Was sacrifice centralized in the Tabernacle in the wilderness, or were the people permitted to sacrifice wherever they pleased? This straightforward question defies a simple answer.
To consume meat, Exodus (20:24) requires that the animal be sacrificed at a local altar, i.e., in any place where YHWH proclaims His name. When Deuteronomy centralized the cult to “the place,” it had to permit secular slaughter for those who lived far away, and it did so by presenting this innovation as an interpretation of the older law.
In the 1950s, Yehezkel Kaufmann challenged the regnant Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis that the Priestly Text was the final Pentateuchal source to be written, and that it dates to the Post-Exilic Period. One pillar of his argument is that the Priestly Text seems wholly ignorant of Deuteronomy’s 7th century B.C.E. law of centralization of worship, and thus dates to earlier in the First Temple period. And yet, a closer look at P’s laws shows that it is simply taking centralization for granted.
In modern times, Shavuot (“Weeks”) has also become known as חג הבכורים, “the festival of firstfruits,” and in Israel it is celebrated as an agricultural festival. Indeed, bringing firstfruits of grain and fruits to the temple at certain times of the year is biblical, but what, if any, is its connection to Shavuot?
Ten lavers, mounted on wheels, and decorated with images of lions, bulls, and cherubs, stood on either side of the bronze sea in the Jerusalem Temple’s courtyard. Are these the “chariots of the sun” (2 Kings 23:11) that Josiah’s reform purges from the Temple?
Hammurabi’s Laws and other ancient Near Eastern legal collections were sanctioned by the gods, but crafted by kings. How and why did the laws in the Torah become God’s laws?
Originally, Deuteronomy presented itself as the torah, and even after its incorporation into the Pentateuch, it retains a distinct identity, which is why the Septuagint translates mishneh torah (Deuteronomy 17:18) as deuteronomium, “Second Torah.” At the same time, with the canonization of the Pentateuch, the role of the “second Torah” was claimed by: Jubilees, some Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, early Christians, and ultimately the rabbis, culminating in the composition of the Mishnah. A millennium later, Maimonides presented his Mishneh Torah as the (so-far) complete and final embodiment of that second revelation.
In a striking departure from prevailing notions of kingship in both the ancient Near East and early Israel, Deuteronomy introduces the separation of powers among distinct branches of government and subjects all political actors—including the monarch—to the rule of Torah. In effect, Deuteronomy provides a blueprint for the modern concept of the rule of law. These principles rest on an even more revolutionary idea: the establishment of an independent judiciary.
Slaughtering domesticated animals was always a sacrificial act, and even on the battlefield, King Saul builds an altar so the soldiers can slaughter their animals properly. To work around the limits of centralized worship, Deuteronomy introduces “profane” slaughter—but this did little to change Israelites’ enduring sense of meat as sacred. The rabbinic requirement of ritual shechitah even for wild animals makes all slaughter “quasi-sacrificial.”
Deuteronomy describes itself as the words of Moses expounding upon revelation. At the same time, it commands that all Israelites—including the king—learn Moses’ words exactly and never add to or subtract from them, even though Deuteronomy itself reworks earlier texts such as the Covenant Collection in Exodus. Despite this attempt to establish final authority, Deuteronomy undergoes the same process it models: it is combined with other texts and reinterpreted by later works such as Ezra–Nehemiah.
The generation that came out of Egypt? Their descendants? The audience of Deuteronomy’s authors? Or anyone who reads Deuteronomy, even today?
In Persian Yehud, as Deuteronomy’s covenant with YHWH was championed as the new path to national security and blessing, the book of Ruth countered with a conservative vision—one in which the survival and well-being of two vulnerable widows are secured not through covenantal fidelity, but through traditional values and customary law.
Exodus instructs each family in Egypt to slaughter a paschal lamb and eat it at home, while Deuteronomy commands a community ritual, to take place at the central worship location, i.e., the Jerusalem Temple. These two conceptions cross-pollinate, first in the Torah and then in its early reception: Jubilees requires everyone to eat in the Temple as their home; the Mishnah requires everyone to slaughter together in three cohorts; most surprisingly, R. Eliezer claims that, in theory, all of Israel can share one paschal animal.
Hezekiah’s centralizing worship in Jerusalem, one altar for one God, failed in part because it created a spiritual vacuum for the average Judahite villager living far from the capital. Less than a century later, Deuteronomy revives the law, adding new provisions—a stipend for unemployed Levites, permission to slaughter animals outside the sacred precinct, and a requirement to make pilgrimage to the holy site three times a year—to address the law’s challenges.
Israelite religion developed from a revolutionary idea: monotheism. And religion alone, not external factors, accounted for the remarkable preservation of Jewish national identity and consciousness in exile.
Revised in the post-exilic period in the voice of Moses, Deuteronomy describes Judah’s destruction and exile to a foreign land כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה “as it is still the case” (Deuteronomy 29:27), but reassures the people that, at the end of days, Israel will be reconciled with YHWH, who will circumcise their hearts to ensure their permanent loyalty.
Deuteronomy cannot accept that Israel, under YHWH’s command, had to bypass Seir because the Edomite king would not allow them to pass through (Numbers 20). Thus, Deuteronomy has Israel wandering aimlessly, skirting Seir in a southward march away from Canaan (E) while waiting for the exodus generation to die for the sin of the spies (J).
Moses revises the account of why he appointed judges to oversee the Israelites, and the way the wars with the Amorites of the Transjordan were conducted. Examining the changes uncovers the ideological stances that motivated this revisionist history.
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.
The festival calendar in Deuteronomy 16 began as a short revision of the calendar in Exodus 23. As it was expanded to clarify and adjust its details, it merged its springtime Matzot festival with the Pesach offering, which was originally connected to the consecration of firstborn animals.
Joshua circumcises the Israelites only upon their entry to the land.
Deuteronomy does not have the festival of Shemini Atzeret (“the eighth day of assembly”), while Leviticus and Numbers do. This difference helps explain why the festival is absent in the story of Solomon’s dedication of the Temple in Kings but appears in the version of this same story in Chronicles.
Jews have long understood “the place that YHWH will choose” to mean Mount Zion in Jerusalem, while Samaritans have interpreted it as Mount Gerizim near Shechem. Archaeology and redaction criticism converge on a compromise solution: it refers to a series of places, one place at a time.
The oldest biblical sources see Balaam as a great seer, but as time goes on, biblical texts portray him in an increasingly negative light. The key to this shift lies in Deuteronomy’s attitude to Israel and gentiles.
The story of Aaron’s staff reads like an etiological tale, explaining a holy object in the Temple. The description of the object as a stylized tree suggests a connection with the asherah, a ritual object forbidden by Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy has Moses receiving a revelation at Horeb, but only teaching the Israelites its contents decades later in the Land of Moab. This two-step revelatory process, which is presented as two covenants (Deuteronomy 28:69), masks an earlier form of Deuteronomy that had no record of a Horeb revelation.
Deuteronomy 1:1 describes the place where Moses gave his address with a list of several toponyms. Early commentators interpreted these toponyms as Moses’ hidden rebuke, while peshat commentators from Bekhor Shor to R. David Zvi Hoffmann tried to fit them into their context. A geographic and source-critical analysis suggests that this is an itinerary list, reflecting an alternative account of Israel’s travels through the Transjordan.
In the Persian period, the Torah, which is made up of various law collections, was ascribed to Moses as revealed by YHWH. A parallel development was taking place in Achaemenid Persia that sheds light on this process: The sacred texts called the Avesta, that contain the law (dāta) and tradition (daēnā) of Zoroastrianism, were being collectively ascribed to Zarathustra (Zoroaster) as revealed by Ahuramazdā.
“God has not given you a mind to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear until this very day.”—Deuteronomy 29:3
Deuteronomy commands centralizing worship of YHWH at the Temple once peace is obtained. When was this supposed to occur according to the Deuteronomic History, and when did it happen historically?
What are the favorable qualities of the land of Israel, and what is God’s relationship to it?
The Torah describes Moses building a copper serpent to heal the Israelites. According to Kings, Hezekiah destroys it because it was being worshiped. Archaeology and history clarify the religious and political meaning of this image.
The Song of Deborah (Judges 5) is often seen as an ancient text, perhaps one of the oldest in the Tanach, but analysis of its language and contents suggests that it is a later Deuteronomistic composition.
Throughout the Torah, Israel is warned not to imitate the surrounding nations. Yet Deuteronomy speaks of the people appointing a king if they want to be “like all the nations” around them. Is YHWH commanding Israel to appoint a king or just reluctantly permitting it?
Did Israel Cross or Circumvent Edom? Deuteronomy versus Numbers.
Jeremiah 32 describes the prophet’s redemption of his uncle’s ancestral land. The scribal authors turned this transaction into an oracle. Eventually, the passage was expanded to include a prayer in which Jeremiah invokes the exodus from Egypt and the gift of the land. Taken together, the passage inspires hope for exilic Jews that God will redeem their land as well.
Deuteronomy commands a man to marry the childless widow of his brother (yibbum). And yet, a close look at the Priestly text of the Torah shows that it did not have the option of yibbum.
On a mountain, in a valley, no one knows – the three traditions about where Moses is buried in Deuteronomy 34 stem from three different sources.
Reading the Succession Narrative as anti-monarchic Greek tragedy.
The books of Samuel and Kings portray monarchs—specifically, David, Solomon, and Ahab—as Israel’s chief judicial authority, hearing cases and dispensing justice. Deuteronomy, however, leaves the king out of its justice system, assigning authority instead to local elders and judges, or else to a central court. Does this system reflect how justice actually worked in ancient Israel—or an ideal meant to replace royal justice?
Bewildered, Rashi asks: why does Deuteronomy record Aaron’s death at Moserah, not Mt. Hor as in Numbers? Also, why does this scene intrude in the middle of Moses’ description of his (second) forty-day stay upon Mount Horeb? Indeed, Rashi is picking up on an editorial insertion.
Deuteronomy, or Mishneh Torah, means “repetition of the law,” however, the author of Deuteronomy does not present the book as a repetition, but as the original revelation to Moses at Horeb, written down on the Plains of Moab.
A classic example of source criticism applied to Torah legislation.
Leviticus 16 – ויקרא טז
Deuteronomy’s centralization of worship (in Jerusalem) is commonly seen as increasing the power of the cult. However, it is also part of Deuteronomy’s laicization program, which shrinks the power of priests and Levites, and extends covenantal holiness requirements to all Israel.
Unlike the Priestly writers for whom sacrifice and rituals are needed to maintain the divine presence in the Tabernacle, the Deuteronomists stress God’s transcendence and the obedience of the heart and soul.
A study of Deuteronomy’s polemical revision of the Exodus 18 judges account.
When God reveals the name YHWH to Moses in Exodus, he says that not even the patriarchs knew this name, yet they all use it in Genesis. Critical scholarship’s solution to this problem led to one of the most important academic innovations in biblical studies in the last three hundred years: the Documentary Hypothesis.
Deuteronomy presents Moses’ account as a retelling of the story narrated in Exodus and Numbers. And yet, so many details contradict the earlier narrative. Here are ten examples.