Deuteronomy

To what extent can we describe Deuteronomy as a covenant text?

The book of Deuteronomy commands a diverse array of opinions as to how it should be conceived of as a text.  When looking at the question concerned it is presumed that by covenant text it is meant that the form resembles the structure of a covenant/treaty text, most notable documents of similarity are those of the ancient Near-East (ANE) (Pritchard, 1955, 201-205 cf. Arnold and Beyer, 2002, 97-103).  In establishing to what extent that Deuteronomy may be described as a covenant text it would be logical then to look at how covenant is defined in the ANE, then conducting a search for parallels in form between the biblical text and a number of other texts from the ANE that are firmly set within this formulary.  This will provide a basis for understanding the affinities between form, but then also provide a springboard from which differences between form may be observed and how some, if any aspects of the document may have been drawn from other forms.  A weighing up of the evidence will then be conducted and so granting an accurate conclusion concerning this question. 

Theological consequences of culturally diverse covenant/treaty formularies

Firstly, it is important to note the theological consequences of ANE treaty formularies particular to different cultures and to how they define covenant.  The ANE treaties of significant concern within scholarly discussion in the area of Deuteronomy are the Hittite and Assyrian treaties.  Despite the Hittite and Assyrian texts being similar in form, there are subtle differences.  Assyrian treaties focus on curses and ignore the concept of blessings amongst other things (Craigie, 1976, 26).  This may, prima facie, not appear as wholly relevant; however the absence of blessings encapsulates the vehemence of Assyrian treaty form in contrast to that of the Hittite treaty style. Thus, the concept of covenant relationship differs from culture to culture.  It is clear then, that the peculiarities of different treaty formularies in respect to different cultures must give way to theological consequences concerning parallels that might be found in Deuteronomy.  Therefore ‘covenant text’ is a somewhat loose definition, indeed if parallels are found between Deuteronomy and Hittite texts alone,  the theological nature of Deuteronomy might be entirely different than if parallels had been found in Assyrian forms. It would be wise then to bear this in mind in continuing the investigation as it plays a significant role in the interpretation of Deuteronomy.

Parallels

What parallels can be seen between the covenant/treaty texts of the ANE and the book of Deuteronomy and what reason have we to think that Deuteronomy is in any extent to be described as a covenant text?  The form of ANE covenant/treaty texts has been widely understood by a number of scholars as generally consisting of; ‘1)  preamble; 2) historical prologue; 3) general stipulations; 4) specific stipulations; 5) witnesses; and 6) blessings and curses’ (McConville, 2002, 24 cf. Woods, 2011, 44).  Some have postulated, perhaps over enthusiastically, an almost identical match between the structure of Deuteronomy and of the Hittite covenant/treaty texts (Currid, 2006, 18).  Indeed, these similarities can be seen from the very beginning of Deuteronomy. Initiating with, “These are the words that Moses spoke…” (Deut. 1:1) the text might be paralleled with the treaty between Hattusilis and Ramses II, “These are the words of Rea-mashesha mai Amana…” (Pritchard, 1955, 202) and again with the treaty between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub of Amurru, “These are the words of the Sun Mursilis…” (Arnold and Beyer, 2002, 98).  In any case, similarities from the very beginning of Deuteronomy with Hittite covenant/treaty texts are clearly recognisable.  It could be argued that the similarity of form and vocabulary is sustained throughout the document (Currid, 2006, 13-24). As with the preamble, the historical prologue is in both Deuteronomy and the Hittite documents remarkably similar (Deut.1:6-4:49) (Pritchard, 1955, 203-204).  Moreover, Weinfeld (1991, 6-8 cf. Rofe, 2002, 228) argues rather convincingly for Deuteronomy’s direct dependence on ANE Assyrian covenant/treaty texts, particularly through the consideration of the pericope concerned with curses and the oath sworn concerning Israel’s covenant with YHWH at Deut. 28:15-68; 29:10-12.  The list of parallel blessings and curses that are present in ANE Hittite covenant/treaty texts should be noted, as in Deuteronomy the prospect of an identical, or at least very similar form is also present, giving the hypothesis of a recognisable covenant/treaty form within the book greater credence (Rofe, 2002, 228).  A specific case of this parallelism may be noticed at Deut.28:7 which is then mirrored in the form of a curse at Deut.28:25.

Parallel purpose?

 Related to this is the purpose of Deuteronomy. Generally, at its most base, Deuteronomy is conceived of as being concerned with the renewal of the covenant relationship between Israel and YHWH and Israel’s search for what it means to be the “community of God’s people” (Craigie, 1976, 7).  Thus a formulary concerned with such a relationship should probably be expected in Deuteronomy.  Indeed, “the crucial theological category of Deuteronomy’s programme was that of the covenant…” (McConville, 2002, 20).  The covenant and the concept of covenant/treaty form is therefore fundamental to our understanding of the Book of Deuteronomy.

Differences

It seems that up until now the exegete is justified in concluding that the book of Deuteronomy is, without a doubt, a perfect representation of Hittite covenant form and to some extent, the Assyrian form also.  Having discussed the similarities between Deuteronomy and a number of ANE treaties it is now appropriate to search for differences.  The previous section may leave one with great enthusiasm for the presence of a covenant/treaty formulary in Deuteronomy.  Thus it may now be surprising to hear that this avenue has been declared by some scholars as “a dead-end” (Nicholson, 1993, 87) and that “It is clear that Deuteronomy is not in itself simply the text of a treaty.” (Wright, 1996, 2) and can only be so in a “mutilated form” (Von Rad, 1966, 23).  Nicholson (1993, 87) points out that the reduction of Deuteronomy to the form of covenant/treaty alone is a grave mistake. The presence of covenant/treaty form, then, is already to be doubted. Brueggemann (2001, 17) expresses his reservations in only applying the structure of covenant formulations to the second speech of Moses (Deut.4:44-29:1).  Indeed at Deut.29 it appears as if this whole formulary begins again.  Also, the ANE covenant/treaty form, particularly the vehemence of Assyrian types, does not come close relationally in comparison to what can be seen in Deuteronomy (Nicholson, 1993, 87).  A covenant formulary, therefore, simply will not suffice in trying to communicate the theological ideas and structure represented in Deuteronomy as a whole.  This is quite apparent in that, on inspection, Deuteronomy is very much different in length and purpose from the treaties of the ANE.  For scholars have recognised elements that are not to be found in ANE covenant/treaty texts. It has been said that Deuteronomy can be conceived of as a national constitution (McBride, 1993, 63-64), and bears remarkable similarities with the law code of Hammurapi (Woods, 2011, 44). Such divergence from the covenant/treaty form cannot be explained within that form alone, indeed the exhortation of the Decalogue recorded in Deut.5:6-21, and the extent of the casuistic law that follows is quite alien to ANE covenant/treaty texts.  The extent to which this law is expounded in Deuteronomy is therefore best explained by the influence upon the author(s) from ANE law codes (Wenham, 2003, 125).  The casuistic law of Deuteronomy is mirrored in the law code of Hammurapi, concerning witnesses, “ if he [the seignior] did not produce witnesses…since the seignior was a cheat, he shall be put to death.” (Pritchard, 1955, 166), likewise statements of casuistic law concerning witnesses are found at Deut.19:15-21.  Laws concerning agriculture, land, theft and homicide are also mentioned in both texts (Pritchard, 1955, 166-180) (Deut.22;7;26;24;21) and so a good deal of common ground can be observed.

Diversity

 In affirming this, however, one should not then deduce that Deuteronomy is a static amalgamation of two forms of text alone.  This description, despite being to a certain extent accurate is somewhat disagreeable and scholars acknowledge this (McConville, 2002, 24, cf. Woods, 2011, 46).  Indeed, the wealth of formulary diversity within Deuteronomy is overwhelmingly clear.  Deuteronomy also contains aspects of poetical and musical artistry (Christensen, 2001, lxxxvi) and the presence of affinities with ‘wisdom literature’ has also been postulated (Brekelmans, 1993, 125).  The entire document is ordered in a chiasmus (Christensen, 2001, xciii), which sets the book in a memorable form.  This concentric structure is then echoed in smaller sections throughout, Deut.5:12-15 for example (Nelson, 2002 , 82).  One would not at all expect such rhetorical mastery to be found in what might have been deemed simply, a ‘covenant/treaty text’ and ‘law code’ combination.  Deuteronomy is not just a form of legal documentation, but a piece of theological coherence and artistry.  It attempts to be a clear and memorable theological statement of covenant through the use of lyrical elements, as can be seen in the song of Moses (Deut.33:2-29), a call to observance of the law and obedience to YHWH (Deut.28:1).  All of these genres and lyrical references are then set in a homiletic of Moses (McConville, 2002, 19), and the sermonizing again adds a further dynamic to the already brimming pot of formulary diversity.  

  At its most simplistic level the Book of Deuteronomy is a covenant text only to a very limited extent.  Indeed, it does include a number of features characteristic of a text within a covenant/treaty form, more so of Hittite form than Assyrian, but only to the extent that that form can be used for the theological agenda that is contained within Deuteronomy’s pages.  Despite the description of Deuteronomy as an amalgamation of covenant/treaty and law form being disagreeable in a strict sense, these forms do indeed make up the majority of the material contained within the book.  However, the dynamicity of Deuteronomy shows that these two forms are amongst many others that have all been drawn upon together as an expression of the themes the author wishes to proclaim.  Fundamentally then, the text of Deuteronomy can be seen as the product of numerous formularies, significantly not just one alone, and certainly not just to the form usually used for covenants.  It is noticeable that a complex medley of genres is best suited to communicating the special relationship between Israel and YHWH as found in Deuteronomy, and this shows in the various dichotomies that make up the book.

Bibliography

Arnold, B.T, Beyer, B.E. (2002). Readings from the Ancient Near East: Primary sources for Old Testament study. Grand Rapids: Baker Acedemic.

Brekelmans, C. (1993). Wisdom Influence in Deuteronomy. In Christensen, D.L. (Ed.), A Song of Power and The Power of Song (pp123-134). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Brueggemann, W. (2001). Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries: Deuteronomy. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Christensen, D.L. (2001). Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy 1:1-21:9, revised. (2^nd ed.). Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Craigie, P.C. (1976). The Book of Deuteronomy. London: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Currid, J.D. (2006). A Study Commentary on Deuteronomy. Darlington: Evangelical Press.

McBride, D.S.Jr. (1993). The Polity of the Covenant People: The Book of Deuteronomy. In Christensen, D.L. (Ed.), A Song of Power and the Power of Song (pp62-77). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

McConville, J.G. (2002). Apollos Old Testament Commentary 5: Deuteronomy. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

Nelson, R.D. (2002). Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.

Nicholson, E.W. (1993). Covenant in a Century of Study Since Wellhausen. In Christensen, D.L. (Ed.), A Song of Power and The Power of Song (pp78-93). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Pritchard, J.B. (1955). Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. (2^nd ed). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rofé, A. (2002). Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd.

Von Rad, G. (1966). Deuteronomy: A Commentary. London: SCM Press Ltd.

Weinfeld, M. (1991). The Anchor Bible: Deuteronomy 1-11. New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.

Weinfeld, M. (1993). Deuteronomy: The present state of enquiry. In Christensen, D.L. (Ed.), A Song of Power and The Power of Song (pp21-35). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Wenham, G. (2003). Exploring the Old Testament, volume 1: The Pentateuch. London: SPCK.

Woods, E. J. (2011). Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Volume 5: Deuteronomy, An Introduction and Commentary. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press.

Wright, C. (1996). New International Commentary: Deuteronomy. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.