deuteronomy, liz, response
regalzi at infinito.it
Mon Mar 12 08:16:52 EST 2001
Peter Kirk wrote:
> 1. Which was the book which Hilkiah "found"? How do you know?
Deuteronomy is strongly connected with the contents of Josiah's
centralization of the temple cult: 2K 23:220.127.116.11 // Deut 12;
pesach in Jerusalem: 2K 23:21-23 // Deut 16:5-7;
desecration of high places: 2K 23:13 // Deut 12:2;
destruction of maccebot and asherot: 2K 23:6.14-15 // Deut 12:3
eradication of astral cults: 2K 23:4-5.11 // Deut 17:3;
of holy prostitution: 2K 23:7 // Deut 23:18-19;
of the cult of Molek: 2K 23:10 // Deut 18:10;
of necromancy: 2K 23:24 // Deut 18:11;
curses on transgressors: 2K 22:13-17 // Deut 27:11-26 and 28.
and so on.
There are also some stylistic agreements, e.g. 2K 23:3 // Deut
> 2. Since when does "found" equal "wrote"? Only since some clever
> 19th century theologian speculated this? Evidence?
Since one notes how well D fits in a late setting, both for its
ideology (after prophetic exhortations to monotheism and
Hezekiah's reformation) and for its language (good classical
Of course one cannot disprove any claim that D was a much earlier
composition: you may have it, that some small circle already knew
the book and influenced the prophetical movement (but neither
Isaiah nor Amos nor Hosea ever named Moses), and that some scribes
thoroughly modernized its language (leaving not the faintest of
traces?). But these would be ad hoc hypotheses, I fear, with no
further explanatory power. We should stick to the most
parsimonious theory, IMO.
One final word: I do not necessarily hold the view that D was a
late VII century creation. If Josiah's reformation is a later
artifact, and if the language of D cannot be pinpointed to ca. 600
as Vincent claims, then D could be regarded as a post-exilic text.
Via dei Velieri, 83
00121 ROMA RM
regalzi at tiscalinet.it
Resources for Jewish Studies:
More information about the b-hebrew