Covenants and criticism: Deuteronomy and the American founding.

Abstract

In its application of biblical historical criticism to the American founding, this analysis departs from traditional scholarship and the textual measure of biblical influence. Moving beyond the textual influence of Deuteronomy, this analysis suggests that a more meaningful, contextual influence can be illuminated. More specifically, this research outlines a relevant historical parallel between the American founding and the Josianic composition and discovery of Deuteronomy. Further, by noting the difference between Deuteronomic authors and editors, this analysis suggests that the influence of Deuteronomy on the American founding can be traced to the hand of the Deuteronomist with respect to kingship and covenants.

**********

Richard Niebuhr asked "to what extent did religious and specifically Christian convictions influence the development of American democracy" (126). By focusing on the American founding era, 1765-1805, Lutz (1988) offered a strong case for the influence of the First Testament. Most specifically, using citations to measure influence, he discovered the primacy of Deuteronomy. Even when compared to prominent secular works, "Deuteronomy [was] the most cited book" (1992: 136). The attraction of the Book of Deuteronomy for the founders is hardly a mystery. Scholars have long understood the importance of the biblical narrative. Rothman sketched "the parallels between the form, purposes and function of covenant theology and those of constitutional theory" (150). Riemer (135), noting "striking similarities between the Sinai Covenant and the U. S. Constitution," admits that "the fuller explanation of these similarities and whether they are accidental or traceable to historical connections" is beyond his purpose. The analysis that follows suggests that the similarities identified by Rothman and Reimer are hardly accidental and are indeed traceable to historical connections. More specifically, this analysis suggests that a fuller explanation of this historical connection can be made by the application of biblical historical criticism.

Clearly, the application of biblical historical criticism engenders some controversy. Lutz, properly cautious about the intrusion of methodologies and "people in other areas of inquiry," nevertheless maintains that scholars "must assume the ability systematically to learn, use, and sometimes merge the approaches of these various other viewpoints" (1988: 1-2--emphasis added). Elazar, while acknowledging the role of biblical criticism in identifying and understanding "different texts," asserts that "[w] hat is significant about [the Bible] is not the extent to which the text in our possession is an edited amalgam but that, as a whole, it presents--and represents--a comprehensive tradition" (1995: 195; 1978: 34). Although not disputing the conclusion that the Bible presents a comprehensive tradition, this analysis suggests that it does so precisely because it is an "edited amalgam."

By distinguishing the Deuteronomic text from the Deuteronomic history, the discussion below begins by illuminating a heretofore unrecounted historical connection between the composition of Deuteronomy and the American founding. Further, by distinguishing the Deuteronomic text, in its original form, from later editorial modifications, the analysis below traces the hand of the Deuteronomist with respect to kingship and covenants and the relevance of these concepts for the American founding.

Deuteronomic History

Religious scholars agree that there is core in the Deuteronomic text that can be traced to the time of Moses. Nevertheless, scholars also agree that much of the Deuteronomic text was composed and edited at a later date. The application of historical criticism to the book of Deuteronomy, therefore, necessitates "shifting the reader back and forth a number of times between the `that day' of Moses and the `this day' of the Deuteronomist" (Polzin: 31-32). Although the multiplicity of theories identifying the author(s) and chronology of Deuteronomy inhibits the identification of the "this day" of the Deuteronomist, this analysis suggests that the historical events surrounding the editorial modifications of the Deuteronomist offer a more revealing contextual parallel with the American founding than has been identified by traditional scholarship. By focusing on one strain of agreement within the biblical historical criticism literature, the present analysis illuminates this relationship.

Josiah

Scholars who utilize historical criticism recognize the prominence of Josiah both in the Deuteronomic narrative and, more important, in the Deuteronomic history. Nicholson, for example, assessing the competing theories as to the origin of Deuteronomy, concluded that "in spite of some dissent, most critics accept the theory that Deuteronomy was written during the seventh century BCE, and placed in the temple by its authors and discovered there in 621 during the reign of Josiah" (1-2). Noth (80) argued that "the events in Judah and Jerusalem under King Josiah are an especially important part of the historical presuppositions to Dtr.'s work." In stronger terms, Friedman suggested that the "reign of Josiah is the original culmination of the work" (174). In other words, the proper historical context for understanding the "this day" of the Deuteronomist is not the reign of Moses, but the reign of Josiah.

To restate the hypothesis more precisely, this analysis suggests that it is the historical Deuteronomy, the political and religious reforms of Josiah, not Moses and the text of Deuteronomy, that affords scholars a more complete examination of the biblical influence on the American founding. If the Book of Deuteronomy was written to fit a particular historical situation, it is to that situation and not the text of Deuteronomy, that we must turn. The covenant of interest, then, is not the textual covenant of Moses (Deut 29:13) but the contextual, historical covenant of Josiah: "The king made a covenant before the Lord to obey him and keep his commandments, his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and so fulfill the terms of the covenant written in this book. And all the people pledged themselves to the covenant" (2 Kgs 23:3).

Scholars, such as Bailyn, Wood, and Elazar (1980), while recognizing the theoretical importance of the biblical covenant, have emphasized the textual covenant to the detriment, or exclusion, of the historical covenant. Ironically, Lutz (1980) notes the textual prominence of both Deuteronomy 29 and 2 Kings 23 without recognizing the contextual tension between these two biblical passages. A careful examination of the Deuteronomic history suggests that historical echoes parallel the textual. As was noted above, the textual attraction of the Book of Deuteronomy for the American founders is fairly obvious. Beyond this textual echo, however, there is a deeper historical parallel. This historical "echo" can be divided into three areas: Independence, Reform, and Medium.

Independence

While the American move toward independence has been well documented, the parallel between this movement and the Deuteronomic history deserves further attention. Nicholson (12) contended that the "reformation measures" of Josiah "would have been motivated largely by the desire to gain independence from Assyria." In a more detailed analysis of the tension between Israel and Assyria, Rosenbaum noted that "Assyrian rulers imposed more than tribute and political subservience upon their vassals" (72). In a similar vein, Weinfeld argued that "the arrogance of the Assyrian king may also explain the lack of any sign of affection from the sovereign to his vassal" (68-69). Independence, coupled with the specific examples of political subservience and an arrogant king, constitutes a relevant historical precedent for the American founding when compared to the American struggle for independence, the issues of political subservience such as "taxation without representation," and the arrogance of George III.

Reformation

A brief examination of the historical circumstances surrounding the composition of Deuteronomy and the American founding demonstrates that both independence movements were inextricably tied to broader movements of religious reform. For the American founding, the religious reform took the form of the Great Awakening.

   This Great Awakening was perhaps the most extensive intercolonial event:
   that it reached into virtually every kind of community and crossroads; that
   its effects were at first profoundly unsettling to the established order;
   and then became creative elements in establishing a new order [McLoughlin
   1978: viii].

Similarly, biblical scholars note the bond between the political and religious reforms of Josiah. Nicholson (99) recounts the rise "in Judah in the late eighth century [of] a movement which aimed at both political and religious renewal." Weinfeld, examining the reforms of Josiah, argued that they were "a vigorous expression of both political and religious emancipation" (85). Recognizing that drawing meaningful distinctions between political and religious reforms in the seventh century BCE is exceedingly difficult, it is suggested here that the inextricable bond between political and religious reformation of the "this day" of the Deuteronomist offers greater illumination for the American founding than the traditional textual approach.

Medium

One final historical precedent that links the American founding to the Deuteronomic history is method of communication. During both periods the crucial medium of exchange was the religious sermon. The literary function of Mosaic speeches has been well documented (Miller; Polzin). Nicholson isolates chapters 5-11 as "a series of exhortatory addresses which appeal again and again for faithfulness to the divine commands" (46). Weinfeld asserts that the Book of Deuteronomy "is presented in its entirety as a valedictory oration delivered by Moses." The key to Weinfeld's assertion is the word presented. Distinguishing the text from the history, Weinfeld (10) argues that the oration/address format was imposed by the Deuteronomic author: "He placed in the mouth of Moses a long prose valedictory which treats both history and law." This extended biblical sermon, aside from offering textual substance, adumbrates a method of communication that was utilized extensively during the American founding.

McLoughlin argues that "the true basis of intercolonial unity [during the American founding] lay in the system of itinerant preaching" (1977: 69). Stout's study of religion in New England demonstrates that "after 1667, these [election] sermons were published so that they could be distributed to the ministers and summarized from every pulpit in the land" (1986: 70). Assessing the influence of election sermons during the founding era, Lutz noted that "these reprinted sermons accounted for almost three-fourths of the biblical citations" (1984: 192). The medium of the message for both the Deuteronomic history and the American founding was the biblical sermon.

In all three instances--independence, reform, and medium--the historical echo is more revealing than a simple verbal, or textual, comparison. The textual prominence of Deuteronomic citations noted by Lutz, is reflective of a deeper historical relationship. However, while the focus on Deuteronomy and Josiah offers historical illumination heretofore not applied to the American founding, this same focus ignores the critical role of biblical editors in the transmission of covenant theology. By noting the crucial role of the Deuteronomic editor(s), the present analysis moves toward a more complete understanding of the influence of covenants on the American founding.

The Hand of the Deuteronomist

As the American founding predates even the earliest attempts at biblical historical criticism, this analysis does not attribute a level of historical-critical sophistication to the American founders that presages a methodology developed during this century. The founders did not know and could not have known what contemporary scholarship has revealed about the authorship and chronology of biblical texts.

It is clear from the historical record that the founding fathers defined much of their political existence with explicit references to the biblical text. The American Revolution itself was seen as the fulfillment of First Testament prophecy. In a sermon commemorating the Revolution, Jacob Cushing turned to Deuteronomy 32:43: "Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries; and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people." Applying the biblical text to the American patriots, Cushing maintained that "[t]he prophecy before us, is not limited to the Israleites; but may be understood as extending to all God's chosen" (Sandoz: 611,613). When the founders desired to erect a new form of government, they again turned to the book of Deuteronomy. In a sermon based on Deuteronomy 4.5-8 and entitled "The Republic of the Israelites as an Example to the American States, Samuel Langdon had this to say:

   Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgements, even as the Lord my God
   commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
   Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding
   in the sight of the nations, who shall hear all these statutes, and say,
   surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people: for what
   nation is there so great, which hath God so nigh unto them as the Lord our
   God is in alt things that we shall call upon him for? and what nation is so
   great, which hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law which
   set before you this day [Sandoz: 945].

These are just two examples of the plethora of similar textual references wherein the American founders defined themselves with explicit reference to the Deuteronomic text.

This is not to say, however, that the founders' attraction to Deuteronomy is merely textual, ahistorical, or coincidental. Lutz identified a pattern of biblical citations which underscore the explicit linkage between the First Testament and the American founding. This citation pattern, especially with respect to kingship, reflects the editorial modifications of the Deuteronomic editor(s). Moreover, Lutz notes that the founders "referred most frequently to the sections about covenants and God's promise to Israel" (1988, 140). As is the case with kingship, the coherence of the covenant references in the biblical text and in their subsequent use by the American founders can be traced to the Deuteronomic editor(s). In short, the biblical text upon which the American founders relied for their constitutionalism would have been vastly different without the hand of the Deuteronomist.

Kingship and the Deuteronomic History

Cross and Freedman noted (56) that the Josianic reforms were designed "for the re-establishment of the Davidic Kingdom." According to Weinfeld, "that the Davidic dynasty and its capital, Jerusalem, lay at the core of Deuteronomistic ideology shows the Deuteronomist's sympathy and esteem for the monarchy." He maintained that "if there is any negative tendency in the law of the king in Deuteronomy it is not directed towards the monarchy as such but against a specific king" (169, 168). Nelson (534) asserts that "Josiah is the only king since the archetypical David perfectly to meet Yahweh's requirement according to the standards laid down by Deuteronomy." If, as McDonald argues (179), the American patriots vehemently "rejected monarchy," this monarchical tendency in the Deuteronomic literature would suggest that the American founder's faith in Deuteronomy was woefully misplaced. In May of 1775, John Adams "told the delegates that an imperial connection might be maintained through the king" (Middlekauf: 312). As late as July, 1775 the Olive Branch petition asked George III "to direct some mode, by which the united applications of your faithful colonists to the throne.., may be improved into a happy and permanent reconciliation" (Rakove: 245). However, it is clear that by the time of the Declaration of Independence no such reconciliation was either possible or desirable. Lence has convincingly argued that "the injuries, the usurpations, all these were sufferable until the pernicious acts of George III threatened the very foundations of self-government." Citing the Declaration, Lence characterized the opinion of the founders: "A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free people" (30, 31). It is difficult to conceive of a less appropriate source for this critique, than the monarchical tendencies of the Deuteronomic Josiah. However, if Josianic focus is abandoned in favor of a more critical Deuteronomic history, one that distinguishes between authors and compilers, or editors, a different conception of kingship is noted. A Josianic focus, while historically accurate with respect to the origin and discovery of Deuteronomy, is too limited to encompass later editorial modifications of the text. To ignore the later changes is to ignore another aspect of biblical historical criticism that illuminates the American founding.

Matthews argued that "a literary framework has been imposed on or used in portions of the Deuteronomistic history." The framework which he labeled the "King's call to justice" mitigates earlier monarchical tendencies.

   For the editors of the Deuteronomistic history (H [Dtr]) [he maintained],
   emergent political reality of unchecked tyranny, in which the kings at
   times acted as if they were above the law, became an intolerable,
   theological anomaly which they choose to combat in their reshaping of the
   historical corpus [216, 205].

In other words, the positive view of the monarchy noted by Cross and Friedman, Weinfeld, and Nelson was subsequently modified by the pessimistic view of later editors. While it cannot be demonstrated that the American founders were cognizant of these editorial modifications, it can be demonstrated that the citation pattern followed by the American founders, and identified by Lutz, was first traced by the hand of the Deuteronomist.

Uniting the historical medium of Deuteronomy with the editorial message, collections of American founding era sermons are replete with Deuteronomic references to the "King's Call to Justice." Benjamin Coleman identified the role of governors in general terms: "Magistrates uphold and adorn the world, as pillars do a fabrick, by employing their superior wisdom and knowledge, skill and prudence, discretion and judgment for the publick good." Charles Chauncy reiterates that "those who rule over others must be just, ruling in the fear of God" (Sandoz: 15, 145). A special condemnation is reserved for those who violate this maxim. Rehoboam, in particular, is vilified as the precursor of George III: "And there was a time when there was a king in Israel, and he also did what was right in his own eyes--a foolish son of a wise father; his own imprudence, the rashness of his young counsellors, his unwillingness to redress the grievances of the nation, and the harsh treatment he gave to those who applies for relief, also brought on a civil war" (Zulby: 114). In each instance, the American founding sermon mirrors not the original biblical text but the editorial modifications of the Deuteronomic text reflecting the "King's call to justice."

The distinction between authors and compilers or editors, made possible by biblical historical criticism, serves to deepen our understanding of the biblical text and, in turn, illuminate our understanding of the American founders' utilization of that text. This same distinction further serves to deepen our appreciation for the widespread influence of covenant theology.

Covenants and Criticism

At the core of American constitutionalism lies the First-Testament concept of covenant. The following discussion is accordingly based on the covenants contained in the Books of Genesis and Exodus, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, 1 Kings 8, 1 Kings 12 and 2 Chronicles, 2 Kings 22 and 23, 2 Chronicles 23 and 34, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and 1 Maccabees (Elazar 1978: 11-14). From the earliest vassal treaties to the ascension of Simon in 1 Maccabees, there is variation in the style, content, and scope of First Testament covenants. There is in this evolution of covenants, however, a continuity and coherence provided by the hand of the Deuteronomic editor(s). More important, by following the citation patterns identified by Lutz, it can be shown that in this evolution of biblical covenants the American founders relied on those books, chapters, and verses that were modified from the original text by the Deuteronomic editor(s). Elazar identified the first biblical covenant "explicitly involving Jews" in Genesis 15 and 17 and "God's reaffirmation of that covenant" in Exodus 6:2-8 (1978:11). In contrasting these original covenants with "the restatement of the Sinai covenant" (Deut 4), Weinfeld argued that

   [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).

As for the Succot covenant, contrary to the Seleucid appointment of Judean governors, Simon's title was again nasi' because his "rule rested upon the decision of the people, and the political title of Simon was Prince of the people of Israel" (Pearlman: 252). It has been suggested that the composition of 1 Maccabees reflects the author's insistence "[i]n true Deuteronomic tradition," on "fidelity to the law as the expression of Israel's love of God" (NEW AMERICAN BIBLE: 513).

It would appear that few of the covenants outlined by Elazar escaped the hand of the Deuteronomic editor. Some examples can be found in 2 Kings. One can "identify parts of an earlier composition of north-Israelite origin embedded in Kings." With respect to the fall of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:7-23), the supplication of Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 13:1-9), and the story of Jeroboam (2 Kgs 14:23-29), Cogan and Tadmor maintained that "[m]onarchic misconduct the measure of Deutcronomistic judgment elsewhere in Kings, is not considered." These passages reflect remnants of an earlier tradition that is inconsistent with the "monarchig measure" of the covenant fortified by the Deuteronomic editor elsewhere in 2 Kings (Cogan & Tadmor: 4, 206). The exceptions of 2 Kings notwithstanding, the role of the Deuteronomic editor(s) is clear; to impart a level of consistency into the First Testament narrative. More important, these earlier, pre-Deuteronomic, remnants are excluded from the citation pattern of the American founders.

While important for understanding the evolution of First Testament covenants, the application of biblical historical criticism also offers a more complete understanding of the utilization of these covenants by the American founders. As was the case with kingship citations, the pattern of citations for covenants was guided by the hand of the Deuteronomist. The pattern of the founders' covenant citations so closely corresponds with the editorial modifications of the Deuteronomist, that further investigation of the distinction between biblical text and editor is warranted.

Conclusion

With respect to the biblical influence on the American founding, this analysis seeks to examine an interdisciplinary application of biblical historical criticism. Further intellectual exploration must broaden the application of biblical historical criticism to the American founding if this research is to truly make a difference. For example, the influence of the Deuteronomist can be examined with respect to other core concepts, such as federalism. Elazar has demonstrated the linkage between federalism, "in its modern form," and ancient Israel (1995: 47). Research could also expand the application of biblical historical criticism beyond the role of the Deuteronomist. Biblical criticism suggests that "the Chronicler" played an editorial role in the First Testament, ironically modifying the Deuteronomist's treatment of the tribes of Israel (Dillard 1987; Japhet 1993). Beyond the role of biblical editors, biblical historical criticism also provides insight into other aspects of early American history such as millennialism. The distinction between pre- and post-millennialism found in early American religious thought can be traced to divergent First Testament views of the meaning of human history (Hanson; Cook).

While biblical criticism and the historical treatment of Deuteronomy may be part of the canon of religious scholarship, their implications for the American founding have largely been ignored or rejected by traditional scholarship. In its utilization of biblical historical criticism, then, this analysis departs from traditional scholarship. However, while the application of biblical historical criticism illuminates our understanding of the influence of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomist on the American founding, it does not supplant traditional scholarship. By applying the methods of historical criticism to the Bible, this analysis serves to complement the work of covenant scholars such as Lutz and Elazar.

The evidence outlined above suggests that a historical contextual echo, beyond the verbal textual echo, unites the American founding and the Book of Deuteronomy. More specifically, with respect to independence, reformation, and medium, the American founders demonstrate a Josianic understanding of Deuteronomy. It is also apparent, however, that their Josianic understanding was stayed by the hand of the Deuteronomist with respect to the "King's call to justice" and covenant theology. While the American founders could not have been cognizant of the distinctions between biblical text and biblical history or between biblical author and biblical editor, the prominence of Deuteronomic citations, all bearing the mark of the Deuteronomist, suggests that the application of biblical historical criticism to the American founding era deserves further intellectual exploration.

The author would like to thank Professors Timothy Sedgwick and Donald Lutz for their original inspiration and Professor Victor Matthews for his help with the development of this manuscript.

Works Cited

Bailyn, Bernard. 1956. IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1990. Ezekiel Louisville, KY: John Knox Press.

1988. EZRA--NEHEMIAH Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press.

Butler, Trent C. 1983. JOSHUA. Taco, TX: Word Books.

Cogan, Mordechai and Hayim Tadmor. 1988. II KINGS. New York, NY: Doubleday and Company.

Cook, Stephen L. 1995. PROPHECY AND APOCALYPTICISM. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Cross, Frank M., & David Noel Freedman. 1953. Josiah's Revolt Against Assyria. JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES 12: 56-58.

Dillard, Raymond B. 1987. II CHRONICLES. Taco, TX: Word Books.

Elazar, Daniel. 1995. COVENANT & POLITY IN BIBLICAL ISRAEL. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

1980. The Political Theory of Covenant. PUBLIUS: THE JOURNAL OF FEDERALISM 10: 3-30.

1978. Covenant as the Basis of the Jewish Political Tradition. THE JEWISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY 20:34-50.

Friedman, Richard Elliot. 1981. From Egypt to Egypt: [Dtr.sup.1] and [Dtr.sup.2]. Pp. 167-92 in TRADITIONS IN TRANSFORMATION, edited by Baruch Halpern & Jon D. Levenson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Gray, John. 1975. I & II KINGS. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press.

Hals, Ronald M. 1989. EZEKIEL. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company.

Hanson, Paul. 1975. THE DAWN OF APOCALYPTIC. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Lence, Ross M. 1976. Thomas Jefferson and the American Declaration of Independence. POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER 6: 2-34.

Lutz, Donald S. 1992. A PREFACE TO AMERICAN POLITICAL THEORY. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

1988. THE ORIGINS OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.

1984. The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth. Century American Political Thought, AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW 78: 189-97.

1980. From Covenant to Constitution. PUBLIUS: THE JOURNAL OF FEDERALISM 10: 101-34.

McCarter, Kyle. 1984. II SAMUEL. New York, NY: Doubleday.

McDonald, Forrest. 1985. NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

McLoughlin, William. 1977. Enthusiasm for Liberty. PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY 87: 69-95.

1978. Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Matthews, Victor. 1991. The King's Call to Justice, BIBLISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT 35: 204-16.

Middlekauf, Robert. 1982. THE GLORIOUS CAUSE. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Miller, Patrick. 1990. DEUTERONOMY. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press.

Nelson, Richard D. 1981. Josiah in the Book of Joshua. JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 100: 531-40.

Nicholson, E. W. 1967. DEUTERONOMY AND TRADITION. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Niebuhr, Richard. 1954. The Idea of Covenant and American Democracy. CHURCH HISTORY 23:126-35.

NEW AMERICAN BIBLE. 1970. New York, NY: Catholic Book Publishing Company.

Noth, Martin. 1981. THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY. Sheffield, UK: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament.

Pearlman, Moshe. 1973. THE MACCABEES. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Rakove, Jack N. 1976. The Decision for American Independence. PERSPECTIVES IN AMERICAN HISTORY 10:217-75.

Reimer, Heal. 1980. Covenant and the Federal Constitution. PUBLIUS: THE JOURNAL OF FEDERALISM 10: 135-48.

Rosenbaum, Jonathan. 1979. Hezakiah's Reform and the Deuteronomistic Tradition. HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 72: 23-43.

Rothman, Rozann. 1980. The Impact of Covenant and Contract Theories on Conceptions of the U.S. Constitution. PUBLIUS: THE JOURNAL OF FEDERALISM 10: 149-63.

Sandoz, Ellis. 1991. POLITICAL SERMONS OF THE AMERICAN FOUNDING ERA. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press.

Stout, Harry S. 1986. THE NEW ENGLAND SOUL. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Weinfeld, Moshe. 1992. DEUTERONOMY AND THE DEUTERONOMIC SCHOOL. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Wood, Gordon. 1969. CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Zulby, John. 1860. PATRIOT PREACHERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. New York: By subscription.

George E. Connor, Ph.D. (University of Houston, 1989), is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Southwest Missouri State University, 901 South National Ave., Springfield, MO 65804 (e-mail: [e-mail]). His eclectic research interests include the legislative process, utopian fiction, and biblical criticism. His most recent publication is The Awakening of Edward Bellamy in UTOPIAN STUDIES (11:1), and he has a forthcoming book chapter, with Bruce Oppenheimer, entitled From Concept to Context: Representation in the Twentieth Century. His current research includes measuring the impact of the Chronicler and the Priestly editor on the American founding.