The History of the Legal-Religious Hermeneutics of the Book of Deuteronomy ( Oxford University Press...

10:27:02:10:13

Page 211

Page 211

9

The History of the Legal-ReligiousHermeneutics of the Book of Deuteronomyfrom the Assyrian to the Hellenistic Period

Eckart Otto

The book of Deuteronomy is, together with the Priestly Code (P), the‘cradle’ not only of the Pentateuch but also of the Former Prophets,i.e. of a literary horizon from Genesis to 2 Kings. The literary historyof the book of Deuteronomy began in the seventh century bce in theJosianic period and ended with Moses’ song and its frameworkin Deuteronomy 31–32 in the fourth or early third century bce inthe process of canon-formation. This chapter will reconstruct theliterary history of the book of Deuteronomy of four centuries andthe meaning of its literary history for the legal history of the HebrewBible.1 How were changes in the legal history initiated by pro-grammes of the book of Deuteronomy and how did it, in turn, reactto developments in the legal history of four hundred years? At theend we shall see that there was an intense dialectic between literaryand legal history in the book of Deuteronomy. This means that itis impossible to study the Torah based only on one of these aspects

The manuscript was completed in April 2009. Secondary literature published afterthat date has not been incorporated.

1 For an outline of the literary history of the Torah and the Former Prophets cf.Schmid (2008). For the actual state of the debate about the book of Deuteronomycf. Veijola (2002), 273–327 and Otto (2009a), 229–47, about the Pentateuch cf. Otto(2007a and b). This article will give an outline of some diachronic aspects of mycommentary on the book of Deuteronomy, which will be published by Herder/Freiburg in the series ‘Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament’(HThK.AT).

10:27:02:10:13

12

Page 212

while neglecting the other one. The final form of the Torah implies asophisticated legal hermeneutics in order to correlate the differentlegal material of the Pentateuch. But before we can come to thesefinal perspectives of the Torah and the function of the book ofDeuteronomy within this final shape of the legal hermeneuticsof the Torah, we have to describe the literary history of the book ofDeuteronomy in relation to its legal-historical contexts.

I. THE LITERARY ORIGIN OF THE PRE-EXILIC BOOK

OF DEUTERONOMY REVISING AND SUPPLEMENTING

THE COVENANT CODE IN THE ASSYRIAN PERIOD

The Covenant Code in Exod. 20: 22–23: 132 was redacted using twooriginally independent collections of legal material in Exod. 20: 24–6;21: 2–22: 26* and Exod. 22: 28–23: 12*, which were each formedby smaller thematically coherent collections, e.g. of laws of bodilyinjuries in Exod. 21: 18–32 and laws of material damages in Exod. 21:33–22: 14.3 Pre-exilic authors of the eighth or early seventh centurybce formed the Covenant Code probably in the period of Hezekiah.The method of redaction of the Covenant Code resembled theredaction of collections of cuneiform laws in Mesopotamia. Alsothe laws of Esnunna and of Hammurapi were redacted usingsmaller collections of thematically coherent legal material.4 The finalredaction of the Covenant Code framed it by laws of a 6/7-scheme inExod. 21: 2–11 and Exod. 23: 10–12, which were part of a religious‘Privilegrecht’ (law of divine privilege). These laws interpreted thewhole Covenant Code theologically as divine law and YHWH as theonly source of the laws. This religious interpretation of law was con-nected with social aspects of the care for the poor.5 The Covenant

2 For the literary and legal history of the Covenant Code cf. Otto (1988), (2010a).3 For the hypothesis of the origins of mispatim as self-executing ‘wisdom law’ cf.

Jackson (2006a) and the critical review by Tomes (2008) and Otto (2006a), 78–83;cf. the reply by Jackson (2008a). For the semiotic approach of Jackson 2000 to biblicallaw of the Covenant Code cf. Otto (2003).

4 Cf. Otto (1989); id. (2008), 83–119; id. (2010a). For an attempt to explain theparallels in the techniques of redactions of law collections in the Ancient Near Eastand the Covenant Code cf. Otto (1991a), 165–87; id. (2010a).

5 For the religious legitimization of law in the Covenant Code and its parallelsin prophetic literature cf. Otto (1994a), 81–116. For the theological meaning of the6/7-scheme cf. Otto (2004a), 355–7.

Eckart Otto212

10:27:02:10:13

Page 213

Page 213

Code of the eighth or seventh century, graphicly depicted, has thestructure shown at Fig. 9.1,6 which demonstrates the fundamentalmeaning of the frame of the laws of divine privilege. The frame hadthe function of subordinating all the other laws of the CovenantCode, which were not explicitly religiously legitimized, to the divineprivilege as the only legal source.

The pre-exilic book of Deuteronomy of the Josianic period inDeuteronomy 12–26* was a revision and supplement of theCovenant Code. The main problem in the discussion of the literaryrelation between the Covenant Code and the pre-exilic book ofDeuteronomy is whether the intention of the authors of the latterwas to replace the Covenant Code or to supplement it. Already halfa century ago O. Eißfeldt formulated the problem: ‘Aber D [sc. thebook of Deuteronomy] folgt nicht nur zeitlich auf B [sc. the Coven-ant Code], sondern es ist auch inhaltlich durch B bestimmt, undzwar in dem doppelten Sinne, daß es viel aus B oder aber aus einerihm mit B gemeinsamen Vorlage übernommen hat und so––freilichin stark übertreibendem Ausdruck––geradezu als eine Erweiterungvon B bezeichnet werden konnte, und daß es andererseits deutlichim Gegensatz zu B steht und sich an seine Stelle setzen will’.7

Some scholars, e.g. B. M. Levinson8 and J. Stackert,9 favour the inter-pretation that the authors of the book of Deuteronomy intended toreplace the Covenant Code. But already Eißfeldt was aware of thefact that the relation between the Covenant Code and the bookof Deuteronomy was more complicated than the thesis––thatDeuteronomy was just ‘recycling’ the Covenant Code––allowed,because the book of Deuteronomy was not only revising the lawsof the Covenant Code but also supplemented them. If we want tounderstand the complex relations between these two legal corpora,we have to correlate the aspect of supplementation of the CovenantCode by the book of Deuteronomy with that of revision and ask forthe legal hermeneutics of these aspects. The pre-exilic book ofDeuteronomy comprised Deut. 6: 4–5*; 12: 13–27*; 13: 2–12*;

6 For a legal-historical interpretation of this structure cf. Otto (2008), 341–66. Fora related proposal to structure the Covenant Code cf. Schwienhorst-Schönberger(1990), 23; cf. the review of this monograph by Otto (1991b).

7 Cf. Eißfeldt (1964), 292.8 Cf. Levinson (1997); cf. the review by Otto (2008), 496–506 and n. 22 of this

chapter.9 Cf. Stackert (2007); cf. the review by Otto (2009a), 248–56 and n. 22 of this

chapter.

History of Hermeneutics in Deuteronomy 213

10:27:02:10:13

Page 214

Page 214

14: 22–15: 23; 16: 1–17; 16: 18–18: 5*; 19: 2–13*, 15–21: 23*; 22:1–12*, 13–29; 23: 16–26; 24: 1–4, 6–25: 4*, 5–10, 11–12; 26: 2–13*,20–44*.10 It was not yet connected with the figure of Moses norwith the Horeb- and Moab-Covenants, that became part of thebook of Deuteronomy in the exilic period.11 Deuteronomy 12* andDeuteronomy 13* functioned in the pre-exilic book of Deuteronomyas a kind of Hauptgebot (principal regulation) for the deuteronomiccollection of laws. Its position corresponded to that of the altar-lawin the Covenant Code and the centralization law in Deut. 12: 13–19*was a direct literary reformulation of the pre-exilic altar law of the

Fig. 9.1. Structure of the Covenant Code.

10 Cf. Otto (1999), 203–378, and (2000), 110–274 for more details of the literarycritical analysis of the book of Deuteronomy differentiating between the pre-exilic-deuteronomic, the exilic-deuteronomistic, and the post-exilic–post-deuteronomistictexts within the book of Deuteronomy.

11 See sect. II.

Eckart Otto214

10:27:02:10:13

Page 215

Page 215

Covenant Code in Exod. 20: 24.12 The sequence of the following lawsin Deuteronomy 14–26* was also derived from the Covenant Code.13

The deuteronomic framework of social laws of divine privilege in a6/7-scheme in Deut. 14: 22–15: 23* and Deut. 26: 2–13* followed theprincipal regulations in Deuteronomy 12–13* and received this waythe same position as the frame of the Covenant Code following thealtar law. As in the Covenant Code the frame comprised a court-system in Deut. 16: 18–19*; 17: 2–13*; 18: 1–8*, a law-system inDeuteronomy 19–25* and a festival-order in Deut. 16: 1–17 thattransformed the core section of Exod. 34: 18–26* and the appendixto the Covenant Code in Exod. 23: 14–19.14 The fact that the orderof festivals got the front position after the frame in the book ofDeuteronomy is a clear signal that the motif of cult-centralizationwas most important for the authors of the pre-exilic book ofDeuteronomy in their revision of the structure of the CovenantCode. Since the centralization law in Deuteronomy 12* had a directimpact on the order of festivals in Deut. 16: 1–17*, the cult-centralization was their hermeneutical key for restructuring theCovenant Code (Fig. 9.2).

The centralization law in Deuteronomy 12* was the hermeneuticalkey for the revision of the structure of the Covenant Code in thebook of Deuteronomy. The laws of slaves and s emit.t.a in Exod. 21: 2–11; 23: 10–12, which framed the Covenant Code, were transferred tothe centre of the frame of the laws of divine privilege in Deut. 14: 22–15: 23, whereas the deuteronomic laws of tithe and firstborn, whichimply functions of the cultic place, formed the outer frame of thelaws of divine privilege in Deut. 14: 22–15: 23. The laws of tithe inDeut. 14: 22–7 and Deut. 15: 19–22 were set as the framework for thedeuteronomic frame in Deut. 14: 22–15: 23 because they connectedit with the deuteronomic law of centralization in Deuteronomy 12,13–27*, on the one hand, and the festival-order in Deut. 16: 1–17,

12 Cf. Lohfink (1991a); Reuter (1993), 115–38; Otto (1999), 324–51.13 See already Otto (1993). It does not suffice to restrict the discussion of the

relationship between the Covenant Code and the book of Deuteronomy to the levelof single sentences, but the structures of the redactions of the corpora have to bethe starting point of comparisons. Only on this basis can attempts to invert thedependency of the book of Deuteronomy on the Covenant Code be definitelyfalsified; pace Van Seters (2003); cf. the review of this monograph by Otto (2004c).

14 For a discussion of the literary relation between Deut. 16, Exod. 23: 14–19 andExod. 34: 18–26 cf. Otto (2009a), 196–201.


10:27:02:10:13

Page 216

Page 216

Fig. 9.2. Restructure of the Covenant Code in Deuteronomy.

Eckart Otto216

10:27:02:10:13

Page 217

Page 217

which also directly depended on the centralization laws inDeuteronomy 12*, on the other hand.

Also for the revision of the individual laws the centralization lawwas functioning as a hermeneutical key. The unusual sequence of’sr and the following wekî in Exod. 21: 13–14 was the result of aliterary process of supplementing Exod. 21: 12 as a general rule for allthe cases of killing by legal differentiation into the cases of fatalbodily injury and murder in Exod. 21: 13–14. In the revision ofExod. 21: 12–14 in Deut. 19: 3b, 4–6, 10–13 the sequence of ’sr andwekî in Deut. 19: 4b, 5, 11 was adopted.15 but the order of the caseswas reversed in Deuteronomy 19*. In the Covenant Code the generalrule for cases of killing was followed by the differentiations into casesof murder and fatal injuries. In Deut. 19: 2–13* these differentiationswere transferred to a front position, because the revision of thealtar-asylum in Exod. 21: 13–14 by the installation of towns ofasylum in Deuteronomy 19* was a direct consequence of the cult-centralization in Deuteronomy 12*, which was the most importantaspect of the revision. But the deuteronomic authors of Deut. 19:2–13* did not change the form-critically unusual sequence of ’sr andwekî because they intended to hint at the fact that Deut. 19: 2–13*was directly derived from Exod. 21: 12–14 in the Covenant Code andthat Deut. 19: 2–13* was a revisionary exegesis of Exod. 21: 12–14.In Deut. 19: 2–13* the deuteronomic authors used the authority ofthe Covenant Code in order to legitimize their revision of theasylum-regulation in Exod. 21: 13–14 according to Deuteronomy12*. The quotation-formula in Deut. 19: 4 underlined this dialecticof authority and revision in the deuteronomic reception of theCovenant Code. The deuteronomic authors were far away fromthe idea that the Covenant Code should be ‘recycled’, i.e. far awayfrom the idea that the revising text should replace the revised text,because if this were the case, it would make more sense just to writea new text without mentioning and making use of the revised text.The method of the deuteronomic authors in Deut. 19: 2–13* was assimple as it was ingenious: the revision of the asylum-regulationsby the idea of towns of asylum in Deut. 19: 2–13* left open a decisive

15 Cf. Gertz (1994), 127–30. For a detailed analysis of the legal institution ofasylum in the Hebrew Bible and the Orient cf. Ruwe (2000); Traulsen (2004);Staszak (2006); Dietrich (2008). For a critical review of the monograph by Barmash(2005) cf. Jackson (2006b) and of the monograph by Stackert (2007) cf. Otto (2009a),248–56.


10:27:02:10:13

Page 218

Page 218

problem, because Deut. 19: 2–13* did not mention anythingabout the asylum-function of the central sanctuary described inDeuteronomy 12*. The deuteronomic authors read Exod. 21: 12–14together with its revision in Deut. 19: 2–13 and interpreted Exod. 21:13 ‘I will appoint you a place (maqôm), to which you may flee’, whichdealt in the context of the Covenant Code with the local shrines, as aregulation for the central sanctuary. maqôm was terminus technicusfor the local and the central sanctuary, as was demonstrated by thecentralization-formula ‘the maqôm, where YHWH, your God, haschosen to put His name’ (Deut. 12: 21). Read through the glasses ofthe centralization-formula Exod. 21: 13–14 dealt no longer with localshrines but with the central sanctuary, whereas Deut. 19: 2–13* dealtwith the towns of asylum in the rural countryside, which replacedthe local shrines. Exod. 21: 12–14 and Deut. 19: 2–13* were inter-preted as a unit of the revised and revising text. Deut. 19: 2–13* readalone without its counterpart was deficient in a legal collection witha law of cult-centralization as a Hauptgebot (principal regulation),because in the book of Deuteronomy no hint was given at theasylum-function of this central sanctuary or that there should nolonger be an asylum-function connected with this sanctuary.16 TheCovenant Code kept its authority for the deuteronomic authorsregulating the asylum of this sanctuary, whereas Deut. 19: 2–13*regulated the consequences of the cult-centralization for the institu-tion of cultic asylum, since there were no longer local shrines, bytransferring their function to towns of asylum. This example alsoexplicates the hermeneutics of the dialectic of authority andrevision of the revised text. For the authors of the pre-exilic book ofDeuteronomy the revising text was the hermeneutical key for theinterpretation of the revised texts, i.e. they read the asylum-lawin Exod. 21: 12–14 through the glasses of the deuteronomiccentralization-formula. The Covenant Code was not replaced by thepre-exilic book of Deuteronomy, which would not function withoutthe Covenant Code. Deuteronomy was the legal interpretation of the

16 This is the thesis of Dietrich (2008), 70–2, 139–40, 211, who pleads for aninterruption of the asylum-function of the temple of Jerusalem during the Josianicreform. But if this was the intention of the revision of Exod. 21: 12–14 in Deut.19* one could expect that this would be mentioned by the authors of the book ofDeuteronomy. Moreover, Dietrich is of the opinion that after Josiah’s death theasylum-function was again restored to the temple of Jerusalem; cf. Otto (2008),468–74 and (2009f ), 456–8.

Eckart Otto218

10:27:02:10:13

Page 219

Page 219

Covenant Code supplementing it. The same unity of revising andrevised text can be observed with the altar-law of the Covenant Codein Exod. 20: 24–6 and the deuteronomic centralization-law in Deut.12: 13–27* including the pre-exilic centralization-formula. Theauthors of the pre-exilic book of Deuteronomy read the altar-law ofthe Covenant Code in Exod. 20: 24–6 through the glasses of thedeuteronomic centralization-formula, which made use of the altar-law of the Covenant Code. bekal hammaqôm � asaer � azkîr � aet s emîcould be read grammatically correctly in two ways so that it wasambivalent in its meaning. In the pre-deuteronomic Covenant Codebekal + determined genitive had a distributive meaning, ‘each place’.But grammatically even more obvious was the meaning of ‘allthe place’, reading it in correspondence with the deuteronomiccentralization-law and interpreted as an expression of totalityreferring to the central sanctuary. The deuteronomic authors readthe altar-law of the Covenant Code and the centralization-law of thebook of Deuteronomy as a legal unit17, so that there was no reasonto suppose that the Covenant Code should be replaced by the bookof Deuteronomy. Again for the authors of the pre-exilic book ofDeuteronomy the deuteronomic centralization-law in Deuteronomy12* was an exegetical explanation and supplement of the pre-deuteronomic altar-law of the Covenant Code, which was notreplaced, but they used the Covenant Code as a source forlegitimizing their deuteronomic programme of a cult-centralization.We can observe the same legal relationship with other legalregulations of the Covenant Code and their revisions in the pre-exilicbook of Deuteronomy, so e.g. with the slave law in Exod. 21: 2–11in relation to Deut. 15: 12–18, with Exod. 23: 1–3, 6–8 in relationto Deut. 16: 18–18: 5* and with Exod. 23: 4–5 in relation toDeut. 22: 1–4.18 The laws of the Covenant Code were revised inDeuteronomy under the perspective of cult-centralization. Thethematic group of ethical rules with a social concern in Exod.22: 20–6 and Exod. 23: 4–519 was adopted in the pre-exilic book ofDeuteronomy, because the deuteronomic authors intended in this

17 Cf. Veijola (2004), 264–5. This implies that there is no reason for any literarycritical operation in Exod. 21: 24; pace the different literary critical operations ofLevin (2000) and Van Seters (2006).

18 Cf. Otto (1999), 238–49, 282–5, 303–11, and (2008), 464–85.19 Cf. Otto (1988), 38–40, 45–6, 49–51, and (1994a), 81–103; Barbiero (1991),

15–130.


10:27:02:10:13

Page 220

Page 220

way to legitimize their own programme of a brotherly and sisterlyethic.20 The laws of the Covenant Code, which were not made useof in the pre-exilic book of Deuteronomy, i.e. the laws of materialdamages and bodily injuries in Exod. 21: 18–22: 14, and which hadno thematic point of contact with the deuteronomic centralization-law, were supplemented by a collection of family laws in Deut.21: 15–21; 22: 13–29; 24: 1–4, 5; 25: 5–10, because in the CovenantCode there was only one single family law in Exod. 21: 15–16. Onthe other hand, there was no law of bodily injuries in the book ofDeuteronomy except from Deut. 25: 11–12, which had no counter-part in the Covenant Code and came from an Assyrian legalbackground into the book of Deuteronomy.21

So we can summarize the rules of revision and supplementation ofthe Covenant Code by the pre-exilic book of Deuteronomy: Thelaws of the Covenant Code, which imply functions of the local sanc-tuaries, were adopted in the deuteronomic Deuteronomy and revisedunder the perspective of the cult-centralization (Deut. 12: 13–27*),so that the revising law became the hermeneutical key for the inter-pretation of the revised law of the Covenant Code, which meantthat the revising and revised laws formed a legal unit of one law.Due to the programme of brotherly and sisterly social ethics, thedeuteronomic authors of the book of Deuteronomy also made useof all the rules of social ethics in the Covenant Code in order tolegitimize their own programme. For the authors of the pre-exilicDeuteronomy, the Covenant Code had a high degree of authority sothat they avoided tensions between the revising laws in the book ofDeuteronomy and the revised laws in the Covenant Code in favourof a relation of mutual interpretation. It was in that way that therevising text became the hermeneutical key for the interpretation ofthe revised text. There was no intention to ‘recycle’ the CovenantCode, because its authority was needed and used to legitimize theprogramme of the pre-exilic book of Deuteronomy includingthe pre-exilic idea of a cult-centralization. Of those parts of theCovenant Code that had no meaning for this deuteronomicprogramme, the deuteronomic authors made no use, but theseparts supplemented each other. In the Covenant Code full-length

20 For this programme in its pre-exilic context of the 7th century cf. Otto (1994a),175–92, and (2002a), 92–275; Sweeney (2001), 137–69. For the socio-historical back-ground of this programme cf. also Halpern (1991); Na’aman (2008).

21 Cf. Paul (1990), 335–9; Otto (1999), 274, 300, 353.

Eckart Otto220

10:27:02:10:13

Page 221

Page 221

collections of laws of bodily injuries and material damages wereintegrated, that had no counterpart in Deuteronomy on the onehand, and in Deuteronomy an elaborate collection of family lawswas included, which had no equivalent in the Covenant Code. Themutual supplementation of the Covenant Code and of the book ofDeuteronomy vice versa excluded an intention of the authors of thepre-exilic book of Deuteronomy to replace the Covenant Code.22 Thepre-exilic book of Deuteronomy as a revision of the Covenant Codewas not an isolated case in the legal history of the Ancient Near East.In addition to the legal reform of Uru-Inimgina at the beginning ofMesopotamian legal history, the Hittite law collection was a revisionof older legal regulations and also the Middle Assyrian Laws werean example of ancient legal revisions: An older form of criminal lawof self-help by families was overcome by legal procedures at theinstitution of courts.23

The task now remains to date this deuteronomic book ofDeuteronomy, which started from its very beginning as a reformu-lating supplement of the pre-exilic Covenant Code. For the greatmajority of scholars worldwide working in the field of Deuteronomy,it is accepted that there was a neo-Assyrian influence on the book.It is only the nature of this influence that can be debated––whetherthere was a direct literary dependence on texts of Assyrian royalideology, especially of the loyalty oath of Esarhaddon (VTE), orwhether there was a more indirect Assyrian influence intertwinedwith motives of Aramaic or even Hittite origin on the book ofDeuteronomy. In regard to these positions it can be debatedwhether these adaptions were the result of a kind of ‘subversive’

22 Cf. Otto (1996a), 112–22; id. (2008), 496–506; id. (2009a), 248–56, and alsoNajman (2003), 1–16; pace Levinson (1997) and Stackert (2007).

23 Cf. Otto (2008), 192–309. Also Saporetti (2008), 462–3 speaks of cases of a‘giustizia privata’ in MAL.A. The analysis of the Middle-Assyrian laws proved that thebook of Deuteronomy as a programme of legal revision was no exception in ANElegal history but a special case of a more universal ANE tradition. As a result of thisanalysis there also were revealed some astonishing correspondences in the method ofredaction of laws in the MAL and in the collection of family laws in the pre-exilicbook of Deuteronomy, which demand an explanation. The most probableexplanation is the assumption that a tradition of legal redaction techniques in theANE collections of laws was also known in Judah; cf. Otto (2010a). But apart fromthis special aspect, one can agree to the critical attitude of S. Jackson (2008b) towardshypotheses of a direct transformation of the laws of Hammurapi in the CovenantCode or of a uniform legal tradition of a ‘common law’ in the Ancient Near Eastincluding the biblical law.


10:27:02:10:13

Page 222

Page 222

attitude to the Assyrian royal idea, or an expression of the intentionto ‘modernize’ the Judaean religion. Most scholars date these pro-cesses of making use of motifs of Assyrian royal ideology to the latepre-exilic period of Judah, especially to the time of the king Josiah.24

The superscription of the pre-exilic Deuteronomy in Deut. 6: 4 f., theidea of cult-centralization in Deut. 12: 13–27*, the canon-formulain Deut. 13: 1, the obligation of absolute loyalty to YHWH in Deut.13: 2–10*, and the curses in Deut. 28: 20–44 were deeply influencedby Assyrian motives.25 A counterposition dating this influence of theAssyrian royal ideology to a post-Assyrian, i.e. exilic or even post-exilic period is confronted with the difficulty that the decisive texts ofthe neo-Assyrian royal ideology had no late-Babylonian or Persianafterlife, and even if Judaeans would have had access to texts ofAssyrian royal ideology in post-Assyrian times, there was no reasonfor them to return to this Assyrian ideology, when it was alreadypolitically overcome, outdated, and no longer of any relevance. Thismakes the reception of these Assyrian motifs by exilic or even post-exilic Judaeans and the influence of these motifs on the book ofDeuteronomy in the exilic or post-exilic period rather improbable.26

The neo-Assyrian impact on the pre-exilic Deuteronomy is mostplausibly explained by dating the pre-deuteronomistic book ofDeuteronomy to the late pre-exilic period. This dating is supportedby the close theological connections between the pre-exilic CovenantCode and the pre-deuteronomistic book of Deuteronomy. Theirprogrammes of social ethics were identical in their substance andlegitimation by divine privilege, and the authors of the pre-deuteronomistic book of Deuteronomy used the Covenant Code alsoin order to legitimize their programme of cult-centralization byusing the altar-law of the Covenant Code. The historical context of

24 Cf. e.g. Frankena (1965); Weinfeld (1972); Dion (1991); Steymans (1995) and(2006); Krebernik (1995); Levinson (1995); Otto (1999), 15–90; Römer (2005),74–81; Radner (2006); Blanco Wißmann (2008), 16–24.

25 For further Mesopotamian and especially Assyrian legal influence on the lawsand ethical rules on Deuteronomy 12–26* cf. Otto (2002a), 92–275. For the Assyrianinfluence on the professionalized court-system of the Josianic period (Deut. 16: 18 f.;17: 2–13*) cf. also Gertz (1994), 82–4. That there were different ways of making useof Assyrian motifs in pre-exilic Judaean literature demonstrates the comparison withroyal psalms; cf. Steymans (1998); Arneth (2000), 54–108; Otto (2004b). For theAssyrian influence on the pre-priestly Moses-Exodus narrative cf. Otto (2009a), 9–45.For the prophetic literature cf. de Jong (2007), 287–442.

26 Pace Koch (2008); cf. the review of this monograph by Otto (2010b).

Eckart Otto222

10:27:02:10:13

Page 223

Page 223

the origin of this idea of cult-centralization was pre-exilic, which isproved by the pre-exilic deuteronomistic account in 2 Kings 23.

II. CULT-CENTRALIZATION IN THE BOOK OF

DEUTERONOMY AND THE PRE-EXILIC

DEUTERONOMISTIC PROGRAMME OF THE

CULT-REFORM BY KING JOSIAH IN 2 KINGS 23*

Dating the motif of cult-centralization in the book of Deuteronomy,which means, strictly speaking, the idea of centralization of sacri-fices, includes the task of dealing with the literary origin of the bookof Deuteronomy, because there was no book of Deuteronomy earlierthan the programme of cult-centralization27 as hermeneutical keyfor the revision of the Covenant Code. This means that there was no‘pre-centralized’ book of Deuteronomy, because there was no bookof Deuteronomy without the Covenant Code. So we must ask if therewas a pre-exilic book of Deuteronomy in Deut. 6: 4–5; 12–26*; 28*,or if the origin of this book was only exilic or even post-exilic.The dice will be cast not only in the field of dating the book ofDeuteronomy but also of dating the Deuteronomistic History in 1Sam. 1: 1–2 Kgs. 23: 25*.28 Most scholars of the international dis-cussion of a ‘Deuteronomistic History’ (DtrH) in the last fiftyyears came to the result that M. Noth’s hypothesis of a DtrH fromDeuteronomy 1–2 Kings 25 was literary-historically too undifferen-tiated to really be convincing. One of the main problems of Noth’stheory was the definite isolation of the book of Deuteronomy fromits context in the Pentateuch,29 where it had a constitutive functionbecause there was never a Hexateuch or a Pentateuch without a bookof Deuteronomy. Following the international discussion after thebreakthrough by F. M. Cross,30 more and more German-speaking

27 Cf. Reuter (1993), 189–91, who also convincingly refused the possibility ofreconstructing a vorzentralistisches (pre-centralized) book of Deuteronomy; cf. alsoOtto (1999), 203–378.

28 For a survey of the history of research cf. Veijola (2002), 273–327, 391–402;Römer (2005), 13–43; Braulik (2008a); Otto (2015) and (2013).

29 Cf. sect. IV and Frevel (2004).30 Cf. Cross (1973) and also e.g. Nelson (1981); Knoppers (1994); O’Brien (1992);

Halpern and Vanderhooft (1991), 179–244; McKenzie (1991); Eynikel (1996); Camp-bell and O’Brian (2000); Sweeney (2001) and (2007), 15–20, 434–50; Cortese (2001),195–331; Römer (2005), 67–106 and (2006).


10:27:02:10:13

Page 224

Page 224

Old Testament scholars realized that the restriction of datingdeuteronomistic layers or parts of a DtrH only to the exilic and post-exilic periods did not explain a great number of observations inthe book of Kings, thereby proving a pre-exilic date of an originallydeuteronomistic layer in this book,31 such that more and morescholars are turning back to A. Kuenen, J. Wellhausen, andA. Jepsen.32 The more positive judgements of the kings of Judah thanof the kings of Israel and the entirely positive judgement of KingJosiah in 2 Kgs. 23: 5* will be best explained by the assumption thatthe first deuteronomistic authors were writing in the Josianic period.Only the judgements of Kings in 2 Kgs. 23: 32, 37; 24: 9, 19, whichdiffered in language and ideology from the judgements of theJosianic period, were added in the exilic period and undermined thepositive judgement on Josiah in 2 Kgs. 23: 25*33 in order to explainthe catastrophe of the exile. In 2 Kings 17 the deuteronomistic basetext still presupposed the existence of the state of Judah and wascomposed in the late pre-exilic period. Also the formula ‘until thisday’ in 2 Kgs. 8: 22; 14: 7; 16: 6 had a pre-exilic background.34 1 Kgs.11: 13, 32, 36; 15: 4; 2 Kgs. 8: 19 gave a divine guarantee for theDavidic dynasty. This made more sense in the pre-exilic than inthe exilic period and was based on the pre-exilic core-section of2 Samuel 7*.35 So there are rather strong arguments to assume apre-exilic deuteronomistic history from 1 Sam. 1: 1–2 Kgs. 23: 25*.

For the authors of this pre-exilic deuteronomistic DtrH 2 Kgs. 23:25* was the completion of a narrative, which began with Samueland Saul’s kingdom. The authors intended to legitimize Josiah’spolitical programme to unite all of ‘Israel’, i.e. Judah and the north-ern territory of the previous state of Israel, with Jerusalem as its

31 Cf. Lohfink (1991b); Schmid (2006) and (2008), 80–6; Stipp (2006); Braulik(2008a), 191–202; Otto (2015).

32 Cf. Kuenen (1892), 90–1; Wellhausen (1899), 298; Jepsen (1953).33 Cf. Vanoni (1985); pace Aurelius (2003), 39–56; cf. Schmid (2006), 34–6: ‘Auch

bei Aurelius darf man aber fragen, ob der Nachweis, dass sich die Königsbeurtei-lungen nach Josia von den vorangehenden nicht absetzen, wirklich geglückt ist’;cf. also Otto (2009a), 605–7.

34 Cf. Cogan and Tadmor (1988), 96, 214; Geoghegan (2003) and (2006);Sweeney (2007), 19–20 (also for the pre-exilic layer of 2 Kings 17).

35 Cf. Schniedewind (1999), 51–97; McKenzie (1991), 117–34. A pre-exilic date ofthis function of 2 Sam. 7 in a DtrH makes more sense than to suppose that exiliccircles intended to legitimize their hope for a revival of the Davidic dynasty. Thisthesis presupposes the exilic dating of DtrH and is in danger of being a vicious circle;pace Oswald (2008), 86–101.

Eckart Otto224

10:27:02:10:13

Page 225

Page 225

centre by the fiction that this kind of ideal Israel was already realizedduring the reign of David and Solomon. So the authors used a typicalAncient Near Eastern motif of a king arranging a cult-reform,36 andthey especially used neo-Assyrian descriptions of cult-reforms forthe narrative of the Josianic cult-reform37 as an action of purificationof the cult in Jerusalem from Aramaean and Assyrian influences38

and of a centralization of legitimate sacrifices at this temple in orderto express the predominant political and cultic role of Jerusalemin the expected new Israel. The authors of the pre-exilic DtrH usedfor their narrative of Josiah’s cult-reform a description of thisreform in 2 Kgs. 23: 1–14*, which was originally a literarily inde-pendent source for the pre-exilic Deuteronomists,39 and integratedit into its pre-exilic deuteronomistic context by 2 Kgs. 23: 5aβγ. 8a. 9.15.40 The original programme of the cult-reform in 2 Kgs. 23: 1–14*was limited only to Jerusalem and its surroundings. The authors ofthe pre-exilic Josianic DtrH had the broader perspective that alsothe northern sanctuary of Bethel should be included into thisreform. The late pre-exilic authors of the book of Deuteronomyextended the programme of cult-centralization to all of Israelin Deut. 12: 13–27*. The pre-deuteronomistic account in 2 Kgs.23: 1–14* proves that the Josianic period was the most plausiblehistorical context for the programme of cult-centralization in the

36 Cf. Na’aman (2006).37 Cf. Arneth (2007a), 267–74; De Jong (2007), 361–78.38 Cf. Uehlinger (1995).39 Even if one follows Blanco Wißmann (2008), 213–23 that the DtrH had a

certain background in the neo-Babylonian chronicles and dates DtrH to the exilicperiod, it does not affect our argument because the source used in 2 Kgs. 23: 1–14*was at any rate pre-exilic, so that also the idea of cult-centralization was a pre-exilicprogrammatic idea. That the deuteronomistic authors were writing in a pre-exilic literary context becomes clear from 2 Kgs. 23: 3. This type of covenant is a pre-exilic one, because it is a covenant which was made before YHWH and not withYHWH so that YHWH still had the function of a witness but not of a partner of thecovenant. This type of covenant was also well known in Assyria; cf. Rassam-Cylinder(prisma A I 21 and prisma F I 16); cf. Borger (1996), 15–16 and Otto (1999), 18–20.For the literary history of the covenant-motif cf. Perlitt (1969); Nicholson (1986);Otto (1998).

40 Cf. Otto (2001); Arneth (2007a), 250–66. K. Schmid (2004a), 322 and (2006),28–36, convincingly rebutted the minimalistic approaches to 2 Kings 23 bySpieckermann (1982), 79–130; Levin (1984), 351–71; Kratz (2000), 164–5, andAurelius (2003), 45–7. 2 Kings 23 was not at all a literary ‘cloaca maxima’ (Levin(1984), 357).


10:27:02:10:13

Page 226

Page 226

book of Deuteronomy.41 In this pre-exilic period there flourisheda broad literature on this topic, and the book of the pre-exilicDeuteronomy was part of it. The Assyrian impact on Deuteronomyis the one pivotal point for dating its origin to the seventh century.The network of pre-deuteronomistic and deuteronomistic literatureof the time of King Josiah in 2 Kings 23 is the other. The account of aJosianic cult-reform and the centralization-law in Deuteronomy 12*was, in the perspective of the pre-exilic authors, just a programme inthe book of Kings and in the book of Deuteronomy. Part of thisidealistic programme of the book of Deuteronomy was the idea of apeople that derived its identity from the temple and not the king.One of the reasons for this idea was the opposition of the authors ofthe book of Deuteronomy to the Assyrian type of state with the kingfunctioning as a tool of the divine pantheon. That there was noking in the deuteronomic Deuteronomy is not a sufficient reasonfor dating it to the exilic period, because the priestly programmeof the pre-exilic book of Deuteronomy followed the pre-exilic pro-grammatic Covenant Code, which also tried to unify the Judaeansociety without mentioning the king. It is a ‘myth’ that a legal textthat did not mention the king had to be exilic or post-exilic.42 That

41 So also e.g. Weinfeld (1991), 65–84; Nielsen (1995), 9–11; Schniedewind (1999),72–97, and (2004), 161–2; Sweeney (2001), 136–68, and (2007), 434–50; Rofé (2002),4–9; García López (2003), 270–317; Römer (2004), 168–72, and esp. Veijola (2004),264–5, who referred to Wellhausen (1927), 34–5 It was a wise decision of T. Veijola tokeep to this common sense of the history of research of the last one hundred yearsand to defend a pre-exilic Josianic ‘Ur-Deuteronomium’ although he favours theperspective of deuteronomistic expansions of Deuteronomy. A late dating of the ideaof cult-centralization to the exilic period––so Kratz (2000), 137, who interprets it as‘absonderlich und singulär in der altorientalischen Welt’ and a reaction to the catas-trophe of 587/6 bce––is confronted with the difficulty of explaining the origin ofDeuteronomy 12–26 as exilic, because it did not make sense to revise the CovenantCode according to the centralization of a cult that did not exist. If one wants tointerpret Deuteronomy 12* as a reaction to a catastrophe it was the downfall ofSamaria 722–720 bce. For ANE and especially Assyrian analogies to the deutero-nomic idea of cult-centralization cf. Maul (1997); Otto (1999), 350–1; Rüterswörden(2006), 81–2. K. Schmid convincingly rebutted the late dating of the origin of the ideaof cult-centralization in Deuteronomy 12* to the exilic period; cf. Schmid (2004a),322, and (2006), 35. For the earlier attempts for a late dating of the origins ofDeuteronomy cf. e.g. Kennett (1920, 1928) and Hölscher (1922). Their attemptsfailed and should not be renewed.

42 Pace Davies (2007), 145. At the same time the circles of authors of the book ofDeuteronomy also transmitted the pre-exilic stories of the ‘charismatic leaders’,which we find now in the post-exilic book of Judges. In these stories the pre-exilicauthors also dealt with an Israel without a king. The pre-exilic Deuteronomy was not

Eckart Otto226

10:27:02:10:13

Page 227

Page 227

the ‘temple’ at Bethel was still alive before and after Josiah, evenduring the late-Babylonian period and perhaps as the temple atElephantine in the Persian period,43 does not say anything aboutthe pre-exilic programme of cult-centralization, because 2 Kgs.23: 1–14*, (15) were programmatic texts, which remained pro-grammatic directly because of Josiah’s unexpected death in 609 bce

and the changing political situation around that year.It was this pre-exilic programme of the book of Deuteronomy that

made possible the survival of Judaean identity in the late Babylonianperiod when the state of the Davidic dynasty, Jerusalem, and with itthe temple, were lost. In this sense the book of Deuteronomy becamerelevant during the ‘exilic’ period and produced a deep influenceon the history of Judah. Whoever tries to date the proprium of thebook of Deuteronomy to the exilic period is in danger of beinggripped by the modern notion that the ideas of religion always followthe historical developments and are simply adjusted to them. Butthere is also the other possibility, and this is especially valid forantiquity, that religious ideas and developments were not only theresult of their adjustments to the ‘necessities’ of history butalso created history. The pre-exilic literary origin of the book ofDeuteronomy was the most important of the prerequisites for the

at all an isolated case in this late pre-exilic period; cf. Otto (2015). Sweeney(2001), 163 tries to prove the thesis that the royal authority of the Davidic dynasty,especially of King Josiah, stood behind the pre-exilic book of Deuteronomy: ‘Overall,Deuteronomic Torah presupposes that the monarch is a strong central authoritywho stands behind and enforces its provisions as the chief judicial and political figurein the land, but it attempts to portray that power discreetly as an expression ofYHWH’s will exercised through the authority granted it by the presence of the centralsanctuary.’ The borderline between a ‘discreet expression of royal power’ and ananti-royal attitude in the book of Deuteronomy is hard to draw, but it is obviousthat the motif of cult-centralization in the book of Deuteronomy has a pre-exilicsetting in the 7th century bce. Also the pre-exilic Covenant Code did not mention aking, although there is no doubt that it was of a pre-exilic origin, but inspiredthe programme of the pre-exilic book of Deuteronomy. For the hypothesis ofRothenbusch (2000), 399–480, and (2001), following a suggestion of Kienast (1994)and (1996) for the old Babylonian law collections that the mispatim of the CovenantCode were a kind of ‘royal inscription’ cf. Otto (2006b), 404–5, and (2009c). TheCovenant Code was a priestly programme that did not trust in the power of thestate to guarantee the unity of the Judaean society in a period of social upheavalin the late pre-exilic period; for the societal situation cf. Kessler 1992. This wasexactly the stimulus for the programme of the pre-exilic Deuteronomy in the Josianicperiod.

43 Cf. Knauf (2006), 291–349 and (2008), 176.


10:27:02:10:13

Page 228

Page 228

survival of the Judaean religion, so that it did not perish butflourished during the exile. And also the literary history of theexilic book of Deuteronomy began to take part in this theologicalawakening in the exilic period.

III. THE DEUTERONOMISTIC BOOKS OF

DEUTERONOMY AND JOSHUA IN THE

LATE-BABYLONIAN PERIOD

The pre-exilic deuteronomic book of Deuteronomy was a revisionof the likewise pre-exilic Covenant Code. This revision becamenecessary because Josiah planned to centralize the sacrifices at thetemple of Jerusalem for all the ‘tribes’ (Deut. 12: 14) of Israel, i.e.Judah and the northern territory, which would be reintegrated intothe Josianic state of Judah. But the pre-exilic Deuteronomy remainedjust a programme. The real career of the book of Deuteronomystarted in the exilic period with the end of the royal dynasty andits state, and the end of the temple, which was supposed to be thecentre of an Israel assembled around it. The exilic deuteronomisticauthors framed the book of Deuteronomy by giving it a new literarysetting. In the late pre-exilic period the book of Deuteronomygot its meaning and legitimation from the actual theo-politicalsituation of Josiah’s plans for a united Israel liberated from foreignAramaean and Assyrian religious influences. The deuteronomisticauthors legitimized the book now by framing it with the idea ofits origin in a revelation to Moses at Mount Horeb, promulgatedto the people in the land of Moab. The deuteronomistic authorsformed a complex frame around the pre-exilic book of Deuteronomyand revised the legal core section in Deuteronomy 12–26*. Fromnow on this frame contained the hermeneutical key for thatrevision.

Deuteronomy 4: 45; 5*; 9–10*; 26*; 28* was the first deuteronomis-tic frame of a Horeb-redaction, which a further deuteronomisticredaction expanded by chapters 1–3*, 29–30*. Deuteronomists ofthe first generation in exile connected Deuteronomy with MountHoreb. Deuteronomists of the second generation added a covenantin the land of Moab in Deuteronomy 29 and a narrative of Israel’swandering from Mount Horeb to the land of Moab in Deuteronomy

Eckart Otto228

10:27:02:10:13

Page 229

Page 229

1–3.44 They also connected the book of Deuteronomy with thebook of Joshua (Deuteronomy 1–Joshua 23 [Judg. 2: 6–9*]). Thefirst frame of the Horeb-redaction in Deuteronomy 5–10*, 26*,28* intended to answer the question of whether there was hope fora new history of Israel after the catastrophe of 586 bce by the ideathat there did not exist a valid covenant between God and Hispeople before this catastrophe.45 There had been no covenant withGod in pre-exilic times, and only now after the catastrophe––inthe deuteronomistic frame it was represented by the episode of themolten calf––could a covenant be made.46

According to this new setting for the book of Deuteronomy thedeuteronomistic authors revised the legal material in Deuteronomy12–26,47 which was now interpreted as a constitution for a new Israelin the Promised Land after the exile. This constitution should bevalid only in the Promised Land but not in the diaspora (Deut.12: 1).48 The pre-deuteronomistic order of the organization of thejudiciary in Deuteronomy 16: 18–19; 17: 2–13*; 18: 1–549 wasexpanded by the insertion of the deuteronomistic law concerningthe king in Deut. 17: 14–20*50 and concerning the prophets in Deut.18: 9–22.51 The Decalogue in Deut. 5: 6–21, which was an exilicdeuteronomistic creation formed out of different ‘bricks’ of theJudaean religious and legal tradition,52 had its earliest literary contextin the deuteronomistic frame of the book of Deuteronomy in

44 For the exegetical analysis of Deuteronomy 1–3 separating post-deuteronomistic from deuteronomistic literary layers cf. Otto (2009a), 284–421;for a literary critical analysis of Deuteronomy 5–11 cf. Achenbach (1991), and for atext-grammatical analysis of these chapters cf. DeRouchie (2007). For a redaction-critical analysis of Deuteronomy 5–11 separating post-deuteronomistic fromdeuteronomistic literary layers cf. Otto (2009c), 65–215.

45 Cf. Otto (2007b), 39–45.46 This corresponds to the result of the traditio-historical reconstruction of the

idea of covenant between God and His people (cf. n. 39) in the Hebrew Bible. Alreadythe deuteronomistic authors in the 6th century bce knew that this fact was a lateidea and used it for their narrative in the frame of the book of Deuteronomy, statingthat the covenant was made only after the episode of the molten calf in Deuteronomy9–10*, i.e. after the catastrophe of 587/6 bce; cf. Otto (2000), 86–93.

47 For an exegectical differentiation between deuteronomistic expansions and thepre-deuteronomistic core-sections in Deuteronomy 12–26 cf. Otto (1999), 238–351;Veijola (2004) (only Deuteronomy 12–16).

48 Cf. Lohfink (1991c).49 Cf. sect. I.50 Cf. E. Scheffler (2007). This regulation in Deut. 17: 14–20 was substantially

expanded by post-deuteronomistic additions in the post-exilic period.51 Cf. Otto (2009a), 257–71. 52 Cf. Otto (1996a), 293–303.


10:27:02:10:13

Page 230

Page 230

Deuteronomy 5.53 According to the differentiation in Deut. 12: 1,Deuteronomy 12–26* only contained the laws for living in thePromised Land, but the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5 containedrules that were also valid for Israel’s living outside the PromisedLand. In the deuteronomistic frame the Decalogue now functionedas a kind of Hauptgebot, i.e. principal law, for the deuteronomisticrevision of the pre-exilic book in Deuteronomy 12–26. Now theselaws were structured according to the pentalogical structure of thedeuteronomistic Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5: 6–21.54 So it is ratherimprobable to detect a structure in Deuteronomy 12–26* accordingto the ten different rules in the Decalogue of Exodus 20.55 NoDecalogue other than that in Deut. 5: 6–21 was the basis for thedeuteronomistic redactional revision of Deuteronomy 12–26*, andthis Decalogue was a Pentalogue,56 such that we find a structureof five blocks according to the five rules in Deut. 5: 6–21. Deut.12: 1. 8–28* corresponds to Deut. 5: 6–10, Deut. 13: 1–15: 23* toDeut. 5: 11, Deut. 16: 1–17 to Deut. 5: 12–15, Deut. 17: 2–18: 22*to Deut. 5: 16, and Deut. 19: 1–25: 16* to Deut. 5: 17–21.57 A decisiveaspect of the legal hermeneutics of the book of Deuteronomy,which remained relevant even in the post-deuteronomic book ofDeuteronomy, was introduced into the book by the deuteronomisticauthors: God had given the Decalogue at Mount Horeb as a directrevelation to the people and Moses mediated the legal and ethicalrules in Deuteronomy 12–26* as an application of the divine rules ofthe Decalogue for the living of the ‘New Israel’ in the Promised Landafter the exile. The post-exilic redactors of the Pentateuch made useof this aspect of the legal hermeneutics of the deuteronomistic bookof Deuteronomy and made it more explicit in Deut. 1: 1–5.

In Deut. 28: 2–13 the deuteronomistic authors of the Horeb-redaction expanded the curses of the pre-exilic Deuteronomy in

53 Cf. Hoßfeld (1982), 21–162, 214–82, and (2005), 87–94; Otto (1996a), 285–92.54 Cf. Otto (1999), 233–36, 311, 341, and (2000), 112–22.55 Pace Braulik (1991); for the latest attempt of Braulik (2008b) to interpret ‘as

YHWH, your God, commanded you’ in Deut. 5: 12., 16 as a cataphoric referenceunder the perspective of a ‘second voice’ in the final text of Deuteronomy, cf. Otto(2009a), 280 n. 41. The ‘final text’ of the book of Deuteronomy was already partof the Pentateuch with an anaphoric meaning of Deut. 5: 12, 16, hinting at theDecalogue of the Sinai pericope.

56 Cf. Lohfink (1990).57 Cf. Otto (2009a), 273–83.

Eckart Otto230

10:27:02:10:13

Page 231

Page 231

Deut. 28: 20–44* by blessings and introduced a western scheme58 oftreaties this way to the book of Deuteronomy.59 The reason for thisinsertion of a new scheme into the book of Deuteronomy is evident:After the covenant was finally concluded, the people had to decideabout their future of curses or blessings related to their disregard orobedience to the Torah, which underlined that in the ‘New Israel’after the exile there would be no longer any divine forgiveness ifIsrael would not keep to the laws of the book of Deuteronomy. Sothe scheme of the Assyrian loyalty oaths underlying the curses of thepre-exilic book of Deuteronomy no longer fit the intention of thedeuteronomistic authors of the exilic book of Deuteronomy.They therefore inserted the scheme of treaties that were used in thelate Babylonian period. The new exilic idea of a covenant betweenYHWH and His people was thus expressed by this new structure ofthe deuteronomistic book of Deuteronomy of the Horeb-redaction.60

The deuteronomistic authors of the second generation in exilerealized that there was no fulfilment of the hope that the deutero-nomistic authors of the Horeb-redaction had tried to arouse. Theredactors of the Moab-redaction formed a second frame aroundthe book of Deuteronomy in Deuteronomy 1–3*, 29–30*. In Deut.1: 19–46 they incorporated the story of the emissaries, which had thefunction of explaining why the people of the first generation, whowere at Mount Horeb, had to die. This generation, so their answerwent, did not trust in the promise of a life in the Promised Land, i.e.a return from exile. So God would establish His covenant with thesecond generation at the river of Jordan in the land of Moab. Thedeuteronomistic authors connected their book of Deuteronomy withthe deuteronomistic book of Joshua and formed a narrative fromMoses’ address at Mount Horeb in Deut. 1: 6–8* to Joshua’s farewelladdress in Joshua 23.61 For these authors, the decisive covenant was

58 Cf. Lemaire and Durand (1984), 113–31 and Puech (1992); cf. Otto (1999),30–1.

59 Cf. Otto (1995), 93.60 The alternative of curse and blessing related to Israel’s obedience to the Torah is

a deuteronomistic, not a deuteronomic pre-exilic motif; cf. Deut. 30: 15–20* andOtto (2000), 147–9; pace Leuenberger (2008), 88–104.

61 The analysis of Deuteronomy 1–3 can make sure that there were intensiveconnections between Deuteronomy 1–3 and the book of Joshua at the level of thedeuteronomistic base text and its post-deuteronomistic expansions, but not betweenDeuteronomy 1–3 and the other books of the Former Prophets, so that there isno proof for the assumption that Deuteronomy 1–3 was ever the beginning of a


10:27:02:10:13

Page 232

Page 232

not the Horeb covenant, but the one YHWH made with the‘Moab-generation’, i.e. with members of the second generation inexile. The authors of this Moab-redaction located the decisivecovenant no longer in the desert at Mount Horeb, but at the borderof the Promised Land at the river of Jordan,62 because these authorswere of the opinion that their coming home would happen verysoon beginning with the reading out of the narrative of the Moab-covenant in Deut 29–30*.63

The late-deuteronomistic authors of the Moab-redaction alsoexpanded the legal corpus of the book of Deuteronomy in Deuter-onomy 12–26*. They inserted Deut. 12: 1–7 into the centralizationlaws in Deuteronomy 12*, and especially the legislation on warfare inDeut. 13: 13–19; 20: 1–20*; 21: 10–14 was incorporated into thedeuteronomistic Deuteronomy64 due to the ‘historical’ perspective ofthe Moab-redaction connecting the book of Deuteronomy with thedeuteronomistic book of Joshua. In Deuteronomy 12* the perspec-tive of the Moab-redaction was inserted by Deut. 12: 1–7, and thepre-exilic idea of a sacrifice-centralization in Deut. 12: 13–19*, whichwas only an implicit instruction for a cult-centralization, was nowtransformed into an explicit one. We can graphicly summarize theliterary history of the deuteronomic and deuteronomistic book ofDeuteronomy as in Fig. 9.3.

Deuteronomistic History; pace Noth (1943), 12–16 and now Veijola (2004), 3, who isof the opinion ‘dass der geschichtliche Rückblick Dtn 1–3 in seinem Kern auf dengeschichtsschreibenden Deuteronomisten DtrH zurückgeht, der das joschijanischeUr-Dtn kurz nach der Rehabilitierung des Königs Jojachin 560 v. Chr. (2.Kön25,27–30) in bearbeiteter Form als Programmemtext an den Anfang des vonihm geschaffenen Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes stellte.’ For an exegeticalanalysis of Deuteronomy 1–3 cf. Otto (2009a), 284–420 with a detailed survey ofresearch in these chapters of the book of Deuteronomy.

62 Only the post-deuteronomistic expansions in Deuteronomy 2–3 interpretedMoses’ taking of the kingdom of Sihon and Og as the beginning of the conquest ofthe Promised Land. This was the perspective of the post-exilic Hexateuch; cf. Otto(2009a), 365–98.

63 For an exegetical analysis of Deuteronomy 29–30 cf. Otto (2000), 129–59.64 Cf. Otto (2000), 255–7. For the relation between the Sihon-episode in Deut.

2: 24–37 and Deut. 20: 10–20 cf. Braulik (2001), 129–30 n. 58 and Otto (2009a),381 n. 411.

Eckart Otto232

10:27:02:10:13

3

Page 233

Fig. 9.3. Summary of the literary history of Deuteronomy.


10:27:02:10:13

Page 234

Page 234

IV. THE POST-DEUTERONOMISTIC BOOK OF

DEUTERONOMY IN THE LEGAL HERMENEUTICS OF

THE HEXATEUCH AND PENTATEUCH IN THE

PERSIAN PERIOD AND OF THE PROTO-CANONICAL

ENNEATEUCH IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD

Parallel to the deuteronomistic Deuteronomy, the Priestly Code (PG)and its supplements (PS) in Genesis 1–Leviticus 16 were written65 as acounter-programme to the deuteronomistic book of Deuteronomy.66

The authors of P construed their view of Israel’s origins within auniversal horizon. The aim of creation and world history (Genesis1–10*) was that YHWH found His home in this world at MountSinai in the Tent of Meeting (Exod. 29: 45–6). They projected thecovenant of the deuteronomistic Deuteronomy onto the patriarchalnarrative in Genesis 17, thoroughly changing the deuteronomisticidea of covenant to a covenant of pure grace. Only the individualJudaean could fail by disregarding the commandment of circum-cision in Gen. 17: 14.67 The authors of the Priestly Code were eagerto give reasons why the history after the exile should not fail again.But they did not explain how the evil Judah had experienced in thecatastrophe came into the well-created world of Genesis 1,68 but inthe frame of the deluge-story in Gen. 6: 11 they came to the con-clusion that ‘the earth was depraved in God’s sight and the land wasfilled with violence’. When both these programmes of the exilicperiod, the deuteronomistic book of Deuteronomy and the PriestlyCode, clashed in the post-exilic period, a solution was needed. Theidea of monotheism prevailed in post-exilic Judah, and if there wasonly one God there could be only one origin, history, and identity ofIsrael as God’s people. The book of Deuteronomy and the PriestlyCode contradicted each other not only on several items of culticlaw, but even more decisively in the criteria of what constituted andintegrated Israel, the priestly genealogy of Abrahamic origin or the

65 Cf. Nihan (2007); Otto (2009a), 107–42.66 For the antagonism between the Priestly Code and the deuteronomistic book of

Deuteronomy cf. Otto (2007b) and (2016).67 There are no sufficient reasons to interpret Gen. 17: 14 as an addition to PG.

On the contrary P was already reacting here to the theology of the deuteronomisticbook of Deuteronomy with a form of its ‘subversive reception’; cf. Stipp (2006).

68 Cf. Arneth (2007b), 22–96; Otto (2009a), 679–91.

Eckart Otto234

10:27:02:10:13

Page 235

Page 235

deuteronomistic covenants at Mount Horeb and in the land of Moab.So the post-exilic scribes created the Hexateuch and Pentateuchout of the two programmatic texts of the deuteronomistic books ofDeuteronomy and Joshua of the Moab-redaction in Deuteronomy1–Joshua 23*, on the one hand, and of the Priestly Code in Genesis1–Leviticus 16*, on the other. They were using scribal techniques,which had their origins in the pre-exilic revision of the CovenantCode by the book of Deuteronomy, but were now further developedand no longer used only for legal material but also for the revision ofnarratives. So the redactions of the post-exilic Hexateuch andPentateuch became the ‘cradle’ of post-biblical Jewish exegesis,which we can find also in post-biblical literature such as Jubilees andthe Temple Scroll.69 Out of the exilic book of Deuteronomy, whichwas connected with the likewise deuteronomistic book of Joshua,and out of the Priestly Code the scribes, in a first step, formed aHexateuch from Genesis 1 to Joshua 24.70 This the scribes couldeasily do because P ended at the Sinai pericope, where the deuter-onomistic book of Deuteronomy started, namely at Mount Horeb inDeuteronomy 1*. For the authors of the post-exilic Hexateuch, whowere writing in the middle of the fifth century bce at the timeof Nehemiah’s activities in Jerusalem, the most decisive gift YHWHgave to His people was the land of Israel. This motif in Genesis 15and Joshua 24 formed a frame within the narrative of the Hexateuch.Its authors intervened in the discussions about the possession ofland between the diaspora and those who were living in Yehud.The authors of the Hexateuch favoured the idea of a greater Israelincluding the territory of Samaria and Transjordan. They expandedthe deuteronomistic narratives in Deuteronomy 1–3 and the bookof Joshua and inserted a programme of the division of the land inJoshua 13–21 into the book of Joshua. They revised the deuterono-mistic account of Israel’s wandering from Mount Horeb to thePromised Land in Deuteronomy 1–3 and interpreted Deuteronomy2–3 as the beginning of the conquest-narrative in Joshua. Thus, theyconnected their supplements to the book of Joshua with the frame of

69 Cf. Otto (2008), 547–63; Paganini (2009).70 Cf. Otto (2000) and (2015). That there was no pre-deuteronomistic Hexateuch

without the book of Deuteronomy is demonstrated by Achenbach (2005), 126–30;Otto (2009a), 293–6. The hypothesis of a Hexateuch without Deuteronomy forcesone to interpret the doublets between Deuteronomy 1–3 and the book of Numbers asliterary additions to such an early Hexateuch; cf. Otto (2000), 12–109, and (2009a),284–420; Achenbach (2003a), 335–674, and (2003b).


10:27:02:10:13

Page 236

Page 236

Deuteronomy 1–371 and expanded the deuteronomistic narrativeof Joshua’s installation as Moses’ successor with the passage inDeut. 31: 1–8 (14–15). In the legal corpus in Deuteronomy 12–26*several post-deuteronomistic laws were incorporated, which had thefunction of marking off the holy people of Israel from the foreignpeoples and their ideals. The law of cult-centralization in Deut.12: 8–28 received a new post-deuteronomistic frame in Deut. 12: 8–11,20–28; Deuteronomy 7*72 was revised and also the legal corpus inDeuteronomy 12–26* expanded, e.g. by Deut. 23: 10–15, a lawwhich dealt with the purity in the camp of Israel as an expansionof the deuteronomistic laws of warfare of the Moab-redaction. Thisdeuteronomistic redaction, which connected the deuteronomisticbook of Deuteronomy with the book of Joshua, was the prototypefor the redaction of the Hexateuch, but already within this redactionthe switch was thrown in the direction of the formation of aPentateuch. The authors of the Hexateuch incorporated all over theirnarrative their sources of Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code. Theydid the same with the legal material. The Covenant Code was thesource for the book of Deuteronomy, so that the post-exilic authorsincorporated the Covenant Code into the Sinai pericope73 and inter-preted the book of Deuteronomy as an exegetical interpretationof the Covenant Code in the land of Moab. The same they didwith the Decalogue, which they transferred from Deuteronomy 5 toExodus 20,74 so that the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5 became Moses’

71 Cf. Otto (2009a), 354–420. That there were strong connections between thepost-deuteronomistic expansions in Deuteronomy 1–3 and the books of the Tetra-teuch, on the one hand, and the book of Joshua, on the other, but not with the otherbooks of the Former Prophets contradicts the idea that Deuteronomy was ever partof a pre-hexateuchal Enneateuch; cf. Otto (2009a), 601–19. For a survey of theresearch of the post-priestly redactions in the Hexateuch and Pentateuch cf. Otto(2002b). For an enneateuchal perspective of the canon-formation see further in thischapter.

72 For the post-exilic insertions in Deuteronomy 7*, 12* cf. Römer (2005), 64–5;170–1, and (2006), 64–6. For the post-deuteronomistic redactions in Deuteronomy1–11, 31–34 cf. Otto (2000), 156–233, (2009a), 284–420, (2009c), 65–215, and(2009e), 547–58.

73 For the post-priestly Sinai pericope cf. Otto (1996b); Achenbach (2004).74 In Exodus 20 the post-deuteronomistic authors used an older Decalogue, which

had already been used and revised by the Deuteronomists in Deut. 5: 6–21, so that wefind in Exod. 20: 2–17 characteristics that are older than Deut. 5: 6–21, on the onehand, and others that presupposed P and were post-deuteronomistic; cf. Otto (2000),245–6 and (2009a), 280. For the legal hermeneutics of the literary relation of theDecalogues in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 cf. Markl (2007), and for a review ofthis monograph cf. Otto (2007c); Otto (2009a), 490–514.

Eckart Otto236

10:27:02:10:13

Page 237

Page 237

exegetical interpretation of the Decalogue of the Sinai pericope forIsrael’s living in the Promised Land. The post-exilic authors of theHexateuch and Pentateuch knew very well of the literary relationsbetween Deuteronomy and Covenant Code in the pre-exilic period.For the post-exilic authors the book of Deuteronomy was what ithad already been in the pre-exilic period: the exegetical revision ofthe Covenant Code. What was new in the post-exilic context wasthat they directly connected the Covenant Code as part of the Sinaipericope with the book of Deuteronomy in one post-exilic narrative,so that Moses promulgated the book of Deuteronomy in the land ofMoab. The implicit legal hermeneutics of the pre-exilic CovenantCode in relation to the book of Deuteronomy became explicit now.75

A last step was taken by the redaction of the Pentateuch, which wasfinished in the early fourth century bce at the time of Ezra’s missionto Jerusalem. For these authors who were scribal priests as Ezra wasa priest,76 the land was no longer YHWH’s decisive gift to the people.The authors of the redaction of the Pentateuch cut off the bookof Joshua from the Hexateuch, thus creating the Pentateuch, whichnow ended with Moses’ death in Deuteronomy 34.77 But theysupplemented the Sinai pericope especially with the Holiness Codein Leviticus 17–26, which was formed by the authors78 who alsocreated the legal hermeneutics of the Torah.79 They formulated theidea in Deut. 1: 1–5; 31: 1 that the book of Deuteronomy wasthe result of Moses’ expounding the Decalogue and Covenant Codeof the Sinai pericope in the land of Moab.80 The authors of the

75 This contradicts the theory that there was a gap between, on the one hand, thehermeneutics of the Covenant Code, the book of Deuteronomy and the HolinessCode, which were intended to replace each other, and, on the other hand, the her-meneutics of their collection into one Pentateuch in a process of ‘canonization’.There was a literary continuity with the legal hermeneutics of the Pentateuch fromthe beginning of the legal history of the Hebrew Bible up to the canon formation;cf. Otto (2009a), 248–56; pace Stackert (2007), 211–25.

76 Cf. Otto (2008), 564–602.77 For the Pentateuch-redaction cf. Otto (2000), 167–233, and for Deuteronomy

34 as part of this redaction Schmid (2007).78 Cf. Otto (1994b), (2009a), 46–106, and (2009b); Achenbach (2008).79 Cf. Otto (2007a), 14–103, and (2009a), 421–46, 490–514.80 Cf. Ska (2007); Otto (2009a), 401–20, 480–89; cf. also Schmid (2004b), 199–200;

Rüterswörden (2006), 24–5, and (2007), 54–5; pace Braulik and Lohfink (2005). Forthe suggestion by Heckl (2004), 65–6, 69 to connect Deut. 1: 5 only with Deut. 1: 6–8;cf. Otto (2009d ), 353–65.


10:27:02:10:13

Page 238

Page 238

redaction of the Pentateuch also knew very well the pre-exilic literaryrelations between the Covenant Code and the deuteronomic book ofDeuteronomy as a revision of the Covenant Code. It is characteristicfor the literary history of the Pentateuch that the legal hermeneuticsof the narrative of the Pentateuch corroborates the modernexegetical results in the analysis of the literary relations betweenthe Covenant Code and the book of Deuteronomy.81 These casesof accord between the literary and hermeneutical theory of thePentateuch itself and modern exegetical perspective are the mostreliable foundation for a modern interpretation of the book ofDeuteronomy as a cornerstone for the legal history of the HebrewBible.

In the beginning of the process of canon-formation in the HebrewBible, the Torah became the foundation for the books of theFormer Prophets in Joshua–2 Kings. Some literary brackets were thusinserted into these books, especially in 1 Kgs. 8: 41–5, 55–61, and2 Kings 1,82 so that at the end there was an ‘Enneateuch’ with a cleartheological differentiation between Torah and Former Prophets. Wecan summarize the literary history of the book of Deuteronomy aspart of the Hexateuch and Pentateuch graphicly, as at Fig. 9.4.

Moses’ song in Deuteronomy 31–2* and its frame in Deuteronomy31–2*, the latest literary parts in Deuteronomy, connected the Torah,i.e. the Pentateuch in its final form, not only with the FormerProphets but with all the Hebrew Bible, especially the books of thecorpus propheticum and the psalter.83 But with this last step inthe literary history of the book of Deuteronomy as part of thePentateuch, the legal aspects of the hermeneutics of the Torah wereleft behind, and all the Torah was interpreted as a prophecy for thesalvation of Israel. But this aspect of canon-formation withinthe Torah is already beyond the scope of this study.

81 Modern exegetes should not argue against but in accordance with the ancientunderstanding of the Torah of its own literary history and legal hermeneutics;cf. Otto (2009a), 447–60 and (2013).

82 Cf. Otto (2015). The so–called ‘Enneateuch’ was a phenomenon of canon-formation but not of an ‘Enneateuch-redaction’, which predated the formation of thePentateuch.

83 Cf. Otto (2009a), 641–73.

Eckart Otto238

10:27:02:10:13

Page 239

Page 239

REFERENCES

Achenbach, R. (1991), Israel zwischen Verheißung und Gebot: LiterarkritischeUntersuchungen zu Deuteronomium 5–11 (EHS XXIII/422; Frankfurt amMain: Peter Lang).

—— (2003a), Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichtedes Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZAR 3;Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).

—— (2003b), ‘Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme vonKadesch Barnea (Num 13–14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichtedes Pentateuchs’, ZAR 9: 56–123.

—— (2004), ‘Grundlinien redaktioneller Arbeit in der Sinai-Perikope’,in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds.), Das Deuteronomium zwischenPentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 206;Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 56–80.

—— (2005), ‘Pentateuch, Hexateuch und Enneateuch. Eine Verhältnis-bestimmung’, ZAR 11: 122–54.

Fig. 9.4. Summary of the literary history of Deuteronomy as part of theHexateuch and Pentateuch.


15:24:04:10:13

Page 240

Page 240

Achenbach, R. (2008), ‘Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungendes Numeribuches im Horizont der Pentateuchredaktion’, in T. Römer(ed.), The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (BEThL 215; Leuven: Peeters),145–76.

Arneth, M. (2000), „Sonne der Gerechtigkeit“: Studien zur Solarisierungder Jahwe-Religion im Lichte von Psalm 72 (BZAR 1; Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz).

—— (2007a), ‘Die antiassyrische Reform Josias von Juda. Überlegungenzur Komposition und Intention von 2 Reg 23,4–15’, in R. Achenbach,M. Arneth, and E. Otto, Tora in der Hebräischen Bibel: Studien zurRedaktionsgeschichte und synchronen Logik diachroner Transformationen(BZAR 7; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 246–74.

—— (2007b), „Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt . . .“: Studien zurEntstehung der alttestamentlichen Urgeschichte (FRLANT 217; Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Aurelius, E. (2003), Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschicht-liche Studie zum Enneateuch (BZAW 319; Berlin).

Barbiero, G. (1991), L’asino nel nemico: Rinuncia alla vendetta e amore delnemico nella legislazione dell’Antico Testamento (Es 23,4–5; Dt 22,1–4; Lv19,17–18) (AnBib 128; Rome: Editrice pontificio Istituto Biblico).

Barmash, P. (2005), Homicide in the Biblical World (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press).

Borger, R. (1996), Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: Die Pris-menklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften.Mit einem Beitrag von A. Fuchs (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).

Blanco Wißmann, F. (2008), „Er tat das Rechte . . .“ Beurteilungskriterienund Deuteronomismus in 1Kön 12 – 2Kön 25 (AThANT 93; Zurich:Theologischer Verlag Zürich).

Braulik, G. (1991), Die deuteronomischen Gesetze und der Dekalog: Studienzum Aufbau von Deuteronomium 12–26 (SBS 145; Stuttgart: KatholischesBibelwerk).

—— (2001), ‘Die Völkervernichtung und die Rückkehr Israels insVerheißungsland. Hermeneutische Bemerkungen zum Buch Deuterono-mium’, Studien zum Deuteronomium und seiner Nachgeschichte (SBAB 33;Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk), 113–50.

—— (2008a), ‘Theorie über das Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk(DtrG) im Wandel der Forschung’, in E. Zenger et al., Einleitung in dasAlte Testament (7th edn.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer), 191–202.

—— (2008b), ‘Der unterbrochene Dekalog. Zu Deuteronomium 5,12und 16 und ihrer Bedeutung für den deuteronomischen Gesetzeskodex’,ZAW 120: 169–83.

—— and Lohfink, N. (2005), ‘b’r ’t htwrh hzwt: “er verlieh dieser ToraRechtskraft” ’, in N. Lohfink, Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur

Eckart Otto240

15:24:04:10:13

Page 241

Page 241

deuteronomistischen Literatur (SBAB 38; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel-werk), v. 233–51.

Campbell, A. F., and O’Brien, M. A. (2000), Unfolding the DeuteronomisticHistory: Origins, Upgrades, Present Texts (Minneapolis: Fortress).

Cogan, M., and Tadmor, H. (1988), II Kings: A New Translation withIntroduction and Commentary (AncB 11; Garden City, NY: Double-day).

Cortese, E. (2001), Le tradizioni storiche di Israele: Da Mosè a Esdra (LaBibbia nella storia; Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane).

Cross, F. M. (1973), ‘The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structureof the Deuteronomistic History’, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press), 274–89.

Davies, P. R. (2007), ‘Sect Formation in Early Judaism’, in D. J. Chalcraft(ed.), Sectarianism in Early Judaism. Sociological Advances (London:Equinox), 133–55.

DeRouchie, J. S. (2007), A Call to Covenant Love: Text Grammar and LiteraryStructure in Deuteronomy 5–11 (Gorgias Dissertations 30; Piscataway,N.J: Gorgias).

Dietrich, C. (2008), Asyl. Vergleichende Untersuchung zu einer Rechtsinstitu-tion im Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt (BWANT 182; Stuttgart: Kohl-hammer).

Dion, P. (1991), ‘Deuteronomy 13: The Suppression of Alien ReligiousPropaganda in Israel during the Late Monarchical Era’, in B. Halpern andD. W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOT.S 124;Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 147–216.

Eißfeldt, O. (1964), Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschluß derApokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der apokryphen- und pseudepi-graphenartigen Qumran-Schriften (3rd edn.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (PaulSiebeck)).

Eynikel, E. (1996), The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of theDeuteronomistic History (OTS 33; Leiden: Brill).

Frankena, R. (1965), ‘The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating ofDeuteronomy’, OTS 14: 122–54.

Frevel, C. (2004), ‘Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk oder Geschicht-swerke? Die These Martin Noths zwischen Tetrateuch, Hexateuch undEnneateuch’, in U. Rüterswörden (ed.), Martin Noth – aus der Sicht derheutigen Forschung (BThSt 58; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag),60–95.

García López, F. (2003), El Pentateuco: Introducción a la lectura de los cincosprimeros libros de la Biblia (Introducción al estudio de la Biblia 3a; Estella:Editorial Verbo Divino).

Geoghegan, J. C. (2003), ‘ “Until this Day” and the Preexilic Redaction of theDeuteronomistic History’, JBL 122: 201–27.


10:27:02:10:13

Page 242

Page 242

Geoghegan, J. C. (2006), The Time, Place, and Purpose of the DeuteronomisticHistory: The Evidence of ‘Until this Day’ (BJSt 347; Providence: Society ofBiblical Literature).

Gertz, J. C. (1994), Die Gerichtsorganisation Israels im deuteronomischenGesetz (FRLANT 165; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Halpern, B. (1991), ‘Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh CenturyB.C.E.: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability’, in B, Halpernand D. W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOT.S124; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press), 11–107.

—— and Vanderhooft, D. S. (1991), ‘The Editions of Kings in the 7th–6thcenturies B. C. E.’, HUCA 62: 179–244.

Heckl, R. (2004), Moses Vermächtnis. Kohärenz, literarische Intention undFunktion von Dtn 1–3 (AzBG 9; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt).

Hölscher, G. (1922), ‘Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums’,ZAW 40: 161–255.

Hoßfeld, F.-L. (1982), Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originaleKomposition und seine Vorstufen (OBO 45, Fribourg: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

—— (2005), ‘Vom Horeb zum Sinai. Der Dekalog als Echo auf Ex 32–34’,in Chr. Frevel, M. Konkel, and J. Schnocks (eds.), Die Zehn Worte. DerDekalog als Testfall der Pentateuchkritik (QD 212; Freiburg Breisgau:Herder), 87–94.

Jackson, B. S. (2000), Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law (JSOT.S 314;Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).

—— (2006a), Wisdom Laws. A Study of the Mishpatim of Exodus 21:1–22(Oxford: Oxford University Press).

—— (2006b), ‘Homicide in the Hebrew Bible: A Review Essay’, ZAR12: 362–74.

—— (2008a), ‘A Reply to R. Tomes’, ZAR 14: 525–31.—— (2008b), A Comparison of Ancient Near Eastern Law Collections Prior

to the First Millennium bc (Gorgias Dissertations 35; Piscataway, NJ:Gorgias).

Jepsen, A. (1953), Die Quellen des Königsbuches (2nd edn. 1956; Halle:Niemeyer).

De Jong, M. (2007), Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets:A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and theNeo-Assyrian Prophecies (VT.S 117; Leiden: Brill).

Kennett, R. H. (1920), Deuteronomy and the Decalogue (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).

—— (1928), Old Testament Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress).

Kessler, R. (1992), Staat und Gesellschaft im vorexilischen Juda vom 8.Jahrhundert bis zum Exil (VT.S 47; Leiden: Brill).

Eckart Otto242

10:27:02:10:13

Page 243

Page 243

Kienast, B. (1994), ‘Die Altorientalischen Codices zwischen Mündlichkeitund Schriftlichkeit’, in H.-J. Gehrke (ed.), Rechtskodifizierung und sozialeNormen im interkulturellen Vergleich (ScriptOralia 66; Tübingen: GuntherNarr), 13–26.

—— (1996), ‘Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im keilschriftlichenRechtswesen’, ZAR 2: 114–30.

Knauf, E. A. (2006), ‘Bethel: The Israelite Impact on Judean Language andLiterature’, in O. Lipschitz and M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeansin the Persian Period (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns).

—— (2008) ‘Review of T. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History’,RBL 10/2008: 173–7.

Knoppers, G. (1993–4), Two Nations Under God: The DeuteronomisticHistory of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (HSM 52/53; Atlanta:Scholars Press), i and ii.

Koch, C. (2008), Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption desaltorientalischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildungder Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (BZAW 383; Berlin: de Gruyter).

Kratz, R. G. (2000), Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testa-ments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht)(ET: The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, trans.John Bowden, London: T&T Clark, 2005).

Krebernik, M. (1995), ‘M. Weinfelds Deuteronomiumskommentar ausassyriologischer Sicht’, in G. Braulik (ed.), Bundesdokument und Gesetz.Studien zum Deuteronomium (HBS 4; Freiburg Breisgau: Herder), 27–36.

Kuenen, A. (1892), Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des altenTestaments I (Leipzig: Otto Schulze).

Lemaire, A., and Durand, J.-M. (1984), Les Inscriptions araméens de Sfiré etl’Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu (École Pratique des Hautes Études IV. Sect. III/20;Geneva: Doroz).

Leuenberger, M. (2008), Segen und Segenstheologien im alten Israel: Unter-suchungen zu ihren religions- und theologiegeschichtlichen Konstellationenund Transformationen (AThANT 90; Zurich: Theologischer VerlagZürich).

Levin, C. (1984), ‘Joschija im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk’, ZAW96: 351–71.

—— (2000), ‘Das Deuteronomium und der Jahwist’, in R. G. Kratz andH. Spieckermann (eds.), Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium.Festschrift L. Perlitt (FRLANT 190; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht),121–36.

Levinson, B. M. (1995), ‘ “But you Shall Surely Kill Him!” The Text-Criticaland Neo-Assyrian Evidence for MT Deuteronomy 13:10’, in G. Braulik(ed.), Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium (HBS 4;Freiburg Breisgau: Herder), 37–64.


10:27:02:10:13

Page 244

Page 244

Levinson, B. M. (1997), Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of LegalInnovation (New York: Oxford University Press).

Lohfink, N. (1990), ‘Zur Dekalogfassung von Dt 5’, Studien zum Deuter-onomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I (SBAB 8; Stuttgart:Katholisches Bibelwerk), i. 193–209.

—— (1991a), ‘Zur deuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel’, Studienzum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur (SBAB 12;Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk), ii. 147–77.

—— (1991b), ‘Zur neueren Diskussion über 2 Kön 22–23’, Studienzum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur (SBAB 12;Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk), ii. 179–207.

—— (1991c), ‘Die huqqim ûmispat&XF024;im und ihre Neubegrenzungdurch Dtn 12,1’, Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuterono-mistischen Literatur (SBAB 12; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk), ii.229–56.

McKenzie, S. L. (1991), The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Bookof Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (VT.S 42; Leiden/New York: Brill).

Markl, D. (2007), Der Dekalog als Verfassung des Gottesvolkes. DieBrennpunkte einer Rechtshermeneutik des Pentateuch in Ex 19–24 undDeuteronomium 5 (HBS 49; Freiburg Breisgau: Herder).

Maul, S. (1997), ‘Die altorientalische Hauptstadt––Abbild und Nabel derWelt’, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Die altorientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel,Bruch. 1. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft9.–10. Mai 1996 in Halle/Saale (CDOG 1; Saarbrücken: SaarbrückerDruckerei und Verlag), 109–24.

Na’aman, N. (2006), ‘The King Leading Cult Reforms in his Kingdom:Josiah and Other Kings in the Ancient Near East’, ZAR 12: 131–68.

—— (2008), ‘Sojourners and Levites in the Kingdom of Judah in theSeventh Century bce’, ZAR 14: 237–79.

Najman, H. (2003), Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse inSecond Temple Judaism (JSJ.S 77; Leiden: Brill).

Nelson, R. D. (1981), The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History(JSOT.S 18; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).

Nicholson, E. W. (1986), ‘Covenant in a Century of Study since Wellhausen’,in A. S. van der Woude (ed.), Crises and Perspectives: Studies in AncientNear Eastern Polytheism, Biblical Theology, Palestinian Archaeology andIntertestamental Literature (OTS 24; Leiden: Brill), 54–69.

Nielsen, E. (1995), Deuteronomium (HAT I/6; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (PaulSiebeck)).

Nihan, C. (2007), From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Com-position of the Book of Leviticus (FAT II/25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Noth, M. (1943), Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (3rd edn. 1967; Darm-stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft)

Eckart Otto244

10:27:02:10:13

Page 245

Page 245

O’Brien, M. A. (1992), The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassess-ment (OBO 92; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht).

Oswald, W. (2008), Nathan der Prophet: Eine Untersuchung zu 2Sam 7 und12 und 1Könige 1 (AThANT 94; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich).

Otto, E. (1988), Wandel der Rechtsbegründungen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichtedes antiken Israel. Eine Rechtsgeschichte des „Bundesbuches“ Ex XX22–XXIII 13 (Studia Biblica 3; Leiden: Brill).

—— (1989), Rechtsgeschichte der Redaktionen im Kodex Esnunna und im„Bundesbuch“: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche und rechtsvergleichende Studiezu altbabylonischen und altisraelitischen Rechtsüberlieferungen (OBO 85;Fribourg: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

—— (1991a), Körperverletzungen in den Keilschriftrechten und im AltenTestament. Studien zum Rechtstransfer im Alten Orient (AOAT 226;Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).

—— (1991b), ‘Vom Profanrecht zum Gottesrecht: Das Bundesbuch’, ThR56: 412–27.

—— (1993), ‘Vom Bundesbuch zum Deuteronomium. Die deuterono-mische Redaktion in Dtn 12–26*’, in G. Braulik, W. Groß, andS. McEvenue (eds.), Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel:Festschrift N. Lohfink (Freiburg Breisgau: Herder), 260–78.

—— (1994a), Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments (ThW 3/2; Stuttgart:Kohlhammer).

—— (1994b), ‘Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26 in der Penta-teuchredaktion’, in P. Mommer and W. Thiel (ed.), Altes Testament:Forschung und Wirkung. Festschrift H. Graf Reventlow (Frankfurt amMain: Peter Lang), 65–80.

—— (1995), ‘Von der Programmschrift einer Rechtsreform zum Ver-fassungsentwurf des Neuen Israel’, in G. Braulik (ed.), Bundesdokumentund Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium (HBS 4; Freiburg Breisgau:Herder), 93–104.

—— (1996a), Kontinuum und Proprium. Studien zur Sozial- und Rechtsges-chichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments (Orientalia Biblica etChristiana 8; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).

—— (1996b), ‘Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im BuchExodus’, in M. Vervenne (ed.), The Book of Exodus: Redaction–Reception–Interpretation (BEThL 126; Leuven: Peeters), 61–111.

—— (1998), ‘Die Ursprünge der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament undim Alten Orient’, ZAR 4: 1–84.

—— (1999), Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform inJuda und Assyrien (BZAW 284; Berlin: de Gruyter).

—— (2000), Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zurLiteraturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuter-onomiumrahmens (FAT 30; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).


10:27:02:10:13

Page 246

Page 246

Otto, E. (2001), ‘Josia/Josiareform’, RGG 4 IV (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck),587–9.

—— (2002a), Gottes Recht als Menschenrecht. Rechts- und literaturhistor-ische Studien zum Deuteronomium (BZAR 2; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).

—— (2002b), ‘Forschungen zum nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch’,ThR 67: 125–55.

—— (2003), ‘Semiotik des biblischen Rechts’, ZAR 9: 220–37.—— (2004a), ‘seba‘; sabû‘ôt’, TDOT XIV (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans),

336–67.—— (2004b), ‘The Judean Legitimation of Royal Rulers in Its Ancient Near

Eastern Contexts’, in D. J. Human and C. J. A. Vos (eds.), Psalms andLiturgy (JSOT.S 410; London: T&T Clark), 131–9.

—— (2004c), ‘Review of J. Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora’,Bib. 85: 273–7.

—— (2006a), ‘Neue Literatur zur biblischen Rechtsgeschichte’, ZAR 12:72–106.

—— (2006b), ‘Das Recht der Hebräischen Bibel im Kontext der antikenRechtsgeschichte. Literaturbericht 1994–2004’, ThR 71: 389–421.

—— (2007a), Das Gesetz des Mose (Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft).

—— (2007b), ‘The Pivotal Meaning of Pentateuch Research for a History ofIsraelite and Jewish Religion and Society’, in J. Le Roux and E. Otto (eds.),South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch between Synchrony andDiachrony (LHBOTS 463; New York: T&T Clark), 29–52.

—— (2007c), ‘Der Dekalog in der Rechtshermeneutik der Tora. Zu einemBuch von Dominik Markl SJ’, ZAR 13: 277–83.

—— (2008), Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte: GesammelteStudien (BZAR 8; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).

—— (2009a), Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch. Gesammelte Aufsätze(BZAR 9; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).

—— (2009b), ‘The Holiness Code in Diachrony and Synchrony in the LegalHermeneutics of the Pentateuch’, in S. Shectman and J. S. Baden (eds.),The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and FutureDirections (AThANT 95; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich), 135–56.

—— (2009c), ‘Deuteronomiumstudien II. Deuteronomistische und post-deuteronomistische Perspektiven in der Literaturgeschichte vonDeuteronomium 5–11’, ZAR 15: 65–215.

—— (2009d ), ‘Deuteronomium 1–3 jenseits der These eines Deuterono-mistischen Geschichtswerks. Zu einem Buch von Raik Heckl’, ZAR15: 353–65.

—— (2009e), ‘Anti-Achaemenid Propaganda in Deuteronomy’, in G. Galiland A. Millard (ed.), Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient NearEastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded (VT.S 130; Leiden: Brill),547–58.

Eckart Otto246

10:27:02:10:13

Page 247

Page 247

—— (2009f ), ‘Review of Chr. Dietrich, Asyl. Vergleichende Untersuchungzu einer Rechtsinstitution im Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt’, ZAR15: 456–8.

—— (2010a), ‘Das Bundesbuch und der „Kodex“ Hammurapi. Dasbiblische Recht zwischen positiver und subversiver Rezeption vonKeilschriftrecht’, in R. Achenbach ZAR 16: 1–16.

—— (2010b), ‘Review of D. Koch, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund. Studien zurRezeption des altorientalischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium undzur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament’, ThLZ 135:673–5.

—— (2013), ‘The Study of Law and Ethics in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testa-ment’, in M. Saebo (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History ofits Interpretation, iii. Modern Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible/OldTestament. The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Part 2: the TwentiethCentury–from Modernism to Post-modernism (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht), in print.

—— (2015), ‘Pentateuch und Vordere Propheten’, in R. Achenbach,M. Leuenberger, and E. Otto, Einleitung in die Literaturgeschichte derHebräischen Bibel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Paganini, S. (2009), „Nicht darfst du zu diesen Wörtern etwas hinzufügen“:Die Rezeption des Deuteronomiums in der Tempelrolle: Sprache, Autoren,Hermeneutik (BZAR 11; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).

Paul, S. M. (1990), ‘Biblical Analogues to Middle Assyrian Law’, in E. B.Firmage, B. G. Weiss, and J. W. Welch (eds.), Religion and Law: BiblicalJudaic and Islamic Perspectives (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns),333–50.

Perlitt, L. (1969), Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36;Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).

Puech, E. (1992), ‘Les Traités araméens de Sfiré’, in E. Preuch, J. Briand, andR. Lebrun (eds.), Traités et Serments (CEv Suppl. 81; Paris: Les Éditions duCerf), 88–107.

Radner, K. (2006), ‘Assyrische tuppi adê als Vorbild für Deuteronomium28,20–44?’, in M. Witte, K. Schmid, et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischenGeschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur„Deuteronomismus“-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW365; Berlin: de Gruyter), 351–78.

Reuter, E. (1993), Kultzentralisation. Entstehung und Theologie von Dtn 12(BBB 87; Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain).

Rofé, A. (2002), Deuteronomy. Issues and Interpretation (OTSt; London: T&TClark).

Römer, T. (2004), ‘Cult Centralization in Deuteronomy 12. BetweenDeuteronomistic History and Pentateuch’, in E. Otto and R. Achenbach(eds.), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem


10:27:02:10:13

Page 248

Page 248

Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht),168–80.

Römer, T. (2005), The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological,Historical and Literary Introduction (London: T&T Clark).

—— (2006), ‘Entstehungsphasen des „deuteronomistischen Geschichts-werkes“’, in M. Witte, K. Schmid, et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischenGeschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur„Deuteronomismus“-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW365, Berlin: de Gruyter), 46–70.

Rothenbusch, R. (2000), Die kasuistische Rechtssammlung im „Bundesbuch“(Ex 21,2–11.18–22,16) und ihr literarischer Kontext im Licht altorien-talischer Parallelen (AOAT 259; Münster: Ugarit).

—— (2001), ‘Die kasuistische Rechtssammlung im „Bundesbuch“(Ex 21,2–11.18–22,16)’, ZAR 7: 243–72.

Rüterswörden, U. (2006), Das Buch Deuteronomium (NSK.AT 4; Stuttgart:Katholisches Bibelwerk).

—— (2007), ‘Moses’ Last Day’, in A. Graupner and M. Wolter (eds.), Mosesin Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions (BZAW 372; Berlin), 51–9.

Ruwe, A. (2000), ‘Das Zusammenwirken von „Gerichtsverhandlung“,„Blutrache“ und „Asyl“. Rechtsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zu todes-rechtsrelevanten Asylbestimmungen im Hexateuch’, ZAR 6: 190–221.

Saporetti, C. (2008), ‘Giurisprudenza medioassira’, in M. Liverani andC. Mora (eds.), I diritti del mondo cuneiforme: Mesopotamia e regioniadiacenti, ca. 2500–500 a. C. (Pubbl. del CEDANT 4, Pavia: IUSS),457–72.

Scheffler, E. (2007), ‘Criticism of Government: Deuteronomy 17: 14–20Between (and Beyond) Synchrony and Diachrony’, in J. Le Roux andE. Otto (eds.), South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch BetweenSynchrony and Diachrony (LHBOTS 463; New York: T&T Clark), 124–37.

Schmid, K. (2004a), ‘Zurück zu Wellhausen?’, ThR 69: 314–28.—— (2004b), ‘Das Deuteronomium innerhalb der „deuteronomistischen

Geschichtswerke“ in Gen–2Kön’, in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds.),Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und DeuteronomistischemGeschichtswerk (FRLANT 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht),193–211.

—— (2006), ‘Hatte Wellhausen Recht? Das Problem der literarhistorischenAnfänge des Deuteronomismus in den Königebüchern’, in M. Witteand K. Schmid et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke.Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur „Deuterono-mismus“-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW 365; Berlin:de Gruyter), 19–44.

—— (2007), ‘Der Pentateuchredaktor: Beobachtungen zum theologischenProfil des Toraschlusses in Dtn 34’, in T. Römer and K. Schmid (eds.), Les

Eckart Otto248

15:24:04:10:13

Page 249

Page 249

Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque(BEThL 203; Leuven: Peeters), 183–97.

—— (2008), Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments. Eine Einführung(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).

Schniedewind, W. M. (1999), Society and the Promise to David: A ReceptionHistory of 2 Samuel 7:1–17 (New York: Oxford University Press).

—— (2004), ‘The Textualization of Torah in the Deuteronomic Tradition’,in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds.), Das Deuteronomium zwischenPentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 206;Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 153–67.

Schwienhorst-Schönberger, L. (1990), Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,22–23,33).Studien zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie (BZAW 188; Berlin/New York:de Gruyter).

Ska, J.-L. (2007), ‘Le début et la fin du Deutéronome (Dt 1:5 et 31:3)’, inA. Rofé, M. Segal, S. Talmon, and Z. Talshir (eds.), Text-Criticism andBeyond in Memoriam of Isac Leo Seeligmann (Textus 23; Jerusalem:Magnes), 81–96.

Spieckermann, H. (1982), Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT129; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Stackert, J. (2007), Rewriting the Torah. Revision in Deuteronomy and theHoliness Code (FAT 52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Staszak, M. (2006), Die Asylstädte im Alten Testament: Realität und Fiktivitäteines Rechtsinstituts (ÄAT 65; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).

Steymans, H. U. (1995), Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thronfolgerege-lung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel (OBO145; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

—— (1998), ‘Der (un-) glaubwürdige Bund von Psalm 89’, ZAR 4: 126–44.—— (2006), ‘Die literarische und historische Bedeutung der Thron-

folgevereidigung Asarhaddons’, in M. Witte, K. Schmid, et al. (ed.), Diedeuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschicht-liche Perspektiven zur „Deuteronomismus“-Diskussion in Tora und Vor-deren Propheten (BZAW 365; Berlin: de Gruyter), 331–50.

Stipp, H.-J. (2006), ‘„Meinen Bund hat er gebrochen“ (Gen 17,14).Die Individualisierung des Bundesbruchs in der Priesterschrift’, MThZ56: 290–304.

Sweeney, M. A. (2001), King Josiah of Juda: The Last Messiah of Israel(Oxford: Oxford University Press).

—— (2007), I & II Kings: A Commentary (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster).Tomes, R. (2008), ‘Home-grown or Imported? An Examination of Bernard

Jackson’s Wisdom Laws’, ZAR 14: 443–62.Traulsen, C. (2004), Das sakrale Asyl in der Alten Welt. Zur Schutzfunktion

des Heiligen von König Salomo bis zum Codex Theodosianus (JusEcclesiasticum 72; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).


15:24:04:10:13

Page 250

Page 250

Uehlinger, C. (1995), ‘Gab es eine joschijanische Kultreform? Plädoyerfür ein begründetes Minimum’, in W. Groß (ed.), Jeremia und die„deuteronomistische Bewegung“ (BBB 98; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum),57–90.

Vanoni, G. (1985), ‘Beobachtungen zur deuteronomistischen Terminologiein 2 Kön 23,25–25,30’, in N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium. Entste-hung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BEThL 68; Leuven: Peeters), 357–62.

Van Seters, J. (2003), A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of theCovenant Code (New York: Oxford University Press).

—— (2006), ‘The Altar Law of Ex 20,24–26 in Critical Debate’, in M. Beckand U. Schorn (eds.), Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis IIRegum: Festschrift H.-C. Schmitt (BZAW 370; Berlin: de Gruyter), 157–74.

Veijola, T. (2002), ‘Deuteronomiumsforschung zwischen Tradition undInnovation’, ThR 67: 273–327, 391–424.

—— (2004), Das 5. Buch Mose. Deuteronomium Kapitel 1,1–16,17 (ATD 8,1;Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Weinfeld, M. (1972), Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford:Oxford University Press).

—— (1991), Deuteronomy 1–11 (AncB 5; New York: Doubleday).Wellhausen, J. (1899), Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen

Bücher des Alten Testaments (3rd edn.; Berlin: Georg Reimer).—— (1927), Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (repr. of 6th edn. 1905;

Berlin: de Gruyter).

Eckart Otto250

The History of the Legal-Religious Hermeneutics of the Book of Deuteronomy ( Oxford University Press...

Documents

Transcript of The History of the Legal-Religious Hermeneutics of the Book of Deuteronomy ( Oxford University Press...