Deuteronomy 4:41-43

Historical Note

Then, i.e. at the time of the preceding discourse in Moab, Moses set apart three cities E. of Jordan as asylums for men, who unwittingly and without previous hatred had slain their fellows: Beṣer, on the Plateau, Ramoth in Gilead, and Golan in Bashan. The style of this fragment is deuteronomic (see notes below). But had it belonged to the previous historical discourse it would surely have appeared somewhere in Deuteronomy 3:18-29 (before the subsequent exhortations); and have been expressed in the 1st instead of the 3rd pers. sing. Nor is it alluded to, nor presupposed by, D's law on the Cities of Refuge, Deuteronomy 19:1 ff.; indeed, it cannot have been known to the author of this law which directs Israel to set apart three cities in the midst of the land which God is going to give them, i.e. the whole land both E. and W. of Jordan 1 [116] (with the proviso that if God shall enlarge the land they may add three more). The fragment cannot have belonged, therefore, to the original D. P, in Numbers 35:9-34, records a law, as given to Moses in Moab, on the same subject; but states it (1) far mole elaborately, (2) in a different vocabulary, and (3) with some differences of substance (see for details, Intr. to Pent.121 f.). The cities are to be six, three on either side Jordan, and to be appointed afterthe people have passed over Jordan. In another P passage, Joshua 20:1 f., this is said (again with some difference of terms) to have been done by Joshua; and the three E. cities named by him are the same as here. From all these data the most reasonable inference is that this fragment is the work of a deuteronomic editor either employing a tradition unknown to P; or (more probably) with P before him 1 [117] and making from it the natural inference that Moses had himself named the three cities E. of Jordan. If this be correct the fragment is an interesting illustration of the tendency (in many nations) to develop historical narrative out of law. In the earlier legislation (E, Exodus 21:12-14; see Driver's Ex.215 f.) asylum is granted at every altar to him who has slain a man accidentally (but not to the wilful murderer). When all the altars were abolished by the deuteronomic legislation, except that of the Single Sanctuary, it became necessary to sanction asyla at a certain number of other places. This is done by D (Deuteronomy 19:1 ff.). The places were chosen partly (as is evident from the towns named W. of Jordan, Ḳedesh, Shechem, and Ḥebron) because they contained ancient sanctuaries and partly because of their convenience (evident equally from the towns chosen E. and W. of Jordan). From this arose the tradition 2 [118] that the selection had been made in the earliest times; but one form of the tradition assigns the naming of the three towns E. of Jordan to Moses; the other assigns the naming of all six to Joshua. Why the deuteronomic editor should have put the former just here it is impossible to determine.

[116] This is the only fair interpretation; if the law Deuteronomy 19:1 ff. had meant three cities in W. Palestine in addition to the three already set apart by Moses on the E. of Jordan, it would surely have alluded to the latter. The law was obviously made in consequence of the institution of the single sanctuary and without regard to any historical tradition of what Moses or Joshua had done.

[117] The editor who compiled P with JED.

[118] The above data shew that the tradition (1) could not have been earlier than the deuteronomic legislation, for every altar before that provided an asylum; and (2) that it was later than the deuteronomic legislation.