Deuteronomy 31: Confusion or Conclusion?

The story of Moses threefold succession*

Eep Talstra, Vrije Universiteit

Amsterdam
1.

Introduction

In the literary research done on the book of Deuteronomy it is not uncommon to

refer to the last chapters of the book as Appendices1. Although researchers
differ in their opinions as to exactly which chapters should be regarded as
appendices, few would doubt that this label applies in any case to chapter 31. In
the more classical literary criticism, this chapter is regarded not only as an
appendix, but even as a rather chaotic one. More recent literary analysis avoids
criticism at that level by emphasising that chapters 31ff. should be understood
as being intended as a means of integrating the book of Deuteronomy into the
Pentateuch. Deuteronomy 31 takes up the narrative strand that was preliminarily
closed at the end of the book of Numbers.
I do not intend to deny this particular function of chapters 31ff. with respect to
the Pentateuch as a whole, but in this article an answer is sought to the question
as to whether chapter 31 could not also have a particular function within the
book of Deuteronomy itself. This question arises from two observations:
1. Modern research holds several different opinions about exactly which chapters
should be treated as Appendices to Deuteronomy. Every method of literary
analysis seems to create its own "watchmakers problem", since all differ as to the
portions of the text of Deuteronomy remaining after the completion of the
literary critical operation, i.e., the search for the original book.
2. These various methods are closely connected to the view which those applying
them hold on the original Deuteronomy, its theological intentions and its
position in the history of Israels religion.
In my view, these observations are not proof against the need for literary
criticism as such, but demonstrate that a literary approach that starts from
assumptions about the most original parts of a literary work loses its capacity to
guide the reader through the book as a whole.
My impression is that the qualification appendices is merely a result of current
*

My thanks are due to dr. Janet W. DYK, for comments on and corrections of the text of this
article.

To mention some examples of various methodological background: E.W. NICHOLSON,

Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford, 1967, p. 19; S.R. DRIVER, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC), Edinburgh, 19013, p. 320; H.D. PREUSS, Deuteronomium
(Ertrge der Forschung, 164), WB: Darmstadt, 1982, p. 149.

Eep Talstra

methods of literary interpretation ( 2); I, therefore, see no reason to restrict the

interpretation of chapter 31 (and following chapters) to its function as an
interface between D and the stories in Exodus through Numbers. It would thus
appear worthwhile to experiment with interpreting the chapter in terms of its
contribution to the book of Deuteronomy before applying other approaches to
the text.
In the next paragraph some of the different positions taken by scholars in their
analyses of the so-called Appendices of Deuteronomy are compared and
evaluated. The third paragraph seeks to describe chapter 31 in terms of its own
structure and its position within the book.
2.

Method and Text: a dialogue on sources, settings, skills and structure

As was stated in the introduction, current research on the book of Deuteronomy

demonstrates a strong interaction between the methods of literary analysis
applied and the researchers view of the relation between the original book of
Deuteronomy and the book in its final form. A majority of the researchers uses
the qualification appendix for the closing chapters of the book, so that these are
treated as only secondary expansions to what has been assumed to be the
sources or the genres that constitute the original Deuteronomy. An evaluation
of methods is needed, with an aim not of denying that the book of Deuteronomy
is the result of the work of a number of generations, but of starting textual
interpretation from the data itself, i.e., from a completed text, rather than from
our hypotheses concerning its assumed original parts.
First, I will give some examples of the interaction of the methods used and the
appendices posited. Second, from these I want to reconsider the order of the
exegetical observations and conclusions.
2.1. Appendices beginning with chapter 27 or 29
One way of approaching the book of Deuteronomy is to categorise the text
according to various text types, such as law, parenesis or narrative and to make
proposals as to what text type(s) may have constituted the original book. When
law is taken to be the text type of the original book, this approach results in the
"Appendices" starting from chapter 27. Arguing from the concept of covenant
or treaty, other scholars accept the blessings and curses of chapters 27 and 28
to be a part of the original Deuteronomy as well. In that case the "Appendices"
begin with chapter 29.
For example, if Deuteronomy is regarded primarily as an interpretation of law,
it seems only natural to find its closing statements at the end of chapter 26, as,

Deuteronomy 31: Confusion or Conclusion?

e.g., PREUSS2 does: "Dtn 26,16-19 ist natrlich zusammenfassender Abschlu der
vorausgehender Gesetzesentfaltung". Similarly, MAYES3 speaks of an original book
of law being introduced by parenesis. From 26,15 onwards, in his view, one sees
a large variety of material that cannot have been part of the original book. It is to
be regarded as the work of the deuteronomic writer (DtrH), who wrote the
narrative sections, and the later deuteronomistic editor, who composed the
discourses. ROSE, in his commentary4, analyses the text along these lines as well.
Literary criticism, guided by the concept of an original document of covenant
or treaty, also includes the curses and blessings as part of the original
Deuteronomy (see DRIVER5: "The Deuteronomic Code ends with c. 28. C. 29-30 is of
the nature of a supplement.").
The work of WEINFELD6 should also be mentioned here, though he holds a
position that combines several of the options. On the one hand, Weinfeld
mentions that "general agreement exists about chapter 4,44-28,68 being the original
book of Deuteronomy". This fits in with WEINFELDs opinion that Deuteronomy as
a literary product can be understood from the background of ancient Near
Eastern (especially Assyrian) treaties7. On the other hand, he speaks of
"Appendices of different kind", referring to the Song of Moses and the Blessing of
Moses. We are thus left with some chapters in between (29-31) that are to be
regarded as part of a separate layer of deuteronomistic compositions.
The examples above demonstrate that literary-critical or redaction-critical
analysis usually is in favour of an original Deuteronomy being a law code that
is presented with a parenetical framework. As a result, the "Appendices" to the
book begin relatively early. Their function with respect to the book of
Deuteronomy as a complete composition is not discussed, since the label
Appendix hardly allows for such a possibility.

H.D. PREUSS, op.cit., p. 147. See also p. 149: "Mit Kap. 27 beginnen verschiedene Anhnge und
Nachtrge zum Dtn, die ihm - wie die Forschung erwiesen hat - zum grten Teil erst sukzessiv
zugewachsen sind. Nur in den Kapiteln 27 und 28 fand und find man zuweilen Stcke, die dem Dtn
in einer seinen frhen Formen schon angehrt haben knnten."

A.D.H. MAYES, The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile. A Redactional Study of the
Deuteronomic History, London, 1983, pp. 36ff.

M. ROSE, 5. Mose. Teilband 2: 5.Mose 1-11 und 26-34. Rahmenstcke zum Gesetzeskorpus (Zrcher
Bibelkommentare) Zrich, 1994.

S.R. DRIVER, op.cit., p. 320. Compare the introduction, p. lxvii: "C. 5-26 may thus be concluded,
without hesitation, to be the work of a single author; and c.28 may be included without serious
misgivings."

M. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1-11. A new Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The
Anchor Bible 5), New York: Doubleday, 1991, pp. 4-10.

M. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford, 1972. For references to chapter
31, see, for example, p. 7 n.2 and pp. 64f.

Eep Talstra

2.2. Appendices beginning with chapter 31 or 33

An alternative approach is to search for the literary genre of the book as a total
composition in order to explain the combination of narrative, law and parenesis
present in it. Frequently8 this approach is motivated by the assumption that the
text of Deuteronomy reflects actual preaching and liturgical ceremonies. This
may be combined with the view of the book as an imitation of treaty texts or
treaty ceremonies. From this approach researchers usually see a way to integrate
chapters 29 and 30 into the original Deuteronomy. Difficulties then begin with
the position of the narrative chapter 31.
VON RAD9 interprets Deuteronomy as a mosaic of styles and materials, having
law materials in a setting of explanation and preaching. The combination of these
materials, however, is intentional. VON RAD speaks of sermons ("diese Predigten
...") being the dominant style of the book, because its aim is the explanation of
law in the context of covenant. "Diese Tendenz zum Parnetischen hin ist also das
eigentliche Charakteristikum der dt. Gesetzesdarbietung."10. For VON RAD, the
characteristic genre of this book that preaches the law is to be found in the
"Bundesformular". It reflects the typical, liturgical setting from which the text
came, the so-called "Bundeserneuerungsfest". According to VON RAD, the larger
section of the book is based on the "Bundesformular" and ends with chapter 2811.
The next section, i.e., the text of the Moab covenant in chapters 29 and 30, can
also be analysed according to the characteristics of the "Bundesformular". From
Deuteronomy 31 on, however, we are back with the story line, and, in VON RADs
view, it is not a very well composed one. He finds that the chapter has no clear
plot and suggests that it can at best be seen as "Traditionsgerll"12.
Thus it is that with the form-critical approach we have proceeded from sources
to settings; nonetheless, texts that do not fit the setting assumed as background
of the book of Deuteronomy remain problematic.
Von Rads position has influenced many commentators (see, for example, the
8

This is not to suggest that it is only the form-critical method that works with larger blocks of
text. MINETTE DE TILLESSE, in is his well-known study of the plural sections of Deuteronomy
(Sections "tu" et sections "vous" dans le Deutronome, Vetus Testamentum 12 [1962], pp. 2987) identifies these sections as the work of NOTHs Dtr. (berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien.
Die Sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Schriften der
Knigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse 18 (1943), pp. 43-266;
Darmstadt, 1967-3). However, MINETTE DE TILLESSE does not deal with Dtn 31ff. separately.
Actually, he here follows NOTHs analysis as presented in the GS. In Deuteronomy 1-4 and
in 31 and 34 one finds the work of Dtr. Chapter 31 and 34 prepare for the conquest (art.cit.,
p. 32).

G. VON RAD, Das fnfte Buch Moses. Deuteronomium (ATD 8), Gttingen, 1964, pp. 13ff.

10

Op. cit., p. 124.

11

Op. cit., p. 124.

12

Op. cit., p. 136.

Deuteronomy 31: Confusion or Conclusion?

work of NICHOLSON13 and the position taken in the commentary of CAIRNS14):

"Addenda" are present from chapter 31 onwards.
In the debate about literary-critical and form-critical analysis, PERLITT15 has
argued strongly in favour of literary and redaction critical methods. Speaking of
a covenant document or a covenant ceremony as the background of Deuteronomy 29ff, in his view, only means using an "exegetische Wunderpille" made up to
defend an original unity of the text that cannot exist. Chapter 29ff. are theological
literature, presupposing no ceremony but only the existing texts, i.e., the
preceding chapters of Deuteronomy, to contribute to and to comment upon.
It is not the debate of two opposing methods on what might be the original
Deuteronomy which is of primary interest here, but rather, the contribution
which this debate can make to a next methodological step in the research.
Without necessarily intending to, early form criticism in the end did stimulate a
line of argumentation which was prepared to look less for original settings of
the text, and to concentrate more on structure. In this particular case, this means
that the structure of Deuteronomy is suggested by the system of headings
within the book itself. On this basis some scholars would go beyond VON RADs
position and also integrate the chapters 31 and 32 with 29 and 30 as one section
of the book.
Where PERLITT strongly opposed the form-critical approach as initiated by VON
RAD, LOHFINK16 has continued to work along the lines of VON RAD. Increasingly,
however, he has done so by combining the form-critical approach with rhetorical
analysis. Prepared to accept a looser connection between any assumed liturgical
setting and the final literary text, this procedure allows for more concentration
on the given text. We have, according to this analysis, no direct reports of
liturgical ceremonies, for the texts have been reformatted by the stylistic
craftmanship of the deuteronomic writers. In this context, LOHFINK refers to the
work of KLEINERT17, who explicitly argued for an analysis starting from a
division of the book based on the superscriptions found within the text.
LOHFINKs approach can be evaluated as a methodological compromise, seeking
to be both text-centred and author-centred. With his work we do proceed from
13

E.W. NICHOLSON, Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford, 1967, pp. 19ff.

14

I. CAIRNS, Word and Presence. A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (International

Theological Commentary), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992, pp. 2, 267.

15

L. PERLITT, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, WMANT 36, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969.

16

N. LOHFINK, Der Bundesschlu im Land Moab. Redaktionsgeschichtliches zu Dt 28,69 32,47, Biblische Zeitschrift 6 (1962), pp. 32-56.

17

P. KLEINERT, Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker, Untersuchungen zur alttestamentlichen

rechts- und Literargeschichte, Bielefeld/Leipzig, 1872, p. 167: Deuteronomy 1,1 4,44 28,69 and
33,1.

Eep Talstra

settings to structure; however, we do so only by admitting the authors

rhetorical skills. This implies that the research is getting much closer to the
architecture of the text as presented by the syntactic and lexical data, but that at
the same time, the main emphasis is still on explaining the author: it is the artistic
skill of the author that reformatted texts from liturgical tradition into an
impressive rhetorical and theological composition.
Arising from the combination of a form-critical and a compositional approach,
the commentary by BRAULIK18 demonstrates on some occasions this ambiguity.
BRAULIK also refers to KLEINERTs analysis based on the headings in the book,
"Diese am Text aufweisbare Struktur des kanonischen Dtn wurde in der Auslegung
lange nicht beachtet". On the one hand, according to the four headings (1,1-4;
4,44,46; 28,69; 33,1), Deuteronomy is an archive of documents, while on the other
hand, Deuteronomy is also a collection of speeches intended for the proclamation
and preaching of the law. The completed book as an archive consists of four
main discourses. The function of its headings, according to BRAULIK, can be associated with 4th century redactional work, which inserted Deuteronomy into the
Pentateuch. The genre of the book, however, he associates with a much older
liturgy: the covenant ritual. Here the ambiguity arises. With respect to the section
29-32, which was singled out on the basis of the headings, BRAULIK does not
restrict himself to an interpretation on the level of the text as archive. He further
claims, following LOHFINKs analysis, that these chapters reflect an original ceremony19. At this point, research should continue to be critical: are not settings,
skills and structure of the final text being mixed too easily in this approach?
Similar questions about where the real focus lies, have to be formulated with
respect to the work of LABUSCHAGNE20. Clearly his analysis, based on numerical
structuring of the text, can be seen as special contribution to the artistic or
rhetorical approach. He finds order in Moses speeches on the basis of counting
words, clauses, verses or the actors parts of text, in associating the numbers
found with figures that by their repetition demonstrate structure (a menorah
pattern, for example) and thus corroborate the message of the text. Again, this
artistic approach concentrates more on the authors or the scribes skills than on
the readers experiences with the full text as it stands. LABUSCHAGNE uses his
method also as a clue for redactional work. In Deuteronomy 31 he finds an
original ending of the text in 31,13. After that a final redaction has extended

18

G. BRAULIK, Deuteronomium (1-16,17) (Die neue Echter Bibel. Kommentar zum Alten
Testament mit der Einheitsbersetzung), Wrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1986; Deuteronomium II
(16,18-34,12), Wrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992. Cf. pp. 5ff.

19

Op. cit., pp. 220ff.

20

For the analysis of Deuteronomy 31, I have to refer to a work intended for a broader
readership: C.J. LABUSCHAGNE, Belichting van het Bijbelboek Deuteronomium, s Hertogenbosch:
KBS/Brugge: Tabor, 1993; much more analytical work is presented in his as yet not fully
completed commentary: C.J. LABUSCHAGNE, Deuteronomium, (POT), Nijkerk, 1987ff.

Deuteronomy 31: Confusion or Conclusion?

("aangebreid"21) the text with 31,14 - 34,12. In combination with 31,1-13 these
additions make seven units, the Song of Moses (chapter 32) being the centre.
Apart from the problem that the choice of which linguistic categories are to be
counted to establish patterns is not made very clear22, particularly these
redactional conclusions from the method involve a mixing of rhetorical and
redactional methods. If numerical structure does not fit the book as a whole, how
basic could this technique be to the writers?
From this overview one may conclude that a form-critical approach is indeed
able to handle larger parts of the book. The shift to a rhetorical analysis demonstrates that the approach from genre clearly is not a method designed for the
interpretation of the book as a complete composition. It depends too strongly on
reference to a typical setting to explain and sort the texts. Moreover, recent
redaction-critical research has made locating the Sitz im Leben of the original
book in pre-exilic liturgical ceremonies highly questionable. Therefore, the debate
on setting cannot be decisive, since it still leaves us with the problem of the
appendices (see, for example, the criticism formulated by OLSON23). Even when
recent experiments with a combination of form-critical and rhetorical methods
show an increasing interest in the text as it stands, the examples mentioned here
demonstrate continued ambiguity in method. The structures found are only explained from the rhetorical skills of the assumed author. Thus, a precise distinction between analysing a text from writing or from reading is still is being
avoided. In my view, therefore, one additional step has to be made, i.e., from
skills to structure: one schould shift from a concentration on the author(s) to
a concentration on the process of reading the full text. Authors and redactors
no doubt are involved, but one should wait to bring them on stage 24 until after
the completion of a reader-orientated, linguistic analysis of the text.

21

Op. cit., p. 23.

22

See my review of: H. NOBEL, Gods gedachten tellen; Numerieke structuuranalyse en de elf gedachten
Gods in Genesis - 2Koningen (diss. RUG), (privately published) Coevorden, 1993; in
Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 50 (1996) 243-244.

23

D.T. OLSON, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses. A Theological Reading (Overtures to Biblical
Theology) Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, pp. 152, 175.

24

Cf. E. TALSTRA, Deuteronomy 9 and 10: Synchronic and Diachronic Observations, in: J.C. de
Moor (ed.), Synchrony or Diachrony? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Papers Read
at the Ninth Joint Meeting of Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgi and The
Society for Old Testament Study, held at Kampen, 1994 (= Oudtestamentische Studin 34 [1995]),
pp. 187-210.

Eep Talstra

2.3. Discourse Analysis: no Appendices

A third option, therefore, is the studying of Deuteronomys linguistic and
rhetorical structure. It means analysing the book as a completed literary
production, as a text that in the first place is in dialogue with its readers, not to
be approached primarily from assumptions about original documents or an
original cultic audience. One difficulty of the synchronic approach proposed,
however, is that analysing consistently from readers experiences demands that
one avoid any confusion of statements about the structural and functional unity
of the texts with statements about an original literary unity. The latter would
create a confusion similar to that now caused by the current literary-critical
labels. In literary-critical methods, the last chapters of Deuteronomy are termed
"Appendices" only because these methods evaluate them as not being part of the
original text. On the contrary, from a readers perspective, these chapters
complete the book, drawing conclusions and in this way even constituting its
most important part. The search for earlier versions of the text, however, is a task
for redactional analysis.
In this preference for synchronic analysis, I agree with POLZIN25 who called it
a matter of operational priority. At the same time, from POLZINs work questions arise about the instruments to be used. Is synchronic analysis to concentrate
on the linguistic signs organising the text to find the balance of the various
characters present in the discourse, or is synchronic analysis actually a dialogue
between the narrator and the reader? In his analysis, POLZIN describes a certain competition between the two main characters present in the book, i.e., between the narrator and Moses. Moses represents both the generation of Israel
present at Horeb and the generation present in Moab. The narrator represents
and addresses the later generations of the readers. While reading the book, with
Moses death progressively more imminent, the narrator gains authority for the
reader, while Moses is losing it. Moses will not enter into the land, due to his lack
of obedience. The authority of the narrator remains untouched.
The advantage of this approach is the possibility of accepting the book as a
whole. The question is whether the shift from generations of the past to the
generation of the readers should be explained in terms of a competition of
authority: Moses versus the narrator. They do not play their roles at the same
level. One could as well say that the narrator from chapter 1, verse 1, is fully in
charge throughout the entire book, demonstrating to the reader the balance of
roles (God, Moses, Israel and others), without any need to compete with the
authority of Moses.
In my experience, discourse analysis tends often to complicate matters by mixing
the analysis of the language and grammar with the analysis of literary and
theological themes. This applies not only to POLZINs theme of the competition
25

R. POLZIN, Moses and the Deuteronomist. A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part I
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, New York, 1980.

Deuteronomy 31: Confusion or Conclusion?

of textual authorities, but also to LOHFINKs and others analyses of the text as a
piece of art, a rhetorical achievement. The challenge for discourse analysis,
therefore, is twofold: on the one hand, it has to make clear whether it is possible
to give priority to the reading of the book as a whole before entering redactional
questions about the position of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch; on the other
hand, as demonstrated in the previous section, it also should try to avoid the
circularity of the argumentation present in explanations of the text that skip over
grammatical details and proceed from assumptions on deliberate design or
authors compositional skills.
3.

Deuteronomy 31 as a Discourse

This approach is based upon a syntactic analysis of the text as presented in the
textual hierarchy below26. My description of the text is an attempt to analyse how
the balance of the various actors in the text becomes clear to the reader.
By its frequent change of actors and scenes, the texts narrative framework is
confusing to any reader who is looking for a clear chronological plot. No doubt,
the history of this text is as complicated as its actual format suggests, however,
prior to any redactional analysis of its composition, the present text can be read
as an effective presentation of the three different successors to Moses after his
death. In the process of reading the text, Moses various successors are introduced; the way in which their respective roles are interrelated is revealed.
Because two successors had been mentioned earlier in the book, it is no surprise
to the reader that they are reintroduced here. First comes Joshua with his role in
entering the land with Israel. Second are the Levitic priests and the elders, whose
cooperation was mentioned before (chapters 20, 21 and 27). They are charged
now with their particular role of transmitting the Torah to future generations.
The third successor, though at first unexpected, will in the end dominate and will
even interfere with the roles of the others, especially with the Torah, the Levites
and the elders. This third succssor is the Song with its role as a future witness
against Israel about their disloyal way of life.
The frequent change of actors in the narrative frame can be taken as a signal that
the most effective way of entering the text is to analyse it in terms of the various
roles and actors presented, rather than in terms of its chronological order or its
theological concepts. With the approaching death of Moses, all actors appear on
the scene. In separate narrative sections it is told how they are charged with their
respective roles for the future. Thus, I think it is possible to analyse the narrative
sections of the text in terms of the actors presented, the themes of their dialogues

26

For an introduction to the linguistic arguments and the technique used, I refer to my article:
A Hierarchy of Clauses in Biblical Hebrew Narrative, in: E.J. VAN WOLDE (ed.), Narrative
Syntax and the Hebrew Bible. Papers from the Tilburg Symposium, 18-19 October 1996, Leiden:
Brill, 1997 (forthcoming).

10

Eep Talstra

and the earlier texts in the book of Deuteronomy which these sections continue
or comment upon.27 The main emphasis will be on section 5ff. (verse 16ff.),
where JHWH employs the Song to intervene in the procedures of succession.
This will urge all participants to redefine their future roles.
Narrative section 1 (1-6): Moses Israel: Entering the land
Moses addresses Israel about crossing the Jordan, describing the role of JHWH
and of Israel itself and announcing - very briefly - the role of Joshua. The main
actor here is JHWH, going in front of Israel, as has been said before in 9,3.
It is difficult to attach a synchronic significance to the opening words of verse 1


 
according to the Masoretic text  
. The previous narrative introduction to a speech by Moses was
in 29,1. It is not clear why or where

  
Moses went. A proposal, based on LXX and Q, to read
may
28
be accepted as an earlier reading of the text , but it does not help the synchronic
analysis, since Moses does not finish his speech until after the Song, according to
32,45, where the same words are used. POLZIN29 may be right in suggesting that
after so many words about future exile in chapters 29 and 30, this narrative break
explicitly brings the readership back to present reality. At least this is the effect
on the reader. Further clarification of this text, especially the relationship of 31,1
and 32,45, is a task for those employing the methods of historical research.
Narrative section 2 (7-8): Moses Joshua: Leadership
Moses addresses Joshua in front of all Israel, describing his task in leading
Israel into the land. JHWH will be with him. This section resumes themes from
Moses first speech: 3, 21f., 28.
Narrative section 3 (9-13): Moses Levitic priests and elders: Torah
Moses commits the Torah to writing, commanding the Levitic priests and the
elders to cooperate in keeping the Torah and teaching it to Israel. From now on
his teaching will be available as a book to be read, a book that must be read in
public. This section also refers back to earlier texts in Deuteronomy. The moment
of public reading is on the Sukkot feast in the year of release, mentioned in
chapter 16. The combined task of Levitic priests and elders is a continuation of
earlier cases of their cooperation, mentioned in chapters 20, 21 and 27.

27

For a more extensive description of the type of syntactic and lexical analysis basic to this
description, see my: The Prayer of Solomon. Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1Kings
8, 14-61, Kampen, 1993, pp. 147-168.

28

Cf. E. TOV, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Assen: Van Gorcum / Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1992, p.129. Possibly, the insertion of the Song (chapter 32) and its introduction in
chapter 31, made it necessary to displace the wording !#"$&% from 31,1, until after the
Song, in 32,45.

29

Op. cit., p. 69: "So Moses continued to speak these words ...".

Deuteronomy 31: Confusion or Conclusion?

11

Narrative section 4 (14-15): JHWH Moses and Joshua: Meeting in the Tent
For the first time in the narrators text of Deuteronomy we read that JHWH
speaks: He addresses Moses, confirming that the time of Moses death is
impending. Joshua will have to stand in the tent with Moses to hear Gods
orders. The reference to a scene outside of the book of Deuteronomy, i.e., the tent
(Exodus 33) and the presence of God as an actor in the narrators text are the
clearest markers of the texts function as an interface between Deuteronomy and
the preceding books of the Pentateuch. At the same time, however, one can see
that also within the context of the book of Deuteronomy the scene in the tent is
crucial. It is the place where JHWH is going to intervene with the Song in the
procedures of Moses succession.
Narrative section 5 (16-22): JHWH Moses: Song
Unexpectedly, JHWH does not speak to Joshua first. He speaks to Moses about
Israels future disloyalty and introduces the Song that Israel should learn. Two
observations are important.
- The speech about the Song interferes with Moses scribal work. With Joshuas
help he has to write down an additional text, i.e., this Song. That Joshua is to
()
take
part
in
this
task
is
to
be
deduced
from
the
command
in
the
plural
'
#*
,+-./

(cf. 32,44). Instead of being an additional instruction
'
'
or admonition meant for Israel, this new text will act as a witness; it will no
longer speak in terms of if and beware; but will testify against Israel.
- This section uses few words from preceding texts in Deuteronomy. Its
terminology points forward to the Song (ch. 32). To the reader this strengthens
the effect of the text as an intervention.
Verse 22 reports that Moses resumes the process of writing and teaching, now
with respect to the Song. In terms of plot this is difficult, since in verse 23 the
scene in the Tent is continued. As announced in verse 14, that is the place where
God will give his commands to Joshua. Apparently, the Song has to be fully
present before the procedures of Moses succession can continue, for after Gods
intervention not only Joshua, but all of the successors of Moses will reappear on
the scene. Clearly, the words of the Song will affect the office of all of them.
Narrative section 5.1 (23): JHWH Joshua: Leadership
JHWH now addresses Joshua about his future task. The words are familiar
from verses 7 and 8; however, since the reader has just been informed about the
future that lies ahead, their import has shifted. Joshuas responsibility is not just
the completing of Moses task (Num. 27,15). Gods speech to Moses ended in

1/
*2#
verse 21 with: '0
, I know what purpose Israel has (
), even now, when
I bring them into the land that I promised with an oath. To Joshua JHWH repeats
these last words about the oath:+You
them into the land I have sworn
3 shall

bring
4
to give them. The combination
with reference to Israel is exception'0
+
5
al in Deuteronomy. Moses, in verse 7, spoke of an oath to the fathers ( '
),
which is the usual expression (present from 1,8 to 31,20). Verse 21 ends in an

12

Eep Talstra

4678

unusual way: '0

, i.e., without any reference to whom the promise is
made30. Verse 23 introduces a new group: "them", i.e., the Israelites (cf. Num.
14,16; Neh. 9,15). This concurs with chapter 29 where the Sinai covenant is
extended to present and future generations. The readers conclusion can only be
that, after the intervention by the Song, Gods own obligation, now directly to
Israels present generation (cf. 32,26-36), is the only argument left for Joshua to
be able to become Moses successor. In a subtle way it changes his role. Joshua
indeed will do what God has promised by an oath, i.e., to bring the people into
the land; but taking possession of the land as promised to the fathers, a mission
that started with the exodus under Moses, will no longer will be a final mission.
It will be the beginning of a completely new, but also painful history, a history
that, according to the Song (32,26ff.), will continue only because JHWH has
chosen to do so. Ending this history would be even more painful to JHWH.
Narrative section 6 (24-28): Moses Levites: Tora; Moses elders: witness
Moses other successors, the Levites, are addressed anew concerning the Torah.
Evidently, when compared to verses 9ff., their roles as well are being altered by
Gods intervention with the Song. This is already clear from the fact that,
contrary to verse 9, in this special context the Levites do not read or teach, but
have to deposit the Torah next to the ark and listen. Moses is the one to speak,
which means that at this late moment even Moses role changes, for the last time,
due to the changing role of the Torah. He will not be allowed to finish his
speeches before the Torahs final role as a witness has been explained. At first
sight, it is somewhat confusing that Moses does not invoke the Song as witness,
but the Torah, and that he does so in a terminology completely different from the
words JHWH used to introduce the Song.

-The
9 only parallel is in verses 27 and 29
), as JHWH had done in verse 21.
where Moses speaks of knowledge ( '0
Furthermore, Moses refers back to passages of earlier speeches, rather than
quoting from Gods introductory words: I know you are rebellious and
stubborn, cf. 9,7,23,24, I know that after my death you will do wrong, cf. 9, 12;
leave the way, 9,12,16; act wrongly in the eyes of God 9,18 and provoke him 9,18.
One could say that from his own experiences with earlier generations (especially
mentioned in Deuteronomy 9 and 10), Moses is able to prepare the reading of the
Song for the next generations, explain its function, and even use its authority to
adjust the status of the written Torah.
Verse 24 strongly emphasises the fact that the Torah now has been written
+



:
down completely: ' + 0 ..  '
... '
. Completion is an important notion
in this text. The phrase
'
0 is used again in verse 30 about the Song. Verse
24 in the actual composition of the text most likely means that the words of this
Torah also imply the text of the Song31. After mentioning the writing down of
30

In the only grammatical parallel found in Deuteronomy (1,35), the phrase is completed with
an infinitive clause mentioning the fathers: ;7"$<#=->?@<?<A , not Israel.

31

Cf. ROSE, op. cit., p. 562.

Deuteronomy 31: Confusion or Conclusion?

13

the Torah in verse 9, its completion only can refer to the addition of the Song to
it. Due to the Song all roles are changing, including that of the Torah. The Torah
as a whole takes the status JHWH had given to the Song: that of being a witness
against Israel. The Song becomes its dominating voice. This seems to imply that
Levites and elders can no longer fully cooperate. With the Torah as an instruction
for daily life in the land they can and must cooperate (verse 9; cf. 21, 2,5; 27,1,9),
but with the Torah as a witness they cannot. The Levites alone are instructed by
Moses to posit the book of the Torah next to the ark (verse 26). In this function
it belongs to the domain of the Levites who have a special position in Israel (ch.
10,8f. 18,2: JHWH is their heritage).
Then (verse 26f.), the shift to singular BC seems to indicate that Israel is
addressed. It will be there a witness against you (singular). For I know your
(singular) stubborness. You (plural) have been rebellious. The effect of the shift
from singular back to plural in verse 26 and 27 is difficult to understand. One can
only observe that the number used fits the number used in the corresponding
statements to Israel in chapter 9, 6 and 7. The back reference to chapter 9 may be
seen as a deliberate reminder or even a quotation.
Next the elders are reintroduced (verse 28), but in this context they are no longer
addressed as the authorities to read and apply the Torah to the people (verse 9f.).
The Levites are instructed to assemble the elders and the heads of the tribes
(verse 28). This time the elders, too, will only have to hear these words. They are
now treated as part of the people and as responsible for them. In the words
+-
D - 
0 , heaven and earth are called upon as witnesses to testify against them,
the representatives of Israel! One may wonder what testimony is left for heaven
and earth to give, after the Song and the Torah have been made to function as
witness (EAF ). In my view their testimony is connected to Moses knowledge
(verse 29 and 27): for future generations heaven and earth will be there to testify
that Moses words about Israels future had been correct. In that same function
they are also mentioned in the first lines of the Song (32,1). However, even their
roles change: Moses had previously called upon heaven and earth to witness
(4,26 30, 19; cf. 8,19), claiming that Israel would perish (cf. E#=-> 4,26 8,19 30,18)
from the land, if they would serve other gods. Now that the text of the Song is
known, the ifs are no longer employed. Israel inevitably will serve other gods.
Moses calls upon his witnesses now with the claim that he had been right. The
words $<AFE#$G$H" have taken the place of the words %E#=-><.$H" : I will call heaven
and earth to witness against them that I know that after my death you will ruin
things. This also makes the shift from 3rd plural to 2nd plural understandable.
It can be taken as an additional argument that I know is not the reason for, but
the content of the testimony. In addressing the elders, Moses words in verse 29
actually refer to all Israel (you); they are to be heard by the responsible elders
and leaders (them) and they are to be confirmed as true by the witnesses.
Narrative section 7 (29): Moses Israel: Song
All Israel is again on the stage, as in section 1 (vers 1-6); here they are called

14

Eep Talstra

 

together:
. In reading the text of the Song to them, Moses will at last finish
his task. He reads the final text given to him by JHWH to complete the Torah and
to establish definitively its role for Israel as both instruction and witness (cf. 32,
44 Song and 46: Torah).
In conclusion one may say that the words of God in narrative section 5 (verse 1622) effectively interfere with the procedures of Moses succession. The
presentation of the Song changes the role of the Torah (the instruction becomes
a witness), Joshua (the finish becomes a start), the Levites (the teachers need to
add the document of the witness to the text of their Torah) and the elders
(readers of the instructions and leaders of the people are now in the same role as
the people: listening to the witness). These changes can be registered best if one
does not isolate chapter 31 from the rest of the book of Deuteronomy, either by
interpreting it as a complicated or disrupted story line, or by interpreting it as
part of a separate covenant ceremony in 29-32.
From this analysis I disagree on some points emphasised by POLZIN. I do not see
in this text any signs of a post-modern struggle: who is the most effective
manipulator: Moses or the Narrator? In my view his synchronic analysis too
easily skips over the linguistic markers in the text, so that as a reader he finds
himself in dialogue with the text before having taken the time to decode all its
syntactic and lexical signals. From a literary point of view the difference is that,
in my view, the text is not about the balance of power between Moses and the
Narrator, but it is a challenge to the reader to understand his own role among the
others presented in the text.
Contra LOHFINK I would argue similarly. Observations of rhetorical features
cannot be made prior to a linguistic analysis of the textual structure. One needs
to be sure of the systematic effect of linguistic codes before one could be able to
detect any stylistic play with it. Thus, I do not see how rhetorical features, such
as a repetition of long sections and of short sections of text, a repetition of texts
with a positive outlook and of texts with a negative outlook, etc., could be taken
as deliberate contributions ("bewusste Planung"32) to the composition of the text
as a discourse. They do not fit a text-linguistic analysis of Deuteronomy 31.
I fully agree with the statements by LOHFINK, BRAULIK and others that the system
of superscriptions or subscriptions in the narrators text of Deuteronomy should
be the point of departure for the exegete. According to that system the chapters
29-32 are one part of the book. Together they comment upon the text of the
Horeb covenant (chapter 5 and the preparations in chapter 1-4) and the explanatory teaching about it in the text of Deuteronomy 6-28. In my view this implies
that not chapter 29ff., but the completed book of Deuteronomy is to be taken as
the document of the Moab covenant. The status of the Torah has been changed
definitively. The reader should be prepared now for (re)entering the land.
32

Art. cit., pp. 50ff.

Deuteronomy 31: Confusion or Conclusion?

4.

15

Conclusions

The claim of this article is that the label appendix applied to the closing
chapters of Deuteronomy belongs to a methodology in which researchers give
priority to the identification of the original parts of the book. Even when they
disagree as to exactly which chapters are the appendices, they agree in their
evaluation: the final chapters are secondary in every respect, literarily and
theologically. I see no need to dispute the post-exilic background of the book of
Deuteronomy as a whole; my argument is against the label appendix as such.
From the readers perspective this qualification is misleading, since it does not
deal seriously with the option that these chapters seek to give a final interpretation to the entire book and for that reason they cannot be dismissed as a
secondary work. It would be better to take them as the best guides to the book
rather than as mere additions. Deuteronomy 31ff. create an interface with the
preceding books of the Pentateuch. In performing that function chapter 31 also
provides the reader with a final re-interpretation of the roles played by the major
participants in the book of Deuteronomy as a discourse.
In connection to this I prefer to reverse the order of exegetical methods and ask
the analytical historian to give way - for a moment - to a more synthetic reader.
Avoiding presuppositions about an original text and its later additions, let one
begin with the text as we have it, in its final format, trying to understand what
it does to its reader. As the preceding paragraphs may have made clear,
synchronic analysis in my view is not identical to focussing on literary-rhetorical
features: synchronic methods, like disourse analysis, should proceed from the
linguistic material present in the composed text. It need not rely on form-critical
assumptions of original settings, nor should it try to overcome the complexity of
the texts by claiming too much applied artistic skills and deliberately chosen
rhetorical effects, which in fact simply skips linguistics.
In my view, it is precisely the linguistic and philological analysis of the texts
structure that also can provide us with the grammatical, lexical or thematic clues
that are needed to reach conclusions about earlier versions of the text33 and
about their position in the history of Israelite religion. After the reader has had
the opportunity for the synchronic analysis, diachronic analysis should help us
to decide which elements of a text could be explained from design, which
elements perhaps better from history and the experience of generations34.

33

Cf. E. TALSTRA, art.cit., n. 24.

34

From the point of view of redaction, chapter 31 is a complex textual composition. Since this article is
not intended to enter diachronic analysis, I just point out a few details. Deuteronomy 31 has points of
contact with the work of DtrH: it continues chapter 1 and 3 where it is announced that Joshua will take
over. Similarly chapter 1 already reports that the elders will take over part of Moses duties (1,9ff.). The
passages about the written Torah to be read to the people and about the special position of the Levites,
31,9ff.,26f. can be associated with the work of the deuteronomistic editor: Dtr2. (See my study of
Deuteronomy 9 and 10, n. 24.) The introduction of the Song and the re-interpretation of the Torah as
a witness is part of the final, post-dtr. redaction of the book.

Deuteronomy 31. A text syntactic analysis

Presentation
Textual Hierarchy
---------------]
------------] .
------------] .

T12

Ln

0.#
1..
1..

1 1
2 1
3 1

Ttype DCl rel MCl

N
N
N

VPNG

WayX << ----- 3sgM

Way0 << WayX 3sgM
Way0 << Way0 3sgM

Txt.ref
Dtn31,01
Dtn31,01
Dtn31,02

The categories indicated

Tabulation of the line, indicative of the relation of a clause to its mother clause.
Clause type definition 1 (= distributional subtype):
c:
casus pendens
l:
ellipsis
m:
macro-syntactic sign
d:
defective clause (due to embedding)
2
Clause type definition 2 (= textual position):
q:
quotation: first clause of direct speech section
e:
embedded clause (in combination with defective clauses)
#:
first clause of a (sub)paragraph
The categories T, 1 and 2 are proposed by a computer programme and can be corrected by the
user. The other categories are derived by calculation.
Ln
Line Number

Paragraph Number (Paragraphs and subparagraphs)

Ttype
Text type
N:
narrative text (starting from wayyiqtol)
Q:
discursive text (direct speech, starting from q)
D:
discursive text (starting from yiqtol in narrative text)
DCl
Daughter Clause (= grammatical subtype)
Some examples:
NmCl:
nominal clause, with <PC>
WayX:
Wayyiqtol + NP <S>
Way0:
Wayyiqtol - NP <S>
WQtl:
W-Qatal
WXQt:
W-X(NP)-Qatal
WPQt:
W-PP-Qatal
WLQt:
W- >? -Qatal
0Qtl:
asyn. Qatal
XQtl:
.. Qatal
MCl
Mother Clause (grammatical subtype; as with Daughter Clause)
rel
relates to (Daughter clause, relates back to Mother Clause)
VPNG verbal predicate of the Daughter Clause: Person, Number, Gender
T
1

The main parsing labels used

<Pr>
<PO>
<Su>
<Co>
<Ti>

Predicate
<PC> predicative Complement (adj., nom., ptc.)
Predicate + Object (vb.fin. + sfx.)
SubjectSpecifier
<Ob> ObjectComplement
Complement
<Aj>
Adjunct
TimeReference
<Lo>
LocativeReference

Deuteronomy 31: Confusion or Conclusion?

17

P P

QNRK NWXR

IOQM QYI

V RWX

QOI M
IV

TUM
QOM

IP

N
PI [ P K
JN
PNI J

X WR[

T JQ

RWX

RW

NZ_L

T JQ

I NI
[S

IP

[S

PM V
\
NPa I M
bM

NPI
P[

UTMT V
V
TNZ_ Y
YT
Q
Q
M
V
IM X
NY
NK
N
I
P]
NPI I J
VY
N
[S V
ZY R
R
Z JQ
JQ

OQM

NT

IP

Q _L
M NR

W^L
N[

I Q
NI
PI
P

LM

NL
P
OQI M QOM QPY Q]K
NR

RY[

P]

K[L

NZ_I

P^c

]K

Q NL
P I
Q I OQM
PI
I
NPI

RW

IY

Y[

NR

IX

I^

QOI M
IV
N N_ZL
P`
IY
VY Q M
NR J

KM

NZ_L

IP

W\

QI

[S

M ZI

P Q

]M

TUM N
QP ZT
Q
Y

NI

QRK

OQM

PW

X V
P[ NP

VJ

SN

QOM
R

] [<Pr>
] [<Cj>
[<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
=====================================================================+ .
[<Ti>
] [<Su>
] [<PC>
] | .
[<Mo>
] [<Pr>
] [<Ng>
]
.
.
.
.| .
[<Pr>
]
.
.
.
.
.| .
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Su>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.| .
=====================================================+ .
.
.
.| .
[<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Ng>
] | .
.
.
.| .
=====================================================+ .
.
.
.| .
[<Fr>
/
]
.
.| .
[<Aj>
] [<Pr>
] [<Su>
]
.
.
.
.| .
<Co>
] [<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Su>
]
.
.
.| .
[<PO>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
]
.
.
.
.
.| .
[<Fr>
[<Aj>
] [<Pr>
] [<Su>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
[<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
[<Co>
] [<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.| .
.. [<Co> ..
] [<Pr>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.
.| .
[<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
[<Co>
] [<Su>
] [<PO>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.| .
[<Aj>
] [<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.| .
[<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
[<Pr>
]
.| .
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.| .
[<Pr>
] [<Ng>
]
.
.
.| .
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Ng>
] [<Re> ]
.
.
.
.| .
[<Su>
/
] [<Cj>
]
.
.| .
[<Su>
]
.
.
.
.| .
[<Co>
] [<PC>
] [<Re> ]
.
.
.
.
.| .
[<PO>
] [<Ng>
]
.
.
.| .
[<PO>
] [<Ng>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.| .
=====================================================================+ .
] [<Ob>

[<Co>

T12

Ln

Ttype

DCl rel MCl

VPNG

Txt.r

0.#
1..
1..

1 1
2 1
3 1

WayX << ----- 3sgM

Way0 << WayX 3sgM
Way0 << Way0 3sgM

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

2.q
6..
7..
8..
5.#

4
5
6
7
8

NmCl <<
Xyqt <<
infc.<<
infc.<<
WXQt <<

---1sg------3sgM

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

6.q

9 1010

N
N
N
=====
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
=====
NQQ
=====
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
=====

Xyqt << WXQt

2sgM

Dtn31

CPen
ptc.
Xyqt
WQtl
CPen
ptc.
XQtl
WQtl
XQtl
XQtl
WQtl
WQtl
XQtl
imp.
imp.
Xyqt
WLyq
CPen
NmCl
ptc.
Xyqt
WLyq

----sgM
3sgM
2sgM
----sgM
3sgM
3sgM
3sgM
3sgM
3sgM
2plM
1sg2plM
2plM
2plM
2plM
-------sgM
3sgM
3sgM

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

KJ

NOL M

Textual Hierarchy
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

4c.
6..
5..
8..
7c.
8..
9..
6..
7..
8..
6..
7..
8..
3..
6..
5..
6..
4c.
6..
7..
5..
6..

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

10
10
10
10
101

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<

Way0
NmCl
Xyqt
infc.
NmCl

NmCl
CPen
CPen
Xyqt
Xyqt
CPen
ptc.
Xyqt
WQtl
XQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
NmCl
imp.
imp.
Xyqt
imp.
CPen
NmCl
CPen
Xyqt

T12

Ln

Ttype

DCl rel MCl

VPNG

Txt.r

0.#
1..

32 2
33 2

WayX << WayX

Way0 << WayX

3sgM
3sgM

Dtn31
Dtn31

3.q
6..
5..
8..
9..
7..
6c.
8..
9..
8..
7..
8..
4..
5..

34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

N
N
=====
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
=====

imp. <<
imp. <<
Xyqt <<
XQtl <<
infc.<<
WXyq <<
CPen <<
NmCl <<
ptc. <<
Xyqt <<
Xyqt <<
WLyq <<
Xyqt <<
WLyq <<

Way0
imp.
imp.
Xyqt
XQtl
Xyqt
Xyqt
CPen
NmCl
NmCl
CPen
Xyqt
imp.
Xyqt

2sgM
2sgM
2sgM
3sgM
---2sgM
-------sgM
3sgM
3sgM
3sgM
2sgM
2sgM

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

0.#
2..
4.e
3d.
1.#
2..

48
49
50
51
52
53

3
3
3
3
31
31

WayX <<
Way0 <<
ptc. <<
Defc <<
WayX <<
infc.<<

WayX
WayX
Way0
Way0
WayX
WayX

3sgM
3sgM
-plM
3sgM
3sgM
----

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

3dq
6.e
7.e
8.e
5..
4..
6..
5..
7..
8..
8..
9..

54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310

Defc <<
infc.<<
infc.<<
Xyqt <<
0yqt <<
imp. <<
NmCl <<
Xyqt <<
Xyqt <<
WQtl <<
WQtl <<
infc.<<

infc.
Defc
infc.
infc.
Defc
Defc
imp.
imp.
Xyqt
Xyqt
WQtl
WQtl

2sgM
------3sgM
2sgM
2sgM
---3plM
3plM
3pl3pl----

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

NR c

KJ
I

N[ [
M PJ
NI

Textual Hierarchy

SN

ZI
V
NOaZ M
Y I
M W[
Z Q
J PWY
Y
YI Y
Q M
Q I
R
PI NPI
JQ YI QKd
Q
P

NT

T
P N

WY
] [<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj>
] [<PO>
] [<Cj> ]
.
[<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Re> ]
.
.
.
[<Co>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
[<Ob>
] [<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
[<Pr>
]
.
=================================================================+ .
.
[<Ti>
] [<Ti>
] [<Ti>
] | .
.
[<Su>
] [<Pr>
]
.
.
.| .
.
..
] [<Co>
/
] [<Pr>
]
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Pr>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
.. [<Aj>
] [<Ob>
] [<Pr>
]
.
.| .
.
[<Ob>
/
] [<Pr>
]
.| .
.
[<Aj>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.
.| .
.
[<Pr>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.| .
.
[<Pr>
] [<Cj>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Ob>
/
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
..
] [<Pr>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.

I N

ZYI

RW N
P
PQR\ NZ M
Y W
Q V
NZ
IT
V I
NQ OQM
Z
S
/

cd

[W J

NZ

XJ
K[

YIZ J

RaW N

NPIZ_

N Y QOM
Q R
SN
UTM
R Y
JQ
QP
RM Q
PWW

eI

R`L TUMX
P Z
ef `
XP
IPV
K
NZ
ONM
J
IPV QY
NZ ^
I
NL Q J I
\
R[ I YRP
K[
M PK[ W J V IY
[ Q
JN
IY
Q
P
R
JQ
Q
[K\
RYc
M
Ic M
I
P P

Y PRK QP
P J NR
[S
M

TUMY
Q

NIY

IP

RWX

NI

IYR

Q^

NT
QOI M

SN

QOM
R

KW

Pc

NL
OQI M

`a

bI

PT

VY

P
KQR N] P
M

QP QOM
R
SN
NZ
^c
I UTM
KJ
OQM

NIY

IP

[<Ob>
[<Co>

]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

KJ
I
Q

IY

IYR

aY

Q^

Q Q
M NYR

W^L
N[

Q _L
M NR

Q I
PI

K[L

NZ_L

NI L M
NI I

IP [
NI IY
Q

IV

QP

VY

QW

VY

I^

OQM

^ac

QNRK

NP
OQM

UTM

NZ

QOM
R

] [<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj>
[<Co>
] [<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
[<Aj>
=================================================================+ .
.
[<Pr>
] | .
.
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.| .
.
..
] [<Aj>
] [<Pr>
] [<Su>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.| .
.
..
] [<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Ob>
] [<PO>
] [<Su>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Fr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.| .
.
[<Su>
]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Aj>
] [<PC>
] [<Re> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Aj>
] [<Pr>
] [<Su>
]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<PO>
] [<Ng>
]
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<PO>
] [<Ng>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Pr>
] [<Ng>
]
.| .
.
[<Pr>
] [<Ng>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.| .
.
=================================================================+ .
.

]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

N
N
N
N
N
N
=====
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ

Textual Hierarchy

QNRK

NI

IP

KJ
QOM

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[
PQ] WP J NKL
N
P
NY] NIY
Y
I Q
PK
P
M PW
Rc
P Q
Rc

[M

P
P

PI

P P

JQ

]K

ZL

WT

P c

QRa

Y Q
QTUM NI NY V N_ N
M I YR NY Q RT
W^
b
P
_ NZW
I [
R ^
P
I [
R
I
P P Ra JQ

RWY

QPI

PW

P[

NZ_

NPW

RY

PW

IK

IV

PI

QP

NY

IK

J d
QR
I
RTZ
QW
N
OQI M

I^

IV NYL
[ W
ZI I QV
^
[

[<Co>
] [<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj>
=================================================================+ .
.
[<Co>
] [<PC>
] [<Is>
] | .
.
[<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.| .
.
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.| .
.
..[<Lo>
] [<PC>
] [<Su>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<PO>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
..
] [<Co>
] [<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.| .
.
[<PO>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Co>
] [<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Pr>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
..
] [<PO>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.

DCl rel MCl

VPNG

Txt.r

. 6d.
. 8.e
. 7..
. 8..
. 9..
. 10..
. 11..
. 12..
.

66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73

NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
=====

Defc <<
XQtl <<
0yqt <<
WQtl <<
infc.<<
AjCl <<
ptc. <<
infc.<<

3plM
3pl3plM
3pl----plM
-plM
----

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

N
=====
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
=====
N
N
N
N

WayX << WayX

3sgM

Dtn31

MSyn <<
0Qtl <<
infc.<<
imp. <<
imp. <<
Wey0 <<

WayX
MSyn
0Qtl
MSyn
imp.
imp.

---3pl---2sgM
2plM
1sg-

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

WayX
Way0
WayX
WayX

WayX
WayX
WayX
WayX

3sgM
3plM
3sgM
3sgM

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

WayX << WayX

3sgM

Dtn31

ptc. <<
WQtl <<
WQtl <<
ptc. <<
WQtl <<
WQtl <<
XQtl <<
WQtl <<
WQtl <<
WQtl <<
WQtl <<
infc.<<
WQtl <<

-sgM
3sgM
3sgM
-sgM
3sgM
3sgM
1sg3sgM
1sg1sg3sgM
---3pl-

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310

Xyqt
Defc
Defc
0yqt
WQtl
infc.
AjCl
ptc.

]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

0.#

74 4

2mq
4..
5..
3..
4..
5..

75
76
77
78
79
80

40
40
40
40
40
40

1.#
2..
1.#
2.#

81
82
83
84

41
41
42
421

<<
<<
<<
<<

QNRK

NI

IP

KJ
QOM

IX

QIW M [
J
PK
[
NPI
P
IP
I
KJ
NI
X
PW
K[
NY]
N
N
Q
NR
ONL M

X
M
Z \ QI P[
[ W K

W[

QI M
IaY
_

PK

Z\
X[

ZP

QIW M

PK

I\

[<Co>
] [<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj>
=====================================================================+ .
[<Ij>
] | .
[<Su>
] [<Pr>
]
.
.| .
[<Pr>
]
.
.
.| .
[<Ob>
] [<Pr>
]
.| .
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.| .
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.| .
[<PO>
=====================================================================+ .
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
[<Su>
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
[<Lo>
] [<Lo>
] [<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
[<Co>
] [<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.

Ttype

Y
Q V
Y IP
YI
Q NIY
Q
RJ M
R
JQ
XP
R
JQ QI K
M
NR
M

] [<Ng>

[ V
NN VT
a N
OQI M
V

RW

XP[

] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.|
[<Su>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.
.|
[<Pr>
]
.
.
.
.|
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.|
.. [<Ob>
/
] [<Pr>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.|
.. [<PC>
] [<Su>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
..
] [<Su>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
[<PO>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
=================================================================+
[<Pr>

Ln

R NZI
P PK[ JQ W
JN

T12

]
0.#
.
. 3.q
. 5..
. 7..
. 8..
. 7..
. 7..
. 8..
. 6..
. 8..
. 8..
. 9..
. 11..
. 10..

85 5
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98

50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50

N
=====
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ

WayX
ptc.
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl

.
.
.
.
.
.|
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.|
]
.
.
.
.
.|
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
]
.
.
.
.
.
.|
[<Mo>
] [<Cj> ]
.|
[<Ob>
] [<Co>
] [<Pr>
]
.
.|
[<Ob>
] [<PO>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.|
[<Co>
] [<PO>
]
.
.
.
.
.|
..
..
.. [<Pr>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.|
.. [<Co>
[<Co>
]
] [<PO>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.
.
.|
..
] [<Pr>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
[<PC>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.|
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.|
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.|
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.|
[<PO>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
[<PO>
] [<Co> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
[<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.|
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.|
[<Su> ..
] .. [<Pr>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.|
..
] ..
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
.. [<Pr>
] [<Ng>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.|
[<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.
.|
[<Ti>
] [<Pr>
] [<Su>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.|
[<Co>
] [<PO>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.
.
.
.|
[<Pr>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.|
=================================================================+
[<Ti>
] [<Ob>
] [<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj>
[<Ob>
] [<PO>
] [<Cj> ]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.

.
.

bI

YR Q

NT

JQ

PWY

YI

M KI P V
T
N
M
S

N_I XI IY J
W K Q
M

NIR

Q Y
Q^

QOM
R
SN
NZ
WY

M [ I
M NR J
I
NY
IKX
WZ[ Q
J I
OQM
NIY
I
R
JQ
Z
QNP
QW K[ \

NT

W^

P
Z_I X\ W[ TUM W
J S Q aUMY

P P

V
NZ X
P
QPZ] W[

NP]
QNRK

NIY

PJ

K
ONM YW
NT

W\

XI

ZP\

KJ

QOM IY J
R Q
SN
NZ
WY

NIR

Q^

NPW

IV

PI

NY

QR d NP
I I
OQM

I PR M Y
ZI Q\
WZ[ ZP [ S N]Y
[ ]KY
Q
J N
Q
WQ
NT
Q
NI
PI
P
I
Y
N
R V
N
T
JQ
X[
N
eRW
P
R
JQ
NT

RWY

NY

P[

aT

YJ

NIR R
IJ

P P P P

WX J

OQI M
OQM

QRa

Ln

Ttype

DCl rel MCl

VPNG

Txt.r

9..

99 50

WQtl << WQtl

3sgM

Dtn31

Defc << WQtl

NmCl << Defc
0Qtl << Defc

3pl---3pl-

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

CPen
0yqt
XQtl
XQtl
MSyn
imp.
imp.
imp.
Xyqt
Xyqt
XQtl
Defc
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
MSyn
Xyqt
WQtl
Xyqt
XQtl
ptc.
Xyqt
XQtl

WQtl
CPen
0yqt
0yqt
ptc.
MSyn
imp.
imp.
imp.
imp.
Xyqt
Xyqt
Xyqt
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
Xyqt
MSyn
Xyqt
WQtl
imp.
XQtl
ptc.
Xyqt

---1sg3sgM
3sgM
---2plM
2sgM
2sgM
3sgF
1sg1sg1sg3sgM
3sgM
3sgM
3sgM
3pl3pl3sgM
3sgM
3plF
3sgF
3sgF
1sg-sgM
1sg1sg-

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

2.# 130 511

3.. 131 511

NQ
=====
NQQ
NQQ
NQQ
=====
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
=====
N
N

WayX << WayX

Way0 << WayX

3sgM
3sgM

Dtn31
Dtn31

1.# 132 51
2.. 133 51

N
N

Way0 << WayX

Way0 << Way0

3sgM
3sgM

Dtn31
Dtn31

11dq 100 500

13.e 101 500
12.. 102 500
7c.
8..
10.e
9..
4m.
5..
9..
8..
9..
7..
11.e
10d.
9..
9..
9..
9..
10..
10..
9..
8m.
9..
10..
11..
6..
7..
8..
9..

103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129

50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50

<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<<

Z_I

OQI M
OQM

QRaV

NYP

QW

[<Ob>

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
]
.

Qb

NYR

[S

NZ_

NPW

NTZ

NT

QOI M
IY N\
Q
P[
RI

NW

RWc

NZ [ M
M
QP
]K

] [<Pr>
] [<Cj>
[<Ti>
=================================+ .
[<Lo>
]
[<Ng>
] [<Qu> ] | .
.. [<Ng> ] [<Cj>
]
.
.| .
..
] [<PO>
]
.| .
=================================+ .
[<Su>
..
] [<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Mo>
[<Pr>
] [<Re>
]
..
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj>

T12

QRK

NPW

IV
Q

PI

Textual Hierarchy

Textual Hierarchy

T12

UTMT N

NI

NTZ

JQ

R Q

NT

YI QKd

NI NY Q
QI [ NWY
WZ
J

QOM
R
SN
NZ
K[L V WY
IM Q

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[ WY

bY

NT

V PW[
P N
RK
K

NZX

Qf I

X[

NY

P
P NOM
Ic
I

134
135
136
137
138

510
510
510
510
510

0.#
2..
3..
4..
1.#
2..

139
140
141
142
143
144

6
6
6
6
61
61

3.q
6..
7..
5..
6m.
8.\
7..
8l.
9..
4..
5..
6..
7..
9.\
8..
9..
11..
10..
11..
13..
12..

145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165

610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610

VPNG

Txt.r

=====
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
=====

imp.
imp.
Xyqt
XQtl
WXyq

Way0
imp.
imp.
Xyqt
Xyqt

2sgM
2sgM
2sgM
1sg1sg-

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

<<
<<
<<
<<
<<

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

N
N
N
N
N
N
=====
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
=====

Way0 <<
infc.<<
infc.<<
infc.<<
WayX <<
infc.<<

WayX
Way0
infc.
infc.
Way0
WayX

3sgM
---------3sgM
----

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

infa.<<
WQtl <<
WQtl <<
XQtl <<
MSyn <<
AjCl <<
0Qtl <<
Ellp <<
infc.<<
imp. <<
Wey0 <<
Wey0 <<
XQtl <<
infc.<<
Xyqt <<
WQtl <<
XQtl <<
WQtl <<
Xyqt <<
AjCl <<
infc.<<

infc.
infa.
WQtl
infa.
XQtl
0Qtl
MSyn
0Qtl
Ellp
infa.
imp.
Wey0
Wey0
Xyqt
XQtl
Xyqt
WQtl
WQtl
WQtl
Xyqt
Xyqt

---2plM
3sgM
1sg----sg2plM
------2plM
1sg1sg1sg---2plM
2plM
1sg3sgF
2plM
-sg----

Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31
Dtn31

N
N

WayX << Way0

infc.<< WayX

3sgM
----

Dtn31
Dtn31

V WXR
KY
X N
[

KJ
I

Q^W

NZ

Ic M
UTM

QOM
R

RWX

4.q
6..
5..
7..
6..

DCl rel MCl

SN
..

NIR

IJ

KW[ S [
R

TY

TY

XRL

NY I YP\
N K\ a
YJ
P]

Y[ S
PNb YI
Q
Y
T[
Q
IM
VY
Rc
Y
R
NT
JQ R a NY
b J
I KP
P
N
Ra
Q
P
NT

XI

N[

Q I N
RWX OQM
NT
Q

NT

QRa

PK

NK

IY J

V V
N NT
RWX eR
IY PV J
Q T
Ne
W
NZ J
V ^c
NZI UTM
Q^W Y
Q

NY

VY Na

NIV K[
[

IP T

I\

P Q

NI V I
I Y I
K YRP
NTZ
S _I
Q

Y
NY J QP
X[

RW

X IP
[ NIY
M N

\
QPRX
NL
RKY WL
]K
Q

I^

cM

P
KQR N]
M

KY

IY

PM

NQ

QPR

I V
KJ

RWX

NI

IYR

Q^

RW

[M

[<Su>

T Y
M P

KJ

[<Pr>
] [<Cj>
] [<Pr>
]
.
[<Co>
] [<Ob>
] [<Pr>
]
.
.
[<PO>
]
.
.
.
[<Ob>
/
] [<Su>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
[<Pr>
]
.
=================================================================+ .
.
[<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] | .
.
..
] [<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.| .
.
] [<Co>
] [<Lo>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Co>
.. [<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Su>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.| .
.
[<Ij>
]
.
.
.| .
.
.. [<PC>
] [<Aj>
] [<Mo>
]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Pr>
]
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Ij>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Ps>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Ob>
] [<Co>
] [<Pr>
]
.| .
.
[<Ob> ..
] [<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.| .
.
[<Ob> ..
] [<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.| .
.
[<Pr>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Ps>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Pr>
] [<Mo>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
..
] [<Pr>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
.. [<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
[<Pr>
] [<Cj>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
.. [<PC>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
..
] [<PO>
]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.| .
.
=================================================================+ .
.

NPIY

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ttype

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

^ac

=============================================================+
] |
[<Pr>
[<Pr>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.|
.. [<Ob>
] [<Pr>
] [<Su>
] [<Cj>
]
.|
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Re>
]
.
.
.|
[<Co>
] [<Pr>
] [<Su>
] [<Cj> ]
.
.|
=============================================================+

Ln

] [<Co>

] [<Su>

] [<Pr>
[<PO>

] [<Cj> ]
]
.

0.# 166 7
1.. 167 7

Literature
Begg, Christopher,
The literary Criticism of Deut 4,1-40. Contributions to a Continuing Discussion, ETL 56
(1980) 10-55
Braulik, G.,
Deuteronomium (1-16,17) (Die neue Echter Bibel. Kommentar zum Alten Testament mit der
Einheitsbersetzung), Wrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1986;
Deuteronomium II (16,18-34,12), Wrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992
Cairns, Ian,
Word and Presence. A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (International Theological
Commentary), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992
Driver, S.R.,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC), Edinburgh, 19013
Kleinert, Paul,
Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker, Untersuchungen zur alttestamentlichen rechts- und
Literargeschichte, Bielefeld/Leipzig, 1872
Labuschagne, C.J.,
Deuteronomium. deel 1b, (POT), Nijkerk, 1987
Labuschagne, C.J.,
Belichting van het Bijbelboek Deuteronomium, Hertogenbosch: KBS / Brugge: Tabor, 1993
Levenson, J.D.,
From Temple to Synagogue: 1 Kings 8, in: Traditions in Transformation. Turning Points in
Biblical Faith, (Fs. F.M. Cross), B.Halpern, J.D. Levenson (ed.), Winona Lake, 1981, 143-166
Levenson, J.D.,
Who inserted the book of the Torah? HThR 68 (1975) 203-234
Lohfink, Norbert (ed.),
Das Deuteronomium. Enstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensum 68), Leuven 1985
Lohfink, Norbert,
Das Hauptgebot. Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5-11 (AnBibl 20), Rome,
1963
Lohfink, Norbert,
Darstellungskunst und Theologie in Dtn 1,6-3,29, Biblica 41(1960) 105-134
Lohfink, Norbert,
Der Bundesschlu im Land Moab. Redaktionsgeschichtliches zu Dt 28,69 - 32,47, Biblische
Zeitschrift 6 (1962) 32-56
Lundblom, J.R.,
The Lawbook of the Josianic Reform, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976) 293-302
Mayes, A.D.H.,
The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile. A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomic History,
London, 1983
Mayes, A.D.H.,
Deuteronomy (The New Century Bible Commentary) Grand Rapids, Michigan / Londen, 1981
Mayes, A.D.H.,
Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy, Journal of Biblical Literature 100
(1981) 23-51
McConville, J, Gordon,
Grace in the End. A Study in Deuteronomic Theology (Studies in Old Testament Biblical
Theology), Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993
Minette de Tillesse, G.,
Sections "tu" et sections "vous" dans le Deutronome, Vetus Testamentum 12 (1962) 29 - 87
Nicholson, E.W.
Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford, 1967

Deuteronomy 31: Confusion or Conclusion?

23

Nielsen, Eduard,
Deuteronomium, (Handbuch z. A.T. I/6 , Tbingen, J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1994
Noth, Martin,
berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die Sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten
Testament, Schriften der Knigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse
18 (1943) 43-266; Darmstadt, 1967-3
Olson, Dennis T.,
Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses. A Theological Reading (Overtures to Biblical Theology)
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994
Perlitt, Lothar,
Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, WMANT 36, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969
Polzin, R.,
Moses and the Deuteronomist. A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part I Deuteronomy,
Joshua, Judges, New York, 1980
Preuss, H.D.,
Deuteronomium (Ertrge der Forschung, 164), Darmstadt: Wissensch. Buchg., 1982
Puukko, F.,
Das Deuteronomium. Eine litarkritische Untersuching (BWAT 5), Leipzig, 1910
Rad, Gerhard von,
Das fnfte Buch Moses. Deuteronomium (ATD 8), Gttingen, 1964
Rad, Gerhard von,
Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT 40), Gttingen, 1947, in: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten
Testament II (Theol. Bcherei 48) Mnchen, 1958; 1971-4
Rose, Martin,
5. Mose. Teilband 2: 5.Mose 1-11 und 26-34. Rahmenstcke zum Gesetzeskorpus (Zrcher
Bibelkommentare) Zrich, 1994
Sailhamer, John H.,
The Pentateuch as Narrative. A Biblical-Theological Commentary, Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1992
Schuman, N.A.,
Deuteronomium. Op weg naar het land Utopia (Verkl. v.e. Bijbelgedeelte), Kampen: Kok, 1983
Staerk, W.,
Das Deuteronomium, sein Inhalt und seine literarische Form, Leipzig, 1894
Talstra, E.,
The Prayer of Solomon. Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1Kings 8, 14-61, Kampen,
1993.
Talstra, E.,
Deuteronomy 9 and 10: Synchronic and Diachronic Observations, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.)
Synchrony or Diachrony? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Papers Read at the Ninth
Joint Meeting of Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgi and The Society for
Old Testament Study, held at Kampen, 1994 = Oudtestamentische Studin 34 (1995) p 187 - 210
Weinfeld, M.,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford, 1972
Weinfeld, M.,
Deuteronomy 1-11. A new Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 5),
New York: Doubleday, 1991
Wolff, H.W.,
Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks, in: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten
Testament, Mnchen, 1964, p. 171-186
Wijngaards, J.,
Deuteronomium, uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (BOT), Roermond, 1971