Biblica_1:Layout 1 21-11-2011 12:59 Pagina 328 328 MARK LEUCHTER early transcription, and thus early date, of the work. Oral modalities remained in vogue alongside the growth of writing throughout the duration of the pre-exilic period (and even beyond) 28, and one might conceivably argue that the poem was committed to writing at a late date with those archaic forms intact. This would impede our ability to use the poem as a barometer of Iron I socio-religious pre- suppositions, since it remains possible that a fairly late scribe may have textualized a poem with archaic forms that did not actually originate in an archaic period. A solution to this problem rests in a comparison with another poem embedded in the Pentateuch that is often regarded as holding a very ancient pedigree, namely, the Song of Moses (Deut 32). A re- cent article by M. Thiessen calls attention to the fact that while Deut 32 contains a primarily archaic linguistic character, the poem exhibits a measurable degree of flourishes touting later linguistic features 29. The traditional position taken by scholars on this matter is that either the poem’s author worked at a somewhat late period and introduced deliberate archaizing language into his composition, or that the poem was written during a period of linguistic transition (e.g., the 9th-8th centuries BCE) 30. Thiessen offers a more attractive proposal, how- ever: Deut 32 was composed in a fairly early period, but the introduc- tion of later forms into the poem accompanied regular cultic recitation over many generations 31. Thiessen’s model accounts for many of the problems traditionally associated with determining the setting and function of Deut 32, as well as its ultimate place within the Book of Deuteronomy 32. Following Thiessen’s observations, the textualiza- 28 CARR, Tablet of the Heart, 126-128. The persistence of oral-centered discourse is felt even in much later times when textuality had become a more familiar enterprise. See E. SHANKS ALEXANDER, “The Orality of Rabbinic Writing”, The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature (eds. M. JAFFEE – C.E. FONROBERT) (New York – Cambridge 2007) 38-55. 29 M. THIESSEN, “The Form and Function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1-43)”, JBL 123 (2004) 401-424. 30 D.A. ROBERTSON, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (SBLD 3; Missoula, MT 1972) 154-155; S.A. NIGOSIAN, “Linguistic Patterns of Deuteronomy 32”, Bib 78 (1997) 223-224. 31 THIESSEN, “Song of Moses”, 422. 32 As I have suggested in a previous study, the place of this poem as a northern Levite liturgy moved the redactors of Deuteronomy to place it in the closing frame of the pre-exilic edition of the book, cf. M. LEUCHTER, “Why is the Song of Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy?”, VT 57 (2007) 314.