Skip to content

Number Switching in Deuteronomy 12–26 and the Quest for Urdeuteronomium

Pages 163 - 180


Wilmore, KY USA

2 Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 3d ed., Berlin (Georg Reimer) 1899, 193, first proposed in a series of articles decades earlier (“Die Composition des Hexateuchs,” JDT 21 [1876]: 392–450, 531–602, and 22 [1877]: 407–79). In the supplement to the 1899 edition, Wellhausen distanced himself from his earlier reliance on the Numeruswechsel as criterion for source-critical distinction in Deuteronomy (353–63).

3 On the inadequacy of the arguments within just a few years, see S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, third ed., ICC 5, Edinburgh (T. & T. Clark) [1895]1965, lxv–lxvi.

4 Willy Staerk, Das Deuteronomium: Sein Inhalt und seine literarische Form; eine kritische Studie, Leipzig (J.C. Hinrichs) 1894); Carl Steuernagel, Der Rahmen des Deuteronomiums: Litterarcritische Untersuchung über seine Zusammensetzung und Entstehung Halle a. S. (J. Krause) 1894); Carl Steuernagel, Die Entstehung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes Halle a. S. (J. Krause) 1896). Steuernagel's

6 Especially in Georges Minette de Tillesse, Sections ‘tu’ et sections ‘vous' dans le Deutéronome, VT 12 1962, 29–87.

7 Norbert Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5–11, AnBib 20, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 247–49. The technique may have powerful rhetorical effect, as in Richard Nelson's observation of the switch to you-singular at 11:19b to cite 6:7b, which serves as a textbook example; Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, OTL, Louisville, Ky. (Westminster John Knox) 2002, 5–6. One may speak more broadly of the phenomenon as a hermeneutical device, or more particularly as an element of “Textpragmatik,” as in Eckart Otto's celebrated commentary (Deuteronomium, HThKAT, 4 vols. [Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2012 and 2016]). See, for example, his nuanced treatment of Deut 4:29 (HThKAT 1:523–27 and 573–76).

8 Luis Alonso Schökel, Of Methods and Models, in: Congress Volume: Salamanca, 1983, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 36, Leiden (E.J. Brill) 1985, 3–13.

9 The most extensive treatment remains the dissertation of Christopher T. Begg, Contributions to the Elucidation of the Composition of Deuteronomy with Special Attention to the Significance of the Numeruswechsel, Ph.D. diss., University of Louvain, 1978. The inauguration of studies focused on second-person address in Deuteronomy is the second of Begg's three periods of critical research on the book, each launched by an innovation in the scholarship; first, de Wette's separation of Deuteronomy from the other sources of the Pentateuch in 1805, second, Staerk's and Steuernagel's application of the phenomenon of Numeruswechsel to the book (see n.3 above) in 1894, and third, Noth's thesis in 1943 of the role of the book in the socalled Deuteronomistic History; Christopher T. Begg, The Significance of the Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy: The ‘Pre—History’ of the Question, BEThL 55, Louvain, 1979: 116–24, esp. 116.

10 Number switching occurs elsewhere in the ancient Near East, especially in the Sfire Inscription, although the phenomenon is different there, in that it typically marks change of addressee(s); Begg, Contributions, 1136–50.

11 David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature, New York (Oxford University Press) 2005, 41.

12 Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 36, and more broadly for the Mesopotamian evidence (34–46) and that of Ancient Israel (56–61 and 159–73).

13 For some of what follows, see Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, Cambridge, MA (Harvard University Press) 2007, 109–41. Seth Sanders refers to stages of literary production, in which the first stage was one of integrating diverse versions, and the second stage was that of weaving together existing collections; Seth L. Sanders, What If There Aren't Any Empirical Models for Pentateuchal Criticism? in: Contextualizing Israel's Sacred Writings: Ancient Literacy, Orality, and Literary Production, ed. Brian B. Schmidt, AIL 22, Atlanta (SBL Press) 2015, 281–304, esp. 300–2. I am using transcription and invention here to refer to creative work prior to collections and conflations.

14 At times, text production may take place over a short period of time, involving writing something down from dictation in order to recite it later, as in Jer 36; Edgar W. Conrad, Heard But Not Seen: The Representation of ‘Books' in the Old Testament, JSOT 54 (1992): 45–59, esp. 46–47.

15 Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 115.

16 Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 36.

17 Specifically, for van der Toorn, these “other modes” are compilation, expansion, adaptation, and integration; van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 118–41. Similarly, Stephen A. Kaufman has identified a continuum of compositional techniques that includes “original composition” (which would include both transcription and invention in van der Toorn's terminology), and conflation (of several varieties) and extended citation or quotation. In Kaufman's schema, conflation and citation correspond in a variety of ways to van der Toorn's understanding of compilation, expansion, adaptation, and integration; Stephen A. Kaufman, The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism, HUCA 53 (1982), 29–43. Cynthia Edenburg's definitions of “rewriting,” “overwriting,” and “overriding” are helpful in this regard; Cynthia Edenburg, Rewriting, Overwriting, and Overriding: Techniques of Editorial Revision in the Deuteronomistic History, in: Words, Ideas, Worlds: Biblical Essays in Honour of Yairah Amit, eds. Athalya Brenner and Frank Polak, Hebrew Bible Monographs 40, Sheffield (Sheffield Phoenix Press) 2012, 54–69.

18 My list comes closest to that of Reinhard G. Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, trans. John Stephen Bowden (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 117–19. Compare the various lists in Minette de Tillesse (Sections ‘tu’ et sections ‘vous’, 39–41), Eckart Otto, The History of the Legal-Religious Hermeneutics of the Book of Deuteronomy from the Assyrian to the Hellenistic Period, in: Law and Religion in the Eastern Mediterranean: From Antiquity to Early Islam, eds. Anselm C. Hagedorn and Reinhard Gregor Kratz, Oxford (Oxford University Press) 2013, 211–50, esp. 212–23, and specific to chapters 5–11, the helpful comparative presentation of the data from a number of scholars, see Reinhard Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheißung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu Deuteronomium 5–11, Europäische Hochschulschriften XXIII, Theologie 422, Frankfurt am Main (Peter Lang) 1991, 7–9. The commentary by Duane L. Christensen marks the switching in its translation by the use of fonts, italic for singular and roman for plural, which however, can be misleading (Deuteronomy, 2 volumes; 2nd ed., WBC 6A and 6B, Nashville (Thomas Nelson) 2001 and 2002). The location at which a switch occurs may be a single isolated occurrence of a pronoun or verb in either singular or plural, whereas Christensen's translation leaves the text marked by font until the next

20 Greek perikoptō, “to cut all round,” perikopē, “a section or short passage”; LSJ, 1377; DCH 6:189–93; HALOT 2:766–67, cf also Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, Handbook of Oriental Studies Section 1, The Near and Middle East 67, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 767–69; Josef Tropper, Kleines Wörterbuch des Ugaritischen, Elementa Linguarum Orientis 4 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008), 111. The subject of the sēper is denoted by the genitive of its use in construct states, such as the sēper “of the covenant” and the sēper “of the generations of Adam” (Exod 24:7 and Gen 5:1, respectively). This has direct bearing on our interest in this paper because of its use for legal memoranda, as in a sēper of divorce (Deut 24:1,3; Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8), and a sēper of purchase or “bill of sale” (Jer 32:11–14). The term sēper has recently been restored to Arad Ostracon 16; Anat Mendel-Geberovich, Arie Shaus, Shira Faigenbaum-Golovin, Barak Sober, Michael Cordonsky, Eli Piasetzky and Israel Finkelstein, A Brand New Old Inscription: Arad Ostracon 16 Rediscovered via Multispectral Imaging, BASOR 378 (2017), 113–25, esp. 118. See also John Barton, What is a Book? Modern Exegesis and the Literary Conventions of Ancient Israel, in: Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel, ed. Johannes Cornelis de Moor, OtSt 40, Leiden (Brill) 1998, 1–14; and Conrad, Heard But Not Seen, 45–55. I will use the non-academic style of transliteration in this article to denote the short, legal texts that I believe constituted Urdeuteronomium.

21 This list resembles the conclusion of Staerk, although without additions of portions of chapters 2 and 3, and rearranging the sequence of the texts; Staerk, Deuteronomium, 76–93; cf. also H. G. Mitchell, The Use of the Second Person in Deuteronomy, JBL 18 (1899), 61–109, esp. 102. This list is simply a collection of raw data and not necessarily suggestive of Urdeuteronomium itself, since some of these laws could have been inserted at later dates based on the assumption of a different historical setting.

22 Juha Pakkala, The Date of the Oldest Edition of Deuteronomy, ZAW 121 (2009): 388–401, esp. 388; Bill T. Arnold, Israelite Worship as Envisioned and Prescribed in Deuteronomy 12, ZABR 22 (2016), 161–75, esp. 162–69.

23 Based partly on the short form of the sanctuary formula in 12:14 and 18; Horst Dietrich Preuss, Deuteronomium, EdF 164, Darmstadt (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft) 1982, 133. Some have proposed three versions of the law of centralization, vv. 2–7, vv. 8–12, and vv. 13–19, reflecting three main redactional layers in the Deuteronomistic History; Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction London (T & T Clark), 2005, 56–65. The asterisk by the reference indicates a lack of consistency in the use of you-singular; said pericope contains at least one occurrence of the you-plural. In this case, MT's v. 16 has the plural “you (pl) must not eat,” which is supported by LXX, Syr, and Targumim, while the SP and Vulg have singular. A few Hebrew manuscripts have it as singular with a pronominal suffix; “you (si) must not eat it”, which would be likely as the resumptive pronoun in casus pendens here (“Only, as for the blood, you must not eat it”). I believe the translations (minus Vulg) are harmonizing here.

24 Preuss, Deuteronomium, 51–52 and 113–14.

25 I take the final paragraph of Deut 12, a warning against foreign heresies, to be a separate pericope since it has nothing directly to do with cult centralization, like the rest of 12:2–28. It is consistently you-singular, and therefore included here. The next verse, 12:32 [Eng 13:1] is a redactional seam, and like the superscription in 12:1, mixes singular and plural forms.

26 Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, New York (Oxford University Press) 1997; Eckart Otto, Vom Bundesbuch zum Deuteronomium: Die deuteronomische Redaktion in Dtn 12–26, in: Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink SJ, eds. Georg Braulik, Walter Gross and Sean E. McEvenue, Freiburg im Breisgau (Herder) 1993, 260–78; Eckart Otto, Aspects of Legal Reforms and Reformulations in Ancient Cuneiform and Israelite Law, in: Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development, ed. Bernard M. Levinson, JSOTSup 181, Sheffield (Sheffield Academic Press) 1994, 160–96, esp. 192—96; Eckart Otto, The Pre-exilic Deuteronomy as a Revision of the Covenant Code, in: idem, Kontinuum und Proprium: Studien zur Sozial- und Rechtsgeschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments, Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 8, Wiesbaden (Harrassowitz) 1996, 112–22.

27 On the literary history of Deut 17:14–20, see Reinhard Müller, Israel's King as Primus Inter Pares: The ‘Democratic’ Re-conceptualization of Monarchy in Deut 17:14–20, in: Leadership, Social Memory, and Judean Discourse in the Fifth-Second Centuries BCE, eds. Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi, Worlds of the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, Sheffield (Equinox) 2016, 57-76, esp. 60–62.

28 Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Cambridge (Cambridge University Press) 2003, §4.2.15.

29 Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 244–51; Georg Braulik, Die Mittel deuteronomischer Rhetorik: Erhoben aus Deuteronomium 4, 1–40, AnBib 68, Rome (Biblical Institute Press) 1978, 146–48. Or some variation of this rhetorical approach, such as you-singular for corporate responsibility for Torah observance versus you-plural for individual responsibility for covenant obedience; J. Gordon McConville, Singular Address in the Deuteronomic Law and the Politics of Legal Administration, JSOT 97 (2002), 19–36. Oddly enough, the nuances of singular and plural are precisely opposite in the Holiness code, singular addressing individuals and plural the collective whole; Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26, VTSup 67, Leiden (Brill) 1996, 47–53; Jan Joosten, The Numeruswechsel in the Holiness Code (Lev. XVII–XXVI), in: ‘Lasset uns Brücken bauen…’: Collected Communications of the XVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Cambridge 1995, eds. Klaus-Dietrich Schunck and Matthias Augustin, BEATAJ 42, Frankfurt am Main (Peter Lang) 1998, 67–71.

30 See the recent caveats in Arie Versluis, The Command to Exterminate the Canaanites: Deuteronomy 7, OtSt 71, Leiden (Brill) 2017, 128–29.

31 The principle may be defined succinctly in the view of Werner H. Schmidt: “The more extravagant and complicated a theory is, the more improbable it becomes. Conversely, the simpler a theory is (i.e., the more facts it explains with the fewest possible suppositions), the more probable it is.” See Werner H.

33 Barton, What is a Book? 2. On the likelihood of the production of Hebrew literature in Iron IIA (see above n. 17), see Matthieu Richelle, Elusive Scrolls: Could Any Hebrew Literature Have Been Written Prior to the Eighth Century BCE? VT 66 (2016): 1–39.

34 So, e.g., Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Pentateuchal Narratives in the Light of the Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, in: Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, ed. Jeffrey H. Tigay, Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania Press) 1985, 21–52.

35 The writing materials available in ancient Israel were stone, ostraca, wood, wood and wax, papyrus, and leather; Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature, Library of Ancient Israel, Louisville, Ky. (Westminster John Knox Press) 1996, 71–77. In addition, we have administrative texts on palm-leaves from the Arabian peninsula from the tenth- to seventh-centuries BCE; see M. C. A. Macdonald, Ancient Arabia and the Written Word, in: The Development of Arabic as a Written Language: Papers from the Special Session of the Seminar for Arabian Studies held on 24 July, 2009, ed. M. C. A. Macdonald, Oxford (Archaeopress) 2010, 5–27; and A. J. Drewes, T. F. G. Higham, M. C. A. Macdonald and C. Bronk Ramsey, Some Absolute Dates for the Development of the Ancient South Arabian Minuscule Script, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 24 (2013), 196–207; see also Ezek 37:16 for writing on sticks. My thanks to Hans Ulrich Steymans for drawing my attention to this collection. Menahem Haran was of the opinion that literary activity in pre-exilic Israel was mainly done on papyrus scrolls, and transitioned to leather at the beginning of the post-exilic period; Menahem Haran, Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times, JJS 33 (1982), 161–73; Menahem Haran, Book Scrolls at the Beginning of the Second Temple Period - The Transition from Papyrus to Skins, HUCA 54 (1983), 111–22; Menahem Haran, More Concerning Book Scrolls in Pre-Exilic Times, JJS 35 (1984), 84–85.

36 Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 148–49.

37 Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, STDJ 54, Leiden - Boston (Brill), 2004, 34–35. On the relative antiquity of the use of גויל as skin in its thickest state, stripped only of the epidermis and not yet thinned by scraping or splitting, as distinct from other tanning techniques developed in late antiquity, see Menahem Haran, Bible Scrolls in Eastern and Western Jewish Communities from Qumran to the High Middle Ages, HUCA 56 (1985), 21-62, esp. 40–43. Cynthia Edenburg has applied these principles to the idea that the Deuteronomistic History was originally composed as a set of five separate scrolls intended to be studied as a group, rather than a single, continuous narrative of one scroll; Edenburg, Rewriting, Overwriting, and Overriding, 64–66.

38 Haran, Book-Scrolls in Israel, 167.

39 The scribal process was one of moving a text forward from one physical copy to another, as illustrated by he'tîqû in Prov 25:1 (HALOT 2:905; DCH 6:641), although we cannot be certain whether the nuance of this rare verb means “transcribe,” “copy,” or “transmit.” See van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 118–23; Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford (Clarendon Press) 1985, 33. While legal collections such as the Book of the Covenant are obviously comprised of smaller sub-units, few of these from the Deuteronomic legal core are casuistic. Yet the contrast between these short texts and non-legal, extended narrative is striking. This simple observation should not be dismissed as irrelevant.

40 Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 12-13 and 270-71, n.18. However, the reading “door” (dlt) is uncertain, as the term may also denote “on the sheet” or “on the hinged writing tablet” (DCH 2:442). See Johannes Renz, Die althebräischen Inschriften: Teil 1, Text und Kommentar, Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik, vol. 1, Darmstadt (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft) 1995, 421; Shmuel Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period, trans. Anson F. Rainey, Jerusalem (Carta) 2008, 70-71. Of course, this brings to mind also the references to writing “these words” on the (village) gates in Judah (Deut 6:9; 11:20).

41 Sometimes the gate is named, at other times the city is named. We have a few texts in which the document was written “in the presence of the mayor” (ina pani <personal name> ḫazannu). On šūdūtu, see CAD Š/3, 195–96; AHw 1259. For discussion, see Natalie N. May, Gates and Their Functions in Mesopotamia and Ancient Israel, in: The Fabric of Cities: Aspects of Urbanism, Urban Topography and Society in Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome, eds. Natalie N. May and Ulrike Steinert, CHANE 68, Leiden (Brill) 2014, 77-121, esp. 96; Paola Negri Scafa, Ana pani abulli šaṭir: Gates in the Texts of the City of Nuzi, in General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi 10/2, eds. David I. Owen and Gernot Wilhelm, SCCNH 9 (Bethesda, MD (CDL Press) 1998, 139-62, esp. 140.

42 Dominik Markl has demonstrated that the portrait of Moses' relative freedom in rewording the Sabbath commandment in the Decalogue establishes the hermeneutical principle of legal revision for the scribes responsible for the Torah, so that even the Book of the Covenant can be rightly reworded for a new day by the Deuteronomic core. Dominik Markl, The Ten Words Revealed and Revised: The Origins of Law and Legal Hermeneutics in the Pentateuch, in: The Decalogue and Its Cultural Influence, ed. Dominik Markl, Hebrew Bible Monographs 58, Sheffield (Sheffield Phoenix Press) 2013, 13-27, esp. 19-21 and 24.

43 Niditch, Oral World and Written Word; Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 4-8 and passim; William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel, New York (Cambridge University Press) 2004, 11–17; Robert D. Miller, Oral Tradition in Ancient Israel, Biblical Performance Criticism, Eugene, OR (Cascade Books) 2011.

44 James Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence, Anchor Bible Reference Library, New York (Doubleday) 1998.

45 Bernard S. Jackson, Ideas of Law and Legal Administration: A Semiotic Approach, in: The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological, and Political Perspectives, ed. R. E. Clements, Cambridg (Cambridge University Press) 1989, 185-202, esp. 194–96.

46 I find it unlikely that Deut 6:7 (and therefore also 11:19) refers to all of Deut 5-26, contra Georg Braulik, Das Deuteronomium und die Gedächtniskultur Israels: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zur Verwendung von למד, in: Biblische Theologie und Gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink SJ, eds. Georg Braulik, Walter Gross and Sean E. McEvenue, Freiburg (Herder) 1993, 9–31, esp. 19–20.

47 David M. Carr imagines the reciting and writing of “these words” as “cultural circulation” by means of “self- and child-education through constant and vocal repetition”; Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 135–36.

48 Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 136.

49 In fact, these texts, all of which are outside the legal core, are careful to trace the transition from oral to written tradition; F. L. Hossfeld and E. Reuter, “סֵפֶר,” TDOT 10:329–41, esp. 335–36.

50 As Nicholson observed, the book's frames, including Deut 5-11, show some knowledge of the Yahwist's work; Ernest W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, Oxford (Clarendon) 1998, 17.

51 And with three slight variations of the phrase at 19:13; 21:9; 22:22, again, all in the legal sepharim I am suggesting were part of Urdeuteronomium. By contrast, the call for cult centralization is shared by both you-singular and you-plural portions of Deut 12-26, and therefore cannot serve as a criterion for literary distinctions; contra Kratz, Composition, 118.

52 Norbert Lohfink, Dtn 12,1 und Gen 15,18: Das dem Samen Abrahams geschenkte Land als der Geltungsbereich der deuteronomischen Gesetze, in: Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur II, SBAB 12, Stuttgart (Katholisches Bibelwerk) 1991, 257–285, esp. 259 and 265; reprs. from: idem, Die Väter Israels: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferungen im Alten Testament, Festschrift für Josef Scharbert, eds. Manfred Görg and Augustin R. Müller Stuttgart (Katholisches Bibelwerk) 1989, 183–210, esp. 259 and 265.

53 Christoph Levin, Rereading Deuteronomy in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods: The Ethics of Brotherhood and the Care of the Poor, in: Deuteronomy-Kings as Emerging Authoritative Books: A Conversation, ed. Diana V. Edelman, SBL Ancient Near East Monographs 6, Atlanta (Society of Biblical Literature) 2014, 49–71, esp. 50.

54 Contra the recent study of Nathan MacDonald, The Date of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4–5), JBL 136 (2017), 765–82.

55 On the declarative Hiphil, see Arnold and Choi, Guide, §3.1.6,c; see also DCH 1:325; HALOT 1:67.

56 Levin, Rereading Deuteronomy, 49.

57 Robb Andrew Young, Hezekiah in History and Tradition, VTSup 155, Leiden (Brill) 2012, 91–121, esp. 121. Young also believes this was the Sitz im Leben of the earliest stratum of Deuteronomy. Of course, we are demurring at Nadav Na'aman's rejection of the idea of northern refugees, whose work may in fact serve as a needed corrective to what is essentially an overstated theory; Nadav Na'aman, Dismissing the Myth of a Flood of Israelite Refugees in the Late Eighth Century BCE, ZAW 126 (2014), 1–14. For helpful recent survey, see Cynthia Edenburg and Reinhard Müller, A Northern Provenance for Deuteronomy? A Critical Review, HBAI 4 (2015): 148–61.

58 Additionally, the northern writing tradition of Hebrew was continued in Judah after the Assyrian invasion of the north, based on investigation of Hebrew paleography; Johannes Renz, Schrift und Schreibertradition: Eine paläographische Studie zum kulturgeschichtlichen Verhältnis von israelitischem Nordreich und Südreich, ADPV 23, Wiesbaden (Harrassowitz) 1997, 47 and 51–52. Rofé concluded the idea of cult centralization most likely emerged from a Shechemite refugee who found asylum at the court of Jerusalem, or one of his native disciples; Alexander Rofé, The Strata of the Law about the Centralization of Worship in Deuteronomy and the History of the Deuteronomic Movement, in: Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretations, London — New York (T & T Clark) 2002, 97–101, esp. 100.

59 For the earlier dating of parts of Hosea, see Roman Vielhauer, Das Werden des Buches Hosea: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, BZAW 349, Berlin (de Gruyter) 2007. On the Persian date, see James M. Bos, Reconsidering the Date and Provenance of the Book of Hosea: The Case for Persian-Period Yehud, LHB/OTS 580, London (T&T Clark) 2013, and the review by Hans Ulrich Steymans, Review of James M. Bos' Reconsidering the Date and Provenance of the Book of Hosea, NBf 96 (2015), 363–65.

60 Gary N. Knoppers, History and Historiography: The Royal Reforms, in: The Chronicler as Historian, eds. M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie, JSOTSup 238, Sheffield (Sheffield Academic Press) 1997, 178–203; Andrew G. Vaughn, Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler's Account of Hezekiah, ABS 4, Atlanta (Scholars Press) 1999. Certainly Jerusalem had, long before Hezekiah, developed the infrastructure needed to support scribal activity in service of the royal court; Nadav Na'aman, The Contribution of Royal Inscriptions for a Re—Evaluation of the Book of Kings as a Historical Source, JSOT 82 (1999), 3–17, esp. 12–16.

61 Ronny Reich, Eli Shukron and Omri Lernau, Recent Discoveries in the City of David, Jerusalem, IEJ 57 (2007), 153–69, esp. 156–57. The authors conclude that the 170 bullae discovered near the spring in the City of David give evidence of “the existence of an administrative and commercial centre … during the late ninth and early eighth centuries BCE” (162). They further suggest this administrative office presumably handled letters and packaged commodities arriving from outlying areas, the bullae pointing to ‘incoming mail,’ and the smaller number of seals and scarabs pointing to ‘outgoing mail.’ See now also the Hezekian bulla from Jerusalem; Eilat Mazar, A Seal Impression of King Hezekiah from the Ophel Excavations, in: The Ophel Excavations to the South of the Temple Mount 2009–2013: Final Reports, Volume I, ed. Eilat Mazar, Jerusalem (Shoham) 2015, 629–40. On how the bullae were used, see James W. Hardin, Christopher A. Rollston and Jeffrey A. Blakely, Iron Age Bullae from Officialdom's Periphery: Khirbet Summeily in Broader Context, NEA 77 (2014), 299–301.

62 Alexander Rofé proposed two strata of laws in Deut 12:2–12, the first (vv. 8–12) from the eighth or seventh centuries originating in the southern kingdom, and the second (vv. 2–7) from the late seventh century coming from the northern Shilonite tradents or priests from Anathoth (Rofé, The Strata of the Law). I am proposing here a more general approach, assuming Levitical priests were conflating, expanding, and integrating two paragraphs of Urdeuteronomium (vv. 13–19 and 20–28) from Hezekiah's time in order to create a loyal opposition to Manasseh's apostasies.

63 Lemaire conjectures texts of the first Temple period were likely preserved on papyrus scrolls, assuming a transition to animal parchment only in the Persian period; André Lemaire, Writing and Writing Materials, ABD 6, 999–1008, esp. 1003; André Lemaire, Hebrew and West Semitic Inscriptions and Pre-exilic Israel, in: In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, LHB/OTS 406, London (T & T Clark International) 2004, 366–85.

64 As proposed many years ago by S. R. Driver, the “dark days of Manasseh,” when the voice of the eighth century prophets had been silenced, provided the rallying cry for the original authors of the Deuteronomic legal core to compile the treasures left behind by the Hezekian reforms; Driver, Deuteronomy, li—lii. While it may be objected that no such reforms occurred as early as Hezekiah's day, the evidence for skepticism on that point is by no means clear, and in fact, I think it unwise to dismiss the references in 2 Kgs 18:4 and 22 as retrojections of a later Josianic reformation; see Young, Hezekiah, 91–121.

65 At least in part, since 28:20–44 seems literarily dependent upon Esarhaddon's Succession Treaty, while 28:45–69 appears to be a later addition; Hans Ulrich Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel, OBO 145, Göttingen (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 1995, 239–312 and 381–82. Steymans also asserts that Urdeuteronomium was dependent upon the Privilege Law of Exod 34* rather than the Book of the Covenant.

66 Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 146–49.

67 Keeping in mind that scribal modifications of anterior texts were more extensive than mere additions but in these early days of text composition, involved wholesale and radical revision, including omissions and rewriting; Juha Pakkala, God's Word Omitted: Omissions in the Transmission of the Hebrew Bible, FRLANT 251, Göttingen (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) 2013, 16–25; and in general, see the false dichotomy between scribes that compose and scribes that transmit only, in Reinhard Müller, Juha Pakkala and R. Bas ter Haar Romeny, Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible, SBLResources for Biblical Study 75, Atlanta (Society of Biblical Literature) 2014.

68 Sara J. Milstein, Tracking the Master Scribe: Revision through Introduction in Biblical and Mesopotamian Literature, New York (Oxford University Press) 2016, 1–41. Already, Cynthia Edenburg suggested scribes mitigated the technical limitations of revision of existing copies of scrolls by overriding content with new beginnings and endings to scrolls, which she applies to the literary history of the Deuteronomistic History, in which, she believes, the beginnings and ends of scrolls provided opportunities for expansions; Edenburg, Rewriting, Overwriting, and Overriding, 64–66.


Export Citation