Deuteronomy 33 - Introduction

The Blessing of Moses

Introduced in Deuteronomy 33:1 this Poem has three parts: (1) Deuteronomy 33:2, Proem, on the origin of the people Israel; (2) Deuteronomy 33:6, Blessings on its tribes; (3) Deuteronomy 33:26, Epilogue, returning to the whole people in close continuation of the Proem. Questions arise as to the date of the Blessings, their relation to the Proem and Epilogue (with the date of these), and to the oracles assigned to Jacob, Genesis 49:2-27, to which the Blessings are loosely parallel but from which they differ largely in temper and standpoint. Cp. Ryle's Genesis.

The Blessings mostly agree with the oracles in Genesis 49 in their descriptions of the geographical positions and endowments of the tribes (Gen. alone gives these for Judah and the Blessings for Gad); but less frequently in the political and social rôles which they assign to them. They disagree with Genesis 49 in being uniformly eulogistic, while most of its utterances are otherwise (yet Gen. makes more of Judah and equally blesses Joseph); they allude to the Mosaic age (Deuteronomy 33:8, perhaps Deuteronomy 33:9, and Deuteronomy 33:21) as Gen. does not; and, altogether more religious, they emphasise the sacred functions of some of the tribes, while Genesis 49 is concerned almost exclusively with the secular aspects of its subjects. The atmosphere of Genesis 49 is primitive in comparison with that of the Blessings, and the conditions it reflects are, except for Judah, less settled.

In Gen. R e" uben and Sim e- on are threatened, here R e" uben is sorely diminished and Sim e- on has disappeared (yet see on Deuteronomy 33:6). In Gen. there is no word of the priesthood of Levi; here the tribe is fully established in that. There the earlier, here the later, aspects of Benjamin are reflected. The contrast between the two descriptions of Judah, though at first sight it seems to tell in favour of the priority of the Blessings, is not incompatible with an earlier date for Genesis 49. The other oracles permit of no comparison as to date not even those on Gad (see on Deuteronomy 33:20 f.).

Even when we allow for differences of temper and standpoint between two authors, enough remains to show how well founded is the general opinion that the oracles, Genesis 49:2-17, are earlier than our Blessings. At the same time there are signs of the fact also probable from the nature of such poems that neither collection is of a uniform date, but that both incorporate elements from different periods.

It is not possible to argue for a Mosaic date for the Blessings, except by ignoring the principle on which O.T. prophecy consistently starts from the circumstances of the prophet's own time. The facts that Sim e- on is not mentioned, who took part in the conquest of W. Palestine; that the conquest itself is regarded as past, for Deuteronomy 33:21 records Gad's share in it; that Benjamin's territory already holds the dwelling-place of Jehovah; and that the N. tribes, settled on their territories, profit by the culture open to them there all these facts prove that the age of Moses is long past.

Yet -everything breathes high antiquity and fresh and vigorous power" (Cornill, Introd.Eng. trans. 125), -breathes the spirit of the earlier narratives of Kings" (Driver). The tribes are in secure possession of their provinces. Only Judah is isolated as it became by the Disruption in 930, and R e" uben near extinction. For the others there is no sense of impending disturbance, by invasion or exile, such as throbs through chs. 28 and 32, and such as N. Israel realised by 721 b.c. Nor does the language contain any late elements. Therefore (though some support a date as early as the Judges, e.g. Kleinert) the prevailing opinion is that the Blessings were composed during one of the happier periods of the earlier Kingdom: either in the reign of Jeroboam i., c. 940 922 (Schrader, Dillm., Westphal, Driver, etc.), or in that of Jeroboam ii., 783 743 (Graf, Kuenen, Stade, Ball, Cornill, Baudissin, Moore, Steuern., the Oxf. Hex., Berth., Marti, Robinson).

There are difficulties with regard to both these dates; against the later the present writer would urge that Judah also was then in a state of high prosperity under Uzziah and at peace with N. Israel, and that the meagre reference to him in Deuteronomy 33:7 is hardly compatible with this. It seems best to leave the date undefined, except that it was probably between 940, when Judah became separated from the other tribes, and 742 721, the decline and fall of N. Israel; but some of the Blessings may be older, and even much older. For such oracles start early in the life of Semitic tribes, as we see both from Genesis 49, which contains pre-monarchial elements, and from the oral traditions of Arabs in all times, and drift from generation to generation and tribe to tribe, receiving many modifications and yet preserving, as such Arab poems do, a genuine record of earlier conditions and characters (cp. Early Poetry of Israel, 35 f). Thus it is possible that Deuteronomy 33:7 may reflect the isolation of Judah from the N. tribes immediately after the settlement; and that Deuteronomy 33:20 may equally with Deuteronomy 33:21 refer to the original allotment to Gad of so large a territory; while the oracles on Z e bulun, Issachar, Dan, Naphtali and Asher may be almost of any age after the conquest. In the light of this when we speak of an author of the Blessings we can only mean their final author. That he was a N. Israelite is established by his treatment of Joseph, and supported by the Aramaisms in his vocabulary. That he was also a priest is probable from his treatment of Levi.

The Proem (2 5) and Epilogue (26 29) form by themselves a complete poem; Deuteronomy 33:26 follows close on Deuteronomy 33:5. The theories, that they are from another hand than that of Deuteronomy 33:6 and of a late, even an exilic or post-exilic, date (Steuern., Berth., Marti), cannot be ruled out as impossible for they have some phrases peculiar to themselves and to late writings (see notes below) and the O.T. contains similar psalms on the earlier conditions of Israel, which are certainly late. But on the other hand there is no word or phrase in them which is indubitably late, and no allusion or apprehension requiring us to bring them further down the history than the Blessings themselves. They share all the vigour and optimism of these. Besides, the text of the Proem shows a dilapidation compatible with a long oral tradition from an early period. It seems to me more reasonable to regard Deuteronomy 33:2; Deuteronomy 33:26as the work of the collector and final author of the Blessings himself; who thus provided the latter with a most suitable and sympathetic frame.

The Metre is more rough and irregular than that of the Song in ch. 32, but less so than that of Genesis 49, which we might expect from the respective dates of the three pieces. The same rule prevails of, in general, 3 stresses to the line. Except in 17 athere are no lines with 4 stresses; provided we expand the text of some of them, as is done below, and that in others we regard two words in the construct case as under one stress or accent. But if this latter rule is always to be observed there are also several lines of only 2 stresses. Lines which have undoubtedly 2 stresses, are Deuteronomy 33:3 d, 10 b, 25 b, 27 d; each, be it observed, the second line of a couplet, thus producing a ḳinah, or elegiac distich; which metre, as I have elsewhere argued (Early Poetry of Israel, 21), was during this period being gradually developed to the perfection it achieved in the 8th and 7th centuries. As to verses or strophes, a system of quatrains prevails throughout, if certain glosses be omitted. But Deuteronomy 33:20; Deuteronomy 33:26are certainly triplets; and others may be so unless the text be amended.