Classical and Near Eastern Studies

Abstract:     
This book examines the doctrine of transgenerational punishment found in the Decalogue: the idea that God punishes sinners vicariously and extends the punishment due them to three or four generations of their progeny. Already in ancient Israel, even though it was a “God-given” law, the unfairness of punishing innocent people merely for being the children or grandchildren of wrongdoers was clearly recognized. A series of inner-biblical and post-biblical responses to the rule demonstrates that later writers were able to criticize, reject, and replace this problematic doctrine with the alternative notion of individual retribution. From this perspective, the formative canon is the source of its own renewal: it fosters critical reflection upon the textual tradition and sponsors intellectual freedom.

To round out the volume, a final chapter provides a valuable bibliographical essay on the distinctive approach of “inner-biblical exegesis.” This resource will support further study and shows the contributions of European, Israeli, and North American scholars. The volume opens new perspectives on current debates within the humanities about canonicity, textual authority, and authorship. There is an extended discussion of the formation of the German literary canon (Mme de Stael; Heinrich Heine and the “portatives Kanon”) and of German intellectual history (Immanuel Kant).

Keywords: Decalogue, Divine Justice, Canon, Intertextuality, Allusion, Immanuel Kant, Inner-Biblical Exegesis, Relecture, Fortschreibung, Kanon, Textuality, Literary Theory, Hammurabi, Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon, Scribal Curriculum, Ruth, Authorship, Ezekiel 18, Hittite Laws, Lamentations 5:7

From the back cover (paperback edition, 2010):

“With this study Levinson demonstrates again how he masterfully integrates his own exegetical brilliance into larger theoretical frameworks beyond the constraints of biblical studies. Especially helpful to the specialist and colleagues from other fields is a long essay on the history of research about rewriting processes inside the Hebrew Bible.” —Journal of Ancient Judaism

"This just might be the best book I’ve read in a long time. It’s challenged my assumptions about the development of the Hebrew Bible and the role of innovation alongside preservation. . . . All in all, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the issues of early biblical interpretation and the formation of the biblical canon. Specialists across the board in religious studies and biblical studies would profit from a closer look at Levinson’s book. I’m recommending it to everyone I know—NT students, rabbinics experts, early Christian studies people, Hebrew Bible colleagues — you know who you are — read this book!"
—Biblia Hebraica Blog

"The bibliographical essay is an excellent overview of research on what is now often called ‘inner-biblical exegesis,’ and it will serve as a superb tool for beginners and seasoned researchers alike. The other essays span a vast array of methodological problems and exegetical insights and are at the forefront of current research into legal traditions in the HB. A highly welcome volume." — Society for Old Testament Study Book List

"The book deserves a wide readership. It would serve well as a text for advanced undergraduate or graduate courses that deal with inner-biblical exegesis. One can also hope that scholars in other fields will read it and take to heart Levinson’s argument for the reintegration of biblical studies into the core of academic work in the humanities. In addition, there are faith communities that would be encouraged by Levinson’s insight into the nature of canon and the necessity for ongoing reinterpretation of tradition. The book’s research is thorough, its argument forceful, its writing elegant, and it is blessedly short. If books can be placed into tribes, may this one’s increase." — Review of Biblical Literature

The prohibitions against disloyalty in Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty have previously been recognized as an influence upon the Deuteronomic apostasy series. This chapter proposes a similar origin for the canon formula of Deut 13:1, as part of Deuteronomy’s larger project of creative literary reworking. The implication of this model is that the canon formula, in form-critical terms, represents part of the adjuration to loyalty found in the literary model of the adê. Its origins in literary history emerge as consistent with other key elements of chapter 13. Once Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty is recognized as the source, the originality of the canon formula to the composition of Deut 13 as a whole is confirmed. This underscores the imaginative power of Deuteronomy, who were astutely conscious of their own relation to literary and religious tradition.

Keywords: Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty, apostasy series, canon formula, Neo-Assyrian literature, form-criticism, adê, loyalty oath, Deuteronomy, literary history, reworking. Kanonformel, neuassyrische, Assurbanipal, Ashurbanipal.

This article demonstrates the overlooked contribution of the ancient Near East to the development of constitutional law. The legal corpus of Deuteronomy provides a utopian model for the organization of the state, one that enshrines separation of powers and their systematic subordination to a public legal text—the “Torah”—that delineates their jurisdiction while also ensuring their autonomy. This legislation establishes an independent judiciary while bringing even the monarch under the full authority of the law. Deuteronomy’s implicit model for a political constitution is unprecedented in legal history. Two of its cornerstones are fundamental to the modern idea of constitutional government: (1) the clear division of political powers into separate spheres of authority; and (2) the subordination of each branch to the authority of the law. This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented; instead, idealism rapidly yielded to political pragmatism. Nonetheless, Deuteronomy’s draft constitution provides an important corrective to standard accounts of constitutional legal history.

Keywords:
Constitutional theory; rule of law; separation of powers; Deut 16:18-18:22; Laws of public officials; Law of the king; independence of the judiciary; Deut 17:14-20; Ämtergesetze; Verfassungstheorie; Torah monarchy; Sophocles Antigone law; Herodotus Demaratus; Greek kingship; Mishnah King; mishnah Aboth 1:1; American constitution; Josephus πολιτεία [politeia]; origin of judicial system; Hammurabi; founding myth; independent judiciary.

Cultures having a tradition of prestigious or authoritative texts must inevitably confront the problem of literary and legal innovation. Ancient Israel’s development of the idea of
divine revelation of law creates a cluster of constraints that one would expect to impede legal revision or amendment. As a test-case, the article examines the doctrine of transgenerational
punishment: the notion that God punishes sinners vicariously and extends the punishment due them to three or four generations of their progeny. A series of innerbiblical
and post-biblical responses to the rule demonstrates, however, that later writers were able to criticize, reject, and replace it with the alternative notion of individual retribution. Thus it was the formative canon itself which fostered critical reflection on the
textual tradition and resulted in intellectual freedom.

Kaywords:
Kanonformel, Deuteronomium, neu-assyrische Staatsvertraege, hermeneutik, ade, Asarhaddon, Assurbanipal, Dtn 13,1, Dtn 4,2,
Ignaz Goldziher, Julius Wellhausen, Timo Veijola, Hermeneutik, Theologie des "Alten Testaments, Kanon, Offenbarung, Dekalog, Ezechiel 18, Dtn 7, Keilschriftrechts, hethitischen Gesetze,

»Ihr sollt dem Wortlaut dessen, worauf ich euch verpflichte, nichts hinzufügen und nichts davon wegnehmen« (Dtn 4,2; vgl. 13,1 [12,32]).

The three manumission laws of the Pentateuch (Exod 21:2-6; Lev 25:39-46; Deut 15:12-18), along with their narrative reflex in Jeremiah 34, intrinsically raise the issue of the relative dating, literary relation, and direction of influence of the literary sources of the Pentateuch. They served among the key cases to develop the classical model of the sequence of the legal collections: Covenant Code (BC), Deuteronomy 12-26 (D), and the Holiness Code (H; Leviticus 17-26). More recently, scholars have used these laws to challenge the classical model. In particular, the pivotal position of Deuteronomy as standing between the Covenant Code and the Holiness Code has come under attack. Sara Japhet and Jacob Milgrom maintain that Leviticus 25 precedes rather than follows Deuteronomy 15, which implies the sequence BC, H, D. In turning to biblical law to defend the claim for a late Yahwist (J), John Van Seters maintains that the manumission law of the Covenant Code is derived from that of Deuteronomy. Still other scholars have challenged the validity of diachronic analysis altogether or have argued that the laws allude to biblical narratives. With the foundations of pentateuchal theory thus in flux, this paper investigates the methodological assumptions involved in both the classical model and its challenges. At a number of points, standard models of text composition that prevail in the discipline, whereby composition and redaction are viewed as mutually exclusive, obscure the sophistication of these texts. The importance of biblical law for contemporary pentateuchal theory is stressed. The conclusion demonstrates the extent to which, in the utopian social vision promoted by the author of Leviticus 25, the text amounts to a systematic rewriting of earlier laws (BC and D). In a sense, the chapter represents an example of “rewritten Bible” or “rewritten Scripture” within the Pentateuch itself.

Keywords:
Rewritten Bible; manumission laws; Holiness Code; Leviticus 25; Covenant Code; Deuteronomy; Exodus 21; Deuteronomy 15; Jeremiah 34; Sara Japhet; Jacob Milgrom; John Van Seters; Date of Holiness Code; Date of Priestly source; Date of H; Date of P; source criticism; pentateuchal theory; intertextuality in Bible; sabbatical year; jubilee legislation; Cholewinski; Chirichigno; die Freilassung von Sklaven im Pentateuch; Levitikus 25; Dtn 15; Ex 21; Heiligkeitsgesetz; Deuteronomium; relecture; Holiness Code; Covenant Code; Leviticus 25; abrogation; lemmatic exegesis; pentateuchal theory; source criticism; inner-biblical exegesis; manumission laws; slave laws of the Pentateuch; Exodus 21; Septuagint; textual-criticism; translation theory; Biblical manumission laws; slave laws Bible; lemma; documentary hypothesis; dating of H; dating of Priestly source; Sara Japhet; John van Seters.

The jubilee laws of the Holiness Code contains a previously unrecognized restrictive reinterpretation of the Covenant Code’s law requiring manumission of the Hebrew slave ( עבד עברי )
after six years of service. This case, which involves studied lemmatic citation and reformulation of the earlier law, has important implications for contemporary pentateuchal theory, where the question of the dating of the Holiness Code relative to the other literary sources has been reopened during the last quarter century. The reasons why this case has escaped the attention of scholarship are equally significant. The Septuagint translator failed to recognize the reuse of two technical legal idioms relevant to manumission law and misconstrued the syntax and punctuation of the Hebrew Vorlage of Leviticus 25:44, 46. That ancient misunderstanding has had a lasting impact upon the way this unit has subsequently been understood. Seeing the text in its own light opens up a significant new perspective on the sophistication of the Holiness Code and its literary relation to the other pentateuchal sources. The techniques for legal reinterpretation employed in Leviticus 25 include the use of the Wiederaufnahme and pronominal deixis. These techniques, as well as their larger goal of textual reapplication, reveal an emergent form of the methods that are well attested in the pesher and other more formalized exegetical literature of the later Second Temple period. That they occur here in a text that presents itself as revelatory rather than as exegetical, however, raises a series of fascinating hermeneutical issues.

Keywords:
Holiness Code; Covenant Code; Leviticus 25; abrogation; lemmatic exegesis; pentateuchal theory; source criticism; inner-biblical exegesis; manumission laws; slave laws of the Pentateuch; Exodus 21; Septuagint; textual-criticism; translation theory; Biblical manumission laws; slave laws Bible; lemma; documentary hypothesis; dating of H; dating of Priestly source; Sara Japhet; John van Seters; Rewritten Bible; manumission laws; Holiness Code; Leviticus 25; Covenant Code; Deuteronomy; Exodus 21; Deuteronomy 15; Jeremiah 34; Sara Japhet; Jacob Milgrom; John Van Seters; Date of Holiness Code; Date of Priestly source; Date of H; Date of P; source criticism; pentateuchal theory; intertextuality in Bible; sabbatical year; jubilee legislation; Cholewinski; Chirichigno; die Freilassung von Sklaven im Pentateuch; Levitikus 25; Dtn 15; Ex 21; Heiligkeitsgesetz; Deuteronomium; relecture; Holiness Code; Covenant Code; Leviticus 25; abrogation; lemmatic exegesis; pentateuchal theory; source criticism; inner-biblical exegesis; manumission laws; slave laws of the Pentateuch; Exodus 21; Septuagint; textual-criticism; translation theory; Biblical manumission laws; slave laws Bible; lemma; documentary hypothesis; dating of H; dating of Priestly source; Sara Japhet; John van Seters.

From 1933 through 1945, the Hebrew Bible was under attack in Nazi Germany. Indeed, the entire notion that Christianity had any connection to Judaism was systematically denied. Even within the Church, the long-standing tradition of “Old Testament“ studies was marginalized. This article examines the heroic struggles of Gerhard von Rad at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Jena, in Germany, as the university sought to transform itself into a bastion of National Socialism. It tells the story of how von Rad, long before he before he became a famous Protestant theologian, fought in near isolation to defend the Old Testament. Much of the gripping story has not been widely known, and has only recently become available.

Keywords: Old Testament hermeneutics, Deuteronomy, law-gospel dichotomy, kerygma of Deuteronomy, National Socialism, Walter Grundmann, Gerhard von Rad, disciplinary history, Karl Astel, Institut zur Erforschung und Beseitigung des jüdischen Einflusses auf das deutsche kirchliche Leben, Karl Astel, Deuteronomy as sermon, kerygma des Deuteronomiums, Theologische Fakultät der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena; Theological Faculty of the University of Jena

For all the debate in the contemporary humanities about the canon, there is little interdisciplinary dialogue on the issue, nor even meaningful input from the perspective of academic biblical studies, the one discipline that specializes in the formation and interpretation of the canon. Seeking to provide such a perspective, this article shows how cultures having a tradition of prestigious or authoritative texts address the problem of literary and legal innovation. Engaging the work of Jonathan Z. Smith on exegetical ingenuity, the study begins with cuneiform law, and then shows how ancient Israel's development of the idea of divine revelation of law creates a cluster of constraints that would be expected to impede legal revision or amendment. As a test-case, the article examines the idea that God punishes sinners transgenerationally, vicariously extending the punishment due them to three or four generations of their progeny. A series of inner-biblical and post-biblical responses to the rule demonstrates, however, that later writers were able to criticize, reject, and replace it with the alternative notion of individual retribution. The conclusions stress the extent to which the formative canon sponsors this kind of critical reflection and intellectual freedom.

The frequent replacement of conditional (ky), “if,” with its semantic equivalent ('im) by the Temple Scroll has been well documented. The replacement occurs in some cases when the redactor incorporates biblical laws that employ yk to mark the “if” clause, or protasis. This article examines the conditions for that replacement and demonstrates the system employed by the author of the Temple Scroll, as well as the inter-relation between its spacing (paragraph) system and its selection of conditionals. In the process of the examination, the system of protasis markers more broadly in the Semitic languages is examined (in Akkadian; Ugaritic/Northwest Semitic). Both epigraphy and rabbinic Hebrew are taken into account, as is the evidence of Ben Sira and other manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The article demonstrates that the conditions for replacement were not merely matters of historical linguistics alone; nor are the replacements merely random. The system is explained as an interaction between language and text. The author of 11QTemple recognized the rules governing the hierarchical ordering of conditionals in the Covenant Code, and saw further that there was a different system in play in Deuteronomy, and sought to create a more consistent system.

The Temple Scroll’s use of conditionals therefore demonstrates the redactor’s sophistication as a reader of his sources and his accomplishment as an editor. His engagement with the biblical text in the service of improving upon it is not limited to large-scale rearrangements of law or changes of voicing. It permeates the scroll to its very language and syntax. In presenting what purports to be the direct discourse of God, the redactor makes regular inroads into the text to systematize its order and syntax, to rearrange its sequence, and to re-voice or to “de-voice” texts originally attributed to Moses. Paradoxically, the rejection of all mediation, whether Mosaic or editorial, can only be accomplished by increasing the degree of human mediation of that revelation. Precisely in the archaizing attempt to deny literary history, the author discloses that his work is not “original” but hermeneutical and redactional. The Temple Scroll is the creation of a community engaged with a scriptural tradition and a scriptural language, from which they are long distant, and yet whose pristine, revelatory voice they seek, “hand in hand, with wandering steps and slow,” to revivify and to claim as their own.

The article includes several appendixes:

Appendix I: The Use of ky and 'im in Selected
Legal Texts from Qumran
-The use of ky in MiqsatMaaśe ha-Torah
-The use of ky in the Damascus Document
-The use of ky in 1QS

APPENDIX II.1:
THE USE OF {ki} AND THE SPACING SYSTEM
OF THE TEMPLE SCROLL

APPENDIX II.2: THE USE OF {'im} AND THE SPACING SYSTEM OF THE TEMPLE SCROLL

Keywords:
Temple Scroll; 11QTemple; conditionals; protasis markers; comparative Semitic linguistics; law of the king; legal syntax; if-clause; Covenant Code; historical grammar of biblical Hebrew; Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew; mishnaic Hebrew; epigraphy; Hebrew grammar; Qumran language; conditionals; biblical law; Ugaritic hippiatric corpus; if-clause; Landgabeformel,“land-grant formula”; spacing system; ancient manuscripts; comparative Semitic linguistics; closed paragraph interval; open paragraph interval; author; editor; biblical interpretation at Qumran; authorial voice of Temple Scroll; Temple Scroll's bid for authority; syntax of conditional clauses in Hebrew; isogloss.

"This highly innovative collection of essays effectively orients students of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament to the many facets of contemporary Pentateuch studies. One of the major benefits of the volume is that it truly offers several ‘new models’ for Pentateuch studies that are not hampered by tenuous and lengthy discussions of redaction criticism. Further, these new models are informative for as well as intelligible to non-specialized audiences. This volume is bound to make a valuable addition to the bookshelves of students, seminarians and scholars alike.”
—Andrew B. Perrin, Toronto Journal of Theology 24 (2008) 262–263

“This collection of 14 substantive essays aims to account for the reception of the Pentateuch as a uniquely authoritative document in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. The distinguished contributors to this erudite volume propose different models for how, when, why and where this took place. Readers will appreciate the introductory essay by the editors that surveys the complex and contested field explored, for the essayists present a bewildering array of theories. Most of the essays interact with the theory of a ‘Persian imperial authorization’ of the Torah, and this book represents the most sustained discussion of that theory since Persia and Torah (2001), edited by James W. Watts. . . . This is a useful volume for anyone who wants to come up to speed with what is happening in Pentateuchal studies. It shows the field is in flux, indeed it appears to be in crisis, with no theory able to secure a scholarly consensus.”
—Gregory Goswell, Australian Biblical Review

“This informative and well-written volume provides an excellent entry-point for scholars, advanced undergraduates and graduate students to explore the fast-changing world of Pentateuchal theory and the relationship of the Torah to its literary and cultural environment.”
—Daniel M. O’Hare, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8 (2008): 253–57

“These excellent essays were first presented as papers or oral presentations at the 2006 international meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, and they were edited (very nicely) for publication in this volume in ways to render them more accessible to a wider audience of biblical scholars.

“Even though the central theme is the emergence of an authoritative Pentateuch, the authors touch on a number of topics that can be valuable for the scholarly interests of readers in the wider field of biblical studies and Judaica.”
—Robert Gnuse, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70 (2008): 867–69

“The contributors to this volume seek models helping to understand the Pentateuch’s rise to prominence as a foundational collection of Scriptures in early Judaism and Samaritanism. Most of them focus on the growing acceptance of the Pentateuch in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods. In their endeavour Frei’s theory of a Persian imperial authorization often serves as a starting point. In their instructive introduction, the editors sketch the larger issues that lie at the background of the questions dealt with in the volume. . . . The volume is very well edited. Indexes enhance the usefulness of the collection.”
—J. Lust, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 84:1 (2008)

“The articles collected in this volume originated in four panels on biblical and ancient Near Eastern law convened during the 2006 International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Edinburgh. The panels investigated ‘the promulgation and acceptance of the Pentateuch as a prestigious writing in the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods’ (p. 1). However, the editors correctly note that the collection of articles goes well beyond conventional conference proceedings. All the articles were extensively revised, often repeatedly, in a thorough peer review process involving referees and the editors. While the editors offer thanks and apologies for the work they imposed on the authors, they need make no apologies to the readers of the final volume. The extensive review process shows in the consistently high quality of the work included.”
—David A. Bosworth, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9 (2009)

“There are many more very fine essays in this volume, and anyone interested in pentateuchal and/or Achaemenid studies would greatly benefit from every one of them.”
—Charles Halton, Bulletin of Biblical Research 19:2 (2009)

“Never [before, has there been] so many interesting details and far reaching aspects of the canonization of the Pentateuch presented in one book. I feel obliged to thank the editors for having organized this conference and done such an excellent editorial work. As they tell (p. 18) all essays were ‘doubly refereed’ and ‘extensively revised’ in order to provide the volume with a higher degree of consistence and legibility than normal. And I can confirm that the editors succeeded in their demanding task in most case.

“Thus, this significant volume makes good progress in clarifying the circumstances, under which the Torah has been canonized. It will be appreciated by all scholars, who are engaged in the recent Pentateuchal discussion, to which it has made a remarkable contribution.”
—Rainer Albertz, Journal for the Study of Judaism, 40:3 (2009): 420–24

“This volume significantly advances our understanding of the processes leading to the establishment of the Torah in its present forms as the foundation document of the Jewish and Samaritan communities. . . . The essays . . . taken as a whole . . . form a contribution which no future work on the subject will be able to ignore.”
—W. J. Houston, Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009)

“This volume of essays is a “must have” for any researcher, teacher, graduate student, or high-level undergraduate student interested in the promulgation and acceptance of the Pentateuch/Torah as authoritative sacred writings for the Jewish and Samarian communities during the late Persian and early Hellenistic Periods. While these 14 essays started out as papers given at an international meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature held in Edinburgh (July 2006)m collectively, they read as much more than a standard proceedings volume. Each essay provides an overview of past research into an aspect of the development of Torah during the post-exilic period, a critique of weaknesses in those approaches, and a proposal for (a) new way(s) of understanding how the first five books became the foundational text not only for the Jewish communities in Yehud/Judea and the diaspora but also for (b) the Samarian (later Samaritan) community.

“The editors are to be congratulated for focusing on ‘cutting edge’ issues, helping to transpose these conference papers into tightly-organized but accessible essays (with all lengthy German and French quotations translated into English), and bringing these provocative pieces of first-class scholarship to a wider audience speedily.”
—Gordon J. Hamilton, Studies in Religion, 2008

“The Torah as the Pentateuch stimulates thinking, keeps the debate alive, and is a good resource for pentateuchal studies.”
—Patrick Mazani, Andrews University Seminary Studies 46 (2008): 282–86

“. . . valuable collection of essays.”
—Graham I. Davies, SOTS Book List 2009 =JSOT 33 (2009): 157–58

“Der vorliegende Aufsatzband ist das Ergebnis einer Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe ‘Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Law’ der Internationalen Konferenz des Society of Biblical Literature in Edinburgh, 2006, und gibt einen hervorragenden Einblick in die aktuelle Diskussionslage in der Pentateuch-Forschung.”
—Tobias H. Duncker and Reinhard Achenbach, Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2008): 499–506

“Le volume reflète le travail d’un atelier organisé lors de la rencontre internationale de la Society of Biblical Literature à Édimbourg en 2006. Ces rencontres forment un lieu important d’échanges entre l’Europe et l’Amérique du Nord en matière d’exégèse biblique. En ce qui concerne la problématique liée à la promulgation de la Torah en tant que loi religieuse, le volume prouve surtout que l’on est encore très loin d’un quelconque consensus.”
—Jan Joosten, Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 88 (2008): 233–35

“Insgesamt ergibt sich mit dem Sammelband ein repräsentativer Überblick über die derzeitige Forschung zum Themenbereich um Abschulss und Durchsetzung des Pentateuchs. Der Sammelband bietet sich dabei auch für einen schnellen Neueinstieg in diesen wichtigen Forschungsbereich an und ist trotz der besonderen Ausrichtung auf den englischsprachigen Markt auch für den deutschsprachigen Wissenschaftsraum sehr zu empfehllen.”
—Raik Heckl, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 105 (2010): 197–203""

The Relationship of Law to Society in Deuteronomy:
“The Draft Constitution” (Deut 16:18–18:22) as an “Ideal Type”

This article demonstrates the overlooked contribution of the ancient Near East to the development of constitutional law.  The legal corpus of Deuteronomy provides a utopian model for the organization of the state, one that enshrines separation of powers and their systematic subordination to a public legal text—the “Torah”—that delineates their jurisdiction while also ensuring their autonomy.  This legislation establishes an independent judiciary while bringing even the monarch under the full authority of the law.  This legislation departs from all previous models, whether those extant in the legislation of the ancient Near East or ancient Israel itself.  Two of its cornerstones are fundamental to the modern idea of a constitution: (1) clear division of state powers into separate spheres of authority; and (2) the subordination of each branch to the authority of the law.  This legislation was so utopian that it seems never to have been implemented; instead, idealism rapidly yielded to political pragmatism.  Nonetheless, Deuteronomy’s draft constitution makes a powerful statement about the broader function of law within society, while also providing a corrective to the secular and Graeco-Roman bias of more standard models of constitutional legal history.

This article investigates the intellectual history of the argument for the antiquity of Ex 34,11–26. In the contemporary debate about pentateuchal theory, a question that remains insufficiently addressed is how and why the idea originally developed that the unit represents an ancient, independent, pre-Deuteronomic legal source. Wellhausen credited the idea to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s »Zwo bisher unerörterte biblische Fragen …« (1773). Like Goethe, Wellhausen regarded the unit as a »ritual Decalogue,« in contrast to the »ethical Decalogue« of Exodus 20. The distinction helped Wellhausen consolidate the classical model of the documentary hypothesis: he attributed the cultic Decalogue to the Yahwist and the ethical one to the Elohist. Despite the importance of Goethe’s essay to the history of pentateuchal criticism, it is not clear that its arguments have previously been investigated. The article addresses equally Goethe's construction of the Jew as "other" and as particularistic, in contrast to the German Protestant as "self" and universal. The article demonstrates that Goethe could not have read read Spinoza's Tractatus, despite the common belief otherwise.

Keywords:
Julius Wellhausen, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Baruch Spinoza, Zwo bisher unerörterte biblische Fragen, Dekalog, Decalolgue, cultic Decalog, ethical Decalog, German Jewish history, Christian Jewish relations, Ten Commandments, history of biblical scholarship, Exod 34:11-26; German Romanticism

Because the royal ideology of ancient Israel was largely identical to that of the broader ancient Near East, the points of divergence are the more remarkable. In particular, the legal corpus of Deuteronomy conceptualizes the king in a way that rejects all prevailing models of monarchic power, both Israelite and Near Eastern. Deuteronomy submits a utopian manifesto for a constitutional monarchy that sharply delimits the power of the king. This redefinition of royal authority takes place as part of a larger program (Deut. xvi 18-xviii 22) whereby the authors of Deuteronomy redefine the jurisdiction of each branch of public office (local and central judicial administration, kingship, priesthood, and prophecy). Each is subordinated, first, to the requirements of cultic centralization, and, second, to the textual authority of deuteronomic Torah. This utopian delimitation of royal power never passed from constitutional vision into historical implementation: it represented such a radical departure from precedent that the Deuteronomistic Historian, precisely while seeming to implement deuteronomic law, pointedly reversed the deuteronomic program and restored to the monarch all that Deuteronomy had withheld.

Keywords:
Law of King Deuteronomy 17:14-20; Deut 17:14-20; Dtn 17, 14-20; Kingship, Deuteronomy, Deuteronomistic History, Ämtergesetze; constitutional theory, democracy, Deut 16:18-18:22; Ezekiel 37; democratic kingship; Greek ideology of kingship; constitutional monarchy; Elyon, Psalm 1, royal psalms, Laws of Public Officials.