Together, these considerations indicate that the proverbs in the Elephantine version were to be read within the context of the narrative as the words uttered by Ahiqar after he foiled Nadan's plot against him.
found at Elephantine is to be dated on paleographical and archaeological grounds to the late fifth century BCE, many believe that the composition itself originated in the sixth and possibly the seventh centuries BCE, with the proverbs section perhaps originating earlier than the accompanying narrative.
probable that the Demotic writer was also familar with the Ahiqar story, and that his own introductory narrative owed something to it.” Although these two texts came into existence long after the composition of both Deuteronomy and Elephantine that in Egyptian instructions what the teacher transmits is not simply his own point of view, but is often officially approved by the god of wisdom or the king or both. This motif resembles the description of Israel's future treachery in Deut –18, but it appears in a literature created under the direct influence of deuteronomic theology and literary form, including the Song of Moses.
I would argue, therefore, that the frequent appearance of this motif in the and other early Jewish and Christian testaments reveals more about the literary influence of Deuteronomy and deuteronomic theology on later Jewish and Christian literature than it does about the appearance or role of this motif in Deuteronomy 31 itself.
For others, Deuteronomy 32 represents a wisdom text that identifies itself as a teaching (Deut 32:2), chastises Israel for its intellectual shortcomings (Deut 32:6, 28), and repeatedly exhorts Israel to remember and understand (Deut 32:7, 29).
Thus Deuteronomy 32 seems to have two literary identities: one as an act of indictment drawing on legal language; the other as an act of instruction belonging to the sphere of wisdom..
On the one hand, Isa 30:8–9 is reminiscent of Deuteronomy 31, since it describes a text that has been preserved on a tablet and is to serve as a “witness” in a future time against “a rebellious people.” On the other hand, this passage is reminiscent since it is concerned with the behavior of “lying sons. who will not hear instruction.” The correspondence to either composition is not exact, but even so, this passage still sheds light on the relation of Deuteronomy 31 to , for it shows how a narrative like that reflected in Ahiqar can be theologized by an Israelite author.
The figure of the lying son who refuses to heed instruction is here explicitly equated with the rebellious people who will not heed the min of the Lord—precisely the equation that the author of Deuteronomy 31 seems to have implied.
and let the earth hear the words of my mouth”; Deut a, “will surely act corruptly,” corresponds to Deut 32:5, “they have dealt corruptly”; Deut b, “provoking him to anger through the work of their hands,” corresponds to Deut , “with abominable practices they provoked him to anger.”; Labushagne, “The Song of Moses,” 86–92 (who reviews the debate as a whole).
The attempt to reconstruct the literary development of Deuteronomy 31 is further complicated by a number of complex textual variants among the versions.