Discuss the origins of the book of Deuteronomy and evaluate its main theological themes

Origins‘We possess hardly any reliable criteria for dating pentateuchal literature. Every dating of the pentateuchal "sources" rests on purely hypothetical assumptions which only have any standing through the consensus of scholars.'1

In view of these words, presented by Wenham (1985) in his article on the dating of Deuteronomy, we approach the question of the origins of Deuteronomy with two clear problems. Firstly, we must at least concede that much of our dating is highly speculative, and secondly we have to recognize that much scholarship has been invested on the basis of these rather vulnerable hypotheses. Whilst fixing a particular perspective allows for more interesting and apparently revealing study built on its foundations, the volume and scope of such scholarship does not guarantee the stability of those same foundations.

Wenham again points out the academic investment in a late dating of Deuteronomy proposed by Wellhausen in the prologomena is the starting point in much modern scholarship for dating and therefore interpreting the entire Pentateuch. Such ‘leverage’ for one question is not necessarily conducive to the reopening of a debate.

Apparent OriginAt first sight Deuteronomy presents the reader with a series of speeches on

the plains of Moab given by Moses to the people of Israel. They been rescued by God from slavery in Egypt, had wandered in the desert, and their time of wandering was now finished (1:3): it was time to enter the promised land (3:3) and Moses is preparing them for their existence there on the basis of what has gone before. The words he preaches come in the form of a covenant renewal, as 29:1 indicates: “the terms of the covenant the Lord commanded...in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb”. As far as the origins of the whole of Deuteronomy are concerned, in as much as they encompass the death of Moses and a striking similarity in ch 31 to the opening of Joshua it could not have been entirely written by Moses.

History of Scholarship

De WetteRecent critical scholarship about the origins of Deuteronomy usually makes

reference to WML de Wette’s 1805 dissertation which planted the idea that the book of the law found by Josiah in 2 Kgs 22-23 refers to Deuteronomy. He reached this

1 R. Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), p. 169.

conclusion on the basis of its ‘deuteronomic’ style, a description which groups Deuteronomy with Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, and 1 & 2 Kings, deeming them to be contemporaneous as a result of their stylistic parallels. This move in scholarship, that connected Dt with the late 7th century BC has lead to a general designation of texts as pre or post deuteronomic, and indeed a classification of worship and theology along similar lines. In De Wette’s theory the reforms of Josiah, specifically his desire for the centralization of the cult are closely connected with this text. Since the sanctuaries and high places had been tolerated in the history of Israel before Josiah, De Wette supposed that the appearance of Dt at the time of Josiah with its commands in chapter 12 to designate a single place of worship would explain this sudden change of tack. 2 Kings 22:8 can be dated to 621 BC, and thus a late 7th Century dating of Dt.

Archaeological studies have since found a propensity of goddess figurines in the 7th Century in Israel, lending credence to the account in 2 Kings, and, some scholars assert, giving further weight to a late dating of Deuteronomy. Certainly there is some explanatory power in a late dating: Deut 12:5-25 emphasises the distance from the main sanctuary as grounds for permission to slaughter meant nonsacrificially – which could be read as a measure to prevent the decentralization of worship. Deut 14:22-27 mentions converting tithe produce into money at home in order to be able to convert it back again at the temple, again, an example of legislature that would seem to be promoting centralized worship. Nevertheless, even if the book of the law were Deuteronomy, the match between Josiah’s reform and the content of Dt does not in itself does not necessitate Dt’s composition at the time. It is also worth noting, as Wenham, that Deut 27:4-8, that the instructions for the altar at Mount Ebal show that Dt is not uniquely ‘centralising’ in its themes.

WellhausenJulius Wellhausen further developed De Wette’s ideas in the late 19th

century and with him a general assumption of Dt’s origin in Josiah’s reform, has taken hold. Wellhausen’s opinions were backed by other evidence also: He thought the Mosaic period was at best germinal in the history of Israelite religious thought, that Moses “gave no idea of God to his people”. This in turn drove him to look for later date when the ideas expressed in Dt could actually have been combined. Furthermore he posited that a covenant would not be necessary with a people who are only descendants of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, as their relationship with Yahweh would have been ‘natural’. All talk of covenants, he concluded, must therefore be a later development of religious thought, meaning that Dt, with its strong covenant theme must be of later origin.

A number of points might be noted in objection to this however: firstly the idea of the nation of Israel on the plains of Moab as a racially uniform community does not account for the description of a ‘mixed multitude’ in Numbers. Indeed, were this group to have been ethnically non-homogenous as indicated by Numbers, we would expect the need for a covenantal relationship with YHWH to explain their unity. Moreover, even leaving the issue of Israel ethnic constitution aside, the behaviour even of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whatever their genetic ties,

fails to demonstrate ‘natural’ unity. The apostatical nature of man in general, as exemplified amongst the families of the patriarchs, understands the need for a covenant with God, whatever the nature of the community in which they live. One should also note that the Covenant is built on an event – the deliverance of God from slavery in Egypt. It is not merely a timeless theological construct, but has its origin in concrete space and time in the history of the people of Israel, and this is how the covenant is regularly presented.

Furthermore, if Craigie is write about the dating of the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15, we have evidence of a well developed theology in Israel from the earliest days of the Patriarchs.

Von RadGerhard von Rad brought a new approach to the analysis of Dt’s origins. His

‘Sitz im Leben’ (History of Form) perspective analysed the patterns in the text in order to detect its origins. Thus he could adduce evidence for a late dating as follows: Dt 3:18 gives indication of all Israel having to fight: this led to the supposition that Dt must be from a time where Israel no longer had a standing army, for example a time well after its imperial hey day when it was impoverished by Assyrian taxes.2 He also identified a variety of genres – a combination of sermon, law, a sealing of covenant, which indicate that Dt. this must reflect a cultic ceremony in which God’s law was recited by the clergy. In particular he pointed to the highly stylized curses in Deut 27 which appear within an already quite prescriptive liturgical instruction. When he added to this the levitical influence over the king mentioned in ch. 17, he concluded that Dt had its setting in the cult.3

Moreover, the variance of material, and the authority with which they apply it suggested to him a period late in Israel’s development. Von Rad could not contemplate such interpretative behaviour anywhere near the original events described.

However if we step back for a moment from the Josianic milieu and contemplate the original situation described in which Moses has the challenge of expounding (1:5) the law that had already been given at Mt. Sinai in the context of new circumstances and challenges, specifically the entry into the land, it makes sense that if the covenant was to mean anything in the History of Israel it would need to re-applied to new situations as they arose. Similarly, the status of Moses over the people of Israel, his role in developing the priesthood and the law would quite reasonably qualify him to apply the law of Sinai with the authority that he does. One could compare ex 20:24 and Deut 12:5 and see a tighter control on the altar as evidence of a later priestly influence - but equally one could understand it as a natural, specific application to worship taking shape with the new challenges of being in the land.

Von Rad also pointed to hints a northern provenance before its appearance in the reforms. The lack of mention of Jerusalem which might be at odds with its positioning at the heart of Josiah’s reforms could be accounted for in this way. Of

2 Von Rad, p.253 Von Rad, p.23

course it could also be accounted for by crediting the alleged redactor with the good sense not to insert such an anachronism in an account relating to Moses. In any case, Von Rad posited a Northern influence that preceeded the final Southern redaction.

WeinfeldVon Rad’s thesis was deemed to be less than ideal fit by Moshe Weinfeld. He

identified Von Rad’s allusions to an association with a national military movement as an awkward attempt to explain national political content in Dt that issued from the cultic background he had given it. 4 Instead he suggested that the covenant form should lead us to conclude its authors were a literary circle familiar with treaty writing, for example the court scribes.

SweeneyThe development above has lead much current scholarship to an

understanding of the Hebrew Bible’s composition as being led by an attempt to come to terms theologically with the exile.In the process its composition was affected in good part by Josiah’s reforms. Thus Marvin Sweeney analyses Dt as “Josiah's efforts to provide an ideologically charged history, prophetic justification, and legal reforms that would support his efforts to reunite all Israel and Judah under his rule.” As discussed above, we can we see cultic abberrances in Josiah’s predecessors directly corrected here – the extravagances of King Solomon, the widespread worship at the high places – but the root of such criticism could as easily come from a 600 year old code profoundly connected with the National History and identity as it could from a specially contrived “Josianic revision of earlier Israelite law… designed to justify Davidic rule over the north.”

Origins of PentateuchIt seems the useful work done on the origins of the Pentateuch as a whole

makes the jump from an identification of similarity to a conclusion of contemporaneousness too easy. The parallels of the deuteronomistic style are the stereotyped phrases with reference to the imminent entry to the promised land and the need to keep the commands of Yahweh and the repetitive sermonic style. Whilst they could lead, as Noth, to the idea of a tetrateuch, followed by Deuteronomy, giving the theological basis of that which follows and the dating of Dt with the later books of deuternomic History, could they not just as easily evidence a deliberate reference in the 7th Century to an older style that was closely associated with a particular theological view that the writers felt needed to be brought to bear on the history of Israel? Opinions such as those of Weinfeld: “Style such as we have is not to be found in any of the historical and prophetical traditions before the 7th Century B.C. “ surely depend on the very assumption that Deuteronomy is a late book. But could the similiarity not come from a respect for that earlier time? As a parallel we could note the deuternomic language in Ne 9:6-37 and Daniel 9:4-19, 430 BC and 520 BC respectively, and that dating is from a conservative point of view, which

4 Christensen, p.25

gives evidence for the preservation of a particular style over a coupel of centuries at least.

Treaty parallelsA final piece of evidence in the dating of Deuteronomy can be found in the

parallels with the formulae of Ancient Treaties. Mendenhall (1954) identifies the suzerainty treaties of the Hittites, 1450 - 1200 B.C. as contemporaneous with the beginnings of the people of Israel. He also notes that it is the only civilization of that time or before that we have ‘adequate source material for study’5, which again should lead us to reach any conclusions with caution. Nevertheless its status as an international form, he argues, should persuade us of its wider use. These treaties “establish a relationship of mutual support”6. They are binding only upon the vassal, whilst the King by nature of his position is disposed to protect his subjects.Their typical structure could be outlined as follows:

Preamble  1:1-4Historical prologue (I-thou) 7 1:5-4:44General stipulations 5 - 11Specific stipulations ( with provision for deposit in the temple and periodic

public reading ) 12 – 27:8List of gods as witnesses 29-30Curses and blessings 27:9 – 28:68

This schema can be variously mapped to the structure of Deuteronomy: the differences in application are relatively minor. I have included one such schema above.The consequences of such close parallels have led some to date Dt alongside the Hittite civilization from which they emerge. However a similar formula can also be found in Assyrian treaties, stemming from a considerably later date. In particular Weinfeld identifies the curses from Mount Ebal in 27 as being transposed directly from Esarhaddon’s vassal treaties8 which lends force to the argument that the treaty model used is not the ancient Hittite one, but rather a neo-Assyrian one. Nevertheless, there are objections that need to be dealt with: Firstly, as Wenham points out, the legal language of Dt parallels Mesopotamian legal literature rather than Assyrian. Secondly, Assyrian treaties tend not to have a Historical prologue – in this case a vital component to the structure of the work. Campbell notes that in all Assyrian treaties that we have there is only one with such a prologue9. Furthermore, as Wenham again points out, there may simply have been significant continuity in

5 Mendenhall, p.536 ibid, p.567 “The Vassal is obligated to perpetual gratitude to the great king because of the benevolence, consideration, and favor which he has already received.” Korosec in Mendenhall8 Christensen, p.269 A F. Campbell, 'An Historical Prologue in a Seventh-Century Treaty', Biblica 50 (1969), pp. 534-535.

such formula throughout Ancient times. It would not be entirely surprising for an international formulation such as these treaties to maintain its structure and usage over centuries. So whilst some scholars argue from this idea that any similarities between Dt and 2nd millennium documents can be attributed simply to a long and old tradition, rather than a contemporaneous beginning, the same logic could be applied to the parallels with neo Assyrian forms. Furthermore, and it seems that this argument is not given the weight it deserves in some of the scholarship, the nature of Dt as a suzerainty treaty not with a mortal King but a heavenly one immediately sets it apart the traditions mentioned. This radical contrast demonstrates that, whatever the parallels, the authors are applying the formula in a very new way. God, not a man, is the King of Israel and this will be true even when Israel has its own earthly King (ch. 17) since he will be considered equal with the brotherhood. When read as such, the parallels between Dt and the treaty form only serve to underline the distinctiveness of Israel’s situation. If the authors have harnessed parallels with one internationally recognized form in order to underline the distinctive differences of Israel to the nations around them (and Dt is replete with references indicating how the covenantal relationship with God differentiates them from all other nations) then we will struggle to discern what in Dt stems from the original formula in the author’s mind, and what he has deliberately added, subtracted or adjusted in order to mark the distinctiveness of Israel over against the nations from whom that formula has been taken.

Conclusion to OriginsIn conclusion to the question of the origins of Dt we should say that both the

coincidence with the language and actions of Josiah’s reforms and the comparisons with the treaty formula do not give a definite answer. The idea that the powers that be in Josiah’s time projected their justifications onto a scroll that modified the original covenant is by no means necessarily more convincing than a simpler understanding of the events of the reform; namely that they represented a genuine turning back to the law that had long been established but forgotten, a pattern that is repeated across the OT narrative, a tendency which one could expect to be accompanied by rturn to the linguistic patterns of that same law. It would appear the scarcity of viable comparisons when it comes to the treaty form also undermine the strength of its argument as a means of dating the book. It would not seem unreasonable then to conclude that Dt was at least written for its declared purpose, to express YHWH’s programme for settling in the land– rather than representing an anachronistic re-presentation of an earlier version of the law designed to justify a far later political or theological movement.

Themes

Covenant as modelDt embraces a wide range, not only of genres but also of themes; the character of God, his relationship with his people, Law, Choice, History and Future, War, Universal Witness and ‘The Good Life’ to mention the principal one. However in order to understand the themes of Dt. it may be helpful to view the entire work as a

representation of a Covenant, and to understand each theme in relation to this central motif. Whilst there are naturally sections that may fit more neatly into a different schema, this is a useful paradigm if we are to treat the work as a unified whole. Evidently such an approach immediately reveals that I do not intend to project the late dating onto the work in order to filter its themes. Such an approach might be inclined to over emphasize thematically certain elements such as ch. 12 since they can be seen to fit into the agenda of the reform of worship. It seems right to pay particular attention to those parts of Dt that represent a modification of the law in Exodus, but not necessarily as a deliberate manipulation for the purposes of such an agenda.

Let us begin, therefore, with Deuteronomy as Covenant. The earlier delivery of the covenant and law at Horeb is evidently in the mind of the authors – it is mentioned on various occasions, and so Dt is presented quite deliberately (29:1) as an addition to that covenant. Furthermore it differs in its presentation from the book of the covenant in Exodus in as much as it is more obviously a sermon of Moses rather than a simple transference of the words of God (1:5 ‘expound’). Moses is given a mandate to apply this law in a new way, since there is a new situation to face (12:8 “not as we do here today”), namely the prospect of existence in the land, which will change the way that the people of God live. This ‘applied’ nature to the re-presentation of the covenant is accompanied by a closer historical perspective. For example, the earlier Decalogue had justified the command to keep the Sabbath on the basis of creation. Now Moses justifies it on the basis of the deliverance from Egypt. This historical perspective is reinforced by repeated reference to the promises of God to the patriarchs (7:12, 10:22, cf 28:6210). Furthermore, alongside an obvious awareness of the history of the people of Israel there is a sense of constant renewal. The covenant is ongoing, and requires ongoing commitment from God’s people. In this sense Deuteronomy is presented simple as logical outworking of the nature of the covenant. 5:3 posits that it is in the very nature of the covenant that it is renewed in every generation: what was said originally to the generation that have now died, was actually spoken to the current generation who have their ‘today’ in which they need to hear of God’s faithfulness, hear of God’s requirements and commit themselves to him as his people.

This emphasis on the ‘today’ an ever repeating moment of choice in the life of the community is reinforced by the binary nature of much the text. There is often a very clear ‘either or’, a series of blessing/curse prosperity/destruction parallels that underline the need for a clear and deliberate choice on the part of the people listening. Thus the blessings and curses mirror one another ( compare 6:11 and 28:39) and all this is concentrated in the exhortation of 30:11-20 to ‘choose life and prosperity” over “death and destruction”.

The Covenant is characterized by several further emphases. It is based upon deliverance in the past (5:6 is the obvious example – note the parallels between past deliverance and future promises of deliverance), its exclusivity is prized (hence the manifold references to idolatry and the destruction of the heathen), it is characterized by mercy (e.g. 5:9-10 mercy outweighs judgment or 9:4 where

10 The curses are precisely the reverse of the fulfillment of the promise.

Israel’s sin does not present an obstacle to it) and works conditionally (the blessings of the living in the land are contingent on obedience to the law).

This overarching theme will now provide the back drop to the subthemes to be discussed.

RelationshipAlthough Dt is replete with laws, its vocabulary and structure ensure that

relationship, namely between God and his people, has primacy over law. Indeed the whole law is couched within the terms of relationship because of the language of covenant. God is ‘present’ (1:30), he is ‘near’. He speaks to his people and hears his people. “But as for you” says 4:20, underlining that, in contrast to the nations, the people of Israel have close, even intimate relationship to their God. It is a Father – son relationship (1:31 and 8:5 – a father’s discipline), a relationship of love from God, even in the midst of law-giving (23:5), even of jealousy on God’s part. God is sovereign and therefore provides, he is a revealer and therefore makes himself known to his people and teaches them (8:3). As for the relationship of the people to God. Whilst God’s approach faithfulness, it faithfulness on the part of the people. His love is the basis of a relationship of mutual love (7:7). There is a distinct democracy in the relationship of the people to each other before God. Each one is to die for his own sin (24:16), the Levites, as equal brothers in the people of God are to have their share, even the King in ch.7 (note the ‘if’ in contrast to the stipulations for prophet and judge) whose appointment sounds more like a concession than a command, is not to consider himself any better than his brothers. Finally it is a relationship that demands wholeheartedness and repeated commitment. Wholeheartedness characterizes the nature of many of the commands – 13:3, 6:4 and 10:12 for example – and again bring a relational aspect to the legal code. We have already mentioned the idea of the ‘today’ in Dt, but it is appropriate to expand upon it in the context of the relationship between God and his people. They (29:12) are to enter into this covenant themselves – they are not part of simply by birth, and indeed 29:15 indicates that this covenant will continue to extend beyond the generations that are not represented in Moab.

LawIn the context of the strong relational element to the covenant we can now

look appropriately at the Legal code in Dt. The ‘democratic’ nature of the relationship between each person and God extends to the law as well. It has strong undercurrent of human justice running through it, as evidence by the repeated provision for the personae miserabiles, as well as by reference to the character of God (10:17 ‘who shows no partiality and accepts not bribes’). It has a strong moral basis to it, hence the repeated refrain of the purging of evil (e.g. 17:12, 21:21), with a focus on virtue11. Nevertheless it holds such an approach in tension with a highly pragmatic approach at times. Ch. 15, the jubilee instructions are a good example of this. We read “there should not be any poor among you…if there is a poor man among you….there will always be poor people in the land”. Thus we have the ideal

11 Words such as “hardhearted or tightfisted” are certainly the domain of consequentialist law making

and real side by side. We can see further, highly pragmatic, examples in 23:24 the prescriptions for the gathering of another’s grain. Clearly the law is envisaging a very concrete outworking of the command not to steal, and yet making provision for disadvantaged in the community. Its pragmatism is also evident in the references to its use as a deterrent (17:13, 21:21 ‘all Israel will be afraid). Furthermore it has an evident consequentialist aspect. The code itself, if observed, will be materially enabling in the promised land. We might read 11:8 ‘strength’ as coming from God as a consequence of obedience, but it may equally be a material consequence as well. For example, the injunction against usury “so that the Lord your God may bless you” embraces both supernatural blessing, but also the evident advantages of community equality safeguarded by the outlawing of extortion.

A similar definition of pragmatism can be applied to much of the references to worship. New challenges are faced as the nation of Israel expects to expand and also to come into contact with other nations and other gods in a way that it has not had to so far. In this context the prescription of Deut 12 seems a logical development in the worship of Israel and indeed a practical solution to avoiding the problems of fragmentation in worship practices that could easily be foreseen.

However none of the above can separate the law from the covenant. The law is seen as a reflection of God – it is because of God’s nature that the law is as it is, a testimony to his character. Since Israel is bound to him by the covenant, their laws are to reflect their identity. Similarly its observance is inextricably linked to the nation’s relation to God. “Fear the Lord your God, keeping his decrees” writes the author: that is, the keeping of the law is an expression of the people’s respect for their God.

Mendenhall12 describes the above as a tension of :1. The experience of the past as the foundation of obligation, direct responsibility to God, freedom and self determination.vs.2. Stability and continuity, reducing the actions of God to readily communicable and controlable system with the establishment of authority to hold in check the unpredictable tendencies of undisciplined humanity.Emphasis on either to the exclusion of the other has its risks: the first may lead to chaos and the second to stagnation or even the violent maintenance of the status quo. Within this framework of tension therefore we see a law that is both personal and political an important tension if Israel is to deal with the challenges of living in the land.

Further to the identification of the law and the covenant it can be said that the law is a universal witness to the covenant. A theme that pervades Dt is the sense of universal scope that the Covenant is to have. 4:32 asks “from one end of the heavens to the other”, 10:14 refers to the full ownership of the world by God, 10:19 and 16:! Refer to the love for the alien, for the people of Israel were aliens, and the song of Moses underlines God’s sovereignty over all, calling the ‘nations’ to rejoice with God’s people. With this in mind we can understand 4:6. The ‘righteous decrees and laws’ of a ‘wise and understanding people’ are not only for their benefit, but

12 Mendenhall p.76

they are a testimony from God to himself, and this, it seems is the fuller meaning of Israel in 14:1, being a “people holy to the Lord” . The onlookers are to behold the people of Israel and astounded at their God and their law are to ask, “What kind of nation……? What kind of God …..?” .

Past and futureFinally we shall the books treatment of the Past and the Future as a key

characteristic of the covenant it seeks to present. The Covenant is to be timeless, as we have noted, yet it has its roots in a very concrete time and space. The historical prologue may fit into a particular treaty formulation but this does not deprive it of its very obvious role in the theology of Dt, namely that it presents the past actions of God in relation to his people as a guarantee of his future faithfulness and an encouragement to their future obedience. The victories of war against Sihon and Og are to encourage the Israelites in their understanding of the gradual fulfillment of the promises to the Patriarch to inherit the land. The beginning of their fulfillment is a token of the fulfillment that is to come. The stories of the past are also marshaled to demonstrate to the people their character – 1:27 recalls their lack of trust and grumbling in the desert, ch. 9 recalls the incident of the Golden Calf. In both cases these recollections re establish the nature of the Covenant as a covenant of mercy. God’s faithfulness prevailed over Israel’s unfaithfulness, and, the people are to conclude, it will continue to do so. The emphasis on the past is also a logical consequence of the psychological understanding of the community that Deuteronomy presents. The injunctions to remember in chapters 6 and 11 cover very practical methods for ensuring that the past is not forgotten in any generation but is preserved. In the context of a people whose record shows that they are prone to forget, it makes sense that Moses’ sermon should focus on methods of remembrance. Indeed in 11:2 the people are called to remember that their children will not automatically remember (!) and therefore to implement strategies for continued recounting of the past in future generations. This will be critical if the nature of the covenant is such that each generation will have its today, its moment of choice. Similar strategies, but on a national and political rather than family level are in evidence in the liturgical instructions for the firstfruits declaration in chapter 26, the pronouncement of the curses in chapter 27, the prescriptions for reading the law in 31 and the song in 32, defined as a ‘witness against them’, since it will testify to God’s actions in the past and so leave the people without the excuse of ignorance should they disobey in the future.

As far as the book’s perspective on the future is concerned – again it reflects a concrete application of the law in view of the previous behavioural patterns of the people. The future perspective is informed by the nature of the covenant. As the covenant is relevant for subsequent generations, so the future legacy of the people of the covenant is in view. Obedience in the land has consequences not only for those listening but to their children’s children (6:2). There is provision made for a king. There are more words devoted to the eventualities of disobedience rather than obedience, an approach justified simply by the Israel’s past record at that point, and there is the prediction of rebeillion in Chapter 31. All of this, then, makes sense of the canonical provision inherent in the text. The Authors are aware of the need to

demonstrate how this law is to be preserved if it is to have any effect in maintaining the covenant which to which it refers. Thus it mentions the placing of the tablets in the ark of the covenant, the injunctions not to add or take away from the law (e.g. 12:32), the testing of the prophet in ch. 18 (to ensure his orthodoxy) and the duplication by the King of the law. These measures demonstrate a canonical awareness on the part of the authors.

ConclusionAs Craigie points out, the conclusion of how we understand the themes of Deuteronomy stems from what we make of the origins of the book, and indeed, further back from from our theory of religion. Wenham added, “The influence of Deuteronomy's ideas and language is so pervasive in the Old Testament that it makes a tremendous difference to our evaluation of the development of Israelite theology whether we ascribe the book to the Mosaic or Josianic eras.”. To read across the text or behind the text and attempt to construct a thematic schema on the basis of the hypothesis of a late dating has not been the aim of this essay. It has however hopefully shown that the broad scope of the themes that the text presents to us if we are to accept it as a whole are not only reconcilable with the real problems faced by the people in the plains of Moab as they considered their entry into the land, but they also represent a natural and logical progression from the Decalogue in the book of the law in Exodus that is in keeping with the new circumstances in which the people found themselves.

BibliographyDissertatio critico-exegitca, WML de Wette, 1805Deuteronomy, Gerhard von Rad, Philadelphia 1966Deuteronomy Old Testament Guides, R. E. Clements, Sheffield 1989Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch (Desmond / Baker) pp181-196Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic school, M. Weinfeld, Oxford 1972Prolegomena 1880, Julius Wellhausen http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4732Sweeney, Marvin A. King Josiah of Judah - The Lost Messiah of Israel. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Oxford Scholarship Online. Oxford University Press. 12 October 2010Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition, George E. Mendenhall  1954 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3209151A Song of power and the power of song: essays on the book of Deuteronomy * Duane L. Christensen EISENBRAUNS, 1993The Date of Deuteronomy: Linch-pin of Old Testament Criticism. Part One, Gordon Wenham, Themelios 10.3 (April 1985): 15-20. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_deut1_wenham.htmlThe Book of Deuteronomy, P. C. Craigie, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976