Deuteronomy between Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic history

Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo, Ontario, Canada The problem of how Deuteronomy relates to the Pentateuch and to the book of Joshua came to the fore with Noth’s thesis of a Deuteronomistic History, which was in conflict with the earlier support for a Hexateuch in the Documentary Hypothesis. With the current decline of the Documentary Hypothesis, one approach is to give greater emphasis to Pentateuchal and Hexateuchal redactors, often in place of the J and P sources, which either use Deuteronomy to conclude the Pentateuch or to build a bridge to the Deuteronomistic History. An alternative view, expressed in this paper, rejects the notion of such redactors and sees J and P as later than, and supplementary to, the Deuteronomistic History. To support this view, the article will examine Eckart Otto’s Pentateuchal redactor in Deuteronomy 4, at parallel texts in Numbers and Deuteronomy, and at Pentateuchal and Hexateuchal redactors in Deuteronomy 34 and Joshua 24.

from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings and with the Pentateuch being reduced to a Tetrateuch.The notion of a Hexateuch arose out of the Documentary Hypothesis and is based upon the observation that the accounts of the Pentateuchal sources J, E, D, and P, are not complete without the narration of the conquest of Joshua.This is the position that Von Rad defended, and he insisted, against Gunkel and others, that this basic compositional structure from creation to the conquest of the land was the work of a historian and author, the Yahwist, and not the result of an accidental traditio-historical process.Noth's construction of a similar history, the Deuteronomistic History (DH) from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings, however, put advocates of the Hexateuch like Von Rad on the defensive.Noth solved the problem of the conflicting histories by reducing the Pentateuch (i e, the Tetrateuch) to blocks of tradition based on themes that came together through a nebulous traditio-historical process, which reduced the author, the Yahwist to insignificance.The subsequent connections between the Tetrateuch and the DH were all explained by endless Deuteronomistic and Priestly redactors, thereby creating a de facto redactional Hexateuch (Van Seters, forthcoming).
Revisions to Pentateuchal criticism in the seventies, which called into question the classical Documentary Hypothesis, have led to two basic options concerning the problem of the Hexateuch.One approach is to continue Noth's notion of tradition blocks (but without sources J and E) and his use of redactors who put the blocks together.This approach is primarily concerned with the interconnections of the themes of the Pentateuch rather than sources but may also be extended to include the theme of Joshua's conquest as a quasi-Hexateuch.This is the approach used by Rolf Rendtorff (1977) and followed in modified form by Erhard Blum (1984Blum ( , 1990)), Konrad Schmid (1999), Thomas Römer (2000) and others.The other option is to follow the direction of Von Rad in asserting the primacy of authors, such as the Yahwist, but to construe the relationship of such Pentateuchal authors to the DH as that of supplementation (Van Seters 1999:58-86).Thus J (non-P) and P in the Tetrateuch are later than Deuteronomy and the DH, and represent an expansion of that corpus into the more remote past.These two approaches are completely incompatible.

John van Seters
The problem with the Documentary Hypothesis is not the multiplicity of sources or authors in the Pentateuch, for which there is abundant evidence.The problem is with the whole notion of redactors as a literary explanation for their combination.This is the fundamental fallacy of 19 th century literary criticism that, after two centuries, is still perpetuated in redaction criticism in biblical studies today.Most of the criticism directed against the Documentary Hypothesis by Rendtorff and others is, in my view, completely misguided and has done more damage than the older views of Pentateuchal studies.That is also my fundamental disagreement with Eckart Otto and his understanding of the relationship of Deuteronomy to the Pentateuch.This may best be illustrated by a particular example taken from a recent critique of my work by Otto (2002:130-34).

THE RELATIONSHIP OF P TO DEUTERONOMY
In his objection to my supplementary approach to the relationship of P to Deuteronomy, Otto raises a question concerning the lack of Priestly additions to Deuteronomy, which he considers a problem for my view.This, of course, is the argument used by Israeli and Jewish scholars for any late dating of P and who therefore want to date P earlier than D. Otto now deems it convenient to use the same argument for his own purposes to support his redaction criticism of Deuteronomy.In my view, the additions of both J and P to D and DH were minimal for obvious reasons.They had the chance to say what they wanted to say in Genesis to Numbers and there was little left to add, except to comment on the last days of Moses' life.P did make a big addition to Joshua, and that caused Noth much difficulty, so he had to delete Numbers 26 and 27:1-11, parts of 32, and 33-36 from P and assign it to a redactor.Once that expedient was introduced there was no stopping the invention of multiple redactors.
Against my view that Exodus 19-20 depends upon Deuteronomy 4-5, Otto takes over the view of Fishbane that Deuteronomy 4 is a midrashic interpretation of Genesis 1 (Fishbane 1985: 321-22).For Fishbane D is later than P, and virtually the whole of D is an inner-biblical interpretation of both the Covenant Certainly not!The language is quite different.The series "all the animals that are on the earth", "all winged birds that fly in the sky", "all reptiles that creep (#mr) on the ground", "all fish that are in the sea"(v.17), is very similar to the series used by J in the flood story (Gen 6:7), except that the fish are excluded for obvious reasons.Otto also mentions the P phraseology in 4:25, using dly in the Hiph c il and )rb in 4:32.But why must these be evidence of P use? dly in the Hiph c il is also used in a very similar way in Deuteronomy 28:41, but this text, according to Otto is seventh century D (Otto 1999:64-69).)rb is also used by J in Genesis 6:7 in a very similar manner.Before we invoke yet another redactor to solve this problem let me hasten to mention that )rb occurs several times in Deutero-Isaiah, J's contemporary, according to my view.Now Fishbane makes much of this use of )rb and sees Deutero-Isaiah as also commenting on Genesis 1 (Fishbane 1985:322-26).Does Otto advocate this solution, or would he like to see a post-P redactor in Deutero-Isaiah?My own solution, which is that both J and Deutero-Isaiah are a little later than, and dependent upon, Deuteronomy 4, is too simple for Otto, but I will stick to it anyway.

COMPARISON BETWEEN PARALLEL TEXTS IN D AND J (NON-P): EARLIER STUDIES
Deuteronomy presents itself as a recapitulation of events that have taken place prior to the arrival of the Israelites in the plains of Moab under the shadow of Pisgah and opposite Jericho.It is assumed by most biblical readers that the references to prior events have to do with those that are now reflected in the Tetrateuch from the time of the giving of the Decalogue at Sinai/Horeb to the eve of the conquest under Joshua, and many scholars have uncritically followed this same assumption.Already 30 years ago I attempted to show that the account of the conquest of the kingdoms of Sihon and Og in Numbers 21 is not the source for Deuteronomy but the reverse (Van Seters 1972:182-97).In the years that followed I have won some support for this view (Miller 1989:577-

THE FINAL SCENE OF MOSES' DEATH IN D, J AND P: DEUTERONOMY 34
A recent proposal by Thomas Römer and Marc Brettler argues for a "Hexateuchal redactor" who is presented as competing with a "Pentateuchal redactor" (Römer & Brettler 2000: 401-19).Key to this discussion is their understanding of Deuteronomy 34 and Joshua 24.In this they follow a suggestion by Erhard Blum who identified Joshua 24 as the work of a Hexateuchal redactor, as distinct from his Pentateuchal "compositions" KD and HTS 59(3) 2003 34; Smelik 1984:61-109).But these conquest narratives of Numbers 21 are not just a later addition to the J (non P) narrative.I have subsequently argued that all of the parallel narratives in Deuteronomy are the sources of those inExodus-Numbers (Van Seters 1994), starting with the Sinai theophany in Exodus 19-20 and its parallel in Deuteronomy 4-5; the golden calf episode of Exododus 32 with its sources in Deuteronomy 9 and 1 Kings 12; the story of the spies and the aborted invasion from the south in Numbers 13-14 and its counterpart in Deuteronomy 1:19-46; the final trek from Kadesh to the plains of Moab, including the conquest of the eastern territories in Numbers 20-21, and their parallel in Deuteronomy 2-3; the distribution of the eastern regions in Numbers 32 and their parallel in Deuteronomy 3:12-22.In every one of these cases close scrutiny demonstrates that Deuteronomy contains the older version of the episode in question.Furthermore, the clear, tightly crafted sequence of events in Deuteronomy 1-3 has been broken up and interspersed with many other episodes, such as murmuring episodes and the Baalam story by the author of Numbers (J), such that it is hardly conceivable that the so-called Deuteronomist (Dt) could have extracted his narrative from J and discarded the rest.Any serious discussion of the relationship of Deuteronomy to the Pentateuch must begin with a thorough treatment of these parallel narratives, but with a few exceptions(Rose 1981), this has still been largely neglected.Since I have dealt with this subject at length in previous publications I will not repeat them here.Instead I will focus on the final scene of Moses' death in Deuteronomy 34.