Deuteronomy 1-21:9, Volume 6A: Second Edition (6) (Word Biblical Commentary) [2 ed.] 9780310521655, 0310521653

Citation preview

WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY

Editorial Board O ld Testament Editor: Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (2011 – ) New Testam ent Editor: Peter H. Davids (2013 – )

Past Editors General Editors Ralph P. Martin (2012 – 2013) Bruce M. Metzger (1997 – 2007)

David A. H ubbard (1977 – 1996) Glenn W. Barker (1977 – 1984)

Old Testament Editors: Jo h n D. W. Watts (1977 – 2011)

Jam es W. Watts (1997 – 2011)

New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin (1977 – 2012)

Lynn Allan Losie (1997 – 2013)

Volumes 1 2 3 4 5 6a

Genesis 1 – 15 Gordon J. W enham Genesis 16 – 50 Gordon J. W enham Exodus........................ Jo h n I. Durham Leviticus Jo h n E. Hartley Num bers Philip J. Budd D euteronom y 1:1 – 21:9, 2nd ed D uane L. Christensen 6b D euteronom y 21:10 – 3 4 :1 2 ........... D uane L. Christensen 7a Joshua 1-12, 2nd ed Trent C. Butler 7b Joshua 13-24, 2nd ed. Trent C. Butler 8 Judges Trent C. Butler 9 Ruth – Esther Frederic W. Bush 10 1 Samuel, 2nd ed Ralph W. Klein 11 2 Samuel A. A. A nderson Simon J. Devries 12 1 Kings, 2nd e d .......... 13 2 Kings........................ ..................T. R. Hobbs 14 1 Chronicles Roddy Braun 15 2 Chronicles Raymond B. Dillard 16 Ezra, N ehem iah H. G. M. Williamson 17 Job 1 – 20 David J. A. Clines 18a Job 21 – 37 David J. A. Clines 18b Job 38 – 42 David J. A. Clines 19 Psalms 1 - 50, 2nd ed Peter C. Craigie, Marvin E. Tate Marvin E. Tate 20 Psalms 51 – 1 0 0 ......... Leslie C. Allen 21 Psalms 101 – 150, rev ed Roland E. M urphy 22 Proverbs 23a Ecclesiastes Roland E. M urphy 23b Song o f Songs/L am entations . . . .D uane H. Garrett, Paul R. House Jo h n D. W. Watts 24 Isaiah 1 – 33, rev. ed. . Jo h n D. W. Watts 25 Isaiah 34 –66, rev. e d . Peter C. Craigie, 26 Jerem iah 1 – 25 Page H. Kelley, Joel F. D rinkard Jr. Gerald L. Keown, 27 Jerem iah 26 – 52 Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G. Smothers *forthcoming as of 2014 **in revision as of 2014

28 Ezekiel 1 – 1 9 ............... Leslie C. Allen Leslie C. Allen 29 Ezekiel 20 – 4 8 ............. 30 D a n ie l.......................... Jo h n E. Goldingay 31 H osea–J o n a h * * ........ .........Douglas Stuart 32 Micah – Malachi**. . . . .........Ralph L. Smith 33a Matthew 1 – 13............. Donald A. H agner 33b Matthew 14 – 28........... Donald A. H agner 34a Mark 1 – 8:26**........... R obert A. Guelich Craig A. Evans 34b Mark 8:27 – 16:20 . . . . Jo h n Nolland 35a Luke 1 – 9 :2 0 ............... Jo h n Nolland 35b Luke 9:21 – 18:34........ 35c Luke 18:35 – 24:53. . . . Jo h n Nolland 36 John, 2nd ed . . . . George R. Beasley-Murray 37a Acts 1 – 1 4 * ................. . . .Stephen J. Walton 37b Acts 15 – 2 8 * ............... . . .Stephen J. Walton 38a Romans 1 – 8 ............... Jam es D. G. D unn 38b Romans 9 – 1 6 ............. Jam es D. G. D unn 39 1 C o rin th ia n s* ........... Andrew D. Clarke 40 2 Corinthians, rev. ed. Ralph P. Martin 41 G alatians............... Richard N. Longenecker 42 E p h e s ia n s................... Andrew T. Lincoln 43 Philippians, rev. ed. . . .Gerald F. Hawthorne, rev by Ralph P. Martin 44 Colossians, Philemon** . . . Peter T. O ’Brien 45 1 & 2 Thessalonians** F. F. Bruce 46 Pastoral Epistles William D. M ounce 47a Hebrews 1 – 8 William L. Lane 47b Hebrews 9 – 13............. William L. Lane 48 Jam es Ralph P. Martin 49 1 Peter J Ramsey Michaels 50 Jude, 2 Peter** Richard J. Bauckham 51 1, 2, 3, John, rev ed Stephen S. Smalley 52a Revelation 1 – 5 David E. Aune 52b Revelation 6 – 16 David E. Aune 52c Revelation 17 – 22 David E. Aune

WORD 6a BIBLICAL COMMENTARY Deuteronomy 1-21:9 Second Edition

duane l . christensen General Editors: Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker Old Testament Editors: John D. W. Watts, James W. Watts New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin, Lynn Allan Losie

ZONDERVAN Deuteronomy 1-21:9, Volume 6A Copyright © 2001 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Previously published as Deuteronomy 1-21:9. Formerly published by Thomas Nelson. Now published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollinsChristian Publishing. Requests for information should be addressed to: Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 This edition: ISBN 978-0-310-52165-5 The Library of Congress has cataloged the original edition as follows: Library of Congress Control Number: 2005295211 All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America, and are used by permission. All rights reserved. The author’s own translation of the Scripture text appears in italic type under the heading Translation. Maps of the exodus and the eisodus (plates 1, 2, and 3) are reprinted by permission of BIBAL Press. The map with schematic insert on the location of Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim (plate 4) is used by permission of the Biblical Archaeological Society. Artist’s reconstruction of the altar complex on Mount Ebal (plate 5) is used by permission of Adam Zertal. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher. The Graeca, Hebraica, and Semitica fonts used to print this work are available from Linguist’s Software, Inc., P.O. Box 580, Edmonds, WA 98020-0580 USA; tel. (425)775-1130.

9780310521655_wbc_deut_6a_second_proofs copy.indd 4

10/23/14 1:32 PM

To my wife M artha, a precious gift from God without whom this commentary would not have been completed

Contents Editorial Preface Author s Preface Abbreviations

xi xii xvi

Illustrations

Plate 1. The Exodus from Egypt: From Amarna Canaan to Early Israel xxix (ca. 1300– 1225 b.c .e .) Plate 2. Part One of the Eisodus: Conquest of the Amorite Kingdoms xxx in Transjordan (ca. 1225 b.c .e .) Plate 3. Part Two of the Eisodus: Premonarchic Israel (ca. 1150 b.c .e .) xxxi xxxii Plate 4. Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim (Deut 11 and 27) xxxiii Plate 5. The Altar Complex on Mount Ebal Main Bibliography

Chronological Bibliography of Commentaries on Deuteronomy Selected Books and Monographs on Deuteronomy Festschriften (with significant articles on Deuteronomy) Introduction

Text and Versions of Deuteronomy Review of Critical Research Detailed Outline of Deuteronomy

xxxv xliii lii lvii lix lxviii lxx

Excursuses

Law, Poetry, and Music in Ancient Israel Deuteronomy in the Canonical Process The Triennial Cycle of Torah Readings in Palestinian Judaism The Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy Deuteronomy as a Numerical Composition Travel Notices in Deut 1– 3 and 31– 34 Holy War as Celebrated Event in Ancient Israel

lxxx lxxxvii xcii xcix ci cvii cix

Text and Commentary

READING 1: The Eisodus into the Promised Land under Moses (1:1– 3:22) 3 A. Summons to Enter the Promised Land (1:1– 8) 5 B. Organization of the People for Life in the Land (1:9– 18) 17 C. Israel’s Unholy War (1:19– 2:1) 24 D. The March of Conquest from Mount Seir to the Promised Land (2:2– 25) 35 E. YHWH’s Holy War—Conquest of Sihon and Og in Transjordan (2:26– 3:11) 46 F. Distribution of the Land in Transjordan (3:12– 17) 55 G. Summons to Take Possession of the Promised Land (3:18– 22) 59

V lll

C ontents

READING 2: The Essence of the Covenant—Moses and the Ten Words (3:23– 7:11) 63 A. Transition from Moses to Joshua—“Crossing Over” (3:23– 29) 65 B. Exhortation to Keep the Torah—Focus on the First Two Commandments (4:1– 40) 71 1. Israel’s Relationship with YHWH (4:1– 10) 76 2. Israel Is to Worship the Creator—Not Created Images (4:11– 24) 82 3. The Mighty Acts of God in Israel’s Behalf (4:25– 40) 90 C. Transition and Introduction to the Ten Words of the Torah (4:41– 49) 98 1. Moses Set Apart Three Cities of Refuge (4:41– 43) 98 2. This Is the Torah—Recapitulation of 1:1– 5 (4:44– 49) 100 D. Theophany and Covenant at Horeb—Giving of the Ten Words (5:1– 22) 103 1. The First Three Commandments—Our Relationship to God (5:1– 11) 108 2. The Fourth Commandment—Observing the Sabbath (5:12– 15) 116 3. The Fifth through the Tenth Commandments—Our Relationship to Others (5:16– 21) 121 4. YHWH’s Theophany and Covenant (5:22) 121 E. God’s Desire Is for Us to Fear Him by Keeping the Torah (5:23– 6:3) 129 F. Sermonic Elaboration of the First Commandments (6:4– 25) 136 1. The Great Commandment Is to Love God (6:4-9) 138 2– 3. When You Enter the Land (6:10– 15) 144 4– 7. Be Careful to Keep the Commandments (6:16– 25) 148 G. They Practice Holiness in the Land by Keeping the Torah (7:1– 11) 152 READING 3: Life in the Promised Land—The Great Peroration (7:12– 11:25) 158 A. You Will Be Blessed above All the Peoples If You Obey (7:12– 26) 159 B. Remember the Lessons from the Wanderings in the Wilderness (8:1– 20) 166 C. Hear, O Israel, You Are about to Cross the Jordan (9:1– 29) 176 1. The First Three Units (9:1– 7) 176 2. Units Four Through Ten (9:8– 29) 182 D. At That Time YHWH Spoke the Ten Words (10:1– 7) 189 E. At That Time YHWH Set Apart the Tribe of Levi (10:8– 11) 194 F. Love God and Remember What He Did for You in the Wilderness (10:12-11:9) 197 G. If You Love God, You Will Possess the Promised Land (11:10– 25) 207 READING 4: Laws on Human Affairs in Relation to God (11:26– 16:17)

217

A. Covenant Renewal under Moses in Moab and Joshua at Shechem

(11:26– 32) 224 B. Laws That Ensure Exclusive Worship of YHWH—No Idolatry (12:1– 13:19 [Eng. 18]) 230 1. Destroy Pagan Shrines and Worship YHWH Alone (12:1– 7) 237 2. Worship YHWH with Your Offerings at the Central Sanctuary 245 (12:8– 12) 3. Sacred and Secular Slaughter in Ancient Israel (12:13– 28) 250 4. Shun Canaanite Religious Practices (12:29– 13:1 [Eng. 12:29– 32]) 261 5. Idolatry Is a Capital Offense, So Purge the Evil from Your Midst (13:2– 19 [Eng. 13:1– 18]) 266

Contents

a. Idolatry Instigated by a Prophet or a Dreamer of Dreams (13:2– 6 [Eng. 1– 5]) b. Idolatry Instigated by a Close Relative or Dear Friend (13:7– 12 [Eng. 6– 11]) c. Idolatry in Which an Entire Town Is Subverted (13:13– 19 [Eng. 12– 18]) C . Laws of Holiness in Matters of Daily Life (14:1– 21) D. Periodic Measures to Provide for the Poor—Social Ethics (14:22– 15:23) 1. The Annual and Triennial Tithes (14:22– 29) 2. Protection of the Poor (15:1– 11) 3. Manumission of Indentured Servants in the Seventh Year (15:12– 18) 4. Sacrifice of Firstborn Livestock (15:19– 23) E. The Pilgrimage Festivals (16:1– 17) 1. The Passover Sacrifice and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (16:1– 8) 2. The Festival of Weeks (16:9– 12) 3– 4. The Festival of Booths and Summary (16:13– 17) READING 5: Laws on Leadership and Authority in Ancient Israel (16:18– 21:9) A. Laws on Justice and Forbidden Worship Practices (16:18– 17:13) 1. Appointment ofJudges and Forbidden Worship Practices (16:18– 17:1) 2. Law on Idolatry within the Gates of Local Towns in the Land (17:2– 7) 3. Law of the Central Tribunal—A Court of Referral (17:8– 13) B. Law of the King (17:14– 20) C. Law of the Levitical Priests (18:1– 8) D. Law of the Prophets (18:9– 22) E. Laws concerning the Courts—Judicial and Military Matters (19:1– 21:9) 1. Cities of Asylum—Laws on Manslaughter and Murder (19:1– 13) 2. Laws on Encroachment and Witnesses in Court (19:14–21) 3. Intential Killing—Warfare and Military Deferments (20:1– 20) a. Preparing the Army for Battle (20:1– 9) b. Behavior during a Siege in Holy War (20:10– 20) 4. Law on Unsolved Murder—Role of Elders and Judges (21:1– 9) READING 6: Laws on Human Affairs in Relation to Others (21:10– 25:19) A. Three Laws on Marriage and Family (21:10– 21) B. Ten Laws on “True Religion” and Illicit Mixtures (21:22– 22:12) C. Seven Laws on Marriage and Sexual Misconduct (22:13– 23:1) D. Seven Laws on “True Religion” (23:2– 26 [Eng. 1– 25]) E. Sixteen Laws on Marriage, War, and “True Religion” (24:1– 25:19) READING 7: Public Worship and Covenant Renewal (26:1– 29:8 [Eng. 9]) A. Preview: Two Liturgies for Worship in the Promised Land (26:1– 15) B. Mutual Commitments between God and Israel in Covenant Renewal (26:16– 19) C. The Writing of the Torah on Stones and Covenant Renewal at Shechem (27:1– 26) D. If You Keep the Covenant (28:1– 69 [29:1]) E. Remembering the Past: The MagnaliaDei (29:1– 8 [Eng. 2– 9])

IX

268 273 277 281 295 295 305 315 323 325 326 339 345

353 356

358 365 371 377 389 398 413 413 424 432 433 442 450

x

C ontents

READING 8: Appeal for Covenant Loyalty (29:9 [Eng. 10]– 30:20) A. The Covenant Is Binding on Future Generations Too (29:9-14 [Eng. 10– 15]) B. Those with Reservations about Keeping the Covenant Are Warned (29:15– 20 [Eng. 16– 21]) C. Exile from the Land Foretold for Breaking the Covenant (29:21– 27 [Eng. 22– 28]) D. Secret and Revealed Things: “Do All the Words of This Torah!” (29:28 [Eng. 29]) E. Possibility of Restoration: When You Return, God Will Return (30:1– 10) F. God’s Commandments Are Doable (30:11– 14) G. The Choice before You Is between Life and Death—Choose Life (30:15– 20) READINGS 9– 11: Preparation for the Eisodus into the Promised Land under Joshua (31:1– 34:12) A. Moses’ Final Provisions in View of His Nearing Death: Joshua Commissioned (31:1-13) B. YHWH’s Charge to Moses and Joshua in the Tent of Meeting (31:14– 23) C. Moses’ Provisions regarding the Torah and the Song (31:24– 30) D. Song of Moses (32:1– 43) E. Moses’ Final Charge to “All Israel” (32:44– 47) F. YHWH’s Command to Moses to Climb Mount Nebo to “See” the Land (32:48-52) G. Moses’ Blessing, Death, Funeral, and Necrology: Joshua Succeeds Moses (33:1-34:12) Indexes

Editorial Preface The launching of the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillment an enterprise of several years’ planning. The publishers and the members of the editorial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such features were intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have been fully achieved time alone will tell. First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a number of scholars from around the world who not only share our aims but are in the main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational allegiance. The broad stance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is to be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation and the truth and power of the Christian gospel. Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written for the purpose of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. Unlike several of our distinguished counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there are no translated works, originally written in a non-English language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare their own rendering of the biblical text from the original languages and to use those languages as the basis of their own comments and exegesis. What may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly approach to the theological understanding of Scripture understandable by— and useful to—the fledgling student, the working minister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers as well. Finally, a word must be said about the format of the series. The layout, in clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed Notes. If the readers’ concern is with the state of modern scholarship on any given portion of Scripture, they should turn to the sections on Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition of the passage’s meaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explanation are designed expressly to meet that need. There is therefore something for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes. If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors will have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded. General Editors: Bruce M. Metzger David A. Hubbard † Glenn W. Barker † Old Testament: John D. W. Watts New Testament: Ralph P. Martin

Author’s Preface I am grateful to the publisher and editors of the Word Biblical Commentary for the decision to use this occasion to revise Volume 6A (Deut 1-11) and to publish the commentary in two volumes of equal length: Volume 6A (Deut 1:1-21:9) and Volume 6B (Deut 21:10-34:12). A special note of appreciation is expressed to Dr. John D. W. Watts, whose gentle but firm insistence and encouragement got me through difficult days in the process of completing this commentary, and to Dr. James W. Watts for his editorial assistance in the final stages of getting this manuscript ready for the copyediting process. His suggestions did much to improve the format and content of this book at numerous points. The outline for the entire commentary appears at the end of the Introduction in order to give the reader a clearer idea of the structure of the whole, which is arranged according to the eleven traditional lectionary readings (“weekly portions”) of Jewish worship practice through the centuries. In the preface to the first edition of Volume 6A in the Word Biblical Commentary (1991), I mentioned that my research for writing this commentary on the book of Deuteronomy forced me to rethink a number of presuppositions in my approach to understanding the Bible in the world of academia. The necessary process of growth and change led me down unfamiliar and lonely paths, as I made the choice to go with what I observed in the biblical text whether or not it fit comfortably within the established boundaries of what my teachers had taught me in my graduate studies, or what my colleagues in the study of this pivotal book were saying. As a result, I found myself doing something a bit different with Deuteronomy. Though I already knew that the accentual system of notation in the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy reflected some kind of musical performance of the text in antiquity and that the entire system of notation in the Masoretic tradition is remarkably well preserved, it was not until I got deeply into chaps. 21-25 that the details of that system became increasingly clear. It was the shorter passages in that section of the laws of Deuteronomy, the frequent use of the setumaʾ and petuhaʾ layout markers, and the systematic use of the so-called Numeruswechsel (change back and forth between second person singular and plural pronouns) that finally enabled me to see what was going on from a prosodic-textual point of view. This in turn led to the discovery that the traditional lectionary cycle of “weekly portions” of readings from the book of Deuteronomy, as conveyed in the marginal notes of the text in various Jewish editions of the Hebrew Bible, in fact represents primary structural features for understanding the architectual design of the whole, something I did not know when the previous volume was published. In this commentary, I have followed closely the system of notation in the marginal notes of The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998). I am grateful to Professor Casper Labuschagne for the gift some years ago of a bound photocopy of the earlier facsimile edition of the book of Deuteronomy taken from this important manuscript, which he had obtained from the late Professor Claus Schedl.

Author's Preface

xiii

When I worked through Calum Carmichael’s book, Law and Narrative in the Bible (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1985), I found the key to unlock another door to new discoveries. Carmichael’s work has played a significant role in shaping this commentary, though in a manner different from what he intended. His demonstration of the relationship between the laws of Deuteronomy and the narrative elsewhere in the Pentateuch and Former Prophets is accepted, but the direction of that influence appears to be the reverse of what Carmichael has found. Following the suggestions of his teacher David Daube, Carmichael argues that the laws of Deuteronomy have the character of “legal abstracts” derived from earlier narrative tradition that is preserved in the Torah and the Former Prophets. I take the direction of influence (from law to narratives) in precisely the opposite direction. The laws are primary, and are used to shape the narratives in question, as is most clearly seen in the law on distrained property in Deut 24:10-13. In short, the book of Deuteronomy illustrates in principle the subsequent midrashic approach to Scripture. The primary sacred text on which the book is based is the Ten Commandments, which are expanded in midrashic fashion to form the laws of Deut 12-25. These laws in turn are expanded in a similar manner in narrative form thoughout what D. N. Freedman has called “The Primary History” (Genesis through 2 Kings in the Masoretic tradition of the Hebrew Bible—that is, the Torah plus the Former Prophets within the Hebrew canon). Four recent commentaries on Deuteronomy merit special attention here. The first volume of Moshe Weinfeld’s commentary, Deuteronomy 1-11, AB 5 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday; 1991), appeared at the same time as my earlier volume of the same title in the Word Biblical Commentary. Weinfeld’s commentary was particularly useful in updating the “List of Qumran Evidence Relating to Deuteronomy” below. Georg Braulik’s commentary in Die Neue Echter Bibel (Wurzburg: Echter) is now complete: Deuteronomium 1-16,17 (1986) and Deuteronomium 16,18-34,12 (1992). Though this work is intended primarily to expound the value of Deuteronomy for the church today, it remains an eminently useful reference tool for the scholar as well, particularly in the conciseness and clarity of thought in the organization of material throughout. Jeffrey Tigay’s book, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), has proved invaluable as a point of reference in my own work. The fourth commentary of note is the monumental effort of Casper J. Labuschagne, De Prediking van het Oude Testament: Deuteronomium (Nijkerk: Uitgeverij G. F. Callenbach, 1990-97), which is now complete in four volumes. My limited understanding of the Dutch language has made it difficult to incorporate here the substance of this work, which sheds much light on the more recent stages of the canonical process in ancient Israel, in which the book of Deuteronomy played a central role. An English abridgment of Labuschagne’s work would be most useful to students of Deuteronomy. As I worked my way through Deuteronomy, I became increasingly familiar with Labuschagne’s method (Logotechnische analyse) and its value. For more information on this, see Excursus: “Deuteronomy as a Numerical Composition.” I have attempted to incorporate Labuschagne’s findings throughout the commentary at the end of the sections on Form/Structure/Setting. Another work of importance in the writing of this commentary is the new translation of the Pentateuch by Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses, Schocken

x iv

A u th o r ’s P reface

Bible 1 (New York: Schocken, 1997). Fox’s approach to the text of the Hebrew Bible has much in common with my own. As he put it, “I have sought here primarily to echo the style of the original, believing that the Bible is best approached, at least at the beginning, on its own terms. So I have presented the text in English dress but with a Hebraic voice” (p. ix). That is my own goal as well. My book, Bible 101: God's Story in Human History (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1996), needed to be written before I was able to complete this commentary. This book approaches the study of the Bible from the perspective of the canonical process in ancient Israel and early Christianity and of the principle of intertextuality. It explores the formation of the entire canon of sacred Scripture as a very human process that was ultimately overseen by the Spirit of God. Patterns of symmetry are unfolded and substantiated in an introduction to the Bible that attempts to engage the reader at the experiential level and illuminate the mystery of God’s revelation. My most recent book, The Completed Tanakh: The Canonical Process in Ancient Israel and Early Christianity (Columbus, GA: Christian Life Publications, 2000), carries this discussion much further. In addition to these two textbooks, I have written a series of study guides for the BIBAL Study Program: Bible 101: The Torah; Bible 102: The Former Prophets; Bible 103: The Latter Prophets; Bible 104: The Hebrew Writings; Bible 105: Apostolic Writings I —The Four Gospels and the Book of Acts; and Bible 106: Apostolic Writings II—New Testament Epistles and the Revelation to John (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1996-2000). The process of writing these books sharpened my awareness of the concentric structural design of the Bible at all levels, enabling me to develop a systematic methodological approach to the analysis of the biblical text, which is evident in the Form/Structure/Setting sections throughout the whole of this commentary. The process led to an understanding of the macrostructure of the book of Deuteronomy that moves well beyond where I was at the time when the first edition of Volume 6A of this commentary was published (1991). The fundamental building block in the canonical process is a simple chiasm* with a structural center, in the pattern a-b-x-b'-a'. In the book of Deuteronomy, this structure is often expanded by adding an additional frame to form what C. J. Labuschagne has appropriately called a “menorah pattern” (a seven-part concentric structure: a-b-c-x-c'-b'-a'). In the first edition of Volume 6A, three different fonts were used in the English translation of Deuteronomy in an attempt to convey certain information that is easily observed in the Hebrew text but not easy to convey in English. That systern is simplified here to the use of two different fonts in order to convey at a glance the phenomenon called the Numeruswechsel—the frequent change in the use of the second-person singular and plural forms in verbs and pronominal suffixes. Since modern English makes no distinction between the singular and plural in the second person, there is no simple way to mark the changes in translation. Moreover, since the changes have no obvious effect on the meaning of the text, the matter is usually ignored by commentators as well. A regular font is used wherever the text has second-person plural forms, until a change to second-person singular forms is encountered. At that point, the font is changed to italic and continues in that font until a form using the second-person plural form is encountered. It will be observed that most of these changes

Author's Preface

XV

(i.e., the Numeruswechsel) appear at boundaries of prosodic units within the book of Deuteronomy, and occasionally in the center of such units. In short, the Numeruswechsel is an auditory signal of internal structure—used to convey information about the structure of the book to those who heard the book recited in antiquity. They would have picked up these changes as readily as we note incorrect grammatical usage today. I would also take this opportunity to call the reader’s attention to some of the volumes in the Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbande Altes Testament (SBAB) that make the published works of Georg Braulik and Norbert Lohfink more accessible (see vols. 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 by Lohfink and vols. 2 and 24 by Braulik). D uane L. Christensen

Rodeo, California April 1999

Abbreviations

Periodicals, Serials, and Reference Works

AAAS AASOR AB ABD AblA ABR AcOr ActOr AfO AfOBei AgAT AHDO AION AJBI AJP AJSL AJT ALGHJ ALUOS AnBib ANEP ANET AngTR AnOr ANQ AnSt AOAT AOT ArOr ARw AS AsSeign ASOR ASTI AsTJ

Annales archeologiques arabes de Syne Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible D. N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992) M. Noth, Aufsatze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde, ed. H. W. Wolff (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991) Australian Biblical Review Acta orientalia, Leiden Acta Onentalia, Copenhagen Archivfur Orientforschung Beihefte zur Archiv fur Orientforschung Agypten und Altes Testament Archiv d ’histoire du droit oriental Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute AmericanJournal of Philology AmericanJournal of Semitic Languages and Literature AmericanJournal of Theology Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judenturns Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society Analecta biblica J. B. Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East in Pictures, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1969) J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1969) Anglican Theological Review Analecta orientalia Andover Newton Quarterly Anatolian Studies Alter Orient und Altes Testament H. Gressman (ed.), Altorientalische Texte und Bilder Archiv orientalni Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft Assyriological Studies Assemblees du Seigneur American Schools of Oriental Research Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Asbury TheologicalJournal

Abbreviations ATAbh ATANT ATD ATDan ATSAT Aug AUSS AVTRW AzT BA BARev BASOR BAT BB BBB BBC BCPE BDB BDBAT BeO BETL BEvT BFCT BGBE BHH BHK BHS BHT Bib BibBh Biblll BibOr BEES BiOr BJRL BJS BK BLit BMS BMik BN BO BOr

xvii

Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen Abhandlung zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Das Alte Testament Deutsch Acta theologica Danica Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Augustinianum (Rome) Andrews University Seminary Studies Aufsatze und Vortrage zur Theologie und Religionswissenschaft Arbeiten zur Theologie Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments Biblische Beitrage (Fribourg) Bonner biblische Beitrage Broadman Bible Commentary Bulletin du Centre protestant d ’etudes F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907) Beiheft Dielheimer Blatter zum Alten Testament Bibbia e oriente Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie Beitrage zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese B. Reicke and L. Rost (eds.), Biblisch-historisches Handworterbuch, 3 vols. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962-66) R. Kittel, Biblia hebraica Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Beitrage zur historischen Theologie Biblica Bible Bhashyam Biblical Illustrator Biblica et orientalia Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society (= Yediot) Bibliotheca Onentalis (Leiden) Bulletin of theJohn Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Bibel und Kirche Bibel und Liturgie BIBAL Monograph Series Beth Mikra Biblische Notizen Bibliotheca Onentalis (Leiden) Beitrage zur Orientalistik

xviii BOT BR BRev BSac BTB BWA(N)T BZ BZAW CAD CahRB CBC CBib CBQ ChrJRel C hW

CJ CMHE ColT ConB ConBas Conc ConsJud CP CSCO CT CTA CThM CTM CTQ CV DA DD DOS OiIs DJD EAEHL EchB Ecout Bib EglT EHS

Abbreviations

De Boeken van het Oude Testament Biblical Research Bible Review Bibliotheca Sacra Biblical Theology Bulletin Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZAW The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Cahiers de la Revue biblique Cambridge Biblical Commentary The Cambridge Bible Catholic Biblical Quarterly Christian and Jewish Relations Christliche Welt ConcordiaJournal F. M. Cross, Jr., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1973) Collectanea Theologica Coniectanea biblica Concilium Baseliense Concilium Conservative Judaism Classical Philology Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium Christianity Today A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes alphabetiques, 2 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963) Calwer theologische Monographien Concordia Theological Monthly Concordia Theological Quarterly Communio viatorum Dissertation Abstracts Dor le Dor M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) Dine Israel Discoveries in the Judaean Desert M. Avi-Yonah and E. Stern (eds.), Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 4 vols. (Englewood Cliffs, NT: Prentice-Hall, 1975-78) Echter Bibel Ecouter la Bible Eglise et Theologie Europaische Hochschulschriften

Abbreviations

EI EM EncBrit EncBib EncBT EncJud EphC ErFor EstBib EstEcl ETL ETR ETS EvQ EvT ExpTim FAT FB FBM FolOr FRLANT FZPhTh GeistLeb GKC GLECS GOST GSAT GTA HAR HAT HBT HDR Hen Herm HKAT HOTTP

XIX

Eres Israel ʾEntsiklopedyah Miqraʾit (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1950-88) Encylcopedia Brittanica T. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black (eds.), Encyclopaedia Biblica, 4 vols. (New York Macmillan, 1899-1903) J. B. Bauer (ed.), Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology (1970) Encyclopaedia Judaica, 16 vols. (Jerusalem; New York: Keter, 1971-72) Ephemerides Carmeliticae Ertrage der Forschung Estudios biblicos Estudios Eclesiasticos Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Etudes theologiques et religieuses Erfurter theologische Studien Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel (Echter) E. Fox, The Five Booksof Moses, Schocken Bible (New York: Schocken, 1997) Folia Orientalia Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Freiburger Zeitschrift fur Philosophic und Theologie Geist und Leben (Wurzburg) Gesenius’Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910) Comptes rendus du groupe linguistique d’etudes chamitosemitiques Glasgow Oriental Society Transactions Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (G. von Rad, TBu 8 [1965] and 48 [1973]; M. Noth, TBu 6 [1966] and 39 [1969] [Munich: Kaiser]) Gottinger theologische Arbeiten Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament Horizons in Biblical Theology Harvard Dissertations in Religion Henoch Hermathena Handkommentar zum Alten Testament D. Barthelemy et al. (eds.), Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project: 1. Pentateuch, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1979)

XX

A bbreviations

HR HSM HS HSS HTR HTS HUCA

History of Religions Harvard Semitic Monographs Hebrew Studies Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Hebrew Union College Annual

IB IBHS

Interpreter's Bible B. K. Waltke and M. O ’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) K. Crim (ed.), Supplementary Volume to IDB (Nashville: Abindgon, 1976) Israel ExplorationJournal Internationale kirchliche Zeitschrift Israel Law Review Interpretation Internationale dialog Zeitschrift Israel Oriental Studies, Tel Aviv University International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament G. W. Bromiley (ed.), International Standard BibleEncyelopedia, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979-88)

IBS ICC IDB IDBSup IE] IKZ ILR Int IntDialZ IOS IOSOT ISBE JAAR JANESCU JAOS JAOSSup JBC JBL JBLMS JBR JBTh JEA JEOL JES JESHO JETS JewEnc JHS JJS JLA

Journal of the American Academy of Religion TheJournal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Supplement to JAOS R. E. Brown et al. (eds.), TheJerome Biblical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Journal of Bible and Religion Jahrbuch fur biblische Theologie (Neukirchener Verlag) Journal ofEgyptian Archaeology Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap (Genootschap) Ex oriente lux Journal ofEcumenical Studies Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society I. Singer (ed.), Jewish Encyclopaedia, 12 vols. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1916) Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal ofJewish Studies Jewish Law Annual

Abbreviations

JLASup JLH JNES JNSL JPS JQR JRAS JSJ JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS JTSA Jud KAT KatBl KB KD KeH KHC KLSchr KT Kul LAD Lat LB LBC LD Les LNB LQ LS LSSt LTJ LV MANE MBPR MDB

XXI

Jewish Law Annual Supplement Jahrbuch fur Liturgik und Hymnologie Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Publication Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Journalfor the Study ofJudaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journalfor the Study of the Old Testament JSOT Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Journal of Theology for Southern Africa Judaica: Beitrage zum Verstandnis . . . Kommentar zum Alten Testament Katechetische Blatter L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1958) Kerygma und Dogma Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Kleine Schrift en (A. Alt, 3 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1953-59]; O. Eissfeldt, 6 vols. [Tubingen: Mohr, 1962-79]) Kaiser Traktate Kirche und Israel Logotechnische analyse bij Deuteronomiu (4 parts): published as inserts to C. J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium (1987-97) Lateranum Linguistica Biblica The Layman’s Bible Commentary Lectio divina Lesonenu C. Carmichael, Law and Narrative in the Bible (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1985) Lutheran Quarterly Legendiger Seelsorge Leipziger semitistische Studien Lutheran TheologicalJournal Lumiere et Vie Monographs on the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill) Munchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte Le monde de la Bible

xxii

MGWJ MHUC MThS MThSt MTZ Mus MVAG NAWG NCBC NEchB NedTTs NGTT NICOT NKZ NorTT NovT NovTSup NRT NThS NTOA NTS

A bbreviations

Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Monographs of the Hebrew Union College Miinchener theologische Studien Marburger theologische Studien Miinchener theologische Zeitschrift Le Museon Mittelungen der vorderasiatisch-agyptischen Gesellschaft Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen New Century Bible Commentary Neue Echter Bibel Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift Nederduitse gereformeerde teologiese tydskrif New International Commentary on the Old Testament Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplements La nouvelle revue theologique Nieuwe theologische Studien Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies

OBO OBT OCD OLP OLZ Or OrAnt OTE OTL OTS OTWSA

Orbis biblicus et orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology Oxford Classical Dictionary Orientalia lovaniensia periodica Orientalische Literaturzeitung Orientalia (Rome) Oriens antiquus Old Testament Essays, Pretoria Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studien Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika (Pretoria)

PAAJR PalCl ParVi PEQ PG PIBA PJ PL POS POT POTT

Proceedings of the American Academy ofJewish Research Palestra del Clero Parole di Vita Palestine Exploration Quarterly J.-P. Migne, Patrologia graeca Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association Palastina-Jahrbuch J.-P. Migne, Patrologia latina Pretoria Oriental Series De Prediking van het Oude Testament D. J. Wiseman (ed.), People of Old Testament Times (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973)

Abbreviations

xxiii

PRU PSB PSBA PW

Le Palais royal d’Ugarit Princeton Seminary Bulletin Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1893-1972)

QD

Quaestiones disputatae

RA RAI RB RBibIt RechBib ResQ RevExp RevistB RevQ RGG

RSPT RSR RTQR

Revue d’assyriologie et d ’archeologie orientale Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Revue biblique Rivista Biblica Italiana (Brescia) Recherches bibliques Restoration Quarterly Review and Expositor Revista biblica Revue de Qumran K. Galling (ed.), Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd ed., 7 vols. (Tubingen: Mohr, 1957-65) Revue d’histoire et de philosophic religieuses Revue de l’histoire des religions Revue Internationale des droites de l’antiquite Rivista biblica Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie Reviewfor Religious Revue semitique d’epigraphie et d ’histoire ancienne Recueils de la societeJean Bodin pour l’histoire comparative des institutions Revista degli studi orientali L. R. Fisher and S. Rummel (eds.), Ras Shamra Parallels, AnOr 49-51 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972-81) Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques Recherches de science religieuse Revue de theologie et de questions religieuses

Salm SANT SBAB SBEsp SBFLA SBL SBLASP SBLDS SBLMS SBLSCS SBLSP SBM SBS SBT SBTS3

Salmaticensis (Salamanca) Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testsament Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbande Altes Testament Semana biblica espanola Studii biblici franciscani liber annuus Society of Biblical Literature SBL Abstracts and Seminar Papers SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Stuttgarter biblische Monographien Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology D. Christensen (ed.), A Song of Power and the Power of Song,

RHPR RHR RIDA RivB RMP RRel RSEHA RSJB RSO RSP

χχιν

ScEccl ScEs Schol ScrHier SDHI SEA SEAJT Sent SFSHJ SGKA SGKAO SHR SJLA SJOT SJT SKGG SLR SR ST StMor StudBib StudBT StZ SUNT SWBA SWDS TBC TBl TBT TBu TD TDNT TDOT TEH TGUOS ThA ThStud ThVers ThViat TLOT

A bbreviations

Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993) Sciences ecclesiastiques Science et esprit Scholastik (Freiburg) Scripta hierosolymitana Studi et documenta historiae et Iuris Svensk exegetisk arsbok South East Asia Journal of Theology Semitica South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients Studies in the History of Religions Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament ScottishJournal of Theology Schriften der Konigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft Stanford Law Review Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses Studia theologica Studia moralia Studia Biblica Studia biblica et theologica Stimme der Zeit Studien zur Umweltdes Neuen Testaments Social World of Biblical Antiquity Scrollsfrom the Wilderness of the Dead Sea (British Museum, 1965) Torch Bible Commentaries Theologische Blatter The Bible Today Theologische Bucherei Theology Digest G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, tr. G. Bromiley, 9 vols. plus index vol. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76) G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, tr. D. Green et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-) Theologische Existenz heute Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society Theologische Arbeiten Theologische Studien Theologische Versuche Theologia Viatorum (Munich) E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds.), Theological Lexicon of

Abbreviations

TLZ TOTC TP TQ TRE TRev TRu TS TSJTSA TSK TsTNijm TT TThSt TToday TTZ TWAT TynBul TZ UCPNES UF UT

XXV

the Old Testament, tr. M. Biddle, 3 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997) Theologische Literaturzeitung Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologie und Philosophie Theologische Quartalschrift (Tubingen) Theologische Realenzyklopadie Theologische Revue Theologische Rundschau Theological Studies Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America Theologische Studien und Kritiken Tijdschrift voor Theologie (Nijmegen) Theologisch Tidsskrift Trierer theologische Studien Theology Today Trierer theologische Zeitschrift G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry (eds.), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alien Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970-) Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel) University of California Publications in Near Eastern Studies Ugarit-Forschungen C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, AnOr 38 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965)

VC VD VetChr VT VTSup

Vigiliae christianae Verbum domini Vetera Christianorum Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testmentum, Supplements

WBC WBT WD WF WHJP

Word Biblical Commentary Wiener Beitrage zur Theologie Wort und Dienst Wege der Forschung World History of theJewish People, First Series: Ancient Times (in 4 divisions) E. A. Speiser, ed., At the Dawn of Civilization: A Background of Biblical History B. Mazar, ed., Patariarchs B. Mazar, ed.,Judges A. Malamaat and I. Eph‘al (eds.), The Age of the Monarchies, 2 vols.

WHJP1 WHJP 2 WHJP3 WHJP 4

χχνι

WMANT WO Wor WoWa WTJ WUNT

A bbreviations

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Die Welt des Orients Worship Wort und Wahrheit Westminster TheologicalJournal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

YJS

Yale Judaica Series

ZA ZABR ZAW ZDMG ZDPV 7EE ZKT ZTK ZVS ZWT ZZ

Zeitschriftfur Assyriologie Zeitschrift fur Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrif t fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins Zeitschnft fur evangelische Ethik Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie Zeitschrif t fur Theologie und Kirche Zeitschrift fur Volkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie Zeichen der Zeit

Texts, Versions, and Ancient Works

Akk. Arab. Aram. B Copt. DSS Eng. Eth. Fr. Ger. Gr. Heb. K L LXX LXXa lxxb

Akkadian Arabic Aramaic MT MS, edited by Jacob ben Chayim, Venice (1524/25) Coptic Dead Sea Scrolls English Ethiopic French German Greek Hebrew Kethib MT MS, Leningrad Codex Septuagint LXX MS, Alexandrian Codex LXX MS, Vatican Codex

LXXS* LXXSc MT Q SP SPW Syh Syr. Tg. Tg. Ps.-J. Ugar. vg. v ss

α' θ‫׳‬ σ'

LXX MS, Sinai Codex, original reading LXX MS, Sinai Codex, corrector Masoretic Text Qere Samaritan Pentateuch Samaritan Pentateuch, London polyglot, ed. B. Waltonii, vol. 1 (1654) Syrohexaplaris Syriac Targum Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Ugaritic Vulgate ancient versions Aquila Theodotion Symmachus

xxvii

Abbreviations

H ebrew Grammer

abs. acc. act. adv. c. conj. consec. constr. def. art. disj. du. fem. fut. hiph. hithp. hoph.

absolute accusative active adverb, adverbial common conjunction, conjunctive consecutive construct definite article disjunctive dual feminine future hiphil hithpael hophal

impf. impv. ind. inf. int. juss. masc. niph. pass. pf. pilp. pi. prep. ptcp. sg· suff.

Biblical and Apocryphal Books

Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Josh Judg Ruth 1-2 Sam 1-2 Kgs 1-2 Chr Ezra Neh Esth Job Ps(s) Prov Eccl Cant Isa Jer Lam Ezek

Dan Hos Joel Amos Obad Jonah Mic Nah Hab Zeph Hag Zech Mai Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1-2 Cor Gal Eph

imperfect imperative indicative infinitive interrogative jussive masculine niphal passive perfect pilpel plural preposition participle singular suffix (es)

xxviii

A bbreviations

Phil Col 1-2 Thess 1-2 Tim Titus Philem Heb Jas 1-2 Pet 1-2-3 John Jude Rev 1 2 3-4 Kgdms 1-2-3-4 Kingdoms 1-2 Esdr 1-2 Esdras Tob Tobit -

-

Jdt Add Esth 4 Ezra Wis Sir Bar Ep Jer S T h Ch Sus Bel Pr Azar 1-23-4 Macc

Judith Additions to Esther 4 Ezra Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom ofJesus the son of Sirach) Baruch Epistle of Jeremiah Song of the Three Children (or Young Men) Susanna Bel and the Dragon Prayer of Azariah 1-2-3-4 Maccabees

M is c e l l a n e o u s

ANE

n.d.

B.C.E.

NEB NIV NRSV

Ancient Near East Before Common Era, Before Christ circa ca. Common Era ( a .d .) C.E. chap(s). chapter (s) col(s). column (s) diss. dissertation ed(s). edition; edited by; editor (s) especially esp. English translation ET Festschrift FS KJV King James Version line(s) 1(1). literally lit. MS(S) manuscript(s) n. note

n.s. NT OT p(p)· repr. RSV

Sup tr. Univ. UP v(v) §

no date New English Bible New International Version New Revised Standard Version new series New Testament Old Testament page(s) reprint Revised Standard Version Supplement translated by; translator University University Press verse (s) section/paragraph

Illustrations

Plate 1. Exodus from Egypt: From Amarna Canaan to Early Israel (ca. 1300-1225 b.c.e.)

XXIX

XXX

I llustrations

Plate 2. Part One of the Eisodus: Conquest of the Amorite Kingdoms in Transjordan (ca. 1225 b.c.e.)

Illustrations

Plate 3. Part Two of the Eisodus: Premonarchic Israel (ca. 1150 b.c.e.)

XXXI

xxxii

Illustrations

Plate 4. Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim (Deut 11 and 27)

Plate 5. The Altar Complex on Mount Ebal

Illustrations xxxiii

Commentary Bibliography In the text, references to works in this chronological bibliography of commentaries on Deuteronomy will be by author’s last name and date. Pages are given when the reference does not obviously deal with a chapter and verse under discussion. For a survey of works on Deuteronomy, see L. B. Cross, “Commentaries on Deuteronomy,” Theology 64 (1961) 184-89; H. D. Preuss, Deuteronomium, ErFor 164 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982) 203-43. The Church Fathers Commentaries by the church fathers are listed here alphabetically with the date of the book or a date pertaining to the author in parentheses after the author’s name: Augustine (354-430). Locutiones. PL 34, 531-38.-------- . Opus Quaestionum. PL 34, 747-76. Bede (673-735). PL 91, 189-394. Cyril of Alexandria (441). PG 69, 643-78. Diodorus of Tarsus (394). PG 33, 1585-86; PL 50, 781-82 (only fragments remain). Hieronymus (Jerome) (410). PG 28, 451-504. Isidore of Seville (636). PL 83, 359-70. Origen (ca. 250). Adnotationes. PG 17, 23-36.-------- . Selecta. PG 12, 805-18. Paterius (ca. 600). PL 79, 773-84. Procopius of Gaza (538). PG 87, 891-992. Pseudo-Bede (ca. 800). PL 93, 409-16. Theodoretus of Cyrrhus (457). PG 80, 401-56. Walafrid Strabo (849). PL 93, 67-506.

Early Jewish Commentators In recent years there has been renewed interest in the study of early Jewish commentary on Deuteronomy. See in particular: Basser, H. W. In the M argins o f the Midrash: Sefre H aʾazinu Texts, Commentanes, and Reflections. SFSHJ 11. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. -------- , ed. Pseudo-Rabad: Commentary to Sifre Deuteronomy. SFSHJ 92. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Fraade, S. D. From Tradition to Commentary. SUNY Series in Judaica. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1991. Hammer, R., ed. Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. YJS 24. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1986. Isseroff, S. A. An Introduction to R ashi’s Grammatical Explanations in the Book of Deuteronomy. New York: Μ. P. Press, 1993. Neusner, J. Sifre to Deuteronomy. Vols. 1-2, An Analytical Translation. BJS 98, 101. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.-------- . Sifre to Deuteronomy. Vol. 3, A n Introduction to the Rhetorical, Logical, and Topical Program. BJS 124. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

Medieval Jewish Scholars Commentaries by medieval Jewish scholars primarily in France, Spain, and North Africa who wrote in Hebrew include: Aaron ben Elijah (Aaron the Younger) (1328-1369). Aaron ben Joseph ha-Rofe (Aaron the Elder) (1250-1320). Abravanel (Isaac ben Judah) (1437-1508). Bahya ben Asher (1291). Bekhor Shor (Joseph ben Isaac) (12th century). Hizkuni (Hezekiah ben Manoah) (13th century). Ibn Ezra (Abraham ben Meir) (1089-1164). Ibnjanah (Jonah) (ca. 1000-1050). Judah ben Samuel he-Hasid (1150-1217, Regensburg). Radak (David Kimchi) (1160-1235). Ralbag (Levi ben Gershon or Gersonides) (1288-1344). Ramban (Moshe ben Nahman or Nahmanides) (1194-1270). Rashbam (Shemuel ben Meir) (1080-1174). Rashi (Solomon ben Isaac) (1040-1105). Saadia ben Joseph (882-942). Sforno (Obadiah ben Jacob) (15th-century Italy).

xxxvi

C ommentary B ibliography

Renewed scholarly interest is making some of this material more readily available for detailed study in such works as: Bechor-Schor, J. Der Pentateuch-Kommentar desJoseph BechorSchorzum fiinften Buche Moses. Breslau: Koebnersche, 1914 (Heb.). IbnEzra. Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch. Tr. Η. N. Strickmann and A. M. Silver. New York: Menorah, 1988. Ramban (Nachmanides). Commentary on the Torah: Deuteronomy. Tr. C. B. Chavel. New York: Shilo, 1976.-------- . Commentary to the Pentateuch. Jerusalem: Makor (facsimile copy of 1470 ed.). Rashbam. Der Pentateuch-Commentar des R. Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam). Ed. D. Rosin. Breslau, 1881. Rashi. The Commentary of Rashi on the Pentateuch by R. Shlomo Yitzhaki (1040-1105). Berliners Edition and Sefer ha-Zikkaron, based on the first printed edition (Reggio de Calabria, 1475). Ed. M. R. Lehmann. New York: Manfred and Anne Lehmann Foundation, 1981.-------- . Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi’s Commentary. Tr. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann. London: Shapiro, Vallentine, 1929-34.-------- . Sefer Debarim. Amsterdam: Lob ben Moses Sussmans, 1768. Sforno, O. Sforno Commentary on the Torah. Tr. R. Pelcovitz. ArtScroll Mesora Series 2. Brooklyn: Mesora, 1989. See also the commentary by S. Fisch (1972).

Christian Scholars in the Middle Ages Commentaries by Christian scholars in the Middle Ages include: Bruno of Astensis (1032-1101). PL 164, 505-50. Denis le Chartreux (Dionysius the Carthusian) (1402-71). In Opera Omnia. Montreuil, 1896. 2:519-721. Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141). PL 175, 29-86. Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1349). Postilla Super Totam Bibliam, I. Strassburg, 1492. Repr. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva GmbH., 1971. Peter the Chanter (1197) (see Dahan, G. “Les interpretations juives dans les commentaires du pentateuque de Pierre le Chantre.” In The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley. Ed. K. Walsh and D. Wood. Studies in Church History, Subsidia 4. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985. 131-55. Peter Damian (1007-72). PL 145, 1063-1070. Rupert of Deutz (1070-1129). PL 167, 917-1000.

Protestant Reformers Among Protestant Reformers who returned the church to an emphasis on the Bible, see: Calvin, J. Commentanes on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony. Tr. C. W. Bingham. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1950.-------- . Commentarii Ioannis Calvini in Quinque Libros Mosis. Geneva: Gaspar, 1573.-------- . Sermons upon Deuteronomie. Tr. A. Golding. Folio, 1583. Luther, M. Deuteronomion Mose cum Annotationibus. Wittenberg: Hans Luft, 1525 (See Lectures on Deuteronomy. Luther’s Works. Vol. 9. St. Louis: Concordia, I960.).-------- . Vorlesung uber d a s Deuteronomium. 1523-24.

Roman Catholic Scholars Roman Catholic scholars who wrote commentaries on Deuteronomy in the century after the Council of Trent include: Bonfrere, J. (Antwerp, 1625). Calmet, A. (Paris, 1707) (See Commentanus Literalis in omnes Libros Veteris Testamenti. Ed. J. D. Mansi. Wirceburgi Sumtibus Publicis, 1789. 2:524-839.). Cornelius a Lapide (Antwerp, 1623) (See “Commentaria in Deuteronomium.” In Commentam in Saipturam Sacram. Vol. 1. Paris: J. P. Pelagaud et Socios, 1854. 959-1147. See also “In Deuteronomium Commentarium.” In Scnpturae Sacrae Cursus Completus. Vol. 7. Paris: J.-P Migne, 1861. 125-498.). Jansenius, C. (Leuven, 1641). Malvenda, T. (Lyon, 1650). Mansi, I. D. (Venice, 1754). Menochius, G. S. (Lyon, 1627). Sanctis Pagnini (1470-1541) (See Commentano in Most Pentateuchum. Ed. Hieronymus ab Oleastro. Antwerp, 1568.). Tirin, J. (Lyon, 1632) (See Universam S. Saripturam Commentanus. Ed. P. Zachariae and P. J. Brunengo. Taurini: Eq. Petri Marietti, 1882. 1:676-752.).

Commentary Bibliography

xxxvii

Other Scholars before 1800 Other commentaries before 1800 include: Anonymous. Explication de cinq chapitres du Deuteronome; et des propheties d ’H abacuc, et de Jonas. (Deut 29-33). Paris: Babuty, 1734. Ainsworth, H. Annotations upon the Five Bookes of Moses. London: M. Parsons, 1639. Arguiti, Y. B. (1773). Debarim. 3 vols. In MeAm Loez. The Torah Anthology. Vols. 15-17 (Deut 1:1-21:9). Tr. A. Kaplan and S. Yerushalmi. New York; Jerusalem: Maznaim, 1984-85. Bar Hebraeus, G. A. (1226-85). A Commentary to Deuteronomy. Ed. G. Kerber. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1897. Bugenhagen, J. Annotationes ab ipso iam emissae: In Deuteronomium. Basil: Petri, 1524. Drusius, J. A d loca difficiliora Pentateuchi, Quinque liborum Mosis commentarius Conscriptus. Franekerae Frisiorum, 1617. Frassen, C. Disquisitiones Biblicae in universum Pentateuchum. Paris: P. Witte, 1705. Gerhard, J. (1634). Commentarius super Deuteronomium. Jena, 1657. Guillemin, P. Commentaire litteral abrege sur les livres de Vancien et du nouveau Testament. Paris: Emery, 1721. Henry, M. (1662-1714). An Exposition of the Five Books of Moses. Edinburgh: Lunisden & Robertson, 1757. Jameson, R. A Critical andPractical Exposition of the Pentateuch. London: Knapton, 1748. Repr. Philadelphia: Martien, 1860. Commentary on the Five Books of Moses. London: J. Heptinstall, 1694. Leclerc, J. Mosis prophetae libri quatuor: Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, et Deuteronomium. Amstelodami: Wetstenium, 1696. Le Maistre, I. L. L e Deuteronome. Paris: G. Desprez, 1685. Lorini, J. Commentarii in Deuteronomium. Lugduni: Cardon, 1629. Marius, L. Commentariorum . . . in universam S. Scripturam. Dvsseldorpffii: Coloniae Agrippinae, 1621. Michaelis, J. H. (1717-91) (See Commentaries on the Laws of Moses. Tr. A. Smith. London: Rivington, 1814.). Parker, S., ed. Bibliotheca biblica: Being a Commentary upon . . . the Old and New Testament. Oxford, 1720. Patrick, S. Commentary on the Pentateuch. London, 1727. Pelargi, C. In Deuteronomium Sacrum; sive, Quintum librum Mosis commentarius. Leipzig: Lambergi, 1608. Pellicanus, C. (1478-1556). In Pentateuchum, sive Quinque libros Mosis . . . commentarii. Tigvri: Christophorvs Froschovervs, 1582. Piscator, J. Commentarius in Deuteronomium. Herbornae Nassov, 1615. Rabani Mavri. Commentaria, antehac nunquam typis excusa. Mense Martio, 1532. Spangenberg, C. In sacri Mosis Pentateuchum. Basil, 1564. Teller, R. Die Heilige Schrift des Alien und Neuen Testaments, nebst einer vollstandigen Erklarung derselben. Leipzig: Bernhard Christoph Breitkopf, 1750. 2:659-1013. Wesley, J. (1765-66) (See Wesley’s Notes on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987. 134-51.).

Kidder, R. A

Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

For purposes of convenience, the writing of commentaries on Deuteronomy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries may be divided into four phases: 1805-1894, 1894-1943, 1943-1963, and 1963-1999. Each phase is introduced by a major breakthrough in critical study: Phase 1—W. L. de Wette’s 1805 dissertation on Deuteronomy, which laid the cornerstone for the edifice of Pentateuchal literary criticism; Phase 2—the simultaneous, but independent, publications of C. Steuernagel and W. Staerk in 1894, which introduced redaction-critical study of Deuteronomy based primarily on the so-called Numeruswechsel (see Excursus: “The Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy”) ; Phase 3—the publication of M. Noth’s theory that ties the study of Deuteronomy to the so-called Deuteronomic (or Deuteronomistic) History (Joshua through 2 Kings), which eventually led to what today is called canonical criticism; and Phase 4—N. Lohfink’s “stylistic” analysis of Deut 5-11 in 1963, which suggests unity of authorship and opens the door to new models for understanding the canonical process in ancient Israel.

xxxviii

C ommentary B ibliography

Phase One (1805-94)

Amat, D. F. “Libro del Deuteronomio.” In La Sagrada Biblia Nuevamente Traducida de la Vulgata a l Espanol Madrid: Don Leon Amarita, 1824. 2:3-102. Baumgarten, M. Theologischer Commentar zum Pentateuch: Erste Halfte, Vom Anfang bis zum Gesetz. 1843.-------- . Theologischer Commentar zum Pentateuch: Zweite Halfte, Gesetzgebung. Kiel: Universitatsbuchhandlung, 1843-44. Bellamy, J. The Holy Bible, Newly Translated . . . with Notes, Critical and Explanatory.

London: Longman, 1818 (includes Pentateuch only). Benson, J. (1815). “Critical, Explanatory, and Practical Notes.” In The Holy Bible. New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett, 1846. 483-587. Brentano, D. von. Die Heilige Schrif t des A lten Testament. 1. Theils dritter Band, welcher das 5, Buch Mosis entahalt. Frankfurt am Main: Varrentrapp, 1832. Clarke, A. (1811-16). “The Fifth Book of Moses Called Deuteronomy.” In The Holy Bible: With a Commentary and Cntical Notes. Nashville: Abingdon, n.d. 1:734-848. Dillman, A. Die Bucher Numen, Deuteronomium und Josua. KeH 13. 2nd ed. rev. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1886. Du Clot, M. “Notes sur le Deuteronome.” In La Sainte Bible vengee des attaques de l’incredulite. Paris: Librairie de Louis Vives, 1875. 2:352-71. Feilchenfeld, W. Die zwei letzten Abschnitte des Pentateuchs iibersetzt und erklart. Dusseldorf: W. de Haen, 1866. Felipe, D. scio de San Miguel. Έ1 Deuteronomio.” In La Biblia Vulgata Latina Traducida en Espahol, y Anotada Confrome al sentido de los Santos Padres y Espositores Catolicos. Megico: En Casa de Cornelio C. Sebring, 1831. 2:323-478. Fillion, L. Biblia Sacra, ju xta Vulgatae exemplana et correctona romana. Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1887. Jamieson, R. “The Fifth Book of Moses, Called Deuteronomy.” In The Cntical and Explanatory Pocket Bible. Glasgow: William Collins, 1870. 1:131-58.-------- , Faussett, A. R., and Brown, D. (ca. 1875). “The Fifth Book of Moses, Called Deuteronomy.” In A Commentary: Cntical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948. 1:620-715. Kalisch, M. A Histoncal and Cntical Commentary on the Old Testament. London: Longman, 1855. Keil, C. F. Biblischer Commentar uber das Alte Testament. 2 vols. Leipzig: Dorffling und Franke, 1865 (2nd ed. 1870; ET: Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Tr. J. Martin. Edinburgh: Clark, 1864-65). Knobel, A. W. Die Bucher Numen, Deuteronomium und Josua: Nebst einer Kntik des Pentateuchs und Josua. KeH 13. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1861. Lees, R. L., and Burns, D. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Temperance Bible-Commentary. 3rd ed. London: S. W. Partridge & Co., 1872 (2nd ed. 1868). Lindsay, J. W. Deuteronomy. Commentary on the Old Testament. Ed. D. D. Whedon. New York: Eaton, 1891. Mackintosh], C. H. Notes on the Book o f Deuteronomy. 2 vols. Chicago: Revell, 1880. Maurer, F. J. V. D. “Deuteronomium.” In Commentanus Grammaticus Criticus in Vetus Testamentum. Leipzig: Fridericus Volckmar, 1835. 1:74-97. Montet, F. Le Deuteronome et la question de CHexateuque: Etude critique et exegetique sous form de ,introduction et de commentaire du Deuteronome considere dans ses rapports avec les quatre premiers livres Pentateuque et Josue. Paris, 1891. Oettli, S. Das Deuteronomium und die Bucher Josua und Richter.

Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testaments. Munich: Beck, 1893. Rosemniiller, E. F. K. Scholia in Vetus Testamentum. Vol. 2, Leviticus, Numen, Deuteronomion. Leipzig: J. A. Bartius, 1821. Schroeder, F. W. J. Das Deuteronomium oder das Funfte Buch Mose. Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk. Bielefeld: Velhagen 8c Klasing, 1866 (ET enlarged by A. Gosman. Deuteronomy or theFiflh Book of Moses. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1879). Schultz, Fr. W. Das Deuteronomium erklart. Berlin: Schlawitz, 1859. Scott, T. The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments. 5 vols. Boston: Samuel T. Armstrong, 1823. 1:488-585. Trochon, C. Introduction a Tetude de VEcnture Sainte d ,apres “La Sainte Bible avec commentaires. ”Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1889. Vater, J. S. Commentar uber den Pentateuch. Vol. 3, Deuteronomium. Halle: Verlag der Waisenhaus-Buchhandlung, 1805. Waller, C. H. The Fifth Book of Moses, Called Deuteronomy. Ed. C. J. Ellicott. Handy Commentary on the Old Testament 5. London: Cassell, n.d. [188-?]. Weill, A. Le cinq livres de Moise. Paris, 1890-91. Westphal, A. Le Deuteronome. Toulouse, 1891.

Commentary Bibliography

XXXIX

Phase Two (1894-1943)

Anonymous. “Deuteronomy.” In The Sermon Bible. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1919. 1.1:303-56. Andre, Μ. T. “Le Deuteronome.” In La Bible du Centenaire: La Sainte Bible: Traduction nouvelle d ’apres les meilleurs textes avec introduction et notes. Paris: Societe Biblique de Paris, 1936. 237-90. Bertholet, A. Deuteronomium. KHC 5. Tubingen: Mohr, 1899. Betteridge, W. R. The Book of Deuteronomy. American Commentary on the OT 2. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1915. Clamer, A., ed. Levitique, Nombres, Deuteronome. La Sainte Bible 2. Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1940. Driver, S. R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. ICC. Edinburgh: T. Sc T. Clark, 1895. Dummelow, J. R., ed. “Deuteronomy.” In A Commentary on the Holy Bible. New York: Macmillan, 1909. 121-40. Eerdmans, B. D. Deuteronomy. London: Griffin Sc Co., 1927. Espin, T. E. “Deuteronomy.” In The Holy Bible with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary. Ed. F. C. Cook. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895. 1.1:790-928. Girdlestone, R. B. The Student’s Deuteronomy. London; New York: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1899. Gray, J. C., and Adams, G. M. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Biblical Encyclopedia. Cleveland: F. M. Barton, 1903. 1:457-553. Gressmann, H. Die Schriften des Alten Testament. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Sc Ruprecht, 1910 (2nd ed. 1922). Halley, Η. H. “Deuteronomy.” In Pocket Bible Handbook. Chicago: Henry H. Halley, 1924 (20th ed. in 1955 as Bible Handbook). 142-47. Harford, J. B. Deuteronomy. New Commentary on the Holy Scripture. London, 1928. Harper, A. The Book of Deuteronomy. Expositor’s Bible. London: Hodder Sc Stoughton, 1895. Hastings, J., ed. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Speaker’s Bible. Aberdeen: The ‘Speakers’ Bible’ Offices, 1924. 3:1-192. Hertz, J. H., ed. Deuteronomy. The Pentateuch and the Haftorahs 5. London: Oxford UP, 1936. Hoberg, G. Exegetisches Handbuch zum Pentateuch mit hebraischem Text und lateinischen Text. Freiburg: Herder, 1908. Hoffmann, D. Das Buch Deuteronomium: Erster Halbband, Deut. /-XX, 9. Berlin, 1913.-------- . Das Buch Deuteronomium: Zweiter Halbband, Deut. XXI, 16-XXXI. Berlin: Poppelauer, 1922. Hummelauer, F. von. Commentarius in Deuteronomium. Cursus Scripturae Sacrae 3:2. Paris: Sumptibus P. Lethielleux, 1901. Irwin, C. H. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In Irw in ’s Bible Commentary. Chicago: John C. Winston, 1928. 59-68. Jordan, W. G. Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. New York: Macmillan, 1911. Junker, H. Das Buch Deuteronomium. Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testament. Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1933. Konig, E. Das Deuteronomium. KAT 3. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1917. Kretzmann, P. E. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In Popular Commentary of the Bible. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1923. 1:303-62. Maclagan, H. The Book of Deuteronomy Intepreted and Explained. Paisley: Gardner, 1914. Maclaren, A. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In Expositions of Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1938. 2:1-86. Marti, K. “Das fiinfte Buch Moses oder Deuteronomium.” In Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testament. Ed. E. F. Kautzsch and A. Bertholet. 4th ed. Tubingen: Mohr, 1922. 258-327. Moulton, R. G. Deuteronomy. Modern Reader’s Bible. New York: Macmillan, 1896. Reider, J. Deuteronomy: The Holy Scriptures with Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1937. Robin‫־‬ son, H. W. Deuteronomy and Joshua. New Century Bible. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1907. Scott, D. R. “Deuteronomy.” In Abingdon Bible Commentary. Ed. F. C. Eiselen, E. Lewis, and D. G. Downey. New York: Abingdon, 1929. 318-44. Smith, G. A. The Book of Deuteronomy. CBib. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1918. Steuernagel, C. Das Deuteronomium. HAT 1.3. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Sc Ruprecht, 1898 (2nd ed. 1923).-------- . Lfbersetzung und Erklarung der Bucher Deuteronomium und Josua und allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch. HKAT 1.3. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900 (2nd ed. 1923). Wilkins, G. The Fifth Book of Moses, Called Deuteronomy. Temple Bible 5. London; Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1902. Witton, D. T. “Deuteronomy.” In Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. London: T. C. Sc E. C. Jack, 1920. 231-43.

xl

C ommentary B ibliography

Phase Three (1943-63)

Cazelles, H. Le Deuteronome. La Sainte Bible. Paris: Cerf, 1950 (3rd ed. 1966). Clarke, W. K. L. “Deuteronomy.” In Concise Bible Commentary. London: S.P.C.K., 1952. 383-93. Cohen, A., ed. The Soncino Chumash: The Five Books of Moses with Haphtaroth. Hindhead: Soncino, 1947. Colunga, A., and Garcia Cordero, M. Biblia Comentada. I. Pentateuco: Deuteronomio. Madrid: Editorial Catolica, 1960. 908-1057. Cooper, C. M. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In Old Testament Commentary. Ed. H. C. Alleman and E. E. Flack. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1948. 300-328. Crichton, T. S. Deuteronomy. Books of the Bible Series 5. Edinburgh: Church of Scotland Youth Committee, 1951. Cunliffe-Jones, H. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Twentieth Century Bible Commentary. Ed. G. H. Davies, A. Richardson, and C. L. Wallis. New York: Harper, 1955. 150-57.-------- . “Deuteronomy.” TBC. London: SCM Press, 1951. Davies, G. H. “Deuteronomy.” In Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. Ed. M. Black. London: Nelson, 1962. 269-88. Dhorme, E. La Bible. Paris: Gillimard, 1956. Erdman, C. R. The Book of Deuteronomy: An Exposition. Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1953. Glanzman, G. S. The Book of Deuteronomy. Pamphlet Bible Series 9. New York: Paulist, 1960. Haratom, E. S. Sefer Debanm. Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1956 (Heb.). Hirsch, S. R. The Pentateuch. Vol. 5. London, 1962. Holwerda, B. Oudtestamentische voordrachten: Deel III, Exegese Oude Testament (Deuteronomium) (gehouden in de collegejaren 1946-1932). Kampen: Copieerinrichtin, v.d. Berg, 1957. Junker, H. Das Buch Deuteronomium. Das Alte Testament. Zweites bis funftes Buch Moses. Echter Bibel. Wurzburg: Echter, 1952. Kramer, K. F. Numeri und Deuteronomium. Herders Bibelkommentar 2.1. Freiburg: Herder, 1955. Kuhn, Η. B. “Deuteronomy.” In The Biblical Expositor. Ed. C. F. H. Henry. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1960. 1:184-208. MacKenzie, R. A. F. “Deuteronomy.” In A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Ed. B. Orchard et al. London: Nelson, 1953. 261-72. Manley, G. T. “Deuteronomy.” In The New Bible Commentary. Ed. F. Davidson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953 (2nd ed. 1954). 195-222. Moraldi, L. “Deuteronomio.” In L a Sacra Bibbia. Turin: Marietti, 1960. 395-467. Morgan, G. C. “Deuteronomy.” In A n Exposition o f the Whole Bible. Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1959. 77-91. Neil, W. “Deuteronomy.” In H arper’s Bible Commentary. London: Hodder Sc Stoughton, 1962. 131-41. Nichol, F. D., ed. “The Fifth Book of Moses Called Deuteronomy.” In The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1953. 1:951-1077. Rabinowitz, C. D. D a’at Sofrim. Jerusalem, Da’at Yisrael, 1957 (Heb.).--------. Sefer Debanm. In Samaritan characters. Tel Aviv: Nezach, 1959 (Heb. tr. from German). Ridderbos, J. Het boek Deuteronomium, opnieuw uit den grondtekst vertaald en verklaard. Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift, met nieuwe vertaling. Kampen: Kok, 1950 (ET: Deuteronomy. Tr. M. van der Maas. Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Libarary, 1984). Shires, Η. H., and Parker, P. “Deuteronomy: Exposition.” IB. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1953. 2:331-537. Steinmann, J. Deuteronome: Texte frangais p a r Jean Steinmann: Introduction et commentaires p a r une equipe biblique du centre d ’etudes Notre-Dame.

Connaitre la Bible. Brussels, 1961. Wright, G. E. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” IB. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1953. 2:311-537.

Phase Four (1963-1999)

Achtemeier, E. Deuteronomy, Jeremiah. Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Ackland, D. F. “Deuteronomy.” In The Teacher’s Bible Commentary. Ed. H. F. Paschall. Nashville: Broadman, 1972. 115-36. Alonso Schokel, L. Deuteronomio. Los Libros Sagrados I. 2. Madrid: Ediciones Cristianidad, 1970. 257-404. Blair, E. P. The Book of Deuteronomy; The Book of Joshua. LBC 5. Richmond: John Knox, 1964. Blenkinsopp, J. “Deuteronomy.” In Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968. 101-22.-------- . “Deuteronomy.” In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Ed. R. E. Brown, J. Fitzmyer, and R. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990. 94-109. Braulik, G. Das Testament des

Commentary Bibliography

xli

Mose: Das Buck Deuteronomium. Stuttgarter kleiner Kommentar Altes Testament 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976. -------- . Denteronomium 1 -1 6 , 17. NEchB. Wurzburg: Echter, 1986.-------- . Deuteronomium 16, 18-34, 12. NEchB. Wurzburg: Echter, 1992. Brown, R. E. The Message of Deuteronomy: Not by Bread Alone. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Brown, R. E., S.S. The Book of Deuteronomy. OT Reading Guide 10. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1965. Buis, P., and Leclercq, J. Le Deuteronome. Sources bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1963.--------. Le Deuteronome. Verbum Salutis: Ancien Testament 4. Paris: Beauchesne, 1969. Cairns, I. Word and Presence: A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992. Chouraqui, A. Paroles (Deuteronome). La Bible traduite et presentee 5. Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1974.-------- . U Univers de la Bible. Vol. 2. Paris: Lidis, 1983. Clements, R. E. “Deuteronomy.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 2. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. 269-538. Clifford, R. Deuteronomy, with an Excursus on Covenant and Law. OT Message, A BiblicalTheological Commentary 4. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1982. Coffman, J. B. Commentary on Deuteronomy: The Fifth Book of Moses. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian UP, 1988. Cousins, P. E. “Deuteronomy.” In The International Bible Commentary. Ed. F. F. Bruce. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986 (1st ed. 1979). 256-82. Craigie, P. C. The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976. Criado, R. Deuteronomio: La Sagrada Biblia. Vol. 1. Madrid: Editorial Catolica, 1967. Cunliffe-Jones, H. Deuteronomy. TBC. London: SCM Press, 1964. Drubbel, A. Numeri uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd. BOT 2.2. Roermond en Maaseik: Romen & Zonen, 1963. Francisco, C. T. The Book of Deuteronomy. Shield Bible Study Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1964. Gilchrist, P. R. “Deuteronomy.” In The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible. Ed. W. A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989. 107-30. Gottwald, N. K. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible. Ed. C. M. Laymon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971. 100-121. Hamilton, V. P. Handbook on the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982. 375-474. Hanke, H. A. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In The Wesleyen Bible Commentary. Ed. C. W. Carter and W. R. Thompson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967. 1.1:467-50. Hirsch, S. R. Deuteronomy. In The Pentateuch, V. Tr. I. Levy. 2nd ed. (completely revised). London: Bloch, 1966. Hoppe, L. “Deuteronomy.” In The CollegevilleBible Commentary. Ed. D. Bergant and R. J. Karris. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1989. 196-228. Kaplan, A. “Deuteronomy: Translation with Notes.” In The Living Torah. New York: Moznaim, 1981. Kline, M. G. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963. Labuschagne, C. J. Deuteronomium. Vols. 1A and IB. POT. Nijkerk: Uitgeverij Callenbach, 1987.-------- . Deuteronomium. Vol. 2. POT. Nijkerk: Uitgeverij Callenbach, 1990.------- . Deuteronomium. Vol. 3. POT. Nijkerk: Uitgeverij Callenbach, 1997. Laconi, M. Deuteronomio. Nuovissima Versione della Bibbia dai Test Originale 5. Rome: Paoline, 1970. Lamparter, H. Der A ufruf zum Gehorsam: Das 5. Buck Mose. BAT 9. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1977. Lamsa, G. M. Old Testament Light: A Scriptural Commentary Based on the Aramaic of the Ancient Peshitta Text. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Malbim, M. L. Rabbenu Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michel: Commentary on the Torah. Tr. with notes by Z. Faier. Jerusalem: Hillel Press, 1978. Manley, G. T., and Harrison, R. K. “Deuteronomy.” In New Bible Commentary. Ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer. Rev. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970. 201-29. Mann, T. Deuteronomy. Ed. P. D. Miller and D. L. Bartlett. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Maxwell, J. C. Deuteronomy. Communicator’s Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. NCBC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981. Merrill, E. H. Deuteronomy. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Miller, P. D. Deuteronomy. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox, 1990. Moraldi, L. Introduzione alia Bibbia; corso sistematico di studi biblici. Turin: Marietti, 1964. Moran, W. L. “Deuteronomy.” In A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Ed. R. C. Fuller, L. Johnston, and C. Kearns. New and fully rev. ed. London: Nelson, 1969. Munk, E. ‫ קול התורה‬: La Voix de la Thorn 5. Paris: Fondation Samuel et Odette Levy, 1969 (2nd ed.

xlii

C ommentary B ibliography

1978). Nelson, R. D. “Deuteronomy.” In Harper’s Bible Commentary. Ed.J. L. Mays et al. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. 209-34. Nielsen, E. Deuteronomium. HAT 6. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1995. North, G. Inheritance and Dominion: A n Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christan Economics, 1999 (electronic edition available at www.freebooks.com). Payne, D. F. Deuteronomy. Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. Penna, A. Deuteronomio. La Sacra Bibbia. Turin: Marietti, 1976. Phillips, A. Deuteronomy. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1973. Plaut, W. G. Deuteronomy. The Torah: A Modern Commentary 5. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1974. Polzin, R. “Deuteronomy.” In The Literary Guide to the Bible. Ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1987. 92-101. Rad, G. von. Deuteronomy. Tr. D. Barton. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966. Rennes, J. Le Denteronome: Traduction et commentaire. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1967. Ridderbos, J. Het Boek Deuteronomium: Opnieuw uit de grontekst vertaald en verklaard. Kampen: Kok, 1963-64. Rose, M. 5. Mose. Ziircher Bibelkommentare. AT 5. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1994. Sanders, J. A. “Deuteronomy.” In The Books of the Bible,. Ed. B. W. Anderson. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1989. 1:89-102. Schultz, S. J. Deuteronomy: The Gospel of Love. Everyman’s Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971. Thompson, J. A. Deuteronomy. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974. Tigay, J. H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Unger, M. F. “Deuteronomy.” In Unger’s Commentary on the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981. 1:233-78. Watts, J. D. W. “Deuteronomy.” In BBC. Ed. C. J. Allen. Nashville: Broadman, 1970. 2:175-296. Weinfeld, M. Deuteronomy 1-11. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Wijngaards, J. Deuteronomium. BOT 2.3. Roermond en Maaseik: Romen & Zonen, 1971. Wright, C. J. H. Deuteronomy. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.

General Bibliography

Selected Books and Monographs

The list that follows is given in alphabetical order within chronological blocks of time, beginning with the seminal work of W. M. L. de Wette in 1805, which marks the beginning of the modern critical era in the study of Deuteronomy. Monographs on specific passages or portions are noted in the chapter bibliographies. 1805-39

Wette, W. M. L. de.

Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament 2 vols. Halle, 1806-1807. Repr. Hildesheim, NY: Olms, 1971.-------- . Dissertatio critica qua Deuteronomium a prionbus Pentateuchi libris diversum alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur. Jena, 1805.

1840-89

Bertheau, E. Die sieben Gruppen mosaischer Gesetz in den drei mittleren buchern des Pentateuchs: Ein Beitrag zur Kritik des Pentateuchs. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1840. Colenso, J. W. The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Cntically Examined. Part 3, The Book of Deuteronomy. London: Longman, 1863. Dahler, J. Jeremie et le Deuteronome. Strasbourg, 1872. Kayser, A. Das vorexilische Buck der Urgeschichte Israels und seine Erweiterungen: Ein Beitrag zur Pentateuchkritik. Strassburg: Schmidt, 1874. Kleinert, P. Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker: Untersuchungen zur alttestamentliche Rechts- und Literaturgeschichte. Bielefeld; Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing. 1872. Rubel, R. Das alttestamentliche Gesetz und seine Urkunde. Stuttgart: Steinkopf, 1867. Maine, H. Ancient Law. London: Murray, 1870. Riehm, E. Die Gesetzgebung Mosis im Lande Moab: Ein Beitrag zur Einleitung in ,s alte Testament. Gotha: Perthes, 1854. Saalschutz, J. L. Das Mosaische Recht. Part 2. Berlin: Cotteymann, 1853-54. Schoebel, C. Demonstration cntique de Tauthenticite Mosaique du Deuteronome. Paris, 1868. Sime, J. Deuteronomy, the People’s Book: Its Origin and Nature. London: Daldy, Isbister, 1877. Stahelin, J. J. Kritische Untersuchungen iiber den Pentateuch, die Bucher Josua, Richter, Samuels und der Konige. Berlin: G. Reimers, 1843. 1890-99

Addis, W. E.

The Documents of the Hexateuch Translated and Arranged in Chronological Order with Introduction and Notes. London: Putnam, 1898. Girdlestone, R. B. The Student’s Deuteronomy. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1899. Hartmann, A. T. HistoHsch-kntische Forschungen iiber die Bildung, das Zeitalter und den Plan d erfiin f Bucher Moses. Rostock-Gustrow, 1893. Klostermann, A. Der Pentateuch. Beitrage zu seinem Verstandnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte. 2 vols. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1893, 1907. Konig, J. L. Alttestamentliche Studien: Zweites Heft, Das Deuteronomium und der Prophet Jeremiah, gegen Bohlen, nebst anderen Beitragen zur Authentie des Deuteronomiums. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1893. Kraetzschmar, R. Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung untersucht und dargestellt. Marburg: Elwert, 1896. MacDill, D. Mosaic Authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy. Dayton: W. J. Shuey, 1896. Montet, F. La composition de I’Hexateuque, deJuges, de Samuel et des

xliv

G eneral B ibliography

Rois: Etude critique biblique. Basel, 1894. Moor, F. de. L a Date de la Composition du Deuteronome. Amien, 1891. Muir, W. The Authorship of Deuteronomy. Tr. G. J. Metzger. London, 1896. Naumann, O. Das Deuteronomium: Das prophetische Staatsgesetz des theokratischen Konigtums mit seinen Eingangs- und Schlussworten, aus der prophetischen Geschichte und Theologie erlautert. Gutersloh, 1897. Preiss, H. Zum Denteronomium. Schulprogramme Progress no. 55. Berlin, 1892. Reuss, E. Das Alte Testament: I l f Die Heilige Geschichte und das Gesetz: Der Pentateuch und Josua. Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1893 (French ed. 1879). Staerk, W. Beitrage zur Kritik des Deuteronomiums. Leipzig: Pries, 1894.-------- . Das Deuteronomium: Sein Inhalt und seine literarische Form: Eine kritische Studie. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1894. Steuernagel, C. Die Entstehung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes. Halle: J. Krause, 1896.-------- . Der Rahmen des Deuteronomiums: Literarcritische Untersuchung iiber seine Zusammensetzung und Entstehung. Halle: J. Krause, 1894. Weill, A. Les cinq Livres (Mosai'stes) de Moise: Cinquieme Livre, Deuteronome. Paris, 1891. Wellhausen, J. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alten Testament. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1894 (3rd ed. 1899). Zahn, A. Das Deuteronomium: Eine Schutzschrift wider modernkritisches Unwesen. Gutersloh: Bertelsman,

1890.

1900-1909

Bruston, C. LHistoire sacerdotale et le Deuteronome primitif. Paris: Fischbacher, 1906. Carpenter, J. E. The Composition of the Hexateuch: A n Introduction with Select Lists of Words and Phrases and an Appendix on Laws and Institutions by G. Harford. London: Longmans, 1902. Cullen, J. The Book of the Covenant in Moab: A Critical Inquiry into the Original Form of Deuteronomy. Glasgow: Maclehose and Sons, 1903. Erbt, W. Die Sicherstellung des Monotheismus durch die Gesetzgebung im vorexilischen Juda. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. Fries, D. S. A. Die Gesetzesschrifi des Konigs Josia: Eine kritische Untersuchung. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1903. Grimme, H. Das Gesetz Hammurabis und Moses. Cologne: Backem, 1903 (ET: The Law of Hammurabi and Moses. London, 1907). Halevy, J. “Recherches bibliques: Le Deuteronome.” RSEHA 7 (1899) 313-32; 8 (1900) 1-8, 97-114, 193-216. Harper, A. The Book of Deuteronomy. New York: Armstrong, 1901. McGarvey, J. W. The Authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1902. Merx, A. Die Bucher Moses und Josua. Tubingen: Mohr, 1907. Muller, D. H. Die Gesetze Hammurabis und ihr Verhaltnis zur mosaischen Gesetzgebung sowie zu den XII Tafeln. Vienna: A. Holder, 1903. Sternberg, G. Die Ethik des Deuteronomiums: Inaugural-Dissertation. Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1908. Wiener, H. Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism. Oberlin: Bibliotheca Sacra, 1909.

1910-19

Euringer, S. Der Streit um das Deuteronomium: Biblische Zeitfragen 4,8. Miinster: Aschendorff, 1911. Griffiths, J. S. The Problem of Deuteronomy. London, 1911. Hempel, J. Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums: Ein Beitrag zur israelitischen Literatur- und Rechtsgeschichte. Leipzig: R. Voigtlander, 1914. Jordan, W. G. Deuteronomy. New York: Macmillan, 1911. McNeile, A. H. Deuteronomy: Its Place in Revelation. London: Longmans, 1912. Naville, E. The Discovery of the Book of the Law under King Josiah. Tr. M. L. McClure. London: S.P.C.K., 1911. Oestreicher, T. Die josianische Reform: Das Reich Christi 12. Berlin, 1911. Pope, H. The Date of the Composttion of Deuteronomy: A Critical Study. Holy Apostolic See and the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Rome: Frederick Pustet, 1910. Puukko, A. F. Das Deuteronomium: Eine literarkritische Untersuchung. BWANT 5. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910. Smend, R. Die Erzahlung des Hexateuch: Aufihre Quellen untersucht. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1912. Wiener, Η. M. Pentateuchal Studies. London: E. Stock, 1912.

Books and Monographs

xlv

1920-29

Bentzen, A. Die josianische Reform und ihre Voraussetzungen. Copenhagen: Haas & Sohne, 1926. Bewer, J. A., Paton, L. B., and Dahl, G. “The Problem of Deuteronomy: A Symposium.”/5L47 (1928) 305-79. Jirku, A. Das weltliche Recht im Alien Testament: Stilgeschichtliche und rechtsvergleichende Studien in den juristischen Gesetzen des Pentateuch. Giitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1927. Kennett, R. H. Deuteronomy and the Decalogue. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1920. Kittel, G. Sifre zu Deuteronomium. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1922. Kugler, F. X. Untersuchungen zum Hexateuchsproblem. BZAW 38. Giessen: Topelmann, 1924.-------- . Von Moses zu Paulus. Munster: Aschendorff, 1922. Lohr, M. Das Deuteronomium: Untersuchungen zum Hexateuchproblem II. SKGG 1.6. Berlin: Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1925. Longacre, L. B. Deuteronomy, a Prophetic Lawbook. New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1924. Menes, A. Die vorexilschen Gesetze Israels. BZAW 50. Berlin: Topelmann, 1928. Moller, W. Ruckbeziehungen des 5. Buches Moses a u f die vier ersten Bucher: Ein Beitrag zur Einleitung in den Pentateuch im Sinne seiner Einheit und Echtheit. Lunenburg, 1925. Mowinckel, S. Femte Mosebok: Det Gamle Testament: I. Loven eller deFem Moseboker. Oslo, 1929. Naville, E. Le Deuteronome, un livre Mosaique. Fontenay-sous-Bois, 1924. Oestreicher, T. Das deuteronomische Grundgesetz. BFCT 27.4. Giitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1923. Rad, G. von. Das Gottesvolk im Deuteronomium. BWANT 47. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929. Ring, E. Israels Rechtsleben in Lichte der neuentdeckten assyHschen und hethitischen Gesetzeurkunden. Stockholm: V. Petterson; Leipzig: G. Fock, 1926. Sanda, A. Moses und der Pentateuch. ATAbh 9. Miinster: Aschendorff, 1924. Siebens, A.-R. L ’origine du code deuteronomique: Examen histoHque et litteraire du sujet a la lumiere de la critique contemporaine. Paris: Leroux, 1929. Staerk, W. Das Problem des Deuteronomiums: Ein Beitrag zur neuesten PentateuchkHtik. BFCT 29.2. Giitersloh: Bertelsman, 1924. Welch, A. C. The Code of Deuteronomy: A New Theory of Its Origin. London: Clarke, 1924; New York, 1925. Wiener, Η. M. Das Hauptproblem des Deuteronomiums. Tr. M. Kegel.

Giitersloh: Bertelsman, 1924.

1930-39

Alt, A. Die

Ursprunge des Israelitischen Rechts: Berichte ber die Verhandlungen der Sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschafien zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse 86/1. Leipzig, 1934 (ET: “The Origins of Israelite Law.” In Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Tr. R. A. Wilson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1966. 79-132). Auerbach, E. Wuste und Gelobtes L and II. Berlin: Schocken, 1936. Breit, H. Die Predigt des Deuteronomisten. Munich: Kaiser, 1933. Cadoux, C. J. The Book of Deuteronomy: Introduction and Translation. London, 1932. Horst, F. Das Pnvilegrecht Jahves: Rechtsgeschichtliche untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium. FRLANT 45. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1930. Repr. in Gottes Recht: Studien zum Recht im Alten Testament. TBii 12. Munich: Kaiser, 1961. 17-154. Hulst, A. R. Het Karakter van den Cultus in Deuteronomium. Groningen: Wagingen, Veenman & Zonen, 1938. Krause, H.-H. Das Deuteronomium in der wissenschaftlichen Bearbeitung des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts. Breslau: Guttmann, 1931. Mackintosh, C. H. Deuteronomium: I. Vestaling. The Hague, 1935. Noth, M. Reichstempel und Ortsheiligtiimer in Israel. BFCT 33. Giitersloh: Bertelsman, 1930. Rad, G. von. Das Formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch. BWANT 4.26. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1936 (ET, 1966). Rudolph, W. Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Jusua. BZAW 68. Berlin: Topelmann, 1938. Siebens, A.-R. L ’oHgine du code deuteronomique: Examen histoHque et litteraire du sujet a la lumiere de la cHtique contemporaine. Paris: Leroux, 1929. Stoderl, W. Das Gesetz Israels nach Inhalt und Ursprung: I. Beitrage zur Einleitung ins Alte Testament. Marienbad, 1933. Welch, A. C. Deuteronomy: The Framework to the Code. London: Oxford UP, 1932.

xlvi

G eneral B ibliography

1940-49

Allis, Ο. T. The Five Books of Moses. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1943. Brinker, R. The Influence of Sanctuanes in Early Israel. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1946. Cazelles, H. Etudes sur le code de Valliance. Paris: Letouzey, 1946. Daube, D. Studies in Biblical Law. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1947. Hospers, J. H. De Numeruswisseling in het Boek Deuteronomium. Utrecht: Kemink, 1947. Leroy, J. Introduction ά Tetude des anciens codes orientaux. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1944. Noth, M. Die Gesetze im Pentateuch: Ihre Voraussetzungen und ihr Sinn. SKGG, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse 17, 2. Halle: Niemeyer, 1940 (ET, 1966). -------- . Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alien Testament. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1943 (ET, 1981). Ostborn, G. Tom in the Old Testament: A Semantic Study. Lund: Ohlssons Bookstore, 1945. Pedersen J. Israel: Its Life and Culture. London: Oxford UP, 1940. 3.4:580ff. Rabast, K. Das apodiktische Recht im Deuteronomium und im Heiligkeitsgesetz. Berlin: Heimatdienstverlag, 1948. Rad, G. von. Deuteronomium-Studien. FRLANT 40. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947 (ET, 1953). Winnett, F. V. The Mosaic Tradition. Near and Middle East Series 1. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1949.

1950-59

Althaus, P.

Gebot und Gesetz: Zum Thema “Gesetz und E vangelium .” BFCT 46.2. Giitersloh: Bertelsman, 1952. Cazelles, H. Le Deuteronomie: La Sainte Bible. Paris: Cerf, 1958. Diamond, A. S. The Evolution of Law and Order. London: Watts, 1951. Gray, J. The Legacy of Canaan. VTSup 5. Leiden: Brill, 1957 (2nd ed. 1965). Hempel, J. Der textkntische Wert des Konsonantentextes von Kairener Genizafragmenten in Cambridge und Oxford zum Deuteronomium.

Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen 1. Phil-Hist. Kl. no. 10,1959. Kraus, H.-J. Die prophetische Verkiindigung des Rechts in Israel. ThStud 51. Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1957. Kuyper, L. J. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” Int 6 (1952) 321-40. Lewy, I. The Growth of the Pentateuch: A Literary, Sociological, and Biographical Approach. New York: Bookman Associates, 1955. Manley, G. T. The Book of the Law: Studies in the Date ofDeuteronomy. London: Tyndale, 1957. Mendenhall, G. E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955. Rad, G. von. Studies in Deuteronomy. Tr. D. Stalker. SBT 1.9. Chicago: Regnery, 1953 (German 2nd ed. 1948). Robinson, D. W. B. Josiah’s Reform and the Book of the Law. London: Tyndale, 1951. Smend, R. W. M. Leberecht de Wettes Arbeit zum Alien und am Neuen Testament. Basel: Helbirg & Lichtenhahn, 1958. Teeple, Η. M. The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet. JBLMS 10. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1957. Wilson, J. A., et al. Authority and Law in the Ancient Onent. JAOSSup 17. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1954.

1960-69

Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Tr. A. F. Rainey. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967 (rev. ed. 1979). Albright, W. F. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. London: Athlone, 1968. Alt, A. Essays on Old Testament Religion. Tr. R. A. Wilson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1966. Bachli, O. Israel und die Volker: Eine Studie zum Deuteronomoium. Zurich: Zwingli, 1962. Baltzer, K. Das Bundesformular. WMANT 4. Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1960 (ET, 1971). Barkun, M. Law without Sanctions. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1968. Becker, J. Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament. Rome: Papstliches Bibelinstitut, 1965. Boecker, H. J. Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament. WMANT 14. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964 (2nd ed. 1984). Cazelles, H., ed. Moses in Schrif t und Uberlieferung. Diisseldorf: Patmos, 1963. Claburn, W. E. “Deuteronomy and Collective Behavior.” Diss., Princeton, 1968. Clements, R. E. God's Chosen People: A Theological Interpretation of the Book of Deuteronomy. London: SCM Press, 1968.--------. Prophecy and Tra­

Books and Monographs

xlvii

dition. Atlanta: John Knox; Oxford: Blackwell, 1975. Coulton, P. E. “Geographical Aspects in the Deuteronomistic History.” Diss., Trinity College, Dublin, 1968-69. Ellul, J. The Theological Foundation of Law. Tr. M. Wieser. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1960. Falk, Z. W. Hebrew Law in Biblical Times. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1964. Fenz, A. K. A u f Jahwes Stimme Horen. WBT 6. Vienna: Herder, 1964. Finkelstein, L., ed. Sifre on Deuteronomy. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969. Gerstenberger, E. Wesen und Herkunft des apodiktischen Rechts. WMANT 20. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965. Gunneweg, A. H. J. Leviten und Priester. FRLANT 89. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1965. Hillers, D. R. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1969 (= Int 15 [January 1961] issue devoted to Deuteronomy). Jocz, J. The Covenant: A Theology of Human Destiny. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968. Kitchen, K. A. Ancient Chient and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1966. LaBonnardiere, A. M. Biblia Augustiniana Ancien Testament: la Deuteronome. Paris: Etudes Augstiennes, 1967. L’Hour, J. La morale de Talliance. Paris: Gabalda, 1966. Loersch, S. Das Deuteronomium und seine Deutungen: Ein forschungsgeschichtlicher Uberblick. SBS 22. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967. Lohfink, N. Bibelauslegung im Wandel. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1967.-------- . Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literanscher Einleitungsfragen zu Deuteronomium 5 -1 1 . AnBib 20. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.-------- . Hore Israel! Auslegung von Texten aus dem Buch Deuteronomium. Die Welt der Bibel 18. Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1965.-------- . Die Landverheissung als Eid. SBS 28. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967.-------- . “Lectures in Deuteronomy.” Unpublished paper presented in Rome, 1968 (available in Graduate Theological Union Library, Berkeley, CA). Maarsingh, B. Onderzoek naar de Ethiek van de Wetten in Deuteronomium. Utrecht: Winterswijk,J. M. van Amstel, 1961. McBride, S. D. “The Deuteronomic Name Theology.” Diss., Harvard, 1969. McCarthy, D. J. Der Gottesbund im Alten Testament. SBS 13. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966. -------- . Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient OHental Documents and in the Old Testament. AnBib 21. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1963. McKay, J. W. “Josiah’s Reformation: Its Antecedents, Nature and Significance.” Diss., Cambridge, 1966-67. Merendino, R. P. Das deuteronomische Gesetz: Eine literarkritische, gattungs- und uberlieferungsgeschichtliche UntersuchungzuD t 12-26. BBB 31. Bonn: Hanstein, 1969. Nicholson, E. W. Deuteronomy and Eradition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1967. Noth, M. The Laws of the Pentateuch and Other Studies. Tr. D. R. Αρ-Thomas. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966 (German ed., GSAT, 1960). Ottoson, M. Gilead: Tradition and History. ConBOT 3. Lund: Gleerup, 1969. Peucker, H.

“Deuteronomium Kapitel 12-26 form- und rechtsgeschichtlich Untersucht.” Diss., Greifswald, 1962. Ploger, J. G. Literarkntische, formgeschichtliche und stilkntische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium. BBB 26. Bonn: Hanstein, 1967. Porter, J. R. Moses and Monarchy. Oxford: Blackwell, 1963. Poulssen, N. Konig und Tempel im Glaubenszeugnis des Alten Testament. SBM 3. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967. Preuss, H. D. Jahweglaube und Zukunftserwartung. BWANT 5.7. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1968. Rad, G. von. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Tr. E. W. Trueman Dicken. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966 (German ed., GSAT, 1958). Richter, W. Recht und Ethos: Versuch einer O rtung des weisheitlichen Mahnspruchs. SANT 15. Munich: Kosel, 1966. Schmid, H. Moses: Oberlieferung und Geschichte. BZAW 110. Berlin: Topelmann, 1968. Segal, Μ. H. The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Authorship and Other Biblical Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967. Smend, R. Die Bundesformel. ThStud 68. Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1963. Thompson, J. A. The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament. Tyndale Lecture in Biblical Archaeology 1963. London: Tyndale, 1964. Vaux, R. de. Studies in Old Testament Sacnfice. Tr. J. Bourke and R. Potter. Cardiff: Univ. of Wales Press, 1964. Walkenhorst, K. H. Der Sinai im liturgischen Verstandnis der deuternomistischen und pnesterlichen Tradition. BBB 33. Bonn: Hanstein, 1969. Welten, P. Die Konigstempe: Ein Beitrag zur Militarpolitik unter Hiskia und Josia. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1969. Wenham, G. J. “The Structure and Date of Deuteronomy.” Diss., King’s College, London, 1969. Wijngaards, J. N. M. The Dramatization o f Salvific History in the Deuteronomic Schools. OTS 16. Leiden: Brill, 1969.-------- . The Formulas of the Deuteronomic Creed. Tilburg: A. Reijnen, 1963; Review and Expositor (Fall 1964); Southwestern Journal of

xlviii

G eneral B ibliography

Theology (Fall 1964). Yadin, Y. The A rt of Warfare in Biblical Lands. 2 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

1970-79

Baltzer, K.

The Covenant Formulary. Tr. D. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971 (from German 2nd ed., 1964; 1st ed., 1960). Barthelemy, D., Hulst, A. R., Lohfink, N., McHardy, W. D., Ruger, H. R, and Sanders, J. A. Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project: I. The Pentateuch. London: United Bible Societies, 1973. Begg, C. T. “Contributions to the Elucidation of the Composition of Deuteronomy with Special Attention to the Significance of the Numeruswechsel.” 5 vols. Diss., Univ. of Leuven, 1978. Beegle, D. M. Moses, the Servant ofYahweh. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972. Beliefontaine, Μ. E. “A Study of Ancient Israelite Laws and Their Function as Covenant Stipulations.” Diss., Univ. of Notre Dame, 1973. Bergren, R. V. The Prophets and the Law. MHUC 4. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974. Blenkinsopp, J. Prophecy and Canon. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1977. Braulik, G. Die M ittel deuteronomischer Rhetorik: Erhoben aus Deuteronomium 4 ,1-40. AnBib 68. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. Brekelmans, C., ed. (Questions disputees d ’A ncien Testament: Methode et theologie. BETL 33. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1974. Bright, J. Covenant and Promise. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. Broide, I. “The Speeches in Deuteronomy.” Diss., Univ. of Tel Aviv, 1970 (Heb.; Eng. abstract). Brueggemann, W. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith. OBT. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Buis, P. La notion d ’alliance dans VAncien Testament. LD 88. Paris: Cerf, 1976. Carmichael, C. M. The Laws of Deuteronomy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1974. Cholewinski, A. Heiligkeitsgeselz und Deuteronomium. AnBib 66. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976. Cogan, M. Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries b . c.e . SBLMS 19. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974. Cohen, A. 13entree en terre promise: Deuteronome, Josue, Juges, une lecture de la Bible. Ecouter la Bible 3. Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1977. Cross, F. M., ed. Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Founding o f the American Schools o f Oriental Research (1900-1975). Cambridge: ASOR, 1979. Davies, G. I. The Way of the Wilderness. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979. Diepold, P. Israels Land. BWANT 95. Stuttgart; Berlin; Cologne; Mainz: Kohlhammer, 1972. Dietrich, W. Israel und Kanaan: Vom Ringen zweier Gesellschaftssysteme. SBS 94. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1979. Floss, J. P. Jahwe dienen— Gottern dienen: Terminologische, literarische und semantische Untersuchung einer theologischen Aussage zum Gottesverhaltnis im Alien Testament. BBB 45. Cologne; Bonn: Hanstein, 1975. Fritz, V. Israel in der Wuste: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wustenuberlieferung des Jahwisten. MThSt 7. Marburg: Elwert, 1979. Gilmer, H. W. The If-YouForm in Israelite Law. SBLDS 15. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Gutmann, J., ed. The Image and the Word: Confrontations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Religion and the Arts 4. Missoula,

MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Hoppe, L. “The Origins of Deuteronomy.” Diss., Northwestern, 1978. Jackson, B. S. Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History. SJLA 10. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Jungling, H.-W. Das Gesetz der Wiedervergeltung und das Ideal der Versohnung im Alien Testament. Augsburg: Blasaditsch, 1975. Kane, T. F. God Who Gives: A Verbal Study of the Actions Attributed to God in the ‘Deuteronomic School, ” with Special Attention to the Concept of God's Giving. Universidad de Navarro Coleccion Teologica 7. Pamplona: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, 1973. Kline, M. G. The Structure of Biblical Authority. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972. Koppel, U. Das deuteronomistiche Geschichtswerk und seine Quellen: Der Absicht der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsdarstellung aufgrund des Vergleichs zwischen Num 2 1 ,2 1 -3 5 u n dD tn 2,26-3,3. EHS 23.122. Bern: Lang, 1979. Kutsch, E. Gottes Zuspruch und Anspruch. BETL 33. Gembloux: Duculot, 1974.-------- . Verheissung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten B und ’ im Alien Testament. BZAW 131. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973. Levine, B. A. In the Presence of the Lord. SJLA 5. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Liedke, G. Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssatze: Eine formgeschichtlich-terminologische Studie. WMANT 39.

Books and Monographs

xlix

Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. Lindblom, J. Erwagungen zur Herkunft der josianischen Tempelurkunde. Lund: Gleerup, 1971. Lohfink, N. Unsere grossen Worter: Das Alte Testament zum Thema dieser Jahre. Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 1977 (3rd ed.1985; ET, 1981). Mann, T. W. Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Tradition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1977. McCarthy, D. J. Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinion. Richmond: John Knox, 1972.-------- . Treaty and Covenant. AnBib 21A. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978 (new ed., completely rewritten). Mittmann, S. Deuteronomium 1,1-6,3: Literarkntisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. BZAW 139. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975 (see G. Braulik, Bib 59 [1978] 351-83). Morris, P. Μ. K., and Janies, E. A Critical Word Book of Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The Computer Bible 8. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Nebel-

ing, G. “Die Schichten des deuteronomischen Gesetzeskorpus.” Diss., Munster, 1970. Neumann, P. K. Hart das Wort Jahwas: Ein Beitrag zur Komposition alttestamentlicher Schnfien. Schriften zur Stiftung Europa-Kolleg 30. Hamburg: Fundament-Verlag Sasse, 1975. Otto, E. Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal. BWANT 107. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,1975. Paul, S. M. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law. VTSup 18. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Perlitt, L. Bundestheologie im Alien Testament. WMANT 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. Phillips, A. Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970. Rofe, A. Introduction to the Book of Deuteronomy I: CultUnity and Anti-Idolatry Laws. Jerusalem: Aqademon, 1975 (Heb.). Rose, M. Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes: Deuteronomische Schultheologie und die Volksfrommigkeit in der spaten Konigszeit. BWANT 106. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1975. Rucker, H. Die Begrundungen der Weisungen Jahwes im Pentateuch. ETS 30. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1973. Rupprecht, K. Der Temple von Jerusalem. Ed. G. Fohrer. BZAW 144. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976. Schedl, C. Bauplane des Wortes: Einfuhrung in die biblische Logotechnik. Vienna: Herder, 1974. Schmidt, W. H. Einfuhrung in das Alte Testament: Das Deuteronomium. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979. Schmitt, G. Du sollst keinen Fneden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die Wegweisung gegen die Kanaanaer in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung. BWANT 91. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970. Schneider, B. N. Deuteronomy: A Favored Book of fesus. Grand Rapids, MI: B. Μ. H. Books, 1970. Seitz, G. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium. BWANT 93. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971. Skweres, D. E. Die Ruckverweise im Buck Deuteronomium. AnBib 79. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979. Speyer, W. Bucherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Terrien, S. The Elusive Pres-‘ ence: Toward a New Biblical Theology. Religious Perspectives 26. New York: Harper and Row, 1978. Thompson, R. J. Moses and the Law in a Century of Cnticism since Graf. VTSup 19. Lei-

den: Brill, 1970. Tiffany, F. C. “Parenesis and Deuteronomy 5-11 (Deut 4:45; 5:2-11:29): A Form Critical Study.” Diss., School of Theology at Claremont, 1978. Valentin, H. Aaron: Eine Studie zur vorpriesterschnftlichen Aaron-Uberlieferung. OBO 18. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1978. Weimar, P. Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch. BZAW 146. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. Wagner, V. Rechtssatze in gebundener Sprache und Rechtssatzreihen im israelitischen Recht. BZAW 127. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972. Weinfeld, M. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.-------- . Introduction to Deuteronomy, Part I. Jerusalem, 1975 (Heb.). Wevers, J. W. Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Whybray, R. N. The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament. BZAW 135. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974. Wittstruck, T. K. “The Greek Translation of Deuteronomy.” Diss., Yale Univ., 1972.

1980-89

Auld, A. G. Joshua,

Moses and the Land: Tetrateuch—Pentateuch— Hexateuch in a Generation since 1938. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980. Aurelius, E. Der Furbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament. Ed. T. N. D. Mettinger and Μ. Y Ottoson. ConBOT 27. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988. Benjamin, D. C. Deuteronomy and City Life: A Form Cnticism of Texts with the Word CITY (Hr) in Deuteronomy 4:41-26:19. Lanham, MD: Univ. Press of Amer­

1

G eneral B ibliography

ica, 1983. Boling, R. G. The Early Biblical Community in Transjordan. SWBA 6. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988. Bovati, P. Ristabilire la Giustizia: Procedure, Vocabulario, Orientamenti. AnBib 110. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. Braulik, G. Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums. SBAB 2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. Buchholz, J. Die altesten Israels im Deuteronomium. GTA 36. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988.

Carmichael, C. M. Law

and Narrative in the Bible: The Evidence of the Deuteronomic Laws and the Decalogue. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1985. Christensen, D. L., ed. Experiencing the Exodus from Egypt. Berkeley: BIBAL Press, 1988. Clements, R. E. Deuteronomy. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Coats, G. W. Moses: Heroic Man, M an of God. JSOTSup

57. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Duncan, J. “A Critical Edition of Deuteronomy Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 4.” Diss., Harvard Univ., 1989. Epsztein, L. SocialJustice in the Ancient Near East and the People of the Bible. Tr. J. Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1986. Eslinger, L. Into the Hands of the Living God. JSOTSup 84. Bible and Literature Series 24. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1985. Friedman, R. E. The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Denteronomistic and Priestly Works. HSM 22. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Garcia Lopez, F. Le Deuteronome: Une loiprechee. Cahiers Evangile 63. Paris: Cerf, 1988. Giesen, G. Die W urzel ‫“ שבע‬schworen”: Eine semasiologische Studie zum Eid im Alien Testament. BBB 56. Bonn: Hanstein, 1981. Ginsberg, H. L. The Israelian Heritage of Judaism. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 24. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1982. Gottfriedsen, C. Die Fruchtbarkeit von Israels Land. EHS 23.267. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1985. Ha, J. Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History. BZAW 181. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Haag, E., ed. Gott derEinzige: Zur Entstehung des Monotheismus in Israel. QD 104. Freiburg; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 1985. Hoffmann, H.-D. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomischen Geschichtsschreibung. ATANT 66. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980. Hofius, O., and Stuhlmacher, P., eds. “Gesetz” als Thema Biblischer Theologie. JBTh 4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989. Hossfeld, F.-L., ed. Vom Sinai zum Horeb: Stationen alttestamentlicher Glaubensgeschichte. Wurzburg: Echter, 1989 (= Int 41 [July 1987] issue on Deuteronomy; 7ni43.3 [1989] issue on the Decalogue). Knapp, D. Deuteronomium 4: Literarische Analysen und theologische Interpretation. GTA 35. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Koch, D.-A. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. BHT 69. Tiibingen: Mohr, 1986. Lang, B. Der einzige Gott: Die Geburt des biblischen Monotheismus. Munich: Kosel, 1981. Leibowitz, N. Studies in Devarim. Tr. A. Newman. Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1980. Lemaire, A. Les ecoles et la formation de la Bible dans Vancien Israel. OBO 39. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1981. Lohfink, N. Great Themes from the Old Testament. Tr. R. Walls. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1982 (German ed. 1977).-------- . Studien zum Pentateuch. SBAB 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988.-------- . Unsere neuenFragen und das Alte Testament: Wiederendeckte Lebensweisung. Freiburg: Herder, 1989.-------- , ed. Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. BETL 68. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1985. McConville, J. G. “Cultic Laws in Deuteronomy.” Diss., Queen’s Univ., Belfast, 1980.-------- . Law and Theology in Deuteronomy. JSOTSup 33. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Mettinger, T. N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. ConBOT 18. Lund: Gleerup, 1982. Mulder, M. J., ed. Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Assan; Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988. Nelson, R. D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Niehr, H. Rechtsprechung in Israel. SBS 130. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987. Nielsen, E. Law, History, and Tradition: Selected Essays Issued by Friends and Colleagues. Ed. N. Holm-Nielsen and O. Benedikt. Copenhagen: Gad, 1983. Noth, M. The Deuteronomistic History. Tr. J. Douall et al. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981 (German ed. 1943). Otto, E. Wandel der Rechtsbegrundungen in der Gesellschaflsgeschichte des antiken Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte

Books and Monographs

li

des “Bundesbuches”Ex X X 22— X X III13. StudBib 3. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Patrick, D. Old TestamentLaw. Atlanta: Knox, 1985. Peters, M. Critical Edition of the Coptic Pentateuch: Deuteronomy. SBLSCS 15. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1983. Polzin, R. Moses and the Denteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part 1, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. New York: Seabury, 1980. Preuss, H. D. Deuteronomium. ErFor 164. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982. Regt, L. J. De. A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus, Demonstrated on the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 1-30. Studia Semitica Neerlandica. Assen; Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988. Ries, G. Prolog und Epilog in Gesetzen des Alter turns. MBPR 76. Munich: Beck, 1983. Rifat, S. Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law: Biblical Forms and Near Eastern Parallels. SBLDS 45. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980. Rofe, A. Introduction to Deuteronomy: Part I and Further Chapters. Jerusalem: Akademon Publishing House, 1988 (Heb.). Rose, M. Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchung zu den Beriihrungspunkten beider Literaturwerke. ATANT 67. Zurich: Theologische Verlag, 1981. Riitersworden, U. Von der politischen Gemeinschaft zur Gemeinde: Studien zu D t 1 6 ,1 8 -1 8 ,2 2 . BBB 65. Frankfurt am Main: Athenaum, 1987. Sanmartin Ascaso, J. Las guerras de Josue: Estudio de Semiotica narrativa. Institution San Jeronimo 14. Valencia: n.p., 1982. Schulz, H. Leviten im vorstaatlichen Israel und im Mittleren Osten. Munich: Kaiser, 1987. Schuman, N. A. Deuteronomium; op wegnaarhat land Utopia. Kampen: VBG, 1983. Sitarz, E., ed. Hore, Israel!Jahwe 1st einzig: Bausteinefureine Theologie des Alien Testament. Biblische Basis Bucher 5. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987. Strecker, G., ed. Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem Symposium 1981 derHebraischen Universitat und der Georg-August-Universitat. GTA 25. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 8c

Ruprecht, 1983. Tan, C. W. “A Comparative Study of the Concept of Election in the Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Jonah and Its Implications for Bible Study in the Chinese Churches in South-East Asia Today.” Diss., School of Theology at Claremont, 1983. T ig a y JJ· You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. HSS 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Weinfeld, M. Justice and Righteousness in Israel and the Nations: Equality and Freedom in Ancient Israel in Light of Social Justice in the Ancient Near East.

Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985. Wesel, U. Frixhformen des Rechts in vorstaatlichen Gesellschaften. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1985. Westbrook, R. Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law. CahRB 26. Paris: Gabalda, 1988. White, S. “The Critical Edition of Seven Manuscripts of Deuteronomy.” Diss., Harvard Univ., 1988. Whybray, R. N. The M aking of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTSup 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. Wilms, E-E. Freude vor Gott: Kult undFest in Israel. Schliissel zur Bibel. Regensburg: Pustet, 1981.

1990-2000

Bell, R. H. Provoked

to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy M otif in Romans 9-11.

WUNT 2.63. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994. Braulik, G. Die deuteronomischen Gesetze und der Dekalog: Studien zum Aufbau von Deuteronomium 1 2 -2 6 . SBS 145. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991. -------- . Studien zum Buch Deuteronomium. SBAB 24. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997.-------- , ed. Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium. Herders Biblische Studien 4. New York: Herder, 1995. Christensen, D. L., ed. A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays in Deuteronomy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991. Dahmen, U. Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium: Literarkritische und Redaktionsgeschechtliche Studien. BBB 110. Bodenheim: Philo, 1996. Dangl, O. Methoden im Widerstreit: Sprachwissenschaftliche Zugange zur deuteronomischen Rede von der Liebe Gottes.

Tubingen: Francke, 1993. Eyre, S. D. Deuteronomy: Becoming Holy People. London: InterVarsity Press, 1998. Firmage, E. B., Weiss, B. G., and Welch, J. W. Religion and Law: BiblicalJudaic and Islamic Perspectives. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Gertz, J. C. Die Gerichtsorganisation Israels im deuteronomischen Gesetz. FRLANT 165. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Haik-Vantoura, S. The Music of the Bible Revealed. Tr. D. Weber. Ed. J. Wheeler. Berkeley: BIBAL Press, 1991 (= Int 44 [July 1990] issue on the figure of

lii

G eneral B ibliography

Moses). Keller, M. Untersuchungen zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Namentheologie. BBB 105. Weinheim: Belt Athenaum, 1996. Kissling, P. J. Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha. JSOTSup 224. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Labuschagne, C. J. Numerical Secrets of the Bible: Rediscovering the Bible Codes. North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2000. Levinson, B. M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York: Oxford UP, 1997. Lohfink, N. Studien zur biblischen Theologie. SBAB 16. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993.-------- . Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literaturl. SBAB 8. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990.-------- . Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur II. SBAB 12. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991.-------- . Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Liter atur III. SBAB 20. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995. -------- . Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy. Tr. L. M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.-------- . Die Vater Israels imDeuternomium. OBO 111. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Lubsczyk, H. Die Bundesurkunde: Ursprung und Wirkungsgeschichte des Deuteronomiums. Weil-Bierbonnen: Gustav-Siewerth-Akademie, 1991. McConville, J. G. Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology. Studies in OT Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.-------- and Millar, J. G. Time and Place in Deuteronomy. JSOTSup 179. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Merwe, C.

H.J. van der.

The Old Hebrew Particle gam: A Syntactic-Semantic Description of gam in Gn-2Kg.

ATSAT 34. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1990. Morrow, W. S. Scribing the Center: Organization and Redaction in Deuteronomy 14:1-17:13. SBLMS 49. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Nohrnberg, J. Like unto Moses: The Constituting o f an Interruption. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995. Olson, D. T. Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Perlitt, L. Deuteronomium Studien. FAT 8. Tfibingen: Mohr, 1994. Pressler, C. The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws. BZAW 216. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. Reuter, E. Rultzentralization: Entstehung und Theologie von D tn 12. BBB 87. Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1993. Romer, T. Israels Vater: Untersuchung zur Vaterthemnatik in Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition. OBO 99. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1990. Sonnet, J.-P. The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy. Biblical Interpretation Series 14. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Veijola, T., ed. Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen. Schriften der Finnischen exegetischen Gesellschaft 32. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Wilson, I. Out of the M idst o f the Fire: D ivine Presence in Deuteronomy. SBLDS 151. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Zobel, K. Prophetie und Deuteronomium: Die Rezeption prophetischer Theologie durch das Deuteronomium. BZAW 199. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1992. Festschriften (with significant articles on Deuteronomy)

A number of important articles on Deuteronomy appear in collections of essays presented in honor of various scholars. Such entries often have more than one editor and tend to take up considerable space when cited in full. Since Festschriften are referred to numerous times throughout the commentary, they are listed here for reference in alphabetical order, according to the last name of the person honored in the Festschrift, and arranged in consecutive blocks of time. Citations of these works in the commentary will include both the name of the person honored and the date of publication. 1897-1949

Barth, K. Theologische Aufsatze K. Barth zum 50. Geburstag. Ed. E. Wolf. Munich: Kaiser, 1936. Baudissin, W. W. G. von. Abhandlungen zur semitischen Religionskunde und Sprachwis-

Festschriften

liii

senschaft. Ed. W. Frankenberg. Giessen: Topelmann, 1918. Beer, G. F Sfiir Georg Beer zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. A. Weiser. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1935. Gunkel, Η. Ευχαριστήριόν.

Ed. H. Schmidt. FRLANT 36. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923. Kohut, A. Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander Kohut. Ed. G. A. Kohut. Berlin, 1897. Kohut, G. A, Jewish Studies in Memory of G. A. Kohut. Ed. S. W. Baron, A. Marx, E. D. Coleman, and R. Marcus. New York: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1935. Marti, K. Vom Alten Testament. Ed. K. Budde. Giessen: Topelmann, 1925. Sellin, E. Beitrage zur Religionsgeschichte und Archaologie Palastinas. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1927. Visscher, E Melanges deFernand Visscher I. RIDA 2 (1949). Wellhausen, J. Studien zur semitischen Philologie und Religionsgeschichte Julius Wellhausen zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. BZAW 27. Geissen: Topel-

mann, 1914.

1950-1969

Albright, W. E

The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Ed. G. E. Wright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961 (Anchor Book ed. 1965).-------- . EL Vol. 9. Ed. A. Malamat. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1969. Barth, K. Antwort: Karl Barth zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. ZollikonZurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1956.-------- . Parrhesia: K. Barth zum 80. Geburstag. Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1966. Baumgartner, W. Hebraische Wortforschung. VTSup 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Bertholet, A. FS Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburstag. Ed. W. Baumgartner. Tiibingen: Mohr, 1950. Driver, G. R. Hebrew and Semitic Studies. Ed. D. Win ton Thomas and W. D. McHardy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. Eissfeldt, O. Von Ugarit nach Qumran: Beitrage zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Forschung. Ed. J. Hemple and L. Rost. BZAW 77. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1958. Elliger, W. Theologie und Kunst: Walter Elliger zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. S. Herrmann and O. Sohngen. Wittenberg: Luther, 1968. Geiselmann, J. R. Kirche und Uberlieferung. Ed. J. Betz. Freiburg: Herder, 1960. Gelin, A. A la Rencontre Dieu. Bibliotheque de la Faculte Catholique de Theologie de Lyon 8. Le Puy: Mappus, 1961. Goodenough, E. R. Religions in Antiquity. Ed.J. Neusner. SHR 14. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Hertzberg, H. W. Gottes Wort und Gottes Land. Ed. H. Reventlow. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1965. Junker, H. Lex Tua Veritas. Ed. H. Gross and F. Mussner. Trier: Paulinus, 1961. Klauser, T. Mullus. Ed. A Stuiber and A. Herrmann. Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum 1. Minister: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964. Marx, A. Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950. Michel, O. Abraham Unser Vater. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spatjudentums und Urchristentums 5. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Muilenburg, J. Israel’s Prophetic Heritage. Ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson. New York: Harper & Row; London: SCM Press, 1962. Quervain, A. de. Freude am Evangelium. Ed. J. J. Stamm and E. Wolf. BEvT 44. Munich: Kaiser, 1966. Rahner, K. Gott in Welt. Vol. 1. Ed.J. B. Metz et al. Freiburg: Herder, 1964. Rinaldi, G. Studi suit’ oriente e la Bibbia. Ed. G. Buccellati. Genes: Studio e Vita, 1967. Robinson, T. H. Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Ed. Η. H. Rowley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950. Rost, L. Das fem e und nahe Wort. Ed. F. Maass. BZAW 105. Berlin: Topelmann, 1967. Rudolph, W. Verbannung und Heimkehr: Beitrage zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Ed. A. Kuschke. Tubingen: Mohr, 1961. Thielicke, H. Leben Angesichts des Todes. Tubingen: Mohr, 1968. Thomas, D. W. Words and Meanings. Ed. P. Ackroyd and B. Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1968. Vriezen, T. C. Studia Biblica et Semitica. Ed. W. van Unnik and A. van der Woude. Wageningen: Veenman, 1966.

1970-79

Albright, W. E Near Eastern Studies in Honor ofW.F. Albright. Ed. H. Goedicke. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1971. Botterweck, G. J. Bausteine biblischer Theologie. Ed. H.-J. Fabry. BBB 50. Cologne; Bonn: Hanstein, 1977. Daube, D. Daube Noster: Essays in Legal History for

liv

G eneral B ibliography

D. Daube. Ed. A. Watson. Edinburgh; London: Chatto and Windus, 1974. Davies, G. H. Proclamation and Presence. Ed.J. I. Durham andj. R. Porter. 1970. Repr. Macon, GA: Mercer UP, 1983. Davies, W. D,Jews, Greeks and Chnstians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity. Ed. R. Hammerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs. SJLA 21. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Doerne, M. Fides et Communicatio. Ed. D. Rossler et al. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. DupontSommer, A. Hommages ά Andre Dupont-Sommer. Paris: Adrien-Maisenneuve, 1971. Elliger, K. Wort und Geschichte. Ed. H. Gese and H. Rdger. AOAT 18. Neukirken-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Kevealer: Butzon & Berker, 1973. Finkelstein, J. J. Essays on the Ancient Near East.

Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 19. Hamden, CT: Archon, 1977. Friedrich, G. Das Wort und die Worter. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973. Gaster, T. H. JANESCUh. Ed. M. David. New York: Columbia UP, 1973. Glueck, N. Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century. Ed.J. A. Sanders. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970. Gordon, C. H. Chient and Occident. Ed. H. A. Hoffner. AOAT 22. Neukirken-Vluyn: Neukirchener; Kevealer: Butzon & Bercker, 1973. Hoffner, J. Die Kirche im Wandel der Zeit. Ed. F. Groner. Cologne: Bachem, 1971. Hyatt, J. P. Essays in Old Testament Ethics. Ed.J. L. Crenshaw andj. T. Willis. New York: Ktav, 1974. Jepsen, A. Schalom: Studien zu Glaube und Geschichte Israels. Ed. K. Bernhardt. AzT 1. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1971. Kempf, W. Testimonium Ventati. Ed. H. Wolter. Frankfurter theologische Studien 7. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1971. Kornfeld, W. Studien zum Pentateuch. Ed. G. Braulik. Vienna: Herder, 1977. Kuyper, L. J. Grace upon Grace. Ed.J. I. Cook. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975. LaSor, W. S. Biblical and Near Eastern Studies. Ed. G. A. Tuttle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. Liagre Bohl, F. Μ. T. de. Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae. Ed. M. A. Beek et al. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Loewenstamm, E. Studies in Bible and Ancient Near East. Ed. Y. Avishur a n d j. Blau. Jerusalem: Rubenstein, 1978. McKenzie, J. L. No Famine in the Land. Ed.J. W. Flanagan and A. W. Robinson. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Myers, J. M. A Light unto My Path. Ed. H. Bream. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1974. Rad, G. von. Probleme biblischer Theologie. Ed. H. W. Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. Schelkle, K. H. Wort Gottes in der Zeit. Ed. H. Feld and S. Nolte. Ddsseldorf: Patmos, 1973. Schlier, H. Die Zeit Jesu. Ed. G. Bornkamm and K. Rahner. Freiburg: Herder, 1970. Seims, A. van. DeFructu Ons Sui. Ed. I. H. Eybers et al. POS 9. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Stanley, D. M. Word and Spint. Ed.J. Plevnik. Willowdale, Ont.: Regis College Press, 1975. Volterra, E. Studi in Onore di Edoardo Volterra. Pubblicazioni della Facolta di Giurisprudenza dell’Universita di Roma 45. Milan: Giuffre, 1971. Wright, G. E. Magnolia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology. Ed. F. M. Cross et al. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Ziegler, J. Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Festschrift fu r Joseph Ziegler. Ed.J. Schreiner. FB 1-2. Wurzburg: Echter, 1972. Zimmerli, W. Beitrage zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. Ed. H. Donner et al. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.

1980-89

Abramsky, S. BeerSheva. Vol. 2. Ed. M. Cogan. Studies by the Department of Bible and the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985. Ahlstrom, G. W. In the Shelter ofElyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature. Ed. W. B. Barrick andj. R. Spencer. JSOTSup 31. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Alonso Diaz, J. Palabray Vida. Ed. A. Vargas-Machuca and G. Ruiz. Publicaciones de la Universidad Pontificia Comillas de Madrid 1.28. Madrid: Universidad Comillas, 1984. Alonso Schokel, L. El Misteno de la Palabra. Ed. V. Collado and E. Zurro. Madrid: Cristiandad, 1983. Barthelemy, D. Melanges D. Barthelemy: Etudes bibliques. Ed. P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A. Schenker. OBO 38. Fribourg: Universitaires, 1981. Bornkamm, G. Kirche: Festschrift fu r Gunther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag. Ed. D. Liihrmann and G. Strecker. Tubingen: Mohr, 1980. Brelich, A. Religioni e Civilta 3. Ed. V. Lanternari and M. Massenzio. Bari: Dedalolibri, 1982. Brunner, H. Fontes agque Pontes. Ed. M. Gorg. AgAT 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983. Cazelles, Μ. H. De la Torah au Messie.

Festschnften

lv

Ed. M. Carrez, J. Dore, and P. Grelot. Paris: Desclee, 1981.-------- . Melanges bibliques et onentaux en I’honneur de M. Henri Gazelles. Ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor. AOAT 212. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981. Craigie, P. C. Ascnbe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies. Ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor. JSOTSup 67. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Cross, F. M. Ancient Israelite Religion. Ed. P. Miller, P. Hanson, and S. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.-------- . Tradition and Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Ed. B. Halpern and J. Levenson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. Delcor, M. Melanges biblique et onentaux. AOAT 215. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1985. Diakonoff, I. M. Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East. Ed. M. A. Dandamayev. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1982. Freedman, D. N. The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Ed. C. Meyers and M. O’Connor. ASOR: Special Volume Series 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Gordon, C. H. The Bible World. Ed. G. Rendsburg et al. New York: Ktav, 1980. Harrelson, W. Justice and the Holy. Ed. D. A. Knight and P. J. Paris. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Harrison, R. K. Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration. Ed. A. Gileadi. Cnrand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988. Hofmann, A. Diener in eurer Mitte. Ed. R. Beer et al. Schriften der Universitat Passau, Reihe Katholische Theologie 5. Passau: Passavia Universitatsverlag, 1984. Hospers, J. H. Scnpta Signa Vocis. Ed. H. L. J. Vanstiphout. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1986. Kaiser, O. Prophet und Prophetenbuch. Ed. V. Fritz. BZAW 185. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Kraus, H.-J. “WennNichtJetzt, W annD annV ’ Ed. H.-G. Geyer et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. Krause, G. Vom A m t des Laien in Kirche und Theologie. Ed. H. Schroer and G. Miiller. Theologische Bibliothek Topelmann 39. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982. Lohfink, N. B N 43 (1988). Martin-Achard, R. Hommage ά Robert Martin-Achard. Ed. M. Faessler. Bulletin du Centre Protestant d’Etudes 36. Geneva: Centre Protestant d’Etudes. 1984. Mendenhall, G. E. The Quest for the Kingdom of God. Ed. H. Huffmon, F. Spina, and A. Green. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Molin, G. Meqor Hajjim. Ed. I. Seybold. Graz: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, 1983. Moller, J. Im Gesprach, der Mensch: Ein interdisziplinarer Dialog: Joseph Moller zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. H. Gauly et al. Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1981. Ploeg, J. P. M. van der. Vonn Kanaan bis Kerala. Ed. W. C. Delsman et al. AOAT 211. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1982. Ploger, J. G. Freude am Gottesdienst: Aspekte ursprunglicher Liturgie. Ed. J. Schreiner. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983. Polotsky, H. J. Studies Presented to Hans Jakob Polotsky. Ed. D. W. Young. East Gloucester, MA: Pirtle & Poison, 1981. Pope, Μ. H. Love and Death in the Ancient Near East. Ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good. Guilford, CT: Four Quarters Publishing Co., 1987. Reicke, B. The New Testament Age. Vol. 2. Ed. W. C. Weinrich. Macon, GA: Mercer UP, 1984. Rosenthal, E. I. J. Interpreting the Hebrew Bible. Ed. J. A. Emerton and S. C. Reif. Univ. of Cambridge Oriental Publications 32. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982. Scharbert, J. Die Vater Israels: Beitrage zur Theologie der Patriarcheniiberlieferungen im Alien Testament. Ed. M. Gorg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. Schnackenburg, R. Neues Testament und Ethik. Ed. H. Merklein. Freiberg: Herder, 1989. Seeligmann, I. L. Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World. Ed. A. Rofe and Y. Zakovitch. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1983. Smalley, B. The Bible in the Medieval World. Ed. K. Walsh and D. Wood. Studies in Church History, Subsidia 4. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985. Steiger, L. Theologische Brosamen fu r Lothar Steiger zu seinem 50. Geburtstag. Ed. E. Stegemann. BDBAT 5. Heidelberg, 1985. Vajda, G. Etudes d ’histoire et de pensee juives. Ed. G. Nahon and C. Touati. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 1980. Voigt, F. G. Das lebendige Wort: Beitrage zur kirchlichen Verkundigung. Ed. H. Seidel and K.-H. Bieritz. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982. Westermann, C. Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments: FS C. Westermann. Ed. R. Albertz et al. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1980. Wevers, J. W. De Septuaginta. Ed. A. Pietersma and C. Cox. Mississauga, Ont.: Benben, 1984. Wolff, H. W. Die Botschaft und die Boten. Ed. J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Yadin, Y. JJS 33 (1982) (repr. as Essays in Honor of Yigael Yadin. Ed. G. Vermes andj. Neusner. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun, 1983).

lvi

G eneral B ibliography

1990-99

Assfalg, J.

Lingua Restituta Onentalis. Ed. R. Schulz and M. Gorg. AgAT 20. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1990. Brekelmans, C. H. W. Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL 133. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1997. Fiiglister, N. Ein Gott, eine Offenbarung: Beitrage zur biblischen Exegese, Theologie und Spiritualitat. Ed. V. Reiterer. Wurzburg: Echter, 1991. Greenberg, M. Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Ed. M. Cogan, B. Eichler, andj. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Greenfield, J. Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Haran, M. Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tnbute to Menahem Haran. Ed. Μ. V. Fox et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Labuschagne, C. J. Studies in Deuteronomy. Ed. F. Garcia et al. VTSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Lohfink, N. Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Ed. G. Braulik, W. Gross, and S. McEvenue. Freiburg; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 1993. Milgrom, J. Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature. Ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurwitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Nejanc, F. The Four Gospels 1992: FS Frans Nejanc. Vol. 1. Ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1992. Reinelt, H. Die alttestamentliche Botshaft als Wegweisung. Ed.J. Zmijewski. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990.

Rendtorff, Rolf. Die hebraische Bibel und

ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: FS fu r R olf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. E. Blum. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. Sanders, J. A. The Quest for Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Ed.

C. A. Evans and S. Talmon. Biblical Interpretation Series 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Introduction Deuteronomy is the last of the five books of the Pentateuch, which in Jewish tradition are commonly called the Torah or the Books of Moses. The name Deuteronomy comes from a mistranslation by the Septuagint translators of a clause in Deut 17:18, which refers to a “repetition [δ6υτ6ρον‫׳‬όμιον] of this law.” The Hebrew actually instructs the king to make “a copy of this law.” The error on which the English title rests, however, is not serious, for Deuteronomy is in fact a repetition of the law of Moses as delivered at Mount Sinai (Horeb) in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. It is also the literary bridge connecting the first two major segments of the canon in the Hebrew Bible: the Torah and the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings—sometimes called the Deuteronomic History). As with the other books of the Pentateuch, the Hebrew title is taken from the opening words of the book, ‫אלה הדברים‬, “these are the words,” sometimes cited in English as simply “Devarim.” Since the root ‫דבר‬, and its various derived forms, cannot be translated consistently by a single English term, its presence will be noted in the English translation of the Hebrew text throughout the commentary. The significance of the Hebrew title of the book will become readily apparent to the careful reader. As a legal document, Deuteronomy is essentially a national “constitution,” or what S. D. McBride has called the “Polity of the Covenant People” (“Polity of the Covenant People: The Book of Deuteronomy,” In t 41 [1987] 229-44). Though it contains a series of laws, it is not a law code, but rather a work intended for religious instruction and education in ancient Israel. As such, it is a work of extraordinary literary coherence, poetic beauty, and political sophistication. In short, Deuteronomy represents a very early, and a remarkably comprehensive, attempt to reform and transmit religion by means of a program of religious education in which every person was to be included, from the king as the head of the nation to each child in every home (cf. Deut 4:9, 10; 6:7, 20; 11:19; 31:13; 32:7, 46). The book expounds the implications of the historic agreement at Mount Sinai between God and Israel by which the latter became the chosen people. The author’s purpose was to maintain the loyalty toward God that Israel professed when the Sinai covenant was ratified, so that the people would never doubt the high moral and spiritual standards demanded by God of his people. The book is essentially an exposition of the great commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut 6:5, rsv) . It was from Deuteronomy that Jesus summarized the entire old covenant in a single sentence (Matt 22:37; cf. Deut 6:5); from Deuteronomy he quoted God’s revelation in response to each of Satan’s temptations (Matt 4:4, 7, 10; cf. Deut 8:3; 6:16, 13). Deuteronomy is often outlined as a series of three discourses, followed by three short appendixes: Deut 1:1-4:43, a historical review of God’s dealings with Israel recounting the chief events in the nation’s experience from Horeb to Moab, concluding with an earnest appeal to be faithful and obedient, and in par­

lviii

Introduction

ticular to keep clear of all forms of idolatry; 4:44-26:19, a hortatory resume of Israel’s moral and civil statutory rulings; and 27:1-31:30, a predictive and minatory section, which begins with a ritual of covenant blessings and curses and coneludes with Moses’ farewell charge to Israel and his formal commission ofJoshua as his successor, following the renewal of the covenant in Moab. Three appendixes close the book: the “Song of Moses” (Deut 32), which the great lawgiver taught the people; the “Blessing of Moses” (Deut 33), which forecasts the future of the various tribes; and an account of Moses’ death and burial (Deut 34). In the first edition of this commentary, I argued that the book of Deuteronomy may also be described in terms of a five-part concentric design: A THE OUTER FRAME: A Look Backward B THE INNER FRAME: The Great Peroration X THE CENTRAL CORE: Covenant Stipulations B’ THE INNER FRAME: The Covenant Ceremony A' THE OUTER FRAME: A Look Forward

D eut 1-3 Deut 4-11 Deut 12-26 Deut 27-30 Deut 31-34

Though there is a more instructive way to look at the literary structure of Deuteronomy in a seven-part menorah pattern based on the sequence of eleven “weekly portions” in the lectionary cycle of traditional Jewish usage, which is examined in detail here, this simple five-part concentric structure remains a legitimate outline of the book as a whole. The two parts of the outer frame (Deut 1-3 and 31-34) may be read as a single document, tied together by the figure of Joshua, who appears only in Deut 3, 31, and 34. The two parts of the inner frame (Deut 4-11 and 27-30) may also be read as a single document, joined together by the reference to blessings and curses connected with a cultic ceremony on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal (Deut 11:26-32 and 27:1-14), which are mentioned only in these two contexts within the book of Deuteronomy. At the center of this construction lies the central core (Deut 12-26), which is the primary body of instruction in the culture of ancient Israel, sometimes called the Deuteronomic law code. In the words of S. D. McBride, this block of material is in turn arranged in “a remarkably coherent five-part structure” (Int 41 [1987] 239), which is organized concentrically. In fact, it will be shown in this commentary that each of these five major parts of the book of Deuteronomy may in turn be analyzed into somewhat similar concentric structures. The presence of carefully balanced structures at virtually all levels of analysis within the book of Deuteronomy suggests a model for explaining the form and function of the book rather different from what is often assumed. Such structures are common in works of art, both from antiquity and in the present, particularly in the fields of epic poetry and music. The reason for the similarity is apparently the simple fact that in its essential nature the book of Deuteronomy is a work of literary art in poetic form, subject to the restraints of the musical media to which it was originally composed in ancient Israel.

Introduction

lix

Text and Versions of Deuteronomy Bibliography

Aly, Z. Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 27. Bonn: Habelt, 1980. Baars, W. New Syro-Hexaplaric Texts: Edited, Commented upon and Compared with the Septuagint. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Barr, J. “Vocalization and the Analysis of Hebrew among the Ancient Translators.” In FS W. Baumgartner. 1967. 1-11. Ben Hayyim, Z. The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans. 5 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1957-77 (Heb.) (contains phonetic transcription of Samaritan tradition). Berliner, A. Targum Onkelos. Berlin: Gorzelanczyk & Co., 1884. 1-2. Billen, A. V. The Old Latin Text of the Heptateuch. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1927. Bowker, J. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: A n Introduction to Jewish Interpretation of Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1969. Boyarin, D., ed. Targum Onkelos to the Pentateuch: A Collection of Fragments in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York: First Series: Mss. New York 152-53. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Hotsaat Makor, 1976. Brock, S. P., Fritsch, C. T., and Jellicoe, S. A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint. ALGHL 6. Leiden: Brill, 1973 (literature to 1969). Brooke, A. E., and McLean, N. The Old Testament in Greek. Vol. 1, part 3. Numbers and Deuteronomy. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1911. Ceriani, A. M. Translatio Syra Pescitto Veterus Testamenti: ex codice Ambrosiano. Vol. 1. Milan: J. B. Pogliani et Sociorum, 1876. Clarke, E. G. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance. Hoboken: Ktav, 1984. Cox, C. E. The Armenian Translation o f Deuteronomy. University of

Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 2. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981.-------- . Hexaplaric Materials Preserved in the Armenian Version. SBLSCS 21. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Cross, F. M., and Talmon, S., eds. Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1975. Diez Macho, A. Deuteronomium. Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia.

Series 4, Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum; L. 5. Ed. A. Diez Macho. Madrid: Matriti, 1980. -------- . Neofyti I: Targum Palestinense MS. de la Biblioteca Vaticana. V: Deuteronomio. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1978.-------- . The Pentateuch with the Masorah Parva and the Masorah Magna and with the Targum Onkelos, Ms. Vat. Heb. 448. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Hotsaat Makor, 1977. Drazin, I. Targum Onkelos toDeuteronomy: An English Translation to the Text with Analysis and Commentary. (Based on A. Sperber’s edition.) New York: Ktav, 1982. Dunand, F. Papyrus grecs bibliques (Papyrus F. Inv 266), Volumina de la Genese et du Deuteronome. Cairo: l’Institut frangais d’archeologie orientale, 1966. Duncan, J. A. “New Readings for the Blessing of Moses from Qumran.” JBL 114 (1995)

275-92. Esh, S. “Variant Readings in Medieval Hebrew Commentaries: R. Samuel Ben Meir (Rashbam).” Textusb (1966) 84-92. Eshel, E., and Stone, Μ. E. “A New Fragment of 4QDeuth.”yBL 112 (1993) 487-89. Etheridge, J.W. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch. New York Ktav, 1968. Gall, A. F. von. Der hebraische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. 5 vols. 1906. Repr. Giessen: Topelmann, 1914-18. Ginsburg, C. D. Introduction to the Massoretical-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. 1897. Repr. New York: Ktav, 1966.-------- . Jacob Ben Chayim Ibn Adoniajah’s Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible . . . and the Massoreth of the Massoreth of Elias Levita. Repr. Library of Biblical Studies. New York: Ktav, 1968. Ginsburger, M. Das Fragmententhargum (Thargum jeruschalmi zum Pentateuch). Berlin: S. Calvary, 1899.--------. Pseudo-Jonathan (Thargum Jonathan ben Uziel zum Pentateuch). 1903. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1971. Goshen-Gottstein, Μ. H., and Shirin, H., eds. The AleppoCodex: I. Plates. Jerusalem: Hebrew Univ., 1976.-------- . The Bible in the Syropalestinian Version: Part I Pentateuch and Prophets. Ed. M. Goshen-Gottstein, C. Rabin, and S. Talmon. Hebrew University Bible Project. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973. Grossfeld, B. A Bibliography of Targum Literature. 2 vols. Bibliographica Judaica 2 and 8. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press; New York: Ktav, 1972, 1977.-------- . The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy. Aramaic

lx

I ntroduction

Bible 9. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988. Hempel, J. Librum Deuteronomii: Biblia Hebraica. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Privileg. Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935. -------- . Librum Deuteronomii: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1972. -------- . Der textkritische Wert des Konsonantentextes von Kairener Genizafragmenten in Cambrige und Oxford zum Deuteronomium: Nach Kollationen von H. P. Ruger. NGAW 10. Philologischhistorisch Klasse. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1959. 207-36. Jellicoe, S. The Septuagint and Modern Study. 1968. Repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1978.-------- . Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations: Selected Essays with a Prolegomenon. Library of Biblical Studies. New York: Ktav, 1974. Kahle, P. The Cairo Geniza. 2nd ed. New York: Praeger, 1959.-------- . Masoreten des Ostens: Die altesten punktierten Handschriften des Alten Testaments und der Targums. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1963.-------- . Masoreten des Westens. 2 vols. 1927,1930. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967. Kasser, R., ed. Deuteronome i-x en sahidique. Cologny-Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1962. Klein, M. L. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch, according to Their E xtant Sources. 2 vols. AnBib 76. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980.-------- . Geniza M anuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986.-------- . Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. Lamsa, G. M. Old Testament Light. 1964. Le Deaut, R., and Robert, J. Targum du Pentateuque: Traductions des deux recensions palestiniens completes. Vol. 4: Deuteronome: Bibliographie generale, glossaire et index des quatre tomes. Sources chretiennes 271. Paris: Cerf, 1980. Lee, J. A. L. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. SBLSCS 14. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Peters, M. K. H. An Analysis of the Textual Character of the Bohairic of Deuteronomy. SBLSCS 9. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979.-------- . A Critical Edition of the Coptic (Bohamc) Pentateuch. Vol. 5: Deuteronomy. SBLSCS 15. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Reider, D. Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch Copied from the London MS. (British Museum add. 27031). Jerusalem: Salomon, 1974. Robert, U. Heptateuchi partis posterior versio latina antiquissima e Codice Lugdunensi. Lyon: Rey, 1900.-------- . Pentateuchi versio latina antiquissima e Codice Lugdunensi. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1881. Sabatier, P. Biblorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones antiquae seu Vetus Italica. 3 vols. Rheims: Franciscum Didot, 1743-49. Repr. Belgium: Brepolis, 1987. Sanders, H. A., ed. Facsimile of the Washington Manuscript ofDeuteronomy and Joshua in the Freer Collection. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press, 1910. -------- , ed. The Old Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection. Part 1. The Washington Manuscripts of Deuteronomy and Joshua. New York: Macmillan, 1917. Repr. New York: Johnson

Reprint, 1972. Schultz, S. J. “The Difference between the Masoretic and Septuagint Texts of Deuteronomy.” Diss., Harvard Univ., 1948. Sibinga, J. S. The Old Testament Text of Justin Martyr: I. The Pentateuch. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Skehan, P. W. “Texts and Versions.nJBC 2:561-67. Skehan, P. W., et al. Qumran Cave 4. TV. Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical M anuscripts. DJD 9. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Sperber, A. The Bible in Aramaic: I. The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos. Leiden: Brill, 1959. Stegemann, H. “Weitere Stiicke von 4Qp Psalm 37, von 4Q Patriarchal Blessings und Hinweis auf einer unedierte Handschrift aus Hohle 4Q mit Exzerten aus dem Deuteronomium.” R evQ 6 (1967) 193-227. Tal, A. The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition. P art II. Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium. Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects 5. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv UP, 1981.-------- . The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition. Part III. Introduction. Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects 6. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv UP, 1983. Τον, E. The Text-Critical Lise of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3. Jerusalem: Simor, 1981. Tsadaka, A. Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch. Tel Aviv: [s.n.], 1959 (Heb.). Ulrich, E., ed. Qumran Cave 4: IXDeuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Vercellone, C. Variae Lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum. Rome: Iospehum Spithover, 1860. 1:479-584. Voobus, A. The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla: A Facsimile Edition of a M idyatM S. Discovered in 1964.

CSCOSup 45. Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 1975. Waltke, B. K. “The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament.” In New Perspectives of the Old Testament. Ed.

Introduction

lxi

J. B. Payne. Waco: Word, 1970. 212-39. Weber, R. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem I. Stuttgart: Wuvrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969. Wevers, J. W., ed. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. I l l 2. Deuteronomium.

Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.-------- . “The LXX Translation of Deuteronomy. IX Congress o f thelOSCS, Cambridge, 1995. Ed. B. A. Taylor. SBLSCS 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. 57-58. White, S. A. “A Critical Edition of Seven Manuscripts of Deuteronomy: 4QDta, 4QDtc, 4QDtd, 4QDtf, 4QDt&, 4QDP and 4QDtn.” Diss., Harvard Univ., 1988. -------- . “4QDtn: Biblical Manuscript or Excerpted Text?” In O f Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestam ental Judaism , an d Chnstian OHgins. Ed. H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, and T. H. Tobin. Lanham: Univ. Press of America, 1991. 13-20. -------- . “Special Features of Four Biblical Manuscripts from Cave IV, Qumran: 4QDta, 4QDtc, 4QDtd, and 4QDt«.” RevQ 57-58 (1991) 157-67.-------- . “Three Deuteronomy Manuscripts from Cave 4, Qumran.”JBL 112 (1993) 23-42. Wittstruck, T. K. “The Greek Translations of Deuteronomy.” Diss., Yale Univ., 1972.

This commentary is based on the traditional Masoretic Text (MT), as published in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), which reproduces the Leningrad manuscript B19A dating from the eleventh century c.E. A second Hebrew tradition, the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), is available for study in the critical edition of A. von Gall (1914-18). The most important of the early versions is that of the Greek translation known as the Septuagint (LXX), which for the Pentateuch was made in the third century b .c .e . and is preserved in many Christian MSS from the fourth century C.E. onward. For Deuteronomy, two critical editions are available, that of A. E. Brooke and N. McLean (1911) and, more recently, J. W. Wevers (1977). Through this latter work we also have access to the important Old Latin textual tradition, which is preserved in a few medieval witnesses (see the discussion of 4:1 and 27:4 below). Careful study of the Qumran scrolls discovered in 1947 has led to renewed confidence in the relative antiquity and general superiority of the MT over other available textual traditions and versions. My own study of the Masoretic accentual system within Deuteronomy adds confirmation to the veracity of details preserved within that tradition. Waltke (1970) has shown that the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) represents a revision of the MT, in which Hebrew grammar was modernized and linguistic, historical, and theological problems “normalized” within sectarian ideology. Though the MT remains the de facto canonical text of Deuteronomy, the commentator must examine each variant reading on its own merits. Usually the MT offers the most trustworthy text, but the SP, the Qumran MSS, the LXX, and even the Old Latin at times offer superior readings. As Craigie has argued ([1976] 66-67), the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy is a “palimpsest” of sorts, in that it reflects various “layers” of orthographic practice in the history of the transmission of the written text. The most obvious example of this phenomenon is the vocalization of the text in terms of a system of “vowel points,” since the original written form contained the consonants only. Careful study of the system of vowel points suggests that there was apparently a leveling in the pronunciation of the text according to the so-called Judahite dialect common in Jerusalem. The appearance of final kaph and final nun with qames (‫ך‬- and J-) in the received textual tradition suggests that these consonants closed the final syllable in the original text since the ‘Judahite” pronunciations -ka and -na are indicated by ‫כה‬- and ‫נה‬- in MSS from Qumran. Later “layers” in the received

lxii

I ntroduction

tradition are represented by the Masoretic accentual system, including the socalled paseq list, the division of the text into the setuma3and petuha* “paragraphs” and sedarim, and the still later division into chapters and verses in the Christian tradition. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, a manuscript discovery was made that may yet prove to be relevant to the study of Deuteronomy. A Jerusalem antiquities dealer by the name of Moses Wilhelm Shapira tried to sell an ancient manuscript, which he claimed was discovered in a cave near the Dead Sea. The manuscript contained extensive sections of Deuteronomy in a text form somewhat similar to that of the Moabite Stone (ninth century b.c.e.). When the manuscript was declared a forgery by the French scholar C. Clermont-Ganneau, and by C. D. Ginsburg as well, the unfortunate Shapira committed suicide (seej. Allegro, The Shapira Affair [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965]). Some scholars think that the manuscript, now apparently lost, was indeed an ancient one, though not as old as Shapira thought. Though the evidence from the translations and transcriptions of the Shapira manuscript has not been used in this commentary, that evidence may prove useful if and when the debate on its authenticity is resolved. Important evidence for the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy has emerged from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the vicinity of Qumran in 1947. The evidence consists of many fragments of Deuteronomy, which was apparently a popular book within that community. Besides these fragments, sections of Deuteronomy are quoted in other religious texts from Qumran. 4QTestimonia brings together several prophecies, including three quotations from Deuteronomy. Portions of Deuteronomy are also preserved in three phylacteries and one mezuzah, which are discussed more fully in the Comments on 6:6-9 and 11:18-21. Craigie ([1976] 84-86) assembled a useful list of the Qumran materials relating to Deuteronomy, which is reproduced below in expanded form, with additions from Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (DJD IX [1992] and XIV [1995]). Though the list appears to be rather extensive, it should be noted that most of these fragments are very small, often preserving only one or two words in any given verse. Thus the textual evidence from Qumran will never replace the much later texts, such as that of the Codex L, upon which this commentary is based. List of Q umran Evidence Relating to D euteronomy Deuteronomy

Published Source

Identification of Text

1:1-17 1:7-9 1:8? 1:9-13 1:22‫ ־‬25 1:22-23 1:29-39 1:41 1:43-46 1:45? 2:1-6 2:8

DJD XIV, 63 DJD III, 60 DJD IX, 135 DJD I, 58 DJD I, 54 DJD XIV, 64 DJD XIV, 64 DJD XTV, 65 DJD XIV, 65 DJD IX, 151 DJD XIV, 65 DJD XIV, 130

4QDeuth 2Q10.1 4QpaleoDeutr 1Q5.1 1Q4.1 4QDeuth 4QDeuth 4QDeuth 4QDeuth 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeuth 4QDeut°

lxiii

Introduction

2:24‫ ־‬36 2:28-30 3:14‫ ־‬29 3:18‫ ־‬22 3:24 3:25‫ ־‬26 4:1 4:13‫ ־‬17 4:24‫ ־‬26 4:30‫ ־‬34 4:31‫ ־‬34 4:31‫ ־‬32 4:32-33 4:47‫ ־‬49 5:1‫ ־‬6:1 5:1-22 5:1-14 5:1-11 5:1-5 5:8-9 5:13‫ ־‬15 5:21-33 5:23-27 5:28‫ ־‬32 5:28-29 5:29 5:30-31 6:1‫ ־‬3 6:4‫ ־‬11 6:4‫ ־‬9 7:2‫ ־‬5 7:3‫ ־‬4 7:6‫ ־‬7 7:12-16 7:15‫ ־‬24 7:16‫ ־‬21 7:18‫ ־‬22 7:21-8:4 7:21-26 7:21-25 7:22-25 8:1‫ ־‬5 8:2‫ ־‬14 8:5‫ ־‬9:2 8:5‫ ־‬10 8:5-7

DJD XIV, 36 DJD XIV, 66 DJD XIV, 37-38 DJD XIV, 114 DJD XIV, 40 DJD XIV, 17 DJD XIV, 38 DJD XIV, 17 DJD XIV, 46 DJD XIV, 130 DJD XIV, 66 DJD XIV, 17 DJD XIV, 115 DJD I, 54 DJD XIV, 123-28 SWDS (1965) 31-32 DJD I, 73- 74 DJD III, 149- 57 DJD XIV, 80 DJD XIV, 130- 31 DJD XIV, 131-32 DJD XIV, 81 DJD XIV, 81- 84 DJD I, 74 DJD XIV, 95 DJD V, 57-60 cf. JBL 75 (1956) 182-87 DJD V, 3 DJD V, 3 DJD III, 149- 57 DJD XIV, 84 DJD XIV DJD II, 83-84 c f . R B 60 (1953) 268- 75 DJD III, 149-57 DJD IX, 135-36 DJD XIV, 18 DJD IX, 136 DJD XIV, 40 DJD III, 174 DJD IX, 136 DJD XIV, 116 DJD XIV, 41-42 DJD XIV, 41 DJD IX, 137 DJD XIV, 47 DJD XIV, 18 DJD XIV, 47-48 DJD III, 171 SWDS (1965) 31 DJD XIV, 85 DJD XIV, 122 DJD XIV, 42

4QDeutd 4QDeuth 4QDeutd 4QDeutm 4QDeute 4QDeutc 4QDeutd 4QDeutc 4QDeutf 4QDeut° 4QDeuth 4QDeutc 4QDeutm 1Q4.2 4QDeutn 1Q13.1-18 8Q3.20-25 (phylactery) 4QDeutJ 4QDeut° 4QDeut° 4QDeuti 4QDeutJ 1Q13.19 (phylactery) 4QDeutkl 4QTestimonia (quotation) 4Q158.6 (paraphrase) 4Q158.7-8 (paraphrase) 8Q3.12-16 (phylactery) 4QDeutJ 4QDeutP Mur Phyl. (phylactery) 8Q3.4-6, 8 (phylactery) 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeutc 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeute 5Q1.1.1 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeutm 4QDeute 4QDeute 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeutf 4QDeutc 4QDeutf 5Ql.l.ii 4QDeut 4QDeutJn 4QDeutn 4QDeutc

lxiv 8:8-9 8:10-11 8:15-16 8:18-19 9:6-7 9:10 9:11-12 9:12-14 9:17-19 9:27-28 9:29 10:1-3 10:1-2 10:5-8 10:8-12 10:11-12 10:12-11:21 10:12-17 10:12 10:13? 10:14-15 10:17-18 10:19 10:20-22 10:21-11:1 11:2-3 11:2 11:3 11:3? 11:4 11:6-13 11:6-12 11:6-13 11:8-11 11:9-13 11:12 11:13-21 11:18 11:21? 11:27-30 11:28 11:30-32 11:30-31 12:1 12:2-5 12:11-12 12:18-19 12:22 12:25-26 12:26

I ntroduction

DJD I, 58 DJD XIV, 43 DJD XIV, 43 DJD I, 54 DJD XIX, 48 DJD I, 58 DJD XIV, 19 DJD XIV, 56 DJD XIV, 19 DJD I, 54 DJD XIV, 19 DJD II, 79 DJD XIV, 19 DJD XIV, 20 DJD III, 61-62 DJD IX, 138 DJD III, 158-61 DJD III, 149-57 DJD XTV, 110 DJD III, 149-57 DJD XIV, 110 DJD I, 74 DJD III, 149-57 DJD III, 149-57 DJD I, 74 DJD III, 149-57 DJD II, 79 DJD III, 149-57 DJD XTV, 20 DJD III, 149-57 DJD IX, 195 DJD XIV, 96 DJD III, 149-57 DJD XTV, 86 DJD I, 74 DJD XIV, 21 DJD 1, 75 DJD II, 83-84 DJD III, 149-57 cf. RB 60 (1953) 268-75 DJD XIV, 21 DJD XIV, 88 DJD I, 55 DJD IX, 138 DJD IX, 138 DJD I, 58 DJD IX, 138 DJD IX, 139 DJD IX, 139 DJD XIV, 22 DJD IX, 139 DJD II, 79 DJD XIV, 22

1Q5.2 4QDeute 4QDeute 1Q4.3-4 4QDeutf 1Q5.3 4QDeutc 4QDeutS 4QDeutc 1Q4.5 4QDeutc Mur Deut. 4QDeutc 4QDeutc 2Q12.1 4QpaleoDeutr 8Q4.1 (mezuzah) 8Q3.17-19, 21 (phylactery) 4QDeut1 8Q3.26-27 (phylactery) 4QDeutl 1Q13.20 (phylactery) 8Q3.21 (phylactery) 8Q3.12, 15-16 (phylactery) 1Q13.21-22 (phylactery) 8Q3.26-29 (phylactery) Mur Deut. 8Q3.26-27 4QDeutc 8Q3.26-27 4QLXXDeut 4QDeutkl 8q3.27-29 4QDeutJ 1Q13.23-25 (phylactery) 4QDeutc 1Q13.26-27 (phylactery) Mur Phyl. (phylactery) 8Q3.4, 7-11 (phylactery) 4QDeutc 4QDeuti 1Q4.6 4QpaleoDeutr 4QpaleoDeutr 1Q5.4 4QpaleoDeutr 4QpaleoDeutr 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeutc 4QpaleoDeutr Mur Deut. 4QDeutc

lxv

Introduction

12:31 12:46-13:5 13:1-4 13:4-6 13:5 13:7 13:11-12 13:13-14 13:16 13:19 14:1 14:2-4 14:19-22 14:21 14:24-25 14:26-29 15:1-4 15:5-6 15:8-10 15:14-15 15:15-19 16:2-3 16:4 16:6-11 16:6-7 16:21-22 17:1-5 17:5-6? 17:7 17:12-15 17:15-20 17:16 17:17-18 18:1 18:6-10 18:18-22 18:18-19 18:18-20, 22 19:2-3 19:8-16 19:17-21 19:21 20:1-6 20:6-19 20:9-13 21:4-12 21:8-9 21:8-9? or 30:7-8? 21:16? 21:23 22:1-9 22:3-6

DJD XIV, 22 DJD XIV, 89 DJD I, 55 DJD I, 55 DJD XIV, 22 DJD XTV, 23 DJD XIV, 23 DJD I, 55 DJD XIV, 23 DJD IX, 140 DJD IX, 140 DJD IX, 140 DJD IX, 141 DJD I, 55 DJD I, 56 DJD IX, 141 DJD XIV, 24 DJD IX, 142 DJD IX, 142 DJD I, 58 DJD XIV, 24 DJD XTV, 25 DJD I, 56 DJD XIV, 25 DJD I, 56 DJD XIV, 26 DJD XIV, 26 DJD IX, 149 DJD XIV, 27 DJD III, 60-61 DJD XIV, 27 DJD I, 58 DJD XIV, 49 DJD XIV, 27 DJD XTV, 49 DJD XTV, 49 DJD V, 57-60 cf.J B L lb (1956) 182-87 DJD V, 3 DJD IX, 143 DJD XIV, 101 DJD XTV, 50 DJD XIV, 67 DJD XIV, 50 DJD XIV, 101-02 DJD XIV, 72 DJD XIV, 50-51 DJD I, 58 DJD IX, 150 DJD XIV, 104 DJD XIV, 72 DJD XIV, 72 DJD IX, 143

4QDeutc 4QDeutj 1Q4.7-8 1Q4.9 4QDeutc 4QDeutc 4QDeutc 1Q4.10 4QDeutc 4QpaleoDeutr 4QpaleoDeutr 4QpaleoDeutr 4QpaleoDeutr 1Q4.11 1Q4.12 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeutc 4QpaleoDeutr 4QpaleoDeutr 1Q5.5 4QDeutc 4QDeutc 1Q4.13 4QDeutc 1Q4.14 4QDeutc 4QDeutc 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeutc 2Q11.1 4QDeutc 1Q5.6 4QDeutf 4QDeutc 4QDeutf 4QDeutf 4QTestimonia (quotation) 4Q158.6 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeutk2 4QDeutf 4QDeuth 4QDeutf 4QDeutk2 4QDeut1 4QDeutf 1Q5.7 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeutk2 4QDeut1 4QDeut1 4QpaleoDeutr

lxvi 22:12-19 23:6-8 23:7 23:12-16 23:12-15 23:18-20 23:21-26 23:22-26 23:26 24:1-8 24:1-3 24:1 24:2-7 24:10-16 24:16-22 25:1-5 25:3-9 25:14-19 25:19 25:13-18 26:1-5 26:14-15 26:18-19? 26:18-19 26:19 26:19? 27:1-10 27:1-2 27:1? 27:24-26 28:1-14 28:15-18 28:15-18 28:20 28:21-25 28:22-25 28:27-29 28:29-30 28:33-36 28:44-48 28:47-52 28:48-50 28:58-62 28:61 28:67-68 29:2-5 29:2-4? or 7:19? 29:9-11 29:12-20 29:17-19

I ntroduction

DJD XIV, 51 DJD XIV, 73 DJD IX, 144 DJD XIV, 73 DJD IX, 144 DJD XIV, 56 DJD XIV, 52 DJD XIV, 74 DJD XIV, 102 DJD XIV, 8 DJD XIV, 8 DJD XIV, 103 DJD XIV, 74 DJD XIV, 52 DJD I, 58 DJD XIV, 57 DJD XIV, 57 DJD XIV, 53 DJD XIV, 58 DJD XIV, 103 DJD I, 59 DJD XIV, 103 DJD XIV, 58 DJD IX, 154 DJD XIV, 104 DJD XIV, 53 DJD XIV, 28 DJD III, 106-7 DJD XIV, 53 DJD XIV, 28 DJD XIV, 104 DJD XIV, 28 DJD XIV, 28-30 DJD XIV, 132 DJD IX, 145 DJD IX, 145 DJD XIV, 30 DJD XIV, 59 DJD XIV, 30 DJD XIV, 59 DJD XIV, 31 DJD XIV, 132 DJD I, 59 DJD XIV, 133 DJD XIV, 31 DJD XIV, 133 DJD XIV, 31 DJD XIV, 111 DJD XIV, 111 DJD IX, 149 DJD I, 59 DJD I, 59 DJD XIV, 32

4QDeutf 4QDeut1 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeut1 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeutS 4QDeutf 4QDeut1 4QDeutk2 4QDeuta 4QDeuta 4QDeutk2 4QDeut1 4QDeutf 1Q5.8 4QDeut§ 4QDeut§ 4QDeutf 4QDeutS 4QDeutk2 1Q5.9 4QDeutk2 4QDeutS 4QpaleoDeuts 4QDeutk2 4QDeutf 4QDeutc 6Q3.1 4QDeutf 4QDeutc 4QDeutk2 4QDeutc 4QDeutc 4QDeut° 4QpaleoDeutr 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeutc 4QDeut& 4QDeutc 4QDeutS 4QDeutc 4QDeut° 1Q5.10 4QDeut° 4QDeutc 4QDeut° 4QDeutc 4QDeut1 4QDeut1 4QpaleoDeutr 1Q5.11 1Q5.12-13 4QDeutc

lxvii

Introduction

29:20? 29:22-25 29:24-27 30:3-14 30:16-18 30:19-31:6 31:7-10 31:9-11 31:9-17 31:12 31:16-19 31:12-13 31:24-30 31:29 32:1-3 32:3 32:6-8 32:7-8 32:8 32:9-10? 32:10-11 32:13-14 32:17-18 32:20-21? 32:21-22 32:22-23 32:22? or 28:23? or 10:6? 32:25-27 32:22-29 32:33-35 32:37-43

33:1-2 33:1-2? 33:2-8 33:8-22 33:8-11 33:12? 33:12-17 33:18-19 33:19-21 33:21-23 33:24 33:29 34:1 34:4-6 34:8?

DJD I, 61 DJD XIV, 133 DJD XIV, 10 DJD XIV, 10-11 DJD XIV, 107 DJD I, 59 DJD I, 60 DJD XIV, 67 DJD XIV, 12 DJD XIV, 111 DJD XIV, 32 DJD I, 60 DJD XIV, 33 DJD IX, 146 DJD XIV, 33 DJD XIV, 33 DJD IX, 146 DJD XIV, 90 BASO R 136 (1954) 12-15 DJD XIV, 139 DJD IX, 146 DJD IX, 147 DJD XIV, 97 DJD III, 171 DJD I, 60 DJD XIV, 97 DJD IX, 150

1Q5.28 4QDeut° 4QDeutb 4QDeutb 4QDeutk3 1Q5.13 1Q5.14 4QDeuth 4QDeutb 4QDeut1 4QDeutc 1Q5.15 4QDeutb 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeutb 4QDeutc 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeutJ

DJD XIV, 98 DJD I, 60 DJD IX, 147 DJD XIV, 139-41 BASOR 136 (1954) 12-15 VTSup 4 (1957) 120 JBL 78 (1959) 21-22 DJD XIV, 112 DJD III, 171 DJD IX, 148 DJD XIV, 68 DJD V, 56 DJD V, 57-60 cf.J B L lb (1956) 182-87 DJD V, 56 DJD I, 61 DJD I, 61 DJD V, 56 DJD I, 61 DJD I, 61 DJD IX, 148 DJD IX, 148 DJD XIV, 112 DJD XIV, 112

4QDeutkl 1Q5.18-19 4QpaleoDeutr

4QDeutci 4QpaleoDeutr 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeutkl 5Q1.2-3 1Q5.17 4QDeutkl 4QpaleoDeutr

4QDeut^

4QDeut1 5Q1.4-5 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeuth 4QFlorilegium (quotation) 4QTestimonia (quotation) 4QFlorilegium (quotation) 1Q5.20 1Q5.21 4QFlorilegium (quotation) 1Q5.22 1Q5.23 4QpaleoDeutr 4QpaleoDeutr 4QDeut1 4QDeut1

lxviii

I ntroduction

Review of Critical Research The secondary literature on Deuteronomy is overwhelming, since any serious study of literary, theological, and social issues in ancient Israel must deal with this text. In spite of the voluminous nature of the material, it is possible to discern a series of impulses that divide modern study of the book into four phases: (1) from de Wette to Steuernagel (1900); (2) from Steuernagel to Noth’s theory on the relationship between Deuteronomy and the so-called Deuteronomistic History (1943; ET, 1981); (3) from Noth to Lohfink’s “stylistic” approach to the study of Deut 5-11 (1963); and (4) the current methodological quandary, which in some respects appears to be a merging of the older impulse from form criticism with more recent reflection on the canonical process in ancient Israel. W. M. L. de Wette’s 1805 dissertation laid the cornerstone for the edifice of Pentateuchal literary criticism of the nineteenth century. The book of Deuteronomy was identified with the scroll found in the temple in Jerusalem under the reign of King Josiah. Starting from this one fixed point of departure, the familiar JEDP documentary theory of Pentateuchal criticism took shape within the mainstream of European scholarship. T he Jahwist (J), Elohist (E), and Priestly (P) sources of the “Tetrateuch” (Genesis through Numbers) were contrasted with Deuteronomy (D). The history of Pentateuchal criticism has been recounted many times and will not be repeated in detail here. Though there were numerous precursors to the nineteenth-century movement, it was the dating of Deuteronomy to the seventh century b.c.e. that enabled the so-called Reuss-Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen hypothesis to emerge triumphant by the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In particular, Julius Wellhausen’s Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Cleveland: Meridian, 1957), which appeared in its first German edition in 1878, summed up the scholarly contributions of previous generations with the “assured results” of literary criticism in a compact and persuasive fashion, which is often summarized by the scholarly tetragrammaton JEDP. J and E were narrative sources, dating to the ninth and eighth centuries b.c.e., respectively. The combination of these two sources into JE took place by the seventh century. D (Deuteronomy) was composed in the seventh century, while P was written after the exile. The final editing of the Pentateuch took place ca. 400 b.c.e. For a stimulating modern restatement of the matter, which takes into account the research of the century since Wellhausen as well, see R. E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Summit, 1987). Though analysis from the point of view of source documents had produced a consensus regarding the formation of the Pentateuch as a whole by the turn of the century, that approach had not succeeded in drawing a convincing picture of the literary structure of the source D. Working independently in the last decade of the nineteenth century, C. Steuernagel and W. Staerk posited a “redactional” model to explain the growth of Deuteronomy on the basis of the so-called Numeruswechsel—the frequent alternation between second-person singular forms and second-person plural forms of address. They posited an older stratum that used the singular pronoun and a later one that used the plural (see Excursus: “The Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy”). There are a number of places in

Introduction

lxix

Deuteronomy where one can say with some certainty that the plural passage was apparently inserted into the singular context, and, consequently, many critical scholars still continue this line of research. On the other hand, the detailed analysis presented by Steuernagel in his Kommentar (2nd ed., 1923) has found relatively few followers. His assumption of several parallel “editions” of the original Deuteronomy, each with its own parenetic introduction, seems improbable; the so-called plural edition he extracted probably never existed by itself. G. von Rad’s important study, Das Gottesvolk in Deuteronomium (1929), may well mark the beginning of the end for the “stratigraphical” approach of traditional literary criticism to the study of Deuteronomy as exemplified by Steuernagel and Staerk. For von Rad theological issues replaced most of the questions raised by the established historical critical method. Though source and redaction criticism would remain useful, if not essential, in critical analysis, the time had come for new directions in Pentateuchal studies, particularly regarding Deuteronomy. The third major impulse into the study of Deuteronomy in the modern era flows from the theory of M. Noth (1943) that Deut 1-3 (4) and 31-34 are the introduction to the Deuteronomic History (Joshua through 2 Kings). Steuernagel had regarded Deut 1-3 as the introductory address of one edition of Deuteronomy. Noth’s theory undermines the basic assumptions of that earlier one and carries subsequent discussion in new directions. The implications of Noth’s theory will be worked out in some detail in this commentary. At the same time that Minette de Tillesse championed the basic redactional theory of Steuernagel in an impressive essay on the so-called Numeruswechsel (1962), another major impulse in modern study of Deuteronomy was taking shape in the work of W. L. Moran and his student N. Lohfink. Lohfink’s doctoral dissertation, Das Hauptgebot (1963), turned to “stylistics” as the primary focus of attention. The new approach tended to find unity in the text in spite of the apparent diversity in surface form, which led Steuernagel, and others after him, to posit complex theories of redactional growth. Meanwhile, another lesson from the history of research in Deuteronomy was making its mark. Contrary to what de Wette and others had said, the search for the original Deuteronomy must ignore the account of 2 Kgs 22-23 almost completely. Even if Deuteronomy did influence history at the time of Josiah, it is not to be assumed that it had its full effect at that time. One can argue that Josiah may have gone well beyond Deuteronomy in his measures. Moreover, the assumption that the original Deuteronomy is to be found only within chaps. 12-26 must be rejected. This section cannot be designated the real codex as opposed to the introduction (chaps. 6-11) since both of these sections share the same characteristic signs (Numeruswechsel, parenetic style, etc.). The zeal for literary analysis along lines suggested by the so-called documentary hypothesis has flagged now for a good many years. The realization is growing that the method of purely literary-critical analysis in the traditional sense will unveil the complexity of Deuteronomy only to a limited degree. The strata that are present point not to literary processes but rather to a preliterary process of slow enrichment of the original mass of tradition. The time seems right for a new model of analysis, or at least a significant modification of the prevailing one, that will account for the unity of the text within the context of diversity of traditions. That model will build on the work of M. Noth, who saw the canonical function of

lxx

I ntroduction

Deuteronomy within the context of what D. N. Freedman has called the “Pri‫־‬ mary History” (Genesis through 2 Kings in the Hebrew Bible). It will also build on the older impulse of form criticism as it entertains new possibilities for understanding the genre of Deuteronomy within the canonical process in ancient Israel. It will take as its starting point the seminal work of N. Lohfink with primary focus on the artistic design and function of the received textual tradition, particularly as preserved in the MT. But its primary motive force will come from areas of interdisciplinary concern, especially from the fields of epic and narrafive poetry within the context of musical performance of texts in antiquity (see D. Christensen, “Form and Structure in Deuteronomy 1-11,” in Das Deuteronomium, ed. N. Lohfink [1985] 135-44).

Detailed Outline of Deuteronomy I. The eisodus into the promised land under Moses (1:1-3:22) A. Summons to enter the promised land (1:1-8) 1. These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel (l:l-3a) 2. Moses spoke the Torah as God commanded him (l:3b-6a) 3. Moses quotes YHWH’s words of command (l:6b-7) 4. Moses commands the people to possess the promised land (1:8) B. Organization of the people for life in the land (1:9-18) 1. The people were too much for Moses to handle alone (1:9-12) 2. Moses appointed military leaders to assist him (1:13-15) 3. Moses commissioned judges to assist him (1:16-18) C. Israel’s unholy war—failure to enter the promised land (1:19-2:1) 1. Travel notice and report: from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea (1:19-20) 2. Summons to possess the land (1:21) 3. Israel’s sin: they requested spies (1:22) 4. Moses’ report: I sent the spies (1:23-24) 5. Report of the spies and Israel’s rebellion (1:25-28) 6. Summons not to fear (1:29-31) 7. Israel’s rebellion and YHWH’s judgment (1:32-36) 8. Moses’ report: YHWH was angry with me (1:37-39) 9. Israel’s sin: they confess but act presumptuously (1:40-41) 10. Summons not to fight for the land (1:42) 11. Report and travel notice: from Kadesh to Mount Seir (1:43-2:1) 1). The march of conquest from Mount Seir to the promised land (2:2-25) 1. Travel notice: summons to journey northward (2:2-4) 2. Summons not to contend with the “children of Esau” (2:5-6) 3. A look backward: provision for forty years in the wilderness (2:7) 4. Travel notice: from Seir to the wilderness of Moab (2:8) 5. Summons not to contend with Moab (2:9-12) 6. Travel notice: crossing the Zered Valley (2:13-14a) 7. YHWH’sjudgment: a generation of warriors dead (2:14b-17) 8. Summons not to contend with the “children of Lot” (2:18-19) 9. YHWH gave Moab, Ammon, and Edom their lands (2:20-22) 10. Summons to cross the Arnon to reach the promised land (2:23-24a) 11. Summons to battle against Sihon, king of Heshbon (2:24b-25)

Introduction

lxxi

E. YHWH’s Holy War—conquest of Sihon and Og in Transjordan (2:26‫ ־‬3:11) 1. Moses denied safe conduct by Sihon (2:26-30) 2. YHWH commands Moses to take possession of Sihon’s land (2:31) 3. Sihon’s kingdom despoiled (2:32-36) 4. Travel notice: we went up to Bashan (2:37-3:1) 5. Summons not to fear Og, king of Bashan (3:2) 6. The conquest of Bashan (3:3-7) 7. Conquest of the whole of Transjordan (3:8-11) F. Distribution of the land in Transjordan (3:12-17) 1. Distribution of land to Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (3:12-13) 2. Land of Gilead given to Jair and Machir (3:14-15) 3. Distribution of land to Reuben and Gad (3:16-17) G. Summons to take possession of the promised land (3:18-22) 1. Moses summons Israel to Holy War (3:18) 2. Wives and children of Transjordanian tribes to remain behind (3:19-20) 3. Moses commands Joshua and the people not to fear (3:21-22) . The essence of the covenant—Moses and the Ten Words (3:23-7:11) A. Transition from Moses to Joshua—“crossing over” (3:23-29) 1. Moses sought God’s favor so that he might cross over (3:23-24) 2. Moses requested permission to cross over to “see” the land (3:25) 3. YHWH was “cross” with Moses (3:26) 4. Moses was permitted to “see” the land (3:27) 5. Moses was told to command Joshua to cross over (3:28-29) B. Exhortation to keep the Torah—focus on the first two commandments (4:1-40) 1. Israel’s relationship with YHWH (4:1-10) a. Keep YHWH’s commandments that you may live in the land (4:1-4) b. Israel’s uniqueness is shown by its Torah (4:5-8) c. Be careful not to forget what happened at Horeb (4:9-10) 2. Israel is to worship the Creator—not created images (4:11-24) a. Covenant stipulations issued at Horeb (4:11-14) b. No graven images in any form are allowed (4:15-18) c. No astral deities, for God has allotted them to other peoples (4:19) d. YHWH’s family property and Israel’s family property (4:20-22a) e. No images allowed, for YHWH is a jealous God (4:22b-24) 3. The mighty acts of God in Israel’s behalf (4:25-40) a. When you make an image, you will be scattered among the nations (4:25-28) b. When you seek YHWH and return, he will forgive (4:29-31) c. Remember what YHWH did for you in bringing you out of Egypt (4:32‫ ־‬34) d. YHWH’s uniqueness is shown in the exodus-eisodus (4:35-38) e. Keep YHWH’s commandments and live long in the land (4:39-40) C. Transition and introduction to the Ten Words of the Torah (4:41-49) 1. Moses set apart three cities of refuge (4:41-43) 2. This is the Torah—recapitulation of 1:1-5 (4:44-49)

lxxii

I ntroduction

D. Theophany and covenant at Horeb—giving of the Ten Words (5:1-22) 1. The first three commandments—our relationship to God (5:1-11) a. YHWH’s covenant and theophany (5:1-5) b. Monotheism—the first three commandments (5:6-11) 2. The fourth commandment—observing the Sabbath (5:12-15) 3. The fifth through the tenth commandments—our relationship to others (5:16-21) a. Parental respect—commandment five (5:16) b. Ethical conduct—commandments six through nine (5:17-20) c. Prohibition of coveting—the tenth commandment (5:21) 4. YHWH’s theophany and covenant (5:22) E. God’s desire is for us to fear him by keeping the Torah (5:23-6:3) 1. YHWH spoke to us on the mountain from the midst of the fire (5:23-24) 2. People to Moses: the fire will consume us, so you be our mediator (5:25-27) 3. YHWH’s speech: I heard what the people said (5:28) 4. YHWH’s wish: would that they would fear me by keeping my commandments (5:29-30) 5. YHWH’s speech: let me tell you the commandments (5:31) 6. Moses to people: do what YHWH commanded me to teach you (5:32-6:1) 7. Fear YHWH by keeping his commandments (6:2-3) F. Sermonic elaboration of the first commandments (6:4-25) 1. The great commandment is to love God (6:4-9) 2. When you enter the land, remember to fear YHWH (6:10-13) 3. Do not worship other gods, for YHWH is a jealous God (6:14-15) 4. Be careful to keep the commandments (6:16-17) 5. Drive your enemies out of the land (6:18-19) 6. When your children ask, tell them what God did for you in Egypt (6:20-23) 7. God will preserve us if we keep his commandments (6:24-25) G. The practice of holiness in the land by keeping the Torah (7:1-11) 1. When you enter the land, destroy the “seven nations” (7:1-3) 2. The pagan peoples will turn your children from following me (7:4) 3. Remove the pagan implements of worship in your midst (7:5) 4. You are a holy people to YHWH your God (7:6) 5. YHWH redeemed you from Egypt because he loves you (7:7-8) 6. YHWH is faithful to his covenant commitment (7:9-10) 7. Summary: keep God’s commandments (7:11) III. Life in the promised land—the great peroration (7:12-11:25) A. You will be blessed above all the peoples if you obey (7:12-26) 1. When you obey, God will bless you in the land (7:12-13) 2. You will be blessed above all peoples (7:14-16) 3. Do not be afraid—God will fight for us as he did in the past (7:17-20) 4. God will dislodge these nations before you (7:21-24) 5. Do not be ensnared with graven images of false gods (7:25-26) B. Remember the lessons from the wanderings in the wilderness (8:1-20) 1. Be careful to keep God’s commandments (8:1)

Introduction

C.

D.

E. F.

G.

lxxiii

2. Remember how God humbled you to test you in the wilderness (8:2-4) 3. Keep God’s commandments by fearing him (8:5-6) 4. Song of the good land (8:7-10) 5. Take heed not to forget God’s commandments (8:11) 6. When you forget YHWH your God, he will humble you (8:12-16) 7. Remember that it is God who sustains you in the land (8:17-18) 8. Conclusion: if you are unfaithful to YHWH, you will perish (8:19-20) Hear, O Israel, you are about to cross the Jordan (9:1-29) 1. The first three units (9:1-7) a. Moses tells them that YHWH will dispossess nations in the land (9:1-3) b. God did not give them the land because of their righteousness (9:4-5) c. As a stiff-necked people, Israel provoked God’s anger (9:6-7) 2. Units four through ten (9:8-29) a. While Moses was on Mount Horeb, the people acted corruptly (9:8-12) b. YHWH decided to destroy his stiff-necked people (9:13-14) c. Moses went down, saw the golden calf, and shattered the tablets (9:15-17) d. Moses prayed for the people and for Aaron on Mount Horeb (9:18-20) e. Moses crushed the golden calf the people had made (9:21) f. The people of Israel were rebellious from the first (9:22-25) g. Moses interceded for the people of Israel in times past (9:26-29) At that time YHWH spoke the Ten Words (10:1-7) 1. Moses replaced the tablets and made an ark to hold them (10:1-3) 2. God wrote Ten Words on the tablets; Moses put them in the ark (10:4-5) 3. Israel journeyed on; Aaron replaced by his son Eleazar (10:6-7) At that time YHWH set apart the tribe of Levi (10:8-11) 1. YHWH set apart the tribe of Levi to minister to him (10:8-9) 2. YHWH heard the prayer of Moses for the people (10:10-11) Love God and remember what he did for you in the wilderness (10:12-11:9) 1. God requires that you love him by keeping his commandments (10:12-13) 2. God chose you and your children above all peoples (10:14-15) 3. Circumcise the foreskins of your hearts; love the sojourner (10:16-19) 4. Love YHWH your God by keeping his commandments (10:20-11:1) 5. Your children do not know what God did in the exodus (11:2-4) 6. Your eyes have seen what God did for you in the wilderness (11:5-7) 7. Keep the commandments that you may live long in the land (11:8-9) If you love God, you will possess the promised land (11:10-25) 1. The land you are entering is not like the land of Egypt (11:10) 2. YHWH is the one who takes care of the land you are entering (11:11-12) 3. If you obey these commandments, God will bless you in the land (11:13-15) 4. Keep these words before you, and do not serve other gods (11:16-19) 5. Keep these commandments before you, and remain in the land ( 11:20- 21)

lxxiv

IV. A.

B.

C.

D.

I ntroduction

6. If you keep this commandment, you will dispossess nations (11:22-23) Ί. All of the land on which your foot treads will be yours (11:24-25) Laws on human affairs in relation to God (11:26-16:17) Covenant renewal under Moses in Moab and Joshua at Shechem (11:26-32) 1. Israel’s choice: blessing or curse (11:26-28) 2. A ceremony of blessing and cursing on Mounts Gerizim and Ebal (11:29-30) 3. Introduction to the laws (11:31-32) Laws that ensure exclusive worship of YHWH—no idolatry (12:1-13:19 [Eng. 18]) 1. Destroy pagan shrines and worship YHWH alone (12:1-7) a. Summary heading: these are the statutes and judgments (12:1) b. Destroy pagan shrines and worship at the place YHWH chooses (12:2-5) c. Offer sacrifices and eat them there before YHWH (12:6-7) 2. Worship YHWH with your offerings at the central sanctuary (12:8-12) a. Do not simply do what is right in your own eyes (12:8-9) b. Rejoice there with your offerings, sacrifices, and tithes (12:10-12) 3. Sacred and secular slaughter in ancient Israel (12:13-28) a. When you slaughter at home, pour the blood on the ground (12:13-16) b. Tithes and sacrifices to be eaten only at the chosen place (12:17-19) c. You may eat meat at home but not the blood (12:20-28) i. Slaughter of animals for food is permitted in your towns ( 12:20- 22) ii. Do not eat the blood—pour it out in the proper manner (12:23-27) iii. Do what is right in the eyes of YHWH (12:28) 4. Shun Canaanite religious practices (12:29-13:1 [Eng. 12:29-32]) a. Do not worship the gods of the Canaanitees (12:29-31) b. Canonical sanctions: do only what YHWH commands (13:1 [12:32]) 5. Idolatry is a capital offense, so purge the evil from your midst (13:2-19 [Eng. 13:1-18]) a. Idolatry instigated by a prophet or a dreamer of dreams (13:2-6 [Eng. 1-5]) b. Idolatry instigated by a close relative or dear friend (13:7-12 [Eng. 6-1]) c. Idolatry in which an entire town is subverted (13:13-19 [Eng. 12-18]) Laws of holiness in matters of daily life (14:1-21) 1. On being a holy people in regard to pagan mourning customs (14:1-2) 2. Land animals: eat that which parts the hoof and chews the cud (14:3-8) 3. Water animals: eat only that which has fins and scales (14:9-10) 4. Winged animals: eat only clean birds (14:11-20) 5. On being a holy people in regard to pagan culinary practices (14:21) Periodic measures to provide for the poor—social ethics (14:22-15:23) 1. The annual and triennial tithes (14:22-29) a. The annual tithe (14:22-27)

Introduction

lxxv

b. The triennial tithe (14:28-29) 2. Protection of the poor (15:1-11) a. The remission of debts every seven years (15:1-6) b. Exhortation to lend to the poor (15:7-11) 3. Manumission of indentured servants in the seventh year (15:12-18) 4. Sacrifice of firstborn livestock (15:19-23) E. The pilgrimage festivals (16:1-17) 1. Passover sacrifice and Feast of Unleavened Bread (16:1-8) 2. Festival of Weeks (Pentecost) (16:9-12) 3. Festival of Booths (Succoth) (16:13-15) 4. Summary: do not appear empty-handed at the three festivals (16:16-17) V. Laws on leadership and authority in ancient Israel (16:18-21:9) A. Laws on justice and forbidden worship practices (16:18-17:13) 1. Appointment of judges and forbidden worship practices (16:18-17:1) a. Appoint judges and officials to seek justice in local courts (16:18-20) b. Do not erect an asherah or sacred pillar beside YHWH’s altar (16:21-22) c. Do not sacrifice a blemished animal to YHWH (17:1) 2. Law on idolatry within the gates of local towns (17:2-7) 3. Law of the central tribunal—a court of referral (17:8-13) B. Law of the king (17:14-20) C. Law of the Levitical priests (18:1-8) 1. YHWH is Levi’s inheritance (18:1-2) 2. The priests’ portion from the sacrifices and firstfruits (18:3-5) 3. Local Levites are free to minister at the central sanctuary (18:6-8) D. Law of the prophets (18:9-22) 1. There shall be no false prophets in your midst (18:9-13) 2. God will raise up true prophets in Israel (18:14-15) 3. The people of Israel requested prophetic mediation at Horeb (18:16) 4. The word of YHWH: “I will raise up true prophets in Israel” (18:17-20) 5. How to discern the true prophet: his word comes to pass (18:21-22) E. Laws concerning the courts—judicial and military matters (19:1-21:9) 1. Cities of asylum—laws on manslaughter and murder (19:1-13) a. The three original cities of refuge in the promised land (19:1-7) b. Three additional cities of refuge in the future (19:8-10) c. The case of intentional murder: no asylum (19:11-13) 2. Laws on encroachment and witnesses in court (19:14-21) a. The inviolability of boundary markers (19:14) b. Laws about witnesses (19:15-21) 3. Intentional killing—warfare and military deferments (20:1-20) a. Preparing the army for battle (20:1-9) b. Behavior during a siege in Holy War (20:10-20) i. Taking your “inheritance” by siege in Holy War (20:10-18) ii. The treatment of trees near a besieged city (20:19-20) 4. Law on unsolved murder—role of elders and judges (21:1-9) VI. Forty-three laws on human affairs in relation to others (21:10-25:19) A. Three laws on marriage and family (21:10-21) 1. Marriage with a woman captured in war (21:10-14)

lxxvi

I ntroduction

2. Right of the firstborn in a polygamous family (21:15-17) 3. The punishment of an insubordinate son (21:18-21) B. Ten laws on “true religion” and illicit mixtures (21:22-22:12) 1. Treatment of the body of an executed criminal (21:22-23) 2. Three laws on “true religion”—loving your neighbor as yourself (22:1-5) a. Returning lost animals and other property (22:1-3) b. Assisting your neighbor with fallen pack animals (22:4) c. Not wearing clothing of the opposite sex (22:5) 3. Not capturing a mother bird along with her young (22:6-7) 4. Five laws on “true religion” and illicit mixtures (22:8-12) a. Building a parapet on the roof of one’s house (22:8) b. Forbidden combinations of seed (22:9) c. Forbidden combination of apimals in plowing: ox and ass (22:10) d. Forbidden combination in textiles: wool and linen (22:11) e. Wearing tassels on garments (22:12) C. Seven laws on marriage and sexual misconduct (22:13-23:1) 1. Two laws on premarital unchastity (22:13-21) a. False accusations of premarital unchastity—the man is fined (22:13-19) b. True accusations of premarital unchastity—the woman shall die ( 22:20- 21) 2. Two laws on adultery (22:22-24) a. Adultery with a married woman—both parties shall die (22:22) b. Adultery with an engaged virgin (22:23-24) 3. Two laws on rape (22:25-29) a. Rape of an engaged virgin (22:25-27) b. Rape of an unengaged virgin (22:28-29) 4. Prohibition of marrying one’s father’s wife (23:1 [Eng. 22:30]) D. Seven laws on “true religion” (23:2-26 [Eng. 1-25]) 1. Admission to the assembly of YHWH (23:2-9 [Eng. 1-8]) a. Restrictions on entry into the assembly of YHWH (23:2-3 [Eng. 1-2 ]) b. Exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites (23:4-7 [Eng. 3-6]) c. Inclusion of the Edomites and Egyptians (23:8-9 [Eng. 7-8]) 2. The sanctity of the military camp (23:10-15 [Eng. 9-14]) 3. Two laws on “true religion” (23:16-19 [Eng. 15-18]) a. Asylum for fugitive slaves (23:16-17 [Eng. 15-16]) b. Prohibition of “holy prostitution” (23:18-19 [Eng. 17-18]) 4. Three more laws on “true religion” (23:20-26 [Eng. 19-25]) a. Prohibition of lending at interest (23:20-21 [Eng. 19-20]) b. Timely fulfillment of vows made to YHWH (23:22-24 [Eng. 21-23]) c. The right to eat from a neighbor’s unharvested crops (23:25-26 [Eng. 24-25]) E. Sixteen laws on marriage, war, and “true religion” (24:1-25:19) 1. On restoring a marriage if one’s former wife has remarried (24:1-4) 2. Deferral of new husband from military service (24:5) 3. Taking a millstone as distrained property (24:6) 4. Theft of a fellow Israelite (24:7)

Introduction

lxxvii

5. Dealing with “leprosy” (24:8-9) 6. Taking and holding distrained property (24:10-13) 7. Mistreatment of a hired servant—timely payment of wages due (24:14-15) 8. Transgenerational punishment forbidden (24:16) 9. Taking a widow’s garment as distrained property (24:17-18) 10. Gleanings for the poor (24:19-22) 11. Limits on flogging (25:1-3) 12. Not muzzling the ox (25:4) 13. Levirate marriage (25:5-10) 14. Improper intervention in a fight (25:11-12) 15. Honest weights and measures (25:13-16) 16. Remember to hate the Amalekites (25:17-19) VII. Public worship and covenant renewal (26:1-29:8) A. Preview: two liturgies for worship in the promised land (26:1-15) 1. Liturgy of firstfruits at the central sanctuary (26:1-11) 2. Declaration of the triennial tithe at local sanctuaries (26:12-15) B. Mutual commitments between God and Israel in covenant renewal (26:16-19) C. The writing of the Torah on stones and covenant renewal at Shechem (27:1-26) 1. Shechem ceremony dramatizing Israel’s covenant responsibilities (27:1-10) a. Moses and the elders command the people to keep the commandment (27:1) b. Write the Torah on plastered stones on Mount Ebal (27:2-4) c. Erect the altar of YHWH on Mount Ebal and offer sacrifices (27:5-7) d. Write the Torah on plastered stones “very plainly” (27:8) e. Moses’ pronouncement and summation (27:9-10) 2. Positioning of the tribes at Shechem and a litany of curses (27:11-26) a. Positioning on Mounts Gerizim and Ebal and the first curse (27:11-15) b. Four curses on social sins from Mount Ebal (27:16-19) c. Four curses on sexual sins from Mount Ebal (27:20-23) d. Two curses on social sins from Mount Ebal (27:24-25) e. Final curse on those who do not keep the words of this Torah (27:26) D. If you keep covenant (28:1-69 [29:1]) 1. Blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (28:1-19) a. Six covenant blessings (28:1-6) b. Promises expanding on the blessings (28:7-10) c. The threefold blessing: progeny, livestock, and produce (28:11) d. Promises expanding the blessings (28:12-14) e. Six covenant curses (28:15-19) 2. Covenant curse—expanded description of future disaster (28:20-69 [Eng. 29:1]) a. First expansion: pestilence, famine, and disease (28:20-31) i. General theme: curse, confusion, and cumbrance (28:20) ii. Seven afflictions from pestilence (28:21-22)

lxxviii

I ntroduction

iii. Destruction by famine and the sword (28:23-26) iv. Seven more afflictions (“boils of Egypt”) (28:27-29) v. Violent loss of family, home, and property (28:30-31) b. Second expansion: oppression, exile, and slavery (28:32-44) i. Oppression that produces insanity (28:32-34) ii. Afflictions of disease (“boils [like Job]”) (28:35) iii. Exile from the land of Israel (28:36-37) iv. Afflictions of pestilence and war (28:38-42) v. Impoverishment and debt (28:43-44) c. Third expansion: utter privation in siege warfare (28:45-57) i. These curses will pursue you until you are destroyed (28:45) ii. Israel’s utter privation—“in want of all things” (28:46-48) iii. Military siege and the undoing of God’s blessing (28:49-52) iv. A gruesome climax: cannibalism (28:53-57) d. The complete reversal of Israel’s history (28:58-68) i. You will experience the “plagues” of Egypt (28:58-61) ii. Your numbers will be decimated (28:62) iii. YHWH takes delight in destroying you (28:63) iv. YHWH will scatter you among the nations (28:64-65) v. YHWH will make you “return to Egypt” (28:66-68) e. Summation: “These are the words of the covenant” (28:69 [Eng. 29:1]) E. Remembering the past: the magnolia Dei (29:1-8 [Eng. 29:2-9]) 1. YHWH’s mighty acts in Egypt (29:1 [Eng. 2]) 2. Israel’s lack of understanding (29:2-3 [Eng. 3-4]) 3. YHWH’s provisions for forty years in the wilderness (29:4-5 [Eng. 5-6]) 4. The conquest and settlement of Transjordan (29:6-7 [Eng. 7-8]) 5. Summary command to keep the terms of the covenant (29:8 [Eng. 9]) VIII. Appeal for covenant loyalty (29:9 [Eng. 10]-30:20) A. The covenant is binding on future generations too (29:9-14 [Eng. 10-15]) B. Those with reservations about keeping the covenant are warned (29:15-20 [Eng. 16-21]) C. Exile from the land foretold for breaking the covenant (29:21-27 [Eng. 22-28]) D. Secret and revealed things: “Do all the words of this Torah!” (29:28 [Eng. 29]) E. Possibility of restoration: when you return, God will return (30:1-10) 1. The possibility of returning to YHWH is there (30:1-5) 2. When you return, God will return the covenant blessings (30:6-10) F. God’s commandments are doable (30:11-14) G. The choice before you is between life and death—choose life (30:15-20) 1. I have set before you the choice between life and death (30:15-18) 2. So choose life by “loving” YHWH your God (30:19-20) IX. From Moses to Joshua—Moses prepares to die (31:1-30) A. Moses’ final provisions in view of his impending death (31:1-13) 1. Moses hands over leadership to Joshua as his successor (31:1-8) a. Moses announces a change in leadership (31:l-5a) b. Moses encourages Joshua in his new role (31:5b-6) c. Moses commissions Joshua as his successor (31:7-8)

Introduction

lxxix

2. Moses deposits the Torah for recitation at the Feast of Booths (31:9-13) a. The writing and recitation of the Torah at the Festival of Booths (31:9-12) b. Future generations shall learn to fear YHWH (31:13) B. YHWH’s charge to Moses and Joshua in the tent of meeting (31:14-23) 1. Theophany in the tent of meeting with Moses and Joshua (31:14-15) 2. Israel’s future apostasy and its consequences (31:16-18) 3. The writing of the song as a witness to future generations (31:19-22) 4. God commissions Joshua to succeed Moses (31:23) C. Moses’ provisions regarding the Torah and the Song (31:24-30) 1. Moses gives the Torah to the priests (31:24-27) 2. Moses gathers the leaders to hear the song (31:28-30) X. The Song of Moses (32:152‫) ־‬ A. The Song of Moses (32:1-43) 1. First Cycle: God’s blessing of Israel in times past (32:1-14) a. God’s justice and Israel’s disloyalty (32:1-6) b. Past blessing: God’s benefactions in the exodus and the eisodus (32:7-14) 2. Second cycle: Israel’s sin provokes God’s anger (32:15-29) a. Israel’s disloyalty: they forsook the God who made them (32:15-18) b. God’s decision to punish Israel (32:19-25) c. God’s mercy: he chooses to limit Israel’s punishment (32:26-29) 3. Third cycle: God’s punishment and salvation (32:30-43) a. God’s “vengeance”—punishment and salvation (32:30-35) b. God’s plan to deliver Israel (32:36-43) B. Moses’ final charge to “all Israel” (32:44-47) C. YHWH’s command to Moses to climb Mount Nebo to “see” the land (32:48-52) XI. Moses’ blessing, death, funeral, and necrology (33:1-34:12) A. First stanza of an ancient hymn: YHWH’s protection and provision (33:1-5) B. Moses’ testamentary blessing on the twelve tribes (33:6-25) 1. Reuben and Judah (33:6-7) 2. Levi, with the first apostrophe (33:8-11) 3. Benjamin (33:12) 4. Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) (33:13-17) 5. Zebulun and Issachar (33:18-19) 6. Gad, with the second apostrophe (33:20-21) 7. Dan, Naphtali, and Asher (33:22-25) C. Second stanza of an ancient hymn: Israel’s security and blessing (33:26-29) D. Death of Moses and transfer of leadership to Joshua (34:1-12) 1. Moses ascends Mount Nebo to “see” the whole of the land (34:1-4) 2. Death and burial of Moses (34:5-6) 3. Moses is one hundred and twenty years old when he dies (34:7-8) 4. Joshua replaces Moses as leader (34:9) 5. There has never been another prophet like Moses (34:10-12)

Excursuses

Excursus: Law, Poetry, and Music in Ancient Israel As Bishop Robert Lowth noted two hundred years ago (Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, tr. G. Gregory [London: Chadwick, 1815] 54-55), the law codes throughout the Mediterranean world were sung at the festivals in antiquity. It is evident that Greece for several successive ages was possessed of no records but the poetic: for the first who published a prose oration was Pherecydes, a man of the Isle of Syrus, and the contemporary with King Cyrus, who lived some ages posterior to that of Homer and Hesiod: somewhat after the time Cadmus the Milesian began to compose history. The laws themselves were metrical, and adapted to certain musical notes: such were the laws of Charondas, which were sung at the banquets of the Athenians: such were those which were delivered by the Cretans to the ingenuous youth to be learned by rote, with the accompaniments of musical melody, in order that by the enchantment of harmony, the sentiments might be forcibly impressed upon their memories. Hence certain poems were denominated nomoi which implied convivial or banqueting songs, as is remarked by Aristotle; who adds, that the same custom of chanting the laws to music, existed even in his own time among the Agathyrsi.

The law book we call Deuteronomy was in the hands of the Levites (Deut 17:18), who were commanded by Moses to proclaim it at the Feast of Booths (31:9). 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. When J. van Goudoever commented that Deuteronomy is “the most liturgical book of the Bible” (in Das Denteronomium, ed. N. Lohfink [1985] 148), he described the function of the book within a larger cultic pattern in ancient Israel—“as the Testament of Moses, to be read in preparation for the Passover” in Josh 5. In short, the Torah itself is a Passover story, which is made up of three Passovers: in Egypt (Exod 12), in the wilderness at Sinai (Num 9), and in the promised land (Josh 5). This tradition of three Passovers is the basis of the “Poem of the Four Passovers,” known within both the Jewish and the Samaritan traditions. This observation bears witness to the memory of the original form and function of the book of Deuteronomy, which is captured in the descriptive phrase “A Song of Power and the Power of Song” in ancient Israel. J. Lundbom apparently intuited at least part of the picture in his suggestion that it was the “Song of Moses” (Deut 32), rather than the entire book of Deuteronomy, that was found in the temple in Jerusalem during the reign of King Josiah (“The Lawbook of the Josianic Reform,” CBQ38 [1976] 293). As the most archaic material in the book of Deuteronomy, this official “Song of Moses”

Excursus: Law , Poetry, and Music

lxxxi

dates from the premonarchic era of ancient Israel in essentially its present form. But that song was imbedded in a much larger “Song of Moses,” which we now call the book of Deuteronomy. For generations this song was recited in Levitical circles as a primary means of religious education. Eventually it was put in written form and promulgated in Jerusalem as part of a reform movement in the days of King Josiah. Within that movement, Deuteronomy became the center of a canonical process that eventually produced the Hebrew Bible as we now know it. That canonical text was recited within the musical tradition of the Second Ternpie in Jerusalem. The memory of that tradition is still reflected in the Masoretic accentual system of the Hebrew Bible, which is examined in detail throughout this commentary. For centuries now the mainstream of the scholarly community has virtually ignored the Masoretic accentual system so far as detailed analysis and commentary on the text of the Hebrew Bible is concerned. Though there has been fairly widespread agreement that the system is essentially a form of musical notation of some sort, the consensus has been that, whatever the system represents, it is medieval in origin and imposed on the Hebrew text—perhaps as a form of chant to recite the text in a liturgical setting. After all, the so-called tropes of this Masoretic system are still used to instruct those who cantillate the text within synagogal traditions. The French musicologist Suzanne Haik-Vantoura has championed the idea that these cantillation signs represent an ancient tradition of musical interpretation, which predates the Masoretes by a millennium, or more (see the American edition of her book, The Music of the Bible Revealed, tr. D. Weber, ed. J. Wheeler [Berkeley: BIBAL Press, 1990]). Haik-Vantoura argues convincingly that the Masoretes did not invent the musical tradition reflected in their sophisticated system of notation. They merely fixed a once living tradition in written form in order to preserve it for all time. The source of their knowledge was apparently the so-called Elders of Bathyra, certain sages among the predecessors of the Karaite community during the first century c.E. (see Paul Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 2nd ed. [New York: Praeger, 1959] 82-86 and 103). Haik-Vantoura attempts to recover the actual melodies of what she believes were part of the text of the Hebrew Bible in the period of the Second Temple in ancient Israel, which the Masoretes themselves only partially understood. Though they were aware that the system represented a rich musical heritage, they were apparently not musicians. Consequently, they focused their attention primarily on the linguistic features of that system and used it to work out elaborate grammatical treatises on the accentual system they had inherited. The analysis presented in detail in this commentary does not presuppose the work of S. Haik-Vantoura. The method of prosodic analysis used here was developed completely independent of her work. It is essentially a form of rhythmic analysis that combines the two dominant methods of Hebrew metrical study currently practiced within the field of OT studies: a quantitative assessment of the length of individual lines, in terms of mora count; and the careful study of the distribution of accentual stress units, as marked by the so-called disjunctive accents, following the system of the Polish linguist Jerzy Kur ylowicz (see his Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics, Prace Jezykoenawcze 67 [London: Curzon, 1973]). The traditional approach to Hebrew meter remains the Ley-Sievers method,

lxxxii

E xcursus : L aw, P oetry, and M usic

which focuses on patterns of word stress within given poetic lines (see W. H. Cobbs, A Criticism of Systems of Hebrew Metre: An Elementary Treatise [Oxford: Clarendon, 1905] 83-107,169-84). Kurylowicz has suggested an important modiflcation to this approach that is followed here. As he puts it: “Parallelism of members etc. are adornments proper to poetic style, but must be left out of consideration in the analysis of metre” (Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics, 176). This statement needs qualification, since it is only with meter in the sense of rhythm in terms of accentual “beats” within a given line that “parallelism of members” is not significant. Some aspects of parallelism can be described quantitatively through a second metrical approach to be described below. By paying careful attention to the diacritical marks of the Masoretic accentual system, Kurylowicz has devised a system of “Syntactic Accentual Meter” (the description is that of Tremper Longman III, “A Critique of Two Recent Metrical Systems,” Bib 63 [1982] 238). In short, he counts syntactic units rather than individual words. A second approach to the study of Hebrew meter in vogue at the present time focuses on the length of poetic lines in terms of counting syllables. Though this particular approach does produce interesting, and often persuasive, insights into the prosodic structure of some texts, the method itself is in need of refinement. Since counting syllables is essentially a means of assessing the length of poetic lines rather than the rhythmical manner in which those same lines were spoken or sung, there is no inherent reason to see the method of syllable counting as in opposition to that of stress counting. The presence of “parallelism of members” in Hebrew poetry does produce quantitative parallelism that can often be shown by counting syllables, regardless of how the rhythmic stresses of that particular line were read. But since the Hebrew language makes a distinction between long and short vowels, there is a need to modify such an approach if one hopes to assign meaningful numbers to the relative length of particular lines, especially if such numbers are to represent a measure of the length of time used in speaking or singing those lines in the manner intended by the author. The most useful approach to measuring the length of lines in Hebrew poetry is that of counting morae, i.e., the length of time used in saying or singing the simplest syllable from a phonetic point of view. Though this particular approach to scanning Hebrew poetry has been around a long time, it has not been the subject of serious discussion in recent years. It was a dominant approach in German scholarship from the middle of the seventeenth to the early nineteenth century (see B. Pick, “The Study of Hebrew among Jews and Christians,” BSac 42 [1885] 490-93). The most prevalent of the early advocates were such scholars as J. Alting (1608-79) and J. A. Danz (1654-1727), who gave their names to this approach, the “Al ting-Danzian System,” which survived into the nineteenth century. B. Spinoza (1677) was an advocate of this approach, as were such scholars as Η. B. Starke (1705), J. W. Meiner (1748, 1757), and J. F. Hirt (1771). Nineteenth-century “Metriks” who counted morae included J. Bellermann (1813), J. Saalschutz (1825), and H. Grimme (1903). The basic problem with these early approaches to counting morae is that the system was applied to the wrong ends and became much too complex and overly refined. There is no need to take into account the consonants, nor is there any reason to break down the possibilities into the four categories commonly listed. As with similar scanning devices in other modern languages where vowel length is significant, it is sufficient to ascribe individual

Excursus: Law , Poetry, and Music

lxxxiii

syllables to one of two categories—either phonetically short or long, assigning a count of one for the former and two for the latter. The system of counting morae is foundational to the present analysis of the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy. It is by this means that the prosodic units were determined as well as the boundaries between them. It is at this point that the syntactic accentual method of Kurylowicz was introduced to determine the rhythmic structure. The two approaches were found to complement each other. Together they constitute a system that is the basis of a structural analysis of the entire book of Deuteronomy. The end result is remarkable in that the structural patterns that emerge also provide a fresh glimpse into some of the theological concerns of the author (s) of the book of Deuteronomy as reflected in the architectural design of the “poetic composition” taken as a whole. The rules for counting both morae and syntactic-accentual stress units may be summarized as follows: Rules for Counting Morae

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Short vowels that are counted as one mora include the standard short vowels i e a 0 u and the reduced vowels, i.e., the vocal sewa and the composite sewa. Long vowels that are counted as two morae include the unchangeable long vowels i e o u and normally the changeable long vowels e ά 0 as well. The furtive patah is counted as one morae, i.e., samoaʾ (Deut 1:16—five morae). In propretonic position the changeable long b is considered short when followed by a long vowel and is counted as one mora, i.e., soptekem (Deut 1:16—four morae). Postaccentual games in nonverbal situations is considered short and counted as one mora, i.e., Iaylah (two morae) or midbarah (four morae). The sewa following the waw-conjunction is considered vocal and is counted as one mora. Vowels within a final kaph or nun are counted as one mora. The final qames in the second-person singular of verbal forms in the perfeet tense is counted as long (two morae) when the form in question has a disjunctive accent mark on that particular syllable in MT. Elsewhere it is considered short (one mora).

Rules for Counting Syntatctic-Accentual Stress U nits

1. 2. 3. 4.

The boundaries of the syntactic-accentual units are normally marked by the appearance of one of the eighteen disjunctive accents (distinctive vel domini) as listed on the insert to BHS. At times the versification of the MT may be in error. In such cases the tiphaʾ governed by the silluq (or 3atnah) may not be disjunctive. Textual problems almost inevitably result in a disturbance of the distribution of the disjunctive accents. There is apparently some inconsistency in the use of yetib in monosyllabic particles when followed by the zaqep qaton. In some cases it is to be taken

lxxxiv

5.

E xcursus: L aw, P oetry, and M usic

as the conjunctive accent mahpak, which shares the same sign though in a different position. The accent pastaʾ followed by zaqep qaton is sometimes to be read as conjunctive rather than disjunctive.

There is a rather fluid line between poetry and prose in the Hebrew Bible, as I have argued elsewhere (see “Prose and Poetry in the Bible: The Narrative Poetics of Deuteronomy 1,9-18,” ZAW97 [1985] 179-89). Poetic features such as inclusio, concentric framing devices, and inversion throughout the book of Deuteronomy are familiar. At the same time, the text is clearly written in a rhythmic form that displays studied parallelism at higher levels of analysis. And yet, having said all this, it remains clear that we have in Deuteronomy a “prose” text in relation to the lyric poetry of the Psalter. Or should we say that “prose” in this context is but a lower form of “heightened language,” which might be more adequately described as didactic poetry? It should be noted that music and poetry are a common medium for transmitting cultural tradition among virtually all so-called preliterate peoples. In light of this fact some missionaries and administrators of mission agencies are beginning to ask new questions about the translation of the Bible into previously unwritten languages. The model of the Wycliffe Bible translator has been seriously challenged in recent years, from within the very ranks of those translators themselves, as the most effective means of communicating the word of God in such situations. Should an individual scholar give virtually a lifetime to the tedious task of reducing such a language to written form in order to translate the Bible into one m ore of the two thousand such languages that exist to the present time? Where this has been done, the Bible sometimes remains an external artifact that never really becomes a vital part of the cultural tradition of such tribal groups. Would it not be better to translate the Bible into media already present in such societies for the transmission of culture, namely into their own forms of music? Recent experiments with the oral communication of the Scripture in subSaharan Africa, as reported by Herbert Klem (Oral Communication of the Scriptures: Insights from African Oral Art [Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1982]), suggest a positive answer to this question. Moreover, it may well be that these very experiments provide a closer analogue to the actual historical situation in ancient Israel than the several models advanced in recent years within the mainstream of the academic study of the Bible. In short, Deuteronomy is best explained as a didactic poem, composed to be recited publicly to music in ancient Israel within a liturgical setting. The book is primarily a work of literary art designed to transmit a canonical body of tradition as effectively as possible to a given people. It was composed for oral recitation and, as the models in the field of ethnomusicology suggest, was no doubt composed with music as an essential aspect of the tradition itself. Moreover, as a work of literary art, the book of Deuteronomy was consciously composed in what some would call an “epic style,” which is similar in its structural features to other epic texts in the world of ancient Near Eastern and classical literatures. Thus we ought not to be surprised to find concentric structural features, which are also the subject of investigation on the part of students of such classics as Homer’s Iliad and Virgil’s Aeneid. And indeed such features are present in the biblical text,

Excursus: Law, Poetry, and M usic

lxxxv

as witnessed by the spate of such observations emerging in our discipline in recent years. It should also be noted that concentric structural features are not only characteristic of liturgical expression, from so-called primitive peoples to the celebration of the Roman Catholic mass; they are also common to both musical composition and epic literature in general. A particularly striking example of such concentric structures in music is illustrated by a recent symphony by A. Panufnik, which was commissioned by the Boston Symphony Orchestra as part of its centennial celebration (see D. Christensen, “Andrzej Panufnik and the Structure of the Book of Jonah: Icons, Music and Literary Art,”JETS 28 [1985] 133-40). The composer explained in detail in the program for that occasion an intricate concentric design based on the number eight—since this was his eighth symphony. Such structuring devices are one of the means of achieving that feeling of balance and symmetry that is an essential aspect of making art appear beautiful to both the ear and the eye. The astute observer of modern cinematography will be struck with how well some of our modern filmmakers have mastered this same technique in the composition of another art form for popular consumption. When one realizes the essential “musical” quality in the rhythmic structure of the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy, it is useful to think through the implications this has for the traditional question of Mosaic authorship (see D. Christensen and M. Narucki, “The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch, ,'JETS 32 [1989] 465-71). Since Deuteronomy was probably performed and sung in liturgical settings in ancient Israel, its form is essentially poetic. This fact suggests something about the very nature of Scripture and points to a hermeneutic whose comprehension supports Mosaic authorship. Poetry is the ideal tool for theology. It is a way of seeing that is not just a system for interpretation but a way of life, a way of making present that which lies beyond the bounds of human experience and understanding. When it comes to ascribing authorship of sacred tradition within a worshiping community of faith, we should be careful that we do not say more than we mean. When Robert Robinson wrote the words of the hymn, “Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing,” almost two hundred years ago, the second stanza began with “Here I raise mine Ebenezer.” In the hymnal used in the First Baptist Church of Richmond, California, the words are “Here I raise to Thee an altar” (Praise— Our Songs and Hymns [Grand Rapids, ML: Zondervan, 1983] 35). We can understand why the editors of this particular hymnal made the change. The reference to the story of Ebenezer in 1 Sam 7 is not as familiar to the average worshiper today as it was two hundred years ago. But at the top of the page the author of the hymn is still Robert Robinson. Did he write the hymn as it stands in this popular hymnal? Well, yes and no. He is the author of the hymn, though all the individual words we sing are not his—at least not in the manner in which he originally composed them. My research in Deuteronomy suggests that the Hebrew text in its present form, as preserved by the Masoretes, is a musical composition. The cantillation tradition in the synagogues preserves accurate memory of the original performance of the text during the period of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, and perhaps earlier, if S. Haik-Vantoura is correct. In short, though details in her

lxxxvi

E xcursus : L aw, P oetry, and M usic

decipherment of the musical information preserved in the accentual system of the Hebrew Bible may change with further research, much of Haik-Vantoura’s work is likely to stand the test of time. The Bible as we have it is not a collection of independent books, which certain scribes in antiquity gathered together into a library. It is a single book, by a single author—if we are to give credence to the common affirmation in public worship that it is the Word of God. That being the case, we can now say much more than did our predecessors about the canonical process that brought the book to us. The book of Deuteronomy was the center of a complex process of canonical activity, from at least the time of Josiah to the dedication of the Second Temple in Jerusalem at the end of the sixth century b.c.e. In my own opinion, the book of Deuteronomy enjoyed generations of use within public worship in ancient Israel, in the hands of Levitical singers in ancient Israel, before its use at the center of canonical activity in the time of Josiah. That canonical process included much more than the mere compilation of the Pentateuch. It also included the Former Prophets, or what some would call the Deuteronomic History, within a larger canonical entirety that D. N. Freedman has called the “primary history” (IDBSup 131-32). It may have included both the Latter Prophets and the Writings as canonical categories as well, though perhaps not in the form we now know. T. Georgiades, a music historian, has shown convincingly, at least for ancient Greek literature, that the distinct concepts of music and poetry as we understand them were not known in antiquity: “The ancient Greek verse line was a singular formation for which there is no analogy in Western Christian civilization. It was, if you will, music and poetry in one, and precisely because of this it could not be separated into music and poetry as two tangibly distinct components. For this particular vehicle of meaning the Greeks, however, had a special term, μουσική” (Music and Language: The Rise of Western Music as Exemplified in Settings of the Mass [Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982] 6). The work of Haik-Vantoura is built on the same observation. Like ancient Greek literature, the Hebrew Bible emerged in the form of μουσική—a combination of music and language. In a fundamental sense, then, the book of Deuteronomy in its entirety may be described as poetry in the broadest sense. Though it contains a lyric “Song of Moses” (chap. 32), most of the book is in the form of didactic poetry of a lesser nature so far as heightened speech goes. The composer of the original was Moses, but the text as we have it enjoyed a life of its own for generations within the public worship of ancient Israel. Like Robert Robinson’s hymn, individual words no doubt changed in usage through time. Indeed, the very structure of the greater “Song of Moses,” which we now call the book of Deuteronomy, may have changed as it developed in public performance by a long line of singers in the festivals and in Levitical circles of ancient Israel through hundreds of years. The concentric structural patterns, found at virtually all levels of analysis, bear witness to its tightly woven composition. That structure points to an author. On one level of observation that author is Moses, who composed the original Torah in musical form. But on another level the author is God himself, at work through that long chain of poet-prophets, like Moses, in ancient Israel who recited this text in public worship and who made it the center of an elaborate canonical

Excursus: Canonical Process

lxxxvii

process that gave us the Bible itself as the Word of God (see D. L. Christensen, The Completed Tanakh: The Canonical Process in Ancient Israel and Early Chnstianity [Columbus, GA: Christian Life Publications, 2000]).

Excursus: Deuteronomy in the Canonical Process Some scholars have observed that the Pentateuch was shaped, at least in part, for liturgical reading. E. Gerstenberger seems to have caught a glimpse of this phenomenon for the book of Leviticus when he notes that “Leviticus is not a ‘book’ at all, but rather a fairly artificial excerpt from a larger narrative and legislative work, sewn together like a patchwork quilt from many different, individual pieces” (Leviticus: A Commentary, OTL, tr. D. W. Stott [Louisville: Westminster, 1996] 2). Gerstenberger is correct in observing that “the emergence of this sort of ‘book’ must be sought rather in the liturgical use of the sacred texts, which went on for centuries” (p. 3). Though he insists that “we must decisively distance ourselves from what is for us the self-evident notion that the biblical books were written down in a single sweep by one or only a few authors” (p. 3), his observations in fact seem to point in that very direction. His analogy of “growth rings,” like that of a tree, falls far short of the mark. Symphonies do not grow through time like trees in a forest, “altered according to their use by a certain group of people.” Symphonies are the product of the creative genius of individual composers, under the inspiration of the Spirit of God. They may be shaped by the “collective unconscious” of a given people in their very composition, but it is the creative personality of an individual artist that gives specific shape to any work of art. And, as a literary work of art, Deuteronomy appears to be much like a symphony in its essential nature. E. T. Mullen has also caught a glimpse of the liturgical shaping of the Pentateuch in his book Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations: A New Approach to the Formation of the Pentateuch, Semeia Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). But once again, his own presuppositions regarding the canonical process from the time of Ezra on lead him to conclusions much like those of Gerstenberger, in which he credits creativity to some amorphous community of faith. Virgil did not create the content of The Aeneid out of nothing. Its content was part of the collective awareness of the Roman people, but it is impossible to conceive of the completed work of literary art we know as The Aeneid without Virgil. The same is true of The Iliad and The Odyssey of Homer. The Finnish epic known as The Kalevala is perhaps a more useful example, in that its “creation” occurred in the modern period and is well documented. The work was compiled and arranged by Elias Lonnrot in 1835 (and enlarged in 1849) from popular lays of the Middle Ages. Once again we see the mark of a literary genius in his own right, working with popular ethnic myths as his primary source material. Great works of literary art do not simply emerge by themselves over the course of time in the form of collective ethnic myths. They may be composed out of building blocks taken from such ethnic myths, but it takes an individual author to put that raw material together into a work of literary art that a given people recognizes as its own story. The book of Deuteronomy was composed as a musical composition at the outset, for use within the context of public worship. As such, it is the product of an indi­

lxxxviii

E xcursus : Canonical P rocess

vidual author/composer, whether or not one chooses to call that person by the name of Moses. The central event in the shaping of the epic story of the Hebrew Bible is the deliverance of the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt. Regardless of how one chooses to reconstruct the historical details of this event, the exodus itself constitutes the starting point in our model for explaining the canonical process in ancient Israel. The event of the exodus calls for its counterpart in the “eisodus.” The people who came out of Egypt under Moses began an epic journey, one that eventually brought them “home” to the promised land under the leadership of Joshua. The exodus is balanced by the conquest, or what I prefer to designate here as the eisodus. The linking of these two events in a single lexical item, the “Exodus-Conquest,” by F. M. Cross in his discussion of the “Ritual Conquest” in premonarchic Israel (CMHE, 99-111) bears witness that these two events are so closely connected that they constitute a single category from a cultic point of view. The phrase “Book of the Wars of YHWH” seems to be a descriptive title of this block of material on the lips of the people of ancient Israel (cf. Num 21:14-15 and Christensen, “Num 21:14-15 and the Book of the Wars of Yahweh,” CBQ 36 [1974] 359-60; idem, “The Lost Books of the Bible,” BR 14 [1998] 24-31). The “wars of YHWH” were divided into two phases: the exodus under Moses and the eisodus (the conquest) under Joshua. In each of its two halves the primary epic story takes on a threefold structure within the canonical process in ancient Israel by the insertion of theophanic visitations, first to Moses and subsequently to Elijah—on the same mountain (Exod 33-34; 1 Kgs 19). The exodus involves a journey from Yam Suph (“Sea of Reeds” or “Red Sea”) to the Jordan River in three stages. The great theophany at Sinai in which the presence of the Divine Warrior is made known to Israel through Moses is framed on the one hand by the wilderness journey from Egypt to Sinai and on the other by the wilderness journey from Sinai to Mount Nebo and the transfer of leadership from Moses to Joshua. E. Newing has shown that the “Promised Presence,” as depicted in Exod 33:1-17, is situated at the center of the first major section of the canon of the Hebrew Bible. Though his analysis is based on the final form of the biblical text, it seems to reflect the earliest stages of the actual canonical process, which eventually produced the Pentateuch as we now know it. The structure is ternary in nature. As Newing put it, the journey “From Egypt to Canaan” is in three stages: (1) “From Slavery/Promise,” to (2) the great theophany (“Promised Presence”) on the Mountain of God at Sinai/Horeb, and from there (3) “To Freedom/Fulfillment” (“A Rhetorical and Theological Analysis of the Hexateuch,” SEAJT22 [1981] 1-15). A parallel structure can be seen within the so-called Deuteronomic History (Joshua through 2 Kings). Here the journey is (1) from the desert to the “promised land” symbolized as a mountain, (2) to central theophanies on Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 18) and Mount Horeb (1 Kgs 19), which depict the rule of God through both prophet and king, and (3) to Mount Zion as the “City of God,” particularly as seen in the climactic reforms of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18-20) and Josiah (2 Kgs 22-23). Wholeness in Jungian thought is normally expressed in quaternary, or fourpart, structures. Within these structures the four elements in any given structure tend to be arranged in a chiasm while at the same time three of the four are gen­

lxxxix

Excursus: Canonical Process

erally contrasted with the fourth. The final arrangement of the canon of the Hebrew Bible still reflects an earlier “three plus one” structuring of the tradition within the developing canonical process. Exodus Leviticus

Numbers

Joshua

Deuteronomy

Judges

Samuel Kings

Here the three “wilderness books” (Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers) are supplemented by a “second recitation of the law” (Deuteronomy) on the part of Moses, immediately prior to his death. Joshua in turn stands apart as the beginning of the story of the possession of the “promised land”—under a series of twelve judges, followed by the united kingship under David and Solomon (with the building of the temple), and the subsequent divided monarchy in the land. The chiastic relationship within this pairs of pairs should be noted. As R. D. Nelson has shown, Joshua and Josiah were paired as an envelope, or inclusio, around what eventually came to be known as the Former Prophets within the canonical process (“Josiah in the Book of Joshua,”JBL 100 [1977] 531-40). The Torah and the Former Prophets were subsequently framed by two new blocks of material that ultimately become the book of Genesis and the Latter Prophets of the Masoretic tradition. Exodus

Numbers

Joshua

Samuel

Leviticus

Deuteronomy

Judges

Kings

“Fathers’

‘Prophets”

Once again it is easy to see the “three plus one” structuring within these categories in terms of the final canonical shape of the tradition: “Fathers” “Prophets”

= =

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel

+ +

Jacob’s twelve sons “Book of the Twelve”

J. Blenkensopp was apparently the first person to comment on this phenomenon (Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study ofJewish Origins [Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame, 1977] 227-36, 422-28). The center in the developing canonical process then shifted to the book of Deuteronomy, which functions as a bridge. Genesis

Leviticus

Joshua

Samuel

Judges

Kings

Deuteronomy Exodus

Numbers

Deuteronomy is thus the completion (and the center) of the Pentateuch and the beginning of the Former Prophets (Joshua through 2 Kings) as canonical categories. One can argue that Deuteronomy also plays a similar role as a bridge between the Former Prophets and the Latter Prophets: Joshua

Samuel

Isaiah

Ezekiel

Jeremiah

“The Twelve”

Deuteronomy Judges

Kings

xc

E xcursus : Canonical P rocess

Though the relation of Deuteronomy to the individual books within the Latter Prophets is more subtle, it can be demonstrated in various ways. Note in particular the literature on the Deuteronomic prose sermons in the book of Jeremiah, the so-called Deuteronomic redaction of the book of Amos, and the close relationship between Hosea and Deuteronomy. B. Dahlberg has argued for the placing of Malachi within the Deuteronomic corpus as well (“Studies in the Book of Malachi,” diss., Columbia Univ., 1963). In one sense, then, S. Herrmann was correct when he suggested that Deuteronomy be declared the “centre” of biblical theology (see S. Herrmann, “Die Konstruktive Restauration: Das Deuteronomium als Mitte biblischer Theologie,” in FS G. von Rad [1971] 155-70). The only problem with his observation is that it fails to take into account the dynamic nature of the canonical process as a whole and the fact that Deuteronomy does not remain the center. Within the developing canonical process, apparently from the time of Hezekiah and Josiah, Deuteronomy was the center of what eventually became a hypothetical seventeen-book “Deuteronomic canon” of the Hebrew Bible, which may be reconstructed as follows (see D. L. Christensen, “Josephus and the Twenty-two-book Canon of Sacred Scrip ture,”JET’S 29 [1986] 37-46). Genesis Leviticus

Exodus Numbers

Isaiah Exekiel

Jeremiah “The Twelve”

Joshua Samuel

Judges Kings

Psalms Proverbs

Job Megilloth

Deuteronomy

The Megilloth or Festal Scrolls would ultimately be divided into five parts: Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. The four sections of the above structure represent the four primary canonical divisions, which are arranged in a chiasm, with Deuteronomy functioning as a bridge between them. Torah Latter Prophets

Former Prophets Hagiographa

It should be noted, however, that the fourth category did not yet include Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The canon was open in the sense that additions could be made within this fourth category, which eventually became the Writings. I would date the formation of this seventeen-book Deuteronomic canon of the Hebrew Bible to ca. 550-500 b .c.e. and connect it with the rebuilding and dedication of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. At this time, Esther and Ecclesiastes were not yet among the Megilloth (Festal Scrolls) as a canonical entity. In the canonical shaping of the Festal Scrolls, the book of Lamentations was apparently the initial center around which the Song of Songs and Ruth were added as the festal scrolls for Passover and Shavuoth (Feast of Weeks or Pentecost), respectively, in a ternary structure. Ecclesiastes was subsequently added as the scroll of Succoth (Feast of Tabernacles) to form a quaternary pattern:

Excursus: Canonical Process

Ruth Ecclesiastes

XC1

Song of Songs Lamentations

Within this structure, the pair /Song of Songs//Ecclesiastes/ is associated with Solomon, and /R uth//L am entations/ with David. Ruth is David’s great-grandmother, and Lamentations commemorates the destruction of the Davidic dynasty/temple in Jerusalem at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Josephus is the first clear witness to the next stage in the developing canonical process—the arrangement of the canon of the Hebrew Bible into twenty-two books, which seems to be reflected in the received tradition within the Jewish community, at least in the MT. Note that a dual center seems to emerge with Daniel and Deuteronomy as “bridges,” around which are arranged five pairs of pairs: Genesis

Exodus

Joshua

Judges

Samuel

Kings

Ezra

Nehemiah

1 Chr.

2 Chr.

Deuteronomy Leviticus

Numbers Isaiah Ezekiel

Psalms

Jeremiah “The Twelve”

Job Daniel

Proverbs

Megilloth

The total number of twenty-two books in this canon was subsequently legitimated by Origen (ca. 250 c.E.) in terms of the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet (see M. Stuart, Critical History and Defense of the Old Testament Canon [Andover, MD: Warren F. Draper, 1872] 404). This fact would suggest that this canon was theoretically closed (or complete) from a psychological point of view. It is the inclusion of Esther into this “closed” canon within Jewish tradition that ultimately “exploded” the canon in a transformation from twenty-two books to the twenty-four-book structure of talmudic tradition. The inclusion of Esther resulted in the breaking up of the Megilloth as a canonical unit within Jewish tradition and the redistribution of these five scrolls to form twenty-four books. Ruth was attached to Judges in some instances, elsewhere with Psalms. Lamentations was attached to Jeremiah. The resultant loss of discernible canonical structure produced the fluidity of canonical reflection within the early Jewish and Christian communities. As Stuart has noted, no two of these early lists are identical, even among those that insist on a total of twenty-two books (Critical History and Defense, 258). Within the Christian tradition, it appears that the addition of Esther somehow resulted in a twenty-seven-book canon of the Hebrew Bible that was subsequently legitimated by Epiphanius (ca. 368 c.E.) with the argument that the Hebrew alphabet does in fact have twenty-seven letters, since five of the letters appear in two forms (see Stuart, Critical History and Defense, 415). It is interesting to note that the NT eventually emerged in a twenty-seven-book canon, perhaps determined (consciously or unconsciously) by the Christian community’s understanding of the structure of the OT. If the structure of the two testaments is in fact parallel, the resultant structure of the Bible as a whole within Christian tradition

xcii

E xcursus : T riennial C ycle

is most revealing (see Christensen, “The Center of the First Testament within the Canonical Process,” BTB 23 [1993] 48-53). The center of the Hebrew Bible, as read through Christian eyes, shifted from Deuteronomy to Daniel and the world of apocalyptic thought. For a detailed discussion of the shaping of the NT in terms of the structure of the OT within early Christianity, see the sections on “Matthew and His Gospel within the Canonical Process,” “The Gospel of Mark within the Canonical Process,” “Luke and His Gospel within the Canonical Process,” “The Gospel of John within the Canonical Process,” and “The Book of Acts within the Canonical Process,” in D. L. Christensen, Bible 105—Apostolic Writings I: The Four Gospels and the Book of Acts: A Study Guide (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2000) 2-4, 45-46, 48-50, 78-80, and 116-17; and “The Apostle Paul and the Canonical Process—The Christian Tanakh,” “A Shift in Eschatology—The Apostle Paul and the Canonical Process,” “The Epistle to the Hebrews within the Canonical Process,” “Death of James, Paul and Peter—A Shift in the Canonical Process,” “The Jewish Revolt of 66-73 c .e . and the Canonical Process,” and “The Apostle John and the Completion of the Christian Tanakh,” in Bible 106: New Testament Epistles and the Revelation ofJohn (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1999) 2-4, 51-53, 57-59, 72-74, 87-90, and 109-11.

Excursus: The Triennial Cycle of Torah Readings in Palestinian Judaism Bibliography Abrahams, I. “E. G. King on ‘The Influence of the Triennial Cycle upon the Psalter.’”JQR 16 (1904) 420-23. Biichler A. “The Reading of the Law and the Prophets in a Triennial Cycle.”JQR 5 (1893) 420-68; 6 (1894) 1-73. Christensen, D. L. Bible 101: God’s Story in Human History. N. Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1996. 55-60.-------- . “The Psalms and the Pentateuch—The Triennial Cycle in Palestinian Judaism.” In Bible 104— The Writings of the Hebrew Bible: A Study Guide. N. Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1998. 18-20. Goudoever, J. van. Biblical Calendars. 2nd rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 1961. King, E. G. “The Influence of the Triennial Cycle upon the Psalter.” JTS 5 (1903-4) 203-13. Langdon, S. Babylonian Menologies and the Semitic Calendars. Schweich Lectures. London: Oxford UP, 1935. 89-92. Levy, J., and Levy, H. “The Origin of the Week and the Oldest West Asiatic Calendar.” HUCA 17 (1942-43) 1-152. Mann, J. The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue. A Study in the Cycles of the Readings from Torah and Prophets, as well as from Psalms, and in the Structure of the Midrashic Homilies. 1966. Library of Biblical Studies. Repr. New York: Ktav, 1971. Morgenstern, J. “Amos Studies, III.” HUCA 15 (1940) 59-304.-------- . “The Calendar of the Book ofJubilees, Its Origin and Its Character.” VT5 (1955) 35-76. —----- . “The Oldest Calendar of the Hexateuch.” HUCA 4 (1927) 1-138.-------- . “The Origin of Maoth and the Maoth Festival.” AJT 21 (1917) 275-93.-------- . “The Origin of the Synagogue.” In Studi Orientalistici in onore di Giorgio Levi della Vida. Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto per l’Oriente 52. Rome: Istituto per l’Oriente, 1956. 2:192-201.-------- . “Sabbath.” In IDB. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. 4:135-41. Nilsson, Μ. P. Primitive Time Reckoning. Acta Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 1. Lund: Gleerup, 1920. 329-36. Sarna, N. Review of The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, by Jacob Mann and Isaiah Sonne. JBL 87 (1968) 100-105 (102). Snaith, N. “The Triennial Cycle and the Psalter.” ZAW 51 (1933) 302-7. Thackeray, H. St. J. “Notes and Studies: Primitive Lectionary Notes in the Psalm of Habakkuk.”JTS 12 (1910-11) 191-213.-------- . “Notes and Studies: The

Excursus: Triennial Cycle

xciii

Song of Hannah and Other Lessons and Psalms for the Jewish New Year’s Day.” JTS 16 (1914-15)177-204.

Within Jewish tradition, the book of Deuteronomy is divided into a series of eleven weekly portions for public recitation: 1:1-3:22 3:23-7:11 7:12-11:25 11:26-16:17 16:18-21:9 21:10-25:19 26:1-29:8 29:9-30:20 31:1-30 32:1-52 33:1-34:12

‫דברים‬ ‫ואתחנן‬ ‫עקב‬ ‫ראה‬ ‫שפטים‬ ‫כי תצא‬ ‫כי תבוא‬ ‫נצבים‬ ‫וילך‬ ‫האזינו‬ ‫וזאת הברכה‬

“words” “and I sought the favor o f’ “because” “see!” “judges” “when you go forth” “when you come” “taking a stand” “and he went” “give ear!” “and this is the blessing”

In this system, each section is named by the first word (or one of its first words) in the Hebrew text of that particular weekly portion. The first edition of this commentary, Deuteronomy 1-11 (WBC 6A, Dallas: Word, 1991), covered the first three of the eleven weekly Torah readings from the book of Deuteronomy. At the time that I wrote that book, I was not aware of the value of paying careful attention to the traditional lectionary divisions of the text as primary markers in terms of literary structure. Instead I was overly impressed with the concentric design of the whole, in what I described as a fivepart or “pentateuchal” structural design (see 1991 ed., p. 6). It is better to observe what C. J. Labuschagne has described as a “menorah-pattern” (a sevenpart structure on the analogy of the six-branched candelabrum) for the book of Deuteronomy as a whole: A Opening narrative: Moses looks backward B Opening prophetic sermon C The Horeb covenant X The lawcode: statutes and stipulations C' The Moab covenant B' Concluding prophetic sermon A' Concluding narrative: Moses looks forward

Deut 1-3 Deut 4 Deut 5-11 Deut 12-26 Deut 27-29 Deut 30 Deut 31-34

See C. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium: Belichting van het Bijbelboek (Brugge: Uitgeverij Tabor, 1993) 16. For a discussion of the menorah pattern itself, see Labuschagne (1987) 1A:30-32; id., “The Song of Moses: Its Framework and Structure,” in FS C. H. W. Brekelmans (1997) 111-29; and id., Numerical Secrets of the Bible: Rediscovering the Bible Codes (N. Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2000) 31-40, 130-35. For series and clusters of seven in the book of Deuteronomy, see also G. Braulik, “Die Funktion von Siebenergruppierungen im Endtext des Deuteromium,” in FS N. Fuglister (1991) 37-50; and Christensen, Bible 101: The Torah—A Study Guide (N. Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1996) 67-92, “Lesson 5: The Book of Deuteronomy.” At the same time, it should be noted that this is not the only way in which the text may be read. The division of the book into eleven weekly portions in the tra­

x c iv

E xcursus : T riennial C ycle

ditional lectionary cycle has value in its own right and has been chosen here as a more instructive way in which to organize the content of the commentary as a whole. The book of Deuteronomy can be outlined in terms of the lectionary cycle of weekly readings from the Torah in a menorah pattern: A The eisodus into the promised land under Moses B The covenant at Horeb—Moses and the Ten Words C Life in the promised land the great peroration X Moses proclaims the law: covenant stipulations C' Worship and covenant renewal in the promised land B' Appeal for covenant loyalty A' Crossing over to part two of the eisodus under Joshua

#1 1:1-3:22 #2 3:23-7:11 #3 7:12-T1:25 ##4-6 11:26-25:19 #7 26:1-29:9 #8 29:10-30:20 ##9-11 31:1-34:12

The structural frame opens with a review of the exodus trek from Mount Sinai (Horeb) to Mount Nebo in “the vicinity of the Jordan”—namely the forty years in the wilderness, including life at Kadesh-barnea and the journey through the wilderness of southern Judah and Transjordan that climaxed with the defeat of the two Amorite kings in the Jordan Valley (Deut 1:1-3:22). It continues with an anticipation of the eisodus into the promised land under the leadership of Joshua, who assumes command as leader of the people of Israel (31:1-34:12), with the covenant stipulations of the laws in the book of Deuteronomy at the center (11:26-25:19). The outermost frame moves from the presentation of the Ten Words (the Ten Commandments) at Mount Sinai, which constitute the essence of the covenant agreement between YHWH and his people Israel (3:23-7:11), to an appeal to the present and future generations for loyalty to that covenant agreement (29:10-30:20). The innermost frame moves from a speech describing life in the promised land (7:12-11:25) to a presentation of liturgies for public worship and covenant renewal in the promised land (26:1-29:9). A century ago Adolf Buchler drew scholarly attention to the triennial system of reading the Torah within Palestinian Judaism in antiquity (JQR 5 [1893] 420-68). This particular lectionary cycle was generally replaced in Judaism after the second century c.E. by the annual Babylonian cycle, which continues in use in modern Judaism. As Sarna has noted (JBL 87 [1968] 103), the old system persisted in Palestine for a long time. The liturgical poet Yannai in the fifth century followed the sedarim of the three-year cycle, which was current at that time. The system was still in vogue in Palestine as late as the twelfth century, as attested by the traveler Benjamin of Tudela (The Itinerary of Benjamin o f Tudela, ed. A. Asher [London, 1840] 98) and by Moses Maimonides (Hilkhoth Tefillah, 13.1), as noted by Sarna. Sarna suggested the possibility that the old system survived vestigially in Egypt to the seventeenth century (see A. Neubauer, MedievalJewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 4.6 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1887-95] 1:118). In the Palestinian system, the reading of the Torah began with Genesis in the spring month of Nisan (the first month of the year in Jewish reckoning). The reading of Exodus began about the fifteenth of the eleventh month (Shebat) in the first year, Leviticus at the beginning of the seventh month (Tishri) in the second year, Numbers about the fifteenth of the eleventh month (Shebat) in the

Excursus: ΤήβηηιαΙ Cycle

xcv

second year, and Deuteronomy at the beginning of the sixth month (Elul) in the third year. The triennial cycle accords in a striking manner with Jewish traditions in that numerous incidents traditionally associated with certain dates within the biblical text itself were read at precisely those dates in the cycle of lectionary readings. An illustration is useful at this point. As King put it, “In the first year of the cycle the readings from Genesis would have reached chap, xi, i.e., the Story of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues, at the season of Pentecost. Now it is certain that the writer of Acts ii associated the Confusion of Tongues with the Day of Pentecost, the gift of the Spirit being a reversal of the curse of Babel” (JTS 5 [1904] 205). In the second year of the cycle, the Decalogue is read on Pentecost, which explains the traditional association of Pentecost with the giving of the Torah. It is curious that Exod 34 falls on 29 Ab, exactly eighty days after 6 Sivan (Pentecost), and the eighty days are accounted for by the two periods of forty days before and after the sin of the golden calf. In Exod 34:28 we find specific reference to “the Ten Commandments.” Moreover, in the third year of the cycle, the reading of Deuteronomy, in which the Ten Commandments are given, begins on that very day. In the Palestinian system the entire Torah was read in the Sabbath readings over the course of three years. According to Buchler’s analysis of the use of the Torah within this cycle, the reading of Genesis would have begun on the first Sabbath, Exodus on the forty-second, Leviticus on the seventy-third, and Deuteronomy on the one hundred seventeenth. Except in the case of the book of Deuteronomy, the Sabbath on which a new book in the Torah was begun is numerically equivalent to the opening psalm of each of the first four books of the Psalter (Ps 1, 42, 73, and 90). The public reading of the first four books of the Psalter would have begun on the same Sabbath as the corresponding books of the Torah (Pentateuch). N. Snaith subsequently argued that the initial reading in the book of Deuteronomy in this system corresponded with the reading of Ps 119 (ZAW51 [1933] 304). With its focus on the Torah in virtually every one of its one hundred seventy-six verses, Ps 119 forms an excellent companion to the commencement of the reading of the book of Deuteronomy. Moreover, in the midrash on Ps 119 (Midr. Tehillim) there are twenty-one quotations from Deuteronomy. The usual interpretation of the evidence posits the addition of a second month of Adar on the completion of two three-year cycles in the triennial system of Palestinian Judaism, for which special readings were taken from the Torah. These special readings are usually understood to be Exod 30:11-16; Deut 25:17-19; Num 19:1-22; Exod 12:1-30 (see m. Meg. 3.4). It is more likely that the readings in Deuteronomy were divided somewhat differently in the sixth year, such that Deut 31:1-34:12 was read in this concluding second month of Adar. This block of material corresponds to the ninth, tenth, and eleventh of the “weekly portions” in the traditional annual lectionary cycle in Jewish worship. It was necessary to add special readings in order to reconcile the lunar-based systern with the 365-day solar calendar, which is actually quite simple to achieve when the months are all thirty days in length: Two 3-year cycles of 12 months = 2 x 3 x 1 2 = 72 months Adding a second month of Adar = 73 months Result: 73 x 30 = 2,190 days = 365 x 6 years

xcvi

E xcursus : T riennial C ycle

The Triennial Leetionary System of Palestinian Judaism Psalms

Pentateuch*

Feasts and Fasts 14-21 Passover ( P esach )

F irst Year:

Nisan Iyyar Sivan Tammuz Ab Elul Tishri

(Mar.-Apr.) (April-May) (May-June) (June-July) (July-Aug.) (Aug.-Sept) (Sept-Oct.)

1‫ ־‬4 5-8 9-12 13-16 17-20 21-24 25-29

Gen 1:1 - 6:8 Gen 6 :9 -1 1 :3 2 Gen 12:1-16:16 Gen 17:1-21:34 Gen 22:1 - 25:18 Gen 25:19-30:21 Gen 3 0 :22-35:8

Cheshvan Kislev Tebet Sebat Adar

(Oct.-Nov.) (Nov.-Dee.) (Dec.-Jan.) (Jan.-Feb.) (Feb.-Mar.)

30-33 34-37 38-41 42-45 46-49

Gen 3 5:9-40:23 Gen 41:1 25 44:17 ‫ ־‬Hanukkah Gen 44:18-49:26 Gen 49:27 ‫ ־‬Exod 6:1 Exod 6 :2 -1 2 :2 8 1415‫ ־‬Purim

5 0 -5 3 5 4 -5 7 5 8 -6 1 6 2 -6 5 6 6 -6 9 7 0 -7 3 7 4 -7 8 7 9 -8 2 8 3 -8 6 8 7 -9 0 9 1 -9 4 9 5 -9 8

Exod 12:29-16:27 Exod 16:28- 22:22 Exod 22:23- 26:30 Exod 26:31-30:46 Exod 31:1-35:29 Exod 35:30-40:38 Lev 1 :1 -1 0 :7 Lev 10:8-14:57 Lev 15:1-20:27 Lev 21:1- 2 6 : 2 Lev 26:3 -N u m 2:34 Num 3:1 -6 :2 1

9 9 -1 0 2 1 0 3 -1 0 6 1 0 7 -1 1 0 111 ‫ ־‬114 1 1 5 - 1 1812 1 1 9 -1 2 2 123 - 126 127 ‫ ־‬130 131 ‫ ־‬134 135 ‫ ־‬138 1 3 9 -1 4 2 143‫ ־‬146 [ 150] 147-150

Num 6:22-14:10 Num 14:11-20:13 Num 20:14-26:51 Num 26:52-31:24 Num 31:25-36:13 Deut 1:1-3:22 [1 :1 - 4:40] Deut 3 :2 3 -7 :1 1 [4 :4 1 -9 :2 9 ] Deut 7:12-11:25 [1 0 :1 -1 5 :6 Deut 11:26-16:17[15:7-20:9] Deut 16:18-21:9[20:10-24:18] Deut 21:10-25:19 [24:19-30:10] Deut 26:1-30:20 [30:11-34:12] Deut 31:1-34:15

Weeks (Shevuoth) / Pentecost Capture o f Jerusalem 9 Burning o f the Temple 1 RoshHaShanah 10 YomKippur 1522‫ ־‬Booths (Succoth)

S e co n d Year

Nisan Iyyar Sivan Tammuz Ab Elul Tishri Cheshvan Kislev Tebet Sebat Adar T h ird Year

Nisan Iyyar Sivan Tammuz Ab Elul Tishri Cheshvan Kislev Tebet Sebat Adar 2n: Soziale Glechheit, soziale Ungleichheit und die Religionen. Ed. G. Kehrer. Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1983. 42-52. Scaria, K. J. “Social Justice in the Old Testament.” BibBh 4 (1978) 163-92. Schottroff, W. “Arbeit und Sozialer Konflikt im Nachexilschen Juda.” In Mitarbeiter der Schopfung: Bibel und Arbeitswelt. Ed. L. and W. Schottroff. Munich: Kaiser, 1983. 104-48.-------- . “Der Prophet Amos.” In Der Gott derkleinen Leute: Sozialgeschichtliche Bibelauslegungen: I. Altes Testament. Ed. W. Schottroff and W. Stegemann. Munich: Kaiser, 1979. 39-66. Schwantes, M. Das Recht der Armen. BEvT 4. Frankfurt: Lang, 1977. Seeligmann, I. L. “Lending, Pledge and Interest in Biblical Law and Biblical Thought.” In FS S. E. Loewenstamm. 1978. 183-205. Stone, E. C. “Economic Crisis and Social Upheaval in Old Babylonian Nippur.” In Mountains and Lowlands. Ed. D. Levine and T. C. Young. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 7. Malibu: Undena, 1977. 267-89. Sugranyes de Franch, R. Etudes sur le droit Palestinien ά Tepoque evangelique: La contrainte par corps. Fribourg: Librairie de l’Universite, 1946. Thiel, W. “Soziale Wandlungen in der fruhen Konigszeit Alt-Israels.” In Gesellschaft und Rultur im alten Vorderasien. Ed. H. Klengel. SGKAO 15. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982. 235-46. Wallis, G. “Dasjobeljahr-Gesetz, eine Novelle zum Sabbathjahr-Gesetz.” I maestri di ieri e di oggi 15 (1969) 337-45. W einfeld, M. DDS. 282-84.------- . ‘“Justice and Righteousness’ in Ancient Israel against the Background of ‘Social Reforms’ in the Ancient Near East.” In Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Ed. H.-J. Nissen and J. Renger. XXV RAI, 1978. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1982. Part 2. 491-519.-------- . “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background.” In Proceedings o f the

Bibliography

297

Eighth World Congress o f Jewish Studies: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983. 126-28. W estbrook, R. “Jubilee Laws.” IL R 6 (1971)

209-26.

Bibliography on the Annual and the Triennial Tithes (14:22-29) A iroldi, N. “La Cosidetta ‘Decima’ Israelitica Antica.” Bib 55 (1974) 179-210. Baumgarten, J. M. “On the Non-Literal Use of macaser/debate. ”JB L 103 (1984) 245-61. Begg, C. “Bread, Wine and Strong Drink, Deut 29:5a.” Bijdragen 41 (1980) 266-75. B raulik, G.

“Deuteronomy and the Commemorative Culture of Israel.” In Theology o f Deuteronomy. 1994. 183-98 (repr. in Studien z u m Buch. 1997. 119-46). Cazelles, H . “La dime Israelite et les textes de Ras Shamra.” VT1 (1951) 131-34. Claburn, W. E. “The Fiscal Basis ofjosiah’s Reform. ”JB L 92 (1973) 11-22 (16). Criisemann, E “\ .. damit er dich segne in allem Tun deiner Hand . . . ’ (Dtn 14,29).” In Mitarbeiter der Schopfung: B ibelund Arbeitswelt. Ed. L. and W. Schottroff. Munich: Kaiser, 1983. 88-92.-------- . “Der Zehnte in der isrealitschen Konigszeit.” WD 18 (1985) 21-47. D’Amati, N. “Le ‘Decime’ Ebraiche e il Problema della ‘Personalita’ dellTmposta nel Mondo Antico.” Bivista diD in tto Civile 9 (1963) 303-8. Dandamayev, M. A. “Der Tempelzehnte in Babylonien wahrend des 6.-4. Jh. v. u. Z.” In Beitrage zur alten Geschichte u n d deren Nachleben: FSF. Altheim. Ed. R. Stiehl and H. Stier. 2 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962. 1:82-90. E issfeldt, O . Erstlinge u n d Zehnten im Alten Testament. BWANT 22. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1917. 38-59. Fleischer, E. “The Reading of the Portion fasser teca'sser (Dt 14,22).” Tarbiz 36 (1966/67) 116-55 (Heb.). Gitlin, E. “The Tithe in Deuteronomy.” Religion in Life 32 (1962/63) 574-85. G reenberg, M. “A New Approach to the History of the Israelite Priesthood .”JA O S 70 (1950) 41-47. G utm ann, J. “Deuteronomy: Religious Reformation or Iconoclastic Revolution?” In Image and the Word. Ed. J. Gutmann. 1977. 5-25 (11). G utm ann, Y. “‫פרשת הביכורים‬.” In FS Y. K aufm ann. 1960. 43-53 (Heb.). H alpern, B. “The Centralization Formula in Deuteronomy.” V T 31 (1981) 20-38 (26-27). H em pel, J. “Zum wirtschaftlichen Realismus der Deuteronomische Gesetzgebung.” ZAWT3 (1936) 310-11. Jagersm a, H . “The Tithes in the Old Testament.” O T S21 (1981) 116-28. McConville, J. G. “The Place of Ritual in Old Testament Religion.” Understanding the Bible Senes 3 (1981) 120-23. Muffs, Y. “The Gift of the Terumot ”and “The Gift of the M a’asrot.” In Love & Joy: Law ‫ ׳‬Language, and Religion in Ancient Israel. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. 125-30. O p p en h eim er, A. “Terumot and Ma’aserot.” E ncjud 15:1025-28. Powis Sm ith, J. M. “The Deuteronomic Tithe.” A J T 18 (1914) 119-26. Stolz, F. “Rausch, Religion und Realitat in Israel und seiner Umwelt.” V T 26 (1976) 170-86. Salonen, E. Uber den Zehnten im alten Mesopotamien: F in Beitrag zu r Geschichte der Besteuerung. Studi Orientalia ededit Societas Orientalis Fennica 43.4. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1972. Tigay, J. H . “Drunkenness.” E ncjud 6:237-38. W einfeld, M. “On ‘Demythologization and Secularization’ in Deuteronomy.” IEJ 23 (1973) 230-33.-------- . “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background.” In Proceedings o f the Eighth World Congress ofJewish Studies: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983. 95-129. -------- . “Tithe.” E n cju d 15:1156-63. Welch, A. C. Deuteronomy. 1932. 38-39. Zakovitch, Y. “Some Remnants of Ancient Laws in the Deuteronomic Code.” IL R 9 (1974) 346-51.

Bibliography on the Triennial Tithe (14:28-29) Ahlstrom , G. W. “Where Did the Israelites Live?”JN E S 41 (1982) 133-38. Amusin, J. D. “Die Gerim in der sozialen Legislatur des Alten Testaments.” Klio 63 (1981) 15-23. Baudissin, W. W. G. “Die alttestamentliche Religion und die Armen.” PreussischeJahrbiicher 149 (1912) 193-231. Borowski, O. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,

298

D euteronomy 14:2 2 2 9 ‫־‬

1987. 71-83. Briant, P. “Villages et communautes villageuses d ’Asie achemenide et hellenistique.”J E S H O 18 (1975) 165-88. DiakonofF, I. M. “On the Structure of Old Babylonian Society.” In Beitrage f u r Sozialen S tru ktu r des alien Vorderasien. SGKAO 1. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1971. 15-31.-------- . “The Rural Community in the Ancient Near East.” JESH O 18 (1975) 121-33. Feliks, J. Agriculture in Palestine in the Penod o f the M ishna and Talmud. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1963. 235-36. Fensham , F. C. “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature.”JN E S 21 (1962) 129-39.-------- . “Notes on Keret in CTA 14:90-103a. ” J N S L 8 (1980) 35-47. Funck, B. “Studien zur sozialokonomischen Situation Babyloniens im 7. und 6. Jahrhundert v.u.Z.” In Gesellschaft u n d K u ltu rim alien Vorderasien. Ed. K Horst. SGKAO 15. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982. 47-67. Ram p, K. A., and Yoffee, N . “Ethnicity in Ancient Western Asia during the Early Second Millennium b .c .: Archaeological Assessments and Ethnoarchaeological Prospectives.” B A SO R 237 (1980) 85-94. Livarani, M. “Communautes de village et palais royal dans la Surie du Heme millenaire.”JE S //018 (1975) 146-64. Meek, T. J. “Translating the Hebrew Bible .”JB L 79 (1960) 328-35. O ppenheim , A. L. “A New Look at the Structure of Mesopotamian Society. ',JESH O 10 (1967) 1-16. Reviv, H . “On Urban Representative Institutions and Self-Government in Syria-Palestine in the Second Half of the Second Millennium b .c . ” JE SH O 12 (1969) 283-97. Sapin, J. “La geographic humaine de la Syrie-Palestine au deuxieme millenaire avant J.C. comme voie de recherche historique.” JE S H O 24 (1981) 1-62. Spina, F. A. “Israelites as genm, ‘Sojourners.’” In FSD . N. Freedman. 1983. 321-35.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis

The Annual Tithe [ (5:5): (4:4): (4:6): (6:4): (4:4): (5:5) ] You shall surely tithe / the / entire yield ofyour seed / / whata comesforth from thefield / year by year / / 23 And you shall eaP / bbefore the presence of / YHWHyour Godh / in the place that he choosesc / to have his name dwell / The tithefrom your graind / from your wine and your oil / and thefirstlings ofyour herd / and ofyourflock / / that you may learn / tofear / YHWH your God / always / / 24 And when the way / dis too long1 for you / such that you are not able / to bring ith / For the place / is too distant from you / that YHWH your God / chooses / to p u f his name / there / / When YHWH your God / blesses you / / 25 then you shall exchange d / for money / / and you shall grasp the money / in your hand / And you shall go to the place / that YHWH your God / chooses / it / / 26And you shall exchange the money / for all your appetite craves / for oxen and for sheep / and afor wine / And for intoxicant / and for all / that your appetite / may seekfor you / / And you shall eat there / in the presence of / YHWH your God / and you shall rejoice / you and your household / /

22

3 17 1 17 J 2 18 ‫ ן‬3 9J 1 9 1 19 1 2

17 J 2 25 4 12

2

12

2

13 13 9 16

2

2

10

2

11

2

2 2

12

1

14

3

20

2

15 7 15 19 14

2 1

3 3 2

299

Notes 27

And the Levite la who is in your townsh \c dyou shall not forgetd / / for he has no / portion or inheritance / with you / /

‫ס‬

6

1

15 17

3

15

2

20

3

1

The Triennial Tithe [(5:4) :(4:5)] At the end 0f \ three years / you shall bringforth / all the tithed ofyour produce / in that / yea r// and you shall deposit c\d within your towns / / 29 And the Levite shall come / because he has no portion or inheritance / with you / And the sojourner / and the orphan and the widow / who is within your gates / they shall eat / and they shall be satisfied / / That YHWH your God / may bless you / in all the work of *your handsa / hthat you doh / / ‫ס‬ 28

11

1

9I 17 J 18 14 7 18 16

1 2 2 2 1 2 2

Notes 22.a. SP reads ‫יוצא‬, “bringing fo rth ,” for MT ‫היצא‬, “{which the field) is bringing fo rth .” 22. b. A few H eb. MSS and Syr. read ‫בשנה‬, “in the year,” for MT ‫שנה‬, “year.” 23. a. SP and LXX read ‫ואכלתו‬, “and you shall eat it,” for MT ‫ואכלת‬, “and you shall eat.” 23.b-b. O m itted in LXXB. 23.c. LXX adds κύριος ό θεός σου, “the L ord your G o d ” {= ‫ ) יהוה אלהיך‬. Prosodic analysis supports MT. 23. d. Some MSS o f SP read ‫ ת ני ך‬, “your grain (p i.],” for MT ‫דגנך‬, “your grain [sg.].” 24. a-a. T he Sebir reads ‫ תרבה‬for MT ‫ירב ה‬, “is too lo n g ,” reading the subject ‫ ד ר ך‬, “(the) way,” as fern, rath er than masc. 24.b. DSS read ‫ לשתו‬for MT ‫שאתו‬, “to bring it.” 24. c. SP reads ‫ לשכן את‬, “to dwell,” for MT ‫לשום‬, “to p u t.” 25. a. Reading ‫ו^תתה‬, “and you shall exchange it,” with LXX, which adds αυτά, “it,” and Syr. Cairo Geniza fragm ents read ‫ ;ונתת‬Vg. adds omnia. 25. b. Reading the pasta3followed by zaqep qaton as conj. 26. a. A few H eb MSS om it waw-con\. Som e LXX w itnesses re ad ή e m ο’ίηω, “o r for w ine” (= ], ‫·) או בי‬ 27. a. Reading a disj. accent in place o f the mereka u n d e r ‫ו ה אי‬, “and the Levite.” 27.b. O ne H eb MS reads ‫בשערך‬, “in your town [sg.],” for MT ‫בשעריך‬, “in your towns.” 27.c. Reading tipha3as conj. because o f the m isplaced 3ainah. 27. d-d. T he phrase ‫ ל א תעזבנו‬, “you shall n o t forget,” is om itted in on e Heb. MS (K69) and LXX. See the discussion o f the relationship betw een K69, LXX, and SP by J. H em pel, “Innerm asoretische Bestatigungen des Sam aritanus,” ZAW 52 (1934) 268. 28. a. Reading the legarmeh as conj. 28.b. Reading the pasta3followed by zaqep qaton as conj. 28.c. Reading ‫והנחתו‬, “and you shall deposit it,” for MT ‫והנחת‬, “and you shall deposit,” with SP and LXX (cf. 26:10). 28. d. Reading tipha3as conj. because o f the m isplaced silluq. 29. a-a. Some H eb. MSS, LXXl (L X X ° with asterisk), Syr., and Vg. read ‫ידי ך‬, “your h an d s,” for MT ‫י ד ך‬, “your [sg.] h a n d ”; Tg. P s . f reads ‫ידיכם‬, “your [pi.] h ands.” 29.b‫־‬b. O m itted in LXXmm.

Deuteronomy 14:22-29

300

Form/Structure/Setting

The humanitarian concerns of the book of Deuteronomy are prominent in 15:1-18, which includes three provisions to alleviate the suffering of the poor in ancient Israel. In the larger literary unit that extends from 14:22 through 15:23, these three laws are framed by a pair of laws on tithes (14:22-29) and a two-part law on the sacrifice of the firstborn of livestock (15:19-23). The three central concerns addressed here are those of extreme circumstances in which the poor are unable to pay off their debts (15:1-6), are unable to obtain necessary loans (15:7-11), and face indentured servitude (15:12-18). The first provision stipulates that every seven years creditors are required to remit debts owed to them (w 1-6). The second, which is contingent on the first, is an exhortation not to refuse to make loans to the poor because the debt would be remitted in the seventh year (vv 7-11). The third places a limit of six years for indentured servitude (w 12-18). The unity of these three central sections is demonstrated by repetition of terms and concepts: the reference to seven years or the seventh year (vv 1,9, 1 2 ); the description of fellow Israelites as one’s “brother” (vv 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12); and the reason given for such generosity in terms of God’s blessing that rewards those who so give (vv 4, 6 , 10, 14, 18). The larger literary structure (14:22-15:23), which concerns periodic duties in the cultic and social life of ancient Israel, may be outlined as follows: A The annual and the triennial tithes B The remission of debts every seven years X Exhortation to lend to the poor B' Manumission of indentured servants in the seventh year A' Sacrifice of firstborn livestock

14:22-29 15:1—6 15:7-11 15:12-18 15:19-23

The outer frame in this concentric structure moves from the presentation of tithes, annually at the central sanctuary (14:22-27) and triennially in local towns (14:28-29), to the sacrifice of firstborn livestock at the central sanctuary (15:19-20) and the slaughter of those which are blemished in the towns (15:21-23). The inner frame presents two parallel “welfare” events that occurred every seven years: the remission of debts incurred (15:1-6), and the manumission of indentured servants (15:7-11). The law in the center of this structure deals directly with the underlying principle of the section as a whole: namely, measures for the protection of the poor and the needy in that society (15:7-11). Once again the data from Labuschagne’s “logotechnische analyse” reveals that the divine-name numbers 17 and 26 were carefully woven into the fabric of the Hebrew text in 14:22-15:23 ([1990] 2:75). Words: 14:22-29 15:1-6 15:7-11 15:12-18 15:19-23 14:22-15:23

after 3atnah

before ‫ג‬atnah 88

39 55 60

37 279

+ + + + +

+

52 51

(= 2 x 2 6 ) (= 3 x 1 7 ) 49 (= 23 + 26) 40 (=23 + 17)

23 215

= 140 = 90 = 104 (= 4 x 26) = 100

= 60 = 494 (= 19 x 26)

Form/Stru cture/Setting

301

The most striking fact from this is that the total number of words in this literary unit is once again a multiple of the divine-name number 26, and that the same is true for the central section—the exhortation to lend to the poor (15:7-11). On the number 23 as the numerical value of “glory” see the Excursus: “Deuteronomy as a Numerical Composition” following the Introduction. The combinations 23 + 26 and 23 + 17 both can signify the “glory of YHWH.” That the laws in 14:22-16:17 are an expansion on the fourth commandment on keeping the Sabbath is picked up in the use of 49 = 7 x 7 (72) as well. Morrow has called attention to what he calls “a significant doublet between 14:23 and 15:20 which requires explanation” (Scribing the Center [1995] 205). Both passages command the same action—the consumption of the firstlings at the central sanctuary. Carmichael had earlier noted that the laws of 14:22-23 and 15:19-20 are deliberately repetitious (Laws ofDeuteronomy [1974] 88-89), as the above outline of the concentric structure of 14:22-15:23 suggests. The redundancy here and the relationship of 14:23 and 15:20 to 12:18 are to be explained in terms of the concentric structural design of the whole in 12:1-16:17. Mayes has called attention to the “considerable obscurity on the precise relationship between tithes and first-fruits” (p. 244). The text here in 14:22-29 should be compared with that of 18:4, where the firstfruits belong to the Levitical priests. Braulik has explored the relationship between 14:23 and 18:1-8 within the context of what he has called “a large palindromic structure encompassing the seven ‘sacrificial’ texts of the deuteronomic code” ( Theology of Deuteronomy, 194 [= SBAB 24 [1997] 137). The menorah pattern of this sevenpart “palindromic structure” may be outlined as follows (Braulik, Die deuteronomischen Gesetze [1991] 39-45). A Offerings of tithes and firstlings at the central sanctuary B Law of the annual tithe offered at the central sanctuary C Sacrifice of firstborn livestock X Passover sacrifice and festival of unleavened bread C' Restriction: Do not sacrifice a blemished animal to YHWH B' Law of the Levitical priests to whom firstfruits are due A' Liturgy of the firstfruits at the central sanctuary

12:4-28 14:22-27 15:19-23 16:1-8 17:1 18:1-8 26:1-11

The laws on tithes and firstlings in 12:4-28 are part of a group of laws on the centralization of worship under the aspect of space, that is, a place chosen by YHWH. This focus on place continues in the second half of the outermost frame in the above structure (26:1-11), with its liturgy that the individual farmer was to recite when he presented the firstfruits of the harvest at the central sanctuary, presumably at either the Feast of Weeks or the Feast of Booths. The law in 14:22-27 focuses once again on the central sanctuary (after the digression in 13:1-14:21), but the law here unfolds the time aspect—with the law of the annual tithe (14:22-27), followed by the law of the triennial tithe (14:28-29). The other half of this frame in 18:1-8 picks up specifically on the language of 14:23 concerning tithes and firstlings in the description of what is called the priests’ due (18:3-4), as Braulik has observed. The innermost frame in this structure moves from a general law on the sacrifice of firstlings (15:19-23), to a spe-

302

Deuteronomy 14:22-29

cific restriction that the worshiper is not permitted to offer a blemished animal to YHWH (17:1). The tithes and the offering of firstlings presented in the above structure are concerned primarily with the Feast of Booths (and to a lesser extent the Feast of Weeks), with the law on the Passover sacrifice and the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the center (16:1-15), followed by “a kind of summary conelusion” in 16:16-17. Braulik concluded, “The theme of Yahweh’s ‘charter rights’ has been carried through in its temporal and spatial dimensions, and in this ordering, the laws dealing with the central sanctuary are the corner posts of the arrangement: first the group in chap. 12, then (after the first digression) the laws concerning the annual tithe in 14:22-27, next (after the second digression) the laws in 15:19-23 about the bringing of the firstlings, and finally the group of laws in chap. 16.” (“The Sequence of the Laws in Deuteronomy 12-26 and in the Decalogue,” in SBTS 3:326). The “laws of centralization” in Deuteronomy are not to be taken as editorial insertions into a previously existing written collection of laws, with the presumed intent of centralizing worship in Jerusalem in the time of King Josiah, as Levinson and so many others have assumed (B. M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation [1997], esp. chap. 2, “The Innovation of Cultic Centralization in Deuteronomy 12”). As Braulik put it, the laws of centralization are “strategically distributed” within the conceptual literary design of Deut 12-26 as a whole. What we see here is evidence of authorial design, not redactional structuring as that editorial process is normally explained, unless, of course, the author and the redactor are considered to be one and the same person. A work of literary art as intricately structured as that of Deut 12-26 demands an “artist” for its creator, whether or not we choose to call that person by the name of Moses. It is true that the “laws of centralization” would have been read in a fresh way in the time of Josiah, and later still, after the destruction of Jerusalem. Moreover, significant canonical activity was taking place at that time, with the book of Deuteronomy at the center of that process. But the intricate literary structure of Deut 12-26 bears witness to its integrity as a literary achievement on the part of an individual literary “artist.” The two sections in 14:22-29 are marked in MT, with the setuma3paragraph marker at the end of vv 27 and 29. The section begins with a prescription for the presentation of the annual tithes “year by year,” and concludes with that of the triennial tithe in vv 28-29. The subject of holiness as it relates to diet was introduced in 14:1-21, which concluded with the injunction in regard to boiling a kid in the milk of its mother (14:21). The subject of food is carried further here in laws that make provision for celebration at the pilgrimage festivals held each year in the central sanctuary (the place God chooses), and the local assemblies (‫)עצרות‬, which were held on seven-week intervals within the local towns throughout ancient Israel in the periods of time between the three great festivals (see Excursus: “The Triennial Cycle of Torah Readings in Palestinian Judaism”). The tithes were brought annually, and were consumed within the context of public celebrations by the household of each worshiper and the priestly establishment at the three pilgrimage festivals (Unleavened Bread, Weeks, and Booths), and at the remaining four “assemblies” (‫)עצרות‬, which were held locally (“within your towns”) at seven-week intervals throughout the calendar year. The

Form/Structure/Setting

303

total number of days each year that were thus set aside for celebration was twenty-two—New Year’s Day in the spring, two seven-week festivals (‫מצות‬, “Unleavened Bread,” and ‫אסיף‬, “Ingathering”), and seven days of assemblies (‫ )עצרות‬. Since these were holiday occasions of public celebration, more food was consumed per day than would be the case the rest of the year. The tithe was presented at the central sanctuary in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years. On the third and sixth years, the tithe was set aside locally (“within your towns”); and there was no normal tithe in the seventh year, because that was the “sabbath” year in which no crops were planted. The system of tithes in ancient Israel was a practical means of supporting a way of life, including the religious establishment, at both the central sanctuary and within the towns throughout the country. The content of 14:22-29 may be outlined in a five-part concentric structural design: A You shall tithe your produce annually at the chosen place B When the chosen place is too distant, exchange it for money X Take the money with you to the place God chooses B' Exchange the money at the chosen place for food and drink A' Every three years you shall store a tithe in your towns

14:22-23 14:24-25a 14:25b 14:26-27 14:28-29

In the outer frame of this structure, the annual tithe to be presented at the central sanctuary (vv 22-23) is set over against the triennial tithe, which was stored in the local towns (vv 28-29). In between we find a simple three-part progression of thought that describes how the tithe is to be brought to the central sanctuary for those at a distance. The inner frame in the above structure states that the tithe is to be exchanged locally for money, which is to be exchanged back into foodstuff at the central sanctuary to be consumed by those who gather for the pilgrimage festivals. In the center of the structure, we find the injunction to take “the money in your hand” and “go to the place that YHWH your God will choose” (i.e., the central sanctuary). Butterfield has argued (“Deuteronomy 12-20 in Cultural Evolutionary Perspective,” diss., Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1986, 92 n. 150) that wholesale markets did exist in ancient Israel, which had a “money economy.” The law of the tithe in 14:22-29 was used to shape the story ofJoseph in Egypt in Gen 37 and 39-50. In Gen 47:22 we read that the priests in Egypt had an established allotment (‫ כי חק לכהנים‬, lit. “for there was a portion due to the priests by statute”). Carmichael called attention to the fact that the tax imposed by Joseph in Egypt concerned the increase (‫ )תבואת‬of the seed of the field (‫)זרע השדה‬, language that echoes Deut 14:22 (LNB, 77). Only here in the law of the tithes is there concern about the matter of distance from the central sanctuary, and the provision that one’s produce can be converted into money and its equivalent brought instead. In the story of Joseph and his brothers this point is elaborated into a double episode with money placed in the sacks of grain that were received in Egypt (the central source of food). Moreover, as the story unfolds, the brothers ended by feasting with him (Gen 43; cf. Deut 14:26). Even the reference to strong drink (‫ )שכר‬in 14:26 appears in the Genesis story (Gen 43:34) in its verbal form , ‫וישתו וישכרו עמו‬, “they drank and they were merry with him.”

304

Deuteronomy 14:22-29

The law of the triennial tithe is reflected in the manner in which the Joseph story unfolds. The first two trips to Egypt on the part of Joseph’s brothers were essentially annual “pilgrimages” to the “central place” in quest of food—as witnessed byJoseph’s words when he made himself known to them (Gen 45:6): “For the famine has been in the land these two years; and there are yet five years” to go. The journey of Jacob’s entire household to take up residence in Egypt took place in the third year, the year of the triennial tithe, which was to be stored in local places of residence of the people of Israel. Moreover, the seven years of famine in the story of Joseph correspond with the seven-year cycle of the laws that follow in Deut 15:1-18. Comment 22-23 Scholars debate the nature and historical development of the “tithe” in ancient Israel. The text here states that the “tithe” is to be brought “year by year” and presented “before YHWH your God in the place which he chooses to have his name dwell” (i.e., the central sanctuary). The offering in question consists of one-tenth “of your grain, wine, and oil, and the firstlings of your herd and your flock.” This tithe is to be presented in the Feast of Booths, at the end of the agricultural year, to be consumed by the household of each worshiper, along with the priestly establishment at the central sanctuary. It should be noted that all the firstlings of the livestock were consumed at the central sanctuary, not just a tenth of them (see 15:19-20). 24-27 If the distance to the central sanctuary “is too long for you” to bring the tithe in kind, the worshipers are told to “exchange it for money” and to bring the money “to the place that YHWH will choose,” where they are to “exchange the money for all your appetite craves,” that is, “for oxen, sheep, and wine” to be consumed at the festival gathering; for “you shall eat there in the presence of YHWH.” The money was gold and silver, which “was shaped into rings, bracelets, ingots and the like, the value of which was ascertained by weighing them. . . . Coins . . . were not used in Israel until after the Babylonian exile” (Tigay [1996] 143). The translation “and for intoxicant” understands the term ‫שכר‬, which is often rendered as “strong drink,” as an interpretive synonym for “wine” (‫)יין‬. The point is that the wine purchased is for the purpose of celebration—“and you shall rejoice, you and your household.” The Hebrew word ‫ שכר‬indicates some kind of alcoholic beverage, or as Jerome described it, “omne quod inebriare potest” (G. A. Smith [1918] 195). As G. E. Wright noted, “Some in the temperance movement have maintained that the biblical wine was unfermented and never intoxieating. The Hebrew word . . . here definitely contradicts that opinion. The Bible contains adequate material for the teaching of temperance without the necessity of wantonly misinterpreting it” (ZB 2:426). The celebration is to include the entire household of the worshiper, “and the Levite who is within your towns.” In other words, the local Levites were provided for along with the priestly establishment at the central sanctuary. On the omission of ‫לא תעזבנו‬, “you shall not forget,” see the discussion of Morrow, who argues that it “is a gloss which has entered the text at some late stage in the transmission of the text” (Saibing the Center [1995] 79). F. I. Andersen (The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 231 [The Hague: Mouton, 1974] 93) described the two words as an “adjunctive

Bibliography

305

clause,” which sits loosely in a passage which would flow smoothly without it. Seitz also found the syntax peculiar (R ed a ktio n sg e sc h ic h tlic h e S tu d ie n [1971] 195-96; cf. v 29a below). The evidence Labuschagne has assembled on the use of the divinename numbers in 14:22-15:23 suggests that the text should be read as it stands in MT, without emendation. In the larger structure, 14:22-27 and 15:7-11 are each made up of 104 (= 4 x 26) words. Moreover, the total number of words in 14:22-15:23 comes to 494 (= 19 x 26) without the emendation. See the discussion of this evidence above at the beginning of this section (on 14:22-15:23) and below in the next section on 15:1-11. 28-29 In the third and sixth year of each seven-year cycle, the tithe was to be deposited “within your towns,” that is, at the place of local assembly where it was used to support “the Levite . . . the sojourner, the orphan, and the widow who is in your towns.” Though this offering is often called the triennial poor tithe, it should be noted with Mayes that “clearly the intention is not to impose an extra tithe in the third year, but rather to put the annual tithe in that year to a different use” ([1981] 246). The erroneous interpretation of this law within postexilic Judaism (cf. Tob 1:7; Deut 26:12 in LXX; and Josephus, A n t 4.8.22 §§240-43) was probably the result of attempts to harmonize the law here with the priestly legislation in Num 18:21-24, where the purpose of the tithe is for the support of the Levitical priests, as Mayes has suggested. The declaration that was made when this tithe was delivered appears in Deut 26:12-15. On the relationship between the tithe of vv 22-23 and 28-29, see the discussion under F o r m /S tr u c tu r e /S e ttin g above. Other gifts for the poor are prescribed in 24:19-22. Explanation

It was the individual worshiper’s responsibility to provide the means to maintain the religious establishment, but a major part of the offerings presented in the annual tithe were in fact consumed by the worshiper himself and his household. It is much easier to give when the giver’s own needs are met as well within the context of celebration in public worship. For the people of God in ancient Israel, tithing was not an option. Part of the offerings went to the support of the Levites, and in the three-year cycle a major part to the poor (symbolized by the widow, the orphan, and the resident alien in their midst). Nonetheless, the chief purpose of the tithe was “that you may learn to fear YHWH your God always” (v 23).

2.

Protection o f the Poor (15:1-11)

Bibliography on 15:1-6 Baudissin, W. W. G. “Die alttestamentliche Religion und die Armen.” PreussischeJahrbucher 149 (1912) 193-231 (207-8). Cavalletti, S. T1 Significato di m ashsheh y a d in Deut. 15,2.” A n to n 31 (1956) 301-4. Cholewiiiski, A. Heiligkeitsgesetz u n d Deuteronom ium . 1976. 218-19. Cohen, A. “Shmitta.” B M ik 24 (1978) 45-49 (Heb.). David, M. “The Codex Hammurabi

306

D euteronomy 15:1-11

and Its Relation to the Provisions of Law in Exodus.” O T S 7 (1950) 149-78.-------- . “Deux anciens termes bibliques pour la gage.” O T S 2 (1943) 79-86. Finkelstein, J. J. “Ammisaduqa’s Edict and the Babylonian ‘Law Codes.’” J C S 15 (1961) 91-104 (98). -------- . “The Edict of Amimsaduqa: A New Text.” R A 63 (1969) 45-64. Gibeathi, M. “The Shemitta of Money in Materialist Research.” B M ik no. 81 (1979) 172-80 (Heb.). Greenberg, M. “Biblical Attitudes Toward Power: Ideal and Reality in the Law and the Prophets.” In R eligion a n d Law . Ed. E. R. Firmage et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. 101-12. Horst, F. PnvilegrechtJahves. 1930. 56-57 (repr. in GottesRecht. 79-80). Kaufman, S. “A Reconstruction of the Social Welfare Systems of Ancient Israel.” In F S G. W. Ahlstrom. 1984. 277-86. Kraus, F. R. E in E d ik t des Konigs A m m isaduqa von Babylon. Studia et Documenta ad iura Orientis Antiqui pertinentia 5. Leiden: Brill, 1958. Lemche, N. P. “ANDURARUM and MI&ARUM: Comments on the Problem of Social Edicts and Their Application in the Ancient Near East.”J N E S 38 (1979) 11-22. Levenson, J. D. “Poverty and State in Biblical Thought.”Jud 25 (1976) 230-41. Lewy, J. “The Biblical Institution of Deror in the Light of Akkadian Documents.” E l 5 (1958) 21-31. Meek, T. J. “Translating the Hebrew Bible.”J B L 79 (1960) 328-35. Milano, L. “Sul Presunto Giubileo a Ugarit (PRUV9).” O rA nt 16 (1977) 23-33. Morrow, W. “The Composition of Deut 15:1-3.” H A R 12 (1990) 115-31. Neufeld, E. “Socio-Economic Background of Ydbeland Sem itta.” R S O 33 (1958) 53-124. North, R. “YAD in the Shemitta-Law.” V T 4 (1954) 196-99. Penna, A. “I ‘Poveri’ Secondo il Deuteronomio.” In Evangelizare Pauperibus. Atti della XXIV Settimana Biblica. Brescia: Paideia, 1978. 218-28. Perlitt, L. ‘“Ein Einzig Volk von Brudern.’” F S G. B ornkam m . 1980. 27-52. Ploeg, J. van der. “Les pauvres d ’Israel et leur pietee.” O T S 7 (1950) 236-70 (250). Pons, J. L ’oppression d ans TA ncien Testament. Paris: Letouzey, 1981. Talshir, Z. “The Detailing Formula wezeh (had)dabar. ” Tarbiz 51 (1981) 23-35 (Heb., Eng. summary). Weil, Η. M. “Gage et cautionnement dans la Bible.” A rch iv d ’histoire d u droit international 2 (1938) 171-241 (189). Westbrook, R. “Redemption of Land.” IL R 6 (1971) 367-75. Wright, C. “What Happened Every Seven Years in Israel?” Lt‫׳‬Q56 (1984) 129-38, 193-201. Yamauchi, E. “Two Reformers Compared: Solon of Athens and Nehemiah of Jerusalem.” F S C. H . Gordon. 1980. 269-92. Zeitlin, S. “Prosbol—A Study in Tannaitic Jurisprudence.” In Solomon Zeitlin s Studies in the Early H istory o f Judaism . Vol. 4, H istory o f Early Talm udic Law. New York: Ktav, 1978. 148-69.

Bibliography on 15:7-11 Albertz, R. “Tater und Opfer im Alten Testament.” ZE E 28 (1984) 146-66 (160 n. 40). Berger, K. “Hartheerzigkeit und Gottes Gesetz: Die Vorgeschichte des antijudischen Vorwurfs in Me 10,5.” Zeitschnft f u r die neutestamentliche W issenschaft 61 (1970) 1-47. Boyce, R. N. The Cry to God in the Old Testament. SBLDS 103. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Brunner, H. “Die religiose Wertng der Armut im Alten Agypten.” S a eculum 12 (1961) 319-44. Daube, D. “The Culture of Deuteronomy.” O R IT A 3 (1969) 27-52 (51). Falk, Z. W. “Sodological Notes on Deuteronomy.” D ils 3 (1972) 37-43. Hamilton, J. M. “H a ’dres in the

Shemitta Law.” V T 42 (1992) 214-22.-------- . Social Justice a n d D euteronom y: The Case o f SBLDS 136. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Levenson, J. D. “Poverty and State in Biblical Thought.,'J u d a ism 25 (1976) 230-41. Maag, V. “Belijacal im Alten Testament.” In Kultur, K u ltu rko n ta kt u n d Religion: Gesammelte Studien zu r allgemeinen u n d alttestam entlichen Religionsgeschichte. Ed. H. Schmid and O. Steck. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1980. 221-33. Patrick, D. “Casuistic Law Governing Primary Rights and Duties.”JBL 92 (1973) 180-84.-------- . In tro d u ctio n to O ld Testam ent Law . Atlanta: John Knox, 1985. 23-24. Ploeg, J. van der. “Les pauvres d’Israel et leur piete.” O T S 7 (1950) 236-70 (250). Vansteenkiste, M. “‫ עני‬et ‫ ענו‬dans l’Ancien Testament.” D iv u s T hom as 59 (1956) 3-19.

D euteronom y 15.

Translation

Translation and Prosodic Analysis

The Remission of Debts Every Seven Years [ (4:8): (5:6): (6:5): (8:4) ] 1A t th e e n d o f seven years / y o u s h a ll g r a n t a release / / 2 a n d th is / is th e m a n n e r o f th e release / I t is released / every p ossessor / o f a lo a n o f h is h a n d / w h a t he h a s le n t / to h is n e ig h b o r / / H e s h a ll n o t e x a c ta o f h is neighbora / h [ a n d o f h is brother / ] b f o r the release p ro c la im e d / is o f Y H W H / / 3 O f th e fo r e ig n e r / y o u m a y e x a c t it / / b u t w h a te v e r is d u e to y o u / f r o m y o u r brother / y o u r h a n d s h a ll release / / 4 H o w e v e r / because / there s h a ll n o t be a m o n g y o u / a n y p o o r / / f o r Y H W H a / w ill surely bless y o u / I n th e la n d / t h a t \ b Y H W H y o u r G od / is g iv i n g y o u f o r a n in h e n t a n c e \ c to possess / / 5 i f on ly V y o u d ilig e n tly obey / th e voice / o f Y H W H y o u r G od / / To be c a r e fu l^ to do / a ll o f th is c o m m a n d m e n t / th a t / I c o m m a n d y o u / T O D A Y / / 6F o r Y H W H y o u r G od / w ill bless y o u / j u s t a s / he p ro m is e d y o u / / A n d y o u s h a ll e x te n d lo a n s / to m a n y n a tio n s / b u t a s f o r y o u / y o u s h a ll req u ire n o lo a n s / A n d y o u s h a ll r u le / o ver m a n y n a tio n s / b u t o ver y o u / they s h a ll n o t r u le / / ‫ס‬

Exhortation to Lend to the Poor [7: (6:5) :(8 :8 ):(5:6) :7] 7 W h e n there is a m o n g y o u a p o o r m a n / aa m o n g y o u r brothers* / in on e o f y o u r to w n s / in y o u r 15 la n d / T h a t Y H W H y o u r G od / is g i v i n g y o u / / cy o u s h a ll n o t h a r d e n y o u r h e a r t / A n d y o u s h a ll n o t s h u t / y o u r h a n d / a g a in s t y o u r b rother \ d th e p o o r on e / / 8 B u t y o u s h a ll surely open / y o u r* h a n d / to h im / / a n d h y o u s h a ll surely / le n d h im / s u ffic ie n t Ic f o r h is need / d w h a te v e r h is n e e d d / m a y be / / 9 B ew a re / lest there be a base t h o u g h t in y o u r h e a r t / s a y in g / uT h e se v e n th y e a r is n e a r / th e y e a r o f release ” / a n d y o u r eye be e v il / a g a in s t y o u r brother / the p o o r on e / A n d y o u g iv e J * h im n o th i n g / / a n d he aries a g a in s t y o u / to Y H W H / a n d y o u in c u r / g u i l f / / 10 You s h a ll surely giveX* to h im h / a n d y o u r h e a r t s h a ll n o t be e v il / in y o u r g i v i n g to h im / /

308

D euteronomy 15:1-11

B e c a u s e / it is f o r / th is ve ry t h i n g / Y H W H y o u r G od / h a s blessed y o u / I n a ll y o u r w ork / a n d in a ll / th a t y o u r h a n d u n d e r ta k e s / / 11 f o r / a p o o r o n e w ill n e v e r cease / o u t o f th e la n d / Therefore / I c o m m a n d y o u \ b s a y in g / “Y ou s h a ll su rely / op en w id e y o u / 1 h a n d / to y o u r needy brother / a n d to th e p o o r / in y o u r l a n d ” / /

11 15 6

‫ס‬

3 2 1

11

2

17 17

3 2

12

2

28

3

N otes 2.a‫־‬a. O m itted in LXX. 2.b-b. O m itted as a gloss with one H eb. MS as suggested by H em pel in BHS; a few H eb. MSS and SP om it waxv-conj. 4.a. A few H eb. MSS, Cairo G eniza fragm ents, SP, a n d LXX a d d ‫ א ל הי ך‬, “your G o d .” P rosodic analysis supports MT. 4.b. Reading the pasta’ followed by zaqep qaton as conj. 4. c. Reading the tipha3as conj. because o f m isplaced silluq. 5. a. Reading the yetib as conj. 5.b. Some Heb. MSS, SP, LXX, and Syr. add waiocon]. 7.a-a. Tg. reads ‫ א חד מאחיך‬, “one o f your b ro th ers,” and Syr. reads ‫ א חד מאחיכם‬, “one o f your [pi.] b ro th ers,” for MT ‫ מאחד אחיך‬, “from am ong your [sg.] bro th ers.” 7.b. Pronom inal suff. om itted in a few Heb. MSS; SP, LXX, Syr., a n d Vg. read ‫בארץ‬, “in the lan d .” 7.c. Cairo Geniza fragm ents add waw-conj. Prosodic analysis tends to sup p o rt MT. 7. d. Reading the tipha3as conj. because o f the m isplaced silluq. 8. a. SP om its ‫ ;את‬m ost LXX witnesses read 2 pi. suff. ‫ידכ ם‬, “your [pi.] h a n d ,” for MT ‫י ד ך‬, “your [sg.] h a n d .” 8.b. O ne Heb. MS, SP, and LXX om it waw-conj. 8.c. R eading the yetib accent as conj. 8. d‫־‬d. O m itted in LXXmm and Vg. Prosodic analysis supports MT. 9. a. LXX adds κρυπτόν, “secret.” Prosodic analysis supports MT. 9.b. Reading the tipha3as conj. because o f the m isplaced 3atnah. 9. c. LXX adds μεγάλη, “g re at” (= ‫)גדול‬. Prosodic analysis supports MT. 10. a. Reading the pasta3followed by zaqep qaton as conj. 10. b. LXX adds καί δάνειον δ α νιεΐς‫ ־‬αύτω όσον έπ ιδ έ ε τα ι, “and you shall lend him as m uch as he wants” (cf. v 8). Prosodic analysis supports MT. 11. a. SP, Syr., an d Tg read ‫האביון‬, “the p o o r,” for MT ‫אביון‬, “a p o o r o n e ”; Vg. reads pi. Prosodic analysis suppports MT. T he awkwardness o f the original H ebrew text is “c o rre c te d ” in m ost translations, ancient and m odern. 11 .b. Reading the pasta3followed by zaqep qaton as conj. ll.c . SP om its ‫ ;את‬LXX and Tg. Ps. J. read 2 pi. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

Form/Structure/Setting

The second of the measures to protect the poor in 14:22-15:23 commands the remission of debts in the seventh year. Though there is no specific reference in Deuteronomy to the practice of leaving the land fallow every seventh year (cf. Exod 23:10-11), it may well be that the law here is connected with that ancient agricultural custom. The year in which crops were not planted would pose a hardship on those who were dependent on gleanings left in the harvest and thus the poor would not be in a position to repay debts at that time. The release here means much more than simply delay in repayment of loans due. As suggested earlier in this section (14:22-15:23), the exhortation to lend to

Form/Structure/Setting

309

the poor (15:7-11) is the structural center of the following five-part concentric structural design: A The annual and the triennial tithes B The remission of debts every seven years X Exhortation to lend to the poor B' Manumission of indentured servants in the seventh year A' Sacrifice of firstborn livestock

14:22-29 15:1-6 15:7-11 15:12-18 15:19-23

The outer frame in this structure focuses attention on those aspects of the worship system of ancient Israel that provide for the needs of the religious establishment, the poor (sojourners, widows, and orphans), and the household of individual worshipers by means of tithes (14:22-29) and sacrificial offerings (15:19-23). The inner frame deals with specific measures to relieve the suffering of the poor by the remission of debts (15:1-6) and the manumission of indentured servants (15:12-18), both to take place every seven years. The center of this structure focuses on the third of the five measures to alleviate the suffering of the poor in 14:22-15:23, the exhortation to lend to the poor (15:7-11). The two sections in 15:1-11 are marked in MT with the setu m a ‫ ג‬layout marker after vv 6 and 11. The provisions of these two laws continue the larger section on duties performed at regular intervals (14:22-16:17), which is an expansion of the fourth commandment to “keep the day of the Sabbath to make it holy” (5:12-15). Hamilton outlined the structural design of vv 1-3, which he described as “an in-and-out argument, a chiasm” (S o cia l J u stice , 17), as follows: A every holder of a pledge/loan under his control shall release B what he has received (by pledge/loan) from his neighbor C he shall not exact (the loan) D of his neighbor, his kin X for the “release” of YHWH has been proclaimed D' of the foreigner C' you may exact (the loan) B' but that which is yours from your kin A' you shall release from your control

v l-2 aa v 2ap v 2ba

v2bp v 2by v 3aa v 3ap v 3ba v 3bp

The appeal to the authority of YHWH as the grounds for the authority of the law itself is the structural center on which the argument turns. Hamilton (S o cia l J u stice , 18) goes on to describe the structure of 15:1-11 in linear form as follows: (1) the bald statement of the ‫ שמטה‬law (v 1) (2) the outworking of the law in three units: (a) explanation (vv 2-3) (b) portrait of the ideal (vv 4-6) (c) further instruction (w 7 -ll)

Each of the three appended units (vv 2-11) is designed “in such a way as to lead the audience both within the immediate argument of each section and in consort with one another to an inescapable confrontation with the issues at stake here” (p. 18). Morrow has demonstrated the unity of vv 7-10 in terms of its “ring composition,” which he outlines as follows (S c r ib in g the C en ter [1995] 108):

310

D euteronomy 15:1-11

A ki clause B prohibitions (2) C emphatic commands (2) X prohibitive C' emphatic command B' prohibition A' fo'clause

v 7a v 7b v8 v9 v 10a v 10aP v 10b

The ki clauses in vv 7a and 10b share an unusual compositional feature, as Morrow has noted. The double collocation “in one of your towns in your land” (v 7a) is paralleled in v 1 0 with a redundancy of a similar nature—“in all your work and in all that your hand undertakes.” Each of the two subunits (vv 1-6 and 7-11) may be outlined in concentric fashion: A Every seven years you shall grant a release B Foreigners are not included in the release X There shall not be among you any poor B' Be careful to do all of this commandment A' YHWH is your God and he will bless you A Do not shut your hand to a poor man among your brothers B Open your hand and lend him what he needs X Beware lest you be tempted not to give to your poor brother B' The poor will not cease out of the land A'Open wide your hand to your brother . . . and the poor

15:1-2 15:3 15:4 15:5 15:6 15:7 15:8 15:9-10 15:1 la 15:11b

The center of these two structures highlights the primary concerns of the legislation itself, which is intended to make sure that “there shall not be among you any poor” (v 4); and to remove the temptation not to give to a poor brother what he needs as the year of remission approaches (vv 9-10). It should be noted that foreigners are not included in the law of release (v 3). The laws apply to the “poor man among your brothers” (v 7). The law of release has puzzled commentators, who are unable to find a point in time within the history of ancient Israel when such a law was ever put in practice, at least on face value. Craigie, who follows the arguments of Keil and Delitzsch, is in good company with his conclusion about the meaning of the term ‫שמטה‬, “release”: “the difficulty concerns whether the term means ‘suspension’ or ‘term ination’ . . . whether a debt was to be terminated permanently or suspended for the year, meaning that repayment could not be demanded during the course of the seventh year” ([1976] 236). The plain sense of the text argues that the meaning is a complete discharge of the debt, as von Rad observed ([1966] 106)—however unrealistic this may appear to be in practice. It is interesting to see how the laws in 15:1-18 were used in shaping certain details in the story of the exodus from Egypt. On three different occasions (Exod 3:21-22; 11:2-3; 12:35) there is specific reference to the despoiling of the Egyptians—as the people of Israel “asked of the Egyptians jewelry of silver and of gold, and clothing,” which they received as “gifts.” Moreover, the law of the manumission of indentured servants (15:12-18) makes specific mention of Israel’s

311

Form/Structure/Setting

slavery in Egypt (v 15). Carmichael has drawn attention to the fact that the provisions of food received on two occasions by Joseph’s brothers “turned out to be gifts, because each time Joseph had put the money back in the sacks” (LNB, 81). The law makes specific mention of “harden (ing) your heart” so as not to give a poor man what he needs as the year of release approaches (v 7), and of the cries of such a one “against you to YHWH” (v 9). As Carmichael put it, “We are reminded of the pharaoh’s treatment of the Israelites, because his heart was hardened, and of their crying to God” (LNB, 81). In his study of the use of the divine-name numbers 17 and 26, Labuschagne (LAD II, 19-21) has shown that the scribes in ancient Israel considered 15:1-6 and 15:7-11 as literary subunits in which they managed to weave the divinename numbers into the fabric of the Hebrew text in several ways. Moreover, these two laws appear to be closely connected with 14:28-29, the law on the triennial tithe, and the larger literary structure extends from 14:22 through 15:11. Words:

before 3atn a h

after ‫כ‬a tnah

15:1-2 15:1-3 15:4 15:5 15:6 15:4-6 15:1-6

16 19 6 7 7 20 39

+ + + + + + +

10 17 12 10 12 34 (= 2 x 17) 51 (= 3x 17)

= = = = = = =

15:7-8 15:8-10 15:7+11 15:7-11

20 35 20 55 (=23 + 32)

+ + + +

17 26 23 49 (= 23 + 26)

= 37 = 61 = 43 (= 17 + 26) = 104 (= 4 x 26)

14:22-27 14:28-15:11 14:22-15:11

63 119 (=7x17) 182 (=7x26)

+ 41 + 111 + 152

26 36 18 17 19 54 90

= 104 (= 4 x 26) = 230 (= 43+ 187 [=11x17]) = 334 (= 104 + 43 + 187)

The opening two verses in the law on the remission of debts every seven years in 15:1-6 is introduced by two verses (vv 1-2) made up of 26 words. In the remainder of this law (vv 3-6), the divine-name number 17 is worked into this mathematical composition seven times: 15:1-3 15:5 15:4-6 15:1-6

words after 3atn a h total n um ber of words words after 3atnah words after 3atn a h

= = = =

17 17 34 ( = 2 x 1 7 ) 51 ( = 3 x 1 7 )

The two divine-name numbers are found in four other ways as well: in the total number of 104 (= 4 x 26) words in both 14:22-27 and 15:7-11; in the total number of 26 words after ‫נ‬atnah in 15:8-10; the total of 43 (= 17 + 26) words in 15:7 plus 15:11; and the total of 26 words after ‫ג‬atnah in 15:8-10. That 15:1-11 is closely tied to the laws on the annual tithe (14:22-27) and the triennial tithe (14:28-29) is shown by the fact that the total number of words before ‫ג‬atnah in

312

D euteronomy 15:1-11

14:28-15:11 comes to 119 (= 7 x 17) and the total number of words before ‫כ‬atnah in 14:22-15:11 comes to 182 (= 7 x 26). It should be noted that all of these laws were considered to be expansions of the fourth commandment to keep the Sabbath, which concerns the number seven, and that there are 49 ( = 7 x 7 ) words after the 3atnah in 15:7-11. It is also significant that the total number of words in 14:28-15:11 comes to 230 (= 43 [= 17 + 26] + 187 (= 11 x 17); and the total number of words in 14:22-15:11 comes to 334 (= 230 + 104 [= 4 x 26]). In short, the scribes of ancient Israel have carefully woven both divine-name numbers into the fabric of the Hebrew text here in a variety of ways.

Comment

1-2 “At the end of seven years”—in Jewish tradition, the remission of debts took place at sunset on the last day of the seventh year, which in ancient Israel was a second month of Adar. The Hebrew word “release” (‫ )שמטה‬means literally “a letting drop, remitting.” From the manner in which the term is explained here, S. Kaufman concludes that the term ‫ שמטה‬is borrowed and used in a new way here in Deuteronomy (F S A h ls tr o m , 282). Though the same term is used in Exod 23:10-11, the text here does not assume that the reader knows the law as it appears there. “It is released—very holder of a loan of his hand—what he has lent to his neighbor, he shall not exact of his neighbor.” The law was modified significantly in subsequent Jewish tradition, so that “it does not cancel unpaid wages, bills owed to shopkeepers for merchandise, and certain types of secured loans” (Tigay [1996] 145). In this regard, the law is similar to the m is h a r u m act of the Babylonian King Ammitsaduka whereby business loans were not cancelled (Lemche, J N E S 38 [1979] 11-22). So the “release” applies only to specific situations. That the terms “his neighbor” (‫“ )רעהו‬and his brother” (‫ )ואחיו‬refer to the same person is clear from what follows in vv 3-18, in which the term “brother” is used to emphasize the kindred relationship. From a grammatical point of view, the w a w in the phrase ‫ ואחיו‬is identified as the w a w e x p lic a tiv u m (D. W. Baker, “Further Examples of the W a w E x p l i c a t i v u m ” V T 30 [1980] 129-36). The term “brothers” is the dominant structural feature in the next section (vv 7-11), which is probably the source of its insertion here. Of the fourteen occurrences of ‫רע‬, “neighbor,” the term appears alongside ‫אח‬, “brother,” only here in v 2 and in 13:7 (Eng. 13:6), where both terms appear in a list intended to exhaust the possibilities of those who are closely related to the audience. Only here are the two terms paired in reference to the same person (s)—namely the compatriot(s) to whom the creditor owes release. “There is no doubt that this law is intended to address all the financial relationships within the land” (Hamilton, S o c ia l J u s tic e , 37). 3 The remission of debts does not apply to debts “of the foreigner,” who is to be distinguished from the alien or sojourner. The same was true of the m i s h a r u m decrees in ancient Babylon. Tigay has noted that “since foreigners were normally present in a country for purposes of trade, goods or money given to them on credit were usually investments or advance payments on goods, not loans because of poverty” ([1996] 146). The nuance in the use of the jussive in ‫ תשמט‬is not clear. Morrow has rendered it, “you are to make your hand let go of the claim you have on your brother” (S c r ib in g th e C e n te r [1995] 9 2 ) . R. North says “hand” (‫ )יד‬here is to be understood as referring to the power that the creditor

Comment

313

has over the debtor (VT 4 [1954] 196-99; see also P. Ackroyd, “Yad” TDOT 5:393-426). 4-6 The purpose of the legislation here is that “there shall not be among you any poor.” This is an ideal goal, as v 11 below demonstrates—“the poor will not cease out of the land” (‫)הארץ‬. In spite of the reality of the human condition that produces poverty, the law here is an attempt to alleviate the suffering of the poor. If Israel obeys God’s law, it will be so prosperous “many nations” will turn to Israel for loans in time to come. In his study of the “promulgation formula” (“that I command you today”), Braulik says the adverbial expression ‫היום‬, “today,” is never used when the speaker is YHWH (Studien zur Theologie [1988] 14). It belongs to the speeches of the covenant mediator and is used to emphasize that the lawgiver is confronting the people with a situation that demands decisive commitment (see also S. J. de Vries, “The Development of the Deuteronomic Promulgation Formula,” Bib 55 [1974] 301-16). 7-8 Anticipating reluctance to lend to the poor immediately before the year of remission, Moses commands the people “not (to) harden your heart.” The same language appears in 2:30 in the incident with King Sihon of Og, the first and prototypical conquest of the eisodus (entry into the promised land). “For the powerful to harden their hearts against the poor is for them to find themselves in the same camp with Sihon, who was given over for conquest. . . those who so resist put themselves at risk” (Hamilton, Social Justice, 33). “If there is among you a poor man among your brothers, you shall not shut your hand against your brother; but you shall surely open your hand [‫ ]יה‬to him” and “lend him sufficient for his need.” The term “hand” is used here for those who have the capacity to shape society. As in v 11 below, the verb “to open” (‫ )פתח‬appears with its infinitive accompanying in the emphatic position. Those with means are to release (v 2), not close (v 7), and open (v 1 1 ) their hands to meet the needs of those less fortunate. 9-11 As one observes that “the seventh year is near, the year of release,” it is possible that “your eye may be evil,” in the sense of being hostile “against your brother, and you give him nothing.” Such action will cause your brother to cry out “against you to YHWH and you will incur guilt.” For a detailed study of the “cry to God” on the part of those who are oppressed, see R. Boyce (Cry to God, 41-42). The statement that “your heart shall not be evil” means that the people are not to give grudgingly to the poor. God’s blessing “in all your work and in all that your hand undertakes” was precisely for this moment. The people of Israel are urged to “open wide your hand to your brother . . . and to the poor in your land” (‫)הארץ‬. The quotation of this verse by Jesus in Matt 26:11 (see also Mark 14:7 and John 12:8) has been used by some to justify neglect of the poor. The contrast between the words “the poor will never cease out of the land” (‫)הארץ‬ here with v 4 (“there shall not be among you any poor”) is sometimes interpreted as the difference between the words “among you” (‫בך‬, v 4) and “within the earth” (‫)בארצך‬, “earth” here taken to mean the world outside the bounds of Israel (so n r s v and Miller [1990] 137-38). J. M. Hamilton has shown that the reference to “the land” (‫ )הארץ‬here is to Israel, which “is meant to be jarring and confrontive” (VT42 [1992] 222). It is most unfortunate that this law and its citation in the NT have been misinterpreted through the centuries as license for neglect of the poor. “The sense of the passage in this view is that among an ideal people, obe­

314

D euteronomy 15:1-11

dient and blessed, there will be no poor, but should reality not attain the heights of the ideal, there is a specific attitude which one should have toward the poor (unbegrudging charity) and a certain act which one should do (freely give) ” (Hamilton, VT42 [1992] 222). Explanation

“Yahweh intends that Israel be a nation of sisters and brothers in which there will be no more poor” (N. Lohfink, O p tio n f o r th e Poor, tr. L. M. Maloney [Berkeley, CA: BIBAL Press, 1987] 45). “There was no separation between freedom and welfare. As G. E. Wright has put it, “This characteristic of Israelite law, so different from contemporary law, can only be explained as occasioned by theology, by the knowledge of God’s righteousness as shown in the Exodus, when a saving and unmerited love was shown to a weak, and enslaved people” (IB 2:427). In his provocative study, Hamilton found four main features on which to build his case for understanding the system of ideology of social justice presented here: “that doing social justice is not an abstraction but is something which can be detailed; that both the identity of the one to whom obligation is owed and the breadth of that obligation are given the widest possible compass; that the justness of society can be measured by its treatment of the dependent; and that YHWH serves as an advocate for those in special need of care” ( S o c ia l J u s tic e , 139). Though the widow, the orphan, and the sojourner are meaningful symbols of the dependent in ancient Israel, their circumstances differed from one another. For Hamilton, the mechanics of dependence in our society create different classes of people in special need. Hamilton concludes that human rights are “a set of obligations that the powerful owe to the powerless” (S o c ia l J u s tic e , 145). The view of human rights in the Bible “defines that treatment which the dependent has a right to e xp ect of society and that treatment which society ow es to the dependent” (p. 145). Hamilton chose to use the Gospel of Luke as a second point of reference alongside Deut 15. “Luke has been chosen because, like Deuteronomy, it shows a particular concern for issues of social justice and, also like Deuteronomy, it presents itself as a retelling of events and content already known from other places (see Luke’s ‘prologue,’ Luke 1:1-4)” ( S o c ia l J u s tic e , 144). The concern of Luke’s Gospel for the poor and the dependent is common knowledge. It is perhaps less well known that Luke’s Gospel “is echoing and elaborating on a theme which it has taken up from Deuteronomy . . . , the releaselaws themselves are not alluded to in Luke-Acts, (but) ‘release’ is, and the character of God who hears the cry of the oppressed and responds with speed and vigor is a favorite theme of this gospel” ( S o c ia l J u s tic e , 148). For the church today, both the Lukan and the Deuteronomic formulations of the issue are useful. Secular society has taken its cue from the Enlightenment rather than from the Scripture in seeing human rights as things to be safeguarded from encroachment rather than a set of obligations owed. The church must champion the latter point of view. Hamilton concludes, “Like the Lukan community, the contemporary community must retain as central the concern for social justice and insist that the right to be human is a obligation which society owes to each of its members” ( S o c ia l J u stic e , 149).

315

Bibliography

3. M anum ission o f Indentured Servants in the Seventh Year (15:12-18) Bibliography Albright, W. F. “Canaanite hofsi , ‘Free,’ in the Amarna Tablets.” J P O S 4 (1924) 169-70. -------- . “Canaanite hofsi and Hebrew hofsi Again.” JPOS 6 (1926) 106-8. Alexander, J. B. “A Babylonian Year ofJubilee. ”J B L 57 (1938) 75-79. Astour, M. “Les etrangers a Ugarit et le statut juridique des Habiru.” R A 53 (1959) 70-76. Baltzer, K. “Liberation from Debt

Slavery after the Exile in Second Isaiah and Nehemiah.” In FSF.

M . Cross.

1987. 477-84.

Barzel, Y. “An Economic Analysis of Slavery. " J o u r n a l o f L a w a n d Econom ics 20 (1977) 87-110. Bianchi, E. “Das Alte Testament und die Nichtgewurdigten der Gesellschaft.” Cone 15 (1979) 624-29. Boer, P. A. H. de. “Some Remarks on Exodus xxi,7-ll: The

Hebrew Female Slave.” In O rientalia N eerlandica: A Volume o f O riental Essays. Leiden: Sijthoff, 1948. 162-66. Cardellini, I. D ie biblischen ‘S k la v e n ’-Gesetze im L ichte des Keilschnftlichen Sklavenrechts. BBB 55. Cologne; Bonn: Hanstein, 1981. 269-76. Cazelles, H. “The Hebrews.” In P O T T . 1-28. Dahood, M. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography VII.” Bib 50 (1969) 337-56 (345). Dandamayev, M. “Social Stratification in Babylonia (7th-4th Centuries b.c.).” In W irtsch a ft u n d G esellschaft im alten Vorderasien. Ed. J. Harmatta and G. Komoroczy. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1976. 433-44. Daube, D. “Concerning Methods of Bible-Criticism: Late Law in Early Narratives.” A rO r 17 (1949) 88-99 (89-94).---------. Studies in B iblical Law . 1947. 49-50. Diakonoff, I. M. “Agrarian Condition in Middle Assyria.” In A n c ie n t M esopotam ia: Socio-Economic H istory. Moscow: Nauka, 1969. 204-34 (231).-------- . “Slaves, Helots and Serfs in Early Antiquity.” In W irtschaft u n d Gesellschaft im alten Vorderasien. Ed. J. Harmatta and G. Komoroczy. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1976. 44-78.-------- . “Socio-Economic Classes in Babylonia and the Babylonian Concept of Social Stratification.” A b h a n d lu n g e n der Bayerischen A ka d em ie der W issenschaft 75 (1972) 41-52. Donner, H. “Die soziale Botschaft der Propheten im Lichte der Gesellschaftsordnung in Israel.” O r A n t 2 (1963) 229-45. Doron, P. “Motive Clauses in the Laws of Deuteronomy: Their Forms, Functions and Contents.” H A R 2 (1978) 61-77 (64). Eichler, B. L. In d en tu re at N u zi. New Haven: Yale UP, 1973. Ellison, H. L. “The Hebrew Slave: A Study in Early Israelite Society.” E v Q 45 (1973) 30-35. Elon, M. Freedom o f the Debtor’s Person in Jew ish L a w (Heb.). Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964. 1-10. Fensham, F. C. “Exod 21,6.” VT9 (1959) 86-88.-------- . “Notes on Keret in CTA 14:90-103a.”J N S L 8 (1980) 35-47. Finley, Μ. I. The A ncient Economy. London: Chatto & Windus, 1973. 62-122. Forbes, C. A. T h eE d u cation a n d T ra in in g o f Slaves in A ntiquity. Ed. F. Walton. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 86. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955. 321-60. Gaudement, J. “Esclavage et dependance dans l’antiquite.” T ijd sch n ft voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 50 (1982) 119-56. Gayer, R. D ie S te llu n g der S kla ve n in den p a u lin is c h e n G em einden u n d bei P a u lu s. Beitrag fur Wertung des Sklaven in der Antike EHS 23.78. Bern: Lang, 1976. Gelb, I. J. “From Freedom to Slavery.” A b h a n d lu n g e n der B aynschen A kadem ie der W issenschaften 75 (1972) 81-92.-------- . “Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia. ”J N E S 32 (1973) 70-98. Gibson, J. C. L. “Observations on Some Important Ethnic Terms in the Pentateuch.‫ ״‬J N E S 20 (1961) 217-38. Gowan, D. E. “Wealth and Poverty in the Old Testament: The Case of the Widow, the Orphan, and the Sojourner.” In t4 A (1987). 341-53 (esp. 343-44). Gray, J. “Feudalism in Ugarit and Early Israel.” Z A W 64 (1952) 49-55. -------- . The K R T Text in the Literature o f R a s Sham ra: A Social M yth o f A n c ie n t C anaan. 2nd ed. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 5. Leiden: Brill, 1964. 52. Greenberg, M. “HAB/PIRU and Hebrews.” In The W orld H istory o f the Jew ish People. Jewish History Publications. New

316

D euteronomy 15:12-18

Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1963. 2:188-200, 279-81, 295 (198). Grelot, P. “H o fit (Ps lxxxviii 6).” FT 14 (1964) 256-63. H am ilton, J. M. Social Ju stice a n d D euteronom y : The Case o f Deuteronomy 15. SBLDS 136. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Hausler, E. “Sklaven und Personen minderen Rechts im Alten Testament.” Diss., Cologne, 1956. Heinisch, P. “Das Sklavenrecht in Israel und im alten Orient.” Stu d ia Catholica 11 (1934/35) 276-90. Henrey, K. H. “Land Tenure in the Old Testament.” P E Q 86 (1954) 5-15 (11-12). Hurowitz, V. “His Master Shall Pierce His Ear with an Awl (Exodus 21:6).” P AA JR 58 (1992) 47-77. Jacob, E. “Die altassyrischen Gesetze und ihr Verhaltnis zu den Gesetzen des Penta‫־‬ teuchs.” Zeitschnft f u r Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 41 (1925) 319-87 (357-58, 383-84). Japhet, S. “The Laws of Manumission of Slaves.” In F S S. E. Loew enstam m . 1978. 231-49. Kegler, J. “Arbeitsorganisation und Arbeitskampf im Alten Testament.” In M itarheiter der Schopfung: Bibel u n d Arbeitswelt. Ed. L. and W. Schottroff. Munich: Kaiser, 1983. 51-71. Kessler, M. “The Law of Manumission in je r 34.” B Z 15 (1971) 105-8. Klima, J. “Einige Bemerkungen zum Sklavenrecht nach den Vorhammurapischen Gesetzesfragmenen.” A r O r 21 (1953) 143-52. Lang, B. “Sklaven und Unfreie im Buch Amos (ii 6, viii 6).” FT31 (1981) 482-88. Lauterbach, W. “Der Arbeiter in Recht und Rechtspraxis des Alten Testa‫־‬ ments und des alten Orients.” Diss., Heidelberg, 1936. 11-13. Lemche, N. P. “‫ חפשי‬in Sam 17,25.” FT24 (1974) 373-74.-------- . “ANDURARUM and M1SARUM: Comments on the Problem of Social Edicts and Their Application in the Ancient Near East. ”//VES 38 (1979) 11-22.-------- . “The Hebrew and the Seven Year Cycle.” B N 25 (1984) 65-75.-------- . “The Hebrew Slave: Comments on the Slave Law Ex. xxi 2-11.” FT 25 (1975) 129-44. -------- . “The Manumission of Slaves—the Fallow Year—the Sabbatical Year—the Jobel Year.” FT 26 (1976) 38-59. Levi-Feldblum, E. “The Law of the Hebrew Slave: The Differences of Style and Their Meaning [Exod 21:2 and Dt 15:12].” B M ik 31 (1985/86) 348-59 (Heb.). Levy, A. “Aspects of Bondage and Release in the Bible: Comparative Studies of Exodus 21:2-6, Leviticus 25:25-55, Deuteronomy 15:12-18.” D.H.L., Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1981. Lindenberger, J. M. “How Much for a Hebrew Slave? The Meaning of M isn e h in Deut 15:18.” J B L 110 (1991) 479-82. Lipinski, E. “L’esclave Hebreu.’” FT 26 (1976) 120-23.-------- . “Sale, Transfer and Delivery in Ancient Semitic Terminology.” In Gesellschaft u n d K u ltu r im alten Vorderasien. Ed. H. Klengel. SGKAO 15. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982. 173-85. Liverani, M. “Ma nel settimo anno.” In F S G. R inaldi. 1967. 49-53. Lohfink, N. “‫ חפשי‬hopsi.” T D O T 5:114-18. Loretz, O. “Ex 21,6; 22,8 und Angebliche Nuzi-Parallelen.” B ib 41 (1960) 167-75.-------- . “Fortschreibung? Zur Technik von Rechtsrevisionen im deuteronomischen Bereich, erortert an Deuteronomium 12, Ex 21,2-11 und Dtn 15,12-18.” In D as D euteronom ium u n d seine Querbeziehungen. Ed. T. Veijola. 1996. 127-71.--------- . “Die hebraischen Termini HP§Y‘Freigelassen, Freigelassener’ und HP§H ‘Freilassung.’” UF 9 (1977) 163-67. --------- . “Ugaritisch-Hebraisch HB/PT, BT ΗΡΤΎ - HP3y HHP3 y/WT.‫ ״‬UF 8 (1976) 129-31. Mendelsohn, I. “The Canaanite Term of ‘Free Proletarian.’” B A S O R 83 (1941) 36-39. -------- . “The Conditional Sale into Slavery of Free-born Daughters in Nuzi and the Law of Ex 21:7-11;”J A O S 55 (1935) 190-95.-------- . “New Light on the H u p s u .” B A S O R 139 (1955) 9-11.-------- . “Slavery in the Ancient Near East.” B A 9 (1946) 74-88.-------- . Slavery in the A n c ie n t N ea r E ast. New York: Oxford UP, 1949. 2 6 .-------- . “State Slavery in Ancient Palestine.” B A S O R 85 (1942) 14-17. Miller, P. D. “The Human Sabbath: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology.” P SB 6 (1985) 81-97 (84, 9 3 ).-------- . “The Way of Torah.” P SB 8 (1987) 17-27. Na’aman, N. “Amarna alani pu‫־‬ru‫־‬zi (EA 137) and Biblical *ry hprzy/hprzwt (Rural Settlements).” Zeitschnft f u r A lthebraistik 4 (1991) 72-75. Phillips, A. “Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel.” FT 23 (1973) 349-61.-------- . “The Laws of Slavery: Exodus 21,1-11.”/SOT 30 (1984) 51-66. Ploeg, J. P. M. van der. “Slavery in the Old Testament.” In Congress Volume, Uppsala 1971. VTSup 22· Leiden: Brill, 1971. 72-87. Riesener, I. D er S tam m ‫ עבד‬im A lten Testament: E in e W ortuntersuchung u n te r Beriicksich tig u n g neuerer sprachw issenshaftlicher M ethoden. BZAW 149. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979. Schlaifer, R. “Greek Theories of Slavery from Homer to Aristotle.” H a rv a rd Studies in Clas­

317

Translation

sical Philology 47 (1936) 165-204. Tadmor, H., and Cogan, M. “Ahaz and Tiglat-Pileser in the Book of Kings: Historiographic Considerations.” Bib 60 (1979) 491-508 (503). Tsevat, M. “Alalakhiana.” H U C A 29 (1958) 109-43 (125-26). Volterra, E. “Le Affrancazioni di Schiavi nei Documenti Aramaici del V Secolo A.C.” R S O 32 (1957) 675-96. Weingreen, J. “The Deuteronomic Legislator—A Proto-Rabbinic Type.” In F S G. H . Davies. 1970. 76-89. --------- . From Bible to M ish n a : The C ontinuity o f Tradition. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1976. 132-42. Westerman, W. L. The Slave Systems o f Greek a n d R o m a n A n tiq u ity . Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1955. 50. Wolff, H. W. “Herren und Knechte: Anstosse zur LJberwindung der Klassengegensatze im Alien Testament.” T T Z 81 (1972) 129-39. Wood, J. L. R. “Kingship at Ras Shamra-Ugarit: A Study of the Literary, Ritual and Administrative Documentation.” Diss., McMaster, 1972. 89-96. Yaron, R. “Biblical Law: Prolegomena.” In Jew ish L a w in H isto ry a n d the M odern World. Ed. B. S. Jackson. JLASup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1980. 27-44 (37).-------- . “Redemption of Persons in the Ancient Near East.” R ID A 6 (1959) 155-76. Zakovitch, Y. “Some Remnants of Ancient Laws in the Deuteronomic Code.” /LR9 (1974) 346-51.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis

Manumission of Indentured Servants in the Seventh Year [ (4:5): (6:5): (4:4): (4:4): (5:6): (5:4) ]

12For if your brother is sold to you / whether a Hebrew male / or / a Hebrewfemale / And serves you \a six years / / and in the / seventh year / you shall send him away free / from you / / 13 And when you send him away free / from you / / you shall not send him away / empty-handed / / 14 you shall surely make provision / for him / From yourflock / andAfrom your threshingfloor^A and from your winepress / / just asc YHWHd your God / has blessed you / so give to him / / 15 And you shall remember / that you were a slave / in the land ofEgypt / and YHWH your God redeemed youh / / Therefore / I command youc / this word / TODAY‫ ״‬/ / 16 And it shall be / that if he says to you / “I will not go away / from being with you”/ / Because he loves you / and your house / because it is goodfor him / to be with you / / 17 And you shall take an awl / and you shall thrust it through his ear / into the door / and he shall be / your slaveforever / / And to your slave girl / you shall do the same / / 18 ait shall not be hard in your eyesb / when you send / him away free / from you / Because / for doublec / the hire of a hired hand / he has served you / six years / / And YHWH your God / will bless you / in all / that you do / / ‫פ‬

[ 9 48 12 43 44 47 12 1 40 J 6 13 21 40 19 43 11

l J 1 ^

[1 5 l 11J

13 ‫ן‬

9 J

!2 ‫ו‬ 15 J 44 44 101 49 J Ϊ 11 42 45 ■ 8

1 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 2

318

D euteronomy 15:12-18

Notes 12.a. Reading tipha3as conj. because of the misplaced ,atnah. 14.a. Some Heb. and Tg. MSS omit waw-conj. 14.b. Reading tipha3as conj. because of the misplaced ,atnah. 14.c. Reading ‫כאשר‬, ‘just as,” with SP and some LXX witnesses for MT ‫אשר‬, “who,” which is certainly what is meant within the context. Since the preceding word ends with a kaph the error would be a simple haplography. 14. d. DSS read ‫ א תי‬, “Lord,” for MT ‫יהוה‬, “YHWH.” 15. a. Reading tipha3as conj. because of the misplaced 3atnah. 15.b. LXX adds έκειθεη, “from thence.” Prosodic analysis supports MT. 15.c. DSS, LXXmm, and Tg. Ps.-J. add ‫לעשות‬, “to do [this thing].” Prosodic analysis supports MT. 15.d. Omitted in LXX (except LXXl ); Origen marked with obelisk. Prosodic analysis supports MT. On the system of temporal markers in the book of Deuteronomy see !Vote 1:9.a. The word “today” here marks the center of 15:12-18. The mora count is 179 for both 12:12-15a and 12:16-18. 18.a. A few Heb MSS, SP, LXXmin, OL, and Syr add waw-conj. 18.b. Reading ‫בעיניך‬, “in your eyes,” for MT ‫בעינך‬, “in your eye,” with many Heb. MSS, Cairo Geniza fragments, and SP. 18.c. B and other Heb. MSS read ‫ משנה‬for MT ‫משנה‬. Either reading can be translated as “twice” or “double.” See Comment below on the meaning of this difficult text.

Form/Stru cture/ Setting The fourth of the five measures to protect the poor in 14:22-15:23 commands the freeing of indentured servants after six years of servitude. Compare the law here with that of Lev 25, which requires the manumission of servants only as part of the fiftieth, or jubilee, year. Servitude was a fact of life in ancient Israel, as it was throughout the ancient world. Two types of servitude are dealt with in biblical law: full slavery and indentured servants. The law here in 15:12-18 concerns indentured servants and is based on the recognition that Israel’s ancestors were slaves in Egypt (v 15). Consequently the people should show empathy to those who have been forced into servitude by the vicissitudes of life. The law states that the former servant is not to be sent away empty-handed, “you shall surely make provision for him ” (v 14). In the Exodus narrative the people received gifts of silver and gold objects from their former masters in Egypt. According to the law, “it shall not be hard in your eyes when you send them away free from you” (v 18). It was hard in eyes of the pharaoh to let his slaves go free (Exod 13:15), because God had hardened his heart (Carmichael, LNB, 82-83). According to the book of Deuteronomy, servants had certain legal rights including rest on the Sabbath (5:14), inclusion in the celebration of the pilgrimage festivals (12:18 and 16:11,14), and protection from abuse on the part of their masters (23:16-17). Moreover, full slavery was limited to foreigners. Though Israelites might become indentured servants, they could not be held indefinitely against their will (15:12-18). On self-sale into indentured servitude, see Mendelsohn, Slavery, 18-19 and 88-90. In the prophet Jeremiah’s reference to this law in Jer 34:12-16, we learn that it was apparently not observed in ancient Israel. The duress of foreign invasion in the days of King Zedekiah caused the people to repent and to free their Hebrew slaves (v 15); “but then you turned around and profaned my name when

Form/Stru cture/Setting

319

each of you took back your male and female slaves, whom you had set free according to their desire, and you brought them again into subjection to be your slaves” (v 16). In consequence, Jeremiah announced YHWH’s “release” (‫ ;דרור‬cf. Lev 25:10)—“a release to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine. I will make you a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth” (v 17). The law in 15:12-18 is a natural sequence to the laws on loans and poverty in w 1-11; for poverty is the underlying cause of indentured servitude. The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave in ancient Israel was limited to six years (v 12); after which individuals were to receive compensation in the form of gifts to enable them to maintain their new freedom. The content of the law on the manumission of indentured servants in 15:12-18 may be outlined in a five-part concentric design: A Set your Hebrew slaves free after six years of service B Make provisions from your flock, grain, and wine X Remember that you were slaves in Egypt B' Hebrew slaves have the option of becoming slaves forever A' Six years’ service is equivalent to the wages of a hired man

15:12-13 15:14 15:15 15:16-17 15:18

The outer frame in this structure presents the limit of six years of servitude in Israel (v 12) and the reasoning behind the policy that indentured servants were not to be sent away empty-handed (vv 13 and 18). The equivalent of the wages of a hired person for six years was to be factored in. The inner frame in the above structure expands on the nature of the provisions that were to be provided to the released servant (v 14) and the option of the Hebrew slave to enter servitude for life, should he or she so choose (vv 16-17). In the center we find the reminder that the people of Israel were slaves in Egypt, and that YHWH redeemed them from that condition—this is the reason for the commandment Moses is giving “today” (v 15). The summary statement, “therefore I command you this word today” (v 15b), stands precisely in the center of this literary unit—with a mora count of 179 on either side (for vv 12-15a and 16-18). It functions as part of a system of summation formulae in the macrostructure of the book of Deuteronomy as a whole (cf. 27:1; 28:69; 29:28; 32:46; and elsewhere). Hamilton has shown the structural connection between the manumission law in vv 12-18 with that of the naDCtf-year law of vv 1 - 1 1 with the following diagram (SocialJustice, 26): 15:1 15:2-3 15:4-6 15:7-11

heading-law warrant call to obedience consequence in specific situation

15:12 15:13-14 15:15 15:16-18

Both laws have the same structure—a sequence that follows in a general way observable patterns in wisdom literature, and which also corresponds to S. Toulmin’s description of what takes place when arguing a case in modern rhetoric (The Uses of Argument [London: Cambridge UP, 1958]). See Hamilton, SocialJustice, 26-31.

320

Deuteronomy 15:12-18

Comment

12 The term “your brother” (‫ )אחיך‬here refers to Hebrew kinfolk—both male and female. As the term ‫אח‬, “brother,” was paired with ‫רע‬, “neighbor,” in the ‫־שמטה‬year law (vv 1-11), the term is paired with (‫עברי)ה‬, “Hebrew,” in the manumission law (vv 12-18). The term “Hebrew” here calls attention to the experience of slavery in Egypt when the Israelites were ‫עברים‬, “Hebrews.” Tigay says the word “Hebrew” (‫ )העברי‬is the oldest designation for the people of Israel, who were not called “Israelites” before the time ofJacob, whose name was changed to “Israel” ([1996] 148). Thus Abraham was called a “Hebrew” (Gen 14:13). The term appears in Gen 39:14, 17; 40:15; 41:12; and 43:32, thirteen times in Exod 1-10, and in 1 Sam 4:6, 9; 13:3, 7, 19; 14:11, 21; and 29:3. After the time of David it seems to have fallen out of common use. Though the word “Hebrew” (‫)עברי‬ may be related to the term capiru as used in the Nuzi texts in particular, where it refers to people who indenture themselves in exchange for food and clothing, the two terms are not to be equated, as Tigay has argued. “There are phonetic differences between them, and in all other contexts ‘Hebrew’ clearly refers to an ethnic group, whereas capiru refers to a social class” ([1996] 148). The term “Hebrew” is used here to indicate that the law applies only to servants who are Israelites, not to non-Israelite slaves. The equal treatment of the sexes, “whether a Hebrew male or a Hebrew female,” does not indicate that the law here supersedes that of Exod 21:7-11, which refers only to sale for the purpose of marriage. The verb ‫ ימכר‬may be rendered either passively (“is sold”) or reflexively (“sells himself’). The law places a limitation of “six years” of time in which one Israelite may control another—“and in the seventh year you shall send him away free from you.” The term ‫חפשי‬, “free,” appears primarily in the context of manumission of slaves. Here it means the restitution of former status; but see Lemche, who described the social status of the ‫חפשי‬, “free,” in ancient Near Eastern law as being subordinate to a free citizen yet above that of a slave (VT 25 [1975] 140-44). 13-14 The reason the servant was not to be sent “away empty-handed” was to make sure that the person did not have to borrow for basic sustenance. The person was to be given “from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your winepress.” The provisions were to be “as YHWH your God has blessed you.” The master was to give as much as he could afford to give. In subsequent Jewish tradition, a minimum amount of thirty shekels was set, the value of a slave according to Exod 21:32 (Tigay [1996] 149 and 371 n 32). 15 Moses reminds the Israelites of their own experience—“you were a slave in the land of Egypt.” For this very reason they should treat their own servants with respect. Daube correctly understood the law here as playing a role in shaping the story of Israel’s release from slavery in Egypt in Exod 3:21-22; 11:2; 12:35-36 when the Israelites left slavery in Egypt enriched with gifts from the Egyptians (Studies in Biblical Law, 49-50). 16-17 If the servant prefers his or her indentured status to the risks and responsibilities that accompany freedom—“because he loves you and . . . it is good for him to be with you,” provision is made for voluntary permanent servitude: “and you shall take an awl and you shall thrust it through his ear into the door and he shall be to you a slave forever” (cf. Exod 21:5-6). Scholars have

Explanation

321

debated the significance of this symbolic act. Hoffmann is probably at least partially correct in his suggestion that the ear calls attention to the servant’s obligation to “hear” (= obey) the master’s orders. Tigay noted that one Egyptian word for slave means literally “listener” ([1996] 150; see P. Montet, Everyday Life in Egypt in the Days of Ramesses the Great, tr. A. R. Maxwell-Hyslop and M. S. Drower [Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1981] 61). Driving the awl into the door symbolizes the servant’s becoming attached to the master’s house. The omission of the phrase “before YHWH” here, which appears in the parallel text of Exod 21:6, implies that the ceremony was secular in nature, as Tigay has observed. For a detailed study of this symbolic act, see V. Hurowitz, PAAJR 58 (1992) 47-77. Mendelsohn argues that the ear was pierced in order to attach a tag of some sort, as a hole alone would heal over (Slavery, 49). Mayes ([1981] 252) supposes that one so tagged would have received preferential treatment as one whose debt has been discharged; but this moves well beyond the evidence in the text at hand. In subsequent Jewish tradition the statement that “he shall be to you a slave forever” was interpreted to mean for the rest of the master’s life, or until a Jubilee Year (Lev 25). We do not know when the Year of Jubilee was established in ancient Israel, nor if it was ever anything more than a utopian ideal. It is possible that the jubilee is part of Israel’s earliest premonarchic laws, which fell into disuse. On the other hand, Gottwald may be correct in his conclusion that the redemptive provisions (which Deuteronomy applies to the sabbatical year rather than to the Year of Jubilee), but not the jubilee, reflect “old conditions” (The Tribes o f Yahweh [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979] 264). What is important to notice here is that even if the servant chose voluntary servitude, he or she was not passed on to the master’s heirs as part of the estate. 18 The statement that “it shall not be hard in your eyes” means that the master was not to begrudge the action required in freeing the servant. The law concerns the master’s feelings as well as compliance with the law itself. The text reminds him of the benefit received from the servant: “Because for double the hire of a hired hand he has served you six years.” The translation here, which follows that of M. Fox ([1995] 921), attempts to convey the ambiguity of a difficult Hebrew text. As Tigay put it, “The sense seems to be that the servant has given twice the service that a hired man would have performed for the same cost. The point may be that the wages of a hired man would have been twice what the servant cost” ([196] 150). Tsevat argued that ‫משתה‬, “double,” here is to be related to Akkadian mistannu, with the meaning “equivalent, quid pro quo” (HUCA 29 [1958] 125-26). Lindenberger has shown, however, that mistannu in this text is Hurrian in origin, and the possibility for any direct connection to Hebrew is thus ruled out (JBL 110 [1991] 481-82). The point is that one gets more work for less pay from a slave than from an employee (“the hire of a hired hand”). See S. Japhet, “Laws of Manumission,” 245 n. 59; and Y. Zakovitch, ILR 9 (1974) 349-51. On the meaning of the term ‫חפשי‬, “emancipated slave,” see Lohfink, TDOT 5:114-18. Here it means restitution of former status (cf. v 12). Explanation

A limitation of six years was set for indentured servitude in ancient Israel. In the manumission law, the slave not only goes free with the means to make a fresh

322

Deuteronomy 15:12-18

start, he or she is also to be sent forth with blessing. The lesson is clear, as Hamilton has observed, “We should wish well for the powerless among us and give them the means to live well” (SocialJustice, 149). According to the law as stated here, those who have the capacity and resources are to see to it that the change from dependent living to good living is carried out. “Rather than advancing an ‘up-by-your-boots traps’ mentality, our exposure to the Deuteronomic way of thinking about social justice encourages us to confront those who can shape sodety for the better to do so” (Hamilton, SocialJustice, 150). The laws on social justice in Deut 15 are aimed primarily at those who have the capacity to shape society. “The powerful are reminded that the health of society is defined both by the absoluteness of its allegiance to YHWH and by its treatment of the dependent in its midst. The responsibility, the moral imperative, is thus not on the dependent but on the powerful who can make . . . that society a just one” (Hamilton, SocialJustice, 150). Luke’s portrait of Jesus focuses on what Jesus did for the outcast, the poor, and the vulnerable. In this sense the question of how a society treats the dependent becomes a word of judgment; for the community is invited to measure its behavior against that of Jesus who came for the sake of the release of the dependent (Luke 4:16-21). If we would take seriously the message of Deut 15, the church must be an advocate for the dependent in our society. Charles Colson and the organization he founded known as Prison Fellowship are good examples of a biblical response to the issue of social justice in America today. Colson’s personal experience in prison for his role in the so-called Watergate incident, which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, opened his eyes to the condition of a dependent group of people in our society whom the public at large would choose to consider less than human and deserving of no consideration in matters of social justice. The role of the church is to be that of advocate on behalf of the dependent. As Hamilton has put it, we “can identify as [our] constituency those who are without the normal system of support in our community, those without a voice to catch the ear of the powerful, those who command the support of no center of economic or political power. [We] can as advocates serve as the mouthpiece of YHWH in a society which no longer accepts the divine as a source of legislation” (SocialJustice, 155). The church must seek a role for itself that is committed to the principle that all of our society’s members have the right to be human. To cite Hamilton once again, “Just as Deuteronomy allows for the fugitive slave to take on the characteristics of YHWH, at least insofar as that one is allowed the divine right to choose a place, so too the church must allow itself to consider itself the very mouthpiece and image of the God who is the advocate of the dependent in a society which no longer looks for God in the ordinary course of events” (SocialJustice, 157).

Form/Structure/Setting

4.

323

Sacrifice o f Firstborn Livestock (15:19-23)

Bibliography A tkinson, C. W. “The Ordinances of Passover-Unleavened Bread (Dt 16,1-8).” ATR 44 (1962) 70-85 (73, 78). Gese, H . “Ezechiel 20,25f und die Erstgeburtsopfer.” In FS W. Zimmerli. 1977. 140-51. G uthe, H . “Das Passahfest nach Dt 16.” In FS W. Baudissin. 1918. 217-32 (227). Sasson, J. M. O n Jo n a h ’s Two Missions.” Hen 6 (1984) 23-29. Seters, J. Van. “The Place of the Yahwist in the History of Passover and Massot.” ZAW 95 (1983) 167-82 (179-80). Smith, W. R obertson. The Religion of the Semites. Repr. New York: Merid-

ian, 1956. 241,462-63.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis

Sacrifice of Firstborn Livestock [(5:4) :(7:7) :(5:4)] 19Every firstling / that is born in your herd and in yourflock / the male one / / you shall consecrate / to YHWH your God / / You shall do no work / with thefirstlings ofyour cattle / and you shall not shear / thefirstlings of yourflock / / 20Before the presence of YHWH your God la you shall eat it / year by year / in the place / that YHWH chooses / / you / and your household / / 21 But if there shall be in it / a blemish / lamenessY or blindness / namely hany\cseHous blemish / / you shall not sacnfice it / to YHWH / your God / / 22 In your towns you shall eat it / / the uncleanb and the clean / alike may eat / as a gazelle / or a hart / / 23 However its blood / you shall not eat / / upon the earth you shall pour it out / like water / / ‫פ‬

5

1

22

2

12

2

13 14 18

2

21

3

9 9 1

2 2 2 2

15 J 2 18 3 13 1 14 2 10

2

12

2

15

2

Notes 20. a. Reading the sequence of }azla followed by mahpak as disj. 21. a. Reading pasta ‫ נ‬followed by zaqep qaton as conj. 21.b. SP, Syr., and Vg. add ‫או‬, “or,” before the ‫כל‬, “any.” Prosodic analysis supports MT. 21. c. Reading tipha‫ כ‬as conj. because of the misplaced ‫כ‬atnah . 22. a. Reading tipha ‫ ג‬as conj. because of the misplaced 3atnah. 22.b. LXX adds ev aot, “in you,” which Origen marked with obelisk. Prosodic analysis supports MT.

Form/Structure/Setting

The law of the sacrifice of firstborn livestock (15:19-23) functions as an inclusion with the laws of the tithes (14:22-29) to complete the five-part cycle of measures to protect the poor in 14:22-15:23. The offering of firstlings and the tithe are closely connected in the worship practice of early Israel.

D euteronomy 15:19-23

324

A The annual and triennial tithes B The remission of debts every seven years X Exhortation to lend to the poor B' Manumission of indentured servants in the seventh year A' Sacrifices of firstborn livestock

14:22-29 15:1-6 15:7-11 15:12-18 15:19-23

The implication is that the Levites and the poor (widows, orphans, and sojourners) were included with the members of the worshipers’ households in the festival meals at the central sanctuary at which time these sacrifices were presented (cf. 14:29), even though these persons are not expressly mentioned in this instance. The law of 15:19-23 thus functions as an introduction to the laws of the pilgrimage festivals as well, which follow in 16:1-17. The content of this brief section may be outlined in a five-part concentric structure: A Consecrate the firstlings of your herd and flock to YHWH B Eat the perfect firstlings in the place YHWH chooses X You must not sacrifice there firstlings with imperfections B' Eat the blemished firstlings in your towns A' But pour the blood upon the earth like water

15:19 15:20 15:21 15:22 15:23

The outer frame specifies that the firstlings of the herd and flock are consecrated to YHWH (v 19) and that the blood of the sacrifice of these animals is to be poured out on the earth like water (v 23). The inner frame distinguishes between the perfect (v 20) and blemished (v 22) firstlings. The former are to be presented at the central sanctuary where they were to be consumed by the worshipers and their families (plus the Levites). The blemished firstlings were presented for normal usage as food in the local towns. In the center stands the summary legislation: ‘You must not sacrifice firstlings with imperfections,” which refers to sacrifices presented at the central sanctuary in the annual festivals. In the story of the exodus from Egypt, the firstborn of both livestock and human beings died—immediately before the institution of the Passover. Here the law of the firstlings (15:19-23) precedes the law of Passover (16:1-8). In the law a distinction is made between the firstborn without blemish and those that are blemished. In the narrative of the book of Exodus, a distinction was made between the firstborn of the Israelites and the Egyptians (Carmichael, LNB, 85). Labuschagne made some interesting observations in regard to the use of the divine-name numbers 17 and 26 in Deut 15:19-23. He noted that vv 20-21 have a total of 26 words—20 before the ‫ג‬atnah and 6 after the ‫כ‬atnah. If vv 19 and 2223‫־‬ are taken as a framework around these verses, we find the following: Words:

after 3atnah

before ‫ג‬atnah

15:19 + 22-23 15:20-21

17 20

+ +

17 6

=34 =26

15:19-23

37

+

23

=60

Labuschagne also observed that the same totals of 37 + 23 = 60 apply when one counts the words in main clauses over against subordinate clauses for this passage. The number 23 is the numerical value of the word “glory” in its alternate spelling

Bibliography

325

4 + 6 + 2 + 11) ‫)כבוד‬. In the so-called minor tetraktys, the number 23 constitutes the sum of the four numbers at the four corners of the pyramid (1+5 + 7 + 10), which was also associated with the name mm, “YHWH.” In short, the divine name in three separate aspects is woven into the fabric of the Hebrew text within these five verses. Comment

19-20 The injunction to “consecrate to YHWH your God” the “firstling that is born in your herd and in your flock, the male one,” means they are not available for secular use of any sort. They were to be eaten in the context of the pilgrimage festivals “year by year in the place that YHWH chooses,” which was to include each farmer “and (his) household.” Levites were included as participants in these festival meals (12:17-18). Exod 22:30 required the presentation of the firstling at the central sanctuary on the eighth day after birth, which was no longer practical once the people of Israel inhabited their respective tribal allotments in the promised land. Deuteronomy mandates that the firstborn of the livestock be sacrificed within a year of birth at one of the festivals, presumably at the Feast of Booths. The injunctions to “do no work with the firstlings of your cattle” and not to “shear the firstlings of your flock” function as a warning that the animal’s sacred status prohibits profane usage of that which is set apart for God as holy. 21-23 An animal with “a blemish” of any sort was not to be used as a sacrifice to YHWH. The reason is the simple fact that offering defective animals would be an affront to God (see 17:1; cf. Mai 1:6-9). Disqualified firstlings were to be eaten in the towns by “the unclean and the clean alike”—that is, by anyone, even those who are ritually impure for whatever reasons. Livestock slaughtered secularly was treated like game animals, “as a gazelle or a hart,” in that the ritually unclean were free to eat the meat. Explanation

The sacrifice of the unblemished firstborn from the flock or the herd points both backward and forward in time. It speaks of the original Passover sacrifice in Egypt, when the firstborn of the Israelites was spared and the firstborn of the Egyptians slain by the angel of death (Exod 13:1-15). But it also speaks of another Passover lamb (1 Cor 5:7), who was “without blemish or spot” (1 Pet 1:19), and whose sacrificial death provided salvation for all.

E. The Pilgrimage Festivals (16:1-17) Bibliography Ammermann, Μ. P. Die religiose Freude in den Schriften des Alten Bundes. Rome: Libreria Herder, 1942. 11-15, 26-27, 34-41, 56-57, 81-83. Auerbach, E. “Die Feste im Alten Israel.” VT8 (1958) 1-18. Bachmann, J . DieFestgesetze des Pentateuch, auf neue kntisch Untersucht. Berlin, 1858. Braulik, G. “The Joy of the Feast.” In Theology of Deuteronomy. 1994.

326

D euteronomy 16:1-8

27-65. ---------. “Leidensgedachtnisfeier u nd Freudenfeste: ‘Volksliturgie’ nach dem deuteronom ischen ‘Kultkalender’ (Dtn 16,1-17).” TP 56 (1981) 335-56 (repr. in idem, Studien zu r Theologie. 1988. 95-121). ---------. “O stern und Gesellschaft. Das alttestamentliche Pesach als Vorbild des christlichen Osterfestes.” Gottesdienst 27 (1993) 17-19. Cancik, H . “Das jiidische Fest: Ein Versuch zu Form und Religion des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes.” TQ150 (1970) 335-48. Casetti, P. “Funktion der Musik in der Bibel.” FZPhTh 24 (1977) 366-89 (384-87). G ertz, J. C. “Die Passa-Massot-Ordnung im deuteronomischen Festkalendar.” In Das Deuteronomium u n d seine Querbeziehungen. Ed. T. Veijola. 1996. 58-80. Ginsberg, H . L. Israelian Heritage o f Judaism. 1982. Chaps. 4-7. Hamm ershaim b, E. “History and Cult in the Old Testament.” In F SW .F. Albright. 1971. 269-82 (279-81). Klein, I. A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1979. Kutsch, E. “Erwagungen zur Geschichte der Passsafeier und des Massotfestes.” Z T K 5 5 (1958) 1-35.---------. “Feste und Feiern: II. In Israel.” f?GG2:910-l7. Landsberger, B. Der kultische Kalender der Babylonier u n d Assyrer: Erste Halfte. LSSt 6. 1915. Repr. Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR, 1968. Levinson, B. M. “The Transformation of Passover and Unleavened Bread in Deuteronomy 16.” In Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics o f Innovation. 1997. 53-97. McConville, J. G. “Cultic Laws in Deuteronomy.” Ph.D. diss., Q ueen’s Univ., Belfast, 1980. M organ, D. F. “The So-Called Cultic Calendars in the Pentateuch: A Morphological and Typological Study.” Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1974. Morrow, W. S. Scribing the Center. 1995. Nicolsky, N. M. “Pascha im Kult des jerusalemischen Tempels.” ZA W 45 (1927) 171-90, 241-53. Ravasi, G. “Strutture Teologiche della Festa Biblica.” L a Scuola Cattolica 110 (1982) 143-81. Ros G arm endia, S. L a Pascua en el Antiguo Testamento: Estudios de los Textos Pascuales del Antiguo Testamento a la L u z de la Critica Literaria y de la Historia de la Tradicion. Biblia Victoriensia 3. Victoria: Editorial Eset, 1978. 78-99, 112-17. Safrai, S. Pilgrimage at the Time o f the Second Temple. Tel Aviv: Am Hassefer, 1965. Schauss, H . Guide toJewish Holy Days. New York: Schocken, 1964. Segal, J. B. “The Hebrew Festivals and the Calendar.nJSS 6 (1961) 7 4 -9 4 .---------. “Intercalation and the Hebrew

Calendar.” V T 7 (1957) 250-309. Soggin,J. A. “Kultatiologische Sagen und Katechese im Hexateuch.” VT10 (1960) 341-47. Weimar, P. “Kult und Fest: Aspekte eines Kultverstandnisses im P entateuch.” In Liturgie— E in vergessenes Thema der Theologie? Ed. K. Richter. Freiburg; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 1986. 65-83. W ilcoxen, J. A. “The Israelite Passover: Its Context and Function in the Later Old Testament Period.” Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Chicago, 1967.---------. “Narrative Structure and Cult Legend: A Study of Joshua 1-6.” In Transitions in Biblical Scholarship. Ed. J. C. Rylaarsdam. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1968. 43-70. Wilms, F.-E. Freude vor Gott: K ult u n d Fest in Israel. Schliissel zu r Bibel. Regensburg: Puset, 1981.

1. The Passover Sacrifice and the Feast o f Unleavened Bread (16:1-8) Bibliography A tkinson, C. W. “The O rdinances of Passover-Unleavened Bread (Dt 16,1-8).” A T R 44 (1962) 70-85. Bauer, L. “Dt 16,1-8.” N K Z 37 (1926) 794-805. Brock, S. P. “An Early Inter-

pretation of pasah: 3aggen in the Palestinian Targum.” In F SE . I. J. Rosenthal. 1982. 27-34. Caloz, M. “Exode XIII,3-16 et son rapport au D euteronom e.” R B 75 (1968) 5-62. Cholewiriski, A. Heiligkeitsgesetz u n d Deuteronomium. 1976. Couroyer, B. “L’origine Egypt!-

Bibliography

327

enne du mot ‘p iq u e.’” RB 62 (1955) 481-96. D aube, D. “The Culture of Deuteronomy.” ORITA 3 (1969) 4 1 -4 3 .---------. “To Be Found Doing W rong.” In FS E. Volterra. 1971. 2:1-13 (12). D elcor, M. “Reflexions sur la paque du temps de Josias d ’apres 2 Rois 23,21-23.” Hen 4 (1982) 205-19. Elhorst, H . J. “Die Deuteronomische Jahresfeste.” ZAW 42 (1924) 136-45. Fries, D. S. A. Die Gesetzesschrift des Konigs Josia: Fine kritische Untersuchung. Leipzig: Deicherts, 1903. 52-54. Fiiglister, N. Die Heilsbedeutung des Pascha. SANT 8. Munich: Kosel, 1963. Gaster, T. H . Passover: Its History and Traditions. New York: Schuman, 1949. Gerlem an, G. “Was heiBt pshV’ZAW88 (1976) 409-13. G ordis, R. “An Unrecognized Biblical Use oi cereb.”JBL 102 (1983) 107-8. Grintz, Y. M. “Thejosianic Reforms and the Book of Deuteronomy.” In Studies in Early Biblical Ethnology and History. Jerusalem: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1969. 222-41 (232-33). G uthe, H . “Das Passahfest nach Dt 16.” In FS W. Baudissin. 1918. 217-32. G utm ann, J. “Deuteronomy: Religious Reformation or Iconoclastic Revolution?” In The Image and the Word. Ed. J. Gutmann. 1975. 5-25. Haag, H. “Das Mazzenfest des Hiskia.” In FS K. Elliger. 1973. 8 7 -9 4 .---------. Vom alien zum neuen Pascha. SBS 49. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1971. H alb e, J. “Erwagungen zu Ursprung und Wesen des Massotfestes.” ZAW87 (1975) 324-46.---------. “Passa-Massot im deuteronom ischen Festkalender: Komposition, Entstehung und Programm von Dtn 16,1-8.” ZAW87 (1975) 147-68. H aran, M. “The Passover Sacrifice.” In Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel. VTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1972. 86-116. H enninger, J. Les fites de pnntemps chez les Semites et la paque Israelite. Etudes bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1975.---------. “fiber Fmhlingsfeste bei den Semiten.” In In Verbo Tuo: FS zum 50 jahngen Bestehen des Missionspnesterseminars St. Augustin bei Siegburg. Veroffentlichungen des Missionspriesterseminars St. Augustin 12. Kaldenkirchen: Steyler, 1963. 375-98. Keel, O . “Erwagungen zum Sitz im Leben des vormosaischen Pascha und zur Etymologie von paesah.” ZAW88 (1976) 409-13. Kraus, H.-J. Worship in Israel. Tr. G. BuswellRichmpnd: John Knox, 1966. 45-46. ---------. “Zur Geschichte des Passah-Mazzot-Festes im Alten Testament.” EvT 18 (1958) 47-67. Kutsch, E. “Erwagungen zur Geschichte der Passafeier und des Massotfestes.” ZTK 55 (1958) 1-35. L aaf, P. Die Pascha-Feier Israels: Eine literarkritische und uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studie. BBB 36. Bonn: Hanstein, 1970. Luciani, F. “Le Aggiunte Finali nella Versione Greca de Deut 6,6; 16,8.” RivB 33 (1985) 81-98.---------. “Una Particolarita di Dt 16,8b Secondo la Versione Greca.” RivB 35 (1987) 181-86. Liiling, G. “Das Passahlamm und die Altarabische ‘Mutter der Blutrache,’ die Hyane.” ZRGG 34 (1982) 130-47. May, H. G. “The Relation of the Passover to the Festival of Unleavened Cakes ·”JBL 55 (1936) 65-82. M erendino, R. P. Das deuteronomische Gesetz. 1969. 137-46. McKay, J. W. “The Date of Passover and Its Significance.” ZAW84 (1972) 435-47. Molle, H . Das Erscheinen ’ Gottes im Pentateuch: Ein literaturwissenschaftlicher Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Exegese. Bern: Herbert Lang, 1973. 131-41. M orgenstern, J. “The Cultic Setting of the ‘Enthronem ent Psalms.’” HUCA 35 (1964) 1-42. O lavarri, E. “La Celebracion de la Pascua y Acimos en la Legislacion del Antiguo Testamento.” EstBib 31 (1972) 293-320. P edersen, J. “Passahfest und Passahlegende.” ZAW52 (1934) 161-75. Ploger, J. G. Literarkntische, formgeschichtliche und stilkntische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium. 1966. 74-75. Rost, L. ‘Josias Passa.” In FS W. Elliger. 1968. 169-75. Scharbert, J. “Das Pascha als Fest der Erlosung im Alten Testam ent.” In FSJ. G. Ploger. 1983. 21-30. Schmitt, R. Exodus und Passah: Ihr Zusammenhang im Alten Testament. OBO 7. Freiburg: Universitatsverlag, 1975. Schreiner, J. “Exodus 12,21-23 und das Israelitisch Pascha.” In FS W. Kornfeld. 1977. 69-90. Schulz, U. Das Fest: Eine Kulturgeschichte von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Munich: Beck, 1988. Segal, J. B. The Hebrew Passover from the Earliest Times to a .d . 70. London Oriental Series 12. London: Oxford UP, 1963. Seters, J. Van. “The Place of the Yahwist in the History of Passover and Massot.” ZAW 95 (1983) 167-82. Thiel, W. “Altorientalische und israelitisch-judische Religion.”JLH 28 (1984) 166-91 (182-83). Veijola, T. “The History of the Passover in the Light of Deuteronomy 16,1-8.” ZABR2 (1996) 53-75. Wambacq, B. N. “Les Massot.” Bib61 (1980) 31-54.---------. “Les origines de la Pesah Israelite.” Bib 57 (1976) 301-26.---------. “Pesah— Massot.” Bib 62 (1981) 499-518. Welch, A. C. “On the M ethod of Celebrating the

328

D euteronomy 16:1-8

Passover.” ZAW 45 (1927) 24-29. W harton, J. A. “Expository Article: D euteronom y 16:1-8.” Int 41 (1987) 287-91. Wyatt, N. “Atonement Theology in Ugarit and Israel.” UF8 (1976) 415-30.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis

The Passover Sacrifice and the Feast of Unleavened Bread [ ( 5 : 6 ) : ( 6 :5 ) : ( 4 : 4 ) : ( 4 : 4 ) : ( 4 : 4 ) : ( 5 : 6 ) : ( 5 : 5 )]

/ Observe / the month of Abib 1 / / and keep the Passover / to YHWH / your God / For / it was in the month of Abib / / YHWH your God / brought you out* / from Egypt / by night* / 2And you shall offer the Passover saarifice / / to YHWH your GodX* sheep and cattle / in the place / that YHWH1 chooses / / to make his name dwell / there / You* shall not eat bwith ith / anything leavened 3 / seven days / youa shall eat it with unleavened bread / / bread of affliction / cFor in haste / youd went out / from the land ofEgypt / so that you may remember / The day ofyour going out / from the land ofEgypt / / all / the days ofyour lifec / And]* there shall not befound among you lb anything leavened] 4 / / in all your territory / seven days / And none of theflesh shall remain / that you sacrificed con the day precedingc / thefirst day / / until morning / / You are not permitted^ to sacrifice the Passover*5 / / in one ofyour towns / that YHWH your God / is giving you / But \* only hin theplaceb / that YHWH your God choosesc6 כל< דרכיו‬, “in all his ways,” with LXX (ev π ά σ α ίς τ α ΐς όδοΐς αύτου, “in all his ways”) for MT ‫בדרכיו‬, “in his ways,” improves the m etrical balance in term s o f m ora count in this verse, it also disturbs the total word count for this passage and in the whole o f the fifth reading in the lectionary cycle (16:17-21:9). T he balance is restored by d eleting ‫ כל‬before ‫ המצוה‬at the beginning o f this verse and restoring it before ‫דרכיו‬.

Form/Structure/Setting

417

9. b. Some Heb. MSS, SPMss, and m ost LXX witnesses om it waw-conj. on ‫וללכ ת‬, “indeed [lit. ‘a n d ’] to walk.” Prosodic analysis favors MT. T he conj. is taken as em phatic. 10. a. SP reads ‫ ד ם נקיא‬, “in n o c e n t b lo o d ,” for MT ‫ ד□ נקי‬, “in n o c e n t b lo o d ,” as in J o n a h 1:14 (‫ ד ם נקיא‬, “in nocent b lo o d ”). See also Note 13.a. lO.b. Some H eb. MSS re ad ‫ דם‬for MT ‫ ד ם‬, “b lo o d .” Prosodic analysis favors MT. T he m eaning rem ains the same in either case. 10. c. Reading mahpak as yetib (same sign in slightly different position) so as to have a n o th er disj. accent. 11. a. SP omits waw-conj., which is possible in term s of m ora count. ll.b . Reading tipha3as conj. because of the m isplaced ‫כ‬atnah . ll.c . Sebir, two Heb. MSS, and SP read ‫האלה‬, “these.” Prosodic analysis supports MT ‫ האל‬as perhaps a ballast variant used in poetic contexts. T h e n o rm al form o f th e w ord in q uestion is ‫ אל ה‬, “these.” 11. d. Cairo Geniza fragm ents and one SP witness add ‫מן‬, “from ,” before ‫הערים‬, “the cities.” 12. a. SP reads ‫והומת‬, “and he is p u t to d e ath ,” for MT ‫ומת‬, “and he dies.” 13. a. Reading the tipha3as conj. because of the m isplaced 3atnah. 13.b-b. O ne Heb. MSS, SP, and Syr. read ‫הדם‬, “the b lood.” Prosodic analysis supports MT. SP also reads ‫הנקיא‬, “the inno cen t (blood),” here (cf. Note 10.a).

Form/Structure/Setting

Within the larger structure of the central core of the book of Deuteronomy as a whole (Deut 12-26), 19:1-21:9 is the concluding section on matters of leadership and authority in ancient Israel (16:18-21:9), as shown in the following outline: A Laws concerning judges and officials in your towns B Law of the king X Law of the Levitical priests—provisions for the clergy B' Law of the prophets A' Laws concerning the courts—judicial and military matters

16:18-17:13 17:14-20 18:1-8 18:9-22 19:1-21:9

The outer frame in this structure moves from laws on the appointment of judges and other local officials within the towns of ancient Israel (16:18-17:13) to laws concerning the courts within those towns, and the administration of justice and military matters (19:1-21:9). The laws within the second half of the outer frame of this structure may be outlined as follows: A Laws on manslaughter and the cities of asylum B The case of intentional murder—no asylum X Laws on encroachment and witnesses in court B' Intentional killing—warfare and military deferments A Law on unsolved murder—role of elders and judges

19:1-10 19:11-13 19:14-21 20:1-20 21:1-9

Except for the laws in the center of this structure in vv 14-21, all of these laws have something to do with the taking of human life—and thus the sixth commandment (prohibiting murder). Within the concentric design of 19:1-21:9, the laws on manslaughter and the provision of cities of asylum (19:1-10) are set over against the law on unsolved murder (21:1-9), in which ritual action is legislated to remove “the guilt of innocent blood from your midst” (21:8). The law on intentional murder (19:11-13) is set over against laws on warfare (20:1-20), which is intentional killing of another sort.

418

Deuteronomy 19:1-13

Three cities of refuge had already been established in Transjordan by Moses (4:41-43). Provision was now made for three additional cities of refuge in the more distant future (vv 8-10), “when YHWH your God extends your border . . . and he gives you all the land that he promised to give your fathers” (v 8 ). No specific cities in the promised land are mentioned by name here, for the Israelites had not yet crossed the Jordan River to take possession of the land. On the establishment of three of these cities (Kadesh in Galilee, Shechem in Naphtali, and Hebron in Judah) under Joshua, see Josh 20:1-9. There is no evidence that the final three, as provided in vv 8-10, were ever established in ancient Israel. Those who were guilty of intentional murder were not subject to protection in the cities of asylum, contrary to the general rule in the ancient world where discrimination was not made between the innocent and the guilty. Tigay cites the statement of Tacitus, who “writes that in the days of Tiberius, temples in the Greek cities were filled with felons as well as debtors, all enjoying sanctuary” ([1996] 182). This situation is altogether different in biblical law. As the law in Exod 21:14 puts it, “But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him treacherously, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.” Scholars differ in their opinions as to the date of the legislation regarding the cities of refuge in 19:1-9, some dating it to the tribal period (e.g., Kaufmann), others to the monarchy (e.g., Ahituv), and some as late as josiah (e.g., Rofe). Tigay counters the last claim with the argument that, “if the chapter were concerned with the effects ofJosiah’s reformation, one would have expected it to say ‘when the distance is g reat. . . because the place where the Lord has chosen to establish his name is far,’ as does 14:24” ([1996] 377 n. 4). It is easier to explain the text of Deut 19 as reflecting a setting in premonarchic Israel. Arguments like those of Rofe and Ahituv tend to overlook the fact that the pilgrimage festivals, as presented in the book of Deuteronomy, were celebrated “at the place YHWH chooses to make his name dwell there,” that is, at the central sanctuary as opposed to places where local assemblies gathered “within all your towns” throughout the land of Israel. In addition to the central sanctuary, which presumably was first located at Shechem (and later at Shiloh and still later in Jerusalem), two other places of asylum were established at the outset—one in the north (Kadesh in Napthali) and the other in the south (Hebron in Judah). Three more were subsequently to be added, according to vv 8-9, to make a total of nine. G. E. Wright argued, “The whole institution of cities of asylum bears the stamp of antiquity and was undoubtedly premonarchic in origin. The monarchy, patterned as it was on the model of pagan governments, would certainly not have used this method of limiting blood revenge had it not already been in existence and sanctioned by the covenant” (IB 2:452). The statement about the elders of the murdered man’s city sending for the murderer (v 1 2 ), and the means of carrying out the penalty of the law, add substance to this conclusion; for this is not the system a monarchic government would employ unless sanctioned by a law older than itself. Mayes concurred with this point of view as he concluded, “It is best to see the law on cities of refuge as being of high antiquity. It is not explicable as a monarchic innovation, for the latter would have relied on centralized judicial authority to enforce the aims for which the cities of refuge were established” ([1981] 285). The situation presupposed in 19:1-8 is that of premonarchic Israel, before David established Jerusalem as the final place that God has

Form / Stru cture/Setting

419

chosen for the central sanctuary, and the pilgrimage goal of God’s people to the present day, as the familiar concluding words of the Passover observance testify: “Next year in Jerusalem!” The close reading of 19:1-7 reveals the characteristic nesting of features in the development of its thought, which may be outlined in concentric fashion: A Set aside three cities of refuge in the promised land B In each part of the land, provide a city for the manslayer X This is the provision for the manslayer B' The man guilty of manslaughter shall find refuge there A' Therefore I command you to set aside three cities of refuge

19:1-2 19:3 19:4 19:5-6 19:7

The outer frame in this structure contains the two explicit references to the “three cities” of refuge that “you shall set apart for you” (vv 2, 7). The inner frame contains the essence of the matter in parallel statements: a city of refuge is to be provided in each section of the land (v 3), so that the man guilty of manslaughter may find refuge there (vv 5-6). The center of the structure is summary in nature: the three cities are set apart as “provision for the manslayer, who may flee there and live” (v 4). The content of vv 11-13 may be outlined in concentric fashion: A A person commits intentional murder B The murderer takes refuge in a city of asylum X The elders of his city shall retrieve him B' The murderer shall be given over to the blood avenger A' Show no pity and purge the guilt of innocent blood

19:11a 19:11b 19:12a 19:12b 19:13

According to this text, the elders in a given city have the authority to retrieve the intentional murderer from a city of refuge so as to hand the person over to the avenger of blood for execution. The laws on the cities of refuge in 19:1-13 were used to shape a curious story about King Ahab in relation to certain unnamed prophets in 1 Kgs 20. Ahab had defeated the Arameans on two occasions, but released their king, Ben-hadad. Ahab’s release of Ben-hadad brought condemnation from the prophets (1 Kgs 20:35-43). One prophet asked another to strike him; and, for refusing to do so, that second prophet was killed by a lion—“because you have not obeyed the voice of YHWH” (v 36). A second prophet accepted the invitation and struck the first prophet with sufficient force to wound him (v 37). The bandaged prophet appeared in disguise before King Ahab with the story that he had failed to guard a prisoner of war in his charge: “Guard this man; if he is missing, your life shall be given for his life, or else you shall pay a talent of silver” (v 39). The story was intended to bring judgment on Ahab: “Thus says YHWH, ‘Because you have let the man go whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall be for his life, and your people for his people’” (v 42). “In response to Ahab’s wrongful sparing of Benhadad’s life, there followed an example of someone intentionally wounding someone else though he felt no enmity toward him. No blame attached to him for having done so. . . . Ordinarily, one is punished for striking someone intentionally and not punished if the action is unintentional” (Carmichael, LNB, 115). Though the assault in the story led to injury, not death

Deuteronomy 19:1-13

420

as in the law, it should be noted that the action was intended to convey a message to Ahab about his failure to put Ben-hadad to death. One further observation by Carmichael is worthy of note in regard to the portrayal of the prophet Elijah in relation to King Ahab. Quoting the words of J. Gray, Carmichael points out that God’s pursuit of Ahab in the person of his spokesman Elijah is such that “Ahab apparently regards Elijah as the avenger of blood who pursues his victim relentlessly” (LNB, 116). The evidence assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers 17 and 26 in 19:1-13 leads to a number of observations with far-reaching consequences, which may be summarized as follows: Words:

before ‫כ‬atnah

after ‫כ‬atnah

19:1 19:1-2 19:3-4 19:5 19:6 19:7

13 17 18 20 15 5

+ + + + + +

4 12 17 7 11 4

19:1-7 19:8-10

75 40 (=23 + 17)

+ +

51 (=3x17) = 126 20 = 60

= = = = = =

17 29 35 27 26 9 (= ‫)דם נקי‬

19:1-10 19:11

115 12

+ +

71 5

= 186 (= ‫)שלש ערים תבדיל לך‬ = 17

19:11-13

22

+

17

= 39

There are 17 words in v 1, 17 words before ‫כ‬atnah in vv 1-2, and 17 words after 3atnah in vv 3-4. The second divine-name number is introduced in v 6 , which has 26 words. In vv 1-7 there are 51 (=3x17) words after 3atnah, which sets the stage for vv 8 - 1 0 and a shift of emphasis to pick up the numerical value of the key phrase “innocent blood” (‫ ) דם נקי‬in the formula (40 + 20 = 60). (60 = (10 = ‫ = ד‬4 ) + (‫ = מ‬13) + (‫ = נ‬14) + (‫ = ק‬19) + (‫י‬

Though the number 40 in this compositional formula is probably to be interpreted as the sum of 23 + 17, signifying the “glory of YHWH,” it is more important to note the distribution of words between main clauses and subordinate clauses, as Labuschagne has observed. The compositional formula then becomes 17 + 43 (= 17 + 26) = 40. Here we find both of the divine-name numbers. When vv 1-10 are examined, the total number of words is 186, which is the numerical value of the phrase ‫שלש ערים תבדיל לך‬, “three cities you shall set apart.” Those cities of refuge are to be set aside “so that innocent blood will not be shed” in the promised land (v 7). At this point attention shifts back to the divine-name number 17—with 17 words in v 11 and 17 words after 3atnah in vv 11-13. It is difficult to explain the full significance of the numerical information in the composition of 19:1-13 without anticipating what follows in the remainder

Form/Structure/Setting

421

of the fifth reading in the lectionary cycle of weekly portions from Deuteronomy (19:14-21:9), which may be summarized as follows: Words:

before ‫נ‬atnah

after ‫כ‬atnah

19:1-13 19:14-21 20:1-20 21:1-9

137 48 194 75

+ + + +

88 59 121 60 (= ‫)דם נקי‬

= 225 = 107 (= ‫)ובערתי הרע‬ = 315 = 135 (= ‫)הדם הנקי מקרבך‬

19:1-21:9

454

+

328

= 782 (=46x17)

Labuschagne argues that the numerical value in the arrangement of the words in 19:14-21 within main clauses and subordinate clauses was designed to signify the key phrase in v 19, ‫ובערת הרע‬, “and you shall purge the evil [from your midst] 0 = 6) + (66 = (22 = ‫ = ב‬2) + (‫ = ע‬16) + (‫ = ר‬20) + (‫ת‬ 41 = (16 = ‫ = ה‬5) + (‫ = ר‬20) + (‫)ע‬

Labuschagne points out that there are 6 6 words in the main clauses of 19:14-21 and 41 words in subordinate clauses, giving a total of 107 words in this compositional formula. In a similar manner the phrase ‫דם נקי‬, “innocent blood,” which appears in 21:8, is found in the distribution of words after 3atnah in 21:1-6 (43) and 21:7-9 (17) in the compositional formula 43 + 17 = 60. (17 = (13 = ‫ = ד‬4 ) + (‫ מ‬and (26 + 17 =) 43 = (10 = ‫ = נ‬14) + (‫ = ק‬19) + (‫)י‬

Moreover, the total number of words in 21:1-9 comes to 135, which is the numerical value of the key phrase ‫הדם הנקי מקרבך‬, “the innocent blood from your midst” (21:9), which they are to “purge” (‫)תבער‬. The data assembled by Labuschagne is even more interesting when one examines the whole of the fifth reading in the lectionary cycle, as summarized in the following table: Words:

after 3atnah

before 3atnah

16:18-17:13 17:14-18:22 19:1-21:9

175 238 (= 14x17) 454

+ + +

124 = 299 204 (= 12x17) = 442 328 = 782

17:14-21:9

692

+

532

= 1224

16:18-21:9

867 ( =3 x 172)

+

655

= 1523

(= 17x26) ( =2 x2 3 x 1 7 ) (= 72 x 17)

The total number of words is carefully worked out to highlight the two divinename numbers 17 and 26. There are a total of 442 (= 17 x 26) words in 17:14-18:22, the three central laws on the king (17:14-20), the Levitical priests (18:1-8), and the prophets (18:9-22). In the remainder of the fifth reading in the lectionary cycle (19:1-21:9), there are 782 (= 2 x 23 x 17) words, which suggests an intensification of the idea of the “glory of YHWH.” Moreover, there are

422

Deuteronomy 19:1-13

a total of 867 (= 3 x 172) words before ‫ג‬atnah in fifth lectionary reading taken as a whole (16:18-21:9). One cannot help but marvel at the incredible effort it must have taken on the part of the scribes (“counters”) in ancient Israel who wove the divine name into the fabric of the Hebrew text in this manner. Comment

1-2 “Three cities” are to be set aside “in the midst of the land” that God is about to give them, in addition to the three cities Moses set aside earlier east of the Jordan River (see 4:41-43). In Josh 20:7 the three cities are Kadesh in Napthali, Shechem in Ephraim, and Hebron in Judah, which are also listed among the Levitical cities (see Num 35:6;Josh 21:13-36). 3 The instructions to “establish the distance of the roads” were intended to make sure that the three cities were centrally located within the three major regions of the land, as envisioned in 34:2—Napthali (in the north), Ephraim and Manasseh (in the center), and Judah (in the south). A person guilty of manslaughter, “one who kills his neighbor unwittingly,” can find refuge in one of these cities, where he may present his case and find at least temporary asylum while the anger of the victim’s family has a chance to subside. 4-5 On the idiom ‫זה דבר‬, “this is the provision for,” see Comment on 15:2 (cf. G.A. Cooke, A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions [Oxford: Clarendon, 1903] 17—reference from Craigie [1976] 266 n. 6 ). The manslayer is “one who kills his neighbor unwittingly, indeed he was not his enemy in times past.” A basic and simple example follows (cf. also Num 35:16-24): a man is killed in an accident by a friend’s ax in the forest. 6-7 “The blood avenger” (‫ ;גאל הדם‬lit. “redeemer of blood”) has been understood to be the relative of the victim who was expected to execute the killer in that society. The reason for “three cities” of refuge is the simple fact that the person guilty of manslaughter might be overtaken by the avenger if the distance is too great (“the road is long”). A. Phillips argued that “the blood avenger” was an official appointed by the elders of the city in which the death took place (Ancient Israel's Criminal Law, 102-5). The evidence at hand makes it difficult to either reject or substantiate the conclusions reached by Phillips. Craigie ([1976] 266-67) interpreted the evidence differently, arguing that the responsibility of the avenger of blood was to bring the person responsible for the death (whether manslayer or murderer) before “the established courts of law in his home town.” If the death was shown to be manslaughter, the guilty person was “sent to the city of refuge” to make atonement for his deed. For this reason, “three (additional) cities” of refuge were to be “set apart for you” (v 7). All of these cities were among the Levitical cities. 8-9 “When YHWH your God extends your border” refers to the gradual possession of the whole of the promised land, as envisioned in the book of Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets (Joshua through 2 Kings). As was noted earlier, YHWH “will clear away these nations from before you, little by little” (7:22). Though the initial conquest under Joshua would be sudden, the actual process of settlement would be gradual. There is no evidence that the provisions mentioned here for three additional cities of refuge were ever put into effect

Explanation

423

(see Judg. 2:20-3:4). The “three cities” that would be added to the first three cities of refuge in Transjordan (4:41-43) and the three cities allotted by Joshua, as commanded by Moses in 19:1-7 (see Num 35:6; Josh 21:13-36; Kedesh in Naphtali, Shechem in Ephraim, and Hebron in Judah), would have brought the total to nine. The establishment of the monarchy by David appears to have disrupted these plans, as Y. Kaufmann has argued. 11-12 Since no asylum was permitted in cases of premeditated murder, the law provides for extradition of the criminal. “The elders of his city” (‫)זקני עירו‬ were the heads of families in the tribal social organization who functioned as the representatives of the general populace. It does not appear, however, that they are to be identified with those who actually adjudicated the case of the intentional murder, which was the function of “judges” (Deut 16:18; 17:9, 12; 19:17-18; 25:2). Tigay has suggested that “their role here may be due to the fact that blood vengeance is a concern of the victim’s family” ([1996] 182). The repetition of the Hebrew word ‫ומת‬, “so that he dies,” in vv 11 and 12 is a way of saying, in poetic fashion, that the punishment matches the crime. 13 Once again the people are reminded that “your eye shall not show pity on him.” The reason that they might be tempted to do so is not specified. It may be a response to desires on the part of the victim’s relatives that the murderer be spared so as to provide for the possibility of reimbursement for the economic loss incurred by the murder (Tigay [1996] 183). The point here would then be the same as that expressed in Num 35:31: “Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer who is subject to the death penalty; a murderer must be put to death.” On the meaning of the statement “you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood” see the Comment on 13:6 and v 19 below. The welfare of the community is assured only if the guilt is removed by execution, or by other ceremonial action if the identity of the killer is not known (see 21:1-9). Explanation

The law on homicide in 19:1-13 brings a semblance ofjustice into what sometimes escalated into something along the lines of “The Martins and the Coys,” an American folk ballad I learned as a boy—“those reckless mountain boys who took up family feuding when they’d meet.” Three cities of refuge in Transjordan had already been designated by Moses (4:41-43) and three more in Cisjordan are designated here (vv 1-7), along with provision for yet three more “when YHWH your God extends your border” at some future point in time (vv 8-10). In selecting these cities, they were commanded to be careful to position them evenly throughout the land, such that they are not too distant from any of the towns in the land. The promise of still further enlarging the land was conditional; and by their subsequent disobedience that promise appears to have been forfeited, since there is no evidence that the final three cities of refuge were ever established. Matthew Henry’s quotation from the “learned Ainsworth” merits repetition: “the Jewish writers themselves own, that, . . . the holy blessed God (say they) did not command it in vain, for in the days of Messiah the Pnnce, three other cities shall be added to these six: they expect it to be fulfilled in the letter, but we know that in Christ it has its spiritual accomplishment, for the borders of the gospel-Israel are enlarged, according to the promise, and in Christ, the Lord our

424

D euteronomy 19:14-21

Righteousness, refuge is provided for those that by faith fly unto him” (An Exposition of the Old and New Testament [New York: Towar & Hogan, 1828] 652 [Henry’s emphasis]). It should be noted, however, that the NT does not nullify the teaching of the OT in regard to the principle of refuge from the “avenger of blood.” The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews expressed the matter well when he said, “If we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment,” as God himself takes on the role of “avenger of blood” to fetch us from our place of refuge and deliver us to the “fury of fire that will consume the adversaries” (Heb 10:26-27).

2. Law s on Encroachm ent and Witnesses in Court (19:14-21) Bibliography on 19:14-21 Carmichael, C. M. “Deuteronomic Laws, Wisdom and Historical Tradition.”^.S12 (1967) 198-206.-------- . “Forbidden Mixtures.” VT32 (1982) 395-415 (395). Hull, E. “Landmark.” Dictionary o f the Bible. Ed. J. Hastings. 4 vols. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1902. 3:24. Jackson, B. S. Essays in Jewish a n d Comparative Legal History. 1975. 244. Lurje, M. “Die Agrarverhaltnisse.” In Studien zu r Geschichte der wirtschafllichen u n d sozialen Verhaltnisse im israelitisch-jiidischen Reiche. BZAW 45. Giessen: Topelmann, 1927. 1-19 (4). Neufeld, E. “Inalienability of Mobile and Immobile Pledges in the Laws of the Bible.” RIDA 9 (1962) 33-47 (38). Oppenheim, A. L. Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1967. 123, 159. Sole, F. “La proprieta fondiaria in Israele.” PalCl 43 (1964) 673-76.

Bibliography on 19:15-21 Albertz, R. “Tater und Opfer im Alien Testament.” 7EE 28 (1984) 146-66 (150). Amran, D. W. “Retaliation and Compensation. ”JQR 2 (1911) 191-211. Aptovitzer, V. “Observations on the Criminal Law of the Jews.”/QR 15 (1924/25) 55-118 (77-78). Blau, J. “Lex Talionis.” Yearbook o f the Central Conference o f American Rabbis 26 (1916) 336-66. Brauner, R. A. “Some Aspects of Offense and Penalty in the Bible and the Literature of the Ancient Near East.” Gratz Collection o f Jewish Studies 3 (1974) 9-18 (9-10). Carmichael, C. M. “Biblical Laws of Talion.” H A R 9 (1985) 107-26. Daube, D. “The Culture of Deuteronomy.” ORTTA 3 (1969) 31.-------- . “Direct and Indirect Causation in Biblical Law.” VTH (1961) 246-69 (252-57).-------- . Studies in Biblical Law. 1947. Chap. 3 (120-23).-------- . Witnesses in Bible and Talmud. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, 1986. 3-20. Diakonoff, I. M. “The Rural Community in the Ancient Near East ” J E S H O 18 (1975) 132. Diamond, A. S. The Evolution o f Law and Order. 1951. 241.-------- . “An Eye for an Eye.” Iraq 19 (1957) 151-55.-------- . Primitive Law, Past and Present. London: Methuen, 1971. 98, 398. Finkelstein, J. J. “Ammisaduqa’s Edict and the Babylonian ‘Law Codes.’” JC S 15 (1961) 91-104 (98).-------- . “Sex Offenses in Sumerian Laws.”/A05 86 (1966) 355-72 (367 n. 36). Finkelstein, L. “An Eye for an Eye.” M enorahJournal 24 (1936) 207-18. Fisher,

425

Translation

E. J. “LEX TALIONIS in the Bible and Rabbinic Tradition .”J E S 19 (1982) 582-87. Foresti, F. “Characteristic Literary Expressions in the Arad Inscriptions Compared with the Language of the Hebrew Bible.” EphC 32 (1981) 327-41 (335). Frymer-Kensky, T. “Tit for Tat: The Principle of Equal Retribution in Near Eastern and Biblical Law.” BA 43 (1980) 230-34. G ilbert, M. “La loi du talion.” Christus 31 (1984) 73-82. G oitein, E. Das Vergeltungspnncip im biblischen u n d talmudischen Strafrecht. Halle: n.p., 1891. G ood, E. M. “Capital Punishment and Its Alternatives in Ancient Near Eastern Law.” SL R 19 (1967) 947-77. Graham , J. E “A Redactional Study of Luke 7,21 in the Light of Deut 19,15.” CBQ 29 (1967) 353-67. G reenberg, M. “Idealism and Practicality in Numbers 35:4-5 and Ezekiel 48.” JA O S 88 (1968) 59-66 (60). G reengus, S. “Law in the OT.” ID B Sup . 536. Hayes, J. H. “Restitution, Forgiveness, and the Victim in Old Testament Law.” Tnnity University Studies in Religion 11 (1982) 1-21. H irzel, R. “Die Talion.” Philologus Sup 11 (1907-1910) 405-82. H orovitz, J. “Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn.” In Philosophische Abhandlungen, H erm ann Cohen zum 70sten Geburtstag. Berlin: Cassirer, 1912. 609-58. Jackson, B. S. “Evolution and Foreign Influence in Ancient Law.” Am encan Journal o f Comparative Law 16 (1968) 372-90.-------- . “The Problem of Exod. xxi 22-5 {Ius talionis)." V T 23 (1973) 273-304. Jacob, B. Auge um Auge: Eine Untersuchung zum Alten u n d Neuen Testament.

Berlin, 1929. Jacob, E. “Die altassyrischen Gesetze und ihr Verhaltnis zu den Gesetzen des Pentateuch.” Zeitschrift f u r vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 41 (1925) 319-87 (359-60). Jenni, E. “Dtn 19,16: sard ‘Falschheit.’” In Melanges bibliques: FS H . Cazelles. 1981. 201-11. Jiingling, H.-W. “‘Auge fur Auge, Zahn fur Zahn’: Bemerkungen zu Sinn und Geltung der alttestamentlichen Talionsformeln.” TP 59 (1984) 1-38. Kaatz, S. “Maimonides und das Talionsprinzip”Jeschurun 13 (1926) 43-50. L’H our, J. “Une legislation criminelle dans le Deuteronome.” Bib 44 (1963) 1-28 (18 η. 1). Loewenstam m, S. E. ““Exodus xxi 22-25.” VT27 (1977) 352-60.-------- . The Phrase ‘X (or) X plus one’ in Biblical and Old Oriental Laws.” Bib 53 (1972) 543. Martin-Achard, R. “Recents travaux sur la loi du talion selon l’Ancien Testament.” R H P R 69 (1989) 173-88. Mikliszanski, J. K. “The Law of Retaliation and the Pentateuch .”JB L 66 (1947) 295-303. Miihl, M. Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen und althellenischen Gesetzgebung. Beihefte zur Klio 29. Leipzig: Dieterich, 1933. 45-51. Norden, J. Auge um Auge Zahn um Zahn. Berlin, 1926. Phillips, A. Ancient Israel's Criminal Law. 1970. 102-5, 143-44.-------- . “The Case of the Woodgatherer Reconsidered.” V T 19 (1969) 125-28. Szlechter, E. “Les anciennes codifications en Mesopotamie.” RID A 4 (1957) 73-92. Tower, M. “Popular Misconceptions: A Note on the Lex Talionis.” Clergy Review 68 (1983) 448-52. Vliet, H . van. D id Greek-Roman-Hellenistic Law Know the Exclusion o f the Single Witness f The Answer o f the Early Christian Writings; a Supplement to ‘N o Single Testimony, ’a Study on the Adoption o f the Law o f Deut 19,15 par. into the New Testament. Studia Theologica Rheno Trajectina 41. Utrecht: Francker, 1980.-------- . No Single Testimony: A Study o f the Adoption o f the Law o f Deut. 19:5 par. into the New Testament. Utrecht: Kemink, 1958. Wagner, M. “Beitrage zur Aramaismenfrage im alttestamentlichen Hebraisch.” In FS W. Baumgartner. 1967. 364-66. W eismann, J. “Talion und offentliche Strafe im Mosaischen Rechte.” In Festschrift derLeipziger JuHstenfakultat fu r Dr. A d o lf Wach zum 16. November 1915.

1913. Repr. Aalen: Scientia, 1970. 1-102 (22-40). Westbrook, R. “Lex Talionis and Exodus 21,22-25.” R B 93 (1986) 52-69. Yaron, R. “Biblical Law: Prolegomena.” In Jewish Law in History and the Modern World. Ed. B. S. Jackson. JLASup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1980. 32.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis

The Inviolability of Boundary Markers [5:5] 14

You shall not displace / your neighbor's boundary marker / that former generations / have set up / / in your inhentance /

12 ‫ ן‬2 7

1

426

D euteronomy 19:14-21

That you inherit / in the land / that / YHWH your God / is giving you* / to possess / /

0

Laws about Witnesses [(7:7):(5:4):(4:5)] [7:7] A single witness shall not suffice / to convict a man / of any crime / or any sin* / in any sin \b that he sins / / on the testimony / of two witnesses / Or / on the testimony of three witnesses / a case is established / / 1 6 a if a felonious witness appears / against a man / / bringing / criminal charges / / 17 Then the* two parties shall take their stand / those who are in dispute / shall appear before YHWH / / bbefore thepriests / and thejudges / Thosec who are in office / in those days / / 18 thejudges shall inquire / thoroughly / / And if indeed the witness / is a false witness / falsely / he has charged his brother / / 19 Then youa shall do to him / just as he intended / to do to his brother / / and youh shall purge the evil / from your midst / /

15

20And others / shall hear of it and they shallfear / / and they shall never do / again / such an evil deed / as this / in your midst * / / 21 [And]* your eye / shall not show pity / / lifefor life0 / eyefor eye / toothfor tooth / hand for hand / foot for foot / / ‫ס‬

14 1 2

23 J 3 10

2

2 14I 8 J 1

16

‫ו‬

2

10

J

2

16 15 16 14 16

1 2 2 2 2

12

2

11

2

13 9 !4

2 1 2

18 15 15

2

10

2

.

2

3

15 13 11 J 2

Notes 14. a. Cairo Geniza fragm ents add ‫נחלה‬, “inh eritan ce.” Prosodic analysis supports MT. 15. a. SP reads ‫ חטא‬for ‫חטאת‬, “sin,” with no ap p aren t difference in m eaning. T he ro o t ‫ חטא‬appears three times within four successive lexical item s in this verse. 15. b. R eading tipha* as conj. because o f the m isplaced ‫ג‬atnah . 16. a. A dding waw-conj. with SP and Syr. (cf. LXX 66, “a n d ”). 17. a. Some SP witnesses om it the def. art. I7.b. Some Heb. MSS, som e SP witnesses, and LXX add waw-c onj. I7.c. Some H eb. MSS and some SP witnesses read 3 sg. verb. 19.a. Two m ajor LXX witnesses read καί π ο ίή σ ετα ί, “and you [sg.] shall d o ”; m ost o th e r LXX w itnesses re ad 2 pi. with MT ‫ועשיתם‬, “you [pi.] shall d o .” T h e Numeruswechsel h e re signals the approaching b oundary o f this rhythm ic unit. 19.b. Syr., Tg. Ps.-J., and m ost LXX witnesses read 2 pi. 19.c. LXX, Syr., and Tg. Ps.-J. read 2 pi. 20. a. LXX, Syr., and Tg. Ps.-J. read 2 pi.; Vg. om its the term . 2 La. O m itting the waw-conj. with some H eb. MSS, SP, Syr., Vg., and alm ost all LXX witnesses. 21. b. B H S om its the disj. accent rebiac on ‫בנפש‬, “for life,” w hich is restored from BHK, the Letteris edition, and the facsimile edition o f L.

Form/Structure/Setting

427

Form/Structure/Setting

From a prosodic perspective, the laws on encroachment and witnesses in court are in the center of the concentric structural design of 19:1-21:9, as shown in the previous section of this commentary. The two laws pick up the central themes of 16:18-18:22 on matters of leadership and authority. They also correspond with the laws on justice, which function as a structural frame around the laws in 16:18-17:13. The laws of 19:14-21 are framed by two pairs of laws dealing with killing, whether unintentional (19:1-10), intentional (19:11-13; 21:1-9), or in the context of warfare (2 0 :1 - 2 0 ). A Manslaughter—unintentional killing B Murder—intentional killing X Laws on encroachment and witnesses in court B' Intentional killing in the context of warfare A' Unsolved killing—whether murder or manslaughter

19:1-10 19:11-13 19:14-21 20: 1-20

21:1-9

Once again, the center of this concentric structure has some of the quality of a “riddle at the middle” in the sense that the law on the inviolability of boundary markers (19:14) has little to do with its immediate literary context and sets the stage for a close look at the matter of lex talionis (“an eye for an eye,” 19:20-21) within the context of legal justice designed to protect the one accused of murder who maybe innocent (19:15-21). The law prohibiting the removal of boundary markers (19:14) may also be read as the structural center of the laws in Deut 19. Six cities of refuge are to be established in the promised land, along with the three already set up in the time of Moses, to deal with the ancient custom of “blood vengeance” (vv 1-10). Those guilty of intentional murder are excluded from such protection (vv 11-13). At this point, the subject shifts abruptly to the brief law on the inviolability of boundary markers, which corresponds to the eighth commandment, against theft. The laws about witnesses that follow (19:15-21) correspond to the ninth commandment, against false witnesses (5:20). More than one witness is needed to convict a person of a crime (v 15). If thorough investigation reveals that a felonious witness has brought criminal charges against someone (vv 16-17), the peopie are commanded to do to that witness what he or she intended for the accused (v 19). This practice of the lex talionis is intended as a deterrent to false witness in legal procedures. Within the larger structure of 19:1-21 as a whole, it is possible to place v 14 in the center of a concentric structure: A The six cities of refuge in the promised land B Intentional murderers—“Purge the guilt of innocent blood” X The inviolability of boundary markers B' Laws about witnesses—“Purge the evil from your midst” A' Lex talionis is intended as a deterrent to false witness

19:1-10 19:11-13 19:14 19:15-19 19:20-21

Repetition of the term ‫בערת‬, “you shall purge,” at the conclusion of each half of the inner frame in this structure provides a basis for another reading from what was presented at the beginning of this section on chap. 19. In this reading the

428

D euteronomy 19:14-21

two sections on the cities of refuge (vv 1-7 and 8 - 1 0 ) are combined because of similar content. The final section on the laws about witnesses is divided at the end of v 19, with the remarks on the lex talionis being set over against the section on the cities of refuge (vv 1-10) in the outer frame. The focus of attention in this reading is the law on the inviolability of boundary markers. The Numeruswechselin 19:19 marks the internal boundary that divides the law into two literary subunits: vv 15-19 and 20-21. The law itself is bounded by the setuma3paragraph markers at the end of vv 14 and 21. The laws about witnesses, which correspond to the ninth commandment (5:20), may be outlined as follows: A More than one witness is need ed to convict a person o f crim e B A felonious witness brings crim inal charges against som eone X T he m atter shall be investigated thoroughly by the co u rt B' Do to the false witness w hat he in ten d ed for the accused A' T he lex talionis is in te n d ed as a d eterre n t to false witness

19:15 19:16 19:17-18 19:19 19:20-21

Two provisions are presented to prevent a miscarriage of justice on the basis of inadequate or false testimony: no conviction can be made based on a single witness (v 15), and a false witness is to receive the punishment his testimony would have brought upon the accused (vv 16-21). The death of King Ahab was connected with the improper appropriation of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kgs 21). In midrashic fashion, the law of the removal of boundary markers in Deut 19:14 was used to shape the beginning of this story in 1 Kgs 21:1-3. Naboth refused Ahab’s offer to buy his vineyard on the grounds that it was his ‫כחלת אבתי‬, “ancestral property.” Carmichael called attention to the similar terms used in the laws of asylum (Deut 19:1-13) and the removal of a neighbor’s landmark (19:14): the ‫גבול‬, “territory,” that God gave as an inheritance (hiphil of ‫)נחל‬, and the ‫נחלה‬, “inheritance,” itself (LNB', 118). The law of false witnesses (19:15-21) was used to shape further details in the story of King Ahab and Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kgs 21:7-13). In the case of Naboth, that two witnesses testified (1 Kgs 21:9) suggests at least procedural conformity to proper practice. The false witness in the law concerns the matter of ‫סרה‬, “defection” (v 16)—a term that, according to Carmichael (LNB, 120-21), “is used elsewhere only for defection from God in a religious sense (Deut 13:5; Isa 1:5, 31:6, 59:13; Jer 28:16, 29:32).” In the story, it is clear that “Jezebel was the main false witness, but she organized two others in the court proceedings” (Carmichael, LNB, 121 n. 7). Naboth was accused of defection from God (“cursing God”). According to the law, “the punishment for the false witness is to be the same as the one he would have brought upon his victim if he had succeeded with his charge: ‘life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.’ In the story much care is taken to show that Ahab, upon whom the responsibility was laid for Naboth’s death, was treated in a way that closely paralleled the treatment of Naboth. Indeed the detailed attention to retaliation is remarkable” (Carmichael, LNB, 121). Ahab wrongfully appropriated Naboth’s land, and he died attempting to appropriate land, the city of Ramoth-gilead—one of the original cities of refuge in ancient Israel. Lies and deception in the mouths of the

429

C om m ent

elders of Jezreel and certain established prophets, respectively, brought about both men’s deaths. Curiously, lies originate in the heavenly sphere as well as the earthly; for the lie that sends Ahab to his death was put on the lips of Zedekiah and the four hundred prophets in Ahab’s court by “a spirit” (‫)רוח‬, which was sent by YHWH himself for that express purpose: “Then YHWH said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do it’” (1 Kgs 22:22). The means to that end was a deliberate lie, as the spirit had already indicated: “I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of his prophets.” “The actions in each case have ajudicial setting, an early court trafficking in lies in the case of the elders, and a heavenly one in the case of the prophets who come under its influence in speaking lies to Ahab about the successful outcome of the battle” (Carmichael, LNB, 121). The data assembled by Labuschagne on the numerical composition of 19:14-21 may be summarized as follows: Words:

after 3atnah

before ‫כ‬atn a h

19:14 19:15-17 19:18-21

7 26 15

+ + +

10 21 28

= 17 = 47 = 43

19:16-17

13

+

10

= 23

19:14-15 19:16-21 19:14-21

20 28 48

+ + +

21 38 59

= 41 = 66 = 107

(= 17 + 26)

(= ‫)הרע‬ (= ‫)ובערת‬ (= ‫)ובערת הרע‬

The two divine-name numbers 17 and 26 are both woven into the fabric of the Hebrew text here, with a total of 17 words in v 14 and 26 words before 3atnah in w 15-17. Moreover, the number of words in the remaining verses (14:18-21) comes to 43 (= 17 + 26). But what is more interesting is the manner in which the numerical value of the key words ‫ ובע רת הרע‬, “and you shall purge the evil [from your midst],” are included as well. Labuschagne has shown that when the total number of words in 19:14-21 are separated into those in main clauses and those in subordinate clauses the totals are: 6 6 (.107 = (‫ )ובערת‬+ 41 (‫ה רע‬ 66 = (22 = ‫ ־ ו‬6 ) + (‫ = ב‬2 ) + (‫ = ע‬16 ) + (‫ = ר‬20 ) + (‫)ת‬ 41= (16 = ‫ = ה‬5 ) + (‫ = ר‬20 ) + (‫)ע‬

It must have been with deep personal satisfaction that all these separate numbers were included in this text by some ancient scribe (“counter”), to the “glory” of God (for 23 [the number of words in vv 16-17] is the numerical value of ‫כבוד‬, “glory”). Comment 14 The statement ‫לא תסיג כבול רעך‬, “you shall not displace your neighbor’s boundary marker,” refers to moving markers so as to enlarge one’s own property. Such action was a serious moral offense and the perpetrator of such an act is cursed in 27:17. Similar admonitions appear in Prov 22:28, 23:10-11, the Instruc-

430

D euteronomy 19:14-21

tions of Amenemope (ANET, 422b), and Plato’s Laws (8:842E) (see Tigay [1996] 378 n. 39, and the literature cited there). Roman law considered the moving of such landmarks a capital offense, but biblical law does not allow for capital punishment in matters of property law. The word ‫גבול‬, used for “boundary marker,” means literally the “border, boundary” of the land in question. The actual landmark was normally of stones, which were “set up” and maintained from generation to generation. “Former generations” (‫ )ראשנים‬means “ancestors” (cf. Prov 22:28—“Do not remove the ancient landmark that your ancestors set up”). 15 The content of this verse parallels that of 17:6 (see also Num 35:30). Though “a case is established”—that is, placed before the magistrate—“on the testimony of two witnesses or . . . three witneses,” this is the minimum required; for “a single witness shall not suffice to convict a person regarding any crime or any sin.” For a study of this law in relation to the NT and Greek and Roman law, see H. van Vliet, No Single Testimony. 1 6 -1 7 In spite of the requirement for more than one witness (v 15), cases would inevitably arise in which there was only a single witness. “A felonious witness” (‫ )עד־חמס‬is one who appears against someone in court “bringing criminal charges. ” I am following Phillips, who has rendered the phrase here as a case in which an individual “brings criminal charges” against someone else (Ancient Israel’s CnminalLaw, 143-45). The phrase ‫לפני יהוה‬, “before YHWH,” often implies a sanctuary and is used frequently in contexts of formal worship at the central sanctuary, which is not the case here. It probably means that the trial is to be held in the place of assembly within the local town or perhaps in the nearest Levitical city. Another possibility is that the phrase “before YHWH” does not refer to the place of the trial at all, but to the fact that “the priests and the judges who are in office in those days” are the representatives of YHWH and that He is with them in their adjudication (Tigay [1996] 184). 1 8 -1 9 If, when “the judges shall inquire thoroughly,” they find that “indeed the witness is a false witness,” then the punishment that person sought to inflict on the accused shall be done to him. On the meaning of ‫שקר‬, “a false witness,” in the sense of one who breaks the law by telling lies about someone else, compare Prov 17:4; see also M. Wagner, FS W. Baumgartner, 364-66. The words “you shall do to him” are addressed to those assembled in judgment of the accused, since the false witness has threatened to subvert the ability of the court to administer justice. The Sadducees and the Pharisees differed in their interpretation of this passage. On the one hand, the Sadducees held that the punishment in kind (lex talionis) was to be imposed only if the falsely accused had actually been punished. On the other hand, the Pharisees ruled that once a verdict as such had been reached, the witness was subject to punishment if his testimony was shown to be false (m. Mak. 1.6; Josephus Ant. 4.8.15 §219). Tigay says, “The plain sense of the text is that even if the false testimony never leads to a conviction, once it has been given the witness is subject to punishment” ([1996] 378 n. 50). 2 0 -2 1 The purpose of the laws about witnesses here is deterrence—that “others shall hear of it and shall fear.” “Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Exod 21:23-24; Lev 24:17-21)—the lex talionis. It should be remembered that the concept of an “eye for an eye” is not intended as a matter of vengeance in kind, but rather a limitation of such vengeance that must not exceed the original injury.

Explanation

431

Explanation

In subsequent Jewish tradition the command not to displace a neighbor’s boundary marker was extended to encompass a wide range of issues, including that of copyright violations. “In Jewish law the phrase ‘moving landmarks’ (hassagat gevul), in the sense of ‘violating boundaries,’ refers to unfair competition that encroaches on another’s livelihood and other rights” (Tigay [1996] 183). Though Jesus denied the use of this law. in matters of personal relationships, he did not deny its validity as a principle for a court of law (see Matt 5:38-42). The matter of being a victim of a false witness is not always a case of deliberate injustice, as carried out by Ahab and Jezebel in regard to Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kgs 21). In the matter of domestic disputes, particularly in cases of marital differences, the conflict usually has the same character. How many times a minister hears these words: “She [or he] is telling such awful lies about me!” The problem, however, is usually one of perception; for the spouse in question is often not lying wittingly; for that is really how he or she sees it. In the heat of such conflict, the natural response is to resort to the popular understanding of the principle of “an eye for an eye,” and so the victim takes steps to set the record straight. The difficulties continue to escalate until the matter is completely out of control with divorce as the only “solution” to the problem. There are important lessons here. First of all, “a single witness shall not suffice to convict a man (or woman)” in such cases (v 15). A person in a conflict situation must take care not to jump to conclusions on the basis of the report of a single witness, however trustworthy that person may be. Nor should a person trust his or her own immediate perception. Make sure that the issue is confirmed by “the testimony of two witnesses, or [even better] on the testimony of three witnesses” (v 15). Second, beware of taking the position of being the “victim.” No matter how convinced a person may be that the wrong inflicted is not just, he or she must avoid the temptation to blame the other party. The old adage still holds: “To blame is to be lame!” To cast blame is to take the first step toward retaliation; and once one starts down that path, there is seldom an exit. In matters of broken relationships, there are always two parties involved; and there are always two different points of view in any conflict situation. Remember that the principle of “an eye for an eye” is not an invitation to set the record straight. “When [Jesus] was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly ” (1 Pet 2:23). There is great wisdom here. The story ofJonah deals with this issue. It is true that Jonah was swallowed up by a monster; and that his plight was not his own doing. He had a right to be angry with God, as he himself affirmed (Jonah 4:9). The problem is that his anger was not useful in that particular setting; for it accomplished nothing of any objective worth. In fact, such anger is self-destructive. The only person affected by Jonah’s anger was Jonah; and it threatened his very life. It is acceptable to be angry about the “false” accusations coming from an estranged spouse; but it is not useful to seek vengeance. The ultimate loser in such situations is the one who nurses his or her anger to the point that it explodes in retaliation. Anger is acceptable—but only when one also shows compassion for the object of the anger (cf. Jonah 4:10-11).

432

Deuteronomy 20:1-20

3. Intentional K illin g— Warfare and M ilitary Deferments (20:1-20) Bibliography on Holy War Betz, O. ‘Jesu Heiliger Krieg.” N o v T 2 (1957) 116-37. Braulik, G. “Die Volkervernichtung und die Riickkehr Israels ins Verheissungsland: Hermeneutische Bemerkungen zum Buch Deuteronomium.” In F S C. Brekelm ans. 1997. 3-38. Brekelmans, C. H. W. “Le herem chez les prophetes du royaume du Nord et dans le Deuteronome.” In Sacra P a g in a . 2 vols. BETL 12-13. Gembloux: Duculot, 1959. 1:377-83. Brownlee, W. H. “From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom.” In F S G. E. M e n d e n h a ll 1983. 281-92. Caspari, W. “Was Stand im Buche der Kriege Jahwes?” Z W T 54 (1912) 110-58. Christensen, D. L. “Num 21:14-15 and the Book of the Wars of Yahweh.” C B Q 3 6 (1974) 359-60.-------- . T ra n sfo rm a tio n s o f the W ar Oracle in O ld T estam ent Prophecy. HDR 3. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Craigie, P. C. “A Note on Judges v 2.” VT18 (1968) 397-99.-------- . “Yahweh Is a Man of Wars.” S J T 2 2 (1969) 183-88. Cross, E M. “The Divine Warrior.” In C M H E . 91-111. Criisemann, E ‘“. . . damit er dich segne in allem Tun deiner Hand . . .’ (Dtn 14,29).” In M ita rb eiter derSchopf u n g B ib el u n d A rbeitsw elt. Ed. L. and W. Schottroff. Munich: Kaiser, 1983. 72-103 (98). Driver, G. R. “Hebrew Homonyms.” In F S W. B aum gartn er. 1967. 50-64.-------- . “Studies in the Vocabulary of the OT, II.”/TS32 (1931) 250-57 (251). Duff, P. B. “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account ofJesus’ Entry into Jerusalem”J B L 111 (1992) 55-71. Elat, M. “Mesopotamische Kriegsrituale.” B O 39 (1982) 5-25. Eph’al, I. “On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern Empires: A Research Outline.” In H istory, H istoriograph y a n d In terpretation : S tu dies in B iblical a n d C u n eifo rm L ite ra tu re s. Ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983. 88-106. Fish, T. “War and Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia.” B JR L 23 (1939) 387-402. Fredricksson, H. J a h w e als K neger: S tu dien zu m alltestam entlichen Gottesbild. Lund: Ohlsson, 1945. Furlani, G. “Le Guerre quali Giudizi di Dio presso i Babilonesi e Assiril.” In M iscellan ea G io v a n n i G albiati. Fontes ambrosiani 25-27. Milan: Hoepli, 1951. 3:39-47. d o c k , A. E. “Warfare in Mari and Early Israel.” Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Michigan, 1968. Goetz, R. ‘Joshua, Calvin, and Genocide.” T T oday 32 (1975) 263-74. Gottwald, N. K. “‘Holy War’ in Deuteronomy: Analysis and Critique.” R evE xp 61 (1964) 296-310. Heintz, J. G. Oracles prophetiques et ‘guerre sainte’ selon les archives royales de Mari et l’Ancien Testament.” In Congress Volume, R om e 1 9 6 8 . VTSup 17. Leiden: Brill, 1969. 112-38. Horbury, W. “Extirpation and Excommunication.” V T 35 (1985) 13-38. Junge, E. D e r W ie d era u fb a u des Heereswesens des Reiches J u d a u n ter Josia. BZAW 23. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1937. Kang, S.M. D iv in e W ar in the O ld Testam ent a n d in the A n c ien t N e a r E ast. BZAW 177. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1989. Kaufmann, Y. The R eligion o f Israel. Tr. M. Greenberg. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960. 247-54. Lind, M. C. Yahweh Is a W a rn or: T he Theology o f W arfare in A n c ie n t Israel. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1980. Lohfink, N. “‫ חו־ם‬h a ra m ; ‫ חרם‬h erem .” T D O T 5:180-99.-------- . “‫ ירש‬y a r d s .” T D O T 6:368-96.-------- . “‘Holy War’ and the ‘Ban’ in the Bible.” T D 38 (1991) 109-14 (cf. idem, “Der ‘heilige Krieg’ und der ‘Bann’ in der Bibel.” C om m u n io 18 [1989] 104-12).-------- . “The Strata of the Pentateuch and the Question of War.” In Theology o f the P en tateuch. 1994. 173-226 (186-94, “War in Deuteronomy”). Longman, T., and Reid, D. G. G od Is a W arnor. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995. Malamat, A. “Israelite Conduct of War in the Conquest of Canaan according to the Biblical Tradition.” In Sym posia. Ed. F. M. Cross. 1979. 35-55. Miller, P. D. T he D iv in e W a r n o r in E arly Israel. HSM 5. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1973. Nielsen, E. “La guerre consideree comme

Bibliography

433

une religion et la religion comme une guerre.” ST 15 (1961) 93-112. Rad, G. von. Holy War in Ancient Israel. Tr. M. Dawn. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. Rofe, A. “The Laws of Warfare in the Book of Deuteronomy: Their Origins, Intent and Positivity. ”JSO T 32 (1985) 23-44. Schwally, F. Semitische Kriegsaltertumer: Der heilige Krieg im alien Israel. Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1901. 74-99. Sherlock, C. “The Meaning of firm in the Old Testament.” Colloquium 14 (1982) 13-24. Stolz, F. Jahwes und Israels Kriege. Kriegstheonen und Knegserfahrungen im Glauben des alien Israel. ATLANT 60. Zurich: Zwingli, 1972. Thiel. W. “Altorientalische und israelitisch-jiidische Religion.” J L H 28 (1984) 166-91. Weinfeld, M. “Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East.” In History , Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983. 121-47.-------- . “Divine War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East.” In FS S. E. Loewenstamm. 1978. 171-81. -------- . “Die Eroberung des Landes Kanaan und der Bann uber seine Behowner.” BMik 12 (1966/67) 121-27 (Heb.). Weippert, M. ‘“Heiliger Krieg’ in Israel und Assyrien: Kritische Anmerkungen zu Gerhard von Rads Konzept des ‘Heiligen Krieges im Alten Israel.’” ZAW84 (1972) 460-93.

a.

Preparing the Army fo r Battle (20:1—9)

Bibliography Bardett, J. R. “The Use of the Word ‫ ראש‬as a Title in the Old Testament.” V T 19 (1969) 1-10 (9). Berlin, A. “Jeremiah 29:5-7: A Deuteronomic Allusion.” H A R 8 (1984) 3-11. Bietenhard, H. SOTA: Text, Ubersetzung und Erklarung nebst einer textkntischen Anhang. Die Mischna III,6. Berlin: Topelmann, 1956. Daube, D. “The Culture of Deuteronomy.” ORITAS (1969) 27-52 (29). Fichtner, J. “Die Bewaltigung heidnischer Vorstellungen und

Praktiken in der Welt des Alten Testaments.” In FS F. Baumgartel. 1959. 37-40. Guillemette, Y. “Pour vivre heureux dans le pays: A propos de deus lois du Deuteronome.” In “Ou demeures-tuV’ (fn 1,38): La maison depuis le monde biblique:FS G. Coutuner. Ed. J.-C. Petit. Saint-Laurent, Quebec: Fides, 1994. 123-37. Gurewicz, S. B. “The Deuteronomic Provisions for Exemption from Military Service.” A B R 6 (1958) 111-21. Haidar, A. Associations of Cult Prophets among the Ancient Semites. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1945. Herrmann, W. “Das Aufgebot aller Krafte: Zur Interpretation von 1 K II 96-103 = IV 184-91 und Dtn 20,5-7.” ZAW 70 (1958) 215-20. Holstein, J. A. “Max Weber and Biblical Scholarship.” HUCA 46 (1975) 170. Jones, G. H. “‘Holy War’ or ‘Yahweh War’?” V T 25 (1975) 642-58. Labat, R. Le caractere religieux de la royaute Assyro-Babylonienne. Paris: Librairie d ’Amerique et d’Orient, 1939. 221-33, 253-74. Landman, L. “Law and Conscience: The Jewish View. ”Judaism 18 (1969) 17-29. Reif, S. C. “Dedicated to hnk.” VT 22 (1972) 495-501. Rutersworden, U. Die Beamten der israelitischen Konigszeit: Eine Studie zu sru n d vergleichbaren Begriffen. BWANT 117. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1985. 36-37. Schwally, F. “Der Kriegsgott Jahve.” In Semitische Kriegsaltertumer: Der heilige Krieg im alten Israel. Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1901. 74-99 (75ff.). Steiner, F. Taboo. London: Cohen & West, 1956; 2nd ed. 1967. 68-93, 149-53. Wijngaards, J. “‫ הוציא‬and ‫ העלה‬a Twofold Approach to the Exodus.” VT15 (1965) 91-102.

434

Deuteronomy 20:1-9

Translation and Prosodic Analysis

Preparing the Army for Battle [ (7:9): (8:9): (5:5): (9:8): (7:9) ] When you goforth to battle / against your enemiesa / and you see / horses and chariots / ha peoplec more numerous than you / have no fear / of them / / For YHWH your God / is with you / the one who brought you up / out of the land ofEgypt / / 2 And it shall be / when you draw near / to the battle / / the priest will come forward / and speak to the people / / 3And he will say to them / “Hear O Israel / you draw near TODAY/ To do battle / against your enemies / / let not your heart faint / do not fear la band do not panic / And do not be in dreadb / of them / / 4 for / YHWH [your God]a / is the one going / with you / / to fight for you / against your enemies / bto save you” / / 5And the officials shall speak / to the people saying / “Who is the man / that has built a new house / and he has not begun to use it / Let him go \a and he shall return to his house / / lest he die / in battle / and another man / begin to use it / / 6 Anda who is the man / that has planted a vineyard / and has not enjoyed its fruit / Let him go / and let him return to his house / / lest he die / in battle / and another man / enjoy its fruit / / 7 Anda who is the man / that has betrothed a wife / and he has not taken her / Let him go \b and let him return to his house / / lest he die / in battle / and another man / take her” / / 8And the officials shall continuea / to speak to the people / and they shall say / “Who is afraid / and faint of heart / let him go / and let him return to his house” / / And he will not meltb / his brothers’ hearts / as his heart / / 9 and / when the officials finish / speaking to the people / / they shall appoint / commanders / in charge of the army / / 1

2 19 1 2 12

J

14 14

3

12

2

2

17I 3 16 J 2 8 11 17 J 2 13 1

13 ^

2

6

1

11

2

14 24 19 17

4 3

8

1

2 2

14

1

22

4

1 5 1

7

14 1

‫ס‬

2

2 1 2

23 J 4 16 ‫ ו‬2 8 J 1 14 1 1 23 J 4 23 1 2 24 J 3 14 2 16 3 24 ‫ ו‬3 23 J 3

Notes l.a. Many Heb. MSS read ‫איבך‬, “your enem y,” for MT ‫איביך‬, “your enem ies.” l.b. SP, LXX, and Vg. add waw-conj. l.c. Reading the conj. accent mahpak with facsimile edition o f L and Letteris. B H S appears to be reading yetib; B H K is ambiguous. 3.a. Reading the metheg plus darga as disj. 3. b-b. SP rearranges text to read ‫ תערצו ואל תחפזו‬, “do n o t d read and do n o t be in panic,” for MT ‫ ואל־תחפזו ואל־תערצו‬, “and do n o t be in panic and do no t d re ad .” 4. a. D eleting ‫אלהיכם‬, “your [pi.] G od,” in light o f the evidence assem bled by L abuschagne on total word c ount in the use o f the divine-nam e num bers in the fifth reading o f the lectionary cycle

Form/Structure/Setting

435

(D eut 16:18-21:9). It appears th at the w ord ‫אלהיך‬, “your [sg.] G od,” d ro p p e d o u t of 18:12 and the word ‫ אלהכם‬was added here. 4. b. SP reads ‫ ולהושיע‬for MT ‫להושיע‬, “to save [you]”; LXXm1n read καί διασώ σει, “and to save” (= ‫)ויושיע‬. 5. a. Reading tiphfr as conj. because o f the m isplaced }atnah. 6. a. Cairo Geniza fragm ents omits waw-conj. 7. a. Cairo Geniza fragm ents omits waxv-conj. 7. b. Reading tipha} as conj. because o f the m isplaced ,atnah. 8. a. SP reads ‫ ויוסיפו‬for MT ‫ויספו‬, “and they shall co n tin u e.” 8.b. SP, LXX, Syr., and Vg. read ‫ ים)י( ס‬, “he causes [hiphil] (the h e art o f his b rother) to m elt,” for MT ‫ימס‬, “(the h e art of his b rother) m elts [n ip h al].”

Form/Structure/Setting

The three laws on warfare in Deut 20 continue the final section in the collection of laws on leadership and authority in 16:18-21:9, which were outlined above as follows: A Laws on manslaughter and the cities of asylum B The case of intentional murder—no asylum X Laws on encroachment and witnesses in court B' Intentional killing—warfare and military deferments A' Unsolved murder—role of elders and judges

19:1-10 19:11-13 19:14-21 20:1-20 21:1-9

In the larger structural design of the laws of Deuteronomy, the laws on warfare in chap. 2 0 are set over against the law that denies asylum for a person who is guilty of intentional murder (19:11-13). The content of these laws on warfare may in turn be outlined in similar fashion as follows: A Holy war is not a human enterprise B Preparing the army—deferments from military duty X When officials finish, the army commanders take charge B' On those subject to death among Israel’s enemies A On the treatment of trees near a besieged city

20:1-4 20:5-8 20:9 20:10-18 20:19-20

The outer frame in this structure moves from a brief presentation of holy war as God’s activity in behalf of his people (20:1-4), to a curious law on the treatment of fruit trees near a besieged city (20:12-20). There is no cause for fear; since he is “the one who brought you up out of the land of Egypt” and he will “fight for you against your enemies to save you” (vv 1, 4). The inner frame moves from a listing of four grounds for deferment from military duty (20:5-8) to a law regarding those who are subject to death among Israel’s enemies (20:10-18). In the center we find a single verse that informs us that there is a point at which local officials relinquish their power and delegate authority to military commanders who are appointed to be in charge of the levy of the “hosts of YHWH” in time of war (20:9). The boundaries of 20:1-9 are marked by the setumcF paragraph markers before v 1 and after v 9. The Numeruswechsel in v 2 divides the section into two parts (vv 1-2 and 3-9). Subunits within vv 3-9 are indicated by change of speaker (v 5) and reported action (vv 8 and 9) such that the resultant five-part structure may be outlined as follows:

436

Deuteronomy 20:1-9

A When you go forth to battle, do not be afraid B Priestly oracle: “Do not be afraid—this is YHWH’s battle!” XOfficial deferments: new houses, new vineyards, and newlyweds B' Deferment for those who are afraid, lest their fear spread A' When the officials finish the army commanders take over

20:1-2 20:3-4 20:5-7 20:8 20:9

The official deferments from military duty are grouped in the familiar three‫־‬ plus-one pattern, with three primary situations at the center of the structure: those who have built new houses, planted new vineyards, or who have betrothed a wife but the marriage has not been consumated (vv 5-7). The fourth basis for referral has to do with the nature of holy war itself. Holy war demands trust in God and the absence of fear; hence the priestly oracle in “let not your heart be faint; do not fear and do not panic; and do not be in dread of them” (v 3). In the inner frame of the above structure, this oracle is set over against the dismissal of those who are afraid, lest that fear spread to others (v 8 ). The outer frame moves from the introductory injunction to “have no fear of them, for YHWH your God is with you” (v 1 ), to the transfer of authority to the actual military commanders (v 9 ) .

A closer look at vv 5-9 reveals repetition of words and phrases that fall into a nested concentric pattern: A The officials shall speak to the people B Three grounds for deferment: new commitments that distract X The officials shall continue to speak to the people B' A fourth ground for deferment: fear A' The officials finish speaking—commanders are appointed

20:5a 20:5b7‫־‬ 20:8a 20:8b 20:9

The officials dominate this structure: they begin to speak (v 5); they continue to speak (v 8 ); and they finish speaking (v 9). The words they speak are the four specific grounds for military deferment, which are presented in the form of a litany. At the end of this structure, the leaders of the army are selected from among the ranks of those who remain after the others have returned to their houses. According to Carmichael (LNB, 122-27), the content of vv 5-9 is used to shape the narrative of Gideon’s preparation for war against the Midianites in Judg 7:1-22. In this instance, the story begins with the implementation of the fourth grounds for military deferment, as Gideon declares: “Whoever is fearful and trembling, let him return hom e” (Judg 7:3); twenty-two thousand of the original thirty-two thousand soldiers go home. But even then YHWH tells Gideon, “The troops are still too many; take them down to the water and I will sift them out for you there. When I say, ‘This one shall go with you,’ he shall go with you; and when I say, ‘This one shall not go with you,’ he shall not go” (Judg 7:4). When God is through in his selection process, only three hundred soldiers remain, whom God uses to defeat the vast camp of the Midianite foes. The laws on war in Deut 20 were also used to shape details of the story of King Ahab in 1 Kgs 20-22. The law granting exemption from military duty focuses attention on three circumstances where fellow Israelites should not be required to face death in battle. Two of the three grounds for deferral in Deut 20:5 appear in the story of

437

Form/Structure/Setting

Ahab. First, “Ahab’s death in battle fulfilled Elijah’s prophecy that his house would not be established, that it would be obliterated like that of his evil predecessor, Jeroboam (1 Kgs 21:22)” (Carmichael, LNB, 124). Second, Ahab’s death also means that although he had newly acquired Naboth’s vineyard, he did not live to eat its fruit. Earlier, when Israel prevailed in battles against the Arameans (1 Kgs 20:16-34), it should be noted that, ‫״‬The opening words of the law portray a situation identical to the one Ahab faced: ‘When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for YHWH thy God is with thee’” (Carmichael, LNB, 126). The third grounds for military deferral is used to shape another story, which Carmichael described as a “parallel to the use of war in order to deny an Israelite his inheritance in the land” (LNB, 125) in 1 Sam 18:17-27. There King Saul attempted to have David killed in battle by offering his daughter Michal in mar‫־־‬ riage, provided David return from battle with one hundred foreskins of the Philistines. In so doing, Saul was in violation of the law of Deut 21:7, for the “betrothal” should have exempted David from military duty. The data assembled by Labuschagne on the use of the divine-name numbers 17 and 26 in the composition of 2 0 :1 - 2 0 is changed slightly here by the proposed emendation in 20:4, which reduces the number of words before 3atnah in that verse by one. Once again it is useful to examine the results in light of the figures for the larger context in which this text is located. The results may be summarized as follows: Words:

after ’atnah

before ,atnah

28 29 64 20 15 26 18

=

20:1-4 20:5-9 20:10-20 20:10-13 20:14-15 20:14-18 20:19-20

32 56 106 23 19 49 (= 23 + 26) 34 (= 2 x 17)

+ + + + + + ­‫­ו‬

17:14-18:22 19:1-21 20:1-20 21:1-9

238 (= 1 4 x 1 7 ) 185 194 75

­‫­ו‬ + + +

204 ( = 1 2 x 1 7 ) 147 121 60

=

19:1-21:9 17:14-21:9 16:18-21:9

454 692 867 (= 3 x 172)

+ + +

328 532 655

=

60

= 85 (= 5 x 17) = 170 (= 10 x 17) = = = =

43 34 75 52

(= 17 + 26) (= 2 x 1 7 )

442

(= 17 x 26)

(= 2 x 26)

= 332 = 315 =

135

782 1,224 = 1,523 =

(=2x23x17) (= 72 x 17)

In the opening section, which has as its subject “holy war” with God as the Divine Warrior, there are 32 words before ‫ג‬atnah to signify the “glory” of YHWH (the numerical value of ‫ כבוד‬was reckoned as either 23 or 32, since the letter ‫ כ‬may be read as 11 or 20). There are 85 (=5x17) words in the following section (vv 5-9), and 170 (= 10 x 17) words in the remainder of the chapter (vv 10-20). Within these three sections, the alternate numerical value of the word ‫כבוד‬, “glory,” appears in the 23 words before 3atnah in vv 10-13. Both divine-name numbers are

438

D euteronomy 20:1-9

found in the total number of words in those same verses, 43 (= 17 + 26), which may also be read as the “glory of YHWH” since the word ‫( כבד‬without the waw) has the numerical value of 17 or 26, depending on whether the ‫ כ‬is read as 1 1 or 20. The number of words in vv 14-15 comes to 34 (=2x17); and the number of words in vv 19-20 comes to 52 (= 2 x 26). Moreover, there are 34 (= 2 x 17) words before 3atnah in those same two verses. The total number of words in 20:1-20 does not present further evidence of the use of the two divine-name numbers until one takes a look at the larger context of which these verses are part. There are 782 (= 2 x 23 x 17) words in 19:1-21:9 and 1,224 (= 72 x 17) words in 17:14-21:9. For the whole of the fifth reading in the lectionary cycle (16:18-21:9) there are 867 (= 3 x 17 x 17) words before 3atnah. Comment

1-2 The terms ‫ סוס ורכב‬, “horses and chariots,” refer to horse-drawn chariots, which revolutionized warfare in the ancient Near East. Their speed and maneuverability brought tremendous advantage in battle (see Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, 2 vols. [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963] 1:4-5, 86-90, and colored photos on 129-31). The term ‫עם‬, which is translated “army” in the nrsv, is here rendered as “a people more numerous than you.” Compare Josh 11:4: “And they [the Canaanites] came out with all their troops, ‘a great host’ (‫)עם־רב‬, in number like the sand that is upon the seashore, with very many horses and chariots.” The command to “have no fear of them” is the language of “holy war” (see Excursus: “Holy War as Celebrated Event in Ancient Israel” following the Introduction). The people are reminded that ‘YHWH your God is with you, the one who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” 3-4 The priestly exhortation to the militia opens with the familiar words, “Hear, O Israel!” (cf. the so-called Shema in 6:4). It goes on to reiterate the command already given in v 1 not to fear the enemy—in four different ways: “let not your heart be faint” (‫) אל־ירך לבבכם‬, “do not fear” (‫)אל־תיראו‬, “do not panic” (‫)אל־תחפזו‬, and “do not be in dread of them” (‫)ואל־תערצו מפניהם‬. Obviously, the heart of the priest’s message is that YHWH’s troops should have no fear as they go forth to fight YHWH’s battle; for God himself will “save you”—that is, bring you to victory. 5-7 The “officials” who speak at this point are not identified. It would appear that they are from among the ranks of the Levites who function within the context of the central sanctuary alongside the priest, the heads of the tribes, commanders, elders—and perhaps also the Levitical priests and the judges (1:15; 16:18; 29:9; 31:28). They are not military officers, as such, since the army commanders are appointed in v 9, when “the officials finish speaking to the peopie.” Deferments from battle are granted for three specific situations: those who have recently “built a new house, planted a (new) vineyard,” and the newly enaged—the man “who has betrothed a wife and he has not taken her.” In the case of the man with a new house that “he has not begun to use” (‫) לא חנכו‬, the Hebrew word has been interpreted in the sense of to “dedicate it” in some sort of ceremony; or “to initiate it” (S. Reif, VT 22 [1972] 495-501). Since there are no other references to the dedication of a private house in the Hebrew Bible, noth­

Explanation

439

ing is known of any rituals used on such occasions. On ceremonial initiations, see Num 7:10, 84-88; 1 Kgs 8:63; Dan 3:2-7; Ezra 6:16-18; Neh 12:27-43. In the case of the man who has planted a new vineyard of which he ‫לא חללו‬, “has not enjoyed its fruit,” we are once again dealing with a technical term. Normally, ‫ חלל‬means “to pollute,” “to defile,” or “to profane.” Tigay suggested the meaning of “desacralize it”—to “treat it as nonsacred” (cf. Jer 31:5) in the sense that its fruit is dedicated to God until the fifth year, when it may be eaten—that is, put to nonsacred use ([1996] 187). If this interpretation is correct, it might imply a five-year deferral from military service. Tigay has also noted an interesting parallel in Babylonian texts in regard to the tragedy of dying before consummating a marriage—“lest he die in battle and another man take her” (A. Shaffer, “Sumerian Sources of Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgamesh” [Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1963] 118,11. 275-78, and 151-52—citation from Tigay [1996] 379 n. 18). Following earlier discussions by Schwally (Semitische Kriegsaltertumer [1901] 75-77) and Herrmann (ZAW70 [1958] 215ff), Mayes suggests that the reason behind the three regulations regarding military exemptions in vv 5-7 is that in the “primitive belief throughout the Semitic world, such persons were taboo and particularly subject to demonic influences, and it is in order to ward off such influences from the army that they are excluded from service” ([1981] 291), even though the demonic ideas as such are absent in Deuteronomy. 8 The fourth of the grounds for deferral from military duty is different from the first three in the manner in which it is introduced: “And the officials shall continue to speak to the people.” The first three deferrals concern the individual soldier and his needs; whereas this one concerns the army itself and their needs—lest he “melt his brothers’ hearts as his heart.” In the larger concentric structure of the literary unit as a whole, this verse is set over against vv 3-4, the priestly admonition not to be afraid. A deferral of the one who “is afraid” or “faint of heart” appears also in Judg 7:3, where Gideon used this as the means of reducing his fighting force to a mere three hundred so as to make it obvious to all that the victory came from God and not from the power of Israel’s army. 9 The “army commanders” (‫ )שרי צבאות‬were appointed by the “officials” (‫ )שטרים‬for the battle in question. Explanation

The centrality of warfare in the development of the religion of ancient Israel led Julius Wellhausen, long ago, to posit the war camp as Israel’s oldest sanctuary (Israelitische und jiidische Geschichte, 7th ed. [Berlin: Druck und Verlag von Georg Reimer, 1914] 28). Wellhausen’s intuition was correct; though he failed to recognize the distinction between actual warfare in ancient Israel and YHWH’s Holy War as celebrated event within the cultus of the ritual conquest tradition. YHWH’s Holy War was the ritual fusing of the events of the exodus-eisodus into one great cultic celebration, in which the Divine Warrior marched with his hosts from Sinai to Shittim, and then across the Jordan River to Gilgal, the battle camp for the conquest of Canaan. In the spring Festival of Passover, the people of Israel pitched their tents in battle array around the ark of the covenant to reenact YHWH’s Holy War, which brought them from slavery in the land of Egypt, in the time of Moses, to posses­

440

Deuteronomy 20:1-9

sion of the promised land, in the days of Joshua. In this tradition of ritual conquest, the tribal units of Israel took up their designated positions around the ark of the covenant at Gilgal. From there they set out to conquer Jericho (symbolically), then marched on to Ai in the central hill country of the tribe of Benjamin, and from there to the central sanctuary at Shiloh to return the ark to its designated place. If this is the “battle camp” of ancient Israel, then Wellhausen’s observation is correct; for it was the earliest “sanctuary” within the annual celebration of the spring Festival of Passover. The language of this early tradition of YHWH’s Holy War is preserved in the opening section of the laws on war in Deut 20, where the people of Israel are urged to “have no fear of them . . . for it is YHWH your God who is the one going with you to fight for you against your enemies to save you” (vv 1-4). That same language is echoed in the fourth and concluding basis for military deferment in v 8 —lest a soldier’s fear “melt his brothers’ hearts as his heart.” Holy War demands trust in God and the absence of fear. Holy War as experienced in worship by the people of ancient Israel centers on two parallel themes that must be kept in balance: that of human weakness and God’s enabling presence in his people’s midst. Israel’s success in battle has nothing to do with their own worth or their actual military ability. As Moses explained earlier in the book of Deuteronomy, Do not say in your heart after YHWH your God has thrust them out from before you, saying: “It is because of my righteousness that YHWH brought me in to possess this land.” No, it is because of the wickedness of these nations that YHWH is driving them out before you . . . And that he may establish the word that YHWH swore to your fathers—to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Know therefore that it is not because of your righteousness that YHWH your God is giving you this good land to possess it; for you are a stiff-necked people. (9:4-6)

Even with forty years of training behind them, Moses still warns them sharply to be careful; for God’s people never get to the place where they can stand on their own. “God never makes us so strong that we no longer need Him. Never. We will continually be dependent upon Him. Ironically, realizing our weakness and dependence is the secret to our strength and success” (J. Maxwell [1987] 242). It is when God’s people step forward in his strength that things happen. In w 1-4, it is clear that the soldiers of ancient Israel were not a mighty military force. They needed someone to encourage them by reminding them that it is God’s enabling presence in their midst that brings victory in the battles of life (v 2 ). The key to success for them, and for us today, is to realize afresh that God’s strength is made present in our weakness. As the apostle Paul once put it, “I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor 12:10). Paul knew this by experience as God revealed that his strength is made perfect in our weakness (2 Cor 12:1-13). Our culture cries out: “Be independent! Stand on your own two feet!” God’s word tells us to increase our dependence on God; for

Explanation

441

when we increase our independence, we accomplish only what we can accomplish alone. When we learn true dependence on God, nothing is impossible (Matt 17:20; Luke 1:37). Holy War is an idealistic enterprise. YHWH is the Divine Warrior and no human foe can possibly withstand his power. Thus there is no need to trust in chariots, or horses, or armaments of any kind, when YHWH is the commander in chief; for the battle belongs to him (Ps 20:7). This is the lesson Gideon was taught as he systematically reduced his available troops from thirty-two thousand to three hundred at God’s command, before he was permitted to commence the battle against the Midianites (Judg 7:1-8). Preparing the army for battle in Holy War is essentially that of pruning the troops by getting rid of all those who are reluctant to fight for whatever reasons, particularly those who are afraid. The primary command that the priests are to deliver is simple: “let not your heart faint, do not fear and do not panic, and do not be in dread of them; for it is YHWH your God who is the one going with you to fight for you against your enemies to save you” (vv 3-4). The law on preparing the army for battle focuses on four grounds for military deferral: three in cases of persons with new commitments that distract them (i.e., new houses, new vineyards, and newlyweds), and a fourth for those who are afraid, lest their fear spread panic among the rest of the troops. It is the fourth basis for exemption, however, that is the most puzzling; for anyone “who is afraid and faint of heart” is told to “return to his house” (v 8 ). If this injunction were taken literally, there would be no soldiers left; for no one is without fear of his or her life in the heat of battle. Anyone who knows anything about the horrors of war, past or present, knows that fear is part of the human condition in such circumstances. It is not a matter of finding persons without fear, but finding ways to cope with fear so as to bring out the best of those who know that their very life is on the line. That is what war is all about. Nonetheless, the law for preparing the army for battle in 20:1-9 is designed to reduce the numbers of available combatants by 99.3 percent (from 32,000 to 300). That’s all God needs to get the job done, if those who remain are without fear and wholly dependent on him. The litany of deferments listed here underscores that the battle belongs to God and to God alone. The story of Gideon illustrates what the law in 20:1-9 is trying to say. ‘YHWH said to Gideon, ‘The troops with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand. Israel would only take the credit away from me, saying: “My own hand has delivered me’”” (Judg 7:2). What God wants of us is our commitment, our trust, and our undivided attention; “God counts hearts, not heads, when He wants a great work accomplished” (J. Maxwell [1987] 245). The law on preparing the army for battle in 20:1-9 concludes with a note that the “commanders in charge of the army” (v 9) are to be appointed from among the few who remain after the majority have returned to their own houses by way of deferment from military duty. There is an important lesson here. The true leaders in God’s army emerge from the ranks of the remnant. All too often, however, the leadership in our churches today consists of those who have built for themselves new houses, planted new vineyards, and are heavily engaged in personal relationships outside the context of the “military band.” These are the very ones who should have been told to return to their houses. The commanders of

442

Deuteronomy 20:10-20

the army that is on the move to engage the enemy in battle should be selected from the ranks of the faithful who are willing to give God’s work their undivided attention and commitment.

b. Behavior during a Siege in Holy War (20:10-20) Bibliography on 20:10-18 Avigad, N. “The Chief of the Corvee.” IEJSO (1980) 170-73. Baar, W. “Papyrus Fouad Inv. No. 266.” NedTTs 13 (1958) 442-46. Blenkinsopp, J. “Are There Traces of the Gibeonite Covenant in Deuteronomy?” C B Q 28 (1966) 207. Gelb, I. J. “Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia.”JA/ES32 (1973) 70-98. Gibson, J. C. L. “Observations on Some Important Ethnic Terms in the Pentateuch.”JNES 20 (1961) 217-38. Greenberg, M. “Herem .” Encjud 8:344-50. Horst, F. “Zwei Begriffe fiir Eigentum (Besitz).” In FS W. Rudolph. 1961. 139. Ishida, T. “The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations.” Bib 60 (1979) 461-90. Labat, R. Le caractere religieux de la royaute assyro-babylonienne. Paris: Librairie d’Amerique et d’Orient, 1939. 221-33, 253-74. Langlamet, F. Gilgal et les recits de la traversee du Jourdain (Jos II1-IV). CahRB 11. Paris: Gabalda, 1969. 109-10. Lilley, J. P. U. “Understanding the Herem.” T ynB ul 44 (1993) 169-77. Lohfink, N. “The Destruction of

the Seven Nations in Deuteronomy.” Contagion 2 (1994) 102-17 (see idem, Studien zum Deuteronomium. 1995. 3:219-60). Mettinger, T. N. D. Solomonic State Officials. ConBOT 5. Lund: Gleerup, 1971. 128-30. Noort, E. “Das Kapitulationsangebot im Kriegsgesetz Dtn 20,10ff. und in den Kriegserzahlungen.” In FS C.J. Labuschagne. 1994. 197-222. North, R. “The Hivites.” Bib 54 (1973) 43-46. Rainey, A. “Compulsory Labour Gangs in Ancient Israel.” IEJ 20 (1970) 191-202. Rubinstein, R. L. “The Besieged Community in Ancient and Modern Times.” Michigan Quarterly Review 22.3 (1983) 447-51. Schafer-Lichtenberger, C. “Das gibeonitische Biindnis im Lichte deuteronomischer Kriegsgebote.” B N 34 (1986) 58-81. Siwiec, S. “La guerre de conquete de Canaan dans le Deuteronome.” Diss., Studium Biblicum Franciscanum/Antonianum, Jerusalem and Rome, 1971. Soggin, J. A. “Compulsory Labor under David and Solomon.” In Studies in the Period of D a vid and Solomon and Other Essays. Ed. T. Ishida. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982. 259-67. Stoebe, H. J. “Raub und Beute.” In FS W. Baumgartner. 1967. 347-52. Toombs, L. E. “Ideas of War.” IDB 4:796-801. Vannoy, J. R. Covenant Renewal at Gilgal. Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack, 1977. Wiseman, D. J. “‘Is It Peace?’—Covenant and Diplomacy.” VT32 (1982) 311-26. Yadin, Y. A rt of Warfare. 1963. Esp. 1:76-245.

Bibliography on 20:19-20 Eph’al, I. “The Assyrian Siege Ramp at Lachish: Military and Lexical Aspects.” Tel A viv 11 (1984) 60-70. Doron, P. “Motive Clauses in the Law of Deuteronomy: Their Forms, Function and Contents.” HAR 2 (1978) 63. Garner, G. “Siege Warfare in Bible Times.” Buried History 22 (1986) 4-13. Gerleman, G. “Adam und die alttestamentliche Anthropologie.” In FSH . W Wolff. 1981. 326-27. Lohfink, N. “Meditation zu Dtn 20,19.” In “Menschen werden alt wie B a u m e B a u m e im Heiligen Land: Gedanken und Bilder. Ed. E. Beck. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. 44-47. Sasson, J. M. The Military Establishments at M an. Studia Pohl 3. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. 47-49. Soloveichik, A. “Waging War on Shabbat.” Tradition 20 (1982) 179-87.

443

Translation

Translation and Prosodic Analysis

Taking Your “Inheritance” by Siege in Holy War [ (4:5): (4:4): (6 :6 ): (6 :6 ): (4:4): (5:4) ] When you draw near tod a town \b to make war against it / / and you offer it\c terms ofpeace / / 11and it shall be / that if it responds peaceably / And it opens to you / / then it shall be / that all the peoplefound in it / shall doY forced labor / and they shall serve you / / 12But if it makes no peace / with you / and it makes warY with you / / then you shall lay siege / against it / / 13And YHWHyour God / will give it / into your handld / / And you shall put all its males / to the sword / / 14 only the women / and the little ones and the cattle / and all that is in the town / dall its spoil / You shall take as bootyfor yourselves / / and you shall consume / the spoil of your enemies / that YHWH your God / gives / you / / 15 Thus you shall do / to all the towns / the ones that arefarY from you / / that / are not towns of the nations / here / / 16 Only / from the towns of theseY peoples / that lb YHWH your God / is giving you\c as an inhentance / / you shall save alive / nothing that breathes / / ^For you shall utterly destroy them / the *Hittites and the Amontes / hthe Canaanitesd lc And the Penzzites / dthe Hivites / and theJebusitese / / as YHWH your God / has commanded you / / 18 Lest / dthey teach youa / to do / according to all / their abominations / That they have done / for their gods / / and you sin / against YHWH your God / / ‫ס‬ 10

18

1

21

2

9 14 19 ‫ו‬ 7J

1 2 2 1

10

2

13 9

2

21

3

19 16 17

2

1

2 2 1

6

2

15‫ן‬ 16 J 3 2 1 3 1 1 12

J

24

3

22

17I J

2

11

2

2

12

1

18 17 15 18

2

10

2

13 15

2

3 2

3

2

The Treatment of Trees Near a Besieged City [(5:6) :(6:5)] When you besieged a town for a long time / making war against it in order to capture it / You shall not destroy its trees / by wielding an ax / against them / ForY from them you may eat / and they / shall not be cut down / / For are trees of thefieldY human beingsd / to withdraw before you / into the besieged town ? / / 20 Only / the trees that you know / are not / fruit-beanng trees / you may destroy them / and you may cut them down / / 19

16 11 15 J 1 1 101 1 0 J 2 10 1 1 10

J

2

1 151 14 J 2

19 14

4 2

444

Deuteronomy 20:10-20

And you shall build siege works / against the town / that wages war / with you / until it falls / / 0

r 16 *-19

2 3

Notes 10.a. SP reads ‫ על‬for MT ‫ א ל‬, “to.” lO.b. Reading tipha3as conj. because o f the m isplaced 3atnah. 10. c. Reading tipha3as conj. because o f the m isplaced silluq. 11. a. R eading the tebir on ‫ ל ך‬, “to you,” as conj. 12. a. R eading tipha3as conj. because o f the m isplaced silluq. 13. a. A few H eb. MSS, LXX, and Syr. read ‫בידיך‬, “in your h ands,” for MT ‫ בי ד ך‬. 14. a. Many H eb. MSS, LXX, an d Syr. add waxv-conj. 15. a. Reading tipha3as conj. because o f the m isplaced 3atnah. 16. a. R eading pasta3followed by zaqep qaton as conj. 16.b. Reading pasta3followed by zaqep qaton as conj. 16. c. Reading tipha3as conj. because o f the m isplaced 3atnah. 17. a‫־‬a. SP rearranges text to read ‫ הכנעני והאמרי והחתי‬, “the Caananites, and the Am orites, and the H ittites.” I7.b. Many H eb. MSS, Syr., and Vg. add waw-con]. I7.c. A dding a disj. accent; llQ T e m p le 62:14 and SP adds ‫והגרגשי‬, “and the G irgashites” (see Note I7.e). T he em endation m akes sense in that it com pletes the list o f the seven traditional enem ies. It disturbs the word count, however, in term s o f the num erical com position o f 16:18-21:9. I7.d. Many Heb. MSS, SP, LXX‫־‬l , Syr., Tg. Ps.-J., and Vg. add waw-conj. 17. e. LXX‫־‬b adds καί Γεργεσάίον, “and G irgashites” (= ‫)והגרגשי‬. 18. a‫־‬a. Syr. reads ‫ילמדוך‬, “they will teach you [sg.],” for MT ‫ ילמדו אתכם‬, “they will teach you [p i.].” 19. a. O ne H eb. MS, SP, and Tg. Ps.-J. read 6‫ ^ ע ל‬MT ‫ א ל‬, “to .” T hese two p repositions are used interchangeably in Deuteronom y. 19.b. R eading the yetib as the conj. accent mahpak. 19.c. Reading the pasta3followed by zaqep qaton as conj. 19.d. LXX reads μή αι/θρωπος, “is it a m an?” (= ‫ י ךאךם‬with h e in t.); Vg. reads et non homo, “and n o t a m an ”; Syr. reads ‫ ל א כאדם‬, “it is n o t like a m an ,” for MT ‫ כי האךם‬, “for the m an .”

Form/Structure /Setting

The first phase of YHWH’s Holy War with the conquest and settlement of the two and a half tribes in Transjordan is now complete. The law here concerns what lies ahead in the second phase of that war, as Joshua takes the tribes across the Jordan River to possess their “inheritance” in the promised land. That process necessitates the siege and destruction of enemy towns. The process of Holy War in the promised land is spelled out in detail. At the outset the people are commanded: “When you draw near to a town to make war against it, and you offer it terms of peace; and it shall be that if it responds peaceably, and it opens to you, then it shall be that all the people found in it shall do forced labor, and they shall serve you” (vv 10-11). In other words, the people of the land are invited to become part of the nation of Israel, but with heavy terms. They must submit to servitude; and, if they refuse to do so, that town shall be taken by force and all the males put to death (vv 12-13). The women, the children, and the spoil shall be taken as booty. It is interesting to note that whether or not these besieged towns submit to conquest on the part of the Israelites, the majority of the people are destined to become part of the population of Israel. The idea of Israel dispossessing the inhabitants of the land by driving them out or annihilating them is an oversimplification of the historical process. The law does not apply, however, to the “classical seven nations” who must be

Form/Structure/Setting

445

extirpated: “the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites (and the Girgashites), and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and thejebusites” (v 17). These folk are subject to the “ban” of Holy War and must be utterly destroyed—“you shall save alive nothing that breathes” (v 16). If the people of Israel fail to heed this command, they will be led astray to worship their gods and so to “sin against YHWH your God” (v 18). At this point, the thought shifts back to the matter of the siege itself that is to be raised against the towns in the promised land with a law to spare all fruit-bearing trees around those towns, “for are trees of the field human beings to withdraw before you into the besieged city?” (v 19). “Only the trees that you know are not fruit-bearing trees” may be destroyed and used to build siegeworks (v 2 0 ). The trees, like “the women and the little ones and the cattle and all that is in the town—all its spoil” (v 14)—this is what “YHWH your God is giving you as an inheritance” (v 16). The boundaries of the two literary units in 20:10-18 and 20:19-20 are marked by the setuma3paragraph markers after vv 18 and 20 and by the Numeruswechsel in w 18 and 19. The omission of the word ‫והגרגשי‬, “and the Girgashites,” in v 17 led to numerous attempts to restore the assumed “correct text” among the ancient versions. It also seems to have contributed to a significant disturbance in the series of disjunctive accents in vv 16-17, as did the error in versification between w 10 and 11. Though the internal structure of vv 10-18 is not indicated by rhetorical markers, the structure of the whole of vv 1 0 - 2 0 may be outlined on the basis of content: A When you may lay siege to a town after proclaiming “peace B Smite all the males and take the rest as spoil X The ban applies to the towns of your “inheritance” B' Destroy utterly the “classical seven” A' Treatment of trees near a besieged town

20: 10-12 20:13-15 20:16 20:17-18 20:19-20

In this reading, the focus of attention is on the ‫חרם‬, “ban,” in the traditions of holy war in ancient Israel—all spoil was utterly destroyed and the entire population of a given city “put to the sword” (vv 13-16). The inner frame in this structure presents a modified version of the “ban” on certain cities, in which only the adult males are so treated (vv 13-14). The second half of the inner frame focuses on the traditional seven enemies of Israel who were the subject of the ban in its classical form (vv 17-18). The outer frame moves from a description of circumstances in which the siege of a city is called for (vv 1 0 - 1 2 ) to restrictions on the destruction in terms of trees located in the vicinity of the besieged city (w 19-20). Deut 20:19-20 is set off as a literary unit of its own by means of the Numeruswechsel and the setuma‫ כ‬paragraph marker after v 18. This smaller unit may be outlined in similar manner: A When you besiege a town to capture it B You are not to ruin its trees you may eat from them X Are the trees of the field human beings to be besieged? B' You may ruin only trees that are not food-bearing A' You shall build a siege against a town until it falls

20:19a 20:19b 20:19c 20:20a 20:20b

446

Deuteronomy 20:10-20

The focus of attention here is on the fact that the trees of the field have “rights” of their own and should not be destroyed as part of the so-called ban when towns are placed under siege (v 19c). Fruit-bearing trees are to be spared (v 19b), and only trees that do not produce edible fruit are to be used as material for the siege itself (v 20a). The outer frame indicates that when the people of Israel do besiege a town in order to capture it (v 19a) they are to follow certain procedures until the town falls (v 2 0 b ). Numerous scholars (I. Eph’al, G. von Rad, G. Seitz, A. D. H. Mayes, and others) have argued that the siege tactics of vv 19-20 imply a professional army and military procedures that the people of Israel did not practice until the monarchic era. It is more important to note the idealistic content of these verses in light of the ancient tradition of YHWH’s Holy War, which includes the battles in the promised land itself, beginning with the conquest ofJericho—a walled town. The story of the destruction of Jericho indicates a form of siege warfare within this context, in which a siege of seven days is sufficient when the battle belongs to YHWH. The point of the passage in 20:19-20 is that fruit trees are not to be destroyed in the wars of the eisodus. Such action is unnecessary and unwise; for the produce of the promised land belongs to YHWH and his people. If the law here was written to reflect conditions of actual siege warfare in the monarchic period in ancient Israel, the focus would have been on matters other than the sparing of fruit trees. The law as it stands invites the hearer to explore the details of YHWH’s Holy War and its ramifications in matters of social ethics, and in narratives elsewhere in the Torah and Former Prophets that are shaped by the wording of this particular law. The story of the destruction ofJericho (Josh 6-7) and Ai (Josh 8 ) were shaped by the law of Deut 20:10-18. Both towns were inhabited by the Canaanites and both were subjected to utter destruction under the terms of the sacred ‫חרם‬, “ban”—in situations where “you shall save alive nothing that breathes, for you shall utterly destroy them” (vv 16-17). The story of the sin of Achan, in which he violated the terms of this law by taking “some of the devoted things” from the town of Jericho (Josh 7:1), is also shaped by the laws on holy war in 20:16-18. The story of the Gibeonites in Josh 9:1-27 is also shaped, at least in part, by the law on those who are subject to death among Israel’s enemies in Deut 20:10-18. When the people of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai, they acted with cunning and persuaded Joshua that they had “come from a very far country” (v 9) so as to make a treaty with Israel in which they agreed to become servants—“hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and for the altar of YHWH . . . in the place that he should choose” (i.e., the central sanctuary; Josh 9:27). The Gibeonites were treated according to the terms of the law in 2 0 :1 0 - 1 1 , which applied to those cities “that are far from you, that are not cities of the nations here” (v 15). In fact, however, they were among the Canaanite neighbors in Israel’s immediate vicinity, and according to the law in w 16-17 they were to be utterly destroyed. The story helps to explain the survival of some of the Canaanites in the promised land and the presence of non-Israelites in the service of the altar at the central sanctuary. The law about fruit trees in 20:19-20 serves a transitional role so far as the shaping of narrative tradition in the Former Prophets is concerned, as we move from the stories of Elijah and Ahab to a story about Elisha in 2 Kgs 3. The

C om m en t

447

prophet Elisha was consulted by King Jehoshaphat of Judah, who was in league with Israel and Edom against Moab, in regard to the ensuing battle. Elisha predieted that the dry streams would become pools of water and that the three kings would “conquer every fortified city; every good tree you shall fell, all springs of water you shall stop up, and every good piece of land you shall ruin with stones” (2 Kgs 3:19). Comment 10-12 To offer a town “terms of peace” (‫ )קראת אליה לשלום‬means to offer it terms of surrender, namely a promise to spare the town and its inhabitants if they agree to submit to servitude. Tigay calls attention to the same idiom in an Akkadian letter from Mari: “when he had besieged that city, he offered it terms of submission [salimam] ” ([1996] 188). In short, to respond “shalom” means “to surrender.” 13-15 The reference to putting “all its males to the sword” refers to adult males, for “the little ones” who are among the ones spared included both boys and girls. The Israelites were commanded to “consume the spoil of your enemies” who live “far from you” in distant places. Blenkinsopp has shown that the distinction between distant towns and other cities of the promised land is essential in the present form of the story of the Gibeonite covenant in Josh 9 (CBQ2S [1966] 207ff.— reference from Mayes [1981] 295). 16-17 The rule of vv 12-15 does not apply to “cities of these peoples” in the promised land, “that YHWH your God is giving you as an inheritance.” The “seven nations,” who make up the traditional enemies of Israel, are to be destroyed utterly—with no option for “peaceable” surrender. The statement that the people of Israel are to “save alive nothing that breathes” (‫ )כל־נשמה‬appears also in Josh 10:40; 11:11, 14; 1 Kgs 15:29; and Ps 150:6, but means “any creature” in the present context (cf. Gen 7:22). On the phrase ‫החרם תחרימם‬, “you shall utterly destroy them,” as it applies to these “seven nations,” and the identity of these peoples, see the Comment on 7:1-4. “The Girgashites” are frequently restored to the text here, both among the ancient versions (in SP, LXX, and llQTemple 62:14) and among modern commentators. From a prosodic point of view, the restoration is possible; but it adds a word and so disturbs the word count in terms of the numerical composition of the whole. It is best to leave the text as it stands in MT. It should be noted that the list of the traditional “seven nations” is not always complete (E. D. Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous: The Biblical View of Palestine's Pre-Israelite Peoples [North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1995] 51-83). According to midrashic sources, the Girgashites were not destroyed because Jbshua offered the Canaanites the option of emigrating and the Girgashites did so—emigrating to Africa (Tigay [1996] 380 n. 32). On the command to wipe out the Canaanites living in the promised land, see Tigay, “Excursus 18: The Proscription of the Canaanites,” 428-30; J. Milgrom, “Excursus 44: The Status of ‘Herem,'”in Numbers, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990) 428-30; and M. Weinfeld, “The Ban of the Canaanites,” in Deuteronomy 1-11 (1991) 382-84. Milgrom argues that the phrase “as YHWH your God has commanded you” (v 17) refers to a source that is found nowhere in Scripture. Tigay sees this is a reference to instructions presented in

448

Deuteronomy 20:10-20

Exod 23:24, 32-33, and 34:12-16. Weinfeld discusses the systematic rewriting of earlier source materials in which “the Deuteronomic author intentionally changes the verb [‫גרש‬, ‘to expel’] into another in order to accommodate his own view” ([1991] 383). 18 The aim of the harsh policy in destroying the Canaanites is to prevent the people of Israel from doing “according to all their abominations.” In subsequent Jewish tradition, the idea of unconditional condemnation of the Canaanites was considered too harsh and the text was interpreted leniently. M. Greenberg says the rabbis rejected the plain surface reading of the biblical text, seeing it as inconsistent with other values, such as the concept of repentance as taught by the prophets, and the basic principle that wrongdoers may not be punished unless they have been warned that their action is illegal and they are informed of the penalty (Ha-Segullah ve-Ha-Koah [Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibbutz Ha-Me’uhad and Sifriyat Po‘alim, 1986] 20—citation taken from Tigay [1996] 539 n. 17). 19-20 Sieges often extended “for a long time,” during which the temptation “to destroy its [the city’s] trees by wielding an ax against them” might arise as a way to exert additional pressure to force a surrender. Though Deuteronomy prohibits the destruction of trees in a siege, an exception is made for the necessity of building the siegeworks themselves: “the trees you know are not fruit-bearing trees you may destroy” so as to “build siegeworks against the city.” The meaning of the question posed at the end of v 19 is uncertain. The translation, which is based on repointing the ‫ האדם‬of MT as ‫האדם‬, suggests that the trees are unable to protect themselves: “are trees of the field human beings to withdraw before you into the besieged city?” Tigay says that such a reading does not, in fact, require an emendation in the vocalization of ‫ ;האדם‬since “the interrogative particle is frequently vocalized like the definite article as here (see, e.g., Gen. 17:17 and, before an aleph, Gen. 19:9; Num. 16:22)” ([1996] 380 n. 38). The term rendered “siegeworks” (‫ )מצור‬refers to fortifications built by the attacking army around a besieged city. Tigay cites an Egyptian inscription on the siege of Megiddo by Thutmose III (ca. 1490-1436 b .c .e .) which describes how his officers “measured the town, surrounded it with a ditch, and walled it up with the fresh timber from their [the city’s] fruit trees” (M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 3 vols. [Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1973-80] 2:33; see Tigay [1996] 190-91 and 380 n. 40). The law here in Deuteronomy forbids the use of fruit trees for such purposes. Craigie calls attention to an Egyptian scene of the attack of Ramses III on the city of Tunip that illuminates the text here ([1976] 277 n. 21). The picture shows the Egyptian forces with ladders to gain access to the besieged city; and in the background they are cutting down trees (Η. H. Nelson and U. Holscher, Medinet Habu Reports [Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1931] 32, fig. 19). Explanation

The sharp contrast between the mercy and tenderness extended toward fellow Israelites who are given military deferment (vv 1-9) and the harsh intolerance given to the legitimate inhabitants of the land of Canaan, whom Israel is commanded to displace (vv 10-18), is striking. To complicate matters further, it is clear that Israel did not destroy the Canaanites in the land as commanded here; for we read in 2 Chr 8:7 that “all the people who were left of the Hittites, the

E x p la n a tio n

449

Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of Israel, from their descendants who were still left in the land, whom the people of Israel had not destroyed—these Solomon conscripted for forced labor, as is still the case today.” If the laws of 20:10-18 were not enforced in ancient Israel, how are we to understand the meaning of the laws on warfare in the chapter as a whole? Though Deut 20 presents war as an instrument of divine policy, war itself does not have the stamp of divine approval. “Even in the Old Testament, David is denied the privilege of building the temple because his hands are stained with blood (1 Kgs 5:3). One of the features of the coming Messianic kingdom is the abolition of war (Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3). That our society today still resorts to war proves nothing except that men are terribly resistant to the grace of God” (J. Maxwell [1987] 247). When we realize that YHWH’s Holy War was a dramatic reenactment of the epic story of Israel’sjourney from slavery in Egypt in the time of Moses to the gift of the promised land in the time ofJoshua, we find other lessons here. R. Caillois has argued that war is not to be relegated to the profane as over against the sacred (see “War and the Sacred,” in appendix III of Man and the Sacred, tr. M. Barash [Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1959] 163-80). For ancient Israel, this is certainly true, for the people of Israel used the imagery of war to speak of God himself as the Divine Warrior (Exod 15:3). Warfare speaks of conflict, struggle against great odds, and victory over enormous powers and forces of evil. Matthew Henry put it well long ago: “The soldiers of Christ have need of courage, that they may acquit themselves like men, and endure hardness like good soldiers, especially the officers of his army” (An Exposition of the Old and New Testament [1687; repr. Philadelphia: Towar and Hogan, 1828] 654-55). The apostle Paul understood the power of military metaphor in motivating the followers of Jesus to right living. To the church at Ephesus, Paul expanded such imagery in terms of military gear and weapons: “Put on the whole armor of God, so that you may stand against the wiles of the devil. . . . Fasten the belt of truth around your waste, and put on the breastplate of righteousness.... take the shield of faith . .. the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph 6:11-17). And to the church at Corinth, he said similar words: “we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they are divine power to destroy strongholds” (2 Cor 10:3-4). He referred to both Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25) and to Archippus (Philem 2) as “fellow soldiers” in Christ. The same imagery found expression through the centuries in the hymnology of the Christian Church: “Onward, Christian Soldiers,” “Sound the Battle Cry,” “Soldiers of Christ Arise,” etc. Of greater importance, so far as the laws on warfare in Deut 20 are concerned, however, is the growing literature on spiritual warfare in recent years. It is not a question of metaphor only. There really is something in the realm of the spirit that is accurately described as warfare. George Lucas understood this in the production of the Star Wars Trilogy, which is essentially an expanded metaphor on the struggle between good and evil. I remember well how deeply moved I was some years ago when my youngest daughter talked me into sitting through the entire video sequence. In the climactic scenes of the Return of theJedi, the spiritual warfare, which is portrayed in epic proportions, takes on personal meaning

450

Deuteronomy 21:1-9

of profound spiritual depth. It was because Luke Skywalker learned that his archenemy Darth Vader was his own father that he somehow managed to walk the fine line between anger that is good and proper and anger that becomes a great evil. It was his compassion for his father even when, as Darth Vader, his father was totally under the control of the dark side of “the Force” that enabled Luke Skywalker to triumph. The evil emperor urged and cajoled him again and again to give in to his anger: “Let it swell up and take control!” Defend yourself! Lash out in anger! Let your anger become hatred!” But Luke Skywalker did not give in to his anger. Instead, as he took on himself intense pain, writhing in agony before the awesome power of the “Evil One,” that spark of compassion accomplished the impossible. His enemy became his savior! This is a powerful parable—a commentary of sorts on the message of the book of Jonah, and on the passion of Jesus, who conquered the forces of death and evil in the resurrection event of Easter Sunday morning. This, too, is to be understood as God’s Holy War. Without making specific reference to the text of Deut 20, W. Wink has seen the meaning of these laws on warfare more deeply than perhaps even he realizes in his profound trilogy: Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces that Determine Human Existence (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); and Engaging the Powers: Discerning and Resistance in a World ofDomination (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). In similar manner, the writings of C. Peter Wagner and others on the subject of spiritual warfare are struggling with the same issues (see in particular the Prayer Warrior Series published by Regal Books (Ventura, CA). Wagner’s books include: Engaging the Enemy (Ventura: Gospel Light, 1991); Warfare Prayer (Ventura: Gospel Light, 1992); Prayer Shield (Ventura: Gospel Light, 1992); Possessing the Gates of the Enemy (Ventura: Gospel Light, 1994); and Breaking through Strongholds in Your City (Ventura: Gospel Light, 1997). I am gradually coming to see that such works are nearer to the true meaning of the biblical text on the subject of warfare than most of what the rest of us in the mainstream of biblical scholarship have written through the years, in spite of intensive and extensive labors in historical research on warfare in the Bible and the ancient Near East, myself included (see Christensen, Prophecy and War in Ancient Israel [Berkeley: BIBAL Press, 1989]).

4. Law on Unsolved M urder—Role of Elders and Judges (21:1-9) Bibliography Albertz, R. “Tater und Opfer im Alten Testament.” ZEE 28 (1984) 146-66. Bar-Deroma, H. ‫( נחל איתך‬Dt 21,1-4).” Sinai 52 (1964) 177-204 (Heb.). Barrett, D. S. “Ham m urabi’s Code, Secs. 23 and 24: Some Later Parallels.” La Parola del Passato 26 (1971) 201-4.

B ib lio g ra p h y

451

Bayliss, M. “The Cult of Dead Kin in Assyria and Babylonia.” Iraq 35 (1973) 116-17, 122. Buchholz, J. Die altesten Israels im Deuteronomium. 1988. Buit, M. du. “Quelques contacts bibliques dans les archives royales de Mari.” RB 66 (1959) 576-81. Christ, H. Blutvergiessen im Alten Testament: Der gewaltsame Tod des Menschen untersucht am hebraischen Wort dam. Theologische Dissertationen 12. Basel: Reinhardt, 1977. 86-91. Daube, D. “Concerning Methods of Bible-Criticism: Late Law in Early Narratives.” ArOr 17 (1948) 88-99.---------. “The Culture of Deuteronomy.” ORITA 3 (1969) 2 9-30.---------. “To Be Found Doing Wrong.” In FS E. Volterra. 1971. 2:1-13 (4-10). Dempster, S. “The Deuteronom ic Formula ki yimmase? in the Light of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Law: An Evaluation of David Daube’s Theory.” RB91 (1984) 188-211. Deroma, Η. B. NahalAithan. Yeruham’s Library, no. 5. Jerusalem: B.E.R. Publishing, 1968. 8-12. Dion, P. “Deuteronome 21,1-9: Miroir du developement legal et religieux d ’Israel.” SR 11 (1982) 13-22.---------. “The Greek Version of Deut 21:1-9 and Its Variants: A Record of Early Exegesis.” In FS J. Wevers. 1984. 151-60.---------. “Tu feras disparaitre le mal du milieu de toi.” RB 88 (1980) 321-49. Driver, G. R. “Three N otes.” VT2 (1952) 356-57. Elhorst, H. J. “Eine verkannte Zauberhandlung.” TAW39 (1921) 58-67. Farbridge, Μ. H. Studies in Biblical and Semitic Symbolism. New York: Ktav, 1970. 275. Fensham, F. D. “The Judges and Ancient Israelite Jurisprudence.” OTWSA 2 (1959) 15-22. Fenton, T. L. “Ugaritica-Biblica, 1-4.” UF1 (1969) 65-70 (68). Finkelstein, J. “The Goring Ox: Some Historical Perspectives on Deodands, Forfeitures, Wrongful Death and the Western Notion of Sovereignty.” Temple Law Quarterly 46 (1973) 169-290. Frymer-Kensky, T. S. “The Judicial Ordeal in the Ancient Near East.” Ph.D. diss., Yale Univ., 1977.---------. “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel.” In FSD. N. Freedman. 1983. 399-414.---------. “The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah (Numbers V 11-31).” V T 34 (1984) 11-26. Garbini, G. “II sangue dell’innocente.” In Atti della Settimana Sangue e Antropologia nella letteratura cristiana (Roma, 29.11.-4.12.1982). Ed. F. Vattioni. Centro studi sanguis Christi 3. Rome: Pia Unione Prezioxissimo Sangue, 1983. 1:513-24. Gaster, T. H. Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Drama in the Ancient Near East. 2nd ed. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961. 364-65. Gordon, C. H. “An Akkadian Parallel to Deuteronomy 21 :Iff.” RA 33 (1936) 1 -6 .---------. “Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets.” In The Biblical Archeologist Reader II. Ed. D. N. Freedman and E. F. Campbell. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1964. 31. Gorg, M. “Eine neue Deutung fur kapporet. ‫ ״‬TAW89 (1977) 115-18. Gray, J. Legacy of Canaan. 1957. 2nd ed. 1965. 122, 241. Hoffner, H. A. “Some Contributions of Hittitology to Old Testament Study.” TynBul 20 (1969) 39-42. Hooke, S. H. “The Theory and Practice of Substitution.” VT 2 (1952) 11. Janowski, B. “Auslosung des verwirkten Lebens: Zur Geschichte und Struktur der biblischen Losegeldvorstellung.” ZTK 78 (1981) 25-59.---------. Suhne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Suhnetheologie der PHesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Onent und im Alten Testament. WMANT 55. Neukirchen-Vluyn: N eukirchener Verlag, 1982. Jirku, A. “Drei Falle von Haftpflicht im altorientalischen Palastina-Syrien und Deuteronomium cap. 21.” ZAW 79 (1967) 359-60. Koch, K. “Der Spruch ‘Sein Blut bleibe auf seinem H aupt’ und die israelitische Auffassung vom vergossenen Blut.” VT12 (1962) 396-416. Lauterbach, J. Z. “Tashlik.” HUCA 11 (1936) 219 n. 10. Levine, B. A. In the Presence of the Lord. 1974. 56-58. Lloret, V. J. A. “El Pecado en el Deuteronomio.” EstBib 29 (1970) 274-77. Loewenstamm, S. “cglh crwph.” EM 6:78. Lohfink, N. “Die altesten Israels und der Bund zum Zusammenang von Dtn 5,23; 26,17-19; 27,1.9f und 31,9.” B N 67 (1993) 26-42. McCarter, P. K. “The River Ordeal in Isralite Literature.” HTR 66 (1973) 403-12. McKeating, H. “The Development of the Law of Homicide in Ancient Israel.” VT25 (1975) 46-68. Milgrom, J. “Hittite huelpi.”JAOS 96 (1976) 575-76. Patai, R. “The cEgla cArufa or the Expiation of the Polluted L and.”/(LR 30 (1939-40) 59-69. Press, R. “Das Ordal im alten Israel.” ZAW 51 (1933) 121-40, 227-55. Reventlow, H. G. “Die Volker alsjahwes Zeugen.” ZAW71 (1959) 33-43. Reviv, H. The Elders in Ancient Israel: A Study of a Biblical Institution. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989. Roifer (Rofe), A. “The Breaking of the Heifer’s Neck.” Tarbiz 31 (1961/62)

452

D euteronomy 21:1-9

119-43 (Heb.). Schenker, A. “kdperet Expiation.” Bib 63 (1982) 32-46. Tigay,J. H. “Excursus 19: The Ceremony of the Broken-Necked H eifer (21:1-9).” In Deuteronomy. 1996. 472-76. Tsevat, M. “The Canaanite God S a la h ” V T 4 (1954) 41-49. Weiser, A. “n a h a l 3eitan .” B M ik 1 (1956) 14-15 (H eb.). Welch, A. C. “Dr. Elhorst zu Dt 21,1-9.” Z A W 42 (1922) 163-64. Westbrook, R. “Lex Talionis and Exodus 21,22-25.” KB 93 (1986) 64-69. Wiseman, D. J. “M urder in Mesopotamia.” Iraq 36 (1974) 259. Wright, D. P. “Deuteronomy 21:1-9 as a Rite of Elimination.” C BQ 49 (1987) 387-403. Yaron, R. O n Divorce in Old Testament Times.” RIDA 4 (1957) 117-28. Zevit, Z. “The eEgla Ritual of Deuteronomy 21:1-9.”/BL 95 (1976) 377-90.

Translation and Prosodic Analysis

Law on Unsolved Murder—Role of Elders and Judges [ (9:4): (10:5): (6 :6 ): (5:10): (4:9) ] If a corpse isfound / on the soil / that YHWH your God / is giving you / to possess / (It is) fallen / in thefield / / Ht is not known / who killed him / / 2 Your elders shall go outY and yourjudgesh / / and they shall measure the distanced tod the towns / that / are in the vicinity of the corpse / / 3And it shall be in regard to the town / nearest / to the corpse / / that the elders of that town / shall take / a heifer / With which no work / has ever been done / awhich has never pulled / with a yoke / / 4 And the elders of that town / shall bring the heifer down / to a wadi with running water / that / has not been plowed / and it has not been planted / / And they shall break the heifer's neck thereY in the wadi / / 5 and thepriests shall comeforward / the sons of Levi / for YHWH your God / has chosen / them / To minister to hima / and to bless / in the name of YHWH / / and by their word / every dispute\ and every case of assault will be settled / / 6And (asfor) all / of the elders / of that town / the one nearest / to the corpse / / They shall washY their hands / over the heifer / with the broken neck in the valley / / 7 and they shall answer / And they shall say / / “Our hands / have not shedb / this blood / and our eyes / did not see it happen / / 8Absolve your people / Israel la whom you have redeemed/ O YHWH / And do not let / the guilt of innocenf blood remain / amongY your people Israel / / and they will be absolved / of bloodguilt“/ / 1

18 1 2

J 3

21

8

‫ן‬

2

12

J

19 13

1 1

12

^

21

‫ן‬3 J 3

22

2 1

8 JI

2

2

12

2

22

2

7

1

21

2

18 18 16 16 7

1 2

3 3 1

8

2

13

3

12

2

9I

17 J 5

1 2 1

6

1

19 13

3

12

2

11

2

11

‫ ו‬21

11

2

111

2

453

Form / Stru cture/Setting 9

And asfor you / you shall purge the guilt of innocenta blood^ from your midsf / / when you do what is Hght / in the eyes of YHWH/ / 0

4 [16 118

1 1 1

2

Notes La. A few Heb. MSS, LXX, Syr., and Vg. add waio-conj. 2.a. Reading tipha3as conj. because of the misplaced ‫ג‬atnah. 2.b. SP reads ‫ושטריך‬, “and your officers,” for MT ‫ושפטיך‬, “and your judges.” 2.c. Reading pasta3followed by zaqep qaton as conj. 2. d. SPMss read ‫ על‬for MT ‫אל‬, “to.” 3. a. One Heb. MS, SP, LXX, Syr., Tg.Mss, and Tg. Ps.-J. add waw-conj. 4. a. Reading tipha3as conj. because of the misplaced silluq. 5. a. SP reads ‫לשרת‬, “to minister,” for MT ‫לשרתו‬, “to minister to him .” 6. a. Reading pasta3followed by zaqep qaton as conj. 7. a. Syr. reads sg., “my hands.” 7. b. Reading with Qippp, “they shed.” Though K is written ‫שפכה‬, it is pointed to be read as Q. 8. a. Reading the sequence of pasta3followed by mahpak as disj. 8.b. LXX'b add 6κ γης Αίγυπτου, “from the land of Egypt” (= ‫) מארץ מצרים‬. Prosodic analysis supports MT. 8.c. SP reads ‫נקיא‬, “innocent [blood],” for MT ‫נקי‬, “innocent [blood].” See discussion above at 19:10. 8. d. Reading tipha3as conj. because of the misplaced 3atnah. 9. a. SP reads ‫הנקיא‬, “the innocent [blood],” for MT ‫הנקי‬, “the innocent [blood].” See discussion above at 19:10. 9.b. Reading tipha3as conj. because of the misplaced 3atnah. 9.c. Some LXX witnesses add καί 6ύ σοι εσται, “and it will be well for you” (cf. 19:13). Prosodic analysis supports MT.

Form/Structure /Setting

The law concerning an unsolved murder in 21:1-9 functions as the conclusion to the section of laws in 19:1-21:9, which in turn concludes the larger collection of laws on matters of leadership and authority in 16:18-21:9. As the last of the laws dealing with public officials, it is to be read over against the law in 19:1-10 on manslaughter and the cities of asylum, as the following outline suggests: A Homicide and cities of refuge to protect the manslayer B The case of intentional murder—no asylum X Laws on encroachment and witnesses in court Bf Intentional killing—warfare and military deferments A' Unsolved homicide and removal of bloodguilt from the land

19:1-10 19:11-13 19:14-21 20 :1-20

21:1-9

Though the boundaries of the law on unsolved murder (21:1-9) are marked with the petuha>paragraph marker after 2 0 : 2 0 and the setuma3paragraph marker after 21:9, there are no further indications of internal structure beyond the content of the law itself, which may be outlined as follows: A A corpse is found in the field bringing bloodguilt on the land B The elders of nearest city shall shall sacrifice a heifer

21:1-2 21:3-4

454

Deuteronomy 21:1-9

X The priests come forward by whose word disputes are settled B' The elders wash their hands over the body of the heifer A' The people are absolved so as to “purge the bloodguilt”

21:5 21:6-7 21:8-9

The outer frame in this structure moves from the finding of a corpse in the field with consequent bloodguilt on the land (vv 1 - 2 ), to the removal of that bloodguilt (vv 8-9). The inner frame presents the elders in their role of absolution as we move from the sacrifice of a heifer (vv 3-4), to the ceremony of cleansing and confession over the sacrifice (vv 6-7). In the center we find the priests (v 5), whose role centers on the matter of resolving disputes rather than the religious ceremony as such, which is in the hands of the elders. The law of the man found slain in the field (21:1-9) may be read as the coneluding element in a more elaborate concentric design, which extends from 19:1 through 21:9, as follows: A Three original cities of refuge—for manslaughter B Three additional cities of refuge C Intentional murderers—no asylum D Encroachment—inviolability of boundary markers X Laws about witnesses D' Preparing the army for battle—grounds for deferment C' On those subject to death among Israel’s enemies B' Treatment of trees near a besieged city A The man found slain in the field—unsolved murder

19:1-7 19:8-10 19:11-13 19:14 19:15-21 20:1-9 20:10-18 20:19-20 21:1-9

In this reading, the laws about witnesses in a court of law (19:15-21) stand in the center, framed by the law on encroachment (19:14) and the law on preparing the army for battle (20:1-9). The next frame from the center moves from the law that denies asylum to the intentional murderer (19:11-13) to the law on those who are subject to death among Israel’s enemies in the traditions of holy war (20:10-18). The outer frame is made up of two laws on the cities of refuge in 19:1-10, which are set over against the law that limits wanton destruction of fruitbearing trees in time of siege (20:19-20) and the law of unsolved murder (21:1-9). G. von Rad concluded that the ritual here was a sacrifice offered to YHWH that was accompanied by a prayer for expiation (OTL [1966] 136-37). Like many of his colleagues, before and since, he assumed that an older pre-Yahwistic magical procedure for getting rid of sin could be found within the layers of tradition, which he sought to recover and analyze so as to determine the original purpose of the ritual. Much the same view is presented by A. Phillips ([1973] 129, 138-39). Traditional literary analysis along these lines led to a number of proposals in regard to the original purpose of the ritual. C. Steuernagel argued that the ritual served to supplicate the dead victim in a magical act that was believed would bring about the real punishment of the killer (HKAT [1923] 128). H. J. Elhorst thought that it was originally some sort of sacrifice to a netherworld deity that was transformed within the Yahwistic religion of ancient Israel (ZAW39 [1921] 66-67). R. Patai believed that the ritual reenacted the murder in a place where sterile ground would pose no problem, with the primary intent on cleansing the polluted ground where the corpse was found (JQR 30 [1939]

Form/Stru cture/Setting

455

66-67). S. H. Hooke explained the heifer as a substitute for the corporate personality of the community that was offered to the netherworld so as to ward off the victim’s ghost (VT2 [1952] 11). A. Roifer (Rofe) concluded that the ritual was a reenactment of the murder in a manner that would banish defilement and purify the land (Tarbiz31 [1961/62] 129-43, esp. 139-43). Z. Zevit rejected these proposals on two grounds: “First, with the exception of the articles by Elhorst and Roifer, they all tend to concentrate on only one problematic element in the ritual. Second, with the exception of the articles by Patai and Roifer, they do not grapple with the question of how the deuteronomic comprehension of the ritual developed out of their suggested original purposes” (JBL 95 [1976] 378). In a logical extension of these earlier studies, Zevit traced a complex history of the tradition in light of three distinct redactional layers: “prior to becoming part of its present context in Deuteronomy, the pericope, or a form of it, was part of an independent deuteronomic collection [the so-called bVarta collection], and before that, part of a non-deuteronomic Yahwistic, Israelite collection” (p. 380). Though there is probably substance to Zevit’s reconstruction of the presumed prehistory of the present text, there is also value in seeing the integrity of 20:1-9 within its larger context—within the book of Deuteronomy and beyond, in the narratives of the Former Prophets. The law of the man found slain in the field (21:1-9) was used to shape the story ofjoab’s revenge on Amasa (2 Sam 20:1-13), whose body was removed “out of the highway into the field” (v 12). Joab’s murder of Amasa is in the structural center of a concentric literary structure on the rebellion of Sheba, which may be outlined as follows: A The revolt of Sheba against David B Pursuit of Sheba—ordered by David X Joab murders Amasa B' Pursuit of Sheba by Joab and Abishai A The death of Sheba—at advice of the wise woman of Abel

2 Sam 20:1-3 2 Sam 20:4-6 2 Sam 20:8-13 2 Sam 20:14-21 2 Sam 20:22

“Joab should not have confused war and peace. Sheba was the enemy to be destroyed, not Amasa. Joab was avenging Amasa’s role in the earlier rebellion against David that Joab crushed but that Amasa survived” (Carmichael, LNB, 137). David made reference to this incident in his deathbed instructions to Solomon: “you know what Joab son of Zeruiah did to me, how he dealt with . . . Amasa son of Jether, whom he murdered, retaliating in time of peace for blood that had been shed in war, and putting the blood of war on the belt around his waist, and on the sandals on his feet” (1 Kgs 2:5). The opening statement in the law indicates its focus: “if a corpse is found in the land that YHWH your God is giving you to possess lying in the field” (Deut 21:1). “The interest is not in the unknown assailant but in a ceremonial procedure leading up to a prayer that God might remove the stain of innocent blood” (Carmichael, LNB, 137). The ceremony of the slaughter of a heifer that had not seen work at a place in the land that has not been plowed or sown but that is beside a perpetually flowing stream is graphic symbolism for “their untapped vitality” (so Carmichael, LNB, 138). The opening statement in the law has the word ‫חלל‬, “corpse,” which implies a

D euteronomy 21:1-9

456

specific mode of dying—a corpse of one slain by the sword. In the story, “Amasa did not notice the sword in Joab’s hand; Joab struck him in the belly so that his entrails poured out on the ground . . . Amasa lay wallowing in his blood on the highway, and the man saw that all the people were stopping . . . [so] he carried Amasa from the highway into the field, and threw a garment over him” (2 Sam 20: 10- 12). It is the horror of the slain body lying in the field that was central in the story, not the ceremony as such, for eventually Joab did pay the consequences for his evil deed (1 Kgs 2:28- 34). As the story in 2 Sam 20-21 unfolds after the murder of Amasa, we find David attempting to expiate the bloodguilt that was on Saul and his household because Saul had slain the Gibeonites. David delivered up seven sons (and grandsons) of Saul who were impaled on the mountain at Gibeon as an act of expiation. As the concluding law in the section on matters of leadership and authority in Deut 16:18-21:9, the law on the corpse found in a field (21:1-9) also functions in a transitional role as we move to the next section of the laws of Deuteronomy on human affairs in relation to others (21:10-25:19). Labuschagne’s “logotechnische analyse” of 21:1-9 ([1990] 2:166-69) pro‫־‬ duced significant results that may be summarized as follows: Words:

before ‫כ‬atnah

after ‫ג‬atnah.

21:1-6 21:7-9 21:5-6 21:8-9

55 20 20 18

+ + +

21:1-9

75

+

43 (=‫)נקי‬ 17 (=‫)דם‬ 14 8

= 98 = 37 = 34 (= 2 x 17) = 26

+

60 (= ‫)דם נקי‬

= 135 (= ‫)הדם הנקי מקרבך‬

According to this analysis, the passage divides into two sections: vv 1-6 on the ceremony of the slaughered heifer; and vv 7-9 on the words spoken by the elders at that ceremony concerning “the purging of the guilt of innocent blood from your midst” (‫ )הדם הנקי מקרבך‬in that ceremony. The number of words after 3atnah in vv 1-6 comes to 43 (= 17 + 26); and the number of words after ‫כ‬atnah in vv 7-9 comes to 17. But what is more interesting, as observed by Labuschagne, is that these numbers also represent the numerical value of the key words ‫דם נקי‬, “innocent blood.” (‫ = ד‬4 ) + (‫ = מ‬13) = 17 (‫ = נ‬14) + (‫ = ק‬19) + (‫ = י‬10) = 43

This reading is confirmed by the fact that the total number of words in the passage as a whole comes to 135, the numerical value of the key words in the coneluding verse ‫ הדם הנקי מקרבך‬, “[you shall purge] the guilt of innocent blood from your midst”—(+ (10 = ‫ = ה‬5) + (‫ = ד‬4) + (‫ = מ‬13) + (‫ = ה‬5) + (‫ = נ‬14) + (‫ = ק‬19) + (‫י‬ 135 = (11 = ‫ = מ‬13) + (‫ = ק‬19) + (‫ = ר‬20) + (‫ = ב‬2) + (‫)כ‬. The scribes (“counters”) in ancient Israel managed to put both divine-name numbers in the text of 21:1-9 in another manner as well, for the total number of words in vv 5-6 comes to 34 (=2x17), and in vv 8-9 the total number of words is 26.

Comment

457

Comment

1 The “corpse” (‫ )חלל‬is found “in the open country” (‫)בשדה‬. In the case of unpunished homicide, bloodguilt for corpse contamination pollutes “the land” as well as the people of Israel (T. Frymer-Kensky, FS D. N. Freedman [1983] 399-414). 2 4 ‫ ־־‬The reference to “your elders” (‫ )זקניך‬and “your judges” (‫ )ושפטיך‬suggests that the participants in the action taken come from throughout the region to “measure the distance to the cities . . . in the vicinity” so as to make sure that the measuring is done fairly. “The city nearest to the corpse” has the responsibility to purge the bloodguilt from the land by slaughtering “a heifer [‫]עגלת בקר‬ with which no work has ever been done.” Though the offering of the heifer is technically not a sacrifice, it is presented in language similar to that of the sacrifice of firstlings (13:19), the red heifer (Num 19:2), and the cows that pulled the wagon on which the ark of the covenant was carried when it was returned from the Philistines (1 Sam 6:7). The ceremony took place at “a wadi with running water [‫]נחל איתן‬, that has not been plowed and it has not been planted. There they shall break the heifer’s neck,” which is the way impure animals are slaughtered (Exod 13:13; 34:20). A useful parallel to this ceremony is found in Mesopotamian sources (C. Gordon, RA 33 [1936] 1-6). Tigay cites a Hittite parallel (CAD 3:26a; CAD 4:82b; Tigay [1996] 539, η. 1) and calls attention to medieval and later English parallels cited earlier by Driver and Miles (The BabyIonian Laws, 2 vols. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1952] 1:111 n. 3). 5 “The priests . . . the sons of Levi” are present in the structural center of this literary unit, though their exact role in the ceremony itself is not specified. They are the ones “God has chosen . . . to bless in the name of YHWH, and by their word every dispute and every case of assault will be settled.” That the priests step forward only after the heifer has been slaughtered suggests that their role has to do with the absolution from bloodguilt that follows the declaration and prayer offered by the elders in vv 7-8a. In short, the ceremony does not end with the slaughter of the heifer, but with the absolution from bloodguilt that the Levitical priests pronounced (Tigay [1996] 475). 6-7 “The elders of the city [‫ ]זקני העיר‬nearest to the corpse shall wash their hands over the heifer,” which is a symbol of innocence (cf. Pontius Pilate when he handed Jesus over to the Jewish authorities for execution in Matt 27:24). In their prayer, the elders declare: “Our hands have not shed this blood and our eyes did not see it happen.” A literal translation of the Hebrew text here reads simply “our eyes did not see.” Since the text does not specify what was not seen, different interpretations emerged within Judaism in response to the paraphrase that appears in the Mishnah, which expanded on the elders’ declaration as “a broad denial of communal negligence, meaning: ‘He is not someone who came to us and we sent him away; we did not see him and leave him.’ The Palestinian rabbis took this paraphrase as referring to the victim: ‘We did not see him and send him away without an escort, nor did we leave him without food, causing him to try to steal food, in the course of which he was killed.’ For the Babylonian rabbis it referred to the killer: ‘We did not see him [kill] and neglect to bring him to justice’” (Tigay, [1996] 193, referring to m. Sot. 9.6, following the text in y. Sot. 9.6, 23d).

458

Deuteronomy 21:1-9

8-9 The meaning of the word ‫ כפר‬here remains uncertain. Gorg has argued for an Egyptian origin (ZAW89 [1977] 115-18). Though the meaning “to cover” is clearly attested only in Arabic, the technical word ‫ כפרת‬is used a number of times in Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and 1 Chr 28:11 for the cover of the ark of the covenant. The interpretation here “to absolve” (or “expiate”) is paralleled in Akkadian, with the sense “to wipe off’ or “to cleanse”—that is, to “wipe away [the guilt of your people]” (Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 56-58; see Mayes [1981] 300). The prayer on the part of the elders to “absolve your people Israel whom you have redeemed” indicates that the bloodguilt applies to the whole nation and not just the nearest city to the crime itself. The prayer and the ritual actions function as “complementary means of expiating the guilt” (Tigay [1996] 476). The four elements are as follows: the prayer for absolution, the slaughter of the heifer, the hand washing, and the elders’ declaration. Since the prayer is the most important act, it would appear that the other elements of the ceremony may be a carry-over from popular tradition that were useful but not essential. Explanation

The law on unsolved murder (21:1-9) is pervaded by a strong sense of communal responsibility for what has happened. The rite of expiation involves the cruel death of a heifer that becomes a substitute for the unknown guilty party. The law is framed in a manner to prevent violent crime by increasing the horror of the enormous wickedness so as to illicit watchfulness against occasions to disobey the terms of the covenant with YHWH. The dread of murder is thus impressed on the hearts and minds of the entire populace so that no one will withhold information or assist the criminal in eluding or escaping justice; for the guilt of innocent blood rests on the entire land. The action of Pilate when “he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, T am innocent of this man’s blood’” (Matt 27:24) was misapplied, for he knew that he was condemning an innocent man. The basis for atonement in the prayer of the elders for absolution (Deut 21:7-8) is not merit on Israel’s part, but the fact that God redeemed his people from bondage in times past (v 8 ). It should be noted that the killing of the heifer was not in itself an expiatory sacrifice, for there was no altar and no blood was sprinkled according to standard ritual practice. Moreover, the priests themselves were merely observers and not officiants in this symbolic act. It was the elders who killed the heifer and who washed their hands over it. The bringing of the heifer to a place “that has not been plowed and has not been planted” (v 4) signifies the defilement that the shedding of human blood brings upon the land—turning it into barrenness. Within Judaism, it was understood that the valley where the heifer was killed was henceforth never to be tilled or sown, unless the murderer was exposed and punished.