Book of Deuteronomy: Dating, Provenance (Prof. Adamczewski)

1. Deuteronomy & Ezekiel
2. Paul Nadim Tarazi is one of the few modern scholars who explicitly dealt with the problem of the relationship between the books of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel. He suggested that Deuteronomy’s repetition of the covenant for the new generation of the Israelites, together with the command to repeat it unto all generations, reflects Ezekiel’s idea that no generation would be able to claim the excuse of ignorance for their sins (Ezek 18:1–5.9.20) (P. N. Tarazi, The Old Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Historical Traditions (rev. ed., St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2003), 58).

Henry McKeating observed that there are intriguing parallels between the contents of the book of Ezekiel and the story of Moses in the Pentateuch. Following the proposal which had earlier been made by Jon Douglas Levenson, McKeating argued that the character of Ezekiel fulfils the Deuteronomic prophecy concerning a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15–22). In particular, according to the British scholar, Ezekiel’s survey of the land (Ezek 47:13–48:29) thematically corresponds to Moses’ survey of the land (Deut 34:1–4). Likewise, Ezekiel’s warnings against a prince who would expropriate land (Ezek 45:7–17; 46:16–18) corresponds to Deuteronomy’s worries that the king might multiply horses and cause the people to return to Egypt (Deut 17:14–20). Moreover, Ezekiel’s final vision of the land on a high mountain (Ezek 40–48) is not closed with a remark that he was transported home again (diff. Ezek 11:24), so that it thematically corresponds to Moses’ final vision from the mountain, which ends with his death and his burial in an unknown grave (Deut 34) (H. McKeating, ‘Ezekiel the “Prophet Like Moses”?,’ JSOT 61 (1994) 97–109 (esp. 101–103).

Risa Levitt Kohn likewise argued for a literary relationship between Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, assuming that the direction of postulated dependence goes from Deuteronomy to Ezekiel because, in her opinion, Ezekiel combined P and D material (R. Levitt Kohn, ‘A Prophet Like Moses? Rethinking Ezekiel’s Relationship to the Torah,’ ZAW 114 (2002) 236–254 (esp. 237–238, 246–248)).

Ernst Ehrenreich, having noted some parallels between Deut 30:1–10 and the book of Ezekiel, simply assumed that it was Ezekiel who used Deuteronomy, and not vice versa (E. Ehrenreich, Wähle das Leben! Deuteronomium 30 als hermeneutischer Schlüssel zur Tora (BZABR 14; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2010), 200–201).

Tova Ganzel, in her article devoted to the relationship between Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, noted that the ‘determination of the direction of the allusions is grounded in the widely accepted assumption, following Noth, that Deuteronomy and the Early Prophets constitute a single planned work […], composed shortly before the destruction of the First Temple’ (T. Ganzel, ‘Transformation of Pentateuchal Descriptions of Idolatry,’ in W. A. Tooman and M. A. Lyons (eds.), Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel (PTMS 127; Pickwick: Eugene, OR 2010), 33–49 (here: 34 n. 3)). Nevertheless, she simply followed this assumption, presuming that the direction of influence goes from the allegedly pre-exilic Deuteronomy to the exilic Ezekiel, and not vice versa.

Jason Gile is of the opinion that Ezekiel in his prophetic work was influenced by Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code (J. Gile, ‘Deuteronomy and Ezekiel’s Theology of Exile,’ in J. S. DeRouchie, J. Gile, and K. J. Turner (eds.), For Our Good Always, Festschrift D. I. Block (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2013), 287–306). He based his argument on the hypothesis of Deuteronomy’s use of the Holiness Code, a thesis which is in itself not proven. Then he observed that the combination of the motifs of exile and serving wood and stone (ואבן עץ (occurs in Deut 4:28; 28:36.64 and Ezek 20:32. On this basis, he argued that Ezekiel must have borrowed this combination from Deuteronomy, and not vice versa, although his argument is clearly reversible, even if in this case the dependence of one passage in Ezekiel on three passages in Deuteronomy is more plausible than the reverse one. Moreover, Gile argued that the retrospective text Ezek 20:23 must refer to the proleptic threat in Deut 4:25–28, although a similar proleptic threat can also be found in Jer 9:11–15. Therefore, Gile’s arguments for Ezekiel’s dependence on Deuteronomy are interesting but inconclusive.

Georg Braulik has recently argued that the theological idea and wording of the Deuteronomic text concerning the fathers not dying for their sons, and the sons not dying for their fathers, but a man dying for his sins (Deut 24:16) were in fact borrowed from Ezek 18:20 (G. Braulik, ‘Lohnverweigerung und Sippenhaftung: Zu Schuld und Strafe im Buch Deuteronomium,’ in id., Tora und Fest: Aufsätze zum Deuteronomium und zur Liturgie (SBAB 69; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2019 [orig. 2016]), 31–60 (esp. 51)). He has likewise suggested that the Deuteronomic remark concerning a cult symbol (סמל (may allude to the Ezekielian motif of a cult symbol provoking to jealousy (Ezek 8:3.5) (Id., ‘Deuteronomium 4 und das gegossene Kalb: Zum Geschichtsgehalt paränetischen Rede,’ in id., Studien zu Buch und Sprache des Deuteronomiums (SBAB 63; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2016), 75–87 (esp. 79 n. 11)).

1. Joshua-Judges & Deuteronomy Intertextuality
2. Herbert Donner, having noted the fact that various fragments of the book of Joshua refer to the book of the law (Josh 1:8; 8:30–31; 8:34; etc.), argued that they presuppose the existence of the whole book of Deuteronomy, which is referred to in the book of Joshua as a normative text (H. Donner, ‘“Wie geschrieben steht”: Herkunft und Sinn einer Formel,’ in id., Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (BZAW 224; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1994), 224–238 (esp. 225–226)). Koert van Bekkum, having analysed the ways in which the themes of cult, land, and leadership function in Josh 9:1–13:7 and Deuteronomy, has come to the conclusion that the section Josh 9:1–13:7 diachronically presupposes much of the content of the book of Deuteronomy (K. van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan (CHANE 45; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 375–385). Hartmut N. Rösel is of the opinion that Josh 8:30–35 was composed entirely from several texts from Deuteronomy at a very late Deuteronomistic stage (H. N. Rösel, Joshua (HCOT; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2011), 134–136). Karin Finsterbusch, in her analysis of the use of the concept of the Torah in the books of Joshua and Deuteronomy, argues that the texts Josh 1:7; 8:31–35; 22:5; 23:6–8; 24:26 were composed with the use of the motifs which were borrowed from the book of Deuteronomy (K. Finsterbusch, ‘Deuteronomy and Joshua: Torah in the Book of Joshua in Light of Deuteronomy,’ JAJ 3 (2012) 166–196 (esp. 172–173, 178–183, 186–187, 191–193)).

Walter Groß is of the opinion that Judg 2:7–10 is a Deuteronomistic reworking of Deut 11:2–7, and Judg 2:12 is a Deuteronomistic reworking of Deut 6:12–15 (W. Groß, ‘Das Richterbuch zwischen deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk und Enneateuch,’ in H.-J. Stipp (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk (ÖBS 39; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 177–205 (esp. 182–183, 186–187)).

Thomas B. Dozeman argues that Josh 1:1–2.5–6 is post-Deuteronomic in the sense that it is post-Pentateuchal because the sources of Josh 1:1–2.5–6 can be found not only in Deuteronomy but also in other Pentateuchal books.51 Moreover, he argues that the fragments Josh 1:3–4.7–9 are post-Deuteronomic in a more specific way, as depending on Deut 11:24 etc (Ibid. 174–177).

Raik Heckl is of the opinion that the fragment Josh 8:30–35, regarded by the German scholar as a later addition to the book of Joshua, conflates and harmonizes various motifs borrowed from Deut 27 and Deut 31 (R. Heckl, ‘Eine Kultstätte auf dem Ebal? Josua 8,30–35 und der Streit mit Samaria um die Auslegung der Tora,’ ZDPV 129 (2013) 79–98 (esp. 82–92)).

Joachim J. Krause argues that the account of the entry to the promised land (Josh 1–5) is generally not post-Deuteronomic, but it belongs to the same work of Deuteronomistic History to which also the Deuteronomistic belongs (J. J. Krause, Exodus und Eisodus: Komposition und Theologie von Josua 1–5 (VTSup 161; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 74–132, 212–218, 405–415). Accordingly, he is one of the scholars who regard Josh 1–5 (as well as other parts of Joshua–Judges) as para-Deuteronomic rather than post-Deuteronomic.
Joshua Berman argues that Rahab’s soliloquy (Josh 2:9–13) alludes to the Decalogue in its both versions: in the book of Exodus (Exod 20:1–14) and in the book of Deuteronomy (Deut 5:6–18) (J. Berman, ‘Law Code,’ 346–349).

Cynthia Edenburg is of the opinion that Josh 1 was composed with the use of material originating from Deuteronomy and other Pentateuchal sources.56 She also suggests that the early kernel of Josh 6–10 was designed to illustrate the application of the Deuteronomic rules of war in Deut 20:10–14, although both texts underwent later reworking.57 Likewise, she argues for the dependence of Judg 19–21 upon Deut 13:13–18; 22:13–29; and other texts from the book of Deuteronomy (C. Edenburg, Dismembering, 235–248).

Matthias Ederer is of the opinion that the book of Joshua in numerous places alludes to the book of Deuteronomy.59 He also applies the notion of hypertextuality to the relationship between the book of Judges and the book of Deuteronomy, arguing that various fragments of the book of Deuteronomy functioned as hypotexts for Judg 1:1–3:6 (Id., Ende, 246–253, 272, etc).
Stephen Germany argues for the reverse hypothesis. In his opinion, some fragments of the books of Joshua and Judges were independent of the Deuteronomic legislation (Josh 6:21.24; 9*) or even influenced it (Josh 7:21; Judg 7:3) (S. Germany, ‘Die Bearbeitung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes im Lichte biblischer Erzählungen,’ ZAW 131 (2019) 43–57 (esp. 46–50)).

Date of composition of Deuteronomy + Joshua-Judges

Moreover, the dating based on the presence of some formulaic curses or alleged traces of a reconstructed pre-exilic religious reform neglects the main theme of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges, which is an idealistic, but merely partially realized vision of the entry of the Israelites to the land of Yahweh’s promise. This vision is expressed in Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges in terms of a new covenant, made with the new generation of the Israelites in the exilic land of Moab (Deut 28:69) (Cf. D. Markl, Gottes Volk im Deuteronomium (BZABR 18; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2012), 292–293). And then in the Israelite city of Shechem (Josh 24:25). This theme, together with the stress on monolatry (Cf. J. Pakkala, ‘The Origins of Yahwism from the Perspective of Deuteronomism,’ in J. van Oorschot and M. Witte (eds.), The Origins of Yahwism (BZAW 484; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2017), 267–281 (esp. 277); T. Römer, ‘Le problème du monothéisme biblique,’ RB 124 (2017) 12–25), has much more in common with the visionary prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Deutero-Isaiah, with their idea of a new, post-exilic, everlasting covenant (Jer 33:31–33; Ezek 37:26; Isa 55:3; etc.) (Cf. G. Borgonovo, ‘Alle fonti della teologia storica deuteronomistica,’ RStB 28 (2016) 71–108 (esp. 91)), than with the political and religious problems of the pre-exilic Judah in the seventh century bc. Therefore, Deuteronomy should be regarded as post-exilic (Cf. ibid. 95).

The linguistic dating of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges to the pre-exilic period on the basis of their extensive use of Classical Biblical Hebrew is methodologically questionable, not least because ‘there is a significant gap in the external, non-biblical corpora for Hebrew from the 6th to 2nd centuries b.c.e.’ (K. Schmid, ‘How to Identify a Persian Period Text in the Pentateuch,’ in R. J. Bautch and M. Lackowski (eds.), On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period: Discerning Criteria and Establishing Epochs (FAT 2.101; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 101–118; 105), so that ‘we are not able to define a clear terminus ante quem for CBH from the external evidence’. Likewise, it is difficult to date Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges with the use of the argumentum ex silentio as concerns the apparent absence of Late Biblical Hebrew features or loanwords (Cf. E. Blum, ‘The Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Approach with Methodological Limitations,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation, 303–325 (esp. 311–313); C. Edenburg, Dismembering, 116–122; R. Albertz, ‘Die Identifikation von nachexilischen Redaktionsschichten im Pentateuch,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, ed. J. Wöhrle and F. Neumann (FAT 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 429–447 (esp. 438–439)).

To the contrary, the verb נדב in hithpael (Judg 5:2.9) elsewhere in the Bible can only be found in the late post-exilic texts Ezra 1:6; 2:68; 3:5; Neh 11:2; 1 Chr 29:5–6.9.14.17; 2 Chr 17:16 (cf. Ezra 7:13.15–16 in Aramaic) (Cf. S. Frolov, ‘How Old Is the Song of Deborah?,’ JSOT 36.2 (2011) 163–184 (esp. 171– 172); A. Hurvitz, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period (VTSup 160; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 179–181. 78 Cf. C. Edenburg, Dismembering, 123–158), which suggests that the song of Deborah (Judg 5) is in fact a late text. Similarly, the section Judg 19–21 contains linguistic phenomena which are more or less characteristic of Late Biblical Hebrew (Cf. C. Edenburg, Dismembering, 123–158). For this reason, the Deuteronomic idea of a great destruction of the Egyptian chariots at the ‘Sea of Reeds’ east of Egypt (Deut 11:3–4), which seems to echo the great defeat of the Egyptian army near Pelusium, at the marshes of the eastern extremes of the Nile Delta in 525 bc, suggests a fifth-century bc date of the composition of Deuteronomy.

Moreover, if the book of Deuteronomy was written in the fifth century bc, its interest in locating Yahweh’s chosen place in the region of Shechem (Deut 11:29– 12:28; 27:2–13) could inspire the otherwise surprising project of constructing the new Israelite sanctuary on Mount Gerizim (Cf. Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, A Temple City (Judea & Samaria Publications 8; Israel Antiquities Authority: Jerusalem 2008), 149, 172, 174), whose first phase most probably dates to the second half of the fifth century bc (cf. J. Dušek, ‘Mt. Gerizim Sanctuary, Its History and Enigma of Origin,’ HBAI 3 (2014) 111–133 (esp. 115–116). Cf. also Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim, vol. 2). He argues for the dating in the first half of the fifth century bc (ibid. 103), the mid-fifth century bc (ibid. 152, 167), or simply the fifth century bc (ibid. 168–169); his dating, however, is in fact based on the presence of pottery ‘securely dated to the period between the fifth and fourth centuries BCE’ (ibid. 168) and fifth-century coins, of which only one dates to the first half of that century (ibid. 168).

The remark probably concerning ‘pieces of money’ (Josh 24:32), in view of the fact that coins came to be used in Palestine in the fifth century bc (Cf. T. Römer, ‘The Date, Composition and Function of Joshua 24 in Recent Research: A Response to Joachim J. Krause, Cynthia Edenburg, and Konrad Schmid,’ HBAI 6 (2017) 203–216 (esp. 206)), may indeed suggest that Joshua–Judges was composed not earlier than in the fifth century bc. The likely use of Greek motifs in various parts of the book of Judges (esp. Judg 11:30–40; 13–16; 21:19–23) also implies a late post-exilic date of its composition (Cf. M. Bauks, ‘Überlegungen zum historischen Ort von Ri 11,29–40: Ein Appendix anthologischen Charakters jenseits deuteronomistischen Geschichtsdenkens?,’ in P. Mommer and A. Scherer (eds.), Geschichte Israels und deuteronomistisches Geschichtsdenken, Festschrift W. Thiel (AOAT 380; Ugarit: Münster 2010), 22–42 (esp. 32–39)). In the context of the construction of the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim in the second half of the fifth century bc, the composition of Joshua–Judges, with its clear references to building an altar to Yahweh and making a covenant with Yahweh in the region of Shechem (Josh 8:30–35; 24:1–27; cf. Judg 19:18), is also plausible in the first half of the fourth century bc.

The image of Judah as being the first one among the Israelites to fight against their enemies (Judg 1:1–2; 3:9–11) seems to reflect the military importance of the otherwise poor province of Judah at the time when it became one of the frontier provinces of the Persian empire (Cf. A. Fantalkin and O. Tal, ‘Redating Lachish Level I: Identifying Achaemenid Imperial Policy at the Southern Frontier of the Fifth Satrapy,’ in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2006), 167–197 (esp. 188); O. Lipschits and D. Vanderhooft, ‘Yehud Stamp Impressions in the Fourth Century b.c.e.: A Time of Administrative Consolidation?,’ in O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2007), 75–94 (esp. 86–89)), in the period of Egypt’s independence 404–343 bc. The military tension between the tribe of Judah and the kingdom of Egypt could explain the otherwise strange allusion to Cush in the name of the enemy king defeated by the Judaean leader in Judg 3:8–10.