Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.

Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

DEUTERONOMY, BOOK OF, CRITICAL ISSUES Surveys major issues in critical biblical
scholarship related to the interpretation of Deuteronomy, including the social and historical
background of the books composition and its relationship with other biblical and ancient Near
Eastern texts.
Introduction
The book of Deuteronomy has been an important focus for research on the literary history and
formation of the Pentateuch for over 200 years (Levinson and Stackert, Between the Covenant
Code, 123). The hypothesis that some form of Deuteronomy shaped the basis of Josiahs book
of the Law ( , sepher hattorah) in his religious reforms of the late seventh century
has provided the chronological anchor for many arguments over the relative dating of
pentateuchal sources (see Source Criticism; Documentary Hypothesis). Rof explains the basic
logic as follows: Documents that are unaware of the unification of the cult must predate the
seventh century, and documents that assume the unification of the cult must post-date it, from the
time of the exile or the return (Rof, Deuteronomy, 4). Because of the crucial place this dating
holds for theories of Old Testament composition in general and for the Pentateuch in particular,
determining the social and historical context for the composition of Deuteronomy has been a
major focus for research on Deuteronomy.
The question of literary influence on the composition of Deuteronomy is also significant
since Deuteronomy appears to be indebted to both earlier biblical legal material (e.g., the
Covenant Code) and to extrabiblical treaty traditions (e.g., Hittite treaties, the Syrian vassal
treaty from Sefire, and Esarhaddons Succession Treaty). In many cases, Deuteronomy appears
to be modifying and transforming legal traditions from the book of Exodus (see Levinson,
Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation). The structure and purpose of
Deuteronomy seem indebted to the ancient Near Eastern treaty tradition, with Deuteronomic law
presented as the legal successor to earlier legal formulations (see Levinson and Stackert,
Between the Covenant Code, 13739). In other words, Deuteronomy was likely intended to be
the authoritative version of the Law, the template for understanding all other passages about
Israels relationship to Yahweh as mediated through the Sinai covenant. Deuteronomy exerted
just this sort of influence on the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua2 Kings), where all kings were
judged according to their faithfulness to the covenant as articulated in Deuteronomy. In addition,
the ideas within the book of Deuteronomy had significant influence on later texts in the Hebrew
Bible, especially Wisdom literature and the Prophets (see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic School; Person, Deuteronomic School; Kugler, The Deuteronomists and the
Latter Prophets) and in early Judaism. Because of Deuteronomys importance in biblical
criticism, many detailed studies have been done to explore these questions, and the following
article is necessarily selective and introductory.
Content Overview
The core content of the book of Deuteronomy is structured around three major discourses
delivered by Moses (Rof, Deuteronomy, 1). The parameters of the discourses are debated, but
the starting points are usually held to be Deut 1:1; 4:44; and 29:1 (see Deuteronomy, Book of).
The content of Deuteronomy includes narrative, law, poetry, and exhortation.
Structure and Outline
Regarding the structure of Deuteronomy, Christensen (Deuteronomy in Modern Research, 3
17) notes the repeated rhetorical markers found in this book. These markers include: these are
Page 1

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

the words (Deut 1:1); this is the law (Deut 4:44); these are the statutes and the judgments
(Deut 12:1); and these are the words of the covenant (Deut 29:1). However, there are several
notable exceptions to these markers. For example, the phrase this is the commandment, the
statutes and the judgments in Deut 6:1 is not considered a rhetorical marker, even though it is
quite similar to the other markers. Based on these markers, Christensen divides the book of
Deuteronomy into five concentric or chiastic sections:
A. The Outer Frame: A Look Backwards (Deut 13)
B. The Inner Frame: The Great Peroration (Deut 411)
C. The Central Core: Covenant Stipulations (Deut 1226)
B. The Inner Frame: The Covenant Ceremony (Deut 2730)
A. The Outer Frame: A Look Forward (Deut 3134)
The following outline represents the consensus on the main divisions of the book of
Deuteronomy, but there is no consensus on how the main divisions interrelate (see Nicholson,
Deuteronomy and Tradition, 1819).
Deut 14: Historical Prologue
Deut 531: The Transmission of the Law
Deut 511: Prologue and Preamble
Deut 1226: Covenant Stipulations
Deut 2731: Covenant Ceremony
Deut 2728: Blessings and Curses Related to Obedience or Disobedience
Deut 2930: Third DiscourseAppeal for Covenant Observance
Deut 31: Deposit of the Law and Transfer of Leadership to Joshua
Deut 3234: Epilogue
Deut 32: The Song of Moses
Deut 33: The Blessing of Moses
Deut 34: Narrative of the Death of Moses
Historical Prologue (Deut 1:64:40)
This opening section presents a brief overview of the historical accounts of the Israelites in the
wilderness. This survey illustrates the past victories and the failures of the Israelites, reminding
them of the fatal rebellion at Kadesh-barnea due to their disobedience (Deut 1:2646) and of the
great success against the Amorite kings, Sihon of Heshbon and Og of Bashan, due to their
obedience (Deut 2:243:17).
The Transmission of the Law (Deut 4:4431:30)
Prologue and Preamble (Deut 4:4411:30). Deuteronomy 4:4449 provides a heading that sets
the context for this lengthy discourse. Following the heading, Moses reminds the people of their
experience at HorebSinai and repeats the Ten Commandments (Deut 5:130), providing
background for his role transmitting to them the stipulations of the covenant (found primarily in
Deut 1226). Tigay describes the next section in Deut 611 as a preamble to these stipulations,
presenting their ideological basis and appealing for their observance (Tigay, Deuteronomy/,
58). This preamble emphasizes monotheism and devotion to Yahweh and starts with a
recapitulation of the Ten Commandments (Deut 5:621). It introduces the central concept of
Israelite religionthat is, the confession of monotheism in the Shema passage, Hear, O Israel.
YHWH, our God, YHWH, one. You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all
Page 2

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

your soul and with all your might (Deut 6:45). This is the most fundamental command to the
Israelites that was to be taught and kept by the next generations (Deut 6:2025) for blessed and
peaceful living in the promised land (Deut 6:1619; compare Matt 22:37). Moses urged the
Israelites that their covenantal allegiance to the only God would be the source of their future
blessings, such as the victories over the Canaanites (Deut 11:815) and their longevity in the
promised land (Deut 11:1625).
Covenant Stipulations (Deut 12:126:19). The core legal portion of Deuteronomy is found in
Deut 1226 and presents the specific stipulations for Gods detailed covenant laws. These laws
cover a wide variety of subjects, including religious observances, idolatry, homicide, war, family
relationships, sexuality, and private property. Rof sees the laws as organized according to three
criteria (Deuteronomy, 2):
1. Organized by symmetry
a. A call to keep the law (Deut 11:3212:1; 26:16)
b. Laws on centralization/unification of worship (Deut 12:212; 26:1115)
2. Organized by content
a. Laws about leadership figuresjudges, kings, priests, and prophets (Deut 17:818:22)
b. Laws pertinent to specific leadership figuresjustice and warfare (Deut 19:121:14)
3. Organized by word/sound associations (especially Deut 23:1520)
a. Law forbidding oppression (

lo' tonennu) juxtaposed with laws about the

earnings of a prostitute ( , ethnan) in Deut 23:1518

b. Imagery of male prostitute (Heb.

, kelev; lit. dog) juxtaposed with laws about

charging interest (Heb. , nshk; bite) in Deut 23:1720.

More commonly, the laws are divided into three sections (Rmer, Deuteronomy, 197):
1. laws concerning worship/religious practices (Deut 12:116:17);
2. laws concerning authorities and institutions (Deut 16:1818:22);
3. various private and public laws (Deut 19:125:19).
The first section most clearly emphasizes religious reform and the centralization of worship in
one chosen place. The second section and part of the third is sometimes considered an ideal or
utopian constitution arising from the centralization reform (Van Seters, Pentateuch, 195).
The law code can also be understood as an exposition on the Ten Commandments, with the
laws arranged with reference to Deut 5 (Rmer, Deuteronomy, 198; see Kaufmann, Structure
of the Deuteronomic Law, 10558). However, the structural influence of this pattern is more
easily seen in Deut 1925 than in Deut 1218 (Rmer, Deuteronomy, 198).
Deuteronomy 26 concludes the legal core of the book with laws concerning the dedication of
the firstfruits in order to honor God for His deliverance of their nation (Deut 26:111) and the
importance of tithing in order to provide for the Levites, the resident aliens, the orphans, and the
widows (Deut 26:1215). This formal presentation of the law ends with a call to diligently
observe Yahwehs commandments (Deut 26:1619).
Covenant Ceremony (27:131:30). Deuteronomy 2728 provide the procedure for reaffirming
the covenant once Israel has entered the land and delineate the blessings and curses associated
with keeping the covenant. The Israelites were to divide the tribes; half to stand on Mount Ebal

Page 3

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

and the other half to stand on Mount Gerizim. A memorial ceremony of their commitment was to
be performed (Deut 27:1128:14), with one group proclaiming the blessings on Mount Gerizim
(Deut 27:1112; 28:114) and the other group proclaiming the curses on Mount Ebal (Deut
27:1326).
Deuteronomy 28:1568 contains a much more extensive pronouncement of the disasters that
would result from disobedience to Yahwehs covenant. These curses included plague and
drought (Deut 28:2024), defeat and deportation (Deut 28:2537), agricultural disaster (Deut
28:3845), military siege (Deut 28:4657), and plagues and diseases (Deut 28:5868) with the
ominous phrases until you are destroyed or until you perish repeated several times (Deut
28:20, 21, 22, 24, 45, 48, 51 (2x), 61).
Moses third discourse is found in Deut 29:130:20. In this speech, Moses reminds Israel of
Yahwehs loving kindness during the time of exodus, during Israels wandering in the
wilderness, and during the conquest in the Transjordan (Deut 29:28). He urges the Israelites to
be righteous before entering into the renewal of the covenant (Deut 29:915) and reiterates that
obedience to God would bring blessings, but disobedience would bring curses. Then Moses
exhorts the covenantal people to choose life and prosperity in lieu of death and adversity (Deut
30:15). Moses calls upon heaven and earth to be witnesses in Israels renewal of the covenant
(Deut 30:1920). This section is explicitly identified as an additional covenant made besides the
covenant that he made with them at Horeb (Deut 29:1). In its current placement in
Deuteronomy, this second covenant is likely intended to be seen as an extension of the earlier
one (Clements, Deuteronomy, 20). Most commentators treat it as a statement of covenant
renewal or ratification of the covenant (e.g., Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:1034:12, 70508;
Tigay, Deuteronomy, 27475). The renewal or repetition stressed that the covenant was binding
on the current generation of Israelites and the future generations, not just those who had been at
Horeb.
Deuteronomy 31 presents the transfer of leadership from Moses to Joshua. Moses handed the
written law over to the priests and the elders of Israel, commanding them to deposit it by the ark
of the covenant and read it every seven years at the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut 31:913). God
told Moses that the Israelites would break the covenant and forsake Him, so He commanded
Moses to write a song as a witness against the Israelites (Deut 31:1429).
Epilogue (32:134:12)
The epilogue in Deut 3234 contains both prose and poetry. The Song of Moses in Deut 32:143
is a poetic history of Gods faithfulness to Israel in spite of their disloyalty (see Tigay,
Deuteronomy, 29899, 50813). The song recounts Gods past blessings, Israels sinfulness,
Gods decision to punish Israel, and His plan to also deliver Israel and take vengeance on His
enemies. Following the song, Moses again entreats the Israelites to diligently observe Yahwehs
law (Deut 32:4447). Deuteronomy 32:4852 records Yahwehs instructions to Moses regarding
his death.
The Blessing of Moses in Deut 33:129 envisions a future for Israel where they are settled in
the land and living in harmony and prosperity due to their adherence to the law as Moses had
instructed. Deuteronomy ends with the narrative of Moses death on Mount Nebo, Israels
mourning for Moses, and their acceptance of Joshua as Moses successor (Deut 34:112).
Critical Issues
The book of Deuteronomy presents a unique set of problems for pentateuchal criticism. Theories
concerning the structure, date, origin, purpose, and literary development of Deuteronomy have

Page 4

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

fueled controversial debates in biblical studies since the early 19th century. The date of
composition has been linked to nearly every period in Israelite history from the time of Moses to
the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (for detailed bibliography up to the late 1960s, see Nicholson,
Deuteronomy and Tradition, 37). After Weinfelds study Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School in 1972, the focus of Deuteronomic studies shifted away from the historical question
since the affinities with seventh-century treaties were taken to be confirmation of the seventhcentury historical setting.
Scholars have attributed the authorship of the book to Moses, Samuel, Levitical groups,
priestly groups, or various prophetic circles (Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, 37). Each
theory of authorship is accompanied by a related opinion on the place of composition.
Deuteronomys origin has been attributed to every major sociopolitical institution or group in
ancient Israel and Judah including the royal court, the Jerusalem priesthood, wisdom schools,
and northern prophetic circles. Due to this proliferation of theories, No consensus exists
regarding the dating of Deuteronomy, the books compositional history, or the nature and extent
of its interactions with other biblical as well as non-biblical ancient Near Eastern texts
(Levinson and Stackert, Between the Covenant Code, 123).
Composition
Source critical analysis of Deuteronomy sought to isolate the components of the book in order to
identify the earliest material that made up the so-called Urdeuteronomium or protoDeuteronomy. Critical scholars working on Deuteronomy generally approach the final form of
the book as the product of a long and complex literary development. Determining the origin and
purpose of Deuteronomy requires identifying the stages of this development.
Several of Deuteronomys major subsections are usually combined in any argument for the
structure of Urdeuteronomium. For the most part, the central legal core of the book in chapters
1226 is considered to make up the bulk of Urdeuteronomium. For Wellhausen, this legal section
was the earliest material and formed the original D source by itself (Nicholson, Deuteronomy
and Tradition, 20). Wellhausen also resolved the issue of Deuteronomy having two introductory
sections by positing the existence of two parallel independent editions of the book. The first
edition consisted of Deut 1:14:44; 1226; and 27, and the second edition contained Deut 4:45
11:32; 1226; and 2830. The two editions shared the same legal core but had different historical
and hortatory frameworks, and a later redactor combined the two editions while the remaining
chapters were added even later (Nicholson, Pentateuch, 1516). Nicholson argued that
Urdeuteronomium likely consisted of Deut 526 with some of Deut 28 (Deuteronomy and
Tradition, 22).
In addition to identifying Urdeuteronomium as the legal code with introduction, some
scholars have drawn attention to the alternations in singular and plural address in the legal
material to isolate the original Deuteronomic layer (the singular addresses) from the
Deuteronomistic redaction (the plural addresses). This problem of alternating second-person
plural and singular address is commonly designated with the German term Numeruswechsel (see
Rmer, Deuteronomy, 18485). Using this criterion is problematic, however, since it is
impossible to isolate and remove the plural sections without doing irreparable damage to the
narrative (Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, 33). The only solution that allows one to still
attribute the plural portions to an original Deuteronomic layer is to posit that the redactor
replaced an original singular form at times with his own plural rendering (Nicholson,
Deuteronomy and Tradition, 34). This solution is not very satisfactory, being driven by the needs
of the theory rather than the evidence of the text, but it does serve to highlight the difficulty in
Page 5

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

isolating the stages in Deuteronomys development.

Deuteronomy and Ancient Near Eastern Treaties
It is generally agreed that Deuteronomy shares many similarities with ancient Near Eastern
treaties (for more information, see these articles: Covenant; Covenant, Critical Issues). The
Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties from the second millennium (ca. 14001200 BC) dealt with the
treaty relationship between the Hittite high king as a suzerain and his conquered or subject rulers
as vassals. In return for the kings military protection, the vassals pledged their submission to the
king. The ancient Near Eastern treaty format included the following components:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Preamble
Historical Prologue
General Stipulations
Specific Stipulations
Blessings and Curses
Instructions for Depositing and Reading the Text
Invocation of Witnesses

All components are rarely represented, though most are found in the Hittite treaties. The book of
Deuteronomy represents all seven components, which is often taken as evidence for its antiquity.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Preamble: Deut 1:15

Historical Prologue: Deut 1:64:49
General Stipulations: Deut 5:111:32
Specific Stipulations: Deut 12:126:19
Blessings and Curses: Deut 27:128:68
Instructions for Depositing and Reading the Text: Deut 27:110; 30:919
Invocation of Witnesses: Deut 30:19; 31:19; 32:143

Based on the structural similarities between the Hittite treaties and Deuteronomy, most
conservative scholars suggest that the writing of Deuteronomy must be dated in the Mosaic age
and that this dating verifies biblical and historical accuracy. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic School) made an extensive comparison between the content and structure of
Deuteronomy and the content and structure of the ancient Near Eastern treaty pattern. He
provided examples of Assyrian and Aramean treaties from the ninthseventh centuries BC that
exhibit this standard pattern and concluded that there was continuity in the traditional form of
state treaties in the ancient Near East from the time of the Hittite Empire down to the NeoAssyrian period (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 5961). However, Weinfeld saw
the strongest similarities with the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon (VTE) dating from 672 BC. He
proposed that the literary form of Deuteronomy is closer to those Neo-Assyrian treaties,
particularly Esarhaddons vassal treaties, than to the treaties in the mid-second millennium BC.
The treaties of Esarhaddon describe a series of 40 extensive curses invoking 22 deities by name
(Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, 199). Generally speaking, the Hittite treaties
show very brief and general descriptions of the curses in contrast to the extensive discussion of
the curses in Deuteronomy. Therefore the long and elaborate series of curses in Deuteronomy
follows the pattern of the Neo-Assyrian treaties. More recent scholarship has confirmed the
strong similarities between Deut 28 and Esarhaddons Succession Treaty and raised the
possibility of direct literary dependence (Levinson and Stackert, Between the Covenant Code,

Page 6

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

130).
Scholars skeptical of dating Deuteronomy to the mid-second millennium had discounted
Mendenhalls comparison of Deuteronomy with Hittite treaty patterns because the Hittite treaties
were deemed too distant in time from the composition of Deuteronomy to have influenced its
form (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 59). The discovery of
Esarhaddons treaty placed the treaty format firmly in the seventh century BCa more
acceptable date for the composition of Deuteronomy, according to critical scholars who
associated the book with Josiahs seventh-century reforms. Weinfeld was able to demonstrate
that Deuteronomy followed a contemporary treaty pattern and was not simply imitating older
ancient treaties. The major sections of this treaty pattern include the preamble, the historical
prologue, the stipulation of undivided allegiance, the treaty stipulations, the invocation of
witnesses, the blessings and curses, the oath-imprecation, the deposit of the treaty, and
provisions for its periodic reading. Every one of these major sections is found in Deuteronomy.
However, the first-millennium treaties typically lack several components that can be consistently
found in the Hittite treaties, such as the historical prologue, the blessings, and the disposition of
the treaty. The sequence of the treaty components in Deuteronomy is also more typical of the
Hittite treaties. For these reasons, Kitchen argues strongly that Deuteronomy and the Sinai
covenant belong to the second millennium (Kitchen, Reliability, 28485). Levinson and Stackert
argue just as strongly for Deuteronomys literary indebtedness to Esarhaddons Succession
Treaty, and they refute arguments for Deuteronomys connection to Hittite source material
(Levinson and Stackert, Between the Covenant Code, 12837).
It is also possible that Deuteronomy contains older traditions, even if it was edited later.
Rof, for example, sees the older treaty structure in the so-called covenant in the land of Moab
in Deut 29:130:20. He asserts that this passage reveals an astonishing structural similarity to
political treaties from, remarkably, the second millennium BCE, proving that an older tradition
underlies it (Rof, Deuteronomy, 3).
Historical Setting
Biblical scholars have argued for the following options for the historical setting of
Deuteronomys composition:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Mosaic authorship (mid-second millennium BC)

Early monarchy (tenthninth centuries BC)
Hezekiahs reform (late eighth/early seventh centuries BC)
Josiahs reform (late seventh century BC)
Exilic/postexilic period (mid- to late sixth century BC)

At the center of the most perennial debate on the book of Deuteronomy is its composition date.
Jerome and some other church fathers proposed that the book of the law discovered by Hilkiah
the high priest in the temple during the 18th year of King Josiahs reign was Deuteronomy (2
Kgs 22:8). However, it was not until 1805 that W. M. L. de Wette suggested a critical view that
Deuteronomy was written during Josiahs reign (about 621 BC) as religious propaganda for
legitimate religious reform by abolishing high places and constructing the centralization of
worship in Jerusalem and to reinforce Josiahs kingship as well as the official priesthood against
the idolatrous priests. This hypothesized link to Josiahs time provided Wellhausen with a
historical anchor for the relative dating of the pentateuchal sources (Wellhausen, Prolegomena).
The link between some form of Deuteronomy and Josiahs reform has been widely accepted
(Clements, Deuteronomy, 71). Often this is assumed to mean that Deuteronomy itself dates to the
Page 7

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

seventh century BC as a sort of propaganda document created to accompany the reform (Rmer,
Deuteronomy, 190). However, some of the elements of religious reform and nationalistic
fervor fit equally well with Hezekiahs reform (see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 51). Weinfeld
suggests, The main layout of the book existed long before [Josiahs] timethat is, at the time of
Hezekiah (Deuteronomy 111, 51).
Some early dissenters were primarily concerned with defending Mosaic authorship of
Deuteronomy and the entire Pentateuch (e.g., Bissell, The Independent Legislation of
Deuteronomy), but others as early as 1823 began arguing for the postexilic dating of
Deuteronomy (e.g., Gramberg; see Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, 1n4). The theory for
postexilic Deuteronomy also gained new life in 1923 through the work of Hlscher (Nicholson,
Deuteronomy and Tradition, 5; idem., Pentateuch, 48).
In 1924 Welch added another option for the historical setting: the 10th or 9th centuries BC in
the early monarchy, arguing for a northern prophetic origin for Deuteronomy (Welch, The Code
of Deuteronomy, 206). Welchs argument for an earlier date for Deuteronomy hinged on his
ability to remove centralization of worship as the key theme for the Deuteronomic legal code. He
believed that Deuteronomy reflects the northern conflict of Yahwism versus Baalism that so
permeates the narrative of Joshua2 Kings and the preaching of the northern prophets such as
Hosea and Amos. The affinity of Deuteronomy with the northern prophetic tradition can be
observed by comparing the book with Hosea, who emphasized the covenant with Yahweh and
disparaged the Israelites apostasy as they worshiped Baal (Hos 2). Similarly, the Prophet Amos
was mainly critical of the manner of worship at the northern shrine of Bethel (Amos 7).
Therefore, Deuteronomys concern for places of worship had to do with the places character,
not their location or multiplicity. Welch concluded that Deuteronomy was the outcome and one
expression of that religious and national movement which rose in Benjamin and Ephraim, and
which in its beginning is associated with the person of Samuel (Welch, The Code of
Deuteronomy, 206).
In 1928 a symposium on The Problem of Deuteronomy published in the Journal of Biblical
Literature set out to evaluate these challenges to the currently accepted seventh-century BC date
(see Bewer, Case for the Early Date; Dahl, Case for the Currently Accepted Date; Paton,
Case for the Post-Exilic Origin). Welchs theory met with a number of difficulties. For
instance, it was no small task to remove centralization of worship from Deuteronomy because it
has been read as mandating that very thing since its earliest interpreters in the Deuteronomistic
History. His main argument required acceptance of two improbable hypotheses: first, that
centralization was only found in Deut 12:17 and could be removed as secondary, and second,
that the phrase ( bmqwm 'shrybchr yhwh b'chd
shbtyk, the place which YHWH shall choose in one of your tribes) from Deut 12:14 can be
legitimately read as any place which YHWH shall choose in any one of your tribes (Bewer,
Case for the Early Date, 308). The second hypothesis is the basis for his whole theory, because
if it is incorrect, then centralization is clearly evident in Deuteronomy outside of Deut 12:17.
Welchs translation defies common expected usage in biblical Hebrew. If one wanted to express

( kl).
Therefore, we would expect Deuteronomy to say
the distributive aspect as desired by Welch, the easiest way to say it is by using

(bklmqwm 'shrybchr yhwh bkl shbtyk) if the writers were trying to indicate any place among
any of your tribes. Therefore, Welch failed to adequately establish his argument regarding the
early date of Deuteronomy (Bewer, Case for the Early Date, 321).

Page 8

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

Paton answered the challenge of a postexilic date. Hlscher felt that Deuteronomy
represented an idealization of Israelite religion that was the product of thinkers in the exile who
were unable to put it into practice (Paton, Case for the Post-Exilic Origin, 323). The primary
goal of the postexilic date theory was to separate Deuteronomy from the historical account of
Josiahs reform in 2 Kgs 2223. Many creative solutions were offered to accomplish this,
including rejection of the historicity of the 2 Kings narrative, which meant claiming that history
was rewritten to make it look like Josiahs law book was Deuteronomy (Paton, Case for the
Post-Exilic Origin, 32627). A few claimed the account was completely fictional, but this idea
gained little support. Paton concluded that no convincing evidence had been produced for a
postexilic origin and that de Wettes thesis still stood (Case for the Post-Exilic Origin, 357).
In the final segment of the symposium in 1928, Dahl reiterated the arguments for the thesis
connecting Deuteronomy with Josiahs reform (Case for the Currently Accepted Date). The
connection rests on six tenets (see Dahl, Case for the Currently Accepted Date, 36163):
1. Deuteronomy, either in whole or in part, was compiled in the century preceding Josiahs
reforms that are described in 2 Kgs 2223 and date to 621 BC.
2. Deuteronomy was the immediate stimulus of the reform, serving as the reform program.
3. Deuteronomy is essentially a prophetic work, not a priestly one.
4. Deuteronomy presents an ideal program, not a formally adopted legal code.
5. Deuteronomys primary demand is the centralization of worship at the Jerusalem temple.
6. Deuteronomy contains older legal material combined with an innovative reform platform and
with material added subsequent to the reform and the exile.
While the details of these six tenets have been modified in the years since 1928, they represent
the scholarly consensus on the historical setting of Deuteronomy first articulated by Wellhausen
and not substantially changed until the work of Noth, von Rad, Nicholson, Weinfeld, and others.
The changes brought about by the work of these later scholars, however, did not fundamentally
alter the association of Deuteronomy with the law book that influenced Josiahs reform in the
late seventh century BC. Their work resulted in a more nuanced understanding of the complex
literary development of Deuteronomy and its relation to other biblical literature, including the
Pentateuch, the Latter Prophets, and the Deuteronomistic History. Their contributions primarily
dealt with issues of social settingthe who, where, and why of Deuteronomys originwhile
the historical setting was firmly established in the seventh century BC, between the time of
Hezekiah and the time of Josiah.
The critical consensus is generally that Deuteronomy was composed in the seventh century
BC and may have made use of northern traditions. Following the exile, additional material was
added and the book reached its final form. Northern traditions made the transition south into
Judah after the fall of Samaria in 722 BC and may have influenced religious reform in Judah,
providing an ideological ground for affirming the primacy of the Jerusalem temple. During the
deportation of Judah under Babylon in 586 BC, the Deuteronomistic school interpreted the
national disaster as the result of the Israelites disobedience to Yahweh, so they added Deut 27
28. Once the Jews returned to Jerusalem and began to build the second temple, Deut 14; 2930
were added to contextualize their current situation through the story of the Israelites entry into
the promised land. A Deuteronomistic editor finally gathered all the chapters and arranged them
in the frame of covenant treaties.
Josiahs reform is so strongly associated with Deuteronomy because Josiahs actions taken in
response to hearing the book of the law align very closely with Deuteronomic regulations and

Page 9

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

are as follows:
Demolish the local places of worship and do not worship in that manner (Deut 12:24; 2 Kgs
23:420).
Worship, including observation of the Passover, must take place at the central sanctuary
(Deut 12:57; 16:17; 2 Kgs 23:2122; compare Exod 12).
Eliminate soothsayers and diviners (Deut 18:14; 2 Kgs 23:24).
Josiahs law book apparently included curses and punishments for violating the law that
alarmed him (2 Kgs 22:13, 19; Deut 2728).
Kings are to rule with reference to a scroll of the law (Deut 17:1819; 2 Kgs 22:11; 23:23).
Josiahs law book was a scroll of the covenant (2 Kgs 23:2), and Deuteronomy presents
itself as a covenant (Deut 5:3; 29:1).
However, these correspondences between Deuteronomy and Josiahs behaviors do not prove
conclusively that Deuteronomy was written during Josiahs reign. Rather, they demonstrate that
Josiah was heavily influenced by the theology of Deuteronomy. Using centralization of worship
as a dating criterion has also been challenged since Deuteronomy never explicitly identifies the
place that Yahweh will choose as Jerusalem. In fact, the only sanctuary mentioned in the book
may be Shechem, right next to Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim. Shechem was an important
center in the northern kingdom of Israel; the site was one of the Levitical cities of refuge (Josh
20:7) and the location where Joshua led Israel in renewing their commitment to Yahwehs
covenant after the conquest (Josh 24:1432). There was a shrine of Yahweh there (Josh 24:26),
and Rehoboam, son of Solomon, traveled there to be acclaimed king of Israel after Solomons
death (1 Kgs 12:1). If Deuteronomy was composed in the seventh century BC, it is difficult to
understand why the book does not hint at Jerusalem as the central sanctuary more explicitly and
only alludes to a northern shrine like Shechem. Deuteronomys attitude toward kingship also
raises issues for viewing the book as a program for reinforcing Josiahs kingship. For example,
Deuteronomy 17:1418 clearly states that it is not the king but Yahweh who has the ultimate
power; the Israelite king should be chosen by the only God, and his kingship should be
established by the Israelites. Moreover, the king is cautioned to show restraint and not multiply
horses, or gold and silver, or even wives.
Social Setting
The debate over the historical setting of Deuteronomy gave way somewhat when the focus of
study shifted to the search for the social setting of its earliest traditions. This focus was part of
the contribution of G. von Rad to Deuteronomic studies (von Rad, Deuteronomy; Das
formgeschichtliche). Von Rad and others used the methods of form criticism and tradition
history to make observations about the covenant structure of the book and its relation to northern
Israelite traditions.
The Deuteronomic law is set within a framework of exhortation and admonition, and the
function of the law code should be understood as subordinate to that framework which
determines the goals of the book as a whole. With this understanding, von Rad situated
Deuteronomy in a religious setting because he believed the sermon-like style of Deuteronomy
represented messages actually delivered orally at religious ceremonies; he recognized the literary
nature of the messages in Deuteronomy, but he still believed they originated in religious
addresses, orally perfecting style and technique before being written (von Rad, Old Testament
Theology, 72).
Weinfeld, on the other hand, argued that these orations were literary programmatic
Page 10

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

creations similar to the programmatic speech-making of the ancient Greek historians, and he
rejected the notion of a religious origin for the orations (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School, 5153).
Von Rad began his analysis of the forms of Deuteronomy by looking at the historical credo
statements such as Deut 26:5b9 (Das formgeschichtliche). These historical summaries
represented the beginning of the traditionthe earliest expression of communal confession and
covenant renewal linked to early Israelite worship. Later scholarship has come to see these
historical credos as summary statements reflecting the later development of the tradition, rather
than as the earliest statements of the tradition (Nicholson, Pentateuch, 8990).
Weinfeld set the literary origin of the book of Deuteronomy among scribal schools of the
seventh century BC who were also responsible for the Deuteronomistic History. His conclusion
on the social setting for Deuteronomy was closely related to his conclusion on the historical
setting derived from his studies of the ancient Near Eastern treaty format (Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School). Weinfelds stress on a Deuteronomic school led to
further studies attempting to identify other work by the same school in the Old Testament. These
studies have led to more controversy involving Deuteronomys possible influence on other
biblical texts and traditions (for a discussion of the issues with the bibliography, see Person, The
Deuteronomic School).
Attempts to place Deuteronomy in its original social setting are met with two apparently
conflicting strands of evidence concerning who was responsible for the composition of the book.
On the one hand, Deuteronomy shows a number of affinities with northern Israelite prophetic
traditions, so the composition of Deuteronomy may be placed either in the north or among
northerners who have moved south to Judah (e.g., as argued by Welch, von Rad, and Nicholson).
On the other hand, Deuteronomys origin should perhaps be sought in the south in Judah because
of its connection to Josiah and the monarchy; its awareness of the workings of the Jerusalem
temple; and its focus on the templethe object of the reform program of centralized worship
(see Clements, Deuteronomy and the Jerusalem Cult Tradition; Nicholson, Centralisation of
the Cult in Deuteronomy).
The evidence of northern origin is most strongly seen first in Deuteronomys affinities to the
Elohist source that is commonly argued to have a northern origin. The most noticeable
correspondence between them is Deuteronomys use of the designation Horeb instead of the
Yahwists Sinai in reference to the mountain of God in the wilderness. Second, Deuteronomy
has affinities with the northern prophets, especially Hosea. Welch had noted this as part of his
overall argument for Deuteronomys northern origin (Code of Deuteronomy, 3234). Finally,
Deuteronomys polemic against foreign idols fits a northern context better (von Rad,
Deuteronomy, 26).
Von Rad also argued for the northern origin of Deuteronomy by tracing his proposed
religious origin of the tradition of the covenant renewal festival to the northern shrine of
Shechem (Das formsgeschichtliche, 4143). Nicholson built on von Rads argument
(Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition), but both he and von Rad had been heavily influenced
by Noths model of Israelite origins within an amphictyonic tribal league. Noths theory has
since been rejected, and without it, most of Nicholsons argument for Deuteronomys original
setting among northern Israelite prophetic circles is reduced to mere speculation.
However, some of the evidence still stands separate from the amphictyonic model. Affinities
with the Elohist and Hosea do suggest a northern background for some of the earliest traditions
found in Deuteronomy. The problem is that the possible northern origin of the traditions is often

Page 11

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

confused with the likelihood of a northern origin for the written composition that became
Deuteronomy. Since it has northern traditions, it must have been written in the north and brought
down to Judah, or it must have been written by northern prophets or priests or Levites who
moved to Judah. Nicholson concluded the authors of Deuteronomy were likely part of a northern
prophetic circle that fled south to Judah after 721 BC (Deuteronomy and Tradition, 101102). No
one would deny the evidence that northerners moved south after the catastrophe of 722 BC
(Weinfeld, Emergence, 90). They probably brought their literature and traditions with them,
and somehow these influenced the writers of Deuteronomy. It is not a necessary step to say that
they themselves were the writers of Deuteronomy. Clements, for example, argued that
Deuteronomy was composed in Jerusalem by descendants of the priesthoods of the Northern
shrines (Clements, Deuteronomy and the Jerusalem Cult Tradition, 309). Several scholars,
including von Rad, have argued for Deuteronomys origin among northern Levitical groups, but
this theory has been thoroughly critiqued and rejected by Nicholson (Deuteronomy and
Tradition, 7376) and Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 5358;
DeuteronomyThe Present State of Inquiry, 25153).
The strongest evidence for a Jerusalem origin of Deuteronomy is the issue of the
centralization of worship. This issue is an important problem for the theory of northern origin,
especially among prophetic circles, because nowhere is centralization an issue for the northern
prophets (Nicholson, Centralisation of the Cult, 382). The origin of the book should be sought
among groups in Judah for whom centralization was a driving issue. Weinfeld believed that the
authors of Deuteronomy should be sought among those who held public office and had access to
a large body of literature (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 177). Weinfelds stress
on the literary aspects of Deuteronomys composition and his belief that only government
officials would have had access to literature sufficient to explain the influences on Deuteronomy
led to his conclusion that the book is the product of a Jerusalem scribal school associated with
the royal court. The strong literary parallels with ancient Near Eastern treaties are typically used
to support his hypothesis.
The Jerusalem scribal school theory also accounts for the northern background of the
traditions, as the scribes would have had access to the written sources. Deuteronomy reflects the
nationalistic and patriotic fervor of the times of HezekiahJosiah (Weinfeld, Emergence, 91;
Deuteronomy 111, 5053). The purpose of the book was the education of the king and his
people (Weinfeld, Emergence, 96). However, both Weinfeld and Nicholson acknowledge that
while Deuteronomy was influential in Josiahs reform, it was not necessarily composed
specifically for that reform (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 164;
Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, 16). It may have had its beginnings in the earlier reform
of Hezekiah (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 164). As Levinson has
argued, Deuteronomy presented a radically innovative transformation of legal traditions to effect
fundamental changes in Israelite religion and society (Levinson, Deuteronomy and the
Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation). The most likely impetus for the movement toward reform
was the fall of the northern kingdom in 722 BC.
Deuteronomys Influence on Other Old Testament Books
Deuteronomys ideology and expression had an apparent influence on other Old Testament
books, but the extent of this influence is debated (see Schearing and McKenzie, Those Elusive
Deuteronomists). This influence is often attributed to the work of the Deuteronomic School (or
Deuteronomistic School), building on the work of Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic School). Deuteronomistic redaction is sought in the rest of the Pentateuch, and the
Page 12

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

work of the Deuteronomistic School is sought in the Former Prophets, the Latter Prophets, and
Wisdom literature. Noth demonstrated Deuteronomys relationship to the Deuteronomistic
History (Deuteronomistic History, 18), and Weinfeld has offered convincing examples for
Deuteronomys relationship to Wisdom literature (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 6265).
Deuteronomistic redaction in GenesisNumbers is debated, and conclusions about the presence
of Deuteronomic ideology in those books hinge largely on arguments concerning how the texts
relate chronologically (e.g., whether the laws of the Covenant Code from Exodus were written
before or after Deuteronomy; see Van Seters, Pentateuch, 88).
Deuteronomic Redaction in GenesisNumbers. Deuteronomys relationship with Genesis
Numbers and the source documents J, E, and P has undergone a number of important shifts
leading up to modern-day scholarship on the Pentateuch. Noth believed there was no
Deuteronomistic editing evident at all in the Tetrateuch (GenesisNumbers; Deuteronomistic
History, 28). He also claimed little was evident of J, E, or P in Deuteronomy or in the
Deuteronomistic History. Von Rad, on the other hand, saw Deuteronomy as an important link in
the formation of the Hexateuch (a collection encompassing GenesisJoshua), a necessary
requirement to his conception of the Hexateuch as salvation history. More recently, scholars
have argued for D redaction in GenesisNumbers (see Nicholson, Pentateuch, 98100). One of
the main areas where many scholars saw the work of a D redactor was in the Sinai narrative,
especially Exod 1924; 3234 (Nicholson, Pentateuch, 24; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 18397).
Other scholars point to those same passages in Exodus (especially the Covenant Code in Exod
2123) and argue for Deuteronomys dependence on the Covenant Code, claiming Deuteronomy
revised those laws (see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 1924; Levinson, Deuteronomy and the
Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 1113). However, Deuteronomistic redaction, if it exists at
all, appears to be very minimal. The various stages of literary development in Deuteronomy
show a remarkable unity of style, language, and theology. There are few, if any, clear examples
in Deuteronomy of the presence of the pentateuchal source documents so fundamental to the
composition of GenesisNumbers.
Deuteronomy shows little dependence on or even awareness of P as a source in either its
legal material or its historical narrative (Dahl, Case for the Currently Accepted Date, 36768).
Whenever Deuteronomy shows affinities with the other sources of the Pentateuch, it is always
with J and E material (Nicholson, Pentateuch, 17). The law code with the most similarity to
Deuteronomy is the Covenant Code of Exodus 2123, which is JE material (Dahl, Case for the
Currently Accepted Date, 367). The historical material in Deuteronomy 511 presupposes JE
material from Exod 1934, but not P material (Nicholson, Pentateuch, 22). Other examples are
given to make the point that Deuteronomy shows no evidence of awareness of P but makes
extensive use of material identified as J or E (see Dahl, Case for the Currently Accepted Date).
No consensus yet exists on the relationship of D to the other books of the Pentateuch.
However, the evidence for a layer of D redaction in GenesisNumbers or a final D redactor
tying the Pentateuch together is unconvincing. The study of innerbiblical exegesis in
Deuteronomy looks promising because it provides an answer for the fundamental question of
why anyone would want to write a second version of the law.
Levinson argues for the chronological priority of the Covenant Code and the literary
dependence of Deuteronomy on that earlier material (Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of
Legal Innovation, 613). In contrast to Deuteronomistic redaction in this section, Levinson
argues that nothing in the theology, language, or style of the Covenant Code justifies the
conclusion of textual dependence on Deuteronomy or a D redactor (Deuteronomy and the
Page 13

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 1112). Levinson demonstrates how the authors of

Deuteronomy were interpreting, not editing, the Covenant Code. This critique stands for the
other supposedly Deuteronomic passages outside of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch. There is
nothing that makes them distinctly Deuteronomic in origin. Furthermore, if a D redactor was
responsible for a systematic redaction of GenesisNumbers, one would expect a preponderance
of Deuteronomic style such as is unmistakable in the Deuteronomistic History. Deuteronomy is
transforming the legal tradition that it has received. Since Deuteronomy presents a law intended
to replace, not complement, any earlier code (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 19), the idea of
Deuteronomic redaction of the Pentateuch becomes highly questionable. What motivation would
the Deuteronomists have for editing together the Pentateuch when their programmatic revision of
Israelite religion had already been written?
The conclusion follows that the author of Deuteronomy was working with pentateuchal
material that he was unable to directly reshape, so he transformed it into a new document
intended to bring about unprecedented change while at the same time borrowing the textual
authority of earlier traditions (Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal
Innovation, 16).
Deuteronomistic History. Martin Noth orchestrated a shift in the way the book of Deuteronomy
was viewed in relation to the rest of the Pentateuch with his work on JoshuaKings. Noth
argued that Deuteronomy was more appropriately connected to the Deuteronomistic History
(DtrH) in Joshua2 Kings than to the Pentateuch (Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 1317).
Deuteronomy served as the introduction to the history, not as the conclusion to the Pentateuch.
He claimed that the opening chapters of Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut 13 or 4) served as the
introduction to the Deuteronomistic History. The significance of his contribution was that the
independence of Deuteronomy from the other Pentateuchal sources was highlighted, and the
relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History was brought into focus (for
further discussion of Deuteronomy within the framework of the Deuteronomistic History, see
Campbell and OBrien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History).
Wisdom Literature. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School) also explored the
formal connections between Deuteronomy and Wisdom literature, noting many similar concepts
and similar phrasing. These similarities do not prove any developed literary dependence between
Deuteronomy and wisdom texts such as Proverbs, but they serve to strengthen Weinfelds
association of the scribal schools responsible for Deuteronomic literature with the educated royal
court sages.
Weinfeld found parallels with the ancient Near Eastern wisdom tradition in general, not just
with biblical wisdom books such as Proverbs or Ecclesiastes. For example, the phrase
abomination of YHWH is only found in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy and Proverbs, but
similar phrasing is found in Mesopotamian and Egyptian wisdom texts (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy
111, 62). The parallels are evident in phrasing and in concepts.
Prov 20:10

Deut 25:1316

Amenemope 18.1519.3

Unequal weights and unequal

measures are both alike an
abomination to the LORD
(ESV).

You shall not have in your

bag two kinds of weights, a
large and a small. You shall
not have in your house two
kinds of measures, a large

Beware of disguising the

measure, so as to falsify its
fractions; do not force it to
overflow, nor let its belly
be
empty.
Measure
Page 14

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

and a small. A full and fair

weight you shall have, a full
and fair measure you shall
have, that your days may be
long in the land that the
LORD your God is giving
you. For all who do such
things,
all
who
act
dishonestly,
are
an
abomination to the LORD
your God (ESV).

according to its true size,

your hand clearing exactly.
Do not make a bushel of
twice its size, for then you
are headed for the abyss.
The bushel is the Eye of
Re, it abhors him who
trims; a measurer who
indulges in cheating, his
Eye seals (the verdict)
against him (AEL, 2:157).

In Proverbs, Deuteronomy, and Amenemope, dishonesty in weights and measures is something

the deity abhors. The advice about making vows in Eccl 5 is also paralleled in Deuteronomys
laws.
Deut 23:2223
Eccl 5:2, 45 (ESV)
But if you refrain from vowing, you will not
be guilty of sin. You shall be careful to do
what has passed your lips, for you have
voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God
what you have promised with your mouth
(ESV).

Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your

heart be hasty to utter a word before God,
for God is in heaven and you are on earth.
Therefore let your words be few. When
you vow a vow to God, do not delay
paying it, for he has no pleasure in fools.
Pay what you vow. It is better that you
should not vow than that you should vow
and not pay (ESV).

Related Articles
For more information, see these articles: Deuteronomy, Book of; Deuteronomistic History;
Documentary Hypothesis; Covenant; Covenant, Critical Issues; Source Criticism; Deuteronomic
Source; Torah.
Bibliography
Bissell, E. C. The Independent Legislation of Deuteronomy. Journal of the Society of Biblical
Literature and Exegesis 3 (1883): 6789.
Bewer, Julius A. The Case for the Early Date of Deuteronomy. Journal of Biblical Literature
47 (1928): 30521.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New
York: Doubleday, 1992.
Campbell, Antony F. and Mark A. OBrien. Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins,
Upgrades, Present Text. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.
Christensen, D. L. Deuteronomy 121:9. Word Biblical Commentary 6A. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 2001.
. Deuteronomy in Modern Research: Approaches and Issues, Pages 317 in A Song of
Power and the Power of Song. Edited by D. L. Christensen. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,

Page 15

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

1993.
Clements, R. E. Deuteronomy. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
. Deuteronomy and the Jerusalem Cult Tradition. Vetus Testamentum 15 (1965): 300
12.
Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Dahl, George. The Case for the Currently Accepted Date of Deuteronomy. Journal of Biblical
Literature 47 (1928): 35879.
Driver, Samuel R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1895.
Kaufmann, S. A. The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law. Maarav 1 (197879): 10558.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Kline, Meredith G. The Treaty of the Great King. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.
Kugler, Robert A. The Deuteronomists and the Latter Prophets. Pages 12744 in Those Elusive
Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Schearing and
Steven L. McKenzie. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1997.
Levinson, Bernard M. and Jeffrey Stackert. Between the Covenant Code and Esarhaddons
Succession Treaty. Journal of Ancient Judaism 3 (2012): 12340.
Merrill, Eugene H. The Book of Deuteronomy. New American Commentary. Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 1994.
Nicholson, Ernest W. The Centralisation of the Cult in Deuteronomy. Vetus Testamentum 13,
(1963): 38089.
. Deuteronomy and Tradition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1967.
. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1998.
Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.
. The Deuteronomistic History. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.
Paton, Lewis Bayles. The Case for the Post-Exilic Origin of Deuteronomy. Journal of Biblical
Literature 47 (1928): 32257.
Person, Raymond F., Jr. The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002.
Rad, Gerhard von. Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch. Pages 986 in
Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. 4th ed. Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1971.
. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966.
. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 1. New York: HarperCollins, 1962.
Rendtorff, Rolf. The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch. Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1990.
. The Paradigm is Changing: Hopesand Fears. Biblical Interpretation 1 (1993): 34
53.
Rof, Alexander. Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretations. London: T&T Clark, 2002.
Rmer, Thomas. The Book of Deuteronomy. Pages 178212 in History of Israels Traditions:
The Heritage of Martin Noth. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Schearing, Linda S. and Steven L. McKenzie, eds. Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The

Page 16

Mangum, Douglas. Deuteronomy, Book of, Critical Issues. In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry.
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Thompson, J. A. Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament
Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1974.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1996.
Van Seters, John. The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 2004.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 111: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
Anchor Bible 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
. The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents. Pages
7698 in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by Norbert
Lohfink. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985.
. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.
. DeuteronomyThe Present State of Inquiry. Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967):
24962.
Welch, Adam Cleghorn. The Code of Deuteronomy: A New Theory of Its Origin. New York:
George H. Doran, 1924.
. Deuteronomy, the Framework to the Code. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932.
Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. New York: Meridian, 1957.
Wiseman, D. J. The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, Iraq 20, no. 1 (1958): 199.
DOUGLAS MANGUM

Page 17