Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 447

The Deuteronomists History

Oudtestamentische Studin
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

P. van Hecke (Leuven)


H.F. Van Rooy (Potchefstroom)
H.G.M. Williamson (Oxford )

volume 67

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ots


The Deuteronomists History


The Role of the Deuteronomist in Historical-Critical
Research into Genesis-Numbers

By

Hans Ausloos

LEIDEN | BOSTON
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ausloos, Hans.
The Deuteronomists history : the role of the Deuteronomist in historical-critical research into Genesis-
Numbers / by Hans Ausloos.
pages cm. (Oudtestamentische studin = Old Testament studies, ISSN 01697226 ; 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.
PentateuchCriticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Deuteronomistic history (Biblical criticism) I. Title.

BS1225.52.A96 2015
222.1067dc23

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)

Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.


Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and
Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
ortransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.


Contents

Prefaceix
Abbreviationsxiv

1 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers: Origin and Evolution


of a Problem1
1 A Critical Approach to the Old Testament: Early Initiatives3
2 The Fragmentary Hypothesis and the Emergence of the
Deuteronomist5
3 The Deuteronomist and the Supplementary Hypothesis14
4 John William Colenso and the Deuteronomist19
4.1 Colenso and the Origin of the Pentateuch21
4.2 Colensos Deuteronomist29
4.3 Overview of the Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in
GenesisNumbers34
4.4 Colensos Argumentation in Support of the Deuteronom(ist)ic
Elements in GenesisNumbers38
4.5 The Deuteronomist as Editor41
4.6 Conclusion43
5 RD and the New Documentary Hypothesis44
6 Conclusion53

2 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers since the Beginning


of the 20th Century56
1 General Observations Regarding the Nature of the Deuteronom(ist)ic
Elements in GenesisNumbers58
2 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers in Exegetical
Research from the Beginning of the 20th Century65
2.1 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in the Book of Genesis66
2.2 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in the Book of Exodus73
2.3 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in the Book of Numbers94
3 The Absence of Solid Argumentation on the Deuteronom(ist)ic
Character of Passages in GenesisNumbers98
4 Exod. 23:2033 as a Deuteronom(ist)ic Composition100
4.1 Deuteronom(ist)ic Motifs in Exod. 23:2033104
4.2 The Deuteronom(ist)ic Style of Exod. 23:2033106
4.3 Deuteronom(ist)ic Language in Exod. 23:2033107
4.4 Conclusion111
vi contents

3 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers: A Unique


Aspect of Research into the So-Called Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements
since 1963113
1 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers: Early
Initiatives114
1.1 The JE Redactor and the Deuteronom(ist)ic School114
1.2 Brekelmans and Lohfink: In Search of Substantial Criteria117
2 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers129
2.1 Proto-Deuteronomic Passages in the Book of Exodus133
2.2 Brekelmans School137
2.3 An Inclusive Proto-Deuteronomic Redaction149
2.4 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers from the
Perspective of Deuteronomy Research152
3 Exod. 23:2033 as a Proto-Deuteronomic Passage158
4 Conclusion164

4 The Deuteronom(ist)ic Problem since the Second Half of the


20th Century167
1 The So-Called Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers as
the Work of a late Deuteronomistic Author or Redactor169
1.1 The Post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist Thesis170
1.2 GenesisNumbers as the Result of a Post-Deuteronomistic
Redaction202
2 The So-Called Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers as
Part of One or More Deuteronomistic Redactions229
2.1 Deuteronomistic Redaction(s) in GenesisNumbers230
2.2 GenesisNumbers as the Result of a Deuteronomistic Redaction
or Author. Extra Tentative Approaches242
3 A Post-Deuteronomistic, Post-Priestly Pentateuch Redaction250
4 The Epilogue to the Book of the Covenant and Present Day
Pentateuch Research253
5 Conclusion256

5 The Deuteronom(ist)ic ProblemA Review and a Preview258


1 The Deuteronomist. Whats in a Name?259
1.1 The Inflation of a Concept259
1.2 Towards an Unambiguous Terminology278
2 Criteria for Characterising Elements as Deuteronom(ist)ic285
2.1 Criteria from the Past286
2.2 Usable CriteriaDraft Proposal288
2.3 The Direction of Dependence: Supporting Well-Founded
Judgements297
contents vii

3 Old Testament Textual Criticism and the Deuteronomist299


4 Is Exod. 23:2033 a Deuteronomistic Epilogue to the Book of the
Covenant?300
4.1 Can Linguistic Analysis Provide Sound Indications Supporting the
Deuteronomistic Characterisation of Exod. 23:2033?301
4.2 Compositional Patterns and the Characterisation of
Exod. 23:2033 as Deuteronomistic310
4.3 A Deuteronomistic Theology in Exod. 23:2033?317
4.4 Deuteronomistic Tendencies in the Versiones of
Exod. 23:2033326
5 Conclusion335

Bibliography339
Index of Authors396
Index of Biblical References404
Preface

In 1943, Martin Noth observed in his work berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien:


In den Bchern Gen.Num. fehlt jede Spur einer deuteronomistischen
Redaktion, wie allgemein anerkannt ist.1 He added in a footnote: Da es ein-
zelne Stellen gibt, an denen der alte Text im deuteronomistischen Stil erweitert
ist, wie etwa Ex. 23,20ff. und Ex. 34,10ff., hat mit Recht meines Wissens noch
niemand fr ein Merkmal einer durchgehenden Redaktion gehalten.
This statement placed Noth at a considerable distance from the then pre-
vailing tendency in historical-critical research into the first five books of the
Old Testament. Indeed, the Deuteronomist had been considered almost
universally present within the books of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers since
the end of the 19th century. Interest in the relationship between passages in
GenesisNumbers, the first four books of the Old Testament, and the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, of which the book of Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomistic History serve as a prototype, was not new, however.2 On the
contrary, scholars had been exhibiting particular interest in the question as
early as the beginning of the 19th century. The present volume is an endeavour
to reconstruct and critically evaluate this history of the Deuteronomist.3
Awareness that the first five books of the Old Testament, the so-called
Pentateuch, present themselves as a complex literary work has always been
present to a greater or lesser degree. With the emergence of Biblical Criticism
at the beginning of the 18th century, scholars endeavoured to provide a more
systematic explanation for the irregularities evident in this literary complex.
Relatively early in this process, attention was drawn to the unique place

1 M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichts-


werke im Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1943, 13.
2 The terminology employed in current research is often desperately confusing. The present
work will make use of the term Deuteronom(ist)ic. This perhaps slightly vague word contains
two elements. In the first instance it is used to refer to passages from GenesisNumbers that
are related to (a form of) the book of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomic). In the early stages,
several scholars proposed that passages in the Tetrateuch that were akin to Deuteronomy
should be ascribed to the latters author. Secondly, the concept Deuteronomistic refers to
the reworking in line with the so-called Ur-Deuteronomy of both GenesisNumbers and
the Ur-Deuteronomy itself. The final chapter of the present study discussed the possibility of
establishing a transparent terminology in this regard.
3 This study focuses exclusively on interest in Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in Genesis
Numbers. Attention will only be drawn in passing to the Deuteronomistic redaction of the
other books of the Old Testament.
x preface

occupied by the book of Deuteronomy within the Pentateuch on account of


its characteristic style, language and theology.4 The insights of Wilhelm Martin
Leberecht de Wette represented a milepost in this regard. In 1805, he isolated
the book of Deuteronomy as an independent work and identified it with the
legal code found during the reign of King Josiah (8th century bce), the account
of which is to be found in 2 Kgs 2223. At the same time, De Wette not only
suggested that Deuteronomy was discovered during Josiahs reign but that it
had in fact come into existence by his agency. The question of Deuteronomy
also played an important role when Abraham Kuenen and Julius Wellhausen
succeeded in refining the source-critical model at the end of the 19th century,
thereby charting the genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch. In spite of the fact
that the said book had been separated from the other books of the Pentateuch,
scholars became increasingly interested in a number of passages in Genesis
Numbers that exhibited a relationship with the book of Deuteronomy. Texts
from the so-called Tetrateuch,5 which appeared to have a strong association
with Deuteronomy in terms of vocabulary, style and theology, were ascribed
to a redactor (RD) who was said to have revised and supplemented the work
of the so-called Jehovist (JE) along Deuteronomic lines. In the wake of the
Documentary Hypothesis, this position became widely accepted in the first
half of the 20th century.
In 1943, Noth characterised the book of Deuteronomy as the inception of
an extensive Deuteronomistic History detached from GenesisNumbers. As
a result, the question of the presence of so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements
in the first four books of the Old Testament became all the more pressing. As
we observed in our opening quotation, Noth denied that the Tetrateuch had
been reworked by a sweeping Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction. Nevertheless, he
did not deny the possibility that certain pericopes in GenesisNumbers may
have been extended in a Deuteronomistic fashion. In so doing, he aligned him-
self with the vision of the demonstrability of Deuteronom(ist)ic influence on
the Tetrateuch that prevailed during the first half of the 20th century.
In spite of the self-evident acceptance of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in
GenesisNumbers, some scholars, following in the wake of the protagonists
of the Documentary Hypothesis, continued to draw attention to an affinity

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 volumealbeit 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
(GenesisDeuteronomy), six (GenesisJoshua) or nine (GenesisKings) 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 GenesisNumbers 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
DeuteronomyKings.
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 GenesisNumbers 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)icor 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, 313382, esp. 316 aptly articulates
this tendency: Wie vor Jahren ein gestandene Alttestamentler einen Urdekalog oder eine neue
kultische Begehung rekonstruiert haben mute, so mu ein anstndiger Doktorand heute
irgendwo in der Bibel eine deuteronomistische Hand entdecken. Dann erst gehrt er zur Zunft.
xii preface

Deuteronomist can easily be turned on its head: a text is probably dependent


on the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature when one can no longer discern stereo
typical Deuteronom(ist)ic language and themes.
The present study, which sets out to chart the history of the Deuteronomist,
aims for the first time to provide a detailed status quaestionis concerning
the relationship between the books GenesisNumbers and the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic literaturereferring thereby in the first instance to the
book of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History. The first chap-
ter draws attention to exegetical studies from the 18th and 19th centuries in
which the roots of the issue become evident. Indeed, it was in this period that
scholars exhibited specific interest in the presence of aso-calledtypically
Deuteronom(ist)ic language and set of ideas in the books that were later to be
styled the Tetrateuch.
The second chapter provides an inventory of the scholars who, in the course
of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21stand for the most part in
line with the traditional Documentary Hypothesis, have explicitly ascribed
certain passages in GenesisNumbers to an author or redactor working under
the influence of Deuteronomy or the literature related thereto. The chapter not
only offers an overview of the texts that are associated with a Deuteronom(ist)
ic redaction, it also explores the related argumentation on the basis of an anal-
ysis of the way in which a passage considered exemplary for the themethe
epilogue of the so-called Book of the Covenant (Exod. 23:2033) is character-
ised as Deuteronom(ist)ic.
We observed above how, in roughly the middle of the 20th century, certain
pericopes in the literary complex GenesisNumbers, which had hitherto been
more or less uncritically associated with a Deuteronom(ist)ic redactional pro-
cess, came to be situated in the prehistory of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature,
resulting thereby in the introduction of the term proto-Deuteronomic into
the research domain. The third chapter focuses in detail on the authors who
thus referred to pericopes from Genesis, Exodus or Numbers. As with chapter
two, the associated argumentation is likewise critically explored and evaluated
on the basis of our analysis of Exod. 23:2033.
The fourth chapter offers an overview of the variousmostly tentative
approaches to the genesis and composition of the Pentateuch that have taken
root since the beginning of the 1970s. These studies have had a considerable
effect on research into the texts and text segments in GenesisNumbers that
were considered to be Deuteronom(ist)ic and are constitutive of present day
perspectives on the origins of the Pentateuch. The way in which the epilogue
of the Book of the Covenant is discussed within these new tendencies in
Pentateuch criticism is also treated in this chapter.
preface xiii

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
researchor 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. Its 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 FoundationFlanders 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. Bndicte Lemmelijn. To
her and to our teenagers Matthias, Elke and Ruben I dedicate this monograph.

Hans Ausloos
Universit catholique de Louvain
Chercheur qualifi F.R.S.-FNRS
Abbreviations

AASF Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae


AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary
ACEBT Amsterdamse cahiers voor exegese en bijbelse theologie
AJBI Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute
AnBib Analecta Biblica
ANL Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute (in Jerusalem)
ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
ATSAT Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament
BA The Biblical Archaeologist
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBB Bonner biblische Beitrge
BCAT Biblischer Commentar ber das Alte Testament
BEATAJ Beitrge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken
Judentums
BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium
BEvT Beitrge zur evangelischen Theologie
Bib Biblica
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament
BN Biblische Notizen
BOT De Boeken van het Oude Testament
BWANT Beitrge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZABR Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr Altorientalische und Biblische
Rechtsgeschichte
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAT Commentaire de lAncien Testament
CB OT Coniectanea biblica. Old Testament Series
CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQ MS Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Monograph Series
CTEP Centre dtudes Thologiques et Pastorales
COT Commentaar op het Oude Testament
abbreviations xv

CRB Cahiers de la Revue Biblique


DBAT Dielheimer Bltter zum Alten Testament
DBS Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplment
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
B tudes Bibliques
EdF Ertrge der Forschung
ErfTS Erfurter theologische Studien
ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
EstBb Estudios Bblicos
TR tudes Theologiques et Religieuses
EurHS Europische Hochschulschriften. Reihe 23: Theologie
EvT Evangelische Theologie
ExpT Expository Times
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
FzB Forschung zur Bibel
GTW Grundri der theologischen Wissenschaften
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HTS Hervormde Theologische Studies
HTKAT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC The International Critical Commentary
IrBSt Irish Biblical Studies
JAOS Journal of the Americal Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JPT Jahrbcher fr Protestantische Theologie
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSNT SS Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOT SS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament
KEHAT Kurzgefates exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament
xvi abbreviations

KHCAT Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament


LD Lectio divina
MarTS Marburger theologische Studien
MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
NICOT The New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NTT Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
OTE Old Testament Essays
OTE SS Old Testament Essays. Supplement Series
OTL Old Testament Library
OTM Old Testament Message. A Biblical Theological Commentary
OTS Oudtestamentische Studin
POT De prediking van het Oude Testament
QD Quaestiones Disputatae
RB Revue Biblique
RBL Review of Biblical Literature
RJ Revue des tudes Juives
RHPR Revue dhistoire et de philosophie religieuses
RIC Revue de lInstitut Catholique
RQ Revue de Qumrn
RSR Recherches de science religieuse
RTL Revue thologique de Louvain
SBi Sources Bibliques
SBL DS Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series
SBL MS Society of Biblical Literature. Monograph Series
SBL SCS Society of Biblical Literature. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series
SBL SP Society of Biblical Literature. Seminar Papers Series
SBL SS Society of Biblical Literature. Symposium Series
SBL RBS Society of Biblical Literature. Resources for Biblical Study
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
ScrHie Scripta Hierosolymitana
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
StB Studia Biblica
SVT Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
TB Theologische Bcherei
TBl Theologische Bltter
THAT Theologisches Handwrterbuch zum Alten Testament
abbreviations xvii

TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung


TP Theologie und Philosophie
TR Theologische Rundschau
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopdie
TSAJ Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism
TSt Theologische Studien
TvT Tijdschrift voor Theologie
TW Theologische Wissenschaft
TWAT Theologisches Wrterbuch zum Alten Testament
TynB Tyndale Bulletin
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
UTB Uni-Taschenbcher
VT Vetus Testamentum
VuF Verkundigung und Forschung
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes
ZABR Zeitschrift fr Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte
ZAH Zeitschrift fr Althebraistik
ZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZBK Zrcher Bibelkommentare
ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlndischen Gesellschaft
ZKT Zeitschrift fr katholische Theologie
ZTK Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche
Chapter 1

Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers:


Origin and Evolution of a Problem

This opening chapter sketches a picture of what occasioned and contrib


uted to the evolution of the study of the relationship between the books of
GenesisNumbers on the one hand, and the book of Deuteronomy and the
literature closely related thereto on the other.1 Particular attention is focused

1 Cf. O. Artus, Le Pentateuque (Cahiers vangile, 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) 4962; Idem, La composition
du Pentateuque entre hier et aujourdhui, in Naissance de la mthode critique: Colloque
du centenaire de lcole biblique et archologique franaise de Jrusalem (Patrimoines
christianisme), Paris 1992, 197204; H. Cazelles, Pentateuque. T. 4: Le nouveau status
quaestionis, DBS 7 (1966) 687858; R. David, Le Pentateuque: Tendances actuelles
concernant les traditions littraires, in: Idem et al., De bien des manires: La recherche
biblique aux abords du xxi me sicle (LD, 163) Montreal 1995, 1746; G.I. Davies, Introduction
to the Pentateuch, in: J. Barton, J. Muddiman (eds), The Oxford Bible Commentary, Oxford
2001, 1238; A. De Pury, T. Rmer, Le Pentateuque en question: position du problme et
brve histoire de la recherche, in: Idem (eds), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et
la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible la lumire des recherches rcentes. 3me
dition augmente (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genve 2002, 980; O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung
in das Alte Testament unter Einschluss der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der
apokryphen- und pseudepigraphenartigen Qumran-Schriften (Neue Theologische Grund
risse), Tbingen 31964, 205234; F. Garca Lpez, De la antigua a la nueva critica literaria
del Pentateuco, EstBb 52 (1994) 735; Idem, Comment lire le Pentateuque (Le monde de la
Bible, 53), Genve 2005, 3363; A.H.J. Gunneweg, Anmerkungen und Anfragen zur neueren
Pentateuchforschung, Theologische Rundschau 48 (1983) 227253; 50 (1985) 107131; O. Kaiser,
Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einfhrung in ihre Ergebnisse und Probleme, Gtersloh
51984, 90138; 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, 289322; 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), Tbingen 2011, 3161, esp. 4649; H.-J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen
Erforschung des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn 21969, 44294; 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, 3457; 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, 1021; E.W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century:

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 5|doi .63/9789004307049_002


2 Chapter 1

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. Rmer, Le dbat actuel sur la
formation du Pentateuque, in: T. Rmer et al. (eds), Introduction lAncien Testament (Le
monde de la Bible, 49), Genve 2004, 85113; E. Otto, Stehen wir vor einem Umbruch in der
Pentateuchkritik?, VuF 22 (1977) 8297; Idem, Kritik der Pentateuchkomposition, TR 60
(1995) 163191; Idem, Deuteronomium und Pentateuch: Aspekte der gegenwrtigen Debatte,
ZABR 6 (2000) 222284; B. Seidel, Entwicklungslinien der neueren Pentateuchforschung im
20. Jahrhundert, ZAW 106 (1994) 476485; R. Rendtorff, Directions in Pentateuchal Studies,
Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 5 (1997) 4365; T. Rmer, Brve prsentation du dbat
actuel sur le Pentateuque: Le Pentateuque toujours en question, in De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le
Pentateuque en question, viixxxix; T. Rmer, Le Pentateuque toujours en question: Bilan
et perspectives aprs un quart de sicle de dbat, in: A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Basel
2001 (SVT, 92), Leiden 2002, 343374; T. Rmer, La formation du Pentateuque: histoire de
la recherche, in: Rmer et al. (eds.), Introduction, 6784; T. Rmer, 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, 927; W. Roth, Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk/Deuteronomis
tische Schule, TRE 8 (1981) 543552; 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, 1124;
L. Schmidt, Zur Entstehung des Pentateuch. Ein kritischer Literaturbericht, VuF 40 (1995)
328; H. Seebass, Pentateuch, TRE 26 (1996) 185209; J.L. Ska, Rcit et rcit mtadigtique
en Ex. 115: Remarques critiques et essai dinterprtation de Ex. 4,1622, in: P. Haudebert
(ed.), Le Pentateuque: Dbats et recherches. xiv me congrs de lACFEB, Angers (1991) (LD, 151),
Paris 1992, 135171, esp. 135147; J.L. Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, Winona Lake,
IN 2006, 1164; 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, 326; R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Theologische
Wissenschaft, 1), Stuttgart 31984, 6269; J.A. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament. From
its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon, London 31989, 143145; H. Utzschneider,
Die Renaissance der alttestamentlichen Literaturwissenschaft und das Buch Exodus:
berlegungen zu Hermeneutik und Geschichte der Forschung, ZAW 106 (1994) 197223;
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: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL,
126) Leuven 1996, 2159; R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study
(JSOT SS, 53), Sheffield 1987, 21131; E. Zenger, Wo steht die Pentateuchforschung heute?,
BZ 24 (1980) 101116; Idem, G. Braulik, Die Bcher der Tora/des Pentateuch, in E. Zenger
(ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Fnfte, grndlich berarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage
(Kohlhammer Studienbcher Theologie, 1,1), Stuttgart 2004, 60187.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 3

Old Testament. Such a sketch would be impossible, however, without provid


ing a parallel historical sketch of the pioneering developments that took place
withinitself evolvinghistorical-critical biblical research as such, without
of course attempting to be exhaustive.2 Consequently, we will limit ourselves
to authors who are interested in the question of the relationship between
GenesisNumbers and the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.

1 A Critical Approach to the Old Testament: Early Initiatives

It is sufficiently well known that problems relating to the Pentateuchs his


tory of origin remained rather limited until the beginning of the 19th century:
Moses was traditionally understood to be the author of the first five books of
the Old Testament and this conviction was only rarely questioned. A critical
approach began to evolve, however, in the first phase of which Moses retained
a place as co-author of the Pentateuch. Primary reference can be made in
this regard to the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and Richard Simon in the 17th and
18th centuries.3 It is generally acknowledged, moreover, that Jean Astruc was
the first to draw explicit attention to the alternative use of divine names in
the book of Genesis, in addition to the large number of repetitions, anach
ronisms and errors in the said book.4 While Astruc did not fundamentally
challenge Mosaic authorship, he nevertheless provided what was to become

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
Masters 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 mmoires originaux dont il parait que Mose sest servi pour
composer le livre de la Gnse: Avec des remarques, qui appuient ou qui claircissent ces
conjectures, Bruxelles 1753. Already prior to Astruc, Henning Bernward Witter pointed
to the presence of two different sources in Gen. 13: 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 1711cf. more recently P. Gibert, De lintuition
lvidence: La multiplicit documentaire dans la Gnse 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 Jehovathe 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 Eichhorns 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, 174189.
5 Astruc explains the irregularities in the text of Genesis as follows: On na pour cela, qua
supposer que Moyse avait rang ses diffrents Mmoires sur quatre colonnes distinctes, en
forme de Ttraples (Astruc, Conjectures, 431). Astruc claimed to be able to distinguish these
four mmoires, 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 mmoires, since his report was that of an eye witness.
6 J.G. Eichhorn, Einleitung ins Alte Testament, Leipzig, 17801783; 418231824.
7 The use of the term Jehovist stems from the fact that the tetragrammaton was 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 jngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002, 123, esp. 34.
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 lteren Urkundenhypothese: Studien zur Geschichte der exegetischen
Hermeneutik in der spten Aufklrung (BZAW, 213), Berlin 1993.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 5

mind that the older Documentary Hypothesis was quickly replaced by the
Fragmentary Hypothesis, Ilgens model was only to find its way into Pentateuch
Criticism a number of decades later.

2 The Fragmentary Hypothesis and the Emergence of the


Deuteronomist

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 and respectively. 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 2223). 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 ber den Pentateuch mit Einleitungen in
den einzelnen Abschnitten der eingeschalteten bersetzung von Dr. Alexander Geddess
merkwrdigen critischen und exegetischen Anmerkungen und einer Abhandlung ber Mose
und die Verfasser des Pentateuchs, Halle 18021805. For Geddes, see W. Johnstone (ed.), The
Bible and the Enlightenment: A Case StudyDr. Alexander Geddes (17371802) (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 , while Deuteronomy
speaks of . 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 GenesisDeuteronomy. 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 ( mt) and ( mt) with
and by 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. 27:27. 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. 23:2033 from this perspective (Vater, Commentar, Bd. 2,
1802, 8485; 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: Beitrge zu
seinem Verstndnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte, Leipzig 1893; Idem, Der Pentateuch:
Beitrge zu seinem Verstndnis 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 added between and
in 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 in Exod. 20:10 was a later
interpolation based on Deut. 5:14. (A. Dillmann, V. Ryssel, Die Bcher Exodus und Leviticus
[KEHAT], Leipzig 1857; 31897). For the importance of harmonising interpolations for the
characterisation of so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic language in GenesisNumbers, see:
H. Ausloos, Traces of Deuteronomic Influence in the Septuagint: A Text-Critical Analysis of
Exodus 33:16, JNSL 35 (2009) 2744, esp. 4243.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 7

explaining the presence of so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic material in the proto


mt text form of GenesisNumbers. We will return to this topic at a later stage
from the perspective of the Septuagint (lxx).
In addition to Geddes and Vater, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette should
likewise be counted among the early representatives of the Fragmentary
Hypothesis. His work is of particular interest because it introduces a turning
point in research into the origins and evolution of the Pentateuch thanks to
his vision of the book of Deuteronomy.13 De Wette isolated Deuteronomy as
an independent work and identified it with the book of the law found during
the reign of King Josiah, the account of which is to be found in 2 Kgs 2223.14
For the first time, his position posited a point of departure for the origin of
the Pentateuch outside the Pentateuch itself. Moreover, Deuteronomy, its
author, according to De Wette, having close links with the prophet Jeremiah,
thus became one of the youngest books of the Pentateuch.15 De Wette also

13 W.M.L. de Wette, Dissertatio critico-exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi


libris diversum, alius cuisdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur, Jena 1805;
Idem, Beitrge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Bd 1: Kritischer Versuch ber die
Glaubwrdigkeit der Bcher der Chronik mit Hinsicht auf die Geschichte der Mosaischen
Bcher und Gesetzgebung; Bd. 2: Kritik der Israelitischen Geschichte, Halle 18061807.
According to Eissfeldt, Einleitung, 1964, 227 De Wettes works provided an archimedean
point in the study of the origin and composition of the Pentateuch. Cf. J.W. Rogerson,
W.M.L. de Wette: Founder of Modern Biblical CriticismAn Intellectual Biography
(JSOT SS, 126), Sheffield, 1992; E. Otto, A Hidden Truth Behind the Text or the Truth of
the Text: At a Turning Point in Biblical Scholarship Two Hundred Years after De Wettes
Dissertatio critico-exegetica, in J.H. Le Roux, E. Otto (eds), South African Perspectives
on the Pentateuch Between Synchrony and Diachrony (Library of the Hebrew Bible. Old
Testament Studies, 463), Sheffield 2007, 1928; R. Smend, From Astruc to Zimmerli,
Tbingen 2007, 4356.
14 This hypothesis likewise suggests that the narrative of 2 Kgs 2223, which had been
understood since De Wette as a demand in support of the centralisation of the cult,
could be considered a report written with the provision of historical information in
mind (cf.among others, Kaiser, Einleitung, 133). Mart-Jan Pauls somewhat conservative
perspective has been critical of this classical view. Based on a study of Exod. 20:2426
and Deut. 12, the author argues that we should account for one single sanctuary at the
national level. The establishment of altars at the local level, however, was not forbidden.
In addition to the central sanctuary, therefore, the establishment of multiple altars was
permitted. (M.-J. Paul, Het archimedisch punt van de Pentateuchkritiek. Een historisch en
exegetisch onderzoek naar de verhouding van Deuteronomium en de reformatie van koning
Josia [2 Kon 2223], s-Gravenhage 1988). For a survey of the issues surrounding the book
of Deuteronomy, reference should be made to Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 279342.
15 W.M.L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und
apokryphischen Bcher des Alten Testaments sowie in die Bibelsammlung berhaupt, Berlin
8 Chapter 1

compared texts from Deuteronomy with related texts from GenesisNumbers


in an effort to distil the characteristic features of a typically Deuteronom(ist)
ic style. At the same time, he was convinced that these Tetrateuch texts were
partly determinative of the materialization of Deuteronomy. De Wette was
also interested in similarities in style between Deuteronomy, Joshua and Kings,
thus placing him at the cradle of the Deuteronomistic History hypothesis, par
ticularly as it was to be elaborated in the first half of the 20th century.
While De Wette originally supported the Fragmentary Hypothesis, he
remained aware of its shortcomings and as early as 1840 he was to become an
advocate of a three phase Supplementary Hypothesis: a basic Elohistic docu
ment, a Jahwist supplement, and a Deuteronomist.16 In De Wettes opinion, the
latter was responsible for the insertion of the book of Deuteronomy, among
other things, and for the adjustments to the end of the book of Numbers
required to accommodate it.
At the beginning of the 19th century, Leonard Bertholdt took a step back
towards the recognition of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.17 In line
with De Wette, however, Bertholdt insisted nevertheless on the unique charac
ter of the book of Deuteronomy. According to him, Deuteronomy represented
the work of one or more extraordinary author-collectors who had assembled
a number of post-Mosaic and reworked Mosaic laws and speeches. In contrast
to De Wette, Bertholdt was far from inclined to suggest that Deuteronomy was
(much) younger than the remaining books of the Pentateuch. In spite of his
admission of the unique character of Deuteronomy, he also pointed to a degree
of unity between the latter and the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers.
We can argue, in sum, that scholars at the beginning of the 19th century
understood the Pentateuch as a complex that had been subject to redac
tion according to a particular plan. Within this complex, Deuteronomy had
steadily distinguished itself as a book that established its own accents. It is also

1817, 323: Seine [i.e. DeuteronomyH.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 selbstndiges 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 religisen, sittlichen, politischen und socialen Lebens herbeizufhren
bestrebt war.
16 W.M.L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und
apokryphischen Bcher des Alten Testamentes. Fnfte, verbesserte und vermehrte Ausgabe,
Berlin 1840, 208211.
17 L. Bertholdt, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die smmtlichen kanonischen und apokryphi
schen Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Erlangen 1813.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 9

worthy of note that the question of specifically Deuteronom(ist)ic language


and ideas within GenesisNumbersas it was later to be describedwas
not approached (systematically) to any serious degree. This particular issue,
however, was to play a role in the work of Friedrich Bleek. It is remarkable,
however, that the Deuteronomic quest first found its way into biblical research
via the book of Leviticus. The remaining books of the Tetrateuch only became
involved in the question at a later date.
In a contribution published in 1822, Bleek proposed a twofold redaction
within the books of GenesisJoshua,18 locating the firstencompassing the
Hexateuchduring the still undivided kingdom, and the second, towards
the end of the Southern Kingdom. Bleek ascribed this second redaction
to the author of Deuteronomy, whereby the latter introduced his work as a
whole into the Hexateuch.19 To this end, the redactor relocated the final chap
ters of Numbers to the end of Deut. 30.20 According to Bleek, a number of
interpolations in Leviticus (Lev. 17; 26:345) were also to be ascribed to the
Deuteronomist.21
Without going into detail, Bleek considered the emphasis on cultic unity as
one of the typical characteristics of this second redaction.22 He also observed
Deuteronomys unusual conceptualisation of the relationship between priests
and Levites,23 together with its parenetic and threatening tone, reminiscent

18 F. Bleek, Einige aphoristische Beitrge zu den Untersuchungen ber den Pentateuch, in:
E.F.K. Rosenmller, G.H. Rosenmller (eds), Biblisch-exegetisches Repertorium oder die
neuesten Fortschritte in Erklrung der heiligen Schrift, Bd. 1, Leipzig 1822, 179.
19 Bleek, Aphoristische Beitrge, 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 Beitrge, 5455.
22 In contrast to Deut. 12; 16:117, 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 Beitrge, 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, Beitrge zu den Forschungen ber den
Pentateuch, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 4 [1831] 488524, esp. 501).
23 Bleek, Aphoristische Beitrge, 1617. While the Levites in the frheren BcherBleek
refers, for example, to Num. 18appear 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 () . Furthermore, while Num. 35 appears to
10 Chapter 1

of the language of Jeremiah.24 Bleek thus ascribed Lev. 17 to the Deuterono


mist because of the fact that the chapter in questionthe only chapter in
the entire book of Leviticuspermitted only one single cultic location (the
tent of meeting) in line with Deuteronomy.25 He also ascribed Lev. 26:345 to
the Deuteronomist because of the parenetic style it shared with the book of
Deuteronomy.26
In spite of the limited attention Bleek devoted to the role of the Deuteronomist
in the emergence and development of the books GenesisNumbersin the
last analysis he only observed the work of the Deuteronomist at the beginning

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, da das Deuteronomium, wenigstens bis zoweit die Wiederhohlung des
Gesetzes geht, durch seine Sprache und durch seinen ganzen Charakter von den anderen
Bcher so sehr verschieden ist; es hat ganz den ermahnenden und warnenden Ton der
um die Zeit des Exils lebenden Propheten, und schliet 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 groe Distanz des Zeitalters beider schlieen kann (Bleek, Aphoristische Beitrge,
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 Beitrge, 4555. Bleek was later to reconsider his assignation of
Lev. 17 to the Deuteronomist (Bleek, Beitrge 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. 46, 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 Beitrge, 55: Kap. xxvi,345 eine Ermahnungsrede Mosis an das
Volk; diese ist dem Tone und ganzen Chrakter nach dem Deuteronomium so verwandt,
und setzt so sehr dieselben Verhltnisse voraus, da es wenigstens hgst wahrscheinlich
ist, da sie von dem Verfaer des Deuteronomiums eingeschaltet sey. In contrast to
Lev. 17, however, Bleek continued to ascribe Lev. 26:345 to the author of Deuteronomy:
cf. Idem, Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift, Bd. 1: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 1860,
331332 (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 vollstndig aufgenommen, wie er es
vorfand, nur hin und wieder sich einzelne Aenderungen und Zustze erlaubt, besonders
in der Geschichte zur Zeit Josuas, bei den ersten Bchern des Pentateuchs vielleicht nur
durch Einschaltung von Lev. 26,345, und durch einige Umstellungen, wie wol dessen,
was sich jetzt Deut. 4,4143 (ber die drei Freistdte jenseit des Jordan) und 27,18 (ber
den auf dem Ebal zu errichtenden Altar) findet. Die Hauptvernderung aber bestand in
der Vermehrung des Werkes durch Aufnahme des Deuteronomiums selbst (Kpp. 133).
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 11

of Leviticusthere can be little doubt nonetheless that he pioneered the con


cept of the Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction. Actually it was Bleek who introduced
the idea of the Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of the Pentateuch into historical-
critical research.
A few years after Bleeks Aphoristische Beitrge, the Deuteronom(ist)ic
redaction came to the foreground once again in the work of Ernst Bertheau.27
Bertheau, who was something of a maverick in his domain, studied the laws
in the Pentateuch independent of the narrative passages. For Bertheau, there
fore, the question of a continuous narrative line in the Pentateuch was not
primary. His main interest rather was in the structure and the systematic
arrangement of the text as we now have it. While Bleek regarded Lev. 17 and 26
as Deuteronomic passages, Bertheau was possible the first scholar to observe
Deuteronomic elements in the book of Exodus. Against the background of his
research into the legislation found in Exod. 19:124:11, Bertheau presumed that
the author of Exod. 2023 had deliberately and meticulously structured the pre
cepts included in the said chapters and that such a painstaking author would
not have been prone to repetition. Bearing this in mind, Bertheau concluded
that Exod. 23:913 contained precepts that ursprnglich nicht in der Reihe
der Bundesgesetze gestanden haben.28 Exod. 23:9, moreover, was an almost
literal repetition of Exod. 22:20, and the Sabbath command in Exod. 23:12 was a
redundant repetition of Exod. 20:910. Bertheau also considered Exod. 23:1011
to be out of the ordinary, given its reference to the jubilee year. The einseitige
Forderung Gottes in verse 13, he concluded, was in stark contrast to the vol
untary assent of the people in Exod. 19:8; 24:3.7. Bertheau similarly observed
with reference to Exod. 23:913: So viel ich sehe ist in dem Inhalte dieser weni
gen Verse so viel auffallendes, dass die Annahme in ihnen einen fremdartigen
Zusatz zu haben, sich aufdrngen muss.29
On this point, the Deuteronomist avant la lettre steps into the limelight in
the work of Bertheau. While the command relating to the Sabbath (Exod. 23:10
11) is also found in Lev. 25:17, the degree of agreement with Deut. 15:114 is
much stronger. Exod. 23:1011 and Deut 15:111 do not only leave the theme of
the jubilee year unmentionedin contrast to Lev. 25:17, the term
(related to in Exod. 23:11) also occurs with frequency in Deuteronomy,
but is attested nowhere in Leviticus. Bertheau goes on to observe that the
exhortation of Exod. 23:13 (Be attentive to all that I have said to you) also

27 E. Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen mosascher Gesetze in den drei mittleren Bchern des
Pentateuchs: Ein Beitrag zur Kritik des Pentateuchs, Gttingen 1840.
28 Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen, 42.
29 Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen, 44.
12 Chapter 1

occurs often in Deuteronomy.30 In addition, it is striking that the precepts that


follow Exod. 23:13 (vv. 1419) are also present at least in part in Deut. 16:117
(compare Exod. 23:15.17 with Deut. 16:16). From the perspective of composition,
moreover, the sequence Deut. 15:111 (sabbatical year) and Deut. 16:117, which
is only interrupted by Deut. 15:1223, exhibits a clear parallel with the sequence
Exod. 23:13 (sabbatical year) and the precepts in Exod. 23:1419. Agreements
between Exod. 23:1011, 13 and Deuteronomy also allow Bertheau to conclude:
Fassen wir alle diese Erscheinungen zusammen, so wird es wahrscheinlich,
dass auf das Hineinkommen von v. 10. und 11. und v. 13. in die Bundesgesetze
das Deuteron. Einfluss gehabt habe.31 Bertheau also considers einfluss des
Deuteron probable with respect to Exod. 23:12. Indeed, Exod. 23:12 shares the
explicit emphasis on the purpose of the Sabbath (so that your [...] may have
relief) with Deut. 5:14, in contrast to Exod. 20:910.
In addition to Exod. 23:913, Bertheau focused attention on Exod. 23:2033,
the epilogue of the so-called Covenant Code. The said pericope would often
be associated with a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction in the course of the history
of research. While Bertheau focused explicitly on the similarities between
Exod. 23:2033 and Deuteronomy, he himself was not to attribute Exod. 23:20
33 to a Deuteronom(ist)ic redactor. He distinguished ten promises within the
present form of Exod. 23:2033, promises that constituted a necessary part of
the preconditions for establishing the covenant.32 He thus subdivided the peri
cope as follows:

1. Exod. 23:2022 Deut. 6:102633


2. Exod. 23:2324 Deut. 7:11134
3. Exod. 23:25a.b Deut. 7:13
4. Exod. 23:25c Deut. 7:15
5. Exod. 23:26a Deut. 7:14

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 Stcken im
Exodus, welche (...) nicht in die eigentliche Sammlung der Gesetze hineingehren, z.B.
an Exod. 34,11. an 31,13.14.16.
31 Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen, 47.
32 Bertheau, Die sieben Gruppen, 7276.
33 Without mention of the .
34 No mention of the . Addition of the Girgasites, whereby Exod. 23 comes to agree
with Exod. 34:11. In addition, the command of Exod. 23:2324 is extended and provided
with arguments.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 13

6. Exod. 23:26b 35
7. Exod. 23:27 Deut. 7:1619
8. Exod. 23:28 Deut. 7:2021
9. Exod. 23:293036 Deut. 7:22
10. Exod. 23:3133 Deut. 7:2325

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, Israels 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. 67 was familiar
with Exod. 23:2033 in its present form and used it without taking over its ten-
part structure: Fr uns gibt es keine ursprnglichere Form derselben als die
im Exodus.
We can observe, in sum, that Bertheaus work served to introduce interest
in Deuteronom(ist)ic influence on the book of Exodus. Nevertheless, the con
tribution of the DeuteronomistBertheau addresses Exod. 23:913 and to
a lesser extent Exod. 34:11and 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. 7:1215: Die
Zehnzahl im Exodus hat der Verf. des Deuteron. hiernach nicht beachtet (Bertheau, Die
sieben Gruppen, 76 n. 1).
36 The form in Exod. 23:29 appears to be related to in Exod. 23:28. As a result
it is possible to see verses 2830 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. 2930 states that yhwh will gradually drive out the peoples, while v. 28 claims that
is responsible for driving them out. Furthermore, it would appear from Deut. 7:20,
22 that the author of Deut. 67 also made a distinction between two different promises
in Exod. 23:2830. Indeed, the expression is added in both Deut. 7:20 and
Deut. 7:22.
14 Chapter 1

research into the presence of alleged Deuteronom(ist)ic language in the first


four books of the Old Testament.

3 The Deuteronomist and the Supplementary Hypothesis

In contrast to the Fragmentary Hypothesis, which saw the Pentateuch as a col


lection of relatively independent fragmentsand as such was unable to offer
sufficient explanation for the degree of structure the Pentateuch exhibits,
the Supplementary Hypothesis took its point of departure in a continuous
basic narrativean Elohist Grundschriftthat was progressively expanded
by the Jehovist with the help of the literary procedure of supplementa
tion. Considered up to that point as the youngest book of the Pentateuch,
Deuteronomy was then understood to have been incorporated in the latter as
part of the said procedure.
With regard to Deuteronom(ist)ic issues, particular reference should be
made to the work of Johann Jakob Sthelin in this context.37 Sthelin identified
the Jehovist who supplemented the Elohist basic narrative with the author of
Deuteronomy. Using a number of examples, Sthelin tried to demonstrate that
the theology of Deuteronomy was identical to that of the Jehovistic Ergnzer.38
Gen. 15:16, for example, clearly states that the Israelites were to be Gods instru
ments in punishing the Canaanites, a motif also found in Deut. 9:45. The
theme of God treating Israel well on account of Abraham (Gen. 22:18; 26:5)
is also to be found in Deut. 7:8; 10:15. Thanks to Gods promises to the patri
archs, Israels religion was to spread among the pagans as the true religion, a
motif that is also present in Exod. 19:6, albeit in different words, and parallel
with Deut. 30 in which God promises to bring Israel back to its land. In addi
tion to the theological similarities between the Jehovistic Ergnzer and the
author of Deuteronomy, Sthelin also pointed to similarities in terms of lan
guage. The formula , for example, is to be found in Deut. 4,9, 23 and

37 J.J. Sthelin, Beitrge zu den kritischen Untersuchungen ber den Pentateuch, die Bcher
Josua und die Richter, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 8 (1835) 461477; Idem, Kritische
Untersuchungen ber den Pentateuch, die Bcher Josua, Richter, Samuels und der Knige,
Berlin 1843, 80: Wir wollen nun voraussetzen, der Ergnzer der vier ersten Bcher des
Pentat. und der Verfasser des Deut. sei einer und derselbe.
38 Sthelin, Kritische Untersuchungen, 80: Auch die Theologie des Deuteron. ist die des
Ergnzers, denn sie hat im Deuteron. keine weitre Ausbildung erhalten, und man kann
sagen, was der Ergnzer in den frhern Bchern, 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, Sthelin was also conscious of linguistic dif
ferences between the Jehovistic Ergnzer 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 , while frequent ref
erence is made to the said messenger of God in the Tetrateuch. Here Sthelin
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 Sthelin 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 Delitzschin his
view the core of the Pentateuch, i.e. Exod. 1924, was written by Mosesalso
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 Sthelins 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 ( Gen. 26:5) occurred hufig
beim Deuteronomiker.42 A few years later, he explicitly referred to a number of
passages in Genesis as deuteronomisch. He begins by describing Lev. 1720; 26
as jehovistisch-deuteronomisch gefrbt.43 In the appendix to his commentary

39 Sthelin, Kritische Untersuchungen, 82: Haben wir immer die doppelte Rcksicht vor
Augen, dass der Ergnzer 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 whlte, so werden wir gewiss die kleinere Differenzen, die
sich zwischen dem Deut. und den Abschnitten der frhern Bcher finden, die wir dem
Ergnzer zugeschrieben, leicht begreifen und natrlich finden. On the other hand, see
De Wette, Lehrbuch, 204208.
40 H. Bardtke, Franz Delitzsch geb. 23.2.1813. Ein Gedenkwort zur einhunderfnfzigsten
Wiederkehr seines Geburtstages, TLZ 88 (1963) 161170; S. Wagner, Franz Delitzsch: Leben
und Werk (Beitrge zur evangelischen Theologie, 80), Mnchen 1978; Gieen, 21991.
41 F. Delitzsch, Die Genesis ausgelegt, Leipzig 1852, 2930: (...) 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 ber die Genesis, Leipzig 31860, 37.
16 Chapter 1

he alludes to the divine name in Gen. 15 as deuteronomisch.44


Delitzsch also speaks of the use of the term in Gen. 21:10, 13 (instead of
, a term that only occurs in Deuteronomy in 28:68), as deuteronomisch45
and labels Gen. 26:16 as eigenthmlich gefrbt.46 Within the expression
, used to refer to Canaan, he designates as an archaic term
that Gen. 26:3 shares with Gen. 19:8, 25 and Deut. 4:42; 7:22; 19:11. Delitzsch
also speaks of the formula in Gen. 26:5 as a deuterono
misch klingende Zusammenstellung, although he notes that while the plu
ral form is found in Exod. 16:28; 18:16, 20; Lev. 26:46, it is not attested in
Deuteronomy.
While Delitzsch restricted the contribution of the Deuteronomist to a
number of isolated verses in Genesis, it is with him nevertheless that literary
argumentation found its way into Pentateuch research. It should come as no
surprise, therefore, that Wellhausen was to explicitly refer to Delitzsch a cou
ple of decades later when he spoke of RD.47
Heinrich Ewald, whose hypothesis Delitzsch called the Krystallisations
hypothese,48 is also of indirect importance for the question of the presence
of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in GenesisNumbers. Ewald referred to his
basic document as the Buch der Ursprnge (= later P)49 into which seventy

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 Grafs hypothesisCf.
F. Delitzsch, Pentateuch-kritische Studien ixii, Zeitschrift fr kirchliche Wissenschaft
und kirchliches Leben 1 (1880), 110; 5766; 113121; 173183; 223234; 279289; 337347;
393399; 445449; 503509; 559567; 617626; Idem, Urmosaisches im Pentateuch iiv,
Zeitschrift fr kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben 3 (1882), 113136; 225235;
281299; 337347; 449457; 561573; Idem, Neuer Kommentar ber die Genesis, Leipzig
1887, 1719.
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 zunchst 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 Israels 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 Abrahams life, for example, with ein eingreifendes prophe
tisches Bild50 in Gen. 12:13; 15; 22:119. Isaacs life is prefaced by Gen. 26:15
and Jacobs in Gen. 28:1022 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 Ewalds 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 GenesisNumbers 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 berblick ber ihre
Geschichte auseinanderzuhalten.
50 H. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis Christus. Bd. 1, Gttingen 1843, 140.
51 A. Knobel, Die Genesis (KEHAT, 11), Leipzig 1852; Idem, Die Bcher Exodus und Leviticus
(KEHAT, 12), Leipzig 1857; Idem, Die Bcher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua erklrt nebst
einer Kritik des Pentateuch und Josua (KEHAT, 13), Leipzig 1861. In the Vorrede of Genesis,
iiiiv, Knobel describes the method and goal of his research as follows: Die alte Schrift
(...), welche den Bchern Mosis und Josuas 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 lsst sich meines Erachtens mit ziemlicher Sicher
heit herausfinden, zumal sie abgesehen von einzelnen Angaben vollstndig erhalten zu
sein scheint. Aber desto schwieriger ist das Geschft der Kritik bei den Stcken, welche
durch die Hand des Bearbeiters der alten Grundschrift hinzugekommen sind.
52 See, for example, Knobel, Exodus, 105 in relation to Exod. 12:2427: Eine Vorschrift ber
die knftige Haltung des Passah, welche neben der elohistischen Verordnung V. 14.43ff.
als volkommen berflssig und darnach wie nach der Sprache, auch nach der schlechten
Anschluss von V. 28. als jehovistische Einschaltung erscheint. Exod. 13:310 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 fgrlichen
Redensarten 13,9.16 und 13,12., welche dann der Deuteronomiker sich angeeignet hat
(112). Exod. 32:714 (316: freie Zuthat des Jehovisten) can be added here.
18 Chapter 1

later labelled Deuteronom(ist)ic by other scholars.53 Knobels conviction


that the author considered responsible for large portions of Deuteronomy
and smaller passages of Joshuathe Deuteronomistwas closely aligned
in terms of language with the Rechtsbuch and the Jehovist is also worthy of
note.54 Nonetheless, Knobel excluded the possibility that the Jehovist and the
Deuteronomist were one and the same person, which implies that one would
be searching in vain if one were to look for the presence of the Deuteronomist
in the first four books of the Pentateuch.55

53 Reference can be made, for example, to Exod. 3; 12:2427; 13:316; 2023; 24:38; 33:111;
Num. 14:1125.
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 Spteren 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:
( Deut. 3:24; 4:34; 5:15; 6:21; 7:8, 19; 9:26; 11:2; 26:8; 34:12); ( Deut. 1:17; 16:19;
21:14); ( Deut. 7:2; 28:50); ( Deut. 25:9); in relation to the commission of Moses
(Deut. 34:11); ( Deut. 6:11; 28:47); ( Deut. 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: ( Deut. 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); ( Deut. 5:32;
9:12, 16; 11:28; 17:20; 31:29; Josh. 1,7); ( Deut. 17:8; 30:11); ( Deut. 7:17; 8:17;
9:4; 18:21); ( Deut. 4:40; 5:16, 29; 6:3, 18; 12:25, 28; 22:7); ( Deut. 9:27);
(Deut. 28:29; Josh. 1:8); ( Deut. 11:26, 28, 29; 21:23; 23:6; 27:13; 28:15, 45; 29:26; 30:1, 19;
Josh. 8:34); ( Deut. 28:5, 17); ( Deut. 1:37; 15:10; 18:12). Knobel concludes: Der
Deuteronomiker hat also im Ausdrucke von allen Vorgngern Einzelnes angenommen
und trifft in andern Fllen wenigstens mit ihnen zusammen; am nchsten 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
lteren Gesetze zusammenarbeiten, wogegen es dem Deut. neben der Einschrfung auf
eine Vermehrung der lteren Gesetze ankam. Beide verfolgten verschiedene Aufgaben.
b) verfolgte der Jehovist seine Aufgabe in der Weise, dass er, zumal bei den mosaische
Dingen, die lteren Quellen mglichst wrtlich beibehielt und so zusammenfgte, ohne
sie viel mit eigenen Zuthaten zu versetzen, whrend der Deut. sich viel freier bewegt und
das Aeltere selbststndiger verarbeitet. c) wrden die 4 ersten Bcher, wren sie durch die
Hand des eifrigen und rednerischen Deut. geworden, gewiss viel deuteronom. Zugaben,
namentlich parnetischer Art enthalten; davon ist aber nichts wahrzunehmen, vielmehr
seine Hand erst von Dt. 1. anzu bemerken. d) entscheiden gewisse Ansichten gegen die
Identitt z.B. dass der Jehovist Kibroth Taava und Tabeera als einerlei nimmt (...), der
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 19

A completely unique version of the Supplementary Hypothesis was devised


by John William Colenso to whom we shall devote more detailed attention in
the following pages. While Colenso may have been considered something of a
maverick, he was still to have an enormous influence on the emergence of the
so-called New Documentary Hypothesis, in addition to being the first scholar
to argue for an extensive Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of GenesisNumbers.

4 John William Colenso and the Deuteronomist

The one-hundred and fiftieth anniversary of John William Colensos appoint


ment as Anglican Bishop of Natal (South Africa) was celebrated in 2003.56

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 einfgt und
somit einen zweimalgen Aufenthalt zu Kades angenommen hat, whrend der Deut. nur
Einen angenommen hat (...). Der Letztere wrde auch bei seinen strengen Ansicht von
der Einheit des Gottesdienstes (Cap. 12) das Gesetz Ex. 20,24ff weggelassen und kaum
mit Eifer von den Altren der Erzvter an den verschiedenen Orten des Landes erzhlt
haben wie der Jehovist es thut. Unmglich kann man auch den Zusammenarbeiter von
Ex. 3234. als dieselbe Person mit dem Darsteller von Dt. 9,710,11. ansehen. e) ist ohne
Unterscheidung des Jehovisten und Deut. bei manchen Stellen z.B. Dt. 32,44f. Jos 13,6f
kritisch nicht zurechtzukommen. f) besttigen sprachliche Grnde 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
gewhnliche Ausdrcke z.B. , , , , , , und mit
seinen Urkunden gemein (...), welche der Deut. nicht braucht, und er meidet Manches
z.B. mit , was diesem gelufig ist (Knobel, Numeri, 589590). Thus the Jehovist
always uses ( Gen. 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 ( Gen. 6:5, 6; 8:21; 18:5; 24:45; 27:41; Exod. 4:14;
7:14, 23; 10:1), while Deuteronomy mostly employs ( Deut. 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
(Deut. 4:11; 28:65; 29:3, 18). Moreover, the Jehovist prefixes with or ( Gen. 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 to express act perversely (Exod. 32:7; compare with
Deut. 32:5); the Deuteronomist uses the hiphil ( Deut. 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

For the occasionwhich it was hoped would include the cancelation of


his excommunication dating back to 1866, an anthology was published
in which prominent academics offered reflections on various aspects of
Colensos career, as bishop, teacher, and most prominently as biblical exegete.57
From the very moment Colenso arrived in South Africa, the Old Testament,
and in particular the so-called Hexateuch, played an extremely important
role in his life. Moreover, the remainder of his life and career were to be
determined to a significant degree by his approach to the first books of the
Judaeo-Christian Bible.58
It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that none of the contributors to
the aforementioned anthology pays any specific attention to Colensos vision
of the Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of GenesisJoshua. Nonetheless, decades
before the theme of an all-embracing Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction came to
dominate research into the emergence and evolution of the literature of the
Old Testament, Colenso spent his entire career focusing explicit and con
vinced attention on similarities between texts from GenesisNumbers and the

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), 746749; F.E. Deist, John William Colenso: Biblical Scholar,
OTE 2 (1984), 98132; 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, 91107; G. Mitchell, A Hermeneutic of Intercultural Learnings:
The Writings of John Colenso, OTE 10 (1997), 449458; J. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism
in the Nineteenth Century, London 1984, 220237; B. Sundkler, C. Steed, A History of the
Church in Africa (Studia Missionalia Upsaliensia, 74), Cambridge 2000, 371372. See also
H. Ausloos, John William Colenso (18141883) and the Deuteronomist, RB 113 (2006), 372
397; T.K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament Criticism, London 1893, 196204; Houtman,
Der Pentateuch, 102; R.J. Thompson, Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism since Graf
(SVT, 19), Leiden 1970, 4344; 5455.
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, 18621879
(vol. 1: 1862; vol. 2: 1863; vol. 3: 1863; vol. 4: 1863; vol. 5: 1865; vol. 6: 1871; vol. 7: 1879). Colensos
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 18661868; Lectures on the Pentateuch and the
Moabite Stone, London 1873. For a complete bibliography, see F. Bell et al., Bibliography of
Colensos Work and Publications on Colenso, in Draper, The Eye of the Storm, 365377.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 21

book of Deuteronomy. Furthermore, Colenso was in fact the first to introduce


the concept of an all-embracing Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of the books
GenesisNumbers into scholarly biblical research.59
In order to situate Colensos interest in the contribution of the Deuteronomist
to the origin and evolution of the first four books of the Old Testament, we must
first briefly explore his vision of the genesis and composition of the Pentateuch
and the book of Joshua. It is also important to bear in mind in this regard that
Colenso repeatedly changed his vision in the course of his exegetical research
activities. This should come as no surprise, given the fact that he published his
seven volume magnum opus on the Hexateuch over a period of eighteen years.
We will then examine Colensos approach to the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic
elements in GenesisNumbers in more detail.

4.1 Colenso and the Origin of the Pentateuch


Referring to the intention of the Anglican Church to be a free, Protestant,
nation, Colenso saw it as his responsibility, as in the days of the Reformation,
to protest against all perversion of the Truth, and all suppression of it, for the
sake of Peace, or by mere Authority.60 This search for the truth was to govern
his entire life, even when it led to serious conflict with the churchs hierarchy
in England and South Africa.
After spending his first years in Natal familiarising himself with the Zulu
language, Colenso initiated a plan to translate both the Old and the New
Testaments into Zulu.61 As he worked on his translation, assisted by a sim
ple minded, but intelligent native,one with the docility of a child, but the
reasoning powers of mature age,62 he came into contact for the first time in
his life with the countless historical inaccuracies and contradictionsand
immorality!to be found within the Old Testament.63 Colenso penned the
results of what for his time and situation was a risky undertaking in the first vol
ume of The Pentateuch.64 He drew attention in the first instance to the historical

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, xxxiiixxxiv.
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, 9495.
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

inaccuracy he had encountered in the books of Exodus and Numbers. As such,


Colenso was a child of his time and of his environment. While 19th century
Anglican England was answering questions about the historicity of the Genesis
narratives on creation, the fall and the flood for the most part by allegorical bib
lical exegesis, few if any questions were being asked about the Mosaic author
ship of the Pentateuch or the historical reliability of the narratives concerning
Israels slavery and liberation related in the books of Exodus and Numbers.65 In
this regard, Colensos observations on the number of Israelites that participated
in the exodus and on the impossibility for the three priests Aaron, Eleazar and
Itamar to have performed all the prescribed sacrifices are worthy of note.66 As
will be evident from our description of the origins of historical-critical biblical
exegesis, Colenso was far from being a pioneer with respect to the question
ing of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or the historical reliability of
the narratives transmitted therein.67 Nevertheless, Colensos radical emphasis

however, with The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 151: The lxx shows the original form of
this [Gen. 47:4bH.A.] passage).
65 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, xxixxii.
66 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 1, esp. 102106; 122130. 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, Sthelin, 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, vivii: 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

on the unhistorical character of GenesisDeuteronomy provided an effective


stimulus to the development of the classical New Documentary Hypothesis.
Indeed, the latter would no longer accept Hupfelds Grundschrift (E1) as the
oldest foundation of GenesisNumbers.68 Even when Graf and Kosterswho
were pioneers in questioning the early dating of the Grundschrift by locating
some of the legal texts and narrative passages after the exilecontinued to
accept a Grundschrift,69 Colenso was already arguing that specifically these
texts in GenesisNumbers, which presented themselves as authentic and par
ticularly accurate, were in reality the least historical passages, while one would
expect the oldest documents to also be the most reliable.70 At the beginning,
however, Colenso continued to adhere to the dating and specific character of
the Grundschrift and did not take the step towards the reversal of the sequence
of emergence of the texts. This step was first taken by Kuenen when he, with
explicit reference to the Bishop of Natal, designated the entire Grundschrift as
one of the latest segments of the Pentateuch: with one single exception the
twenty chapters of his [= Colensos] book are devoted to an absolutely pul
verising criticism of the data of the Grundschrift.71

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 Bcher des Alten Testaments: Zwei historisch-kritische
Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1866, 1113; W.H. Kosters, De historie-beschouwing van den
Deuteronomist met de berichten in GenesisNumeri 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 Kuenens
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, xivxvii, esp. xvi. Compare with A. Kuenen, Critische bijdragen tot de
geschiedenis van den Isralietischen godsdienst. Dl. 5: De priesterlijke bestanddeelen
van Pentateuch en Josua, Theologisch Tijdschrift 4 (1870), 391426, esp. 399: Criticism of
the Pentateuch on the continent focuses on construction, butuses materials that were
rejected by Colenso for very sound reasons. As far as I am concerned, I happily recognise
24 Chapter 1

The importance of the first volume of Colensos The Pentateuch cannot be


underestimated. It not only underlines thefor him newinsight that the
first books of the Bible are unreliable from a historical perspective, it also
serves as a catalyst for his historical-critical positions with respect to the origin
of GenesisNumbers presented in the following volumes. After demonstrat
ing (once again) that the final redaction of the Hexateuch had to be ascribed
a post-Mosaic dating, Colenso sets about the elaboration of his vision of the
composition of the Pentateuch based on an analysis of the book of Genesis.
Here he proves himself to be an evident supporter of the classical 19th century
Supplementary Hypothesis. Moreover, he considers it unlikely that two inde
pendent documents ever existed that contained identical and often mythical
and fictional narratives. For this reason he considers it more plausible that a
basic document was supplemented by one or more authors, who sometimes
radically changed the basic document they had at their disposal. Colenso
ascribes this Grundschrift to the Elohist, which was later supplemented and
changed by the Jehovist.72 It should be clear therefore that Colenso did not
develop a new hypothesis, but was indebted to and built on foundations that
had been established a number of decades before him.73
The use of the divine names and serves as Colensos most impor
tant argument for distinguishing between the Elohist and the Jehovist. He ten
tatively identifies the author of the Elohistic basic narrative with the prophet
Samuel and is also of the opinion that Samuel was the first to use the tetragram
as a new name for the God of Israel.74 His argument here is twofold. First he
points out that within the book of Judges there is no evidence of proper names
with a component,75 while there are several that contain the theophoric

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 Germanywhen 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 Colensos Letters to Kuenen, in: Draper, The Eye of the Storm, 76103,
esp. 8792.
72 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 175185. Colenso was probably influenced by Bleek,
Einleitung. Whatever the case, Colenso was able to acquire the work of European scholars
thanks to Bleeks 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, 223229; 358.
75 Colenso argued that three of the four names that apeared to be compounds
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 .76 Colenso then refers to the fact that King Davids 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 had 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 Davids 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 .
Moreover, although the Jehovist made frequent use of , 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 interpolationsaccord
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 Davids life or the early
years of the reign of his successor Samuel.81
After studying Gen. 111 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, 330343,
esp. 333334).
76 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 344352.
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, 267272.
79 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 273329.
80 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 244352. With respect to the name Moriah in Gen. 22:2,
cf. 240247.
81 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 358359.
82 In The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 1490, Colensos primary goal is to demonstrate the composite
character of Gen. 111. In the following pages (91284), he provides an extremely detailed
analysis of Gen. 111, his main purpose here being to demonstrate that the chapters in
question should not be taken literaly.
26 Chapter 1

a younger Elohist.83 However, Colensos opinion differs from that of Hupfeld


on three points. First, when Hupfeld speaks of the younger Elohistic sections on
the one hand and the Jehovistic passages on the other as original and indepen
dent documentsthereby giving an initial impetus to the New Documentary
Hypothesis, Colenso continues to insist that the Elohistic basic document
was supplemented by the younger Elohist (E2) in a similar fashion to the way
the Jehovist had supplemented E or E2, or as D had done with the EJ narrative.84
Second, Colenso distinguishes between J1, J2, J3 and J4, in contrast to Hupfeld
who limits himself to one single Jehovist.85 Third, according to Colenso, E2
should not be seen as an author who can be strictly distinguished from the
Jehovist. As a matter of fact, Colenso identifies E2 with J1, whereby E2 is taken
to be an earlier stage within the literary activity of J.86 In addition to J and E,
Colenso also recognises the work of a Later Editor to be identified with the
Deuteronomist. The latter not only expanded the EJ Tetrateuch to a substantial
degree by adding the book of Deuteronomy, he also significantly revised and
retouched the said EJ Tetrateuch.87
Having ascribed E and D in the second volume of The Pentateuch to the
prophets Samuel and Jeremiah respectively, Colenso is inclined in the fifth vol
ume to ascribe J to the prophet Nathan and J2 to Gad.88 While he does not argue
that these individuals themselves were the authors of GenesisNumbers, he is
convinced nevertheless that these components of the Pentateuch were writ
ten by some great and good menas great and good as theseleading men
of the respective ages, bearing in mind that no other writers of history out of
those ages are named in the Bible.89

83 Cf. Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis.


84 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 180.
85 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 4852; 187195. Colensos distinction between J1, J2, J3 and
J4 is based for the most part on the way in which the divine names and are
used. J3 and J4, for example, use the tetragram almost exclusively, while J2 uses 7x
and or 67x.
86 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 5868.
87 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 5257.
88 Cf. Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 180. Compare, however: It is possible, of course, that
(...) J1, J2, J3, J4, may have been written by more than one hand in the slightly-different ages
to which we assign them,as this would sufficiently account for the similarity of style
which exists between them. But there are no distinct indications of this. And the interval
of 40 years, assigned as the duration of Davids reign (...) would allow of the same writer
(Nathan, suppose) having written the first of these sets of passages under Saul at the age
of 20, and the last under Solomon at the age of 70 (195).
89 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 180.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 27

Colensos hypothesis concerning the origins of the Pentateuch as it crystal


lized in the fifth volume of The Pentateuch can be summarised as follows:

E1 11001060 (during the time of) Samuel


J1 (= E2) 10601010 Nathan (during the final years of Sauls rule)
J2 1035 in the second decade of Davids rule (Gad)
J3 during the final years of Davids rule
J4 at the beginning of Solomons rule
D 641624 Jeremiah

Between the publication of the fifth (1865) and sixth (1871) volumes of The Pen
tateuch, however, Colensos 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 ExodusJoshua with Lev. 26. Based on
the fact that the said chapterand in extensu Lev. 1820exhibits 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 Jehoiachins imprisonment.91 Ezekiels work was continued during the
Babylonian exile by priestly authors who supplemented GenesisJoshua with
typically priestly material. Colenso calls these elements the Later or Levitical
Legislation (L.L.).
Colenso determines L.L.s contribution to the corpus GenesisJoshua via an
analysis of the book of Deuteronomy. He considers the original form of the
latter to consist of Deut. 526; 28, Deut. 14; 27; 2930 being added later by
the same author. Deut. 3134 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 Exoduse.g.
the passages concerning the construction of the ark and the tent of meeting in
Exod. 25:131:17 and 3540, 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, 323.
92 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 2433.
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. 6:25 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 Solomons
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
Jeremiahi.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
Colensos vision of the genesis and composition of the Pentateuch. Indeed,
appendix 152 provides a global overview of the bishops approach to the origins
of GenesisNumbers.95 Here he states explicitly that the Elohistic narrative
segments in Gen. 1:1Exod. 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 Pentateuchwe
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

93 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 4344.


94 While E, according to Colenso, established the basis of the Exodus narrative, he did not
complete it. Colenso becomes enormously speculative at this juncture: the author of E
may have fallen ill or died prematurely; perhaps he believed he had written the most
important part of the storyhe had arrived at the revelation of the divine name
and wanted to pass it on to a successor (Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 616617).
95 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, 129139.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 29

passages. On the contrary: Colenso remained a support of the Grundschrift to


the very end.
In summary, Colensos final vision of the origins of the Pentateuch can be
presented as follows. The Elohistic basic narrative (E), which is to be found
in Gen. 1:1Exod. 6:5 emerged during the reign of King Saul and was probably
written by or on the orders of the prophet Samuel (11001060 bce). The second
Elohist (E) and the Jahwist (J)96potentially relating to different phases of the
literary activity of one and the same authorsupplemented the E basic narra
tive. He/they wrote with intervening breaks during the reign of King David and
the early years of King Solomon (10601010 bce). While the second Elohist only
intervened in Gen. 1:1Exod. 6:5 in a fragmentary way, his contribution to what
follows is to be found throughout a continuous narrative that runs as far as the
announcement of Davids conquests in the oracles of Balaam. The Jahwists
presence in GenesisExodus is likewise fragmentary. The Jahwist provided a
continuous narrative from Balaams prophecies in Num. 22 to 1 Kgs 9:25.
At a later stage, this EEJ narrative was supplemented with unrelated
Deuteronomistic interpolations (D) and finally with L.L., which likewise con
sisted of separate passages and never existed as a coherent continuous narra
tive or formed part thereof. Colenso puts the agreements between L.L. and E
down to the fact that L.L. made use of the archaic terminology throughout the
Pentateuch to give the impression that its sections were old.
Thus far attention has been focused only in passing on the place of the Deu
teronomist within Colensos hypothesis on the origins and composition of
GenesisNumbers. Nonethelessand as far as the present author is aware
Colenso was the first biblical scholar to adhere to an extensive Deuteronom(ist)
ic redaction of the Tetrateuch, long before the outbreak of pan-Deuterono
mism, and long before the word itself found acceptance. His vision of the so-
called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements within GenesisNumbers will be explored
in the following paragraph.

4.2 Colensos Deuteronomist


The Deuteronomist as co-author of the Pentateuch first makes his appearance
in the second volume of Colensos The Pentateuch.97 Within the framework
of his hypothesis of an Elohistic basic narrative with Jehovistic supplements,
Colenso makes vague reference to some interpolations. He encounters the
saidotherwise limitedinterpolations in Genesis and more extensively
in the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. He ascribes them all to the

96 In the seventh volume Colenso no longer refers to the Jehovist.


97 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 2, 358362.
30 Chapter 1

Deuteronomist, who had not only supplemented GenesisNumbers but had


also added the entire book of Deuteronomy, his own work. In other words,
the D elements within GenesisNumbers stem from the author who also wrote
Deuteronomy.
Basing himself on the similarities between the versions of the Decalogue in
Exodus and Deuteronomy, Colenso insists that the Deuteronomist was depen
dent on the text of Exodus, from which he borrowed the best part of his ideas
and formulations. In contrast to E and J, the Deuteronomist was not particu
larly sensitive to the sacred character of the text. According to Colenso, this is
evident from the fact that he sometimes dealt freely with the text he had at
his disposal. Emended expressions together with a radically different Sabbath
command point in this direction.98
With a view to discerning the presence of the Deuteronomist within the
Tetrateuch, Colenso considered it necessary to ascertain the characteristic fea
tures of his style and theology. He does this in the third volume of The Penta
teuch, in which he closely inspects each pericope of Deuteronomy. With the
exception of the final chapter of the book,99 as well as Deut. 31:14*, 15*100 and
32:4852,101 Colenso considers Deuteronomy to have been written by a single
author. His style and tenor clearly distinguishes him from the Elohist and the
Jehovist who wrote the larger part of the Tetrateuch in a different period. Given
that the language of the Deuteronomist exhibits strong similarities with that
of the prophet Jeremiah, he tentatively concludes that both authors can be

98 Colensos 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 only in Deut. 34:1, 8, in contrast to commonly
used elsewhere in the book (cf. Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 401).
100 Given the fact that ( )is 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 tabernacleprobably because he was not involved
with it on a daily basisin 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; 558559).
101 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 391392. With the exception of ( v. 49)
Deut. 32:4852 cannot be ascribed to the Deuteronomist. On account of the terminology
(v. 48: ; v. 49: ; ;v. 50: , which is also found in
other places in GenesisNumbers 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. 20:2229, where Aarons death is described in similar terms. The
said verses were incorporated by the Deuteronomist into his work (397399; 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
Colensos otherwise cautious suggestion from the second volume of The
Pentateuch, namely that there is evidence of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements
in GenesisNumbers, 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, 617618: (...) 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, 407414.
103 Also in the 19th century see, for example, C. Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium (HKAT, 1/3/1),
Gttingen 1898, xxxiixli; 21923, 4147; Knobel, Die Bcher Numeri, Deuteronomium und
Josua, 586589; P. Kleinert, Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker: Untersuchungen
zur alttestamentlichen Rechts- und Literaturgeschichte, Leipzig 1872, 214235. In contrast
to Colenso, Kleinert insisted that there were no visible traces of a Deuteronom(ist)ic
redaction in GenesisNumbers: Die ersten vier Bcher dagegen des Pentateuchs, sowie
das Buch Samuels blieben von diesen Zuge der Zeit unberhrt, und erst in der exilischen
und nachexilischen Literatur taucht die sptere, aber um so eindringlichere Nachwirkung
des Leviticus auf (253).
104 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 397399; 402405.
105 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 3, 399401.
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 GenesisNumbers. 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 Deuteronomistwho 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 Jwhich 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, 413414).
107 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 5257.
108 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 311.
109 Cf. also Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, 135: The insertions of the Deuteronomist in
GenesisJoshua, 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:
bersetzung seiner drei Quellen und Redactionszustze mit kritischen, exegetischen und
historischen Errterungen, Halle 1862, 123).
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 33

Deuteronomy. The said Deuteronom(ist)ic additions, which were written in


the style of Deuteronomy, are the most spirited and refreshing passages in
the whole narrative.110 It appears, broadly speaking, that these passages seem
to have been inserted for the very purpose of quickening the history with a
deeper spiritual meaning, and stirring more effectually the readers heart with
words of religious life and earnestness.111 Colenso likewise suggests that the
Deuteronomist revised the EJ Tetrateuch before he started writing the book
of Deuteronomy.112
Gen. 14 has an important role to play within Colensos analysis, a chapter he
considers to be part of neither E, J nor D. Because of its specific style features,
which are not evident elsewhere in the Pentateuch, Colenso sees Gen. 14 as
the work of a separate author (J2), although in the context of his analysis of
the chapter in question he points to similarities between the said J2 and D.113
As such, he anticipates the work of Kuenen and Holzinger. They too were to
allude to similarities between JE and D in their analysis of some JE passages,
although this did not lead them to conclude that the passages in question were
Deuteronom(ist)ic.114
In the seventh volume of The Pentateuch, in which Colenso ascribes many
more verses to D than in the preceding volumes, he insists that the siglum
D should not be understood in an overly restrictive manner. In other words,
D for Colenso does not only refer to the Deuteronomist stricto sensu, but
also to any Deuteronomistic Editor or Editors, including Jeremiah, who on
our view himself wrote the Book of the Law and most of the two Books of
Kings, and retouched the whole from Genesis to 2 Kings.115 At the same time,
Colenso states that Jeremiahas author of the D passages in Exoduswas
dependent on the prophetic book Nahum from which he borrowed a number
of expressions.116

110 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 53.


111 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 53.
112 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, Critical Analysis of the Book of Genesis (further abbreviated
as CA), 19.
113 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, CA, 5253.
114 Cf. H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch, mit Tabellen ber Quellenscheidung, Freiburg
i.B. 1893, 490: Weiter liegt die Verwandschaft der von RJE komponierten Reden mit den
dtistischen Predigten auf der Hand; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 249: Het
spraakgebruik van JE getuigt van zijne nauwe verwantschap met D1 en diens navolgers.
115 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 145.
116 Compare, for example, in Exod. 34:6 and in Exod. 34:7 with
Nah. 1:3. Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 161162.
34 Chapter 1

In what follows we provide an exhaustive overview of all (parts of) verses


Colenso ascribes to the Deuteronomist throughout the different volumes of
The Pentateuch. This is followed by a discussion of the arguments and criteria
on which he bases himself.

4.3 Overview of the Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers


It should be evident from the preceding paragraph that Colenso paid little
attention to the Deuteronomist from a theoretical and systematic point of
view. Nevertheless, the number of verse segments, verses and sometimes
entire passages he ascribes to D is staggering to say the least. The following
tables contain an overview of all the verses Colenso characterised as D in the
various volumes of his opus magnum. When he only considers part of a verse
to be D, I provide the precise details in a footnote.

Genesis Volumes 2 & 3 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7

some 6:4 6:4 6:4


interpolations 10:812 10:812 10:812
14:2*, 3*, 7*, 8*, 15:121 11:2830
17*117 18:1819 12:14a, 68, 920118
15:121 22:1418 13:15, 7b,119 1417
18:1819 24:5960 15:121
22:1418 26:45 16:10

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:
( v. 2): cf. Deut: 20:12, 20; ( v. 22): cf. Deut. 32:40. Colenso considers
the explanatory notes in vv. 2, 8 () , v. 3 () , v. 7
( ) and v. 17 ( ) to be D.
118 Gen. 12:4a: to . Gen. 12:920 is probably one of Ds later interpolations,
based on the E version in Gen. 20:117, 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 .
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 35

Genesis Volumes 2 & 3 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7

23:2, 19*120 28:15, 2022 18:1319, 22b,124 33


24:5960 31:13 19:2728
26:45 35:24 22:1418
35:6*, 8*, 19*121 24:48, 3841, 5960
36:43*122 26:1*, 25, 2425a125
48:7*123 28:1315, 2022
30:27b126
31:3.13
32:712
34:2b, 3b, 5, 7b, 13b,
2531127
35:24, 8
39:3, 5, 23
47:30a128
48:1516, 2122
50:24

120 The explanation of older names (v. 2: ; v. 19: ) ,


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 ( ) and in Gen. 35:19
( ) are from the Deuteronomistic editor (cf. Gen. 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 17; 23:2,
19; 36:43; 48:7). In CA 181182, however, Colenso considers the entire pericope Gen. 35:17
to be Jehovistic.
122 The explantory note probably 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 in 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 .
125 Gen. 26:1: ; Gen. 26:25a:
.
126 .
127 Gen. 34:2b: ;Gen. 34:3b: ; Gen. 34:7b: ; Gen. 34:13b:
.
128 .
36 Chapter 1

Exodus Volumes 2 & 3 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7

some 32:13 3:1*129 1:6


interpolations 13:316 3:1*, 24a, 5, 6b8, 17b,134
15:25b,130 26 1922
17:6*,131 14 4:15b135
19:3b8, 9b132 6:1
20:117 7:17a136
23:13, 15bc,133 8:10b, 22b137
19, 2233 9:1416, 18b, 24b, 29b138
24:12 10:1, 2, 6a, 7b, 14b139
32:714, 34 11:18a140
33:36 13:316
34:927 14:1314, 25, 3031
15:25b,141 26
17:6,142 1314
18:1*, 2*,143 811
19:3b9144
20:117, 20, 22b,145 23

129 cf. Appendix, 76.


130 . Verse 25b:
131 .
132 . is D; Exod 19,9b: Exod. 19:3b:
133 .
134 ; Exod. 3:6b: ; Exod. 3:4a: Exod. 3:1*:
. ; Exod. 3:17b:
. 135
. 136
; Exod. 8:22b [= 18b]: 137 Exod. 8:10b [= 6b]:
.
; Exod. 9:24b: 138 Exod. 9:18b:
. ; Exod. 9:29b:
; Exod. 10:7b: 139 Exod. 10:6a: the entire verse with the exception of
. ; Exod. 10:14b:
. 140 The entire verse, except
. 141 Verse 25b:
. 142
. ; Exod. 18:2*: 143 Exod. 18:1*:
. 144 Exod. 19:3b:
. 145
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 37

Exodus Volumes 2 & 3 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7

22:20, 21b22, 2425b,146


31
23:9, 1314, 15b,147 1733
24:12
32:714, 34
33:1b1486, 1223
34:5b28a, 28b*149

Leviticus Volumes 2 & 3 Volume 5

some interpolations 26

Numbers Volume 2 & 3 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7

some 10:3336 10:3336 10:2932


interpolations 14:4045 21:14, 15, 2730 11:13, 4,150 12, 1823
13:22b,151 2831
14:11b, 12b, 1519,
20*,152 2125, 3945
16:2831
20:1421
21:13, 4b9, 1218a,153

146 Exod. 22:21b [= 20b]: ; Exod. 22:25b [= 24b]:


.
147 .
148 .
149 Exod. 34:5b: ; Exod. 34:28a: tot ; Exod. 34:28b*:
.
150 .
151 From .
152 Num. 14:11b: the entire verse, except ; Num. 14:12b:
; Num. 14:20*: .
153 Num. 21:4b: ; Num. 21:18a: the entire verse segment with the
exception of .
38 Chapter 1

(cont.)

Numbers Volume 2 & 3 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7

2135
22:2, 819, 2235, 3738
23:130
24:1, 1013, 1824
25:4
32:21b,154 33, 3942

4.4 Colensos Argumentation in Support of the Deuteronom(ist)ic


Elements in GenesisNumbers
The above overview makes it immediately clear that the majority of passages or
verses Colenso ascribes to D continue to the present day to be associated with
the Deuteronom(ist)ic question. What is remarkable, however, is that in later
research into the origins of the Pentateuch reference is seldom if ever made
to Colenso himself or his argumentation. Colenso differs from later research
by his attribution of almost the entire Balaam narrative in Num. 2224 to D,
although he admits that the use of the divine name or excluding
Num. 22:2235 where is usedwould incline one at first sight to attribute
the passage to E.155 Nevertheless, similarities with a number of expressions in
Jeremiah, Deuteronomy, JoshuaKings and other D texts within the Tetrateuch
lead him to ascribe the Balaam pericope to the Deuteronomist.
It is also striking that Colenso does not only ascribe passages from the
books of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers to D. As a matter of fact, in the fifth
volume of The Pentateuch he also considers Lev. 26 to be a Deuteronom(ist)ic
interpolation.156 The bishop discusses this passage against the background of
his analysis of Num. 14:4045 in which the expression is found
as in Lev. 26:17.157 With the exception of Lev. 26 and Num. 14, this expression

154 .
155 Colenso, The Pentateuch. Vol. 7, Appendix, 169172.
156 Delitzsch likewise described Lev. 26 as jehovistisch-deuteronomisch gefrbt.
157 The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, Appendix II, 302303. For a detailed discussion of Colensos
arguments in relation to Num. 1314 reference should be made to H. Ausloos,
Deuteronomistic Elements in Numbers 1314. Colensos View on the Deuteronomist, OTE
19 (2006), 558572.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 39

is only found elsewhere in the entire literary complex GenesisDeuteronomy


in Deut. 1:42; 28:7, 25. Accordingly, Colenso sees this word combination as
a specific characteristic of the Deuteronomist. In the sixth volume of The
Pentateuch, however, Colenso adjusts his opinion, explaining the similari
ties between Deuteronomy and Lev. 26which he now associates with the
prophet Ezekielin a slightly different way. The presence of Deuteronom(ist)
ic expressions in Lev. 26, he now argues, is due in part to the fact that the author
of this chapter was familiar with the language of the Deuteronomist and imi
tated it on occasion, and in part to the fact that he lived in the same period and
moved in the same prophetic circles.158
Colensos argumentation in support of the attribution of (parts of) peri
copes in GenesisNumbers to D is often based on lists of words and expres
sions that occur with frequencyor even exclusivelyin Deuteronomy or
within the so-called Deuteronomistic passages of JoshuaKings and Jeremiah.
Accepting that it would be impossible to deal with each and every argument
within the limits of the present study, I will restrict myself here to a number of
significant examples that clearly illustrate the tenor of Colensos perspective. It
should also be observed that Colenso makes frequent use of the English trans
lation of the Old Testament, thus not basing himself on the Hebrew basic text.
This approach has a regular and irrefutable influence on his argumentation. An
example should suffice to clarify what I mean. According to Colenso, the theme
of the giants ( or ) is almost exclusively Deuteronom(ist)ic. As a
result, Gen. 6:4 also has to be attributed to D. In order to substantiate his argu
ment, he appeals to the term in Deut. 2:11, 20, 20; 3:11, 13; Josh. 12:4; 13:12;
17:15; 18:16 and Gen. 15:20, all passages he maintains to be Deuteronom(ist)ic.
The are mentioned in Deut 1:28; 2:10, 10, 21; 9:2; Josh. 11:21, 22; 14:12,
15; 15:13, 14, passages that are likewise said to be Deuteronom(ist)ic. The word
combination is only found elsewhere in the Old Testament in Num. 13:22, 28, 33
and Judg. 1:20. In Gen. 6:4, however, neither the nor the are men
tioned. The fact that the noun in Gen. 6:4; 10:8, 9 also occurs in Deut. 10:17;
Josh. 1:14; 6:2; 8:3; 10:2, 7according to Colenso all D passagesis sufficient
for him to designate the term as typically Deuteronom(ist)ic and to conclude
that the use of the term in the book of Genesis stems from the Deuteronomist.
Based on the observation that the so-called prophetic expression
( Gen. 15:1, 4) is not used elsewhere in the Pentateuch, Colenso con
cludes that the formula in question should probably not be understood as
part of the vocabulary of J. On the other hand, the expression appears to
be used with frequency by Jeremiah,the contemporary, at all events, of

158 The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 910, Appendix, 34.


40 Chapter 1

the Deuteronomistand 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. 21:2829 and
Jer. 47:4546, concluding that the Deuteronomist introduced the story of Sihon
and Og into the EJ narrative.160
In addition, Colensos 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 in 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; 28:6263; 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 ( ) in 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 Deuteronomyin which the does
not occur!or in the complex JoshuaKings. 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
as 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 in 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), 297314.
162 The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, CA, 73.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 41

to Colenso, it has to be of Deuteronom(ist)ic origin. A detailed analy


sis of Gen. 18:18, however, nuances Colensos somewhat hasty conclusion.
(1) In Deut. 4:38; 9:1; 11:23 the expression ( plural!) refers to the
native population of Canaan in relation to Israel, in contrast to Gen. 18:18, in
which it refers to the descendents of Abraham. (2) While Deut. 9:14 refers to the
Israelites, the people are not characterised here as , but as , a character
istic that is only mentioned in the second instance: . Moreover,
the Israelites, in line with Deut. 4:38; 9:1; 11:23 are compared with the native
peoples. (3) In Deut. 7:1 (... ) the adjective is lacking. The
verse, in addition, clearly provides a list of the Canaanite peoples. (4) While
Deut. 26:5 ( ) refers to the Israelites, it does so using clearly
divergent terminology. (5) Only Num. 14:12 has a formula identical to that in
Gen. 18:18 () . Nevertheless, Num. 14:12 compares Israel with
the native peoples. Colenso initially did not consider Num. 14:12 to be D, but his
perspective changes in the seventh volume of The Pentateuch. The attribution
of the verse is not based so much on the presence of the formula ,
however, as it is on the agreements the verse exhibits with Exod. 32:10 (D) and
Deut. 9:14, in which the verb is used (I will make you a great nation ...).
One can argue in summary that Colensos emphasis on vocabulary as
the most important argument for considering verses or segments of verses
as Deuteronom(ist)ic is often extremely precarious. It will be evident, nev
ertheless, in the remainder of the present overview of the history of the
Deuteronomist in GenesisNumbers that precisely this imprudently employed
lexicographical argument continued to dominate later research into the pres
ence of Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas and Deuteronom(ist)ic language in the
Tetrateuch (and the rest of the Old Testament).

4.5 The Deuteronomist as Editor


We already observed that Colenso ascribed the D passages in Genesis
Numbers to a Deuteronom(ist)ic editor, who supplemented and reworked the
Tetrateuch he had at his disposal. While Colenso does not focus systematic
attention on the characteristics of the said editor, we are nevertheless provided
with a more or less clear picture of Colensos vision of the editor in his analysis
of the Deuteronom(ist)ic texts in the appendix to the seventh volume of The
Pentateuch. The activities of D as editor can be summarised in five categories.
It should be noted, however, especially when we compare the first two cat
egories, that the allegedly considered methodology of D would appear on the
contrary to be somewhat ambiguous.
(a) D was determined, on the one hand, to eradicate the lack of consistency
he encountered in the EJ work he had at his disposal. He thus introduced
42 Chapter 1

Gen. 11:2830, for example, in order to explain why Terach took his grandson
Lot (v. 31) with him and not Haran.163 Furthermore, Colensos Deuteronomist
sometimes appears to be intent on accuracy in his work. His use of the literary
technique of Wiederaufnahme in Gen. 13:15following his interpolation of
Gen. 12:920 with the intention of recalling the situation in Gen. 12:8serves
to illustrate this modus operandi.164 In Exod. 10:12, D harmonises his EJ text
with the remainder of the so-called Plagues Narrative in Exod. 711, since
each plague in the older narrative was introduced by a divine command up to
Exod. 10.165
According to Colenso, Ds 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
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, Colensos 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 tetragramsuggests interpola
tion, bearing in mind that v. 4b has . He likewise considers Exod. 4:15b
( ) to 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 impaledto 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. 21:2122.168 It would
appear from Ds additions to Exod. 33:16, 1223, 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,

163 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 145146; ii.


164 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 147.
165 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 155 (making reference to Wellhausen).
166 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 154.
167 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 154.
168 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 160.
169 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 160.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 43

26, 1223 in an analogous way. In the interpolation in question, D wishes to


correct the anthropomorphic statement of the older writer in xxxiv.5a, that
Jahveh came-down in the cloud and stood there with Moses.170 On similarly
theological grounds, D is described as lashing out in Gen. 34 against mixed
marriages, which, according to EJ, were legitimate on the condition that the
non-Israelite partner submitted to circumcision.171
(d) A further characteristic of the Deuteronomist is his strong interest in the
antique. While Colenso understands Gen. 6:18 (the pericope on the sons of
God and the daughters of human beings) to be Jehovistic in the fourth volume
of The Pentateuch, subsequent volumes consider Gen. 6:4 to be an interpola
tion on the part of D, resulting from the latters interest in the early history of
Canaans inhabitants, a feature also evident in Deuteronomy (cf. Deut. 2:1012,
2021, 23).172 A further example of this antiquarian disposition is to be found
in Num. 13:22b.173
(e) D is likewise typified by the interpolation of a number of explanatory
notes. Geographical names that had fallen into disuse in the period in which
D lived, for example, are often supplemented by the name current at the time.
Colenso ascribes responsibility to D in this regard when it comes to the desig
nations found in Gen. 14:2, 3, 7, 8, 17, for example.

4.6 Conclusion
Our discussion of Colensos opus magnum should have made it clear that in
spite of its agedating back more than one hundred and fifty yearshis 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 Colensos 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 Deuteronomistunderstood here as
the author of Deuteronomybased himself on existing traditions that had
been taken up into the Tetrateuch. Secondly, we must account for Colensos
implicit allusion to the possibility that the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic pas
sages in GenesisNumbers might be seen as precursors of the first steps in the
development of what has come to be described as typical and stereotypical

170 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 160.


171 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 150.
172 The Pentateuch, Vol. 5, 54; 183; CA, 2; 1720; The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, Appendix, 2; The
Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, ii.
173 The Pentateuch, Vol. 7, Appendix, 164.
174 Le Roux, A Story of Two Ways, 106.
44 Chapter 1

Deuteronom(ist)ic vocabulary. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Colensos


frequently unfounded use of criteria was to serve as a warning to those schol
ars who, without a solid criteriology, came to support an ever-expanding pan-
Deuteronomism.175 The said pan-Deuteronomism was only to manifest itself,
however, after the New Documentary Hypothesis established itself as the
explanatory model for the origin and composition of the Pentateuch.

5 RD and the New Documentary Hypothesis

Up to this point, Deuteronomy was understood more or less consistently as one


of the youngest parts of the Pentateuch, and the passages related thereto in
other biblical books have been approached as redactional interventions. This
position changed significantly with the emergence of the New Documentary
Hypothesis. In the second half of the 19th century, scholars were once again
drawn in increasing numbers to the idea that the Pentateuch had been put
together on the basis of several continuous and entirely independent sources
or documents and not from a continuous basis document that was progres
sively expanded, as the Supplementary Hypothesis presupposed. This New
Documentary Hypothesis was introduced by Hermann Hupfeld,176 whose
work already contained the initial echoes of the so-called Four Source theory.
Independently and in parallel with one another, an Elohistic basic document
emerged (E1, later to be referred to as P), a second Elohistic document (E2)
and a source characterised by its use of the divine name . Deuteronomy
also existed as an independent document, although it was not parallel with the
other documents. Like Colenso, Hupfeld thus splits the Elohistic basic docu
ment E into two parts. In so doing, the segment of the basic document thus
far considered the oldest acquired an independent place vis--vis the younger
part related to J. Hupfeld did not take the step of reversing the chronological
order of the sources, however, and continued to see E1 as the oldest document.
This decisive step was to be taken as a result of the work of Karl Heinrich Graf
and Julius Wellhausen. In the Dutch speaking world, Willem Hendrik Kosters
and Abraham Kuenen were of particular importance in the debate.

175 It should be observed that Colensos contemporary, T. Nldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik
des Alten Testaments. 1: Die s.g. Grundschrift des Pentateuchs, Kiel 1869, 12 considered the
Deuteronomist to be completely absent from GenesisNumbers.
176 Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis. Eduard Riehm, one of Hupfelds 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 2223. 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. 2023; 13:116; 34:1027 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 sptere
Erweiterung den Charakter eines Gesetzbuches erhalten. Graf identified this
interpolation in the book of Leviticus, as well as Exod. 12:128, 4351; 2531;
3540; Num. 1:110:28; 1517; 18*; 19*; 2831*; 35:1636:13*.178 As such, Graf
reacted against the identification of the Jehovist and the Deuteronomist, in
contrast to Sthelin.179
Kosters took matters a step further.180 Graf was primarily interested in
determining which laws from ExodusNumbers 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 GenesisNumbers. On the
contrary, the Deuteronomist leaned for support on the material associated
with the Jehovist.182

177 Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bcher.


178 Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bcher, 9495.
179 Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bcher, 15.
180 Kosters, De historie-beschouwing van den Deuteronomist.
181 It is evident: the so-called Grundschrift is shrinking as time passes. Graf more or less
emptied it of legal material together with a number of narratives (...); our own research
has also removed a considerable number. Has the time not come to ask whether there is
much still remaining in the said Grundschrift? Is it not time to revise the foundations
upon which the recognition of its priority rests? (Kosters, De historie-beschouwing
van den Deuteronomist, 136translation mine). Cf. K.H. Graf, Die s.g. Grundschrift
des Pentateuchs, in: A. Merx (ed.), Archiv fr wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten
Testaments, Bd. 1, Halle 1867, 466477.
182 Of all the Elohistic narratives we have encountered on our way, not one proved to have
been known or used by the Deuteronomist. This result allows us the freedom to conclude:
the said segments also did not belong to the Grundschrift of the Jhvhist (Kosters, De
historie-beschouwing van den Deuteronomist, 136translation mine); If I had only
46 Chapter 1

Because of changes in relation to the understanding of the basic document,


the conditions were created that would support the hypotheses of Kuenen
and Wellhausen who were to reverse the sequence of the sources proposed
by Hupfeld. At the same time, they drew renewed attention to the question
of the presence of Deuteronom(ist)ic material in GenesisNumbers. As we
have observed, however, potential similarities between GenesisNumbers and
Deuteronomy did not draw attention away from the work of scholars such as
Hupfeld, Graf and Kosters. It was only when the New Documentary Hypothesis
came to crystallize as a result of the endeavours of Kuenen and Wellhausen
that space was created for further reflection on the question.
In his An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of
the Hexateuch, Kuenen provided a detailed outline of the genesis of the
Hexateuch.183 He saw the Hexateuch as we now know it as the work of one or
more redactors. The priestly laws and narratives that had been dated by Graf as
late are designated as P. All the laws and narratives redacted by the Deuterono
mist or in his spirit and/or under his influence are designated by the letter D.
What remains is referred to as JE, the so-called prophetic components of the
Hexateuch.184 These JE components do not constitute a well-formed literary

succeeded in demonstrating that the Deuteronomists 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: 189110 december1991, in: Abraham
Kuenen (18281891). 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, 2531; Idem, Abraham Kuenen
(18281891): De Pentateuch en de godsdienst van Isral, NTT 45 (1991), 279292. See also:
P.B. Dirksen, A. van der Kooij (eds), Abraham Kuenen (18281891): His Major Contributions
to the Study of the Old TestamentA Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the
Occasion of the Centenary of Abraham Kuenens 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 Colensos Letters to Kuenen, in Draper, The Eye of the
Storm, 76103.
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
termi.e. the author of Deut. 526probably 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. 14 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 GenesisNumbers 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, 168169).
186 Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 166.
187 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 249.
188 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 137.
48 Chapter 1

Deuteronomist in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, and assigns to this source


no inconsiderable portion of the law and narratives they containfour hun
dred and twelve Masoretic verses in all.189 Kuenen concluded nevertheless:
Deuteronomic ideas, and the terms and expressions inseparable from them,
are comparatively rare in the prophetic portions of the Hexateuch. They are
not altogether wanting, however, and they demand an explanation.190
According to Kuenen, RD limits itself in GenesisNumbers to a few very
clearly distinguishable (and thus separable) Deuteronomic passages. He
considers Gen. 26:1a(?), 3b4(?), 5; Exod. 15:26 to be RD and adds: The deu
teronomic colouring is not to be mistaken.191 Moreover, on account of the sim
ilarities Kuenen claims to be able to discern between JE and RD, it is not always
clear to him whether the given verses should be ascribed to JE or D. He argues
with respect to the use of the list of the nations in Exod. 23:23, for example, that
his linguistic usage also testifies to JEs close affinity with D1 and its followers.192
He also observes elsewhere: But I imagine thatpartly because JE and D
are separated by so short a periodan intimate deuteronomic recension is
incapable of being striclty proved, and I shall therefore content myself with
enumerating the passages that might be referred to it.193 This kinship shows
how natural it is that there should still be some want of agreement whether
certain verses should be assigned to JE or to one of the followers of D1.194 On
one single point, the said redactor allowed himself a little more freedom:
he expands the Sinaitic law, which hitherto consisted of the Decalogue and

189 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 137.


190 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 242.
191 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 259.
192 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 256.
193 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 259. He refers in this regard to Exod. 3:1822;
4:2123; 8:18b; 9:14b, 16, 29b; 10:1b2; 12:42. Kuenen also points to the kinship between
Exod. 12:2127; 13:116, 17a; 15:25b; 17:14b, 16 and D, without thereby ascribing the said
passages to RD. He refers moreover to numerous and distinct traces of a deuteronomic
recension in Exod. 19:3b8; 20:117, 22b, 23; 23:2033; 34:1013, 24, which make it highly
probable that Ex. xix.xxiv. and xxxii.xxxiv. were brought into their present form by a
deuteronomic reviser, and more specifically yet that it was this reviser who lashed the
Book and the Words of the Covenant into their present connection (Kuenen, An Historico-
Critical Inquiry, 262). See also 258: In the preceding books [GenesisNumbersH.A.]
the redactor confined himself to adding a few deuteronomic touches, which show, by
the comparative ease with which we can separate them, that the contents of JE have
remained otherwise unaltered.
194 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 256.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 49

nothing more, by relocating the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:2223:33) and
the so-called words of the covenant (Exod. 34:1028) 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 Wellhausens 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, Wellhausens 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

195 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 258.


196 J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin 1883; 31886; Idem, Die Composition
des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bcher des Alten Testaments, Berlin 31899. Cf. H. Graf
Reventlow, Epochen der Biblelauslegung. 4. Von der Aufklrung bis zum 20. Jahrhundert,
Mnchen 2001, 302316; R. Smend, Julius Wellhausen: ein Bahnbrecher in drei Disziplinen,
Mnchen 2006.
197 Wellhausen, Die Composition, 205206: Der Deuteronomist, d.h. der Schriftsteller, der
das Deuteronomium in das hexateuchische Geschichtsbuch eingesetzt hat, hat zugleich
das letztere in deuteronomischem Sinne berarbeitet; von dieser berarbeitung ist
nun aber nicht Q, sondern vielmehr JE betroffen. Schon Gen. 26,5 findet sich ein Spur
derselben (...). Strker werden die Spuren im Exodus seit dem Auszuge aus gypten
Exod. 13. Kap. 16. Kap. 1924. Kap. 3234 (...). Am strksten hat der Deuteronomist die
jehovistische Erzhlung im Buche Numeri und im Josua beeinflusst und vermehrt. Ein
sicheres Beispiel, dass er auch auf Q eingewirkt habe, ist nicht aufzutreiben, weder im
Pentateuch noch auchwo man es am ehesten zu finden erwarten sollteim Josua.
198 See, for example, Wellhausen, Die Composition, 74: Der Verfasser von Ex. 13,316 ist, wenn
nicht der Jehovist selber, ein deuteronomistischer Bearbeiter desselben. Er ist sowohl von
manchen charakteristischen Ausdrcken abhngig von den jehovistischen Quellen, als
auch in den Elementen selber, die seiner ermahnenden Rede zu Grunde liegen und das
einzig Inhaltliche darin bilden; Auch in 15,2227 scheint der Jehovist (Deuteronomist?)
v. 26 frei zugesetzt zu haben (79); Wir haben hier [i.e. in Exod. 34H.A.] den Jehovisten,
dessen (?) Verwandschaft mit dem Deuteronomium wir bereits fter Gelegenheit
gehabt zu constatieren (86); Einige Stellen des Dekalogs sind deuteronomisch gefrbt,
so v. 10, v. 2 und ganz v. 6 (besonders auffallend ).
Es hat also wohl eine Rckstrmung aus Deut. 5 in Exod. 20 stattgefunden: der Jehovist
50 Chapter 1

Heinrich Holzinger can be named in one and the same breath with Kuenen
and Wellhausen199 as an important representative of the Documentary

(?) hat deuteronomische Zustze nachgetragen (89); Dessen [i.e. der JehovistH.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 strker ein, namentlich in Deut. 34. Hier ist Q [i.e. PH.A.] nur in v. 1a
und 8.9(7a?) zu erkennen; brigens sprechen smtliche Ausdrcke und Vorstellungen,
aus denen man berhaupt etwas schliessen kann, gegen Q und fr JE, bez. fr den
deuteronom. Bearbeiter von JE (115).
199 The GrafKuenenWellhausen 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, Dillmanns 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 fr
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. 32,714, aber zB. in Gen.
26,5; 45,19f; Ex. 15,26; Num 14,1123. Aber dieser Schein muss doch schwinden, wenn man
bedenkt, welche ganz andern Spuren seiner Thtigkeit RD denjenigen Stcken des Hexat.
aufgedrckt hat, welche unbezweifelt durch seine Hand gegangen sind, nmlich Dt. 31;
33; 32,4452; 27,18 u. B. Josua (A. Dillmann, Die Bcher 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 passagese.g. Num. 21R and RD ought to be considered one and the same
(681). See also Idem, Die Genesis (KEHAT), Leipzig 1882; Dillmann, Ryssel, Die Bcher
Exodus und Leviticus.
Wellhausen explains the presence of Ds range of ideas in P with a quotation from
Jlicher: (...) die frhe Hochstellung des deuteronomistischen Gesetzes hat eine Menge
von Wendungen, Manieren, Gedanken in den Sprachgebrauch eingefhrt, so dass wir
dieselben bis in die spteste Erzeugnissen der Hebraschen Literatur hinein immer
wieder finden und uns gar nicht Wundern drfen ihnen auch in dem so viel verbesserten,
erweiterten, berarbeiteten Priestercodex zu begegnen (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 374).
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 51

Hypothesis according to the Wellhausian model.200 In line with Kuenen and


Wellhausen, moreover, he was aware of the presence of material related to
Deuteronomy in GenesisNumbers, but he considered it difficult to strictly
separate JE from D. Holzinger thus likewise pointed to a strong kinship
between RJE and the ideology and language of D. As typical linguistic features
of RJE, for example, Holzinger refers to the list of the Canaanite peoples and
the designation of Canaan as a land of milk and honey, two formulas that
he also considered to be characteristically dtstischen Sprache. Furthermore,
Holzinger points to the kinship between the speeches composed by RJE and
the typically dtistischen Predigten. The fact that RJE includes prescripts that
are extremely close to the Deuteronom(ist)ic law textse.g. Exod. 13:116
also appears to point in this direction. Holzinger understood the relationship
between RJE and D to be evidence of a movementHolzinger even uses the
expression dtischen Schule201that resulted in Deuteronomy. Within this
school J and E were first to be amalgamated. It should be noted at this junc
ture that Holzinger did not consider RJE as a single compiler of the material
available to him, but as die Arbeit verschiedener Hnde,202 which told its own
story making use of the material it had at its disposal. It is probable that this
JE redaction then transitioned into the combination of JE with the already
extensive Deuteronomy. Whatever the case, JE was already reworked in the
spirit of Deuteronomy when the latter was inserted. Holzinger also argues for
eine fortgesetzte redaktionelle Arbeit (...), welche von RJE allmhlich zu RD
weiterfhrt.203 Holzinger likewise considers JES, a secondary expansion of JE,
to be akin to D.204
Holzinger even took matters a step further when he proposed the possibility
that RJE be identified with D: Der Verwandschaft [between RJE and RDH.A.]
ist so gross, dass man im einzelnen oft schwanken kann, ob ein sekundres
Stuck RJE oder dem dtistischen Bearbeiter zuzuweisen ist (...). Man muss sich
fragen, ob es unter diesen Umstnden nicht berhaupt einfacher ist, RJE mit

200 Holzinger, Einleitung; Idem, Genesis (KHCAT, 1), Leipzig 1898; Idem, Exodus (KHCAT, 2),
Leipzig 1900; Idem, Numeri (KHCAT, 4), Tbingen 1903.
201 Holzinger, Einleitung, 490. Holzinger states with respect to RJE: Jedenfalls (...) ist die
Verbindung von J und E in die dtistische Zeit zu versetzen (491).
202 Holzinger, Einleitung, 484. See also, for example, Holzinger, Exodus, xiii, where he
characterises RJE as die schliesslich an die dtnistische Redaktion sich annhernde Arbeit
verschiedener Hnde.
203 Holzinger, Einleitung, 491.
204 Holzinger, Exodus, xi. Holzinger associates passages such as Gen. 18:119; 22:1518;
Exod. 19:46; 32:714; Num. 14:1220, which later research often ascribes to RD, with the
aforesaid JES.
52 Chapter 1

RD zu identifizieren.205 Holzingers work is important, moreover, because he


endeavoured to chart Deuteronom(ist)ic language in the form of a list of words
and expressions characteristic of D.206
Interest in Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas and idiom also gained currency out
side continental Europe. We have already explored the vision of Colenso in
this regard, who as supporter of the Supplementary Hypothesisalbeit in
dialogue with Kuenenconcluded that D had extensively reworked Genesis
Numbers. The British exegete Samuel Rolles Driver is likewise of importance
within the context.
In line with many before him, Driver drew attention in the third edition of
his commentary on the book of Deuteronomy to the distinct style of D with
respect to JE and P.207 He remained convinced, nevertheless, that there are
segments in JE in which the author or compiler evidently changes to a pare
netic tone characteristic of D and to a style approaching that of D.208 As
with Kuenen, Wellhausen and especially Holzinger, Drivers work displays an
explicit interest in the relationship between the so-called older JE passages

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 GenesisNumbers, Holzinger
refers among others to Gen. 15:18*; 18:1719; 19:1819; 26:3a5; Exod. 3:8, 12b; 10:2; 15:26;
23:2728; 24:38*; Num. 14:44*; 21:3335; 32:17.
206 Holzinger, Einleitung, 284291. Here he distinguishes between D1 (Deut. 1226), D2
(Deut. 511), D3 (Deut. 14) and DS (expressions that occur in den Schlusskapitels und
dtistischen Stcken von Jos284). 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, lxxviilxxviii: There are (...) certain sections of JE (in particular,
Gn. 26; Ex. 13,216; 15,26; 19,36, parts of 20,217; 23,2033; 34,1026), 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 discoursesH.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
phrasesseventy in numberthat 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 GenesisNumbers 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. 20:217, 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

Having presented the work of Kuenen, Wellhausen, Holzinger and Driver,


we can draw this overview of the origins of the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic

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, xviixviii: Many of
these [i.e. RJE passagesH.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 Drivers 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 Wildeboers 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. 1924; 3234.
54 Chapter 1

question to a close. We have demonstrated that the issue developed gradu


ally, from early interest in harmonising interpolations in SamP on which
Geddes and Vater focused their attention, to the moment that the classical
Documentary Hypothesis started to draw particular attention to the presence
of RD elements in the Tetrateuch. Of particular interest is the fact that the
pioneers of this hypothesis adopted a highly nuanced opinion with respect to
RD. Kuenen and Wellhausen, and in their wake Holzinger and Driver, clearly
left room in their approach to the origins of GenesisNumbers for the sugges
tion that Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology had undergone an
evolution and had drawn from older material. On this point, issues surround
ing JE and RJE and the potential relationship with RD had an important role
to play.213
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Documentary Hypothesis reached
its zenith. Over a period of decades, and in spite of the sometimes radical
changes it was to undergo, it served as the generally accepted model for the
origin of the Pentateuch. As this Documentary Hypothesis established itself,
the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic redactor gained more and more prominence
in Pentateuch research (and elsewhere). While RD was still seen by Kuenen,
Wellhausen, Holzinger and Driver as a dynamic and pluriform process, this
perspective appears to have narrowed in a very short period of time into
that of a static and unimaginative redactor, called in to explain every verse,
verse segment, expression and even word that was reminiscent in one way or
another of Deuteronomy. The conviction grew, moreover, that it was impos
sible for Deuteronomy to have borrowed from passages outside Deuteronomy,
and the latter once more became die Mitte des Alten Testaments.214 Scholars
endeavoured to explain anything that exhibited even the remotest similar
ity to the language and ideas of Deuteronomy from within the book itself. At
the end of the 19th century, the Documentary Hypothesis had imposed itself
as the explanatory model par excellence for the genesis and evolution of the
Pentateuch. At the same time, however, RD succeeded in carving a place for
itself within the said hypothesis because material akin to Deuteronomy within
the first four books of the Pentateuch was ascribed with little hesitation to a
redactor working under the influence of Deuteronomy. As a result, support

213 Cf. recently L. Schmidt, Im Dickicht der Pentateuchforschung: Ein Pldoyer fur die
umstrittene Neuere Urkundenhypothese, VT 60 (2010), 400420, esp. 418: Da die
Ergnzungen der jehowistischen Redaktion eine Nhe zur Deuteronomistik aufweisen
(...), kann sie erst in der Exilszeit angesetzt werden.
214 Cf. R. Smend, Die Mitte des Alten Testaments: Exegetische Aufstze, Tbingen 2002.
Origin and Evolution of A Problem 55

for an extremely inclusive Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of GenesisNumbers,


which Colenso had initiated, continued to gain strength.215

215 This tendency is already evident at the end of the 19th century in the work of A. Jlicher,
Die Quellen von Exodus vii,8xxiv,11, JPT 8 (1882), 79127; 273315. Jlicher had studied
Exod. 1,17,7 in his doctoral dissertation Die Quellen von Exodus ivii,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; 10:1b2; 12:2127,
42; 13:310, 1117a; 15:25b26; 16:45, 20, 27, 2830, 3234; 17:14, 16b; 19:3b8, 9b; 20:117*,
22, 23; 22:1926; 23:812; 23:2033*. 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), 161200; Idem, JE in the Middle
Books of the Pentateuch. Analysis of Exodus i.vii, JBL 10 (1891), 107130; Idem, JE in the
Middle Books of the Pentateuch. From Egypt to Sinai. Analysis of Exodus xii.37xvii.16,
JBL 11 (1892), 177200; Idem, JE in the Middle Books of the Pentateuch. SinaiHoreb.
Analysis of Exodus xviii.xxxiv., JBL 12 (1893), 2346; B. Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch Ex.
xx,22xxiii,33: Seine Ursprngliche Gestalt, sein Verhltnis 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; Tbingen 71913, 8182; E.I. Fripp,
Note on Genesis xviii.xix, ZAW 12 (1892), 2329.
Chapter 2

Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers


since the Beginning of the 20th Century

In the preceding chapter we sketched the emergence and evolution of scholarly


interest in the Deuteronom(ist)ic question with respect to GenesisNumbers
in the 19th century, together with the pioneering developments related thereto.
In the present chapter we offer an analysis of the way in which scholars have
claimed evidence of Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the Tetrateuch since
the beginning of the 20th century, i.e. from the moment the Documentary
Hypothesis acquired general acceptance as a model for explaining the origins
and literary development of the Pentateuch.
In the first part of the chapter I will present a number of general obser-
vations concerning the Deuteronom(ist)ic question as they developed in the
course of the 20th century and in particular its early decades. In the second
part I will assemble a register of the verse segments, verses and pericopes that
have been associated with a Deuteronom(ist)ic reworking since the beginning
of the 20th century. This overview will mainly focus on authors who support
a source-critical approach to the Pentateuch. Indeed, after the Documentary
Hypothesis reached its culmination with Kuenen and Wellhausen at the end
of the 19th century and was able to position itself as the model par excellence
for explaining the genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch, more than a few
scholars at work in the first half of the 20th century readily sided with the said
hypothesis.1 Even to the present dayalthough a minority, authors can

1 Cf., for example, W. Baumgartner, Wellhausen und der heutige Stand der alttestamentlichen
Wissenschaft, TR 2 (1930), 287307; Idem, Alttestamentliche Einleitung und Literaturge
schichte, TR 8 (1936), 179222; A. Bea, Der heutige Stand der Pentateuchfrage, Bib 16 (1935),
175200; O. Eissfeldt, Die literarkritische Arbeit am Alten Testament in den letzten 12 Jahren,
TR 10 (1938), 255291; Idem, Die neueste Phase in der Entwicklung der Pentateuchkritik,
TR 18 (1950), 91112; 179215; 267287; H. Gressmann, Die Aufgaben der alttestamentlichen
Forschung, ZAW 42 (1924), 133; P. Humbert, Die neuere Genesis-Forschung, TR 6 (1934),
147160; 207228; R. Kittel, Die Zukunft der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft, ZAW 39
(1921), 8499; A. Noordtzij, Das Rtsel 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, 4883. 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

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 5|doi .63/9789004307049_003


Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 57

be found who still support the Wellhausian Documentary Hypothesis almost


without question.2 The dominance of what came to be seen as classical source
criticism implied, at the same time, that attention for the presence of so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in GenesisNumbers became a constant feature
of critical study of the Pentateuch.
In the third part of the chapter I will critically explore the argumentation
presented in support of the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of texts from the
Tetrateuch. The fourth and final part will focus in detail, and by way of illustra-
tion, on a specific pericope from the book of Exodus that has been more or less
consistently associated with a Deuteronomistic intervention in the course of
scholarly research, namely the epilogue of the so-called Book of the Covenant
(Exod. 23:2033).
Exegetes who allude to characteristically Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in
GenesisNumbers, but explicitly reject the Documentary Hypothesis in terms
of method, are not included in the following overview. This implies that the
most important studies that have appeared in the last forty years, in which
Pentateuch research has taken a completely different path, are not represented
in the present chapter. I return to these works, however, in chapter four, in which
I present a number of recent tendencies and developments that have made
their mark within Pentateuch research, especially since the 1970s. Indeed, their
influence on the way scholars approach the Deuteronom(ist)ic question can-
not be emphasised enough. Authors who have engaged in systematic research
into the origins and composition of the Pentateuch and employed the conven-
tional sigla J, E, D and P in their work while interpreting them as a whole or in
part in a different manner, will also be examined in chapter four. Scholars who
consider the texts in question to be proto-Deuteronomici.e. as preparatory
to the formation of the Deuteronomic language, style and theologywill be
treated in chapter three.

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, 145148 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

1 General Observations Regarding the Nature of the


Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers

No genuinely new insights have emerged within the Documentary Hypothesis


since it reached its high point with the work of Kuenen and Wellhausen.
The framework of four independent sources (J, E, D and P) is found more
or less consistently in the work of scholars who support the Documentary
Hypothesis, although highly critical voices already emerged early in the 20th
century concerning the independence of the Elohist as source.3 It also goes
without saying that form criticism, and later tradition criticism, introduced
fundamental changes.4 But the broad schema remained unchanged, even
among scholars interested in the oral prehistory of the documents or the tradi-
tions they incorporated.
The following elements within the Documentary Hypothesis can be consid-
ered of importance in relation to the Deuteronom(ist)ic question. It is accepted
that the ancient sources J and E were brought together by RJE. The result
JEwas then associated with a form of the book of Deuteronomy by one or
more Deuteronom(ist)ic redactors.5 This or these Deuteronom(ist)ic redactor or
redactors introduced changes to JE.6 Two primary tendencies can be observed

3 Cf. P. Volz, W. Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzhler: 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 llohiste?, in: A. De Pury, T. Rmer (eds),
Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible
la lumire des recherches rcentes. 3me dition augmente (Le monde de la Bible, 19), Genve
2002, 199230.
4 Cf. T. Rmer, La formation du Pentateuque: histoire de la recherche, in: T. Rmer et al.
(eds), Introduction lAncien Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 49), Genve 2004, 6784,
esp. 7276; T. Rmer, Le Pentateuque en question: Position du problme et brve histoire de
la recherche, in: Idem (eds), Le Pentateuque en question, 2943; F. Garca Lpez, Comment lire
le Pentateuque (Le monde de la Bible, 53), Genve 2005, 4245.
5 According to B. Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri (HKAT, 1/2), Gttingen 1903, lxv,
not all of the verses in GenesisNumbers 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 zurckzufhren, 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 GenesisNumbers 59

with respect to RD. Sometimes RD limited itself to retouching JE in order to bring


it into line with its own language and ideas. In other instances, RD introduced
pericopes into JE that he himself had created. In any event, verses or verse
segments in GenesisNumbers that exhibited similarities with Deuteronomy
came to be treated as dependent on the latter without further ado. This implied
that the concept of a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction of GenesisNumbers had
become a matter of course in research into the origins of the Tetrateuch. It should
be noted, nevertheless, that several commentaries on the books of Genesis,7

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. 15,1821;
26,5; Ex. 12,25; 13,3.1416; 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, 2144; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of
Genesis, Jerusalem 19611964; R. Davidson, Genesis 111 (The Cambridge Bible Commentary),
Cambridge 1973; Idem, Genesis 1250 (The Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge 1979;
H. Frey, Das Buch der Anfnge. Kapitel 111 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten
Testaments, 1), Stuttgart 41950; Idem, Das Buch des Glaubens. Kapitel 1225 des ersten Buches
Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 2), Stuttgart 31950; Idem, Das Buch des Kampfes.
Kapitel 2535 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 3), Stuttgart
41964; Idem, Das Buch der Fhrung. Kapitel 2650 des ersten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft
des Alten Testaments, 4), Stuttgart 41964; W.H. Gispen, Genesis vertaald en verklaard (COT),
Kampen 19741983; A.S. Herbert, Genesis 1250: Introduction and Commentary (Torch Bible
Commentaries), London 1962; G. Hoberg, Die Genesis nach dem Literalsinn erklrt, Freiburg
im Breisgau 21908; H. Jagersma, Abraham (Verklaring van een bijbelgedeelte), Kampen
1977; Idem, Numeri (POT), Nijkerk 19831990; Idem, Genesis 1:125:11 (Verklaring van de
Hebreeuwse Bijbel. Commentaar voor bijbelstudie, onderwijs en prediking), Nijkerk 1995;
H. Junker, Das Buch Genesis (Echter Bibel), Wrzburg 1949; E. Kalt, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus
(Herders Bibelkommentar. Die heilige Schrift fr das Leben erklrt, 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 111 (Torch Bible Commentaries), London 1953; L. Ruppert,
Das Buch Genesis (Geistliche Schriftlesung, 6), Dsseldorf 1984; H.E. Ryle, The Book of Genesis
(The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), Cambridge 1914; J.H. Sailhamer, Genesis (The
Expositors Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI 1990, 1284; Idem, The Pentateuch as
Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI 1992; N.M. Sarna, Genesis
( The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary), Philadelphia 1989; J.C. Sikkel,
60 Chapter 2

Exodus,8 and Numbers9 appearin more or less equal measureto 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 Interpreters 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 bersetzt und erklrt (ATD, 2/4), Gttingen 91972; C. Westermann, Genesis
111 (EdF, 7), Darmstadt 1972; Idem, Genesis 1250 (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 111: die Urgeschichte (Zrcher
Bibelkommentare Altes Testament, 1/1), Zrich 31967; Idem, 1. Mose 1225: Abraham (Zrcher
Bibelkommentare Altes Testament, 1/2), Zrich 1976.
8 See, for example: R.B. Allen, Exodus (The Expositors Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI
1990, 6551008; F.M.T. Bhl, 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 118 des zweiten Buches Mose
(Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 5), Stuttgart 1957; Idem, Das Buch der Verbindung
Gottes mit seiner Gemeinde: Kapitel 1924 des zweiten Buches Mose (Die Botschaft des Alten
Testaments, 6), Stuttgart 31963; Idem, Das Buch der Gegenwart Gottes unter seiner Gemeinde:
Kapitel 2540 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 1:115:21 (Korte verklaring der heilige Schrift), Kampen 1932; W.C. Kaiser, Exodus
(The Expositors Bible Commentary, 2), Grand Rapids, MI 1990, 285497; 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, 4762; N.M. Sarna, Exodus
(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 (Laymans Bible Book
Commentary, 3), Nashville, TN 1979; B. Maarsingh, Numeri. Een praktische bijbelverklaring
(Tekst en toelichting), Kampen 1984; J. Milgrom, Numbers( The 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, 7187; K.D. Sakenfeld,
Journeying with God. A Commentary on the Book of Numbers (International Theological
Commentary), Grand Rapids 1995.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 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 DeuteronomyKings to have introduced a new era in
research into the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in GenesisNumbers,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 la Bible, T. 2: Introduction lAncien
Testament, Paris 1973, 95244; 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 ltude historique de lAncien Testament, T. 1:
Histoire critique des livres de lAncien Testament, Brugge 31942; L. Dennefeld, Introduction
lAncien 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), Gieen 1916; O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung; P. Fargues, Introduction
lAncien 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, Einfhrung in das Alte Testament (Die Theologie im Abri, 1), Gieen 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 Einfhrung in
Literatur, Religion und Geschichte des Alten Testaments (Uni-Taschenbcher, 2745),
Gttingen 32009, 193311, esp. 292 and T.C. Vriezen, A.S. van der Woude, Oudisralitische
en vroegjoodse literatuur: Tiende, geheel herziene druk van De literatuur van Oud-Isral
(Ontwerpen, 1), Kampen 2000, 184. In recent work, allusion is commonly made to the
presence of Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas in GenesisNumbers via references to thealbeit
pioneeringstudies of E. Blum. See, for example, J.-D. Macchi, Exode, in: Rmer et al.
(eds), Introduction, 173195, esp. 181.
12 M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden
Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Schriften der Knigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft.
Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse, 18), Stuttgart 1943.
62 Chapter 2

later that the consequences of Noths 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 GenesisNumbers continued into the
Deuteronomistic History. As a result, a strict division was established between
GenesisNumbers and DeuteronomyKings.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 GenesisNumbers 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 Bchern Josua bis Knige,
TR 27 (1961), 132; 97146; A.N. Radjawane, Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk.
Ein Forschungsbericht, TR 38 (1974), 177216; H. Weippert, Das deuteronomistische
Geschichtswerk. Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren Forschung, TR 50 (1985), 213249;
H.D. Preuss, Zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, TR 58 (1993), 229264; 341395;
T. Veijola, Deuteronomismusforschung zwischen Tradition und Innovation, TR 67 (2002),
273327; 391424; 68 (2003), 144; T. Rmer, Lhistoire deutronomiste, in Rmer et al.
(eds), Introduction, 234250; T. Rmer, Lhistoriographie deutronomiste (HD). Histoire
de la recherche et enjeu du dbat, in: A. de Pury et al. (eds), Isral construit son histoire:
Lhistoriographie deutronomiste la lunire des recherches rcentes (Le monde de la bible,
34), Genve 1996, 9120; T. Rmer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological
and Literary Introduction, London 2007, 1343.
14 For Noths vision of the origins of the Tetrateuch, see M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte
des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948.
15 With reservations, M. Noth, Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri bersetzt und erklrt (ATD,
7), Gttingen 1966, 12 ascribes a number of passages from Numbers to the redactor
who combined the Tetrateuch and DtrG: Dann kommen in 33,5035,34 die vom
deuterono mistischen Geschichtswerk abhngigen und auf die deuteronomistische
Landnahmeerzhlung hinziehlenden Anordnungen fr die knftige Landnahme,
die gewiss zurckzufhren sind auf einen Redaktor, der die Zusammenfgung von
Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk vornahm oder aber voraussetzte.
16 Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 3233 nn. 106; 108; 109; 111; 112; 113; 114 speaks of a number
of deuteronomistisch stilisierte Zustze. In his opinion, however, these Deuteronomis
tic interpolations in GenesisNumbers cannot be seen as evidence of a far-reaching
Deuteronomistic redaction of GenesisNumbers. Noth offers no further explanation of
the specific nature of these Deuteronomistic additions or the nature of the relationship
with DtrG. See also Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 13: Denn in den Bchern
Gen.Num. fehlt jede Spur einer deuteronomistischen Redaktion. He adds in a
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 63

the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in GenesisNumbers tended to be


approached around the middle of the 20th century and associated with a
Deuteronom(ist)ic reworking of the text with little if any fuss.
The relationship between the Deuteronom(ist)ic and the Priestly litera-
ture appears to have been particularly problematic.17 Indeed, the question of

footnote: Da 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 fr ein Merkmal einer durchgehenden Redaktion gehalten.
Num. 21,3335 ist sekundr wrtlich aus Dtn. 3,13 bernommen 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. 13,1714,31) 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, 6790 and E. Zenger, Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P), in: E. Zenger
(ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Fnfte, grndlich berarbeitete und erweiterte
Auflage (Kohlhammer Studienbcher Theologie, 1,1), Stuttgart 2004, 156175. See also
B. Lemmelijn, The So-Called Priestly Layer in Exod 7:1411:10. Source and/or/nor
Redaction?, RB 109 (2002), 481511.
The question of the so-called Holiness Code (Lev. 1726) 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), 2640; A. Cholewnski, Heiligkeitsgesetz
und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie (AnBib, 66), Roma 1976; G. Bettenzoli,
Deuteronomium und Heiligkeitsgezetz, VT 34 (1984), 385398; J. Milgrom, Leviticus
1722 (AB, 3a), New York 2000, 13571361. See also B. Baentsch, Das Heiligkeits-Gesetz Lev.
xviixxvi: 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 Expositors 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), Wrzburg 1983; B. Maarsingh, Leviticus (POT),
Nijkerk 1974; N. Micklem, The Book of Leviticus (The Interpreters 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
(The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary), Philadelphia 1989; M. Noth, Das
dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus (ATD, 6), Gttingen 1962; J.R. Porter, Leviticus (The Cambridge
64 Chapter 2

the Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers tended to


be limited to the verses that had been introduced into the so-called JE seg-
ments of the books in question. Given that JE was traditionally understood
to be older than D, the question of Deuteronom(ist)ic language and theol-
ogy could be solved by the hypothesis of a redactor working under the influ-
ence of D. The problem arises when one encounters material reminiscent of
Deuteronom(ist)ic language and theology in pericopes traditionally consid-
ered to be Priestly. Moreover, since Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen, the Priestly
contribution to the Pentateuch had been taken to be the youngest. The pres-
ence of Deuteronom(ist)ic material in the Priestly passages thus required an
alternative explanation to the appeal to a Deuteronom(ist)ic redactor. The
majority position was that the Priestly authors had familiarised themselves
with the Deuteronom(ist)ic style and language. Some scholars explicitly
referred, for example, to similarities between certain pericopes in the book of
Numbers that were to be ascribed to P and the style and language of D. These
similarities were then explained on the basis of Ps familiarity with the spe-
cific language and theology of D.18 By contrast, a number of authors were more

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. HeiligkeitsgezetzH.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. 1314*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. 33:5056: Sans recopier aucun texte, il
[i.e. the Priestly authorH.A.] utilise un vocabulaire caractristique du Deutronome
et des rdactions 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 selbstndig weiterzudenken und auszugestalten.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 65

inclined to reverse the sequence DP to PD,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

2 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers in Exegetical


Research from the Beginning of the 20th Century

The survey of scholarly research into the Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in


GenesisNumber presented in this second paragraph is intended in the
first instance as an inventory of the verses that are generally considered

19 Cf. Y. Kaufmann, Probleme der israelitisch-jdischen Religionsgeschichte, ZAW 48 (1930),


2343; 51 (1933) 3547; Idem, The Religion of Israel. From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian
Exile, London 1961, 175200; A. Hurvitz, The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly
Code. A Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology, RB 81 (1974), 2456;
J. Milgrom, Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of Pre-Monarchic
Israel, JQR 69 (1978), 6581; Idem, The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance, RB 82 (1975),
186205; Idem, Numbers, xxxiixxxv; on the other hand, M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy
and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972, 179181 sees D and P as concurrent rather
than successive documents. Reference can also be made in this regard to the vision of
A. Van Hoonacker, De compositione litteraria et de origine Mosaica Hexateuchi disquisitio
historico-critica: Een historisch-kritisch onderzoek van Professor Van Hoonacker naar het
ontstaan van de Hexateuch op grond van verspreide nagelaten aantekeningen samengesteld
en ingeleid door J. Coppens (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor
Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgi. Klasse der Letteren, 11), Brussel
1949, 911: The chronological sequence should be: J, E, P, D (...). A reader familiar with
the most recent critical discoveries will be struck in the first instance by the fact that Van
Hoonacker does not designate the final redaction of the Mosaic books and the book of
Joshua as Priestly but as Deuteronomic. For Van Hoonacker, see P.M. Bogaert, Albin van
Hoonacker, Biographie nationale publi par lAcadmie Royale des sciences, des lettres et
des beaux-arts de Belgique 44 (1985), 633640; J. Coppens, Le chanoine van Hoonacker. Son
enseignement, son uvre et sa mthode exgtiques, Paris 1935; J. Lust, A. Van Hoonacker
and Deuteronomy, in: N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und
Botschaft (BETL, 68), Leuven 1985, 1323; J. Lust, A. Van Hoonacker. Bibliography, in
Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, 363368; J. Lust, Hoonacker, Albin van, (18571933),
in: J.H. Hayes (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Vol. 1, Nashville, TN 1999, 508519.
20 See J. Milgrom, Leviticus 116. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 3),
New York 1991, 9: There is not one demonstrable case in which P shows the influence of
D (...). The reverse situation, howeverthat D is dependent on P (and H)is manifest
in many instances.
66 Chapter 2

to be Deuteronom(ist)ic.21 The nature of the argumentation employed to


substantiate the presence of Deuteronom(ist)ic language style and theology in
GenesisNumbers will be explored in paragraph three.
The present paragraph is subject to practical restrictions. An endeavour
has been made to provide as global as possible a picture of the passages in
GenesisNumbers that scholars have associated with the Deuteronom(ist)ic
question in the course of the 20th century. As a primary point of departure, the
most authoritative commentaries available on the books of Genesis, Exodus
and Numbers are presented. In addition, a limited selection of monographs
and articles have been incorporated into the survey. Reference is also made to
a number of introductions to the study of the Pentateuch.22 Given the scope of
the material, it should be evident that what follows is not and does not intend
to be an exhaustive overview of every author who has associated one or other
verse (segment) in GenesisNumbers with a Deuteronom(ist)ic intervention.
I am convinced, nevertheless, that the survey presented in the following pages
certainly charts the most important elements in the Tetrateuch that have been
linked with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.

2.1 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in the Book of Genesis

Genesis 2

Gen. 2:49*, 16*, 18*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


20*, 2225* 390391; 393394; 395399.

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 GenesisNumbers 67

Genesis 3

Gen. 3:13*, 6*, 1114*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


1719*, 2224* 390397; 405.

Genesis 10

Gen. 10:812, 1619 Witte, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 1998, 301.

Genesis 11

Gen. 11:19* Eerdmans, Genesis, 1908, 90; 93.

Genesis 12

Gen. 12:1* De Fraine, Genesis, 1963, 198.


Gen. 12:23*, 7*, 10* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
392; 403404.

Genesis 13

Gen. 13:1417* De Fraine, Genesis, 1963, 198; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische


Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 403404; Smend, Entstehung,
1984, 65 (?).

Genesis 14

Gen. 14* Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364.


68 Chapter 2

Genesis 15

Gen. 15* Anbar, Genesis 15, 1982, 3955; Berge, Die Zeit des
Jahwisten, 1990, 4042; De Fraine, Genesis, 1963, 198;
Emerton, The Origin of the Promises, 1982, 17; Kaiser,
Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, 1958, 107126;
Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Soggin,
Introduction, 1989, 144145.
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, 102105; Skinner, Genesis, 1910, 284 (?).
Gen. 15:1821* 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, 102105.

Genesis 16

Gen. 16* Eerdmans, Genesis, 1908, 90; 93.


Gen. 16:10* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
404.

Genesis 18

Gen. 18* Eerdmans, Genesis, 1908, 90; 93.


Gen. 18:1* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
392.
Gen. 18:1719* Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten, 1990, 301 n. 73; Bhl,
Genesis, 1923, 16; De Fraine, Genesis, 1963, 154155; Fuss,
Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 404;
405; Gautier, Introduction, 1939, 68 n. 1; Gunkel, Genesis,
1901, lxiv; 184187; Gunkel, Die Urgeschichte, 1911, 47; 153;
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 69

Genesis 18

Holzinger, Genesis, 1898, xxiv; 154; Kaiser, Grundriss


der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Kilian, Die vorpriesterlichen
Abrahamsberlieferungen, 1966, 106; Procksch, Genesis,
1913, 116117; Scharbert, Genesis, 1986, 149 (?); Simpson,
The Early Traditions, 1948, 76; Skinner, Genesis, 1910, 298;
304306; Smend, Entstehung, 1984, 6465.
Gen. 18:2233* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390395; 397; Gunkel, Genesis, 1901, lxiv; 184187; Kaiser,
Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Scharbert, Genesis,
1986, 149 (?); Skinner, Genesis, 1910, 298; 304306.

Genesis 19

Gen. 19:129* Eerdmans, Genesis, 1908, 90; 93.

Genesis 21

Gen. 21:18* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


404.

Genesis 22

Gen. 22:1*, 7*, 11* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


404405.
Gen. 22:1518* Procksch, Genesis, 1913, 116117; Kaiser,
Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, 1958, 118; Kilian, Die
vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsberlieferungen, 1966, 205; Fuss,
Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 392;
404405; Anbar, Genesis 15, 1982, 43 n. 30; Smend, Entste
hung, 1984, 65 (?); Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992,
6364.
70 Chapter 2

Genesis 24

Gen. 24:1*, 6* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


403404.
Gen. 24:7* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
391; 395396; 403; 405; Kilian, Die vorpriesterlichen Abra
hamsberlieferungen, 1966, 205; Perlitt, Bundestheologie,
1969, 67; Procksch, Genesis, 1913, 143.
Gen. 24:1213*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
2627*, 31*, 40*, 4243*, 402405.
48*, 60*

Genesis 26

Gen. 26* Eerdmans, Genesis, 1908, 90; 93.


Gen. 26:1* Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten, 1990, 78; Fuss, Die
deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 392;
Holzinger, Genesis, 1898, xxiv; xxvi; 175.
Gen. 26:3b5* Anbar, Genesis 15, 1982, 43 n. 30; Berge, Die Zeit des
Jahwisten, 1990, 88; 9293; 307 (?); Boecker, Isaak und
Jakob, 1992, 35; Bhl, Genesis, 1923, 16; Carpenter, Harford,
The Composition of the Hexateuch, 1902, 336; Clamer,
Gense, 1953, 349 (?); De Fraine, Genesis, 1963, 198; De Vaux,
Gense, 1953, 122; Driver, Genesis, 1916, 250 (?); Eerdmans,
Genesis, 1908, 74; 90; Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, 1922,
261*; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972, 403; 404; Gautier, Introduction, 1939, 68 n. 1; Gunkel,
Genesis, 1901, lxiv; 275; Gunkel, Die Urgeschichte, 1911, 47;
201; Holzinger, Genesis, 1898, xxiv; xxvi; 175176; Janzen,
Genesis 1250, 1993, 100;
Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Kaiser,
Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, 1958, 118; Kilian, Die
vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsberlieferungen, 1966, 106; 205;
Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 6667; Pfeiffer, Introduction,
1941, 285;
Procksch, Genesis, 1913, 116117; Scharbert, Genesis, 1986,
186; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 92; Skinner,
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 71

Genesis 26

Genesis, 1910, 364; Smend, Entstehung, 1984, 65; Vawter,


Genesis, 1977, 291;
Westermann, Genesis, 1981, 518.
Gen. 26:12* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
404.
Gen. 26:2325* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
403404; Gunkel, Genesis, 1901, 276 (?); Kaiser, Grundriss
der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Scharbert, Genesis, 1986,
188189; Smend, Entstehung, 1984, 65 (?).

Genesis 27

Gen. 27:10*, 2930*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 404.


33*, 41*

Genesis 28

Gen. 28:1314* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


403404.
Gen. 28:19* Scharbert, Genesis, 1986, 199 (?).

Genesis 29

Gen. 29:3233* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 395.

Genesis 31

Gen. 31:5*, 29*, 42*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 403.
53*
72 Chapter 2

Genesis 32

Gen. 32:1013* Boecker, Isaak und Jakob, 1992, 98; Fuss, Die deuterono-
mistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 403404; Smend,
Entstehung, 1984, 65 (?).

Genesis 3750

Gen. 3750 Carasik, A Deuteronomic Voice, 2009, 314.

Genesis 39

Gen. 39:2*.21* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


391.

Genesis 43

Gen. 43:23*, 28* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


391; 403.

Genesis 45

Gen. 45:19* Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 144 (?).

Genesis 46

Gen. 46:1*, 3* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


403404.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 73

Genesis 48

Gen. 48:9*, 1516* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


403404.

Genesis 50

Gen. 50:17* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


403.
Gen. 50:20* Plger, Deuteronomium, 1967, 12.
Gen. 50:2426* Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 49 n. 80; Blenkinsopp,
Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 92 n. 18 (?); Fuss, Die
deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 392; Kilian,
Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsberlieferungen, 1966, 205;
Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 2930; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969,
67; Procksch, Genesis, 1913, 417; Scharbert, Genesis, 1986,
301; Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1995, 58.

2.2 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in the Book of Exodus

Exodus 1

Exod. 1:68* Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 92 n. 18 (?).


Exod. 1:14* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
392.

Exodus 2

Exod. 2:1416*, 23*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


25* 391; 393395; 397; 400; 403404.
74 Chapter 2

Exodus 3

Exod. 3:1* Becker, Sinaitheophanie, 1973, 119; Fuss, Die deuteronomis


tische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 390391; 393; 395397;
401; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 18; Schmidt, Exodus, 1988,
136142 (?).
Exod. 3:27* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
392; 393399; 401405.
Exod. 3:8* Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 97;
Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
391394; 397400; 402403; 405; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900,
xv (?); Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 1920; 37; Kohata, Verzicht
auf die Quellenschriften, 1986, 2021; McNeile, Exodus,
1908, 2 xiii; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Richter,
Die Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964, 41; Schmidt,
Einfhrung, 1995, 58; Schmidt, Exodus, 1988, 136142 (?);
Scharbert, Exodus, 22; Simpson, The Early Traditions,
1948, 163; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 22;
Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose, 1980, 319328; Weimar,
Untersuchungen, 1977, 169; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 48;
Zenger, Le thme de la sortie dgypte, 1989, 325.
Exod. 3:911* 391395; 397399; 401405.
Exod. 3:1213* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390399; 401402; 405406; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, xv (?).
Exod. 3:1416* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
394395; 397399; 402403; 406.
Exod. 3:1517* Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 97; Fuss,
Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 390394;
396399; 402403; 405; McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 xv;
Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Procksch, Das nordhe-
brische Sagenbuch, 1906, 64; Richter, Die Bearbeitungen
des Retterbuches, 1964, 41; Scharbert, Exodus, 24; Schmidt,
Exodus, 1988, 136142 (?); Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1995, 58;
Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 164; Stolz, Jahwes und
Israels Kriege, 1972, 22; Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose,
1980, 319328; Weimar, Untersuchungen, 1977, 169; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 48; Zenger, Le thme de la sortie dgypte,
1989, 325326 n. 77.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 75

Exodus 3

Exod. 3:18* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


391; 397402; 405; Schmidt, Exodus, 1988, 142143 (?);
Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 54.
Exod. 3:19* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
391392; 394; 396399; 403; Procksch, Das nordhebrische
Sagenbuch, 1906, 64; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972,
51; Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose, 1980, 319328; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 55; Zenger, Le thme de la sortie dgypte,
1989, 325326 n. 77.
Exod. 3:20* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390395; 397; 399; 403; Procksch, Das nordhebrische
Sagenbuch, 1906, 64; Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose, 1980,
319328; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 56.
Exod. 3:2122* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972, 390391; 393394; 396399; 401; 403; Weimar,
Untersuchungen, 1977, 169.

Exodus 4

Exod. 4:16*, 816* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


390406.
Exod. 4:17* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390394; 399; Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch,
1906, 64.
Exod. 4:1820*: Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 393395; 397399; 401403.
Exod. 4:2123* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 3435; Fuss, Die deuteronomis
tische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 395; 397399; 401404;
Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 64.
Exod. 4:2430* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390395; 397399; 401402; 405406.
Exod. 4:31* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
392393; 399; 402403; 405; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 323;
Kohata, Verzicht auf die Quellenschriften, 1986, 2021.
76 Chapter 2

Exodus 5

Exod. 5:12* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


391; 394400; 403; 405406.
Exod. 5:3 Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
391393; 396; 399400; Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose,
1980, 319331; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 67; Zenger, Le thme de
la sortie dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
Exod. 5:411*, 1315* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390404; 406.
Exod. 5:1623* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390406; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 69.

Exodus 6

Exod. 6:1* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


390392; 394395; 397399; 403404;
Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 51;
Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose, 1980, 330 n. 45;
Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 70;
Zenger, Le thme de la sortie dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
Exod. 6:6*, 8* Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 2930;37; Kohata, Verzicht auf die
Quellenschriften, 1986, 2021.

Exodus 7

Exod. 7:3* Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 37 (?); Kohata, Verzicht auf die
Quellenschriften, 1986, 2021.
Exod. 7:1416* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
391; 393394; 397; 399; 401; 403405.
Exod. 7:17* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 60 (?); Fuss, Die deuteronomistische
Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 393394; 399; 401; Simpson, The
Early Traditions, 1948, 170 (?).
Exod. 7:18*, 2021*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
2329* 390399; 401; 403; 404.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 77

Exodus 8

Exod. 8:45* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


393; 394; 395; 396; 397; 399; 401; 406.
Exod. 8:6* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 65 (?); Fuss, Die deuteronomis
tische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 394; 396397; 403; 405;
Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 171.
Exod. 8:79*, 11*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
1617* 390391; 393402; 404; 406.
Exod. 8:18* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 68 (?); Fuss, Die deuteronomistische
Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 390391; 393394; 395399; 403;
405.
Exod. 8:19* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 69 (?); Fuss, Die deuteronomis
tische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 392394; 397; 401403.
Exod. 8:2021* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 393394; 397399; 401; 406.
Exod. 8:22* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 393399; 401; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948,
171 (?).
Exod. 8:2325*, 2728* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390399; 401; 403404.

Exodus 9

Exod. 9:17* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


390395; 397399; 401403; 405.
Exod. 9:1417* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390399; 401; 403405; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948,
171 (?); Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose, 1980, 329; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 272 n. 58; Zenger, Le thme de la sortie
dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
Exod. 9:1826* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 393394; 396405.
Exod. 9:27* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390393; 395; 397; 400; 403; 406; Zenger, Le thme de la
sortie dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
78 Chapter 2

(cont.)

Exodus 9

Exod. 9:28* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


397398.
Exod. 9:2930* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 76 (?); Fuss, Die deuteronomis
tische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 390391; 394; 396400;
401; 403405; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 172 (?);
Weimar, Untersuchungen, 1977, 113114.
Exod. 9:3334* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
392; 397401; 403404.

Exodus 10

Exod. 10:12* Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961, 145; Baentsch,


Exodus, 1900, 7879; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 5455; Bennett,
Exodus, ca 1910, 31; 102; Childs, Exodus, 1974, 142; Fuss, Die
deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 392394;
396401; 403; 405; Gressmann, Mose, 1913, 67; Heinisch,
Exodus, 16; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, xvi; 29; Hyatt, Exodus,
1971, 27; 124125; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 120121; 319320;
Kohata, Verzicht auf die Quellenschriften, 1986, 2021;
McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 xvii; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952,
835; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 172 (?); Smend,
Entstehung, 1984, 65 (?); Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 80;
Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 105106.
Exod. 10:3* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
392; 394; 397; 401404; 406; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 105106;
Zenger, Le thme de la sortie dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
Exod. 10:56* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 393394; 397399; 403; 405.
Exod. 10:710* Floss, Jahwe dienen, 1975; 221; 520; Fuss, Die deuteronomisti
sche Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 390394; 397401; 403404;
406; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 105106; Zenger, Le thme de la
sortie dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
Exod. 10:1115* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 394401; 403; 406.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 79

Exodus 10

Exod. 10:1617* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


391397; 404; 406; Weimar, Untersuchungen, 1977, 133;
Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 105106; Zenger, Le thme de la sortie
dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
Exod. 10:18*, 2026*, Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
2829* 390391; 393403.

Exodus 11

Exod. 11:14* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


391399; 401403.
Exod. 11:5* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 8687 (?); Fuss, Die deuteronomis
tische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 394396; 398; 403.
Exod. 11:68* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390403; 405.

Exodus 12

Exod. 12:2123* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


390392; 394; 396; 399; 401402; 405.
Exod. 12:2427a* Anderson, Introduction, 1972, 38 n. 1; Auzou, De la
servitude au service, 1961, 169171; Baentsch, Exodus
LeviticusNumeri, 1903, lxv; Baentsch, Exodus, 1900,
100; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 61; Bennett, Exodus, ca 1910,
31; 117; Brown, Exodus, 1928, 77; Burns, Exodus, 1983, 97;
Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch,
1902, 336; Childs, Exodus, 1974, 184; Couroyer, LExode,
1952, 67; Eerdmans, Exodus, 1910, 39; Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-
Synopse, 1922, 270*; Fohrer, Introduction, 1968, 166; Fohrer,
berlieferung und Geschichte, 1964, 87; Fohrer, Werden
und Verstehen, 1986, 57; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische
Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 391; 393394; 397; 404; Gautier,
Introduction, 1939; 68 n. 1; Heinisch, Exodus, 1934, 16; Hyatt,
Exodus, 1971, 27; 48; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 120121;
80 Chapter 2

(cont.)

Exodus 12

Laaf, Die Pascha-Feier, 1970, 21; 126130; 166; McNeile,


Exodus, 1908, 2 xix; Michali, LExode, 1974, 107 (?); Noth,
Exodus, 1959, 72; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948, 32
n. 106; Oesterley, Robinson, Introduction, 1935, 37; 48 n. 1;
Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Plastaras, Exodus, 1966,
158; Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 7677;
Rudolph, Der Elohist, 1938, 24; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952,
835; Schreiner, Exodus 12,2123, 1977, 75; Simpson, The
Early Traditions, 1948, 181; Smend, Die Entstehung, 1984,
65; Smend, Die Erzhlung des Hexateuch, 1912, 134; Soggin,
Kulttiologische Sagen, 1960, 342; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966,
83; 93; Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 113;
Vriezen, Van der Woude, Oud-Isralitische en vroeg-joodse
literatuur, 2000, 184. Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose, 1980,
323; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 128; Zenger, Le thme de la sortie
dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
Exod. 12:29* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 103 (?); Fuss, Die deuterono-
mistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 390391; 394; 396;
398399.
Exod. 12:3032* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390398; 402403; 406.
Exod. 12:3335* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 393; 395399; 401; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285;
Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 128.
Exod. 12:36* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
396; 399.
Exod. 12:37* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
393394; 403; Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch,
1906, 76.
Exod. 12:38* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
392393; 395; 397; 403.
Exod. 12:3941* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390392; 394395; 397400; 402; Zenger, Exodus, 128.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 81

Exodus 13

Exod. 13:116* Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 49 n. 80; Anderson, Introduction,


1972, 38 n. 1; Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961,
173177; Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903,
lxv; Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 109; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 61;
Bennett, Exodus, ca 1910, 31; 122124; Bennett, Introduction,
1899, 65; Bentzen, Introduction, 1948, 40; Blenkinsopp,
Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 97; Burns, Exodus,
1983, 102; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the
Hexateuch, 1902, 516; Childs, Exodus, 1974, 184; 195; Clamer,
Exode, 1956, 135; Couroyer, LExode, 1952, 7071; Eerdmans
Exodus, 1910, 39; Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, 1922, 270*;
Fensham, Exodus, 1970, 55; Floss, Jahwe dienen, 1975, 56;
Fohrer, Introduction, 1968, 166; Fohrer, berlieferung und
Geschichte, 1964, 8687; 125; Fohrer, Werden und Verstehen,
1986, 57; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972, 391392; Gautier, Introduction, 1939; 68 n. 1;
Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit, 1913, 98; 102; Heinisch,
Exodus, 1934, 16; Hoftijzer, Die Verheissungen, 1956, 32
n. 6; Houston, Exodus, 2001, 76 (?); Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27;
48; 142143; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 1920; 2930; 120121;
274275; Laaf, Die Pascha-Feier, 1970, 29; 76; McNeile,
Exodus, 1908, 2 xix; Michali, LExode, 1974, 111 (?);
Noth, Exodus, 1959, 72; 79; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte,
1948, 32 n. 106; Oesterley, Robinson, Introduction, 1935,
48 n. 1; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 65; 227228 n. 5;
Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Plastaras, Exodus, 1966,
153160; Plger, Deuteronomium, 1967, 7177; Procksch,
Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 76; Richter, Die
Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964, 41; Rudolph,
Der Elohist, 1938, 27; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835;
Scharbert, Exodus, 56; Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1995, 58;
Schreiner, Exodus 12,2123, 1977, 75; Seitz, Deuteronomium,
1971, 9899 (?); Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 181;
415416; Smend, Die Entstehung, 1984, 6566; Smend, Die
Erzhlung des Hexateuch, 1912, 134; Soggin, Kulttiologische
Sagen, 1960, 342; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972,
82 Chapter 2

(cont.)

Exodus 13

22; 51; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 83; 9697; Vriezen, Van


der Woude, Oudisralitische en vroegjoodse literatuur,
2000, 183; Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 113;
Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 134136; Zenger, Le thme de la sortie
dgypte, 1989, 325326 n. 77.
Exod. 13:1718* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390392; 397399; 403404.
Exod. 13:19* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972,391394; 396397; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1984, 105.
Exod. 13:2122* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
393; 395396; 398; 402; 405; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 294 (?).

Exodus 14

Exod. 14:3*, 5, 12* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


390405.
Exod. 14:1314* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 393394; 397399; 403404; Stolz, Jahwes und
Israels Kriege, 1972, 9496 (?).
Exod. 14:15* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
395; 397; 400; 402; 404405.
Exod. 14:1920* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 398399; 402; 405; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 144145.
Exod. 14:21*, 23* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
394; 398399.
Exod. 14:2425* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390395; 397398; 402403; 405; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 287
(?); Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 51; 9697 (?).
Exod. 14:2627* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
393; 395396; 398; 403.
Exod. 14:28* Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 9697 (?).
Exod. 14:30* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
393394; 398399; 403.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 83

Exodus 14

Exod. 14:31* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 127 (?); Floss, Jahwe dienen, 1975, 47
(?); Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 393394; 398399; 403405; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986,
294295 (?); McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 xxi; Simpson, The
Early Traditions, 1948, 181182; 186; Smend, Die Erzhlung
des Hexateuch, 1912, 137138; Smend, Entstehung, 1984, 66;
Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 9697 (?).

Exodus 15

Exod. 15:119* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 128137; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12;
7882; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 416 (?).
Exod. 15:2021*, 24* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
391; 393; 398399; 402404.
Exod. 15:25b26* Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961, 221; Baentsch,
Exodus, 1900, 140143; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 8586; 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 Wste,
1970, 7; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972, 390392; 394400; 402; 404405; 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; 171172; Jaro,
Die Stellung des Elohisten, 1974, 61; McNeile, Exodus, 1908,
2 xxix; Michali, LExode, 1974, 141 (?); Noth, Exodus, 1959,
102; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948, 32 n. 108;
Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 268269; Pfeiffer,
Introduction, 1941, 285; Procksch, Das nordhebrische
Sagenbuch, 1906, 80; Ruprecht, Stellung und Bedeutung,
1974, 299301; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835; Scharbert,
Exodus, 56; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 188; Te
Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 117118; Vriezen, Van der Woude,
84 Chapter 2

(cont.)

Exodus 15

Oudisralitische en vroegjoodse literatuur, 2000, 183;


Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 113; Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 1972, 335 (?);
Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 161.
Exod. 15:27* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
393; 397; 398; 402.

Exodus 16

Exod. 16:23* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


392394; 397; 403404.
Exod. 16:4*, 5* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 147; Coats, Rebellion, 1968, 8384;
Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390394; 397399; 402; 404; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 37;
Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948, 32 n. 109; Procksch,
Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 82; Ruprecht,
Stellung und Bedeutung, 1974, 299301; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 188; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 120; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 163.
Exod. 16:15*, 22*, 2526* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 394; 397398; 402; 404.
Exod. 16:2730* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 154155; Coats, Rebellion, 1968,
8687; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972, 390399; 404; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 37; Noth,
Exodus, 1959, 108; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948,
32 n. 9; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Procksch, Das
nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 82; Ruprecht, Stellung
und Bedeutung, 1974, 274; 298301; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 189; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 123; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 163.
Exod. 16:3132* Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 37; Ruprecht, Stellung und
Bedeutung, 1974, 276; 298301.
Exod. 16:35* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
398399; 403.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 85

Exodus 17

Exod. 17:12* Coats, Rebellion, 1968, 55; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische


Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 394398; 402; 404; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 176.
Exod. 17:3* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
392393; 403404.
Exod. 17:47* Becker, Sinaitheophanie, 1973, 119; Childs, Exodus, 1974, 306;
Coats, Rebellion, 1968, 55; Fritz, Israel in der Wste, 1970,
12; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
390391; 393400; 402404; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 18; Noth,
Exodus, 1952, 111; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948, 32
n. 111; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 176177.
Exod. 17:816* Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961, 232234; Baentsch,
Exodus, 1900, 161162; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 9192;
Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 92 n. 18
(?); Childs, Exodus, 1974, 313; Fuss, Die deuteronomis
tische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 390391; 393399; 402;
404405; Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; Procksch, Das nordhe-
brische Sagenbuch, 1906, 84; Rudolph, Der Elohist, 1938,
37; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 193; Smend, Die Erzhlung des Hexateuch,
1912, 147; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 180.

Exodus 18

Exod. 18:1326* Carasik, A Deuteronomic Voice, 2009, 5 n. 9; Scharbert,


Exodus, 77; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 188189.

Exodus 19

Exod. 19:38* Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961, 246 n. 1; Baentsch,


ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903, lxv; Baentsch, Exodus,
1900, 170173; Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 96; Blenkinsopp,
Introduction, 1992, 187188; Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic
Contribution, 1999, 8791; Brown, Exodus, 1928, 83;
Rudolph, Der Elohist, 1938, 40; Burns, Exodus, 1983, 145;
86 Chapter 2

(cont.)

Exodus 19

Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch,


1902, 198; Childs, Exodus, 1974, 360361; Cole, Exodus,
1973, 144; Couroyer, LExode, 1952, 93; Dohmen, Der
Sinaibund, 1993, 83; Eerdmans, Exodus, 1910, 39; 64;
Gautier, Introduction, 1939; 68 n. 1; Graupner, Ihr sollt
mir ein Knigreich, 2007, 4445; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900,
64; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog, 1982, 185188; Hyatt, Exodus,
1971, 27; 200; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1978, 6869; Kaiser,
Einleitung, 1984, 76; Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992,
6364; McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 xxxvii; 110; Nicholson,
Exodus and Sinai, 1973, 3031; 64 n. 27; Nicholson,
God and His People, 1986, 174; Noth, Exodus, 1959, 157;
Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948, 33 n. 112; Perlitt,
Bundestheologie, 1969, 167181; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941,
285; Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 85;
Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835; Seebass, Mose und Aaron,
1962, 101; 109; Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 199; Ska,
Exod. 19,38, 1993, 311; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 142143;
Vriezen, Van der Woude, Oudisralitische en vroegjoodse
literatuur, 2000, 183; Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral,
1961, 113114; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 191; 283 n. 103; Zenger,
Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165; 207.
Exod. 19:18* Becker, Sinaitheophanie, 1973, 118.
Exod. 19:2025* Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961, 246 n. 1; Procksch,
Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 85; Zenger,
Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 210; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 202.

Exodus 2023

Exod. 20:117* Auzou, De la servitude au sevice, 1961, 284287; Baentsch,


Exodus, 1900, 178184; Becker, Sinaitheophanie, 1973, 119;
Beer, Exodus, 1939, 12; 98102 (?); Bennett, Exodus, ca
1910, 32; 163; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the
Hexateuch, 1902, 224225; 336; 517; Driver, Exodus, 1911,
xvii; 191201; Eerdmans, Exodus, 1910, 131; Eissfeldt,
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 87

Exodus 2023

Hexateuch-Synopse, 1922, 273*; Floss, Jahwe dienen, 1975,


56; 254; Fohrer, Introduction, 1968, 166; Fohrer, Werden
und Verstehen, 1986, 57; Gautier, Introduction, 1939; 68
n. 1; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, 70; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog,
1982, 283; Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1978,
6869; Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364;
McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 lix; Noth, Exodus, 1959, 130131;
Oesterley, Robinson, Introduction, 1935, 48 n. 1; Otto,
Das Mazzotfest, 1975, 255; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969,
77102; Richter, Die Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964,
59 n. 179; Rcker, Die Begrndungen, 1973, 105107; 145
n. 523; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 203; Smend, Entstehung, 1984, 108;
Soggin, Introduction, 1989, 145; Weimar, Untersuchungen,
1977, 169; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School, 1972, 318; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 164; 210211;
Zenger, Exodus, 1978; 202.
Exod. 20:1821* Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 1992, 189; Dohmen, Der
Sinaibund, 1993, 83; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165;
212213; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 216.
Exod. 20:2223:12* Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 83; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1984,
76; Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Scharbert,
Exodus, 1989, 79; Smend, Die Erzhlung des Hexateuch,
1912, 182; Weimar, Untersuchungen, 1977, 169.
Exod. 20:22*, 23* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 185187; Blenkinsopp,
Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 9495; Gautier,
Introduction, 1939; 68 n. 1; Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; 225;
Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927, 71; Zenger,
Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 213; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 217.
Exod. 20:2426* Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 213.
Exod. 21:1* Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 218; 227.
Exod. 21:26* Auzou, La tradition biblique, 1957, 184 n. 2.
Exod. 21:6* Smend, Die Erzhlung des Hexateuch, 1912, 183.
Exod. 21:16 Auzou, La tradition biblique, 1957, 184 n. 2.
Exod. 22:1920* Auzou, La tradition biblique, 1957, 184 n. 2; Baentsch,
Exodus, 1900, 185; 201202; Bentzen, Introduction, 1948,
40; Couroyer, LExode, 1952, 108; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900,
92; Otto, Wandel der Rechtsbegrndungen, 1988, 5; Pfeiffer,
Introduction, 1941, 225.
88 Chapter 2

(cont.)

Exodus 2023

Exod. 22:2124* Auzou, La tradition biblique, 1957, 184 n. 2; Baentsch,


Exodus, 1900, 185; 202203; Bentzen, Introduction, 1948,
40; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch,
1902, 336; Gautier, Introduction, 1939; 68 n. 1; Holzinger,
Exodus, 1900, 92; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog, 1982, 178 (?); Hyatt,
Exodus, 1971, pp.218; 242; McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 xxix;
Otto, Wandel der Rechtsbegrndungen, 1988, 5; Pfeiffer,
Introduction, 1941, 225.
Exod. 22:30* Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 218; 245.
Exod. 23:45* Auzou, La tradition biblique, 1957, 184 n. 2; Baentsch,
Exodus, 1900, 205.
Exod. 23:8* Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 218; 246.
Exod. 23:9* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 185; 206; Bentzen, Introduction,
1948, 40; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the
Hexateuch, 1902, 336; Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 218; 246; McNeile,
Exodus, 1908, 2 xxix; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 225.
Exod. 23:10* Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927, 58; 92.
Exod. 23:1112* Bentzen, Introduction, 1948, 40; Gautier, Introduction,
1939; 68 n. 1; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, 96; Morgenstern, The
Oldest Document, 1927, 58; 93.
Exod. 23:13* Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch,
1902, 336; Eerdmans, Exodus, 1910, 94; McNeile, Exodus,
1908, 2 xxix; Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927,
58; 7071.
Exod. 23:15* Carpenter, Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch,
1902, 336 (?); Horn, Traditionsschichten 1971, 210;
Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927, 7478.
Exod. 23:17*, 19* Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927, 6061.
Exod. 23:2033* Achenbach, Israel, 1991, 268269; Auzou, De la servitude
au service, 1961, 262; Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 209210; Beer,
Exodus, 1939, 121; Bennett, Exodus, ca 1910, 32; Blenkinsopp,
Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 9497; Brown, Exodus,
1928, 90; Cazelles, Histoire, 1991, 56; Childs, Exodus, 1974,
460461; Cole, Exodus, 1973, 181; Cornill, Einleitung, 1913,
7475; Eerdmans, Exodus, 1910, 97; Fensham, Exodus, 1970,
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 89

Exodus 2023

178; Floss, Jahwe dienen, 1975; 247277; Gressmann, Mose


und seine Zeit, 1913, p.239; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, 102 (?);
Horn, Traditionsschichten 1971, 203222; Hyatt, Exodus,
1971, 250251; McNeile, Exodus, 1908, vi; Morgenstern,
The Book of the Covenant, 1928, 4; Noth, Exodus, 1959,
140; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 157 n. 6; Pfeiffer,
Introduction, 1941, 285; Plastaras, Exodus, 1966, 262 n. 12;
Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 165;
Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835; Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1995,
58; Seitz, Deuteronomium, 1971, 7778; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 218; Smend, Die Erzhlung des Hexateuch,
1912, 175 n. 2; Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 1912, 157; Stolz, Jahwes
und Israels Kriege, 1972, 7576; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966,
180; Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 113; Vriezen,
Van der Woude, Oudisralitische en vroegjoodse liter-
atuur, 2000, 184; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 164165;
Westermann, Genesis, 1981, 472.

Exodus 24

Exod. 24:12* Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 215; Zenger, Exodus, 1978,


218.
Exod. 24:38* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 214 (?); Blenkinsopp, Introduction,
1992, 190192; Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 83; Holzinger,
Exodus, 1900, xviii; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog, 1982, 191194;
Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; 49; 253257; Kaiser, Einleitung,
1978, 6869; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1984, 76; Kaiser, Grundriss
der Einleitung, 1992, 6364; Nicholson, Exodus and
Sinai, 1973, 7177; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 191202;
Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book?, 124; Smend,
Die Entstehung, 1984, 67; Smend, Entstehung, 1978, 67;
Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 113115; Vriezen,
Van der Woude, Oudisralitische en vroegjoodse literatuur,
2000, 184; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 218220; 286 n. 114; Zenger,
Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165; 216.
90 Chapter 2

(cont.)

Exodus 24

Exod. 24:12* Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903, lxv (?);


Eissfeldt, Die Komposition der Sinai-Erzhlung, 1966, 10 (?).
Exod. 24:40* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
396.

Exodus 32

Exod. 32* Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 1992, 192; Blenkinsopp,


Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 102108 (?); Childs,
Exodus, 1974, 610; Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 83;
Hoffmann, Reform, 1980, 307308; Hossfeld, Der
Dekalog, 1982, 283; Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992,
6364; Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai, 1973, 75; Perlitt,
Bundestheologie, 1969, 207228; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie,
1971, 165.
Exod. 32:4* Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 74; Seebass, Mose und
Aaron, 1962, 38; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 219; Zenger,
Exodus, 1978, 227228; 288 n. 117.
Exod. 32:56 Zenger, Exodus, 227; 288 (?); 288 n. 117.
Exod. 32:714 Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 43 n. 30; Anderson, Introduction,
1972, 38 n. 1; Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999,
104107 (?); Burns, Exodus, 1983, 166167; Childs, Exodus,
1974, 558559; Coats, Rebellion, 1968, 147; 186; Davenport,
A Study of the Golden Calph, 1973, 3336; 180182(?);
Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte, 1972, 96; Dohmen,
Der Sinaibund, 1993, 74; Donner, Josephsgeschichte,
1976, 35 n. 65; Durham, Exodus, 1987, 427 (?); Fuss, Die
deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972, 404;
Holzinger, Exodus, 1900, 108 (?); Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27;
49; 301; 306; Jaro, Die Stellung des Elohisten, 1974, 374375;
Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 2930; McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2
xxxvii; Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai, 1973, 75 n. 49; Noth,
Exodus, 1959, 200; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 1948,
33 n. 113; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 65; 203216; Pfeiffer,
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 91

Exodus 32

Introduction, 1941, 285; Procksch, Das nordhebrische


Sagenbuch, 1906, 90; Scharbert, Exodus, 1989, 122; Schmidt,
De Deo, 1976, 137 n. 26; Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1995, 58;
Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962, 38; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 208; Smend, Die Entstehung, 1984, 68;
Smend, Entstehung, 1978, 68; Weimar, Das goldene Kalb,
1987, 124125; 151155; Weimar, Untersuchungen, 1977,
83; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 229230; 287 n. 117; Zenger,
Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165; 219220.
Exod. 32:19* Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962, 38; Perlitt, Bundestheologie,
1969, 215 n. 5.
Exod. 32:2024* Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 74; Pfeiffer, Introduction,
1941, 285; Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962, 38.
Exod. 32:2527* Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285.
Exod. 32:3034* Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 74; Otto, Wandel der
Rechtsbegrndungen, 1988, 5; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 209;
Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Procksch, Das nordhe-
brische Sagenbuch, 1906, 90; Westermann, Genesis, 1981,
472.
Exod. 32:35* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
392; Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962, 38; Zenger, Exodus, 235.
Exod. 32:40* Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285.

Exodus 33

Exod. 33* Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 83; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog,
1982, 283; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 215; Zenger,
Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165.
Exod. 33:16* 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, 392393; 395; 397398; 403; Gautier, Introduction,
1939; 68 n. 1; Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1978,
92 Chapter 2

(cont.)

Exodus 33

6869 (?); Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 1820; 2930; Noth,


Exodus, 1959, 208209; Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte,
1948, 33 n. 114; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 6465; 80;
213; 215 n. 9; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Richter,
Die Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964, 41; Rudolph,
Der Elohist, 1938, 54; Scharbert, Exodus, 1989, 125; Schmidt,
Einfhrung, 1995, 58; Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962,
47; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 22; Vriezen,
De literatuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 115; Westermann,
Genesis, 1981, 472; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 223224;
Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 237; 289 n. 129.
Exod. 33:11* Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 216.
Exod. 33:1523* Baentsch, Exodus, 1900, 279 (?); Becker, Sinaitheophanie,
1973, 119; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 215 n. 5; Zenger,
Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 225226; Zenger, Exodus, 1978, 239;
290 n. 129.

Exodus 34

Exod. 34* Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 1992, 193; Childs, Exodus,


1974, 610; Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 83; Horn,
Traditionsschichten, 1971, 216; Hossfeld, Der Dekalog,
1982, 283; Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927,
58; Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai, 1973, 7577; Perlitt,
Bundestheologie, 1969, 205; Schmitt, Du sollst keinen
Frieden schliessen, 1970, 24; Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962,
4650; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165; Zenger, Exodus,
1978, 243244.
Exod. 34:1* Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 74; McNeile, Exodus, 1908,
2 xxxiv; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 212213; Rylaarsdam,
Exodus, 1952, 1077; Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962, 47;
Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165; 226.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 93

Exodus 34

Exod. 34:45* Becker, Sinaitheophanie, 1973, 119; Dohmen, Der Sinaibund,


1993, 74; Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion,
1972, 405; McNeile, Exodus, 1908, 2 xxxiv; Perlitt,
Bundestheologie, 212213; Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 1077;
Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165; 227.
Exod. 34:628* Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961, 262; Baentsch,
ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903, lxv; Baentsch, Exodus,
1900, 281285; Becker, Sinaitheophanie, 1973, 119; Beer,
Exodus, 1939, 1213; 158163; Bentzen, Introduction,
1948, 40; Beyerlin, Sinaitraditionen, 1961, 100 n. 1 (?);
Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 1999, 108111;
Burns, Exodus, 1983, 176; Carpenter, Harford, The
Composition of the Hexateuch, 1902, 336; 517; Childs,
Exodus, 1974, 608; 615; Dohmen, Der Sinaibund, 1993, 74;
Eerdmans, Exodus, 1910, 91; Fensham, Exodus, 1970, 231;
Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
391; Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 1975, 162169; 197;
256; Hoffmann, Reform, 1980, 341; Holzinger, Exodus, 1900,
117; Horn, Traditionsschichten, 1971; 219220; Houston,
Exodus, 2001, 90 (?); Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 27; Jaro, Die
Stellung des Elohisten, 1974, 28; 166; Kaiser, Einleitung, 1978,
6869 (?); Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364;
Kosmala, The So-Called Ritual Decalogue, 1962, 34; Laaf,
Die Pascha-Feier, 1970, 4344; 50; McNeile, Exodus, 1908,
2 xxix; Morgenstern, The Oldest Document, 1927, 23;
58; 60; Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai, 1973, 76; Nicholson,
God and His People, 1986, 149; Noth, Exodus, 1959, 215216;
218; Otto, Das Mazzotfest, 1975, 208211; 246247; Perlitt,
Bundestheologie, 1969, 205206; 211; 214216; 219220;
223232; 254255; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 221225; 285;
Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 87; Richter,
Die Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964, 41; 59 n. 179;
Rylaarsdam, Exodus, 1952, 835; Scharbert, Exodus, 1989,
129; Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1995, 58; Schmitt, Der Landtag
von Sichem, 1964, 97; Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden
schliessen, 1970, 2430; Seebass, Mose und Aaron, 1962, 47;
94 Chapter 2

(cont.)

Exodus 34

Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 4344; 215 (?); Smend,


Erzhlung, 1912, 172; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972,
22; Te Stroete, Exodus, 1966, 233234; Vriezen, De lite
ratuur van Oud-Isral, 1961, 113; Vriezen, Van der Woude,
Oudisralitische literatuur, 2000, 184; Zenger, Exodus, 1978,
250; Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 1971, 165; 228230.

2.3 Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in the Book of Numbers

Numbers 10

Num. 10:33* Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903, lxv;


Baentsch, Numeri, 1903, 501; Holzinger, Numeri, 1903, xv
(?); Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 241; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 222.
Num. 10:35* Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 71 (?).

Numbers 11

Num. 11:46* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,


404.
Num. 11:12* Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 49 n. 80; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986,
2930; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 6465; Seebass,
Numeri, 1993, 3839; 50.
Num. 11:14.16* Smend, Die Erzhlung, 1912, 190 (?).
Num. 11:21* Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 76.
Num. 11:30* Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 1972,
398.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 95

Numbers 12

Num. 12:78* Perlitt, Mose, 1971, 592596.

Numbers 13

Num. 13:2223*, 2629* Artus, tudes, 1997, 252 (?).

Numbers 14

Num. 14:610* Artus, tudes, 1997, 252 (?).


Num. 14:8* Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 37 (?); Schmidt, Einfhrung, 1989, 55.
Num. 14:1126* Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 49 n. 80; Artus, tudes, 1997, 253
(?); Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903, 532;
Budd, Numbers, 1984, 152; 162; Coats, Rebellion, 1986, 147;
Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 2930; 37; Noth, Numeri, 1966, 96;
Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 6465; 215216; Pfeiffer,
Introduction, 1941, 285; Procksch, Das nordhebrische
Sagenbuch, 1906, 105; Schmidt, De Deo, 1976, 137 n. 26;
Seebass, Numeri, 1995, 117; Simpson, The Early Traditions,
1948, 233236; 416; Smend, Die Entstehung, 1978, 68.
Num. 14:30* De Vaulx, Nombres, 1972, 174.
Num. 14:38* Artus, tudes, 1997, 252 (?).
Num. 14:3945* Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903, lxv;
Baentsch, Numeri, 1903, 532; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941,
285; Seebass, Numeri, 1995, 125126; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 235236; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege,
1972, 71 (?).

Numbers 18

Num. 18:2024* Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 215 n. 5.


96 Chapter 2

Numbers 20

Num. 20:89*,11* Artus, tudes, 1997, 242; 253 ( ?)


Num. 20:16* Westermann, Genesis, 1981, 472.
Num. 20:20* Simpson, The Early Traditions, 1948, 249; 415 (?).

Numbers 21

Num. 21:49* Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung, 1992, 6364.


Num. 21:3235* Anderson, Introduction, 1972, 38 n. 1; Ashley, Numbers,
1993, 429; Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903,
lxv; Baentsch, Numeri, 1903, 588; Bentzen, Introduction,
1948, 40; Binns, Numbers, 1927, xxii; xxxiv; 148; Budd,
Numbers, 1984, 247; Carpenter, Harford, The Composition
of the Hexateuch, 1902, 337; De Vaulx, Nombres, 1972, 249;
Drubbel, Numeri, 1963, 110 (?); Gautier, Introduction, 1939;
68 n. 1; Gispen, Numeri, 1964, 55 (?); Gray, Numbers, 1903,
306 (?); Heinisch, Numeri, 1936, 14; Holzinger, Numeri, 1903,
xvi; 91 (?); Kennedy, Leviticus and Numbers, ca 1910, 32;
315; Krmer, Numeri und Deuteronomium, 1955, 136; Marsh,
Butzer, Numbers, 1953, 137; 247; McNeile, Numbers, 1911,
xiii; 122123; Noth, Num. 21, 1940/41, 162; Noth, Numeri,
1966, 11; 145; Oesterley, Robinson, Introduction, 1935, 48
n. 1; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Procksch, Das nord
hebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 110; Rudolph, Der Elohist,
1938, 97; Scharbert, Numeri, 1992, 87; Simpson, The Early
Traditions, 1948, 257; 415; Seebass, Numeri, 2002, 362;
Smend, Die Erzhlung, 1912, 211; 214; Snaith, Leviticus and
Numbers, 1967, 10 (?); Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972,
7475; Sturdy, Numbers, 1976, 155156.

Numbers 25

Num. 25:3* Richter, Die Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964, 56


n. 161.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 97

Numbers 27

Num. 27:1523* Noth, Numeri, 1966, 12; 185 (?).

Numbers 32

Num. 32* Binns, Numbers, 1927, xxii; 208216.


Num. 32:515* Anbar, Conflation, 1982, 49 n. 80; Binns, Numbers, 1927,
xxii; 210; Budd, Numbers, 1984, 342; De Vaulx, Nombres,
1972, 369; Gray, Numbers, 1903, 430 (?); Holzinger,
Numeri, 1903, 153; Kohata, Jahwist, 1986, 2930; Marsh,
Butzer, Numbers, 1953, 137; 289290; Noth, Numeri, 1966,
206; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 1969, 6465; Procksch,
Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch, 1906, 119; Richter, Die
Bearbeitungen des Retterbuches, 1964, 56 n. 161; Scharbert,
Numeri, 1992, 126.
Num. 32:17* Holzinger, Numeri, 1903, xvii (?).
Num. 32:2023* Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285; Richter, Die Bearbeitungen
des Retterbuches, 1964, 56 n. 161.
Num. 32:2527* Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285.
Num. 32:33* Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903, lxv;
Baentsch, Numeri, 1903, 669; Bentzen, Introduction, 1948,
40; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285.
Num. 32:3942* Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri, 1903, lxv;
Baentsch, Numeri, 1903, 670; Bentzen, Introduction, 1948,
40; Budd, Numbers, 1984, 342; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 1941, 285.

Numbers 3335

Num. 33:89* Plger, Deuteronomium, 1967, 15 (?).


Num. 33:3033* Smend, Die Erzhlung, 1912, 216 n. 2.
Num. 33:5056* Ashley, Numbers, 1993, 634 (?); Auld, Joshua, Moses and the
Land, 1980, 7475; 81; Auzou, De la servitude au service, 1961,
262; Binns, Numbers, 1927, xxxviii; Budd, Numbers, 1984,
359; Marsh, Butzer, Numbers, 1953, 137; 298; Noth, Numeri,
1966, 12; 214; Scharbert, Numeri, 1992, 132133.
98 Chapter 2

(cont.)

Numbers 3335

Num. 33:5035:34* Noth, Numeri, 1966, 12.


Num. 34:12* Auld, Joshua, Moses and the Land, 1980, 81.
Num. 34:1315* Noth, Numeri, 1966, 12; 214.

3 The Absence of Solid Argumentation on the Deuteronom(ist)ic


Character of Passages in GenesisNumbers

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
ideasthe 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 GenesisNumbers 99

question tend for the most part to relate to vocabulary, pointingin an often
arbitrary fashionto Deuteronomy, Joshua2 Kings and, albeit to a much
lesser extent, to the passages considered Deuteronomisticespecially after
Bernhard Duhms commentaryin 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 GenesisNumbers 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 strikingat least in literature after
1972that 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.

24 B. Duhm, Jeremia (KHCAT), Tbingen 1901.


25 Cf., for example, L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT, 36), Neukirchen
1969, 65 n. 1. Reference can be made in this regard to the contribution of M. Carasik, A
Deuteronomic Voice in the Joseph Story, in: N.S. Fox et al. (eds), Mishneh Todah: Studies
in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, Winona Lake, IN
2009, 314. Carasik argues that the Joseph story in Gen. 3750 is not only characterised
by Deuteronom(ist)ic language, but also by a particular deuteronomic attitude that (it
seems to me) has been neglected as a tool for discovering deuteronomic influence in
other books of the BibleDeuteronomys psychological orientation (5). Carasik even
speaks of a psychological obsession that distinguishes the Deuteronomist from the other
authors of the Pentateuch (8), one that expresses itself in a particular interest in what
Israel thinks and feels: Unlike the authors of the rest of Genesis, unlike the author of
the exodus story, the author of Genesis 3750 shares with the Deuteronomist an interest
in the life of the mind (12). See also M. Carasik, Theologies of the Mind in Biblical Israel
(Studies in Biblical Literature, 85), New York 2005, 177215.
26 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 320365. See on Weinfeld:
Z. Weisman, Prof. Moshe Weinfelds Contribution to Biblical Scholarship: An Apprecia-
tion, in: C. Cohen et al. (eds), Sefer MosheThe Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume: Studies in
the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran and Post-Biblical Judaism, Winona Lake, IN
2004, xiixviii.
100 Chapter 2

The same lack of substantiated argumentation is evident with respect to


the style features of a pericope. Indeed, pericopes are often characterized as
exhibiting Deuteronom(ist)ic style, but only rarely do we find further specifi-
cation of what exactly this Deuteronom(ist)ic style might imply.27 The major-
ity of scholars limit themselves to the observation that so-called parenesis is
a characteristic Deuteronom(ist)ic style feature. A linguistic study that allows
us to determine the typically Deuteronom(ist)ic style features of the passages
in question, however, is not presently available. These general remarks con-
cerning the Deuteronomistic character of verses in GenesisNumbers will be
further concretised in the following paragraph on the basis of a discussion
of the way in which Exod. 23:2033, the epilogue of the so-called Book of the
Covenant, came to be associated with a Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction.

4 Exod. 23:2033 as a Deuteronom(ist)ic Composition

Based on a number of literary criteria, historical-critical analysis has consis-


tently associated Exod. 23:2033 with a complex history of development.28

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. 19:46, for example, see J. Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution to the
Narrative in GenesisNumbers: A Test Case, in: L.S. Schearing, S.L. McKenzie (eds), Those
Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOT SS, 268), Sheffield
1999, 84115, 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, 169171 as a typical characteristic of Deuteronom(ist)ic style. M. Noth, Das
zweite Buch Mose. Exodus bersetzt und erklrt (ATD, 5), Gttingen 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 Noths 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,22xxiii,33: Seine
ursprngliche Gestalt, sein Verhltnis 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 Kanaaner
in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung (BWANT, 91), Stuttgart 1970; J.P. Floss,
Jahwe dienenGttern dienen: Terminologische und semantische Untersuchung einer
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 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. 23:2033, 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. 23:2033 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 Gottesverhltnis im Alten Testament (BBB, 45), Bonn 1975;
J. Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex. 34,1026: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in
vordeuteronomischer Zeit (FRLANT, 114), Gttingen 1975; L. Schwienhorst-Schnberger,
Das Bundesbuch (Ex. 20,2223,33): Studien zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie (BZAW, 188),
Berlin 1990; Y. Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b23,33
(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 23,2325a.27.31b33 with Deut 7 suggest considerable
extensions in Es hortatory conclusion; The hand of a Deuteronomic reviser is probably
to be seen in (...) 23,2325a.27.31b33 (209). On 517, however, Carpenter ascribes the said
verses to RJE.
30 O. Procksch, Das nordhebrische Sagenbuch: Die Elohimquelle bersetzt und untersucht,
Leipzig 1906, 165: c. 23,20ff. ist deuteronomisch.
31 C. Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit einem Anhang ber die
Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen (Sammlung Theologischer Lehrbucher), Tbingen
1912, 157: Von diesen Zustzen tragen einige deuteronomischen Charakter (...) in der
Schluparnese 23,2324.28.31b.32.33).
32 C.H. Cornill, Einleitung in die kanonischen Bcher des Alten Testaments (Grundriss der
theologischen Wissenschaften, 2/1), Freiburg im Breisgau 1891; Tbingen, 71913, 75: (...)
die sekundren Stcke des Bb und namentlich die Ueberarbeitung der Schluverse
23,2033 tragen ausgeprgt deuteronomistischen Charakter. Compare, however, Die (...)
Schluverse 23,2033 (...) tragen so deutlick die charakteristischen Merkmale von E, da
seine Zugehrigkeit zu E ber jedem Zweifel steht (74).
33 J. Morgenstern, The Book of the Covenant: Part 1, HUCA 5 (1928), 1151, esp. 4: Scholars
have long recognized that Ex. 23.2033 (...) are partly Elohistic and partly Deuteronomic.
34 Rudolph, Der Elohist, 61: Exod. 23:2033 ist ein Zusatz im Stil des Deuteronomiums.
35 A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. 2: The Books of the Old Testament,
Kbenhavn 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. 23,2426; 23,3233 (...).
102 Chapter 2

C.A. Simpson,36 W. Beyerlin,37 T.C. Vriezen,38 E. Zenger,39 W.H. Schmidt,40


T.C. Vriezen and A.S. van der Woude,41 P. Weimar42 and T.B. Dozeman.43
Moreover, several commentaries on the book of Exodus characterise the
epilogue of the Book of the Covenant as self-evidently Deuteronom(ist)ic.

36 C.A. Simpson, The Early Traditions of Israel: A Critical Analysis of the Predeuteronomic
Narrative of the Hexateuch, Oxford 1948, 218: Exod. 23:31b33 are from RD.
37 W. Beyerlin, Herkunft und Geschichte der ltesten Sinaitraditionen, Tbingen 1961, 9:
Exod. 23:2033 is a segment dass fraglos auch deuteronomistische Spuren aufweist.
38 T.C. Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud Isral, Den Haag 21961, 113: With the Deuteronomistic
author (Dt.) to whom we referred above [in the context of Exod. 12,2427a and 13,116
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 (...) 23:2033 (...).
39 E. Zenger, Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen
Geschichtswerk (FzB, 3), Wrzburg 1971, 164: Die Bundesbuch-Schicht (zweite
deuteronomistische Redaktion) ist eine weitere Bearbeitungsstufe der frhnachexilischen
Zeit, welche die Rckkehr in die Idealzeit des Anfangs proklamiert (vgl. hnliche Tendenz
bei Ezechiel!). Diesem theologischen Programm entspringt: a) der Einschub 19,3b9b;
20,18.19 (vgl. den Einflu priesterlicher Theologie!); b) der Einbau des Bundesbuchs mit
den entsprechenden redaktionellen Klammern (z.B. 23:2033; 24,3.4a.7; 34,27).
40 W.H. Schmidt, Einfhrung 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. Gewi
gibt es im Pentateuch nicht so umfangreiche und gleichmig verteilte Redestcke in
dieser Ausdrucksweise wie zwischen dem Deuteronomium und den Knigsbchern
(oder auch im Jeremiabuch); insofern ist die Situation anders. Jedoch finden sich Zustze
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 Ergnzungen nehmen anscheinend von Moses Berufung ab zuan ihm hat die
deuteronomisch-deuteronomistische Literatur berragendes Interesse.
41 T.C. Vriezen, A.S. van der Woude, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, Wassenaar 61980, 187: The
conclusion 23:2033 is an exhortation reworked in a Deuteronomistic spirit. See, however,
the more nuanced vision in Vriezen, Van der Woude, Oudisralitische en vroegjoodse
literatuur, 184.
42 P. Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose: Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,235,5
(OBO, 32), Freiburg 1980, 326 n. 32: Doch wird Ex. 23,2333 weniger der Vorgeschichte der
dtr. berlieferung (...) zugerechnet werden knnen, als vielmehr der Nachgeschichten
worauf deutlich der sprachliche Befund schlieen lt. 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
1924 (SBL MS, 37), Atlanta, GA 1989, 61: Exod. 23:2033 is a parenetic conclusion in
deuteronomistic style.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 103

Reference can be made in this regard to the commentaries of B.D. Eerdmans,44


S.L. Brown,45 M. Noth,46 J. Plastaras,47 G. te Stroete48 and F.C. Fensham.49
Other scholars, however, have endeavoured to substantiate their thesis
that (parts of) Exod. 23:2033 should be ascribed to a writing redactor who
was influenced by Deuteronomy and/or related literature. It should be noted
in passing that the Pentateuchanalyses of Erhard Blum published at the end
of the 20th century, to which I will return below, have steered research into
the so-called Deuteronomistic elements in GenesisNumbers in general,
and in Exod. 23:2033 in particular, in a very particular direction. These new
approaches will be treated in a following chapter.
In what follows I provide an inventory of the arguments employed by
exegetes substantiating the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of (elements from)
Exod. 23:2033. These can be considered representative of the modus operandi
employed by scholars since the beginning of the 20th century to designate
verses or verse segments from GenesisNumbers as Deuteronom(ist)ic. I begin
with a number of general remarks concerning the alleged Deuteronom(ist)ic
content of Exod. 23:2033. It will then become evident that the arguments
employed tend to be threefold in character: in addition to thematic arguments,
scholars appeal to supposed Deuteronom(ist)ic style and Deuteronom(ist)ic
vocabulary as indications of the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of Exod. 23:2033.

44 B.D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien. Tl. 3: Das Buch Exodus, Gieen, 1910, 97:
Kuenen (...) schreibt diesen Abschnitt einem deut. Redaktor zu [sic!H.A.]. Der deut.
Charakter dieses Abschnittes liegt so offen zu Tage, da es befremdend ist, da andere
diesen Abschnitt dem Redaktor von JE zuschreiben. Man ist jedoch darber einig, da
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. 23:2033 is E, except 2325a and 31b33, which are Deuteronomic
expansions.
46 Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose, 140: Exod. 23:2033 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

4.1 Deuteronom(ist)ic Motifs in Exod. 23:2033


In addition to scholars who ascribe Exod. 23:2033 or elements thereof to a
Deuteronom(ist)ic editor or author as a matter of course and without further
argumentation, a number of exegetes endeavour to substantiate this hypoth-
esis with arguments. Nevertheless, a distinction has to be made in this regard
between studies that treat the issue in a detailed manner and studies that are
content with an otherwise unspecified designation of the Deuteronom(ist)ic
character of Exod. 23:2033.
Several scholars consider it justified to conclude the Deuteronom(ist)ic
character of Exod. 23:2033 on the basis of a few extremely general observa-
tions. In addition to the otherwise vague remark that the pericope in question
exhibits parallels at certain points with Deuteronomy, various scholars point
to thematic and content-related similarities between Exod. 23:2033 and the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.50 In doing so, a number of authors simply point
in general terms to the said similarities without providing exact references to
parallel locations in Deuteronomy or texts related thereto.
Reference can be made in this regard to the Deuteronom(ist)ic interest in
the promised land,51 the instruction to destroy the cultic objects of the native
population,52 the command to serve YHWH alone,53 as well as the warn-
ing against idolatry in general.54 Reference is also made to the ban on mak-
ing covenants with the local inhabitants of Canaan,55 to Gods promise that
Israel will prosper in the promised land56 and to the list of the nations57 as

50 See, for example, F. Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen
im Glauben des alten Israels (ATANT, 60), Zrich 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 2123 and Deuter-
onomy 1226: 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 2123, 156.
54 Cf. G. Beer, Exodus: Mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling (HAT, 1/3), Tbingen 1939, 12; 121.
According to Floss, Jahwe dienen, 274, the author of Exod. 23:31b33 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 2123, 1977, 156; Hyatt, Exodus, 27.
56 Auzou, De la servitude au service, 262263; Chamberlain, Exodus 2123, 156; Hyatt,
Exodus, 27.
57 Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 95; H. Cazelles, Histoire et institutions dans
la place et la composition dEx. 20,2223,19, in: R. Liwak, S. Wagner (eds), Prophetie und
geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im Alten Israel: Festschrift fur Siegfried Herrmann zum 65.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 105

focal points understood to be characteristic of the Deuteronom(ist)ic redac-


tor or author. In addition, some scholars consider the motif of the protection
of the people by the ,58 the presentation of foreign gods as a snare for
Israel,59 the elimination of the Canaanite population together with the rea-
son given for their gradual expulsion,60 as indications of the Deuteronom(ist)
ic origin of Exod. 23:2033. The divine name 61 and the description
of the future boundaries of the promised land62 are also taken to be typically
Deuteronom(ist)ic.
Other scholars focus on thematic agreements and point to passages agreed
to be Deuteronom(ist)ic by way of argument. The following motifs are thus
considered to specify the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of Exod. 23:2033*:
Israel shall return under protection to the land promised to the patriarchs;63
the gradual expulsion of the native Canaanite population;64 obedience to the
( i.e. to YHWH) will bring blessing;65 the listing of the Canaanite peoples;66
the combination of the list of the peoples with the notion of .67

Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1991, 5264, esp. 56; Chamberlain, Exodus 2123, 156; P. Horn, Tra-
ditionsschichten in Ex. 23,1033 und Ex. 34,1026, BZ 15 (1971), 203222, esp. 217218;
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), Gttingen, 1913, 239, the expressions , and
are evidence of the late character of Exod. 23:2033: Die Redseligkeit des Deu
teronomiums kndet sich an. It is also possible, however, that Gressmann hereby
considers Exod. 23:2033 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. 2:2728; Josh. 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:1113, 1418. See, for example,
Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189.
65 Cf. Deut. 7:1315; 28:114. 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
2123, 156; W. Fuss, Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 317 (BZAW,
126), Berlin 1972, 37; Horn, Traditionsschichten, 217218; 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 Interpreters
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

4.2 The Deuteronom(ist)ic Style of Exod. 23:2033


In addition to general thematic similarities between the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature and Exod. 23:2033, a variety of scholars also label the style in which
the pericope is composed as characteristically Deuteronom(ist)ic. Reference
is made in this regard to the Numeruswechsel,68 for example, and to the pare-
netic tone in which the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant is cast,69 without
clarifying how one should recognise it. The language of holy war recogni-
sable in certain segments of Exod. 23:2033 is also considered to be typically
Deuteronom(ist)ic,70 along with the phraseology employed therein.71 In addi-
tion, the repetition of the same theme in different wording is taken to be a
characteristic feature of Deuteronom(ist)ic style.72 Some scholars are also
inclined to see the fact that the Book of the Covenant has been provided with
an epilogue as Deuteronom(ist)ic feature, appealing for support to Deut. 28.73
It should be clear thus far that few if any tangible arguments have been
provided with respect to the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic style in which
Exod. 23:2033 is said to have been put together. Scholars point out that
Exod. 23:2033 exhibits the Deuteronom(ist)ic parenetic style, but never
explain what such typically Deuteronom(ist)ic parenesis specifically implies.
What argumentation there is remains extremely shallow, especially when
one considers, as I am inclined to do, that the style in which a text has been
written can only be traced on the basis of a thorough syntactical and linguis-
tic analysis. As far as I am aware, the syntactic organisation and grammati-
cal constructions employed in the composition of Exod. 23:2033 and the
comparison thereof with the syntactic features of the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature has not been employed thus far as a criterion for designating the
epilogue of the Book of the Covenant as Deuteronom(ist)ic. At the same
time, the Numeruswechsel argument would appear to be employed in a
contradictory manner. Michali, for example, sees the interchange of number

68 F. Michali, Le livre de lExode (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, 460461; 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. 7:15, 1226; see
also Childs, Exodus, 461; Michali, LExode, 217.
72 Michali, LExode, 217.
73 Auzou, De la servitude au service, 263; Hyatt, Exodus, 250; Pfeiffer, Introduction, 225.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 107

as a typical feature of Deuteronom(ist)ic style. Noth, on the other hand,


who likewise ascribes Exod. 23:2033 to a Deuteronomistic redaction,
considers the Numeruswechsel to be an indication of the redactional character
of the pericope.74

4.3 Deuteronom(ist)ic Language in Exod. 23:2033


The bulk of the argumentation employed by biblical exegetes to demonstrate
the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of Exod. 23:2033 is based, nevertheless,
on the designation of what is claimed to be typical Deuteronom(ist)ic vocabu-
lary, the said scholars believe they have observed in the pericope. In the process,
reference is mostly made to other passages in the Deuteronom(ist)ic corpus in
which the language in question is employed. The following overview includes
the most frequently used linguistic arguments. The right hand column lists the
biblical passages to which appeal is made to substantiate the Deuteronom(ist)-
ic character of the word(s) listed in the left hand column.75

( Exod. 23:20, 23) Gen. 24:7; Exod. 14:19; 32:34; 33:2;


Num. 20:16; Judg. 2:1576
( Exod. 23:20) Deut. 8:277
( Exod. 23:20, 23) Often in Deut.78
( Exod. 23:20) Deut. 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21; Pss. 48:9; 87:579
( Exod. 23:21) Cf. in Deut. 4:9; 6:12; 8:11
et al.80
( Exod. 23:21) Exod. 15:26; 19:5; Deut 8:20; 9:20; 13:5,
19; 15:5 et al.; Judg. 2:281

74 Michali, LExode, 217: Le changement de personnes (singulier ou pluriel) (...) font


penser aux crivains deutronomistes; Noth, Exodus, 156: V. 25.26; dieser Passus ist nicht
ganz glatt, es fllt 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, 250251; C. Westermann, Genesis, Tl. 2: Genesis 1236 (BKAT, 1/2), Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1981, 472.
77 R. Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu
Deuteronomium 111 (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

( Exod. 23:21) Deut. 1:26, 43; 9:7, 23, 24; 31:27;


Josh. 1:18; 1 Sam. 12:482
( Exod. 23:21) Deut. 12:5, 11; 1 Kgs 8:2983
( Exod. 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
( Exod. 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
( Exod. 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
( Exod. 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
( Exod. 23:24) Deut. 12:30.89
( Exod. 23:24) Exod. 34:14; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 2 Kgs 18:4;
23:1490
( Exod. 23:24) Exod. 34:13; Lev. 26:1; Deut. 7:5; 12:3;
16:22; 2 Kgs 23:12, 2091
( Exod. 23:25) Deut. 6:13; 10:12, 20; 11:13; 13:5; 28:4792

82 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 263.


83 Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit, 239; Hyatt, Exodus, 251.
84 J.W. Colenso, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, Vol. 6, London 1871,
103; 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, 254 n. 32.
85 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103; Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 262.
86 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103.
87 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 263; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 22.
88 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 254; Schmitt, Du
sollst keinen Frieden schliessen, 16; Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, 78.
89 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 264; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103;
Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 254.
90 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 263.
91 Baentsch, Exodus, 211; Beer, Exodus, 121; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103; Hyatt, Exodus,
250251; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 254; McNeile, Exodus, 144.
92 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 103.
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 109

( Exod. 23:25) Deut. 7:13; 11:13; 28:5, 8, 1193


( Exod. 23:25) Exod. 15:26; Deut. 7:15; 28:2122,
272994
Deut. 7:1, 1415; 28:1, 4, 11; 30:995
(Exod. 23:26)
( Exod. 23:26) Deut. 4:40; 6:296
Exod. 23:2728 Deut. 2:25; 7:20; Josh. 24:1297
( Exod. 23:27) Gen. 15:12; Exod. 15:16; Deut. 2:25;
11:25; 32:25; Josh. 2:998
( Exod. 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
( Exod. 23:27) Josh. 7:8100
( Exod. 23:28) Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12, 18101
( Exod. 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
( Exod. 23:30) Deut. 7:22103

93 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 265266; Colenso, The Pentateuch,
Vol. 6, 103.
94 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 265266; 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, 250251 (the concept
of holy war); Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte, 215 (compare with the reference to the
Plagues of Egypt in Deut. 7:1819); 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, 250251.
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, 129130 n. 76 ( is 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

( Exod. 23:30) Exod. 32:19; 34:9; Num. 18:20, 23104


The demarcation of the land Deut. 1:7; 11:24; Josh. 1:4105
(Exod. 23:31)
( Exod. 23:31) Deut. 2:24, 30; 3:2, 8; 7:24106
Exod. 34:12, 15; Deut. 7:2; Josh. 9:6, 7,
(Exod. 23:32) 11, 15, 16; 24:25; Judg. 2:2; 1 Sam. 11:1;
2 Sam 5:3; 1 Kgs 20:34; 2 Kgs 11:4107
The combination of and Deut. 7:2; Josh. 9108
( Exod. 23:3233)
( Exod. 23:33) Judg. 2:2:109 compare with the
command to annihilate the
Canaanites in Deut. 7:2, 16, 23; 9:3;
20:16, 17110
( Exod. 23:33) Deut. 7:4; 12:31; 20:18; 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:26,
30, 34; 16:2, 13, 19, 26; 21:22; 22:53;
2 Kgs 3:3; 10:20, 31; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24;
15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:21; 21:11, 16; 23:15;
Jer. 32:35; Eccl. 5:5; Neh. 13:26111
( Exod. 23:33) Exod. 20:5; Deut. 4:19, 28; 5:9; 7:4, 16;
8:19; 11:16; 12:2, 30; 13:2, 6, 13; 17:3; 28:14,
36, 64; 29:18, 26; 30:17; 31:20112
( Exod. 23:33) Exod. 10:7; 34:12; Deut. 6:15; 7:4,
16; 12:30; Josh. 23:13; Judg. 8:27;
104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 Ps. 106:36.113

104 Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 215 n. 5.


105 Blenkinsopp, Deuteronomic Contribution, 95; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104.
106 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 254.
107 Baentsch, Exodus, 209; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch
onderzoek, 254; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 215 n. 5 (- with human subject: later
also in Ezra 10:3; 2 Chron. 29:10; Job 31:1).
108 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 268.
109 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 268.
110 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104.
111 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 268; Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104.
112 Colenso, The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 254.
113 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot, 268; Baentsch, Exodus, 209; Colenso,
The Pentateuch, Vol. 6, 104; Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek, 254. Fuss, Die
deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion, 390391 points to the use of with
in Exod. 10:7; 34:12; Deut. 7:16; Josh. 23:13; Judg. 2:3; 8:27. Blenkinsopp, Introduction, 189
considers the designation of alien gods as to be a Deuteronomic theme (cf. Deut. 7:16).
Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Elements in GenesisNumbers 111

It should be evident from our overview that vocabulary-based argumenta-


tion in support of the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of Exod. 23:2033 tends to
consist of a listing of parallel texts in Deuteronomium and Joshua2 Kings. A
detailed study of the vocabulary in question, however, is as yet unavailable.
Furthermore, scholars tend to limit themselves to the identification of isolated
words without paying attention to the context in which they function. As a
result, they do not include the way in which a word is used or the significance
thereof in their research.

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. 23:2033, which also apply mutatis mutandis to other allegedly
Deuteronom(ist)ic passages within GenesisNumbers. First, it is significant
that in terms of both themes and vocabulary various exegetes refer to other
passages from GenesisNumbers (e.g. Gen. 15; Exod. 20:117; 33:13; 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. 23:2033 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. 23:2033.
A second important shortcoming in the argumentation of those studies
that characterise (parts of) Exod. 23:2033 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. 23:2033and 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. Rmer, J.-D. Macchi, Luke,
Disciple of the Deuteronomistic School, in C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Lukes Literary Achievement:
Collected Essays (JSNT SS, 116), Sheffield 1995, 178187.
112 Chapter 2

vague allusions to Deuteronomy, Joshua2 Kings andrarelyother so-called


late literature. The question of the identification of what one should consider
typically Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic is ultimately left unresolved. In
the present authors opinion, it is almost impossible to designate a passage as
Deuteronom(ist)ic when one cannot properly indicate what one understands
to be the characteristic features of Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and the-
ology. There can be little doubt that the critical voices that have been raised
against the premature attribution of texts to the Deuteronomist, especially
since the second half of the 20th century, are at least in part a reaction to this
inadequate argumentation, although they do not thereby call source-critical
analysis as such into question. The following chapter focuses in more detail on
this tendency.
Chapter 3

Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis


Numbers: A Unique Aspect of Research into the
So-Called Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements since 1963

In the previous chapter, we provided an overview of the way in which pas-


sages within GenesisNumbers that exhibit kinship with the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature have been ascribed to a redaction dependent
thereon since the beginning of the 20th century. It became clear that scholars
in the first half of the 20th century were increasingly inclined to associate pas-
sages from GenesisNumbers with Deuteronom(ist)ic redactional activity and
that a great many did so as a matter of course. Nevertheless, several of these
Deuteronom(ist)ic passages were initially characterised by a number of exe-
getes as part of the Jahwist, the Elohist or RJE. This tendency likewise contin-
ued through the course of the 20th century. Indeed, many scholars refused to
accept the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of certain pericopes, considering them
to be ancient components of the Pentateuch.1 At the same time, however, a

1 W. Beyerlin, Herkunft und Geschichte der ltesten Sinaitraditionen, Tbingen 1961, 27 ascribed
Exod. 32:714, a pericope normally ascribed to D or RD, to E: Sie [i.e. Exod. 32:714H.A.]
wird vielfach als Zusatz deuteronomistischen Stils angesehen,wie sich noch zeigen
wird, schwerlich zu Recht. In der Sache jedenfalls sind in den Versen 714 keine spezifisch
deuteronomischen Elemente fest zustel
len. Insofern Mose hier wie in dem E-Schicht
zugehrigen berlieferungsstck 32,3034 in der prophetischen Funktion der Frbitte
dargestellt wird, mchte man eher an elohistische Quellenzugehrigkeit denken, da E
verschiedentlich eine gewisse Nhe zur prophetischen Bewegung aufweist. With respect to
the alleged Deuteronomic parenesis in the Book of the Covenant he argues: Nicht eine spte,
literarische Bearbeitung hat im Anschluss an die im Deuteronomium fixierten Gedanken
und sprachlichen Formen jene parnetischen Elemente im Bundesbuch nachgetragen. Diese
wurzeln viel mehr im Festkult der frhen Jahwegemeinde, vor allem in den Wallfahrtsfesten
der AmphiktyonieIdem, Die Parnese 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 Schlern, Gttingen 1966, 929, esp. 28.
H. Wildberger, Jahwes Eigentumsvolk: Eine Studie zur Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des
Erwhlungsgedankens (ATANT, 37), Zrich 1960, 914, esp. 14 likewise insists that nicht der
Deuteronomist spricht in Exod. 19:38, similarly taken to be a typically Deuteronom(ist)ic
passage, and that the pericope in question Begriffe enthlt, die offensichtlich nicht in der
deuteronomischen Welt beheimatet sind. J. Muilenberg, The Form and Structure of the
Covenant Formulations, VT 9 (1959), 347365 esp. 351 is even inclined to argue: it is doubtful,

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 5|doi .63/9789004307049_004


114 Chapter 3

new tendency evolved, likewise in reaction to the self-evidence with which an


ever increasing number of verses from GenesisNumbers was being ascribed
to the Deuteronomist, a tendency that sought to return anew to the pioneers
of the classical Documentary Hypothesis who had originally pointed to the
apparent kinship between JE and D.

1 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers: Early


Initiatives

In line with Kuenen, Wellhausen, Holzinger, Driver and Wildeboer, Henri


Cazelles would appear to be the first to focus renewed attention on the ques-
tion of the relationship between the JE redaction and the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature at the beginning of the 1960s. In 1963, Chris Brekelmans and Norbert
Lohfink likewise insisted that it was unlikely that Deuteronom(ist)ic language
and theology would have emerged without preparatory development. In their
opinion, Deuteronom(ist)ic style and ideas underwent a lengthy process of
development, certain facets of which are to be traced in the passages from
GenesisNumbers that are considered to be Deuteronom(ist)ic.

1.1 The JE Redactor and the Deuteronom(ist)ic School


After more than fifty years, Cazelles drew attention once again to the relation-
ship between JE and D on the basis of a literary analysis of Gen. 15. In an arti-
cle from 1962, he distinguishes two consistent layers in the said passage, one

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. 21:3334, reference can be made by way of example
to B.D. Eerdmans, The Composition of Numbers (OTS, 6), Leiden 1949, 101216, 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. Knig, Die Genesis. Eingeleitet, bersetzt und erklrt, Gtersloh 1919, 563
n. 2: Zu der Behauptung (...), da dies [i.e. the interpolation of H.A.]
von der deuteronomischen Schule (...) geschehen sei, bilden die drei Ausdrcke keinen
hinreichenden Grund (cf. also S. Nomoto, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Erzhlung von
der Gefhrdung der Ahnfrau, AJBI 2 [1976], 327, esp. 9, among others).
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 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 GenesisNumbers 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 Supplment 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

2 H. Cazelles, Connexions et structure de Gen., xv, RB 69 (1962), 321349.


3 Cazelles, Connexions, 325: Il me semble que par ce travail on aboutit deux sources,
cohrentes lune et lautre, unies et trs lgrement retravailles par un thologien proche du
Deutronome, mais non deutronomiste.
4 Cazelles, Connexions, 334335: (...) il ne faut pas oublier que le Deutronome nest pas
un commencement absolu, mais puise bien des lments de phrasologie dans les textes
lohistes. (...) Il semble quon parle trop facilement de deutronomique l o il faudrait dire
prophtique, ou lohiste ou prdeutronomique. Les exigences morales de Jahv, chtiment
du peuple, rtribution, histoire conditionne, ne sont pas lapanage du Deutronome. Il
faut rserver le mot deutronomique aux doctrines spcifiques comme la centralisation du
culte, la thologie du Nom, la gratuit de lamour divin, llection (bhar). Avant quil y ait
Deutronome, il y a une histoire, une alliance, des maldictions (Sichem, Deut., xxvii, de
couche prdeutronomique) et bndictions (Jacob ou Mose). Entre le Deutronome et les
traits dalliance du Proche Orient il y a la couche lohiste, parfois difficile saisir, mais qui
nest ni jahviste ni deutronomiste (italics H.A.).
5 Cazelles, Pentateuque, T. 4: Le nouveau status quaestionis, DBS 7 (1966), 687858, esp
736858.
6 Cazelles, Pentateuque, 812: (...) la rdaction et linsertion des textes deutronomiques
allaient bouleverser la physionomie du texte lohiste. bien des points de vue ils en sont trs
proches, mais cest une autre rdaction, qui suppose la chute du royaume du Nord. La difficult
de ltude des textes lohistes vient, mon avis, de ce que cest une rdaction prophtique de
textes anciens, rdaction qui elle-mme a d subir deux autres rdactions: fusion des textes
lohistes avec les textes jahvistes, fusion de ce JE avec la littrature deutronomique. More
recently, in his commentary on Exodus, W.H.C. Propp likewise points to the relationship
116 Chapter 3

endeavoured to amalgamate J and E while trying to preserve the uniqueness


of both documents as much as possible.7 It was thus extremely difficult for
RJE to juxtapose the Elohist narrative of the Decalogue in Exod. 20 and the
Jahwist version in Exod. 34. According to Cazelles, the passages in which the
redactional activity of the JE redactor is most tangible, namely Exod. 23:2133*
and Exod. 34:1426*, are the very passages in which one encounters the most
typical Deuteronom(ist)ic language usage outside the book of Deuteronomy.
In addition, the Parisian exegete also discerned traces of Deuteronom(ist)ic
language in Exod. 12:2527. These few passages were enough for Cazelles to
posit the claim that the JE redactor should be located within the Deuterono
m(ist)ic school.8
Two important tendencies are evident in the work of Cazelles. On the
one hand, he considered much of the material from the complex Genesis
Numbers that was usually considered to be Deuteronom(ist)ic, as belonging to

between E and D, calling passages tradionally as characterised Deuteronomisticsuch as


Exod. 12:2527; 13:1116; 15:2225; 19:3b8; 32:713E or E/D-like: W.H.C. Propp, Exodus 118
(AB 2), New York 1998; Idem, Exodus 1940 (AB 2A), New York 2006. See also his introduction
in Exodus 118, 49: D appears to be a rewritten law code of Norhern origin, with stylistic and
ideological affinities to E (...) Some think JE was also reworked , so that the Deuteronomistic
work properly began with Creation (...). If so, however, the editor added relatively little
to GenesisNumbers. See also Propps very tentative opinion in Exodus 1940, 729, where
he argues that probably the Yahwist and Elohist drew upon a common D-like preaching
tradition, a tradition that more strongly influenced the D-like supplementer of JE (= Redaktor
JE?), in addition to the Book of Deuteronomy and ultimately the Deuteronomistic History of
Deuteronomy2 Kings. That is to say, D-like language and ideas entered the text through
diverse routes.
7 On the work of the JE redactor and the redactor who combined JE with D Cazelles writes:
Son uvre rdactionnelle a t faite avec discrtion, pit et intelligence. Cest cette fidlit
ces sources qui est lorigine des heurts littraires, si frappants, de la Gense, de lExode
et des Nombres; elle nous permet aussi, non sans difficult, de retrouver ces sourses. Cette
difficult sest vue accrue du fait que, finalement, D fut incorpor JE et a entran la
perturbation des chapitres relatifs au Sina. La seconde dition du Deutronome doit tre
contemporaine de linsertion des sections tu dans la grande histoire deutronomique. Nous
sommes lexil, au moment de ldition dfinitive du livre des Rois, sans doute sous le rgne
dEvil Mrodach (II Reg., xxv, 2730), vers 562. Mais cette grande histoire allait tre ampute
de son frontispice; le Deutronome. Celui-ci allait tre fondu avec JE, incorporant dans son
sein des blocs erratiques de E (Cazelles, Pentateuque, 821822).
8 Cazelles, Pentateuque, 821: Souvent des formules quon dit deutronomistes sont
simplement lohistes. Mais dans des cas comme ceux qui viennent dtre cits, la parent
avec D est telle quil faut admettre que le scribe jhoviste qui a fusionn J et E tait de
lcole deutronomiste. Il a fait son uvre pour insrer dans le grand texte J de Jrusalem les
traditions du Nord. Ce sont les faits rligieux majeurs de lhistoire dIsral qui lintraissaient.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 117

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.

1.2 Brekelmans and Lohfink: In Search of Substantial Criteria


Also at the beginning of the 1960s (1963 to be precise) Brekelmans and
Lohfink focused anew on the issue of the Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in
GenesisNumbers, albeit independently of one another.11 For the first time,

9 More recently, J.S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT, 68), Tbingen
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, 139146, claiming that Ds historical retrospective is basesd on E and J in their
independent forms (141)see also J.E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic
Historians 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 Bibles Negative Attitude Toward
the Golden Calf (Library of Hebrew Bible: Old Testament Studies, 523), New York 2010,
3058; 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 ElohistH.A.] a beaucoup souffert
dans sa fusion avec son gnial prdcesseur [i.e. the JahwistH.A.] et il nest pas facile
a tudier, dautant que sa parent reconnue avec le Deutronome conduit beaucoup
qualifier de deutronomiste ce qui pourrait bien lui appartenir (H. Cazelles, Positions
actuelles dans lexgse du Pentateuque, ETL 44 (1968), 5578, esp. 72, with reference
to Brekelmans); Le Deutronome est la fois trs proche et trs loin de llohiste. Lui
aussi est bti sur le schma des traits dalliance et dune manire beaucoup plus claire.
Il connat un renouveau dintrt mrit. Sinon nouvelle alliance (et encore!), cest une
alliance renouvele et une reprise de la Loi. Ce qui tait peine esquiss dans llohiste
sur lamour de Dieu devient ici le centre de la thologie (7475).
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,
Rdactions et traditions dans lExode, in: G. Braulik (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter
Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, Wien 1977, 3758, 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. Lipiski, Les quinzimes journes bibliques
de Louvain, ETL 39 [1963], 827837, esp. 831: Le confrencier examina la nature et lorigine
118 Chapter 3

both exegetes make use of the term proto-Deuteronomic to refer to pericopes


that have tended to be characterised as self-evidently Deuteronom(ist)ic in
the course of exegetical research, but in their opinion should be seen as pre-
paratory to a later Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology.12 The lan-
guage and ideas of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature here acquire their earliest
expression, although not as yet in the stereotype form of the typically Deute
ronom(ist)ic traditions. Therefore, the term proto-Deuteronomic is used as a
generic name that fits into the encompassing Deuteronom(ist)ic line of tradi-
tion, thus referring to the beginnings of that tradition, that is believed also to
be found outside the compositional unit DeuteronomyKings.
Brekelmans began by formulating a number of useful criteria for determin-
ing whether a text should be characterised as proto-Deuteronomic. In an arti-
cle on Deut. 26:59 from 1963, he underlined the complexity involved in dating

des lments prtendment deutronomistes dans le Pentateuque ou, plus exactement,


dans le Ttrateuque, puisque seuls entrrent en ligne de compte les livres de la Gense,
de lExode, du Lvitique et des Nombres. Ces lments dits deutronomistes, estima
M. Brekelmans, ne dpendent pas en fait de la tradition proprement deutronomiste,
plus rcente que les documents yahwiste et lohiste du Pentateuque. Ils refltent une
terminologie cultuelle et prsentent un stade prparatoire, une premire bauche de la
thologie et du style propres luvre deutronomiste. Les lments en question, opina
le confrencier, appartiennent probablement la tradition lohiste. On pourrait les
qualifier de prdeutronomistes (cf. also M. Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic
Elements in Genesis to Numbers, in: F. Garca Martnez et al. [eds], Studies in Deuteronomy
in Honour of C.J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday [SVT, 53)] Leiden
1994, 243268, esp. 248249 n. 16see F. Neyrinck, G. Van Belle, Colloquium Biblicum
Lovaniense. Journes Bibliques de LouvainBijbelse Studiedagen te Leuven. 19491993 [ANL,
19], Leuven 1994, 26)C. Brekelmans, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Elemente in
Gen.Num: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Deuteronomiums, in: Volume du Congrs
Genve 1965 (SVT, 15), Leiden 1966, 9096; C. Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques
dans le Pentateuque, in: C. Hauret (ed.), Aux grands carrefours de la rvlation et de lex
gse de lAncien Testament (Recherches Bibliques, 8), Leuven 1967, 7791; N. Lohfink, Das
Hauptgebot. Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 511 (AnBib, 20)
Roma 1963. See also C.H.W. Brekelmans, Deuteronomisch. Deuteronomium, in H. Haag
(ed.), Bibel-Lexikon, Einsiedeln 21968, 326330.
12 The term itself is already employed in the literature. See, for example, L. Wallis, God
and the Social ProcessA Study in Hebrew History, Chicago 1935, 89 (cf. the review of
this work in International Journal of Ethics 45 [1935], 486488, esp. 486). The term was
later to be used to refer to passages in the prophetic literature as well. See, for example,
A.S. van der Woude, Micha (POT), Nijkerk 1976, 202204, or A.P.B. Breytenbach, The
Churchs Responsibility Towards Social Order: An Old Testament Hermeneutic Problem,
Hervormde teologiese studies 61 (2005), 877, who talks about Hosea and other proto-
Deuteronomic literature.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 119

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 GenesisNumbers 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 Isral, TvT 3 (1963), 111, 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), Gttingen
1947.
15 Cf. S. Mowinkel, Le Dcalogue (tudes dhistoire et de philosophie religieuses, 16), Paris
1927, 7: Le caractre deutronomique dune expression ne prouve pas ncessairement
quelle est dorigine rcente. Il peut prouver seulement que cette expression faisait partie
du langage cultuel. A. Weiser, Der Prophet Jeremia (ATD, 20), Gttingen 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 prehistoryH.A.], erhebt sich
die Frage, ob es mglich 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

the criterion of style. In addition to stylistic agreements between passages in


GenesisNumbers and Deuteronomy, it is also important to be aware of stylis-
tic differences between the two. Moreover, where agreement becomes appar-
ent between passages in the Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy, it is still essential
to determine the extent to which the style of the former already exhibits the
fixed form and clarity of the formulations found in the latter. When it becomes
evident that the Deuteronom(ist)ic style is not present in its fully developed
form, this may indicate that the texts in question are preparatory to the more
developed Deuteronom(ist)ic style. At the same time, it is of vital importance
that one checks whether the points of difference between the said passages
and Deuteronomy agree with details from other texts that are presumed to be
pre-Deuteronomic.17
Brekelmans tested these three criteria for determining whether a text is
proto-Deuteronomic or not on the basis of a number of pericopes from the
book of Exodus that have been regularlyand more or less self-evidently
designated as Deuteronom(ist)ic in 19th and 20th century exegesis.18 His
analysis resulted in the formulation of two conclusions. First, he observes that
research into a number of typically Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in Exodus
demonstrates that the language, style and theology of Deuteronomy under-
went a process of development. Second, he insists that the analysis of the
vocabulary of many of the said so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic pericopes makes
it clear that they exhibit an explicit relationship with the so-called Elohistic
literature.19

17 Brekelmans, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Elemente, 9394cf. Idem, lments


deutronomiques, 80: Will man also beweisen, dass die sogenannten deuteronomischen
Elemente in Gen.Num. protodeuteronomisch sind, dann muss man dabei mit den
nachfolgenden Kriterien rechnen:
1. Die deuteronomische Theologie in ihrer ausgebildeten Form soll fehlen.
2. Es sollen bereinstimmungen in Stil und Form mit dem Deuteronomium auftreten,
aber ohne dass immer die Festigkeit der Formu lierung des Deuteronomiums
vorhanden ist.
3. Die brigen Elemente, die keine Verbindung mit Deuteronomium aufweisen, sollen
Verbindungen mit der predeuteronomischen Literatur haben.
18 Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 8489. The texts in question: Exod. 12:2427a
(8082), Exod. 13:316 (8284) and Exod. 23:2033 (8489).
19 The tendency to associate E with D is also to be found, for example, in A.W. Jenks, The
Elohist and North Israelite Traditions (SBL MS, 22), Missoula 1977, 7778 n. 170: If we
could identify this passage [Exod. 23:2033H.A.] as the contribution of the E tradition,
this would indicate an extremely close relationship between the E school and the
Deuteronomic circles, for points of contact with Deuteronomic style and phraseology have
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 121

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 (43cf. also 117124). In addition, G.E.
Wright, Deuteronomy (The Interpreters 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 Deutronome (SBi), Paris 1963, 15, kinship
between E and D is so considerable, quil 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), 130134, who insists that E and Hosea, like Deuteronomy, have a preference
for tradition and Sinabund. G. Auzou, De la servitude au service: tude du livre de lExode
(Connaissance de la Bible, 3), Paris 1961, 28 also sees E as a tradition qui annonce le
Deutronome. Cf., in addition, F. Dumermuth, Zur deuteronomischen Kulttheologie und
ihren Voraussetzungen, ZAW 70 (1958), 5998, esp. 59; L. Rost, Zum geschichtlichen Ort
der Pentateuchquellen, ZTK 53 (1956) 110, esp. 7; Muilenberg, Form and Structure, 351, as
well as Cazelles, Connexions et structure, 334335 and Kaiser, O., Traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung von Genesis 15, ZAW 70 (1958), 107126, esp 118 n. 57: Das in der Entstehung
des deuteronomistischen Stils und seinem Zusammenhang mit der israeliti schen
Bundestradition zumal elohistischer Frbung ein noch offenen Problem liegt, sei aus
drcklich angemerkt; J. Scharbert, Genesis 111 (Die neue Echter Bibel, 5), Wrzburg 1983.
11: Der Elohist und das Deuteronomium mssen 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 lAncien Testament. Nouvelle dition mise jour (BETL, 51), Leuven 1990, 2838,
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 GenesisNumbers and the Deuteronomistic history.
According to Brekelmans, Josh. 5:1012 and Exod. 16, for example, should be ascribed to
the same redactor, whereby Josh. 5:1012 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 112. 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, 8995, esp. 94). In relation to
the so-called Deuteronomistic redaction(s) in Isa. 112, Brekelmans is likewise somewhat
122 Chapter 3

of Exod. 13:316.20 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. 13:316 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. 13:316.21 Both Lohfink and Brekelmans thus used the term to
underline their conviction that Exod. 13:316 exhibited traces of an early stage
in the development of the Deuteronomic style.22

reticent: At least in ch. 112 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 112, in:
J. Vermeylen [ed.], The Book of IsaiahLe Livre dIsae: Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unit
et complexit de louvrage [BETL, 81], Leuven 1989, 167176, esp. 176).
20 Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 121124.
21 Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 121: Ex 13,316 gehrt zwar in den Bereich des deuterono
mischen Stils, ist aber weder deuteronomistisch (dh. dem Rahmen des Dtn oder
charakteristischen Stellen von Jos2 K und Jer zuzuordnen) noch im strengen Sinn
deuteronomisch (dh. Dtn 528 zuzuordnen), sondernum einen entsprechen den
Ausdruck zu prgenproto-deuteronomisch.
22 Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 121122: Ex 13,316 ist vielleicht das schlagendste Beispiel fr
ein vor dem jetzigen Dt liegendes, noch reineres und jngeres Stadium des typischen
Stils der dt Schule der Predigt Israels. Wir sagten schlagend, denn wir dachten an
den Glcksfall, da wir in Dtn 6 ein formal so hnliches Stck zum Sprachvergleich
heranziehen knnen. In the same context, Lohfink also mentions Exod. 12:2427a 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 12,2427a in seiner
Knappheit und Przision ganz der lange Atem dt Perioden, es fehlen Doppelausdrcke
und Zerdehnungen und vieles andere, woran man den dt Stil erkennt. (...) Selbst wenn
es Zustz bleibt, drfte 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 hchstens bei einzelnen
Texten bereit, darber zu streiten, ob sie pentateuchischen sptredaktion angehren.
Die Haupt- oder Schlussredaktion des Geschichtsbuchs oder wenigstens seine letzte
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 123

The hypothesis proposed by Brekelmans and Lohfink explicitly fore-


grounded the notion that the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature could not simply be
taken as ,23 but had to be understood rather as
having a prehistory. Both scholars thought it plausible, moreover, that careful
research into the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in GenesisNumbers
would be able to trace the preliminary stages in the development of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
Throughout his career, Lohfink focused with some frequency in his
research and publications on the relationship between passages in Genesis
Numbers often characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic and the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature.24 His primary concern in this regard was the establishment of func-
tional criteria for determining the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of a given peri-
cope. In 1977, for example, he pointed to the ambiguity of statistical data. While
he considered it necessary to subject Deuteronom(ist)ic material to a word by
word analysishe speaks of atomistische Sprachstatistik25he insisted nev-
ertheless that the results of such statistical analyses were far from trustworthy.
Lohfink refers in this regard to the Decalogue in Exod. 20, which is often con-
sidered a Deuteronom(ist)ic creation based on a statistical comparison of the
vocabulary.26 It is striking, however, that the expression ( Exod. 20:2,

deutende Glossierung drfte in protodeuteronomischen Hnden gelegen haben,also


gerade jene Aktivitt sein, bein der die Deuteronomisten ihre ersten Gehversuche
machtenN. Lohfink, Die Schichten des Pentateuch und der Krieg, in Idem (ed.),
Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit im Alten Testament (QD, 96), Freiburg 1983, 51110, esp. 5556.
23 Cf. Von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien, 25.
24 Cf. N. Lohfink, Die These vom deuteronomischen Dekaloganfangein fragwrdiges
Ergebnis atomistischer Sprachstatistik, in: G. Braulik (ed.), Studien zum Pentateuch:
Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag, Wien 1977, 99109; N. Lohfink, Ich bin Jahwe,
dein Arzt (Ex 15,26): Gott, Gesellschaft und menschliche Gesundheit in der Theologie
einer nachexilischen Pentateuchbearbeitung, in: Idem. et al., Ich will euer Gott werden:
Beispiele biblischen Redens von Gott (SBS, 100), Stuttgart 1981, 1173; N. Lohfink, Die
Schichten des Pentateuch und der Krieg, 69; Idem, Gibt es eine deuteronomistische
Bearbeitung im Bundesbuch?, in: C. Brekel mans, J. Lust (eds), Pentateuchal and
Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the xiiith IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989 (BETL,
94), Leuven 1990, 91113; N. Lohfink, Deutronome et Pentateuque: tat de la recherche,
in: P. Haudebert (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Dbats et recherchesXIVeme Congrs de lACFEB,
Angers (1991), (LD, 151), Paris 1992, 3564, esp. 5264. See his collected works: N. Lohfink,
Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur (Stuttgarter biblische
Aufstzbnde. Altes Testament, 8, 12, 20, 31 and 38), Stuttgart 19902005.
25 Lohfink, Die These vom deuteronomischen Dekaloganfang, 99109.
26 For a list of so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic expressions in the Decalogue, Lohfink refers
to H. Schmidt, Mose und der Dekalog, in : Studien zur Religion und
124 Chapter 3

5, 7, 10, 12) occurs 210 times in Deuteronomy, while ( Exod. 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 GenesisNumbers 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 authors misgivings with respect

Literatur des Alten und Neuen TestamentsHermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstag, dem 23.
Mai 1922 dargebracht von seinen Schlern und Freunden, Tl. 1: Zur Religion und Literatur
des Alten Testaments (FRLANT, 36), Gttingen 1923, 78119, esp. 85.
27 Lohfink, Die These vom deuteronomischen Dekaloganfang, 101: Das sollte schon
dazu fhren, nicht nur statistisch zu arbeiten, sondern mindestens bei den weniger
hufig belegten Ausdrcken die Belegtexte zu studieren. Dabei zeigt sich bald etwas,
das die atomistische Statistik verbirgt: es gibt einige Texte, in denen mehrere dieser
deuteronomischen Ausdrcke geballt vereinigt sind. T. Rmer, Provisorische
berlegungen zur Entstehung von Exodus 1824, in R. Achenbach, M. Arneth (eds),
Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu ben (Gen 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen
Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur ReligionssoziologieFestschrift
fr Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (BZABR, 13), Wiesbaden 2009, 128154, esp. 129 has
recently argued that Wortstatistik should go hand in hand with Tendenzkritik, (...) das
heit 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, 313382, esp. 323333. 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, 3666.
30 As early as 1981, and in part on the basis of a stylistic study, Lohfink characterised Exod
15:26traditionally understood to be Deuteronom(ist)icas 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 GenesisNumbers 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 thedemonstrable?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, 3339: 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 blichen Etikettierung
als deuteronomistisch o.. Doch liegen zugleich so tiefgreifenden, fast stets in die Nhe
spterer, priesterschriftlicher Stil- und Sprachdokumente weisende Unterschiede zu
allem Deuteronomischen vor, da man diese Etikettierung dann doch ablehnen mu. Der
Verfasser mu vielmehr einem Raum entstammen, der schon ber Deuteronomisches
und Priesterschriftliches zugleich verfgte. Genauer: Dieser Vers ist wohl in Anlehnung an
und im Blick auf Deuteronomisches von jemand formuliert worden, der selbst schon eher
von priesterschriftlichem Sprachgefhl herkam. Zwar nicht absolut notwendig, aber doch
mit groer Wahrscheinlichkeit haben wir also an die eigentliche Pentateuchredaktion
oder eine noch nach ihr liegende berarbeitung 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, Rmer, Provisorische berlegungen, 133134 with respect to Exod. 19:3
8, the Decalogue in Exod. 20:118 and 24:111*, among others.
31 Reference should be made in this regard to Weinfelds extremely important study of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic idiom (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 320365). In an
appendix on deuteronomic phraseology, and in contrast to the prevailing tendency, he
focuses attention on expressions and combinations of words. Occasioned by Weinfelds
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 berlieferungen Israels, Munich 1957, 79; O.H. Steck, Israel und
das Gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur berlieferung des
deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbild im Alten Testament, Sptjudentum und Urchristentum
(WMANT, 23), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1967, 196199; J.O. Akao, In Search of the Origin of the
Deuteronomic Movement, in IrBSt 16 (1994), 174189 and to some extent the related
term Deuteronomismus introduced by L. Perlitt, HebraismusDeuteronomismus
Judasmus, in: G. Braulik et al., Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Fr
Norbert Lohfink s.J., Freiburg 1993, 297295 and associated with the theme of the
Deuteronomistic movement.
126 Chapter 3

In his opinion, a primary and essential characteristic feature of a movement


is that it is more than an ad hoc association, political party or organisation. A
variety of groups, moreover, can belong to a movement, as well as indepen-
dent individuals who do not belong to one or other subgroup. A second impor-
tant feature of a movement, according to Lohfink, is the innere Bewegung of
the people associated with it.33 This implies, in addition, that a movement is
not destined to last forever. Indeed, a movement without innere Bewegung
is more or less doomed. Thirdly, every movement has a goal, something it
sets out to achieve. In line with this goal, a unique manner of speaking and
writing evolves. Bearing in mind that a movement goes beyond and encom-
passes different groups, however, its unique goal will inevitably be expressed
in a variety of ways.34 Thus defined, it is a priori not impossible that move-
ments also constituted a part of ancient Israels social fabric, although they
did not tend to take shape among the ordinary people, but rather within the
socially and politically influential layer of the population, certainly towards
the end of the monarchy and in the post-exilic period. This need not imply,
nevertheless, that such movements did not enjoy the support and approval of
the general population.
Against the background of his analysis of the essential features of a move-
ment, Lohfink also focuses attention on the way in which the idea of a move-
ment spread in ancient Israel. He presupposes that private book ownership
was as good as non-existent in the 8th century bce. This implies that the
literary materials included in the biblical text we know today most probably
existed in only one single copy.35 According to Lohfink, it would only have

33 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 333.


34 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 335: Bewegung besagt also
nicht sprachliche Uniformitt, selbst wenn im Rahmen einer Bewegung die Sprachen
verschiedener beteiligter Gruppen sich gegenseitig beeinflussen und sich auch zumindest
einige gemeinsame Schlagworte herausbilden werden.
35 Against this background, Lohfink fulminates against the frequently used argumentum e
silentio, which several scholars employ to support their conviction that GenesisNumbers
should be considered young. They base themselves, moreover, on the hypothesis that a
tradition that has no evident echoes in the prophetic literature, for example, did not have
a prior existence. If, however, and in line with Lohfink, we accept that only one copy of
a text existed in the 8th century bce, then it becomes quite plausible that the material
related therein was not familiar to everyone. For this same reason, the explanation based
on the argumentum e silentio for the absence of important themes from Genesis
Numbers in the prophets found in J. Van Seters, The So-Called Deuteronomistic
Redaction of the Pentateuch, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (SVT,
43), Leiden 1991, 5877 is untenable.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 127

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 Lohfinks 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. 12with its exclusive focus on the centralisation of
sacrificestems 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

36 The so-called Ur-Deuteronomium is presented in the narrative of 2 Kgs 2223 as a


document, an original work, and not as one or other copy thereof (2 Kgs 22:8: ) .
King Josiah himself was the first to have a duplicate made (Deut. 17:18:
)Cf. Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 339.
37 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 346.
38 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 349.
39 Lohfink refers to H.H. Rowley, Hezekiahs Reform and Rebellion, Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library 44 (1962), 395431; B. Halpern, Jerusalem and the Lineages in the
Seventh Century bce: Kingship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability, in: B. Halpern,
D.W. Hobson (eds), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOT SS, 124), Sheffield 1991,
11107.
128 Chapter 3

can already style Deuteronomistic.40 According to Lohfink, however, all these


elements do not allow us to speak of a movement. They are more likely to be
associated with the measures taken by a king, in this instance Hezekiah, with a
view to the realization of military goals.41
Lohfink is of the opinion that we can probably only speak of a de facto
movement in the time of King Josiah and he refers in this regard to the studies
of Frank Crsemann and Rainer Albertz.42 The said movement, which came
to its end with the death of Josiah at Megiddo around 609 bce, probably did
not lay exclusive claim to a form of Deuteronomy as its manifesto, but would
have referred to other textsAbertz mentions Zephaniah and texts from
the early Jeremiah. While Lohfink considers it justified to speak of a move-
ment from the period of Josiah, he is reluctant nevertheless to characterise it
as Deuteronomic. Indeed, the already existing form of Deuteronomy under-
went a redaction immediately after its solemn promulgation. At the same
time, a start was already made under Josiahs reign on the compilation of the
Deuteronomistic history, and even of GenesisKings as a whole. Nevertheless,
the authors responsible for this literary composition only represent one aspect
of the Josian movement. For this reason, Lohfink considers it more opportune
to avoid speaking of a Deuteronomic movement. He prefers rather to charac-
terise it as a restoration movement from the period of Josiah, a movement that

40 In this hypothesis, Lohfink followseither as a whole or in partA.F. Campbell, Of


Prophets and Kings. A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 12 Kings 10) (CBQ MS,
17), Washington 1986, esp. 186187; 200201; M.A. OBrien, The Deuteronomistic History
Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO, 92), Fribourg, 1989, esp. 225226; H. Weippert, Die
deuteronomistischen Beurteilungen der Knige von Israel und Juda und das Problem
der Redaktion der Knigsbcher, Bib 53 (1972), 301339; W.B. Barrick, On the Removal
of the High-Places in 12 Kings, Bib 55 (1974), 257259; B. Peckham, The Composition of
the Deuteronomistic History (HSM, 35), Atlanta, GA 1985; A. Lemaire, Vers lhistoire de la
rdaction des livres des Rois, ZAW 98 (1986), 221236; I.W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Book
of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History
(BZAW, 172), Berlin 1988, among others.
41 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 352: Wenn wir damit nicht schon
zuviel behaupten, handelte es sich um einen aus dem Bundestext von Ex 34 und dem
Bundesbuch weiterentwickelten Tora-Text, der wahrscheinlich nicht sehr umfangreich
war und vielleicht berhaupt nur Fragen der Kultreform berhrte, blicherweise das
Urdeuteronomium genannt, und um eine Geschichte der letzten Jahrhunderte, die den
regierenden Knig und seine Opferzetralisation ins rechte Licht stellte. Das war Initiative
von oben, nicht Beiprodukt einer Bewegung.
42 Cf. F. Crsemann, Die Tora. Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes,
Munich 1992, 311314; R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamenticher Zeit (ATD.
Ergnzungsreihe, 8), Gttingen 1992, 310316.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 129

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

2 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers

Thanks to the publications of Brekelmans and Lohfink from 1963, renewed


attention was justifiably focused on the possibility that what had come to

43 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 356356. Compare, however,


O. Kaiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einfhrung in ihre Ergebnisse und
Probleme, Gtersloh 1969; 51984, 136: Das Programm des Deuteronomiums, das wohl eher
den Namen eines Reformations- als eines Restaurationsversuches verdient (...).
44 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 366.
45 This idea is also found in R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah (Old Testament Guides), Sheffield 21993,
42: Allowance should be made for the existence of post-Deuteronomistic material in the
book which may have been influenced by Deuteronomistic ideas but not have emanated
from such circles.
46 Lohfink, Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?, 371: Was die weiteren deuterono
mistischen Schriften angeht, so mssen wir zumindest damit rechnen, da in Jerusalem
[c.q. in the Persian periodH.A.] in der Tempelbibliothek und -schule der ganze
Grundkanon der deuteronomistischen Schriften vorhanden war und als Bildungsgut
diente. Er besa also eine dementsprechende zu definierende ffentlichkeit. Gebildete,
die neue Texte verfaten oder alttradiert neu redigierten, kannten die deuteronomisti-
schen Schriften oder doch Texte aus denselben auswendig und konnten sie auch jederzeit
wieder lesen. Daher stellt es kein Problem dar, wenn sie sich inhaltlich und sprachlich in
ihren eigenen Produktionen an einzelnen Stellen oder auch durchgehend davon prgen
lieen. Das scheint mir die Sprache der Chronik ebenso wie die vieler spt anzusetzen
der deuteronomistischer Texte im Pentateuch voll zu erklren. Erst recht viele Qumran-
Texte. Solche Autoren oder berarbeiter konnten auch die zu erwartenden, ebenso wie
sie selbst ausgebildeten Leser ihrer Texte durch Anspielungen und Zitate direkt auf das
Deuteronomium oder deuteronomistische Schriften verweisen. (...) Wer sich derart von
Deuteronomistischen inspirieren lie oder sogar darauf verwies, mute deshalb keines-
wegs selbst ein Deuteronomist seinwas immer dieses Wort in diesem Kontext ber
haupt noch besagen knnteoder gar einer deuteronomistischen Schule angehren.
The tendency within lxx and SamP to harmonise with Deuteronomy might also be
explained against this background.
130 Chapter 3

be known as typically Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology did


not come into existence without a prehistory of any kind.47 Their claim to be
able to recognise the preliminary stages of the said Deuteronomic features in
significant passages in the books of GenesisNumbers was nevertheless rela-
tively new.
Of greater importance for our status quaestionis is the (re)new(ed) impe-
tus Brekelmans and Lohfink gave to scholarly research into the presence of
Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in the Tetrateuch. Indeed, after the appearance
of their studies it was no longer possible to ascribe a number of pericopes
in GenesisNumbers, as a matter of course and without further ado, to a
Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction. At the same time the term proto-Deuteronomic
firmly established itself and several scholars have endeavoured since then
to demonstrate the proto-Deuteronomic character of a number of passages
from GenesisNumbers. Although some scholars sporadically investigate
parts of Genesis and Numbers, the specific attention to the book of Exodus is
remarkable.48 In the following paragraph we will briefly explore the work of a

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, 3757; 119124. F. Horst, Das Privilegrecht
Jahwes: Rechtsgeschichtli che Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium (FRLANT, 45),
Gttingen 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, 3233; A. Alt, Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums, in: Idem, Kleine Schriften
zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Bd. 2, Munich 1953, 250275; G. von Rad, Das Gottesvolk im
Deuteronomium [BWANT, 47], Stuttgart 1929, 72100; H.-W. Wolff, Hoseas geistige Heimat,
TLZ 81 [1956], 8394). 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], 487500). 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. Plger, 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 berarbeitung 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. 50:2325 points auf den Elohisten. Zu erwgen wre allenfalls eine protodeu
teronomische Konstruktion. L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT,
36), Neukirchen 1969, 6768 considers Gen. 12:7 to be proto-Deuteronomic: Die (vor-)
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 131

selection of exegetes who are explicitly interested in the proto-Deuteronomic


character of passages from GenesisNumbers and refer to these elements as
proto-Deuteronomic.49 I consider it justified to limit myself to the presenta-
tion of a selection of exegetes, bearing in mind that the way they conduct their

jahwistische Grundschicht der Landverheiung an Abraham findet sich in Gn 12,7a ohne


jede theologisch-terminologische Aufhhung (...) zwar lokalisiert, aber ohne Anla
und ohne Schwur, ein verbum nudum; das gengte der alten Zeit. Gn 12,7 ist knapper
und authentischer Nachhall der Verheissung an Abraham, in deren Schatten David als
Abrahams Erbe ( das Reich baute. Im Jh. der Siege gengte Jahwes Wort, denn er
erwies sich gegen die Philister als Gott Israels, wie er sichgem dem anderen Typ
der Kulturlandverheiung von Ex 3,8vom Auszug her erwiesen hatte. Erst als das
Reich krank und die Feinde bermchtig wurden, mute Jahwe den Besitz des Landes
garantieren, eben beschwren; und das war im 7. Jh. eher fllig als im 10. Jh. Vielleicht
diente die ausdrckliche Beschwrung aber auch schon im Kampf der Jahwe-Theologen
gegen Baal als Hilfe: Jahwe, Jahwe allein, verdankt Israel jene Gabe. Dann knnte das
Anwachsen der Landschwur-berlieferung weitrumiger und kontinuierlicher gewesen
sein. Nur soviel ist sicher: Bei J hat dieser Proze noch nicht begonnen, bei Dt dagegen
ist er abgeschlossen, wie die unreflektierte Selbstverstndlichkeit der Wendung von Dtn
7,13b beweist. Also liegt die kreative Epoche dieser Formel auf dem Wege zu Dt hin; und
wegen der sprachlichen und gedanklichen Nhe zu Dt eben mehr bei Dt als bei J, wie
Gn 24,7; 26,3; 50,24; Ex 13,5.11 und andere Rckverweise nahelegten. So erweist sich auch
von diesem Durchlick her das Recht des Ausdrucks frh-oder protodeuteronomisch.
For the proto-Deuteronomic content of Num. 14:9, see, for example, F. Stolz, Jahwes
und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen im Glauben des alten Israels
(ATANT, 60), Zrich 1972, 70: Die seltsame Formulierung Kalebs, da das Volk des Landes
Israel Fra sei, ist nur hier und Dtn 7,16 belegt, wo gesagt wird, Israel fresse (akal)
die Einheimischen. (...) Die Formulierung des Mit-Seins Jahwes ist insofern interessant,
als sie durch den Ausdruck et bezeichnet ist; die deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen
entsprechenden Aussagen verwenden immer im. et begegnet auer an dieser Stelle nur
noch in Jdc 1,19 einer protodeuterononomischen Stelle.
49 This means in concreto that authors who speak of the dependence of Deuteronomy on
GenesisNumbers without referring to passages from the Tetrateuch as proto-Deutero
nomic will not be included in our survey. J.L. Ska, Exode xiv contient-il un rcit de guerre
sainte de style deutronomistique?, VT 33 (1983), 454467, for example, likewise set out
to demonstrate that the Sea Narrative in Exod. 14 should not be understood as Deutero
nom(ist)ic but rather as the foundation of Deuteronom(ist)ic texts, without, however,
characterising Exod. 14* as a proto-Deuteronomic text. Ska takes the opinion of those
scholars who support a late dating for the Jahwist (e.g. Van Seters and Schmid) as his point
of departure. According to such scholars, the Jahwist exhibits very close kinship with
the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. Ska wants to determine whether the discernment of
typically Deuteronom(ist)ic characteristics in Exod. 14 can be justified. His study explores
whether the Jahwistic narrative in Exod. 14 deals with a holy war, which is said to be a
characteristic feature of Deuteronom(ist)ic texts. Exod. 14:1314, 24b, 25b, 28b, 3031 are
132 Chapter 3

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. Skas 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. 1314. The formula ( Deut. 20:4) is probably a mixture of
(Exod. 13:21) and ( Num. 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. 1314 serves as a key to Skas 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 thmatis en une phrase ce qui tait simple
ment juxtapos dans le rcit de lExode, le fait que Dieu combat pour Isral et le fait que
ce Dieu soit prsent dans la nue. Cette conscience rflexe, dans le Deut., laisse supposer
quil est postrieur au rcit de lExode (461). According to Ska, other details also suggest
that Deut. 20:14 was inspired by Exodus, namely the explicit mention of the exodus (v. 1),
the chariots and horses (v. 1) and the hiphil of ( v. 4): Lexhortation, daprs le v. 1,
est place tout entire sous le signe de lexode. Isral doit puiser sa confiance dans le
souvenir de cet vnement. Le Dt. reprend donc une tradition connue, tout en utilisant
un vocabulaire propre (461 n. 28). Deut. 1:2933 and 2:1415 likewise appear to recapture
the old text of Exod. 14 and give it their own interpretation.
Skas 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 Skas 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, lanalyse du thme de Dieu qui combat
pour son peuple fait pencher la balance plutt dans le sens dune dpendance des textes
Dt.-Dtr par rapport ceux dExode (462). Cf. also J.L. Ska, Le passage de la Mer: tude de la
construction, du style et de la symbolique dEx 14,131 (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, Isral et lhabitant du pays, RB 76 (1969), 321350,
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 133

believe it possible to discern here traces of a preliminary stage in the develop-


ment of Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology outside the corpus
of DeuteronomyKings. Beyond some extremely tentative observations, how-
ever, the said authors never provide detailed hypotheses explaining the emer-
gence and composition of the Pentateuch as such.

2.1 Proto-Deuteronomic Passages in the Book of Exodus


After a somewhat tentative analysis both Brekelmans and Lohfink presented
Exod. 13:316, a pericope consistently characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic
throughout the first half of the 20th century, as an example of a proto-
Deuteronomic text. A few years later, Masso Caloz focused in detail on this
passage and in so doing gave a firm and substantiated boost to the hypoth-
esis of Brekelmans and Lohfink.52 Calozs primary goal was to test the criteria
drafted by Brekelmans in an extensive three-part study.
In the first part he examines the vocabulary of Exod. 13:316, counting the
number of times almost every word in the pericope is used in a given source
(the Documentary Hypothesis is still the dominant interpretative model at

a highly detailed study of the vocabulary of Exod. 34,1116 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. 34:1116 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 catchses tiologiques dans lAncien Testament, RB 78
(1971), 481500 and Exode xxxii et la rdaction JE, VT 23 (1973), 3155 who underlines the
non-Deuteronomic character of Exod. 12:2427 and Exod. 32:714.
A number of authors observe in passing that certain passages in GenesisNumbers
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 163142). See Idem, Einfhrung in das Alte Testament, Berlin 1979; 51995, 58 n. 2.
52 M. Caloz, Exode xiii,316 et son rapport au Deutronome, RB 75 (1968), 562. On
Exod. 13,316, see also, for example, Plger, Deuteronomium, 6877, esp. 77: Zusammen-
fassend lt sich feststellen, da Ex 13,316 neben lteren Texten proto-deuteronomisches
und deuteronomisch-deuteronomistisches Material enthlt. Mehrfache sukzessive Erwei
terungen scheinen darum nicht ausgeschlossen. Die in unserem Zusammenhang interes-
sierenden Formulierungen des Rckverweis auf den Vterschwur Ex 13,5.11 weisen groe
Verwandschaft zu Dt auf. Bedeutsam ist vor allem, da die Nhe zu Dt grer 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 GenesisNumbers, there would appear
to be several agreements between Exod. 13:316 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. 13:316, 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. 13:316 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, 1112a) that locate the laws (Exod. 13:67, 1112a) within a

53 For source subdivision, Caloz makes use of Eissfeldts Hexateuch-Synopse: Die Erzhlung
der fnf Bcher Mose und des Buches Josua mit dem Anfange des Richterbuches in ihre
vier Quellen zerlegt und in Deutscher bersetzung dargeboten samt einer in Einleitung
und Anmerkungen gegebenen Begrndung, 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. 13:316 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
( Exod. 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 , is in the status constructus,
and always occurs in formulas of blessing and curse (Caloz, Exode xiii,316, 42). With
respect to the words and , Caloz observes that la formule na pas en Ex.,
xiii,9.16 la fixit du Dtn et elle ne se rapporte pas la Loi mais lobservance 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 in Exod. 13, for example, is
used for sacrifices in honour of YHWH. In Deuteronomy, by contrast, the term refers to
household sacrifices.
55 ( Exod. 13:3, 14, 16) and ( Exod. 13:12).
56 Caloz, Exode xiii,316, 43: (...) on conviendra quil reste assez peu darguments pour
attribuer notre pricope une rdaction deutronomiste.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 135

historical framework reflect the characteristic modus operandi of the so-called


Deuteronomic school. His answer here is negative. He observes similarities
between Exod. 13:5, 11 and Deuteronomy, but on closer analysis there would also
appear to be many differences.57 Caloz then discusses whether the catecheti-
cal exhortations in Exod. 13:(8), 14 point of necessity to a Deuteronom(ist)ic
hand. Here also he concludes in the negative.58 Even the formulas that serve to
conclude the said exhortations (Exod. 13:9, 16) exhibit not only similarities but
also striking differences with Deuteronomy.59
In the third and final part of his study, Caloz compares the stipulations
of Exod. 13:316, namely the laws concerning unleavened bread and first-
borns, with other Old Testament texts in an endeavour to situate the Exodus

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 Deuteronomyand only in those in Deuteronomiumwe 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,316, 47 also concludes: Il nous semble trs difficile dattribuer les formules
dEx 13,5.11 une rdaction deutronomiste. Il y a certes une parent, troite mme sur
certains points, mais labsence de dtails significatifs nous empche de voir dans notre
pricope une dpendance du Deutronome.
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, Kulttiologische Sagen
und Katechese im Hexateuch, VT 10 (1960), 341347. 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,316, 53: En Dtn., vi,8 et xi,18, nous avons les meilleurs parallles pour
le vocabulaire, mais avec les diffrences que nous avons notes [in contrast to Deut. 6:8
and 11:18, Exod. 13:9, 16 has to do with the maintenance of a specific riteH.A.]. Dtn.,
vi,25, au contraire nous offre un bon parallle quant au sens mais dans un vocabulaire
trs diffrent. Caloz also turns his attention to the introduction (vv. 34). 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 is also found in Deut. 16:3, the
latter passage already testifies to Josiahs reform, a feature that is completely absent in
Exod. 13:3: Il semble donc que nous avons ici deux textes apparents remontant une
source commune. (...) moins que le Dtn (sa formulation ici) ne dpende dEx., 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 Israels religious legislation. The two laws appear
to be relatively old, allowing Caloz to date Exod. 13:316 to a period prior to
Josiahs reforms.
The three parts of Caloz study thus point in one and the same direction. In
his opinion, Exod. 13:316 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 analysesprimarily of texts from the book of Exoduswere
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. 34, of Ludger Schwienhorst-
Schnberger and Yuichi Osumi on the Book of the Covenant in Exod. 20:22
23:33 and of Jrn 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 GenesisNumbers.

60 Caloz, Exode xiii,316, 62: En conclusion: cette recherche nous a convaincu que le
qualificatif de deutronomique ou deutronomistedans le sens o on les prend
habituellement, cest dire impliquant une dpendance par rapport au Dtnne se
justifie pas pour Ex., xiii,316, et nous serions prt accepter la qualification de proto-
deutronomique (ou pr-deutronomique) propose par Lohfink, qui, outre la prcision
quelle apporte, nous rappelle que le style et la thologie du Dtn ont suivi une loi de
croissance et de progrs avant de produire le livre que nous admirons.
61 J.T.-K. Chan, La vocation de Mose (Ex 3 & 4): Recherche sur la rdaction dite deutronomique
du Ttrateuque (Facults de Thologie et de Droit Canonique. Travaux de doctorat.
Nouvelle srie, 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),
Gttingen 1975; Y. Osumi, Die kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b
23,33 (OBO, 105), Fribourg 1991; L. Schwienhorst-Schnberger, Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,22
23,33): Studien zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie (BZAW, 188), Berlin 1990. See also D.P.
Wright, Inventing Gods Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the
Laws of Hammurabi, Oxford 2009, 332333, 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), 3952; 282294.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 137

2.2 Brekelmans School


In 1978, Christopher T. Begg defended his doctoral dissertation on the
Numeruswechsel in the book of Deuteronomy, which he had prepared under
Brekelmans direction.62 In the years that followed, Begg was to publish a num-
ber of articles in which he would test the hypothesis of his Doktorvater regard-
ing the proto-Deuteronomic elements in GenesisNumbers on the basis of a
study of the destruction of the golden calf in Exod. 32:20 and Deut. 9:21.63 He
focuses in particular on the verse segment in Exodus where we read that Moses
made the Israelites drink the water on which the ashes of the golden calf were
sprinkled, observing the difficulties created by the fact that the reference is not
included in the account found in Deuteronomy.
Begg begins from a comparison of Exod. 32:20 and Deut. 9:21 with a num-
ber of Ancient Near Eastern texts. Each of the destructive actions found in
Exod. 32:20 and Deut. 9:21 has parallels in Ugaritic, Egyptian, Mesopotamian
and Hittite culture. He observes, however, that the biblical text and its paral-
lels are not concerned about the reality of the situation being described but
emphasise rather the total destruction of a given object. As such, Begg notes,
it makes no sense to seek a solution to the apparent contradictions between
Exod. 32:20 and Deut. 9:21.64
Begg then goes on to explore the relationship between Exod. 32:20 and
Deut. 9:21 in greater detail. Similarities between Exodus and Deuteronomy

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), 116124; Idem, A
Significant Anniversary in the History of Deuteronomy Research, in: Garca Martnez
et al. (eds.), Studies in Deuteronomy, 111.
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, 208251. 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 primarilyif at allconcerned 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 with as its object. (2) Both
verses employ a relative clause with as verb and the people as subject.
(3) Exod. 32:20 and Deut. 9:21 use the clause . (4) Both employ with
reference to Moses third action ( only occurs 7 times in the Old Testament,
and only in Exod. 32 and Deut. 9 with as object). (5) Both Exodus and
Deuteronomy employ the construction to designate the result of
Moses third action (moreover the qal infinitive of is only found in these
two passages together with ) .
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 for Moses second action while Deuteronomy uses
. (3) With respect to Moses third and fourth action, Exodus and
Deuteronomy likewise differ: Exodus has and ,
Deuteronomy and
. (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: and . (3) The unspecific
in Exodus is more clearly described in Deuteronomy as .
(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 peoples 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 thisand precisely
thisaction, in contrast to his tendency to present the other actions in more
colourful and elaborate terms. Begg appeals at this juncture to Noths 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 GenesisNumbers 139

the Deuteronomistic History. Noth had ascribed portions of Deut. 13(4); 31; 34
to the same author who wrote the Deuteronomistic passages in JoshuaKings,
namely the Deuteronomist. Georges Minette de Tillesse had suggested in addi-
tion that the segments of Deut. 511 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 agrees with the description of the calf that
Jeroboam had had drawn up.68 (2) In Deut 9,21 the term is appositional and
is not used as the primary verb as in Exod. 32:20. The primary verb in Deut. 9:21
is . 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 only occurs
elsewhere in 2 Chron. 34:7 and Mic. 1:7 in an idolatry context. (3) The term
is 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 in Deut. 9:21, thus creating a
link with 2 Kgs 23:4, 6, 12, 15, the story of the reforms of Josiah. The term
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 Deutronome, VT 12 (1962),


2987. See also Idem, Tu & vous dans le Deutronome, in: R.G. Kratz, H. Spieckermann
(eds), Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum DeuteronomiumFestschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von
Lothar Perlitt (FRLANT, 190), Gttingen 2000, 156163.
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 TillesseH.A.] is that, not only in its introduction of a
brook as the place where the calfs 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: . Moreover, the combination
of and is only found elsewhere in 2 Kgs 23:6. The term employed
in Exod. 32:20, by contrast, is not attested in the Deuteronomistic literature.
(6) With respect to the formula of Deut. 9:21, Begg likewise
refers to 2 Kgs 23:12, where it is stated that Josiah scattered the ashes in the
. The Deuteronomist also employs the preferred ( )elsewhere
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 actionthe reference to the Israelites drinking the water in which
the ashes of the calf had been scatteredfrom 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. 32:20with reference to his teacher Brekelmansas a

69 With reference to S.L. Loewenstamm, The Making and Destruction of the Golden CalfA
Rejoinder, Bib 56 (1975), 330348, 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 to explain the presence of water in the
wilderness. Moreover, the ashes are quickly carried away by the rivers 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. Jerobeams 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 GenesisNumbers 141

proto-Deuteronomic text, a vision he still maintained ten years later in his


The Destruction of the Golden Calf Revisited.71
In 1986, Marc Vervenne defended a dissertation on the composition and
genesis of the Sea Narrative in Exod. 1314 with Brekelmans as his supervisor.72
His analysis follows in the footsteps of his mentor. On the basis of a form-
critical study and a tradition-critical analysis, Vervenne was able to discern the
presence of two narrative layers in the Sea Narrative, thus demonstrating that

71 Begg, The Destruction of the Calf, 249: In our view, the basic narrative in Exod 3234*, 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 12,2427; 13,316; 19,38; 23,2033; 34,1116; Jos 24, i.e. proto-Deuteronomic. Such
a designation is appropriate in that, in their wording and theological emphases, Exod
3234*, 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, 469479, 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)icE. Eynikel,
The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS, 33),
Leiden 1996, 211.
72 M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal (Exodus 13,1714,31): 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 14,1112): 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 13,1714,31), in Idem (ed.), Exodus: Verhaal en leidmotief, Leuven 1989,
101120; Idem, Tora (Pentateuch), in H. Jagersma, M. Vervenne (eds), Inleiding in het Oude
Testament, Kampen 1992, 219235, esp. 235; M. Vervenne, The Sea Narrative Revisited, Bib
75 (1994) 8098; Idem, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements, 243268, esp. 254
268; Idem, Le rcit de la Mer (Exode xiii 17xiv 31) reflte-t-il une rdaction de type
deutronomique? Quelques remarques sur le problme de lidentification des lments
deutronomiqes contenus dans le Ttrateuque, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume:
Cambridge 1995 (SVT, 66), Leiden, 1997, 365380; M. Vervenne, Current Tendencies and
Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus, in Idem (ed.), Studies in the Book of
Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 2155, esp. 4754.
For a description of Vervennes study see likewise U.F.W. Bauer, . All diese
Worte: Impulse zur Schriftauslegung aus Amsterdam. Expliziert an der Schilfmeererzhlung
in Exodus 13,1714,31 (EurHS, 442), Frankfurt am Main 1991, 203204.
142 Chapter 3

Exod. 1314 was an artificial unity, a synthetic narrative in which elements of


various origins had been reworked to form a coherent composition.73 In the
first narrative layer (A), which is strongly reminiscent of a miracle story, Moses
plays the central role as intermediary between YHWH and the people. The sec-
ond narrative layer (B) provides a description of the Egyptian pursuit.74 YHWH
brings relief by destroying the enemy. This layer would appear to be a didactic
legend in which it is stated that Israel should have faith in YHWH in difficult
times. From the tradition-critical perspective, the Sea Narrative functions as a
hinge between the exodus tradition in Exod. 711 and the wilderness tradition
in Exod. 1518.
Supported by acquired insights, Vervenne distinguishes two redactions in
the narrative under analysis, which are characterised by their own style, form
and theology. Based on its language and style, narrative layer A can be charac-
terised as Priestly.75 This does not imply, however, that we are dealing with an
independent Priestly narrative. Vervenne is more inclined to suggest a Priestly
redaction that reworked existing material based on its own propositions and
with its own images: the intervention of YHWH at the sea is a judgement in
which YHWH reveals himself as YHWH.76 Vervenne refers to the narrative layer
B as JE and characterises it as proto-Deuteronomic, a term he understand as
referring to an initial impulse to the formation of a Deuteronomic school.77 His
argumentation runs as follows.

73 Vervenne, Zij stelden vertrouwen in Jahwe, 114115.


74 The following material belongs to the first narrative layer (A): Exod. 13:20; 14:14, 8ab, 9b*,
10a, 1112*, 1518, 21a, 21bc*, 21d, 2223, 26, 27a, 27bd*, 28ab, 29, 31*. The second layer (B)
consists of Exod. 13:1719, 2122; 14:57, 8c, 9ab*, 10be, 1112*, 1314, 1920, 21bc*, 2425,
27bd*, 28c, 30, 31Vervenne, The Sea Narrative Revisited, 85 nn. 12; 13.
75 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 784790. For questions concerning P: see Idem, 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,
6790; M. Vervenne, Genesis 1,12,4: The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Ouverture
to the Pentateuch, in: A. Wnin, Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and
History (BETL, 155), Leuven 2001, 3579.
76 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 790.
77 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 774830. In relation to the proto-Deuteronomic character of
JE see also M. Vervenne, Het boek Exodus. Lijnen en standpunten in het onderzoek naar
een gegroeid geschrift, in Idem (ed.), Exodus, 949, esp. 3435: The (...) composition that
is integrated into the Priestly Pentateuch is probably the result of significant redactional
activity that took place around the fall of the Northern Kingdom. I refer to this redaction
with the conventional siglum JE (cf. Kuenen and Wellhausen!), which I describe with
the usual qualifications as: a pre- or proto-Deuteronomic redaction, i.e. an initial impulse to
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 143

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 ( ) occurs side by side with the faith motif ().
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 was 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 13, in: J. De Tavernier, M. Vervenne (eds),
De mens: verrader of hoeder van de schepping (Nik-reeks, 26), Leuven 1991, 2761, esp. 53:
We can argue with the usual qualifications that a redactor is at work in Gen. 2:53:24 who
is aligned with the evolving Deuteronomic tradition (translation mine).
144 Chapter 3

of Moses as servant of YHWH ( ) in 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 ( ) in 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 Vervennes
view, the link between and other formulations that reinforce the reas-
surance is quite clearly in line with Deuteronom(ist)ic phraseology.81 The
interpretation of in Exod. 14:13(B), however, agrees best with passages
such as Isa. 7:4 and 2 Chron. 20:15, 17.
The expression ( Exod. 14:13) is related to in Exod. 14:30.
The verb is not attested prior to Exod. 14 where is employed. Both
verbs are chiefly found in Judges and Kings in the context of war and con-
flict. In Judges and Kings, however, is 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 , 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 ,
which does have a role to play in the exodus, occurs only fourteen times in the
Deuteronomistic History. In other words, the expression in
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
in Exod. 14:13.82
In terms of form, the formula -( Exod. 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 in Exod. 14:14,

78 Other motifs from Exod. 14:31(B) similarly allude to the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature:
; ; seeing the deeds of YHWHVervenne, Het Zeeverhaal,
800801.
79 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 801with reference to the criteriology of Brekelmans.
80 See Num. 14:9; 21:34; Deut. 1:21; 3:21; 20:34; 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 GenesisNumbers 145

25 reflects a vocabulary that was given fuller expression in Deuteronom(ist)ic


literature (lengthier formulations).84
The -motif in Exod. 14:13, 30 (B) is likewise found repeatedly in the context
of a YHWH war in the Deuteronomistic History. Moses address in Exod. 14:13
14 exhibits striking similarities with Deut. 17:16; 28:68.85 The conceptual paral-
lel with Isa. 7:4 in relation to the concept ( Exod. 14:14) is similarly striking
and agrees to a certain degree with Judg. 16:2; 1 Sam. 7:8.
Several motifs characteristic of the wilderness tradition in Exod. 23:2033;
3234; Num. 14:14; Deut. 1:33 are also evident in Exod. 13:2122; 14:1920, 24.
According to Vervenne, both Exod. 23:2033 and 3234 as well as Num. 14:14
would appear to have undergone a proto-Deuteronomic redaction.86 Moreover,
the kinship between Deut. 1; Exod. 14; Num. 14 and between 2 Chron. 20;
Gen. 15; Isa. 7 is striking. One encounters here a language and range of ideas
that slowly acquired form.87 Vervenne also focuses attention on the formulas
( Exod. 13:21; 14:19) and ( Exod 14:19), both of which point
to the proto-Deuteronomic character of Exod. 14* (B).88
The exposition of the Sea Narrative (Exod. 13:1722) and the pursuit
scene would also appear to contain material that would permit Vervenne to
define Exod. 14* (B) in the proto-Deuteronomic sense, namely
(Exod. 13:17), ( Exod. 13:18),89 ( Exod. 13:18), ( Exod. 13:18), the
note on the bones of Joseph (Exod. 13:19), -( Exod. 14:5), ...-
( Exod. 14:5), ( Exod. 14:5), ( Exod. 14:6), in
a context of war or conflict (Exod. 14:6) ( Exod. 14:8), the notion of
lifting the eyes and seeing in the context of conflict (Exod. 14:10), the -
motif as the moment of divine deliverance in the sense of a military victory

84 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 805.


85 According to Dieter E. Skweres, the similarities between Exod. 14:13 and Deut. 28:68 are so
conspicuous that the latter text is probably a Rckverweis to Exod. 14,13 (cf. infra).
86 Vervenne refers in this regard to Brekelmans, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen
Elemente; G. Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die
Weisungen gegen die Kanaaner in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung (BWANT,
91), Stuttgart 1970; Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes; Jenks, The Elohist; D.E. Skweres, Die
Rckverweise im Buch Deuteronomium (AnBib, 79), Roma 1979; Begg, The Destruction of
the Calf, 208251.
87 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 807.
88 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 808.
89 See also in this regard M. Vervenne, The Lexeme sph and the Phrase yam sph:
A Brief Reflection on the Etymology and Semantics of a Key Word in the Hebrew Exodus
Tradition, in: K. Van Lerberghe, A. Schoors (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the
Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipiski (OLA, 65), Leuven 1995, 403429.
146 Chapter 3

(Exod. 14:24a, 27b), -( Exod. 14:24), the combination


(Exod. 14:24), the phrase and the term ( Exod. 14:25), ( piel)
in the context of a YHWH war (Exod. 14:25) and the expression
( Exod. 14:28).
Based on the agreements between Exod. 14* (B) and other proto-
Deuteronomic texts in GenesisNumbers, 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. 13:1714:31* (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 YHWHs 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 Israels behalf, so YHWH intervenes
now. It is Vervennes 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 JoshuaKings, together with associations with texts in
GenesisNumbers 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,

90 Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 847848.


91 Vervenne, Zij stelden vertrouwen in Jahwe, 118.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 147

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

92 Vervenne, De uittocht uit Egypte, 404.


93 Here he enters into dialogue with Van Seters who had been critical of the possibility
of characterising a passage as proto-Deuteronomic. According to Van Seters, authors
who underline the proto-Deuteronomic nature of a pericope continually involve other
pericopes in their comparison that are generally understood by the Documentary
Hypothesis to be older than D. Van Seters, The So-Called Deuteronomistic Redaction, 59
argues: It seems to me methodologically dubious to use the language and terminology
of Dtn/Dtr to identify a group of texts as proto-D simply because they are imbedded
within that part of the Pentateuch that has been considered by the documentary
hypothesis as earlier than Dtn. (cf. also Idem, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian
in Genesis, Louisville 1992, 228). Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements,
251 n. 24 points out that this line of argument applies equally to authors who support a
late dating of the material: One could remark that it is methodologically dubious to use
the language and terminology of Dtn/Dtr to identify a group of texts as post-Dtr simply
because they are embedded within that part of the Pentateuch that has been considered
by the documentary hypothesis as J which is now regarded by several scholars as a late,
post-exilic literary composition.
94 Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements, 253. Cf. also E. Talstra, Solomons
Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8, 1461 (CBET, 3), Kampen
1993, 5382 and Lohfink, Deutronome et Pentateuque, 46. See in addition Vervenne in
F. Postma et al., Exodus: Materials in Automatic Text Processing, Part 1: Morphological,
Syntactical and Literary Case Studies (Instrumenta Biblica, 1/1), Amsterdam 1983, 98108,
esp. 9899: Most striking is the lack of objective criteria in determining their dt-dtr
literary origin. Many scholars neglect to examine in a detailed way the vocabulary and
the grammar of these passages. We believe that a thorough linguistic investigation must
precede a judgement on the literary-critical character of a text.
95 Cf. Vervenne, Le rcit de la Mer, 373374: Cest avec deux critres de base que je propose
de travailler pour juger du caractre dt/dtr (ou non-dt/non-dtr) dun texte non sacerdotal
dans le Tetrateuque:
148 Chapter 3

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. 13:2122 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

(1) Le critre portant sur la forme du texte, cest--dire:


le critre linguistique: le dnombrement statistique des occurences de mots,
dexpressions et de phrases, et la contre-preuve laide dun corpus tmoin
(par ex. le Pentateuque, la collection Josu-Rois);
le critre du style;
le critre de la structure compositionelle.
(2) Le critre portant sur le contenu du texte, cest--dire: les thmes et conceptions
thologiques.
Lapplication de ces critresqui sont complmentairespeut nous renseigner sur
le caractre dt/dtr ou non-dt/non-dtr du texte. Si un texte ou un lment du texte ne
prsente ni la forme pleine ni le contenu tabli du langage et de la thologie dt/dtr, mais
uniquement un accord partiel et fragmentaire, alors ce texte ou cet lment ne peut pas
tre considr comme un tmoin direct et authentique de la tradition dt/dtr.
96 Vervenne, Current Tendencies, 4142: Until recently, I was convinced that a first
redaction, constituting a relatively autonomous story, could be characterised as resulting
from a proto-Deuteronomic redactional reworking (JE) of existing materials. It appears
to me today, however, that this hypothesis needs much closer examination in order to
make a more precise identification of the various elements that remind us of the Dt/
Dtr traditions. Cf. also Idem, Le rcit de la Mer, 379: Reste la question essentielle, celle
de lidentification et de la dtermination prcises de lorigine de cette rdaction de type
deutronomique: le JE (ou RJE, si lon veut) du rcit de la Mer doit-il tre situ laube,
au znith ou au crpuscule du deutronomisme? La rflexion que jai faite ce sujet a
abouti, me semble-t-il, un largissement et un apport de nuances. Il est clair quEx.
xiii 17xiv 31 contient des lments de type deutronomique. Il est trs vraisemblable
que ces lments relvent dune rdaction qui est aussi loeuvre dans dautres textes du
Pentateuque (ou faut-il dire: de lHexateuque?). Mais je me hte de rappeler quil faut
encore faire une tude approfondie des composants deutronomiques dans le rcit de
la Mer, en rapport avec les autres textes de lExode, qui prsentent des caractristiques
deutronomiques.
97 Vervenne, Le rcit de la Mer, 378: Exod. 13:21 (lxx) agrees with Deut. 1:33 (mt). Exod. 13:21
(mt) corresponds with Neh. 9:12, 19. As a result, Exod. 13:21 can best be seen as un
remaniement tardif en vue de faire concorder les textes dEx. xiii 21 et de Nh. ix 12,
19. See also Idem, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements, 267. Vervenne makes
the same observation with respect to Exod. 14:20: M. Vervenne, Exodus 14,20 mtlxx:
Textual or Literary Variation, in J.-M. Auwers, A. Wnin (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la
Bible: Festschrift P.M. Bogaert (BETL, 144), Leuven 1999, 325, esp. 24.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 149

to research into the proto-Deuteronom(ist)ic or post-Deuteronom(ist)ic char-


acter of a pericope.98

2.3 An Inclusive Proto-Deuteronomic Redaction


Vervenne had tentatively indicated that the proto-Deuteronomic JE-redaction
of the Sea Narrative may also be discernible in Gen. 50:24 and Josh. 24:32.
In line with this, a number of scholars advance the possibility of a proto-
Deuteronomic redaction of the Pentateuch as a whole.99 Andreas Reichert and
Casper Labuschagne are worth particular mention in this regard.
In his doctoral dissertation dating from 1972, Reichert explores a number
of passages from the book of Exodus that have been associated with the Deu
teronom(ist)ic question in the course of exegetical research.100 In addition to
Exod. 13:316, he also focussed his attention on 12:2427; 15:2227; 16; 17:17;
1924*, all text fragments in which scholars in the first decades of the 20th cen-
tury discerned a Deuteronom(ist)ic hand at work. Reichert characterises these
interpolationssome can be considered theologische Lehrerzhlung101
not as Deuteronom(ist)ic but rather as (in part) proto-Deuteronomic, whereby
he argues for the plausibility of an inclusive proto-Deuteronomic redaction
of the Pentateuch.102 The fact that a word or expression only occurs once in

98 Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements, 253: Linguistic determination of


the nature of deuteronomic elements in GenesisNumbers must also take account of
the physical form of the text (text-criticism).
99 With extreme caution, Vervenne also considers a proto-Deuteronomic, Hexateuch
inclusive JE- redaction demonstrable in Gen. 50:24; Exod. 13:19; Josh. 24:32.
100 A. Reichert, Der Jehowist und die sogenannten deuteronomistischen Erweiterungen im
Buch Exodus (unpublished Doctoral dissertation Eberhard-Karls-Universitt Tbingen),
Tbingen 1972cf. also TLZ 98 (1973), 957960.
101 Reichert, Der Jehowist, 188.
102 Reichert, Der Jehowist, 95 (Exod. 15:2227); 100 (Exod. 16) 104 (Exod. 17:17); 180
(Exod. 23:2033); in the synoptic survey (Tafel 3) Exod. 19:3b9; 24:38 are designated
proto-dt. Reichert also refers to Gen. 22:18; 26:5; Exod. 5:2 as (proto-)deuteronomischen
Zusatz (97; 127). With respect to Exod. 12:2427; 13:316, Reichert, Der Jehowist, 70 argues:
Die bisherigen Untersuchungen des Wortschatzes von Ex 12,2427 und Ex 13,116 (...)
haben (...) zu dem eindeutigen Ergebnis gefhrt, da die bliche Klassifizierung als
Zustze in deuteronomistischen Stil dahingehend przisiert werden mu, da die in
Dt und Dtr vorliegenden Wort- und Formelprgungen in den meisten Fllen noch nicht
erreicht, da sie aber in Anstzen vorgebildet sind, und da man diese Stufe am besten als
proto- oder prdeuteronomisch bezeichnen kann. His vision of the concept of redac-
tion is also remarkable: Das alles erfordert ein sehr differenziertes Bild dieser Redaktions-
arbeit, die nicht nur mechanisch kompiliert und glossiert, harmonisiert und pedantisch
nachtrgt, sonders groenteils als ein kontinuierlicher organischer Wachstumsproze
150 Chapter 3

Exodus, but is used repeatedly in Deuteronomy, Reichert sees as evidence


in support of the idea that Deuteronomy reflects a more developed stage in
terms of word usage.103 He immediately adds, nevertheless, that this criterion
is only valid if the context in which the word occurs can also be characterised
as proto-Deuteronomic.
Also Casper Labuschagne revealed himself to be a supporter of an inclusive
proto-Deuteronomic redaction of the Pentateuch. Here Labuschagne takes
something akin to a Supplementary Hypothesis as his point of departure.104
Around the middle of the 10th century bce, a sort of Jahwistic basic document
came into existence, dealing with the period from the patriarchs to Solomons
accession to the throne. Its author, who used existing traditions in creating his
work, should probably be identified with the author of the succession narrative
(2 Sam. 9:120:22; 1 Kgs 1:12:46).105 After the separation of the Northern and

mit flieenden bergangen 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 sekundr-jehowistischen
Ergnzungsschichten steht und daraus erwachsen ist (191).
103 See, for example, Reichert, Der Jehowist, 73: Das dreifache Vorkommen von ( Ex
13,3.14.16) ist ein guter Beleg fr eine eigenwillige proto-deuteronomische Form, denn sie
taucht nur hier auf, whrend im Dt hufig und nur noch gebraucht wird und dort
die Tendenz hat, Reihenbildungen mit u.. einzugehen (italics H.A.). See also
75: In erstaunlich hohem Mae konnte (...) aufgewiesen werden, da in diesen Texten
[Exod. 12:2427 and Exod. 13:116H.A.] morphologisch und/oder semantisch singulre
Belege einem hufigen und geprgten und anderen Sprachgebrauch in spteren Texten
und Schichten gegenberstehen. Das scheint eine der wenigen sicheren Mglichkeiten zu
sein, eine sprachliche Entwicklung, die allmhliche Ausprgung eines bestimmten, sich
fast normierenden Wortgebrauchs und formelhafter Wendungen nachzuweisen. Reichert
adds the following reservation here: Natrlich kann es auch ein spteres bewutes
Abweichen von der Norm geben, aber das mu im Kontext inhaltlich begrndet 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. 12:1913:18; 14:1824; 19:23; 24; 25:1934; 27; 2931; 34; 3750. 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 Solomons 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 GenesisNumbers 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 Gods 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. 20:117; 21:821;
22:118; 35; Exod. 3:1, 4b, 6b, 1015 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 (9596). Labuschagne ascribes
the following passages to this Jahwistic History which covered the entire Henneateuch:
Gen. 1216*; 1819*; 21:17*; 22:2024*; 24*; 25:111*; 25:1934*; 26:1234*; 27*; 2934*;
35:1629*; 37*; 3950*; Exod. 12*; 3:19, 1617*; 4:1920*; 5*; 7:1410:29*; 11:48; 12:2933,
3751*; 13:20*; 14*; 16:119:2*; 19:1020*; 24:12, 915*; 31:18*; 33:16; Num. 10:2936*; 1114*;
16*; 20:1424:25*; 32*; Deut. 34:16*; Judg. 1:12:1*; 312*; 1 Sam. 914*; 28*; 31*; 1 Sam. 162
Sam. 8*; 2 Sam. 9:120:22*; 1 Kgs 1:12:46.
106 Labuschagne, Gods oude plakboek, 104105: 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 Judahs 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

of the beginning of this process of reworking under the influence of input


from Northern Israel.107 The said proto-Deuteronomic redaction was also
the driving force behind the materialization of a first edition of the book of
Deuteronomy around 700 bce.108 In terms of its content, structure, language
and style, this book strongly influenced the later development of Israels litera-
ture. Labuschagne is likewise convinced that the books ExodusNumbers also
underwent a reworking in the spirit of Deuteronomy, which, he maintains, is
still clearly evident in Exod. 1924; 3234; Num. 12; 14; 2224; 33:5056 in par-
ticular.109 In his opinion, this Deuteronomistic reworking coincides with the
specific points of interest of the authors of Deuteronomy. Emphasis is thus
placed on YHWHs election of Israel, on the covenant relationship between
YHWH and his people, and on the idea that the division of the kingdom is
a consequence of infidelity to YHWH. The role of Moses as a prophet is also
forcefully underlined. During the exile, the inclusive Deuteronomistic History
was then put together by authors influenced by the book of Deuteronomy. In
the period between the 7th century and the 2nd century bce, Priestly rework-
ers then composed the Pentateuch as we now have it.110

2.4 Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers from the


Perspective of Deuteronomy Research
Thus far we have explored the work of authors who, based on their analy-
sis of passages in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers often considered to be

107 Labuschagne, Gods oude plakboek, 106.


108 This may have consisted of a shorter version of Deut. 528.
109 Labuschagne, Gods oude plakboek, 108109 considers Exod. 19:38; 20:2224; 23:1333;
24:38; 34:126* to be part of the Deuteronomistic reworking. Here Labuschagne
seriously limits his suggestion from a number of years earlier, namely that many so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic passages belong de facto to the prehistory of Deuteronomy: With
respect to the prehistory of the book [DeuteronomyH.A.] it should be sufficient to
observe at this juncture that Deuteronomy contains a great deal of old material that stems
from the Northern Kingdom, that it exhibits clear agreements with the Elohistic tradition
in the Pentateuch, and that it is far from proven that the so-called Deuteronomistic
elements in GenesisNumbers should indeed be seen as later reworkings by a Deuterono
mistic hand, because the typically Deuteronomistic features in the Tetrateuch can be
better explained as belonging to the prehistory of Deuteronomy and not later history.
Passages such as Exod. 19:38; 24:38 and 23:2033, which are all closely related to Deu
teronomy, cannot be considered Deuteronomistic, because they undoubtedly belong
to pre-Deuteronomic traditions (translation mine)C.J. Labuschagne, Redactie en
Theologie van het boek Deuteronomium, Vox Theologica 43 (1973), 171184, esp. 174, with
reference to C. Brekelmans, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Elemente.
110 Labuschagne, Gods oude plakboek, 113118.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 153

Deuteronomistic, concluded that the texts in question exhibited a proto-


Deuteronomic character. The said passages do not confront us with an author
or redactor influenced by Deuteronomy; on the contrary, they bear witness to
the growth and development of Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theol-
ogy outside Deuteronomy. In turning now to Dieter E. Skweres we explore the
work of an exegete who achieved almost identical results on the basis of his
research into the composition of the book of Deuteronomy.111
Skweres associates himself with the work of Moshe Weinfeld. In his extremely
important Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School published in 1972, the
latter focused particular attention on the origins of the Deuteronom(ist)ic
characteristics.112 According to Weinfeld, the origins of the book of Deuteron-
omy are to be sought in scribal circles associated with the court in Jerusalem.
In order to reinforce his hypothesis, he set out to demonstrate that the origin
of the various discourses in Deuteronomy (farewell, prophetic, liturgical, mili-
tary) should not be sought in the cult. In his opinion, they are literary, program-
matic compositions that were never proclaimed in a concrete situation as an
actual address.113 Moreover, the study of the structure of ancient non-biblical
treaty texts from the 9th to the 7th century bce demonstrates that the literary
structure of the Deuteronomic texts concerning the covenant de facto imi-
tates these treaties.114 In addition, the elaborate use of rhetorical technique
evident in Deuteronomy appears from a stylistic perspective to exhibit major
similarities with extra-biblical treaty texts.115 Weinfeld also points to simi-
larities between Deuteronomy and Wisdom Literature.116 In his opinion, the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature was strongly influenced by the latter, although

111 Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 1979.


112 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 1: The main characteristic of
deuteronomic phraseology is not the employment of new idioms and expressions,
because many of these could be found in the earlier sources and especially in the Elohistic
source. Indeed, it would be nonsense to say that all of a sudden in the seventh century
a new vocabulary and new expressions were created. Language grows in an organic and
natural way and is not created artificiallysee also Idem, The Origin of Humanism in
Deuteronomy, JBL 80 (1961), 241252.
113 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 53: The orations as they have come
down to us in Deuteronomy, are undoubtedly the product of speculative thought and do
not derive from cultic reality.
114 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 59157, esp. 146.
115 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 171175.
116 Compare, for example, the use of in Prov. 7:2425 with the expression
in Deut. 4:1, orwithout in Deut. 6:4; 9:1; 20:3.Weinfeld, Deuteronomy
and the Deuteronomic School, 175177.
154 Chapter 3

the Deuteronomist profoundly reworked and reoriented the themes in ques-


tion. Weinfeld does not hesitate, therefore, to identify the with
the authors of Deuteronomy.117
Against this background, Skweres was also of the opinion that Deuterono
m(ist)ic language could not have fallen from the sky in monolithic form.118 He
goes further than Weinfeld, however, who did not address attention to Genesis
Numbers in identifying the early stages of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.119

117 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 177178: 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 sferim-akamim.
118 Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 1112: Das Dtn unterscheidet sich nicht zuletzt durch seine
ihm eigentmliche Sprache von den anderen Bchern 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 geschpft: 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 Rckverweise, 13: Die Mglichkeit eines Vorlufers der dtn Sprache in den
Bchern GenNum scheint M. Weinfeld zu verneinen. Besonders an dieser Stelle mchte
unsere Untersuchung weiterfhren, indem sie anhand der dtn Rckverweise zeigt, dass
bestimmte Elemente der dtn Sprache ihren Vorlufer in frhdt Texten und ihre Grundlage
in den noch lteren literarischen Schichten des Pentateuch haben. Weinfeld believed it
was possible to discern a degree of evolution between Deuteronomy, Joshua2 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 GenesisNumbers: 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 JeremiahWeinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School, 4.
Brekelmans formulated a similar critical remark in relation to Weinfelds 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,
3031 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 GenesisNumbers 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
GenesisNumbers 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 Rckverweisei.e.
verses in Deuteronomy alluding to other verses with the same bookis depen-
dent on Rckverweise within GenesisNumbers, 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.,
12,2527; 13,316; 19,38; 23,2033; 32,714; 34,1016; 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 GenesisNumbers. See, for example, his reference to
Exod. 13:316 in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 301.
120 For his research into the Rckverweise, Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 1518 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 clauses. He
then asks: to which literary layer does the text being referred to belong?
121 Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 100: Bereits innerhalb des jahwistischen Geschichtswerkes
gibt es das Phnomen des literarischen Rckverweises. Already within the Jahwistic opus,
for example, Gen. 24:7 and Gen. 26:3b refer to Gen. 15:18 via the term . The promise
of the land to Isaac (Gen. 26:34) and to Jacob (Gen. 28:13) is thus linked with Abraham
(and Isaac). In so doing, the redactorprobably RJEwas 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 Rckverweise.
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 nichtdt/dtr
Rckverweise den dt/dtr Rckverweisen des Buches Dtn zum Vorbild dienten, knnen
sie als frhdt bezeichnet werden. Die dt/dtr Rckverweise sind ebenso wie ihre frhdt
156 Chapter 3

Skweres begins by turning his attention to the so-called innerdeuterono


mische Rckverweise. This leads him to the conclusion that the literary proce-
dure of reference is part of the central theological approach of Deuteronomy.
Such references are not only more frequent in Deuteronomy, they also occupy
key positions within the book.122 The major part of Skweres study, however,
deals with references in Deuteronomy to the books of GenesisNumbers (the
so-called ausserdeuteronomische Rckverweise). Striking here is his observa-
tion that Deuteronomy does not refer to the Priestly texts from the Tetrateuch.
With this in mind, Skweres argues that the authors of Deuteronomy refer to J
and E or to one or more early Deuteronomic reworking thereof.123

Vorbilder literarische Rckverweise. Sie sind nicht nur von den frhdt Rckverweise,
literarisch abhngig, sondern beziehen sich wie diese auf die Patriarchenverheissungen,
welche die frhdt Redaktoren bearbeitet haben, d.h. auf die Erzhlungen des
jahwistischen Geschichtswerkes.
122 Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 217.
123 Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 199200: Die Stellen Gen 50,24; Ex 13,5.11; 32,13; 33,1; Num
11,12; 14,16.23 gehren nicht zu den lteren literarischen Schichten des Pentateuch. Sie
sind auch nicht als dtr, sondern als frhdt zu bezeichnen. Denn die zusammenfassende
Redeweise von einem Jahweeid allen drei Patriarchen gegenber wre dem Jahwisten und
Elohisten als Nachlssigkeit anzurechnen. Sie ist am ehesten als das Werk eines Redaktors
zu verstehen, der die Aussagen in den von ihm bearbeiteten Texte zusammenfasst. Da
diese Rckverweise sich in einigen Fllen deutlich als Vorstufe zu den dtn Rckverweisen
erkennen lassen (...), knnen wir sie als frhdt 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; 26:34; 28:13; (2)
Deut. 1:11 refers to Exod. 23:2529(?); (3) Deut. 1:35 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34;
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;
22:1617; 26:34, 24; 28:13; (6) Deut. 6:3 refers to Exod. 3:8 (or Gen. 12:2; 15:5; 22:1617; 26:4;
28:14); (7) Deut. 6:10 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (8) Deut. 6:18 refers to
Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 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; 26:34; 28:13; (11) Deut. 7:8 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17;
15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (12) Deut. 7:12 refers to Gen. 12:2, 7; 13:15, 17; 15:5, 18; 22:1617; 26:34;
28:1314; (13) Deut. 7:13 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (14) Deut. 8:1 refers
to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (15) Deut. 8:18 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18;
26:34; 28:13; (16) Deut. 9:5 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 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; 26:34; 28:13; (20) Deut. 11:9 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18;
26:34; 28:13; (21) Deut. 11:21 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 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; 22:1617;
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 GenesisNumbers 157

According to Skweres, these observations make it clear that a part of the


vocabulary of Deuteronomy stems in fact from older texts in the Tetrateuch.
He also wants to demonstrate that the authors of Deuteronomy belong to
a literary school that had already left its traces in these older layers of the
Tetrateuch. In terms of literary technique, ideas and language, the inner
deuteronomische Rckverweise are on the same line with the Rckverweise
within GenesisNumbers. At certain points, however, the latter differ from the
Deuteronom(ist)ic Rckverweise to such a degree that he prefers to character-
ise them as a precursor (Vorstufe) to the Deuteronom(ist)ic Rckverweise.124
At the same time, associations are observable between the early-Deuteronomic
Rckverweise in GenesisNumbers and the Deuteronomic Rckverweise in
Deuteronomy on the one hand, and the older layers in the Tetrateuch, par-
ticularly the Jahwist, on the otheras child of his time, Skweres also accepts
the framework of source criticism. According to Skweres this demonstrates
that the early-Deuteronomic authors in GenesisNumbers, together with the
Deuteronomic authors of Deuteronomy linked up with the older layers of the
Tetrateuch. The redactor/s of the JE passages was/were in his view responsible
for the early-Deuteronomic Rckverweise. Skweres thus appears to consider
the JE redaction as a preamble to the Deuteronom(ist)ic language and theol-
ogy, albeit implicitly. One thing is clear, however: Zum Problem der Herkunft
der dtn Sprache lsst sich abschliessend sagen: Die dtn Sprache ist nicht vom
Himmel gefallen.125

to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (26) Deut. 19:8b refers to Gen. 13:1417; 15:1821;
26:34; 28:1314; (27) Deut. 24:8 refers to Lev. 1314 (without PG); (28) Deut. 26:3 refers
to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (29) Deut. 26:15 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18;
26:34; 28:13; (30) Deut. 26:1819 refers to Exod. 19:56; (31) Deut. 27:3 refers to Exod. 3:8;
(32) Deut. 28:11 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 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; 22:1617; 26:34, 24;
28:1314; (35) Deut. 29:12 refers to Exod. 19:56; (36) Deut. 30:20 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17;
15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (37) Deut. 31:7 refers to Exod. 19:56; (38) Deut. 31:20 refers to Gen. 12:7;
13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 28:13; (39) Deut. 31:21 refers to Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 26:34; 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 Rckverweise, 232233).
124 Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 217: Sie knnen deswegen als frhdt bezeichnet werden.
Einige frhdt Rckverweise gibt es auch im Buch Dtn selbst. Die dt/dtr Rckverweise
stehen nicht nur auf einer Linie mit den frhdt Rckverweisen. Sie sind auch von den
frhdt Rckverweisen literarisch abhngig.
125 Skweres, Die Rckverweise, 218.
158 Chapter 3

3 Exod. 23:2033 as a Proto-Deuteronomic Passage

In the previous chapter we briefly discussed the arguments used to charac-


terise Exod. 23:2033 as a Deuteronom(ist)ic passage. With the attention
drawn by Brekelmans and Lohfink to the possibility of detecting the prehis-
tory of the Deuteronom(ist)ic language, style and theology in the so-called
Deuteronom(ist)ic corpus, a number of studies emerged in the 1960s that
interpreted the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant along these lines. It
should be observed in this regard that Exod. 23:2033 was not alwaysand in
its entiretydesignated as a Deuteronom(ist)ic text. Wellhausen, for exam-
ple, had discerned a J stratum (Exod. 23:2022a, 25b31a), supplemented with
verses 22b25a, 31b33 by RJE.126 Kuenen likewise considered at least part of
Exod. 23:2033 as older than D, although he claimed to be able to discern traces
of a Deuteronomic redaction therein.127 Budde likewise considered the E doc-
ument to be identifiable in Exod. 23:2033, although he saw vv. 31b33 as a
supplement along Deuteronomistic lines.128 Dillmann, on the other hand, was
inclined to ascribe the entire pericope to E.129 Initially, Baentsch likewise asso-
ciated a significant part of Exod. 23:2033 with the E document.130 In addition
to the idea that Exod. 23:2033 consists in large part of Deuteronom(ist)ic ele-
ments, approaches seeing the text as an interplay of J, E and RJE continue to
typify research in the first decades of the 20th century.

126 J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bcher des Alten
Testaments, Berlin 31899, 9091.
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 Bcher des Pentateuchs, insbesondere der
Quellen J und E, ZAW 11 (1891), 193234.
129 A. Dillmann, V. Ryssel, Die Bcher Exodus und Leviticus (KEHAT), Leipzig 1857; 31897,
219221; 251254. 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,22xxiii,33: Seine ursprngliche Gestalt, sein Verhltnis
zu den es umgebenden Quellenschriften und seine Stellung in der alttestamentlichen
Gesetzgebung, Halle 1892, 5458. In his commentary on Exodus (1900), however, Baentsch
is much more radical with respect to the Deuteronomic characteristics in Exod. 23:2033.
Indeed, he ascribes every redactional verse in the epilogue of the Book of the Covenant to
RD without hesitationB. Baentsch, ExodusLeviticusNumeri (HKAT, 1/2), Gttingen
1903, 209: Dieser Schluss ist wie schon der Eingang des Bb. von deuteronomistischen
Zustzen berwuchert, vgl. vv. 2325aa und 31b33.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 159

A few examples should serve to illustrate the point. J. Estlin Carpenter, to


begin with, sees Exod. 23:2022, 25b26, 2831a as Elohistic and ascribes the
remaining verses (vv. 2325a, 27, 31b33) to RJE.131 Bernard Couroyer and Albert
Clamer likewise divide the pericope into Elohistic and redactional material,
without further identifying the said redactor.132 Both point to the repetitions
(vv. 20, 23) and the contradictions in the text (vv. 2728 and vv. 2930). Cazelles
also sees E at work in Exod. 23:2026. He maintains, however, that the verses
were later supplemented by RJE with vv. 2733.133
Some authors continue to ascribe Exod. 23:2033 in its entirety to E. Studies
by Wolf Wilhelm Graf Baudissin,134 Hermann L. Strack,135 Eckart Otto,136 and
Alan W. Jenks137 are worthy of note in this regard.
Franz M.Th. Bhl and Paul Heinisch see Exod. 23:2033 as a JE composition.138
According to Heinisch, a redactor supplemented the core of the story (vv. 2022,
25a28) on the basis of Exod. 34:1116. In his commentary on Deuteronomy,
Samuel R. Driver likewise considers Exod. 23:2033 to be a JE composition with
a unique parenetic tone, the style of which exhibits similarities with that of
Deuteronomy.139 He claims, moreover, that the passage is one of the texts from
which the author of Deuteronomy borrowed expressions, which he was to use
with frequency in the composition of his own work. In his commentary on
Exodus dating from 1911, Driver ascribes vv. 2022, 25b31a to E, while chalking

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 (...) 23,2325a.27.31b33 (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, LExode (La Sainte Bible), Paris 1952, 112; A. Clamer, LExode (La Sainte Bible
1/2), Paris 1956, 210211.
133 Cazelles, Rdactions et traditions, 54.
134 W.W. Graf Baudissin, Einleitung in die Bcher 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, Mnchen, 61906, 45.
136 E. Otto, Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal (BWANT, 107), Stuttgart 1975. According to Otto,
Exod. 23:2033; 34:11b16 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, 7778 n. 170.
138 F.M.T. Bhl, Exodus (Tekst en uitleg. Praktische bijbelverklaring), Groningen 1928,
160; P. Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus bersetzt und erklrt (Die heilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments 1/2), Bonn 1934, 191.
139 Driver, Deuteronomy, lxxvii.
160 Chapter 3

down the remaining verses (vv. 2325a, 31b33) to RJE.140 Gtz Schmitt argues
along similar lines, considering Exod. 23:2033 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. 23:2033.142
Otto Eissfeldt divides Exod. 23:2033 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. 23:2033 as an E passage.
Given the doublets in vv. 2730, 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. 23:2033 is older than Deut. 7 and thus cannot possibly
be characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic. More recently, Joel S. Baden, considers
Exod. 23:2023 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, 247251.
141 Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen, 2021; 24.
142 M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB, 5), New York 1991, 377384. See also A. Rof, 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-Erzhlung Exodus 1934 (Sitzungsberichte der
Schsischen Akademie der Wissenschafte zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Klasse
113/1), Berlin 1966, 11; 1718; 20. In Die lteste Erzhlung vom Sinaibund: William Foxwell
Albright zum 24. Mai 1961, seinem 70. Geburtstag, ZAW 73 (1961), 137146, 137, Eissfeldt
divides the material over E and J. Exod. 23:2022c, 2526, 28, 33 are Elohistic, the
remaining verses Jahwistic. Cf. also Eissfeldts 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), Mnchen 1973, 189. See also Idem, Das jahwistische Bundesbuch in Ex
34, BZ 16 (1972), 2453.
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 33:13 (...) and 33:1517 (...). In E, however, it
is a messanger who goes before the people, by the word of YHWH (Exod 23:2022). See
also Idem, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 139146. Although not directly referring to
Exod. 23:2033, his judgment about so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in Genesis
Numbers is worth quoting: If the parallel stories in D and ExodusNumbers 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 GenesisNumbers 161

In spite of these approaches, all of which associate Exod. 23:2033 as a whole


or in part with E, the approach proposed by Chris Brekelmans in 1963 remains
innovative. Based on an analysis of the vocabulary, Brekelmans concludes that
Exod. 23:2033 is a proto-Deuteronomic passage in which one can discern
evidence of a preamble to the formation of the Deuteronom(ist)ic language,
style and theology.146 Brekelmans was struck by the fact that Exod. 23:2033
exhibited clear similarities with Deut. 7; Josh. 24 and to a lesser degree with
Exod. 19:38. For him the important thing is that well-nigh the only contacts
with D are to be found in Deut. 7 and that Exod. 23:2033 contained a number
of hapax legomena. The theme of warning against the original inhabitants of
the land is already found in Josh. 24an early text, in the Decalogue, and
in the Elijah narrative cycle. He thus argues that it is plausible that such warn-
ings were already in circulation, even before they were written down in the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.147 Based on the combination of these elements,
Brekelmans concludes that Exod. 23:2023 was probably part of a proto-
Deuteronomic redaction. Jrn Halbe agrees.148 He considers Exod. 23:2027,
31b33 as a unit that exhibits in its entirety the characteristics of a proto-
Deuteronomist composition, the focal points of which are to be found in the
first instance in the oldest layers of Deuteronomy, offering a new reflection on
the latter tradition. Andreas Reichert, Ludger Schwienhorst-Schnberger and
Yuichi Osumi likewise accept the presence of proto-Deuteronomic elements
Exod 23:2033.149

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), Tbingen 2011, 327344, 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. 3237; 169171.
146 Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 7791; Idem, Die sogenannten deuteronomischen
Elemente, 95.
147 In this context, Brekelmans quotes T. Vriezen, De literatuur van Oud-Isral, Den Haag
1961, 109: While Js 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 23,2033 gehrt zu den in Aufbau, Stil und Inhalt am
strksten dt geprgten Stcken der Sinaiperikope. Ausfhrliche Wortschatzanalysen
haben jedoch gezeigt, da mindestens grere Teile dieser Rede vordeuteronomisch und
jedenfalls vom Dt unabhngig sind. Sie ist im Ganzen genauer als proto-deuteronomisch
162 Chapter 3

The arguments given in support of the pre- or proto-Deuteronomic charac-


ter of Exod. 23:2033 tend on the whole to be the same.150 In both instances,
scholars point out that the pericope is to be situated in the prehistory of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. The scholars who characterise Exod. 23:2033 as
pre-Deuteronomic insist without qualification, based almost exclusively on
the vocabulary, which they designate as Jahwist, Elohist or RJE on the basis
of comparisons with other texts from GenesisNumbers, that the passage is
older than Deuteronomy and that the authors of Deuteronomy made use of
Exod. 23:2033 (source text). The authors who typify the epilogue of the Book
of the Covenant as proto-Deuteronomic are of the opinion that a preamble to
the Deuteronomic language, style and theology is evident in the pericope and
consider it a witness to a language and theology that contained in nuce the
language and theological visions of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, without
attempting to prove that the Deuteronom(ist)ic authors were also dependent
on Exod. 23:2033 (proto-Deuteronomic).
Two components can be distinguished in the argumentation. On the one
hand, authors insist that elements from Exod. 23:2033 bear no relation-
ship whatsoever with what one would typically be inclined to designate
Deuteronom(ist)ic. In addition to thematic differences, reference is made
to discrepancies at the level of vocabulary and phrasing. While Brekelmans
accepts that the personification of the is a Deuteronomic concept,
he insists nevertheless that this theology of the name in Exod. 23:21 is not
associated with the temple as it is in the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.151 At
the same time, regular reference is made to the presence of hapax legomena,

zu charakterisieren; Schwienhorst-Schnberger, Das Bundesbuch, 410: Wie immer man


den Grundbestand von Ex 23,2033 abgrenzen mag, der Text enthlt kein Element, das
den Fluch-Partien in den Epilogen altorientalischer Vertrags- oder Gesetzeswerke ent
spricht, worauf J. Halbe hingewiesen hat. Diese Redaktion erweist sich auch insofern als
protodeuteronomisch, als das joschijanische Ur-Deuteronomium (Dtn 6,426,16*) im
Epilog keinen Fluch enthlt; Osumi, Die kompositionsgeschichte, 161: Der Inhalt von Ex
20,2426; 23,2023a ist daher durchsichtig. Das Deuteronomium stellt den terminus ante
quem dieses Textes dar. Dieser aber wiederspricht keineswegs dem Deuteronomium,
sondern kann als protodeuteronomisch angesehen werden. See also H.D. Neef, Ich
selber bin in ihm (Ex 23,21): Exegetische Beobachtungen zur Rede vom Engel des Herrn
in Ex 23,2022; 32,34; 33,2; Jdc 2,15; 5,23, BZ 39 (1995), 5475.
150 See also H. Ausloos, What Happened to the Proto-Deuteronomist? The Epilogue to the
Book of the Covenant (Exod 23,2033) as a Test Case, in: H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn
(eds), A Pillar of Cloud to Guide (Exod 13,21): Old Testament Text-Critical, Redactional and
Linguistic Perspectives in Honour of Marc Vervenne (BETL, 269), Leuven 2014, 1729.
151 Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 84.
Proto-Deuteronomic Elements in GenesisNumbers 163

which can function as a criterion contra the characterisation of Exod. 23:20


33 as Deuteronom(ist)ic. The terms and with as subject
(Exod. 23:22), for example, do not occur in Deuteronom(ist)ic passages.152
On the other hand, scholars accentuate similarities with other non-
Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in GenesisNumbers that are considered older
(J, E or RJE) than the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.153 In this regard, reference is
also regularly made to agreements with Josh. 24, which passes as the prototype
of an Elohistic text, as well as to a number of reputedly older passages from
the book of Deuteronomy itself.154 Authors repeatedly observe that a term and
a certain construction is attested outside the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature in
other Ancient Near Eastern texts, thus implying that the term or construction
is not typically Deuteronom(ist)ic. Comparison is only rarely made, however,
with the Old Testament prophetic books.
Some argue, furthermore, that a passage considered more elaborate than
another should also of necessity be considered younger. In addition, the
absence of typical stereotype Deuteronom(ist)ic phrases is seen by others as
evidence of the fact that the expressions in Exod. 23:2033 have not yet under-
gone complete Deuteronom(ist)ic development. Others still frequently associ-
ate (parts of) Exod. 23:2033 with the (old) holy war tradition.155
The value of the aforementioned arguments becomes apparent when we
compare them with the arguments used to claim the Deuteronom(ist)ic char-
acter of Exod. 23:2033. Indeed, several elements from the said pericope are
used by those who support the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of the pericope as
well as those who consider Exod. 23:2033 to be a pre- or proto-Deuteronomic
text. Two categories of arguments can be distinguished here. First, scholars
refer to the same passages from GenesisNumbers or other Old Testament
literature, which they characterise as either Deuteronom(ist)ic or as older
than Deuteronomy, depending on the hypothesis they support. The presence
of the in Exod. 23:20.23, for example, is used both as an argument
in the characterisation of the text as Deuteronomistic, and as an indication of
the pre- or proto-Deuteronomic character thereof. In addition, both perspec-
tives base themselves on texts such as Exod. 14:19, 32:34; 33:2 and Num. 20:16,

152 Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 86.


153 Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 84.
154 See, for example, Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 87 with reference to serving
YHWH in Exod 23:25. On the relationship between Exod. 23:2033 and Josh. 24, see also
H. Ausloos, The Book of Joshua, Exodus 23 and the Hexateuch, in: E. Noort (ed.), The Book
of Joshua (BETL, 250), Leuven 2012, 259266.
155 Brekelmans, lments deutronomiques, 87 on the term in Exod 23:27.
164 Chapter 3

for one to be seen as typically Deuteronom(ist)ic, for the other, by contrast, as


evidence of ancient traditions.
It is striking, moreover, that while the scholars who characterise
Exod. 23:2033 as pre- or proto-Deuteronomic focus attention on similarities
with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, they also place considerable emphasis
on the evident points of difference. Those exegetes who associate the passage
with a Deuteronom(ist)ic reworking, on the other hand, tend to be primar-
ily interested inoften very vaguesimilarities with the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature.156 With these observations in mind, it seems clear that the argu-
ments used to characterise Exod. 23:2033 as pre- or proto-Deuteronomic are
far from conclusive. In light of recent developments in Pentateuchforschung,
moreover, one can no longer appeal to allegedly old texts in GenesisNumbers.
It is positive, nevertheless, that the argumentation in support of the proto-
Deuteronomic character of Exod. 23:2033 does not limit itself to identifying
and listing parallels, but has come to focus much more attention on the way in
which a term or formula functions in the context. As such, it is better placed to
discern the differences with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.

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
Deuteronomyrecognised now for decadesdid 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 GenesisNumbers that exhibit

156 For example, the expression . In Deuteronomy, the theology of the name
plays an important role (Deuteronom[ist]ic). In the Deuterono m(ist)ic literature,
however, Gods is associated with the sanctuary and not with the ( pre- 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 GenesisNumbers 165

an explicit kinship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.158 If scholars in


the first decades of the 20th century were primarily inclined to focus their
attentionin the wake of the Wellhausenian Documentary Hypothesis
on the similarities between the reputedly Deuteronom(ist)ic passages in the
Tetrateuch and the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, then the authors addressed
in the present chapter deserve some credit at least for drawing scholarly atten-
tion to important points of difference between the two. Moreover, and often
in contrast to the then customary assignment of verses to a Deuteronom(ist)ic
redaction, the said scholars also endeavoured to underpin their hypotheses
with detailed argumentation. It is striking nevertheless that the proponents of
a proto-Deuteronomic redaction within GenesisNumbers, by analogy with
those who argue in favour of the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of a pericope,
seldom if ever draw attention to the study of the grammatical singularities of
the text. They generally restrict themselves to demonstrating that a word or
expression are not yet marked by the full Deuteronomic range and the stereo-
type Deuteronomic usage. Research into the style of a passage tends thereby to
be narrowed to a study of vocabulary and the use formulas.159
It goes without saying that the concern to guard against an overly facile
assignment of verses from GenesisNumbers to a Deuteronom(ist)ic author or
redactor addressed in the present chapter was clearly justified. However, with
the entirely new stimuli acquired by Pentateuch criticism more or less simul-
taneously in the last decades of the 20th century and the associated emphasis
on an all-inclusive (post-)Deuteronomistic redaction of the first five books
of the Old Testament in which exegetes such as H.H. Schmid, J. Van Seters,

158 S. Schweitzer, Deuteronomy 32 and 33 as Proto-Deuteronomic Texts, in Eastern Great


Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies: Proceedings 22 (2002), 7998 argues that Deut. 3233,
two poems at the end of Deuteronomy that in general are considered as appendices
to the book, should be seen as proto-Deuteronomic: This interpretation suggests
different stages in the development of the Deuteronomic movement. The earliest stage is
represented by the two poems. These proto-Deuteronomic texts advocate all the tenets
of the Deuteronm(ist)ic ideology, except for its most well known topics: centralization,
monarchy and prophecy (85).
159 Cf., for example, Reichert, Der Jehowist, 79: Ex 12,2427 ist eine Ergnzung zur alten Passa-
Anordnung 2123 J, die in Form (Gebotsumrahmung) und Stil (Wortschatz, Formelge
brauch) aus einer prdeuteronomischen Phase stammt und doch schon ansatzweise von
Intentionen geleitet ist, die dann im Dt zur Entfaltung kommen.
Vervennes critique of authors who support the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of the
Sea Narrative is also relevant here: What is conspicuously absent is a meticulous inquiry
into the phraseology of the related texts. (Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic
Elements, 266).
166 Chapter 3

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 centuryagainst
which the proto-Deuteronomists rightly reactedbegins 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. Brinkschrder, Sodom als Symptom: Gleichgeschlechtliche Sexualitt im christlichen
Imaginreneine religionsgeschichtliche Anamnese (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche
und Vorarbeiten, 55), Berlin 2006, 242.
Chapter 4

The Deuteronom(ist)ic Problem since the Second


Half of the 20th Century

In the second chapter we demonstrated how biblical scholarship, still follow-


ing to a greater or lesser degree in the wake of the Documentary Hypothesis,
had ascribed an important role to a Deuteronom(ist)ic author or redactor
in the genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch. In the preceding chapter it
became clear that scholars became critical of this perspective from the 1960s
onwards, pointing to passages in GenesisNumbers in which a precursor to the
formation of the Deuteronom(ist)ic language and ideas could be discerned.
In many instances, the analysis focused on individual texts only, but there
were also scholars who were inclined to speak of a Pentateuch- or Hexateuch-
inclusive proto-Deuteronomic redaction.
In the present chapter we offer a survey of the various approaches to the
genesis and composition of the Pentateuch that gained in popularity from
the beginning of the 1970s. The studies in question, moreover, have also, and
to a very considerable degree, changed and redefined research into those
texts and text segments in the books GenesisNumbers considered to have a
Deuteronom(ist)ic flavour. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning
of the 20th, interest in Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in GenesisNumbers was
limited to the identification of (a few) Deuteronom(ist)ic interpolations in the
said books. From the 1960s onwards, these elements were seen as a precur-
sor to the Deuteronomic language and theology. Since the 1970s, more and
more attention has been focused on the possibility of an inclusive (post-)
Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction that is said to have been at the origins of the
Pentateuch as a whole or to have played an important role in the completion
of the so-called final redaction of the said corpus.
In presenting recent developments in research into the Deuteronom(ist)ic
problem, any attempt to provide a comprehensive picture would be ultimately
doomed to failure. The present chapter is an endeavour to present an over-
view of the way in which the presence of language and ideas in Genesis
Numbers reminiscent of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature has been dealt with
since circa 1970 on the basis of a number of related studies. Pride of place is
granted to authors who have given significant and innovative impetus to this
research domain. I make a distinction in this regard between two tenden-
cies that share a common distance, albeit in varying degrees, from the classic

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 5|doi .63/9789004307049_005


168 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 GenesisNumbers
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 meaningnamely the suggestion that a late post-
Deuteronomistic Yahwist was responsible for GenesisNumbersdistinguish
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 GenesisNumbers 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 Pentateuchs 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 GenesisNumbers.
Cf. also M. Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis to Numbers, in:
F. Garca Martnez et al. (eds), Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C.J. Labuschagne on the
Occasion of his 65th Birthday (SVT, 53), Leiden 1994, 243268.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 169

1 The So-Called Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers as


the Work of a late Deuteronomistic Author or Redactor

Critical objections were voiced within the Documentary Hypothesis with


respect to the so-called Elohist document at a relatively early stage. Reference
can be made in this regard to the work of Wilhelm Rudolph and Paul Volz.2
According to these authors, E should only be seen as a supplement to the work
of the Yahwist and thus not as an independent literary document.3 Discussion
concerning the character of the Elohist will only be treated in passing here,
as it emerges in the work of the authors treated in the following pages.4 Their
primary focus, after all, is the status of the Yahwist.

2 W. Rudolph, P. Volz, Der Elohist als Erzhler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? (BZAW, 63),
Berlin 1933 study Gen. 1550 in relation to the existence of an Elohistic document. Later
Rudolphs 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. Eissfeldts Hexateuchsynopse
(in TLZ 48 [1923] 389391, 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 kmmerlichen Brocken von Erzhlunng, die meist in den Spalten
stehen, beweisen eben, dass nicht vier [i.e. L, J, E and PH.A.] ursprngliche Erzhlungen
bestanden, und dass die ganze Synopse des Pentateuchs das knstliche Gebilde heutiger
Gelehrsamkeit ist.
3 Volz set out to demonstrate dass wir in der Genesis nur einen einzigen Erzhler vor
uns haben (den wir den Jahwisten nennen wollen), dass vor allem der sog. Elohist kein
selbstndiger Erzhler war, dass der sog. Elohist, wenn er berhaupt existierte, hchstens
Neuherausgeber des grossen (jahwistischen) Erzhlungswerkes war, dass in das grosse
ursprngliche (jahwistische) Erzhlungswerk (sei es von einem sog. Elohisten, sei es von
einem deuteronomistischen Redaktor) einzelne Abschnitte aus bestimmten Erwgungen
heraus eingefgt wurden (Rudolph, Volz, Der Elohist als Erzhler, 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 Mnner einer Schule sich des grossen
alten Erzhlungswerkes spter angenommen haben, um es auf diese Weise [i.e. the re-
working thereofH.A.] der Gemeinde zu erhalten, warum haben sie dann das Anstssige
nicht einfach durch eigene Parallelen ersetzt usw.? Hier bleiben noch manche ungelste
Fragen (24).
4 For issues related to the so-called Elohistic elements in GenesisNumbers, see, for example,
A. de Pury, T. Rmer, Le Pentateuque en question: Position du problme et brve histoire
de la recherche, in: Idem (eds), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des
cinq premiers livres de la Bible la lumire des recherches rcentes. 3me dition augmente (Le
monde de la Bible, 19), Genve 2002, 980, esp. 4546; K. Jaro, Die Stellung des Elohisten
zur Kanaanischen 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

1.1 The Post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist Thesis


As long as the tradition that scholars have referred to since the end of the
19th century as Priestly was considered the oldest document, emerging
during the presumed reigns of David and Solomon (10th century bce), the
Yahwist tended for the most part to be situated in the 8th century bce.5 When
P came to be characterised as the youngest document by the hypothesis
of Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen, J was dated in the 9th century or the begin-
ning of the 8th century bce.6 In the course of the 20th century, J was generally
understood to have emerged at the end of the 10th century or the begin-
ning of the 9th.7 Gerhard von Rad associated the Yahwist narrative with the
time of Solomon, which he believed was characterised by an Aufklrung in
Israels social and religious life.8

et de llohiste?, in: De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question, 199214; H.W. Wolff,
Zur Thematik der elohistischen Fragmente im Pentateuch, EvT 29 (1969), 5972; E. Zenger,
Le thme de la sortie dgypte et la naissance du Pentateuque, in: De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le
Pentateuque en question, 301331, esp. 327328. 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 Bcher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua erklrt 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
Vtertexte (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), Tbingen 31964, 266;
O. Kaiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einfhrung in ihre Ergebnisse und Probleme,
Gtersloh 1969; 51984, 93; M. Kckert, Auf der Suche nach dem Jahwisten: Aporien in der
Begrndung einer Grundthese alttestamentlicher Exegese, in Theologische Versuche 14
(1985), 3964; H. Schmkel, Zur Datierung der Pentateuchquelle J, ZAW 62 (1950), 319321.
8 G. von Rad, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs (BWANT, 4/26), Stuttgart 1938,
7581. He was followed in this regard by, among others, M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichte
des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948, 249 and H.W. Wolff, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testa
ment (TB, 22), Mnchen 1964, 348351. See also, for example, Zenger, Le thme de la sortie
dgypte , 327328. Studies on the Yahwist are legion: see, for example, A.F. Campbell, The
Yahwist Revisited, Australian Biblical Review 27 (1979), 214; L. Schmidt, berlegungen
zum Jahwisten, EvT 37 (1977), 230247; W.H. Schmidt, Ein Theologe in salomonischer Zeit?
Pldoyer fr den Jahwisten, BZ 25 (1981), 82102; H. Seebass, Zur geistigen Welt des sog.
Jahwisten, BN 4 (1977), 3947; Idem, Jahwist, TRE 16 (1987), 441451; Idem, Que reste-t-il du
Yahwiste et de Llohiste?, 207; H.W. Wolff, Das Kerygma des Jahwisten, EvT 24 (1964), 7398;
E. Zenger, Das jahwistische Werkein 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. 111 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.

1.1.1 The Birth of the Late Yahwist


In 1965, Winnett defended the hypothesis that the book of Genesisexcluding
the later P additionswas the work of an author who was active in the period

E. Haag (ed.), Gott, der einzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheismus in Israel (QD, 104),
Freiburg 1985, 2653. 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 jngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 313), Berlin 2002, 123.
9 J. Morgenstern, The Mythological Background of Psalm 82, HUCA 14 (1939), 2998, esp.
9394 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. 111 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. 111 to the universalistic period
of Jewish thought and practice, 516485 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 ixi, Toronto 1957. See in this regard
N.E. Wagner, A Literary Analysis of Genesis 1236, 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 Israels primeval
history (Gen. 111). 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. 111 on text-immanent data, but

11 F.V. Winnett, ReExamining the Foundations, JBL 84 (1965), 119. 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 Winnetts 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. 3:14, 18, 27, 31; 5:16:1; 7:1411:8; 12:2939; 13:1722; 14:118*; 14:19b15:1; 15:2227*;
16:14*, 1315*, 21, 31; 17:116; 18:127*; 19:23a*, 919*; 20:1, 1821, 2326; 22:2023:19*; 24:1
2, 915, 18b; 31:19*; 33:1, 711; Num. 10:2932*; 11:16*, 11*, 13*, 16*, 1824a*, 3135; 12:16*;
13:1718*, 2223*, 2628*, 3031, 33; 14:24*, 2324*, 25b, 31, 3945*; 16:17*, 1218, 25, 27b-
35*; 20:1b, 1424*; 21:413*, 16*, 18b, 1935; Deut. 27:18; 31:1415, 23; 34:1*, 46*). 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. 12:2127; 13:316; 32:124; 34:1, 4*, 28). In reaction, the priests in Jerusalem cre-
ated Deut. 4:4426:19, 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 (166171). For the origin of the late Yahwist, see also E. Nicholson, The
Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, Oxford 1998, 132160.
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, 78.
12 Winnett, Re-Examining the Foundations, 23.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 173

rather on the conviction that the Yahwist of Gen. 111 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. 10:25, 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-Isaiahi.e. the period of
the Babylonian exile. According to Winnett, the strongest argument in support
of a (post-)exilic date for Gen. 111 is to be found in the authors 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. 1236. 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. 1236 tended consistently
to be characterised as Deuteronom(ist)ic, namely Gen. 15:7; 18:1719 and 26:5b.
In Winnetts opinion, these passages cannot possibly be written off as later
interpolations, because theyand this certainly applies to Gen. 15:7 and 18:17
19form 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 Winnetts approach to Gen. 12:23, 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 Abrahams behavior is above reproach (Re-Examining the Foundations, 6; for the E
passages in the Jacob tradition, cf. 710).
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 Josephs Death (Gen. 50,2226), in: A. Wnin (ed.),
Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (BETL, 155), Leuven 2001,
381395.
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

was later to be employed extensively in demonstrating the late character of the


texts, the so-called argumentum e silentio. The argument in question is based
on the fact that a given datum is not mentioned. The theme of Gen. 12:23, for
example, in which Israel is presented as a source of blessing for all the nations,
is found nowhere prior to Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 42:17; 49:6; 52:1353:12).16
In addition, a great deal of J material appears to be close to P or at least to
anticipate P.17
The fact that clearly late elements can be discerned within Gen. 1236 does
not yet lead Winnett to conclude that the said narrativesby analogy with
Gen. 111are the work of a single late author who used older material in the
process. Winnett is of the opinion, moreover, that an old Yahwist basic narra-
tive probably already existed. As observed above, this old narrative was supple-
mented in an official manner by the Elohist. In the early post-exilic period, a
late Yahwist introduced a second official revision. This late Yahwist was one
single person, a fact made clear by the well-considered theme of the promise.18

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, 1213: 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. 12:23; 13:1417; 15; 22:1418; 26:35, 24; 28:1315): May
we not see in Late Js concern with the divine promises to the patriarchs an historians
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. 11:2831; 14; 18:22a-32; 24; 25:2223; 26; 28:1315; 32:414a; 33:1920; 34; 35:18, 1622a
(1415).
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. 1236.19
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 Winnetts view, the Yahwist narrative underwent a P revision around
400 bce, at which point Genesis was placed before ExodusNumbers 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 GenesisNumbers, several exegetesin line with Winnettpropose a late
(post-)exilic date for the non-Priestly material in this composition. Norman E.
Wagner, for example, one of Winnetts students, has proposed a (post-)exilic
date for the pre-Priestly patriarch traditions. In his study A Literary Analysis
of Genesis 1236, 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. 1236 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 1236, 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

Likewise in the footsteps of Winnett, Donald B. Redford concludes on


the basis of a study of the Egyptian elements in the Joseph narrative that a
dating thereof prior to the 7th century bce is impossible.22 Lexicographical
research also appears to suggest a close relationship between the vocabu-
lary of the Joseph narrative and the late books of the Old Testamenti.e.
the books written around the time of the Babylonian exile.23 According to
Redford, at least fifty words or expressions are thus attested in the (post-)exilic
literature.24 Redford points out, in addition, that neither the prophets nor the
Deuteronomistic History make reference to Joseph, suggesting perhaps that

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 patriarcha subject touched upon only lightly by Jand
develops it at some length, relating no fewer than four such promises (12:23; 14:1417;
15,121; 22:1718). 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, 117140 and A Response to
Professor Rolf Rendtorff, JSOT 3 (1977), 2027.
22 D.B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 3750) (SVT, 20), Leiden 1970,
241242: 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, 5465.
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 Vorlnder. According to Vorlnder 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
GenesisNumbers makes no mention of the material transmitted in JE.27 By
dating JE in the (post-)exilic period, Vorlnder 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 111, in: Gertz et al. (eds), Abschied vom Jahwisten, 4961 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; 4:126; 6:18; 7:15, 710, 12, 2324; 8:2b-3,
612, 13b, 2022; 9:1827; 10:819, 21, 24, 30; 11:19; 12:14a, 620; 13:15, 711, 1318; 16:2,
414; 18:133; 19:128, 3038; 20:118; 21:12a, 634; 22:124; 24:167; 25:16, 11, 18, 2134;
26:133; 27:145; 28:1022; 29:128a, 3035; 30:143; 31:154; 32:133; 33:120; 34:131; 35:1
5, 6b-8, 14, 1622; 36(?); 37:336; 3845; 46:15, 2834; 47:15, 1231; 48:13, 821; 50:111,
1426; Exod. 1:6, 812, 1522; 2:123a; 3:16:1; 7:1418, 21, 2329; 8:411, 1628; 9:17, 1335;
10:129; 11:18; 12:2123, 2939; 13:1722; 14:131; 15:2027; 16:3b-5, 1336; 1718; 19:23a,
925; 20:1821; 24:115b; 32:16, 1520, 3035(?); 33:711(?); Num. 10:2936; 11:112, 16(?);
13:17b, 1820, 2224, 2731, 33; 14:89, 24, 3945; 16:1215, 2526, 27b-34; 20:1b, 3a, 5, 8b-9,
11, 1421; 21:132; 22:224, 25; 25:15; 32:16, 1642; Deut. 34:16. Vorlnder explores the
passages in question: im Vergleich zur auertetrateuchischen Literatur im Rahmen der
alttestamentlichen Religions- und Literaturgeschichte den Zeitpunkt zu bestimmen, zu
dem die jehowistischen Texte in der jetzt vorliegenden Form zuerst niedergeschrieben
wrden: H. Vorlnder, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (EurHS,
109), Frankfurt am Main 1978, 17.
27 Vorlnder, Die Entstehungszeit, 367: Die auertetrateuchische Literatur enthlt kein-
erlei sicheren Hinweise darauf, da Werke wie J oder E vor 600 v.Chr. verfat wurden.
Andernfalls wre ein hufigerer Bezug der Propheten auf diese Weise bzw. die in ihnen
enthaltenen Stoffe und theologischen Aussagen zu erwarten.
28 Vorlnder, 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 Ursprngen
Israels: Die Sinaifrage und Probleme der Volks- und Traditionsbildung (OBO, 9), Freiburg
1976; Idem, Marginalien zur Quellentheorie, in: DBAT 12 (1977), 1429.
178 Chapter 4

that the most important contribution to this exegetical turnabout is to be


located in the work of John Van Seters.

1.1.2 John Van Seters Post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist


Few will dispute the fact that John Van Seters has been a major mover and
shaker in the field of Pentateuch studies.29 His innovating approach was
announced in a publication from 1972 in which he explored the Old Testament
use of the terms Amorites and Hittites.30 He starts by pointing out that the
use of this vocabulary in the Old Testament, designating the native population
of Palestine, does not correspond to what we know from the historical perspec-
tive concerning these peoples during the second millennium bce. According
to Van Seters, an explanation for the biblical use of the said terminology should
be sought rather in parallel with Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions from
the first millennium bce, in which the designations Hittite or Amorite are
employed in a rhetorical and archaizing fashion to refer to the combined pop-
ulation of Syro-Palestine.31

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.pdfaccess 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, 921.
30 J. Van Seters, The Terms Amorite and Hittite in the Old Testament, VT 22 (1972), 6481.
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, 65112, esp. 7881; M. Noth, Die Welt des Alten Testaments: Einfhrung
in die Grenzgebiete der Alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft (Sammlung Tppelmann, 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. 7:12 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 Israels 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; 23:2033; 33:13; 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 Sargons 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. 3:35; 1 Kgs 11:12.
33 Van Seters, The Terms Amorite and Hittite , 7172 mentions three exceptions. In
Gen. 10:1518; 15:2021; 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 Yahwists work. According to Van Seters, however,
this hypothesis is extremely problematic. In Ezek. 20:56, reference is made
to yhwhs 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. 2:46.37 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), 448459.
36 Cf. also Ezek. 20:15, 28, 42; 36:28; 37:2526. 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, 5877, esp. 6466;
J. Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Louisville 1992,
233235; Idem, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in ExodusNumbers (CBET, 10),
Kampen 1994, 47.
37 Cf. also Jer. 7:14, 2223; 11:7, 10; 16:1013; 23:39; 24:10; 34:13; 44:10.
38 The texts in question are: Jer. 3:18; 7:17; 11:7; 16:1415; 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. 9192).
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 questionas in Ezekiel and Jeremiahwas 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. Rmer, Israels Vter: Untersuchungen
zur Vterthematik 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. 3:11544 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. 20:56. 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, 4648.
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 Gods choice of the patriarchs (Cf. Isa. 41:89; 51:12see Van Seters, Confessional
Reformulation, 457458). 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 Gods cov-
enantal promises on identity with them (456; Idem, Prologue to History, 248251). 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 Israels 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 Israels 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, 301319, esp. 313.
46 J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, New Haven 1975.
47 Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 7122. 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 (120121).
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 fr deutschen Altertum 51 (1909),
112 can be traced back to the oral tradition. For Van Seters this means Gen. 12:1020;
16:13a, 49, 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, 132138; 160161; 168170; 195196; for critical remarks addressed
to the supporters of the oral tradition, see also Idem, The Conquest of Sihons Kingdom:
A Literary Examination, JBL 91 (1972), 182197, esp. 197; Idem, Oral Patterns of Literary
Conventions in Biblical Narrative, Semeia 5 (1976), 139154; Idem, Problems in the
Literary Analysis of the Court History of David, JSOT 1 (1976), 2229; Idem, The Yahwist as
Theologian? A Response, JSOT 3 (1977), 1520. 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, 125166.
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, 1020; 13:1*-2; 16:1
12*; 13:18; 18:1a, 1014; 21:2, 67), together with a limited pre-Yahwist Elohist (Gen. 20:117;
21:2526; 2831a)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), 589618, esp. 604 n. 40: Van Seters ne se prononce pas sur la date des deux
couches pr-yahvistes. Mais le cours de son argumentation laisse supposer quil songe, au
mieux, la fin de la monarchie judenne. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition,
313 ascribes the passages Gen. 12:23, 6b, 89; 13:35, 717; 15; 16:7b, 10, 11c, 1314; 18:1b-9,
1533; 19; 20:1a; 21:1, 824, 27, 31b-34; 22; 24; 25:16, 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. 11:2632; 12:4b-5; 13:6; 16:3b, 1516; 21:36; 25:710, and in
Gen. 17 and 23. He also accounts for a post-Priestly interpolation of Gen. 14, of which
vv. 1820 are a secondary addition (Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 279295;
311; 313). Cf. also Idem, Der Jahwist als Historiker (TSt, 134), Zrich 1987, 89.
51 Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 310.
52 Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 310311. 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), 220233.
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 (45) 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, 110, 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), 401408; A.K. Grauson, J. Van Seters, The Childless Wife in Assyria and the
Stories of Genesis, Orientalia 44 (1975), 485486; J. Van Seters, The Primeval Histories of
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 185

Although the study in question focuses on Joshua2 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), 122; Idem, The Creation of Man and the
Creation of the King (Gen. 12; Ez 28), ZAW 101 (1989), 333342. 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), Tbingen 2008, 72.
See also J. Van Seters, Is there Any Historiography in the Hebrew Bible? A HebrewGreek
Comparison, JNSL 28 (2002), 125.
54 Van Seters, In Search of History, 249353. 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; 327328; 336337). 2 Sam. 920; 1 Kgs 12 are also to be con-
sidered posterior interpolations. Cf. also Idem, Histories and Historians of the Ancient
Near East: The Israelites, Orientalia 50 (1981), 137185, esp. 156167; 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. Ahlstrm
(JSOT SS, 31), Trowbridge 1984, 39158; J. Van Seters, Joshuas Campaign of Canaan and
Near Eastern Historiography, SJOT 2 (1990) 112. 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, 204239.
55 Van Seters, In Search of History, 361: Yet other histories were written subsequent to Dtrs
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, Zrich 1987 consists of a collection of lectures
given in Geneva and Zrich in 19851986. See also Idem, The Yahwist as Historian, in:
K.H. Richards (ed.), One Hundred Twenty-Second Annual Meeting, November 2225, 1986,
Atlanta (SBL SP, 25), Atlanta, GA 1986, 3755. 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, 308378 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, 2444,
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
dtude du Proche-Orient Ancien, 5), Leuven 1989, 4961; 6374, 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, 124127.
186 Chapter 4

considerable number of formal and content-related similarities with the his-


toriography of the Ancient Near East and Greece. The said Yahwist intended
his work to serve as a prologue to the already existing Deuteronomistic
History.57 To this end he made use of oral traditions, which he tried to follow
faithfully. At the same time, he built further on the written traditions of the
Deuteronomistic History and the prophetic literature, which had acquired
written form during the Babylonian exile.58 As observed above, Van Seters also
accounts for a Priestly author who supplemented the Yahwist narrative at a
number of points.59
In his following studies, Van Seters elaborates systematically on the hypoth-
esis of a post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist historiographer on the basis of the
remaining narratives from the book of Genesis,60 together with the books of
Exodus and Numbers.61 In each instance he concludes that J is dependent on
the Deuteronomistic History.

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, 154155; Idem, The Yahwist as Historian, 5051; Idem,
The Life of Moses, 457. Cf. also Idem, Der Jahwist als Historiker, 8391.
59 For the activity of this Priestly supplementer, see Van Seters, In Search of History, 2729;
325337; Idem, Der Jahwist als Historiker, 8991; Idem, The Life of Moses, 100112; 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, 569580.
60 Van Seters, Prologue to History. Here too, Van Seters makes frequent comparison with
extra-biblical data (cf. also Idem, The Creation of Man, 333342; Idem, Prologue to
History, 4798).
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), 663673; Idem, The Religion of the Patriarchs in
Genesis, Bib 61 (1980), 220233; Idem, Once AgainThe Conquest of Sihons Kingdom,
JBL 99 (1980), 117124; Idem, Tradition and Social Change in Ancient Israel, Perspectives
in Religious Studies 7 (1980), 96113; Idem, The Place of the Yahwist in the History of Pass
over and Massot, ZAW 95 (1983), 167182; Idem, Comparing Scripture with Scripture.
Some Observations on the Sinai Pericope of Exodus 1924, in: G.M. Tucker et al. (eds),
Canon, Theology and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Brevard S. Childs,
Philadelphia 1988, 111130; J. Van Seters, From Faithful Prophet to Villain: Observations
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 187

In what follows, I will endeavour to illustrate Van Seters approach on


the basis of a concrete example, namely the narrative of the golden calf in
Exod. 32.62 I focus on this specific narrative text because it allows us to com-
pare Van Seters criteriology with that of Begg, who characterised the pericope

on the Tradition History of the Balaam Story, in: E.E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary:
In Search of Method, Form and ContentFS G.W. Coats (JSOT SS, 240), Sheffield 1997,
126132; J. Van Seters, Divine Encounter at Bethel (Gen. 28,1022) in Recent Literary-
Critical Study of Genesis, ZAW 110 (1998) 503513; Idem, Some Observations on the Lex
Talionis in Exod. 21:2325, in: S. Beyerle et al. (eds), Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament:
Gestalt und WirkungFestschrift fr Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukrichen-
Vluyn 1999, pp. 2737; J. Van Seters, The Silence of Dinah (Genesis 34), in: J.-D. Macchi,
T. Rmer (eds), Jacob: Commentaire plusieurs voix de Gen. 2536Mlanges offerts
Albert de Pury, Genve 2001, 239247; J. Van Seters, Deuteronomy between Pentateuch
and the Deuteronomistic History, HTS 59 (2003), 947956; Idem, Von Child Sacrifice to
Paschal Lamb. A Remarkable Transformation, OTE 16 (2003), 453463; Idem, The Report
of the Yahwists 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, 143157; 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,
115; J. Van Seters, The Altar Law of Ex. 20,2426 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, 157174.
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 Gttern? Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels fr Otto Kaiser zum 70.
Geburtstag, Gttingen 1994, 219228. 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: RedactionReceptionInterpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven
1996, 319345, 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, 290318; cf. also Idem, Histories and Historians, 170184;
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 1720, 1990 (SBL SP, 29), Atlanta, GA 1990, 583591See also K. Schmid, Israel
am Sinai: Etappen der Forschungsgeschichte zu Ex. 3234 in seinen Kontexten, in:
M. Kckert, E. Blum (eds), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex. 3234 und Dtn 910
(Verffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fr Theologie, 18), Gtersloh
2001, 940.
188 Chapter 4

as proto-Deuteronomic, and whose argumentation we explored in the preced-


ing chapter.
Van Seters observes that in the history of research into Exod. 32, schol-
ars have never paid close attention to the parallel tradition in Deut. 910
and 1 Kgs 12, except in order to demonstrate that Exod. 32 has demonstrably
Deuteronom(ist)ic characteristics. From the methodological perspective, Van
Seters considers it necessary to begin by cataloguing the various literary prob-
lems in Exod. 32.63 On this basis it appears that Exod. 32:18, 15a*, 1724, 3034
should be considered the original narrative. According to Van Seters, however,
the original narrative is part of a larger whole, which he ascribes to the exilic
post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist. Exod. 32* is thus said to have links with the nar-
ratives concerning the exodus, as well as the traditions of the murmuring of
the people and the giving of the law on Sinai. From the perspective of the pres-
ent exploration of the Deuteronom(ist)ic character of passages from Genesis

63 (1) In Exod. 32:16 one can discern lines of connection with Exod. 24:1215a, 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. 16 are likewise in keeping with the tradition of the murmur-
ing of the people in Numbers. (2) Exod. 32:714 is mostly described in the literature as
a later interpolation. First, the verses anticipate Moses discovery of the peoples apos-
tasy in vv. 1519; second, vv. 714 are written in a language akin to the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature. Within the said verses, however, vv. 910 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. 1114 follows better on the second statement than the first in
vv. 78. Moreover, Moses prayer in vv. 1113 is a doublet of vv. 3034. According to Van
Seters, vv. 78 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. 914
should be considered an irregularity. (3) Moses return in vv. 1520 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. 24:1314),
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. 1724). Vv. 2529 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. 32:3034 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, 290295). See also Idem, The Yahwist. A Historian of
Israelite Origin, 9496.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 189

Numbers, Van Seters comparative study of Exod. 32* with the narratives of
1 Kgs 12:2632; 13:34 and Deut. 910 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 / in Exod. 32:4 and 1 Kgs 12:28.


65 According to Van Seters, the narrative of the golden calves in 1 Kgs 12:2632 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 12:2632 by contrast, it is sug-
gested that peaceful visits to Jerusalem are still possible. In the text as we now have it,
1 Kgs 12:2632 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 12:2632; 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 Josiahs Deuteronomic reform. As a result, the narrative in 1 Kgs
12:2632; 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 17:2123). 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 Jeroboams 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

that the narrative in Exod. 32on account of its literary dependence on


1 Kgs 12should be seen as a post-Deuteronomistic composition.66 The said
literary dependence appears clear from what Van Seters considers to be a
literal quotation from 1 Kgs 12:28 in Exod. 32:4: These are your gods (plural),
O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. In Exod. 32, however, ref-
erence is made to one single image. In addition, the verse in question appears
to contradict Exod. 32:1, in which the people recognise that Moses (and thus
yhwh) brought them out of Egypt. Furthermore, the construction of an altar
and the proclamation of a pilgrim festival does not square with the immedi-
ate desire of the people to have a god to go before them on their journey.67 In
addition to literal agreements with 1 Kgs 12, the reference to the
in vv. 21, 31, 32 also appears to favour the post-Deuteronomistic character
Exod. 32.68
This has important implications for the dating of Exod. 32. In Van Seters
understanding, the narrative should not only be dated after the fall of the
Northern Kingdom, but also after the interpretation of the reasons given for
the fall by the Deuteronomistic History. This also implies that Exod. 32 does
not contain a polemic against the Northern Kingdom, which is then past his-
tory. The Israel of the wilderness alludes to the entire people, including Judah.
The relationship between Exod. 32 and Deut. 910 also deserves to be exam-
ined more closely within this context.69 Van Seters makes a distinction between
Deut. 9:89, 1117, 21, 2529; 10:1011 and secondary additions Deut. 9:10, 1819,
20, 2224; 10:19.70 Compared with Exod. 32, the details contained in the nar-
rative of Deut. 910 are very few and far between. If Deut. 9 was dependent on
Exod. 32, then one would have to presume that the author/redactor of Deut. 9
left all the said details to one side. Scholars often argue that this was due to
the fact that Deut. 9 was no longer interested in polemic against the Northern

O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt (cf. also Van Seters, Histories and
Historians, 170147).
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 is also to be found in 2 Kgs 17:2123.
69 On the relationsip between these passages, see also V. Snchal, Rtribution et intercession
dans le Deutronome (BZAW, 408), Berlin 2009, 363433.
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, 2224, 27a; 10:69.
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. 32once again an argumentum e silentio.
Van Seters then explores the parallels between Deut. 910 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 GenesisNumbers.
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 Beggs 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, Beggs 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 Ugaritwhich
shares the same Umwelt as Israeland, 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 Beggs 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 writers
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 23:1112). 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 actionmaking the Israelites
drink the water in which the ashes had been sprinkledfrom his version
of the destruction of the golden calf. Indeed, the Deuteronomistic literature

72 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 305.


73 Cf. 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, 208251,
esp. 235.
74 According to Begg, The Destruction of the Calf, 235, it would be impossible for the presen-
tation in Deut. 9:21 to have been ... rendered deliberately less definite, less expansive, and
less theologically qualified than in Exod. 32:20.
75 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 306 also alludes to the synoptic question: In the discussion
of the Synoptic Gospels it is widely held that Mark is prior to Matthew and Luke, yet
where the latter two agree with the former they are often shorter and less specific.
76 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 306.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 193

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. 32:16, which corresponds
exceptionally well with the narrative in 1 Kgs 12:2632. 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. 17:17, 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. 32:16. 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 Yahwistan author, not a redactor80who

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),
Tbingen 2008, 276330, esp. 281295.
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, whos work is seen as an
early form of antiquarian historiography, later than Ezekiel, but earlier than
Deutero-Isaiah.86

1.1.3 The Late Yahwist of Hans Heinrich Schmid


The hypothesis of a later dating of (parts of) the Pentateuch supported by
Winnett, Wagner and Redfordand initially also Van Seterswas based for
the most part on the study of passages from the book of Genesis. Hans Heinrich
Schmids sensational if relatively tentative 1976 study, however, was also to

81 Cf. Van Seters, The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch, 302303: The non-P
(J) work was composed as a prologue to the national history of DtrH and never existed as
a separate corpus. Ps 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) 119, 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, 318319.
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,
7189, 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), 7182, esp. 7677.
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 Yahwists 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 GenesisNumbers 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. 34*), the Plague Narrative (Exod. 710*), the Sea Narrative
(Exod. 14*), a few texts from the wilderness tradition (Exod. 15*; 17*; Num. 11*;
12*; 21*), the Sinai pericope (Exod. 1924*; 3234*) 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,
Zrich 1976. Cf. also Idem, In Search of New Approaches in Pentateuchal Research, JSOT 3
(1977) 3342; Idem, Auf der Suche nach neuen Perspektiven fr die Pentateuchforschung,
in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (SVT, 32), Leiden 1981, 375394.
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, 154155: Im ganzen vorexilischen Prophetenkanon
wird kein einziges Mal auf den Sinai und die Sinaitradition angespieltweder implizit
noch explizit. Die drei einigen, wenn auch nicht alle literarisch, so doch motivlich vor-
deuteronomischen Erwhnungen des Sinai [Judg. 5:5; Ps. 68:9, 18; Deut. 33:2H.A.] sind
von den Pentateucherzhlungen 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, Schmids 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
GenesisNumbers and the Deuteronomistic History in any further depth. All
he does in fact is point to similarities.91

1.1.4 The Relationship between the Yahwist and the Deuteronomistic


History
The relationship between the late Yahwist, as proposed by Schmid, and the
Deuteronomistic History served as material for a study by Martin Rose, one of
Schmids students.92 Rose distinguishes two Deuteronomistic layers, both
of which, in his opinion, went to work retrogressively. On the eve of the
Babylonian exile, and making use of older material, the first Deuteronomist
composed a narrative about Israels recent history, a narrative that acquired
written form in 1 and 2 Kings. But the same Deuteronomist wanted to delve
further and further back and thereby supplemented his narrative with 1 and
2 Samuel, Judges, Joshua and Deuteronomy.93 In so doing he was the first to

Israels am Sinai, nichts von einer Gebotsverkndigung, 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 thologie du Pentateuque, in De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question,
361386.
92 M. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berhrungspunkten beider
Literaturwerke (ATANT, 67), Zrich 1981. For a general presentation of the relationship
between the Deuteronomistic History and GenesisNumbers, see Idem, La croissance
du corpus historiographique de la Bibleune proposition, Revue du Thologie et de
Philosophie 118 (1986), 217236. See also M. Rose, LAncien Testament Neuchtel 1984
2001un bilan, TZ 57 (2001), 210220, esp. 218219.
93 On the complex genesis and evolution of the book of Deuteronomy itself, see M. Rose,
Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes: Deuteronomische Schultheologie und die Volks
frmmigkeit in der spten Knigszeit (BWANT, 106), Stuttgart 1975.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 197

create a framework for the Deuteronomistic History, running from Deuteron


omy to 2 Kings.94
This first Deuteronomistic layer was revised by a second Deuteronomist,95
who was disappointed in the positive portrayal of humanity offered by the
first Deuteronomist in Deuteronomy2 Kings. As a result, he preceded this
positive portrayal with a series of narratives that present a positive image of
yhwh (Exodus and Numbers). He then expanded this with the theme of cre-
ation (Genesis).96 Rose suggests thereby that the second Deuteronomist can
be identified with what is traditionally designated as the Yahwist.97
In resistance to this pessimistic Deuteronomistic/Yahwistic theology, a
Priestly work incorporating older material placed the emphasis once again
on the positive aspects of humanity that come to the fore in the light of the
cult.98 The Deuteronomistic/Yahwistic and Priestly work were later conjoined
in a redactional synthesis.99

94 Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist, 325.


95 Rose, Die Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes, 9094; 9899.
96 Rose, La croissance du corpus historiografique de la Bible, 231232: Lide centrale de ma
thse cest que lhistoriographie deutronomiste allant primitivement du Deutronome
jusqau livres des Rois, a t plus tard remanie successivement jusqu finalement
prsenter une historiographie depuis la Gnse jusqu la chute de Jrusalem. Cela
tant, les considrations historiques orientes en arrire ont intgr successivement des
matriaux du pass et finalement mme des lgendes et des mythes de la cration. The
hypothesis that the Tetrateuch forms a prologue to the Deuteronomistic History can also
be found in A.D.H. Mayes, The Story of Israel Between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional
Study of the Deuteronomic History, London 1983, 139149, esp. 141: The Tetrateuch should
be approached in the first instance as a literary entity which had no independent exis-
tence but which was composed primarily as an introduction to the already existing deu-
teronomistic history.
97 Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist argues in a number of places against the idea of a
Yahwistic work stemming from the period of the kings. He suggests, for example, that the
oldest layer in Gen. 34 derart nah an deuteronomisch-deuteronomistisches Gedankengut
[rcktH.A.], da die Suche nach einem der frhen Knigszeit entstammenden J-Text
illusorisch wird (209).
98 Cf. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist, 328.
99 In his article Empoigner le Pentateuque par sa fin! Linvestiture de Josu et la mort de
Mose, in: De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question, 129147, Rose explores his
hypothesis further on the basis of passages that deal with the death of Moses. He thus
claims that Deut. 3:2129; 31:18 are part of the oldest Deuteronomistic layer (DtrH), in
whichin a profane contextMoses succession is central. The second Deuteronomistic
layer (Exod. 33*; Num. 1112*; Deut. 31:13, 15, 23) accents the divine vocation of Joshua:
Le cercle qui est responsable de la deuxime rdaction de lHistoriographie deutrono-
miste, aselon ma thsegalement cre son introduction yahwiste (140). The Priestly
and the Yahwistic/Deuteronomistic work were later combined by a redactor. Rose also
198 Chapter 4

1.1.5 A Late Yahwistic Redaction in the Spirit of the Prophets


In his 1982 article entitled Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie,
HansChristoph Schmitt provides a tentative but inclusive picture of the
origins of the Pentateuch, further elaborated in other studies.100 From a meth-
odological perspective, he bases himself on the Pentateuch as we now have
it. In his opinion, it is first necessary to trace the theology of the redaction
before we can say anything about the theology of the sources upon which the
redaction was based. In dialogue with Rendtorff (cf. infra), Schmitt is inclined
to align himself with the latters vision of a redaction of the Pentateuch that
is akin to the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. Nevertheless, he is also intent on
taking the insights of the classical Documentary Hypothesis into account, in

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
uvre concurrente qui a pour but douvrir, nouveau, des possibilits pour une activit
positive de lhomme devant Dieu; car une thologie du sola gratia court le risque de
favoriser linertie complte de lhomme. La nouvelle possibilit positive de lhomme, cest
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), 170189. The article in question is based on a lecture given in 1979 in Gttingen.
The springboard to Schmitts 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 in 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 130198.
Cf. also Idem, Die Hintergrunde der neuesten Pentateuchkritik und der literarische
Befund der Josephsgeschichte Gen. 3750, ZAW 97 (1985), 161179 and Idem, Die Suche
nach der Identitt des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel: Bemerkungen zur theolo-
gischen Intention der Endredaktion des Pentateuch, in: J. Mehlhausen (ed.), Pluralismus
und Identitt (Verffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fr Theologie,
8), Gtersloh 1995, 259278. See likewise H.-C. Schmitt, Der heidnische Mantiker als
eschatologischer Jahweprophet, in: I. Kottsieper et al. (eds), Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter
den Gttern? , 181198; H.-C. Schmitt, Eschatologie im Enneateuch Gen. 12 Kn 25:
Bedeutung und Funktion der Moselieder Dtn 32,143* und Ex. 15,121*, in: C. Diller
et al. (eds), Studien zu Psalmen und Propheten (Herders Biblische Studien/Herders
Biblical Studies, 64), Freiburg 2010, 131149.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 199

which scholars have endeavoured to distinguish three central theological pro-


files: the Yahwistic, the Elohistic and the Priestly one.101
Schmitt takes the narrative of the exodus (Exod. 114) as his point of
departure. The first part of this textual complex is constituted by Exod. 14,
whereby particular emphasis is placed on the faith of the people in Exod. 4:31
(-) . Schmitt thus discerns a narrative tension in Exod. 14, which deals
with affliction, promise and faith. He finds the same narrative tension in Exod.
514, where the faith of the people (- ) is underlined in Exod. 14:31. The
miraculous signs likewise have a crucial role to play here. Accounting for all
these elements, it would appear that Exod. 114 exhibits important points of
comparison with Isa. 7:117*. Both instances refer to a sign as confirmation
of a proclaimed word. Schmitt claims that this theme can also be demonstrated
in the event on Sinai (Exod. 19:9a),102 in the wilderness tradition (Num. 14:11b;
20:12),103 and in the patriarchal narratives (Gen. 15:6), whereby the repeated
terminus technicus - is particularly conspicuous.104 Similarities with
the prophetic literature are also to be found here, namely with Isa. 61:6 and
Ezek. 20. According to Schmitt, this reveals tracesat least with respect to
Exod. 114of a post-exilic prophetic redaction of a Priestly narrative.105

101 Schmitt, Redaktion des Pentateuch, 173174.


102 According to Schmitt, Redaktion des Pentateuch, 177, Exod. 19:9a is part of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic passage Exod. 19:3b-8. On Exod. 19, see H.-C. Schmitt, Das Gesetz
aber ist neben eingekommen. Sptdeuteronomistische nachpriesterschriftliche
Redaktion und ihre vorexilische Vorlage in Ex. 1920, in: R. Achenbach, M. Arneth (eds),
Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu ben (Gen. 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen
Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur ReligionssoziologieFestschrift
fr Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag (BZABR, 13), Wiesbaden, 2009, 155170.
103 On the basis of Num. 20:12, Schmitt, Redaktion des Pentateuch, 179180 postulates that
the redaction responsible for the theme of the faith of the people is best situated dur-
ing the Babylonian exile. The same passage, moreover, which deals with the unbelief of
Moses and Aaron, exhibits close affinity with the Priestly layer of the Pentateuch, ber
deren Existenz und ber deren exilisch-nachexilische Entstehungszeit zum Glck noch
weitgehender Konsens besteht.
104 In Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW, 147), Berlin 1977, p. 155
R. Rendtorff argues that the theme of faith only plays a structuring role in Exod. 114(15).
Some years later, however, Rendtorff associated the said theme with the wider context
of Gen. 15:6 to 2 Kgs 17:14Idem, Genesis 15 im Rahmen der theologischen Bearbeitung
der Vtergeschichten, in: R. Albertz et al. (eds), Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments:
Festschrift fr Claus Westermann zum 70. Geburtstag, Gttingen 1980, 7481, esp. 8081.
105 Schmitt sketched the unique character of the prophetic final redaction of the Priestly
narrative in his article Priesterliches und prophetisches Geschichtsverstndnis in der
Meerwundererzhlung Ex. 13,1714,31: Beobachtungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch,
200 Chapter 4

In the final part of his programmatic article, Schmitt endeavours to deter-


mine the extent of this prophetic redaction. In the context of a study of
Exod. 34, he reacts to H.H. Schmid who is intent on ascribing Exod. 34* to
a Yahwist associated with the Deuteronom(ist)ic movement on account of its
presentation of Moses as a prophet. According to Schmitt, insufficient atten-
tion is paid in this regard to the presentation of Moses as a charismatic leader,
an image that is also to be found in Exod. 3. It is at this juncture that Schmitt

in: A.H.J. Gunneweg, O. Kaiser (eds), Textgemss: Aufstze und Beitrge zur Hermeneutik
des Alten TestamentsFestschrift fr Ernst Wrthwein zum 70. Geburtstag, Gttingen 1979,
139155. He sets out here in the first instance to make a redaction-critical study of the
Sea Narrative in Exod. 13:1714:31, 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; 14:14, 8, 9ab, 10*, 1518,
21ab, 22, 23, 26, 27a, 28, 29). Here he discerns a carefully considered theological purpose
that comes to light throughout the texts 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. Humanitys 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. 7:213, Schmitt
is inclined to associate the narrative in Exod. 17:816* 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 Lehrerzhlung was then given its present place in the final redaction of the
Pentateuch. See H.-C. Schmitt, Die Geschichte vom Sieg ber die Amalekieter: Ex. 17,816
als theologische Lehrerzhlung, ZAW 102 (1990), 335344, esp. 344 n. 44; see further Idem,
Tradition der Prophetenbcher in den Schichten der Plagenerzhlung Ex. 7,111,10, in
V. Fritz et al. (eds), Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift fr Otto Kaiser zum 65.
Geburtstag (BZAW, 185), Berlin 1989, 196216.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 201

returns to the classical Documentary Hypothesis. In his opinion it is accept-


able to make a distinction between a Yahwist and an Elohist layer, whereby the
former uses the divine name yhwh and presents Moses as a prophet, and
the latter Elohist layer in which Moses emerges as a charismatic leader.106
Schmitt offers a further clarification of the character of the said layers on
basis of a brief discussion of Exod. 3:115. In his opinion, Exod. 3:2a, 4a, 5 are
to be ascribed to a Yahwist reworking of the Elohist narrative of Exod. 3:115*,
which is intent on underlining the greatness of God. Schmitt thus comes to
a conclusion similar to that of Winnett and Van Seters: a late Yahwist layer
redacted an Elohist layer, whereby the theme of the promise acquired par-
ticular emphasis.107 As a result, Schmitt accounts not only for a post-Priestly
prophetic redaction in which the theme of the promise is emphasised, he is
also obliged to account for a Yahwist prophetic redaction of Elohist material,
perhaps to be identified with the post-Priestly prophetic redaction.108 Each
of the three layers Schmitt distinguishes offers its own theological perspec-
tive. In the Elohist layer, Moses emerges as a charismatic leader, while in the
Priestly work he is considered an intermediary between God and the people.
The Yahwistic prophetic redaction(s) set(s) out to reconcile both presenta-
tions with one another.
Schmitt further elaborates his hypothesis concerning the origins of the
Pentateuch in further studies. He considers the late Deuteronomistic layer
that connected the Tetrateuch and the Deuteronomistic History as a redaction
that presupposed the Priestly material as well as the late Priestly additions.
According to Schmitt we here encounter die letzte umfassende Bearbeitung
des Pentateuch und auch des Enneateuch (...), die im wesentlichen die vor-
liegende Gestalt von Gen. i2 Reg. xxv geschaffen hat.109 As such, he aligns

106 On the specificity of Elohistic theology, cf. H.-C. Schmitt, Die Erzhlung von der
Versuchung Abrahams: Gen. 22,119* und das Problem einer Theologie der elohistischen
Pentateuchtexte, BN 34 (1986), 82109.
107 In 1985, Schmitt no longer accounted for a post-Priestly DeuteronomistSchmitt, Die
Hintergrunde der neuesten Pentateuchkritik, 171.
108 Cf. Schmitt, Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie, 186187; Schmitt, Die
nichtpriesterliche Josephsgeschichte, 177.
109 H.-C. Schmitt, Das sptdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk Gen. i2 Regum xxv und
seine theologische Intention, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Cambridge 1995
(SVT, 66), Leiden 1997, 261279. See in addition H.-C. Schmitt, Die Josephsgeschichte und
das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. Genesis 38 und 4850, in: Vervenne, Lust (eds),
Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, 391405; H.-C. Schmitt, Die Erzhlung vom
Goldenen Kalb Ex. 32* und das Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, in: S.L. McKenzie
et al. (eds), Rethinking the Foundations, 235250; H.-C. Schmitt, Theologie in Prophetie
202 Chapter 4

himself with the hypothesis formulated by Cornelius Houtman at the begin-


ning of the 1980s. Indeed, this idea of a post-Deuteronomistic post-Priestly
redaction within the Pentateuch has gained more and more ground since the
end of the last century.
One can observe in the margins of the work of those scholars who favour
a late dating for the Yahwist and point in support thereof to similarities with
the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature that they do not tend to engage in an explo-
ration of the forerunners of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature as initiated by
Brekelmans and Lohfink.110 This is all the more apparent when one bears in
mind that all of the aforementioned authors provide relatively tentative stud-
ies in which no conclusive research is offered on the relationship they claim
to exist between the late Yahwist and the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature. In the
following pages we will focus attention on authors who distance themselves
radically from the Documentary Hypothesis within the framework of the
Deuteronom(ist)ic problem.

1.2 GenesisNumbers as the Result of a Post-Deuteronomistic Redaction


In the following pages I plan to explore a number of approaches to the gen-
esis and evolution of the Pentateuch in so far as they are important for the

und Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften (BZAW, 310), Berlin 2001; Idem, Das sogenannte
jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex. 34,1028 als Komposition der sptdeuteronomistischen
Endredaktion des Pentateuch, in: Gertz et al. (eds) Abschied vom Jahwisten, 157171;
H.-C. Schmitt, Dtn 34 als Verbindungsstck zwischen Tetrateuch und Deuteronomist
ischem Geschichtswerk, in: E. Otto, R. Achenbach (eds), Das Deuteronomium zwischen
Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 206), Gttingen 2004,
181192; Schmitt, Das Gesetz aber ist neben eingekommen, 155170; H.-C. Schmitt,
Erzvtergeschichte und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende Ursprungslegenden Israels:
Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchforschung, in A.C. Hagedorn, H. Pfeiffer (eds), Die Erzvter in
der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift fr Matthias Kckert (BZAW, 400), Berlin 2009, 241266.
110 C. Levin, Der Jahwist (FRLANT, 157), Gttingen 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 fr
den Jahwekult kennt und bewut ablehnt. (...) Das bewute Eintreten fr die Verehrung
Jahwes an beliebiger Sttte ist besonders daran als antideuteronomisch zu erkennen,
da es sich mit der nachtrglichen antideuteronomischen Rahmung des Bundesbuches
sachlich und sprachlich aufs engst berhrt (430431). He maintains at the same time that
the Yahwistic work is pre-Deuteronomistic as well as pre-Deutero-Isaian (432433). See
also C. Levin, The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch, JBL 126 (2007), 209230.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 203

Deuteronom(ist)ic problem, namely the work of Rolf Rendtorff, Erhard Blum,


R. Norman Whybray and William Johnstone. I am particularly interesting
in providing a picture of the general framework sketched by these scholars
with respect to the development of the Pentateuch, in which context the
Deuteronomistic problem was ascribed an important role. With the exception
of Rendtorff, each of the authors in question ascribes a significant share in the
materialisation of the Tetrateuch to an author or redaction that is to be dated
later than DtrG.

1.2.1 Rolf Rendtorff and the Heidelberg school


In a programmatic article from 1975, Rendtorff presented his own vision on
the genesis and composition of the Pentateuch. The point of departure of
his study is formed by a number of observations on the impossibility of the
classical Documentary Hypothesis.111 To this end, he aligned himself with
the work of Gerhard von Rad, who had understood the growth of the Hexateuch
as a large-scale composition in which smaller, originally independent tradition
complexes were brought together to form a unity with a well thought-out theo-
logical purpose.112 Von Rad ascribed this composition to the Yahwist against
the background of the Documentary Hypothesis. According to Rendtorff,
however, Von Rads Yahwist has little in common with the Yahwist of the
Documentary Hypothesis. According to Rendtorff, moreover, the presentation
of Von Rad is irreconcilable with that of the Documentary Hypothesis.113 In
line with Von Rad, Noth focussed his interest in the Yahwist as theologian.114

111 R. Rendtorff, Der Jahwist als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik, in:
Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974 (SVT, 28), Leiden 1975, 158166see also Idem, The
Yahwist as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism, JSOT 3 (1977), 210. Cf.
also Rendtorffs valedictory address at the theology faculty of the Universty of Heidelberg
on July 19th 1990: Idem, Nach vierzig Jahren: Vier Jahrzehnte selbsterlebte alttesta
mentliche Wissenschaftin Heidelberg und anderswo, in Idem, Kanon und Theologie:
Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991, 2939, esp.
3637. 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, berlieferungsgeschichte. According to Noth, the theological concern of the Yahwist
comes mainly to the fore at the beginning of the Yahwistic work, namely in Gen. 12:13. In
the remainder of his work hat er sich dann fast ausschlielich an das berkommene Gut
der Pentateucherzhlung gehalten, ohne ndernd 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 Yahwists work. In Rendtorffs understanding, it
is here that the dilemma of Pentateuch studies raises its head. Two sorts of
questionto be located at completely different levelshad 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 gengte ihm, im Eingang eindeutig gesagt zu haben, wie er alles weitere
verstanden wissen wollteNoth, berlieferungsgeschichte, 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 Vterberlieferung ist offenbar ganz
anderer Art als die der Mose-und Exodustradition, diese ist wiederum anders als die
der Sinaiberlieferung und der Traditionen von Israel in der Wste. Wir mssen uns
deshalb diesen einzelnen Traditionskomplexen zuwendenRendtorff, 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, Rendtorffs proposal has no room for a Yahwist whose theologi-
cal ideas are discernible throughout the Pentateuch.
Rendtorff details his hypothesis in his Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche
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 berlieferungsgeschichte, 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
berlieferungsgeschichtliche approach to the Pentateuch can only uphold

116 Rendtorff, Der Jahwist als Theologe?, 165: thus zeigt sich ganz eindeutig, da die
Verheiungsreden ein Element der planmigen theologischen Bearbeitung der
Vtergeschichten sindund zwar einerseits zu Gliederung und Rahmung jeder
einzelnen Vtergeschichte, andererseits aber auch zur Zusammenfassung aller drei
Vtergeschichten unter einem bergreifenden 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 berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem. For a concise presentation of
Rendtorffs standpoint, reference can be made to his introduction to the Old Testament:
Idem, Das Alte Testament: Eine Einfhrung, Neukirchen 1983, 170173. See also L. Zaman,
R. Rendtorff en zijn Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch: Schets van
een Maccaber binnen de hedendaagse Pentateuchexegese (unpublished Masters thesis
Universitaire Faculteit voor Protestantse Godgeleerdheid), Brussel 1984; Nicholson, The
Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century, 95131.
206 Chapter 4

the traditional Documentary Hypothesis if it turns out that four separate


and independent documents once actually existed. In his opinion, this is not
the case. Rendtorff argues to the contrary that the Pentateuch consists of a
number of independent and self-contained units that have been placed side
by side and linked together with a few redactional notes rather than strong
lines of connection.119 By way of example, Rendtorff explores the narratives
concerning the patriarchs in Gen. 1250.120 The texts in question, he observes,
are related via the theme of the promise. The emphasis on the promise, how-
ever, is absent outside this complex. Exodus, for example, makes no reference
to the promises to the patriarchs. The passages in Exodus and Numbers in
which a connection is established with Genesis, however, belong to a differ-
ent berlieferungsgeschichtlich level. They are part of a Bearbeitungsschicht
that set out to connect the different tradition complexes to one another. The
passages concerning yhwhs vow to the fathers in relation to the promise of
the land are of particular importance in this regard (Gen. 22:16; 24:7; 26:3; 50:24;
Exod. 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:13a; Num. 11:1115; 14:23; 32:11).121 According to Rendtorff,
this Bearbeitungsschicht exhibits clear Deuteronomic characteristics.122

119 As texts that can be read as independent units, Rendtorff mentions the primeval history
(Gen. 111), the narratives concerning the patriarchs (Gen. 1250), the narratives concern-
ing Moses and the exodus (Exod. 115), the Sinai pericope (Exod. 1924), the narratives
concerning the period in the wilderness (Exod. 1618; Num. 1120) and the narratives con-
cerning the occupation of the land in Numbers.
120 In a similar fashion, Frank Crsemann explores the pre-Priestly narrative of the primeval
history in Gen. 111. Crsemann 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. 12:13: F. Crsemann, Die
Eigenstndigkeit der Urgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den Jahwisten, in:
J. Jeremias, L. Perlitt (eds), Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift fr Hans Walter Wolff
zum 70. Geburtstag, Neukirchen 1981, 1129.
121 Cf. also Rendtorffs study Genesis 15 im Rahmen der theologische Bearbeitung der
Vtergeschichten, 7481, in which he suggests that Gen. 15 functions in its entirety as a
means of connecting with old narratives.
122 Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 79: Die Bearbeitungsschicht, von
der hier die Rede ist, pflegt man als deuteronomistisch oder neuerdings auch als frh-
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, da diese Bearbeitung die vorliegenden Texte im
wesentlichen unverndert gelassen und ihre interpretierende Zustze an bestimmten
Stellen eingefgt 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. 1250 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. 111.
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 Joshua2 Kings

123 Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 86112.


124 Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 112142.
125 Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 164.
126 R. Rendtorff, Covenant as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus, JBL 108 (1989),
385393 refers, for example, to the as a connecting concept between Gen. 111 and
Exod. 1924.
127 Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 165: Ich habe diese Texte als deute
ronomisch geprgt bezeichnet, um eine vorzeitige Festlegung zu vermeiden, wie sie etwa
in dem Begriff deuteronomistisch liegen knnte. Ich habe schon auf die Diskussion ber
die Frage hingewiesen, ob man hier eher von frhdeuteronomisch oder protodeute
ronomisch reden sollte; allerdings lge auch darin wieder eine bestimmte Festlegung, die
man besser zunchst vermeiden sollte. Diese Texte enthalten nmlich keineswegs ein-
fach gngige deuteronomische oder deuteronomistische Aussagen. (...) Es wre deshalb
methodisch nicht zulssig, diese Gruppe von Texten mit anderen deuteronomistischen
Texten innerhalb der ersten vier Bcher des Pentateuch einfach zu einer deuteronomis-
tischen Redaktionsschicht zusammenzufassen, ohne die Zusammengehrigkeit nher
zu berprfen und zu begrnden. (...) Diese Mglichkeit ist zwar keineswegs auszu
schlieen, bedarf aber sorgfltiger Prfung. Dies ist auch deshalb notwendig, weil die
Kriterien dafr, was als deuteronomistisch zu gelten hat bzw. wie in diesem Bereich zu dif-
ferenzieren ist, noch keineswegs hinreichend geklrt sind. (italics H.A.).
208 Chapter 4

still remains unclear.128 Nevertheless, Rendtorffs scholarly influence has been


enormous and he can rightly be designated the founder of the Heidelberg
school in matters of Pentateuchresearch.129

128 Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 167168 maintains nevertheless da


zunchst der Pentateuch ohne das Deuteronomium als selbstndige Gre existierte,
bevor er in einem spteren Akt der Redaktion mit dem Deuteronomium und damit wom-
glich mit dem deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk verbunden wurde. In his Das Alte
Testament: Eine Einfhrung, 173, Rendtorff offers a potential, albeit vague formulated solu-
tion: Die deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Kreise, die an der Gestaltung der folgen-
den Bcher [i.e. Joshua to 2 KingsH.A.] mageblich beteiligt waren, haben auch den
Aufri des Pentateuch wesentlich mitgestaltet. Hier wie dort haben sie ltere berliefe
rungen unterschiedlicher Art theologisch bearbeitet und interpretiert. Der bergang
vom Pentateuch zu den folgenden Bchern bedeutete fr ihre Arbeit zunchst keinen
grundstzlichen Einschnitt.
In The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, Part 1: The Literary Formation of Genesis and
Exodus 123 (JSOT SS, 55), Sheffield 1987, Thomas L. Thompson concurs with Rendtorffs
thesis concerning the formation of Genesis and Exod. 123 from smaller units. Based on
a number of smaller narrative units, he maintains, five complex-chain-narratives were
composed (namely those concerning Abraham, Jacob-Esau, Joseph, the exodus and
Pesach, and the laws). These were then combined via the toledot formula and the interpo-
lation of a variety of other material to form the narrative as we now know it. Thompson is
extremely cautious concerning the dating of this sequence of stages in the development
of the text. He insists that the original smaller units have to be examined individually. In
his opinion, the complex-chain-narratives presuppose the existence of Israel as a people.
The final redaction should be located between the end of the 7th century and the middle
of the 6th century bce. The traditions used by the final redaction of the Pentateuch, such
as the complex-chain-narratives for example, are not necessarily much older than the
final redaction itself.
129 Cf. T. Rmer, Lcole de Heidelberg a 15 ans ...: A propos de deux ouvrages sur une nouvelle
approche de la formation du Pentateuque, TR 67 (1992), 7781. While Rendtorff ascribes
the passages concerning the promises of yhwh to the patriarchs to a Deuteronomically
tinted redactional layer, S. Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation
of the Pentateuch (BZAW, 205), Berlin 1992 focuses on the passages that formulate the
promise of land to the patriarchs on the basis of the term and that are closely asso-
ciated with the Deuteronom(ist)ic problem. Her research explores Gen. 50:24; Exod. 13:5,
11; 32:13; 33:1; Num. 11:12; 14:23; 32:11. Each of these texts speak of Gods promise of land to
the patriarchs using exactly the same language. The said theme only occurs outside of
GenesisNumbers in Deuteronomy and in those segments of Jeremiah characterised as
Deuteronomistic: This distribution indicates that it was not a common expression used
universally in Israel but was peculiar to more narrowly defined circles of thought that can
be designated as a Dtr school (37). She concludes that Exod. 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1 and Num.
14:23 should be characterised as pre-Deuteronom(ist)ic. Num. 32:11, by contrast, is later
than the latest layer in Deut. 910 and is as a result post-Deuteronomistic. Cf. also Idem,
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 209

1.2.2 The D-Komposition of Erhard Blum


A student of Rendtorff, Erhard Blumcharacterised by Ska as un nouveau
Wellhausen130was to give significant impetus to research into the origins
and composition of the Pentateuch. In the first part of his 1984 Die Komposition
der Vtergeschichte, he explores the Jacob tradition.131 The oldest elements of
the said tradition consist of a number of sagas, of which both passages con-
cerning the conflict between Jacob and Esau (Gen. 25:2934; 27), the legend
of Bethel (Gen. 28:1113a, 1619) and the account of the agreement between
Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:46, 51, 53*) were probably originally independent
narratives. Blum also discernskompositionsgeschichtlicha Jacob-Esau-
Laban tradition,132 which cannot be located prior to the subjection of Edom
by David on account of Gen. 27:29.40a.133 The narrative in question underwent
further development and thus gave rise to the Jacob narrative (Gen. 25:1934;
2733*). The narrative then evolved via a Kompositionsschicht, which is bet-
ter ascribed to a narrator than to a reworker, into a programme declaration
stemming from the period of Jeroboam I and serving the political consolidation
of the Northern Kingdom.134 Still during the period of the Northern Kingdom,
Gen. 2550* then emerged via the interpolation of the originally independent
Joseph narrative from the 8th century bce.135 During the reign of Josiah, to

The Importance of a Diachronic Approach: The Case of GenesisKings, CBQ 51 (1989),


195208. See also J.S. Baden, The Promise to the Patriarchs, Osford 2013.
130 J.L. Ska, Un nouveau Wellhausen?, Bib 72 (1991), 253263. About the work of Blum,
see, moreover, D.J. Wynn-Williams, The State of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the
Approaches of M. Noth and E. Blum (BZAW, 249), Berlin 1997.
131 E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vtergeschichte (WMANT, 57), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984.
See, more recently, E. Blum, The Jacob Tradition, in: C.A. Evans et al. (eds), The Book of
Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (SVT, 152), Leiden 2012, 181211. For a
collection of some of Blums most important contributions, see E. Blum, Textgestalt und
Komposition: Exegetische Beitrge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten (FAT, 69), Tbingen 2010.
132 One can probably also account for an independent tradition concerning Jacob and Esau
from the period of the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom (Blum, Die Komposition, 202).
133 Blum, Die Komposition, 70.
134 This Kompositionsschicht is to be found in Gen. 28:2022*; 29:24, 29 (30), 31; (25); 31:116*,
24, 29b, 33, 3844*; 32:2b33:17. The narrator responsible for this Kompositionsschicht
deals with the material he had at his disposal in an extremely varied manner. Here and
there he adds a narrative (Gen. 28) and elsewhere he expands the material passed on to
him or corrects it. In some instances he also gives an entirely new account of certain nar-
ratives (Gen. 3233)Blum, Die Komposition, 171; 180; 203.
135 Blum, Die Komposition, 204263.
210 Chapter 4

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. 13:1417 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 (Vtergeschichte 1).
During the time of the exile, a second version of these narratives emerged
that was framed by four divine addresses (Gen. 12:13; 26:23*; 31:13b; 46:34*)
thereby leading to the inclusion of the passages Gen. 12:69*; 12:1020; 16*;
21:821; 22*; 26 in the inclusive composition Gen. 1250*. Blum desig-
nates the composition that resulted from this process with the siglum Vg2
(Vtergeschichte 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; 22:1518, 2024; 24; 26:3b-5, 24; 28:15, 21b;
31:3; 32:1013; 33:19; 34:9, 3031; 35:15; 48:21; 50:2425 to the DBearbeitung,138
which he dates in the post-exilic period.139 Firstly, it presupposes the

136 Gen. 34*; 35:21, 22a; 38; 49*.


137 Blum, Die Komposition, 361. It should be noted that Rendtorff was more careful to a cer-
tain extent with respect to the characterisation of these passages as Deuteronomistic.
138 For Gen. 12:7: see Blum, Die Komposition, 383; for Gen. 15: see 366371; 377382; for
Gen. 16:10: see 365; for Gen. 22:1518, 2024: see 363365; 388389; for Gen. 24: see 383
389; for Gen. 26:3b-5, 24: see 362365; for Gen. 28:15, 21b: see 90; 158164; for Gen. 31:3: see
158164; for Gen. 32:1013: see 154158; for Gen. 33:19: see 4445; for Gen. 34:9, 3031: see
217222; for Gen. 35:15: see 3945; 218; for Gen. 48:21: see 257; for Gen. 50:2425: see 45;
255257. D.M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches,
Louisville, KY 1996, was later to see Gen. 9:18b, 22a*, 2527*; 10:1618a; 14:115:21; 18:1718,
19, 22b-33; 22:1518; 26:3b-5; 28:18(?), 21b; 32:1013; 35:2*, 4a*(?); 50:2425 as pre-Priestly
semi-Deuteronomistic additions to Genesis (158), to a degree in line with Blum.
139 On the lack of Deuteronomistic elements in the book of Genesis, see recently
D.V. Edelman et al., Opening the Books of Moses, Sheffield, 2012, 4647: The new model
that regards the Pentateuch as a combination of D and P texts is problematic in regard
to the book of Genesis, a book that can hardly be considered as having been edited by
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 211

exilic patriarchal narratives (Vg2). Secondly, the analysis of Gen. 24, for
example, reveals the post-exilic concerns of the DBearbeitung.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 DBearbeitung.144

Deuteronomistic scribes. The patriarchal narrative contains almost no Deuteronomistic


stylistic markers or Deuteronomistic theology (election, segregation, military land prom-
ises) and offers a very different account of Israels origin and relation to the land than the
exodus tradition.
140 For example, the post-exilic problem of mixed marriages. While the ban on exogamy
probably has its roots in the Deuteronom(ist)ic tradition, it was only rigorously applied
in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 910; Neh. 9:2; 10:31; 13:23)Blum, Die
Komposition, 387.
141 Blum, Die Komposition, 4561; 371372; 396399 points, for example, to connections
between Gen. 35:15 and Josh. 24, between Gen. 33:19; 50:25 and Exod. 13:19 and Josh. 24:32.
For the theme of yhwhs vow to the patriarchs, Blum also refers to parallels between Gen.
26:4; 24:7; 50:24 and Exod. 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1; Num. 11:12; 14:16, 23; 32:11; Deut. 9:28; 19:8;
27:3 et al.; Josh. 1:6; 5:6; 21:4344. Furthermore, Blum accentuates the cohesion between
Gen. 22:15 and Exod. 32:13 and points to lines of connection running from Exod. 32:914
to Num. 14:1124; 32:11; Deut. 1:35; Josh. 14:615. In addition, the formula - connects
Num. 14:11 and Gen. 15:6; Exod. 4:31; 14:31, as well as 2 Kgs 17:14. On the character of these
D elements Blum says the following: Diese wenigen Hinweise zielen nun selbstverstn-
dlich nicht darauf, die genannten Belege unversehens einer dtr Redaktion von Genesis bis
2Knige zuzuweisen (399).
142 Blum, Die Komposition, 65 argues, for example that Gen. 33:19; 35:1; 50:25; Exod. 13:19 are
part of einer D-Bearbeitungsschicht, deren kompositioneller Bogen erst in Josh. 24 zu
einem Abschlu gelangt. Blum sees the berlieferungsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang
between the D-Bearbeitung and the Deuteronomistic History as the subject for further
study (399).
143 Blum, Die Komposition, 400419. The passages in questionGen. 18:1719, 22b32; 20;
21:2224, 27, 34setzen (...) die groe deuteronomistische Traditionsbildung schon
voraus, verraten ihr gegenber gleichwohl eigenstndige Interessen (vgl. vor allem die
Einstellung gegenber den Vlkern) (419).
144 Blum uses the term P(riestly) as Bezeichnung der Redaktions- und Traditionsarbeit einer
priesterlichen Schule, fr deren Komplexitt es wohl Anzeichen gibt, ohne da hier aber
der Charakter dieser Komplexitt nachgezeichnet werden knnte (Blum, Die Komposition,
451). For his arguments concerning P continuing to build on the D-Bearbeitung, see
452 n. 30.
212 Chapter 4

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 ExodusNumbers 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. 114(15), observ-
ing that the narrative of the call of Moses (Exod. 3:14:18) does not fit in the con-
text. The same is true, he argues, for Exod. 11:13. Both passages are reminiscent
of the language and theology of the Deuteronom(ist)ic tradition. According to
Blum, Exod. 1:6, 8; 4:3031; 5:226:1; 12:2127; 13:5, 616; 14:1314, 3031 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. 1924; 3234)146 in texts such as Exod. 19:3b-8; 20:22; 24:38, 1215a, 18b;
32:714; 33:1, 5, 11, 13, 16, 17; 34:9, 10.147 In his analysis of Exod. 3334, 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*; 14:1125,149 as well as in Deut. 31:1415, 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 Blums research into the Sinai event: E. Blum,
Isral la montagne de Dieu: Remarques sur Ex. 1924; 3234 et sur le contexte littraire
et historique de sa composition, in: De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en question,
pp. 271295.
147 For Exod. 19:3b-8: see Blum, Studien, 9899; 169172; for Exod. 20:22: see 9597; for
Exod. 24*: see 8999; for Exod. 3234*: see 6364; 7375; 98; 181188.
148 Blums Kd is almost exactly accepted by R. Albertz, Exodus 118 (ZBK, 2/1), Zrich 2012, 23,
who accepts a spt-deuteronomistische Bearbeitung (D).
149 For Num. 11: see Blum, Studien, 8283; for Num. 12: see 8485; for Num. 14:1125: see 74.
150 From a kompositionsgeschichtlich perspective, Deut. 31:1415, 23; 34:10 are of excep-
tional importance in Blums presentation. Deut. 31:1415, 23 links die (bislang) in Exodus
und Numeri ausgemachte Komposition mit dem Ende des Deuteronomiums (Blum,
Studien, 8788). Deut. 34:10 is ein Element, mit dem die Kompositionsschicht an hchst
exponierender Stelle und in profielierendem Kontrast zu Dtn 18,18 ihr Verstndnis
von Moses Bedeutung als berprophet formuliert. Kompositionell wird damit die
Verklammerung mit dem Deuteronomium (bzw. DtrG) verstrkt und zugleich ein
Abschlu markiert: Das Tora-buch Moses klingt mit einem neuen krftigen 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 promisesformulated as oathsconcerning the gift of the land and
numerous descendents. In his 1984 monograph, he ascribed Gen. 22:1518;
24:7; 26:3b-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/miracleseeingIsrael believing/fearing, which is evi-
dent in Gen. 15:6; Exod. 4:19, 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. 3334*;
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. 111 are not included as part of the composition.153 Blum argues, in addi-
tion, that there are no lines of connection discernible between Gen. 111 and
Gen. 12. Furthermore, no elements can be pointed to in Gen. 111with a few
exceptionsthat 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 Joshua2 Kings. In Blums 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, 102107.
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), Tbingen 2011, 289301, esp. 298.
153 Blum, Studien, 359.
154 Blum, Studien, 108. Cf. also Crsemann, Die Eigenstndigkeit der Urgeschichte, 1129,
who considered the non-Priestly primeval history in Gen. 111 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 mutmaliche Ende eines selbstndigen Werkes (...).
Vielmehr hatte sich bei Dtn 31,14f.23; 34,10 ergeben (...) da diese Kd-Komponenten als
unselbstndige Ergnzungen in einen vorgegebenen Zusammenhang eingebettet sind,
214 Chapter 4

chapters of Deuteronomy. Blum is convinced, in any case, that Deuteronomy


came into existence independently of Kd, and he finds evidence of this in the
absence of Rckverweise in Deuteronomy that refer to the DKomposition.156
Up to this point, Blum had only made vague allusions to the Deuteronomistic
character of the passages in question,157 speaking in the first instance of the
kinship between the Komposition and the Deuterono m(ist)ic literature
without further reference to the significance of the said kinship.158 In this
context, Blum entered into debate with scholars who maintain that a consid-
erable amount of the material in GenesisNumbers is proto-Deuteronomic.
In his opinion, it is beyond question that the passages he characterises kom-
positionsgeschichtlich as Kd cannot simply be identified with the style of
the Deuteronomistic History. Nevertheless, he does not consider it advis-
able to thus conclude that these pericopes should be characterised as proto-
Deuteronomic.159 According to Blum, analysis of the language and styleand

nherhin in den Zusammenhang des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes (im Sinne


von M. Noth).
156 Blum, Studien, 172176.
157 With respect to Exod. 14:1314, 3031, see Blum, Studien, 3031. Blum associates Exod. 3
with the deuteronomisch/deuterono mistischer Sprach- und Vorstellungswelt (32).
Based on this relationship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature, Blum concludes: Ent
sprechend der durchgehenden Nhe der Kompositionsschicht zur deuteronomischen
bzw. deuteronomistischen Traditionsbildung sprechen wir im folgenden (...) von der
D-Komposition (Kd) (36).
158 Blum, Studien, 164165.
159 Blum comes to this conclusion on the basis of a study of Exod. 12:2427a; 13:316; 19:3b-6
(Blum, Studien, 166172). His objections to the hypothesis of a proto-Deuteronomic
redaction of GenesisNumbers are for the most part methodological. In his opinion,
expressions characterised by scholars such as Lohfink, Plger, Caloz and Reichert as
proto-Deuteronomic are not Deuteronom(ist)ic in the fullest sense. Blum accuses these
authors of basing themselves on the presuposition of a linear development from simple
to complex and from succinct to detailed. At the same time he finds it methodologically
incorrect for supporters of a proto-Deuteronomic redaction to focus exclusive atten-
tion on the similarities and differences between passages from GenesisNumbers and
Deuteronomy without involving the Deuteronomistic History or the (post-)exilic pro-
phetic literature in the analysis.
On Blums objections to the hypothesis of proto-Deuteronomic elements in Genesis
Numbers, see also Blum, Die Komposition, 374375. For some critical observation in
this regard, see M. Vervenne, The Question of Deuteronomic Elements in Genesis to
Numbers, in: F. Garca Martnez et al. (eds), Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C.J.
Labuschagne on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (SVT, 53), Leiden 1994, 243268, esp.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 215

kinship with the (post-)exilic prophetic literaturereveals that the pericopes


that belong kompositionsgeschichtlich to Kd can be characterised as post-
Deuteronomistic. Within the framework of the Deuteronomistic features of
the passages Blum ascribes to the D-Komposition, the relationship between
Kd and Deuteronomy calls for closer analysis. According to Blum, this relation-
ship is particularly complex, especially with regard to the traditions that have
been transmitted in parallel such as Deut. 1,1946 and Num. 114; Deut. 45
and Exod. 20; Deut. 9:710:11 and Exod. 3234. We shall explore the relationship
here between Deut. 45 and Exod. 20 by way of example. The Deuteronomy
pericope appears to provide an interpretation of the Exodus narrative in this
instance. At the same time, however, Exodus would appear to hark back to
Deuteronomy. According to Blum, this mutual relationship explains one of the
essential characteristics of Kd. Both Deut. 45 as Kd in Exod. 20 build further
on an older, pre-Deuteronomic tradition. Deut. 45 represents a free adapta-
tion of this tradition, while Kd is more rigidly attached thereto, although it was
influenced at the same time by the version of Deut. 45.160
At the end of his study on the pre-Priestly D-Komposition, Blum sets out
to explore the origins and identity of this composition, which he maintains
is responsible for the realization of the Pentateuch.161 In his opinion, Kd is
best situated at the time of the first generation of those who returned from
exile.162 After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and the exile associ-
ated therewith, Kd wanted to demonstrate the foundation of Israels existence.
This consisted of the relationship between yhwh and his people. Although
the patriarchal narrativesin the form Kd incorporated themwere already
determined in essence by the promises of land and of abundant descendants,

253254; 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, 7185, esp. 8485. See also H. Ausloos, The Need
for Linguistic Criteria in Characterising Biblical Pericopes as Deuteronomistic. A Critical
Note to Erhard Blums Methodology, JNSL 23 (1997) 4756.
160 According to Blum, Studien, 178, we must thus account for die Mglichkeit komplexerer
wechselseitiger beziehungen.
161 Blum, Studien, 188207.
162 Blum, Studien, 164165 offers the following argumentation for this post-exilic dating. First,
the Deuteronomistic Historyto be dated, according to Blum, after 560 bceis 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

this dimension was not only extensively developed in Kd in the context of


a narrative (Gen. 15). Kd also developed the promise into a festal, self-obli-
gating vow on the part of yhwh (Gen. 15; 22:1518; 24:7; 26:3b5; 50:24). As
such, a foundation was established by yhwh himself upon which Israel could
advance, even in the most dreadful of crises. If Kd places such uncommon
emphasis on the promise to the patriarchs in Genesis, then it is striking that
the same Kd makes no reference to the said promise at the beginning of the
liberation from Egypt in Exodus. According to Blum, this exposes a second fun-
damental perspective of Kd on the relationship between yhwh and Israel.
Kd underlines, namely, that the liberation from Egypt had to do with yhwhs
concern for his people, which is distinct from the promise to the patriarchs.163
Moreover, and in like fashion to the Deuteronomistic History, Kd subordinates
the prophets in Num. 1112 to Moses and situates them in the latters wake.
Finally, Blum argues, the DKomposition sees itself as torah, which is evident
from the specific arrangement of laws and narrative segments.
In an appendix to the first part of his study, Blum discusses the relationship
between tradition and composition. For the patriarchal narratives, the mate-
rial Kd employed appears to be reasonably recognisable. For the exodus, Sinai
and wilderness traditions, Kd probably made use of a more or less coherent
Moses account, probably to be dated after 722 bce but containing older mate-
rial, which Blum considers to be discernible.164
In addition to Kd, Blum also accounts for a PKomposition or Kp.165 In
his opinion, however, the latter should be considered neither a redaction
nor a source,166 nor should it be identified with the final redaction of the

163 Blum, Studien, 190: Die Befreiung aus gypten wird eben nicht einfach abgeleitet aus der
vorlaufenden Verpflichtung Gottes, sondern betont als erneute Zuwendung jhwhs zu dem
bedrngten Israel (3,7ff.16) eingefhrt.
164 On the basis of his study of Exod. 4:2426, Blum thus proposes that this passage is part
of the Moses tradition: cf. E. Blum & R. Blum, Zippora und ihr ( Ex. 4,2426),
in: E. Blum et al. (eds), Die Hebrische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift
fr Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen 1990, 4154. Similarly to Blum, J. Jeon,
The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-critical Study in Exodus 34 and 513
(FAT, 60), Tbingen 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, 219360.
166 Blum, Studien, 222: M.E. handelt es sich bei den priesterlichen Texten aufs Ganze gesehen
um eine nicht-selbstndige Textschicht (...). Zugleich freilich will sich die eigentmliche
Geschlossenheit und Sperrigkeit zentraler priesterlicher Texte gegenber der vorgegebe
nen berlieferung (Kd) nicht in das bliche Bild einer Redaktion fgen. (...) Z.T.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 217

Pentateuch.167 Indeed, Blum situates the composition of the Pentateuch as we


now have it in the Persian period. The Persian Empire set out to establish a
single official version of the regional laws of each of its subject peoples. To
this end, the Deuteronomistic and Priestly circles were obliged to reach a
compromise,168 a compromise that was to serve as the foundation for the pres-
ent structure of the Pentateuch.169

erweisen sich die priesterlichen Texte eben als Bearbeitungen, die in Anlehnung an und
im Zusammenspiel mit der vor-priesterlichen berlieferung gedeutet werden wollen, z.T.
aber stehen sie distanziert, kontrastierend oder gar korrigierend neben der vorgegebenen
berlieferung, ohne mit dieser harmonisiert werden zu wollenund zwischen diesen
Mglichkeiten ist wiederum mit einer Reihe von Zwischentnen zu rechnen (italics
H.A.). Blum chooses to speak of a Komposition. In the present authors 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 Blums reluctance to use the term is completely
justified. Rmer, Lcole de Heidelberg, 80 represents Blums perspective as follows: Si KP
est bel et bien une rdaction par rapport KD, lcole sacerdotale a en mme temps utilis
des textes qui avaient t crits auparavant et des documents indpendants.
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
Prosaberlieferung, in E. Blum et al. (eds), Das Alte Testamentein Geschichtsbuch?
Beitrge des Symposiums Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne anlsslich
des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (19011971), Heidelberg, 18.21. Oktober 2001 (Altes
Testament und Moderne, 10), Mnster 2005, 6586.
168 Compare, however, with E. Otto, Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im
Buch Exodus, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReception
Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 61111.
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 Engnells
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, 261274. See
also Engnells articles The Tradition-Historical Method in Old Testament Research and
The Pentateuch in Y. Engnell, A Rigid Scrutiny, Nashville, TN 1969, 5067. For Engnells
standpoints in general, reference can be made to Methodological Aspects of Old
Testament Study, in Congress Volume. Oxford 1959 (SVT, 7), Leiden 1960, 1330.
218 Chapter 4

In the last analysis, Blum considers it impossible to speak of the final


redaction of the Pentateuch. Indeed, after the emergence of the P
Komposition, a variety of hands introduced changes to the text. Blum
thus recognises a variety of reworkings and additions that can be broadly
characterised as Priestly or Deuteronomistic170Blum speaks here of

170 Blum identifies a number of post-Priestly Deuteronomistic additions (Exod. 15:25b-


26[27]; 16:45, 2829; 18). He suggests, for example, with respect to Exod. 16: Sie [i.e. the
redactional verses 45, 2829H.A.] setzen unverkennbar die priesterliche Erzhlung als
Grundlage voraus, fhren diese aber in der Diktion und in der Motivik dtr berlieferung
weiter (Blum, Studien, 361). Blum also speaks of a Joshua 24-reworking. Thus Gen. 35:17
does not only constitute the prototypical representation of Josh. 24, both pericopes are
connected to one another via the theme of Josephs grave at Shechem (Gen. 33:19; 50:25b,
26; Exod. 13:19; Josh. 24:32). In contrast to Die Komposition der Vtergeschichte, Blum sees
this Joshua 24-reworking as eine Bearbeitung aus der deuteronomistischen Schule, der
nicht nur das DtrG und die D-Komposition im Pentateuch vorgegeben war, sondern (...)
auch die priesterliche Hauptkomposition im Pentateuch (Blum, Studien, 363365, esp.
364). He also speaks of a -reworking (Exod. 14:19a; 23:2033*; (32:34a); 33:2, 3b*, 4;
34:1127; Judg. 2:15), all the elements of which are mostly associated with the Deuterono
m(ist)ic problem. This -reworking presupposes both the Deuteronomistic History
and Kd, but it was unfamiliar with the Joshua 24-reworking and the Priestly elements in
Joshua, and probably also with Kp (365378). In line with Blum, also Albertz, Exodus 118,
24 accepts a Malak Redaktion. On the relationship between Deuteronom(ist)ic parts
in the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua, see H. Ausloos, The Book of Joshua, Exodus
23 and the Hexateuch, in: E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua (BETL, 250), Leuven 2012,
259266.
Blum concludes as follows: Wollen wir dennoch ein verallgemeinerndes Urteil ber
die Traditionsbildung nach den Hauptkompositionen wagen, dann dies, da die greren
Beitrge sozusagen den Bahnen von Kd bzw. Kp folgen: Neben den zur D-Familie
gehrenden Malak-Texten und der Jos-24-Bearbeitung stehen die Weiterfhrungen
der priesterlichen Hauptkomposition im Pentateuch und in Josua. Mit dem Befund der
D- und P-Kompositionen zusammengenommen ergibt sich daraus fr die nachexilische
Zeit das komplexe Bildin sich wohl differenzierterdeuteronomistischer und pries-
terlicher Kreise, die vermutlich ber lngere Zeit nebeneinander (...) die berlieferung
der Mose-Tora weiterfhrten und ausgestalteten (378).
In his article Das sog. Privilegrecht in Exodus 34,1126: Ein Fixpunkt der Komposition
des Exodusbuches, in Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus, 347366, Blum situ-
ates the so-called Privilegrecht (Exod. 34:1126) as a late development within the evo-
lution of the Pentateuch, in contrast to the accepted position that the said pericope
represents the basic text from which themes such as covenant theology and the Sabbath
command developed. Kompositionsgeschichtlich, Exod. 34:1126, moreover, presup-
poses Kd. Exod. 34:1126 is part of einer Traditionsbildung, die literarisch im Horizont
eines Gro-Kontextes vom (Proto-)Pentateuch [i.e. KdH.A.] und Vorderen Propheten
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 219

eine postdeuteronomistische Fortschreibung.171 He thus concludes: Die


Endredaktion gibt es nicht.172
In later studies, Blum distances himself to a degree from the initial magni-
tude of his Kd. The D-Komposition no longer includes texts from Genesis:
It seems that the Priestly editor(s)/author(s) was (were) the first to bring
together into one continuous literary opus the three major traditions of the
Pentateuch: the primeval history, the narratives of the patriarchs, and the exo-
dus narrative.173

1.2.3 GenesisNumbers as Deuteronomistic Introduction to the


Deuteronomistic History
Roger N. Whybray takes a unique position in Pentateuch research, aligning
himself with a number of authors who consider the Pentateuch to be a late
composition.174 He thus adopts the proposition of Mayesin his turn indebted
to Rendtorff, namely that the composition GenesisNumbers never existed
as an independent entity.175 According to Mayes, GenesisNumbers was cre-
ated as an introduction to the Deuteronomistic History. This view explains
the fact that the Pentateuch does not contain a complete presentation
of the settlement of the Promised Land. Since the narrative segment of the

arbeitet und die mit ihrem theologischen Anliegen unmittelbar auf die Situation ihrer
Zeitgenossen im frhnachexilischen Juda zielt (366).
171 E. Blum, Der kompositionelle Knoten am bergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein
Entflechtungsvorschlag, in Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic
Literature, 181212, esp. 192. See also E. Blum, Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvtern
und Exodus. Ein Gesprch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen, in Gertz et al. (eds),
Abschied vom Jahwisten, 119156. See also E. Blum, Zwischen Literarkritik und Stilkritik.
Die diachrone Analyse der literarischen Verbindung von Genesis und Exodusim
Gesprach mit Ludwig Schmidt, ZAW 124 (2012), 492515, esp. 508511.
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, 4657 and E. Blum,
Die Feuersule in Ex. 1314eine Spur der Endredaktion?, in Roukema (ed.), The
Interpretation of Exodus, 117138.
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?, 89106,
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 Rendtorffs The Yahwist as
Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism, JSOT 3 (1977), 1114.
175 Rendtorff, Das berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 167168. Whybray also refers to the
study of Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist. Cf. Mayes, The Story of Israel between Settlement
and Exile, 139149.
220 Chapter 4

Deuteronomistic History already commenced with the narrative of the settle-


ment of the land, the author of the Pentateuch no longer needed to repeat
it. The latters responsibility, rather, was to write a narrative dealing with the
history of the people to the point at which it reached the borders of Canaan.176
Whybray also agrees with the position of Van Seters, according to whom
a historiographer (the Yahwist)using disparate materialwas responsible
for the realisation of the Pentateuch.177 Van Seters appealed in this regard to
the analogy between the Pentateuch and Greek historiographers, in particu-
lar Herodotus. While Herodotus almost certainly made use of already existing
material, his work must be seen nevertheless as that of a single creative author
who used literary techniques that are also characteristic of the Pentateuch.
According to Whybray, the Pentateuch is thus the result of the writing activ-
ity of one single author, who borrowed from material transmitted in oral and
written form.178 In this respect, Whybray in fact offers a new version of the
Fragment Hypothesis. At the same time, however, he diverges from Van Seters.
Van Seters accounted for Priestly and even post-Priestly additions and as a
result his Yahwist was not responsible for the final form of the Pentateuch. For
the dating of the Pentateuch, Whybray also refers to the work of Van Seters, as
well as the position of Rendtorff and Schmid, who associate the said composi-
tion with the Babylonian exile.
Whybray refuses to make definitive statements concerning the Deuter
onom(ist)ic character of the books GenesisNumbers. Each in their own

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, 232233: 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 235242. Whybray reacted here against the vision of S. Sandmel, The
Haggada Within Scripture, JBL 80 (1961) 105122, 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 GenesisNumbers. While Whybray does not
set out to deny a Deuteronom(ist)ic influence in GenesisNumbers,179 he
considers it rash nevertheless to ascribe GenesisNumbers to a Deuterono-
m(ist)ic author simply on the basis of its kinship with the Deuteronom(ist)ic
literature.180 Whybrays 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 GenesisNumbers.

1.2.4 Deuteronomist and Chronist


Similar to Whybray, William Johnstones perspective can also be considered
somewhat unconventional. At the beginning of the 1970s, Johnstone became
intrigued by the presence of so-called Deuteronomistic additions in the book
of Exodus.181 His intuition convinced him that the said passages had to be
more than individual and otherwise accidental interpolations. The point of
departure for Johnstones understanding of the Deuteronomistic components
in GenesisNumbers is unusual, however, namely the structure and thematic
content of Chronicles. According to Johnstone, the final redactor of Chronicles,
who was part of the Levitical school,182 wanted to offer a considered theo-
logical perspective on the exile and on pre-exilic Israel. This unique concept
was created on the basis of material available to him from SamuelKings
and reworked in an original manner and with a characteristically theological

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, 247273.
182 W. Johnstone, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy in Pentateuchal Studies, with Special
Reference to the Sinai Pericope in Exodus, ZAW 99 (1987), 1637, esp. 19. Cf. also Idem,
Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application (JSOT SS, 275), Sheffield 1998.
222 Chapter 4

concern into an independent composition.183 In the genealogical section


1 Chron. 19the Chronist thus underlined Israels vocation to holiness in
the midst of the alien nations. Using a stylistic construction that located the
tribe of Levi in a central position among the other tribes, the Chronist set out
to designate the ideal mechanism whereby Israel could best fulfil its vocation
to holiness: the tribe of Levi acquired the task of standing guard of Israels
holiness. In Johnstones view, Chronicles is also a theological reflection on the
fact that the definitive eschatological return from exile depends on Israels
reconciliation,184 although the actual return had already taken place from a
historical perspective in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Every initiative for
this reconciliation, however, belongs to God. Thus, while it waits for this escha-
tological return, Israel is expected to maintain the Levitical holiness precepts.
The priests, after all, were not spared the exile.185
Johnstone begins by exposing the analogy between the Levitical final
redactor of Chronicles and the Priestly final redactor of the Sinai pericope.
According to Johnstone, the characteristic intention found with the Chronist,
whereby 1 Chron. 19 presents itself as a composite narrative with theological
rather than historical concerns and with a stylised construction of the tribes
around Levi as accentuation of Israels vocation to holiness, can also be found
in substance in the way the final redactor (P) put together the Sinai narrative
in ExodusNumbers. In Num. 4, the tribes of Israel are clearly structured. At
the same time, the root appears as a constant in Exod. 19:1Num. 10:10.
Furthermore, the Sinai pericope is alsoin the first instancea theologi-
cal narrative in which Israels call to holiness is central. Moreover, both the
external framework of the Sinai pericope (Exod. 15:2218:27 and Num. 10:1136)
and the central portion thereof are composed exclusively with a view to
proclamationand not the transmission of historical information, by anal-
ogy with Chronicles.186
With respect to the framing narrative, the said intention is evident in the
first instance in the inadequate chronology. Too many events are situated

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, 113138, esp. 113.
184 According to Johnstone, Guilt and Atonement, 114115 Chronicles presupposes the books
of EzraNehemiah.
185 Cf. 1 Chron. 5:2741.
186 One the historical range of the events narrated in the book of Exodus, see W. Johnstone,
The Exodus as Process, ExpT 91 (1980), 358363; Idem, Reactivating the Chronicles
Analogy, 3134.
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. 16:3334, a passage that alludes to both the tabernacle (Exod. 2540) and
the Decalogue (Exod. 20:117).
The emphasis placed on the tabernacle by the final redactor via the reca-
pitulation of Exod. 2531 in Exod. 3540 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 Israels apostasy in worshipping the golden
calf (Exod. 3234), 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. 3540, 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 Johnstones 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 SamuelKings, 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. 24: 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. 23:2033) and the conclusion of the conquest narrative in Judg. 2:15.190
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. 34.191 In Johnstones 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 Johnstones

189 Johnstone, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 25.


190 Johnstone, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 2526. Johnstone considers Exod.
23:2033, because of the connection with the language and function of Judg. 2:15, the
prima facie indication for the Deuteronomistic redaction of Exodus: The relationship
between the two passages is established not simply by the coincidence of vocabulary
but by the corresponding key function which they both discharge within their contexts:
Ex. 23,2033 is the coda to the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 20,2223,33); Jdc 2,15 is the
coda to the account of the Settlement in the Land (Jos 1,1Jdc 2,5). Further, Ex. 23,2033
functions in a way similar to Deut 27f. As the code in Deut 12,126,15 is succeeded by a
paraenetic section promising the blessing of the covenant on an obedient people and
threatening the curse of the covenant on a disobedient people, the blessing and curse
being then demonstrated in the ensuing Deuteronomistic history, so the Code in Exodus
20,2323,19 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, Ex. 23,2033, and its counterpart, Jdc 2,15. See also Idem, The Use of the
Reminiscenses in Deuteronomy, 250 on the parallels between Exod. 23:2033 and Judg.
2:15: It seemed to me that a fresh unbiassed eye could only regard these two passages as
coming from the same source.
191 Johnstone refers in this regard to R. De Vaux, Histoire ancienne dIsral: Des origines
linstallation en Canaan, Paris 1971, esp. 361364.
192 W. Johnstone, The Deuteronomistic Cycles of Signs and Wonders in Exodus 113, in:
A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart
Anderson (JSOT SS, 152), Sheffield 1993, 166185, esp. 167.
193 W. Johnstone, Exodus (Old Testament Guides), Sheffield 1990; 21995, 79: That the pen-
ultimate redaction of Exodus should be termed Dtr (Deuteronomistic) rather than
simply D (Deuteronomic) is indicated in a number of places in the Horeb pericope
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 225

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 analogyin terms of both content and functionbetween Exod.
23:2033 and Deut. 2728; Judg. 2:15.194 (2) He then points to literal agree-
ments between Exod. 32:4b, 8b and 1 Kgs 12:28b.195 (3) According to Deut.
4:1015:5 the basis of the covenant was formed by the Decalogue God himself
had written.196 The ( Deut. 5:31) are only referred to in passing.197
In the Deuteronomistic edition of Exodus, however, the acquire
their full scope via the inclusion of the Book of the Covenant. Reference
is likewise made in Exod. 24:3 to that 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.
10:15 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, 160178, 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. 13:37. A few lines further he refers to an
underlying Deuteronomic text in Exod. 13,37.
194 Johnstone, Exodus, 79: The promise (and implied threat) at the conclusion of the Book
of the Covenant (Exod. 23,2033), which corresponds to the blessing and curse of the
covenant in the full-scale D presentation of covenant in Deuteronomy 2728, includes
that of the presence of the angel to lead the people into the land, if they will be obedient
(cf. Exod. 33,26). This promise is explicitly taken up in thought and expression in Judg.
2,15, which is the epilogue precisely to DtrH-s account of Israels actual experience at
the entry into the land. The present author considers it particulary premature to charac-
terise the pericope Exod. 23:2033and on that basis the entire pre-Priestly redaction of
the Pentateuchas Deuteronomistic without further ado, on account of the similarities
between Deut. 2728 and Judg. 2:15See e.g. H. Ausloos, The Angel of yhwh in Exod.
xxiii 2033 and Judg. ii 15. A Clue to the Deuteronom(ist)ic Puzzle?, VT 58 (2008) 112.
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, Mosess 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. 34:67, 14, 17
contains a clear reference to the first commandment of the Decalogue in Deut
5:710. According to Johnstone, Exod. 34:1826 quotes a large portion of Exod.
23:1219. 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 thatby analogy with the first covenantthe 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 Ds 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
( Exod. 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.
10:14, Johnstone deduces that yhwh should be seen as the subject of . At the
same time, it is evident from Deut. 10:14 that the expression refers to the
Decalogue: It may be doubted whether Dtr intended to convey anything different in Ex.
34,28bthat, 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. 1924*;
31,1834,28* (W. Johnstone, The Decalogue and the Redaction of the Sinai Pericope in
Exodus, ZAW 100 [1988], 361385, esp. 363)For the inclusive Deuteronomistic redaction
of Exod. 1934*, reference can be made to Idem, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy,
2731. 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, 362365; Idem, Exodus, 8081).
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. 24:1518, for example,
Johnstone discerns some Dc. colouring and Exod. 20:1821, he claims, has affinities with
the Dc. account of the theophany especially in Deut 5,2227. Exod. 19:37(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. 13:38*
and Deut. 16:18,200 between Exod. 20:217* and Deut. 5:621,201 and between
Exod. 34:1, 4*, 2728 and Deut. 10:14.202 In later studies, he also includes the
book of Numbers in his research.203 In each instance he insists that these

accepted by commentators as Dc. (Idem, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 2829


nn. 1718). Johnstone is of the opinion that these similarities corroborate his position with
respect to a pre-Priestly Deuteronomistic redaction of Exodus, by analogy with the modus
operandi of Chronicles: As the extant S-K text attests the text received by the Chronicler
and modified for his purpose, so (...) a text still extant in Deut enables the reconstruction
of the text of the D-writer in Ex, which the P-writer has received and reconceived for his
purpose (26). Cf. also Idem, The Deuteronomistic Cycles, p. 167: Deuteronomy provides
material that enables the reconstruction of a pre-final edition text (I should call it pre-P)
in Exodus. Further Idem, The Two Theological Versions, 161: The book of Deuteronomy,
more broadly, the Deuteronomistic History, provides a text parallel to material in the
book of Exodus which enables a pre-P Deuteronomistic text to be recovered in the book
of Exodus which was subsequently re-edited by the P-writer.
200 Johnstone, The Two Theological Versions, 166170.
201 Johnstone, The Decalogue, 361385.
202 Johnstone, The Two Theological Versions, 161162; Idem, The Decalogue, 361365. See
also Idem, Exodus, 7778 on Exod. 31:18 and Deut. 9:10; Exod. 32:15 and Deut. 9:15; Exod.
24:12, 18 and Deut. 9:9. For the reconstruction of the D version of Exod. 32:20 on the basis
of Deut. 9:21, and of Exod. 32:2529 on the basis of Deut. 10:8 reference should be made
to Idem, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 2627. Johnstone also claims to be able
to reconstruct the pre-Priestly Deuteronomistic redaction of Exod. 118 on the basis of
material transmitted in D. For Exod. 15:2218:27, for example, he points to the difference
between D and Ps view of the expedition in the wilderness, from the crossing of the Sea to
the arrival at Mount Sinai (Idem, Exodus, 8182; cf. Idem, From the Sea to the Mountain:
Exodus 15,2219,2A Case-Study in Editorial Techniques, in Vervenne (ed.), Studies in
the Book of Exodus, 245263; for Exod. 3234, see Idem, From the Mountain to Kadesh:
With Special Reference to Exodus 32,3034,29, in: Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy
and Deuteronomic Literature, 449467. Johnstone also claims to be able to reconstruct
the original Deuteronomistic composition of the Plagues Narrative in Exod. 711 on the
basis of material from Deuteronomy and Joshua2 Kings (cf. Idem, The Deuteronomistic
Cycles, 169184). See also Idem, The Ten Commandments. Some Recent Interpretations,
ExpT 100 (1989), 453459; 461; Idem, 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,
159174; W. Johnstone, The Revision of Festivals in Exodus 124, 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, 99114.
203 See, for example, Johnstone, The Use of the Reminiscences in Deuteronomy, 247273;
Idem, Recounting the Tetrateuch, in: A.D.H. Mayes, R.B. Salters (eds), Covenant as
Context: Essays in Honour of E.W. Nicholson, Oxford 2003, 209234.
228 Chapter 4

conclusionsthe thoroughgoing editing by the P-edition of an existing


coherent version of Israels past down to the exile, the D-version, which com-
prised the Tetrateuch of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy itself, so
far as these are Deuteronom(ist)ic and led on the end of II Regum, by means
of substantial interpolations, reuse and transpositions, so that that Tetrateuch
becomes the present Pentateuchare not surprising (...) in the light of the
Chronicles analogy.204
It should be noted by way of conclusion that Johnstone does not consider
the Deuteronomistic or the Priestly versions of GenesisNumbers to be inde-
pendent sources. He underlines, by contrast that both editions should be
approached as a redaction in the fullest sense of the word.205 In addition,
Johnstone also considers it plausible that one single Deuteronomistic redac-
tion was responsible for the realisation of the Deuteronomistic composition.206
In a creative manner, P reworked the Deuteronomistic redaction of Exodus,
just as the Deuteronomistic redaction introduced its own accents to the mate-
rial it had at his disposal.207

204 Johnstone, The Use of the Reminiscenses in Deuteronomy, 272273. According to


Johnstone, however, it is not always possible to distinguish Ps unique contribution
unequivocally from the Deuteronomistic redaction employed: Since the P-writer may
quote, and write in the manner of, the D-writer, it may on occasion be virtually impos-
sible, where external evidence is lacking, to disentangle the two (Idem, Reactivating the
Chronicles Analogy, 28 n. 17). Cf. also what Johnstone writes about the lists of nations
in Exod. 13:5: Ex. 13,5a is pure Deuteronomic and may have belonged to the underly-
ing D-version (although it could be P-reuse of Deuteronomic clichs) (Idem, The Two
Theological Versions, 168).
205 Johnstone, Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy, 28 n. 17; Idem, Exodus, 86. See also Idem,
Chronicles and Exodus, 12. On the pre-Deuteronomistic origins of the material used by the
Deuteronomistic redactor, see 3437 and Idem, Exodus, 78. See also Idem, The Use of the
Reminiscences in Deuteronomy, 250.
206 W. Johnstone, Review of B. Renaud, La thophanie du Sina. Ex. 1924 (Paris, 1991), JTS 43
(1992), 550555, esp. 554.
207 For a general picture of the theological accents unique to the Deuteronomistic and
Priestly redactions, the reader is referred to Johnstone, Exodus, 105113. See further
W. Johnstone, P as Editor: The Case of Exodus 4:1826, in: J. Aitken et al. (eds), On Stone
and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies (BZAW, 420), Berlin 2011, 225238.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 229

2 The So-Called Deuteronom(ist)ic Elements in GenesisNumbers as


Part of One or More Deuteronomistic Redactions

In the preceding paragraph we focussed our attention on exegetes who


associated the origins of a form of GenesisNumbers with a late, post-
Deuteronomistic redaction or author. In the present paragraph we will briefly
present a selection of studies in which the composition of the Pentateuch is
associated with one or more Deuteronomistic redactions or Deuteronomistic
authors. In other words, the biblical scholars to be explored in the follow-
ing pages locate Deu teronomistic redactional activity within Genesis
Numbers on the same level as (part of) the Deuteronomistic activities in the
Deuteronomistic History. At the same time, a distinction can be made between
two major tendencies. A few examples of each of these tendencies will be
treated below.
Bernard Renaud, Jacques Vermeylen, Thomas B. Dozeman and Peter Weimar
place the emphasis on one or more Deuteronomistic redactions of Genesis
Numbers.208 In the second part of the present paragraph we present two
authorsthe Dutch exegetes Casper J. Labuschagne and Cornelis Houtman
who likewise ascribe an important role to the Deuteronomistic redaction with
respect to the genesis and evolution of GenesisNumbers. Their hypotheses,
however, are clearly much more tentative in nature.

208 The view of Reinhard Kratz can also be introduced here. Kratz accepts three independent
Ursprungslegenden (1 Sam.2 Kgs*; Gen. 235*; Exod. 2Josh. 12*), which were com-
bined in early post-exilic times to form a Henneateuch encompassing Exodus2 Kings:
R.G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzhlenden Bcher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der
Bibelkritik (UTB, 2157), Gttingen 2000. Es exodus narrative (ExodusJoshua) 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 Zustse in ExNum wie auch die literarischen Querverweise auf
den Exodus in DtnReg (DtrS) erklren (312). The Priestly work (Gen. 1Exod. 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 Bcher der Tora/des
Pentateuch, in: E. Zenger (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Fnfte, grndlich berar-
beitete und erweiterte Auflage (Kohlhammer Studienbcher Theologie, 1,1), Stuttgart 2004,
60187, esp. 118122.
230 Chapter 4

2.1 Deuteronomistic Redaction(s) in GenesisNumbers


The studies of Renaud and Vermeylen, which we will address first, can be char-
acterised as a sort of Supplementary Hypothesis. In other words, they consider
GenesisNumbers, or at least part of this corpus, to be the result of a gradual
supplementation of one or more documents. Both scholars thus set out to
distance themselves in a critical manner from the Documentary Hypothesis.
On the other hand, and this is important for the Deuteronom(ist)ic question,
they pay a great deal of attention to the contribution of various consecutive
Deuteronom(ist)ic redactions.209 A similar interest in Deuteronomistic redac-
tion can be found in the work of Dozeman, who focuses particular attention
on the contribution of the said redaction to the wording of the Sinai pericope.
Weimar in his turn distinguishes two Deuteronomistic reworkings of the
Pentateuch.210

2.1.1 J. Vermeylens Four Deuteronomistic Redactions


Vermeylen rejects the position defended by Rendtorff that the tradition of the
patriarchs (Gen. 1236)characterised by the theme of the promiseand
the tradition of the exodus from Egypt (Exod. 114) were only combined at a
relatively late date.211 Indeed, the exodus from Egypt is not presented in the
book of Exodus as a return to the land promised to the patriarchs. Rendtorff
was also of the opinion that the narratives concerning Abraham, Isaac and

209 S. Tengstrm, Die Hexateucherzhlung, 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 Wustenerzhlungen (OBO, 98), Gttingen 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, 3536(?); 11(?); 14:1125, 3945(?). Subsequent to P and the Endredaktion, a second
D-layer can be seen at work in Exod. 15:25b-26; 16:45, 2829.
211 J. Vermeylen, La formation du Pentateuque la lumire de lexgse historico-critique,
RTL 12 (1981), 324346, esp. 331; cf. Idem, La Formation du Pentateuque: Bref historique de
la recherche et essai de solution cohrente (CTEP), Bruxelles 1990, 4245. (henceforth La
Formation du PentateuqueCTEP).
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. 1236. This position forms the point of depar-
ture for Vermeylens approach to the origins of the Pentateuch. The promises
spoken of Gen. 1236 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 groups 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 communitys 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 narratives 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 Vermeylens 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 ( Gen. 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, 330331 n. 19).
213 Cf. Gen. 15:4; 18:914.
214 For Vermeylen, the argumentum e silentio also plays a not unimportant role: Le silence
des traditions anciennes de lExode concernant la promesse de la terre est donc logique:
cette promesse nest pas ralise par la conqute; mais par la politique de David; elle na
rien voir avec la sortie dgypte (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 lancienne promesse de la terre a trouv un cho trs naturel au
moment o Isral tait priv de sa terre. Cette fois, il sagit bien de loccupation 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 togetherfor the first timea 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*, 78*, 1823; 6:13*, 78*; 7:12*, 45, 10a, 12a, 17b, 23*; 8:23*, 6, 813*,
2022*, 2122*; 9:2025*) (2) a narrative concerning Abrahams migrations (Gen. 12:1*,
47*, 8*; 13:1417*, 18; 15:912*, 1718*); (3) a narrative about Isaac (Gen. 26:1*, 710, 16a,
17a, 23.25*, 2629a, 3031); (4) a narrative about Jacob (Gen. 25:21, 2428*; 27:114*,
1623, 3034, 3944*; 29:115, 18b-20a, 28b, 30a; 30:2324; 31:3, 2123, 4653*; 32:1, 14,
2332*; 33:1*, 4, 1618); (5) a Joseph story (Gen. 37:3a, 4, 12, 13, 14b, 18, 25b-27, 28b; 39:1b,
2123; 40*; 41:136*, 39ab, 40, 4243a, 4748, 5354a; 42:57*). It is possible that the story
of the exodus was also committed to writing at the time of David (Exod. 1:8, 11; 12:2133*;
14:530*; 15:2021)Idem, Le Dieu de la promesse et le Dieu de lAlliance: Le dialogue des
grandes intuitions thologiques de lAncien Testament (LD, 126), Paris 1986, 2328. In La
formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 6063, Vermeylen also ascribed Gen. 28:1019*; 45:4,
913*, 21a, 26a, 28; 46:1a, 2830 to Dv.For Dv, see also Idem, Les premires tapes lit-
traires de la formation du Pentateuque, in: De Pury, Rmer (eds), Le Pentateuque en ques-
tion, 149197, esp. 169174; 182187. For the study of Gen. 27, reference can be made to
Idem, Le vol de la bndiction 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, 2340. See also J. Vermeylen, Lcole deu-
trnomiste aurait-elle imagin un premier canon des critures?, in: T. Rmer (ed.), The
Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BETL, 147), Leuven 2000, 223240; J. Vermeylen,
Une tape majeure dans la formation du canon des critures: luvre deutronomiste, in:
J.M. Auwers, H.J. de Jonge (eds), The Biblical Canons (BETL, 163), Leuven 2003, 213226.
217 Vermeylen ascribes the following narratives to J: (1) In Gen. 23*, J connects the Dv nar-
rative of creation (Gen. 2*) to an ancient paradise narrative and addsmaking use of an
old tradition relating to the Kenitesa narrative concerning Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:15*,
810, 12b, 16a); in addition, J incorporates an old narrative concerning the tower of Babel
(Gen. 11:19*); (2) J takes over the Dv narratives concerning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
and expands them (Gen. 1236*); (3) J also expands the Joseph story (Gen. 37:58; 38;
48*); (4) J supplements the primitive exodus narrative (Exod. 1:6*, 8, 22; 2:13, 56a, 10b,
1113*, 14a, 15b-22a; 3:14, 7a*, 1617a; 4:14*, 67, 1016*, 2426a, 2730, 31b; 15:2225a;
17:17*)Vermeylen, La formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 6669 (cf. Idem, Le Dieu de
la promesse, 2832). See also Idem, Les premires tapes littraires, 160168; 179182;
187191.
218 Vermeylen, La formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 68 refers, for example, to Judg. 6:1516,
21; 13:2, 7, 21; 1 Sam. 16:113; 17:1231; 2 Sam. 7:5b, 12a.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 233

underwent an Elohistic redaction.219 As a result, Vermeylen considers neither


E nor J to be independent documents. He sees them rather as authors who
supplemented the texts they had at their disposal with their own material.
The JE-work that thus came into being was then subject to four Deutero
nomistic revisions (Dtr585; Dtr575, Dtr560 en Dtr525),220 all to be ascribed
to the movement that was responsible for the composition or reworking of
Joshua2 Kings and of the old prophetic books (including Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Amos and Micah) during the exile. Vermeylen further elaborates his hypoth-
esis of four Deuteronomistic reworkings on the basis of a study of the story of
the golden calf in Exod. 32.221
Setting aside the Elohistic222 and Priestly223 components that can still be
found in the text of Exod. 3234, Vermeylen is of the opinion that the nar-
rative in question can be characterised in its entirety as Deuteronomistic.
Taking irregularities in the text as his point of departure, he distinguishes
four Deuteronomistic redactions, each of which introducing its own accent to
the narrative. (1) Exod. 32:34 states that yhwh will postpone the punishment
until the day of accounting. (2) Exod. 32:14 insists that yhwh grants forgive-
ness without further ado. (3) According to Exod. 32:35ab, yhwh punishes

219 Vermeylen considersprovisionallythe following passages to be Elohistic: Gen. 20:1


18*; 21:821*, 2234*; 22:119*; 25:2934*; 28:2022*; 31:1113*; 35:1, 7, 1618; 37:3b, 1925a,
28a, 2936; 39:720; 40:1, 3*, 5*, 15; 41:12a*, 14a*; 42:7, 924, 2937*; 43:15*; 45:13*; 46:25*;
Exod. 1:1520*; 2:4, 6b-10a; 3:1b*, 4.6a, 10*; 13:1718a; 18:127*; 19:2b-3a, 16a, 19; 20:121*;
31:18*; 32:15*. Certain passages from Gen. 3750 and Numbers are probably also part of E
(see Vermeylen, La formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 7475).
220 Vermeylen, Le Dieu de la promesse, 113114. With respect to the Deuteronomistic compo-
nents of GenesisNumbers, see also J. Vermeylen, Dix cls pour ouvrir la bible (Bible de
Jrusalem), Paris 1999.
221 J. Vermeylen, Laffaire du veau dor (Ex. 3234): Une cl pour la question deutrono-
miste?, ZAW 97 (1985), 123. Cf. also Idem, Les sections narratives de Deut 511 et leur
relation Ex. 1934, in: Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, 174207; Idem, LExode, chemin
de libert, Bruxelles 1992, 229245.
222 After E had related that Moses ascended the mountain (Exod. 24:13b) and that he had
received the stone tablets (Exod. 31:18b*), E still had to make mention of Moses descent
from the mountain. This is found in Exod. 32:1516* (Vermeylen, Laffaire du veau dor,
12). As a result, Vermeylen denies the existence of an underlying J layer: Nous navons
donc en Ex. 3234 aucune trace dun rcit crit antrieur au vii e ou mme vi e sicle (2).
223 Vermeylen distinguishes two Priestly redactions (P1 and P2). In Exod. 32, he only discerns
traces of P1. With respect to Exod. 3334 he states: La rpartition des lments de type
sacerdotal entre P1 et P2 est plus difficile ici quailleurs (Vermeylen, LExode, 255). P1 con-
sists of: Exod. 32:16*, 15a*, 2124; 33:1820, 22a, 23; 34:5. Exod. 33:711; 34:23, 2935 are
probably to be ascribed to P2 (232233; 244245; 255256).
234 Chapter 4

the guilty people immediately. (4) Exod. 32:2529, 35b, to conclude, makes
a distinction between the guilty and the innocent. Thus Aaronand not the
peopleis held responsible for the golden calf in Exod. 32:35b. 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 themes224Moses 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 Israels sin was already
very early.
In the second Deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr575)likewise characterised
by Deuteronomistic language and theologyyhwh 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 yhwhs 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

224 Vermeylen, Laffaire du veau dor, 67.


225 The Deuteronomistic redaction covers Exod. 32:710*(, 1516(E)), 19, 20*, 3032a, 33a, 34*.
226 This redaction covers Exod. 32:1112, 14, 34*.
227 Dtr560 consisted of Exod. 32:20b, 32b, 33.35aba. Also Exod. 33:1, 56, 1214; 34:828a is
part of Dtr560. According to Vermeylen, this redaction also exhibits clear agreements
with the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.
228 Dtr525 can be found in Exod. 32:16*, 8b, 10*, 13, 1718, 2529, 35.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 235

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, Mnchen 1973, 368370.
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. 20:26; 24:3b are almost certainly from Dtr585. Dtr575 can be found
in Gen. 3:14, 1618a, 2021; 4:1b, 67, 1112a, 1315, 16b; 6:56; 8:21a; 13:513*; 18:1633;
19:127; Exod. 5:13, 5; 7:1424*; 7:258:11*; 8:1628*; 9:17, 1335*; 10:129*; 20:22a, 2426
and 23:20, 23 as framework of the Book of the Covenant; 24:35*, 8, 1213*; 33:24, 12a,
1517, 21, 22b; 34:67; Num. 13*; 14*. Dtr560 can be found in Exod. 3:78*; 4:1*, 5, 89,
31*; 12:2527a, 34, 39; 13:316; 14:1014, 31; 15:25b-26; 16:45, 2931, 35a; 23:2122*, 2433*;
24:35, 8; 23:2133*; 33:1, 56, 12b14; 34:810a, 11, 12, 1428a; Num. 11:46, 1016a, 1823,
3134. Dtr 525 is evident in Gen. 4:1726; 5:28b-29; 12:2*, 3b; 13:316*; 15:1b-2, 56; 16:10;
21:13, 18; 22:1518; 26:45, 25; 28:14; 46:3; Exod. 3:2122; 11:23; 12:3536; 19:3b-8; 20:22a-23;
23:21b, 25, 31b; 24:67, 13*, 1415a (Vermeylen, Le Dieu de la promesse, 114118; see also
Idem, Laffaire du veau dor, 21; Idem, La formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 8487). In
LExode, 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*, 1720*; 11:1, 46*; 14:7; 15:19,
23*; 17:1, 2, 6*, 713, 15, 16; 18,:1*, 24, 6*, 811, 21*, 25*; 20:710, 12*, 17*; 21:1*, 1517; 22:1719,
2021*, 2324*, 2630; 23:9*, 1213; 24:18; 34:1.4see also Idem, LExode, chemin de libert.
SupplmentEssai de rpartition du texte selon ses rdactions successives, Bruxelles 1992,
1122; Idem, Lcole deutrnomiste aurait-elle imagin un premier canon des critures?,
in: Rmer (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, 223240, esp. 234235. For a
study of Gen. 4:1726; 5:28b-29, reference can be made to Idem, La descendance de Can
et la descendance dAbel (Gen. 4,1726 + 5,28b-29), ZAW 103 (1991), 175193.
According to Vermeylen, the thesis of consecutive Deuteronomistic redactions in
GenesisNumbers 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 511, 174207.
236 Chapter 4

proto-Deuteronomic elements in GenesisNumbers. The scholars in question


used elements in support of their thesis akin to but not identical with the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.231 Nevertheless, Vermeylen likewise argues that
the Deuteronom(ist)ic language did not appear out of the blue in monolithic
form. Indeed, the Deuteronomic movement drew upon the thought of the
major prophets for its ideas, particularly, in Vermeylens view, the prophet
Jeremiah.232
Vermeylen, to conclude, also discerns Priestly components in the Penta
teuch, whereby he distinguishes between P1, P2 and the Holiness Code (Lev.
1726).233 In his opinion, P1 should not be considered an autonomous and orig-
inally independent document. He prefers to see it as a redaction of the existing
Deuteronomistic composition from the Persian period,234 a period character-
ised by disillusionment after the euphoric return from exile. The returnees
had hoped that Israel would recover the glory it had known under David and
Solomon. With the exception of the reconstruction of the temple, however,
there was little evidence of the expected glory. In this context, P1 rewrote the
Pentateuch with the intention of bringing renewed hope to a discouraged peo-
ple. In spite of evidence to the contrary, the worldof which God is the cre-
atoris perfect. According to Vermeylen, a number of elements were added to
the text (P2) in the final phase, at the time of Ezra.235

231 Vermeylen, Laffaire du veau dor, 2122.


232 Vermeylen, Laffaire du veau dor, 22.
233 Here Vermyelen concurs with the distinction made between Pg and Ps. According to
Vermeylen, La formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 9495, the following verses belong
to the basic Priestly narrative (P1): Gen. 1:12:3; 2:44:26; 5:132*; 6:98:22*; 9:14, 817*,
2829; 10:132; 11:1026, 27a, 3132; 12:4b-5; 13:6, 11b-12*; 16:3, 1516; 17:127*; 21:17*; 23:12*,
19; 25:711*, 1220, 26b; 28:1022*; 29:24, 29; 30:122; 31:120*, 24, 29, 3842; 32:23, 2333*;
33:111*; 35:3, 6, 915, 2729; 36:143; 37:12, 911; 41:136*, 3757*; 45:58; 46:67; 47:5b-
12, 27b-28; 48:34, 57*; 49:1a, 2933; 50:1213, 26; Exod. 1:1a, 24, 5b, 6b-7; 2:23b-25; 3:13,
15ab; 4:14*, 17; 6:212; 7:17, 813, 15b, 17a, 1820a, 2122, 29; 8:13, 10, 11b, 1215, 1819;
9:45, 6b-7, 812, 1416, 2223a, 25b-26, 3132, 35; 10:13a*, 1213a, 19b-20, 2123, 27; 11:1b,
4a*, 710; 12:3738, 4042; 13:20; 14:12, 4b, 1517, 21*, 2223, 25a, 2627a, 2829; 15:27;
16:13, 618, 2126, 35b-36; 17:1a, 5b*, 8b*, 9b*; 19:1, 1013a, 1415a, 16a, 1718; 20:11, 1819;
24:15b-16, 18a; 25:131:11*; 32:2124*; 3540*; Lev. 9*; Num. 10:1112*; 13:121*, 2526, 32a;
14*; 20, 121*, 2229; 27:1223*; Deut. 34:19*.
234 In its reworking of the Deuteronomistic Pentateuch, P1 probably made use of already
existing material (cf. Vermeylen, La formation du PentateuqueCTEP, 101).
235 Including Gen. 3:15; 6:11, 13b; 9:56; 15:23; 26:3435; 27:46; 28:19; 34; 35:5*; Exod. 1:13
14; 5:4, 623; 6:25; 7:3; 9:12; 10:20, 27; 14:4; Num. 25:618 (Vermeylen, La formation du
PentateuqueCTEP, 104).
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 237

2.1.2 Two Deuteronomistic Redactions of an Elohist Basic Narrative


In a study from 1991, Renaud explored the Sinai theophany pericope.236 His
work likewise takes leave of a source-critical approach and he tends rather to
support a combination of a Supplementary Hypothesis and a Fragmentary
Hypothesis. In Exod. 1924, Renaud discerns a pre-exilic Elohist basic narra-
tive from the beginning of the 8th century bce that speaks about a theophany
on the mountain (Exod. 19:2b-3a, 1011a, 13b, 1417, 19; 20:18b, 20), and prob-
ably contains an elementary Decalogue, reference to a meal in the presence of
God (integrated into Exod. 24:911) and a ritual (integrated into Exod. 24:48).
In Renauds view, this basic Elohistic narrative does not extend to include the
entire Pentateuch. He sees it rather as an isolated tradition that later under-
went a number of reworkings. A first Deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr1) (Exod.
19:2b, 38, 1011a, 13b, 1417, 19; 20:17, 910, 1217, 18b, 20; 24:48) preserved
the basic Elohistic narrative, but provided it with a framework in Exod. 19:3b8
and 24:48, thereby underlining the theme of the covenant.237 Dtr1 was depen-
dent on the first layer of Deut. 5 (Deut 5:1, 611, 1421). The Decalogue has a
central place in Dtr1. Moreover, Exod. 1924 is given its definitive structure by
Dtr1 at the end of the exile.
The second Deuteronomistic redaction (Dtr2) (Exod. 19:2b11, 13b, 1419;
20:17, 910, 1217, 1821; 20:2223:33) retouched Dtr1 and added the so-called
Book of the Covenant (Exod. 21:123:19) and its framework (Exod. 20:2126;
23:2033) at the beginning of the return from exile.
The distinction Renaud makes between the two Deuteronomistic redac-
tions is based on Exod. 19:3b9. Although the pericope in question is charac-
terised in its entirety by a markedly Deuteronomistic use of language, he still
considers it impossible to ascribe it to one and the same hand. First, the intro-
ductory formula in in Exod. 19:9 is a doublet of v. 3. Second, via
the verb , v. 9 recapitulates the wording of v. 8 (). Third, there is a degree
of incoherence between vv. 3b-7, in which yhwh speaks to the people, and
v. 9, in which yhwh addresses himself to Moses. Fourth, it would appear that
v. 9 belongs with Exod. 19:38 on account of the doublet with v. 8, while it has
more to do with vv. 1013 in terms of content.

236 B. Renaud, La thophanie du Sina Ex. 1924. Exgse et thologie (CRB, 30), Paris, 1991. See
also B. Renaud, La formation de Ex. 1940: Quelques points de repre, in: P. Haudebert
(ed.), Le Pentateuque: Dbats et recherches : xivme Congrs de lACFEB, Angers (1991) (LD,
151), Paris 1992, 101133.
237 Cf. also L. Schmidt, Israel und das Gesetz: Ex. 19,3b8 und 24,38 als literarischer und
theologischer Rahmen fr das Bundesbuch, ZAW 113 (2001), 167185, esp. 177, who argues
that both pericopes, together with Exod. 20:22, 23, are due to a post-exilic redactor.
238 Chapter 4

According to Renaud, a short Priestly narrative (Exod. 24:1, 911) came


into existence in parallel with Dtr1 and Dtr2, making use of older material.
A Priestly authorthe final redactor of the Pentateuchwas responsible for
the final version of Exod. 1924 after the exile.
In Renauds view, these various steps exhibit a progressive enrichment, not
only at the literary level, but also in terms of theology. The Elohistic basic nar-
rative offered a theophany in which emphasis was placed in the religious and
moral fear of God. The two Deuteronomistic redactions used the Elohistic
narrative as the framework for a narrative concerning the conclusion of the
covenant in which the revelation of the divine law also acquired a place. With
the Priestly redaction, this law acquired a relatively autonomous place vis--
vis the covenant. The figure of Moses is likewise presented in different ways.
In the Elohistic basic narrative he is presented as the leader of the people and
privileged intermediary between God and Israel. The emphasis placed by Dtr1
on the prophetic mission of Moses was made absolute by Dtr2: Moses becomes
the prophet par excellence. According to the Priestly redaction, Moses was also
lawgiver in addition to prophet.
It should also be noted by way of conclusion that Renaud considers it dif-
ficult to say anything about the precise background and Sitz im Leben of the
Deuteronomistic redaction.238 In his opinion, the term Deuteronomist goes
hand in hand with a literary approach and has nothing to say about the histori-
cal and sociological background of the said traditions. He thus differs funda-
mentally with Vermeylen in this regard.239

238 Renaud, La thophanie du Sina, 196: Les deux rdactions deutronomistes ne doivent
gure tre loignes lune de lautre dans le temps, puisquen elles affleurent des points
de similitude avec Dt 4, un des textes les plus tardifs du Deutronome, mais aussi avec
quelques crits prophtiques du dbut du retour de captivit. On proposerait donc la
fin de lpoque exilique pour la date de composition de Dtr1, et le dbut du retour dexil
pour Dtr2. (...) Mais tout cela ne reste gure quhypothse de travail. On ne peut omettre
de mentionner aussi la difficult didentifier les milieux porteurs de ces traditions. Si lon
connat assez bien la physionomie des responsables sacerdotaux, en revanche, le back-
ground des rdactions deutronomistes reste encore trs flou. Le terme mme deut-
ronomiste relve dune approche littraire. Il ne nous claire gure sur larrire-plan
historique et sociologique de ces traditions. Quand que lon naura pas clair lorigine
du Deutronome et le milieu o est ne cette tradition, on peut craindre que la question
navance gure.
239 See also B. Renaud, Lalliance, un mystre de misricorde: Une lecture de Ex. 3234 (LD, 169),
Paris 1998; Idem, Lalliance au cur de la Torah (Cahiers vangile, 143), Paris 2008.
The Deuteronom ( ist ) ic Problem in the 20th Century 239

2.1.3 The Deuteronomist on the Mountain


The Sinai pericope in Exod. 1924(34) undoubtebdly is one of the core pas-
sages in the discussion about the Deuteronomists presence in Genesis
Numbers. Because of the close correspondences between these chapters and
Deuteronomy, Blenkinsopp, for example, considers Exod. 1934 to be basically
a Deuteronomic composition, which, at a later stage, acquired its place within
the P narrative complex.240 In a study of the composition and history of the
origin of the so-called Sinai pericope in Exod. 1924,241 Dozeman discerns a
tradition related to the mountain of God. The narrative in question begins by
announcing the arrival of the people of Israel in front of an otherwise unnamed
mountain (Exod. 19:2b-3a). It then goes on to relate two days of preparation for
a theophany (Exod. 19:1011a, 12a, 13b-15a), together with the theophany itself
(Exod. 19:1617). The theophany narrative is rounded off with a sacrificial ritual
performed by young Israelites at the foot of the mountain (Exod. 24:4ab5).
Originally, Exod. 1924 was thus a story of theophany and sacrifice and there
was no mention whatsoever of the promulgation of a divine law. According
to Dozeman, this theophany tradition is to be characterised as pre-exilic. The
static and permanent presence of God in the midst of the din of thunder and
lightning supports such a dating. This fact corresponds, moreover, with the
Zion/Zebaoth theology specific to the pre-exilic cult in Jerusalem.
The theology of divine presence was then interpreted anew by Deuterono
mistic and Priestly redactors, who simultaneously introduced their own
respective legal corpuses into the original Sinai pericope. The late (pre-)
exilic Deuteronomistic redaction expanded the narrative of the mountain of
God by introducing the Deuteronomic laws (the Book of the Covenant and
the book of Deuteronomy).242 As a result, the story of Israels stay at the foot
of the mountain of God became an ideal context for the conclusion of the

240 J. Blenkinsopp, Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative (Exodus 1934), 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, 109125, ep. 115.
241 T.B. Dozeman, God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus
1924 (SBL MS, 37), Atlanta, GA 1989cf. also Idem, Spatial Form in Exod. 19,18a and in
the Larger Sinai Narrative, Semeia 46 (1989), 87101.
242 Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 37 n. 1: I have chosen to use the term deuteronomis-
tic because (...) the redaction of Exodus 1924 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), Wrzburg 1971, 164165, for example, Dozeman recognises only one
Deuteronomistic redaction in Exod. 1924, 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 Gods 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 Gods 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; 20:120; 20:2123:33; 24:34a, 7 to the
Deuteronomistic redactors.
244 Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 7071: I would identify [the Deuteronomistic redaction
in Exod. 1924H.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. 5:16:3H.A.] is pentateuchal
in nature, that is, the revelation of the Decalogue at Mount Horeb in Deuteronomy is
simultaneously anchored in Exodus 1924. In that case, the Book of Deuteronomy is not
meant to function independently, but as part of a larger epic about Israels 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
4:140).
245 Dozeman ascribes Exod. 19;5b-6a, 11b, 12ab-13, 15b, 16a, 18, 2025; 24:12, 6, 8, 911, 15b18a
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

many places the Non-P History is clearly post-Deuteronomistic, for example,


in the story of the golden calf, where Exodus 32 is later than Deuteronomy
910 and 1 Kings 12.248 According to Dozeman, the Non-P History combined
the promise to the patriarchs in Genesis with the narrative of the exodus in
ExodusDeuteronomy. The repetition of themes such as the death of a gen-
eration (Exod. 1:6; Judg. 2:810) and the story of the golden calf (Exod. 32;
Deut. 910; 1 Kgs 12) would be indications of the post-Deuteronomistic charac-
ter of this Non-P History.249

2.1.4 The Deuteronomist and the Mnster Model


In his study entitled Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch,
Peter Weimar provided a highly detailed literary critical analysis of the narra-
tives in Gen. 12:1020; 20; 26:111.250 Making use of older material, a Yahwistic
work emerged at the time of Solomonat the earliestin which the gift of
the land to Abraham and Moses constituted the Leitmotif. An Elohistic collec-
tion of nine narratives circulated in parallel with this J account. As a result of
the Assyrian threat in the 8th century bce, influence from wisdom literature
and a preference for material from foreign countries emerged. The JE redactor
who combined J, E and the aforementioned material, however, should be seen
as a creative author rather than a mere collector of material. Indeed, the said
RJE elaborated its own theological programme in the service of the reform of
Hezekiah. The conclusion to this JE account is to be found in Josh. 24, thus
allowing one to speak already of a Hexateuch at the pre-Priestly level. Under
the influence of the fall of Jerusalem in 587 bce, the JE account underwent a
first Deuteronomistic reworking in the early exilic period. This reworking was
inspired by the so-called Ur-Deuteronomy and was responsible for, among
other things, the introduction of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:217). A second
exilic or early post-exilic Deuteronomistic reworking introduced the Book of
the Covenant together with Exod. 3:8b, 17, 21, 22. This reworking was part
of an extensive reworking that combined JE with the Deuteronomistic History
to form an entirely new historical work extending from Gen. 2:4b to 2 Kgs 25:30.
A variety of texts in the Priestly tradition also came into existence during the

248 Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus, 40.


249 See also T.B. Dozeman, The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis, in Dozeman,
Schmid (eds), A Farewell to the Yahwist?, 107129. On the Deuteronomistic redaction in
Exodus, see also T.B. Dozeman, God at War: Power in the Exodus Tradition, New York 1996,
passim.
250 P. Weimar, Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch (BZAW, 146), Berlin
1977.
242 Chapter 4

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
Weimars view forms the basis of the so-called Mnster model that recog-
nised two major phases in the genesis and evolution of the Pentateuch: when
the Jerusalemer Geschichtswerk consisted of Gen. 2:4bJosh. 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

2.2 GenesisNumbers as the Result of a Deuteronomistic Redaction or


Author. Extra Tentative Approaches
The atomising subdivision of the Pentateuch into a variety of sources, lay-
ers and redactions has led some scholars to distance themselves in a radi-
cal fashion from detailed and detailistic redaction-critical research, without
lapsing thereby into an exclusively synchronic approach to the text, which is
no longer interested in its origins and development. Cornelis Houtman and
Casper Labuschagne deserve particular mention in this regard.254 In spite of

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 RPP. Weimar, Das
Goldene Kalb: Redaktionskritische Erwgungen zu Ex. 32, BN 38/39 (1987), 117160.
252 See in this regard E. Zenger, Theorien ber die Entstehung des Pentateuch im Wandel
der Forschung and Die vor-priester(schrift)lichen Pentateuchtexte, in Zenger, Einleitung,
74123; 176187. 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), Tbingen 2008.
253 See, for example, P. Weimar, Exodus 12,2427a: Ein Zusatz nachdeuteronomistischer
Provenienz aus der Hand der Pentateuchredaktion, in Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy
and Deuteronomic Literature, 421448. See further R. Albertz, Der Beginn der vorpries-
terlichen Exodus-komposition (KEX): Eine Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von
Ex. 15, TZ 67 (2011), 223262, esp. 261, who sees a post-priestly spt-dtr. Bearbeitung in
Exod. 3:1*; 3:8b, 17*; 4:117, 20b, 2123, 2731; 5:12, 4, 20.
254 Here, also B. Adamczewski, Retelling the Law: Genesis, ExodusNumbers, 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

their critique of prevailing Pentateuchscholarship, they continue, neverthe-


less, to be interested in the relationship between GenesisNumbers and the
Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.

2.2.1 GenesisNumbers as part of the Deuteronomistic History


Whereas, following the narrative line of the first books of the Old Testament,
the so-called Historical books (JoshuaKings) are the continuation of the
Pentateuch, several scholars are convinced that, from a literary-historical
perspective, the Historical books came first.255 The Pentateuch was thus
conceived to be the prologue to this literary complex. As such, the origi-
nal link between Pentateuch and Historical books was highlighted. Within
this scope, several scholars revitalised the hypothesis of a Henneateuch.
In this respect, Houtman should be mentioned as one of the pioneers of this
hypothesis. Houtman is opposed in the first instance to the criteria upon which
the Documentary Hypothesis leans for support in distinguishing the various
sources.256 Objecting fundamentally to the use of the divine name, language

Israelite author of Genesis in a sequential hypertextual way reworked the contents of


Deuteronomy, in order to present its ideas in the form of a widely understandable, para-
historical narrative, which refers to humankind and Israels prehistory. Probably roughly
at the same time, the likewise Israelite author of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers com-
posed his set of writings as another sequential hypertextual reworking of Deuteronomy,
this time functioning as an extended, narrative introduction to Deuteronomy, an intro-
duction which systematically clarified and reformulated its ideas. In this way, the great
Israelite para-historical Heptateuch (GenJudg), whose stories began with the creation of
the world and ended in the transitory sanctuary at Siloh (...) came into being and could
be regarded as the narrative-rhetorical foundation of the religion of the postexilic Israel.
Still later, probably c.300 bc, the Judaean author of the books of Samuel and Kings in a
sequential hypertextual way once more reworked the contents of Deuteronomy, in order
to compose a great foundational history of Judaea, which could follow and supplement
the story of the Israelite Heptateuch (GenJudg). On this author, see O. Artus, Bulletin
dAncien Testament I: Pentateuque, RSR 100 (2012), 577588, esp. 582583.
255 See e.g. E. Aurelius, Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie
zum Enneateuch (BZAW, 319), Berlin 2003. In his view, the Deuteronomistic History
of SamuelKings gradually became expanded, thus resulting in the complex Exodus
2 Kings, thus being enclosed by Exod. 19:3b-8 and 2 Kgs 18:12. On Aurelius thesis, see
a.o. E. Blum, PentateuchHexateuchEnneateuch? Oder: woran erkennt man ein lit-
erarisches Werk in der Hebrischen Bibel?, in: T. Rmer, K. Schmid (eds), Les dernires
rdactions du Pentateuque, de lHexateuque et de lEnnateuque (BETL 203), Leuven 2007,
6797, esp. 7379.
256 C. Houtman, Inleiding in de Pentateuch: Een beschrijving van de geschiedenis van het
onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de compositie van de eerste vijf boeken van het Oude
244 Chapter 4

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 GenesisDeuteronomy 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, ExodusNumbers and Deuteronomy.
Each of these three units has its own specific features and contains material

Testament met een terugblik en een evaluatie, Kampen 1980, 201258This 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 421455); 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, 279335. Reference can also be made to Houtmans
article Verkiezing en verbintenis. Eenheid en samenhang in Exodus 1940, 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, 221240, in which the author
emphasis that Exod. 1940 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, 5367, 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 formulas. With the exception of Num. 3:11, the formula no
longer has a role to play in ExodusNumbers. 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 GenesisNumbers.
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
GenesisDeuteronomy 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 GenesisJoshua.259 In addition, the book of Joshua serves as a hinge
between GenesisDeuteronomy and Judges2 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. 1:16 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; 33:13a; 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, 426327). 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, 428429).
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 GenesisKings 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. Sthelin, Kritische Untersuchungen ber den Pentateuch, die Bcher Josua,
Richter, Samuels und der Knige, Berlin 1843, 1; E. Bertheau, Das Buch der Richter und Ruth
246 Chapter 4

Deuteronomistic author(s) used material from different sources and of differ-


ent ages in the composition of their inclusive work.261 It is probable that cer-
tain passages already constituted a coherent whole before they were taken up
in the inclusive composition GenesisKings.262
Given the fact that Houtman ascribes the historical work running from
Genesis to Kings to the same author(s), the work as a whole must thus be
dated after the amnesty of Jehoiakin in the second half of the 6th century bce.
Houtman has nothing to say about the dating of the material used by the said
author(s).263

(KEHAT), Leipzig 1845, xxvii. More recently, T.C. Vriezen, A.S. van der Woude, Van der
Woude, A.S., De literatuur van Oud-Isral, Wassenaar 61980, 197198 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, 250265, esp. 264. Within the context of the study
of Exod. 115, see also G. Fischer, Exodus 115Eine Erzhlung, in: Vervenne (ed.), Studies
in the Book of Exodus, 149178, esp. 177 n. 101. See also C. Houtman, Zwei Sichtweisen
von Israel als Minderheit inmitten der Bewohner Kanaans: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zum
Verhltnis von J und Dtr(G), in Vervenne, Lust (eds), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic
Literature, 213231, esp. 230, in which Houtman consideres, for example, Gen. 15:1316,
1821; 50:24; Exod. 12:2527; 13:316; 15:25b-26; 16:4, 5; 19:3b-6; 23:2033; 24:38; 32:714;
33:13a; 34:1116; Num. 14:23; 32:11 as redactional Deuteronom(ist)ic elements that das
Lesen in Richtung auf das Deuteronomium und die folgenden Bcher steuern.
261 On the actual contribution of this/these author(s) to the realization of GenesisKings,
see Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 429430: 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 eingefgt haben (...) oder nur bestehende Bauwerke miteinander ver-
bunden haben (...), sondern von ihm (bzw. ihnen) wurde auch das Fundament errichtet,
auf dem das Gebude 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, 114, esp. 7: Von der antiken Buchrollenherstellung
her zu urteilen, ist somit eine den gesamten Textumfang von GenII Reg umfassende
Rolle zwar nicht ohne weiteres zu erwarten, auf der anderen Seite aber auch kein Ding
der Unmglichkeitsee also K. Schmid, Une grande historiographie allant de Gense
2 Rois a-t-elle un jour exist?, in: Rmer, Schmid (eds), Les dernires rdactions, 3545,
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

2.2.2 The Deuteronomist and Numerical Analysis


Initially, Labuschagne, who is widely known for his numerical analysis of the
biblical text,264 supported a proto-Deuteronomic redaction of the Pentateuch
(cf. supra), which supplemented a basic Yahwistic document with traditions
from the Northern Kingdom and reworked them in the spirit of what was
later to developed as the typically Deuteronomic vision. In more recent stud-
ies, however, Labuschagne has turned his back to source criticism and form
criticism, both of which had become obsessed with the reconstruction of
the preliminary stages of the biblical text.265 His goal rather is to focus atten-
tion on the final product as we now have it, which is probably the result of a
carefully considered final redaction.266 According to Labuschagne, this final

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 commandmentsC. 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, 1,17,13 (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 GenesisDeuteronomy as an independent corpus, reference can
be made to Idem, Inleiding, 252254; Idem, De geschriften van het Oude Testament, 330;
Idem, Der Pentateuch, 441446.
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), 146162.
266 Labuschagne, Neue Wege, 148149: Fordern wir die historisch-kritische Bibelwissen
schaft, insbesondere die Pentateuchforschung, auf, an ihren historischen und kri-
tischen Ansprchen festzuhalten und rufen wir sie auf, den Bibeltext, so wie dieser uns
berliefert worden ist, nmlich als historisches Dokument zu akzeptieren, dass heisst
letzteres als ein Stck Literatur zu betrachten, das irgendwann in der Geschichte seine
Endphase erreicht und wahrscheinlich auch eine eingreifende Endredaktion erlebt hat.
So sollte also nachdrcklich 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 GenesisNumbers.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, Europische
Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, BernMunich 81973, 491498). The method has only
rarely been applied to biblical literature and with few imitators (cf. O. Goldberg, Die fnf
Bcher Mosis ein Zahlengebude, Berlin 1908; P. Friesenhahn, Hellenistische Wortzahlen
mystik im Neuen Testament, Leipzig, 1935). Labuschagnes research builds further on the
work of Austrian C. Schedl, Bauplne des Wortes: Einfhrung 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 = ( 1 or 10; = 5; = 6) or the
scriptio defectiva of = ( 11 of 20; = 2; = 4)cf. Labuschagne, Neue Wege, 155; 160.
269 The numbers 23 and 32 represent the numerical value of the word = ( 11 of 20; b =
2; w = 6; d = 4)Labuschagne, Neue Wege, 160.
270 Cf. C. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, Nijkerk 19871997. For the logotechnical method see
also Idem, On the Structural Use of Numbers as a Composition Technique, JNSL 12 (1984),
8799; Idem, Divine Speech in Deuteronomy, in: Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium,
111126; 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,
154173; 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, 121131; C. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium (Belichting van het bij-
belboek), s-Hertogenbosch 1993.
271 The symbolic number 13, which underlines the unity ( )of yhwh ( = 1; = 8; =
4), gives expression to the central theme of Deuteronomy: ( 26 + 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

This observation leads him to the tentative conclusion that GenesisNumbers


can probably be understood as the result of an inclusive Deuteronomistic
redaction.273

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. 121127.
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 knnen, wie
alles sich genau verhlt, knnen wir zur Auswertung gelangen und Folgerungen hinsich-
tlich des Verhltnisses zwischen Tetrateuch und Deuteronomium ziehen, wobei mit der
Mglichkeit 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, 169171: 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.