The Composition of Deuteronomy: When it was Written

Overview: Exploring various elements in the dating of Deuteronomy. Showing both sides of the aisle in the research of Deuteronomy’s laws, language, and theology in attempt to date the book.

 

Traditional narrative

According to traditional rabbinic sources, Deuteronomy was written by Moses in the last days of his life. The book itself does not claim to be written by Moses (see here), although it does claim to be the speech of Moses. Critical scholarship argues against both ideas: Moses didn’t write Deuteronomy and neither did he utter its words. More liberal voices in rabbinic texts believe the last 8 verses of Deuteronomy to be post-Mosaic,^[1] while others even advocate for more verses being written after Moses’ times.^[2] But the traditional narrative is based on one sole line of reasoning: tradition. Other than the tradition that Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy, no other evidence suggests that Moses indeed wrote it. Furthermore, other than the book itself (as well as scarce other references in the bible), no other pieces of evidence suggest that Moses uttered the words in Deuteronomy. This glaring fact has led modern bible scholars and historians to seek out the real composers of Deuteronomy.

It should be noted that whether or not Moses wrote Deuteronomy, there may be indication of at least parts of Deuteronomy being divinely-inspired (perhaps via later Israelite prophecy). The argument for the fulfilment of the Deuteronomy Covenant is discussed at length in this article. In this article we will solely address the authorship of Deuteronomy – not whether or not it is divinely-inspired.

 

 

Josiah narrative

The critical scholarly narrative sees several pens in Torah, each written by different people at different times, with different theologies and agendas in mind. The D Code (abbreviated Deuteronomistic Code) is the book of Deuteronomy which contains unique language, phrases, theology, law, and narrative that greatly diverges from the other books of Torah. This leads scholars to believe that Deuteronomy was written at a different time – and by different schools of thought – than the other books of Torah.

Pin-pointing the time of Deuteronomy’s composition would have been a remarkably complicating task – if not for our friends of millennia ago, the authors of the book of Kings. In a rather mysterious narrative, the second book of Kings describes the finding of “the Torah” by Josiah while performing renovations in the Temple. The discovery leads to many reforms based on the laws in the book found, laws that were apparently not kept until that point.^[3] Despite referring to all Five Books as “the Torah” nowadays, it is widely understood by scholars that “the Torah” in this story refers to Deuteronomy alone (more on this later). Scholars understand this era to be the obvious candidate for when Deuteronomy was written, or at least exposed to the public. The king, or perhaps the priests or other players, would have hidden the Torah in the Temple, guising it as Moses’ handwritten speech. Once found, the book would become the new religious text for the nation, having alleged credibility of being from Moses himself – the greatest of all prophets.

A parallel story happened with Joseph Smith finding the Book of Mormon in Upstate New York in 1823. After being guided to a cave by an angel, Smith claimed to have found golden plates that recorded the Book of Mormon, now the sacred text for Mormons around the world. This book was presented as the book written by a prophet of the 4^th century. The Josiah finding of Deuteronomy was of similar nature.

Several indicators confirm this probable seventh-century dating of Deuteronomy in the times of Josiah. The key factors in this will be discussed later on.

 

 

Post mosaic verses

The book of Deuteronomy hides several clues to the time of its composition, or at the very minimum the composition of several parts of it. These verses are of events that happened after Moses’ times and therefore couldn’t have been written by Moses himself. This topic is discussed at length here, but we will briefly examine this topic here with several verses of post-Mosaic nature.

These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel on the other side of the Jordan [river], in the desert, in the plain opposite the Red Sea, between Paran and Tofel and Lavan and Hazeroth and Di Zahav.

(Deuteronomy 1:1)

Israel/Canaan is separated from Jordan by a river known as the Jordan River. The “other side of the Jordan [river]” was a reference to literally the other side of that river. Moses, for some reason, chose to write “the other side” of the river when describing the place where he was at that very time of his writing of the Torah!^[4] This would determine that evidently the Torah was written in Israel at a later time in history when the place the Moses spoke to the Israelites was actually “on the other side of the Jordan river.”^{[5] [6] [7]}

And the Horites formerly dwelt in Seir, and the children of Esau were driving them out, and they exterminated them from before them and dwelt in their stead, just as the Israelites did to the land of their inheritance, which the Lord gave them.

(Deuteronomy 2:12)

This verse describes the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites in the past tense, implying that the conquest already happened. Being that the conquest only happened after Moses’ death, we can conclude that a different author, who lived after the conquest, wrote this verse.^[8]

For only Og, king of Bashan, was left from the remnant of the [giant] Rephaim. His bedstead was a bedstead of iron; which can now be found in the city of Rabbah in the land of Ammon. Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the cubit of a man.

(Deuteronomy 3:11)

The author of this verse describes the giant bed of Og and says that it can now be found in the city of Rabbah in Amon. Now, this war against Og was waged during the 40^th year in the Wilderness, the same year that Moses wrote the Torah. So how did this bed make its way to Amon in this short amount of time? Additionally, the Israelites were prohibited from entering the land of Ammon,^[9] making it even more unlikely that the bed made its way there during Moses’ life. So it must be that this verse was added by a later author who lived at a time when the bed already made its way to Ammon.^[10]

Jair the son of Manasseh took all the territory of Argob to the boundaries of the Geshurites and the Maachathites, and he called them, the land of Bashan, after his own name, villages of Jair, to this day.

(Deuteronomy 3:14)

The verse tells us that the land of Bashan, conquered by the clan of Jair son of Manasseh, was named after their patriarch Jair son of Manasseh. They called the land “the villages of Jair.” The verse continues that those lands still have that name until this very day.

Now, being that the conquest happened at the last year before Moses’ death, it would seem strange why Moses found the need to say that the villages still bare the name they were given a mere few months earlier. A simple implication of the verse is that the author is writing this at a much later period, and he tells his readers that even to this day it still bears the name given to it back in the days of Moses.^{[11] [12]}

And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands upon him. And the children of Israel obeyed him, and they did as the Lord had commanded Moses.

(Deuteronomy 34:9)

This past tense description of the Israelites accepting the leadership of Joshua seems to be a post-occurrence description of what happened. Being that Moses died before the Israelites took Joshua as their new leader it is unlikely that this verse was written by Moses himself.

“And Moses died… and was buried.”

“And no man knows the [area of] his burial to this day.”

“Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses — whom the Lord singled out, face to face”

(Deuteronomy 34:5-10).

These are the last verses of the Torah. They describe the death and burial of Moses. From the wording it seems that the author is writing about something that happened much before his times. This is why he uses the expression that no one knows his burial “to this day.”^[13] Additionally, he writes everything in the past tense implying that they already happened. Also, the author seems to be saying that although so much time passed, still there was never a Prophet like Moses. If it was written only in the days of Joshua, this wouldn’t be a surprise that “never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses.” It therefore seems that these verses were written well after many generations since Moses’ passing.

Some might insist that Moses was writing this prophetically because God told him that he was going to die and be buried at a spot that people don’t know and that no prophet will surpass him. But there is no reason to insist on Mosaic-authorship when it forces us to interpret Torah unliterally. If the verses are written in the past tense, a sober literal understanding is that these events already occurred.

 

 

Contradictions to previous books

 

There are several vivid contradictions between Deuteronomy and the previous books of the Torah, in both the narrative and legal sections. This supports the mainstream scholarly consensus that Deuteronomy was written by different authors than the other books of Torah. Here are some examples:

The Law of the Firstborn of every animal is that it must be given to the Kohen for their consumption. At least that’s the law as recorded in Numbers 18:15-19.

“The firstborn of the womb of every being, man or beast, that is offered to the Lord, shall be yours; but you shall have the first-born of man redeemed, and you shall also have the firstling of unclean animals redeemed…. All the sacred gifts that the Israelites set aside for the Lord I give to you [Aaron], to your sons, and to the daughters that are with you, as a due for all time. It shall be an everlasting covenant of salt before the Lord for you and for your offspring [the Kohanim] as well.”

But by the time we reach Deuteronomy 15:19-22, the law of the firstborn took on a whole new dimension. Instead of being given to the Kohen as a priestly gift, the firstborn animal is to be sacrificed in Jerusalem temple and eaten by the owner of the animal.

“You shall consecrate to the Lord your God all male firstlings that are born in your herd and in your flock: you must not work your firstling ox or shear your firstling sheep. You and your household shall eat it annually before the Lord your God in the place that the Lord will choose. But if it has a defect, lameness or blindness, any serious defect, you shall not sacrifice it to the Lord your God. Eat it in your settlements, the unclean among you no less than the clean, just like the gazelle and the deer.”

Another similar contradiction is concerning maaser, the tithes of the Israelites. In Num. 18, the first-fruits go to the kohanim (priests; sons of Aaron) while all the tithes (maaser) go to the Levites (v. 20-24). In Deuteronomy, however, the tithes are eaten by the owner in Jerusalem and also to be shared with the Levite, the orphan, and the poor (Deut. 14). To reconcile this obvious contradiction, the rabbis established maaser rishon and maaser sheni, effectively establishing two sets of tithes.^[14] There is no indication in the verses that there were two sets of tithes, and the more natural reconciliation is that Deuteronomy was the first form of the tithes and later it developed into providing for the priests and Levites (Numbers).^[15]

In the narrative section, different revelations are given by God at Sinai. According to Exodus, the Sabbath is explained by God to be in memory of the day of rest after God’s creation of the world (Ex. 20:11). Whereas according to Deuteronomy, His reason for the Sabbath is so that the slaves can rest and so that we pity the slave just as we were once slaves in Egypt (Deut. 5:14-15).

 

Here are some more brief examples of contradictions in the narrative section:

In Numbers (Ch. 13), God commands Moses to send 12 spies to spy on the land of Canaan. The same narrative is recorded in Deuteronomy (Ch. 1) but with different details, most notably that it is presented as a proposal by the people.

In Exodus (Ch. 18), it is Moses’ father-in-law, Yitro, who suggests that Moses appoint judges to assist him, whereas in Deuteronomy (Ch. 1) it is Moses’ own initiative. In Exodus, it is Moses who picks out the judges, while in Deuteronomy it is the people who do so.

In Numbers (Ch. 20), the kingdom of Edom prohibits the Israelites from trespassing their territory. In Deuteronomy (Ch. 2), they are commanded by God not to trespass Edom’s territory (called Seir in Deuteronomy).

 

 

Deuteronomistic language

It is argued that the language of Deuteronomy is different than the rest of the Five Torah books, obviously written by a different author than those books. The language is also very similar to that of Jeremiah, a seventh-century BCE prophet, making the case for a seventh-century BCE composition of Deuteronomy, when that writing style would have been predominant. We will argue against the linguistic arguments here and provide counter-evidence arguing for the unity of The Five Books of Moses. This is not done in order to demonstrate the unity of the Five Books (since it is clear that there are many pens writing the Five Books), but rather to demonstrate that linguistic arguments are often vague and can be interpreted in many different ways. So look at this as a critique of vague linguistic arguments rather than authorship of the Torah arguments.

Different writers and have different writing styles. Also, over time languages change slightly and different terminologies are used. The book of Deuteronomy is distinctively different than the previous four books in its writing style. This lends credibility to the claim that the D source was written after the earlier J and E sources. But does this really hold up to scrutiny?

If Moses wrote Deuteronomy, we would still expect to find linguistic differences and terminological discrepancies between Deuteronomy and the earlier books. The earlier books are likely to have been written in the beginning of the 40-year travel in the desert. Whereas Deuteronomy would have been written just a few days before Moses’ passing.^[16] Over the course of 40 years, a writer’s style of writing is ought to drastically change.^[17]

Moreover, it is very likely that Moses had a few scribes working under him. He could have given them a basic outline of what to write and they would write the documents that he would later look over. He could have told them to write down the everything that was transpiring during the Exodus and the travel in the Wilderness that ensued. He would then edit the documents to finalize the Torah version. He is regarded as the author since the scribes were writing under his jurisdiction.^[18] This practice was done by many kings at the time who would have scribes inscribe their messages on tablets of stone and clay. Moses may have done the same. This would account for different writing styles in different sections of Torah. The scribe writing down Moses’ sermons and the Covenant in Deuteronomy would have been different than the scribe of 40 years earlier writing the story of the Exodus and the laws of the Tabernacle.

It is claimed that the Covenant of Deuteronomy 28 parallels neo-Assyrian treaties of the 7^th century BCE. But in his book ani maamin, Dr. Joshua Berman demonstrates that the Covenant is actually more similar to 15^th century BCE Hittite treaties. This would indicate that the Torah was written closer to the 15^th century BCE than to the 7^th century BCE.^{[19] [20]}

Some Bible scholars claim that the language in Deuteronomy parallels that of the 7^th-century BCE Prophets like Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Kings. This would indicate that the D source was written around the same time as those books – the 7^th-century BCE. But this evidence is flimsy.

Sure, there are parallels in their language but that doesn’t mean the books were all composed at the same time. Jeremiah does often bring Deuteronomist phrases, but that doesn’t mean these books are contemporaries. It was customary to reuse biblical or sacred phrases long after the phrase was already out of style in the mundane world. We often translate the Torah or prayer books with phrases long outdated, such as “thy” and “O, Israel.” Sacred texts have their own rules of evolving and they don’t always take the same pace as secular trends in terminology.

The author of Jeremiah purposely reused phrases that were famous from Deuteronomy in his book. He did when so whenever referencing the Covenant or the Law recorded in Deuteronomy. Even nowadays, rabbis often use biblical or Talmudical phrases that have long gone out of style.

Supporting this point is the fact that Ezra and Daniel – which everyone agrees came well after the D source – also borrows biblical terms from Deuteronomy. This shows that they need not necessarily be contemporary works in order to share similar phraseology.

Of course, the Prophets used terms from the other four Books of Moses as well, and not just of Deuteronomy. See, for example, Jeremiah 4:23-27 and Genesis 1 and Ezekiel 22:26 and Leviticus 10:8-11.

Also, the earlier Prophets also use the phraseology of Deuteronomy. See, for example, Isaiah 1:2 and Deuteronomy 32:1, Micah 6:8 and Deuteronomy 10:12, Hosea 5:10 and Deuteronomy 19:14, Hosea 2:10 and Deuteronomy 7:13.^[21]

Even if Jeremiah has used more common phraseology with Deuteronomy more than any other book in Tanakh, it wouldn’t prove that they were written at the same time-period. Many Bible scholars do claim that Jeremiah looks very Deuteronomistic in his language. They conclude from that, that Jeremiah and Deuteronomy were written around the same time (i.e. in the days of Josiah King of Judah). But there is no reason to run to this conclusion. We can explain this with a number of possible reasons for why Jeremiah would have written in Deuteronomistic terms.

The first possibility is that some prophets preferred to speak colloquially while others would have preferred to speak in the language of the greatest Prophet of all times, Moses. People like Jeremiah would therefore share much of the terms used in Deuteronomy – which is essentially a long sermon by Moses to the Israelites right before his death. Ultimately, it was up to the preference of each prophet and how they wanted to write their books. Isaiah, for example, shares much less lingo with Deuteronomy and instead Isaiah opt to write in the common phraseology of his times.

We can take this a step further. Jeremiah in particular would have had more incentive to copy from the language used in Deuteronomy. During his times, King Josiah’s priests found the book of Deuteronomy while doing renovations in the Temple. According to bible critics, this was a scheme done by King Josiah in which he purposely planted the scroll of Deuteronomy which he had authored. Explained differently by traditional Jewish sources, the “scroll of the Torah” found was the raw copy that Moshe wrote and placed in the Holy Ark (Deuteronomy 31:24-26). There may be support for this in II Chronicles 34:14 where the Torah book found is described as “the one of Moses.” Which “Torah scroll” did Moses place in the Holy Ark? Many traditional Jewish sources say that it was the entire Five Books of Moses. But in reality, there is strong reason to say that the book of Deuteronomy alone would have been placed in the Holy Ark.^[22] Thus, when they found the scroll written by Moses in the Holy Ark, it was referring to the Book of Deuteronomy alone.

When found, the story goes, the found Torah scroll reinvigorated the spirit of the Jewish faith and it invoked an enthusiastic recommitment to the Law of Moses found in Deuteronomy. With this historical backdrop, we can now appreciate Jeremiah’s frequent usage of Deuteronomistic phrases in his book. The aftermath of the finding of the Deuteronomy scroll was an enthusiastic embrace of the Deuteronomy law, as the verses describe in II Kings Ch. 23. Jeremiah was a contemporary of these events^[23] and this is perhaps the reason why he decided to copy many Deuteronomist phrases.

We can suggest even farther than all this. This approach is perhaps more radical, especially from a religious perspective, but it is certainly a possibility on the table. We have argued here that the Five Books of Moses have post-Mosaic additions. This was especially noticeable for Deuteronomy in which many verses indicate a later authorship. If we take this a step farther, we can suggest that Moses wrote a proto-Deuteronomy which probably consisted of the Covenant, the Law, and maybe a little historical backdrop. The editor, some several centuries later, would have added historical context and rewrote the main structure of Deuteronomy. Within this newer, edited version of Deuteronomy (i.e. deutero-Deuteronomy), the proto-Deuteronomy would have been included. This editor may have been a 7^th-century figure, as bible critics claim the author to have been. The advantage of this theory is that it answers almost all the bible critic’s issues and in doing so it still regards Moses as the author of the proto-Deuteronomy.

Counter linguistic arguments:

This article would be inadequate if I were to miss out a linguistic argument in favor of the antiquity of the Five Books of Moses, including Deuteronomy. The argument goes like this. The spelling of at least two words in the Pentateuch is unique and almost exclusive to these books, implying that the spelling at the time of the writing of these words were different than later writings of Tanakh. Like all languages, Hebrew went through an evolution with many changes in spelling and pronunciation. These two examples are of words spelled one way in the Pentateuch and another in the rest of Tanakh.

The first word is “He” which is the Hebrew for “she.” The word (and its variants) occurs 210 times in the Torah, 11 times spelled in the proper modern-day Hebrew way of spelling the word (i.e. with a hei, yud, and aleph) – but 199 times spelled with a vov instead of the middle yud. What this shows is that the word used to be spelled with a vov instead of a yud as is in Hebrew today. But the important factor here is that in the rest of Tanakh, the word is used 281 times and only 3 are spelled in the apparent ancient form with a vov (in I Kings 17:15, Isaiah 30:33, and Job 31:11). This would suggest that the Torah was written at an earlier period than the rest of Tanakh which is why the word is predominantly spelled differently than in Tanakh.^[24]

A similar phenomenon is found with the word “naarah” (meaning maiden) as is spelled in Torah and in the rest of Tanakh. The word appears 22 times in Torah (including in Deuteronomy), 21 times without the final hei as is modern Hebrew (the one exception being Deuteronomy 22:19). It occurs with the final hei in all other instances in Tanakh. This, again, suggests that the Pentateuch was written at a time when the spelling of the word was different. Whereas the rest of Tanakh was written at a later period when the word was spelled with a hei. This points to the antiquity of at least the bulk of the Five Books of Moses.

Now, it should be noted that there are possible suggestions that the critic can offer to answer this orthographical argument.^[25] However, those are the very same answers (and similar) that I’m giving for the orthographical arguments for a late authorship of Torah. All these answers are possible, and I bring the argument from “He” and “Naarah” only to show that this works both ways and bible-believers can play offense in addition to defense, when it comes to linguistic arguments.

Similarly, if we are to use linguistic arguments as evidence, then the phrase “Lord of Hosts” (hashem tzvaot) should be used as evidence for the antiquity of the Torah. The term appears 260 times in Tanakh – in practically every book – to the exception of the Five Books of Moses.^[26] This would indicate that the Five Books of Moses were written at a time when this phrase was not yet used.

Another great example is the term “and God spoke” (vayidaber adonai in Heb.) used almost 100 times throughout the Five Books of Moses (and throughout all four alleged “sources”),^[27] yet used only 3 times throughout the remainder of the 34 books of Nakh. This phrase seems to be replaced in Nakh with the term “and the word of God was to” (vayehi devar adonai el in Heb) which is used more than 100 times throughout Nakh and only once in the Torah.^[28] This would suggest that the Torah was written at a time when the Nakh phrase was not yet in use. The vast majority of scholars would agree that the Torah was not written after Nakh,^[29] leaving us only with the option that it was written before.^[30]

Another example is “declares the Lord” (ne-um ado-nai in Heb.) used almost constantly in the prophetic literature of the Prophets, yet never used in Torah’s prophetic parts.^[31] There are other examples as well but citing them all would veer off topic.^{[32] [33]} The point is, that these linguistic arguments are weak at best and there’s always are many ways to explain the usage of words in some books over others.

 

 

Centralized worship in Deuteronomy

Centralizing sacrificial worship in Jerusalem is a key component of Deuteronomy; it repeatedly emphasizes worship in Jerusalem alone. It seems that prior to the time’s of King Hezekiah, sacrifices were allowed to be brought outside of Jerusalem as indicated by several biblical passages (see here). This leads scholars to believe that a large part of Deuteronomy was written sometime in the eight or seventh centuries BCE. Deuteronomy then attempts to outlaw “outside sacrifices,” claiming it was a law from Moses himself.

Deuteronomy is also in contradiction with Leviticus on the question early Israelite worship. What transpired in the biblical account of the Wilderness travel? According to Leviticus 17, all sacrifices were brought specifically and only to the central Tabernacle and placed upon the altar there. But according to Deut. 12:9, they were sacrificing anywhere at will. In an attempt to explain this glaring contradiction, rabbinical commentators understand this Deuteronomy verse to be referring to the future 14 years during the conquest of Canaan (see Rashi on that verse). This is obviously not the intent of the verse that talks of its present times.

The contradiction can be explained as two authors writing at different times. Deuteronomy (likely written before Leviticus^[34]) explains that although beforehand “outside sacrifices” were allowed, after the settlement of Israel, it is no longer allowed. Leviticus had the same theology outlawing “outside sacrifices” but approached it differently historically. Leviticus understands that all throughout Jewish history “outside sacrifices” were not allowed – including in the tabernacle. Thus, both Deuteronomy and Leviticus represent an attempt to rewrite history in the mold of the future ban of “outside sacrifices,” likely after the time of King Hezekiah.

 

 

The Kohanim the Levites

In terms of cultic law, one key difference between the book of Deuteronomy and previous books is the role of the Levites in the priestly duties. In the books of Numbers and Leviticus, their role is limited to specific minor tasks in the Temple procedures, while the descendants of Aaron (also of the Levite line) are promoted to the main sacrificial tasks and are called the priests (kohanim). In Deuteronomy, a very different picture is painted. The whole of the Levite tribe is sanctified for priestly duties, to the point that Levites and Kohanim are synonymous, and no distinction is made between regular Levites and the line of Aaron.

In the “P Source” (Leviticus and Numbers), the sons of Aaron are the exclusive line of priests (Lev. 13:2, Num. 6:23). Levites not of the Aaronite line are assistance to the priests in their sacrificial work (Num. 3:5-9) and carry the ark only once the priests covered it (Num. 4:5, 15, 18-20, 18, 1-7). The sons of Aaron get different gifts than the other Levites (Num. 18).^[35] Deuteronomy takes a different tune, treating all the Levites as Kohanim (priests), repeatedly calling them kohanim haleviim (the priests of Levi: Deut. 17:9, 18, 18:1, 21:5, 24:8, 27:9). Deuteronomy allows all Levites to serve in the Temple, although not all did. (This explains the distinction made in Deut. 18:1, cf Deut. 18:6-8). Thus in Numbers and Leviticus, the priests are a fixed subgroup within the Levite tribe (particularly the sons of Aaron) who serve as temple clergies. In Deuteronomy, however, they are a fluctuating group of volunteering Levites. Those Levites who haven’t travelled to Jerusalem to serve as priests, instead served as teachers and clergymen throughout the countryside (see Deut. 33:10, cf Jud. 11-12).

Defending the unity of the bible, many people will explain the kohanim haleviim as meaning “the priests who are descendants of the Levites,” being that the sons of Aaron are also descendants of the Levites. This explanation can work, except that it would only explain that particular phrase – and not other Deuteronomistic indication of all Levites having the ability to serve as priests.^[36]

(1) Deuteronomy demonstrates that the Levites and Kohanim are synonymous, interchangeably using both terms for the priests (Deut. 31:9 and 25).

(2) Also worthy of mention is in Deuteronomy the kohanim haleviim are carrying the ark, whereas in Numbers it is the Levites – not of the Aaronite line, the Kohanim – whose task it is to carry the ark (Num. 4:5, 15, 18-20, 18, 1-7).

(3) Moses’ blessing to the Levite tribe (Deut. 33:8-11) refers to them as teachers and sacrificial clergies (33:10). Both these jobs are assigned to a small subset of the Levite tribe, the Kohanim, who according to the books of Leviticus and Numbers are limited to the sons of Aaron.^[37] It would therefore make little sense to refer to the Levites as having these roles, when in fact according to Leviticus and Numbers, these roles were strictly for a tiny subset of the tribe. In Deuteronomy’s perspective, however, it all makes sense: the entirety of the Levite tribe can become priests and teachers.

(4) The wide-ranging book of Deuteronomy never distinguishes between typical Levites and the sons of Aaron, as the books of Leviticus and Numbers frequently do.^[38]

(5) In the Korah rebellion of Numbers, Korah plays a key role as leader in the rebellion against Moses’ leadership. His main argument is against the elevated status of Aaron’s descendants as kohanim (Num. 16:9-10). Korah himself was a Levite, but not a Kohen (Num. 16:1). In the Deuteronomy context this complaint would make no sense since Levites are priests! Sure enough, Deuteronomy recaps the narrative yet omits Korah, instead mentioning figures who play a lesser role in the Numbers’ narrative (Deut. 11:6). These rebels were not part of the Levite tribe, fitting in with the overall Deuteronomy narrative of the elevated priestly status of all Levites.

Bear in mind that all this is in addition to the neat pattern of Deuteronomy referring to all Levites as Levitical Priests, whereas in Leviticus and Numbers no such phrase is ever used. Similarly, the phrase “kohanim, the sons of Aaron” used repeatedly in Leviticus and Numbers is not once mentioned in Deuteronomy, further suggesting that all Levites are (or can become) priests according to Deuteronomy.

 

 

No tabernacle in Deuteronomy

Many critical scholars point out the lack of any mention of the Tabernacle, the prominent portable Temple for the Israelites, in the book of Deuteronomy. This fits with the general understanding of Deuteronomy being of different theology and history than the previous books, perhaps not recognizing the existence or importance of the tabernacle in early Israelite history.

It can be countered that Deut. 10:6 recognizes the existence of some sort of sacrificial place that required a High Priest, thus Deuteronomy does refer to the Tabernacle inexplicitly. Furthermore, perhaps the context of Deuteronomy doesn’t require mention of the Tabernacle, being as the Israelites are about to settle in Canaan and no longer need a portable temple. Moreover, in contrast to Leviticus and Numbers, Deuteronomy addresses the common people – not the priests – and therefore has no necessary mention for the Tabernacle.

 

 

Josiah found Deuteronomy alone

Here we provide several lines of argument that “the Torah scroll” found by Josiah was Deuteronomy alone – not the other books that we now call Torah. Other sacred texts may have been around then (and Deuteronomy possibly alludes to previous texts or traditions) but they were not (yet) regarded as the Torah written by Moses. This is why mainstream scholarship understands Deuteronomy to have been written at this time period.

The term “Torah” now refers broadly to the Five Books of Moses. But this wasn’t always the case. The term “Torah” used to refer to a set of laws (see for example Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 7:37, 14:54, Numbers 5:30, 19:2, 19:14). From the context in Deut. 31:24-26, it would seem that only a Deuteronomy scroll was placed in the Holy Ark. Perhaps it was only a proto-Deuteronomy version. This scroll is said to be read every 7 years at the Hakhel gathering (Deut. 31:913). Rabbinic interpretation understood this to be referring to specific chapters in the Deuteronomy scroll alone (see Mishna Sotah 7:8). It would thus appear that the “Torah scroll” placed in the Holy Ark only contained parts of the Deuteronomy Law.

Here are some for “the Torah” in the Josiah narrative referring to Deuteronomy alone:

(1) Whenever the early books of Tanakh mention “the Torah” or “Torah of Moses,” it exclusively refers to Deuteronomistic laws – and not laws mentioned in Exodus, Leviticus, or Numbers. However, there are not enough examples of this to make a compelling case.

Examples include: II Kings 22 & 23 that mention only Deuteronomistic laws (more on this later), Josh. 8:31 echoing Deut. 27, II Kings 14:6 echoing Deut. 24:16, I Kings 2:3 using Deuteronomistic language as does Josh. 23:6.

(2) A much more compelling case can be made with the Josiah narrative alone. Its striking resemblance to Deuteronomy in both language and law suggests that Deuteronomy alone was found. No such parallels can be made between the language and laws of the Josiah narrative to that of the other books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. All of the many laws part of Josiah’s kingdom reforms are from Deuteronomy – with no laws coming from the other books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Even in regard to the laws that are repeated in both Deuteronomy and other books, the language used resembles Deuteronomy more than the law as stated in the other books.

II Kings 23:7 paralleling Deut. 23:18; the law of kedesha is not found elsewhere. II Kings 23:11 reference to sun-worship parallel to Deut. 17:3, not mentioned anywhere else outside of Deuteronomy. II Kings 23:8 paralleling law in Deut. 18:6-8. II Kings 23:10 paralleling law in Deut. 18:10 (but also in Leviticus 18:21, 20:2-4). II Kings 23:24 paralleling 18:11 (also in Lev. 19:31 and 20:6,27).

Countering these parallels to Deuteronomy are the parallels to Exodus. The term Book of the Covenant (sefer habrit) is found in the Josiah narrative (II Kings 23:2) and in Exodus 24:7. Deuteronomy talks of the Covenant and of it being written onto a scroll, but is never referred to as “book of the Covenant.” Only in Exodus is mention made of the Book of the Covenant. Another parallel to Exodus is the law of II Kings 23:14 that parallels Ex. 34:13 (the same law can be found in Deut. 7:5 but with different wording). The typical response to these two counterarguments is that the language and laws overwhelmingly resemble Deuteronomy despite these two references to Exodus.

(3) II Kings 23:19-23 describes a unique Passover done in Jerusalem that hasn’t been done since the era of the Judges (probably a reference to the earliest of Israelite history). In context, it’s referring to a Passover done exclusively in Jerusalem, and not on the bamot along the countryside. Only in Deuteronomy is sacrificing on the bamot outlawed (Deut. 16:5) and all other detailed Passover laws in Exodus omit this law. This indicates that the people hadn’t seen Deuteronomy until then (either because it was hidden according to the narrative, or because it never existed according to mainstream biblical scholarship).

 

 

No early prophets reference anything particularly Deuteronomistic

This is a common claim, although not completely true. First off there are very few early prophets to work with; Amos, Hosea, Micah, and First-Isaiah, regarded as the earliest prophets, are from the smaller books. But even those prophets do have Deuteronomistic references, Hosea in particular.^[39] The direction of influence can be argued either way: Deuteronomy from Hosea or Hosea from Deuteronomy. This is why this is not a good argument for neither the traditional nor skeptical narrative.

 

 

Older elements in Deuteronomy

Despite the consensus of the bulk of Deuteronomy stemming from the Josiah era, many scholars argue for at least some of Deuteronomy being rooted in older sacred texts. This is particularly true for the laws of Deuteronomy which reflect an older, less developed Israelite society. The Deuteronomistic laws address farmers and herders, with no laws regarding merchants, professional artisans, and professional soldiers – the kind of society that develops in later Monarchal Israelite society. By the time of Josiah, there would have been many professional artisans, merchants, and professional soldiers. Law enforcement is not strong enough to protect accidental manslayers who must run to specific refuge cities (Deut. 19). The Blessing of Moses seems to reflect a pre-exile North still settled in their inherited lands. At Josiah’s times, these tribes were already long exiled into the Assyrian Empire.

These indications suggest that a bulk of Deuteronomy is primarily based on an earlier Law code that was perhaps less widespread and perhaps not regarded as sacred. Perhaps that Law code was indeed lost in the Temple and only found in Josiah’s times – but it seems to have not been practiced before Josiah’s times, requiring Josiah to make these Deuteronomistic reforms upon his discovery of the scroll.

 

 

Who would have written it

While the timing of the composition of Deuteronomy, or at least its publicizing, is well-established to have been during the Josiah era, according to mainstream scholarship, exactly who wrote it remains elusive to scholars. There are no notable agendas in Deuteronomy other than the advocation for an egalitarian Israelite society and the moral treatment of the foreigner, orphan, and widow in Israelite society.^[40] For this reason it is very hard to assume which faction of Israelite society played a role in the composition of Deuteronomy.

The monarchial establishment is legitimized but limited in Deuteronomy, making them a non-obvious candidate for writing up Deuteronomy. Their establishment seems to be passivist (“and the people will say: appoint for us a king like all the nations around us – you shall choose a king from your brethren” – Deut. 18:14-15). They have no explicit rights to cease land or taxation, no cavalry (Deut. 17:16), limited wives (Deut. 17:17), is not above the Divine Law (Deut. 17:18). Thus, it cannot be said that Deuteronomy was written for monarchical interests.

The priests as well don’t turn up especially powerful in Deuteronomy. The tithes prescribed for them in Leviticus and Numbers goes to any Levites living in Jerusalem and to the owners themselves. The priesthood is not limited to any particular family, instead being the role of any Levite. Prophets as well do not gain power by Deuteronomy’s laws. The prophets are to go through vigorous testing and cannot change any Torah laws (Deut. 13:1-6).

Perhaps Deuteronomy was written by a person, or group of people, with intended interests to balance the power in Israelite society. It would have been written by a person, or people, with very moral and egalitarian views, without the particular interest of promoting any power institution of Israelite society. The only exception would be the obvious promotion of Jerusalem as a religious city and the centralized worship there.

 

 

Common objections to the critical narrative and some responses

While the evidence is stacked against the traditional narrative, there are some issues that need to be addressed or cautioned by the skeptical narrative in their attempt to date the book of Deuteronomy which focuses on centralized worship.

While the evidence seems to support a sacrificial evolution within Israelite religion, dating Deuteronomy to Josiah comes with its problems.

A strong issue the 7th century hypothesis has it the fact that the key word bamot is not mentioned even once all throughout Deuteronomy. It’s mentioned dozens of times in Kings and also mentioned in Samuel, books that were allegedly written at the same time as Deuteronomy. One of Josiah’s main objectives in his writing of Deuteronomy, according to bible critics, was to centralize worship in Jerusalem and eradicate the practice of bamot. Yet no mention of bamot in this document that he unveiled. What’s the irony of that! Chances are that the word bamot wasn’t a popular term when the Torah was written by Moses in the second-millennium BCE. Only in Josiah’s times (or later) and in the time of the composition of the Book of Kings did the word bamot come into style.

On a similar note, if Josiah’s objective was to permit sacrifices at Jerusalem alone, one narrative in Deuteronomy comes off as awkwardly strange. In Deuteronomy Ch. 27, Moses tells the Israelites soon to pass into Israel to set up an altar on Mt. Ebel and to sacrifice animals to the Lord upon arriving in the Land of Israel. If King Josiah was attempting to sanction sacrifice in Jerusalem alone, why would he insert this counterproductive narrative?

One answer that can be given is that there was a popular legend about an altar erected in Shechem. In order to justify it, Deuteronomy places the altar’s erection prior to the settlement of the land and thus making this “outside sacrifice” legal.

Another issue the skeptical narrative must deal with is the specific commandments within Deuteronomy that are quite awkward for the Josiah-era. These commandments would have no place in a Josiah forgery attempting to mold the Law for his specific time and place. Deuteronomy commands the extermination of the Canaanites^[41] and the Amalekites^[42] – despite them both having long been gone from the Judean landscape by Josiah’s times.^[43]

Perhaps, to answer this issue, we can suggest that the extermination of Canaan and Amalek was still in the Israelite national memory. Perhaps there was even a general national guilt feeling and particular blame on the Davidic monarchy for the atrocities done against these ethnicities. Therefore there was a need to religiously justify those exterminations and the book of Deuteronomy does just that. Alternatively, the severity of the commandment to wipe out Amalek is the reason why King David replaced Saul as king. This commandment thus serves to strengthen the legitimacy of the Davidic line, of whom Josiah descended.

Similarly, Deuteronomy prescribes the king not to “cause the people to return to Egypt.”^[44] This would make sense in Moses’ generation in which the people often contemplated returning to Egypt,^[45] which is why a warning must be given. In the days of Josiah, there would be no reason to warn against the return to Egypt. Similar emphasis on Egypt is found in Deut. 28:68, which in a Josiah context would have been an awkward and meaningless phrase. Deuteronomy also sympathizes with Edom,^[46] who in the time of Josiah would have actually been a sworn enemy of Judea.^[47] This sympathizing makes much more sense in a Mosaic context. Unless of course this was all a brilliant writer attempting to subconsciously convey an Egyptian background.

These hints in Deuteronomy may point to an older element within Deuteronomy. Of course to contrast this are the many late post-Mosaic references in Deuteronomy (Deut. 1:1, 2:12, 3:11, 3:14, 34:9, 34:5-10), which indicate several layers within Deuteronomy and not a single author. If King Josiah (or his contemporaries) composed Deuteronomy, it would not at all be clear which parts he wrote.

Deuteronomy never mentions Jerusalem by name, instead calling it “the place that God will choose.” This causes many to question the skeptical narrative since had the main objective been to centralize Jerusalem, then why not mention it by name explicitly. However, in response to this it can be said that this “place that God will choose” was not limited to Jerusalem alone. Prior to the Temple in Jerusalem, the main shrine traveled from place to place, stopping off at places like Shechem (Josh. 24:26) and Shiloh (Josh. 18:1, I Sam. 1:3). The Israelites at the time of Josiah were aware of this history and a reference to include these chosen places would be expected in Deuteronomy. Another answer that can be given is that an explicit reference to Jerusalem would look too suspicious for the Israelites of Josiah’s times, and thus a more subtle reference to it was preferred.

 

 

The Covenant of Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy Ch. 28 and 30 speak of blessings and curses that are to follow obedience or disobedience of the Law. The curses listed are of particular interest since they mirror the experience of the Northern Kingdom of Israel that was exiled from Israel some time before Josiah’s reign. Scholars understand these “curses” to be a post-hoc explanation for the demise of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who were exiled due to their disobedience to the Law Covenant.^[48]

The exact same rare phenomenon of deportation from the homeland, dispersion around the globe, persecution by local populations, preservation of Jewish identity, and eventual return to the land, repeated itself by the Roman exile and its aftermath. This leads some to see a divine inspiration in this Covenant with God (see here for an extensive discussion on this topic, with arguments for and against being presented). Note that divine-inspiration does not denote necessary Mosaic authorship.

The curses listed are linguistically similar to many of the curses recorded in Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty of the 7^th-century BCE Assyrian emperor, about the time of Josiah’s reign. This suggests an influence from the Assyrian power of the time on Deuteronomy’s composition. But on the other hand, the structural layout of Deuteronomy as a whole parallels 15^th-century BCE Hittite treaties, about the time of Moses, serving as a counterexample for when Deuteronomy could have been composed.^[49]

 

In summary, we presented both sides of aisle, although the evidence itself is almost one-sided. We have pointed out the weaknesses in some arguments but the integrity of others. The mainstream scholarship view is that Deuteronomy is a Josiah-era product, and the evidence seems to concur with that.