DEUTERONOMY. — The fifth book of the Pentateuch, called by the Jews, from its opening words, ’ēlēh had-dēbhārīm (“these are the words”) or had-dēbhārīm (“the words”), and by the Septuagint δευτερο-νιόμοι (“second law”); cf. Deut. 17:18: miš-nēh hat-tōrāh (“repetition of the Law”).
The people who were about to enter the Promised Land had for the most part been born or raised in the desert, and, having not witnessed the miracles at the exodus from Egypt or the events at Sinai, might have been led to neglect the Law, all the more since, owing to the special circumstances that had arisen, several of its provisions had not been observed, others had been forgotten, and still others had to be modified for the sedentary life that was soon to begin. In the eleventh month of the fortieth year after the exodus from Egypt, shortly before his death, while he was in the plain of Moab opposite Jericho, Moses inculcated and adapted the Law, presenting it in a paraenetic tone.
I. ABDOMENTO
In the first discourse, after a historical account (1:4–3:29) recalling the principal events in the desert, which demonstrate that God was faithful to his people, he exhorts them to faithfulness toward God and obedience to the divine precepts (4:1–40). In the second discourse (5:1–26:19), which is the central part of the book, he sets forth the Law to the Israelites. In the first part (5:1–11:31), after repeating the Decalogue, he explains and inculcates the first precepts, concerning the worship of Jahweh, the one God. Effective admonitions abound, recalling the divine benefits received in the desert. These are followed by the special precepts (chaps. 12–26): concerning worship (chaps. 12–18), the most important of which is that concerning the unity of the place of worship (chap. 12); public order (19:1–21:9); special relationships (21:10–23:17); and other laws. The legislation of D. concludes (third discourse: 27:1–30:20) with the command to renew the covenant as soon as the people have entered Palestine, and with an earnest recommendation to observe the Law, accompanied by great force of style by the blessings and promises bestowed upon faithful Israelites, and the curses directed against unfaithful Israelites. The historical conclusion (31:1–34:12) recounts the final acts of Mosè: the election of Giosuè as his successor, the delivery of the Law to the sons of Levi, the solemn canticle, and the death of the Lawgiver.II. ORIGIN
The authenticity of the D. is connected with that of the Pentateuch. Jewish tradition until the last century, as well as Christian tradition, admits the Mosaic origin of the D., on the basis of data from the book itself (4:13 ff.; 31:9, 24; with regard to 31:9, the Mosaic authenticity of our book must be held by divine faith: thus A. Bea), the singular importance of Moses’ personal work, and ancient national tradition (cf. II Reg. 14:6 = Deut. 24:16; Bar. 2:2 ff. = Deut. 28:53; Mt. 19:8 = Deut. 24:1; Act. 3:22 = Deut. 18:15, 19; Rom. 10:19 = Deut. 32:21, etc.). The Mišnāh, however, rightly regards the final eight verses of the book, which speak of the death of Moses, as non-Mosaic. The very widespread theory of J. Wellhausen holds that the D. (designated by the siglum D) was the third “document” to be added to the two already combined, J (Jahwist) and E (Elohist).Many “critics,” with A. Kuenen, J. Wellhausen, and O. Sellin, hold that the D. was composed only shortly before Josiah’s reform, between 630 and 622 B.C., and presented as a “pious fraud” as the book of the Law discovered in the Temple. Others, on the contrary, attribute it to the time of Hezekiah (721–693) or to a period after 721 (C. Steuernagel, Hengel, R. Kittel); E. Naville goes back as far as the time of Solomon. Recently, the connection between Josiah’s reform and the D. has been denied: A. Welch and W. Stark hold D to be older, while Hölscher places it after the exile (5th century). Without considering fragmentary theories, I. Hempel distinguishes three principal strata in the D., in addition to secondary ones.
The D. lies at the center of the Mosaic question. The “critics,” in fact, hold that the traditional view of the origin and development of Israelite religion is completely overturned by the D. (B. Stade). According to them, a new religious, moral, and even social period begins with the publication of the D. They have even discovered a particular manner of writing and speaking, called “Deuteronomistic,” which predominates in later Israelite literature and also gives rise to glosses and revisions of the earlier books. The gravest and most celebrated change in Israel’s legislation concerns the place of worship or sacrifice. Whereas Ex. 20:24–36 presupposes a plurality of places of worship, in Lev. 17:39 altar (v.) is one for all, and no slaughtering of animals is permitted except near the altar; in the D., there is then absolute centralization: one sanctuary in one tribe (12:5–14), and outside it no victims may be offered to God.
But all the legislation of the Pentateuch concerning the place of worship is centralizing, and there is no contradiction among the various provisions when they are considered in their purpose and manner. In Ex. 20, the matter is not the regular and permanent place of worship, but the extraordinary places where sacrifice had to be offered on the occasion of particular divine apparitions or revelations; the simplicity of the altar tends to prevent permanent worship. The unity of the public sanctuary is presupposed in Ex. by the three journeys to be made to the sanctuary three times a year. The prohibition in Leviticus against slaughtering extra castra et tabernaculum confirms the unity of the place of worship and prescribes for Israel the absolute centralization of worship for the period during which it would be in Palestine (vv. 8–12). This is how the text was interpreted by the later sacred authors: cf. I Reg. 15:14; 22:24; II Reg. 12:4; 14:4; 15:4–34. Particular provisions grant (Deut. 12:13–19), for the period preceding the complete occupation of Palestine, the private slaughter of animals not having a sacrificial character, and this (Deut. 12:20–27) also in perpetuity for places very distant from the one sanctuary.
The antiquity of the D. is confirmed by the very nature of the book, which speaks, for example, of the Amalekites, who did not exist after Hezekiah, and presents Israel’s circumstances as they were at its entry into Palestine.
The oratorical form, given the circumstances, may have been its original dress. But precisely because it was the form most suited to public reading, it was more open to formal expansions and revisions. The failure to observe certain of its prescriptions until the Babylonian exile is explained by the fact that, having been promulgated on the eve of the entry into Palestine, it could not become fixed in common memory and practice. In the meantime, it is known to Am. 2:10; 4:6–9; Os. 5:10; 6:1, etc.; to speak of a “Deuteronomistic redactor” is to incur a petitio principii. One cannot speak of a “pious fraud” in the account of the discovery of the Law; if at times in Egypt a new book to which authority was to be attributed was presented as having been found in the innermost chambers of temples, it is certain that temples were the places preferred for the safekeeping of important writings, and that traces of such writings were often lost, so that they were later actually rediscovered. The historicity of II Reg. 22:3–23:24 and II Par. 34:3–35:19 is indisputable; indeed, these passages probably speak of the entire Pentateuch. Nor can the tradition widespread among the people concerning the repetition of the Law in the land of Moab be explained without a historical foundation.