Additional evidence for a Deuteronomistic redaction of the "Tetrateuch"

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 405-421

  Geoghegan, Jeffrey C ^a  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60949846480     PISSN: 00087912     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Peter Weimar, Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch (BZAW 146; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977);
2. Hans Ausloos, "Les extrêmes se touchent . . . : Proto-Deuteronomic and Simili-Deuteronomistic Elements in Genesis-Numbers," in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans (ed. Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust; BETL 133; Leuven: University Press, 1997) 341-66.
3. Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986; German original, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983) 186.
4. See also idem, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. John Scullion; JSOTSup 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990; German original, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977) 200.
5. Rendtorff, Old Testament, 186, commenting especially on Num 33:50-56.
6. Jeffrey C. Geoghegan, "'Until This Day' and the Preexilic Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History," JBL 122 (2003) 201-27.
7. For an earlier study of "until this day," see Brevard S. Childs, "A Study of the Formula 'Until This Day," JBL 82 (1963) 279-92.
8. Geoghegan, Until This Day. 225-227.
9. Choon-Leong Seow, "Ark of the Covenant," ABD, 1. 387.
10. See also Richard D. Nelson ("Josiah in the Book of Joshua," JBL 100 [1981] 531-40), concerning the Deuteronomistic origin of this material.
11. Richard D. Nelson (The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History [JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981] 123-24) rightly argues that Dtr is "very much interested in the ark." He also observes that "Deut 10:1-5, with its emphasis upon the ark as container for the law tablets, expresses the exact same view as the historian in Deut 31:24-26 and 1 Kgs 8:9, 21."
12. On the presence of non-Israelite forced laborers at the temple during the time of Dtr, see Geoghegan, "Until This Day," 210, 214-17.
13. Or, following John van Seters (The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994]),
14. Erhard Blum (Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch [BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gmyter, 1990]),
15. and A. D. H. Mayes (The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History [London: SCM, 1983]), one could suggest that the author/editor of Genesis was intimately familiar with the DH. As the evidence of "until this day" demonstrates, however, the parallels between this phrase in the Tetrateuch and the DH go beyond mere imitation.
16. The only other references to priests in Genesis are to individual priests: Melchizedek (Gen 14:18) and Potiphera (Gen 41:45, 50; 46:20).
17. This observation does not include the notices concerning the inhabitants on Israel's borders; namely, Ammon (Gen 19:37), Moab (Gen 19:38), and Edom (Deut 2:22), which share their own commonalities between the Tetrateuch and the DH (see below).
18. W. Boyd Barrick ("On the 'Removal of High Places' in 1-2 Kings," Bib 55 [1974] 257-59) has similarly observed the importance of as an indication of the Deuteronomist's editorial activity.
19. Note, too, the awkward placement of this exclusionary clause concerning the Levites within the inheritance lists. One would expect such a notice to appear at the beginning or end of the tribal allotments. The reason for this peculiar placement is that Dtr is highlighting territory the Levites once occupied but have since lost as a result of Aramean incursions into this region. See Baruch Halpern, "Sectionalism and the Schism," JBL 93 (1974) 519-23;
20. and Geoghegan, "Until This Day," 218.
21. Richard E. Friedman, "An Essay on Method," in Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute for David Noel Freedman (ed. Richard E. Friedman and William H. C. Propp; Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 1-15;
22. idem, "Some Recent Non-Arguments Concerning the Documentary Hypothesis," in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael Fox et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 87-101.
23. Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Scholars Press reprint series 5; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981; German original; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948);
24. and Richard E. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003). Where they differ, I make reference to it in the notes.
25. Consider, e.g., Noth's divisions (History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 265):
26. Cf. Gen 12:9; 13:11; 46:1, the only other occurrences of in Genesis.
27. D (Dtr) in his editorial style.
28. H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch (Freiburg: Mohr, 1893) 490,
29. as cited in Nicholson, Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century, 242-43.
30. For a recent defense of J continuing into the DH (to 1 Kings 2), see Richard E. Friedman, The Hidden Book in the Bible: Restored, Translated, and Introduced (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998).
31. David Noel Freedman, "Pentateuch," IDB, 3. 716-17.