Page - 42 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 07/01

42 | Mark K. George www.jrfm.eu 2021, 7/1, 33–44 truth about oneself and Israel. A game of truth is created, with a binary (yes/ no) structure. Each individual’s behavior can be compared with the book, to assess it and judge whether it is in agreement with what is written. The book is, in the language of the book itself, a witness against Israel (31:19, 21, 26, 28; 32:46), able to determine the “truth” about Israel and each individual who understands themselves to be such a subject. Conclusion Since at least the time of Josephus, interpreters have argued Deuteronomy is Israel’s “constitution” (politeia) or, more recently, “polity”.23 Such arguments have focused on the institutions and practices by which Israel is organized. But the governmental functions of the book do more than this. They shape and guide (i. e. govern) how individuals come to be Israel as a subject and subject position. The affordances of writing are one means by which this oc- curs. Because the commands are fixed in writing, the same understanding of Israel becomes available to each and every individual who considers themself part of Israel and addressed by the commands. The same practices and behav- iors are incumbent upon all of Israel because Deuteronomy is a standard and norm of what it means to be Israel, an affordance provided by writing and the book. When individuals shape their thinking and selves according to the commands, statutes, and ordinances written in the book, they enact Israel’s subjectivity and become subjects to the book. The government of the book, in other words, is concerned not only with institutions and the organization of Israel’s society, but also with the creation of Israel as a people and with how individuals recognize themselves as part of this subjectivity. The affordance of assessment provides a means for evaluating oneself and others and the extent to which the examined behaviors correspond with those recorded in the book. Determining the truth about Israel becomes possible. In all these ways, writ- ing and the book are not simply a constitution of (or for) Israel, in a nominal understanding of this term, but also constitute Israel, a verbal understanding. I argued at the beginning of this article that the Israel created by Deuteron- omy is a loyal and docile subject. The writers’ appropriation of the suzerainty 23 Josephus 1930, Book IV, §198, 96; Christensen 2001, lvii; McBride 1987, 229–44. Bernard M. Levinson argues politeia should be translated as “form of government”, not “constitution”, although most other scholars do not adopt this translation alternative. Levinson 2008, 56–57.