Singular Address in Deut - (Vassal Treaty Similarities)!

[JS0T91 (2002) 19-36] ISSN 0309-0892

Singular Address in the Deuteronomic Law and the Politics of Legal Administration*

J.G. McConville School of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Gloucestershire,

Cheltenham, GL50 2QF

Abstract This article asks why the deuteronomic law, like the Book of the Covenant, differs from ancient Near Eastern law codes in adopting the second person singular form of address. It also considers the relationship between the deu-teronomic code and ancient Near Eastern treaties, especially the Vassal Trea-ties of Esarhaddon (VTE), where the singular address is used. Accepting a formal similarity between the deuteronomic code and VTE, it is argued that Deuteronomy adapts the use of the singular address in laws to support its theology of the responsibility of the people as such for the keeping of the Torah. This is in contrast to the idea of the king as sovereign, especially in relation to administration of law, which, it is argued, Deuteronomy opposes.

The alternation between second person masculine singular (2ms) and sec-ond person masculine plural (2mp) address in Deuteronomy has been a crucial factor in the interpretation of the book for at least a century. An example of the feature is Deut. 6.1-2, where the address begins in v. 1 in the plural, and changes to the singular in v. 2. This is so even though the two verses are closely connected syntactically, and the addressee is appar-ently the same (Israelites in general or as a whole). Attempts to account for the alternation of 2ms and 2mp in Deuteronomy have two basic op-tions. The first is that the two forms of address simply represent the styles of diverse sources underlying the book of Deuteronomy. There are well established form-critical and literary-critical precedents for such a view.

* This is a revised version of a paper first given to the Biblical Law section of the Society of Biblical Literature at its meeting in Boston, November 1999. The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SEI 7NX and 370 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA.

20 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 97 (2002)

Commentators since Steuernagel have used the different forms of address as one way of identifying literary sources or layers in Deuteronomy, and the criterion gained fresh impetus from M. Noth's work on the Deuter-onomistic History.1 Noth thought the addition of 2mp passages to 2ms ones may have arisen from 'the practice of reading the law aloud and following it with sermon-like introductory remarks and expositions',2 but he did not go on to explain the variations more fully in terms of the rheto-ric or theology of the book. Form-critical enquiries have sought original settings for the usage. A seminal work was that of A. Alt, for whom the 2ms was one type of biblical apodictic law, and who found its setting in the seventh-year covenant-renewal ceremony.3 This line also did not lead to explanations of the variations in Deuteronomy as significant in them-selves. However, Alt's observation that the 2ms in biblical law is unparal-leled in the ancient Near East still stands and I will return to the point.4

The second option is to suppose that the occurrence of 2ms and 2mp does reflect deliberate choices made in the composition of the book. The advent of stylistic analysis as a major factor in the interpretation of Deuteronomy may be traced to N. Lohfink's early work, which recognized that reasons for the variation in number might be found in the style of writing in the book itself. Recent commentary, consequently, has been more circumspect in using the number criterion as a way of determining

1. C. Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium (HAT; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1923 [1900]); M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup, 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), p. 16.

2. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, p. 17. 3. A. Alt, 'The Origins of Israelite Law', in idem, Essays on Old Testament His-

tory and Religion (The Biblical Seminar, 9; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), pp. 79-132 (125-30); cf. nn. 7, 12 below for more recent views. See also A. Jirku, Das weltliche Recht im Alten Testament (Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus, 1927), where each dif-ferent kind of usage is held to betray a different authorial hand; and H.W. Gilmer, The If-You Form in Israelite Law (SBLDS, 15; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), for a review of scholarship before and after Alt.

4. His affirmation that apodictic law as such is unique to the Old Testament has been challenged by T.J. Meek, who points to examples in the Code of Hammurabi, the Middle Assyrian Laws and the Neo-Babylonian Laws (ANET'[3rd edn], p. 183 n. 24). See also R. Westbrook, 'What is the Covenant Code?', in B.M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (JSOTSup, 181 ; Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-demic Press, 1994), pp. 15-36 (16, 29). These cases are all formulations in the third person, however.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

MCCONVILLE Singular Address 21

sources.5 Deliberate variation might occur for either rhetorical or theologi-cal reasons, or both.

The recognition of a rhetorical aspect in the use of forms of address raises a related question, namely, whether singular and plural forms are addressed to the same audience. Older observations of the variation appeared to suppose that change of number implied a change of audi-ence.6 There are reasons to think, however, that the addressees are the same whether singular or plural is used. This, however, will need to be established.

In what follows I will try to show that the 2ms is used deliberately, and that both rhetorical and theological considerations come into play. The argument will involve a comparison with usage both in the biblical law code known as the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20.22-23.19, henceforth BC) and law codes and treaties from the ancient Near East. I argue that both BC and Deuteronomy are innovative in regard to the ancient Near East, with Deuteronomy developing features found in the earlier code. Our first question concerns the relationship between the biblical codes and the ancient Near Eastern evidence.

Do the Old Testament Codes Innovate in Regard to the Ancient Near East?

The question whether and how the Old Testament codes innovate in rela-tion to ancient Near Eastern parallels has been debated in discussions between R. Westbrook and B.M. Levinson, D. Patrick, W. Morrow and others. In Westbrook's view, BC is simply part of a 'common law' of the ancient Near East, at the end of a long static period in law and culture. In arguing this case, Westbrook refers to 'the state of our ignorance concern-ing the social and cultural background to the laws', which ought to deter us from attributing perceived inconsistencies in codes either to historical development or to incompetence on the part of scribes.7 He opposes, for

5. N. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungs-fragen zu Dtn 5-11 (AnBib, 20; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963). Cf. A.D.H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1979), pp. 148-49.

6. Noth's observation above (n. 2) is a case in point. Cf. S.R. Driver, Deuteron-omy (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), p. 89, on Deut. 6.1-3: '...the Writer's thought passes from the nation [pi] to the individual Israelite [sg]\

7. Westbrook, 'What is the Covenant Code?', p. 36. He contests the view that BC contains separate strands traceable to different, identifiable original settings (pp. 16-18, 20-28).



example, E. Otto's discovery of the origin of apodictic law in the jurisdic-tion of'the paterfamilias within the family or clan and of casuistic law in disputes between families and tribes.8 Westbrook finds no empirical evidence for such theses, and claims that they are based rather on the ap-plication of certain premises that are in effect axiomatic: (1) that the Israelite legal system developed from relatively primitive to relatively sophisticated; (2) that the process is visible in BC because the different forms betray different sources; (3) that the process is also visible in BC's editing.9 He goes on to challenge all of these. In so doing he shows that it is precarious to regard the apodictic laws of BC as unique, since certain ancient Near Eastern laws have apodictic laws alongside casuistic ones.10

Westbrook denies both that BC represents a significant development from the ancient Near Eastern legal tradition, and that BC's apodictic laws have a separate origin from its casuistic laws. He does not directly address the question of the 2ms itself, however, but rather third person apodictic forms.11 Second person forms may be found in the ancient Near East in various special kinds of rules and instructions, but these hardly amount to legal forms.12 This leaves the need to explain the 2ms in particular. One might, of course, pursue a form-critical answer in an Israelite setting, as does Morrow, who traces the 2mp to a non-royal Israelite source.13 How-ever, a rhetorical or theological answer should not be ruled out.

A further feature of the debate is the place of Deuteronomy within it. Westbrook makes a crucial distinction between Deuteronomy and BC: while the latter is, in his view, within the common legal tradition of the ancient Near East going back to the third millennium (albeit near the end), Deuteronomy (along with P) participates in a general intellectual ferment in the ancient world from the seventh century onwards.14 For this reason he accepts that Deuteronomy is innovative, while BC is not. However, on this point D. Patrick questions the postulate of a radical break, and criti-

8. Westbrook, 'What is the Covenant Code? ', pp. 16-18; E. Otto, Rechtsbegrndun-gen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des antiken Israel (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988).

9. Westbrook, 'What is the Covenant Code?', pp. 19-20. 10. Westbrook, 'What is the Covenant Code?', pp. 28-32. 11. For example: 'The daughters of a seignior.. .must veil themselves' (MAL A:40;

,. 183). 12. These are documented, for example, in W. Morrow, Generic Discrepancy in

the Covenant Code', in Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method, pp. 136-51 (140-45); cf. Westbrook, 'What is the Covenant Code?', pp. 29-30.

13. Morrow, 'Generic Discrepancy', pp. 148-49 14. Westbrook, 'What is the Covenant Code?', p. 28.



cizes Westbrook for negating one type of'evolutionary' model while sub-stituting another (i.e. 'arrested development', in relation to his ancient Near Eastern common legal tradition).15 Patrick and others, therefore (e.g. S. Greengus in the same volume16), challenge in principle the postulate that ancient Near Eastern law does not change or innovate. In my view, the presence of the 2ms as a significant feature of both BC and the deuter-onomic code poses the question whether it is an innovation with a specific purpose or purposes. What those purposes might be will, I hope, emerge from what follows. If the use of the 2ms is an important development it raises the obvious question: who addresses whom? One route to an answer may be to look to the ancient Near East's treaty tradition, since the 2ms is widely used there, and since both BC and Deuteronomy put their laws in a broader covenantal context. This prospect lies behind the second part of the title of the present study. However, even granting a relevant parallel between the Old Testament codes and the treaty tradition, it will remain to decide what the significance of such a parallel would be.

We turn now to consider the usage of the 2ms in BC.

Address in the Book of the Covenant BC (Exod. 20.2223.19) has a number of singular commands (20.24-26; 21.2; 22.17,20,24,25,27,28,29; 23.1-9*, 10-12,14-19,20-21*, 22-24, 25*, 27-31*, 32-33), and a few plural ones (20.22-23; 22.30; 23.9b, 13, 21 *, 25*, 31 *). (The Holiness Code [H] has Lev. 19.33-34 in the singular, and 19.35-36 in the plural.)17

I have raised above the question of whether 2ms and 2mp can address the same audiences. A glance at the data in BC shows that the singular form can refer to all Israel. Exodus 20.24-25 offers initial support for this. Here the reference of'thou' apparently in relation to Israel is the likeliest

15. D. Patrick, 'Who is the Evolutionist? ', in Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method, pp. 152-59(152-53).

16. S. Greengus, 'Issues Relating to the Comparability of Laws and the Coherence of the Legal Tradition', in Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method, pp. 60-86.

17. For the purposes of the argument BC is taken to be earlier than the deuter-onomic code. This has been opposed by J. Van Setersand was so again in the pro-ceedings of the Biblical Law section at which the present paper was first given, though in a different connectionsee his The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exo-dus-Numbers (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), pp. 247-89. The priority of BC is not quite essential to the main argument here. However, it will be ar-gued that Deuteronomy is more developed in its adaptation of the 2ms to law than is BC.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002


interpretation, following the plural address in v. 23, which has the con-trasting prohibition, and because it is a command that refers to the official worship of Israel.18 By v. 26 an individual seems to be in viewbut this modulation seems to belong to the capacity of singular address as a rhe-torical instrument. There are other examples of this. In particular cases, BC might be interpreted as addressing certain specific individuals or classes, for example, witnesses (23.1-3), passers-by (23.4-5), and judges (23.6).19 Yet in this last text, 23.6, the term "pn3K (4thy poor') is only intelligible if Israel as a whole is meant. It seems to me that it is best to think of this fluctuation of focus between community and individual as belonging to the capacity of the 2ms, rather than try to find a development from one usage to the other.20

A second case is 23.17, another command concerning the official wor-ship, and where the term y D ('thy males') seems necessarily to suppose that the addressee is a corporate entity. Patrick too cites 23.14-19 as evi-dence that BC addresses the whole community, and also thinks that the inclusion of these laws distinguishes the Code from royal legal corpora of the ancient Near East.21

BC thus exhibits two features that are important for the present study: the use of the 2ms to address the whole people of Israel, and alongside

18. The archaic 'thou' is used for convenience, to distinguish between singular and plural address in English, in cases where confusion might arise. The form 'if-you' is also used in the article, to cover second-person address in general, and especially when referring to the works of Gilmer and Dion.

19. D. Patrick, Old Testament Law (London: SCM Press, 1986), p. 89. T.A. Len-chak ( 'Choose Life! ': A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of Deuteronomy 28,69-30,20 [AnBib, 129; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993], p. 90) also thinks address to groups of individuals is normal in BC, Exod. 20.1 being an exception.

20. Expressions of this sort might apply to an individual Israelite if the context sug-gests it. An example has been found in Deut. 1.16; see J.H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (Phila-delphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1996), pp. 12-13,346 n. 69. Cf. Deut. 5.14. Not all expressions of this kind can be so interpreted, however; in Deut. 31.12 'thy stranger' is in parallel with 'thy towns', and therefore the collective 'thou' is preferable.

21. Patrick, Old Testament Law, pp. 65-66, 94. A. Phillips, in contrast, thinks BC was promulgated by David, though much of it originated from the 'amphictyonic' time; Ancient Israel's Criminal Law (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970), pp. 158-61. However, he also thinks that the Davidic reform did not remove the practice of law from the local community (p. 18), nor the responsibility of the people as such to keep the Mosaic law (p. 164). Phillips also differs from Patrick in his understanding of what is distinctive about BC in comparison with ancient Near Eastern codes, namely, that it understands law as a function of the covenant between Israel and Yahweh (p. 82).



this, a capacity to use it somewhat differently according to specific context. These features appear to be innovative in a law code. The collective use of the 2ms may have a theological basis, namely, the intention of depicting Israel as collectively responsible to keep the law. This in turn could be a function of the covenantal context of BC. In that connection it may be noted that the address to Israel, which incorporates the Decalogue, just prior to BC, opens with the 2ms (Exod. 20.2), the form that is also used in the Decalogue itself. The fact that the 2ms is a feature of the ancient Near East's treaty tradition rather than its laws provides further grounds for thinking that the 2ms may have been adopted into this law code as part of the theological contention that law has its place within Israel's covenant with Yahweh.22

The collective use of the 2ms, however, is set within a discourse that has rhetorical features. This appears, on one hand, because the 2mp is also used in BC to address the people generally. On the other hand, the 2ms itself can be used in ways that are not collective, as we have seen. There-fore, in addition to the theological function just discussed, a rhetorical aspect must also be acknowledged: the 2ms is sometimes required to play its natural role, that is, to address an individual. Evidence of both kinds of use can be found in BC.

Both the theological and rhetorical uses of the 2ms are also found in the deuteronomic code, as we shall now see.

Address in Deuteronomy

There are immediately noticeable differences between Deuteronomy and BC. Deuteronomy is predominantly in the form of speeches of Moses, rhetorical features are more apparent, and indeed they function crucially in the meaning of the book. Deuteronomy typically addresses the whole

22. Morrow documents this in 'Generic Discrepancy', pp. 140-45. Cf. D.J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (AnBib, 21 A; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2nd edn, 1981), pp. 82-83, for a list of passages where second-person commands occur in treaties; the examples are mainly Hittite, but others are also indicated. The singular form is apparently typical of the Hittite treaties (p. 59). See also Greengus, 'Issues Relating to the Comparability of Laws', p. 73 n. 36. On the other hand, with reference to law codes Morrow says: 'the scribal schools do not generally seem to have had in mind a community when they employed second-person references' ('Generic Discrep-ancy', p. 148).



people, as is well recognized,23 and even reflects deeply on who and what the people is. In this context I will now review some cases of singular address in Deuteronomy.

Address to Whole Community The most characteristic example of 2ms addressed to the whole people is the phrase bvC\W 17 (Deut. 4.1; 5.1; 6.3,4; 9.1; 10.12; 27.9). The first two of these instances arise in otherwise plural contexts; the others are in singular contexts.

Other examples, however, are more instructive about the range of use of the 2ms. Deuteronomy 15.1-6 mixes second and third person forms. The second person forms are all singular. It is clear that the addressee is pre-dominantly Israel as a whole, for several reasons. First, the deuteronomic language of blessing and land-grant is applied (v. 4). Second, Moses' command ( am charging thee with', v. 5) is a feature of his speech to the assembled tribes at Moab. Third, the logic of 'thou shalt lend to many nations...rule over many nations...they shall not rule over thee' (v. 6) suggests the people as a corporate entity. There is, however, an individualizing command in the passage, which begins in the third person (v. 2), but slides into the second person (v. 3). This is a case of modulation between individual and the whole as in BC.

Deuteronomy 15.12-18 illustrates the same thing, now with the emphasis falling more on the individual addressee. Here the caseof the release of a slaveis elaborated carefully, and consequently the individual slave-owner is in view more or less throughout. However, here too the address to Israel breaks into the discourse (v. 15). It is only Israel of whom it can properly be said: 'thou wast a slave in Egypt', and that 'Yahweh thy God redeemed thee'. And even Moses' words, 'therefore I command thee this thing today', must be understood, within the concept of Deuteronomy, of Moses' audience in Moab.

The rhetorical and theological functions of the 2ms come together in these examples with great effectiveness. The complex use of it, embracing address to the individuals and to Israel as a whole, has the effect of placing the individual in the larger context. It does so by involving the individual in the experience of the whole people, and putting him/her under the obli-

23. Lenchak, 'Choose Life! ', p. 21 : 'If Deuteronomy was originally a law code, it no longer appears that way. For the laws are not directed towards the judiciary but to all Israel.' Again: in Deuteronomy, Israel is considered a collective personality which can be addressed in the vocative as a single individual' (p. 86).



gtions imposed on all. It also establishes a solidarity among the genera-tions of Israel. The rather slippery passage (v. 15) from 'thou wast a slave' (Egypt generation) to 'therefore I command thee this thing today' (Moab generation)with its rhetorical force falling on all subsequent genera-tionsis typical of an important thrust in the book, most succinctly ex-pressed in 5.2-3 (where the Moab generation is confirmed as the Horeb generation, though it strictly is not, and in spite of 1.34-40). Here the 2ms is used with great rhetorical skill in the service of theology.

A further instance of the use of the second person address to embrace the generations of Israel comes in Deut. 30.1-10. This too is a singular passage, in which Israel is pictured in exile, and turning back to Yahweh. Moses still addresses his Moab audience; but the 'thou' more or less throughout vv. 1-10 is strictly a future generation {after the taking of the land, the enjoyment of the blessing and the suffering of the curse). The fluctuating horizons are visible in v. 5: '[he] will bring thee back [exile generation] ', 'to the land that thy fathers inherited [the Moab generation's fathers?] and thou shalt inherit it [exile]', 'and he will do thee good [exile]''more than thy fathers [Moab generation?]'.

Yet it seems to miss the point if we become too logical about this. The language is once again rhetorical. Verse 8 illustrates the point: 'as for thee, thou wilt turn and listen'. Is this a statement in the future tense referring to the exiles? Or is it an imperative'as for thee, turn and listen...!' addressed to Moses' actual hearers? Perhaps this cannot and should not be decided. The logic and the rhetoric are strictly at odds; yet both affirm that all Israel, now and evermore, is subject to the commands of the covenant with Yahweh.24

Address to Individuals or Groups We have seen that the law code, in its use of 2ms, is capable of dif-ferentiating between the individual and the corporate entity of Israel. As we have seen, this is a rhetorical feature, yet it is more than that, for it is rhetoric with a theological dimension. The shifts in address, from indi-viduals to the generality, show that the commands of the covenant lie both upon the whole and its constituent members. This is true also of the cove-nantal curses (Deut. 28), which are addressed (in G. Braulik's words) 'to

24. Lenchak ( 'Choose Life! ', p. 87 [citing R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History (New York: Seabury Press, 1980), pp. 72,92]) also observes that the address to Israel is complex, Deuteronomy having more than one audience.



Israel as a whole, as well as to its individual members'.25 Briefly, the universal threats of famine, war, exile are interspersed with threats that seem to envisage the daily life of individuals together (e.g. vv. 30,38-44).

The classic text for this individuating rhetoric of Deuteronomy, however, is ch. 29, which is predominantly in the plural. It includes, in vv. 10-11 [11-12] (cf. vv. 13-14 [14-15]), possibly the most inclusive list of individual members of Israel found anywhere in the Old Testament (so T. Lenchak26). Lohfink observes how, here and then in vv. 15-20 [16-21 ], the fundamental demands of the covenant are pressed into the realm of the individual's conscience, where no law can reach.27 (Note v. 18 [19]: shall be safe, as long as I keep my rebellious thoughts to myself.28)

Regarding singular and plural address, Lenchak thinks that the shifts between them had a rhetorical function, and were probably noticeable to the hearers.

Members of the audience were addressed both as individuals and as a whole, reinforcing both these identities. The audience is not merely a mass of individuals, nor is it merely a cohesive whole. It is somehow both, and the speaker appeals to both. His appeal to the solidarity of the group reinforces his appeal to each individual.29

Deuteronomy 29, in fact, strains for inclusiveness. Even Moses, though at times separate from the addressees ('you stand', v. 9 [10]), is sometimes identified with them (Ve dwelt', v. 15 [16]). And ultimately the addressees are the readers of a book (v. 19 [20]).30

We may conclude that the use of second person address, both singular and plural, is governed by rhetorical and theological considerations. H. Gilmer believed that the 'if-you' form in Deuteronomy was suited to

25. G. Braulik, Deuteronomium. II. 16,18-34,12 (Neue Echter Bibel; 2 vols.; Wrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992), p. 203: 'an Gesamtisrael als auch an dessen einzelne Mitglieder'.

26. Lenchak, 'ChooseLife!', pp. 96, 101. 27. . Lohfink, 'Der Bundesschluss im Land Moab: Redaktionsgeschichtliches zu

Dt 28,69-32,47', BZ6 (1962), pp. 32-56 (39-40) (reprinted in . Lohfink, Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur, I [SB AB, 8; 4 vols.; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990], pp. 53-82 [61-62].)

28. Following M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), pp. 105-106.

29. Lenchak, 'ChooseLife!', p. 106. 30. Lenchak, 'ChooseLife!', p. 108.


MCCONVELLE Singular Address 29

persuasion, as well as to humanitarian laws.31 We have observed that there is more to it than that. The singular address in particular enables theologi-cal points to be made with great rhetorical force. And especially it is suited to Deuteronomy's concept of a solidarity across the generationsa key component of its covenantal theologywhile also being able to draw the individual into its scope. It is part of the rhetorical apparatus of Deuteron-omy, that includes also, of course, the plural address, which is exploited in its own way. These two usages may or may not be the favourite styles of particular writers, but that is by no means the whole story. They are each used with clear purpose.

Singular Address and the Politics of Legal Administration Thus far, I have argued that the reasons for the use of the 2ms in Deu-teronomy lie in that book's covenantal theology, and indeed that this con-nection was already present in BC. However, the significance of the usage goes well beyond this rather general point. While we have seen that in Deuteronomy the 2ms addresses 'Israel', we have yet to raise the question of particular audience and Sitz im Leben. Interpreters have tried to define the audience more carefully, especially in terms of a location in Israel's political history. (This is to broach the whole history of Deuteronomy criticism; naturally, I can only touch on one aspect of this.)

While the close association of Deuteronomy with the reform of King Josiah is now problematical in Old Testament research, there remain powerful advocates of the view that the law code derives from a judicial reform in the context of the late Judaean monarchy. Indeed the treaty or covenantal context of the deuteronomic law is widely attributed to links with seventh-century Assyrian treaties, a view that has gained new impe-tus from comparisons between it and, especially, the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (VTE), thanks in no small measure to the work of M. Wein-feld.32 And the use of the 2ms in particular has been explained in terms of this setting. Gilmer found that 'The juridical "If-You" ordinances (espe-cially the type: "if a man.. .thou shalt...") represent a stage in the history

31. Gilmer, The If-You Form, pp. 46-53. 32. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School; cf. now H.U. Steymans, Deuteronomium 28

und die de zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im alten Orient und in Israel (OBO, 145; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995).



of Israelite law in which public officials are given responsibility to adjudi-cate criminal matters'.33 He cites passages in Deuteronomy 13,17,19,21, 22,25 (also Exod. 21.23-25), and relates the phenomenon to 'the deuter-onomic judiciary reform'. This theory is based mainly on the appointment of judges and officials throughout the cities of Israel, thought to represent a secularization of functions hitherto performed by local priests.34

The case for an origin of the deuteronomic 'if-you' form in the politics of the late Judaean monarchy of the seventh century has also been made, following a detailed analysis of Deuteronomy 13, by P. Dion. Form-critical, source-critical and stylistic analyses lead him to conclude that the core of the chapter is deuteronomistic.35 His historical interpretation then locates the first deuteronomist in the time of Josiah's reform, with a sec-ond one later supplementing this work.36 The historical argument is crucial to his thesis. First, he says that the 'if-you' form, especially in w . 10,15 [9,14], implies a judicial process (which he fills in from 17.7; cf. 19.15-21),37 though this cannot be reconstructed from the deuteronomic texts that put judgment in the hands of elders and judges. In the third law in Deuteronomy 13, where a town is put to the sword, however (vv. 13-19 [12-18]), 'it stands to reason that.. .the king himself was to be the judge'. Furthermore, the 'if-you' form points (albeit 'more weakly') to a royal background for these laws.38 In fact, it puts Deuteronomy 13 formally close to VTE. The author of the code, therefore, must belong within the sphere of Josiah because he knows the royal form of the ancient Near East.39 In Deuteronomy 13, Dion argues, 'just replace "other gods" by "other kings", and you obtain a piece of legislation against political

33. Gilmer, The If-You Form, p. 77; cf. p. 81. 34. Cf. J.C. Gertz, Die Gerichtsorganisation Israels im deuteronomischen Gesetz

(FRLANT, 165; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), pp. 28-97. 35. P. Dion, 'The Suppression of Alien Religious Propaganda in Israel during the

Late Monarchical Era', in B. Halpern and D.W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOTS, 124; Sheffield; JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 147-216 (190-92).

36. ion's attribution of Deut. 13 to Josiah's reform is affirmed by W. Morrow, Scribing the Center: Organization and Redaction in Deuteronomy 14:1-17:13 (SBLMS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 222-23.

37. In this connection he argues that Deut. 13.9 [10] should be read with the LXX (-UH, 'tell'), not MT (1, 'kill'), pp. 154, 156. See also n. 55 below.

38. Dion, 'Suppression', pp. 194-95. 39. Dion, 'Suppression', pp. 195-205.



subversion, which would make perfect sense in the authoritarian monar-chies of the ancient Near East'.40

Dion enters the caveat that 'these laws are anything but a mechanical caique of some foreign archetype'.41 The language has been used quite consciously by the Yahweh-alone party in pursuit of its aims. But take away the 'religious' language (e.g. 'the way in which Yahweh thy God commanded thee to walk', v. 6), and the language becomes 'secular' and 'political'.42 The measures of Deuteronomy 13 were intended to support the reform, and probably lasted only as long as Josiah's life.43

Notwithstanding Dion's careful argument, the nub of it comes down to the assertion that certain judicial functions can only be exercised by the king, and that the 'if-you' form is properly understood as emanating from royal court circles. Gilmer too had said that not only juridical matters but also humanitarian interests, centralization and holy war were all concerns of the 'ruling classes'.44 But this comparative move factors out what seems to me to be the crucial question, namely: who are the ruling classes in Deuteronomy? And specifically: who is responsible for making and administering law?

In an earlier treatment of the second-person address in Deuteronomy, H. Cazelles found it unlikely that the supreme authority in law was the king, because of the slight importance attached to him in Deut. 17.14-20. He argued rather that the singular address was directed to the landowner in Israel, the paterfamilias, who also served as local judge. Legal authority was exercised, first, in the 'gates', by local judges, and second, by the high court at the central sanctuary. Centralization is indeed a datum for Deuter-onomy, but the programme is not such as to place the king at the heart of it. Ultimate control, indeed, lies with the priests-Levites, who are superior to both judges and king.45 A similar view has been taken by U. Rters-wrden. Noting the weak position of kings in the deuteronomic core of

40. Dion, 'Suppression', pp. 197-98 (emphasis in original). \ 4L Dion,'Suppression', p. 196.

42. Dion,'Suppression', p. 197. 43. Dion, 'Suppression', p. 205. 44. Gilmer, The If-You Form, pp. 113-15. Cf. E. Otto, Wandel der Rechtsbegrndun-

gen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des antiken Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte des 'Bun-desbuches 'ExXX22-XXIII13 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988), pp. 43-44. Otto also thinks the deuteronomic reform emanates from monarchic circles.

45. H. Cazelles, 'Droit publique dans le Deutronome', in . Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985), pp. 99-106.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002

I


the regulations on officials, he agrees that the singular address is directed to the rich householder, who thus has rights that normally belong to the king in the ancient Near East, and who must in some sense judge accord-ing to the rules of the central sanctuary.46 Deuteronomy's ordinances, therefore, genuinely belong to the 'state', because behind the authority of the local landowner lies that of the central judiciary, which takes matters out of the entanglements of a locality.47

The hypothesis that the singular address is directed to the landowner is important in Rterswrden's thesis (he compares the situation at Athens, where the property-owner could act as judge).48 However, the precise identity of the 2ms addressee is harder to pin down than Rterswrden believes. And he is challenged by W. Morrow on this point. Where Rters-wrden thinks those who are addressed as 'thou' in the regular deuter-onomic law-discourse are the same as the 'judges and officials' appointed in 16.18, Morrow thinks a distinction must be made:

My opinion is that 16.18 requires the appointment of a class of judges and court officials out of those [regular 2ms] addressees.49

Thus, the larger group is addressed, for example, in 16.1-17, while pas-sages like 16.18-20 and 17.8-10 have in view the judges and officials in particular. Even the larger group, in Morrow's view, is something less than the entirety of Israel. It excludes the personae miserabiles, since they are often listed along with the dependants of the singular addressees (as in 16.11, 14), and the Lvites, for the same reason, and since they are pro-vided for in third-person instructions in 18.1-8.50

We have seen that Deuteronomy can make distinctions within those who are addressed by the 2ms, and it is clear that some must be made in this case. But is it correct to interpret the distinction in the ways just out-lined? The nature of the relationship between the general 'thou' in 16.18 and the individuating 'thou' of 17.8-10 bears closer examination. In my view the relationship between these two referents of the singular address

46. U. Rterswrden, Von der politischen Gemeinschaft zur Gemeinde: Studien zu Dt 16,18-18,22 (BBB, 65; Frankfurt: Athenum, 1987), pp. 92-95. He finds the laws of the officials to be essentially deuteronomic, rather than dtr; within 16.18-22, 16.18*, 19, 21-22 are deuteronomic (pp. 89-90).

47. Rterswrden, Von der politischen Gemeinschaft, pp. 99-100. He pursues an analogy with the Greek polis.

48. Rterswrden, Von der politischen Gemeinschaft, p. 101. 49. Morrow, Scribing the Center, p. 219 . 17. 50. Morrow, Scribing the Center, pp. 219-21.



is not resolvable by a rational substraction of one group from another, but rather in terms of the rhetorical capacity of the form.

The singular address in 17.8-10 certainly makes best sense when predi-cated of a particular judge or group of particular judges. However, the logic of this must be seen in the light of the flexibility of the singular address that we have been observing. That is, the 'default' usage of the singular addresses Israel as a corporate entity; but it shades over naturally into address to an individual, or a set within the whole, when the logic of the discourse requires it. We saw that the discourse had the capacity to individuate when necessary. The shifting referent is a function of the rhetorical style. (This, incidentally, is the best way of seeing 16.18 in rela-tion to 16.19-20, where the addressees, on Morrow's strictly differentiating analysis, must be differentthough in fact he sees the whole passage as addressed to the judges and officials.51)

For this reason, the thesis not only of Morrow but also of Rters-wrden, and of Cazelles before them, needs modifying. Rterswrden is right, I believe, to say that the law belongs to the 'state' in Deuteronomy, not to the king. This seems to me to be the implication of the laws con-cerning the officials in 16.18-18.22. One can debate which of the officials carries most authority in that catalogue (priests? prophet?). But the natural reading of Deut. 16.18-18.22 is that it is not the king. And it is difficult, moreover, to equate the 'thou' of 16.18 with any of the contending groups.52

It is best, therefore, to maintain the view (held, as we saw, by a number of interpreters) that the 'thou' simply is Israel as a corporate entity, and not to lose confidence at the most crucial point. In further support of this I suggest that even thepersonae miserabiles are indeed included within the corporate entity. It is true, of course, that in certain texts there is a 'thou' who is charged to include the disadvantaged in his provision for worship. But here too we have seen that this is to be expected in the terms of the rhetorical style of the singular address. There are other reasons for think-ing that the disadvantaged classes are in principle included. These consist, first, in the pictures of the Israel gathered to worship (Deut. 12; 14.22-29;

51. Morrow, Scribing the Center, p. 220. 52. Tigay, Deuteronomy, p. 160, also takes the 'thou' in Deut. 16.18 to refer to the

people as such. Noth, Deuteronomistic History, p. 82, thought the 'thou' in the king-law was addressed to the whole people, and connected this observation with Deuteron-omy's attitude to the monarchy, which he thought differed from that of DtrH.



15.19-23; 16.1-17). In these passages, the solidarity of all Israel is precisely the point. Israel expresses its brotherhood most fully when at worship.53 What is more, the order of the laws appears to have the effect that the ideal of a seamless Israel gathers for the feasts at the sanctuary. This is why debts and slaves are released (15.1-18) before the laws of 15.19-23 and 16.1-17.54 The same passage expresses the ideal of 'no poor' (15.4). In my view, the ideal vision of Deuteronomy as a harmonious unity in its land, and 'before Yahweh' in worship, is also expressed in its general use of the singular 'thou'.55

It follows that the use of the 2ms in Deuteronomy is best understood in the context of a programme that is quite distinct from the centralized, monarchical agenda of the Josianic reform. On the contrary, by its use of the 2ms, Deuteronomy conveys that it is Israel as such that is sovereign and responsible in the politico-religious sphere, and in particular for the implementation of its Yahweh-given laws. This is consistent with several features of the book as a whole: (1) the relatively low status given to the king (17.14-20); (2) the 'distribution of powers' in Israel among a number of classes of officials in 16.18-18.22, all subordinate to the 'thou' in 16.18;56 (3) the deuteronomic doctrine of 'brotherhood', which minimizes

53. The point has been convincingly elaborated by N. Lohfink, 'Das deuterono-mische Gesetz in der Endgestalt: Entwurf einer Gesellschaft ohne marginale Gruppen', BN 51 (1990), pp. 25-40.

54. Cf. G. Braulik, 'Die Abfolge der Gesetze in Deuteronomium 12-26 und der Dekalog', in Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, pp. 252-72 (263) (published in English as 'The Sequence of the Laws in Deuteronomy 12-26 and in the Decalogue', in D.L. Christensen [ed.], A Song of Power and the Power of Song [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993], pp. 313-35 [325-26]).

55. I return to Deut. 13.9 [ 10] in this connection. Here it seems to me that MT is to be preferred to LXX (against Dion). That is, the instruction is 'thou shalt kill him' ^ ), not 'thou shalt report him' ( " bagged taggidennu). My reason for thinking so is not the same as B.M. Levinson's, however, who finds ancient Near Eastern analogies for summary execution of the plotter against the king by his discoverer; see B.M. Levinson, ' "But you shall surely kill him'", in G. Braulik (ed.), Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zu Deuteronomium [Freiburg: Herder, 1995], pp. 37-63 [40-58]). The context, I agree, is one that individuates (so Levinson, 'The Case for Revision and Interpretation within the Biblical Legal Corpora', in idem [ed.], Theory and Method, pp. 37-59 [40]). Nevertheless, it is better to suppose that the command states a responsibility that belongs in principle to Israel than to turn it into a law describing a process; comparison with the more extended 17.2-7 shows that it is not.

56. N. Lohfink, 'Die Sicherung der Wirksamkeit des Gotteswortes durch das Prinzip der Gewaltenteilung nach den mtergesetzen des Buches Deuteronomium (Dt


1


social and religious distinctions within the people, and which is presented most forcefully in the portrayals of Israel at worship.

These observations do not, of course, settle the question of Sitz im Leben. On some estimates the view of Israel with a powerless king cannot be part of a serious political programme and must be Utopian, and therefore post-exilic.57 Equally, it may be maintained that it represents a real political alternative to a monarchy in the pre-exilic time. (Deuteronomy is well aware of the difference between the real and the ideal, as vv. 4 and 11 of ch. 15 show.) The issue cannot be fully explored here. However, I have tried to show that the correspondence in form between Deuteronomy and VTE does not entail that Deuteronomy adopts a royal ideology. Rather, its opposition to Assyria, implied in its dialogue with VTE, consists in hostility to royal domination altogether, rather then merely substituting an Israelite royal ideology for an Assyrian one. (It may just be added that the use of the 2ms address is one of the affinities between Deuteronomy and the Old Testament wisdom literature, documented by Weinfeld;58 this shows a shared interest in individual responsibility between the two corpora, but need not be construed as evidence for Deuteronomy's origin in royal scribal circles.)

Conclusion

The interpretation of the use of the singular address must be part of the enquiry into the setting and meaning of Deuteronomy. We saw that Deuteronomy's use of it is new in relation to ancient Near Eastern usage. It develops features already present in BC, namely, the use of the 2ms for rhetorical and theological purposes. Deuteronomy is known for its capacity to innovate, especially in relation to extant ancient Near Eastern forms, notably the treaty form. In the case of the treay-form, the structure of the

16,18-18,22)', inH. Wolter (ed.), Testimonium Ventati (Festschrift Wilhelm Kempf; Frankfurter theologische Studien, 7; Frankfurt: Knecht, 1971) (published in English as 'Distribution of the Functions of Power: The Laws Concerning Public Offices in Deuteronomy 16:18-18:22', in Christensen [ed.], A Song of Power, pp. 336-52). Cf. . Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM, 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), especially pp. 188-216, for his view of the function of the national cultic assembly of Israel in relation to these authorities.

57. So L. Perlitt, 'Der Staatsgedanke im Deuteronomium', in S.E. Balentine and J. Barton (eds.), Language, Theology and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 182-98.

58. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, pp. 244-81 (265-74).



suzerain-vassal relationship is put to the revolutionary use of expressing the relationship between deity and people. In the case of the 2ms, the same is true. Indeed it is the crucial point at which treaty and law were forged into a powerful new concept. This was already in place in BC, but is more developed in Deuteronomy, where it is built into Deuteronomy's concept of political administration. It should not be supposed, therefore, that the 2ms, or any of its forms (such as the 'if-thou' form), has been transposed from a particular type of ancient Near Eastern setting into an identical one in Israel. Rather, the use of the 2ms in Deuteronomy is part of its carefully conceived attribution of ultimate political authority to the people of Israel, rather than to the king.


^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Date post:	16-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rh2223db
View:	18 times
Download:	0 times

Singular Address in Deut - (Vassal Treaty Similarities)!

Documents