3:24; 4:34; 5:15; 6:21; 7:8, 19; 9:26; 11:2; 26:8; 34:12); ( הכירDeut. 1:17; 16:19;
21:14); ( חנןDeut. 7:2; 28:50); ( יבנהDeut. 25:9); שלחin relation to the commission of Moses
(Deut. 34:11); ( טובDeut. 6:11; 28:47); ( מהרDeut. 4:26; 7:4, 22; 9:3, 12, 16; 28:20 together with
Exod. 32:8; Josh. 2:5). A considerable amount of material is also to be found in the work
of the Deuteronomist that is also used by the Jehovist. For example: ( דרך יהוהDeut. 5:33;
8:6; 9:12, 16; 10:12; 11:22, 28; 13:6; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 31:29; Josh. 22:5); ( סור מן הדרךDeut. 5:32;
9:12, 16; 11:28; 17:20; 31:29; Josh. 1,7); ( נפלא מןDeut. 17:8; 30:11); ( אמר בלבDeut. 7:17; 8:17;
9:4; 18:21); –( יטב לDeut. 4:40; 5:16, 29; 6:3, 18; 12:25, 28; 22:7); –( זכר לDeut. 9:27); תצליח
(Deut. 28:29; Josh. 1:8); ( קללהDeut. 11:26, 28, 29; 21:23; 23:6; 27:13; 28:15, 45; 29:26; 30:1, 19;
Josh. 8:34); ( משארתDeut. 28:5, 17); ( בגללDeut. 1:37; 15:10; 18:12). Knobel concludes: ‘Der
Deuteronomiker hat also im Ausdrucke von allen Vorgängern Einzelnes angenommen
und trifft in andern Fällen wenigstens mit ihnen zusammen; am nächsten steht er in der
Sprache dem Rechtsbuche und dem Jehovisten’ (Knobel, Numeri, 587).
55 The argument used by Knobel in support of this position runs as follows: ‘Die Frage, ob
der Jehovist und der Deuteronomiker dieselbe Person seien, ist aus folgenden Grunden
zu verneinen. a) wollte der Jehovist offenbar nicht Gesetze geben, sondern nur die
älteren Gesetze zusammenarbeiten, wogegen es dem Deut. neben der Einschärfung auf
eine Vermehrung der älteren Gesetze ankam. Beide verfolgten verschiedene Aufgaben.
b) verfolgte der Jehovist seine Aufgabe in der Weise, dass er, zumal bei den mosaische
Dingen, die älteren Quellen möglichst wörtlich beibehielt und so zusammenfügte, ohne
sie viel mit eigenen Zuthaten zu versetzen, während der Deut. sich viel freier bewegt und
das Aeltere selbstständiger verarbeitet. c) würden die 4 ersten Bücher, wären sie durch die
Hand des eifrigen und rednerischen Deut. geworden, gewiss viel deuteronom. Zugaben,
namentlich paränetischer Art enthalten; davon ist aber nichts wahrzunehmen, vielmehr
seine Hand erst von Dt. 1. anzu bemerken. d) entscheiden gewisse Ansichten gegen die
Identität z.B. dass der Jehovist Kibroth Taava und Tabeera als einerlei nimmt (. . .), der
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 19
Deut. aber unterscheidet (Dt. 9,22) und das Jener den Bericht von Mosis Verfehlung
in Kades in den elohist. Bericht von Israels zweitem Aufenthalte zu Kades einfügt und
somit einen zweimalgen Aufenthalt zu Kades angenommen hat, während der Deut. nur
Einen angenommen hat (. . .). Der Letztere würde auch bei seinen strengen Ansicht von
der Einheit des Gottesdienstes (Cap. 12) das Gesetz Ex. 20,24ff weggelassen und kaum
mit Eifer von den Altären der Erzväter an den verschiedenen Orten des Landes erzählt
haben wie der Jehovist es thut. Unmöglich kann man auch den Zusammenarbeiter von
Ex. 32–34. als dieselbe Person mit dem Darsteller von Dt. 9,7–10,11. ansehen. e) ist ohne
Unterscheidung des Jehovisten und Deut. bei manchen Stellen z.B. Dt. 32,44f. Jos 13,6f
kritisch nicht zurechtzukommen. f ) bestätigen sprachliche Gründe die Unterscheidung
beider Verff. Die eben dargelegte zahlreichen und stehenden Spracheigenheiten des
Deut. sind dem Jehovisten fremd und umgekehrt (. . .). Der Jehovist hat auch viele ganz
gewöhnliche Ausdrücke z.B. ילד, גרש, בעבור, אולי, טרם, כי על כן, מה זהund למה זהmit
seinen Urkunden gemein (. . .), welche der Deut. nicht braucht, und er meidet Manches
z.B. שמעmit על, was diesem geläufig ist’ (Knobel, Numeri, 589–590). Thus the ‘Jehovist’
always uses ( שפחהGen. 12:16; 16:2, 5, 6, 8; 24:35; 29:23; 32:23; 33:1, 2, 6), while the said
term only occurs once in Deuteronomy (Deut. 28:68). Furthermore, reference should be
made to the Elohist who always uses ( לבGen. 6:5, 6; 8:21; 18:5; 24:45; 27:41; Exod. 4:14;
7:14, 23; 10:1), while Deuteronomy mostly employs ( לבבDeut. 1:28; 2:13; 4:9, 29, 39; 5:26;
6:5, 6; 7:17; 8:2, 5, 14, 17; 9:4.5; 10:12, 16; 11:13, 16, 18; 13:4; 15:7, 9, 10; 17:17, 20; 18:21; 19:6; 20:3, 8;
26:16; 28:28, 47, 67; 29:17, 18; 30:1, 2, 6, 10, 14, 17; 32:46; Josh. 22,5) and only by exception לב
(Deut. 4:11; 28:65; 29:3, 18). Moreover, the Jehovist prefixes היטיבwith לor ( עםGen. 12:16;
32:10, 13), while the Deuteronomist by contrast uses an accusative (Deut 8,16; 28,63; 30,5).
To conclude, the Jehovist uses שחתto express ‘act perversely’ (Exod. 32:7; compare with
Deut. 32:5); the Deuteronomist uses the hiphil ( השחיתDeut. 4:16, 25; 31:29; Deut. 9:12 is a
repetition of Jehovistic terminology).
56 In 1853 Colenso ended his career as a mathematics teacher and as vicar to take up his
appointment as the first bishop of the recently established diocese of Natal, which,
together with the episcopal see of Grahamstown, was dependent on the Bishop of Cape
Town. Colenso moved to Natal in 1855 together with his wife and daughter. Although he
20 Chapter 1
was to return to England on several occasions, he continued to live in South Africa until
his death (cf. in this regard J.W. Colenso, Ten Weeks in Natal, Cambridge 1855). For further
biographical information reference should be made to G.W. Cox, The Life of John William
Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal, London 1888; Idem, ‘Colenso, John William’, Dictionary of
National Biography 4 (1908), 746–749; F.E. Deist, ‘John William Colenso: Biblical Scholar’,
OTE 2 (1984), 98–132; J. Guy, The Heretic: A Study of the Life of John William Colenso 1814–
1883, Johannesburg 1983; P. Hinchliff, John William Colenso Bishop of Natal, London 1964;
J.H. Le Roux, A Story of Two Ways: Thirty Years of Old Testament Scholarship in South Africa
(OTE SS, 2), Pretoria 1993, 91–107; G. Mitchell, ‘A Hermeneutic of Intercultural Learnings:
The Writings of John Colenso’, OTE 10 (1997), 449–458; J. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism
in the Nineteenth Century, London 1984, 220–237; B. Sundkler, C. Steed, A History of the
Church in Africa (Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia, 74), Cambridge 2000, 371–372. See also
H. Ausloos, ‘John William Colenso (1814–1883) and the Deuteronomist’, RB 113 (2006), 372–
397; T.K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament Criticism, London 1893, 196–204; Houtman,
Der Pentateuch, 102; R.J. Thompson, Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism since Graf
(SVT, 19), Leiden 1970, 43–44; 54–55.
57 J. Draper (ed.), The Eye of the Storm; Bishop John William Colenso and the Crisis of Biblical
Inspiration (JSOT SS, 386), London 2003.
58 J.W. Colenso, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, London, 1862–1879
(vol. 1: 1862; vol. 2: 1863; vol. 3: 1863; vol. 4: 1863; vol. 5: 1865; vol. 6: 1871; vol. 7: 1879). Colenso’s
scholarly biblical works include: The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans: Newly Translated
and Explained from a Missionary Point of View, Cambridge 1861; The Worship of Baalism in
Israel, Londen 1863; Natal Sermons, London 1866–1868; Lectures on the Pentateuch and the
Moabite Stone, London 1873. For a complete bibliography, see F. Bell et al., ‘Bibliography of
Colenso’s Work and Publications on Colenso’, in Draper, The Eye of the Storm, 365–377.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 21
59 Furthermore, Colenso, together with Geddes, is among the most authoritative Anglo-
Saxon Old Testament scholars of the 19th century. It is all the more surprising, therefore,
that he does not even get a mention in Kraus, Geschichte or D.K. McKim (ed.), Historical
Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, Downers Grove, IL 1998.
60 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, xxxiii–xxxiv.
61 Colensa published a Zulu grammar as early as 1859, followed by a Zulu-English dictionary
in 1861.
62 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, vii.
63 Cf. Le Roux, A Story of Two Ways, 94–95.
64 Colenso initially based himself on the ‘final’ text of the Pentateuch and as such paid little
if any attention to text-critical issues (cf. Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 163; compare,
22 Chapter 1
however, with The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 151: ‘The lxx shows the original form of
this [Gen. 47:4b—H.A.] passage’).
65 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, xxi–xxii.
66 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, esp. 102–106; 122–130. Colenso was well aware of the
fact that his reflections on the historicity of the biblical traditions were not innovative.
They nevertheless opened an entirely new world for him: ‘The very point, indeed, of
my argument in part I was this,—that these difficulties were not new, though many of
them were new to me, when I first began to engage in these investigations, as, I believe,
notwithstanding the assertions of not a few of my critics, they were new to very many of
my readers, lay and clerical, when first laid before them’ (The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, vii).
67 Reference was already made to the contestation of Mosaic authorship by Hobbes, Simon,
Witter and Astruc in the 17th and 18th centuries. In their wake, the old Documentary
Hypothesis (Eichhorn and Ilgen), together with the Fragmentary Hypothesis (Geddes and
Vater) and the 19th century Supplementary Hypothesis (De Wette, Stähelin, Delitzsch,
Ewald and Knobel) had considered the Pentateuch to be the result of a complex process
of composition. Nevertheless, such historical-critical insights were often rejected by the
official doctrine of the church, or at the very least kept under wraps. As a result, doubts
concerning the historicity of the Pentateuch and the Mosaic authorship thereof were
entirely new to Colenso. Cf. Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, xiv: ‘And, though these views
are, comparatively speaking, new to me,—and will be new, as I believe, to most of my
English readers, even to many of the Clergy, of whom, probably, few have examined the
Pentateuch closely since they took Orders, while parts of it some of them may never
really have studied at all,—yet I am by this time well aware that most of the points here
considered have been already brought forward, though not exactly in the present form, by
various continental writers, with whom the critical and scientific study of the Scriptures
has made more progress than it has yet done in England’. See also Colenso, The Pentateuch,
Vol. 1, vi–vii: ‘Engrossed with parochial and other work in England, I did what, probably,
many other clergyman have done under similar circumstances,—I contented myself with
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 23
silencing, by means of the specious explanations, which are given in most commentaries,
the ordinary objections against the historical character of the early portions of the Old
Testament, and settled down into a willing acquiescence in the general truth of the
narrative, whatever difficulties might still hang about particular parts of it. In short, the
doctrinal and devotional portions of the Bible were what were needed most in parochial
duty. And, if a passage of the Old Testament formed at any time the subject of a sermon, it
was easy to draw from it practical lessons of daily life, without examining closely into the
historical truth of the narrative’.
68 Cf. H. Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung von neuem
untersucht, Berlin 1853.
69 K.H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments: Zwei historisch-kritische
Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1866, 1–113; W.H. Kosters, De historie-beschouwing van den
Deuteronomist met de berichten in Genesis–Numeri vergeleken, Leiden 1868.
70 In the first twenty chapters of the first volume of The Pentateuch, Colenso offers a crushing
and highly detailed analysis of the historical reliability of the Grundschrift.
71 Reference should be made to the introduction to the English translation of Kuenen’s
Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des
Ouden Verbonds, Dl 1: De thora en de historische boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Amsterdam
21884: An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch,
London 1886, xiv–xvii, esp. xvi. Compare with A. Kuenen, ‘Critische bijdragen tot de
geschiedenis van den Israëlietischen godsdienst. Dl. 5: De priesterlijke bestanddeelen
van Pentateuch en Josua’, Theologisch Tijdschrift 4 (1870), 391–426, esp. 399: ‘Criticism of
the Pentateuch on the continent focuses on construction, but—uses materials that were
rejected by Colenso for very sound reasons. As far as I am concerned, I happily recognise
24 Chapter 1
the fact that he brought objections to my attention that I had not accounted for in the
past, or not acccounted for enough. And with respect to the perspective predominant
in Germany—when it becomes evident that Ewald, Bunsen, Bleek and Knobel, the one
after the other, were forced to revise their theories by the English bishop, then one truly
has no reason to refer to his method as obsolete and his objections as worn out’. On the
relationship between Kuenen and Colenso, see C. Houtman, ‘Colenso as Seen by Kuenen,
and as Known from Colenso’s Letters to Kuenen’, in: Draper, The Eye of the Storm, 76–103,
esp. 87–92.
72 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 175–185. Colenso was probably influenced by Bleek,
Einleitung. Whatever the case, Colenso was able to acquire the work of European scholars
thanks to Bleek’s son Wilhelm, curator of the library in Cape Town.
73 Nevertheless, Colenso was to follow his own path in volumes 5 and 6.
74 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 223–229; 358.
75 Colenso argued that three of the four names that apeared to be יהוהcompounds—
Joash (6:11), Jotham (9:5) Micah = Michaiah (17:1) and Jonathan (18:30)—should not be
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 25
element אל.76 Colenso then refers to the fact that King David’s ‘early’ psalms,77
those he wrote for the most part before he became king,78 likewise make little
if any use of the tetragram, while its presence is frequent in his ‘later’ psalms.79
Based on these two presuppositions, Colenso concludes that the Jehovist
wrote at a time in which the divine name יהוהhad become generally accepted
and also formed an important element in the composition of proper names. In
his opinion this could not have been earlier than the final years of David’s life.
He maintained, furthermore, that it would be difficult to situate the Jehovist
long after the death of Samuel and his introduction of the divine name יהוה.
Moreover, although the Jehovist made frequent use of יהוה, only two proper
names are attributed to him that contain an element of the tetragrammaton—
Joshua and Jochebed.80 Colenso thus concludes that every passage in Genesis–
Numbers and in Joshua that does not belong to the Elohistic basic document,
and with the exception of some Deuteronomistic interpolations—accord
ing to Colenso, Deuteronomy was probably written by the prophet Jeremiah
during the reign of King Josiah—, should be ascribed to one or more Jehovist
authors who were active during the final years of King David’s life or the early
years of the reign of his successor Samuel.81
After studying Gen. 1–11 in the second volume of The Pentateuch,82 Colenso
introduced a slightly emended form of his hypotheses in the fifth volume
dating from 1865. In his analysis of the book of Genesis, he follows the sub
division of the Elohistic material as proposed by Hupfeld. As a consequence,
and in addition to the Jehovist, he also distinguishes between an older and
considered as such. According to Colenso, the name Jonathan only occured in passages
taken to have been written by the late Samuel (Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 330–343,
esp. 333–334).
76 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 344–352.
77 Cf. Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 270: ‘(. . .) supposing that these Psalms were really
written by David, whether he wrote them on the occasions mentioned in the titles, or not,
and even if they were not written by David at all, but by some other person of that age’.
78 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 267–272.
79 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 273–329.
80 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 244–352. With respect to the name Moriah in Gen. 22:2,
cf. 240–247.
81 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 358–359.
82 In The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 14–90, Colenso’s primary goal is to demonstrate the composite
character of Gen. 1–11. In the following pages (91–284), he provides an extremely detailed
analysis of Gen. 1–11, his main purpose here being to demonstrate that the chapters in
question should not be taken literaly.
26 Chapter 1
Between the publication of the fifth (1865) and sixth (1871) volumes of The Pen
tateuch, however, Colenso’s vision of the origins of the Pentateuch changed
radically, a fact that can be ascribed with little doubt to his research into the
books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Joshua. Indeed, in contrast to Genesis,
the books in question contained a large number of cultic texts and law col
lections. Colenso begins his analysis of Exodus–Joshua with Lev. 26. Based on
the fact that the said chapter—and in extensu Lev. 18–20—exhibits significant
agreement in terms of vocabulary with the prophetic book Ezekiel,90 a specific
vocabulary that does not appear elsewhere in the Old Testament, Colenso con
cludes that these chapters of Leviticus were written by Ezekiel in the last years
of King Jehoiachin’s imprisonment.91 Ezekiel’s work was continued during the
Babylonian exile by priestly authors who supplemented Genesis–Joshua with
typically priestly material. Colenso calls these elements the ‘Later’ or ‘Levitical
Legislation’ (L.L.).
Colenso determines L.L.’s contribution to the corpus Genesis–Joshua via an
analysis of the book of Deuteronomy. He considers the original form of the
latter to consist of Deut. 5–26; 28, Deut. 1–4; 27; 29–30 being added later by
the same author. Deut. 31–34 likewise contain Deuteronomic material, but
this has been mixed together with passages of varying age and authorships.92
Colenso is also convinced that the Deuteronomist was familiar with various
segments of the Exodus narrative, given that he repeatedly alludes to it. Since
Deuteronomy appears to be unfamiliar with other segments of Exodus—e.g.
the passages concerning the construction of the ark and the tent of meeting in
Exod. 25:1–31:17 and 35–40—, the episodes in question cannot have belonged
to what Colenso calls the ‘Original Story’ (O.S.)—i.e. the EJ narrative. On the
90 According to Colenso, almost every specific expression in Lev. 26 can be shown to have a
parallel in Ezekiel. Compare, for example, Lev. 26:6 with Ezek. 34:28; 39:26.
91 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 3–23.
92 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 24–33.
28 Chapter 1
contrary, they must have been written at a later stage than Deuteronomy.
Colenso mentions the period during or after the exile in this regard. Moreover,
other passages in the Pentateuch that presuppose the existence of these cultic
objects must, for Colenso, be located in the (pre-)exilic period.93
Having isolated the L.L. passages within the Pentateuch, Colenso then
attempts to reconstruct the aforementioned O.S. in the books of Exodus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua. Within the said O.S., he continues to
maintain the presence of an Elohistic basic narrative, referring to Exod. 6:2–5 as
its conclusion,94 a basic narrative that was supplemented by various Jehovistic
authors. Once the O.S. was complete, possibly in the early years of Solomon’s
rule, it remained untouched and intact for some time. Colenso suggests it may
have been deposited next to the ark in the temple, where it remained until
Jeremiah—i.e. the Deuteronomist, who, as a temple priest must have had more
or less free access to the manuscript.—reworked and expanded it in his unique
prophetic style and supplemented it with his own unique creation, namely the
book of Deuteronomy. Finally, as we already observed, Ezekiel added the L.L.
material to the document, with the priestly authors following in his footsteps.
Four years before his death in 1883, Colenso published the seventh and final
volume of The Pentateuch in which he explores the authorship of the books
Judges, Samuel and Kings. The volume also takes a closer look at other Old
Testament books such as Chronicles, Job, Proverbs, Qoheleth, Song of Songs
and the Psalms. Nevertheless, the volume is important primarily because of
Colenso’s vision of the genesis and composition of the Pentateuch. Indeed,
appendix 152 provides a global overview of the bishop’s approach to the origins
of Genesis–Numbers.95 Here he states explicitly that the Elohistic ‘narrative’
segments in Gen. 1:1–Exod. 6:5 are the oldest, while the ‘legislative’ elements—
L.L.—should be understood as the youngest segments of the Pentateuch.
While Colenso, as we have already observed, played an extremely important
role in the dating of the so-called priestly material within the Pentateuch—we
noted above that Kuenen was to admit explicitly that Colenso had inspired
him to reverse the sequence of the sources—, he did not follow Kuenen when
the latter identified P as the author of both the legislative and the narrative
98 Colenso’s rejection of the traditional church vision of a single author being responsible
for the Pentateuch is likewise apparent from the emphasis he places on the considerable
difference between the language of Deuteronomy and that of the remaining books of the
Pentateuch (Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 399).
99 Moab is referred to as ערבת מואבonly in Deut. 34:1, 8, in contrast to ארץ מואבcommonly
used elsewhere in the book (cf. Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 401).
100 Given the fact that ( אהל )מועדis only used in Deut 31:14, 15 and nowhere else in the
book, Colenso considers these verses to be a remnant of an older document. The
Deuteronomist never refers to the tabernacle—probably because he was not involved
with it on a daily basis—in contrast to the ark, which he mentions in Deut. 10:1, 2, 3, 5, 8;
31:9, 25, 26 (Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 401; 558–559).
101 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 391–392. With the exception of ( אשר בארץ מואבv. 49)
Deut. 32:48–52 cannot be ascribed to the Deuteronomist. On account of the terminology
(v. 48: ;בעצם היום הזהv. 49: ;ארץ כנען ;אחזהv. 50: והאסף אל עמיך, which is also found in
other places in Genesis–Numbers but not elsewhere in Deuteronomy, Colenso considers
this passage to be a component of an older narrative referring to the death of Moses and
in parallel with Num. 20:22–29, where Aaron’s death is described in similar terms. The
said verses were incorporated by the Deuteronomist into his work (397–399; 402; 568).
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 31
identified with one another. This implies that Jeremiah wrote Deuteronomy
during the last five years of his prophetic career.102
Because of his interest in the language and terminology of Deuteronomy,
Colenso can be considered one of the first scholars to attempt to chart so-called
Deuteronomic language.103 Accordingly, he lists terms and expression that are
used with frequency by the Deuteronomist but occur only exceptionally or not
at all in the other books of the Pentateuch.104 Vice versa, Colenso also provides
an overview of phrases that occur with frequency in the Tetrateuch but are
never used in Deuteronomy.105
Colenso’s otherwise cautious suggestion from the second volume of The
Pentateuch, namely that there is evidence of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements
in Genesis–Numbers, is also to be found in the third volume of his magnum
opus. Here too, however, the bishop pays only in passing attention to the issue.106
102 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 617–618: ‘(. . .) the man who could conceive, and carry
out so effectively, the idea of adding another book to the existing Tetrateuch, must have
been, indeed, a remarkable person. A writer of such originality, power, and eloquence,—
of such earnest piety, such ardent patriotism, such tender human affections,—must have
surely filled a very prominent position in the age in which he lived. As we have said, he
can hardly have disappeared so completely from the stage of Jewish history, in an age
when historical records were diligently kept, without leaving behind any other trace of
his existence and activity than this book of Deuteronomy. That Jeremiah lived in this very
age we know, and that he began to prophesy ‘in the thirteenth year of king Josia,’ Jer.i.2,
four or five years before this book was found in the Temple; and we have also seen, as our
investigations have advanced, not a few very striking indications of a close resemblance
between the language of Jeremiah and that of the Deuteronomist’. For similarities
between Jeremiah and D, see Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 407–414.
103 Also in the 19th century see, for example, C. Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium (HKAT, 1/3/1),
Göttingen 1898, xxxii–xli; 21923, 41–47; Knobel, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und
Josua, 586–589; P. Kleinert, Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker: Untersuchungen
zur alttestamentlichen Rechts- und Literaturgeschichte, Leipzig 1872, 214–235. In contrast
to Colenso, Kleinert insisted that there were no visible traces of a Deuteronom(ist)ic
redaction in Genesis–Numbers: ‘Die ersten vier Bücher dagegen des Pentateuchs, sowie
das Buch Samuels blieben von diesen Zuge der Zeit unberührt, und erst in der exilischen
und nachexilischen Literatur taucht die spätere, aber um so eindringlichere Nachwirkung
des Leviticus auf ’ (253).
104 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 397–399; 402–405.
105 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 399–401.
106 ‘There are several (. . .) expressions, which occur freely in all parts of Deuteronomy, but
are found also in certain well-defined portions of the other books [of the Pentateuch];
that is to say, they do not appear in all parts of these books, as they do in Deuteronomy,
but only in those particular sections, limited in extent, which betray also, when carefully
examined, other close affinities with the style of the Deuteronomist. We can scarcely
32 Chapter 1
We have to wait until the fifth volume for Colenso to focus closer attention
on his proposed Deuteronom(ist)ic ‘redaction’ of Genesis–Numbers. He does
this in the first instance in the context of his analysis of the book of Genesis.107
Colenso finds it hard to imagine that the Deuteronomist—who supplemented
the EJ Tetrateuch with his own work, namely the book Deuteronomy—, did
not revise or change the older EJ. For this very reason, he considers it plausible
that the writing activity of the Deuteronomist should be present in the first
four books of the Pentateuch, just as the hand of the Deuteronomist is evident
in large parts of the book of Joshua.108 Given that Colenso is a supporter of the
Supplementary Hypothesis, according to which the Elohistic basic narrative
was supplemented by J—which never existed as an independent document—,
he sees the Deuteronomist, in contrast to the later Documentary Hypothesis,
more as an ‘editor’ of the EJ Tetrateuch he had at his disposal than as its
‘compiler’.109 According to the New Documentary Hypothesis, RD was to intro
duce a Deuteronom(ist)ic vocabulary and a Deuteronom(ist)ic theology at the
moment he combined the JE with the already existing D source. According to
Colenso, by contrast, the Deuteronomist did not combine two independent
documents, rather he edited the EJ Tetrateuch, introduced numerous inter
polations, and expanded the whole with his own work, namely the book of
doubt that such passages are interpolations by his hand. And, indeed, it would be strange
if there were no such insertions. The writer, who could conceive the grand idea of adding
the whole book of Deuteronomy to the existing roll of the Tetrateuch, would be almost
certain, we may well believe, to have first revised the work of the older writers which had
come into his hands, and to have inserted passages, here and there, if he saw any reason
for so doing, in the original document. The wonder, we repeat, would be, if he did not do
this’ (Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 413–414).
107 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 52–57.
108 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 3–11.
109 Cf. also Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, 135: ‘The insertions of the Deuteronomist in
Genesis–Joshua, which are fragmentary and unconnected, were undoubtedly written to
supplement a continuous story already existing’.
Colenso is clearly reacting here to Eduard Boehmer and Hermann Hupfeld, although
they agreed with each other on the passages to be ascribed to E, E2 and J. Boehmer, for
example, saw the Later Editor as responsible for the combination of three originally
independent narratives: A (= E), B (= E2) and C (= J). Like Colenso, he situates the
‘compiler’ in the time of Josiah, but he does not identify him with the Deuteronomist,
‘for the character of Deuteronomy, which has not without reason been styled as in a
certain sense evangelical, is quite distinct from the spirit of the Compiler, which (. . .)
is on the whole altogether dry and unrefreshing’ (E. Boehmer, Das erste Buch der Thora:
Übersetzung seiner drei Quellen und Redactionszusätze mit kritischen, exegetischen und
historischen Erörterungen, Halle 1862, 123).
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 33
117 Gen. 14 does not exhibit affinity with the Elohist, the Jehovist or the Deuteronomist.
Because of its unique characteristics, Colenso ascribes Gen. 14 to a fourth author, the
‘Second Jehovist’, evidence of whom is not to be found in the Pentateuch outside Gen. 14.
While the chapter in question is not part of E, J or D, it exhibits nevertheless a number
of agreements with each of these three authors. Similarities between J2 and D are:
( עשה מלחמהv. 2): cf. Deut: 20:12, 20; ( רום הידv. 22): cf. Deut. 32:40. Colenso considers
the explanatory notes in vv. 2, 8 ()בלע היא צער, v. 3 ()עמק השדים הוא ים המלח, v. 7
( )עין משפט הוא קדשand v. 17 ( )עמק שוה הוא עמק המלךto be D.
118 Gen. 12:4a: to וילך אתו לוט. Gen. 12:9–20 is probably one of D’s later interpolations,
based on the E version in Gen. 20:1–17, which was doubtless intended ‘to be cancelled,
and replaced by this of D, as more in accordance with the age and circumstances of the
Patriarch’ (The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, 146).
119 והפרזי אז ישב בארץ.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 35
120 The explanation of older names (v. 2: ;בקרית ארבע הוא הברוןv. 19: )ממרא הוא הברון,
which were no longer in use at the time of the Deuteronomist, is the work of D (cf.
Gen. 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 17; 35:6, 19; 36:43; 48:7).
121 The explanatory interpolations in Gen. 35:6 ( )כנען הוא בית אלand in Gen. 35:19
( )אפרתה הוא בית לחםare from the Deuteronomistic editor (cf. Gen. 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 17; 23:2,
19; 36:43; 48:7). In CA 181–182, however, Colenso considers the entire pericope Gen. 35:1–7
to be ‘Jehovistic’.
122 The explantory note הוא עשו אבי אדוםprobably stems from the Deuteronomistic editor,
given that it agrees with other notes Colenso ascribes to him (cf. Gen. 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 17; 23:2,
19; 35:6, 19; 48:7).
123 אפרת הוא בית לחםin Gen. 48:7 is nothing more than an explantory note from the
Deuteronomistic editor, who lived after J at a time in which such explanation was
probably necessary (cf. Gen. 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 17; 23:2, 19; 35:6, 19; 36:43).
124 ואברהם עודנו עמד לפני יהוה.
125 Gen. 26:1: ;מלדב הרעב הראשון אשר היה בימי אברהםGen. 26:25a: ויבן שם מזבח ויקרא
בשם יהוה.
126 נחשתי ויברכני יהוה בגללך.
127 Gen. 34:2b: ;ויענהGen. 34:3b: ;וידבר על לב הנערGen. 34:7b: ;וכן לא יעשהGen. 34:13b:
וידברו אשר טמא את דינה אחתם.
128 ושכבתי עם אבתי ונשאתני ממצרים וקברתני בקברתם.
36 Chapter 1
Exodus Volumes 2 & 3 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7
‘some interpolations’ 26
146 Exod. 22:21b [= 20b]: ;כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצריםExod. 22:25b [= 24b]: לא תשימון עליו
נשך.
147 למועד חדש האביב כי בו יצאת ממצרים.
148 אל הארץ אשר נשבעתי לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב לאמר לזרעך אתננה.
149 Exod. 34:5b: ;ויקרא בשם יהוהExod. 34:28a: tot ;ומים לא שתהExod. 34:28b*: עשרת
הדברים.
150 וישבו.
151 From ושם אחימן ששי ותלמי.
152 Num. 14:11b: the entire verse, except ;ויאמר יהוה אל משהNum. 14:12b: ואעשה אתך לגוי
;גדול ועצים ממנוNum. 14:20*: סלחתי.
153 Num. 21:4b: ;ותקצר נפש העם בדרךNum. 21:18a: the entire verse segment with the
exception of וממדבר מתנה.
38 Chapter 1
(cont.)
21–35
22:2, 8–19, 22–35, 37–38
23:1–30
24:1, 10–13, 18–24
25:4
32:21b,154 33, 39–42
the Deuteronomist—and often in places, where it must have been used by the
prophet himself ’.159 Colenso thus designates the expression as Deuteronomistic
in origin. He likewise points to similarities between Num. 21:28–29 and
Jer. 47:45–46, concluding that the Deuteronomist introduced the story of Sihon
and Og into the EJ narrative.160
In addition, Colenso’s argumentation is often characterised by circular rea
soning, a procedure that continues to be deployed even today. Examples in
The Pentateuch are numerous to say the least, so I will limit myself here to a
number of more striking cases. According to Colenso, the comparison of the
children of Israel with the כוכבי השמיםin Gen. 15:5 is typically Deuteronom(ist)
ic, not only because a similar expression is also found in Deut. 1:10; 7:13; 10:22;
13:17; 28:62–63; 30:5, but also because it is attested in Gen. 22:17; 26:4 and in
Exod. 32:13, which Colenso likewise designates as D passages. In the process
of substantiating his claim that Gen. 22:17; 26:4 and Exod. 32:13 are D texts,
however, he appeals to Gen. 15:5 as a typically Deuteronom(ist)ic verse. On
occasion Colenso goes a step further. He demonstrates the Deuteronom(ist)ic
origin of the messenger of yhwh ( )מלאך יהוהin Gen. 24:7 by basing himself on
the so-called D passages Gen. 48:16; Exod. 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2, without making
a single reference to a passage in Deuteronomy—in which the מלאך יהוהdoes
not occur!—or in the complex Joshua–Kings. And in order to demonstrate
the Deuteronom(ist)ic origin of Exod. 23:20, for example, he simply points to
Gen. 24:7!
Colenso also considers the characterisation of the promised land as ארץ זבת
חלב ודבשas typical for D. The fact that the expression occurs several times in
Deuteronomy clearly does not contradict his conclusion, but Colenso fails to
observe the variant manner with which this formula is employed throughout
the literature of the Old Testament.161 Once again, many have followed him in
this regard.
A further example of circular reasoning can be found in the way in which
Colenso characterises the expression גוי גדול ועצוםin Gen. 18:18 as D.162 With
the exception of Deut. 4:38; 7:1; 9:1, 14; 11:23; 26:5; Josh. 23:9(D); Num. 14:12, the
formula is found nowhere else in the Old Testament. As a result, according
159 The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, CA, 57. According to Colenso, the formula in Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1;
Jon. 1:1; Mic. 1:1; Zeph. 1:1 was probably interpolated by the editor of ‘compiler’ of these
‘prophecies’.
160 The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 318; Vol. 7, Appendix, 168.
161 Cf. H. Ausloos, ‘ “A Land Flowing with Milk and Honey”. Indicative of a Deuteronomistic
Redaction?’, ETL 75 (1999), 297–314.
162 The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, CA, 73.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 41
Gen. 11:28–30, for example, in order to explain why Terach took his grandson
Lot (v. 31) with him and not Haran.163 Furthermore, Colenso’s Deuteronomist
sometimes appears to be intent on accuracy in his work. His use of the literary
technique of Wiederaufnahme in Gen. 13:1–5—following his interpolation of
Gen. 12:9–20 with the intention of recalling the situation in Gen. 12:8—serves
to illustrate this modus operandi.164 In Exod. 10:1–2, D harmonises his EJ text
with the remainder of the so-called Plagues Narrative in Exod. 7–11, since
each plague in the older narrative was introduced by a divine command up to
Exod. 10.165
According to Colenso, D’s activity does not appear to have been limited to
isolated interpolations. On the contrary, D explicitly refers to other D passages
on occasion. With the interpolation of מלבד הרעב הראשון אשר היה בימי אברהם
in Gen. 26:1, for example, he alludes to a preceding interpolation in Gen. 12:10
for which he was also responsible.
(b) On the other hand, Colenso’s Deuteronomist disturbed a number of
harmoniously composed and logically structured texts as a result of numer
ous disjointed interpolations, which he sometimes appears to have located
in the wrong place. A few examples should suffice by way of illustration.
Colenso states in relation to Exod. 3:4a: the tetragram‘suggests interpola
tion’, bearing in mind that v. 4b has אלהים. He likewise considers Exod. 4:15b
( )ועם פיהו והוריתי אתכם את אשר תעשוןto be an ‘expansion by D’, which ‘inter
rupts the context’.166 Furthermore, he considers Num. 25:4 (D)—in which
yhwh commands that all the leaders of the people should be impaled—to be
‘superfluous’ and in contradiction to v. 5, in which Moses commands that only
the guilty Israelites should be put to death.167
(c) At the level of content, Colenso is convinced that the Deuteronomist
exhibits particular sympathy for widows, orphans and foreigners. This, he
maintains, is supported by interpolations such as Exod. 21:21–22.168 It would
appear from D’s additions to Exod. 33:1–6, 12–23, moreover, that he wanted
to reacted to what he considered an excessively anthropomorphic presenta
tion of the divine in EJ, according to which ‘yhwh descended in the cloud
and stood there with Moses’ (Exod. 34:5).169 Colenso discusses Exod. 33:1b,
4.6 Conclusion
Our discussion of Colenso’s opus magnum should have made it clear that in
spite of its age—dating back more than one hundred and fifty years—his work
has not lost its topicality on several points, although some might argue that
‘his work died with him’.174 It can be argued, therefore, that Colenso’s contri
bution continues to be of particular interest, especially in light of later devel
opments in relation to the Deuteronom(ist)ic question. In the first instance,
his emphasis on the possibility that the Deuteronomist—understood here as
the author of Deuteronomy—based himself on existing traditions that had
been taken up into the Tetrateuch. Secondly, we must account for Colenso’s
implicit allusion to the possibility that the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic pas
sages in Genesis–Numbers might be seen as precursors of the first steps in the
development of what has come to be described as typical and stereotypical
175 It should be observed that Colenso’s contemporary, T. Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik
des Alten Testaments. 1: Die s.g. Grundschrift des Pentateuchs, Kiel 1869, 1–2 considered the
Deuteronomist to be completely absent from Genesis–Numbers.
176 Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis. Eduard Riehm, one of Hupfeld’s students, was to focus
considerable attention on Deuteronomy as an independent source. As a result, the theory
that the Pentateuch was composed on the basis of four independent documents acquired
its full force (cf. E. Riehm, Die Gesetzgebung Mosis im Lande Moab, Gotha 1854).
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 45
Graf demonstrated that neither Deuteronomy nor the prophets nor the his
torical books (Joshua to Kings) were familiar with the priestly laws.177 These
laws and their narrative framework were thus to be dated in the exilic or post-
exilic period. Graf associated the Deuteronomic law with the details found
in 2 Kgs 22–23. Based on this information, he endeavoured to indentify the
laws and narratives of the Hexateuch that the author of the Deuteronomic
law used and those he appeared to be unfamiliar with. Graf concluded from
his study that only the provisions in Exod. 20–23; 13:1–16; 34:10–27 were pre-
Deuteronomic. The Jehovistic work that the Deuteronomist had at his dis
posal was also more of ‘ein historisches Werk und hat erst durch die spätere
Erweiterung den Charakter eines Gesetzbuches erhalten’. Graf identified this
interpolation in the book of Leviticus, as well as Exod. 12:1–28, 43–51; 25–31;
35–40; Num. 1:1–10:28; 15–17; 18*; 19*; 28–31*; 35:16–36:13*.178 As such, Graf
reacted against the identification of the Jehovist and the Deuteronomist, in
contrast to Stähelin.179
Kosters took matters a step further.180 Graf was primarily interested in
determining which laws from Exodus–Numbers were presupposed by the
Deuteronomist and which were not, but Kosters was also interested in the nar
rative passages. He concluded that the pericopes with which the Deuteronomist
appeared to be unfamiliar stemmed from the work of the Elohist (= P).181 The
reports upon which the Deuteronomist appeared to be dependent, belonged
to the work of the ‘Jehovist’ (= JE). He thus maintained that it was impossible
for Deuteronom(ist)ic elements to be present in Genesis–Numbers. On the
contrary, the Deuteronomist leaned for support on the material associated
with the ‘Jehovist’.182
succeeded in demonstrating that the Deuteronomist’s view of history does not presuppose
the so-called “Grundschrift”, but is based in its entirety on the historical information of
the Jhvhist, then I would consider my research to have been amply rewarded’ (137). See
also A. Kayser, Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels, Strasbourg 1874, 141.
183 A. Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch,
London 1886. Published in Dutch as Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en
de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Dl. 1: De thora en de historische boeken
des Ouden Verbonds, Amsterdam 21884. For the life and work of Kuenen, reference can
be made to A. van der Kooij, ‘Abraham Kuenen: 1891—10 december—1991’, in: Abraham
Kuenen (1828–1891). Uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van een tentoonstelling gehouden in de
Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden van 10 december 1991 tot 14 januari 1992 (Kleine publikaties
van de Leidse Universiteitsbibliotheek, 11), Leiden 1991, 25–31; Idem, ‘Abraham Kuenen
(1828–1891): De Pentateuch en de godsdienst van Israël’, NTT 45 (1991), 279–292. See also:
P.B. Dirksen, A. van der Kooij (eds), Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891): His Major Contributions
to the Study of the Old Testament—A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the
Occasion of the Centenary of Abraham Kuenen’s Death (10 December 1991) (OTS, 29), Leiden
1993. For the correspondence between Kuenen and Colenso see C. Houtman, ‘Colenso as
Seen by Kuenen, and as Known from Colenso’s Letters to Kuenen’, in Draper, The Eye of the
Storm, 76–103.
184 On the characterisation of these passages as ‘prophetic’ Kuenen writes: ‘The designation
of “prophetic”, which is here applied to all that remains of the Hexateuch when the
priestly and the deuteronomic elements are removed, must be regarded as altogether
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 47
unity. Indeed, JE only came into existence when the documents J and E were
combined into a single whole by the ‘Jehovistic’ redactor (RJE) after a long pro
cess of transmission. According to Kuenen, the Deuteronomic laws are younger
than the prescripts taken up in JE (the Decalogue and the so-called Book of the
Covenant). The same is true in his opinion for the narrative material with a
Deuteronomic flavour.185 He was also convinced that the Deuteronomist was
not dependent on the priestly laws and narratives.186
JE probably came into existence towards the end of the 7th century or the
beginning of the 6th century bce. The Deuteronomist in the strict sense of the
term—i.e. the author of Deut. 5–26—probably did not have JE in its entirety
at his disposal. On the other hand, the authors who worked in his spirit, and
were responsible among other things for Deut. 1–4 and the book of Joshua, did
make use of JE as a whole. This led Kuenen to presuppose that RJE put together
JE after 621 bce and before the beginning of the Babylonian exile. This is in line
with the fact that RJE, ‘though not directly dependent on the Deuteronomist
(. . .), has nevertheless a close affinity to him, and incorporates at any rate some
few fragments that issued from deuteronomic circles’.187
If JE had been preserved in its original form there would not have been a
problem. In the Pentateuch as we now have it, however, JE has been combined
with still further documents. The combination of JE and D by RD is of particu
lar interest for the present study. Indeed, the question arises as to whether and
to what extent the amalgamation of JE and D by RD had radical consequences
for JE. Based on the conclusion that RD radically reworked Joshua, Kuenen
asks himself ‘whether the deuteronomic recension was confined to that book
alone, or whether it embraced Genesis–Numbers also. The latter hypothesis
cannot be rejected or even pronounced improbable a priori’.188 Kuenen refers
in this regard to Colenso, who ‘believes he has recognised the hand of the
provisional. It rests upon the indisputable relationship between some of the passages
in question and the writings of the prophets of the eighth and seventh centuries before
Christ, but in no way prejudges the question whether these passages were actually written
by prophets’ (An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 138).
185 ‘The deuteronomic history [“de deuteronomisch-gekleurde historische stukken” in
the original Dutch edition (p. 165)] consists in part of recensions and amplifications of
“prophetic” narratives, necessarily involving the priority of the latter; in part of more
indemendent compositions, which, however, still run parallel, in almost every case, with
JE, and are dependent on it’ (Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 168–169).
186 Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 166.
187 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 249.
188 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 137.
48 Chapter 1
nothing more, by relocating the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:33) and
the so-called ‘words of the covenant’ (Exod. 34:10–28) from their original place
in JE to Mount Sinai.195
The reader will be familiar enough with the fact that the New Documentary
Hypothesis reached its synthesis and high point thanks to the work of Julius
Wellhausen.196 Wellhausen’s synthesis can be summarised as follows: P is
younger than D; JE, which is the result of a process of development, comes close
to D in theology and vocabulary; JE precedes D and is exploited thereby, while
at the same time D influenced the work of JE. When we return to the specific
theme of the present study, i.e. the presence of so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic
verses in the first four books of the Old Testament, Wellhausen’s position, like
that of Kuenen, tends to be ambiguous. He is convinced on the one hand that
some passages can be considered as RD without further ado.197 At the same
time, however, he focuses attention on the kinship between JE and D, which
sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish the one from the other with clarity.198
Heinrich Holzinger can be named in one and the same breath with Kuenen
and Wellhausen199 as an important representative of the Documentary
(?) hat deuteronomische Zusätze nachgetragen’ (89); ‘Dessen [i.e. der “Jehovist”—H.A.]
Geistesverwandtschaft mit dem Deuteronomium tritt wiederum auffallend hervor—
wenn nicht ausser ihm noch ein Deuteronomist anzunehmen ist” (94 n. 2); ‘Zum Schlusse
spielt JE wieder stärker ein, namentlich in Deut. 34. Hier ist Q [i.e. P—H.A.] nur in v. 1a
und 8.9(7a?) zu erkennen; übrigens sprechen sämtliche Ausdrücke und Vorstellungen,
aus denen man überhaupt etwas schliessen kann, gegen Q und für JE, bez. für den
deuteronom. Bearbeiter von JE’ (115).
199 The Graf—Kuenen—Wellhausen hypothesis was not welcomed with general consent
in the exegetical world. Some were unable to accept P as a late document, given that
it situates his material in the time of Moses. It was suggested, for example, that P was
originally the private document used by priestly circles, older than and unknown to
the so-called prophetic authors, and introduced as such into JED by a redactor. August
Dillmann, among others, supported the idea that P was older than JED. While this in
itself is of little importance for our present study, Dillmann’s vision of the origins of the
Hexateuch is nevertheless worthy of mention. He distinguishes a priestly Grundschrift (A),
an Elohist (B) and a Jahwist (C). He ascribes Deuteronomy to the Deuteronomist (D) or to
RD, which inserted D into the Hexateuch. A, B and C were originally three independent
and unrelated documents that were reworked into a single whole by a lone redactor (R)
between 700 bce and the emergence of D. Dillmann thus sets out to determine whether
R was already familiar with the book of Deuteronomy and whether RD, which combined
D with the other documents of the Hexateuch, can be identified with the redactor who
brought together A B and C: ‘Die letztere Vermutung hat eineigen Schein von Recht für
sich, weil in der That es eine Anzahl von Stellen in Gen. Ex. Num. gibt, welche durch ihre
deuteronomische Farbe auffallen, allerdings nicht so viele, wie Wl. u.a., oder gar Colenso
angenommen haben (. . .), namentlich nicht Ex. 13 (. . .) u. Ex. 32,7–14, aber zB. in Gen.
26,5; 45,19f; Ex. 15,26; Num 14,11–23. Aber dieser Schein muss doch schwinden, wenn man
bedenkt, welche ganz andern Spuren seiner Thätigkeit RD denjenigen Stücken des Hexat.
aufgedrückt hat, welche unbezweifelt durch seine Hand gegangen sind, nämlich Dt. 31;
33; 32,44–52; 27,1–8 u. B. Josua’ (A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und
Josua [KEHAT], Leipzig 21886, 681). According to Dillman, therefore, the redactor who
combined A, B and C is not to be identified with RD, who combined Deuteronomy with
the rest of the Hexateuch. He leaves open the possibility nevertheless that with regard
to certain passages—e.g. Num. 21—R and RD ought to be considered one and the same
(681). See also Idem, Die Genesis (KEHAT), Leipzig 1882; Dillmann, Ryssel, Die Bücher
Exodus und Leviticus.
Wellhausen explains the presence of D’s range of ideas in P with a quotation from
Jülicher: ‘(. . .) die frühe Hochstellung des deuteronomistischen Gesetzes hat eine Menge
von Wendungen, Manieren, Gedanken in den Sprachgebrauch eingeführt, so dass wir
dieselben bis in die späteste Erzeugnissen der Hebraïschen Literatur hinein immer
wieder finden und uns gar nicht Wundern dürfen ihnen auch in dem so viel verbesserten,
erweiterten, überarbeiteten Priestercodex zu begegnen’ (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 374).
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 51
200 Holzinger, Einleitung; Idem, Genesis (KHCAT, 1), Leipzig 1898; Idem, Exodus (KHCAT, 2),
Leipzig 1900; Idem, Numeri (KHCAT, 4), Tübingen 1903.
201 Holzinger, Einleitung, 490. Holzinger states with respect to RJE: ‘Jedenfalls (. . .) ist die
Verbindung von J und E in die dt’istische Zeit zu versetzen’ (491).
202 Holzinger, Einleitung, 484. See also, for example, Holzinger, Exodus, xiii, where he
characterises RJE as ‘die schliesslich an die dtn’istische Redaktion sich annähernde Arbeit
verschiedener Hände’.
203 Holzinger, Einleitung, 491.
204 Holzinger, Exodus, xi. Holzinger associates passages such as Gen. 18:1–19; 22:15–18;
Exod. 19:4–6; 32:7–14; Num. 14:12–20, which later research often ascribes to RD, with the
aforesaid JES.
52 Chapter 1
205 Holzinger, Einleitung, 490. It should be noted nevertheless that Holzinger argues ‘die
beiden Redaktionsstadien J+E und JE+D auseinander zu halten’ (491). As RD passages
(Holzinger sometimes hesitates between RD, JES and RJE) in Genesis–Numbers, Holzinger
refers among others to Gen. 15:18*; 18:17–19; 19:18–19; 26:3a–5; Exod. 3:8, 12b; 10:2; 15:26;
23:27–28; 24:3–8*; Num. 14:44*; 21:33–35; 32:17.
206 Holzinger, Einleitung, 284–291. Here he distinguishes between D1 (Deut. 12–26), D2
(Deut. 5–11), D3 (Deut. 1–4) and DS (expressions that occur ‘in den Schlusskapitels und
dt’istischen Stücken von Jos’—284). At the same time, he draws attention in his survey to
expressions that D shares with J, E or P.
207 S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC), Edinburgh 1895;
31902, lxxvii: ‘In its predominant features, the style of Dt. is strongly original, entirely
unlike that of P, and very dissimilar to the normal style of JE’; ‘Those who have by this
course familiarized themselves with the style of the Deuteronomic discourses, will
be conscious how greatly it differs from that of any other part of the Pent.,—even the
parenetic sections of JE’ (lxxxv).
208 Driver, Deuteronomy, lxxvii–lxxviii: ‘There are (. . .) certain sections of JE (in particular,
Gn. 26; Ex. 13,2–16; 15,26; 19,3–6, parts of 20,2–17; 23,20–33; 34,10–26), in which the author
(or compiler) adopts a parenetic tone, and where his style displays what may be termed
an approximation to the style of Dt.; and these sections appear to have been the source
from which the author of Dt. adopted some of the expressions currently used by him’;
‘(. . .) the parenetic sections of JE, which show a tendency to approach it [i.e. the style of
the Deuteronomic discourses—H.A.], not exhibiting the complete Deuteronomic rythm
or expression’ (lxxxv).
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 53
and D.209 Driver considered these JE pericopes as the ‘source’ from which the
author of Deuteronomy drew as he elaborated his own style and vocabulary.210
As with Colenso and Holzinger, Driver also drew up a list of words and
phrases—seventy in number—that he considered characteristic of D.211 He
considered sixteen of the seventy to have been based on JE. He refers to a num
ber of the elements from the Tetrateuch, which he considered to be a source
used by the Deuteronomist, as ‘pre-Deuteronomic’. On the other hand, Driver
also argues that changes were made to Genesis–Numbers under the influence
of D. Indeed, the influence of D was so great that its language and ideas were
taken over later by other authors. In Exod. 20:2–17, for example, we encounter
expressions that sound so clearly Deuteronom(ist)ic that we are obliged, in his
opinion, to accept the fact that an original shorter Decalogue appears to have
existed that was supplemented by an author dependent on D.212
6 Conclusion
209 S.R. Driver, The Book of Exodus in the Revised Version with Introduction and Notes (The
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), Cambridge 1911, xvii–xviii: ‘Many of
these [i.e. RJE passages—H.A.] approximate in style and tone to Deuteronomy; these
are, no doubt, pre-Deuteronomic; but those with a strong Deuteronomic colouring
(as xx,2b.4b.5a.10b.12) will have been written under the influence of Dt., and be
post-Deuteronomic’.
210 Driver, Deuteronomy, lxxxvi: ‘The style of Dt. could not have been formed without
precedents; and it is probable that these parts of JE (and perhaps other writings not now
extant, the style of which was similar) formed the basis upon which the Deuteronomist
developed his own literary style, and supplied elements which, in moulding it, he
assimilated’.
211 Driver’s matter-of-fact observation with regard to the mechanistic use of such lists is
worthy of note: ‘Of course a tabulated list of idioms cannot adequately characterize the
style of an author’ (Driver, Deuteronomy, lxxxv).
212 The work of Dutch scholar Gerrit Wildeboer is in close keeping with that of Driver. In
his De letterkunde des Ouden Verbonds naar de tijdsorde van haar ontstaan, Groningen
1893; 31903 he argues that the Deuteronomist borrowed from pre-Deuteronomic laws
in the book of Exodus. D, moreover, appears to have had a typical vocabulary and a
characteristic sentence structure at his disposal. In Wildeboer’s view, the said Deute
ronomist only intervened sporadically in the first four books of the Pentateuch, and in
an extremely unobtrusive manner. This is the case, for example, in Exod. 15:26 and in a
number of passages in the Sinai pericope in Exod. 19–24; 32–34.
54 Chapter 1
213 Cf. recently L. Schmidt, ‘Im Dickicht der Pentateuchforschung: Ein Plädoyer für die
umstrittene Neuere Urkundenhypothese’, VT 60 (2010), 400–420, esp. 418: ‘Da die
Ergänzungen der jehowistischen Redaktion eine Nähe zur Deuteronomistik aufweisen
(. . .), kann sie erst in der Exilszeit angesetzt werden’.
214 Cf. R. Smend, Die Mitte des Alten Testaments: Exegetische Aufsätze, Tübingen 2002.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 55
215 This tendency is already evident at the end of the 19th century in the work of A. Jülicher,
‘Die Quellen von Exodus vii,8–xxiv,11’, JPT 8 (1882), 79–127; 273–315. Jülicher had studied
Exod. 1,1–7,7 in his doctoral dissertation Die Quellen von Exodus i–vii,7, Halle 1880, and
provided extensive argumentation in support of RD. He considered the following features
typical of RD: the search for the meaning of everything that happens, an elaborately
theological way of looking at things, a strong emphasis on the unicity of God, the
Numeruswechsel, a parenetic tone, etc. He considers the following as RD (or as written by
a hand akin to D), sometimes with reservations: Exod. 8:18b; 9:14, 16, 29; 10:1b–2; 12:21–27,
42; 13:3–10, 11–17a; 15:25b–26; 16:4–5, 20, 27, 28–30, 32–34; 17:14, 16b; 19:3b–8, 9b; 20:1–17*,
22, 23; 22:19–26; 23:8–12; 23:20–33*. Exegetes at the end of the 19th century who favoured
an extensive Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction include: B.W. Bacon, ‘JE in the Middle Books of
the Pentateuch. Analysis of Exodus vii.–xii’, JBL 9 (1890), 161–200; Idem, ‘JE in the Middle
Books of the Pentateuch. Analysis of Exodus i.–vii’, JBL 10 (1891), 107–130; Idem, ‘JE in the
Middle Books of the Pentateuch. From Egypt to Sinai. Analysis of Exodus xii.37–xvii.16’,
JBL 11 (1892), 177–200; Idem, ‘JE in the Middle Books of the Pentateuch. Sinai—Horeb.
Analysis of Exodus xviii.–xxxiv.’, JBL 12 (1893), 23–46; B. Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch Ex.
xx,22–xxiii,33: Seine Ursprüngliche Gestalt, sein Verhältnis zu den es umgebenden Quellen
schriften und seine Stellung in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung, Halle 1892; C.A. Briggs,
The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, New York 21897, 68; C.H. Cornill, Einleitung in das
Alte Testament (GTW, 2/1), Freiburg im Breisgau 1891; Tübingen 71913, 81–82; E.I. Fripp,
‘Note on Genesis xviii.xix’, ZAW 12 (1892), 23–29.
Chapter 2
1 Cf., for example, W. Baumgartner, ‘Wellhausen und der heutige Stand der alttestamentlichen
Wissenschaft’, TR 2 (1930), 287–307; Idem, ‘Alttestamentliche Einleitung und Literaturge
schichte’, TR 8 (1936), 179–222; A. Bea, ‘Der heutige Stand der Pentateuchfrage’, Bib 16 (1935),
175–200; O. Eissfeldt, ‘Die literarkritische Arbeit am Alten Testament in den letzten 12 Jahren’,
TR 10 (1938), 255–291; Idem, ‘Die neueste Phase in der Entwicklung der Pentateuchkritik’,
TR 18 (1950), 91–112; 179–215; 267–287; H. Gressmann, ‘Die Aufgaben der alttestamentlichen
Forschung’, ZAW 42 (1924), 1–33; P. Humbert, ‘Die neuere Genesis-Forschung’, TR 6 (1934),
147–160; 207–228; R. Kittel, ‘Die Zukunft der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft’, ZAW 39
(1921), 84–99; A. Noordtzij, Das Rätsel des Alten Testamentes, Braunschweig 1927; C.R. North,
‘Pentateuchal Criticism’, in: H.H. Rowley (ed.), The Old Testament and Modern Study:
A Generation of Discovery and Research, Oxford 1951, 48–83. According to E. Nicholson,
The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, Oxford 1998, the
Wellhausian Documentary Hypothesis remains the most adequate model for explaining
the origins of the Pentateuch. A quite different opinion can be found in R.N. Whybray,
The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOT SS, 53), Sheffield 1987.
2 See, for example, the popularising work of F. Comte, De heilige boeken (Prisma), Utrecht
1995, 145–148 or K. Vansteenhuyse, Van Abraham tot Jezebel. Wat archeologie ons leert over
de verhalen van de Bijbel, Leuven, 2010, 159 n. 5, in which the Wellhausian Documentary
Hypothesis is presented without further nuance as the generally held explanatory model for
the origins of the Pentateuch.
58 Chapter 2
3 Cf. P. Volz, W. Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzähler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (BZAW,
63), Giessen 1933; W. Rudolph, Der ‘Elohist’ von Exodus bis Jozua (BZAW, 68), Berlin 1938. Cf.
also H. Seebass, ‘Que reste-t-il du Yahwiste et de l’Élohiste?’, in: A. De Pury, T. Römer (eds),
Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à
la lumière des recherches récentes. 3ème édition augmentée (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genève
2002, 199–230.
4 Cf. T. Römer, ‘La formation du Pentateuque: histoire de la recherche’, in: T. Römer et al.
(eds), Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 49), Genève 2004, 67–84,
esp. 72–76; T. Römer, ‘Le Pentateuque en question: Position du problème et brève histoire de
la recherche’, in: Idem (eds), Le Pentateuque en question, 29–43; F. García López, Comment lire
le Pentateuque (Le monde de la Bible, 53), Genève 2005, 42–45.
5 According to B. Baentsch, Exodus—Leviticus—Numeri (HKAT, 1/2), Göttingen 1903, lxv,
not all of the verses in Genesis–Numbers that can be linked with the language or theology
of Deuteronomy should be ascribed to one and the same redactor: ‘Jedenfalls sind auch
die deuteronomistischen Spuren nicht alle auf eine Hand zurückzuführen, sondern einer
fortgesetzten Bearbeitung der alten Berichte zuzuschreiben’. He thus aligns himself with
Holzinger, who likewise accounted for an ongoing redactional process.
6 At the beginning of the 20th century, scholars occasionally reacted against the acceptance of
a radical and far-reaching RD. J.E. Carpenter, G. Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch: An
Introduction with Select Lists of Words and Phrases, London 1902, 336, for example, resolutely
reject Colenso: ‘There seems (. . .) no sufficient reason for regarding it as so far-reaching. The
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 59
approximation of the later J (including Rje) to the Deuteronomic position, both in thought
and language, sufficiently accounts for the stylistic resemblances; and the tendency of recent
criticism has been to confine the revision of Rd within much narrower limits. It is suggested
in the analysis that his activity prior to the Sinai-Horeb scenes may be traced in Gen. 15,18–21;
26,5; Ex. 12,25; 13,3.14–16; 15,26, but it does not appear that he actually recast any extensive
passages, or made any serious changes in the order of the narrative’.
7 See, for example: G.C. Aalders, Genesis (Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift), Kampen 1949;
W. Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching),
Atlanta, GA 1982; Idem, ‘Genesis’, in: B.W. Anderson (ed.), The Books of the Bible, Part 1: The Old
Testament/The Hebrew Bible, New York 1989, 21–44; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of
Genesis, Jerusalem 1961–1964; R. Davidson, Genesis 1–11 (The Cambridge Bible Commentary),
Cambridge 1973; Idem, Genesis 12–50 (The Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge 1979;
H. Frey, Das Buch der Anfänge. Kapitel 1–11 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten
Testaments, 1), Stuttgart 41950; Idem, Das Buch des Glaubens. Kapitel 12–25 des ersten Buches
Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 2), Stuttgart 31950; Idem, Das Buch des Kampfes.
Kapitel 25–35 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 3), Stuttgart
41964; Idem, Das Buch der Führung. Kapitel 26–50 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft
des Alten Testaments, 4), Stuttgart 41964; W.H. Gispen, Genesis vertaald en verklaard (COT),
Kampen 1974–1983; A.S. Herbert, Genesis 12–50: Introduction and Commentary (Torch Bible
Commentaries), London 1962; G. Hoberg, Die Genesis nach dem Literalsinn erklärt, Freiburg
im Breisgau 21908; H. Jagersma, Abraham (Verklaring van een bijbelgedeelte), Kampen
1977; Idem, Numeri (POT), Nijkerk 1983–1990; Idem, Genesis 1:1–25:11 (Verklaring van de
Hebreeuwse Bijbel. Commentaar voor bijbelstudie, onderwijs en prediking), Nijkerk 1995;
H. Junker, Das Buch Genesis (Echter Bibel), Würzburg 1949; E. Kalt, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus
(Herders Bibelkommentar. Die heilige Schrift für das Leben erklärt, 1), Freiburg 1948;
D. Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale Old Testament Commenta
ries), London 21971; M. Maher, Genesis (OTM, 2), Wilmington, DE 1982; K. Rabast, Die Genesis,
Berlin 1951; A. Richardson, Genesis 1–11 (Torch Bible Commentaries), London 1953; L. Ruppert,
Das Buch Genesis (Geistliche Schriftlesung, 6), Düsseldorf 1984; H.E. Ryle, The Book of Genesis
(The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), Cambridge 1914; J.H. Sailhamer, Genesis (The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI 1990, 1–284; Idem, The Pentateuch as
Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI 1992; N.M. Sarna, Genesis—
( תורהThe Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary), Philadelphia 1989; J.C. Sikkel,
60 Chapter 2
Exodus,8 and Numbers9 appear—in more or less equal measure—to pay lit-
tle if any attention to the question of the presence of Deuteronom(ist)ic ele-
ments in the Tetrateuch. Likewise, many introductions to the Old Testament
and monographs focusing on pericopes that have frequently been associated
with a Deuteronomistic redaction, often pay no particular attention to the
Het boek der geboorten: Verklaring van het boek Genesis, Amsterdam 1906; C.A. Simpson,
W.R. Bowie, The Book of Genesis (The Interpreter’s Bible, 1), New York 1952; A. van Selms,
Genesis, Nijkerk 1967; C. Van Ongeval, Liber Genesis, Gent 1902; G. von Rad, Das erste Buch
Mose: Genesis übersetzt und erklärt (ATD, 2/4), Göttingen 91972; C. Westermann, Genesis
1–11 (EdF, 7), Darmstadt 1972; Idem, Genesis 12–50 (EdF, 48), Darmstadt 1975; Idem, Genesis
(Tekst en toelichting), Kampen 1986; Idem, Am Anfang. 1. Mose (Genesis) (Kleine Biblische
Bibliothek), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986; W. Zimmerli, 1. Mose 1–11: die Urgeschichte (Zürcher
Bibelkommentare Altes Testament, 1/1), Zürich 31967; Idem, 1. Mose 12–25: Abraham (Zürcher
Bibelkommentare Altes Testament, 1/2), Zürich 1976.
8 See, for example: R.B. Allen, Exodus (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI
1990, 655–1008; F.M.T. Böhl, Exodus (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische bijbelverklaring), Groningen
1928; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Jerusalem 1967; R. de Pury, Der Exodus
(Biblische Studien, 30), Neukirchen 1961; H.L. Ellison, Exodus (The Daily Study Bible Series),
Philadelphia 1982; J. Finegan, Let My People Go: A Journey Through Exodus, New York 1963;
H. Frey, Das Buch der Heimsuchung und des Auszugs: Kapitel 1–18 des zweiten Buches Mose
(Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 5), Stuttgart 1957; Idem, Das Buch der Verbindung
Gottes mit seiner Gemeinde: Kapitel 19–24 des zweiten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten
Testaments, 6), Stuttgart 31963; Idem, Das Buch der Gegenwart Gottes unter seiner Gemeinde:
Kapitel 25–40 des zweiten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 6), Stuttgart
31963; W.H. Gispen, Het boek Exodus opnieuw uit den grondtekst vertaald en verklaard, Deel
1: Hoofdstuk 1:1–15:21 (Korte verklaring der heilige Schrift), Kampen 1932; W.C. Kaiser, Exodus
(The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI 1990, 285–497; Kalt, Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus; N.M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus. The Heritage of Biblical Israel, New York 1986;
Idem, ‘Exodus’, in: Anderson (ed.), The Books of the Bible, 47–62; N.M. Sarna, Exodus—שמות
(The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary), Philadelphia 1991.
9 See, for example: A.H. Edelkoort, Numeri (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische bijbelverklaring),
Groningen 1930; R.L. Honeycutt, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Layman’s Bible Book
Commentary, 3), Nashville, TN 1979; B. Maarsingh, Numeri. Een praktische bijbelverklaring
(Tekst en toelichting), Kampen 1984; J. Milgrom, Numbers—( במדברThe Jewish Publication
Society Torah Commentary), Philadelphia 1990; A. Noordtzij, Het boek Numeri opnieuw uit
den grondtekst vertaald en verklaard (Korte verklaring der heilige Schrift), Kampen 1941;
K.D. Sakenfeld, ‘Numbers’, in: Anderson (ed.), The Books of the Bible, 71–87; K.D. Sakenfeld,
Journeying with God. A Commentary on the Book of Numbers (International Theological
Commentary), Grand Rapids 1995.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 61
presence of verses related to Deuteronomy within the first four books of the
Old Testament10 or believe that a vague reference to the issue is sufficient.11
One might have expected the theory developed by Martin Noth in 1943 in
relation to the complex Deuteronomy–Kings to have introduced a new era in
research into the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in Genesis–Numbers,12
but this did not appear to happen. Indeed, it was only a number of decades
10 Reference can be made, for example, to: J.A. Bewer, The Literature of the Old Testament
in its Historical Development (Records of Civilization. Sources and Studies, 5), New York
71947; L. Boadt, Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction, New York: 1984; H. Cazelles, ‘La
Torah ou Pentateuque’, in: Idem (ed.), Introduction à la Bible, T. 2: Introduction à l’Ancien
Testament, Paris 1973, 95–244; A.R. Ceresko, Introduction to the Old Testament: A Liberation
Perspective, New York 1992; R. Coggins, Introducing the Old Testament (Oxford Bible
Series), Oxford 1990; J. Coppens, Introduction à l’étude historique de l’Ancien Testament, T. 1:
Histoire critique des livres de l’Ancien Testament, Brugge 31942; L. Dennefeld, Introduction à
l’Ancien Testament, Paris 1934; M. Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in
the Book of Numbers (JSOT SS, 158), Sheffield 1993; W. Eichrodt, Die Quellen der Genesis von
neuem untersucht (BZAW, 31), Gießen 1916; O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung; P. Fargues, Introduction
à l’Ancien Testament, Paris 1923; W. Fell, Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Einleitung in das Alten
Testament (Wissenschaftliche Handbibliothek. Theologische Lehrbucher, 25), Paderborn
1906; J. Goettsberger, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Herders theologische Grundrisse),
Freiburg 1928; R.K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, London 1970; J.H. Hayes,
An Introduction to Old Testament Study, Nashville 1979; C. Kuhl, Die Entstehung des
Alten Testaments, Bern 1953; H. Kosak, Wegweisung in das Alte Testament, Stuttgart 1968;
J. Meinhold, Einführung in das Alte Testament (Die Theologie im Abriß, 1), Gießen 1926;
M.H. Segal, The Pentateuch. Its Composition and Its Authorship and Other Biblical Studies,
Jerusalem 1967; J.M. Sprinkle, ‘The Book of the Covenant’: A Literary Approach (JSOT SS,
174), Sheffield 1994; P.N. Tarazi, The Old Testament. Introduction, Vol. 1: Historical Traditions,
New York 1991; A. Weiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (TW), Stuttgart 1939; J.K. West,
Introduction to the Old Testament, New York 21981.
11 See, for example: J.C. Gertz, ‘Die Literatur des Alten Testaments. I. Tora und Vordere
Propheten’, in Idem (ed.), Grundinformation Altes Testament: Eine Einführung in
Literatur, Religion und Geschichte des Alten Testaments (Uni-Taschenbücher, 2745),
Göttingen 32009, 193–311, esp. 292 and T.C. Vriezen, A.S. van der Woude, Oudisraëlitische
en vroegjoodse literatuur: Tiende, geheel herziene druk van De literatuur van Oud-Israël
(Ontwerpen, 1), Kampen 2000, 184. In recent work, allusion is commonly made to the
presence of Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas in Genesis–Numbers via references to the—albeit
pioneering—studies of E. Blum. See, for example, J.-D. Macchi, ‘Exode’, in: Römer et al.
(eds), Introduction, 173–195, esp. 181.
12 M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden
Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft.
Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse, 18), Stuttgart 1943.
62 Chapter 2
later that the consequences of Noth’s vision for the Deuteronom(ist)ic ques-
tion in the Tetrateuch were to be fully expressed. Noth himself was of the
opinion that the books of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings were written by one singe
author, the Deuteronomist, using sources of a variety of origins. In his view,
the ‘Deuteronomistic History’ came into existence shortly after 561 bce.13
Noth thus denied that the sources of Genesis–Numbers continued into the
Deuteronomistic History. As a result, a strict division was established between
Genesis–Numbers and Deuteronomy–Kings.14 This theory, however, did
not answer the question of the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the
Tetrateuch.15 Noth himself simply stated that in the first four books of the
Old Testament, and in spite of the separation between Genesis–Numbers and
the Deuteronomistic History, Deuteronom(ist)ic elements can nevertheless
be traced here and there.16 This stance is characteristic of the way in which
13 For literature on the Deuteronomistic History, reference can be made to the following
overviews: E. Jenni, ‘Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den Büchern Josua bis Könige’,
TR 27 (1961), 1–32; 97–146; A.N. Radjawane, ‘Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk.
Ein Forschungsbericht’, TR 38 (1974), 177–216; H. Weippert, ‘Das deuteronomistische
Geschichtswerk. Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren Forschung’, TR 50 (1985), 213–249;
H.D. Preuss, ‘Zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk’, TR 58 (1993), 229–264; 341–395;
T. Veijola, ‘Deuteronomismusforschung zwischen Tradition und Innovation’, TR 67 (2002),
273–327; 391–424; 68 (2003), 1–44; T. Römer, ‘L’histoire deutéronomiste’, in Römer et al.
(eds), Introduction, 234–250; T. Römer, ‘L’historiographie deutéronomiste (HD). Histoire
de la recherche et enjeu du débat’, in: A. de Pury et al. (eds), Israël construit son histoire:
L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lunière des recherches récentes (Le monde de la bible,
34), Genève 1996, 9–120; T. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological
and Literary Introduction, London 2007, 13–43.
14 For Noth’s vision of the origins of the Tetrateuch, see M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte
des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948.
15 With reservations, M. Noth, Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri übersetzt und erklärt (ATD,
7), Göttingen 1966, 12 ascribes a number of passages from Numbers to the redactor
who combined the Tetrateuch and DtrG: ‘Dann kommen in 33,50–35,34 die vom
deuterono mistischen Geschichtswerk abhängigen und auf die deuteronomistische
Landnahmeerzählung hinziehlenden Anordnungen für die künftige Landnahme,
die gewiss zurückzuführen sind auf einen Redaktor, der die Zusammenfügung von
Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk vornahm oder aber voraussetzte’.
16 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte, 32–33 nn. 106; 108; 109; 111; 112; 113; 114 speaks of a number
of ‘deuteronomistisch stilisierte Zusätze’. In his opinion, however, these Deuteronomis
tic interpolations in Genesis–Numbers cannot be seen as evidence of a far-reaching
Deuteronomistic redaction of Genesis–Numbers. Noth offers no further explanation of
the specific nature of these Deuteronomistic additions or the nature of the relationship
with DtrG. See also Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 13: ‘Denn in den Büchern
Gen.–Num. fehlt jede Spur einer “deuteronomistischen Redaktion” ’. He adds in a
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 63
footnote: ‘Daß es einzelne Stellen gibt, an denen der alte Text im deuteronomistischen
Stile erweitert worden ist, wie etwa Ex. 23,20ff. und Ex. 34,10ff., hat mit Recht meines
Wissens noch niemand für ein Merkmal einer durchgehenden “Redaktion” gehalten.
Num. 21,33–35 ist sekundär wörtlich aus Dtn. 3,1–3 übernommen worden’.
17 For an overview of the complex and problematic nature of P, see, for example:
M. Vervenne, The “P” Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction? The
“Sea Narrative” (Ex. 13,17–14,31) as a Test Case, in: C. Brekelmans, J. Lust (eds), Pentateuchal
and Deuteronomistic Studies. Papers Read at the xiiith IOSOT Congress. Leuven 1989 (BETL,
94), Leuven 1990, 67–90 and E. Zenger, ‘Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P)’, in: E. Zenger
(ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Fünfte, gründlich überarbeitete und erweiterte
Auflage (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie, 1,1), Stuttgart 2004, 156–175. See also
B. Lemmelijn, ‘The So-Called “Priestly” Layer in Exod 7:14–11:10. “Source” and/or/nor
“Redaction”?’, RB 109 (2002), 481–511.
The question of the so-called Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26) plays a crucial role
within the framework of the relationship between D and P. For the problem of the
relationship between D and H, see, for example: C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: Die
Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung (CBET, 9), Kampen 1994, 288–
289. The following explore the relationship between D and H: L.E. Elliot-Binns, ‘Some
Problems of the Holiness Code’, ZAW 67 (1955), 26–40; A. Cholewínski, Heiligkeitsgesetz
und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie (AnBib, 66), Roma 1976; G. Bettenzoli,
‘Deuteronomium und Heiligkeitsgezetz’, VT 34 (1984), 385–398; J. Milgrom, Leviticus
17–22 (AB, 3a), New York 2000, 1357–1361. See also B. Baentsch, Das Heiligkeits-Gesetz Lev.
xvii–xxvi: Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung, Erfurt 1893, 152, who concludes: ‘Das
H. ist geschichtlich nur zu begreifen als ein Mittelgleid zwischen Deut. und P. Es ist mit
einem Worte die Gesetzgebung des Exils’. It is remarkable, however, that the majority of
commentaries on Leviticus only pay a very limited degree of attention to this issue. See,
for example: A.T. Chapman, A.W. Streane, The Book of Leviticus (The Cambridge Bible for
Schools and Colleges), Cambridge 1914; J.W. de Wilde, Leviticus (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische
bijbelverklaring), Groningen 1937; W.H. Gispen, Het boek Leviticus (COT), Kampen 1950;
R.L. Harris, Leviticus (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI 1990, 500–
654; P. Heinisch, Das Buch Leviticus (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes, 1/3), Bonn
1935; A.R.S. Kennedy, Leviticus and Numbers (The Century Bible), London s.d.; W. Kornfeld,
Levitikus (Die Neue Echter Bibel, 6), Würzburg 1983; B. Maarsingh, Leviticus (POT),
Nijkerk 1974; N. Micklem, The Book of Leviticus (The Interpreter’s Bible, 2), New York 1953;
D. Monshouwer, Leviticus (Verklaring van een bijbelgedeelte), Kampen, s.d.; A. Noordtzij,
Levitikus (Korte verklaring der heilige Schrift), Kampen 1940; B.A. Levine, Leviticus—ויקרא
(The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary), Philadelphia 1989; M. Noth, Das
dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus (ATD, 6), Göttingen 1962; J.R. Porter, Leviticus (The Cambridge
64 Chapter 2
Bible Commentary), Cambridge 1976; N.H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (The Century
Bible), London 1967; J.G. Vink, Leviticus (BOT), Roermond 1962; G.J. Wenham, The Book
of Leviticus (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament), Grand Rapids,
MI 1979. J.E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC, 4), Dallas, TX 1992, esp. 257 points out that ‘because
the HG [i.e. “Heiligkeitsgezetz”—H.A.] redactors were members of the deuteronomistic
circle, there are many characteristics of the deuteronomistic circle in this corpus. They
took the deuteronomistic legal corpus as a model for assembling these documents into
the Holiness Code. These redactors were in agreement with many of the tenets of the
deuteronomistic movement; nevertheless, they sought to correct prescriptions considered
too radical or inadequately grounded from a theological perspective. (. . .) So the Holiness
Code both supplemented and modified the legislation of Deuteronomy’.
18 See, for example, S. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (AnBib, 50),
Roma 1971, 115 n. 32b: ‘The priestly writer [of Num. 13–14*—H.A.] might have learned
the technique of “montage” from Dtr (. . .), but in applying the technique to the spy-story
he does not seem to be directly influenced by Dtr’. Likewise J. De Vaulx, Les Nombres
(SBi), Paris 1972, 383 in connection with Num. 33:50–56: ‘Sans recopier aucun texte, il
[i.e. the Priestly author—H.A.] utilise un vocabulaire caractéristique du Deutéronome
et des rédactions JE’. W.H. Schmidt, Exodus (BKAT, 2/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1995, 320 also
appears to share this opinion: ‘Die Priesterschrift selbst scheint nicht nur die Redaktion
(JE), sondern auch das Deuteronomium vorauszusetzen, die von ihm empfangenen
Anregungen selbständig weiterzudenken und auszugestalten’.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 65
inclined to reverse the sequence D—P to P—D,19 whereby P was once again no
longer considered the youngest tradition in the Pentateuch. This rather mar-
ginal perspective also implied that D was younger than and dependent on the
Priestly literature.20
Genesis 2
21 Given the complexity of the question of the Priestly literature in se, and bearing in mind
that the question of the relationship between D and P tends to occupy a distinct place
in research into the origins of the Pentateuch, the present study will not devote further
attention to the connection between both corpora.
22 Complete references to the commentaries, monographs and articles on which the
present inventory is based can be found in the bibliography at the end of this study. For
the compilation of the survey in relation to the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements
in the book of Exodus, I was given access to the copious notes collected by M. Vervenne
in the course of the 1980s. A question mark (?) indicates that an author only suggests
the possibility that a given verse should be ascribed to a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction.
The question mark is also present where it is not immediately clear whether an author
ascribes a verse to a Deuteronom(ist)ic intervention.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 67
Genesis 3
Genesis 10
Genesis 11
Genesis 12
Genesis 13
Genesis 14
Genesis 15
Gen. 15* Anbar, Genesis 15, 1982, 39–55; Berge, Die Zeit des
Jahwisten, 1990, 40–42; De Fraine, Genesis, 1963, 198;
Emerton, The Origin of the Promises, 1982, 17; Kaiser,
Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, 1958, 107–126;
Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 63–64; Soggin,
Introduction, 1989, 144–145.
Gen. 15:5* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
404.
Gen. 15:7* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
403; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 71; Procksch, Genesis,
1913, 102–105; Skinner, Genesis, 1910, 284 (?).
Gen. 15:18–21* Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999,
97; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the
Hexateuch, 1902, 336; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische
Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 403; Holzinger, Genesis, 1898,
xxiv; xxv; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 71; Procksch,
Genesis, 1913, 102–105.
Genesis 16
Genesis 18
Genesis 18
Genesis 19
Genesis 21
Genesis 22
Genesis 24
Genesis 26
Genesis 26
Genesis 27
Genesis 28
Genesis 29
Genesis 31
Gen. 31:5*, 29*, 42*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 403.
53*
72 Chapter 2
Genesis 32
Gen. 32:10–13* Boecker, Isaak und Jakob, 1992, 98; Fuss, Die deuterono-
mistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 403–404; Smend,
Entstehung, 1984, 65 (?).
Genesis 37–50
Genesis 39
Genesis 43
Genesis 45
Genesis 46
Genesis 48
Genesis 50
Exodus 1
Exodus 2
Exodus 3
Exodus 3
Exodus 4
Exodus 5
Exodus 6
Exodus 7
Exod. 7:3* Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 37 (?); Kohata, Verzicht auf die
Quellenschriften, 1986, 20–21.
Exod. 7:14–16* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
391; 393–394; 397; 399; 401; 403–405.
Exod. 7:17* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 60 (?); Fuss, Die deuteronomistische
Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 393–394; 399; 401; Simpson, The
Early Traditions, 1948, 170 (?).
Exod. 7:18*, 20–21*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
23–29* 390–399; 401; 403; 404.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 77
Exodus 8
Exodus 9
(cont.)
Exodus 9
Exodus 10
Exodus 10
Exodus 11
Exodus 12
(cont.)
Exodus 12
Exodus 13
(cont.)
Exodus 13
Exodus 14
Exodus 14
Exod. 14:31* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 127 (?); Floss, Jahwe dienen, 1975, 47
(?); Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390–391; 393–394; 398–399; 403–405; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986,
294–295 (?); McNeile, Exodus, 1908, § 2 xxi; Simpson, The
Early Traditions, 1948, 181–182; 186; Smend, Die Erzählung
des Hexateuch, 1912, 137–138; Smend, Entstehung, 1984, 66;
Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 96–97 (?).
Exodus 15
Exod. 15:1–19* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 128–137; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12;
78–82; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 416 (?).
Exod. 15:20–21*, 24* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
391; 393; 398–399; 402–404.
Exod. 15:25b–26* Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961, 221; Baentsch,
Exodus, 1900, 140–143; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 85–86; Brown,
Exodus, 1928, 80; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of
the Hexateuch, 1902, 336; 404; Childs, Exodus, 1974, 267;
Clamer, Exode, 1956, 153; Coats, Rebellion, 1968, 49; Cole,
Exodus, 1973, 129; Durham, Exodus, 1987, 212; Eissfeldt,
Hexateuch-Synopse, 1922, 271*; Fritz, Israel in der Wüste,
1970, 7; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972, 390–392; 394–400; 402; 404–405; Gautier,
Introduction, 1939; 68 n. 1; Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit,
1913, 121 n. 1; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, xvii (?); Hossfeld, Der
Dekalog, 1982, 187; Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; 49; 171–172; Jaroš,
Die Stellung des Elohisten, 1974, 61; McNeile, Exodus, 1908, §
2 xxix; Michaéli, L’Exode, 1974, 141 (?); Noth, Exodus, 1959,
102; Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte, 1948, 32 n. 108;
Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 268–269; Pfeiffer,
Introduction, 1941, 285; Procksch, Das nordhebräische
Sagenbuch, 1906, 80; Ruprecht, Stellung und Bedeutung,
1974, 299–301; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835; Scharbert,
Exodus, 56; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 188; Te
Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 117–118; Vriezen, Van der Woude,
84 Chapter 2
(cont.)
Exodus 15
Exodus 16
Exodus 17
Exodus 18
Exodus 19
(cont.)
Exodus 19
Exodus 20–23
Exodus 20–23
(cont.)
Exodus 20–23
Exodus 20–23
Exodus 24
(cont.)
Exodus 24
Exodus 32
Exodus 32
Exodus 33
Exod. 33* Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 83; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog,
1982, 283; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 215; Zenger,
Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165.
Exod. 33:1–6* Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 49 n. 80; Becker, Sinaitheophanie,
1973, 119; Bentzen, Introduction, 1948, 40; Blenkinsopp,
Introduction, 1992, 195; Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic
Contribution, 1999, 97; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition
of the Hexateuch, 1902, 517; Donner, Josephsgeschichte, 1976,
35 n. 65; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972, 392–393; 395; 397–398; 403; Gautier, Introduction,
1939; 68 n. 1; Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1978,
92 Chapter 2
(cont.)
Exodus 33
Exodus 34
Exodus 34
(cont.)
Exodus 34
Numbers 10
Numbers 11
Numbers 12
Numbers 13
Numbers 14
Numbers 18
Numbers 20
Numbers 21
Numbers 25
Numbers 27
Numbers 32
Numbers 33–35
(cont.)
Numbers 33–35
From the beginning of the 20th century, and in the wake of what had become
the classical Documentary Hypothesis, scholars accounted for the presence
of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the Tetrateuch more or less continuously
and with a considerable degree of self-evidence. For the books of Genesis and
Numbers their number is relatively limited when compared with the book of
Exodus. Many authors appear to consider it sufficient to simply observe that
a given verse should (probably) be ascribed to a Deuteronom(ist)ic rework-
ing. While most align themselves in one way or another with the classical
Documentary Hypothesis, it is striking that only sporadic mention is made of
the works of pioneers such as Kuenen and Wellhausen.23 The same is true for
Holzinger and Driver, who tabulated what they considered to be the typical fea-
tures of Deuteronomic literature. It would appear that these important figures,
who were responsible for the breakthrough of the Documentary Hypothesis
and tended to be somewhat reserved on the presence of Deuteronom(ist)ic
elements in the Tetrateuch, have been forgotten by their successors. It was
only with the emergence of the hypothesis that several of the passages in ques-
tion in fact represented a sort of overture to the Deuteronomic language and
ideas—the JE passages as ‘proto-Deuteronomic’ texts—, that the insights that
were present in essence in the work of Wellhausen, Kuenen, Holzinger and
Driver acquired new life.
In addition to the authors who offer no argumentation whatsoever for
ascribing Deuteronom(ist)ic influence to a verse or pericope, several exegetes
limit themselves to a reference to passages related thereto. The references in
23 Even Colenso, who considered the Deuteronomist responsible for a very extensive number
of verses and tried, in addition, to substantiate this attribution to the Deuteronomist with
arguments, is only very occasionally referred to.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 99
question tend for the most part to relate to vocabulary, pointing—in an often
arbitrary fashion—to Deuteronomy, Joshua—2 Kings and, albeit to a much
lesser extent, to the passages considered Deuteronomistic—especially after
Bernhard Duhm’s commentary—in the book of Jeremiah.24 It is also significant,
particularly with respect to the book of Exodus, that reference is often made
to other passages in the same book that are also characterised as Deuterono
m(ist)ic, thus multiplying the presence of circular reasoning. A detailed study
of the vocabulary and the way in which it is used in a specific context, however,
has not been forthcoming.
Frequent reference is also made to the thematic and content-related depen-
dence of verses from Genesis–Numbers on Deuteronomy and related litera-
ture. The combination of the ‘oath’ motif with the theme of the ‘fathers’, for
example, appears to have been a favourite topic in the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature.25 It is striking in this regard that descriptions are rarely given of
what we should understand to be characteristic of Deuteronom(ist)ic theol-
ogy. In the same context, it is particularly striking—at least in literature after
1972—that little if any reference is made to the study of Moshe Weinfeld, who,
in line with Holzinger and Driver, endeavoured to inventory a number of char-
acteristic features of Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.26 This implies that authors
have rarely been concerned with the provision of solid arguments in support
of characterising a text as Deuteronom(ist)ic.
27 Even where an endeavour is made to specify what is meant by this parenetic
Deuteronom(ist)ic style, the discussion tends to remain somewhat shallow. With respect
to Exod. 19:4–6, for example, see J. Blenkinsopp, ‘Deuteronomic Contribution to the
Narrative in Genesis–Numbers: A Test Case’, in: L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those
Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield
1999, 84–115, esp. 87: ‘The address follows the familiar pattern of Deuteronomic parenesis:
appeal to collective experience, immediate or vicarious, followed by the promise of a
special relationship contingent on obedience and covenant-keeping’.
The arbitrary character of the prevailing argumentation with respect to style is evident
in the variety of perspectives on the Numeruswechsel. The Numeruswechsel in Exod. 12:24–
27a, for example, is seen by G. Auzou, De la servitude au service (Connaissance de la Bible,
3), Paris 1961, 169–171 as a typical characteristic of Deuteronom(ist)ic style. M. Noth, Das
zweite Buch Mose. Exodus übersetzt und erklärt (ATD, 5), Göttingen 1959, 76, which ascribes
this pericope to a Deuteronomistic intervention, considers the Numeruswechsel as an
indication of several (Deuteronomistic) reworkings that he claims made a contribution
to the materialisation of this passage. As a result, the Numeruswechsel in Noth’s view
cannot be seen as a carefully considered procedure on the part of the Deuteronomistic
redaction.
28 See, in particular, the analyses of B. Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch Ex. xx,22–xxiii,33: Seine
ursprüngliche Gestalt, sein Verhältnis zu den es umgebenden Quellenschriften und seine
Stellung in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung, Halle 1892; G. Schmitt, Du sollst keinen
Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die Weisungen gegen die Kanaanäer
in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung (BWANT, 91), Stuttgart 1970; J.P. Floss,
Jahwe dienen—Göttern dienen: Terminologische und semantische Untersuchung einer
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 101
At the same time, almost every scholar who has explored this epilogue
to the Book of the Covenant has drawn attention to its relationship
with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. It is significant in this regard that
Exod. 23:20–33, at least in part, tends, almost unquestioningly, to be consid-
ered Deuteronom(ist)ic, without the provision of substantial arguments
in support of such a claim. Throughout almost the entire 20th century,
Exod. 23:20–33 has been ascribed as a whole or in part to a Deuteronom(ist)
ic redaction in a variety of studies, and rarely with much in the way of argu-
mentation. Examples include J.E. Carpenter and G. Harford,29 O. Procksch,30
C. Steuernagel,31 C.H. Cornill,32 J. Morgenstern,33 W. Rudolph,34 A. Bentzen,35
theologischen Aussage zum Gottesverhältnis im Alten Testament (BBB, 45), Bonn 1975;
J. Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex. 34,10–26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in
vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT, 114), Göttingen 1975; L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger,
Das Bundesbuch (Ex. 20,22–23,33): Studien zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie (BZAW, 188),
Berlin 1990; Y. Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b–23,33
(OBO, 105), Fribourg 1991.
29 Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch, 336: ‘The process of revision
and extension was probably continued by RD (. . .) in the Deuteronomic point of view;
while the remarkable affinities of 23,23–25a.27.31b–33 with Deut 7 suggest considerable
extensions in E’s hortatory conclusion’; ‘The hand of a Deuteronomic reviser is probably
to be seen in (. . .) 23,23–25a.27.31b–33’ (209). On 517, however, Carpenter ascribes the said
verses to RJE.
30 O. Procksch, Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch: Die Elohimquelle übersetzt und untersucht,
Leipzig 1906, 165: ‘c. 23,20ff. ist deuteronomisch’.
31 C. Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit einem Anhang über die
Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen (Sammlung Theologischer Lehrbucher), Tübingen
1912, 157: ‘Von diesen Zusätzen tragen einige deuteronomischen Charakter (. . .) in der
Schlußparänese 23,23–24.28.31bβ.32.33)’.
32 C.H. Cornill, Einleitung in die kanonischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Grundriss der
theologischen Wissenschaften, 2/1), Freiburg im Breisgau 1891; Tübingen, 71913, 75: ‘(. . .)
die sekundären Stücke des Bb und namentlich die Ueberarbeitung der Schlußverse
23,20–33 tragen ausgeprägt deuteronomistischen Charakter’. Compare, however, ‘Die (. . .)
Schlußverse 23,20–33 (. . .) tragen so deutlick die charakteristischen Merkmale von E, daß
seine Zugehörigkeit zu E über jedem Zweifel steht’ (74).
33 J. Morgenstern, ‘The Book of the Covenant: Part 1’, HUCA 5 (1928), 1–151, esp. 4: ‘Scholars
have long recognized that Ex. 23.20–33 (. . .) are partly Elohistic and partly Deuteronomic’.
34 Rudolph, Der ‘Elohist’, 61: Exod. 23:20–33 ‘ist ein Zusatz im Stil des Deuteronomiums’.
35 A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. 2: The Books of the Old Testament,
København 1948, 40: ‘Scholars generally assume a deuteronomistic redaction of
the Pentateuch, taking the whole Pentateuch to have been incorporated in the
Deuteronomistic Work of History. (. . .) I think that there are distinct traces in (. . .)
Ex. 23,24–26; 23,32–33 (. . .)’.
102 Chapter 2
36 C.A. Simpson, The Early Traditions of Israel: A Critical Analysis of the Predeuteronomic
Narrative of the Hexateuch, Oxford 1948, 218: Exod. 23:31b–33 ‘are from RD’.
37 W. Beyerlin, Herkunft und Geschichte der ältesten Sinaitraditionen, Tübingen 1961, 9:
Exod. 23:20–33 is a segment ‘dass fraglos auch deuteronomistische Spuren aufweist’.
38 T.C. Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud Israël, Den Haag 21961, 113: ‘With the Deuteronomistic
author (Dt.) to whom we referred above [in the context of Exod. 12,24–27a and 13,1–16—
H.A.], we encounter a new hand in the narratives. Dt. is a representative of the so-called
Deuteronomistic reformation, which went hand in hand with the appearance of the book
of Deuteronomy (D.). (. . .) Evidence of this circle of authors can be found in a variety of
places in the stories of Exodus, e.g. 15:25b, 26, probably (. . .) 23:20–33 (. . .)’.
39 E. Zenger, Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen
Geschichtswerk (FzB, 3), Würzburg 1971, 164: ‘Die Bundesbuch-Schicht (zweite
deuteronomistische Redaktion) ist eine weitere Bearbeitungsstufe der frühnachexilischen
Zeit, welche die Rückkehr in die Idealzeit des Anfangs proklamiert (vgl. ähnliche Tendenz
bei Ezechiel!). Diesem theologischen Programm entspringt: a) der Einschub 19,3bβ–9b;
20,18.19 (vgl. den Einfluß priesterlicher Theologie!); b) der Einbau des Bundesbuchs mit
den entsprechenden redaktionellen Klammern (z.B. 23:20–33; 24,3.4aαβ.7; 34,27)’.
40 W.H. Schmidt, Einführung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 1979; 51995, 58: ‘Insbesondere
stellen gewisse Textpartien, deren Themen und Sprache dem Deuteronomium oder der
deuteronomistischen Literatur nahestehen, ein Problem der Literarkritik dar. Gewiß
gibt es im Pentateuch nicht so umfangreiche und gleichmäßig verteilte Redestücke in
dieser Ausdrucksweise wie zwischen dem Deuteronomium und den Königsbüchern
(oder auch im Jeremiabuch); insofern ist die Situation anders. Jedoch finden sich Zusätze
von Einzelbemerkungen deutero nomisch-deuteronomisti scher Art (wie Gen. 50,24;
Ex. 3,8.17) bis zu ausgedehnteren Abschnitten (wie in Ex. 13; 23,20ff; 32,7ff; 33; 34,10ff u.a.).
Solche Ergänzungen nehmen anscheinend von Moses Berufung ab zu—an ihm hat die
deuteronomisch-deuteronomistische Literatur überragendes Interesse’.
41 T.C. Vriezen, A.S. van der Woude, De literatuur van Oud-Israël, Wassenaar 61980, 187: ‘The
conclusion 23:20–33 is an exhortation reworked in a Deuteronomistic spirit’. See, however,
the more nuanced vision in Vriezen, Van der Woude, Oudisraëlitische en vroegjoodse
literatuur, 184.
42 P. Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose: Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,23–5,5
(OBO, 32), Freiburg 1980, 326 n. 32: ‘Doch wird Ex. 23,23–33 weniger der Vorgeschichte der
dtr. Überlieferung (. . .) zugerechnet werden können, als vielmehr der Nachgeschichten
worauf deutlich der sprachliche Befund schließen läßt’. The list of the nations in
Exod. 23:23, 28 is likewise ‘nach-dtr. Herkunft’ (326 n. 32).
43 T.B. Dozeman, God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus
19–24 (SBL MS, 37), Atlanta, GA 1989, 61: Exod. 23:20–33 is ‘a parenetic conclusion in
deuteronomistic style’.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 103
44 B.D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien. Tl. 3: Das Buch Exodus, Gießen, 1910, 97:
‘Kuenen (. . .) schreibt diesen Abschnitt einem deut. Redaktor zu [sic!—H.A.]. Der deut.
Charakter dieses Abschnittes liegt so offen zu Tage, daß es befremdend ist, daß andere
diesen Abschnitt dem Redaktor von JE zuschreiben. Man ist jedoch darüber einig, daß
diese Verse mit dem alten Bundesbuch nichts zu tun haben’.
45 S.L. Brown, Exodus (A New Commentary on Holy Scripture Including the Apocrypha),
London 1928, 90: Exod. 23:20–33 is ‘E, except 23–25a and 31b–33, which are Deuteronomic
expansions’.
46 Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose, 140: Exod. 23:20–33 is a secondary appendix, which ‘in
deuteronomistischem Stil formuliert ist’.
47 J. Plastaras, The God of Exodus: The Theology of the Exodus Narratives, Milwaukee 1966,
262 n. 12: ‘This passage may represent E material, but it has received its present form from
the deuteronomic school’.
48 G. te Stroete, Exodus uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (BOT, 1/2), Roermond 1966,
180: ‘The entirety carries a clear Deuteronomistic hallmark. Some detect the presence of
an Elohistic tradition, but in our opinion this is barely recognisable’.
49 F.C. Fensham, Exodus (POT), Nijkerk, 1970, 178: ‘The last segment of the Book of the
Covenant, which has the character of an appendix, and in terms of style and content
bears the primary features of a Deuteronomistic hallmark, does not contain laws, but
rather promises, warnings and exhortations’.
104 Chapter 2
50 See, for example, F. Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen
im Glauben des alten Israels (ATANT, 60), Zürich 1972, 75.
51 Cf., for example, Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 157 n. 6.
52 See J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible
(AB Reference Library), New York 1992., 189; G. Chamberlain, Exodus 21–23 and Deuter-
onomy 12–26: A Form-Critical Study, Boston, 1977, 156; E. Fox, The Five Books of Moses:
A New Translation with Introductions, Commentary, and Notes, London 1995, 384; J.P. Hyatt,
Commentary on Exodus (New Century Bible), London 1971, 27; A.H. McNeile, The Book of
Exodus with Introduction and Notes (Westminster Commentaries), London 1908, 144.
53 Chamberlain, Exodus 21–23, 156.
54 Cf. G. Beer, Exodus: Mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling (HAT, 1/3), Tübingen 1939, 12; 121.
According to Floss, Jahwe dienen, 274, the author of Exod. 23:31b–33 sees religious apostasy
as the reason for political decline. These verses display ‘ein geschichtstheologisches
Denken, wie es der dtn-dtr Theologie eigen ist’.
55 Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189; Chamberlain, Exodus 21–23, 1977, 156; Hyatt, Exodus, 27.
56 Auzou, De la servitude au service, 262–263; Chamberlain, Exodus 21–23, 156; Hyatt,
Exodus, 27.
57 Blenkinsopp, ‘Deuteronomic Contribution’, 95; H. Cazelles, ‘Histoire et institutions dans
la place et la composition d’Ex. 20,22–23,19’, in: R. Liwak, S. Wagner (eds), Prophetie und
geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im Alten Israel: Festschrift fur Siegfried Herrmann zum 65.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 105
Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1991, 52–64, esp. 56; Chamberlain, Exodus 21–23, 156; P. Horn, ‘Tra-
ditionsschichten in Ex. 23,10–33 und Ex. 34,10–26’, BZ 15 (1971), 203–222, esp. 217–218;
Floss, Jahwe dienen, 251; G. Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium
(BWANT, 93), Stuttgart 1971, 78.
58 According to H. Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit. Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen
(FRLANT, 18), Göttingen, 1913, 239, the expressions מלאך יהוה, שם יהוהand אימת
יהוהare evidence of the late character of Exod. 23:20–33: ‘Die Redseligkeit des Deu
teronomiums kündet sich an’. It is also possible, however, that Gressmann hereby
considers Exod. 23:20–33 to be preliminary to Deuteronomy.
59 Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189.
60 Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189; Idem, ‘Deuteronomic Contribution’, 95.
61 Baentsch, Exodus, 209; Cazelles, ‘Histoire et institutions’, 56.
62 Fox, The Five Books of Moses, 384.
63 Cf. Gen. 50:24; Exod. 32:13; 33:2; Deut. 1:8; 6:10. See, for example, Hyatt, Exodus, 27.
64 Cf. Deut. 7:22; Judg. 2:27–28; Josh. 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:11–13, 14–18. See, for example,
Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189.
65 Cf. Deut. 7:13–15; 28:1–14. See Hyatt, Exodus, 251.
66 Similarities with the lists of the nations in Gen. 15:20, 21; Exod. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:2; 34:11;
Deut. 7:1; 20:17; Judg. 3:5; Josh. 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11; 1 Kgs 9:20 are observed, for example,
by Baentsch, Exodus, 209; Cazelles, ‘Histoire et institutions’, 56; Chamberlain, Exodus
21–23, 156; W. Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 3–17 (BZAW,
126), Berlin 1972, 37; Horn, ‘Traditionsschichten’, 217–218; Hyatt, Exodus, 251; McNeile,
Exodus, vi; R.H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, New York 1941, 285; W. Richter
Die Bearbeitungen des ‘Retterbuches’ in der deuteronomischen Epoche (BBB, 21), Bonn
1964, 41; J.C. Rylaarsdam, The Book of Exodus. Introduction and Exegesis (The Interpreter’s
Bible, 1), New York 1952, 1014; Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, 78; Stolz, Jahwes und
Israels Kriege, 22.
67 Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 55 refers in this regard to Gen. 15.
106 Chapter 2
68 F. Michaéli, Le livre de l’Exode (CAT, 2), Paris 1974, 217. Compare with Simpson, Early Tradi-
tions, 218: ‘24 is a deuteronomic addition, as in 25aa (to God), though possibly because of
the plural and the reference to Jahveh in the third person (. . .) from another hand than 24.
26a, which breaks the connection between 25b and 26b, is a deuteronomist gloss’.
69 Auzou, De la servitude au service, 262; B.S. Childs, Exodus. A Commentary (OTL), London
1974, 460–461; R.A. Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, London 1973, 181; Fox,
The Five Books of Moses, 384.
70 Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189.
71 Cf., for example, Hyatt, Exodus, 251; compare the syntax with that of Deut. 7:1–5, 12–26; see
also Childs, Exodus, 461; Michaéli, L’Exode, 217.
72 Michaéli, L’Exode, 217.
73 Auzou, De la servitude au service, 263; Hyatt, Exodus, 250; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 225.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 107
74 Michaéli, L’Exode, 217: ‘Le changement de personnes (singulier ou pluriel) (. . .) font
penser aux écrivains deutéronomistes’; Noth, Exodus, 156: ‘V. 25.26; dieser Passus ist nicht
ganz glatt, es fällt pluralische neben singularische Anrede und Jahwe in 3. Pers. neben 1.
Pers. auf ’.
75 A number of 19th century works are also included in this overview in an effort to provide as
complete a picture as possible of the vocabulary scholars consider to be Deuteronom(ist)ic.
76 Hyatt, Exodus, 250–251; C. Westermann, Genesis, Tl. 2: Genesis 12–36 (BKAT, 1/2), Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1981, 472.
77 R. Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu
Deuteronomium 1–11 (EurHS, 422), Frankfurt am Main 1991, 263.
78 Baentsch, Exodus, 210; Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 263.
79 Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 76; Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 263.
80 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 263.
81 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 263; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 76.
108 Chapter 2
( אל תמר באExod. 23:21) Deut. 1:26, 43; 9:7, 23, 24; 31:27;
Josh. 1:18; 1 Sam. 12:482
( שם יהוהExod. 23:21) Deut. 12:5, 11; 1 Kgs 8:2983
( אם שמע תשמע בקלוExod. 23:22) Exod. 15:26; 19:5; Deut. 8:20; 11:13; 13:18;
15:5; 26:14; 27:10; 28:1, 2, 15, 45, 62;
30:1084
( ועשית כל אשר אדברExod. 23:22) Exod. 19:8; 24:3, 7; Deut. 2:37; 5:27;
12:11, 14b; (18:18); Josh. 22:2; 1 Kgs 11:38;
2 Kgs 18:3; Jer. 1:7; 32:23; Ezek. 44:5;
2 Chron. 33:885
( ואיבתי את איביךExod. 23:22) Deut. 20:486
Expulsion of the peoples (Exod. 23:23) Synonyms in Deuteronomy;
cf. 1 Kgs 13:34: Ps. 83:5; Zech. 11:887
( לא תשתחוה ולא תעבדםExod. 23:24) Deut. 4:19; 5:9; 8:9; 11:16; 17:3; 29:25;
30:17; Exod. 20:5; Jer.; 1 Kgs; 2 Kgs88
( לא תעשה כמעשיהםExod. 23:24) Deut. 12:30.89
( כי הרס תהרסםExod. 23:24) Exod. 34:14; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 2 Kgs 18:4;
23:1490
( שבר תשבר מצבתיהםExod. 23:24) Exod. 34:13; Lev. 26:1; Deut. 7:5; 12:3;
16:22; 2 Kgs 23:12, 2091
( עדב את יהוה אלהיכםExod. 23:25) Deut. 6:13; 10:12, 20; 11:13; 13:5; 28:4792
( ברך את לחמך ואת מימיךExod. 23:25) Deut. 7:13; 11:13; 28:5, 8, 1193
( והסרתי מחלה מקרבךExod. 23:25) Exod. 15:26; Deut. 7:15; 28:21–22,
27–2994
לא תהיה משכלה ועקרה בארצך Deut. 7:1, 14–15; 28:1, 4, 11; 30:995
(Exod. 23:26)
( את מספר ימיך אמלאExod. 23:26) Deut. 4:40; 6:296
Exod. 23:27–28 Deut. 2:25; 7:20; Josh. 24:1297
( אימהExod. 23:27) Gen. 15:12; Exod. 15:16; Deut. 2:25;
11:25; 32:25; Josh. 2:998
( המתיExod. 23:27) Deut. 2:15; 7:23;
Josh. 10:10; Judg. 4:15; 1 Sam. 5:9, 11;
7:10; 2 Sam. 22:15; Pss. 18:15; 144:6;
Est. 9:24; 2 Chron 15:699
( נתן איבים ערףExod. 23:27) Josh. 7:8100
( צרעהExod. 23:28) Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12, 18101
( גרשExod. 23:28, 29, 30) Gen. 3:20; 4:14; 21:10; Exod. 2:17;
6:1; 10:11; 11:1; 33:2; Num. 22:6, 11;
Judg. 2:3102
( מעט מעטExod. 23:30) Deut. 7:22103
93 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 265–266; Colenso, The Pentateuch,
Vol. 6, 103.
94 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 265–266; Baentsch, Exodus, 211; Colenso,
The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103; Holzinger, Exodus, 102.
95 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103; Holzinger, Exodus, 102.
96 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103.
97 Auzou, De la servitude au service, 262.
98 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 265; Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic
Contribution, 95; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103; Hyatt, Exodus, 250–251 (the concept
of ‘holy war’); Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte, 215 (compare with the reference to the
‘Plagues of Egypt’ in Deut. 7:18–19); Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 20 (Jerusalem as place of
origin).
99 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 265; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103;
Hyatt, Exodus, 250–251.
100 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 265.
101 Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189 (language of ‘holy war’); Blenkinsopp, ‘Deuteronomic
Contribution’, 95; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103.
102 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Weimar, Untersuchungen, 129–130 n. 76 ( גרשis found in
younger texts).
103 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Hyatt, Exodus, 250; Simpson, Early Traditions, 218; Stolz,
Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 76.
110 Chapter 2
4.4 Conclusion
By way of conclusion, reference deserves to be made to two striking short-
comings that typify (current) research into the Deuteronom(ist)ic charac-
ter of Exod. 23:20–33, which also apply mutatis mutandis to other allegedly
Deuteronom(ist)ic passages within Genesis–Numbers. First, it is significant
that in terms of both themes and vocabulary various exegetes refer to other
passages from Genesis–Numbers (e.g. Gen. 15; Exod. 20:1–17; 33:1–3; Num. 20),
the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of which is often taken largely for granted.
The fact that such reasoning does not wash with respect to the hypothesis
that Exod. 23:20–33 should be ascribed to a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction goes
without saying. Moreover, if one closely examines the argumentation used to
endeavour to substantiate the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of the said pas-
sages, it becomes immediately apparent that it includes frequent reference to
Exod. 23:20–33.
A second important shortcoming in the argumentation of those studies
that characterise (parts of ) Exod. 23:20–33 as Deuteronom(ist)ic is the
absence of comparison with, for example, the prophetic books of the Old
Testament. Indeed, it is also possible that a motif, an expression, and even
the so-called parenetic style portrayed as frequently attested in the Deutero
nom(ist)ic was employed elsewhere and as a result need not necessarily be
typically Deuteronom(ist)ic.114
It can be stated in summary that in terms of both form and content, current
research into the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of Exod. 23:20–33—and mutatis
mutandis for all the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in the Tetrateuch—
rarely provides convincing argumentation. In most instances it is limited to
114 See Blenkinsopp, ‘Deuteronomic Contribution’, 111: ‘The predominance of parenesis (. . .)
would by itself lead us to suspect a debt to Deuteronomy, that most homiletic of books
known to Philo under the title of The Protreptics’. See also T. Römer, J.-D. Macchi, ‘Luke,
Disciple of the Deuteronomistic School’, in C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Luke’s Literary Achievement:
Collected Essays (JSNT SS, 116), Sheffield 1995, 178–187.
112 Chapter 2
1 W. Beyerlin, Herkunft und Geschichte der ältesten Sinaitraditionen, Tübingen 1961, 27 ascribed
Exod. 32:7–14, a pericope normally ascribed to D or RD, to E: ‘Sie [i.e. Exod. 32:7–14—H.A.]
wird vielfach als Zusatz deuteronomistischen Stils angesehen,—wie sich noch zeigen
wird, schwerlich zu Recht. In der Sache jedenfalls sind in den Versen 7–14 keine spezifisch
deuteronomischen Elemente fest zustel
len. Insofern Mose hier wie in dem E-Schicht
zugehörigen Überlieferungsstück 32,30–34 in der prophetischen Funktion der Fürbitte
dargestellt wird, möchte man eher an elohistische Quellenzugehörigkeit denken, da E
verschiedentlich eine gewisse Nähe zur prophetischen Bewegung aufweist’. With respect to
the alleged Deuteronomic parenesis in the Book of the Covenant he argues: ‘Nicht eine späte,
literarische Bearbeitung hat im Anschluss an die im Deuteronomium fixierten Gedanken
und sprachlichen Formen jene paränetischen Elemente im Bundesbuch nachgetragen. Diese
wurzeln viel mehr im Festkult der frühen Jahwegemeinde, vor allem in den Wallfahrtsfesten
der Amphiktyonie’—Idem, ‘Die Paränese im Bundesbuch und ihre Herkunft’, in H. Graf
Reventlow (ed.), Gottes Wort und Gottes Land: Hans-Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70. Geburtstag am
16. Januar 1965 dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern, Göttingen 1966, 9–29, esp. 28.
H. Wildberger, Jahwes Eigentumsvolk: Eine Studie zur Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des
Erwählungsgedankens (ATANT, 37), Zürich 1960, 9–14, esp. 14 likewise insists that ‘nicht der
Deuteronomist spricht’ in Exod. 19:3–8, similarly taken to be a typically Deuteronom(ist)ic
passage, and that the pericope in question ‘Begriffe enthält, die offensichtlich nicht in der
deuteronomischen Welt beheimatet sind’. J. Muilenberg, ‘The Form and Structure of the
Covenant Formulations’, VT 9 (1959), 347–365 esp. 351 is even inclined to argue: ‘it is doubtful,
whether the hand of the Deuteronomist is to be found anywhere in the Tetrateuch’. He adds
that ‘the line which separates the literary style of the Elohist from the Deuteronomist is often
hard to define’. With regard to Num. 21:33–34, reference can be made by way of example
to B.D. Eerdmans, The Composition of Numbers (OTS, 6), Leiden 1949, 101–216, esp. 200: ‘It
is noteworthy that (. . .) Deut. iii,1.2 is verbally identical with Numb. xxi,33.34. Therefore
some scholars have suggested that “there can be little doubt that the story of Og has been
incorporated in Numb. from Deut.” (Gray, 306). But in view of the differences (. . .) this seems
improbable. Here, too, Deut. gave its own version adding the particulars of the annihilation
of all inhabitants. Numb. did not mention the application of the herem in Hesbon, but seems
to assume it for Bashan (xxi,35)’. On the characterisation of Gen. 26:5 as Deuteronom(ist)ic
see, for example, E. König, Die Genesis. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und erklärt, Gütersloh 1919, 563
n. 2: ‘Zu der Behauptung (. . .), daß dies [i.e. the interpolation of —מצותי חקותי ותורתיH.A.]
von der deuteronomischen Schule (. . .) geschehen sei, bilden die drei Ausdrücke keinen
hinreichenden Grund’ (cf. also S. Nomoto, ‘Entstehung und Entwicklung der Erzählung von
der Gefährdung der Ahnfrau’, AJBI 2 [1976], 3–27, esp. 9, among others).
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 115
Jahwistic and one Elohistic.2 In his opinion, the J narrative related the promise
of descendants to Abraham, while the E narrative addresses the conflict in
which Abraham would have to engage with the neighbouring nations. Cazelles
maintains that these two narratives were combined by a JE redactor (RJE) who
made no significant changes to the texts he had at his disposal. RJE took the
E narrative as the framework for his composition. While Cazelles admits that
this JE redaction exhibits kinship with Deuteronomy, he does not consider
it appropriate to identify RJE with the author of Deuteronomy.3 Moreover,
he denies the possibility of a Deuteronom(ist)ic reworking of Gen. 15, argu-
ing that many passages in Genesis–Numbers that are commonly hallmarked
as Deuteronom(ist)ic, should be seen rather as ‘prophetic’, ‘Elohistic’ or
pre-Deuteronomic’.4
In 1966, Cazelles published an extensive overview of research into the
Pentateuch in the Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible in which he further
develops his own hypothesis.5 He does not see the ‘Elohist’ as much as a ‘source’,
but more as a prophetic redaction of ancient texts. Within this E redaction,
he also sees agreements with RD.6 He goes on to argue that the JE redactor
the Elohist document.9 While similarity in the said instances with the Deutero
nom(ist)ic literature was strikingly evident, he did not consider it desirable to
designate the texts as Deuteronom(ist)ic without further ado, in part because
they did not (yet) reflect the central themes of Deuteronomy.10 On the other
hand, he observed strong evidence of Deuteronom(ist)ic language in relation
to RJE, so much so that he was inclined to situate the latter within the realm of
the Deuteronomistic ‘school’.
9 More recently, J.S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT, 68), Tübingen
2009 argues that ‘D simply used as his main source the independent E document’ (188).
D preferred E as his ‘source’, precisely because of the fact that ‘specific attributes of E
not found in J (. . .) fit precisely the model that the author of D required’; further Idem,
The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, New Haven
2012, 139–146, claiming that ‘D’s historical retrospective is basesd on E and J in their
independent forms’ (141)—see also J.E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic
Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives, London 2004. E as a ‘source’ is also present in
the work of Y.H. Chung, The Sin of the Calf: the Rise of the Bible’s Negative Attitude Toward
the Golden Calf (Library of Hebrew Bible: Old Testament Studies, 523), New York 2010,
30–58; 206.
10 Cazelles also defends his position in other publications. He writes the following in 1968,
for example, in relation to E: ‘Certes, il [i.e. the Elohist—H.A.] a beaucoup souffert
dans sa fusion avec son génial prédécesseur [i.e. the Jahwist—H.A.] et il n’est pas facile
a étudier, d’autant que sa parenté reconnue avec le Deutéronome conduit beaucoup à
qualifier de deutéronomiste ce qui pourrait bien lui appartenir’ (H. Cazelles, ‘Positions
actuelles dans l’exégèse du Pentateuque’, ETL 44 (1968), 55–78, esp. 72, with reference
to Brekelmans); ‘Le Deutéronome est à la fois très proche et très loin de l’Élohiste. Lui
aussi est bâti sur le schéma des traités d’alliance et d’une manière beaucoup plus claire.
Il connaît un renouveau d’intérêt mérité. Sinon nouvelle alliance (et encore!), c’est une
alliance renouvelée et une reprise de la Loi. Ce qui était à peine esquissé dans l’Élohiste
sur l’amour de Dieu devient ici le centre de la théologie’ (74–75).
In an article on the redactions and traditions associated with the exodus, Cazelles
considers E to be a redaction of two traditions on the Mountain of God: H. Cazelles,
‘Rédactions et traditions dans l’Exode’, in: G. Braulik (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter
Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, Wien 1977, 37–58, esp. 42.
11 Brekelmans presented his ideas on the proto-Deuteronomic character of the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in the Tetrateuch during the 15th meeting of the Colloquium
Biblicum Lovaniense on August 27th 1963 (cf. E. Lipiński, ‘Les quinzièmes journées bibliques
de Louvain’, ETL 39 [1963], 827–837, esp. 831: ‘Le conférencier examina la nature et l’origine
118 Chapter 3
the style of D.13 The fact that a text is written in a Deuteronom(ist)ic style need
not necessarily imply that it should also be dated late. He insisted, moreover,
that the liturgical, solemn formulatory style characteristic of D could not have
come into existence without a prehistory. In his opinion, the Deuteronom(ist)ic
style is better explained as the result of a lengthy liturgical tradition. Indeed,
the Deuteronom(ist)ic tradition clearly made use of older material.
Brekelmans further elaborated these intuitions, likewise in 1963. He observes,
for example, that exegesis tends to be more or less consistent in placing the
emphasis on the unique style, characteristic language, and specific theology of
the book of Deuteronomy.14 At the same time, however, little interest appears
to have been demonstrated in the prehistory of this Deuteronom(ist)ic style
and theology. While some authors admitted that Deuteronomy could not have
fallen from the sky in monolithic form, little if anything was done with this
observation.15 The pericopes in Genesis–Numbers that exhibited a degree of
kinship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature tend to be seen for the most
part as the result of a reworking or interpolation in line with Deuteronomy.
Brekelmans wanted to determine, nevertheless, whether the said pericopes
might not better be identified as belonging to the prehistory of Deuteronomy.
In order to draw reliable conclusions in this regard, he set out to establish a
number of criteria that could be used to support ascribing a given text to the
prehistory of Deuteronomy or to its later influence.16
Cazelles had already pointed to distinctive theology as a criterion with
respect to the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of a pericope. According to Brekel
mans this is a valuable criterion, although it remains vague. He thus adds
13 C. Brekelmans, ‘Het “historische Credo” van Israël’, TvT 3 (1963), 1–11, esp. 4.
14 Cf., for example, S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC),
Edinburgh 1895; 31902 and G. von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT, 58), Göttingen
1947.
15 Cf. S. Mowinkel, Le Décalogue (Études d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses, 16), Paris
1927, 7: ‘Le caractère deutéronomique d’une expression ne prouve pas nécessairement
qu’elle est d’origine récente. Il peut prouver seulement que cette expression faisait partie
du langage cultuel’. A. Weiser, Der Prophet Jeremia (ATD, 20), Göttingen 51966, xxxvii, n. 1
is likewise of the opinion that the liturgical-parenetic style ‘nicht erst in deuteronomi
schen Kreisen entstanden sein kann, da diese schon im Deuteronomium als vorgegebene
Stilform zu erkennen gibt’.
16 Brekelmans, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Elemente, 92: ‘Wenn man so weit
einverstanden ist [namely that Deuteronomy also had a prehistory—H.A.], erhebt sich
die Frage, ob es möglich ist, bestimmte Kriterien aufzufinden, die es uns gestatten mit
einiger Sicherheit festzustellen, ob bestimmte Texte als postdeuteronomisch oder als
protodeuteronomisch gelten sollen’.
120 Chapter 3
At the same time as Brekelmans, Lohfink likewise spurred on the use of the
term ‘proto-Deuteronomic’ with the publication in 1963 of a detailed study
long been noted in the passage’. Exod. 15:26 exhibits ‘many contacts with Deuteronomic
theology and style, but more directly with E’ (43—cf. also 117–124). In addition, G.E.
Wright, Deuteronomy (The Interpreter’s Bible, 2), New York 1953, 320, had also already
underlined the link between E and D: ‘This affinity would have been more evident in the
past, if scholars had not shown a tendency to ascribe to a Deuteronomic redactor those
passages in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers which sound somewhat like Deuteronomy. Yet
most of them occur in a predominantly E context, and view that there was a thorough
Deuteronomic redaction of JE appears increasingly subjective and difficult to prove’.
Likewise according to P. Buis, J. Leclercq, La Deutéronome (SBi), Paris 1963, 15, kinship
between E and D is so considerable, ‘qu’il est souvent difficile de les distinguer’. According
to Buis and Leclercq, moreover, Deuteronomy was familiar with the homiletic elements of
the E tradition and made use of them (14). Cf. also L. Rost, ‘Sinaibund und Davidsbund’,
TLZ 72 (1947), 130–134, who insists that E and Hosea, like Deuteronomy, have a preference
for tradition and ‘Sinaïbund’. G. Auzou, De la servitude au service: Étude du livre de l’Exode
(Connaissance de la Bible, 3), Paris 1961, 28 also sees E as a tradition ‘qui annonce le
Deutéronome’. Cf., in addition, F. Dumermuth, ‘Zur deuteronomischen Kulttheologie und
ihren Voraussetzungen’, ZAW 70 (1958), 59–98, esp. 59; L. Rost, ‘Zum geschichtlichen Ort
der Pentateuchquellen’, ZTK 53 (1956) 1–10, esp. 7; Muilenberg, Form and Structure, 351, as
well as Cazelles, Connexions et structure, 334–335 and Kaiser, O., ‘Traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung von Genesis 15’, ZAW 70 (1958), 107–126, esp 118 n. 57: ‘Das in der Entstehung
des deuteronomistischen Stils und seinem Zusammenhang mit der israeliti schen
Bundestradition zumal elohistischer Färbung ein noch offenen Problem liegt, sei aus
drücklich angemerkt’; J. Scharbert, Genesis 1–11 (Die neue Echter Bibel, 5), Würzburg 1983.
11: ‘Der Elohist und das Deuteronomium müssen aus Theologenkreisen stammen, die in
der sprachlichen Formulierung und in manchen Grundgedanken verwandt waren’.
In later publications, Brekelmans only refers in passing to the ‘Deuteronomistic’
question: cf. C. Brekelmans, ‘Wisdom Influence in Deuteronomy’, in: M. Gilbert (ed.), La
Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament. Nouvelle édition mise à jour (BETL, 51), Leuven 1990, 28–38,
esp. 31. In a study of Josh. 5, he leaves room for the activities of a redaction, traces of
which can be discerned in both Genesis–Numbers and the Deuteronomistic history.
According to Brekelmans, Josh. 5:10–12 and Exod. 16, for example, should be ascribed to
the same redactor, whereby Josh. 5:10–12 is understood as a continuation and completion
of what was said in Exod. 16: ‘This means that there is here a redactional element which
shows a relationship between the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. If the book of
Joshua is part of the Deuteronomistic history, there is at some level a common redaction
with the Pentateuch (Tetrateuch) too. It seems that this conclusion cannot be avoided’
(C. Brekelmans, ‘Joshua v 1–12. Another Approach’, in: A.S. van der Woude [ed.], New
Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published
on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap and
the Retirement of Prof. Dr. M.J. Mulder [OTS, 25], Leiden 1989, 89–95, esp. 94). In relation to
the so-called Deuteronomistic redaction(s) in Isa. 1–12, Brekelmans is likewise somewhat
122 Chapter 3
of Exod. 13:3–16.20 As was evident in the preceding chapter, the passage had
served in the course of exegetical research as a typically Deuteronom(ist)ic text
which, it was claimed, had been added by a Deuteronom(ist)ic ‘redactor’. While
Exod. 13:3–16 exhibits similarities with the Deuteronomic style, Lohfink was
convinced that the pericope should not be characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic
under any circumstances. On the contrary. In his opinion, research into the
vocabulary of the text clearly demonstrated the proto-Deuteronomic char-
acter of Exod. 13:3–16.21 Both Lohfink and Brekelmans thus used the term to
underline their conviction that Exod. 13:3–16 exhibited traces of an early stage
in the development of the Deuteronomic style.22
reticent: ‘At least in ch. 1–12 of the book of Isaiah I cannot find a redaction that could be
called deuteronomistic. I am inclined to think that we ascribe too many things to the
deuteronomistic movement. The reason for this may be that we seem to know exactly
what deuteronomic or deuteronomistic means, whereas we seem to know ever less about
the prophets and the prophetic literature, which remains nevertheless one of the most
characteristic parts of the Old Testament literature. My intention was to react in my own
way against a kind of pandeuteronomism which is pervading nowadays quite a number
of Old Testament studies’. (C. Brekelmans, ‘Deuteronomistic Influence in Isaiah 1–12’, in:
J. Vermeylen [ed.], The Book of Isaiah—Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité
et complexité de l’ouvrage [BETL, 81], Leuven 1989, 167–176, esp. 176).
20 Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 121–124.
21 Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 121: ‘Ex 13,3–16 gehört zwar in den Bereich des deuterono
mischen Stils, ist aber weder deuteronomistisch (dh. dem Rahmen des Dtn oder
charakteristischen Stellen von Jos–2 Kö und Jer zuzuordnen) noch im strengen Sinn
deuteronomisch (dh. Dtn 5–28 zuzuordnen), sondern—um einen entsprechen den
Ausdruck zu prägen—“proto-deuteronomisch” ’.
22 Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 121–122: ‘Ex 13,3–16 ist vielleicht das schlagendste Beispiel für
ein vor dem jetzigen Dt liegendes, noch reineres und jüngeres Stadium des typischen
Stils der dt Schule der Predigt Israels. Wir sagten ‘schlagend’, denn wir dachten an
den Glücksfall, daß wir in Dtn 6 ein formal so ähnliches Stück zum Sprachvergleich
heranziehen können’. In the same context, Lohfink also mentions Exod. 12:24–27a as a
non-Deuteronomic passage, pointing out that only the inclusion technique in relation to
the great command is related to Deuteronomy and that the language of the said pericope
does not exhibit similarities with that of the latter: ‘Aufs Ganze fehlt Ex 12,24–27a in seiner
Knappheit und Präzision ganz der lange Atem dt Perioden, es fehlen Doppelausdrücke
und Zerdehnungen und vieles andere, woran man den dt Stil erkennt. (. . .) Selbst wenn
es Zusätz bleibt, dürfte sein nichtdeuteronomischer Charakter erwiesen sein’ (122).
Elsewhere, Lohfink refers to JE as entirely proto-Deuteronomic: ‘Ich betrachte das
“jehovistische Geschichtsbuch” als den deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Texten
und erst recht den priesterschriftlichen vorgegeben und bin höchstens bei einzelnen
Texten bereit, darüber zu streiten, ob sie pentateuchischen spätredaktion angehören.
Die Haupt- oder Schlussredaktion des Geschichtsbuchs oder wenigstens seine letzte
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 123
5, 7, 10, 12) occurs 210 times in Deuteronomy, while ( אהבExod. 20:6) is only
used four times in the context of human love for God. On this basis, Lohfink
called for a painstaking study of the texts to which scholars appealed in char-
acterising a pericope as Deuteronom(ist)ic. Such texts often represented an
amalgamation of different motifs, a fact that could not be observed on the
basis of word statistics alone.27 Lohfink applied his proposal by way of exam-
ple to the Decalogue. Based on a study of the texts related to the Decalogue, he
concludes that the latter should perhaps not be considered a ‘concentrate’ of
so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic passages. Instead, he maintained, the passages in
question would appear to presuppose the Decalogue.28
In 1995, and in line with his criticism of the ill-considered attribution of
verses from Genesis–Numbers to the Deuteronomist, Lohfink published a
controversial article in which he focused particular attention on the crite-
ria to be employed in the discernment of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in
biblical passages.29 His article insists on the need for meticulous stylistic
research within the discussion concerning the presence of Deuteronom(ist)ic
elements.30 At the same time, it reiterates the author’s misgivings with respect
Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments—Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstag, dem 23.
Mai 1922 dargebracht von seinen Schülern und Freunden, Tl. 1: Zur Religion und Literatur
des Alten Testaments (FRLANT, 36), Göttingen 1923, 78–119, esp. 85.
27 Lohfink, ‘Die These vom “deuteronomischen” Dekaloganfang’, 101: ‘Das sollte schon
dazu führen, nicht nur statistisch zu arbeiten, sondern mindestens bei den weniger
häufig belegten Ausdrücken die Belegtexte zu studieren. Dabei zeigt sich bald etwas,
das die atomistische Statistik verbirgt: es gibt einige Texte, in denen mehrere dieser
“deuteronomischen” Ausdrücke geballt vereinigt sind’. T. Römer, ‘Provisorische
Überlegungen zur Entstehung von Exodus 18–24’, in R. Achenbach, M. Arneth (eds),
“Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen
Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie—Festschrift
für Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (BZABR, 13), Wiesbaden 2009, 128–154, esp. 129 has
recently argued that ‘Wortstatistik’ should go hand in hand with ‘Tendenzkritik, (. . .) das
heißt die Erhebung der Textintention’.
28 Lohfink, ‘Die These vom “deuteronomischen” Dekaloganfang’, 109.
29 N. Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, in: W. Gross (ed.), Jeremia und
die ‘deuteronomistische Bewegung’ (BBB, 98), Weinheim 1995, 313–382, esp. 323–333. For
an abbreviated English version, see N. Lohfink, ‘Was There a Deuteronomistic Movement’,
in: L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of
Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 36–66.
30 As early as 1981, and in part on the basis of a stylistic study, Lohfink characterised Exod
15:26—traditionally understood to be Deuteronom(ist)ic—as a verse associated with
the Priestly literature. He observed that Deuteronom(ist)ic rhetorical texts make use of
a list of infinitives, while the Priestly literature constructs parallel clauses on the basis
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 125
to statistical research into isolated items of vocabulary and calls for attention
to be focused rather on the study of word groups and combinations of words,31
pointing out in addition that developments in the domain of Bible and infor-
mation technology might offer useful assistance in this regard.
In the same contribution, Lohfink also poses questions with respect to
prevailing hypotheses on the link between the emergence of Deuteronomy
and its associated literature, and the—demonstrable?—literary activity of a
Deuteronomic ‘school’ or ‘movement’.32 Basing himself on the essential char-
acteristics of a movement, he reveals himself to be sceptical in this regard.
of finite verbs. Lohfink, ‘ “Ich bin Jahwe, dein Arzt” ’, 33–39: ‘Ex 15,26 hat in der Form, im
Wortgebrauch und in der Aussage vielfache Beziehungen zu den deuteronomischen und
deuteronomistischen Texten. Darin liegt der Wahrheitskern der üblichen Etikettierung
als “deuteronomistisch” o.ä. Doch liegen zugleich so tiefgreifenden, fast stets in die Nähe
späterer, priesterschriftlicher Stil- und Sprachdokumente weisende Unterschiede zu
allem Deuteronomischen vor, daß man diese Etikettierung dann doch ablehnen muß. Der
Verfasser muß vielmehr einem Raum entstammen, der schon über Deuteronomisches
und Priesterschriftliches zugleich verfügte. Genauer: Dieser Vers ist wohl in Anlehnung an
und im Blick auf Deuteronomisches von jemand formuliert worden, der selbst schon eher
von priesterschriftlichem Sprachgefühl herkam. Zwar nicht absolut notwendig, aber doch
mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit haben wir also an die eigentliche Pentateuchredaktion
oder eine noch nach ihr liegende Überarbeitung zu denken’ (39). A variety of scholars
were later to associate verses traditionally understood as Deuteronom(ist)ic with a late
stage in the evolution of the Pentateuch on account of their kinship with both D and P.
See, for example, Römer, ‘Provisorische Überlegungen’, 133–134 with respect to Exod. 19:3–
8, the Decalogue in Exod. 20:1–18 and 24:1–11*, among others.
31 Reference should be made in this regard to Weinfeld’s extremely important study of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic idiom (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 320–365). In an
appendix on ‘deuteronomic phraseology’, and in contrast to the prevailing tendency, he
focuses attention on expressions and combinations of words. Occasioned by Weinfeld’s
study, Lohfink also dryly observed in 1995: ‘Seine Praxis scheint bei den deuterono
mistischen Goldsuchern noch kaum Schule gemacht zu haben’ (N. Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine
deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, 324).
32 See, for example, G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, Bd 1: Die Theologie
der geschichtlichen Überlieferungen Israels, Munich 1957, 79; O.H. Steck, Israel und
das Gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des
deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbild im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum
(WMANT, 23), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1967, 196–199; J.O. Akao, ‘In Search of the Origin of the
Deuteronomic Movement’, in IrBSt 16 (1994), 174–189 and to some extent the related
term ‘Deuteronomismus’ introduced by L. Perlitt, ‘Hebraismus—Deuteronomismus—
Judaïsmus’, in: G. Braulik et al., Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für
Norbert Lohfink s.J., Freiburg 1993, 297–295 and associated with the theme of the
‘Deuteronomistic movement’.
126 Chapter 3
been during the exile in Babylon that copies of a text found their way into the
hands of a few families or religious centres. This does not imply, however, that
private ownership of biblical manuscripts was a general phenomenon. With
the exception of the so-called ‘Ur-Deuteronomium’, which was read in public
every seven years,36 existing texts tended to be very thinly spread and little
known. This situation is likely to have continued into the 3rd or 2nd century
bce, Lohfink maintains. At the same time, the relatively wide distribution
of Deuteronomy implies that both its content and its language was broadly
known and was no longer unique to a limited ‘movement’.37 As a result, anyone
familiar with the Deuteronomic law, language, style and ideas was free to make
use of them in new compositions.
Based on these presuppositions, Lohfink concludes that a genuine
Deuteronomistic ‘movement’ with its roots in the preaching of the prophet
Hosea probably never existed. Pre-exilic and exilic (Deuteronomic) may well
have referred to and made use of texts from the prophet Hosea that they had
at their disposal. It is also possible that the language of Hosea had become
accessible to them via their reading of Jeremiah, who was apparently likewise
familiar with texts of Hosea. The fact that the Deuteronomic authors made
use of Hosea, however, does not imply that Hosea should be seen of necessity
as the prototype of the Deuteronomistic movement.38 In Lohfink’s opinion,
the reform of Hezekiah is also unrelated to the existence of a Deuteronomistic
movement. In response to the threat from Assyrian, and for political and mili-
tary reasons, Hezekiah had endeavoured to centralise the population of Judah
in Jerusalem. For similarly tactical reasons he also wanted to centralise the cult
by ascribing a special place to Jerusalem, so that the population would be con-
centrated in Jerusalem in the event of war with Assyria.39 It is probable that
the oldest layer of Deut. 12—with its exclusive focus on the centralisation of
sacrifice—stems from this period. It is also possible that an older form of the
books of Kings came into existence during the reign of Hezekiah, a form we
was kept alive by a number of families in Jerusalem and was concerned with
bringing the entire population together under one king, namely Josiah.43
According the Lohfink, Deu te
ronomistic texts were not only used as
a source of inspiration during and after the Babylonian exile, they were
also imitated.44 This implies that a text exhibiting similarities with Deute
ronomy or the Deuteronomistic history should not simply be characterised as
Deuteronomistic without further ado.45 Moreover, an author who draws inspi-
ration from the Deuteronomistic literature is not thereby a ‘Deuteronomist’,
nor can he be identified as a member of an (organised) ‘movement’.46
47 Scholars had made sporadic reference to their conviction that the specific language of
Deuteronomy could not have emerged unprepared. See, for example, E.W. Nicholson,
Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford 1967, 37–57; 119–124. F. Horst, Das Privilegrecht
Jahwes: Rechtsgeschichtli che Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium (FRLANT, 45),
Göttingen 1930 conducted a systematic study of the incorporation of legal texts into
Deuteronomy. Prophetic components were also recognised in Deuteronomy (cf. Driver,
Deuteronomy, xxvi; A.C. Welch, The Code of Deuteronomy: A New Theory of its Origins,
London 1924, 32–33; A. Alt, ‘Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums’, in: Idem, Kleine Schriften
zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Bd. 2, Munich 1953, 250–275; G. von Rad, Das Gottesvolk im
Deuteronomium [BWANT, 47], Stuttgart 1929, 72–100; H.-W. Wolff, ‘Hoseas geistige Heimat’,
TLZ 81 [1956], 83–94). Other scholars pointed to poetic material said to have been used
by the authors of Deuteronomy (e.g. H. Junker, ‘Die Entstehungszeit des Ps. 78 und des
Deuteronomiums’, Bib 34 [1953], 487–500). For the influence of Wisdom Literature on the
genesis and evolution of Deuteronomy, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School.
48 Scholars tend only rarely to explore verses from Genesis and Numbers, and often only
in passing. See, for example, J.G. Plöger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkriti
sche Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium (BBB, 26), Bonn 1967, 71: ‘Man wird (. . .) in Gen
50,24 mit einer der deuteronomischen “Schule” zwar verwandten, ihr vorausgehenden,
aber nicht sicher identischen Überarbeitung zu rechnen haben’. According to H. Donner,
Die literarische Gestalt der alttestamentlichen Josephsgeschichte (Sitzungsberichte der
Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976/2), Heidelberg 1976, 35, the language
of Gen. 50:23–25 points ‘auf den Elohisten. Zu erwägen wäre allenfalls eine protodeu
teronomische Konstruktion’. L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT,
36), Neukirchen 1969, 67–68 considers Gen. 12:7 to be proto-Deuteronomic: ‘Die (vor-)
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 131
research as well as its results are more or less identical.50 The said scholars
focus in the first instance on language and vocabulary, while style tends to
occupy a much narrower place in their research. The results they achieve, how-
ever, tend to be parallel. The pericopes they study, are not considered the result
of a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction.51 On the contrary, the scholars in question
of particular interest in this regard. Ska’s answer, nevertheless is negative. In his opinion,
Exod. 14 is much closer to the theophany narratives.
Based on a study of the vocabulary of Exod. 14, Ska concludes that the passage in
question is not dependent on Deuteronomy. In several instances, the opposite appears
in fact to be the case. In Deut. 20:4, for example, two important ideas are associated with
one another, namely the presentation of God in battle and the presentation of God who
accompanies his people. According to Ska, these themes come from the Sea Narrative
in Exod. 13–14. The formula ( הלך עםDeut. 20:4) is probably a mixture of הלך לפני
(Exod. 13:21) and ( היה עםNum. 14:9, Deut. 20:1; 31:8; 2 Chron. 20:17; 32:8). It is stated in
Deut. 20:4, moreover, that God battles on behalf of his people. The theme of the cloud in
Exod. 13–14 serves as a key to Ska’s interpretation. In the Sea Narrative in Exodus we are
told how God is present in the cloud that precedes the Israelites and how he goes to battle
against Egypt on their behalf: ‘Deut. xx,4 a thématisé en une phrase ce qui était simple
ment juxtaposé dans le récit de l’Exode, le fait que Dieu combat pour Israël et le fait que
ce Dieu soit présent dans la nuée. Cette conscience réflexe, dans le Deut., laisse supposer
qu’il est postérieur au récit de l’Exode’ (461). According to Ska, other details also suggest
that Deut. 20:1–4 was inspired by Exodus, namely the explicit mention of the exodus (v. 1),
the chariots and horses (v. 1) and the hiphil of ( ישעv. 4): ‘L’exhortation, d’après le v. 1,
est placée tout entière sous le signe de l’exode. Israël doit puiser sa confiance dans le
souvenir de cet événement. Le Dt. reprend donc une tradition connue, tout en utilisant
un vocabulaire propre’ (461 n. 28). Deut. 1:29–33 and 2:14–15 likewise appear to recapture
the old text of Exod. 14 and give it their own interpretation.
Ska’s findings with respect to the ‘Sea Narrative’ in Exod. 14 can be summarised as
follows. A J narrative in Exod. 14 is more in keeping with the theophany narratives
than the war narratives. At the same time, the vocabulary of Exod. 14 is independent of
Deuteronom(ist)ic texts. Deuteronomy on the contrary builds on Exod. 14. To conclude,
and in line with Ska’s conviction, we must also ask whether the theme of ‘holy war’ was
invented by the Deuteronom(ist)ic ‘school’. Moreover, war and stories of war are much
older than the reform of Josiah: ‘Somme toute, l’analyse du thème de Dieu qui combat
pour son peuple fait pencher la balance plutôt dans le sens d’une dépendance des textes
Dt.-Dtr par rapport à ceux d’Exode’ (462). Cf. also J.L. Ska, Le passage de la Mer: Étude de la
construction, du style et de la symbolique d’Ex 14,1–31 (AnBib, 109), Roma 1986.
50 In the present survey we will focus on the studies of C. Labuschagne, M. Caloz, M. Vervenne
and C. Begg. We will also look at the work of D.E. Skweres whose study of Deuteronomy
produced similar results.
51 We have not included studies that deny any relationship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature and argue for the non-Deuteronom(ist)ic character of a pericope. Examples
of the latter include F. Langlamet, ‘Israël et “l’habitant du pays” ’, RB 76 (1969), 321–350,
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 133
a highly detailed study of the vocabulary of Exod. 34,11–16 geared to determining the
pericope in question can be described as pre-Deuteronomic. The author prefers to use the
term pre-Deuteronomic instead of proto-Deuteronomic, arguing that Exod. 34:11–16 is an
extremely old text and thus far from Deuteronomy. According to Langlamet, Exod. 34:11–
16 is a parenesis from before the time of Solomon, warning against integration with the
Canaanites. See also J. Loza, ‘Les catéchèses étiologiques dans l’Ancien Testament’, RB 78
(1971), 481–500 and ‘Exode xxxii et la rédaction JE’, VT 23 (1973), 31–55 who underlines the
non-Deuteronomic character of Exod. 12:24–27 and Exod. 32:7–14.
A number of authors observe in passing that certain passages in Genesis–Numbers
should be considered preliminary to the Deuteronom(ist)ic language and theology. See,
for example, W.H. Schmidt, Exodus (BKAT, 2/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988, 197: ‘Typisch
deuteronomistische Sprache zeigt Ex 4 jedoch nicht (. . .). So mag die jehowistische
Redaktion eher auf dem Weg zur deuteronomistischen (. . .) als mit ihr identisch sein’
(cf. also 163–142). See Idem, Einführung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 1979; 51995, 58 n. 2.
52 M. Caloz, ‘Exode xiii,3–16 et son rapport au Deutéronome’, RB 75 (1968), 5–62. On
Exod. 13,3–16, see also, for example, Plöger, Deuteronomium, 68–77, esp. 77: ‘Zusammen-
fassend läßt sich feststellen, daß Ex 13,3–16 neben älteren Texten proto-deuteronomisches
und deuteronomisch-deuteronomistisches Material enthält. Mehrfache sukzessive Erwei
terungen scheinen darum nicht ausgeschlossen. Die in unserem Zusammenhang interes-
sierenden Formulierungen des Rückverweis auf den Väterschwur Ex 13,5.11 weisen große
Verwandschaft zu Dt auf. Bedeutsam ist vor allem, daß die Nähe zu Dt größer ist als zu
einer anderen “Quelle” ’.
134 Chapter 3
this juncture).53 The results of his statistical analysis already allow him to
draw a number of conclusions. Within Genesis–Numbers, there would appear
to be several agreements between Exod. 13:3–16 and the Jahwistic literature.
At the same time, Caloz insists that we should pay particular attention to the
differences between the vocabulary in Deuteronomy and the vocabulary in
Exod. 13:3–16, in spite of the fact that there appears at first sight to be more
contacts with Deuteronomy.54 He also observed that a number of words and
expressions in Exod. 13 appear to be related to J, E or L, but to have no asso-
ciation to Deuteronomy. The pericope, moreover, contains two words that do
not occur elsewhere.55 Caloz concludes on the basis of his detailed vocabu-
lary study that the terminology of Exod. 13:3–16 should not be characterised as
Deuteronom(ist)ic.56
An analysis that studies every word of a text in itself, however, cannot be
sufficient. Indeed, one can only determine the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of
a text when one pays attention to the literary context. This provides the focus
in the second part of Caloz’ study, namely the structure of the pericope and its
framing formulas. He begins by trying to ascertain whether the introductory
formulas (Exod. 13:5, 11–12a) that locate the laws (Exod. 13:6–7, 11–12a) within a
53 For source subdivision, Caloz makes use of Eissfeldt’s Hexateuch-Synopse: Die Erzählung
der fünf Bücher Mose und des Buches Josua mit dem Anfange des Richterbuches in ihre
vier Quellen zerlegt und in Deutscher Übersetzung dargeboten samt einer in Einleitung
und Anmerkungen gegebenen Begründung, Leipzig 1922. He thus makes a distinction
between L, J, E and P. In addition to Deuteronomy, Caloz also includes material from
the Deuteronomistic History in his research, which he further subdivides into pre-
Deuteronomistic, Deuteronomistic, post-Deuteronomistic and special material.
54 Exod. 13:3–16 contains a few phrases that only occur elsewhere in Deuteronomy. On closer
inspection, however, the said material appears not to be completely identical. The word
( שגרExod. 13:12), for example, is only found elsewhere in Deut. 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51. In Deute
ronomy, however, the term is always accompanied by אלפיך, is in the status constructus,
and always occurs in formulas of blessing and curse (Caloz, ‘Exode xiii,3–16’, 42). With
respect to the words בין עניךand טוטפת, Caloz observes that ‘la formule n’a pas en Ex.,
xiii,9.16 la fixité du Dtn et elle ne se rapporte pas à la Loi mais à l’observance de deux
rites particuliers’ (42). Caloz also sees Brekelmans’ criteria with respect to style confirmed
in words and phrases that occur in Deuteronomy and in other traditions. Many words
and formulations Exod. 13 shares with Deuteronomy appear, moreover, to differ from one
another in terms of meaning or formulation. The word זבתin Exod. 13, for example, is
used for sacrifices in honour of YHWH. In Deuteronomy, by contrast, the term refers to
household sacrifices.
55 ( בחזק ידExod. 13:3, 14, 16) and ( והעברתExod. 13:12).
56 Caloz, ‘Exode xiii,3–16’, 43: ‘(. . .) on conviendra qu’il reste assez peu d’arguments pour
attribuer notre péricope à une rédaction deutéronomiste’.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 135
57 Some arguments: (1) According to Caloz, the framing of laws in a historical context takes
place once in J (Exod. 23:23), three times in L (Exod. 12:25; 13:5, 11), nine times in P (Lev. 25:2;
14:34; 19:23; 23:10; Num. 15:2, 18; 33:51; 34:2; 35:10) and twelve times in Deuteronomy
(Deut. 6:10; 7:1; 8:7; 11:29, 31; 12:20, 29; 17:14; 18:9; 19:1; 26:1; 27:2). In his opinion, this is a usage
peculiar to Priestly circles and thus not typically Deuteronomic. (2) In nine of the twelve
in Deuteronomy—and only in those in Deuteronomium—we find the formula ‘when
YHWH your God . . .’. This expression does not occur in Exod. 13. (3) The list of the nations
in Exod. 13 runs parallel with the lists in Exodus and not those in Deuteronomy. Caloz,
‘Exode xiii,3–16’, 47 also concludes: ‘Il nous semble très difficile d’attribuer les formules
d’Ex 13,5.11 à une rédaction deutéronomiste. Il y a certes une parenté, étroite même sur
certains points, mais l’absence de détails significatifs nous empêche de voir dans notre
péricope une dépendance du Deutéronome’.
58 With respect to the non-Deuteronomic origin of the catechetic exhortation with which
a father instructs his child reference can be made to J.A. Soggin, ‘Kultätiologische Sagen
und Katechese im Hexateuch’, VT 10 (1960), 341–347. According to Soggin, this literary
technique is always deployed in relation to central and essential elements of the law and
is thus at home in the cult. The catechetical exhortation, moreover, is not a discovery of
Deuteronomy, as is evident from Ancient Near Easter vassal treaties.
59 Caloz, ‘Exode xiii,3–16’, 53: ‘En Dtn., vi,8 et xi,18, nous avons les meilleurs parallèles pour
le vocabulaire, mais avec les différences que nous avons notées [in contrast to Deut. 6:8
and 11:18, Exod. 13:9, 16 has to do with the maintenance of a specific rite—H.A.]. Dtn.,
vi,25, au contraire nous offre un bon parallèle quant au sens mais dans un vocabulaire
très différent’. Caloz also turns his attention to the introduction (vv. 3–4). If we compare
v. 3a with similar introductory formulas in Deuteronomy (Deut. 1:1; 4:44.45; 5:1; 29:1;
31:1; 32:44) we observes a difference in tonality between the passages in question and
Exod. 13. While it is true that the expression זכור את היוםis also found in Deut. 16:3, the
latter passage already testifies to Josiah’s reform, a feature that is completely absent in
Exod. 13:3: ‘Il semble donc que nous avons ici deux textes apparentés remontant à une
source commune. (. . .) À moins que le Dtn (sa formulation ici) ne dépende d’Ex., xiii!’
(54). Based on the vocabulary, the transition between the two laws in v. 10 can likewise not
be characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic.
136 Chapter 3
pericope in the evolution of Israel’s religious legislation. The two laws appear
to be relatively old, allowing Caloz to date Exod. 13:3–16 to a period prior to
Josiah’s reforms.
The three parts of Caloz’ study thus point in one and the same direction. In
his opinion, Exod. 13:3–16 is not dependent on Deuteronomy and should not
therefore be referred to as Deuteronom(ist)ic.60 According to Caloz, the data
demonstrates that the pericope under analysis is a proto-Deuteronomic text.
There can be little doubt that Caloz’ detailed analysis helped the hypothesis
of Brekelmans and Lohfink to gain ground in the 1970s and continue to do so
even into the beginning of the 1990s. This is evident from the fact that a num-
ber of scholarly analyses—primarily of texts from the book of Exodus—were
no longer inclined to assign passages to a Deuteronom(ist)ic redactor without
further reflection, at the very least accounting on occasion for the possibility of
a ‘proto-Deuteronomic’ author. Prime examples of this tendency can be found
in the studies of Joseph T.-K. Chan on Exod. 3–4, of Ludger Schwienhorst-
Schönberger and Yuichi Osumi on the Book of the Covenant in Exod. 20:22–
23:33 and of Jörn Halbe on Exod. 34.61 Particular attention should be paid in this
context on those exegetes who studied under Brekelmans himself and focused
their research on the proto-Deuteronomic elements in Genesis–Numbers.
60 Caloz, ‘Exode xiii,3–16’, 62: ‘En conclusion: cette recherche nous a convaincu que le
qualificatif de “deutéronomique” ou “deutéronomiste”—dans le sens où on les prend
habituellement, c’est à dire impliquant une dépendance par rapport au Dtn—ne se
justifie pas pour Ex., xiii,3–16, et nous serions prêt à accepter la qualification de proto-
deutéronomique (ou pré-deutéronomique) proposée par Lohfink, qui, outre la précision
qu’elle apporte, nous rappelle que le style et la théologie du Dtn ont suivi une loi de
croissance et de progrès avant de produire le livre que nous admirons’.
61 J.T.-K. Chan, La vocation de Moïse (Ex 3 & 4): Recherche sur la rédaction dite deutéronomique
du Tétrateuque (Facultés de Théologie et de Droit Canonique. Travaux de doctorat.
Nouvelle série, 15/8), Louvain-la-Neuve 1993; J. Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex 34,10–
26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT, 114),
Göttingen 1975; Y. Osumi, Die kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b–
23,33 (OBO, 105), Fribourg 1991; L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,22–
23,33): Studien zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie (BZAW, 188), Berlin 1990. See also D.P.
Wright, Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the
Laws of Hammurabi, Oxford 2009, 332–333, considering the Book of the Covenant as ‘pre-
Deuteronomic’. As to the Sinai-pericope, see e.g. also A. Phillips, ‘A Fresh Look at the Sinai
Pericope’, VT 34 (1984), 39–52; 282–294.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 137
62 C.T. Begg, Contributions to the Elucidation of the Composition of Deuteronomy with Special
Attention to the Significance of the Numeruswechsel (unpublished Doctoral dissertation
KU Leuven), Leuven 1978. See also Idem, ‘The Significance of the Numeruswechsel
in Deuteronomy. The “Pre-History” of the Question, ETL 55 (1979), 116–124; Idem, ‘A
Significant Anniversary in the History of Deuteronomy Research’, in: García Martínez
et al. (eds.), Studies in Deuteronomy, 1–11.
63 C.T. Begg, ‘The Destruction of the Calf (Exod 32,20/Deut 9,21)’, in N. Lohfink (ed.), Das
Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 208–251. Begg
poses the question with clarity in the introduction to his article: ‘How is the relationship
between the two verses to be understood, given both their considerable verbal similarity,
as well as their divergences? Is the one literarily dependent on the other, and if so, in
which direction does the dependence lie? Under this head it is especially the absence in
Deut 9,21 of anything corresponding to the ‘giving-to-drink motif ’ of Exod 32,20 which
calls for explanation. Did the author of Deuteronomy deliberately eliminate that motif
in his rewriting of the text of Exodus, or does it, rather, represent an amplification by the
writer of Exod 32,20 (or by a later redactor of that verse) of an earlier, shorter formulation
preserved in Deuteronomy?’ (209).
64 Begg, ‘The Destruction of the Calf ’, 229: ‘(. . .) the Biblical authors, like those of the
extra-Biblical passages were not primarily—if at all—concerned with the “realistic”
considerations which have long troubled interpreters of the calf accounts, Exod 32,20
138 Chapter 3
suggest that there is literary dependence between the two verses: (1) Both
Exodus and Deuteronomy employ the verb לקחwith עגלas its object. (2) Both
verses employ a relative clause with עשהas verb and the people as subject.
(3) Exod. 32:20 and Deut. 9:21 use the clause שרף באש. (4) Both employ טחןwith
reference to Moses’ third action ( טחןonly occurs 7 times in the Old Testament,
and only in Exod. 32 and Deut. 9 with עגלas object). (5) Both Exodus and
Deuteronomy employ the construction עד אשר דקto designate the result of
Moses’ third action (moreover the qal infinitive of דקקis only found in these
two passages together with )עד אשר.
In spite of these striking similarities, there are also a number of equally
striking differences: (1) In Deuteronomy, the statue is referred to as ‘sin’.
(2) Exodus uses וישרף באשfor Moses’ second action while Deuteronomy uses
ואשרף אתו באש. (3) With respect to Moses’ third and fourth action, Exodus and
Deuteronomy likewise differ: Exodus has ויטחן עד אשר דקand ויזר על פני המים,
Deuteronomy ואכת אתו טחון היטב עד אשר דק לעפרand ואשלך את עפרו אל הנחל
הירד מן ההר. (4) As we noted above, Deuteronomy does not mention Moses
making the children of Israel drink the water.
Likewise, in spite of the similarities between Exodus and Deuteronomy, the
text of the latter appears to employ a richer vocabulary and to be more elabo-
rate. (1) Where Exodus employs five words to describe Moses’ first and third
action, Deuteronomy describes the same events with seven and eight words
respectively. (2) In the second, third and fifth of Moses’ actions, Deuteronomy
makes explicit reference to the object: אתוand עפרו. (3) The unspecific על פני
המיםin Exodus is more clearly described in Deuteronomy as אל הנחל הירד מן ההר.
(4) The description of Moses’ first and third action is more elaborate in literary
terms in the Deuteronomy version. (5) Deut. 9:21 is much more negative with
respect to the people; the people’s sin is named before the calf is mentioned.
According to Begg, this inventory of similarities and differences indicates
that Deut. 9:21 is secondary with respect to Exod. 32:20 and is a reworking
thereof. His conclusion, however, does not solve the problem of the verse seg-
ment in which Moses makes the Israelites drink the water mixed with ashes.
Begg still has to demonstrate that the author of Deut. 9:21 did not take the
fifth action over from Exod. 32:20, but opted rather to drop this—and precisely
this—action, in contrast to his tendency to present the other actions in more
colourful and elaborate terms. Begg appeals at this juncture to Noth’s theory of
in particular. Rather, both the Biblical and extra-Biblical writers wanted above all to
underscore, by their piling up of a whole series of destructive acts that the reprobate
being described was, in fact, thoroughly, utterly annihilated’.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 139
the Deuteronomistic History. Noth had ascribed portions of Deut. 1–3(4); 31; 34
to the same author who wrote the Deuteronomistic passages in Joshua–Kings,
namely the Deuteronomist. Georges Minette de Tillesse had suggested in addi-
tion that the segments of Deut. 5–11 written in the second person plural also stem
from the same Deuteronomist.65 According to Minette de Tillesse, Deut. 9:21 is
to be ascribed to the Deuteronomist, who set out establishing a link between
this verse and the story of Josiah scattering the rubble of the sacrificial altars
in the Kedron brook (2 Kgs 23:12).66 Begg takes this hypothesis as the point of
departure for the continuation of his study of the character of Deut. 9:21.67 For
each of the points in which Deut. 9:21 and Exod. 32:20 differ from one another,
he goes in search of points of reference in the Deuteronomistic History: (1) The
qualification of the calf as הטאתכםagrees with the description of the calf that
Jeroboam had had drawn up.68 (2) In Deut 9,21 the term טחןis appositional and
is not used as the primary verb as in Exod. 32:20. The primary verb in Deut. 9:21
is כתת. By using this verb here, the Deuteronomist already intends to establish
a link with 2 Kgs 18:4b, where reference is made to the reform of Hezekiah.
The similarity is all the more striking when one observes that כתתonly occurs
elsewhere in 2 Chron. 34:7 and Mic. 1:7 in an idolatry context. (3) The term
יטבis used only in Deut. 9:21 and in one other verse in the Old Testament to
allude to the total destruction of forbidden cultic objects. The verse in ques-
tion is 2 Kgs 11:18, a text that deals with the elimination of the cult of Baal in
Judah. (4) The Deuteronomist also added לעפרin Deut. 9:21, thus creating a
link with 2 Kgs 23:4, 6, 12, 15, the story of the reforms of Josiah. The term עפר
is only used in these five instances in relation to the smashing of illicit cultic
65 G. Minette de Tillesse, ‘Sections “tu” et sections “vous” dans le Deutéronome, VT 12 (1962),
29–87. See also Idem, ‘Tu & vous dans le Deutéronome’, in: R.G. Kratz, H. Spieckermann
(eds), Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium—Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von
Lothar Perlitt (FRLANT, 190), Göttingen 2000, 156–163.
66 Minette de Tillesse, ‘Sections “tu” et sections “vous” ’, 60.
67 Begg, ‘The Destruction of the Calf ’, 236: ‘What emerges from the investigations of these
authors [including Minette de Tillesse—H.A.] is that, not only in its introduction of a
“brook” as the place where the calf ’s remains are disposed, but also in a whole series of
other instances where its wording diverges from that of Exod 32,20, Deut 9,21 evidences
verbal links with the wide range of texts in Kings recounting significant moments (both
positive and negative) in the cultic history of Israel, so that the verse appears as a very
deliberate rewriting of the text of Exodus with a view to setting up and fore-shadowing
those various later moments’.
68 Cf. 1 Kgs 12:30; 13:34; 14:16, 22; 15:3, 26, 30, 34; 16:2, 13, 19, 26, 31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24; 15:9,
18, 24, 28; 17:22.
140 Chapter 3
objects. (5) Moses’ fourth action as described in Deut. 9:21 is word for word the
same as the formulation in 2 Kgs 23:12: שלח עפר. Moreover, the combination
of שלחand עפרis only found elsewhere in 2 Kgs 23:6. The term זרהemployed
in Exod. 32:20, by contrast, is not attested in the Deuteronomistic literature.
(6) With respect to the formula אל הנחל הירד מן ההרof Deut. 9:21, Begg likewise
refers to 2 Kgs 23:12, where it is stated that Josiah scattered the ashes in the
נחל קדרון. The Deuteronomist also employs the preferred ( נחל )קדרוןelsewhere
with reference to the destruction of forbidden cultic objects (cf. 1 Kgs 15:13;
2 Kgs 23:6).
Begg thus concludes that the Deuteronomist wrote Deut. 9:21 in prepara-
tion of a number of crucial themes from the Deuteronomistic History. With
this observation in mind, it becomes clear why the Deuteronomist dropped
Moses’ fifth action—the reference to the Israelites drinking the water in which
the ashes of the calf had been scattered—from his version of the destruc-
tion of the calf. The Deuteronomistic literature on post-Mosaic cultic reform
does not speak of an obligation to drink the water with the ashes. If it was the
intention of the Deuteronomistic author of Deut. 9:21 to use the said verse to
anticipate the major cultic reforms in the history of Israel, then it would have
been unnecessary for him to include this motif in his version of the narrative.69
Deut. 9:21 appears, moreover, to be a carefully written composition, mak-
ing use of Exod. 32:20 to anticipate a number of important events that were
to emerge in the Deuteronomistic History.70 This conclusion allows Begg to
characterise Exod. 32:20—with reference to his teacher Brekelmans—as a
69 With reference to S.L. Loewenstamm, ‘The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf—A
Rejoinder’, Bib 56 (1975), 330–348, Begg also claims that there is evidence of a rationalising
tendency that can be understood to be a characteristic of the Deuteronomist. Deut. 9,21,
he thus observes, uses אל הנחל הירד מן ההרto explain the presence of water in the
wilderness. Moreover, the ashes are quickly carried away by the river’s currents making
the image of the Israelites drinking the water easier to erase.
70 Begg, ‘The Destruction of the Calf ’, 241: ‘(. . .) each particular term/motif proper to
Deut 9,21 has been chosen with a view to setting up a definite verbal contact between
its account of the destruction of the calf and various significant cultic developments in
the period of the divided monarchy, i.e. Jerobeam’s fatal offense in erecting the calves
(1 Kgs 12,26ff. etc.) and the four major Judean cultic reforms of Asa (see 1 Kgs 15,13), Joas
(see 2 Kgs 11,18b), Hezekiah (see 2 Kgs 18,4b) and Josiah (see 2 Kgs 23,4ff., passim). And
it is, we propose, the same all-dominant interest on the part of the author of Deut 9,21
which explains why he simply passes over the (unusable) concluding notice of Exod 32,20
in his presentation’.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 141
71 Begg, ‘The Destruction of the Calf ’, 249: ‘In our view, the basic narrative in Exod 32–34*, to
which 32,20 certainly belongs, is better denominated with the term favored by Brekelmans
and others for those Hexateuchal passages frequently labelled “Deuteronomistic”, e.g.
Exod 12,24–27; 13,3–16; 19,3–8; 23,20–33; 34,11–16; Jos 24, i.e. “proto-Deuteronomic”. Such
a designation is appropriate in that, in their wording and theological emphases, Exod
32–34*, and 32,20 in particular, approximate, but do not attain, the fullness, and fixity of
the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic strata in Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets’.
See C.T. Begg, ‘The Destruction of the Golden Calf Revisited (Exod 32,20/Deut 9,21)’,
in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W.
Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 469–479, esp. 479 n. 30: ‘To hold, as I do, that Exodus
32, v. 20 in particular, is “protodeuteronomic” (. . .)’.
See also E. Eynikel, who likewise prepared his doctoral dissertation (defended in 1989)
under Brekelmans: ‘Exod 32,20 can best be called “proto-deuteronom(ist)ic” ’—E. Eynikel,
The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS, 33),
Leiden 1996, 211.
72 M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal (Exodus 13,17–14,31): Een literaire studie. Status Quaestionis
van het onderzoek. Tekstkritiek. Vormstudie. Traditie en redactie (unpublished Doctoral
dissertation KU Leuven), Leuven 1986. Vervenne has continued to explore the results of his
research in a number of articles. For the question of the Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of
the Pentateuch, reference should be made to M. Vervenne, ‘The Protest Motive in the Sea
Narrative (Ex 14,11–12): Form and Structure of a Pentateuchal Pattern’, ETL 63 (1987), 257–
271; Idem, ‘ “Zij stelden vertrouwen in Jahwe en in Mozes zijn dienaar”. Kanttekeningen bij
het Zeeverhaal (Ex 13,17–14,31)’, in Idem (ed.), Exodus: Verhaal en leidmotief, Leuven 1989,
101–120; Idem, ‘Tora (Pentateuch)’, in H. Jagersma, M. Vervenne (eds), Inleiding in het Oude
Testament, Kampen 1992, 219–235, esp. 235; M. Vervenne, ‘The Sea Narrative Revisited’, Bib
75 (1994) 80–98; Idem, ‘The Question of “Deuteronomic” Elements’, 243–268, esp. 254–
268; Idem, ‘Le récit de la Mer (Exode xiii 17–xiv 31) reflète-t-il une rédaction de type
deutéronomique? Quelques remarques sur le problème de l’identification des éléments
deutéronomiqes contenus dans le Tétrateuque’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume:
Cambridge 1995 (SVT, 66), Leiden, 1997, 365–380; M. Vervenne, ‘Current Tendencies and
Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus’, in Idem (ed.), Studies in the Book of
Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 21–55, esp. 47–54.
For a description of Vervenne’s study see likewise U.F.W. Bauer, כל הדברים האלה. All diese
Worte: Impulse zur Schriftauslegung aus Amsterdam. Expliziert an der Schilfmeererzählung
in Exodus 13,17–14,31 (EurHS, 442), Frankfurt am Main 1991, 203–204.
142 Chapter 3
While the B layer of Exod. 14* exhibits features of a war narrative, it cannot
be considered a standard war narrative as such. The YHWH-war narrative in
Exod. 14* (B) is close in terms of form and vocabulary to a number of narra-
tives from the Deuteronomistic History, namely Josh. 10; Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7.
These four narratives exhibit an analogous framework, but they are filled out
differently in each instance. This is a characteristic of the Deuteronom(ist)
ic literature. Exod. 14* (B) nevertheless lacks a typical element of the YHWH-
war report: no mention is made of the struggle between Israel and the enemy.
Exod. 14* (B) thus appears to present itself as the description of an interven-
tion on the part of YHWH in the style of a war. At the same time, the war theme
in Exod. 14 is intermingled with a theophany report. As a result, there are not
only similarities with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature but also striking differ-
ences. Vervenne is of the opinion that the B narrative can best be situated after
the fall of the Northern Kingdom. It contains a strong appeal to trust exclu-
sively in YHWH, a tenor that is also evident in Isa. 7.
Vervenne then goes on to explore the vocabulary of Exod. 14* (B) at closer
quarters. Here we focus the arguments he deploys to demonstrate the proto-
Deuteronomic character of Exod. 14* (B). Based on the faith motif in Exod. 14:31
it would appear that Exod. 14* (B) is structurally and verbally linked with
Gen. 15; Num. 14; Deut. 1:26; 2 Chron. 20:15; Isa. 7. In all of these passages, the
reassurance formula ( )אל תיראoccurs side by side with the faith motif ()האמין.
At the same time, the terminology of war is employed as a stylistic device to
present the deeds of YHWH as central. Kindred texts at the literary level, they
also exhibit traces of a stereotype framework, although it is clothed in a variety
of ways. Points of contact with Isa. 7 suggest that Gen. 15; Num. 14,1; Deut. 1:26;
2 Chron. 20:15 are not so old and are related to prophetic preaching. In his
form-critical study of the ‘Sea Narrative’, moreover, Vervenne demonstrated
that האמיןwas not used in its theological sense prior to Isaiah. The agreements
between Exod. 14* (B), Deuteronomy and 2 Chronicles, he claims, point to
ideas that have become characteristic of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. The
similarities between Gen. 15 and Num. 14 point to a similar flow of tradition
in which all of the said texts took shape. ‘Believing’ in Moses in Exod. 14:31(B)
cannot be disassociated from ‘believing in YHWH’. On this point, Exod. 14:31(B)
exhibits striking agreements with 1 Sam. 12:18. Furthermore, the presentation
the formation of a Deuteronomic school’ (translation mine). See also Idem, ‘Mens, kosmos
en aarde: Een exegetische reflectie over Genesis 1–3’, in: J. De Tavernier, M. Vervenne (eds),
De mens: verrader of hoeder van de schepping (Nikè-reeks, 26), Leuven 1991, 27–61, esp. 53:
‘We can argue with the usual qualifications that a redactor is at work in Gen. 2:5–3:24 who
is aligned with the evolving Deuteronomic tradition’ (translation mine).
144 Chapter 3
of Moses as ‘servant of YHWH’ ( )עבד יהוהin Exod. 14:31(B) bears a close resem-
blance to the use of the same title in the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.78 With
this in mind Vervenne concludes that the motifs in Exod. 14:31 are akin to for-
mulations in the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, but lack the stereotype form
thereof. These motives, therefore, can be defined as proto-Deuteronomic in
the sense proposed by Brekelmans.79
The reassurance formula ( )אל תיראin Exod. 14:13(B) also exhibits similari-
ties with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.80 In both instances the expression
is accompanied by other expressions that offer courage in battle: in Vervenne’s
view, the link between אל תיראand other formulations that reinforce the reas-
surance is quite clearly in line with Deuteronom(ist)ic phraseology.81 The
interpretation of אל תיראin Exod. 14:13(B), however, agrees best with passages
such as Isa. 7:4 and 2 Chron. 20:15, 17.
The expression ( ישועת יהוהExod. 14:13) is related to ויושע יהוהin Exod. 14:30.
The verb ישהis not attested prior to Exod. 14 where הצילis employed. Both
verbs are chiefly found in Judges and Kings in the context of war and con-
flict. In Judges and Kings, however, יהוה הושיעis never used in relation to the
exodus. Exod. 14* (B) is likewise not attuned to the exodus, but rather to the
wilderness tradition. The term הושיע, moreover, is used almost exclusively with
YHWH as subject. We encounter the word in this sense roughly forty times in
the Deuteronomistic History. On the other hand, the expression יהוה הציל,
which does have a role to play in the exodus, occurs only fourteen times in the
Deuteronomistic History. In other words, the expression ויושע יהוה מיד מצריםin
Exod. 14:30a is in keeping with the range of ideas of Deuteronom(ist)ic litera-
ture, and the same would also appear to be the case with the expression ישועת
יהוהin Exod. 14:13.82
In terms of form, the formula -( יהוה ילחם לExod. 14:14, 25) agrees best
with Josh. 10:4 and Neh. 4:14. The other similar formulations in Deuteronomy
and Joshua are structured in the same stereotype manner but are lengthier
formulations.83 Vervenne thus assumes that the formula יהוה ילהםin Exod. 14:14,
78 Other motifs from Exod. 14:31(B) similarly allude to the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature:
‘ ;ירא את יהוה ;היד הגדולהseeing’ the deeds of YHWH—Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal,
800–801.
79 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 801—with reference to the criteriology of Brekelmans.
80 See Num. 14:9; 21:34; Deut. 1:21; 3:21; 20:3–4; 31:6; Josh. 8:1; 10:8, 25; 11:6; Judg. 4:18;
1 Sam. 22:23; 23:17; 2 Sam. 13:28; 2 Kgs 6:16. The formula is also found in Isa. 7:4; Jer. 40:9;
Neh. 4:8; 2 Chron. 20:15, 17; 32:7.
81 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 802.
82 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 804.
83 Cf. Deut. 1:30; 3:22; 20:4; Josh. 10:42.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 145
(Exod. 14:24a, 27b), -( שקף בExod. 14:24), the combination יהוה המם את מחנה
(Exod. 14:24), the phrase יהוה הסידand the term ( מרכבהExod. 14:25), ( נהגpiel)
in the context of a YHWH war (Exod. 14:25) and the expression לא נשאד בהם עד
( אחרExod. 14:28).
Based on the agreements between Exod. 14* (B) and other proto-
Deuteronomic texts in Genesis–Numbers, in addition to various points of
contact with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, Vervenne concludes that we are
dealing here with a proto-Deuteronomic JE-redaction: the language and range
of ideas characteristic of Deuteronom(ist)ic literature are given initial expres-
sion here in a form that does not yet match the stereotype form of the typi-
cally Deuteronom(ist)ic traditions. According to Vervenne, the JE-redactors
have clearly incorporated existing (oral and/or written) traditions in their Sea
Narrative. Moreover, Exod. 13:17–14:31* (JE) is not an original unity but rather
a constructed narrative. The redactors in question were not simply collectors
of old material, but authors in their own right who created an original com-
position. They shaped the narrative along the lines of the YHWH war tradi-
tions; the form itself is so stylised, however, that it no longer has to do with
a YHWH war in the real sense of the term. The Israelites are mere observers
of YHWH’s deeds; the Egyptians are fighting an invisible adversary; YHWH
decides the battle by performing a miracle whereby the Egyptians are covered
with water. The narrative uses the language of war, but it is used exclusively as
a stylistic device to proclaim the power of YHWH. Based on their theological
conviction that Israel must trust in YHWH and in his designated intermedi-
ary, the proto-Deuteronomic JE-redactors created a type narrative that could
be used to proclaim the power of YHWH in every analogous crisis situation.
Just as YHWH intervened in the past on Israel’s behalf, so YHWH intervenes
now. It is Vervenne’s conviction that the historical context of this redaction
is the murky period surrounding the fall of the Northern Kingdom (722 bce).
Agreements between this redaction and the language and style of texts in
Deuteronomy and in Joshua–Kings, together with associations with texts in
Genesis–Numbers that have been designated proto-Deuteronomic on the
basis of serious arguments, allow him to define JE as a proto-Deuteronomic
redaction.90 Vervenne tentatively concludes that the JE-redaction of the Sea
Narrative is part of an extensive redaction with pillars of support in, for exam-
ple, Gen. 50:24, Exod. 13:19 and Josh. 24:32.91 It was the Priestly redaction that
reworked the proto-Deuteronomic JE-redaction to form a new composition,
attuning it with the traditions of ‘creation’ and ‘flood’ in Genesis. This Priestly
redaction was probably occasioned by the fall of Jerusalem in 587 bce.92
In line with his Doktorvater, Vervenne focuses particular attention on the for-
mulation of reliable criteria that can be used to determine whether a passage is
to be characterised as proto-Deuteronomic or not.93 In his opinion, attention
should be paid in the first instance to the ‘form’ of a pericope. This implies
detailed linguistic analysis with attention to verbal statistics, expressions and
phrases.94 In addition to a study of the style in a pericope, the structure of
the said composition is also an essential criterion in determining the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic character of a passage. The next step is to closely exam-
ine the content of a given text. The ultimate goal of following these various
procedures is to determine whether it is possible to say something about the
Deuteronom(ist)ic character of a pericope or not.95 In later research, Vervenne
has been more reserved with respect to the global characterisation of Exod. 14
(JE) as proto-Deuteronomic.96 Based among other things on text-critical data,
for example, he is presently much more inclined to designate Exod. 13:21–22 as
post-Deuteronomistic.97 This implies that Vervenne is convinced that the study
of the material text (textual criticism) can also make an essential contribution
mit fließenden Übergangen zu verstehen ist’ (190). Further, Reichert speaks of ‘das beste-
hen einer breiten, noch vor dem Dt anzusetzenden protodeuteronomischen Traditions
schicht, die in einem eng verflochtenen Zusammenhang mit sekundär-jehowistischen
Ergänzungsschichten steht und daraus erwachsen ist’ (191).
103 See, for example, Reichert, Der Jehowist, 73: ‘Das dreifache Vorkommen von ( בחזק ידEx
13,3.14.16) ist ein guter Beleg für eine eigenwillige proto-deuteronomische Form, denn sie
taucht nur hier auf, während im Dt häufig und nur noch יד חזקהgebraucht wird und dort
die Tendenz hat, Reihenbildungen mit זרוע נטויהu.ä. einzugehen” (italics H.A.). See also
75: “In erstaunlich hohem Maße konnte (. . .) aufgewiesen werden, daß in diesen Texten
[Exod. 12:24–27 and Exod. 13:1–16—H.A.] morphologisch und/oder semantisch singuläre
Belege einem häufigen und geprägten und anderen Sprachgebrauch in späteren Texten
und Schichten gegenüberstehen. Das scheint eine der wenigen sicheren Möglichkeiten zu
sein, eine sprachliche Entwicklung, die allmähliche Ausprägung eines bestimmten, sich
fast normierenden Wortgebrauchs und formelhafter Wendungen nachzuweisen’. Reichert
adds the following reservation here: ‘Natürlich kann es auch ein späteres bewußtes
Abweichen von der Norm geben, aber das muß im Kontext inhaltlich begründet und in
der Tendenz nachweisbar sein’.
104 C.J. Labuschagne, Gods oude plakboek: Visie op het Oude Testament, ’s-Gravenhage 1978,
21979.
105 Labuschagne arrives at this conclusion based on the observation that there are
several agreements in terms of narrative style between the succession history and, for
example, Gen. 12:19–13:18; 14:18–24; 19:23; 24; 25:19–34; 27; 29–31; 34; 37–50. Labuschagne
argues (translation mine): ‘It thus seems reasonable to conclude that the author of
the succession narrative gave significant impetus to historiography and that he had
considerable influence on the materialization of the Pentateuch. (. . .) The said author
must have been the one who wrote a continuous narrative history from the time of the
patriarchs to Solomon’s accession to the throne. His goal was to make clear who Israel
was, where it came from, how it became the people of God Jahweh, how it acquired its
land, and how the hereditary monarchy was established in the country. His task was to
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 151
Southern Kingdoms, literary formation also continued for two hundred years in
separation. In the Northern Kingdom, for example, there was particular inter-
est in the ‘wars of YHWH’ tradition that grew up around the figure of Joshua, a
hero of the Northern Kingdom who, according to the said tradition, took a por-
tion of the land manu militari from its original inhabitants. At the same time
the presentation of Moses as a prophetic figure also developed in the Northern
Kingdom, later to be extensively elaborated in Deuteronomy. Labuschagne has
little to say about the development of literature in Judah after the schism. He
insists nevertheless that the Southern Kingdom developed its own ‘royal’ theol-
ogy, whereby God’s promises to David acquired a central position. The fall of the
Northern Kingdom in 722 bce drove many refugees south into Judah. It is likely,
he argues, that this event occasioned a proto-Deuteronomic redaction whereby
the narrative material from the Northern Kingdom was incorporated into the
more developed Jahwistic history. Labuschagne considers Gen. 20:1–17; 21:8–21;
22:1–18; 35; Exod. 3:1, 4b, 6b, 10–15 to have been part of this proto-Deuteonomic
redaction. He refers to the redaction as proto-Deuteronomic because the tradi-
tions from the Northern Kingdom were incorporated into the basic narrative
in the spirit of the body of thought that was later to find a home in the book of
Deuteronomy.106 He adds, however, that it cannot be said unequivocally what
is proto-Deuteronomic and what Deuteronomistic, i.e. under the influence of
the book of Deuteronomy. He only accentuates that we are given some idea
organize the multiplicity of tribal and regional traditions that were in circulation and
present these stories from the past in such a way that it would become clear that the
different tribes, united in a new state, had a common past, and that the new state had
every right to exist, a right sanctioned by God Yahweh’ (95–96). Labuschagne ascribes
the following passages to this ‘Jahwistic History’ which covered the entire Henneateuch:
Gen. 12–16*; 18–19*; 21:1–7*; 22:20–24*; 24*; 25:1–11*; 25:19–34*; 26:12–34*; 27*; 29–34*;
35:16–29*; 37*; 39–50*; Exod. 1–2*; 3:1–9, 16–17*; 4:19–20*; 5*; 7:14–10:29*; 11:4–8; 12:29–33,
37–51*; 13:20*; 14*; 16:1–19:2*; 19:10–20*; 24:1–2, 9–15*; 31:18*; 33:1–6; Num. 10:29–36*; 11–14*;
16*; 20:14–24:25*; 32*; Deut. 34:1–6*; Judg. 1:1–2:1*; 3–12*; 1 Sam. 9–14*; 28*; 31*; 1 Sam. 16–2
Sam. 8*; 2 Sam. 9:1–20:22*; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:46.
106 Labuschagne, Gods oude plakboek, 104–105: ‘The best hypothesis (. . .) is (. . .) that the
dominant clergy in Jerusalem and their co-religionists emigrated from the North came
to an agreement on the integration of northern traditions into Judah’s existing religious
literature, namely the Jahwistic History that had in the meantime been further enlarged in
the Pentateuch. The most significant consequence of this compromise was the reworking
of the material in the Jahwistic History: the proto-Deuteronomic reworking. We call
this reworking “proto-Deuteronomic” because the new elements therein exhibit strong
kinship with the book of Deuteronomy, which came into existence some time later. The
more common term associated with this reworking “Elohistic”, is one sided in my opinion
and thus less accurate’ (translation mine).
152 Chapter 3
117 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 177–178: ‘The authors of Deuter-
onomy and the deuteronomic school must be sought for (. . .) among circles which held
public office, among persons who had at their command a vast reservoir of literary mate-
rial, who had developed and were capable of developing a literary technique of their own,
those experienced in literary composition, and skilled with the pen and the book: these
authors must consequently have been the sōferim-ḫakamim’.
118 Skweres, Die Rückverweise, 11–12: ‘Das Dtn unterscheidet sich nicht zuletzt durch seine
ihm eigentümliche Sprache von den anderen Büchern des AT. Das bedeutet jedoch nicht,
dass sich diese Sprache gleichsam im luftleeren Raum gebildet habe oder vom Himmel
gefallen sei. Die dtn Autoren haben bei der Bildung ihrer Sprache aus verschiedenen
Quellen geschöpft: aus kultischen, rechtlichen, poetischen, weisheitlichen. (. . .) Es geht
uns um die Nachweis, dass bestimmte dtn Sprachelemente in den anderen literarischen
Schichten des Pentateuch ihre Grundlage haben’.
119 Skweres, Die Rückverweise, 13: ‘Die Möglichkeit eines Vorläufers der dtn Sprache in den
Büchern Gen–Num scheint M. Weinfeld zu verneinen. Besonders an dieser Stelle möchte
unsere Untersuchung weiterführen, indem sie anhand der dtn Rückverweise zeigt, dass
bestimmte Elemente der dtn Sprache ihren Vorläufer in frühdt Texten und ihre Grundlage
in den noch älteren literarischen Schichten des Pentateuch haben’. Weinfeld believed it
was possible to discern a degree of evolution between Deuteronomy, Joshua–2 Kings and
the Deuteronomistic passages in Jeremiah, but he did not pay specific attention to the
possibility of tracing an early stage in the evolution of the Deuteronomic language and
style in Genesis–Numbers: ‘The fact that the Deuteronomist and the editor of the prose
sermons in Jeremiah used idioms and expressions not found in the book of Deuteronomy
proper points to a continuous ideological and literary development within the
deuteronomic circle and attests to the dynamism of the school. Indeed, an examination
of the linguistic and ideological fabric of the deuteronomic movement shows that its
development progressed from Deuteronomy through deuteronomic historiography to the
prose sermons in the book of Jeremiah’—Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School, 4.
Brekelmans formulated a similar critical remark in relation to Weinfeld’s comparison
of Deuteronomic style with extra-biblical treaty texts as a means of tracing the early
stages of Deuteronomy. According to Brekelmans, ‘Wisdom Influence in Deuteronomy’,
30–31 one must first focus attention on the biblical tradition itself before involving extra-
biblical literature in our research into the prehistory of the Deuteronomic style. In his
opinion we must account for the possibility of finding the early stages of Deuteronomic
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 155
Like Weinfeld, Skweres underlines the fact that the authors of Deuteronomy
drew from a variety of sources he characterises as ‘early Deuteronomic’.
According to him, however, one of these sources consisted of passages from
Genesis–Numbers to which the author of Deuteronomy referred. Skweres sets
out to demonstrate that some characteristics of the Deuteronomic vocabu-
lary have precursors in a number of so-called early Deuteronomic texts in the
Tetrateuch and at the same time in still older layers of the said Tetrateuch.120
He also sets out to argue that the ‘innerdeuteronomische Rückverweise’—i.e.
verses in Deuteronomy alluding to other verses with the same book—is depen-
dent on ‘Rückverweise’ within Genesis–Numbers, which Skweres characterises
as early Deuteronomic.121
style and theology in the said tradition: ‘The literary style of Dt has been compared with
certain extra-biblical texts that are written in the same kind of highly rhetorical style and
show many similarities with Dt not only in form but also in content. The main example
of this seems to be the so-called vassal treaties of Esarhaddon. But before we conclude
that the rhetorical style of Dt was borrowed, taken over, or even strongly influenced by
Assyrian documents like the vassal treaties, it seems to me that the proper method of
Old Testament study requires the study of the Israelite tradition first. We have to ask if
there is a possibility that the style of Dt is the result of that tradition. And it does seem
that there was indeed a preaching tradition in Israel that prepared the way for the highly
developed rhetorical style of Dt. It has been shown in recent years that such texts as Ex.,
12,25–27; 13,3–16; 19,3–8; 23,20–33; 32,7–14; 34,10–16; Jos., 24; part of 1 Sam., 12 and so on
are to be considered protodeuteronomic. Thus, there is perhaps an Israelite tradition
that could explain the style of Dt.’ Only in passing Weinfeld refers to the dependence
of Deuteronomy on passages from Genesis–Numbers. See, for example, his reference to
Exod. 13:3–16 in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 301.
120 For his research into the Rückverweise, Skweres, Die Rückverweise, 15–18 bases himself on
his own methodology. He believes it is possible to search for the literary texts referred to
in Deuteronomy. At the same time, he identifies a fixed technique used by the biblical
authors in their references. Skweres points, for example, to the use of כאשרclauses. He
then asks: to which literary layer does the text being referred to belong?
121 Skweres, Die Rückverweise, 100: ‘Bereits innerhalb des jahwistischen Geschichtswerkes
gibt es das Phänomen des literarischen Rückverweises’. Already within the Jahwistic opus,
for example, Gen. 24:7 and Gen. 26:3b refer to Gen. 15:18 via the term נשבע. The promise
of the land to Isaac (Gen. 26:3–4) and to Jacob (Gen. 28:13) is thus linked with Abraham
(and Isaac). In so doing, the redactor—probably RJE—was able to state in summary form
in Gen. 50:24; Exod. 33:1; Num. 31:11; Deut. 34:4 that YHWH had promised the land under
oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: ‘Es handelt sich dabei um literarische Rückverweise.
Denn ihr Autor will seine Adressaten auf das hinweisen, was seiner Meinung nach in den
von ihm bearbeiteten Texten steht’ (101). Skweres likewise argues: ‘Da die nicht–dt/dtr
Rückverweise den dt/dtr Rückverweisen des Buches Dtn zum Vorbild dienten, können
sie als frühdt bezeichnet werden. Die dt/dtr Rückverweise sind ebenso wie ihre frühdt
156 Chapter 3
Vorbilder literarische Rückverweise. Sie sind nicht nur von den frühdt Rückverweise,
literarisch abhängig, sondern beziehen sich wie diese auf die Patriarchenverheissungen,
welche die frühdt Redaktoren bearbeitet haben, d.h. auf die Erzählungen des
jahwistischen Geschichtswerkes’.
122 Skweres, Die Rückverweise, 217.
123 Skweres, Die Rückverweise, 199–200: ‘Die Stellen Gen 50,24; Ex 13,5.11; 32,13; 33,1; Num
11,12; 14,16.23 gehören nicht zu den älteren literarischen Schichten des Pentateuch. Sie
sind auch nicht als dtr, sondern als frühdt zu bezeichnen. Denn die zusammenfassende
Redeweise von einem Jahweeid allen drei Patriarchen gegenüber wäre dem Jahwisten und
Elohisten als Nachlässigkeit anzurechnen. Sie ist am ehesten als das Werk eines Redaktors
zu verstehen, der die Aussagen in den von ihm bearbeiteten Texte zusammenfasst. Da
diese Rückverweise sich in einigen Fällen deutlich als Vorstufe zu den dtn Rückverweisen
erkennen lassen (. . .), können wir sie als frühdt ansehen. Die Frage, ob sie nur einem
Redaktor, und zwar dem Jehowisten, oder mehreren Redaktoren zu verdanken sind,
mussten wir unbeantwortet lassen’.
According to Skweres, the passages in Deuteronomy that (probably) refer to Genesis–
Numbers are the following: (1) Deut. 1:8 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (2)
Deut. 1:11 refers to Exod. 23:25–29(?); (3) Deut. 1:35 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4;
28:13; (4) Deut. 1:39 refers to Num 14:3; (5) Deut. 4:31 refers to Gen. 12:2, 7; 13:15, 17; 15:5, 18;
22:16–17; 26:3–4, 24; 28:13; (6) Deut. 6:3 refers to Exod. 3:8 (or Gen. 12:2; 15:5; 22:16–17; 26:4;
28:14); (7) Deut. 6:10 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (8) Deut. 6:18 refers to
Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (9) Deut. 6:19 refers to Exod. 23:27(?); (10) Deut. 6:23
refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (11) Deut. 7:8 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17;
15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (12) Deut. 7:12 refers to Gen. 12:2, 7; 13:15, 17; 15:5, 18; 22:16–17; 26:3–4;
28:13–14; (13) Deut. 7:13 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (14) Deut. 8:1 refers
to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (15) Deut. 8:18 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18;
26:3–4; 28:13; (16) Deut. 9:5 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (17) Deut. 9:28
refers to Exod. 3:8; (18) Deut. 10:9 refers to Num. 18:20 (without PG); (19) Deut. 10:11 refers
to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (20) Deut. 11:9 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18;
26:3–4; 28:13; (21) Deut. 11:21 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (22) Deut. 12:20
refers to Exod. 3:8 (or Exod. 34:24a); (23) Deut. 13:18 refers to Gen. 12:2; 13:16; 15:5; 22:16–17;
26:4, 24; 28:14; (24) Deut. 18:2 refers to Num. 18:20 (without PG); (25) Deut. 19:8a refers
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 157
to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (26) Deut. 19:8b refers to Gen. 13:14–17; 15:18–21;
26:3–4; 28:13–14; (27) Deut. 24:8 refers to Lev. 13–14 (without PG); (28) Deut. 26:3 refers
to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (29) Deut. 26:15 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18;
26:3–4; 28:13; (30) Deut. 26:18–19 refers to Exod. 19:5–6; (31) Deut. 27:3 refers to Exod. 3:8;
(32) Deut. 28:11 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (33) Deut. 28:68 refers to
Exod. 14:13(?); (34) Deut. 29:12 refers to Gen. 12:2, 7; 13:15, 17; 15:5, 18; 22:16–17; 26:3–4, 24;
28:13–14; (35) Deut. 29:12 refers to Exod. 19:5–6; (36) Deut. 30:20 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17;
15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (37) Deut. 31:7 refers to Exod. 19:5–6; (38) Deut. 31:20 refers to Gen. 12:7;
13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13; (39) Deut. 31:21 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–4; 28:13;
(40) Deut. 31:23 refers to Exod. 34:10; (41) Deut. 34:4 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:3–
4; 28:13 (Skweres, Die Rückverweise, 232–233).
124 Skweres, Die Rückverweise, 217: ‘Sie können deswegen als frühdt bezeichnet werden.
Einige frühdt Rückverweise gibt es auch im Buch Dtn selbst. Die dt/dtr Rückverweise
stehen nicht nur auf einer Linie mit den frühdt Rückverweisen. Sie sind auch von den
frühdt Rückverweisen literarisch abhängig’.
125 Skweres, Die Rückverweise, 218.
158 Chapter 3
126 J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments, Berlin 31899, 90–91.
127 A. Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de
boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Dl. 1: De thora en de historische boeken des Ouden Verbonds,
Amsterdam 21884, 164; 254 n. 2.
128 K. Budde, ‘Die Gesetzgebung der mittleren Bücher des Pentateuchs, insbesondere der
Quellen J und E’, ZAW 11 (1891), 193–234.
129 A. Dillmann, V. Ryssel, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (KEHAT), Leipzig 1857; 31897,
219–221; 251–254. Dillmann prefers to speak of B and C, B being equivalent to E, and C
equivalent to J.
130 B. Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch Ex. xx,22–xxiii,33: Seine ursprüngliche Gestalt, sein Verhältnis
zu den es umgebenden Quellenschriften und seine Stellung in der alttestamentlichen
Gesetzgebung, Halle 1892, 54–58. In his commentary on Exodus (1900), however, Baentsch
is much more radical with respect to the Deuteronomic characteristics in Exod. 23:20–33.
Indeed, he ascribes every redactional verse in the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant to
RD without hesitation—B. Baentsch, Exodus—Leviticus—Numeri (HKAT, 1/2), Göttingen
1903, 209: ‘Dieser Schluss ist wie schon der Eingang des Bb. von deuteronomistischen
Zusätzen überwuchert, vgl. vv. 23–25aa und 31b–33’.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 159
131 This is how it is presented in the synoptic overview on 517. On 209 it is stated: ‘The hand of
a Deuteronomic reviser is probably to be seen in (. . .) 23,23–25a.27.31b–33’ (J.E. Carpenter,
G. Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch: An Introduction with Select Lists of Words
and Phrases, London 1902). It should be observed nevertheless that Carpenter alludes to
the kinship between RJE and D (336).
132 B. Couroyer, L’Exode (La Sainte Bible), Paris 1952, 112; A. Clamer, L’Exode (La Sainte Bible
1/2), Paris 1956, 210–211.
133 Cazelles, ‘Rédactions et traditions’, 54.
134 W.W. Graf Baudissin, Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments, Leipzig 1901, 129 n. 5.
135 H.L. Strack, Einleitung in das Alte Testament einschliesslich Apokryphen und Pseudepi
graphen: mit eingehender Angabde der Literatur, München, 61906, 45.
136 E. Otto, Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal (BWANT, 107), Stuttgart 1975. According to Otto,
Exod. 23:20–33; 34:11b–16 and Deut. 7 are not dependent on one another at the literary
level, but were drafted on the basis of a common Vorlage.
137 Jenks, The Elohist, 77–78 n. 170.
138 F.M.T. Böhl, Exodus (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische bijbelverklaring), Groningen 1928,
160; P. Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus übersetzt und erklärt (Die heilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments 1/2), Bonn 1934, 191.
139 Driver, Deuteronomy, lxxvii.
160 Chapter 3
down the remaining verses (vv. 23–25a, 31b–33) to RJE.140 Götz Schmitt argues
along similar lines, considering Exod. 23:20–33 as a predominantly Elohistic
passage and a source from which Deuteronomy drew material.141 Moshe
Weinfeld is of the same opinion, arguing that Deut. 7 is an elaboration of the
JE passage Exod. 23:20–33.142
Otto Eissfeldt divides Exod. 23:20–33 into Elohistic and Jahwistic material
transformed by RB, the redactor who located the Book of the Covenant in the
Sinai pericope, into the conclusion of the Book of the Covenant.143 Franz–
Elmar Wilms considers the ‘Landgabetext’ Exod. 23:20–33 as an E passage.
Given the doublets in vv. 27–30, however, he also thinks that we should account
for a J component in the passage.144 Wilms is of the opinion that in terms of
content and style Exod. 23:20–33 is older than Deut. 7 and thus cannot possibly
be characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic. More recently, Joel S. Baden, considers
Exod. 23:20–23 as Elohistic.145
140 S.R. Driver, The Book of Exodus: In the Revised Version With Introduction and Notes (The
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), Cambridge 1911, 247–251.
141 Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen, 20–21; 24.
142 M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB, 5), New York 1991, 377–384. See also A. Rofé, Introduction to the Composition of the
Pentateuch (The Biblical Seminar 58), Sheffield 1999, 51 and R.D. Nelson, The Double
Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOT SS, 18), Sheffield 1981, 46.
143 O. Eissfeldt, Die Komposition der Sinai-Erzählung Exodus 19–34 (Sitzungsberichte der
Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschafte zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Klasse
113/1), Berlin 1966, 11; 17–18; 20. In ‘Die älteste Erzählung vom Sinaibund: William Foxwell
Albright zum 24. Mai 1961, seinem 70. Geburtstag’, ZAW 73 (1961), 137–146, 137, Eissfeldt
divides the material over E and J. Exod. 23:20–22c, 25–26, 28, 33 are Elohistic, the
remaining verses Jahwistic. Cf. also Eissfeldt’s Hexateuch-Synopse, 150*–151*; 273*, where
he ascribes vv. 24de, 31bc to a redactor.
144 F.E. Wilms, Das jahwistische Bundesbuch in Exodus 34 (Studien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament, 32), München 1973, 189. See also Idem, ‘Das jahwistische Bundesbuch in Ex
34’, BZ 16 (1972), 24–53.
145 Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, 141: ‘In J it is YHWH himself who leads
the Israelites, as it is stated clearly in Exod 33:1–3 (. . .) and 33:15–17 (. . .). In E, however, it
is a messanger who goes before the people, by the word of YHWH (Exod 23:20–22)’. See
also Idem, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 139–146. Although not directly referring to
Exod. 23:20–33, his judgment about so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in Genesis–
Numbers is worth quoting: ‘If the parallel stories in D and Exodus–Numbers were from
the same deuteronomic hand or school, then there would be no accounting for the wide
variety of differences, some quite important, between them. Because D incorporates
stories from both J and E, while neither J nor E shows any knowledge of each other,
and because D explicitly eliminates the central law code E, while E does not explicitly
reject D, it is clear that D is written not to supplement the earlier texts, but to replace
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 161
them’ (145). See also Idem, ‘The Deuteronomic Evidence for the Documentary Theory’, in:
T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research
(FAT, 78), Tübingen 2011, 327–344, esp. 343, who qualifies the presumed D-redactor of
Exod. 34 and Num. 11 as ‘a “bad” Deuteronomist, one who either does not understand D or
does not agree with it’. See most recently J.S. Baden, The Promise to the Patriarchs, Oxford
2013, esp. 32–37; 169–171.
146 Brekelmans, Éléments deutéronomiques, 77–91; Idem, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen
Elemente, 95.
147 In this context, Brekelmans quotes T. Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Israël, Den Haag
1961, 109: ‘While J’s spiritual ambiance is closely related to the deep and broad piety of
the David narratives (. . .) and in line with the earnest judgement preaching of the major
prophets, the piety of E evolved in the context of the struggle against syncretism in
Northern Israel; it is akin to the spirit of the prophetic disciples from Elijah and Elisha in
which the antithesis idea took root”.
148 Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes.
149 Reichert, Der Jehowist, 180: ‘Ex 23,20–33 gehört zu den in Aufbau, Stil und Inhalt am
stärksten dt geprägten Stücken der Sinaiperikope. Ausführliche Wortschatzanalysen
haben jedoch gezeigt, daß mindestens größere Teile dieser Rede vordeuteronomisch und
jedenfalls vom Dt unabhängig sind. Sie ist im Ganzen genauer als proto-deuteronomisch
162 Chapter 3
4 Conclusion
The authors whose insights we have explored in the preceding pages share a
common feature: they depart from the self-evident assignment of verses and
text segments, primarily from the book of Exodus, to an author or redactor
working under the influence of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. All of them
are of the opinion that the characteristic language and specific theology of
Deuteronomy—recognised now for decades—did not came into existence
without preparation.157 All likewise agree that the prior stages of this specifi-
cally Deuteronom(ist)ic language and theology can still be traced within the
Old Testament itself, namely in passages from Genesis–Numbers that exhibit
156 For example, the expression כי שמי בקרבו. In Deuteronomy, the theology of the name
plays an important role (Deuteronom[ist]ic). In the Deuterono m(ist)ic literature,
however, God’s שםis associated with the sanctuary and not with the ( מלאךpre- or
proto-Deuteronomic).
157 See also e.g. K.L. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study
of Ethnic Sentiments and their Expression in the Hebrew Bible, Winona Lake 1998, 128:
‘I use proto-Deuteronomic to refer to the ideas that eventually took shape in the book of
Deuteronomy, whose ideas I classify as Deuteronomic’.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis–Numbers 165
R. Rendtorff and E. Blum played an eminent role in the 1970s and 1980s, inter-
est in the possibility that one can discern a preamble to the formation of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic language and theology disappeared almost completely
from the scholarly horizon.160 The ‘pan-Deuteronomism’ that was in danger of
dominating Pentateuch research in the first half of the 20th century—against
which the ‘proto-Deuteronomists’ rightly reacted—begins to exhibit exponen-
tial growth from the beginning of the 1970s.
160 The term ‘proto-Deuteronomic’ nevertheless did not completely disappear. See e.g.
M. Brinkschröder, Sodom als Symptom: Gleichgeschlechtliche Sexualität im christlichen
Imaginären—eine religionsgeschichtliche Anamnese (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche
und Vorarbeiten, 55), Berlin 2006, 242.
Chapter 4
Documentary Hypothesis with its roots in the 19th century. In the first section
I deal with authors who ascribe the materialization of the Tetrateuch to a post-
Deuteronomistic redactor or author. This means that the redactional activity
the scholars in question maintain they are able to discern in Genesis–Numbers
is later than and dependent on the Deuteronomistic History. The authors who
maintain the terminology of the documentary hypothesis, but ascribe it a
fundamentally different meaning—namely the suggestion that a late post-
Deuteronomistic Yahwist was responsible for Genesis–Numbers—distinguish
themselves thereby from scholars who likewise recognise traces of an inclusive
post-Deuteronomistic redaction, but at the same time radically distance them-
selves from the prevailing Documentary Hypothesis.
In the second section, I offer a description of the work of a number of exe-
getes relating the materialization of the Tetrateuch to one or more Deuterono
mistic redactions or to a Deuteronomistic author. This implies that they locate
the origin of the Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in Genesis–Numbers on one
and the same line with the author(s)/redactor(s) responsible for (a part of)
the Deuteronomistic History.1
A new shift is particularly evident since the final decade of the last cen-
tury. Various passages traditionally considered ‘Deuteronom(ist)ic’ but at the
same time anterior to the Priestly ‘reworking’, now tend to be relocated to an
extremely late stage in the process of the Pentateuch’s genesis. They are not
only considered dependent on the Deuteronomistic History, they are also con-
sidered dependent on the late Priestly layer or redaction of the Pentateuch.
Moreover, some associated these post-Priestly, post-Deuteronomistic texts
with the ‘final redaction’ of the Pentateuch. A few examples of this approach
will be briefly explored in the third section of the chapter.
1 I am well aware that some scholars do not fit with ease into the outlined division. I maintain
this distinction nevertheless, convinced as I am that the framework it provides helps us to
chart contemporary tendencies in relation to the Deuteronom(ist)ic problem in Genesis–
Numbers in the clearest possible way. It is important to remember thereby that approaches
often partially overlap one another and that authors frequently adjust their perspective on a
given issue as years pass. It should be noted, in addition, that attention is primarily focused
on authors who deal explicitly with the Deuteronom(ist)ic problem in Genesis–Numbers.
Cf. also M. Vervenne, ‘The Question of “Deuteronomic” Elements in Genesis to Numbers’, in:
F. García Martínez et al. (eds), Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C.J. Labuschagne on the
Occasion of his 65th Birthday (SVT, 53), Leiden 1994, 243–268.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 169
2 W. Rudolph, P. Volz, Der Elohist als Erzähler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (BZAW, 63),
Berlin 1933 study Gen. 15–50 in relation to the existence of an Elohistic document. Later
Rudolph’s Der ‘Elohist’ von Exodus bis Jozua (BZAW, 68), Berlin 1938 focused on the rest of
the Hexateuch from this perspective. In an early review of O. Eissfeldt’s Hexateuchsynopse
(in TLZ 48 [1923] 389–391, esp. 390), Volz expressed criticism of the prevailing subdivision
of the Pentateuch into independent sources: ‘Ich sehe in dieser Synopse den Schlusspunkt
der bisherigen Methode und finde, dass sie gerade das Gegenteil von dem beweist, was sie
beweisen will, denn die kümmerlichen Brocken von Erzählunng, die meist in den Spalten
stehen, beweisen eben, dass nicht vier [i.e. L, J, E and P—H.A.] ursprüngliche Erzählungen
bestanden, und dass die ganze Synopse des Pentateuchs das künstliche Gebilde heutiger
Gelehrsamkeit ist’.
3 Volz set out to demonstrate ‘dass wir in der Genesis nur einen einzigen Erzähler vor
uns haben (den wir den Jahwisten nennen wollen), dass vor allem der sog. Elohist kein
selbständiger Erzähler war, dass der sog. Elohist, wenn er überhaupt existierte, höchstens
Neuherausgeber des grossen (jahwistischen) Erzählungswerkes war, dass in das grosse
ursprüngliche (jahwistische) Erzählungswerk (sei es von einem sog. Elohisten, sei es von
einem deuteronomistischen Redaktor) einzelne Abschnitte aus bestimmten Erwägungen
heraus eingefügt wurden’ (Rudolph, Volz, Der Elohist als Erzähler, 13). According to Volz,
we even need to be careful in our dealings with the idea that E is a reworker of the J nar-
rative: ‘Denn wenn ein solcher Bearbeiter oder die Männer einer Schule sich des grossen
alten Erzählungswerkes später angenommen haben, um es auf diese Weise [i.e. the re-
working thereof—H.A.] der Gemeinde zu erhalten, warum haben sie dann das Anstössige
nicht einfach durch eigene Parallelen ersetzt usw.? Hier bleiben noch manche ungelöste
Fragen’ (24).
4 For issues related to the so-called Elohistic elements in Genesis–Numbers, see, for example,
A. de Pury, T. Römer, ‘Le Pentateuque en question: Position du problème et brève histoire
de la recherche’, in: Idem (eds), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des
cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes. 3ème édition augmentée (Le
monde de la Bible, 19), Genève 2002, 9–80, esp. 45–46; K. Jaroš, Die Stellung des Elohisten
zur Kanaanäischen Religion (OBO, 4), Freiburg 1974; A.W. Jenks, The Elohist and North
Israelite Traditions (SBL MS, 22), Missoula MT 1977; H. Seebass, ‘Que reste-t-il du Yahwiste
170 Chapter 4
et de l’Élohiste?’, in: De Pury, Römer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question, 199–214; H.W. Wolff,
‘Zur Thematik der elohistischen Fragmente im Pentateuch’, EvT 29 (1969), 59–72; E. Zenger,
‘Le thème de la “sortie d’Égypte” et la naissance du Pentateuque’, in: De Pury, Römer (eds), Le
Pentateuque en question, 301–331, esp. 327–328. See also A. Graupner, Der Elohist: Gegenwart
und Wirksamkeit des tranzendenten Gottes in der Geschichte (WMANT, 97), Neukirchen-Vluyn
2002.
5 See, for example, A. Knobel, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua erklärt nebst einer
Kritik des Pentateuch und Josua (KEHAT, 13), Leipzig 1861, 579.
6 Cf. A. Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken
des Ouden Verbonds, Dl. 1: De thora en de historische boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Amsterdam
21884, 241.
7 See, for example, K. Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten: Ein Beitrag zur Datierung jahwistischer
Vätertexte (BZAW, 186), Berlin 1990; O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter
Einschluss der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der apokryphen- und pseud
epigraphenartigen Qumran-Schriften (Neue Theologische Grundrisse), Tübingen 31964, 266;
O. Kaiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einführung in ihre Ergebnisse und Probleme,
Gütersloh 1969; 51984, 93; M. Köckert, ‘Auf der Suche nach dem Jahwisten: Aporien in der
Begründung einer Grundthese alttestamentlicher Exegese’, in Theologische Versuche 14
(1985), 39–64; H. Schmökel, ‘Zur Datierung der Pentateuchquelle J’, ZAW 62 (1950), 319–321.
8 G. von Rad, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs (BWANT, 4/26), Stuttgart 1938,
75–81. He was followed in this regard by, among others, M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte
des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948, 249 and H.W. Wolff, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testa
ment (TB, 22), München 1964, 348–351. See also, for example, Zenger, ‘Le thème de la “sortie
d’Égypte” ’, 327–328. Studies on the Yahwist are legion: see, for example, A.F. Campbell, ‘The
Yahwist Revisited’, Australian Biblical Review 27 (1979), 2–14; L. Schmidt, ‘Überlegungen
zum Jahwisten’, EvT 37 (1977), 230–247; W.H. Schmidt, ‘Ein Theologe in salomonischer Zeit?
Plädoyer für den Jahwisten’, BZ 25 (1981), 82–102; H. Seebass, ‘Zur geistigen Welt des sog.
Jahwisten’, BN 4 (1977), 39–47; Idem, ‘Jahwist’, TRE 16 (1987), 441–451; Idem, ‘Que reste-t-il du
Yahwiste et de L’Élohiste?’, 207; H.W. Wolff, ‘Das Kerygma des Jahwisten’, EvT 24 (1964), 73–98;
E. Zenger, ‘Das jahwistische Werk—ein Wegbereiter des jahwistischen Monotheismus?’, in
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 171
Critical voices were gradually raised against the early dating of the Yahwist
tradition. This took place primarily in relation to the study of the book of
Genesis, although it was later extended to the remaining portions of the
Tetrateuch. As early as 1939, for example, Julian Morgenstern insisted that
the Yahwist material in Gen. 1–11 should be dated late, namely between 516
and 485 bce.9 Carmino J. de Catanzaro likewise insisted in 1957 that a much
younger date should be considered for the Yahwist than generally accepted.10
The impulse given by these authors to a late dating of the Yahwist was further
elaborated in 1965 by Frederick V. Winnett.
E. Haag (ed.), Gott, der einzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheismus in Israel (QD, 104),
Freiburg 1985, 26–53. For an overview of the place and function of J within Pentateuch
research, see in particular J.L. Ska, ‘The Yahwist, a Hero with a Thousand Faces: A Chapter
in the History of Modern Exegesis’, in: J.C. Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die
Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002, 1–23.
9 J. Morgenstern, ‘The Mythological Background of Psalm 82’, HUCA 14 (1939), 29–98, esp.
93–94 n. 114. I provide the complete quotation from Morgenstern at this juncture, bearing
in mind that it already settles scores with an early dating of the Yahwist in a particularly
radical manner: ‘For many and to me very cogent considerations I can not share in the
opinion of practically all biblical scholars that the several J strata of Gen. 1–11 must neces-
sarily be pre-exilic by virtue of their being indisputably a part of J. The assumption that
all strata of J must be under all conditions pre-exilic and that the entire J school of writing
came to an end with the Babylonian Exile or, as most scholars hold, even somewhat ear-
lier, previous to the rise of the Deuteronomic school, is altogether gratuitous. There is not
the slighest reason why the two schools may not have existed side by side for quite some
time, and even have persisted into the post-exilic period, and even why the J school of
thought and literary style should not have continued to express itself in the eschatological
and apocalyptic writings of the third and second centuries bc and thereafter. At any rate,
for compelling reasons I must assign the J strata in Gen. 1–11 to the universalistic period
of Jewish thought and practice, 516–485 bc, the period when the influence of Deutero-
Isaiah was preponderant and when likewise the influence of North-Semitic religion and
mythology pervaded Jewish thought, literature and religious practice’.
10 Cf. C.J. de Catanzaro, A Literary Analysis of Genesis i–xi, Toronto 1957. See in this regard
N.E. Wagner, A Literary Analysis of Genesis 12–36, Toronto 1965, 122: ‘C.J. de Catanzaro has
demonstrated that a likely date for the so-called Yahwistic material is no earlier than the
time of Josiah, perhaps shortly after 625 bc. Some of the implications of such a view have
been worked out by F.V. Winnett’.
172 Chapter 4
of the exile. In so doing, he introduced the theory of the so-called ‘late Yahwist’.11
Winnett arrived at this conclusion on the basis of a rudimentary study of the
primeval history narratives, the patriarchal narratives and the Joseph narra-
tive. A detailed exploration of his article makes sense at this juncture because,
although often overlooked, it already contains in nuce the concepts and ideas
associated with the late character of the Pentateuch as a whole, as Schmid, Van
Seters, Rendtorff and Blum were to formulate it in the decades to come.
Winnett begins by examining the stories concerning Israel’s ‘primeval
history’ (Gen. 1–11). In so doing he suggests that these chapters, even when
we exclude the Priestly components thereof, are the work of one single cre-
ative author who selected originally existing material, adapted and reordered
it to create a running narrative.12 Winnett names this author the Yahwist. He
then goes on to accuse the classical Documentary Hypothesis of not basing its
early dating of the Yahwist passages in Gen. 1–11 on text-immanent data, but
11 F.V. Winnett, ‘Re–Examining the Foundations’, JBL 84 (1965), 1–19. In his The Mosaic
Tradition (Near and Middle East Series, 1), Toronto 1949, Winnett had already denied
the existence of two independent sources J and E. He observes on the basis of his study
of the ‘Plagues Narrative’: ‘The fact that the literary phenomena presented by the nar-
rative can be explained more naturally by a theory of stylistic arrangement than by a
theory of documentary admixture raises doubts as to whether two such documents ever
existed’ (15). In Winnett’s view, the ‘Mosaic Tradition’ doubtless took shape under the
reigns of David and Solomon and was written down in the midle of the 9th century bce
(Exod. 3:1–4, 18, 27, 31; 5:1–6:1; 7:14–11:8; 12:29–39; 13:17–22; 14:1–18*; 14:19b–15:1; 15:22–27*;
16:1–4*, 13–15*, 21, 31; 17:1–16; 18:1–27*; 19:2–3a*, 9–19*; 20:1, 18–21, 23–26; 22:20–23:19*; 24:1–
2, 9–15, 18b; 31:19*; 33:1, 7–11; Num. 10:29–32*; 11:1–6*, 11*, 13*, 16*, 18–24a*, 31–35; 12:16*;
13:17–18*, 22–23*, 26–28*, 30–31, 33; 14:2–4*, 23–24*, 25b, 31, 39–45*; 16:1–7*, 12–18, 25, 27b-
35*; 20:1b, 14–24*; 21:4–13*, 16*, 18b, 19–35; Deut. 27:1–8; 31:14–15, 23; 34:1*, 4–6*). After the
fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 bce, Hezekiah wanted to extend the popularity of the
sanctuary in Jerusalem by instituting a spring festival that combined Pesach and Mazzot.
At the same time, he published a revised version of the national law book in which
the cult and priests of the Northern Kingdom were presented in a negative light
(Exod. 12:21–27; 13:3–16; 32:1–24; 34:1, 4*, 28). In reaction, the priests in Jerusalem cre-
ated Deut. 4:44–26:19, which was concealed in the temple. Shortly thereafter, King Josiah
‘found’ the said lawbook and proclaimed it as national law. As a result, two versions of
the national tradition circulated simultaneously: a tradition on the exodus reworked
by Hezekiah and a Deuteronomic law. After the exile (circa 397 bce), the two versions
were harmonised by priests in Jerusalem (P), whereby material from a variety of origins
was combined (166–171). For the origin of the late Yahwist, see also E. Nicholson, The
Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, Oxford 1998, 132–160.
About Winnett as the initiator of the theory of the late Yahwist, see J. Van Seters, The
Yahwist: A Historian of Israelite Origins, Winona Lake, IN 2013, 7–8.
12 Winnett, ‘Re-Examining the Foundations’, 2–3.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 173
rather on the conviction that the Yahwist of Gen. 1–11 was identical with the
Yahwist of the patriarchal narratives. The information provided by the texts
themselves, he insists, does not support such an identification. He claims, for
example, that the expression ‘Ur in Chaldea’ in Gen. 11:28, 31 refers to a period
in which the Babylonian empire was at its height. This was not in the 10th or
9th century, he observes, but rather at the end of the 7th century bce. The list
of the sons of Japheth in Gen. 10:2–5, furthermore, alludes to an even later date,
if we bear in mind that the Israelites had not come into contact with the said
nations prior to the period of Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah—i.e. the period of
the Babylonian exile. According to Winnett, the strongest argument in support
of a (post-)exilic date for Gen. 1–11 is to be found in the author’s universalistic
and monotheistic concerns. For the author in question, the concept of ‘sin-
fulness’ no longer had to do with the apostasy of the nation with respect to
yhwh, but was understood to be a universally human phenomenon. Based on
these facts, Winnett pleads for a (post-)exilic dating of the Yahwist.
Winnett then turns his attention to Gen. 12–36. He begins by debunking the
hypothesis of an Elohist version of the patriarchal narratives independent of J.
He agrees, nevertheless, that the Yahwist narratives may contain a number
of Elohist corrections.13 Winnett then sets out in search of a solution for the
elements in the J narrative that are apparently of a later date. According to
the scholarship of his day, three passages from Gen. 12–36 tended consistently
to be characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic, namely Gen. 15:7; 18:17–19 and 26:5b.
In Winnett’s opinion, these passages cannot possibly be written off as later
interpolations, because they—and this certainly applies to Gen. 15:7 and 18:17–
19—form an integral part of the context in which they stand.14 The most logi-
cal solution, therefore, is to account for an author who was responsible for the
entire context and who only became active after the publication of the book of
Deuteronomy.15 In Winnett’s approach to Gen. 12:2–3, an element emerges that
13 With respect to the E elements in the Abraham narratives Winnett writes: ‘There can be
no question that E was a reviser, whatever else he may have been. (. . .) E left the J stories
unaltered but neutralized them by composing similar episodes in a new setting, and in
these Abraham’s behavior is above reproach’ (‘Re-Examining the Foundations’, 6; for the E
passages in the Jacob tradition, cf. 7–10).
14 The predisposition to see verses or verse segments as ‘interpolations’ is a common feature
of scholarly research in this domain. I react against this approach in H. Ausloos, ‘The
Deuteronomist and the Account of Joseph’s Death (Gen. 50,22–26)’, in: A. Wénin (ed.),
Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (BETL, 155), Leuven 2001,
381–395.
15 Winnett does not account for the possiblity that these passages from Genesis may repre-
sent a preliminary stage leading up to the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
174 Chapter 4
16 Winnett, ‘Re-Examining the Foundations’, 11: ‘It is such a striking idea that if it had been
present in the early J story of Abraham it is inconceivable that none of the prophets
before Deutero-Isaiah would have referred to it. This is all the more true if the story was
recited to the people on festival occasions’.
17 It is stated in Gen. 12:8; 13:4; 26:25, for example, that Abraham and Isaac established an
altar, but no mention is made of the patriarch offering sacrifice. Instead it is stated that
the said partriarch called upon the name of yhwh. This observation leads Winnett,
‘Re-Examining the Foundations’, 11 to conclude: ‘As is well known, P also avoids any refer-
ence to the patriarchs offering sacrifice since the Torah had not yet been revealed. It is
probable, therefore, that the author of the three passages mentioned lived not too far
removed from that of P’.
18 Winnett, ‘Re-Examining the Foundations’, 12–13: ‘Evidence that an important section of
this supplementary material comes from one hand is provided by an examination of the
divine promises to the patriarchs. The basic J story contained only a brief promise of the
land made to Abraham: “To thy seed I will give this land” (12,7) and a promise in ch. 18
that he and his wife Sarah would have a son despite their advanced age. These references
were far too meager to satisfy later generations, and the theme of the promises was taken
up and expanded by Late J’. The promise to the patriarchs is thus made seven times in
the patriarchal narratives (Gen. 12:2–3; 13:14–17; 15; 22:14–18; 26:3–5, 24; 28:13–15): ‘May
we not see in Late J’s concern with the divine promises to the patriarchs an historian’s
way of conceiving a message of comfort and hope to his people in a time of gloom and
despair? If Late J be of postexilic date, the whole matter becomes readily intelligible’ (13).
Futhermore, Winnett ascribes the following passages, among others, to his late Yahwist:
Gen. 11:28–31; 14; 18:22a-32; 24; 25:22–23; 26; 28:13–15; 32:4–14a; 33:19–20; 34; 35:1–8, 16–22a
(14–15).
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 175
With respect to the Joseph story, Winnett claims that the late Yahwist used
an E narrative, which he largely reworked. According to Winnett, however, the
said E narrative has nothing to do with the E supplements in Gen. 12–36.19
Winnett thus discerns the presence of a late Yahwist throughout the book
of Genesis.20 This late Yahwist carried out his work inspired by a concern to
commit the traditions concerning the beginning of humanity and the patri-
archs to writing. Up to that point, the traditions in question had been trans-
mitted orally. According to Winnett, there can be little doubt that the fall of
Jerusalem in 587 bce and the exile that followed occasioned this concern.
In Winnett’s view, the Yahwist narrative underwent a P revision around
400 bce, at which point Genesis was placed before Exodus–Numbers and
Deuteronomy was detached from the Deuteronomistic History and attached
to the Moses tradition. Prior to P, therefore, we cannot speak of the Pentateuch
or the Tetrateuch. Since Winnett, the Yahwist is no longer associated of neces-
sity with the early monarchy, but linked rather with the Deuteronom(ist)ic lit-
erature and the exile.
Without necessarily paying explicit attention to Deuteronom(ist)ic elements
in Genesis–Numbers, several exegetes—in line with Winnett—propose a late
(post-)exilic date for the non-Priestly material in this composition. Norman E.
Wagner, for example, one of Winnett’s students, has proposed a (post-)exilic
date for the pre-Priestly patriarch traditions. In his study A Literary Analysis
of Genesis 12–36, Wagner insists that much of the material traditionally con-
sidered to be Yahwistic should, de facto, be ascribed to a Judean author (‘C’)
from the 6th century bce whose religious convictions exhibit similarities with
those of Deutero-Isaiah. At the same time, Wagner argues, C contains traces of
Deuteronomic influence.21
19 The E supplements to Gen. 12–36 came into existence in Judah. The Elohist basic narra-
tive in the Joseph cycle, by contrast, is evidently of Israelite origin: ‘It is not surprising,
then, that such widely divergent views regarding the date and provenance of E have been
championed by scholars. They have been treating as one two quite disparate elements’—
Winnett, ‘Re-Examining the Foundations’, 18.
20 Winnett, ‘Re-Examining the Foundations’, 17: ‘The fact that a late J hand supplemented
the patriarchal narratives and that a late J hand supplemented the Joseph story raises the
possibility that they are one and the same person. When it is recalled that the primeval
history is also by a late J author, one must consider the further possibility that the whole
of the Book of Genesis, apart from later P supplements, is his handiwork. A comparison of
the late J materials in the three sections of the book does suggest that they proceed from
the same hand’.
21 N.E. Wagner, A Literary Analysis of Genesis 12–36, Toronto 1965, 2: ‘C attempted to present a
full-fledged life of the patriarch by adding material which seems to have been drawn from
176 Chapter 4
oral tradition. If any of his additions, such as ch. 14, was derived from a written source it
has been so recast that it is not possible to recover its original form. C takes up the theme
of the divine promises to the patriarch—a subject touched upon only lightly by J—and
develops it at some length, relating no fewer than four such promises (12:2–3; 14:14–17;
15,1–21; 22:17–18). C is strongly pro-Jerusalem and pro-Judaean in his sympathies. (. . .) One
of the most noteworthy findings is that a considerable amount of the material usually
assigned to J must be attributed to a late Judaean author (labelled C) whose religious
concepts show affinities with those of Deutero-Isaiah (6th century bc) and later authors.
He also shows some traces of Deuteronomic influence and shares some vocabulary with
P’. Wagner also defends the hypothesis of a late dating of the patriarchal traditions in his
articles ‘Abraham and David?’, in: J.W. Wevers, D.B. Redford (eds), Studies on the Ancient
Palestinian World: Presented to Professor F.V. Winnett on the Occasion of his Retirement 1
July 1971 (Toronto Semitic Texts and Studies, 2), Toronto 1972, 117–140 and ‘A Response to
Professor Rolf Rendtorff’, JSOT 3 (1977), 20–27.
22 D.B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37–50) (SVT, 20), Leiden 1970,
241–242: ‘Two conclusions seem justified by our examination of the background detail.
First, the Hebrew writer was not so well acquainted with Egypt as has often been imag-
ined. Not a few of the supposed Egyptian parallels, especially titles, vanish under close
inspection. On the other hand there are indications here and there that the writer was
familiar with the Judaean royal court. And second, those Egyptian elements which do
appear to be genuine cannot be dated with any degree of likehood before the seventh
century bc.’ Redford understands the literary genesis of the Joseph narrative as follows.
First he recognises an original Joseph narrative independent of the patriarchal traditions
that was a Hebrew variant of the universally applicable theme of a young boy with big
dreams. The narrative then underwent a ‘Judah expansion’ and additional elements were
later added to the story. The story was finally reworked by the redactor of Genesis (P).
23 Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph, 54. Redford considers Leviticus,
Deuteronomy, the Priestly components of the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic frame-
work of the Historical books, Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms,
Proverbs, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah,
Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi to be ‘late’.
24 Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph, 54–65.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 177
they did not know the story because it did not yet exist. Once again the argu-
mentum e silentio puts in an appearance.25
Reference can also be made in this regard and by way of conclusion to the
work of Hermann Vorländer. According to Vorländer the passages generally
ascribed to RJE cannot have been written prior to the exilic period.26 This
is evident from the fact, among others, that the pre-exilic literature outside
Genesis–Numbers makes no mention of the material transmitted in JE.27 By
dating JE in the (post-)exilic period, Vorländer immediately situates this work
‘in den Umkreis des dtr Geschichtswerkes und der es tragenden Bewegung’.28
He also sees the Deuteronomist not so much as a single author, but rather as
a ‘school’.
The work of the scholars we have mentioned introduces a new phase in
Pentateuch research. Texts that were once taken to be the earliest now sud-
denly belong to the latest layers of the Pentateuch. There can be little doubt
25 Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph, 250. J. Blenkinsopp, ‘A Post-Exilic Lay
Source in Genesis 1–11’, in: Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten, 49–61 has recently
associated himself with this ‘Canadian School’ of which Winnett can be said to have been
the founder.
26 The passages in question are Gen. 2:4b-25; 4:1–26; 6:1–8; 7:1–5, 7–10, 12, 23–24; 8:2b-3,
6–12, 13b, 20–22; 9:18–27; 10:8–19, 21, 24, 30; 11:1–9; 12:1–4a, 6–20; 13:1–5, 7–11, 13–18; 16:2,
4–14; 18:1–33; 19:1–28, 30–38; 20:1–18; 21:1–2a, 6–34; 22:1–24; 24:1–67; 25:1–6, 11, 18, 21–34;
26:1–33; 27:1–45; 28:10–22; 29:1–28a, 30–35; 30:1–43; 31:1–54; 32:1–33; 33:1–20; 34:1–31; 35:1–
5, 6b-8, 14, 16–22; 36(?); 37:3–36; 38–45; 46:1–5, 28–34; 47:1–5, 12–31; 48:1–3, 8–21; 50:1–11,
14–26; Exod. 1:6, 8–12, 15–22; 2:1–23a; 3:1–6:1; 7:14–18, 21, 23–29; 8:4–11, 16–28; 9:1–7, 13–35;
10:1–29; 11:1–8; 12:21–23, 29–39; 13:17–22; 14:1–31; 15:20–27; 16:3b-5, 13–36; 17–18; 19:2–3a,
9–25; 20:18–21; 24:1–15b; 32:1–6, 15–20, 30–35(?); 33:7–11(?); Num. 10:29–36; 11:1–12, 16(?);
13:17b, 18–20, 22–24, 27–31, 33; 14:8–9, 24, 39–45; 16:12–15, 25–26, 27b-34; 20:1b, 3a, 5, 8b-9,
11, 14–21; 21:1–32; 22:2–24, 25; 25:1–5; 32:1–6, 16–42; Deut. 34:1–6. Vorländer explores the
passages in question: ‘im Vergleich zur außertetrateuchischen Literatur im Rahmen der
alttestamentlichen Religions- und Literaturgeschichte den Zeitpunkt zu bestimmen, zu
dem die jehowistischen Texte in der jetzt vorliegenden Form zuerst niedergeschrieben
würden’: H. Vorländer, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (EurHS,
109), Frankfurt am Main 1978, 17.
27 Vorländer, Die Entstehungszeit, 367: ‘Die außertetrateuchische Literatur enthält kein-
erlei sicheren Hinweise darauf, daß Werke wie J oder E vor 600 v.Chr. verfaßt wurden.
Andernfalls wäre ein häufigerer Bezug der Propheten auf diese Weise bzw. die in ihnen
enthaltenen Stoffe und theologischen Aussagen zu erwarten’.
28 Vorländer, Die Entstehungszeit, 368. Another example of an author who already supported
the late dating of the Pentateuch in the 1970s is B. Zuber, Vier Studien zu den Ursprüngen
Israels: Die Sinaifrage und Probleme der Volks- und Traditionsbildung (OBO, 9), Freiburg
1976; Idem, ‘Marginalien zur Quellentheorie’, in: DBAT 12 (1977), 14–29.
178 Chapter 4
29 D. Edelman, Review of J. Van Seters, Changing Perspectives I: Studies in the History,
Literature and Religion of Biblical Israel (Copenhagen International Seminar; London,
2011), RBL 05 (2012) (http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/8201_8964.pdf—access 24 March
2015). See further T.L. Thompson, ‘Tradition and History: The Scholarship of John Van
Seters’, in: S.L. McKenzie et al. (eds), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the
Ancient World and in the Bible (BZAW, 294), Berlin 2000, 9–21.
30 J. Van Seters, ‘The Terms “Amorite” and “Hittite” in the Old Testament’, VT 22 (1972), 64–81.
The first volume of Van Seters’ collected studies appeared in 2011: J. Van Seters, Changing
Perspectives I. Studies in the History, Literature and Religion of Biblical Israel (Copenhagen
International Seminar), London 2011.
31 This idea is already to be found in A.T. Clay, The Empire of the Amorites (Yale Oriental
Series, 6), New Haven 1919, 161 [reprinted in the Yale Oriental Series. Researches, 6,
New York, 1980]; M.C. Astour, ‘Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and its
Babylonian Sources’, in: A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical Motifs, Origins and Transformations,
Cambridge 1966, 65–112, esp. 78–81; M. Noth, Die Welt des Alten Testaments: Einführung
in die Grenzgebiete der Alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft (Sammlung Töppelmann, 2/3),
Berlin 1962, 70. From Tiglath-Pileser (circa 1100 bce) to Shalmaneser III (circa 850 bce),
the expression ‘the land of the Amorites’ refered to a region of Syria between the western
Upper Euphrates and the Mediterranean. The southern border of this region depended
on the extent to which Assyria enjoyed domination of the West. As a result, from the
8th bce, the description ‘the land of the Amorites’ no longer referred to Syria alone but
also applied to Palestine, including Phoenicia, Israel, Moab, Ammon, Edom and the cities
of the Philistines. Sennacherib thus refered to the kings of all these cities as ‘Amorites’.
As a term designating the population of Syro-Palestine, the term ‘Amorite’ was used until
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 179
The terms ‘Amorite’ and ‘Hittite’ are used in the Old Testament as part of
the lists of nations that originally populated Palestine. The list of nations in
Deut. 7:1–2 is clearly introduced for ideological reasons. The author of Deut. 7,
moreover, is interested in the foreign nations with whom he was confronted
in his own time, nations he considered to be a threat to Israel’s religious life.
The author of the Deuteronomistic History interpreted the list of nations from
Deuteronomy as referring to all non-Israelites from whatever the period.32
In Exod. 3:8; 23:20–33; 33:1–3; 34:11, passages often seen as JE, the theme of
Deuteronomy is adapted to the contemporary situation.33 The author of these
passages thus sees the foreign nations as those who occupy the land rather than
its native population. At the same time, he places more emphasis on divine
intervention and less on the military capacities of the Israelites. According
to Van Seters, this tendency corresponds with a period in which Israel was
extremely weak in military terms. As a result, the texts in question are best
situated in the exilic period and understood to be post-Deuteronomistic. In
the list of nations found in Ezra 9,1, the Ammonites, Moabites and Egyptians
are added to the series. As such, the list of nations in Ezra no longer reflects the
peoples of the land, but rather the peoples of the lands, a fact that fits ideally
into the situation of the diaspora and the post-exilic period, in which concerns
related to the purity of the people no longer focused on life in Palestine. In the
context of the diaspora, furthermore, the people were confronted in like mea-
sure with foreign nations outside Palestine. It is thus clear to Van Seters that
the list of nations was not introduced into the text for historical reasons. By
analogy with the inscriptions from the first millennium bce, it should rather
be understood as an ideologising element in the biblical tradition.
the end of Assyrian power. In the Persian period, Van Seters maintains, the term ‘Amorite’
applied to the Arabic population of North Arabia.
In the Assyrian inscriptions dating from before the 9th century bce, Van Seters is of the
opinion that the term ‘Hittite’ referred to a number of neo-Hittite states (e.g. Carchemish)
in Northen Syria that came into existence after the fall of the Hittite empire. From the end
of the 9th century bce, the said states gradually lost their independence. In the period
of Sargon (circa 720 bce) the terms ‘Amorite’ and Hittite’ were both used for the native
population of Syro-Palestine. In a number of Sargon’s inscriptions, moreover, the term
‘Hittite’ has a pejoritive significance. All the peoples who resisted Assyrian authority were
simply designated ‘Hittite’, which served as a rhetorical term of abuse.
32 Cf. Judg. 3:3–5; 1 Kgs 11:1–2.
33 Van Seters, ‘The Terms “Amorite” and “Hittite” ’, 71–72 mentions three exceptions. In
Gen. 10:15–18; 15:20–21; Num. 13:29 the list of the nations is seen as a source of information
concerning the geographical and ethnographical siutuation in Palestine at the time, in
contrast to the use thereof in Deuteronomy.
180 Chapter 4
It should be clear by this juncture that with Van Seters’ dating of the list of
nations in the book of Exodus to around the Babylonian exile, the convictions
he was to develop in the remainder of his career concerning the ‘late Yahwist’
are already present in nuce.34 It was another publication from 1972, however,
namely Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period, that was to be deci-
sive in this regard. Van Seters used the publication to explore the relationship
between the theme of the promise to the patriarchs (Genesis) on the one hand,
and the traditions concerning the exodus from Egypt and the occupation of
the land (Exodus and Numbers) on the other.35 According to given opinion,
both tradition complexes were combined at a very early point in the (oral
preliminary stage) of the Yahwist’s work. According to Van Seters, however,
this hypothesis is extremely problematic. In Ezek. 20:5–6, reference is made
to yhwh’s promise to the fathers who experienced the exodus from Egypt
without any mention of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.36 According to Ezekiel, this
promise to the fathers of the exodus is formulated in a conditional manner.
Indeed, the possession of the land depends, according to the prophet, on obe-
dience to the law. Van Seters also discerns a clear reference to the fathers of the
exodus in Jer. 2:4–6.37 In other oracles occurring in Jeremiah where reference
is made to a promise, however, it is not immediately clear whether the fathers
of the exodus are its recipient or the so-called patriarchs.38
34 Van Seters, ‘The Terms “Amorite” and “Hittite”’, 81: ‘We have hinted that there seems to be
a substantial portion of the JE corpus, Late J?, which seems to stand in its outlook and
terminology in the exilic period midway between Deuteronomy and the Priestly writer’.
35 J. Van Seters, ‘Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period’, VT 22 (1972), 448–459.
36 Cf. also Ezek. 20:15, 28, 42; 36:28; 37:25–26. He returns to this in later writing. See, for
example, J. Van Seters, ‘The So-Called Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch’, in:
J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 58–77, esp. 64–66;
J. Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Louisville 1992,
233–235; Idem, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers (CBET, 10),
Kampen 1994, 47.
37 Cf. also Jer. 7:14, 22–23; 11:7, 10; 16:10–13; 23:39; 24:10; 34:13; 44:10.
38 The texts in question are: Jer. 3:18; 7:17; 11:7; 16:14–15; 25:5; 30:3; 32:32; 35:15. According to
Van Seters, all these passages should be considered Deuteronomistic additions without
further ado. Jer. 33:26 makes explicit mention of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. According
to Van Seters the expression should be dated to the period of the reconstruction of the
temple (cf. also E.W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the
Book of Jeremiah, Oxford 1970, esp. 91–92).
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 181
Van Seters concludes as a result that both Ezekiel and Jeremiah refer in
each instance to the promise to the fathers who experienced the exodus from
Egypt and not to the ‘patriarchs’. According to them, the people of the exodus
and their children acquired possession of the land on the condition that they
were obedient to yhwh. This, however, was not the case. On account of their
disobedience, expulsion from the land was inevitable. The question thus arises:
how was it possible for Ezekiel and Jeremiah to set aside an extremely ancient
tradition concerning an unconditional promise to the patriarchs without
scruples and as if it had never existed. The answer, for Van Seters, is obvious:
this ancient tradition did not de facto exist. Once again we are dealing here
with the argumentum e silentio.
In Van Seters’ opinion, this intuition is confirmed by his study of the texts
in Deuteronomy that deal with the promise. The promise in Deuteronomy,
is indeed formulated in a conditional manner as in Ezekiel and Jeremiah.39
Moreover, in some references to the promise of land in Deuteronomy, the
names of the patriarchs are only present in loose association with the word
‘fathers’,40 in contrast to the so-called JE-passages in the Pentateuch where the
names of the patriarchs, according to Van Seters, are intrinsically bound with
the context.41 As a result, he is convinced that the names of the patriarchs in
these passages in Deuteronomy are later exilic interpolations and the prom-
ise in question—as in Ezekiel and Jeremiah—was originally addressed to the
fathers of the exodus.42
39 According to Van Seters, ‘Confessional Reformulation’, 451, one finds in Deuteronomy ‘a
theological perspective in Jerusalem prior to, and concurrent with, Jeremiah and Ezekiel,
and of which they could scarcely have been ignorant’.
40 Cf. Deut. 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; 29:12; 30:20.
41 Exod. 33:1; Num. 32:1; Deut. 34:4.
42 Van Seters, ‘Confessional Reformulation’, 452: ‘So if we were to regard the names of the
patriarchs in Deuteronomy as later additions, then unlike JE, the construction would still
remain in tact, but the “fathers” would then mean the forefathers of the exodus genera-
tion. The contradition created by the conditional tenure of the land would be removed
and Deuteronomy would be in complete agreement with Jeremiah and Ezekiel’. Van Seters
viewpoint was later supported by the study of T. Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen
zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99),
Freiburg 1990.
182 Chapter 4
Given the fact that the references to the patriarchs in the JE texts of the
Pentateuch are intrinsically bound with the context, in contrast to Deuteronomy
and the prophets, the passages in question certainly have to be seen as post-
Deuteronomistic and dated around the Babylonian exile.43 In this context, Van
Seters discusses Exod. 3:1–1544 among others. The passage in question holds
an exemplary position in demonstrating the transition from the confession of
yhwh as the God of the exodus to yhwh as the God of the patriarchs. Indeed,
in Exod. 3:13 we encounter the same theme as in Ezek. 20:5–6. In contrast to
Ezekiel, however, the role of the patriarchs is firmly underlined in Exod. 3:6,
15. This is a well-considered datum. Moreover, according to Ezekiel, Jeremiah
and Deuteronomy, the bond between yhwh and the people was broken when
Israel was not obedient. As a result, the people found itself in the historical
context of the exile in a more or less hopeless situation and people asked
themselves what kind of God the God of the fathers (of the exile) actually was.
It is to this very question that Exod. 3, among other texts, sets out to give and
answer. yhwh is presented here as the God of the patriarchs and his promises
to them are unconditional and remain valid for ever, even in exceptional situa-
tions of crisis. Van Seters calls this datum from the period of the exile a ‘confes-
sional reformulation’.45
43 Van Seters, ‘Confessional Reformulation’, 454: ‘The socalled JE corpus of the Pentateuch
is in marked contrast to Deuteronomy in its treatment of the patriarchs. JE develops at
considerable length the theme of the patriarchal promises in Genesis, and it reiterates
that theme elsewhere in Exodus and Numbers. If we disregard the presupposition from
classical literary criticism that JE must be older than Deuteronomy, then the process of
modification of the promise tradition within Deuteronomy itself would strongly suggest
that the patriarchal promise tradition in JE is later and exilic at least’.
44 Cf. also Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 46–48.
45 According to Van Seters, a similar ‘confessional reformulation’ can be found in the pro-
phetic literature. While Ezekiel and Jeremiah speak of a conditional promise to the
fathers of the exodus, Deutero-Isaiah speaks of the election of Israel as a consequence
of God’s choice of the patriarchs (Cf. Isa. 41:8–9; 51:1–2—see Van Seters, ‘Confessional
Reformulation’, 457–458). Van Seters writes on Gen. 15:7: ‘What this pericope indicates
is that, in the period of the exile, there was a conscious confessional shift from Yahweh
as the God of the exodus to Yahweh as the God of the patriarchs and to base God’s cov-
enantal promises on identity with them’ (456; Idem, Prologue to History, 248–251). Van
Seters, ‘Confessional Reformulation’, 459 concludes as follows: ‘It seems to me that the
confession of Yahweh as the God of the patriarchs and the association of the promises
to the fathers with the patriarchs is a specific development of Israel’s sacred traditions
during the exilic period and directly related to the needs of that period. The identity
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 183
Van Seters’ Abraham in History and Tradition appeared in 1975 and offered a
detailed evaluation of the insights garnered from his 1972 articles.46 In the first
part of the study, Van Seters argues on the basis of non-literary arguments that
the narratives concerning the Patriarchs in Genesis reflect the historical, social
and political background of the first millennium bce.47 In the second part, the
author provides a detailed analysis of the narratives surrounding Abraham.48
crisis which the exile created both for Israel and for Yahweh, her God, demanded a new
traditional basis which was formulated in terms of the patriarchs. The “god of the fathers”
religion and the promises of land and numerous progeny which are integrally related to it,
are not the remnant of an early pre-settlement religion of landless nomads, but the basic
components of an exilic religion of homeless exiles. Furthermore, the JE corpus in the
Pentateuch which reflects this development of Israel’s sacred tradition in the direction
of giving a national identity to the patriarchs must be post-deuteronomic and exilic’. See
also J. Van Seters, ‘The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch: The Case Against it’,
in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W.
Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 301–319, esp. 313.
46 J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, New Haven 1975.
47 Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 7–122. Van Seters’ concludes the first part of
his study as follows: ‘Attempts to portray a “Patriarchal Age” as a historical context for the
stories of Genesis in the second millennium bc must be viewed as failures. The “Abraham
of history” can no longer be recovered from the traditions as we now have them, even to
the limited extend of reconstructing his “life and times”’ (120–121).
48 Van Seters sets aside the axiom accepted since Wellhausen of independent sources.
He also minimises the contribution of the oral tradition to a few folkloristic motifs that
have been absorbed into the text. Only the narratives that meet the criteria established in
A. Olrik, ‘Epische Gesetze der Volksdichtung’, Zeitschrift für deutschen Altertum 51 (1909),
1–12 can be traced back to the oral tradition. For Van Seters this means Gen. 12:10–20;
16:1–3a, 4–9, 11ab, narratives that may already have circulated in the form of popular pre-
sentations before they were taken up into the pre-Yahwist work. Cf. Van Seters, Abraham
in History and Tradition, 132–138; 160–161; 168–170; 195–196; for critical remarks addressed
to the supporters of the oral tradition, see also Idem, ‘The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom:
A Literary Examination’, JBL 91 (1972), 182–197, esp. 197; Idem, ‘Oral Patterns of Literary
Conventions in Biblical Narrative’, Semeia 5 (1976), 139–154; Idem, ‘Problems in the
Literary Analysis of the Court History of David’, JSOT 1 (1976), 22–29; Idem, ‘The Yahwist as
Theologian? A Response’, JSOT 3 (1977), 15–20. Van Seters considers it more useful to speak
of distinct literary layers, athough the said layers should always be considered in relation
to one another.—Cf. Idem, Abraham in History and Tradition, 125–166.
184 Chapter 4
The analysis suggests that a Yahwist author made use of pre-Yahwist material.49
This Yahwist material was later reworked by a priestly author.50
Bearing in mind the results of his research in the first part of his study, it is
logical that Van Seters rejects a dating of the Yahwist in the time of Solomon
and supports a dating during the exile.51 As he does in his 1972 article, Van Seters
argues that the promises to the patriarchs are best understood in the context of
the exile. Indeed, in this period of deep crisis, the promise of descendants had
become extremely important.52
In a following major study from 1983, entitled In Search of History, Van Seters
sets out to explore Ancient Near Eastern, Greek and Israelite historiography.53
49 Van Seters distinguishes a pre-Yahwist narrative (Gen. 12:1, 4a*, 6a, 7, 10–20; 13:1*-2; 16:1–
12*; 13:18; 18:1a, 10–14; 21:2, 6–7), together with a limited pre-Yahwist Elohist (Gen. 20:1–17;
21:25–26; 28–31a)—cf. Idem, Abraham in History and Tradition, 311; 313. He says nothing,
however, about the dating of this pre-Yahwist material. See the review of A. De Pury, in
RB 85 (1978), 589–618, esp. 604 n. 40: ‘Van Seters ne se prononce pas sur la date des deux
couches pré-yahvistes. Mais le cours de son argumentation laisse supposer qu’il songe, au
mieux, à la fin de la monarchie judéenne”. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition,
313 ascribes the passages Gen. 12:2–3, 6b, 8–9; 13:3–5, 7–17; 15; 16:7b, 10, 11c, 13–14; 18:1b-9,
15–33; 19; 20:1aα; 21:1, 8–24, 27, 31b-34; 22; 24; 25:1–6, 11; 26 to the Yahwist. On the literary
activity of the said Yahwist Van Seters observes: ‘What the Yahwist received in a written
form he rearranged and supplemented to express in it his own concerns. He also added
further stories and episodes of his own’ (311).
50 Van Seters considers the Priestly author to be reponsible for the genealogical and chrono-
logical interpolations in Gen. 11:26–32; 12:4b-5; 13:6; 16:3b, 15–16; 21:3–6; 25:7–10, and in
Gen. 17 and 23. He also accounts for a post-Priestly interpolation of Gen. 14, of which
vv. 18–20 are a secondary addition (Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 279–295;
311; 313). Cf. also Idem, Der Jahwist als Historiker (TSt, 134), Zürich 1987, 89.
51 Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 310.
52 Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 310–311. According to Van Seters, the way in
which the religion of the patriarchs is alluded to in Genesis should not be considered evi-
dence of an early date. See in this regard Idem, ‘The Religion of the Patriarchs in Genesis’,
Bib 61 (1980), 220–233.
53 J. Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins
of Biblical History, New Haven 1983. For his description of historiography (4–5) he is
indebted to J. Huizinga, ‘A Definition of the Concept of History’, in: R. Klibansky, H.J. Paton
(eds), Philosophy and History: Essays Presented to Ernst Cassirer, New York 1963, 1–10, esp.
9: ‘History is the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its
past’. In other studies, Van Seters also makes frequent comparison between biblical infor-
mation and extra-biblical texts from the first millennium bce. See, for example, J. Van
Seters, ‘The Problem of Childlessness in Near Easters Law and the Patriarchs of Israel’,
JBL 87 (1968), 401–408; A.K. Grauson, J. Van Seters, ‘The Childless Wife in Assyria and the
Stories of Genesis’, Orientalia 44 (1975), 485–486; J. Van Seters, ‘The Primeval Histories of
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 185
Although the study in question focuses on Joshua–2 Kings,54 Van Seters raises
the question of the late Yahwist in passing nevertheless.55
Van Seters combines his approach to the Yahwist as a late author and the
qualification thereof as a historiographer in his essay Der Jahwist als Historiker
from 1987.56 In like fashion to the Deuteronomist who was responsible for
the Deuteronomistic History, the activity of the late Yahwist also exhibits a
Greece and Israel Compared’, ZAW 100 (1988), 1–22; Idem, ‘The Creation of Man and the
Creation of the King (Gen. 1–2; Ez 28)’, ZAW 101 (1989), 333–342. See also Idem, The Edited
Bible: The Curious History of the ‘Editor’ in Biblical Criticism, Winona Lake, IN 2006, pas-
sim. On the influence of Van Seters’ work on research into the historicity of the biblical
traditions, see H.M. Barstad, History and the Hebrew Bible (FAT, 61), Tübingen 2008, 72.
See also J. Van Seters, ‘Is there Any Historiography in the Hebrew Bible? A Hebrew–Greek
Comparison’, JNSL 28 (2002), 1–25.
54 Van Seters, In Search of History, 249–353. According to Van Seters, Josh. 2; 7; 24 are not
part of the Deuteronomistic History. He ascribes these chapters rather to the post-
Deuteronomistic Yahwist (325; 327–328; 336–337). 2 Sam. 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2 are also to be con-
sidered posterior interpolations. Cf. also Idem, ‘Histories and Historians of the Ancient
Near East: The Israelites’, Orientalia 50 (1981), 137–185, esp. 156–167; Idem, ‘Joshua 24 and
the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament’, in: W.B. Barrick, J.R. Spencer (eds), In the
Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlström
(JSOT SS, 31), Trowbridge 1984, 39–158; J. Van Seters, ‘Joshua’s Campaign of Canaan and
Near Eastern Historiography’, SJOT 2 (1990) 1–12. See also Idem, ‘The Deuteronomist from
Joshua to Samuel’, in: G.N. Knoppers, J.G. McConville (eds), Reconsidering Israel and
Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (Sources for Biblical and Theological
Study, 8), Winona Lake, IN 2000, 204–239.
55 Van Seters, In Search of History, 361: ‘Yet other histories were written subsequent to Dtr’s
work and are directly related to it. One is the work of the Yahwist, who supplemented Dtr
by extending the history back in time to the beginning of the world’.
56 Van Seters, Der Jahwist als Historiker, Zürich 1987 consists of a collection of lectures
given in Geneva and Zürich in 1985–1986. See also Idem, ‘The Yahwist as Historian’, in:
K.H. Richards (ed.), One Hundred Twenty-Second Annual Meeting, November 22–25, 1986,
Atlanta (SBL SP, 25), Atlanta, GA 1986, 37–55. According to Van Seters, the concept of the
Yahwist as historian is in se not new. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels,
Berlin 1883; 31886, 308–378 saw JE as a ‘Geschichtsbuch’: ‘The only new suggestion since
Wellhausen (. . .) is that the Yahwist is much later in date and part of a larger development
of Israelite historiography in the early exilic period’ (Van Seters, ‘The Yahwist as Historian’,
45). With respect to the mythical and legendary material that the Yahwist historiographer
included in his work reference can be made to Van Seters, Prologue to History, 1992, 24–44,
a reworking of two lectures given in Geneva and published in A. De Pury, Histoire et con-
science historique dans les civilizations du Proche-Orient ancien (Les Cahiers du Centre
d’étude du Proche-Orient Ancien, 5), Leuven 1989, 49–61; 63–74, under the titles Myth and
History. The Problem of Origins and Tradition and History. History as National Tradition.
See more recently Van Seters, The Yahwist, A Historian of Israelite Origins, 124–127.
186 Chapter 4
57 Cf., for example, Van Seters, ‘Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition’, 149; 154; Idem, The
Yahwist as Historian, 50. Van Seters is in keeping here with the vision M. Rose (see infra).
58 For a description of the literary activity of the Yahwist as historian see Van Seters, ‘Joshua
24 and the Problem of Tradition’, 154–155; Idem, ‘The Yahwist as Historian’, 50–51; Idem,
The Life of Moses, 457. Cf. also Idem, Der Jahwist als Historiker, 83–91.
59 For the activity of this Priestly supplementer, see Van Seters, In Search of History, 27–29;
325–337; Idem, Der Jahwist als Historiker, 89–91; Idem, The Life of Moses, 100–112; Idem,
‘A Contest of Magicians? The Plague Stories in P’, in: D.P. Wright et al. (eds), Pomegranates
and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in
Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN 1995, 569–580.
60 Van Seters, Prologue to History. Here too, Van Seters makes frequent comparison with
extra-biblical data (cf. also Idem, ‘The Creation of Man’, 333–342; Idem, Prologue to
History, 47–98).
61 Van Seters, The Life of Moses. Here too, Van Seters reaches the conclusion that ‘the detailed
comparison of each parallel episode in J and Dtr as well as a comparison of the larger struc-
ture of the narrative describing the journey from Sinai/Horeb to the Plains of Moab con-
firms the priority of the Dtr account and its use as a source by the Yahwist.’ (461). See also
Van Seters’ remaining studies on the work of the Yahwist who produced his own composi-
tion in the exilic period making use of older material. Without intending to be complete,
reference can be made in particular to: J. Van Seters, ‘Recent Studies on the Pentateuch:
A Crisis in Method?’, JAOS 99 (1979), 663–673; Idem, ‘The Religion of the Patriarchs in
Genesis’, Bib 61 (1980), 220–233; Idem, ‘Once Again—The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom’,
JBL 99 (1980), 117–124; Idem, ‘Tradition and Social Change in Ancient Israel, Perspectives
in Religious Studies 7 (1980), 96–113; Idem, ‘The Place of the Yahwist in the History of Pass
over and Massot’, ZAW 95 (1983), 167–182; Idem, ‘“Comparing Scripture with Scripture”.
Some Observations on the Sinai Pericope of Exodus 19–24’, in: G.M. Tucker et al. (eds),
Canon, Theology and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Brevard S. Childs,
Philadelphia 1988, 111–130; J. Van Seters, ‘From Faithful Prophet to Villain: Observations
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 187
on the Tradition History of the Balaam Story’, in: E.E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary:
In Search of Method, Form and Content—FS G.W. Coats (JSOT SS, 240), Sheffield 1997,
126–132; J. Van Seters, ‘Divine Encounter at Bethel (Gen. 28,10–22) in Recent Literary-
Critical Study of Genesis’, ZAW 110 (1998) 503–513; Idem, ‘Some Observations on the Lex
Talionis in Exod. 21:23–25’, in: S. Beyerle et al. (eds), Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament:
Gestalt und Wirkung—Festschrift für Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukrichen-
Vluyn 1999, pp. 27–37; J. Van Seters, ‘The Silence of Dinah (Genesis 34)’, in: J.-D. Macchi,
T. Römer (eds), Jacob: Commentaire à plusieurs voix de Gen. 25–36—Mélanges offerts à
Albert de Pury, Genève 2001, 239–247; J. Van Seters, ‘Deuteronomy between Pentateuch
and the Deuteronomistic History’, HTS 59 (2003), 947–956; Idem, ‘Von Child Sacrifice to
Paschal Lamb. A Remarkable Transformation’, OTE 16 (2003), 453–463; Idem, ‘The Report
of the Yahwist’s Demise Has Been Greatly Exaggerated!’, in: T.D. Dozeman, K. Schmid
(eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European
Interpretation (SBL SS, 34), Atlanta, GA 2006, 143–157; J. Van Seters, ‘The Patriarchs and
the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between Two Origin Traditions’, in: R. Roukema (ed.), The
Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman (CBET, 44), Leuven 2006,
1–15; J. Van Seters, ‘The Altar Law of Ex. 20,24–26 in Critical Debate’, in: M. Beck, U. Schorn
(eds), Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum: Festschrift Hans-Christoph
Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 370), Berlin 2006, 157–174.
For the specific theology of the Yahwist, indebted to the Deuteronomistic History, the
prophetic literature and the Wisdom traditions, see J. Van Seters, ‘The Theology of the
Yahwist. A Preliminary Sketch’, in: I. Kottsieper et al. (eds), ‘Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter
den Göttern?’ Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels für Otto Kaiser zum 70.
Geburtstag, Göttingen 1994, 219–228. In his contribution ‘Cultic Laws in the Covenant
Code and their Relationship to Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code’, in: M. Vervenne
(ed.), The Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven
1996, 319–345, Van Seters defends the hypothesis that the Book of the Covenant is depen-
dent on both Deuteronomy and the so-called ‘Holiness Code’ and should thus be seen as
a composition of the exilic Yahwist. See also J. Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora:
Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code, Oxford 2003.
62 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 290–318; cf. also Idem, Histories and Historians, 170–184;
Idem, ‘Law and the Wilderness Rebellion Tradition: Exodus 32’, in: D.J. Lull (ed.), Society
of Biblical Literature 1990 Semiar Papers. One Hundred Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting,
November 17–20, 1990 (SBL SP, 29), Atlanta, GA 1990, 583–591—See also K. Schmid, ‘Israel
am Sinai: Etappen der Forschungsgeschichte zu Ex. 32–34 in seinen Kontexten’, in:
M. Köckert, E. Blum (eds), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex. 32–34 und Dtn 9–10
(Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie, 18), Gütersloh
2001, 9–40.
188 Chapter 4
63 (1) In Exod. 32:1–6 one can discern lines of connection with Exod. 24:12–15a, 18b; 31:18*.
In addition, links are also evident from the thematic perspective with the theme of the
exodus if we bear in mind that Moses is brought forward in v. 1 as the man who brought
the people out of Egypt. Vv. 1–6 are likewise in keeping with the tradition of the murmur-
ing of the people in Numbers. (2) Exod. 32:7–14 is mostly described in the literature as
a later interpolation. First, the verses anticipate Moses’ discovery of the people’s apos-
tasy in vv. 15–19; second, vv. 7–14 are written in a language akin to the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature. Within the said verses, however, vv. 9–10 appear to be out of place since they
represent a second statement on the part of yhwh. Nevertheless, according to Van Seters
Moses’ response in vv. 11–14 follows better on the second statement than the first in
vv. 7–8. Moreover, Moses’ prayer in vv. 11–13 is a doublet of vv. 30–34. According to Van
Seters, vv. 7–8 function as a transition between the scene on the mountain and Moses’
motivation for having to return from the mountain. As a result, Van Seters claims, it is only
the parallels with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature that can serve as an argument against
the attribution of these verses to an early document. It thus appears that only vv. 9–14
should be considered an irregularity. (3) Moses’ return in vv. 15–20 contains a number
of glosses from P in relation to the nature of the stone tablets. The original text probably
read: ‘Moses turned and went down the mountain with two tablets in his hands’. In v.
17, Joshua, who accompanied Moses when he ascended the mountain (Exod. 24:13–14),
is reintroduced. The dialogue between Moses and Joshua intends to draw attention to
the discovery of the golden calf and to Moses’ reaction thereto (vv. 17–24). Vv. 25–29 are
probably an etiology intended to legitimate the priestly service of the Levites and as such
are not likely to have formed part of the orginal narrative. (4) According to Van Seters,
Exod. 32:30–34 are part of the original narrative. V. 35 on the other hand is probably a
later addition, intended as an immediate implementation of the punishment threatened
in v. 34 (Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 290–295). See also Idem, The Yahwist. A Historian of
Israelite Origin, 94–96.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 189
Numbers, Van Seters’ comparative study of Exod. 32* with the narratives of
1 Kgs 12:26–32; 13:34 and Deut. 9–10 deserves particular attention.
In the first instance, parallels with 1 Kings are examined. Three elements
emerge here as significant. First, both Exod. 32 and 1 Kgs 12 speak of god/gods
that lead Israel out of Egypt.64 Second, reference is made to the fact that the
calf/calves is/are fashioned from gold. Third, mention is made of a feast on
the occasion of a sacrificial ritual. It is striking to note that none of these three
details is to be found in the narrative of Deut. 9.
In the history of research, there has been a consistent tendency to associate
the narrative in 1 Kgs 12 with a historical cultic reform implemented by King
Jeroboam. Van Seters, however, disagrees with this traditional interpretation.
In his opinion, there is no reason to suggest that the material in 1 Kgs 12 mirrors
a historical event. According to Van Seters, the cultic reform spoken of 1 Kgs 12
is a creation of the author of the Deuteronomistic History.65 This also implies
64 Compare אלה אלהיך ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים/ הנהin Exod. 32:4 and 1 Kgs 12:28.
65 According to Van Seters, the narrative of the golden calves in 1 Kgs 12:26–32 does not fol-
low on from v. 25, which is part of a different narrative, namely the so-called chronicles
of the kings of Israel. Reference is continually made in the said chronicles to the conflict
between Jeroboam and Abijah, the king of Judah. In 1 Kgs 12:26–32 by contrast, it is sug-
gested that peaceful visits to Jerusalem are still possible. In the text as we now have it,
1 Kgs 12:26–32 functions as an introduction to the man of God from Judah (1 Kgs 12:33–
13:33), concluding with a reference to the incident with the golden calves (1 Kgs 13:34).
According to Van Seters, however, the tradition of the man of God is secondary in the
context. As a result, the orginal unit consists of 1 Kgs 12:26–32; 13:34. This sheds a different
light on the narrative of the golden calves. The author of the Deuteronomistic History
is convinced that since Solomon had constructed the temple in Jerusalem the cult had
been centralised and all Israel had to make an annual pilgrimage to the city. It is for this
reason also that he accuses Jeroboam of subverting this practice at the beginning of his
reign. According to Van Seters, however, there is no evidence to suggest that the cult had
been centralised prior to Josiah’s Deuteronomic reform. As a result, the narrative in 1 Kgs
12:26–32; 13:34 has to be understood as an anachronistic creation of the Deuteronomist.
In the first instance, the latter wanted to anticipate the reform of Josiah. At the same time,
he wanted to use the narrative as a prototype for the vicissitudes of the kings of Israel.
The images set up by Jerobeam also inspired his successors to do the same and this atti-
tude ultimately led to the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 bce (2 Kgs 17:21–23). Van
Seters concludes as follows: ‘The story of Jerobeam and the golden calves is so thoroughly
anachronistic and propagandistic that one must judge it as being a complete fabrication’
(Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 299). Moreover, the author of the Deuteronomistic History
characterises Jeroboam’s sin as the sin par excellence against the divine commandments.
In his presentation of events, the images Jeroboam had set up are not only representa-
tions of foreign gods, they serve as a substitute for the God of Israel: ‘These are your gods,
190 Chapter 4
O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt’ (cf. also Van Seters, Histories and
Historians, 170–147).
66 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 299: ‘Since the making of a golden calf for all Israel to wor-
ship, the ascription to it of deliverance from Egypt, and the establishment of a festival for
it are all creations of the DrtH, the Exodus 32 account must be post-DtrH and literarily
dependent upon the account in 1 Kings 12’.
67 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 300, concludes as follows: ‘All these items derive from the
original context in 1 Kings 12’.
68 The identification of the apostasy as חטאה גדולהis also to be found in 2 Kgs 17:21–23.
69 On the relationsip between these passages, see also V. Sénéchal, Rétribution et intercession
dans le Deutéronome (BZAW, 408), Berlin 2009, 363–433.
70 Compare with Van Seters, The Yahwist. A Historian of Israelite Origin, 95 n. 13, where he
mentions some ‘non-Dtr additions’ in Deut. 9:20, 22–24, 27a; 10:6–9.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 191
Kingdom, which they claim is central to Exod. 32. Van Seters had already dem-
onstrated, however, that there was no trace of such a polemic in Exod. 32. As a
result, Van Seters presumes that the author(s) of Deut. 9 was (were) unaware of
the existence of Exod. 32—once again an argumentum e silentio.
Van Seters then explores the parallels between Deut. 9–10 and Exod. 32, point-
ing to the reference to Moses destroying the two stone tablets. Supplementary
to Deuteronomy, Van Seters’ Yahwist points out that Moses smashed the tab-
lets in anger at the foot of the mountain (Exod. 32:19). By locating the event
at the foot of the mountain, the smashing of the tablets is incorporated within
the broader J narrative in which the camp is likewise located at the foot of the
mountain.
The destruction of the calf is mentioned in Deut. 9:21 and in Exod. 32:20.
In both passages the image is burnt, crushed to a powder, and its ashes are
sprinkled on water. In Exod. 32, however, the people are also made to drink of
the water. On this point, Van Seters enters into dialogue with Begg, who, as a
disciple of Brekelmans, has argued in favour of the presence of proto-Deutero-
nomic elements within Genesis–Numbers.
As noted above, Begg appeals to Ancient Near Eastern literature (Ugarit)
to illustrate that the list of the various parallel actions to which the image is
subjected is not intended to be a realistic report of its destruction. The purpose
thereof was rather to emphasise the total destruction of the calf. Van Seters’
reaction to Begg’s proposition is twofold.
In the first instance, Van Seters points to what he believes to be a crucial dif-
ference between Exod. 32:20/Deut. 9:21 and the material from Ugarit, although
the texts in question match significantly in terms of content. The Ugaritic texts,
he observes, are poetic. In such texts, logical inconsistency can be expected
and the parallel representation of actions can be seen as normal.71 The biblical
texts, on the other hand, are prose. As a result, Begg’s solution loses stability,
according to Van Seters.
Second, Begg also cites a considerable amount of non-Ugaritic comparative
material from the Ancient Near East that deals with the destruction of gods
and cultic objects. Begg refers, for example, to a number of examples of neo-
Assyrian texts that describe the destruction of foreign cultic objects and loca-
tions by fire, followed by the obliteration and scattering of what remains on
water. According to Van Seters, these parallels are more closely related to the
biblical text at a variety of levels than the texts from Ugarit. First, the texts in
71 It is striking that Van Seters rejects the relationship with material from Ugarit—which
shares the same Umwelt as Israel—and, albeit it with reference to other Old Testament
pericopes, appeals with ease to late Greek material.
192 Chapter 4
question speak exclusively of the destruction of cultic objects and not of the
divinities themselves. Second, the said material is to be situated in the same
period as the Deuteronomistic History (8th to 6th century bce). Furthermore,
it would appear that it is not unusual for the Deuteronomistic History to
exhibit agreements with Assyrian literature. Van Seters concludes as follows:
‘Consequently, it is not so clear that Begg’s solution to the problem of “heaping
up” destructive methods of disposing of the calf is entirely satisfactory’.72
Van Seters then focuses on the relationship between Exod. 32:20 and
Deut. 9:21. Given the parallel presence of four of the five actions, it seems
more or less unavoidable that one should account for the possibility of liter-
ary dependence between the said texts. According to Begg, however, the for-
mulation of Deut. 9:21 is much more elaborate than the corresponding text
in Exodus.73 As a result, he is inclined to consider Deut. 9:21 as a secondary
rewriting of Exod. 32:20.74 Van Seters is not inclined to agree. He observes, for
example, that later copies of Assyrian royal inscriptions often render mate-
rial from older texts in a more summary manner to allow for the addition of
new material.75 Van Seters concludes: ‘Since Exodus 32 adds the whole scene of
the making of the golden calf, which is not in Deuteronomy 9, the writer’s
method is very similar to that of the Synoptic Gospels and of the Assyrian
inscriptions’.76
Begg is also of the opinion that the scattering of the remains of the image
in the river in Deut. 9:21 represents an imitation of the reform of Josiah
(2 Kgs 23:11–12). He thus concludes that Deut 9:21 is a free rewriting of the
text of Exod. 32 with a view to preparing for a number of crucial themes
of the Deuteronomistic History. Based on this observation, it becomes clear
why the Deuteronomist omitted Moses fifth action—making the Israelites
drink the water in which the ashes had been sprinkled—from his version
of the destruction of the golden calf. Indeed, the Deuteronomistic literature
concerning the reform of the cult never speaks of the obligation to drink the
water with the ashes in it.
According to Van Seters, however, the main problem with this line of argu-
ment can be found in the following question: if the Deuteronomist had the
reforms of Kings in his mind, why did he omit Exod. 32:1–6, which corresponds
exceptionally well with the narrative in 1 Kgs 12:26–32. Van Seters answers
this question as follows. In his opinion, Deut. 9 is completely in line with the
Deuteronomistic tradition of cultic reform. In Exod. 32, the Yahwist imitated
the same Deuteronomistic procedure for the destruction of the cult except
for the last element, the sprinkling of the ashes on the water. According to
Van Seters, however, the water alludes to the river mentioned in Deut. 9:21.
In Exod. 17:1–7, the Yahwist has already alluded to the origin of the said river,
namely the water that flowed in Horeb when Moses struck the rock so that
the people could drink. When Moses then went on to sprinkle the ashes of the
calf in the water, the people had no choice: this was the only water they had to
drink. According to Van Seters, therefore, we should not be too eager to ascribe
ritual significance to the drinking of the water.77
Exod. 32:20 made use of the motifs of destruction in Deut. 9:21, with minor
emendation and a certain tension with Exod. 32:1–6. In the context of the
destruction of the image in Exod. 32:20, one might have expected reference
to the altar associated with the image in verse 5. According to Van Seters,
however, the Yahwist preferred to stay particularly close to Deut. 9:21 in his
narrative of the destruction of the calf.78 Moreover, for the accumulation of
destructive terminology, J was probably dependent on the Deuteronomistic
presentation of events.79
The way in which Van Seters analyses Exod. 32 and considers it to be the
work of a post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist can be understood as representa
tive of his working hypothesis. Time and again, and often on the basis of pas-
sages considered in the course of the 20th century to be Deuteronom(ist)ic,
he endeavours to demonstrate that the non-Priestly ‘Tetrateuch’ was the work
of a late post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist—an author, not a redactor80—who
77 Van Seters does not exclude the possibility that Jer. 8:14; 9:14; 23:15 allude to the said ‘poi-
soned water’.
78 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 307: ‘Consequently, the dependence of J on D is clearly
established’.
79 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 307.
80 Cf. B.M. Levinson, ‘Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van
Seters’, in Idem, ‘The Right Chorale’: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation (FAT, 54),
Tübingen 2008, 276–330, esp. 281–295.
194 Chapter 4
was dependent on the Deuteronomistic History.81 This does not imply that
the said Yahwist should be considered a Deuteronomistic final ‘redactor’ of
the Pentateuch.82 Moreover, leaving aside the fact that J is not part of the
corpus of Deuteronomistic literature, it has to be observed that the Yahwist
rarely if ever exhibits interest in typically Deuteronomistic points of inter-
est, such as the centralisation of the cult. Parenesis concerning obedience to
the law is also rarely present in the Yahwistic work. Furthermore, the Yahwist
speaks of the promise of the land in a very different manner.83 Van Seters is
thus convinced: ‘I believe that a final dtr redactor of the Pentateuch is not a
viable solution to the “deuteronomic” elements of the Pentateuch’.84 Indeed,
Van Seters even goes so far as to characterise his post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist
as ‘un-Deuteronomistic’,85 although Deuteronomy has to be considered to be
the most important source for Van Seters’ Yahwist, who’s work is seen as an
‘early form of antiquarian historiography’, later than Ezekiel, but earlier than
Deutero-Isaiah.86
81 Cf. Van Seters, ‘The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch’, 302–303: ‘The non-P
(J) work was composed as a prologue to the national history of DtrH and never existed as
a separate corpus. P’s expansion of the Tetrateuch was therefore an expansion of the total
history’.
82 Van Seters, ‘The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch’, 318. See also Idem, ‘The
Patriarchs and the Exodus’, 15: ‘P must be viewed as an extensive revisionist supplement’.
In Idem, ‘The Redactor in Biblical Studies: a Nineteenth Century Anachronism’, JNSL 29
(2003) 1–19, the author strongly reacts gainst the use of the term ‘redactor’. For Van Seters,
the Yahwist is an ‘author’.
83 Van Seters, ‘The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch’, 318–319.
84 Van Seters, ‘The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch’, 319.
85 J. Van Seters, ‘In the Babylonian Exile with J: Between Judgment in Ezekiel and Salvation
in Second Isaiah’, in B. Becking, M.C.A Korpel (eds), The Crisis of Israelite Religion:
Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS, 42), Leiden 1999,
71–89, esp. 71. In his analysis, Van Seters is particularly sceptical on the criterion of termi-
nology. See, for example, Van Seters, ‘The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch’,
319: ‘We are left only with dtr terminology which (. . .) is the most dubious criterion of all’.
Critique of the absence of linguistic arguments in Van Seters can be found, for example,
in Z. Zevit, ‘Clio, I Presume’, BASOR 260 (1985), 71–82, esp. 76–77.
86 Van Seters, The Yahwist. A Historian of Israelite Origin, 132.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 195
involve the book of Exodus in scholarly research into the status of J.87 At the
same time, the (post-)exilic and post-Deuteronomistic dating of the Yahwist
maintained by Winnett and Van Seters, among others, was further nuanced.
According to Schmid, the Yahwist’s affinity with the Deuteronom(ist)ic litera-
ture locates his emergence in more or less the same period as the latter. Schmid
makes no comment, however, in relation to an absolute chronology.
Schmid sets out to demonstrate that the share of Genesis–Numbers tra-
ditionally characterised by the Documentary Hypothesis as Yahwistic could
not belong to the period of Solomon. To this end he studies the call narrative
of Moses (Exod. 3–4*), the ‘Plague Narrative’ (Exod. 7–10*), the Sea Narrative
(Exod. 14*), a few texts from the wilderness tradition (Exod. 15*; 17*; Num. 11*;
12*; 21*), the Sinai pericope (Exod. 19–24*; 32–34*) and the promises to the
patriarchs (Gen. 15*). Schmid focuses attention on style, literary genre and
the theme of the said texts, which are generally considered the apex of
Yahwistic literature. Time and again he observes that all these passages presup-
pose classical prophecy, as it manifested itself in the 8th and 7th centuries bce,
and exhibit, furthermore, remarkable similarities with the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature. As a result, Schmid is far from critical of those authors who claim
to discern Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the books of Genesis to Numbers.
Nevertheless, he is critical of those who insist that these passages should be
seen as later interpolations in a text stemming from the time of Solomon.88
Like Van Seters, Schmid ascribes a significant role to the argumenta e silentio.
It is striking, he observes, that all the fundamental traditions inscribed in the
Pentateuch are never mentioned in the pre-exilic literature.89 In particular,
87 H.H. Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung,
Zürich 1976. Cf. also Idem, ‘In Search of New Approaches in Pentateuchal Research’, JSOT 3
(1977) 33–42; Idem, ‘Auf der Suche nach neuen Perspektiven für die Pentateuchforschung’,
in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (SVT, 32), Leiden 1981, 375–394.
88 Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist, 30 n. 43 articulates this position very effectively with ref-
erence to the list of the nations in Exod. 3: ‘Die deuteronomistische Heimat der Liste ist so
unbestritten, dass sie in Ex. 3,8 von den meisten auslegern literarkritisch eliminiert wird.
Literarkritik wird dabei aber nicht von einem Zwang des Textes, sondern vom Axiom des
salomonisch datierten Jahwisten her getrieben!’.
89 The events at Sinai play an exceptional role in the Yahwistic narrative. In the remaining
pre-Deuteronomic literature, however, the Sinai traditions’ position is only nominal. To
quote Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist, 154–155: ‘Im ganzen vorexilischen Prophetenkanon
wird kein einziges Mal auf den Sinai und die Sinaitradition angespielt—weder implizit
noch explizit. Die drei einigen, wenn auch nicht alle literarisch, so doch motivlich vor-
deuteronomischen Erwähnungen des Sinai [Judg. 5:5; Ps. 68:9, 18; Deut. 33:2—H.A.] sind
von den Pentateucherzählungen unbeeinflusst: Sie wissen nichts von einem Aufenthalt
196 Chapter 4
he sees this ‘Schweigen’ of the prophets from the 8th and 7th centuries
as extremely telling evidence against a dating of the Yahwist at the time of
Solomon. According to Schmid, moreover, the so-called Yahwist should not
be considered a single individual author. On the contrary, and in literary and
theological terms, Schmid’s Yahwistic history is more the result of an ‘(inner)
jahwistischen Redaktions- und Interpretationsprozess’.90
As noted, Schmid associates the Yahwist with the Deuteronom(ist)ic liter-
ature, but he does not explore the relationship between the late Yahwist in
Genesis–Numbers and the Deuteronomistic History in any further depth. All
he does in fact is point to similarities.91
Israels am Sinai, nichts von einer Gebotsverkündigung, nichts von Mose und nichts von
einem Bundesschluss’. The same can be said for the exodus tradition, the patriarchal tradi-
tion and theme of passing through the sea. The connection between the exodus tradition
and the Sinai tradition is also not attested in the Deuteronomic literature. At the same
time, the figure of Moses is more or less absent outside the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
90 According to Schmid, it is beyond dispute that the late Yahwist made use of already exist-
ing material. See Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist, 167.
91 For his vision of the origins of the Pentateuch, reference can be made to H.H. Schmid,
‘Vers une théologie du Pentateuque’, in De Pury, Römer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question,
361–386.
92 M. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider
Literaturwerke (ATANT, 67), Zürich 1981. For a general presentation of the relationship
between the Deuteronomistic History and Genesis–Numbers, see Idem, ‘La croissance
du corpus historiographique de la Bible—une proposition’, Revue du Théologie et de
Philosophie 118 (1986), 217–236. See also M. Rose, ‘L’Ancien Testament à Neuchâtel 1984–
2001—un bilan’, TZ 57 (2001), 210–220, esp. 218–219.
93 On the complex genesis and evolution of the book of Deuteronomy itself, see M. Rose,
Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes: Deuteronomische Schultheologie und die Volks
frömmigkeit in der späten Königszeit (BWANT, 106), Stuttgart 1975.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 197
distinguishes a number of glosses in the Priestly style. He writes with respect to the
Priestly work: ‘En ce qui concerne la source sacerdotale (P), je la comprends comme une
œuvre concurrente qui a pour but d’ouvrir, à nouveau, des possibilités pour une activité
positive de l’homme devant Dieu; car une théologie du “sola gratia” court le risque de
favoriser l’inertie complète de l’homme. La nouvelle possibilité positive de l’homme, c’est
le culte’ (142).
100 H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie: Beobachtungen zur
Bedeutung der ‘Glaubens’-Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des Pentateuch’, VT 32
(1982), 170–189. The article in question is based on a lecture given in 1979 in Göttingen.
The springboard to Schmitt’s hypothesis can already be found in his Die nichtpriesterliche
Josephsgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur neuesten Pentateuchkritik (BZAW, 154), Berlin, 1980. In
this study he distinguishes between the original Joseph story (the Judah-Israel-layer) from
the period of the early kings and an ‘Elohistic’ reworking thereof from after 750 bce (the
Ruben-Jacob-layer). The ‘Elohist’ work then underwent multipe (post-)exilic ‘Yahwistic’
reworkings that had points of contact with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. Schmitt
refers in this regard to the link between the expression כל גויי הארץin Gen. 18:18; 22:18;
26:4 and Deut. 28:1 (172). Schmitt also discerns the presence of Priestly elements as well as
other additions that he cannot further define. For the dating of the material, see 130–198.
Cf. also Idem, ‘Die Hintergrunde der “neuesten Pentateuchkritik” und der literarische
Befund der Josephsgeschichte Gen. 37–50’, ZAW 97 (1985), 161–179 and Idem, ‘Die Suche
nach der Identität des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel: Bemerkungen zur theolo-
gischen Intention der Endredaktion des Pentateuch’, in: J. Mehlhausen (ed.), Pluralismus
und Identität (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie,
8), Gütersloh 1995, 259–278. See likewise H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Der heidnische Mantiker als
eschatologischer Jahweprophet’, in: I. Kottsieper et al. (eds), ‘“Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter
den Göttern? ” ’, 181–198; H.-C. Schmitt, ‘“Eschatologie” im Enneateuch Gen. 1–2 Kön 25:
Bedeutung und Funktion der Moselieder Dtn 32,1–43* und Ex. 15,1–21*’, in: C. Diller
et al. (eds), Studien zu Psalmen und Propheten (Herders Biblische Studien/Herder’s
Biblical Studies, 64), Freiburg 2010, 131–149.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 199
in: A.H.J. Gunneweg, O. Kaiser (eds), Textgemäss: Aufsätze und Beiträge zur Hermeneutik
des Alten Testaments—Festschrift für Ernst Würthwein zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1979,
139–155. He sets out here in the first instance to make a redaction-critical study of the
Sea Narrative in Exod. 13:17–14:31, basing himself on an analysis of the Priestly layer of
the said pericope in which the Israelites pass through the sea and Moses functions as a
central intermediary between God and the people (Exod. 13:20; 14:1–4, 8, 9aαb, 10*, 15–18,
21aαb, 22, 23, 26, 27aα, 28, 29). Here he discerns a carefully considered theological purpose
that comes to light throughout the text’s finely composed cyclical structure. The charac-
teristic features of this Priestly narrative are as follows. A stable, systematic world order
is presented, established by God once and forever, in which little attention is given to
the contribution of humanity. In addition, direct contact between God and the people
is impossible. This explains the exceptional emphasis on Moses’ role as intermediary.
Schmitt goes on to explore the final redaction of this pericope and detects a number of
remarkable shifts when compared with the P narrative. God is no longer bound to the
office of Moses. Humanity’s tragic nature, moreover, has acquired its own place as a result
of a more open outlook on history. He concludes his study by raising the question as to
when the P material and the non-P material were combined, or in other words the ques-
tion of the Tradentenkreis that should be considered responsible for the reworking of the
P narrative. According to Schmitt we are dealing here with post-exilic groups who exhibit
kinship with the tradents of the prophetic books and perhaps also with the tradents of
the Deuteronomistic History. The Jahwekriegsvorstellungen, the centrality of the theme of
faith and the related unconditional character of the promise, among other things, point
in this direction. Schmitt is thus convinced that the purpose of prophecy is given particu-
larly strong expression in the final redaction of the Sea Narrative.
In a similar fashion, and on the basis of its kinship with 1 Sam. 7:2–13, Schmitt
is inclined to associate the narrative in Exod. 17:8–16* with an exilic or post-exilic
Deuteronomistic tenor. Moreover, the narrative presupposes the image given of Joshua
by the Deuteronomistic History as military commander-in-chief of all Israel as it does
the presentation of Chur in the P tradition. This ‘aus dem Bereich der Deuteronomistik
stammende Lehrerzählung’ was then given its present place in the final redaction of the
Pentateuch. See H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Die Geschichte vom Sieg über die Amalekieter: Ex. 17,8–16
als theologische Lehrerzählung’, ZAW 102 (1990), 335–344, esp. 344 n. 44; see further Idem,
‘Tradition der Prophetenbücher in den Schichten der Plagenerzählung Ex. 7,1–11,10’, in
V. Fritz et al. (eds), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65.
Geburtstag (BZAW, 185), Berlin 1989, 196–216.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 201
106 On the specificity of Elohistic theology, cf. H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Die Erzählung von der
Versuchung Abrahams: Gen. 22,1–19* und das Problem einer Theologie der elohistischen
Pentateuchtexte’, BN 34 (1986), 82–109.
107 In 1985, Schmitt no longer accounted for a post-Priestly ‘Deuteronomist’—Schmitt, ‘Die
Hintergrunde der “neuesten Pentateuchkritik”’, 171.
108 Cf. Schmitt, ‘Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie’, 186–187; Schmitt, Die
nichtpriesterliche Josephsgeschichte, 177.
109 H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Das spätdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk Gen. i—2 Regum xxv und
seine theologische Intention’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Cambridge 1995
(SVT, 66), Leiden 1997, 261–279. See in addition H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Die Josephsgeschichte und
das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. Genesis 38 und 48–50’, in: Vervenne, Lust (eds),
Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, 391–405; H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Die Erzählung vom
Goldenen Kalb Ex. 32* und das Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk’, in: S.L. McKenzie
et al. (eds), Rethinking the Foundations, 235–250; H.-C. Schmitt, Theologie in Prophetie
202 Chapter 4
und Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften (BZAW, 310), Berlin 2001; Idem, ‘Das sogenannte
jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex. 34,10–28 als Komposition der spätdeuteronomistischen
Endredaktion des Pentateuch’, in: Gertz et al. (eds) Abschied vom Jahwisten, 157–171;
H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Dtn 34 als Verbindungsstück zwischen Tetrateuch und Deuteronomist
ischem Geschichtswerk’, in: E. Otto, R. Achenbach (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen
Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Göttingen 2004,
181–192; Schmitt, ‘“Das Gesetz aber ist neben eingekommen”’, 155–170; H.-C. Schmitt,
‘Erzvätergeschichte und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende Ursprungslegenden Israels:
Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchforschung’, in A.C. Hagedorn, H. Pfeiffer (eds), Die Erzväter in
der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert (BZAW, 400), Berlin 2009, 241–266.
110 C. Levin, Der Jahwist (FRLANT, 157), Göttingen 1993 also concedes a late dating for
the Yahwist. In his opinion, however, the said Yahwist cannot be associated with
Deuteronom(ist)ic concerns. According to Levin, moreover, the Yahwistic work emerged
outside of Palestine. He characterises the work nonetheless as ‘nachdeuteronomisch, weil
es die vom Deuteronomium geforderte Einrichtung eines einzigen, zentralen Kultorts für
den Jahwekult kennt und bewußt ablehnt. (. . .) Das bewußte Eintreten für die Verehrung
Jahwes an beliebiger Stätte ist besonders daran als antideuteronomisch zu erkennen,
daß es sich mit der nachträglichen antideuteronomischen Rahmung des Bundesbuches
sachlich und sprachlich aufs engst berührt’ (430–431). He maintains at the same time that
the Yahwistic work is pre-Deuteronomistic as well as pre-Deutero-Isaian (432–433). See
also C. Levin, ‘The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch’, JBL 126 (2007), 209–230.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 203
111 R. Rendtorff, ‘Der “Jahwist” als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik’, in:
Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974 (SVT, 28), Leiden 1975, 158–166—see also Idem, ‘The
“Yahwist” as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism’, JSOT 3 (1977), 2–10. Cf.
also Rendtorff’s valedictory address at the theology faculty of the Universty of Heidelberg
on July 19th 1990: Idem, ‘Nach vierzig Jahren: Vier Jahrzehnte selbsterlebte alttesta
mentliche Wissenschaft—in Heidelberg und anderswo’, in Idem, Kanon und Theologie:
Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991, 29–39, esp.
36–37. For a bibliography of Rendtorff, see J. Miltenberger, Bibliographie Rolf Rendtorff
zum 65. Geburtstag am 10. Mai 1990 (DBAT. Beihefte, 11), Heidelberg 1990.
112 Cf. Von Rad, Das formgeschichtliche Problem.
113 Rendtorff, ‘Der ‘Jahwist” als Theologe?’, 160 calls the fact that Von Rad ascribes the emer-
gence of the Pentateuch to the Yahwist ‘ein historischer Zufall’.
114 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte. According to Noth, the theological concern of the Yahwist
comes mainly to the fore at the beginning of the Yahwistic work, namely in Gen. 12:1–3. In
the remainder of his work ‘hat er sich dann fast ausschließlich an das überkommene Gut
der Pentateucherzählung gehalten, ohne ändernd oder erweiternd in dessen Substanz
204 Chapter 4
In contrast to Von Rad, however, Noth ascribed a much more limited range
of activity to the Yahwist. According to Rendtorff, furthermore, little attention
had been given since Noth to literary criteria in support of source division.
On the one hand, the theology of the Yahwist had taken pride of place. On
the other hand, everything that could not be ascribed to the Priestly docu-
ment or the Elohist was ascribed to the Yahwist. As a result, a variety of styles
were to be discerned in the Yahwist’s work. In Rendtorff’s understanding, it
is here that the dilemma of Pentateuch studies raises its head. Two sorts of
question—to be located at completely different levels—had been mixed
together. On the one hand, the Documentary Hypothesis demonstrated the
absence of a literary unity within the Yahwistic document. On the other hand,
scholars explored J on the basis of a theological concept they considered to be
discernible throughout the document. Moreover, extremely divergent answers
had been given to the question of the theology of the Yahwist.
Taking these observations as his point of departure, Rendtorff sets out to
present a new paradigm. If it is justified to say that the different sources do
not exhibit internal unity because they contain disparate material, then one
is obliged to look at the theological intention of the composition and the
arrangement of the said material in the greater whole. Moreover, the composi-
tion appears to have been finished according to a well-conceived plan. Once
we agree on this, traces of different sorts of redactional activity can quickly be
discerned in the different sections of the Pentateuch.115 Studies of the compo-
sition and growth of the Pentateuch must thus take account of different tradi-
tion complexes that can be distinguished from one another. The question one
must then ask is what brought these originally distinct tradition complexes
together.
Rendtorff sets out to test the thesis of distinct tradition complexes on the
basis of a number of observations on the theological composition of the nar-
ratives concerning the patriarchs in the book of Genesis. In the narratives in
einzugreifen. Es genügte ihm, im Eingang eindeutig gesagt zu haben, wie er alles weitere
verstanden wissen wollte’—Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte, 258.
115 This position brings Rendtorff back to the point of departure of Von Rad, who had also
distinguished tradition complexes in the Pentateuch that were originally independent
of one another: ‘Die theologische Bearbeitung der Väterüberlieferung ist offenbar ganz
anderer Art als die der Mose-und Exodustradition, diese ist wiederum anders als die
der Sinaiüberlieferung und der Traditionen von Israel in der Wüste. Wir müssen uns
deshalb diesen einzelnen Traditionskomplexen zuwenden’—Rendtorff, ‘Der “Jahwist” als
Theologe?’, 162.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 205
question, the passages concerning the promise of land, descendants and bless-
ing to the patriarchs stand out as playing a central role in the composition.116
Rendtorff then asks himself whether this feature is also evident in the rest of
the Pentateuch. The answer to this question, however, is negative. The theme
of the promise, for example, is not present in the other tradition complexes
of the Pentateuch. It is striking in this regard that no mention is made of the
promise of the land made to the patriarchs in the context of the exodus from
Egypt and the occupation of the land.117 This observation leads Rendtorff to
conclude that the patriarchs and those surrounding the exodus were con-
ceived of independently. It was only as a result of the Priestly redaction that
both tradition complexes were brought together in a theological manner.
Consequently, Rendtorff’s proposal has no room for a Yahwist whose theologi-
cal ideas are discernible throughout the Pentateuch.
Rendtorff details his hypothesis in his Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche
Problem des Pentateuch, a book that caused something of a stir on publication.118
Here too he presents and critiques the perspectives of Von Rad and Noth. With
the emergence of ‘Formgeschichte’ and ‘Überlieferungsgeschichte’, scholars
tended to take smaller units in the Pentateuch as their point of departure
in sketching the origins of larger textual complexes and of the Pentateuch
as a whole. In the process they introduced traditional information from
source criticism into the equation, i.e. the existence of continuous indepen-
dent sources. According to Rendtorff, however, a ‘formgeschichtliche’ and
‘überlieferungsgeschichtliche’ approach to the Pentateuch can only uphold
116 Rendtorff, ‘Der “Jahwist” als Theologe?’, 165: thus ‘zeigt sich ganz eindeutig, daß die
Verheißungsreden ein Element der planmäßigen theologischen Bearbeitung der
Vätergeschichten sind—und zwar einerseits zu Gliederung und Rahmung jeder
einzelnen Vätergeschichte, andererseits aber auch zur Zusammenfassung aller drei
Vätergeschichten unter einem übergreifenden theologischen Leitgedanken’.
117 The first reference to the promised land in Exod. 3:8 is thus all the more surprising: ‘[I will]
bring them up out of that land [Egypt] to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk
and honey, to the country of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the
Hivites and the Jebusites’. Not a single word is said about the promise to the patriarchs.
118 Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem. For a concise presentation of
Rendtorff’s standpoint, reference can be made to his introduction to the Old Testament:
Idem, Das Alte Testament: Eine Einführung, Neukirchen 1983, 170–173. See also L. Zaman,
R. Rendtorff en zijn Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch: Schets van
een Maccabeër binnen de hedendaagse Pentateuchexegese (unpublished Master’s thesis
Universitaire Faculteit voor Protestantse Godgeleerdheid), Brussel 1984; Nicholson, The
Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century, 95–131.
206 Chapter 4
119 As texts that can be read as independent units, Rendtorff mentions the primeval history
(Gen. 1–11), the narratives concerning the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50), the narratives concern-
ing Moses and the exodus (Exod. 1–15), the Sinai pericope (Exod. 19–24), the narratives
concerning the period in the wilderness (Exod. 16–18; Num. 11–20) and the narratives con-
cerning the occupation of the land in Numbers.
120 In a similar fashion, Frank Crüsemann explores the pre-Priestly narrative of the primeval
history in Gen. 1–11. Crüsemann considers the said narrative to be an autonomous reflec-
tion on the human condition. The composition was linked with the narratives concern-
ing the patriarchs by a post-exilic redaction by way of Gen. 12:1–3: F. Crüsemann, ‘Die
Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den “Jahwisten”’, in:
J. Jeremias, L. Perlitt (eds), Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff
zum 70. Geburtstag, Neukirchen 1981, 11–29.
121 Cf. also Rendtorff’s study ‘Genesis 15 im Rahmen der theologische Bearbeitung der
Vätergeschichten’, 74–81, in which he suggests that Gen. 15 functions in its entirety as a
means of connecting with old narratives.
122 Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 79: ‘Die Bearbeitungsschicht, von
der hier die Rede ist, pflegt man als “deuteronomistisch” oder neuerdings auch als “früh-
deuteronomisch” oder “protodeuteronomisch” zu bezeichnen. Jedenfalls handelt es sich
um eine Bearbeitung, die ihren Vorstellungen und ihrer Sprache dem Deuteronomium
nahe verwandt ist. Es hat sich gezeigt, daß diese Bearbeitung die vorliegenden Texte im
wesentlichen unverändert gelassen und ihre interpretierende Zusätze an bestimmten
Stellen eingefügt hat. Sie setzt also in etwa die uns vorliegende Gestalt des Textes voraus’
(italics H.A.).
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 207
Based on his study of Gen. 12–50 and succinct comparison with other tra-
ditional complexes, Rendtorff denies the existence of a continuous Yahwist
narrative in the Pentateuch.123 Moreover, he also denies the existence of a con-
tinuous Priestly patriarchal narrative. In his opinion, we are dealing here with a
number of Priestly texts that belong to a Priestly ‘Bearbeitungsschicht’, shaped
by means of chronological notes and a few theological passages. While this
Priestly ‘Bearbeitungsschicht’ extends beyond the boundaries of one single tra-
dition complex, it does not embrace the entire Pentateuch.124 The same cannot
be said for the aforementioned Deuteronomically tinted ‘Bearbeitungsschicht’,
which stretches across the entire Pentateuch, with the exception of Gen. 1–11.
This latter ‘Bearbeitungsschicht’ is the only, and probably the first, to embrace
the Pentateuch as a whole.125 According to Rendtorff, however, it is not clear
whether the Deuteronomically tinted ‘Bearbeitungsschicht’ was responsible
for connecting the various tradition complexes or whether we are dealing with
an interpretative reworking of an already existing whole.126 Furthermore, the
texts Rendtorff associates with this ‘Bearbeitungsschicht’ should not be iden-
tified without reservation with other Deuteronom(ist)ic texts from Genesis–
Numbers.127 Likewise, the relationship with Deuteronomy and Joshua–2 Kings
conclude, the narrative that had thus evolved was supplemented in Judah with
texts that accented the primacy of Judah.136
In the second part of his study, Blum deals with the composition of the narra-
tives concerning the patriarchs. In the period between the fall of the Northern
and Southern kingdoms, the Jacob narrative was adjoined to the Judean tradi-
tion concerning Abraham and Lot via the promises in Gen. 13:14–17 and 28:13*,
14a. According to Blum, this connection of the Northern Israelite Jacob tradi-
tion with the Judean Abraham tradition represented the first step in the com-
position of the present complex of narratives concerning the patriarchs. Blum
designates the narrative thus evolved with the siglum Vg1 (‘Vätergeschichte 1’).
During the time of the exile, a second version of these narratives emerged
that was framed by four divine addresses (Gen. 12:1–3; 26:2–3*; 31:13b; 46:3–4*)
thereby leading to the inclusion of the passages Gen. 12:6–9*; 12:10–20; 16*;
21:8–21; 22*; 26 in the inclusive composition Gen. 12–50*. Blum desig-
nates the composition that resulted from this process with the siglum Vg2
(‘Vätergeschichte 2’). At this point in time, Blum argues, there were as yet no
connections between the patriarchal narratives and the rest of the Pentateuch.
Moreover, and in line with Rendtorff, Blum suggests that the Deuteronomistic
composition was the first to establish a literary bond between the patriarchal
narratives and the traditions related to exodus, the wilderness and Sinai.137
Blum thus ascribes Gen. 12:7; 15; 16:10; 22:15–18, 20–24; 24; 26:3bβ-5, 24; 28:15, 21b;
31:3; 32:10–13; 33:19; 34:9, 30–31; 35:1–5; 48:21; 50:24–25 to the ‘D–Bearbeitung’,138
which he dates in the post-exilic period.139 Firstly, it presupposes the
exilic patriarchal narratives (Vg2). Secondly, the analysis of Gen. 24, for
example, reveals the post-exilic concerns of the ‘D–Bearbeitung’.140 Blum
points in addition to the lines of connection running from the ‘D-Bearbeitung’
in Genesis to the remaining books of the Pentateuch and even to the
Deuteronomistic History.141 Moreover, this reworking presupposes the Deuter
onomistic History.142 Blum mentions a number of passages posterior to this
‘D-Bearbeitung’ and related thereto,143 and concludes by discerning a post-
exilic layer that continues to build on top of the ‘D–Bearbeitung’.144
In his Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch from 1990, Blum sets out to
test the hypothesis he constructed on the basis of the book of Genesis against
the books of Exodus to Deuteronomy.145 By analogy with his research into the
composition of the book of Genesis, Blum likewise distinguishes a Priestly com-
position in Exodus–Numbers that incorporated an earlier Deuteronomistic
work. In the first part of his study Blum explores the ‘D-Komposition’ (Kd). He
begins with an extensive synchronic literary analysis of Exod. 1–14(15), observ-
ing that the narrative of the call of Moses (Exod. 3:1–4:18) does not fit in the con-
text. The same is true, he argues, for Exod. 11:1–3. Both passages are reminiscent
of the language and theology of the Deuteronom(ist)ic tradition. According to
Blum, Exod. 1:6, 8; 4:30–31; 5:22–6:1; 12:21–27; 13:5, 6–16; 14:13–14, 30–31 are also
passages that were added in part by Kd on the basis of existing traditions, and
in part created by Kd itself. Blum also encounters Kd in the Sinai pericope
(Exod. 19–24; 32–34)146 in texts such as Exod. 19:3b-8; 20:22; 24:3–8, 12–15a, 18b;
32:7–14; 33:1, 5, 11, 13, 16, 17; 34:9, 10.147 In his analysis of Exod. 33–34, he argues
that it has become virtually impossible to distinguish tradition and composi-
tion from one another.148 He also claims to be able to discern traces of Kd in
Num. 11*; 12*; 14:11–25,149 as well as in Deut. 31:14–15, 23; 34:10(-12).150
The compositional coherence of this ‘D-Komposition’ is apparent from
the lines of connection that run from Gen. 50:24 to Exod. 3:16, 17 and from
145 E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189), Berlin 1990.
146 Cf. also the succinct representation of Blum’s research into the Sinai event: E. Blum,
‘Israël à la montagne de Dieu: Remarques sur Ex. 19–24; 32–34 et sur le contexte littéraire
et historique de sa composition, in: De Pury, Römer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question,
pp. 271–295.
147 For Exod. 19:3b-8: see Blum, Studien, 98–99; 169–172; for Exod. 20:22: see 95–97; for
Exod. 24*: see 89–99; for Exod. 32–34*: see 63–64; 73–75; 98; 181–188.
148 Blum’s Kd is almost exactly accepted by R. Albertz, Exodus 1–18 (ZBK, 2/1), Zürich 2012, 23,
who accepts a ‘spät-deuteronomistische Bearbeitung (D)’.
149 For Num. 11: see Blum, Studien, 82–83; for Num. 12: see 84–85; for Num. 14:11–25: see 74.
150 From a ‘kompositionsgeschichtlich’ perspective, Deut. 31:14–15, 23; 34:10 are of excep-
tional importance in Blum’s presentation. Deut. 31:14–15, 23 links ‘die (bislang) in Exodus
und Numeri ausgemachte Komposition mit dem Ende des Deuteronomiums’ (Blum,
Studien, 87–88). Deut. 34:10 is ‘ein Element, mit dem die Kompositionsschicht an höchst
exponierender Stelle und in profielierendem Kontrast zu Dtn 18,18 ihr Verständnis
von Moses Bedeutung als “Überprophet” formuliert. Kompositionell wird damit die
“Verklammerung” mit dem Deuteronomium (bzw. DtrG) verstärkt und zugleich ein
Abschluß markiert: Das “Tora-buch” Moses klingt mit einem neuen kräftigen Akkord
aus’ (88).
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 213
Exod. 1:6, 8 to Judg. 2:8a, 10.151 Kd is also responsible for the texts concern-
ing the promises that connect Genesis with Exodus. Blum refers in this regard
to the promises—formulated as oaths—concerning the gift of the land and
numerous descendents. In his 1984 monograph, he ascribed Gen. 22:15–18;
24:7; 26:3bß-5(, 24*); 50:24 to Kd in addition to Gen. 15, whereby he already
observed that the oath theme in Exodus and Numbers had been continued,
namely in Exod. 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1; Num. 11:12; 14:16, 23 (Deut. 31,23). In the anal-
ysis of the texts, moreover, all these passages had emerged as belonging to the
‘D-Komposition’.152 In addition to the oath theme as a characteristic feature
of this inclusive composition, Blum also points to the theme of faith and the
combination of sign/miracle—seeing—Israel believing/fearing, which is evi-
dent in Gen. 15:6; Exod. 4:1–9, 31; 14:31; 19:9; 34:10; 33:16; Num. 14:11, 22. Blum also
makes reference to the texts concerning the tent of meeting in Exod. 33–34*;
Num. 11*; Deut. 31; 34*.
The question of the magnitude and scope of Kd goes hand in hand with
the endeavour to discern its compositional characteristics. According to
Blum, Kd begins with the story of Abraham in Gen. 12, thus implying that
Gen. 1–11 are not included as part of the composition.153 Blum argues, in addi-
tion, that there are no lines of connection discernible between Gen. 1–11 and
Gen. 12. Furthermore, no elements can be pointed to in Gen. 1–11—with a few
exceptions—that stem from the Deuteronom(ist)ic ‘school’ that was respon-
sible for Kd. It is likewise striking that the theme of creation does not have a
role to play in Deuteronomy or in Joshua–2 Kings. In Blum’s view, moreover,
the connection between the primeval history and the patriarchal tradition
only emerged in the Priestly composition.154 At the same time, Kd already pre-
supposes the existence of the Deuteronomistic History,155 which Kd precedes
with an entire salvation history, two works linked together by Kd in the last
151 For the compositional character of the Kd, see Blum, Studien, 102–107.
152 Also the transformation of the ‘Heptalogue’ in the text of Exod. 20 into a Decalogue is
considered as ‘part of the early postexilic D-Composition’: E. Blum, ‘The Decalogue and
the Composition History of the Pentateuch’, in T.B. Dozeman, et al. (eds), The Pentateuch:
International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT, 78), Tübingen 2011, 289–301, esp. 298.
153 Blum, Studien, 359.
154 Blum, Studien, 108. Cf. also Crüsemann, ‘Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte’, 11–29,
who considered the non-Priestly primeval history in Gen. 1–11 to be an independent unity.
155 Blum, Studien, 109. According to Blum, the important thing is the delimitation of the end
of Kd and not the search for ‘das mutmaßliche Ende eines selbständigen Werkes (. . .).
Vielmehr hatte sich bei Dtn 31,14f.23; 34,10 ergeben (. . .) daß diese Kd-Komponenten als
unselbständige Ergänzungen in einen vorgegebenen Zusammenhang eingebettet sind,
214 Chapter 4
253–254; G.I. Davies, ‘The Composition of the Book of Exodus: Reflections on the Theses
of Erhard Blum’, in: M.V. Fox et al. (eds), Texts, Temples and Traditions: A Tribute to
Menahem Haran, Winona Lake, IN 1996, 71–85, esp. 84–85. See also H. Ausloos, ‘The Need
for Linguistic Criteria in Characterising Biblical Pericopes as Deuteronomistic. A Critical
Note to Erhard Blum’s Methodology’, JNSL 23 (1997) 47–56.
160 According to Blum, Studien, 178, we must thus account for ‘die Möglichkeit komplexerer
wechselseitiger beziehungen’.
161 Blum, Studien, 188–207.
162 Blum, Studien, 164–165 offers the following argumentation for this post-exilic dating. First,
the Deuteronomistic History—to be dated, according to Blum, after 560 bce—is to be
presumed the terminus post quem. Second, the pre-‘D-Bearbeitung’ in Genesis is already
to be dated in the exilic period (cf. supra). Third, there are striking parallels with the post-
exilic prophetic literature.
216 Chapter 4
163 Blum, Studien, 190: ‘Die Befreiung aus Ägypten wird eben nicht einfach abgeleitet aus der
vorlaufenden Verpflichtung Gottes, sondern betont als erneute Zuwendung jhwhs zu dem
bedrängten Israel (3,7ff.16) eingeführt’.
164 On the basis of his study of Exod. 4:24–26, Blum thus proposes that this passage is part
of the Moses tradition: cf. E. Blum & R. Blum, ‘Zippora und ihr ( חתן דמיםEx. 4,24–26)’,
in: E. Blum et al. (eds), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift
für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen 1990, 41–54. Similarly to Blum, J. Jeon,
The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-critical Study in Exodus 3–4 and 5–13
(FAT, 60), Tübingen 2013 argues that the three layers he distinguishes within the call nar-
rative ‘exhibit a very close affinity to Dt/Dtr literature’ (243).
165 Blum, Studien, 219–360.
166 Blum, Studien, 222: ‘M.E. handelt es sich bei den priesterlichen Texten aufs Ganze gesehen
um eine nicht-selbständige Textschicht (. . .). Zugleich freilich will sich die eigentümliche
Geschlossenheit und Sperrigkeit zentraler priesterlicher Texte gegenüber der vorgegebe
nen Überlieferung (Kd) nicht in das übliche Bild einer “Redaktion” fügen. (. . .) Z.T.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 217
erweisen sich die priesterlichen Texte eben als Bearbeitungen, die in Anlehnung an und
im Zusammenspiel mit der vor-priesterlichen Überlieferung gedeutet werden wollen, z.T.
aber stehen sie distanziert, kontrastierend oder gar korrigierend neben der vorgegebenen
Überlieferung, ohne mit dieser harmonisiert werden zu wollen—und zwischen diesen
Möglichkeiten ist wiederum mit einer Reihe von Zwischentönen zu rechnen’ (italics
H.A.). Blum chooses to speak of a Komposition. In the present author’s opinion, however,
the fact that he does not consider Kp to be a redaction, implies a particularly narrow
understanding of the concept ‘redaction’. If we define the term ‘redaction’ as a process
whereby two or more independent sources or traditions are bound together on the basis
of minor interventions and redactional notes, without the redactor making creative use of
the material he had at his disposal, then Blum’s reluctance to use the term is completely
justified. Römer, ‘L’école de Heidelberg’, 80 represents Blum’s perspective as follows: ‘Si KP
est bel et bien une rédaction par rapport à KD, l’école sacerdotale a en même temps utilisé
des textes qui avaient été écrits auparavant et des documents indépendants’.
167 Blum, Studien, 285. It should also be clear that Blum rejects the hypothesis of an author
who collected disparate material upon which basis he drafted his own work. See in
this regard, E. Blum, ‘Historiographie oder Dichtung? Zur Eigenart alttestamentlicher
Prosaüberlieferung’, in E. Blum et al. (eds), Das Alte Testament—ein Geschichtsbuch?
Beiträge des Symposiums ‘Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne’ anlässlich
des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (1901–1971), Heidelberg, 18.–21. Oktober 2001 (Altes
Testament und Moderne, 10), Münster 2005, 65–86.
168 Compare, however, with E. Otto, ‘Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im
Buch Exodus’, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—
Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 61–111.
169 To a certain degree, similar reference to a D work and a P work can be found in the writ-
ings of the Swedish exegete I. Engnell. For a solid and detailed overview of Engnell’s
Gamla Testamentet. En Traditionshistorik Inledning i, Stockholm, 1945 (part ii never
appeared) reference can be made to D.A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel:
The Development of the Traditio-Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special
Consideration of Scandinavian Contributions (SBL DS, 9), Missoula, MT 1975, 261–274. See
also Engnell’s articles ‘The Tradition-Historical Method in Old Testament Research’ and
‘The Pentateuch’ in Y. Engnell, A Rigid Scrutiny, Nashville, TN 1969, 50–67. For Engnell’s
standpoints in general, reference can be made to ‘Methodological Aspects of Old
Testament Study’, in Congress Volume. Oxford 1959 (SVT, 7), Leiden 1960, 13–30.
218 Chapter 4
arbeitet und die mit ihrem theologischen Anliegen unmittelbar auf die Situation ihrer
Zeitgenossen im frühnachexilischen Juda zielt’ (366).
171 E. Blum, ‘Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein
Entflechtungsvorschlag’, in Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic
Literature, 181–212, esp. 192. See also E. Blum, ‘Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern
und Exodus. Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen’, in Gertz et al. (eds),
Abschied vom Jahwisten, 119–156. See also E. Blum, ‘Zwischen Literarkritik und Stilkritik.
Die diachrone Analyse der literarischen Verbindung von Genesis und Exodus—im
Gesprach mit Ludwig Schmidt’, ZAW 124 (2012), 492–515, esp. 508–511.
172 Blum, Studien, 380. Cf. also Idem, ‘Gibt es die Endgestalt des Pentateuch?’, in J.A.
Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume. Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 46–57 and E. Blum,
‘Die Feuersäule in Ex. 13–14—eine Spur der “Endredaktion”?, in Roukema (ed.), The
Interpretation of Exodus, 117–138.
173 E. Blum, ‘The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the
End of the Book of Joshua’, in Dozeman, Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist?, 89–106,
esp. 106.
174 R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOT SS, 53),
Sheffield 1987. Cf. also Idem, ‘A Response to Professor Rendtorff’s “The ‘Yahwist’ as
Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism”’, JSOT 3 (1977), 11–14.
175 Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 167–168. Whybray also refers to the
study of Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist. Cf. Mayes, The Story of Israel between Settlement
and Exile, 139–149.
220 Chapter 4
176 Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 224; Idem, Introduction to the Pentateuch, Grand
Rapids, MI 1995, 137.
177 Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 222: ‘It is (. . .) the (. . .) approach of seeking to dis-
cover whether, despite many inconsistencies, the Pentateuch as a whole bears the marks
of a single distinctive purpose which offers the best hope of arriving at the truth of the
matter’.
178 Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 232–233: ‘There appears to be no reasons why
(allowing for the possibility of a few additions) the first edition of the Pentateuch as a
comprehensive work should not also have been the final edition, a work composed by
a single historian. (. . .) The analogy with Herodotus suggests that insufficient allowance
has been made for deliberate variations of style and compositional method on the part
of a single author’. On the discussion concerning the material used by the author of the
Pentateuch, see 235–242. Whybray reacted here against the vision of S. Sandmel, ‘The
Haggada Within Scripture’, JBL 80 (1961) 105–122, among others. According to Sandmel,
the Pentateuch came into existence by analogy with the Midrash. He thus denies the exis-
tence of a single author and sees the Pentateuch more as the result of a constant process
of correction and supplementation of existing material.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 221
way, and in line with Perlitt, Schmid and Rendtorff had pointed to the
Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in Genesis–Numbers. While Whybray does not
set out to deny a Deuteronom(ist)ic influence in Genesis–Numbers,179 he
considers it rash nevertheless to ascribe Genesis–Numbers to a Deuterono-
m(ist)ic author simply on the basis of its kinship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature.180 Whybray’s primary intention is to demonstrate that the books in
question never existed as an independent entity, but that they were written
by a single author as an introduction to the Deuteronomistic History, making
use of material from a variety of sources. He refuses to adopt a standpoint on
the Deuteronom(ist)ic features of Genesis–Numbers.
179 Whybray, Introduction, 138: ‘Both works, the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History,
are didactic, concerned to inculcate variety of lessons to their readers’.
180 Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 225: ‘To prove that the Pentateuch as we have it
is basically a Deuteronomic work it would be necessary to demonstrate that the material
which it contains has been arranged and edited in its entirety in accordance with a com-
prehensive and consistent plan and has a structure which is wholly in accordance with a
Deuteronomic theology; and this neither Schmid nor Rendtorff has succeeded in doing’.
181 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘The Use of the Reminiscences in Deuteronomy in Recovering the Two
Main Literary Phases in the Production of the Pentateuch’, in Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied
vom Jahwisten, 247–273.
182 W. Johnstone, ‘Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy in Pentateuchal Studies, with Special
Reference to the Sinai Pericope in Exodus’, ZAW 99 (1987), 16–37, esp. 19. Cf. also Idem,
Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application (JSOT SS, 275), Sheffield 1998.
222 Chapter 4
183 W. Johnstone, ‘Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles’, in: J.D. Martin,
P.R. Davies (eds), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane (JSOT SS, 42),
Sheffield 1986, 113–138, esp. 113.
184 According to Johnstone, ‘Guilt and Atonement’, 114–115 Chronicles presupposes the books
of Ezra–Nehemiah.
185 Cf. 1 Chron. 5:27–41.
186 One the historical range of the events narrated in the book of Exodus, see W. Johnstone,
‘The Exodus as Process’, ExpT 91 (1980), 358–363; Idem, ‘Reactivating the Chronicles
Analogy’, 31–34.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 223
between the fifteenth day of the second month (Exod. 16:1) and the beginning
of the third month (Exod. 19:1). In addition, certain institutions are presup-
posed that de facto did not yet exist. Reference can be made in this regard to
Exod. 16:33–34, a passage that alludes to both the tabernacle (Exod. 25–40) and
the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17).
The emphasis placed on the tabernacle by the final redactor via the reca-
pitulation of Exod. 25–31 in Exod. 35–40 is evidence that the central segment
is also written with theological concerns. As a result, the tabernacle becomes
the central element in the Sinai narrative.187 The Sinai pericope also exhibits
a clear analogy with the eschatological emphasis established by the Chronist.
The priests, moreover, are also presented in Exodus in a similarly negative man-
ner: they are held responsible for Israel’s apostasy in worshipping the golden
calf (Exod. 32–34), which was to result in the exile (Exod. 32:34). At the same
time, and in parallel with 1 Chronicles, the Levites are elevated in rank above
the priests in Exod. 32. Against this background, Exod. 35–40, which deals
with the tabernacle, also acquires its own function. In the plan of the final
redactor, the tabernacle is much more than a mere prefiguration of the
(second) temple. On the contrary, the Priestly final redactor of the Pentateuch
uses it to allude to the spiritual exile and to the future awaiting those in exile.
His concern is the way God is present in the ‘wilderness’, even before the spiri-
tual ‘return’ to an eschatological home.188
In Johnstone’s view, therefore, the claim that Chronicles, in its final form, is
an ideologically inspired, theologically and eschatologically oriented work can
also be made by analogy for the Sinai pericope.
After alluding to the (synchronic) analogy that exists between the modus
operandi and intention of the final redactors of Chronicles and the Sinai peri-
cope, Johnstone sets out to determine whether this analogy can be extended to
the diachronic level. As already stated, the Chronist was familiar with the Deu
teronomistic History, namely Samuel–Kings, and offers a reworking thereof.
As a result, Johnstone considers it plausible that the Priestly final redactor was
187 Johnstone points, furthemore, to the analogy between 1 Chron. and Exod. 24, for example,
with respect to the hierarchical presentation of Moses as mediator between yhwh and
the people. After Moses comes Joshua, then Aaron and Hur, and while the elders climb
the mountain, the young remain at its foot with the people. The house of David is pre-
sented in a similar fashion in 1 Chron. 2–4: ‘At the apex by means of the symmetrical
arrangement of successive groups of the House of Judah’ (Johnstone, ‘Reactivating the
Chronicles Analogy’, 22).
188 Johnstone, ‘Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy’, 24. This was also the purpose of the
Chronist: cf. Idem, ‘Guilt and Atonement’, 134.
224 Chapter 4
also familiar with an earlier Deuteronomistic edition of the Sinai pericope and
made use of it in the composition of his work.189
Johnstone begins by underlining a number of connections between Exodus
and the Deuteronomistic History. Reference can be made here to the simi-
larity between the golden calf worshiped by Israel at Sinai (Exod. 32:4) and
the golden images at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:28; 2 Kgs 17:16). Johnstone also
emphasises the relationship between the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant
(Exod. 23:20–33) and the conclusion of the conquest narrative in Judg. 2:1–5.190
Furthermore, the similarity between the references to the construction of
‘store cities’ in Exod. 1:11 and 1 Kgs 9:19 is striking. According to Johnstone, to
conclude, the Sea Narrative can be conceived by analogy with the narrative
of crossing the Jordan in Josh. 3–4.191 In Johnstone’s opinion, these connec-
tions between Exodus and the Deuteronomistic History cannot simply be dis-
missed as sporadic glosses.192 On the contrary, the Deuteronomistic History
should be given chronological priority with respect to Exodus.193 Johnstone’s
argumentation for this position runs as follows: (1) Johnstone begins by deduc-
ing the post-Deuteronomistic character of the pre-Priestly redaction of Exodus
from the analogy—in terms of both content and function—between Exod.
23:20–33 and Deut. 27–28; Judg. 2:1–5.194 (2) He then points to literal agree-
ments between Exod. 32:4b, 8b and 1 Kgs 12:28b.195 (3) According to Deut.
4:10–15:5 the basis of the covenant was formed by the Decalogue God himself
had written.196 The ( חקים ומשפטיםDeut. 5:31) are only referred to in passing.197
In the Deuteronomistic edition of Exodus, however, the חקים ומשפטיםacquire
their full scope via the inclusion of the Book of the Covenant. Reference
is likewise made in Exod. 24:3 to כל דברי יהוהthat Moses wrote down. As a
result, both the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant are the foundations
on which the covenant rests in the Deuteronomistic edition of Exodus. In a
similar way, the Decalogue is once again ascribed a central position in Deut.
10:1–5 in the renewal of the covenant after the incident with the golden calf.
(as we should now call it in the D-version)’. Cf. also Idem, ‘Reactivating the Chronicles
Analogy’, 27. In ‘The Two Theological Versions of the Passover Pericope in Exodus’, in:
R.P. Carroll et al. (eds), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson (JSOT SS, 138),
Sheffield 1992, 160–178, esp. 167, Johnstone makes no apparent distinction in his use of the
terms Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic. He speaks, for example, of a ‘Deuteronomic/
Deuteronomistic text’ underlying in Exod. 13:3–7. A few lines further he refers to ‘an
underlying Deuteronomic text in Exod. 13,3–7’.
194 Johnstone, Exodus, 79: ‘The promise (and implied threat) at the conclusion of the Book
of the Covenant (Exod. 23,20–33), which corresponds to the blessing and curse of the
covenant in the full-scale D presentation of covenant in Deuteronomy 27–28, includes
that of the presence of the angel to lead the people into the land, if they will be obedient
(cf. Exod. 33,2–6). This promise is explicitly taken up in thought and expression in Judg.
2,1–5, which is the epilogue precisely to DtrH-s account of Israel’s actual experience at
the entry into the land’. The present author considers it particulary premature to charac-
terise the pericope Exod. 23:20–33—and on that basis the entire pre-Priestly redaction of
the Pentateuch—as Deuteronomistic without further ado, on account of the similarities
between Deut. 27–28 and Judg. 2:1–5—See e.g. H. Ausloos, ‘The “Angel of yhwh” in Exod.
xxiii 20–33 and Judg. ii 1–5. A Clue to the “Deuteronom(ist)ic” Puzzle?’, VT 58 (2008) 1–12.
195 Cf. the reference to gods in the plural, which is unusual for Exod. 32 given that the nar-
rative deals with only one golden calf. At the same time, Johnstone points to the strong
simlilarities between Exod. 32:5 and 1 Kgs 12:32 (Johnstone, ‘Reactivating the Chronicles
Analogy’, 27).
196 Johnstone, Exodus, 78: ‘According to the D scenario, Moses’s task is to muster the people
to the foot of the mountain, where the “Ten Commandements” are spoken directly to
them out of the awesome fire and other accompaniments of theophany as the basis of the
covenant relationship between God and people’.
197 Johnstone, ‘Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy’, 362.
226 Chapter 4
In Exod. 34, by contrast, both the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant
are seen as the basis for the renewed covenant. Indeed, Exod. 34:6–7, 14, 17
contains a clear reference to the first commandment of the Decalogue in Deut
5:7–10. According to Johnstone, Exod. 34:18–26 quotes a large portion of Exod.
23:12–19. By referring to the beginning of the Decalogue and the end of the
Book of the Covenant, the Deuteronomistic redactor of Exod. 34 sets out to
emphasise that—by analogy with the first covenant—the Decalogue together
with the Book of the Covenant should be considered the basis for the renewed
covenant.198
Based on the parallels between Exodus on the one hand, and Deuteronomy
and the Deuteronomistic History on the other, Johnstone considers it possible
to trace the original Deuteronomistic edition of the book of Exodus, before
it was reworked by the Priestly final redactor.199 He elaborates this claim for
198 This disctinction between D’s approach and the approach of the Deuteronomistic
redactor of Exodus of the foundation of the original and the renewed covenant provides
the key to the interpretation of the problematic verse ויכתב על חלחת את דברי הברית
( עשרת הדבריםExod. 34:28b). Who wrote the ‘ten words’ according to Exod: 34:28 and
what was their intention? Based in the analogy between Exod. 34:1, 4*, 28 and Deut.
10:1–4, Johnstone deduces that yhwh should be seen as the subject of וויכתב. At the
same time, it is evident from Deut. 10:1–4 that the expression עשרת הדבריםrefers to the
Decalogue: ‘It may be doubted whether Dtr intended to convey anything different in Ex.
34,28b—that, exceptionally, Moses was the writer of the “ten words” and that the “ten
words” were other than the Decalogue. Rather, into his accurate transcription of his D
source, he has incorporated the wider conception of the written basis of the covenant, as
it was originally made and as it was renewed, which is evident in his edition of Ex. 19–24*;
31,18–34,28*’ (W. Johnstone, ‘The Decalogue and the Redaction of the Sinai Pericope in
Exodus’, ZAW 100 [1988], 361–385, esp. 363)—For the inclusive Deuteronomistic redaction
of Exod. 19–34*, reference can be made to Idem, ‘Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy’,
27–31. The Deuteronomistic redactor of Exodus added v. 27, a verse that has no parallel in
Deuteronomy, to Exod. 34:28. In so doing, the said Deuteronomistic redactor wanted to
point out that the Book of the Covenant also formed the basis of the renewed covenant in
addition to the Decalogue. At the same time, Exod. 34:27 thus corresponds to Exod. 24:3,
which, according to Johnstone, refers to the Book of the Covenant as co-foundation of the
original covenant (cf. Idem, ‘The Decalogue’, 362–365; Idem, Exodus, 80–81).
199 According to Johnstone, moreover, several passages from Exodus display evidence of
typically Deuteronom(ist)ic language. Johnstone also considers this phenomenon as ‘not
simply a matter of sporadic glosses but of deliberate editorial design’ (Johnstone, ‘The
Deuteronomistic Cycles’, 167). The language and style related arguments he uses in sup-
port of the Deuteronomistic character of the texts in question, however, are extremely
vague and thus in line with prevailing argumentation. In Exod. 24:15–18, for example,
Johnstone discerns ‘some Dc. colouring’ and Exod. 20:18–21, he claims, ‘has affinities with
the Dc. account of the theophany especially in Deut 5,22–27’. Exod. 19:3–7(9?) ‘is widely
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 227
the most part on the basis of similarities between passages in Exod. 13:3–8*
and Deut. 16:1–8,200 between Exod. 20:2–17* and Deut. 5:6–21,201 and between
Exod. 34:1, 4*, 27–28 and Deut. 10:1–4.202 In later studies, he also includes the
book of Numbers in his research.203 In each instance he insists that ‘these
208 The view of Reinhard Kratz can also be introduced here. Kratz accepts three independent
‘Ursprungslegenden’ (1 Sam.–2 Kgs*; Gen. 2–35*; Exod. 2–Josh. 12*), which were com-
bined in early post-exilic times to form a ‘Henneateuch’ encompassing Exodus–2 Kings:
R.G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der
Bibelkritik (UTB, 2157), Göttingen 2000. E’s exodus narrative (Exodus–Joshua) was thus
connected to the Deuteronomistic narrative material in 1 Sam.–2 Kgs (DtrG) by the book
of Judges (DtrR), ‘woraus sich die seit Wellhausen immer wieder beobachteten (nach)
deuteronomistischen Zusätse in Ex–Num wie auch die literarischen Querverweise auf
den Exodus in Dtn–Reg (DtrS) erklären” (312). The Priestly work (Gen. 1–Exod. 40*; Lev.*)
came into existence at the same time and was incorporated relatively quickly into the
Henneateuch. This inclusive work was then subject to post-Deuteronomistic and post-
Priestly additions. For Kratz’ model, see also E. Zenger, G. Braulik, ‘Die Bücher der Tora/des
Pentateuch’, in: E. Zenger (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Fünfte, gründlich überar-
beitete und erweiterte Auflage (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie, 1,1), Stuttgart 2004,
60–187, esp. 118–122.
230 Chapter 4
209 S. Tengström, Die Hexateucherzählung, Lund 1976, 16 also supports ‘eine literaturgeschichtli
che Erweiterungstheorie’. According to him, the Hexateuch is based on ‘eine grosse
Israelsage’ from the first half of the 11th century bce (14). The Deuteronomists built fur-
ther on this ancient account. On the one hand, they created the book of Deuteronomy
and ascribed it a place in the whole, while on the other they conceived of the work fol-
lowing on from the Hexateuch as far as 2 Kings. It should be emphasised, however, that
both works came into existence gradually. Reference should also be made to the activity
of the Priestly authors who reworked and supplemented the material left behind by the
Deuteronomists.
210 Equally A. Schart, Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie
zu den Wïustenerzählungen (OBO, 98), Göttingen 1990. Schart distinguishes two
‘Deuteronomistic’ redactions: ‘Dje’, ‘der dem deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen
Traditionsraum zuzurechnen ist, sich aber in manchem auch von der dtn-dtr Literatur
und ihren Konzeptionen unterscheidet’, reworked the JE-layer in Exod. 17:2, 7; Num.
10:33, 35–36(?); 11(?); 14:11–25, 39–45(?). Subsequent to P and the ‘Endredaktion’, a second
D-layer can be seen at work in Exod. 15:25b-26; 16:4–5, 28–29.
211 J. Vermeylen, ‘La formation du Pentateuque à la lumière de l’exégèse historico-critique’,
RTL 12 (1981), 324–346, esp. 331; cf. Idem, La Formation du Pentateuque: Bref historique de
la recherche et essai de solution cohérente (CÉTEP), Bruxelles 1990, 42–45. (henceforth La
Formation du Pentateuque—CÉTEP).
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 231
Jacob were linked to one another via the theme of the promise, and that dif-
ferent layers ought to be distinguished from one another where reference is
made to the promise in Gen. 12–36. This position forms the point of depar-
ture for Vermeylen’s approach to the origins of the Pentateuch. The promises
spoken of Gen. 12–36 can be distinguished from one another on a variety of
points. At the same time, each of the different promises has its own Sitz im
Leben. The promise of an abundance of descendents, for example, is to be
situated within the group’s questioning of its future and can best be under-
stood against the background of the exile, when the people of Israel was facing
crisis.212 The promise of a son underlines the community’s need for an indi-
vidual leader, suggesting that the context is one of dynastic succession and
the problems associated therewith.213 According to Vermeylen, this was the
central concern of a Yahwist who wrote at the time of Solomon. The motif
of the promise of the land requires further subdivision. The promise is made
to Abraham in Shechem, Bethel and Hebron respectively that the land shall
belong to his descendants. The narrative’s intention is to provide a theological
legitimation for the sovereignty of the king of Hebron with respect to the tribes
in the remained of Palestine. It corresponds thereby with the story of David
in 1 and 2 Samuel.214 According to Vermeylen, other promises in the book of
Genesis that also refer to a promise of the land to the patriarchs are clearly to
be ascribed to the Deuteronomistic school.215 In Vermeylen’s opinion, this dis-
tinction between different promises in Genesis leaves space for passages of the
‘Yahwist’ type within a hypothesis on the origins of the Pentateuch as a whole.
According to Vermeylen, the literary genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch
can be understood as follows. First we should account for a number of sto-
ries that circulated at the time of David (Dv).216 A Yahwist (J) from the time
212 This promise occurs in different forms: the promise of ( זרעGen. 15:5; 16:10; 22:17; 26:4, 24;
28:14; 32:13); the promise that the people will become a great nation (Gen. 12:2; 18:18; 21:13,
18; 46:3); Gen. 48:16 (Vermeylen, ‘La formation du Pentateuque’, 330–331 n. 19).
213 Cf. Gen. 15:4; 18:9–14.
214 For Vermeylen, the argumentum e silentio also plays a not unimportant role: ‘Le silence
des traditions anciennes de l’Exode concernant la promesse de la terre est donc logique:
cette promesse n’est pas réalisée par la “conquête”; mais par la politique de David; elle n’a
rien à voir avec la sortie d’Égypte’ (Vermeylen, ‘La formation du Pentateuque’, 331).
215 Cf. Gen. 15:7; 24:7; 26:3; (28:13?)—Vermeylen, ‘La formation du Pentateuque’, 331: ‘Cette
reprise insistante de l’ancienne promesse de la terre a trouvé un écho très naturel au
moment où Israël était privé de sa terre. Cette fois, il s’agit bien de l’occupation de la “terre
promise”, et il est significatif que cette promesse est reprise en Ex. 32,13 et 33,1, Dtr’.
216 These originally independent stories from the time of David (Dv) comprise (1) a narra-
tive of origin, the structure of which is more or less identical to that of the Atrahasis
232 Chapter 4
of Solomon then grafted his own material to the said stories.217 As such, the
Yahwist in question put together—for the first time—a coherent narrative
extending from Gen. 2:4b to (probably) 1 Kgs 2.218 This Solomonic Yahwist
was primarily interested in dynastic succession: the successor to the throne
is not the person the people expect, but the one yhwh has chosen, in spite
of the fact that he is not the oldest. Around 700 bce, the Yahwistic document
Epic (Gen. 2:4b-5*, 7–8*, 18–23; 6:1–3*, 7–8*; 7:1–2*, 4–5, 10a, 12a, 17b, 23*; 8:2–3*, 6, 8–13*,
20–22*, 21–22*; 9:20–25*) (2) a narrative concerning Abraham’s migrations (Gen. 12:1*,
4–7*, 8*; 13:14–17*, 18; 15:9–12*, 17–18*); (3) a narrative about Isaac (Gen. 26:1*, 7–10, 16a,
17a, 23.25*, 26–29aα, 30–31); (4) a narrative about Jacob (Gen. 25:21, 24–28*; 27:1–14*,
16–23, 30–34, 39–44*; 29:1–15, 18b-20a, 28b, 30aα; 30:23–24; 31:3, 21–23, 46–53*; 32:1, 14,
23–32*; 33:1*, 4, 16–18); (5) a Joseph story (Gen. 37:3a, 4, 12, 13, 14b, 18, 25b-27, 28b; 39:1b,
21–23; 40*; 41:1–36*, 39aαb, 40, 42–43a, 47–48, 53–54a; 42:5–7*). It is possible that the story
of the exodus was also committed to writing at the time of David (Exod. 1:8, 11; 12:21–33*;
14:5–30*; 15:20–21)—Idem, Le Dieu de la promesse et le Dieu de l’Alliance: Le dialogue des
grandes intuitions théologiques de l’Ancien Testament (LD, 126), Paris 1986, 23–28. In La
formation du Pentateuque—CÉTEP, 60–63, Vermeylen also ascribed Gen. 28:10–19*; 45:4,
9–13*, 21aα, 26a, 28; 46:1a, 28–30 to Dv.—For Dv, see also Idem, ‘Les premières étapes lit-
téraires de la formation du Pentateuque’, in: De Pury, Römer (eds), Le Pentateuque en ques-
tion, 149–197, esp. 169–174; 182–187. For the study of Gen. 27, reference can be made to
Idem, ‘Le vol de la bénédiction paternelle: Une lecture de Gen. 27’, in: C.H.W. Brekelmans,
J. Lust (eds), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the xiiith IOSOT
Congress Leuven 1989 (BETL, 94), Leuven 1990, 23–40. See also J. Vermeylen, ‘L’école deu-
térnomiste aurait-elle imaginé un premier canon des Écritures?’, in: T. Römer (ed.), The
Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147), Leuven 2000, 223–240; J. Vermeylen,
‘Une étape majeure dans la formation du canon des Écritures: l’œuvre deutéronomiste’, in:
J.–M. Auwers, H.J. de Jonge (eds), The Biblical Canons (BETL, 163), Leuven 2003, 213–226.
217 Vermeylen ascribes the following narratives to J: (1) In Gen. 2–3*, J connects the Dv nar-
rative of creation (Gen. 2*) to an ancient paradise narrative and adds—making use of an
old tradition relating to the Kenites—a narrative concerning Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:1–5*,
8–10, 12b, 16a); in addition, J incorporates an old narrative concerning the tower of Babel
(Gen. 11:1–9*); (2) J takes over the Dv narratives concerning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
and expands them (Gen. 12–36*); (3) J also expands the Joseph story (Gen. 37:5–8; 38;
48*); (4) J supplements the primitive exodus narrative (Exod. 1:6*, 8, 22; 2:1–3, 5–6a, 10bα,
11–13*, 14a, 15b-22a; 3:1–4, 7aα*, 16–17a; 4:1–4*, 6–7, 10–16*, 24–26a, 27–30, 31b; 15:22–25a;
17:1–7*)—Vermeylen, La formation du Pentateuque—CÉTEP, 66–69 (cf. Idem, Le Dieu de
la promesse, 28–32). See also Idem, ‘Les premières étapes littéraires’, 160–168; 179–182;
187–191.
218 Vermeylen, La formation du Pentateuque—CÉTEP, 68 refers, for example, to Judg. 6:15–16,
21; 13:2, 7, 21; 1 Sam. 16:1–13; 17:12–31; 2 Sam. 7:5b, 12a.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 233
the guilty people immediately. (4) Exod. 32:25–29, 35bβ, to conclude, makes
a distinction between the guilty and the innocent. Thus Aaron—and not the
people—is held responsible for the golden calf in Exod. 32:35bβ. According to
Vermeylen, these different perspectives correspond to the four different redac-
tions that the narrative has undergone.
In the first version (Dtr585)—characterised by Deuteronomistic language
and themes224—Moses intervenes on behalf of the guilty people.225 As a result
of his intervention, yhwh does not punish immediately; Israel is only to be
punished on the day of accounting (Exod. 32:34). With the fall of Jerusalem, the
day of accounting has apparently dawned. It is probable that the redactor thus
wanted to explain why yhwh had rejected his people. It is also probable that
he wrote shortly after this event, when yhwh was being accused of dealing
unjustly with his people. As a result, the author of the basic Deuteronomistic
narrative wanted to make it clear that the inception of Israel’s sin was already
very early.
In the second Deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr575)—likewise characterised
by Deuteronomistic language and theology—yhwh is presented as a gentle
and merciful God.226 This redaction sets out to give an answer to the persistent
reproach placed by the exiles at yhwh’s door with respect to the destruction
of Jerusalem.
The third Deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr560) reacted to the protest of the
second generation of exiles227 who did not consider themselves to blame for
the exile. The redaction in question thus set out to bring hope to the exiles by
stating that punishment was restricted to the first generation and that the exile
itself would soon come to an end.
According to the fourth Deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr525), yhwh makes
a distinction between guilty and innocent Israelites, postulating that only the
group associated with Aaron could be held responsible for the incident with
the golden calf.228 According to Vermeylen, the Sitz im Leben of this redaction
is to be located in the situation that emerged after the return from exile, when
the returning exiles were confronted with those who had remained in Judah.229
The former group was held to blame for the sin of Israel, while the latter was
spared because of its fidelity to yhwh.
Vermeylen thus claims to be able to discern four different Deuteronomistic
redactions at work in Exod. 32, which he designates with their presumed
date, Dtr585, Dtr575, Dtr560 and Dtr525 respectively. Vermeylen is convinced
that the said Deuteronomistic redactions can be discerned throughout the
Pentateuch as a whole.230
Vermeylen is also of the opinion that his position on the aforementioned
related yet distinct Deuteronomistic redactions, each with its own focus
of interest, undermines the argumentation of those authors who speak of
229 For the dating of the return from exile around 525 bce, Vermeylen concurs with the posi-
tion of S. Herrmann, Geschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit, München 1973, 368–370.
230 I limit myself here to a summary of the successive Deuteronomistic redactions in Genesis–
Numbers. The respective passages from Exod. 32 are not included in the following over-
view. According to Vermeylen, Dtr585 and Dtr575 are not always easy to distinguish from
one another. Exod. 20:2–6; 24:3b are almost certainly from Dtr585. Dtr575 can be found
in Gen. 3:14, 16–18a, 20–21; 4:1b, 6–7, 11–12a, 13–15, 16b; 6:5–6; 8:21aβ; 13:5–13*; 18:16–33;
19:1–27; Exod. 5:1–3, 5; 7:14–24*; 7:25–8:11*; 8:16–28*; 9:1–7, 13–35*; 10:1–29*; 20:22aα, 24–26
and 23:20, 23 as framework of the Book of the Covenant; 24:3–5*, 8, 12–13*; 33:2–4, 12a,
15–17, 21, 22b; 34:6–7; Num. 13*; 14*. Dtr560 can be found in Exod. 3:7–8*; 4:1*, 5, 8–9,
31*; 12:25–27a, 34, 39; 13:3–16; 14:10–14, 31; 15:25b-26; 16:4–5, 29–31, 35a; 23:21–22*, 24–33*;
24:3–5, 8; 23:21–33*; 33:1, 5–6, 12b–14; 34:8–10a, 11, 12, 14–28a; Num. 11:4–6, 10–16aα, 18–23,
31–34. Dtr 525 is evident in Gen. 4:17–26; 5:28b-29; 12:2*, 3b; 13:3–16*; 15:1b-2, 5–6; 16:10;
21:13, 18; 22:15–18; 26:4–5, 25; 28:14; 46:3; Exod. 3:21–22; 11:2–3; 12:35–36; 19:3b-8; 20:22aβ-23;
23:21b, 25, 31bα; 24:6–7, 13*, 14–15a (Vermeylen, Le Dieu de la promesse, 114–118; see also
Idem, ‘L’affaire du veau d’or’, 21; Idem, La formation du Pentateuque—CÉTEP, 84–87). In
L’Exode, passim, Vermeylen ascribes additional passages to the Deuteronomistic redac-
tions, including Exod. 1:9, 10, 12, 20*, 21; 2:10*, 21; 3:1*, 6*, 15, 16*, 17–20*; 11:1, 4–6*; 14:7; 15:19,
23*; 17:1, 2, 6*, 7–13, 15, 16; 18,:1*, 2–4, 6*, 8–11, 21*, 25*; 20:7–10, 12*, 17*; 21:1*, 15–17; 22:17–19,
20–21*, 23–24*, 26–30; 23:9*, 12–13; 24:18; 34:1.4—see also Idem, L’Exode, chemin de liberté.
Supplément—Essai de répartition du texte selon ses rédactions successives, Bruxelles 1992,
11–22; Idem, ‘L’école deutérnomiste aurait-elle imaginé un premier canon des Écritures?’,
in: Römer (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, 223–240, esp. 234–235. For a
study of Gen. 4:17–26; 5:28b-29, reference can be made to Idem, ‘La descendance de Caïn
et la descendance d’Abel (Gen. 4,17–26 + 5,28b-29)’, ZAW 103 (1991), 175–193.
According to Vermeylen, the thesis of consecutive Deuteronomistic redactions in
Genesis–Numbers opens new perspectives with respect to the genesis and composition
of the book of Deuteronomy and the remainder of the Deuteronomistic History, as well as
the passages in the prophetic books considered to be Deuteronomistic. See in this regard
J. Vermeylen, ‘Les sections narratives de Deut 5–11’, 174–207.
236 Chapter 4
236 B. Renaud, La théophanie du Sinaï Ex. 19–24. Exégèse et théologie (CRB, 30), Paris, 1991. See
also B. Renaud, ‘La formation de Ex. 19–40: Quelques points de repère’, in: P. Haudebert
(ed.), Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches : xivème Congrès de l’ACFEB, Angers (1991) (LD,
151), Paris 1992, 101–133.
237 Cf. also L. Schmidt, ‘Israel und das Gesetz: Ex. 19,3b–8 und 24,3–8 als literarischer und
theologischer Rahmen für das Bundesbuch’, ZAW 113 (2001), 167–185, esp. 177, who argues
that both pericopes, together with Exod. 20:22, 23, are due to a post-exilic redactor.
238 Chapter 4
238 Renaud, La théophanie du Sinaï, 196: ‘Les deux rédactions deutéronomistes ne doivent
guère être éloignées l’une de l’autre dans le temps, puisqu’en elles affleurent des points
de similitude avec Dt 4, un des textes les plus tardifs du Deutéronome, mais aussi avec
quelques écrits prophétiques du début du retour de captivité. On proposerait donc la
fin de l’époque exilique pour la date de composition de Dtr1, et le début du retour d’exil
pour Dtr2. (. . .) Mais tout cela ne reste guère qu’hypothèse de travail. On ne peut omettre
de mentionner aussi la difficulté d’identifier les milieux porteurs de ces traditions. Si l’on
connaît assez bien la physionomie des responsables sacerdotaux, en revanche, le “back-
ground” des rédactions deutéronomistes reste encore très flou. Le terme même “deuté-
ronomiste” relève d’une approche “littéraire”. Il ne nous éclaire guère sur l’arrière-plan
historique et sociologique de ces traditions. Quand que l’on n’aura pas éclairé l’origine
du Deutéronome et le milieu où est née cette tradition, on peut craindre que la question
n’avance guère’.
239 See also B. Renaud, L’alliance, un mystère de miséricorde: Une lecture de Ex. 32–34 (LD, 169),
Paris 1998; Idem, L’alliance au cœur de la Torah (Cahiers Évangile, 143), Paris 2008.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 239
240 J. Blenkinsopp, ‘Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative (Exodus 19–34)’, in:
E.E. Carpenter (eds), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content. Essays in
Honor of George W. Coats (JSOT SS, 240), Sheffield 1997, 109–125, ep. 115.
241 T.B. Dozeman, God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus
19–24 (SBL MS, 37), Atlanta, GA 1989—cf. also Idem, ‘Spatial Form in Exod. 19,1–8a and in
the Larger Sinai Narrative’, Semeia 46 (1989), 87–101.
242 Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 37 n. 1: ‘I have chosen to use the term deuteronomis-
tic because (. . .) the redaction of Exodus 19–24 most likely corresponds to what has
been described as the first deuteronomistic redaction (dtr1)’. In contrast to E. Zenger,
Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichts
werk (FzB, 3), Würzburg 1971, 164–165, for example, Dozeman recognises only one
Deuteronomistic redaction in Exod. 19–24, which took up and expanded upon the three-
fold structure of the original narrative.
240 Chapter 4
covenant and the proclamation of the law.243 At the same time, the
Deuteronomistic redaction was also critical of the static and permanent pres-
ence of yhwh as it was presented in the narrative of the divine mountain.
The Deuteronomistic redaction underlined, rather, the provisional char-
acter of God’s presence on the mountain, by analogy with the function ful-
filled by mount Horeb in the first Deuteronomistic redaction of the book of
Deuteronomy.244 As a result, the Deuteronomistic redaction placed the
emphasis on the mobility of God in contrast to the static features ascribed
to God in the original divine mountain narrative. At the same time, the
Deuteronomistic redaction relocated God’s dwelling from the mountain to
heaven.
The Priestly redaction further supplemented the Deuteronomistic narra-
tive as it had thus evolved with a view to introducing its own legal material.
Under the influence of the Priestly redaction, the narrative of divine revelation
on the mountain evolved into a Sinai narrative.245
In his commentary on the book of Exodus, Dozeman appears to be well-
disposed towards the view of Van Seters. He uses the siglum ‘Non-P’ to
describe the earliest history in the Pentateuch, which likely extends into the
Deuteronomistic history.246 The ‘Non-P’ history, which incorporates diverse
material from a variety of different periods, ‘shares many of the perspectives of
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, although each body of litera-
ture undergoes a distinct history of composition’.247 According to Dozeman,
this ‘Non-P’ narrative is probably best dated in the post-exilic period, ‘since in
243 Dozeman ascribes Exod. 19:3b-5ba, 6b-8a, 8b-9a, 19; 20:1–20; 20:21–23:33; 24:3–4a, 7 to the
Deuteronomistic redactors.
244 Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 70–71: ‘I would identify [the Deuteronomistic redaction
in Exod. 19–24—H.A.] with the first redaction in the Book of Deuteronomy, probably in
the late monarchy period. This would mean that the first deuteronomistic redaction in the
Book of Deuteronomy [to be found, for example in Deut. 5:1–6:3—H.A.] is “pentateuchal”
in nature, that is, the revelation of the Decalogue at Mount Horeb in Deuteronomy is
simultaneously anchored in Exodus 19–24. In that case, the Book of Deuteronomy is not
meant to function independently, but as part of a larger epic about Israel’s formative
encounter with God at the mountain. (. . .) The second deuteronomistic redaction is not
“pentateuchal” in nature. Rather it is limited primarily to the Book of Deuteronomy (Deut
4:1–40)’.
245 Dozeman ascribes Exod. 19;5b-6a, 11b, 12ab-13, 15b, 16a, 18, 20–25; 24:1–2, 6, 8, 9–11, 15b–18a
to the Priestly redaction.
246 T.B. Dozeman Commentary on Exodus (The Eerdmans Critical Commentary), Grand
Rapids, MI 2009, 39.
247 Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus, 39.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 241
exile. In the early post-exilic period, a Priestly historical work emerged, based
on the original form of JE. Secondary elements (PS) were added to this PG.
Around 400 bce, this P work was combined with the Deuteronomistic History
by RP.251
Weimar’s view forms the basis of the so-called Münster model that recog-
nised two major phases in the genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch: when
the ‘Jerusalemer Geschichtswerk’ consisted of Gen. 2:4b–Josh. 24*, then the
‘deuteronomistisch inspirierte Exilische Geschichtswerk’ extended from Gen.
2:4b* to 2 Kgs 25.252 According to the model, it was only around 400 bce that
the Pentateuch was detached herefrom by the ‘Pentateuchredaktion’. Various
passages traditionally associated with the Deuteronomist are now ascribed to
this post-Priestly, post-Deuteronomistic Pentateuch redaction.253
251 In a study of the narrative of the golden calf in Exod. 32, Weimar comes to similar conclu-
sions: a JE-narrative undergoes two Deuteronomistic reworkings: DtrP, which is strongly
influenced by prophetic thought, and DtrN, which is particularly interested in legislation;
in addition to a few explanatory glosses, there are also still traces of RP—P. Weimar, ‘Das
Goldene Kalb: Redaktionskritische Erwägungen zu Ex. 32’, BN 38/39 (1987), 117–160.
252 See in this regard E. Zenger, ‘Theorien über die Entstehung des Pentateuch im Wandel
der Forschung’ and ‘Die vor-priester(schrift)lichen Pentateuchtexte’, in Zenger, Einleitung,
74–123; 176–187. See also P. Weimar, E. Zenger, Exodus: Geschichten und Geschichte der
Befreiung Israels (SBS, 75), Stuttgart 1975. With respect to P, see P. Weimar, Studien zur
Priesterschrift (FAT, 56), Tübingen 2008.
253 See, for example, P. Weimar, ‘Exodus 12,24–27a: Ein Zusatz nachdeuteronomistischer
Provenienz aus der Hand der Pentateuchredaktion’, in Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy
and Deuteronomic Literature, 421–448. See further R. Albertz, ‘Der Beginn der vorpries-
terlichen Exodus-komposition (KEX): Eine Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von
Ex. 1–5’, TZ 67 (2011), 223–262, esp. 261, who sees a post-priestly ‘spät-dtr. Bearbeitung’ in
Exod. 3:1*; 3:8b, 17*; 4:1–17, 20b, 21–23, 27–31; 5:1–2, 4, 20.
254 Here, also B. Adamczewski, Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus–Numbers, and Samuel–
Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (European Studies in
Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions, 1), Frankfurt am Main 2012 can be men-
tioned. In an oversimplified way, the author argues that, probably around 400 bce ‘the
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 243
and style, religious conceptual universe, doubles and triplets as criteria for dis-
tinguishing between the sources, Houtman concludes that the Documentary
Hypothesis does not provide a sufficient answer to the question of the origins
and composition of the Pentateuch.
According to Houtman, the Pentateuch is best seen as a complex literary
unity, whereby scholars in the past have correctly drawn attention to irregu-
larities and tensions within the whole. Rooted in literary-critical analysis, how-
ever, this information should not lead us to the conclusion that the Pentateuch
came into existence via a combination of distinct sources that were indepen-
dent of one another.
Houtman no longer considers it possible to reconstruct the process whereby
the books of Genesis–Deuteronomy emerged and evolved with any degree of
detail. It is clear to him, nevertheless, that the Pentateuch was composed on
the basis of (elements from) small(er) and large(r) narrative segments and
legal complexes, each with its own history.257 What is important here is the
fact that the Pentateuch as we now have it constitutes a substantial unity. In
the study of the composition and origins of the Pentateuch, therefore, we must
be aware of the heterogeneity of the material from which it was constructed
and of the homogeneity of the final result.
Within the form in which the Pentateuch now presents itself, Houtman
distinguishes three larger units: Genesis, Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy.
Each of these three units has its own specific features and contains material
Testament met een terugblik en een evaluatie, Kampen 1980, 201–258—This monograph
has been translated into German, and published as Der Pentateuch: Die Geschichte seiner
Erforschung neben einer Auswertung (CBET, 9), Kampen 1994 (for the presentation of his
ideas on the formation of the Pentateuch, see 421–455); Idem, ‘De geschriften van het
Oude Testament. A: De Pentateuch’, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Bijbels Handboek, Dl. 2A:
Het Oude Testament, Kampen 1982, 279–335. Reference can also be made to Houtman’s
article ‘Verkiezing en verbintenis. Eenheid en samenhang in Exodus 19–40’, in: H. Baarlink
et al. (eds), Christologische perspectieven: Exegetische en hermeneutische studies. Artikelen
van en voor prof. dr. Heinrich Baarlink, uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van zijn afscheid als
hoogleraar in de nieuwtestamentische vakken aan de Theologische Universiteit van de
Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland te Kampen, Kampen 1992, 221–240, in which the author
emphasis that Exod. 19–40 is ‘the result of redactional activity and is intended as a unit’
(226). See also C. Houtman, Hardnekkig geloven in de minderheid: Het Oude Testament aan
het woord, in: F. de Lange (ed.), Geloven in de minderheid? Een bundel opstellen ter gelegen-
heid van het 140-jarig bestaan van de Theologische Universiteit der Gereformeerde Kerken te
Kampen, Kampen 1994, 53–67, esp. 64.
257 Houtman, Inleiding, 243; cf. also Idem, ‘De geschriften van het Oude Testament’, 327;
Idem, Der Pentateuch, 422.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 245
from a variety of origins with their own prehistory. Genesis, for example, is
a well-structured unit within which the material has been organised around
the תולדותformulas. With the exception of Num. 3:11, the תולדותformula no
longer has a role to play in Exodus–Numbers. In contrast to Genesis, Exodus–
Numbers speaks more or less constantly of Israel as a whole,258 whereby sub-
division into tribes has virtually no role to play. As Moses’ farewell address on
the plains of Moab, the book of Deuteronomy likewise exhibits characteristics
clearly distinguishable from Genesis–Numbers.
Nevertheless, these three components of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus–
Numbers and Deuteronomy) are clearly attuned to one another and only
have meaning in relation to one another, in spite of their specific charac-
teristics. Moreover, the promise of land made to the patriarchs throughout
Genesis–Deuteronomy presupposes the book of Joshua and the books that
follow. At the same time, clear lines of connection run from one book to the
other in Genesis–Joshua.259 In addition, the book of Joshua serves as a hinge
between Genesis–Deuteronomy and Judges–2 Kings. Houtman thus suggests
‘that Genesis to 2 Kgs 25 stem from the same author(s), namely the author(s)
we are inclined to designate with the predicate Deuteronomistic’.260 These
258 With the exception, for example, of Exod. 1:1–6 and Num. 1; 32; 34.
259 Reference is made (a) in Josh. 24:32 to Exod. 13:19; Gen. 50:25; 33:19; (b) in Gen. 50:24; Exod.
13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1–3a; Num. 14:23; 32:11 reference is made to the promise to the patriarchs;
(c) in Exod. 3:6, 13, 15; 4:5, yhwh is designated ‘the God of the fathers’ by analogy with
Genesis; (e) Josh. 2:1; 3:1 harks back to Num. 25:1, just as Josh. 14:6 harks back to Num.
14:24,30; (f) Num. 27:18; Deut. 3:21; 31:7, 23; 34:9 refer to Joshua as the successor of Moses,
which implies the conquest of the land (compare also Num. 32:16; Deut. 3:18 with Josh.
1:12; 4:12; 22); (g) the presentation of the twelve tribes of Israel is a constant in Genesis
and Joshua; (h) Deuteronomy is entirely oriented towards the occupation of the land,
recounted in Joshua (cf. Houtman, ‘De geschriften van het Oude Testament’, 328; Idem,
Inleiding, 246; Idem, Der Pentateuch, 426–327). Therefore, Houtman is more inclined to
account for the existence of the Hexateuch as a unit rather than the Pentateuch (Idem,
Inleiding, 246; Idem, Der Pentateuch, 427). As a result, he rejects the hypothesis of an
independent Deuteronomistic History. Deuteronomy cannot have been composed as
the introduction to an independent work since its content presupposes a prehistory (cf.
Idem, Inleiding, 247; Idem, Der Pentateuch, 428–429).
260 Houtman, Inleiding, 247. Cf. also Idem, ‘Verkiezing en verbintenis’, 240: ‘The heart of the
Pentateuch beats thanks to Deuteronom(ist)ic blood’ (translation mine). A variety of
authors had already pointed to lines of connection binding Genesis–Kings as a whole.
Reference can be made, for example, to A. Masius, Josuae imperatoris historia illustrata
atque explicata, Antwerpen 1574; B. Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Hamburg,
1670; J.J. Stähelin, Kritische Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch, die Bücher Josua,
Richter, Samuels und der Könige, Berlin 1843, 1; E. Bertheau, Das Buch der Richter und Ruth
246 Chapter 4
(KEHAT), Leipzig 1845, xxvii. More recently, T.C. Vriezen, A.S. van der Woude, Van der
Woude, A.S., De literatuur van Oud-Israël, Wassenaar 61980, 197–198 also support the exis-
tence of a Deuteronomistic work extending from Gen. 2:4b to 2 Kgs 25 (with the exception
of the Priestly passages). Cf. also D.N. Freedman, ‘The Law and the Prophets’, in Congress
Volume. Bonn 1962 (SVT, 9), Leiden 1963, 250–265, esp. 264. Within the context of the study
of Exod. 1–15, see also G. Fischer, ‘Exodus 1–15—Eine Erzählung’, in: Vervenne (ed.), Studies
in the Book of Exodus, 149–178, esp. 177 n. 101. See also C. Houtman, ‘Zwei Sichtweisen
von Israel als Minderheit inmitten der Bewohner Kanaans: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zum
Verhältnis von J und Dtr(G)’, in Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic
Literature, 213–231, esp. 230, in which Houtman consideres, for example, Gen. 15:13–16,
18–21; 50:24; Exod. 12:25–27; 13:3–16; 15:25b-26; 16:4, 5; 19:3b-6; 23:20–33; 24:3–8; 32:7–14;
33:1–3a; 34:11–16; Num. 14:23; 32:11 as redactional Deuteronom(ist)ic elements that ‘das
Lesen in Richtung auf das Deuteronomium und die folgenden Bücher “steuern”’.
261 On the actual contribution of this/these author(s) to the realization of Genesis–Kings,
see Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 429–430: ‘Vielleicht wurde von ihm bzw. ihnen der Stoff
aufeinander abgestimmt und die Linien im Hexateuch durchgezogen. Er bzw. sie sind
nicht als diejenigen anzusehen, die lediglich die letzten Bauteile in ein bereits beste-
hendes Bauwerk eingefügt haben (. . .) oder nur bestehende Bauwerke miteinander ver-
bunden haben (. . .), sondern von ihm (bzw. ihnen) wurde auch das Fundament errichtet,
auf dem das Gebäude errichtet wurde, wobei Stoff unterschiedlicher Herkunft, verschie-
denartigem Charakter und unterschiedlichem Alter verwendet wurde’.
262 As to the material possiblility of such an encompassing literary work, see K. Schmid,
‘Buchtechnische und sachliche Prolegomena zur Enneateuchfrage’, in: Beck, Schorn
(eds), Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt, 1–14, esp. 7: ‘Von der antiken Buchrollenherstellung
her zu urteilen, ist somit eine den gesamten Textumfang von Gen—II Reg umfassende
Rolle zwar nicht ohne weiteres zu erwarten, auf der anderen Seite aber auch kein Ding
der Unmöglichkeit’—see also K. Schmid, ‘Une grande historiographie allant de Genèse
à 2 Rois a-t-elle un jour existé?’, in: Römer, Schmid (eds), Les dernières rédactions, 35–45,
esp. 37.
263 Cf. Houtman, Inleiding, 251. In the introduction to his commentary on the book of
Exodus, Houtman summarises his thesis, drawing particular attention to the intention
of the biblical author(s), as follows. Exodus in his view is part ‘of a comprehensive his-
torical work encompassing all the books from Genesis to 2 Kings. This work narrated the
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 247
election of Israel from among the nations for service to yhwh in the land which he has
given them, the settlement of the people in the land, and their unfaithfulness to yhwh
which results in the exile of the people. It focuses attention on the calling of the people
of Israel throughout history and thereby wishes to make plain to the contemporaries of
the author(s) (in the midle of the sixth century bc) how and why the catastrophe of 586,
the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of Judah, came about. As such, the document
is at once an ongoing call to conversion, to findelity to yhwh and his commandments.
Only when the people change their ways can there be hope in restoration at the hand of
yhwh. (. . .) In my opinion, the work is also a continual summons to repentance and to
faithfulness to yhwh and to his commandments’—C. Houtman, Exodus, Vol. 1 (HCOT),
Kampen 1993, 1; cf. also Idem, Exodus I: Een praktische bijbelverklaring (Tekst en Toelich
ting), Kampen 1988, 11. See also the original Dutch version Exodus, vertaald en verklaard,
Deel 1: Exodus, 1,1–7,13 (COT), Kampen 1986, 21. In his commentary on Exodus, Houtman
does not offer further exploration of the genesis and evolution of the book. On how we
have come to consider Genesis–Deuteronomy as an independent corpus, reference can
be made to Idem, Inleiding, 252–254; Idem, ‘De geschriften van het Oude Testament’, 330;
Idem, Der Pentateuch, 441–446.
264 See in particular C.J. Labuschagne, Numerical Secrets of the Bible: Rediscovering the Bible
Codes, North Richland Hills, TX 2000 (= Vertellen met getallen: functie en symboliek van
getallen in de bijbelse oudheid, Zoetermeer 1992) and his particular analysis on http://
www.labuschagne.nl (access 12 June 2015).
265 Cf. C.J. Labuschagne, ‘Neue Wege und Perspektiven in der Pentateuchforschung’, VT 36
(1986), 146–162.
266 Labuschagne, ‘Neue Wege’, 148–149: ‘Fordern wir die historisch-kritische Bibelwissen
schaft, insbesondere die Pentateuchforschung, auf, an ihren “historischen” und “kri-
tischen” Ansprüchen festzuhalten und rufen wir sie auf, den Bibeltext, so wie dieser uns
überliefert worden ist, nämlich als historisches Dokument zu akzeptieren, dass heisst
letzteres als ein Stück Literatur zu betrachten, das irgendwann in der Geschichte seine
Endphase erreicht und wahrscheinlich auch eine eingreifende Endredaktion erlebt hat.
So sollte also nachdrücklich die Aufmerksamkeit auf den Text in seiner historischen
248 Chapter 4
redaction was also guided by, among other things, a strict numerical structure.267
Labuschagne argues that the numbers 17 and 26,268 as well as 23 and 32269 have
a very important function and provide, as it were, the composition-technical
plan upon which basis the entire book of Deuteronomy is conceived.270 Via
the symbolic numbers 17 and 26, the name of yhwh is evoked, just as the num-
bers 23 and 32 accentuate the glory of yhwh.271 According to Labuschagne,
the same compositional technique can also be found in Genesis–Numbers.272
Endgestalt gelenkt werden, ohne dass gleich wieder nach seinem Werdegang gefragt
wird’.
267 The phenomenon of ‘numerical composition’ has long been familiar to scholars working on
the literature of Antiquity and the Middle Ages (cf., for example, E.R. Curtius, Europäische
Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, Bern—Munich 81973, 491–498). The method has only
rarely been applied to biblical literature and with few imitators (cf. O. Goldberg, Die fünf
Bücher Mosis ein Zahlengebäude, Berlin 1908; P. Friesenhahn, Hellenistische Wortzahlen
mystik im Neuen Testament, Leipzig, 1935). Labuschagne’s research builds further on the
work of Austrian C. Schedl, Baupläne des Wortes: Einführung in die biblische Logotechnik,
Wien, 1974. In analysing the numerical structure of the Pentateuch, however, one should
make a distinction between (1) the technical function of numbers as a structuring ele-
ment of a text; (2) the theological symbolism of numbers; (3) number mysticism, whereby
subjective interpretation has an important role to play. Labuschagne does not account for
the latter. Based on the hypothesis that a text is a numerical composition, Schedl devel-
oped his logotechnical method whereby the number of words in a text is registered and
inventarised per syntactic and content-based subdivision.
268 The numbers 17 and 26 represent the divine name = י( יהוה1 or 10; = ה5; = ו6) or the
scriptio defectiva of = כ( כבוד11 of 20; = ב2; = ד4)—cf. Labuschagne, ‘Neue Wege’, 155; 160.
269 The numbers 23 and 32 represent the numerical value of the word = כ( כבוד11 of 20; b =
2; w = 6; d = 4)—Labuschagne, ‘Neue Wege’, 160.
270 Cf. C. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, Nijkerk 1987–1997. For the logotechnical method see
also Idem, ‘On the Structural Use of Numbers as a Composition Technique’, JNSL 12 (1984),
87–99; Idem, ‘Divine Speech in Deuteronomy’, in: Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium,
111–126; C. Labuschagne, ‘The Literary and Theological Function of Divine Speech in the
Pentateuch’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Salamanca 1983 (SVT, 36), Leiden 1985,
154–173; C. Labuschagne, ‘Some Significant Composition Techniques in Deuteronomy’, in:
H.L.J. Vanstiphout et al. (eds), Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes
and Languages in the Near East Presented to J.H. Hospers by His Pupils, Colleagues and
Friends, Groningen 1986, 121–131; C. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium (Belichting van het bij-
belboek), ’s-Hertogenbosch 1993.
271 The symbolic number 13, which underlines the unity ( )אחדof yhwh ( = א1; = ח8; = ד
4), gives expression to the central theme of Deuteronomy: ( יהוה אחד26 + 13 = 39)—
Labuschagne, ‘Neue Wege’, 162.
272 Labuschagne draws this conclusion on the basis of a sample survey of texts from Genesis–
Numbers in which the numbers 23 and 32, as well as 17 and 26 emerge from the analysis—
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 249
see also C. Labuschagne, ‘The Life Spans of the Patriarchs’, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), New
Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published
on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap and the
Retirement of Prof. Dr. M.J. Mulder (OTS, 25), Leiden 1989, pp. 121–127.
273 Labuschagne, ‘Neue Wege’, 162: ‘Was die Pentateuchkritik anbelangt, kann schon jetzt
aufgrund einer grossen Anzahl von Stichproben im Tetrateuch gesagt werden, dass die
gleichen Kompositionstechnieken auch dort begegnen. Eerst nach einer detaillierten
logotechnischen Analyse dieses Korpus, durch die wir exakt feststellen können, wie
alles sich genau verhält, können wir zur Auswertung gelangen und Folgerungen hinsich-
tlich des Verhältnisses zwischen Tetrateuch und Deuteronomium ziehen, wobei mit der
Möglichkeit einer sehr umfassenden und durchgreifenden deuteronomistischen Redaktion
des Tetrateuchs ernsthaft gerechnet werden sollte. Auf diese Grundlage kann der histo-
rische Werdegang des Pentateuchs aufs neue studiert werden” (italics H.A.). Likewise
in Idem, ‘The Literary and Theological Function’, 169–171: ‘The great majority of all the
“D-passages” we have noticed from Ex. iii to Numb. xxvii have one thing in common:
their total number of words is a multiple of either 17 or 26, which render them recog-
nizable in their context. (. . .) Evaluating the evidence at this stage of my investigation, I
cannot escape the impression that the use of the divine numbers 17 and 26 was a tech-
nique employed specifically by the Deuteronomists, and, consequently, that there was a
radical redaction by the Deuteronomists of the Tetrateuch at the time when the book of
Deuteronomy was fused with it to form the literary unit now known as the Pentateuch’.
The passages in question are: Exod. 3:15–17; 4:14–28; 13:1–19; 15:25b-26; 17:8–16; 19:3–8; 20:1–
26; 24:3–8; 34:5–26; Lev. 11:44–45; 14:33–35; 16; 17:10–14; 18–26; Num. 22:22–25; 27:12–23.
Labuschagne adds the following remark, however: ‘This does not mean that the list is
complete. The D-redaction of the Tetrateuch has to be restudied on the basis of this evi-
dence’ (170 n. 36).
In ‘The Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch’, VT 32 (1982), 268–296
and ‘Additional Remarks on the Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch’,
VT 34 (1984), 91–95, Labuschagne had already indicated a number of elements related
to the Pentateuch’s origins. He presupposes that the formulas employed to introduce a
divine utterance (אמר, דבר, קראand )צוהare employed consistently throughout Genesis–
Numbers and can be characterised as Priestly. This Priestly redaction made use of already
existing (J and E?) material. Labuschagne adds at this juncture that the structure thus cre-
ated was disrupted by Deuteronom(ist)ic interpolations. He concludes therefore that the
elements in Genesis–Numbers generally taken to be Deuteronom(ist)ic, should be dated
de facto later than the Priestly redaction. He adds the following reservation: ‘This does not
imply, however, that the Deuteronomists were responsible for the final redaction of the
Pentateuch, since another Priestly redaction in late post-exilic times could have accepted
these additions for some reason or other. The problem of the relationship between P and
D remains’ (Labuschagne, ‘The Pattern of Divine Speech Formulas’, 281).
250 Chapter 4
274 Blum, Studien, 361. See also the critical observation in D.M. Carr, ‘What is Required to
Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections between Genesis and Exodus? Some General
Reflections and Specific Cases’, in: Dozeman, Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist?,
159–180.
275 Weimar, ‘Exodus 12,24–27a’, 421–448.
276 Schmitt, ‘Die Josephsgeschichte’, 394–395. See also, for example, H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Das
Altargesetz und seine Redaktionsgeschichtlichen Bezüge’, in: J.F. Diehl et al. (eds), “Einen
Altar von Erde mache mir . . .”: Festschrift für Diethelm Conrad zu seinem 70. Geburtstag
(Kleine Arbeiten zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 4/5), Waltrop 2003, 269–289; Schmitt,
Schmitt, ‘“Das Gesetz aber ist neben eingekommen”’, 155–170; Schmitt, ‘Die Erzählung
vom Goldenen Kalb’, 248–249.
277 See J.L. Ska, Review of D.M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary
Approaches (Louisville, KY 1996), Bib 79 (1998), 120–124, esp. 123. See also, for example,
J.L. Ska, ‘Exode 19,3b–6 et l’identité de l’Israël postexilique’, in: Vervenne (ed.), The Book
of Exodus, 289–317; J.L. Ska, ‘L’appel d’Abraham et l’acte de naissance d’Israël. Genèse
12,1–4a’, in: Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, 367–289,
in which he considers Gen. 12:1–4a to be ‘un texte postexilique, proche d’un carre-
four où se rencontrent les traditions deutéronomistes et sacerdotales’ (388). See also
K. Schmid, who sees Gen. 15 and Exod. 3–4, among others, as post-Priestly: K. Schmid,
Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprunge Israels
innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT, 81), Neukirchen-Vluyn
1999; Idem, Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung, Darmstadt 2008;
Idem, ‘The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus’, in:
Dozeman, Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist?, 29–50. See also J.C. Gertz, Tradition
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 251
Num. 13–14, Olivier Artus also argued that the P-narrative has been the
object of a subsequent additional ‘post-Deuteronomistic’ interpretation by a
‘layperson’.278 Markus Witte goes even further in labeling Gen. 50:24–26; Exod.
13:19 (and Josh. 24:32), all texts often related to D, as ‘(nach–)endredaktionell
anzusehenden Abschnitte (. . .) ins ausgehende 4. Jh. v.Chr.’.279
Also the extensive output of Otto deserves mention in this context.280.
Otto speaks of three ‘Ursprungsmythen’—the Jacob narratives (Gen. 25–50*),
the Moses-Exodus narratives (Exod. 2–34) and the ‘Deuteronomistic Deute
ronomy’ (DtrD) (Deut. 4:45–28:68). Still during the exile, DtrL, responsible
for re-editing DtrD, created a narrative framework—Deut. 1–3*; 29–30*—
around DtrD and connected it with the Deuteronomistically edited book of
Joshua (Josh. 1–11*; 23*; Judg. 2:6–9). In the late-exilic or post-exilic period, a
Priestly work (PG: Gen. 1:1–Exod. 29:45*; PS: Gen. 1–Lev. 9) emerged in com-
petition with DtrD/DtrL that connected the patriarchal traditions with the
Moses-Exodus traditions. In Otto’s opinion, the question of the presence of so-
called Deuteronom(ist)ic material in the present form of the Pentateuch only
becomes relevant when DtrL and P were combined by the ‘Hexateuchredaktion’
in the post-exilic period (5th century bce), which, in addition to the incorpo-
ration of new material, gave rise to a work running from Gen. 1:1 to Judg. 2:9.
The pillars of this work, namely Gen. 15 and Josh. 24, were composed by the
‘Hexateuchredaktion’ itself. Gen. 50:24–25 and Exod. 13:19 are also part of this
redaction.281 Around 400 bce, the ‘Pentateuchredaktion’, which also incorpo-
rated the ancient Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:19) and the ‘Holiness
Code’ (Lev. 17–26), detached the ‘Pentateuch’ from the books that followed by
interpolating Deut. 34:10–12. Otto ascribes Exod. 19:3b–9, for example, to this
‘nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion’.282 According to Otto, how-
ever, the detachment of the Pentateuch was not the final step in its evolution.
Indeed, he accounts for ‘postredactional’ additions, which he sees as the result
of differences of opinion between different groups.283
The perspective of Thomas Römer is likewise relevant in the present
context.284 Although accepting some passages in the Tetrateuch as
Deuteronomistic,285 in his recent contribution to the festschrift for Otto, he
281 See e.g. also J. Ebach, Genesis 37–50 (HTKAT), Freiburg 2007, 667.
282 E. Otto, ‘Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus’, in Vervenne
(ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus, 61–111. Similarly E. Otto, ‘Die Paradieserzählung
Genesis 2–3: Eine nachpriesterliche Lehrerzählung und ihrem religionshistorischen
Kontext’, in A.A. Diesel et al. (eds), ‘Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit . . .’. Studien zur israelitischen
und altorientalischen Weisheit—Diethelm Michel zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 241), Berlin
1996, 167–192; E. Otto, ‘Das postdeuteronomistische Deuteronomium als integrierender
Schlußstein der Tora’, in M. Witte et al. (ed.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke:
Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur ‘Deuteronomismus’-Diskussion in
Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW, 365), Berlin 2006, 71–102.
283 See also Otto’s student: R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur
Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch
(BZABR, 3), Wiesbaden 2003 or Idem, ‘The Story of the Revelation at the Mountain of God
and the Redactional Editions of the Hexateuch and the Pentateuch’, in E. Otto, J. Le Roux
(eds), A Critical Study of the Pentateuch: An Encounter Between Europe and Africa (Altes
Testament und Moderne, 20), Münster 2005, 126–151, esp. 127: ‘It is reasonable to assume,
that the expansion of the story into a convenant-story in Ex. 24,3–4a,6–8 is post-dtr and
post-P’.
284 See Römer, Israels Väter. In Römer’s footsteps also R. Albertz, ‘Ex. 33,7–11, ein Schlüsseltext
für die Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch’, BN 149 (2011), 13–43. In
his view, Exod. 33,7–11 is part of a post-Deuteronomistic redaction, which, presupposes
the early Priestly layers in Genesis–Leviticus on the one hand, and precedes the first
Priestly layer of Numbers on the other. See further Idem, ‘The Late Exilic Book of Exodus
(Exodus 1–34*): A Contribution to the Pentateuchal Discussion, in: Dozeman et al. (eds),
The Pentateuch, 243–256.
285 Cf. on Exod. 3–4, T. Römer, ‘Exodus 3–4 und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion’, in
R. Roukema (ed.), The Interpretation of Exodus. Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman
(CBET, 44), Leuven 2006, 65–79, esp. 77. See also T. Römer, ‘La construction du
Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque: Investigations préliminaires sur la
formation des grands ensembles littéraires de la Bible hébraïque’, in: T. Römer, K. Schmid
(eds), Les dernières rédactions, 9–34, esp. 27–30 and T. Römer, ‘How Many Books (teuchs):
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 253
the Deuteronomistic History. This implies that the said מלאך-edition ought
to be dated later than the Deuteronomistic History. Moreover, Blum claims
that the analysis of other texts belonging to this מלאך-group (Exod. 33:2, 3b,
4*; 34:11–27) demonstrates that Kd is also presupposed. Exod. 23:20–33 occu-
pies an exceptional position within this contextual analysis. Indeed, it is here
that the separation between Israel and the autochthonous nations becomes a
central point of attention, a theme that is absent in the Book of the Covenant.
As such, Blum concludes that Exod. 23:20–33 is part of a process of post-
Deuteronomistic Fortschreibung.297
Johnstone’s and Blum’s thesis concerning Exod. 23:20–33 as a post-
Deuteronomistic text seems to have been accepted within scholarly litera-
ture without much discussion or argumentation,298 and as a result, interest in
Exod. 23:20–33 within Pentateuch research appears to ebb relatively quickly.
297 With respect to Blum’s rejection of linguistic criteria, see Ausloos, ‘The Need for Linguistic
Criteria’, 47–56.
298 See, a.o. Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 219; Schmitt, ‘Die Erzählung vom Goldenen Kalb
Ex. 32*’, 247; T. Römer, ‘Entstehungsphasen des “deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes”,
in: M. Witte et al. (eds), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und
religionsgeschicht
liche Perspektiven zur ‘Deuteronomismus’-Diskussion in Tora und
Vorderen Propheten (BZAW, 365), Berlin 2006, 45–70, esp. 50; E. Otto, ‘Scribal Scholarship
in the Formation of Torah and Prophets: A Postexilic Scribal Debate between Priestly
Scholarship and Literary Prophecy—The Example of the Book of Jeremiah and Its Relation
to the Pentateuch’, in: G.N. Knoppers, B.M. Levinson (eds), The Pentateuch as Torah: New
Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake, IN 2007, 171–184,
esp. 175; W. Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg: Eine Untersuchung zur Literaturgeschichte der
vorderen Sinaiperikope Ex. 19–24 und deren historischem Hintergrund (OBO, 159), Fribourg
1998, 169–170; Albertz, ‘The Late Exilic Book of Exodus’, 246 n. 12. See also Aurelius, Zukunft
jenseits des Gerichts, 164: ‘Weil der Führungsengel keine alte, sondern eher eine ausgespro-
chen junge Erscheinung der Exodus- und Landnahmeerzählung ist [with reference to
Exod. 14:19b; 32:34aβ; 33:2; Num. 20:16; Judg. 2:1–5, thus referring to Blum’s thesis—H.A.],
wird Ex. 23:20–33 nicht früher, sondern insgesamt später als 19:3b-8 [a post-P pericope—
H.A.] sein’. See further 173–174, where Aurelius argues that the term מוקשin Josh. 23 deals
with a political danger; in Exod. 23:33, however, the מוקשhas a religious connotation
(and thus should be considered as a further evolution). Moreover, when Josh. 23:12 argues
against making covenants with the non-Israelite population, further elaborated in Deut.
7:2–3 to a prohibition to make covenants, in Exod. 23:32 this becomes a prohibition to
make covenants with ‘their gods’. Aurelius thus concludes that Josh. 23:1–5, 11–16 ‘ist
anscheinend eine Vorgabe der verwandten Texte Dt 7, Ex. 34:11–16, 23:20–33 (zumindest
23:32f), Jdc 2:1–5’ (174). See further C. Levin, ‘On the Cohesion and Separation of Books
within the Enneateuch’, in Dozeman et al. (eds), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch?,
127–154, esp. 140 n. 49, who considers Exod. 23:23–33 as dependent on Judg. 2:1–5.
256 Chapter 4
The fact that Kratz’ inclusive model of the origins of Genesis–Kings makes
no mention of agreements between Exod. 23:20–33 and Judg. 2:1–5 serves
to illustrate the evident decline in interest.299 This observation is doubtless
related to the fact that Kratz locates the origins of both pericopes in entirely
different phases in the development of the Henneateuch. He considers Exod.
23:20–33 as one of a number of additions to the Book of the Covenant, and
Judg. 2:1–5—which he sees as a ‘verloren im Raum stehende Stück’300—as a
(post-)Deuteronomistic addition to the Hexateuch.
As far as I am aware of, Van Seters is the latest scholar dealing extensively
with Exod. 23:20–33.301 In his Life of Moses, Van Seters already indicated that
the prologue (Exod. 20:23–26) and the epilogue (Exod. 23:20–33) should be
considered an integral part of the post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist.302 He reaches
the same conclusion after a more detailed analysis in his A Law Book for the
Diaspora.303 In his view, ‘Deut 7 is the older, basic text and Exod. 23:23–33 has
been composed as a much shorter version, following the same basic outline of
topics but with much less logical clarity. A few motifs, such as the “messenger”,
have been introduced from the author’s broader framework, and the dimen-
sions of the land in v. 31 have been taken from elsewhere in DtrH’.304
5 Conclusion
It should be clear from our discussion of the way in which the Deuteronomistic
problem has found its way into the foreground of research in recent decades
that the question of the Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in Genesis–Numbers has
299 Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählender Bücher, 204–208. On 152, Kratz only says that
Exod. 23:20–33 is ‘späteren Anhang’ of the Book of the Covenant. See also D.M. Carr, The
Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction, Oxford 2011, 472: ‘Some have seen
reflections of Deuteronomistic theology in (. . .) much of 23:20–33, but most agree that
these elements are secondary to the Covenant Code and not relevant to the dating of its
earliest form’.
300 Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählender Bücher, 205.
301 Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora, 67–81.
302 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 130.
303 Thereby particularly entering in dialogue with my contributions on Exod. 23:20–33:
H. Ausloos, ‘Deuteronomi(sti)c Elements in Exod. 23,20–33? Some Methodological
Remarks’, in Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus, 481–500; H. Ausloos, ‘The
Need for a “Controlling Framework” in Determining the Relationship between Genesis–
Numbers and the So-Called Deuteronomistic Literature’, JNSL 24 (1998), 77–89.
304 Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora, 80–81.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 257
become one of the crux interpreti of Old Testament biblical exegesis. A radi-
cal transition, however, became evident in this regard. While verses exhibit-
ing Deuteronom(ist)ic language and Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas were considered
up to circa 1970, in the wake of the Documentary Hypothesis and almost as a
matter of course, to be slightly interfering RD interpolations—with the excep-
tion of the authors who describe the said passages as proto-Deuteronomic—,
one can observe that the same texts acquired much greater significance
within the various hypotheses on the origins of the Pentateuch that took
root from the 1970s onwards. Since that time, scholars have argued that the
passages in question are often evidence of the hand of one or more (post-)
Deuteronomistic redactors, or even authors, who collected available traditions,
whether or not for the first time. It is evident, nevertheless, that the recent
designation of passages traditionally understood to be Deuteronom(ist)ic as
post-Deuteronomistic post-Priestly additions, has tended to relegate interest
in their contribution to the genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch to back-
ground once again.305 Similarly, the weakness of arguments characterising
texts as dependent on the Deuteronomistic literature continues to be striking.
In any event, one thing remains certain: the enigma of the so-called Deutero
nom(ist)ic elements in Genesis–Numbers is far from solved.
305 See e.g. A.C. Hagedorn, ‘Taking the Pentateuch to the Twenty-First Century’, ExpT 119
(2007), 53–58, esp. 58 : ‘Lastly we have to point to the fact that we find numerous instances
of late and post-deuteronomistic (e.g. Gen. 15; Exod. 17:8ff, etc.) and post-priestly addi-
tions to the Pentateuch so that the Bible remained in the making for an extended period
of time’.
chapter 5
Our survey of the origins, evolution and heyday of interest in passages akin
to Deuteronomy in Genesis–Numbers should have made it clear that the
issue is and remains one of the most important difficulties facing Pentateuch
research. Both the view that these passage represent a sort of preamble to the
‘Deuteronomistic’ literature and the view that they are dependent on the said
literature encountered—and continue to encounter—a number of problems
for which a satisfactory solution still appears to be lacking. In most instances,
there appears to be little doubt that a (literary) relationship exists. Problems
arise, however, when scholars endeavour to interpret this relationship. Indeed,
depending on the position they are defending, scholars appeal to various texts
from Genesis–Numbers that they characterise as older than or dependent
on the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. Furthermore, one cannot simply claim
that a text from Genesis–Numbers belongs of necessity to the prehistory of
Deuteronomy because it does not yet exhibit typical Deuteronomic features,
just as one cannot argue that the said passage is dependent on the Deuterono
m(ist)ic literature because it no longer matches it entirely. As a consequence,
there is clearly a need from objective criteria.
Against this background, the present chapter—as both review and
preview—sets out to advance a number of elements that the present author
considers determinative when approaching the question of the Deuterono
m(ist)ic passages in Genesis–Numbers.1 I begin by offering a number of
fundamental observations on current terminology with regard to the Deutero
nom(ist)ic problem. Against the background of an absence of solid criteria,
I then focus attention on a criteriology that has the potential to allow us to
determine whether (or not) an Old Testament text is akin to or dependent on
the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. I will conclude, in keeping with the extremely
old observation that the early textual tradition was apparently already aware
of agreements between passages in Genesis–Numbers and Deuteronomy and
dealt with them in a creative manner, by demonstrating, albeit tentatively, that
It became apparent from the status quaestionis regarding the presence of so-
called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the books of Genesis–Numbers that
scholars tended—and tend—to deal with the said material with a high degree
of self-evidence. Terms such as pre-Deuteronomic, proto-Deu te
ronomic,
Deuteronomic, Deuteronomistic, late-Deuteronomistic, post-Deuteronomis
tic and anti-Deuteronom(ist)ic are often employed without further expla
nation. The goal of the present paragraph is to introduce a degree of clarity
into the Babel-like confusion that characterises contemporary biblical scholar
ship in this regard.
2 E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189), Berlin 1990, 380.
3 The term ‘inflation’ in relation to the use of the words Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic is
borrowed from N. Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, in: W. Gross (ed.),
Jeremia und die ‘deuteronomistische Bewegung’ (BBB, 98), Weinheim 1995, 313–382, esp. 323.
Cf. also W. Gross, ‘Einführung’, in: Idem (ed.), Jeremia und die ‘deuteronomistische Bewegung’,
7–9, esp. 9.
4 Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, 316. On the erosion of the term, see
also T. Römer, D. Macchi, ‘Luke, Disciple of the Deuteronomistic School’, in: C.M. Tuckett
(ed.), Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays ( JSNT SS, 116), Sheffield 1995, 178–187.
See also O.H. Steck, Israel und das Gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur
Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbild im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und
Urchristentum (WMANT, 23), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1967. Some have even considered it possible
to demonstrate Deuteronomic style in the non-biblical texts from Qumran. See, for example,
J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD, 1), Oxford 1955, 102: ‘Autant qu’on peut en juger du style et du
contenu, ces fragments pourraient appartenir au genre des Testaments et des instructions, en
style deutéronomique et sapientiel’.
260 chapter 5
5 Cf., for example, R.E. Clements, Prophecy and Tradition (Growing Points in Theology),
Oxford 1975, 44: ‘a kind of “pan-Deuteronomism” ’; G.W. Anderson, ‘Changing Perspectives
in Old Testament Study’, in: G.W. Anderson (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation. Essays by
Members of the Society of Old Testament Study, Oxford 1979, xiii–xxi, esp. xix: ‘(. . .) it is
not entirely out of place to speak of a pan-Deuteronomic phase in Old Testament study’;
J. Day, ‘Pre-Deuteronomic Allusions to the Covenant in Hosea and Psalm lxxviii’, VT
36 (1986), 1–12, esp. 1: ‘One might perhaps speak of the danger of pan-Deuteronomism in
some circles’; C.H.W. Brekelmans, ‘Deuteronomistic Inluence in Isaiah 1–12’, in: J. Vermeylen
(ed.), The Book of Isaiah—Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité et complexité
de l’ouvrage (BETL, 81), Leuven 1989, 167–176, esp. 176: ‘(. . .) a kind of pandeuteronomism
which is pervading nowadays quite a number of Old Testament studies’. See also R.J. Coggins,
‘Prophecy—True and False’, in: H.A. McKay, D.J.A. Clines (eds), Of Prophets’ Visions and the
Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R.N. Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOT SS,
162), Sheffield 1993, 80–94, esp. 85; R.J. Coggins, ‘What Does “Deuteronomistic” Mean?’, in:
J. Davies et al. (eds), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer
(JSOT SS, 195), Sheffield 1995, 135–148, esp. 135; K. Koch, ‘P—Kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an
zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung’, VT 37 (1987), 446–467, esp. 451: ‘sich ausbreitenden
Deuteronomistizismus’; H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Die Erzählung von der Versuchung Abrahams: Gen.
22,1–19* und das Problem einer Theologie der elohistischen Pentateuch—texte’, BN 34
(1986), 82–109 esp. 90: ‘eine Art pandeuteronomistische Tendenz der alttestamentlichen
Wissenschaft’. See also L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The
Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999. Further R. Albertz, ‘In
Search of the Deuteronomists: A First Solution to a Historical Riddle’, in: T. Römer (ed.), The
Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147), Leuven 2000, 1–17, esp. 1 and R.F. Person,
The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature (Studies in Biblical Literature,
2), Atlanta, GA 2002, 13–16.
6 Cf. H. Ausloos, ‘Deuteronomi(sti)c Elements in Exod. 23,20–33? Some Methodological
Remarks’, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—
Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 481–500, esp. 486–487. See also R. Albertz, ‘Die
Intentionen und die Träger des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks’, in: Idem et al. (eds),
Schöpfung und Befreiung: Für Claus Westermann zum 80. Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1989, 37–53,
esp. 37: ‘So bleibt die Bezeichnung “deuteronomistisch” eigenartig schwebend und diffus; sie
verdeckt mehr die literaturgeschichtlichen Probleme, als daß sie sie erklärt’; E.-J. Waschke,
‘Das Verhältnis alttestamentlicher Überlieferungen im Schnittpunkt der Dynastiezusage und
die Dynastiezusage im Spiegel alttestamentlicher Überlieferungen’, ZAW 99 (1987), 157–179,
esp. 157: ‘(. . .) weil das häufig in der Diskussion gebrauchte “Allheilswort” deuteronomistisch, je
mehr es verwendet und je weiter es gefaßt wird, sich immer unbrauchbarer erweist (. . .)’. See
recently D.V. Edelman et al., Opening the Books of Moses, Sheffield 2012, 182: ‘Deuteronomic:
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 261
Originally, however, the situation was very different. Bleek, the protagonist
of the Deuteronomic question, distinguished two redactions in the Hexateuch,
a redaction from the 10th century bce and a second redaction that he situ
ated against the background of the end of the Southern Kingdom (7th cen
tury bce). In Bleek’s opinion, this second redaction of the Hexateuch was the
work of the author of Deuteronomy who simultaneously introduced the book
of Deuteronomy into his work. Colenso likewise argued that a redactor—
the Deuteronomist—who was also the author of the book of Deuteronomy,
published the version of Genesis–Numbers and Joshua that was familiar to
him and supplemented it with his own material. For both Bleek and Colenso,
this redaction can be characterised as ‘Deuteronomic’. Indeed, the author
of Deuteronomy himself is considered responsible for the passages akin to
Deuteronomy contained therein.
Wellhausen, on the other hand, made a clear distinction between the author
of (a form of) Deuteronomy and the author of passages akin to the said book.
It was against this background that Wellhausen made a distinction between
‘Deuteronomic’ and ‘Deuteronomistic’.7 He characterised Josh. 1, for example,
as a Deuteronomistic passage, thereby suggesting that the material was to be
ascribed to the Deuteronomistic author. Wellhausen considered the latter to
be the author who incorporated the Deuteronomic law (a form of the book
of Deuteronomy) into the larger complex of the Hexateuch.8 Wellhausen very
Hauptaufgabe Israels und steht noch weit mehr innerhalb des Realismus eines wirklichen
Volkslebens. Eine besonders greifbare einzelne Differenz liegt in der Datierungsweise.
Statt mit ihren althebräischen Namen Ziv Bul Ethanim bezeichnet der letzte Verfasser die
Monate mit Zahlen, die vom Frühling als Jahresanfang ausgehen. Dadurch unterscheidet
er sich nicht nur von seinen älteren Quellen (. . .), sondern auch vom Deuteronomium’
(italics H.A.).
12 Kuenen, Historical-Critical Inquiry, 130: ‘It seems hardly possible, however, to ascribe the
deuteronomic recension to a single author; nor is there anything against our supposing
several hands to have been at work on the same lines’. See also, for example, B. Baentsch,
Exodus—Leviticus—Numeri (HKAT, 1/2), Göttingen 1903, lxv: ‘Jedenfalls sind (. . .) die
deuteronomistische Spuren nicht alle auf eine Hand zurückzuführen, sondern einer fort
gesetzten Bearbeitung der alten Berichte zuzuschreiben’.
13 Kuenen, Historical-Critical Inquiry, 219: ‘The length of the deuteronomic period, which
begins in the year 621 bc, and which called the additions to D1 into existence, cannot yet
be determined. All we can say is that it extended beyond the beginning of the Babylonian
captivity (. . .). This period covers not only the activity of D1’s successors, but the combina
tion of Deuteronomy, as expanded by them, with the “prophetic” elements’.
14 G. Beer, Exodus: Mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling (HAT, 1/3), Tübingen 1939, 10, character
ises RD as an ‘im Geist von (. . .) D (. . .) arbeitende Kollege von R’.
264 chapter 5
15 For an overview of research into the relationship between Jeremiah and the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, see, for example: P.R. Ackroyd, ‘The Book of Jeremiah: Some
Recent Studies’, JSOT 28 (1984), 47–59; R.P. Carroll, ‘Arguing About Jeremiah: Recent Studies
and the Nature of a Prophetic Book’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989
(SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 222–235; R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah (Old Testament Guides), Sheffield
21993, 24–25; L. Crenshaw, ‘A Living Tradition: The Book of Jeremiah in Current Research’,
Interpretation 37 (1983), 117–129; S. Herrmann, ‘Forschung am Jeremiabuch: Probleme und
Tendenzen ihrer neueren Entwicklung’, TLZ 102 (1977), 481–490; Idem, ‘Jeremiah—Der
Prophet und die Verfasser des Buches Jeremiah’, in: P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Le livre de Jérémie:
Le prophète et son milieu—Les oracles et leur transmission (BETL, 54), Leuven 1981, 197–214,
esp. 197–201; S. Herrmann, ‘Jeremia/Jeremiabuch’, TRE 16 (1987), 568–586; Idem, Jeremia.
Der Prophet und das Buch (EdF, 271), Darmstadt 1990, 53–181; Houtman, Der Pentateuch,
332–342; E. Kragelund Holt, ‘The Chicken and the Egg—Or: Was Jeremiah a Member of
the Deuteronomist Party?’, JSOT 44 (1989), 109–122; B.J. Oosterhoff, Jeremia 1–10 (COT),
Kampen 1990, 39–49; T. Römer, ‘How Did Jeremiah Become a Convert to Deuteronomistic
Ideology?’, in Schearing, McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 189–199; C.R.
Seitz, ‘Mose als Prophet: Redaktionsthemen und Gesamtstruktur des Jeremiabuches’, BZ
34 (1990), 234–245; W. Thiel, ‘Ein vierteljahrhundert Jeremia-Forschung’, VuF 31 (1986),
32–52; H. Weippert, Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (BZAW, 132), Berlin 1973, 1–21.
16 Cf., for example, J. Scharbert, ‘Jeremia und die Reform des Joschija’, in Bogaert (ed.), Le
livre de Jérémie, 40–57, esp. 57.
17 See, for example, W. Holladay, ‘The Years of Jeremiah’s Preaching’, Interpretation 37
(1983), 146–159; Idem, ‘A Proposal for Reflections in the Book of Jeremiah of the Seven-
Year Recitation of the Law in Deuteronomy (Deut 31,10–13)’, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das
Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 326–328;
W. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah—Chapters
1–25, Philadelphia 1986, 1–10; Idem, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet
Jeremiah—Chapters 26–52, Philadelphia 1989, 1–95.
18 See, for example, J. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah, Cam
bridge, 91961, 102–107.
19 See, for example, G.R. Berry, ‘The Code Found in the Temple’, JBL 39 (1920), 44–51, 46–48;
H. Cazelles, ‘Jérémie et le Deutéronome’, RSR 38 (1951), 5–36. See also Wellhausen, Die
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 265
Composition, 192 n. 1: ‘Die Vorhaut und Beschneidung des Herzens 10,16; 30,6 ist wol bei
Jeremias ursprünglich, denn bei ihm sieht man den Ausdruck entstehn, der im Deute
ronomium bereits fertig ist. So mögen noch andere “deuteronomische” Phrasen mit
dem color Hieremianus aus Jeremias entlehnt sein und um so sicherer der Bearbeitung
angehören.—Zu der üblichen Charakteristik des Deuteronomium sind die Materialien
gewöhnlich nicht aus Kap. 12 bis 26 hergenommen’—See also Idem, Prolegomena, 50:
‘Amos Hosea Jesaias sind es, welche die Bewegung gegen den alten volkstümlichen
Gottesdienst auf den Höhen eingeleitet haben. (. . .) Von diesem absolut originellen
Anfange ist aber nun die folgende Entwicklung abhängig, und diese läuft nicht auf den
Priesterkodex aus, sondern auf das Deuteronomium, ein Buch, das bei aller billigen
Rücksichtnahme für die Priester (. . .) doch seinen prophetischen Ursprung nicht verleug
net und vor allen Dingen von all und jeder hierokratischen Neigung volkommen frei ist.
Und das Deuteronomium endlich ist es gewesen, welches den geschichtlichen Erfolg der
Reformation Josias gehabt hat’—C.H.W. Brekelmans, ‘Jeremiah 18,1–12 and Its Redaction’,
in: Bogaert (ed.), Le livre de Jérémie, 343–350, esp. 349 likewise suggests the possibility that
‘the school of Jeremiah has influenced later redactions of the dtrc history’.
20 According to Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 342, we cannot state with certainty that ‘Jeremia
mit Dtn. bekannt gewesen war. Es scheint keine spezifische Verbindung zwischen Jeremia
und Dtn. festgestellt werden zu können’.
21 Reference should be made in this regard to the pioneering study of S. Mowinckel, Zur
Komposition des Buches Jeremia, Kristiana 1914, 35: ‘Nicht nur sprachlich, sondern auch
inhaltlich berühren diese Reden sich eng mit dem “Deuteronomisten”’—Mowinckel
almost certainly ascribed Jer. 3:6–13; 7:1–8:3; 11:1–5, 9–14; 18:1–12; 21:1–10; 22:1–5; 25:1–11a;
27; 29:1–23; 32:1–2, 6–16, 24–44; 34:1–7; 34:8–22; 35:1–19; 39:15–18; 44:1–22; 45 to his
Deuteronomistic ‘Quelle C’. He later nuanced his position to the extent that he no longer
ascribed the Deuteronomistic material in Jeremiah to a ‘literary source’, but saw the prose
passages rather as ‘a circle of tradition of their own’ (S. Mowinckel, Prophecy and Tradition:
The Prophetic Books in the Light of the Study of the Growth and History of the Tradition
[Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, 2/3], Oslo 1946, 62).
Mowinckel continued nevertheless to qualify this ‘circle of tradition’ as Deuteronomistic:
‘These prose speeches are neither planned, literary, “editorial” adaptations of an existing
book, as held by Duhm, nor a separate literary “source”, as previously maintained by the
present author, but they represent exactly a circle of tradition of their own, within which
certain of the sayings by Jeremiah have been transmitted and transformed according to
the ideas and the style which prevailed in the circle, exactly the deuteronomistic ideas
and forms of style and interests’.
The most cited works dealing with the Deuteronomistic redaction of Jeremiah are:
B. Duhm, Jeremia (KHCAT), Tübingen 1901; J.P. Hyatt, ‘Jeremiah and Deuteronomy’,
JNES 1 (1942), 156–173; Idem, ‘The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah’, in: L.G. Perdue,
W. Kovacs (eds), A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies, Winona Lake, IN
1984, 247–267 (= Vanderbilt Studies in the Humanities 1 [1951] 71–95); S. Herrmann, Die
266 chapter 5
that Deuteronomistic elements can be observed here and there in the first four
books of the Old Testament, in spite of the separation between the Tetrateuch
and the Deuteronomistic History—it was determinative nevertheless for the
characterisation of elements as Deuteronomistic throughout the entire Old
Testament. Indeed, with Noth’s hypothesis of the Deuteronomistic History, it
would appear that a new distinctive reference point had been discovered in
the Deuteronomistic literature to which scholars could turn in the characteri
sation of given passages.
One can state, in summary, that around the middle of the 20th century,
Joshua–2 Kings and the Deuteronomistic passages from Jeremiah together
with Deuteronomy have become, as it were, to the norm against which it was
possible to measure whether a passage—in particular passages in Genesis–
Numbers—should be seen as Deuteronomistic. As we have demonstrated, this
was based for the most part on agreements at the level of vocabulary. Attention
was given to a much lesser extent to content related similarities while the style
component was more or less ignored all together.26
Since the second half of the 20th century, scholars have been convinced that
the typically Deuteronom(ist)ic characteristics are also to be discerned in the
remaining books of the Old Testament. Werner H. Schmidt set the process in
motion when he spoke of a Deuteronomistic redaction of the book of Amos.27
Other scholars have discerned Deuteronomistic ideas28 in the books of Isaiah29
the book Deuteronomy. Even within the Deuteronomistic History it is only found in
one single pericope, namely 2 Kgs. 17:7–20. Steck’s position on the ‘deuteronomistische
Geschichtsbild’, however, is based entirely on ‘deuteronomistic’ passages in Jeremiah.
27 W.H. Schmidt, ‘Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches: Zu den theolo
gischen Unterschieden zwischen Prophetenwort und seinem Sammler’, ZAW 77 (1965),
168–193. Cf. also H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2. Joel und Amos (BKAT, 14/2), Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1969, 137–138; J. Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l’Apocalyptique: Isaïe, i–xxxv,
miroir d’un demi-millénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël (ÉB), Paris 1978, 519–569;
O. Kaiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einführung in ihre Ergebnisse und Probleme,
Gütersloh 51984, 223–224. On the Deuteronomist and the Prophetic books, see also
R.R. Wilson, ‘Who Was the Deuteronomist? (Who Was Not the Deuteronomist?):
Reflections on Pan-Deuteronomism’, in: Schearing, McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive
Deuteronomists, 73–77; R.A. Kugler, ‘The Deuteronomists and the Latter Prophets’, in:
Schearing, McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 127–144.
28 Cf. Anderson, ‘Changing Perspectives’, xix: ‘One of the most important aspects of this
development [i.e. pan-Deuteronomism—H.A.] is the claim that there are signs in the
prophetic corpus of a far-reaching Deuteronomic redaction’. Coggins, ‘What Does
“Deuteronomistic” Mean?’, 135 also observes: ‘The problem has been steadily increasing.
Not just the book of Deuteronomy and the Pentateuchal source D (if a four-document
hypothesis relating to the Pentateuch is still accepted), but also the Former Prophets,
Joshua–2 Kings, the editing of Jeremiah, the editing of other pre-exilic prophetic collec
tions (?Amos ?Hosea ?Parts of Isaiah ?a major part of the book of the Twelve) can all
be attributed to the work of Deuteronomists. In addition Deuteronomistic influence is
claimed for or detected in practically every part of the Hebrew Bible, so that one may
note with an element of surprise that the books of Job or Ecclesiastes are said to be free
from, or perhaps are only rebelling against, Deuteronomistic influence or tendencies’. See,
however, J.L. Crenshaw, ‘The Deuteronomist and the Writings’, in: Schearing, McKenzie
(eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 145–158.
29 See, for example, Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe, 693–709; Idem, ‘Des rédactions deuté
ronomistes dans le livre d’Esaïe?’, in : J.-D. Macchi et al. (eds), Les recueils prophétiques de
la Bible: Origines, milieux, et contexte proche‐oriental (Le Monde de la Bible, 64), Genève
2012, 145–187; O. Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja: Kapitel 1–12 (ATD, 17), Göttingen
51981, 19 (compare, however, with the tenor of O. Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja.
Kapitel 1–12 [ATD, 17], Göttingen, 1960). Cf., however, Brekelmans, ‘Deuteronomistic
Influence’, 167–176.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 269
and Ezekiel,30 as well as the Book of the Twelve.31 In so doing, however, they are
less and less inclined to take the book of Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomistic
History or the Deuteronomistic component in Jeremiah as the standard for
discerning Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. In this regard, the study of Lothar
Perlitt has enjoyed exceptional influence.32 He defended the hypothesis that
the idea of the ‘( בריתcovenant’) emerged for the first time as a means to express
the relationship between yhwh and the people in the so-called Deuterono
m(ist)ic movement.33 The 8th century bce prophets, moreover, appear not to
mention the בריתbetween God and Israel. According to Perlitt, this implies
that every pericope in which reference is made to the בריתbetween yhwh
and his people should be related to the Deuteronom(ist)ic movement.34
The Psalms, to conclude, likewise do not appear to have remained free of
30 A good survey of the questions surrounding the Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in Ezekiel
can be found in F.-L. Hossfeld, ‘Ezechiel und die deuteronomisch-deuteronomistische
Bewegung’, in: Gross (ed.), Jeremia und die ‘deuteronomistische Bewegung’, 271–295. See
also C.L. Patton, ‘Pan-Deuteronomism and the Book of Ezekiel’, in: Schearing & McKenzie
(eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 200–215.
31 Cf., for example, E. Ben Zvi, ‘A Deuteronomistic Redaction in/among “The Twelve”? A
Contribution from the Standpoint of the Book of Micah, Zephaniah and Obadiah’, in:
Schearing, McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 232–261; S.L. Cook, ‘Micah’s
Deuteronomistic Redaction and the Deuteronomists’, in: Schearing, McKenzie (eds),
Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 216–231; J. Jeremias, ‘Die Deutung der Gerichtsworte
Michas in der Exilszeit,’ ZAW 83 (1971), 330–354; Kaiser, Einleitung, 237; R.F. Person, Second
Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School (JSOT SS, 167), Sheffield 1993; B. Renaud, La forma-
tion du livre de Michée: Tradition et actualisation (ÉB), Paris 1977, 387–399; Idem, Michée,
Sophonie, Nahum (SBi), Paris 1987, 169; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School, 366–370; H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 1. Hosea (BKAT, 14/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn
21965, xxvii; Idem, Dodekapropheton 4. Micha (BKAT, 14/4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982,
xxviii.
32 L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT, 36), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969.
33 Cf. in his wake, for example, D.J. McCarthy, ‘Berît in Old Testament History and Theology’,
Bib 53 (1972), 110–121; E.W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the
Old Testament, Oxford 1986.
34 Cf., however, the critical observations in Brekelmans, ‘Deuteronomic Influence’, 170:
‘How can scholars continue to say that the covenant-idea is not found in Proto-Isaiah,
if the rib-pattern includes a reaction after the breaking of the covenant? Or one could
ask: If the covenant has such an important place in the deuteronomistic theology, how
can one explain that this idea seems to be absent in the deuteronomistic redaction of
Proto-Isaiah?’
270 chapter 5
35 Wilson, ‘Who Was the Deuteronomist?’, 77–78. Cf. T. Römer, ‘L’école deutéronomiste et la
formation de la bible hébraique’, in: Idem (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History,
179–193, esp. 192–193.
36 M. Marttila, ‘The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch’, in
H. von Weissenberg et al. (eds), Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting
Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW, 419), Berlin 2011, pp. 321–346.
37 A. Voitila, ‘Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage’, in: Von Weissenberg et al. (eds), Changes
in Scripture, 369–388.
38 S. Weeks, ‘A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?’, in: Von Weissenberg et al. (eds), Changes in
Scripture, 389–404.
39 Cf. J.A. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament: From its Origins to the Closing of the
Alexandrian Canon, London 31989, 143: ‘(. . .) the question changed once the number of
passages involved proved to be greater and their content to be relevant from a histori
cal and religious point of view’. Kaiser, Einleitung, 177 thus gave priority to the follow
ing in the context of Old Testament biblical study: ‘Schließlich stellt sich angesichts der
deuteronomistischen Zusätze im Tetrateuch und der deuteronomistischen Redaktionen
des Jeremiabuches, der von Kaiser unterstellten Beziehungen der Grundschrift des
Jesajabuches zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Bewegung, der wohl allgemein
anerkannten deuteronomistischen Bearbeitung des Amos—und der von Vermeylen
ins Gespräch gebrachten des Michabuches, die Aufgabe, dieses alles weiterhin analyt
isch abzuklären und dann in einem Gesamtbild der Tätigkeit der Deuteronomisten
zusammenzufassen’.
40 It is against this background that Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?’,
318–320 situates his ‘Ausbaugestalt ii’: ‘Hier werden (. . .) auch noch Texte als deute
ronomistisch identifiziert, die nichts typisch deuteronomistisches mehr an sich tragen.
Es genügt, wenn sie in irgendeinem Zusammenhang mit Texten stehen, die zum deute-
ronomistischen Grundkanon gehören oder mithilfe der ersten Ausbaugestalt der Methode
als deuteronomistisch klassifiziert wurden’. Cf. also Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 342 n. 109:
‘Verschiedentlich versteht man die Begriffe deuteronomisch bzw. deuteronomistisch in
so breitem Sinne und verwendet sie zur Bezeichnung eines solch großen Komplexes von
Literatur, daß—um es etwa überspitzt zu sagen—beinahe jede Vorstellungswelt und jede
Passage des AT darin untergebracht werden können’.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 271
41 See in this regard: R. Smend, ‘Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomist
ischen Redaktionsgeschichte’, in: H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard
von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, München 1971, 494–509; W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte:
Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk
(FRLANT, 108), Göttingen 1972; T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung
seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF, 193), Helsinki 1975; Idem,
Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktions
geschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF, 198), Helsinki 1977; F.M. Cross, ‘The Themes of the
Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History’, in: Idem, Canaanite
Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge 1973, 274–
289. See also Y. Hoffmann, ‘The Deuteronomist and the Exile, in D.P. Wright et al. (eds),
Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law,
and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN 1995 659–675. A good survey of
the various hypothesis concerning the growth and composition of the Deuteronomistic
History can be found in T. Römer, ‘L’historiographie deutéronomiste (HD): Histoire de
la recherche et enjeu du débat’, in: A. De Pury et al. (eds), Israël construit son histoire:
L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lunière des recherches récentes (Le monde de la bible,
34), Genève 1996, 9–120; T. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological
Historical and Literary Introduction, London 2005, 13–43.
42 Herrmann, Jeremia, 209 discerns in Jer 2,20–28, for example, ‘eine deuteronomistische
Erweiterung (. . .), die aber höchstwahrscheinlich früher anzusetzen wäre als eine deute
ronomistische Gesamtredaktion des Jeremiabuches’.
43 Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, 333–373 argues against the exis
tence of a ‘Deuteronomistic movement’.
272 chapter 5
44 Brekelmans remained critical with respect to the proliferation of Deuteronomistic ele
ments. See, for example, C. Brekelmans, ‘Some Considerations on the Prose Sermons in
the Book of Jeremiah’, Bijdragen 34 (1973), 204–211, esp. 210: ‘It would seem (. . .) that the
style, the literary forms and the theology of the prose tradition in the Book of Jeremiah are
perhaps too easily considered to be deuteronomistic’; Idem, ‘Jeremiah 18,1–12’, 350: ‘(. . .)
we have to be much more prudent in assigning so many texts in Jer to the dtrc redaction,
even if such texts are from the exilic period’.
Weippert, Die Prosareden, 229, for example, exhorts caution with regard to the iden
tification of a Deuteronomistic redaction in Jeremiah: ‘Entgegen der weitverbreiteten
Meinung, daß die Prosapartien eine deuteronomisch-deuteronomistische Sprache zeig
ten, erwiesen sich die Beziehungen zum deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Bereich
als recht schwach und gingen nicht über das hinaus, was man bei zeitlich nahestehenden
Schriften sowieso zu erwarten hat’. Cf., among others, P.C. Craigie et al., Jeremiah 1–25
(WBC, 26), Dallas TX 1991, xxxv.
45 M. Vervenne, ‘The Question of “Deuteronomic” Elements in Genesis to Numbers’, in:
F. García Martínez et al. (eds), Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C.J. Labuschagne
on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (SVT, 53), Leiden 1994, 243–268, esp. 251: ‘Proto-dt
redaction: Non Priestly Tetrateuchal texts displaying “deuteronomic”—in the most
general sense of the word—affinities belong to a “deuteronomic” redaction previous
to Deut and should therefore be characterized as proto- or early-deuteronomic. (. . .) It
seems that this school of writers launched, sometime around the end of the 8th cen
tury bce, the language, style and theology characteristic of the established dt/dtr tradi
tions. Proto-dt texts approximate but do not attain the fullness and fixity of the dt/dtr
strata in Deuteronomy and Joshua-Kings’. The fact that the term ‘proto-Deuteronomic’ is
not always understood as intended by Brekelmans and Lohfink is evident from, among
others, B.S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL), London 1974, 184: ‘Lohfink (. . .) has
used the term “proto-deuteronomic” [in relation to Exod. 13—H.A.] in an attempt to iden
tify the style as Deuteronomic without accepting a late dating’.
46 A. Reichert, Der Jehowist und die sogenannten deuteronomistischen Erweiterungen im
Buch Exodus (unpublished Doctoral dissertation Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen),
Tübingen 1972, 3–4. According to Reichert the term pre-Deuteronomic is intended ‘vor
allem die zeitliche Ansetzung vor dem Dt betonen’. Proto-Deuteronomic, by constrast,
designates ‘eine inhaltliche Bestimmung einer dem Dt unmittelbar vorangehenden,
seinen Stil und Theologie vorbereitenden Vorstufe’.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 273
47 M. Vervenne, ‘Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of
Exodus’, in: Idem (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation
(BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 21–59 esp. 51 makes a distinction between the concept ‘pre-
Deuteronomic, which he characterises as ‘source-elements’ and ‘proto-Deuteronomic’,
which designates ‘impulse-elements’.
48 It is not completely clear what many authors understand de facto by the terms
‘Deuteronomic’ or ‘Deuteronomistic’. Cf., for example, A.H. McNeile, The Book of Exodus
with Introduction and Notes (Westminster Commentaries), London 1908, v–vi: ‘The por
tions of Exodus which can be pronounced “Deuteronomic” are comparatively few. They
belong to a period before, and perhaps during, the exile, and emanate from a reforming,
prophetical atmosphere in which history was regarded from a moral and spiritual point
of view; and in their editing of early documents the writers followed the same line of
thought, and employed the same kind of language, as the writer or writers of the book
of Deuteronomy (. . .)’; P. Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus übersetzt und erklärt (Die heilige
Schrift des Alten Testaments 1/2), Bonn 1934, 16: ‘D: 10,2 [i.e. Exod. 10:2—H.A.], außerdem
werden “deuteronomistische Formeln” in den Gesetzen 12,24–27a; 13,3–10.11–16 gefunden’.
Furthermore, the terms Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic are often used interchange
ably. Reference can be made, for example to P. Horn, ‘Traditionsschichten in Ex. 23,10–33
und Ex. 34,10–26’, BZ 15 (1971), 203–222, esp. 218 and H. Cazelles, ‘Histoire et institutions
dans la place et la composition d’Ex. 20,22–23,19’, in: R. Liwak, S. Wagner (eds), Prophetie
und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im Alten Israel: Festschrift fur Siegfried Herrmann zum 65.
Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1991, 52–64, esp. 56. Person, The Deuteronomic School, 6 even argues
that we should abandon the distinction between Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic
and only to use the notion Deuteronomic. As such he speaks about the ‘Deuteronomic
History’ (8).
49 Brekelmans makes a simple distinction between pre- and proto-Deuteronomic on the
one hand and post-Deuteronomic on the other. The term post-Deuteronomic can
be understood in this context as a collective term under which we can classify every
thing dependent on (a form of Deuteronomy). Cf. C.H.W. Brekelmans, ‘Die soge
nannten deuteronomischen Elemente in Gen.–Num. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte
des Deuteronomiums’, in: Volume du Congrès Genève 1965 (SVT, 15), Leiden 1966, 90–96,
esp. 92 and Idem, ‘Éléments deutéronomiques dans le Pentateuque’, in: C. Hauret (ed.),
Aux grands carrefours de la révélation et de l’exégèse de l’Ancien Testament (Recherches
Bibliques, 8), Leuven 1967, 77–91, esp. 80.
50 Cf., for example, Kaiser, Einleitung, 136: ‘Die Geleichsetzung des Bundes mit dem
Geschehen am Horeb und die Identifikation der Bundesurkunde mit dem Dekalog
stellt demgegenüber eine weitere Entwicklung dar, die man als (früh)deuteronomistisch
bezeichnen kann’. In this context, Kaiser refers to Deut. 5:2–3; 4:1–2; 31:9, 26.
274 chapter 5
51 Vervenne, ‘The Question of “Deuteronomic” Elements’, 251: ‘Dtr redaction: The “deutero
nomic” affinities in Genesis to Numbers are considered as part of a (late) deuteronomis-
tic redaction of the Pentateuch as a whole, and, more particularly, the redaction which
was also responsible for composing the so-called “Deuteronomistic History” (DtrH)’—
Cf., for example, R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Theologische Wissen
schaft, 1), Stuttgart 31984, 63: ‘Durch deuteronomistische (dtr) Arbeit hat offenbar auch
der Pentateuch seine vorpriesterschrftl. Endgestalt bekommen. Das ist auch von da her
wahrscheinlich, daß dieser der Priesterschrift vorliegende “Pentateuch” bereits mit dem
Dt verbunden gewesen sein dürfte, oder wohl richtiger mit dem großen Geschichtswerk,
das die Bücher Dtn-Kön enthalten. Diese Bücher aber sind anerkanntermaßen dtr
redigiert. So muß von vornherein damit gerechnet werden, daß spätestens bei seiner
Zusammenfügung mit diesen Büchern auch der vorpriesterschriftl. Bestand von Gen-
Num eine dtr Redaktion erfahren hat’.
52 Cf. Vervenne, ‘Current Tendencies’, 51: ‘(. . .) late flowerer (late -Dtr)’.
53 Cf. Vervenne, ‘The Question of “Deuteronomic” Elements’, 251: ‘Post-dtr redaction:
“Deuteronomic” elements in the Tetrateuch do not stem from a dtr redaction, but result
from post-dtr reworkings, which can be identified with either a late J, i.e. a creative author
imbued with the spirit of DtrH, or a post-exilic theological composer’.
54 Cf. T. Römer, ‘Israel’s Sojourn in the Wilderness and the Construction of the Book
of Numbers’, in R. Rezetko et al. (eds), Reflection and Refractio:. Studies in Biblical
Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (SVT, 113), Leiden 2006, 419–446, esp. 438: ‘(. . .)
the author of Numbers 11 also emphasises an anti-deuteronomistic view of prophecy’;
J.T. Willis, Yahweh and Moses in Conflict: The Role of Exod. 4:24–26 in the Book of Exodus
(Bible in History), Bern 2010, 174: ‘(. . .) Exod. 4:24–26 advocates anti-Deuteronomistic
thinking, including making a foreigner conspicuous and presenting Yahweh as seeking to
destroy his servant Moses’.
55 Cf. also J. Van Seters, ‘The So-Called Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch’, in:
J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 58–77, esp. 58: ‘I
wish to address a problem that seems to me particularly pressing in current discussion
in Pentateuchal studies. I refer to the question of the nature and extent of the so-called
Dtr redaction within the pre-Priestly corpus of the Pentateuch and its relationship to
Deuteronomy and the Dtr tradition in the rest of the OT. These texts have been treated in
a variety of ways by scholars. Some have regarded them as belonging to a redaction that
is earlier that Deuteronomy and characterize them as “proto-” or “early” Deuteronomic,
often identified with the redactor of the older sources known as the “Jehovist”. Others
have considered them as part of a late Dtr redaction of the Pentateuch as a whole, the
same as, or later than, those responsible for the corpus from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings. A
third possibility is to consider the composition of the Tetrateuch in its Yahwistic from as
quite late and therefore to view the Dtr elements not as redactional but as reflectioning
an author contemporary with, or later than, the DtrH’.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 275
trees can no longer be called into question. It is striking, moreover, that the
authors who use the Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic literature as their
frame of reference rarely explain precisely which texts should be classified
under the designation Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic. It is for this rea
son that a clear indication of what one understands by the Deuteronomic or
Deuteronomistic literature one employs as a frame reference has become a
conditio sine qua non. As a result, the establishment of what Lohfink called a
‘deuteronomistische Grundkanon’ has become essential.56 In the first instance
this should be understood as the book of Deuteronomy in its present form.
Given that biblical scholarship tends to be more or less unanimous in ascribing
the books Joshua–2 Kings to one or more Deuteronomistic authors or redac
tors, the Deuteronomistic History can also be considered a component of this
‘Deuteronomistic Canon’. Finally, and against the background of research into
the composition of the book Jeremiah, the elements of this prophetic work
traditionally characterised as Deuteronomistic can also be seen as part of the
said ‘Canon’, albeit with the necessary reservations.57
The acceptance of a ‘Deuteronomistic Canon’ as frame of reference does
not take away the ongoing need to pay attention to the literary-critical difficul
ties inherently related to this Deuteronomistic corpus. It is important that we
remain aware of the fact that the book of Deuteronomy, the complex Joshua–
2 Kings, and the segments of the book of Jeremiah typified as Deuteronomistic
58 Cf. Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, 322: ‘Abgesehen von den
Grundtexten der deuteronomischen Kultregelung und vielleicht der Sozialgesetzgebung
könnte im Geseztz des joschijanischen Bundesschlusses möglicherweise gar nicht so
viel gestanden haben. Aber nur dan, was damals da stand, wäre nach dem Ansatz Well
hausens “deuteronomisch” zu nennen. Der Rest wäre “deuteronomistisch”. Dann wäre
aber die sprachliche, theologische und literarische Eigenart dessen, was man “deuterono
mistisch” nennt, nur im ganz wenigen von “Deuteronomischem” abgeleitet, sie wäre eher
in sich etwas Ursprüngliches. So ist es ganz und gar sachgemäß, wenn man von einem
weiteren Grundkanon deuteronomistischer Schriften ausgeht. Umso wichtiger werden
dann allerdings Fragen nach Schichtungen innerhalb des deuteronomistischen Grund
kanons, will man abermals weitere Texte als “deuteronomistisch” identifizieren’—see
also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 7–8: ‘Though the Book of Deu
teronomy quite probably consists of different editorial strands, no established criterion
exists by which we can determine either the extent of each strand of its composition or its
ideological teaching. Many scholars assert that two editorial strands may be discerned in
the deuteronomic history, which is not improbable, considering that it contains different
literary strata. But again we have no fixed criterion by which we may differentiate between
two editorial stages’. Reference can be made in this regard, for example, to Deut. 5:5,
which, according to C.H.W. Brekelmans, ‘Deuteronomy 5: Its Place and Function’, in:
Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, 164–173, esp. 165 is a post-Deuteronomistic addition.
In the present author’s opinion, and for a variety of reasons, Deut. 26:9 should also not be
considered typically Deuteronomic (cf. Ausloos, ‘Deuteronomi(sti)c Elements’, 493–494).
Against this background, Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, 322 is
critical of Blum’s approach—in the present author’s view justifiably: ‘(. . .) Erhard Blum
enthebt sich neuerdings bei der Rekonstruktion seiner pentateuchischen “Komposition
D” jeder Frage nach der innerdeuteronomistischen Textgeschichte, indem er für sie ein
fach das abgeschlossene Geschichtswerk Noths voraussetzt. Ich fände es, wenn man
schon Riesentextbestände wie eine “Komposition D” deuteronomistischen Händen zu-
schreiben will, angebrachter, innerhalb der innerdeuteronomistischen Textgeschichte
nach jener Schicht zu suchen, die von der “Komposition D” nun genau vorausgesetzt wird
oder gar auf die gleichen Hände zurückgeführt werden kann. Ist das nicht möglich, dann
muß man überlegen, ob man nicht schon in eine Periode geraten ist, wo die deuterono
mistische Literatur bereits öffentliche Domäne war un deshalb jeder Textverfasser auf
ihre Sprache und ihre Ideen zurückgreifen konnte, ohne deshalb zu einer eingrenzbaren
deuteronomistischen Gruppe, Bewegung oder Schule gehören zu müssen. Dann ist die
Bezeichnung “Komposition D” aber irreführend’. Cf. also N. Lohfink, ‘Deutéronome et
Pentateuque: État de la recherche’, in: P. Haudebert (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Débats et recher-
ches. xiv ème Congrès de l’ACFEB, Angers 1991 (LD, 151), Paris 1992, 35–64, esp. 37: ‘La théorie
récente la plus développée sur le Pentateuque se trouve sans conteste dans les deux tomes
de Erhard Blum des années 1984 et 1990. Cela fait en tout plus de mille pages. Pourtant,
on n’y trouve qu’une seule note de bas de page concernant la critique interne et l’histoire
rédactionelle du Deutéronome!’.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 277
59 Cf. in this regard W.H. Schmidt, Einführung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 51995, 54: ‘Wie
hängt die deuteronomisch-deuteronomistische Redaktion mit der Einfügung des
Deuteronomiums in den Pentateuch zusammen—geschah sie gleichzeitig, oder setzt sie
diese voraus? Zumindest gelegentlich erinnert die Redaktion mehr an späte Schichten
des Deuteronomiums oder an deuteronomistische Texte’. P. Weimar, Untersuchungen zur
Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch (BZAW, 146), Berlin 1977, 169–170 clearly associates
his first Deuteronomistic redaction with the so-called ‘Ur-Deuteronomy’.
60 The hypothesis that the book of the law found during the reign of Josiah can be identified
with (a form of) Deuteronomy was already called into question at the beginning of the
20th century by, among others, Berry, ‘The Code Found in the Temple’, 44–51; G. Hölscher,
‘Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums’, ZAW 40 (1922), 161–255.
61 See, for example, H. Schmidt, ‘Stehen wir vor einer neuen Periode der Literarkritik im
Alten Testament?, Theologische Blätter 2 (1923), 223–226, esp. 223 with respect to Hölscher’s
hypothesis: ‘Jedem Kundigen ist deutlich, was dieser Nachweis, wenn er Hölscher geglückt
ist, bedeutet. Er stürtzt eine Hypothese, die seit De Wette (. . .) allmählich zu einer fast
allgemeinen Anerkennung gelangt und die eigentlich tragende Säule des kunstvolles
Baues ist, den die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft der letzten Generation, den besonders
Julius Wellhausen errichtet hat’.
62 See e.g. B.M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, New York
1997, 12–13; 65; 68, who switches between ‘proto-’ and ‘pre-’Deuteronomic.
278 chapter 5
as to what exactly each of the terms is intended to cover. In what follows, there
fore, I will endeavour to provide, as careful as possible, a description of the
aforementioned terms, bearing in mind the problems potentially associated
with each. In so doing, I take the presupposition that a typically Deuteronomic
basic text once existed as my point of departure. If one accepts this possibility,
then one is also obliged to accept—more or less—the stages I will discuss in
the following pages.
63 See also M. Vervenne, ‘Le récit de la Mer (Exode xiii 17–xiv 31) reflète-t-il une rédaction
de type deutéronomique? Quelques remarques sur le problème de l’identification des
éléments deutéronomiqes contenus dans le Tétrateuque’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress
Volume: Cambridge 1995 (SVT, 66), Leiden 1997, 365–380.
64 Undoubtedly, the ‘Deuteronomist’ also has made use of non-biblical, i.c. neo-Assyrian
traditions. See in this regard K. Schmid, ‘Hatte Wellhausen Recht? Das Problem der lite
rarhistorischen Anfänge des Deuteronomismus in den Königsbüchern’, in M. Witte et al.
(eds), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche
Perspektiven zur ‘Deuteronomismus’-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW,
365), Berlin 2006, 19–43, esp. 21–22.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 279
65 Attention to the possibility that a redactor turned away from the ideas of his source text
can also be found in Brekelmans, ‘Éléments deutéronomiques’, 79: ‘Sans doute, il n’est
pas exclu qu’également des textes postdeutéronomiques reprennent des éléments deuté
ronomiques, tout en abandonnant ou en modifiant d’autres éléments conformément à
leur propre point de vue’. See also supra in relation to the concept anti-Deuteronom(ist)ic.
See a.o. J.E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal
Narratives, London 2004.
66 An example might help to clarify the distinction. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deutero
nomic School, 34 claims that the redactor of Deut. 7 made use of Exod. 23:20–33. Given his
aversion to the role of the angel he left the latter out of his own composition. It is for this
reason also that Weinfeld’s approach considers it incorrect to characterise the position
held by the angel in Exod. 23:20–33 as proto-Deuteronomic. See Idem, ‘The Emergence
of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents’, in Lohfink (ed.), Das
Deuteronomium, 76–98, esp. 84.
67 Kuenen, Historical-Critical Inquiry, 107 considered Deut. 12–26 as stemming ‘from one
author’. He adds, however that ‘the author of xii.–xxvi. composed the introduction
280 chapter 5
(v.–xi.) subsequently, with his eye upon the laws that he had already collected’ (112–113).
Deut. 1:1–4:40, furthermore, is ‘composed by a writer whose spirit responded to that of D1,
and whose interest in history and archaeology made him feel the absence of all mention
of the historical antecedents of the legislative discourse of v.–xxvi. He therefore sup
plied the defect through the mouth of Moses himself. (. . .) These chapters, then, are the
work of one of the followers of D1, whom we may designate provisionally as D2’ (117–118).
Cf., however: ‘Now it is perfectly true that D1 himself is not always consistent. For exam
ple, he insists, according to the changing needs of his admonitions, now upon the great
ness (Deut. x. 22; xxvi. 5) and now upon the smallness (vii. 7, cf. i, 17, 22; ix. 1; xi. 23) of
Israel’s numbers’ (135 n. 31).
68 It should be noted against this background, however, that agreement between a
Deuteronom(ist)ic text and another Old Testament passage may be due to the fact that a
common source text lies at the basis of both.
69 As W. Baumgartner, ‘Der Kampf um das Deuteronomium’, TR 1 (1929), 7–25, esp. 19
already noted: ‘Schien bis vor kurzem die Frage nach dem Alter des Dt. entschieden zu
sein, indem man das Urdt. kurz vor der Auffindung, als Reaktion gegen die Zustände
unter Manasse, frühestens in Zusammenhang mit der Reform des Hiskia, entstanden
sein ließ, so bietet sich heute eine reiche Musterkarte von Ansätzen dar’—Cf., however,
M. Weinfeld, ‘Deuteronomy’, ABD 2 (1992), 168–183, esp. 171: ‘There is a general agreement
in regards to chaps. 4:44–28:68. It is believed that these chapters constituted the original
book, which was later supplemented by an additional introduction (1:6–4:40) and by var
iegated material at the end of the book (chaps. 29–30)’.
70 For the problems associated with the genesis of the book of Deuteronomy, reference
should be made to Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 279–342.
71 Cf. against this background the remark of Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine Deuteronomistische
Bewegung?’, 351.
72 Cf. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 4: ‘Die Aussonderung einer “deuterono
mistischen” Schicht in den genannten Büchern ist auf Grund sprachlicher Indizien
erfolgt, und der Sprachbeweis bleibt auch die sicherste Grundlage für die Zuweisung der
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 281
likewise falls under this heading. Should it appear that certain Old Testament
passages deserve to be ascribed to one or more authors or redactors who
edited the Deuteronomistic History, then such pericopes ought also to be
considered Deuteronomistic.73 Here too we are presented with the difficulty
that the ‘Deuteronomistic’ language and ideas developed gradually
(early-Deuteronomistic).
– The category ‘post-Deuteronomistic’ is to be ascribed a relatively unique
place. Texts composed under the influence of, with the use of, referring to
and exhibiting direct (literary) dependent on the Deuteronomistic litera
ture are to be included under this heading. Reference can be made in this
regard to the studies of Blum, Van Seters, Rose and Johnstone, among oth
ers. Each of these authors is convinced that the author, redaction or compo
sition on which their study focuses was directly dependent on and made use
of the Deuteronomistic History.
September 17th 1991: ‘This crisis [in biblical studies—H.A.] cannot be overcome (. . .) by
inventing ever more complicated and semi-mysterious terms for already familiar matters’.
75 I borrow the idea of imitating Deuteronom(ist)ic literature from Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine
Deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, 366. See also, in line with Lohfink, Vervenne, ‘Current
Tendencies’, 51. Vervenne does not distinguish, however, between post-Deuteronomistic
texts and passages in which the Deuteronomistic literature is imitated: ‘As a consequence,
one may characterise such elements as (. . .) “imitation” (post-Dtr)’. Lohfink also employs
the term ‘Fort schreibung’ (Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung?’,
358; 367). See also in this regard, R. Kossmann, Die Esthernovelle: Vom Erzählten zur
Erzählung—Studien zur Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte des Estherbuches (SVT, 79),
Leiden 2000, who argues that the vocabulary of the book of Esther exhibits significant
agreement with the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic vocabulary. She observes, however, that
in terms of content the book of Esther moves in precisely the opposite direction. She
ascribes the similarity tentatively to the ‘Fortschreibung’ of the Deuteronom(ist)ic lan
guage in the diaspora. Also according to J. Van Seters, ‘Creative Imitation in the Hebrew
Bible’, Studies in Religion 29 (2000), 395–409, esp. 400–402, ‘creative imitation likewise
explains the parallels between Deuteronomy and Exodus–Numbers’ (400). As a matter of
fact, Van Seters’ Yahwist can be considered a ‘skillful historian and imitator’ (400).
76 For the use of the expression in the Old Testament literature, see H. Ausloos, ‘“A Land
Flowing with Milk and Honey”. Indicative of a Deuteronomistic Redaction?’, ETL 75
(1999), 297–314.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 283
I am conscious of the fact that this schema tends to simplify a complex issue.
Indeed, in studying a pericope one must always account for ‘die Möglichkeit
komplexerer wechselseitiger Beziehungen’.79 A pericope in which one char
acterises certain elements as proto-Deuteronomic, for example, may have
been reworked at a later stage by a Deuteronomistic or post-Deuteronomistic
redactor.80
78 At the same time, one has to account for the possibility that certain elements character
ised as Deuteronom(ist)ic were part de facto of the accepted religious language of the
period in question.
79 Cf. Blum, Studien, 178. Cf. also the objection of Schmidt, Einführung, 54: ‘Führen die
Zusätze auf das Deuteronomium hin, bieten sie also eine sog. vor- bzw. protodeute
ronomische Sprache (des 7. JH. v.Chr.), oder gehören sie nicht vielmehr der exilisch-
nachexilischen Zeit an? Hat man eventuell eine mehrstufige Redaktion anzunehmen,
die sich vom sog. Protodeuteronomischen bis zum Deuteronomistischen erstreckt?
Reicht für eine solche Differenzierung aber der Sprachbeweis aus?’.
80 Given the fact that the majority of the aforementioned terms (proto-Deuteronomic,
early-Deuteronomistic, post-Deuterono mistic, late-Deuteronomistic and simili-
Deuteronomistic) are well established in Old Testament research, I am not inclined to
distance myself from them completely. I am convinced, nevertheless, that the
said concepts are artificial constructions, used to explain everything related to
the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature which has been exalted as the norm. This is particularly
striking in relation to the term ‘proto-Deuteronomic’. It is only from the perspective of the
researcher, moreover, that a pericope is characterised as proto-Deuteronomic. It is for this
reason I would argue that one cannot simply designate a passage as proto-Deuteronomic
without the awareness that the said passage is an entity in itself, albeit one in which a
preamble to the Deuteronomic literature can be distinguished. An example might help to
clarify this position. A contribution penned by M. Vervenne appeared in L. Leijssen et al.
(eds), Geloven als toekomst: Godsdienstpedagogische visies en bijdragen aangeboden aan
Professor Jozef Bulckens bij zijn emeritaat, Leuven 1995, 79–94 under the title: ‘ “To Bind
or Not to Bind, that is the Question”. Een exegetische oefening over Genesis 22’. For the
current reader of the said article, the title clearly makes reference to the words ‘To be or
not to be: that is the question’ from the first scene of the third act of Shakespeare’s Hamlet
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 285
This observation implies the need to explore how one can determine
whether a relationship exists between a pericope and the so-called
Deuteronomistic Canon. It goes without say, moreover, that the presence of
the word ארץin Gen. 24:7; Exod. 23:31; Deut. 12:10; Josh. 17:16; Judg. 2:1; 1 Sam.
9:4; 2 Sam. 18:9; 1 Kgs. 8:41; 2 Kgs. 13:20 and Jer. 34:13—all passages that have
been associated with the Deuteronom(ist)ic question to one extent or
another—does not mean that the texts in question are related to one another,
dependent on one another, or even simply ‘Deuteronomistic’. There is thus a
need to focus sufficient attention on establishing workable criteria that must
allow us to make a well-founded judgement on the relationship between
texts and more specifically between the ‘Deuteronomistic Canon’ and other
Old Testament pericopes. This issue will be addressed in the following pages.
[cf. W. Shakespeare, ‘Hamlet’, in W.J. Craig (ed.), Shakespeare: Complete Works, London
1993, 870–907, esp. 886]. It would be ridiculous in the extreme, however, if one were to
characterise this Shakespearean statement as ‘proto-Vervennian’. Cf. also Lohfink, ‘Gab es
eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung’, 349.
81 Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung’, 320 speaks in this regard of the
‘geheime Regel der Ausbaugestalt II’.
82 This vagueness does not disappear in actual research. See e.g. T.B. Dozeman, Commentary
on Exodus (The Eerdmans Critical Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI 2009, 40: ‘The impor
tant point for interpreting the Non-P History is its close relationship to Deuteronomy and
to the Deuteronomistic History. Although these bodies of literature do not represent a
single, unified composition, they share a religious outlook in their late stages of composi
tion, which make it possible to read Genesis through Kings loosely as a broad history of
salvation’.
286 chapter 5
In the following pages we will begin with a brief review of the few scholars
who nevertheless make the effort to address this question. Although the pri
mary aspects of their research was already treated in the context of the status
quaestionis, it seems appropriate at this present juncture to focus explicitly
on the criteria they deployed in their work. Building on these insights, we will
then turn our attention to a number of specific accents to be found in our own
criteriology.
83 E. Talstra, E., Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings
8,14–61 (CBET, 3), Kampen 1993, 22–82 has also devoted attention to the question of (lin
guistic) criteria, primarily against the background of his research into the composition of
the Deuteronomistic History.
84 Within the framework of a study of the Deuteronomistic character of Jer. 18:1–12,
Brekelmans states concisely what he considers the essential criteria for establishing a
relationship between the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature and the rest of the Old Testament:
‘(. . .) arguments from terminology and theology must go together with the literary form
in order to prove the dtrc or non-dtrc origin (. . .)’ (Brekelmans, ‘Jeremiah 18,1–12’, 347).
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 287
Lohfink also strongly insisted on the need for such a criteriology,85 focusing
particular attention on the aspect of style.86 He pointed to the fact that some
Deuteronom(ist)ic passages consistently employ series of infinitives, in con
trast to the Priestly literature in which parallel statements tend to be expressed
using finite verbal forms.87 Lohfink is also of the opinion that composition-
technical elements—such as the framing of texts with parenetic formulas—
likewise deserve particular attention.
85 Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung’, 323–324: ‘(. . .) so komme ich
nun (. . .) zur Frage nach den Kriterien, mit denen das wirklich ‘Deuteronomistische’
identifiziert werden kann. Sie sind vornehmlich sprachlicher Art. Denn im Normalfall
zählt man Wörter und Wendungen auf, zu denen es innerhalb des deuteronomist
ischen Grundkanons Parallelen gibt. Doch erschöpft sich die Methode darin nicht.
Selbstverständlich wird auch auf gemeinsame Inhalte und Interessen hingewiesen, etwa
auf die Themen Kultzentralisation, Jahweallein ver ehrung, Torabeobachtung, verhe
ißener und gefährdeter Landbesitz. Oder gemeinsame Vorstellungskomplexe werden ent
deckt, etwa von Gesetzen des Geschichtsablaufs, die zu Segen oder Fluch führen. Etwas
zu wenig wird nach meiner Meinung auf Stilistisches geachtet, etwa auf die Tatsache, daß
bei rhetorischer Zerdehnung in deuteronomistischen Texten Infinitivanschlüsse bevor
zugt werden, während priesterschriftliche Texte dann eher parallele Sätze mit finiten
Verben bauen. Es kommen kompositorische Schemata auf verschiedensten Ebenen hinzu,
etwa die Rahmung von Texten durch ‘paränetische Formeln’ oder die Gliederung größerer
Geschichtsdarstellungen durch eingefügte deutende Reden. In Einzelfällen glaubt man
auch dem Leser signalisierte Anlehnungen an bestimmte deuteronomistische Einzeltexte
anweisen zu können. Grundsätzlich ist einer solchen Kriterienliste natürlich zuzustim
men. Aber wie wird sie in die Praxis umgesetzt?’ (italics H.A.). This summary agrees to a
significant degree with the objections I formulated a number of years ago in relation to
an earlier status quaestionis on research into the Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the book
of Exodus (H. Ausloos, Deuteronomi[sti]sche elementen in Genesis–Numeri: Een onder-
zoek naar criteria voor identificatie op basis van een literaire analyse van de epiloog van het
‘Verbondsboek’ [Exodus 23,20–33] [unpublished Doctoral dissertation KU Leuven], Leuven
1996, 79–89), which were confirmed by research into the remaining narrative passages in
Genesis–Numbers that have been linked with a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction.
86 Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, 323–325. Cf. also Idem, ‘“Ich bin
Jahwe, dein Artzt” (Ex. 15,26): Gott, Gesellschaft und menschliche Gesundheit in der
Theologie einer nachexilischen Pentateuchbearbeitung’, in: N. Lohfink et al. (eds), ‘Ich
will euer Gott werden’: Beispiele biblischen Redens von Gott (SBS, 100), Stuttgart 1981, 11–73,
esp. 33–39.
87 Compare, for example, Deut. 28:1 with Lev. 26:3.
288 chapter 5
88 Vervenne, ‘Current Tendencies’, 51; Idem, ‘Le récit de la Mer’. A first version of the said
criteria—in dialogue for the most part with Blum and Van Seters—can be found in Idem,
‘The Question of “Deuteronomic” Elements’, 252–254.
89 In his doctoral dissertation, Vervenne already defined ‘form study’ as follows: ‘The term
“form” applies (. . .) not only to the structure of the segment but more importantly to its
syntax and vocabulary, which ought to be studied in relationship with the rest of the OT’.
(M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal [Exodus 13,17–14,31]: Een literaire studie. Status Quaestionis
van het onderzoek. Tekstkritiek. Vormstudie. Traditie en redactie [unpublished Doctoral dis
sertation KU Leuven], Leuven 1986, 186).
90 Vervenne, ‘Current Tendencies’, 51: ‘If a text or some of its elements show neither the
“full” form nor the fixed language and theology of Dt/Dtr tradition but only a partial or
fragmentary agreement, that text or element cannot then be considered as an authentic
witness of the Dt/Dtr tradition. The only thing one can claim is that such a textual com
ponent has an indirect relationship with the Dt/Dtr tradition’.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 289
parative study of the form and content of a pericope is complete can we draw
conclusions on whether a text can be typified as Deuteronom(ist)ic.
When this has been done, we can then move on to the next step, namely
determining whether texts are dependent on one another and if so the ‘direc
tion’ of the said dependence.91 In other words, we have to establish the nature
of the relationship between the texts in question. This implies that we focus
attention on the context, and, moreover, not only on the similarities between
two texts but also on the differences. In addition, such a study implies that
we do not limit ourselves to a comparison with texts already characterised
as Deuteronom(ist)ic, but include rather the entire Old Testament in the
analysis.92 A given style feature may be explicitly present in the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature while also being plainly attested in Priestly or
prophetic texts. This observation implies, however, that the style feature in
question can no longer be seen as exclusively Deuteronom(ist)ic.
In summary: in our analysis of a given text we must first determine whether
there is evidence of a relationship with the ‘Deuteronomistic Canon’. If we can
respond positively to this question on the basis of a form-related and content-
related study of the text then we can move on to explore the nature of the said
relationship.
91 See, in this regard, D.M. Carr, ‘Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence:
An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and its Parallels’, in:
M. Köckert, E. Blum (eds), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex. 32–34 und Dtn 9–10
(Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie, 18), Gütersloh
2001, 107–140; M. Zahn, ‘Reexamining Empirical Models: The Case of Exodus 13’, in: E. Otto,
R. Achenbach (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem
Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Göttingen 2004, 36–55.
92 Cf. e.g. also J. Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant
Code, Oxford 2003, 70–71 (in discussion with me).
290 chapter 5
93 Cf., for example, C Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium (HKAT, 1/3/1), Göttingen 1898;
xxxii–xli; 21923, 41–47; Knobel, Numeri, 586–589; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3,
402–405; P. Kleinert, Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker: Untersuchungen zur
alttestamentlichen Rechts- und Literaturgeschichte, Leipzig 1872, 214–235; J.E. Carpenter,
G. Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch: An Introduction with Select Lists of Words
and Phrases, London 1902, 399–408. J.E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic
Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives, London 2004, 97–98 is rather sceptical with
regard to the use of language as a criterion, because of its ‘reductionistic character’.
94 See also Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, 324—A clear example
of the dangers lurking behind the use of statistical data can be found in N. Lohfink, ‘Die
These vom “deuteronomischen” Dekaloganfang—ein fragwürdiges Ergebnis atomis
tischer Sprachstatistik’, in: G. Braulik (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum
60. Geburtstag, Basel 1977, 99–109; N. Lohfink, ‘Lexeme und Lexemengruppen in Ps 25: Ein
Beitrag zur Technik der Gattunsbestimmung und der Feststellung literarischer Abhängig
keiten’, in: W. Gross et al. (eds), Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65.
Geburtstag, St. Ottilien, 1991, 271–295. Lohfink argues ‘nicht nur statistisch zu arbeiten,
sondern mindestens bei den weniger häufig belegten Ausdrücken die Belegtexte zu stu
dieren. Dabei zeigt sich bald etwas, das die atomistische Statistik verbirgt: es gibt einige
Texte, in denen mehrere (. . .) “deuteronomischen” Ausdrucke geballt vereinigt sind’
(Lohfink, ‘Die These vom “deuteronomischen” Dekaloganfang’, 101).
Fundamental observations with respect to the use of statistics in biblical studies have
been formulated by S. Deck, ‘Wortstatistik—Ein immer beliebter werdendes exegetisches
Handwerkzeug auf dem (mathematischen) Prüfstand’, BN 60 (1991), 7–12. The author first
points out that the Hebrew Bible (hebräische Bibel—B) is only one—and moreover not
representative—facet of a greater whole (Grundgesamtheit—G) of the Hebrew lan
guage spoken and written in every possible Sitze im Leben in the course of several cen
turies. Within this partial collection B there are also various other partial collections
(Untermenge—U) of words that should be ascribed to a single author, such as Isaiah. The
partial collections, however, are in their turn not representative. What has been trans
mitted of the partial collection Isaiah, for example, does not coincide with everything
ever preached by Isaiah. Furthermore, we must also account for the fact that we are only
familiar with certain facets of the partial collection U (U’). U as a result is an unknown
quantity, meaning that we only have a partial collection (U’) at our disposal, namely the
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 291
its context and the way it functions in its context.95 This implies that it is more
or less impossible to draw up unequivocal lists of what we should consider to
be typically Deuteronom(ist)ic vocabulary.96 It is only when we involve the
context in our analysis that we can state with any degree of certainty that there
is a relationship between the linguistic usage of the Deuteronom(ist)ic litera
ture and a text outside the ‘Deuteronomistic canon’.97 This implies in turn than
pericopes (P) that can be ascribed with reasonable certainty to a given author, in our
example Isaiah.
95 Deck, ‘Wortstatistik’, 12 exhorts ‘das Handwerkzeug “Wortstatistik” ganz vorsichtig und
behutsam zu benutzen, weil sonst Fehlschlüsse geradezu vorprogrammiert sind. Hilfrei
cher als Beobachtungen zum rein quantitativen Gebrauch eines Wortes, sind sicher
inhaltliche und am jeweiligen Kontext orientierte Beobachtungen zum Sprachgebrauch
eines Wortes in verschiedenen Zeiten oder literarische Schichten’.
Cf. also Caloz, M., ‘Exode xiii,3–16 et son rapport au Deutéronome’, RB 75 (1968), 5–62,
esp. 10: ‘Nous réduirons parfois la statistique à un sens précis du mot ou à son emploi
dans une expression déterminée. Nous ne pensons pas par ces restrictions fausser
la statistique; au contraire, nous croyons qu’un calcul tout matériel des mots pourrait
nous mettre sur de fausses pistes, car le style d’un écrivain (ou d’une école) se remarque
moins par l’emploi de tel ou tel mot que par le sens précis dans lequel il les utilise’ (ital
ics mine). Reference can also be made in this regard to Weippert, Die Prosareden, 21–25.
See also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 1–2: ‘What makes a phrase
deuteronomic is not its mere occurrence in Deuteronomy, but its meaning within the
framework of deuteronomic theology. Neutral phrases as: ‘ לא תוכלyou are not allowed’;
‘ לא תחוס עיניךyou must show not pity; ‘ איכהhow’; ‘ גדלgreatness’; ‘ היטבthorougly’; קרב
‘the midst; ‘ מעשה ידיםwork of the hands’; ‘ אבהto be willing’; ‘ השמידto destroy’; ושבע
‘ אכלto eat and be satisfied’; ‘ אלהים אחריםforeign gods’; ‘ אות נפשthe desire of the soul’,
although they occur in Deuteronomy very frequently, are part and parcel of the common
Hebrew vocabulary and cannot be considered specifically deuteronomic phrases. Their
more frequent appearance in Deuteronomy than elsewhere may be explained by the spe
cial context in which they appear’.
96 See Kuenen, Historical-Critical Inquiry, 110 n. 4, who warns against the use of statistical
information in the endeavour to characterise an author’s writing style: ‘I need hardly say
that such a list as this [of the principal expressions and turns of language which con
stantly occur in Deut. 12–26—H.A.] even were it far more complete, could never ade
quately characterise the style of the author, a true impression of which cannot really be
gained except by repeated perusal of his work’.
97 Cf., for example, the lists of Deuteronom(ist)ic word use in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and
the Deuteronomic School, 320–365. In spite of the fact that Weinfeld’s study of the ques
tion of Deuteronom(ist)ic language and ideas is ‘un excellent instrument de travail’
(F. Langlamet, Review of M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford
1972], RB 79 [1972], 605–609, esp. 606), reference is only very rarely made to his work. See
also W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft: Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Litera
turtheorie und Methodologie, Göttingen 1971, 99: ‘(. . .) die Wortverbindung läßt (. . .) den
für ein Wort oder einen Begriff typischen Kontext erkennen und zeigt seine sprachliche
292 chapter 5
101 See, for example, my observation concerning the term מקוםin Deut. 26:9 in Ausloos,
‘Deuteronomi(sti)c Elements’, 493–494.
102 Cf. the tendency Lohfink designates as ‘Ausbaugestallt II’, whereby Old Testament texts
are characterised as Deuteronomistic even when there is no relationship with the so-
called Deuteronomistic Canon.
103 It is also important that we account for the possibility that texts developed on the basis of
a common Vorlage. A critical note with respect to Blum’s critique of the use of linguistic
criteria can also be found in Vervenne, ‘The Question of “Deuteronomic” Elements’, 253–
254. See also Talstra, Solomon’s Prayer, 81: ‘(. . .) the method of Brekelmans, Langlamet, and
others (. . .) is characterized by the fact that it not only uses linguistic arguments more
extenxively and carefully but above all with priority. Precisely on account of the impor
tant linguistic component in this method, I believe it deserves further application and
elaboration in the inquiry into the nature of dtr language and the composition of the
DtrH’.
104 In H. Ausloos, ‘The Need for a Linguistic Argumentation in Characterizing Biblical
Pericopes as Deuteronomistic: A Critical Note to E. Blum’s Methodology’, JNSL 23
(1997), 47–56 I engage with Blum in further discussion. J. Blenkinsopp, ‘Deuteronomic
Contribution to the Narrative in Genesis–Numbers: A Test Case’, in: L.S. Schearing,
S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-
Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 8’–115 likewise ascribes an important place
to linguistic analysis.
294 chapter 5
an analysis of the syntactic structure of the text.105 This implies, among other
things, that we should avoid getting bogged down in shallow designations by
alluding, for example, to the parenetic Deuteronomic style. Indeed, any attempt
to provide a concrete definition of the latter would be a perilous undertaking.
It is for this reason that a stylistic study has to be based on tangible data, and
this is only possible when we include the syntactical and grammatical features
of a given text as part of the analysis.106 It is possible, for instance, that a given
pericope is characterised by the frequent use of nominal clauses when one
might expect—according to classical syntax—verbal clauses. It is also pos
sible that a text contains an unusual number of paranomastic constructions.
Reference can be made in addition to the use of interjections, inversions, ver
bal elipsis, metonymy and compound clauses. The stylistic domain likewise
includes the Numeruswechsel question, although it has to be determined on
a case by case basis whether this is a stylistic characteristic or a criterion for
distinguishing different layers or reworkings in a given text.
105 Cf. Römer, ‘L’école deutéronomiste et la formation de la bible hébraique’, 179–181. See Idem,
‘Nombres 11–12 et la question d’une rédaction deutéronomique dans le Pentateuque’, in
Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, 481–498, esp. 484–485.
106 For an overview of the style features said to be characteristic of the Deuteronomistic
redaction of Exod. 3–17, reference can be made to the work of W. Fuss, Die deuteronomis
tische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 3–17 (BZAW, 126), Berlin 1972, 395–399. The approach
to style found in Fuss is, as such, worthy of imitation. It has to be noted, however, that
Fuss ascribes the characteristic style to the Deuteronomistic RJE. Fuss would have been
better advised to determine whether the stylistic characteristics he claims to discern in
RJE actually exhibit agreement with the style of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature before
characterising this JE redaction as Deuteronomistic. A fine example of the use of this sty
listic criterion is given by M. Anbar, ‘L’influence deutéronomique sur le Code de l’Alliance:
Le cas d’Exode 21:12–17’, ZABR 5 (1999), 165–166.
107 Cf. also Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine Deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, 324 with respect to the
‘kompositorische Schemata’ in a text. See equally the remarks by J.L. Ska, Le Pentateuque :
État de la recherche à partir de quelques récentes “Introductions”’, Bib 77 (1996), 245–265,
esp. 257 who speaks about ‘techniques rédactionnelles’.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 295
concerning the firstborn.108 The said laws are presented according to the same
four-part structure. Both consist of an introductory formula followed by the
legal prescription as such,109 which is then followed by a catechetical exhorta
tion. At the end of each panel of the diptych we find a concluding formula.
In addition to structural elements, frequently repeated words can give a text
a strong sense of inner cohesion and may also serve to indicate aspects of its
compositional structure.110
After having thoroughly analysed the form of a given a pericope and deter
mined that it exhibits clear associations with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature
in terms of its language, style and compositional features, we are then at lib
erty to decide whether the text in question should be characterised as being of
the Deuteronom(ist)ic type or not. It must be noted in addition, however, that
the various elements in the text need not all be pointing in the same direc
tion. It is plausible, for example, that a passage only exhibits kinship with the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature at the linguistic level while no agreement can be
demonstrated at the level of style or compositional structure.111
are important in this regard. This implies, however, that one has an over-
view at one’s disposal of the various themes that are specific to the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
As far as the content-related Deuteronom(ist)ic characteristics are
concerned,113 reference can be made to themes such as the centralisation of
the cult, the theological concept of God’s name, the rejection of the temple
as the dwelling place of God, the approach to the ark, the attitude towards
sacrifice, and the ban under which the Canaanite population is to be placed.
Furthermore, the nationalistic and patriotic attitude of Deuteronomy is recog
nisable in the establishment of the borders of the Promised Land. Reference
can be made in addition to the conditional character of the gift of the land in
the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. It is likewise remarkable in this regard that
the loss of the land is never seen as definitive.
Should a close analysis of a pericope reveal that it bears close resemblance
in thematic terms to the content of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, then
we can say that the text in question is of the Deuteronom(ist)ic type. By anal
ogy with the observations made with respect to the form-related study of
a pericope, we must also account here for the possibility that (part of)114 the
said pericope may agree with the Deuteronom(ist)ic theology and Deutero
nom(ist)ic concepts, while in terms of form it does not or only partly exhibits
agreement with the Deuteronom(ist)ic characteristics. Indeed, the opposite is
also equally possible. It is only when we examine a text from the perspective of
both form and content that we are at liberty to characterise it as being of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic type or not.115 Nothing has been said thus far, however, with
present author’s opinion, however, this observation does not undermine the intrinsic
value of form study. The latter is of crucial importance in our endeavour to trace a rela
tionship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
113 Cf. M. Weinfeld, ‘Deuteronomy’, 175–181.
114 It is probable that the study of the form and content of a given pericope will also have
historical-critical implications. Indeed, it is possible that only a portion of a pericope
exhibits kinship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology while the
remained appears to have no link whatsoever with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. The
layered character of a text can thus be determined in part on this basis. On the use of
linguistic arguments, see recently R. Rezetko, ‘The Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges:
Literary Formation, Textual Criticism, and Historical Linguistics’, Journal of Hebrew
Scriptures 13 (2013), article 2 (http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_182.pdf—last
access 05 June 2014).
115 We do not wish to imply here that such language and such content-related points of
interest were the exclusive monopoly of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. Indeed, one
has to account for the possibility that a certain linguistic feature and certain theological
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 297
ideas were part of the accepted religious idiom without thereby characterising the latter
as exclusively Deuteronom(ist)ic. Cf. Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 341 in this regard: ‘Von
Wichtigkeit ist (. . .) die Datierungsfrage der in beiden Schriften gebrauchten Idiome.
Gewöhnlich ist man der Ansicht, daß sich der deuteronomische-deuteronomistische
Sprachgebrauch in den Spätschriften stark durchgesetzt habe (z.B. Dan. 9,4ff.; Esr. 9,6ff.;
Neh. 1,5ff.; 9,6ff.). Man kann sich die Frage stellen, ob deshalb nicht zumindest auch die
Möglichkeit in Betracht gezogen werden muß, daß betreffende Idiome auch schon vor
dem 7./6.Jh. gebräuchlich waren und wir es hier mit dem Phänomen einer religiösen
Sprache zu tun haben, die über Jahrhunderte aufrechterhalten wurde und mehr oder
weniger das gemeinschaftliche Gut eines großes Teils der z.T. konträren und in diversen
Epochen entstandenen alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen ausmacht’.
116 J. Lust, ‘Exodus 6,2–8 and Ezekiel’, in Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus, 209–
224 has focused attention on the complex question of direction of dependence within the
framework of the relationship between Exod. 6:2–8 (P) and Ezekiel.
117 Cf. Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 340–341: ‘(. . .) daß höchste Vorsicht geboten ist, will man
eine literarische Abhängigkeit aufgrund von Stil- und Wortschatzanalysen postulieren’.
298 chapter 5
we cut across the traditional approach and no longer limit ourselves to the
books of Genesis–Numbers as the corpus we should employ for comparison
when studying the vocabulary, language and theology of a given pericope.
Moreover, if we refer exclusively to the Deuteronomistic History and the rest
of the Tetrateuch as our point of comparison in relation to a pericope from
Genesis–Numbers then Brekelmans’ first two criteria can be reversed with
out further ado. The italicised not yet can be replaced in both instances by no
longer, whereby a passage should then be characterised as post-deuteronomic:
a passage is post-Deuteronomic when it no longer exhibits a fully elaborated
form of the Deuteronomic theology. Furthermore, it is possible to encounter
vocabulary and expressions akin to the Deuteronomic formulations in a
post-Deuteronomic pericope, which are no longer employed in an identical
stereotype fashion. Brekelmans’ third criterion, in which similarity between a
proto-Deuteronomic text and other pre-Deuteronomic texts is postulated and
whereby only the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History are included in
the study, is also problematic. Since the 1970s, moreover, large segments of the
Pentateuch and even the Pentateuch as a whole have been considered in an
increasing degree (with or without sound arguments) as a late creation.
These critical remarks in relation to Brekelmans’ criteriology imply a need
to be more thorough when dealing with the problem of dependence than has
hitherto been the case. There is a clear need for a much broader ‘controlling
framework’, that includes the entire Old Testament.118 Moreover, given con
temporary controversy among exegetes concerning the so-called ‘early’ seg
ments of the Tetrateuch (J, E or RJE), it would seem that we no longer have a
solid foundation on which to rely when dating the largest part of the material
118 Cf. J. Van Seters, ‘The So-called Deuteronomistic Redaction’, 59: ‘It seems to me metho
dologically dubious to use the language and terminology of Dtn/Dtr to identify a group of
texts as “proto-D” simply because they are embedded within that part of the Pentateuch
that has been considered by the documentary hypothesis as earlier than Dtn. The only
way that one could properly make such judgments would be to see how the Pentateuchal
texts fit into a stream of development or history of tradition in non-Pentateuchal texts
that clearly begins before Deuteronomy and proceeds beyond Dtr into the exilic and
post-exilic periods. The controlling framework of texts by which to construct the his
tory of tradition must have the support of a broad consensus of scholarship’. See also
J. Van Seters, ‘In the Babylonian Exile with J: Between Judgment in Ezekiel and Salvation
in Second Isaiah’, in: B. Becking, M.C.A. Korpel (eds), The Crisis of Israelite Religion:
Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS, 42), Leiden
1999, 71–89, 87 and Van Seters A Law Book for the Diaspora, 70–71. For further observa
tions concerning the need for a ‘controlling framework’, see H. Ausloos, ‘The Need for
a “Controlling Framework” in Determining the Relationship between Genesis–Numbers
and the So-Called Deuteronomistic Literature’, JNSL 24 (1998), 77–89.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 299
in the Tetrateuch. For this reason it seems necessary to involve the remain
ing books of the Old Testament in the analysis, devoting special attention
to the prophetic literature, although here as well the issue of the dating
becomes more and more disputed.119 It would be possible in theory to limit
oneself in such a comparison to non-Priestly literature. I am more inclined
to argue, however, that one would adopt a less prejudiced position in such
a study if one were to involve the entire Old Testament. Indeed, there is a—
steadily increasing—lack of unanimity with regard to the scope of the Priestly
material.120 Furthermore, texts traditionally characterised as Priestly can also
contain significant clues with respect to the nature of the relationship between
the pericope under analysis and the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, which has
recently led scholars to characterise some traditionally Deuteronom(ist)ic pas
sages as post-Deuteronomistic/post-Priestly.
In the present author’s opinion, the evolution of the Hebrew language can
also function as an additional argument for relating a given passage to the pre-
and post-history of the Deuteronomic literature.121 Without going into detail
on the concrete feasibility of this criterion, I am convinced nevertheless that
further research needs to be done at this level. Relatedly, the historical Sitz
im Leben to which a pericope refers can also function as an added argument.122
It should also be noted in this regard, however, that I suggest this criterion
as a theoretical possibility without making a statement about its concrete
applicability.
At the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, Geddes and
Vater had already started to focus attention on the presence of what was later
119 See also D.M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction, Oxford 2011,
321–323.
120 See, for example, the position of G. Fischer, ‘Zur Lage der Pentateuchforschung’, ZAW 115
(2003), 608–616.
121 Cf. against this background J. Hoftijzer, ‘Holistic or Compositional Approach? Linguistic
Remarks to the Problem’, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate
on Method in Old Testament Exegesis: Papers Read at the Ninth Joint Meeting of Het
Oudtestamentische Werkgezel schap in Nederland en België and The Society for Old
Testament Study Held at Kampen, 1994 (SVT, 34), Leiden 1995, 98–114; Rezetko, ‘The
Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges’, 31–61. See also, for example, H. Bauer, P. Leander,
Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments, Bd. 1: Einleitung,
Schriftlehre, Laut- und Formenlehre, Halle 1922.
122 Cf., for example, Schmidt, ‘Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches’.
300 chapter 5
123 See also in this regard E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint and the Deuteronomists’, in Idem, Hebrew
Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSAJ, 121), Tübingen 2008, 398–417 on
Deuteronom(ist)ic ‘reworkings’ in the lxx of the books Joshua–Kings.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 301
124 For this section, see Ausloos, ‘Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in Exod. 23,20–33?’, 489–500.
125 F. Stolz Jahwes und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen im Glauben des
alten Israels (ATANT, 60), Zürich 1972, 76: ‘Das Wort hekîn (bzw. kônen) entstammt dabei
der Jerusalemer Kulttradition und wird für die göttliche Gründung der Stadt bzw. des
Tempels verwendet (Ps. 48,9; 87,5)’.
126 F. Crüsemann, Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes,
München 1992, 209–213.
127 Crüsemann refers to J. Gamberoni, ‘’מקום, TWAT 4 (1984), 1113–1124, esp. 1118, who states
that מקוםis used as ‘the land’ in Gen. 13:3, 4, 14–17; Exod. 3:8, 17; 23:20; Ezek. 21:35.
Crüsemann contradicts this statement, however, by arguing that only Exod. 3:8 can be
understood in this particular way. He concludes: ‘die Sonderrolle von māqōm in Exod.
23,20 hängt allein am Kontext, der auf Landnahme hinzuweisen scheint’ (Crüsemann, Die
Tora, 210 n. 358).
128 With reference to K. Koch, ‘’כון, TWAT 4 (1984), 95–107.
129 According to Crüsemann, the expression הכין מקוםonly occurs in 1 Chron. 15:1, 3; 2 Chron.
3:1; 33:19 [i.e. 33:16]; 35:20. In these passages, however, the combination of both words is
only present in 1 Chron. 15:1, 3; 2 Chron. 3:1. Cf. 2 Chron. 33:16: ;ויכן את מזבח יהוה2 Chron.
35:20: אשר היכן יאשיהו את הבית.
302 chapter 5
dealing with the sanctuary.130 These four elements lead him to the conclusion
that the term מקוםin Exod. 23:20 does not refer to the Promised Land, but
points to the sanctuary.131 As a result, and within the context of the epilogue
of the Book of the Covenant, Exod. 23:20 would appear to allude to Israel’s
protection by the angel of yhwh on their way to the sanctuary. According to
Crüsemann, Exod. 23:23 uses an almost identical formulation to say that the
angel will accompany the people on their journey to the foreign nations, away
from the sanctuary.132 As a consequence, the main theme of Exod. 23:20–33*
in Crüsemann’s view is God’s protection of Israel, even when it is not yet or no
longer in the sanctuary, but in the midst of non-Israelite peoples.
Despite Crüsemann’s interesting suggestion, there remain sound arguments
that make it plausible to consider the word מקוםas being used in relation to
the Promised Land.133 Firstly, the combination הכין מקוםonly occurs in Exod.
23:20; 1 Chron. 15:1, 3; 2 Chron. 3:1. In contrast to Exod. 23:20, however, David
is mentioned as the subject of הכיןin 1 and 2 Chronicles. In Chronicles, more
over, an explicit reference is made to the sanctuary.134 Secondly, it is unusual
in the Old Testament for God or his angel to lead (—בואhifil) the people to or
away from the sanctuary.135 It is more common, especially in the Pentateuch,
for God to conduct the people to the Promised Land.136 A third argument in
130 As to Exod. 20:24; 21:13, cf. Crüsemann, Die Tora, 201–208.
131 Crüsemann, Die Tora, 211: ‘(. . .) dann liegen so massive Gründe vor, den Ort von 23,20 auf
ein Heiligtum bzw. einen Tempel zu beziehen’.
132 Crüsemann, Die Tora, 211–212: ‘Der ältere Text [i.e. Exod. 23:20, 21 (without כי לא ישא
;)לפשעכםExod. 23:22, 23 (without ;)והכחדתיוExod. 23:24, 32, 33d (])כי יהיה לך למוקש
spricht nicht von einen fiktiven Punkt außerhalb des Landes und weit vor der jetzigen
Zeit. Es geht vielmehr um Menschen und Völker, mit denen man im Lande lebt. Wenn
in V. 20 der Zug ins Heiligtum angesprochen ist (. . .), dann ist in Ex. 23,23 derselbe Weg
in der anderen Richtung gemeint. Es geht um die Begleitung vom Heiligtum, in dem die
Gegenwart Gottes zugesagt ist, nach Hause. Die Angeredeten leben – jedenfalls potenti
ell und grundsätzlich – mit Menschen zusammen, die andere Götter verehren. Zu ihnen
begleitet sie der Gottesbote’.
133 H.-D. Neef, ‘ “Ich selber bin in ihm” (Ex. 23,21): Exegetische Beobachtungen zur Rede vom
“Engel des Herrn” in Ex. 23,20–22; 32,34; 33,2; Jdc 2,1–5; 5,23’, BZ 39 (1995), 54–75 likewise
argues against Crüsemann’s thesis.
134 Cf. ( ארון האלהים1 Chron. 15:1); ( ארון יהוה1 Chron. 15:1); ( בית יהוה בירושלם2 Chron. 3:1).
135 See Isa. 56:7; Ps. 43:3; 78:54. Cf. also Ezek. 11:1; 8:7, 14, 16; 40:17, 28, 35, 48; 41:1; 42:1; 43:5; 44:4;
46:19. Ezekiel recounts that yhwh takes the prophet in a vision into the new temple. This,
however, has nothing in common with the tendency to bring the people to the temple to
worship yhwh. Cf. also Exod. 15:17, where בהר נחלתךis parallel with מקדש אדני, and
also, according to Preuß in Exod. 19:4: E. Preuß, ‘’בוא, TWAT 1 (1973), 542.
136 ( בואhifil) with yhwh as subject and the land as object: Exod. 6:8; 13:5, 11; 23:23;
Lev. 18:3; 20:22; 26:41; Num. 14:3, 8, 16, 24, 31; 15:18; Deut. 4:38; 6:10, 23; 7:1; 8:7; 9:4, 28; 11:29;
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 303
favour of the meaning ‘land’ can be found in the use of the list of peoples.
In Crüsemann’s view, the angel will protect the Israelites in the land when they
go to and return from the sanctuary. In the context of the journey to the for
eign peoples, however, the list of peoples is only summed up when the giving/
taking possession of their land is the focal point.137 None of the passages con
taining a list of peoples deals with a cultic activity of Israel. The final argument
concerns the close connection with Deut. 26:9 and Judg. 2:1, dealing with the
taking possession of the land. In my view, therefore, these four arguments lead
to the conclusion that the term מקוםin Exod. 23:20 cannot be linked to Israel’s
sanctuary. It refers, on the contrary, to Israel’s taking possession of the land.
This example illustrates the importance of detecting the exact meaning
of the word מקוםin its context. Only after this analysis has been done, can
we closely examine the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic character of the word.
At this point, it becomes methodologically significant to compare the use of
the term מקוםin Exod. 23:20 with the way it is employed in Deuteronomy
and the so-called Deuteronomistic History, but equally with the sections out
side this complex traditionally considered Deuteronomistic (the ‘controlling
framework’ of the ‘Deuteronomistic canon’).138
Although used for the most part in relation to the Israelite sanctuary,139
Deuteronomy also uses the word מקוםin a more neutral sense.140 In Deut.
12:2, 3, the term occurs with the connotation of a pagan sanctuary.141 There is
26:9; 30:5; 31:20, 21; Josh. 24:8; Judg. 2:1; Jer. 2:7 ( ;)אל ארץ הכרמל3:14 ( ;)ציון23:8 (;)שם
Ezek. 20:15 ( זבת חלב ודבש. . . ;)הארץ20:28 (;)הארץ אשר נשאתי את ידי לתת אותם
34:13 ( ;)אל אדמת ישראל37:21 ( ;)אל האדמה39:2 ( ;)על הרי ישראל40:2 (;)אל ארץ ישראל
Neh. 9:23 ()אל הארץ אשר אמרת לאבתיהם.
137 Exod. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:2; 34:11; Deut. 7:1–2; 20:17; Josh. 3,10.
138 Cf. Van Seters, ‘The So-called Deuteronomistic Redaction’, 59.
139 מקוםas the sanctuary of yhwh in Deuteronomy: Deut. 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23, 24,
25; 15:20; 16:2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11. As indicating the sanctuary of
yhwh, מקוםin Deuteronomy is always used as an element of a vey stereotypical expres
sion: המקום אשר יבחר יהוה, to which sometimes more specific information is added.
This ‘typical’ Deuteronomic expression can only be found in Deuteronomy. See, for
example, B. Halpern, ‘The Centralization Formula in Deuteronomy’, VT 31 (1981), 20–38;
N. Lohfink, ‘Zur deuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel’, Bib 65 (1984), 297–329; E. Otto,
Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal (BWANT, 107), Stuttgart 1975, 204; H. Weippert, ‘“Der Ort, den
Jahwe erwählen wird, um dort seinen Namen wohnen zu lassen”: Die Geschichte einer
alltestamentlichen Formel’, BZ 24 (1980), 76–94; H. Wildberger, ‘Neuinterpretation des
Erwählungsglaubens: Israel in der Krise der Exilszeit’, in: H.J. Stoebe et al. (eds) Wort –
Gebot – Glaube: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments – Walter Eichrodt zum 80.
Geburtstag (ATANT, 59), Zürich 1970, 307–324, esp. 311–313.
140 מקוםas a profan term: Deut. 1:31, 33; 9:7; 11:5; 11:24; 21:19; 23:17; 29:6.
141 מקוםas a pagan sanctuary: Deut. 12:2, 3. Cf. also Deut. 12:13.
304 chapter 5
only one passage within the book of Deuteronomy where the term מקוםmight
refer to the Promised Land, as is the case in Exod. 23:20, namely Deut. 26:9:
ויבאנו אל המקום הזה ויתן לנו את הארץ הזאת. In this instance, the word is used
in a parallel sense to ארץ. Nevertheless, it remains possible that the author
of Deut. 26:9 used מקוםas refering to the sanctuary which was mentioned
in Deut. 26:2. Whatever the case, the use of מקוםin Deut. 26:9 cannot be
considered as typically Deuteronomic.142 Firstly, if the term were to refer to
the sanctuary, it would not correspond to the stereotypical Deuteronomic
formula המקום אשר יבחר יהוה. As already observed, moreover, it would be
extraordinary in Deuteronomy that God would lead the people to the sanc
tuary. Secondly, if המקום הזהin Deut. 26:9—in parallel to —הארץ הזאתwere
to refer to the Promised Land, even then it would not conform to the way
in which Deuteronomy deals with the land.143 As a result, the occurence
of מקוםin Exod. 23:20, alluding to the Promised Land, can be labelled as
non-Deuteronomic.144
The use of the term מקוםto signify ‘land’ is also evident elsewhere in
Genesis–Numbers.145 Although some of these passages have been labeled
Deuteronom(ist)ic for other reasons, they do not suppport the characterisa
tion of the term מקוםin Exod. 23:20 as Deuteronomistic. Similar conclusions
can be drawn from an analysis of the term in the so-called Deuteronomistic
History and the rest of the Old Testament: מקוםis a commonly used word with
many different meanings.146
142 Cf. Brekelmans, ‘Éléments deutéronomiques’, 85: ‘La liaison [de ]בואavec ‘el hammāqôm
qui ne se rencontre qu’ici et en Deut., xxvi,9, n’est pas précisément deutéronomique,
étant donné qu’en D, hammāqôm désigne habituellement le temple et non le pays’.
143 See, e.g. J.G. Plöger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen
zum Deuteronomium (BBB, 26), Bonn 1967, 61–100.
144 See also Lohfink, ‘Zur deuteronomischen Zentralizationsformel’, 302.
145 Gen. 13:14; Exod. 3:8; Num. 10:29; 14:40; 32:17.
146 Cf. also W. Richter, ‘’מקום, TWAT 4 (1984), 1113–1125. In reference to the land, the term is
used in Judg. 11:19; 18:10; 1 Sam. 12:8; 2 Sam. 7:10//1 Chron. 17:9; 2 Kgs. 18:25. There is no
close relationship, however, between Exod. 23:20 and these passages. In addition, as in
Exod. 23:20, it is impossible to link the use of מקוםin the so-called Deuteronomistic
History with the way Deuteronomy deals with the land. Furthermore, for the occurences
in the so-called Deuteronomistic History, it is important to be aware of the fact that a
term is not typically Deuteronomistic if it occurs a few times in a specific meaning in the
Deuteronomistic History (in this corpus, the term מקוםoccurs more than one hundred
times in a myriad of different meanings!). See also the use of מקוםin Jer. 7:3, 6, 7, 12, 14, 20).
Scholars do not agree, however, on the exact meaning of the word in this context. In some
instances the term refers to the land, but in such cases מקוםrefers to Judah and not to the
Promised Land as a whole. See, for example, Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 305
As a result of this brief investigation of the use of the term מקום, meaning
‘land’, it can be stated that the occurence of the word in Exod. 23:20 cannot
be used as an argument confirming the so-called Deuteronomistic character
of Exod. 23:20–33: the term does not occur in that meaning in Deuteronomy
and there is no close relationship between its usage in Exod. 23:20 and the
Deuteronomistic History.
A further example, also taken from the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant,
provides an even better clarification of the difficulties related to character
ising a Pentateuchal text as Deuteronomistic. The clause כי יהיה לך למוקש
(Exod. 23:33) has often been labeled as part of the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic
insertion Exod. 23:31b–33.147 In this respect, scholars are accustomed to refer
ing to passages such as Exod. 34:12; Deut. 7:16; Josh. 23:13; Judg. 2:3; 8:27, and
even Ps. 10:36, all passages that are considered Deuteronom(ist)ic.148 But a
more detailed analysis in support of the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of this
expression remains absent.
Since the studies of Brekelmans and Lohfink, which pointed to proto-
Deuteronomic elements in Genesis–Numbers, some scholars have tried
to provide more elaborate arguments in order to accentuate the pre- or
149 Brekelmans, ‘Éléménts deutéronomiques’, 88; Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 172–176. Follow
ing in their footsteps, F. Langlamet, ‘Israël et “l’habitant du pays”’, RB 76 (1969), 321–350,
esp. 345, writes: ‘Quant aux textes à situer dans le voisinage de Dtr, leur parenté avec
Dtr peut varier considérablement. Il aurait fallu distinguer: Ex., xxiii,33; xxxiv,12; Jug.,
ii,3; viii,27 (le Ps., cvi,36 dépend des textes précédents) qui pourraient être antérieurs à
Dtr, et Jos., xxiii,13, texte Dtr, où מוקשest associé a פח, comme en Is., viii,14. Le fait que
Dtr, en Jos., xxiii,13, ne reprenne pas telle quelle l’expression traditionelle nous invite à
la prudence en ce qui concerne les autres textes. Ajoutons que ces passages se rattachent
presque tous au “texte d’alliance à Gilgal” (Lohfink). C’est une raison de plus pour éviter
de trancher prématurement une question aussi délicate’. Otto, Das Mazzotfest, 221 argues
in favour of a common Vorlage of Exod. 23; 34; Deut. 7. His arguments concerning Exod.
23:33 are as follows: Exod. 23:32–33; 34:16 and Deut. 7 have a prohibition on making cov
enants with the inhabitants of the land. Exod. 34:16 and Deut. 7:3 agree with each other
in introducing this prohibition in relation to the theme of the connubium. Exod. 23:32
adds ולאלהיהם, giving the commandment a cultic accent. In Exod. 23:33, however, the
prohibition concerning the connubium is no longer present. If Exod. 23 was the Vorlage
of Exod. 34 and Deut. 7, it is not clear why the cultic accent of Exod. 23 disappeared. If
Exod. 23 is dependent on Deut. 7, why was the prohibition concerning the connubium not
integrated? In addition, if Exod. 34 explicitly accentuates cultic apostacy and regards the
connubium as the immediate cause, the interdiction in Deut. 7 thus becomes the most
central topic. On the basis of theses elements, Otto decides that Exod. 23; 34; Deut. 7 have
a common Vorlage: ‘Ex. 23; 34; Dtn 7 haben also auf je verschiedene Weise das alle drei
Überlieferungen zugrunde liegende Bundesschlußverbot kultisch akzentuiert’ (221).
150 Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 128: ‘(. . .) Beziehungen zum deuteronomisch-deutero
nomistischen Bereich sind nach all unsere Feststellungen ohnehin zu erwarten. Nur ist
ebenso begründet zu fragen, ob sie nicht etwa ins Vorfeld des Deuteronomium führen’.
See, however, also the use of מוקשin relation to idolatry in Judg. 8:27. Reference should
also be made to ( יקשqal: ‘lay a trap’ in Jer. 50:24; Ps. 124:7; 141,9; nifal: ‘get trapped’ in Deut.
7:25; Isa. 8:15; 28:13; Prov. 6:2; pual: ‘get trapped’ in Eccl. 9:12) and ( נקשqal: ‘capture’ in
Ps. 9:17; nifal: ‘to get trapped’ in Deut. 12:30; piel: ‘lay a trap’ in Ps. 38:13; hitpael: ‘lay a trap’
in 1 Sam. 28:9). In Halbe’s view, the expression in Deut. 7:25; 12:30 became part of a later
parenesis.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 307
the inhabitants of the land ()יושב הארץ. In the other passages, however, refer
ence is made to the religious danger of syncretism. As a result, the said pas
sages testify to a more developed reflection. Whereas Judg. 2:3 still functions
as an explanation of Exod. 34:12, Exod. 23:33 and Deut. 7:16 are only concerned
about religious syncretism. Halbe does not give an explanation for the com
mon use of מוקש, however, neither in Exod. 23:33 nor in Deut. 7:16.
Osumi considers Exod. 32:32, 33d to be a pre-Deuteronomic unit belonging
to what he calls the second person singular layer.151 Exod. 23:33a–c, which is
later than and a further development of Deut. 7:16, accentuates the aversion
to the inhabitants of the land.152 In similar fashion to Halbe’s interpretation,
Osumi’s solution does not give a satisfactionary explanation for the use of
מוקשin Exod. 23,33d and Deut 7,16. Nevertheless, the grammatical difficulties
in Exod. 23:33d are significant.153 The problem concerns the use of the form
( יהיהyiqtol 3 masculine singular). In this respect, it is important to determine
the precise subject of יהיה, which will thus be a מוקשfor Israel. We observed
above that Osumi considers Exod. 23:33a–c to be an insertion later than
Deut. 7. According to him, יהיהin Exod. 23:32 refers to ברית. As a result, the
covenant with the inhabitants of the land and their gods will be a snare for
Israel. The word ברית, however, is a feminine noun, followed by the masculine
form of the verb ()יהיה. In Osumi’s view, Gesenius-Kautzsch offers a solution
to this difficulty. According to Gesenius-Kautzsch, it is possible that the first
position of the verb in a clause often causes a masculine singular form.154 This
151 Y. Osumi, Die kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b–23,33 (OBO, 105),
Fribourg 1991, 63–68. The 2nd person singular layer consists of Exod. 23:20–21c, e, 22–23b,
24, 32, 33d.
152 Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte, 215: ‘V. 33a.bα stellt eine entwickeltere Traditionsphase
als Dtn 7,16 dar’. In Osumi’s view, both commands are parallel in Deut. 7:16 (‘you have to
exterminate the population and it is forbidden to worship their gods’). In Exod. 23:33,
however, the presence of the population in se will be a snare for Israel (‘the population
can’t stay in the country, because you will worship their gods’).
153 The syntactic hierarchy of Exod. 23:32–33 can be presented as follows:
v. 32a: לא תכרת להם ולאלוהיהם ברית
v. 33a: לא ישבו בארצך
v. 33b: פן יחטיאו אתך לי
v. 33c: כי תעבד את אלהיהם
v. 33d: כי יהיה לך למוקש
154 According to Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte, 67 n. 159, who refers to W. Gesenius,
E. Kautzsch, Hebräische Grammatik, Leipzig 281909, §145o, ‘die Voranstellung des Prädikats
in einen Satz verursache oft die unregelmäßige Masculinform des verbs’. Compare,
however, with the grammar itself: ‘Sehr häufig finden Abweichungen von der Grundregel
[cf. § 145a: ‘Wie in anderen Sprachen richtet sich auch im Hebräischen Genus und
308 chapter 5
Numerus des Prädikats (. . .) im allgemeinen nach dem Subjekts’] statt, wenn das Prädikat
dem (tierischen oder sachlichen) Subjekt vorangeht. Der Redende oder Schreibende
beginnt mit der nächstliegenden Form des Prädikats, der flexionslosen 3. Sing. masc. und
läßt es gleichsam in suspenso, durch welches nachfolgende Subjekt, resp. durch welches
Genus oder welchen Numerus, das vorläufig unbestimmt gelassene Prädikat seine
Näherbestimmung erhalten soll’.
155 Cf. especially in this respect Gesenius, Kautzsch, Hebräische Grammatik, § 145u: ‘Die Fälle,
in welchen Genus oder Numerus des nachstehenden Prädikats von dem des Subjekts
abzuweichen scheint, beruhen teils auf offenbaren Textfehlern (. . .) oder auf besond.
Gründe’. It is interesting that this grammar does not mention Exod. 23:33 in its list of
examples.
156 P. Joüon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 14), Rome 1993,
§ 150k: ‘Even in the singular, the feminine is sometimes neglected (. . .). In simple prose
יהיה לis found after a fem. noun’; ‘Not only the feminine, but also the plural is neglected
with §( ’היה ל150 l).
157 Cf. Vervenne, ‘The Question of “Deuteronomic” Elements’, 253: ‘Linguistic determination
of the nature of “deuteronomic” elements in Genesis–Numbers must also take account of
the physical form of the text (text-criticism)’.
158 According to J.W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBL SCS, 30), Atlanta, GA
1990, 378, οὓτοι refers to αὐτῶν, i.e. the inhabitants of the land.
159 Cf. Joüon, Muraoka, Grammar, § 152d: ‘(. . .) with verbs which take a more impersonal con
struction, the masculine is more usual by far. This is especially true of verbs expressing an
emotion. Thus one always has ויהיand it came to pass, והיהand it shall come to pass’.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 309
(1) לא תכרת להם ולאלהיהם ברית,160 (2) לא ישבו בארצך, (3) פן יחטיאו אתך לי, and
(4) כי תעבד את אלהיהם.
This example illustrates the necessity of a thourough and detailed analysis
of the vocabulary of a pericope and its usage within it. Only after this inves
tigation has been completed can the question of the so-called Deuterono-
m(ist)ic character be brought to the fore. Where a word or expression are
always used within a particular context, we are obliged to study this con
text and its structure. The example of מוקשdemonstrates the complexity of
the problem. Although the term is used in a very similar way in Exod. 23:33;
34:12; Deut. 7:16; Judg. 2:3, more research must be done into the relationship
between these pericopes. There can be no doubt that the said passages are
related to one another at some level. As Halbe pointed out, it is important to
investigate the precise meaning of מוקשin each periocope. In Judg. 2:3, it is
obvious that the אלהיםwould be a snare for Israel. This straightforwardness,
however, cannot be found in the other passages.161 As in Exod. 23:33, יהיהin
Exod. 34:12 can be rendered by an impersonal ‘it’. This implies that the whole
sentence ( כרת ברית )ליושב הארץcould be the subject and not necessarily the
יושב הארץ.162 The same may be true for Deut. 7:16, where הואcan also refer
to the entire clause תעבד את אלהיהם, and not only to אלהיהם.163 So, although
there is a close link between Deut. 7:16 and Exod. 23:33; 34:12, these two Exodus
passages do not explicitly state that the foreign gods themselves or idolatry
itself will become a מוקשfor Israel. On the contrary, the text of Exod. 23:33;
160 According to Brekelmans, ‘Éléments deutéronomiques’, 88, the inhabitants of the land are
the cause of the מוקש.
161 Nevertheless, according to W. Johnstone, ‘Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy in
Pentateuchal Studies, with Special Reference to the Sinai Pericope in Exodus’, ZAW 99
(1987), 16–37, esp. 25–26, the relationship between Exod. 23:33 and Judg. 2:3 is self-evident.
However, he does not take into account the differences between both texts.
162 While I agree with Halbe that the use of מוקשin Exod. 23:33; Deut. 7:16; Judg. 2:3 is
related to the religious danger of worshipping foreign gods, I am not convinced that a
religious connotation is completely absent from Exod. 34:12. In Exod. 34:15, the expression
פן תכרת ברית ליושב הארץis taken up again in combination with the notion of idolatry.
163 Cf. B.K. Waltke, M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, Winona Lake, IN 1990,
§ 16.3.5c: ‘The third-person singular pronoun, masculine or feminin, may serve as a neu-
trum with respect to some vague action or circumstance’; see also Gesenius, Kautsch,
Hebräische Grammatik, § 136a: ‘Das Pronomen demonstr. ( זה. . .) und das gleichfalls als
Demonstrativum gebrauchte Pron. personale ( הוא. . .) unterscheiden sich so, daß ( זה. . .)
fast stets auf eine vorliegende (neue), dag. ( הוא. . .) auf eine schon erwähnte oder schon
bekannte Person oder Sache hinweist (. . .)’.
310 chapter 5
34:12 is more vague, which implies at least that these verses cannot be seen as
Deuteronom(ist)ic pur sang.
164 For this section, see Ausloos, ‘Exod. 23,20–33 and the “War of yhwh”’, 555–563.
165 Horn, ‘Traditionsschichten’, 221.
166 Horn, ‘Traditionsschichten’, 217. See also T.B. Dozeman, God at War: Power in the Exodus
Tradition, New York 1996, 97 nn. 189–190.
167 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 328–329.
168 Brekelmans, ‘Éléments deutéronomiques’, 87; J.P. Hyatt, Commentary on Exodus (New
Century Bible), London 1971, 250; G. von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel (ATANT, 20),
Zürich 1951, 10–11.
169 Brekelmans, ‘Éléments deutéronomiques’, 87; Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 495;
F. Stolz, ‘’המם, THAT 2 (1971), 502–504, esp. 503; Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 628; Dozeman,
God at War, 38 n. 55. For Horn, ‘Traditionsschichten’, 221, vv. 27–28 as a whole reflect the
tradition of the ‘holy war’.
170 G. Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die
Weisungen gegen die Kanaanäer in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung (BWANT,
91), Stuttgart 1970, 18; Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch, 189.
171 Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden schliesen, 18.
172 Dozeman, God at War, 33 n. 29.
173 Brekelmans, ‘Éléments deutéronomiques’, 88.
174 Brekelmans, ‘Éléments deutéronomiques’, 87.
175 מלאך: Hyatt, Exodus, 250–251; R. Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des
Pentateuch (BZAW, 147), Berlin 1977, 152–153; J. Vermeylen, ‘Les sections narratives de Deut
5–11 et leur relation à Ex. 19–34’, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung,
Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 174–207, esp. 184; Johnstone, ‘Reactivating
the Chronicles Analogy’, 25; B. Renaud, La théophanie du Sinaï Ex. 19–24: Exégèse et
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 311
4.2.1 The Scheme of the ‘War of yhwh’ in Exod. 14; Josh. 10;
Judg. 4; 1 Sam. 7
It has been convincingly demonstrated by Richter, Weimar and Vervenne, that
the narratives of the crossing of the sea in Exod. 13–14, the taking possession
of the South in Josh. 10, Deborah and Barak’s victory over Sisera in Judg. 4 and
Israel’s triumph over the Philistines in 1 Sam. 7, are closely related to each
other.178 In all these pericopes not only does the motif of the ‘war of yhwh’
play an important role, but a similar compositional pattern can also be found.
théologie (CRB, 30), Paris 1991, 65; אימה: Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Hyatt, Exodus,
250–251; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 20; Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte, 215;
R. Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu
Deuteronomium 1–11 (EurHS, 422), Frankfurt am Main 1991, 265; Renaud, La théophanie du
Sinaï, 65; המם: Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Hyatt, Exodus, 250–251; Achenbach,
Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 265; נתן ערף: Achenbach, Israel zwischen
Verheissung und Gebot, 265; צרעה: Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Blenkinsopp, The
Pentateuch, 189; נתן ביד: Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104.
176 Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 98–107.
177 In v. 20, הנהis followed by the participle ( שלחv. 20) and the imperative השמר מפניו
(v. 21).
178 W. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (BBB, 18), Bonn
21966, 180–186; P. Weimar, ‘Die Jahwekriegerzählungen in Exodus 14, Josua 10, Richter 4
und 1 Samuel 7’, Bib 57 (1976), 38–73; Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 796–799.
312 chapter 5
Although these four texts are not entirely identical,179 the scheme according
to which they are composed is remarkable: threat—speech or complaint—
action of yhwh.
According to Vervenne, the pattern that Exod. 14, Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and
1 Sam. 7 have in common can be sketched as follows:180
179 Cf. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 181: ‘Alle Texte zeichnen sich durch
sehr individuelles Gepräge aus’.
180 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 797.
181 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 798.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 313
182 K.A.D. Smelik, ‘Profetische reflectie op het verleden: Bijbelse verhalen tussen fictie en
geschiedenis’, in: K. Deurloo, R. Zuurmond (eds), De bijbel maakt school: Een Amsterdamse
weg in de exegese, Baarn 1984, 60–75, esp. 68.
183 Weimar, ‘Die Jahwekriegerzählungen’, 72–73.
184 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 798. About the affinity of Exod. 13–14* with the Deuterono
m(ist)ic language, style and theology, see 796.
185 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 799. Compare with Isa. 7. Are there not, however, several other
periods within the history of Israel into which this theme would fit?
186 As already indicated, in his later publications Vervenne became more cautious in deter
mining a passage as proto-Deuteronomic. Cf. Vervenne, ‘Current Tendencies’, 41–42.
187 Here, כל העםis used in a distributive sense.
314 chapter 5
is identical with Exod. 14:24, Josh. 10:10, Judg. 4:15 and 1 Sam. 7:10. In all these
passages, the term המםoccurs. This is significant, since the verb is not fre
quently used in the Old Testament. With yhwh as subject, as is the case
in Exod. 23:27, it is only found in the aforesaid verses and in Pss. 18:15
(= 2 Sam. 22:15); 144:6; 2 Chron. 15:6. Contrary to the latter verse, the two former
passages undoubtedly function within the context of yhwh-war.
(ad 2) Taking into account the context of the term המםin Exod. 23:27,
the expression נתן בידalso points in the direction of a relationship between
Exod. 23 and the scheme of the war of yhwh, since the formula plays a role
in Josh. 10 and Judg. 4.188 In this respect, however, it is important to note that
the said expression occurs with frequency throughout the Old Testament to
indicate that yhwh does or does not deliver the enemies to Israel189 or vice
versa.190 Moreover, in a profane context, the expression can mean ‘entrust’,191
‘put something at someone’s disposal’,192 or—often in a military context—
‘deliver’.193 Although the utterance is almost exclusively found within the
Deuteronomistic literature with yhwh as subject and the enemies of Israel
as object, it seems, however, to be the most appropriate Hebrew expression to
render the idea of handing over.
(ad 3) Besides המםand נתן ביד, the motif of the flight of the enemies (v. 31:
)נתן ערףfits very well into the line of thought that is developed in the scheme
of the war of yhwh, although it cannot be found literally in Exod. 14, Josh. 10,
Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7. In the Sea Narrative, the Israelites are first fleeing from
the Egyptians. Afterwards, when the Israelites have crossed the sea and the
Egyptians are pursuing them, they do not even have the opportunity to flee.
Notwithstanding the fact that the expression נתן ערףis not used in Josh. 10:10,
Judg. 4:16 and 1 Sam. 7:11, the activity of flight is clearly suggested in these pas
sages by making use of the verb רדף.
Contrary to the expression נתן ביד, which plays an important role in
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, the formula נתן ערףonly
occurs in Exod. 23:27 and Ps. 18:41 (= 2 Sam. 22:41).194 Within the ‘Deuteronomistic
canon’,195 however, the noun ערףis frequently used.196 With the exception of
Josh. 7:8, 12; 2 Sam. 22:41; Jer. 32:33, in which ערףhas the connotation ‘to turn
away from’, the term is often linked with the term קשה,197 thus referring to
Israel’s obstinacy. In Jer. 32:33, the expression is applied to the inhabitants of
Judah who turned away from yhwh ()פנה ערף. Josh. 7:8 ( )הפך ערףand 7:12
( )פנה ערףdeal with Israel taking refuge in order to be saved from hostile peo
ples. In these passages, the ones who are running away are at the same time the
subject of the verb that accompanies the term. In Exod. 23:27, however, yhwh
is responsible for the flight of Israel’s enemies.
In short, although Exod. 23, Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7 have the theme
of the flight of Israel’s enemies in a context of yhwh-war in common, Exod.
23:27 holds a unique place in this series of texts because of the particular
use of the term ערף. Outside Exod. 23:27, the expression נתן ערףonly occurs
in the psalm in 2 Sam. 22:41 (= Ps. 18:41). Because of the special character of
2 Sam. 22, it is questionable whether the expression here can be characterised
as Deuteronom(ist)ic.198 Moreover, in 2 Sam. 22:41b, its meaning is different
since this verse does not deal with the expulsion of an enemy, but with their
destruction.199
Taking these elements together, one can conclude that, although Exod.
23:20–33 resembles the scheme of yhwh-war as it can be found in Exod. 14,
194 In 2 Chron. 29:6, the expression metaphorically refers to Israel’s apostasy of yhwh (cf.
M. Zipor, ‘’ערף, TWAT 6 (1989), 392–397, esp. 394.
195 On this concept, see supra.
196 Deut. 9:6, 13; 10:16; 31:27; Josh. 7:8, 12; 2 Sam. 22:41; 2 Kgs. 17:41; Jer. 7:26; 17:23; 32:33.
197 Referring to Deut. 10:16; 2 Kgs. 17:14; Jer. 7:26; 17:23; 19:15, Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic School, 341 characterises the expression קשה ערףas a stereotypical feature
of Deuteronomic language.
198 Cf. also Brekelmans, ‘Éléments deutéronomiques’, 87; Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes,
142; Otto, Das Mazzotfest, 206; U. Köppel, Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk und
seine Quellen: Die Absicht der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsdarstellung aufgrund des
Vergleichs zwischen Num 21,21–35 und Dtn 2,26–3,3 (EurHS, 122), Bern 1979, 186.
199 Cf. also A.A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (WBC, 11), Dallas, TX 1989, 265: ‘The scene depicted is
either that of retreat (cf. Exod. 23:27) or of total defeat of the enemies (i.e., the victor
places his foot on the neck of the enemy, as in Josh. 10:24). V 41b seems to suggest the latter
alternative’.
316 chapter 5
Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7, it also differs from it on significant points. First,
contrary to these pericopes, in which a battle between Israel and the hostile
nations is narrated, the aforementioned elements reflecting the war of yhwh
scheme in Exod. 23:20–33 are all part of a divine command. Secondly, the
specific scheme that structures the narratives of Exod. 14, Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and
1 Sam. 7 is entirely absent from Exod. 23, since only some—nevertheless very
important—fragments of it can be found in the latter pericope. Thirdly, paral
lel to Exod. 14, the Israelites do not have to take part in the war against the
foreign peoples, unless v. 24 is taken into consideration. Moreover, because of
the fact that נתן בידis not characteristic of the scheme and נתן ערףis absent
from it, it seems doubtful whether the author(s) of Exod. 23 can be consid
ered to be literarily dependent on the more or less stereotypical scheme that
can be found in Exod. 14, Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7. It is probable that the
compositor(s) of the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant applied it more
rigorously to his/their own composition. As such, even if the loose com
bination of elements from the scheme in Exod. 23 can be seen either as an
early preamble to the (Deuteronomistic) pattern or as a late imitation of it
(simili-Deuteronomistic), there is more evidence in my view to consider both
Exod. 23 on the one hand, and Exod. 14, Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7 on the
other as separate witnesses to a tradition about the war of yhwh.200
Against this background, it is interesting to recall the other elements
scholars have brought into relation with the ‘war of yhwh’ tradition within
Exod. 23:20–33. The elements in question, however, do not play a role in the
(Deuteronomistic) scheme. Moreover, none of these elements points to a
dependency on Deuteronomistic literature. There are no good reasons to con
sider the ( מלאךvv. 20, 23), leading the Israelites into the Promised Land, to
be a typical Deuteronom(ist)ic theme.201 The construction ( הלך לפניv. 23),
200 Cf. also the already mentioned similarities with Ps. 18:15: ;המםPs. 18:41: נתן ערף. According
to M. Dahood, Psalms 1–50 (AB, 16), New York 1965, 104, this royal song of thanksgiving can
be attributed to David. Dahood’s explanation of נתן ערף, suggesting that it should not be
interpreted as denoting the flight of enemies, but rather as evoking ‘the image of the vic
tor placing his foot on the neck of the vanquished, as represented on reliefs and described
in literary texts’ (116) is not convincing. In order to defend this thesis, Dahood refers to
Josh. 10:24, in which Joshua summons the chiefs of the men of war to put their feet upon
the necks of the defeated kings. In this text, however, the noun ערףis not used.
For the relationship between Exod. 23:20–33 and Deut. 7 with regard to the ‘war of
yhwh’ theme, see esp. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 46–48,
who indicates that in the latter text the sayings from Exod. 23 ‘have been reworked and
expanded into a military oration of consummate construction’ (46).
201 See the next paragraph.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 317
with a divine messenger as subject, only occurs in the book of Exodus (Exod.
14:19; 23:23; 32:34). Within the Deuteronomistic canon, the noun ( אימהv. 27)
is only found in Deut. 32:25 and Josh. 2:9. In the former passage, however, the
term functions as a threat to Israel. According to the latter text, the Israelites
themselves are a threat to the enemy, contrary to Exod. 23:27 in which God
will send his terror ahead of the Israelites. Finally, the noun ( צרעהv. 28) occurs
only three times in the Old Testament (Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).
Although these passages have several elements in common, this term cannot
be considered to be typically Deuteronom(ist)ic.202
The comparison of Exod. 23 with the (Deuteronomistic) yhwh-war scheme
in Exod. 14, Josh. 10, Judg. 4 and 1 Sam. 7, together with a brief investigation of
the other elements within the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant, which
scholars have indicated as related to the motif of the war of yhwh, is not truly
indicative for the dependence of Exod. 23 on the Deuteronomistic literature.
On the contrary, the language that seems to be connected with the ‘war of
yhwh’ suggests rather that the author(s) of Exod. 23 has/have made use of a
teminology that was peculiar to a tradition about yhwh as warrior, which was
probably used by the author(s) of the (Deuteronomistic) scheme also.
202 With regard to use of the verb גרשwith yhwh or his messenger as subject, it should be
noted that, contrary to the expulsion of the autochthonous peoples in Exod. 23:28–31, in
Deuteronomy their destruction is accentuated. Compare Deut. 33:27, where גרשand שמד
are used together. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 346–347.
203 Johnstone, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 25–26. In the introduction to Chronicles
and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application (JSOT SS, 275), Sheffield 1998, 11, Johnstone
writes: ‘The catalyst for me (. . .) was the chance homiletical observation of the inter
connection between Exod. 23.20–33 and Judg. 2.1–5’—For this section, see already
H. Ausloos, ‘The “Angel of yhwh” in Exod. xxiii 20–33 and Judg. ii 1–5: A Clue to the
“Deuteronom(ist)ic” Puzzle?’, VT 58 (2008), 1–12.
204 Johnstone, ‘Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 26.
205 The thesis pointing to the Deuteronomistic origin of Judg. 2,1–5 is not new, thereby refer
ring to so-called Deuteronomistic phraseology and thought. See, for example, J.A. Soggin,
Judges: A Commentary (OTL), London 21987, 31: ‘These verses imply that the requirements
of Josiah’s reform were not carried out and that punishment followed: the exile. So here
318 chapter 5
being ‘a Deuteronomic insertion at the end of Exodus 23’, the so-called epilogue
of the Book of the Covenant gives ‘evidence of a Deuteronomistic recension’,
which ‘seems (. . .) to be suggested by the rather clear way in which the pas
sage is picked up in the Deuteronomistic History in Judg. 2.1–5’.206 According
to Johnstone, the relationship between Exod. 23:20–33 and Judg. 2:1–5 ‘is
established not simply by the coincidence of vocabulary’.207 Much more
important in his view is the presupposition that both pericopes seem to have
a key function within their respective contexts: the former is the epilogue of
the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22–23:19); the latter closes the account
of Israel’s settlement in the Promised Land (Judg. 1). Moreover, Johnstone com
pares the parenetic epilogue of the Book of the Covenant with Deut. 27–28.
These chapters are also a parenetic text, announce blessing for obedience,
and curse for disobedience. As such, ‘the code in Exod. 20.20–33 is bound by
the Deuteronomist into his presentation of covenant and of the course of the
history of Israel as dominated by the blessing and curse of the covenant by
this passage, Exod. 23.20–33, and its counterpart, Judg. 2.1–5’.208
One of the reasons to link Exod. 23:20–33 to Judg. 2:1–5 was the men
tion of the מלאך יהוה.209 It comes as no surprise, therefore, that some years
after Johnstone’s preliminary suggestion of an ‘extensive Deuteronomic/
Deuteronomistic edition of the Horeb pericope’,210 the מלאךin Exod. 23:20–
33 came to the fore anew in Blum’s theory on the origins and composition of
the Pentateuch. The epilogue of the Book of the Covenant could be one
of those texts on the ‘Weg zur kanonischen “Endgestalt”’ of Genesis–
Numbers.211 According to Blum, the pericope is neither part of the post-
Deuteronomistic D-composition (KD), nor of the P-composition (KP). Together
with Judg. 2:1–5, it is said to belong to a group of texts that Blum characterises
we find evidence of the last phase of Dtr redaction, that of so-called DtrN (Smend). This
will certainly have worked with earlier material, which it now wants to be understood in
accordance with 2.1–5’.
206 Johnstone, ‘Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy’, 25.
207 Johnstone, ‘Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy’, 25.
208 Johnstone, ‘Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy’, 26.
209 See, however, Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora, 75: ‘In contrast to the full comple
ment of previous J texts, the messenger here [in Judg. 2:1–5] has no association with the
vanguard theme, the pillar of cloud and fire. Instead, it is treated in the same way as a
prophet or man of God who reprimands the people for their wrongdoing and predicts
divine judgment. This piece belongs closely with Judg 1 and the P texts of Joshua’.
210 Johnstone, ‘Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy’, 27.
211 Blum, Studien, p. 377. See also Idem, ‘Der kompositionelle Knoten’, 191–192.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 319
as the מלאך-group.212 Blum argues that Judg. 2:1–5 is correcting and modifying
the ideal view of the Deuteronomistic History concerning the acquisition of
the Promised Land in Josh. 1–12: because of the fact that the Israelites in
fact violated God’s command not to mix with the autochthonous popula
tion of the land, the original inhabitants of Canaan will not be expelled as
was previously announced. The מלאך-edition is not only a corrective to the
Deuteronomistic History, as Judg. 2:1–5 indicates, and must thus be later than
the Deuteronomistic History. Moreover, the analysis of other texts of this group
(Exod. 33:2, 3b, 4* and Exod. 34:11–27) leads Blum to the conclusion that it also
presupposes KD, which is posterior to the Deuteronomistic History. Within this
contextual analysis, Exod. 23 takes a specific place, since here the emphasis
on the demarcation between Israel and the peoples, which is missing in the
Book of the Covenant, is made a central theme.213 As a result, Exod. 23:20–33
is considered to be part of a post-Deuteronomistic Fortschreibung. It has to be
remarked, however, that Blum does not argue that all texts of the מלאך-edition
have been written by one and the same author.214
Similar to Johnstone and Blum, Neef has argued for a ‘מלאך-Bearbeitung’.215
Contrary to both scholars, however, Neef does not consider this reworking as
(post-)Deuteronomistic. He characterises it as ‘Jehovistisch’, ‘vordeuterono
misch’ and ‘protodeuteronomisch’, thus previous in any case to the book of
Deuteronomy and even a preparatory stage thereto.216 Similar to Blum, Neef
212 Johnstone, Chronicles and Exodus, 21 n. 27 is rather sceptical with regard to Blum’s מלאך-
edition: ‘Equally dubious, it seems to me, is Blum’s search for a “composition history” of
still later literary D–editions (. . .)’.
213 Exod. 23,20–33 is, according to Blum, ‘weder einen Segen-Fluch-Abschluß für das
Bundesbuch (. . .) noch einen mehr oder weniger zufällig plazierten Findling’ (Studien,
375–376).
214 Blum, Studien, 377.
215 Neef, ‘“Ich selber bin in ihm” ’, 72.
216 Cf. also Reichert, Der Jehowist, 195–196. Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte, 161: ‘Der
מלאך-Text von Ex. 23,20–23a [geht] dem von (. . .) Jdc 2,1–5 voraus’ (160). According to
A. Rofé, Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch (The Biblical Seminar 58),
Sheffield 1999, 51, ‘the ancient sources that preceded D often spoke about Yhwh’s angel,
who led the Israelites in the wilderness, brought them to the land and drove out the
other nations (Exod. 23.20–21, 23; 32:34; 33.2; Judg. 2.1–5). D was acquainted with these
traditions, and with at least some of them in written form, but completely silenced all
mention of this angel’, since ‘in his monotheistic zeal, rejected all belief in the existence
of angels who go on missions for Yhwh’. For R.D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the
Deuteronomistic History (JSOT SS, 18), Sheffield 1981, 46, ‘Judg. 2:1–5 is (. . .) the work of
an editor secondary to the main edition of the Deuteronomistic history with a more pes
simistic view of the conquest and of the behavior of the people before the completion
320 chapter 5
of the conquest’. Moreover, in his view, ‘the conceptual dependence upon Exodus is as
striking as the verbal’.
217 Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 346–391.
218 Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 358.
219 Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 108–147; 363; 367–368.
220 Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 505.
221 Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 366–367.
222 R.G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der
Bibelkritik (UTB, 2157), Göttingen 2000, 204–208.
223 Kratz, Die Komposition, 146: ‘Die 2. Sg.-Zusätze sind vor allem am Ende des Bundesbuches
angebracht, ein erster Anhang in Ex. 22,20–23,19, ein zweiter in 23,20–33’. Compare,
however, with 148: ‘Ein Schritt weiter gehen im Rahmen des Bundesbuches der zweite
Nachtrag Ex. 23,20–33’. Similarly, on 150, Exod. 23:20–33 is considered to be a ‘Nachtrag’.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 321
Later, Kratz characterises Exod. 23:20–33 as ‘späterem Anhang’ (152). In the schematic
presentation (155), Exod. 23:20–33 appears to be more recent than Kratz’s so-called
Urdeuteronomium. See further his summary on 322, where Exod. 23:20–33 is considered
as a pre-Exilic text.
224 Kratz, Die Komposition, 205. See also: ‘Auf die Grundschrift im Sam-Reg (DtrG) und die
erste Verbindung (DtrR) folgt eine Fülle weiterer deuteronomistischer und nachdeu
teronomistischer (darunter auch priesterlicher) Ergänzungen, die die Maschen des
Enneateuchs (Gen-Reg) immer enger knüpfen (Dtrs), indem sie (. . .) das Gesetz und die
Völker und ihre Gebiete (Jos. 1,3f.7–9); 11,16–22; 12,1–8; 13,1–6; 23f; Jdc 2,1–6; 2,20–3,6) und
vieles andere mehr hinzufügen’ (216).
225 A. van der Kooij, ‘ “And I also Said”: A New Interpretation of Judges ii 3’, VT 45 (1995),
294–306.
226 Van der Kooij, ‘ “And I also Said”’, 304.
227 Van der Kooij, ‘ “And I also Said”’, 304.
228 Van der Kooij, ‘ “And I also Said”’, 298.
322 chapter 5
Covenant, including the motif of the מלאך.229 In this respect, two major argu
ments are given. First, reference is made to similarities with Judg. 2, taking for
granted that this pericope is likewise a typically Deuteronomistic creation.
Second, scholars often mention the so-called ‘other’ Deuteronom(ist)ic pas
sages in the Tetrateuch, such as Gen. 24:7; Exod. 32:34; 33:2; Num. 20:16 as an
argument in favour of this thesis. The primary argument supporting the char
acterisation of these verses as Deuteronom(ist)ic, however, is found in their
resemblance to the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic passage Exod. 23:20, 23.
A concise survey of the use of the term מלאך, which plays a key role within
Exod. 23:20–33, might be helpful at this juncture. Within the Old Testament,
the noun מלאךoccurs 216 times. It is used to designate human as well as
divine messengers. In the latter category, the מלאךis considered as a super
natural, unidentifiable manifestation of yhwh—an ‘angel’—, thus accentuat
ing that the מלאךin fact is representing yhwh, in his guidance of the Israelites
into the Promised Land. Moreover, as Vervenne has rightly observed, a distinc
tion has to be made between different traditions in which the angel plays a
role as an unidentifiable, divine figure.230 The מלאךcomes to the fore in tradi
tions about the patriarchs,231 in the Balaam tradition,232 in traditions about
Israel’s judges,233 kings234 and prophets.235 The מלאךalso has a role to play
in the Psalms236 and in the book of Job.237 It is only in Exod. 23:20–33 and
Judg. 2:1–5, together with Exod. 14:19; 32:34; 33:2; Num. 20:16 and Judg. 5:23, that
the מלאךfunctions within the tradition concerning the exodus, the journey
to the Promised Land and its conquest.238
Colenso already observed that the motif of the מלאך יהוהleading and pro
tecting the Israelites on their journey through the desert and into the Promised
Land, did not fit within the Deuteronomic language and theology.239 As a
matter of fact, the מלאךplays no role at all within the book of Deuteronomy.
On the contrary, it seems to be part of the Deuteronomic theology to accen
tuate that it was God in person who led the Israelites out of Egypt and into
229 Cf. e.g. Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 260; Rendtorff, Das überliefe
rungsgeschichtliche Problem, 152–153; Vermeylen, ‘Les sections narratives’, 181 n. 18.
230 Cf. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 578.
231 Gen. 16:7–12; 19:1–29; 21:1–20; 22:1–19; 24:7, 40; 28:11–22; 31:11; 32:2–3; 48:16.
232 Num. 22:22–34.
233 Judg. 6; 13.
234 2 Sam. 24//1 Chron. 21.
235 1 Kgs. 13:18; 2 Kgs. 1; 19:35//Isa. 37:36//2 Chron. 32:21; Hos. 12; Ezek. 30:9; Zech. 1–6.
236 Pss. 34:8; 35:5, 6; 91:11; 103:20; 148:2.
237 Job 4:18; 33:23.
238 In Exod. 3:2, the מלאךplays a role in the appointment of a saviour (cf. Judg. 6).
239 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 155; 211.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 323
the Promised Land (cf. Isa. 63:9). This has been accentuated by the author of
Deut. 4:37: God brought the Israelites out of Egypt ‘with his own presence, by
his great power’ ()ויוצאך בפניו בכחו הגדל. Furthermore, as Vervenne has demon
strated, the motif of the מלאךin its specific role of saviour and leader of the
Israelites likewise cannot be found in the rest of the so-called Deuteronomistic
literature,—except in Judg. 2:1–5.240
In order to maintain the late, Deuteronomistic character of the מלאך, there
fore, two main positions have been defended. On the one hand, scholars argue
that the motif of the מלאךas a divine messenger is a late one. Reference is
made in this respect to other so-called post-exilic passages, in which this figure
seems to play a specific role. Van Seters links the מלאךas a ‘symbol of the divine
presence and revealer of the divine will’ with Isa. 63:9; Zech. 1:11–17 and Mal.
3:1–5.241 These pericopes, however, are not a valid point of reference, since, as
has we noted above, the מלאךis not linked here with the exodus or the jour
ney into the land. According to Blum, Isa. 63:9 indicates that in the post-exilic
period there was some discussion about the position of the מלאך:242 ‘It was no
messenger or angel, but his presence that saved them’. As to this discussion,
however, no elements can be found in Exod. 23. It seems more plausible that
Second Isaiah favoured Deuteronomy’s theology—in Deut. 4:37—and thus
reacted against the presentation of the מלאךas representing yhwh. Moreover,
it is not because of the fact that the מלאךin Exod. 23 and in the rest of the
מלאך-group plays an important role that it should be the subject of potential
debate concerning its function.243 Blum suggests in this regard that attention
should be paid to the tradition history of the figure of the מלאך. It is precisely
with respect to this issue that a comparison between Exod. 23 and Judg. 2 can
play a significant role.
On the other hand, in order to avoid the problem of the absence of the
מלאךin Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, scholars suggest that the ( מלאךin Exod.
23:20.23) does not refer to a supernatural messenger—an angel—, but to a
human one. As such, it is argued that the מלאךin Exod. 23:20, 23 should be
244 Cf. R.A. Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, London 1973, 181.
245 Cf. A. Knobel, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (KEHAT, 12), Leipzig, 1857, 238. Although
not identifying them, Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora, 72–73 also sees a close link
between the מלאךand the pillar of fire and cloud.
246 Blenkinsopp, ‘Deuteronomic Contribution’, 94–97.
247 Blenkinsopp, ‘Deuteronomic Contribution’, 97.
248 Blenkinsopp, ‘Deuteronomic Contribution’, 97.
249 Blenkinsopp, ‘Deuteronomic Contribution’, 97.
250 According to B. Lindars, Judges 1–5: A New Translation and Commentary, Edinburgh 1995,
75, the מלאך יהוהprobably has to be interpreted as ‘Yahweh’s spokesman’.
251 With regard to the lxx’s rendering of this verse, see infra.
252 The Septuagint points in a similar direction. In Judg. 2:1(B), lxx’s plus (Τάδε λέγει κύριος)
clearly interprets the messenger as a prophet, making use of the typically prophetic intro
ductory formula. The Targum even explicitly replaces מלאךthe נביא. Judg. 2:1(A) like
wise has a plus, which implies that it is Κύριος who speaks the following words. Moreover,
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 325
basis of the strong similarities between Exod. 23:20–33 and Judg. 2:1–5,
the same can be said about the מלאךin the latter passage.253
lxx(B) changes the first person ( )ואביא—אעלהinto the third person: κύριος ἀνεβίβασεν
ὑμᾶς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου καὶ εἰσήγαγεν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν γῆν.
253 Contrary to Blenkinsopp, ‘Deuteronomic Contribution’, 95 n. 24: ‘At Judg. 2.1–5 a malʾāk
yhwh delivers a prophetic address in the Deuteronomic fashion’.
254 Exod. 23:32–33; 34:12, 15; Judg. 2:2 (cf. also Deut. 7:2).
255 Exod. 23:28–31; 33:2; 34:11–12; Judg. 2:3.
256 Exod. 23:24; 34:13; Judg. 2:2 (cf. Deut. 7:5).
257 Exod. 23:33; 34:12; Judg. 2:3 (cf. also Deut. 7:16; Josh. 23:13).
258 Without entering into the discussion about the Deuteronomistic character of either
Exod. 23:20–33 or Judg. 2:1–5, A. Marx, ‘Forme et Fonction de Juges 2,1–5’, RHPR 3–4 (1979),
341–350, esp. 346 considers the figure of the מלאךin Judg. 2:1–5 to be dependent on the
מלאךin Exod. 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2 and Num. 20:16.
259 Blum, ‘Der kompositionelle Knoten’, 191–192.
326 chapter 5
260 Cf. e.g. Deut. 1:8; 6:10, 18, 23; 8:7–10; 9:5; 10:11; 26:3; 31:7, 20, 21, 23.
261 Compare with U. Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum
Richterbuch (BZAW, 192), Berlin 1990, 54: ‘Offenbar bildete u.a. dieser Text [Exod. 23:20–
33] die Vorlage für Ri 2,1–5 oder stammt aus demselben Literaturbereich’. According to
Becker, Judg. 2:1–5 has been composed by a ‘spät-dtr Autor’ (57).
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 327
Exodus.262 However, little attention has been paid to the text-critical study
of these lists. Nevertheless, an analysis of the versiones has the potential to lead
to interesting insights from a text-critical perspective, and it might function
as an eye-opener for viewing the Deuteronomistic quest in a broader perspec
tive. Therefore, it will be necessary to make a full survey of the text-critical
witnesses of the lists of the peoples. In a first stage, however, a survey of the
textual instances of these lists in the mt of the book of Exodus ought to be
offered:
With the exception of Exod. 13:5 and Exod. 23:28, all lists of peoples in the mt
of Exodus enumerate six peoples—Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites,
Hivites, and Jebusites—although not always in the same order. In Exod. 13:5
(mt), the Perizzites are missing, whereas in Exod. 23:28 the enumeration is
limited to three peoples. However, in comparing the lists of mt with the other
textual witnesses, important differences come to the fore. These elements can
be presented schematically as follows:263
262 See already Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103. For this section, see H. Ausloos, ‘The
Septuagint Version of Exod. 23:20–33: A “Deuteronomist” at Work?’, JNSL 22 (1996), 89–106.
263 The different peoples are referred to by their initials: Canaanites (C), Hittites (H),
Amorites (A), Perizzites (P), Jebusites (J), Girgashites (G). The letter V stands for Hivites.
328 chapter 5
(cont.)
264
The order of the peoples enumerated in this list will not be the subject of our
present investigation. However, the number of peoples listed seems to be rel
evant from a text-critical perspective. In this respect, attention should be paid
to an article by O’Connell,265 written as a supplement to and a correction of
Ishida’s contribution.266 In fact, Ishida only studied the lists of the peoples in
264 4QpaleoExodm xxvi,4–5 (Exod. 23:23.28) probably contained a list of seven peoples. Cf.
P.W. Skehan et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 4. iv: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts
(DJD, 9), Oxford 1992, 108: ‘Lines 1–12 would have contained the text of Exod. 23:19–28
plus the first word of v. 29. L. 4–5, 11–12 (23:23 and 28): The complete list of seven indig
enous peoples is in SamP in both verses. Its presence in this ms in both verses is assumed
because ( הגרג]שיthe only name lacking in mt at 23:23) occurs at Exod. 34:11 (col. xl 29).
The Girgashites are never listed in mt of Exodus’.
265 K.G. O’Connell, ‘The List of Seven Peoples in Canaan: A Fresh Analysis’, in H.O. Thompson
(ed.), The Answers Lie Below: Essays in Honour of Edmund Toombs, Lanham 1994, 221–241.
266 T. Ishida, ‘The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations’,
Bib 60 (1979), 461–490. According to Ishida, the order of the peoples in the list is an impor
tant criterion concerning its historical development.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 329
267 According to O’Connell, ‘The List’, 223, Ishida’s analysis is ‘seriously weakened by the
unaccountable failure to look critically at all the primary textual evidence (and not just
mt) for various occurrences of the lists of the pre-Israelite peoples (. . .)’.
268 O’Connell, ‘The List’, 226–227: ‘Given the repetitious quality of names linked by the con
junction “and”, all beginning with the definite article and all ending with the same gentilic
-î (י-), it is not surprising that individual names were frequently left out (by haplography)
and sometimes restored to different positions within the sequence’.
269 O’Connell, ‘The List’, 224: ‘mt is far more likely to omit one ore more names in the list than
are either sp or lxx. mt has all seven names only three times. The most common omis-
sion is G [Girgashites]. It alone is omitted ten times and together with other names it is
omitted six more times’ (italics mine).
270 The Girgashites are ‘omitted’ in mt in Exod. 3:8, 17; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Deut. 20:17; Josh.
9:1; 11:3; 12:8; Judg. 3:5. Moreover, the Girgashites are also ‘omitted’ together with other
peoples in Exod. 13:15 (Girgashites and Perizzites), 23:28 (Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites
and Jebusites), Num. 13:29 (Girgashites, Perizzites and Hivites), 1 Kgs 9:20 (Girgashites
and Canaanites); 2 Chron. 8:7 (Girgashites and Canaanites), and Ezra 9:1 (Girgashites and
Hivites).
271 Deut. 7:1; Josh. 3:10; 24:11.
330 chapter 5
272 As far as the Dead Sea Scrolls are concerned, O’Connell only mentions 4QpaleoExodm.
273 O’Connell, ‘The List’, 226: ‘While the frequent absence of G, Girgashite ()גרגשי, from mt
remains puzzling, there is no reason to deny its place within what appears to have been
an originally standard list of seven gentilic names’.
274 O’Connell, ‘The List’, 231–232, n. 61.
275 O’Connell, ‘The List’, 228: ‘This is shown especially by the fact that only seven names figure
repeatedly in the many occurrences of the list. Any other name that joins the list does so
once, or at least twice in parallel citations, but in general, the boundaries of the seven-
name set were clearly regarded as fixed and closed. For this reason, the Girgashites—
recurring so often and yet not well attested elsewhere—can be understood as an integral
part of the set of names from the beginning. Otherwise there would be no reason for their
name to be added so often and in so many different positions, while other additions are
never repeated’.
O’Connell finds an additional reason for the original ‘seven-name’ list in the Egyptian
pattern of the nine bows, which ‘stood for nine peoples who may have represented “the
submission of the whole world to the Pharaoh” (W. Wifall, ‘The Foreign Nations—Israel’s
“nine bows”’, Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 3 [1981], 113–124, esp. 120). When lists
of such peoples began to appear in the Middle Kingdom, they named seven foreign peo
ples and apparently presupposed (or sometimes explicitely mentioned) the Two Lands
of Upper and Lower Egypt as the two other “bows”. Late, in the 18th and 19th dynasties,
all nine peoples mentioned were foreign enemies, not friends or peaceful neighbors (. . .)
Almost in passing Wifall (. . .) also suggests that several Hexateuchal instances of “a stereo
typed list of six or seven foreign nations in Exod. 23:23; 33:2; 34:11, and Josh 24:11”—all of
which he attributes to the Elohist—may reflect a similar list of “bows” in Syria-Palestine
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 331
(in which, as in Middle Kingdom Egyptian lists, the two peoples of one’s own land—
here Israel and Judah—are left unmentioned), and seven foreign nations or peoples are
detailed. While this is not the place to critique Wifall’s argument, it is significant that the
standard seven-name list established in this article would be more suitable for his anal
ogy than a six-name one’ (O’Connell, ‘The List’, 233 n. 73). However, O’Connell’s theory
about the two missing elements (Judah and Israel) does not fit very well with his postula
tion of a ‘seven-name’ list in the period of the Judges.
276 With the exception of Exod. 33:2 (lxx), were the Canaanites are missing.
277 Concerning the list of seven peoples in 4Q paleoExodm, cf., however, supra.
278 However, this hypothesis does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the textual
problems in the lxx of Exod. 23:28; 33:2. Exod. 23:28 (mt) reads three peoples (Hivites,
Canaanites, and Hittites). The lxx version has a plus (Amorites). Exod. 33:2 (lxx) reads
together with mt six peoples, but it mentions the Girgashites instead of the Canaanites.
279 A fragment of Deut. 20:6–19 is also extant in 4QDeutk2. Similar to mt, the text in this
manuscript lacks the Girgashites. For the critical edition of 4QDeutk2, see E. Ulrich
et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 4. ix: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD, 14), Oxford 1995,
99–105.
332 chapter 5
mt and lxx. In Exod. 23:24, three prohibitions are given: Israel must not wor
ship the gods of the foreign peoples ()לא תשתחוה לאלהיהם, they must not serve
them ()ולא תעבדם, and must not follow their practices ()כמעשיהם. mt and
SamP read three successive prohibitions, each time introduced by the particle
לאand connected by the conjunction -ו. In the lxx, however, the second and
third prohibition are disconnected since the conjunction particle is missing.
As a result, the first and the second prohibition form a closed pair. Moreover,
the second prohibition (οὐδε μὴ, followed by a subjunctive) is more strongly
formulated than the third (οὐ, followed by an indicative).280
It is significant that the wordpair עבדand חוהcan be found several times
in the book of Deuteronomy in the context of worship of foreign gods.281
It is probable, therefore, that (the Vorlage of) lxx aimed at harmonising
Exod. 23:24 with this ‘Deuteronomic’ formula, creating a close relationship
between the two verbs.
Similarly, the lxx rendering οὐκ ἔσται ἄγονος οὐδὲ στεῖρα does not corre
spond to the readings of the mt and SamP, i.e. משכלה ועקרה. The participle
משכלהis derived from the verb ‘( שכלto miscarry’). The word עקרהmeans
‘infertile’. According to Le Boulluec and Sandevoir, the term ἄγονος is not used
in classical or Koinè Greek to denote a women who miscarries. The term, how
ever, can be used to designate infertility. If this is the case, the term ἄγονος is a
synonym for στεῖρα.282
It is significant that the same expression οὐκ ἔσται ἄγονος οὐδὲ στεῖρα can
be found exclusively in Deut. 7:14 (lxx). In this passage, the Greek formula is
the correct rendering of the Hebrew עקר ועקרה, i.e. male and female infertility.
The fact that the same Greek expression can only be found in Exod. 23:26 and
Deut. 7:14, is a supplementary indication of the relationship between these two
biblical texts.
280 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew
Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (AASF, 31), Helsinki, 1982, 49–50 and Wevers,
Notes, 372.
281 Deut. 4:19; 5:9; 8:19; 11:16; 17:3; 29:25; 30:17; cf. also Exod. 20:5.
282 A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, L’Exode (La Bible d’Alexandrie, 2), Paris 1989, 240: ‘Dans
l’expression grecque ouk éstai ágonos oudè steîra, ágonos peut être masculin ou féminin.
Toutefois, le terme peut s’appliquer en grec classique et dans la koinè à une femme infé
conde, mais non pas à celle “qui avorte”. Il serait superflu ici, s’il avait le même sens que
steîra. On est amené à poser un écart entre la lxx et le tm et à considérer que le couple
ágonos—steîra désigne la stérilité masculine et féminine, comme en Dt 7,14, où ágonos
et steîra correspondent à ‘aqār et ‘aqārāh, c’est-à-dire au même mot masculin, puis au
féminin’. See also Wevers, Notes, 373.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 333
Two hypotheses are possible. Firstly, the Greek translator of Exod. 23:26 may
not have sufficiently understood his Hebrew Vorlage, thus leading him to ren
der the phrase משכלה ועקרהas ἄγονος οὐδὲ στεῖρα, avoiding the problem by
using two synonyms.
Within this hypothesis, however, one has to explain the similarity with
Deut. 7:14. This again can be done in two different ways. On the one hand, one
might suppose that the lxx translator of Deut. 7:14 based himself on the ren
dering of Exod. 23:26. However, this supposition would imply that the Vorlage
of Deut. 7:14 read משכלה ועקרהinstead of עקר ועקרה. On the other hand, it
is equally possible that the translator—without reference to Exod. 23:26—
uncounsciously used the combination ἄγονος οὐδὲ στεῖρα as a correct transla
tion of the expression עקר ועקרה. In that case, the lxx translator was faithful
to his Vorlage and rendered the formula עקר ועקרהby ἄγονος οὐδὲ στεῖρα.
An additional argument can be found in the way the lxx deals with the
concept of the מלאךof yhwh in Exod. 23:20.23. In the mt (and SamP),
the מלאךprotects ( )שמרthe Israelites on their journey into the land and even
brings the people to the land ()ולהביאך אל המקום. The people for their part
must listen to his voice ()שמע בקלו, because the angel will not forgive their
trespasses ()כי לא ישא לפשעכם. Moreover, the mt (and SamP) posits that
yhwh is present in the angel ()כי שמו בארבו.
In the lxx, however, some of these elements are weakened. Firstly, instead
of the capacity to forgive sins, it is said that the angel will not shrink away
(οὐ γὰρ μὴ ὑποστείληταί σε).283 Secondly, in Exod. 23:21 (lxx), it is stressed that
the name of yhwh is not in the angel (ἐν αὐτῷ), but on him (ἐπ αὐτῷ). Thirdly,
according to the lxx, the people did not have to listen to the voice of the angel,
but to yhwh himself (Exod. 23:22: ἐὰν ἀκούςῃς τῆς φωνῆς μου).284 In restrict
ing the role of the angel, the lxx translator seems to link up with the tenor of
the book of Deuteronomy, since here the angel is not mentioned at all.285 This
283 See also Wevers, Notes, 370: ‘Since only God can forgive sins Exod. avoids a statement that
the angel does so. As God’s messenger he can, however, be involved in man’s lot and will
not turn aside, will not be overawed by you’.
284 The variant בקלו—בקליmay have been caused by the interchange of וand י. See E. Tov,
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Third Edition, Revised and Expanded, Minneapolis,
MN 2012, 227.
285 It is sometimes argued that the author(s) of Deuteronomy deliberately omitted the
motif of the angel. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 34; Idem,
‘The Emergence’, 84; Idem, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB, 5), New York 1991, 379. See also M. Lana, ‘Deuteronomio e angelologia
alla luce di une variante qumranica (4QDt 32,8)’, Henoch 5 (1983), 179–207.
334 chapter 5
conclusion is not incompatible with Van der Kooij’s thesis that the lxx transla
tor understood the text as referring to the High Priest.286
While studying some variant readings of mt and lxx (and SamP) in Exod.
23:20–33, a number of relevant variants that can be explained as harmoni
sations with the book of Deuteronomy came to the fore. These harmonisa
tions, which can also be detected in other passages of the book of Exodus
and even in the book of Numbers,287 demonstrate that the (theological)
influence of Deuteronomy was very important. These instances suggest that
the close relationship between certain pericopes of Genesis–Numbers
with the fifth book of the Pentateuch was already recognised at a very early
stage in the transmission and/or translation of the biblical text on the basis
of their similar style, vocabulary and content.288 However, these harmonisa
tions do not allow us to characterise the Hebrew Vorlage of the lxx or the
lxx translator himself as a ‘Deuteronomist’, since a copyist or a transla
tor who was influenced by Deuteronomy or inspired by it, is not necessarily
a ‘Deuteronomist’.289 Moreover, based on these text-critical studies, it has
become clear that—from the redaction-critical perspective—we must at
least account for the possibility of an extended process of ‘Deuteronom(ist)ic’
reworkings of the text, without considering the latter to be ‘Deuteronom(ist)ic’
stricto sensu. Should traces be evident of a process of harmonisation with
286 A. van der Kooij, ‘lxx Exodus 23 and the Figure of the High Priest’, in: J.K. Aitken et al.
(eds), On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies (BZAW, 420), Berlin
2011, 537–549; A. van der Kooij, ‘The Septuagint of the Pentateuch’, in: J. Cook, A. van der
Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the
Septuagint Version (CBET, 68), Leuven 2012, 15–62, esp. 44–49.
287 H. Ausloos, ‘LXX Num 14:23: Once More a “Deuteronomist” at Work?’, in: B. Taylor (ed.),
Proceedings of the Xth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies—Oslo 1998 (SBL SCS, 51), Atlanta, GA 2001, 415–427; H. Ausloos, ‘Traces of
Deuteronomic Influence in the Septuagint: A Text-Critical Analysis of Exodus 33:16’, JNSL
35 (2009), 27–44. See also H. Ausloos, ‘The Risks of Rash Textual Criticism Illustrated on
the Basis of the Numeruswechsel in Exod. 23:20–33’, BN 97 (1999), 5–12. See, moreover,
Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 171–177.
288 On the ‘inner-Deuteronomic’ harmonisations in the lxx version of Deuteronomy, see
H. Ausloos, ‘lxx’s Rendering of the Numeruswechsel in the Book of Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 12 as a Test Case’, in: J.M. Robker et al. (eds), Text—Textgeschichte—
Textwirkung: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Siegfried Kreuzer (AOAT, 419), Münster
2014, 303–313.
289 Cf. Lohfink, ‘Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?’, 371: ‘Wer sich derart von
Deuteronomistischem inspirieren ließ oder sogar darauf verwies, mußte deshalb
keineswegs selbst ein “Deuteronomist” sein—was immer dieses Wort in diesem Kontext
überhaupt nog besagen könnte—oder gar einer deuteronomistischen “Schule” angehören’.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem—A Review and a Preview 335
Deuteronomy within (the Vorlage of) the lxx as well as the SamP, then it is
equally plausible that elements of the mt, normally taken to be characteristic
of a (post-)Deuteronomistic author or redactor, found their way into the text
on the basis of a concern for transmitting harmonious texts, without insisting
on a (post-)Deuteronom(ist)ic author or redactor.290 It is thus clear that redac
tion criticism and textual criticism also go hand in hand at this juncture.291
5 Conclusion
290 Cf. E. Otto’s review article ‘Jeseits der Suche nach dem “ursprünglichen Text” in der
Textkritik: Fortschreibungen und Textautorität in der nachexilischen Zeit’, ZABR 18 (2012),
365–371.
291 Cf. E. Blum, ‘The Decalogue and the Composition History of the Pentateuch’, in:
T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research
(FAT, 78), Tübingen 2011, 289–301: ‘There is evidence of a continued selective rework
ing and mutual adaptation of the protocanonical Decalogue versions, until the text-
critically documented process of transmission’ (301). See also H. Ausloos, ‘Literary
Criticism and Textual Criticism in Judg. 6:1–14 in Light of 4QJudga, OTE 27 (2014),
358–376 on the Deuteronomistic ‘insertion’ in Judg. 6:7–10. See further on the role of
the Dead Sea scrolls and textual criticism for theories regarding the origins and dating
of the Pentateuch: A. Lange, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Date of the Final Stage of
the Pentateuch’, in Aitken et al. (eds), On Stone and Scroll, 287–304; E. Ulrich, ‘Multiple
Literary Editions: Reflections Toward a Theory of the History of the Biblical Text’, in:
Idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls
and Related Literature), Grand Rapids, MI 1999, 99–120; A. van der Kooij, ‘Zur Verhältnis
von Textkritik und Literarkritik: Überlegungen anhand einiger Beispiele’, in: J.A. Emerton
(ed.), Congress Volume Cambridge 1995 (SVT, 66), Leiden 1997, 185–202.
292 Cf. T. Römer, ‘Du Temple au Livre: l’idéologie de la centralisation dans l’histoire deuté
ronomiste’, in S.L. McKenzie et al. (eds), Rethinking the Foundation: Historiography in the
Ancient World and in the Bible (BZAW, 294), Berlin 2000, 206–225, esp. 225: ‘La théologie
deutéronomiste est une théologie en mouvement’.
336 chapter 5
Aalders, G.C., Genesis (Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift), Kampen 1949.
Achenbach, R., Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen
zu Deuteronomium 1–11 (EurHS, 422), Frankfurt am Main 1991.
———, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches
im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZABR, 3), Wiesbaden 2003.
———, ‘The Story of the Revelation at the Mountain of God and the Redactional
Editions of the Hexateuch and the Pentateuch’, in: E. Otto, J. Le Roux (eds), A Critical
Study of the Pentateuch: An Encounter Between Europe and Africa (Altes Testament
und Moderne, 20), Münster 2005, 126–151.
Achenbach, R., Arneth, M. (eds), ‘Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben’ (Gen 18,19): Studien
zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels
und zur Religionssoziologie. Festschrift für Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (BZABR,
13), Wiesbaden 2009.
Ackroyd, P.R., ‘The Book of Jeremiah: Some Recent Studies’, JSOT 28 (1984), 47–59.
Adamczewski, B., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus–Numbers, and Samuel–Kings as
Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (European Studies in Theology,
Philosophy and History of Religions, 1), Frankfurt am Main 2012.
Aejmelaeus, A., Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew
Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (AASF, 31), Helsinki, 1982.
Akao, J.O., ‘In Search of the Origin of the Deuteronomic Movement’, IrBSt 16 (1994),
174–189.
Albertz, R. et al. (eds), Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Claus
Westermann zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1980.
———, ‘Die Intentionen und die Träger des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks’,
in: R. Albertz et al. (eds), Schöpfung und Befreiung: Für Claus Westermann zum 80.
Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1989, 37–53.
———, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamenticher Zeit (ATD. Ergänzungsreihe, 8),
Göttingen 1992.
———, ‘Der Beginn der vorpriesterlichen Exodus-komposition (KEX): Eine
Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von Ex. 1–5’, TZ 67 (2011), 223–262.
———, ‘Ex. 33,7–11: Ein Schlüsseltext für die Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte
des Pentateuch’, BN 149 (2011), 13–43.
———, ‘The Late Exilic Book of Exodus (Exodus 1–34*): A Contribution to the
Pentateuchal Discussion’, in: T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds), The Pentateuch: International
Perspectives on Current Research (FAT, 78), Tübingen 2011, 243–256.
———, Exodus 1–18 (ZBK, 2/1), Zürich 2012.
340 Bibliography
——— et al. (eds), Schöpfung und Befreiung: Für Claus Westermann zum 80. Geburtstag,
Stuttgart 1989.
———, Becking, B. (eds), Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in
the Persian Era (Studies in Theology and Religion, 5), Assen 2003.
Allen, R.B., Exodus (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids MI 1990,
655–1008.
Alt, A., ‘Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums’, in: Idem, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, Bd. 2, München 1953, 250–275.
———, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, München 1953.
——— et al. (eds), Alttestamentliche Studien: Für Rudolph Kittel zum 60. Geburtstag,
Leipzig 1913.
Altmann, A. (ed.), Biblical Motifs, Origins and Transformations, Cambridge 1966.
Anbar, M., ‘Genesis 15: A Conflation of Two Deuteronomic Narratives’, JBL 101 (1982),
39–55.
———, ‘L’influence deutéronomique sur le Code de l’Alliance: Le cas d’Exode 21:12–17’,
ZABR 5 (1999), 165–16.
Andersen, F.I., Forbes, A.D., The Vocabulary of the Old Testament, Roma 1989.
Anderson, A.A., 2 Samuel (WBC, 11), Dallas TX 1989.
Anderson, B.W. (ed.), The Books of the Bible, Part 1: The Old Testament/The Hebrew Bible,
New York 1989.
Anderson, G.W., A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament, London 71972.
———, ‘Changing Perspectives in Old Testament Study’, in: Idem (ed.), Tradition and
Interpretation: Essays by Members of the Society of Old Testament Study, Oxford 1979,
xiii–xxi.
——— (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation: Essays by Members of the Society of Old
Testament Study, Oxford 1979.
Artus, O., Études sur le livre des Nombres: Récit, histoire et Loi en Nb 13,1–20,13 (OBO, 157),
Fribourg 1997.
———, ‘Les dernières rédactions du livre des Nombres et l’unité littéraire du livre’, in:
T. Römer, K. Schmid (eds), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque
et de l’Ennéateuque (BETL, 203), Leuven 2007, 129–144.
———, ‘Bulletin d’Ancien Testament I: Pentateuque’, RSR 100 (2012), 577–588.
Ashley, T.R., The Book of Numbers (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI 1993.
Astour, M.C., ‘Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and its Babylonian Sources’,
in: A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical Motifs, Origins and Transformations, Cambridge 1966,
65–112.
Astruc, J., Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il parait que Moïse s’est servi pour
composer le livre de la Génèse: Avec des remarques, qui appuient ou qui éclaircissent
ces conjectures, Bruxelles 1753.
Bibliography 341
———, ‘JE in the Middle Books of the Pentateuch: Sinai—Horeb. Analysis of Exodus
xviii.–xxxiv.’, JBL 12 (1893), 23–46.
Baden, J.S., J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT, 68), Tübingen 2009.
———, ‘The Deuteronomic Evidence for the Documentary Theory’, in: T.B. Dozeman
et al. (eds), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT, 78),
Tübingen 2011, 327–344.
———, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis,
New Haven 2012.
———, The Promise to the Patriarchs, Oxford 2013.
Baentsch, B., Das Bundesbuch Ex. xx,22–xxiii,33: Seine ursprüngliche Gestalt, sein
Verhältnis zu den es umgebenden Quellenschriften und seine Stellung in der alttesta-
mentlichen Gesetzgebung, Halle 1892.
———, Das Heiligkeits-Gesetz Lev. xvii–xxvi: Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung,
Erfurt 1893.
———, Exodus—Leviticus—Numeri (HKAT, 1/2), Göttingen 1903.
Bardtke, H., ‘Franz Delitzsch geb. 23.2.1813: Ein Gedenkwort zur einhunderfünfzigsten
Wiederkehr seines Geburtstages’, TLZ 88 (1963), 161–170.
Barrick, W.B., ‘On the “Removal of the High-Places” in 1–2 Kings’, Bib 55 (1974), 257–259.
———, Spencer, J.R. (eds), In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and
Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlström (JSOT SS, 31), Trowbridge 1984.
Barstad, H.W., History and the Hebrew Bible (FAT, 61), Tübingen 2008.
Barton, J., Muddiman, J. (eds), The Oxford Bible Commentary, Oxford 2001.
Baudissin, Graf W.W., Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments, Leipzig 1901.
Bauer, H., Leander, P., Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache des Alten
Testaments, Bd. 1: Einleitung, Schriftlehre, Laut- und Formenlehre, Halle 1922.
Bauer, U.F.W., —כל הדברים האלהAll diese Worte: Impulse zur Schriftauslegung aus
Amsterdam. Expliziert an der Schilfmeererzählung in Exodus 13,17–14,31 (EurHS, 442),
Frankfurt am Main 1991.
Baumgartner, W., ‘Der Kampf um das Deuteronomium’, TR 1 (1929), 7–25.
———, ‘Wellhausen und der heutige Stand der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft’, TR
2 (1930), 287–307.
———, ‘Alttestamentliche Einleitung und Literaturgeschichte’, TR 8 (1936), 179–222.
Bea, A., ‘Der heutige Stand der Pentateuchfrage’, Bib 16 (1935), 175–200.
Becker, J., Review of E. Zenger, Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen
und elohistischen Geschichtswerk (Würzburg 1971), TP 48 (1973), 115.
Becker, U., Richterzeit und Königtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch
(BZAW, 192), Berlin 1990.
Becking, B., Korpel, M.C.A. (eds), The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of
Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS, 42), Leiden 1999.
Beer, G., Exodus: Mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling (HAT, 1/3), Tübingen 1939.
344 Bibliography
———, ‘Die Paränese im Bundesbuch und ihre Herkunft’, in: H. Graf Reventlow
(ed.), Gottes Wort und Gottes Land: Hans-Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70. Geburtstag am
16. Januar 1965 dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern, Göttingen 1966,
9–29.
Binns, L.E., The Book of Numbers with Introduction and Notes (Westminster Com
mentaries), London 1927.
Bleek, F., ‘Einige aphoristische Beiträge zu den Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch’,
in: E.F.K. Rosenmüller, G.H. Rosenmüller (ed.), Biblisch-exegetisches Repertorium
oder die neuesten Fortschritte in Erklärung der heiligen Schrift, Bd. 1, Leipzig 1822,
1–79.
———, ‘Beiträge zu den Forschungen über den Pentateuch’, Theologische Studien und
Kritiken 4 (1831), 488–524.
———, Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift, Bd. 1: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Berlin
1860.
Blenkinsopp, J., The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible
(AB Reference Library), New York 1992.
———, ‘Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative (Exodus 19–34)’, in:
E.E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content.
Essays in Honor of George W. Coats (JSOT SS, 240), Sheffield 1997, 109–125.
———, ‘Deuteronomic Contribution to the Narrative in Genesis–Numbers: A Test
Case’, in: L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The
Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 84–115.
———, ‘A Post-Exilic Lay Source in Genesis 1–11’, in: J.C. Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom
Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 313),
Berlin 2002, 49–61.
Blum, E., Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT, 57), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984.
———, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189), Berlin 1990.
———, ‘Gibt es die Endgestalt des Pentateuch?’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress
Volume: Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 46–57.
———, ‘Das sog. “Privilegrecht” in Exodus 34,11–26: Ein Fixpunkt der Komposition
des Exodusbuches’, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—
Reception—Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 347–366.
———, ‘Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein
Entflechtungsvorschlag’, in M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and
Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997,
181–212.
———, ‘Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus. Ein Gespräch
mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen’, in: J.C. Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom
Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 313),
Berlin 2002, 119–156.
346 Bibliography
———, ‘Israël à la montagne de Dieu: Remarques sur Ex. 19–24; 32–34 et sur le
contexte littéraire et historique de sa composition’, in: A. De Pury, T. Römer (eds),
Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de
la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes. 3ème édition augmentée (Le monde de la
Bible, 19), Genève 2002, 271–295.
———, ‘Historiographie oder Dichtung? Zur Eigenart alttestamentlicher Prosa
überlieferung’, in: Idem et al. (eds), Das Alte Testament—ein Geschichtsbuch?
Beiträge des Symposiums ‘Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne’ anlässlich
des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (1901–1971), Heidelberg, 18.–21. Oktober 2001
(Altes Testament und Moderne, 10), Münster 2005, 65–86.
———, ‘The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the
End of the Book of Joshua’, in: T.B. Dozeman, K. Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the
Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBL
SS, 34), Atlanta GA 2006, 89–106.
———, ‘Pentateuch – Hexateuch – Enneateuch? Oder. woran erkennt man ein lite
rarisches Werk in der Hebräischen Bibel?’, in: T. Römer, K. Schmid (eds), Les
dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque (BETL
203), Leuven 2007, 67–97.
———, Textgestalt und Komposition: Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere
Propheten (FAT, 69), Tübingen 2010.
———, ‘The Decalogue and the Composition History of the Pentateuch’, in: T.B.
Dozeman et al. (eds), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research
(FAT, 78), Tübingen 2011, 289–301.
———, ‘The Jacob Tradition’, in: C.A. Evans et al. (eds), The Book of Genesis: Composition,
Reception, and Interpretation (SVT, 152), Leiden 2012, 181–211.
———, ‘Zwischen Literarkritik und Stilkritik: Die diachrone Analyse der literarischen
Verbindung von Genesis und Exodus—im Gesprach mit Ludwig Schmidt’, ZAW 124
(2012), 492–515.
———, Blum, R., ‘Zippora und ihr ( חתן דמיםEx. 4,24–26)’, in: E. Blum et al. (eds), Die
Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff
zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen 1990, 41–54.
——— et al. (eds), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift
für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen 1990.
——— et al. (eds), Das Alte Testament – ein Geschichtsbuch? Beiträge des Symposiums
‘Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne’ anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags
Gerhard von Rads (1901–1971), Heidelberg, 18.–21. Oktober 2001 (Altes Testament und
Moderne, 10), Münster 2005.
Boadt, L., Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction, New York 1984.
Boecker, H.J., 1. Mose 25,12–37,1: Isaak und Jakob (ZBK Altes Testament, 1/3), Zürich
1992.
Bibliography 347
Boehmer, E., Das erste Buch der Thora: Übersetzung seiner drei Quellen und
Redactionszusätze mit kritischen, exegetischen und historischen Erörterungen, Halle
1862.
Bogaert, P.-M. (ed.), Le livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu. Les oracles et leur
transmission (BETL, 54), Leuven 1981.
———, ‘Albin van Hoonacker’, Biographie nationale publié par l’Académie Royale des
sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique 44 (1985), 633–640.
Böhl, F.M.T., Genesis (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische bijbelverklaring), Groningen 1923–1925.
———, Exodus (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische bijbelverklaring), Groningen 1928.
Boorer, S., ‘The Importance of a Diachronic Approach: The Case of Genesis–Kings’,
CBQ 51 (1989), 195–208.
———, The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch
(BZAW, 205), Berlin 1992.
Braulik, G., Studien zu den Methoden der Deuteronomiumsexegese (Stuttgarter biblische
Aufsatzbände, 42), Stuttgart 2006.
——— (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, Basel 1977.
——— et al. (eds), Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert
Lohfink s.J., Freiburg 1993.
Brekelmans, C.H.W., ‘Het “historische credo” van Israël’, TvT 3 (1963), 1–11.
———, ‘Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Elemente in Gen.–Num. Ein Beitrag zur
Vorgeschichte des Deuteronomiums’, in: Volume du Congrès Genève 1965 (SVT, 15),
Leiden 1966, 90–96.
———, ‘Éléments deutéronomiques dans le Pentateuque’, in: C. Hauret (ed.), Aux
grands carrefours de la révélation et de l’exégèse de l’Ancien Testament (Recherches
Bibliques, 8), Leuven 1967, 77–91.
———, ‘Deuteronomisch. Deuteronomium’, in: H. Haag (ed.), Bibel-Lexikon, Einsiedeln
21968, 326–330.
———, ‘Some Considerations on the Prose Sermons in the Book of Jeremiah’, Bijdragen
34 (1973), 204–211.
———, ‘Jeremiah 18,1–12 and Its Redaction’, in: P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Le livre de Jérémie:
Le prophète et son milieu. Les oracles et leur transmission (BETL, 54), Leuven 1981,
343–350.
———, ‘Deuteronomy 5: Its Place and Function’, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das
Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 164–173.
———, ‘Deuteronomistic Inluence in Isaiah 1–12’, in: J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of
Isaiah—Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage
(BETL, 81), Leuven 1989, 167–176.
———, ‘Joshua V 1–12: Another Approach’, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), New Avenues
in the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published
on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap
and the Retirement of Prof. Dr. M.J. Mulder (OTS, 25), Leiden 1989, 89–95.
348 Bibliography
———, ‘The Tradition-Historical Method in Old Testament Research’, in: Idem (ed.),
A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays On The Old Testament, Nashville 1969, 50–67.
———, A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays On The Old Testament, Nashville 1969.
Ewald, H., Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis Christus, Bd. 1, Göttingen, 1843.
Eynikel, E., The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic
History (OTS, 33), Leiden 1996.
Fargues, P., Introduction à l’Ancien Testament, Paris 1923.
Fell, W., Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Einleitung in das Alten Testament (Wissenschaftliche
Handbibliothek. Theologische Lehrbucher, 25), Paderborn 1906.
Fensham, F.C., Exodus (POT), Nijkerk 1970.
Finegan, J., Let My People Go: A Journey Through Exodus, New York 1963.
Fischer, G., ‘Exodus 1–15: Eine Erzählung’, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of
Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 149–178.
———, ‘Zur Lage der Pentateuchforschung’, ZAW 115 (2003), 608–616.
Floss, J.P., Jahwe dienen—Göttern dienen: Terminologische, literarische und semantische
Untersuchung einer theologischen Aussage zum Gottesverhältnis im Alten Testament
(BBB, 45), Bonn 1975.
Fohrer, G., Überlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus: Eine Analyse von Ex. 1–15 (BZAW,
91), Berlin 1964.
———, Introduction to the Old Testament, Abingdon 1968.
———, Vom Werden und Verstehen des Alten Testaments (Gütersloher Taschenbücher/
Siebenstern, 1414), Gütersloh 1986.
Fox, E., The Five Books of Moses: A New Translation with Introductions, Commentary, and
Notes, London 1995.
Fox, M.V. et al. (eds), Texts, Temples and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran,
Winona Lake, IN 1996.
Fox, N.S. et al. (eds), Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural
Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, Winona Lake, IN 2009.
Freedman, D.N., ‘The Law and the Prophets’, in: Congress Volume Bonn 1962 (SVT, 9),
Leiden 1963, 250–265.
Frey, H., Das Buch der Anfänge: Kapitel 1–11 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des
Alten Testaments, 1), Stuttgart 41950.
———, Das Buch des Glaubens: Kapitel 12–25 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des
Alten Testaments, 2), Stuttgart 31950.
———, Das Buch der Heimsuchung und des Auszugs: Kapitel 1–18 des zweiten Buches
Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 5), Stuttgart 1957.
———, Das Buch der Verbindung Gottes mit seiner Gemeinde: Kapitel 19–24 des zweiten
Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 6), Stuttgart 31963.
———, Das Buch der Gegenwart Gottes unter seiner Gemeinde: Kapitel 25–40 des
zweiten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 6), Stuttgart 31963.
356 Bibliography
———, Das Buch der Führung: Kapitel 26–50 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des
Alten Testaments, 4), Stuttgart 41964.
———, Das Buch des Kampfes: Kapitel 25–35 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des
Alten Testaments, 3), Stuttgart 41964.
Friesenhahn, P., Hellenistische Wortzahlenmystik im Neuen Testament, Leipzig 1935.
Fripp, E.I., ‘Note on Genesis xviii.xix’, ZAW 12 (1892), 23–9.
Fritz, V., Israel in der Wüste: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wüstenüber
lieferung des Jahwisten (MarTS, 7), Marburg 1970.
——— et al. (eds), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65.
Geburtstag (BZAW, 185), Berlin 1989.
Fuss, W., Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 3–17 (BZAW, 126), Berlin
1972.
García López, F., ‘De la antigua a la nueva critica literaria del Pentateuco’, EstBíb 52
(1994), 7–35.
———, Comment lire le Pentateuque (Le monde de la Bible, 53), Genève 2005.
García Martínez, F. et al. (eds), Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C.J. Labuschagne
on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (SVT, 53), Leiden 1994.
Gautier, L., Introduction à l’Ancien Testament, Lausanne 31939.
Geddes, A., The Holy Bible or the Books Accounted Sacred by Jews and Christians,
Otherwise called the Books of the Old and the New Covenants, Faithfully Translated
from Corrected Text of the Originals; with Various Readings, Explanatory Notes and
Critical Remarks, Vol. 1: Pentateuch and Josua, London 1792.
———, Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures, Corresponding with a New Translation
of the Bible, Vol. 1: Containing Remarks on the Pentateuch, London 1800.
Gertz, J.C., Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur
Endredaktion des Pentateuch (FRLANT, 186), Göttingen 2000.
———, ‘Die Literatur des Alten Testaments. I. Tora und Vordere Propheten’, in: Idem
(ed.), Grundinformation Altes Testament: Eine Einführung in Literatur, Religion und
Geschichte des Alten Testaments (UTB, 2745), Göttingen 32009, 193–311.
——— et al. (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der
jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002.
——— (ed.), Grundinformation Altes Testament: Eine Einführung in Literatur, Religion
und Geschichte des Alten Testaments (UTB, 2745), Göttingen 32009.
Gibert, P., ‘De l’intuition à l’évidence: La multiplicité documentaire dans la Génèse chez
H.B. Witter et Jean Astruc’, in: J. Jarick (ed.), Sacred Conjectures: The Context and
Legacy of Roberth Lowth and Jean Astruc (Library of Hebrew Bible. Old Testament
Studies, 457), New York 2007, 174–189.
Gilbert, M. (ed.), La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament: Nouvelle édition mise à jour
(BETL, 51), Leuven 1990.
Bibliography 357
Gispen, W.H., Het boek Exodus opnieuw uit den grondtekst vertaald en verklaard, Deel 1:
Hoofdstuk 1:1–15:21 (Korte verklaring der heilige Schrift), Kampen 1932.
———, Het boek Leviticus (COT), Kampen 1950.
———, Numeri (COT), Kampen 1959–1964.
———, Genesis vertaald en verklaard (COT), Kampen 1974–1983.
Gnuse, R.K., ‘The Elohist: A 7th Century bce Theological Tradition’, Biblical Theology
Bulletin 42 (2012), 59–69.
Goettsberger, J., Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Herders theologische Grundrisse),
Freiburg 1928.
Goldberg, O., Die fünf Bücher Mosis: Ein Zahlengebäude, Berlin 1908.
Graf, K.H., Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments: Zwei historisch-kritische
Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1866.
———, ‘Die s.g. Grundschrift des Pentateuchs’, in: A. Merx (ed.), Archiv für wissen-
schaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments, Bd. 1, Halle 1867, 466–477.
Graupner, A., Der Elohist: Gegenwart und Wirksamkeit des tranzendenten Gottes in der
Geschichte (WMANT, 97), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002.
———, ‘“Ihr sollt mir ein Königreich von Priestern und ein heiliges Volk sein”:
Erwägungen zur Funktion von Ex. 19,3b–8 innerhalb der Sinaiperikope’, in: Idem,
M. Wolter (eds), Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions (BZAW, 372), Berlin
2007, 33–49.
Grauson, A.K., Van Seters, J., ‘The Childless Wife in Assyria and the Stories of Genesis’,
Orientalia 44 (1975), 485–486.
Gray, G.B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC), Edinburgh 1903.
Gressmann, H., Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen (FRLANT, 18),
Göttingen 1913.
———, ‘Die Aufgaben der alttestamentlichen Forschung’, ZAW 42 (1924), 1–33.
Gross, W. (ed.), Jeremia und die ‘deuteronomistische Bewegung’ (BBB, 98), Weinheim
1995.
——— et al. (eds), Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag,
St. Ottilien 1991.
Gunkel, H., Die Urgeschichte und die Patriarchen (das erste Buch Mosis) übersetzt und
erklärt und mit Einleitungen in die fünf Bücher Mosis und in die Sagen des ersten
Buches Mosis versehen, Göttingen 1911.
———, Genesis übersetzt und erklärt (HAT), Göttingen 1901.
Gunneweg, A.H.J., ‘Anmerkungen und Anfragen zur neueren Pentateuchforschung’, TR
48 (1983), 227–253; 50 (1985), 107–131.
———, Kaiser, O. (eds), Textgemäss: Aufsätze und Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Alten
Testaments—Festschrift für Ernst Würthwein zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1979.
Guy, J., The Heretic: A Study of the Life of John William Colenso 1814–1883, Johannesburg
1983.
358 Bibliography
Haag, E. (ed.), Gott, der einzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheismus in Israel (QD, 104),
Freiburg 1985.
Haag, H. (ed.), Bibel-Lexikon, Einsiedeln 21968.
Hagedorn, A.C., ‘Taking the Pentateuch to the Twenty-First Century’, ExpT 119 (2007),
53–58.
Halbe, J., Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex. 34,10–26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken
in vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT, 114), Göttingen 1975.
Halpern, B., ‘The Centralization Formula in Deuteronomy’, VT 31 (1981), 20–38.
———, ‘Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century BCE: Kingship and the
Rise of Individual Moral Liability’, in: Idem, D.W. Hobson (eds), Law and Ideology in
Monarchic Israel (JSOT SS, 124), Sheffield 1991, 11–107.
———, Hobson, D.W. (eds), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOT SS, 124),
Sheffield 1991.
Harris, R.L., Leviticus (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids MI 1990.
Harrison, R.K., Introduction to the Old Testament, London 1970.
Hartley, J.E., Leviticus (WBC, 4), Dallas TX 1992.
Harvey, J.E., Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal
Narratives, London 2004.
Haudebert, P. (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches—xiv ème congrès de l’ACFEB,
Angers 1991 (LD, 151), Paris 1992.
Hauret, C. (ed.), Aux grands carrefours de la révélation et de l’exégèse de l’Ancien
Testament (Recherches Bibliques, 8), Leuven 1967.
Hayes, J.H., An Introduction to Old Testament Study, Nashville TN 1979.
Heinisch, P., Das Buch Exodus übersetzt und erklärt (Die heilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments 1/2), Bonn 1934.
———, Das Buch Leviticus übersetzt und erklärt (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten
Testamentes, 1/3), Bonn 1935.
———, Das Buch Numeri übersetzt und erklärt (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten
Testamentes, 2/1), Bonn 1936.
Herbert, A.S., Genesis 12–50: Introduction and Commentary (Torch Bible Commentaries),
London 1962.
Herrmann, S., Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament: Ursprung und
Gestaltwandel (BWANT, 85), Stuttgart 1965.
———, Geschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit, München 1973.
———, ‘Forschung am Jeremiabuch: Probleme und Tendenzen ihrer neueren
Entwicklung’, TLZ 102 (1977), 481–490.
———, ‘Jeremiah: Der Prophet und die Verfasser des Buches Jeremiah’, in: P.-M.
Bogaert (ed.), Le livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu—Les oracles et leur trans-
mission (BETL, 54), Leuven 1981, 197–214.
———, ‘Jeremia/Jeremiabuch’, TRE 16 (1987), 568–586.
Bibliography 359
———, Jeremia: Der Prophet und das Buch (EdF, 271), Darmstadt 1990.
Hinchliff, P., John William Colenso Bishop of Natal, London 1964.
Hobbes, T., Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall
and Civill, London 1651.
Hoberg, G., Die Genesis nach dem Literalsinn erklärt, Freiburg 21908.
Hoffmann, H.-D., Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der
deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT, 66), Zürich 1980.
Hoffmann, Y., ‘The Deuteronomist and the Exile’, in: D.P. Wright et al. (eds),
Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual,
Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN 1995, 659–75.
Hoftijzer, J., Die Verheissungen an die drei Erzväter, Leiden 1956.
———, ‘Holistic or Compositional Approach? Linguistic Remarks to the Problem’,
in: J.C. De Moor (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old
Testament Exegesis: Papers Read at the Ninth Joint Meeting of Het Oudtestamentische
Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België and The Society for Old Testament Study Held
at Kampen, 1994 (SVT, 34), Leiden 1995, 98–114.
Holladay, W., ‘The Years of Jeremiah’s Preaching’, Interpretation 37 (1983), 146–159.
———, ‘A Proposal for Reflections in the Book of Jeremiah of the Seven-Year Recitation
of the Law in Deuteronomy (Deut 31,10–13)’, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium:
Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 326–328.
———, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah—Chapters 1–25,
Philadelphia 1986.
———, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah—Chapters
26–52, Philadelphia 1989.
Hollenberg, J., ‘Die deuteronomische Bestandteile des Buches Josua’, Theologische
Studien und Kritiken 46 (1874), 462–506.
Hölscher, G., ‘Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums’, ZAW 40 (1922),
161–255.
Holzinger, H., Einleitung in den Hexateuch, mit Tabellen über Quellenscheidung,
Freiburg i. B. 1893.
———, Genesis (KHCAT, 1), Leipzig 1898.
———, Exodus (KHCAT, 2), Leipzig 1900.
———, Numeri (KHCAT, 4), Tübingen 1903.
Honeycutt, R.L., Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Layman’s Bible Book Commentary,
3), Nashville, TN 1979.
Horn, P., ‘Traditionsschichten in Ex. 23,10–33 und Ex. 34,10–26’, BZ 15 (1971), 203–222.
Horst, F., Das Privilegrecht Jahwes: Rechtsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum
Deuteronomium (FRLANT, 45), Göttingen 1930.
Hossfeld, F.-L., Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und
seine Vorstufen (OBO, 45), Freiburg 1982.
360 Bibliography
———, ‘The Two Theological Versions of the Passover Pericope in Exodus’, in:
R.P. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of R. Davidson (JSOT SS, 138),
Sheffield 1992, 160–178.
———, ‘The Deuteronomistic Cycles of “Signs” and “Wonders” in Exodus 1–13’, in:
A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George
Wishart Anderson (JSOT SS, 152), Sheffield 1993, 166–185.
———, ‘From the Sea to the Mountain: Exodus 15,22–19,2—A Case-Study in Editorial
Techniques’, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—
Reception—Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 245–263.
———, ‘From the Mountain to Kadesh: With Special Reference to Exodus 32,30–
34,29’, in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature:
Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 449–467.
———, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application (JSOT SS, 275), Sheffield
1998.
———, ‘The Portrayal of Moses as Deuteronomic Archetypal Prophet in Exodus and
Its Revisal’, in: J.C. De Moor (ed.), The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical
Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist (OTS, 45), Leiden 2001, 159–174.
———, ‘The Use of the Reminiscences in Deuteronomy in Recovering the Two Main
Literary Phases in the Production of the Pentateuch’, in: J.C. Gertz et al. (eds),
Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion
(BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002, 247–273.
———, ‘Recounting the Tetrateuch’, in: A.D.H. Mayes, R.B. Salters (eds), Covenant as
Context: Essays in Honour of E.W. Nicholson, Oxford 2003, 209–234.
———, ‘The Revision of Festivals in Exodus 1–24’, in: R. Albertz, B. Becking (eds),
Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era (Studies
in Theology and Religion, 5), Assen 2003, 99–114.
———, ‘“P” as Editor: The Case of Exodus 4:18–26’, in: J.K. Aitken et al. (eds), On Stone
and Scroll: Essays in Honour of G.I. Davies (BZAW, 420), Berlin 2011, 225–238.
— (ed.), The Bible and the Enlightenment: A Case Study—Dr. Alexander Geddes (1737–
1802) (JSOT SS, 377), London 2004.
Jülicher, A., Die Quellen von Exodus i–vii,7, Halle 1880.
———, ‘Die Quellen von Exodus vii,8–xxiv,11’, JPT 8 (1882), 79–127; 273–315.
Junker, H., Das Buch Genesis (Echter Bibel), Würzburg 1949.
———, ‘Die Entstehungszeit des Ps. 78 und des Deuteronomiums’, Bib 34 (1953),
487–500.
Kaiser, O., ‘Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Genesis 15’, ZAW 70 (1958),
107–126.
———, Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einführung in ihre Ergebnisse und
Probleme, Gütersloh 1969; 51984.
———, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja Kapitel 1–12 (ATD, 17), Göttingen 51981.
Bibliography 363
Köckert, M., ‘Auf der Suche nach dem Jahwisten. Aporien in der Begründung einer
Grundthese alttestamentlicher Exegese’, Theologische Versuche 14 (1985), 39–64.
———, Blum, E. (eds), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex. 32–34 und Dtn
9–10 (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie, 18),
Gütersloh 2001.
Kohata, F., Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 3–14 (BZAW, 166), Berlin 1986.
———, ‘Verzicht auf die Quellenschriften im Pentateuch? – Konzequenzen aus
Textbeobachtungen in Exodus 3–14’, AJBI 12 (1986), 3–28.
König, E., Die Genesis: Eingeleitet, übersetzt und erklärt, Gütersloh 1919.
Konkel, M., Sünde und Vergebung: Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte
der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 32–34) vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen
Pentateuchmodelle (FAT, 58), Tübingen 2008.
Köppel, U., Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk und seine Quellen: Die Absicht
der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsdarstellung aufgrund des Vergleichs zwischen
Num. 21,21–35 und Dtn. 2,26–3,3 (EurHS, 122), Bern 1979.
Kornfeld, W., Levitikus (Die Neue Echter Bibel, 6), Würzburg 1983.
Kosak, H., Wegweisung in das Alte Testament, Stuttgart 1968.
Kosmala, H., ‘The So-Called Ritual Decalogue’, ASTI 1 (1962), 31–61.
Kossmann, R., Die Esthernovelle: Vom Erzählten zur Erzählung – Studien zur Traditions-
und Redaktionsgeschichte des Estherbuches (SVT, 79), Leiden 2000.
Kosters, W.H., De historie-beschouwing van den Deuteronomist met de berichten in
Genesis–Numeri vergeleken, Leiden 1868.
Kottsieper, I. et al. (eds), ‘Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?’ Studien zur Theologie
und Religionsgeschichte Israels für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1994.
Kragelund Holt, E., ‘The Chicken and the Egg—Or: Was Jeremiah a Member of the
Deuteronomist Party?’, JSOT 44 (1989), 109–122.
Krämer, K.F., Numeri und Deuteronomium (Herders Bibelkommentar. Die Heilige
Schrift für das Leben erklärt, 2/1), Freiburg 1955.
Kratz, R.G., Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen
der Bibelkritik (UTB, 2157), Göttingen 2000.
———, ‘The Pentateuch in Current Research: Consensus and Debate’, in: T.B. Dozeman
et al. (eds), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT, 78),
Tübingen 2011, 31–61.
———, Spieckermann, H. (eds), Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium.
Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar Perlitt (FRLANT, 190), Göttingen 2000.
Kraus, H.J., Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments,
Neukirchen-Vluyn 21969.
Kuenen, A., An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the
Hexateuch, London 1886.
Bibliography 365
———, et al. (eds), ‘Ich will euer Gott werden’: Beispiele biblischen Redens von Gott
(SBS, 100), Stuttgart 1981.
Loza, J., ‘Les catéchèses étiologiques dans l’Ancien Testament’, RB 78 (1971), 481–500.
———, ‘Exode xxxii et la rédaction JE’, VT 23 (1973), 31–55.
Lull, D.J. (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers: One Hundred Twenty-
Sixth Annual Meeting, November 17–20, 1990 (SBL SP, 29), Atlanta GA 1990.
Lust, J., ‘A. Van Hoonacker: Bibliography’, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium:
Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 363–368.
———, ‘A. Van Hoonacker and Deuteronomy’, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium:
Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 13–23.
———, ‘Hoonacker, Albin van, (1857–1933)’, in: J.H. Hayes (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical
Interpretation. Vol. 1, Nashville, TN 1999, 508–519.
Maarsingh, B., Numeri: Een praktische bijbelverklaring (Tekst en toelichting), Kampen
1984.
Macchi, J.-D., ‘Exode’, in: T. Römer et al. (eds), Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (Le
monde de la Bible, 49), Genève 2004, 173–195.
Maher, M., Genesis (OTM, 2), Wilmington, DE 1982.
Marsh, J., Butzer, A.G., The Book of Numbers (The Interpreter’s Bible, 2), New York 1953.
Martin, J.D., Davies, P.R. (eds), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane
(JSOT SS, 42), Sheffield 1986.
Marttila, M., ‘The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch’,
in: H. von Weissenberg et al. (eds), Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting
Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW, 419), Berlin 2011, 321–346.
Marx, A., ‘Forme et Fonction de Juges 2,1–5’, RHPR 3–4 (1979), 341–350.
Masius, A., Josuae imperatoris historia illustrata atque explicata, Antwerpen 1574.
Mayes, A.D.H., The Story of Israel Between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of
the Deuteronomic History, London 1983.
———, Salters, R.B. (eds), Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E.W. Nicholson,
Oxford 2003.
McCarthy, D.J., ‘Berît in Old Testament History and Theology’, Bib 53 (1972), 110–121.
———, ‘Twenty-five Years of Pentateuchal Study’, in: J.J. Collins, J.D. Crossan (eds), The
Biblical Heritage in Modern Catholic Scholarship, Wilmington, DE 1986, 34–57.
McEvenue, S., The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (AnBib, 50), Roma 1971.
McKay, H.A., Clines, D.J.A. (eds), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays
in Honour of R.N. Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOT SS, 162), Sheffield 1993.
McKim, D.K. (ed.), Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, Downers Grove,
IL 1998.
McNeile, A.H., The Book of Exodus with Introduc tion and Notes (Westminster
Commentaries), London 1908.
Bibliography 369
———, The Book of Numbers: In the Revised Version with Introduction and Notes (The
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), Cambridge, UK 1911.
Mehlhausen, J. (ed.), Pluralismus und Identität (Veröffentlichungen der Wissen
schaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie, 8), Gütersloh 1995.
Meinhold, J., Einführung in das Alte Testament (Die Theologie im Abriß, 1), Gießen 1926.
Merx, A. (ed.), Archiv für wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments I, Halle
1867.
Michaéli, F., Le livre de l’Exode (CAT, 2), Paris 1974.
Micklem, N., The Book of Leviticus (The Interpreter’s Bible, 2), New York 1953.
Milgrom, J., ‘The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance’, RB 82 (1975), 186–205.
———, ‘Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of Pre-Monarchic
Israel’, JQR 69 (1978), 65–81.
———, Numbers—( במדברThe Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary),
Philadelphia 1990.
———, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 3),
New York 1991.
———, Leviticus 17–22 (AB, 3a), New York 2000.
Milik, J.T., Qumran Cave 1 (DJD, 1), Oxford 1955.
Miltenberger, J., Bibliographie Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag am 10. Mai 1990 (DBAT
Beihefte, 11), Heidelberg 1990.
Minette de Tillesse, G., ‘Sections “tu” et sections “vous” dans le Deutéronome’, VT 12
(1962), 29–87.
———, ‘Tu & vous dans le Deutéronome’, in: R.G. Kratz, H. Spieckermann (eds), Liebe
und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium – Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar
Perlitt (FRLANT, 190), Göttingen 2000, 156–163.
Mitchell, G., ‘A Hermeneutic of Intercultural Learnings: The Writings of John Colenso’,
OTE 10 (1997), 449–458.
Monshouwer, D., Leviticus (Verklaring van een bijbelgedeelte), Kampen, s.d.
Morgenstern, J., ‘The Oldest Document of the Hexateuch’, HUCA 4 (1927), 1–138.
———, ‘The Book of the Covenant: Part 1’, HUCA 5 (1928), 1–151.
———, ‘The Mythological Background of Psalm 82’, HUCA 14 (1939), 29–98.
Mowinckel, S., Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia, Kristiana 1914.
———, Le Décalogue (Études d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses, 16), Paris 1927.
———, Prophecy and Tradition: The Prophetic Books in the Light of the Study of the
Growth and History of the Tradition (Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-
Akademi i Oslo, 2/3), Oslo 1946.
Muilenberg, J., ‘The Form and Structure of the Covenant Formulations’, VT 9 (1959),
347–365.
Neef, H.-D., ‘“Ich selber bin in ihm” (Ex. 23,21): Exegetische Beobachtungen zur Rede
vom “Engel des Herrn” in Ex. 23,20–22; 32,34; 33,2; Jdc 2,1–5; 5,23’, BZ 39 (1995), 54–75.
370 Bibliography
Nelson, R.D., The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOT SS, 18),
Sheffield 1981.
Neyrinck, F., Van Belle, G., Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense. Journées Bibliques de
Louvain—Bijbelse Studiedagen te Leuven: 1949–1993 (ANL, 29), Leuven 1994.
Nicholson, E.W., Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford 1967.
———, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah,
Oxford 1970.
———, Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition: Growing Points in Theology, Oxford
1973.
———, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament, Oxford 1986.
———, ‘The Pentateuch in Recent Research: A Time for Caution’, in: J.A. Emerton
(ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 10–21.
———, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen,
Oxford 1998.
Nihan, C., From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of
Leviticus (FAT, 25), Tübingen 2007.
———, Römer, T., ‘Le débat actuel sur la formation du Pentateuque’, in: T. Römer
et al. (eds), Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 49), Genève
2004, 85–113.
Nöldeke, T., Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments. 1: Die s.g. Grundschrift des
Pentateuchs, Kiel 1869.
Nomoto, S., ‘Entstehung und Entwicklung der Erzählung von der Gefährdung der
Ahnfrau’, AJBI 2 (1976), 3–27.
Noordtzij, A., Das Rätsel des Alten Testamentes, Braunschweig 1927.
———, Levitikus (Korte verklaring der heilige Schrift), Kampen 1940.
———, Het boek Numeri opnieuw uit den grondtekst vertaald en verklaard (Korte
verklaring der heilige Schrift), Kampen 1941.
North, C.R., ‘Pentateuchal Criticism’, in: H.H. Rowley (ed.), The Old Testament and
Modern Study: A Generation of Discovery and Research, Oxford 1951, 48–83.
Noth, M., ‘Num. 21 als Glied der “Hexateuch”-Erzählung’, ZAW 17 (1940–1941), 161–189.
———, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden
Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1943.
———, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948.
———, Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus übersetzt und erklärt (ATD, 5), Göttingen 1959.
———, Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus (ATD, 6), Göttingen 1962.
———, Die Welt des Alten Testaments: Einführung in die Grenzgebiete der Alt
testamentlichen Wissenschaft (Sammlung Töppelmann, 2/3), Berlin 1962.
———, Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri übersetzt und erklärt (ATD, 7), Göttingen 1966.
O’Brien, M.A., The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO, 92),
Fribourg 1989.
Bibliography 371
O’Connell, K.G., ‘The List of Seven Peoples in Canaan: A Fresh Analysis’, in: H.O.
Thompson (ed.), The Answers Lie Below: Essays in Honour of Edmund Toombs,
London 1994, 221–241.
Oesterley, W.O.E., Robinson, T.H., An Introduction to the Books of the Old Testament,
London 1934; 21935.
Olrik, A., ‘Epische Gesetze der Volksdichtung’, Zeitschrift für deutschen Altertum 51
(1909), 1–12.
Oosterhoff, B.J., Jeremia 1–10 (COT), Kampen 1990.
Osumi, Y., Die kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b–23,33 (OBO,
105), Fribourg 1991.
Oswald, W., Israel am Gottesberg: Eine Untersuchung zur Literaturgeschichte der vor-
deren Sinaiperikope Ex. 19–24 und deren historischem Hintergrund (OBO, 159),
Fribourg 1998.
Otto, E., Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal (BWANT, 107), Stuttgart 1975.
———, ‘Stehen wir vor einem Umbruch in der Pentateuchkritik?’, Verkündigung und
Forschung 22 (1977), 82–97.
———, Wandel der Rechtsbegründungen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des antiken
Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte des ‘Bundesbuches’ (Ex. xx,22–xxiii,13) (StB, 3), Leiden
1988.
———, ‘Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchre daktion im Buch Exodus’, in:
M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—
Interpretation (BETL, 126) Leuven 1996, 61–111.
———, ‘Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: Eine nachpriesterliche Lehrerzählung
und ihrem religionshistorischen Kontext’, in: A.A. Diesel et al. (eds), ‘Jedes Ding hat
seine Zeit . . .’: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit—Diethelm
Michel zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 241), Berlin 1996, 167–192.
———, ‘Deuteronomium und Pentateuch: Aspekte der gegenwärtigen Debatte’, ZABR
6 (2000), 222–284.
———, Das Deuteronomium in Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literatur
geschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens
(FAT, 30), Tübingen 2000.
———, Gottes Recht als Menschenrecht: Rechts- und literaturhistorische Studien zum
Deuteronomium (BZABR, 2), Wiesbaden 2002.
———, ‘Das postdeuteronomistische Deuteronomium als integrierender Schlußstein
der Tora’, in: M. Witte et al. (eds), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke:
Redaktions- und reli gions
geschichtliche Perspektiven zur ‘Deuteronomismus’-
Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW, 365), Berlin 2006, 71–102.
———, ‘A Hidden Truth Behind the Text or the Truth of the Text: At a Turning Point
in Biblical Scholarship Two Hundred Years after De Wette’s “ ‘Dissertatio critico-
exegetica”’, in: J.H. Le Roux, E. Otto (eds), South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch
372 Bibliography
Between Synchrony and Diachrony (Library of the Hebrew Bible. Old Testament
Studies, 463), Sheffield 2007, 19–28.
———, ‘Scribal Scholarship in the Formation of Torah and Prophets: A Postexilic
Scribal Debate between Priestly Scholarship and Literary Prophecy—The Example
of the Book of Jeremiah and Its Relation to the Pentateuch’, in: G.N. Knoppers,
B.M. Levinson (eds), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its
Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake, IN 2007, 171–184.
———, Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch—Gesammelte Aufsätze (BZAR, 9), Wiesbaden
2009.
———, Deuteronomium 1,1–4,43 (HTKAT), Freiburg 2012.
———, ‘Jeseits der Suche nach dem “ursprünglichen Text” in der Textkritik:
Fortschreibungen und Textautorität in der nachexilischen Zeit’, ZABR 18 (2012),
365–371.
———, Achenbach, R. (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und
Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Göttingen 2004.
Patton, C.L., ‘Pan-Deuteronomism and the Book of Ezekiel’, in: L.S. Schearing,
S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-
Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999, 200–215.
Paul, M.-J., Het archimedisch punt van de Pentateuchkritiek: Een historisch en exegetisch
onderzoek naar de verhouding van Deuteronomium en de reformatie van koning Josia
(2 Kon 22–23), ’s-Gravenhage 1988.
Peckham, B., The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM, 35), Atlanta, GA
1985.
Perdue, L.G., Kovacs, W. (eds), A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies,
Winona Lake, IN 1984.
Perlitt L., Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT, 36), Neukirchen 1969.
———, ‘Mose als Prophet’, EvT 31 (1971), 588–608.
———, ‘Hebraismus—Deuteronomismus—Judaïsmus’, in: G. Braulik et al. (eds),
Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink s.J., Freiburg
1993, 297–295.
Person, R.F., Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School (JSOT SS, 167), Sheffield
1993.
———, The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature (Studies in
Biblical Literature, 2), Atlanta, GA 2002.
Pfeiffer, R.H., Introduction to the Old Testament, New York 1941.
Phillips, A., ‘A Fresh Look at the Sinai Pericope’, VT 34 (1984), 39–52; 282–294.
Plastaras, J., The God of Exodus: The Theology of the Exodus Narratives, Milwaukee 1966.
Plöger, J.G., Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum
Deuteronomium (BBB, 26), Bonn 1967.
Porter, J.R., Leviticus (The Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge 1976.
Bibliography 373
Rücker, H., Die Begründungen der Weisungen Jahwes im Pentateuch (ErfTS, 30), Leipzig
1973.
Rudolph, W., Der ‘Elohist’ von Exodus bis Jozua (BZAW, 68), Berlin 1938.
———, Jeremia (HAT, 1/12), Tübingen 1947.
———, Volz, P., Der Elohist als Erzähler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? An der Genesis
erlautert (BZAW, 63), Berlin 1933.
Ruppert, L., Das Buch Genesis (Geistliche Schriftlesung, 6), Düsseldorf 1984.
Ruprecht, E., ‘Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzählung vom Mannawunder (Ex. 16) im
Aufbau der Priesterschrift’, ZAW 86 (1974), 269–307.
Rylaarsdam, J.C., The Book of Exodus: Introduction and Exegesis (The Interpreter’s
Bible, 1), New York 1952.
Ryle, H.E., The Book of Genesis (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges),
Cambridge 1914.
Sailhamer, J.H., Genesis (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI 1990.
———, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary, Grand Rapids,
MI, 1992.
Sakenfeld, K.D., ‘Numbers’, in: B.W. Anderson (ed.), The Books of the Bible, Part 1: The
Old Testament/The Hebrew Bible, New York 1989, 47–62.
———, Journeying with God: A Commentary on the Book of Numbers (International
Theological Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI 1995.
Sandmel, S., ‘The Haggada Within Scripture’, JBL 80 (1961), 105–122.
Sarna, N.M., Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel, New York 1986.
———, ‘Exodus’, in: B.W. Anderson (ed.), The Books of the Bible, Part 1: The Old Testa
ment/The Hebrew Bible, New York 1989, 47–62.
———, Genesis—( בראשיתThe Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary),
Philadelphia 1989.
———, Exodus—( שמותThe Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary), Philadel
phia 1991.
Scharbert, J., ‘Jeremia und die Reform des Joschija’, in: P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Le livre
de Jérémie : Le prophète et son milieu—Les oracles et leur transmission (BETL, 54),
Leuven 1981, 40–57.
———, Genesis 1–11 (Die neue Echter Bibel, 5), Würzburg 1983.
———, Genesis 12–50 (Die neue Echter Bibel, 16), Würzburg 1986.
———, Exodus (Die neue Echter Bibel, 24), Würzburg 1989.
Schart, A., Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den
Wüstenerzählungen (OBO, 98), Göttingen 1990.
Schearing, L.S., McKenzie, S.L. (eds), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of
Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield 1999.
Schedl, C., Baupläne des Wortes: Einführung in die biblische Logotechnik, Wien 1974.
378 Bibliography
Schmid, H.H., Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuch
forschung, Zürich 1976.
———, ‘In Search of New Approaches in Pentateuchal Research’, JSOT 3 (1977), 33–42.
———, ‘Auf der Suche nach neuen Perspektiven für die Pentateuchforschung’, in:
J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (SVT, 32), Leiden 1981, 375–394.
———, ‘Vers une théologie du Pentateuque’, in: A. De Pury, T. Römer (eds), Le
Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de
la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes. 3ème édition augmentée (Le monde de la
Bible, 19), Genève 2002, 361–386.
Schmid, K., Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der
Ursprunge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT,
81), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999.
———, ‘The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus’,
in: T.B. Dozeman, K. Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition
of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBL SS, 34), Atlanta, GA 2006,
29–50.
———, ‘Hatte Wellhausen Recht? Das Problem der literarhistorischen Anfänge des
Deuteronomismus in den Königsbüchern’, in: M. Witte et al., Die deuteronomist-
ischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur
‘Deuteronomismus’-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW, 365), Berlin
2006, 19–43.
———, ‘Buchtechnische und sachliche Prolegomena zur Enneateuchfrage’, in:
M. Beck, U. Schorn (eds), Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Gen—II Regum: Festschrift
Hans-Christoph Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 370), Berlin 2006, 1–14.
———, ‘Une grande historiographie allant de Genèse à 2 Rois a-t-elle un jour existé?’, in:
T. Römer, K. Schmid (eds), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque
et de l’Ennéateuque (BETL 203), Leuven 2007, 35–45.
———, Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung, Darmstadt 2008.
———, ‘The Emergence and Disappearance of the Separation between the Pentateuch
and the Deuteronomistic History in Biblical Studies’, in: T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds),
Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through
Kings (SBL Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 8), Atlanta, GA 2011, 11–24.
Schmidt, H., ‘Mose und der Dekalog’, in: H. Schmidt (ed.), ΕΥΧΑΡIΣΤΗΡIΟΝ: Studien
zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments – Hermann Gunkel zum
60. Geburtstag, dem 23. Mai 1922 dargebracht von seinen Schülern und Freunden,
Tl. 1: Zur Religion und Literatur des Alten Testaments (FRLANT, 36), Göttingen 1923,
78–119.
———, ‘Stehen wir vor einer neuen Periode der Literarkritik im Alten Testament?’,
Theologische Blätter 2 (1923), 223–226.
Bibliography 379
Schmidt, L., ‘De Deo’: Studien zur Literarkritik und Theologie des Buches Jona, des
Gesprächs zwischen Abraham und Jahwe in Gen 18,22ff. und von Hi 1 (BZAW, 143),
Berlin 1976.
———, ‘Überlegungen zum Jahwisten’, EvT 37 (1977), 230–247.
———, Zur Entstehung des Pentateuch: Ein kritischer Literaturbericht’, VuF 40 (1995),
3–28.
———, ‘Israel und das Gesetz: Ex. 19,3b–8 und 24,3–8 als literarischer und theolo-
gischer Rahmen für das Bundesbuch’, ZAW 113 (2001), 167–185.
———, ‘Im Dickicht der Pentateuchforschung: Ein Plädoyer für die umstrittene
Neuere Urkundenhypothese’, VT 60 (2010), 400–420.
Schmidt, W.H., ‘Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches: Zu den theolo-
gischen Unterschieden zwischen Prophetenwort und seinem Sammler’, ZAW 77
(1965), 168–193.
———, Einführung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 1979; 51995.
———, ‘Ein Theologe in salomonischer Zeit? Plädoyer für den Jahwisten’, BZ 25 (1981),
82–102.
———, Exodus (BKAT, 2/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988.
———, Exodus (BKAT, 2/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1995.
Schmitt, G., Der Landtag von Sichem (Arbeiten zur Theologie, 15), Stuttgart 1964.
———, Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die Weisungen
gegen die Kanaanäer in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung (BWANT, 91),
Stuttgart 1970.
Schmitt, H.-C., ‘“Priesterliches” und “prophetisches” Geschichtsverständnis in der
Meerwunder erzählung Ex. 13,17–14,31: Beobachtungen zur Endredaktion des
Pentateuch’, in: A.H.J. Gunneweg, O. Kaiser (eds), Textgemäss: Aufsätze und Beiträge
zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments – Festschrift für Ernst Würthwein zum 70.
Geburtstag, Göttingen 1979, 139–155.
———, Die nichtpriesterliche Josephsgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur neuesten Pentateuch
kritik (BZAW, 154), Berlin 1980.
———, ‘Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie: Beobachtungen zur
Bedeutung der “Glaubens”-Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des Pentateuch’, VT
32 (1982), 170–189.
———, ‘Die Hintergrunde der “neuesten Pentateuchkritik” und der literarische
Befund der Josephsgeschichte Gen. 37–50’, ZAW 97 (1985), 161–179.
———, ‘Die Erzählung von der Versuchung Abrahams: Gen. 22,1–19* und das Problem
einer Theologie der elohistischen Pentateuchtexte’, BN 34 (1986), 82–109.
———, ‘Tradition der Prophetenbücher in den Schichten der Plagenerzählung Ex. 7,1–
11,10’, in: V. Fritz et al. (eds), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser
zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 185), Berlin 1989, 196–216.
380 Bibliography
———, ‘Die Geschichte vom Sieg über die Amalekieter: Ex. 17,8–16 als theologische
Lehrerzählung’, ZAW 102 (1990), 335–344.
———, ‘Der heidnische Mantiker als eschatologischer Jahweprophet’, in: I. Kottsieper
et al. (eds), “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?” : Studien zur Theologie und
Religionsgeschichte Israels für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1994,
181–198.
———, ‘Die Suche nach der Identität des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel:
Bemerkungen zur theologischen Intention der Endredaktion des Pentateuch’, in:
J. Mehlhausen (ed.), Pluralismus und Identität (Veröffentlichungen der Wissen
schaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie, 8), Gütersloh 1995, 259–278.
———, ‘Die Josephsgeschichte und das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Genesis
38 und 48–50’, in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic
Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 391–405.
———, ‘Das spätdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk Gen. i–2 Regum xxv und seine
theologische Intention’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Cambridge 1995
(SVT, 66), Leiden 1997, 261–279.
———, ‘Die Erzählung vom Goldenen Kalb Ex. 32* und das Deuteronomistische
Geschichtswerk’, in: S.L. McKenzie et al. (eds), Rethinking the Foundations:
Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible (BZAW, 294), Berlin 2000,
235–250.
———, Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften (BZAW, 310),
Berlin 2001.
———, ‘Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex. 34,10–28 als Komposition der
spätdeuteronomistischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch’, in: J.C. Gertz et al. (eds),
Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion
(BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002, 157–171.
———, ‘Das Altargesetz und seine Redaktionsgeschichtlichen Bezüge’, in: J.F. Diehl
et al. (eds), “Einen Altar von Erde mache mir . . .”: Festschrift für Diethelm Conrad
zu seinem 70. Geburtstag (Kleine Arbeiten zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 4/5),
Waltrop 2003, 269–289.
———, ‘Dtn 34 als Verbindungsstück zwischen Tetrateuch und Deuteronomistischem
Geschichtswerk’, in: E. Otto, R. Achenbach (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen
Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Göttingen
2004, 181–192.
———, ‘Menschliche Schuld, göttliche Führung und ethische Wandlung: Zur
Theologie von Gen 20,1–21,21 und zum Problem des Beginns des “Elohistischen
Geschichtswerks”’, in: M. Witte (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog (BZAW, 345), Berlin
2004, 259–270.
———, ‘Erzvätergeschichte und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende Ursprungs
legenden Israels: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchforschung’, in: A.C. Hagedorn, H. Pfeiffer
Bibliography 381
(eds), Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert (BZAW,
400), Berlin 2009, 241–266.
———, ‘“Das Gesetz aber ist neben eingekommen”: Spätdeuteronomistische
nachpriesterschriftliche Redaktion und ihre vorexilische Vorlage in Ex. 19–20’, in:
R. Achenbach, M. Arneth (eds), “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18,19): Studien
zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels
und zur Religionssoziologie – Festschrift für Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (BZABR,
13), Wiesbaden 2009, 155–170.
———, ‘“Eschatologie” im Enneateuch Gen. 1–2 Kön 25: Bedeutung und Funktion
der Moselieder Dtn. 32,1–43* und Ex. 15,1–21*’, in: C. Diller et al. (eds), Studien zu
Psalmen und Propheten (Herders Biblische Studien, 64), Freiburg 2010, 131–149.
Schmökel, H., ‘Zur Datierung der Pentateuchquelle J’, ZAW 62 (1950), 319–321.
Schniedewind, W.M., How the Bible Became a Book?, Cambridge 2004.
Schreiner, J., ‘Exodus 12,21–23 und das israelitische Pascha’, in: G. Braulik (ed.), Studien
zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, Wien 1977, 69–90.
Schweitzer, S., ‘Deuteronomy 32 and 33 as Proto-Deuteronomic Texts’, Eastern Great
Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies: Proceedings 22 (2002), 79–98.
Schwienhorst-Schönberger, L., Das Bundesbuch (Ex. 20,22–23,33): Studien zu seiner
Entstehung und Theologie (BZAW, 188), Berlin 1990.
Seebass, H., Mose und Aaron, Sinai und Gottesberg (Abhandlungen zur Evangelischen
Theologie, 2), Bonn 1962.
———, ‘Zur geistigen Welt des sog. Jahwisten’, BN 4 (1977), 39–47.
———, ‘Jahwist’, TRE 16 (1987), 441–451.
———, Numeri (BKAT, 4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993–2007.
———, ‘Pentateuch’, TRE 26 (1996), 185–209.
———, ‘Que reste-t-il du Yahwiste et de l’Élohiste?’, in: A. De Pury, T. Römer (eds), Le
Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la
Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes. 3ème édition augmentée (Le monde de la
Bible, 19), Genève 2002, 199–230.
Segal, M.H., The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship and Other Biblical
Studies, Jerusalem 1967.
Seidel, B., Karl David Ilgen und die Pentateuchforschung im Umkreis der sogenannten
älteren Urkundenhypothese: Studien zur Geschichte der exegetischen Hermeneutik in
der späten Aufklärung (BZAW, 213), Berlin 1993.
———, ‘Entwicklungslinien der neueren Pentateuchforschung im 20. Jahrhundert’,
ZAW 106 (1994), 476–485.
Seitz, C.R., ‘Mose als Prophet: Redaktionsthemen und Gesamtstruk tur des
Jeremiabuches’, BZ 34 (1990), 234–245.
Seitz, G., Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium (BWANT, 93), Stuttgart
1971.
382 Bibliography
Sénéchal, V., Rétribution et intercession dans le Deutéronome (BZAW, 408), Berlin 2009.
Sikkel, J.C., Het boek der geboorten: Verklaring van het boek Genesis, Amsterdam 1906.
Simon, R., Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, Paris 1678.
Simpson, C.A., The Early Traditions of Israel: A Critical Analysis of the Predeuteronomic
Narrative of the Hexateuch, Oxford 1948.
———, Bowie, W.R., The Book of Genesis (The Interpreter’s Bible, 1), New York 1952.
Ska, J.L., ‘Exode xiv contient-il un récit de “guerre sainte” de style deutéronomistique?’,
VT 33 (1983), 454–467.
———, Le passage de la Mer: Étude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique
d’Ex. 14,1–31 (AnBib, 109), Roma 1986.
———, ‘Un nouveau Wellhausen?’, Bib 72 (1991), 253–263.
———, ‘Récit et récit métadiégétique en Ex. 1–15: Remarques critiques et essai
d’interprétation de Ex. 4,16–22’, in: P. Haudebert (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Débats et
recherches: xiv ème congrès de l’ACFEB, Angers (1991) (LD, 151), Paris 1992, 135–171.
———, ‘Ex. 19,3–8 et les parénèses deutéronomiques’, in: G. Braulik et al. (eds),
Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink s.J., Freiburg
1993, 307–314.
———, ‘Exode 19,3b–6 et l’identité de l’Israël postexilique’, in: M. Vervenne (ed.),
Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (BETL, 126)
Leuven 1996, 289–317.
———, ‘Le Pentateuque: État de la recherche à partir de quelques récentes “Introductions”’,
Bib 77 (1996), 245–265.
———, ‘L’appel d’Abraham et l’acte de naissance d’Israël: Genèse 12,1–4a’, in:
M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature : Festschrift
C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 367–289.
———, Review of D.M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary
Approaches (Louisville, KY, 1996), Bib 79 (1998), 120–124.
———, ‘The Yahwist, a Hero with a Thousand Faces: A Chapter in the History of
Modern Exegesis’, in: J.C. Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition
des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002, 1–23.
———, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, Winona Lake, IN 2006.
———, ‘The Study of the Book of Genesis: The Beginning of Critical Reading’, in:
C. Evans et al. (eds), The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation
(SVT, 152), Leiden 2012, 3–26.
Skehan, P.W. et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 4. iv: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts
(DJD, 9), Oxford 1992.
Skinner, J., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC), Edinburgh 1910.
———, Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah, Cambridge 91961.
Skweres, D.E., Die Rückverweise im Buch Deuteronomium (AnBib, 79), Roma, 1979.
Bibliography 383
Smelik, K.A.D., ‘Profetische reflectie op het verleden: Bijbelse verhalen tussen fictie
en geschiedenis’, in: K. Deurloo, R. Zuurmond (eds), De bijbel maakt school: Een
Amsterdamse weg in de exegese, Baarn 1984, 60–75.
Smend, R., Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht, Berlin 1912.
Smend, R., ‘Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen
Redaktionsgeschichte’, in: H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard
von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, München 1971, 494–509.
———, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Theologische Wissenschaft, 1), Stuttgart
1978; 31984.
———, Die Mitte des Alten Testaments: Exegetische Aufsätze, Tübingen 2002.
———, Julius Wellhausen: ein Bahnbrecher in drei Disziplinen, München 2006.
———, From Astruc to Zimmerli, Tübingen 2007.
Snaith, N.H., Leviticus and Numbers (The Century Bible. New Edition), London 1967.
Soggin, J.A., ‘Kultätiologische Sagen und Katechese im Hexateuch’, VT 10 (1960),
341–347.
———, Introduction to the Old Testament: From its Origins to the Closing of the
Alexandrian Canon, London 1976; 31989.
———, Judges: A Commentary (OTL), London 1981; 21987.
Sparks, K.L., Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic
Sentiments and their Expression in the Hebrew Bible, Winona Lake, IN 1998.
Spinoza, B., Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Hamburg 1670.
Sprinkle, J.M., ‘The Book of the Covenant’: A Literary Approach (JSOT SS, 174), Sheffield
1994.
Stähelin, J.J., ‘Beiträge zu den kritischen Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch, die
Bücher Josua und die Richter’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 8 (1835), 461–477.
———, Kritische Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch, die Bücher Josua, Richter,
Samuels und der Könige, Berlin 1843.
Steck, O.H., Israel und das Gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur
Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbild im Alten Testament, Spätjuden
tum und Urchristentum (WMANT, 23), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1967.
Steuernagel, C., Das Deuteronomium (HKAT, 1/3/1), Göttingen 1898; 21923.
———, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit einem Anhang über die Apo
kryphen und Pseudepigraphen (Sammlung Theologischer Lehrbücher), Tübingen
1912.
Stolz, F., Jahwes und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen im Glauben
des alten Israels (ATANT, 60), Zürich 1972.
Strack, H.L., Einleitung in das Alte Testament einschließlich Apokryphen und Pseudepi
graphen: mit eingehender Angabe der Literatur, München 61906.
Sturdy, J., Numbers (The Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge 1976.
384 Bibliography
Sundkler, B., Steed, C., A History of the Church in Africa (Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia,
74), Cambridge 2000.
Talstra, E., Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings
8,14–61 (CBET, 3), Kampen 1993.
Tarazi, P.N., The Old Testament: Introduction, Vol. 1: Historical Traditions, New York 1991.
Taylor, B. (ed.), Proceedings of the xth Congress of the International Organization for
Septuagint and Cognate Studies—Oslo 1998 (SBL SCS, 51), Atlanta, GA 2001.
Te Stroete, G., Exodus uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (BOT, 1/2), Roermond 1966.
Tengström, S., Die Hexateucherzählung, Lund 1976.
Thiel, W., Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25 (WMANT, 41), Neukirchen
1973.
———, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (WMANT, 52), Neukirchen
1981.
———, ‘Ein vierteljahrhundert Jeremia-Forschung’, VuF 31 (1986), 32–52.
Thompson, R.J., Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism since Graf (SVT, 19), Leiden
1970.
Thompson, T.L., The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, Part 1: The Literary Formation of
Genesis and Exodus 1–23 (JSOT SS, 55), Sheffield 1987.
———, ‘Tradition and History: The Scholarship of John Van Seters’, in: S.L. McKenzie
et al. (eds), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in
the Bible (BZAW, 294), Berlin 2000, 9–21.
Tov, E., ‘The Septuagint and the Deuteronomists’, in: Idem, Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible,
and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSAJ, 121), Tübingen 2008, 398–417.
———, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Third Edition, Revised and Expanded,
Minneapolis, MN 2012.
Tuckett, C.M. (ed.), Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays (JSNT SS, 116),
Sheffield 1995.
Ulrich, E., ‘Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections Toward a Theory of the History of the
Biblical Text’, in: Idem (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Studies
in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature), Grand Rapids, MI 1999, 99–120.
——— et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 4. ix: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD, 14),
Oxford 1995.
Utzschneider, H., ‘Die Renaissance der alttestamentlichen Literaturwissenschaft und
das Buch Exodus: Überlegungen zu Hermeneutik und Geschichte der Forschung’,
ZAW 106 (1994), 197–223.
Van der Kooij, A., ‘Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891): De Pentateuch en de godsdienst van
Israël’, NTT 45 (1991), 279–292.
———, ‘Abraham Kuenen: 1891—10 december—1991’, in: Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891):
Uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van een tentoonstelling gehouden in de Universiteitsbiblio
theek Leiden van 10 december 1991 tot 14 januari 1992 (Kleine publikaties van de Leidse
Universiteitsbibliotheek, 11), Leiden 1991, 25–31.
Bibliography 385
———, ‘“And I also Said”: A New Interpretation of Judges ii 3’, VT 45 (1995), 294–306.
———, ‘LXX Exodus 23 and the Figure of the High Priest’, in: J.K. Aitken et al. (eds), On
Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies (BZAW, 420), Berlin 2011,
537–549.
———, ‘The Septuagint of the Pentateuch’, in: J. Cook, A. van der Kooij, Law, Prophets,
and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint
Version (CBET, 68), Leuven 2012, 15–62.
Van der Woude, A.S., Micha (POT), Nijkerk 1976.
———, (ed.), New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection of Old
Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the
Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap and the Retirement of Prof. Dr. M.J. Mulder (OTS,
25), Leiden 1989.
Van Hoonacker, A., De compositione litteraria et de origine Mosaica Hexateuchi disqui-
sitio historico-critica: Een historisch-kritisch onderzoek van Professor Van Hoonacker
naar het ontstaan van de Hexateuch op grond van verspreide nagelaten aantekenin-
gen samengesteld en ingeleid door J. Coppens (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke
Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België.
Klasse der Letteren, 11), Brussel 1949.
Van Lerberghe, K., Schoors, A. (eds), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient
Near East: Festschrift E. Lipiński (OLA, 65), Leuven 1995.
Van Ongeval, C., Liber Genesis, Gent 1902.
Van Selms, A., Genesis, Nijkerk 1967.
Van Seters, J., ‘The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of
Israel’, JBL 87 (1968), 401–408.
———, ‘The Terms “Amorite” and “Hittite” in the Old Testament’, VT 22 (1972), 64–81.
———, ‘The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom: A Literary Examination’, JBL 91 (1972),
182–197.
———, Abraham in History and Tradition, London 1975.
———, ‘Oral Patterns of Literary Conventions in Biblical Narrative’, Semeia 5 (1976),
139–154.
———, ‘Problems in the Literary Analysis of the Court History of David’, JSOT 1 (1976),
22–29.
———, ‘The Yahwist as Theologian? A Response’, JSOT 3 (1977), 15–20.
———, ‘Recent Studies on the Pentateuch: A Crisis in Method?’, JAOS 99 (1979),
663–673.
———, ‘Tradition and Social Change in Ancient Israel’, Perspectives in Religious Studies
7 (1980), 96–113.
———, ‘Once Again—The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom’, JBL 99 (1980), 117–124.
———, ‘The Religion of the Patriarchs in Genesis’, Bib 61 (1980), 220–233.
———, ‘Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near East: The Israelites’, Orientalia
50 (1981), 137–185.
386 Bibliography
———, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of
Biblical History, London 1983.
———, ‘The Place of the Yahwist in the History of Passover and Massot’, ZAW 95 (1983),
167–182.
———, ‘Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament’, in: W.B. Barrick,
J.R. Spencer (eds), In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and
Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlström (JSOT SS, 31), Trowbridge 1984, 139–158.
———, ‘The Yahwist as Historian’, in: K.H. Richards (ed.), One Hundred Twenty-Second
Annual Meeting, November 22–25, 1986, Atlanta (SBL SP, 25), Atlanta, GA 1986, 37–55.
———, Der Jahwist als Historiker (TSt, 134), Zürich 1987.
———, ‘“Comparing Scripture with Scripture”: Some Observations on the Sinai
Pericope of Exodus 19–24, in: G.W. Tucker et al. (eds), Canon, Theology and Old
Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Brevard S. Childs, Philadelphia 1988,
111–130.
———, ‘The Primeval Histories of Greece and Israel Compared’, ZAW 100 (1988), 1–22.
———, ‘The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King (Gen 1–2; Ez 28)’, ZAW 101
(1989), 333–342.
———, ‘Law and the Wilderness Rebellion Tradition: Exodus 32’, in: D.J. Lull (ed.),
Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers: One Hundred Twenty-Sixth Annual
Meeting, November 17–20, 1990 (SBL SP, 29), Atlanta, GA 1990, 583–591.
———, ‘Joshua’s Campaign of Canaan and Near Eastern Historiography’, SJOT 2 (1990),
1–12.
———, ‘The So-Called Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch’, in: J.A. Emerton
(ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (SVT, 43), Leiden 1991, 58–77.
———, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Louisville 1992.
———, ‘The Theology of the Yahwist: A Preliminary Sketch’, in: I. Kottsieper
et al. (eds), “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?” : Studien zur Theologie und
Religionsgeschichte Israels für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1994,
219–228.
———, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers (CBET, 10),
Kampen 1994.
———, ‘A Contest of Magicians? The Plague Stories in P’, in: D.P. Wright et al. (eds),
Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual,
Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN 1995, 569–580.
———, ‘Cultic Laws in the Covenant Code and their Relationship to Deuteronomy
and the Holiness Code’, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), The Book of Exodus: Redaction—
Reception—Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 319–345.
———, ‘From Faithful Prophet to Villain: Observations on the Tradition History of the
Balaam Story’, in: E.E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form
and Content—Essays in Honor of G.W. Coats (JSOT SS, 240), Sheffield 1997, 126–132.
Bibliography 387
———, ‘The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch: The Case Against it’, in:
M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift
C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997, 301–319.
———, ‘Divine Encounter at Bethel (Gen. 28,10–22) in Recent Literary-Critical Study
of Genesis’, ZAW 110 (1998), 503–513.
———, ‘Some Observations on the Lex Talionis in Exod 21:23–25’, in: S. Beyerle et al.
(eds), Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament: Gestalt und Wirkung – Festschrift für
Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukrichen-Vluyn 1999, 27–37.
———, The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (Trajectories, 1), Sheffield 1999.
———, ‘In the Babylonian Exile with J: Between Judgment in Ezekiel and Salvation
in Second Isaiah’, in: B. Becking, M.C.A. Korpel (eds), The Crisis of Israelite Religion:
Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS, 42), Leiden
1999, 71–89.
———, ‘Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible’, Studies in Religion 29 (2000),
395–409.
———, ‘The Deuteronomist from Joshua to Samuel’, in: G.N. Knoppers,
J.G. McConville (eds), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the
Deuteronomistic History (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 8), Winona
Lake, IN 2000, 204–239.
———, ‘The Silence of Dinah (Genesis 34)’, in: J.-D. Macchi, T. Römer (eds), Jacob:
Commentaire à plusieurs voix de Gen 25–36 – Mélanges offerts à Albert de Pury (Le
monde de la Bible, 44), Genève 2001, 239–247.
———, ‘Is there Any Historiography in the Hebrew Bible? A Hebrew–Greek
Comparison’, JNSL 28 (2002), 1–25.
———, ‘Deuteronomy between Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History’,
Hervormde Teologiese Studies 59 (2003), 947–956.
———, ‘The Redactor in Biblical Studies: A Nineteenth Century Anachronism’, JNSL
29 (2003), 1–19.
———, ‘From Child Sacrifice to Paschal Lamb: A Remarkable Transformation’, OTE 16
(2003), 453–463.
———, A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code, Oxford
2003.
———, ‘The Altar Law of Ex. 20,24–26 in Critical Debate’, in: M. Beck, U. Schorn (eds),
Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum: Festschrift Hans-Christoph
Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 370), Berlin 2006, 157–174.
———, ‘The Report of the Yahwist’s Demise Has Been Greatly Exaggerated!’, in:
T.D. Dozeman, K. Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the
Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBL SS, 34), Atlanta, GA 2006, 143–157.
———, ‘The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between Two Origin
Traditions’, in: R. Roukema (ed.), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of
Cornelis Houtman (CBET, 44), Leuven 2006, 1–15.
388 Bibliography
———, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the ‘Editor’ in Biblical Criticism, Winona
Lake, IN 2006.
———, Changing Perspectives I: Studies in the History, Literature and Religion of Biblical
Israel (Copenhagen International Seminar), London 2011.
———, The Yahwist: A Historian of Israelite Origins, Winona Lake, IN 2013.
Vansteenhuyse, K., Van Abraham tot Jezebel: Wat archeologie ons leert over de verhalen
van de Bijbel, Leuven 2010.
Vanstiphout, H.L.J. et al. (eds), Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures,
Scribes and Languages in the Near East Presented to J.H. Hospers by His Pupils,
Colleagues and Friends, Groningen 1986.
Vater, J.S., Commentar über den Pentateuch mit Einleitungen in den einzelnen Abschnit
ten der eingeschalteten Übersetzung von Dr. Alexander Geddes’s merkwürdigen cri-
tischen und exegetischen Anmerkungen und einer Abhandlung über Mose und die
Verfasser des Pentateuchs, Halle 1802–1805.
Vawter, B., On Genesis: A New Reading, New York 1977.
Veijola, T., Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der
deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF, 193), Helsinki 1975.
———, Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine
redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF, 198), Helsinki 1977.
———, ‘Deuteronomismusforschung zwischen Tradition und Innovation’, TR 67
(2002), 273–327; 391–424; 68 (2003), 1–44.
Vermeylen, J., Du prophète Isaïe à l’Apocalyptique: Isaïe, i–xxxv, miroir d’un demi-
millénaire d’expérience religieuse en Israël (ÉB), Paris 1978.
———, ‘La formation du Pentateuque à la lumière de l’exégèse historico-critique’, RTL
12 (1981), 324–346.
———, ‘Essai de Redaktionsgeschichte des “Confessions de Jérémie”’, in: P.-M. Bogaert
(ed.), Le livre de Jérémie—Le prophète et son milieu: Les oracles et leur transmission
(BETL, 54), Leuven 1981, 239–270.
———, ‘L’affaire du veau d’or (Ex. 32–34): Une clé pour la “question deutéronomiste”?’,
ZAW 97 (1985), 1–23.
———, ‘Les sections narratives de Deut 5–11 et leur relation à Ex. 19–34’, in: N. Lohfink
(ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven
1985, 174–207.
———, Le Dieu de la promesse et le Dieu de l’Alliance: Le dialogue des grandes intuitions
théologiques de l’Ancien Testament (LD, 126), Paris 1986.
———, Het geloof van Israël: Theologie van het Oude Testament, Brugge 1989.
——— (ed.), The Book of Isaiah—Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unité et
complexité de l’ouvrage (BETL, 81), Leuven 1989.
———, ‘Le vol de la bénédiction paternelle: Une lecture de Gen 27’, in: C. Brekelmans,
J. Lust (eds), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the xiiith
IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989 (BETL, 94), Leuven 1990, 23–40.
Bibliography 389
———, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs (BWANT, 4/26), Stuttgart 1938.
———, Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT, 58), Göttingen 1947.
———, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel (ATANT, 20), Zürich 1951.
———, Theologie des Alten Testaments, Bd. 1: Die Theologie der geschichtlichen
Überlieferungen Israels, München 1957.
———, Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis übersetzt und erklärt (ATD, 2/4), Göttingen 91972.
Vorländer, H., Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (EurHS, 109),
Frankfurt am Main 1978.
Vriezen, T.C., De literatuur van Oud-Israël, Den Haag 21961.
———, Van der Woude, A.S., De literatuur van Oud-Israël, Wassenaar 61980.
———, Van der Woude, A.S., Oudisraëlitische en vroegjoodse literatuur: Tiende, geheel
herziene druk van De literatuur van Oud-Israël (Ontwerpen, 1), Kampen 2000.
Wagner, N.E., A Literary Analysis of Genesis 12–36, Toronto 1965.
———, ‘Abraham and David?’, in: J.W. Wevers, D.B. Redford (eds), Studies on the
Ancient Palestinian World: Presented to Professor F.V. Winnett on the Occasion of his
Retirement 1 July 1971 (Toronto Semitic Texts and Studies, 2), Toronto 1972, 117–140.
———, ‘A Response to Professor Rolf Rendtorff’, JSOT 3 (1977), 20–27.
Wagner, S., Franz Delitzsch: Leben und Werk (Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie, 80),
München 1978; Gießen 21991.
Wallis, L., God and the Social Process: A Study in Hebrew History, Chicago 1935.
Waschke, E.-J., ‘Das Verhältnis alttestamentlicher Überlieferungen im Schnittpunkt
der Dynastiezusage und die Dynastiezu sage im Spiegel alttestamentlicher
Überlieferungen’, ZAW 99 (1987), 157–179.
Weeks, S.D., ‘A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?’, in: H. von Weissenberg et al. (eds),
Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the
Second Temple Period (BZAW, 419), Berlin 2011, 389–404.
Weimar, P., ‘Die Jahwekriegerzählungen in Exodus 14, Josua 10, Richter 4 und 1 Samuel
7’, Bib 57 (1976), 38–73.
———, Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch (BZAW, 146), Berlin
1977.
———, Die Berufung des Mose: Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,23–5,5
(OBO, 32), Freiburg 1980.
———, ‘Das Goldene Kalb: Redaktionskritische Erwägungen zu Ex. 32’, BN 38/39
(1987), 117–160.
———, ‘Exodus 12,24–27a: Ein Zusatz nachdeuteronomistischer Provenienz aus der
Hand der Pentateuchredaktion’, in: M. Vervenne, J. Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and
Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133), Leuven 1997,
421–448.
———, Studien zur Priesterschrift (FAT, 56), Tübingen 2008.
392 Bibliography
———, Zenger, E., Exodus: Geschichten und Geschichte der Befreiung Israels (SBS, 75),
Stuttgart 1975.
Weinfeld, M., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972.
———, ‘The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents’,
in: N. Lohfink (ed), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL,
68), Leuven 1985, 76–98.
———, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB,
5), New York 1991.
———, ‘Deuteronomy’, ABD 2 (1992), 168–183.
Weippert, H., ‘Die “deuteronomistischen” Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und
Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher’, Bib 53 (1972), 301–339.
———, Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (BZAW, 132), Berlin 1973.
———, ‘“Der Ort, den Jahwe erwählen wird, um dort seinen Namen wohnen zu las-
sen”: Die Geschichte einer alltestamentlichen Formel’, BZ 24 (1980), 76–94.
———, ‘Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren
Forschung’, TR 50 (1985), 213–249.
Weiser, A., Einleitung in das Alte Testament (TW), Stuttgart 1939.
———, Der Prophet Jeremia (ATD, 20), Göttingen 51966.
Weisman, Z., ‘Prof. Moshe Weinfeld’s Contribution to Biblical Scholarship: An
Appreciation’, in: C. Cohen et al. (eds), Sefer Moshe—The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee
Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran and Post-Biblical
Judaism, Winona Lake, IN 2004, xii–xviii.
Welch, A.C., The Code of Deuteronomy: A New Theory of its Origins, London 1924.
Wellhausen, J., Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin 1883; 31886.
———, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments, Berlin 31899.
Wenham, G.J., The Book of Leviticus (The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament), Grand Rapids, MI 1979.
West, J.K., Introduction to the Old Testament, New York 21981.
Westermann, C., Am Anfang: 1. Mose (Genesis) (Kleine Biblische Bibliothek),
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986.
———, Genesis 1–11 (EdF, 7), Darmstadt 1972.
———, Genesis, Tl. 1: Genesis 1–11 (BKAT, 1/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974.
———, Genesis 12–50 (EdF, 48), Darmstadt 1975.
———, Genesis, Tl. 2: Genesis 12–36 (BKAT, 1/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981.
———, Genesis, Tl. 3: Genesis 37–50 (BKAT, 1/3), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982.
———, Genesis (Tekst en toelichting), Kampen 1986.
Wevers, J.W., Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBL SCS, 30), Atlanta, GA 1990.
Wevers, J.W. , Redford, D.B. (eds), Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World: Presented to
Professor F.V. Winnett on the Occasion of his Retirement 1 July 1971 (Toronto Semitic
Texts and Studies, 2), Toronto 1972.
Bibliography 393
——— (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag,
München 1971.
———, Dodekapropheton 4: Micha (BKAT, 14/4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982.
Wright, D.P., Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised
the Laws of Hammurabi, Oxford 2009.
——— et al. (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near
Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake, IN 1995.
Wright, G.E., Deuteronomy (The Interpreter’s Bible, 2), New York 1953.
Wynn-Williams, D.J., The State of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the Approaches of
M. Noth and E. Blum (BZAW, 249), Berlin 1997.
xxx, Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891): Uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van een tentoonstelling
gehouden in de Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden van 10 december 1991 tot 14 januari 1992
(Kleine publikaties van de Leidse Universiteitsbibliotheek, 11), Leiden 1991.
xxx, Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974 (SVT, 28), Leiden 1975.
xxx, Congress Volume: Bonn 1962 (SVT, 9), Leiden 1963.
xxx, Naissance de la méthode critique: Colloque du centenaire de l’École biblique et
archéologique française de Jérusalem (Patrimoines christianisme), Paris 1992.
xxx, Volume du Congrès Genève 1965 (SVT, 15), Leiden 1966.
xxx, ΕΥΧΑΡIΣΤΗΡIΟΝ: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments: Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstag, dem 23. Mai 1922 dargebracht von
seinen Schülern und Freunden, Tl. 1: Zur Religion und Literatur des Alten Testaments
(FRLANT, 36), Göttingen 1923.
Zahn, M., ‘Reexamining Empirical Models: The Case of Exodus 13’, in: E. Otto,
R. Achenbach (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuterono
mistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Göttingen 2004, 36–55.
Zaman, L., R. Rendtorff en zijn Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch:
Schets van een Maccabeër binnen de hedendaagse Pentateuchexegese (unpublished
Master’s thesis Universitaire Faculteit voor Protestantse Godgeleerdheid), Brussel
1984.
Zenger, E., Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen
Geschichtswerk (FzB, 3), Würzburg 1971.
———, Das Buch Exodus (Geistliche Schriftlesung, 7), Düsseldorf 1978.
———, ‘Wo steht die Pentateuchforschung heute?’, BZ 24 (1980), 101–116.
———, ‘Das jahwistische Werk – ein Wegbereiter des jahwistischen Monotheismus?’,
in: E. Haag (ed.), Gott, der einzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheismus in Israel (QD,
104), Freiburg 1985, 26–53.
———, ‘Le thème de la ‘sortie d’Égypte’ et la naissance du Pentateuque’, in: A. De Pury,
T. Römer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq
premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes. 3ème édition augmentée
(Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genève 2002, 301–331.
Bibliography 395
——— (ed.), Der Neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden
Testamente (QD, 146), Freiburg 1993.
——— (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Fünfte, gründlich überarbeitete und
erweiterte Auflage (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie, 1,1), Stuttgart 2004.
———, Braulik, G., ‘Die Bücher der Tora/des Pentateuch’, in: E. Zenger (ed.), Einleitung
in das Alte Testament: Fünfte, gründlich überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage
(Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie, 1,1), Stuttgart 2004, 60–187.
Zevit, Z., ‘Clio, I Presume’, BASOR 260 (1985), 71–82.
Zimmerli, W., 1. Mose 1–11: die Urgeschichte (ZBK. Altes Testament, 1/1), Zürich 31967.
———, 1. Mose 12–25: Abraham (ZBK. Altes Testament, 1/2), Zürich 1976.
Zuber, B., Vier Studien zu den Ursprüngen Israels: Die Sinaifrage und Probleme der Volks-
und Traditionsbildung (OBO, 9), Freiburg 1976.
———, ‘Marginalien zur Quellentheorie’, DBAT 12 (1977), 14–29.
Index of Authors
Stähelin, J.J. 14–15, 22, 45, 245 246, 250, 252, 256, 258, 260, 272–273,
Steck, O.H. 125, 259, 267 274, 278, 282, 284, 288, 292, 293, 294,
Steed, C. 20 297, 308, 310, 313, 322, 323
Steuernagel, C. 31, 89, 101, 290 Vink, J.G. 64
Stoebe, H.J. 303 Voitila, A. 270
Stolz, F. 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, 89, 92, 94, 95, 96, Volz, P. 58, 169
104, 107, 108, 109, 131, 301, 310, 311 Von Rad, G. 60, 119, 123, 125, 130, 170, 203–204,
Strack, H.L. 159 205, 310
Streane, A.W. 63 von Weissenberg, H. 270
Sturdy, J. 96 Vorländer, H. 177
Sundkler, B. 20 Vriezen, T.C. 61, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 89, 92, 94,
102, 161, 246
Talstra, E. 147, 286, 293
Tarazi, P.N. 61 Wagner, N.E. 171, 175–176, 194
Taylor, B. 334 Wagner, S. 15, 104, 273
Te Stroete, G. 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 89, 94, Wallis, L. 118
103 Waltke, B.K. 309
Tengström, S. 230 Waschke, E.-J. 260
Thiel, W. 264, 266, 304 Weeks, S.D. 270
Thompson, H.O. 328 Weimar, P. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 87, 91,
Thompson, R.J. 20 102, 109, 229, 241–242, 250, 277, 311, 313
Thompson, T.L. 178, 208 Weinfeld, M. 65, 84, 87, 99, 125, 153–154, 155,
Tov, E. 300, 333 160, 266, 269, 275, 276, 279, 280, 291, 296,
Tucker, G.W. 186 315, 333
Tuckett, C.M. 111, 259 Weippert, H. 62, 128, 264, 272, 291, 303
Weiser, A. 61, 119
Ulrich, E. 331, 335 Weisman, Z. 99
Utzschneider, H. 2 Welch, A.C. 130
Wellhausen, J. 16, 42, 44, 46, 49–51, 53–54,
Van Belle, G. 118 56–57, 58, 64, 98, 114, 142, 158, 170, 183,
Van der Kooij, A. 46, 321, 334, 335 185, 261–262, 263, 264–265
Van der Woude, A.S. 61, 80, 82, 83, 86, 89, 94, Wenham, G.J. 64
102, 118, 121, 244, 246, 249 Wénin, A. 142, 148, 173, 253
Van Hoonacker, A. 65 West, J.K. 61
Van Lerberghe, K. 145 Westermann, C. 60, 71, 89, 91, 92, 96, 107
Van Ongeval, C. 60 Wevers, J.W. 176, 308, 332, 333
Van Selms, A. 60 Whybray, R.N. 2, 57, 203, 219–221
Van Seters, J. 2, 126, 131, 147, 165, 172, 178–194, Wildberger, H. 113, 303
195, 201, 220, 240, 256, 274, 281, 282, 288, Wildeboer, G. 15, 53, 114
289, 298, 303, 318, 323, 324 Willis, J.T. 274
Vansteenhuyse, K. 57 Wilms, F.-E. 160
Vanstiphout, H.L.J. 248 Wilson, R.R. 268, 270
Vater, J.S. 5–7, 22, 54, 299–300 Winnett, F.V. 171–176, 194, 195, 201
Vawter, B. 71 Witte, M. 67, 251, 252, 255, 278
Veijola, T. 62, 271 Witter, H.B. 3, 22
Vermeylen, J. 122, 229, 230–236, 266, 268, 281, Wolff, H.W. 130, 170, 268, 269, 271
310, 322 Wright, D.P. 136, 186, 271
Vervenne, M. 2, 63, 66, 118, 132, 141–149, 165, Wright, G.E. 121
168, 183, 187, 201, 214, 217, 219, 227, 242, Wynn-Williams, D.J. 209
Index Of Authors 403
Numbers (cont.) 19 45
13:33 39, 172, 177 20 111
14 38, 143, 145, 152, 236 20:1–21 236
14:1 143 20:1 172, 177
14:2–4 172 20:3, 5 177
14:3 156, 302 20:8–9 96, 177
14:6–10 95 20:11 177
14:8–9 177 20:12 199
14:8 95, 302 20:14–24:25 151
14:9 131, 132, 144 20:14–24 172
14:11–26 95 20:14–21 37, 177
14:11–25 18, 212, 230 20:16 96, 107, 163, 255,
14:11–24 211 322, 325, 326
14:11–23 50 20:20 96
14:11 37, 199, 211, 213 20:22–29 30, 236
14:12–20 51 21 50, 195
14:12 37, 40, 41 21:1–32 177
14:14 145 21:1–3 37
14:15–19 37 21:2 314
14:16 156, 211, 213, 302 21:4–13 172
14:20 37 21:4–9 37, 96
14:21–25 37 21:12–18 37
14:22 213 21:14 27
14:23–24 172 21:15 37
14:23 156, 206, 208, 211, 21:16, 18, 19–35 172
213, 245, 246 21:21–35 38
14:24 177, 245, 302 21:27–30 37
14:25 172 21:28–29 40
14:30 95, 245 21:32–35 96
14:31 172, 302 21:33–35 52, 267
14:38 95 21:33–34 114
14:39–45 37, 95, 172, 177, 230 21:34 144, 314
14:40–45 37, 38 22–24 38, 152
14:40 304 22 6, 29
14:44 52 22:2–24 177
15–17 45 22:2 38
15:2 135 22:6 109
15:18 135, 302 22:8–19 38
16 151 22:11 109
16:1–7, 12–18 172 22:22–35 38
16:12–15, 25–26 177 22:22–34 322
16:25, 27–35 172 22:22–25 249
16:27–34 177 22:25 177
16:28–31 37 22:37–38 38
18 9, 45 23:1–30 38
18:20–24 95 24:1, 10–13, 18–24 38
18:20 110, 156 25:1–5 177
18:23 110 25:1 245
Index Of Biblical References 419
1 Samuel 1 Kings
Ecclesiastes (Qohelet)
Esther
5:5 110
9:6–7 297 9:12 306
9:24 109
Isaiah
Job
1–12 121–122
4:18 322 7 143, 145
9:24 314 7:4 144, 145
31:1 110 8:15 306
33:23 322 22:21 314
28:13 306
36:15 314
Psalms 37:36 322
41:8–9 182
9:17 306 42:1–7 174
10:14 314 49:6 174
10:36 305 51:1–2 182
428 Index of Biblical References
Zechariah
Daniel
1–6 322
1:2 314 1:11–17 323
6:4–5 297 11:8 108
9:10 314
11:11 314
Malachi
1:1 40
12 322
12:13 324