Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

ISSN: 0901-8328 (Print) 1502-7244 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sold20

The understanding of the prophets in

Deuteronomy

Hans M. Barstad

To cite this article: Hans M. Barstad (1994) The understanding of the prophets in Deuteronomy,
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 8:2, 236-251, DOI: 10.1080/09018329408585044

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09018329408585044

Published online: 04 Jul 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 66

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sold20
 THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPHETS
IN DEUTERONOMY

Hans M. Barstad,
Institutt for bibelvitenskap
Postboks 1023, Blindern, N-0315 Oslo

I
There is really no lack of studies on the relationship between the
prophets and Deuteronomy. Researchers have long been aware of the
great and striking similarities between the theologies present in Deut-
eronomy and in the prophets.1 Some studies have concerned them-
selves with the so-called "law of prophecy", in the process laying
special emphasis on the redaction-historical aspects, in connexion with
which Deuteronomy's view of the prophets has been compared with
the superscriptions applying to other "official" figures (judges, kings
and priests).2
There are two features in particular which have occasioned renewed
interest in our theme. Even though this is an old problem,3 the re-

1 See most recently K. Zobel, Prophétie und Deuteronomium. Die Rezeption

prophetischer Theologie durch das Deuteronomium (BZAW 199; Berlin
1992), who also includes a brief survey of previous research. The relation-
ship between the Deuteronomists and the Book of Jeremiah has recently
been subjected to special study by E. Kragelund Holt, "The Chicken and
the Egg — On Was Jeremiah a Member of the Deuteronomist Party?"
JSOT 44 (1989), 109-22 See further C.R. Seitz, "Mose als Prophet. Redak-
tionsthemen und Gesamtstruktur des Jeremiasbuches", BZ 34 (1990), 234-
45, and, by the same author, "The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape
of Jeremiah", ZAW 101 (1989), 3-27.
2 See e.g. B. Chiesa, "La promessa di un profeta (Deut. 18, 25-20 [Sic!])",
Bibbia e Oriente 15 (1973), 17-26; F. García Lopez, "Un profeta como
Moisés. Estudio critico de Dt 18, 9-22", Simposio Biblico Español
(Salamanca, 1982). Editado por N. Fernández Marcos et al. (Madrid 1984),
289-308 (with a good survey of the literature); U. Rüterswörden, Von der
politischen Gemeinschaft zur Gemeinde. Studien zu Dt. 16:8-18:22 (BBB 65;
Bonn 1987), 76-88; F. Foresti, 'Storia della redazione di Dtn. 16, 18-22 e le
sue connessioni con l'opéra storica deuteronomistica", Teresianum 39
(1988), 1-199, esp. pp 128-80.
3 Already at the beginning of the century, E Day claimed that the prophetic
books were late, post-exilic pseudonymous compositions ("Is the Book of
Amos Post-Exilic?", AJSL 26 [1909-1910], 105-32; here p 108).

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament vol. 8 no. 2 (1994)

© Scandinavian University Press
 The Understanding of the Prophets in Deuteronomy 237

searches of recent years have once again directed our attention to the
fact that the Deuteronomistic History never mentions the "classical"
prophets with so much as a single reference.4 At the same time, how-
ever, this work treats with the very periods in the history of the
Israelite people during which the prophets have been thought to have
been active.5 As is well known, this phenomenon does not seem to
have been the result of any unconditional hostility to prophecy, as the
Deuteronomistic History repeatedly makes positive reference to both
prophecy and prophetic figures (e.g, Nathan, Gad, Elijah and Elishah).
The usual explanation of the failure of the Deuteronomists to men-
tion the "classical" prophets is that the prophetic books are held to be
late, post-exilic compositions which first came into being after the
Deuteronomists had composed their history. Although, as has been
mentioned, this is an old explanation, it has enjoyed a renascence in
recent times in particular through the works of Auld and Carroll,
both of whom have claimed that the prophetic texts are very late
works which have no connexion with ancient Israelite pre-exilic pro-
phecy.6
An additional fact that has contributed to the actualisation of the
problematic under discussion is the increasingly common tendency to
late dating of more and moic of the Old Testament materials. Co-

4 Of course, individual scholars have claimed that there are allusions to the
classical prophets in the Deuteronomistic history. See e.g. H. W. Wolff,
"Das Ende des Heiligtums in Bethel", Archäologie und Altes Testament.
Festschrift für Kurt Galling zum 8. Januar 1970. Herausgegeben von A.
Kutschke und E. Kutsch (Tübingen 1970), 288-98, esp. p 292; F. Crüsemann,
"Kritik an Arnos im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Erwägungen zu
2. Könige 14:27", Probleme biblischer Theologie. Gerhard von Rad zum 70.
Geburtstag. Hg. v. H. W. Wolff. (München 1971), 57-63. This remains, how-
ever, quite uncertain.
5 See e.g. K. Koch, "Das Prophetenschweigen des deuteronomistischen Ge-
schichtswerks", Die Botschaft und die Boten. Festschrift für Hans Walther
Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag. Herausgegeben von J. Jeremias und L. Perlitt
(Neukirchen/Vluyn 1981), 115-28. Koch lists a variety of conceivable
solutions and concludes himself with the rather weak and for a number of
reasons untenable conclusion that exilic circles must have thought that the
possibility of conversion was present, so that the sharp prophetic prophecy
of judgement could not be accepted. A scholar who has been especially
preoccupied with this issue in recent times is C. Begg, "The Non-Mention
of Amos, Hosea and Micah in the Deuteronomistic History", BN 32 (1986),
41-53.
6 For a survey of this discussion, see H.M. Barstad, "No Prophets? Recent
Developments in Biblical Prophetic Research and Ancient Near Eastern
Prophecy", JSOT 57 (1993), 39-60.
238 Hans M. Bar st ad

incident with this extensive late dating of the texts is the emergence
of increased understanding of the way the Biblical authors worked.
Whereas scholars were previously preoccupied with the Biblical
authors as "historians", so that it was assumed that it would be poss-
ible through intensive investigation of the texts to reconstruct the
main lines of the history of ancient Israel, in recent times it has be-
come ever more clear the extent to which the authors were inter-
preters and creators of tradition. Ideology, rather than history, has be-
come a pathway of ever-increasing importance to the Biblical texts.7
It is possible to discern a reflex of this manner of evaluation in the
evaluation of the relationship between the Chronistic and Deutero-
nomistic histories. Previously, when the works in question were com-
pared with one another, it was usual to claim that the Deuteronomist
largely preserves a more or less "reliable history writing", whereas the
Chronicler was held to be both unreliable and tendentious. By way of
contrast, there is today scarcely any reason to regard the Deutero-
nomist as in any sense more "reliable" than the Chronicler. Both
writers are highly "tendentious", and when they make use of existing
tradition they frequently reinterpret it in order to stress their respec-
tive messages.8 "Ideological", then, rather than "historical",9 is the

7 Naturally, it would be inappropriate to over-emphasise the concept of

"ideology". Such terms as "history" and "ideology" are both modern ones
which can only be applied to the Old Testament in a highly anachronistic
fashion, and which provide what are at best only quite inadequate
descriptions of the mentality and quality that we encounter in the Old
Testament. My reason for retaining these terms as designations of certain
tendencies is a certain respect for the conventions — and nothing more.
8 See, for example, K. Strübind, Tradition als Interpretation in der Chronik.
König Josaphat als Paradigma chronistischer Hermeneutik und Theologie
(BZAW 201; Berlin 1991). The Chronicler's view of the prophets is of
obvious interest, although scholars have concerned themselves with it all
too little. One should, however, consult I.L Seeligmann, "Die Auffassung
von der Prophetie in der deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Ge-
schichtsschreibung (Mit einem Exkurs über das Buch Jeremia)", Congress
Volume Göttingen 1977 (SVT 29; Leiden 1978), 254-84, esp. pp 270-79; J.P.
Weinberg, "Die 'ausserkanonischen Prophezeiungen' in den Chronikbü-
chern", Acta Antiqua 26 (1978), 387-404. A brief but deft survey is offered
by C. Begg, "The Classical Prophets in the Chronistic History", BZ (1988),
100-107. See also by the same author, "The Chronicler's non-mention of
Elisha", BN 45 (1988), 7-11. On the relationship between P and the
prophets, see W.H. Schmidt, "Nachwirkungen prophetischer Botschaft in
der Priesterschrift", Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en thonneur de M.
Mathias Delcor. Ed. par A. Caquot et al. (AOAT 215; Neukirchen-Vluyn
1985), 369-77.
9 Cf R.P. Carroll, "Israel, History of (Post-Monarchic Period)", ABD 3 (1992),
 The Understanding of the Prophets in Deuteronomy 239

more appropriate designation for this variety of authorial activity.10

Naturally, such an approach to the Old Testament texts is by no
means new, but we must acknowledge that such approaches are more
powerfully established today than ever before.11
This phenomenon of reinterpretation does not, of course, end with
the Old Testament writings; rather, it continues on into Late Jewish
and New Testament times.12 This sort of supraordinate perspective on
the production of the Biblical texts has arisen as a natural extension
of that development within Old Testament studies that goes by the
name of "inner-Biblical exegesis".13
It is against this background that we shall now proceed to examine
Deuteronomy more closely. As is also the case with the Chronicler,14
there is every reason to believe that the Deuteronomists, too, had a
very specific understanding of Old Testament prophecy.
II
We find the first reference to the prophets in Deuteronomy in ch 13.
Here it is apparently the question of true prophets of YHWH that is
central. Deut 13,2-4 offers certain regulations pertaining to prophets
who arise proferring dreams, signs or wonders. V 3 presupposes that
the signs or wonders produced by the prophet in question are actually
fulfilled; this is a sign that we have to do with a true YHWH-pro-
567-76.
10 In this connexion I do not discuss whether it is possible to reconstruct the
history of ancient Israel on the basis of thse Biblical texts. My point is
primarily to emphasise the fact that the texts are far more problematical
than has previously been thought to be the case. Whether this then entails
that it is impossible for us to know anything at all about the history of
early Israel is quite a different matter.
11 These approaches are represented in their most extreme form by the
recent accounts of Davies and Thompson (P.R. Davies, In Search of Ancient
Israel (JSOT SS 148; Sheffield 1992); T.L. Thompson, Early History of the
Israelite People From the Written and Archaeological Sources (Studies in
the History of the Ancient Near East 4; Leiden 1992).
12 Cf e.g. E.E Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity. Canon and Inter-
pretation in the Light of Modern Research (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchun-
gen zum Neuen Testament 54; Tübingen 1991). Ellis offers some interesting
observations concerning canon as an hermeneutical process in the course
of which the growth of the canon takes place gradually through the
interpretations by later writers of extant tradition.
13 We have yet again to do with a phenomenon which has been around for
some time, but which has only come to real prominence in recent times. M.
Fishbane offers an extensive treatment of the phenomenon in his Biblical
Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford 1985).
14 See above, note 8.
240 Hans M. Barstad

phet.15 However, the very structure of the text informs us that some-
thing quite different underlies this. First there is a general character-
isation of the behaviour of a prophet: "If a prophet (x'3ï) arises among
you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign (mx) or a wonder (
nsnnn) (13,2, RSV). This is followed by the subject proper of the text
in 13,3-5. Here the reader is warned against following the word of a
prophet, in the event that he should counsel idolatry. At the same
time it is also stressed that what is important is to follow YHWH's
laws and statutes as presented in Deuteronomy.
In reality, Deut 13 is more concerned with the problem of prophetic
counseling of idolatry than it is with prophets as such. If a prophet
gets the people to follow other gods than YHWH, it is of no signifi-
cance whatsoever that the signs and wonders he proclaims should
happen to come to pass: "you shall not listen to the words of that pro-
phet (K'3J) or to that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is
testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all
your heart and with all your soul" (Deut 13,4, RSV).
Although the function of the prophet is mentioned in Deut 13, it is
no less clear that it is not the prophets who are the real concern of
this text. The context (12,lff.) has to do with idolatry and with the
punishment accruing to it. Any prophet who should happen to lead
the people astray will be punished by death: "that prophet (x'aa) or
that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught
rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land
of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to make
you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to
walk. So you shall purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut 13,6,
RSV). Thus the "central commandment" of the Deuteronomists, the
injunction to "purge the evil from the midst of you" (cf Deut 17,7,12;
19,19: 21,21; 22,21-22,24; 24,7), is central to this text as well.
Moreover, the injunctions which follow upon this text also have to
do with those who encourage idolatry, and they prescribe capital
punishment for this offence. Just as a prophet who leads the people
astray must lose his life, so too must a brother, son, daughter, wife or
friend pay with his or her life, in the event that they should advise
idolatry.
The will of YHWH is juxtaposed to the prophet in Deut 13. In this
connexion, v 5 is central: "You shall walk after YHWH your God and

15 Cf. THAT I2 (1975), col 93.

 The Understanding of the Prophets in Deuteronomy 241

fear him, and keep his commandments (vniXD) and obey his voice,
and you shall serve him and cleave to him". Yet again, we find our-
selves at the very centre of the message of Deuteronomy (cf 10,12-
13). It is likewise clear just where YHWH's laws and regulations are
located, namely in Deuteronomy.
The relationship between the purpose underlying Deut 13,5 and
Deut 10,12-13 is important. Deut 10,13 offers the following reason
for the injunction to adhere to YHWH's commandments and stat-
utes1^ "to keep the commandments (niara) and statutes (vnpn) of
YHWH which I command you this day for your good". The phrase
"which I command you this day" is important, as it refers to the
contents of Deuteronomy (D'iann nVx !). In this connexion the contents
of Deuteronomy comprise YHWH's laws and statutes. The content of
Deuteronomy is accordingly being awarded authority superiour to
that of the prophets. In consequence of this, if in the future there
should arise any disagreement between the contents of Deuteronomy
(cf Deut 12,1) and some future prophet, then it is Deuteronomy that
represents the revealed word of YHWH, and not the prophet in ques-
tion. The fact that prophets are not discussed in a positive sense, but
only negatively, thus implies a powerful demotion of the authority of
prophecy to the status of a sort of second-rate revelation, subordinate
to the "Law of Moses". It is Deuteronomy that is the actual
expression of the will of YHWH.
It is thus hardly coincidental that in this late post-exilic program-
matic work the prophets are associated with the theme of Deut 12-13,
namely apostasy and the punishment for apostasy. The main thrust of
ch 13 has apparently to do with the criteria of true and false proph-
ecy, but in reality it is concerned with another of the main lines in
Deuteronomy, namely with apostasy from YHWH, the worship of
other gods and the possibility that prophets might lead the people to
decline from YHWH. Thus this text also proves that the authors of
Deuteronomy were suspicious of prophecy and regarded the prophets
as a subordinate pathway to the will of YHWH.

16 In this connexion I shall not broach the question of possible source- or

redactions! layers behind this text and shall confine myself to dealing
with the final product as it left the hand of "the last author". This is what
I mean by reference to the "Deuteronomist". There is no question but that
the Deuteronomist had earlier sources at his disposal; the loose organis-
ation of our text is accordingly striking.
242 Hans M. Barstad

III
Criteria of true and false prophecy are also found in another passage
in Deuteronomy, namely in 18,21-22. Here it is yet again stressed that
it is only the prophet whose word is fulfilled who speaks on behalf of
YHWH. 1 7 In contextual terms, however, this text has the character of
an appendix to a more famous text, Deut 18,15-19:
The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet (mi) like me from
among you, from your brethren — him you shall heed — 16 just as you
desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when
you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, or see this
great fire any more, lest I die*. 17 And the Lord said to me, 'They have
rightly said all that they have spoken. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet
like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth,
and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not
give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will
require it of him'.
There seems to be a sort of consensus as to the content of this text.
Like the regulations applying to the other "officials" (judges, kings
and priests) in Deuteronomy, 18 researchers hold that this text contains
a general pronouncement about the prophets. There has been a ten-
dency for a long time to evaluate the meaning of the different laws
with respect to one another quite variously, 19 but at the end of the
day the commentaries agree relatively well that Deut 18,15-19 is a
document that legitimates a prophetic movement which traces its
office back to Moses and according to which prophets will appear
within the mosaic tradition at regular intervals. The idea that the
notion of "a prophet like Moses" points to a succession of mosaic
prophets, and that it is only prophets of this sort to whom the people
ought to listen is in fact represented in such different commentaries
as those of, eg., Steuernagel, 20 Driver, 21 Buis and Leclercq, 22
17 We shall once again decline to discuss redaction-historical matters.
18 For a brief survey of the "laws of officialdom" in Deuteronomy 16,18-
18,22 see G. Braulik, Die Deuteronomischen Gesetze und der Dekalog.
Studien zum Aufbau von Deuteronomium 12-26 (SBS 145; Stuttgart 1991),
46-61.
19 For example, J. Muilenberg has asserted that the "law of prophecy" is the
most central of all these "laws" and is their ultimate climax ("The 'Office'
of the Prophet in Ancient Israel", The Bible in Modern Scholarship. Papers
Read at the 100th Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature December
28-30, 1964. Ed. by J.P. Hyatt [Abingdon 1965] 74-97, 86ff).
20 C. Steuernagel, Ubersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und
Joshua und allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch (HAT I. Abt. 3. Band;
Göttingen 1900), 70.
21 S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC;
 The Understanding of the Prophets in Deuteronomy 243

Craigie,23 and Braulik.24

In addition to this is the fact that scholarship has advanced an
hypothesis or at least a widely shared view according to which Deut
18,15-19 arose in the Northern Kingdom, where the Ephraimite
prophets are supposed to have enjoyed a special office as "covenant
mediators", an office which may date back to Moses. In spite of the
fact that this hypothesis, which became influential above all because
of the works of Kraus,25 today carries very little conviction,26 a num-
ber of prominent scholars have nevertheless supported the under-
standing of North-Israelite mosaic prophets as "covenant mediators".27
However, this sort of view of Deut 18,15-19 is not as unproblem-
atical as researchers have seemed to suppose. It is my intention in this
brief contribution to attempt to show that the views I have just
delineated are scarcely tenable, and that Deut 18,15-19 has to do with
something completely different. In reality, this text has to do with
Joshua as Moses' successor.28
In order to understand completely the expression "a prophet from
among you", it is essential to evaluate Deut 18,15-19 in the light of
the Deuteronomistic context. As we know, the whole of Deutero-
nomy is cast as a single long speech in the mouth of Moses which was
Edinburgh 1902), 227 and 229.
22 P. Buis and J. Leclercq, Le Deutéronome (Sources Bibliques Paris 1963),
139.
23 P.C Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids 1976), 262.
24 G. Braulik, Deuteronomium II. 16.18-34,12 (Die Neue Echter Bibel.
Kommentar zum Alten Testament mit der Einheitsübersetzung 28; Würzburg
1992), 135.
25 HJ. Kraus, Die prophetische Verkündigung des Rechts in Israel (JhSt 61;
Zollikon 1957). Kraus was not the first to present this hypothesis; he was
dependent on a number of German scholars who preceded him.
26 It has been rightly criticised by Wilson; cf R.R. Wilson, Prophecy and
Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia 1980), 157-66 (with literature). The
redaction historian Garcia (see above, note 2) supports Wilson's criticism
of Kraus.
27 See e.g. E.W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition (Oxford 1967), 77. See
also the discussion in D.L. Petersen, The Roles of Israel's Prophets (JSOT
SS 17; Sheffield 1981), 82-85.
28 According to Foresti, "Storia della redazione. . .", Teresianum 39 (1988),
157, "a prophet like Moses" was identified as Joshua already by Abraham
ibn Ezra (1092[?M167) in his magisterial commentary on the Pentateuch.
But I might add that I do not know anyone else who has advocated this
solution. For the later eschatological interpretation of this tradition see F.
Dexinger, "Der 'Prophet wie Moses' in Qumran und bei den Samaritanern",
Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M. Mathias Dekor. Ed. par
A. Caquot et al. (AOAT 215; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985), 97-111.
244 Hans M. Barstad

given just before the people took possession of the land. The "speech"
contains laws and statutes which the Israelites are to to observe after
having settled in Canaan. However, it is not a matter of mere laws
and statutes in general, but the very word of YHWH as revealed to
the prophet Moses. The central point in this thesis is the fact of the
Deuteronomist's view of Moses as a prophet, as well as the fact that
what we encounter in Deuteronomy is also meant to be understood as
the communication of Moses the prophet to the people. There is no
difference in theory between the revelation provided by YHWH, and
which is passed on to the Israelite people, and the message of the
prophets. Thus the onain nVx of Deuteronomy may be compared with
the prophetic "messenger formula" which is introduced by the expres-
sion "thus says Jahve".
To understand Deut 18 completely, it is particularly important to
consider the context. Like the rest of the contents of Deuteronomy,
ch 18, too, contains regulations notionally intended to apply only
when the people have settled in the land which YHWH has given
them. The contents are diverse. We find regulations governing the
levitical priests in 18,1-8. This is followed by a section (v 9-14) which
refers to the inhabitants of Canaan and their idolatry, or, to be
precise, the Moloch cult, plus a variety of forms of illegitimate types
of divination (including necromancy and reading cloud formations).
Such types of divination and sacrificial cult may not be adopted by
the immigrant Israelites. Taken together with the cult of Moloch, the
various divinatory techniques are seen as a type of idolatry. Thus as
an interimistic conclusion we may note that Deut 18,9-14 deals only
in a peripheral fashion with the problem of illegimate "prophecy" and
concentrates instead on idolatry.
The next section, Deut 18,15-19, which informs us that YHWH will
let à prophet arise from among the people, is not logically connected
with the preceding material. It is important to be cognisant of this, as
quite a few readers read this text in a different context than the one
actually present and thus assume that the remarks about idolatry i v
9-14 make up the background for v 15-19. We might have expected
in v 15-19 regulations about prophets corresponding to those applying
to the priests and lévites; this, however, is not the case. We are instead
told how YHWH will let a prophet whom the people are to listen to
emerge from among the people; this prophet is Joshua.
A new section begins in Deut 18,20-22. It is unrelated to v 15-19,
but has to do with prophetic legitimacy. Capital punishment is
 The Understanding of the Prophets in Deuteronomy 245

ordained for the prophet who dares to prophesy in the name of

YHWH without a mandate from YHWH. The section also deals with
prophets who speak in the name of other gods. Finally, we are
presented with some criteria for recognising YHWH's word as
mediated by the prophets: if the word pronounced by the prophet in
question really is fulfilled, then that prophet has spoken in the name
of YHWH. It is possible that this text, the theme of which is also
treated with in ch 13, is a redactional addition, as has been argued by
a number of scholars. We shall not, however, deal with this possibility
here:
18,20 'But the prophet (ira) who presumes to speak a word in my name
which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of
other gods, that same prophet (icxO shall die'. 21 And if you say in your
heart, 'How may we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?'—22
when a prophet (ira) speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not
come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the
prophet ()f3J) has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.
If we examine the structure of this section29 the result is quite inter-
esting. It apparently has to do with criteria for determining whether
we have to do with a true or false prophet of YHWH. These are pre-
sent in v 21-22. However, this fragment has been attached to v 20,
which may be regarded as the main verse in the context. We find yet
again a broadly negative understanding of prophets in general. Pro-
phets who either speak when YHWH has not commanded them to do
so, or who speak in the names of other gods, must die. Of course, the
bit about speaking in the names of other gods is intelligible, but how
can we know whether a prophet is a prophet of YHWH?
As in ch 13, it is here emphasised that if a word which is spoken in
the name of YHWH comes to fulfilment, then the prophet in question
speaks on YHWH's behalf. This point is stressed even more heavily in
ch 13, where we are told that the people are not even to listen to a
prophet whose word has been fulfilled, in the event that he should
also counsel idolatry. But the introduction of the criterion of fulfil-
ment takes the sting out of all types of prophecy. After all, a number
of the so-called "classical" prophets do not fulfil the criteria for being
true prophets of YHWH! Moreover, it will easily have been possible
to challenge the authority of any prophet who emerged in the days of
the Deuteronomist. For example, when Hananiah says in Jer 28 that
Nebuchadnezzar will lose his power within two years, two years have
perforce to elapse before one can determine by the Deuteronomistic
29 I refrain yet again from dealing with the redaction history of the passage.
246 Hans M. Bar st ad

criteria whether that prophet has spoken as YHWH's representative.

Seen in this light, all prophetic activity is in reality undermined by the
Deuteronomist. By contrast, the Deuteronomy of the levitical priests
represents YHWH's revealed will.
These observations become additionally interesting when we note
how the two redactional units in 18,15-19 and 18,20-22 contrast with
and are played off against each other. Deut 18,15-19 refer to a
"prophet like Moses", which is to say, Moses' successor, Joshua. The
reference is concluded in v 19 with a warning to whoever should fail
to obey Joshua, the successor of Moses, as YHWH will demand a
reckoning with him: "And whoever will not give heed to my words
which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him".
The remarks in this text are to be compared with the account in the
Book of Joshua and reflected on in the light of Joshua's word from
YHWH as recorded in the Book of Joshua. At the same time, the
reference to Joshua also applies to his stewardship of the content of
Deuteronomy, that is, YHWH's word to Moses. As a sharp contrast
with this, in Deut 18,20-22 we find the reference to the prophets who
do not speak in the name of YHWH. Thus in the final redaction,
Moses' word is contrasted with the word of other prophets.
There are also other features in the structure of ch 18 that bear
witness to an anti-prophetic thrust. The placement of the discussion of
prophecy in the same context as that of a variety of types of illegal
divinatory practice, not to mention the despised cult of Moloch, is suf-
ficient by itself to discredit prophecy, or at the least to cast it in a sus-
pect light. We find ranged against this Moses and Deuteronomy and
the "prophet like Moses" who succeeded the prophet Moses and who
was to administer the laws and statutes of Deuteronomy as an expres-
sion of the revealed will of YHWH towards his people, namely
Joshua.
Thus what we find represented in the so-called "laws of prophecy" in
Deut 18 are three different kinds of "prophetic activity", the indivi-
dual pericopeia of which have no internal logical connexion. The first
deals with the prohibition of unlawful types of divination (18,9-14);
the second points to Joshua as the successor of Moses (18,15-19); and
the third and last contains the commandment to execute prophets
who do not speak on YHWH's behalf, plus criteria for discerning true
YHWH-prophets (18,20-22). Since these three quite disparate seg-
ments of text do not have any logically necessary sequence, but deal
instead with three different themes, it is evident that the redaction
 The Understanding of the Prophets in Deuteronomy 247

serves an ideological purpose.

IV
The most interesting text for our purposes is the much-misunderstood
pericope Deut 18,15-19. A number of features suggest that this text
cannot have anything to do with a series of "future" prophets of
YHWH. I think it is unimportant in this connexion that the singular
of the word for "prophet" is employed here. The singular is also used
in the prohibitions of various kinds of illicit divination in the section
Deut 18,10-11. The important thing here is the understanding of
Moses as a prophet in Deuteronomy, as well as the Deuteronomist's
general understanding of prophecy. The author of Deuteronomy is
hostile to prophecy, as far as all present and future prophets are
concerned. In earlier times, however, prophets were all right, but after
Deuteronomy was given to Moses on Mt. Horeb there was no longer
any need for further revelations. Deuteronomy represents the last,
essential revelation from YHWH and hence contains everything that
the people need to know. For this reason there is no institutionalisa-
tion of the office of "prophet" in Deuteronomy; nor is there any
general comparison of the prophets with Moses. The statement in
18,15 to the effect that YHWH will make a prophet like Moses arise
applies to a once-and-for-all phenomenon, rather than to a series of
future prophets. An important indication of this is provided by T M in
v 15. The prophet in question is to have the same function as Moses.
But the only one who actually does this is Joshua. The election of
Joshua as Moses' successor is prepared by the author in Deut 3,23-29,
a passage which has been consciously shaped so as to emphasise
Joshua's role as the successor to Moses. In 18,16 we likewise learn
that the function which Joshua is to enjoy is identical with the role of
Moses on Horeb, where Moses is depicted as the mediator between
YHWH and the people.30 It is precisely this intermediatory function
that Joshua enacts when he takes over from Moses and completes the
task of leading the people into the promised land of Canaan. More-
over, in later tradition Moses and Joshua were regarded as prophets
who mediated the law of YHWH to the people. In Ezra 9,10-11 the
designation "prophet" figures in conjunction with the underlining of
the prohibition on marriage with foreign women: "And now, O our

30 The question of Moses as intercessor has been thoroughly treated by E.

Aurelius, Der Fürbitter Israels. Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten
Testament (CB OTS 27; Stockholm 1988).
248 Hans M. Barstad

God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken thy com-
mandments, (10) which thou didst command by thy servants the
prophets, saying 'The land which you are entering, to take possession
of it, is a land unclean with the pollutions of the peoples of the lands,
with their abominations which have filled it from end to end with
their uncleanness'. (11) Therefore give not your daughters to their
sons. . . (12)". Thus the reference to M t Horeb in 18,16 is a clear in-
dication that we have here to do with a reference to a once-and-for-
all event, rather than with a future series of prophets to be endowed
with the spirit of Moses.
The account of Joshua in the Book of Joshua, plus the many parallels
with Moses here also clearly support such a view of Deut 18.15-19.31
As has also been recently demonstrated by M. Ottosson,32 the author-
ity of Moses also permeates the entire Deuteronomistic composition
of the Book of Joshua. A close reading reveals that Joshua's actions
are frequently to be taken as commentary upon the activity of Moses.
Moses is also the prototype for the figure of Joshua; he emerges as
virtually Moses' peer, and those are strong words, coming as they do
from the mouth of the Deuteronomist.
In this connexion, it is important to note the understanding of Moses
as a prophet in Deuteronomy. For the Deuteronomists, Moses is the
prophet, with a capital "P". This emerges above all from Deut 34,10:
"And there has not arisen a prophet (X'3i) since in Israel like Moses,
whom the Lord knew face to face...". But this text, too, is merely a
preparation for the presentation of Joshua in the subsequent Book of
Joshua,33 where we are shown not merely how Joshua is selected as
Moses' successor (cf also Deut 31), but where he is additionally
charged with the stewardship of YHWH's word to Moses, which here
takes the form of Deuteronomy ( o n n n ràv), and which in this con-
nexion is termed minn iso (Josh 1,8). There are particularly clear
parallels to the figure of Moses in Josh 24.
A prophet is someone who reveals the word of YHWH to his audi-
ence. As we know, the whole of Deuteronomy is cast as a single long
speech which was given by Moses in the region east of the Jordan
31 See R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist. A Literary Study of the Deut-
eronomic History. Part One. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York
1980), 74ff.
32 M. Ottosson, Josuaboken. En programskrift for davidisk restauration.
(Uppsala 1991), 21-23.
33 This aspect of 34:10 has also been emphasised by L. Perlitt, "Mose als
Prophet", EvTh 31 (1971), 588-591.
 The Understanding of the Prophets in Deuteronomy 249

before the Israelites were to take possession of the Promised Land.

Thus the emphasis on the prophetic character of Moses with respect
to the content of Deuteronomy entails that the whole of Deutero-
nomy is an expression of the revealed will of YHWH. This is an im-
portant point: any prophet who might present statements pretending
to represent YHWH and who at the same time diverged from the law
revealed in Deuteronomy would necessarily represent an alternative
expression of the will of YHWH. This is close to the nucleus of Deut-
eronomy's understanding of the prophets.
V
It is accordingly with great interest that we note the understanding of
"prophecy" in Deuteronomy. In consideration of the enormous signifi-
cance of prophets and prophetic writings in the Hebrew Bible, aston-
ishingly little is actually said about them in Deuteronomy. The role of
the prophet is discussed in Deut 18,15-22. Admittedly, in this passage
it is quite clear that the prophet is the essential communicative organ
linking YHWH and the people, so that the people will be able to
know the will of YHWH and follow it. However, here we do not
have to do with prophets in general, but with Moses' successor,
Joshua. Deuteronomy is not really all that interested in prophets. It is
held to be of at least equal importance to warn against the possibility
that those prophets that arise could well be false ones. True prophets
of YHWH are merely those prophets whose words become fulfilled
(chs 13 and 18). But this critérium is far from being a major topic in
Deuteronomy — and it is possible that it belongs to a late layer of re-
daction. The Deuteronomist is here primarily concerned with the
possibility that false prophets may lead the people astray. This is
obvious in Deut 13 and 18, which leave one with the impression that
the Deuteronomists did not think that prophets were, in a strict sense,
completely necessary.
Dating Deuteronomy is no simple matter. We find ourselves presum-
ably at some point in the 6th century, when the time of the "great"
prophets was definitively past.34 For the Deuteronomists, it was the
Law, that is, the content of Deuteronomy, that was the real expres-
sion of the will of YHWH. Now if the Law had really been intended
34 But this does not mean that it was unnecessary to take prophecy as a
power-factor into account in the Deuteronomist's day. On the question of
post-exilic prophecy in ancient Israel, see especially J. Barton, Oracles of
God. Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (London
1986).
250 Hans M. Barstad

to regulate prophets and their activity, the laws and statutes concern-
ing prophets in Deuteronomy would hardly have looked as they do at
present. Thus we may conclude that not only were the classical
prophets left out of the Deuteronomistic History, but also that the
Deuteronomists were not especially interested in prophecy at all. In
their eyes, after the prophet Moses there is really no need for other
prophets at all. It is Moses who is the great prophet, and YHWH's
revelation to him is now available in Deuteronomy. The people have
no real need for further prophets. The Deuteronomists hoped in this
fashion to downplay the role of the prophets. After all, YHWH's mes-
sage was indubitable: the content of Deuteronomy was the expression
of YHWH's will. Therefore the people no longer needed the prophets
to advise them. Indeed, it might on occasion be problematical, in the
event prophets who claimed to have access to the word of YHWH
might happen to interpret YHWH's will otherwise than is recorded in
Deuteronomy.
The many and striking similarities between the "writing prophets"
and the theology of the Deuteronomists have often been explained by
the assumption that we have to do with "Deuteronomistic revisions"
of the various prophetic works. Indeed, some scholars have found
such extensive "Deuteronomistic revisions" in some individual proph-
etic books that virtually nothing else has been left over. Matters were,
however, most likely quite different. When we find so much among
the prophets that is reminiscent of Deuteronomistic language and the-
ology,35 it is more inviting to suppose that this has a completely dif-
ferent cause. The Deuteronomistic movement will hardly have arisen
full-grown ab ovo; rather, it will naturally have been based on earlier
traditions. Both the prophetic traditions and the traditions on which
the Deuteronomists based their work depended in the last instance on
shared material. There is no reason not to believe that prophetic
circles preserved and reworked this material, following which it was
ultimately adopted by the Deuteronomistic theologians.
Admittedly, we do not really know just who the Deuteronomists
were. It is, however, clear that they manifested themselves at a late
date, either during or after the Exile. The period of classical prophecy
was over and done with, and the Deuteronomists were perpetuating
the prophetic inheritance. Thus, rather than assuming that we have to
35 For a survey of Deuteronomistic language and phraseology in comparison
to other groups of Biblical texts, see M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic School (Oxford 1972), 321-70.
 The Understanding of the Prophets in Deuteronomy 251

do with a number of Deuteronomistic revisions of the various proph-

etic books, it would be more correct to assume that the prophets were
the precursors of the Deuteronomists. This may also help to explain
why the prophets and their works are so muted. Those prophets
whose writings were passed on to posterity were ignored precisely
because they represented a competing expression of the will of
YHWH. And the reason why it proved possible to suppress them is
that the prophetic traditions were not regarded as "sacred" in the
same way as many of the other Israelite traditions. This fact is also
reflected in the process of canonisation, in which the nebiim were
canonised much later than the torah.
Now if the Deuteronomists sought in this fashion to underplay and
control the prophetic tradition because they regarded it as a "com-
petitor" to the Law, this agrees with the later Jewish view that only
the Law is necessary. It contains all that one needs to know. Nothing
new has been added. Within Jewish tradition the other Biblical books,
the "Prophets" and the "Writings", never achieved the same import-
ance as the five Books of Moses. The actual canon was the Law,
whereas the other writings were only regarded as a supplement to it.

Abstract
This study concludes that the Book of Deuteronomy holds a rather negative
view of prophecy.
Deut 13 is more concerned with the problem of prophetic counseling of
idolatry than It is with prophecy as such.
Deut 18,9-14; 18,15-19, and 18,20-22 represent three disparate segments of
texts which deal with quite different themes without any logically necessary
sequence. These texts, consequently, do not constitute any prophetic law
similar to what we may find with regard to other "official" figures (judges,
kings, priests).
Deut 18,15-19 does not legitimize a prophetic movement which traces its
office back to Moses, and according to which prophets will appear within
the mosaic traditions at regular intervals. Rather the "prophet like Moses" is
Joshua, the successor of Moses.
The article stresses the importance of Moses as the great prophet in
Deuteronomy and the view that the contents of Deuteronomy represent the
revelation of the final will of God to the prophet Moses.