Covenants and criticism: Deuteronomy and the American founding

   [i]n its original setting the promise of the land was unconditional,
   although it presupposed loyalty and the fulfillment of some obligations and
   duties; the covenant of promise itself was never formulated as conditional.
   But Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic school made both the grant of the land
   and the promise of dynasty conditional on observance of the law--in their
   view the most dominant and fateful fact in the history of Israel [81].

Miller (107) argued, more specifically, that the covenant in Deuteronomy 4 is a later composition added in an attempt to take "the present generation back to the past and bring the past afresh into the present."

With respect to the covenant of Joshua, the structure "reveals both the setting and the message of the Deuteronomistic interpretation of the traditions of Joshua" (Butler: xxv). Weinfeld (11) maintained, moreover, that "Iii t was only a later compiler who apparently thought fit to attach Joshua's covenant with the people." Similarly with respect to David's covenant (2 Sam 5:3), McCarter asserts that the first two verses of 2 Samuel 5, which preface the covenant, "belong in the list of Deuteronomic expansions of the older narrative" (131).

According to Gray, the covenant of Solomon (I Kgs 8) "serves the purpose of the Deuteronomistic historian to emphasize the success which followed when Moses' influence was still felt in holding Israel to obedience to her covenant commitment." Specifically he argued that 1 Kings 8:22 represents "a reversion to the theme of deliverance from Egypt and the covenant with Israel, which may reflect a certain reaction from the conception of covenant with David and his house, which, though not superseding the conception of the covenant with Israel, received undue emphasis under the monarchy." Biblical historical criticism also suggests variations in the covenant theme with respect to Rehoboam (I Kgs 12:1-20). Gray (4, 220, 299) noted that the "self-contained narrative account of the rejection of Rehoboam" was "left almost untouched" by the "Deuteronomic compiler" "except for the addition of his comment at v 15 to explain the obtuseness of Rehoboam which caused the breach as the deliberate act of god in fulfillment of the prophetic word of Ahijah."

As also noted by Elazar, covenant is a recurring theme in Ezekiel. As has been seen above, however, Ezekiel provides "another example of the reinterpretation of an old tradition." Perhaps the best example of this practice is "when Ezekiel refers to David as prince (nasi') rather than king, [whereby] we can see how bold Ezekiel could be in reinterpreting this old tradition in view of his own particular heritage" (Hals: 252). The implication of this change is the re-adoption of "the ideology of the authors of Deuteronomy ... [which] implies the view that public office has to be seen in terms of service rather than self-advancement or domination" (Blenkinsopp 1990:176). The covenant of Ezra (Neh 8-10) contains a similar Deuteronomic modification. The "unheeded warning of the prophet" and the fact that "disasters of history must be due to human failure not divine indifference" are examples of the Deuteronomic "prophetic role of testifying against neglect of the law." More important, "the pledge by means of which the community commits itself to the observance of the law is, like so much else in Ezra-Nehemiah, of Deuteronomic inspiration" (Blenkinsopp 1988: 307, 306, 314).