In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • The Place of Deuteronomy 34 and Source Criticism:A Response to Serge Frolov
  • Philip Y. Yoo

In his discussion on source criticism, Professor Frolov frequently refers to my essay “The Four Moses Death Accounts,” and I welcome the opportunity to respond to his conclusions.1 Verse by verse and section by section, Frolov follows my analysis of Deuteronomy 34 and offers an alternative explanation for what I identify as the literary difficulties that led to my conclusion that this chapter is composed from four originally independent documents. Opposing the approach that I have undertaken, Frolov argues that an inductive reading of Deuteronomy 34 reveals neither any internal contradictions within this chapter nor external contradictions with other biblical materials outside of this chapter (with the possible exception of Deut 34:7b with 31:2b). Furthermore, Frolov argues that the incompatibility of my deductive reading with his inductive reading of Deuteronomy 34 reveals that source criticism is contradictory; he ultimately questions source criticism’s epistemological validity and joins the calls for its final marching orders. My purpose here is not to respond directly to these calls, as other critics have done so elsewhere.2 Instead, my comments will focus on the utility of some of the current expressions of source criticism toward interpreting Deuteronomy 34 and its application in the wider biblical corpus. [End Page 661]

As presented in Frolov’s essay, an inductive reading of Deuteronomy 34 demonstrates that this text can be read and understood without significant internal or external inconsistencies. Similar readings of other pentateuchal texts are also likely to conclude that these texts are a coherent whole, fit quite well within their surrounding corpus, and support the opinion that the Pentateuch actually contains few contradictions. However, the fact that a single chapter of the Pentateuch or the entire corpus can be read both inductively and deductively does not undermine source criticism but covers its basic tenets: specifically, the preservation and collation of the documents and the reasonable success of this enterprise undertaken by the redactor(s). Readings of the biblical text are open to contestation, and this certainly applies to the identification of literary problems—contradictions included— that are to some degree a value judgment exercised by each exegete. I agree that the Pentateuch reads reasonably well as a whole, but I consider the discrepancies in the laws and the disagreements in narrative claims to be the main indications that signify that the Pentateuch is an eclectic text shaped from originally independent sources. Accordingly, contradictions in the Pentateuch are unavoidable due to the preservation of the literary and ideological differences among the source documents. Occasionally, the precision of certain details is lost to a redactor because of his temporal distance from the source materials.3 Compared to other units of the Pentateuch, the contradictions are subtle in Deuteronomy 34. Some of the original claims of the sources are preserved, such as Moses’ ability to see the entire land (vv. 1b–3) because his vision had not dimmed (v. 7);4 however, the unique juxtaposition of Pisgah with Nebo in v. 1a reflects a geographical understanding that is lost to the redactor.5

For early critical readers, Deut 34:1–12 raised a question: How could Moses write all of this chapter if he dies in 34:5? In an oblique reference to the final verses of Deuteronomy 34, R. Nehemiah opines that Joshua, not Moses, wrote “eight verses of the torah” (b. B. Bat. 14b). The rabbis of the Talmud anticipate the view [End Page 662] that the final verses of Deuteronomy were composed from multiple hands. Félix García López opines that Deuteronomy 34 “can be read as one single narrative,” but he also presents this chapter as a multilayered composition that consists of Deuteronomistic, Priestly (KP), and pre-Priestly Deuteronomic (KD) materials.6 In response to the classical view that Deuteronomy 34 contains P, Lothar Perlitt raises the question, “Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?”7 In short, his answer is no. The impact of Perlitt’s separation of Deuteronomy 34 from the original Priestly materials is most evident in contemporary Continental European pentateuchal criticism. Combined with the quick demise of E and eventually J in Continental...

pdf

Share