^{page 203 note 1} Wolff, Hans Walter, “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks,” ZAW 73 (1961), 182–83. By “Deuteronomic Corpus” (Dtn), we intend Deut 4:44–28:68. This study will not deal with the internal structure of those chapters, which may include some elements by the hand which produced the frame.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 2} Lohfink, Norbert, “Auslegung deuteronomischer Texte, IV,” Bibel und Leben 4 (1964) 252–53.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 3} Ibid., 250–51.

^{page 204 note 4} Ibid., 251–52.

^{page 204 note 5} Cazelles, Henri, “Passages in the Singular within Discourse in the Plural of Dt 1–4,” CBQ 29 (1967) 213–14.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 6} Ibid., 213.

^{page 205 note 7} Ibid.

^{page 205 note 8} Ibid.

^{page 205 note 9} Ibid.

^{page 206 note 10} Ibid., 214.

^{page 206 note 11} Ibid.

^{page 207 note 12} Ibid.

^{page 207 note 13} Cross, Frank Moore, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1973) 245.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 14} Cazelles, “Passages,” 214.

^{page 207 note 15} The most recent comprehensive defense of the method is Tillesse, G. Minette de, “Sections ‘tu’ et sections ‘vous’ dans le Deutéronome,” VT 12 (1962) 29–87.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 16} Lohfink, Norbert, “Der Bundesschluss im Land Moab,” BZ 6 (1962) 35.Google Scholar Since, however, Deut 32:48–52 would seem to be P material, the real end of the covenant at Moab is at 32:47.

^{page 208 note 17} Ibid., 44–45.

^{page 208 note 18} The mere threat and description of exile cannot be taken as a sure reflection of the events of 587. Exile was a threat before it was an historical reality. See Hillers, Delbert R., Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964) 33–34. When, however, the text promises that once in exile, Israel can still return, this presupposes an exilic audience. There may be exilic elements in Deut 28:45ff., but the absence of the prospect of return in these covenant curses should make us wary of seeing the hand of the exilic frame in them.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 19} Wolff, “Das Kerygma,” 182–83.

^{page 208 note 20} Lohfink, “Der Bundesschluss,” 42, n. 43.

^{page 209 note 21} Carpenter, J. Estlin and Harford-Battersby, G., The Hexateuch (London: Longmans, Green, 1900) 293, 30:11 n.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 22} Moran, William L., “Deuteronomy,” A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Orchard, Bernard (London: Nelson, 1969) 257Google Scholar. Against such a position, Rad, Gerhard von (Deuteronomy, Old Testament Library [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966] 188)Google Scholar judges all of vv. 3–6 as an amplification, but since the subject of vv. 1–8 is the installation of Joshua, it is better to retain v. 3b with Moran.

^{page 210 note 23} We have omitted 3:29 (“And we stayed in the valley opposite Beth-Peor”) as an insertion by the author of 4:1–40, who wants a narrative reference to Beth-Peor for homiletic reasons (see 4:3–4). Even if we were to see ch. 4 as the continuation of chs. 1–3, and not as an exilic frame to Dtn, we would still see this line as an interruption, coming between a divine speech to Moses and a Mosaic speech to Israel. Had we included 3:29 in the installation of Joshua (3:21–28; 31:1–2, 3b, 7–10), it would be no more out of place than it is in the received text.

^{page 210 note 24} The LXX reading (translating wayy^ekal) is no improvement.

^{page 210 note 25} Noth, Martin, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1957) 14Google Scholar. This is a reprint of the original 1943 edition. For a list of other scholars, see Nicholson, E. W., Deuteronomy and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967) 20, n. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 26} Lohfink, “Der Bundesschluss,” 35.

^{page 215 note 27} Wolff, “Das Kerygma,” 182. But note Wolffs uncertainty on p. 183.

^{page 215 note 28} In accordance with several versions and for reasons of sense, in Deut 32:8 Bb, we read b^enê ˒^elōhîm for MT b^enê yiśrā˒ēl. See Skehan, Patrick W., “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut. 32) from Qumran,” BASOR 136 (Dec. 1954) 12. The intent of vv. 7ff. is to describe how and why Israel became YHWH's special possession and he their God. For Israel, other deities are “foreign” (v. 12), “strange” and their worship, “abominations” (v. 16). They are “no-gods” in the same sense that Israel's enemies are a “no-people” (v. 21); they are illegitimate, but still existent. This is not simply to say that the author of the song would have doubted the supreme power of the Deity who claimed his faith. He does not, however, deny in these lines the reality of other divine personalities, as does the author of the exilic frame.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 29} Dahood, Mitchell, “Northwest Semitic Notes on Dt 32, 20,” Bib 54 (1973) 405–06, argues for the reading “turn away the face.” Since “turn away the face” and “hide the face” are practically identical in meaning, the matter cannot be resolved on semantic grounds. It should be noted, however, that there is no evidence for the existence in Hebrew of a t-form of a hollow verb without reduplication of the final consonant. The existence of such a form in Bronze Age Ugarit is no proof of its existence in Iron Age Israel.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 30} William L. Moran, noting (oral communication) that in ch. 4 the chief commandment is the prohibition on images, whereas in ch. 6 it is the exclusive sovereignty of YHWH, suggested that the introduction of the prohibition on images into the Decalogue may be exilic. Zimmerli, Walther (“Das Zweite Gebot,” Festschrift Alfred Bertholet [Tubingen: J. C. M. Mohr, 1950] 550–63)Google Scholar had already argued persuasively for the secondary insertion of this line into the Decalogue on form-critical grounds. The contrasting theologies of ch. 4 and ch. 6 may thus supply a clue to the date of this insertion. See Moran, William L., “The Conclusion of the Decalogue (Ex 20, 17 = Dt 5, 21),” CBQ 29 (1967) 553–54.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 31} Noth, Studien, 39.

^{page 218 note 32} Cross, Canaanite, 275.

^{page 218 note 33} Ibid., 281. Passages are listed in n. 30.

^{page 218 note 34} Ibid., 282. Passages are listed in n. 31. For the translation “fief,” see Hanson, Paul D., “Song of Heshbon and David's NIR,” HTR 61 (1968) 310–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 218 note 35} Cross, Canaanite, 284.

^{page 219 note 36} Ibid., 285.

^{page 219 note 37} Noth, Studien, 14.

^{page 221 note 38} The central idea of this study is the insight of William L. Moran. It was he who first suggested (oral communication) that Deut 3:29–4:40 is an exilic passage which interrupts Dtr 1, has close affinities with ch. 30, and is composed under the influence of the song in Deut 32:1–43. We are in debt to Professor Moran not only for the germ of the study, but also for his generous aid, especially of a bibliographical nature.

^{page 221 note 39} It is conceivable that the pious glosses in Deut 31:3a, 4–6 are also the work of Dtr 2. It would not be inconsistent with his theology to play down the role of Joshua and to stress the role of God in the conquest. There was to be no figure analogous to Joshua in the return from Babylonia.

^{page 221 note 40} This implies that Dtr I did not include Dtn originally, but that Dtn was inserted by Dtr 2, along with its introduction in 3:29–4:40 and its epilogue in the exilic parts of 28:69–32:47. Thus, only because of Dtr 2 can the history be accurately named “Deuteronomistic.” We shall develop this theory in Part II.

^{page 222 note 1} “Dtn” signifies the paraenetic introduction (Deuteronomy 5–11) and material between the beginning of the law code proper (Deut 12:1) till the conclusion of the covenant curses (Deut 28:68). The internal composition of Dtn is not of concern here. “Dtr” is the corpus Deuteronomy-2 Kings.

^{page 222 note 2} Cross, Frank Moore, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1973) 281Google Scholar, n. 30 and 282, n. 31, where the attestations are given. The refrain in its various forms occurs nine times in 1–2 Kings. On the translation “fief,” see Hanson, Paul D., “Song of Heshbon and David's NIR,” HTR 61 (1968) 310–20.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 3} Cross, Canaanite, 285–89.

^{page 223 note 4} Noth, Martin, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1957) 14. This is a reprint of the original 1943 edition. In our previous section, we argued that the connection is actually from Deut 3:28 to 31:1, 3:29 being part of the following sermon.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 5} Deut 1:1–5 is generally recognized as an introduction, probably by P, to the present book of Deut. See Rad, Gerhard von, Deuteronomy, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) 36–37.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 6} Noth, Studien, 39.

^{page 224 note 7} Cross, Canaanite, 279–81.

^{page 224 note 8} Ibid., 284.

^{page 224 note 9} As in Josh 8:31, 8:34, 23:6, 2 Kgs 14:6. We should, however, be on guard to the possibility that these passages may stem from Dtr 2.

^{page 224 note 10} Rad, Gerhard von, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper and Row, 1962) 220Google Scholar. For a review of the scholarship, Nicholson, E. W., Deuteronomy and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967) 37–57.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 11} Read kis˒ô with LXX and 1 Chr 17:12.

^{page 225 note 12} Read ˒āsîr with LXX and 1 Chr 17:13.

^{page 225 note 13} Read l^epānay with LXX.

^{page 225 note 14} On 2 Samuel 7, its composition and theology, see McCarthy, D. J., “II Sam. 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” JBL 84 (1965) 131–38, and Cross, Canaanite, 229–65, 281–85.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 15} Cross, Canaanite, 261.

^{page 225 note 16} The difference between these types of covenant is brilliantly explored in its historical context by Weinfeld, Moshe, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970) 184–203Google Scholar. Weinfeld speaks occasionally in terms of “conditional” and “unconditional” covenant (196) but seems to prefer the dichotomies “obligatory” and “promissory,” or “treaty” and “grant.” “Obligatory” can suggest that the other kind of covenant is unconcerned with the behavior of the grantee, and this is at least an exaggeration. The Sinaitic covenant is an analogue to various “treaties,” but the word “treaty” is too secular for the God-Israel relationship established at Sinai.

The ancestral covenant with David is an example of the kind of dynastic covenant in which the violations of the ruling member of any one generation cannot cancel the covenant with the dynasty. The treaty of the Hittite emperor Tudhaliyas IV with Ulmi-Teshub of Dattasa is another example of this kind:

In other words, if an individual dynast sins, he will be punished, but the dynastic covenant cannot be revoked, as it was, for example, from theHouse of Saul. The translation above is from McCarthy, Dennis J., Treaty and Covenant (An Bib 21; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963) 183Google Scholar. The precise definition of the relationship of this type of covenant to Weinfeld's “grant” requires treatment of monograph length. The two stand together in opposition to the type of covenant in which each generation must fulfill the stipulations in order for the covenant to continue in force — our “contemporary” covenant. Even our terminology is not impeccable, since this latter category of covenant is not made in each generation, but only once, with the original dynast. These legal, diplomatic issues are not of concern to Orientalists alone, but stand at the base of moral thought in Judaism and Christianity. In Judaism, they bear upon the doctrine of z^ekût ˒abôt (merit of the ancestors) and upon messianism. In Christianity, they bear upon the doctrines of atonement and sainthood.

^{page 227 note 17} Tsevat, Matitiahu, “Studies in the Book of Samuel, III,” HUCA 34 (1963) 73.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 18} Weinfeld (195) believes that Dtr has introduced a “conditional” element into the “unconditional” covenant in holding that “the covenant is eternal only if the donee keeps his loyalty to the donor.” It is hard to see how this idea can deal with 2 Kgs 8:16–19, where Joram, king of Judah, was able to retain his fief, even though he followed the practices of the house of Ahab, his father-in-law (v. 18); in other words, he turned from YHWH to Baal in the most blatant way. This massive infidelity was not enough to cancel the grant to David (v. 19). David is the donee; his descendants are an afterthought. Joram was punished (2 Kgs 8:20–22), but retained his ancestor's fief. Conditionality (e.g. 1 Kgs 8:25) is from Dtr 2.

^{page 227 note 19} Rad, Gerhard von, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1966) 218 and n. 14 there.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 20} Cross, Canaanite, 282.

^{page 228 note 21} Noth, Studien, 94.

^{page 228 note 22} Nicholson, Deuteronomy, 117.

^{page 229 note 23} Noth, Studien, 106–07.

^{page 229 note 24} Ibid., 107.

^{page 230 note 25} von Rad, Deuteronomy, 67.

^{page 230 note 26} In Deut 21:10–14, the law code presents a less stringent attitude, permitting marriage to a foreign captive. This, however, must be contrasted with the severe endocentricity of Deut 23:4–5, which forbids the admission to Israel of Ammonites and Moabites even to the tenth generation and gives an aetiology for this prohibition. In any event, the modest revision of customary law in Deut 21:10–14 should not be given the same weight as the absolute prohibition on exogamy in Deut 7:1–5 in determining Deuteronomic theology.

^{page 230 note 27} Alt, Albrecht, “Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums,” Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (München: C. H. Beck, 1953) 2. 255–59.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 28} Wright, G. Ernest, Deuteronomy (Interpreter's Bible II; Nashville: Abingdon, 1953) 321. It is, perhaps, conceivable that v. 8 and v. 9 do not conflict. The former may refer to sacrifice in Jerusalem; the latter to eating unleavened bread in the villages on the intermediate days, which Deuteronomy 16 does not prohibit. This interpretation is probably too subtle and impractical.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 29} Cross, Canaanite, 283.

^{page 231 note 30} This theme of repentance is developed in the fine study by Wolff, Hans Walter, “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks,” ZAW 73 (1961) 171–86. Unfortunately, Wolff missed the Davidic theme in the earlier stratum and thus failed to recognize the distinctiveness of Dtr 2.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 31} There may be a more specific, historical ground of hope in his work. The covenant with the patriarchs may provide for him, as for the Holiness Code (Lev 26:42), a divine commitment which even covenant violations cannot cancel, in other words, an ancestral covenant other than the royal grant to David. It is interesting to note that even Dtn conceives of the promise to the patriarchs as a pool of grace which prevented the destruction of the generation of the rebellions in the wilderness (Deut 9:4–5). On the typological identity of the covenants of Abraham and of David, see Weinfeld, and also R. E. Clements, Abraham and David (Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series, 5; Naperville: Alec R. Allenson, 1967). With Weinfeld and Clements and against Cross (Canaanite, 261), we do not see the Abrahamic covenant as a retrojection of the Davidic. Both are ancestral covenants, remembered less for the obligations they impose than for the promise they tender, which no one generation can exhaust.Google Scholar