¹ His three books include The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Women, Law, and the Genesis Traditions (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1979)Google Scholar; and Law and Narrative in the Bible: The Evidence of the Deuteronomic Laws and the Decalogue (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985)Google Scholar . Only the first and the third of these, whose focus is the problem of legal order, will be discussed here. Relevant articles by Carmichael, which will not be directly discussed here, include “Deuteronomic Laws, Wisdom and Historical Traditions,” JSS 12 (1967) 198–206Google Scholar ; “A New View of the Origin of the Deuteronomic Credo,” VT 19 (1969) 273–89Google Scholar ; “A Singular Method of Codification of Law in the Mishpatim” ZAW 84 (1972) 19–25Google Scholar ; “A Time for War and a Time for Peace: The Influence of the Distinction Upon Some Legal and Literary Material,” JSS 25 (1974) 50–63Google Scholar ; “On Separating Life and Death: An Explanation of Some Biblical Laws,” HTR 69 (1976) 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; “A Common Element in Five Supposedly Disparate Laws,” VT 29 (1979) 129–42Google Scholar ; “Forbidden Mixtures,” VT 32 (1982) 394–415Google Scholar ; “Uncovering a Major Source of Mosaic Law: The Evidence of Deut 21:15-22:5,” JBL 101 (1982) 505–20Google Scholar ; “Biblical Laws of Talion,” Hebrew Annual Review 9 (1985) 107–26Google Scholar.

² , Carmichael, Law and Narrative, 13.Google Scholar

³ Noonan, John T., “The Muzzled Ox,” JQR 70 (1980) 172–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Wenham, G. J. and McConville, J. G., “Drafting Techniques in Some Deuteronomic Laws,” VT 30 (1980) 248–52Google Scholar ; Eslinger, Lyle, “The Case of an Immodest Lady Wrestler in Deuteronomy XXV 11–12,” VT 31 (1981) 269–81Google Scholar ; idem , “More Drafting Techniques in Deuteronomic Laws,” VT 34 (1984) 221–25Google Scholar.

⁴ Some thoughtful analyses of Carmichael's first book include Stephen Kaufman, A., “The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law,” Maarav 1/2 (1978-1979) 108Google Scholar ; Mayes, A. D. H., Deuteronomy (London: Oliphants, 1979) 49–50Google Scholar ; Halpern, Baruch, “The Centralization Formula in Deuteronomy,” VT 31 (1981) 29–30Google Scholar . More recently, Morrow, William Sproull, “The Composition of Deuteronomy 14:1-17:1” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1988) 4–8, 434–37Google Scholar , provides a valuable critique of Carmichael's two books.

⁵ Bloch, Rende, “Ecriture et tradition dans le Judaism, aperc, us sur l'origine du Midrash,” Cahiers Sioniens 8 (1954) 9–34Google Scholar ; Sarna, Nahum M., “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner-biblical Exegesis,” in Altmann, A., ed., Biblical and Other Studies (Brandeis Texts and Studies 1; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963) 29–46Google Scholar ; Childs, Brevard S., “Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis,” JSS 16 (1971) 137–50Google Scholar ; idem, “Midrash and the Old Testament,” in Reumann, John, ed., Understanding the Sacred Text: Essays in Honor of Morton J. Enslin (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1972) 45–59Google Scholar ; Sanders, James A., Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972Google Scholar ) and the collection of his articles in idem , From Sacred Story to Sacred Text: Canon as Paradigm (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987)Google Scholar ; Fishbane, Michael, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985)Google Scholar.

⁶ Daube, David, “The Civil Law of the Mishnah: The Arrangement of the Three Gates,” Tulane Law Review 18 (1943-1944) 351–407Google Scholar ; idem , Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947)Google Scholar; idem , The Exodus Pattern in the Bible (London: Faber and Faber, 1963)Google Scholar ; Petschow, Herbert, “Zur Systematik und Gesetzestechnik im Codex Hammurabi,” ZA 57 (1965) 146–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; idem, “Zur'Systematik' in den Gesetzen von Eschnunna,” in Ankum, J. A., Feenstra, R., and Leemans, W. F., eds., Symbolae iuridicae et historicae Martino David dedicatae (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 2. 131–43Google Scholar ; Finkelstein, J. J., The Ox That Gored, (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 71:2; Philadelphia: American Philosopohical Society, 1981)Google Scholar ; Greenberg, Moshe, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel's Program of Resto-ration,” Int 38 (1984) 181–208Google Scholar ; Eichler, B. L., “Literary Structure in the Laws of Eshnunna,” in Rochberg-Halton, Francesca, ed., Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner (AOS 67; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987) 71–84Google Scholar.

⁷ Smith, Morton, “Pseudepigraphy in the Israelite Literary Tradition,” in Fritz, Kurt von, ed., Pseudepigrapha I (Entretiens sur l'antiquite classique 18; Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1972) 191–215Google Scholar with ensuing discussion, 216–27; Gershom Scholem, “Revelation and Tradition as Religious Categories in Judaism,” in idem , The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York: Schocken, 1971) 282–303Google Scholar ; Yadin, Yigael, The Temple Scroll (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983) 1. 71Google Scholar ; Hartman, Geoffrey H., “On the Jewish Imagination,” Prooftexts 5 (1985) 201–20Google Scholar , esp. 210 ; , Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 257–66Google Scholar , 530–33 ; Jaffee, Martin S., “Mishnaic Literary History and the History of a Mishnaic Idea: On the Formation of the Mishnah's Theory of Intention, with Special Reference to Tractate saserot,” AJS Review 11 (1986) 135–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; idem, “The Pretext of Interpretation: Rabbinic Oral Torah and the Charisma of Revelation,” in Scharlemann, Robert P. and Ogutu, Gilbert E. M., eds., God in Language (New York: Paragon House, 1987) 73–89.Google Scholar

⁸ See the analysis of Budde, Karl, “Dtn 13:10 und was daran hangt,” ZAW 36 (1916) 187–97Google Scholar . Budde attempts to correct the ostensible redundancy by relocating Deut 17:2-7 (as well as 16:22-17:1) after Deut 13:1. This widely followed solution only succeeds in transferring the problem of redundancy to a new context while also overlooking the function of Deut 17:2-7 in its own context. For a more detailed analysis, see Levinson, Bernard M., The Hermeneutics of Innovation: The Impact of Centralization upon the Structure, Sequence and Reformulation of Legal Material in Deuteronomy (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms Inter-national, 1991) 325–432Google Scholar.

⁹ Begg, Christopher T., “The Significance of the Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy: The ‘Prehistory’ of the Question,” EThL 45 (1979) 116–24Google Scholar , with review of the literature ; Suzuki, Yoshihide, The “Numeruswechsel” in Deuteronomy (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1982)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ The most systematic attempt to use the number variation to distinguish redactional strata remains that of Tillesse, Georges Minette de, “Sections ‘tu’ et sections ‘vous’ dans le Deuteronome,” VT 12 (1962) 29–87.Google Scholar

There have been a number of recent challenges to this general diachronic methodology. Among them, Moshe Greenberg employs extra-biblical evidence to argue that neither grammatical number shift nor shifts in the form of reference to the textual speaker between first-person and third-person should be construed as pointing to separate literary strata. See his article, “Ezekiel's Program of Restoration,” 186–88. That such phenomena exist in Aramaic treaties and in cuneiform texts does not, however, rule out the need to explain them. Although the shifts may indeed represent a compositional norm, they can equally provide clear evidence for the text's constituting a redactional combination of separate sources. See the careful reconstruction by Tadmor, Hayim, “The Historical Inscriptions of Adad-Nirari III,” Iraq 35 (1973) 141–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

For biblical law, the synchronic method of “total interpretation” allows Baruch J. Schwartz to argue that the number shift in Lev 19:11-18 reflects syntactical concerns rather than redactional stages. See his “Selected Chapters of the Holiness Code: A Literary Study of Leviticus 17–19” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1987) 140–49Google Scholar (Hebrew; English summary).

¹¹ Maine, Henry Sumner, “Classification of Legal Rules,” chap. 11 in his Dissertations on Early Law and Custom (New York: Henry Holt, 1886Google Scholar ; reprinted New York: Arno, 1975) 362–92.

¹² See the citations gathered by , Kaufman, “Structure of the Deuteronomic Law,” 107Google Scholar . Note also the judgment by Nicholson, E. W.: “This lack of order in Deuteronomy xii-xxvi has so far defied solution.” See his Deuteronomy and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967) 33Google Scholar.

¹³ See Driver, S. R., Deuteronomy (3d ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901) 135–36Google Scholar, who makes five broad topical divisions of the laws, including “sacred observances,” “office-bearers of the theocracy,” “criminal law,” etc. His divisions break down on a number of levels, however. The definition of individual topic units often disregards literary and form-critical criteria (thus the claim that Deut 12:29-13:19 is a single unit concerned with repression of idolatry [Driver, Deuteronomy, 135] overlooks the apodictic Deut 13:1 that interrupts the series of otherwise casuistic paragraphs, Deut 12:29-31; 13:2-6, 7–12, 13–19). In addition, Driver (ibid., 135 nn.) concedes that several passages in the text lie outside of the unit in which they are expected. Quite different in approach, although nonetheless related, is the article of Wiener, Harold M., “The Arrangement of Deuteronomy XII-XXVI,” JPOS 6 (1926) 185–95Google Scholar ; republished in idem , Posthumous Essays (Loewe, Herbert, ed.; London: Oxford University Press/Humphrey Milford, 1932) 26–36Google Scholar . Wiener makes the technique of “association of ideas” the key to the organization of the text. Accordingly, the legal draftsman addresses the needs of the moment, but one idea triggers another. The transitions thereby are conceptual rather than lexical. Wiener, similar to Driver, understands the corpus to be the product of a single author and to be well organized. Although Wiener essentially rejects historical criticism, he acknowledges that certain passages (Deut 17:2-7) do not conform to the overall analysis and must be relocated.

¹⁴ Single-edition analyses of the corpus include the following : HÖlscher, Gustav, “Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteroniums,” ZAW 40 (1922) 161–255Google Scholar , esp. 215–17 ; , Mayes, Deuteronomy, 52–53Google Scholar . Weinfeld, M. (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972] 6–7Google Scholar ) concedes the existence of multiple strata but maintains their differentiation cannot be methodologically controlled and thus adopts a single-edition hypothesis. On Weinfeld's failure to distinguish strata within the legal corpus, note the important critique by Alexander Rofe” in his review in Christian News from Israel 24 (1974) 204–9Google Scholar , esp. 206.

Recent multiple-edition analyses include Rosario Pius Merendino , Das Deuteronomische Gesetz: Eine literarkritische, gattungs- und iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Dt 12–26 (BBB 31; Bonn: Hanstein, 1969) 389–99Google Scholar ; Seitz, Gottfried, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium (BWANT 13; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971) 303–8Google Scholar ; Rofe, Alexander “The Strata of the Law about the Centralization of Worship in Deuteronomy and the History of the Deuteronomic Movement,” Congress Volume, Uppsala 1971 (VTSup 21; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 221–26Google Scholar ; idem . Introduction to Deuteronomy: Part I and Further Chapters (Jerusalem: Akademon, 1988) 66–71 (Hebrew).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Two additional studies should be noted. The Th.D. dissertation by Clemens Locher (Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule Sankt Georgen, Frankfurt, 1984), which has proved impossible to obtain in the United States, includes a section on the legal systematics of Deuteronomy, with chapters 21–22 as its focus. Locher notes that that section was not included in the published version: idem, Die Ehre einer Frau in Israel: Exegetische und rechtsvergleichende Studien zu Deuteronomium 22,13-21 (OBO 70; Fribourg: Universitatsverlag; GÖttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986) viii, 4. Morrow's unpublished dissertation, “The Composition of Deuteronomy” (see n. 4 above), written under Paul E. Dion, adapts Wolfgang Richter's methodology to a detailed analysis of Deut 14:1-17:1, and within that corpus deals insightfully with issues of textual structure.

¹⁶ Kaufman, “The Structure of the Deuteronomic Laws.” Earlier , Guilding, A. E. (“Notes on the Hebrew Law Codes,” JTS 49 [1948] 43–52Google Scholar ) attempted to argue that Exod 20:23-23:17, Deut 12–25, and Lev 10–23, were each patterned after the Decalogue in their sequence. The difficulties in his argument—the arbitrary definition of the scope of the corpora in question— are already evident in the article's title.

¹⁷ Braulik, Georg, “Die Abfolge der Gesetze in Deuteronomium 12–26 und der Dekalog,” in Lohfink, Norbert, ed., Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL 68; Louvain: University Press, 1985) 252–72Google Scholar ; recently supplemented by his “Zur Abfolge der Gesetze in Deuteronomium 16, 18–21, 23. Weitere Beobachtungen,” Bib 69 (1988) 63–92Google Scholar . Braulik adapts Kaufman's basic thesis to standard literary-critical method. Whether Braulik's method does not undermine the intent of Kaufman's approach must be asked in light of the strong reservations Kaufman expresses concerning literary criticism; see his “The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism,” HVCA 53 (1982) 29–43Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Umberto Cassuto, “The Sequence and Arrangement of the Biblical Sections,” in idem, Biblical and Oriental Studies (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973) 1. 1–6.

¹⁹ Rofè, Alexander “The Order of the Laws in the Book of Deuteronomy,” in Loewenstamm, S. E., ed., Studies in Bible Dedicated to the Memory of U. Cassuto on the 100th Anniversary of His Birth (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1987) 217–35 (Hebrew).Google Scholar

²⁰ Bernard M. Levinson, The Hermeneutics of Innovation. In that context, I also analyze the other approaches mentioned here. I have presented various sections of my work in two papers: “Citation and Transformation in Deuteronomy 12,” Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, 7 December 1987; “The Problem of Legal Authority in Deuteronomy,” Fifth Biennial International Conference on Jewish Law, The Jewish Law Association, Boston, 27 July 1988.

²¹ , Carmichael, Laws of Deuteronomy, 69–70Google Scholar , 94, 95.

²² Ibid., 36–37.

²³ When the Deuteronomist alludes to the JE traditions, he employs the singular (ibid., 30 and note). In itself this suggestion raises interesting possibilities. An analogous solution to the problem is suggested by , Kaufman, “Structure of the Deuteronomic Law,” 153 n. 162Google Scholar.

²⁴ , Carmichael, Laws of Deuteronomy, 36–37.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid., 30.

²⁶ Ibid., 67.

²⁷ Ibid., 72 (my emphasis).

²⁸ Ibid., 47–51.

²⁹ The said Talmudic principle is called , approximately, “a prohibition followed by an imperative.” On this stylistic feature, see Rakover, Nahum, A Bibliography of Jewish Law (Jerusalem: Harry Fischel Institute for Research in Jewish Law, 1975) 290–91Google Scholar (Hebrew). Arie Toeg recognizes this feature in the altar law of Exod 20:23-24; see his Law-Giving at Sinai (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977) 84 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

³⁰ , Carmichael, Laws of Deuteronomy, 256.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid., 258; Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School) had already emphasized this point.

³² , Carmichael, Laws of Deuteronomy, 259Google Scholar . On Deuteronomy's not having a Sitz im Leben, see , Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 8–9, 51–58Google Scholar.

³³ , Morrow, “The Composition of Deuteronomy,” 5Google Scholar , raises the first alternative. Carmichael implies in a few instances that the references in the second book simply supplement those adduced by the first; see idem, Law and Narrative, notes on pp. 80, 100, 236, 302, 305, 309.

³⁴ Ibid., 17.

³⁵ Ibid.

³⁶ Ibid., 203.

³⁷ Ibid., 16.

³⁸ Ibid., 17.

³⁹ Ibid., 49, opposing Noth, Martin, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (2d ed.; Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1957Google Scholar ; ET: The Deuteronomistic History [JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT, 1981])Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ , Carmichael, Law and Narrative, 31, 110.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid., 23.

⁴² Ibid., 337 n. 26.

⁴³ Ibid., 23 (pre-Josianic), 26 (Josianic or post-Josianic).

⁴⁴ Ibid., 23.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 203–4. Constrast Michael Fishbane's more nuanced argument that the Leviticus text precedes Deuteronomy, in his Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 56–60.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 19.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 21.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 153 (my emphasis).

⁴⁹ Ibid., 153–54.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 154.

⁵¹ Note BDB, 560, s.v.

⁵² For a convenient discussion, see Mielziner, Moses, Introduction to the Talmud (Cincinnati: Bloch, 1894Google Scholar ; 5th ed., New York: Bloch, 1968) 142–52. Mielziner notes an issue pertinent to the issue at hand: already in the Amoraic period there emerged strictures against the uncontrolled use of this exegetical rule. Such strictures were intended to prevent its use “in cases where the two laws or passages, compared with each other, have nothing in common except a single, often very insignificant word which has not the least natural bearing on the conclusion drawn therefrom” (147-48).

⁵³ The term “creative philology” derives from Heinemann, Joseph, Darkhe ha-Agadah (3d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1970) 108Google Scholar (Hebrew), who defines it as the technique of “linking verses unrelated to one another on the basis of a similarity in their wording” (my translation). Heinemann demonstrates that the technique works to devalue the literal meaning of a passage and to assert instead multiple levels of allegorical meaning (pp. 129–30).

⁵⁴ , Carmichael, Law and Narrative, 90–91.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid., 124–25.

⁵⁶ Ibid., 127.

⁵⁷ Ibid., 207.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 206–10.

⁵⁹ Ibid., 210 n. 4.

⁶⁰ Ibid., 53.

⁶¹ Ibid., 29.

⁶² In Deut 12:2-7, the third person masculine plural suffixes on the series of cultic objects listed in vs 3 construe perfectly: they have as their antecedent the plural reference to the Canaanite “nations” mentioned in vs 2. In contrast, Exod 34:13 does not construe grammatically. Its plural suffixes find in vs 12 only a singular antecedent (“the inhabitant of the land”). Vs 14 even uses the singular form of “god” in its prohibition of apostasy (“Bow down to no other god”). Although the Septuagint normalizes to the plural, this is not sufficient evidence to retrovert to an original Hebrew plural. The LXX may only be translating the more common form or making this passage conform to Deut 12:3. Contextually, therefore, the best way to explain its anomalous plurals (both in addressee and in pronominal suffixes) is to argue that the verse derives from Deut 12:3. Brevard S. Childs argues similarly that Exod 34:11-16 “has been strongly influenced by Deuteronomy”; see his The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974) 613Google Scholar.

⁶³ , Carmichael, Law and Narrative, 319.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ibid.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 68–69.

⁶⁶ Ibid., 68–70.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 70.

⁶⁸ Contrast the important analysis of Moran, William L., “The Literary Connection between Lv 11, 13–19 and Dt 14, 12–18,” CBQ 28 (1966) 271–77Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ , Carmichael, Law and Narrative, 296.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ibid., 296 n. 16.

⁷¹ On the legal significance of the removal of the sandal, see Speiser, E. A., “Of Shoes and Shekels,” BASOR 11 (1940) 15–20.Google Scholar

⁷² There is a reference to a Sumerian case—to deny its relevance (, Carmichael, Law and Narrative, 16 n. 2)Google Scholar and to a Mari ritual (ibid., 141 n. 5). Some of his articles do refer to Hammurabi's Code.

⁷³ Ibid., 136–39.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 165–76.

⁷⁵ Ibid., 13.

⁷⁶ Ibid.

⁷⁷ Ibid., 24 n. 1.

⁷⁸ Ibid., 14–16.

⁷⁹ Ibid., 127.

⁸⁰ Ibid., 51–58.

⁸¹ Ibid., 102–5.

⁸² Ibid., 30–33.

⁸³ Ibid., 54–58, 58–65, 88–96, 317–26.

⁸⁴ Ibid., 231–34, 244–46, 250, 307–9.

⁸⁵ Ibid., 74–78, 206–10, 214–16, 261–62, 279–91, 299–303.

⁸⁶ Deuteronomy explicitly refers both to prior narrative and legal traditions of the Tetrateuch; see Deut 1:5; 28:69. Methodologically more problematic is the question of whether Deuteronomy refers to texts incorporated into the Deuteronomistic history. By definition, such references cannot be explicit or they would jeopardize the authors' pseudepigraphic presentation of Deuteronomy as Mosaic. For a possible implicit such reference in the law of the king (Deut 17:15), see Daube, David, ‘“One From Among Your Brethren Shall I Set King Over You,’” JBL 90 (1971) 480–81Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ , Carmichael, Laws of Deuteronomy, 173–74Google Scholar ; cf. idem, Law and Narrative, 228–31.

⁸⁸ , Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 120.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ , Mayes, Deuteronomy, 317.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Milgrom, Jacob, “Religious Conversion and the Revolt Model for the Formation of Israel,” JBL 101 (1982) 169–76Google Scholar , esp. 173–74. Milgrom's argument is weakened by the fact that Gen 19:30-38 derives from J. It seems unlikely that a Judaean text would serve as the basis for an Israelite polemic against Judah!

⁹¹ , Carmichael, Law and Narrative, 17.Google Scholar

⁹² Daube, David, Studies in Biblical Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1947)Google Scholar ; idem , The Exodus Pattern in the Bible (London: Faber and Faber, 1963)Google Scholar ; idem, “The Culture of Deuteronomy,” in Orita: Ibadan Journal of Religious Studies 3 (1969) 27–51Google Scholar ; idem , “To Be Found Doing Wrong,” in Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra (6 vols.; Pubblicazioni della Facolta di giurisprudenza dell'Universita di Roma 40–45; Milan: Giuffrd, 1971) 2. 1–13Google Scholar.

⁹³ , Carmichael, Law and Narrative, 203.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ibid., 16 n. 2. Carmichael's drive for narrative allusion here forces him to remove the interpretive context he previously allowed (Laws of Deuteronomy, 258 n. 9: “I would suggest a comparison between the ideal, artificial nature of the D laws and the hypothetical, paradigmatic character of ancient Near Eastern law codes.”) Even in that instance, however, he is dubious of direct literary influence.

⁹⁵ , Carmichael, Law and Narrative, 38.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ He cites Gen 18:7; Job 1:13, 18; and 1 Sam 25:11 (ibid., 38 n. 21). It is doubtful that these texts can be used to support his argument. The patriarchal narratives frequently conflict with Pentateuchal law and explicitly are pre-Sinaitic; the Job text makes no mention of either whether or how animals were slaughtered and refers to non-Israelites; the Samuel passage does not preclude slaughter at an altar.

⁹⁷ It is equally surprising that he makes no mention of Leviticus 17 in his assertion that “the repeated emphasis upon not consuming the blood [in Deut 12:20-28] is readily explained as a reaction to the incident described in 1 Sam 14:31-33” (ibid., 45).

⁹⁸ See Weinfeld, Moshe, “On ‘Demythologization and Secularization’ in Deuteronomy,” IEJ 23 (1973) 230–33.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ , Carmichael, Law and Narrative, 77.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., 75–78, esp. 77. Nor in the intertextual allusion he claims does Carmichael ad-dress the problems associated with the dating of the Joseph cycle. Much later, in connection with his assertion that Deut 24:17-25:3 is based on the Joseph cycle, he does raise this problem in a cursory footnote. He does not adduce evidence to support his statement in reference to Redford, D. B. (A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph [Genesis 37–50] [Leiden: Brill, 1970])CrossRefGoogle Scholar : “His remark (249-50) that the rest of Scripture is completely silent on the subject of the Joseph story is simply wrong” (, Carmichael, Law and Narrative, 286 n. 5)Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ , Carmichael, Law and Narrative, 313–42.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Ibid., 315.

¹⁰³ “It is no easy task to overturn longstanding views on material that has always been in center stage in the study of the Bible,” is the opening sentence of the book (ibid., 13). A following sentence describes his work as “radical in its results.” Such assertions by Carmichael of his own originality become a routine opening trope in many of his articles and books: “I suppose it is rather a startling thesis to claim…” (Women, Law, and the Genesis Traditions, 1; similarly, “Uncovering a Major Source of Mosaic Law,” 505); “In order to make novel observations…” (“Laws of Talion,” 107).

¹⁰⁴ This is a revised version of a communication presented to the Biblical Law Group at the Annual Meeting of the SBL, in Anaheim, California, on 20 November 1989. I would like to thank several members of that congenial group for their encouragement and advice: Martin Buss (director), Victor H. Matthews (secretary), and Jacob Milgrom. In addition, I am indebted to my colleagues, Gary Knoppers and Davida Charney, for their painstaking comments on my manuscript. Of course, the positions taken here are my own.