Covenants and criticism: Deuteronomy and the American founding

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring, 2002 by George E. Connor

Abstract

In its application of biblical historical criticism to the American founding, this analysis departs from traditional scholarship and the textual measure of biblical influence. Moving beyond the textual influence of Deuteronomy, this analysis suggests that a more meaningful, contextual influence can be illuminated. More specifically, this research outlines a relevant historical parallel between the American founding and the Josianic composition and discovery of Deuteronomy. Further, by noting the difference between Deuteronomic authors and editors, this analysis suggests that the influence of Deuteronomy on the American founding can be traced to the hand of the Deuteronomist with respect to kingship and covenants.

**********

Richard Niebuhr asked "to what extent did religious and specifically Christian convictions influence the development of American democracy" (126). By focusing on the American founding era, 1765-1805, Lutz (1988) offered a strong case for the influence of the First Testament. Most specifically, using citations to measure influence, he discovered the primacy of Deuteronomy. Even when compared to prominent secular works, "Deuteronomy [was] the most cited book" (1992: 136). The attraction of the Book of Deuteronomy for the founders is hardly a mystery. Scholars have long understood the importance of the biblical narrative. Rothman sketched "the parallels between the form, purposes and function of covenant theology and those of constitutional theory" (150). Riemer (135), noting "striking similarities between the Sinai Covenant and the U. S. Constitution," admits that "the fuller explanation of these similarities and whether they are accidental or traceable to historical connections" is beyond his purpose. The analysis that follows suggests that the similarities identified by Rothman and Reimer are hardly accidental and are indeed traceable to historical connections. More specifically, this analysis suggests that a fuller explanation of this historical connection can be made by the application of biblical historical criticism.

Clearly, the application of biblical historical criticism engenders some controversy. Lutz, properly cautious about the intrusion of methodologies and "people in other areas of inquiry," nevertheless maintains that scholars "must assume the ability systematically to learn, use, and sometimes merge the approaches of these various other viewpoints" (1988: 1-2--emphasis added). Elazar, while acknowledging the role of biblical criticism in identifying and understanding "different texts," asserts that "[w] hat is significant about [the Bible] is not the extent to which the text in our possession is an edited amalgam but that, as a whole, it presents--and represents--a comprehensive tradition" (1995: 195; 1978: 34). Although not disputing the conclusion that the Bible presents a comprehensive tradition, this analysis suggests that it does so precisely because it is an "edited amalgam."

By distinguishing the Deuteronomic text from the Deuteronomic history, the discussion below begins by illuminating a heretofore unrecounted historical connection between the composition of Deuteronomy and the American founding. Further, by distinguishing the Deuteronomic text, in its original form, from later editorial modifications, the analysis below traces the hand of the Deuteronomist with respect to kingship and covenants and the relevance of these concepts for the American founding.

Deuteronomic History

Religious scholars agree that there is core in the Deuteronomic text that can be traced to the time of Moses. Nevertheless, scholars also agree that much of the Deuteronomic text was composed and edited at a later date. The application of historical criticism to the book of Deuteronomy, therefore, necessitates "shifting the reader back and forth a number of times between the `that day' of Moses and the `this day' of the Deuteronomist" (Polzin: 31-32). Although the multiplicity of theories identifying the author(s) and chronology of Deuteronomy inhibits the identification of the "this day" of the Deuteronomist, this analysis suggests that the historical events surrounding the editorial modifications of the Deuteronomist offer a more revealing contextual parallel with the American founding than has been identified by traditional scholarship. By focusing on one strain of agreement within the biblical historical criticism literature, the present analysis illuminates this relationship.

Josiah

Scholars who utilize historical criticism recognize the prominence of Josiah both in the Deuteronomic narrative and, more important, in the Deuteronomic history. Nicholson, for example, assessing the competing theories as to the origin of Deuteronomy, concluded that "in spite of some dissent, most critics accept the theory that Deuteronomy was written during the seventh century BCE, and placed in the temple by its authors and discovered there in 621 during the reign of Josiah" (1-2). Noth (80) argued that "the events in Judah and Jerusalem under King Josiah are an especially important part of the historical presuppositions to Dtr.'s work." In stronger terms, Friedman suggested that the "reign of Josiah is the original culmination of the work" (174). In other words, the proper historical context for understanding the "this day" of the Deuteronomist is not the reign of Moses, but the reign of Josiah.