The Deuteronomic Code

L'Origine du Code Deuteronomique by A. R. Siebens

Review by: William Creighton Graham
The Journal of Religion, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Oct., 1929), pp. 621-625
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1195908 .
Accessed: 17/06/2014 01:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.184 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:42:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CRITICALREVIEWS 62 I

THE DEUTERONOMIC CODE

The title of this work' is, in itself, sufficient to insure an eager read-
ing by all biblical students, especially at this juncture when the widely
accepted critical view of the origin of Deuteronomy has been so openly
and variously attacked by a group of prominentscholars.
The book is divided into two parts. The first is devoted to a study of
the literary and historical criticism of Deuteronomy. Readers will find
here a skilful and illuminatingexposition of the most interestingand im-
portant contentions of the anti-Wellhausengroup. The complete bibliog-
raphy given on pages 1-6 will prove of value to all who are minded to go
further into the subject.
Both in his view of the literary history of the canonicalDeuteronomy,
and of the circumstancesand forces by which it was evolved, the author
is not radically at variance with the generally accepted positions. It will
be best, first, to give the gist of his own summary of his ideas concerning
the growth of the book as found at the close of Part II. The actual codi-
fication, he believes, took place between Josiah's reform and the fall of
Jerusalem. He departs from the old line of criticism in that he abandons
the edition hypothesis for that of a compilation. The civil laws of chap-
ters xix-xxv were not in the original Deuteronomy but had, in large part,
prior existence as a collection. These laws have not been transmitted to
us by a book which was once lost and later found, but have developedout
of life and experienceand have been, from their evolution to their incor-
poration in the book, in force in daily life. The comparativelylarge pro-
portion of religiouslaw in Deuteronomyhas in part been conservedin the
original book, the author or authors of which originated them. Others of
the religious laws are the direct result of Josiah's reform. Still others are
provincial cult laws adapted to the principleof centralization. The "com-
pilation" of these variously derived component elements of religious and
civil law into the core of the canonical Deuteronomy (chaps. xii-xxvi)
took place after 621 B.C.and before 586 B.C. It will be seen, then, that the
author dates the actual makingof the book at approximatelythe same age
as that held by the majority of critics, rejecting the earlier date of Oest-
reicher and Welch on the one hand, and the exilic date of Kennett, H6l-
scher, Berry et al., on the other. His chief departurefrom the usual view
is the dating of the originalnucleus, with its distinctive centralizinginter-
est, in the early years of Manasseh's reign, wherein he has apparently
been influenced by the contention of the new school that the book is, in
origin, the result of a reform movement and not purely the cause of one.
SL'Origine du Code Deuteronomique, A. R. Siebens. Paris: E. Leroux, 1929.
vi+256 pages. Fr. 25.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.184 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:42:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
622 THE JOURNALOF RELIGION

In the early chaptersof Part I the author devotes himself to an often

searching criticism of the critical views of the new school. In the second
chapter he contends, with argumentslong since generally in use, for the
identification of the book found in the temple with some part of the ca-
nonical Deuteronomy. In the following chaptershe maintains the histor-
ical value of the Kings' story of the reform of Josiah, the connection of
some form of our Deuteronomy with that event, and the late pre-exilic
origin of the compilation.
From the fifth chapter on the author is concernedchiefly to build up
historicaljustificationfor his disagreementwith that large groupof earlier
scholarswho regardthe book, in Stade's phrase, as a "pious fraud,"writ-
ten ad hoc, as propagandapreparedin advance for the specific purposeof
bringing about the reform. He insists in chapter vi, contra Oestreicher
et al., that the code had a definite institutional aim, namely, that of the
absolute centralizationof the cult at Jerusalem,but concedes to them that
the ultimate purpose of this movement was the purification of religion.
This last thought it is the purpose of the author to strengthenby his dis-
cussion, in the following chapter, of the prophetic influence on this orig-
inal nucleus of Deuteronomy. The formulationof the centralizationprin-
ciple, it is maintained, was the result of the long struggle, in which the
prophets engaged to purify the cult. From this he proceeds in chapters
ix-xi to the elaboration of the idea that the centralizingnucleus of Deu-
teronomywas a result of Josiah's reform.
There are two points advanced by the author which one might wish
briefly to canvass here, namely, his negative assault on the ad hoc theory
of the book's origin and his positive attempt to show that the centralizing
nucleus of Deuteronomy can be more naturally explained as a result of
Hezekiah's reform.
The objectionsto the ad hoc theory are, to put it mildly, far from con-
clusive. For example, if one were to grant at all the possibility of a reli-
gio-political coup as the occasion of a specially prepared book's release
from obscurity, it would be idle, then, to discuss, from the evidence in
our possession, the possibility of the detection and exposure of this
"fraud"by anyone concerned. We simply have no evidence on the point,
yet anyone who studies the religious history of Israel and observes the
close relation between religion, economics, and politics must admit the
possibility of such a coup in that milieu.
The objection that if Deuteronomy had been composed ad hoc by a
reform party they would not have waited until the eighteenth year of
Josiah to compose and "find"the book, since, after the death of Manas-
seh, they would be "strongenough to work their will," may be justly de-

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.184 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:42:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CRITICALREVIEWS 623

scribed as supposition. There are, indeed, certain well-known facts which

may be interpretedin such a way as to show that the reform party was
very much of "the opposition"duringJosiah's early years. It is possible,
for example, that the story of Amon's assassination (2 Kings 21:19-24),
when consideredin the light of Zephaniah'sstricturesagainst the "kings'
sons" and priests (Zeph. 1:4, 8), may have some bearing on this point.
The recordof Amon's careerbrings out clearly three things, namely, that
Amon was following the complacentpolicy of conformity to environment
which he had inheritedfrom his father, that there was a palace conspiracy
against him, and that his son Josiah would have lost the succession but
for popular interference. Zephaniah'sevidence goes to show that Manas-
seh's policy prevailedunder the regency. The logical deductionis that the
crisis of 621 marked the overturning of a long popular policy of con-
formity. Decidedly there is some reason to believe that the time was not
ripe for the reform coup d'etat until 621 B.C.
One finds difficultyalso in accepting the argument that if Deuteron-
omy was the result of a "conspiracyof priests" passages like I4:28f. and
18:6f. which reveal a marked considerationfor the Levites could hardly
have found their way into the book. When one takes account of the ear-
lier story of Huldah's part in the incidents which transpiredon the find-
ing of the book, and when one recalls the bitter nationalismof Nahum in
the light of the facts adduced in the Chronicleof Nabopolassar,as lately
published by Mr. C. J. Gadd, one can hardly be content to regardthe re-
form of 621 B.C.as a mere "conspiracyof priests." If there was such a
"conspiracy"at all it representsa compromisebetween various religious,
economic, and political forces. As for solicitude for the Levites, that
would be an entirely natural attitude to be assumed by those who were,
from not entirely non-altruistic motives, proposing to deprive them of
their rights under an existing system. The Levites, like the Pharisees in
later times, could exercise considerableleverage on the central authority
through their power in local communities. If, however, the centralization
principle is the result of a centralizingmovement,whether carriedout by
Hezekiah or by Josiah, it is much harderto understandthis solicitude for
the Levites after the event had already decided their status.
Again, the objection that the high moral tone which pervades Deu-
teronomy could not emanate from a group engaged in a "pious fraud"
does not carry much force for our generationwhich has had a wide expe-
rience with propagandism. Once grant the sincerity of the propagandists
in their belief that centralization would be morally beneficial and the
force of this objection is lost. The author would, no doubt, acquiesce in
the generally accepted view that the P document, for examplein its treat-

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.184 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:42:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
624 THE JOURNALOF RELIGION

ment of the tabernacle, reads back into the past something which never
had actual existence, and is, therefore,in this and other respects, a "pious
fraud." Yet he doubtless would not argue conversely that on this account
the P document is devoid of ethical values.
Turning now to the positive attempt made by the author to show that
the originalcentralizingnucleus of Deuteronomy may have come to birth
in the early years of Manasseh's reign as a result of Hezekiah's reform,
one may commend his able argument for the historicity of this reform,
and especially of Hezekiah's attacks on the local sanctuaries. Neverthe-
less, it should be pointed out that, even granting that this king attacked
the high places, it does not follow that he had any idea of suppressingall
worshipthere in such a way as would result, in the immediately following
years, in so clear and insistent an assertion of the centralizationpolicy as
pervades Deuteronomy. Meek has already pointed out2 that the serpent
was a distinctive symbol of the Levitical order. This being so, Josiah's
admitted destruction of the temple serpent surely signifies a break with
this order and not with local sanctuariesas such. If Hezekiah broke with
the Levites for political reasons,as Siebens himself thinks is suggested by
the narrativein 2 Kings 18:22ff., one could interpret Hezekiah's attacks
on the high places as a move to crush Levitical interferencewith his na-
tionalistic and nonconformistattitude, and not at all as a move to prevent
any form of worshipin local centers. This is a possibility which has bear-
ing on the date of the centralizing nucleus of Deuteronomy. So inter-
preted there is nothing in Hezekiah's reform which must inspire the cen-
tralization propagandafound there.
Nothing is gained for the author'spurposeby his attempt to make of
Isaiah a propagandistfor the centralizationprinciple. On this point one
should compare page 127 with page I63. Many will regard Isa. 1:2 as an
insufficientproof that this prophet,in his thought of Yahweh,had already
arrivedat absolute and universalmonotheism. Still more will find it hard
to accept the author's inference (p. I63) that such a conception of God
would necessitate a belief in centralization,or that the prophet'scondem-
nation of idols in the Jerusalemsanctuaryindicates that he would believe
in the suppression of all worship at local sanctuaries. So far as the re-
viewer can discoverno conclusiveproof of a centralizationmovementsuch
as would inspire what we find in Deuteronomy,in Hezekiah's time, is of-
fered by the author.
If one, in concluding so inadequate a discussion of an able and im-
portant book, might be allowed to generalize,one would say that, in com-
mon with many moderncritical writers, the present author seems not to
'AmericanJournalSemiticLiterature,XXXVII, No. 2, Io9 et passim.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.184 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:42:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CRITICALREVIEWS 625

be sufficientlyseized of the idea that what we regardas pure Yahwism is

an evolution by reaction against environing forces, and, as such, cannot
be divorced from concurrenteconomic and political reactions. He every-
where accepts the inadequate,earlier,critical idea that an originallypure
Yahwism, once the religion of all the Hebrews, was corruptedby contact
with foreign cults after the entry into Canaan. It is this which leads him
to see as the ultimate aim of the Deuteronomistsnothing more than the
"purification"of the cult, as though the ancient Hebrews regardedreli-
gion, as so many modernsdo, as a thing apart from life, an entity in itself
which may be either debased or purifiedapart from the great life-process.
The modern tendency is to recognize that the popular religion of Israel
differed little from the cults common to the ancient Semitic world, and
that Yahwism transcendedthese precisely because it was an integral part
of a complexof life-forces, economic,political, social, and spiritual,which
sought to achieve significancefor that people by differentiationfrom en-
vironingpressures. When regardedfrom this viewpoint the ad hoc theory
of Deuteronomy'sorigin loses much of the odium which has attached to
it through Stade's unhappy use of the expression "pious fraud," an ex-
pression which may, perhaps, account for some of the present author's
antipathy to the hypothesis it is used to designate,and from which he has
made such a gallant effort to escape.
WILLIAM CREIGHTON GRAHAM
UNIVERSITY
OFCHICAGO

LATE JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

Those who have profitedby the labors of R. Travers Herford will be
interested in his latest book which, in some respects, goes beyond his
earlier ones. Judaism in the New Testament Period1includes within its
range notice of the non-Pharisaicgroups, and, still more interesting, the
author'sjudgmentsabout the relationsof Jesus and his followersto Juda-
ism. This volume differs from earlier works of Herford, too, in its dis-
tinctly popularstyle. Its learningis obvious, but always it is presentedin
a mannerwhich is effectively untechnical.
The exposition of the evolution of late Judaism and its normativeex-
pressionin legalistic Pharisaismfollows the line of Herford'searlierstud-
ies. But the discussion of non-PharisaicJudaism is quite fresh. It is true
1 Judaism in the New Testament Period, R. Travers Herford. London: Lindsey
Press, 1928. 256 pages. 4s. 6d.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.184 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:42:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions