Covenants and criticism: Deuteronomy and the American founding

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

As for the Succot covenant, contrary to the Seleucid appointment of Judean governors, Simon's title was again nasi' because his "rule rested upon the decision of the people, and the political title of Simon was Prince of the people of Israel" (Pearlman: 252). It has been suggested that the composition of 1 Maccabees reflects the author's insistence "[i]n true Deuteronomic tradition," on "fidelity to the law as the expression of Israel's love of God" (NEW AMERICAN BIBLE: 513).

It would appear that few of the covenants outlined by Elazar escaped the hand of the Deuteronomic editor. Some examples can be found in 2 Kings. One can "identify parts of an earlier composition of north-Israelite origin embedded in Kings." With respect to the fall of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:7-23), the supplication of Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 13:1-9), and the story of Jeroboam (2 Kgs 14:23-29), Cogan and Tadmor maintained that "[m]onarchic misconduct the measure of Deutcronomistic judgment elsewhere in Kings, is not considered." These passages reflect remnants of an earlier tradition that is inconsistent with the "monarchig measure" of the covenant fortified by the Deuteronomic editor elsewhere in 2 Kings (Cogan & Tadmor: 4, 206). The exceptions of 2 Kings notwithstanding, the role of the Deuteronomic editor(s) is clear; to impart a level of consistency into the First Testament narrative. More important, these earlier, pre-Deuteronomic, remnants are excluded from the citation pattern of the American founders.

While important for understanding the evolution of First Testament covenants, the application of biblical historical criticism also offers a more complete understanding of the utilization of these covenants by the American founders. As was the case with kingship citations, the pattern of citations for covenants was guided by the hand of the Deuteronomist. The pattern of the founders' covenant citations so closely corresponds with the editorial modifications of the Deuteronomist, that further investigation of the distinction between biblical text and editor is warranted.

Conclusion

With respect to the biblical influence on the American founding, this analysis seeks to examine an interdisciplinary application of biblical historical criticism. Further intellectual exploration must broaden the application of biblical historical criticism to the American founding if this research is to truly make a difference. For example, the influence of the Deuteronomist can be examined with respect to other core concepts, such as federalism. Elazar has demonstrated the linkage between federalism, "in its modern form," and ancient Israel (1995: 47). Research could also expand the application of biblical historical criticism beyond the role of the Deuteronomist. Biblical criticism suggests that "the Chronicler" played an editorial role in the First Testament, ironically modifying the Deuteronomist's treatment of the tribes of Israel (Dillard 1987; Japhet 1993). Beyond the role of biblical editors, biblical historical criticism also provides insight into other aspects of early American history such as millennialism. The distinction between pre- and post-millennialism found in early American religious thought can be traced to divergent First Testament views of the meaning of human history (Hanson; Cook).