The ancient Near East, including biblical Israel, tried to come to terms with the horrific realities of war by understanding the destruction it wreaks as an act enjoined by divine command, whether of YHWH, Dagan, Ashur, Marduk, Kemosh, Teshub, etc., who also participated in the battles.

2 Kings 18:4 describes Hezekiah as having abolished the bamot, worship sites outside Jerusalem. Archaeologists have discovered decommissioned temples and altars from this period in Lachish, Beersheba, and Arad. What do these findings really tell us?

Of all the harsh behavior in warfare known from the ancient Near East, Deuteronomy’s requirement that Israel slaughter all the inhabitants of Canaan is unique. In all likelihood, the law sought to suppress Israel’s inclination to idolatry.

In the ancient world, as now, indiscriminate violence and mass killing in war is explained as a struggle to defend “our” way of life against those who threaten to destroy it.

Deuteronomy refers to the central cult site as the place where YHWH chooses לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם,  an unusual phrase often translated “to cause His name to dwell there,” and interpreted to mean that an abstracted aspect or hypostasis of YHWH takes up residence in the Temple. A parallel phrase found in many Akkadian inscriptions refutes this understanding, offering us a critically important correction to our reading of Deuteronomy.

Jeremiah urges Judah to submit to Babylon while Hananiah claims that Babylon will soon fall. Both use the same prophetic tropes to convince their listeners. Maimonides reads this story as a blueprint for distinguishing true prophets from false ones.

Ahab’s 400 court prophets all assure him that he will defeat Aram, but the prophet Micaiah tells him that these prophets are being enticed by a lying spirit, sent by YHWH himself, for the purpose of destroying Ahab. If Ahab had been willing to face his own position vis-a-vis God honestly, he would have known who was telling the truth.

Deuteronomy promises the Israelites that God will continue sending prophets “like Moses.” But if the Torah’s legislation cannot be adjusted, what is the role of later prophets? And how can all the changes to Torah law made by the rabbis be justified?

When the State of Israel was established, the leading figures in religious Zionism had to justify Israel’s right to conscript soldiers using Jewish legal sources.

Despite the negative evaluation of Herod in traditional Jewish sources, archaeological evidence seems to suggest that, with some notable exceptions, Herod saw himself as tied to the Jewish religion and tried, to a certain extent, to uphold its laws, even in his own lifestyle.

Megiddo was a major Israelite city that was transformed into a horse training center, with large stables and arenas where the palaces once stood. Scholars once attributed these stables to Solomon, but they are actually from the 8th century B.C.E., built by Jeroboam II to provide war horses to the Assyrian Empire.

Deuteronomy 20:19 forbids the chopping down of fruit trees during war-time, and offers the cryptic explanation כי האדם עץ השדה (ki ha-adam etz hasadeh), but what does this mean?^[1]

The Book of Chronicles updates and reinterprets Deuteronomy’s court system.

Reading the Succession Narrative as anti-monarchic Greek tragedy.

Deuteronomy introduces the possibility of future Moses-like prophets who will continue to instruct the Israelites how to follow YHWH’s commandments. At the same time, it makes the existence of such a prophet virtually impossible.

The concept of heroic death is conspicuously absent in Bible. This sharply contrasts with ancient Near Eastern and Greek tropes, as well as with the book of Maccabees and modern day commemorations such as Israel’s Yom Hazikaron and America’s Memorial Day. How should we understand this difference?

Are Levi’im considered Kohanim, with all the accompanying mitzvot and benefits, or not? Apparently it depends which book in the Torah you are reading, Deuteronomy or Leviticus-Numbers.

Deuteronomy’s legal system is complex, combining descriptions of how law actually functioned with elements of ideal law.

If a corpse is found in a field, and the killer is unknown, Deuteronomy 21 requires the elders of the closest city to break a heifer’s neck by a stream and declare that they did not spill “this blood.” How does this ritual of eglah arufah, “broken-necked heifer,” atone for Israel’s bloodguilt?

The law of the heifer whose neck is broken, eglah arufah, has puzzled both traditional and modern commentators. What is it meant to accomplish? How does it work?

Deuteronomy’s legislation leaves the decision whether to appoint or not to appoint a king up to the people, and it seems to reflect negatively on the monarchy.  How did a law like this come about?

Who were the shoftim?

Deuteronomy envisions a king constantly reading torah and limiting his wealth and resources. Is this how kings are described in the rest of the Bible? What was kingship like in the ancient Near East?