Deuteronomy–Judges: A Hypertextual Commentary 9783631833537, 9783631838556, 9783631838563, 9783631838570, 3631833539

Citation preview

Deuteronomy–Judges

EUROPEAN STUDIES IN THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF RELIGIONS Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

VOL. 27

Bartosz Adamczewski

Deuteronomy–Judges A Hypertextual Commentary

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available online at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. This publication was financially supported by Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw.

ISSN 2192-1857 ISBN 978-3-631-83353-7 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-631-83855-6 (E-PDF) E-ISBN 978-3-631-83856-3 (EPUB) E-ISBN 978-3-631-83857-0 (MOBI) DOI 10.3726/b17722 © Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Berlin 2020 All rights reserved. Peter Lang – Berlin ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙ Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. www.peterlang.com

Acknowledgments I thank my dear Mother, Jolanta Adamczewska, MSc; my relatives and friends; my Diocese of Warszawa-Praga; and the community of the Catholic Parish of St  Mark in Warsaw for their encouragement, prayers, and spiritual support during my writing of this book. My thanks also go to the staff of the Tübingen University Library for their help during my summer bibliographical research. Last but not least, I want to thank Mr Łukasz Gałecki and the members of the staff of the Publisher who helped to turn the electronic version of the text into a book.

Contents Introduction ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  11 Sequential hypertextuality ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  11 Deuteronomy and Ezekiel ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  18 Joshua–Judges and Deuteronomy ���������������������������������������������������������������������  23 Date of composition �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  26 Place of composition ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  32

Chapter 1. The book of Deuteronomy as a sequential hypertextual reworking of the book of Ezekiel �����������  37 1.1.  Deut 1:1–8 (cf. Ezek 1:1–3:15) ��������������������������������������������  37 1.2.  Deut 1:9–18 (cf. Ezek 3:16–27) �������������������������������������������  41 1.3.  Deut 1:19–46 (cf. Ezek 4:1–8) ���������������������������������������������  43 1.4.  Deut 2:1–16 (cf. Ezek 4:9–6:14) ������������������������������������������  47 1.5.  Deut 2:17–3:29 (cf. Ezek 7:1–8:2a) ������������������������������������  49 1.6.  Deut 4:1–40 (cf. Ezek 8:2b–10:17) �������������������������������������  52 1.7.  Deut 4:41–49 (cf. Ezek 10:18–11:3) �����������������������������������  58

1.8. Deut 5:1–6:3 (cf. Ezek 11:4–20c) ����������������������������������������  59



1.9. Deut 6:4–25 (cf. Ezek 11:20d–15:6) �����������������������������������  64



1.10. Deut 7 (cf. Ezek 15:7–16:23) �����������������������������������������������  68



1.11. Deut 8:1–9:7b (cf. Ezek 16:24–63) �������������������������������������  72



1.12. Deut 9:7c–29 (cf. Ezek 17:1–24:14) �����������������������������������  75



1.13. Deut 10:1–11:1 (cf. Ezek 24:15–28:26) ������������������������������  81



1.14. Deut 11:2–28 (cf. Ezek 29–36) ��������������������������������������������  84



1.15. Deut 11:29–13:19 (cf. Ezek 37:1–39:10) ����������������������������  88



1.16. Deut 14 (cf. Ezek 39:11–45:9d) ������������������������������������������  93



1.17. Deut 15:1–16:17 (cf. Ezek 45:9e–46:7) ������������������������������  96

8

Contents



1.18. Deut 16:18–18:8 (cf. Ezek 46:8–24) ���������������������������������  100



1.19. Deut 18:9–30:20 (cf. Ezek 47:1–12) ���������������������������������  103



1.20. Deut 31:1–33:4 (cf. Ezek 47:13–23) ���������������������������������  112



1.21. Deut 33:5–34:12 (cf. Ezek 48) �������������������������������������������  116



1.22. Conclusion ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  119

Chapter 2. The book of Joshua as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–32:50 ���������������������������������������������  125   2.1.  Josh 1 (cf. Deut 1:1–21) �����������������������������������������������������  125   2.2.  Josh 2:1–15 (cf. Deut 1:22–7:26) ��������������������������������������  129   2.3.  Josh 2:16–24 (cf. Deut 8–9) �����������������������������������������������  133   2.4.  Josh 3 (cf. Deut 10:1–10) ���������������������������������������������������  136   2.5.  Josh 4:1–5:1 (cf. Deut 10:11–15) ��������������������������������������  138   2.6.  Josh 5:2–12 (cf. Deut 10:16–19:21) ����������������������������������  141   2.7.  Josh 5:13–6:27 (cf. Deut 20) ����������������������������������������������  143   2.8.  Josh 7 (cf. Deut 21:1–22:25) ����������������������������������������������  145

2.9. Josh 8:1–29 (cf. Deut 22:26–27:4d) ����������������������������������  151



2.10. Josh 8:30–35 (cf. Deut 27:4d–26) �������������������������������������  158



2.11. Josh 9–17 (cf. Deut 28:1–8a) ���������������������������������������������  161



2.12. Josh 18–21 (cf. Deut 28:8b–9b) ����������������������������������������  167



2.13. Josh 22 (cf. Deut 28:9c–14) �����������������������������������������������  169



2.14. Josh 23 (cf. Deut 28:15–69) �����������������������������������������������  172



2.15. Josh 24:1–25 (cf. Deut 29–30) ������������������������������������������  176



2.16. Josh 24:26–33 (cf. Deut 31:1–32:50) ��������������������������������  180

Chapter 3. The book of Judges as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12 ����������������������������������������  185   3.1.  Judg 1:1–2:10a (cf. Deut 32:51–33:5) ���������������������������������  185   3.2.  Judg 2:10b–3:31 (cf. Deut 33:6–12) ������������������������������������  190

Contents

9

  3.3.  Judg 4–9 (cf. Deut 33:13–17) ����������������������������������������������  193   3.4.  Judg 10–18 (cf. Deut 33:18–25) ������������������������������������������  197   3.5.  Judg 19–21 (cf. Deut 33:26–34:12) �������������������������������������  203  3.6. Conclusion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  209

General conclusions ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  215 Bibliography ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  219 Primary sources ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  219 Secondary literature �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  219

Index of ancient sources �������������������������������������������������������������������������������  247

Introduction The style of this monograph is highly repetitive, resembling that of Josh 12:7– 24. This ‘minimalistic’ style of scholarly analysis directs the attention of the reader to the hitherto unknown phenomenon of almost 700 sequentially arranged, conceptual, but often also linguistic, hypertextual correspondences between the book of Deuteronomy and the book of Ezekiel, and also almost 700 such correspondences between the books of Joshua–Judges and the book of Deuteronomy. The discovery of this phenomenon radically changes our understanding of the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges:  their origin, literary character, and theological ideas. It reveals that the book of Deuteronomy was consistently written as a hypertextual reworking of the book of Ezekiel, and the continuous narrative of Joshua–Judges as a whole, and not just some fragments thereof, was consistently written as a hypertextual reworking of the book of Deuteronomy. The English translations of the Hebrew words, phrases, and sentences of the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges, which are used in this monograph, are often as literal as possible, even at the cost of incorrectness of the English grammar and style (‘land’ instead of ‘earth,’ ‘do’ instead of ‘make,’ etc.), to show the linguistic and conceptual connections between the books of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel, as well as Joshua–Judges and Deuteronomy, which are often only detectable in the original Hebrew text.

Sequential hypertextuality The methodological approach adopted in this monograph is not based on any widely used modern exegetical method. These methods are generally based on various presuppositions, for example, that the biblical texts are similar to other ancient texts, that they have some diachrony, that they have some internal narrative coherence, that they convey some coherent ideas, etc., which are not necessarily true. The approach adopted in this monograph is therefore based on a close reading and a comparative analysis of the biblical texts as we have them, with paying particular attention to the order of their ideas and to their minor, somewhat surprising details, which are rarely scrutinized by other scholars. Thus, in a critical and verifiable way, it explains numerous data of the biblical texts which are very difficult to explain with the use of more widely known biblical methods,

12

Introduction

a feature which from a general methodological point of view constitutes its greatest advantage over them.1 Most modern scholars fail to take into due consideration the fact that literary irregularities or peculiarities (but rather not evident errors) as well as Wiederaufnahmen may result from a consistent but somehow imperfect creative reworking of an earlier text in a later one, written by a single author as one literary work. Accordingly, these literary phenomena need not be explained diachronically as resulting from the activities of different hands over a long period of time. They may also be explained as resulting from a creative use of one or more earlier texts by a single author.2 The main difference between the approach presented in this monograph and in traditional historical-critical analyses lies in the different perceptions of the role of ancient authors in their dealing with earlier texts. In their historicalcritical approach, modern scholars often methodologically compare the biblical authors to scribes copying and reworking earlier manuscripts, so that in their opinion there is no great difference between textual formation and textual transmission.3 In the research on hypertextuality, however, the biblical authors are credited with much more freedom and creativity in their dealing with earlier literary works, and their activities are perceived as significantly differing from those of later copyists of their works. Although the biblical writers at times evidently borrowed some texts almost verbatim, they also creatively, with the use of much imagination and often purely conceptual and/or linguistic associations, reworked the contents of earlier literary works. The evidently different ways of, on the one hand, quite literal use of the Deuteronomic altar law Deut 27:4–8 in Josh 8:30–32 and, on the other hand, very creative use of a similar Deuteronomic altar law Deut 12:26–27 in Josh 22 should warn us against a too limited view of the creative abilities and intentions of the biblical authors.

1 Cf. L. Alonso Schökel and J. M. Bravo Aragón, Apuntes de hermenéutica (Trotta: Madrid 1994), 138: ‘Un método se afirma por sus resultados.’ 2 Cf. C. Edenburg, Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19–21 (AIL 24; SBL: Atlanta, GA 2016), 10–11. 3 See e.g. R. G. Kratz, ‘The Analysis of the Pentateuch: An Attempt to Overcome Barriers of Thinking,’ ZAW 128 (2016) 529–561 (esp. 535, 539). Cf. also J. L. Ska, ‘Some Empirical Evidence in Favor of Redaction Criticism,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (FAT 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 567–577 (esp. 567–568, 577), who quotes a similar statement of Julius Wellhausen.

Introduction

13

The methodological approach based on the concept of hypertextuality was already adopted and refined in my earlier monographs concerning various biblical writings. These studies revealed that the sequentially arranged, hypertextual connections between the New Testament Gospels and their hypotexts can be counted not in tens, as I had earlier thought, but in hundreds.4 The present monograph likewise presupposes and develops the results of my earlier study on Deuteronomy, in which I argued that there are six sequentially arranged, hypertextual connections between the books of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel.5 According to the French literary theorist Gérard Genette, hypertextuality can be defined as any relationship uniting a text B (which is in such a case called hypertext) to an earlier text A (which is called hypotext), upon which it grafts itself in a manner that is not that of commentary.6 Accordingly, a hypertextual relationship of a given text to a hypotext by definition does not consist in directly commenting on the hypotext, its ideas, literary features, phraseology, etc. Therefore, a hypertextual relationship may include some linguistic connections between the hypertext and the hypotext, but it may also be purely conceptual. For this reason, although the presence of shared language, especially unique to two given texts, is a useful preliminary indicator of some kind of literary relationship between them, the volume of shared language should not be regarded as the primary criterion for detecting literary dependence between two given texts, especially ancient Near Eastern texts.7

4 See B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014), 31–197; id., The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 13; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2016), 35–204; id., The Gospel of Matthew: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 16; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et  al.] 2017), 29–201; id., The Gospel of John:  A  Hypertextual Commentary (EST 17; Peter Lang:  Frankfurt am Main [et  al.] 2018), 29–205. Cf. also id., Genesis: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 25; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2020), 27–225; id., Exodus–Numbers: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 26; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2020), 41–228. 5 Id., Retelling the Law:  Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 25–33. 6 G.  Genette, Palimpsestes:  La littérature au second degré (Seuil:  [s.l.] 1982), 13: ‘Hypertextualité [:]‌J’entends par là toute relation unissant un texte B (que j’appellerai hypertexte) à un texte antérieur A (que j’appellerai, bien sûr, hypotexte) sur lequel il se greffe d’une manière qui n’est pas celle du commentaire.’ 7 Cf. J. R. Kelly, ‘Identifying Literary Allusions: Theory and the Criterion of Shared Language,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew

14

Introduction

My analyses of the phenomenon of hypertextuality in biblical writings reveal that the most important criterion for detecting a hypertextual relationship between two given biblical writings is the criterion of the order of their hypertextual correspondences. If two given works reveal conceptual and/or linguistic correspondences which follow a sequential pattern, it is reasonable to argue that the author of one of these works in a hypertextual way reworked the other work, preserving the basic sequence of its ideas, concepts, literary motifs, etc. In such a case, the relationship between these works may be called sequential hypertextuality. Jeffrey M. Leonard makes use of this criterion in his identification of the allusive technique called ‘narrative tracking.’8 Leonard’s criterion of detecting the mimicking of the narrative structure of an earlier text in a later text can certainly be applied to the narrative parts of both Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges (the initial geographical setting in Transjordan, the command to enter Canaan, the description of its ideal borders, the appointing of the officials over the people, the exhortation to be strong, the sending of the spies, etc.). However, the phenomenon of the common order of ideas, concepts, motifs, specific vocabulary, etc. can be much broader than that of the presence of ‘narrative tracking’ because it can also be detected in non-narrative or only partly narrative texts. In the cases in which the level of verbal agreement between the conceptually corresponding fragments of two given works is very low, and consequently the relationship between both works is truly hypertextual, the criterion of order is particularly useful. In such cases, the weakness of purely linguistic signals of literary dependence (quoted or imitated sentences, reproduced characteristic phrases, characteristic vocabulary, etc.) is recompensed by the consistency of the strictly sequential reworking of the conceptual elements (ideas, images, arguments, references to time, directions of movement in space, actions taken, features of the characters, etc.) of one work in the other one.9

Bible (Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol 2017), 22–40 (esp. 27–33). See also G. D. Miller, ‘Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,’ CurBR 9.3 (2010) 283–309 (esp. 295–298). 8 J. M. Leonard, ‘Identifying Subtle Allusions: The Promise of Narrative Tracking,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle, 91–113 (here: 97): ‘By narrative tracking, I refer to the process by which one text alludes to another by mimicking its narrative structure.’ 9 This phenomenon is not taken into consideration by J. Berman, ‘Law Code as Plot Template in Biblical Narrative (1 Kings 9.26–11.13; Joshua 2.9–13,’ JSOT 40.3 (2016) 337–349, who argues for an interesting case of hypertextual reworking by pointing to the mere density of parallels: ‘Admittedly, none of the parallels that I propose here when read in isolation mandates that we read here a deliberate allusion […]. The case

Introduction

15

The criterion of the common order of the conceptually and/or linguistically corresponding elements is particularly compelling if it refers not only to larger thematic sections or pericopes, but also to individual sentences or even clauses, phrases, and words. In such cases, the argumentative force of this criterion is very high, even if the level of verbal or formal agreement between the compared texts is quite low. It should be admitted that the detection of a sequence of several similar elements, which is often used in structuralist-oriented scholarship for postulating the existence of various chiastic, concentric, and parallel patterns in biblical texts (ABCDC’B’A’ etc.), can be regarded as more or less subjective.10 However, the degree of interpretative objectivity is much higher if the detected common sequence of conceptually corresponding elements consists of tens or hundreds of sequentially arranged items. Moreover, instead of placing great emphasis on the presence or absence of shared language in two given texts, the analysis of literary dependence, especially that of a highly creative, hypertextual kind, may be based on the criterion of noticing and explaining the presence of somewhat surprising features in the later text.11 David M. Carr points to the presence of such features in the so-called ‘blind motifs.’12 for allusion stems from the aggregate of all the parallels within such a limited text continuum, both in the source text […], and in the target text […]’ (here: 347). 10 Cf. S. Frolov, ‘The Rings of the Lord: Assessing Symmetric Structuring in Numbers and Judges,’ VT 66 (2016) 15–44 (esp. 31–41). 11 Cf. C.  Edenburg, ‘Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations,’ JSOT 35.2 (2010) 131–148 (here: 144): ‘For allusion to fulfill its purpose as a signifying device, it must be accompanied by textual markers that alert the audience to an underlying significance. The marker is an element that is “borrowed” from another context where it is at home, and then planted in a new, foreign context. The foreignness of the marker hampers superficial comprehension of the text’s overt significance, and intimates that full comprehension of the text will be attained only after identifying the function and significance of the marker in its original textual context. […] Since allusion invokes a specific text, rather than a general motif or genre, there is no guarantee that members of the text’s audience will succeed in identifying the allusion, and attain full appreciation of the text.’ 12 D. M. Carr, ‘Method in Determining the Dependence of Biblical on Non-Biblical Texts,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle, 41–53 (here: 46): ‘One criterion that does not seem to be highlighted in Hays’s or Fishbane’s discussions, but that can be particularly helpful, is that of a place where particularly odd features of a biblical text can be explained as blind motifs resulting from the appropriation in that biblical text of elements from a […] precursor. A “blind motif ” is an element or theme from a borrowed tradition appearing in a later text that does not fit well in the new context.’

16

Introduction

Such particular, surprising, innovative, atypical features, which go beyond evoking general associations with other texts (achieved with the use of familiar motifs, formulaic language, type-scenes, literary genres, etc.), point to literary, reinterpreting dependence upon an earlier text, and not merely oral transmission of traditional material, which could be freely used by the author in his creative literary activity.13 The not easily perceivable, rarely noticed, somewhat surprising features of a given literary work can often be explained if this work is an imperfect literary reworking of another text, in which such problems and surprising features are absent. In fact, every reworking of something else leaves some traces, and even a gifted and creative author is not always capable of eliminating all of them, especially if they are barely noticeable.14 A careful analysis of such minor, intriguing literary features, which are often neglected or only superficially explained by most commentators, may give important clues to the discovery of a hypertextual relationship of a given text to a hypotext. Moreover, it can help to ascertain the direction of literary dependence between two given writings.15 13 Cf. C. Edenburg, ‘Intertextuality,’ 147: ‘Thus, preservation of literary innovations is dependent upon scribal activity and a readership with sufficient literary competence to appreciate the innovation. From this I surmise that texts that elicit intertextual associations stemming from parallel accounts, allusion, implicit citation and inner-biblical interpretation, were designed by highly literate scribes for reading audiences who had the means to peruse and reread texts in order to recognize the associative device, recall the association, and finally identify the alluded text. […] If so, then such texts were not designed for the purpose of enculturalization, but were created, in part, as pieces of learning and scribal art with the aim of commenting upon or revising other texts.’ 14 Cf. J. Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (FAT 52; Mohr Siebeck:  Tübingen 2007), 152–153. Pace G.  Genette, Palimpsestes, 555, who has argued that the hypertext, being semantically autonomous, does not contain any perceivable internal ‘ungrammaticality.’ Genette’s general idea does not always refer to all minor details of the hypertext because the inevitable tension between the intratextual and intertextual levels of the meaning of the hypertext often results in some consciously or unconsciously created disruptions to its intratextual logic. On the other hand, the hypertext does not necessarily contain aberrant features, ungrammaticalities, anomalies, inconsequences, non sequiturs, the loss of narrativity, etc. which are so evident that they function as really sylleptic, and consequently compulsory in their impelling the reader to pursue the search for a hypotext, as was argued by M. Riffaterre, Fictional Truth (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society; 2nd ed., The John Hopkins University: Baltimore · London 1993), 90–91. 15 In my opinion, this criterion is much better than the partly reversible criteria adopted by other scholars, e.g. M.  Bauks, ‘Intratextualität, Intertextualität und Rezeptionsgeschichte:  Was tragen “transpositional techniques” und “empirical

Introduction

17

In particular, in the analysis of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextual reworking in the Hebrew Bible it is important to pay close attention to various intriguing linguistic phenomena in the Hebrew text of its writings:  the use of the same Hebrew root in semantically apparently unrelated words, plays with the meaning of proper nouns, the use of ambiguous words and phrases, surprising combinations of words in phrases, linguistic differences between parallel accounts, the interpretative function of the masoretic punctuation of Hebrew homographs,16 etc. It should also be noted that the crucial hermeneutical disposition for analysing hypertextual correspondences in the Bible consists in the use of the faculty of imagination17 in order to detect imaginative, creative, at times purely conceptual correspondences between various ideas, images, statements, and words in the biblical texts.18 In imagination, as is well known, the sky is the limit. Therefore, in this respect the methods of midrashic and allegorical interpretation used by ancient rabbis and church fathers at times better reflected the complex meaning of the biblical texts, with their metaphors, allusions, word-plays, hidden polemic, and narrative illustrations of various theological and legal ideas, than do modern, often too ‘arid’ exegetical methods, which aim at being scholarly objective, and consequently prefer the more evident, but in fact more superficial level of meaning. Therefore, if the Bible resembles a work of art, then the exegete needs a good, gifted, but also trained ‘ear’ or ‘eye,’19 as well as broad scholarly knowledge (and not merely following a widely used interpretative procedure), to detect signals of creative, hypertextual reworking of another work in a given biblical writing.20

16

17 18 1 9 20

evidences” zur literarischen Genese der Urgeschichte aus?,’ in M. Bauks [et al.] (eds.), Neue Wege der Schriftauslegung (ATM 24; Lit: Berlin 2019), 13–63 (esp. 24). On the phenomenon of numerous homographs in the Hebrew Bible before the invention of the masoretic pointing, see S. Schorch, ‘Dissimilatory Reading and the Making of Biblical Texts: The Jewish Pentateuch and the Samaritan Pentateuch,’ in R. F. Person, Jr. and R. Rezetko (eds.), Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism (AIL 25; SBL: Atlanta 2016), 109–127 (esp. 111). Cf. I. J. de Hulster, ‘Imagination: A Hermeneutical Tool for the Study of the Hebrew Bible,’ BibInt 18 (2010) 114–136 (esp. 132–134). Cf. L. Alonso Schökel and J. M. Bravo Aragón, Apuntes, 156: ‘Hay que leer con fantasía lo que se escribió con fantasía.’ Cf. G. D. Miller, ‘Intertextuality,’ 298. Cf. G. Hepner, Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel (StBibLit 78; Peter Lang: New York [et al.] 2010), 51: ‘identifying verbal resonances is no less an art that a science.’

18

Introduction

The problem of adequate scholarly interpretation of the Bible, including Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges, is additionally complicated by the question how typical the Bible is among ancient literary works. Modern biblical methodology assumes that the biblical writings generally resemble other ancient literary works of similar literary genres (vassal treaties, collections of laws, literary legends, folk tales, family sagas, historical narratives, etc.), and therefore it is possible to understand adequately the biblical writings by using methods developed in literary criticism to interpret literary works which belong to a given literary genre. However, my own research on the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality in biblical writings shows that the Bible may be quite unique in its extensive, systematic, detailed use of the procedure of sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier texts. Therefore, in order to maintain the standards of interpretative objectivity, the biblical writings should be analysed against the background of other writings of the same kind, so in this case other biblical, hypertextual writings, and not merely other ancient texts of only apparently similar literary genres.

Deuteronomy and Ezekiel As is well known, there are several basic models used by modern scholars to explain the literary origin of the book of Deuteronomy. Most of them postulate a diachronically complex origin of this work, beginning with the hypothetical Ur-Deuteronomium.21 However, the problem of the literary relationship between the books of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel, which according to this monograph is crucial for the understanding of the origin of Deuteronomy, is seldom analysed in recent scholarship. Paul Nadim Tarazi is one of the few modern scholars who explicitly dealt with the problem of the relationship between the books of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel. He suggested that Deuteronomy’s repetition of the covenant for the new generation of the Israelites, together with the command to repeat it unto all generations, reflects Ezekiel’s idea that no generation would be able to claim the excuse of ignorance for their sins (Ezek 18:1–5.9.20).22 21 For recent overviews of modern hypotheses concerning the origin of Deuteronomy within the Pentateuch, see e.g. G. Braulik, ‘Das Buch Deuteronomium,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (KST 1,1; 9th ed., W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 152–182 (esp. 160–175); E. Zenger and C. Frevel, ‘Theorien über die Entstehung des Pentateuch im Wandel der Forschung,’ in C.  Frevel (ed.), Einleitung, 87–135 (esp. 104–130). 22 P. N. Tarazi, The Old Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Historical Traditions (rev. ed., St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2003), 58.

Introduction

19

Henry McKeating observed that there are intriguing parallels between the contents of the book of Ezekiel and the story of Moses in the Pentateuch. Following the proposal which had earlier been made by Jon Douglas Levenson, McKeating argued that the character of Ezekiel fulfils the Deuteronomic prophecy concerning a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15–22). In particular, according to the British scholar, Ezekiel’s survey of the land (Ezek 47:13–48:29) thematically corresponds to Moses’ survey of the land (Deut 34:1–4). Likewise, Ezekiel’s warnings against a prince who would expropriate land (Ezek 45:7–17; 46:16–18) corresponds to Deuteronomy’s worries that the king might multiply horses and cause the people to return to Egypt (Deut 17:14–20). Moreover, Ezekiel’s final vision of the land on a high mountain (Ezek 40–48) is not closed with a remark that he was transported home again (diff. Ezek 11:24), so that it thematically corresponds to Moses’ final vision from the mountain, which ends with his death and his burial in an unknown grave (Deut 34).23 Risa Levitt Kohn likewise argued for a literary relationship between Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, assuming that the direction of postulated dependence goes from Deuteronomy to Ezekiel because, in her opinion, Ezekiel combined P and D material.24 Ernst Ehrenreich, having noted some parallels between Deut 30:1–10 and the book of Ezekiel, simply assumed that it was Ezekiel who used Deuteronomy, and not vice versa.25 Tova Ganzel, in her article devoted to the relationship between Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, noted that the ‘determination of the direction of the allusions is grounded in the widely accepted assumption, following Noth, that Deuteronomy and the Early Prophets constitute a single planned work […], composed shortly before the destruction of the First Temple.’26 Nevertheless, she simply followed this assumption, presuming that the direction of influence goes from the allegedly pre-exilic Deuteronomy to the exilic Ezekiel, and not vice versa.27

23 H.  McKeating, ‘Ezekiel the “Prophet Like Moses”?,’ JSOT 61 (1994) 97–109 (esp. 101–103). 24 R. Levitt Kohn, ‘A Prophet Like Moses? Rethinking Ezekiel’s Relationship to the Torah,’ ZAW 114 (2002) 236–254 (esp. 237–238, 246–248). 25 E. Ehrenreich, Wähle das Leben! Deuteronomium 30 als hermeneutischer Schlüssel zur Tora (BZABR 14; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2010), 200–201. 26 T. Ganzel, ‘Transformation of Pentateuchal Descriptions of Idolatry,’ in W. A. Tooman and M. A. Lyons (eds.), Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel (PTMS 127; Pickwick: Eugene, OR 2010), 33–49 (here: 34 n. 3). 27 Ibid. 34.

20

Introduction

Jason Gile is of the opinion that Ezekiel in his prophetic work was influenced by Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code.28 The American scholar investigated the Deuteronomic and Ezekielian motif of scattering as related to exile and then proceeded to argue for the direction of dependence from Deuteronomy to Ezekiel. He based his argument on the hypothesis of Deuteronomy’s use of the Holiness Code,29 a thesis which is in itself not proven. Then he observed that the combination of the motifs of exile and serving wood and stone (‫ )עץ ואבן‬occurs in Deut 4:28; 28:36.64 and Ezek 20:32. On this basis, he argued that Ezekiel must have borrowed this combination from Deuteronomy, and not vice versa,30 although his argument is clearly reversible, even if in this case the dependence of one passage in Ezekiel on three passages in Deuteronomy is more plausible than the reverse one. Moreover, Gile argued that the retrospective text Ezek 20:23 must refer to the proleptic threat in Deut 4:25–28,31 although a similar proleptic threat can also be found in Jer 9:11–15. Therefore, Gile’s arguments for Ezekiel’s dependence on Deuteronomy are interesting but inconclusive. Georg Braulik has recently argued that the theological idea and wording of the Deuteronomic text concerning the fathers not dying for their sons, and the sons not dying for their fathers, but a man dying for his sins (Deut 24:16) were in fact borrowed from Ezek 18:20.32 He has likewise suggested that the Deuteronomic remark concerning a cult symbol (‫ )סמל‬may allude to the Ezekielian motif of a cult symbol provoking to jealousy (Ezek 8:3.5).33 Nevada Levi DeLapp argues for the dependence of Ezekiel’s experience of the Kabod (Ezek 1; 8–11; 43) on Deut 34:10 and the Exodus theophanic type-scene. However, since his analysis is concentrated on the Pentateuchal theophanic typescenes, his suggestions concerning the relationship between the book of Ezekiel

28 J. Gile, ‘Deuteronomy and Ezekiel’s Theology of Exile,’ in J. S. DeRouchie, J. Gile, and K. J. Turner (eds.), For Our Good Always, Festschrift D. I. Block (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2013), 287–306. 29 Ibid. 290–293. 30 Ibid. 293–295. 31 Ibid. 296–299. 32 G. Braulik, ‘Lohnverweigerung und Sippenhaftung: Zu Schuld und Strafe im Buch Deuteronomium,’ in id., Tora und Fest: Aufsätze zum Deuteronomium und zur Liturgie (SBAB 69; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2019 [orig. 2016]), 31–60 (esp. 51). 33 Id., ‘Deuteronomium 4 und das gegossene Kalb: Zum Geschichtsgehalt paränetischen Rede,’ in id., Studien zu Buch und Sprache des Deuteronomiums (SBAB 63; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2016), 75–87 (esp. 79 n. 11).

Introduction

21

and Deuteronomy are rather vague, left for elaboration in further research.34 The American scholar only notes possible connections between Ezekiel’s and Deuteronomy’s references to (a) Yahweh being both seen and not seen, and (b) his kabodic shroud shining in a veiled manner ‘from the midst of the fire’ (‫מתוך‬ ‫האש‬: Ezek 1:4).35 This survey of recent research on the relationship between Deuteronomy and Ezekiel reveals that the problem has not been hitherto sufficiently analysed and solved. Scholars have noted some parallels between both works, but they have not developed a comprehensive model for their integration into a broader literary or theological pattern. Moreover, scholars generally assume that the book of Ezekiel depended on the book of Deuteronomy, and not vice versa. However, few exegetical arguments have been deployed for this hypothesis. This fact mainly results from the traditional dating of the hypothetical Ur-Deuteronomium to the pre-exilic period, before the composition of the book of Ezekiel, so that scholars are more inclined to accept this direction of dependence. Moreover, they argue that even if the book of Ezekiel has some common features with the book of Deuteronomy, it also has some common features with the so-called Priestly (or Holiness) stratum in the Pentateuch. However, they rarely analyse the limitations of the use of the criterion of conflation and other criteria for ascertaining the direction of literary dependence between the book of Ezekiel and the works contained in the Pentateuch. As concerns the notoriously difficult question of the direction of literary dependence between various biblical writings, especially those between the book of Ezekiel and Pentateuchal texts, Michael A. Lyons, developing the ideas which are contained in the works of many other scholars,36 proposed four criteria to

34 N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch: Visions of YHWH (LHBOTS 660; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2018), 156, 164. 35 Ibid. 166–167. For a survey of recent research on the similarities between Moses and Ezekiel, although arguing for the reverse direction of influence (from Exodus’ Moses to Ezekiel), see id., ‘Ezekiel as Moses—Israel as Pharaoh: Reverberations of the Exodus Narrative in Ezekiel,’ in R. M. Fox (ed.), Reverberations of the Exodus in Scripture (Wipf and Stock: Eugene, OR 2014), 51–73 (esp. 56–60). 36 E.g. D. Carr, ‘Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and its Parallels,’ in M. Köckert and E. Blum (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (VWGT 18; Chr. Kaiser: Gütersloh 2001), 107–140 (esp. 109–112).

22

Introduction

establish these directions.37 In fact, however, his criterion of modification in line with one author’s distinctive ideas logically resembles his criterion of expansions which are interpreting the other text. Both criteria are reversible because one can also imagine a later author omitting certain distinctive ideas of the earlier text or abbreviating its too expanded form.38 The scholar’s two other criteria, namely that of only partial integration of the shared text into one of the contexts and that of the need of supplying information from one text to understand the other text,39 are also logically correlated with each other. They refer to the incongruity or obscurity of the shared text in one of the analysed texts. These two criteria are not reversible as far as the incongruity or obscurity in question is barely perceivable. If it is rather evident, one can also imagine the later author as correcting the easily noticeable incongruity or obscurity in the earlier text.40 Of course, opinions on what is barely perceivable and what is evident can be highly subjective. However, they are more objective if they are formulated in the context of the state of research on a given text. If an incongruity or obscurity is perceived by some scholars but not by the majority of them, then it can be regarded as barely perceivable, and consequently it may point to the fact and the direction of literary dependence on another text. The two other criteria mentioned by Lyons, namely that of conflation (A + B → AB) and that of splitting and recombination (AB → A + B),41 are in fact mutually opposite, so that their value for ascertaining the direction of literary dependence is rather limited.42 Therefore, the application of the criteria proposed by Lyons and other scholars rarely solves the problem of the direction of dependence between two given literary works.43 In fact, the hypotheses concerning the direction of literary dependence between various biblical writings should inevitably be supplemented with more general scholarly considerations concerning the history of the composition

37 M. A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (LHBOTS 507; T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 61–66. 38 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 188–190. 39 Cf. also C. Edenburg, Dismembering, 173–174. 40 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q, 201–204. 41 M. A. Lyons, From Law, 66–67. 42 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q, 196–198. 43 This fact was later admitted by the scholar himself:  M.  A.  Lyons, ‘How Have We Changed? Older and Newer Arguments about the Relationship between Ezekiel and the Holiness Code,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation, 1055–1074 (esp. 1072).

Introduction

23

of biblical texts. This observation also applies to the question of the relationship between the book of Deuteronomy and the book of Ezekiel.

Joshua–Judges and Deuteronomy As is well known, the books of Joshua and Judges are generally regarded by modern scholars as somehow related to Deuteronomy. Recent research on the Former Prophets is generally dominated by variants of literary-theological hypotheses which assign the book of Joshua to the larger literary compositions of either the Hexateuch or the Deuteronomistic history. In these hypotheses, the book of Joshua is regarded as para-Deuteronomic, in terms of the presence of common literary strata, and possibly also partly post-Deuteronomic.44 The issue is additionally complicated by the fact that many scholars diachronically differentiate between various literary strata in the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges, especially in their cores and frames. Therefore, the thesis that various fragments of Joshua–Judges are literarily dependent on some parts of Deuteronomy, especially the hypothetical Ur-Deuteronomium, is not knew. Overviews of recent research on the composition of the books of Joshua and Judges can be found in numerous publications.45 Therefore, the following survey will only refer to scholarly opinions which somehow concern the issue of possible literary dependence of the books of Joshua and Judges on the book of Deuteronomy or vice versa. Herbert Donner, having noted the fact that various fragments of the book of Joshua refer to the book of the law (Josh 1:8; 8:30–31; 8:34; etc.), argued that they presuppose the existence of the whole book of Deuteronomy, which is referred to in the book of Joshua as a normative text.46 44 See e.g. H. Ausloos, ‘The Book of Joshua, Exodus 23 and the Hexateuch,’ in E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua (BETL 250; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2012), 259–266 (esp. 260–263); E. Zenger and C. Frevel, ‘Theorien,’ 120–135. 45 See e.g. G. Hentschel, ‘Das Buch Josua,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung, 255–266 (esp. 259– 261); id., ‘Das Buch der Richter,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung, 267–277 (esp. 272– 275); T. B. Dozeman, ‘The Book of Joshua in Recent Research,’ CurBR 15.3 (2017) 270–288 (esp. 271–273). For an overview of the research on the composition of the book of Joshua in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, see E. Noort, Das Buch Josua: Forschungsgeschichte und Problemfelder (EdF 292; Wissenschaftliche: Darmstadt 1998), 59–113. 46 H. Donner, ‘ “Wie geschrieben steht”: Herkunft und Sinn einer Formel,’ in id., Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (BZAW 224; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1994), 224–238 (esp. 225–226).

24

Introduction

Koert van Bekkum, having analysed the ways in which the themes of cult, land, and leadership function in Josh 9:1–13:7 and Deuteronomy, has come to the conclusion that the section Josh 9:1–13:7 diachronically presupposes much of the content of the book of Deuteronomy.47 Hartmut N. Rösel is of the opinion that Josh 8:30–35 was composed entirely from several texts from Deuteronomy at a very late Deuteronomistic stage.48 Karin Finsterbusch, in her analysis of the use of the concept of the Torah in the books of Joshua and Deuteronomy, argues that the texts Josh 1:7; 8:31–35; 22:5; 23:6–8; 24:26 were composed with the use of the motifs which were borrowed from the book of Deuteronomy.49 Walter Groß is of the opinion that Judg 2:7–10 is a Deuteronomistic reworking of Deut 11:2–7, and Judg 2:12 is a Deuteronomistic reworking of Deut 6:12–15.50 Thomas B.  Dozeman argues that Josh 1:1–2.5–6 is post-Deuteronomic in the sense that it is post-Pentateuchal because the sources of Josh 1:1–2.5–6 can be found not only in Deuteronomy but also in other Pentateuchal books.51 Moreover, he argues that the fragments Josh 1:3–4.7–9 are post-Deuteronomic in a more specific way, as depending on Deut 11:24 etc.52 Raik Heckl is of the opinion that the fragment Josh 8:30–35, regarded by the German scholar as a later addition to the book of Joshua, conflates and harmonizes various motifs borrowed from Deut 27 and Deut 31.53 Joachim J.  Krause argues that the account of the entry to the promised land (Josh 1–5) is generally not post-Deuteronomic, but it belongs to the same work of Deuteronomistic History to which also the Deuteronomistic

47 K. van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan (CHANE 45; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 375–385. 48 H. N. Rösel, Joshua (HCOT; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2011), 134–136. 49 K. Finsterbusch, ‘Deuteronomy and Joshua: Torah in the Book of Joshua in Light of Deuteronomy,’ JAJ 3 (2012) 166–196 (esp. 172–173, 178–183, 186–187, 191–193). 50 W.  Groß, ‘Das Richterbuch zwischen deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk und Enneateuch,’ in H.-J. Stipp (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk (ÖBS 39; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 177–205 (esp. 182–183, 186–187). 51 T. B. Dozeman, ‘Joshua 1,1–9: The Beginning of a Book or a Literary Bridge?,’ in E. Noort (ed.), Book of Joshua, 159–182 (esp. 169–171). 52 Ibid. 174–177. 53 R. Heckl, ‘Eine Kultstätte auf dem Ebal? Josua 8,30–35 und der Streit mit Samaria um die Auslegung der Tora,’ ZDPV 129 (2013) 79–98 (esp. 82–92).

Introduction

25

Deuteronomy belongs.54 Accordingly, he is one of the scholars who regard Josh 1–5 (as well as other parts of Joshua–Judges) as para-Deuteronomic rather than post-Deuteronomic. Joshua Berman argues that Rahab’s soliloquy (Josh 2:9–13) alludes to the Decalogue in its both versions: in the book of Exodus (Exod 20:1–14) and in the book of Deuteronomy (Deut 5:6–18).55 Cynthia Edenburg is of the opinion that Josh 1 was composed with the use of material originating from Deuteronomy and other Pentateuchal sources.56 She also suggests that the early kernel of Josh 6–10 was designed to illustrate the application of the Deuteronomic rules of war in Deut 20:10–14, although both texts underwent later reworking.57 Likewise, she argues for the dependence of Judg 19–21 upon Deut 13:13–18; 22:13–29; and other texts from the book of Deuteronomy.58 Matthias Ederer is of the opinion that the book of Joshua in numerous places alludes to the book of Deuteronomy.59 He also applies the notion of hypertextuality to the relationship between the book of Judges and the book of Deuteronomy, arguing that various fragments of the book of Deuteronomy functioned as hypotexts for Judg 1:1–3:6.60 Ville Mäkipelto, in his analysis of Josh 24, states that ‘some of the most central elements of the commitment scene in Josh 24 are built upon phraseology

54 J. J. Krause, Exodus und Eisodus: Komposition und Theologie von Josua 1–5 (VTSup 161; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 74–132, 212–218, 405–415. 55 J. Berman, ‘Law Code,’ 346–349. 56 C. Edenburg, ‘Do the Pentateuchal Sources Extend into the Former Prophets? Joshua 1 and the Relation of the Former Prophets to the Pentateuch,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation, 795–802 (esp. 799–806). 57 C. Edenburg, ‘Joshua 9 and Deuteronomy, an Intertextual Conundrum: The Chicken or the Egg?,’ in K. Schmid and R. F. Person, Jr. (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History (FAT 2.56; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 115–132 (esp. 132); C. Edenburg, ‘Paradigm, Illustrative Narrative or Midrash: the Case of Josh 7–8 and Deuteronomic/istic Law,’ in C. Berner and H. Samuel (eds.), The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts: Proceedings of the EABS research group “Law and Narrative” (BZAW 460; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2015), 123–137 (esp. 126, 133). 58 C. Edenburg, Dismembering, 235–248. 59 M. Ederer, Das Buch Josua (NSKAT 5/1; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2017), 72–84 etc.; id., Ende und Anfang: Der Prolog des Richterbuchs (Ri 1,1–3,6) in “Biblischer Auslegung” (HeBS 68; Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau 2011), 138, 157, 171–176, 186, etc. 60 Id., Ende, 246–253, 272, etc.

26

Introduction

and themes in Deuteronomy. One could therefore argue that the core of Josh 24 represents, in a way, a reception history of Deuteronomy.’61 Stephen Germany argues for the reverse hypothesis. In his opinion, some fragments of the books of Joshua and Judges were independent of the Deuteronomic legislation (Josh 6:21.24; 9*) or even influenced it (Josh 7:21; Judg 7:3).62 This survey of most recent research on possible dependence of the books of Joshua and Judges on the book of Deuteronomy reveals that in the opinion of most scholars there are some literary connections between various parts of these works. Some scholars explain them as resulting from a literary dependence of Joshua–Judges on Deuteronomy. However, other scholars suggest that these connections imply the presence of a common literary Deuteronomistic stratum or even the influence of some parts of Joshua–Judges on the book of Deuteronomy. Therefore, the problem of the relationships between the books of Joshua–Judges and Deuteronomy has not been hitherto solved in a satisfactory way.

Date of composition The question of the date of the composition of the book of Deuteronomy, as well as Joshua–Judges, is one of the most discussed issues in modern biblical scholarship. The internal dating of Joshua–Judges to the time after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel and the exile of its inhabitants (Judg 18:30–31), so to the seventh century bc at the earliest, is quite sure.63 Numerous scholars attempt to date the book of Deuteronomy by comparing it to the Neo-Assyrian succession treaties of Esarhaddon and North-West Semitic curse formulae64 or to the postulated cult reform of Josiah,65 dated to the seventh 61 V. Mäkipelto, Uncovering Ancient Editing: Documented Evidence of Changes in Joshua 24 and Related Texts (BZAW 513; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018), 183. 62 S. Germany, ‘Die Bearbeitung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes im Lichte biblischer Erzählungen,’ ZAW 131 (2019) 43–57 (esp. 46–50). 63 Cf. D. I. Block, Judges, Ruth (NAC 6; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 1999), 66, 513. 64 See e.g. M.  Ramos, ‘A Northwest Semitic Curse Formula:  The Sefire Treaty and Deuteronomy 28,’ ZAW 128 (2016) 205–220; T. Römer, ‘How to Date Pentateuchal Texts: Some Case Studies,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation, 357–370 (esp. 368– 369); L. Quick, Deuteronomy 28 and the Aramaic Curse Tradition (OTRM; Oxford University: Oxford 2018), esp. 12–40, 135–136, 173–176. 65 See e.g. M. Pietsch, Die Kultreform Josias: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte Israels in der späten Königszeit (FAT 86; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 1–22, 471–475; L. L. Grabbe, ‘The Last Days of Judah and the Roots of the Pentateuch: What Does History Tell Us?,’

Introduction

27

century bc. However, such comparisons lead to dubious results. In fact, dating a clearly archaizing text like Deuteronomy by comparing some of its formal elements to literary texts which are highly conventional (curse lists etc.) cannot yield uncontroversial results,66 especially if Deuteronomy’s dependence on the curses contained in the book of Jeremiah is also taken into consideration. Likewise, we have almost no data related to the postulated reform of King Josiah apart from the much later biblical story 2 Kgs 22:3–23:25, which is evidently influenced by Deuteronomic ideas, so that taking it as a point of reference for dating the book of Deuteronomy, which on its part surprisingly limits the prerogatives of the king (Deut 17:14–20),67 inevitably leads to circular reasoning and to implausible results. Besides, although this is certainly an argument from silence, the request of the colonists at Elephantine from 407 bc (TAD A4.7/4.8) shows no awareness of the idea of cult centralization,68 a fact which is difficult to explain if this rule was really enforced two centuries earlier, in the seventh century bc.69 Therefore, assigning a date of the composition of Deuteronomy in the seventh century bc is based on weak arguments.

in P. Dubovský, D. Markl, and J.-P. Sonnet (eds.), The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (FAT 107; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 19–45 (esp. 39). 66 Cf. C.  L.  Crouch, Israel and the Assyrians:  Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon, and the Nature of Subversion (ANEM 8; SBL: Atlanta 2014), 180–182; K. L. Younger, Jr. and N. A. Huddleston, ‘Challenges to the Use of Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Forms for Dating and Interpreting Deuteronomy,’ in D. I. Block and R. L. Schultz (eds.), Sepher Torath Mosheh:  Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy (Hendrickson: Peabody, MA 2017), 78–109 (esp. 101–103); M. Armgardt, ‘Why a Paradigm Change in Pentateuch Research is Necessary: The Perspective of Legal History,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (BZABR 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 79–91 (esp. 81–82). 67 The Deuteronomic law of the king (Deut 17:14–20) is unrealistic and historically implausible as concerns any king known in the ancient Near East. This fact is admitted by C. L. Crouch, The Making of Israel: Cultural Diversity in the Southern Levant and the Formation of Ethnic Identity in Deuteronomy (VTSup 162; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 178, 184. Cf. also J. Pakkala, ‘The Dating of Deuteronomy: A Response to Nathan MacDonald,’ ZAW 123 (2011) 431–436 (esp. 433). 68 Cf. R. G. Kratz, ‘Temple and Torah: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran,’ in G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2007), 77–103 (esp. 84). 69 Cf. G. Hölscher, ‘Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums,’ ZAW 40 (1922) 161–255 (esp. 254); J. Pakkala, ‘Dating,’ 435.

28

Introduction

Moreover, the dating based on the presence of some formulaic curses or alleged traces of a reconstructed pre-exilic religious reform neglects the main theme of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges, which is an idealistic, but merely partially realized vision of the entry of the Israelites to the land of Yahweh’s promise. This vision is expressed in Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges in terms of a new covenant, made with the new generation of the Israelites in the exilic land of Moab (Deut 28:69)70 and then in the Israelite city of Shechem (Josh 24:25). This theme, together with the stress on monolatry,71 has much more in common with the visionary prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Deutero-Isaiah, with their idea of a new, post-exilic, everlasting covenant (Jer 33:31–33; Ezek 37:26; Isa 55:3; etc.),72 than with the political and religious problems of the pre-exilic Judah in the seventh century bc. Therefore, Deuteronomy should be regarded as post-exilic.73 The linguistic dating of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges to the pre-exilic period on the basis of their extensive use of Classical Biblical Hebrew is methodologically questionable, not least because ‘there is a significant gap in the external, non-biblical corpora for Hebrew from the 6th to 2nd centuries b.c.e.,’74 so that ‘we are not able to define a clear terminus ante quem for CBH from the external evidence.’75 Likewise, it is difficult to date Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges with the use of the argumentum ex silentio as concerns the apparent absence of Late Biblical Hebrew features or loanwords.76 To the contrary, the verb ‫ נדב‬in hithpael (Judg 5:2.9) elsewhere in the Bible can only be found in the late post-exilic texts Ezra 1:6; 2:68; 3:5; Neh 11:2; 1 Chr 70 Cf. D. Markl, Gottes Volk im Deuteronomium (BZABR 18; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2012), 292–293. 71 Cf. J. Pakkala, ‘The Origins of Yahwism from the Perspective of Deuteronomism,’ in J.  van Oorschot and M.  Witte (eds.), The Origins of Yahwism (BZAW 484; De Gruyter:  Berlin · Boston 2017), 267–281 (esp.  277); T.  Römer, ‘Le problème du monothéisme biblique,’ RB 124 (2017) 12–25 (esp. 19). 72 Cf. G. Borgonovo, ‘Alle fonti della teologia storica deuteronomistica,’ RStB 28 (2016) 71–108 (esp. 91). 73 Cf. ibid. 95. 74 K. Schmid, ‘How to Identify a Persian Period Text in the Pentateuch,’ in R. J. Bautch and M. Lackowski (eds.), On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period: Discerning Criteria and Establishing Epochs (FAT 2.101; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 101–118 (here: 105). 75 Ibid. 76 Cf. E. Blum, ‘The Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Approach with Methodological Limitations,’ in J.  C.  Gertz [et  al.] (eds.), Formation, 303–325 (esp.  311–313); C. Edenburg, Dismembering, 116–122; R. Albertz, ‘Die Identifikation von nachexi­ lischen Redaktionsschichten im Pentateuch,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, ed. J. Wöhrle and F. Neumann (FAT 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 429–447 (esp. 438–439).

Introduction

29

29:5–6.9.14.17; 2 Chr 17:16 (cf. Ezra 7:13.15–16 in Aramaic),77 which suggests that the song of Deborah (Judg 5) is in fact a late text. Similarly, the section Judg 19–21 contains linguistic phenomena which are more or less characteristic of Late Biblical Hebrew.78 As concerns the relationship between Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges and the historical data, Lester L. Grabbe has rightly stated, ‘It is not sufficient to point to early elements in a text to demonstrate an early date for it. Early elements can be found in late texts, but not vice versa. Ultimately, judging the date of a text depends on a variety of factors, but the final form of a text can be no earlier than the latest element in it.’79 For this reason, the Deuteronomic idea of a great destruction of the Egyptian chariots at the ‘Sea of Reeds’ east of Egypt (Deut 11:3–4), which seems to echo the great defeat of the Egyptian army near Pelusium, at the marshes of the eastern extremes of the Nile Delta in 525 bc, suggests a fifth-century bc date of the composition of Deuteronomy. Moreover, if the book of Deuteronomy was written in the fifth century bc, its interest in locating Yahweh’s chosen place in the region of Shechem (Deut 11:29– 12:28; 27:2–13) could inspire the otherwise surprising project of constructing the new Israelite sanctuary on Mount Gerizim,80 whose first phase most probably dates to the second half of the fifth century bc.81 Consequently, the narrative of Joshua–Judges, which is, as is consistently argued in this monograph, literarily dependent on the book of Deuteronomy, must have been composed somewhat later, in the first half of the fourth century 77 Cf. S. Frolov, ‘How Old Is the Song of Deborah?,’ JSOT 36.2 (2011) 163–184 (esp. 171– 172); A. Hurvitz, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period (VTSup 160; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 179–181. 78 Cf. C. Edenburg, Dismembering, 123–158. 79 L. L. Grabbe, ‘Exodus and History,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VTSup 164; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 61–87 (here: 84). 80 Cf. Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, A Temple City (Judea & Samaria Publications 8; Israel Antiquities Authority: Jerusalem 2008), 149, 172, 174. 81 Cf. J. Dušek, ‘Mt. Gerizim Sanctuary, Its History and Enigma of Origin,’ HBAI 3 (2014) 111–133 (esp. 115–116). Cf. also Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim, vol. 2, who argues for the dating in the first half of the fifth century bc (ibid. 103), the mid-fifth century bc (ibid. 152, 167), or simply the fifth century bc (ibid. 168–169); his dating, however, is in fact based on the presence of pottery ‘securely dated to the period between the fifth and fourth centuries BCE’ (ibid. 168) and fifth-century coins, of which only one dates to the first half of that century (ibid. 168).

30

Introduction

bc. The remark probably concerning ‘pieces of money’ (Josh 24:32), in view of the fact that coins came to be used in Palestine in the fifth century bc,82 may indeed suggest that Joshua–Judges was composed not earlier than in the fifth century bc. The likely use of Greek motifs in various parts of the book of Judges (esp. Judg 11:30–40; 13–16; 21:19–23) also implies a late post-exilic date of its composition.83 In the context of the construction of the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim in the second half of the fifth century bc, the composition of Joshua–Judges, with its clear references to building an altar to Yahweh and making a covenant with Yahweh in the region of Shechem (Josh 8:30–35; 24:1–27; cf. Judg 19:18), is also plausible in the first half of the fourth century bc. In fact, the features of the character of the Ephraimite lay leader Joshua, presented as taking possession of the land in communion with the southern leader Caleb and founding a new sanctuary of Yahweh in the region of Shechem, could allude to the activity of the Israelite leader Sanballat, who was the most probable founder of the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim.84 Likewise, the image of Judah as being the first one among the Israelites to fight against their enemies (Judg 1:1–2; 3:9–11) seems to reflect the military importance of the otherwise poor province of Judah at the time when it became one of the frontier provinces of the Persian empire85 in the period of Egypt’s independence 404–343 bc.86

82 Cf. T. Römer, ‘The Date, Composition and Function of Joshua 24 in Recent Research: A Response to Joachim J. Krause, Cynthia Edenburg, and Konrad Schmid,’ HBAI 6 (2017) 203–216 (esp. 206). 83 Cf. M. Bauks, ‘Überlegungen zum historischen Ort von Ri 11,29–40: Ein Appendix antho­ logischen Charakters jenseits deuteronomistischen Geschichtsdenkens?,’ in P. Mommer and A.  Scherer (eds.), Geschichte Israels und deuteronomistisches Geschichtsdenken, Festschrift W. Thiel (AOAT 380; Ugarit: Münster 2010), 22–42 (esp. 32–39). 84 Cf. Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim, vol. 2, 172–175; J. Dušek, ‘Mt. Gerizim,’ 114–116. 85 Cf. A. Fantalkin and O. Tal, ‘Redating Lachish Level I: Identifying Achaemenid Imperial Policy at the Southern Frontier of the Fifth Satrapy,’ in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2006), 167–197 (esp. 188); O. Lipschits and D. Vanderhooft, ‘Yehud Stamp Impressions in the Fourth Century b.c.e.: A Time of Administrative Consolidation?,’ in O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2007), 75–94 (esp. 86–89). 86 The military tension between the tribe of Judah and the kingdom of Egypt could explain the otherwise strange allusion to Cush in the name of the enemy king defeated by the Judaean leader in Judg 3:8–10.

Introduction

31

The leaderless situation after the death of Joshua (Judg 1:1) could therefore allude to the situation of the Israelites after the death of Sanballat, so in the first half of the fourth century bc, when the northern and the southern Israelite tribes acted in increasing separation from each other. The destruction of the tribe of Benjamin (Judg 21:6), mainly caused by the southern tribe of Judah (Judg 20:18) but prevented thanks to links with the northern regions of Gilead and Shiloh (Judg 21:12–23), may reflect Judaean attempts to control the territory of Benjamin,87 partly reflected in the book of Nehemiah (Neh 7:26–38 etc.) but here viewed from a northern perspective. It is always possible for an educated and gifted author to imitate in a selective way the vocabulary, style, cultural phenomena, and historical references which could be found in earlier texts,88 but it is rather impossible to imitate the vocabulary and style which came to be used only later. Therefore, it should be argued that the authors of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges deliberately used archaizing elements in their stories about Israel’s distant ancestors, but they did not avoid using some linguistic and historical elements which were more contemporary to their, much later world.89 As is consistently argued in this monograph, the author of Deuteronomy used Ezekiel as his main structure-giving hypotext, and thereafter the author of Joshua–Judges used Deuteronomy as his main structure-giving hypotext. Accordingly, Joshua–Judges is a natural literary sequel to Deuteronomy, which was only later preceded by the prequels of Genesis and Exodus–Numbers.90

87 Cf. B. D. Giffone, ‘ “Israel’s” Only Son? The complexity of Benjaminite identity between Judah and Joseph,’ OTE 32 (2019) 956–972 (esp. 960–961). 88 For example, the language of Esther and 1QM can be regarded as classicizing; cf. J. Screnock, ‘The Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals and Hebrew Diachrony,’ JBL 137 (2018) 789–819 (esp. 803). 89 The presence of late features in a given text is often explained by attributing them to late layers, redactions, additions, etc., as is done, for example, by J. Joosten, ‘Diachronic Linguistics and the Date of the Pentateuch,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation, 327–344 (esp.  338–339). However, such supportive hypotheses should generally be avoided because they too easily suit modern scholarly perceptions of literary coherence. 90 It is quite natural in expansions of a given story (see, for example, the saga of the Star Wars) that the original story (in this case, Deuteronomy) is first supplemented with a sequel (in this case, Joshua–Judges), and only thereafter with a prequel (in this case, Genesis followed by Exodus–Numbers).

32

Introduction

Consequently, in their literary activity the post-exilic authors of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges could use the earlier prophetic works of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah, and possibly also Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah.

Place of composition It seems to be methodologically impossible to identify the place of the composition of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges on the basis of the postulated dialectal differences between the Hebrew spoken in Israel and in Judah.91 Therefore, in order to identify the place of the composition of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges, the allusive rhetoric of these works should be taken into due consideration. In the book of Deuteronomy, the Judaean leader Caleb bears a derogative name (Deut 1:36) which means ‘dog’ and which could refer to a male prostitute (cf. Deut 23:19), and the Israelite leader Jeho-shua bears a clearly Yahwistic theophoric name (Deut 1:38). This allusive tension points to the Israelite92 (northern),93 and not Judaean orientation of the book of Deuteronomy. Moreover, if we compare the positive Deuteronomic remarks concerning the region of Shechem and Mount Gerizim in Deut 11:29; 27:4–5.12, which frame the central legal section with its laws concerning the central sanctuary of Yahweh (Deut 12–26; esp. 12:1–27), as well as the elaborate blessing for Joseph in Deut 33:13–17, with the complete absence of Jerusalem and only a short saying concerning Judah as being in need of being brought back to its people (Deut

91 See N.  Pat-El, ‘Israelian Hebrew:  A  Re-Evaluation,’ VT 67 (2017) 227–263 (esp. 242–248). 92 The people who worshipped Yahweh on Mount Gerizim called themselves ‘Israelites,’ as is witnessed, for example, in two Delos inscriptions; see e.g. M. Kartveit, ‘Samaritan Self-Consciousness in the First Half of the Second Century B.C.E. in Light of the Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim and Delos,’ JSJ 45 (2014) 449–470 (esp. 466–468); B. Hensel, Juda und Samaria: Zum Verhältnis zweier nach-exilischer Jahwismen (FAT 110; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 159–161. 93 In fact, the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh generally perceived themselves as living in central Canaan, in the middle of the promised land (cf. Judg 9:37 etc.), between Dan in the north and Judah in the south. Therefore, the adjective ‘northern’ to describe them is used here due to the scholarly tradition of perceiving the tribe of Ephraim as northern in contrast to the southern tribe of Judah (cf. Josh 18:5).

Introduction

33

33:7), then the pro-Josephite and not pro-Judaean perspective of Deuteronomy becomes evident.94 In the book of Joshua, the allusive reference to Shechem (‫שכם‬: Josh 4:5) as being a sign in the midst of the Israelites (Josh 4:6) points to Shechem as the central place in the theological geography of this work. The same idea is conveyed by the explicitly named ‘place’ (Josh 5:9) illustrating the Deuteronomic location of the blessing on the likewise explicitly named Mount Gerizim (Deut 11:29). Similarly, Josh 8:30–35 (cf. also 9:27) presents the region of Shechem as the location of the altar of Yahweh, burnt offerings, the ark, blessing the people of Israel, reading the law, and assembling Israel. The Ephraimite city of Shechem is presented as the central ‘holy’ city of refuge (Josh 20:7; 21:21), and the Judaean city of Jerusalem is not. The making of the covenant with all Israel takes place at Shechem (Josh 24:1.25), and the sanctuary of Yahweh is also quite naturally located at Shechem (Josh 24:26–27). Moreover, in the book of Joshua Yahweh blesses the sons of Joseph (Josh 17:14) and not the sons of Judah. The main hero of the book of Joshua asks for an inheritance in the mountains of Ephraim (Josh 19:50), and his burial place is in the mountains of Ephraim (Josh 24:30; cf. Judg 2:9). Eleazar, the second main hero of the book of Joshua, similarly has his burial place in the mountains of Ephraim (Josh 24:33). The name of Judah first appears in the book of Joshua in the story of the sin of Achan, which narratively functions as the ‘original sin’ of Israel after the entry into Canaan (Josh 7). The etymology of the name of Achan allusively refers to ‘bringing trouble’ upon Israel (Josh 6:18; 7:24–26; 15:7). The sinner Achan is explicitly, repeatedly identified as a member of the tribe of Judah (Josh 7:1.16– 18), so that with the use of the rhetorical figure of synecdoche (pars pro toto) the tribe of Judah is rhetorically blamed ‘to this day’ (Josh 7:26) for being greedy and breaking Yahweh’s law. Moreover, in the book of Joshua the five kings of prominent Judaean cities who are led by the king of Jerusalem, together with all their armies (Josh 10:5), conceptually illustrate the idea of Israel’s enemies (Deut 28:7). The southern leader Caleb is presented as only half-Judahite (Josh 14:6; 15:13) and having his inheritance not in Jerusalem but in the peripheral (in historical, postexilic terms: Edomite) city of Hebron ‘to this day’ (Josh 14:13–14; cf. Judg 1:20).

94 Cf. J. S. Bergsma, ‘A “Samaritan” Pentateuch? The Implications of the Pro-Northern Tendency of the Common Pentateuch,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm, 287–300 (esp. 290, 292–293).

34

Introduction

Jerusalem in Joshua–Judges is derogatively called by the name of the banned pagan Jebusites (Josh 15:8; Judg 19:10–11; cf. Deut 7:1; 20:17), excluded from the territory of Judah (Josh 15:8; 18:16.28), and presented as half-pagan ‘to this day’ (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:21; 19:12). The allusive polemic of Joshua–Judges is therefore directed not only against the tribe of Judah in general, but especially against its historical capital and its separatist (from the Israelite point of view) temple of Yahweh.95 Moreover, Joshua–Judges quite naturally refers to the Zebulunite Bethlehem as simply ‘Bethlehem’ (Josh 19:15; Judg 12:8.10), whereas it always specifically explains the name of the Judaean one as ‘Bethlehem in Judah’ (Judg 17:7–9; 19:1– 2.18), a fact which betrays the northern geographical perspective of this work. Therefore, the transfer of the authority over all Israel from Moses to Joshua, who was an Ephraimite (Josh 19:50; 24:30; cf. Judg 2:9), who acted with the likewise Ephraimite priest Eleazar (Josh 24:33), and who gathered all Israel at Shechem (Josh 8:30–35; 24:1–27), imply that the book of Joshua is an Ephraimite work.96 In the book of Judges, the story concerning the Judahite leader Othniel is very short (Judg 3:8–11), in contrast to the elaborate stories concerning the Josephite leaders Deborah (Judg 4–5), Gideon (Judg 6–8), and Abimelech (Judg 9). Moreover, Yahweh explicitly orders Gideon to build an altar to Yahweh and offer a burnt offering on top of a mountain place of refuge in the territory of Manasseh (Judg 6:26). On the other hand, the book of Judges portrays the Judahites as betraying the Israelite leader Samson and handing him over to the Philistines (Judg 15:10–13). Likewise, the image of Judah as leading a failed attempt to destroy its weaker neighbours, the Benjaminites, with no divine promise of success (Judg 20:18), probably reflects the post-exilic Israelite view of Judah as attempting to control the territory of the tribe of Benjamin. Moreover, the image of a sinful, unfaithful woman from the tribe of Judah (Judg 19:1–2) coming to her Ephraimite master (Judg 19:3–9.26), to an 95 A critical reader should interpret the books of Joshua–Judges in their own rhetorical terms and resist the temptation to explain them in the light of the later, clearly proJudaean rhetoric of the books of Samuel–Kings, with their particular image of David, Jerusalem, etc. In this respect, the hypothesis of the Deuteronomistic History, including both Joshua–Judges and Samuel–Kings as one, internally coherent work, is clearly misleading. The fact that both Joshua–Judges and Samuel–Kings are post-Deuteronomic does not imply that they are parts of the same literary work. 96 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 70; J. S. Bergsma, ‘Samaritan Pentateuch,’ 294.

Introduction

35

Ephraimite host (Judg 19:16–21), and in her limbs to the twelve tribes of the people of God (Judg 20:2.8) alludes to the Deuteronomic wish that Judah should come to his people (Deut 33:7). In the book of Judges, the steady centre of its geographical remarks is the hill country of Ephraim (Judg 2:9; 3:27; 4:5; 7:24; 10:1; 12:15; 17:1.8; 18:2.13; 19:1.16.18),97 which is also the location of the house of Yahweh (Judg 19:18). One of the hills at Shechem, possibly Mount Gerizim, is called the ‘navel of the land’ (Judg 9:37).98 On the other hand, the motifs of the sanctuaries at Bethel (Judg 20:18.26; 21:2.4) and Shiloh (Judg 18:31; 21:12.19.21), concluding the cult history in the book of Judges, provide a proleptic link to the cult history of the pre-exilic kingdom of Israel (Amos 7:13; Jer 7:12; etc.). All these positive allusions to Ephraim, Manasseh, Shechem, and Mount Gerizim, together with the generally negative allusions to Judah, Jerusalem, and Dan, especially to their local sanctuaries of Yahweh, imply that both Deuteronomy99 and Joshua100–Judges101 were written from an Israelite (northern) geographical-theological perspective.102 This idea was recently argued by Yitzhak Magen, who stated, ‘The books of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges hallow Shechem over all other cities 97 Cf. R. Baker, Hollow Men, Strange Women: Riddles, Codes and Otherness in the Book of Judges (BibInt 143; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2016), 101–102. 98 Cf. J. S. Bergsma, ‘Samaritan Pentateuch,’ 294. 99 Cf. A.  Schenker, ‘Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon:  Zur Textgeschichte des Pentateuchs im 2.  Jh. v.Chr.,’ in M.  Mor, F. V. Reiterer, and W. Winkler (eds.), Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies (SJ 53 / SSam 5; De Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2010), 105–121 (esp. 118); S. Schorch, ‘Der Pentateuch der Samaritaner:  Seine Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für das Verständnis des alttestamentlichen Bibeltextes,’ in J. Frey, U. Schattner-Rieser, and K. Schmid (eds.), Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen (SJ 70 / SSam 7; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2012), 5–29 (esp. 28–29). 100 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 70; T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 6B; Yale University: New Haven · London 2015), 28–31, 392. 101 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 71. Israel Finkelstein has recently argued for a North Israelite setting of the earliest layer of the heroic tales in the book of Judges and of their later pre-Deuteronomistic reworking and compilation: I. Finkelstein, ‘Major Saviors, Minor Judges: The Historical Background of the Northern Accounts in the Book of Judges,’ JSOT 41.4 (2017) 431–449 (esp. 432–433, 443–445). 102 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘The Roles of Gerizim and Jerusalem in the Israelite Heptateuch Genesis–Judges,’ RB [forthcoming].

36

Introduction

in the land of Israel, and the main rite of the people of Israel was practiced there.’103 In the words of Ingrid Hjelm, ‘There is nothing Jerusalemite about the Pentateuch as such and were it not for tradition’s assumption of a biblical Israel with a common past in which Jerusalem always had priority over against other Yahwistic cult centres in Palestine, no one would suggest that the Pentateuch had originated in Jerusalem.’104 It should be noted, however, that the same kind of damnatio memoriae, with which Jerusalem is treated in the book of Deuteronomy, is also applied in Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges to the city of Samaria, most probably due to its connection with the wicked deeds of its pre-exilic inhabitants, which were condemned by Israelite prophets (cf. Amos 4:1; Hos 7:1; etc.). It seems that the intriguing absence of Samaria in the post-exilic writings of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges, in contrast to its repeated presence in the works of pre-exilic and exilic prophets (Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Obadiah), points to Shechem, and more precisely Mount Gerizim, as the new, purely priestly place of the worship of Yahweh, substituting the former royal sanctuary in Samaria. The fact that the main heroes of both Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges are lay characters (Moses, Joshua, and judges), and priests (especially Aaron and Eleazar) are only present in these works as secondary characters, implies that the Sitz im Leben of both Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges should be traced in the Israelite lay elite in the entourage of the governors of Samaria, Sanballat and his the successors, and not in priestly circles.

1 03 Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim, vol. 2, 171. 104 I. Hjelm, ‘Northern Perspectives in Deuteronomy and Its Relation to the Samaritan Pentateuch,’ HBAI 4 (2015) 184–204 (here: 202).

Chapter 1.  The book of Deuteronomy as a sequential hypertextual reworking of the book of Ezekiel The contents of the book of Deuteronomy sequentially, in a hypertextual way illustrate the contents of the book of Ezekiel.

1.1. Deut 1:1–8 (cf. Ezek 1:1–3:15) The opening section Deut 1:1–8 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding opening section Ezek 1:1–3:15. The introductory statements Deut 1:1–2, which provide the narrative exilic setting for the book of Deuteronomy, have no hypotextual counterpart in the book of Ezekiel, but they thematically introduce its main contents, narratively located in the exile east of Israel, beyond a river. The particular motif of a prophet (cf. Deut 34:10) speaking to all Israel (‫ אל־*ישראל‬+ ‫דבר‬: Deut 1:1) was borrowed from Ezek 3:1.4; 20:27 and conflated with Jer 30:4 (‫ אל־*ישראל‬+ N + ‫)אלה הדברים אשר דבר‬. The motif of the Egyptian name Moses (‘[someone] has borne [him]’: Deut 1:1),1 without any theophoric element, alludes to the motif of Ezekiel’s indefinite identity as a ‘son of man’ (Ezek 2:1 etc.), whereas the name form Moshe (‫משה‬: Deut 1:1) could have been borrowed from Jer 15:1 etc. The motif of the Israelites’ sons, after the exodus from Egypt, being in the wilderness (‫במדבר‬: Deut 1:1) was borrowed from Ezek 20:18 etc. The motif of the returning Israel being in the wilderness and in the desert (‫ בערבה‬+ ‫במדבר‬: Deut 1:1) was borrowed from Isa 40:3 (cf. Jer 2:6) etc. The motif of Paran (‫פארן‬: Deut 1:1) may have been borrowed from Hab 3:3. The motif

1 Cf. H. Jenni, ‘Fragen zum Verb mšj in der Kindheitsgeschichte Moses (Ex 2,10),’ in Jenni [et al.] (eds.), Nächstenliebe und Gottesfurcht, Festschrift H.-P. Mathys (AOAT 439; Ugarit:  Münster 2016), 151–175 (esp.  158); A.  Michel, ‘Exodus  – historisch, mythisch, theologisch,’ in C. Neuber (ed.), Der immer neue Exodus: Aneignungen und Transformationen des Exodusmotivs (SBS 242; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2018), 20–44 (esp.  27); T.  Römer, ‘Auszug aus Ägypten oder Pilgerreise in der Wüste? Überlegungen zur Konstruktion der Exodustradition(en),’ in R. Ebach and M. Leuenberger (eds.), Tradition(en) im alten Israel: Konstruktion, Transmission und Transformation (FAT 127; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 89–107 (esp. 94).

38

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

of Horeb, that is, ‘a site of ruins’2 related to Mount Seir (‫ הר־שעיר‬+ *‫חרב‬: Deut 1:2) could have been borrowed from Ezek 35:2–4. The motif of the southern border of Israel being at Kadesh (‫קדש‬: Deut 1:2) was borrowed from Ezek 47:19; 48:28. The opening temporal clause, (a) ‘And it happened in the n-tieth year, in the nth month (‫)ויהי ב*ים שנה ב*י‬, (b) on the nth (day) of the month’ (‫ב* לחדש‬: Deut 1:3a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Ezekielian temporal clause, (a) ‘And it happened in the n-tieth year, in the nth (month), (b) on the nth (day) of the month’ (Ezek 1:1a). The author of Deuteronomy substituted the Ezekielian reference to the thirtieth year (Ezek 1:1a) with the reference to the fortieth year (Deut 1:3a) to suit his idea of the time of the re-entry to Canaan being after the death of an entire generation (Deut 2:14). The subsequent idea of Moses speaking to the sons of Israel, who were in the exile east of the land of Israel (Deut 1:3b; cf. 1:1),3 illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the visionary prophet being among the exiled Judahites, who were in the exile east of the land of Israel (Ezek 1:1b–2). The particular motif of the sons of Israel (‫בני ישראל‬: Deut 1:3) could have been borrowed from Hos 2:1 etc. The subsequent idea of all that (b) Yahweh (a) commanded (c) Moses to (‫)אל‬ the Israelites (Deut 1:3c) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the emphatic coming of the word of (b) Yahweh (c) to Ezekiel (Ezek 1:3). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted,4 retrospective idea of defeating pagan kings, presumably with Yahweh as the main threatening and destroying agent in the war (Deut 1:4; cf. 2:24–3:11; 31:4),5 illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of powerfully moving living beings (Ezek 1:4–14) in a

2 Cf. D. I. Block, ‘ “A Place for My Name”: Horeb and Zion in the Mosaic Vision of Israelite Worship,’ JETS 58 (2015) 221–247 (esp. 222). 3 The narrator’s viewpoint in Deuteronomy is somewhat surprisingly first located in the land of Israel and from this perspective refers to the region ‘beyond the Jordan,’ east of Israel. Cf. T.  Veijola, Das 5.  Buch Mose:  Deuteronomium, vol. 1, Kapitel 1,1–16,17 (ATD 8,1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht:  Göttingen 2004), 9; M.  Geiger, Gottesräume: Die literarische und theologische Konzeption von Raum im Deuteronomium (BWANT 183; W.  Kohlhammer:  Stuttgart 2010), 60–61, 63; J.  R.  Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2013), 157. 4 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 10. 5 Cf. S. Paganini, Deuteronomio: Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (LBPT 5; Paoline: Milano 2011), 76.

Deut 1:1–8 (cf. Ezek 1:1–3:15)

39

presumably military chariot (Ezek 1:15–21) as well as the sound of a military camp (Ezek 1:24), displaying the glory of Yahweh (Ezek 1:4–28; esp. 1:28). The particular motif of Sihon being related to Heshbon (‫ חשבון‬+ ‫סיחן‬: Deut 1:4) was borrowed from Jer 48:45. The subsequent thought that (a) by the crossing of the Jordan (b) Moses began to enact6 this (‫ )הזאת‬law (c) by saying (‫אמר‬: Deut 1:5) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian thought that (a) Ezekiel stood on his feet and (b) Yahweh sent him to the Israelites who were rebellious, criminal, disrespectful, and stubborn to this (‫ )הזה‬day, so that (c) he should say to them (Ezek 2:1–4b). The subsequent idea of Yahweh the Israelites’ God speaking (Deut 1:6a) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Lord Yahweh speaking (Ezek 2:4c). The subsequent idea of speaking to the Israelites (Deut 1:6a) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Israelites hearing (Ezek 2:5). The subsequent idea of the name of Horeb, which refers to ‘dry/waste’ ground (Deut 1:6a),+7 ‫ירש‬ illustrates the subsequent ‫אברהם‬ + ‫הארץ‬ + ‫את־הארץ‬ + *‫ ל‬+ ‫ נתן‬Ezekielian idea of thorns and scorpions (Ezek 2:6). The subsequent idea of Yahweh speaking to the Israelites (Deut 1:6b) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh’s words to the Israelites, which the Israelites should hear (Ezek 2:7–8b). The subsequent idea of Yahweh calling the Israelites not to sit any longer, presumably against Yahweh’s will that they should move (Deut 1:6c; cf. 1:7),8 illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh calling the son of man not to be obstinate like the obstinate Israelites (Ezek 2:8c). The subsequent idea of Yahweh calling the Israelites to turn (‫)פנה‬, presumably in a certain direction (Deut 1:7a),9 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh calling the son of man to find and eat the scroll which was before (‫פנה‬: Ezek 2:10) him (Ezek 2:8d–3:3). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh calling the Israelites to set out and (b) come (‫( )בוא‬c) to (‫ )אל‬various regions of the promised land, the land of the Canaanites 6 Cf. N.  Lohfink, ‘Prolegomena zu einer Rechtshermeneutik des Pentateuch,’ in G. Braulik (ed.), Das Deuteronomium (ÖBS 23; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main 2003), 11–55 (esp. 29–31). 7 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1, 1,1–4,43 (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2012), 315. 8 Cf. L.  Perlitt, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, Deuteronomium 1–6* (BKAT 5/1; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2013), 41. 9 Cf. S. Paganini, Deuteronomio, 91–92.

40

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

(Deut 1:7bc),10 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh calling the son of man to go and (b) come (Ezek 3:4.11) (c) to all the house of Israel, not to the peoples of incomprehensible language (Ezek 3:4–11; esp. 3:4–6.11). The particular motif of the Amorites being related to the land of the Canaanites (‫ ארץ הכנעני‬+ ‫האמרי‬: Deut 1:7) could have been borrowed from Ezek 16:3. However, the use of the preposition ‫‘( אל‬to’), originally referring to all the house of Israel (Ezek 3:4–5), now only referring to the Israelite regions neighbouring the mountains of the Amorites (Deut 1:7c), but not to the mountains of the Amorites, which allude to Judaea (cf. Ezek 16:3), suggests that for the author of Deuteronomy Judaea was in reality not a part of all the house of Israel (cf. Deut 33:7). This fact implies that Deuteronomy is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of coming to the (*‫ )ה‬Lebanon,11 a mountainous country far away from the land of the Canaanites (Deut 1:7c),12 illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of being lifted up and taken by a strong wind and coming to the exile, located on a hill (Ezek 3:12–15a). The subsequent, even more surprising idea of coming as far as the great river (‫)נהר‬, the presumably Mesopotamian river (‫ )נהר‬Euphrates (Deut 1:7c),13 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of coming to the presumably Mesopotamian river Chebar (Ezek 3:15b). The concluding idea of taking possession of the land of which (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh swore to the Israelites’ fathers and to their descendants (Deut 1:8) illustrates the concluding Ezekielian idea of the place in which (Ezek 3:15c ketiv) the Israelites dwelt for a long period of time, so presumably the place of which Yahweh’s prophet had said that they should dwell there (Ezek 3:15c–e; cf. Jer 29:5 etc.). Accordingly, the Deuteronomic motif of the land of which Yahweh swore to the Israelites’ fathers (Deut 1:8 etc.)14 illustrates the Ezekielian negative motif of the land of the prophetically foretold exile (Ezek 3:15 etc.), now formulated in positive terms of the land promised to the Israelites’ fathers. The particular motif of giving to the Israelites the land, and the Israelites taking possession of the land which was given to Abraham (+ ‫ את־הארץ‬+ *‫ ל‬+ ‫נתן‬ 1 0 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1, 336–337. 11 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 19; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 168. 12 Cf. L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 45–48. 13 Cf. S. Paganini, Deuteronomio, 93. 14 Cf. J.  Hwang, The Rhetoric of Remembrance:  An Investigation to the “Fathers” in Deuteronomy (SLTHS 8; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2012), 33–38.

Deut 1:9–18 (cf. Ezek 3:16–27)

41

‫ אברהם‬+ ‫ הארץ‬+ ‫ירש‬: Deut 1:8) was borrowed from Ezek 33:24 and conflated with Jer 32:22 (‫ לתת להם‬+ ‫ לאבת*ם‬+*‫ אשר נשבע‬+ ‫ את־הארץ‬+ *‫ ל‬+ ‫)נתן‬. The motif of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (‫ זרע‬+ ‫ ו*יעקב‬+ ‫ י*חק‬+ ‫אברהם‬: Deut 1:8) was borrowed from Jer 33:26.15

1.2.  Deut 1:9–18 (cf. Ezek 3:16–27) The section Deut 1:9–18 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 3:16–27. The opening thought that (a) at that time Moses spoke to (*‫ )אל‬the Israelites, (b) saying (‫לאמר‬: Deut 1:9ab), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Ezekielian thought that (a) at the end of seven days Yahweh’s word came to Moses, (b) saying (Ezek 3:16). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced idea of Moses alone not (‫ )לא‬being able to bear them (*‫)את‬, that is, the Israelites,16 so presumably not being able to bear their sins (Deut 1:9cd; cf. Jer 51:22: ‫ *שאת‬+ ‫)לא־*וכל‬, conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man, presumably alone, being watchman for the house of Israel but possibly not always warning them from being wicked and committing iniquity (Ezek 3:17–20). The subsequent idea of Yahweh multiplying the Israelites so that they are as the stars of heaven in multitude (‫ רב‬+ ‫רבה‬: Deut 1:10) conceptually and linguistically, with the use of a figura etymologica, illustrates the subsequent, similarly formulated Ezekielian idea of the righteous living full life (‫ יחיה‬+ ‫חיו‬: Ezek 3:21). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh adding upon (‫ )על‬the Israelites, (b) as they were (suff. pron. ‫ *כם‬repeated after *‫)על‬, (c) a thousand steps/times (Deut 1:11a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the hand of Yahweh being upon the son of man, and (b) Yahweh saying to him (suff. pron. ‫ *י‬repeated after *‫ )על‬that (c) he should

15 The direction of dependence from Jer 33:26 to Deut 1:8, and not vice versa, is confirmed by the fact that the early, prophetic form of the name of Isaac (‫ישחק‬: Jer 33:26) also occurs in Amos 7:9.16. If these prophetic texts were post-Deuteronomic, it would be implausible that their authors would independently change the established Deuteronomic name form ‫( יצחק‬Deut 1:8 etc.), which is also attested in post-Deuteronomic texts (1 Kgs 18:36 etc.), to the form ‫ישחק‬. 16 Cf. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy (OTL; Westminster John Knox: Louisville · London 2004), 19; L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 62–63.

42

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

arise and go out to the plain, so that he arose and went out to the plain (Ezek 3:22–23b). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh blessing the Israelites, somewhat surprisingly retrospectively, (b) just as (‫ )כאשר‬he had (c) spoken (‫ )דבר‬to them (Deut 1:11b), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the glory of Yahweh standing there, retrospectively, (b) as (*‫ )כ‬the glory which (‫ )אשר‬Ezekiel had seen by the River Chebar, and Yahweh, presumably as he had done at the River Chebar (cf. Ezek 2:2), (c) speaking with him (Ezek 3:23c–24d). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Moses asking how he, being alone, could bear (b) the Israelites’ burden, (c) load, and (d) lawsuit (Deut 1:12)17 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man shutting himself inside his house, and (b) the Israelites putting ropes on him and (c) binding him with them, so that he could not go out among them, and (d) his tongue was tied (Ezek 3:24e–26b). The subsequent idea of (a) choosing for the Israelites (‫( )לכם‬c) wise, discerning, and knowledgeable18 (b) men (‫)איש‬, and Moses taking the wise men and appointing them as judges to judge between the Israelites (Deut 1:13–16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the prophet himself (a) not being for the Israelites (‫( )להם‬c) an arbitrator (b) man (Ezek 3:26c). The subsequent idea of judging because (‫ )כי‬God gives judgement also against the great ones among the Israelites (Deut 1:17a–d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of reproving because the Israelites are an obstinate house (Ezek 3:26d). The subsequent idea of the cases (‫ )דבר‬which are too hard being brought by the judges to Moses, presumably that he might pronounce a judgement in the name of God (Deut 1:17ef),19 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh speaking (‫ )דבר‬authoritatively through the son of man (Ezek 3:27a–d). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of Moses hearing (‫)שמע‬, with no remark concerning judging (Deut 1:17g; diff. 1:16–17d), conceptually and 1 7 Cf. L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 65. 18 The participle ‫ ידעים‬has an active meaning in Deut 1:13.15. Cf. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 14. Pace S. L. Boyd, ‘What Were the Qualifications for Being a Leader in Ancient Israel? Revelation, Authority, and Philological Issues in Deut 1:13 and 1:15,’ VT 68 (2018) 173–196. 19 Cf. S. Paganini, Deuteronomio, 101.

Deut 1:19–46 (cf. Ezek 4:1–8)

43

linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Israelites being called to hear and not to cease (Ezek 3:27e–h). The concluding idea of Moses commanding the Israelites all the things that they had to do (Deut 1:18) illustrates the concluding Ezekielian idea of the Israelites being an obstinate house (Ezek 3:27i).

1.3. Deut 1:19–46 (cf. Ezek 4:1–8) The section Deut 1:19–46 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 4:1–8. The opening idea of the Israelites going through all the wilderness and coming as far as the oasis of Kadesh Barnea (Deut 1:19; cf. 1:2)20 illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of the son of man taking a sun-baked brick, presumably made in a muddy, relatively wet place (Ezek 4:1a). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving (‫ )נתן‬the land (b) before Israel (‫לפניך‬: Deut 1:20–21b; cf. 1:22c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man giving the brick (b) before him (Ezek 4:1b). The subsequent idea of the Israelites going up (‫ )עלה‬to the promised land, and spies being sent to dig/spy out the land and bring report concerning the way to go up (‫ )עלה‬to the land (Deut 1:21c–22f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man engraving/depicting, presumably Jerusalem, upon (‫ )על‬the brick (Ezek 4:1c). The particular motif of Yahweh calling Israel, on its way from the exile, not to be afraid or dismayed (‫ ואל־תחת‬+ ‫אל־תירא‬: Deut 1:21) was borrowed from Jer 30:10;21 46:27. The subsequent idea of the Israelites intending to come to the cities (‫ )עיר‬in the promised land (Deut 1:22g) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man depicting a city, presumably that of Jerusalem (Ezek 4:1c). The subsequent idea of taking a man from each tribe, and the spies coming to the presumably Amorite (cf. Deut 1:7.19–20)22 mountains in the south and to 20 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 34; E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1, 317, 384; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 176. 21 Pace G. Fischer, ‘Der Einfluss des Deuteronomiums auf das Jeremiabuch,’ in G. Fischer, D. Markl, and S. Paganini (eds.), Deuteronomium – Tora für eine neue Generation (BZABR 17; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2011), 247–269 (esp. 255), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 22 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 19; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 177; L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 99.

44

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

the Valley of Eshcol/grapes,23 probably related to the southern region of Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Deut 32:32: ‫)אשכל‬, and spying it (‫ את‬fem.)24 out (Deut 1:23– 24) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man referring to it (‫)את‬, that is, Jerusalem (Ezek 4:1c). The semantic connection between Jerusalem (Ezek 4:1c) and the Amorites (Deut 1:24; cf. 1:19–20.24) was borrowed from Ezek 16:3.45. Likewise, the semantic connection between Jerusalem (Ezek 4:1c) and probably Sodom (Deut 1:24; cf. 32:32) could have been borrowed from Ezek 16:46. The particular motif of exactly twelve tribes of Israel (‫ שבט‬+ ‫שני* עשר‬: Deut 1:23) was borrowed from Ezek 47:13. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Deut 1:21) idea of the spies reporting that Yahweh is giving (‫ )נתן‬a good land to the Israelites (Deut 1:25) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Ezek 4:1b) Ezekielian idea of the son of man giving/laying a siege against Jerusalem (Ezek 4:2a). The particular motif of Yahweh bringing Israel to a good land (‫ ארץ‬+ ‫טוב‬: Deut 1:25) was borrowed from Jer 2:7. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Deut 1:21–22) idea of the Israelites not willing to go up (‫ )עלה‬to the region of the Amorites and asking where they could go up (‫עלה‬: Deut 1:26–28a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Ezek 4:1c) Ezekielian idea of the son of man acting upon (‫ )על‬Jerusalem (Ezek 4:2a). The particular motif of Yahweh bringing the Israelites out of the land of Egypt (‫הוציא* מארץ מצרים‬: Deut 1:27) was borrowed from Jer 31:32; Ezek 20:6.9 etc. The subsequent idea of the enemy cities being fortified (‫ )בצור‬up to heaven and their defenders being great and tall (Deut 1:28b–f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of a siege (‫מצור‬: Ezek 4:2a). The subsequent idea of the Israelites not being terrified or afraid of the enemies, and Yahweh fighting for the Israelites, before their eyes (Deut 1:29–30), illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man building a siege wall, so being protected and himself not fighting (Ezek 4:2b). The particular motif of not being terrified and not being afraid (‫ לא־תיראו‬+ ‫לא־תער*צו‬: Deut 1:29) could have been borrowed from Isa 8:12. The motif of  Yahweh going before the Israelites (‫ הלך לפניכם‬+ ‫יהוה‬: Deut 1:30) was borrowed from Isa 52:12.

2 3 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 35–36; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 177. 24 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 35; A. Schart, ‘The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers (FAT 2.62; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 164–200 (esp. 172).

Deut 1:19–46 (cf. Ezek 4:1–8)

45

The subsequent idea of Yahweh lifting/carrying Israel (Deut 1:31)25 illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man heaping up a presumably ascending assault ramp (Ezek 4:2c). The subsequent idea of Yahweh seeking out a place for the militarily organized (cf. Deut 1:15) Israelites to camp (‫חנה‬: Deut 1:32–33c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man setting camps (‫ )מחנה‬in various places (Ezek 4:2d). The subsequent idea of (a) a fire by night, (b) to show the way for the Israelites, (c) and a cloud by day (Deut 1:33d) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) a roasting pan, (b) the son of man setting his face towards Jerusalem, and (c) this being a sign for the house of Israel (Ezek 4:3). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh being angry with the Israelites and swearing that this entire evil generation will not see the promised land, but (b) only one, presumably Judaean man, who spied out the southern territory of Judah (cf. Deut 1:20.24), will see it, and (c) Yahweh being angry with Moses because of the Israelites26 and saying that he will not enter there, but his successor and the Israelites’ sons will do (Deut 1:34–40) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the guilt of the house of Israel lasting more than one generation, (b) the guilt of the house of Judah lasting one generation, and (c) Yahweh laying the guilt of the Israelites on the son of man (Ezek 4:4–6). The particular motif of Yahweh being angry with the speaking Israelite (+ ‫בי‬ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫אנף‬: Deut 1:37) was borrowed from Isa 12:1. The motif of the presumably Edomite Sea of Reeds (‫ים־סוף‬: Deut 1:40; cf. 2:1)27 could have been borrowed from Jer 49:21 (cf. 49:20). The semantic contrast between the derogative name of the Judaean28 leader Caleb (Deut 1:36), which means ‘dog’ and which could refer to a male prostitute (cf. Deut 23:19),29 and the clearly Yahwistic theophoric name of the

2 5 Cf. J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 180. 26 Cf. A. Schart, ‘Spy Story,’ 174. 27 Cf. P. Y. Yoo, ‘Once Again: The Yam Sûp of the Exodus,’ JBL 137 (2018) 581–597 (esp. 592–593). 28 According to Deut 1:7.19–25.36, Caleb led the initial entry to Canaan from the south, to the southern, Judaean mountains of the Amorites (Deut 1:20) and to the Valley of Eshcol (Deut 1:24), probably related to the southern (Judaean) region of Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Deut 32:32). 29 Phyllis Bird argues for the understanding of ‘the price of a dog’ in Deut 23:19 as more generally related to dishonour and disgust: P. Bird, ‘Of Whores and Hounds: A New Interpretation of the Subject of Deuteronomy 23:19,’ VT 65 (2015) 352–364 (esp. 362).

46

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

Israelite30 leader Jeho-shua (Deut 1:38) strongly suggests that Deuteronomy is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. On the other hand, the particular traits of the Deuteronomic character of Jeho-shua (‫יהושע‬: Deut 1:38 etc.), who needed to be full of the Isaianic spirit of wisdom (‫רוח חכמה‬: Deut 34:9)31 because he was called to bring the Israelites to the land of Israel (Deut 31:7; 31:23), to make a covenant in it (cf. Deut 11:29; 27:2–13), and to make them inherit it (‫ נחל‬hiphil: Deut 1:38; 3:28; 31:7), allude to the (Deutero-)Isaianic prophecies concerning a lay leader who would presumably be full of the spirit of wisdom (Isa 11:2) and who would be an instrument of salvation (‫ישועה‬: Isa 49:6.8) to bring Israel to his land, to be a covenant to the people, and to make them inherit the land (Isa 49:8). Accordingly, the spiritual line of succession from Moses to Joshua son of Nun (so not son of Moses) as the servant of Yahweh (Josh 1:1; 24:29) alludes to the likewise spiritual line of succession from Ezekiel to the Deutero-Isaianic servant of Yahweh. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites wanting to go up (‫ )עלה‬and fight, (b) girding on their weapons of war, and (c) going up (‫ )עלה‬to the mountain (Deut 1:41–43) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man setting his face towards the siege of Jerusalem, (b) his arm being uncovered, presumably to fight, and (c) the son of man prophesying upon (‫ )על‬Jerusalem (Ezek 4:7). The subsequent idea of (a) the Amorites crushing the Israelites to pieces, (b) the Israelites remaining (‫ותשבו‬: Deut 1:45; cf. 1:46; cf. also 1:45 LXX)32 and weeping, and Yahweh disregarding it, so (c) the Israelites remaining in Kadesh many days (‫)ימים‬, according to the days (‫ )ימים‬which they remained there (Deut 1:44–46; esp. 1:46), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh putting ropes on the son of man, and (b) the son of man not turning from one side to the other (c) until he completed the days of his siege (Ezek 4:8).

30 According to Deut 11:29–30; 27:2–13, Joshua was called to lead the Israelites to the central, Israelite region of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. 31 Cf. K. Min, Geist und Tora: Zum Verhältnis von Geistbegabung und Toratreue in der Schriftgelehrten Theologie des Pentateuch und der Prophetenbücher (EHS 23/943; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main 2014), 175, 194–196. 32 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1, 375. Cf. also S. Paganini, Deuteronomio, 84 n. 28.

Deut 2:1–16 (cf. Ezek 4:9–6:14)

47

1.4. Deut 2:1–16 (cf. Ezek 4:9–6:14) The section Deut 2:1–16 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 4:9–6:14. The opening idea of (a) the Israelites skirting Mount Seir/hairy (‫( )שעיר‬b) for many days (‫ )ימים‬of the exile before turning northward, so in the opposite direction (Deut 2:1–3),33 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man taking barley/hairy (‫( )שערה‬b) for a great but limited number of days of the punishment on one side (Ezek 4:9). The subsequent idea of the Israelites, as concerns Seir/hairy, (a) its food (‫)אכל‬ purchasing for silver and (b) eating (‫)אכל‬, presumably scarcely, as well as (c) water (‫ )מים‬buying for silver and (d) drinking (‫)שתה‬, also presumably scarcely (Deut 2:4–6; esp. 2:6), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man, as concerns barley/hairy, (a) his food (‫( )מאכל‬b) eating by shekels, from time to time (b) eating it, and (c) water drinking by measure, from time to time (d) drinking it (Ezek 4:10–11). The particular motif of Edom being related to Esau (‫עשו‬: Deut 2:4) could have been borrowed from Jer 49:8.10 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh blessing Israel during Israel’s going through the great wilderness, presumably around Mount Seir/hairy (‫שעיר‬: cf. Deut 2:1), (b) during the forty years, presumably of his exile (Deut 2:7a–c), illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man and the Israelites eating barley/hairy (‫ )שערה‬cakes, (b) baked on human dung, unclean, among the pagans, among whom the Israelites will be scattered (Ezek 4:12–13). The particular motif of Yahweh leading Israel through the wilderness forty years (‫ ארבעים שנה‬+ ‫ מדבר‬+ ‫הלך‬: Deut 2:7) was borrowed from Amos 2:10. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh, Israel’s God, being with Israel, and (b) Israel lacking (‫ )חסר‬nothing (Deut 2:7de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but partly corrective way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh, the son of man’s Lord, letting the son of man not defile himself, and (b) the Jerusalemites lacking bread and water (Ezek 4:14–17). The subsequent idea of the Israelites passing (‫ )עבר‬by their brothers who dwell in Seir/hairy (Deut 2:8ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man letting a sword pass over his head and his beard, and dividing the hair (Ezek 5:1).

33 Cf. D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9 (2nd ed., WBC 6A; Word Books: Dallas, TX 2001), 34, 42.

48

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

The subsequent idea of the Israelites passing by three regions: (a) the way of the Arabah, so ‘the dry desert,’ (b) Elath, so ‘a mighty tree,’ and (c) Ezion-geber, so ‘the bushes of a strong man’ (Deut 2:8b), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the inhabitants of Jerusalem going through three calamities: (a) being burned with fire, (b) a sword striking around it, and (c) a sword being unsheathed after them (Ezek 5:2). The subsequent idea of Yahweh commanding Moses not to attack Moab (‫צר‬ ‫את‬: Deut 2:8c–9c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh commanding the son of man to encircle them (*‫צר‬ *‫)אות‬, presumably the small number of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in the skirts of his garment (Ezek 5:3). The subsequent idea of Yahweh not giving possession to Israel (Deut 2:9d) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh causing fire to come out against the whole house of Israel (Ezek 5:4). The subsequent ideas of the land (‫ )ארץ‬of Moab, and Yahweh giving Ar as a possession to the pagan sons of Lot (Deut 2:9de) conceptually and linguistically illustrate the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh setting Jerusalem in the midst of pagan nations and their lands all around her (Ezek 5:5). The particular motif of the Moabite city of Ar (‫ ער‬+ ‫מואב‬: Deut 2:9) could have been borrowed from Isa 15:1. The subsequent idea of terrifying giants once dwelling in Moab and Seir (Deut 2:10–12a) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of wicked nations living all around Jerusalem (Ezek 5:6–7). The particular motif of Rephaim (‫רפאים‬: Deut 2:11) could have been borrowed from Isa 14:9. The subsequent idea of Israel doing (‫ )עשה‬harm to the land of his possession, which Yahweh gave to them, by dispossessing and destroying its inhabitants, just as the sons of Esau did (Deut 2:12b–f), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh doing judgements in Jerusalem in the sight of the pagan nations (Ezek 5:8–10c). The subsequent idea of Yahweh commanding the presumably remaining (cf. Deut 2:14) Israelites to arise and cross over the Wadi Zered (‫)זרד‬, so they crossed over the Wadi Zered (‫זרד‬: Deut 2:13), conceptually and partly linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh scattering (‫ )זרה‬the remainders from Jerusalem to every wind (Ezek 5:10d). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the time of the Israelites’ going from Kadesh (‫ )מקדש‬Barnea (b) until they crossed over the Wadi Zered (‫ )זרד‬being thirty (*‫)שלשי‬-eight (diff. Deut 2:7 etc.: forty) years (Deut 2:14ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Jerusalem defiling Yahweh’s sanctuary (‫)מקדש‬, so (b)

Deut 2:17–3:29 (cf. Ezek 7:1–8:2a)

49

Yahweh punishing three thirds (*‫ )שלשי‬of them and scattering (‫ )זרה‬them to every wind, but his punishment being limited (Ezek 5:11–13c). The subsequent idea of the whole generation of the men of war perishing from the midst (‫ )קרב‬of the camp, just as Yahweh had sworn to them (‫להם‬: Deut 2:14cd), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh destroying by the sword (Ezek 5:17; 6:3.8.11–12) the Israelites who were near (‫קרוב‬: Ezek 6:12), so the Israelites knew that Yahweh had sworn (cf. Ezek 5:11) and had spoken to them (Ezek 5:13d–6:13; esp. 6:10; cf. 5:13.15.17). The subsequent idea of (a) the hand (‫ )יד‬of Yahweh being against the Israelites, so that (b) all the men of war perished from among (c) the people (Deut 2:15– 16), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh stretching out his hand against the Israelites, so that (b) the land was desolate and waste (c) in all the Israelites’ settlements (Ezek 6:14).

1.5. Deut 2:17–3:29 (cf. Ezek 7:1–8:2a) The section Deut 2:17–3:29 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 7:1–8:2a. The opening idea of Yahweh speaking to Moses, saying, ‘You…’ (‫וידבר יהוה‬ ‫אלי לאמר אתה‬: Deut 2:17–18a) conceptually and linguistically, almost verbatim illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of the coming of the speech of Yahweh to the son of man, saying, ‘And you…’ (‫וי* דבר־יהוה אלי לאמר ואתה‬: Ezek 7:1–2a). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites today approaching the sons of Ammon, and (b) in the land (‫ )ארץ‬of (1.) the sons of Ammon, which is also regarded as the land (‫ )ארץ‬of (2.) Rephaim, also called (3.) Zamzummim, who were as tall as (4.) the Anakim, (c) Yahweh (Deut 2:21–22; diff. 2:12: the sons of Esau)34 destroying its inhabitants, and (d) the Caphtorim doing likewise to the ‘doing wrongly’ Avvim (Deut 2:18–23) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the end coming (b) upon the four corners of the land, and (c) Yahweh sending his anger against it and (d) judging it according to its ways (Ezek 7:2–3c). The particular motif of the inhabitants of Gaza, so the Philistines, originating from Caphtor (‫מכפתור‬: Deut 2:23), was borrowed from Amos 9:7; Jer 47:4–5.

34 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 67; S. Paganini, Deuteronomio, 117; L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 186.

50

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced at this point (diff. Deut 2:31: after Sihon’s refusal),35 idea of (a) the Israelites crossing over the Wadi Arnon, and Yahweh giving (‫ )נתתי‬into Israel’s hand (b) him (‫)את‬, that is, the pagan king Sihon and his land (Deut 2:24a–e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh giving upon the land (cf. Ezek 7:2) (b) them (‫)את‬, that is, all its abominations (Ezek 7:3d). The subsequent idea of Yahweh commanding Israel to begin to possess its future territory and to engage in battle against a pagan king whom Yahweh gave in his hand (Deut 2:24f–h; cf. 2:24e) with the use of the motif of Israel’s eye having no pity on the pagans whom Yahweh gives in his hand (*‫לא־תחס עינ* עלי‬: Deut 7:16) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh’s eye having no pity on the land of Israel (Ezek 7:4). The particular motif of Israel taking possession of the land of the Amorites (‫ ירש‬+ *‫ את־ארצ‬+ ‫האמרי‬: Deut 2:24) was borrowed from Amos 2:10. The subsequent idea of this day (‫)היום‬36 Yahweh beginning to put the dread and fear of Israel upon the pagan peoples (Deut 2:25) conceptually and linguistically, with the use of the motif of Yahweh causing panic (‫ )מהומה‬in the pagan nations (Deut 7:23), illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the coming of the day of panic (Ezek 7:5–7; esp. 7:7). The subsequent idea of Israel peacefully going on the way (‫דרך‬: Deut 2:27), but Yahweh punishing Sihon for the hardness of his heart and giving (‫נתן‬: Deut 2:30–31) him in Israel’s hand (Deut 2:26–31) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh judging the Israelite and giving to him according to his ways, to his budding insolence (Ezek 7:8–10). The subsequent idea of (a) king Sihon coming out against Israel, (b) he and all (‫ )כל־‬his people, (c) for battle (‫למלחמה‬: Deut 2:32) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the rising up of violence of a wicked rod, (b) Yahweh’s anger being against all the multitude (Ezek 7:12–14), so although they made all of them ready to fight (Ezek 7:14ab), (c) no one went for battle (Ezek 7:11–14; esp. 7:14c).

35 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 65; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 177; A. Roskop Erisman, ‘Transjordan in Deuteronomy: The Promised Land and the Formation of the Pentateuch,’ JBL 132 (2013) 769–789 (esp. 773–774). 36 Cf. A. Roskop Erisman, ‘Transjordan,’ 774.

Deut 2:17–3:29 (cf. Ezek 7:1–8:2a)

51

The subsequent idea of striking Sihon and all his people (Deut 2:33) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of those in the field dying with the sword (Ezek 7:15a–d). The subsequent idea of capturing all the cities (‫ )עיר‬and utterly destroying the inhabitants of every city (‫עיר‬: Deut 2:34ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of whoever is in the city, famine and pestilence devouring him (Ezek 7:15f–18; esp. 7:15fg). The particular motif of putting under destructive a ban (‫חרם‬: Deut 2:34) could have been borrowed from Isa 34:2 etc. The subsequent idea of not (‫ )לא‬leaving any survivor (Deut 2:34c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the pagans’ silver and gold not being able to rescue them, to satisfy their needs, or to fill their stomach (Ezek 7:19–20). The subsequent idea of taking only the pagans’ livestock as plunder (‫ )בזז‬and spoil (‫שלל‬: Deut 2:35–37; esp. 2:35) conceptually and linguistically, in a corrective way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh giving the pagan silver and gold as plunder (‫ )בז‬and spoil to foreigners (Ezek 7:21). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly partly repeated (cf. Deut 2:32–37)37 idea of (a) turning (‫פנה‬: Deut 3:1) and going (b) northward to Bashan, Hermon, and the Sidonians (‫צידני‬: Deut 3:1–10; esp. 3:9) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) turning face (‫ )פנה‬and defiling (b) the northern/hidden (‫ )צפוני‬ones with violence (Ezek 7:22). The motif of the norther king Og (‫עוג‬: Deut 3:1–13) may be a reworking of the Ezekielian motif of the norther king Gog (‫גוג‬: Ezek 38:2–39:11). The subsequent idea of Og being a giant and having a great iron couch38 in the city of Rabbah (Deut 3:11) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of making a presumably iron chain, and the city being full of blood and violence (Ezek 7:23). The subsequent idea of taking possession (‫ )ירש‬of (‫ )את־‬Og’s land (Deut 3:12a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of foreigners taking possession of Israel’s houses (Ezek 7:24ab). The subsequent idea of Moses giving portions of land to Israel’s tribes (diff. Deut 3:8.12a: themselves taking),39 and only Jair proudly taking a part of the land 37 Cf. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 48; T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 68; L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 199, 230. 38 Cf. M.  Lindquist, ‘King Og’s Iron Bed,’ CBQ 73 (2011) 477–492 (esp.  484–488); J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 215; L. Quick, ‘Laying Og to Rest: Deuteronomy and the Making of a Myth,’ Bib 98 (2017) 161–172 (esp. 167). 39 Cf. L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 249–250.

52

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

for himself and calling it after his name (Deut 3:12b–17) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh putting an end to the presumption of the strong ones (Ezek 7:24c–27; esp. 7:24c). The subsequent idea of Moses acting at that time (Deut 3:18ab) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of it coming to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, on the fifth day of the month (Ezek 8:1a). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving this land to Israelite tribes to possess it, but (b) the warriors of Israelite tribes passing before (‫ )לפני‬their brothers Israelites, and (a’) only their relatives and livestock remaining (‫ )ישב‬in (‫ )ב‬the cities which Moses gave them (Deut 3:18–20; esp. 3:18–19) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man remaining in his house, and (b) the elders of the tribe of Judah being before him (Ezek 8:1bc). The particular motif of Yahweh giving rest to the Israelites (*‫*ניח יהוה ל‬: Deut 3:20) was borrowed from Isa 14:3. The subsequent idea of Yahweh fighting for the Israelites in the place in which Joshua crosses over there (‫שמה‬: Deut 3:21–22; esp. 3:21) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh acting upon the son of man there (‫שם‬: Ezek 8:1d). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of the Lord Yahweh (‫)אדני יהוה‬40 showing his mighty hand (‫יד‬: Deut 3:23–24; esp. 3:24) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the hand of the Lord Yahweh being upon the son of man (Ezek 8:1d). The particular motif of Yahweh’s mighty hand (‫ חזקה‬+ ‫יד‬: Deut 3:24) was borrowed from Jer 32:21; Ezek 20:33–34 (cf. Ezek 3:14). The subsequent idea of Moses wanting to see (‫ואראה‬: Deut 3:25) the promised land, but seeing (‫ )ראה‬it only from afar (Deut 3:25–29; esp. 3:27–28) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man prophetically seeing (‫ואראה‬: Ezek 8:2a). The particular motif of Yahweh calling the prophet in a vision to see the land with his eyes (‫ראה בעיניך‬: Deut 3:27) was borrowed from Ezek 40:4; 44:5. The motif of strengthening and making firm (‫ אמץ‬+ ‫חזק‬: Deut 3:28) could have been borrowed from Isa 35:3 etc.

1.6. Deut 4:1–40 (cf. Ezek 8:2b–10:17) The section Deut 4:1–40 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 8:2b–10:17.

40 Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 270.

Deut 4:1–40 (cf. Ezek 8:2b–10:17)

53

The idea of the Israelites seeing (‫ )ראה‬Yahweh’s actions (Deut 4:3.9; cf. 4:5)41 and being called not to commit idolatry (Deut 4:3–4) but to listen to his words (Deut 4:1–10; esp. 4:1–2.5–10) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the Ezekielian thought that behold, Yahweh’s revelation consisted in the fact that there was merely a shape resembling something seen (‫מראה‬: Ezek 8:2b). The particular motif of Israel being called to do Yahweh’s statutes and judgements (‫ עשה‬+ ‫ משפטים‬+ ‫חקים‬: Deut 4:1) was borrowed from Ezek 36:27 (cf. 11:12). The motif of the Israelites living in the promised land (‫למען תחיו‬: Deut 4:1) was borrowed from Jer 35:7. The motif of the words which Yahweh commands not being diminished (*‫ תגרע‬+ ‫ צוה‬+ ‫הדבר* אשר‬: Deut 4:2) was borrowed from Jer 26:2.42 The motif of the Israelites committing idolatry in/with Baal-Peor (‫בעל־‬ ‫פעור‬: Deut 4:3) was borrowed from Hos 9:10. The motif of keeping and doing Yahweh’s statutes and judgements (‫ עשה‬+ ‫ שמר‬+ ‫ משפטים‬+ *‫חק‬: Deut 4:5–6) was borrowed from Ezek 11:20 etc. The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the mountain burning with fire (‫אש‬: Deut 4:11), and (b) the Israelites seeing no form in the midst of the fire (‫אש‬: Deut 4:11–15; esp. 4:12.15)43 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man seeing something like fire and (b) something merely resembling loins in the midst of fire (Ezek 8:2b). The particular motif of darkness, cloud, and thick darkness (‫ ענן וערפל‬+ ‫חשך‬: Deut 4:11) may have been borrowed from Zeph 1:15. The motif of writing Yahweh’s message on tablets (‫ לחות‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫כתב‬: Deut 4:13) may have been borrowed from Hab 2:2. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites being forbidden from making any statue (‫ )סמל‬of (b) the shape (‫ )תבנית‬of a phallus or (c) a deflowered vagina (Deut

41 Cf. N.  L.  DeLapp, Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch:  Visions of YHWH (LHBOTS 660; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2018), 135. 42 Pace E. Otto, ‘Jeremia und die Tora: Ein nachexilischer Diskurs,’ in id., Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften (BZABR 9; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2009), 515–560 (esp. 530, 535); R. Achenbach, ‘ “The Unwritten Text of the Covenant”: Torah in the Mouth of the Prophets,’ in R. J. Bautch and G. N. Knoppers (eds.), Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2015), 93–107 (esp. 103), who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 43 Cf. D. E. Grant, ‘Fire and the Body of Yahweh,’ JSOT 40.2 (2015) 139–161 (esp. 157– 158); R. Achenbach, ‘The Empty Throne and the Empty Sanctuary: From Aniconism to the Invisibility of God in Second Temple Theology,’ in N. MacDonald (ed.), Ritual Innovation in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism (BZAW 468; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2016), 35–53 (esp. 48–49); N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic, 136–138.

54

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

4:16) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (b) stretching out the shape of a hand/penis (Ezek 8:3), (a) a pagan statue provoking to jealousy (Ezek 8:3.5),44 as well as (c) seeing a hole, digging through it, and coming in (Ezek 8:3–9; esp. 8:7–9). The particular motif of the Israelites being forbidden from making a divine image (‫ פסל‬+ ‫ עשה‬: Deut 4:16) was borrowed from Isa 44:15.17. From the linguistic point of view, the word ‫‘( סמל‬statue’) occurs in the Hebrew Bible, apart from the evidently later texts 2 Chr 33:7.15, only in Deut 4:16 and Ezek 8:3.5. In Ezek 8:3.5, it is used in a natural way as referring to a pagan divine statue. Accordingly, it was most likely borrowed by the author of Deuteronomy from the book of Ezekiel,45 a fact which linguistically corroborates the hypothesis of the dependence of Deuteronomy on the book of Ezekiel. The subsequent idea of the Israelites being forbidden from making the shape (‫ )תבנית‬of every (‫ )כל־‬animal (‫)בהמה‬, the shape (‫ )תבנית‬of every (‫ )כל־‬creeping thing (‫רמש‬: Deut 4:17–18) conceptually and linguistically, in a reordered way, beginning from the animals on the earth and then moving downward from the air to under the earth, illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Israelites worshipping every shape of creeping thing and animal (Ezek 8:10–11; esp. 8:10).46 The subsequent idea of the Israelite lifting his eyes to heaven and seeing (‫)ראה‬ objects of idol worship (Deut 4:19ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man seeing objects of idol worship, venerated in the dark (Ezek 8:12–15). The subsequent idea of the Israelite being tempted to worship the sun (‫)שמש‬ and other pagan deities (Deut 4:19b–23c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Israelites worshipping the sun (Ezek 8:16).47 The particular motif of the Israelites worshipping and serving the sun, the moon, and all the host of heaven (+ ‫ השתחו* להם‬+ ‫ כל צבא השמים‬+ ‫ ירח‬+ ‫שמש‬ 44 Cf. G. Braulik, ‘Deuteronomium 4 und das gegossene Kalb: Zum Geschichtsgehalt paränetischen Rede,’ in id., Studien zu Buch und Sprache des Deuteronomiums (SBAB 63; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2016), 75–87 (esp. 79 n. 11). 45 Pace T.  Ganzel, ‘Transformation of Pentateuchal Descriptions of Idolatry,’ in W. A. Tooman and M. A. Lyons (eds.), Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel (PTMS 127; Pickwick: Eugene, OR 2010), 33–49 (esp. 36), who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence. 46 Pace ibid. 36–38, suggesting the reverse direction of borrowing. 47 Pace ibid. 36, 38, suggesting the reverse direction of borrowing.

Deut 4:1–40 (cf. Ezek 8:2b–10:17)

55

‫עבד*ם‬: Deut 4:19) was borrowed from Jer 8:2. The motif of Yahweh bringing the Israelites out of the iron-smelter, out of Egypt, to be a people for him (‫ ל* לעם‬+ ‫ היה‬+ ‫ ממצרים‬+ ‫ מכור הברזל‬+ ‫ את‬+ ‫יצא‬: Deut 4:20) was borrowed from Jer 11:448 and conflated with Isa 47:6 etc. (‫ נחלה‬+ ‫)עם‬. The motif of the covenant which Yahweh made with the Israelites (*‫ אשר כרת‬+ ‫ברית‬: Deut 4:23) was borrowed from Jer 11:10 etc. The subsequent idea of the Israelites doing (‫ )עשה‬an idolatrous object and doing (‫ )עשה‬evil (Deut 4:23d–25e) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Israelites doing idolatrous abominations (Ezek 8:17a–e). The particular motif of the Israelites doing evil in the sight of Yahweh (‫עשי*ם הרע בעיני‬: Deut 4:25) was borrowed from Jer 32:30 etc. The subsequent idea of the Israelites acting to provoke Yahweh to anger (*‫להכעיס‬: Deut 4:25f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Israelites filling the land with violence and returning to provoke Yahweh to anger (Ezek 8:17f–18; esp. 8:17h).49 The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh calling to witness (b) against (‫ )ב‬the Israelites (c) heaven and earth (Deut 4:26a) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh calling (b) in (‫ )ב‬the son of man’s hearing (c) with a loud voice (Ezek 9:1ab). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites surely soon perishing (b) from above (‫ )מעל‬the land (c) which (‫ )אשר‬was theirs (Deut 4:26b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the approaching of armed men who were about to destroy the Jerusalemites (Ezek 9:1–2), and (b) Yahweh’s glory going up from above the cherub, (c) above (‫)על‬ which it had been (Ezek 9:1c–3; esp. 9:3). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites passing (‫ )עבר‬through the Jordan (b) to the promised land (c) to possess it (Deut 4:26cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) a chosen man passing in the midst of the city, (b) in the midst of Jerusalem, and (c) making a mark, presumably of possession, on the righteous men (Ezek 9:4). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites not prolonging days but (b) being utterly exterminated (Deut 4:26ef) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the destroyers striking and not sparing the Jerusalemites,

4 8 Pace G. Fischer, ‘Einfluss,’ 248–249, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 49 Pace T. Ganzel, ‘Transformation,’ 38, who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence.

56

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

both old and young, (b) killing them to destruction and filling the courts with the slain (Ezek 9:5–8b). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh scattering the Israelites among the peoples, and there remaining (*‫( )ונשאר‬b) men of (c) a small number (Deut 4:27ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the exiled son of man remaining (b) himself only, (c) representing the remnant (*‫ )שאר‬of Israel (Ezek 9:8c–i). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh driving the Israelites among other nations, (b) where they would be punished with worshipping pagan gods (Deut 4:27c–28),50 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh apparently leaving the land of Israel and (b) not sparing the Israelites but punishing them for their presumably idolatrous ways (Ezek 9:9–10). The particular motif of the pagan gods being the work of human hands, objects of wood and stone (‫ מעשה ידי אדם עץ ואבן‬+ ‫אלהים‬: Deut 4:28), was borrowed from Isa 37:19. The subsequent, prophetic idea of foretelling Israel’s conversion in the future and recalling Yahweh’s actions in the past (Deut 4:29–34) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the activity of a priest with a scribe’s equipment, so presumably a priestly scriptural prophet (Ezek 9:11). Therefore, the particular motif of the exiled Israelites seeking Yahweh and finding him if they search him with all their hearts (‫ ומצאת * כי‬+ ‫ את‬+ ‫ובקשתם‬ *‫תדרשנ* בכל לבבכ‬: Deut 4:29) was borrowed from Jer 29:1351 and conflated with Hos 3:5 (*‫ את־יהוה אלהי‬+ *‫)ובקש‬. The motif of something happening at the end of the days (‫באחרית הימים‬: Deut 4:30) was borrowed from the prophetic texts Hos 3:5; Isa 2:2; etc. Likewise, the motif of Israel returning to Yahweh his God (‫ עד יהוה אלהיך‬+ ‫שוב‬: Deut 4:30) was borrowed from Hos 14:2 etc. The motif of Israel listening to the voice of Yahweh his God (‫ בקל‬+ *‫שמע* יהוה אלהיכ‬: Deut 4:30) is typically Jeremianic (cf. Jer 26:13 etc.). The motif of the covenant of Israel’s fathers, which Yahweh made with them (‫ שמע* בקל‬+ *‫יהוה אלהיכ‬: Deut 4:31), is likewise typically Jeremianic (cf. Jer 34:13 etc.). The motif of God creating (‫ אלהים‬+ ‫ברא‬: Deut 4:32) was borrowed from Isa 45:18 and conflated with Isa 45:12 (‫ ארץ‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫ אדם‬+ ‫)ברא‬. 5 0 Cf. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 68; T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 108. 51 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1, 574–575. Pace G. Fischer, ‘‫ותפשי התורה לא‬ ‫ידעוני‬: The Relationship of the Book of Jeremiah to the Torah,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (FAT 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 891–911 (esp. 903); N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy and the Emergence of Textual Authority in Jeremiah (FAT 2.87; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 195–200, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing.

Deut 4:1–40 (cf. Ezek 8:2b–10:17)

57

The motif of Yahweh acting in Egypt with signs and wonders, with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, and with great terrors (‫ וביד חזקה‬+ ‫באתת ובמופתים‬ ‫ מצרים‬+ *‫וב*זרוע נטויה ובמורא* גדול‬: Deut 4:34) was borrowed from Jer 32:21.52 The subsequent idea of Israel seeing (‫)ראה‬53 and knowing that there is no other god beside Yahweh,54 who somewhat surprisingly speaks from heaven (Deut 4:35–36b; diff. 4:12.15.33.36d: out of the fire),55 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man seeing Yahweh’s splendour in the firmament above the cherubim and seeing something which could be seen (‫ )מראה‬like a throne (Ezek 10:1). The particular motif of Yahweh being God, and there being no other apart from him (‫ מ*די‬+ ‫ אין עוד‬+ ‫ אלהים‬+ ‫יהוה‬: Deut 4:35) was borrowed from Isa 45:21 etc.56 The subsequent idea of Yahweh letting Israel see his great fire (‫ )אש‬on earth (Deut 4:36c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the priestly figure, in the sight of the son of man, taking charcoals of fire from under the cherub and scattering them over the city (Ezek 10:2–4; esp. 10:2). The subsequent idea of Israel hearing (‫ )שמע‬Yahweh’s words (‫דבר‬: Deut 4:36d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man hearing the sound of the wings, like the voice of God Almighty while speaking (‫דבר‬: Ezek 10:5). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Deut 4:36c) idea of coming out of the fire (‫האש‬: Deut 4:36d; diff. 4:36a: from heaven)57 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian, partly repeated (cf. Ezek 10:2) idea of commanding the priestly figure to take fire, and the priestly figure taking the fire and going out (Ezek 10:6–7). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of something occurring under (‫ )תחת‬Yahweh’s love and election (Deut 4:37ab) conceptually and

5 2 Pace G. Fischer, ‘Einfluss,’ 250–251, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 53 Cf. N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic, 140, who rightly argues that the form used in Deut 4:35 (‫ )הראת‬should be understood as hiphil. 54 Cf. N. MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism” (FAT 2.1; 2nd ed., Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 84. 55 Cf. L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 364; N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic, 140–141. 56 Cf. G. Braulik, ‘Hat Gott die Religionen der Völker gestiftet? Deuteronomium 4,19 im Kontext von Kultbilderverbot und Monotheismus,’ in id., Tora und Fest: Aufsätze zum Deuteronomium und zur Liturgie (SBAB 69; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2019), 142–251 (esp. 232). 57 Cf. L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 364.

58

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of something appearing under the wings of the cherubim (Ezek 10:8). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh bringing Israel out (b) with his face (‫פנה‬: Deut 4:37c)58 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the wheels going to the place which (b) the head was facing (‫פנה‬: Ezek 10:9–11; esp. 10:11). The subsequent idea of Yahweh’s great strength (Deut 4:37c) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the cherubim’s body, back, hands, wings, and eyes (Ezek 10:12–13; esp. 10:12). The subsequent idea of Yahweh dispossessing nations greater and mightier than Israel from before his face (*‫פני‬: Deut 4:38a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the cherubim having four dangerous faces (Ezek 10:14). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh bringing Israel in and (b) giving him the pagans’ land as an inheritance (Deut 4:38bc) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the cherubim lifting up (b) as by the River Chebar (Ezek 10:15). The subsequent idea of Yahweh being God in heaven from (‫ )מן‬above (‫)מעל‬ and above the earth (‫ )על־הארץ‬from beneath (Deut 4:39) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the cherubim going and lifting their wings to rise up from above the earth (Ezek 10:16a–d). The concluding idea of (a) Israel keeping Yahweh’s statutes and commandments, and (b) prolonging days (Deut 4:40) sequentially illustrates the concluding Ezekielian idea of (a) the wheels not turning aside but staying still or lifting up in accordance with the cherubim because (b) the spirit of a living being was in them (Ezek 10:16e–17). The particular motif of Israel living on the ground which Yahweh gave to him (*‫ לכ‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫על־האדמה אשר‬: Deut 4:40) was borrowed from Jer 25:5 etc.

1.7.  Deut 4:41–49 (cf. Ezek 10:18–11:3) The section Deut 4:41–49 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 10:18–11:3. The idea of (a) Moses separating (b) three cities in the east (Deut 4:41) sequentially illustrates the Ezekielian idea of (a) the glory of Yahweh departing and standing (b) at the eastern gate of the sanctuary of Yahweh, as it was by

58 Cf. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 70; T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 118.

Deut 5:1–6:3 (cf. Ezek 11:4–20c)

59

the River Chebar, and the cherubim having three parts: 1. faces, 2. wings, and 3. hands (Ezek 10:18–22b). The subsequent idea of being located on the farther, presumably eastern59 side of (‫ )עבר‬the Jordan (Deut 4:41) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of each one going farther, presumably eastward (Ezek 10:22c). The subsequent idea of an innocent manslayer fleeing there, that is, to the eastern cities (Deut 4:42a–e), illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the spirit lifting and bringing the son of man to the eastern gate of the sanctuary (Ezek 11:1a–c). The subsequent idea of (a) fleeing to one of the cities of refuge, presumably being acquitted in its gate,60 and (b) living in one of the principal cities of the Israelites (Deut 4:42f–43; esp.  4:42fg) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) men being at the door of the gate, one of them bearing the name Pelatiah, that is, ‘Yahweh enabled an escape,’ and (b) being princes of the people (Ezek 11:1de). The subsequent idea of (a) the testimonies, the statutes, and the judgements which Moses spoke (b) to (‫( )אל‬c) the sons (‫ )בן‬of Israel (Deut 4:44–45; esp. 4:45) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh speaking (b) to (c) the son of man (Ezek 11:2a). The subsequent idea of (a) the Amorites who dwelt (b) in the linguistically ‘devising’ city of Heshbon (*‫חשב‬: Deut 4:46a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the men (b) devising iniquity in this city (Ezek 11:2b–d). The subsequent idea of defeating the king of Heshbon and another king (Deut 4:46b–49) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the devising men predicting that they will be totally defeated (Ezek 11:3; cf. 24:2–11).

1.8.  Deut 5:1–6:3 (cf. Ezek 11:4–20c) The section Deut 5:1–6:3 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 11:4–20c. The opening idea of (a) Moses prophetically announcing to (‫ אל‬+ ‫קרא‬: cf. Isa 40:2) all Israel and (b) speaking (‫ )אמר‬to them (Deut 5:1ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of (a) 59 Cf. D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, 99; E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1, 599; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 259. 60 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1, 600.

60

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

the son of man prophesying with regard to Israel and (b) speaking to the house of Israel (Ezek 11:4–5c). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel (‫ )ישראל‬being called to hear the Mosaic statutes and judgements, (b) Moses (‫ )אנכי‬speaking to their ears, and (c) the Israelites learning the judgements (d) to do them (Deut 5:1c–g) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh authoritatively speaking to Israel through the son of man, (b) Yahweh (‫ )אני‬knowing their ascending thoughts, and (c) explaining a didactic metaphor as condemning the Israelites and (d) fulfilled upon them (Ezek 11:5d–7). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh making a covenant at Horeb (‫חרב‬: Deut 5:2), (b) the Israelites being afraid of (‫יראתם‬: Deut 5:5) the destructive fire and (c) not going up (‫ )עלה‬the mountain (Deut 5:2–5d; esp. 5:5) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the sword (‫חרב‬: Ezek 11:8; cf. 11:10) which (b) the Israelites were afraid of (c) coming upon (‫על‬: Ezek 11:8) the Israelites, who were judged on the territory of Israel (Ezek 11:8–11). The particular motif of Yahweh Israel’s God making a covenant with the Israelites’ fathers and saying that he brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves (‫ אנכי‬+ *‫ את־אבותי‬+ ‫ ברית‬+ ‫ כרת‬+ *‫יהוה אלהי‬ ‫ מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים‬+ *‫ הוצא‬+: Deut 5:2–3.6), was borrowed from Jer 34:13. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh saying, (b) ‘I am Yahweh your God, who…’ (‫ אשר‬+ ‫אנ*י יהוה‬: Deut 5:5e–6a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelites knowing that (b) ‘I am Yahweh, who…’ (Ezek 11:12ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh bringing Israel out of (b) the land of Egypt, (c) the house of slaves/workers (Deut 5:6b), in a sequential but corrective way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelites not going in Yahweh’s statutes but (b) according to the judgements of the surrounding nations (c) doing (Ezek 11:12c–e). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of Yahweh saying that (a) there will be (‫( )היה‬b) no other, presumably rival gods (c) on his face (‫על־פני‬: Deut 5:7)61 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian thought that (a) it was so that (b) the rival of Yahweh’s prophet died, and (c) he fell on his face (Ezek 11:13a–d).

61 Cf. D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, 114; D. Markl, Der Dekalog als Verfassung des Gottesvolkes: Die Brennpunkte einer Rechtshermeneutik des Pentateuch in Exodus 19–24 und Deuteronomium 5 (HeBS 49; Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau 2007), 213; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 278.

Deut 5:1–6:3 (cf. Ezek 11:4–20c)

61

The subsequent idea of Israel worshipping and serving no idol image, but only Yahweh his God (Deut 5:8–9c) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man crying with a loud voice to Yahweh as his Lord (Ezek 11:13e–g). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh punishing the iniquity of the fathers on the following generations but (b) making (‫ )עשה‬graciousness to (c) those who love him and keep his commandments (Deut 5:9d–10) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) a complete destruction which (b) Yahweh is making to (c) the remnant of Israel (Ezek 11:13h). The particular motif of Yahweh punishing for iniquity (‫פקד עון‬: Deut 5:9) was borrowed from Isa 26:21. The motif of Yahweh punishing the iniquity of the fathers on the children, but making graciousness to thousands (+ ‫עון אבות‬ ‫ עשה חסד לאלפים‬+ ‫בני*ם‬: Deut 5:9–10) was borrowed from Jer 32:18.62 The subsequent, somewhat surprising in terms of Yahweh speaking of himself no more in 1. pers. (Deut 5:6–10) but in 3. pers.,63 idea of not carrying the name of Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬in vain because Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬does not acquit anyone who carries his name in vain (Deut 5:11) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the coming of the word of Yahweh to the son of man (Ezek 11:14). The subsequent, centrifugal64 idea of an Israelite with his descendants (‫)*ך‬, his dependants (‫)*ך‬, his livestock (‫)*ך‬, and his resident alien (‫ )*ך‬within his gates (‫)*ך‬65 commonly observing the Sabbath day (Deut 5:12–14; esp. 5:14) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian, likewise centrifugal idea of the son of man with his brothers, his relatives, the people of his kindred, all the house of Israel in its entirety (Ezek 11:15a). The particular motif of observing the Sabbath and keeping it holy (‫ את־‬+ ‫שמר‬ ‫ קדש‬+ ‫ שבת‬+: Deut 5:12) was borrowed from Ezek 44:24 and conflated with Jer

62 Pace N.  Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 161–162, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 63 Cf. F.-L. Hossfeld, Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen (OBO 45; Universitätsverlag:  Freiburg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1982), 244; E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 2, 4,44–11,32 (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2012), 734. 64 Cf. M. A. Awabdy, Immigrants and Innovative Law: Deuteronomy’s Theological and Social Vision for the ‫( גר‬FAT 2.67; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2014), 44–45. 65 Pace ibid., 116, the resident alien (‫ )גר‬in Deuteronomy is not necessarily a non-Israelite. Cf. M. Glanville, ‘The Gēr (Stranger) in Deuteronomy: Family for the Displaced,’ JBL 137 (2018) 599–623 (esp. 603–604).

62

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

17:22.24 (*‫ כאשר צו‬+ *‫ לקדש‬+ ‫)את־יום השבת‬.66 The motif of the Israelite working six days and making their work (‫ *עשה‬+ *‫ששת ימי‬: Deut 5:13) was borrowed from Ezek 46:1. The motif of the Israelite not doing any work on the day of the Sabbath (‫ כל־מלאכה‬+ *‫ לא תעש‬+ ‫שבת‬: Deut 5:14) was again borrowed from Jer 17:22.24 (cf. its earlier use in Deut 5:12).67 The subsequent idea of recalling the fact that Israel was once a slave in the land (‫ )בארץ‬of Egypt (Deut 5:15ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of recalling the fact that the house of Israel was once in Jerusalem as away from its possessed land (Ezek 11:15), it was scattered in the lands (‫ )בארצות‬of the pagans, and Yahweh was with them in the lands (‫ )בארצות‬to which they came (Ezek 11:15–16; esp. 11:16). The subsequent idea of Yahweh bringing Israel out from (‫ )מן‬there, that is, from the land of Egypt (Deut 5:15c–e)68 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh gathering the Israelites from the peoples and assembling them from the lands in which they were scattered (Ezek 11:17a–e). The subsequent idea of the Israelite honouring the father and the mother, and therefore it being well with him on the ground (‫ )אדמה‬which Yahweh gives him (*‫נת* לכ‬: Deut 5:16) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh giving to the Israelites the ground of Israel (Ezek 11:17f). The particular motif of Israel doing what Yahweh commanded him and therefore it being well with him (*‫ למען ייטב לכ‬+ ‫צוה‬: Deut 5:16) was borrowed from Jer 7:23. The subsequent idea of saying that the Israelite shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, testify as false witness, covet the wife of the neighbour, or desire his property (Deut 5:17–21) with the use of the slightly reordered motif of stealing, murdering, committing adultery (‫ נאף‬+ ‫ רצח‬+ ‫)גנב‬, and swearing falsely, sins regarded as abominations (‫תועבות‬: Jer 7:9–10), illustrates the subsequent

66 Pace N.  Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 141–143, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 67 Pace ibid., suggesting the reverse direction of borrowing. 68 It is worth noting that the Deuteronomic connection between the exodus from Egypt and the day of the Sabbath (Deut 5:15), most probably still partly understood in terms of the day of the Sabbath as the day of the full moon (cf. Hos 2:13; Amos 8:5; Isa 1:13; Ezek 45:17–24; cf. also Akk. šapattu), can be traced in the later texts Exod 12:6 etc. Cf. E. Nodet, A Search for the Origin of Judaism: From Joshua to Mishnah, trans. E. Crowley (JSOTSup 248; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1997), 108–109.

Deut 5:1–6:3 (cf. Ezek 11:4–20c)

63

Ezekielian idea of predicting that the Israelites will remove from Israel all detestable things and all abominations (Ezek 11:18). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh speaking to the whole congregation of the Israelites, (b) writing durable tablets with Yahweh’s words69 and (c) giving (‫)נתן‬ them to Moses (Deut 5:22), (d) the Israelite leaders approaching (‫ )קרב‬Moses (Deut 5:23), (e) the Israelites hearing Yahweh and living, being flesh (‫בשר‬: Deut 5:24–28; esp. 5:26), and (f) someone giving (‫ )נתן‬that the Israelites would have their heart (‫ )לבב‬to fear Yahweh and to keep his commandments (Deut 5:22–30; esp. 5:29) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh giving to the Israelites one heart (‫)לב‬, (c) giving (b) a new spirit (d) in the midst (‫ )קרב‬of them, (e) removing the heart (‫)לב‬ of stone from their flesh, and (f) giving them a heart (‫ )לב‬of flesh (Ezek 11:19). The particular motif of speaking to the whole congregation of Israel (‫אל־כל־‬ *‫קהל‬: Deut 5:22) was borrowed from Jer 26:17. The motif of Yahweh giving a heart to the Israelites, that they would fear him all the days, that it might go well with them and with their children (‫ טוב‬+ *‫ כל־הימים ל‬+ ‫ ליראה אתי‬+ ‫ להם‬+ *‫ לב‬+ ‫נתן‬ ‫ להם ולבניהם‬+: Deut 5:29), was borrowed from Jer 32:39.70 The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh telling Moses all the commandment, the statutes (‫)חקים‬, and (b) the judgements (‫משפטים‬: Deut 5:31) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelites walking in Yahweh’s statutes (‫ )חקת‬and (b) his judgements (Ezek 11:20ab). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites observing (‫( )שמר‬b) to do (‫עשה‬: Deut 5:32–6:3; esp. 5:32; 6:3) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelites observing, presumably the judgements, and (b) doing them (Ezek 11:20bc). The particular motif of the Israelites walking in all the ways which Yahweh commanded them, so that it might be well with them (‫ *טב‬+ ‫ למען‬+ ‫ הלך‬+ ‫ אתכם‬+ ‫בכל־הדרך אשר *צוה‬ ‫לכם‬: Deut 5:33), was borrowed from Jer 7:23.71 The motif of Yahweh, related to Israel’s fathers, speaking to the Israelites of the land flowing with fat and honey (‫ ארץ זבת חלב ודבש‬+ *‫ לכ‬+ *‫אבתיכ‬: Deut 6:3)72 was borrowed from Jer 11:5; 32:22. 6 9 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 2, 754; L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 424. 70 Pace G. Fischer, ‘‫ותפשי התורה לא ידעוני‬,’ 903; N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 200–203, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 71 Pace G. Fischer, ‘‫ותפשי התורה לא ידעוני‬,’ 903–904; N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 42–46, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 72 Cf. I.  Dershowitz, ‘A  Land Flowing with Fat and Honey,’ VT 60 (2010) 172–176 (esp. 173).

64

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

1.9. Deut 6:4–25 (cf. Ezek 11:20d–15:6) The section Deut 6:4–25 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 11:20d–15:6. The opening73 idea of (a) Israel hearing that (b) Yahweh is their God (‫)אלהים‬, Yahweh alone (Deut 6:4),74 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelites being Yahweh’s people, and (b) Yahweh being their God (Ezek 11:20de). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel loving Yahweh with all his heart (‫)לבב‬, (b) with all his soul, and (c) all his strength, and (d) Yahweh’s words being on Israel’s heart (‫לבב‬: Deut 6:5–6; esp. 6:6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but corrective way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) those whose heart (‫ )לב‬is attached to (b) their detestable things and (c) their abominations, so that (d) their heart (‫ )לב‬goes after them (Ezek 11:21). The subsequent idea of (a) an Israelite repeating75 Yahweh’s words to his sons and (b) speaking (‫ )דבר‬with them, that is, with these words (Deut 6:7ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man coming to the exiles and (b) speaking to the exiles all the words (‫ )דבר‬of Yahweh (Ezek 11:22–25; esp. 11:25). The subsequent idea of (a) an Israelite dwelling (‫( )ישב‬b) in (‫ )ב‬his house (‫בית‬: Deut 6:7c) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man dwelling (b) in the midst of a house of rebellion, and them being a house of rebellion (Ezek 12:1–2; esp. 12:2). The subsequent idea of (a) an Israelite going on the way, (b) lying down and rising up, as well as (c) binding Yahweh’s words as a sign on his hand (‫ )יד‬and (d) as pendants between his eyes (*‫עיני‬: Deut 6:7d–8) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man preparing equipment for the exile, going by day before their eyes, going

73 Cf. D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, 137; T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 175; R. Heckl, ‘Der ursprüngliche Anfang des Deuteronomiums und seine literarische Transformation,’ ZABR 20 (2014) 71–96 (esp. 78–89). 74 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 178; H. Irsigler, ‘Israels Gottesbekenntnis Dtn 6,4 und seine kontextuellen Sinnbezüge,’ in A. Michel and N. K. Rüttgers (eds.), Jeremia, Deuteronomismus und Priesterschrift: Beiträge zur Literatur- und Theologiegeschichte des Alten Testaments, Festschrift H.-J. Stipp (ATSAT 105; EOS: Sankt Ottilien 2019), 147–164 (esp. 151–161). 75 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 180.

Deut 6:4–25 (cf. Ezek 11:20d–15:6)

65

to the exile from his place to another place before their eyes, (b) bringing out his equipment by day before their eyes and going out at evening before their eyes, as well as (c) before their eyes digging through the wall, presumably with his hand (cf. Ezek 12:7), and (d) before their eyes lifting the equipment on his shoulder (Ezek 12:3–6a). The subsequent idea of an Israelite writing Yahweh’s words on the doorposts of his house and then on his gates, so in the direction of going out of his city (Deut 6:9), illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man carrying his equipment out, presumably to the exile (Ezek 12:6b; cf. 12:4–5). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh bringing Israel to the land (‫ )הארץ‬of which he swore to the fathers and (b) giving (‫ )נתן‬him good cities, which he did not build, and other good things, which he did not deserve (Deut 6:10–11), and (c) the Israelites not following the gods of the peoples who are around them (Deut 6:10–16; esp. 6:14) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man covering his face and not seeing the land of Israel, and (b) Yahweh giving him as a wonder (c) to the house of Israel (Ezek 12:6c–e). Accordingly, the motif of the land of which Yahweh swore to the Israelites’ fathers (cf. Deut 1:8) again illustrates the Ezekielian negative motif of the land of the prophetically predicted exile (cf. Ezek 3:15), but transforms it into the positive motif of the land promised to the Israelites’ fathers. The particular motif of the wrath of Yahweh being kindled against Israel (‫*חרה‬ ‫ ב‬+ ‫אף־יהוה‬: Deut 6:15) was borrowed from Isa 5:25. The motif of Yahweh exterminating Israel from the face of the ground (‫ מעל פני האדמה‬+ *‫והשמיד‬: Deut 6:15) was borrowed from Amos 9:8. The motif of the Israelites not testing Yahweh (‫ את־יהוה‬+ ‫ נסה‬+ ‫לא‬: Deut 6:16) was borrowed from Isa 7:12.76 The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites keeping the commandments of Yahweh, his testimonies, and his statues, which he commanded Israel (‫אשר‬ *‫צו‬: Deut 6:17), (b) doing (‫ )עשה‬what is right and good in the sight of Yahweh, and (c) coming to the land of which he swore to Israel’s fathers (Deut 6:17–19a; esp. 6:18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (b) the son of man doing so (a) as he was commanded (*‫ )*אשר צו‬and (c) going to the exile (Ezek 12:7). The motif of the land of which

76 Pace H. G. M. Williamson, ‘Deuteronomy and Isaiah,’ in J. S. DeRouchie, J. Gile, and K. J. Turner (eds.), For Our Good Always, Festschrift D. I. Block (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2013), 251–268 (esp. 257); R. E. Garton, Mirages in the Desert: The Traditionhistorical Developments of the Story of Massah-Meribah (BZAW 492; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2017), 6 n. 13, 241 n. 13, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing.

66

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

Yahweh swore to the Israelites’ fathers (cf. Deut 1:8; 6:10) again illustrates here the Ezekielian negative motif of the land of the prophetically predicted exile (cf. Ezek 3:15; 12:6), but transforms it into the positive motif of the land promised to the Israelites’ fathers. The particular motif of Israel doing what is right in the sight of Yahweh (‫ הישר בעיני‬+ ‫עשה‬: Deut 6:18) was borrowed from Jer 34:15. The subsequent idea of Yahweh having spoken (‫דבר יהוה‬: Deut 6:19b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh’s word (‫דבר־יהוה‬: Ezek 12:8). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced idea of (a) the Israelite’s son asking him (b) what (‫ )מה‬the testimonies which Yahweh commanded the Israelites are (Deut 6:20) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the house of Israel asking the son of man (b) what he was doing (Ezek 12:9). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Deut 5:15)77 idea of (a) the Israelite saying (‫ )אמר‬to the son that (b) the Israelites were slaves of Pharaoh (diff. Deut 5:15: no remark concerning Pharaoh) (c) in (‫( )ב‬diff. Deut 5:15: the land of ) Egypt (Deut 6:21ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian, likewise partly repeated (cf. Ezek 11:15) idea of (a) the son of man saying to the Israelites that (b) all the house of Israel was in the power of the prince in Jerusalem (diff. Ezek 11:15: no remark concerning the prince), (c) in the midst of (diff. Ezek 11:15: the land of ) the Jerusalemites (Ezek 12:10). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh showing his might, signs, and wonders (‫)מופת‬, (b) which are great and evil (c) in/against Egypt (Deut 6:21c–22), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man being a wonder, (b) predicting what calamity will be done to them, (c) that they will go into exile, into captivity (Ezek 12:11). The subsequent idea of bringing evil (a) against Pharaoh and (b) against all his house (Deut 6:22) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the prince (b) who is among them going out to the exile with his people (Ezek 12:12a–e). The subsequent idea of bringing evil before the Israelites’ eyes (*‫לעינ‬: Deut 6:22) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the prince covering his face and not seeing the land before his eyes (‫לעין‬: Ezek 12:12fg).

77 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 2, 823.

Deut 6:4–25 (cf. Ezek 11:20d–15:6)

67

The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh bringing (‫ )הוציא‬the Israelites out from there and (b) bringing them (*‫ )הביא* את‬to give them (c) the land (‫ )ארץ‬of which he swore to their fathers (Deut 6:23) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh catching the prince in his net, presumably bringing him out from the city (cf. Ezek 12:12), and (b) bringing him (c) to Babylon, to the land of the Chaldeans, and scattering the Israelites in the pagan lands (Ezek 12:13–15; esp. 12:13.15). The motif of the land of which Yahweh swore to the Israelites’ fathers (cf. Deut 1:8; 6:10.18) again illustrates here the Ezekielian negative motif of the land of the prophetically predicted exile (cf. Ezek 3:15; 12:6.7), but transforms it into the positive motif of the land promised to the Israelites’ fathers. The subsequent idea of Yahweh commanding the Israelites to do all the (‫את־‬ ‫ )כל־‬statutes (Deut 6:24ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh leaving some Israelites to recount all the abominations (Ezek 12:16). The subsequent idea of the Israelites fearing Yahweh (Deut 6:24c) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh saying that the son of man and the Israelites will quake, quiver, be anxious and in horror, and their land will be laid waste and desolate (Ezek 12:17–20). The subsequent idea of the Israelites experiencing good all the days (‫הימים‬: Deut 6:24d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the prolonging of the days and the approaching of the days of the fulfilment of every vision in the present Israelites’ days (Ezek 12:21–25; esp. 12:22–23.25). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh letting the Israelites live (*‫)לחית‬,78 (b) as it is this day (‫יום‬: Deut 6:24e),79 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (b) the son of man’s prophetic vision not referring to distant days (Ezek 12:27), and (a) letting people live (Ezek 12:26–13:23; esp. 13:19.22). The subsequent idea of something being considered righteousness (‫ )צדקה‬to the Israelites (Deut 6:25a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of some of the elders of Israel setting up their idols in their hearts, but three men saving their lives by their righteousness (Ezek 14:1–20; esp. 14:14.20).

78 Cf. A. J. Coetsee, ‘YHWH and Israel in terms of the Concept of Life in Deuteronomy,’ OTE 32 (2019) 101–126 (esp. 110). 79 Cf. D. Markl, Gottes Volk im Deuteronomium (BZABR 18; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2012), 76.

68

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

The subsequent idea of righteousness being (a) if (‫ )כי‬the Israelites (b) observe (c) to do (‫( )עשה‬d) all the (‫ )את־כל־‬commandment (e) before Yahweh God (Deut 6:25bc) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh saying that if he sends four judgements upon Jerusalem (Ezek 14:21), (b) its remnant will show its commendable ways and deeds, and they will know that not without cause (c) Yahweh did (d) all the things that he did in it, (e) this being an oracle of Yahweh (Ezek 14:21–23; esp. 14:23). The subsequent idea of doing just as (‫ )כאשר‬Yahweh commanded the Israelites (Deut 6:25d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh saying that just as he did with the wood of the vine, he will do with Jerusalem (Ezek 15:1–6; esp. 15:6).

1.10. Deut 7 (cf. Ezek 15:7–16:23) The section Deut 7 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 15:7–16:23. The opening idea of (a) Yahweh bringing Israel (b) to the land (‫ )הארץ‬which Israel comes to possess and (c) casting out many nations before him (Deut 7:1a– d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh setting his face against the Jerusalemites and (b) making the land (c) uninhabited (Ezek 15:7–8). The subsequent idea of seven pagan nations, including the Hittites (‫)חתי‬, the Amorites (‫)האמרי‬, and the Canaanites (‫הכנעני‬: Deut 7:1d), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Jerusalem being related to the land of the Canaanites, the Amorite, and a Hittite (Ezek 16:1–3; esp. 16:3). The author of Deuteronomy supplemented the Ezekielian list (Ezek 16:3) with four other, earlier rather unknown nations80 to obtain the symbolic number seven (Deut 7:1). Moreover, he reordered the Ezekielian references with the aim of placing the nation of the Canaanites, most important from the point of view of the central, presumably Ephraimite part of Israel (cf. Deut 11:30; 20:17; cf. also Hos 12:8–9; Obad 20), in the central place of the list (Deut 7:1). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving these nations before Israel, and (b) Israel separating81 (hiphil) them (*‫ )את‬and (c) not cutting (‫ )לא־*כרת‬a covenant 80 Cf. A. Versluis, The Command to Exterminate the Canaanites: Deuteronomy 7 (OtSt 71; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2017), 292–296. 81 For the idea of separation as one of the sematic domains of the root ‫חרם‬, see id., ‘Devotion and/or Destruction? The Meaning and Function of ‫ חרם‬in the Old Testament,’ ZAW 128 (2016) 233–246 (esp. 236).

Deut 7 (cf. Ezek 15:7–16:23)

69

for them (Deut 7:2a–d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Jerusalem being born, (b) someone bearing (hophal) her (*‫ )את‬and (c) not cutting the navel cord and not salting her with salt (Ezek 16:4). The conceptual link between a covenant (Deut 7:2) and salting with salt (Ezek 16:4) is also attested in Lev 2:13 (cf. Num 18:19). The subsequent idea of not (‫ )לא‬having sympathy for the pagan nations (Deut 7:2e), an idea which is elsewhere in Deuteronomy, in the context of not having compassion (‫)חמל‬, substituted with that of the eye not having pity (‫ עין‬+ ‫ חוס‬+ ‫לא‬: Deut 13:9), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the eye not having pity to have compassion on Jerusalem (Ezek 16:5a–c). The subsequent idea of (a) having no marital relationships with the pagans and (b) their children (Deut 7:3) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) throwing Jerusalem out into the open field because of loathing her (b) when she was a child (Ezek 16:5d–f). The subsequent idea of presumably a pagan daughter (diff. Deut 7:3: also a son)82 turning away an Israelite son from following Yahweh (Deut 7:4) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Jerusalem girl kicking about in blood, so presumably being unclean and making others unclean (Ezek 16:6). The subsequent idea of (a) tearing down the pagans’ altars, (b) breaking down their upright stones, (c) cutting off their female beauty and fertility goddess Asherah (sing.; diff. Deut 12:3: plur.), and (d) burning their divine images with fire (Deut 7:5) in a sequential but negative way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the pagan Jerusalem, before entering into a relationship with Yahweh, growing up, (b) becoming tall, (c) becoming adorned, her female breasts becoming firm, and (d) her hair growing (Ezek 16:7). The particular motif of tearing down the pagans’ cultic places (‫*תצו‬: Deut 7:5) was borrowed from Ezek 16:39. The motif of breaking down the pagans’ upright stones and burning their idols with fire (‫ *שרף באש‬+ ‫ שבר‬+ ‫מצבות‬: Deut 7:5) was borrowed from Jer 43:13. The subsequent idea of Yahweh choosing Israel to be for him a people of personal property (Deut 7:6) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh seeing Jerusalem and spreading the skirt of his garment over her (Ezek 16:8a–d).

82 Cf. B. J. Conczorowski, ‘All the Same as Ezra? Conceptual Differences Between the Texts on Intermarriage in Genesis, Deuteronomy 7 and Ezra,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period (LHBOTS 547; T&T Clark: New York · London 2011), 89–108 (esp. 99).

70

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh being attached to the Israelites, although (b) they were the least among the peoples (Deut 7:7), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh covering, presumably with the skirt of his garment, (b) Jerusalem’s nakedness (Ezek 16:8e). The subsequent idea of Yahweh keeping the oath (‫ )שבעה‬which he swore to (*‫ )*שבע ל‬the Israelites’ fathers (Deut 7:8) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh swearing, presumably an oath, to Jerusalem (Ezek 16:8f). The particular motif of Yahweh keeping the oath which he swore to the Israelites’ fathers (‫את־השבע אשר נשבע* לאבתיכם‬: Deut 7:8) was borrowed from Jer 11:5. The subsequent idea of Yahweh being the faithful God who keeps the covenant (‫ )ברית‬and graciousness (Deut 7:9a–c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh entering into a presumably marital covenant with Jerusalem (Ezek 16:8g). The particular motif of Yahweh being faithful (‫נאמן‬: Deut 7:9) was borrowed from Isa 49:7.83 The subsequent idea of the Israelites loving Yahweh and keeping his commandments (Deut 7:9d–12d; esp.  7:9de) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Jerusalem belonging to Yahweh, presumably as his wife (Ezek 16:8h). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh keeping the covenant and graciousness to Israel, (b) loving him, (c) blessing him, (d) making him great, and (e) blessing the fruit of his womb (Deut 7:12e–13d) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh washing Jerusalem and washing off her blood, (b) anointing her with oil, (c) clothing and adorning her, (d) putting a crown of glory on her head, and (e) adorning and clothing her (Ezek 16:9–13b). The subsequent idea of Yahweh blessing Israel with (a) grain, (b) sweet wine, and (c) olive oil, as well as (d) the offspring of cattle/thousands and the offspring/ Astarte84 of flocks (e) on the ground which Yahweh swore to give to Israel (Deut 7:13d–f) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Jerusalem eating (a) fine flour, (b) honey, and (c) oil, as well as (d) being more and more beautiful and (e) succeeding to kingdom (Ezek 16:13c–e). The particular motif of Yahweh giving to Israel grain, sweet wine, olive oil, cattle, and flocks (+ ‫דגן‬ ‫ צאן‬+ ‫ יצהר‬+ ‫תירש‬: Deut 7:13) was borrowed from Jer 31:12.85 8 3 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 2, 868. 84 Cf. D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, 164; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 339; C. Levin, ‘Numinose Nomina,’ in S. Grätz, A. Graupner, and J. Lanckau (eds.), Ein Freund des Wortes, Festschrift U. Rüterswörden (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2019), 212–233 (esp. 213–215). 85 Pace G. Fischer, ‘Einfluss,’ 256, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Deut 7 (cf. Ezek 15:7–16:23)

71

The subsequent idea of Israel being blessed above all the peoples (Deut 7:14a) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Jerusalem’s fame spreading among the nations (Ezek 16:14a). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh removing from Israel all barrenness, sickness, and menstrual faintness, as well as (b) not putting (‫ )שים‬it on Israel (Deut 7:14b–15) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Jerusalem’s beauty being perfect because of (b) Yahweh’s splendour which he put on Jerusalem (Ezek 16:14b–d). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh forbidding Israel to serve pagan gods, as well as (b) exhorting him to trust Yahweh and (c) to destroy the pagans’ name (‫ )שם‬from under heaven (Deut 7:16–24b; esp. 7:24b) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential but corrective way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (b) Jerusalem trusting in her beauty, so not in Yahweh, and (a) fornicating (c) because of her name (Ezek 16:15ab). The particular motif of the eye having no pity on someone (*‫לא־תחס עינ* עלי‬: Deut 7:16) was borrowed from Ezek 7:4 etc. The subsequent idea of no man standing before Israel until Israel destroys them (Deut 7:24cd) in a corrective way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Jerusalem pouring out her fornication on every passing man (Ezek 16:15c–e). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel burning the images of the pagan gods with fire, (b) not coveting the silver (‫ )כסף‬or gold (‫ )זהב‬which is on them, and not taking (‫ )לקח‬it (c) for himself (‫)לך‬, (d) lest he be ensnared by it (Deut 7:25a–d), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but corrective way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Jerusalem taking garments and making pagan shrines with them, as well as (b) taking gold and silver, making (c) for herself (‫לך‬: Ezek 16:17) (d) images of male pagan gods, and worshipping them (Ezek 16:16–19). The subsequent idea of (a) such pagan practices being abomination(s) (‫)תועבת‬ to Yahweh, and an Israelite not bringing an abomination (‫ )תועבה‬into his house, (b) lest he be (‫ )היית‬separated/banned, but utterly abominating (‫ )תעב‬it because (c) this is a banned thing (Deut 7:25–26) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Jerusalem sacrificing her children to pagan gods and slaughtering the children, thus committing all her abominations, and (b) not remembering the time when she was (‫ )היות‬naked and bare, when she was (‫ )היית‬kicking about in her blood (Ezek 16:22), and therefore (c) woe to her (Ezek 16:20–23).

72

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

1.11. Deut 8:1–9:7b (cf. Ezek 16:24–63) The section Deut 8:1–9:7b sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 16:24–63. The opening idea of (a) the Israelites being careful to do (‫ )עשה‬the entire commandment, so that they might (b) live, increase, and possess the land (Deut 8:1), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but corrective way illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of (a) Jerusalem doing a high place (b) in every spacious place (Ezek 16:24). The subsequent idea of (a) remembering every (‫( )א*־כל־‬b) way (‫( )דרך‬Deut 8:2a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the head of every (b) way (Ezek 16:25a). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh God leading Israel these forty years (b) in the wilderness (c) to humiliate him, (d) to know whether he would keep Yahweh’s commandments or not (Deut 8:2b–g), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Jerusalem building her height/eminence, (b) making her beauty abhorrent, and (c) spreading her legs to act as a harlot with the Egyptians, her neighbours of great flesh, (d) to provoke Yahweh to anger (Ezek 16:25b–26). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh oppressing Israel, (b) starving him, and feeding him with manna/something which he did not know (Deut 8:3) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh stretching out his hand against Jerusalem and (b) reducing her allotted portions of food (Ezek 16:27ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh protecting Israel and (b) chastening him as a father chastens his son (‫בן‬: Deut 8:4–5; esp. 8:5)86 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but corrective way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh giving Jerusalem to the life of (b) those who hate her, the daughters (*‫ )בנ‬of the Philistines (Ezek 16:27cd). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel walking in Yahweh’s ways (‫ )דרך‬and (b) fearing Yahweh (Deut 8:6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but corrective way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) being ashamed of Jerusalem’s ways of (b) evil intention (Ezek 16:27e). The subsequent idea of Yahweh bringing Israel to the good land (‫אל־ארץ‬: Deut 8:7; cf. 8:8–10)87 of Canaan, and Israel being repeatedly satiated (‫שבעת‬: Deut 86 Cf. J. Lemański, ‘Motyw “próby” jako element procesu wychowywania w tekstach Pięcioksięgu,’ VV 21 (2012) 19–38 (esp. 29–30). 87 Cf. S. Paganini, ‘La terra: dono e responsabilità. Osservazioni sul ruolo della terra nel Deuteronomio e nella tradizione deuteronomica,’ RivB 64 (2016) 35–64 (esp. 38–41).

Deut 8:1–9:7b (cf. Ezek 16:24–63)

73

8:10.12) but not (‫*בלתי‬: Deut 8:11) keeping Yahweh’s commandments (Deut 8:7–13) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Jerusalem multiplying harlotry to the land of Canaan, but repeatedly not having satiation (‫ )שבעה‬and not being satiated (Ezek 16:28–29). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel’s heart (‫לב*ך‬: Deut 8:14) exalting itself, Israel being burned and thirsting for water, and (b) Yahweh giving him manna/something, which presumably proceeded from his mouth (Deut 8:14–16; cf. 8:3), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Jerusalem’s heart being hot with fever, (b) an utterance of the Lord Yahweh (Ezek 16:30ab). The particular motif of someone’s heart exalting itself (*‫ורם לבב‬: Deut 8:14) was borrowed from Ezek 31:10 (cf. Jer 48:29). The motif of Yahweh leading Israel through a thirsty region and bringing for Israel water from the rock (‫ מים מצור‬+ *‫ צמאו‬+ *‫*וליכ‬: Deut 8:15) was borrowed from Isa 48:21. The subsequent idea of (a) Israel saying that his power and (b) the strength of his hand (c) made (‫ )עשה‬him this (‫ )את־‬wealth (Deut 8:17) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (c’) Jerusalem making all these things (a) as a powerful harlot, (b) building her construction and (c) making her high place (Ezek 16:30c–31b). The particular motif of someone in a godless way gaining for himself wealth (‫ חיל‬+ ‫ ל‬+ ‫עשה‬: Deut 8:17) was borrowed from Ezek 28:4. The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving (‫ )נתן‬to Israel power to get wealth (Deut 8:18a–c) conceptually and linguistically, in a corrective way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Jerusalem spurning a gift (‫ )אתנן‬from her lovers (Ezek 16:31cd). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh re-establishing his covenant which he swore in the past, (b) as it is this day (Deut 8:18de), with the use of the motif of Yahweh’s covenant (‫ )ברית‬being re-established like a re-established marriage (Hos 2:20–21) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Jerusalem being an adulterous wife, (b) who has a husband (Ezek 16:32a). The particular motif of Yahweh establishing his covenant with Israel (*‫ את־ברית‬+ *‫הקימ‬: Deut 8:18) was borrowed from Ezek 16:62 (cf. 16:60). The subsequent idea of Israel going after (‫ )אחרי‬foreign gods and worshipping them (Deut 8:19a–d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Jerusalem taking strangers and committing fornication with them, but no one going after her (Ezek 16:32b–34; esp. 16:34). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh warning Israel that he will surely perish like other nations which Yahweh destroyed, because (b) the Israelites did not hear (‫ )שמע‬the voice of Yahweh their God (Deut 8:19e–20; esp. 8:20), conceptually and

74

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (b) calling Jerusalem to hear the word of Yahweh (Ezek 16:35), and (a) Yahweh threatening her with destruction (Ezek 16:35–43). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel hearing that (b) he should cross over to Canaan to dispossess its pagan nations (Deut 9:1a–d) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) saying a proverb about Jerusalem that (b) she is a daughter of a Hittite and an Amorite (Ezek 16:44–45). The subsequent idea of the nations in Canaan being greater (‫ )גדל‬than Israel, and their cities being great (‫ )גדל‬and unassailable (Deut 9:1de) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Samaria being the greater sister of Jerusalem (Ezek 16:46–48; esp. 16:46). The subsequent idea of (a) the Canaanite people being haughty and (b) being the sons (‫ )בן‬of the Anakim, so (c) no one being able to stand up before (‫)לפני‬ the sons of Anak, but Yahweh going before (‫ )לפני‬Israel, exterminating the sons of Anak, and humbling them before (‫ )לפני‬Israel (Deut 9:2–3e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Sodom having haughtiness, (b) she and her daughters (*‫)בנ‬, and (c) being haughty and committing abomination before Yahweh (Ezek 16:49–50b). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel dispossessing and destroying the sons of Anak, (b) just as (‫ )כאשר‬Yahweh said to Israel (Deut 9:3f–h), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh removing Sodom and her daughters, (b) just as Yahweh saw it (Ezek 16:50cd). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel not saying, when Yahweh would thrust away the Canaanite nations, that (b) in Israel’s justice (‫ )צדקה‬Yahweh brought him to the land, but (c) in (‫ )ב‬the wickedness of the pagan nations (Deut 9:4), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Samaria not committing half of Jerusalem’s sins, and (b) Jerusalem sinfully justifying (‫ )צדק‬her pagan sisters (c) in all her abominations, so bearing her disgrace in her sins (Ezek 16:51–52c). The particular motif of the wickedness of the pagan nations (‫ הגוים‬+ ‫רשעה‬: Deut 9:4) was borrowed from Ezek 5:6. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Deut 9:4) idea of (a) not in his justice (‫ )צדקה‬Israel coming to the land, but (b) in the wickedness (‫ )רשעה‬of the pagan nations Yahweh dispossessing them (Deut 9:5a–c), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Ezek 16:51–52c) Ezekielian idea of (a) Jerusalem’s sisters being more just (‫)צדק‬ than Jerusalem, and Jerusalem sinfully justifying (‫ )צדק‬her pagan sisters (Ezek 16:52d–g) and (b) bearing her disgrace, but her wickedness (‫רעה‬: Ezek 16:57) being uncovered (Ezek 16:52d–58).

Deut 9:7c–29 (cf. Ezek 17:1–24:14)

75

The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh establishing (*‫ )הקימ‬the word which (b) he swore to Israel’s fathers (Deut 9:5de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (b) Jerusalem breaking the covenant of the days of her youth, but (a) Yahweh establishing for her a covenant forever (Ezek 16:59–62a; esp. 16:60.62a). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel knowing that (‫( )וידעת כי‬b) Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬his God gives him the land (Deut 9:6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Jerusalem knowing that (b) Yahweh is Yahweh (Ezek 16:62bc). The particular motif of Israel being a people of a stiff neck (‫ ערף‬+ ‫קשה‬: Deut 9:6) was borrowed from the book of Jeremiah (Jer 7:26 etc.). The concluding idea of (a) Israel remembering (‫ )זכר‬and (b) not forgetting (Deut 9:7ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Ezekielian idea of (a) Jerusalem remembering, (b) being ashamed, and not opening her mouth anymore, when Yahweh forgives her all that she did (Ezek 16:63).

1.12.  Deut 9:7c–29 (cf. Ezek 17:1–24:14) The section Deut 9:7c–29 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 17:1–24:14. The opening idea of (a) Israel provoking Yahweh his God to anger (b) in the wilderness (Deut 9:7c) sequentially illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of (a) Judah turning away from the Babylonian eagle, and consequently from the Lord Yahweh, so that (b) Judah would wither (Ezek 17:7.9–10), like in the wilderness (Ezek 17:1–10; cf. 19:12–13: ‫)במדבר‬. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites going out of the land (‫ )ארץ‬of Egypt (‫ )מצרים‬and (b) coming (‫ )בוא‬to this eastern, exilic place (‫מקום‬: Deut 9:7de) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (b) the king of Babylon bringing (‫ )בוא‬the Judaean elite to the place (cf. Ezek 17:16) of Babylon (a) from the land of Judah (Ezek 17:12–13), so from the power of Egypt (Ezek 17:11–14; cf. 17:15). The subsequent idea of the Israelites behaving rebelliously (‫ )מרה‬against Yahweh (Deut 9:7f) conceptually and partly linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of rebelling (‫ )מרד‬against Babylon (Ezek 17:15). The subsequent thought that (a) in (‫ )ב‬Horeb (b) the Israelites provoked Yahweh to anger, so that (c) Yahweh was angry against them (Deut 9:8ab), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian thought that (a) in the place of the Babylonian king, (b) whose oath the Judaean king despised and whose

76

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

covenant the Judaean king broke, (c) in the midst of Babylon the Judaean king would die in agreement with an oracle of Yahweh (Ezek 17:16). The subsequent idea of Yahweh destroying the Israelites (Deut 9:8c) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Babylonian king destroying the Judaeans in agreement with an oracle of Yahweh (Ezek 17:17–21). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses going up (‫( )עלה‬b) to the mountain (‫( )הר‬c) to receive the tablets of stones (Deut 9:9a–c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh planting a chosen shoot upon (‫( )עלה‬b) a mountain, which was (c) high and resembling a pile of stones (Ezek 17:22). The particular motif of Yahweh’s representative taking a writing material on which there were written all the words which Yahweh spoke to the Israelites on that day (‫ יום‬+ *‫ כל־הדברים אשר דבר‬+ ‫ כתב‬+ ‫לקח‬: Deut 9:9–10) was borrowed from Jer 26:2. The subsequent idea of (a) Moses remaining on the mountain (‫( )בהר‬b) forty days and nights, which allude to the coming of a new generation (Deut 9:9d–f; cf. Ezek 4:6), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh planting the chosen shoot on the mountain, and (b) the chosen shoot bearing fruit and growing into a majestic cedar (Ezek 17:23). The particular motif of forty days of penance (‫ארבעים יום‬: Deut 9:9; cf. 9:18) was borrowed from Ezek 4:6. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving to Moses two tablets/planks (‫)לוח‬ of stone, (b) somewhat surprisingly written merely with God’s finger (Deut 9:10ab), conceptually and partly linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh drying up fresh (‫ )לח‬wood, and (b) making dry wood soft/sprouting (Ezek 17:24a–e). The subsequent idea of (a) all the words (‫ )דבר‬which (b) Yahweh spoke (‫)דבר‬ with the Israelites (Deut 9:10cd) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (b) Yahweh having spoken (‫דבר‬: 17:24f) (a) and directing his word (‫ )דבר‬to Moses (Ezek 17:24f–18:1; esp. 18:1). The subsequent idea of Yahweh acting in fire (Deut 9:10d) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Israelites’ teeth becoming blunt (Ezek 18:2). The subsequent idea of (a) the day of (b) the congregation (Deut 9:10d) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) not anymore saying the proverb referring to two different generations (cf. Ezek 18:2) (b) in Israel (Ezek 18:3). The subsequent thought that (a) at the end of forty days and nights, which allude to the coming of a new generation (cf. Ezek 4:6), (b) Yahweh gave to Moses the two tablets, the tablets of the covenant (Deut 9:11), presumably

Deut 9:7c–29 (cf. Ezek 17:1–24:14)

77

containing ten words each (cf. Deut 4:13; 10:4),88 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian thought that (a) for the father as well as the son (b) Yahweh gave a set of approximately ten rules, binding for the two persons/generations:  that of the father and that of the son (Ezek 18:4–32; esp. 18:6–8.11–13.15–17).89 The set of approximately ten detailed rules,90 which are with some minor alterations given in Ezek 18:6–8.11–13.15–17, can be listed as follows: 1. not eating on the mountains, 2. not lifting up the eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, 3. not defiling the neighbour’s wife, 4. not oppressing, 5. restoring the pledge, 6. not committing robbery, 7. giving bread to the hungry, 8. covering the naked with a garment, 9. not giving for interest, and 10. not taking usury. The general thematic sequence of this Ezekielian set of rules: (a) not eating on the cultic mountains, (b) not worshipping idols, (c) not defiling the neighbour’s wife, (d) not robbing alien property, (e) covering nakedness, and (f) not desiring interest was reworked in the general thematic sequence of the Deuteronomic Decalogue (Deut 5:7–21):  (a) not having other gods, (b)

88 It should be noted that the texts Deut 4:13; 10:4 do not imply that the ten words were somehow divided between the two tablets. They rather suggest that the ten words were written twice, on each of the two tablets. Therefore, the tablets should be imagined as placed not vertically, one beside the other (□□), but rather horizontally, one upon the other (═). In this way, one upon the other, they were put in the ark of the covenant (Deut 10:1–5). This image was later applied in the Genesis description of the ark of Noah, which was made as a chest with three compartments, counted from the lowest one upwards and presumably separated from each other by two horizontally laid decks (Gen 6:14.16), and in the Exodus description of the ark of the covenant, which was made as a chest with two horizontally laid tablets of the testimony, presumably placed from the lower one upwards (Exod 25:16.21; 31:18). 89 Accordingly, the two tablets of the covenant, placed one upon the other (Deut 9:11; 10:1–5), illustrate the covenant made with the two generations, that of the dying fathers and that of the coming sons (Deut 29:1–14). For the Deuteronomic rhetoric concerning the two generations, see e.g. T. Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Universitätsverlag: Freiburg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1990), 268–271; E. Otto, ‘Tora für eine neue Generation in Dtn 4: Die hermeneutische Theologie des Numeruswechsels in Deuteronomium 4,1–40,’ in G. Fischer, D. Markl, and S. Paganini (eds.), Deuteronomium, 105–122 (esp. 118–119). 90 Cf. L. C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28; Word Books: Dallas, TX 1994), 274.

78

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

not making idol images, (c) not committing adultery, (d) not stealing, (e) not coveting the neighbour’s wife, and (f) not desiring the neighbour’s property. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh ordering Moses to arise and (b) go down because (c) his people acted corruptly (Deut 9:12a–d) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh ordering the son of man to raise up (b) a lamentation over (c) Israel’s guilt and punishment, and pointing to the abomination of their fathers (Ezek 19:1–20:4). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses bringing (*‫ )הוצא‬the people of Israel (b) out of (‫( )מן‬c) Egypt (‫מצרים‬: Deut 9:12e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh bringing the Israelites (b) out of (c) the land of Egypt (Ezek 20:5–6; esp. 20:6). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites turning away from the way which Moses commanded them and (b) making themselves a cast idol (Deut 9:12f–h) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh ordering the Israelites to throw away the detestable idols, and (b) the Israelites, every one of them, not throwing away the detestable idols (Ezek 20:7–8e). The particular motif of the Israelites making themselves a cast idol (‫*עשו להם מסכה‬: Deut 9:12) was borrowed from Hos 13:2. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬that (b) he would exterminate the Israelites and (c) wipe out their name (d) from under heaven (Deut 9:13–14c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh saying that (b) he would pour out his wrath upon the Israelites and (c) complete his anger against them (d) in the midst of the land of Egypt (Ezek 20:8f–h; cf. 20:13.21). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh making (‫ )ואעשה‬Moses (b) to (‫( )ל‬c) a nation (‫ )גוי‬mightier and greater than Israel (Deut 9:14d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh making (Ezek 20:9.14.22) his name for the Israelites not profaned (b) to the sight of (c) the powerful pagan nations (Ezek 20:9.14.22–23.32), but then restoring the house of Israel and manifesting Yahweh’s holiness (b’) to the sight of (c’) the pagan nations (Ezek 20:9–44; esp. 20:41). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses turning his face (‫ )פנה‬and going down from the mountain (‫)הר‬, and the mountain (‫( )הר‬b) burning (‫( )בער‬c) with fire (‫אש‬: Deut 9:15a–c) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man setting his face (Ezek 21:2.7), presumably away from the holy mountain of Israel (cf. Ezek 20:40), and (c) Yahweh kindling a fire (Ezek 21:3.36–37) and (b) keeping it burning (Ezek 21; esp. 21:4.36).

Deut 9:7c–29 (cf. Ezek 17:1–24:14)

79

The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Deut 9:11)91 idea of the two tablets of the covenant being in Moses’ hands (Deut 9:15d) illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Ezek 18:6–8.11–13.15–17) Ezekielian idea of the set of approximately ten rules (Ezek 22:1–12; esp. 22:3–12). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses seeing that the Israelites sinned, that (b) they made themselves a cast image of a calf,92 so (c) breaking the tablets of the covenant (Deut 9:16–18), partly sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh perceiving that the Israelites violated his rules, so (c) scattering them, because (b) they became silver dross, bronze, tin, iron, and lead in the midst of a smelting furnace (Ezek 22:13–18). The particular motif of the Israelites making themselves a cast image of a calf (‫עגל‬: Deut 9:16; cf. 9:12) was borrowed from Hos 13:2 (cf. 8:5–6). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh’s anger (‫ )אף‬and (b) wrath (‫)חמה‬, so that (c) he wanted to exterminate the Israelites (Deut 9:19), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh’s anger and (b) wrath (Ezek 22:20; cf. 22:22), in which (c) he wanted to melt the Israelites (Ezek 22:19–22). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced93 idea of Yahweh being very angry against the priest (cf. Deut 10:6: ‫ )כהן‬Aaron (Deut 9:20ab) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh ordering the son of man to make accusations against Jerusalem’s elite, including the priests (Ezek 22:23–29; esp. 22:26). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses interceding (b) on behalf of (‫ )בעד‬Aaron (Deut 9:20c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh seeking a man who would stand before him (b) on behalf of the land (Ezek 22:30). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses burning the sinful thing with fire (‫)באש‬, (b) crushing it fine, and grinding it utterly until it became as fine as dust (Deut 9:21) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh with the fire of (b) his fury bringing the Jerusalemites to an end (Ezek 22:31).

9 1 Cf. J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 369. 92 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 228. 93 Cf. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 125; Y. H. Chung, The Sin of the Calf: The Rise of the Bible’s Negative Attitude Toward the Golden Calf (LHBOTS 523; T&T Clark: New York · London 2010), 68–69; J. D. Findlay, From Prophet to Priest: The Characterization of Aaron in the Pentateuch (CBET 76; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, CT 2017), 366–367.

80

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

The subsequent idea of the Israelites provoking Yahweh to anger in the places whose names mean ‘burning’ (Taberah:  cf. Num 11:3),94 ‘testing’ (Massah:  cf. Deut 6:16),95 and ‘graves of desire’ (Kibroth-hattaavah:  Deut 9:22; cf. Num 11:34)96 illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Samaria and Jerusalem burning with sinful lust and testing Yahweh with their sinful desire, which was punished with the death penalty (Ezek 23; esp. 23:10.47). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh sending the Israelites from the sanctuary of Kadesh Barnea, (b) saying (‫ )לאמר‬that they should go to another land, which he gave them (Deut 9:23a–e), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the coming of the word of Yahweh, (b) saying that the king of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem, presumably to take their inhabitants to the land of Babylon (Ezek 24:1–2). The subsequent idea of the Israelites behaving rebelliously (‫ )מרה‬against Yahweh, not trusting him, and not obeying his voice, because they always behaved rebelliously (‫מרה‬: Deut 9:23f–24), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Jerusalemites being a rebellious (‫)מרי‬ house, presumably not trusting Yahweh to go to Babylon (Ezek 24:3a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh saying (‫ )אמר‬that he would exterminate the Israelites (Deut 9:25) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh saying (Ezek 24:3) that the Jerusalemites would be boiled (Ezek 24:3b–6). The subsequent idea of persuading Yahweh that he should not pay attention to the Israelites’ wickedness and sin (Deut 9:26–27) in a corrective way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the blood shed by Jerusalem not being covered (Ezek 24:7–8). The concluding idea of Yahweh apparently hating the Israelites and therefore killing them (Deut 9:28–29) in a corrective way illustrates the concluding Ezekielian idea of Yahweh judging and punishing the Jerusalemites with no compassion or remorse (Ezek 24:9–14; esp. 24:14).

94 Cf. R.  D.  Nelson, Deuteronomy, 126; G.  J.  Venema, Reading Scripture in the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 9–10; 31 – 2 Kings 22–23 – Jeremiah 36 – Nehemiah 8 (OtSt 48; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2004), 23; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 373. 95 Cf. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 126; R. E. Garton, Mirages, 64, 78; H. Stoppel, Von Angesicht zu Angesicht: Ouvertüre am Horeb: Deuteronomium 5 und 9–10 und die Textgestalt ihrer Folie (ATANT 109; Theologischer: Zürich 2018), 215–216. 96 Cf. E. H. Merrill, Deuteronomy (NAC 4; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 1994), 196; R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 126; T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 239.

Deut 10:1–11:1 (cf. Ezek 24:15–28:26)

81

1.13. Deut 10:1–11:1 (cf. Ezek 24:15–28:26) The section Deut 10:1–11:1 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 24:15–28:26. The opening idea of Yahweh saying (‫ )אמר‬to Moses (‫אלי‬: Deut 10:1a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of the coming of the word of Yahweh to the son of man, saying (Ezek 24:15). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses hewing tablets of stone with Yahweh’s words, making (‫עשה‬: Deut 10:1.3.5) a portable (cf. Deut 10:8) chest of wood, (b) going down from Yahweh’s mountain, and putting the tablets in the portable chest, so that they were there (Deut 10:1b–5), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man making (Ezek 24:17–19) preparations for the exile, and (b) the Israelites being bereft of the temple (Ezek 24:16–21c). The motif of ten words (Deut 10:4; cf. 4:13) illustrates the Ezekielian motif of a set of approximately ten authoritative rules (Ezek 18:6–8.11–13.15–17). The particular motif of Yahweh saying to his representative that he should take for himself another writing material, like the former one, and Yahweh writing on it the words which were on the former writing material, which someone else destroyed (*‫ אשר היו על־ה‬+ ‫ ו*כתב על* את*־הדברים‬+ ‫ *ראשנים‬+ ‫ ־לך‬+ *‫ אל‬+ ‫אמר‬ *‫הראשנ* אשר ש‬: Deut 10:1–2), was borrowed from Jer 36:27–28.97 The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites setting out on a journey from the ‘wells of the sons (‫ )בני‬of Jaakan’ (Beeroth-bene-jaakan)98 and (b) heading for a place of ‘fetters’ (Moserah: Deut 10:6a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelites leaving their sons behind and (b) being ready to go to the exile (Ezek 24:21d–23). The subsequent idea of Aaron dying, and Eleazar (*‫)אל‬, whose name means ‘God helped,’ being a priest in his place (Deut 10:6b–d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Ezekiel (‫)*אל‬, whose name means ‘may God strengthen,’ being a priestly (cf. Ezek 1:3: ‫ )כהן‬sign for the Israelites (Ezek 24:24). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites coming to a place of ‘walls’ (Gudgodah: cf. ‫גדוד‬: Ps 18:30) and then to (b) a place of ‘pleasantness’ (Jotbathah), (c) a land of streams of water (Deut 10:7), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelites longing for their stronghold, (b) the joy of 97 Pace N.  Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 75–78, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 98 Cf. J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 385.

82

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

their beauty, what is pleasing to their eyes, and (c) the longing of their souls (Ezek 24:25). The subsequent thought that (a) at that time (‫ )ב* ההוא‬Yahweh set apart the tribe of Levi to perform exilic cultic tasks to this day (‫)יום‬, so Levi has no allotted portion or inheritance with his brothers, but Yahweh is his inheritance, and (b) Yahweh heard (‫ )שמע‬Moses and did not annihilate the Israelites (Deut 10:8–10)99 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian thought that (a) on that day (‫ )ביום ההוא‬a survivor would come to the exiled priestly son of man (b) to bring him heard news, presumably that there were some survivors (Ezek 24:26). The particular motif of the tribe of ‘the Levi’ (‫הלוי‬: Deut 10:8) seems to be a conflation of the name of Levi (‫לוי‬: Ezek 40:46) with the motif of the Levites (‫הלוים‬: Jer 33:18 etc.). The motif of the ark of the covenant of Yahweh (‫ארון‬ ‫ברית־יהוה‬: Deut 10:8) was borrowed from Jer 3:16. The motif of the sons of Levi approaching Yahweh to minister him (‫ לשרתו‬+ ‫*לוי‬: Deut 10:8) was borrowed from Ezek 40:46 and conflated with Ezek 44:11.15 (*‫ לשרת‬+ ‫ לפני‬+ ‫)עמד‬. The motif of the Levites having no inheritance with their brothers, but Yahweh being their inheritance (*‫ נחלת‬+ ‫ נחלה‬+ ‫ ל‬+ ‫היה‬: Deut 10:9) was borrowed from Ezek 44:28 (cf. 44:15: ‫)הלוי‬. The subsequent idea of Moses going at the head of the people to the land which Yahweh swore to their fathers to give them (Deut 10:11) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man speaking to the Israelite survivor and being a sign for the Israelites, presumably of their following him to the exile (Ezek 24:27a–d; cf. 24:24). The subsequent idea of Yahweh Israel’s God requiring of Israel that he should fear Yahweh his God, walk in all his ways, love him, serve Yahweh his God, and keep the commandments of Yahweh (Deut 10:12–13) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Israelites knowing that their God is Yahweh (Ezek 24:27ef). The subsequent idea of (a) the earth with all that is in it belonging to Yahweh, but Yahweh loving and choosing only the Israelites out of all the peoples (‫העמים‬: Deut 10:15), so that (b) the Israelites should circumcise the foreskin (*‫ )ערל‬of their heart (Deut 10:16), (c) for Yahweh God is God (‫ )אלהים‬of gods and Lord (‫ )אדון‬of lords (Deut 10:14–17; esp. 10:17), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh calling the son of man to prophesy against foreign nations, for although

99 Cf. G. Kugler, When God Wanted to Destroy the Chosen People: Biblical Traditions and Theology on the Move (BZAW 515; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2019), 106.

Deut 10:1–11:1 (cf. Ezek 24:15–28:26)

83

the neighbouring nations, especially Tyre, considered the house of Judah like all other nations (Ezek 25:8) and mere gateway of the peoples (Ezek 26:2), (b) Tyre would die the death of those having foreskin (Ezek 28:10), (c) and the Lord Yahweh would punish him (Ezek 28:12), although he lived in the garden of God, on the mountain of God (Ezek 25:1–28:19; esp. 28:13–14.16). The particular motif of the Israelites circumcising the foreskin of their heart (‫ ערל*ת לבבכם‬+ ‫מול‬: Deut 10:16) was borrowed from Jer 4:4.100 The motif of Yahweh being the great and mighty God (‫האל הגדל הגבר‬: Deut 10:17) was borrowed from Jer 32:18.101 The motif of taking a bribe (‫ שחד‬+ ‫לקח‬: Deut 10:17) could have been borrowed from Ezek 22:12. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh executing judgement (‫ *שפט‬+ ‫עשה‬: Deut 10:18), so (b) Israel fearing him and (c) taking oaths in his name (Deut 10:18– 20; esp. 10:20), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh executing judgement upon Sidon (Ezek 28:22) and (b) punishing him, so that (c) he would know that Yahweh is Yahweh (Ezek 28:20–23). The subsequent idea of Yahweh being Israel’s praise (Deut 10:21) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of there being no longer pain for the house of Israel (Ezek 28:24). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel’s fathers going down to the exile in Egypt seventy persons, but now (b) being as numerous as stars in heaven (Deut 10:22) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh gathering the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they were scattered and (b) showing himself as holy in them in the sight of the nations, and the Israelites dwelling in security and thriving (Ezek 28:25–26f). The concluding idea of the Israelites loving Yahweh their God (*‫יהוה אלהי‬: Deut 11:1) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Ezekielian idea of the Israelites knowing that Yahweh is Yahweh their God (Ezek 28:26gh; diff. 28:23–24 etc.: Yahweh). The particular motif of the Israelites keeping the service of Yahweh (*‫שמר* משמרת‬: Deut 11:1) was borrowed from Ezek 44:8.

100 Cf. A. Kraljic, Deuteronomium 10,12–11,32: Gottes Hauptgebot, der Gehorsam Israels und sein Land: Eine Neuuntersuchung (ÖBS 49; Peter Lang: Berlin 2018), 482–485. Pace G. Fischer, ‘Einfluss,’ 258; N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 189–192, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 101 Pace G. Fischer, ‘Einfluss,’ 258, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

84

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

1.14. Deut 11:2–28 (cf. Ezek 29–36) The section Deut 11:2–28 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 29–36. The opening idea of the Israelites knowing the destruction which Yahweh did in the midst of Egypt (‫ )מצרים‬to Pharaoh king of Egypt (‫)פרעה מלך־מצרים‬, to all his land (‫ארץ‬: Deut 11:3), and to the army of Egypt (‫מצרים‬: Deut 11:2–4a; esp. 11:4a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of the son of man prophesying destruction against Pharaoh king of Egypt (Ezek 29:2–3; 30:21–22; 31:2; 32:2; cf. 30:24–25; 31:18), against all Egypt (Ezek 29:2 etc.), and against the land of Egypt (Ezek 29:1–32:2c; esp. 29:9–10 etc.). The particular motif of the Egyptian horses and chariots (‫ רכב‬+ ‫ סוס‬+ ‫מצרים‬: Deut 11:4) was borrowed from Isa 31:1. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh causing the water (‫ )מים‬of the Sea (‫ )ים‬of Reeds flow over Pharaoh and the Egyptians (b) when they pursued the Israelites (Deut 11:4bc) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Pharaoh king of Egypt being like a sea-monster in the seas, troubling the water (b) with his feet and treading the presumably shallow rivers (Ezek 32:2d–f). The subsequent idea of Yahweh destroying (‫ )אבד‬the Egyptians (Deut 11:4d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh destroying Pharaoh, the Egyptians, and all the animals of Egypt (Ezek 32:3–14; esp. 32:13). The subsequent idea of Yahweh acting in the wilderness (Deut 11:5) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh making the land of Egypt wasteland (Ezek 32:15–16). The subsequent, quite surprising, quasi-mythological idea of (a) the earth (‫ )ארץ‬opening its mouth and swallowing sons of Reuben with their houses, tents, and livestock, and (b) the Israelites’ eyes seeing (‫ )ראה‬it (Deut 11:6–7) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent, quasi-mythological Ezekielian idea of (a) a multitude of peoples, including Edom (Ezek 32:29), going down to the depths of the earth (Ezek 32:18–30; esp. 32:18.24), and (b) Pharaoh seeing it (Ezek 32:17–32; esp. 32:31). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites keeping the entire commandment which Moses gives them, so that (b) they might be strong (Deut 11:8a–c), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man being a watchman who warns the house of Israel with Yahweh’s words to do what is lawful and right and to walk in the statutes of life, so that (b) they might surely live (Ezek 33:1–20; esp. 33:14–16).

Deut 11:2–28 (cf. Ezek 29–36)

85

The subsequent idea of the Israelites coming (‫בוא‬: Deut 11:8d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of a survivor from Jerusalem coming to the son of man (Ezek 33:21–22). The subsequent idea of the Israelites taking possession of the land (‫וירש* את־‬ ‫ )הארץ‬which they cross over to possess it (‫לרשתה‬: Deut 11:8e–g) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Abraham taking possession of the land, presumably as a possession (‫למורשה‬: Ezek 33:23–24d; cf. 33:24f). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites living long on the ground which (b) Yahweh gave (‫ )נתן‬to (‫ )ל‬the Israelites’ fathers and to (‫ )ל‬their descendants,102 (c) a land (‫ )ארץ‬flowing with fat and honey (Deut 11:9), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelites saying that they are numerous and that (b) to them, presumably like to Abraham (cf. Ezek 33:24cd), was given (c) the land (Ezek 33:24ef). The subsequent idea of (a) the land (‫ )הארץ‬which Israel comes (b) to possess (‫ירש‬: Deut 11:10ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the land which the Israelites want (b) to possess (Ezek 33:25–26). The subsequent idea of (a) not (‫ )לא‬being like (b) the land (‫ )ארץ‬of Egypt, presumably dry and in need of artificial watering (Deut 11:10c; cf. 11:10f),103 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh not concealing the fact (Ezek 33:27) that (b) the land will be waste and desolate (Ezek 33:27–29; esp. 33:28–29). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel coming (‫( )יצא‬b) from (‫ )מן‬there (Deut 11:10d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the word which comes (b) from Yahweh (Ezek 33:30–33; esp. 33:30). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel sowing the seed (figura etymologica)104 and, somewhat surprisingly, (b) providing drink (‫ )שקה‬to the land by foot (*‫)ברגל‬105 (c) like in a garden of green plants (Deut 11:10ef)106 conceptually and linguistically, 1 02 Cf. J. Hwang, Rhetoric of Remembrance, 27. 103 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 2, 1050; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 403; T. Karimundackal, A Call to Commitment: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Deut 10:12–11:32 (FB 135; Echter: Würzburg 2017), 196. 104 Cf. A. Kraljic, Deuteronomium 10,12–11,32, 115 n. 180. 105 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 249; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 403. 106 Cf. J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 403; A. Kraljic, Deuteronomium 10,12–11,32, 116 n. 184.

86

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelite shepherds shepherding the flock in a good shepherding place (figura etymologica: Ezek 34:1–18b), (b) the Israelite sheep trampling with their feet the place to drink (‫שתה‬: Ezek 34:18c–19), and (c) Yahweh’s flock dwelling safely in the woods (Ezek 34:1–25; esp. 34:25). The subsequent thought that (a) to the Israelites’ land of hills and valleys (Deut 11:11), a land for which Yahweh cares, and his eyes are always on it (Deut 11:12), surprisingly he (Moses or rather Yahweh?)107 will give (‫ונתתי‬: Deut 11:14) rain (b) in its season (‫בעתו‬: Deut 11:14), (c) the early rain and the late rain (Deut 11:11–14a; esp. 11:14), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian thought that (a) Yahweh will give to the Israelite places around his hill a blessing and he will send down rain (b) in its season, (c) rains (plur.) which will be a blessing (Ezek 34:26). The particular motif of Yahweh giving in its season the early rain and the late rain for the harvest (‫ יורה ומלקוש‬+ ‫ בעתו‬+ ‫נתן‬: Deut 11:14) was borrowed from Jer 5:24.108 The subsequent idea of Israel gathering in (‫ )אסף‬grain, new wine, and olive oil (Deut 11:14b) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the tree giving its fruit and the soil giving its yield (Ezek 34:27), as well as Yahweh raising up for the Israelites a planting of renown, so that they will no more be gathered by hunger (Ezek 34:27–30; esp. 34:29). The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving (‫ )ונתתי‬grass in Israel’s field (Deut 11:15a) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Israelites being the flock of Yahweh’s pasturage (Ezek 34:31), in contrast to Yahweh giving Mount Seir to become a desolation (Ezek 34:31–36:9; esp. 35:3.7). The subsequent idea of Israel’s animals (‫בהמה‬: Deut 11:15a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh multiplying Israel’s humans and animals (Ezek 36:10–11; esp. 36:11). The subsequent idea of Israel eating (‫ )אכל‬and being filled (Deut 11:15bc) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the land of Israel no more eating humans and bereaving Israel of children (Ezek 36:12–15; esp. 36:13–14).

107 Cf. E. Reuter, ‘Konzepte von Autorität: Gestalten und Funktionen der Mosefiktion,’ in G. Fischer, D. Markl, and S. Paganini (eds.), Deuteronomium, 69–81 (esp. 70 n. 5); J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 405; A. Kraljic, Deuteronomium 10,12–11,32, 118, 122. 108 Pace G. Fischer, ‘Einfluss,’ 258; N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 192–194, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing.

Deut 11:2–28 (cf. Ezek 29–36)

87

The subsequent idea of (a) Moses ordering the Israelites (b) not to turn aside, presumably from the commanded way (cf. Deut 9:12.16; cf. also 10:12),109 and (c) serve other gods or worship them (Deut 11:16) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man receiving the word of Yahweh that (b) the Israelites defiled their soil by their unclean ways and (c) with their idols (Ezek 36:16–18). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh’s anger being kindled against the Israelites, and (b) the Israelites perishing quickly from (‫ )מן‬upon the land (‫( )ארץ‬c) which Yahweh gives them (Deut 11:17) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh scattering the Israelites and judging them according to their ways, (b) the Israelites going out from Yahweh’s land (Ezek 36:20), and (c) Yahweh bringing the Israelites to their land (Ezek 36:19–24; esp. 36:24). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites putting these words upon (‫)על‬110 (b) their heart (*‫ )לב‬and upon (c) their breath/soul (Deut 11:18–21; esp. 11:18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh sprinkling clean water upon the Israelites (Ezek 36:25) and (b) giving them a new heart and (c) a new breath/spirit (Ezek 36:25–27a). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites carefully keeping (‫ )שמר‬the entire commandment which Moses commands them (b) to do (‫עשה‬: Deut 11:22) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelites walking in Yahweh’s statutes and keeping his judgements and (b) doing them (Ezek 36:27b–e). The subsequent idea of the Israelites taking possession of all the land which (‫ )ארץ אשר‬they trod (Deut 11:23–25; esp. 11:25) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the Israelites dwelling in the land which Yahweh gave to their fathers (Ezek 36:28). The particular motif of the Western Sea (‫הים האחרון‬: Deut 11:24) also occurs in Joel 2:20. The subsequent idea of (a) Moses giving (‫ )נתן‬before Israel a blessing and (b) a curse (Deut 11:26) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh multiplying grain and not giving (b) famine upon them (Ezek 36:29).

1 09 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 251; T. Karimundackal, Call, 216–217. 110 Cf. J.  R.  Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 408; T.  Karimundackal, Call, 229; A.  Kraljic, Deuteronomium 10,12–11,32, 131–132.

88

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Deut 11:26) idea of (a) a blessing for obeying the commandments of Yahweh and (b) a curse for not obeying the commandments of Yahweh (Deut 11:27–28a) sequentially illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Ezek 36:29) Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh multiplying the fruit of the trees and the yield of the field, so that the Israelites would not suffer (b) the disgrace of famine (Ezek 36:30). The concluding idea of (a) the Israelites turning aside from the way (‫)דרך‬ which Moses commands them, (b) to go after other gods, which (c) they did not know (‫ידע‬: Deut 11:28b–e), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelites remembering their evil ways (Ezek 36:31), (b) feeling disgust for their abominations, and (c) knowing that Yahweh is Yahweh (Ezek 36:31–38; esp. 36:36.38).

1.15. Deut 11:29–13:19 (cf. Ezek 37:1–39:10) The section Deut 11:29–13:19 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 37:1–39:10. The opening thought that (a) it shall be (‫ )היה‬that (b) Yahweh will bring (‫)בוא‬ Israel (c) to (‫ )אל‬the land (d) which he comes to possess (Deut 11:29a–d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Ezekielian thought that (a) there was Yahweh’s hand upon the son of man (Ezek 37:1), so that he prophesied that (b) Yahweh would bring the Israelites (c) to the land of Israel (Ezek 37:12), (d) to place them on their ground (Ezek 37:1–15; esp. 37:14). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Deut 11:26)111 idea of Israel putting the blessing on Mount Gerizim, presumably with Judah and Joseph, and the tribes which were closest to them (Simeon and Levi with Judah, and Issachar and Benjamin with Joseph), together blessing there (cf. Deut 27:12), as well as the curse on Mount Ebal (Deut 11:29e) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Judah and Joseph, with the tribes who were their respective companions, being drawn together and becoming one (Ezek 37:15–20; esp. 37:16–19). The subsequent idea of (a) these mountains being on the other side of the Jordan, beyond the way of the entering (‫ )*בוא‬sun, (b) in the land (‫ )ארץ‬of the Canaanites (Deut 11:30a), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh gathering the Israelites from the exile, presumably in the east, letting them enter, presumably westward,

111 Cf. T.  Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 258; D.  Jericke, ‘Der Berg Garizim im Deuteronomium,’ ZAW 124 (2012) 213–228 (esp. 218).

Deut 11:29–13:19 (cf. Ezek 37:1–39:10)

89

into their land (Ezek 37:21), and (b) making them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel (Ezek 37:21–22; esp. 37:22). The subsequent idea of (a) being opposite the ‘round’ Gilgal (‫)גל*ל‬, (b) beside the oaks of a teacher/Moreh (Deut 11:30b), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) being no more defiled with ‘round’ idols (‫)גל*ל‬, and (b) Yahweh saving the Israelites from all their places in which they sinned (Ezek 37:23a–c). The motif of a sinful (cf. Ezek 37:23a) place named Gilgal (‫הגלגל‬: Deut 11:30) could have been borrowed from Hos 4:15 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites passing through the Jordan (b) and possessing the land (Deut 11:31) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh cleansing the Israelites, (b) and David becoming their king and shepherd (Ezek 37:23d–24b). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites observing (‫( )שמר‬b) to do (+ ‫עשה‬ ‫( )את‬c) all the statutes (*‫ )חק‬and (d) the judgements (‫ )משפטים‬which Moses gave them, and these being (c’) the statutes (*‫ )חק‬and (d’) the judgements (‫)משפטים‬ which (a’) the Israelites shall observe (‫( )שמר‬b’) to do (‫עשה‬: Deut 11:32–12:1c) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (d) the Israelites walking in Yahweh’s judgements, (a) observing (c) his statutes, and (b) doing them (Ezek 37:24c–e). The subsequent idea of (a) the land which was given by (‫ )ארץ אשר נתן‬Yahweh (b) God of Israel’s fathers (*‫ )אבתיכ‬to Israel (c) to possess, all the days that the Israelites live on the earth (Deut 12:1d–f), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the land which was given by Yahweh (b) to his servant Jacob, in which the Israelites’ father lived, so that (c) the Israelites, their sons, and their grandsons shall dwell on it forever (Ezek 37:25a–d). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) the Israelites utterly destroying all the places of the serving (‫ )עבד‬of the nations,112 (b) which the Israelites are dispossessing (‫)ירשים‬, their gods on high mountains and on the hills (Deut 12:2), and the Israelites destroying the names of the gods from that place (sing.: Deut 12:2–3; esp. 12:3)113 conceptually and linguistically, in a

112 Cf. R.  D.  Nelson, Deuteronomy, 159; T.  Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 275; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 423. 113 Cf. R. I. Thelle, Approaches to the “Chosen Place”: Assessing a Biblical Concept (LHBOTS 564; T&T Clark: London · Boston 2012), 62–63; E. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, vol. 1, 12,1–23,15 (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2016), 1132.

90

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) David, Yahweh’s servant (‫)עבד‬, (b) being the Israelites’ leader, presumably in Jerusalem (Ezek 37:25e). The author of Deuteronomy negatively reworked the motif of David being Yahweh’s servant (Ezek 37:25e) into that of the pagan nations serving their gods (Deut 12:2). Moreover, he negatively alluded to Jerusalem (‫)ירושלם‬, the presumed place of David’s rule (cf. Ezek 37:25e), linguistically with the use of the hapax legomenon qal part. plur. ‫‘( ירשים‬dispossessing’: Deut 12:2; diff. 11:23; 12:29; 18:14; etc.) and conceptually with the use of the motif of high mountains and hills (Deut 12:2) and the motif of that place (sing.: Deut 12:3; diff. 12:2: plur.). These negative allusions to David and Jerusalem, the fundamental points of reference for Judaean identity, imply that Deuteronomy is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The particular motif of practising idolatry on every place in which they served there, the high mountains and the hills, under every leafy tree, and on their altars (‫ מזבחתם‬+ ‫ ותחת כל־עץ רענן‬+ ‫ גבעה‬+ ‫ רום‬+ ‫ ההרים‬+ ‫מקמ* אשר *ו־שם‬: Deut 12:2–3) was borrowed from Ezek 6:13114 and conflated with Jer 17:2–3 (‫ עץ‬+ ‫ גבעות‬+ ‫הר‬ ‫ ואשריהם‬+ ‫ מזבחתם‬+ ‫)רענן‬. The subsequent idea of the Israelites not doing in a pagan manner to Yahweh their God (Deut 12:4) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh making with the Israelites a covenant of peace, an everlasting covenant (Ezek 37:26ab). The subsequent idea of (a) the place which Yahweh chooses115 out of all the Israelites’ tribes (diff. Deut 12:11 etc.: no such remark)116 (b) to put (c) his name 114 Pace T.  Ganzel, ‘Transformation,’ 37, 42, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 115 The priority of the MT lection ‫ יבחר‬in Deut 12:5 etc., which conveys the idea of imprecise location of the place chosen by Yahweh, is indirectly confirmed by the lack of explicit remark concerning Mount Gerizim in Deut 27:5–8. The reading ‫ יבחר‬is also witnessed in Josh 9:27 and in various Dead Sea Scrolls paraphrasing Deuteronomy (4Q375 [4QapocrMosesa] 1 I, 8; 11QTa LII, 9; etc.). Moreover, the Qumran scroll 4QpaleoDeutr in Deut 12:5 also seems to attest the reading ‫ ;יבחר‬cf. E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (VTSup 169; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2015), 219 n. 20. C. Edenburg and R. Müller, ‘A Northern Provenance for Deuteronomy? A Critical Review,’ HBAI 4 (2015) 148–161 (esp. 160–161), explain the MT use of the imperfect form ‫ יבחר‬as reflecting the fact that the place for Yahweh’s name west of the Jordan was not immediately present within Moses’ narrative world in Transjordan. 116 Cf. R. I. Thelle, Approaches, 34–36.

Deut 11:29–13:19 (cf. Ezek 37:1–39:10)

91

(‫( )את־‬d) there (e) to make it dwell (‫שכן‬: Deut 12:5) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh establishing and multiplying the Israelites, as well as (b) setting (c) his sanctuary (d) in the midst of the Israelites, so that (e) his dwelling place (‫ )משכן‬would be with them (Ezek 37:26c–27a). The motif of the place in which Yahweh caused his name to dwell (‫ שכן‬+ ‫ שמ* שם‬+ ‫ אשר‬+ ‫מקום‬: Deut 12:5) was borrowed from Jer 7:12. The subsequent, thrice formulated117 idea of (a) the Israelites rejoicing before Yahweh their God (‫אלהים‬: Deut 12:7.12.18) (b) as one people (Deut 12:6–25; esp. 12:7.12.18) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh being the Israelites’ God, and (b) the Israelites being his people (Ezek 37:27bc). The particular motif of the Israelites bringing to the sanctuary their sacrifices and their tithes (‫ מעשרתיכם‬+ ‫ זבחיכם‬+ *‫והבא‬: Deut 12:6) was borrowed from Amos 4:4. The motif of the Israelites eating before Yahweh in the sanctuary (‫אכל‬ ‫ לפני יהוה‬+: Deut 12:7.18) was borrowed from Ezek 44:3. The motif of enlarging one’s territory (*‫ את־גבול‬+ ‫*רחיב‬: Deut 12:20) could have been borrowed from Amos 1:13. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites bringing holy things (‫קדש‬: Deut 12:26)118 (b) to the place which Yahweh chooses, to his altar (Deut 12:26–27), so that (c) it might go well with Israel forever (‫עולם‬: Deut 12:26–28; esp. 12:28) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh making Israel holy (‫ )קדש‬by (b) letting his sanctuary (‫ )מקדש‬be among the Israelites (c) forever (Ezek 37:28). The subsequent idea of Israel not imitating the worship practised by the pagan nations (‫גוים‬: 12:29–30), which included burning their sons and their daughters (Deut 12:29–31), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man prophesying against Gog, who lived among pagan nations (Ezek 38:12.16) and planned an evil plan (Ezek 38:1–16; esp. 38:10). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites observing every word (‫דבר‬: Deut 13:1) that Yahweh commands, (b) a prophet (‫נביא‬: Deut 13:2.4.6) arising, and

117 Cf. S.-W.  Lee, “Den Ort, den JHWH erwählen wird …, sollt ihr aufsuchen” (Dtn 12,5): Die Forderung der Kulteinheit im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, PhD diss. (Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen 2015), 174–175; E. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, vol. 1, 1146–1147. 118 Cf. J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 438.

92

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

(c) the sign or wonder coming to pass (‫בוא‬: Deut 13:3), (a’) of which he spoke (‫דבר‬: Deut 13:3.6) in his words (‫דבר‬: Deut 13:1–6g; esp. 13:4), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh speaking (‫ )דבר‬through (b) the prophets of Israel, who prophesied that (c) Gog would come (Ezek 38:17–18b). The particular motif of all the word which Yahweh commands, Israel not taking anything from it (‫ תגרע‬+ ‫ צוה‬+ ‫את כל־הדבר* אשר‬: Deut 13:1), was borrowed from Jer 26:2.119 The motif of the Israelites being deceived by their prophets and dreamers of dreams (‫ חלום‬+ ‫ חלם‬+ ‫נביא‬: Deut 13:2.4.6) was borrowed from Jer 29:8. The motif of a false prophet dying because he spoke falsehood concerning Yahweh (‫ יהוה‬+ ‫ סרה‬+ ‫ דבר‬+ ‫ כי‬+ ‫ מות‬+ ‫הנביא‬: Deut 13:6) was borrowed from Jer 28:15–16 (cf. 29:31–32).120 The subsequent idea of burning out the evil from Israel’s midst (Deut 13:6h)121 illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the heat of Yahweh’s anger arising, and Yahweh speaking in the fire of his wrath (Ezek 38:18c–19a). The subsequent idea of (a) someone enticing Israel to serve the gods of the peoples from one end of the land to the other end of the land (Deut 13:7–8), and (b) Israel having no pity or compassion for him (Deut 13:7–9; esp. 13:9) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) a great earthquake being in the land of Israel, (b) making all living beings quake and destroying everything (Ezek 38:19b–20). The particular motif of someone’s eye not having pity for a guilty Israelite, and not having compassion (‫ולא־תחוס עינ* עלי * ולא־*חמל‬: Deut 13:9) was borrowed from Ezek 7:4 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) Israel killing122 the enticer, (b) the hand of the Israelite being (‫ )תהיה‬against the enticer to put him to death, and the hand of all the people likewise (Deut 13:10) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential

119 Pace G. Fischer, ‘Einfluss,’ 260; N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 64–70, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 120 Pace G. Fischer, ‘Einfluss,’ 261; J. T. Hibbard, ‘True and False Prophecy: Jeremiah’s Revision of Deuteronomy,’ JSOT 35.3 (2011) 339–358 (esp.  348); N.  Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 89–90, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 121 Cf. S. Paganini, Deuteronomio, 257. 122 Cf. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 164; U. Rüterswörden, Deuteronomium 12–13 (BKAT 5/3; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2019), 138–142. Pace L. Quick, ‘ “But You Shall Surely Report Concerning Him”: In Defense of the Priority of LXX Deuteronomy 13:9,’ ZAW 130 (2018) 86–100, who argues for the priority of LXX Deut 13:9 over the MT of Deut 13:10.

Deut 14 (cf. Ezek 39:11–45:9d)

93

way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh summoning a sword against Gog, and (b) the sword of a man being against his brother (Ezek 38:21). The subsequent idea of Israel stoning the enticer with stones (‫אבנים‬: Deut 13:11; diff. 13:6: no such remark) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of punishing Gog with stones of hail (Ezek 38:22). The subsequent idea of (a) all Israel (‫ )ישראל‬hearing and fearing, (b) and not (‫ )ולא‬doing wickedness anymore in the midst of Israel (Deut 13:12) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh making his name holy in the midst of Israel, (b) and not letting his name be profaned in Israel (Ezek 38:23–39:8; esp. 39:7). The subsequent idea of (b’) hearing in one of Israel’s cities (*‫)ערי‬, which Yahweh gives to Israel to dwell (‫ )ישב‬there (Deut 13:13), that (a) wicked men somewhat surprisingly went out (‫ )יצאו‬and enticed (b) the inhabitants of their city (‫ עיר‬+ ‫ישבי‬: Deut 13:13–14; esp. 13:14) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the (a) going out of (b) the inhabitants of the cities of Israel (Ezek 39:9a). The subsequent idea of investigating and searching out whether the city is guilty of apostasy and, if so, destroying the city (Deut 13:15–16) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of setting on fire and burning the pagans’ weapons (Ezek 39:9b–d). The concluding idea of (b’) Israel gathering all the spoil (‫ )שלל‬and (a) burning with fire (‫ )אש‬both the apostate city and (b) all its spoil (‫( )שלל‬Deut 13:17–19; esp. 13:17) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelites burning the pagans’ weapons with fire and (b) despoiling (‫ )שלל‬those who despoiled (‫ )שלל‬them (Ezek 39:10).

1.16.  Deut 14 (cf. Ezek 39:11–45:9d) The section Deut 14 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 39:11–45:9d. The opening idea of the Israelites not exceedingly mourning for the dead, with permanent pagan signs of mourning (Deut 14:1),123 illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of the Israelites burying Gog and his multitude, thus cleansing the land, presumably of corpses, within seven months (Ezek 39:11–12). The particular motif of not cutting oneself or making a bald patch for the dead (‫לא *תגדד‬ ‫ מת‬+ *‫ קרח‬+ ‫ולא‬: Deut 14:1) was borrowed from Jer 16:6.

123 Cf. D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, 290–291.

94

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

The subsequent idea of (a) Israel being a people (‫ )עם‬holy to Yahweh, (b) whom Yahweh has chosen to be (‫( )היה‬c) for (‫ )ל‬him (d) as (‫ )ל‬a people of his personal property (Deut 14:2a–c), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) all the people of the land burying, and this (b) being (c) for them (d) as a reputation (Ezek 39:13). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel being above all the peoples who are (b) on the face of the ground (*‫על־פני הא‬: Deut 14:2d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) setting apart the Israelite men who would bury the pagans who remain (b) on the face of the land (Ezek 39:14–16; esp. 39:14). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites not eating (‫אכל‬: Deut 14:3–4.6– 12.19–21) any abhorrent thing and any animal which is for them unclean (Deut 14:7–8.10.19), including (b) birds (‫צפור‬: Deut 14:11) which (a’) presumably eat flesh (Deut 14:3–20; esp. 14:12–18),124 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (b) all winged birds (Ezek 39:17) and every beast of the field (a) eating flesh and drinking blood (Ezek 39:17). The particular motif of the Israelites not eating the flesh of the swine (‫ אכל‬+ ‫ בשר‬+ ‫החזיר‬: Deut 14:8) was borrowed from Isa 65:4; 66:17. The subsequent idea of the Israelites not eating (‫ )תאכלו‬any carcass (Deut 14:21a–e) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of wild animals eating the flesh of mighty warriors (Ezek 39:18). The particular motif of the Israelites not eating any carcass (‫ נבלה‬+ ‫ אכל‬+ ‫לא‬: Deut 14:21) was borrowed from Ezek 4:14; 44:31. The subsequent idea of not cooking the kid in the fat (‫ )חלב‬of its mother (Deut 14:21f)125 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of wild animals eating fat and drinking blood of the slaughtered ones (Ezek 39:19–29; esp. 39:19). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel giving a tenth (‫)עשר‬, that is, a tithe (‫)עשר‬ of (b) the yield (‫ )*תבוא‬of the field (c) year (‫ )שנה‬by year (‫שנה‬: Deut 14:22) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the twenty(‫)עשר‬-fifth (c) year (‫)שנה‬, (c’) at the beginning of the year (‫)שנה‬, (a’) on the tenth (‫ )עשור‬of the month, (c”) in the fourteenth year (‫ )שנה‬after the city was taken (Ezek 40:1), (b) bringing (‫ )בוא‬the son of man to the land of Israel and then to the sanctuary (Ezek 40:1–4).

124 Cf. ibid. 292; R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 180; E. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, vol. 1, 1306. 125 Cf. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 175.

Deut 14 (cf. Ezek 39:11–45:9d)

95

The subsequent idea of (a) Israel eating (b) before (‫( )לפני‬c) Yahweh, the God (*‫ )אלהי‬of Israel (Deut 14:23a), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the outer and inner courts (Ezek 40:5–37) with tables with the meat of the offering (Ezek 40:38–43), and (b) the priests dwelling and serving before (Ezek 40:44–47; esp. 40:47) (c) the temple (Ezek 40:48–42:20), which was filled with the glory of the God of Israel, the glory of Yahweh (Ezek 40:1–43:6; esp. 43:1–6). The subsequent idea of (a) the place (‫( )מקום‬b) which (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh chooses to (c) make dwell (‫( )שכן‬d) his name (‫( )שם‬e) there (‫שם‬: Deut 14:23bc) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the temple being (a) the place of Yahweh’s throne and the place of the soles of his feet, (b) in which he will (c) dwell (e) there, and (d) his name will not be defiled (Ezek 43:7–12; esp. 43:7–8). The subsequent idea of (a) bringing to the sanctuary the tenths (‫ )*עשר‬of agricultural products as well as (b) the firstborns of Israel’s herd (‫ )בקר‬and (c) flock (‫צאן‬: Deut 14:23c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the altar hearth measuring more than ten cubits (Ezek (Ezek 43:13–17), and (b) offering on it an animal from the herd (Ezek 43:19.23.25) and (c) an animal from the flock (Ezek 43:13–25; esp. 43:23.25). The subsequent idea of Israel learning to fear Yahweh all the days (‫הימים‬: Deut 14:23de) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of making atonement for the altar seven days, until these days are completed and Yahweh will be favourable to them (Ezek 43:26–27). The subsequent idea of (a) the way (‫ )דרך‬being long, and (b) the Israelite not (‫ )לא‬being able to carry the tithe to the sanctuary (c) because (‫ )כי‬distant from him is the place which Yahweh, the God (*‫ )יהוה אלהי‬of Israel, chooses (d) to put his name there (Deut 14:24a–f) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) bringing the son of man on the way to the outer gate of the sanctuary (Ezek 44:1), and (b) the eastern gate of the sanctuary being shut and not being opened, and people not coming through it (Ezek 44:2) (c) because Yahweh, the God of Israel, came through it, so that it should be shut (Ezek 44:2), and (d) the glory of Yahweh filled the temple of Yahweh (Ezek 44:1–4; esp. 44:4). The subsequent idea of Yahweh blessing (‫ )ברך‬Israel (Deut 14:24g) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the priests ministering to Yahweh, and thus the Israelites receiving a blessing (‫ברכה‬: Ezek 44:5–30; esp. 44:30).

96

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

The subsequent idea of the Israelite buying in the sanctuary whatever his soul desires as well as rejoicing,126 he and his household (‫ביתך‬: Deut 14:25–26; esp. 14:26), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of a priestly blessing resting on his, that is, the Israelite’s household (Ezek 44:30c–31; esp. 44:30c). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel not forsaking the Levite (‫ )לוי‬who is within Israel because (b) he has no allotted portion (‫ )חלק‬or (c) inheritance (‫ )נחלה‬with Israel (Deut 14:27–29b; esp. 14:27.29) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential but corrective127 way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (c) allotting the land of Israel as inheritance (Ezek 45:1) and (a) setting apart an area for the Levites (Ezek 45:5) among (b) the Israelites’ allotted portions (Ezek 45:1–8a; esp. 45:7). The subsequent idea of the resident alien, the orphan, and the widow eating and being satisfied (Deut 14:29c–e) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the princes not oppressing Yahweh’s people (Ezek 45:8bc). The particular motif of a resident alien, an orphan, and a widow (‫גר* יתום ו*אלמנה‬: Deut 14:29) was borrowed from Jer 7:6; 22:3. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh blessing the Israelite (b) in all the deed (‫ )מעשה‬which he does (‫עשה‬: Deut 14:29fg) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the princes of Israel having enough, and (b) doing justice and righteousness (Ezek 45:9a–d).

1.17.  Deut 15:1–16:17 (cf. Ezek 45:9e–46:7) The section Deut 15:1–16:17 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 45:9e–46:7. The opening idea of (a) remission, so that every lord of a loan should remit (b) what he lent to his poor Israelite neighbour and should not oppress him because (c) Yahweh’s remission was proclaimed (Deut 15:1–11; esp. 15:2), sequentially illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of (a) the princes of Israel revoking (b) their eviction of Yahweh’s people (c) according to an oracle of Yahweh (Ezek 45:9ef). The particular motif of making remission at the end of seven years for 126 Cf. P.  Altmann, Festive Meals in Ancient Israel:  Deuteronomy’s Identity Politics in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context (BZAW 424; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2011), 233. 127 If the Levites in the post-exilic northern Israel originated from Judaea (cf. Neh 11:36; 13:28–29), they understandably had no allotted portion or inheritance in northern Israel (Deut 14:27.29).

Deut 15:1–16:17 (cf. Ezek 45:9e–46:7)

97

the benefit of the Israelite’s neighbour and proclaiming remission (‫מקץ שבע שנים‬ ‫ קרא‬+ ‫ רעהו‬+ ‫ עשה‬+: Deut 15:1–2) was borrowed from Jer 34:14–15.128 The subsequent idea of (a) a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman being sold and (b) serving six (‫שש‬: Deut 15:12.18) years, and in the seventh (so one-sixth of the preceding period) year the Israelite letting him go free (Deut 15:12–18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelites having honest scales (Ezek 45:10–12) and (b) offering one-sixth (‫ )ששי‬of an ephah (Ezek 45:10–14; esp. 45:13). The particular motif of an Israelite brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, being sold to an Israelite and serving him six years, and at the time of release the Israelite letting him go free from him (‫ שלח* חפשי‬+ ‫ ועבדך שש שנים‬+ ‫ העבריה‬+ ‫ העברי‬+ *‫ אחי‬+ ‫ימכר לך‬ ‫מעמך‬: Deut 15:12–13.18) was borrowed from Jer 34:9–11.14.129 The subsequent idea of (a) every firstborn male from the Israelite’s herd and the Israelite’s flock (‫( )צאן‬b) being consecrated for (‫ )ל‬Yahweh (Deut 15:19) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) one animal from the flock (b) being offered for an offering (Ezek 45:15–16; esp. 45:15). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelite eating the offering before Yahweh (b) year by (‫ )ב‬year in the sanctuary, (c) he and his house (‫בית‬: Deut 15:20), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the prince offering the offerings (b) by the presumably yearly festivals and by all the appointed meetings of (c) the house of Israel (Ezek 14:17a). The subsequent idea of Israel eating defective animals, which should not be sacrificed to Yahweh, the unclean and the clean alike, as non-sacrificial animals (Deut 15:21–22) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of making a sin offering and other offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel (Ezek 14:17bc). The subsequent idea of Israel not consuming but pouring out animal blood (‫דם‬: Deut 15:23) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Israel taking an animal, and the priest taking some of its blood

128 Pace E. Otto, ‘Jeremia,’ 546; N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 146–152, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 129 Pace G. Fischer, ‘Einfluss,’ 262; K. Bergland, ‘Jeremiah 34 Originally Composed as a Legal Blend of Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M.  Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (BZABR 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 189–205 (esp. 191–194), who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing.

98

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

and putting it on the doorposts of the temple, on the corners of the enclosure of the altar, and on the doorposts of a gate (Ezek 45:18–20; esp. 45:19). The subsequent thought that (a) in the month (‫ )חדש‬of Abib (b) Israel should make (‫( )עשה‬c) the Passover (‫פסח‬: Deut 16:1) and (d) slaughter a sacrifice to Yahweh (‫( )ליהוה‬e) from the flock and the herd (Deut 16:2), and (f) for seven days (‫שבעת *ימים‬: Deut 16:3–4) (g) eat unleavened bread (‫ מצות‬+ ‫*אכל‬: Deut 16:3.8), and (h) on the seventh day (‫ )יום‬there shall be a holiday (Deut 16:1–8; esp. 16:8) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian thought that (a) in the first month (c) there should the Passover, and Israel should (g) eat unleavened bread (Ezek 45:21), and (b) the prince should make (Ezek 45:22–23) (d) a burnt offering to Yahweh, (e) bulls and rams (f) for seven days, and (h) as a sin offering a goat for a day (Ezek 45:21–23; esp. 45:23). The idea of celebrating the Passover between the evening and the morning (Deut 16:6–7; cf. 16:4) reflects the Ezekielian presentation of the Passover as celebrated on the fourteenth day of the month, presumably during the full moon (Ezek 45:21), in contrast to the festival in the seventh month, which was celebrated on the fifteenth day of the month (Ezek 45:25). Likewise, the idea of celebrating the Passover only in the central sanctuary (Deut 16:2.5–7)130 reflects the Ezekielian presentation of the Passover sacrifice as offered by the prince, presumably in the royal sanctuary (Ezek 45:22–24). The subsequent idea of (a) making (‫עשה‬: Deut 16:10.12) the grain-related (Deut 16:9)131 festival of weeks, (b) with a given measure of a voluntary offering, given inasmuch as Yahweh blesses Israel (Deut 16:9–12; esp. 16:10–11),132 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) making a grain offering, (b) with great measures of grain and oil (Ezek 45:24).133 The particular motif of the festival of seven (‫חג שבעות‬: Deut 16:10) was borrowed from Ezek 45:21 and reformulated into that of the festival of sevenths/ weeks (‫שבעות‬: Deut 16:9–10; cf. 16:16). Accordingly, the ‘intermediate’ festival of weeks (Deut 16:9–13) was artificially inserted between the festival of the Passover 1 30 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 332; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 507. 131 Cf. D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, 342; T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 338; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 512. 132 Cf. S. Paganini, Deuteronomio, 280; B. Packiam, Learning Faith Through the Celebration of the Pilgrim Feasts in Deuteronomy: A Paradigm for the Church in India? (Jaycee: New Delhi 2015), 208–209. 133 The author of Deuteronomy thus solved the problem of offering much grain in the period of scarcity preceding the new harvest (Ezek 45:24).

Deut 15:1–16:17 (cf. Ezek 45:9e–46:7)

99

(Deut 16:1–8; cf. Ezek 45:21–24) and the festival of booths (Deut 16:13–15; cf. Ezek 45:25), which are mutually correlated as celebrated in the calendrically ‘opposing’ first and seventh month respectively in the twelve-month year, just as mutually correlated are the calendrically ‘opposing’ days of the Sabbath (full moon) and the new moon (Ezek 46:1). In this way, the motif of celebrating three festivals a year (Deut 16:16) was artificially created. The subsequent thought that (a) the festival (‫חג‬: Deut 16:13–14) of booths (b) Israel should make (‫( )*עשה‬c) for seven days (‫)שבעת *ימים‬, (d) when Israel gathered from his threshing floor and (e) his oil press (Deut 16:13), (f) rejoicing in the same way as during the preceding festival (Deut 16:13–14; esp. 16:14; cf. 16:11), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian thought that in the seventh month, (a) during a festival, (b) the prince should make (f) the same things (c) for seven days (d) as concerns grain offering and (e) as concerns oil (Ezek 45:25). The subsequent thought that (a) for seven days (‫ )ימים‬Israel should celebrate the festival in the sanctuary (b) because Yahweh will bless Israel in all his work (‫מעשה‬: Deut 16:15) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian thought that (a) the eastern gate of the inner court should be closed for the six days of (b) work (Ezek 46:1a–c). The subsequent thought that (a) three times a year (b) every male Israelite should see the face of Yahweh (‫)*פני יהוה‬134 in the sanctuary, (a’) at three named festivals, and (b’) he should not see the face of Yahweh empty-handed (Deut 16:16), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian thought that (a) on two named festival days in the month (b) the prince should come to the sanctuary, and the people of the land should worship before the face of Yahweh (Ezek 46:1d–3; esp. 46:3). The subsequent idea of every man presenting a gift of his hand (‫מת*ת ידו‬: Deut 16:17a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the prince’s burnt offering on the day of the Sabbath being supplemented with a grain offering as a gift of his hand (Ezek 46:4–5; esp. 46:5). The concluding idea of every man offering as much as (‫ )כ‬Yahweh’s blessing gave to Israel (Deut 16:17b) illustrates the concluding Ezekielian idea of the prince’s burnt offering on the day of the new moon being supplemented with a grain offering as much as (‫ )כאשר‬he can in his hand (Ezek 46:6–7; esp. 46:7).

134 Cf. T. Veijola, Deuteronomium, vol. 1, 341.

100

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

1.18. Deut 16:18–18:8 (cf. Ezek 46:8–24) The section Deut 16:18–18:8 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 46:8–24. The opening idea of (a) judges and officials being appointed (b) in all Israel’s gates (‫( )שער‬c) for Israel’s tribes (Deut 16:18ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of (a) the prince coming by way of (b) the gate and (c) going out his way, presumably to the Israelites (Ezek 46:8). The subsequent idea of (a) judging the people (‫ )עם‬with (b) just judgement (Deut 16:18c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the coming of the people of the land (b) before Yahweh at the appointed festivals (Ezek 46:9a). The subsequent idea of not (‫ )לא‬perverting the judgement (Deut 16:19a)135 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of going by way to the opposite gate and not turning by way of the gate through which one came (Ezek 46:9b–i). The subsequent idea of not recognizing the face and not taking a bribe (Deut 16:19b–e) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the prince coming in and going out simply in the midst of the people (Ezek 46:10). The subsequent idea of (a) pursuing righteousness and possessing the land which (b) Yahweh gives (‫ )נתן‬to Israel (Deut 16:20) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) offering prescribed quantities for a bull and for a ram, and (b) for the lambs a gift (‫)מתת‬ of one’s hand (Ezek 46:11). The particular motif of pursuing righteousness (‫צדק‬ ‫ רדף‬+: Deut 16:20) was borrowed from Isa 51:1. The subsequent idea of Israel making (‫*עשה‬: Deut 16:21)136 an altar to Yahweh, and not practising voluntary worship by planting beside it a sacred tree (Deut 16:21)137 or setting up an upright stone (Deut 16:22) or sacrificing to Yahweh a defective animal (Deut 17:1) or making (‫עשה‬: Deut 17:2.4–5) evil by worshipping other gods (Deut 16:21–17:7; esp. 17:2–7) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the prince making a voluntary

1 35 Cf. J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 523. 136 Pace R. J. Bautch, ‘The Altar Not Destroyed in Deuteronomy 16.21,’ JSOT 40.3 (2016) 321–336 (esp. 335–336), Deut 16:21 refers to an Israelite actively making a presumably Yahwistic altar, and not to merely not destroying a Canaanite one. 137 Cf. S. J. Park, ‘The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel,’ ZAW 123 (2011) 553–564 (esp. 555).

Deut 16:18–18:8 (cf. Ezek 46:8–24)

101

offering to Yahweh (Ezek 46:12a). The particular motif of transgressing Yahweh’s covenant (‫ ברית‬+ ‫עבר‬: Deut 17:2) was borrowed from Hos 8:1 (cf. 6:7); Jer 34:18. The subsequent idea of (a) Israel coming to the sanctuary (Deut 17:8–9) and (b) making (‫ )עשה‬according to the priests’ word from the sanctuary (Deut 17:8– 13; esp. 17:10–12) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the prince coming through the gate to the sanctuary and (b) making an offering as it is made on the day of the Sabbath (Ezek 46:12b–h), and making a daily offering according to the presumably priestly eternally lasting statute (Ezek 46:12b–15; esp. 46:13–15). The particular motif of a certain case being too difficult (‫ דבר‬+ ‫יפלא ממך‬: Deut 17:8) could have been borrowed from Jer 32:17.27. The motif of the Levitical priests (‫הכהנים‬ ‫הלוים‬: Deut 17:9) was borrowed from Ezek 43:19; 44:15 (cf. Jer 33:18). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving (‫ )נתן‬the land (b) to (‫ )ל‬Israel, and (c) Israel possessing it and dwelling (d) in (‫ )ב‬it (Deut 17:14a–d) with the use of the motif of the Israelites being Yahweh’s sons (Deut 14:1) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the prince giving a gift (‫( )מתנה‬b) to any of his sons, this being his inheritance, and (c) for his sons this becoming their property (d) in the inheritance (Ezek 46:16). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel setting a king over himself, thus presumably becoming a servant, (b) like all the nations that are around Israel (Deut 17:14e– g) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the prince giving a gift to one of his servants, (b) but this gift being only temporary, to the year of release, and then returning to the prince, presumably according to the ordinary social relations (Ezek 46:17a–c). The subsequent idea of Yahweh choosing a king who would be the Israelites’ brother, thus presumably not making Israel a servant (Deut 17:15a–c), illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the prince’s inheritance belonging to his sons, so presumably not to his servants (Ezek 46:17d). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel not (‫ )לא‬setting over himself a foreigner,138 who is not (b) Israel’s brother (Deut 17:15d–f), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the prince not taking away any of (b) the inheritance of the people (Ezek 46:18a).

138 Cf. R.  Ebach, Das Fremde und das Eigene:  Die Fremdendarstellungen des Deuteronomiums im Kontext israelitischer Identitätskonstruktionen (BZAW 471; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 247.

102

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

The subsequent idea of the king not acquiring many horses for himself (Deut 17:16a) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the prince not evicting the people from their property (Ezek 46:18bc).139 The subsequent idea of (a) the king not causing the people (‫ )עם‬to return to Egypt, because Yahweh said that this is against his will (Deut 17:16b–f), (b) not multiplying women/wives (‫ )אשה‬for himself, and (c) not multiplying for himself much silver or gold (Deut 17:16b–17; esp. 17:17) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the prince not dispersing Yahweh’s people, (b) a man/husband (‫( )איש‬c) from his property (Ezek 46:18d).140 The subsequent idea of (a) the king making a copy of the law from the Levitical priests (‫הכהנים‬: Deut 17:18–20; esp. 17:18), the Levitical priests (‫הכהנים‬: Deut 18:1) (b) having no allotted portion or inheritance with Israel (Deut 18:1–2), and (c) the priests (‫הכהנים‬: Deut 18:3) having their due from the people who, somewhat surprisingly, sacrifice (‫ )זבח‬a sacrifice (‫זבח‬: Deut 18:3)141 and from other offerings (Deut 17:18–18:5; esp. 18:4–5) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) bringing the son of man to the priests (b) presumably dwelling in the sanctuary (c) in the part facing northward, so presumably having charge of the altar (Ezek 46:19a–c; cf. 40:46: ‫)מזבח‬. The particular motif of the Israelites observing the law (+ ‫שמר‬ ‫תורה‬: Deut 17:19) was borrowed from Jer 16:11. The subsequent idea of a Levite coming to the place which (‫)המקום אשר‬ Yahweh chooses (Deut 18:6) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of there being a place at the western end, and this being the place which Yahweh showed (Ezek 46:19d–20b). The concluding idea of (a) the Levite serving (‫שרת‬: Deut 18:7) in the name of Yahweh, and (b) all the Levites eating there, that is, in the sanctuary (Deut 18:7–8; esp. 18:8)142 conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the concluding Ezekielian idea of (b) the priests boiling and baking 139 Pace H. McKeating, ‘Ezekiel the “Prophet Like Moses”?,’ JSOT 61 (1994) 97–109 (esp. 102–103), who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence. 140 Pace ibid., suggesting the reverse direction of literary dependence. 141 Cf. P. Altmann, ‘What Do the “Levites in Your Gates” Have to Do with the “Levitical Priests”? An Attempt at European–North American Dialogue on the Levites in the Deuteronomic Law Corpus,’ in M. A. Leuchter and J. M. Hutton (eds.), Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition (AIL 9; SBL: Atlanta 2011), 135–154 (esp. 146); J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 545. 142 Cf. E. H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, 269.

Deut 18:9–30:20 (cf. Ezek 47:1–12)

103

the offerings not for the people (Ezek 46:20–24c), and (a) those who serve the temple (b’) dealing with the sacrifice of the people (Ezek 46:20–24; esp. 46:24d).

1.19. Deut 18:9–30:20 (cf. Ezek 47:1–12) The section Deut 18:9–30:20 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 47:1–12. The opening idea of Israel not learning to do according to the abominations of the pagan nations but being blameless to Yahweh (Deut 18:9–14) illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of bringing the son of man back to Yahweh’s temple (Ezek 47:1a). The particular motif of doing abomination by making a son or a daughter pass through the fire (‫ בת‬+ ‫ בן‬+ ‫ *עביר‬+ *‫לעשות *תועב‬: Deut 18:9–10) was borrowed from Jer 32:35.143 The motif of practising divination (‫ קסם‬+ ‫קסם‬: Deut 18:10) was borrowed from Ezek 13:23; 21:26; and conflated with Jer 27:9 (+ ‫ *עננים‬+ ‫קסם‬ ‫)כשף‬144 and Isa 47:9.12 (‫ חבר‬+ ‫)כשף‬. The motif of consulting spirits and soothsayers, as well as seeking the dead (‫ דרש* אל־‬+ ‫ ידעני‬+ ‫אוב‬: Deut 18:11) was borrowed from Isa 8:19; 19:3. The subsequent idea of (a) a prophet transmitting the voice of Yahweh (b) out of the theophanic fire (Deut 18:15–16)145 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) water flowing (b) from the temple (Ezek 47:1bc). The subsequent, repeated (cf. Deut 18:15–16) idea of (a) a prophet transmitting the words and commandments of Yahweh (b) in a threatening way (Deut 18:17–22) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian, likewise repeated (cf. Ezek 47:1bc) idea of (a) water flowing (b) from the temple (Ezek 47:1d). The particular motif of Yahweh raising a prophet to the Israelites, putting his words in the prophet’s mouth, and the prophet speaking all that Yahweh commands him (*‫ את כל־אשר אצו‬+ ‫ דבר‬+ *‫ נתתי דברי בפי‬+ *‫ ל‬+ ‫נביא‬: Deut 18:18) was borrowed from Jer 1:5.7.9.146 The motif of Yahweh saying that a false prophet 143 Pace N.  Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 144–146, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 144 Pace G. Fischer, ‘Einfluss,’ 262, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 145 Cf. N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic, 150. 146 Cf. M.  Köckert, ‘Zum literargeschichtlichen Ort des Prophetengesetzes Dtn 18 zwischen dem Jeremiabuch und Dtn 13,’ in R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann (eds.), Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium, Festschrift L. Perlitt (FRLANT 190; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht:  Göttingen 2000), 80–100 (esp.  86–90); E.  Nicholson, Deuteronomy and the Judaean Diaspora (Oxford University: Oxford 2014), 80. Pace N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 52–56, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

104

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

speaks a word in Yahweh’s name, which Yahweh did not command him (‫*דבר דבר‬ *‫ אשר לא צוית‬+ ‫בשמי‬: Deut 18:20), was borrowed from Jer 29:23.147 The motif of knowing the word spoken by Yahweh by the fact that the word which the prophet himself speaks will not come to pass (‫ דבר‬+ ‫ בוא‬+ ‫ *דבר הנביא‬+ ‫ דבר‬+ ‫ידע‬: Deut 18:21–22) was borrowed from Jer 28:9.148 The subsequent idea of (a) Israel dwelling in the promised land, (b) separating three cities in the midst of the land, presumably one to the north and one to the south of the central sanctuary (cf. Josh 20:7), and preparing the way (‫דרך‬: Deut 19:3) to let an innocent manslayer flee there (Deut 19:1–5) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) bringing the son of man out of the temple, presumably to the area of the Israelites, (b) by way of the gate to the north (Ezek 47:2a). The subsequent idea of (a) the avenger of blood pursuing the manslayer and reaching him (b) because the way (‫דרך‬: Deut 19:6) was long, and there was no trial imposing a death sentence,149 and therefore (c) Israel separating three cities (Deut 19:6–7) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) making the son of man go around (b) by way outside, (c) to the gate outside (Ezek 47:2b). The particular motif of a death sentence (‫משפט־מות‬: Deut 19:6) could have been borrowed from Jer 26:11.16. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh enlarging Israel’s territory, Israel walking in Yahweh’s ways (‫דרך‬: Deut 19:9), and (b) Israel adding three more cities, presumably to the east of the Jordan (cf. Josh 20:8; diff. Deut 4:41: first in the east), not to shed innocent blood (Deut 19:8–13), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) going by way that (b) faces the east (Ezek 47:2c). The particular motif of shedding innocent blood (‫*שפך דם נקי‬: Deut 19:10) could have been borrowed from Isa 59:7 etc. The subsequent section containing various legal regulations, presumably originating from the sanctuary and its priests (Deut 19:14–20:20; esp. 19:17; 20:2; cf. 17:18), metaphorically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of water, presumably water of life (Ezek 47:8–10.12), trickling from the temple (Ezek 47:2d). The particular motif of exhorting Israel before a battle not to be timid in their

147 Pace G. Fischer, ‘Einfluss,’ 265; N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 88–89, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 148 Pace G. Fischer, ‘Einfluss,’ 265; J. T. Hibbard, ‘True and False,’ 348; N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 71–75, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 149 Cf. K.  Mattison, ‘Contrasting Conceptions of Asylum in Deuteronomy 19 and Numbers 35,’ VT 68 (2018) 232–251 (esp. 235).

Deut 18:9–30:20 (cf. Ezek 47:1–12)

105

heart and not to be afraid (*‫ אל־תירא‬+ *‫ לבבכ‬+ ‫אל־ירך‬: Deut 20:3) was borrowed from Isa 7:4.150 The subsequent idea of (a) Israel’s elders and judges somewhat surprisingly going out (‫יצא‬: Deut 21:2), (b) measuring (‫ )מדד‬the distance from the cities, and (c) bringing a heifer down (Deut 21:1–4a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) a man going out (Ezek 47:3a), (b) measuring (Ezek 47:3b–5a) the distance, presumably from the sanctuary, and (c) bringing the son of man to the water, which gradually covered his body (Ezek 47:3–5a). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) bringing the heifer to an ever-flowing river (‫)נחל‬, (b) which was not (‫( )אשר־לא‬c) worked (‫)עבד‬151 and (d) not sown, and (e) reaching the neck of the heifer (f) in the river (‫נחל‬: Deut 21:4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) water becoming a river (b) which the son of man could not (c) cross (‫)עבר‬, (d) water which rose up, (e) water in which one had to swim, (f) river which he did not cross (Ezek 47:5). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) the priests, the sons of Levi, coming,152 the elders of the city saying (‫אמר‬: Deut 21:7) that (b) their eyes did not see (‫ראה‬: Deut 21:7) the blood, as well as (c) asking that Yahweh might provide atonement, and (d) Israel removing the evil and doing what is right in the sight of Yahweh (Deut 21:5–9; esp. 21:8–9), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the sanctuary man saying to the son of man whether (b) he saw it, as well as (c) leading him and (d) making him convert (Ezek 47:6a–d). The subsequent section containing various legal, partly repeated regulations for Israel (Deut 21:10–25:19) metaphorically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man being at the bank of the life-giving river (Ezek 47:6d). Some motifs which were contained in the section Deut 19:14–21:9 are again used in the section Deut 21:10–25:19 (cf. e.g. Deut 19:17 and 21:5 and 25:1; 150 Pace H. G. M. Williamson, ‘Deuteronomy,’ 257, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 151 Cf. D. L. Belnap, ‘Defining the Ambiguous, the Unknown, and the Dangerous: The Significance of the Ritual Process in Deuteronomy 21:1–9,’ ZABR 23 (2017) 209–221 (esp. 217). 152 Cf. J.  Dietrich, Kollektive Schuld und Haftung:  Religions- und rechtsgeschichtliche Studien zum Sündenkuhritus des Deuteronomiums und zu verwandten Texten (ORA 4; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010), 372–375.

106

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

Deut 20:1 and 21:10 and 23:10;153 Deut 20:5 and 22:8; Deut 20:7 and 22:23–27 and 24:5;154 Deut 21:1 and 21:23; Deut 21:5 and 24:8). Moreover, some motifs are used in the section Deut 21:10–25:19 repeatedly (cf. e.g. Deut 21:11–17 and 22:13–14.19.29 and 24:1–4 and 25:6–8;155 Deut 23:5 and 24:9 and 25:17–18; Deut 23:15 and 24:1; Deut 23:25–26 and 24:19–21). In this way, the author of Deuteronomy illustrated the Ezekielian idea of the flowing river (Ezek 47:6d) being the same water as that which trickles from the temple (Ezek 47:2d). The particular motif of a hostile plan of a Moabite against Israel and the reaction to it on the part of Balaam son of Beor (‫ בלעם בן־בעור‬+ *‫מואב‬: Deut 23:4– 6) was borrowed from Mic 6:5. The motif of a husband sending his wife away, the wife going from him and becoming another man’s wife, so not being allowed to come back to the first husband because this would defile the land (+ ‫ אשה‬+ ‫איש‬ ‫ הארץ‬+ ‫ *שוב‬+ ‫ והיתה לאיש־אחר‬+ ‫ והלכה‬+ ‫ מן‬+ ‫שלח‬: Deut 24:1–2.4), was borrowed from Jer 3:1.156 The motif of the fathers not dying for their sons, and the sons not dying for their fathers, but a man dying for his sins (+ ‫ בן‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫ אב‬+ ‫ מות‬+ ‫לא־‬ ‫חטא‬: Deut 24:16) was borrowed from Ezek 18:20.157 The subsequent idea of (a) Israel returning from Egypt (Deut 26:5–9) and, (b) behold (‫הנה‬: Deut 26:10), (c) bringing the best of the fruits (‫פרי‬: Deut 26:10;

153 Cf. C. A. Reeder, ‘Deuteronomy 21.10–14 and/as Wartime Rape,’ JSOT 41.3 (2017) 313–336 (esp. 317). 154 Cf. J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 637, 675. 155 Cf. B. Wells, ‘The Hated Wife in Deuteronomic Law,’ VT 60 (2010) 131–146 (esp. 137, 142–144); S. J. Milstein, ‘Making a Case: The Repurposing of “Israelite Legal Fictions” as Post-Deuteronomic Law,’ in S. M. Olyan and J. L. Wright (eds.), Supplementation and the Study of the Hebrew Bible (BJS 361; Brown University:  Providence, RI 2018) 161–181 (esp. 169–172); Milstein, ‘Separating the Wheat from the Chaff: The Independent Logic of Deuteronomy 22:25–27,’ JBL 137 (2018) 625–643 (esp. 641). 156 Pace M. A. Zipor, ‘Divorce and Restoration of Marriage (Deut 24:1–4),’ ZABR 20 (2014) 127–140 (esp. 139); D. Rom-Shiloni, ‘Compositional Harmonization: Priestly and Deuteronomic References in the Book of Jeremiah  – An Earlier Stage of a Recognized Interpretive Technique,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation, 913–941 (esp. 928–930); K. Schmid, ‘The Prophets after the Law or the Law after the Prophets? Terminological, Biblical, and Historical Perspectives,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation, 841–850 (esp. 849), who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 157 Cf. G. Braulik, ‘Lohnverweigerung und Sippenhaftung: Zu Schuld und Strafe im Buch Deuteronomium,’ in id., Tora und Fest: Aufsätze zum Deuteronomium und zur Liturgie (SBAB 69; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2019), 31–60 (esp. 51). Pace R. Levitt Kohn, ‘A Prophet Like Moses? Rethinking Ezekiel’s Relationship to the Torah,’ ZAW 114 (2002) 236–254 (esp. 247–248), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Deut 18:9–30:20 (cf. Ezek 47:1–12)

107

cf. 26:2) as well as the tithes of the produce of the land which flows with fat and honey (Deut 26:9.15), and keeping Yahweh’s statutes, judgements, and commandments (Deut 26:16–19), thus presumably becoming a nation which is mighty and numerous (‫עצ* רב‬: Deut 26; esp. 26:5), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the son of man returning and (b) behold, (c) on the bank of the life-giving river of the law (cf. Ezek 47:6d) there being fruit-bringing (cf. Ezek 47:12: ‫ )פרי‬trees which are numerous (‫עץ רב‬: Ezek 47:7ab). The particular motif of the Israelites coming to Egypt and dwelling there as aliens as a few people (‫ מתי‬+ ‫ שם‬+ ‫ גור‬+ ‫מצרים‬: Deut 26:5) was borrowed from Jer 44:28. The motif of crying to Yahweh in Egypt in the midst of oppression (‫מצרים‬ ‫ לחץ‬+ ‫ צעק* אל־יהוה‬+: Deut 26:6–7) was borrowed from Isa 19:20. The motif of Yahweh acting from his dwelling (*‫ממעון קדש‬: Deut 26:15) was borrowed from Jer 25:30. The motif of Israel becoming for Yahweh a people rich in praise, fame, and honour (‫ ולתפארת‬+ ‫ ולשם‬+ ‫ לתהלה‬+ ‫להיות ל* לעם‬: Deut 26:18–19) was borrowed from Jer 13:11158 (cf. 33:9). The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of (a) on the other side of the Jordan Israel covering stones with lime and writing all the words of this (‫זה‬: Deut 27:3) law on them, on Mount Ebal (Deut 27:1–4),159 and (b) there, presumably on Mount Gerizim (cf. Deut 11:29; 27:12),160 Israel building an altar with unhewn 158 Pace N.  Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 154–156, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 159 Some scholars argue that Deut 27:4 refers to Mount Gerizim; cf. R. Müller, ‘The Altar on Mount Gerizim (Deuteronomy 27:1–8): Center or Periphery?,’ in E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin (eds.), Centres and Peripheries in the Early Second Temple Period (FAT 108; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 197–214 (esp. 199–202); E. Ulrich, ‘The Samaritan and Masoretic Pentateuch: Text and Interpretation(s),’ in J. Baden [et al.] (eds.), Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls, Festschrift J. J. Collins [vol. 2] (JSJSup 175/2; Brill:  Leiden · Boston 2017), 1314–1329 (esp.  1320–1327); R.  Achenbach, ‘Die Integration der heiligen Orte der Provinz Samaria in das Narrativ des Hexateuch,’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions (FAT 2.120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2020), 47–78 (esp. 61–62). 160 Pace M. Kartveit, ‘The Place That the Lord Your God Will Choose,’ HBAI 4 (2015) 205–218 (here: 211), who claims that ‘Deuteronomy expressly locates the chosen altar site at Mount Ebal (Deut 27:4).’ It should be noted that from the perspective of Moses speaking in Transjordan (Deut 27:1) both Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim are located ‘there’ (‫שם‬: Deut 11:29), on the other side of the Jordan (Deut 11:30; 27:2.4), so that the adverb ‘there’ (‫ )שם‬in Deut 27:5 most probably refers to the Cisjordanian Mount Gerizim, which is elsewhere presented as the mountain of blessing (Deut 11:29; 27:12).

108

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

stones and writing all the words of this (‫זה‬: Deut 27:8) law on the stones (Deut 27:1–8; esp. 27:5–8)161 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent, likewise repetitively formulated Ezekielian idea of being (a) on this side and (b) on this side (Ezek 47:7b). The particular motif of the elders of Israel (‫זקני ישראל‬: Deut 27:1) was borrowed from Ezek 14:1; 20:1.3 (cf. 8:11.12). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses and the Levitical priests speaking (*‫( )וי‬b) to (‫ )אל‬all Israel, (a’) saying (‫אמר‬: Deut 27:9ab), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh saying (b) to the son of man (Ezek 47:8a). The subsequent, idealistic idea of Israel listening, becoming the people of Yahweh, listening to his voice, and doing his commandments (Deut 27:9c–10) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the waters, presumably of the law flowing from the sanctuary (Ezek 47:8b). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Deut 11:29–30)162 idea of these (‫)אלה‬ standing to bless the people on Mount Gerizim (Deut 27:12), and these (‫)אלה‬ standing for the curse on Mount Ebal (Deut 27:11–13; esp. 27:13) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of these, presumably waters (Ezek 47:8b). The particular motif of the tribe of Simeon (‫שמעון‬: Deut 27:12) was borrowed from Ezek 48:24–25.33. The six blessing tribes: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin (Deut 27:12) are the southern and central Israelite tribes,163 This understanding is supported by the thematic and linguistic parallelism between Deut 27:1–2c (crossing over the Jordan to the land given by Yahweh God: ‫)יהוה אלהיך‬ and Deut 27:5a (building there an altar to Yahweh God: ‫)יהוה אלהיך‬, both followed by parallel instructions concerning great/whole stones (‫ )אבנים *ות‬and their festive preparation (Deut 27:2de; 27:5b–7), writing on them all the words of this law (‫וכתבת‬ ‫על* את־כל־דברי התורה הזאת‬: Deut 27:3a; 27:8a), and manifesting/enacting it well (Deut 27:3b–4; 27:8b). The lack of explicit remark concerning Mount Gerizim in Deut 27:5–8 probably reflects the imprecise Deuteronomic location of the place chosen by Yahweh (Deut 12:5 etc.). 161 The stones mentioned in Deut 27:5–8 are probably different from those mentioned in Deut 27:2–4. Cf. K. Finsterbusch, Deuteronomium: Eine Einführung (UTB 3626; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012), 161–162; N. Chambers, ‘Confirming Joshua as the Interpreter of Israel’s Tôrāh: The Narrative Role of Joshua 8:30–35,’ BBR 25 (2015) 141–153 (esp. 150); M. Kartveit, ‘Place,’ 216. 162 Cf. D. Jericke, ‘Berg Garizim,’ 219. 163 Cf. G. Hölscher, ‘Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums,’ ZAW 40 (1922) 161–255 (esp. 220); G. N. Knoppers, ‘The Northern Context of the Law-Code in

Deut 18:9–30:20 (cf. Ezek 47:1–12)

109

in the post-exilic period dwelling in the provinces related to the sanctuaries in Jerusalem and Shechem/Gerizim, respectively. On the other hand, the six cursing tribes: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali (Deut 27:13) are peripheral Israelite tribes,164 in the post-exilic period most probably ‘lost,’ related to the ‘apostate’ sanctuaries in Transjordan and in Dan. The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the Levites speaking to (‫)אל‬ all Israel (Deut 27:14), (b) cursing (Deut 27:14–26; esp. 27:15–26),165 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the waters from the sanctuary going out to the eastern district, (b) to the desert and to the eastern sea, that is, the Dead Sea (Ezek 47:8b–e; cf. 47:18). The particular motif of Yahweh’s representatives saying to Israel that cursed is the man who does not uphold all the words of this law, and the Israelites answering and saying, ‘Amen’ (‫ אל‬+ ‫אמר‬ ‫ ואמר* אמן‬+ *‫ וענ‬+ ‫ לא י* את־דברי ה* הזאת‬+ ‫ ארור האיש אשר‬+ ‫ ישראל‬+: Deut 27:14– 15.26) was borrowed from Jer 11:2–3.5.166 The subsequent idea of (a) Israel carefully observing all Yahweh’s commandments (Deut 28:1), and therefore (b) blessings coming (‫בוא‬: Deut 28:2) upon him (Deut 28:1–14) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the life-giving waters of the law (b) coming, and the waters being healed, and all animate beings living and becoming very numerous (Ezek 47:8f–10). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Deut 27:14–26) idea of Israel not (‫לא‬: Deut 28:15) observing the law and therefore being cursed, especially with diseases which cannot be healed (‫ רפא‬+ ‫לא‬: Deut 28:15–69; esp. 28:27.35), illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of swamps and pools not being healed (Ezek 47:11a). The particular motif of Israel becoming a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, and its corpses becoming food to the birds of the sky and to the beasts of the earth (‫ והיתה נבלתך למאכל ל*עוף השמים ולבהמת‬+ ‫ו* לזעוה לכל ממלכות הארץ‬ ‫הארץ‬: Deut 28:25–26) was borrowed from Jer 34:17.20 (cf. 15:3–4; 16:4; 19:7; Deuteronomy,’ HBAI 4 (2015) 162–183 (esp. 174); E. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, vol. 2, 23,16–34,12 (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2017), 1942. 164 Cf. G.  Hölscher, ‘Komposition,’ 220; G.  N.  Knoppers, ‘Northern,’ 174; E.  Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, vol. 2, 1942. 165 Cf. M. Zehnder, ‘Fluch und Segen im Buch Deuteronomium: Beobachtungen und Fragen,’ in G. Fischer, D. Markl, and S. Paganini (eds.), Deuteronomium, 193–211 (esp. 195, 199); J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 745; R. Achenbach, ‘Integration,’ 69. 166 Pace E. Otto, ‘Jeremia,’ 541; R. Achenbach, ‘Unwritten,’ 100; N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 46–47, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing.

110

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

24:9; 29:18)167 and conflated with Jer 7:33 (‫)ואין מחריד‬.168 The motif of Israel building houses to dwell, planting vineyards, wanting to eat, and giving their sons and their daughters to other people (*‫ בני‬+ ‫ אכל‬+ ‫ נטע‬+ ‫ ישב‬+ ‫ בנה‬+ ‫בית‬ *‫ ל‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ *‫ובנתיכ‬: Deut 28:30–32) was borrowed from Jer 29:5–6.169 The motif of Israel becoming a proverb and a byword among all the peoples which Yahweh will drive him there (‫ שם‬+ ‫ בכל ה* אשר‬+ ‫למשל *לשנינה‬: Deut 28:37) was borrowed from Jer 24:9.170 The motif of Israel serving his enemies, and Yahweh putting an iron yoke on the neck of the people (*‫ על־צואר‬+ ‫ על ברזל‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ *‫ועבד‬: Deut 28:48) was borrowed from Jer 28:14.171 The motif of Yahweh bringing upon Israel a nation from afar, a nation whose language Israel does not know, which will eat up Israel’s flocks and destroy the fortifications which Israel trusts in them (‫עליכ* גוי *מרחוק‬ *‫ בצר* אשר אתה בטח בהנ‬+ ‫ צאנך‬+ ‫ ואכל‬+ ‫ לא ת*ע לשנו‬+ ‫ גוי‬+:  Deut 28:49.51–52), was borrowed from Jer 5:15.17.172 The motif of the Israelite eating the flesh of his sons and of his daughters in the siege and in the pressure with which his enemy will oppress him (*‫ במצור ובמצוק אשר יצוק* ל* איב‬+ *‫ בנתי‬+ *‫ בשר בניכ‬+ *‫ואכלת‬: Deut 28:53.55.57) was borrowed from Jer 19:9.173 The motif of Israel not keeping the law (‫ תורה‬+ ‫ את־‬+ ‫לא *שמר‬: Deut 28:58) was borrowed from Jer 16:11.174 The motif of Yahweh rejoicing over the Israelites to do good to them (*‫שש‬ ‫ עלי*ם לה*טיב א*ם‬+: Deut 28:63) was borrowed from Jer 32:41.175 The motif of 167 Pace N.  Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 101–114, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 168 Pace ibid., 106–107, suggesting the reverse direction of borrowing. 169 Pace ibid., 129–130, suggesting the reverse direction of borrowing. 170 Pace ibid., 111–114, suggesting the reverse direction of borrowing. 171 Cf. R. Achenbach, ‘Die Prophezeiungen des Mose in Deuteronomium 28–32,’ ZABR 20 (2014) 147–179 (esp. 159). Pace G. Fischer, ‘‫ותפשי התורה לא ידעוני‬,’ 903; N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 127–129, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 172 Cf. R. Achenbach, ‘Prophezeiungen,’ 160. Pace G. Fischer, ‘‫ותפשי התורה לא ידעוני‬,’ 903–904; N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 123–127, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 173 Cf. E. Otto, ‘Born out of Ruins: The Catastrophe of Jerusalem as Accoucheur to the Pentateuch in the Book of Deuteronomy,’ in P. Dubovský, D. Markl, and J.-P. Sonnet (eds.), The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (FAT 107; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 155–168 (esp. 162). Pace N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 108–110, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 174 Pace G. Fischer, ‘‫ותפשי התורה לא ידעוני‬,’ 895–896, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 175 Cf. E. Otto, ‘Born,’ 162. Pace N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 119–121, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Deut 18:9–30:20 (cf. Ezek 47:1–12)

111

Yahweh throwing Israel to another land, and Israel serving there other gods, which he did not know, he and his ancestors (+ ‫ אלהים אחרים‬+ ‫ ועבדת* שם‬+ ‫הארץ‬ *‫אשר לא ידעת* את* ואבתיכ‬: Deut 28:64), was borrowed from Jer 16:13.176 The subsequent, partly repeated idea of Israel being cursed, especially with salt (‫)מלח‬, as at the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim (Deut 29:1–27; esp. 29:22), illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the swamps and pools of the Dead Sea being left for salt (Ezek 47:11b). The particular motif of pagan abhorrent things and idols (*‫ גלולי‬+ *‫שקוצי‬: Deut 29:16) was borrowed from Ezek 20:7–8 (cf. 37:23).177 The motif of a poisonous plant and wormwood, listening to the words of the revelation, a disobedient person saying, ‘I shall have peace,’ while walking in the stubbornness of his heart (‫ הלך‬+ ‫ בשררות לבי‬+ *‫ שלום יהיה ל‬+ ‫ אמר‬+ *‫ *שמעו *־דברי ה‬+ ‫ לענה‬+ ‫ראש‬: Deut 29:17–18), was borrowed from Jer 23:15–17.178 The motif of destruction being as the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah as well as neighbouring cities (‫כמהפכת‬ ‫סדם ועמרה‬: Deut 29:22) was borrowed from Jer 49:18 etc. and conflated with Hos 11:8 (‫ צב*ים‬+ ‫)אדמה‬. The motif of the nations saying, ‘Why has Yahweh done like this to this place?,’ and the people saying, ‘Because they have forsaken the covenant of Yahweh their God and served other gods and worshipped gods’ (*‫ ואמרו על אשר עזבו את־ברית יהוה אלהי‬+ ‫ הזאת‬+ ‫ על־מה עשה יהוה ככה‬+ ‫ גוים‬+ ‫ואמרו‬ ‫ וישתחוו ל* אלהים‬+ ‫ אלהים אחרים‬+ *‫ ויעבדו‬+: Deut 29:23–25) was almost verbatim borrowed from Jer 22:8–9.179 The motif of Yahweh plucking the Israelites out of their ground (‫ מעל אדמתם‬+ ‫*תשם‬: Deut 29:27) was borrowed from Jer 12:14. The motif of Yahweh acting in anger, in fury, and in great wrath (‫באף ובחמה ובקצף‬ ‫גדול‬: Deut 29:27) was borrowed from Jer 21:5 (cf. 32:37).180 The concluding thought that (a) the Israelites should do all the words of the law (Deut 29:28), (b) law which is close, so that there is no need that someone would go up (‫יעלה‬: Deut 30:12) to heaven for it (Deut 30:1–14), and (c) Yahweh sets before Israel two mutually opposite possibilities (Deut 30:15–19b), so that (d) Israel should choose life and live (Deut 29:28–30:20; esp. 30:19c–20), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Ezekielian

176 Pace N.  Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 117–119, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 177 Pace T. Ganzel, ‘Transformation,’ 36, 40–41, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 178 Cf. N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 217–218. 179 Pace ibid., 207–210, suggesting the reverse direction of borrowing. 180 Cf. ibid., 204–206.

112

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

thought that (a) at the life-giving river of the law, (b) on its bank, there will go up (c) from this side and from that side (d) all life-giving trees (Ezek 47:12). The particular motif of Yahweh restoring Israel’s fortunes and gathering it from all the peoples among whom Yahweh scattered it there as driven out (*‫ושב‬ ‫ נדח‬+ ‫ שם‬+ ‫ אשר‬+ *‫ מכל־ה‬+ *‫ וקבצ‬+ *‫ את־שבותכ‬+: Deut 30:3–4) was borrowed from Jer 29:14.181 The motif of Yahweh rejoicing over Israel for good (‫ על‬+ ‫שוש‬ ‫ ל*ט*ב‬+: Deut 30:9) was borrowed from Jer 32:41.182 The motif of Israel keeping Yahweh’s statutes which are written in the law (‫ תורה‬+ ‫ כתב‬+ ‫ חקתיו‬+ ‫שמר‬: Deut 30:10) was borrowed from Ezek 43:11. The motif of Yahweh setting before Israel life and good, death and evil (+ ‫ המות‬+ ‫ ואת־‬+ ‫ טוב‬+ ‫ החים‬+ ‫ את־‬+ *‫ לפניכ‬+ ‫נתן‬ *‫רע‬: Deut 30:15) was borrowed from Jer 21:8–10.183

1.20. Deut 31:1–33:4 (cf. Ezek 47:13–23) The section Deut 31:1–33:4 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Ezek 47:13–23. The opening idea of Moses saying (‫ )אמר‬to all Israel that Yahweh said (‫)אמר‬ to him (Deut 31:1–2; esp. 31:2) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of Yahweh thus saying to the Israelites (Ezek 47:13a). The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua going with Israel to the land (‫הארץ‬: Deut 31:7.16.21.23) and (b) giving it to them as inheritance (‫נחל‬: Deut 31:7), as well as (b’) Yahweh giving inheritance (‫נחל‬: Deut 32:8) to the nations and (c) defining the territories (‫גבולה‬: Deut 32:8) of the peoples according to (d) the number of the sons of Israel (‫*י ישראל‬: Deut 31:3–32:8; esp. 32:8)184 conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea 181 Pace E. Ehrenreich, Wähle das Leben! Deuteronomium 30 als hermeneutischer Schlüssel zur Tora (BZABR 14; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2010), 126, 201–202, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 182 Cf. N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 219. Pace E. Ehrenreich, Wähle, 204–205, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 183 Pace E. Ehrenreich, Wähle, 205, 235–236; N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 59–63, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 184 Cf. E. H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, 413 n. 14. Pace R. Hendel, ‘The (Proto-)Masoretic Text of the Pentateuch,’ in id., Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible (TCSt 10; SBL: Atlanta, GA 2016), 201–226 (esp. 205–206); T. D. Nilsen, The Origins of Deuteronomy 32: Intertextuality, Memory, Identity (Peter Lang: New York [et al.] 2018), 25–27; C. Wüste, Fels – Geier – Eltern: Untersuchungen zum Gottesbild des Moseliedes (Dtn 32) (BBB 182; V&R unipress: Göttingen 2018), 35–38, who argue for the priority of the LXX and 4QDeutj over the MT in Deut 32:8.

Deut 31:1–33:4 (cf. Ezek 47:13–23)

113

of (c) this being the territory (‫ )גבול‬which (b) the Israelites should receive as inheritance (‫ )נחל‬of (a) the land for (d) the twelve tribes of Israel (Ezek 47:13bc). The particular motif of Israel breaking Yahweh’s covenant, which he made with Israel (*‫ את־בריתי אשר כרתי את‬+ *‫הפר‬: Deut 31:16), was borrowed from Jer 11:10 (cf. 31:32). The motif of Yahweh’s anger, and Yahweh hiding his face from the Israelites because of all their evil (*‫ על כל־רע‬+ *‫ *הסתרתי פני מה‬+ ‫*אפי‬: Deut 31:17–18) was borrowed from Jer 33:5.185 The motif of an allegorical song concerning the fate of Israel (‫שירה‬: Deut 31:19) was borrowed from Isa 5:1. The motif of the Israelites provoking Yahweh to anger through the work of their hands (‫הכעיס* במעשה ידיכם‬: Deut 31:29) was borrowed from Jer 25:6–7 etc. The motif of the heavens giving ear and the earth hearing because Yahweh’s messenger is speaking (‫ ארץ‬+ ‫ שמע‬+ ‫ דבר‬+ ‫ שמים‬+ ‫האזינו‬: Deut 32:1) was borrowed from Isa 1:2.186 The motif of being like dew and like rains on herbage (‫ כרביבים עלי־‬+ ‫כטל‬ ‫עשב‬: Deut 32:2) was borrowed Mic 5:6.187 The motif of the number of the sons of Israel (‫מספר בני ישראל‬: Deut 32:8) was borrowed from Hos 2:1. The subsequent idea of (a) Jacob being the allotted piece (‫ )חבל‬of (b) Yahweh’s inheritance (*‫נחלת‬: Deut 32:9–38; esp. 32:9) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Joseph having two allotted pieces, and (b) the Israelites inheriting (*‫ )נחלת‬the land (Ezek 47:13d–14a). The particular motif of Yahweh finding Israel in the wilderness (+ ‫מצא‬ ‫מדבר‬: Deut 32:10) was borrowed from Hos 9:10.188 The motif of Yahweh causing Israel to ride over the heights of the earth and giving him to eat (‫רכב* על־במתי ארץ‬ ‫ו*אכל‬: Deut 32:13) was borrowed from Isa 58:14.189 The motif of eating honey, curd, and milk (‫ חלב‬+ ‫ חמאה‬+ ‫דבש‬: Deut 32:13–14) was borrowed from Isa 7:22. The motif of the fat of lambs and rams, as well as male goats, with the fat of kidneys and blood (‫ דם‬+ ‫ חלב כליות‬+ ‫ ועתודים‬+ ‫ אילים‬+ ‫ כרים‬+ ‫חלב‬: Deut 32:14) was borrowed from Isa 34:6. The motif of Jeshurun (‫ישרון‬: Deut 32:15) was borrowed from Isa 44:2.190 The motif of the Israelites irritating Yahweh with their illusory idols (*‫ בהבלי‬+ ‫כעסני‬: Deut 32:21) was borrowed from Jer 8:19.191 The motif of fire 185 Pace N.  Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 210–212, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 186 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, vol. 2, 2165. Pace S. Paganini, Deuteronomio, 40, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 187 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, vol. 2, 2165. 188 Cf. ibid., vol. 2, 2168. 189 Cf. ibid. 190 Cf. ibid., vol. 2, 2169. 191 Cf. N. Mastnjak, Deuteronomy, 222–223.

114

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

being kindled by Yahweh’s anger and burning to something unreachable (‫כי־אש‬ ‫ עד־‬+ ‫ ת*קד‬+ ‫קרחה באפי‬: Deut 32:22) was borrowed from Jer 15:14;192 17:4. The motif of the day of the Israelites’ disaster (‫ יום אידם‬+ ‫כי‬: Deut 32:35) was borrowed from Jer 46:21. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh taking an oath by raising (‫ )נשא‬to heaven (b) his hand (‫ידי‬: Deut 32:39–41; esp. 32:40–41) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh taking an oath by raising (b) his hand (Ezek 47:14b). The particular motif of there being Yahweh, Yahweh, and no other god (‫ אין אלהים‬+ ‫ אני‬+ ‫אני‬: Deut 32:39) was borrowed from Isa 44:6. The motif of no one delivering from Yahweh’s hand (‫ואין מידי מציל‬: Deut 32:39) was borrowed from Isa 43:13.193 The subsequent idea of Yahweh destroying his pagan adversaries and providing atonement for the ground of his people (Deut 32:42–43) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of Yahweh giving the land to the Israelites’ ancestors (Ezek 47:14c). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses speaking all the words of this song (‫)ה* הזאת‬ to Israel (Deut 32:44), and (b) the Israelites commanding their children to keep all the words of this law (‫ה* הזאת‬: Deut 32:44–46: esp. 32:46) with the use of the motif of Moses’ law being regarded as a possession of Israel (Deut 33:4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) this land (‫ )ה * הזאת‬falling to the Israelites (b) as inheritance (Ezek 47:14d). The subsequent idea of (a) the matter not being empty from (‫ )מן‬the Israelites but being their life, so that (b) in this matter they should prolong their days on the Israelite ground (Deut 32:47a–c), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the territory of the Israelites being from (Ezek 47:15.17) the Great Sea and (b) extending much to the north (Ezek 47:15–17). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites crossing over the Jordan (‫ )הירדן‬to possess the land (Deut 32:47), (b) Moses seeing the land (‫ )ארץ‬of Canaan as a property of the Israelites (Deut 32:49), and (c) Moses going upon (‫ )עלה‬the mountain of those on the other side (Abarim)194 and dying there like Aaron died 192 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, vol. 2, 2169. Pace G. Fischer, ‘‫ותפשי התורה לא ידעוני‬,’ 903, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 193 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, vol. 2, 2170. 194 Cf. M. Geiger, Gottesräume, 103; A. R. Roskop, The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah (HACL 3; Eisenbrauns:  Winona Lake, IN 2011), 274.

Deut 31:1–33:4 (cf. Ezek 47:13–23)

115

on a particular mountain (Hor)195 east of the land of Israel (Deut 32:47d–50; esp. 32:50) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (b) the eastern side of the territory of the Israelites being at the eastern border of the land of Israel, (a) along the Jordan, and (c) along the territory upon (‫ )על‬the eastern sea, that is, the Dead Sea (Ezek 47:18). The particular motif of the Transjordanian place of the Abarim (‫העברים‬: Deut 32:49) was borrowed from Ezek 39:11. The motif of Nebo in the land of Moab (‫ מואב‬+ ‫נבו‬: Deut 32:49) could have been borrowed from Isa 15:2; Jer 48:1. The motif of the Israelites being given their land as a property (‫אחזה‬: Deut 32:49) was borrowed from Ezek 45:5 etc. From the linguistic point of view, the noun ‫‘( אחזה‬property’) was used in Deuteronomy only once (in Deut 32:49), whereas it was used fifteen times in the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 44:28; 45:5–8; 46:16.18.20–22). Therefore, it is typically Ezekielian. Accordingly, it was most likely borrowed by the author of Deuteronomy from the book of Ezekiel, a fact which linguistically corroborates the hypothesis of the dependence of Deuteronomy on the book of Ezekiel. The subsequent idea of (a) Moses and Aaron being unfaithful against Yahweh by the waters of Meribah at Kadesh (‫ )מי־מריבת קדש‬and not treating Yahweh as holy (‫ )קדש‬among the Israelites (Deut 32:51), as well as Moses saying that Yahweh came from the south, from the multitude of holy ones (‫מרבבת קדש‬: Deut 33:2d),196 and that (b) from his southern side (*‫ )ימינ‬are slopes (Deut 32:51– 33:2; esp. 33:2e)197 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the southern side of the territory of the Israelites being by the waters of Meribah at Kadesh, and (b) the southern side (*‫ )*ימנ‬being towards the Negeb (Ezek 47:19). The particular motif of being unfaithful against Yahweh (‫מעל*ם בי‬: Deut 32:51) was borrowed from Ezek 20:27 etc. The motif of Yahweh coming from Mount Paran (‫ מהר פארן‬+ ‫בוא‬: Deut 33:2) may have been borrowed from Hab 3:3.198 From the linguistic point of view, the phrase ‫‘( מעל בי‬to be unfaithful against me’) was used in Deuteronomy only once (in Deut 32:51), whereas it was used four times in the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 17:20; 20:27; 39:23.26). Therefore, it is

1 95 Cf. A. R. Roskop, Wilderness, 274. 196 Cf. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 383; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 921. 197 Cf. E. H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, 435; D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 (WBC 6B; Word Books: Dallas, TX 2002), 836; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 922. 198 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, vol. 2, 2236–2237.

116

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

typically Ezekielian. Accordingly, it was most likely borrowed by the author of Deuteronomy from the book of Ezekiel, a fact which linguistically corroborates the hypothesis of the dependence of Deuteronomy on the book of Ezekiel. The subsequent idea of (a) the peoples, and (b) all Yahweh’s saints being in his hand and (c) at his feet (Deut 33:3) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the west side being the Great Sea, presumably with its numerous peoples, (b) from Israel’s border to (c) the coming to Hamath (Ezek 47:20). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses commanding the law to (‫ )ל‬the Israelites (b) as a possession of (c) the assembly of (d) Jacob (Deut 33:4) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) the Israelites allotting the land to themselves, to the tribes of Israel (Ezek 47:21), so that (b) they should allot the land as inheritance (c) for them and for the permanently residing aliens with them (d) among the sons of Israel, within the tribes of Israel (Ezek 47:21–23; esp. 47:22–23). The particular motif of the land being the Israelites’ possession (‫מורשה‬: Deut 33:4) was borrowed from Ezek 11:15 etc. From the linguistic point of view, the noun ‫‘( מורשה‬possession’) was used in Deuteronomy only once (in Deut 33:4), whereas it was used seven times in the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 11:15; 25:4.10; 33:24; 36:2–3.5). Therefore, it is typically Ezekielian. Accordingly, it was most likely borrowed by the author of Deuteronomy from the book of Ezekiel, a fact which linguistically corroborates the hypothesis of the dependence of Deuteronomy on the book of Ezekiel.

1.21. Deut 33:5–34:12 (cf. Ezek 48) The concluding section Deut 33:6–34:12 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding concluding section Ezek 48. The opening idea of there being a king in Israel at the gathering of the tribes (‫ )שבטים‬of Israel (Deut 33:5) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Ezekielian idea of these being the names of the tribes (Ezek 48:1a). Besides, the idea of a king being in Israel among the Israelite tribes (Deut 33:5) illustrates the Ezekielian idea of a selected holy contribution being for the prince (Ezek 48:21) among the tribes (Ezek 48:23a). The subsequent idea of Moses uttering sayings concerning the named tribes of Israel (Deut 33:6–29; esp. 33:6–25) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea Yahweh dividing the land among the named tribes of Israel (Ezek 48:1b–27; esp. 48:1–7.23b–27). The Ezekielian, somewhat artificial, originally 8–shaped order of the twelve tribes: Dan, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben, Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun, and Gad, with

Deut 33:5–34:12 (cf. Ezek 48)

117

Judah in the middle (Ezek 48:1–7.23b–27), was reworked in Deuteronomy into a new sequence of ten199 tribal sayings:  Reuben, Judah, Levi, Benjamin, Joseph (including Ephraim and Manasseh), Zebulun (with Issachar), Gad, Dan, Naphtali, and Asher (Deut 33:6–25), an order which follows the geographical pattern roughly from south-east to north-west, with Joseph in the middle.200 The particular motif of an Israelite tribe dwelling in safety (‫ישכן לבטח‬: Deut 33:12) was borrowed from Jer 23:6 (cf. 33:16). The motif of a consecrated man (‫נזיר‬: Deut 33:16) could have been borrowed from Amos 2:11–12. The metaphoric motif of goring with horns (‫ נגח‬+ ‫קרן‬: Deut 33:17) could have been borrowed from Ezek 34:21. The motif of Israel dwelling in safety alone (+ ‫ בטח‬+ ‫שכן‬ ‫בדד‬: Deut 33:28) was borrowed from Jer 49:31. The motif of a land of grain and sweet wine (‫ארץ דגן ותירוש‬: Deut 33:28) was borrowed from Isa 36:17. The motif of Yahweh making Israel tread upon the enemies’ hills (‫על במותי* *דרך‬: Deut 33:29)201 may have been borrowed from Hab 3:19 (cf. the probable use of Hab 3:3 in Deut 33:2).202 The presentation of Judah in Deut 33:7 as being in need of being brought by Yahweh to its people strongly suggests that the author of Deuteronomy regarded Judah as a separatist tribe.203 Most probably for this reason, the saying concerning Judah is very short (Deut 33:7), in contrast to the elaborate blessing for Joseph (Deut 33:13–17).204 Moreover, the sayings containing explicit blessings (cf. Deut 33:1) refer to the tribes dwelling in central and northern Israel: Levi (Deut 33:11), Joseph (Deut 33:13–16), Gad (Deut 33:20), Naphtali (Deut 33:23), and Asher (Deut 33:24). These facts imply that Deuteronomy is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent idea of (a) Moses going up (‫ )עלה‬to a mountain which is opposite (‫( )על‬b) Jericho, that is, the city of palm trees (Deut 34:1ab; cf. 34:3: ‫)תמר‬ conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent

1 99 Cf. ibid., vol. 2, 2224; N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic, 154–155. 200 Cf. E. Nodet, ‘Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews,’ in J. Zsengellér (ed.), Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics (SJ 66 / SSam 6; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2011), 121–171 (esp. 164). 201 Cf. H. H. Hardy II and B. J. Thomas, ‘Another Look at Biblical bɔmɔ “High Place”,’ VT 62 (2012) 175–188 (esp. 183–186). 202 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, vol. 2, 2236–2237. 203 Cf. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 387, 389; E. Nodet, ‘Israelites,’ 165. 204 Cf. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 387; E. Nodet, ‘Israelites,’ 165; E. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, vol. 2, 2224.

118

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

Ezekielian idea of (a) upon (‫ )על‬Gad the border being from (b) Tamar/palm tree (Ezek 48:28). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh showing to Moses (b) all the land (‫הארץ‬: Deut 34:1c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of (a) this being (b) the land for the tribes of Israel (Ezek 48:29).205 The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of pointing to various distant regions in Israel:206 (a) the Transjordanian Gilead as far as Dan (in the east), all Naphtali (in the north), the land of Ephraim and Manasseh (in the centre), (b) all the land of Judah as far as the Western Sea (‫ים‬: in the west), and the Negeb/ south (‫נגב‬: in the south: Deut 34:1c–3)207 conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of pointing to the four exits from the city: (a) on the north side, on the east side, (b) on the south side (Ezek 48:33), and on the west/sea side (Ezek 48:30–34; esp. 48:34). Accordingly, the author of Deuteronomy changed the Ezekielian clockwise order of the main directions from the centrally located city: north – east – south – west (Ezek 48:30–34) to the anticlockwise, roughly right-to-left208 one: east – north – (centre) – west – south (Deut 34:1c–3; diff. 3:27). The subsequent idea of the round district of the valley of Jericho (Deut 34:3)209 illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the circumference of the city (Ezek 48:35a). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted remark concerning the name of Jericho as the ‘city (‫ )עיר‬of palm trees’ (Deut 34:3) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the name of the city (Ezek 48:35b). The concluding idea of (a) Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬saying that this is the land of which he swore to the fathers, and (b) Moses seeing it with his eyes but not crossing over there (‫שמה‬: Deut 34:4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way

205 Pace H. McKeating, ‘Ezekiel,’ 101–102, who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence. 206 Cf. D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12, 871; S. Frolov, ‘The Death of Moses and the Fate of Source Criticism,’ JBL 133 (2014) 648–660 (esp. 651). 207 Cf. somewhat differently R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 395–396; P. Y. Yoo, ‘The Four Moses Death Accounts,’ JBL 131 (2012) 423–441 (esp. 427). 208 The right-to-left direction of showing the promised land to Moses (Deut 34:1c–3) may reflect the right-to-left direction of writing in Hebrew, thus illustrating the intertextual idea of describing the promised land by means of the written text Ezek 48:30–34. 209 Cf. J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 944.

Conclusion

119

illustrates the concluding Ezekielian idea of (a) Yahweh being (b) there (Ezek 48:35c). The closing fragment of the book of Deuteronomy, which describes the death of the prophet in the eastern exile in the land of Moab (Deut 34:5–12), has no hypotextual counterpart in the book of Ezekiel. However, the implied reader is supposed to know that the prophet Ezekiel, who was exiled to Babylon after the first siege of Jerusalem, certainly had no chance to return to the land of Israel. Therefore, he must have died and been buried in the eastern exile, and consequently no one knows his grave to this day (cf. Deut 34:5–6). Moreover, the implied reader is supposed to appreciate the exceptional power of the visions of the prophet whom Yahweh knew face to face (‫פנים‬: Deut 34:10; cf. Ezek 1:26– 28),210 who made signs (‫אות‬: Deut 34:11; cf. Ezek 34:3), and himself became an exceptional sign in the sight of (*‫ לעיני‬+ ‫מופת‬: Deut 34:11–12; cf. Ezek 12:6) all the house of Israel (‫ ישראל‬+ ‫כל‬: Deut 34:12; cf. Ezek 12:10 etc.). Therefore, the closing fragment Deut 34:5–12 thematically corresponds to the contents of the book of the exilic prophet Ezekiel. The particular motif of doing signs and wonders in the land of Egypt with a strong hand and with great terror in the sight of Israel (‫ בארץ‬+ ‫ מופתים‬+ ‫אתות‬ ‫ ישראל‬+ ‫ גדול‬+ ‫ מורא‬+ ‫ חזקה‬+ ‫ יד‬+ ‫מצרים‬: Deut 34:11–12) was borrowed from Jer 32:20–21.

1.22. Conclusion The analyses presented in this chapter demonstrate that the book of Deuteronomy is a result of continuous, sequentially arranged, hypertextual, that is, highly creative reworking of the book of Ezekiel. In contrast to my earlier work on this subject, which revealed the presence of six sequentially organized correspondences between the books of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel,211 this monograph shows that there are almost 700 (!)212 sequentially arranged, hypertextual links between these two works.

210 Cf. N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic, 156, who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence (from Deut 34:10 to Ezek 1). 211 B. Adamczewski, Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 25–33. 212 In fact, I was able to count 690 correspondences between the books of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel which follow a strictly sequential pattern.

120

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

On average, there is approximately one correspondence per one and a half verses of Deuteronomy (which contains 955 verses)213 and per two verses of Ezekiel (which contains 1273 verses). The corresponding elements usually have a similar size in both works (one clause, one sentence, etc.). However, at times a large portion of material in Deuteronomy corresponds to a small element in Deuteronomy (Deut 16:21–17:7 illustrating Ezek 46:12a; Deut 17:18–18:5 illustrating Ezek 46:19a–c; Deut 19:14–20:20 illustrating Ezek 47:2d; Deut 21:10–25:19 illustrating Ezek 47:6d; Deut 26 illustrating Ezek 47:7ab; Deut 28:15–69 illustrating Ezek 47:11a; Deut 29:1–27 illustrating Ezek 47:11b; Deut 31:3–32:8 illustrating Ezek 47:13bc; Deut 32:9–38 illustrating Ezek 47:13d–14a; etc.). Likewise, at times a small element in Deuteronomy corresponds to a large portion of material in Ezekiel (Deut 1:4 illustrating Ezek 1:4–28; Deut 2:14cd illustrating Ezek 5:13d–6:13; Deut 6:24e illustrating Ezek 12:26–13:23; Deut 9:11 illustrating Ezek 18:4–32; Deut 9:12a–d illustrating Ezek 19:1–20:4; Deut 9:14d illustrating Ezek 20:9–44; Deut 9:15a–c illustrating Ezek 21; Deut 9:22 illustrating Ezek 23; Deut 10:14–17 illustrating Ezek 25:1–28:19; Deut 11:2–4a illustrating Ezek 29:1–32:2c; Deut 11:15a illustrating Ezek 34:31–36:9; Deut 14:23a illustrating Ezek 40:1–43:6; Deut 14:24g illustrating Ezek 44:5–30; etc.). Almost 370 of these sequentially arranged correspondences, so more than one-half of them, are not purely conceptual, but they also have some linguistic components.214 However, these linguistic correspondences rarely contain stereotypical Ezekielian language, compositional features, and/or theology, which would be convincing for scholars expecting such evident proofs of literary dependence of Deuteronomy on Ezekiel. One of them is the noun ‫‘( אחזה‬property’), which was used in Deuteronomy only once (in Deut 32:49), but fifteen times in the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 44:28; 45:5–8; 46:16.18.20–22), and therefore it is typically Ezekielian. Another one is the noun ‫‘( מורשה‬possession’), which was used in Deuteronomy only once (in Deut 33:4), but seven times in the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 11:15; 25:4.10; 33:24; 36:2–3.5), and therefore it is likewise typically Ezekielian. The word ‫‘( סמל‬statue’), referring to a pagan divine statue, was used in Deuteronomy only once (in Deut 213 For these verse count totals, see A. Messmer, ‘A Possible Chiastic Center for Primary History (Genesis–2 Kings),’ VT 69 (2019) 232–240 (esp. 238). 214 It is difficult to give even an approximate number of the sequentially arranged linguistic correspondences between Deuteronomy and Ezekiel because it is difficult to state what should be counted as linguistically matching between the two works: words, strings of words, verbal roots, or combinations of words, verbal roots, and/or phrases.

Conclusion

121

4:16), but twice in the book of Ezekiel in a much more natural way (Ezek 8:3.5). The phrase ‫‘( מעל בי‬to be unfaithful against me’), referring to the Israelites being unfaithful against Yahweh, was likewise used in Deuteronomy only once (in Deut 32:51), and four times in the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 17:20; 20:27; 39:23.26). The particular usage of these words and phrases shows that they were most likely borrowed by the author of Deuteronomy from Ezekiel, a fact which linguistically corroborates the hypothesis of the dependence of Deuteronomy on Ezekiel. On the other hand, the correspondences which are purely linguistic are relatively rare. They generally occur as wordplays in Deuteronomic geographical names (cf. ‫‘[ שעיר‬Seir/hairy’] in Deut 2:1 and ‫‘[ שערה‬barley/hairy’] in Ezek 4:9; ‫‘[ חשבון‬Heshbon/devising’] in Deut 4:46 and ‫‘[ חשב‬devise’] in Ezek 11:2; ‫חרב‬ [‘Horeb’] in Deut 5:2 and ‫‘[ חרב‬sword’] in Ezek 11:8.10; ‫‘[ גלגל‬Gilgal/round’] in Deut 11:30 and ‫‘[ גלול‬idol/round’] in Ezek 37:23; etc.). Much more important than these rarely specific linguistic signs of literary borrowing from Ezekiel is the fulfilment of the criterion of order. The conceptual and/or linguistic correspondences between Deuteronomy and Ezekiel, which are presented in this chapter, occur in both works in the same relative order, and their number reaches 700. Moreover, they cover each work in its entirety, so that the whole work of Deuteronomy, taken together, from its beginning to its end, sequentially illustrates the whole book of Ezekiel, from its beginning to its end. Such a very long series of conceptual and/or linguistic correspondences, which follow one another in the same relative order in both complete works, cannot be a result of mere chance or of interpretative subjectivity in detecting similar themes in various fragments of both works. Another important criterion for detecting literary reworking, which is met by the analyses presented in this chapter, is the criterion of explaining numerous somewhat surprising features of Deuteronomy. These minor, somehow strange elements in Deuteronomy can be explained as illustrating various ideas contained in Ezekiel. The strictly sequential, detailed reworking of the ideas of Ezekiel in Deuteronomy led to the presence of some inconsistencies, ambiguities, strange expressions, and other surprising phenomena in the latter work. For example, the surprising idea of the Israelites coming to the great river Euphrates (Deut 1:7) in fact illustrates the Ezekielian idea of the son of man coming to the Mesopotamian river Chebar (Ezek 3:15). The surprising idea of Moses asking how he, being alone, could bear the Israelites’ burden, load, and lawsuit (Deut 1:12) illustrates the subsequent Ezekielian idea of the son of man shutting himself inside his house, and the Israelites putting ropes on him and binding him with them, so that he could not go out among them, and his tongue was tied (Ezek 3:24–26). The surprising idea of the mountain burning

122

Deuteronomy as a reworking of the book of Ezekiel

with fire, and the Israelites seeing no form in the midst of the fire (Deut 4:11–15) illustrates the Ezekielian idea of the son of man seeing something like fire and something merely resembling loins in the midst of fire (Ezek 8:2). The surprising idea of the tablets/planks of stone being written merely with God’s finger (Deut 9:10) illustrates the Ezekielian idea of Yahweh making dry wood soft/sprouting (Ezek 17:24). The surprising idea of the earth opening its mouth and swallowing sons of Reuben (Deut 11:6) illustrates the Ezekielian idea of a multitude of peoples, including Edom, going down to the depths of the earth (Ezek 32:18–30; esp. 32:29). The surprising idea of bringing the heifer to a river and reaching the neck of the heifer (Deut 21:4) illustrates the Ezekielian idea of a river in which one had to swim (Ezek 47:5). According to the analyses presented in this chapter, the division of the material of Deuteronomy into its legal core and its framing sections215 is misleading. In Deuteronomy, there are various inconsistencies, changes of literary conventions, style, vocabulary, etc. The author of Deuteronomy was a gifted author, who modified his style according to his needs in a given fragment of his work. For example, he formulated the stylistically distinctive, concluding blessings for the Israelite tribes, followed by a vision of various regions of the promised land (Deut 33:6–34:4), and in this way he illustrated the Ezekielian concluding idea of the division of the land among the Israelite tribes, followed by a vision of the gates of Jerusalem being open to various regions of the promised land (Ezek 48). However, the work of Deuteronomy in its entirety (apart from the fragments introducing and closing the narrative:  Deut 1:1–2; 34:5–12) is a result of one literary-theological project, a systematic reworking of the contents of the book of Ezekiel. The changes in style and literary conventions in Deuteronomy result from, among others, additional illustrative use of other materials and phraseology, taken from such different sources as collections of laws (mainly used in the cocalled legal core of Deuteronomy), the book of Jeremiah (mainly used in the exhortations to listen to the voice of Yahweh God, the motif of the covenant of Israel’s fathers, the motif of Yahweh acting in Egypt with signs and wonders, the motif of Israel being a stiff-necked people, the motif of the Israelites circumcising the foreskin of their heart, etc.), and other, especially prophetic works.

215 See e.g. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1, 234–237, 248, 255; B. T. Arnold, ‘Number Switching in Deuteronomy 12–26 and the Quest for Urdeuteronomium,’ ZABR 23 (2017) 163–179 (esp. 176, 179); R. Achenbach, ‘Überlegungen zur Rekonstruktion des Urdeuteronomiums,’ ZABR 24 (2018) 211–254 (esp. 212–222).

Conclusion

123

From the theological point of view, one of the most important factors in the reworking of the contents of the book of Ezekiel in the book of Deuteronomy is the systematic reformulation of the Ezekielian motif of the prophetic ‘son of man’ into that of the prophetic character of Moses (‘[someone] has borne [him]’), and not a king216 or a high priest, as the exilic leader, lawgiver, and priestly intercessor for all Israel. Another important factor in the theological reworking of Ezekiel in Deuteronomy is the systematic elaboration of the Ezekielian, evidently artificial, previously unknown idea of the twelve tribes of Israel (Ezek 47:13–48:34), and not only the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Ezek 37:16–19 etc.), into that of one, Yahwistic, twelve-tribe ‘Israel.’ On the other hand, notwithstanding its ‘pan-Israelite’ theology, the hidden rhetoric of the book of Deuteronomy implies that it is a consciously Israelite (northern) and not a Judaean work. It presents the tribe of Joseph, with its chosen cultic ‘place’ located in the region of Mount Gerizim (Deut 11:29–12:27), in positive terms of being particularly blessed (Deut 33:13–17), and the tribe of Judah in much more negative terms of being in need to return to its people (Deut 33:7). Accordingly, the cultic centre of the Deuteronomic post-exilic Israel lies in the region of Shechem, especially Mount Gerizim (Deut 11:29; 27:12), and not in the temple of Jerusalem, as was the case in the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 40–48).

216 Cf. R. Ebach, ‘ “You Shall Walk Exactly on the Way which YHWH Your God has Commanded You”: Characteristics of Deuteronomy’s Concepts of Leadership,’ in K. Pyschny and S. Schulz (eds.), Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (BZAW 507; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018), 159–177 (esp. 173–174).

Chapter 2.  The book of Joshua as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–32:50 The contents of the book of Joshua sequentially, in a hypertextual way illustrate the contents of the Deuteronomic major section Deut 1:1–32:50.

2.1. Josh 1 (cf. Deut 1:1–21) The opening section Josh 1 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding opening section Deut 1:1–21. The opening idea of (a) Moses (‫ )משה‬dying, presumably beyond the Jordan (cf. Deut 4:22; 34:5),1 and (b) Yahweh speaking to (‫ )אל‬Joshua (c) son (‫ )בן‬of Nun, (d) a servant of (e) Moses (‫)משה‬, (f) saying (‫לאמר‬: Josh 1:1), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses speaking beyond the Jordan, in the wilderness and in the desert (Deut 1:1), (b) Moses speaking to (c) the sons of Israel according to all that (d) Yahweh commanded them (Deut 1:3), and (e) Moses enacting the law beyond the Jordan, (f) saying (Deut 1:1–5; esp. 1:5). The particular motif of the death of Moses, the servant of Yahweh (‫ משה עבד יהוה‬+ ‫מות‬: Josh 1:1), was borrowed from Deut 34:5 etc. The motif of Joshua son of Nun (‫יחושע בן־נון‬: Josh 1:1) was borrowed from Deut 1:38 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) Moses, the servant of Yahweh, having died, and (b) Yahweh calling Joshua to arise (impv.) and (c) cross over (impv.), (d) he and all this people, (e) to (‫( )אל‬f) the land (‫ )ארץ‬of Canaan (Josh 1:2a–c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites dwelling enough on the Moses-related Mount Horeb (Deut 1:6), and (b) Yahweh calling the Israelites to turn (impv.) and (c) set out on a journey (impv.) (d) for them (e) to (f) all the neighbouring places, to the land of the Canaanites (Deut 1:6–7; esp. 1:7). The particular motif of Yahweh calling

1 Cf. S. Wypych, Księga Jozuego: Wstęp, przekład z oryginału, komentarz (NKBST 6; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2015), 107.

126

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

an Israelite to arise now and cross over a river (*‫עתה קומ* עבר‬: Josh 1:2) was borrowed from Deut 2:132 and conflated with Deut 30:18 etc. (‫ אתה‬+ ‫)עבר את־הירדן‬. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving (‫ )נתן‬the land to the Israelites (Josh 1:2d) and (b) declaring that he has given (*‫ ;נתתי‬diff. Deut 11:24: ‫)יהיה‬3 every place in it (Josh 1:2d–4; esp. 1:3) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh calling Israel to see (b) that he has given, presumably the land (Deut 1:8ab). The particular motif of every place that the sole of the Israelites’ foot will tread upon being for the Israelites, from the wilderness and the Lebanon, as far as the river, the River Euphrates, to the sea in the west, there shall be their territory (‫כל־*מקום אשר תדרך‬ ‫ יהיה גבולכם‬+ *‫ ועד־הים ה‬+ ‫ נהר־פרת‬+ ‫ הנהר‬+ ‫ מ*המדבר והלבנון‬+ ‫כף־רגלכם בו לכם‬: Josh 1:3–4) was borrowed from Deut 11:24.4 The subsequent idea of no one being able to stand before Joshua (*‫)לפניכ‬ because Yahweh will be with him (Josh 1:5) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the promised land being before the Israelites, presumably given to them by Yahweh (Deut 1:8b). The particular motif of no one being able to stand before an Israelite (‫לא־יתיצב איש *פניך‬: Josh 1:5) was borrowed from Deut 7:24 (cf. 11:25).5 The motif of Yahweh being with an Israelite, not abandoning him, and not leaving him (‫*היה עמך לא ארפה ולא‬ ‫אעזבך‬: Josh 1:5) was borrowed from Deut 31:8 (cf. 31:6).6 The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua being courageous and strong and (b) making the people inherit (c) the land which Yahweh swore (*‫)את־הארץ אשר־נשבע‬ (d) to their fathers (*‫( )לאבות‬e) to give them (‫לתת להם‬: Josh 1:6) conceptually and 2 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, ‘Joshua 1,1–9: The Beginning of a Book or a Literary Bridge?,’ in E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua (BETL 250; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2012), 159–182 (esp. 170). 3 Cf. id., Joshua 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 6B; Yale University: New Haven · London 2015), 192, 209. 4 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 192, 208–209, 215; C. Edenburg, ‘Do the Pentateuchal Sources Extend into the Former Prophets? Joshua 1 and the Relation of the Former Prophets to the Pentateuch,’ in J.  C.  Gertz [et  al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (FAT 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 795–802 (esp. 800, 802); M. Ederer, Das Buch Josua (NSKAT 5/1; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2017), 76–78. 5 Cf. J.  Van Seters, In Search of History:  Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (Yale University: New Haven · London 1983), 324; D. G. Firth, ‘Disorienting Readers in Joshua 1.1–5.12,’ JSOT 41.4 (2017) 413–430 (esp. 424–425). 6 Cf. C. Edenburg, ‘Do the Pentateuchal,’ 801–802; M. Ederer, Josua, 78–79.

Josh 1 (cf. Deut 1:1–21)

127

linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites going in and (b) possessing (c) the land which Yahweh swore (d) to their fathers (e) to give them (Deut 1:8c–f). The particular motif of Joshua being called to be courageous and strong because he would bring this people to the land which Yahweh swore to their fathers to give them (‫חזק ואמץ כי אתה‬ ‫ת* את־העם הזה א*־הארץ אשר נשבע* לאבותם לתת להם‬: Josh 1:6) was borrowed from Deut 31:7.7 The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted8 idea of (a) Joshua being courageous and very strong, (b) observing to do (‫ )לעשות‬the law and therefore being insightful (Josh 1:7), as well as (c) meditating the law and observing to do (‫ )לעשות‬it and therefore (d) again being prosperous and insightful (Josh 1:7–9; esp. 1:8)9 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites being very numerous, (b) choosing wise, discerning, and knowledgeable men (Deut 1:13), (c) saying that it is good to do it (Deut 1:14), and (d) again Moses choosing wise and knowledgeable men (Deut 1:9–15a; esp. 1:15a). The particular motif of observing to do according to all the law (‫לשמר לעשות‬ ‫ התורה‬+ ‫ כל‬+: Josh 1:7) was borrowed from Deut 32:46 (cf. 28:58; 31:12).10 The motif of not turning from the law to the right or to the left (+ *‫ תסור מ‬+ ‫התורה‬ ‫ימין ושמאול‬: Josh 1:7) was borrowed from Deut 17:11 etc. The motif of an Israelite observing to do the law in order to be insightful/prosperous in all that he does (‫ *כל אשר‬+ *‫ למען תשכיל‬+ ‫ עשה‬+ ‫שמר‬: Josh 1:7) was borrowed from Deut 29:8.11 The motif of this book of the law and all that is written in it (+ ‫ספר התורה הזה‬ *‫ הכתוב‬+ ‫ככל‬: Josh 1:8) was borrowed from Deut 29:20.12 The motif of calling an Israelite to be courageous and strong, not being terrified and not being dismayed because Yahweh is with him and goes before him (‫ ו* תחת‬+ *‫ אל־תערצ‬+ *‫חזק* ואמצ‬ ‫ הלך‬+ ‫ עמך‬+: Josh 1:9) was borrowed from Deut 31:6.8.13 7 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, ‘Joshua 1,1–9,’ 170; C. Edenburg, ‘Do the Pentateuchal,’ 801–802. 8 Cf. P. L. Albertini, ‘Al di là della terra: Analisi del carattere redazionale di Gs 1,7–9,’ RivB 59 (2011) 57–79 (esp. 60–62); T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 209; S. Wypych, Jozuego, 113. 9 Cf. J. L. Ska, ‘Why Does the Pentateuch Speak so Much of Torah and so Little of Jerusalem?,’ in P. Dubovský, D. Markl, and J.-P. Sonnet (eds.), The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (FAT 107; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 113–128 (esp. 121–122). 10 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, ‘Joshua 1,1–9,’ 176. 11 Cf. K. Finsterbusch, ‘Deuteronomy and Joshua: Torah in the Book of Joshua in Light of Deuteronomy,’ JAJ 3 (2012) 166–196 (esp. 173). 12 Cf. ibid. 13 Cf. P. L. Albertini, ‘Al di là,’ 61–62, 66; M. Ederer, Josua, 83–84.

128

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua commanding (b) the officials (‫ )שטרים‬of (c) the people (Josh 1:10) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses appointing (b) heads and leaders as officials for (c) the Israelite tribes (Deut 1:15b). The subsequent idea of the officials commanding the (‫ )ו*צו* את־‬people, saying (‫לאמר‬: Josh 1:11a–c), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding the officials, saying (Deut 1:16), and Moses commanding the people (Deut 1:16–18; esp. 1:18). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites somewhat surprisingly making provisions for a journey14 and (b) coming (‫ )בוא‬to Canaan (Josh 1:11d–f) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites going through the great wilderness and (b) coming to Kadesh Barnea, as well as coming to the mountains of the Amorites (Deut 1:19–20b). The subsequent idea of the land which Yahweh the Israelites’ God is giving them (*‫אשר יהוה אלהי* נתן ל‬: Josh 1:11g–i) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the mountains which Yahweh the Israelites’ God is giving them (Deut 1:20cd). The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua calling Israelite tribes to remember (impv.) that (b) Yahweh Israel’s God (*‫( )יהוה אלכיכ‬c) is giving rest to them (‫ )לכם‬and gave them (‫( )נתן לכם‬d) this land (‫את־הארץ‬: Josh 1:12–13; esp. 1:13) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) calling Israel to see (impv.) that (b) Yahweh Israel’s God (c) gave (‫)נתן‬ before him (‫( )ל*ך‬d) the land (Deut 1:21ab). The particular motif of giving the land to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh (‫לראובני ולגבי‬ *‫ את־*ארצ‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ *‫ולחצי שבט המנש‬: Josh 1:12–13) was borrowed from Deut 29:7. The subsequent idea of calling Israelite tribes to cross over the Jordan, presumably to Canaan (Josh 1:14), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of calling Israel to go up, presumably to Canaan (Deut 1:21c). The particular motif of the Transjordanians’ wives, little children, and livestock remaining in the land which Moses gave them, but them crossing over armed before their brothers, all the men of strength (‫ לפני‬+ ‫ תעברו‬+ ‫ ישבו ב* אשר נת* לכם‬+ ‫נשיכם *טפכם ומקנ*כם‬ ‫ חיל‬+ ‫ כל‬+ ‫אחיכם‬: Josh 1:14), was borrowed from Deut 3:18–19.15

14 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua (HCOT; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2011), 38; S. Wypych, Jozuego, 119. 15 Cf. T.  C.  Butler, Joshua 1–12 (2nd ed., WBC 7A; Zondervan:  Grand Rapids, MI 2014), 205; S.  Gesundheit, ‘Die Beteiligung der ostjordanischen Stämme an der

Josh 2:1–15 (cf. Deut 1:22–7:26)

129

The subsequent idea of the Cisjordanian tribes taking possession (‫ )ירש‬of the land, and the Transjordanian tribes returning to their possession (‫ )ירשה‬and taking possession (‫ )ירש‬of it (Josh 1:15) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel taking possession (Deut 1:21d). The particular motif of the Transjordanians helping until Yahweh gives rest to their brothers, just as to them, and they also take possession of the land which Yahweh the Israelites’ God is giving them, and the Transjordanians returning to their possession which Moses gave them beyond the Jordan (‫עד אשר יניח יהוה לאחיכם‬ + ‫ אשר נת* לכם‬+ *‫ ירשת‬+ ‫ ושבתם‬+ ‫ככם וירשו גם־המ* את־הארץ אשר יהוה אלהיכם נתן להם‬ ‫בעבר הירדן‬: Josh 1:15) was almost verbatim borrowed from Deut 3:2016 and conflated with Deut 4:41.47 (‫)בעבר הירדן מזרח *שמש‬. The subsequent thought that (a) as (‫ )אשר‬Joshua commands them, the Israelites will do, and as (‫ )אשר‬he sends them, (b) they will go (‫נלך‬: Josh 1:16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that (a) Israel should act just as (‫ )כאשר‬Yahweh said, and (b) he should go (‫לך‬: Deut 1:21ef).17 The subsequent idea of the Israelites expressing their concern whether Yahweh will be with Joshua, as he was with Moses (Josh 1:17), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being called not to be afraid (Deut 1:21g). The concluding idea of the Israelites promising to punish everyone behaving rebelliously against Joshua, who should be courageous and strong (Josh 1:18), illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Israel being called not to be dismayed (Deut 1:21h). The particular motif of behaving rebelliously against the commandment of Yahweh’s representative (‫ את־פי‬+ ‫מרה‬: Josh 1:18) was borrowed from Deut 1:26.43; 9:23.

2.2. Josh 2:1–15 (cf. Deut 1:22–7:26) The section Josh 2:1–15 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 1:22–7:26. The opening idea of (a) Joshua sending (‫( )שלח‬b) two (‫ )שנים‬men (‫( )אנשים‬c) to scout (‫( )רגל‬d) the land (‫ )את־הארץ‬and (e) Jericho, so that they (f) came (‫)בוא‬ westjordanischen Landnahme. Ein Vergleich von Num 32,1–33; Dtn 3,18–20 und Jos 1,12–15,’ ZAW 131 (2019) 58–76 (esp. 72–73). 16 Cf. T. C. Butler, Joshua 1–12, 205. 1 7 The word ‫( לך‬Deut 1:21) can be understood either as a prepositional phrase (‘to you’), connected with the preceding clause, or as an imperative (‘go!’), connected with the two following imperatives (cf. Deut 1:29–30; 31:6.8: *‫ תירא‬+ ‫)הלך‬.

130

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

(c’) to spy out (‫( )חפר‬d’) the land (‫את־הארץ‬: Josh 2:1–3), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites resolving to send (b) men (c’) to spy out (d) the land and (e) the cities to which (f) they should come, so that (b’) two and ten men (f ’) came to the Valley of Eshcol and (c) scouted it (Deut 1:22–24). The particular motif of the Israelites going from ‘the Shittim’ (‫מן־השטים‬: Josh 2:1) was borrowed from Mic 6:5. The subsequent idea of (a) the woman taking (‫ )ו*קח‬the two men, (b) hiding them, and (c) saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬affirmatively, (d) ‘Yes, the men came to me’ (Josh 2:4a–d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the spies taking of the fruit of the land, (b) bringing it down, and (c) saying affirmatively, (d) ‘Good is the land which Yahweh our God is giving us’ (Deut 1:25). The subsequent idea of (a) the woman not (‫( )ולא‬b) knowing from (‫ )מן‬where (c) they, presumably had been before their disappearance (Josh 2:4ef),18 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites not (b) knowing why Yahweh brought them from the land of Egypt (c) to destroy them (Deut 1:26–27). The subsequent idea of (a) the city gate being closed, and (b) the woman not knowing where (‫ )אנה‬the men went (Josh 2:5a–e) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) the Israelites asking where they would go up, and (a) the cities of Canaan being unassailable (Deut 1:28). The subsequent idea of the woman exhorting the king’s envoys to pursue the men quickly and to reach them (Josh 2:5fg) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses exhorting the Israelites not to be terrified but to go ahead (Deut 1:29–33). The subsequent idea of (a) letting the two Israelite spies go up to the roof and (b) hiding them, presumably surprisingly standing (cf. Josh 2:8), among the stalks of flax (Josh 2:6) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) letting the Israelite spies Caleb and Joshua see the land of Canaan (Deut 1:36.38) (b) among little children (Deut 1:34–40; esp. 1:39). The subsequent idea of (a) the Canaanite men pursuing (‫ )*רדפו‬the Israelite spies, and (b) shutting the gate just as (‫( )כאשר‬c) there went out (d) the pursuers (‫( )ה*ים‬e) after them (Josh 2:7) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Amorites pursuing

18 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 48.

Josh 2:1–15 (cf. Deut 1:22–7:26)

131

the Israelites (b) just as (c) do, that is, pursue (d) the bees (‫)ה*ים‬, and (e) scattering them (Deut 1:41–44; esp. 1:44). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the Israelite spies not lying down (diff. Josh 2:1),19 and (b) the woman coming to them (Josh 2:8) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites sitting in Kadesh and wandering for many days (Deut 1:46–2:1), and (b) Yahweh speaking to Moses (Deut 1:45–2:3; esp. 2:2–3). The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving (‫ )נתן‬to the Israelites the land (‫)ארץ‬, and all those dwelling (‫ )ישב‬in the land (‫ )ארץ‬melting before them (*‫מפני‬: Josh 2:9) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites passing through the territories of those dwelling in pagan regions (Deut 2:4.8.10.12.20–23.29; 3:2), the sons of Esau being afraid of the Israelites (Deut 2:4), Yahweh not giving to the Israelites the land of Edom or the land of Moab or the land of Ammon (Deut 2:5.9.19.37), Israel’s neighbours exterminating those who dwelt in their land before them and dwelling in their place (Deut 2:12.21–23), just as Israel did to the land which Yahweh gave to them (Deut 2:12), Yahweh giving to the Israelites the land of their enemies (Deut 2:24.29.31; 3:2.18.20; 4:1.21), and pagan nations being afraid before Israel (Deut 2:4–4:31; esp. 2:25). The subsequent idea of (a) the pagan people hearing (‫ )שמע‬that (b) Yahweh dried up (diff. Deut 11:4: made overflow) the water of the sea (c) when the Israelites came out of Egypt (‫בצאת*ם ממצרים‬: Josh 2:10a–c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that (a) it has been heard (Deut 4:32) that (b) Yahweh spoke out of the great fire and performed signs and wonders (Deut 4:33–36) (c) when the Israelites came out of Egypt (Deut 4:32–45; esp. 4:37.45). The particular motif of Yahweh moving the waters of the Sea of Reeds before the people’s faces (+ ‫את־מי ים־סוף‬ ‫פני*ם‬: Josh 2:10) was borrowed from Deut 11:4. The subsequent idea of the Israelites doing harm to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan (‫)שני מלכי האמרי אשר בעבר הירדן‬, Sihon (‫ )סיחן‬and Og (‫עוג‬: Josh 2:10d–f), conceptually and linguistically, almost verbatim illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being beyond the Jordan, in the land of Sihon, king of the Amorites, and the land of Og, the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan (Deut 4:46–49; esp. 4:46–47.49). The particular motif of the Israelites utterly destroying Sihon

19 Cf. ibid. 49; T. C. Butler, Joshua 1–12, 259.

132

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

and Og (‫חרם‬: Josh 2:10) was borrowed from the thematically related texts Deut 2:34; 3:6. The subsequent idea of (a) the pagan people hearing (‫ )שמע‬and (b) having no courage (Josh 2:11a–c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel hearing and (b) learning to observe carefully Yahweh’s words (Deut 5:1). The subsequent idea of Yahweh the Israelites’ God (‫יהוה אלהיכם‬: Josh 2:11d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh the Israelites’ God (*‫יהוה אלהי‬: Deut 5:2) making a covenant with the Israelites, and Moses standing between Yahweh and them (‫*כם‬: Deut 5:2–5; esp. 5:2). The subsequent declaration that (a) he (pers. pron.) is (b) God (‫אלהים‬: Josh 2:11d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic declaration that (a) he (pers. pron.), Yahweh, is (b) Israel’s God, and Israel shall have no other gods (‫ )אלהים‬before him (Deut 5:6–7). The subsequent idea of Yahweh being God (a) in heaven above (‫)בשמים ממעל‬ and (b) on earth below (‫*ארץ מתחת‬: Josh 2:11d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel not making a cultic image of anything that is in heaven above or that is (b) in the earth below (Deut 5:8).20 The subsequent idea of exhorting the Israelites to swear by Yahweh (Josh 2:12a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of exhorting the Israelites to worship no cultic images, but only Yahweh (Deut 5:9). The subsequent idea of (a) the woman showing (‫ )עשה‬to the Israelites (b) loyalty (‫)חסד‬, and (a’) the Israelites showing (‫ )עשה‬to the house of the woman’s father (‫( )אב‬b’) loyalty (‫חסד‬: Josh 2:12bc) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh showing (b) loyalty to (a’) thousands of the sons of the fathers (cf. Deut 5:9) of those who (b’) love him and keep his commandments (Deut 5:10–11; esp. 5:10). The subsequent idea of the Israelites giving to (‫ )ל‬the woman a sign of faithfulness (Josh 2:12d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel observing the Sabbath to Yahweh, just as Yahweh commanded him (Deut 5:12–15). The subsequent idea of (a) preserving the life of the woman’s father and her mother (*‫)את־אבי* ואת־אמ‬, (b) her brothers and her sisters, and (c) all that belongs

20 Cf. J. Berman, ‘Law Code as Plot Template in Biblical Narrative (1 Kings 9.26–11.13; Joshua 2.9–13,’ JSOT 40.3 (2016) 337–349 (esp. 346–347).

Josh 2:16–24 (cf. Deut 8–9)

133

to (*‫ )כל־אשר ל‬them (Josh 2:13a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) honouring one’s father and one’s mother (Deut 5:16),21 (b) not harming one’s neighbour (Deut 5:17–21), and (c) all that belongs to him (Deut 5:16–21; esp. 5:21). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites delivering the lives of the woman and her relatives (b) from death (‫)מות‬, and (c) offering their lives to die (‫מות‬: Josh 2:13b–14b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites hearing the voice of God out of the fire and nevertheless remaining alive (Deut 5:22–24), (b) not wanting to die (‫)מות‬, but (c) foretelling that they would die (Deut 5:22–27; esp. 5:25). The subsequent idea of (a) the woman not betraying the Israelites’ word (‫)דבר‬, (b) this one (‫זה‬: Josh 2:14c), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh accepting the Israelites’ words (Deut 5:28), and (b) the Israelites having this heart (Deut 5:28–30; esp. 5:29). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving to the Israelites (‫( )*תת לנו‬b) the land (‫את־הארץ‬: Josh 2:14de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving to the Israelites (b) the land (Deut 5:31–6:25; esp. 6:23; cf. also 5:31; 6:10). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites showing loyalty (‫ )חסד‬and (b) faithfulness (‫אמת‬: Josh 2:14f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Yahweh being faithful (‫ )אמן‬and (a) keeping loyalty (Deut 7:1–15; esp. 7:9.12). The subsequent idea of the pagan woman letting the Israelites down in snares (Josh 2:15a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the pagan gods being a snare to the Israelites and ensnaring them (Deut 7:16–25; esp. 7:16.25). The concluding idea of the woman’s house (‫ )בית‬being, somewhat surprisingly, in the inside of the wall (Josh 2:15bc) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite not bringing any abomination to his house (Deut 7:26).

2.3.  Josh 2:16–24 (cf. Deut 8–9) The section Josh 2:16–24 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 8–9.

21 Cf. ibid. 347.

134

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

The opening, somewhat surprising after the sending off of the spies (Josh 2:15),22 idea of (a) persuading the Israelites to go to the hills (‫)הר‬, and (b) afterwards (‫( )אחר‬c) the Israelites going (‫ )הלך‬their way (Josh 2:16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh bringing Israel to the hills (Deut 8:7.9), and (b) thereafter (‫אחרית‬: Deut 8:16) (c) Israel going after other gods (Deut 8; esp. 8:19). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites (pers. pron.) (b) coming (‫ )בוא‬to the land (Josh 2:17–18a; esp. 2:18a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel (pers. pron.) (b) crossing over the Jordan to come to Canaan (Deut 9:1a–c). The subsequent idea of the Canaanite woman having, somewhat surprisingly, a cord made with a crimson thread (Josh 2:18bc) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Canaanite nations being great and mighty, so presumably rich (Deut 9:1de). The subsequent idea of the Canaanite woman gathering all her father’s household (Josh 2:18d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Canaanites being sons of Anak (Deut 9:2). The subsequent idea of the Israelites shedding the blood of the Canaanites (Josh 2:19) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh and Israel exterminating the Canaanites (Deut 9:3). The subsequent idea of the woman possibly betraying the Israelites (Josh 2:20a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the wickedness of the Canaanite nations (Deut 9:4–5c). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites pointing to their word (*‫)את־דבר‬ and (b) the oath (‫ )שבועה‬which (‫( )אשר‬c) they swore (‫שבע‬: Josh 2:20a–c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh keeping the word (b) which (c) he swore (Deut 9:5de). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 2:18) idea of the Canaanite woman having a crimson cord (Josh 2:21) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the good land (Deut 9:6). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites going and (b) coming (‫בוא‬: Josh 2:22ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the

22 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 52; A. Toczyski, The ‘Geometrics’ of the Rahab Story: A Multidimensional Analysis of Joshua 2 (LHBOTS 664; T&T Clark: London 2018), 136.

Josh 3 (cf. Deut 10:1–10)

135

subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites going through the wilderness and (b) coming to this place (Deut 9:7). The subsequent idea of the Israelites coming (a) to the mountain (‫ )ההרה‬and (b) remaining (‫ )ו*שב‬there (c) three days (‫יום‬: Josh 2:22b–d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses going up to the mountain and (b) remaining there (c) forty days (Deut 9:8–9d; esp. 9:9a–d). The subsequent idea of the pursuers searching but not (‫ )לא‬finding (Josh 2:22ef) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses not eating bread and not drinking water (Deut 9:9ef). The subsequent, somewhat redundantly formulated idea of the two (‫ ;שני‬diff. Josh 2:5.9.14.17) men returning (Josh 2:23a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the two tablets of stone (Deut 9:10–11). The subsequent idea of (a) the men going down (‫( )ירד‬b) from (‫( )מן‬c) the mountain (‫ )ההר‬and (d) crossing over, presumably the Jordan river (Josh 2:23b– d), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic, repetitively formulated idea of (a) Moses going down (b) from (c) the mountain (d) to the river which (a’) went down (b’) from (c’) the mountain (Deut 9:12–21; esp. 9:12.15.21). The subsequent idea of the men recounting what happened to them (Josh 2:23ef) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses recounting what happened to the Israelites in three places (Deut 9:22). The subsequent idea of (a) the men saying (‫ )אמר‬that (b) Yahweh gave (‫ )נתן‬into the Israelites’ hands (c) all the land (‫את־*־הארץ‬: Josh 2:24ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh saying that (c) the Israelites should take possession of the land which (b) he gave them (Deut 9:23a–e). The subsequent idea of the pagans waving (Josh 2:24c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the sinful Israelites behaving rebelliously (Deut 9:23f–27; esp. 9:23–24). The concluding idea of (a) all those who dwell in the land (‫ )הארץ‬melting (b) before the Israelites (Josh 2:24d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the inhabitants of (a) the land saying that Yahweh was not able to bring the Israelites to the land (Deut 9:28), and (b) Israel being the people and the inheritance of the powerful Yahweh (Deut 9:28–29; esp. 9:29).

136

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

2.4. Josh 3 (cf. Deut 10:1–10) The section Josh 3 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 10:1–10. The opening, temporal idea of Joshua acting early in the morning (Josh 3:1)23 illustrates the opening Deuteronomic, temporal idea of Yahweh acting at that time (Deut 10:1a). The subsequent idea of the officials speaking (‫ ;אמר‬diff. Deut 2:5.8–9: ‫ )דבר‬to the people (Josh 3:2–3b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh speaking to Moses (Deut 10:1a). The particular motif of the officials speaking to the people (‫ העם‬+ ‫השטרים‬: Josh 3:2–3) was borrowed from Deut 20:5.8–9. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites seeing the ark (‫ )ארון‬of (b) the covenant of Yahweh (Josh 3:3c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses making an ark of wood (Deut 10:1) and (b) placing the tablets of the covenant in it (Deut 10:1b–5; esp. 10:2–5). The particular motif of the ark of the covenant of Yahweh (‫את ארון‬ ‫ברית־יהוה‬: Josh 3:3c) was borrowed from the thematically related text Deut 10:8. The subsequent idea of the priests (‫כהן‬: Josh 3:3d; diff. Deut 10:8: the Levites) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Eleazar acting as a priest instead of his father Aaron (Deut 10:6). The subsequent idea of (a) the Levites (*‫( )הלוי‬b) carrying (‫( )נשא‬c) the (‫)את‬ ark, and (d) the people following them (Josh 3:3d–f) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh selecting the tribe of the Levi (b) to carry (c) the ark and (d) to bless the people (Deut 10:7–8; esp. 10:8). The particular motif of the Levitical priests (‫הכהנים הלוים‬: Josh 3:3) was borrowed from Deut 17:9 etc. The subsequent, somewhat surprising (diff. Josh 3:3.6)24 idea of the people keeping a distance of two thousand cubits between them and the Levites, and not (‫ )לא‬knowing their way (Josh 3:4)25 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Levi not having a share or inheritance with his brothers (Deut 10:9a). The subsequent idea of making people holy to let them see Yahweh’s wonders (Josh 3:5) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being the inheritance (Deut 10:9b). 2 3 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 61; S. Wypych, Jozuego, 143. 24 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 258. 25 Cf. E. Ballhorn, Israel am Jordan: Narrative Topographie im Buch Josua (BBB 162; V&R unipress: Göttingen 2011), 171.

Josh 3 (cf. Deut 10:1–10)

137

The subsequent idea of Joshua saying to the priests that they should lead the people (Josh 3:6) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh saying to Levi, presumably that they should have a special role (Deut 10:9c). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh exalting Joshua this day (‫)יום‬, (b) just as (*‫ )כ‬he once exalted Moses (Josh 3:7),26 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses standing alone on the mountain, (b) as he did in the first days (Deut 10:10a). The subsequent, quite surprising idea of the priests standing (‫ )עמד‬in (‫ )ב‬the Jordan,27 presumably for some time (Josh 3:8), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses standing in the mountain forty days and forty nights (Deut 10:10a). The subsequent idea of the people hearing (‫ )שמע‬the words of Yahweh (Josh 3:9) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh hearing Moses (Deut 10:10b). The subsequent, quite surprisingly formulated idea of the ark passing in the Jordan (Josh 3:11), choosing one man from every tribe (Josh 3:12),28 the soles of the feet of the priests resting in the Jordan (Josh 3:13),29 the people passing the Jordan (Josh 3:14), and the feet of the priests being dipped in the water (Josh 3:10–15; esp.  3:15) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of this one step/time (Deut 10:10b). The particular motif of the living God (‫אל חי‬: Josh 3:10) was borrowed from Hos 2:1. The motif of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Perizzites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, and the Jebusites (+ ‫ הפרזי‬+ ‫ החוי‬+ ‫ החתי‬+ ‫הכנעני‬ ‫ והיבוסי‬+ ‫ והאמרי‬+ ‫הגרגשי‬: Josh 3:10) was borrowed from Deut 7:1. The motif of the Israelites choosing for themselves twelve men, one man from each tribe (‫לקח‬ ‫ איש אחד לשבט‬+ ‫ איש‬+ ‫ שני* עשר‬+ ‫ *כם‬+: Josh 3:12), was borrowed from Deut 1:23. The concluding idea of the destructive waters rising up as one dam very far away,30 so that all the people completely crossed over on dry ground, and the

26 Cf. P. Béré, Le second Serviteur de Yhwh: Un portrait exégétique de Josué dans le livre éponyme (OBO 253; Academic: Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012), 171; G. Goswell, ‘Joshua and Kingship,’ BBR 23 (2013) 29–42 (esp. 30). 27 Cf. M. Ederer, Josua, 111. 28 Cf. E. Assis, ‘A Literary Approach to Complex Narratives: An Examination of Joshua 3–4,’ in E. Noort (ed.), Book of Joshua, 401–413 (esp. 401); E.-W. Lee, Crossing the Jordan:  Diachrony Versus Synchrony in the Book of Joshua (LHBOTS 578; T&T Clark: London · New York 2013), 187; T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 288. 29 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 67; M. Ederer, Josua, 112–113. 30 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 68.

138

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

priests stood firm (Josh 3:16–17), illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh not willing to destroy Israel (Deut 10:10c).

2.5. Josh 4:1–5:1 (cf. Deut 10:11–15) The section Josh 4:1–5:1 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 10:11–15. The opening idea of Yahweh speaking to Joshua (*‫ויאמר יהוה אל‬: Josh 4:1) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh speaking to Moses (Deut 10:11a). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Josh 3:12)31 idea of exhorting the Israelites to take for themselves (*‫ )לכ‬twelve men and to lift for themselves (*‫ )לכ‬twelve stones (Josh 4:2–3c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of exhorting Moses to get up for himself32 (Deut 10:11b). The subsequent idea of carrying the stones to another lodging place (Josh 4:3d–f)33 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of departure, presumably to another camping place (Deut 10:11b). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) exhorting the twelve men to cross over before (‫( )לפני‬b) the ark of Yahweh,34 the God of the Israelites (Josh 4:4–5b), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) exhorting Moses to be before (b) the people (Deut 10:11b). The subsequent idea of (a) exhorting the twelve men to carry, each one of them, (b) one stone on his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Israel (Josh 4:5c), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) exhorting the Israelites to go in and (b) take possession of the land, presumably as a group of tribes (Deut 10:11cd). The allusive reference to Shechem (‫שכם‬: Josh 4:5c) as being a sign in the midst of the Israelites (Josh 4:6a) points to Shechem as the central place in the

31 Cf. E. Assis, ‘Literary,’ 401, 408; É. Nodet, ‘Traverser à pied sec une mer ou un fleuve?,’ RB 120 (2013) 24–41 (esp. 37); M. Ederer, Josua, 114. 32 The word ‫( לך‬Deut 10:11b) can be understood either as an imperative (‘go!’), connected with the following prepositional phrases ‫למסע לפני העם‬, or as a prepositional phrase (‘for yourself ’), connected with the preceding imperative ‫( קום‬cf. Josh 7:10). 33 Cf. E. Ballhorn, Israel, 174. 34 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 71–72.

Josh 4:1–5:1 (cf. Deut 10:11–15)

139

theological geography of the book of Joshua (cf. Josh 20:7; 24:1.25). This fact suggests that Deuteronomy is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent idea of this being a sign in the midst of the Israelites (Josh 4:6a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh swearing to the fathers concerning the gift of the land (Deut 10:11ef). The subsequent idea of (a) the sons asking (‫ )שאל‬the Israelites in the future (b) what (‫ )מה‬these stones mean to them (Josh 4:6b–d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) interrogating Israel what (a) Yahweh asks from him (Deut 10:12a). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 4:3), somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) the Israelites remembering that the destructive waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, (b) the Israelites carrying over the stones with them to the lodging place, and (c) Joshua setting up twelve stones in the midst of the Jordan, (d) in the place in which there were the feet of the priests who carried the ark of the covenant and who, while carrying the ark, stood there (Josh 4:7–10a),35 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel fearing Yahweh, (b) walking in his ways, (c) loving him, and (d) serving Yahweh (Deut 10:12b–e). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 3:17–4:1)36 idea of (a) the Israelites completing the matter which (b) Yahweh commanded (‫ )צוה‬Joshua, according to all the things (c) which (‫( )אשר‬d) Moses commanded (‫ )צוה‬Joshua, and (e) the people hastily crossing over until they completely crossed over (Josh 4:10–11c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel keeping (b) Yahweh’s commandments and statutes, (c) which (d) Moses commanded Israel (e) on that day (Deut 10:13ab). The subsequent, somewhat surprising in the context of the preceding statement concerning the people completely crossing over (Josh 4:11a–c),37 idea of the ark of Yahweh crossing over before the people, presumably to lead them, and forty thousand armed men crossing over before the sons of Israel for (‫ )ל‬battle on the plains of Jericho (Josh 4:11d–13) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of this being for the good of Israel (Deut 10:13b). The subsequent idea of Yahweh exalting Joshua in the sight of all Israel, so that they feared him (Josh 4:14), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh ruling heaven and the heaven of heavens (Deut 10:14a).

3 5 Cf. É. Nodet, ‘Traverser,’ 36; M. Ederer, Josua, 116. 36 Cf. E. Assis, ‘Literary,’ 401, 410; T. C. Butler, Joshua 1–12, 308; S. Wypych, Jozuego, 155. 37 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 74; É. Nodet, ‘Traverser,’ 36.

140

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

The subsequent idea of the priests who carried the ark of the covenant of Yahweh coming up from the Jordan, and their feet touching the dry land (Josh 4:15–18d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh ruling the land (Deut 10:14b). The subsequent idea of the waters of the Jordan returning and going over all (‫ )כל‬its banks (Josh 4:18ef) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh ruling all that is on the land (Deut 10:14b). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 4:8–9)38 idea of (b’) the Israelites camping in (‫ )ב‬the ‘round’ Gilgal, and (a) Joshua setting up the twelve stones that (‫ )אשר‬they took out of the Jordan (b) in (‫ )ב‬the ‘round’ Gilgal (Josh 4:19–20) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh ruling all (a) that is (b) in the earth (Deut 10:14b). The particular motif of the Israelites on the first day of the beginning month returning to their land, east of an important city (*‫ ראש‬+ ‫בעשור לחדש‬: Josh 4:19), was borrowed from Ezek 40:1–2. The motif of Gilgal at the crossing of the Jordan (‫ גלגל‬+ ‫הירדן‬: Josh 4:19–20) could have been borrowed from Deut 11:30. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 4:6)39 idea of the Israelites’ sons asking their fathers (*‫אבות‬: Josh 4:21; diff. 4:6: no remark concerning the fathers) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel’s fathers (Deut 10:15a). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) Yahweh drying up the waters of the Jordan before the sons’ fathers, as (b) Yahweh dried up the waters of the Sea of Reeds before the recipients (‘us’) until the recipients (‘we’) crossed over (Josh 4:22–23)40 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh loving the fathers and (b) choosing their descendants, that is, the recipients (Deut 10:15a–c). The concluding idea of (a) all (‫ )כל‬the peoples (‫ )עמים‬of the earth knowing the mighty hand of Yahweh, (b) the Israelites fearing Yahweh all days (‫)יום‬, and (a’) all (‫ )כל‬the kings of the Amorites and all (‫ )כל‬the kings of the Canaanites being terrified before the Israelites (Josh 4:24–5:1) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh choosing the Israelites (a) above all the peoples, (b) as it is this day (Deut 10:15c).

3 8 Cf. E. Assis, ‘Literary,’ 401; E.-W. Lee, Crossing, 191. 39 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 72, 77; E. Assis, ‘Literary,’ 401; T. C. Butler, Joshua 1–12, 310. 40 Cf. T. C. Butler, Joshua 1–12, 310.

Josh 5:2–12 (cf. Deut 10:16–19:21)

141

2.6. Josh 5:2–12 (cf. Deut 10:16–19:21) The section Josh 5:2–12 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 10:16–19:21. The opening idea of (a) Joshua circumcising (*‫ מל‬/ ‫ )מול‬the Israelites (b) at the hill of the foreskins (‫ערל*ת‬: Josh 5:3), and (a’) the narrator explaining that Joshua circumcised (‫ )מול‬the Israelites (Josh 5:4–5.7–8) because, (c) having been born in the wilderness (‫במדבר‬: Josh 5:4–6), (b’) they had foreskins (‫ערל‬: Josh 5:2–8c; esp. 5:7) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites circumcising (b) the foreskin of their heart (Deut 10:16), and (c) Yahweh doing wonders with the Israelites in the wilderness (Deut 10:16–11:7; esp. 11:4). The particular motif of all the men of war dying (‫ מות‬+ ‫כל אנשי המלחמה‬: Josh 5:3) was borrowed from Deut 2:16. The motif of the Israelites going forty years in the wilderness (‫ במדבר‬+ ‫ הלך‬+ ‫ארבעים שנה‬: Josh 5:6) was borrowed from Deut 2:7; 8:2; 29:4. The motif of all the nation of the men of war perishing, as Yahweh swore to them (‫ *אשר נשבע יהוה להם‬+ ‫עד־תם כל־ה* אנשי המלחמה‬: Josh 5:6), was borrowed from Deut 2:16. The motif of Yahweh swearing that the Israelites will not see that land which he swore to their fathers to give them (‫ את־הארץ‬+ ‫ ראה‬+ ‫שבע‬ ‫ לתת‬+ ‫ לאבות*ם‬+ *‫ אשר נשבע‬+: Josh 5:6) was borrowed from Deut 1:34–35. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites dwelling (‫ )ישב‬by themselves and (b) living (Josh 5:8de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites taking possession of the land (Deut 11:8–17), dwelling in their houses (Deut 11:19), and (b) prolonging their days (Deut 11:8–25; esp. 11:21). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh today (‫( )היום‬b) rolling away, presumably at Gilgal (‫גלל‬: cf. Josh 5:9c: ‫)גלגל‬,41 (c) the disgrace of Egypt from the Israelites (Josh 5:9ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses today (b) offering a blessing before the Israelites, presumably on Mount Gerizim (cf. Deut 11:29), close to Gilgal (cf. Deut 11:30), if they obey the commandments which Moses commands them today (Deut 11:26–27), and (c) a curse, if they turn aside from the way which he commands them today (Deut 11:26–28; esp. 11:28).

41 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 83; T. C. Butler, Joshua 1–12, 337; T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 298.

142

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

The subsequent idea of (a) Israel calling the name of (b) the chosen ‘place’ (c) Gilgal (‫)גלגל‬42 (d) to this day (‫היום‬: Josh 5:9c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel giving a blessing on the named (b) Mount Gerizim (Deut 11:29), (c) which is located opposite Gilgal (Deut 11:30), and (d) the Israelites observing the judgements which Moses gives them this day (Deut 11:32) all the days (Deut 11:29–12:1e; esp. 12:1e). The fact that the idea of the explicitly named ‘place’ (Josh 5:9c) illustrates the Deuteronomic location of the blessing on the likewise explicitly named Mount Gerizim (Deut 11:29) implies that the book of Joshua is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Josh 4:19; 5:8)43 idea of (a) the Israelites camping, presumably with a military aim, (b) in the chosen place of Gilgal (Josh 5:10a) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites living on the ground and destroying the pagans’ cultic places (Deut 12:1f–3) as well as (b) coming to the place which Yahweh chooses, so presumably to Mount Gerizim (Deut 12:1f–15:23; esp. 12:4–26; 14:23–25; 15:20). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites celebrating (‫( )עשה‬b) the Passover (‫( )פסח‬c) in the first (cf. Josh 4:19) month (‫( )חדש‬d) in the evening (‫בערב‬: Josh 5:10b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel celebrating (b) the Passover to Yahweh because (c) in the month of Abib (d) Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt by night (Deut 16:1), therefore Israel celebrating it in the evening (Deut 16:1–2; cf. 16:4.6). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites on the day after the Passover eating (‫( )אכל‬b) unleavened bread (‫מצות‬: Josh 5:11) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel after the Passover eating (b) unleavened bread (Deut 16:3–8; esp. 16:3.8). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites eating roasted grain (b) on the exactly corresponding (cf. Exod 12:41.51) day (Josh 5:11) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel putting the sickle to the standing grain and (b) counting seven weeks (Deut 16:9–12; esp. 16:9).

42 The location of the ‘place’ Gilgal in Josh 5:9c (close to Jericho) evidently differs from that in Deut 11:29–30 (close to Shechem); cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 264. This difference resulted from the hypertextual reworking of Josh 5:9c in Deut 11:29–30. 43 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 85; T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 270.

Josh 5:13–6:27 (cf. Deut 20)

143

The subsequent idea of (a) the ceasing of the (*‫ )ה‬presumably humble something/manna (b) when (‫ )ב‬the Israelites ate the produce of the land, and (c) the Israelites no longer having something/manna (Josh 5:12a–c) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel celebrating the festival of the booths (b) when he gathered from the threshing floor and from the winepress, so (c) rejoicing and celebrating (Deut 16:13–15b). The subsequent idea of the Israelites eating the yield (*‫ )תבואת‬of the land of Canaan (Josh 5:12d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh blessing Israel in all his yield and in all the work of his hand (Deut 16:15cd). The concluding idea of eating in that year (‫בשנה‬: Josh 5:12d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of all Israel’s males seeing the face of Yahweh three times in the year (Deut 16:16–19:21; esp. 16:16).

2.7.  Josh 5:13–6:27 (cf. Deut 20) The section Josh 5:13–6:27 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 20. The opening idea of (a) Joshua being by Jericho and (b) seeing (‫ )ראה‬an armed man standing opposite him (Josh 5:13a–f) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel going out to war against his enemies and (b) seeing numerous armed people (Deut 20:1). The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua coming to (‫ )אל‬the man and (b) saying (‫( )ו*אמר‬c) whether the man acts for the Israelites (‫ )לנו‬or (d) for their enemies (Josh 5:13g–j) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel coming closer to battle (Deut 20:2), and (b) the priest saying (Deut 20:3) that (c) Yahweh goes to fight for the Israelites (‫( )לכם‬d) against their enemies, to save the Israelites (Deut 20:2–4; esp. 20:4). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the man saying (‫)אמר‬, (b) ‘Not’ (‫לא‬: Josh 5:14a)44 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the officials saying to the people that (b) who built a new house and did not dedicate it, (b’) who planted a vineyard and did not use it, (b”) who engaged a wife and did not take her, should return to his house (Deut 20:5–8; esp. 20:5–7).

44 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 306, 328; S. Wypych, Jozuego, 175; D. Dziadosz, ‘Ideowy i teologiczny podtekst misji “wodza zastępów JHWH” w Joz 5,13–15,’ BPT 13 (2020) 25–58 (esp. 41).

144

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

The subsequent idea of (a) the man presenting himself as the commander of the army (‫ )שר־צבא‬of Yahweh, (b) who now came (Josh 5:14bc), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the commanders of the army mustering the people (Deut 20:9), and (b) Israel coming closer to a city (Deut 20:9–10; esp. 20:10). The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua falling on his face to the earth, (b) bowing down, as well as (c) referring to (‫ )לו‬the man as his master and (d) to himself as his servant (‫עבדו‬: Josh 5:14d–g)45 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the conquered city answering in peaceful terms, (b) surrendering to Israel, (c) becoming to (‫)לך‬ Israel forced labourers, and (d) serving (*‫ )עבדו‬Israel (Deut 20:11). The subsequent idea of (a) the commander of the army speaking to Joshua, and (b) Joshua pulling the sandal off his foot because (c) the place on which he stood was holy (Josh 5:15a–d) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel laying siege to an enemy city, killing its male inhabitants, and (b) taking its other inhabitants, presumably to slavery, as booty because (c) Yahweh gave it to Israel (Deut 20:12–14). The subsequent idea of Joshua doing (‫ )עשה‬thus (‫כן‬: Josh 5:15e) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel thus doing to distant cities (Deut 20:15). The subsequent idea of (a) Jericho (b) shutting itself and being shut before the Israelites, with no contact between them (Josh 6:1), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the cities of (b) the pagan peoples (Deut 20:16a). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh saying to Joshua that he gave (‫ )נתן‬into his hand Jericho, (b) its king, and its mighty soldiers (Josh 6:2) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) putting under a ban the cities which Yahweh gave to Israel (Deut 20:16), (b) six pagan nations (Deut 20:16–18; esp. 20:17). The subsequent, somewhat surprising, repetitively formulated idea of (a) the Israelite men of war going around the city (‫ )עיר‬and encircling the city (‫( )עיר‬Josh 6:3.7) (b) for six days (‫ימים‬: Josh 6:3), and (b’) on the seventh day (‫( )יום‬a’) going around the city (‫ )עיר‬seven times (Josh 6:3–9; esp. 6:4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel besieging a city (b) for many days, to seize it (Deut 20:19a–c).

45 Cf. D. Dziadosz, ‘Ideowy,’ 40.

Josh 7 (cf. Deut 21:1–22:25)

145

The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua exhorting the people not (‫ )לא‬to shout, not (‫ )לא‬to let their voice be heard, and not (‫ )לא‬to utter a word (Josh 6:10) while (b) the Israelites repeatedly went around the city for six days (Josh 6:10–14; esp. 6:11–14) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses exhorting Israel not to destroy trees by violently wielding an axe against them, and not to cut them down while (b) laying a siege (Deut 20:19d–i). The subsequent idea of only (‫ )רק‬Rahab the prostitute being spared (Josh 6:17), and the Israelites only (‫ )רק‬abstaining from the devoted things46 (Josh 6:15–19; esp. 6:18) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of only the trees which are not for Israel’s consumption (Deut 20:20ab). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites shouting, (b) the wall falling down, and (c) the Israelites going up (‫( )עלה‬d) to the city (*‫)העיר‬, capturing the city (‫)העיר‬, and utterly destroying all that was in the city (‫בעיר‬: Josh 6:20–21a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel destroying the tree, (b) cutting down, and (c) building siegeworks upon (‫( )על‬d) the enemy city (Deut 20:20c–e). The concluding idea of (a) the Israelites destroying all, from a man (b) to (‫)עד‬ a woman, (a’) from a young man (b’) to (‫ )עד‬an elder, and to (‫ )עד‬an ox, a sheep, and a donkey (Josh 6:21), and burning down the city forever, not to be built up again (Josh 6:21–27; esp. 6:24.26), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel fighting (b) to let the city down (Deut 20:20fg).

2.8.  Josh 7 (cf. Deut 21:1–22:25) The section Josh 7 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 21:1–22:25. The opening idea of (a) the Israelites violating the rule concerning the devoted things47 because Achan (b) of the tribe of Judah took some of the devoted things

46 Cf. M. N. van der Meer, ‘ “Sound the Trumpet!”: Redaction and Reception of Joshua 6:2–25,’ in J. van Ruiten and J. C. de Vos (eds.), The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology, Festschrift E. Noort (VTSup 124; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2009), 19–43 (esp. 32); J. A. de Prenter, ‘The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of ‫ חרם‬in the Book of Joshua: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach,’ in E. Noort (ed.), Book of Joshua, 473–488 (esp. 485). 47 Cf. J. A. de Prenter, ‘Contrastive,’ 485–486; T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 352.

146

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

(Josh 7:1) sequentially illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) someone profaned/pierced being found (b) in the land which Yahweh gives to Israel to possess it (Deut 21:1a–c). The remark that Achan was of the tribe of Judah (Josh 7:1) presents this tribe in very negative terms.48 In the book of Joshua, the name of Judah first appears in the story of the sin of Achan, which narratively functions as the ‘original sin’ of Israel after the entry into Canaan (Josh 7). The etymology of the name of Achan is unclear, but its Greek version Αχαρ (Josh 7:1 LXX etc.), as well as the narrative word play with the Hebrew verb ‫( עכר‬Josh 6:18; 7:25) and the toponym ‫( עכור‬Josh 7:24.26; cf. 15:7) suggest that it allusively refers to ‘bringing trouble,’ presumably upon Israel (cf. 1 Chr 2:7).49 The sinner Achan is explicitly identified as a member of the tribe of Judah: first at the beginning of the story (Josh 7:1) and then three times, apparently redundantly, in the account of casting lots and revealing the sinner as Achan the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah (Josh 7:16–18).50 In this way, with the use of the rhetorical figure of synecdoche (pars pro toto), the tribe of Judah is rhetorically blamed51 for being greedy and breaking Yahweh’s law, thus leading to the ‘original sin’ of Israel (Josh 7:1.11) and bringing trouble on the whole people of Israel (Josh 7:24–26).52 Moreover, the memory of this sin, contained in the name of the valley of Achor, rhetorically lasts ‘to this day’ (Josh 7:26), that is, to the time of the implied reader of the story. These facts imply that the book of Joshua is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent idea of (a) a limited, unspecified (around thirty-six)53 number of the Israelites being defeated at ‘the heap of ruins’ (‘the Ai’: Josh 7:2–4), whose inhabitants fought in the field (‫בשדה‬: cf. Josh 8:24),54 and (b) the men of ‘the 48 Cf. Z. Farber, Images of Joshua in the Bible and Their Reception (BZAW 457; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2016), 47 n. 94. 49 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 343, 361. 50 Cf. W.  Dietrich, ‘Achans Diebstahl (Jos 7):  eine Kriminalgeschichte aus frühpersischer Zeit,’ in id., Die Samuelbücher im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: Studien zu den Geschichtsüberlieferungen des Alten Testaments II (BWANT 201; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2012), 36–47 (esp. 39); T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 353. 51 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 110; T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 353. 52 Cf. B.  Adamczewski, ‘Uniwersalistyczna perspektywa Księgi Jozuego w Starym i Nowym Testamencie,’ ColT 84 (2014) no. 4, 105–129 (esp. 105–106); T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 353–355. 53 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 112; J. Berman, ‘The Making of the Sin of Achan (Joshua 7),’ BibInt 22 (2014) 115–131 (esp. 123). 54 Cf. M. Ederer, Josua, 138–139.

Josh 7 (cf. Deut 21:1–22:25)

147

heap of ruins’ striking down (‫ )נכה‬some Israelites and (c) chasing other Israelites before the gate (d) as far as Shebarim (Josh 7:2–5b; esp. 7:5ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) an Israelite falling in the field, and (b) it being unknown who struck him down (Deut 21:1d–f), so (c) measuring the distance to the surrounding cities (Deut 21:2) and (d) coming to the nearest city (Deut 21:1d–3a; esp. 21:3). The particular motif of the Israelites going up to the region of Beth-aven (+ ‫בית און‬ ‫*עלו‬: Josh 7:2–4) could have been borrowed from Hos 4:15. The subsequent idea of striking down the Israelites on the descent (‫)*ורד‬,55 so that their hearts melted and turned into water (Josh 7:5c–e), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of taking a young, presumably weak heifer and making it descend (‫*ורד‬: Deut 21:3b–4a). The subsequent idea of Joshua and the somewhat surprisingly introduced elders (‫ )זקני‬of Israel56 falling down (Josh 7:6) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the elders of the city going down with the heifer (Deut 21:4a). The particular motif of the elders of Israel (‫זקני‬ ‫ישראל‬: Josh 7:6) was borrowed from Ezek 14:1; Deut 27:1; etc. The motif of the Israelites putting dust on their heads (‫ויעלו עפר על־ראש*ם‬: Josh 7:6) was borrowed from Ezek 27:30. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of Joshua and the Israelites crossing the Jordan river but wanting to remain at the Jordan river (Josh 7:7)57 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the elders of Israel coming to a constantly flowing river (Deut 21:4a–c). The subsequent idea of Israel turning its neck (‫ )ערף‬before its enemies (Josh 7:8) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the elders of Israel breaking the neck of the heifer (Deut 21:4d). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites being surrounded by the Canaanites and the inhabitants of the land, and (b) referring to the name (‫ )שם‬of the Israelites and the great name (‫ )שם‬of Yahweh (Josh 7:9)58 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the priests approaching, being chosen to serve Yahweh and (b) to bless in the name of Yahweh (Deut 21:5a–d).

5 5 56 57 58

Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 345. Cf. T. C. Butler, Joshua 1–12, 410. Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua (NAC 5; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 1998), 191. Cf. T. C. Butler, Joshua 1–12, 410.

148

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

The subsequent idea of Yahweh exhorting Joshua to stand up and no longer lie on his face (*‫על־פ‬: Josh 7:10) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh stating that on the priests’ mouth (*‫)על־פ‬ every lawsuit and every blow should be settled (Deut 21:5e). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel (b) transgressing the covenant, (c) taking of the devoted things, (d) sinfully stealing, keeping secret, and putting into their vessels (Josh 7:11) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the elders of the city (b) who approached (c) the profaned one (d) washing their presumably sinful hands (Deut 21:6a). The particular motif of the Israelites transgressing Yahweh’s covenant (‫ את־בריתי‬+ ‫עבר‬: Josh 7:11) was borrowed from Jer 34:18. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Josh 7:8) idea of the Israelites turning their neck (‫ )ערף‬before their enemies (Josh 7:12a–c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent, likewise repeated (cf. Deut 21:4d), Deuteronomic idea of the heifer’s broken neck (Deut 21:6b). The subsequent idea of the Israelites being under a ban,59 so getting rid of the devoted things from among themselves (Josh 7:12d–g), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the elders declaring that their hands and their eyes were not blameworthy (Deut 21:7). The subsequent idea of exhorting Joshua to (a) sanctify (piel impv.)60 (b) the people (‫עם‬: Josh 7:13a–d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of exhorting Yahweh to (a) provide atonement (piel impv.) (b) for the people (Deut 21:8ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh saying to Israel that devoted things are (b) in the midst of him, Israel (‫בקרבך ישראל‬: Josh 7:13ef), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh being exhorted not to lay innocent blood (b) in the midst of his people, Israel (‫בקרב *ך ישראל‬: Deut 21:8cd). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites not being able to stand against their enemies until they take away the devoted things (b) from their midst (*‫מקרבכ‬: Josh 7:13g–i) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel removing the innocent blood (b) from his midst (Deut 21:9a).

5 9 Cf. J. A. de Prenter, ‘Contrastive,’ 487. 60 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 359.

Josh 7 (cf. Deut 21:1–22:25)

149

The subsequent idea of a legal investigation involving Yahweh, who selected a tribe and a clan (Josh 7:14a–e), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel doing what is right in the sight of Yahweh (Deut 21:9b). The subsequent idea of Yahweh capturing61 a house (‫בית‬: Josh 7:14fg) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of an Israelite taking a woman captive to his house (Deut 21:10–13c; esp. 21:12–13c). The subsequent idea of strong men approaching (Josh 7:14h) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of an Israelite going in to the captive woman and ruling over her, so that she should be his wife (Deut 21:13d–f). The subsequent idea of (a) the caught man being burned, (b) with all that he had, (c) because (d) he transgressed the covenant and did a disgraceful thing in Israel (Josh 7:15) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the man being obliged to send the woman away in accordance with her wish and (b) not selling her (c) in view of the fact that (d) he humbled her (Deut 21:14). The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua letting Israel approach by its tribes, and (b) capturing the tribe of Judah as guilty (Josh 7:16) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man having two wives, one being loved and (b) one being hated (Deut 21:15a–c). The fact that the tribe of Judah, representing one of the two pre-exilic kingdoms and one of the two post-exilic provinces, is presented as guilty (Josh 7:16.18) and conceptually corresponds to the hated wife (Deut 21:15) implies that the book of Joshua is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent, allusively sexual idea of letting the clan of Judah approach and capturing the clan of the Zerahites, letting the clan of the Zerahites with its strong men approach and Zabdi being captured, and letting the house of Zabdi with its strong men approach and Achan being captured (Josh 7:17–18b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the women, including the hated one, begetting sons to their husband (Deut 21:15d). The subsequent, somewhat redundantly formulated idea of Achan being (a) the son (‫ )בן‬of Carmi, the son (‫ )בן‬of Zabdi, the son (‫ )בן‬of Zerah, (b) of (‫ )ל‬the tribe of Judah (Josh 7:18b), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the firstborn son being (b) of the one who was hated (Deut 21:15ef).

61 Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 195; T. C. Butler, Joshua 1–12, 412.

150

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

The subsequent idea of Joshua speaking to Achan (Josh 7:19a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite respecting the right of the firstborn son (Deut 21:16–17). The subsequent idea of (a) Achan, surprisingly called Joshua’s son (‫בן‬: Josh 7:19b),62 (b) confessing his religious and material sins (Josh 7:19b–21; esp. 7:20– 21)63 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) an Israelite man’s son (b) being stubborn and rebellious (Deut 21:18). The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua’s messengers bringing the proofs of Achan’s sins (b) to (‫ )אל‬Joshua and (c) to (‫ )אל‬all the Israelites, and (d) pouring them before Yahweh, so presumably before the cultic ark (Josh 7:22–23; esp. 7:23),64 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the parents bringing the guilty son (b) to the elders of his city and (c) to the gate of (d) his ‘place’ (Deut 21:19). The subsequent, somewhat redundantly formulated idea of (a) Joshua taking (b) Achan the son (‫ )בן‬of Zerah, (c) the proofs of his sins, and his sons (‫)בן‬, (d) together with all Israel, to (e) the valley of ‘trouble’ (Achor)65 because he brought trouble upon them (Josh 7:24–25c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the parents saying that (b) this son of theirs (c) is stubborn and rebellious, (d) not obeying their voice, (e) a glutton and a drunkard (Deut 21:20). The particular motif of the Valley of Achor (‫עמק עכור‬: Josh 7:24) could have been borrowed from Hos 2:17; Isa 65:10. The subsequent idea of (b) all (‫ )כל‬Israel (a) stoning (‫ )ו*רגמו‬him (c) with a stone (‫אבן‬: Josh 7:25d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) all the elders of the city (a) stoning him (c) with stones (Deut 21:21ab). The subsequent idea of burning the guilty persons (Josh 7:25e) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of burning/removing the evil from the midst of Israel (Deut 21:21c–22:19; esp. 21:21c). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Josh 7:25d)66 idea of (a) stoning (‫( )ו*סקלו‬b) the guilty persons

6 2 63 64 65 66

Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 117. Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 197; W. Dietrich, ‘Achans,’ 41–42. Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 117. Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 199; E. Ballhorn, Israel, 318; M. Ederer, Josua, 144. Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 198; H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 118; S. Bar, ‘The Punishment of Burning in the Hebrew Bible,’ OTE 25 (2012) 27–39 (esp. 31–32).

Josh 8:1–29 (cf. Deut 22:26–27:4d)

151

(‫)אתם‬67 (c) with stones (‫באבנים‬: Josh 7:25f) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent, likewise repeated (cf. Deut 21:21ab) Deuteronomic idea of (a) stoning (b) the guilty woman and both guilty persons (c) with stones (Deut 22:20–24; esp. 22:21.24). The subsequent idea of the Israelites raising a heap of stones on Achan only (Josh 7:26) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of putting to death, presumably by stoning with stones (cf. Deut 22:24), the guilty man only (Deut 22:25). The particular motif of the Israelites, as a sign of fidelity to Yahweh, raising great stones (*‫ אבנים גדול‬+ ‫קום‬: Josh 7:26) was borrowed from Deut 27:2. The motif of Yahweh turning from his burning anger (‫*ישב יהוה מחרון אפו‬: Josh 7:26) was borrowed from Deut 13:18.

2.9.  Josh 8:1–29 (cf. Deut 22:26–27:4d) The section Josh 8:1–29 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 22:26–27:4d. The opening idea of (a) encouraging Joshua not to be afraid and (b) not to be terrified (Josh 8:1a–c) sequentially illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) assuring the young woman that nothing evil will be done to her because (b) she committed no sin deserving of death (Deut 22:26ab). The particular motif of encouraging Israel not being afraid and not to be terrified (‫אל־תירא ואל־תחת‬: Josh 8:1) was borrowed from Deut 1:21. The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua arising (‫)קום‬, (b) going up (‫ )עלה‬against Ai, and, (c) in contrast to Jericho (diff. Josh 6:21), killing its humans but sparing its animals (Josh 8:1d–2c)68 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) someone arising (b) upon (‫ )על‬his neighbour and (c) murdering a human (Deut 22:26c–e). The particular motif of Yahweh exhorting an Israelite leader to see that Yahweh gave into his hand a pagan king with his land (‫ ואת־ארצו‬+ ‫ מלך‬+ ‫ראה נתתי בידך את־‬: Josh 8:1–2) was borrowed from Deut 2:24 and conflated with the thematically related text Deut 3:2 (‫ מלך‬+ *‫ כאשר עשית ל‬+ *‫ ועשית ל‬+ ‫ עמו‬+ ‫)ואת־‬. The subsequent idea of Joshua setting an ambush from behind (Josh 8:2d;69 diff. 8:9.12–13:  west), sending strong men by night (Josh 8:3), telling them to lie in ambush from behind but not at a distance and to be ready (Josh 8:4), 67 Cf. S. Germany, The Exodus-Conquest Narrative: The Composition of the Non-Priestly Narratives in Exodus–Joshua (FAT 115; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2017), 367–369. 68 Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 202; H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 123. 69 Cf. S. Wypych, Jozuego, 215.

152

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

approaching, enticing (Josh 8:5), luring away from the city (Josh 8:6), arising from the ambush, and taking possession (Josh 8:2d–7b; esp. 8:7ab) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a man finding a young woman in a field, away from the city, and the woman helplessly crying out (Deut 22:27a–c). The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving her, that is, the city into the hand of the Israelites (Josh 8:7c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of there being no saviour for the attacked woman (Deut 22:27d). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites seizing (‫ )תפש‬the city, (b) kindling the city with fire, and (c) doing according to the word of Yahweh, as Joshua commanded them (Josh 8:8), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man seizing a woman and (b) lying with her (Deut 22:28), so (c) giving a prescribed sum of money to the woman’s father and taking her as a wife because he humbled her (Deut 22:28–29d). The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua sending them away (‫)שלח‬, and (b) them going away (c) to an ambush (Josh 8:9ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the man not being permitted to send the woman away (Deut 22:29ef), (b) an emasculated man not coming into the assembly of Yahweh (Deut 23:2), and (c) an illegitimately begotten son not coming into the assembly of Yahweh (Deut 22:29e– 23:3; esp. 23:3). The subsequent idea of the Israelites dwelling west of (diff. Josh 8:2.4 behind) the pagan Ai (*‫ע‬: Josh 8:9c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of an Ammonite (*‫ )ע‬or a Moabite, so Israel’s eastern pagan neighbours, remaining Israel’s enemies (Deut 23:4–9; esp. 23:4). The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua staying overnight (b) on that night (‫לילה‬: Josh 8:9d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man being in Israel’s camp and (b) having an emission of semen at night (Deut 23:10–11b; esp. 23:11ab). The subsequent idea of Joshua being within (‫ )*תוך‬the people (Josh 8:9d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of an Israelite not coming during the day within the camp, but at sunset coming within the camp (Deut 23:11c–12). The subsequent idea of Joshua doing something early in the morning (Josh 8:10a) with a sense of humour illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of an Israelite going to a toilet place (Deut 23:13–14). The subsequent idea of Joshua inspecting the people (Josh 8:10b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh walking in the midst of Israel’s camp (Deut 23:15a).

Josh 8:1–29 (cf. Deut 22:26–27:4d)

153

The subsequent idea of Joshua and the elders of Israel going up before (‫)לפני‬ the people to Ai, and all armed people going up, drawing near, and coming opposite the city (Josh 8:10c–11d)70 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving Israel’s enemies before him (Deut 23:15bc). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites camping (‫( )חנה‬b) north/hidden of the pagan Ai (Josh 8:11e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel’s camp (‫ )מחנה‬being holy, and (b) not seeing in it anything shameful (Deut 23:15d–f). The subsequent idea of (a) a ravine (diff. Josh 8:13:  plain valley)71 being between him/them and (b) the pagan Ai (Josh 8:11f) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel not delivering a slave to (b) his pagan master (a’) if he escaped to Israel from (b’) his pagan master (Deut 23:16–17). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 8:2.4.9)72 idea of Joshua taking men and setting them in ambush (Josh 8:12ab) illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated in terms of illicit sexual relations (cf. Deut 22:27; 23:3), Deuteronomic idea of there being no cult prostitute among the daughters and sons of Israel (Deut 23:18). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 8:9) idea of (a) the Israelites being close to Bethel, that is, the house (‫ )בית‬of (b) God (‫אל‬: Josh 8:12b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel bringing no wages of a prostitute to the house of (b) Yahweh, Israel’s God (Deut 23:19). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 8:9) idea of the Israelites being close to the pagan Ai (Josh 8:12b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel taking interest from a foreigner only (Deut 23:20–21b; esp. 23:21a). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 8:9) idea of the Israelites being west of the pagan Ai (Josh 8:12b) illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated in terms of geographical location (cf. Deut 23:4–7), Deuteronomic idea of Israel being blessed in the land to which he goes there, presumably west of Moab, to possess it (Deut 23:21c–26; esp. 23:21de). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 8:11) idea of (a) the Israelites setting the presumably military camp (b) north/hidden of the pagan Ai (Josh 8:13a) sequentially illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 23:15)

7 0 Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 205. 71 Cf. ibid.; E. A. Knauf, Josua (ZBK.AT 6; Theologischer: Zürich 2009), 85. 72 Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 205.

154

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man taking a woman and (b) finding in her something shameful (Deut 24:1). The subsequent idea of the Israelites setting the rear guard west of the city, so in another place (Josh 8:13b), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of another man taking the woman (Deut 24:2–3). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 8:9) idea of Joshua going (‫ ;הלך‬diff. Josh 8:9: staying overnight)73 that night in the midst of the plain valley (diff. Josh 8:9: people),74 so being with neither of the two groups of the Israelites (Josh 8:13c), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the woman going (cf. Deut 24:2) and being with neither of the two husbands (Deut 24:4). The subsequent idea of (a) the men of the city hurrying and (b) going out (‫ )יצא‬against Israel to battle (Josh 8:14a–f) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) an Israelite man taking a new wife and (b) not going out with the army (Deut 24:5). The subsequent idea of (a) the king and (b) all his people being at a meeting place (Josh 8:14f) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the main millstone and (b) the ‘chariot’ (Deut 24:6). The subsequent idea of the king not knowing that there was an ambush against him from behind (Josh 8:14gh) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a man kidnapping a human, one of his brothers (Deut 24:7). The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua and all Israel being stricken (‫ )נגע‬and (b) fleeing (Josh 8:15ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being attentive to a stroke (‫ )נגע‬of leprosy and (b) doing what the priests command, presumably to keep away from it (Deut 24:8). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of Joshua and all Israel going (a) on the way (‫ )דרך‬of (b) the wilderness (Josh 8:15b)75 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh being active on the way (b) during the Israelites’ coming out of Egypt (Deut 24:9). The subsequent idea of (a) summoning all the people who were in the city (b) to (‫ )ל‬pursue the Israelites, so (b’) they pursued Joshua (c) away from the city (Josh 8:16), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) not

7 3 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 368. 74 Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 205; S. Wypych, Jozuego, 218. 75 Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 206.

Josh 8:1–29 (cf. Deut 22:26–27:4d)

155

going into the house of the debtor (b) to take as a pledge (b’) a pledge, but (c) standing outside (Deut 24:10–11a). The subsequent idea of (a) every man from Ai and, somewhat surprisingly, Bethel,76 that is, the house (‫ )בית‬of God (b) going out (‫ )יצא‬after Israel (Josh 8:17ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the debtor, presumably from his house (cf. Deut 24:10), (b) bringing out (‫ )יצא‬the pledge outside (Deut 24:11bc). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of the people of Ai and Bethel leaving the city open (Josh 8:17c)77 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not oppressing the poor but being righteous before Yahweh (Deut 24:12–13; esp. 24:13). The subsequent idea of the people of Ai and Bethel pursuing Israel (Josh 8:17d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not oppressing an Israelite or an alien who is in Israel’s land, within Israel’s gates (Deut 24:14–16; esp. 24:14). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 8:8), somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) Joshua being called to stretch out (‫ )נטה‬with a dagger in his hand towards Ai, Joshua stretching out (‫ )נטה‬with a dagger in his hand towards Ai, and those in ambush arising when Joshua stretched out (‫ )נטה‬his hand,78 (b) entering the city, capturing it, and (c) kindling it with fire (Josh 8:18–19) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel not stretching out a legal decision concerning a foreigner or an orphan, and not (b) seizing as a pledge (c) a garment of a widow, presumably making her naked and sexually exposed (Deut 24:17). The subsequent idea of (a) the men of Ai turning back and seeing (b) the smoke of the pagan city (Josh 8:20a–c) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel recalling that (b) he once was a slave in Egypt (Deut 24:18). The subsequent idea of (a) there not being (‫ )היה‬in the men of Ai (b) hands/ power (‫ )ידים‬to flee (Josh 8:20de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a forgotten sheaf being

7 6 Cf. ibid. 207; H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 129; T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 369. 77 Cf. S. Wypych, Jozuego, 219. 78 Cf. Y. Amit, ‘ “For the Lord Fought for Israel”,’ in Amit, In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays in Retrospect, trans. B. Sigler Rozen (HBM 39; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2012), 93–104 (esp. 97–98); T. C. Butler, Joshua 1–12, 416.

156

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

for a foreigner, and (b) Yahweh blessing Israel in all the work of his hands (Deut 24:19). The subsequent idea of (a) the people who fled to the wilderness turning back to (b) the one who pursued them (Josh 8:20fg) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Israel not searching thoroughly but (a) leaving for poor people (Deut 24:20–21). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 8:20) idea of (a) Joshua and all Israel seeing (b) the smoke of the pagan city (Josh 8:21a–c) illustrates the subsequent, likewise repeated (cf. Deut 24:18), Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel recalling that (b) he once was a slave in Egypt (Deut 24:22). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites turning back and striking (b) the men (‫ )אנשים‬of Ai (Josh 8:21de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) there being a quarrel (b) between men (Deut 25:1a). The subsequent, enigmatically formulated idea of those coming out from the city to meet their opponents (Josh 8:22a)79 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the opponents coming to court (Deut 25:1b). The subsequent idea of (a) the people of Ai being in the midst of Israel, between (b) those on this side and (c) those on that side (Josh 8:22bc),80 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the court judging by (b) pronouncing righteous the righteous one and (c) pronouncing guilty the guilty one (Deut 25:1c–e). The subsequent idea of beating (‫ )נכה‬the men of Ai (Josh 8:22d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of beating the guilty man (Deut 25:2–4; esp. 25:2–3). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) leaving to him (‫לו‬: sing.) no survivor or (b) fugitive (Josh 8:22e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) there being to an Israelite no natural son (Deut 25:5) or (b) leviratic son (Deut 25:5–7; esp. 25:6–7). The subsequent idea of seizing the king of Ai alive and bringing him to Joshua, presumably for judgement (Josh 8:23), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of calling the husband’s brother to the elders of the city for judgement (Deut 25:8–10).

7 9 Cf. T. C. Butler, Joshua 1–12, 417; T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 370. 80 Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 208.

Josh 8:1–29 (cf. Deut 22:26–27:4d)

157

The subsequent idea of Israel killing the inhabitants of Ai and beating (‫ )נכה‬Ai with the edge of the sword (Josh 8:24) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of two men fighting together, presumably one man beating the other one (Deut 25:11a; cf. 25:11d). The subsequent idea of (a) the fallen ones being from a man (‫( )איש‬b) to a woman (‫אשה‬: Josh 8:25ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man fighting with his brother, and (b) a woman of the beaten one drawing near to deliver (a’) her man (Deut 25:11b–18; esp. 25:11bc). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) twelve thousand, (b) all (c) the men (diff. 8:25b: and women) of Ai (Josh 8:25b), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving to Israel rest in the land which he gives him to possess as an inheritance, presumably for his twelve tribes, and (b) Israel wiping out (c) the mention/male of Amalek (Deut 25:19). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 8:25) idea of (a) Joshua utterly destroying all those (b) dwelling (‫ ;ישב‬diff. 8:25: men) in Ai (Josh 8:26) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel coming into the land which Yahweh gives him as an inheritance to possess and (b) dwelling in it (Deut 26:1). The subsequent idea of Israel taking the animals and the spoil of the Canaanite city as booty (Josh 8:27a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel bringing the first of all the fruit of the land of Canaan to the sanctuary (Deut 26:2–13c; esp. 26:2.10). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel doing according to (‫ )כ‬the word of Yahweh (b) that (‫( )אשר‬c) he commanded (‫ )צוה‬to Joshua (Josh 8:27b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel acting according to all Yahweh’s commandment (b) that (c) he commanded to Israel, (a’) obeying the voice of Yahweh and doing according to all (b’) that (c’) he commanded to Israel (Deut 26:13d–15; esp. 26:13d–14). The subsequent idea of Joshua burning the pagan city of Ai and making it a desolation to this day (‫היום הזה‬: Josh 8:28) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh this day commanding Israel to observe all these judgements (Deut 26:16–27:1; esp. 26:16). The particular motif of burning the pagan city/Ai and making it a heap forever (*‫ את־העי‬+ ‫שרף‬ ‫ תל־עולם‬+: Josh 8:28) was borrowed from Deut 13:17.81

81 Cf. C. Edenburg, ‘Paradigm, Illustrative Narrative or Midrash: the Case of Josh 7–8 and Deuteronomic/istic Law,’ in C. Berner and H. Samuel (eds.), The Reception of Biblical

158

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

The subsequent idea of Joshua hanging the king of Ai on a tree until evening (Josh 8:29a) with the use of the motif of Israel hanging a man guilty of death on a tree and not leaving his body on the tree overnight, but burying it on that day (‫ ביום‬+ ‫ על־העץ‬+ ‫תלה‬: Deut 21:22–23),82 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel acting on that day (Deut 27:2a). The subsequent idea of (a) at the setting of the sun (b) the Israelites taking the body down (‫ )ירד‬and (c) throwing it to (‫ )אל‬the entrance of the gate of the city (Josh 8:29b–e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites crossing over, presumably westward, (b) the ‘flowing down’ Jordan (‫( )ירדן‬c) to the land which Yahweh gives to Israel (Deut 27:2bc). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites setting up (‫( )*קימו‬b) a heap of stones (‫)אבנים‬, (c) a great one (‫)גדול‬, (d) to this day (‫היום‬: Josh 8:29f) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel setting up (b) stones, (c) great ones, and (a’) the Israelites setting up (b’) stones, which (d) Moses commands the Israelites this day (Deut 27:2d–4d).

2.10. Josh 8:30–35 (cf. Deut 27:4d–26) The section Josh 8:30–35 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 27:4d–26.83 The opening idea of (a) Joshua building (‫ )בנה‬an altar to Yahweh, the God of Israel (*‫)מזבח ליהוה אלהי‬, (b) on Mount Ebal (‫בהר עיבל‬: Josh 8:30) conceptually

War Legislation in Narrative Contexts: Proceedings of the EABS research group “Law and Narrative” (BZAW 460; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2015), 123–137 (esp. 131). 82 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 371, 391; C. Edenburg, ‘Paradigm,’ 128; M. Ederer, Josua, 151. 8 3 The placement of the section Josh 8:30–35 as illustrating the Deuteronomic section Deut 27:4d–26 demonstrates that its location in MT, that is, after Josh 8:1–29 and before Josh 9:1–2, is original. Cf. S. Schorch, ‘Where is the Altar? Scribal Intervention in the Book of Joshua and Beyond,’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions (FAT 2.120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2020), 231–244 (esp. 234–241). Pace E. Ulrich, ‘The Samaritan and Masoretic Pentateuch: Text and Interpretation(s),’ in J. Baden [et al.] (eds.), Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls, Festschrift J. J. Collins [vol. 2] (JSJSup 175/2; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2017), 1314–1329 (esp.  1321–1322); K.  De Troyer, The Ultimate and the Penultimate Text of the Book of Joshua (CBET 100; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, CT 2018), 113–114.

Josh 8:30–35 (cf. Deut 27:4d–26)

159

and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (b) Israel acting on Mount Ebal (a) and building an altar to Yahweh, the God of Israel (Deut 27:4d–5a).84 The subsequent, explicitly referential idea of (a) Joshua building as Moses commanded the sons of Israel and as it is written in the book of the law of Moses,85 namely an altar of stones (‫)מזבח אבנים‬, (b) unhewn ones (‫)שלמות‬, on which (c) no one wielded an iron tool (‫לא־*ניף עליה * ברזל‬: Josh 8:31a–c)86 conceptually and linguistically, almost verbatim, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of building (a) an altar of stones (c) on which Israel did not wield an iron tool, (b) unhewn ones (Deut 27:5b–6a).87 The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites offering (‫( )עלה‬b) on it burnt offerings to Yahweh (‫( )עליו עלות ליהוה‬c) and sacrificing (‫( )ו*זבח‬d) peace offerings (‫שלמים‬: Josh 8:31de) conceptually and linguistically, almost verbatim, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel offering (b) on it burnt offerings to Yahweh (c) and sacrificing (d) peace offerings (Deut 27:6b–7).88 The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua writing (‫ )כתב‬there (b) on the stones the (‫ )על־האבנים את‬copy of the (c) law (‫( )תורה‬d) of Moses, (e) which he wrote before the sons of Israel (Josh 8:32), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel writing (b) on the stones the (c) law, (d) this one, (e) explaining it well (Deut 27:8).89 The particular motif of writing the copy of the law (‫ תורה‬+ ‫ משנה‬+ ‫כתב‬: Josh 8:32) was borrowed from Deut 17:18.90 84 Cf. D. Jericke, ‘Der Berg Garizim im Deuteronomium,’ ZAW 124 (2012) 213–228 (esp. 221); R. Heckl, ‘Eine Kultstätte auf dem Ebal? Josua 8,30–35 und der Streit mit Samaria um die Auslegung der Tora,’ ZDPV 129 (2013) 79–98 (esp. 83–84); M. Ederer, Josua, 153. 85 Cf. H. Donner, ‘ “Wie geschrieben steht”: Herkunft und Sinn einer Formel,’ in id., Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (BZAW 224; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1994), 224–238 (esp. 226); P. Béré, Le second Serviteur, 91. 86 Cf. R. Heckl, ‘Kultstätte,’ 83–84. 87 Cf. C.  Nihan, ‘The Torah between Samaria and Judah:  Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua,’ in G.  N. Knoppers and B.  M. Levinson (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2007), 187–223 (esp. 218); H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 135– 136; K. Finsterbusch, ‘Deuteronomy and Joshua,’ 178. 88 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 135; R. Heckl, ‘Kultstätte,’ 83–84; K. De Troyer, Ultimate, 101. 89 Cf. R. Heckl, ‘Kultstätte,’ 85–86, 90; M. Ederer, Josua, 153; K. De Troyer, Ultimate, 101. 90 Cf. T.  B.  Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 380; M.  Ederer, Josua, 153; D.  R.  Nocquet, La Samarie, la Diaspora et l’achèvement de la Torah: Territorialités et internationalités dans

160

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

The subsequent idea of (a) all Israel (‫ )כל־ישראל‬standing in front of (b) the priests, the Levites (‫הכהנים הלוים‬: Josh 8:33a), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Moses and the priests, the Levites, speaking to (a) all Israel (Deut 27:9ab). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of carrying the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, a foreigner as well as a citizen (Josh 8:33b), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel becoming the people of Yahweh, listening to the voice of Yahweh, and doing his commandment and his statutes (Deut 27:9c–10). The subsequent idea of (a) a half of Israel facing91 Mount Gerizim (‫)הר־גרזים‬, and (b) a half of Israel facing Mount Ebal (‫)הר־עיבל‬, (c) as Moses commanded (‫( )צו * משה‬d) to bless the people (‫( )לברך את־העם‬e) in (‫ )ב‬the beginning (Josh 8:33b–d) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (c) as Moses commanding (d’) the people (e) on (‫ )ב‬that day, that there should stand (d) to bless the people (a) on Mount Gerizim six tribes and (b) to curse on Mount Ebal six tribes (Deut 27:11–13).92 The concluding idea of (a) Joshua reading aloud (b) all the words of the law (‫)את־*־דברי התורה‬, the blessing and (c) the curse (‫)הקללה‬, in front of (d) all (‫)כל‬ the assembly of (e) Israel (‫ישראל‬: Josh 8:34–35) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Levites speaking with a loud voice to (d) all the men of (e) Israel (Deut 27:14), (c) cursing those who transgress the law (Deut 27:15–25; cf. 27:13: ‫ )הקללה‬and those who do not uphold (b) the words of this law (Deut 27:14–26; esp. 27:26). The particular motif of pronouncing on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal (cf. Josh 8:33) the blessing and the curse (‫ הקללה‬+ ‫הברכה‬: Josh 8:34) was borrowed from Deut 11:29.93 The fact that Josh 8:30–35 presents the region of Shechem as the location of the altar of Yahweh, burnt offerings, the ark, blessing the people of Israel, reading

l’Hexateuque (OBO 284; Academic: Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2017), 109. 91 Cf. N. Chambers, ‘Confirming Joshua as the Interpreter of Israel’s Tôrāh: The Narrative Role of Joshua 8:30–35,’ BBR 25 (2015) 141–153 (esp. 150). 9 2 Cf. R. Heckl, ‘Kultstätte,’ 85, 87, 90; M. Ederer, Josua, 154; R. Achenbach, ‘Die Integration der heiligen Orte der Provinz Samaria in das Narrativ des Hexateuch,’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic, 47–78 (esp. 68). 93 Cf. H. Donner, ‘Wie geschrieben,’ 226; H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 134, 139; K. De Troyer, Ultimate, 104–105.

Josh 9–17 (cf. Deut 28:1–8a)

161

the law, and assembling Israel implies that the book of Joshua is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one.94

2.11. Josh 9–17 (cf. Deut 28:1–8a) The section Josh 9–17 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 28:1–8a. The opening idea of it coming to pass that all the kings heard (‫ויהי כשמע‬: Josh 9:1–2) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of it coming to pass if Israel hears (‫והיה אם־שמוע‬: Deut 28:1ab). The particular motif of being beyond the Jordan, in the mountains and in the lowland, in the coast of the sea, opposite Lebanon (+ ‫ חוף הים‬+ *‫בהר ובשפלה וב‬ ‫הלבנון‬: Josh 9:1), was borrowed from Deut 1:7. The motif of the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites (‫החתי‬ ‫והאמרי הכנעני *הפרזי החוי והיבוסי‬: Josh 9:1) was borrowed from Deut 20:17.95 The subsequent, correlated with the preceding one (cf. Josh 9:1),96 idea of the inhabitants of Gibeon hearing (‫שמע‬: Josh 9:3a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent, likewise correlated Deuteronomic idea of Israel hearing (Deut 28:1b). The subsequent idea of Joshua doing (‫ )עשה‬things to Jericho and Ai (Josh 9:3b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel diligently doing all the commandments which Moses commands him today (Deut 28:1c–e). The subsequent idea of the inhabitants of Gibeon presenting themselves to the men of Israel as lowly (Josh 9:4–8)97 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh making Israel higher than all the nations of the earth (Deut 28:1f). The particular motif of people having worn-out sandals on the feet and worn-out clothes on them, and having no bread (+ ‫ בלה‬+ ‫ שלמות‬+ ‫ רגל‬+ ‫ בלה‬+ ‫נעל‬ ‫ לחם‬+ ‫עלי*ם‬: Josh 9:5) was borrowed from Deut 29:4–5.98 The motif of the pagans 9 4 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 392. 95 Cf. M. Ederer, Josua, 157. 96 Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 223; K. van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan (CHANE 45; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 142. 97 Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 225. 98 Cf. C. Edenburg, ‘Joshua 9 and Deuteronomy, an Intertextual Conundrum: The Chicken or the Egg?,’ in K. Schmid and R. F. Person, Jr. (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History (FAT 2.56; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 115–132 (esp. 122).

162

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

being apparently from a distant region (‫רחוק‬: Josh 9:6) was borrowed from Deut 20:15.99 The motif of Israel being tempted to make a covenant with the Hivites (‫ החוי‬+ ‫כרת ל* ברית‬: Josh 9:6–7) was borrowed from Deut 7:1–2.100 The subsequent idea of the inhabitants of Gibeon coming (‫באו‬: Josh 9:9) to the Israelites and praising the great deeds of Yahweh (Josh 9:9–15)101 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh’s blessings coming upon Israel and reaching him (Deut 28:2ab). The particular motif of Sihon the king of Heshbon and Og the king of Bashan who was in Ashtaroth (‫ בעשתרות‬+ ‫ עוג מלך הבשן אשר‬+ ‫ חשבון‬+ ‫סיחון מלך‬: Josh 9:10) was borrowed from Deut 1:4. The motif of the Israelites not asking the mouth of Yahweh (‫ לא שאלו‬+ ‫פי‬: Josh 9:14) was borrowed from Isa 30:2. The subsequent idea of the Israelites hearing (‫ )שמע‬the corrective (cf. Josh 9:7) information that the inhabitants of Gibeon were in fact the Israelites’ neighbours (Josh 9:16) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel hearing the voice of Yahweh (Deut 28:2c). The subsequent idea of the Israelites coming to their102 cities (‫)עיר‬, and their cities (‫ )עיר‬being Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-jearim (Josh 9:17) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being blessed in the city (Deut 28:3a). The subsequent idea of the princes and Joshua forcing the Gibeonites to gather firewood and draw water, presumably in the field, for the Israelites and for the house of Yahweh (Josh 9:18–27; esp. 9:21.23.27) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being blessed in the field (Deut 28:3b–6; esp. 28:3b). The particular motif of foreigners in Israel cutting wood and drawing water for the congregation of Israel and for the house of Yahweh, so presumably standing before Yahweh in the sanctuary, until today (‫ היום‬+ ‫ מים‬+ ‫ שאב‬+ ‫ עצים‬+ ‫חטב‬: Josh 9:21.23.27), was borrowed from Deut 29:9–10.103 The fact that in the narrative logic of the book of Joshua the obligation to bring wood and water for the congregation and for the altar of Yahweh to this day, to the place which Yahweh chooses (Josh 9:27), can only refer to the altar

9 9 Cf. ibid. 119–120; M. Ederer, Josua, 158. 100 Cf. C. Edenburg, ‘Joshua 9,’ 122. 101 Cf. W. Ford, ‘What about the Gibeonites?,’ TynBul 66 (2015) 197–216 (esp. 203, 213). 102 The repeated phrase ‘their cities’ in Josh 9:17 may be consciously ambiguous, referring either to the Gibeonites’ or to the Israelites’ cities. 103 Cf. C. Edenburg, ‘Joshua 9,’ 122; W. Ford, ‘What about,’ 204–205.

Josh 9–17 (cf. Deut 28:1–8a)

163

earlier built on Mount Ebal (cf. Josh 8:30–31),104 and not to the hitherto unconquered Jerusalem (Josh 10:1; cf. 15:63),105 implies that the book of Joshua is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent idea of the king of Jerusalem and four other Judaean kings, together with all their armies, attacking Gibeon and the Israelites (Josh 10:1– 5b), thus becoming Israel’s enemies (*‫איבי‬: cf. Josh 10:13.19.25), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel’s enemies (Deut 28:7a). The particular motif of the former king of Jerusalem being an Amorite (‫ ירושלם‬+ ‫האמרי‬: Josh 10:5)106 was borrowed from Ezek 16:3.45. The fact that the five kings of prominent Judaean cities led by the king of Jerusalem, together with all their armies, even if they are referred to as Amorites (Josh 10:5), conceptually illustrate the idea of Israel’s enemies (Deut 28:7a) implies that the book of Joshua is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one.107 The subsequent idea of the enemy armies camping against (‫ )על‬Gibeon and fighting against (*‫ )עלי‬it (Josh 10:5c–7; esp. 10:5cd) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel’s enemies rising up against him (Deut 28:7b). The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving (‫ )נתן‬the enemy armies in Joshua’s hand, so that no one could stand before Joshua (‫בפניך‬: Josh 10:8), Yahweh confounding them before (‫לפני‬: Josh 10:8a) Israel, and Israel striking them with a great blow (Josh 10:8–10b; esp. 10:10b), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving Israel’s enemies (cf. Deut 28:7a) to be struck before Israel (‫לפניך‬: Deut 28:7c). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel chasing the enemy armies by the way (‫)דרך‬ of the ascent of Beth-horon and then (b) southward in two different directions: as far as Azekah and as far as Makkedah (Josh 10:10cd; cf. 11:8: ‫ ועד‬+ ‫)עד‬108

104 The lack of permanent sources of water on Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, in contrast to Jerusalem, well suits this obligation. 105 Cf. H. Koorevaar, ‘The Book of Joshua and the Hypothesis of the Deuteronomistic History: Indications for an Open Serial Model,’ in E. Noort (ed.), Book of Joshua, 219–232 (esp. 228). 106 Cf. K.  van Bekkum, From Conquest, 113. Pace M.  Langlois, Le texte de Josué 10: Approche philologique, épigraphique et diachronique (OBO 252; Academic: Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2011), 201–202, who opts for the priority of the reading ‘Jebusite’ (Josh 10:5 LXX). 107 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 392. 108 Cf. K. van Bekkum, From Conquest, 155.

164

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel’s enemies on one way coming out to him and (b) on seven ways returning (Deut 28:7de). The subsequent idea of (a) the enemy armies fleeing (‫( )נוס‬b) before (‫)מפני‬ Israel on the descent of Beth-horon as far as Azekah (Josh 10:11), and (a’) the five enemy kings fleeing (‫ )נוס‬to a cave at Makkedah (Josh 10:11–27; esp. 10:16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that on seven ways (a) Israel’s enemies will flee (b) before (*‫ )לפני‬him (Deut 28:7e). The particular motif of the sun and the moon standing at the arrows/middle of heaven (‫ חצי‬+ ‫)*שמש *ירח עמד‬, referred to as borrowed from the ‘book of the right one’ (‫ישר‬: Josh 10:13), may have been borrowed from the book of Habakkuk (Hab 3:11; cf. 2:4: *‫)ישר‬.109 The subsequent idea of the Israelites acting, by putting the pagans under a ban (Josh 10:28–12:24) and dividing the land (Josh 13:1–17:13), as Yahweh commanded (‫צוה‬: Josh 10:28–17:13; esp. 10:40; 11:12.15.20; 13:6; 14:2.5; 17:4; cf. 11:12) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh commanding (Deut 28:8a). The particular motif of Sihon’s land being from Aroer, which is on the bank of the River Arnon, and the river, to Gilead (+ ‫ נחל‬+ ‫מערוער אשר על־שפת־נחל ארנון‬ ‫הגלעד‬: Josh 12:2) was borrowed from Deut 2:36.110 The motif of Sihon’s land being as far as the River Jabbok, the border of the sons of Ammon, and the Arabah as far as Chinneroth, as far as the Sea of the Arabah, the Salt Sea, eastward, below the slopes of Pisgah (‫ ועד ים הערבה ים־‬+ ‫ כנר*ת‬+ ‫ועד יבק הנחל גבול בני עמון והערבה‬ ‫ תחת אשדות הפסגה‬+ ‫ מזרחה‬+ ‫המלח‬: Josh 12:2–3), was borrowed from Deut 3:16– 17.111 The motif of Og, king of Bashan, of the remnant of the Rephaim (‫עוג מלך‬ ‫ מיתר הרפאים‬+ ‫הבשן‬: Josh 12:4) was borrowed from Deut 3:11.112 The motif of Og dwelling in Ashtaroth in Edrei (‫*יושב בעשתרות *באדרעי‬: Josh 12:4) was borrowed from Deut 1:4. The motif of Og ruling in Mount Hermon, Salkah, and all Bashan (‫ ו*כל־הבשן‬+ ‫ *סלכה‬+ ‫*הר חרמון‬: Josh 12:5) was borrowed from Deut 3:8.10. The motif of Og ruling as far as the border of the Geshurites and the Maacatithes

109 Pace A.  Shinan and Y.  Zakovitch, From Gods to God:  How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths & Legends, trans. V.  Zakovitch (Jewish Publication Society: Philadelphia 2012), 59–60, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 110 Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 278. 111 Cf. ibid. 112 Cf. ibid. 279.

Josh 9–17 (cf. Deut 28:1–8a)

165

(‫עד־גבול הגשורי והמעכתי‬: Josh 12:5) was borrowed from Deut 3:14.113 The motif of giving that land as a hereditary possession to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh (*‫ לראובני ולגדי ולחצי שבט המנש‬+ ‫ו*תנה‬: Josh 12:6) was borrowed from Deut 29:7. The motif of dividing the land by lot as inheritance (‫ בנחלה‬+ *‫הפל‬: Josh 13:6) was borrowed from Ezek 45:1 etc. The motif of apportioning this land to a number of the Israelite tribes (*‫ שבטי‬+ ‫ את־הארץ הזאת‬+ ‫חלק‬: Josh 13:7) was borrowed from Ezek 47:21. The motif of giving to the tribe of Levi no inheritance, the offerings by fire to Yahweh being his inheritance (‫ אשי‬+ ‫ נחלה‬+ ‫ לא‬+ ‫*שבט *לוי‬ ‫ נחלתו‬+ ‫יהוה‬: Josh 13:14), was borrowed from Deut 18:1.114 The motif of Balaam son of Beor (‫בלעם בן־בעור‬: Josh 13:22) was borrowed from Deut 23:5. The motif of the settlements of Jair in Bashan, and giving Gilead to Machir (‫ בשן‬+ ‫חות יאיר‬ ‫ מכיר‬+ ‫ הגלעד‬+: Josh 13:30–31) was borrowed from Deut 3:14–15. The motif of Yahweh being the inheritance of the tribe of Levi, as Yahweh said to them (+ ‫יהוה‬ *‫ ל‬+ ‫הוא נחלת* כאשר דבר‬: Josh 13:33), was borrowed from Deut 10:9. The motif of Eleazar the priest (‫ כהן‬+ ‫אלעזר‬: Josh 14:1) was borrowed from Deut 10:6. The motif of giving no portion to the Levites (‫ לוי‬+ ‫ חלק‬+ ‫לא‬: Josh 14:4) was borrowed from Deut 10:9. The motif of Caleb son of Jephunneh being with Joshua at Kadesh Barnea (‫ *קדש ברנע‬+ ‫כלב בן־יפנה‬: Josh 14:6) was borrowed from Deut 1:19.36. The motif of Moses sending Caleb to spy out the land and bring a report (‫ ו*שב את* דבר‬+ ‫ רגל‬+ ‫שלח‬: Josh 14:7) was borrowed from Deut 1:22.24– 25.115 The motif of the Israelites’ brothers making the heart of the Israelites melt (*‫ המס*ו את־לב‬+ ‫ עלה‬+ ‫אחי‬: Josh 14:8) was borrowed from Deut 1:28.116 The motif of Caleb wholly following Yahweh, and therefore the land which he trod belonging to him and to his sons (*‫ ולבני‬+ *‫ הארץ אשר דרכ‬+ ‫מלא* אחרי יהוה‬: Josh 14:8–9), was borrowed from Deut 1:36.117 The motif of the Anakim living there, and their cities being great and fortified (‫ *ערים גדלות *בצרות‬+ ‫ שם‬+ ‫ענקים‬: Josh 14:12) was borrowed from Deut 1:28 and conflated with Deut 1:24 (*‫)ההר‬.118 113 Pace J.  Pakkala, ‘What Do We Know about Geshur?,’ SJOT 24 (2010) 155–173 (esp. 157), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 114 Cf. H. Samuel, Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Levi und die Leviten im Alten Testament (BZAW 448; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 318–319. 115 Cf. G. Kugler, ‘Who Conquered Hebron? Apologetic and Polemical Tendencies in the Story of Caleb in Josh 14,’ VT 67 (2017) 570–580 (esp. 574, 577). 116 Cf. ibid. 117 Cf. ibid. 574–577; Kugler, When God Wanted to Destroy the Chosen People: Biblical Traditions and Theology on the Move (BZAW 515; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2019), 115–116. 118 Cf. Kugler, ‘Who Conquered,’ 577 n. 16.

166

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

The fact that the southern leader Caleb (cf. Deut 1:36) is presented in Joshua– Judges as only half-Judahite (cf. Josh 14:6; 15:13)119 and having his inheritance not in Jerusalem but in the peripheral (in historical, postexilic terms: Edomite)120 city of Hebron ‘to this day’ (Josh 14:13–14) suggests that the book of Joshua is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. Likewise, the fact that the northern border of the territory of the tribe of Judah is defined as going up ‘by the valley of the son of Hinnom to the slope of the Jebusite, south of it, which is Jerusalem’ (Josh 15:8) is greatly surprising. First of all, it initially calls Jerusalem by the name of a pagan nation which was put under a ban in the book of Deuteronomy (Deut 7:1; 20:17). This name is used for Jerusalem in a totally artificial way. In no extrabiblical text is Jerusalem called ‘the Jebusite’ or related to the Jebusites.121 Therefore, calling Jerusalem by the name of the Jebusites has a clearly derogative function. It presents Jerusalem as a pagan city, inhabited by pagans who should be put under a ban (cf. Deut 20:17). Moreover, Jerusalem, the historical capital of Judah, is presented in Josh 15:8 as a city located outside Judah’s northern border,122 in the territory of the neighbouring tribe of Benjamin (cf. also Josh 18:16.28). Such a rhetorical exclusion of the historical and political centre of the tribe of Judah from its tradition and its actual territory greatly diminishes its importance and influence. Moreover, in order to present Jerusalem in yet more negative terms, the author of the book of Joshua stated that ‘concerning the Jebusites living in Jerusalem, the sons of Judah were not able to drive them out, so the Jebusites live with the sons of Judah in Jerusalem to this day’ (Josh 15:63), that is, to the time of the implied reader of the story.123 Accordingly, Jerusalem should be regarded as half-pagan, making it ritually unclean and unable to fulfil the requirements of the law at

1 19 Cf. E. Ballhorn, Israel, 256–258; G. Kugler, ‘Who Conquered,’ 578–579. 120 Cf. D.  Jericke, Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis:  Ein historisch-topographischer und literarisch-topographischer Kommentar (FRLANT 248; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2013), 114. 121 Cf. E.  Gaß, Die Ortsnamen des Richterbuchs in historischer und redaktioneller Perspektive (ADPV 35; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2005), 13. 122 Cf. E.  A.  Knauf, Josua, 142; T.  C.  Butler, Joshua 13–24 (2nd ed., WBC 7B; Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI 2014), 135; M. Ederer, Josua, 228. 123 Cf. E. Ballhorn, Israel, 219, 222; T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 355, 392. A critical reader, following the implied reader of the book of Joshua, should interpret the statement of Josh 15:63 (cf. also Judg 1:21) in its own rhetorical terms and resist the temptation to explain it ‘canonically’ in the light of the later, ideologically clearly Judaean story of David’s conquest of the ‘Jebusite’ Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:6–8).

Josh 18–21 (cf. Deut 28:8b–9b)

167

the time of the reader.124 The allusive polemic of the book of Joshua is therefore directed not only against the tribe of Judah in general, but especially against its historical capital and its separatist (from the Israelite point of view) temple of Yahweh. These facts imply that the book of Joshua is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh blessing (‫ )ברך‬the sons of Joseph (Josh 17:14), and (b) the sons of Joseph having great strength and cutting down a forest to clear the land (Josh 17:14–18; esp. 17:15–18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh’s blessing (‫( )ברכה‬b) in all to which Israel sets his hand (Deut 28:8a). The fact that Yahweh is presented as blessing the sons of Joseph (Josh 17:14), and not the sons of Judah,125 again implies that the book of Joshua is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one.

2.12.  Josh 18–21 (cf. Deut 28:8b–9b) The section Josh 18–21 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 28:8b–9b. The opening idea of the whole congregation of the Israelites assembling in the sanctuary at Shiloh, and the land being subdued before them (Josh 18:1) illustrates the opening Deuteronomic, at least partly cultic idea of Yahweh blessing Israel (Deut 28:8b). The particular motif of the tent of meeting (‫אהל מועד‬: Josh 18:1) was borrowed from Deut 31:14. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites take possession of the land which (‫( )*ארץ אשר‬c) Yahweh, the God of (‫ )יהוה אלהי‬their fathers, (b) gave them (‫נתן‬ *‫לכ‬: Josh 18:2–3; esp. 18:3) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the land which (c) Yahweh, the God of Israel, (b) gave him (Deut 28:8c). The subsequent idea of (a) three men from each tribe rising (‫קום‬: Josh 18:4.8; diff. Deut 1:22) and describing the land (Josh 18:4–9), and (b) Joshua dividing

124 Cf. T. C. Butler, Joshua 13–24, 138–139; T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 392. The situation of Gezer in the tribe of Ephraim (Josh 16:10) is different because it was never a capital of historical Israel and because the Canaanites living there were, in agreement with Deut 20:11, subjected to the Israelites, doing forced labour for them (cf. Josh 17:11–13 concerning a similar policy of the tribe of Manasseh). 125 The blessings for southern characters in Josh 14:13; 15:19 are very limited, bestowed by an individual upon another individual, so they greatly differ from Yahweh’s blessing for the tribe of Joseph in Josh 17:14.

168

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

the land to the Israelites before Yahweh (Josh 18:4–19:51; esp. 18:10–19:51) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh raising (‫ )קום‬Israel (b) for himself as a people (Deut 28:9a). The particular motif of the tribe of Simeon (‫שמעון‬: Josh 19:1) could have been borrowed from Ezek 48:24–25.33; Deut 27:12. However, the idea of Simeon having its inheritance within the inheritance of the tribe of Judah (Josh 19:1) probably reflects the absence of Simeon in the blessing Deut 33:6–25. The fact that the main hero of the book of Joshua asked for an inheritance in the mountains of Ephraim (Josh 19:50) implies that the book of Joshua is an Ephraimite work, and not a Judaean one.126 The subsequent idea of the Israelites appointing cities of refuge (Josh 20), in particular marking as holy (‫קדש‬: Josh 20:7; diff. Deut 19:7) the ‘holy’ Kedesh (‫)קדש‬127 in Galilee (Josh 20:7; 21:32), and giving forty-eight cities to the Levites spread within the possession of all the Israelites (Josh 20:1–21:42; esp. 21:1– 42; diff. Ezek 48:13) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being a holy people (Deut 28:9a). The particular motif of the Israelites appointing for themselves cities of refuge, so that a manslayer who stroke someone dead unintentionally might flee there from the avenger of blood, that he might flee to one of these cities (+ ‫ ערים‬+ *‫לכ‬ ‫ אל־אחת *הערים האלה‬+ ‫ נוס‬+ ‫ גאל הדם‬+ ‫ בבלי־דעת‬+ ‫ נכה‬+ ‫לנוס שמה רוצח‬: Josh 20:2–4), was borrowed from Deut 19:2–5.128 The following motif of the avenger of blood pursuing the manslayer although he did not hate the man in the past (‫ירדף גאל‬ ‫ *לא־שנא הוא לו מתמול שלשום‬+ ‫ הרצח‬+ *‫הדם אחרי‬: Josh 20:5) was borrowed from the following text Deut 19:6.129 The following motif of appointing three cities in Canaan (Josh 20:7) was borrowed from the following text Deut 19:7. The following motif of appointing three other cities (Josh 20:8) was borrowed from the following text Deut 19:9130 and conflated with the thematically related text Deut 4:41.43 (+ ‫ ראובנ* ואת־ראמת בגלעד‬+ ‫ *ישר‬+ *‫ את־בצר במדבר ב‬+ ‫ מזרחה‬+ ‫*עבר *ירדן‬ *‫ מנש‬+ ‫)גד* ואת־גולן בבשן‬. The motif of the priest Aaron (‫ כהן‬+ ‫אהרן‬: Josh 21:4) was borrowed from Deut 10:6. 126 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The Old Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Historical Traditions (rev. ed., St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2003), 70. 127 Cf. E. A. Knauf, Josua, 171; H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 326. 128 Cf. J. Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (FAT 52; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 100. 129 Cf. ibid. 108–109. 130 Cf. S. Germany, ‘Die Bearbeitung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes im Lichte biblischer Erzählungen,’ ZAW 131 (2019) 43–57 (esp. 51).

Josh 22 (cf. Deut 28:9c–14)

169

The fact that the Ephraimite city of Shechem is presented as a ‘holy’ city of refuge (Josh 20:7; 21:21), and the Judaean city of Jerusalem (together with Bethel and Dan) is not,131 again implies that the book of Joshua is an Ephraimite work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving to Israel all the land which he swore to (*‫ )*אשר נשבע ל‬give to their fathers (Josh 21:43) and giving rest according to all that he swore to (*‫ )כ* אשר נשבע ל‬their fathers (Josh 21:43–45; esp. 21:44)132 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh acting just as he swore to Israel (Deut 28:9b). The motif of Yahweh giving to the Israelites rest all around (‫ מסביב‬+ ‫ ל*ם‬+ ‫נוח‬: Josh 21:44) was borrowed from Deut 12:10.133

2.13. Josh 22 (cf. Deut 28:9c–14) The section Josh 22 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 28:9c–14. The opening, repetitively formulated idea of (a) the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh observing (‫( )שמר‬b) all that was commanded (‫)צוה‬ to them by (c) Moses, the servant of Yahweh (‫ ;)יהוה‬obeying Joshua’s voice in (b) all that he commanded (‫ )צוה‬them (Josh 22:2);134 (a’) observing (‫ )שמר‬the observance (‫ )משמרת‬of (b’) the commandments (‫ )מצות‬of (c’) Yahweh their God (*‫יהוה אלהיכ‬: Josh 22:3), as Moses the servant of Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬gave them (Josh 22:4); and (a”) observing (‫ )שמר‬to do (b”) the commandment (‫ )מצוה‬and the law which was commanded (‫ )צוה‬to them by (c”) Moses, the servant of Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬, to love Yahweh their God (*‫יהוה אלהיכ‬: Josh 22:1–5d; esp. 22:5a–d) conceptually 131 Cf. D. I. Block, ‘ “The Meeting Places of God in the Land”: Another Look at the Towns of the Levites,’ in R. E. Gane and A. Taggar-Cohen (eds.), Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond (RBS 82; SBL: Atlanta 2015), 93–121 (esp. 97). 132 Cf. T. A. Clarke, ‘Complete v. Incomplete Conquest: A Re-examination of Three Passages in Joshua,’ TynBul 61 (2010) 89–104 (esp. 101–103); R. M. Billings, “Israel Served the Lord”: The Book of Joshua as Paradoxical Portrait of Faithful Israel (Reading the Scriptures; University of Notre Dame: Notre Dame, IN 2013), 117. 133 Cf. C.  Nihan, ‘The Literary Relationship between Deuteronomy and Joshua: A Reassessment,’ in K. Schmid and R. F. Person, Jr. (eds.), Deuteronomy, 79–114 (esp.  89); E.  Otto, ‘Born out of Ruins:  The Catastrophe of Jerusalem as Accoucheur to the Pentateuch in the Book of Deuteronomy,’ in P. Dubovský, D. Markl, and J.-P. Sonnet (eds.), Fall, 155–168 (esp. 158); M. Ederer, Josua, 295–298. 134 Cf. P. Béré, Le second Serviteur, 95.

170

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel observing (b) the commandments of (c) Yahweh their God (Deut 28:9c). The subsequent idea of (a) the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh walking (‫( )הלך‬b) in all his, that is, Yahweh’s ways (‫ב*דרכיו‬: Josh 22:5e– h) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel walking (b) in his, that is, Yahweh’s ways (Deut 28:9d). The particular motif of Moses commanding the Israelites to love Yahweh their God, to walk in his ways, and to cling to him (‫לאהבה את־יהוה אלהיכם *ללכת‬ ‫ ולדבקה־בו‬+ ‫בכל־דרכיו‬: Josh 22:5) was borrowed from Deut 11:22 and conflated with Deut 11:13 (‫)ולעבדו בכל־לבבכם ובכל־נפשכם‬. The subsequent idea of blessing (diff. Josh 22:4) the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh (Josh 22:6–7) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of invoking the name of Yahweh upon Israel (Deut 28:10). The subsequent idea of (a) the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh returning with much riches, (b) very much livestock, and (c) precious metals (Josh 22:8a–c)135 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh making Israel abound in goods, (b) the fruit of cattle, and (c) the fruit of the ground (Deut 28:11). The subsequent idea of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh dividing the spoil among their brothers (Josh 22:8d)136 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh opening his storehouse with treasures (Deut 28:12a). The subsequent, somewhat redundantly formulated idea of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh departing from Shiloh, which is in the land (‫ )ארץ‬of Canaan,137 to go to the land (‫ )ארץ‬of Gilead, to the land (‫)ארץ‬ of their property, in which they settled (Josh 22:9a–e), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving rain to Israel’s land (Deut 28:12b). The subsequent idea of (a) things occurring according to the word of Yahweh (b) through the hand (‫ )יד‬of Moses (Josh 22:9e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh blessing (b) all the undertaking of Israel’s hand (Deut 28:12c–e).

1 35 Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 404; E. Ballhorn, Israel, 409. 136 Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 404; E. Ballhorn, Israel, 409–410. 137 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 351.

Josh 22 (cf. Deut 28:9c–14)

171

The subsequent idea of (a) the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh coming to the ‘round’ (diff. Josh 22:13.15: Gilead) area of the Jordan in the land of Canaan138 and (b) building an altar above (‫ )על‬the Jordan, a great and widely visible altar (Josh 22:10), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh making Israel the head, and (b) Israel being above (‫ )מעל‬others (Deut 28:13a–c). The subsequent idea of the Israelites hearing (‫ )שמע‬news concerning their brothers (Josh 22:11–12) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel hearing (Deut 28:13d). The subsequent idea of the Israelites sending the priest and the lay leaders, presumably responsible for keeping the law of Yahweh (Josh 22:13–14), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the commandments of Yahweh (Deut 28:13d). The subsequent idea of the priest and the lay leaders139 coming to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh and rebuking them in the name of the whole congregation of Yahweh for turning away today (‫)היום‬ from Yahweh (Josh 22:16), not cleansing themselves until today (‫היום‬: Josh 22:17), turning away today (‫ )היום‬from Yahweh, and rebelling today (‫)היום‬ against Yahweh (Josh 22:18), therefore Yahweh not saving them today (‫היום‬: Josh 22:15–22; esp. 22:22) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the both priestly (cf. Judg 18:30) and lay character of Moses commanding today (Deut 28:13e). The particular motif of the Israelites on the way from Egypt doing iniquity at Peor (‫פעור‬: Josh 22:17) was borrowed from Deut 4:3. The motif of Yahweh’s dwelling place in Israel (‫משכן‬: Josh 22:19) was borrowed from Ezek 37:27. The subsequent idea of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh apparently building an altar to do (‫ )לעשות‬on it peace offerings (Josh 22:23), in fact doing (‫ )עשה‬it from fear (Josh 22:24), resolving to do (‫ ;עשה‬diff. Josh 22:23 etc.) to build an altar (Josh 22:26), and doing (‫ )עשה‬an altar (Josh 22:23–28; esp. 22:28) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel keeping to do (Deut 28:13fg). The particular motif of the Israelites offering burnt offering and sacrifice on one altar only (+ ‫המזבח‬ ‫ זבח‬+ ‫עולה‬: Josh 22:26.28) was borrowed from Deut 12:26–27.

1 38 Cf. E. A. Knauf, Josua, 185. 139 Cf. Y. Adu-Gyamfi, ‘Prevention of Civil War in Joshua 22: Guidelines for African Ethnic Groups,’ OTE 26 (2013) 247–262 (esp. 254).

172

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

The subsequent idea of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh apparently turning away today (‫ )היום‬from (‫ )מן‬Yahweh (Josh 22:29), and the Israelite leaders today (‫ )היום‬knowing (Josh 22:29–31b; esp. 22:31b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not turning aside from all the words which Moses commands today (Deut 28:14ab). The concluding idea of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh not being untrue to Yahweh, the Israelites blessing God (‫אלהים‬: Josh 22:33), and the Reubenites and the Gadites confessing Yahweh as God (‫אלהים‬: Josh 22:31c–34; esp. 22:34) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Israel not turning aside to the right or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them (Deut 28:14b–d).

2.14. Josh 23 (cf. Deut 28:15–69) The section Josh 23 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 28:15–69. The opening idea of it coming to pass (‫ויהי‬: Josh 23:1ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of it coming to pass (‫והיה‬: Deut 28:15a). The subsequent idea of Joshua becoming old, advanced in years (Josh 23:1c– 2) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not hearing the voice (Deut 28:15b). The subsequent idea of Yahweh the Israelites’ God (*‫יהוה אלהיכ‬: Josh 23:3.5) fighting for the Israelites and promising them (Josh 23:3–5) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh Israel’s God (Deut 28:15b). The particular motif of Yahweh himself fighting for the Israelites (‫הוא הנלחם לכם‬: Josh 23:3) was borrowed from Deut 3:22. The motif of Yahweh thrusting away the Israelites’ enemies before the Israelites (+ ‫חדף‬ *‫מפניכ‬: Josh 23:5) was borrowed from Deut 6:19.140 The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites remaining resolute to keep and to do all that (‫( )לשמר *לעשות את כל־‬b) is written in the book of the law of Moses (Josh 23:6a–d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel keeping to do all the (b) commandments and statues of Yahweh, which Moses commands (Deut 28:15c–e).

140 Cf. E. A. Knauf, Josua, 190.

Josh 23 (cf. Deut 28:15–69)

173

The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites turning away from the law (b) to the right or to the left (Josh 23:6e) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the curses coming upon Israel and reaching him (Deut 28:15fg) (b) in pairs (Deut 28:15f–18; esp. 28:16–18). The subsequent idea of the Israelites coming (‫ )בוא‬among the Canaanite nations (Josh 23:7ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of cursed being Israel’s coming (Deut 28:19). The subsequent idea of the Israelites not mentioning, invoking, serving, or worshipping pagan gods (Josh 23:7c–f) in a corrective way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being cursed for forsaking Yahweh (Deut 28:20). The particular motif of exhorting the Israelites not to worship other gods or serve them (‫ *שתחוו להם‬+ *‫ *עבדו‬+ ‫אלהי*ם‬: Josh 23:7) was borrowed from Deut 29:25 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites clinging (‫ )דבק‬to (‫ )ב‬Yahweh (b) until (‫ )עד‬today (Josh 23:8) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but corrective way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh making the plague cling to Israel (b) until it consumes him (Deut 28:21ab). The subsequent idea of Yahweh dispossessing (‫ )ירש‬great nations before the Israelites (Josh 23:9a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land which Israel enters to possess it (‫ירש‬: Deut 28:21cd). The particular motif of great and mighty nations (‫גוים גדלים ועצומים‬: Josh 23:9) was borrowed from Deut 4:38; 9:1; 11:23. The subsequent idea of (a) no one being able to stand before the Israelites, and (b) one man pursuing (‫ )רדף‬a thousand (Josh 23:9b–10a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but corrective way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) consumption, fever, feverish heat, and (b) a sword pursuing Israel (Deut 28:22). The particular motif of one pursuing a thousand (‫אחד‬ ‫ אלף‬+ ‫ ירדף‬+: Josh 23:10) was borrowed from Deut 32:30.141 The subsequent idea of Yahweh fighting for the Israelites (Josh 23:10bc) in a corrective way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh causing natural disasters and Israel’s enemies to fight against Israel (Deut 28:23–26). The subsequent idea of the Israelites taking great care for the sake of their lives (Josh 23:11a) in a corrective way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh striking Israel with various diseases and calamities (Deut 28:27–44). The particular motif of the Israelites taking great care for the sake of their lives (‫ונשמרתם מאד לנפשתיכם‬: Josh 23:11) was borrowed from Deut 4:15.

141 Cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., Joshua, 423.

174

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

The subsequent idea of exhorting the Israelites to love Yahweh their God (‫יהוה‬ *‫אלהיכ‬: Josh 23:11b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of exhorting Israel to serve Yahweh his God with joy and cheerfulness of heart (Deut 28:45–48; esp. 28:45.47). The subsequent idea of the Israelites clinging to the pagan nations (‫גוי‬: Josh 23:12ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh bringing a pagan nation against Israel (Deut 28:49–50). The subsequent idea of the pagan nations which remain (‫שאר‬: Josh 23:12c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the pagan nation not leaving anything remain (Deut 28:51–53; esp. 28:51). The subsequent idea of the Israelites not making marriages (Josh 23:12d–f) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of an Israelite husband looking with an evil eye at his wife, and an Israelite wife looking with an evil eye at her husband (Deut 28:54–57). The particular motif of the Israelites not making marriages with pagan nations (‫התחתנ* ב*ם‬: Josh 23:12) was borrowed from Deut 7:3. The subsequent idea of the Israelites knowing that Yahweh their God (‫יהוה‬ *‫ )אלהיכ‬will no longer act for them (Josh 23:13ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not fearing the name of Yahweh his God (Deut 28:58). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh no longer dispossessing (b) the pagan nations (c) from before the Israelites (‫מלפניכם‬: Josh 23:13c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh bringing back upon Israel (b) all the diseases of Egypt, (c) which Israel was afraid before them (‫מפניכם‬: Deut 28:59–60b; esp. 28:60b). The subsequent idea of the pagan nations becoming a scourge and a thorn to the Israelites (Josh 23:13d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the diseases of Egypt clinging to Israel (Deut 28:60c). The particular motif of becoming a trap and a snare (‫ לפח ולמוקש‬+ *‫והי‬: Josh 23:13) could have been borrowed from Isa 8:14. The subsequent idea of (a) the pagan nations harming the Israelites until (‫)עד‬ (b) they perish (‫( )אבד‬c) from the land (‫( )מעל האדמה‬d) which (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh gave them (Josh 23:13ef) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh bringing plagues upon Israel until (Deut 28:61) Israel is destroyed, (b) making Israel perish, and (c) Israel being torn away from the land (d) which he enters to possess (Deut 28:61– 63; esp. 28:63). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) Joshua going the way of (b) all (‫( )כל‬c) the earth (‫הארץ‬: Josh 23:14a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a)

Josh 24:1–25 (cf. Deut 29–30)

175

Yahweh dispersing Israel among (b) all peoples, (c) from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth (Deut 28:64a). The subsequent idea of the Israelites knowing (*‫ידעת‬: Josh 23:14b) conceptually and linguistically, in a corrective way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel serving gods which he did not know (Deut 28:64bc). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites’ hearts (*‫ )לב‬and (b) the Israelites’ souls (‫נפש‬: Josh 23:14b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but corrective way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving to Israel a trembling heart and (b) a languishing soul (Deut 28:65), and (a’) Israel having a dread of his heart (Deut 28:65–67; esp. 28:67). The subsequent idea of not one word failing (Josh 23:14c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh taking Israel back to Egypt, with a reference to Moses’ statement (Deut 28:68). The subsequent idea of (a) all the words (‫)דברים‬, (b) good ones, (c) which (‫( )אשר‬d) were spoken by (e) Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: Deut 23:14d), and (a’) all the word (‫)דבר‬, (b’) a good one, (c’) which (‫( )אשר‬d’) was spoken by (e’) Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: Josh 23:14d–15c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) these being the words of (b) the covenant (c) which (d) were commanded by (e) Yahweh (Deut 28:69ab). The subsequent idea of Yahweh in the future similarly fulfilling all the bad word (Josh 23:15d–f) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of making the presumably new, future-oriented covenant in the land of Moab (Deut 28:69c). The subsequent idea of (a) the covenant (‫ )ברית‬of Yahweh, (b) which (‫)אשר‬ (c) he commanded (d) to them (‫)את*ם‬, that is, to the Israelites (Josh 23:16ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the covenant (b) which (c) Yahweh made (d) with them, that is, the Israelites (Deut 28:69d). The concluding idea of the anger of Yahweh being kindled against the Israelites, and the Israelites being carried off from their land, presumably to the exile (Josh 23:16c–g),142 illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the exilic place of Horeb (Deut 28:69d).

142 Cf. E. A. Knauf, Josua, 191.

176

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

2.15. Josh 24:1–25 (cf. Deut 29–30) The section Josh 24:1–25 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 29–30. The opening idea of (a) Joshua gathering (N + *‫( )וי‬b) all (‫ )א*־כל־‬the tribes of (c) Israel (‫ )ישראל‬and (a’) calling (‫ )ויקרא‬the elders of (c’) Israel (‫ישראל‬: Josh 24:1) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses calling (b) all (c) Israel (Deut 29:1a). The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua speaking (‫( )ויאמר‬b) to (‫ )אל‬all the people (Josh 24:2a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses speaking (b) to all the Israelites (Deut 29:1b). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the Israelites’ eyes seeing (‫( )ראה‬b) what Yahweh did (*‫ אשר עש‬+ ‫( )את‬c) in Egypt (‫ב* מצרים‬: Josh 24:2b–7f; esp. 24:7ef)143 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites seeing (b) all that Yahweh did (c) in the land of Egypt (Deut 29:1–3; esp. 29:1). The particular motif of the father of (‫ )אבי‬Israel’s ancestor living in the north beyond the River Euphrates, worshipping other gods, and going throughout all the land of Canaan (Josh 24:2–3) was borrowed from Deut 26:5 (Israel’s father/ ancestor being an Aramaean who was straying). The motif of Yahweh multiplying the ancestor’s offspring (*‫ארבה את־זרע‬: Josh 24:3) could have been borrowed from Jer 33:22. The motif of the genealogical line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (‫ יעקב‬+ ‫ יצחק‬+ ‫אברהם‬: Josh 24:3–4) was borrowed from Deut 1:8 etc. The motif of Esau being Israel’s brother, and Yahweh giving to Esau the mountains of Seir (‫ את־הר שעיר‬+ ‫ לעשו‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ ‫עשו‬: Josh 24:4) was borrowed from Deut 2:4–5. The motif of Israel’s ancestors going down to Egypt (*‫ מצרימ‬+ *‫ירד‬: Josh 24:4) was borrowed from Deut 26:5 (cf. 10:22). The motif of Yahweh sending Moses and Aaron (‫ אהרן‬+ ‫ את־משה‬+ ‫ואשלח‬: Josh 24:5) was borrowed from Mic 6:4. The motif of Yahweh striking Egypt (‫ את־מצרים‬+ ‫ו*גף‬: Josh 24:5) was borrowed from Isa 19:22. The motif of the Egyptians pursuing after the Israelites’ ancestors with chariots and horsemen to the Sea of Reeds (‫ ים־‬+ ‫ רכב‬+ ‫ אחרי *כם‬+ ‫ מצרים‬+ ‫רדף‬ ‫סוף‬: Josh 24:6) was borrowed from Deut 11:4. The motif of the Israelites in Egypt crying out to Yahweh (‫ו*צעק* אל־יהוה‬: Josh 24:7) was borrowed from Deut 26:7. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites dwelling in the wilderness (‫( )במדבר‬b) many days (Josh 24:7g) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent

143 Cf. ibid. 196; T. C. Butler, Joshua 13–24, 319.

Josh 24:1–25 (cf. Deut 29–30)

177

Deuteronomic idea of (b) Yahweh leading the Israelites forty years (a) in the wilderness (Deut 29:4–5; esp. 29:4). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh making the Israelites come (‫( )בוא‬b) to (‫( )אל‬c) the land of the Amorites, who dwell beyond the Jordan (Josh 24:8ab), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites coming (b) to (c) this place, and the Amorite (cf. Deut 1:4 etc.), Transjordanian kings coming out against the Israelites (Deut 29:6ab). The subsequent idea of the Amorites making a war (‫ )לחם‬with the Israelites (Josh 24:8c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Amorite kings coming out to battle (‫מלחמה‬: Deut 29:6b). The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving the Amorites into the hand of the Israelites (Josh 24:8d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel defeating the Amorite kings (Deut 29:6c). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites possessing their, that is, the Amorites’ land (‫)את־ארצם‬, and (b) Yahweh exterminating them before the Israelites (Josh 24:8ef) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites taking their, that is, the Amorites’ land and (b) giving it to Israelite tribes (Deut 29:7). The subsequent idea of cursing the Israelites being changed by Yahweh to blessing the Israelites (Josh 24:9–10) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of keeping and doing the words of the covenant (Deut 29:8ab). The particular motif of Balak king of Moab calling Balaam son of Beor (+ ‫ מלך מואב‬+ ‫בלק‬ ‫בלעם בן־בעור‬: Josh 24:9–10) was borrowed from Mic 6:5 and conflated with Deut 23:5–6 (*‫ ברכ‬+ ‫ בלעם‬+ ‫ לשמע‬+ *‫ ולא אב‬+ ‫)לקלל‬. The subsequent idea of the Israelites defeating the Canaanites and without labour dwelling in their land (Josh 24:11–13) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites achieving success in all that they do (Deut 29:8cd). The particular motif of Yahweh sending hornets, which drove out the Canaanites from before the Israelites (*‫ מפניכ‬+ ‫ את־הצרעה‬+ ‫*שלח‬: Josh 24:12), was borrowed from Deut 7:20. The motif of the cities which the Israelites did not build, as well as the vineyards and olive groves which the Israelites did not plant, but they ate of them (‫ אכל‬+ *‫ כרמים וזיתים אשר לא נטעת‬+ *‫ אשר לא־בנית‬+ ‫ערים‬: Josh 24:13), was borrowed from Deut 6:10–11.144 144 Cf. E. A. Knauf, Josua, 197; M. Ederer, Josua, 334; V. Mäkipelto, Uncovering Ancient Editing: Documented Evidence of Changes in Joshua 24 and Related Texts (BZAW 513; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018), 181–182.

178

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites now fearing Yahweh and (b) serving him in completeness and faithfulness (Josh 24:14ab) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites today standing before Yahweh (Deut 29:9) and (b) entering into covenant sworn by an oath (Deut 29:9–12a; esp. 29:11). The subsequent idea of the Israelites removing pagan gods (‫אלהים‬: Josh 24:14c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh becoming the Israelites’ God (‫אלהים‬: Deut 29:12b). The subsequent idea of gods (a) which (‫( )אשר‬b) the Israelites’ ancestors (*‫ )אבותיכ‬served beyond the River (Josh 24:14d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh acting (a) just as (‫ )*אשר‬he said and just as (‫ )*אשר‬he swore to (b) Israel’s ancestors: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Deut 29:12c–14; esp. 29:12c). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites’ ancestors being in Egypt (‫)ב* מצרים‬, and (b) the Israelites serving Yahweh (Josh 24:14de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites knowing how they lived in the land of Egypt (Deut 29:15) and (b) seeing the pagans’ abominations and idols (Deut 29:15–16; esp. 29:16). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites possibly not wanting to serve Yahweh but (b) serving (‫( )עבד‬c) the gods (‫ )את־אלהים‬of their ancestors or the gods of the (*‫ )את־אלהי ה‬Amorites (Josh 24:15), but (a’) the people not wanting to forsake Yahweh and (b’) to serve (c’) other gods (Josh 24:16), so (a”) confessing Yahweh’s deeds and (b”) serving (‫ )עבד‬Yahweh as (c”) their God (‫אלהים‬: Josh 24:15–18; esp. 24:17–18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) exhorting the Israelites not to turn away from Yahweh (b) to serve (c) the gods of the pagan nations (Deut 29:17). The particular motif of Yahweh Israel’s God bringing the Israelites out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves (‫ מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים‬+ *‫יהוה אלהי‬: Josh 24:17), was borrowed from Deut 5:6 etc. and conflated with Mic 6:4 (‫)עלה‬. The subsequent idea of the Israelites not being able to serve Yahweh (Josh 24:19a–c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite walking in the stubbornness of his heart (Deut 29:18). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh being a jealous (‫ )קנוא‬God and (b) not taking away (*‫ )לא־י‬the Israelites’ transgressions and sins (Josh 24:19–20b; esp. 24:19) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Yahweh not wanting (*‫ )לא־י‬to forgive because (a) Yahweh’s anger and jealousy (‫ )קנאה‬will smoke (Deut 29:19). The particular motif of Yahweh being a jealous God (‫אל קנוא‬: Josh 24:19) may have been borrowed from Nah 1:2. The

Josh 24:1–25 (cf. Deut 29–30)

179

motif of the Israelites forsaking Yahweh and serving foreign gods (+ ‫ את‬+ ‫עזב‬ ‫ו*עבד* אלהי נכר‬: Josh 24:20) was borrowed from Jer 5:19. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh turning, doing evil (‫ )רעע‬to the Israelites, and (b) consuming (‫ )כלה‬them (Josh 24:20c–e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh separating the Israelite for evil (‫)רעה‬, (b) according to all (‫ )כל‬the curses of the covenant (Deut 29:20). The subsequent idea of Yahweh doing evil after (‫ )אחרי‬he did good to Israel (Josh 24:20f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites’ children, who will rise after the Israelites, seeing Yahweh’s calamities (Deut 29:21–22; esp. 29:21). The subsequent idea of (a) the people saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬that (b) they will serve Yahweh (Josh 24:21) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the nations saying that (b) Yahweh did these things (Deut 29:23). The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬to the people that (b) they are witnesses against themselves that they chose Yahweh to serve him (Josh 24:22) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the nations saying that (b) the Israelites forsook the covenant of Yahweh which he made with them (Deut 29:24). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites removing the foreign gods (‫( )אלהים‬b) which (‫ )אשר‬are (c) in their midst (Josh 24:23ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but corrective way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites serving other gods, gods (b) which they did not know, and (c) being driven out of their land (Deut 29:25–27; esp. 29:25). The subsequent idea of the Israelites turning their hearts to Yahweh, the God of (‫ )יהוה אלהי‬Israel (Josh 24:23c), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the secret things belonging to Yahweh, the God of the Israelites (Deut 29:28a). The subsequent idea of the people resolving to serve Yahweh (Josh 24:24ab) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites doing all the words of this law (Deut 29:28bc). The subsequent idea of (b) the people obeying (‫( )שמע‬a) Yahweh’s voice (‫בקולו‬: Josh 24:24c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Israel obeying (a) Yahweh’s voice (Deut 30:1–10; esp. 30:2.8.10). The subsequent idea of Joshua making a covenant with the people on that day (‫יום‬: Josh 24:25a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding a commandment to Israel on this day

180

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

(Deut 30:11), setting before Israel on this day life and good, death and evil (Deut 30:15), and commanding Israel on this day to love Yahweh and to walk in his ways (Deut 30:11–16c; esp. 30:16a). The subsequent idea of Joshua establishing for the people a statute and a judgement (*‫חק* ומשפט‬: Josh 24:25b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding Israel to keep Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgements (Deut 30:16d). The concluding idea of Joshua making a covenant in Shechem (Josh 24:25b) with the use of the motif of blessing and cursing in the region of Shechem (Deut 27:12–13) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Moses setting before Israel a blessing and a curse (Deut 30:16e–20; esp. 30:19), The fact that the making of the covenant with all Israel takes place at Shechem (Josh 24:1.25) implies that the book of Joshua is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one.145

2.16. Josh 24:26–33 (cf. Deut 31:1–32:50) The section Josh 24:26–33 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 31:1–32:50. The opening idea of (b) Joshua (‫( )יהושע‬a) writing (‫( )ויכתב‬c) these words (‫את־‬ ‫( )הדברים האלה‬d) in the book of the law (‫ )תורה‬of God (Josh 24:26a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (c) Moses speaking these words to all Israel (Deut 31:1), (b) Joshua crossing over before Israel (Deut 31:3.7), and (a) Moses writing (d) this law (Deut 31:1–9; esp. 31:9). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Joshua taking a great, presumably heavy stone (diff. Deut 27:2: stones) and lifting it up (b) under the shadow-giving oak146 (c) which (‫ )אשר‬is in the sanctuary of Yahweh (Josh 24:26b–d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses commanding concerning the remission of the burden of debt, (b) during the ‘leafy’ festival of booths (Deut 31:10), in the place (c) which Yahweh chooses (Deut 31:10–11c; esp. 31:11). The particular motif of the sanctuary of Yahweh (‫מקדש יהוה‬: Josh 24:26) was borrowed from Ezek 48:10.

1 45 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 28; D. R. Nocquet, Samarie, 93–94, 97. 146 Cf. Ł. Florczyk, ‘Kamień – świadek przymierza w Sychem (Joz 24,1–28),’ VV 28 (2015) 27–58 (esp. 52); S. Wypych, Jozuego, 531.

Josh 24:26–33 (cf. Deut 31:1–32:50)

181

The fact that the sanctuary of Yahweh is quite naturally located at Shechem (Josh 24:26–27) implies that the book of Joshua is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one.147 The subsequent idea of Joshua speaking to all (‫ )כל‬the people (Josh 24:27a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses reading this law before all Israel in their hearing (Deut 31:11d). The subsequent idea of (a) this stone being a witness/assembly because (b) it heard (‫( )שמע‬c) all the words (‫ )את כל־*רי‬which Yahweh spoke (‫ )דבר‬with the Israelites (Josh 24:27b–d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) assembling all the people so that (b) they may hear and observe (c) all the words (‫ )את־כל־דברי‬of this law (Deut 31:12), and (b’) their sons may hear as well (Deut 31:12–13; esp. 31:13). The subsequent idea of (a) the stone becoming (‫( )והי*ה‬b) against the Israelites (*‫( )בכ‬c) a witness (*‫לעד‬: Josh 24:27e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a’) the song becoming (‫( )היה‬c’) a witness (b’) against (‫ )ב‬the sons of Israel (Deut 31:19), and (a) the book of this law becoming (b) against Israel (c) a witness (Deut 31:14–26; esp. 31:26). The subsequent idea of the Israelites denying their God (*‫אלהי‬: Josh 24:27f) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites behaving rebelliously (Deut 31:27–29) against the Israelites’ God (Deut 31:27–32:43; esp. 32:3.15.18). The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua (‫ )יהושע‬sending (b) the people (‫ )העם‬to their inheritances (Josh 24:28) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses speaking all the words of this song in the hearing of (b) the people, (a’) he and Joshua (Deut 32:44). The subsequent idea of it coming to pass after these words (‫הדברים האלה‬: Josh 24:29a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses finishing to speak all these words (Deut 32:45), the Israelites taking to heart all the words which he testified, commanding the children to observe all the words of this law (Deut 32:46), and by this word prolonging their days (Deut 32:45–47; esp. 32:47). The subsequent idea of Joshua dying (‫ו*מת‬: Josh 24:29b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses dying (Deut

147 Cf. Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, A Temple City (Judea & Samaria Publications 8; Israel Antiquities Authority: Jerusalem 2008), 171–172; T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 28, 392; D. R. Nocquet, Samarie, 95, 97.

182

Joshua as a reworking of  Deut 1:1–32:50

32:48–50a; esp. 32:50a). The particular motif of an Israelite leader, a servant of Yahweh, dying, being one hundred ten/twenty years old (+ ‫ עבד יהוה‬+ N + ‫וימת‬ *‫בן־מאה ועשר* שנ‬: Josh 24:29), was borrowed from Deut 34:5.7. The subsequent idea of burying Joshua on the mountain (‫ )בהר‬of Ephraim, north of Mount (‫ )הר‬Gaash (Josh 24:30), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses dying on the mountain (Deut 32:50a). The particular motif of the Israelites burying their leader (‫ויקבר * אתו‬: Josh 24:30) was borrowed from Deut 34:6. Therefore, the enigmatic localization of Joshua’s burial place in the otherwise unknown Timnath-serah (‫תמנת־סרח‬: Josh 24:30; cf. 19:50), further confusingly identified in the following book of Judges as Timnath-heres (‫תמנת־חרס‬: Judg 2:9),148 close to the similarly otherwise unknown Mount Gaash (Josh 24:30; Judg 2:9),149 reflects the Deuteronomic idea of no one knowing the leader’s burial place to this day (Deut 34:6). On the other hand, the fact that the main hero of the book of Joshua had his burial place in the mountains of Ephraim (Josh 24:30; cf. 19:50) implies that the book of Joshua is an Ephraimite work, and not a Judaean one.150 The subsequent idea of the old ones who (‫ )אשר‬outlived Joshua (Josh 24:31) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the mountain on which (‫ )אשר‬Moses went up to die (Deut 32:50b). The subsequent idea of (a) the bones of Joseph,151 (b) which the sons of Israel brought up (‫ )עלה‬and (c) buried at Shechem, presumably in the mountains of Ephraim (Josh 24:32ab), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the mountain on which (a) the 148 It should be noted that the LXX (both B and A) of Josh 24:30[31] and Judg 2:9 reflects the difference between the Hebrew names used in the MT of Josh 24:30 and Judg 2:9, thus indirectly proving the originality of this difference. Cf. V. Mäkipelto, ‘The Four Deaths of Joshua: Why the Septuagint is Pivotal for the Study of Joshua 24,’ HBAI 6 (2017) 217–242 (esp. 234 n. 48); id., Uncovering, 149. 149 Cf. H. N. Rösel, Joshua, 376; T. C. Butler, Joshua 13–24, 342; E. Gaß, ‘Joshua’s Death Told Twice – Perspectives from the History of Research,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges (FAT 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 199–219 (esp. 207). 150 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 392. 151 It should be noted that the image of the bones of Joseph (Josh 24:32) presupposes the idea of burying the body of the leader (cf. Deut 34:6), but it does not presuppose the idea of embalming the whole body of the leader (Gen 50:26). In fact, the latter text (Gen 50:25) alludes to Josh 24:32.

Josh 24:26–33 (cf. Deut 31:1–32:50)

183

dying (cf. Deut 32:50a) and later buried (cf. Deut 34:6) Moses (b) went up (‫)עלה‬ (c) there (Deut 32:50b). The subsequent idea of the bones of Joseph being placed in the inheritance of Jacob and Joseph’s sons (Josh 24:32cd) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses being gathered to his people (Deut 32:50c). The subsequent idea of (a) Eleazar son of Aaron (‫( )אהרן‬b) dying (‫מת‬: Josh 24:33a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Aaron, Moses’ brother, (b) dying (Deut 32:50d). The particular motif of Eleazar being son of Aaron (‫ אהרן‬+ ‫אלעזר בן‬: Josh 24:33) was borrowed from Deut 10:6. The concluding idea of (a) burying Eleazar on a hill, on the mountain (‫ )בהר‬of (b) Ephraim (Josh 24:33bc), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Aaron dying (a) on the mountain of Hor (‫)בהר ההר‬ and (b) being gathered to his people (Deut 32:50de). The fact that the second main hero of the book of Joshua similarly had his burial place in the mountains of Ephraim (Josh 24:33; cf. 24:30) likewise implies that the book of Joshua is an Ephraimite work, and not a Judaean one.

Chapter 3.  The book of Judges as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12 The contents of the book of Judges sequentially, in a hypertextual way illustrate the contents of the Deuteronomic major section Deut 32:51–34:12.

3.1. Judg 1:1–2:10a (cf. Deut 32:51–33:5) The section Judg 1:1–2:10a sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 32:51–33:5. The opening idea of (a) the sons of Israel (‫)בני ישראל‬, without their leader,1 hesitantly asking Yahweh who of them should go up as the first one (diff. Deut 1:21; Josh 6:20; 10:29; etc.: all Israel)2 to fight against the Canaanites (Judg 1:1), and (b) Yahweh saying that Judah should go up (Judg 1:1–2b; esp. 1:2b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel’s leaders acting counter to their duty against Yahweh among the sons of Israel (b) in the southern, Judaean region of Canaan (cf. Ezek 47:19; Josh 15:1.3) by (a’) failing to reveal Yahweh’s holiness among the sons of Israel (Deut 32:51). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving (‫( )נתן‬b) the land (‫( )א*־הארץ‬c) into Judah’s hand (Judg 1:2c) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Moses not entering the land which (a) Yahweh gives (c) to the sons of Israel (Deut 32:52).

1 Cf. D.  Janzen, The Violent Gift:  Trauma’s Subversion of the Deuteronomistic History’s Narrative (LHBOTS 561; T&T Clark: New York · London 2012), 117–119; S.  Gillmayr-Bucher, ‘Memories Laid to Rest:  The Book of Judges in the Persian Period,’ in D.  V.  Edelman (ed.), Deuteronomy–Kings as Emerging Authoritative Books: A Conversation (ANEM 6; SBL: Atlanta 2014), 115–132 (esp. 123); D. Dziadosz, Księga Sędziów: Wstęp, przekład z oryginału, komentarz, vol. 1, Rozdziały 1 – 5 (NKBST 7/1; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2019), 168. 2 Cf. W. Groß, Richter (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2009), 119.

186

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

The subsequent idea of Judah cooperating with Simeon his brother (Judg 1:3)3 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses blessing the sons (plur.) of Israel (Deut 33:1). The idea of Simeon being narratively only attached to his brother Judah (Judg 1:3.17) probably reflects that absence of Simeon in the blessing Deut 33:6–25. The fact that in disagreement with the clear promise of Yahweh (Judg 1:2) Judah sought aid from his brother Simeon, which means that he did not have sufficient faith in Yahweh’s promise and assistance (Judg 1:3; cf. 20:19–25),4 something which constituted the ‘original sin’ of the Israelites in Deuteronomy (Deut 1:26–33), suggests that the book of Judges is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent idea of bringing (‫בוא‬: Judg 1:7) Adoni-bezek, so ‘the lord of lightning’5 (diff. Josh 10:1: Adoni-zedek), from the ‘lightning’ (cf. Ezek 1:14) Bezek to Jerusalem (Judg 1:4–8) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the coming (‫ )בוא‬of Yahweh from Sinai (Deut 33:2a–c). The subsequent idea of the Judahites fighting against the Canaanites who dwelt on the mountain (‫הר‬: Judg 1:9) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh shining forth from the mountain of Paran (Deut 33:2d). The particular motif of the Israelites fighting against the pagans who dwelt in the mountains, in the Negeb, and in the lowland (‫ נגב‬+ ‫הר‬ ‫ שפלה‬+: Judg 1:9) was borrowed from Deut 1:7 but reordered to highlight the importance of the southern, in fact Edomite Negeb, and thus better illustrate the Deuteronomic idea of the Edomite (cf. Hab 3:3) Mount Paran (Deut 33:2d). The subsequent, redundant idea of the name of Hebron being formerly the ‘city of four’ (Kiriath-arba: cf. Josh 14:15),6 and Judah defeating three men: the 3 Cf. B. G. Webb, The Book of Judges (NICOT; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2012), 97; R. B. Chisholm Jr., A Commentary on Judges and Ruth (Kregel Exegetical Library; Kregel Academic: Grand Rapids, MI 2013), 121. 4 Cf. J. M. Sasson, Judges 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 6D; Yale University: New Haven · London: 2014), 136. Cf. also L. Klein Abensohn, ‘The Art of Irony: The Book of Judges,’ in A. Brenner and F. H. Polak (eds.), Words, Ideas, Worlds, Festschrift Y. Amit (HBM 40; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2012), 133–144 (esp. 133). 5 Cf. E. A. Knauf, Richter (ZBK.AT 7; Theologischer: Zürich 2016), 42. 6 Cf. T.  C.  Butler, Judges (WBC 8; Thomas Nelson:  Nashville [et  al.] 2009), 28; W.  Groß, Richter, 129; Ł.  Niesiołowski-Spanò, Origin Myths and Holy Places in the Old Testament: A Study of Aetiological Narratives, trans. J. Laskowski (CISem; Equinox: London · Oakville 2011), 124–125.

Judg 1:1–2:10a (cf. Deut 32:51–33:5)

187

‘sixth’ Sheshai, the ‘counted brother’ Achiman, and Talmai, with the omission of the here unnecessary remark that they were sons of Anak (Judg 1:10; diff. Josh 15:14; Judg 1:20),7 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh coming from numerous ones (Deut 33:2e). The subsequent idea of the name of Debir being formerly the ‘city of the book’ (Kiriath-sepher: Judg 1:11–13; cf. Josh 15:15–17),8 Achsah receiving a blessing (Judg 1:14–15; cf. Josh 15:18–19),9 the relatives of Moses dwelling with the people (Judg 1:16), as well as the Judahites and the Simeonites dedicating a city and calling its name Hormah, that is, ‘dedicated’ (Judg 1:17),10 a city whose location was close to that of Kadesh (cf. Deut 1:44–46), and Yahweh being with Judah in the mountains (Judg 1:11–20; esp. 1:19–20) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh coming from the ‘holy’ Kadesh (Deut 33:2e). The particular motif of the city of palm trees (‫עיר התמרים‬: Judg 1:16) could have been borrowed from Deut 34:3. The fact that Judah, in contrast to the house of Joseph (cf. Josh 17:16–18), was apparently not called to drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had iron chariots (Judg 1:19)11 could suggest that the book of Judges is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent, quite surprising idea of the sons of Benjamin (diff. Josh 15:63: Judah), that is, the ‘son of the right hand’ (‫ )*ימן‬not being able to drive out the Jebusites living in Jerusalem (Judg 1:21; cf. Josh 15:63) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of coming from Yahweh’s right hand (‫ימין‬: Deut 33:2f). The author of the book of Judges presented Jerusalem as a city located outside Judah, in the territory of Benjamin, bearing the artificial pagan name ‘the Jebusite’ (cf. Josh 15:8.63; 18:16),12 and being half-Benjaminite and half-pagan ‘to this day’ (Judg 1:21), that is, to the time of the implied reader of the story.13 This

7 Cf. M. Ederer, Ende und Anfang: Der Prolog des Richterbuchs (Ri 1,1–3,6) in “Biblischer Auslegung” (HeBS 68; Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau 2011), 349. 8 Cf. R. Ryan, Judges (ReNBC; Sheffield Phoenix 2007), 3; T. C. Butler, Judges, 23. 9 Cf. N.  Hays, ‘Family Disintegration in Judges 17–18,’ CBQ 80 (2018) 373–392 (esp. 387–388). 10 Cf. D. Dziadosz, Sędziów, vol. 1, 205. 11 Cf. S. Frolov, Judges (FOTL; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2013), 48; J. M. Sasson, Judges 1–12, 158. 12 Cf. W. Groß, Richter, 141; J. M. Sasson, Judges 1–12, 139, 151. 13 Cf. B. G. Webb, Judges, 110–111 n. 65, 420.

188

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

fact again indicates that the book of Judges is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent idea of the house of Joseph, them as well, going (plur.) to the sanctuary of Bethel, and Yahweh being together with them (‫עמם‬: Judg 1:22; diff. 1:19: ‫ )את‬conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh loving his peoples (‫עמים‬: Deut 33:3a). The subsequent idea of the house of Joseph conquering Luz and presumably calling it Bethel, that is, the ‘house of God’ (Judg 1:23–26), as well as the neighbouring tribes (Manasseh, Zebulun, and Naphtali) putting the Canaanites under forced labour (Judg 1:23–34; esp.  1:28.30.33) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of all Yahweh’s saints (Deut 33:3b). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly added (cf. Judg 1:22–29) idea of the hand (‫ )יד‬of the house of Joseph being heavy/glorious (Judg 1:35) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being in the presumably glorious hand of Yahweh (Deut 33:3b). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of (a) the ascent of scorpions (cf. Josh 15:3),14 and (b) going upward (Judg 1:36) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) harming (?) Yahweh’s feet and (b) lifting up (Deut 33:3cd). The subsequent idea of the messenger of Yahweh leading the Israelites up from Egypt, bringing them to the promised land, making a covenant forever, and commanding them to make no covenant with the Canaanites (Judg 2:1–5) with the use of Moses’ words (Deut 7:2.5.16;15 16:2) and allusions to Moses’ death (Deut 32:45; 34:8) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding the law to the Israelites (Deut 33:4). In particular, the motif of exhorting the Israelites to make no covenant with the Canaanites and to tear down their altars (‫ מזבחותיהם תתצון‬+ ‫ ל‬+ ‫ ברית‬+ *‫לא־תכרת‬: Judg 2:2) was borrowed from Deut 7:2.5. The motif of the Canaanites’ gods being a snare to the Israelites (*‫ לכ‬+ ‫אלהיהם‬ ‫ מוקש‬+: Judg 2:3) was borrowed from Deut 7:16. The motif of Yahweh’s messenger finishing speaking these words to all Israel (‫ את־*־הדברים האלה אל־‬+ ‫*דבר‬ ‫כל־* ישראל‬: Judg 2:4) was borrowed from Deut 32:45. The motif of the Israelites weeping after the end of the words of Yahweh’s messenger (‫ויבכו‬: Judg 2:4) was borrowed from Deut 34:8. The motif of sacrificing to Yahweh there, that is, at the chosen place (‫ ליהוה‬+ ‫ שם‬+ ‫ זבח‬+ ‫*מקום‬: Judg 2:5) was borrowed from Deut 16:2

1 4 Cf. W. Groß, Richter, 152. 15 Cf. J. M. Sasson, Judges 1–12, 181.

Judg 2:10b–3:31 (cf. Deut 33:6–12)

189

etc. Besides, the motif of the messenger of Yahweh (‫מלאך־יהוה‬: Judg 2:1) could have been borrowed from Isa 37:36. The subsequent, surprisingly partly repeated (cf. Josh 24:28; diff. Judg 1:1: after the death of Joshua)16 idea of Joshua sending the people, and the Israelites going to their inheritances, to take possession (‫ )ירש‬of the land (Judg 2:6), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the possession of the assembly of Jacob (Deut 33:4). The subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Josh 24:31)17 idea of the people serving Yahweh all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who saw all the great work of Yahweh (Judg 2:7) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of there being a king in the ‘righteous’ Jeshurun (Deut 33:5a).18 The postexilic author of the book of Judges substituted the monarchic idea of a king in Jeshurun (Deut 33:5a) with the non-monarchic one of a theocratic leader and gerusia ruling in Israel (Judg 2:7). The concluding, likewise partly repeated (cf. Josh 24:29–30)19 idea of Joshua dying (Judg 2:8–9), and all that generation, presumably including Joshua and the elders of the people (‫עם‬: cf. Judg 2:7), being gathered (‫ )אסף‬to their ancestors (Judg 2:8–10a; esp. 2:10a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the leaders of the people being gathered (Deut 33:5b).

16 Cf. H.-D. Neef, ‘Josuazeit und Richterzeit: Exegetische Beobachtungen zu Jdc 2,6– 10,’ ZAW 124 (2012) 229–243 (esp. 229, 235); C. Frevel, ‘Das Josua-Palimpsest. Der Übergang vom Josua- zum Richterbuch und seine Konsequenzen für die These eines Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks,’ ZAW 125 (2013) 49–71 (esp. 49–50); D. Dziadosz, Sędziów, vol. 1, 263. 17 Cf. W. Groß, Richter, 183; H.-D. Neef, ‘Josuazeit,’ 236. 18 The sequentially arranged hypertextual correspondence between Judg 2:7 and Deut 33:5a explains the relocation of the illustrative material of Josh 24:31 (in Judg 2:7) before that of Josh 24:29–30 (in Judg 2:8–9). This relocation is otherwise difficult to explain; cf. E. Gaß, ‘Joshua’s Death Told Twice – Perspectives from the History of Research,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges (FAT 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 199–219 (esp. 202–205). 19 Cf. W.  Groß, Richter, 183; H.-D.  Neef, ‘Josuazeit,’ 236–237; J.  M.  Sasson, Judges 1–12, 188.

190

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

3.2. Judg 2:10b–3:31 (cf. Deut 33:6–12) The section Judg 2:10b–3:31 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 33:6–12. The opening idea of (a) another generation forsaking Yahweh, therefore being unable to stand before their enemies, and being greatly distressed (Judg 2:10b– 15); (b) being faithful until the dying (‫מות‬: Judg 2:19) of a judge (Judg 2:16–19); and (c) slowly learning to fight (Judg 2:10b–3:7; esp. 2:20–3:7)20 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) praying that Reuben might live, (b) that he might not die, and (c) his men being in a certain number (Deut 33:6). The particular motif of another generation arising after them, that is, the fathers (‫ אחריהם‬+ *‫ דור אחר‬+ ‫קום‬: Judg 2:10) could have been borrowed from Deut 29:21. The motif of the Israelites doing evil in the sight of Yahweh (‫ הרע‬+ ‫עשה‬ ‫בעיני יהוה‬: Judg 2:11) was borrowed from Deut 4:25 etc. The motif of the Israelites serving the Baals (‫הבעלים‬: Judg 2:11) was borrowed from Hos 2:15.19 etc. The motif of the Israelites going after other gods, from among the gods of the peoples who were around them (‫*לכו אחרי אלהים אחרים מאלהי העמים אשר סביבותיהם‬: Judg 2:12), was borrowed from Deut 6:14.21 The motif of the Israelites provoking Yahweh to anger (‫כעס‬: Judg 2:12) was borrowed from Jer 7:18 etc. The motif of judges ruling Israel (‫שפטים‬: Judg 2:16) was borrowed from Deut 16:18 etc. The motif of the Israelites not listening to their judges (‫ שמע‬+ ‫שפט‬: Judg 2:17) was borrowed from Deut 17:12. The motif of the Israelites adulterously pursuing pagan gods (‫ אחרי אלהים‬+ ‫זנה‬: Judg 2:17) was borrowed from Deut 31:16. The motif of the Israelites obeying the commandments of Yahweh (‫ מצות‬+ ‫שמע‬: Judg 2:17) was borrowed from Deut 11:13 etc. The motif of the Israelites taking the Canaanites’ daughters and giving their daughters to the Canaanites’ sons, as well as serving their gods (‫ אלהים‬+ ‫ ועבדו‬+ *‫ נתנ* לבנ‬+ ‫ בת‬+ ‫ ל‬+ ‫ בת‬+ ‫לקח‬: Judg 3:6) was borrowed from Deut 7:3–4.22 The motif of the Israelites forgetting Yahweh (‫שכח‬ ‫ את־יהוה‬+: Judg 3:7) was borrowed from Deut 6:12 etc.

2 0 Cf. J. M. Sasson, Judges 1–12, 205. 21 Cf. M.  Ederer, Ende, 247; W.  Groß, ‘Das Richterbuch zwischen deuteronomis­ tischem Geschichtswerk und Enneateuch,’ in H.-J.  Stipp (ed.), Das deuteronomis­ tische Geschichtswerk (ÖBS 39; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 177–205 (esp. 187). 22 Cf. W. Groß, Richter, 211; E. A. Knauf, Richter, 54.

Judg 2:10b–3:31 (cf. Deut 33:6–12)

191

The set of stories concerning judges representing the Israelite tribes ordered from Judah in the south to Dan in the north (Judg 3:8–18:31)23 illustrates the Deuteronomic set of sayings concerning the Israelite tribes ordered from southeast to north-west (Deut 33:7–25). In particular, the subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Josh 15:17; Judg 1:13)24 story of (a) the oppressed Israelites crying out to Yahweh, so Yahweh raising up for them a saviour (Judg 3:8–9), (b) the Judahite leader (cf. Josh 14:6; 15:13)25 Othniel (Judg 3:9c), (c) the spirit of Yahweh being over the Judahite quasi-messianic saviour (cf. Isa 11:2), so that he judged Israel (Judg 3:10ab), (d) Othniel going out to war, Yahweh giving Kushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand (‫)יד‬, so that Othniel’s hand (‫ )יד‬was strong over his oppressor (Judg 3:10c–e), and (e) the land having rest for forty years, as long as the Judahite leader lived (Judg 3:8–11; esp. 3:11), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh hearing the voice of (b) Judah, (c) Yahweh bringing Judah to his people, (d) the hands of Judah struggling for him, and (e) Yahweh being a help against Judah’s enemies (Deut 33:7), with the omission of the following saying to the landless Levi (Deut 33:8–11). The motif of a Judahite leader prevailing over the ‘doubly wicked’ (Cushanrishathaim)26 king of Mesopotamia (Judg 3:8–10) most probably alludes to Hezekiah27 protecting Jerusalem against Sennacherib king of Assyria (cf. Isa 36–37), an allusion which may have also included Sargon king of Assyria.28 In the latter case, the character of the ‘twice wicked’ Cushan-rishathaim (Judg 23 Cf. G. T. K. Wong, Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges: An Inductive, Rhetorical Study (VTSup 111; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2006), 239–246. 24 Cf. H. Pfeiffer, ‘»Retterbuch« und Richterbuch,’ ZAW 127 (2015) 429–439 (esp. 436); I. Finkelstein, ‘Major Saviors, Minor Judges: The Historical Background of the Northern Accounts in the Book of Judges,’ JSOT 41.4 (2017) 431–449 (esp. 437). 25 Cf. D. I. Block, Judges, Ruth (NAC 6; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 1999), 154; S. Frolov, Judges, 103; A. Tobolowsky, ‘Othniel, David, Solomon: Additional Evidence of the Late Development of Normative Tribal Concepts in the South,’ ZAW 131 (2019) 207–219 (esp. 210). 26 Cf. G.  Oeste, ‘Butchered Brothers and Betrayed Families:  Degenerating Kinship Structures in the Book of Judges,’ JSOT 35.3 (2011) 295–316 (esp. 300); B. G. Webb, Judges, 159; J. M. Sasson, Judges 1–12, 215, 219. 27 The prophecy alluded to in Judg 3:10, concerning the spirit of Yahweh being over the Judahite quasi-messianic saviour (Isa 11:2), together with those of Isa 7:14–17; 9:5–6, literally refers to Ahaz’s son Hezekiah. The name of Othni-el (‘God is my strength’) also linguistically alludes to that of Hizqi-yahu (‘Yahweh is my strength’). 28 Cf. P. Guillaume, Waiting for Josiah: The Judges (JSOTSup 385; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004), 78–79.

192

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

3:8.10)29 would allude to two Assyrian kings, Sargon and Sennacherib, merged into one negative character. The particular motif of the spirit of Yahweh being over a Judahite leader (‫עליו רוח־יהוה‬: Judg 3:10) was borrowed from Isa 11:2. The shortness of the story concerning a Judahite leader (Judg 3:8–11)30 strongly suggests that the book of Judges is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent story of (a) Ehud from the tribe of Benjamin (*‫ )בנ*ימנ‬secretly using his left hand as though it were the right hand (*‫ימנ‬: Judg 3:15)31 and therefore fastening his sword on the right thigh (*‫ימנ‬: Judg 3:16.21), (b) turning back from pagan cultic images (Judg 3:19) and passing beyond them (Judg 3:26), as well as (c) subduing Moab that day (‫)יום‬, so that the land could be at rest (Judg 3:12–30; esp. 3:30), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the ‘right-side’ Benjamin (b) being the beloved of Yahweh, and (c) Yahweh protecting him all the day (Deut 33:12a–c). The particular motif of Amalek being hostile to Israel (‫עמלק‬: Judg 3:13) was borrowed from Deut 25:17.19. The fact that a Benjaminite leader blew the trumpet on the mountain of Ephraim (Judg 3:27) implies that the author of the book of Judges regarded the tribe of Benjamin as connected to the northern tribe of Ephraim, and not to the southern tribe of Judah.32 The subsequent account concerning Shamgar,33 whose name means ‘there he sojourned,’34 somewhat surprisingly inserted into the story of Ehud (Judg

29 Cf. R. D. Nelson, Judges: A Critical and Rhetorical Commentary (T&T Clark: London · New York 2017), 57. 30 Cf. D.  E.  Fleming, The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible:  History, Politics, and the Reinscribing of Traditions (Cambridge University: New York 2012), 58; S. GillmayrBucher, ‘Memories,’ 118. 31 Cf. S. Park, ‘Left-Handed Benjaminites and the Shadow of Saul,’ JBL 134 (2015) 701–720 (esp. 702–703); R. Baker, Hollow Men, Strange Women: Riddles, Codes and Otherness in the Book of Judges (BibInt 143; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2016), 72–73; H. Ausloos, ‘The Story of Ehud and Eglon in Judges 3:12–30: A Literary Pearl as a Theological Stumbling Block,’ OTE 30 (2017) 225–239 (esp. 228). 32 Cf. I. Finkelstein, ‘Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of »Biblical Israel«: An Alternative View,’ ZAW 123 (2011) 348–367 (esp. 361). 33 The patronymic ‘son of Anath’ (‫ענת‬: Judg 3:31; 5:6) may allude to the Benjaminite city of Anathoth (‫ענתות‬: Jer 1:1; 32:8; Josh 21:17–18). 34 Cf. M. S. Smith, ‘ “Midrash” in the Book of Judges: The Cases of Judges 3:31 and 6:7–10,’ CBQ 78 (2016) 256–271 (esp. 259).

Judg 4–9 (cf. Deut 33:13–17)

193

3:15–30; 4:1)35 as ‘also’ saving Israel, but this time with a cattle prod (‘trainer’) evidently wielded in his right hand (Judg 3:31), in contrast to Ehud who used his left hand (Judg 3:15–16.21), conceptually and partly linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of dwelling between Benjamin’s two shoulders, presumably the left one and the right one (Deut 33:12d).

3.3. Judg 4–9 (cf. Deut 33:13–17) The section Judg 4–9 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 33:13–17. The opening, partly repeated (cf. Josh 11:1–9)36 but reworked story of the ‘speaking’ prophetess Deborah, who was active in the mountains of Ephraim (Judg 4; esp.  4:5),37 illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh speaking to Joseph, presumably including first Ephraim (Deut 33:13a; cf. 33:17). The tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun are also incorporated in this story and presented in a more negative light (Judg 4:6–10). The geographical extent of the activity of Deborah:  from Ramah in Benjamin (Judg 4:5; cf. Josh 18:25; Judg 19:13) in the south to Kedesh in Naphtali in the north (Judg 4:6)38 seems to illustrate the intended area of influence of the house of Joseph (Deut 33:13a). The subsequent (a) feminine39 song of Deborah, containing exhortations to bless Yahweh (‫ברכ* יהוה‬: Judg 5:2.9) and to regard the feminine character of Jael as twice blessed (‫*ברך‬: 5:24),40 with the concluding remark that (b) the land (‫)ארץ‬ had rest (Judg 5; esp. 5:31d), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way

35 Cf. T. C. Butler, Judges, 87; M. S. Smith, ‘Midrash,’ 263; K. Spronk, ‘Shamgar ben Anat (Judg 3:31) – a Meaningful Name,’ ZAW 128 (2016) 684–687 (esp. 684, 686). 36 Cf. H. Pfeiffer, ‘Retterbuch,’ 434. 37 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The Old Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Historical Traditions (rev. ed., St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2003), 71; D. E. Fleming, Legacy, 70; R. Baker, Hollow Men, 96–97. 38 Cf. W. Groß, Richter, 268–269; R. de Hoop, ‘Judges 5 Reconsidered: Which Tribes? What Land? Whose Song?,’ in J. van Ruiten and J. C. de Vos (eds.), The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology, Festschrift E. Noort (VTSup 124; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2009), 151–166 (esp. 156). 39 Cf. D. I. Block, Judges, Ruth, 217, 245; J. S. Kaminsky, ‘Reflections on Associative Word Links in Judges,’ JSOT 36.4 (2012) 411–434 (esp. 422); D. Dziadosz, Sędziów, vol. 1, 403. 40 Cf. R. Tadiello, ‘Il canto di Debora (Gdc 5): studio poetico e testuale,’ RivB 61 (2013) 331–373 (esp. 361); R. I. Thelle, ‘Matrices of motherhood in Judges 5,’ JSOT 43.3 (2019) 436–452 (esp. 436, 444).

194

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a grammatically feminine subject being blessed by Yahweh, referring to (b) Joseph’s land (Deut 33:13b). The song of Deborah refers to ten of the tribes mentioned in Deut 33:6–25. The omission of Judah and Levi (diff. Deut 33:7–11) suggests that the tribe of Ephraim, represented by the character of Deborah, was called to lead all the northern tribes of Israel. However, the fact that only the tribes of Ephraim, Benjamin, Machir, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali are presented in the song in a positive light (Judg 5:14–15.18)41 suggests that the post-exilic (northern) Israel only comprised the territories of these central tribes,42 and it did not include the Transjordanian and northern territories of Reuben, Gad (Gilead),43 Dan, and Asher. The particular motif of Yahweh being related to Sinai (‫ סיני‬+ ‫יהוה‬: Judg 5:5) was borrowed from Deut 33:2. The subsequent account of Gideon from the tribe of Manasseh (Judg 6:15.35) witnessing a divine messenger of Yahweh renewing Yahweh’s miracles to him (Judg 6:1–32)44 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land of Joseph, including Manasseh (cf. Deut 33:17), being blessed with precious gifts of heaven (Deut 33:13b). The particular motif of Gideon, whose name alludes to the Israelites cutting off, tearing down the pagans’ altars, and destroying their cultic poles (+ ‫מזבח‬ ‫ נתץ‬+ ‫ *גדעון‬+ ‫אשרה‬: Judg 6:25–32) was borrowed from Deut 7:5; 12:3.45 Likewise, the instruction to build an altar to Yahweh God on top of a mountain place of refuge and offering on it a burnt offering (+ ‫ והעלית‬+ ‫ מזבח ליהוה אלהיך‬+ ‫ובנית‬ ‫עולה‬: Judg 6:26) was borrowed from Deut 27:5–6 and conflated with Deut 16:21 (‫ אשרה‬+ ‫)עץ‬.46 41 Cf. M. Jasinski, ‘Prorokini Debora – “wskrzesicielka” nadziei Izraela: Studium egzegetyczno-teologiczne Sdz 4–5,’ BibAn 7 (2017) 415–439 (esp. 430–431). 42 It is worth noting that Benjamin is included among these central tribes in Judg 5. Cf. I. Finkelstein, ‘Saul,’ 361. 43 Cf. D. Dziadosz, Sędziów, vol. 1, 478. The correspondence between Gilead in the book of Judges and Gad in the book of Deuteronomy is also present in Judg 10:3–12:7 (cf. Deut 33:20–21). 44 Cf. N. Amzallag, ‘The Identity of the Emissary of YHWH,’ SJOT 26 (2012) 123–144 (esp. 124 n. 3). 45 Cf. S. Gillmayr-Bucher, Erzählte Welten im Richterbuch: Narratologische Aspekte eines polyfonen Diskurses (BibInt 116; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 115; J. Berman, ‘The Legal Blend in Biblical Narrative (Joshua 20:1–9, Judges 6:25–31, 1 Samuel 15:2, 28:3– 25, 2 Kings 4:1–7, Jeremiah 34:12–17, Nehemiah 5:1–12),’ JBL 134 (2015) 105–125 (esp. 113–116). 46 Cf. J. Berman, ‘Legal Blend,’ 116.

Judg 4–9 (cf. Deut 33:13–17)

195

The fact that Yahweh commanded an Israelite leader to build an altar to Yahweh and offer a burnt offering on top of a mountain place of refuge in the territory of Manasseh (Judg 6:26) implies that the book of Judges is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent account of Gideon witnessing a miraculous appearance of dew (‫טל‬: Judg 6:37–40) on all the land (‫ארץ‬: Judg 6:33–40; esp. 6:39–40)47 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land of Joseph, including Manasseh (cf. Deut 33:17), being blessed with dew (Deut 33:13b). The tribes of Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali are also incorporated in this story (Judg 6:35). The subsequent account of Gideon camping on a spring (Judg 7:1),48 Yahweh sifting the Israelites at the water (Judg 7:4–7), the enemy camp being below (‫תחת‬: Judg 7:8; cf. 7:21),49 Gideon going down with the ‘trough’ Purah (Judg 7:10–11), the enemies being like the sand on the seashore (Judg 7:12), and the Ephraimites seizing the water (diff. Judg 3:28; 12:5: fords)50 and the Jordan river (Judg 7:1–8:3; esp. 7:24–25) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land of Joseph being blessed with the water reservoir which lies below (Deut 33:13c). The tribes of Naphtali, Asher, and Ephraim are also incorporated in this account (Judg 7:23–8:3). The particular motif of saying before the battle that whoever is fearful and anxious should return (‫ *ישב‬+ ‫ ירא‬+ ‫מי‬: Judg 7:3) was borrowed from Deut 20:8.51 The subsequent account of Gideon going eastward (Judg 8:4.10–11), defeating the people of the east (Judg 8:10.12), returning from the ascent of ‘the sun’

47 Cf. R. G. Boling, Judges: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 6A; Doubleday: New York 1975), 141; L. A. Dietch, Authority and Violence in the Gideon and Abimelech Narratives: A Sociological and Literary Exploration of Judges 6–9 (HBM 75; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2015), 79; J. M. Sasson, Judges 1–12, 350. 48 Cf. B. G. Webb, Judges, 241. 49 Cf. ibid. 243. 50 Cf. G. Rizzi, Giudici: Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (LBPT 7; Paoline: Milano 2012), 255; D. Dziadosz, Księga Sędziów: Wstęp, przekład z oryginału, komentarz, vol. 2, Rozdziały 6 – 12 (NKBST 7/2; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2019), 114–115. Pace I. Finkelstein and O. Lipschits, ‘Geographical and Historical Observations on the old North Israelite Gideon tale in Judges,’ ZAW 129 (2017) 1–18 (esp. 7 n. 30), who do not note this difference. 51 Pace S. Germany, ‘Die Bearbeitung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes im Lichte biblischer Erzählungen,’ ZAW 131 (2019) 43–57 (esp. 48), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

196

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

(Heres: Judg 8:13; cf. 14:18),52 and punishing disloyal people with the thorns of the presumably sun-burnt wilderness (Judg 8:4–17; esp.  8:7.16) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land of Joseph being blessed with the produce of the sun (Deut 33:14a). The subsequent account of Gideon killing his enemies as well as taking the precious moons and neck-chains which were hanging on the necks of their camels (Judg 8:21.26)53 as well as the golden rings, earrings, and neck-pendants which the Israelites threw into his garment (Judg 8:18–28; esp. 8:24–26) by reference to their shape illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land of Joseph being blessed with the precious things thrust of the moons (Deut 33:14b). The subsequent story of Abimelech from Shechem, Jotham standing on the top of the mountain (‫ )ראש הר‬of Gerizim (Judg 9:7), the citizens of Shechem setting men in ambush against Abimelech on the tops of the mountains (*‫ראש‬ *‫*הר‬: Judg 9:25), Abimelech and his people lying in wait against Shechem in four tops/units (‫ראש‬: Judg 9:34), Gaal saying that people come down from the tops of the mountains (*‫)ראש* *הר‬, but in fact seeing the shadows of the mountains (‫הר‬: Judg 8:29–9:36; esp. 9:36) conceptually and linguistically, in a way which is critical of uncontrolled Israelite monarchy (cf. Deut 17:14–20), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land of Joseph being blessed with the top of the ancient mountains (Deut 33:15a). The particular motif of a positive character from the tribe of Joseph standing on Mount Gerizim (‫ הר־גרזים‬+ ‫עמד‬: Judg 9:7) was borrowed from Deut 27:12. The subsequent idea of Gaal saying that people come down from the elevated navel of the earth (Judg 9:37–40; esp.  9:37)54 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land of Joseph being blessed with the prehistoric hills (Deut 33:15b). The subsequent account of Abimelech (a) not killing his enemy (Judg 9:41)55 and (b) laying branches of wood, presumably of buckthorn/bramble (cf. Judg 9:15),56 on his shoulder (Judg 9:41–49; esp.  9:48)57 sequentially illustrates the 5 2 Cf. G. Rizzi, Giudici, 260; R. D. Nelson, Judges, 159. 53 Cf. W. Groß, Richter, 454, 459; D. Dziadosz, Sędziów, vol. 2, 136, 148. 54 Cf. G. Rizzi, Giudici, 295 n. 143; B. G. Webb, Judges, 285; D. Dziadosz, Sędziów, vol. 2, 215. 55 Cf. E. A. Knauf, Richter, 113; J.-M. Carman, ‘Abimelech the manly man? Judges 9.1–57 and the performance of hegemonic masculinity,’ JSOT 43.3 (2019) 301–316 (esp. 307). 56 Cf. D. Janzen, ‘Gideon’s House as the ‫אטד‬: A Proposal for Reading Jotham’s Fable,’ CBQ 74 (2012) 465–475 (esp. 475); B. G. Webb, Judges, 291; L. A. Dietch, Authority, 133. 57 Cf. B. G. Webb, Judges, 291.

Judg 10–18 (cf. Deut 33:18–25)

197

subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land of Joseph being blessed with (a) the favour of (b) the inhabitant of a bush (Deut 33:16ab). The subsequent account of (a) a woman throwing a movable millstone58 (b) on the head (‫ )ראש‬of Abimelech and (c) crushing his skull (Judg 9:50–55; esp. 9:53) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land of Joseph being blessed with (a) what comes (fem.) (b) on the head of Joseph, (c) on his skull (Deut 33:16c). The subsequent idea of God repaying Abimelech for killing his brothers (‫אחיו‬: Judg 9:56) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Joseph being the prince among his brothers (Deut 33:16d). The concluding idea of God repaying the wickedness of the inhabitants of Shechem on their heads (Judg 9:57) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of a firstborn bull, and his horns being the horns of a wild bull, with which he gores peoples, with reference to Ephraim and Manasseh (Deut 33:17).

3.4. Judg 10–18 (cf. Deut 33:18–25) The section Judg 10–18 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 33:18–25. The opening idea of (a) the ‘crimson-worm’ Tola,59 son of the ‘red-dye’ Puah,60 a man of Issachar (‫יששכר‬: Judg 10:1), (b) dwelling and being buried in the ‘diamond’ Shamir (Judg 10:1–2) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way, probably with the use of the motif of Tyrian purple, illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Zebulun and Issachar sucking the affluence of the seas and (b) the treasures hidden in the sand (Deut 33:18–19). The subsequent story of Jair the Transjordanian Gileadite (‫גלעדי‬: Judg 10:3), his sons having thirty donkeys and then a region of thirty cities61 in the land of Gilead (‫גלעד‬: Judg 10:4; diff. Deut 3:14: Bashan), thereafter the Israelites serving the gods of the large, fivefold territory including Aram, Sidon, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia (Judg 10:6),62 the enemies oppressing Gilead (‫גלעד‬: Judg 10:8), and a yet larger group of seven peoples including the Egyptians, the Amorites, the

58 Cf. D. I. Block, Judges, Ruth, 333; J. M. Sasson, Judges 1–12, 400; D. Dziadosz, Sędziów, vol. 2, 227. 59 Cf. G. Rizzi, Giudici, 311 n. 46; J. M. Sasson, Judges 1–12, 409; R. D. Nelson, Judges, 195. 60 Cf. G. Rizzi, Giudici, 311 n. 47; J. M. Sasson, Judges 1–12, 409. 61 The wordplay with the noun ‫ עירים‬in Judg 10:4 suggests a progression from thirty rural, local-scale donkeys (‫ )עירים‬to the large region of thirty cities (‫)עירים‬. 62 Cf. B. G. Webb, Judges, 301.

198

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

Ammonites, the Philistines, the Sidonians, the Amalekites, and the Maonites oppressing the Israelites, and Yahweh delivering the Israelites from them (Judg 10:3–16; esp. 10:11–12) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of saying to Gad (‫ )גד‬that blessed is he who enlarges the Transjordanian Gad (‫גד‬: Deut 33:20).63 The subsequent account of (a) the people and the princes of Gilead looking for head (‫ )ראש‬over all the inhabitants of Gilead (Judg 10:18), and (b) Jephthah the Gileadite, begotten by Gilead, being offered by the elders of Gilead the position of decision-maker (Judg 11:1–6), and (c) the people (‫עם‬: Judg 11:11) making him head (‫ראש‬: Judg 11:8–9.11) over them (Judg 10:17–11:11) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Gad looking for the head part (*‫)ראש‬, (b) having the portion of a decreemaker, and (c) coming at the head of the people (Deut 33:21a–c). The subsequent account of Jephthah conducting negotiations in a righteous way,64 with reference to the actions of Yahweh (Judg 11:23–24)65 and to Yahweh being the judge (Judg 11:27),66 as well as the spirit of Yahweh being upon Jephthah (Judg 11:12–29; esp. 11:29),67 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Gad pursuing the righteousness of Yahweh (Deut 33:21d). The particular motif of sending messengers to an enemy king with peaceful words, saying (‫ לאמר‬+ ‫ מלך‬+ ‫ אל־‬+ ‫ מלאכים‬+ ‫ו*שלח‬: Judg 11:12), was borrowed from Deut 2:26. The motif of the Israelites taking the land in Transjordan from the Arnon to the Jordan (‫ הירדן‬+ ‫ ארנון‬+ ‫ מן‬+ *‫ את־*ארצ‬+ ‫לקח‬: Judg 11:13) was borrowed from Deut 3:8. The motif of Israel not taking the land of Moab or the land of the sons of Ammon (‫ ארץ בני עמון‬+ ‫את־ארץ מואב‬: Judg 11:15) was borrowed from Deut 2:9.37 etc. The motif of Israel sending messengers to Sihon, king of Heshbon, saying, ‘Let us pass through your land to my place,’ Sihon not letting Israel pass through but coming with his people to Jahaz to fight, Yahweh Israel’s

63 The correspondence between Gilead in the book of Judges and Gad in the book of Deuteronomy was earlier present in Judg 5:17. 64 Cf. S. Niditch, Judges: A Commentary (OTL; Westminster John Knox: Louisville · London 2008), 132–133. 65 Cf. B. G. Webb, Judges, 320–321. 66 Cf. ibid. 316, 324. 67 The syntactically isolated statement concerning the presence of the spirit of Yahweh upon Jephthah (Judg 11:29a) does not necessarily limit this influence to the military activity of the judge; pace D. Dziadosz, ‘The Spirit of YHWH as the Charism of the PreMonarchic Liberators of Israel and the Theological Symbol of God’s Salvific Activity in the Book of Judges,’ BPT 11 (2018) 463–493 (esp. 484).

Judg 10–18 (cf. Deut 33:18–25)

199

God giving him to Israel, and the Israelites defeating him and taking possession of the land from the Arnon (‫ *עברה‬+ ‫ אמר‬+ ‫ מלך חשבון‬+ ‫ אל־סיחון‬+ ‫ מלאכים‬+ ‫ו*שלח‬ ‫ נכה‬+ *‫ ויתנ* יהוה אלהי‬+ ‫ *לחם‬+ ‫ *יהצה‬+ ‫ כל־עמו‬+ ‫ ב‬+ ‫ עבר‬+ ‫ סיחון‬+ ‫ ולא‬+ ‫ עד‬+ ‫ בארצך‬+ ‫ ארנון‬+ ‫ מן‬+: Judg 11:19–22) was borrowed from Deut 2:26–27.29–30.32–33.36. The subsequent account of Jephthah doing (‫עשה‬: Judg 11:36–37.39) the vow which he made to Yahweh (Judg 11:30–40), with the likely use of the Greek motif of sacrificing Iphigenia in Aulis before the war against the Trojans or similar Greek motifs of daughters volunteering themselves as sacrifices to ensure military success,68 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Gad doing the righteousness of Yahweh (Deut 33:21e). The subsequent account of Jephthah and all the men of Gilead punishing the men of Ephraim (Judg 12:1–6), and Jephthah the Gileadite judging (‫ )שפט‬Israel (‫ישראל‬: Judg 12:1–7; esp. 12:7) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Gad’s judgements (‫ )משפט‬being with Israel (Deut 33:21f). The following accounts concerning three ‘minor’ leaders: Ibzan from Bethlehem, presumably in Zebulun (cf. Josh 19:15),69 judging (‫ )שפט‬Israel (‫ישראל‬: Judg 12:8–10); Elon the Zebulunite judging (‫ )שפט‬Israel (‫ישראל‬: Judg 12:11–12); and Abdon from Ephraim judging (‫ )שפט‬Israel (‫ישראל‬: Judg 12:8–15; esp. 12:13–15) further illustrate the Deuteronomic idea of judgements (‫משפט‬ plur.) being with Israel (Deut 33:21f). In fact, remarks concerning the tribes of Zebulun (Judg 4:6.10; 5:14.18; 6:35) and Ephraim (Judg 4:5; 5:14; 7:24–8:3; 12:1–6) were already earlier included in the book of Judges. It should be noted that Joshua–Judges quite naturally refers to the Zebulunite Bethlehem as simply ‘Bethlehem’ (Josh 19:15; Judg 12:8.10),70 whereas it always specifically explains the name of the Judaean one as ‘Bethlehem in Judah’ (Judg

68 Cf. T. Römer, ‘Why Would the Deuteronomists Tell about the Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter?,’ JSOT 77 (1998) 27–38 (esp. 33–36); M. Bauks, Jephtas Tochter: Traditions-, religions- und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zu Richter 11,29–40 (FAT 71; Mohr Siebeck:  Tübingen 2010), 59–62, 156–157; L.  A.  S.  Monroe, ‘Disembodied Women:  Sacrificial Language and the Deaths of Bath-Jephthah, Cozbi, and the Bethlehemite Concubine,’ CBQ 75 (2013) 32–52 (esp. 38–39). 69 Cf. G. Rizzi, Giudici, 344; N. Moskowitz, ‘Judge Ibzan of Bethlehem: Judah or Zebulun? Peshat and Derash,’ JBQ 43 (2015) 154–157 (esp. 155–157); D. Dziadosz, Sędziów, vol. 2, 437–438. 70 The book of Joshua mentions no other Bethlehem than the one in Zebulun (Josh 19:15).

200

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

17:7–9; 19:1–2.18).71 This fact implies an Israelite (northern) orientation of the author of the book of Judges.72 The subsequent story of (a) Manoah from the clan of the Danites (*‫דנ‬: Judg 13:2; cf. 13:25) (b) begetting the youth73 Samson (Judg 13:3–25; esp. 13:5.7– 8.12.24: ‫)נער‬, who was related to (c) a young lion (*‫ארי‬: Judg 13:1–14:18; esp. 14:5.8–9.18), with the likely use of Greek Heraclean and other motifs,74 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Dan being (b) a cub of (c) a lion (Deut 33:22ab). The particular motif of a barren woman, who did not bear children, bearing a son (‫ בן‬+ ‫עקרה *לא ילדה‬: Judg 13:2–3) could have been borrowed from Isa 54:1. The motif of, behold, a non-bearing woman conceiving and bearing a son (*‫הנ‬ ‫ הרה וילדת בן‬+: Judg 13:5.7) was borrowed from Isa 7:14. The motif of a Nazirite not drinking wine (‫ נזיר‬+ ‫יין‬: Judg 13:4–5) could have been borrowed from Amos 2:12. The subsequent account of Samson violently attacking the Philistines in lonely raids (Judg 14:19–16:31)75 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Dan violently leaping forth from Bashan (Deut 33:22c). The fact that the Judahites betrayed the Israelite leader Samson and handed him over to the Philistines (Judg 15:10–13)76 suggests that the book of Judges is an Israelite (northern) work, and not a Judaean one. 7 1 Cf. G. T. K. Wong, Compositional, 239. 72 This fact is difficult to explain on the assumption of Judaean origin of the book of Judges; cf. D. Z. Moster, ‘The Levite of Judges 17–18,’ JBL 133 (2014) 727–739 (esp. 732 n. 9). 73 Cf. ibid. 732 n. 6. Cf. also J. S. Kaminsky, ‘Reflections,’ 425; S. M. Wilson, ‘Samson the Man-Child: Failing to Come of Age in the Deuteronomistic History,’ JBL 133 (2014) 43–60 (esp. 50). 74 Cf. D. Merkur, ‘Biblical Terrorism,’ in D. Daschke and A. Kille (eds.), A Cry Instead of Justice: The Bible and Cultures of Violence in Psychological Perspective (LHBOTS 499; T&T Clark: New York · London 2010), 55–79 (esp. 59–61); R. Gnuse, ‘Samson and Heracles Revisited,’ SJOT 32 (2018) 1–19 (esp. 4–17). The use of Heraclean motifs to characterize the half-pagan Danite hero may originate from the identification of the neighbouring, Tyrian deity Melqart with the Greek Heracles; for the latter identification, see C. Cornell, ‘What happened to Kemosh?,’ ZAW 128 (2016) 284–299 (esp. 296). 75 Cf. S. Gillmayr-Bucher, ‘A Hero Ensnared in Otherness? Literary Images of Samson,’ in E. Eynikel and T. Nicklas (eds.), Samson: Hero or Fool? The Many Faces of Samson (TBN 17; Brill:  Leiden · Boston 2014), 33–51 (esp.  34); S.  M.  Wilson, ‘Samson,’ 52–53. 76 Cf. G.  T.  K.  Wong, ‘Is There a Direct Pro-Judah Polemic in Judges?,’ SJOT 19 (2005) 84–110 (esp. 106); G. Oeste, ‘Butchered,’ 305; F. Landy, ‘Between Centre and

Judg 10–18 (cf. Deut 33:18–25)

201

The image of the paganization of the Danite Nazirite (Judg 13–16) conveys the idea of criticism against the separatist, northern sanctuary in Dan. Such criticism, most probably arising from cultic rivalry, is much more plausible for the central tribe of Joseph, who argued for the location of the pan-Israelite sanctuary at Shechem, than for the distant tribe of Judah, who argued for its location in the southern city of Jerusalem and had almost no contact with the northern sanctuary in Dan. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated77 story of (a) the mother saying (‫ )אמר‬to Micah from the tribe of Ephraim (Judg 17:2–3), in the book of Judges closely related to the tribe of Naphtali (cf. Judg 4:6.10; 5:18), that (b) he is blessed by Yahweh (‫ *יהוה‬+ ‫ברוך‬: Judg 17:2) because he resolved to return eleven hundred pieces of silver to her,78 and (c) Micah filling (‫ )ו*מלא‬the hand of one of his sons and then of a Levite to make him priest (Judg 17:5.12),79 so that (d) it would go well with Micah (e) thanks to Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: Judg 17; esp. 17:13), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) saying to Naphtali that (b) he is satiated with favour and (c) filled with (d) the blessing (‫ )ברכה‬of (e) Yahweh (Deut 33:23). The particular motif of making a divine image and a cast image (‫עש * פסל‬ ‫ומסכה‬: Judg 17:3–4) was borrowed from Deut 27:15. The motif of ephod and teraphim (‫אפוד ותרפים‬: Judg 17:5) was borrowed from Hos 3:4. The motif of filling the hand to consecrate (‫ יד‬+ ‫מלא‬: Judg 17:5.12) was borrowed from Ezek 43:26. The subsequent story of (a) a priest saying (‫ )אמר‬to the men of the northern tribe of Dan that (b) prosperous and agreeable to Yahweh is their way (c) on which (‫ )אשר‬they go (Judg 18:1–6; esp. 18:5–6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) saying to the northern tribe of Asher that (b) blessed among the sons is (c) Asher (‫אשר‬: Deut 33:24ab).

Periphery: Space and Gender in the Book of Judges in the Early Second Temple Period,’ in E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin (eds.), Centres and Peripheries in the Early Second Temple Period (FAT 108; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 133–162 (esp. 137 n. 14). 77 Cf. B. G. Webb, Judges, 423; J. Zsengellér, ‘Forgiveness as an Exegetical Solution: A Short Note on Judges 17,1–5,’ BN, nf 159 (2013) 9–26. 78 Cf. S.  Gillmayr-Bucher, Erzählte, 197; D.  J.  H.  Beldman, The Completion of Judges: Strategies of Ending in Judges 17–21 (SLTHS 21; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2016), 106–107. 79 Cf. T. C. Butler, Judges, 382; W. Groß, Richter, 774; B. G. Webb, Judges, 425.

202

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

The subsequent account of (a) the Danite men seeing quiet and safe people (Judg 18:7), (b) coming to their brothers (*‫)אחי‬, and their brothers (*‫ )אחי‬asking them (Judg 18:7–8; esp. 18:8) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Asher being favoured (b) among his brothers (Deut 33:24c). The subsequent idea of the Danites seeing a very good and broad land, a place where there is no lack of anything that is on the earth (Judg 18:9–10),80 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Asher dipping his foot in fat, that is, rich food (Deut 33:24d). The concluding idea of (a) six hundred men of the clan of the Danites girded with weapons of war going on a long military raid (Judg 18:11–29),81 and (b) legitimate82 Mosaic83 priests serving there until the day (‫ )יום‬of the exile of the land (Judg 18:30) and all the days (‫)יום‬, presumably also until the exile (cf. Jer 7:12 etc.), of (c) the house of God being in Shiloh (Judg 18:11–31; esp. 18:31) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Asher’s shoes being iron and bronze, and (b) as long as his days being (c) his strength (Deut 33:25). The narrative characterization of the sanctuary in Dan as pagan in its character (Judg 17–18)84 conveys the idea of criticism against this separatist sanctuary.85

8 0 Cf. B. G. Webb, Judges, 435. 81 Cf. R. Ryan, ‘Three Tales of Three Cities in the Book of Judges,’ ExpTim 126 (2015) 578–585 (esp. 582). 82 The name Gershom (‫גרשם‬: Judg 18:30) has its etymology in Deut 18:6; Judg 17:7 (‫גר‬ ‫)שם‬, referring to Levites legitimately dwelling as aliens among other Israelite tribes. 83 For the reading ‘Moses’ (‫ )משה‬as original in Judg 18:30 (later witnessed in Exod 2:21– 22; 18:2–3), see T. C. Butler, Judges, 371; W. Groß, Richter, 754, 793; A. Shinan and Y. Zakovitch, From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths & Legends, trans. V. Zakovitch (Jewish Publication Society: Philadelphia 2012), 125–126. 84 Cf. J. Lübbe, ‘The Danite Invasion of Laish and the Purpose of the Book of Judges,’ OTE 23 (2010) 681–692 (esp. 685–686); A. Shinan and Y. Zakovitch, From Gods, 121–122; R. D. Nelson, Judges, 294. 85 Cf. Y.  Amit, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative, trans. J.  Chipman (BibInt 25; Brill:  Leiden · Boston · Köln 2000), 99–109; Amit, ‘Epoch and Genre:  The Sixth Century and the Growth of Hidden Polemics,’ in O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2003), 135–151 (esp. 141); M. E. Biddle, Reading Judges: A Literary and Theological Commentary (ROT; Smyth & Helwys: Macon, GA 2012), 180–181.

Judg 19–21 (cf. Deut 33:26–34:12)

203

3.5. Judg 19–21 (cf. Deut 33:26–34:12) The concluding section Judg 19–21 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding concluding section Deut 33:26–34:12. The opening story of (a) there being no (‫ )אין‬king in Israel (Judg 19:1), but without the remark that everyone did what was right (‫ )ישר‬in his eyes (diff. Judg 17:6; 21:25),86 there being no one (‫ )אין‬to receive the wanderer in his house (Judg 19:15.18),87 the men of Gibeah committing an outrage (Judg 19:22–28),88 and (b) the assembly of the Israelite people of God (*‫אל‬: Judg 20:2; diff. 5:11: Yahweh)89 judging that this was an infamy, a grave sin, and wickedness in Israel (Judg 19:1– 20:17; esp. 19:29–20:13) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) there being no one like (b) God of the ‘upright’ Jeshurun (*‫ישר‬: Deut 33:26). The particular motif of a wife committing fornication,90 and her husband speaking to her heart to make her return (‫ שוב‬+ ‫ דבר* על־לבה‬+ ‫זנה‬: Judg 19:2–3) was borrowed from Hos 2:7.9.16. On the other hand, the image of the sinful, unfaithful woman from the tribe of Judah (‫יהודה‬: Judg 19:1–2) coming to Gibeah in Benjamin (‫בוא‬: Judg 19:14–15; 20:4), coming to an Ephraimite host (‫בוא‬: Judg 19:21–23), coming to her Ephraimite master (‫בוא‬: Judg 19:26; cf. 19:3–9), having her hands desperately extended on the threshold (*‫ידי‬: Judg 19:27), and in her limbs coming to the twelve tribes of the people of God (‫עם‬: Judg 20:2.8) in a gruesome way alludes to the Deuteronomic wish that Judah should come to his people, and his hands should struggle for him (Deut 33:7). The motif of the men of uselessness (‫אנשי* בני־בליעל‬: Judg 19:22) was borrowed from Deut 13:14.91 The motif of removing evil from Israel (‫בער* *רע* מישראל‬: Judg 20:13) was borrowed from Deut 17:12; 22:22.92 The fact that a Judahite concubine from Bethlehem in Judah acted as a prostitute and betrayed her Levitical, Ephraimite husband, going away from him to 8 6 Cf. D. J. H. Beldman, Completion, 115. 87 Cf. S.  Schulz, Die Anhänge zum Richterbuch:  Eine kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Ri 17–21 (BZAW 477; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2016), 35. 88 Cf. K. Southwood, ‘ “This Man Has Come into My House”: Hospitality in Genesis 19; 34; and Judges 19,’ BibInt 26 (2018) 469–484 (esp. 476). 89 Cf. T. C. Butler, Judges, 441. 90 Cf. I. Hamley, ‘What’s Wrong with “Playing the Harlot”? The Meaning of ‫ זנה‬in Judges 19:2,’ TynBul 66 (2015) 41–62 (esp. 53). 91 Cf. C. Edenburg, Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19–21 (AIL 24; SBL: Atlanta, GA 2016), 236, 239. 92 Cf. ibid. 242–243.

204

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

her father’s house in, as it is repeatedly stressed, Bethlehem in Judah (Judg 19:1– 2.18), even though her husband, like the Israelite prophet Hosea, loved her and wanted to persuade her to come back to him by speaking tenderly to her heart (Judg 19:1–3; cf. Hos 2:7–16),93 and an Ephraimite received them at home (Judg 19:16–21) strongly suggests that the book of Judges is an Ephraimite work, and not a Judaean one. Moreover, the same story first refers to Jerusalem with the totally artificial name ‘Jebus,’ which suggests its pagan identity, and only later with its traditional name ‘Jerusalem’ (Judg 19:10). Thereafter, the narrative contains the pagan name ‘Jebus’ and then the descriptive, derogatory reference ‘this city of the Jebusites’ (Judg 19:11). Accordingly, the pagan name Jebus is used at beginning of the account, and it is used three times. As a result, the reader cannot avoid the impression that this city is entirely pagan. This impression is further confirmed by the following reference to Jerusalem as a place which should be avoided because it is ‘a city of foreigners, who are not of the sons of Israel’ (Judg 19:12). Accordingly, the overall presentation of Jerusalem in this story is strongly negative. Jerusalem is described as a pagan, non-Israelite city, which should be avoided by faithful Israelites. On the other hand, the story localizes the house of Yahweh in the remote parts of the mountains of Ephraim (Judg 19:18). This fact further implies that the book of Judges is an Ephraimite work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent, thrice repeated account of (a) the Israelites going up to Bethel, that is, the house of (b) God (‫*אל‬: Judg 20:18.26)94 to inquire of God (‫אלהים‬: Judg 20:18.27; diff. 1:1: Yahweh)95 (c) who should go up first to battle against the Benjaminites (Judg 20:18), so that (d) Yahweh said (‫ויאמר‬: Judg 20:18.23.28) that (e) Judah should go up first (Judg 20:18), presumably to destroy (‫שמד‬: cf. Judg 21:16) them (Judg 20:18–28), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the dwelling of (b) the ancient God, (c) who drives out the enemy and (d) who said, (e) ‘Destroy!’ (Deut 33:27).96 The motif of the Israelites coming to Bethel and weeping there, thus imploring and finding the favour of Yahweh (‫ שם‬+ ‫ בכה‬+ ‫בית־אל‬: Judg 20:26–28), was borrowed from Hos 12:5. 9 3 94 95 96

Cf. S. Frolov, Judges, 324–326. Cf. D. I. Block, Judges, Ruth, 558. Cf. W. Groß, Richter, 856. Accordingly, the image of Yahweh (Judg 20:28.35), and not simply Judah (Judg 20:18) or the men of Israel (Judg 20:22.24), as defeating the Benjaminites (Judg 20:29–48) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being the main agent destroying Israel’s enemies (Deut 33:27). Cf. somewhat differently R. Ryan, Judges, 158–159.

Judg 19–21 (cf. Deut 33:26–34:12)

205

The image of Judah as leading a failed attempt to destroy its weaker neighbours, the Benjaminites (Judg 20:18; diff. 1:1–2:  Canaanites),97 with no divine promise of success (Judg 20:18; diff. 1:2),98 probably reflects the post-exilic Israelite (northern) view of Judah as attempting to control the territory of the tribe of Benjamin.99 However, the author of Joshua–Judges regarded the territory of Benjamin as at least historically related to Samaria, and not to Judah (Judg 3:15.27; 4:5; 5:14).100 97 Cf. G.  T.  K.  Wong, ‘Is There,’ 102–105; M.  Avioz, ‘The Role and Significance of Jebus in Judges 19,’ BZ, nf 51 (2007) 249–256 (esp. 251); D. Janzen, The Necessary King: A Postcolonial Reading of the Deuteronomistic Portrait of the Monarchy (HBM 57; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2013), 121–122. 98 Cf. J.  S.  Kaminsky, ‘Reflections,’ 413, 418; M.  J.  Boda, ‘Recycling Heaven’s Words: Receiving and Retrieving Divine Revelation in the Historiography of Judges,’ in M. J. Boda and L. M. Wray Beal (eds.), Prophets, Prophecy, and Ancient Israelite Historiography (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2013), 43–67 (esp. 61); S. GillmayrBucher, Erzählte, 241 n. 562. 99 Cf. B. D. Giffone, ‘ “Israel’s” Only Son? The complexity of Benjaminite identity between Judah and Joseph,’ OTE 32 (2019) 956–972 (esp. 960–961). The Judaean lists Ezra 2:1.21–35; Neh 7:6.26–38 present inhabitants of Judah from Benjaminite (with the possible exceptions of the uncertainly located Netophah as well as Bethlehem) cities, which at least partly, especially Lod, Hadid, and Ono (Ezra 2:33; Neh 7:37), probably never belonged to the post-exilic province of Judah; cf. R. Rothenbusch, “… abgesondert zur Tora Gottes hin”: Ethnisch-religiöse Identitäten im Esra/Nehemiabuch (HeBS 70; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2012), 93–94; É. Nodet, ‘Édom, c’est l’Idumée! Le rejet littéraire d’Édom hors de Juda,’ RB 126 (2019) 161–206 (esp. 169). In fact, Neh 11:31–36 (esp. 11:36) suggests that the post-exilic Judaean efforts to control the territory of Benjamin were not entirely successful. It should be noted that the earlytypes Yehud stamp impressions are almost absent from the district of Mizpah; cf. O. Lipschits and D. S. Vanderhooft, The Yehud Stamp Impressions: A Corpus of Inscribed Impressions from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Judah (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2011), 15; O. Lipschits, ‘The Rural Economy of Judah during the Persian Period and the Settlement History of the District System,’ in M. L. Miller, E. Ben Zvi, and G. N. Knoppers (eds.), The Economy of Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2015), 237–264 (esp. 258). This fact raises the question whether this area was included in Yehud; cf. I. Finkelstein, ‘The Territorial Extent and Demography of Yehud/Judea in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods,’ RB 117 (2010) 39–54 (esp. 43). It can therefore be argued that in the post-exilic period the territory of Benjamin was at least partly not included in the province of Judah; cf. id., ‘Saul,’ 351. 100 Cf. I. Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel (ANEM 5; SBL: Atlanta, GA 2013), 46–47 (interpreting these texts as reflecting the pre-exilic period).

206

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly composed101 account of (a) Israel (‫ )ישראל‬hiding men in ambush, fleeing from the Benjaminites, giving ground to them (Judg 20:29–36c), (b) having confidence (‫בטח‬: Judg 20:36d; diff. Josh 8:18–19) in (c) those in ambush, which they set (Judg 20:36e), and (d) those in ambush rushing out to (‫ )אל‬Gibeah (Judg 20:29–37; esp. 20:37) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel dwelling (b) in confidence, (c) alone, (d) to a land of grain and wine (Deut 33:28a–c). The subsequent idea of the men in ambush making a column of smoke towards the heaven (‫שמים‬: Judg 20:38–40; esp. 20:40) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the heaven making a cloud of dew (Deut 33:28d). The subsequent idea of the men of Israel (‫ישראל‬: Judg 20:41) turning round and destroying the horrified and surrounded Benjaminites (Judg 20:41–43a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being happy and saved by Yahweh, and his enemies feigning submission to him (Deut 33:29a–e). The subsequent idea of (a) the men of Israel pursuing Benjamin in a resting place102 and (b) treading him (‫דרך‬: Judg 20:43a–c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that (a) upon the enemies’ high places (b) Israel shall tread (Deut 33:29f). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites reaching as far as (‫ )עד‬the front of a city, (b) from the east103 (Judg 20:43c; diff. Josh 8:24), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses seeing all the land as far as Dan, as far as (b) the Western/Rear Sea (Deut 34:1–2). The subsequent idea of some Benjaminites fleeing to the wilderness, to the rock of Rimmon (Judg 20:45.47), so presumably to the Negeb (‫נגב‬: Judg 20:44– 47; cf. Josh 15:21.32; 19:7–8), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses seeing the Negeb (Deut 34:3). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites striking the Benjaminites from the city (‫( )עיר‬b) as far as (‫ )עד‬the animals and as far as (‫ )עד‬all that was found, and (a’)

101 Cf. C. Edenburg, Dismembering, 37–43; S. Schulz, Anhänge, 85–88; N. Na’aman, ‘The Battle of Gibeah Reconsidered (Judges 20:29–48),’ VT 68 (2018) 102–110 (esp. 103). 102 Cf. G. Rizzi, Giudici, 486. 103 Pace C.  Edenburg, Dismembering, 47–48, who suggests the reverse direction of movement.

Judg 19–21 (cf. Deut 33:26–34:12)

207

setting fire to all the cities (‫ )עיר‬which they discovered (Judg 20:48) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses seeing (a) Jericho, the city of palm trees, (b) as far as the ‘little’ Zoar (Deut 34:3). The subsequent idea of (a) the men of Israel swearing (*‫ )נשבע‬that (b) an Israelite will not (‫( )לא‬c) give (‫ )נתן‬his daughter (d) to (‫ )ל‬Benjamin (Judg 21:1) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh showing to Moses the land of which he swore to the fathers that (d) to their descendants (c) he will give it, but (b) Moses will not cross over to it (Deut 34:4). The subsequent idea of the people coming to the sacred place of Beth-el (*‫בית‬: Judg 21:2a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses dying, and the Israelites burying him opposite Beth-peor (Deut 34:5–6a; esp. 34:6a). The subsequent idea of the people remaining there to (‫ )עד‬the sunset before God (Judg 21:2b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of no one knowing Moses’ grave to this day (Deut 34:6b). The subsequent idea of the people (a) raising (b) their voice (Judg 21:2c) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the not departing of (b) his, that is, Moses’ vigour (Deut 34:7). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites weeping (‫( )ויבכו‬b) with a great weeping (‫בכי‬: Judg 21:2d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites weeping for Moses (b) thirty days, and the days of the weeping being completed (Deut 34:8ab). The subsequent idea of the Israelites lamenting over one tribe (Judg 21:3) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites mourning for Moses (Deut 34:8b). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of the people, like earlier Joshua (cf. Deut 27:5–7; Josh 8:30–31), building there an altar to Yahweh (diff. Judg 20:26: already existed)104 and offering burnt offerings and peace offerings (Judg 21:4) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Joshua being Moses’ successor (Deut 34:9ab). The subsequent idea of (a) the sons of Israel (‫ ;בני ישראל‬diff. Judg 21:4: people) (b) coming to (‫ )אל‬Yahweh (Judg 21:5; cf. 20:1–2), and (a’) the sons of Israel (‫( )בני ישראל‬b’) feeling compassion to (‫ )אל‬Benjamin (Judg 21:5–6; esp. 21:6)

104 Cf. D. I. Block, Judges, Ruth, 571 n. 372; T. C. Butler, Judges, 456.

208

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the sons of Israel (b) listening to Joshua (Deut 34:9c). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites asking what they should do (‫)עשה‬ because (b) they swore by Yahweh (Judg 21:7) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites doing (b) just as Yahweh commanded (Deut 34:9de). The subsequent idea of the Israelites asking (d’) which one from the tribes of Israel (‫( )ישראל‬a’) did not (‫ )לא‬come up to Yahweh, and stating that (a) there did not (‫( )לא‬b) come (c) a man (d) to the camp from Jabesh-gilead to the assembly, presumably of all the tribes of Israel (Judg 21:8; cf. 20:1–2; 21:5), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that (a) there did not (b) arise (c) a prophet ever since (d) in Israel (Deut 34:10a). The subsequent idea of (a) carefully looking at the people, and (b) noting that there was no one from Jabesh-gilead (Judg 21:9) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh knowing Moses face to face, and (b) making all signs (Deut 34:10b–11a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the congregation sending (‫( )*שלחו‬b) the surprisingly great, all-Israelite number of twelve thousand brave men to strike the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead (Judg 21:10)105 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh sending (b) him, that is, Moses, the leader of all Israel, presumably against Egypt (Deut 34:11a). The particular motif of the Israelites striking the inhabitants of a certain region, including the women and children (+ ‫ את־‬+ ‫נכה‬ ‫והנשים והטף‬: Judg 21:10), was borrowed from Deut 2:33–34; 3:3.6. The subsequent idea of commanding the warriors to make (*‫ )*עשו‬utter destruction (Judg 21:11) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of sending Moses to make, presumably destructive wonders (Deut 34:11b; cf. 34:11a). The subsequent, somewhat redundantly formulated idea of bringing virgins to Shiloh, which is in the land (‫ )בארץ‬of Canaan (Judg 21:12; cf. Josh 21:2; 22:9;106 diff. Judg 18:31: no such remark),107 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses doing things in the land of Egypt (Deut 34:11b). The particular motif of a man finding a young virgin who did not know

1 05 Cf. G. Rizzi, Giudici, 491; B. G. Webb, Judges, 499. 106 Cf. D. I. Block, Judges, Ruth, 576; S. Schulz, Anhänge, 112. 107 Cf. B. G. Webb, Judges, 500–501.

Conclusion

209

lying with a men (‫ *שכב‬+ ‫ נערה בתולה אשר לא־‬+ *‫*ימצא‬: Judg 21:12) was borrowed from Deut 22:28.108 The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of (a) the whole congregation announcing peace to (‫ )ל‬the Benjaminites and giving to (‫ )ל‬them the women from Jabesh-gilead, but not finding enough to (‫ )ל‬them, so feeling compassion to (‫ )ל‬them, to (‫ )ל‬the remaining ones, to (‫ )ל‬them, that is, to (‫ )ל‬Benjamin (Judg 21:13–18), and (b) Shiloh being located north to (‫ )ל‬Bethel, east to (‫ )ל‬the track from Bethel to Shechem, and south to (‫ )ל‬Lebonah (Judg 21:13–19; esp. 21:19) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic, likewise repetitively formulated idea of Moses doing things (a) to Pharaoh, to all his servants, and (b) to all his land (Deut 34:11b). The subsequent account of (a) the Benjaminites violently seizing109 and (b) robbing110 women from Shiloh (Judg 21:20–23; esp. 21:21.23) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses acting with a strong hand and (b) causing great terror (Deut 34:12). The concluding idea of (a) the sons of Israel (‫ )ישראל‬departing to their tribes, clans, and inheritances (Judg 21:24), and in those days there being no king in Israel (‫)ישראל‬, so that (b) everyone what was right in his eyes (*‫)*עיני‬, (c) this he did (‫*עשה‬: Judg 21:24–25; esp. 21:25), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (c) Moses doing things (b) in the eyes of (a) all Israel (Deut 34:12).

3.6. Conclusion The analyses presented in the chapters devoted to the books of Joshua and Judges demonstrate that Joshua–Judges can be regarded as one literary work, which is a result of continuous, sequentially arranged, hypertextual reworking of Deuteronomy.111 1 08 Cf. C. Edenburg, Dismembering, 247. 109 Cf. D.  I.  Block, Judges, Ruth, 581; W.  Groß, Richter, 875; M.  E.  Biddle, Reading Judges, 202. 110 Cf. A. Brenner, ‘Women and Men he Created Them: Gender and Ideologies in the Book of Judges,’ in A. Brenner and F. H. Polak (eds.), Words, 20–31 (esp. 23–24); R.  D.  Nelson, Judges, 338; K.  E.  Southwood, Marriage by Capture in the Book of Judges: An Anthropological Approach (SOTSMS, ns 1; Cambridge University: New York 2017), 160–164. 111 For other arguments for the original unity of Joshua–Judges, see C.  Levin, ‘On the Cohesion and Separation of Books within the Enneateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid, Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (AIL 8; SBL: Atlanta 2011), 127–154 (esp. 138–141).

210

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

In contrast to many earlier works on this subject, which merely pointed to the presence of numerous Deuteronomic elements in Joshua–Judges, the abovepresented analyses reveal that there are almost 700 (!)112 sequentially arranged, hypertextual links between Joshua–Judges and Deuteronomy. On average, there is approximately one correspondence per one verse of Joshua (which contains 658 verses), one correspondence per five verses of Judges (which contains 618 verses), one correspondence per two verses of Joshua– Judges taken together (which contain 1276 verses), and one correspondence per one and a half verses of Deuteronomy (which contains 955 verses).113 The corresponding elements usually have a similar size in both works (one clause, one sentence, etc.). However, at times a large portion of material in Joshua–Judges corresponds to a small element in Deuteronomy (Josh 10:28–17:13 illustrating Deut 28:8a; Josh 18:4–19:51 illustrating Deut 28:9a; Josh 20:1–21:42 illustrating Deut 28:9a; Judg 2:10b–3:7 illustrating Deut 33:6; Judg 4 illustrating Deut 33:13a; Judg 5 illustrating Deut 33:13b; Judg 6 illustrating Deut 33:13b; Judg 7:1–8:3 illustrating Deut 33:13c; Judg 8:29–9:36 illustrating Deut 33:15a; Judg 13:1–14:18 illustrating Deut 33:22ab; Judg 14:19–16:31 illustrating Deut 33:22c; Judg 19:1–20:17 illustrating Deut 33:26; etc.). Likewise, at times a small element in Joshua–Judges corresponds to a large portion of material in Deuteronomy (Josh 2:9 illustrating Deut 2:4–4:31; Josh 2:14de illustrating Deut 5:31–6:25; Josh 2:16 illustrating Deut 8; Josh 5:10a illustrating Deut 12:1f–15:23; Josh 5:12d illustrating Deut 16:16–19:21; Josh 7:25e illustrating Deut 21:21c–22:19; Josh 24:27f illustrating Deut 31:27–32:43; etc.). Around 375 of these sequentially arranged correspondences, so more than one-half of them, are not purely conceptual, but they also have some linguistic components.114 These linguistic correspondences often contain stereotypical

112 In fact, I  was able to count 673 correspondences between Joshua–Judges and Deuteronomy which follow a strictly sequential pattern. The book of Joshua contains 551 such correspondences to Deuteronomy, and the book of Judges contains 122 such correspondences. 113 For these verse count totals, see A. Messmer, ‘A Possible Chiastic Center for Primary History (Genesis–2 Kings),’ VT 69 (2019) 232–240 (esp. 238). 114 It is difficult to give even an approximate number of the sequentially arranged linguistic correspondences between Joshua–Judges and Deuteronomy because it is difficult to state what should be counted as linguistically matching between the two works: words, strings of words, verbal roots, or combinations of words, verbal roots, and/or phrases.

Conclusion

211

Deuteronomic language, compositional features, and/or theology, which are widely regarded as convincing by scholars expecting such evident proofs of literary dependence of Joshua–Judges on the book of Deuteronomy. In particular, there are long strings of words which occur in both Joshua– Judges and Deuteronomy in the structurally corresponding sections of both works (‫שני מלכי האמרי אשר בעבר הירדן‬: Josh 2:10 cf. Deut 4:47; *‫לא־*ניף עליה‬ ‫ברזל‬: Josh 8:31 cf. Deut 27:5; etc.). Other, much more numerous, long strings of words occur in various parts of both Joshua–Judges and Deuteronomy (‫כל־*מקום אשר תדרך כף־רגלכם בו לכם‬: Josh 1:3 cf. Deut 11:24; ‫*היה עמך לא ארפה ולא אעזבך‬: Josh 1:5 cf. Deut 31:8; ‫חזק ואמץ כי‬ ‫אתה ת* את־העם הזה א*־הארץ אשר נשבע* לאבותם לתת להם‬: Josh 1:6 cf. Deut 31:7; ‫עד‬ ‫אשר יניח יהוה לאחיכם ככם וירשו גם־המ* את־הארץ אשר יהוה אלהיכם נתן להם‬: Josh 1:15 cf. Deut 3:20; ‫*לכו אחרי אלהים אחרים מאלהי העמים אשר סביבותיהם‬: Judg 2:12 cf. Deut 6:14; etc.). Such long common strings of words also imply direct literary borrowing. As is widely agreed upon in biblical scholarship, the direction of dependence runs from Deuteronomy to Joshua–Judges. On the other hand, the correspondences which are purely linguistic are relatively rare. Some of them occur as wordplays related to geographical names (‫ירד‬ [‘take down’] in Josh 8:29 and ‫‘[ ירדן‬Jordan’] in Deut 27:2; ‫‘[ בנימן‬Benjamin’] in Judg 1:21 and ‫‘[ ימין‬right hand’] in Deut 33:2; ‫‘[ עמם‬with them’] in Judg 1:22 and ‫‘[ עמים‬his peoples’] in Deut 33:3; ‫‘[ גלעד‬Gilead’] in Judg 10:3–4.8 and ‫‘[ גד‬Gad’] in Deut 33:20; etc.). Much more important than these numerous but rarely specific linguistic signs of literary borrowing from Deuteronomy is the fulfilment of the criterion of order. The conceptual and/or linguistic correspondences between Joshua– Judges and Deuteronomy, which are presented in these chapters, occur in both works in the same relative order, and their number reaches 700. Moreover, they cover each work in its entirety, so that the whole work of Joshua–Judges, taken together, from its beginning to its end, sequentially illustrates the whole book of Deuteronomy, from its beginning to its end. Such a very long series of conceptual and/or linguistic correspondences, which follow one another in the same relative order in both complete works, cannot be a result of mere chance or of interpretative subjectivity in detecting similar themes in various fragments of both works. Another important criterion for detecting literary reworking, which is met by the analyses presented in these chapters, is the criterion of explaining numerous somewhat surprising features of Joshua–Judges. These minor, somehow strange elements in Joshua–Judges can be explained as illustrating various ideas contained in Deuteronomy. The strictly sequential, detailed reworking of the ideas

212

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

of Deuteronomy in Joshua–Judges led to the presence of some inconsistencies, ambiguities, strange expressions, and other surprising phenomena in the latter work. For example, in the book of Joshua, the surprising idea of the Israelites making provisions for a journey before coming to Canaan (Josh 1:11) in fact illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites going through the great wilderness before coming to Kadesh Barnea (Deut 1:19). The surprising idea of the Israelite spies not lying down while the woman came to them (Josh 2:8) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites sitting in Kadesh and wandering for many days while Yahweh spoke to Moses (Deut 1:46–2:2). The surprising idea of the woman’s house being in the inside of the wall (Josh 2:15) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite not bringing any abomination to his house (Deut 7:26). The surprising idea of first bringing the spies down (Josh 2:15) and then persuading the Israelites to go to the hills (Josh 2:16) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh bringing Israel to the hills (Deut 8:7.9). The surprising idea of the Canaanite woman having a cord made with a crimson thread (Josh 2:18) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Canaanite nations being great and mighty, so presumably rich (Deut 9:1). The surprising idea of the priests standing in the Jordan for some time (Josh 3:8) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Moses standing in the mountain forty days and forty nights (Deut 10:10). The surprising idea of Joshua taking a great stone and lifting it up under a shadow-giving oak (Josh 24:26) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding concerning the remission of the burden of debt during the ‘leafy’ festival of booths (Deut 31:10). In the book of Judges, the surprising idea of the sons of Benjamin not being able to drive out the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Judg 1:21) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of coming from Yahweh’s right hand (Deut 33:2). The idea of Joshua dying and being gathered to the ancestors (Judg 2:8–10), although he had already died (Judg 1:1), illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the leaders of the people being gathered (Deut 33:5). The account concerning the right-handed Shamgar (Judg 3:31), surprisingly inserted into the story of the left-handed Ehud (Judg 3:15–30; 4:1), illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of dwelling between Benjamin’s two shoulders, presumably the left one and the right one (Deut 33:12). Some of these surprising elements reveal a particular sense of humour of the author of Joshua–Judges. For example, the idea of Joshua doing something early in the morning (Josh 8:10) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of an Israelite going to a toilet place (Deut 23:13–14), presumably early in the morning.

Conclusion

213

According to the analyses presented in these chapters, the division between the allegedly Hexateuchal book of Joshua and the following book of Judges115 is misleading. Likewise misleading is the division of the material of the book of Judges into its core (Judg 2:6–16:31) and its framing sections (Judg 1:1–2:5; 17:1–21:25).116 In Joshua–Judges, there are various repetitions, inconsistencies, changes of literary conventions, style, vocabulary, etc. The author of Joshua– Judges was a gifted author, who modified his style according to his needs in a given fragment of his work. For example, the idea which opens the book of Judges and in a new way continues the narrative thread of the book of Joshua, namely that of the sons of Israel now being without their leader, and therefore hesitantly asking Yahweh who of them should go up as the first one to fight against the Canaanites (Judg 1:1) in fact illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Israel’s leaders acting counter to their duty against Yahweh among the sons of Israel (Deut 32:51). Likewise, the stylistically distinctive set of stories concerning judges representing the Israelite tribes ordered from Judah in the south to Dan in the north (Judg 3:8–18:31) illustrates the set of sayings concerning the Israelite tribes ordered from southeast to north-west (Deut 33:7–25). However, the work of Joshua–Judges in its entirety is a result of one literary-theological project, a systematic reworking of the contents of the book of Deuteronomy. The changes in style and literary conventions in Joshua–Judges result from, among others, additional illustrative use of other materials and phraseology, taken from such different sources as the books of Israelite and Judahite prophets, Greek mythology (mainly used in the parts of the book of Judges which refer to peripheral, ‘unorthodox’ tribes, probably not influenced by the ideas of the Ephraimite book of Deuteronomy), etc. From the theological point of view, one of the most important factors in the reworking of the contents of Deuteronomy in Joshua–Judges is the idea of, on the one hand, making a new, post-Deuteronomic, post-exilic covenant in Josh 24:1–27 and, on the other hand, failing to fulfil it in the story of Judges. Another very important factor in the theological reworking of Deuteronomy in Joshua–Judges is, on the one hand, the elaboration of the Deuteronomic idea

115 See e.g. S. Germany, ‘The Hexateuch Hypothesis: A History of Research and Current Approaches,’ CurBR 16.2 (2018) 131–156 (esp. 139–145). 116 See e.g. S.  Schulz, Anhänge, 207–245; C.  Edenburg, ‘Envelopes and Seams:  How Judges Fits (or not) within the Deuteronomistic History,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams I, 353–369 (esp. 355–363); N. Hays, ‘Family,’ 375–380.

214

Judges as a reworking of Deut 32:51–34:12

of the unified, twelve-tribe Israel in the book of Joshua and, on the other hand, the depiction of its decomposition in the book of Judges, which presents the Israelite tribes as more or less isolated from one another and even fighting against one another.117 Therefore, if the books of Joshua and Judges are read together, as a continuous reworking of the contents of the book of Deuteronomy, then the image of Israel changes from a more idealistic one in the book of Joshua to a more realistic one in the book of Judges. Moreover, in contrast to the Deuteronomic command to exterminate all the inhabitants of Canaan in their cities (Deut 7:2; 20:16–17), Joshua–Judges presents some examples of sparing the Canaanites who confessed the mighty deeds of Yahweh118 and yielded to the authority of the Israelites in Canaan,119 and therefore in agreement with Deut 20:18 presented no idolatrous threat to the Israelites (Josh 2:9–12; 6:22–25; 9:9–10.26–27). On the other hand, Joshua–Judges continues the hidden rhetoric of Deuteronomy as a consciously Israelite (northern) and not a Judaean work. It presents the tribe of Ephraim, with its leaders Joshua and Deborah, generally in positive terms, but the tribe of Judah, especially in the allusions to its rival sanctuary in Jerusalem, in much more negative terms, and the tribe of Dan, also presumably with its separatist sanctuary, in likewise strongly negative terms. Therefore, in Joshua–Judges the main cultic-covenantal centre of the post-exilic Israel lies in the region of Shechem (Josh 8:30–35; 24:1–27.32; cf. Judg 19:18), and not in Jerusalem, which is presented in Joshua–Judges in strongly negative terms of a half-pagan or entirely pagan city (Josh 15:8.63; 18:16; Judg 1:21; 19:10–12).

1 17 Cf. D. Janzen, Violent Gift, 124–126. 118 Cf. M. Dżugan, ‘Dlaczego Rachab została ocalona, a Akan stracony? Deuteronomiczne rozumienie nakazu zagłady (ḥerem) w świetle Księgi Jozuego,’ BPT 8 (2015) fasc. 4, 23–38 (esp. 30–31); W. Ford, ‘What about,’ 203–204; J. J. Krause, ‘Hexateuchal Redaction in Joshua,’ HBAI 6 (2017) 181–202 (esp. 188). 119 Cf. P. Jenei, ‘Strategies of Stranger Inclusion in the Narrative Traditions of Joshua– Judges: The Cases of Rahab’s Household, the Kenites and the Gibeonites,’ OTE 32 (2019) 127–154 (esp. 136–139, 143–146).

General conclusions This monograph, together with the two preceding ones,1 presents an entirely new solution to the problems of the origin and interpretation of the Israelite Heptateuch (Genesis–Judges). The analyses presented in this monograph demonstrate that the book of Deuteronomy is a result of continuous, sequentially arranged, hypertextual, that is, highly creative reworking of the book of Ezekiel. Likewise, the books of Joshua and Judges can be regarded as one literary work, which is a result of continuous, sequentially arranged, hypertextual reworking of Deuteronomy. The discovery of this type of literary reworking disproves the hypotheses of the existence of various literary sources or multiple literary strata in the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges. Both works were composed as internally coherent literary projects of creative, but strictly sequential reworking their respective hypotexts: the book of Ezekiel and the book of Deuteronomy. It is true that in their literary activities the authors of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges also used other literary and probably also non-literary works, and thus conceptually illustrated and theologically enriched their main hypotexts. However, the fact that the strictly sequentially arranged hypertextual correspondences between Ezekiel and Deuteronomy as well as between Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges are spread throughout these works in their entireties implies that there was no diachronic difference between various parts of these books:  their frames and cores, etc. The fact that the numbers of these sequentially arranged hypertextual correspondences are very high (in both cases they almost reach 700) implies that the literary procedures of hypertextual reworking concerned individual words, clauses, and sentences, and not merely greater sections (stories etc.). In fact, the density of the correspondences on average reaches one link per one and a half verses of Deuteronomy and one per two verses of Joshua–Judges. Such a great density of the discovered correspondences lends much scholarly credibility to the analyses presented in this monograph because the criterion of the density of connections can be regarded as a very reliable one in the analyses of possible literary dependence between various literary works. 1 B. Adamczewski, Genesis: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 25; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2020); id., Exodus–Numbers: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 26; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2020).

216

General conclusions

Moreover, in both cases around 370 correspondences, so more than one-half of them, are not purely conceptual, but they also have some linguistic components. This linguistic criterion is very important for the objectivity and verifiability of this study, which would otherwise only refer to some more or less subjectively perceived thematic connections between various literary works. The third criterion which makes this study truly critical and verifiable is the criterion of order. As is argued in this monograph, the conceptual and partly linguistic correspondences between Ezekiel and Deuteronomy as well as Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges are strictly ordered. In fact, in some cases there are minor departures from the strict order of correspondences, but in these cases the connections were not counted among the almost 700 strictly sequentially arranged ones, in order to make the argumentation as objective and reliable as possible. The fourth criterion, which is probably most important from the methodological point of view, is the criterion of explaining numerous intriguing, somewhat surprising features of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges. In fact, a good scholarly approach should in a critical way explain the intriguing features of the object of study. As is argued in this monograph, the approach adopted in this study prevails over other approaches, especially the diachronically oriented ones, because it explains numerous intriguing features of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges which are very difficult to explain with the use of other scholarly methods. Moreover, in contrast to the diachronic approaches, it does not require postulating the existence of purely hypothetical sources or literary strata, and thus it follows Ockham’s principle entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. It examines the texts as we have them in the manuscripts, at times engaging in text-critical discussions. From the theological point of view, the development of ideas from prophetic ones (in the book of Ezekiel) to Deuteronomic (in the book of Deuteronomy) and then Deuteronomistic (in the books of Joshua–Judges), which is described in this monograph, comes as no great surprise, especially for scholars who regard Deuteronomy as an exilic or post-exilic work. It can be traced, for example, in the hypertextual reworking of Yahweh’s oracle concerning the division of the land among the named tribes of Israel (Ezek 48:1–27) into Moses’ propheticDeuteronomic oracles concerning the features and fates of the named tribes of Israel (Deut 33:6–25) and thereafter into the Deuteronomistic stories concerning the fates of the named tribes of Israel, with judges originating from them and leading them (Judg 2:10b–18:31). Another theological outcome of this study is the resulting therefrom image of God. Since the Bible is the word of God, which reveals not only God’s will but

General conclusions

217

also God himself, then the highly creative, often astonishing, at times incredibly imaginative ways of hypertextual reworking of earlier biblical texts in later ones (Ezekiel in Deuteronomy, and Deuteronomy in Joshua–Judges) reveal something of God’s majesty, splendour, and transcendence. Theologically and politically significant is also the issue of the Israelite and not Judaean origin of the books of both Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges. The attitude to Judaea, and especially to the sanctuary in Jerusalem, which is expressed in these books, changed over time. In Deuteronomy, Judah is a tribe which needs to be brought to its people (Deut 33:7). There is simply no mention of its sanctuary in Jerusalem, for the unique sanctuary of Israel should be located in central Israel, in the region of Shechem (Deut 11:27–12:27; 27:1–13), presumably in the blessed land of Joseph (Deut 33:13–17). Accordingly, the author of Deuteronomy reworked Ezekiel’s idea of the unique sanctuary of Yahweh (Ezek 37:26; 48:10; etc.) but rhetorically changed its location from Judaea to the region of Shechem. Such reworking is quite plausible in the fifth century bc, when the Israelite leader Sanballat still respected the Judaean priesthood and probably also tried to attract some Judaean priests to central (northern) Israel (cf. Neh 11:36; 13:28), even if the tension between the two post-exilic provinces was already perceivable. At the time of the composition of the books of Joshua–Judges, probably in the first half of the fourth century bc, after the construction of the new Israelite sanctuary on Mount Gerizim, the conflict over the legitimate location of the unique sanctuary of Yahweh became much more serious. After the composition of the book of Deuteronomy, the existence of two rival Yahwistic sanctuaries (not counting that in Dan) could not be tolerated. Therefore, the books of Joshua– Judges refer to Jerusalem in derogative terms, calling it with the artificial pagan name ‘Jebus’ (Judg 19:10–11) or ‘the Jebusite’ (Josh 15:8.63; 18:28), suggesting that it is located outside Judaea (Josh 15:8; 18:16; cf. Judg 1:21), and claiming that it is half-pagan ‘to this day’ (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:21). Therefore, the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges, together with their subsequently composed narrative prequels Genesis and Exodus–Numbers,2 constitute the sacred Heptateuch of the post-exilic central (northern) Israel, with the tribe of Joseph located in its geographical and rhetorical centre. Even if later in the canonical tradition the great authority of Moses caused the division of this great Israelite work into the Mosaic Torah (Deut 31:24; cf. Josh 8:31–32; 23:6) and the post-Mosaic books of Joshua and Judges, the Israelite character of

2

See id., Genesis; id., Exodus–Numbers.

218

General conclusions

the sacred Heptateuch Genesis–Judges should be given much more attention in scholarly research. It is our hope that this analysis of Deuteronomy and Joshua–Judges, two important parts of the Israelite Heptateuch, which do not oblige the Jews to take possession of the whole land of Israel, may contribute to finding peace in the land of Israel and in our modern world.

Bibliography Primary sources Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph [et al.] (5th ed., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 1997). Deuteronomy, ed. C. McCarthy (Biblia Hebraica Quinta 5; Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2007). Judges, ed. N. Fernández Marcos (Biblia Hebraica Quinta 7; Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2011). Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graece: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. A. Rahlfs and J. Ziegler [et al.], vol. 1–16 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1931–). Septuaginta: Editio altera, ed. A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2006). Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt [TAD], ed. B. Porten and A. Yardeni, vol. 1–4 (Hebrew University: Jerusalem 1986–1999). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, ed. D. Barthélemy [et al.], vol. 1–40 (Clarendon: Oxford 1955–2011).

Secondary literature Achenbach, R., ‘The Empty Throne and the Empty Sanctuary: From Aniconism to the Invisibility of God in Second Temple Theology,’ in N. MacDonald (ed.), Ritual Innovation in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 468; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2016), 35–53. Achenbach, R., ‘Die Integration der heiligen Orte der Provinz Samaria in das Narrativ des Hexateuch,’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2020), 47–78. Achenbach, R., ‘Die Prophezeiungen des Mose in Deuteronomium 28–32,’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 20 (2014) 147–179.

220

Bibliography

Achenbach, R., ‘Überlegungen zur Rekonstruktion des Urdeuteronomiums,’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 24 (2018) 211–254. Achenbach, R., ‘ “The Unwritten Text of the Covenant”: Torah in the Mouth of the Prophets,’ in R. J. Bautch and G. N. Knoppers (eds.), Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2015), 93–107. Adamczewski, B., Exodus–Numbers: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 26; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2020). Adamczewski, B., Genesis: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 25; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2020). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of John: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 17; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2018). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 13; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2016). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of Matthew: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 16; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2017). Adamczewski, B., Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Adamczewski, B., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and SamuelKings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012). Adamczewski, B., ‘The Roles of Gerizim and Jerusalem in the Israelite Heptateuch Genesis–Judges,’ Revue Biblique [forthcoming]. Adamczewski, B., ‘Uniwersalistyczna perspektywa Księgi Jozuego w Starym i Nowym Testamencie,’ Collectanea Theologica 84 (2014) no. 4, 105–129. Adu-Gyamfi, Y., ‘Prevention of Civil War in Joshua 22: Guidelines for African Ethnic Groups,’ Old Testament Essays 26 (2013) 247–262.

Bibliography

221

Albertini, P. L., ‘Al di là della terra: Analisi del carattere redazionale di Gs 1,7–9,’ Rivista Biblica 59 (2011) 57–79. Albertz, R., ‘Die Identifikation von nachexilischen Redaktionsschichten im Pentateuch,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, ed. J. Wöhrle and F. Neumann (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 429–447. Allen, L. C., Ezekiel 1–19 (Word Biblical Commentary 28; Word Books: Dallas, TX 1994). Alonso Schökel, L., and Bravo Aragón, J. M., Apuntes de hermenéutica (Trotta: Madrid 1994). Altmann, P., Festive Meals in Ancient Israel: Deuteronomy’s Identity Politics in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 424; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2011). Altmann, P., ‘What Do the “Levites in Your Gates” Have to Do with the “Levitical Priests”? An Attempt at European–North American Dialogue on the Levites in the Deuteronomic Law Corpus,’ in M. A. Leuchter and J. M. Hutton (eds.), Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 9; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2011), 135–154. Amit, Y., ‘Epoch and Genre: The Sixth Century and the Growth of Hidden Polemics,’ in O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2003), 135–151. Amit, Y., ‘ “For the Lord Fought for Israel”,’ in Amit, In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays in Retrospect, trans. B. Sigler Rozen (Hebrew Bible Monographs 39; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2012), 93–104. Amit, Y., Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative, trans. J. Chipman (Biblical Interpretation Series 25; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2000). Amzallag, N., ‘The Identity of the Emissary of YHWH,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 26 (2012) 123–144. Armgardt, M., ‘Why a Paradigm Change in Pentateuch Research is Necessary: The Perspective of Legal History,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 79–91. Arnold, B. T., ‘Number Switching in Deuteronomy 12–26 and the Quest for Urdeuteronomium,’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 23 (2017) 163–179.

222

Bibliography

Assis, E., ‘A Literary Approach to Complex Narratives: An Examination of Joshua 3–4,’ in E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 250; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2012), 401–413. Ausloos, H., ‘The Book of Joshua, Exodus 23 and the Hexateuch,’ in E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 250; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2012), 259–266. Ausloos, H., ‘The Story of Ehud and Eglon in Judges 3:12–30: A Literary Pearl as a Theological Stumbling Block,’ Old Testament Essays 30 (2017) 225–239. Avioz, M., ‘The Role and Significance of Jebus in Judges 19,’ Biblische Zeitschrift, nf 51 (2007) 249–256. Awabdy, M. A., Immigrants and Innovative Law: Deuteronomy’s Theological and Social Vision for the ‫( גר‬Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.67; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2014). Baker, R., Hollow Men, Strange Women: Riddles, Codes and Otherness in the Book of Judges (Biblical Interpretation Series 143; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2016). Ballhorn, E., Israel am Jordan: Narrative Topographie im Buch Josua (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 162; V&R unipress: Göttingen 2011). Bar, S., ‘The Punishment of Burning in the Hebrew Bible,’ Old Testament Essays 25 (2012) 27–39. Bauks, M., ‘Intratextualität, Intertextualität und Rezeptionsgeschichte: Was tragen “transpositional techniques” und “empirical evidences” zur literarischen Genese der Urgeschichte aus?,’ in M. Bauks [et al.] (eds.), Neue Wege der Schriftauslegung (Altes Testament und Moderne 24; Lit: Berlin 2019), 13–63. Bauks, M., Jephtas Tochter: Traditions-, religions- und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zu Richter 11,29–40 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 71; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010). Bauks, M., ‘Überlegungen zum historischen Ort von Ri 11,29–40: Ein Appendix anthologischen Charakters jenseits deuteronomistischen Geschichtsdenkens?,’ in P. Mommer and A. Scherer (eds.), Geschichte Israels und deuteronomistisches Geschichtsdenken, Festschrift W. Thiel (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 380; Ugarit: Münster 2010), 22–42. Bautch, R. J., ‘The Altar Not Destroyed in Deuteronomy 16.21,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40.3 (2016) 321–336. Bekkum, K. van, From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 45; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011).

Bibliography

223

Beldman, D. J. H., The Completion of Judges: Strategies of Ending in Judges 17–21 (Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 21; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2016). Belnap, D. L., ‘Defining the Ambiguous, the Unknown, and the Dangerous: The Significance of the Ritual Process in Deuteronomy 21:1–9,’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 23 (2017) 209–221. Béré, P., Le second Serviteur de Yhwh: Un portrait exégétique de Josué dans le livre éponyme (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 253; Academic: Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012). Bergland, K., ‘Jeremiah 34 Originally Composed as a Legal Blend of Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 189–205. Bergsma, J. S., ‘A “Samaritan” Pentateuch? The Implications of the ProNorthern Tendency of the Common Pentateuch,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 287–300. Berman, J., ‘Law Code as Plot Template in Biblical Narrative (1 Kings 9.26– 11.13; Joshua 2.9–13,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40.3 (2016) 337–349. Berman, J., ‘The Legal Blend in Biblical Narrative (Joshua 20:1–9, Judges 6:25– 31, 1 Samuel 15:2, 28:3–25, 2 Kings 4:1–7, Jeremiah 34:12–17, Nehemiah 5:1–12),’ Journal of Biblical Literature 134 (2015) 105–125. Berman, J., ‘The Making of the Sin of Achan (Joshua 7),’ Biblical Interpretation 22 (2014) 115–131. Biddle, M. E., Reading Judges: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Reading the Old Testament; Smyth & Helwys: Macon, GA 2012). Billings, R. M., “Israel Served the Lord”: The Book of Joshua as Paradoxical Portrait of Faithful Israel (Reading the Scriptures; University of Notre Dame: Notre Dame, IN 2013). Bird, P., ‘Of Whores and Hounds: A New Interpretation of the Subject of Deuteronomy 23:19,’ Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 352–364. Block, D. I., Judges, Ruth (New American Commentary 6; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 1999). Block, D. I., ‘ “The Meeting Places of God in the Land”: Another Look at the Towns of the Levites,’ in R. E. Gane and A. Taggar-Cohen (eds.), Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob

224

Bibliography

Milgrom and Beyond (Resources for Biblical Study 82; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2015), 93–121. Block, D. I., ‘ “A Place for My Name”: Horeb and Zion in the Mosaic Vision of Israelite Worship,’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 58 (2015) 221–247. Blum, E., ‘The Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Approach with Methodological Limitations,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 303–325. Boda, M. J., ‘Recycling Heaven’s Words: Receiving and Retrieving Divine Revelation in the Historiography of Judges,’ in M. J. Boda and L. M. Wray Beal (eds.), Prophets, Prophecy, and Ancient Israelite Historiography (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2013), 43–67. Boling, R. G., Judges: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 6A; Doubleday: New York 1975). Borgonovo, G., ‘Alle fonti della teologia storica deuteronomistica,’ Ricerche Storico Bibliche 28 (2016) 71–108. Boyd, S. L., ‘What Were the Qualifications for Being a Leader in Ancient Israel? Revelation, Authority, and Philological Issues in Deut 1:13 and 1:15,’ Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 173–196. Braulik, G., ‘Das Buch Deuteronomium,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1; 9th ed., W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 152–182. Braulik, G., ‘Deuteronomium 4 und das gegossene Kalb: Zum Geschichtsgehalt paränetischen Rede,’ in id., Studien zu Buch und Sprache des Deuteronomiums (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 63; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2016), 75–87. Braulik, G., ‘Hat Gott die Religionen der Völker gestiftet? Deuteronomium 4,19 im Kontext von Kultbilderverbot und Monotheismus,’ in id., Tora und Fest: Aufsätze zum Deuteronomium und zur Liturgie (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 69; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2019), 142–251. Braulik, G., ‘Lohnverweigerung und Sippenhaftung: Zu Schuld und Strafe im Buch Deuteronomium,’ in id., Tora und Fest: Aufsätze zum Deuteronomium und zur Liturgie (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 69; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2019), 31–60. Brenner, A., ‘Women and Men he Created Them: Gender and Ideologies in the Book of Judges,’ in A. Brenner and F. H. Polak (eds.), Words, Ideas,

Bibliography

225

Worlds, Festschrift Y. Amit (Hebrew Bible Monographs 40; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2012), 20–31. Butler, T. C., Joshua 1–12 (2nd ed., Word Biblical Commentary 7A; Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI 2014); Joshua 13–24 (2nd ed., Word Biblical Commentary 7B; Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI 2014). Butler, T. C., Judges (Word Biblical Commentary 8; Thomas Nelson: Nashville [et al.] 2009). Carman, J.-M., ‘Abimelech the manly man? Judges 9.1–57 and the performance of hegemonic masculinity,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43.3 (2019) 301–316. Carr, D., ‘Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and its Parallels,’ in M. Köckert and E. Blum (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 18; Chr. Kaiser: Gütersloh 2001), 107–140. Carr, D. M., ‘Method in Determining the Dependence of Biblical on NonBiblical Texts,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible (Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol 2017), 41–53. Chambers, N., ‘Confirming Joshua as the Interpreter of Israel’s Tôrāh: The Narrative Role of Joshua 8:30–35,’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 25 (2015) 141–153. Chisholm, R. B., Jr., A Commentary on Judges and Ruth (Kregel Exegetical Library; Kregel Academic: Grand Rapids, MI 2013). Christensen, D. L., Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9 (2nd ed., Word Biblical Commentary 6A; Word Books: Dallas, TX 2001); Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 (Word Biblical Commentary 6B; Word Books: Dallas, TX 2002). Chung, Y. H., The Sin of the Calf: The Rise of the Bible’s Negative Attitude Toward the Golden Calf (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 523; T&T Clark: New York · London 2010). Clarke, T. A., ‘Complete v. Incomplete Conquest: A Re-examination of Three Passages in Joshua,’ Tyndale Bulletin 61 (2010) 89–104. Coetsee, A. J., ‘YHWH and Israel in terms of the Concept of Life in Deuteronomy,’ Old Testament Essays 32 (2019) 101–126. Conczorowski, B. J., ‘All the Same as Ezra? Conceptual Differences Between the Texts on Intermarriage in Genesis, Deuteronomy 7 and Ezra,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 547; T&T Clark: New York · London 2011), 89–108.

226

Bibliography

Cornell, C., ‘What happened to Kemosh?,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 128 (2016) 284–299. Crouch, C. L., Israel and the Assyrians: Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon, and the Nature of Subversion (Ancient Near East Monographs 8; SBL: Atlanta 2014). Crouch, C. L., The Making of Israel: Cultural Diversity in the Southern Levant and the Formation of Ethnic Identity in Deuteronomy (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 162; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014). De Troyer, K., The Ultimate and the Penultimate Text of the Book of Joshua (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 100; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, CT 2018). DeLapp, N. L., ‘Ezekiel as Moses—Israel as Pharaoh: Reverberations of the Exodus Narrative in Ezekiel,’ in R. M. Fox (ed.), Reverberations of the Exodus in Scripture (Wipf and Stock: Eugene, OR 2014), 51–73. DeLapp, N. L., Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch: Visions of YHWH (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 660; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2018). Dershowitz, I., ‘A Land Flowing with Fat and Honey,’ Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 172–176. Dietch, L. A., Authority and Violence in the Gideon and Abimelech Narratives: A Sociological and Literary Exploration of Judges 6–9 (Hebrew Bible Monographs 75; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2015). Dietrich, J., Kollektive Schuld und Haftung: Religions- und rechtsgeschichtliche Studien zum Sündenkuhritus des Deuteronomiums und zu verwandten Texten (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 4; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010). Dietrich, W., ‘Achans Diebstahl (Jos 7): eine Kriminalgeschichte aus frühpersischer Zeit,’ in id., Die Samuelbücher im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: Studien zu den Geschichtsüberlieferungen des Alten Testaments II (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 201; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2012), 36–47. Donner, H., ‘ “Wie geschrieben steht”: Herkunft und Sinn einer Formel,’ in id., Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 224; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1994), 224–238. Dozeman, T. B., ‘The Book of Joshua in Recent Research,’ Currents in Biblical Research 15.3 (2017) 270–288. Dozeman, T. B., ‘Joshua 1,1–9: The Beginning of a Book or a Literary Bridge?,’ in E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum

Bibliography

227

Theologicarum Lovaniensium 250; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2012), 159–182. Dozeman, T. B., Joshua 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Yale Bible 6B; Yale University: New Haven · London 2015). Dušek, J., ‘Mt. Gerizim Sanctuary, Its History and Enigma of Origin,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 3 (2014) 111–133. Dziadosz, D., ‘Ideowy i teologiczny podtekst misji “wodza zastępów JHWH” w Joz 5,13–15,’ Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia 13 (2020) 25–58. Dziadosz, D., Księga Sędziów: Wstęp, przekład z oryginału, komentarz, vol. 1, Rozdziały 1 – 5 (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny: Stary Testament 7/1; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2019); vol. 2, Rozdziały 6 – 12 (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny: Stary Testament 7/2; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2019). Dziadosz, D., ‘The Spirit of YHWH as the Charism of the Pre-Monarchic Liberators of Israel and the Theological Symbol of God’s Salvific Activity in the Book of Judges,’ Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia 11 (2018) 463–493. Dżugan, M., ‘Dlaczego Rachab została ocalona, a Akan stracony? Deuteronomiczne rozumienie nakazu zagłady (ḥerem) w świetle Księgi Jozuego,’ Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia 8 (2015) fasc. 4, 23–38. Ebach, R., Das Fremde und das Eigene: Die Fremdendarstellungen des Deuteronomiums im Kontext israelitischer Identitätskonstruktionen (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 471; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014). Ebach, R., ‘ “You Shall Walk Exactly on the Way which YHWH Your God has Commanded You”: Characteristics of Deuteronomy’s Concepts of Leadership,’ in K. Pyschny and S. Schulz (eds.), Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 507; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018), 159–177. Edenburg, C., Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19–21 (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 24; SBL: Atlanta, GA 2016). Edenburg, C., ‘Do the Pentateuchal Sources Extend into the Former Prophets? Joshua 1 and the Relation of the Former Prophets to the Pentateuch,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 795–802. Edenburg, C., ‘Envelopes and Seams: How Judges Fits (or not) within the Deuteronomistic History,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.),

228

Bibliography

Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 353–369. Edenburg, C., ‘Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35.2 (2010) 131–148. Edenburg, C., ‘Joshua 9 and Deuteronomy, an Intertextual Conundrum: The Chicken or the Egg?,’ in K. Schmid and R. F. Person, Jr. (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.56; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 115–132. Edenburg, C., ‘Paradigm, Illustrative Narrative or Midrash: the Case of Josh 7–8 and Deuteronomic/istic Law,’ in C. Berner and H. Samuel (eds.), The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts: Proceedings of the EABS research group “Law and Narrative” (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 460; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2015), 123–137. Edenburg, C., and Müller, R., ‘A Northern Provenance for Deuteronomy? A Critical Review,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 4 (2015) 148–161. Ederer, M., Das Buch Josua (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar: Altes Testament 5/1; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2017). Ederer, M., Ende und Anfang: Der Prolog des Richterbuchs (Ri 1,1–3,6) in “Biblischer Auslegung” (Herders Biblische Studien 68; Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau 2011). Ehrenreich, E., Wähle das Leben! Deuteronomium 30 als hermeneutischer Schlüssel zur Tora (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2010). Fantalkin, A., and Tal, O., ‘Redating Lachish Level I: Identifying Achaemenid Imperial Policy at the Southern Frontier of the Fifth Satrapy,’ in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2006), 167–197. Farber, Z., Images of Joshua in the Bible and Their Reception (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 457; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2016). Findlay, J. D., From Prophet to Priest: The Characterization of Aaron in the Pentateuch (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 76; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, CT 2017). Finkelstein, I., The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel (Ancient Near East Monographs 5; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta, GA 2013).

Bibliography

229

Finkelstein, I., ‘Major Saviors, Minor Judges: The Historical Background of the Northern Accounts in the Book of Judges,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41.4 (2017) 431–449. Finkelstein, I., ‘Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of »Biblical Israel«: An Alternative View,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123 (2011) 348–367. Finkelstein, I., ‘The Territorial Extent and Demography of Yehud/Judea in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods,’ Revue Biblique 117 (2010) 39–54. Finkelstein, I., and Lipschits, O., ‘Geographical and Historical Observations on the old North Israelite Gideon tale in Judges,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 129 (2017) 1–18. Finsterbusch, K., Deuteronomium: Eine Einführung (UTB 3626; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012). Finsterbusch, K., ‘Deuteronomy and Joshua: Torah in the Book of Joshua in Light of Deuteronomy,’ Journal of Ancient Judaism 3 (2012) 166–196. Firth, D. G., ‘Disorienting Readers in Joshua 1.1–5.12,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41.4 (2017) 413–430. Fischer, G., ‘Der Einfluss des Deuteronomiums auf das Jeremiabuch,’ in G. Fischer, D. Markl, and S. Paganini (eds.), Deuteronomium – Tora für eine neue Generation (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 17; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2011), 247–269. Fischer, G., ‘‫ותפשי התורה לא ידעוני‬: The Relationship of the Book of Jeremiah to the Torah,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 891–911. Fleming, D. E., The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible: History, Politics, and the Reinscribing of Traditions (Cambridge University: New York 2012). Florczyk, Ł., ‘Kamień – świadek przymierza w Sychem (Joz 24,1–28),’ Verbum Vitae 28 (2015) 27–58. Ford, W., ‘What about the Gibeonites?,’ Tyndale Bulletin 66 (2015) 197–216. Frevel, C., ‘Das Josua-Palimpsest. Der Übergang vom Josua- zum Richterbuch und seine Konsequenzen für die These eines Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125 (2013) 49–71. Frolov, S., ‘The Death of Moses and the Fate of Source Criticism,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 133 (2014) 648–660.

230

Bibliography

Frolov, S., ‘How Old Is the Song of Deborah?,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36.2 (2011) 163–184. Frolov, S., Judges (Forms of the Old Testament Literature; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2013). Frolov, S., ‘The Rings of the Lord: Assessing Symmetric Structuring in Numbers and Judges,’ Vetus Testamentum 66 (2016) 15–44. Ganzel, T., ‘Transformation of Pentateuchal Descriptions of Idolatry,’ in W. A. Tooman and M. A. Lyons (eds.), Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel (Princeton Theological Monograph Series 127; Pickwick: Eugene, OR 2010), 33–49. Garton, R. E., Mirages in the Desert: The Tradition-historical Developments of the Story of Massah-Meribah (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 492; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2017). Gaß, E., ‘Joshua’s Death Told Twice – Perspectives from the History of Research,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/ Exodus and Joshua/Judges (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 199–219. Gaß, E., Die Ortsnamen des Richterbuchs in historischer und redaktioneller Perspektive (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 35; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2005). Geiger, M., Gottesräume: Die literarische und theologische Konzeption von Raum im Deuteronomium (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 183; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2010). Genette, G., Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982). Germany, S., ‘Die Bearbeitung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes im Lichte biblischer Erzählungen,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 131 (2019) 43–57. Germany, S., The Exodus-Conquest Narrative: The Composition of the NonPriestly Narratives in Exodus–Joshua (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 115; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2017). Germany, S., ‘The Hexateuch Hypothesis: A History of Research and Current Approaches,’ Currents in Biblical Research 16.2 (2018) 131–156. Gesundheit, S., ‘Die Beteiligung der ostjordanischen Stämme an der westjordanischen Landnahme. Ein Vergleich von Num 32,1–33; Dtn 3,18– 20 und Jos 1,12–15,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 131 (2019) 58–76.

Bibliography

231

Giffone, B. D., ‘ “Israel’s” Only Son? The complexity of Benjaminite identity between Judah and Joseph,’ Old Testament Essays 32 (2019) 956–972. Gile, J., ‘Deuteronomy and Ezekiel’s Theology of Exile,’ in J. S. DeRouchie, J. Gile, and K. J. Turner (eds.), For Our Good Always, Festschrift D. I. Block (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2013), 287–306. Gillmayr-Bucher, S., Erzählte Welten im Richterbuch: Narratologische Aspekte eines polyfonen Diskurses (Biblical Interpretation Series 116; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013). Gillmayr-Bucher, S., ‘A Hero Ensnared in Otherness? Literary Images of Samson,’ in E. Eynikel and T. Nicklas (eds.), Samson: Hero or Fool? The Many Faces of Samson (Themes in Biblical Narrative 17; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 33–51. Gillmayr-Bucher, S., ‘Memories Laid to Rest: The Book of Judges in the Persian Period,’ in D. V. Edelman (ed.), Deuteronomy–Kings as Emerging Authoritative Books: A Conversation (Ancient Near East Monographs 6; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2014), 115–132. Glanville, M., ‘The Gēr (Stranger) in Deuteronomy: Family for the Displaced,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 137 (2018) 599–623. Gnuse, R., ‘Samson and Heracles Revisited,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 32 (2018) 1–19. Goswell, G., ‘Joshua and Kingship,’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 23 (2013) 29–42. Grabbe, L. L., ‘Exodus and History,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 164; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 61–87. Grabbe, L. L., ‘The Last Days of Judah and the Roots of the Pentateuch: What Does History Tell Us?,’ in P. Dubovský, D. Markl, and J.-P. Sonnet (eds.), The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 107; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 19–45. Grant, D. E., ‘Fire and the Body of Yahweh,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40.2 (2015) 139–161. Groß, W., Richter (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2009). Groß, W., ‘Das Richterbuch zwischen deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk und Enneateuch,’ in H.-J. Stipp (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk (Österreichische Biblische Studien 39; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 177–205.

232

Bibliography

Guillaume, P., Waiting for Josiah: The Judges (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 385; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004). Hamley, I., ‘What’s Wrong with “Playing the Harlot”? The Meaning of ‫ זנה‬in Judges 19:2,’ Tyndale Bulletin 66 (2015) 41–62. Hardy, H. H., II, and Thomas, B. J., ‘Another Look at Biblical bɔmɔ “High Place”,’ Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 175–188. Hays, N., ‘Family Disintegration in Judges 17–18,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 80 (2018) 373–392. Heckl, R., ‘Eine Kultstätte auf dem Ebal? Josua 8,30–35 und der Streit mit Samaria um die Auslegung der Tora,’ Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 129 (2013) 79–98. Heckl, R., ‘Der ursprüngliche Anfang des Deuteronomiums und seine literarische Transformation,’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 20 (2014) 71–96. Hendel, R., ‘The (Proto-)Masoretic Text of the Pentateuch,’ in id., Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible (Text-Critical Studies 10; SBL: Atlanta, GA 2016), 201–226. Hensel, B., Juda und Samaria: Zum Verhältnis zweier nach-exilischer Jahwismen (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 110; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016). Hentschel, G., ‘Das Buch der Richter,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1; 9th ed., W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 267–277. Hentschel, G., ‘Das Buch Josua,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1; 9th ed., W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 255–266. Hepner, G., Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel (Studies in Biblical Literature 78; Peter Lang: New York [et al.] 2010). Hibbard, J. T., ‘True and False Prophecy: Jeremiah’s Revision of Deuteronomy,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35.3 (2011) 339–358. Hjelm, I., ‘Northern Perspectives in Deuteronomy and Its Relation to the Samaritan Pentateuch,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 4 (2015) 184–204. Hölscher, G., ‘Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 40 (1922) 161–255. Hoop, R. de, ‘Judges 5 Reconsidered: Which Tribes? What Land? Whose Song?,’ in J. van Ruiten and J. C. de Vos (eds.), The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology, Festschrift E. Noort (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 124; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2009), 151–166.

Bibliography

233

Hossfeld, F.-L., Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 45; Universitätsverlag: Freiburg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1982). Howard, D. M., Jr., Joshua (New American Commentary 5; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 1998). Hulster, I. J. de, ‘Imagination: A Hermeneutical Tool for the Study of the Hebrew Bible,’ Biblical Interpretation 18 (2010) 114–136. Hurvitz, A., A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 160; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014). Hwang, J., The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation to the “Fathers” in Deuteronomy (Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 8; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2012). Irsigler, H., ‘Israels Gottesbekenntnis Dtn 6,4 und seine kontextuellen Sinnbezüge,’ in A. Michel and N. K. Rüttgers (eds.), Jeremia, Deuteronomismus und Priesterschrift: Beiträge zur Literatur- und Theologiegeschichte des Alten Testaments, Festschrift H.-J. Stipp (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 105; EOS: Sankt Ottilien 2019), 147–164. Janzen, D., ‘Gideon’s House as the ‫אטד‬: A Proposal for Reading Jotham’s Fable,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74 (2012) 465–475. Janzen, D., The Necessary King: A Postcolonial Reading of the Deuteronomistic Portrait of the Monarchy (Hebrew Bible Monographs 57; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2013). Janzen, D., The Violent Gift: Trauma’s Subversion of the Deuteronomistic History’s Narrative (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 561; T&T Clark: New York · London 2012). Jasinski, M., ‘Prorokini Debora – “wskrzesicielka” nadziei Izraela: Studium egzegetyczno-teologiczne Sdz 4–5,’ Biblical Annals 7 (2017) 415–439. Jenei, P., ‘Strategies of Stranger Inclusion in the Narrative Traditions of Joshua– Judges: The Cases of Rahab’s Household, the Kenites and the Gibeonites,’ Old Testament Essays 32 (2019) 127–154. Jericke, D., ‘Der Berg Garizim im Deuteronomium,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 124 (2012) 213–228. Jericke, D., Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis: Ein historisch-topographischer und literarisch-topographischer Kommentar (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 248; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2013).

234

Bibliography

Joosten, J., ‘Diachronic Linguistics and the Date of the Pentateuch,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 327–344. Kaminsky, J. S., ‘Reflections on Associative Word Links in Judges,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36.4 (2012) 411–434. Karimundackal, T., A Call to Commitment: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Deut 10:12–11:32 (Forschung zur Bibel 135; Echter: Würzburg 2017). Kartveit, M., ‘The Place That the Lord Your God Will Choose,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 4 (2015) 205–218. Kartveit, M., ‘Samaritan Self-Consciousness in the First Half of the Second Century B.C.E. in Light of the Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim and Delos,’ Journal for the Study of Judaism 45 (2014) 449–470. Kelly, J. R., ‘Identifying Literary Allusions: Theory and the Criterion of Shared Language,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible (Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol 2017), 22–40. Klein Abensohn, L., ‘The Art of Irony: The Book of Judges,’ in A. Brenner and F. H. Polak (eds.), Words, Ideas, Worlds, Festschrift Y. Amit (Hebrew Bible Monographs 40; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2012), 133–144. Knauf, E. A., Josua (Zürcher Bibelkommentare AT 6; Theologischer: Zürich 2009). Knauf, E. A., Richter (Zürcher Bibelkommentare AT 7; Theologischer: Zürich 2016). Knoppers, G. N., ‘The Northern Context of the Law-Code in Deuteronomy,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 4 (2015) 162–183. Köckert, M., ‘Zum literargeschichtlichen Ort des Prophetengesetzes Dtn 18 zwischen dem Jeremiabuch und Dtn 13,’ in R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann (eds.), Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium, Festschrift L. Perlitt (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 190; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2000), 80–100. Koorevaar, H., ‘The Book of Joshua and the Hypothesis of the Deuteronomistic History: Indications for an Open Serial Model,’ in E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 250; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2012), 219–232. Kraljic, A., Deuteronomium 10,12–11,32: Gottes Hauptgebot, der Gehorsam Israels und sein Land: Eine Neuuntersuchung (Österreichische Biblische Studien 49; Peter Lang: Berlin 2018).

Bibliography

235

Kratz, R. G., ‘The Analysis of the Pentateuch: An Attempt to Overcome Barriers of Thinking,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 128 (2016) 529–561. Kratz, R. G., ‘Temple and Torah: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran,’ in G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2007), 77–103. Krause, J. J., Exodus und Eisodus: Komposition und Theologie von Josua 1–5 (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 161; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014). Krause, J. J., ‘Hexateuchal Redaction in Joshua,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 6 (2017) 181–202. Kugler, G., When God Wanted to Destroy the Chosen People: Biblical Traditions and Theology on the Move (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 515; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2019). Kugler, G., ‘Who Conquered Hebron? Apologetic and Polemical Tendencies in the Story of Caleb in Josh 14,’ Vetus Testamentum 67 (2017) 570–580. Landy, F., ‘Between Centre and Periphery: Space and Gender in the Book of Judges in the Early Second Temple Period,’ in E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin (eds.), Centres and Peripheries in the Early Second Temple Period (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 108; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 133–162. Langlois, M., Le texte de Josué 10: Approche philologique, épigraphique et diachronique (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 252; Academic: Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2011). Lee, E.-W., Crossing the Jordan: Diachrony Versus Synchrony in the Book of Joshua (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 578; T&T Clark: London · New York 2013). Lee, S.-W., “Den Ort, den JHWH erwählen wird …, sollt ihr aufsuchen” (Dtn 12,5): Die Forderung der Kulteinheit im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, PhD diss. (Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen 2015). Lemański, J., ‘Motyw “próby” jako element procesu wychowywania w tekstach Pięcioksięgu,’ Verbum Vitae 21 (2012) 19–38. Leonard, J. M., ‘Identifying Subtle Allusions: The Promise of Narrative Tracking,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible (Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol 2017), 91–113. Levin, C., ‘Numinose Nomina,’ in S. Grätz, A. Graupner, and J. Lanckau (eds.), Ein Freund des Wortes, Festschrift U. Rüterswörden (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2019), 212–233.

236

Bibliography

Levin, C., ‘On the Cohesion and Separation of Books within the Enneateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid, Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2011), 127–154. Levitt Kohn, R., ‘A Prophet Like Moses? Rethinking Ezekiel’s Relationship to the Torah,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 114 (2002) 236–254. Lindquist, M., ‘King Og’s Iron Bed,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73 (2011) 477–492. Lipschits, O., ‘The Rural Economy of Judah during the Persian Period and the Settlement History of the District System,’ in M. L. Miller, E. Ben Zvi, and G. N. Knoppers (eds.), The Economy of Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2015), 237–264. Lipschits, O., and Vanderhooft, D. S., The Yehud Stamp Impressions: A Corpus of Inscribed Impressions from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Judah (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2011). Lipschits, O., and Vanderhooft, D., ‘Yehud Stamp Impressions in the Fourth Century b.c.e.: A Time of Administrative Consolidation?,’ in O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2007), 75–94. Lohfink, N., ‘Prolegomena zu einer Rechtshermeneutik des Pentateuch,’ in G. Braulik (ed.), Das Deuteronomium (Österreichische Biblische Studien 23; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main 2003), 11–55. Lübbe, J., ‘The Danite Invasion of Laish and the Purpose of the Book of Judges,’ Old Testament Essays 23 (2010) 681–692. Lundbom, J. R., Deuteronomy: A Commentary (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2013). Lyons, M. A., From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 507; T&T Clark: New York · London 2009). Lyons, M. A., ‘How Have We Changed? Older and Newer Arguments about the Relationship between Ezekiel and the Holiness Code,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 1055–1074. MacDonald, N., Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism” (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.1; 2nd ed., Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012).

Bibliography

237

McKeating, H., ‘Ezekiel the “Prophet Like Moses”?,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 61 (1994) 97–109. Magen, Y., Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, A Temple City (Judea & Samaria Publications 8; Israel Antiquities Authority: Jerusalem 2008). Mäkipelto, V., ‘The Four Deaths of Joshua: Why the Septuagint is Pivotal for the Study of Joshua 24,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 6 (2017) 217–242. Mäkipelto, V., Uncovering Ancient Editing: Documented Evidence of Changes in Joshua 24 and Related Texts (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 513; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018). Markl, D., Der Dekalog als Verfassung des Gottesvolkes: Die Brennpunkte einer Rechtshermeneutik des Pentateuch in Exodus 19–24 und Deuteronomium 5 (Herders Biblische Studien 49; Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau 2007). Markl, D., Gottes Volk im Deuteronomium (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 18; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2012). Mastnjak, N., Deuteronomy and the Emergence of Textual Authority in Jeremiah (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.87; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016). Mattison, K., ‘Contrasting Conceptions of Asylum in Deuteronomy 19 and Numbers 35,’ Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 232–251. Meer, M. N. van der, ‘ “Sound the Trumpet!”: Redaction and Reception of Joshua 6:2–25,’ in J. van Ruiten and J. C. de Vos (eds.), The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology, Festschrift E. Noort (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 124; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2009), 19–43. Merkur, D., ‘Biblical Terrorism,’ in D. Daschke and A. Kille (eds.), A Cry Instead of Justice: The Bible and Cultures of Violence in Psychological Perspective (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 499; T&T Clark: New York · London 2010), 55–79. Merrill, E. H., Deuteronomy (New American Commentary 4; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 1994). Messmer, A., ‘A Possible Chiastic Center for Primary History (Genesis–2 Kings),’ Vetus Testamentum 69 (2019) 232–240. Michel, A., ‘Exodus – historisch, mythisch, theologisch,’ in C. Neuber (ed.), Der immer neue Exodus: Aneignungen und Transformationen des Exodusmotivs (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 242; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2018), 20–44. Miller, G. D., ‘Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,’ Currents in Biblical Research 9.3 (2010) 283–309.

238

Bibliography

Milstein, S. J., ‘Making a Case: The Repurposing of “Israelite Legal Fictions” as Post-Deuteronomic Law,’ in S. M. Olyan and J. L. Wright (eds.), Supplementation and the Study of the Hebrew Bible (Brown Judaic Studies 361; Brown University: Providence, RI 2018) 161–181. Milstein, S. J., ‘Separating the Wheat from the Chaff: The Independent Logic of Deuteronomy 22:25–27,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 137 (2018) 625–643. Min, K., Geist und Tora: Zum Verhältnis von Geistbegabung und Toratreue in der Schriftgelehrten Theologie des Pentateuch und der Prophetenbücher (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/943; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main 2014). Monroe, L. A. S., ‘Disembodied Women: Sacrificial Language and the Deaths of Bath-Jephthah, Cozbi, and the Bethlehemite Concubine,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75 (2013) 32–52. Moskowitz, N., ‘Judge Ibzan of Bethlehem: Judah or Zebulun? Peshat and Derash,’ Jewish Bible Quarterly 43 (2015) 154–157. Moster, D. Z., ‘The Levite of Judges 17–18,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 133 (2014) 727–739. Müller, R., ‘The Altar on Mount Gerizim (Deuteronomy 27:1–8): Center or Periphery?,’ in E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin (eds.), Centres and Peripheries in the Early Second Temple Period (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 108; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 197–214. Na’aman, N., ‘The Battle of Gibeah Reconsidered (Judges 20:29–48),’ Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 102–110. Neef, H.-D., ‘Josuazeit und Richterzeit: Exegetische Beobachtungen zu Jdc 2,6– 10,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 124 (2012) 229–243. Nelson, R. D., Deuteronomy (Old Testament Library; Westminster John Knox: Louisville · London 2004). Nelson, R. D., Judges: A Critical and Rhetorical Commentary (T&T Clark: London · New York 2017). Nicholson, E., Deuteronomy and the Judaean Diaspora (Oxford University: Oxford 2014). Niditch, S., Judges: A Commentary (Old Testament Library; Westminster John Knox: Louisville · London 2008). Niesiołowski-Spanò, Ł., Origin Myths and Holy Places in the Old Testament: A Study of Aetiological Narratives, trans. J. Laskowski (Copenhagen International Seminar; Equinox: London · Oakville 2011). Nihan, C., ‘The Literary Relationship between Deuteronomy and Joshua: A Reassessment,’ in K. Schmid and R. F. Person, Jr. (eds.),

Bibliography

239

Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.56; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 79–114. Nihan, C., ‘The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua,’ in G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2007), 187–223. Nilsen, T. D., The Origins of Deuteronomy 32: Intertextuality, Memory, Identity (Peter Lang: New York [et al.] 2018). Nocquet, D. R., La Samarie, la Diaspora et l’achèvement de la Torah: Territorialités et internationalités dans l’Hexateuque (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 284; Academic: Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2017). Nodet, É., ‘Édom, c’est l’Idumée! Le rejet littéraire d’Édom hors de Juda,’ Revue Biblique 126 (2019) 161–206. Nodet, E., ‘Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews,’ in J. Zsengellér (ed.), Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics (Studia Judaica 66 / Studia Samaritana 6; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2011), 121–171. Nodet, E., A Search for the Origin of Judaism: From Joshua to Mishnah, trans. E. Crowley (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 248; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1997). Nodet, É., ‘Traverser à pied sec une mer ou un fleuve?,’ Revue Biblique 120 (2013) 24–41. Noort, E., Das Buch Josua: Forschungsgeschichte und Problemfelder (Erträge der Forschung 292; Wissenschaftliche: Darmstadt 1998). Oeste, G., ‘Butchered Brothers and Betrayed Families: Degenerating Kinship Structures in the Book of Judges,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35.3 (2011) 295–316. Otto, E., ‘Born out of Ruins: The Catastrophe of Jerusalem as Accoucheur to the Pentateuch in the Book of Deuteronomy,’ in P. Dubovský, D. Markl, and J.-P. Sonnet (eds.), The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 107; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 155–168. Otto, E., Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1, 1,1–4,43 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2012); vol. 2, 4,44–11,32 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2012); Deuteronomium 12–34, vol. 1, 12,1–23,15 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2016); vol. 2, 23,16–34,12 (Herders

240

Bibliography

Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2017). Otto, E., ‘Jeremia und die Tora: Ein nachexilischer Diskurs,’ in id., Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 9; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2009), 515–560. Otto, E., ‘Tora für eine neue Generation in Dtn 4: Die hermeneutische Theologie des Numeruswechsels in Deuteronomium 4,1–40,’ in G. Fischer, D. Markl, and S. Paganini (eds.), Deuteronomium – Tora für eine neue Generation (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 17; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2011), 105–122. Packiam, B., Learning Faith Through the Celebration of the Pilgrim Feasts in Deuteronomy: A Paradigm for the Church in India? (Jaycee: New Delhi 2015). Paganini, S., Deuteronomio: Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (Libri Biblici: Primo Testamento 5; Paoline: Milano 2011). Paganini, S., ‘La terra: dono e responsabilità. Osservazioni sul ruolo della terra nel Deuteronomio e nella tradizione deuteronomica,’ Rivista Biblica 64 (2016) 35–64. Pakkala, J., ‘The Dating of Deuteronomy: A Response to Nathan MacDonald,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123 (2011) 431–436. Pakkala, J., ‘The Origins of Yahwism from the Perspective of Deuteronomism,’ in J. van Oorschot and M. Witte (eds.), The Origins of Yahwism (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 484; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2017), 267–281. Pakkala, J., ‘What Do We Know about Geshur?,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 24 (2010) 155–173. Park, S., ‘Left-Handed Benjaminites and the Shadow of Saul,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 134 (2015) 701–720. Park, S. J., ‘The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123 (2011) 553–564. Pat-El, N., ‘Israelian Hebrew: A Re-Evaluation,’ Vetus Testamentum 67 (2017) 227–263. Perlitt, L., Deuteronomium, vol. 1, Deuteronomium 1–6* (Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 5/1; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2013). Pfeiffer, H., ‘»Retterbuch« und Richterbuch,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 127 (2015) 429–439.

Bibliography

241

Pietsch, M., Die Kultreform Josias: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte Israels in der späten Königszeit (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 86; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013). Prenter, J. A. de, ‘The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of ‫ חרם‬in the Book of Joshua: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach,’ in E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 250; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2012), 473–488. Quick, L., ‘ “But You Shall Surely Report Concerning Him”: In Defense of the Priority of LXX Deuteronomy 13:9,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 130 (2018) 86–100. Quick, L., Deuteronomy 28 and the Aramaic Curse Tradition (Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs; Oxford University: Oxford 2018). Quick, L., ‘Laying Og to Rest: Deuteronomy and the Making of a Myth,’ Biblica 98 (2017) 161–172. Ramos, M., ‘A Northwest Semitic Curse Formula: The Sefire Treaty and Deuteronomy 28,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 128 (2016) 205–220. Reeder, C. A., ‘Deuteronomy 21.10–14 and/as Wartime Rape,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41.3 (2017) 313–336. Reuter, E., ‘Konzepte von Autorität: Gestalten und Funktionen der Mosefiktion,’ in G. Fischer, D. Markl, and S. Paganini (eds.), Deuteronomium – Tora für eine neue Generation (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 17; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2011), 69–81. Riffaterre, M., Fictional Truth (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society; 2nd ed., The John Hopkins University: Baltimore · London 1993). Rizzi, G., Giudici: Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (Libri Biblici: Primo Testamento 7; Paoline: Milano 2012). Rom-Shiloni, D., ‘Compositional Harmonization: Priestly and Deuteronomic References in the Book of Jeremiah – An Earlier Stage of a Recognized Interpretive Technique,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 913–941. Römer, T., ‘Auszug aus Ägypten oder Pilgerreise in der Wüste? Überlegungen zur Konstruktion der Exodustradition(en),’ in R. Ebach and M. Leuenberger (eds.), Tradition(en) im alten Israel: Konstruktion, Transmission und Transformation (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 127; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 89–107.

242

Bibliography

Römer, T., ‘The Date, Composition and Function of Joshua 24 in Recent Research: A Response to Joachim J. Krause, Cynthia Edenburg, and Konrad Schmid,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 6 (2017) 203–216. Römer, T., ‘How to Date Pentateuchal Texts: Some Case Studies,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 357–370. Römer, T., Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 99; Universitätsverlag: Freiburg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1990). Römer, T., ‘Le problème du monothéisme biblique,’ Revue Biblique 124 (2017) 12–25. Römer, T., ‘Why Would the Deuteronomists Tell about the Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter?,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77 (1998) 27–38. Rösel, H. N., Joshua (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2011). Roskop Erisman, A., ‘Transjordan in Deuteronomy: The Promised Land and the Formation of the Pentateuch,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013) 769–789. Roskop, A. R., The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah (History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 3; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2011). Rothenbusch, R., “… abgesondert zur Tora Gottes hin”: Ethnisch-religiöse Identitäten im Esra/Nehemiabuch (Herders Biblische Studien 70; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2012). Rüterswörden, U., Deuteronomium 12–13 (Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 5/3; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2019). Ryan, R., Judges (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield Phoenix 2007). Ryan, R., ‘Three Tales of Three Cities in the Book of Judges,’ Expository Times 126 (2015) 578–585. Samuel, H., Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Levi und die Leviten im Alten Testament (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 448; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014). Sasson, J. M., Judges 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Yale Bible 6D; Yale University: New Haven · London 2014).

Bibliography

243

Schart, A., ‘The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.62; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 164–200. Schenker, A., ‘Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon: Zur Textgeschichte des Pentateuchs im 2. Jh. v.Chr.,’ in M. Mor, F. V. Reiterer, and W. Winkler (eds.), Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies (Studia Judaica 53 / Studia Samaritana 5; De Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2010), 105–121. Schmid, K., ‘How to Identify a Persian Period Text in the Pentateuch,’ in R. J. Bautch and M. Lackowski (eds.), On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period: Discerning Criteria and Establishing Epochs (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.101; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 101–118. Schmid, K., ‘The Prophets after the Law or the Law after the Prophets? Terminological, Biblical, and Historical Perspectives,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 841–850. Schorch, S., ‘Dissimilatory Reading and the Making of Biblical Texts: The Jewish Pentateuch and the Samaritan Pentateuch,’ in R. F. Person, Jr. and R. Rezetko (eds.), Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 25; SBL: Atlanta 2016), 109–127. Schorch, S., ‘Der Pentateuch der Samaritaner: Seine Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für das Verständnis des alttestamentlichen Bibeltextes,’ in J. Frey, U. Schattner-Rieser, and K. Schmid (eds.), Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen (Studia Judaica 70 / Studia Samaritana 7; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2012), 5–29. Schorch, S., ‘Where is the Altar? Scribal Intervention in the Book of Joshua and Beyond,’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2020), 231–244. Schulz, S., Die Anhänge zum Richterbuch: Eine kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Ri 17–21 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 477; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2016). Screnock, J., ‘The Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals and Hebrew Diachrony,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 137 (2018) 789–819.

244

Bibliography

Shinan, A., and Zakovitch, Y., From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths & Legends, trans. V. Zakovitch (Jewish Publication Society: Philadelphia 2012). Ska, J. L., ‘Some Empirical Evidence in Favor of Redaction Criticism,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 567–577. Ska, J. L., ‘Why Does the Pentateuch Speak so Much of Torah and so Little of Jerusalem?,’ in P. Dubovský, D. Markl, and J.-P. Sonnet (eds.), The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 107; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 113–128. Smith, M. S., ‘ “Midrash” in the Book of Judges: The Cases of Judges 3:31 and 6:7–10,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 78 (2016) 256–271. Southwood, K. E., Marriage by Capture in the Book of Judges: An Anthropological Approach (Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series, ns 1; Cambridge University: New York 2017). Southwood, K., ‘ “This Man Has Come into My House”: Hospitality in Genesis 19; 34; and Judges 19,’ Biblical Interpretation 26 (2018) 469–484. Spronk, K., ‘Shamgar ben Anat (Judg 3:31) – a Meaningful Name,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 128 (2016) 684–687. Stackert, J., Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 52; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007). Stoppel, H., Von Angesicht zu Angesicht: Ouvertüre am Horeb: Deuteronomium 5 und 9–10 und die Textgestalt ihrer Folie (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 109; Theologischer: Zürich 2018). Tadiello, R., ‘Il canto di Debora (Gdc 5): studio poetico e testuale,’ Rivista Biblica 61 (2013) 331–373. Tarazi, P. N., The Old Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Historical Traditions (rev. ed., St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2003). Thelle, R. I., Approaches to the “Chosen Place”: Assessing a Biblical Concept (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 564; T&T Clark: London · Boston 2012). Thelle, R. I., ‘Matrices of motherhood in Judges 5,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43.3 (2019) 436–452. Tobolowsky, A., ‘Othniel, David, Solomon: Additional Evidence of the Late Development of Normative Tribal Concepts in the South,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 131 (2019) 207–219.

Bibliography

245

Toczyski, A., The ‘Geometrics’ of the Rahab Story: A Multi-dimensional Analysis of Joshua 2 (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 664; T&T Clark: London 2018). Ulrich, E., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 169; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2015). Ulrich, E., ‘The Samaritan and Masoretic Pentateuch: Text and Interpretation(s),’ in J. Baden [et al.] (eds.), Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls, Festschrift J. J. Collins [vol. 2] (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 175/2; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2017), 1314–1329. Van Seters, J., In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (Yale University: New Haven · London 1983). Veijola, T., Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium, vol. 1, Kapitel 1,1–16,17 (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 8,1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2004). Venema, G. J., Reading Scripture in the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 9–10; 31 – 2 Kings 22–23 – Jeremiah 36 – Nehemiah 8 (Oudtestamentische Studiën 48; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2004). Versluis, A., The Command to Exterminate the Canaanites: Deuteronomy 7 (Oudtestamentische Studiën 71; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2017). Versluis, A., ‘Devotion and/or Destruction? The Meaning and Function of ‫חרם‬ in the Old Testament,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 128 (2016) 233–246. Webb, B. G., The Book of Judges (New International Commentary on the Old Testament; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2012). Wells, B., ‘The Hated Wife in Deuteronomic Law,’ Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 131–146. Williamson, H. G. M., ‘Deuteronomy and Isaiah,’ in J. S. DeRouchie, J. Gile, and K. J. Turner (eds.), For Our Good Always, Festschrift D. I. Block (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2013), 251–268. Wilson, S. M., ‘Samson the Man-Child: Failing to Come of Age in the Deuteronomistic History,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 133 (2014) 43–60. Wong, G. T. K., Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges: An Inductive, Rhetorical Study (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 111; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2006). Wong, G. T. K., ‘Is There a Direct Pro-Judah Polemic in Judges?,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 19 (2005) 84–110. Wüste, C., Fels – Geier – Eltern: Untersuchungen zum Gottesbild des Moseliedes (Dtn 32) (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 182; V&R unipress: Göttingen 2018).

246

Bibliography

Wypych, S., Księga Jozuego: Wstęp, przekład z oryginału, komentarz (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny: Stary Testament 6; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2015). Yoo, P. Y., ‘The Four Moses Death Accounts,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 131 (2012) 423–441. Yoo, P. Y., ‘Once Again: The Yam Sûp of the Exodus,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 137 (2018) 581–597. Younger, K. L., Jr., and Huddleston, N. A., ‘Challenges to the Use of Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Forms for Dating and Interpreting Deuteronomy,’ in D. I. Block and R. L. Schultz (eds.), Sepher Torath Mosheh: Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy (Hendrickson: Peabody, MA 2017), 78–109. Zehnder, M., ‘Fluch und Segen im Buch Deuteronomium: Beobachtungen und Fragen,’ in G. Fischer, D. Markl, and S. Paganini (eds.), Deuteronomium – Tora für eine neue Generation (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 17; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2011), 193–211. Zenger, E., and Frevel, C., ‘Theorien über die Entstehung des Pentateuch im Wandel der Forschung,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1; 9th ed., W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 87–135. Zipor, M. A., ‘Divorce and Restoration of Marriage (Deut 24:1–4),’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 20 (2014) 127–140. Zsengellér, J., ‘Forgiveness as an Exegetical Solution: A Short Note on Judges 17,1–5,’ Biblische Notizen, nf 159 (2013) 9–26.

Index of ancient sources Old Testament Genesis 6:14  77 n. 88 6:16  77 n. 88 50:25  182 n. 151 50:26  182 n. 151 Exodus 2:21–22  202 n. 83 12:6  62 n. 68 12:41 142 12:51 142 18:2–3  202 n. 83 20:1–14 25 25:16  77 n. 88 25:21  77 n. 88 31:18  77 n. 88 Leviticus 2:13 69 Numbers 11:3 80 11:34 80 18:19 69 Deuteronomy 1:1–32:50 125–83 1:1–21 125–9 1:1–8 37–41 1:1–2 122 1:2 43 1:4  120, 162, 164, 177 1:7  43, 45 n. 28, 121, 161 1:8 65–7, 176 1:9–18 41–3 1:12 121

1:15 45 1:19–46 43–6 1:19  165, 212 1:21  151, 185 1:22–7:26 129–33 1:22  165, 167 n. 124 1:23 137 1:24–25 165 1:24 165 1:26–33 186 1:26 129 1:28 165 1:34–35 141 1:36  32, 165–6 1:38  32, 125 1:43 129 1:44–46 187 1:46–2:2 212 2:1–16 47–9 2:1  45, 121 2:4–4:31 210 2:4–5 176 2:5 136 2:7 141 2:8–9 136 2:9 198 2:12 49 2:13 126 2:14 38 2:14cd 120 2:16 141 2:17–3:29 49–52 2:24–3:11 38 2:24 151 2:26–27 199 2:26 198 2:29–30 199 2:32–33 199

248 2:33–34 208 2:36  164, 199 2:37 198 3:2 151 3:3 208 3:6 208 3:8  164, 198 3:10 164 3:11 164 3:14–15 165 3:14  165, 197 3:16–17 164 3:18–19 128 3:20  129, 211 3:22 172 3:27 118 3:28 46 4:1–40 52–8 4:3 171 4:11–15 122 4:13 77 4:15 173 4:16 120–1 4:22 125 4:25–28 20 4:25 190 4:28 20 4:38 173 4:41–49 58–9 4:41  104, 129, 168 4:43 168 4:46 121 4:47  129, 211 5:1–6:3 59–63 5:2 121 5:6–18 25 5:6 178 5:7–21 77 5:15 66 5:31–6:25 210 6:4–25 64–8 6:10–11 177

Index of ancient sources

6:12–15 24 6:12 190 6:14  190, 211 6:16 80 6:19 172 6:24e 120 7 68–71 7:1–2 162 7:1  34, 137, 166 7:2  188, 214 7:3–4 190 7:3 174 7:5  188, 194 7:16 188 7:20 177 7:24 126 7:26 212 8–9 133–5 8:1–9:7b 72–5 8 210 8:2 141 8:7 212 8:9 212 9:1  173, 212 9:7c–29 75–80 9:10 122 9:11 120 9:12 87 9:12a–d 120 9:14d 120 9:15a–c 120 9:16 87 9:22 120 9:23 129 10:1–11:1 81–3 10:1–10 136–8 10:1–5  77 77 nn. 88–9 10:4 77 10:6  165, 168, 183 10:9 165 10:10 212 10:11–15 138–40

Index of ancient sources

10:12 87 10:14–17 120 10:16–19:21 141–3 10:22 176 11:2–28 84 11:2–7 24 11:2–4a 120 11:3–4 29 11:4  131, 176 11:6 122 11:13  170, 190 11:15a 120 11:22 170 11:23  90, 173 11:24  24, 126, 211 11:25 126 11:27–12:27 217 11:29–13:19 88–93 11:29–12:28 29 11:29–12:27 123 11:29–30  46 n. 30, 108 11:29 32–3, 46, 107 n. 160, 123, 160 11:30  68, 107 n. 160, 121, 140 12–26 32 12:1–27 32 12:1f–15:23 210 12:3 194 12:10 169 12:26–27  12, 171 13:13–18 25 13:14 203 13:17 157 14 93–6 14:1 101 14:23a 120 14:24g 120 15:1–16:17 96–9 16:2 188 16:16–19:21 210 16:18–18:8 100–3 16:18 190

16:21–17:7 120 16:21 194 17:9 136 17:11 127 17:12  190, 203 17:14–20  19, 27, 196 17:18–18:5 120 17:18  104, 159 18:1 165 18:6  202 n. 82 18:9–30:20 103–12 18:14 90 18:15–22 19 19:2–5 168 19:6 168 19:7 168 19:9 168 19:14–20:20 120 20 143–5 20:5 136 20:8–9 136 20:8 195 20:10–14 25 20:11  167 n. 124 20:15 162 20:16–17 214 20:17  34, 68, 161, 166 20:18 214 21:1–22:25 145–51 21:4 122 21:10–25:19 120 21:21c–22:19 210 22:13–29 25 22:22 203 22:26–27:4d 151–8 22:28 209 23:5–6 177 23:5 165 23:13–14 212 23:19  32, 45 24:16 20 25:17 192

249

250

Index of ancient sources

25:19 192 26 120 26:5 176 26:7 176 27 24 27:1–13 217 27:1 147 27:2–13  29, 46 n. 30 27:2  151, 180, 211 27:4–8 12 27:4–5 32 27:4d–26 158–61 27:5–8  90 n. 115 27:5–7 207 27:5–6 194 27:5 211 27:12–13 180 27:12  32, 88, 123, 168, 196 27:15 201 28:15–69  120, 172–5 28:1–8a 161–7 28:7 33 28:7a 163 28:8a 210 28:8b–9b 167–9 28:9a 210 28:9c–14 169–72 28:36 20 28:58 127 28:64 20 28:69 28 29–30 176–80 29:1–27 120 29:1–14  77 n. 89 29:4–5 161 29:4 141 29:7  128, 165 29:8 127 29:9–10 162 29:20 127 29:21 190 29:25 173

30:1–10 19 30:18 126 31:1–33:4 112–16 31:1–32:50 180–3 31 24 31:3–32:8 120 31:4 38 31:6 126–7, 129 n. 17 31:7  46, 127, 211 31:8 126–7, 129 n. 17, 211 31:10 212 31:12 127 31:14 167 31:16 190 31:23 46 31:24 217 31:27–32:43 210 32:9–38 120 32:30 173 32:32  44, 45 n. 28 32:45 188 32:46 127 32:49 120 32:51–34:12 185–209 32:51–33:5 185–90 32:51  121, 213 33:2 211–12 33:3 211 33:4 120 33:5 212 33:6–34:12 116–19 33:6–34:4 122 33:6–25  168, 186, 216 33:6–12 190–3 33:6 210 33:7–25  191, 213 33:7 32–3, 35, 40, 123, 203, 217 33:12 212 33:13–17  32, 123, 193–7, 217 33:13a 210 33:13b 210 33:13c 210

Index of ancient sources

33:15a 210 33:18–25 197–202 33:20–21  194 n. 43 33:20 211 33:22ab 210 33:22c 210 33:26–34:12 203–9 33:26 210 34 19 34:1–4 19 34:3 187 34:5–12 122 34:5  125, 182 34:6 182–3 34:7 182 34:8 188 34:9 46 34:10  20, 37 Joshua 1–5 24–5 1 125–9 1:1–2 24 1:1 46 1:3–4 24 1:3 211 1:5–6 24 1:5 211 1:6 211 1:7–9 24 1:7 24 1:8 23 1:11 212 1:15 211 2:1–15 129–33 2:5 135 2:8 212 2:9–13 25 2:9–12 214 2:9  135, 210 2:10 211 2:14 135

251

2:14de 210 2:15 212 2:16–24 133–5 2:16  210, 212 2:18 212 3 136–8 3:8 212 3:17–4:1 139 4:1–5:1 138–40 4:5 33 4:6 33 4:19 142 5:2–12 141–3 5:9 33 5:10a 210 5:12d 210 5:13–6:27 143–5 6–10 25 6:18  33, 146 6:20 185 6:21  26, 151 6:22–25 214 6:24 26 7  33, 145–51 7:1 33 7:10  138 n. 32 7:16–18 33 7:21 26 7:24–26 33 7:25e 210 7:26 33 8:1–29 151–8 8:10 212 8:18–19 206 8:24  146, 206 8:29 211 8:30–35  24, 30, 33–4, 158–61, 214 8:30–32 12 8:30–31  23, 163, 207 8:31–35 24 8:31–32 217 8:31 211

252

Index of ancient sources

8:34 23 9–17 161–7 9:1–13:7 24 9 26 9:1–2  158 n. 83 9:9–10 214 9:26–27 214 9:27  33, 90 n. 115 10:1 186 10:5 33 10:28–17:13 210 10:29 185 11:1–9 193 12:7–24 11 14:6  33, 191 14:13–14 33 14:15 186 15:1 185 15:3  185, 188 15:7  33, 146 15:8  34, 187, 214, 217 15:13  33, 191 15:14 187 15:15–17 187 15:17 191 15:18–19 187 15:21 206 15:32 206 15:63  34, 187, 214, 217 17:14 33 17:16–18 187 18–21 167–9 18:4–19:51 210 18:5  32 n. 93 18:16  34, 166, 187, 214, 217 18:25 193 18:28  34, 166, 217 19:7–8 206 19:15  34, 199 19:50 33–4, 182 20:1–21:42 210 20:7  33, 104, 139

20:8 104 21:2 208 21:17–18  192 n. 33 21:21 33 22  12, 169–72 22:5 24 22:9 208 23 172–5 23:6–8 24 23:6 217 24 25 24:1–27  30, 34, 213–14 24:1–25 176–80 24:1  3, 139 24:25  28, 33, 139 24:26–33 180–3 24:26–27 33 24:26  24, 212 24:27f 210 24:28 189 24:29–30 189 24:29 46 24:30 33–4 24:31 189 24:32  30, 214 24:33 33–4 Judges 1:1–3:6 25 1:1–2:10a 185–90 1:1–2:5 213 1:1–2  30, 205 1:1  31, 189, 212–13 1:2 205 1:13 191 1:20 33 1:21  34, 166 n. 123, 211–12, 214, 217 1:22 211 2:6–16:31 213 2:7–10 24 2:8–10 212

Index of ancient sources

2:9 33–5, 182 2:10b–18:31 216 2:10b–3:31 190–3 2:10b–3:7 210 2:12  24, 211 3:8–18:31  191, 213 3:8–11 34 3:8–10  30 n. 86 3:9–11 30 3:15–30 212 3:15 205 3:27  35, 205 3:28 195 3:31 212 4–9 193–7 4–5 34 4 210 4:1 212 4:5  35, 199, 205 4:6  199, 201 4:10  199, 201 5  29, 210 5:2 28 5:6  192 n. 33 5:9 28 5:11 203 5:14  199, 205 5:17  198 n. 63 5:18  199, 201 6–8 34 6 210 6:26 34 6:35 199 7:1–8:3 210 7:3 26 7:24–8:3 199 7:24 35 8:29–9:36 210 9 34 9:37  32 n. 93, 35 10–18 197–202 10:1 35

10:3–12:7  194 n. 43 10:3–4 211 10:8 211 11:30–40 30 12:5 195 12:8 34 12:10 34 12:15 35 13–16 30 13:1–14:18 210 14:18 196 14:19–16:31 210 15:10–13 34 17:1–21:25 213 17:1 35 17:7–9  34, 199–200 17:8 35 18:2 35 18:13 35 18:30–31 26 18:30 171 18:31  35, 208 19–21  25, 29, 203–9 19:1–20:17 210 19:1–2  34, 199–200 19:1 35 19:3–9 34 19:10–12 214 19:10–11  34, 217 19:12 34 19:13 193 19:16–21 35 19:16 35 19:18  30, 34–5, 199–200, 214 19:26 34 20:2 35 20:8 35 20:18  31, 34–5 20:19–25 186 20:26 35 21:2 35 21:4 35

253

254 21:6 31 21:12–23 31 21:12 35 21:19–23 30 21:19 35 21:21 35 2 Samuel 5:6–8  166 n. 123 1 Kings 18:36  41 n. 15 2 Kings 22:3–23:25 27 1 Chronicles 2:7 146 29:5–6 28–9 29:9 28–9 29:14 28–9 29:17 28–9 2 Chronicles 17:16 29 33:7 54 33:15 54 Ezra 1:6 28 2:1  205 n. 99 2:21–35  205 n. 99 2:33  205 n. 99 2:68 28 3:5 28 7:13 29 7:15–16 29 Nehemiah 7:6  205 n. 99 7:26–38  31, 205 n. 99 7:37  205 n. 99

Index of ancient sources

11:2 28 11:36  96 n. 127, 217 13:28–29  96 n. 127 13:28 217 Psalms 18:30 81 Isaiah 1:2 113 1:13  62 n. 68 2:2 56 5:1 113 5:25 65 7:4 105 7:12 65 7:14–17  191 n. 27 7:14 200 7:22 113 8:12 44 8:14 174 8:19 103 9:5–6  191 n. 27 11:2  46, 191–2 12:1 45 14:9 48 15:1 48 15:2 115 19:3 103 19:20 107 19:22 176 26:21 61 30:2 162 31:1 84 34:2 51 34:6 113 35:3 52 36–37 191 36:17 117 37:19 56 37:36 189 40:2 59

Index of ancient sources

40:3 37 43:13 114 44:2 113 44:6 114 44:15 54 44:17 54 45:12 56 45:18 56 45:21 57 47:6 55 47:9 103 47:12 103 48:21 73 49:6 46 49:7 70 49:8 46 51:1 100 52:12 44 54:1 200 55:3 28 58:14 113 59:7 104 65:4 94 65:10 150 66:17 94 Jeremiah 1:1  192 n. 33 1:5 103 1:7 103 1:9 103 2:6 37 2:7 44 3:1 106 3:16 82 4:4 83 5:15 110 5:17 110 5:19 179 5:24 86 7:6 96 7:9–10 62

7:12  35, 91, 202 7:18 190 7:23 62–3 7:26 75–80 7:33 110 8:2 55 8:19 113 9:11–15 20 11:2–3 109 11:4 55 11:5  63, 70, 109 11:10  55, 113 12:14 111 13:11 107 15:1 37 15:3–4 109 15:14 114 16:4 109 16:6 93 16:11  102, 110 16:13 111 17:2–3 90 17:4 114 17:22 61–2 17:24 61–2 19:7 109 19:9 110 21:5 111 21:8–10 112 22:3 96 22:8–9 111 23:6 117 23:15–17 111 24:9 109–10 25:5 58 25:6–7 113 25:30 107 26:2  53, 76, 92 26:11 104 26:13 56 26:16 104 26:17 63

255

256 27:9 103 28:9 104 28:14 110 28:15–16 92 29:5–6 110 29:5 40 29:8 92 29:13 56 29:14 112 29:18 109–10 29:23 104 29:31–32 92 30:4 37 30:10 43 31:12 70 31:32  44, 113 32:8  192 n. 33 32:17 101 32:18  61, 83 32:20–21 119 32:21  52, 57 32:22  41, 63 32:27 101 32:30 55 32:35 103 32:37 111 32:39 63 32:41  110, 112 33:5 113 33:9 107 33:16 117 33:18  82, 101 33:22 176 33:26 41 33:31–33 28 34:9–11 97 34:13  56, 60 34:14–15 97 34:14 97 34:15 66 34:17 109 34:18  101, 148

Index of ancient sources

34:20 109 35:7 53 36:27–28 81 43:13 69 44:28 107 46:21 114 46:27 43 47:4–5 49 48:1 115 49:8 47 48:29 73 48:45 39 49:10 47 49:18 111 49:31 117 51:22 41 Ezekiel 1:1–3:15 37–41 1  20, 119 n. 210 1:3 81 1:4–28 120 1:4 21 1:14 186 1:26–28 119 2:2 42 3:14 52 3:15 65–7, 121 3:16–27 41–3 3:24–26 121 4:1–8 43–6 4:6 76 4:9–6:14 47–9 4:9 121 4:14 94 5:6 74 5:13d–6:13 120 6:13 90 7:1–8:2a 49–52 7:4  71, 92 8–11 20 8:2 122

Index of ancient sources

8:2b–10:17 52–8 8:3  20, 121 8:5  20, 121 8:11 108 8:12 108 10:18–11:3 58–9 11:2 121 11:4–20c 59–63 11:8 121 11:10 121 11:12 53 11:15  66, 116, 120 11:20 53 11:20d–15:6 64–8 11:24 19 12:6 119 12:10 119 12:26–13:23 120 13:23 103 14:1  108, 147 15:7–16:23 68–71 16:3  40, 44, 163 16:24–63 72–5 16:39 69 16:45  44, 163 16:46 44 17:1–24:14 75–80 17:20  115, 121 17:24 122 18:1–5 18 18:4–32 120 18:6–8 81 18:9 18 18:11–13 81 18:15–17 81 18:20  18, 20, 106 19:1–20:4 120 20:1 108 20:3 108 20:6 44 20:7–8 111 20:9–44 120

20:9 44 20:18 37 20:23 20 20:27  37, 115, 121 20:32 20 20:33–34 52 21 120 21:26 103 22:12 83 23 120 24:2–11 59 24:15–28:26 81–3 25:1–28:19 120 25:4  116, 120 25:10  116, 120 27:30 147 28:4 73 29–36 84 29:1–32:2c 120 31:10 73 32:18–30 122 32:29 122 33:24  41, 116, 120 34:21 117 34:31–36:9 120 35:2–4 38 36:2–3  116, 120 36:5  116, 120 36:27 53 37:1–39:10 88–93 37:16–19 123 37:23  111, 121 37:26  28, 217 37:27 171 38:2–39:11 51 39:11–45:9d 93–6 39:11 115 39:23  115, 121 39:26  115, 121 40–48  19, 123 40:1–43:6 120 40:1–2 140

257

258 40:4 52 40:46 82 43 20 43:11 112 43:19 101 43:26 201 44:3 91 44:5–30 120 44:5 52 44:8 83 44:11 82 44:15  82, 101 44:24 61 44:28  82, 115, 120 44:31 94 45:1 165 45:5–8  115, 120 45:5 115 45:7–17 19 45:9e–46:7 96–9 45:17–24  62 n. 68 46:1 62 46:8–24 100–3 46:12a 120 46:16–18 19 46:16  115, 120 46:18  115, 120 46:19a–c 120 46:20–22  115, 120 47:1–12 103–12 47:2d 120 47:5 122 47:6d 120 47:7ab 120 47:11a 120 47:11b 120 47:13–48:34 123 47:13–48:29 19 47:13–23 112–16 47:13 44 47:13bc 120

Index of ancient sources

47:13d–14a 120 47:19  38, 185 47:21 165 48 116–19, 122 48:1–27 216 48:10  180, 217 48:13 168 48:24–25  108, 168 48:28 38 48:33  108, 168 Hosea 2:1  38, 113 2:7–16 204 2:7 203 2:9 203 2:13  62 n. 68 2:15 190 2:16 203 2:17 150 2:19 190 3:4 201 3:5 56 4:15  89, 147 6:7 101 7:1 36 8:1 101 8:5–6 79 9:10  53, 113 11:8 111 12:5 204 12:8–9 68 13:2 78–9 14:2 56 Joel 2:20 87 Amos 1:13 91 2:10  47, 50

Index of ancient sources

2:11–12 117 2:12 200 4:1 36 4:4 91 7:9  41 n. 15 7:13 35 7:16  41 n. 15 8:5  62 n. 68 9:7 49 9:8 65 Obadiah 20 68 Micah 5:6 113 6:4  176, 178 6:5  106, 130, 177 Nahum 1:2 178

Habakkuk 2:2 53 2:4 164 3:11 164 3:3  37, 115, 117, 186 3:19 117 Zephaniah 1:15 53 Other sources Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt [TAD] A4.7 27 A4.8 27 Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q375 [4QapocrMosesa] 1 I, 8  90 n. 115 11QTa LII, 9  90 n. 115

259

European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski Vol.

1

Bartosz Adamczewski: Retelling the Law. Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy. 2012.

Vol.

2

Jacek Grzybowski (ed.): Philosophical and Religious Sources of Modern Culture. 2012.

Vol.

3

Bartosz Adamczewski: Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels. 2013.

Vol.

4

Edmund Morawiec: Intellectual Intuition in the General Metaphysics of Jacques Maritain. A Study in the History of the Methodology of Classical Metaphysics. 2013.

Vol.

5

Edward Nieznański: Towards a Formalization of Thomistic Theodicy. Formalized Attempts to Set Formal Logical Bases to State First Elements of Relations Considered in the Thomistic Theodicy. 2013.

Vol.

6

Mariusz Rosik: “In Christ All Will Be Made Alive” (1 Cor 15:12-58). The Role of Old Testament Quotations in the Pauline Argumentation for the Resurrection. 2013.

Vol.

7

Jan Krokos: Conscience as Cognition. Phenomenological Complementing of Aquinas's Theory of Conscience. 2013.

Vol.

8

Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Mark. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2014.

Vol.

9

Jacek Grzybowski: Cosmological and Philosophical World of Dante Alighieri. The Divine Comedy as a Medieval Vision of the Universe. 2015.

Vol.

10 Dariusz Karłowicz: The Archparadox of Death. Martyrdom as a Philosophical Category. 2016.

Vol.

11 Monika Ożóg: Inter duas potestates: The Religious Policy of Theoderic the Great. Translated by Marcin Fijak. 2016.

Vol.

12 Marek Dobrzeniecki: The Conflicts of Modernity in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. 2016.

Vol.

13 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Luke. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2016.

Vol.

14 Paweł Rytel-Andrianik: Manna – Bread from Heaven. Jn 6:22-59 in the Light of Ps 78:2325 and Its Interpretation in Early Jewish Sources. 2017.

Vol.

15 Jan Čížek: The Conception of Man in the Works of John Amos Comenius. 2016.

Vol.

16 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Matthew. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2017.

Vol.

17 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of John. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2018.

Vol.

18 Tomasz Stępień & Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska: Unknown God, Known in His Activities. 2018.

Vol.

19 Joanna Kulwicka-Kamińska: Dialogue of Scriptures. The Tatar Tefsir in the Context of Biblical and Qur’anic Interpretations. 2018.

Vol.

20 Mariusz Rosik: Church and Synagogue (30-313 AD). Parting of the Ways. 2019.

Vol.

21 Magdalena Zowczac (ed.): Catholic Religious Minorities in the Times of Transformation. Comparative Studies of Religious Culture in Poland and Ukraine. 2019.

Vol.

22 Cezary Korzec (ed.): Bible Caught in Violence. 2019.

Vol.

23 Magdalena Zowczak: The Folk Bible of Central-Eastern Europe. 2019.

Vol.

24 Sławomir Henryk Zaręba / Marcin Zarzecki (eds.): Between Construction and Deconstruction of the Universes of Meaning. Research into the Religiosity of Academic Youth in the Years 1988 – 1998 – 2005 – 2017. 2019.

Vol.

25 Bartosz Adamczewski: Genesis. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2020.

Vol.

26 Bartosz Adamczewski: Exodus–Numbers. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2020.

Vol.

27 Bartosz Adamczewski: Deuteronomy–Judges. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2020.

www.peterlang.com