A Call to Covenant Love: Text Grammar and Literary Structure in Deuteronomy 5–11 9781463203801, 1463203802

Citation preview

A Call to Covenant Love

Gorgias Biblical Studies

30

In this series Gorgias publishes monographs on the history, theology, redaction and literary criticism of the biblical texts. Gorgias particularly welcomes proposals from younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution to the field of Biblical Studies. Studies of language and linguistics, the archaeology and cultures of the Ancient Near East, Judaism and religion in general each have their own series and will not be included in this series.

A Call to Covenant Love

Text Grammar and Literary Structure in Deuteronomy 5–11

Jason S. DeRouchie

9

34 2014

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014

‫ܘ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0380-1

ISSN 1935-6870

Reprinted from the 2007 Gorgias Press edition.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

To Teresa, my helper, my friend, my partner in the quest to know God and make him known

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................xiii FOREWORD..................................................................................... xv PREFACE........................................................................................ xvii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................... xxi PAR T 1 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1 TERMINOLOGY AND M OSAIC ATTRIBUTION ...............................................3 THESIS AND OVERVIEW ...................................................................................5 HISTORY OF RESEARCH ....................................................................................5 N. Lohfink .....................................................................................................10 G. Seitz ...........................................................................................................13 F. García López..............................................................................................14 F. C. Tiffany ...................................................................................................15 R. Polzin .........................................................................................................18 C. Rabin .........................................................................................................20 C. J. Labuschagne............................................................................................20 L. J. de Regt ....................................................................................................22 E. Talstra .......................................................................................................23 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................24 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................ 25 LINGUISTIC FOUNDATION .............................................................................25 Cross-Linguistic Support..................................................................................28 Deuteronomy’s Overarching Text Type .............................................................35 CORPUS ..............................................................................................................47 Deuteronomy 4:44––the Beginning of the Second Division................................48 v

vi

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Deuteronomy 11:32––the Close of the First-Half of the Second Division .........53

3 DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION................................ 55 ORGANIZING A DATABASE: C ODING C LAUSES ........................................55 Delimiting Clauses and Sentences .....................................................................55 Defining clauses and sentences ............................................................58 Clause predicators and verbal complements......................................64 Clause class in BH and the present study ...........................................71 Distinguishing subject and predicate in nominal clauses .................72 Conclusion...............................................................................................78 Clause Codes: Communicative Constraints and Linguistic Features ..................78 Text logic .................................................................................................80 Foregrounding ........................................................................................80 Participant reference ..............................................................................80 Lexical structuring ..................................................................................81 Domains...................................................................................................82 Text types.................................................................................................82 TRACING THE ARGUMENT IN DEUTERONOMY 5–11...............................87 A Visual Model for Tracing Arguments..........................................................88 Using the Method.............................................................................................90 PAR T 2 4 TEXT GRAMMAR ........................................................................ 95 TEXT LOGIC ....................................................................................................103 wa..................................................................................................................107 Ø ...................................................................................................................120 FOREGROUNDING .........................................................................................132 Foreground, Temporal Succession, and BH ....................................................133 Temporal succession defined .............................................................134 Wayyiqtol, w#qatal, and temporal succession .....................................135 Foreground and background defined................................................141 Foreground and relative prominence ................................................143 Foreground in BH historical texts .....................................................151 Conclusion on Foreground, Temporal Succession, and BH.........152 Clause Class ..................................................................................................153 Form and meaning in BH’s predication system ..............................154 Copular clauses .....................................................................................164 Non-copular verbal clauses.................................................................167 Text types and predication constellations.........................................172 Summary .......................................................................................................183

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

PARTICIPANT REFERENCE ...........................................................................186 Participant Reference in Non-Third Person Contexts......................................188 Participant Reference in Third Person Contexts..............................................189 Explicit subject minus participant shift.............................................192 Participant shift minus explicit subject .............................................197 Conclusions Related to Participant Reference...................................................200 LEXICAL STRUCTURING ................................................................................201 h…EnIh(Vw) / NEh : Markers of Immediate Significance .............................................201 hD;tAoVw : an Inference Marker ............................................................................204 rOmaEl : an Introductory Marker of Non-Prototypical Direct Speech .................205 yIhVyAw / hDyDhVw : a Paragraph and Climax Marker ..............................................212 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................215 5 LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION ........... 217 STRUCTURE, C LAUSE FUNCTION, ARRANGEMENT, AND HIERARCHY IN REPORTED DIRECT SPEECH ..............................................................218 THE MACROSTRUCTURE OF DEUTERONOMY 5–11 ................................227 The Flow of Thought in Deuteronomy 5:01.3–6:03.5....................................234 The Flow of Thought in Deuteronomy 6:04.1–8:20.3....................................237 A call to covenant love ........................................................................239 The nature of covenant love, part 1: remembering God ...............240 The nature of covenant love, part 2: removing obstacles ..............241 The need for covenant love ................................................................244 The Flow of Thought in Deuteronomy 9:01.1–11:32.2..................................250 The call to know Yahweh as a consuming fire ................................252 A stubborn people................................................................................254 A tale of three rebellions and a gracious God .................................255 Covenantal implications of knowing God as a consuming fire ....258 The practice of a God-centered existence........................................258 The promise of a God-centered existence .......................................263 A final appeal with blessings and curses ...........................................264 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................267 6 CONCLUSION ............................................................................269 A S UMMARY OF THE STUDY ........................................................................269 MAJOR C ONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY ..................................................270 PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION ............................................272

viii

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

APPENDIX 1: CLAUSE BREAKDOWN AND CLAUSE CODING...................................................................................... 275 CLAUSE BREAKDOWN ...................................................................................275 CLAUSE CODES ...............................................................................................276 DATABASE ADJUSTMENTS............................................................................344 APPENDIX 2: MACROSTRUCTURAL OUTLINE OF DEUTERONOMY 5–11 .............................................................. 345 APPENDIX 3: WA AT THE BEGINNING OF BIBLICAL BOOKS......................................................................................... 351 APPENDIX 4: LONGACRE’S PREDICATION CONSTELLATIONS BY TEXT TYPE ..................................... 355 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................ 359 BOOKS, MONOGRAPHS, AND FESTSCHRIFTEN ........................................359 ARTICLES, ESSAYS, AND REVIEWS .............................................................373 DISSERTATIONS AND THESES .....................................................................392 AUTHOR INDEX ........................................................................... 395

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Dyk and Talstra’s System for Distinguishing S–P in Nominal Clauses by Phrase-Type and Definiteness ................................................73 Table 2. Longacre’s Text Typology ....................................................................84 Table 3. Clauses in Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32 ..................................................96 Table 4. Clauses by Domain ................................................................................97 Table 5. Sentences by Domain ............................................................................97 Table 6. Text Types in Narrative and Reported Speech .................................99 Table 7. Text Types by Domain in Reported Speech......................................99 Table 8. Orders, Parenesis, and Contingent Clauses in Behavioral Address.........................................................................................................100 Table 9. Orders by Domain and Text Type....................................................101 Table 10. Parenesis by Domain and Text Type..............................................101 Table 11. Connectors for Matrix and Subordinate Clauses..........................105 Table 12. Connectors on Clauses to which Matrix and Subordinate wa Clauses are Directly Linked ......................................................................113 Table 13. The Controlling Connectors of Subordinate wa Clauses.............113 Table 14. Matrix wa Clauses by Text Type and Domain...............................118 Table 15. Matrix wa Clauses by Text Type and Domain in Relation to Total Matrix Clauses by Text Type and Domain ..................................118 Table 16. Matrix wa Clauses by Text Type and Domain in Relation to Total Matrix Clauses by Text Type..........................................................119 Table 17. The Function of Ø Connectors.......................................................124 Table 18. Numbering Systems of the Decalogue ...........................................128 Table 19. Determination of Boundedness ......................................................135 Table 20. Longacre’s Text Typology ................................................................144 Table 21. Saliency Continuum of Verbal Semantics ......................................146 Table 22. Classes of Matrix and Subordinate Clauses ...................................154 Table 23. Copular Matrix and Subordinate Clauses with and without hyh 154 Table 24. Cook’s Synthesis of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System.............156 Table 25. Copular Matrix and Subordinate Clauses.......................................165 Table 26. Patterns of Non-Copular Verb-First Matrix Clauses ...................169 ix

x

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

Table 27. Non-Copular Predication Structures with Verb in First Position without a Preposed Function Word by Text Type in Matrix Clauses.............................................................................................169 Table 28. Non-Copular Predication Structures with Verb in First Position with a Preposed Function Word by Text Type in Matrix Clauses..........................................................................................................169 Table 29. Non-Copular Predication Structures with Verb in Non-First Position by Text Type in Matrix Clauses................................................170 Table 30. Summary of Non-Copular Verb Forms in Matrix Clauses .........171 Table 31. Summary of Non-Copular Verb Forms in Relation to Total Verb Forms in Matrix Clauses..................................................................171 Table 32. Non-Copular Predication Structures in Historical Matrix Clauses..........................................................................................................174 Table 33. Summary of Non-Copular Verb Forms in Historical Matrix Clauses..........................................................................................................174 Table 34. Predication Constellations in Historical Discourse ......................174 Table 35. Non-Copular Predication Structures in Predictive Matrix Clauses..........................................................................................................176 Table 36. Predication Constellations in Predictive Discourse......................176 Table 37. Non-Copular Predication Structures in Promisory Matrix Clauses..........................................................................................................176 Table 38. Summary of Non-Copular Verb Forms in Promisory Matrix Clauses..........................................................................................................176 Table 39. Predication Constellations in Promisory Discourse.....................177 Table 40. Non-Copular Predication Structures in Instructional Matrix Clauses..........................................................................................................179 Table 41. Summary of Non-Copular Verb Forms in Instructional Matrix Clauses.............................................................................................179 Table 42. Predication Constellations in Instructional Discourse.................179 Table 43. Non-Copular Predication Structures in Hortatory Matrix Clauses..........................................................................................................181 Table 44. Summary of Non-Copular Verb Forms in Hortatory Matrix Clauses..........................................................................................................181 Table 45. Predication Constellations in Hortatory Discourse......................181 Table 46. Text Types: Their Function and the Forms that Signal Them ............................................................................................................184 Table 47. Matrix Clauses by Clause Class with and without an Explicit Subject ..........................................................................................................187

LIST OF TABLES

xi

Table 48. Non-Copular Verbal Matrix Clauses with and without an Explicit Subject in First, Second, and Third Person Contexts............187 Table 49. Copular Matrix Clauses (±hyh) with and without an Explicit Subject in First, Second, and Third Person Contexts...........................187 Table 50. Third Person Matrix Clauses by Clause Class with and without an Explicit Subject.......................................................................190 Table 51. Explicit Subjects in Matrix Clauses by Clause Class with and without Participant Shift ...........................................................................191 Table 52. Participant Shift in Matrix Clauses by Clause Class with and without an Explicit Subject.......................................................................191 Table 53. Variation in Formulas of Quotation ...............................................194 Table 54. Communicative Constraints Governing the Use of an Explicit Subjects .........................................................................................201 Table 55. Categories of Quotative Frames in Direct Speech .......................208 Table 56. Quotative Frames of Direct Speech ...............................................208 Table 57. Mainline and Offline Clauses in Leviticus 14:2–9 ........................220 Table 58. Macrostructural Outline of Deuteronomy 5–11: The Nature of Lasting Covenant Relationship............................................................229 Table 59. Proposed Chiasm for Deuteronomy 11:31–12:1 ..........................232 Table 60. Macrostructural Outline of Deuteronomy 5:01.3–6:03.5 ............236 Table 61. Macrostructural Outline of Deuteronomy 6:04.1–8:20.3 ............238 Table 62. Macrostructural Outline of Deuteronomy 9:01.1–11:32.2..........253 Table A1. Key to Clause Codes ........................................................................277 Table A2. Predication Constellations in Historical Texts .............................355 Table A3. Predication Constellations in Expository Texts...........................355 Table A4. Predication Constellations in Predictive Texts.............................356 Table A5. Predication Constellations in Hortatory Texts.............................356 Table A6. Predication Constellations in Instructional Texts........................357

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Macrostructural Diagram of 9:1–11:32 .............................................91 Figure 2. Foreground and Background in Historical Narrative ...................142 Figure 3. The Functional Dependency of Foreground on Background.....143 Figure 4. The Principle of Good Continuation ..............................................150 Figure 5. The Principle of Size and Proximity................................................150 Figure 6. The Principle of Closure....................................................................151 Figure 7. Major Divisions of Deuteronomy 5–11: The Nature of Lasting Covenant Relationship................................................................229 Figure 8. Macrostructural Diagram of 5:01.3–6:03.5: The Foundation of Covenant Relationship.........................................................................236 Figure 9. Macrostructural Diagram of 6:04.1–8:20.3: The Essence of Covenant Relationship..............................................................................237 Figure 10. Macrostructural Diagram of 6:10.1–7:26.5: The Nature of Covenant Love...........................................................................................244 Figure 11. Macrostructural Diagram of 8:01–8:20.3: The Need for Covenant Love...........................................................................................250 Figure 12. Macrostructural Diagram of 9:01.1–11:32.2: The Perpetuation of Covenant Relationship.................................................252 Figure 13. Macrostructural Diagram of 9:01.1–10:11.6: A Call to Know Yahweh as a Consuming Fire......................................................258 Figure 14. Macrostructural Diagram of 10:12.1–11:32.2: The Covenantal Implications of Knowing Yahweh as a Consuming Fire ...............................................................................................................266

xiii

FOREWORD During the past decade we have witnessed not only the publication of a series of excellent commentaries on the book of Deuteronomy, but also a steady stream of monographs that explore specific features of the book. These volumes reflect a broad spectrum of hermeneutical and theological perspectives, ranging from traditional form and redaction critical to more contemporary sociological and ideological approaches. Recent advances in discourse analysis, and the application of the method to narrative texts have confirmed the value of this approach for biblical studies. Given the parenetic nature of Deuteronomy, it was inevitable that scholars should apply literary and rhetorical methods to the book, both in its broad structure and in its individual literary units. However, it is remarkable that it has not received more attention from specialists in discourse analysis. In this study, Jason S. DeRouchie applies the fundamental principles of discourse analysis to the textual “heartland” of the book of Deuteronomy, chapters 5–11. With meticulous care, he examines the structure of every clause and the syntactical relationships among all the clauses to establish the text grammar, not only of individual literary units, but also this block of material as a whole. This study is especially satisfying because it goes beyond cold linguistic analysis, as if this were an interpretive strategy for its own sake, to a demonstration of the value of the method for the determination of the message and theology of parenetic literary texts. While building on the work of previous scholars, DeRouchie’s work has yielded many new insights into the meaning of specific texts, and has placed the interpretation of this profoundly theological segment of the book on a more secure foundation. Hopefully many who read this work will recognize the values of the methodology, and will begin to apply it to the remainder of the book. The title of DeRouchie’s work provides a clue to its significance: the employment of technical discourse analysis in the service of exegesis and ultimately of biblical theology. May all who read it discover anew the grace

xv

xvi

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

and love of God in establishing his covenant with his people. And may they learn to respond to his grace with reciprocal covenant love. Daniel I. Block Gunther H. Knoedler Professor of Old Testament Wheaton College Graduate School Wheaton, Illinois

PREFACE This study of biblical language and literature is a revision of my doctoral dissertation completed in May 2005. It has proved itself to be one of the most energy-consuming, time-demanding, dependence-generating, and yet soul-satisfying experiences of my life. The God who reveals himself in Deuteronomy 5–11 has been present, powerful, and gracious, and I praise him for his sustenance and guidance. I began this study in order to assess whether biblical Hebrew might have formal features in the language that interpreters can use alongside intuition and semantic/stylistic analysis to clarify macrostructure and flow of thought in OT prose. Recognizing that every language is governed by a number of communicative constraints like text logic, foregrounding, participant reference, and lexical structuring, I sought to discern how Hebrew signals such features in texts. Because most textlinguistic studies in the last thirty years have analyzed historical narrative proper, I focused my work on reported direct speech and chose a key section in one of the OT’s most foundational books as my study corpus. The Deuteronomic sermons proved a useful case study not only because extended sections of reported speech are present but also because comparatively little textual corruption and/or variation is manifest in this section of the canon. In an attempt to establish macrostructure and text hierarchy, I created a large statistical database through which I analyzed each clause in Deuteronomy 5–11 from the perspective of form, meaning, and semantic function. In the process, I identified patterns in clause connection (Ø, Vw , etc.), clause class (verbal or copular), verb form (perfective : imperfective; indicative : non-indicative), clause pattern (P+S, S+P, etc.), clause constituent (±explicit subject), and lexical selection (i.e., discourse markers, e.g., yIIhVyAw , rømaEl, etc.), among other things, all of which helped establish a preliminary sketch of Hebrew text grammar. Having used the biblical text to clarify how certain formal features in the language are used alongside semantics or literary style to signal literary structure, I then applied my findings in an interpretation of Deuteronomy 5–11. While no attempt was made to write a full exegetical commentary, I xvii

xviii

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

provided a macrostructural and theological overview of this corpus, using the text grammatical principles established earlier and showing the interrelationship of the text’s surface structure with its semantic content. My hope is that this study will add to the foundation upon which future studies can build, in order that the next generation of Bible interpreters may enjoy a more objective approach to their task. In the process of my preparing this study, God has used numerous individuals and institutions to make this project possible. Dr. Daniel I. Block, my doctoral supervisor and mentor, has modeled quality scholarship, instruction, grace, and godliness, and I will be forever grateful for the chance to train for life long scholarship and teaching under his care and direction. I thank him for his guidance during this study, for his willingness and excitement to let me work in an area new to both of us, and for his constant challenge for me to prove the relevance of textlinguistics to biblical interpretation. Interaction with Dr. Peter J. Gentry colors much of my language discussion, and I thank him for his countless hours of dialogue and for the immense resource he has been both for knowledge and encouragement. Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner’s efforts in tracing the arguments of biblical authors was one of the generating forces in pushing me to this study, and I thank him for his interest in and support of this project. I also thank Dr. Gary D. Pratico for instilling within me a love for Hebrew, for modeling genuine care for students, and for guiding, encouraging, and mentoring me through the years. With these men, I am also grateful to the numerous other professors, professional colleagues, and institutions who have helped make me who I am and who have in various ways assisted in making this book a reality. Special thanks is due to my peers in the OT Ph.D. program at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY) and to my colleagues in the Department of Biblical and Theological Studies at Northwestern College (Saint Paul, MN), who have spurred me to greater scholarship and life with God, who have taken great interest in my work, and who have cared for me and my family. Thanks is also due to the administration of Northwestern College who graciously granted me release time to complete this book and to Drs. George A. Kiraz and Steve A. Wiggins, along with the rest of the Gorgias Press team, who enthusiastically supported this project and carefully guided the shape of its final form. I am also grateful and remarkably indebted to the outpouring of love and support from family and friends, who stood by my family and me through a long journey of academic training and personal growth. Whether through prayer, financial gifts, time, or kind words, they were agents of God to make the completion of this study possible.

PREFACE

xix

Some of my greatest joys in this season of life have been my children– Janie, Ruthie, and Isaac. They prayed long and hard for Daddy to get his “paper” done, and they have seen our God provide, sustain, and show himself faithful in amazing ways. A short paragraph is immensely inadequate to express the overwhelming affection and appreciation I have for my wife, Teresa, who has been by my side for all ten years of graduate school and now into full-time academic ministry. This has been a joint effort of perseverance and dependence, and through her more than through any other human agent, God has shown himself to be an ever present help. She is my best friend, and I am grateful for her partnership with me in God’s calling to academic ministry. May God in Christ allow us years of growth and joy in him, for his glory. Now to the One who is worthy of all praise, may he be exalted through this study. May it result in more than “nothing” in the expansion of his kingdom and in the quest for truth (John 15:5; cf. Phil 3:7–8; 1 Peter 4:11). Jason S. DeRouchie July 2007

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ^ 2SC(s) 2SC-p 2SC-a A AB ABD ABRL Ac Add Adj Adv AET AnBib Ant AOTC App ASOR AUUSSU BA BARev Bd BDB BETL BI Bib BHRG BIS BL BO BT BWANT BZAW CBQ ch(s). CJL C/Cl(s)

null subject head two-element syntactic construction(s), fronted pendent construction(s) protasis of 2SC apodosis of 2SC agent Anchor Bible D. N. Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary Anchor Bible Reference Library action addressee adjective adverb Abhandlungen zur Evangelischen Theologie Analecta Biblica antecedent Apollos Old Testament Commentary appositive, apposition, appositional American Schools of Oriental Research Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis––Studia Semitica Upsaliensia The Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review bound F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblical Interpretation Biblica C. H. J. van der Merwe, J. A. Naudé, and J. H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar Biblical Interpretation Series bi-lateral ground Bibliotheca Orientalis The Bible Translator Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Catholic Biblical Quarterly chapter(s) Canadian Journal of Linguistics clause(s)

xxi

xxii CC col(s). ConBOT cp Cp CpC CpC_ _CpC CpHC Cp(±H)C1 Cp(±H)C2 Cp(±H)C3 CR:BS CTL CTR D DCH def dem DiC DiI DiMD DiR Dis DJD DOTP Dtr. DtrH ELS em ET Ex Exp E/expl. fm FOTLS G GBH GKC GNTE GTA H HALOT HAR HAT HB HBS

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE contextualizing constituent / topic column(s) Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series casus pendens copula, copular copular clause copular clause (predicate first) copular clause (predicate preposed) copular clause with lexicalized hyh copular clause ±lexicalized hyh with participle complement copular clause ±lexicalized hyh with non-verbal complement copular clause ±lexicalized hyh with infinitival complement Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics Criswell Theological Review domain D. J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew definite demonstrative dialogue continuance dialogue initiation mid-dialogue dynamics dialogue redirection discourse Discoveries in the Judaean Desert T. D. Alexander and D. W. Baker, eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch Deuteronomist Deuteronomistic History English Language Series embedded clause English translation expansion expository, explanatory explicit form and meaning The Forms of Old Testament Literature Series ground, basis W. Schneider, Grammatik des biblischen Hebräischen: Ein Lehrbuch E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. A. E. Cowley Guides to New Testament Exegesis Göttinger theologische Arbeiten lexicalized hyh L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, rev. W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament Hebrew Bible Herders biblische studien

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS HG Hist HKAT Hort HS HSMM HSS HUCA IBHS ICC Id IDB imper Imv indef indir Inf InfA Inj Inst I/inter ISBL LAI LOS LSLS JAAR JAOS JBL JBLMS JETS JLS JLSC JLSM JLSP JOTT Joüon JPSTC JSOT JSOTSup JSS Juss Lang LBI LL LLL Loc LSAWS LXX m

G. Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik historical Handkommentar zum Alten Testament hortatory Hebrew Studies Harvard Semitic Museum Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Hebrew Union College Annual B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax International Critical Commentary idea The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible impersonal imperative indefinite indirect infinitive construct infinitive absolute interjection instruction I/interrogative Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature Library of Ancient Israel London Oriental Series Language in Social Life Series Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Literary Semantics Janua Linguarum Series Critica Janua Linguarum Series Minor Janua Linguarum Series Practica Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics P. A. Joüon, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans. and rev. by T. Muraoka The JPS Torah Commentary Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies jussive Language Library of Biblical Interpretation The Language Library Longman Linguistics Library locative Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic Septuagint meaning

xxiii

xxiv Mat MC mc Mg Mn Mod MSU N Nar NDBT neg NICOT NIDOTTE Nuc Ø O OBO OBS OBT Or Ord orig. OSCS OTL OtSt p. P Par Part pass pers Ph Pred Prep Pro prop Ptc R RB Re rel Rep Sp S s. SALL Salm Sam.

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE matrix matrix clause marked constituent marginals / satellites manner, means modifier Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens nominal, noun narrative T. D. Alexander, B. S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and G. Goldsworthy, eds., New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity and Diversity of Scripture negative New International Commentary on the Old Testament Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis nucleus zero, null, asyndeton object, accusative Orbis biblicus et orientalis The Oxford Bible Series Overtures to Biblical Theology Orientalia order original Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën person predicate, predicator, clause predicator, progression parenesis, parenetic particle passive personal phrase predictive preposition pronoun proper participle response Revue biblique relator relative reported speech subject, series singular Studies in Arabic Language and Literature Salmanticensis Samaritan Pentateuch

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS SBG SBLMS SBLSS SBT SBTS Sent(s) Sit SLCS SIL Sp SR SS SSN Sub Suf Syr. TB Tg(s). Them TLL TLSM TOTC TSL TLZ trans. TynBul Txt V V_/V[x] _V/[x]V Vg. voc VT VTSup WBC WMANT WTJ ZAW

xxv

Studies in Biblical Greek Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies Studies in Biblical Theology Sources for Biblical and Theological Study sentence(s) situation Studies in Language Companion Series Summer Institute of Linguistics speaker, speech Studies in Religion Syntax and Semantics Studia Semitica Neerlandica subordinate suffix Syriac Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert targum(s) Themelios Topics in Language and Linguistics Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Typological Studies in Language Theologische Literaturzeitung transitive Tyndale Bulletin text verb, predicate non-copular verbal clause (predicate first) non-copular verbal clause (predicate preposed) Vulgate vocative Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

PART 1

1 INTRODUCTION Hear, O Israel: Our God is Yahweh, Yahweh alone! And you shall love Yahweh your God with all of your heart, and with all of your being, and with all of your substance. ––Moses (Deut 6:4–5)

Every biblical appeal assumes that language works. Biblical authors craft messages that they intend their audiences to understand … and to heed. Language is a treasure. From the biblical perspective, Israel’s ability to communicate with God and his willingness to reveal himself by word and deed in a way understandable to her set Israel apart from all the peoples of the world (Deut 4:7–8, 33–35).1 God’s revelation in language provided the means for sustained, satisfied covenant relationship (Deut 8:3; 30:14–15; cf. Matt 4:4; Rom 10:8). It is also through language that the ancient word is able to reach into the modern world, bidding every new generation of every nation to enjoy a relationship with its Creator (Deut 4:9; 6:6, 24; cf. Gen 18:19; Ps 78:5–8; Rom 10:14–17). God’s will is revealed and relationship with him and one another is maintained through language. From the biblical perspective, therefore, an understanding of language is essential to life, and a linguistic study into the literary structure and message of a passage like Deuteronomy 5–11 is both warranted and appropriate. Every language has its own system for communicating effectively. Word order, verb form, the presence or absence of an explicit subject, and other similar linguistic features are all “controlled” by the syntactical rules that govern a language. When a speaker violates these grammatical constraints, a rhetorical shift is marked or communication breaks down. For example, English rules governing pronoun use allow the report, “Teresa went to the chapel,” to be followed by the statement, “There she read the Bible.” The context makes clear that “Teresa” is the antecedent of the 3rd f.s. pronoun “she,” so there is no need to repeat her name in the second 1Compare the aimless, hopeless desperation expressed in the Old Babylonian “Prayer to Every God” (J. B. Pritchard, ed., ANET, 3rd ed. with Supp. [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969], 391–92).

1

2

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

clause. However, if the first clause included another subject (“Teresa and Janie went to the chapel”), and if the speaker wanted to stress in the second clause that Teresa alone read the Scriptures, the communicative constraints of the language require that the speaker make the subject of the second clause explicit: “Teresa and Janie went to the chapel. There Teresa read the Bible.” Use of the 3rd f.s. pronoun in this instance would have made the pronominal antecedent unclear, thus impeding intelligible interchange. Like English, biblical Hebrew [BH] has a grammar that enables clear communication. And as with the above example, a number of features in this system extend beyond the level of the clause or sentence to larger units of text. Known variously as textlinguistics, text grammar, discourse analysis, or macrosyntactical analysis, the study of grammar above the clause level is a fairly recent phenomenon in the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible––a fact that leaves the field wide open for further research.2 This investigation 2Terminology in this relatively new area of inquiry is somewhat fluid (cf. C. H. J. van der Merwe, “A Critical Analysis of Narrative Syntactic Approaches, with Special Attention to Their Relationship to Discourse Analysis,” in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996, ed. E. van Wolde, BIS 29 [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 134–35). This study uses the terms textlinguistics and discourse analysis interchangeably for the field related to or the study of grammar above the clause level. The object of textlinguistic investigation––i.e., the grammar of texts––is known variously as macrosyntax, narrative syntax, supra-sentence syntax, text grammar, or discourse grammar. All of these terms other than narrative syntax will be used interchangeably in this study. Text grammar encompasses all other branches of grammar but focuses specifically on how the small structures relate to form the larger units of text. The various branches of grammar relating as follows: the smallest meaningful and recurring unit of grammar is called a morpheme, and the study of how morphemes structure or form into words is called morphology; microsyntax relates to how these words combine to form phrases, clauses, and sentences, and macrosyntax deals with the rules governing the combination of clauses into sentences and meaningful texts (cf. D. Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics, 5th ed., The Language Library (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), 141, 300–302, 451; B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], §3.3; for more on the difficulty of defining “syntax,” see W. R. Bodine, “How Linguists Study Syntax,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. W. R. Bodine [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992], 90–93). I speak of “meaningful texts” in order to stress that syntax is an instrument of human communication. The process of communication is carried by linguistic forms, and the description of these forms at any level is syntax (cf. E. Talstra, “Text Grammar and Biblical Hebrew: The Viewpoint of Wolfgang Schneider,” JOTT 5 [1992]: 269). This investigation attempts to move from form to semantic meaning to discourse function and not vice versa. For a helpful argument in favor of a linguistic

INTRODUCTION

3

will analyze the macrosyntax of Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32, clarify the nature of the various text types in both the narrative and reported speech, and show the role of features like clause connectors (w, rRvSa, etc.), clause class (e.g., verbal or nominal), verb form, participant reference, and lexical selection in determining the internal structure and message of the first half of Moses’ second Deuteronomic address.

TERMINOLOGY AND MOSAIC ATTRIBUTION Linguists traditionally apply the term “discourse” more broadly than is customary in popular American English, for rather than meaning “conversation” or “dialogue” it refers to any “continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a sentence.”3 When dealing with written material, discourse is equivalent to “text,” and in this study the two terms are used interchangeably.4 At the most general level, prose texts are broken down into “narrative” and “reported direct speech.” Narrative designates the first layer of perspective recorded in a text, the unmediated material that flows directly from the narrator or editor. On the other hand, reported direct speech–– here referred to only as “reported speech,” refers to the various other layers of perspective in a text, all of which are mediated. Reported speech is also known as “direct discourse” and may be external (i.e., verbalized) or internal (i.e., unverbalized). All units of texts are made up of clauses, sentences, and often paragraphs that “exhibit consistent tendencies in internal development” that can approach to discourse analysis in Hebrew studies (as opposed to psycho-social, anthropological, or cognitive approaches), see K. E. Lowery, “The Theoretical Foundations of Hebrew Discourse Grammar,” in Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers, ed. W. R. Bodine, SBLSS (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 103–30. 3Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics, 141. 4W. R. Bodine defines “text” as “any set of sentences which are so related that the interpretation of some of their elements is dependent on that of others” (“Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers,” in Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers, ed. W. R. Bodine, SBLSS (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995], 2 n. 4). Such “interpretation” is often formally grounded in the language itself, for as was noted by one of the German fathers of textlinguistics, every text exhibits “a logical (i.e. intelligible and consistent) sequence of linguistic signs, placed between two significant breaks in communication” (H. Weinrich, Tempus. Le funzioni dei tempi nel testo [Bologna, 1978], 11, as rendered by A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, trans. W. G. E. Watson, JSOTSup 86 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1990], 56).

4

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

be described linguistically by principles like coherence and cohesion. 5 “Coherence” relates to a text’s underlying functional connectedness or deep structure, whereas “cohesion” points to the syntactic or semantic connectedness of linguistic forms at a surface-structure level.6 The present study will analyze Deuteronomy 5–11 from these various perspectives. In the pages that follow, the study will regularly refer to the sermons of Deuteronomy as Moses’ speech and to Moses’ voice as primary in the text. While it seems likely to this author that the majority of the content and even the final shape of the Pentateuch have an early provenance, the appropriation of standard biblical Hebrew throughout suggests grammatical and lexical updating in a later period.7 This stated, it is also clear that the narrator of the book intended his audience to view the hortatory addresses as authentically Mosaic. Indeed, Moses’ voice is portrayed as primary throughout the work,8 and the sermon that begins in 5:1 is directly attributed to the prophet: “And Moses called to all Israel and said to them ….”9 5D. A. Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, JSOTSup 177 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 21; Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics, 461–62; cf. R. A. de Beaugrande and W. U. Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics, LLL 26 (London: Longman, 1981), 3–11; M. A. K. Halliday, “How Is a Text Like a Clause?” in Text Processing: Text Analysis and Generation––Text Typology and Attribution. Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 51, ed. S. Allén (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1982), 209–47. On the relationship of text-clause borders, see U. Teleman, “Clauses, Texts and Complex Acts: Discussion of Michael A. K. Halliday’s Paper ‘How Is a Text Like a Clause?” in Text Processing: Text Analysis and Generation––Text Typology and Attribution. Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 51, ed. S. Allén (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1982), 261–66. 6Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics, 81. 7R. S. Hess, “Language of the Pentateuch,” in DOTP, ed. T. D. Alexander and D. W. Baker (Dowers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 494; cf. K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 304–306. 8Cf. R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Pt. 1: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980), 25–29. 9As was cogently argued by S. Lasine, it is very unlikely in a work so highly concerned with “the ability of false leaders to make the people accept lies as truths, dead images as divinities, and smooth words as facts,” that the Scriptures would attempt to mask fictionality, for this would result in falsehood, the very thing against which the text warns (“Fiction, Falsehood, and Reality in Hebrew Scripture,” HS 25 [1984]: 29). Lasine continues (31), “A written torah which is to maintain its reality and relevance must find a way to resist falsification and ‘mishandling.’” The point of these statements is to stress that the text treats the deuteronomic speeches as coming from the authentic Moses; any sense of pretense is countered by the nature and content of the message.

INTRODUCTION

5

As such, although debate exists regarding both the origin of the original data and the period at which those data were drawn together, because the text of Deuteronomy as it comes to us attributes the body of the book to Moses, it is natural in a study like this one, which is devoted to uncovering the textual message of the final form, to follow the lead of the text and to refer to Moses as the primary speaker.

THESIS AND OVERVIEW Specifically, this inquiry will show that careful attention to text grammar in Deuteronomy 5–11 increases the degree of objectivity involved in establishing the received text’s structure and agenda. Following the introduction, the rest of Part 1 summarizes the theory (chap. 2) and methodology (chap. 3) employed in the body of the study. Part 2 then begins with an extended examination of the form, semantic meaning, and discourse function of connectors, main line and off line clause types, pronominal antecedent reference, and lexical structuring markers in Deuteronomy 5–11 (chap. 4).10 The study then applies these features in a structural and theological overview of the corpus (chap. 5). It highlights how formal markers signal text hierarchy and inter-textual relationships, and it shows how textlinguistics helps trace the flow of thought in discourse. A conclusion then surveys the study as a whole, summarizes a number of the key contributions the work makes to both textlinguistic analysis and the interpretation of Deuteronomy, and proposes pathways for future analysis.

HISTORY OF RESEARCH The textlinguistic approach employed here requires analyzing the biblical documents in the form they come to us, an approach that is grounded on 10This

study employs the following descriptive terms for the various verbal forms: qatal = “suffix conjugation” w#qatal = “wa + suffix conjugation” yiqtol = “prefix conjugation” w#yiqtol = “wa + prefix conjugation” wayyiqtol = “wa + function word + short preterite prefix conjugation” Imv = “imperative” Juss = “jussive, short prefix conjugation” InfA = “free, uninflected verb form” or “infinitive absolute” Inf = “infinitive construct” Ptc = “participle”

6

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

the assumption that the final redactors / compositors compiled and wrote the biblical materials with purpose and structure and in a manner consistent with the communicative linguistic standards of the day.11 Significantly, final form literary analysis is a relatively recent phenomenon in the modern study of Bible. For a century and a half the field was preoccupied by attempts to uncover a composition’s sources, origins of ideas, and historical development. Indeed, while not recognized by some, interpretive methods that engage the text as it stands are to some extent theoretically at odds with the working hypothesis of traditional source criticism, which depends in large measure on the inconsistencies of the received material.12 In Europe as early 11Niccacci

comments (The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, 13–14):

I have accepted the biblical texts as they are without resorting to literary criticism.... It is, in any case, a duty to presume that even the various kinds of “glosses” or inserts also follow the rules of grammar and syntax. I think it injudicious to adopt the principle which unfortunately so many scholars follow that so-called “difficulties” or “mistakes” of grammar and syntax are indications of later reworking. In effect this would mean that the writers of such glosses either did not know the language or at the least were inept. I wish to reiterate here a caution against the danger of making syntax as arbitrary as literary criticism.... I prefer to follow this method closely rather than “correct” the texts using ‘rules’ even if difficult cases remain which require further study. 12R. N. Whybray writes (The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study, JSOTSup 53 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987], 49):

The identification and reconstruction of the [original] documents were based on the assumption that each document was consistent with itself, in language, style and theology or point of view. Without this concept of consistency the hypothesis would fall to the ground. Yet the hypothesis depends, equally, on the concept of the inconsistency apparent in the larger works which are supposed to be the work of the redactors: that is to say, the actual distinction made by the critics between one passage or phrase and another as having originally belonged to different documents is made on the basis of the redactor’s having left two conflicting passages or phrases side by side with no attempt to conceal their incompatibility. Thus the hypothesis can only be maintained on the assumption that, while consistency was the hallmark of the various documents, inconsistency was the hallmark of the redactors.

The present inquiry in no way discourages diachronic analysis. However, it does recognize the speculative nature of such endeavors and emphasizes that synchronic analysis must take procedural priority in interpretation, so that the linguistic (i.e., grammatical and lexical) and rhetorical patterns of the text––which provide the only secure base for any interpretive method––may be evaluated on their own terms and so that the unity and message of the final form is not lost. On the procedural priority of synchronic analysis over diachronic analysis, see E. Talstra, “Deuteronomy 9 and 10: Synchronic and Diachronic Observations,” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis, ed. J. C. de Moor, OtSt 34 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 187–210; cf. P. E. Dion, “Deutéronome 21,1–9: Miroir du

INTRODUCTION

7

as 1938, G. von Rad spoke not only of the “dead end” of traditional source criticism and the growing unrest with form analysis but also of the negative impact traditional literary criticism had on the interpretation of a text’s final form: Indeed, even those who are fully prepared to recognise that it was both necessary and important to traverse these [source- and form-critical] paths cannot ignore the profoundly disintegrating effect which has been one result of this method of hexateuchal criticism. On almost all sides the final form of the Hexateuch has come to be regarded as a startingpoint barely worthy of discussion, from which the debate should move away as rapidly as possible in order to reach the real problems underlying it.13

Von Rad acknowledged that many young scholars were unsatisfied with the state of the field. However, it was only in the 1960s that a paradigm shift began clearly to be seen in European and American biblical studies.14 dévelopment légal et religieux d’Israël,” SR 11 (1982): 13–22; W. S. Morrow, Scribing the Center: Organization and Redaction in Deuteronomy 14:1–17:13, SBLMS 49 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 6–8; A. Niccacci, “Workshop: Narrative Syntax of Exodus 19–24,” in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996, ed. E. van Wolde (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 225–28. The works by Talstra, Morrow, and Niccacci show a marked appreciation for issues of text grammar. Note also the insightful words of R. W. L. Moberly: “Critical conjectures that depend on reading between the lines are always more persuasive if combined with a cogent reading of the lines themselves” (The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism, OBT [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 85 n. 4). While not textlinguistic investigations, R. Rendtorff’s The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch, trans. J. J. Scullion, JSOTSup 89 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990) and D. A. Garrett’s Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991; reprint, Fearn, UK: Christian Focus, 2000) are good examples of Pentateuchal studies outside of Deuteronomy that seek first to stress both the coherence and cohesion of the biblical materials and then use this information to evaluate the compositional history of the text. 13G. von Rad, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, collected by G. von Rad, trans. E. W. T. Dicken (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1966), 1; orig. German, 1938). 14For helpful surveys of the historical development of Pentateuchal scholarship in the last half century, cf. J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1–30; R. Rendtorff, “The Paradigm is Changing: Hopes––and Fears,” BI 1 (1993): 34–53; reprinted in Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite History, ed. V. P. Long, SBTS 7 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999); idem, “Directions in Pentateuchal Studies,”

8

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

While there were earlier signs of the transition in Europe (see below), J. Muilenberg’s 1968 presidential address to the Society of Biblical Literature provided the impetus for a new generation of American scholarship: Persistent and painstaking attention to the modes of Hebrew literary composition will reveal that the pericopes exhibit linguistic patterns, word formations ordered or arranged in particular ways, verbal sequences which move in fixed structures from beginning to end. It is clear that they have been skillfully wrought in many different ways, often with consummate skill and artistry. It is also apparent that they have been influenced by conventional rhetorical practices. This inevitably poses a question for which I have no answer. From whom did the poets and prophets of Israel acquire their styles and literary habits?15

From this time forward, American scholars began to cross disciplines, utilizing fields like anthropology, psychology, sociology, narrative and rhetorical criticism, and linguistics in their study of the Old Testament [OT]. As new questions were asked, new discoveries were made, and a new era of biblical studies was born.16 With specific reference to the study of Deuteronomy, D. L. Christensen has proposed four distinct periods in the history of modern interpretation, the last stage of which is clearly a result of the shift away from textual excavation to reading the text in its present shape.17 The first CurBS 5 (1997): 43–65; G. J. Wenham, “Pentateuchal Studies Today,” Them 22 (1996–97): 3–13; idem, “Pondering the Pentateuch: The Search for a New Paradigm,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, ed. D. W. Baker and B. T. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Baker / Leicester: Apollos, 1999), 116–44. 15J. Muilenberg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 18; reprinted in Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism, ed. P. R. House, SBTS 2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992). 16For a helpful survey of the history of modern literary criticism from the late 1960s through the early 1990s, see P. R. House, “The Rise and Current Status of Literary Criticism of the Old Testament,” in Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism, ed. P. R. House, SBTS 2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 3–22. For an introduction to the discipline of textlinguistics, see Bodine, “Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature,” 1–18; C. H. J. van der Merwe, “An Overview of Hebrew Narrative Syntax” and “A Critical Analysis of Narrative Syntactic Approaches, with Special Attention to Their Relationship to Discourse Analysis,” in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996, ed. E. van Wolde, BIS 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1–20, 133–56. 17D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, rev. ed., WBC 6a (Nashville: Thomas

INTRODUCTION

9

period stretched from 1805 to 1894 and began with the landmark dissertation of W. M. L. de Wette, which provided the “sure footing” upon which 19th century higher criticism in general and J. Wellhausen’s work in particular were built.18 The second stage ran from 1894 to 1943 and was triggered by the redactional-critical studies of C. Steuernagel and W. Staerk, who argued that the frequent switch in Deuteronomy between second singular and plural forms (the Numeruswechsel) marked distinct redactional layers.19 The publication of M. Noth’s theory of the relationship between Deuteronomy and the so-called deuteronomistic history (Joshua–Kings) initiated phase three,20 which stretched from 1943–1963. In contrast to Steuernagel who postulated that the first three chapters of the book prefaced one of Deuteronomy’s many parallel editions, Noth argued chapters 1–3(4)21 introduced not Deuteronomy but the deuteronomistic Nelson, 2001), xxxvii, lxviii–lxx. 18W. M. L. de Wette, Dissertatio critico-exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi libris diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur (Jena, 1805). J. Wellhausen calls de Wette “the epoch making pioneer of historical criticism in this field [of OT studies]” (Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, trans. Black and Menzies [Cleveland: World, 1957; orig. ET: 1885], 4). 19C. Steuernagel, Der Rahmen des Deuteronomiums: Literarcritische Untersuchung über seine Zusammensetzung und Entstehung (Halle: J. Krause, 1894); idem, Die Entstehung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes (Halle: J. Krause, 1896); idem, Das Deuteronomium, HAT 1.3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898; 2nd ed., 1923); idem, Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua und allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch, HKAT 1.3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900; 2nd ed., 1923); W. Staerk, Beiträge zur Kritik des Deuteronomiums (Leipzig: Pries, 1894); idem, Das Deuteronomium: Sein Inhalt und seine literarische Form: Eine kritische Studie (Leipzig: Hinrich, 1894). 20M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, trans. D. Orton, JSOTSup 15 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981; orig. German, 1957). 21In Noth’s view, while Deut 1:1–4:43 relates not to the Deuteronomic law but to the deuteronomistic history (ibid., 13), 4:1–43 are also to be distinguished from chaps. 1–3. Specifically, Deut 4:1–40 “has from the start a different tone and its subject matter distinguishes it from Deut. 1–3” (ibid., 104 n. 4). He continues (33): Once the retrospective summary [in Deuteronomy 1–3] of those events of the Mosaic period important to D[eu]t[e]r[onmistic historian]’s history is at an end, and it is time to proclaim the law, the speech develops into a general introduction to the law (Deut. 4:1–40). Since the law as Dtr. knew it already had a long admonitory introduction [i.e., Deuteronomy 5–11], this transitional passage was certainly not required by the context and, indeed, it is questionable whether Deut. 4:1–40 is to be attributed to Dtr. or seen as a later addition. The section Deut. 4:1–40 lacks inner unity. It is easy to see that the parts with a singular addressee are by a secondary hand but even in the remainder, all is not clear.

As for 4:41–43, Noth argues that it is a post-Deuteronomistic addition (104 n. 4).

10

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

history and that the singular addresses of the original body of the book (introductory speech: 4:44–11:32; legislative core: 12:1–30:20) provided the “first large-scale complex of traditions” incorporated into the new history. 22 The fourth period includes the present day and was initiated by the 1963 publication of N. Lohfink’s Pontifical Biblical Institute doctoral dissertation, which provided a “stylistic” analysis of the received text of Deuteronomy 5–11.23 What follows is a survey of phase four research in Deuteronomy 5–11 with specific reference to major monographs and essays that at some level prioritize synchronic analysis.24 N. Lohfink As noted, the publication in 1963 of Lohfink’s doctoral dissertation marked a turning point in Deuteronomy studies toward a final form approach. With 22Ibid.,

12–17, quote from 17. On the Numeruswechsel, see 16. For a discussion of the Deuteronomistic elements in the received text of Deuteronomy, see 26–35. For a brief but helpful critique based on content of Noth’s hypothesis regarding the relationship of Deut 1–3(4) to the rest of the book and the Tetrateuch, see B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London: SCM, 1979), 213–17. 23N. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5–11, AnBib 20 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963). 24I have restrained myself at this point in the chapter from formally surveying all Deuteronomy commentaries. For a more detailed discussion of the history of Deuteronomic scholarship up to 1963, though without comment on the programmatic work of M. Noth, see Lohfink, Das Hauptegebot, 18–47. Lohfink surveys the contributions of W. M. L. de Wette, P. Kleinert, J. Wellhausen, S. R. Driver, C. Steuernagel, A. Klostermann, A. Bentzen, A. C. Welch, and G. von Rad. A number of studies in Deut 5–11 published since 1963 are not evaluated here, because their focus is solely diachronic in nature––e.g., T. E. Ranck, “The Relationship between the So-Called Paranetic [sic] Passages (chaps. 5–11) and the Legal Corpus (chaps.s 12–26) of the Book of Deuteronomy” (Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1969); R. P. Merendino, “Zu Dt V–VI: Eine Klärung,” VT 31 (1981): 80–83; B. Peckham, “The Composition of Deuteronomy 5–11,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, Festschrift for D. N. Freedman, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor, ASOR: Special Volume Series 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 217–240; C. Brekelmans, “Deuteronomy 5: Its Place and Function,” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, ed. N. Lohfink, BETL 68 (Leuven: University Press, 1985), 164–73; J. M. Vermeylen, “The Sections Narratives du Deut 5–11 et Leur Relation à Ex 19– 34,” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, ed. N. Lohfink, BETL 68 (Leuven: University Press, 1985), 174–207; R. Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheißung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu Deuteronomium 5–11, Europäische Hochschulschriften, Series 23: Theologie, Vol. 422 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1991).

INTRODUCTION

11

traditional redaction and form criticism, he combined an early form of discourse analysis known in Europe as the “New Stylistics” (Neuen Stilistik), the goal of which was to investigate the formal properties and artistic design of the received material.25 Part of the impetus and guide for Lohfink’s approach came from K. Baltzer’s recent conclusion that the whole of Deuternonomy 5–11 had at its heart a “covenant form” (Bundesformular) deriving from ancient Near Eastern treaty practice.26 With this, Lohfink believed Deuteronomy 5–11 contained the most typical “Deuteronomic style,” and he saw its parenesis as the core material from which derived the “law code” (12:1–26:15), the “covenant obligation” (26:16–19), and the “blessing and curse” (28:1–68).27 Deuteronomy 5–11 provides the interpretive context for what Jesus termed “the greatest commandment” (Deut 6:4–9), so Lohfink gave the entire section the title Das Hauptgebot (“the Principle Law”). Despite the apparent diversity in surface form (e.g., the Numeruswechsel and the switch between “parenesis” and “narrative”), Lohfink’s meticulous examination of words, expressions, themes, speech formulas, and the “covenant form” often led him to argue for unity in the textual composition where Steuernagel and Staerk at the end of the 19th century and G. Minette de Tillesse and others in the second half of the 20th century posited redactional layering.28 Specifically, Lohfink suggested that the Numeruswechsel 25For a traditio-historical investigation of Judges from the same time that also drew on the “New Stylistics” school, see W. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963). 26K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary in OT, Jewish and Early Christian Writings, trans. D. Green (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971); orig. German, 2nd ed., 1964). At the same time in America, M. G. Kline published two articles that argued for the treaty-form of Deuteronomy as a whole: “Two Tables of the Covenant,” WTJ 22 (1960): 133–46; “Dynastic Covenant,” WTJ 23 (1960): 1–15. In 1962, he then published a short commentary on Deuteronomy (in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary [Chicago: Moody]), within which he detailed his understanding of the overarching unity and treaty-form of the book. These three works were then revised and collected in his Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963). 27Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 6–7. In view of the structural and vocabulary parallels, Lohfink posited three of the key treaty elements in Deut 5–11: historical prologue, general regulations, and sanctions (108–12). 28G. Minnette de Tillesse, “Section ‘tu’ et sections ‘vous’ dans le Deutéronome” VT 12 (1962): 29–87; cf. S. Mittman, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3: literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BZAW 139 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975); H. Cazelles, “Passages in the Singular within Discourse in the Plural of Dt 1–4,” CBQ 29 (1967):

12

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

signaled not distinct sources but different forms of address––singular in parenesis and plural in narrative––and that the alteration was designed to stimulate the listener’s attention.29 But while Deuteronomy 5–11 is unified 207–19; D. Knapp, Deuteronomium 4: Literarische Analysen und theolgische Interpretation, GTA 35 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987). In the forword to his published study (Das Hauptgebot, vii), Lohfink notes it was in the short time between his graduation and the publication of the dissertation that Minnette de Tillesse’s article appeared. Such a “revival” of Steuernagel’s approach was “not calculated” when he originally crafted his dissertation, and it caused him to revise with more detailed treatment his discussion of the question of the Numeruswechsel as a criterion for source delineation. He regrets not having the time, however, to interact directly with Minnette de Tillesse’s argument. Working on Deut 4, Lohfink’s student G. Braulik confronted Minnette de Tillesse’s work directly and argued that the varied number represents nothing more than stylistic variation (Die Mittel deuteronomischer Rhetorik: Erhoben aus Deuteronomium 4,1–40, AnBib 68 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978]). 29Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 244–51. Significantly, as noted by D. J. McCarthy in a review of Lohfink’s work, “whole sections usually thought to be parenesis are plural”––a point that does not necessarily call Lohfink’s conclusions into question but does point to “the need for an investigation of the variations of pronouns in the OT in general––indeed, in ancient literature as a whole––and not merely on the narrow ground of Dt.” (review of Das Hauptgebot, by N. Lohfink [CBQ 26 (1964): 373]). More recently, J. G. McConville has wrestled with the Numeruswechsel in the light of pronoun usage in ancient Near Eastern law codes and treaties and argues that in Deuteronomy the singular emphasizes Israel’s corporate responsibility for the administration of Torah and the plural stresses their individual responsibility to keep the covenant (“Singular Address in the Deuteronomic Law and the Politics of Legal Administration,” JSOT 97 [2002]: 19–36; cf. J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy, AOTC 5 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 38; F. Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law, trans. A. W. Mahnke [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 220). Building off the controversial work by G. Braulik (Die Mittel deuteronomischer Rhetorik: Erhoben aus Deuteronomium 4,1–40, AnBib 68 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978]), A. D. H. Mayes argues that the Numeruswechsel are merely stylistic variations and in no way point to redactional layers (“Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy,” JBL 100 [1981]: 23–51; reprinted in A Song of Power and the Power of Song, ed. D. L. Christensen, SBTS 3 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993]; cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, AB [New York: Doubleday, 1990], 15–16). D. L. Christensen, also building off Braulik, argues for the unity of Deuteronomy by suggesting the Numeruswechsel are grounded in the book’s metrical structure (“The Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy 12,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, ed. D. L. Christensen, SBTS 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993], 394–402; reprint, from Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A: The Period of

INTRODUCTION

13

in its current state, Lohfink posited two principal editions of the section, the primary “author” (Verfasser) writing/compiling the covenant materials associated with the Decalogue (5:1–6:25, 9:9–11:17), and the “reviser” (Überarbeiter) adding his version of the Gilgal-tradition (7:1–5, 13–16, 20, 22–24), his reinterpretation of chapter 6 (= chap. 8), and some other materials including a conclusion (9:1–8, 22–24; 11:18–25) that resulted in the present unity of Deuteronomy 5–11.30 Lohfink’s study signaled the first attempt in modern scholarship to examine the form of Deuteronomy as it comes to us. But the move to go “beyond form criticism” in no way swept the scholarly world, and biblicists continued to produce diachronic studies that interacted little with synchronic literary evaluation.31 Nevertheless, a number of Deuteronomy scholars did apply new methods, though often retaining the older guiding presuppositions. G. Seitz One such scholar was G. Seitz, whose doctoral dissertation was published in 1971 under the title, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium. 32 Seitz applies to the entire book of Deuteronomy a mixture of old school redaction criticism with contemporary stylistic analysis. The result is an artful presentation of numerous parts with no attempt to interrelate them into a whole. Seitz posited three main stages of redactional activity and focused his analytical efforts only on the first two: (1) the deuteronomic collector, (2) the deuteronomic reworking, and (3) the deuteronomistic reworking. While the body of Seitz’s work focuses on Deuteronomy 12–26, a couple features are noteworthy regarding his handling of our corpus. First, he posits two systems of superscriptions: 4:45, 6:1, and 12:1 are older and linked to the deuteronomic redaction, whereas 1:1, 4:44, 28:69, and 33:1 are younger and connected with the deuteronomistic reworking.33 Second, he the Bible [Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986]; cf. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, xcix–ci). 30See Das Hauptgebot, 289–91, for Lohfink’s detailed development of the Deuteronomic traditions in chaps. 5–11. 31Cf. n. 19 for a list of recent works that only perform diachronic analysis on Deut 5–11. 32G. Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium, BWANT 93 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971. 33Ibid., 23–44.

14

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

separates Deuteronomy 5–11 into pre-deuteronomic, deuteronomic, and deuteronmistic material, and each grouping is dealt with independently.34 Seitz’s approach to distinguishing redactional layers is guided principally by similarities in style and vocabulary. Especially at transitional points in the text groupings, he proposes a number of complex chiasms, which support the literary artistry of the biblical materials. But he makes little attempt to wrestle with either the ordering of the text units or the textual message at any stage of his hypothetical reconstruction of the text’s growth. No account is given for the cohesive and coherent nature of the text as it comes to us.35 F. García López Building off his 1977 doctoral dissertation at the Pontifical Biblical Institute,36 F. García López published a series of articles wrestling with the style, literary structure, and redactional history of Deuteronomy 5–11.37 The first of these, titled “Analyse littéraire de Deutéronome, V–XI,” was programmatic for his literary approach, which he performed in order to determine the level of compositional unity in the chapters.38 Like Lohfink, he analyzed key terms, forms and literary patterns in order to evaluate the organization and character of the text. And with Lohfink, he generally affirmed a distinction based on the Numeruswechsel between parenetic and narrative materials in Deuteronomy 5–11. But in contrast to Lohfink, who 34Ibid.,

45–91. I was unable to analyze thoroughly the Deuteronomy commentary by M. Rose, it appears to be an extreme example of older redactional approaches still being very alive in German OT studies (cf. 5. Moses, Part 2, 5. Mose 1–11 und 26–24: Rahmenstücke zum Gesetzeskorpus, Zürcher Bibelkommentare AT 5.2 [Zürich: Theologischer, 1994)]. 36F. García López, “Un Dios, un pueblo, una tierra, una ley: Análisis de critica literaria, de la forma y del género, de la composición y redacción de Dt 6,4–9,7; 10,12–11,25” ([diss.], Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1977). 37García López, “Analyse littéraire de Deutéronome V–XI,” RB 84 (1977): 481–522; 85 (1978): 5–49; idem, “Deut., VI et la Tradition-rédaction du Deutéronome,” RB 85 (1978): 161–200; 86 (1979): 59–91; idem, “En los umbrales de la tierra prometida: Análisis de Dt. 9,1–7; 10,12–17,” Salm 28 (1981): 37–64; idem, “Yahvé, fuente ultima de vida: análysis de Dt 8,” Bib 62 (1981): 21–54; idem, “Un peuple consacré: Analyse critique de Deutéronome VII,” VT 32 (1982): 438– 63. 38García López, “Analyse littéraire de Deutéronome, VI–XI,” RB 84 (1977): 481–522; 85 (1978): 5–49; cf. 84 (1977): 482, for the questions García López sought to answer. 35While

INTRODUCTION

15

began by isolating ancient covenant materials, García López first distinguished the proposed parenetic and narrative sections, evaluating each separately––a move that most assuredly influenced his view of Deuteronomy’s compositional growth. He arrived at a number of significant conclusions:39 (1) The traditional distinction between “parenesis” and “history” is insufficient, for the former is firmly grounded in history and the latter often has a legislative substance. With this, parenesis occurs variously as catechesis, hymns, preaching, monologues of modesty or timidity, monologues of arrogance or pride, promises of blessing, and threats of curse. (2) On the basis of style, form, and thematic differences, four distinct units of parenesis are evident, each apparently deriving from a different author. Three of these are composed of singular address and one alternates between singular and plural. (3) The “parenetic” and “historical” sections may be distinguished by both form and content, with the former aligning most closely to Deuteronomy 12–26, 28 and the latter to Deuteronomy 1–3, (4,) 29–34 and the Deuteronomic sections of Joshua– Kings. Each “parenetic” section antedates the “historical” materials and existed independently as a literary corpus. Together they operate as the “primitive” introduction to the legal corpus. (4) Various factors contributed to the organization of Deuteronomy 5–11 as it stands, one of which included the structure of ancient Near Eastern treaties. But the “parenesis” should not be viewed as a commentary on the Decalogue, for the latter may well have been added to reinforce the parenesis. (5) The parallels between Deuteronomy’s historical sections and the Tetrateuch suggest that the former was designed to link with what precedes and not simply to operate as the introduction to the deuteronomistic history. While parallel in many ways to Lohfink’s approach, García López proposed many more layers in Deuteronomy’s compositional history. While the author(s) / editor(s) of Deuteronomy most assuredly drew on a number of sources, no answer regarding the level of Deuteronomy’s compositional unity may be gained when the proposed “parenetic” and “historical” sections are distinguished in the manner followed by García López. As he himself noted, there is a close tie throughout between parenesis and history, and the present study approaches the text in the form it comes to us. F. C. Tiffany Alongside the circulation of Garcia Lópéz’s studies was the 1978 doctoral dissertation by F. C. Tiffany, which attempted to define and clarify the term 39García

López, “Analyse littéraire de Deutéronome,” 85 (1978): 47–49.

16

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

“parenesis” and to provide a form critical and structural analysis of Deuteronomy 5–11 on this basis.40 Tiffany defined parenesis as “a second person, direct address form which appeals to the will of the addressee (individual or community) and whose intention is to urge obedience to or to discourage transgression of an order.”41 It distinguishes itself from an “order,” which is also normally formulated in second person,42 on the basis of textual intention, which is expressed both in content and syntax. 43 Whether by way of command or prohibition, an order is issued to establish a standard of action, setting boundaries of proper conduct within given contexts. Parenesis, on the other hand, focuses not on the action but on the addressee, presupposes the order, and motivates and/or encourages the addressee to comply with that order. Parenesis is expressed either through exhortation, which “encourages and rewards the desired action,” or admonition, which “warns or cautions against improper acts.”44 The two genres, order and parenesis, may be schematically represented as follows: Order Command Prohibition 40F. C. Tiffany, “Parenesis and Deuteronomy 5–11 (Deut. 4:45; 5:2–11:29): A Form Critical Study” (Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1978). 41Ibid., 312; cf. iv, 19–25, 307–13. For Tiffany’s survey and evaluation of earlier approaches to the term “parenesis,” see 3–19. 42For third person command forms, see E. Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft des “Apodiktischen Rechts,” WMANT 20 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965), 66–70, as cited by Tiffany, “Parenesis and Deuteronomy 5–11,” 20 n. 44. 43Tiffany writes (“Parenesis and Deuteronomy 5–11,” 307–8):

Parenesis contains the original order, either in its original form or in a subordinate reformulation. If it occurs in the original form, it is expanded by a motive clause, which encourages the addressee to comply or warns against transgression. That motive clause must be distinguished from an explanatory clause, which explains the order itself. The concern of the latter is not the will of the addressee but the origin or purpose of the order. If the order is reformulated within the parenesis, it is most commonly expressed in one of two ways. First, the order can be recast in an infinitive clause, e.g., twCol rmC. Second, it may occur in a Np–clause, e.g., _Np Kl rmCh. In the latter, a negatively expressed order, that is, a prohibition, is now formulated positively with a warning against doing it.

He further adds that “the syntax of parenesis is such that it focuses attention upon the addressee, rather than upon the action itself” (20; cf. 114–35). Tiffany also affirms W. Richter’s contention that “wisdom” (or parenesis) and “prohibition” (or order) can be distinguished on grammatical grounds (17; cf. W. Richter, Recht und Ethos: Versuch einer Ortung des weisheitlichen Mahnspruches [Munich: Kosel, 1966], 190). 44Tiffany, “Parenesis and Deuteronomy 5–11,” 22.

INTRODUCTION

17

Parenesis Exhortation Admonition

As for what parenesis is not, Tiffany argues against equating parenesis with preaching or with linking it to the setting of the cult, because sermon content is often not directly related to the addressee (e.g., an embedded story) and because there are willful appeals to standards of conduct outside of religious life.45 Similarly, parenesis is not “law,” for the two have different purposes: the former challenges obedience whereas the latter defines what is to be obeyed.46 Finally, parenesis is not merely a stylistic category (contra Lohfink) but is rather a genre of communication, utilized when social circumstances impel a speaker “to encourage compliance with a norm of conduct.”47 While affirming the use of sources, Tiffany focuses on the received text of Deuteronomy 5–11, which he argues bears “a deep concentric structure, demonstrating the inter-relatedness of the various topics and the compositional integrity of the unit.”48 As for the formal nature of the whole, Tiffany contends that although argumentation and parenesis fill the document, they are not the form of the text itself.49 Nor should one view the nature of the text as cultic proclamation or instruction, though it very probably was used for this purpose.50 Instead, it is best regarded as a “memorandum,” designed to remind its readers of “that purported ancient ‘teaching’ by Moses” and to offer “profound insight and direction for the 45Ibid., 3–9, 14. Here Tiffany primarily counters the frequent, though often inconsistent, use of “parenensis” by G. von Rad in his numerous studies on Deuteronomy––cf., e.g.,. von Rad, Das Gottesvolk im Deuteronomium, BWANT 3.11 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929); reprinted in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament II, ed. R. Smend (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1973), 9–108; idem, “Herkunft und Absicht des Deuteronomiums,” TLZ (1947): cols. 151–58; idem, Studies in Deuteronomy, trans. D. Stalker, SBT 9 (London: SCM, 1953); idem, “Ancient Word and Living Word: The Preaching of Deuteronomy and Our Preaching,” trans. L. Gaston, Interpretation 15 (1961): 3–13; idem, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (San Fransisco: Harper & Row, 1962–65), 1:219–31, 2:388–409; idem, “Deuteronomy,” in IDB, ed. G. A. Buttrich (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 1:831–38; idem, Deuteronomy, trans. D. Barton, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966). 46Tiffany, “Parenesis and Deuteronomy,” 9–12, again confronting von Rad. 47Ibid., 14. Cf. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 40, 90–97, 272. 48Tiffany, “Parenesis and Deuteronomy 5–11,” 294. Specifically, Tiffany’s unit includes 4:25 and expands from 5:2–11:29 (cf. 30–40). 49Ibid., 305. 50Ibid.

18

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

present moment in history…. It is the product of a reflective process and is shaped to provide a comprehensive and provocative ‘new’ outlook.”51 The legitimacy of Tiffany’s distinction between order and parenesis is questionable. In Deuteronomy numerous paragraphs show a formal mixing of the two without revealing any real semantic distinctions in their thrust. Chapter 4 presents the data. R. Polzin By the end of the 1970s, OT scholarship was struggling with a theological and hermeneutical crisis, wrestling between diachronic (historical) and synchronic (literary) approaches to the text. R. Polzin’s 1980 work, Moses and the Deuteronomist, attempted to affirm the benefits of each, while stressing the potential of final form literary methods.52 Central to Polzin’s approach is his distinction between reporting and reported speech. The former is the narrator’s first-hand account, while the latter is the speech of others––usually Moses or God––that the narrator records. In Polzin’s view, these two “voices” are in dialogic tension within Deuteronomy, and it is this exchange that provides the hermeneutical key to the interpretation of the book and the deuteronomistic history as a whole. Specifically, the deuteronomistic historian slowly but effectively mounts a theological challenge to the Mosaic tradition, and he does so most directly in Moses’ second Deuteronomic address. Through frame breaks and intrusive comments, the narrator “be51Ibid., 295. Tiffany purports a seventh century context for the creation of Deut 5–11 and writes of the authors and the social situation (301, 303–04):

Such a circle of theologians does not enjoy the prerogative of institutional (political or religious) leadership. They lack the mechanism for direct implementation, at least for such concerns as are proposed here [in Deut 5–11]. Their authority lies not in the power of office, but in the traditions to which they appeal, in the understanding which they demonstrate, and in the persuasion with which they communicate. It is not their function to decree and to enact, rather it is theirs to reflect, to present and to persuade…. Apparently the author of this document felt that Josiah himself could be influenced…. Both Kings (2 Kings 22:11) and Chronicles (2 Chron. 34:19) report that the king repented, marking a change in attitude and action on the part of the king. The author of this memorandum must have sensed that potential and addressed it. This accounts for the preponderance of argumentation, explanation and parenesis within the document itself. The potential and possibility for such a response was evident; therefore, appeal was made in the form of a memorandum concerning words ascribed to Moses, words purportedly spoken at an earlier critical moment of hope and peril in Israel’s history. 52R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History, Pt. 1, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980).

INTRODUCTION

19

gins to program his audience to realize that he is indeed the Moses of his generation.”53 As Polzin asserts: A careful compositional analysis of the phraseological, temporal, and psychological planes of the second address will show in fact that the overt exaltation of Moses and Israel is paradoxically accompanied by a subtle but effective campaign which aims at diminishing their unique roles. We will see how the second address is the central stage in which, as the book develops, one voice progressively gets louder in its portrayal of Moses’ and Israel’s unique divine election, at the same time as another voice, in quiet opposition to the first, is progressively and ever more effectively challenging those statuses. The first voice is a disguised servant of the second.54

In Polzin’s view, the narrator (i.e., the deuteronomist) argues against the Mosaic tradition’s “authoritarian dogmatism,” which stressed unconditional election, the uniqueness of Moses and Israel, and the immutable nature of God’s Word. In contrast, he proffers “critical traditionalism,” which interrelates God’s mercy and justice, retains the possibility for unconditioned mercy given to the patriarchs, and focuses on the need for continual reinterpretation of the divine Word in every generation.55 It is questionable whether the “voices” of Deuteronomy are as conflicting as Polzin suggests. Not only is there very little reporting speech to evaluate, but also the supposed tension between an unconditional Abrahamic covenant and conditional Israelite covenant, a merciful God and a God that demands obedience, seems misdirected.56 Nevertheless, Polzin’s insistence that the narrator bears ultimate power to craft his text is a vitally important contribution to literary analysis. 53Ibid.,

32. 52. Cf. 53–65. 55Ibid., 65–69. 56Cf. B. K. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality within Unconditional Covenants,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. A. Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 123–39; W. J. Dumbrell, “The Prospect of Unconditionality in the Sinaitic Covenant,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. A. Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 141–55; G. N. Knoppers, “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?” JAOS 116 (1996): 670–97; W. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 199, 419–21; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, AB 3b (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 2338–42, 2343–46. 54Ibid.,

20

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

C. Rabin In 1982 essay “Discourse Analysis and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” C. Rabin argued that because Moses’ speeches in Deuteronomy include no extensive and systematic use of parallelism as is found in the prophets of the late monarchy, the book should be dated to the early monarchy and aligned with the “Old Rhetoric” style of figures like Elijah and Elisha. 57 While Rabin’s own analysis shows little direct application of “discourse analysis” as described in this study, his comments reveal a high sensitivity to textlinguistic issues. Rabin defines his task as the “systematic analysis of structures beyond the limits of the sentence, ranging from a paragraph to the integrated study of entire works.” He further notes: The new branch of linguistics, called Discourse Analysis, investigates such features as reference between different parts of the text (Cohesion), distribution of the information into sentences and paragraphs, density of information and quantity of non-informational features, such as emphasis, modality (expression of a speaker’s feeling) and rhetoric, choice of words and grammatical constructions, as well as the ways in which the words are strung together (Collocation). One of its important results is the awareness that texts are of different kinds (Textsorten), largely corresponding to social conventions dictating different varieties of one and the same language to be employed in circumscribed social situations (Registers). The differences, which are culture-bound and thus transcend individual choice, include all the features enumerated, as well as prosodic features (rhythm, rhyme, parallelism, speed) and, in speech, pronunciation––in written texts, punctuation.58

Rabin helpfully recognized that every language places demands on the form a text takes. To a large extent, linguistic features are governed by communicative constraints. Rabin also noted that different text types (e.g., story, exhortation, instruction) will likely utilize distinct grammatical forms. C. J. Labuschagne The 1980s also saw the rise of “logotechnical analysis” through the work of C. J. Labuschagne.59 D. L. Christensen, whose own exegetical method is 57C. Rabin, “Discourse Analysis and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” in Interpreting the Hebrew Bible, Festschrift for E. I. J. Rosenthal, ed. J. A. Emerton and S. C. Reif, UCOP 32 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 171–77. 58Ibid., 173. 59D. L. Christensen (Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, civ) notes that this terminology was used first by the Austrian C. Shedl (Baupläne des Wortes: Einführung in die biblische Logotechnik [Vienna: Herder, 1974]; pp. 30–31 list twenty-two of his earlier articles

INTRODUCTION

21

highly influenced by Labuschagne’s work, notes the three principles that guide this final form-methodology: “(1) the letters of the alphabet have numerical values (gematria); (2) a close relationship exists between counting and writing; and (3) a close relationship exists between the biblical texts and counting.”60 Labuschagne’s conviction is that Deuteronomy is a “numerical composition” wherein certain numbers function as structural markers in the text. Numbers such as 7, 10, 11, 13, 17 and their multiples “function as a technical device for determining the number of words in the text as a whole in its larger units, its pericopes, subsections, verses, sentences and clauses.”61 His approach involves meticulous counting of words and clauses in order to derive compositional and syntactical formulas, which in turn are used to establish the overall structure and function of the discourse.62 Significantly, Laubuschagne’s approach is fully dependent on the Masoretic accent system and does not include any evaluation of linguistic features such as connector type, clause class, or verb form, the key elements evaluated in this study to determine discourse function and structure. and books), whose preliminary work in this area of research provided the foundation upon which C. J. Labuschagne built a structure. For a number of Labuschagne’s works, see the bibliography. 60Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, civ. 61Labuschagne, “Some Significant Composition Techniques in Deuteronomy,” in Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes and Languages in the Near East, J. H. Hospers Feschrfit, ed. H. L. J. Vanstiphout et al. (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1986), 121. The significance of such a stance with reference to Deuteronomy studies cannot be overstated. In Labuschagne’s words (122): There is no doubt concerning the importance of this discovery: it has far-reaching consequences for our insight into the use of the Hebrew language (its grammar and syntax), the structure of the book, the delimitation and structure of its various component parts, the way in which it was composed, more particularly the use made of certain rhetorical techniques. Among such techniques the structural use of numbers is of paramount importance. 62A

step-by-step description of Labuschagne’s logotechnical method is detailed in Scripta Signa Vocis, 122–23. For him, the numerical intricacies of the text are the “hidden things” designed for God’s benefit alone; the plain meaning of the text–– that which is “revealed,” on the other hand, is what is for the benefit of the people (cf. Deut 29:28) (idem, “Divine Speech in Deuteronomy,” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, ed. N. Lohfink, BETL 68 [Leuven: University Press, 1985], 123; reprinted in A Song of Power and the Power of Song, ed. D. L. Christensen, SBTS 3 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993]).

22

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

L. J. de Regt L. J. de Regt’s 1988 doctoral dissertation was largely linguistic in character. He evaluated a number of formal and non-formal grammatical variables (termed “parameters”) in the clauses of Deuteronomy 1–30 in order to gain better insight into the relationship of verb form and function in the Hebrew verbal system.63 Some examples of formally visible parameters are verb form, subject, object, conjunctions, word order; non-formal (i.e., nonvisible) parameters include, among others, clause content and clause type. From the perspective of database construction, de Regt’s work is extremely thorough, including all the key areas evaluated in the present study plus many more.64 He is convinced that “formal and non-formal characteristics of preceding and following clauses (especially the verb forms found in them) influence the choice of the verb form in the clause under consideration.”65 Consequently, he devotes focused study to what he terms the “consecutio temporum,” a series of connections (whether formal or interpreted) between clauses and their verb forms irrespective of sentence boundaries.66 He argues that nearly every clause is related to another clause that usually precedes it, though the relation may not be tied to the clause that immediately precedes it.67 Furthermore, “when a verb form occurs in a clause, this 63L. J. de Regt, A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus, Demonstrated on the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 1–30 and Supplement, 2 vols., SSN (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988). 64See his complete list of “parameters” in A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus, 1: 9–10. His database statistics are catalogued in “one-way frequency tables,” which list the relative frequencies of the various parameters within the corpus, and “two-way frequency tables,” which compare two parameters (with verb form as one of the parameters in most cases). These summaries span ninetyone pages and make up the Supplement (vol. 2). 65Ibid., 1: 50. 66Ibid., 1: 50–61. De Regt writes (1: 50–51):

[The consecutio temporum] is not to be equated to the relations that exist between clauses as such. Rather, it is part of those clause relations. The connections that have been determined with respect to the consecutio temporum depend on the assumption that there are larger groups of clauses in the text than combinations of main and subordinate clauses only…. The consecutio temporum is not only constituted by sequence of tenses in a matrix clause and its subordinate clause(s) but also by the connections between clauses and their verb forms, irrespective of sentence boundaries. The temporal information of an utterance may be influenced by temporal information of another utterance…. Such a relation of a verb form with a previous verb form may exceed sentence boundaries. 67He

states, “Every clause is either connected with a previous one because of the consecutio temporum, or is regarded as the beginning of direct speech within

INTRODUCTION

23

verb form is considered to be foregoer to (the verb form in) the clause which is connected to that clause.”68 De Regt clearly approaches syntax above the sentence level. While his concept of consecutio temporum is difficult to understand, it appears to point to features of text hierarchy and the linking of certain units with others. Negatively, de Regt does not distinguish main line from off line verb forms or clause patterns.69 And in his argument for the overall homogeneity of Deuteronomy 1–30, he does not account for the role of embedding, for distinct text types, or for the possibility that similar grammatical forms may operate differently in various contexts. With text type analysis playing no role in de Regt’s study, his statistical results may be misleading.70 E. Talstra Using Deuteronomy 9–10 as a case study, E. Talstra’s investigates the interrelationship between synchronic and diachronic inquiry and stresses the procedural priority of the former.71 This is so because linguistic (i.e., grammatical and lexical) data alone govern how a text may be read. Evaluation of the biblical traditions must focus first on the received material, using the grammatical, lexical, and rhetorical patterns to discover textual structure and shifts in plot, grammar, and/or lexical use. These data may then be used to provide an objective basis from which to wrestle with the questions of how and when a text was produced. the consecutio temporum, or as starting-point of a new consecutio temporum [e.g., the first clause of a corpus]” (ibid., 1: 75). 68Ibid., 1: 47. 69Ibid., 1: 51–52. Here he counters W. Schneider, who contends that the yiqtol and wayyiqtol are “head-forms” and that all other verbs serve these (GBH, 6th ed. [Munich: Claudius, 1985], 183). De Regt’s only counter argument is found in the function of the infinitive absolute as a finite form in 15:2b and 16:1a, which he asserts is in no way a minor form. 70H. van Dyke Parunak further faults de Regt for failing to argue a thesis and for often misappropriating or abusing statistical analysis (review of A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus, Demonstrated on the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 1–30, by L. J. de Regt, JAOS 111 [1991]: 365–66). 71E. Talstra, “Deuteronomy 9 and 10: Synchronic and Diachronic Observations,” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis, ed. J. C. de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 187–210. All the essays in this volume were were first presented at Kampen in 1994 at the ninth joint meeting of Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgie and The Society for Old Testament Study.

24

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

While Talstra follows E. Aurelius in arguing that “all textual material should be analyzed by the same method without making any distinction of genre in advance,”72 Talstra does distinguish “discursive” from “narrative” speech on the basis of linguistic features (e.g., verb type, clause pattern). 73 Discursive utterances are those related to the speaker and the listener––i.e., that which is “present or actual in the situation of communication” (e.g., in a dialogue, sermon, or prayer). In contrast, narrative expressions are those related to “persons or actions not present or actual in the situation.”74 In view of these descriptions, narrative speech can occur embedded in direct discursive speech, as in Deuteronomy 9:8–22 and 9:25–10:10.75 Of all the studies evaluated, Talstra’s synchronic evaluation is most closely aligned with the method employed here. He attempts to establish text hierarchy, accounting for various levels of embedding and shifts in verb form and clause pattern. However, since he only accounts for two text types, his approach necessitates refinement. CONCLUSION In the last forty years, scholars have applied various literary approaches in the study of Deuteronomy 5–11. Formulaic phrases and themes have been charted, words and clauses have been counted, genres and text types have been clarified, and even clause patterns have been evaluated. None, however, has performed a full textlinguistic analysis of the entire corpus. The present study intends to meet this need. By interrelating the form, semantic meaning, and discourse function of a number of linguistic features evident in our corpus, this study hopes to establish on objective linguistic grounds the literary structure and theological agenda of Deuteronomy 5–11. 72Ibid., 203; cf. E. Aurelius, Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament, ConBOT 27 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988), 28. 73Here Talstra expresses his indebtedness to Schneider, GBH, now in its 8th edition (Munich: Claudius, 1994). Elsewhere Talstra stresses that the distinction between discursive and narrative speech is not one of “genre” but of “syntax” (“Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. I: Elements of a Theory,” BO 35 [1978]: 170). For a very helpful summary and evaluation of Schneider’s approach to discourse grammar, see the article just mentioned (169–74) along with idem, “Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. II: Syntax and Semantics,” BO 39 (1982): 25–38; idem, “Text Grammar and Biblical Hebrew: The Viewpoint of Wolfgang Schneider,” JOTT 5 (1992): 269–97. 74Talstra, “Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. I,” 170. 75Cf. Talstra, “Deuteronomy 9 and 10,” 195, 196–97.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This chapter overviews the theoretical setting from which the following study springs. It will clarify my theoretical foundation and delimit the corpus under consideration. The next chapter will summarize the textlinguistic approach and the organization of Part 2 of this analysis.

LINGUISTIC FOUNDATION This study principally targets OT / HB scholars rather than those formally trained in linguistics.1 Consequently, it describes research results in a way that is comprehensible and beneficial both theoretically and methodologically to this target audience. The presentation usually adopts traditional grammatical terminology and defines unfamiliar linguistic terms. No one theory of language structure currently postulated in modern linguistics grounds this study. Rather, I seek to apply various insights from the different theories when they aid grammatical description. This study proceeds on the conviction that all language is a form– meaning–function composite, so that discourse function is determined by the meaning of certain forms in given contexts.2 In order to provide as 1W. R. Bodine tags most biblical scholars “philologists”––i.e., those who study one (or two) languages and its literature in depth, whereas “linguists” are those who “explore the varied outworking of some specific language phenomenon” in an entire language family or in all the language families of the world (“Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers,” in Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers, ed. W. R. Bodine, SBLSS (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995], 10). I myself am a philologist, having a solid basis in the interpretation of Hebrew language and literature but little formal training in linguistics. Nevertheless, I am convinced that textlinguistics can provide great help in the quest for biblical understanding, and I am committed to making such an approach more intelligible and thus applicable to the broader OT field (cf. D. A. Dawson, Text-linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, JSOTSup 177 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994], 69). 2For an argument that form and meaning must be analyzed together, see K. L. Pike, Linguistic Concepts: An Introduction to Tagememics (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982), 111–17; cf. W. R. Bodine, “How Linguists Study Syntax,” in

25

26

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

objective an approach as possible, the study gives priority to formal over semantic or functional analysis. Only after the inherent formal characteristics are catalogued and distinctions noted are we objectively able to recognize patterns and to wrestle with questions of meaning and discourse function.3 However, because of the syntactic and pragmatic complexities of any language, interpretation cannot rely solely on the text’s formal features.4 On the one hand, B. Comrie is likely correct that most grammatical forms have some meaning apart from their discourse context.5 On the other hand, it is also probable that text type and/or context influence meaning.6 The best approach, therefore, is to begin with form and Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 103. P. T. Nash helpfully notes, “By stating that meaning comes neither from lexicon nor grammar alone but from both in tandem, it reduces the tendency to rely entirely on one or the other to provide primary meaning in a real language environment and urges us to hold the elements of language in tension when making evaluations on meaning” (“The Hebrew Qal Active Participle: A Non-Aspectual Narrative Backgrounding Element” [Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1992], 139–40). 3This attempt has been influenced by the work of J. Hoftijzer, whose own approach to the nominal clause stressed form before function (“The Nominal Clause Reconsidered,” VT 23 [1973]: 477): In the study of languages of which we cannot get a real degree of competence, as we can have with modern languages, the safest way is to start with formal criteria and with formal oppositions. For in such a case it is easier to get a reasonable grip on these phenomena than on functional, semantic and other ones…. In dividing clauses I also want to do this on formal criteria and in giving names to the different groups I want to avoid those which could even be explained in a functional way.

He further notes that “an analytical approach will be given little chance, unless the emphasis lies on the formal side” (453). 4J. W. Dyk and E. Talstra observe that an approach that relies solely on form ultimately results in data that “are more ideal than the actual facts, due to the complexity of many of the syntactic possibilities” (“Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Features in Identifying Subject and Predicate in Nominal Clauses,” in The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, ed. C. L. Miller, LSAWS 1 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999], 134). 5B. Comrie, “Tense and Time Reference: From Meaning to Interpretation in the Chronological Structure of a Text,” JLS 15 (1986): 21; cf. B. Comrie, Tense, CTL (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 29. 6S. Fleischman argues, “The pragmatic functions of tense-aspect categories in narrative are not arbitrary; rather, I see them as motivated extensions of the meanings of those categories, extensions that, according to the view of grammar as ‘emergent’ ([P. J.] Hopper [“Emergent Grammar,” in Berkeley Linguistic Society, vol. 13, ed. J. Aske et al., 139–57] 1987) may ultimately contribute to a reshaping of the basic meanings” (Tense and Narrativity [Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990], 23).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

27

meaning and then to examine function, recognizing that similar forms may bear nuanced meanings and distinct functions in various contexts.7 As noted in the previous chapter, this analysis attempts a text-centered inventory of linguistic forms, semantic meanings, and discourse functions at various text levels in order to help clarify the literary structure, flow of thought, and message of Deuteronomy 5–11. The following theoretical assumptions ground this study’s textlinguistic approach.8 1.

Language is an organized system, the elements of which do not operate independently but in ordered relationship with each other. Each element gains its significance through its contrastive features with other elements. Specifically, language is patterned in a way that allows one to analyze it in terms of form–function structures and slots (i.e., syntagmemes and tagmemes) that operate not only at the word, phrase, and clause levels but also at the sentence and paragraph levels. Just as communicators do not arbitrarily link words together in phrases and clauses, so too they do not arbitrarily connect clauses to each other in paragraphs and texts. Grammatical restrictions determine the acceptability of clause and sentence patterns.

2.

Regardless of the level of redaction and/or compositional “layering,” the biblical texts in general and Deuteronomy’s sermons in particular come to us as coherent wholes, and like all language communication, they employ grammatical forms and patterns in order to communicate effectively. The interpreter must give allowance for textual corruption,

J. A. Cook observes, “There is a reciprocal relationship between meaning and function, necessitating that they ultimately be examined together” (“The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles of Wayyiqtol and Weqatal in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” JSS 49 [2004]: 250). 7Cf. J. A. Cook, “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System: A Grammaticalization Approach” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin––Madison, 2002), 275–79. I cannot agree with Hoftijzer that a formal approach will show that, in the end, all functions “correspond to formally definable, mutually non-overlapping classes of morphemes (or morpheme groups)” (“The Nominal Clause Reconsidered,” 453). Language is too complex for this approach. 8These assumptions are in large measure adapted from those of S. G. Dempster (“Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative: A Discourse Analysis of Narrative from the Classical Period” [Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1985], 4–5, 30 n. 1), E. R. Clendenen (“The Interpretation of Biblical Hebrew Hortatory Texts: A Textlinguistic Approach to the book of Malachi” [Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Arlington, 1989], 9–10), and D. A. Dawson (Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 23).

28

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE but in this study text-critical analysis has been kept to a minimum, in order to make the approach to discourse grammar as objective as possible.

3.

Texts––and not just isolated words or sentences––are the natural units of language by which people communicate. While a text could be one clause (e.g., “Hebrew is challenging”) or one word (“Run!”), usually a text contains a sequence of clauses, whether short (an answer to a question) or long (a book).

4.

Language analysis moves best from an interrelationship of surface form and semantic meaning to discourse function and not vice versa. The close tie between these three language features suggests the possibility that a difference in form (within a given text type?) signals a difference in meaning and/or function. The textlinguist must seek explicit and specific explanations of function when wrestling with distinctions in surface features, minimizing the employment of vague categories such as “emphasis.” Similarly, one should expect structural explanations to coincide with semantic or contextual explanations when making interpretive decisions.

5.

Interpreters should approach microsyntax (i.e., clause syntax) not as a monolithic structure but as a system interacting with and often governed by macrosyntactic communicative constraints.

6.

The positing of macrosyntactic roles for certain constructions in no way lessens their microsyntactic identities; instead, both layers work together to clarify meaning and function.

These theoretical principals help provide a framework for analyzing and describing the language features employed at the text level in Deuteronomy 5–11. The discussion that follows offers cross-linguistic support for these assumptions. The subsection concludes with an evaluation of Deuteronomy’s overall text type. Cross-Linguistic Support Verbal communication, whether oral or written, assumes that language works––namely that through language, information may be codified and transmitted accurately from one party to another. While languages differ, linguists recognize a number of general features of all (or most) languages that demonstrate a limited number of possible variants. For example, the

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

29

main constituents9 of a transitive clause––Subject, Verb, and Object––could hypothetically be arranged in one of six possible ways: S+V+O, S+O+V, V+S+O, V+O+S, O+V+S, O+S+V. In reality, however, only the first three “formulas” occur with any regularity in the world’s languages.10 This means that the placement of the subject before the object is the normative word order and that a departure from this pattern in any language warrants specific explanation.11 Another example of cross-linguistic tendencies in clause formation is that each of the primary elements in a transitive clause represents a limited number of “fillers” in the clause “formula.” For instance, in the S+V+O pattern, V stands for a collection of transitive verbs that can function in the predicate “slot.” If the verb “grabbed” in the sentence, “Ruthie grabbed her blanket,” was replaced with an equative verb (e.g., “was”), with an intransitive verb (e.g., “laughed”), or with a word fulfilling a different part of speech, the “clause” would become nonsensical. All languages function under these communicative constraints, restricting both the patterns of “slots” and those “fillers” that can occupy the “slots.”12 In recent years, linguists have increasingly observed that similar normative patterns are operative at every level of language from morpheme to text. For example, all languages find ways above the sentence-level to specify topic shifts or to distinguish between mainline (i.e., foreground) and offline (i.e., background) information. Similarly, a growing number of linguists and literary critics alike are arguing that linguistic structure is 9D. Crystal defines a constituent as “a linguistic unit which is a functional component of a larger construction” (A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics, 5th ed., The Language Library [Oxford: Blackwell, 2003], 99). 10G. Khan, Studies in Semitic Syntax, LOS 38 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988) 226, following J. H. Greenberg, “Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements,” in Universals of Language, ed. J. H. Greenberg, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1966), 110. 11Recognizably, because grammatical categories in different languages are not necessarily the same, we must not assume that the only feature that varies from language to language is the linear order of clause constituents. J. Myhill (“Pragmatic and Categorical Correlates of VS Word Order,” Lingua 66 [1985]: 177–200) argues “that what really varies [between languages] are the pragmatic properties of grammatical categories and that this variation explains variation in linear order.... [Studies in word order must] look beyond the purely descriptive and necessarily language-specific categories of noun and verb to universal categories of pragmatic function” (ibid., 198). 12The above two examples were substantially drawn from Dawson, TextLinguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 17–18.

30

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

hierarchic, with every linguistic unit above the morpheme creating a “formula” (a syntagmeme) made up of sub-units (tagmemes).13 Morphemes make up stems, which form words, which create clauses, which link to form sentences, which combine to form paragraphs, one or more of which shape a text.14 Significantly, while a unit usually fills a slot in a syntagmeme of the next higher level, at times the slot filled is of the same level (e.g., a phrase embedded within a phrase).15 This possibility becomes significant in 13Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 84, 88. Crystal writes (A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics, 456):

[A tagmeme is a] basic grammatical unit [that] consists of a ‘functional slot’ within a construction frame, and a class of substitutable items that can fill this slot (‘fillers’). The identity of the tagmeme is in its correlation of function and form, with both being explicitly labeled in the analysis (such functions as subject, predicate, head, modifier, and such forms as pronouns, noun phrases, infinitives).... The constructions which result from the stringing together of tagmemes are known as syntagmemes. Grammatical units are organized hierarchically into levels (morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences, etc.).

Cf. V. G. Waterhouse, The History and Development of Tagmemics, JLSC 16 (The Hague: Mouton, 1974), 10–11. As a point of clarification, when a sub-unit is looked at on its own and not merely as a component part of a higher level, then it becomes a syntagmeme, having its own structure.> While this study affirms some features of language employed in the model of tagmemics, it is in no way solely dependent on this or any other linguistic model. For a very readable summary to tagmemics, see Dawson, Text-linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 70–107. For more thorough introductions, see the work by Waterhouse noted above and R. E. Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence––A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48, 2nd ed. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 301–303; idem, “Tagmemics,” Word 36 (1985): 137–77; L. K. Jones, “A Synopsis of Tagmemics,” in Current Approaches to Syntax, ed. S. R. Andersen, SS 13 (New York: Academic, 1980), 77–96; K. L. Pike, “Beyond the Sentence,” College Composition and Communication 15 (1964): 129–35. 14Longacre, “Tagmemics,” 143. J. P. Fokkelman offers a similar approach to Hebrew prose in his twelve “levels of signification,” each of which is included or contained in the next higher level: Sounds > Syllables > Words > Phrases > Clauses > Sentences > Sequences / Speeches > Scene-parts > Scenes > Acts > Sections / Cycles > Book or Composition (Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. 2, The Crossing Fates, SSN 23 [Dover, NH: Van Gorcum, 1986], 4–6). Some scholars caution the inclusion of sounds and syllables in the levels of signification, because phonology does not “signify” in the way that other levels do. 15Longacre identifies the first as “primary exponence” and the second as “recursive exponence” (Joseph, 302; “Tagmemics,” 145–47). He also notes that there is “backlooping exponence” where a higher-level unit fills the slot of a lower level (e.g., “His I-don’t-give-a-care attitude.”) and “level skipping exponence” where

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

31

establishing the logic of a text, for clauses, sentences, and paragraphs can be embedded into units of the same type, serving supportive and/or subordinate roles of various kinds. Along with these features, for communication to be clear, every language must develop a way of expressing and distinguishing different kinds of discourse. To accomplish this, languages regularly characterize texts of like substance and context with similar literary structure, length, and terminology.16 This encourages readers to interpret each form properly. Known traditionally as form criticism, biblical studies has a rich history of genre analysis, initiated substantially by the pioneering efforts of H. Gunkel in the early part of the 20th century. He performed foundational form examination in Genesis, and he classified the Psalms into five basic genres: hymns, communal laments, royal psalms, individual laments, and individual psalms of thanksgiving.17 For the following reasons, however, the use of genre is difficult as an analytical tool and is therefore not applied in the present study:18 (1) Often genres are themselves complexes of a number of other genres, making it difficult to demarcate forms. (2) Communicators at times use “unnatural genres” for rhetorical effect (i.e., genre switching), making exponents are acquired from more than one level down (Joseph, 302). Each of these types of exponence are developed in Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 88–93. 16Cf. S. Niditch defines genres as “literary forms that Israelite authors and audiences would recognize by a specific term, context, content, and form” (Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature, LAI [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996], 21). Cf. K. Grobel, “Form Criticism,” in IDB, ed. G. A. Buttrick (New York: Abingdon, 1962), 2:320. 17H. Gunkel, Genesis, trans. M. E. Biddle (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997; orig. German 3rd ed., 1910), vii–lxxxvi; idem, The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction, trans. T. M. Horner (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967; orig. German, 1926). While in recent years form analysis has been replaced in some measure by finalform literary approaches like the one applied in this study, M. Sweeney’s recent work on Isa 1–39 shows that it can still be applied as an interpretive tool (Isaiah 1– 39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, FOTLS 16 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Sweeney distinguishes some 18 different genres: account, accusation, address, admonition, allegory, complaint, dirge, disputation, messenger speech, oath, oracle, prophetic announcement, report, summons to war, taunt, vow, woe oracle, and thanksgiving formula. 18Each of these reasons is noted by C. M. Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle yk (kî), JOTT Special Issue (Dallas: SIL International, 2001), 373. See his very helpful discussion of genre and text type analysis in the Hebrew Bible (360–405).

32

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

genre determination more complicated. (3) Because genres are “sociallyrecognized formats,” the cultural and temporal distance from the ancient text to the modern world suggests that caution be taken in distinguishing genres. (4) Most importantly, analytical study of genres is difficult because genre distinctions are primarily based on semantic rather than linguistic criteria. In view of such challenges, linguists in recent years have attempted different approaches to the analysis of discourse, fully recognizing that audiences need to discern when historical narrative interjects dialogue, when exhortation gives way to prediction, or when an explanation intrudes into a list of directions. The question at hand is whether Hebrew, like a number of other languages, uses alteration in the surface structure to signal such text type distinctions.19 Text type is a functional or notional category that may or may not affect the surface structure of a discourse.20 On the 19Some modern linguists make no differentiation between “text type” and “genre.” Crystal’s definition of “text type,” for example, simply refers to “genre,” which he defines as “an identifiable category of literary composition (e.g. poetry, detective story) ... [that] imposes several identifiable characteristics on a use of language, notably in relation to subject-matter, purpose (e.g. narrative, allegory, satire), textual structure, form of argument and level of formality” (A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics, 201; cf. 462). In contrast, E. R. Clendenen distinguishes text type from genre in so far as the former is a language universal (etic) category and the latter is a language specific (emic) category (“The Interpretation of Biblical Hebrew Hortatory Texts,” 28–29, citing Pickering and Wendland as two contemporary linguists who take this position). The present study follows neither of these approaches but instead relegates the term “genre” to the traditional categories of form criticism. 20The term “notional” is related to “deep structure,” which R. N. Soulen defines as the inner organization and relationship of the lexical-semantic and/or thematic content (whether ideas or characters) through which a text becomes understandable (Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 2nd ed. [Atlanta: John Knox, 1981], 184). Similarly, Crystal distinguishes “deep” and “surface” structure in this way (A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics, 125, 446):

“Deep structure” (or deep grammar) is the abstract syntactic representation of a sentence––an underlying level of structural organization which specifies all the factors governing the way the sentence should be interpreted.... The “surface structure” … is the final stage in the syntactic representation of a sentence, which provides the input to the phonological component of the grammar, and which thus most closely corresponds to the structure of the sentence we articulate and hear.

Crystal offers the following English example to clarify the relationship between deep and surface structure (125, italics original): [Deep structure] provides information which enables us to distinguish between alternative interpretations of sentences which have the same surface form (i.e. they

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

33

one hand, similar notional or deep structure meanings can manifest themselves in various ways in a language’s surface structure, depending on context and the communicator’s intent. For example, in the clauses “Miles studied Hebrew vocabulary” and “Hebrew vocabulary was studied by Miles,” the participants operate in the same semantic roles even though the grammatical subjects and surface structures differ. On the other hand, similar surface structures may bear different meanings in distinct text types. Indeed, because the number of grammatical options in any language is limited (see above), one should expect that certain formal features will often perform more than one function in different contexts.21 Within Hebrew studies, text type analysis at the broadest level includes the distinction between prose and poetry, which most scholars see evident in the way micro- and macrosyntax is handled.22 Further surface structure are ambiguous), e.g. Flying planes can be dangerous, where flying planes can be related to two underlying sentences, Planes which fly … and To fly planes … It is also a way of relating sentences which have different surface forms but the same underlying meaning, as in the relationship between active and passive structures, e.g., The panda chased the man as opposed to The man was chased by the panda. 21Similarly,

F. I. Andersen notes, “We need only the general ideas that the same deep grammar may be realized in various surface constructions, and that the same surface construction may sometimes realize more than one deep grammar relationship” (The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, JLSP 231 [The Hague: Mouton, 1974], 29). 22This stated, S. E. Gillingham is certainly correct that the distinction is often “more one of degree than kind” (The Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible, OBS [New York: Oxford University Press, 1994], 36). This view that every biblical text lies on a minimal-to-maximal continuum of elevated Hebrew style was most forcefully argued by J. Kugel in his The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981; reprint, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 59–95, esp. 85–87, 94–95. But while multiple “poetic” indicators are no guarantee that a given text is “poetic,” a predominance of literary features like lineation, segmented rather than linear/sequential communication, parallelism as a structuring feature, terseness/conciseness, and ellipsis establishes the poetic nature of a text. Moreover, the predominance of a number of linguistic features clearly mark a text as poetry in distinction from prose: (1) unusual word order such as the preposing of a verb by two or more constituents––note: Hebrew prose only rarely preposes a verb with two modifiers and never with more (Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 264; cf. W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Technique, JSOTSup 26 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1984], 5; P. D. Miller, “The Theological Significance of Biblical Poetry,” in Language, Theology, and the Bible, Festschrift for J. Barr, ed. S. E. Balentine and J. Barton [Oxford: Clarendon, 1994], 220–22); (2) the heightened use of the non-verb first clause pattern due to frequent topic shifting and a lack of concern for foreground sequencing (Dempster,

34

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

distinctions are usually drawn between either (1) narrative material (linguistic signals refer to a situation outside the immediate context) and discursive material (linguistic signals refer to the immediate communication situation),23 (2) narrative material (successive events, participant oriented) and non-narrative material (advice or promise with focus on motivation of hearer to action),24 or (3) narrative (unmediated text perspective) and reported speech (mediated text perspective). Finally, a number of scholars expand the distinctions to a number of other text types, being convinced that Hebrew formally marks switches in discourse type.25 “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 265; cf. F. Landy, “Poetics and Parallelism: Some Comments on James Kugel’s The Idea of Biblical Poetry,” JSOT 28 [1984]: 71; Miller, “The Theological Significance of Biblical Poetry,” 224–25; A. Niccacci, “Analyzing Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” JSOT 74 [1997]: 77); and (3) the relative absence of “prose particles” (below 10%) (D. N. Freedman, “Another Look at Hebrew Poetry,” in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. E. R. Follis, JSOTSup 40 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1987], 11–18; reprinted in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman, ed. J. R. Huddlestun [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997]; cf. Miller, “The Theological Significance of Biblical Poetry,” 215–16). For a helpful recent summary of scholarly viewpoints and dialogue regarding the question of distinguishing Hebrew prose and poetry, see J. K. Kuntz, “Biblical Hebrew Poetry in Recent Research, Part I and II,” CurBS 6 (1998): 55–57; 7 (1999): 44–47. 23At issue here is not as much literary genre as syntax and formal categorization––i.e., narrative and discursive material each use their own predication forms and patterns. Cf. W. Schneider, GBH, 8th ed. (Munich: Claudius, 1994); E. Talstra, “Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. I: Elements of a Theory,” BO 35 (1978): 169–74, esp. 170; idem, “Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. II: Syntax and Semantics,” BO 39 (1982): 26–38; A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, trans. W. G. E. Watson, JSOTSup 86 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990), 19, 23–34; M. Eskhult, Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Prose, AUUSSU 12 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990), 37–43. Somewhat related here are the words of Joüon (§153): “Spoken Hebrew, to the extent that it is retrievable from written texts, may well diverge significantly from Written Hebrew, and the language of legal codes from that of plain narrative.” Cf. J. Macdonald, “Some Distinctive Characteristics of Israelite Spoken Hebrew,” BO 32 (1975): 162–75. 24A. Georgakopolou and D. Goutsos, Discourse Analyis: An Introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997), 46, 48, 52, as cited by Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text, 375 n. 51. 25See esp. Longacre, Joseph, 57–134; idem, “Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Discourse-Modular Approach,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. R. D. Bergen, SIL (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 50–98; idem,

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

35

In order to allow for this latter possibility (so as not to skew the data) and in order to evaluate how closely formal shifts in clause, sentence, and paragraph structure signal text type distinctions, this study will distinguish reported speech from non-reported speech, initially categorize text types, and evaluate their role in the choice of connector type, clause class, verb forms, and the like. The next chapter will detail the specific approach employed in the analysis of Deuteronomy 5–11. What follows is merely a cursory examination of Deuteronomy as a whole to see what clues the book itself gives to its overarching text type. Deuteronomy’s Overarching Text Type Since G. E. Mendenhall’s 1954 landmark study on the relationship of 2nd millennium Hittite treaties to Israel’s covenant traditions,26 scholars have recognized elements of 1st and 2nd millennium treaty form, phraseology, and concepts in Deuteronomy.27 However, while the book itself bares many “Building for the Worship of God: Exodus 25:1–30:10,” in Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers, ed. W. R. Bodine, SBLSS (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 21–49; cf. R. E. Longacre, “Discourse Typology in Relation to Language Typology,” in Text Processing: Proceedings of the Nobel Symposium 51, ed. S. Allen (Stockhom: Almqvist & Wiksel, 1982), 457–86; idem, The Grammar of Discourse, 2nd ed., TLL (New York: Plenum, 1996), 7–10. Longacre is followed by Dawson (Text-Linguistics and Hebrew Bible) and built on by R. L. Heller (Narrative Structure and Discourse Contellations: An Analysis of Clause Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose, HSS 55 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004]). For a rhetorical approach to text types based on “dominant contextual focus,” see B. Hatim and I. Mason (Discourse and the Translator, LSLS [London: Longman, 1990]). But as is noted by C. M. Follingstad, the problem with this latter view is that without any linguistic controls, a proper understanding of the rhetorical purpose remains a predominantly subjective endeavor (Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text, 376–77). 26G. E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17 (1954): 50–76. Cf. idem, “The Suzerainty Treaty Structure: Thirty Years Later,” in Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, ed. E. B. Firmage et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 85–100. 27Due to the vast number of publications in this area, the following bibliographical material is but a sample: Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary in OT, Jewish and Early Christian Writings, trans. D. Green (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971; orig. German, 2nd ed., 1964.); Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963); W. L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87; R. Frankena, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” Oudtestamentische Studiën 14 (1965):

36

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

marks of ancient treaty structure,28 it also reveals close affinities with OldBabylonian law collections, especially in the way it frames its legal material in chapters 12–26.29 This apparent confluence of traditions suggests that the Israelite covenant is a distinctive formulation that stands as a melding of treaty and law.30 Furthermore, Deuteronomy’s surface structure and rhe122–54; K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: InterVarsity, 1966), 90–102; idem, The Bible in Its World (Exeter: Paternoster, 1977), 79–85; idem, “The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?” BARev 21/22 (1995): 48–49; 88–95; idem, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 283–307; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972; reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 59–178; idem, Deuteronomy 1– 11, 6–9; J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1974) 14–21; P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 20–24; D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, rev. ed., AnBib 21a (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981; orig. 1963); H. U. Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel, OBO 145 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995); idem, “Eine assyrische Vorlage für Deuteronomium 28, 20–44,” in Bundesdokument and Gesets: Studien zum Deuteronomium, ed. G. Braulik, HBS 4 (Freiburg: Herder, 1995), 118–41. For an argument against any connection between Deuteronomy and the ancient Near Eastern treaties, see E. W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 56–82, esp. 68–82. For a balanced critique of Nicholson’s argument, see K. A. Kitchen, “The Fall and Rise of Covenant, Law, and Treaty, TynBul 40 (1989): 118–35. 28One possible alignment of the treaty form to Deuteronomy is as follows: Title/Preamble (1:1–5); Historical Prologue (1:6–3:29); General Stipulations (5–11); Specific Stipulations (12–26); Document Clause (27:1–8; 31:9, 24–26); Public Recitation (27:9–26; 31:10–13); Witnesses (31:16–30; 32:1–47); Blessings (28:1–14); Curses (27:12–26; 28:15–68). Nevertheless, what is clear is that these formal features do not explain every element within Deuteronomy itself––a fact that supports the conclusion of this study that Deuteronomy is not a treaty document but a sermonic exhortation concerning the covenant. 29For an evaluation of Deuteronomy’s relationship to ancient treaties and laws, cf. G. J. Wenham, “The Structure and Date of Deuteronomy: A Consideration of Aspects of the History of Deuteronomy Criticism and a Re-examination of the Question of Structure and Date in the Light of that History and of the Near Eastern Treaties” (Ph.D. diss., London University, 1971), 177; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 146–57, esp. 148; Kitchen, “The Fall and Rise of Covenant, Law and Treaty,” 123–28; idem, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 283–307. 30So Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 151; Kitchen, The Bible in Its World, 183; idem, “The Fall and Rise of Covenant, Law and Treaty,” 124, 128; idem, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 289; Thompson, Deuteronomy, 18–19; J. G.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

37

torical use of repetition and unique phraseology31 make clear that the book is set out neither as a treaty document nor as a law code but as a series of sermonic exhortations, motivations, expositions, and narratives, grounded in the “words” of the Horeb covenant and characterized as “Torah.”32 A number of comments in the narrative portions of the book offer clues to the overall text type of Deuteronomy. After an initial preamble in Deuteronomy 1:1 that all that follows are “the words (MyîrDb;dAh) that Moses spoke to all of Israel beyond the Jordan,” verses 3–5 provide the introduction to the first speech (1:6–4:40) and perhaps to the book as a whole. Verse 5 designates what follows as “the Torah” (hrwøÚtAh), which in the context is clarified as something Moses sought “to make clear”33 (v. 5) in the McConville, Deuteronomy, AOTC 5 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity / Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 24. Interestingly, in the introduction to his 1990 Deuteronomy commentary, Weinfeld focuses solely on Deuteronomy’s parallels with the ancient treaties, making no mention of the link with law collections. In further contrast to his earlier work, Weinfeld argues in his commentary that Deuteronomy is dependent on both second millennium Hittite and first millennium Assyrian treaty models and not just the latter (Deuteronomy 1–11, 9). 31The classic works on Deuteronomic phraseology include S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 3rd ed., ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), lxxvii–lxxxiv; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 320–65. Cf. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 295–312; J. W. Wevers, Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy, MSU 13 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 86–99. 32While making no reference to the ancient Near Eastern treaties, G. von Rad considered Deuteronomy’s use of regulations (chaps. 12–26) followed by blessing and curses (chaps. 27–28) to be identified with a “traditional cultic pattern,” perhaps deriving from a covenant renewal festival (Deuteronomy, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster / London: SCM, 1966], 12, 23). He argued, however, that this link with “the regular covenant formulary” appears only in a “mutilated form,” being overrun by the form of a “farewell speech” that gives “homiletic instruction for the laity” (23). Elsewhere von Rad favorably identified the relationship between ancient Near Eastern treaties (esp. those of the Hittites) and the biblical covenant traditions (Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1962–65], 1:132). 33The Piel verb rab (“to make clear, distinct”) occurs only three times in the OT, and in each instance the emphasis lies on clarifying divine instruction and/or revelation for the sake of accountability (cf. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, HALOT, rev. W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm, trans. M. E. J. Richardson [Leiden: Brill, 2000], 106; D. J. A. Clines, ed., DCH [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993– ], 2:87). In Hab 2:2 a vision is recorded clearly on tablets in order to emphasize even to a runner the certainty of coming judgment. Similarly, in Deuteronomy all that God directed Moses to announce is made clear by both the oral (Deut 5:1) and

38

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

light of “all that Yahweh had commanded him concerning [the Israelites]” (v. 3). What directly follows are a narrative recollection of Israel’s history (chaps. 1–3) and a sermonic appeal for allegiance to Yahweh (chap. 4). The body of the second speech runs from 5:1–26:19 and then includes chapter 28. In its narrative introduction, 4:44 describes what follows as “the Torah” and then verse 45 clarifies that this Torah is nothing less than “the statutes, the stipulations, and the rules” laid forth by Moses.34 Furthermore, 29:1 speaks of “the words of the covenant (tyîrV;bAh yérVbî;d) that Yahweh commanded Moses,” and 31:9 notes that Moses wrote down “this Torah.” Probably deriving from the Hiphil of the verb hry III (“to instruct, teach”),35 the term hrOwÚt (“Torah”) is used broadly throughout the OT in cultic, civil, and familial contexts to designate a standard of conduct usually deriving from God and often with specific reference to a canonical body of materials.36 In the twenty-two instances of the word in Deuteronomy,37 the Torah is identified with Yahweh’s decrees delivered through Moses (1:5; 4:8, 44), which were written down (17:18; 31:9, 24; cf. 27:3, 8; 31:22) either before or after recitation38 in order to give lasting guidance to the Israelites written (27:8) word, so that the Israelites understand God’s commitment and their responsibility within the covenant relationship (cf. Deut 4:8; 26:16–19; 31:11–12, 26). 34See Weinfeld (Deuteronomy 1–11, 234–35) and J. H. Tigay (Deuteronomy, JPSTC [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996], 59) for the view that Deut 4:44–49 recapitulates 1:1–5 in order to specify that the “Torah” of 1:5 refers not to the historical and sermonic “digression” of 1:6–4:40 but to Moses’ second address, considered to make up chaps. 5–28. 35HALOT, 436–37; DCH, 4:291–93. On the etymology of hrOwÚt, see HALOT, 1710. On the morphology of hrOwÚt, see E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar [GKC], 2nd English ed., ed. A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), §85p. 36HALOT, 1710–12; P. Enns, “Law of God,” in NIDOTTE, ed. W. A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 4:893–900; M. J. Selman, “Law,” in DOTP, ed. T. D. Alexander and D. W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 497–515. Cf. H. Kleinknecht and W. Gutbrod, “no/moß, etc.,” in TDNT, ed. G. Kittel, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 1022–85; S. Greengus, R. Sonsino, and E. P. Sanders, “Law,” in ABD, ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:242–65; C. G. Kruse, “Law,” in NDBT, ed. T. D. Alexander et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 629–36. 37Deut 1:5; 4:8, 44; 17:11, 18, 19; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58, 61; 29:20[21], 28[29]; 30:10; 31:9, 11, 12, 24, 26, 46; 32:46; 33:4, 10. 38For two recent studies of Deuteronomy’s internal testimony concerning its own compositional history, see J. P. Sonnet, The Book within the Book, BIS 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), and D. I. Block, “Recovering the Voice of Moses: The Genesis of Deuteronomy,” JETS 44 (2001): 385–408. Interestingly, Block appears

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

39

regarding the nature and demands of the covenant (17:19; 28:58, 61; 29:20[21]; 30:10; 31:11, 26).39 to assume that the statements regarding Moses’ proclamation of the Torah demand that oral address preceded written text. But a number of the references to “the book of the Torah” and the like assume a written document (cf. 28:58, 61; 29:20[21]). Citing in support Deut 31:9–29, McConville argues that the first stage in Deuteronomy’s composition was not an oral but a written document, the purpose for which was oral recitation (Deuteronomy, 38). In my evaluation, Deuteronomy demands a more refined proposal, which discourse grammar helps to establish. The series of wayyiqtol verbs in Deut 31 mark the chapter as part of a historical narrative text that stretches back to Deut 29:1[2]. Numerous textlinguistic studies in recent years have confirmed the legitimacy of the proposal made in GKC §49b n. 1 and 111a that such verb forms / clause patterns carry the main event-line of narrative, within which the temporal consecution of completed events is the default interpretation (e.g., S. G. Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 64–96; A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, 23–45; D. A. Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 124–32). As will be noted further in chap. 4, without other contextual clues, wayyiqtol verbs are to be read in temporal succession, due to the narrative context. As such, the flow from Deut 29:1[2] to 31:9 creates the following pattern: “And Moses called” > “then he said” (29:1) > “then Moses went” > “then he spoke” (31:1) > “then Moses called” > “then he said” (31:7) > “then Moses wrote all this Torah” (31:9). From the storytellers pragmatic viewpoint, the mainline of the narrative moves from Moses’ third speech (29:1[2]– 30:20) to his exhorting the people (31:2–6) and then Joshua (31:7–8), and only then to his writing the Torah (31:9). Even if the wayyiqtol clause pattern does not directly communicate referential meaning by itself, the structural distance of 31:9 from 29:1[2] suggests that the writing of the Torah took place sometime after Moses spoke the third address. However, it is noteworthy that the third speech itself mentions a written Torah from which Moses was apparently reading or at least to which he was referring (29:10). Therefore, from the perspective of Deuteronomy we must see an oscillation of temporal priority between oral and written stages in the book’s development. Furthermore, because at least elements of the third address were already “written” before recitation and called Torah (so 29:10), the “Torah” of 31:9 and 24 must refer either to something other than the core material of chaps. 29–30 or, more probably, to this material plus other material, perhaps the final form of chaps. 29–30 as we have it along with the other two speeches. For similar and more developed musings based on what Deuteronomy itself suggests, see Block’s summary of the compositional history of Deuteronomy (400–03). 39M. G. Kline has persuasively argued that the use of canonical materials associated with ancient international treaties informs Israel’s concept of canon in relationship to its covenant with Yahweh (“Canon and Covenant,” WTJ 32 [1969– 70]: 49–67; idem, The Structure of Biblical Authority, 2nd ed. [S. Hamilton, MA: M. G. Kline, 1989], 27–44).

40

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

In the light of the overwhelming depiction of the body of the book as “Torah,” the overall text type anticipated for Deuteronomy is, in R. E. Longacre’s terminology, behavioral hortatory discourse––i.e., agent oriented address with stress on intended behavior and on logical (as opposed to temporal) consecution. This is exactly what we have: a series of “farewell sermons” (roughly chaps. 1–4; 5–26; 27–28; 29–30), a song of warning (chap. 32), and Moses’ deathbed blessing (chap. 33), all interwoven into the narrative begun in Genesis–Numbers.40 According to D. L. Christensen, however, the “extraordinary literary coherence and political sophistication” of Deuteronomy require that the work be understood as more than an “archive” of hortatory addresses given by Moses.41 Indeed, one must view Deuteronomy as a “didactic poem, 40Many

scholars have noted how the closing chapters of Deuteronomy (32:48– 34:12) link the book to the concluding narrative portions of Numbers––cf., e.g., Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 10; J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 229–32; M. S. Smith, “Matters of Space and Time in Exodus and Numbers,” in Theological Exegesis, Festschrift for B. S. Childs, ed. C. Seitz and K. Greene-McKnight (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 203; Block, “Recovering the Voice of Moses,” 401 n. 74. Others have suggested that the arrangement of key poetic texts in the Pentateuch (Gen 49; Num 24; Deut 32) give an eschatological / Messianic framework to the remaining historical narrative of the entire Pentateuch––cf. Crüsemann, The Torah, 345–47; J. H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary, LBI (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 35–37; idem, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 239–52. 41D. L. Christensen, “Deuteronomy in Modern Research: Approaches and Issues,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, ed. D. L. Christensen, SBTS 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 3. Christensen points to N. Lohfink as one who characterized the repository of ancient Israelite tradition found in Deuteronomy as an “archive” (cf. Lohfink, “Lectures in Deuteronomy” [paper presented at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome, 1968], 7; acquired at the Graduate Theological Union Library, Berkley, CA; cf. Block, “Recovering the Voice of Moses,” 400 n. 72, 401). On the overall unity of Deuteronomy as a literary document, see, e.g., the remarkable numerical structuring elements proposed by C. J. Labuschagne: “Divine Speech in Deuteronomy,” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaf, ed. N. Lohfink, BETL 68 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985), 111–26, reprinted in A Song of Power and the Power of Song, ed. D. L. Christensen, SBTS 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 375– 93; “Some Significant Compositional Techniques in Deuteronomy,” in Scripta Signa Vocis:Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes and Languages in the Near East, Fescthrift for J. H. Hospers, ed. H. L. J. Vanstiphout et al. (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1986), 121–31.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

41

composed to be recited publicly to music in ancient Israel within a liturgical setting.”42 While far from “the lyric poetry of the Psalter,” he contends that the book is highly liturgical,43 bears an “epic style,” and has “poetic features such as inclusio, concentric framing devices, and inversion.” In view of such literary artistry, he thus concludes that Deuteronomy is poetry, landing on the more heightened side of what J. Kugel has termed a ‘middle ground’ on the Hebrew Bible’s continuum of elevated style.44 Furthermore, in accordance with the arguments of French musicologist S. Haïk-Vantoura,45 Christensen contends that the Masoretic accentual system recorded in Deuteronomy (and the Bible as a whole) is not a Medieval construct imposed on the text but is a sophisticated cantillation system that represents an ancient tradition of musical interpretation that predates the Masoretes by at least a millennium.46 Finally, over two 42Christensen,

Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, rev. ed., WBC 6a (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2001), lxxxiv (italics added); cf. lxxx–lxxxvii. A more developed critique of Christensen’s view may be found in J. S. DeRouchie, “Deuteronomy as Didactic Poetry? A Critique of D. L. Christensen’s View,” JAAS forthcoming. 43Christensen (ibid., lxxx) cites J. van Goudoever, who observes that Deuteronomy is “the most liturgical book of the Bible” (“The Liturgical Signficance of the Date in Dt 1,3,” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, ed. N. Lohfink, BETL 68 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985], 148). See von Rad, who wrote that the arrangement of material in Deut 4–30 must be understood to be “following a traditional cultic pattern, probably that of the liturgy of a cultic festival” (Deuteronomy, 12). 44Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, lxxxiv. Cf. D. L. Christensen, “Prose and Poetry in the Bible: The Narrative Poetics of Deuteronomy 1,9–18,” ZAW 97 (1985): 170–89. For comment regarding this “continuum” and the “middle ground” related to it, see J. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 85–87, 94–95. In line with the proposal set forth by Kugel, this study affirms that from a stylistic perspective the distinction between prose and poetry is “more one of degree than kind” (Gillingham, The Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible, 36). But while multiple “poetic” indicators are no guarantee that a given text is “poetic,” a predominance of literary and linguistic features characteristic of poetry help establish the poetic nature of a text. However, as is argued below, more telling are the linguistic features that clearly mark poetry from prose, and it is at just this point that Christensen’s contention that Deuteronomy is poetry falters. 45S. Haïk-Vantoura, The Music of the Bible Revealed, ed. J. Wheeler, trans. D. Weber (Berkeley: BIBAL, 1990). 46Christensen states that the Masoretes simply “fixed a once living tradition in written form in order to preserve it for all time” (Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, lxxxi) and that the cantillation tradition accurately preserves “the original performance of the text during the period of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, and perhaps earlier”

42

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

century’s ago Bishop R. Lowth observed that throughout the Mediterranean world in antiquity the ancient law codes were sung at festivals,47 and we know that the Torah of Deuteronomy was placed in the hands of the Levites (Deut 17:18), who were commanded by Moses to “proclaim” it at the Feast of Booths (31:9–10). Christensen concludes: “Though we do not know the precise nature of this proclamation of the law, which was handed down within levitical circles, it is likely that it was sung and that this greater ‘Song of Moses’ (i.e., the entire book of Deuteronomy) was taught to the people.”48 Christensen is certainly correct that Deuteronomy shows a high level of literary coherence and, as we shall see, cohesion. He is also justified to see a higher literary style at work in Deuteronomy than, say, in the prose narrative materials of the Succession Narrative (2 Sam 9–20 + 1 Kgs 1–2). However, he goes too far to designate Deuteronomy as “didactic poetry.” While there are a number of literary features present in Deuteronomy that are frequent in poetry (e.g., inclusio, concentric framing devices, and inversion), none of the linguistic features necessary to designate a work as poetry predominate. This study will focus on three of these characteristics that point to Deuteronomy’s nature as prose rather than poetry: (1) the preponderance of prosaic as opposed to poetic word order; (2) the predominance of wa + verb-initial clauses; and (3) the high frequency of prose particles. First, whereas prose texts only rarely prepose a verb with more than one constituent, poetry frequently places two and even three constituents before the verb.49 L. J. de Regt’s computer generated study of clause (lxxxv). 47Cf. R. Lowth, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, trans. G. Gregory (London: Buckingham, 1815), 54–55; orig. Latin, 2nd ed., 1763. 48Christensen, “Deuteronomy in Modern Research,” 8. 49S. G. Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 264; W. Groß, “Is There Really a Compound Nominal Clause in Biblical Hebrew?” in The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, ed. C. L. Miller, LSAWS 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 45. Groß writes, “Although this type of clause [i.e., one with two or three different nominal constituents before the finite verb] occurs very rarely in prose, it is so frequent in poetry that without hesitation we may consider it viable for the syntactic system of rules for Hebrew.” Dempster’s own study of the 3,657 independent, non-embedded clauses (3,349 containing a finite verb [including the free, uninflected verb form––i.e., infinitive absolute]) in the Succession Narrative (2 Sam 9–20 + 1 Kgs 1–2), the Joseph Story (Gen 37–50), the Siloam Inscription, the Moabite Stone Inscription, and the Synchronistic History (1 Kgs 12:1–2 Kgs 18:12) revealed no occurrences of a finite verb preceded by more than two constituents (cf. pp. 66, 153, 184, 202, 224–5) and only five instances of a

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

43

patterns in Deuteronomy 1–30 notes that out of the 3,076 non-elliptical clauses in the corpus, none precede a verbal form (whether finite or nonfinite verb in third position (cf. 275–81: Gen 39:22b; 2 Sam 17:27b–29; 1 Kgs 16:7; 2 Kgs 16:11b; MI 10). P. J. Gentry performed a follow-up study on Exod 1–14 under the same constraints in order to test Dempster’s methodology on a different corpus (“Macrosyntax of Hebrew Narrative” [paper presented before the OT Ph.D. colloquium, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, fall 1999). He also found no examples of a verb preposed by more than two slots. Similarly, J. S. DeRouchie and M. V. Van Pelt evaluated all of the 843 clauses in the Joseph Story not evaluated by Dempster (i.e., all embedded speech + clauses marked by a subordinate conjunction in non-embedded speech excluding 48:15c–16d and 49:1c–27) and again found no instances of three or more constituents preposing a verb and only eight occurrences of a verb preposed by two (Gen 40:10b; 41:11b; 43:20b; 44:5c; 48:5b, 6a; 48:7a; 50:24c) (“A Macrosyntactical Analysis of Rankshifted Clauses in the Narrative Material of Genesis 37–50: A Framework for Further Study” [Ph.D. seminar paper, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 29 April 2002], Appendix C). Finally, while never undertaking a systematic search, Groß is aware of the following limited prose examples of clauses in the OT with two different nominal constituents before the verb, some of which supplement the above statistics (“Is There Really a Compound Nominal Clause in Biblical Hebrew?” 45 n. 95): Gen 5:1b; 7:8–9; 8:19; 14:10d; 17:6c; 23:6d; 31:29b, 42b; 35:11f; 41:11b; Exod 12:4c, 10b; 16:18d; 18:23d; Lev 17:11d; Num 22:33d; 30:9a; 36:7b, 9b; Deut 2:10; 2:28a, 28c; 12:22c; 18:14a; 24:16c; Judg 17:6b; 21:25b; 2 Kgs 5:13d; 8:12g; 14:6d; 16:15c; 25:10a, 30; Jer 31:30a; 34:5c; Ezek 1:9b, 12a, 17a; 3:18e, 19c, 19d, 20g, 21e; 4:11a, 16d; 5:2a, 4a, 12a, 12c, 12d; 6:6a, 10b, 12a, 12b, 12c; 9:10c; 10:11a, 22b; 11:21b; 12:6a, 18a, 18b, 19c, 19d; 14:14b, 20d; 16:43c, 51a; 17:21b; 18:7d, 11a, 16d, 19c, 30a; 20:7b, 8c, 39a, 11b, 11c; 22:31c; 33:26c; Ezra 4:3c; Neh 2:3b; 2 Chr 25:4e. Groß knows of only six prose texts that prepose the verb with three nominal constituents: Lev 7:17; Num 28:15; 1 Sam 9:9; 1 Kgs 10:29; 20:40; Jer 48:36. With reference to word order in poetry, on my count T. Collins catalogues 156 examples of sentences in his poetic corpus with the verb in third position and 2 examples in fourth position (Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry: A Grammatical Approach to the Stylistic Study of the Hebrew Prophets [Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978], 77, 202– 06). See also the numerous examples listed in M. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 2nd ed. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 342–44, 355; Deut 32:1–43 and 33:2–29 contain six instances of the verb preposed by two constituents (32:12a, 17c; 33:2a, 7e, 17c, 19a). On the flexibility of Hebrew poetic word order and syntax, see W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Technique, JSOTSup 26 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 49, and P. D. Miller, “The Theological Significance of Biblical Poetry,” in Language, Theology, and the Bible, Festschrift for J. Barr, ed. S. E. Balentine and J. Barton (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 220–22, respectively.

44

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

finite) with three constituents and only twelve (0.004%) prepose with two–– a fact that points to the prosaic nature of the whole.50 Second, A. Niccacci has justifiably argued that Hebrew prose distinguishes itself from poetry by its “linear” as opposed to “segmented” communication.51 This communicative feature is represented linguistically by the dominant presence of an allomorph of the morpheme wa + (finite) verb-first clause pattern (V_), which usually marks mainline development in discourse.52 Poetry, on the other hand, shows a higher occurrence of the non-verb first pattern (_V), most naturally due to its frequent topic shifts and lack of thematic or temporal development.53 De Regt’s study notes that 2,019 of the 2,255 clauses containing a finite verb in Deuteronomy 1–30 are verb-first (V_) (89.53%), a figure that aligns perfectly with the pattern in known prose texts.54 From the perspective of syntax and word order, then, there are no grounds for viewing the whole of Deuteronomy as poetry. 50L. J. de Regt, A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus, Demonstrated on the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 1–30 and Supplement, SSN (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 1:109; 2:22–23, 82–84. Of the 3,076 total clauses, 173 are nominal and 2,903 are verbal (i.e., contain a finite verb). While de Regt fails to catalogue most of the data behind the statistics, he does offer the following examples of a verbal form preposed by two constituents (1:109–10): with yiqtol = 2:28a, 28c; 12:22c; 24:16c; with qatal = 2:10a; with Ptc = 4:12b; 10:12a; 29:14a. My own preliminary investigation has uncovered what appear to be two of the four remaining instances (cf. yiqtol = 18:14a; Ptc = 18:12b); de Regt’s calculations suggest the additional texts should contain two yiqtol forms and two Ptcs (cf. 2:84– 86). 51Niccacci, “Analyzing Biblical Poetry,” 77. Cf. Landy, “Poetics and Parallelism,” 71. 52For a full discussion of the relationship between succession and foregrounding, see chap. 4. 53Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 265; 271 n. 6. Similarly, Collins asserts that in poetry “the totals [of patterns S-V and V-S] are too close to one another to allow us to say that any one is the dominant or ‘normal’ order” (Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry, 205). As I tally them, Collins’ totals include 552 V[x] clauses against 696 [x]V clauses. 54These calculations include only finite verbs (+ infinitive absolute where standing as a free, uninflected verb form) and are derived after separating the predicating non-finite verbal forms from de Regt’s statistics (cf. A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus, 2:32–34 with 82–84). This distinction was necessary because de Regt included both participles and infinitives construct as clause predicators (1:13–17) whereas the comparable data noted above treated both as nominals (see note 49 above). With direct reference to the above statistics, Dempster’s analysis of the independent, non-embedded clause material in

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

45

Third, Deuteronomy contains some of the highest, most consistent “prose particle” counts (i.e., ; Ah, rRvSa, _tRa) in all of Scripture,55 a fact that strongly indicates the prosaic nature of the book.56 Specifically, building off the work of F. I. Andersen and A. D. Forbes,57 D. N. Freedman has plausibly posited that texts with a prose particle count of 5 percent or less are poetry, whereas those with 15 percent or higher are prose; those between 5 and 10 percent are probably poetry, and those between 10 and 15 percent are most likely prose.58 When the chapters in Deuteronomy are analyzed, only the ancient blessing of chapter 33 contains a count lower than 5 percent (3.274%), whereas twenty-eight of Deuteronomy’s total thirty-four chapters contain a prose particle frequency over 15 percent.59 Chapters 15, 24, and 25 contain counts between 10–15 percent, which in Freedman’s analysis means they are probably prose.60 Chapters 23 and 32 contain numerous biblical texts uncovered the following percentage relationships between the verb-first (V_) and non-verb first (_V) pattern (“Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 64, 152, 224): Succession Narrative, 2 Sam 9–20 and 1 Kgs 1–2 = V_ (90.07%) / _V (9.93%); Joseph Story, Gen 37–50 = V_ (93.17%) / _V (6.83%); Synchronistic History, 1 Kgs 12:1–2 Kgs 18:12 = V_ (87.79%) / _V (12.21%). In the independent, non-embedded clauses of Exod 1–14, Gentry uncovered the following patterns (“Macrosyntax of Hebrew Narrative,” 10): V_ (92.78%) / _V (7.8%). DeRouchie and Van Pelt’s study of the Joseph Story material not covered by Dempster (i.e., clauses marked by a subordinate clause + all embedded discourse) revealed similar percentages (“A Macrosyntactical Analysis of RankShifted Clauses in the Narrative Material of Genesis 37–50,” 21): V_ (71.6%) / _V (28.4%). 55F. I. Andersen and A. D. Forbes, “‘Prose Particle’ Counts of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, Festschrift for D. N. Freedman, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor, ASOR, Special Volume Series 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 166, 170–71 n. 29. Andersen and Forbes define “particle frequency” as “the number of consonantal articles, relatives, and notae accusativi divided by the number of words in the chapter” (170). 56Cf. Freedman, “Another Look at Hebrew Poetry,” 11–18. 57Andersen and Forbes, “‘Prose Particle’ Counts of the Hebrew Bible,” 165–83. 58Freedman, “Another Look at Hebrew Poetry,” 17. 59Andersen and Forbes, “‘Prose Particle’ Counts of the Hebrew Bible,” 172–73: Deut 1 (19.878%), 2 (17.857%), 3 (24.512%), 4 (23.386%), 5 (18.008%), 6 (19.811%), 7 (19.417%), 8 (17.747%), 9 (21.042%), 10 (22.222%), 11 (25.591%), 12 (19.808%), 13 (19.207%), 14 (22.792%), 16 (15.868%), 17 (22.283%), 18 (18.750%), 19 (18.675%), 20 (18.671%), 21 (18.644%), 22 (18.535%), 26 (19.749%), 27 (21.472%), 28 (15.292%), 29 (23.462%), 30 (20.859%), 31 (23.689%), 34 (19.886%). 60Ibid., 173: Deut 15 (13.842%), 24 (12.538%), 25 (12.308%).

46

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

counts between 5–10 percent,61 but when the embedded song in 32:1–43 is set apart from its context, the song itself shows a frequency well below 5% and the rest of the chapter aligns with the majority of the book over 20 percent.62 As for chapter 23, no stylistic features appear to set this chapter apart from the rest of the legislation/exhortation found in chapters 12–26. Christensen does posit a detailed concentric framing within the chapter63 and places its various units as the central elements in a chiastic structure that stretches from 21:10–25:19.64 But he nowhere suggests the presence of a heightened poetic style like that found in the song of chapter 32 or the blessing of chapter 33, and there is nothing about his analysis in chapter 23 that is distinct from the way he handles the rest of the section. In the BHS, J. Hempel formats Deuteronomy 23 in paragraph form (i.e., as prose),65 and I am aware of no other interpreters who treat any part of this text as a poem, distinct from the other Deuteronomic materials. As such, for whatever reason, Deuteronomy 23 should probably be understood to be one of those few prose texts that has a low particle count.66 61Ibid.:

Deut 23 (5.900%), 32 (6.829%). to my count, of the 462 words in the ancient song of Deut 32:1– 43, only 5 are prose particles (cf. 32:1, 4, 38) = 1.082%. In contrast, 32:44–52 contains 153 words, and 37 are prose particles = 24.183%. My totals of 615 words and 42 prose particles for chap. 32 align with the figures of Andersen and Forbes (ibid.). 63Cf. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12, 523–56. 64Ibid., 465–66. 65J. Hempel, arranger, “Deuteronomomium,” in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977), 326–28. 66Intriguingly occurring in succession are three of the four chapters in Deuteronomy that do not contain an embedded poem and yet bear prose particle counts between 5–15 percent: chaps. 23 (5.900%), 24 (12.538%), 25 (12.308%). However, there is nothing significant that marks this set of chapters off from the rest of chaps. 12–26, apart from the apparent miscellaneous nature of the laws included. In view of the high frequency of prose particle counts between 5 and 15 percent in the prophetic literature, Freedman has posited a third category called “prophetic discourse” that is neither prose nor poetry but that shares characteristics of each (“Another Look at Hebrew Poetry,” 15–16). But because the majority of Deuteronomy exhibits particle counts above 20 percent and because there are no apparent stylistic or formal features that set these chapters apart from the rest of the book, there is no reason to view chaps. 23, 24, or 25 as “prophetic discourse.” Rather, they are all prose texts, though one employs prose particles at a remarkably low rate. 62According

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

47

In conclusion, Deuteronomy’s use of word order, the wa + verb-first clause pattern, and prose particles suggests the body of the book is prose rather than poetry. Few would question that Deuteronomy witnesses a high level of stylistic and structural artistry in the way it crafts both its parts and the whole, and there is no doubt that the stylistic continuum between prose and poetry leaves room for a measure of subjective judgment.67 Nevertheless, the linguistic features of the discourse indicate that one should interpret Deuteronomy as “literary didactic prose” rather than “didactic poetry,” keeping in mind that there are instances of embedded poetry in the text itself.68 The linguistic features in the whole of Deuteronomy clearly point toward its being prose rather than poetry. Therefore, in contrast to Christensen’s analysis, this study will proceed on the assumption that Deuteronomy is at best “literary didactic prose” rather than “didactic poetry,” keeping in mind that there are instances of embedded poetry in the discourse. The above observations regarding Deuteronomy’s overarching text type provide only a preliminary tool for engaging chapters 5–11. This study will examine the make-up of each unit of discourse, keeping in mind that individual paragraphs (and even sentences) may need to be analyzed separately if they represent distinct text types (e.g., an extended exposition or historical narrative embedded in a series of exhortations). CORPUS Whereas NT discourse studies have focused substantially on the hortatory address found in the epistolary literature, very few OT textlinguistic studies have ventured into the realm of Hebrew hortatory speech.69 A book-length 67In Freedman’s words, “As we know from other languages and literatures, there are few if any sharp lines between prose and poetry, and there are various stages between pure poetry and pure prose which can be categorized as prosepoetry, or poetic prose, or prosaic poetry” (“Another Look at Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 15). 68For a helpful recent summary of scholarly viewpoints and dialogue regarding the question of distinguishing Hebrew prose and poetry, see J. K. Kuntz, “Biblical Hebrew Poetry in Recent Research, Part I and Part II,” CurBS 6 (1998): 55–57; 7 (1999): 44–47. 69The only full-length monograph to date devoted to Hebrew hortatory discourse was completed about fifteen years ago by E. R. Clendenen, “The Interpretation of Biblical Hebrew Hortatory Texts: A Textlinguistic Approach to the Book of Malachi” (Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Arlington, 1989). A

48

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

study of the form, structure, and function of behavioral address is therefore both called for and justified. Moses’ sermons provide a natural starting point for such analysis in view of the substantial length of the addresses and the relative lack of textual corruption in the Pentateuch. This analysis focuses on the discourse grammar, surface structure, and flow of thought in Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32, the body of which is considered by most scholars to consist of an introduction (4:44–49) and the first major movement (5:1–11:32) of Moses’ second Deuteronomic address (chaps. 5–26/28). While chapter 5 of this study provides a detailed description of the unit’s structure, the decision to frame the corpus at Deuteronomy 4:44 and 11:32 deserves immediate comment. Deuteronomy 4:44––the Beginning of the Second Division No one denies that each of the three “sermons” in Deuteronomy (1:6–4:40; 5:1c–26:19 / 27:1b–28:69[29:1]; 29:1[2]–30:20) is preceded by narrative comment. In all but the first instance (1:1–5), however, there is substantial disagreement among scholars as to whether all or part of this material operates as a superscription to the address that follows or as a subscription to the previous speech. From a textlinguistic perspective, a number of surface features help clarify the role played by the narrative comment. number of shorter studies have been done––e.g., G. Yehoshua, “Reflections on the Study of Prophetic Discourse: the Question of Isaiah 1:2–20,” VT 33 (1983): 207– 21; D. J. Clark, “Discourse Structure in Zechariah 7:1–8:23,” BT 36 (1985): 328–35; idem, “Discourse Structure in Haggai,” JOTT 5 (1992): 13–24; idem, “Vision and Oracle in Zechariah 1–6,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. R. D. Bergen, SIL (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 529–60; E. R. Clendenen, “Discourse Strategies in Jeremiah 10:1–16,” JBL 106 (1987): 401–08; idem, “The Structure of Malachi: A Textlinguistic Study,” CTR 2 (1987): 3–17; Longacre, Joseph, 119–34; S. J. J. Hwang, “Analyzing a Hortatory Text with Special Attention to Particle, Wave, and Field,” in The Eighteenth LACUS Forum, ed. R. M. Brend (Lake Bluff, IL: Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States, 1992), 133–46; T. J. Finley and G. Payton, “A Discourse Analysis of Isaiah 7–12,” JOTT 6 (1993): 317–35; H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Some Discourse Functions of Prophetic Quotation Formulas in Jeremiah,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. R. D. Bergen, SIL (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 489–519; F. I. Andersen, “The Poetic Properties of Prophetic Discourse in the Book of Micah,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. R. D. Bergen, SIL (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 520–28; D. J. Holbrook, “Narrowing Down Haggai: Examining Style in Light of Discourse and Content,” JOTT 7 (1995): 1–12.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

49

Many scholars have recognized that the narrative units that precede the three main sermons in the book are formally marked by the following parallel constructions: {1a} 1:1 … rRvSa MyîrDb;dAh hR;lZEa {1b} 4:45 … rRvSa MyIfDÚpVvI;mAhw MyI;qUjAhw tOdEoDh hR;lEZa {1c} 28:69[29:1] … rRvSa tyîrV;bAh yérVbîd hR;lZEa

These are the words that … These are the stipulations and the statutes and the ordinances that … These are the words of the covenant that …

These are the only instances in Deuteronomy where the indefinite demonstrative pronoun hR;lEZa (“these”) is both clause initial and asyndetic in the mouth of the narrator. This suggests the possibility that that these constructions are formal introductory markers of textual units and that 4:45 is part of a superscription to the book’s second division. While possible, the legitimacy of this proposal is challenged by the fact that 4:45, though lacking a formal connector/conjunction (Ø) in its construction, does not appear to be a fresh beginning but rather an explanation of the heading in 4:44: “And this (taøzVw) is the Torah that Moses set before the Israelites.”70 The narrator clarifies the nature of the singular “Torah” (v. 44) as “the stipulations, the statues, and the ordinances” (v. 45), perhaps, as R. D. Nelson suggests, to negotiate “the interplay between ‘law’ as a comprehensive concept and the individual precepts that constitute it.”71 A similar asyndetic, appositional construction on the word-level is found in 70Dempster

notes how asyndetic sentences are frequently explicatory (“Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 46). If the narrator had wanted to suggest that the sentences in Deut 4:44 and 45 were a sequence of equal grammatical structures, he would have used a wa to introduce v. 45 (cf. ibid., 40). Historically, the “double heading” in Deut 4:44–45 has given scholars trouble. Driver refers to 4:44–49 as “superfluous” after 1:1–5, and he states that the presence of 4:44 makes 4:45 “tautologous” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 79–80). Von Rad calls the unit of 4:44–45 a syntactic “monstrosity” (Deuteronomy, 55). The proposal offered in this study suggests that the macrosyntactical and contextual concerns of the narrator warrant both the double heading and the syntax of these verses. 71R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 72. For a comparable synonymous reading of Deut 4:44 and 45, see Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 146.

50

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

Deuteronomy 6:1, one of only three other instances of taøzVw in Deuteronomy (4:44; 33:1; 33:7) and one of the many other instances in the book where “statutes and ordinances” are juxtaposed: “And this is the commandment––namely the statutes and the ordinances––that Yahweh commanded….”72 This parallel substantiates the conclusion that 4:45 is indeed an explanation or elaboration on 4:44.73 The fact that hrOwÚt and hdEo parallel one another elsewhere in the OT also supports this conclusion (cf. Ps 78:5––“he established stipulations [t…wdEo] in Jacob and set a Torah [hrOwÚt] in Israel”).74 While it appears that the hR;lZEa-construction in 4:45 does in large measure parallel the similar construction in 1:1 and 28:69[29:1], it is not the formal marker that begins the superscription to Moses’ second address. Instead, 4:44 plays this role. Significantly, both 4:44 and 45 are cleft sentences. A recent study by R. E. Longacre notes how such constructions often lie on the boundaries of text units (cf. 6:01; 12:1; 28:69[29:1]): “And this (taøzw) is the Torah that (rRvSa) Moses placed before the Israelites.75 These (hR;lEZa) are the stipulations, and the statutes, and the ordinances that (rRvSa) Moses spoke to the Israelites….” D. Crystal observes that cleft structure is evident whenever “a single clause has been divided into two sections, each with its own verb, one of which 72Moses uses the phrase nine time in the second speech alone: Deut 5:1, 31; 6:1, 20; 7:11; 11:32; 12:1; 26:16, 17; cf. 4:1, 5, 8, 14. 73This interpretation clarifies the nature of and necessity for the “double heading” in the text as it stands and calls into question the need to view v. 44 as a secondary intrusion, as proposed by Driver (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 79–80), N. Lohfink (“Die ‘˙uqqîm ûmi¡påtîm’ im Buch Deuteronomium und ihre Neubegrenzung durch Dtn 12,1,” Bib 70 [1989]: 10–11), and others. 74In personal conversation, D. I. Block has suggested that the final editor’s inclusion of 4:45 after 4:44 may have been necessitated by the heading in 12:1 (… MyIfDÚpVvI;mAhw MyI;qUjAh hR;lZEa “These are the statutes and judgments…”) and the nature of chaps. 12–26. Such a reading might suggest that 4:44–45 is the final editor’s outline of the major elements of the second address: “Torah” (v. 44) making up chaps. 5– 11 and “stipulations, decrees, and laws” making up chaps. 12–26 (cf. D. I. Block, The Gospel According to Moses: A Commentary on Deuteronomy [draft, spring 2005], 224). But as Block himself recognizes, the term “Torah” is used for the entire second address and not just chaps. 5–11 (17:17–19; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58, 61); furthermore, 12:1 does not include “the stipulations” (tødEoDh) in the title. 75Longacre, “Building for the Worship of God,” 29–30. Longacre actually only argues for the unit-initial role of cleft structures, but Num 36:13 shows how they also can be unit-terminal (cf. Deut 28:69).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

51

appears in a dependent wh-clause (relative clause).”76 In BH, this structure occurs when a nominal clause with a demonstrative pronoun subject is followed by a relative clause containing a finite verb: hRz / h;RlEZa (“this / these”) + nominal clause + rRvSa + verb. On both formal and textlinguistic grounds, therefore, 4:44 appears to operate as the start of a new unit. However, this interpretation requires that one explain the presence of wa at the front of taøz, for as has been persuasively argued by S. G. Dempster, wa is used “to sequence equal grammatical structures.”77 That is, wa cannot mark an absolute beginning, for “an initial structure cannot be in sequence with another structure.”78 While the presence of wa could suggest that there is an earlier beginning for the second major section of the book, both semantic and text grammatical features discourage this view. I will address each in reverse order. The only other possible start point for the second sermon’s introduction is 4:41, directly following the conclusion of the first address. The clause at 4:41 opens with the adverbial connector zDa (“then”), which, when used temporally, always marks a new beginning, similar to Ø. 79 However, it is distinguished from Ø in that it is always dependent on a previous context.80 Furthermore, as observed by Dempster in his analysis of the Synchronistic History (1 Kgs 12:1–2 Kgs 18:12), “the form [zDa] is never used interchangeably with Ø at the beginning of the large narrative sections.”81 As such, macrosyntax cautions one from viewing 4:41 as the introductory clause for the most substantial portion of Deuteronomy. Second, the content of 4:41–43 focuses on the cities of refuge, which link better with the first message than with the second. With reference to the relationship of 4:41–43 with the first speech, I. Rabbinowitz proposes 76Crystal,

A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics, 75. “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 40, cf. 40–47. 78Ibid., 42. For more on this, see the discussion of “Text Logic” in chap. 4. It is noteworthy that wa at times occurs at the beginning of biblical books, where one would expect an absolute beginning. There are also times outside of our corpus where speeches are introduced with wa. For my explanation of these syntactic phenomena, see the aforementioned unit in chap. 4 and Appendix 3. 79Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 216. Cf. DCH, 167– 68. 80Cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 16:21; 22:50; 2 Kgs 8:22; 12:18; 14:8; 15:16; 16:5. For more on zDa, see M. J. Mulder, “Die Partikel za im biblischen Hebräisch,” in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax, Festschrift for J. Hoftijzer, ed. K. Jongeling et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 132–42. 81Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 216. 77Dempster,

52

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

that, in the OT instances where zDa + yiqtol refers to the past, the construction indicates that the context of narrated past events is “approximately the time when, the time or circumstance in the course of which, or the occasion upon which the action designated by the imperfect verb-form went forward: this was when ( in Deuteronomy 6:4 provides a final example of distinguishing subject and predicate in nominal constructions: …wnyZEhølTa hÎwhy dDjRa hÎwhy. While there is question whether one or two predicatory relationships are expressed between the four nominal elements, those scholars that see predication exhibited between the first two elements almost universally regard hÎwhy (“Yahweh”) the subject and …wnyZEhølTa (“our God”) the predicate (complement).53 But as was argued by J. Hoftijzer, throughout the Pentateuch a definite noun phrase is consistently the subject of the clause whenever predication exists between a definite noun phrase and a proper noun.54 The natural conclusion is that, from the perspective of syntax, definite noun phrases are more definite than proper nouns, which 53For two recent thorough discussions of this text that survey the various interpretive options, see L. J. Bord and D. Hamidovic´, “Écoute Israël (Deut. VI 4),” VT 52 (2002): 13–29; D. I. Block, “How Many Is God? An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4–5,” JETS 47 (2004): 193–212; cf. Miller, “Pivotal Issues in Analyzing the Verbless Clause,” 4–5; IBHS, §8.4.2g. For a thorough bibliography of scholarly discussion, see D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, rev. ed., WBC 6a (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 138–41. 54Contrast Andersen’s cline of definiteness (The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, 109, Table 1) with Hoftijzer’s criticisms (“The Nominal Clause Reconsidered,” 468); see also note 52 in the present chapter. Hoftijzer himself suggests that the first two words of the Shema> may together be a nominal pendent element (= “casus pendens”), but he does not offer a translation (“The Nominal Clause Reconsidered,” 484).

76

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

means that …wnyEZhølTa is the subject and hÎwhy the predicate.55 Furthermore, as F. I. Andersen noted long ago and as D. I. Block has recently argued from the perspective of the immediate literary context, the implied question in the text is not “Who is Yahweh?” but “Who is our God?” or “Whom will the Israelites worship?”56 And the natural answer is one of undivided loyalty: 55So Dyk and Talstra’s framework. When an author desires to make a proper noun the subject of a juxtaposed pair that includes proper noun and definite noun phrase, he must insert a personal pronoun (e.g., a…wh) and place the proper noun in fronted extraposition, as in Deut 4:35, 39 (MyIhølTaDh a…wh hÎwhy “Yahweh, he is God”) and in 10:09.2 (wøtDlSjÅn a…wh hÎw hy “Yahweh, he is his [i.e., the Levite’s] possession”); cf. Deut 7:09.2–3. In contrast, R. Buth would argue that the pronoun a…w h (“he”) in these verses, which is identical to its use in Deut 18:2, is unnecessary and is present only for “focus” (see his discussion of Deut 31:3 and 18:2 in “Word Order in the Verbless Clause,” 104–05). But I believe Buth’s analysis is grounded in a faulty comparison and in his inability to properly distinguish the hypothetical subject and predicate in 18:2, had the pronoun not been present. He argues that “the same clause structure” is evident between Deut 31:3 and 18:2, the latter of which is a nominal construction identical to those found in Deut 4:35, 39; 10:09.2.

Deut 31:3

Deut 18:2

ÔKy‰ZnDpVl rEbOo a…wh ÔKyRZhølTa hÎwhy KÔ yZ‰nDpV;lIm hR;lEZaDh Mˆywø…gAh_tRa dyImVvÅy_a…wh

wøl_rR;bî;d rRvSaA;k wøtDlSjÅn a…wh hÎwhy

“Yahweh your God, he is crossing before you; He will destroy these nations from before you.”

“Yahweh, he is his inheritance, just as he promised him.”

Buth correctly notes that Deut 31:3 has a participle predicate, which would have made ÔKyZRhølTa hÎwhy (“Yahweh your God”) the subject had the unnecessary a…w h not been intruded. This analysis is correct because, as is seen in Dyk and Talstra’s framework, a proper noun is more definite than an indefinite participle, so the former would be the subject and the latter the predicate. However, this is not the case in 18:2, where the proper noun hÎw hy is less definite than the definite noun phrase wøtDlSjÅn (“his inheritance”). It is, therefore, unlikely that 18:2 (and 4:35, 39; 10:09.2) should be equated with 31:3. Furthermore, while the presence of a…w h in 31:3 is pragmatic, its presence in 18:2 and the other related texts is syntactic. 56Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, 47; Block, “How Many Is God?” 205–208, 211–12; cf. S. D. McBride, “The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Deut. 6:4–5,” Int 27 (1973): 291–97. Block writes, “Verse 5 confirms that the fundamental issue in the Shema> is exclusive and total devotion to Yahweh, a sense scarcely reflected in the traditional translation of the verse” (“How Many Is God?” 204). He continues (208; cf. 211): “The issue facing the Israelites who were about to cross the Jordan was not how many Yahwehs there were, nor which Yahweh they should serve (God is one!), nor even how many is Yahweh. The question that concerned Moses was whether they would remain exclusively devoted

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

77

“Our God is Yahweh!”57 While hÎwhy appears to be the most important information of the clause, the primary subject of the clause is still …wnyZEhølTa. Significantly, R. Buth has recently shown that the default word order for nominal (and I would propose “copular”) clauses is Subject–Predicate and that the order Predicate–Subject, as is found in the Shema>, is exactly what one would expect if the predicate was in focus––i.e., marked as the most salient clausal information.58 to Yahweh who had rescued them from Egypt and called them to covenant relationship with himself, or be seduced by and commit spiritual harlotry with the gods of the land of Canaan.... As a declaration of Israel’s complete undivided, unqualified, and undistracted devotion to Yawheh, ‘Our God is Yahweh, Yahweh alone,’ represents the required verbal response to the Hauptgebot.” 57This translation is accepted as a possibility by both McBride (“The Yoke of the Kingdom,” 273–306, esp. 274, 293) and Block (“How Many Is God?” 201). Significantly, Andersen too considers …wnyEhølTa the subject and hÎw hy the predicate, going against his own rules of definiteness (The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, 47; cf. 109, Table 1). Andersen (47) correctly points to Isa. 33:22 as a syntactic parallel reference: …wnEfVpOv hÎwhy yI;k For our judge is Yahweh; …wnéqVqOjVm hÎwhy our legislator is Yahweh; …wnE;kVlAm hÎwhy our king is Yahweh; …wnEoyIvwøy a…wh he will save us! 58So Buth, “Word Order in the Verbless Clause,” 87–101, esp. 87–88, 101; cf. BHRG, 343 §46.2.2, 346 §47.2(i)a; Holmstedt, “The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew,” 126–59, esp. 156–59. In contrast to T. Muraoka, who argues on the basis of statistical analysis that S–P order is not the default order (Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew [Leiden: Brill, 1985]), Buth argues that because participial clauses with a constituent other than the subject in first position almost always have the subject before the participle, the S–P order is most natural and a P–S order in nominal constructions is due to pragmatic marking. By “default” word order, Buth refers to that which “results without any pragmatic conditioning of word order” (88 n. 22). For more on S–P word order in BH, see Holmstedt, “The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew,” 126–59. For more on “focus,” see R. Buth, “Functional Grammar, Hebrew and Aramaic: An Integrated Textlinguistic Approach to Syntax,” in Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers, ed. W. R. Bodine, SBLSS (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995),” 84; idem, “Topic and Focus in Hebrew Poetry––Psalm 51,” in Language in Context, Festschrift for R. E. Longacre, ed. S. J. J. Hwang and W. W. Merrifield, SIL and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics 107 (Dallas: SIL, 1992), 83–96; BHRG, 346–47 §47.2(i). What C. H. J. van der Merwe, J. A. Naudé, and J. H. Kroeze refer to as the focus of topicalization (BHRG, 347–48 §47.2[ii]), Buth refers to as a contextualizing constituent, distinct from focus.

78

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

C o n cl usio n All matrix and subordinate clauses in our corpus formally align with the above patterns for non-copular verbal clauses and copular clauses with and without lexicalized hyh. Whenever word constructions meet the formal criteria, they are given their own line in the clause breakdown (cf. Appendix 1).59 Clause Codes: Communicative Constraints and Linguistic Features Along with delineating the various clauses and sentences, the database provides for each clause a “code” or “formula” that details the clause’s internal structure from a number of vantage points. The majority of the categories for clause coding applied in this study were set forth by S. G. Dempster in his 1985 University of Toronto Ph.D. dissertation, “Linguistic Features in Classical Hebrew Narrative.”60 Focusing on the matrix clauses in Hebrew narrative, Dempster identified a number of formal features that signal and are thus governed by certain macrosyntactic controls. These communicative constraints––known generally as text logic, foregrounding, participant reference, and lexical structuring––are functional or notional categories61 that variously express themselves in the surface structure of BH through at least six distinct linguistic features, each of which is detailed in this study’s breakdown of clauses.62 59While

using different terminology, some scholars like M. O’Connor and L. J. de Regt have suggested that certain small clauses should also be included in a clause breakdown (cf. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 86–87, 306–307, 311–13; de Regt, A Parametric Model for Syntactical Studies of a Textual Corpus), 13–17. 60S. G. Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative: A Discourse Analysis of Narrative from the Classical Period” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1985). 61“Notional” is a characteristic that refers to extra-linguistic realities or categories that help define formal units of grammar (cf. Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics, 319). Dempster’s categories were actually sequencing, theme, participant reference, and lexical structuring, but I have adapted these to meet the demands of the present study (see the next footnote). Dempster indicates that his “constraints” are closely parallel to four features affecting the structuring of a text that H. A. Gleason Jr. identified in unpublished lecture materials at the University of Toronto: sequencing, theme, reference, and lexical cohesion (“Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 38 n. 1). 62The present study adapts Dempster’s communicative constraints and linguistic features in the following ways: Communicative Constraints: First, what the present study terms “text logic” and “foregrounding,” Dempster used the term

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION 1. 2. 3.

Clause connection: Clause class: Verb form:

4. 5. 6.

Clause pattern: Clause constituent: Lexical selection:

79

Ø, Vw , etc. verbal (VC) or copular (CpC) perfective : imperfective; indicative : nonindicative63 P+S, S+P, P+O+S, etc. ±explicit subject text structuring items (yIIhVyAw , rømaEl, etc.)

The study also notes the various levels of discourse perspective (i.e., “domains”)64 and distinguishes the various text types by matrix clause in order to assess how much these categories also govern the six features noted above. A further description of the communicative constraints, their relationship to the clause features, and my application of domain and text type analysis will now be presented. “sequencing” and distinguished between sentence sequencing (i.e., connection) and predicate sequencing (i.e., semantic succession). But as has been recently argued by J. A. Cook, not only is sequencing to be distinguished from temporal succession (cf. R. E. Longacre, “Sentences as Combinations of Clauses,” in Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 2 of Complex Constructions, ed. T. Shopen [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985], 243–44, 263–67), but also temporal succession is most appropriately seen as a context-determined feature and not a grammaticalized one (cf. Cook, “The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles of Wayyiqtol and Weqatal in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” JSS 49 [2004]: 250– 54, 257–61; cf. Cook, “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System,” 275–307). Second, Dempster addressed “theme” or “constituent marking,” but the present study does not devote a special section to this issue. Linguistic Features: First, in place of Dempster’s use of “sentence,” this study employs “clause,” because our focus is not restricted to matrix predication. Second, where Dempster uses sentence “type,” this study uses clause “class.” Third, under “clause class,” this study distinguishes non-copular verbal clauses from copular clauses, rather than retaining the classic dichotomy between verbal and nominal clauses. Fourth, while Dempster only included five linguistic categories, this study adds “Verb Form” due to the way foregrounding influences verb choice. Fifth, whereas Dempster restricts his analysis of “clause pattern” to verbal clauses, this study overviews every Subject–Predicate relationship. 63As will be observed, modality (indicative : non-indicative) is marked in BH by a combination of verb form and clause initial position. 64“Domains” are the various conceptualizations of reality expressed in a text. The primary domain (D1) is that of the narrator, whose perspective ultimately shapes the entire message. Various subdomains occur within the primary domain (D2, D3, D4), when the narrator records the speech of others. For more on domains, see below.

80

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

Text logic Text logic deals with the relationship between sentences and/or clauses and governs clause connection. Sequenced clauses are coordinated, formally joined by a connector to create blocks of text. Non-sequenced clauses all bear special discourse pragmatic function. All connectors (whether conjunction, adverb, or particle) serve as macrosyntactical signs that mark distinct semantic links or breaks between clauses, sentences, or larger discourse blocks. For example, distinct connectors often distinguish clauses that start new text units or that support through restatement from other clauses types.65 Foregrou ndi ng Foreground and background are universal psycholinguistic features of human perception related to the relative structural prominence attributed to certain events, situations, or actions in a given text.66 Certain semantic properties are universally regarded as more central to text structure, and often these properties are formally marked (i.e., grammaticalized) in the surface structure of a language. By recognizing those formal features, the non-native interpreter is able to distinguish the mainline from offline or background material. In BH, the constraint of foregrounding influences connector type, clause class, verb form, and clause pattern.67 Participan t reference The next communicative constraint relates to the need for proper identification of participants in communication and the role of an explicit subject as a clause constituent. The presence or absence of an explicit subject in a Hebrew clause is governed by macrosyntactic guidelines related to participant reference. The presence of an explicit subject usually marks a participant shift, but there are also a number of other possible uses. 68 Because participants are often (re)identified at unit divisions in a text, 65Cf.

Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 34. “The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics,” 254; Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 184. 67It is noteworthy that the communicative constraints addressed in this study are not necessarily the only extra-linguistic controls governing the various linguistic features. For example, clause pattern is also influenced by a desire to mark certain constituents, whether for “focus” or for contextualizing reasons. For more on this, see the works by Buth cited in note 58. 68Cf. Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 105–06. 66Cook,

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

81

participant reference will often provide important data for determining the structure and flow of thought in discourse.69 Lexical stru c t u ri ng Lexical structuring relates to the use of lexical forms or phrases to signal text structures beyond the sentence level (e.g., semantic transitions). Whereas most lexical forms carry a semantic function with no structural value and have formally unpredictable distribution, lexical structuring markers are often highly predictable in given linguistic contexts, bear little semantic value, and are principally macrosyntactic in function.70 Some typical English examples of lexical structuring markers would be the use of “once upon a time” to begin a story and the appropriation of “well” or “now” in conversation.71 The next chapter summarizes the formal statistical data, semantic meanings, and discourse functions of most of the linguistic features noted above. Appendix 1 contains the catalog of clause data for Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32. The following list summarizes the principal linguistic features and related communicative constraints evaluated in this study: 1.

Clause Connection (Ø, Vw , etc.) is governed by the constraints of Text Logic and Foregrounding and answers the question, “How are clauses or larger units of text related to one another?”

2.

Clause Class (VC or NC) and Verb Form (perfective : imperfective; indicative : non-indicative) are governed by Foregrounding constraints and answer the question, “How are events, propositions, or ideas related to one another?”

3.

Verbal Clause Constituent (±explicit subject and its proximity to the verb) is governed by Participant Shift constraints and answers the question, “How does one identify who is being referred to in the text?”

69In Andersen’s words (The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 64): “Once the subject is identified explicitly in the opening clause, anaphoric pronominal reference is likely to be preferred within the body of a paragraph.... [T]he lack of an explicit noun subject in the second of two such consecutively coordinated clauses, when there is no change in subject, shows that we are still in the same paragraph. The common subject does double duty for both clauses, and unifies them in the fabric of the paragraph.” As will be shown, the same may be said of units above the paragraph level. 70Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 37, 121. 71Ibid., 37.

82 4.

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Lexical Selection (yIIhVyAw , rømaEl, etc.) is governed by Lexical Structuring constraints and answers the question, “What lexical items have a textstructuring function?”

Do mains “Domain” refers to a given level of perspective in a text.72 Regular narrative discourse is found in Domain 1 (D1), and here the narrator’s conception of reality is at the fore. When he shifts from strait narrative (D1) to a record of the external or internal speech of a character in the narrative, we have entered the first subdomain (D2). Further subdomains are expanded recursively, so that persons mentioned by the narrator may themselves refer to persons who also, by direct speech, express their own perspective on reality (D3, D4, etc.). Apart from Domain 1, which is always directly linked with the narrator, the various subdomains are not necessarily character specific; they only designate the level of perspective change in the discourse. For example, in our corpus, the narrator (D1) relates Moses’ record (D2) of speeches made by him, Yahweh, the Israelites, foreigners, children, and parents, and all of these latter speeches are considered Domain 3 because they mark changes in perspective within Domain 2. Part 2 of this study will evaluate the significance of domain placement when evaluating the various linguistic features noted above. Text t ypes Along with domain analysis, this study seeks to examine the relative significance of accounting for text type variation when assessing Hebrew clause and text structure. One caution many scholars have had with extending text type analysis beyond the clear markers of regular and direct discourse is the relative lack of formal controls.73 That is, in its initial stages, all text type 72On “domains” within discourse, see L. J. de Regt, “Domains and Subdomains in Biblical Hebrew Discourse,” in Narrative and Comment: Contributions to Discourse Grammar, Feschrift for W. Schneider, ed. E. Talstra (Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1995), 147–61; cf. de Regt, A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus, Demonstrated on the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 1–30, 1:43–47. 73Cf. A. F. den Exter Blockland, In Search of Text Syntax: Towards a Syntactic Text Segmentation Model for Biblical Hebrew (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1995); C. M. Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle yI;k (kî) [Dallas: SIL International, 2001), 375–80. E. Talstra states of R. E. Longacre’s approach, “[He] argues more from a functional, sociolinguistic point of view than from a formal, distributional point of view” (“Text Grammar and Biblical Hebrew: The Viewpoint of Wolfgang Schneider,” JOTT 5

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

83

analysis is substantially a top-down enterprise that uses the semantic shifts and functional distinctions in discourse to mark different discourse types. Ultimately, however, if the different posited text types could be shown to bear unique linguistic features––features that, once recognized, could help identify them, then the analysis of various text types could prove useful and even essential in writing an accurate grammar of Hebrew discourse. Perhaps the leading scholar employing multiple categories of text type analysis in the Hebrew Bible is R. E. Longacre, whose elaborate discourse typology balances functional and morpho-syntactic approaches. He begins by positing three language independent, functional (or notional) parameters, which intersect to form the various text type possibilities: ±agent orientation, ±contingent temporal succession (CTS), ±projection.74 Agent orientation relates to whether the text focuses on a particular agent and tracks participant reference. Contingent temporal succession deals with events or actions presupposing other events or actions with which they are joined. These are the primary parameters, and they intersect to form the four main text types: Narrative Discourse (+agent orientation/+CTS); Procedural Discourse (–agent orientation/+CTS); Behavioral Discourse (+agent orientation/–CTS); and Expository Discourse (–agent orientation/–CTS). The parameter of projection further divides the framework into eight discourse types and focuses on whether there is a future orientation and/or whether the action or event described is realized or merely anticipated/expected.75 The various text types are represented in Table 2. More recent studies have shown that in BH the main quadrants of the model are not as text type specific as initially thought. For example, Longacre himself has observed that behavioral discourse sometimes includes temporal succession when instructions or directions are being given.76 The result is that a type of behavioral address is aligned next to [1992]: 275). 74Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 2nd ed., TLL (New York: Plenum, 1996), 7–10. Longacre actually includes a fourth parameter (±tension), but he does not develop it significantly. Cf. R. E. Longacre, “Discourse Typology in Relation to Language Typology,” in Text Processing: Proceedings of the Nobel Symposium 51, ed. S. Allen (Stockhom: Almqvist & Wiksel, 1982), 457–86. For other similar text type models based merely on functional categories, see Clendenen, “The Interpretation of Biblical Hebrew Hortatory Texts,” 26–27. 75Cf. Longacre, “Discourse Typology in Relation to Language Typology,” 460– 61. 76Cf. Longacre, “Building for the Worship of God,” 21–49.

84

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Table 2. Longacre’s Text Typology77 +Agent Orientation

–Agent Orientation

Prediction/Instruction/ Promisory Speech

How to do it/Juridical

NARRATIVE

PROCEDURAL

Story or History

How it was done/ Frequentive

–Projection

Exhortation/ Promisory Speech

How to do it/Juridical

+Projectio

BEHAVIORAL

PROCEDURAL

Eulogy

Current Matters/ Scientific Essay

+CTS

–CTS

+Projection

–Projection

predictive discourse within the functional typology. Similarly, promisory speech is often not behavioral per se, but because it regularly bears no temporal contingency, it often aligns categorically with hortatory discourse. However, in other instances promises rather than mere predictions are expressed that do bare temporal succession and thus function similarly to predictive and instructional discourse. Along with these challenges, Clendenen has observed that in Longacre’s system an expository discourse on current matters would be defined only by what it is not: –agent orientation, –CTS, –projection. To fix this dilemma, Clendenen proposes that the first two parameters should be agent vs. thematic orientation and contingent temporal vs. contingent logical succession.78 But these weaknesses noted, Longacre’s functional parameters are helpful for an initial approach to text types. Along with these parameters, Longacre posits a number of Hebrew verb rank clines that are text type specific, which, if correct, would enhance the usability and identification of text types. The series of tables in Appendix 4 overview Longacre’s system, with minor adaptations growing out of the conclusions of the present work and other works applying the model in different parts of the Hebrew canon.79 Significantly, while 77Adapted

from Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 10. “The Interpretation of Biblical Hebrew Hortatory Texts,” 28. 79For (Narrative) Historical Discourse, see Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence––A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48, 2nd ed. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 79; for Predictive Discourse, see Joseph, 106; 78Clendenen,

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

85

Longacre’s model appears predominantly hypothetical in its creation, a recent analytical study by R. L. Heller has substantially confirmed Longacre’s proposal. Through a statistical inquiry by text type of every matrix clause in the Joseph Story (Gen 37, 39–47) and the Succession Narrative (2 Sam 9–20, 1 Kgs 1–2), Heller offers empirical data that suggest the various Hebrew text types utilize a limited “constellation” of predication patterns.80 Part of the purpose of the present study is to test the proposals of Longacre and Heller on Deuteronomy 5–11, a text that offers more extended sections of reported speech than either of these two scholars examined. Below is a description of the seven main text types evaluated in this study, as layed out by scholars todate; they are divided into two groups based on textual intention. Note especially the proposed correspondence between function and morphosyntactic markers in the first six discourse types:81 for Expository Discourse, see the description on Joseph, 111; for Hortatory Discourse, see Joseph, 121; for Instructional Discourse, see Longacre, “Building for the Worship of God,” 47; see also Longacre’s description of the various text types (ibid., 22–23) and idem, “Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” 51–56. Cf. Clendenen, “The Interpretation of Biblical Hebrew Hortatory Texts,” 54–55; Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 115–16; and most recently, Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, 462, 464, 468, 475. 80Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations: An Analysis of Clause Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose, HSS 55 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003). 81These overviews are an adaptation of the descriptions found in Longacre, “Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” 51–56; idem, “Building for the Worship of God,” 22–23, 45–48; idem, The Grammar of Discourse, 16–21; Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, 26, 458; Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text, 378–79. These three scholars actually use the term “narrative discourse” rather than “historical discourse.” However, I restrict the term “narrative” to Domain 1 material. Furthermore, because “predictive discourse” is merely future oriented narrative and because some use the term “narrative” to cover all types of discourse held together by a historical frame (e.g., E. van Wolde, ed., Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996, BIS 29, [Leiden: Brill, 1997]), the term “historical discourse” is more descriptive of the category. Similarly, D. A. Dawson chooses the terms “Narrative Historical Discourse” and “Narrative Predictive Discourse” in his text analysis (cf. TextLinguistics and Biblical Hebrew, JSOTSup 177 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994], 62–63, 115).

86 A.

B.

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Text types used to relay information: 1.

Historical Discourse (+Agent, +CTS, –Projection): text that relays a real or imagined sequence of contingent events bearing perfective aspect; usually past tense, with events occurring prior to the report; main event line marked by wayyiqtol verbs with [x] qatal forms marking backgrounded events

2.

Predictive Discourse (+Agent, +CTS, +Projection): text that proposes, plans, or predicts a sequence of contingent events bearing imperfective aspect; usually future tense, marking events that will occur after the speech; main event line marked by w#qatal and backgrounded predictions by ([x]) yiqtol

3.

Promisory Discourse (+Agent, –CTS, +Projection): text that anticipates and assures a forthcoming action or event bearing imperfective aspect but that is not necessarily contingent on any other event; usually future tense, marking actions or events that will certainly occur (from the perspective of the speaker) after the speech; regularly employs w#qatal as mainline verb

4.

Expository Discourse (–Agent, –CTS, ±Projection): text that provides static information by explaining a state or activity that is occurring at the time of the speech or that is perpetually true; always offline and marked by existential and copular clauses with and without lexicalized hyh (“to be”)

Text types used to express the speaker’s volition: 5.

Instructional Discourse (+Agent, +CTS, +Projection): text that attempts to elicit an active, temporally successive response from the hearer(s) of a speech; often related to construction and implementation or, as in Deuteronomy, to directions for fulfilling a given task; always second-person orientation; after initial imperative or cleft sentence, primary line of instruction is carried through w#qatal forms; secondary line of instruction through imperatives, verbless clauses, and [x] yiqtol

6.

Hortatory Discourse (+Agent, –CTS, +Projection): text that attempts, often by persuasion, to elicit an active or attitudinal (logically successive) response from the hearer(s) of the speech; mainline marked by imperatives and 1st position (modal) yiqtol and jussive forms; secondary line signaled by w#qatal forms

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION 7.

87

Interrogative Discourse (±Agent, ±CTS, ±Projection): text that attempts to elicit a verbal response (whether external or internal) from the hearer(s) of the speech82

It is noteworthy that a number of text types in the above model include overlapping forms among their primary morpho-syntactic features.83 For example, w#qatal forms dominate in all future-oriented texts (+ projection), including predictive, promissory, instructional, and hortatory. Similarly, imperative forms show up in both instructional and hortatory texts. These common features would seem to heighten the significance of semantic distinctions when differentiating these text types and may actually call into question whether all the text type distinctions are justified. The present study will wrestle more with these issues in the section on “Foregrounding” in chapter 4. Along with applying the seven text types, this study follows the lead of F. C. Tiffany in dividing behavioral address (both hortatory and instructional) into orders (commands and prohibitions) and parenesis (exhortations and admonitions). The two are distinguishable on the basis of textual intention as signaled by both content and syntax.84 With reference to content, orders are found where standards of action are provided within a given context; parenesis, on the other hand, presupposes the order and motivates compliance with the order. As for syntax, parenesis usually contains either the order plus an expanded motive clause (e.g., NAoZAmVl “so that”) or a subordinate reformulation of the order, usually by means of an infinitive clause prefixed by Vl (e.g., tOwcSoAl rAmVv “you shall keep by doing”) or a NRÚp (“lest”)clause.85 Formal indicators are therefore usually present for distinguishing orders from parenesis within behavioral address. TRACING THE ARGUMENT IN DEUTERONOMY 5–11 The text grammatical analysis employed in chapter 4 is organized around the four main communicative constraints addressed in this study: text logic, foregrounding, participant reference, and lexical structuring. As noted, each 82With Heller (Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations, 26 n. 86; 458 n. 33), this study includes rhetorical questions in interrogative discourse, even though their function is usually that of a persuasive command (i.e., hortatory discourse). 83So Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text, 379. 84Cf. F. C. Tiffany, “Parenesis and Deuteronomy 5–11 (Deut. 4:45; 5:2–11:29): A Form Critical Study” (Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1978), 3–25, esp. 19–25. See chap. 1 of the present study for a fuller description of Tiffany’s work. 85Ibid., 307–08.

88

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

notional category controls the shape certain linguistic features take. The formal patterns, semantic meanings, and discourse functions of these features are analyzed with specific reference to their role in determining literary structure. Chapter 5 attempts to show the significance of the text grammatical findings for establishing a text’s literary organization and message. After summarizing the present state of literary structural analysis, the study provides a structural and theological commentary on Deuteronomy 5–11. The point of this overview is to show how textlinguistics can positively assist the biblical interpreter by providing objective tools for discerning the flow of thought in discourse. The ultimate goal of the present study is to understand better the message of the biblical text. So chapter 5 provides a text case toward this end. A Visual Model for Tracing Arguments One of the devices employed in the textlinguistic analysis is the use of figures containing patterns of arcs to highlight structure and logical relationships. This method for tracing hortatory arguments is adapted from T. R. Schreiner’s Interpreting the Pauline Epistles.86 Schreiner identifies eighteen distinct logical/semantic relationships present between text units in NT epistolary literature.87 While a number of OT scholars have proposed similar categories for Hebrew prose, I use this model due to its simplicity and clarity.88 The various categories are as follows:89 86T. R. Schreiner, Interpreting the Pauline Epistles, GNTE (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 97–126. Schreiner expresses his indebtedness to D. P. Fuller’s pioneering efforts in the area of the logical relationships of clauses, as found in his unpublished “valuable work on hermeneutics” (ibid., 98 n. 2). Intriguingly, also with respect to tracing text arguments, Longacre (Joseph, 60) pays credence to Fuller’s teaching corpus, “The Inductive Method of Bible Study,” 3rd ed. (Pasadena, CA: Fuller Theological Seminary, 1959). 87Similarly, G. H. Guthrie and J. S. Duvall offer some fifty-four distinct “semantic functions” of “foundational expressions (normally main clauses)” in NT Greek literature (Biblical Greek Exegesis: A Graded Approach to Learning Intermediate and Advanced Greek [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998], 43–52). 88Cf. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 24–28, 36; Longacre, Joseph, 83, 107; de Regt, A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus, 1:10, 34–43. 89Schreiner, Interpreting the Pauline Epistles, 111–12; cf. 99–112. In response to the question raised in the title of her article, “Are there logical relations in a text?” R. Blass asserts (“Are there Logical Relations in a Text?” Lingua 90 [1993]: 109): “My conclusion is that if discourse analysis is to be sensitive to all the factors involved in communication and comprehension, then it is clearly wrong to pay attention only

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

89

Coordinate Relationships Series (S) Progression (P) Alternative (A) Subordinate Relationships Support by Restatement Action-Manner (modal clauses) (Ac/Mn) Comparison (comparative clauses) (Cf) Negative-Positive (–/+) Idea-Explanation (Id/Exp) Question-Answer (Q/A) Support by Distinct Statement Ground (causal clauses) (G) Inference (.˙.) Action-Result (result clauses) (Ac/Res) Action-Purpose (purpose clauses) (Ac/Pur) Conditional (conditional clauses) (If/Th) Temporal (temporal clauses) (T) Locative (locative clauses) (L) Bilateral-Ground (BL) Support by Contrary Statement Concessive (concessive clauses) (Csv) Situation-Response (Sit/R)

All propositional units (whether clause, paragraph, or larger text block) relate in either a coordinate or subordinate way to adjacent text units. Coordinate relationships are limited to propositions in series or progression or to those that offer alternatives. Almost always, such relationships are signaled by wa in Hebrew. Subordinate relationships are those where a given to what is linguistically encoded. Rather it is necessary to pay serious attention to contextual factors and inferential processes.” Similarly, E. J. Bakker writes (“Foregrounding and Indirect Discourse: Temporal Subclauses in a Herodotean Short Story,” Journal of Pragmatics 16 [1991]: 233): “Instead of determining whether a subclause is backgrounded [i.e., off-line], we have to investigate in what sense it is backgrounded with respect to its main clause. Only when we have determined what a subclause actually ‘does’ in its context can we gauge the value of the subclauses with respect to the notions ‘sequentiality’ and ‘foregrounding,’ or, for that purpose what it means for a subclause to lie within, or outside the narrative assertion.” I was directed to each work by C. H. J. van der Merwe, “A Critical Analysis of Narrative Syntactic Approaches, with Special Attention to Their Relationship to Discourse Analysis,” in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996, ed. E. van Wolde, BIS 29 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 141 n. 20 and 140 n. 19, respectively.

90

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

proposition supports a main proposition, whether by restatement, distinct statement, or contrary statement. Propositions support by restatement when they define or explain the main proposition in some way, stating the manner of an action, providing a comparison, offering a negative or positive counterpart to what has been stated, explaining an idea already expressed, or answering a question. Support by distinct statement occurs when main propositions are developed further. Text units that provide a ground or reason, an inference, a result, a purpose, or a temporal or locative marker all support by distinct statement. Finally, support by contrary statement occurs when a main proposition contrasts with a concessive one or when a response is given to an expressed situation. The system of arching presented by Schreiner is designed to help visually capture the logical development of an argument in each biblical paragraph and then to show how each paragraph relates to what precedes and follows.90 It is thus especially useful in hortatory texts where persuasion designed to elicit response is evident. The biblical texts are intentionally driven. They are not haphazardly thrown together but do in fact present a purposeful structure that aids effective communication.91 Clauses conjoin to form larger propositions, which together interrelate to form texts. At each level of text hierarchy, the aforementioned semantic relationships are present between adjacent units. Furthermore, almost always some formal feature is present to signal at least the distinction and often the explicit semantic relationship of the units. Using the Method As laid out by Schreiner, tracing a biblical argument involves three steps: “(1) isolate the different propositions; (2) trace the argument schematically; and (3) explain the main and supporting points in the text.”92 He continues, “The ultimate goal … is to trace the argument in each paragraph, and then [to] trace the argument between all the paragraphs so that the structure of 90Schreiner,

Interpreting the Pauline Epistles, 97. is not to say that all texts are logically structured. Indeed, it is possible for a communicator to speak in a non-logical fashion, as when a number of random observations are strung together. In such instances, however, the method above would mark such observations as a series (S) of propositions that do not build on one another in any discernable way (so ibid., 112). There is room, therefore, in the model for non-logical discourse. Nevertheless, the sermons in Deuteronomy show a clear logical development, and often this development is formally marked. 92Ibid., 113. 91This

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

91

the entire … [text] is evident.”93 For the sake of explanation, however, it will easier to start with the larger propositions and to clarify how they relate and breakdown to form the small discourse units. It must nevertheless be stressed that the logical relationship of the whole can be discerned only after wrestling with the logical relationship of the parts. And as will be argued, formal markers are present in the text to signal unit divisions, and often these markers also signal the type of relationship expressed between units, whether clause to clause, clause to paragraph, paragraph to paragraph, etc. Tracing the argument is substantially a bottom-up endeavor, which requires the interrelationship of form, semantic meaning, and discourse function in given contexts. Because paragraph divisions and the macrosyntactic role of connectors to mark logical relationships are not discussed until chapters 4 and 5, I will here simply provide a sample diagram and explain how one is to interpret it. The text under discussion is drawn from Deuteronomy 9:1–11:32. Comments here are restricted to explaining how the image in Figure 1 expresses structure and discourse boundaries. Fuller discussion of the content and message of this text is reserved for chapter 5.

G

Exp

.˙.

S

S

Id 9:1-3 4-7 7

Chap. 9 >

Id 24 25

10:11 12-13 14

Chap. 10 >

Exp

Id 11:15 16

Exp 25 26

32

Chap. 11 >

Figure 1. Macrostructural Diagram of 9:1–11:32

The first noteworthy feature of Figure 1 is the single arc that unites chapters 9–11. Chapter 5 of the present study will argue that this unit is the last of three major divisions in our corpus. Within this unit, two key sections are evident, as is apparent by the two arcs that stretch from 9:1– 10:11 and 10:12–11:32. Because the arcs (i.e., text units) are juxtaposed, the interpreter must discern the logical relationship between the two. Are they 93Ibid.

92

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

merely coordinate or is one unit subordinate to the other in the text hierarchy? Helpfully, a formal marker at the head of 10:12 (the connector h;tAoVw, “and now”) establishes that the second main section draws an inference from the first, and thus the second major arc contains the inference sign (.˙.). Each of these two main units contains it’s own organized argument. For example, 9:1–10:11 itself contains two main units, the first a call in 9:1– 3 for Israel to know Yahweh as a consuming fire and the second a logical ground (G) to this statement (9:4–10:11), which provides the reason why this knowledge is so important. The ground itself is made up of an idea (Id, 9:4–7) and an explanation (Exp, 9:8–10:11), the latter of which contains two propositional units in series (S). The inference begun in 10:12 draws from this whole unit but grows specifically out of the call to knowledge found in 9:1–3. (9:4–10:11 provide support by distinct statement to the main proposition in 9:1–3). In this second section, the preacher describes the practical implications of knowing Yahweh as a consuming fire, implications expressed in two discrete groupings in series. The first stresses the need for obedience and introduces the concept of blessing (10:12–11:15), both elements of which are summarized in the idea (Id) of 10:12–13 and then clarified through explanation (Exp) in 10:14–11:15. The second grouping contains a final appeal with a stress on the reality of both blessing and curse depending on whether Yahweh’s voice is heeded (11:16–32). It too opens with an idea (Id) in 11:16–25, which is then explained (Exp) in 11:26–32. The above model is driven by the premise that texts communicate their message through a hierarchy of propositional relationships. All text units are formally marked, which means that the boundaries of every arc will be distinguished on formal grounds. These formal features are described in chapters 4 and 5. Furthermore, usually the type of logical/semantic relationships are formally marked, and where they are not, context usually helps determine the type of coordinate or subordinate relationship expressed between the adjacent propositions. As with all interpretation of written communication, form, semantic meaning, and discourse function must be treated together in order to determine a text’s message. We now turn to Part 2.

PART 2

4 TEXT GRAMMAR The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the formal evidence, semantic meaning, and (macro)syntactic function of the various linguistic features (e.g., clause connection, clause class, participant reference, etc.) that are governed by the constraints of text logic, foregrounding, participant reference, and lexical structuring in Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32. These communicative controls provide the organizational headings for the body of this chapter. Only after the relationship of surface form to semantic meaning and discourse function is understood will there be a firm foundation upon which to analyze the literary structure of our text. Before presenting and describing these data, it is necessary to note some general features of clause placement and text type in our corpus. According to the information derived from Appendix 1, Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32 consists of 599 clauses (Cls) in the 310 sentences (Sents). The empirical data for clause and sentence breakdown are provided below with comment. As noted in Table 3, of the 599 full clauses in Deuteronomy 4:44– 11:32, 581 occur in reported discourse (RepSp), the narrator’s record of another’s “speech” (whether external or internal). The narrative (Nar) introduction extends from 4:44.1–5:01.2 and includes 12 clauses. Thereafter, the only other time the narrator’s perspective is directly heard is in 10:06.1–10:07.2, where a short narratorial comment regarding the death of Aaron and Israel’s itinerary after the Sinai experience is inserted into Moses’ address.1 An extended record of reported speech as is found in 1The textual signal that 10:06.1–10:07.2 records the narrator’s voice rather than Moses’ is the switch from 2nd person address to 3rd person address: “And the Israelites journeyed ....” Whereas most scholars see the narrator’s voice continuing through v. 9, it is more likely that Moses’ voice resumes in 10:08.1. This is noted not only from the structural signal awIhAh tEoD;b (“at that time”) in 10:08.1, which parallels the similar phrase in 10:01.1, but also from the switch back to 2nd person address at the end of v. 9, which reads: “Yahweh, he is [Levi’s] inheritance, just as Yahweh your God [ÔKyRZhølTa] spoke to him.”

95

96

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

Deuteronomy 5–11 will provide helpful data for evaluating those textlinguistic studies that have focused on texts that include much more comment by the narrator and much shorter accounts of direct discourse. Table 3. Clauses in Deuteronomy 4:44–11:322 Matrix Cls (%) 10 (55.56) 300 (51.64) 310 (51.75)

Sub Cls (%) 8 (44.44) 281 (48.36) 289 (48.25)

TOTAL 18 581 599

Nar RepSp

Matrix Cls (%) 10 (02.23) 300 (96.77)

Sub Cls (%) 8 (02.77) 281 (97.23)

TOTAL (%) 18 (03.01) 581 (96.99)

TOTAL (%)

310 (100.00)

289 (100.00)

599 (100.00)

A. Nar RepSp TOTAL (%) B.

The ratio of matrix to subordinate (Sub) clauses in narrative and reported speech is relatively consistent, with subordinate clauses making up 44% and 48% respectively. While the data field in the narrative portion is small, the numbers suggest that all discourse generally subordinates clauses at a similar rate. As stated in chapter 3, “domain” refers to a given level of perspective in a text, and shifts in domain are usually marked by a form of the verb rma (“say”). Table 4 notes that of the 599 full clauses in Deuteronomy 4:44– 11:32, four domain levels are present. Only 18 clauses shape Domain 1, which always records the narrator’s conceptualization of reality. Domain 2, the largest domain, has 455 clauses and is restricted in our text to an account of Moses’ words to Israel (cf. Deut 5:01.3). Moses’ voice, therefore, fills 76% of the clauses in our corpus! Domain 3 is made up of 123 clauses and registers Moses’ record of his speech to Yahweh (9:26.3), Yahweh’s speech to him (5:28.3, 9:12.2, 9:13.2, 10:01.2, 10:11.2) and to the Israelites (5:06.1, 9:23.2), the Israelites’ internal speech to themselves (7:17.2, 8:17.2, 9:04.2), foreigners’ speech to Israel (9:02.3), children’s speech to their parents (6:20.2), and parents’ speech to their children (6:21.2). Domain 4, the smallest domain, has only 3 clauses, which record both words that Moses says Yahweh told him to declare to 2All

percentages are rounded to the nearest one-hundredth, regardless of whether or not the total of the percentages in a given section exactly add up to 100%. When the sum of all grouped percentages does not equal the expected number, it is usually within one one-hundredths of a point.

TEXT GRAMMAR

97

Table 4. Clauses by Domain A. Nar

Matrix Cls (%) 10 (55.56) 223 (49.01) 75 (60.98) 2 (66.67) 310 (51.75)

Sub Cls (%) 8 (44.44) 232 (50.99) 48 (39.02) 1 (33.33) 289 (48.25)

TOTAL 18 455 123 3 599

B. Nar

Matrix Cls (%) 10 (03.23) 223 (71.94) 75 (24.19) 2 (00.65)

Sub Cls (%) 8 (02.77) 232 (80.28) 48 (16.61) 1 (00.35)

TOTAL (%) 18 (03.01) 455 (75.96) 123 (20.53) 3 (00.50)

310 (100.00)

289 (100.00)

599 (100.00)

D1 D2 RepSp D3 D4 TTL (%)

RepSp

D1 D2 D3 D4

TOTAL (%)

the Israelites (5:30.3) and the prophet’s words to Yahweh regarding what the foreign nations may say if he destroys his people (9:28.3). In Domain 2, the ratio of matrix clauses to subordinate clauses is almost 1:1, but in the other three domains, matrix clauses are somewhat more frequent. This variation is minor, however, and this study will proceed on the assumption that domain levels do not significantly alter the use of matrix versus subordinate clauses. Table 5 summarizes the breakdown of sentences by domain in Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32. Naturally, the total number of sentences in our corpus equals the total number of matrix clauses (= 310), the sentence being equivalent to the matrix clause with all its subordinate clauses. Significantly, 72% of all sentences in our corpus fall in Domain 2. It is Moses’ voice more than any other than dominates the text. Table 5. Sentences by Domain Sents/Matrix Cls Nar

D1 D2 Rep Sp D3 D4 TOTAL (%)

10 (03.23) 223 (71.94) 75 (24.19) 2 (00.65) 310 (100.00)

98

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

Tables 6–10 summarize the disbursement of the seven main text types (TxtTp) in Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32.3 Special attention is given to their placement in regular and direct discourse and in one of the four domains. A number of observations are noteworthy. First, the predictive (Pred), promissory (Prom), interrogative (Inter), instructional (Inst), and hortatory (Hort) text types never occur in the narrative portions of our corpus. Indeed, the historical (Hist) text type dominates Domain 1 (80%), with only two expository (Exp) sentences appearing. The narrator’s voice (D1) provides only the setting and background for the speeches (D2–D4), which make up 97% of our corpus. The narrator allows Moses’ words to remain the primary channel for the message.4 Second, in the reported speech of Deuteronomy 5–11, behavioral address occurs 47% of the time, predominantly through hortatory discourse (34%) but also through instruction (11%) and interrogative speech (2%). As will be shown, the primary thrust of this part of the sermon is to elicit an active or attitudinal response from the hearer(s), and all other text type sentences provide support, motivation, or background to the behavioral texts. Third, apart from 9 result or purpose statements (= “contingent”) and one parenetic sentence, instructional discourse is always expressed by an order and is almost always limited to Domain 3 (79%), where Moses recalls specific directions Yahweh gave him.5 Orders also comprise most of the hortatory sentences (66%), and orders occur in our corpus nearly three times as often as parenesis (90x to 33x). Significantly, however, in the hortatory discourse that dominates Moses’ words (D2), both orders and parenesis are frequently interwoven within single paragraphs, giving the entire discourse a parenetic thrust. Fourth, the predictive text type is quite rare, occurring in only 3 (1%) of the 300 sentences of the direct discourse.6 Like other prophets of God, Moses was more concerned with forthtelling than with foretelling. But in the process of calling Israel to behavioral change, he did make significant use of promissory discourse (32x, all in D2) to provide motivation by means of encouragement or threat (11% of direct discourse). Fifth, the 3For

a description of these text types, see chap. 3. R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Pt. 1: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980), 25–29. 5The only exception comes in 5:27 where Moses recalls instructions the Israelites gave to him. 6There are also the nine instructional texts and the two hortatory texts that I have designated “contingent,” due to their resultative or purposeful flavor. For more on these texts, see notes 7 and 8 in this chapter. 4Cf.

TEXT GRAMMAR

99

Table 6. Text Types in Narrative and Reported Speech A. Hist Pred Prom Exp Inter Inst Hort

Nar Sents (D1) (%) 8 (08.16)

TOTAL (%)

2

(05.55)

10

(03.23)

300

B. Hist Pred Prom Exp Inter Inst Hort

Nar Sents (D1) (%) 8 (80.00)

2

TOTAL (%)

RepSp Sents (D2–D4) (%) 90 (91.84) 3 (100.00) 32 (100.00) 34 (94.44) 7 (100.00) 33 (100.00) 101 (100.00)

(20.00)

10 (100.00)

TOTAL 98 3 32 36 7 33 101

(96.77)

310

RepSp Sents (D2–D4) (%) 90 (30.00) 3 (01.00) 32 (10.67) 34 (11.33) 7 (02.33) 33 (11.00) 101 (33.67)

TOTAL (%) 98 (31.61) 3 (00.97) 32 (10.32) 36 (11.61) 7 (02.26) 33 (09.68) 101 (32.58)

300 (100.00)

310 (100.00)

Table 7. Text Types by Domain in Reported Speech A. Hist Pred Prom Exp Inter Inst Hort TOTAL (%)

D2 Sents (%) 75 (83.33) 32 (100.00) 28 (82.35) 2 (28.57) 6 (18.18) 80 (79.21) 223

(74.33)

D3 Sents (%) 14 (15.56) 3 (100.00) 6 5 26 21

(17.65) (71.43) (78.79) (20.79)

75

(25.00)

D4 Sents (%) 1 (01.11)

1 (03.03) 2 (00.67)

TOTAL 90 3 32 34 7 33 101 300

100

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Table 7––Continued. Text Types by Domain in Reported Speech D2 Sents (%) 75 (33.63)

B. Hist Pred Prom Exp Inter Inst Hort

32 28 2 6 80

TOTAL (%)

(14.35) (12.56) (00.90) (02.69) (35.87)

223 (100.00)

D3 Sents (%) 14 (18.66) 3 (04.00) 6 5 26 21

(08.00) (06.67) (37.33) (28.00)

75 (100.00)

D4 Sents (%) 1 (50.00)

1 (50.00) 2 (100.00)

TOTAL (%) 90 (30.00) 3 (01.00) 32 (10.67) 34 (11.33) 7 (02.33) 33 (11.00) 101 (33.67) 300 (100.00)

Table 8. Orders, Parenesis, and Contingent Clauses in Behavioral Address A. Orders Parenesis Contingent TOTAL (%)

Inst (%) 23 (23.08) 1 (03.03) 9 (81.82)7 33

(24.63)

Hort (%) 67 (74.44) 32 (96.97) 2 (18.18) 8 101

(75.37)

TTL 90 33 11 134

7In nine instances within our corpus, instructional discourse embeds a contingent element in order to state either the consequence or purpose of the intended action (cf. 5:27.6–7, 5:31.2, 9:14.2–4; 10:02.1). The shift from intended action to consequence or purpose is marked by what R. E. Longacre has termed “switch reference,” which involves a transition of agency between clauses. In Instructional contexts, when the subject of a clause fronted by w#qatal descends the agency hierarchy (e.g. Yahweh > Moses > people), the clause expresses a result (cf. 05:27:6–7). But when a subject with w#qatal ascends the agency hierarchy (e.g., people > Moses > Yahweh), result becomes promise (cf. e.g., Exod 25:8). When, however, a clause with yiqtol marks switch reference in Instructional Discourse, purpose or goal is highlighted (cf. Deut 5:31.2, 9:14.2–4; 10:02.1; 10:11.4–5; cf. T. O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew [New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1971], 119 / §107c). For more on this, see Longacre, “Building for the Worship of God: Exodus 25:1–30:10,” in Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers, ed. W. R. Bodine, SBLSS (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 45–47. 8As with instructional discourse, there are two instances where hortatory discourse embeds a contingent element in order to mark the consequence of the intended action (cf. 7:25.3, 7:26.2). But while w#qatal does front the predictive clause in these examples, switch reference does not occur.

TEXT GRAMMAR

101

Table 8––Continued. Orders, Parenesis, and Contingent Clauses in Behavioral Address B. Orders Parenesis Contingent TOTAL (%)

Inst (%) 23 (69.70) 1 (03.03) 9 (27.27) 33 (100.00)

Hort (%) 67 (66.34) 32 (31.68) 2 (01.98) 101 (100.00)

TOTAL (%) 90 (67.16) 33 (24.63) 11 (08.21) 134 (100.00)

Table 9. Orders by Domain and Text Type Inst (%)

A.

Hort (%)

D2 D3 D4 TTL (%)

5 (08.93) 17 (51.52) 1 (100.00) 23 (23.08)

51 16 0 67

D2 D3 D4 TOTAL (%)

Inst (%) 5 (21.74) 17 (73.91) 1 (04.35) 23 (100.00)

Hort (%) 51 (76.12) 16 (23.88) 0 (00.00) 67 (100.00)

B.

(91.07) (48.48) (00.00) (74.44)

TOTAL 56 33 1 90 TOTAL (%) 56 (62.22) 33 (36.67) 1 (01.11) 90 (100.00)

Table 10. Parenesis by Domain and Text Type A. D2 D3 TTL (%) B. D2 D3 TOTAL (%)

Inst (%) 1 (03.57)

Hort (%) 27 (96.43) 5 (100.00)

1

32

(03.03)

(96.97)

TOTAL 28 5 33

Inst (%) 1 (100.00)

Hort (%) 27 (84.38) 5 (15.63)

TOTAL (%) 28 (84.85) 5 (15.15)

1 (100.00)

32 (100.00)

33 (100.00)

reported speech in general and in Domain 2 in particular contains a large amount of historical reflection (30–33%, respectively), second only to the hortatory address (34–36%, respectively). Clearly, Moses relied heavily on the lessons of the past to encourage present and future loyalty to Yahweh and to instill confidence in God’s promises, presence, and power. Because

102

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

of the extensive use of the historical text type in Domains 2–3, our corpus will provide a good environment for determining the extent to which historical materials are handled differently in reported speech than in narrative.9 Sixth, in direct discourse, 100% of promissory address and about 80% of the historical, expository, and hortatory text types occur in Domain 2. Predictive discourse is limited to Domain 3, as are nearly 79% of all instructional texts and 71% of all questions. The infrequence of instruction in Domain 2 is clearly due to the fact that Deuteronomy 5–11 is not a manual of directions but part of a motivational sermon. Seventh, while I have distinguished the 7 interrogative sentences from the rest, 3 of these could easily be catalogued as predictive, 2 as expository, and 2 as hortatory.10 In summary, 97% of our corpus is reported speech, and more than 74% of this material relays Moses’ words, which predominantly (about 39% of the time) contain his direct call for covenant love, whether by order or parenesis. Along with the hortatory address, he regularly uses stories of the past to ignite allegiance in the present and to encourage it for the future. He also frequently cites speeches made by others (25% of the total sentences in reported speech)––especially those of Yahweh made to him or to the Israelites––in order to provide support, background, or motivation for what he is saying. The narrator’s voice is heard directly only in Domain 1, which makes up less than 3% of our corpus and is limited predominantly to historical materials that provide the background and setting for the main prophetic address. The narrator allows Moses’ words to shape the primary message of the material. In the pages that follow, analysis is restricted to the 300 sentences (581 clauses) of reported speech (i.e., Domains 2–4). This strategy is adopted not only because the amount of narrative is too small for concrete investigation (10 sentences / 18 clauses), but also because OT textlinguistic analysis in the last thirty years has focused principally on narrative, with very little attention being given to direct discourse. Evaluation will move from form to meaning to function and not vice versa. The formal evidence is first 9Note the different views expressed by A. Niccacci (The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, trans. W. G. E. Watson, JSOTSup 86 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990], 102–09, esp. 109) and D. A. Dawson (Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, JSOTSup 177 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994], 31–32, 164–75, esp. 174–75). 10Interrogative predictive discourse: Deut 5:25.1, 7:17.3, 9:02.3; interrogative expository discourse: 6:20.3, 11:30.1; interrogative hortatory (parenetic) discourse: 5:29.1, 10:12.2.

TEXT GRAMMAR

103

presented and analyzed semantically, and then functional descriptions are given for each of the major linguistic features under discussion.

TEXT LOGIC Text logic is the communicative constraint that governs how clauses and/or sentences are related or “connected.” The primary connector is the conjunction wa, which links units of equal microsyntactic value. Any departure from wa marks a special discourse pragmatic function. Overt connectors front most clauses, and even when a connector is phonologically empty (i.e., asyndeton = Ø), it is syntactically present, for Ø connection bears specific syntactic function. Among the overt connectors are included a host of coordinating (allomorphs of wa; Owa, “or”)11 and subordinating (e.g., rRvSa, “which, that”; y;Ik, “because”; MIa, “if”)12 conjunctions and particles, prepositions when they introduce clauses, the negative subordinating adverb NRÚp (“lest”), those emphatic adverbs that modify a clause in relation to itself, what follows or precedes, or the whole discourse, and those restrictive adverbs that negate continuity between clauses. Waltke and O’Connor include among the emphatic adverbs those particles acknowledged as coordinators (PAa and M…Åg, “also, even”), a number of forms involving k, usually taken as accentual (y;Ik, “indeed, surely”) or logical markers (NE;k, “thus”; hO;k, “thus”; hDkD;k “so, thus”), and the common temporal adverbs (zDa, “then”; hÚDtAo, “now”).13 Among the restrictive adverbs are qår (“only”), a series involving k (JKAa, “surely”; NEkDa, “truly, nevertheless”; yI;k, “but”; yI;k MIa, “except”), lDbFa, “however”; sRpZRa, “only”; yI;k sRpZRa, “only that”; and MDl…wa, “on the other hand, however.”14 No less than 16 distinct 11Waltke and O’Connor also mention the possibility that p (“and so [then]”), commonly attested in Arabic (fa) and in a variety of Northwest Semitic dialects, is a coordinating conjunction in Hebrew (IBHS [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], §39.2.6c). See, e.g., the Úp in Pla in Ps 50:10 and the discussion by M. Dahood, Psalms I: 1–50, AB [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966], 293, 307–08). All of Dahood’s alleged examples, however, are rejected by K. Aartun, “Textüberlieferung und vermeintliche Belege der Konjunction pV im Alten Testament,” UgaritForschungen 10 (1978): 1–13. 12See IBHS, §38 for a thorough description of subordination in the HB. 13IBHS, §39.3.4c; cf. §39.3.4d–f. Waltke and O’Connor distinguish three types of adverbs––constituent adverbs (locative, temporal, scalar, and manner adverbs), item adverbs, and clausal adverbs (IBHS, §39.3.1d–39.3.5e). Joüon also includes interrogative adverbs (Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans. and rev. T. Muraoka [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993], §102i). 14IBHS, §39.3.5. Along with the emphatic and restrictive adverbs noted above, the negatives aøl, lAo, and NˆyAa (normally in construct: NyEa) are usually clausal

104

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

connectors are found in the reported speech of Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32. 15 Table 11 lists these connectors categorizes them according to their placement in matrix and subordinate clauses. Evident in the tables is that in the 581 reported speech clauses within our corpus, wa is the most frequent connector, linking about 42% of all clauses and beginning more than 58% of all sentences (i.e., matrix clauses). The only other dominant sentence connector is Ø, which occurs at a rate of 37%. Seven other connectors infrequently connect matrix clauses. While wa occurs more than any other connector at the head of sentences, its rate of frequency in reported speech is remarkably less than is normal in narrative. For example, S. G. Dempster determined that wa links 99% of all sentences in the Succession Narrative (2 Sam 9–20; 2 Kgs 1–2) and 94% of all sentences in both the Joseph Story (Gen 37–50) and the Synchronistic History (1 Kgs 12:1–2 Kgs 18:12).16 This imbalance is perhaps to be expected, however, for a common feature within direct discourse is the recursive embedding of speech within speech, and as new perspectives are offered, unit-initial Ø is almost always required. Furthermore, modifiers, but because they do not detail a relationship between clauses they are not considered “connectors.” Instead, they are designated “negative clause modifiers” (negClMod). Similarly, the interrogative Sh for polar questions is also a clausal modifier but not a connector (= interClMod). Finally, I have not included the presentative exclamations / interjections (hE…nIh and NEh “behold) among the connectors, choosing instead to view them simply as deictic clausal modifiers (deicClMod) (cf. J. W. Dyk and E. Talstra, “Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Features in Identifying Subject and Predicate in Nominal Clauses,” in The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, ed. C. L. Miller, LSAWS 1 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999], 169–73). Significantly, the presence of a fronted clause modifier creates a non-verb first clauses (_V). But in contrast to other fronted elements, clause modifiers are placed up front on syntactical as opposed to pragmatic or information-structuring grounds. In contrast to my approach, F. I. Andersen groups h´…nIh with the (adverbial) noun dOwo and the existential particles v´y and NˆyAa, and he considers them all “quasi-verbal” nominal clause predicators (The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, JBLMS 14 [Nashville: Abingdon, 1970], 23; cf. J. C. L. Gibson, Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax, 4th ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994], §§52–54). Like hE…nIh and NEh, the other types of exclamations (i.e., wish and oath formulas, nominal exclamations, and woe cries–– cf. IBHS §40.2.2–40.2.5) in no way express relationship between clauses. 15When all the coordinated compound forms are included, the total is 18 forms. 16S. G. Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative: A Discourse Analysis of Narrative From the Classical Period” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1985), 40, 142, 214.

TEXT GRAMMAR

105

Table 11. Connectors for Matrix and Subordinate Clauses Matrix Cls (%)

A. wa17

175

(72.31)

Ø rRvSa (rRvSaAw)

111

(88.80)

yI;k rRvSaA;k NAoAmVl (NAoAmVl…w) NRÚp MIa hDÚtAoVw NE;k_lAo bRqEZo MIa yI;k hO;k MIa yI;k NE;k qår MAgVw

5

(11.63)

TOTAL (%)

(11.20) (100.00) (88.37) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

242 18

125 122 43 12 12 8 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

2 (100.00) 1 (100.00) 1 1 1 1

(100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

300

(51.64)

wa Ø rRvSa (rRvSaAw)

175 111

(58.33) (37.00)

yI;k rRvSaA;k NAoAmVl (NAoAmVl…w)

5

(01.67)

17In

14 122 38 12 12 8 5

TOTAL

(27.69)

3 (100.00) 2 (100.00)

Matrix Cls (%)

B.

Sub Cls (%) 67

281

(48.36)

Sub Cls (%) 67 14 122 38 12 12

(23.84) (04.98) (43.42) (13.52) (04.27) (04.27)

581 TOTAL (%) 242 125 122 43 12 12

(41.65) (21.51) (21.00) (07.40) (02.07) (02.07)

the tables, the morpheme wa represents any one of its allomorphs that is not compounded with another connector (e.g.,; Aw , Aw , Vw , …w , etc., but not NAoAmVl…w, hDÚtAoVw, etc.). When the coordinated compounded forms are included, the total count increases by 14 forms to 256 (44.06%). 18Of the 14 subordinate Ø clauses, 4 are pendent elements (5:23.2, 9:09.1, 9:11.2, 10:09.2) and 10 are embedded appositional or parenthetical clauses (5:28.5, 7:09.3, 7:22.2, 8:02.4, 8:09.2, 9:03.3, 9:21.5, 10:17.2, 11:11.3, 11:12.2).

106

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Table 11––Continued. Connectors for Matrix and Subordinate Clauses

NRÚp MIa hDÚtAoVw NE;k_lAo bRqEZo MIa yI;k hO;k MIa yI;k NE;k qår MAgVw TOTAL (%)

3 2

1 1 1 1

8 5

(02.85) (01.78)

2 1

(00.71) (00.36)

(01.00) (00.67)

(00.33) (00.33) (00.33) (00.33)

300 (100.00)

281 (100.00)

8 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

(01.38) (00.86) (00.52) (00.34) (00.34) (00.17) (00.17) (00.17) (00.17) (00.17)

581 (100.00)

explanation and digression away from the mainline regularly characterize behavioral sermonic address like that found in Deuteronomy, and this frequently necessitates the absence of wa. In subordinate clauses, the relative particle rRvSa is the most common connector, appearing in 43% of all instances.19 The conjunction wa is second at 24%, followed by yI;k (14%), Ø (5%), rRvSaA;k and NAoZAmVl (4%), and a number of other less frequent forms. Apart from wa and Ø, yI;k is the only other connector in Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32 that prefixes both matrix and embedded clauses, but its occurrence in matrix material is comparatively infrequent.20 Having viewed the formal evidence for text logic in our corpus, I will now describe and compare the semantic meaning and function of wa and Ø. I choose these two because they are the most frequent connectors in reported speech and because they are the most significant connectors for determining literary structure.21 19For a recent, thorough treatment of rRvSa and its clauses, see R. D. Holmstedt, “The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2002). 20At times, it is difficult to discern whether the particle y;Ik is introducing matrix or subordinate material. For a thorough, recent discussion of issues related to y;Ik, see C. M. Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle yk (kî), Special Issue of JOTT (Dallas: SIL International, 2001). 21These two connectors are also unique in that they alone among all the other clause connectors do not trigger word-order inversion in non-copular verbal

TEXT GRAMMAR

107

wa Throughout our corpus, the various allomorphs of the morpheme wa (e.g., Vw, Aw, …w,; Aw ) are always coordinating connectors, linking structures of equal microsyntactic value.22 To say that wa links equal grammatical structures means that (1) from a microsyntactic perspective wa in no way signals textual hierarchy and that (2) the presence of a wa in a text assumes a preceding grammatical unit. Stated differently, wa links phrases to phrases, subordinate clauses to subordinate clauses, sentences to sentences, etc., and it can never signal an absolute beginning in a text because an initial structure cannot stand in coordination with another construction.23 When wa does occur in a text, the interpreter must view the unit it introduces as part of a larger text structure. On this basis, while the cleft clause structure clauses (cf. Holmstedt, “The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew,” 154). On “triggered inversion,” see Holmstedt, “The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew,” 148– 50, 159, along with the sub-section titled “Form and Meaning in BH’s Predication System,” located in the discussion on “Foregrounding” below. 22Cf. Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 40–41. The primary possible exceptions to the view that wa is a coordinator that links equal grammatical structures are (1) the “wa of apodosis,” (2) the wa on the lexical structuring marker hyh (=yIhVyAw or hDyDhVw ), and (3) the wa at times found at the head of reported speech. As for the former, see the summary that follows of R. C. Steiner’s article “Does the Biblical Hebrew Conjunction -w Have Many Meanings, One Meaning, or No Meaning at All?” (JBL 119 [2000]: 249–67). With reference to yIhVyAw or hDyDhVw as a text-structuring signpost, I will argue below that this use of wa is completely in line with the connector’s normal function. For more on yIhVyAw and hDyDhVw in particular, see my discussion of “Lexical Structuring Markers” below, along with Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 36–37, 121, 124–29, and Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, 48–60, 156–62. Finally, in regard to the infrequent presence of wa at the beginning of reported speech, C. L. Miller legitimately argues that speech-initial wa functions as a “contextual coordinator within dialogue” (“The Pragmatics of waw as a Discourse Marker in Biblical Hebrew Dialogue,” ZAH 12 [1999]: 165–91; cf. Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 43–44). 23Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 40–42. As was noted in the discussion on defining clauses in chap. 3, clauses that are independent from the perspective of microsyntax, may indeed be dependent from the perspective of macrosyntax. That is, from the perspective of text grammar, not all clauses connected by wa are equal. In the textual hierarchy of most discourse frameworks, wa + verb clauses are more mainline than those patterned wa + non-verb, for the latter provide secondary, circumstantial, or backgrounding information to the mainline. But this feature is most directly related to the discussion of “foregrounding,” which is discussed in the next section of the present chapter.

108

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

of Deuteronomy 4:44 appears to mark the beginning of the second major movement in the book, the syntactic link at the head of 4:44 signals that the second speech must be read with the first. Traditionally, Hebraists have been prone to view wa as a multi-valent or ambiguous connector, having many meanings and senses.24 While recognizing the particle’s primary meaning as a logical coordinator (“and”), scholars have also viewed it in various contexts as a marker of contrast (“but”), circumstance (“while”), alternative (“or”), consequence (“then”), or restatement (“that is, even”), among other uses.25 Recently, however, R. C. Steiner has forcefully shown that in each proposed alternative context, wa actually retains a single meaning of logical connection (“and”), though at times its semantic force is bleached.26 First, he argues that some clauses with wa are contrastive due not to the connector but to the inverted word order in the connecting clauses (V_ /_V).27 Second, when a clause beginning with wa clearly corresponds 24For example, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, edited by D. J. A. Clines, has over fifteen meanings and sub-meanings ([Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993– ], 2:596–98). For an overview of the history of interpretation of the meaning of wa, see Steiner, “Does the Biblical Hebrew Conjunction -w Have Many Meanings, One Meaning, or No Meaning at All?” JBL 119 (2000): 249–67. 25For a traditional approach to the use of wa, see IBHS §39.2 and T. O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), §132, pp. 162–65 and §197, pp. 279–81. For more on the “wa of apodosis” and fronted pendent constructions in general, see Joüon, §176, Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, 125–62; and W. Groß, Die Pendenskonstruktion im biblischen Hebräisch. Studien zum althebräischen Satz I, Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 27; Band: Münchener Universitätsschriften, Philosophische Fakultät Altertumskunde und Kulturwissenschaften (St. Ottilien: EOS, 1987). On the restating or specifying use of wa, see D. W. Baker, “Further Examples of the WAW Explicativum,” VT 30.2 [1980]: 129–36. He provides a thorough list of verses in the Hebrew Bible that have been suggested by others to contain this use of wa. Those I found that are above the clause level are Gen 24:16; 38:8; Exod 9:2; Lev 2:13; Deut 23:1; 32:28, 30, 36; 33:23 2 Sam 14:6; Isa 42:2; 59:9; Ezek 3:15; Job 34:35; Prov 3:12; with infinitive construct constructions: Isa 32:7; Jer 17:10; Neh 8:13. 26Steiner, “Does the Biblical Hebrew Conjunction -w Have Many Meanings, One Meaning, or No Meaning at All?” 249–67. 27Ibid., 257–60. In support, Steiner cites the dissertation by A. Mosak Moshavi, “The Pragmatics of Word Order in Biblical Hebrew: A Statistical Analysis” (Ph.D. diss., Yeshiva University, 2000). In 1985 Dempster referred to the same feature as “contrastive matching” (“Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 84–87), and M. O’Connor called it “chiastic matching” (Hebrew Verse Structure, 2nd ed. [Winona

TEXT GRAMMAR

109

temporally to the action in a previous clause, resulting in the translation of the connector as “while,” Steiner sees word order and not connector type triggering the circumstantial relationship.28 Here Steiner appears to be referring to instances where two non-verb-first clauses are linked (_V / _V), what S. G. Dempster termed “identical matching” and M. O’Connor called “achiastic matching.”29 Steiner also includes here copular clauses, but these appear to be circumstantial not because of their word order but because of their discourse function of providing background (see below). Third, as for clauses where wa seems equivalent to Owa (“or”), Steiner argues that the logical structure of the adjacent clauses is actually “if p, then r, and if q, then r.”30 He writes: “consolidation of the two clauses through deletion of redundant elements and rearrangement makes it look as though the verse were derived from the logically equivalent if p or q, then r.”31 In all reality, however, the wa is functioning normally as a coordinating “and.” Fourth, the common use of “wa of apodosis” to express the consequence (“then”) in a conditional construction has two possible explanations, both of which allow for the normal use of wa. (1) The semantic value of wa may be emptied to the extent that it operates merely as an optional clause boundary marker. (2) Steiner proposes that the pattern “if p, then q” is equivalent to “if p, then p and q,” which is often expressed in both English and Hebrew as “if p, then also q” (cf. Lev 6:21 with Jer 31:37; 33:20–21; Zech 3:7).32 Fifth, with reference to what has traditionally been called the wa explicativum, Steiner states that it is “the phrase [or clause] that is explanatory but the -w is not.”33 Instead, the wa has become semantically empty, having no lexical meaning. This same explanation clarifies its use after fronted pendent constructions, often refered to as “casus pendens,” and its presence in Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997], 392). 28Steiner, “Does the Biblical Hebrew Conjunction -w Have Many Meanings, One Meaning, or No Meaning at All?” 260. 29Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 84–85, 87–88; O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 392. In this respect, Steiner notes that “where the subject is definite, it comes first, whether the predicate is a perfect (e.g., Gen 24:31), and active participle (e.g., Gen 18:1), a stative participle/adjective (e.g., Gen 18:12), or a prepositional phrase (e.g., Lev 7:20)” (Steiner, “Does the Biblical Hebrew Conjunction -w Have Many Meanings, One Meaning, or No Meaning at All?” 260). 30He refers to this feature as “Coordination Reduction transformation” (ibid., 261). 31Ibid. 32Ibid., 264. 33Ibid., 264–65.

110

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

clauses where one would expect other connectors like yI;k (cf. Gen 42:10 with 42:12; 47:6 with 2 Kgs 5:8; Ps 144:3 with 8:5) or perhaps even rRvßa (cf. Gen 11:4).34 In summary, while wa is at times semantically bleached, it retains a single meaning in all of its uses, operating as a coordinating connector. At the head of sentences (i.e., above the matrix clause), wa is consistently absent in one of only two instances: (1) at the “beginning” of a new textual grouping or thought unit and (2) at the head of apposition.35 As for the first, absolute beginnings are most commonly marked by asyndeton (Ø), but other connectors like zDa (“then”) in Deuteronomy 4:41 are also used.36 With reference to apposition, which is usually termed “explication” at the clause level, it is almost always marked by Ø in BH and at times takes the form of parenthetical comment (e.g., 7:17.1 opens a parenthetical unit that stretches through 7:26.5). In my examples and in the clause breakdown of Appendix 1, clauses in apposition are always indented one tier to the left from the previous clause. The section on “Ø” will handle in greater detail both unit initiation and apposition. Below the sentence level, where phrases link with phrases and where subordinate clauses link with subordinate clauses, the connector wa is lacking not only at the beginning of intrusive thought units and in apposition but also when clauses fill either nominal or adverbial slots within the main predication structure. In such instances, Ø or, more often, one of the numerous subordinate connectors is used. The following examples show how wa links structures of similar substance at the intra- and inter-clause levels. Both here and in the clause breakdown of Appendix 1, equal and related grammatical structures are aligned along the same vertical axis. {1}

ÔKyZRhølTa hÎwhy tEa D;tVbAhDaw MyImÎ¥yAh_lD;k wyDtOwVxIm…w wyDfDÚpVvIm…w wyDtO;qUjw wø;tr AmVvIm D;trAmDvw

wa wa

11:01.1 11:01.2

34Ibid., 265. While explication preceded by wa is well attested below the clause level (linking phrases to phrases), above the clause level it is less frequent, being limited essentially to instances of semantic parallelism in poetic texts and to positive–negative contrasts. The normal way to signal apposition/explication at both the inner-clause and inter-clause level is asyndeton. 35Dempster notes both of these options (“Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 42–47). 36As is noted in the discussion on “Corpus” in chap. 2, zDa is a non-coordinating connector that functions much like Ø, except that it marks the unit that follows it as dependent on the previous context (cf. Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 216). A form like yIhVyAw is similar, except that it is coordinating.

TEXT GRAMMAR 11:01.1 11:01.2 {2}

111

And you shall love Yahweh your God. And you shall keep his charge, and his statutes, and his ordinances, and his commandments all the days.

yAlEa hÎwhy rAmDa awIhAh tEoD;b

Ø

xxxxxx

MyIÚfIv yExSo NwørSa cAoAZaÎw MyˆnOvaîrD;k MyˆnDbSa tOjUl_y´nVv lOsVpRaÎw hrDZhDh lAoZAaÎw 10:01.1 xxxxxx 10:03.1 10:03.2 10:03.3 {3}

wa wa wa

At that time Yahweh said to me, xxxxxx So I made an ark of acacia wood. And I hewed out two tablets of stone as the former ones. And I ascended the mountain.

MRhDl rOmTa

Ø

xxxxxx

yîdD;mIo dOmSo hOÚp hD;tAaw MyIfDÚpVvI;mAhw MyI;qUjAhw hÎwVxI;mAh_lD;k tEa ÔKyRZlEa hrV;bådSaÅw MédV;mAlV;t rRvSa X®rDZaDb …wcDow ;hD;tVvîrVl MRhDl NEtOn yIkOnDa rRvSa 05:30.2 xxxxxx 05:31.1 05:31.2 05:31.3 05:31.4 05:31.5

10:01.1 xxxxxx 10:03.1 10:03.2 10:03.3

wa wa wa

05:30.2 xxxxxx 05:31.1 05:31.2 05:31.3 05:31.4 05:31.5

Say to them, xxxxxx But you stand here with me. And I will speak to you all the commandment––even the statutes and the ordinances, which you shall teach them and which they shall do in the land that I am giving to them to possess.

In {1} and {3}, the horizontal arrows ( ) show coordination below the clause level, as nominal phrases of similar status are joined to form compound direct objects. The vertical arrows ( ) show coordination above the clause level. In {1}, two orders, both structured wa + verb, are placed in series (or progression). Similarly, {2} has a sequence of three wa + verb structures all related to Moses’ activities. Absent of any markers to the contrary, the perfective aspect of each verb provides a sense of temporal succession. Finally, while the pattern imperative + “cohortative” purports a command–result/purpose relationship from the perspective of discourse

112

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

function (= “so that”),37 the two clauses in 5:31.1–2 are both independent and thus equal from the perspective of microsyntax. All the vertical arrows in the far right column delimit coordination between sentences (i.e., matrix-clauses). In {3}, however, a wa connects two intra-sentence clauses, both governed by the relative particle in 5:31.3, and both parts of the single sentence stretching from 5:31.2–5.38 Table 12 shows the various connectors that front the clauses to which matrix and subordinate wa clauses are linked in the direct address of Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32. Significantly, in 32 instances the wa clause is coordinated with another wa clause that itself is ultimately joined to and thus governed by a subordinate connector (e.g., yI;k, NAoAZmVl, NRÚp). Table 13 shows the types of controlling connectors that govern subordinate clauses linked by wa.39 37Cf.

Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, 118 §107(c). See the discussion under “Foregrounding” for the view that what has traditionally been termed a “cohortative” is best regarded as a first-person jussive. 38Of the 242 instances of wa as a clause connector in the reported speech of our corpus, 175 link matrix clauses and 67 link subordinate clauses. Of the latter group, all are linked to subordinate connectors that control them. See the next two notes for a summary of those connectors that govern subordinate clauses linked by wa. 39The clause references associated with Table 13 are listed below. All nonparenthetical references are to the subordinate clauses connected by wa. The parenthetical references point to the location of controlling connectors that are not found in the clause immediately preceding the one with wa. An asterisk (*) signals that at least one mediating subordinate wa clause comes between the clause with the controlling connector and the subordinate wa clause under discussion. NRÚp (18x): 6:15.3, 8:12.2, 8:12.3 (8:12.1*), 8:12.4 (8:12.1*), 8:13.1 (8:12.1*), 8:13.2 (8:12.1*), 8:13.3 (8:12.1*), 8:14.1 (8:12.1*), 8:14.2 (8:12.1*), 8:17.1 (8:12.1*), 11:16.3, 11:16.4 (11:16.2*), 11:16.5 (11:16.2*), 11:17.1 (11:16.2*), 11:17.2 (11:16.2*), 11:17.3 (11:16.2*), 11:17.4 (11:16.2*), 11:17.5 (11:16.2*). yI;k (17x): 5:05.3, 5:15.3, 5:24.6, 7:01.3 (7:01.1), 7:02.1 (7:01.1), 7:02.2 (7:01.1), 7:04.2, 7:04.3 (7:04.1), 7:04.4 (7:04.1), 7:22.1, 7:23.1 (7:21.2*), 7:24.1 (7:21.2*), 7:23.2 (7:21.2*), 7:24.2 (7:21.2*), 8:10.1 (8:07.1), 8:10.2 (8:07.1*), 8:10.3 (8:07.1*). rRvSa (14x): 5:26.3, 5:31.4, 6:11.4, 6:11.5 (6:11.3*), 8:03.1 (8:02.2), 8:03.2 (8:02.2*), 8:03.3 (8:02.2*), 8:03.5, 8:09.4, 9:02.2, 10:17.4, 11:06.3, 11:10.6, 11:04.3. NAoAZmVl (9x): 5:33.4, 5:33.5 (5:33.3*), 6:18.3, 6:18.4 (6:18.2*), 8:01.4, 8:01.5 (8:01.3*), 8:01.6 (8:01.3*), 11:08.4, 11:08.5 (11:08.3*). MIa (4x): 08:19.3, 08:19.4 (8:19.2*), 8:19.5 (8:19.2*), 11:28.3. b®qZEo (2x): 7:12.3, 7:12.4 (7:12.2*). wa (2x): 7:15.2, 9:23.1. Ø (1x): 5:23.3.

TEXT GRAMMAR

113

Table 12. Connectors on Clauses to which Matrix and Subordinate wa Clauses are Directly Linked wa Matrix Cls

wa Sub Cls

wa

117

(66.86)

34

(50.75)40

Ø

52

(29.71)

1 11 11 4 3 2

(01.49)41 (16.42) (16.42) (05.97) (04.48) (02.99)

rRvSa yI;k NAoAZmVl NRÚp MIa hDÚtAoVw bRqEZo qår TOTAL (%)

4

(02.29)

1

(00.57) 1

1 (00.57) 175 (100.00)

(01.49)

67 (100.00)

TOTAL (%) 151 (62.40) 53

(21.90)

11 (04.55) 15 (06.20) 4 (01.65) 3 (01.24) 2 (00.83) 1 (00.41) 1 (00.41) 1 (00.41) 242 (100.00)

Table 13. The Controlling Connectors of Subordinate wa Clauses

NRÚp yI;k rRvSa NAoAZmVl 40Of

18 17 14 9

(26.87) (25.37) (20.90) (13.43)

the 34 subordinate wa clauses that are preceded by another wa clause, 32 are actually governed by an antecedent subordinate connector. In such instances, the following controlling connectors are found: NRÚp (15x), yI;k (6x), NAoAZmVl (5x), rRvSa (3x), MIa (2x), b®qZEo (1x). The two remaining instances are unique in that they are the pendent elements (protasis) of fronted pendent constructions (cf. 7:15.2 and 9:23.1). While connected by wa, which links the entire sentence with what precedes, the protasis is dependent on the apodosis that follows. 41The lone example of a wa clause preceded by a Ø subordinate clause comes in a fronted pendent construction. The wa actually introduces a parenthetical comment between the protasis and apodosis. On this, see R. L. Heller, Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations: An Analysis of Clause Function in Biblical Hebrew Prose, HSS (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 448–50. A similar pattern in subordinate clauses is theoretically possible if coordinated appositional clauses are embedded within a sentence; for such structures without coordination, see 7:09.3, 7:22.2, 8:09.2, 9:03.3, 10:17.2, 11:02.4, 11:11.3, 11:12.2.

114

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Table 13––Continued. The Controlling Connectors of Subordinate wa Clauses

MIa bRqEZo wa Ø TOTAL (%)

4 (05.97) 2 (02.99) 2 (02.99) 1 (01.49) 67 (100.00)

A couple of observations are noteworthy from these tables. First, in the reported speech of Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32, almost 67% of all matrix clauses fronted with wa stand in coordination with other matrix clauses fronted by wa. Another 30% of all wa matrix clauses are linked to asyndetic matrix clauses. These statistics align nicely with the characteristics seen in the major semantic groupings of Moses’ address, all but one of which begins with an asyndetic construction and then follows it with a long series of matrix clauses marked by wa (cf. 5:01.3, 6:04.1, 9:01.1). Furthermore, throughout the corpus, there are a number of extended explanatory sections, which are marked by a Ø clause and then followed by a progression of wa clauses. Second, nearly one-third of all instances of wa as a clause connector occur in subordinate clauses, where wa links information that is subordinated to and dependent on higher level matrix material. Nearly 51% of all subordinate wa clauses are joined with other wa clauses, and 94% of these (32 of 34) are governed by a preceding subordinate connector to which the consecution originates. As with Ø above, the subordinate connectors mark the point from which the subordinate semantic unit can be measured. Such wa clauses must, therefore, be viewed not as independent constructions but as subordinate clauses within a larger sentence. Note {4} for example. {4}

twøcSoAl N…wrVmVvI;t [ ] hÎwVxI;mAh_lD;k Mwø¥yAh ÔKV…wAxVm yIkOnDa rRvSa N…wyVjI;t NAoAZmVl MRtyIbr…w MRtaDb…w X®rDZaDh_tRa MR;tVvîryˆw MRkyEtObSaAl hÎwhy oA;bVvˆn_rRvSa 08:01.1 08:01.2 08:01.3 08:01.4 08:01.5

NAoAmVl wa wa wa

All the commandments [ ] you shall keep by doing, that I am commanding you today so that you may live, and may increase, and may enter,

08:01.1 08:01.2 08:01.3 08:01.4 08:01.5 08:01.6 08:01.7

TEXT GRAMMAR 08:01.6 08:01.7

115

and may possess the land that Yahweh swore to your fathers.

The clauses in 8:01.4–7 are all dependent on the NAoZAmVl (“so that”) of 8:01.3, the whole unit of which provides the goal-oriented motivation why the Israelites should obey the command of Yahweh––i.e., if they do, they will see the longed-for fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises. The sequence of wa connectors creates a semantic unit and marks 8:01.1–8:01.7 as one sentence in Hebrew, 8:01.1 being the matrix clause and 8:01.3–8:01.7 together being an embedded subordinate chain. Another specific example of the significance of wa relates to the proper enumeration of the Ten Words, which has challenged interpreters through the ages and is rendered all the more difficult by the wording distinctions in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. In Deuteronomy 5:17.1– 5:21.2, five aølVw constructions follow an initial asyndetic aøl, suggesting that the orders spanning from “You shall never murder (jDxrI;t aøl)” to “You shall never desire your neighbor’s house (ÔKRZoér tyE;b h‰…wAaVtIt aølw)” create a logical unit, with each prohibition focused on relational concerns within the community at large.42 {5}

jDxrI;t aøl PDanI;t aølw bOngI;t aølw awDv dEo ÔKSoérVb h‰nSoAt_aølw ÔKRZoér tRvEZa dOmVjAt aølw

Ø wa wa wa wa

05:17.1 05:18.1 05:19.1 05:20.1 05:21.1

42In

Exod 20:13–17, all the parallel clauses are asyndetic. Furthermore, toward the end of this unit, the ordering and wording of the two texts are somewhat different. In Deut 5:21, the wife is distinguished from all other household members and goods, whereas in Exod 20:17 she is lumped together with them. Furthermore, both orders of Exod 20:17 use dmj (“to covet”), but in Deut 5:21 distinct words are used––dmj (“to covet”) and hith. hwa (“to desire”). Note the comparison below: Deut 5:21

Exod 20:17

ÔKRZoér tRvZEa dOmVjAt aølw wøtDmSaÅw wø;dVbAow …whédDc ÔKRZoér tyE;b h‰…wAaVtIt aølw ÔKRZoérVl rRvSa lOkw wørOmSjÅw wørwøv

ÔKRZoér tyE;b dOmVjAt aøl wøtDmSaÅw wø;dVbAow ÔKRZoér tRvZEa dOmVjAt_aøl ÔKRZoérVl rRvSa lOkw wørOmSjÅw wørwøvw

“And you shall never covet your neighbor’s wife, and you shall shall never desire your neighbor’s house––namely, his field or his man servant or his maid servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that it to your neighbor.”

“You shall never covet your neighbor’s house. You shall never covet your neighbor’s wife or his man servant or his maid servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that is to your neighbor.”

116

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

lOkw wørOmSjÅw wørwøv wøtDmSaÅw wø;dVbAow …whéZdDc ÔKRZoér tyE;b h‰…wAaVtIt aølw ÔKZRoérVl rRvSa 5:17.1 5:18.1 5:19.1 5:20.1 5:21.1 5:21.2

5:21.3

wa

05:21.2 05:21.3

You shall never murder. And you shall never commit adultery. And you shall never steal. And you shall never bear false witness against your neighbor. And you shall never covet your neighbor’s wife. And you shall never desire your neighbor’s household––namely his field or his man servant or his maid servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that is to your neighbor.

Significantly, the syntactic structure of the grouping (i.e., each line starting with wa) suggests that the last two orders (i.e., coveting your neighbor’s wife and desiring your neighbor’s house) are actually distinct commands.43 This interpretation is further suggested by the repetition of the absolute noun construction “your neighbor” (ÔKZRoér) in 5:20.1, 5:21.1, and 5:21.2. The textlinguistic significance of wa cannot be underestimated, for the presence or absence of wa helps clarify syntax at both the macro- and micro-levels of textual structure. For example, as was noted, nearly all of the major semantic divisions in Domains 2–4 of our corpus begin with Ø and are followed by an extended series of clauses fronted with wa (cf. 5:01.3, 6:04.1, 9:01.1). The coordinate line can thus be traced backwards to establish semantic units within the text. Similarly, none of the 18 speeches in our corpus begins with an allomorph of the morpheme wa, which is exactly what would be expected if wa can never mark an absolute 43The

semantic context does not allow one to read the wa connector before the second prohibition in Deut 5:21 as the wa of specification (usually = wa explicativum, cf. Baker, “Further Examples of the WAW Explicativum,” 129–36). Similarly, while it is possible that the asyndetic clause associated with the second dmj (“to covet”) of Exod 20:17 is explicative of the previous order not to covet the household (see previous footnote), it seems more likely in view of the corresponding structures in the previous five Words (= aøl + impf) and in view of the syntactical structure of Deut 5:21 that the orders in Exod 20:17 are to be distinguished into Words nine and ten. But regardless of how one handles Exod 20, the discourse grammar for the latter half of the Deuteronomic account aligns with the enumeration system affirmed in most Catholic and Lutheran circles: (5) never murder, (6) never commit adultery, (7) never steal, (8) never bear false witness against your neighbor, (9) never covet your neighbor’s wife, (10) never desire your neighbor’s house[hold property]. More linguistic features that help discern the proper numbering of the first four Words are noted in the section on the Ø connector below.

TEXT GRAMMAR

117

beginning.44 Furthermore, as discussed in chapter 2, the presence of wa at the head of the introductory cleft sentence of Deuteronomy 4:44.1 suggests that while the verse most likely begins the book’s second major section, the material that follows must be read in connection to what precedes: MDc_rRvSa hrwø;tAh taøzw lEarVcˆy y´nV;b y´nVpIl hRvOm (“And this is the Torah that Moses placed before the Israelites”). Tables 14–16 itemize by text type and domain placement the various matrix clauses in our corpus that are fronted with wa. A number of features are significant. First, more than one-half and at times more than one-third of all clauses in the historical, predictive, promissory, instructional, and hortatory text types are linked by wa. The figures for expository discourse are somewhat less at 40%, most probably due to the higher use of single line expositional comments. No interrogative clauses in our corpus begin with wa. Second, wa matrix clauses make up 58% of all sentences in reported speech, and about 67% of these are split evenly between the historical and hortatory text types. Third, no wa matrix clauses occur in Domain 4, a fact probably due only to the limited material in this domain. Fourth, about 63% of all sentences in Domain 2 begin with wa. Of these, almost 39% are historical, 35% are hortatory, and 15% are promissory. Clearly, Moses was intent on coordinating numerous thoughts, whether through historical reflection, behavioral challenge, or promisory statement. In contrast, 47% of all clauses in Domain 3 are linked with wa, and of these nearly 46% are instructional. Hortatory and historical texts make up about 26% and 14%, respectively. I already noted that nearly one-third of all sentences in Domain 3 are instructional, so a high frequency of instructional wa clauses in Domain 3 is to be expected. 44Cf.

5:01.3, 5:06.1, 5:24.2, 5:28.4, 5:30.3, 6:20.3, 6:21.2, 7:17.2, 8:17.2, 9:02.3, 9:04.4, 9:12.2, 9:13.3, 9:23.3, 9:26.3, 9:29.1, 10:01.2, 10:11.2. Dempster observed that of the 237 speeches in the Succession Narrative (2 Sam 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2), 8 (3.38%) do begin their initial sentence with wa (cf. 2 Sam 13:26; 14:13; 16:3; 18:11, 12, 22, 23; 1 Kgs 2:22). But each of these exceptions occurs in the context of dialogue, where the presence of wa marks a high level of continuity between conversational speeches (ibid., 44, 132 n. 3). More recently, C. L. Miller has argued that wa at the head of speech operates as a contextual rather than clausal connector (“The Pragmatics of waw as a Discourse Marker in Biblical Hebrew Dialogue,” 165–91).

118

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Table 14. Matrix wa Clauses by Text Type and Domain D2 (%) 54 (91.53)

A. Hist Pred Prom Exp Inst Hort TOTAL (%)

21 (100.00) 10 (76.92) 6 (27.27) 49 (84.48) 140 (80.00)

B. 54

Hist Pred Prom Exp Inst Hort TOTAL (%)

D2 (%) (38.57)

21 (15.00) 10 (07.14) 6 (04.29) 49 (35.00) 140 (100.00)

D3 (%) 5 (08.47) 2 (100.00) 3 16 9 35

(23.08) (72.73) (15.52) (20.00)

5 2

D3 (%) (14.29) (05.71)

3 (08.57) 16 (45.71) 9 (25.71) 35 (100.00)

TOTAL 59 2 21 13 22 58 175 TOTAL (%) 59 (33.71) 2 (01.14) 21 (12.00) 13 (07.43) 22 (12.57) 58 (33.14) 175 (100.00)

Table 15. Matrix wa Clauses by Text Type and Domain in Relation to Total Matrix Clauses by Text Type and Domain A. Hist Pred Prom Exp Inter Inst Hort TOTAL (%)

D2 wa Matrix Cls (%)

Total D2 Matrix Cls

54

(72.00)

75

21 10

(65.63) (35.71)

32 28 2 6 80 223

6 (100.00) 49 (61.25) 140 (62.78)

TEXT GRAMMAR

119

Table 15––Continued. Matrix wa Clauses by Text Type and Domain in Relation to Total Matrix Clauses by Text Type and Domain B. Hist Pred Prom Exp Inter Inst Hort TOTAL (%)

D3 wa Matrix Cls (%) 5 (35.71) 2 (66.67) 3

(50.00)

16 9 35

(61.54) (42.86) (46.67)

TOTAL D3 Matrix Cls 14 3 6 5 26 21 75

Table 16. Matrix wa Clauses by Text Type and Domain in Relation to Total Matrix Clauses by Text Type

Hist Pred Prom Exp Inter Inst Hort TOTAL (%)

D2 wa Matrix Cls (%) 54 (60.00)

D3 wa Matrix Cls (%) 5 (05.56) 2 (66.67)

21 10

(65.63) (29.41)

3

(08.82)

6 49

(18.18) (48.51)

16 9

(48.48) (08.91)

TOTAL wa Matrix Cls (%) 59 (65.56) 2 (66.67) 21 (65.63) 13 (38.24) 0 (00.00) 22 (66.67) 58 (57.43)

140 (46.67)

35

(11.67)

175

(58.33)

TOTAL Matrix Cls 90 3 32 34 7 33 101 300

The present study of Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32 substantiates the notion that wa always marks a coordinate link with a preceding structure of equal microsyntactic value and that in normal practice the absence of wa is intentionally placed where such coordination is not intended.45 Not all scholars agree with this position,46 but this is likely due to their failure to 45An

evaluation of how wa works below the clause level is beyond the scope of this investigation. 46For example, more than thirty years ago F. I. Andersen opined, “Many coordination sentences remain equally acceptable if the coordinating conjunction is not used, and many apposition sentences remain acceptable if a coordinating conjunction is added” (The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, JLSP 231 [The Hague:

120

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

distinguish the microsyntactic and macrosyntactic role of wa. That is, by itself wa links phrases to phrases, subordinate clauses to subordinate clauses, and sentences to sentences, in no way signaling hierarchy within the text. However, when one considers the class and predication structure of the clause to which wa is linked, textual hierarchy is observable at the macrosyntactic level. I will address this distinction in greater detail in the section on foregrounding that follows. The clause connector wa is foundational in text grammar and is an essential formal feature in establishing literary structure.47 Ø The phonological absence of a connector at the head of a clause is syntactically significant in BH, because it signals the lack of any development in the text. While information is provided, the mainline of story, argument, direction, etc. is halted. Considered in this study a covert connector (= Ø), asyndeton at the front of a clause most commonly signals either (1) the start of a new text or thought unit (i.e., text initiation) or (2) the restatement, clarification, or explanation of a previous text or thought unit (i.e., apposition / explication / parenthetical comment).48 The common feature of both functions is that Ø stops the flow of thought within a text. At times, formal features help identify one function from the other. For example, when Ø is found at the start of a speech (18x in our corpus), it clearly marks the beginning of a textual unit (cf. e.g., 5:01.3, 5:06.1, 5:24.2, 5:28.4, 5:30.3). Similarly, apposition is more likely if the asyndetic clause contains an unspecified pronoun, because the content of the clause is thus bound to what precedes via the specified antecedent. In most instances, Mouton, 1974], 27). More recently, A. Niccacci has asserted (The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, 126): “WAW ... is clearly ‘neutral’ in the sense that it tells us nothing about the syntactic character of the connection it creates, whether it is coordinating (parataxis) or subordinating (hypotaxis). On the other hand, sometimes the WAW is missing and yet no change results.” 47Another common argument against the view that wa always acts as a coordinator is that this connector fronts a number of biblical books where one would expect an absolute beginning. I have addressed this issue in Appendix 3, noting how the presence of wa at these points still aligns with the connector’s normal coordinating use and how in these instances it performs a macrosyntactic structuring role within the canon. 48Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 42–47. What is often termed “apposition” below the clause level is labeled “explication” above the clause level. Dempster defines apposition as “the modification of one grammatical structure by another when the latter cannot act as an attributive” (44).

TEXT GRAMMAR

121

however, context alone appears to determine whether Ø marks text initiation or apposition.49 While nearly every Ø clause can be shown to signal either a new beginning or explication/clarification, it is apparent that below the clause level asyndetic nouns are sometimes found in a coordinate series. For example, 1 Kings 9:20 reads, “the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites” (= Ø-N + Ø-N + Ø-N + Ø-N + wa-N), whereas the Chronicler in 2 Chronicles 8:7 adds wa to all the intervening names. Similarly, in a list of David’s children, the Chronicler gives the wa to the second and fourth: “Shammua and Shobab, Nathan and Solomon and Ibhar and Elishua and Elpelet and Nogah and Nepheg and Japhia and Elishama and Beeliada and Eliphet” (1 Chr 14:4–5 = Ø-N + wa-N + Ø-N + wa-N), but 2 Sam 5:14 also includes wa before the third member.50 These examples suggest that Ø can replace the expected wa within a series where coordination is readily apparent. However, the interpreter should be cautious, recognizing that the normal use of asyndeton is not coordination. A case in point is found in the nominal clause of Deuteronomy 6:01.1, the predicate portion of which is made up of three juxtaposed nouns, only the latter two of which are linked by wa: MyIfDÚpVvI;mAhw MyI;qUjAh hÎwVxI;mAh taøzw. Some scholars consider all three nouns to be coordinated, viewing the absence of wa before the second noun either as a textual corruption or a variation of the same three-noun construction with wa in both 5:31.2 and 7:11.1: “the commandment and the statutes and the ordinances.”51 While I affirm that the three references are related, the singular demonstrative pronoun subject (taøzw “this”) in 6:01.1 along with the Ø connector before “statutes” strongly suggest the three nouns are not coordinated. Instead, the asyndetic plural noun MyI;qUjAh (“statutes”) and its accompanying coordinate plural noun MyIfDÚpVvI;mAh (“ordinances”) are best 49Waltke

and O’Connor assert that asyndetic constructions depend “totally on the semantic system operating behind the text to establish the interpropositional relationships” (IBHS §38.1h). I affirm this and assert that the most basic interpropositional relationships expressed by Ø are text initiation or apposition/ explication/clarification. The latter possibility opens the door for asyndeton to signal a wide range of semantic relationships, including logical ground. 50The narrator of Samuel includes only eleven names, whereas the chronicler included thirteen. But the first four names are identical and thus provide a legitimate parallel. 51The LXX places “and” before “statutes” in all three texts, whereas the SamP makes “statutes” asyndetic in these three instances. As noted by G. J. McConville, both versions appear to have rationalized an incongruity, albeit in opposite ways” (Deuteronomy, AOTC 5 [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002], 119).

122

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

viewed as appositives, clarifying the nature of the singular noun hÎwVxI;mAh (“the commandment”): “Now this is the commandment––namely, the statutes and the ordinances.”52 The greater context of Deuteronomy supports this view by consistently using the definite singular form hÎwVxI;mAh to refer to the entirety of Moses’ teaching, which includes the specific statutes and ordinances of the covenant.53 But how then are we to understand the inclusion of wa before the second noun of the triad in both 5:31.2 and 7:11.1, each text of which appears to mark the commandment, statutes, and ordinances as distinct entities? I believe the key is in recognizing the “whole > part” relationship within the grouping. The commandment relates to the statutes and ordinances in the way an arm relates to an elbow. The entities are distinct, thus allowing for the coordinating conjunction “and,” and yet are also related, so that the sum of the parts (“statutes and rules”) can be viewed as equaling the whole (“the commandment”), thus explaining the asyndetic constructions.54 The resulting translation is much like that argued for in Deuteronomy 6:01.1: “the commandment, even the statutes and the ordinances.”55 52So

McConville, Nelson, NRSV. Deuteronomy, the singular form hÎwVxI;mAh occurs 14x, all of which appear to refer to Moses’ instruction in general (5:31.2, 6.01.1, 6:25.3, 7:11.1, 8:01.1, 11:08.1, 11:22.1; cf. 15:5; 17:20; 19:9; 26:13; 27:1; 30:11; 30:15; Exod 24:12; note: Deut 15:5 and 30:15 may actually refer to a specific command, as is the case in Num 15:31). M. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy 1–11, AB 5 [New York: Doubleday, 1991], 326) points to A. Dillman, who argued over a century ago that hÎwVxI;mAh refers to the basic demand for loyalty to which Deut 5–11 is devoted (cf. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua [Leipzig, 1886], 268, 384). 54D. Crystal (A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 5th ed. [Oxford: Blackwell], 289) categorizes the part–whole relatationship a meronomy: “Meronomy is the relationship which obtains between ‘parts’ and ‘wholes’, such as wheel and car or leg and knee. ‘X is a part of Y’ (=X is a meronym of Y) constrasts especially with the ‘X is a kind of Y’ relationship (Hyponoymy).” For a similar construction, see Exod 24:12, where Yahweh declares to Moses regarding the Ten Words: “Come up to me on the mountain, and you shall be there; and I will give you the tablets of the stone––even the torah––even the commandment (hÎwVxI;mAhw hrwø;tAhw NRbRZaDh tOjUl_tRa), which I have written for their instruction.” Because the tablets, the torah, and the commandment are all modified by the relative clause, “which I have written for their instruction,” all three nouns must have direct reference in some way to the Ten Words, for they alone were written by God (cf. Exod 31:18). Cf. E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar [GKC], 2nd English ed., ed. A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), §154a; R. A. Cole, Exodus, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973), 187. 55Recognizing the general nature of “the commandment” in Deuteronomy, 53In

TEXT GRAMMAR

123

Just as Ø sometimes bears exceptional uses below the clause level, some scholars also see similar “exceptions” occurring above the clause level. For example, in a series of imperatives one after another, the second imperative is often asyndetic, especially when the first verb denotes a physical movement.56 An instance of this pattern is found in Deuteronomy 10:11.2–3, where the text reads, MDoDh y´nVpIl oA;sAmVl JKEl M…wq (“Arise! Go for a journey before the people).” While these imperatives may in fact bear understood coordination, it is also possible that the second imperative bears a Ø connector because the action expressed by the verb bears its own independent, assertive force and marks the true start of the imperatival unit. That is, while Yahweh told Moses to “arise,” it is the charge “Go!” that begins the main thrust of his speech. In summary, I suggest that reading asyndetic clauses in coordination is an interpreter’s last resort, which he should apply only if the asyndetic word, phrase, or clause is clearly not marking a new beginning or apposition. This stated, Table 17 shows a proposed breakdown by function of clauses fronted by Ø in the reported speech of our corpus.57 some have suggested that hÎwVxI;mAh in the three references under discussion focuses most directly on Deuteronomy 5–11, which is clearly central to the entire book and which is summarized in the Shema> of 6:4.1–5.1. The “statutes and ordinances” are then seen to refer most explicitly to the material in chapters 12–26, which are understood to develop the material in chapters 5–11. (This view, now revived by N. Lohfink and others, is attributed by S. R. Driver (Deuteronomy, 3rd ed., ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902], 88) to A. Westphal (Les Sources du Pentateuque [1888, 1892], 36, 111). This interpretation is rendered unlikely, however, because elsewhere in Deuteronomy hÎwVxI;mAh clearly bears a reference broader than Deuteronomy 5–11 (e.g., 15:5; 19:9; 30:11). 56Cf. Joüon, §177e. 57What follows is a full list of the clause references from each category in Table 17. Numbers in italics are among the 18 speech initial clauses. New Beginning (54x): 5:01.3, 5:02.1, 5:06.1, 5:07.1, 5:11.1, 5:12.1, 5:16.1, 5:17.1, 5:24.2, 5:27.1, 5:28.3, 5:28.5, 5:29.1, 5:30.1, 5:30.2, 5:30.3, 6:04.1, 6:04.2, 6:12.1 (2SC), 6:20.2, 6:21.2, 7:02.3 (2SC), 7:15.4 (2SC), 7:17.2, 7:17.3, 7:18.1 (2SC), 8:01.1, 8:05.3 (2SC), 8:11.1 (2SC), 8:17.2, 8:19.6 (2SC), 9:01.2, 9:02.3, 9:04.2, 9:11.3 (2SC), 9:12.2, 9:12.3, 9:13.2, 9:14.1, 9:23.2, 9:26.3, 9:27.1, 9:27.2, 9:28.3, 10:01.1, 10:01.2, 10:08.1, 10:09.3 (2SC), 10:11.2, 10:11.3, 10:20.1, 11:10.3 (2SC), 11:16.1, 11:26.2. Explication/Parenthetical (66x): 5:03.1, 5:04.1, 5:05.1, 5:08.1, 5:09.1, 5:13.1, 5:14.2, 5:22.1, 5:24.4, 5:32.3, 5:33.1, 6:13.1, 6:14.1, 6:16.1, 6:17.1, 7:02.4, 7:03.2, 7:05.2, 7:06.2, 7:07.1, 7:09.3, 7:10.1, 7:10.2, 7:14.1, 7:14.2, 7:16.3, 7:18.2, 7:21.1, 7:22.2, 7:24.3, 7:25.1, 7:25.2, 7:26.3, 8:02.7, 8:04.1, 8:09.2, 8:20.1, 9:03.3, 9:03.4, 9:04.1, 9:05.1, 9:07.1, 9:07.2, 9:07.4, 9:09.4, 9:12.6, 9:12.8, 9:16.3, 9:16.4, 9:18.2, 9:24.1, 9:24.2, 10:10.3, 10:14.1, 10:17.2, 10:20.2, 10:21.1, 10:22.1, 11:11.3, 11:12.2, 11:24.1, 11:24.3,

124

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Table 17. The Function of Ø Connectors Unit Initial Explicative / Parenthetical Pendent Elements TOTAL (%)

54 67 4

(43.20) (53.60) (03.20)

125 (100.00)

The clause breakdown that appears in the examples and in Appendix 1 positions all unit initiating asyndetic clauses on the far right within a given domain, because each of these signals a structural beginning within a text. In contrast, clauses fronted by Ø that operate in apposition, explication, or parenthetical digression are indented one tier to the left because they modify and are thus dependent on the grammatical construction to which they are juxtaposed.58 Whereas sequencing is marked by the vertical arrow ( ), the halting of all flow by Ø is signaled by a horizontal line ( – ). {6} and {7} provide examples of how I have followed the formal and semantic leads to determine the function of Ø. {6}

MRhElSa rRmaø¥ZyÅw MyIfDÚpVvI;mAh_tRaw MyI;qUjAh_tRa lEarVcˆy oAmVv Mwø¥yAh MRky´nzDaV;b rEbO;d yIkOnDa rRvSa MDtOa MR;tdAmVl…w MDtOcSoAl MR;trAmVv…w bérOjV;b tyîrV;b …wnDZ;mIo tårD;k …wnyEZhølTa hÎw hy taøzAh tyîrV;bAh_tRa hÎw hy tårD;k …wnyEZtObSa_tRa aøl Myˆ¥yAj …wnD;ZlU;k Mwø¥yAh hOp hR;lZEa …wnVjZÅnSa …wnD;ZtIa [ ] yI;k JKwø;tIm rDhD;b MRkD;mIo hÎw hy rR;bî;d MyˆnDpV;b MyˆnDÚp … rOmaEl ((5:05)) … vEaDh 05:01.2 05:01.3 05:01.4

wa Ø wa wa Ø Ø

yI;k Ø

05:01.2 05:01.3 05:01.4 05:01.5 05:01.6 05:02.1 05:03.1 05:03.2 05:04.1

And he (i.e., Moses) said to them (i.e., the people), “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and ordinances that I am speaking in your hearing today.

11:25.1, 11:25.2, 11:26.1, 11:27.1, 11:30.1. Pendent Element (4x): 5:23.2, 9:09.1, 9:11.2, 10:09.2. 58I have found that indenting explicatory clauses is helpful so as to distinguish primary material from embedded, supportive material. Nevertheless, because explicative / appositional structures are a form of restatement, they bear the same reference, fill the same clause/paragraph slot, and derive from the same syntactic class (i.e., two nouns, two verbs, etc.) as the grammatical construction to which they adjoin (cf. IBHS, 689; C. H. J. van der Merwe, J. A. Naudé, and J. H. Kroeze, BHRG, BLH 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 353; R. D. Holmstedt, “The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis” [Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin––Madison, 2002], 18).

TEXT GRAMMAR 05:01.5 05:01.6 05:02.1 05:03.1 05:03.2 05:04.1

125

And you shall learn them, and you shall keep by doing them. Yahweh our God cut a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our fathers did he cut this covenant, but with us––we––these here today––all of us living ones. Face to face Yahweh spoke with us at the mountain from the midst of the fire … saying, …

Of the four Ø connectors in {6}, I have interpreted the first as initial and the latter three as explicative. The clause in 5:01.3 is asyndetic and clearly marks the start of Moses’ second address, since it follows the narrator’s statement (D1) in 5:01.2, MRhElSa rRmaZø¥yÅw (“And he [i.e., Moses] said to them [i.e., all Israel]). The verb of saying thus serves as a formal lexical structuring marker, which determines the role of Ø that follows. The function of the second Ø, found in 5:02.1, must be determined solely from context. Undoubtedly, 5:02.1 introduces a historical comment on the Horeb event that runs through 5:31.5. But within the context of the whole, the section appears to be either explicative of “the statutes and ordinances” that Israel is to “hear” (5:01.3) or, more likely, a parenthetical background comment that provides foundational substance to the introductory appeals that run from 5:01.3–5:33.6. 5:02.1 is, therefore, indented one tier to the left. The declaration that Yahweh cut a covenant with Israel is immediately followed by a negative–positive assertion (“not them but you”), which serves to stress and thus explicate Moses’ claim that the Horeb covenant has continued relevance for the present generation (i.e., it was made “with us” […wnD;ZmIo]). The Ø at the head of 5:03.1 is thus best also understood as explicative, and the asyndetic clause with its accompanying yI;k clause is indented one tier to the left. 5:04.1 too seems to describe further the nature of the divine encounter. I have aligned 5:04.1 on the same vertical axis as 5:03.1–2 because 5:04.1 appears to clarify not the negative–positive statement of 5:03.1–2 but rather the declaration of 5:02.1. There is no wa at the head of 5:04.1 because Moses saw no coordinate relationship between the negative–positive remark and the following explication. {7}

MRkVbAbVl tAlrDo tEa MR;tVlAm…w ... dwøo …wvVqAt aøl MRkVÚprDow r´…gAh_tRa MR;tVbAhSaÅw)

wa wa wa

(MˆyrVxIm X®rRZaV;b MRtyˆyTh Myîr´g_yI;k

aryI;t ÔKyRZhølTa hÎw hy_tRa dObSoAt wøtOa qD;bdIt wøb…w AoEbDÚvI;t wømVvIb…w

Ø Ø wa wa

10:16.1 10:16.2 10:19.1 10:19.2 10:20.1 10:20.2 10:20.3 10:20.4

126

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

ÔKVtD;lIhVt a…wh KÔ yRZhølTa a…w hw tølOd…gAh_tRa ÔKV;tIa hDcDo_rRvSa hR;lEZaDh tOarwø…nAh_tRaw ÔKy‰ZnyEo …war rRvSa hDmyZrVxIm ÔKyRZtObSa …wdrÎy vRpZ‰n MyIoVbIvV;b yEbVkwøkV;k ÔKyRZhølTa hÎwhy ÔKVmDc hD;tAow bOrDl MˆyAmDÚvAh ÔKyZRhølTa hÎwhy tEa D;tVbAhDaw _lD;k wyDtOwVxIm…w wyDfDÚpVvIm…w wyDtO;qUjw wø;trAmVvIm D;trAmDvw MyImÎ¥yAh hÎy…wf…nAh wøoOrz…w hqÎzSjAh wødÎy_tRa wøldÎ…g_tRa … Mwø¥yAh MR;tVoådyˆw wyDcSoAm_tRaw wyDtOtOa _tRaw ((11:03)) 10:16.1 10:16.2 10:19.1 10:19.2 10:20.1 10:20.2 10:20.3 10:20.4 10:21.1 10:21.2 10:21.3 10:21.4 10:22.1 10:22.2

11:01.1 11:01.2 11:02.1

Ø wa

10:21.1 10:21.2 10:21.3

Ø wa

10:21.4 10:22.1 10:22.2

wa wa

11:01.1 11:01.2

wa

11:02.1

And you shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart. And your neck you shall never stiffen again…. (And you shall love the sojourner, because sojourners you were in the land of Egypt.) Yahweh your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve. And on him you shall cling. And in his name you shall swear. He is your praise, And he is your God, who has done with you these great and awesome acts that your eyes have seen. With seventy souls your fathers went down to Egypt. And now Yahweh your God has made you for a multitude as the stars of the heavens. And you shall love Yahweh your God. And you shall keep his charge and his statutes and his ordinances and his commandments all the days. And you shall know today … his greatness––namely, his strong hand and his outstretched arm––even his signs, and his deeds.

In {7}, 10:20.1 appears at first to mark a new beginning, for the call to fear God bears a wider semantic range than the charge in 10:19 to love the foreigner. That is, explication works from the whole to the whole or the whole to the part but not from the part to the whole. A look at the wider context in 10:12 and 16, however, clarifies how well the call to fear in 10:20.1 fits with what precedes. Viewing the charge in 10:19.1 as an intrusive element, growing out of the assertion in 10:17 that Yahweh is a

TEXT GRAMMAR

127

helper of foreigners,59 10:20.1–11:01.2 is easily seen as a parenthetical digression on the exclusivity of Yahweh in the worship of Israel as a whole. The shift to singular appeal focuses on Israel as a unity and naturally sets these verses apart from the plural orders of 10:16.1–2, 10:19.1, and 11:02.1, which address the responsibility of each individual Israelite.60 Nevertheless, the semantic nature of the material in 10:20.1–11:01.2 clearly points to the unit’s relationship with the greater context. As for the series that runs from the asyndetic clause in 10:20.2 through the wa clause of 10:20.4, the three statements together describe the nature of fearing God. As elsewhere, fear of God in Deuteronomy is intimately related to living in accordance with God’s ways (cf. Deut 6:24; 10:12–13; see also Gen 22:12; Exod 20:20; Jer 32:40; Pss 19:9; 111:10; Prov 1:7; 15:33). The Ø connector in 10:20.2, therefore, begins a short explicative unit. The text then describes the one who elicits such fear, thus rendering the Ø sentence in 10:21.1 and the wa sentence in 10:21.2–4 as another explicative unit. The end of this depiction of Yahweh points to the awesome wonders that he did on Israel’s behalf. And the explanatory unit of 10:22.1 (Ø)–10:22.2 (wa) stresses at least one aspect of these acts––i.e., Yahweh’s fulfillment of his promise to Abraham to make his offspring “as numerous as the stars of heaven.”61 The return to plural address in 11:01.1 signals the return to the mainline of Moses’ sermon. The Deuteronomic account of the Decalogue provides a final intriguing example of the use of Ø. Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13, and 10:4 make explicit that we are to find ten words, but the Jewish (J), Roman Catholic and Lutheran (C/L), and Orthodox and Reformed (O/R) traditions have numbered the “commands” in various ways. Table 18 provides the different options.62 59R.

D. Nelson calls it a “disruptive addition ... [that] does not fit the hymnic style of vv. 17–18” (Deuteronomy, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002], 134). One must, however, give a preacher some freedom to make an intrusive digression. 60For this understanding of the switch between singular and plural address in Deuteronomy, see J. G. McConville, “Singular Address in the Deuteronomic Law and the Politics of Legal Administration,” JSOT 97 (2002): 19–36. 61I do not agree, therefore, with Nelson that 10:22 “introduces a tangential topic and may be an addition” (Deuteronomy, 134). 62In reality, the Decalogue’s history of interpretation is more complex than this. For an overview of the different views on numbering, see L. Hartman, “The Enumeration of the Ten Commandments,” CBQ 7 (1945): 105–108; M. Breuer, “Dividing the Decalogue into Verses and Commandments,” trans. Gershon Levi, in The Ten Commandments in History and Interpretation, ed. Ben-Zion Segal and

128

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Table 18. Numbering Systems of the Decalogue

The WORDS (as found in Deut 5:6–21) I am Yahweh your God who brought you out of Egypt There shall never be to you others gods before me You shall never make for yourself an image You shall never lift up the name of Yahweh in vain Keep the day of the Sabbath by treating it as holy Honor your father and your mother You shall never murder And you shall never commit adultery And you shall never steal And you shall never bear a false witness against your neighbor And you shall never covet your neighbor’s wife And you shall never desire your neighbor’s house

J 1

C/L

O/R

2

1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

9 10

10

I argued above that the prohibition against murder in 5:17.1 is best regarded as the fifth “commandment” because the macrosyntactic structuring of the passage strongly suggests that the final two prohibitions in 5:21.1–2 (“You shall never covet your neighbor’s wife” and “You shall never desire your neighbor’s house”) are in fact discrete orders. 63 Deuteronomy’s account of the Ten Words, therefore, provides formal support for the Roman Catholic and Lutheran distinction of the statements against coveting. One wonders, then, whether text grammar may also contribute to the delineation of the first four commands. In this section of text, there are nine asyndetic clauses whose function needs to be determined. Apart from the speech initial introduction of Yahweh in 5:06.1, all the other clauses fronted by Ø bear volitional force: 5:07.1, 5:08.1, 5:09.1, 5:11.1, 5:12.1, 5:13.1, 5:14.2, and 5:16.1. Significantly, however, only four of these eight “command-type” statements can be included among the Ten Words. Gershon Levi (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), 291–330, esp. 309–14; R. Youngblood, “Counting the Ten Commandments,” BR 10 (Dec., 1994): 30–35, 50, 52; J. S. DeRouchie, “Numbering the Decalogue: A Textlinguistic Reappraisal” (a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Washington, D.C., November 2006, and at the Upper Midwest Regional Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Saint Paul, MN, April 2007). 63See the discussion under “wa” at example {5} above.

TEXT GRAMMAR

129

On all readings, the coordinate matrix clauses in 5:09.1–2 are considered appositional, whether to the prohibition in 5:08.1 against images or to the order in 5:07.1 regarding the exclusivity of Yahweh. The clauses in 5:9 thus develop the earlier charge by denouncing both the worship and service of any entity other than God. Significantly, the presence of pronominal suffixes in the statements “You shall never bow to them and you shall never serve them” clearly marks these clauses as dependent within the context, for the objects demand an antecedent. Similarly, the asyndetic statement in 5:13.1 (“Six days you shall work”) and the three coordinate clauses that follow (5:13.2, 5:14.1, 5:15.1) together explain the nature of the Sabbath “command” in 5:12. Within this appositional unit is inserted another explicative, parenetic statement (5:14) that further clarifies the character and goal of the Sabbath directive. These clauses set aside, there remain the following five asyndetic “commands,” all of which are likely either unit initial or appositional: “There shall never be to you any other gods before me”; “You shall never make for yourself an idol”; “You shall never lift up the name of Yahweh your God in vain”; “Keep the day of the Sabbath by treating it as holy”; and “Honor your father and your mother.” How are we to distinguish these commands? If the prohibition against murder is the fifth “commandment,” then one can easily step backwards through the text and establish three of the remaining four words. The fourth “command” refers to honoring one’s parents, the third to keeping the Sabbath, and the second to properly handling Yahweh’s name. As for the prohibitions against having other gods and making idols, the Jewish, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran traditions have commonly interpreted them as one “command.”64 The latter Ø clause (05:08.1) would thus be explicative of the former (05:07.1). The Orthodox and Reformed interpreters, however, have distinguished these prohibitions, seeing in them the first two words of the Decalogue. While both options are possible with respect to the function of Ø, my own counting renders the latter option impossible so long as both initial prohibitions are included among the Ten Words. Intriguingly, however, an interpretive option that appears to have gone unnoticed by scholars is that the first “commandment” is actually “You shall never make for yourself an idol” and that the prohibition “There shall never be to you any other gods before me” is the thesis commandment that 64In line with this view, R. D. Nelson writes, “Verses 8–9a expand v. 7 beyond the theoretical to matters of concrete behavior” (Deuteronomy: A Commentary, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002], 80).

130

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

stands as a title, providing an overarching summation of all the other “commands.” In this reading, the charge against crafting images along with all the other nine “commands” would be explicative of what it means to give Yahweh sole allegiance. Thus, to have no other gods besides Yahweh, which appears to be the negative opposite of the Great Commandment to love Yahweh alone as found in the Shema (6:04.1–6:05.1; cf. Matt 22:37–38; Mark 12:29–30; Luke 10:27), means to refrain from worshipping idols and using God’s name in vain, to keep the Sabbath holy and to honor one’s parents, and to resist murdering, committing adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, coveting a neighbor’s wife, and desiring a neighbor’s house. A positive benefit of this interpretation is that it may give greater clarity to the distinction elsewhere in Deuteronomy between the singular hÎwVxI;mAh (“the commandment”) and the plural MyIfDÚpVvI;mAhw MyI;qUjAh (“statutes and ordinances”) (cf. 5:31.2, 6:01.1, 7:11.1 and the discussion above). The reason “the commandment” appears to describe all of Moses’ teaching is that it captures in its heart the entire message of the Ten Words and by extension, the book.65 In view of the above proposal, it is noteworthy that in 5:07.1 the 1 c.s. pronominal suffix at the end of the prepositional phrase yÅnDÚp_lAo (“before me”; lit. “on my face”) binds the prohibition “You shall never have any gods before me” to the title identification in 5:06.1, “I am Yahweh your God.” As will be described more below, pronominal reference serves as a macrosyntactic feature for establishing units of thought. The text grammar of this section, therefore, suggests that the “preamble” / “historical prologue” must be read together with the initial charge. That is, in contrast to traditional Jewish interpretation, which finds in 5:6 and 5:7 two distinct “words” in the Decalogue, and in contrast to all other interpretations which fully distinguish the statement on redemption from the initial order, the call to worship Yahweh alone is syntactically and thus theologically related to the identity of Yahweh as Israel’s redeemer. 65I

find intriguing the arguments of G. Braulik (“The Sequence of the Laws in Deuteronomy 12–26,” trans. L. M. Maloney, in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, ed. Duane L. Christensen, SBTS 3 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993], 313–35) and S. Kaufman (“The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law,” Maarav 1 [1979]: 105–58) that the Decalogue provided an organizing principle for the final form of Deuteronomy. A key difficulty with both reconstructions, however, is the reapplication of the order to honor one’s parents to the topic of public authorities, whether officers, judges, kings, priests, or prophet (Deut 16:18–18:22) (so Nelson, Deuteronomy, 79). But one does not need fully to agree with either of these hypotheses to affirm that the Decalogue captures the heart of the message of Deuteronomy and the OT as a whole.

TEXT GRAMMAR

131

Furthermore, while many have seen an intimate relationship between the first and second prohibitions, it is possible that the second bears no syntactic dependence on the first (apart from the modifying role as an appositive if this interpretation is correct). First, when God refers to himself by the personal pronoun yIkOnDa (“I”) in 5:09.3, he explicitly repeats his name hwhy (“Yahweh”), an overt reference that was unnecessary syntactically but that serves at one level to free the charge against images from the previous prohibition. Second, although the 3 m.p. suffixes in 5:09.1–2 (“You shall never bow to them and you shall never serve them”) bear no direct plural referent within the context of mandate against idols, their antecedent may actually be found in the singular lRsZRÚp (“image”) or the lD;k of hÎn…wmV;t_lD;k (“every form”) in 5:08.1. When appearing in construct with an undetermined noun in the singular, the form l;O;k (“all, every”) is usually best rendered “every” rather than “all.”66 But the basic meaning of l;O;k as “totality” makes it possible that the plural suffixes could refer back to this form. A more likely option for the antecedent, however, is the noun lRsRÚZp, used thirty-one times in the OT, always in the singular. Significantly, in at least two instances, parallelism or apposition within a clause suggests that the singular lRsRÚZp can bear a plural reference. Isaiah 42:17 reads, “They shall be turned back; they shall be utterly put to shame––those who trust in the image (lRsZDÚpA;b); those who say to a molten image (hDkE;sAm), ‘You (pl) are our gods.” Similarly, the psalmist in Psalm 97:7 asserts, “All the servants of an image (lRsZRÚp) are put to shame, those who boast in the idols (MyIlyIlTa).” While not conclusive, these texts give credibility to the possibility that lRsZRÚp is the antecedent of the 3 m.p. suffixes. Although the above view is possible, in the end it appears unlikely. As W. Zimmerli demonstrated long ago, the expression “to bow down and serve” is a stereotyped expression that always refers to the worship of “other gods” or “the host of heaven” and never bears a physical image as its object.67 Consequently, the proper reference for the 3 m.p. suffixes in 5:09.1–2 is most likely the MyIhølTa (“gods”) of 5:07.1, which provides the most natural plural antecedent in the context. This conclusion is reinforced by the reference to Yahweh as aÎ…nåq lEa (“a jealous God”) in 5:09.3, which 66Cf. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, HALOT, rev. W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm, trans. M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 474; Ringgren, “lO;k køl,” in TDOT, ed. G. J. Botterweck et al., trans. D. E. Green (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 7:136. 67W. Zimmerli, “Das Zweite Gebot,” in Gottes Offenbarung, TB 19 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1963), 235 n. 3, 236–38. Cf. Exod 20:5; 23:24; Deut 4:19; 5:9; 30:17; 1 Kgs 9:9; 2 Kgs 17:35; 21:3; Jer 22:9; 2 Chr 7:22; 33:3.

132

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

elsewhere has reference to the threat of other gods (rather than manufactured images) competing for Israel’s allegiance (cf. 4:24; 6:15; 32:21).68 The result of this conclusion is that the initial two prohibitions are macrosyntactically bound, suggesting that the prohibition against other gods and the charge against idols should be read together as the first “commandment” and confirming the traditional Roman Catholic and Lutheran counting of the Decalogue as a whole.69 Furthermore, as was noted, the statement regarding the identification of Yahweh as Israel’s redeemer intimately relates to the first word, even though that prohibition starts with a unit initial Ø connector. 70 For a clause breakdown of the Decalogue, see Appendix 1. A proper understanding of the connector Ø is extremely important for establishing literary structure. While a correct interpretation of this macrosyntactic signal must often be guided by context alone, the literary environment usually provides enough information to determine whether the asyndetic structure signals the start of a new unit or an appositional, explanatory, or parenthetical comment. FOREGROUNDING The terms foreground and background refer to universal psycholinguistic features of human perception that are related to the relative prominence attributed to certain events, situations, or actions in a given text.71 The foreground continuum is operative in all text types, whether or not the mainline of textual development correlates with a trajectory of temporal succession (often improperly termed “sequencing”72). 68D. I. Block, The Gospel According to Moses: A Commentary on Deuteronomy (draft, spring 2005), 251. 69Intriguingly, the Masoretic “closed” paragraph marks ( s = #tûmå 09:25.2 09:25.3 09:26.1 09:26.2

09:15.4> 09:16.1 09:16.2

09:15.1 09:15.2 he looked. However, as if for dramatic pause, Moses presents two offline comments before overviewing the people’s situation. Through a copular participial clause we learn that, concurrent with Moses’ descent, the mountain was engulfed with unquenchable fire (9:15.3)––a visible manifestation of Yahweh’s presence (9:03.2; cf. 5:25.2). A non-participial copular clause then elucidates that Moses descended with the covenant documents––the testimony of God’s gracious redemption and gracious provision for sustained joy in his presence. Yet, as Moses now saw to be true, Israel had indeed turned from God. While neither copular clause directly advances the storyline, both clarify the significance of Moses’ mission and thus provide necessary background to his steps. 181Cf.

Gen 11:6; Prov 14:8; Esth 1:15; see also the discussion by Dyk and Talstra, “Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Features in Identifying Subject and Predicate in Nominal Clauses,” 167–68. 182Cf. Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative,” 54.

TEXT GRAMMAR

167

In a recent study of historical narrative structure, R. L. Heller argued that, apart from yIhyÅw temporal clauses, which are always paragraph-initial, copular clauses always supply information about items or actions that are directly connected to elements within the immediate storyline (innerparagraph comments) or that are related to the overarching storyline but not connected to any elements within the immediate storyline (extraparagraph comments).183 The copular clauses in {16} are clearly innerparagraph comments. The copular clause in {17}, however, being placed at the beginning of a new speech, is likely an extra-paragraph comment. {17}

ÔKnIbVl D;trAmDaw MˆyZrVxImV;b hOorApVl …wnyˆZyDh MyîdDbSo hqÎzSj dÎyV;b MˆyåZrVxI;mIm hÎwhy …wnEayIxwø¥yÅw _lDkVb…w hOorApV;b MˆyåZrVxImV;b MyIorw MyIlOd…g MyItVpOm…w tOtwøa hÎwhy NE;tˆ¥yÅw …wny´ZnyEoVl wøtyE;b X®rZDaDh_tRa …wnDl tRtDZl …wnDZtOa ayIbDh NAoAZmVl MDÚvIm ayIxwøh …wnDtwøaw …wnyEZtObSaAl oA;bVvˆn rRvSa 06:21.1 06:21.2> 06:21.3 06:22.1 06:23.1 06:23.2

06:21.1 wayyiqtol

18 12 7

(40.91) (27.27) (15.91)

196On the y as a preposed function word, see the summary of Cook’s argument in the sub-section titled “Form and Meaning in BH’s Predication System.”

TEXT GRAMMAR

175

Table 34––Continued. Predication Constellations in Historical Discourse

aøl + qatal wayyiqtol > qatal wayyiqtol > aøl + qatal wayyiqtol > (CpCl1 > CpCl2) > qatal TOTAL (%)

4 1 1 1

(09.09) (02.27) (02.27) (02.27)

44 (100.00)

embedded report marks a fresh start in mainline material, as does each rhetorical digression taken by a preacher like Moses. Therefore, one would naturally expect a limiting in the use of wayyiqtol.197 Wayyiqtol continues to be the foregrounding form in historical direct discourse. However, in the context of Deuteronomy 5–11, this history has been subsumed under a higher structure––i.e., the hortatory plane. The historical accounts serve a purpose, principally to provide background, whether by motivation or setting, for the overarching call to covenant love. Within the historical units themselves, however, the same rules apply to foregrounding as one would expect within narrative. Tables 35–36 reveal that the predictive text type is almost non-existent in our corpus, being limited to a single discourse unit in Domain 3 where Moses recalls the petition that the elders of Israel made to him when Yahweh appeared in great power on Mount Sinai (cf. 5:25.2–5:26.3). His presence sparked terror within them, and they anticipated that the fire would consume them, resulting in their death. The predicted situation is clearly a progression in time, which distinguishes predictive discourse from the promissory text type. Intriguingly, while Longacre first distinguished these two future-oriented discourse types, I found no studies by Longacre or any of his followers that treat any BH texts as promissory. But according to the above description, some 32 distinct sentences in our corpus are promissory, all clearly oriented toward a time to come but none of which treat events in a successive manner. 197As

noted by Dawson, scholars have too often failed to account for the uniqueness of reported speech (Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 207): “It is clear that subordination (which is more common in Reported Speech than in nonReported Seech), specifically, and embedding, more generally––by reason of their cohesion with other units within their context––both limit the kinds of clauses that can occur at the outset of any text unit in such a section. This immediately means that we have a greater number of clauses than we would like whose surfacestructure signals as to text-type have been obscured by such permutations.”

176

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Table 35. Non-Copular Predication Structures in Predictive Matrix Clauses

yI;k + yiqtol

1

(50.00)

wa + qatal

1

(50.00)

TOTAL (%)

2 (100.00)

Table 36. Predication Constellations in Predictive Discourse yiqtol > w#qatal

1 (100.00)

TOTAL (%)

1 (100.00)

As revealed in Tables 37–39, what is most evident in promissory (as in predictive) discourse is the elevated role of the non-indicative w#qatal to mark perfective events in future time.198 Table 37. Non-Copular Predication Structures in Promisory Matrix Clauses wa + qatal Ø + aøl + yiqtol Ø + [x] + yiqtol Ø + qatal NEk + yiqtol wa + [x] + yiqtol wa + M…Ag + [x] + yiqtol

20 4 4 1 1 1 1

(62.50) (12.50) (12.50) (03.13) (03.13) (03.13) (03.13)

TOTAL (%)

32 (100.00)

Table 38. Summary of Non-Copular Verb Forms in Promisory Matrix Clauses Verb-First qatal yiqtol TOTAL (%) 198Cf.

21 (80.77) 5 (19.23) 26 (100.00)

Non Verb-First 6 (100.00) 6 (100.00)

Longacre, “Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” 51.

TOTAL 21 (65.63) 11 (34.38) 32 (100.00)

TEXT GRAMMAR

177

Table 39. Predication Constellations in Promisory Discourse w#qatal yiqtol aøl + yiqtol yiqtol > w#qatal w#qatal > aøl + yiqtol TOTAL (%)

5 3 3 1 1

(38.46) (23.08) (23.08) (07.69) (07.69)

13 (100.00)

Building on work in Classical Arabic by Y. Peled, J. A. Cook hypothesizes that the indicative qatal acquired a future modal sense in the context of conditional clauses, which ultimately resulted in the form’s use in “purpose, result, and other contingent clauses that are compatible with the contingent conditional clause function.”199 Cook terms this “contingent modality,” which is an apt description of the occurrences of w#qatal in our corpus. For instance, note example {18}. {18}

hÎyDhw hR;lEZaDh MyIfDÚpVvI;mAh tEa N…woVmVvI;t b®qEZo MR;trAmVv…w MDtOa MRtyIcSoÅw dRsRZjAh_tRaw tyîrV;bAh_tRa ÔKVl ÔKyZRhølTa hÎw hy rAmDvw ÔKyRZtObSaAl oA;bVvˆn rRvSa ÔKVbEhSaÅw ÔKVkårEb…w ÔKR;ZbrIhw 07:12.1 07:12.2 07:12.3> 07:12.4> 07:12.5> 07:12.6 07:13.1> 07:13.2> 07:13.3>

199Cook,

07:12.1 07:12.2 (w#qatal) > weyiqtol > w#qatal TOTAL (%)

7 3 2 1 1

(46.67) (20.00) (13.33) (06.67) (06.67)

1

(06.67)

15 (100.00)

TOTAL 15 (45.45) 11 (33.33) 4 (12.12) 4 (12.12) 33 (100.00)

180

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

type. Often a jussive or imperfective modal yiqtol follows, both of which clarify the goal or intended result of the order {20}.201 {20}

M…wq MDoDh y´nVpIl oA;sAmVl JKEl …waøbÎyw X®rZDaDh_tRa …wvrˆyw MRhZDl tEtDl MDtObSaAl yI;tVoZA;bVvˆn_rRvSa 10:11.2 10:11.3 10:11.4> 10:11.5> 10:11.6

10:11.2 10:11.3 w#qatal InfA + yiqtol InfA InfA + yiqtol > w #qatal aøl + yiqtol > w#qatal aøl + yiqtol > w#qatal > qatal w#qatal > aøl + yiqtol TOTAL (%)

{21}

4 (07.69) 3 (05.77) 2 (02.11) 2 (02.11) 1 (01.92) 1 (01.92) 1 (01.92) 1 (01.92) 1 (01.92) 52 (100.00)

MyIfDÚpVvI;mAh_tRaw MyI;qUjAh_tRa lEarVcˆy oAmVv Mwø¥yAh MRky´nzDaV;b rEbO;d yIkOnDa rRvSa MDtOa MR;tdAmVl…w … MDtOcSoAl MR;trAmVv…w twøcSoAl MR;trAmVv…w MRkVtRa MRkyEhølTa hÎwhy hÎ…wIx rRvSaA;k 05:01.3 05:01.4 05:01.5> 05:01.6> 05:32.1> 05:32.2

05:01.3 05:01.4 9:03.1). The use of an affirmative modal yiqtol used to mark the beginning of hortatory address is less frequent. In {22} a pragmatically marked direct object has forced the modal yiqtol out of first position, but it clearly still retains non-indicative force. Coordinated modal qatal forms then further the initial command.

TEXT GRAMMAR {22}

twøcSoAl N…wrVmVvI;t [ ] hÎwVxI;mAh_lD;k Mwø¥yAh ÔKV…wAxVm yIkOnDa rRvSa N…wyVjI;t NAoAZmVl MRtyIbr…w MRtaDb…w X®rDZaDh_tRa MR;tVvîryˆw MRkyEtObSaAl hÎwhy oA;bVvˆn_rRvSa JK®r®;ZdAh_lD;k_tRa D;trAkÎzw … rD;bdI;mA;b hÎnDv MyIoD;brAa h‰z ÔKyRZhølTa hÎwhy ÔKSkyIlOh rRvSa ÔKRZbDbVl_MIo D;tVoådÎyw D;KZ®rV;sÅyVm ÔKyRZhølTa hÎwhy [ ] yI;k wønV;b_tRa vyIa rE;sÅyy rRvSaA;k wøtOa hDarˆyVl…w wyDkrdI;b tRkRZlDl ÔKyRZhølTa hÎwhy tOwVxIm_tRa D;trAmDvw 08:01.1 08:01.2 08:01.3 08:01.4 08:01.5 08:01.6> 08:01.7 08:02.1> 08:02.2 08:05.1> 08:05.2 08:05.3 08:06.1>

183 08:01.1 08:01.2 08:01.3 08.01.4 08:01.5 keep, 5:01.3–6), but it is then quickly halted by an asyndetic qatal clause that initiates an extended parenthetical section of historical reflection that runs from 5:02.1–5:31.5. The discourse has now fully shifted offline.41 In this embedded unit, Moses’ recollection of Israel’s encounter with Yahweh at Horeb provides a backdrop for Israel’s covenant renewal ceremony on the plains of Moab (cf. 28:69[29:1]).42 From the perspective of logical argumentation, the historical digression provides a bi-lateral ground (BL) for the foregrounded material the precedes and follows. 5:02.1 provides the thesis statement for the entire embedded unit: “Yahweh our God cut with us a covenant at Horeb.” This assertion (Id = “idea”) is then followed by two embedded explanatory units (Exp) that stand in series (S). The first is brief, developing Moses’ claim that the Horeb covenant was 41F. C. Tiffany fails to recognize the role of embedded paragraph units, causing him to separate 5:01.3–6 from 5:02.1–6:03.5. After noting that the first unit is substantially historical in orientation, he writes (“Parenesis and Deuteronomy 5–11 [Deut. 4:45; 5:2–11:29],” 37): “Deut. 5:1 ... does not call Israel to hear a narrative, but to hear ‘the statutes and the ordinances.’ Thus the ‘call to hear’ of 5:1 can not introduce only 5:2–6:3, unless, of course, the ‘speaker’ fails to address the announced subject.” Tiffany treats 5:01.3–6 as an introduction to all of Deut 5–26. However, this suggestion leaves the first unit of chaps. 5–11 without an introduction, fails to recognize the parallel lEarVcˆy oAmVv (“Hear, O Israel”) constructions in 5:01.3, 6:04.1, and 9:01.1, and does not adequately explain the wa connector on MR;trAmVv…w (“and you shall keep”), which resumes the foreground unit started in 5:01.3–6. 42I tentatively take the asyndetic cleft sentence in 28:69[29:1] to be explanatory of the entire second address plus addenda that runs from 5:01.3–28:68 (cf. Craigie, Tigay, McConville; contra Lohfink, Rófe, Wright, Nelson). On the text terminal use of cleft sentence structures, compare Num 36:13.

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

235

“with us (…wnD;mIo)” (5:03.1–5:03.2). The second expounds on the whole divine encounter at the mountain and ultimately substantiates Moses’ appeal to heed the word he is proclaiming (5:04.1–5:31.5). This latter unit consists of three paragraphs, each linked by wa. Together they form a progression (P) that culminates in the final unit. Recollection of Yahweh’s blazing theophany and of his proclamation of the covenant document (5:04.1–5:22.4) moves to an account of Israel’s fear before God’s presence (5:23.1–5:27.7). The embedded unit climaxes with God’s appointment of Moses as mediator of the covenant instruction (5:28.1–5:31.5), which, in the context of Deuteronomy, serves to validate the prophet’s call to Israel for divine allegiance.43 The first stage in the progression is marked by asyndeton (Ø), the second by the structuring marker yIhVyAw, and the third by the participant shift from Israel’s elders to Yahweh. Following the embedded speech of Yahweh that runs from 5:28.3– 5:31.5, in 5:32.1 the text returns to a w#qatal form and second person, foreground address (MR;trAmVv…w, “and you shall keep”). The shift stresses the importance of obeying precisely as directed in order to enjoy lasting covenant relationship (5:32.1–5:33.6). God’s word is thus seen as a gift of grace, a divine provision for the satisfied life (cf. 4:1–8). The unit is rightly treated as a distinct paragraph because of the previous embedded material and the apparent repetition of 5:32.1–2 (twøcSoAl MR;trAmVv…w, “and you shall keep by doing …”) with 5:01.6 (MDtOcSoAl MR;trAmVv…w, “and you shall keep by doing them”). Nevertheless, 5:32.1–5:33.6 picks up the mainline chain begun in 5:01.3–6, standing in series with it. The concluding, transitional paragraph begins with a coordinated cleft sentence and reinforces the gracious provision of God’s instruction (6:01.1– 6:03.5). It also is in series with the two units that precede. The divine word is given to create a reverent fear of Yahweh so that people will not sin but delight in lasting covenant relationship (cf. Exod 20:20; Jer 32:40). 43To say that the Ten Words are not the climax of the embedded unit does not lessen the significance of the covenant document for the Israelite community or for Deuteronomy as a whole. Indeed, the prophet recounted the Decalogue because it was so central to Israel’s life with God. But the entire historical lesson is provided to spur Israel to heed Moses’ voice. That is, it hinges on Moses being the called ambassador to expound on the fundamental principles contained in the Decalogue. This mediatory appointment necessarily follows Israel’s reception of the Ten Words and her encounter with the consuming fire of God. Within the context of the whole, the account of the Decalogue is not the climactic end but the necessary beginning of the history lesson.

236

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Table 60. Macrostructural Outline of Deuteronomy 5:01.3–6:03.5

I.

The Foundation of Covenant Relationship: Yahweh’s Provision of His Word [5:01.3–6:03.5] A. A Call to Live in Accordance with Moses’ Instructions (5:01.3– 5:33.6) 1. A Call to Heed the Statutes and Ordinances (5:01.3–5:01.6) • Excursus: The Backdrop of Horeb as a Basis for the Renewal of the Covenant at Moab (5:02.1–5:31.5) (1) The Contemporary Relevance of the Horeb Covenant (5:03.1–5:03.2) (2) A Review of the Encounter (5:04.1–5:31.5) (a) Yahweh’s Blazing Revelation and the Covenant Document (5:04.1–5:22.4) (b) Yahweh’s Consuming Fire and Israel’s Fear (5:23.1–5:27.7) (c) Yahweh’s Appointment of Moses as Mediator for His Instruction (5:28.1–5:31.5) 2. The Necessity of Obeying Precisely as Directed (5:32.1–5:33.6) B. Transition to Moses’ Instructions, the “Whole Commandment” (6:01.1–6:03.5)

BL Exp S S Id 5:1 2 3 4 Chap. 5>

P

P

22 23

27 28

31 32-33 6:1 3 Chap. 6>

Figure 8. Macrostructural Diagram of 5:01.3–6:03.5: The Foundation of Covenant Relationship

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

237

Accordingly, the whole commandment is not to be understood as a burden but as a blessed guide for enjoying a God-centered, satisfied life. Table 60 details the macrostructure of Deuteronomy 5:01.3–6:03.5 in outline form. Moving from left to right, Figure 8 summarizes the same structure through schematic arcs. The Flow of Thought in Deuteronomy 6:04.1–8:20.3 Having stressed God’s word as the foundation for meaningful life and having established his divine authority and role, Moses once more calls his audience to attention, this time to clarify the essence of lasting covenant relationship. Figure 9 diagrams the macrosyntactic structure of Deuteronomy 6:04.1–8:20.3 in arcs, focusing only on the major units; more detailed diagrams will follow. Table 61 on the following pages summarizes the same structure in outline form.

S S 6:4 6:9 6:10

S 6:25 7:1

P 7:26 8:1

8:10 8:11

8:20

Figure 9. Macrostructural Diagram of 6:04.1–8:20.3: The Essence of Covenant Relationship

The conclusion of the previous unit had created anticipation in the audience, leading them to expect an exposition of “the whole commandment––namely the statutes and the ordinances” (MyIfDÚpVvI;mAhw MyI;qUjAh hÎwVxI;mAh_lD;k) by which they might enjoy long, fulfilled life in relationship with God (6:01.1; cf. 5:31.2, 5:33.3, 6:02.3). Moses’ initial statement satisfies this anticipation by reminding the people of the central profession of all covenant life and by summarizing “the whole commandment” in a single statement (6:04.1–6:05.1): “Hear, O Israel: Our God is Yahweh, Yahweh alone! And you shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your being, and with all your substance.”44 At the heart of covenant relationship is 44See the sub-section “Clause Class in BH and the Present Study” in chap. 3 for a discussion of the syntax of the Shema>. For an elightening discussion of the “love” command, which incoroporates the above translation, see Block, The Gospel

238

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Table 61. Macrostructural Outline of Deuteronomy 6:04.1–8:20.3

II.

The Essence of Covenant Relationship: Keeping Yahweh the Sole Object of One’s Affections as the Sphere of Satisfied Life (6:04.1–8:20.3) A. A Call to Israel for Covenant Love: Wholehearted, CommunityEmbracing, Exclusive Covenant Commitment to Yahweh (6:04.1– 6:09.1) B. The Nature of Covenant Love (6:10.1–7:26.5) 1. Maintaining a God-Centered Existence (6:10.1–6:25.3) a. Living for God Alone (6:13.1–6:19.1) (1) Recognizing Yahweh’s Jealousy for Our Affections (6:14.1–6:15.3) (2) Recognizing Yahweh’s Unquestionable Nature (6:16.1–6:16.2) (3) Recognizing Yahweh’s Pleasure in Obedience (6:17.1–6:19.1) b. Passing on a Passion for a God-Centered Existence to the Next Generation (6:20.1–6:25.3) 2. Removing Obstacles to a God-Centered Existence (7:01.1– 7:26.5) a. Having No Relationship with Pagan Outsiders (7:02.4– 7:04.4) b. Demolishing All Items Related to Non-Yahweh Worship (7:05.1–7:26.5) (1) Destroying Foreign Cult Objects (7:05.1–7:06.1) • Excursus: “I Am Your God; You Are My People” (7:06.2–7:24.3) (i) Yahweh’s Covenant Commitment and Israel’s Covenant Responsibility (7:06.2– 7:16.2) (a) A God-Centered Existence as a Natural Consequence of Yahweh’s Past Covenant Faithfulness (7:06.2– 7:11.2) (b) Yahweh’s Future Covenant Commitment to All Who Keep Him at the Foremost of Their Affections (7:12.1–7:16.2)

According to Moses, 313–16. Cf. D. I. Block, “How Many Is God? An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4–5,” JETS 47 (2004): 193–212.

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

239

Table 61––Continued. Macrostructural Outline of Deuteronomy 6:04.1–8:20.3 (ii)

C.

Israel’s Confidence in Yahweh’s Power and Promise to Give Victory (7:17.1– 7:24.3) (a) Yahweh’s Past Victories and His Promise for More (7:18.2–7:20.1) (b) Yahweh’s Presence with Israel and the Surety of Their Victory (7:21.1– 7:24.3) (2) Destroying Foreign Cult Objects, Resumed (7:25.1– 7:26.5) The Need for Covenant Love: Retaining a God-Centered Existence Despite the Circumstances (8:01.1–8.20.3) 1. Instructions for Exalting God in All Circumstances (8:01.1– 8:10.4) a. A Summary of Israel’s Duty and Opportunity (8:01.1) b. Cherishing God as the Source and End of All Existence (8:02.1–8:10.4) 2. The Destructive Results of Not Exalting God in All Circumstances (8:11.1–8:20.3) a. A Plea to Maintain a Conscious Dependency on God (8:11.1–8:18.3) b. A Promise of Destruction if a Commitment to the Exclusivity of Yahweh is Violated (8:19.1–8:20.3)

love for God––wholehearted, community-embracing, exclusive covenant commitment to Yahweh. This second major unit in Moses’ sermon is shaped by this theme, calling God’s people to make Yahweh central in their affections and promising that only by such God-exalting dependence can they truly enjoy the satisfied life. A call t o c o ve na n t lo ve The unit is divided into three sections, each of which is in series (6:04.1– 6:09.1; 6:10.1–7:26.5; 8:01.1–8:20.3). An imperative + w#qatal construction (D;tVbAhDaw … oAmVv, “Hear! … And you shall love”) initiates the first section, the whole of which operates as a call to covenant love (6:04.1–6:05.1). Following the Shema> and love command, a series of w#qatal clauses runs from 6:07.1 through 6:09.1, developing how an exclusive commitment to Yahweh is to encompass all of one’s existence. The “words”mentioned in 6:06.1––ÔKRbDbVl_lAo … hR;lEaDh MyîrDb;dAh …wyDhw (“And these words shall be on your

240

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

heart”)––most likely refer to the Shema> and love command that directly precedes. It is “these words” that the hearer must take to heart (6:06.1), repeat to his children (6:07.1), speak about in all settings (6:07.2), let impact both one’s actions and perspective (6:08.1–6:08.2), and let characterize both his home and community (6:09.1). The call in these verses is thus lifeencompassing. All of one’s existence––one’s inward desires, thoughts, and motivations (“heart”); one’s entire person including actions (“being”); and all one’s resources that clarify identity and provide strength (“substance”)–– is to cry out, “My God is Yahweh, Yahweh alone!” The na t ure of c o v e na n t lo v e, part 1: reme mbering G od A foreground-level exposition on the nature of covenant love (6:10.1– 7:26.5) follows the initial call to exclusive covenant commitment. Israel will face two key challenges in the land––prosperity (6:10.1–6:25.3) and paganism (7:01.1–7:26.5), and both must be handled properly so as to sustain a healthy covenant relationship. The two subsections in this unit are formally marked by a similar temporal yI;k + yiqtol protasis (_lRa ÔKyRZhølTa hÎwhy ÔKSayIby yI;k X®rDZaDh, “When Yahweh your God brings you to the land”) followed by a hortatory appeal in the apodosis. hDyDhVw precedes the first of these (6:10.1) and stresses how the summons to a Godward life directly grows out of the call to covenant love. The second (7:01.1) is without the lexical structuring marker, likely because the section on conquest and the “things devoted to destruction (M®rEj)” grows not out of the preceding order not “to forget” Yahweh but out of the call to covenant love that begins the entire unit. The structural parallels involving 7:01.1–7:02.3 and 6:10.2–6:12.1 suggest that each sub-unit retains the same dependency upon the love command.45 The first of these subsections begins with a warning not to forget Yahweh amidst the pleasures of life: “When Yahweh your God brings you to the land that he swore to your fathers … and you eat and are satisfied, take heed to yourself lest you forget Yahweh who brought you from Egypt, 45It

is noteworthy that the last unit in section two (8:01.1–8:20.3) addresses the theme of prosperity, with clear echoes of 6:10.2–6:12.1. In fact, numerous commentators since Lohfink (Das Hauptgebot, 113–14, 192–94) have argued that the yI;k + participle construction in 8:07.1 followed by the imperative jA;kVvI;t_NRÚp ÔKVl rRmDÚvIh ÔKyZRhølTa hÎw hy_tRa (“Take heed to yourself lest you forget Yahweh your God ... ”) in 8:11.1–2 is a protasis–apodosis construction in direct parallel with 6:10.1–6:12.1. In light of the framework noted above, the natural conclusion would be to see three consecutive units running from 6:10.1–8:20.3 that together create an ABA content structure. While appealing, a number of factors discourage this interpretation. These are discussed below in the overview of Deut 8.

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

241

from a house of slavery” (6:10.1–6:12.3). God-mindedness and conscious God-dependence are at the heart of lasting covenant relationship. Just as Yahweh was the one who brought Israel from Egypt, so also he is the one who gives them bread. Moses follows his admonition with two embedded elements, both of which describe in series the distinct remedy for memory lapse. First, the community must be deliberate in maintaining a Godexalting life (6:12.2–6:19.1). An asyndetic yiqtol clause charging Israel to fear Yahweh is linked with two other yiqtol clauses that also point to exclusive divine allegiance. What follows then is a series of three asyndetic units, all of which clarify what God-centered existence looks like. Those living exclusively for God must be conscious of Yahweh’s jealousy for his people’s affections (6:14.1–6:15.3), must recognize his unquestionable nature (6:16.1–6:16.2), and must uphold his pleasure in obedience (6:17.1– 6:19.1). The first two of these units are negatively stated––“You shall not walk after other gods” and “You shall not test Yahweh your God.” The last, however, is stated positively and is made up of an initial asyndetic infinitive absolute + yiqtol construction followed by a w#qatal form: “You shall surely keep the commandments of Yahweh … and you shall do the right and the good in the eyes of Yahweh.” Yahweh is passionate about his people’s affections, and the call to covenant love demands that God’s people embrace a wholehearted, exclusive commitment to their redeemer, remembering always that he is the one that sustains them. The second of the embedded sub-paragraphs that clarify how Yahweh can be actively remembered is found in 6:20.1–6:25.3 and marked by another yI;k + yiqtol protasis + apodosis construction. Moses anticipates the type of community life where God’s word––the foundation of all lasting covenant relationship––is central to existence and where children ask parents about the meaning of “the stipulations and the statutes and the ordinances.” In such instances, the charge to parents calls for passing a passion for God’s supremacy on to the next generation. The result will be nothing less than “righteousness” for all those dependently seeking God (6:25.1–3). The na t ure of c o v e na n t lo v e, part 2: rem o vi ng obstacles The second subsection that expounds on the nature of covenant love highlights Yahweh’s demand for exclusive allegiance (7:01.1–7:26.5). God’s people must rid themselves of all impediments to a God-centered existence, whether they be personal relationships with pagans (7:02.4–7:04.4) or foreign cult objects (7:05.1–7:06.1; 7:25.1–7:26.5). The thesis command comes in the form of an infinitive absolute + yiqtol construction and is

242

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

found in the apodosis of the introductory pendent structure: “When Yahweh your God bring you to the land that you are crossing over to possess and he clears away many nations from before you …, then you shall surely devote them to complete destruction” (7:01.1–7:02.3). An embedded unit, marked by an initial asyndetic clause, immediately follows the order. It clarifies in negative and positive terms what Moses means by ridding one’s life of obstacles to a God-centered existence (7:02.4–7:26.5). Included in the unit is an excursus that expounds on Israel’s unique relationship with Yahweh and provides the ground for why Israel must fervently accept a counter-cultural lifestyle (7:06.2–7:24.3). The embedded, explanatory section opens with a series of three aøl + yiqtol clauses, the first asyndetic and the latter two linked to the first with wa. Israel is not to enter any covenant with foreigners, show them mercy, or intermarry with them (7:02.4–7:03.1). The latter prohibition is then followed by its own embedded paragraph that includes a motivational warning against violation: “he [the foreigner] will turn your son from me, and they will serve other gods, and the anger of Yahweh will be kindled against you, and he will destroy you quickly” (7:04.1–4). Yahweh is jealous for his people’s love, and lasting covenant relationship is only possible where his people express their exclusive commitment to Yahweh by repudiating all rivals. A strong contrastive yiqtol clause follows the explicative prohibitions: “But thus (hO;k_MIa_yI;k) you shall do to them” (7:05.1). Four conjoined x-yiqtol clauses, the first asyndetic, outline the proactive steps the Israelites are to take in order to guard their hearts from being pulled away (7:05.2–7:06.1). In short, they are to destroy all non-Yahwistic religious material. Yahweh will permit no rivals. The reason for this is then stressed in 7:06.1: “because you are a holy people to Yahweh your God” (cf. Deut 14:2, 21; 26:19; 28:9). What follows is an extended nineteen-verse excursus that develops from two perspectives the significance of Israel’s being Yahweh’s special people. The ground clause in 7:06.1 included a clear echo of the covenant formula: “I will be your God, and you will be my people” (Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; cf. Gen 17:7–8; Exod 19:4–5). This allusion appears to have triggered Moses to digress from his main argument in order to stress two fundamental theological truths: (1) the relationship of Yahweh’s covenant commitment and Israel’s covenant responsibility (7:06.2–7:16.2), and (2) Yahweh’s power and promise to give his faithful people victory in conquest (7:17.1–7:24.3). Because these two units, standing in series, develop the ground clause of 7:06.1, the whole excursus is best viewed as a bi-lateral ground, substantiating the preceding and succeeding appeals to contest all opposition to a God-centered existence.

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

243

The first part of the excursus is made up of two coordinated paragraphs, the first fronted with Ø, which marks the embedded unit (7:06.2), and the second fronted with hDyDhVw (7:12.1). The initial paragraph begins with an asyndetic indicative x-qatal clause that plainly states Yahweh’s choice of Israel as his special possession (7:06.2). After a small embedded, explicative paragraph that develops Yahweh’s active covenant care of Israel in the past, two coordinated modal qatal clauses follow (w#qatal). Both of them clarify what should be the natural consequence of God’s covenant gracious election: Israel should know that Yahweh is a faithful God (7:09.1–7:10.2) and should keep the whole commandment (7:11.1–2). A long series of w#qatal clauses shape the second paragraph, and all of them specify in various ways the remarkable blessing that Yahweh will afford to all who dependently heed his voice in these matters (7:12.1– 7:16.2). The last promise, which is related to Israel’s consuming all the peoples, sparks a parenthetical warning against failing to heed God’s voice (7:16.3–5). This ends the first part of the excursus. The second part highlights the awe-inspiring power of Israel’s God, which he promises to employ on Israel’s behalf during the conquest. Therefore, they need not fear! The unit opens with a pendent construction that anticipates through the conditional yI;k + yiqtol protasis that some of God’s people may indeed become afraid in view of the vastness of the nations before them. The aøl + yiqtol apodosis then provides the thesis command for the unit: “Never fear them!” Two asyndetic, embedded paragraphs, standing in series, then clarify why Israel can have such confidence. The first begins with an asyndetic infinitive absolute + yiqtol clause that charges Israel to “remember” the remarkable destruction that Yahweh had brought upon Egypt, the most power nation of the day (7:18.2–7:19.2). Moses then parenthetically adds that this same fate will come to the peoples of whom Israel may be afraid (7:19.3–7:20.1). The second embedded paragraph is stated negatively and is marked with an asyndetic aøl + yiqtol construction followed by a subordinate unit connected by causal yI;k (7:21.1– 7:24.3). The Israelites shall not fear because Yahweh is in their midst, and it is he who will fight on their behalf. Before the excursus noted above, Moses had used both prohibition and command to describe what he meant by devoting the nations to destruction. Israel must resist human relationships with outsiders (7:02.4– 7:04.4) and must demolish all foreign cult objects (7:05.1–7:06.1). In 7:25.1 he resumes this argument, restating almost word-for-word the last order that was given before the excursus: vEaD;b N…wprVcI;t MRhyEhølTa yElyIsVÚp (“The graven images of their gods you shall burn with fire”) (cf. 7:05.5). This thesis statement is then followed by an asyndetic embedded paragraph carried

244

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

along by aøl + yiqtol and w#qatal clauses that together develop this single plea. With this resumed emphasis on the need to abolish all appurtenances associated with non-Yahwistic worship, Moses concludes his subsection on the nature of covenant love. The second main section of Moses’ sermon is devoted to describing the essence of lasting covenant relationship. After the initial call to wholehearted, community-embracing, exclusive covenant commitment to Yahweh, the prophet embarked on an extended subsection that depicted the nature of covenant love as it should be expressed during Israel’s tenure in the land. Such love is seen when God’s people, both young and old, recognize their blessings as gifts from God, submit to Yahweh’s supremacy, and eradicate all obstacles to a God-centered existence in their lives. Figure 10 summarizes through a series of arcs the flow of thought in this subsection of Moses’ sermon.

Exp

Id Id

Exp Exp – S S S +

6:10-12 13 14-15 16 17-19 20

Chap. 6 >

BL S S

P

Id 25 7:1-2 2-4

Exp S

S Id

5

6

11 12

16 17-18 18-20 21-24 25-26

Chap. 7 >

Figure 10. Macrostructural Diagram of 6:10.1–7:26.5: The Nature of Covenant Love

The need for c o v e na n t lo v e The middle section of our corpus focuses on the essence of lasting covenant relationship. The prophet has urged Israel to make Yahweh central in their affections and has described the way in which this covenant love must be demonstrated in the face of prosperity and paganism. He now closes the section by returning to the theme of prosperity. In so doing he reflects on Israel’s past and future in the light of Yahweh’s fatherly care, and he stresses the absolute necessity to persevere in one’s allegiance to Yahweh in order to enjoy a satisfied life (8:01.1–8:20.3). Before describing the formal structure of the unit, this study must address an interpretive issue regarding the role of the yI;k clause in 8:07.1. In

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

245

1963, Lohfink noted the close semantic links between chapters 6 and 8 in general and 6:10.1–6:12.2 and 8:07.1–8:11.2 in particular. On this basis, he argued that the yI;k + participle construction in 8:07.1 is best regarded as the beginning of a temporal protasis to an imperatival apodosis in 8:11.1–2, much like the yI;k + yiqtol temporal protasis in 6:10.2 precedes the imperatival protasis in 6:12.1.46 R. D. Nelson is one of many scholars who follow Lohfink’s interpretation. His English translations read as follows:47 {1a} 6:10.1–6:12.2 When Yahweh your God brings you into the land (hÎw hy ÔKSayIby yI;k X®rDZaDh_lRa ÔKyRZhølTa) that he swore to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you ––fine, large cities that you did not build, and houses full of every-thing good that you did not fill, and hewn-out cisterns that you did not hew, vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant––

and you eat your fill (;DtVoDbDcw ;DtVlAkDaw),

(Continued)

{1b} 8:07.1–8:11.2 When Yahweh your God brings you into a good land (hÎw hy yI;k hDbOwf X®rZRa_lRa ÔKSayIbVm ÔKyRZhølTa)––

a land with streams full of water, springs, and underground waters, which flow out in valley and hill, a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive trees bearing oil, and honey, a land where you may eat bread without privation, where you will not lack anything, a land whose stones are iron ore and from whose hills you may dig out copper–– and you eat and have enough (;DtVoDbDcw ;DtVlAkDaw) and bless Yahweh your God for the good land that he has given you,

(Continued)

46Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 113–14, 192–94. Lohfink considered each of the following yI;k clauses to be temporal (113–14): Deut 6:10, 7:1, 8:7, 11:29, 31, 12:20, 29, 17:14, 18:9, 19:1, 26:1, 27:2. Of those in our corpus, only 6:10, 7:1, and 11:29 should be treated temporally, for both 8:7 and 11:31 place a participle after the yI;k, the normal meaning of which does not allow for a temporal interpretation (see below). 47Nelson, Deuteronomy, 86, 105; cf. 113. Others incorporating the temporal yI;k protasis + apodosis interpretation include Mayes, Deuteronomy, 192; G. Braulik, Deuteronomium I. 1,1–16,17, Neue Echter Bibel (Würzburg: Echter, 1986), 70; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 391; McConville, Deuteronomy, 165.

246

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE then be careful lest you forget Yahweh (jA;kVvI;t_NRÚp ÔKVl rRmDÚvIh hÎwhy_tRa), who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of servitude.

then be careful lest you forget Yahweh your God (ÔKVl rRmDÚvIh ÔKyRZhølTa hÎw hy_tRa jA;kVvI;t_NRÚp) by not keeping his commandments, his ordinances, and his statutes, which I am commanding you today.

In light of the clear parallels, it is tempting to view 8:07.1–8:17.2 as a third pendent construction in series with 6:10.1–6:12.3 and 7:01.1–7:02.3. The result would be three subsections, shaped in an ABA pattern, each of which clarifies the nature of covenant love by addressing areas that will test Israel’s surrender to Yahweh’s supremacy: prosperity > paganism > prosperity. While initially appealing, a number of factors discourage viewing either the yI;k clause in 8:07.1 as a temporal protasis or Deuteronomy 8 as a third unit in series with 6:10.1–6:25.3 and 7:01.1–7:26.5. Although a number of parallels between the texts are apparent, the differences between 6:10.2 and 8:07.1 are more revealing than the similarities. Specifically, whereas 6:10.2 has a yI;k + yiqtol + lRa preposition with definite object (X®rDZaDh, “the land”), 8:07.1 has a yI;k + participle + lRa preposition with indefinite object (X®rZRa, “land”). Why would Moses vary the pattern established in both 6:10.2 and 7:01.2, if he intended 8:07.1 to stand in parallel? With reference to the indefinite X®rRZa, the noun is common in Deuteronomy, occurring 197 times. However, among these, a mere twentythree are indefinite and only thirteen are both indefinite and refer to the promised land.48 Certainly Moses could have used the definite form in 8:07.1. Furthermore, because this is by no means the first reference to the land, the definite would have been expected when anticipating Israel’s tenure therein. The indefinite reading is more natural, however, if yI;k is taken as a causal ground to the appeal in 8:06.1 to keep Yahweh’s commandments.49 As for the yI;k + participle construction, it was argued in chapters 3 and 4 that within full clauses the participle always fills a nominal slot and at best complements a lexicalized or unlexicalized copula. According to the temporal reading of 8:07.1, the participle is treated more like a yiqtol form than a predicate complement, which seems unjustified in light of the participle’s 48References to the promised land: 6:3, 8:7–9 (5x), 11:9, 11–12 (2x), 26:9, 15, 27:3; other references: 2:20, 3:13, 10:7, 29:27[28], 32:10, 32:13, 22, 33:16, 17, 28. 49Cf. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 183; Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, 168; RSV; NRSV; NAB; NIV; ESV.

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

247

use elsewhere. It is perhaps on this basis that R. J. Williams asserted in his Hebrew Syntax that yI;k can be used temporally only in verbal clauses.50 In his recent study of all y;Ik clauses in Joshua–Kings and Isaiah, C. M. Follingstad found only one possible instance where a participle is used in a temporal yI;k clause (Judg 15:3).51 Intriguingly, some translators apply a conditional (NAB) or asseverative (REB, NIV) meaning to this connector. But even if it is temporal, the participle is easily rendered by its normal complementary role: MD;mIo yˆnSa hRcOo_yI;k MyI;tVvIlVÚpIm MAoAÚZpAh yItyé;qˆn NwøvVmIv MRhDl rRmaø¥ZyÅw hDor (“And Samson said to them, ‘This time I will be innocent with respect to the Philistines when I am doing harm against them’”). Such is not the case in Deuteronomy 8:07.1. There is no easy way to add the copula to the translation. Alternatively, A. Rófe catalogued five other Pentateuchal texts containing a yI;k + participle construction that he believes are used temporally: Deuteronomy 11:31, 18:9, Numbers 33:51–52, 34:2–3, 35:10– 11. It has already been noted that the temporal meaning is not necessary in Deuteronomy 11:31.1; either the causal or asseverative is equally possible. An asseverative meaning is also applicable to all of Rófe’s other examples. While all translations and commentators I am aware of adopt a temporal reading in Deuteronomy 18:9 (the verse introducing a portrait of the divinely commissioned prophet), the shift from temporal yI;k + yiqtol in 17:14 (the verse introducing a portrait of the ideal king) to yI;k + participle in 18:9 seems intentional and is most likely explained by different meanings. If indeed the yI;k + participle clause is not operating as the protasis of a pendent construction, there is no real formal parallelism with either 6:10.1– 6:12.3 or 7:01.1–7:02.3. That chapter 8 should indeed be distinguished from the previous section is further highlighted by the asyndetic summary charge found in 8:01.1: “All the commandment (hÎwVxI;mAh_lD;k) that I am commanding you this day, you shall keep by doing so that you may live and multiply and enter the land that Yahweh swore to your fathers.” hÎwVxI;mAh_lD;k recalls not only 6:01.1 but also the supreme love command that succinctly captures the thrust of all Moses’ instruction and that was expounded upon in the previous section (cf. 6:25.2, 7:11.1). Chapter 8 appears to mark a full break with what precedes. While many words and themes are similar, Moses moves beyond a description of the nature of exclusive commitment to Yahweh to 50R. J. Williams. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), §445; cf. C. M. Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle yI;k (kî), JOTT Special Issue (Dallas: SIL International, 2001), 10 n. 34. 51Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text, 610–29.

248

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

an emphasis on the need for such a commitment. Israel’s life depends on it! While the prophet certainly stated such in the earlier sections, the curses were secondary to the blessings. However, in chapter 8, the flow of thought seems to climax in the warning of 8:19.1–8:20.3 that Israel will surely perish like the nations around them if they fail to hear, and ultimately heed, God’s voice. On this basis, then, 8:01.1–8:20.3 is best understood not as a third subsection on the nature of covenant love but as the concluding unit on the essence of lasting covenant relationship. That the unit concludes the section begun in 6:04.1 is highlighted by an inclusio to the call for covenant love. In the sermon’s first section, Moses had stressed the foundational nature of Yahweh’s “voice” (lwø;q, 5:22– 26) and how God had promised to speak through his prophet (5:31). The second section had then opened with Moses as God’s ambassador, urging Israel to “hear” (lEarVcˆy oAmVv) and ultimately heed Yahweh’s call for love (6:04.1). Now, for those who fail to heed the call, the same voice declares: “As the nations that Yahweh is destroying before you, so you will be destroyed, because you will not listen to the voice (lwøqV;b N…woVmVvIt aøl) of Yahweh your God” (8:20.1–3). Chapter 8 is framed by two text units, both initiated by an asyndetic clause and followed by a chain of w#qatal forms (8:01.1–8:10.4; 8:11.1– 8:20.3). The first unit has one paragraph, the second two, and they are all related thematically around the extreme necessity for Israel to be mindful of God and to praise him in all circumstances of life. As noted above, 8:01.1 provides a summary statement of Israel’s duty and opportunity amidst the trials of daily existence: blessing comes when one affirms Yahweh’s supremacy in all things by dependently heeding his voice. This action (Ac) is then followed by a chain of modal qatal clauses that describe the manner (Mn) by which the primary action is to be accomplished. Each successive clause builds on the preceding one to provide a progression of instruction on how to sustain a God-exalting existence. Israel must recall her past sin and Yahweh’s aiding, disciplining hand (8:02.1–8:04.2), recognize Yahweh as a father who has her best interest at heart (8:05.1), keep his commands by walking in his ways and fearing him (8:06.1–8:09.4), eat and find satisfaction in the blessings that accompany a surrendered life (8:10.1–2), and then bless Yahweh as the source of all provision. God is jealous for Israel’s affections, and they must learn to cherish him as the source and chief end of their existence, if they are to enjoy lasting covenant relationship. This appeal to glorify God is immediately followed by an asyndetic, imperatival warning (8:11.1), which begins a unit that vividly clarifies the necessity for Godward living (8:11.1–8:20.3). It is possible that this portion of text is embedded (one of the two options for an asyndetic clause),

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

249

providing a logical ground for the call to praise in 8:10.3–4. It seems preferable, however, to view it as part of the foreground level structure that builds upon the previous instruction with climactic vigor. The call to praise progresses to a threat of peril, which will result if Israel loses its passionate adoration of God. The asyndetic imperatival warning jA;kVvI;t_NRÚp ÔKVl rRmDÚvIh (“Take heed, lest you forget”) is common elsewhere in the first half of Deuteronomy (4:9, 23; 6:12) and is used here to initiate the second part of the present unit (8:11.1).52 The reader is clearly aware that Israel is on the brink of opportunity, but that all could be lost if the people fail to retain their allegiance to Yahweh alone. The initial “lest you forget Yahweh” is accompanied by another _NRÚp (“lest”) + yiqtol clause that governs a progressive chain of w#qatal forms that follows (8:11.2–8:17.1). The entire subordinate unit develops the reality of forthcoming prosperity and the possibility of attributing the bounty to human effort. It climaxes with the caution: “lest … you say in your heart, ‘My strength and the might of my hand gave to me this wealth’” (8:17.2). Moses is deadly serious in his appeal. He immediately accompanies the initial imperative with a w#qatal form in order to reinforce positively that the goal of “taking heed” is ultimately to “remember Yahweh” as the one who gives Israel power to gain wealth, and as the one who does so in fulfillment of his covenant with the ancestors (8:18.1–2). Again, Israel realizes that her existence derives entirely from God’s grace and not from her own merit. The natural conclusion is that one must wholly surrender to the God of the covenant. The presence of the structuring marker hDyDhVw in 8:19.1 signals a new paragraph and opens a conditional protasis–apodosis construction that will bring the foreground part of the unit and section to an end (8:19.2–8:19.7). Significantly, however, in the height of his rhetorical passion, Moses fails formally to complete the apodosis. The gist of the protasis is, “If (MIa) you indeed forget Yahweh, turning after other gods and thus failing to keep Yahweh in the foremost of your affections, then ….” Here we would have expected something like the w#qatal form D;tdAbSaAw (“then you shall perish”). Instead, Moses inserts into the condition a non-contingent, emphatic yItOdIoAh N…wdEbaø;t dObDa yI;k Mwø¥yAh MRkDb (“I testify against you today that you shall surely die!”) (8:19.6–7). The action expressed in this clause is not the actual apodosis of the adverbial pendent element. But while the grammatical structure is abandoned, the semantic, rhetorical thrust is clear. Moses then ends the paragraph with an embedded x-yiqtol sentence that expounds on the 52The imperative + prepositional phrase without _NRÚp (“lest”) also occurs in 11:16; 12:13, 19, 30; 15:9; and 24:8.

250

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

impending doom awaiting all who turn from Yahweh (8:20.1–3). Figure 11 illustrates through arcs the flow of thought in 8:01.1–8:20.3.

Mn

P P

Ac 8:1

2

10 11

18 19

20

Figure 11. Macrostructural Diagram of 8:01–8:20.3: The Need for Covenant Love

Deuteronomy 6:04.1–8:20.3 provides a coherent argument describing the essence of lasting covenant relationship by focusing on the nature of and need for covenant love. The satisfied life is only possible when God’s people make him central in their affections, seeking to please and exalt him in all of life, passing a passion for such an existence on to the next generation, and making every attempt to remove obstacles that could thwart lasting covenant relationship. Chapter 8 closes the section by emphasizing the absolute need to take Moses’ words seriously. He provides his audience with a practical step-by-step approach to retaining God-mindedness in every day life, amidst the dangers of prosperity and paganism (8:01.1– 8:06.1). He then passionately warns them of certain destruction if they become anything other than God-absorbed (8:11.1–8:20.3). The entire section is organized logically, and formal linguistic markers––especially the use of wa and Ø––help the audience trace the preacher’s flow of thought. The Flow of Thought in Deuteronomy 9:01.1–11:32.2 It was stated earlier that the main theme of the first movement of Moses’ second Deuteronomic address is lasting covenant relationship. The foundational nature of the covenant was addressed in section one, the essence of the relationship in section two, and now section three expounds on the lasting aspect. What is most striking about this unit is that the ultimate cause of the perpetuation of covenant relationship is located not in something Israel accomplishes but in Yahweh’s inflamed passion for his people’s affections. The significance of this image for the unit as a whole is

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

251

highlighted just after Moses’ audience-arousing lEarVcˆy oAmVv (“Hear, O Israel”). {2} presents the Hebrew text and NASB translation. {2} 9:03.1–3

rEbOoDh_a…wh ÔKyRZhølTa hÎw hy yI;k Mwø¥yAh ;tD VoådÎyw Know therefore today that it is the hDlVkOa vEa ÔKy‰ZnDpVl LORD your God who is crossing over before you as a consuming fire.

Traditionally, scholars have treated the noun phrase ÔKyRZhølTa hÎwhy (“Yahweh your God”) as a nominal pendent element and hDlVkOa vEa (“consuming fire”) as either an adverbial accusative or a noun phrase in apposition to the definite participle rEbOoDh (“the one who crosses”). However, J. W. Dyk and E. Talstra have recently insightfully argued that the words ÔKy‰ZnDpVl rEbOoDh_a…wh (“he is the one who crosses before you”) are together an embedded appositional clause within a greater copular clause predication––a structure that occurs quite commonly in Hebrew prose in general and in Deuteronomy in particular.53 Consequently, the sentence in 9:03 should read, “And you shall know that Yahweh your God––He is the one who crosses before you––is a consuming fire!” The members of the conquest generation must recognize Yahweh’s blazing nature as a present reality in their lives. The narrator of Exodus had recorded that Israel perceived the glory of Yahweh on Mount Sinai as a “consuming fire” (vEa tRlZRkOa, Exod 24:17). Similarly, in Deuteronomy 5, Moses had recalled how Yahweh’s consuming fire at Horeb had ignited within the people a healthy fear of their redeemer, so that they cried out, “This great fire will consume us!” (taøzAh hDlOd…gAh vEaDh …wnEZlVkaø;t, Deut 5:25). Significantly, earlier in 4:24 the prophet had grounded his warning to Israel against idolatry in the assertion, aÎ…nåq lEa a…wh hDlVkOa vEa ÔKyRZhølTa hÎwhy (“Yahweh your God is a consuming fire; he is a jealous God”). Now, in chapters 9–11, this theme is revived and used to spark Israel to greater dependence. The God of Horeb is present with them, and the same fear they once felt must be rekindled continually, moving them to obedience and greater dependence. It is those who fail to regard the significance of his fiery presence that will ultimately be consumed by it. 53J. W. Dyk and E. Talstra, “Pardigmatic and Syntagmatic Features in Identifying Subject and Predicate in Nominal Clauses,” in The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, ed. C. L. Miller, LSAWS 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 161–64, esp. 163–64, which deal with Deut 9:3. For other examples in our corpus of inner-clausal embedding, see 7:09.3, 8:09.2, 10:17.2, 11:02.4, 11:11.3; cf. 7:22.2.

252

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

As is noted in Figure 12 (below) and Table 62 (next two pages), the entire section is broken into two main units, the first formally marked by the cry lEarVcˆy oAmVv (“Hear, O Israel!”) in 9:01.1 and the second signaled by the inference marker + vocative, lEarVcˆy hD;tAoVw (“And now, Israel”), in 10:12.1. As noted in the section on lexical structuring markers in chapter 4, hD;tAoVw indicates that a given action or idea is a natural consequence or conclusion (.˙.) of an event or topic in the preceding context. At times the grounds for the conclusion is in the immediate verse or paragraph, but other times the grounds span several chapters of biblical text. In this instance, the logical grounds for hD;tAoVw is the entire unit the runs from 9:01.1– 10:11.6 but which is summarized in the primary foreground order in 9:03.1– 2: “And you shall know that Yahweh…is a consuming fire.” This sentence provides the thesis for the entire first section and the basis for all of Moses’ exhortations and comments in 10:12.1–11:32.2.

G

Exp

.˙.

S

S

Id 9:1-3 4-7 7

Chap. 9 >

Id 24 25

10:11 12-13 14

Chap. 10 >

Exp

Id 11:15 16

Exp 25 26

32

Chap. 11 >

Figure 12. Macrostructural Diagram of 9:01.1–11:32.2: The Perpetuation of Covenant Relationship

The call t o k n o w Yahweh as a c o n s u mi ng fire Following the initial “Hear, O Israel” in 9:01.1, an asyndetic copular participial background clause formally opens the unit (9:01.2). Here we learn that Israel is on mission to dispossess nations far greater than they, and it is into this context that the order to know the burning nature of Yahweh finds significance (9:03.1). Because the initial topic is conquest, the audience would most naturally expect that Moses is addressing the way God will pour out his wrath on the Canaanites. This is exactly the emphasis of the embedded paragraph that runs from 9:03.4–8. Two x-yiqtol clauses, the first asyndetic, are linked to two w#qatal clauses. The initial pair emphasizes the devouring power of God over the enemy, and the latter pair highlights

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

253

Table 62. Macrostructural Outline of Deuteronomy 9:01.1–11:32.2 III. The Perpetuation of Covenant Relationship: Yahweh’s Inflamed Passion for Israel’s Affections [9:01.1–11:32.2] A. A Call to Know Yahweh as a Consuming Fire (9:01.1–10:11.6) • Israel’s Tendency to Miss the Significance of Yahweh’s Inflamed Passion for Her Affections (9:04.1–10:11.6) a. Three Examples of Israel’s Self-Centered Rebellion and Yahweh’s Gracious Response (9:07.4–9:24.1) (1) At Horeb (9:08.1–9:21.7) (2) At Taberah, Massah, and Kibroth-hattaavah (9:22.1) (3) At Kadesh-barnea (9:23.1–9:23.7) b. Yahweh’s Gracious Response at Horeb Embellished (9:25.1–10:11.6) (1) Moses’ Prayer for Israel’s Pardon Grounded in Yahweh’s Character, Promise, and Purpose (9:25.1– 9:29.2) • Excursus: Yahweh’s Gracious, Renewed Covenantal Provisions for Israel (10:01.1– 10:09.4) (i) Yahweh’s Gift of a New Covenant Document (10:01.1–10:05.6) • Narratorial Intrusion (D1) (10:06.1– 10:07.2) (ii) Yahweh’s Gift of Covenant Custodians (10:08.1–10:09.4) (2) Yahweh’s Gracious Reiteration of His Covenant Commitment to Israel (10:10.1–10:11.6) B. The Implications of Knowing Yahweh as a Consuming Fire (10:12.1– 11:32.2) 1. Israel’s Need for a God-Centered Existence (10:12.1–11:15.3) a. The Practice and Promise of a God-Centered Existence Summarized (10:12.1–10:13.1) b. The Practice of a God-Centered Existence Clarified (10:14.1–11:12.2) (1) The Basis of a God-Centered Existence: Yahweh’s Special Election of Israel (10:14.1–10:15.2) (2) The Essence of a God-Centered Existence (10:16:1– 11:12.2)

254

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE Table 62––Continued. Marostructural Outline of Deuteronomy 9:01.1–11:32.2

2.

(a) Setting One’s Affections on God Alone (10:16.1–11:01.2) (i) By Fearing Yahweh (10:20.1–10:22.2) (ii) By Loving Yahweh (11:01.1) (iii) By Heeding Yahweh’s Instructions (11:01.2) (b) Recalling Yahweh’s Greatness on Israel’s Behalf (11:02.1–11:07.2) (c) Keeping the Whole Commandment (11:08.1– 11:12.2) c. The Promise of a God-Centered Existence Clarified (11:13.1–11:15.3) A Final Appeal for Life-Encompassing, God-Centered Existence (11:16.1–11:32.2) a. The Need for Life-Encompassing, God-Centered Existence (11:16.1–25.4) (1) The Call to Live for God Alone (11:16.1–21) (2) The Promise of Living for God Alone (11:22.1– 25.4) b. Clarification on the Conditional Nature of Covenant Relationship (11:26.1–11:32.2) (1) The Reality of Covenant Blessing and Curse (11:26.1–11:28.5) (2) The Need for a Formal Declaration of the Covenant Blessing and Curse Upon Entering the Land (11:29.1–11:30.1) (3) A Transitional Plea for a God-Centered Existence (11:31.1–11:32.2)

the resultant benefit for Israel––i.e., they will indeed gain victory, just as Yahweh promised. A s t ubborn pe ople The next move in the text is highly rhetorical, for it turns the theme of Yahweh as a consuming fire back on Israel. Earlier in 4:24 Moses had forthrightly warned Israel against giving allegiance to other gods, “because Yahweh your God is a consuming fire (hDlVkOa vEa ÔKyZRhølTa hÎwhy yI;k).” Here in chapter 9, his application is less direct but equally effective. With the asyndetic lAa + jussive clause in 9:04.1, he embarks on an extended thirty-seven verse embedded section that provides the logical reason (G = “ground”)

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

255

why Israel must be ever aware of Yahweh’s blazing presence. Specifically, history shows they are prone to self-centered rebellion and are thus fully at the mercy of God to sustain life. They should not dare to take him for granted. The main point within this embedded unit is located in the initial paragraph that runs from 9:04.1–9:06.3. Here Moses anticipates how easily pride replaces conscious dependence on God, and in the initial prohibition he confronts those who may, in the process of conquest, think they are gaining the land on account of their own righteousness. Israel must not think this. Embedded negative and positive sentences (yI;k … aøl, “not … but …”) then clarify that it is not on account of their righteousness but on account of the wickedness of the nations and on account of God’s promise to the patriarchs (9:05.1–3). The favor God shows Israel is simply due to his grace and not their merit. This fact is then reinforced in the w#qatal sentence of 9:06.1–3, where Moses declares Israel to be a “a stiff-necked people (P®rOZo_hEvVq_MAo)” In 9:07.1–2, asyndetic positive and negative imperative forms begin another embedded unit that expounds on the fundamental nature of Israel’s stubborness. “Remember! Do not forget that you rebelled against Yahweh your God in the wilderness.” Apart from Joshua and Caleb’s families, all the adult exodus generation are dead at the time of Moses’ address, never being allowed to partake of the promised land because of their failure to trust God (Num 14:11). Those in the present generation must take heed of their past. A tale of three rebellions a nd a gracio us G od With one more asyndetic clause (9:07.4), Moses initiates two movements that develop in series the reality of Israel’s past sin and God’s unmerited favor. The first movement is framed by similar copular participial clauses, both with lexicalized hyh and both stressing how Israel has repeatedly turned away from God: hÎwhy_MIo MRtyˆyTh MyîrVmAm (“you were rebelling against Yahweh,” 9:07.4, 9:24.1). Within the body of the unit, three divisions are apparent, each marked by the connector wa + preposition V;b + place name or event: bérOjVb…w (“even at Horeb,” 9:08.1), hÎwSaA;tAh tOrVbIqVb…w hD;sAmVb…w hrEoVbAtVb…w (“and at Taberah, and at Massah, and at Kibroth-hattaavah,” 9:22.1), and Ao´nrA;b véd;qIm MRkVtRa hÎwhy AjølVvIb…w (“and in Yahweh’s sending you from Kadesh Barnea,” 9:23.1). Moses significantly develops only the first of these divisions, likely because it was at Horeb that Israel experienced most vividly the consuming fire of God (9:08.1–9:21.7).

256

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

After the initial wa-x-qatal clause that speaks of the rebellion “at Horeb” (9:08.1) and follows the introductory statement of rebellion, a wayyiqtol clause stresses that Israel’s wrongdoing ignited the anger of God to destroy her (9:08.2). At this point, Moses could have easily moved directly into his next example of Israel’s stubbornness (i.e., “at Taberah …,” 9:22.1). He could also have continued with what is formally the second movement of this embedded section, which begins at 9:25.1; here Moses picks up exactly where 9:08.2 leaves off, though with a focus not on Israel’s sin but on God’s unbelievable grace. Instead, the prophet digresses into a detailed exposition of the golden calf episode, which proved conclusively that Israel was “a stiff necked people (P®rZOo_hEvVq_MAo)” (9:13.3). The text repeatedly stresses how Yahweh’s fury would have destroyed Israel (9:08.2, 9:14.2, 9:19.2), had Moses not pleaded for divine mercy. It also refers both to the blazing mountain (9:10.3, 9:15.3) and to the burning of the abominable golden calf (9:21.3). Will Israel learn from these lessons of the past? As noted, copular clauses mark the beginning and ending of the first movement of the embedded unit. Accordingly, the wayyiqtol form in 9:25.1 is paragraph initial, flashing back to material covered in the embedded description of the golden calf saga (cf. 9:18.1) but picking up naturally from the wayyiqtol clause of 9:08.2, which lies on the same vertical axis in the text breakdown. The mainline of the (embedded) second movement moves through a progression of wayyiqtol clauses from 9:25.1–9:26.2 and then picks up again at 10:10.1–10:11.1 with similar constructions. In the first of these two units, Moses petitions God on Israel’s behalf. He calls upon Yahweh to remember his promises to the patriarchs, to consider how his name might be profaned if his people were indeed destroyed, and to look over the people’s sin, recalling that they are indeed the ones he redeemed as his own possession (9:26.3–9:29.2). In this prayer the reader gains a window into Moses’ understanding of the consuming divine presence of Horeb. Although the people’s sin had aroused his anger, he is also a gracious God, who is faithful to past promises and who acts out of interest both for the exaltation of his own name and for a relationship with his people. Following Moses’ recollection of his intercession for Israel but before the completion of his account of God’s gracious pardon, he inserts two embedded paragraphs (10:01.1–10:05.6; 10:08.1–10:11.6). Both begin with the asyndetic phrase awIhAh tEoD;b (“at that time”) and both emphasize Yahweh’s renewed covenant commitment, despite Israel’s rebellion (10:01.1, 10:08.1). Weinfeld notes that in Deuteronomy awIhAh tEoD;b usually marks a digression that calls “attention to matters that might be

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

257

overlooked.”54 Israel had been reminded of their sin and of the way God’s fury can be aroused when he is forgotten. Now they needed to be made aware of Yahweh’s passionate desire for his people’s affections that gives rise to his amazing grace. In response to Moses’ prayer (“at that time”), God gave tangible expression to the renewal of the covenant relationship. He created new covenant documents (10:01–10:05.6), and he provided the community with covenant custodians, the Levites, who would lead the people in worship and guard the sanctity of covenant symbols (10:08.1– 10:09.4). Most interpreters miss the parallel between the covenant document and the covenant custodians, because they include 10:08.1–10:09.4 in the narratorial intrusion begun in 10:06.1. The step out of reported speech (D1) is signaled by the use of third person address––something foreign in Domain 2. But at the end of 10:09.4, the reference to “your God (ÔKyRZhølTa) clearly marks a shift back to Moses’ address, so one should consider the entire unit on the gift of the Levites to be a second testimony of God’s grace in the face of Israel’s defiance.55 Yahweh is indeed slow to wrath but abounding in unrelenting affection, bearing an inflamed passion for his people’s love. The unit concludes with the resumption of the chain of wayyiqtols begun in 9:25.1–9:26.2, which climax in God’s instruction to Moses to return to the front of the people so that they may enter and possess the land promised to their fathers (10:10.1–10:11.6). Yahweh responded favorably to Moses’ prayer, and the implication is that Israel, out of desperate need for grace, should now respond in dependence. 9:25.1–9:29.2 established a situation (Sit)––i.e., Moses interceded for Israel. 10:1.1– 10:09.4 then elucidated God’s gracious response (R) to the prayer––i.e., he gave tangible expression to his renewal of the covenant. 10:10.1–10:11.6 then seem to function as a concluding summary or explanation of the whole experience. Figure 13 delimits the text blocks that make up this section and notes the logical relationships that govern the flow of thought. 54Weinfeld,

Deuteronomy 1–11, 137. R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History, Pt. 1, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980), 33–34. Further support for this conclusion is found in the fact that the narrative in Exodus– Numbers has the Levites being set apart at Sinai during the lifetime of Aaron (cf. Exod 32:29; Num 3, esp. vv. 5–13), far before the Israelites made it to Jotbathah (cf. Num 33:32–34). 55Cf.

258

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

G Exp

S S Id 9:1-3

4-7

Chap. 9 >

Id

S

R S

S

Sit 7/8

21

22

23-24 25

Exp 29 10:1

5 6-7

8-9

10-11

Chap. 10 >

Figure 13. Macrostructural Diagram of 9:01.1–10:11.6: A Call to Know Yahweh as a Consuming Fire

C o v e na n tal implicatio ns of k n o wi ng G od as a c o ns u m ing fire The perpetuation of the covenant depends not only on Israel’s allegiance but also, and even more fundamentally, upon Yahweh’s gracious, sustaining hand. He who initiated the covenant also perpetuates it both by forgiveness and the revelation of his will and by igniting a holy fear that leads to repentance and obedience. In light of the dual side of God’s inflamed passion––both to punish and to preserve––and in view of Israel’s persistent and repeated failure, how should they, as Yahweh’s special covenant people, respond? Moses frames the question as follows: “And now, Israel, what is Yahweh requiring from you?” (10:12.1). The answer to this question shapes the body of this subsection and climaxes the first movement of Moses’ second address. The unit is divided into two main parts, the first initiated by hD;tAoVw lEarVcˆy (“And now, Israel”) and the second by the asyndetic imperative …wrVm;DcIh (“Take care!”) in 11:16.1. Part one emphasizes both the practice (10:14.1–11:12.2) and promise (11:13.1–11:15.3) of a God-centered existence, both of which are captured in summary form in the opening introductory appeal (10:12.1–10:13.1). Part two (11:16.1–32.2) ends the first movement of Moses’ second address by making a final call for this kind of lifestyle, summarizing the dual reality of blessing and curse in the covenant relationship, and turning Israel’s eyes once again to the promise land. The practice of a G od -ce n tered existe n ce The unit opens with a rhetorical question and copular clause summary of the heart of OT Yahwistic faith in general (cf. 6:05.1) and of 10:14.1–

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

259

11:15.3 in particular (cf. 10:12.1–10:13.1). The knowledge of the consuming fire of God should spark holy fear (cf. Exod 20:20; Deut 5:23, 28–29) that leads to walking in God’s ways, loving him, and serving him with all one’s heart, as expressed by keeping Yahweh’s commands and statutes, which Yahweh provides for the people’s good (10:12.1–10:13.1; cf. 6:05.1). Having identified his focus on both the practice and promise of treasuring God above all else, Moses begins the body of his discussion by embedding a three sentence paragraph that grounds the following exhortation to God-centered living. The unit begins with an asyndetic copular clause fronted with NEh, which marks the immediate significance of what follows: everything in the universe belongs to Yahweh (10:14.1). This fact is then followed by a contrastive qår + x-qatal clause + wayyiqtol clause that together stress the special election of Israel. Though Yahweh is the God of the cosmos, he––and he alone––is also Israel’s God. In light of this mystery of elective grace, Moses infers (.˙.) that Israel must passionately and intentionally live for God in all things (10:16.1– 11:12.2). This hortatory appeal develops initially through a series of three w#qatal clauses (10:16.1, 11:02.1, 11:08.1), which together declare the logical consequence (.˙.) of God’s elective grace and characterize a God-centered existence. Israel must choose to turn from their self-centered ways (10:16.1–11:01.2), recall the magnificent power of God, not only to redeem but also to punish (11:02.1–11:07.2), and keep the whole commandment (11:08.1–11:12.2).56 While the three charges in fact shape a single paragraph devoted to the essence of a God-centered existence, the outline highlights each as its own point because Moses substantially develops each independently, whether through subordinate clauses or embedded sentences. 56There

is a clear interrelationship of these three actions, and they may actually be in progression rather than in series. If so, we have here an instructional text, much like that found in 8:02.1–8:10.4, that explains for Israel the process by which they must answer the renewed call of God. It begins with repentance (“circumcise your heart”), moves to a recollection of Yahweh as a consuming fire (“know his greatness”), and climaxes in the obedience that flows from the life of dependent fear and trust (“obey all the commandment”). However, I have chose to read it merely as a hortatory text because the exposition of “circumcision” as fear, love, and obedience (10:20.2–11:01.2) seems all encompassing, in no way restricted to the initial heart change. On the other hand, the point may only be that the heart change (which 29:4 and 30:6 will stress can only be brought about by a divine act; cf. Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26–27; John 3:3, 6–8; 6:44, 63–65; Acts 11:18; 2 Tim 2:24–26; Heb 13:21) must happen before any true obedience can follow (cf. Rom 1:5; 14:23; Heb 11:6 with 13:16). As such, we may still in fact have a progression of action.

260

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

The first modal qatal clause calls Israel to “circumcise your hearts” (10:16.1), an action immediately explained in the following x + aøl + yiqtol clause, “And your neck do not stiffen any longer” (10:16.2).57 Here Moses exhorts Israel to address the very problem that had ignited Yahweh’s wrath against them at Horeb (cf. 9:13.3). After a brief parenthetical comment (10:19.1–2), Moses defines the nature of this shift to a more Godward orientation. He uses three coordinated clauses, only the first of which is developed: Israel must fear Yahweh (10:20.1), love him (11:01.1), and keep his instructions all their days (11:01.2). The call to fear is framed as an asyndetic x-yiqtol clause. It is immediately followed by an embedded paragraph that further explains the nature of such fear (10:20.2–4), and then exalts Yahweh as Israel’s amazing benefactor, who is worthy of praise (10:21.1–10:22.2). The calls to love and obedience are both w#qatal clauses, naturally following the initial x-yiqtol clause in embedded hortatory address. Moses cast the initial appeal to “circumcise” hearts in 2nd person plural speech, addressing the various community members individually. However, his digressional statements about fear, love, and obedience were cast in 2nd person singular speech, directed to the community as a whole.58 With the return to 2nd person plural address in 11:02.1 (= MR;tVoådyˆw, “and you shall know”), Moses resumes his mainline argument begun in 10:16.1.59 Scholars debate the syntax and proper translation of this fifteen-clause unit (11:02.1–11:07.2). {3} on the next page provides a comparative synopsis of the NASB, NRSV, and ESV translations.60 {3a} treats the yI;k of verse 7 as adversative, providing the counter to the statement in verse 2: “You shall know that not with your children [11:02] … but your eyes saw all the great deeds that he did [11:07]” (so NASB, NIV, NJB, Weinfeld). {3b} and {3c} consider the yI;k of verse 7 to be either causal or asseverative, providing the ground for why Israel should know the deeds of Yahweh: “You shall 57For

my understanding of the meaning and application of circumcision in the OT, see J. S. DeRouchie, “Circumcision in the Hebrew Bible and Targums: Theology, Rhetoric, and the Handling of Metaphor,” BBR 14.2 (2004): 175–203. 58For this understanding of the Numeruswechsel, see J. G. McConville, “Singular Address in the Deuteronomic Law and the Politics of Legal Administration,” JSOT 97 (2002): 19–36. 59The frequent shift between 2nd singular and plural address in Deuteronomy has plagued scholars for some time. It is too early to declare that all shifts align with features of textual hierarchy, but evidence in our corpus to support this conclusion is intriguing. More work needs to be done in this area. 60I have adapted the translation only by changing “the LORD” back to “Yahweh.”

today that [yI;k] it was not your children (who have not known or seen the discipline of Yahweh your God), but it is you who must acknowledge his greatness, his mighty hand and his outstretched arm, 3his signs and his deeds that he did in Egypt to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, and to all his land; 4what he did to the Egyptian army, to their horses and chariots, how he made the water of the Red Sea flow over them as they pursued you, so that Yahweh has destroyed them to this day; 5what he did to you in the wilderness, until you came to this place; 6and what he did to Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab son of Reuben, how in the midst of all Israel the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, along with their households, their tents, and every living being in their company; 7for [yI;k] it is your own eyes that have seen every great deed that Yahweh did.

2Remember

2And

know this day that [yI;k] I am not speaking with your sons who have not know and who have not seen the discipline of Yahweh your God––his greatness, his mighty hand, and his outstretched arm, 3and his signs and his works which he did in the midst of Egypt to Pharaoh the king of Egypt and to all his land; 4and what he did to Egypt’s army, to its horses and its chariots, when he made the water of the Red Sea to engulf them while they were pursuing you, and Yahweh completely destroyed them; 5and what he did to you in the wilderness until you came to this place; 6and what he did to Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben, when the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, their households, their tents, and every living thing that followed them, among Israel–– 7but [yI;k] your own eyes have seen all the great work of Yahweh which he did.

{3b} 11:2–7, NRSV

{3a} 11:2–7, NASB

signs and his deeds that he did in Egypt to Pharaoh the king of Egypt and to all his land, 4and what he did to the army of Egypt, to their horses and to their chariots, how he made the water of the Red Sea flow over them as they pursued after you, and how Yahweh has destroyed them to this day, 5and what he did to you in the wilderness, until you came to this place, 6and what he did to Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, son of Reuben,how the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households, their tents, and every living thing that followed them, in the midst of all Israel. 7For [yI;k] your eyes have seen all the great work of the LORD that he did.

3his

consider today (since [yI;k] I am not speaking to your children who have not known or seen it), consider the discipline of Yahweh your God, his greatness, his mighty hand and his outstretched arm,

2And

{3c} 11:2–7, ESV

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION 261

262

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

know––(Indeed it was not with you sons …)––his greatness [11:02] … because/indeed your eyes saw all the great deeds that he did [11:07]” (so NRSV, RSV, REB, NAB, ESV, McConville). The internal syntax makes the latter option appear preferable (see below). In it, the yI;k of 11:02 following “And you shall know today” appears intrusive (so ESV but contra NRSV). The essence of a God-centered existence includes not only a dependent heart (10:16.1) but also a continual recollection of Yahweh’s greatness as witnessed by Israel: “And you shall know this day … his greatness (MR;tVoådyˆw wøldÎ…g_tRa … Mwø¥yAh, 11:02.1). The application of wa and Ø as inner-clausal connectors suggests the lone noun wøldÎ…g (“his greatness”) is the main object of the initial w#qatal verb MR;tVoådyˆw (“and you shall know”; so NRSV but contra ESV). It is then followed by a series of coordinated nouns, the first of which is asyndetic. Together these form an appositional unit, describing the nature of this greatness: wyDcSoAm_tRaw wyDtOtOa_tRaw hÎy…wf…nAh wøoOrz…w hqÎzSjAh wødÎy_tRa (“his strong hand and his outstretched arm––even his signs and his wonders”). The object noun phrase MRkyEhølTa hÎwhy rAs…wm_tRa (“the discipline of Yahweh your God”) that precedes wøldÎ…g is best seen as the direct object within the embedded parenthetical sentence, specifying what it is that that the children of the present generation had not actually experienced. The mention of Yahweh’s great deeds launches a series of four conjoined rRvSa clauses, which together detail the type of divine wonders Israel needed to remember. The events include (1) Yahweh’s plaguing of the Egyptians (11:03.1), (2) his defeat of Pharoah’s army at the Red Sea (11:04.1–3), (3) his discipline of Israel that brought about their forty year wilderness sojourn, and (4) his deadly punishment of Dathan and Abiram for their rebellion. While the divine wonders are listed chronologically, the last one represents the climax in context for the account in Numbers 16 includes much divine fire imagery. Not only did the fire (vEa) of God come down and consume (lka) two hundred-fifty individuals (Num 16:35), but the rest of the congregation’s hardened response to this discipline also caused Yahweh to declare his intent to “consume” (lka) all of them as well (Num 16:45). Once again Moses stresses that the consuming fire of God, which Israel has known in the past, is still present with them. His desire is that they remember his greatness, and may it lead to a life of obedience. This latter issue is picked up in the third and final mainline w#qatal clause of the paragraph (11:08.1). Again the object of obedience is the “whole commandment (hÎwVxI;mAh_lD;k).” The charge to heed is followed by two subordinate result or purpose units, each marked with NAoZAmVl (“so that”) + yiqtol. Together they provide motivation for covenant loyalty by characterizing the nature of a satisfied life in relationship with Yahweh. The dependent follower of God will be strong, enter, and possess the land

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

263

(11:08.3–6), and will enjoy lengthened days on the land (11:09.1–2). The remaining part of the unit includes an embedded paragraph made up of two sentences that expound, through utopian terms, the nature of the good land. The digression climaxes in the parenthetic statement: “The eyes of Yahweh your God are always on it from the beginning of the year until the end of the year” (11:12.2). This should provide motivation for Godoriented living––to rest under the shadow of Yahweh’s divine protection and care in perpetuity. The promise of a G od -ce n tered existe n ce Thus far the implications of knowing Yahweh as a consuming fire have focused on the characteristics of a God-centered existence. Moses now turns to comment briefly on the results. A proper view of God, seen in a life of obedience, will be accompanied by provision, resulting in lasting, satisfied covenant relationship. The unit opens in 11:31.1 with the paragraph marker hDyDhVw, and is followed by a conditional “if–then” structure (11:13.2–11:15.3). The protasis echoes both the love command of 6:05.1 and the summary statement that opened the present unit after the inferential hD;tAoVw in 10:12.1. “If (_MIa) you will surely listen to my commandments, which I am commanding you this day, by loving Yahweh your God and by serving him with all your heart and with all your being,” then Yahweh will cause the land to be bountifully productive (11:13.1–11:15.3).61 Israel will experience the satisfied life with God, if they will but remain faithful to him. It is unclear whether this unit represents the peak of the section, the climactic moment to which everything else has pointed. As such, it is regarded in series rather than in progression with what precedes––i.e., on an equal plain rather than as a climax. 61At 11:13.2, 11:14.1, and 11:15.1, Moses switches to 1st person speech, as if quoting Yahweh, though with no speech formula to indicate he has done so (cf. the pendent construction in 11:13–14 with that in 11:22–23). Although translators, both ancient and modern, have wrestled with whether these instances of “personswitching” are mistakes in transmission, it seems more logical that Moses is simply merging his voice with that of Yahweh, for whom he speaks––a feature apparent elsewhere in Deuteronomy (cf. 7:04; 17:3; 28:20; 29:4–5). Many Greek MSS read “his” commandents (wtwxm instead of ytwxm) in 11:13.2, and Sam. drops the problematic suffix altogether. Similarly, at 11:14.1 Sam., most Greek witnesses, and Qumran (8Q4 [DJD 3.159], 8QMez [DJD, 3.161]) read “he will give” ( Ntnw instead of yttnw), and these same witnesses plus 4QPhylA (DJD 6.50) display the same modification in 11:15.1.

264

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

A final appeal wi th blessings a nd c u rses The third section of our corpus has focused on the perpetuation of lasting covenant relationship. Moses has stressed both God’s demand for complete allegiance and Israel’s tendency to turn away from God-centered existence. If they as a people are to enjoy sustained relationship with God, they must solely depend on him––depend on his grace to forgive, his grace to reveal his will, and his grace to show them his fiery presence so as to spark fear that results in obedience. Israel must seek God, lest they die. But when they do seek him, they will live. The promise of blessing in the land in 11:13.1–11:15.3 triggers Moses’ concluding appeal in this first movement of his second address. He begins with an asyndetic imperatival warning and hortatory appeal that stress the absolute need for wholehearted allegiance to God. While possibly serving as an embedded paragraph that explains the preceding protasis–apodosis construction, the asyndetic imperative …wrVmD;vIh (“Take care!”) more likely marks a fresh beginning on the mainline. This is suggested from the fact that the content of 11:16.1–11:25.4 is repetitive and summative within the movement as a whole and is tied directly to the “blessing and curse” material (11:26.1–11:32.2). The opening of the appeal in 11:16.1 is reminiscent of those found in 6:12.1–2 and 8:11.1–2: NRÚp MRkDl …wrVmDÚvIh (“Take heed to yourself, lest …”). Reminiscent of the earlier cautions that addressed “forgetting Yahweh,” this one focuses on the deathly results of allowing one’s affections to be turned toward other gods. The “covenant implications” section that began in 10:12.1 started with a stress on the need to love Yahweh with one’s whole “heart” (10:12.1) and to “circumcise” one’s heart, so as not to be stubborn (10:16.1). However, initial repentance without a lasting, permanent change of heart will not allow for perpetual covenant relationship. Moses thus urges Israel to watch themselves, “lest your heart be deceived (hR;tVpˆy NRÚp MRkVbAbVl).” This initial NRÚp + yiqtol challenge is followed by a chain of w#qatal forms that catalog the progress from deception to destruction. God will have no rivals, and the Israelites must be careful, lest they die. Significantly, in contrast to the ending of chapter 8, but reminiscent of the appeals in chapters 6–7, while Moses expresses the potential for curse, he subordinates it within a series of hortorary directives all motivated by the promise of blessing (cf. 11:21). Thus Moses ends the first movement of his sermon on a high note, stressing God’s desire for lasting covenant relationship. After the initial warning, a series of mainline w#qatal clauses highlight the movement back toward a positive thrust. The clauses echo almost word-for-word the hortatory appeal that flowed out of the statement of the

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

265

Shema> and supreme love command back in chapter 6 (cf. 6:06.1–6:09.1). God is calling Israel to wholehearted, life-encompassing, communityembracing, God-centered living (11:18.1–11:21.1), “so that your days and the days of your children may be multiplied on the land that Yahweh swore to give to your fathers, as long as the heavens are over the earth” (11:21.1– 2). This positive, blessing-oriented emphasis is now definitively stressed by a subordinated causal yI;k (“because”) that introduces a conditional sentence that runs from 11:22.1–11:23.2 and promises victory in battle and rest in the land, if Israel will but “keep all this commandment … by doing it––by loving Yahweh your God, by walking in all his ways, and by clinging to him” (11:22.1). The promise is then clarified in 11:24.1–11:25.4. God burns with passion for his people’s affections. By means of his presence, power, and word, he has provided Israel with all she needs for life and godliness, if they will but depend on him. The “idea” (Id) in 11:16.1–11:25.4 that blessing and curse result from heeding or failing to heed God’s voice now gives rise to an “explanation” (Exp) in 11:26.1–11:32.2. The asyndetic imperative hEar (“See!”) in 11:26.1 operates similarly to oAmVv (“Hear!”) in the way it focuses the audience’s attention on what follows. Specifically, through the form of a copular, participial clause, Moses declares that he has been setting before the people both a blessing and a curse, stressing the conditional makeup of the covenant and Israel’s absolute need to be God-absorbed and Goddependent. Two incomplete clauses then specify the contingent reality that lies before Israel (11:27.1–11:28.5). They must make a choice, whether to be God-centered or self-centered, to enjoy life or reap death. While Moses has pointed to Yahweh as the ultimate ground for the covenant’s perpetuation, the prophet did so in order to emphasize that Israel cannot enjoy life apart from God. They must surrender all desire to exalt themselves and passionately seek to exalt Yahweh, affectionately loving and serving under his lordship and for his ends. Moses finishes this part of his address by stressing Israel’s responsibility in the covenant. In 11:29.1, the lexical marker hDyDhVw initiates a new paragraph that grows out of the preceding statement concerning the perpetuation of the covenant. A temporal yI;k + yiqtol protasis precedes a w#qatal apodosis. The former is identical to the protasis in 7:01.1–2: ; X®rZDaDh_lRa ÔKyRZhølTa hÎwhy ÔKSayIby yI;k hD;tVvîrVl hD;mDv_aDb hD;tAa_rRvSa (“When Yahweh your God brings you to the land that you are entering to possess …,” cf. 6:10.2). The latter directs Israel to renew the covenant upon entering the land, proclaiming the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal. The structure is then

266

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

followed by an embedded rhetorical question that clarifies for the reader the location of these sites (11:30.1). With the switch of vision toward the promised land found in 11:22.1– 11:24.3 and now in the final concluding statements, Moses leaves the people with a word of hope and opportunity and prepares them for the following detailed description of what form their God-dependence should take during their tenure in the land (chaps. 12–26/28). This concern is highlighted in the final transitional paragraph that opens with an asseverative yI;k (“Indeed!”) and gives one final appeal for Israel to heed the covenant directives Moses is teaching them (11:31.1–11:32.2). The yI;k stands at the head of a copular, participial sentence that stresses not only that Israel is on mission to take the land, but also that Yahweh is the one giving it to them (11:31.1–2). This indicative statement is followed by a series of three modal qatal clauses (w#qatal) that direct Israel in the next step of their journey, specifically emphasizing how they must follow Moses’ instructions (11:31.3–11:32.2). In this final section, therefore, the prophet has thus come full circle. He restresses not only the need for covenant love in all areas of life (11:16.1–11:21.2; cf. 6:04.1–6:09.1) and the reality of both provision and protection to all who are God-centered (11:13.1–11:15.3; 11:22.1–11:25.4; cf. 5:33.1–6; 6:10.1–15.3; 7:12.1–7:24.3; 18:1–3), but also the foundation of all covenant relationship––namely, the word of God that he was proclaiming. Figure 14 portrays the flow of thought in 10:12.1–11:32.2.

Exp .˙. S S

S

S

Exp

Id

S

S

Id

S

G

10:12-13/14-15/16

Chap. 10 >

11:01 2

7 8

12 13

15 16

21 22 25/26-28/29-30/31-32

Chap. 11 >

Figure 14. Macrostructural Diagram of 10:12.1–11:32.2: The Covenantal Implications of Knowing Yahweh as a Consuming Fire

LITERARY STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

267

CONCLUSION One purpose of the above commentary was to show how text grammar works hand-in-hand with semantic meaning and discourse function to establish the message of a text. At every turn, the formal clues in the discourse surface structure guide and influence the flow of thought and theological message. While the communicators of the biblical text were clearly passionate in their message, they were also intentional in their form. The connectors wa and Ø shape the text into primary and embedded units. Foreground and background structures help discern flow of thought and paragraph breaks within those units. Linguistic features like pronominal antecedent reference and lexical markers work alongside of other features to help determine macrostructure and flow of thought. Consequently, textlinguistics represents a valuable and indispensable tool in biblical interpretation, furnishing a more objective basis than is usually provided.

6 CONCLUSION Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. ––Paul (2 Tim 2:15)

The purpose of this study has been to provide a more objective basis for discerning the flow of thought in the reported speech of Deuteronomy. Past approaches to literary structure within the book have principally relied on intuition, semantic makeup, and stylistic features such as lexical and thematic repetition. While not denying the way such approaches uncover literary artistry, this study applies a more formally based, textlinguistic approach to discern literary structure and to trace the argument in a text. This methodology has shown Deuteronomy 5–11 to be both coherent in its discussion and cohesive in its organization. It has also substantiated more semantically-driven attempts to establish the unit’s literary structure and has clarified many interpretive challenges. A SUMMARY OF THE STUDY The study is divided into two sections. Part 1 has three chapters. Chapter 1 summarizes a number of contemporary literary studies devoted to Deuteronomy 5–11, noting the tendency toward stylistic analysis that gives little thought to the formal, macrosyntactic features of a text’s surface structure. Chapter 2 provides a theoretical framework for the study, clarifying the theory behind discourse analysis and delimiting the boundaries for text investigation in Deuteronomy. Included here is an argument that Deuteronomy characterizes itself as behavioral discourse, and that linguistic features in the text itself prove it to be prose rather than didactic poetry (contra Christensen). Chapter 3 describes the database that grounds this study and lays out the methodology employed in Part 2. Due to the fundamental role clauses and sentences play in establishing text structure, the chapter begins by defining each. It then describes the linguistic framework that guides the investigation, highlighting how various communicative constraints govern the form certain linguistic features take 269

270

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

in a text’s surface structure. It also explains domain and text type analysis and introduces the model of semantic relationships applied in chapter 5. Part 2 contains two chapters along with this conclusion, the first devoted to an examination of text grammar in Deuteronomy 5–11, and the second dedicated to an application of text grammar to the interpretation of the same corpus. All analysis of linguistic features in chapter 4 moves from form to semantic meaning to discourse function, and not vice versa. The chapter divides into four main sections, each devoted to one of the main communicative constraints that control the structural shape of biblical texts: text logic, foregrounding, participant reference, and lexical structuring. Text logic governs clause connection, through which clauses link into text blocks (i.e., paragraphs) and primary material is distinguished from embedded material. Foregrounding controls verb form and clause class, which together demarcate the mainline of text structure within the given text blocks. Participant reference governs the use of explicit subjects, which contributes to textual coherence and cohesion. Lexical structuring governs the application of lexical discourse markers, which help to guide the flow of thought in a text. Chapter 5 builds directly on the textlinguistic principles set forth in chapter 4 and employs them in a macrostructural and theological overview of Deuteronomy 5–11. The study does not attempt to provide a full exegetical commentary on the corpus. Rather, it seeks to show how the formal text grammatical features evident in the surface structure contribute to an overall understanding of the flow of thought and message of the whole. MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY A number of conclusions in this study contribute both to the growing field of textlinguistics and to the investigation of Deuteronomy. With reference to the former, the following conclusions are noteworthy. First, this study provides initial evidence that the classic dichotomy between verbal and nominal clauses in the BH verbal system is misdirected. Rather, the distinction should be between non-copular and copular clauses. The semantic meaning, word order, and discourse function of all copular clauses remains the same, regardless of whether or not the copula is lexicalized (hyh). Furthermore, while clauses with lexicalized hyh are formally aspectual (e.g., qatal = perfective; yiqtol = imperfective), the existential nature of the verb “to be” causes the copula to be aspectually vague with respect to the perfective : imperfective opposition, thus setting all copular clauses apart from non-copular clauses. Finally, the phenomenon of “triggered inversion” (the switch from S–V to V–S word order) appears to occur only

CONCLUSION

271

in non-copular verbal clauses. Second, this study strongly argues that wa always links two structures of equal microsyntactic value and is used to join texts into cohesive units. A wa chain is broken most often by an asyndetic construction (Ø), which functions either to begin a new unit or to embed explanatory or parenthetical information. When the latter occurs, the reader must recognize the formal signal of digression and not treat the material on the same level of structure as the primary level of discourse. Wa and Ø are the principle formal markers for discerning macrostructure in discourse. Third, the study confirms the usefulness of text type analysis, but it also highlights the limits of such an approach. Within individual paragraph units, the interpreter can discern foreground and background clause types. However, in complex texts like Deuteronomy 5–11, where the reported speech contains numerous text types and levels of embedding, the interpreter must first establish the text hierarchy (i.e., distinguish the text’s primary and embedded units using wa and Ø). Only then can text type analysis contribute to an understanding of discourse structure.1 As for the particular contributions of this study to the interpretation of Deuteronomy, reference to a few specific examples will illustrate the significance of textlinguistic analysis for the hermeneutical enterprise. First, a discourse analysis of the Decalogue has confirmed the traditional Lutheran / Catholic / Anglican numbering of the “Ten Words.” This reckoning is established both by tracing the use of wa and Ø in relation to clause patterns and by tracing pronominal antecedent reference. Second, the recognition of embedded features in 9:01.1–10:11.6 has pointed to the centrality of the “consuming fire (hDlVkOa vEa)” motif in the entire last section of the corpus (9:01.1–11:32.2). The body of the entire first unit (9:04.1– 10:11.6) is shown to ground the prophet’s call to Israel to know Yahweh as a consuming fire (9:03.1–2). The practical implications of this knowledge are then developed in the final unit (10:12.1–11:32.2). The ultimate consequence of the text structure is that the inflamed nature of Yahweh is shown to be the ultimate ground for the preservation of covenant relationship. His fiery passion for his people’s affections (i.e., covenant 1While it is true that R. E. Longacre interrelates both text hierarchy (e.g., paragraph embedding) with text type analysis, nowhere that I am aware of does he argue for the role of wa and Ø put forward in this study. Longacre’s approach does not directly address literary structure in direct speech (compare the comments directed toward D. A. Dawson and R. L. Heller in the beginning of chap. 5). For some of Longacre’s comments on text hierarchy and embedding, see Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence––A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39– 48, 2nd ed. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 59–60, 81, 205.

272

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

love) ignites him to be merciful and forgiving, to reveal his will through his word, and to show himself to his people so as to spark fear leading to obedience and lasting covenant enjoyment. Third, this study strongly argues for the cohesive and coherent nature of Deuteronomy 5–11 and cuts directly against the traditional redactional approaches followed by S. Mittman, G. Seitz, and, most recently, M. Rose. The voice of Moses is intentionally crafted and governed by strict text grammatical rules. The text witnesses rigorous attention to both form and message, which suggests that a synchronic approach must precede any diachronic investigation. PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION A number of topics demand further inquiry, both with respect to the study of grammar and of Deuteronomy. First, this study has marshaled some evidence that word order in all copular clauses is indeed the same and is to be distinguished from the word order of non-copular clauses. The place of word order in copular clauses with lexicalized hyh demands more careful analysis. Second, this study has employed J. A. Cook’s model of the Hebrew verbal system, which argued among other things that w#qatal is a modal perfective qatal and that this verb form serves as the mainline predication pattern in some projective-oriented discourse.2 While both conclusions seem well grounded, the union of the two assertions is challenged by the following observation. Specifically, the switch from one verbal stem to another often seems more controlled by discourse function than by an intentional marking of aspect. So, for example, while the mainline and firstlevel offline predication patterns in historical narrative are both perfective according to Cook’s model (wayyiqtol and [x]+qatal, respectively), in the projective-oriented text types, the mainline is often perfective (e.g., w#qatal) whereas the lines of paragraph initiation and termination are often marked by imperfectives (e.g., [x]+long yiqtol). If Cook’s conclusions regarding the grammaticalization of “viewpoint” aspect are correct, why would projective-oriented discourse types alter the verbal aspect at transitions and thematic divisions? Third, the frequent shift in Deuteronomy between 2nd singular and plural address has plagued interpreters for some time. The identification of 2In contrast to the conlclusions of this study, Cook actually limits the foregrounding role of w#qatal to instructional discourse. For his discussion of the nonnarrative discourse function of w #qatal, see “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System: A Grammaticalized Approach” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin––Madison, 2002), 300–307.

CONCLUSION

273

text hierarchy offers a new pathway of investigation. Some evidence in our corpus suggests that distinctions between primary and embedded material may indeed align with switches in person. Fourth, commentators on Deuteronomy have traditionally made far too little attempt to establish the flow of thought in the deuteronomic sermons. Consequently, most commentaries wrestle substantially with the parts but prove unhelpful in wrestling with the whole.3 Interpreters need to be more intentional in establishing the argument and big idea of the various text units, all the while assessing how they fit together to shape the overarching message of the book. The present study is one possible model for this task. Textlinguistics is a valuable and indispensable tool for biblical investigation. The constraints of text grammar govern literary structure, and the two operate hand-in-hand to guide the flow of thought and to relay the biblical message. The call to covenant love implies an understanding of language, so biblical interpreters must wrestle hard and long with the text, in order to reap the benefit of the life therein. 3A noteworthy exception is the forthcoming commentary by D. I. Block, The Gospel According to Moses: A Commentary on Deuteronomy (draft, spring 2005).

APPENDIX 1 CLAUSE BREAKDOWN AND CLAUSE CODING The database that follows in divided into two sections, which are provided on adjoining pages for ease of comparison. Each section is described below. CLAUSE BREAKDOWN The top page contains a breakdown of every full clause in Deuteronomy 4:44–11:32. Four main horizontal quadrants distinguish Domains 1–4, and Domains 1 and 3 are highlighted for easy distinction. Divine speech is marked by a double line. The primary level of discourse within a given domain is aligned to the right. Various levels of embedding (whether by subordination or appositional/parenthetical comment) are then signaled by indentation to the left. Text types are listed on the far left side of the page. In the far right column are clause references and sentence numbers. Clause references are arranged according to the biblical verse reference, so that “06:05.1” designates the first clause in chapter six verse five. In contrast, sentence numbers are linked directly to the corpus. The first three digits represent the sentence (i.e., matrix clause) count, and the last two digits identify the sentence’s matrix clause (= “00”) and the various subordinate clauses (= “XX”). For example, the sentence number “026.04” identifies the fourth subordinate clause in sentence twenty-six.1 Bold-faced numbers mark the start of paragraph units. However, due to the nature of embedding, a bold number does not necessarily mark the end of a paragraph. For example, the Ø connector at the head of clause 8:04.1 marks it as the first clause in a short embedded explanatory paragraph (8:04.1–2). However, the preceding sentence was the second in a chain of clauses that together form an extended paragraph unit (8:01.1– 8:10.4).2 1Chap.

3 details the instructions for clause and sentence delineation. section on “Text Logic” in chap. 4 and the introductory section of chap. 5 address paragraph delineation. 2The

275

276

A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

When subordinate or appositional clauses are embedded within rather than coming at the end of a superordinate clause, they are placed on their own line, highlighted, and linked to their original position by an arrow. Brackets signal that something has been removed from a clause. Spaces between clauses signal the major structural divisions in the corpus, as identified on the Macrostructural Outline in Appendix 2. Fronted pendent elements (whether nominal or adverbial) are not full clauses. However, in the clause breakdown, each is placed on its own line because it stands outside the main clause structure (= apodosis). This allows all relevant data including connectors and verb forms associated with the protasis to be identified. CLAUSE CODES On the bottom page are a series of eight columns, each identifying linguistic features found in the adjacent clauses located in the clause breakdown. The original coding was performed in the FileMaker Pro7® database for Macintosh®. This software allowed for easy data incorporation and calculation, and the information gained was merged into Microsoft Word® with minimal effort. The original data construction included sixteen different fields of information, but space limitations in this appendix have only allowed the incorporation of the following eight categories:3 1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

Clause Reference. Domain: levels of perspective in the text hierarchy. The primary domain is that of the narrator (= D1). Various subdomains follow, when the narrator reports someone else’s speech (=D2) or when the various characters refer to other’s speech (= D3, D4, etc.). Connector: conjunctions, adverbs, clause modifiers that join clauses. Previous Connector: the connector type of the clause to which another clause in joined. Do to embedding, adjacent clauses do not necessarily contain the “previous connector.” Clause Class and Pattern: non-copular (VC) vs. copular clauses (CpC) with or without hyh (±H). Copular participial clauses are marked by the number “1”; copular non-participial clauses are marked by the

3The additional fields included sentence number, previous clause class, previous verb form, clause constituent (±explicit subject and its position in relation to the main predicate), constituent reference (the clause reference for the antecedent), lexical structuring markers, quotative speech frames, ±explicit participant reference in quotative speech frames.

CLAUSE BREAKDOWN AND C LAUSE CODING

6. 7. 8.

277

number “2.” Predicates in first position (V_) are distinguished from those preposed by another constituent (_V). Verb Form. Subject–Predicate Position. Text Type: historical (Hist), predictive (Pred), promissory (Prom), expository (Exp), interrogative (Inter), instructional (Inst), Hortatory (Hort). In behavioral discourse, order (Ord) and parenesis (Par) are distinguished. The matrix clause (M) determines the text type for the entire sentence. Table A1. Key to Clause Codes

^ ~ 1 2 2SC

2SC-a 2SC-p 3 Adj Adv BdCl Cl ClMod Cont CpC CpC_ _CpC CpHC D(1–4) def deic Exp Hist Hort

null subject head clause modifier participial complement non-participial/noninfinitival complement two-element syntactic construction = fronted pendent construction apodosis of 2SC protasis of 2SC infinitive construct complement adjective adverb bound clause clause clause modifier contingent copular clause predicate first copular clause non-predicate first copular clause copular clause with hyh domains 1–4 definite deictic expository historical hortatory

I/inter Inc. indef Inf Inst N neg Null O Ord P Par pass pers Ph Pred Prep Pro Prom prop Ptc S s-f s-m Suf V V_ _V voc

interrogative incomplete indefinite infinitive construction instructional noun, nominal negative phonologically empty object order predicate parenesis passive personal phrase predictive preposition pronoun promissory proper participle subject short yiqtol (jussive) by form short yiqtol (jussive) by meaning suffix non-copular verbal clause verb-first clause non-verb-first clause vocative

Hist

Hort

Hist

Exp

Domain 3

Domain 2

Domain 1

bérOjV;b tyîrV;b …wnD;mIo tårD;k …wnyEhølTa hÎwhy taøzAh tyîrV;bAh_tRa hÎwhy tårD;k …wnyEtObSa_tRa aøl

MyIfDÚpVvI;mAh_tRaw MyI;qUjAh_tRa lEarVcˆy oAmVv Mwø¥yAh MRky´nzDaV;b rEbO;d yIkOnDa rRvSa MDtOa MR;tdAmVl…w MDtOcSoAl MR;trAmVv…w

hrwø;tAh taøzw lEarVcˆy y´nV;b y´nVpIl hRvOm MDc_rRvSa MyIfDÚpVvI;mAhw MyI;qUjAhw tOdEoDh hR;lEa tyE;b l…wm ayÅ…gA;b Né;drÅ¥yAh rRbEoV;b ((04:46)) MˆyrVxI;mIm MDtaExV;b lEarVcˆy y´nV;b_lRa hRvOm rR;bî;d rRvSa yîrOmTaDh JKRlRm NOjyIs X®rRaV;b rwøoVÚp Nwø;bVvRjV;b bEvwøy rRvSa MˆyrVxI;mIm MDtaExV;b lEarVcˆy y´nVb…w hRvOm hD;kIh rRvSa yîrOmTaDh yEkVlAm y´nVv NDvD;bAh_JKRlRm gwøo X®rRa_tRaw wøxrAa_tRa …wvryˆ¥yÅw [ ] NOayI c rAh_dAow [ ] rEoOrSoEm ((04:48)) vRmDv jårzIm Né;drÅ¥yAh rRbEoV;b rRvSa MÎy dAow hDjrzIm Né;drÅ¥yAh rRbEo hDbrSoDh_lDkw ((04:49)) p hÎ…gVsIÚpAh tO;dVvAa tAjA;t hDbrSoDh NOnrAa lAjÅn_tApVc_lAo rRvSa (NwømrRj a…wh) lEarVcˆy_lD;k_lRa hRvOm arVqˆ¥yÅw MRhElSa rRmaø¥yÅw

Domain 4

05:03.1/009.00

05:02.1/008.00

05:01.6/007.00

05:01.5/006.00

05:01.4/005.01

05:01.3/005.00

05:01.2/004.00

05:01.1/003.00

04:48.2/002.07

04:48.1/002.06

04:47.2/002.05

04:47.1/002.04

04:46.2/002.03

04:46.1/002.02

04.45.2/002.01

04:45.1/002.00

04.44.2/001.01

04:44.1/001.00

Clause Ref / Sent Number

278 A CALL TO COVENANT LOVE

D2

D2

D2

D2

05:01.6

05:02.1

05:03.1

05:01.4

05:01.5

D2

D2

05:01.3

wa

Ø

--

--

Ø (5:01.3) wa

wa

Ø

---

Ø