Besides the usual anachronisms, such as iron ax head (19:5) and the Canaanite Goddess Asherah (16:21) we have what I call the "Royal Edict", meaning, the commandment or suggestion to have a king.
Now why do I say "commandment OR suggestion"? That has to do with the Deuteronomist quoting from the book of Samuel and citing examples from the book of Kings and Chronicles.
You see, while Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were often unaware with the commands of the Torah, the Torah seems eerily aware of what went on in those books that speak of periods that are centuries after Moses had died.
Think of it as a continuity problem with a general rewrite.
In verses 17:14-15, we read that when the Jews enter the land, they will say, "I will set a king over me like all of the nations (goyim) around me" and then they will appoint a king.
And in 1 Samuel 8:5 we read that the Jews would do just that, and say to Samuel "Set a king over us like all of the nations (goyim)."
It is almost word-for-word.
But there is one important distinction.
In the Book of Samuel, God hated that the people wanted a king and, in 1 Samuel 8:7, Yahweh proclaims that the Jews have rejected Him by wanting a human king. And in verses 8:11-18, 1 Samuel lists all of the horrible things that kings do to their subjects, but to no avail.
So why is there a confusion over the beginning of Deut. 17:14 to ask if it is a commandment (a position held by the Ramban) or a suggestion (A position held by the Rambam and many others)?
The first thing is the that first word could be read as "when", "because of", "for", and even "if". And the problem that many people have with this text is that is contradicts the Book of Samuel by showing a king in a positive light, and something that God would approve of at all.
And it gets better.
The text (Deut. 17:15-20) describes the type of king to avoid and it then describes King Solomon to a tee (but doesn't name him)! It lists his major sins - having too many wives, too many horses, and sending the Jews to Egypt to work. It says that having too many wives would turn one away from God (Solomon had idols erected for his foreign wives). And Deuteronomy tells us that kings are forbidden from having too much gold, which Solomon had, and it was his lust for it that caused his kingdom to split.
The Deuteronomist, like Samuel, either did not care or was unaware of the decree by Jacob (Genesis 49:10) that the kingship would always be with Judah, especially since the first king chosen by God was Saul, from the tribe of Benjamin.
So it seems that the Deuteronomist was aware of the books of Samuel and Kings/Chronicles.
Recap
The "Royal Decree" is a commandment to have a king. It it does not matter from what tribe he comes from, but being from a tribe, he is Jewish. And this king should be righteous, and good and when he dies, if he was good, then his son will also be a good king.
Classical commentators have a problem with this because these verse contradict the Book of Samuel and it contradicts everything that we read in the books of Kings and Chronicles about the type of kings who ruled over Israel.
Solomon (albeit nameless) is an example here of the worst kind of king. And if you read the Book of Kings you will discover that there was never a good an righteous king who kept to these rules. According to the Abarbanel in his commentary to the Book of Samuel, there was never a righteous king over Israel. (He gives one person, Jotham the son of Uzziya, a pass because Scripture doesn't really speak of him at all!)
There is no mention of any king who wrote a copy of a Torah (whatever that means, since there was no Pentateuch, no single collection of the "5 books", at the time that Deuteronomy was written), and every King written about was a bad king.
It's possible that the Deuteronomist was being sarcastic, perhaps giving a wink at the idea "this is what God really wanted, but we never got this!"
It seems that the Deuteronomist was aware of those other books, while the authors of those other books were not aware of the Book of Deuteronomy.
And I find that to be a fascinating idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment