Deuteronomy And The Deuteronomic School -- By: Robert P. Gordon

Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 25:1 (NA 1974)
Article: Deuteronomy And The Deuteronomic School
Author: Robert P. Gordon


Deuteronomy And The Deuteronomic School*

R. P. Gordon

* A review of M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1972).

Weinfeld’s volume, embodying the results of approximately fifteen years’ study of the Deuteronomic literature, admirably combines treatment of the ancient extra-Biblical material with discussion of modern literature on the subject. The mise en scène remains more a matter of assumption than of argument: Deuteronomy was composed in the latter half of the seventh century BC; the Deuteronomic history assumed definite shape early in the sixth century; the Deuteronomic prose portions in Jeremiah came later (pace Bright), in the second half of the sixth century. There are three main divisions in the book, covering typology (by far the longest section), ideology, and affinities with wisdom literature. Appendices (‘Deuteronomic Phraseology’ and ‘Hosea and Deuteronomy’), glossaries and indexes account for almost a third of the entire work. Weinfeld’s thesis is that Deuteronomy originated in the scribal schools of Hezekiah and Josiah but, to quote words more easily transcribed than paraphrased, his major preoccupation is with ‘the Sitz im Leben of deuteronomic creation rather than its historical setting’ (p. viii).

Orations are an important typological element in the Deuteronomic literature. These do not reflect actual cultic situations, but are regarded as ‘programmatic compositions drafted by scribes’ (p. 8). Four types of oration are distinguished —valedictory, prophetic, liturgical and military. Valedictory addresses normally conclude the biographies of national leaders; where no such opportunity for homiletics existed editorial summaries of significant periods had to suffice. In Deuteronomic hands the prophetic oracle widened its purview to deal with dynastic fortunes and not just the fates of individual kings. Thus two levels are discernible in the prophecies made about Ahab’s death (pp. 18ff.); the earlier source was concerned with retribution for the murder of Naboth (1 Ki. 21:17–20a), while the Deuteronomist was more interested in punishment for Ahab on account of cultic sins (verses 10b–26). Also involved

here is a new concept of retribution, for the earlier tradition (underlying verses 27–29) spoke of the transference of Ahab’s blood-guilt to his son, whereas the Deuteronomic version sees vengeance inflicted upon Ahab in person (ch. 22:35b, 38), with Joram’s death the decreed end of an e...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()