¹ Wright, George Ernest, “The Law-Suit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32,” in Anderson, Bernard W. and Harrelson, Walter, eds., Israel's Prophetic Heritage (New York: Harper, 1962) 26–67Google Scholar; Harvey, Julien, “Le ‘Rib Pattern’ prophetique sur la rupture de l'alliance,” Bib 43 (1962) 172–96Google Scholar; and Wiebe, John M., “The Form, Setting and Meaning of the Song of Moses,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 17 (1989) 119–63Google Scholar. Compare also Mendenhall, George, “Samuel's ‘Broken Rib’: Deuteronomy 32,” in Christensen, Duane, ed., A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993) 169–80Google Scholar. Although he rejected Wright's form-critical conclusions, Mendenhall concluded from the legal elements within the song that “this poem is probably the best indirect evidence we have for actual village court procedures in Palestine of the Early Iron Age” (p. 176; my emphasis).

² Driver, S. R., Deuteronomy (ICC; New York: Scribner's, 1916) 345Google Scholar; von Rad, Gerhard, Deuteronomy (Old Testament Library; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1966) 196, 200Google Scholar; Boston, James R., “The Wisdom Influence upon the Song of Moses,” JBL 87 (1968) 198–202Google Scholar.

³ Wright, “Law-Suit,” 54–55.

⁴ Boston, “Wisdom Influence,” 198–201.

⁵ Because scholars have been unable to reconcile the various elements and forms within Deuteronomy 32, the song is often described form-critically as a Mischgedicht (“mixed poem”), which combines traits from an assortment of different poetic genres. See Gunkel, Hermann and Begrich, Joachim, Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen.der religiösen Lyrik Israels (1933; reprinted Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 324, 330Google Scholar; Wright, “Law-Suit,” 41; Alday, Salvador Carrillo, “Genero literario del Cántico de Moisés (Dt 32),” EstBib 26 (1967) 69–75Google Scholar. It is largely due to its form-critical complexity that Deuteronomy 32 has generated an enormous amount of scholarship dedicated to elucidating its genre and contents. Major studies not cited in the preceding and following notes include Kamphausen, Adolf, Das Lied Moses: Deut. 32, 1–43 (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1862)Google Scholar; Budde, Karl, Das Lied Moses Deut 32 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1920)Google Scholar; Baumann, Eberhard, “Das Lied Moses (Dt 32, 1–43) auf seine gedankliche Geschlossenheit untersucht,” VT 6 (1956) 414–24Google Scholar; Albright, William F., “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deut xxxii,” VT 9 (1959) 339–46Google Scholar; Moran, William, “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses,” Bib 43 (1962) 317–27Google Scholar; Cassuto, Umberto, “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy chapter xxxii 1–43),” Biblical and Oriental Studies (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973) 1. 41–46Google Scholar; Luyten, J., “Primeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song of Moses (Dt 32,1–43),” in Lohfink, Norbert, ed., Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985) 341–47Google Scholar. For additional bibliography, see Eissfeldt, Otto, The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harper & Row, 1965) 227 n. 14Google Scholar; Labushagne, C. J., “The Song of Moses: Its Framework and Structure,” in 1. Eybers, , et al. , eds., De Fructu Oris Sui: Essays in Honour of Adrianus van Selms (Leiden: Brill, 1971) 85–98, esp. 92 n. 1Google Scholar; Wiebe, “Form, Setting and Meaning.”

⁶ Xenophon, Cyropaedia 8.7.1–28 (trans. Miller, Walter; London: Heinemann, 1914) 423–39Google Scholar.

⁷ Two lengthy studies have surveyed biblical and postbiblical last words and testamentary literature in the context of ancient Near Eastern literature. See Cortes, Ehric, Los Discursos de Adids de Gn a In 13–17: Pistas para la historia de un género literario en la antiqua literature judia (Colectánea San Paciano 23; Barcelona: Herder, 1976)Google Scholar; von Nordheim, Eckhard, Die Lehre der Alten (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1980–85)Google Scholar. See also Michel, Hans Joachim, Die Abschiedsrede des Paulus an die Kirche APG 20, 17–38; Motivgeschichte und theologische Bedeutung (SANT 35; München: Kösel, 1973)Google Scholar; Collins, John, “Testaments,” in Stone, Michael E., ed., Jewish Writings in the Second Temple Period (Assen: Van Gorcum and Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1984) 325–55Google Scholar; Perdue, Leo, “The Death of the Sage and Moral Exhortation: From Ancient Near Eastern Instructions to Graeco-Roman Paraenesis,” Semeia 50 (1990) 81–109Google Scholar. My reason for including Xenophon, a pre-Hellenistic Greek author, is that his account of King Cyrus's last words has been connected to a Persian narrative tradition centered around the testament of a dying king to his successors. See Christensen, Arthur, The Epics of the Kings in Ancient Iranian Traditions (Bombay: Cama, 1991) 67–75Google Scholar.

⁸ Compare von Rad (Deuteronomy, 200), who noted briefly that Deuteronomy 32 functions within its narrative setting as a final teaching; and Nordheim (Lehre, 2. 52–64), who read Deuteronomy 31–34 as testamentary literature.

⁹ For recent discussion of the origins and literary history of Ahiqar, see Küchler, Max, Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen: Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des frühjüdischen Jahweglaubens (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1979) 319–79Google Scholar; Lindenberger, James, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar (1974; reprinted Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983) 3–34Google Scholar. Both works include references to earlier studies.

¹⁰ Although Lindenberger (Aramaic Proverbs, 18) has concluded that the Elephantine version of Ahiqar “does not integrate the narrative and sayings at all,” a number of factors suggest otherwise. First, in all the later versions of Ahiqar and compositions thought to be influenced by Ahiqar, the proverbs are presented as part of the story, although admittedly there is variation with regard to their precise position within the narrative. Many later versions actually present two proverb collections, one near the beginning of the narrative, one near the end. Second, while there is reason to believe that the proverbs were composed independently of the narrative, a few proverbs seem to allude to the contents of the story, as Cowley, Arthur (Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. [1923; reprinted Osnabrück: Zeller, 1967] 210) has recognizedGoogle Scholar. Indeed, as Lindenberger himself suggests (Aramaic Proverbs, 136–37), these proverbs may have been added to the collection to strengthen the tie between the narrative and the proverbs. Finally, Porten, Bezalel (Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt [3 vols.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993] 3. 23)Google Scholar has recently restored the original order of the Elephantine version's fourteen preserved columns based on traces of an underlying customs account erased to make room for Ahiqar. Porten's restoration suggests that the proverbs were connected to the story, and that the narrative bridge—apparently on the outside of the scroll and thus most susceptible to damage—was simply lost (I thank Professor Lindenberger for calling my attention to Porten's work). Together, these considerations indicate that the proverbs in the Elephantine version were to be read within the context of the narrative as the words uttered by Ahiqar after he foiled Nadan's plot against him.

¹¹ Texts and translations of the Slavonic, Armenian, Old Turkish, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions of Ahiqar, along with the relevant sections of the Life of Aesop, can be found in Conybeare, F. C., Harris, J. Rendel, and Lewis, Agnes, The Story of Ahikar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913)Google Scholar. The relation of these versions to one another, and to the Elephantine version, is discussed by Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 348–57. The standard English edition of the Elephantine version remains Cowley, Aramaic Papyri.

¹² For a detailed introduction to the Elephantine version and its archives, see Porten, Bezalel, Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968)Google Scholar.

¹³ For the use of Ahiqar in the Book of Tobit, see Conybeare, The Story of Ahiqar, xiii, xlviii–liv; Cazelles, Henri, “Zur Funktion der Achikar Notizen im Buch Tobias,” BZ 20 (1976) 232–37Google Scholar; Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 364–79; Greenfield, Jonas, “Ahiqar in the Book of Tobit,” in Dore, Joseph. et al. , eds., De la Torah au Mesie: études d'exégese et d'herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles (Paris: Desclee, 1981) 329–36Google Scholar; Nowell, Irene, The Book of Tobit: Narrative Technique and Theology (Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1983) 60–68Google Scholar.

¹⁴ See Conybeare, The Story of Ahiqar, lv–lxii; Talmon, Shemaryahu, “‘Wisdom’ in the Book of Esther,” VT 13 (1963) 419–55, esp. 438–43Google Scholar; Niditch, Susan and Doran, Robert, “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach,” JBL 96 (1977) 179–93Google Scholar; Wills, Lawrence M., The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990)Google Scholar; Milik, Josef T., “Les modèles araméens du livre d'Esther dans la grotte 4 de Qumran,” RQ 15 (1992) 321–406, esp. 384–87Google Scholar.

¹⁵ See Miller, Patrick D., “‘Moses My Servant’: The Deuteronomic Portrait of Moses,” Int 41 (1987) 245–55, esp. 246–48Google Scholar. For the affinities of Deuteronomy with biblical wisdom literature, see Malfroy, Jean, “Sagesse et Loi dans le Deuteronome études,” VT 15 (1965) 49–65Google Scholar; Weinfeld, Moshe, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 244–81, 298–306Google Scholar.

¹⁶ My use of comparative data has been guided by the contextual approach as advocated by Hallo, William (“Biblical History in its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach,” in idem, et al., eds., Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method [Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980] 1–26)Google Scholar, who addresses both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and the literature and culture of the ancient Near East.

¹⁷ While the copy of Ahiqar found at Elephantine is to be dated on paleographical and archaeological grounds to the late fifth century BCE, many believe that the composition itself originated in the sixth and possibly the seventh centuries BCE, with the proverbs section perhaps originating earlier than the accompanying narrative. See Lindenberger, Aramaic Proverbs, 19–20. Note also that Erica Reiner (“The Etiological Myth of the Seven Sages,” Or 30 [1960] 1–11) has argued that Ahiqar draws on motifs such as “the disgrace and rehabilitation of the minister,” and “the ungrateful nephew,” which occur in earlier Babylonian literature. Although there is considerable debate over the date and provenance of the contents of Deuteronomy, many place its composition in the seventh or the sixth century BCE, with the song perhaps originating earlier than the accompanying narrative. For a review of the evidence placing Deuteronomy's composition in the seventh century, see Weinfeld, Moshe, Deuteronomy 1–11 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 16–17Google Scholar. For a review of the debate surrounding the date of Deuteronomy 32, which has been assigned to almost every century from the eleventh century BCE to the sixth century BCE, see Watts, James, Psalm and Story (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992) 77 n. 1Google Scholar; Wiebe, “Form, Setting and Meaning,” 143–50.

¹⁸ As observed by Malul, Meir (The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies [AOAT 227; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1990] 87–91)Google Scholar there are three possible connections between texts that are thought to be related: one text may be directly influenced by the other; one text may be indirectly influenced by the other through an intermediary; both texts may stem from a common source or tradition. I believe that the second and third options better suit the similarity between Ahiqar and Deuteronomy than the first, but the existing evidence does not allow us to describe precisely the connection between the two narratives.

¹⁹ Since the version of Ahiqar from Elephantine is fragmentary, some of these shared motifs are drawn from the Syriac version of Ahiqar, as well as the Instruction of Ankhsheshonqy, a Demotic text which is thought to have been influenced by Ahiqar. For the former I have consulted the Syriac versions translated in Conybeare, The Story of Ahiqar, especially Ms Syr 2 (Cambridge MS add. 2020). Chapter and verse citations are according to the English translation in Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 715–84Google Scholar. For the latter I am dependent on the translation of Lichtheim, Miriam (Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context: A Study of Demotic Instructions [OBO 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983] 13–22)Google Scholar, who concludes that “it was… probable that the Demotic writer was also familar with the Ahiqar story, and that his own introductory narrative owed something to it.” Although these two texts came into existence long after the composition of both Deuteronomy and Elephantine Ahiqar—indeed, many of the later versions of Ahiqar were actually influenced by biblical literature—and must be used with caution, they can help to refine our comparison of Ahiqar and Deuteronomy 31 by filling in missing details or illuminating differences between the two compositions.

²⁰ Elephantine Ms Ahiqar column 1 lines 6–9 (Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 212, 220).

²¹ Compare, however, the Syriac version of Ahiqar in which the sage learns from a divine voice that Nadan is to be his heir. Note also Perdue's, Leo G. observation (“Liminality as a Social Setting for Wisdom Instructions,” ZAW 93 [1981] 114–26)Google Scholar that in Egyptian instructions what the teacher transmits is not simply his own point of view, but is often officially approved by the god of wisdom or the king or both. See the narrative introduction to the Instruction of Ptah-hotep (an English translation may be found in Lichtheim, Miriam, Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings [3 vols.; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973] 1. 62–63)Google Scholar, for example, where the sage seeks and is granted the king's approval before issuing his teaching.

²² Elephantine MS Ahiqar column 2 lines 23–25 (Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 212, 220–21).

²³ MS Syriac 2 Ahiqar 1.8–9 (Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 726).

²⁴ MS Syriac 2 Ahiqar 3.1–2 (Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 740).

²⁵ See, for example, Deut 4:1–25.

²⁶ It is true that testamentary literature from the Jewish Hellenistic period and following, such as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, often contains forecasts of future acts of sin and disobedience by Israel—the first part of the “sin-exile-and-return” pattern identified by de Jonge, Marinus, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953) 83–86Google Scholar. See T. Iss. 6; T. Levi 10.14–15, 16; T. Jud. 23; T. Zeb 9.5–7; T. Dan 5.4, 8–9; T. Naph. 4; T. Ash. 7; T. Benj. 9.1–2. This motif resembles the description of Israel's future treachery in Deut 31:16–18, but it appears in a literature created under the direct influence of deuteronomic theology and literary form, including the Song of Moses. I would argue, therefore, that the frequent appearance of this motif in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and other early Jewish and Christian testaments reveals more about the literary influence of Deuteronomy and deuteronomic theology on later Jewish and Christian literature than it does about the appearance or role of this motif in Deuteronomy 31 itself.

²⁷ MS Syriac 2 Ahiqar 3.3–7 (Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 741–42).

²⁸ Lindenberger (Aramaic Proverbs, 5, 29 n. 6) has established, for example, that one of the Armenian recensions of Ahiqar preserves authentic ancient Near Eastern names of Ahiqar's gods, while Lichtheim (Late Egyptian Literature, 21) has argued that the Instruction of Ankhsheshonqy, which was composed in the Persian or Hellenistic period, is more closely related to the later versions of Ahiqar than to that found at Elephantine.

²⁹ Demotic fragments from Roman-period Egypt partially preserve an episode involving Ahiqar that is different from anything in the Elephantine version of Ahiqar. The fragments are published in Zauzich, Karl Th., “Demotische Fragmente zum Ahiqar-Roman,” in Francke, Herbert, et al. , eds., Folia Rara: Wolfgang Voigt LXV (Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland Supplementband 19; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1976) 180–85Google Scholar. Lindenberger (Aramaic Proverbs, 310–12) provides an English translation.

³⁰ MS Syriac 2 Ahiqar 7.26 (Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 768).

³¹ The juxtaposition of the terms ῔ריש and הרוח in Deut 31:19–30 is noted frequently but has not yet been satisfactorily explained. Whatever its solution, the problem cannot be considered independently of the larger issue of this chapter's redactional development—a subject of considerable controversy (see n. 31 below). Adding to the confusion is the ambiguous expression “these words” in Deut 31:28, which may refer either to הרוח in v. 26 or to ῔ריש in v. 22. Although there is no explicit indication that the narrative has reverted its attention back to the ῔ריש, the contents of Deut 31:28–29 seem to allude to the contents of the song at several points. Deut 31:28, “call heaven and earth” corresponds to Deut 32:1, “Give ear, O heavens.… and let the earth hear the words of my mouth”; Deut 31:29a, “will surely act corruptly,” corresponds to Deut 32:5, “they have dealt corruptly”; Deut 31:29b, “provoking him to anger through the work of their hands,” corresponds to Deut 32:16, “with abominable practices they provoked him to anger.”

³² For the view that the association of these two terms arose through a textual accident involving the confusion of columns (one describing a ῔ריש the other, a הרוח), see Rofé, Alexander, “The Question of the Composition of Deuteronomy 31 in Light of a Conjecture about a Confusion in the Columns of the Biblical Text,” Shnaton 3 (1978–79) 49–76Google Scholar. For the view that the association of these two terms arose through a complex redactional process in which one tradition was imposed upon or woven into the other, see Eissfeldt, Otto, “Die Umrahmung des Moseliedes Dtn 32, 1–43 und des Mosegesetzes Dtn 1–30 in Dtn 31, 9–32:47,” in Sellheim, Rudolf and Maass, Fritz, eds., Kleine Schriften (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1966) 3Google Scholar. 322–34; Lohfink, Norbert, “Der Bundesschluss im Land Moab—Redaktiongeschichtliches zu Deut. 28, 69–32,47,” BZ6 (1962) 32–56Google Scholar; idem, “Zur Fabel in Dm 31–32,” in Bartelmus, Rüdiger, et al. , eds., Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte: Festschrift Klaus Baltzer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) 255–79Google Scholar; Alday, Carrillo, “Contexto Redaccional del Cántico de Moisés (Dt 31, 1–32, 47),” EstBib 26 (1967) 383–93Google Scholar; Labushagne, “The Song of Moses,” 86–92 (who reviews the debate as a whole). The attempt to reconstruct the literary development of Deuteronomy 31 is further complicated by a number of complex textual variants among the versions. For instance, a statement corresponding to MT Deut 31:22 is repeated in the Septuagint just before Deut 32:44 (the verse immediately following the song), while the phrase ᗗאזה (“this song”) in MT Deut 32:44 seems to correspond to חאזה הרוחה (“this torah”; τοῦ νόμου τού του) in the equivalent section of LXX Deut 32:44. For a recent discussion of these and other textual variants, see Laberge, Leo, “Le Texte de Deutéronome 31 (Dt 31,1–29; 32, 44–41),” in Brekelmans, Christianus and Lust, Johan, eds., Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990) 143–60Google Scholar.

³³ von Rad, Deuteronomy, 201. For the translation of הרוח as “teaching” or “instruction,” see Lindars, Barnabas, “Torah in Deuteronomy,” in Ackroyd, Peter and Lindars, Barnabas, eds., Words and Meanings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968) 117–36, esp. 129–30Google Scholar.

³⁴ The label “instruction” or “teaching” is used to introduce a wide variety of literary forms in the ancient Near East. For instance, as Williams, Ronald J. has pointed out (“The Sages of Ancient Egypt in Light of Recent Scholarship,” JAOS 101 [1981] 1–19, esp. 7)Google Scholar, the Egyptian word for instruction (Sb3y.t) is used to introduce proverbial collections, autobiographies, laments, satires, and other literary forms. In Egyptian literature, then, the classification “instruction” seems to indicate only the function of the text so introduced, not its form or medium. If the same is true of the term “instruction” (הרוח) in ancient Israel, then perhaps its use in Deut 31:24–26 is meant merely to indicate the function of Deuteronomy 32 as a teaching, while the word “song” in Deuteronomy 31:19–22, 30 is meant to indicate its form.

³⁵ Deuteronomy 31 seems somewhat confused regarding who recites the song. According to Deut 32:1 Moses recites the song alone whereas according to Deut 32:44 Moses and Joshua recite the song together. Many scholars dismiss the narrative's attribution of the song to Joshua as a scribal afterthought (see Watts, Psalm and Story, 72), but for a different view, see Lohfink, “Zur Fabel in Dtn 31–32,” 260.

³⁶ See McKay, J. W., “Man's Love for God in Deuteronomy and the Father/Teacher—Son/ Pupil Relationship,” VT 22 (1972) 426–35Google Scholar. The representation of the deity as a teacher appears in both biblical and extrabiblical wisdom literature. For examples, see Shupak, Nil, “The ‘sitz im Leben’ of the Book of Proverbs in the Light of a Comparison of Biblical and Egyptian Wisdom Literature,” RB 94 (1987) 98–119 esp. 115–16Google Scholar.

³⁷ My hypothesis that Deuteronomy 31 reflects a theological adaptation of a narrative pattern also reflected in Ahiqar is further corroborated by a brief passage found in Isa 30:8–9: “And now, go, write it before them on a tablet, and inscribe it in a book, that it may be for the time to come as a witness forever. For they are a rebellious people, lying sons, sons who will not hear the instruction of the Lord.” In a manner of speaking, this passage brings us a step closer to the hypothetical missing link that lies somewhere in the literary ancestry of both Deuteronomy 31 and Ahiqar, sharing characteristics with each composition. On the one hand, Isa 30:8–9 is reminiscent of Deuteronomy 31, since it describes a text that has been preserved on a tablet and is to serve as a “witness” in a future time against “a rebellious people.” On the other hand, this passage is reminiscent of Ahiqar since it is concerned with the behavior of “lying sons. … who will not hear instruction.” The correspondence to either composition is not exact, but even so, this passage still sheds light on the relation of Deuteronomy 31 to Ahiqar, for it shows how a narrative like that reflected in Ahiqar can be theologized by an Israelite author. The figure of the lying son who refuses to heed instruction is here explicitly equated with the rebellious people who will not heed the min of the Lord—precisely the equation that the author of Deuteronomy 31 seems to have implied. Thus, not only does this passage offer additional evidence that Deuteronomy 31 reflects the conventional narrative pattern manifest in Ahiqar, but it suggests that the theologization of this pattern, now evident in two biblical passages, may itself have been a conventional rhetorical maneuver in ancient Israel.

³⁸ Elephantine MS Ahiqar column 1 lines 1–2 (Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 212, 220).

³⁹ Elephantine MS Ahiqar column 9 lines 139–40 (Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 217, 224). For a detailed discussion of the textual and philological problems posed by this saying, see Lindenberger, Aramaic Proverbs, 136–39.

⁴⁰ Lindenberger (Aramaic Proverbs, 137) cites several imperial Aramaic texts in which the root קרצ appears as a legal formula referring to winning a lawsuit. Lindenberger also notes (p. 138) that the idiom “false witness” corresponds exactly to biblical Hebrew סמח רצ (Exod 23:1; Deut 19:16; Ps 35:11).

⁴¹ See Lindenberger, Aramaic Proverbs, 136–37.

⁴² The castigatory tone of Ahiqar's words is evident elsewhere in the Elephantine version. See, for instance, Elephantine MS Ahiqar column 11 lines 169–70 (Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 218, 225; translated and discussed in Lindenberger, Aramaic Proverbs, 173): “My eyes which I have lifted up upon you, and my heart which I gave you in wisdom, [you have despised, and] have brought my name into disrepute.”

⁴³ The description of the song as a “witness for God against Israel” in Deut 31:19 recalls Ahiqar's plea in Elephantine MS Ahiqar col. 9.139–40 for someone to vindicate him against the accusations of a “false witness.”

⁴⁴ Many commentators are troubled by the syntactically awkward םמומ (“their blemish”) at the end of Deut 32:5, explaining it as a textual corruption or as a scribal comment interpolated into the text. See Driver, Deuteronomy, 352; Mayes, A. D. H., Deuteronomy (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1979) 383Google Scholar. Even if the word is eliminated, however, the thrust of the verse remains the same.

⁴⁵ As Greenfield, Jonas has pointed out (“The Background and Parallel to a Proverb of Ahiqar,” in Caquot, André and Philonenko, Marc, eds., Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer [Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1971] 49–59, esp. 51–52)Google Scholar, the noun תכפהח is consistently used in biblical Hebrew to describe a person who does not keep his word, while an תכפהח שיא(Prov 16:28) is a man who has constant recourse to the courts. Indeed, Greenfield cites the usage of this noun in Deut 32:20 (תכפהח דוד —the only instance of תכפהח in the Bible outside of Proverbs) to explain the meaning of the etymologically related אכפא used by Elephantine MS Ahiqar column 10 line 156 (Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 217, 225) in his proverbs: “May El twist the mouth of the treacherous (אכפא).”

⁴⁶ My argument here offers yet another reason to reassess—or at least nuance—the thesis of Baltzer, Klaus (The Covenant Formulary [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971])Google Scholar that the testamentary literary form has been influenced by the structure and content of the covenant form. The Ahiqar analogue suggests that at least some of the elements in Deuteronomy 31 attributed by Baltzer to the influence of the covenant form (for example, the publication of the instruction in written form) originated within the last words literary tradition. For other criticisms of Baltzer's attempt to explain the form of testamentary literature in light of the covenant form, see Hollander, Harm W., Joseph as an Ethical Model in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 3Google Scholar; Collins, “Testaments,” 339–40.