A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code.

• Author: Wright, David P.
• Position: Book Review

A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code. By JOHN VAN SETERS. Oxford: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2003. Pp. xii + 236.

In this book John Van Seters crystallizes his recent work on the Covenant Code (CC). His major conclusions are that the Covenant Code (Exodus 20:22-23:19) was written as part of the J narrative of the Pentateuch, that CC is more or less a compositional unity, that it is later than and depends upon the laws of Deuteronomy and Holiness Code, and that it was composed during the Babylonian Exile. He sets forth the evidence for these conclusions with concision and clearly. After providing a useful history of research (which provides a nice complement to that of Ralf Rothenbusch, Die kasuistische Rechtssammlung im 'Bundesbuch' [Ex 21,2-11.18-22,16] [Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000], 17-91), he discusses in chapter 2 the source and traditional identification of material in Exodus 19-20 and 23: 20-33, which preface and conclude CC. He argues that much of the material in these passages, which scholars have viewed as Deuteronomic, comes from the J writer, who depends upon Deuteronomy. In chapter 2 he also discusses the introductory cultic laws in Exodus 20:22-26, which he sees as being modeled after Deuteronomy 27:5-7 and Joshua 8:30-35. Chapter 3, on the casuistic (and participial) civil laws, and chapter 4, on the mostly apodictic ethical and religious rules, form the core of the book. Here the author provides detailed argumentation for the lateness of the laws in CC and their dependence upon Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code (HC) as well as a discussion of CC's ideology. CC is a law book that was produced in the exile to deal with the circumstances of that time--it is a law book for the Babylonian diaspora.

His findings will be controversial since most scholars think that CC is earlier than Deuteronomy and HC. Van Seters advises readers to lay aside such preconceptions and to look at the evidence that points to the lateness and derivative character of CC. In his comparisons with these other law collections he makes some interesting and salient observations that support his thesis. But, in my view, the stronger indications are that CC is earlier than D and HC (and HS; see below). First of all, CC's limited scope contradicts its purpose as proposed by Van Seters. CC's discussion of individual laws is generally briefer than what is found in D and HC. Furthermore, overall it is much shorter than these other...