TEXTS IN DEUTERONOMY DOCUMENTING THE PLENARY RECEPTION OF REVELATION
3.1 Introduction to Deut 4–5: The Dec Delivered at Mt Horeb
3.1.4 Deuteronomy 4:1-40
Deuteronomistic additions to Deut 4f. originate in the same circle responsible for Deut 4:1-40, which comprises a single unit.
798A. Kuenen long ago recognized the priestly language it contains.
799More accurately described, the chapter merges priestly and non- priestly traditions.
800For von Rad, the prohibition of images in Deut 4:15-20, 23-24
“kann nicht ursprünglich sein (vgl. den Bruch zwischen v. 14 und 15!).”
801Rofé regards 4:32-40 as independent of the rest of the chapter, assigning it to the exilic period.
802798 “This exhortation presupposes the existence of the deuteronomistic material in chs. 1–3, but is not the original continuation of that material, which is to be found rather in the account of the conquest of the land.
It is, therefore, a secondary deuteronomistic addition.” Even with the change from plural to singular forms of address characteristic of dtr writings, the entire section remains a single unit (Hayes, Deuteronomy, 148;
cf. Otto, DPH, 163f and n. 32; cf. Rofé, Deuteronomy, 21: “The section 4.1-40 is an independent one.” For analyses of Deut 4:1-40 within the larger block of Deut 1–4, see Finsterbusch, Weisung, 128-48. Georg Braulik, “Das Buch Deuterononium,” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament5 (ed. Erich Zenger, et al.;
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2004), 125-41, 141, dates 4:1-40 to the “spätexilisch” period. He also ascribes to the same period much of 7f., 9:1-8, 22-24, and 30:1-10. The editing of the gathered materials in chs. 19–
25 presumably derives first from the postexilic period (ibid.). Rose (“Deutéronome,” 216f.) posits a close connection between the Yahwist and the Deuteronomist (“L’’Historiographie deutéronomiste’ est ainsi devenue l’’Historiographie yahwiste’”), and assigns chs. 1–3, 5 to an early dtr layer (“ancienne couche deutéronomiste”), the block of chs. 1–5 to a secondary dtr layer (“couche dtr plus récente”).
799 Verses 16-18: הבכנו הכז, ףנכ רופצ,שמר ; v. 25: דילוה, ןשונ; v. 32 םיהלא ארב (Kuenen, Historico-Critical Inquiry, 336-37); Otto, “Deuteronomium 4,” 217-19; Rofé, Deuteronomy, 21; Miller, Deuteronomy, 61.
800 Otto, “Deuteronomium 4,” 218-19: “Dtn 4,19 nimmt als integraler Bestandteil von Dtn 4,15-22 auch Dtn 17,2f. auf, so daß wir hier einen Autor sehen, der gleichermaßsen das dtr Deuteronomium wie die Priesterschrift überschaut”; cf. ibid., 221: “Damit ist insgesamt deutlich geworden, daß Dtn 4 an priesterschriftliche und nichtpriesterschriftliche Überlieferungen des Tetrateuch anknüpft, was deren redaktionelle Verbindung in der Pentateuchredaktion voraussetzt”; Rofé, Deuteronomy, 21.
801 Das fünfte Buch Mose Deuteronomium: Übersetzt und erklärt von Gerhard von Rad (vol. 8 of ATD;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 36. Von Rad continues with “der Text wird so zu verstehen sein, daß er ursprünglich von der Horeboffenbarung im ganzen gehandelt hat und das sich die Warnung vor der Anbetung Gottes in einem Bilde erst sekundär an den v. 12 angehängt hat, wo gesagt war, daß Israel am Horeb nur die Stimme Jahwes gehört, mit Augen aber keine Gestalt gesehen habe.” For critical evaluation of the notion that Deut 4:15-20 requires the worship of YHWH to be “both exclusive and devoid of any concrete symbol whatsoever,” see Brian B. Schmidt, “The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts,” in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (ed. D. Edelman; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), 75-105, 83-8 (quotation from pp. 83-4). “Non-astral inanimate objects are not singled out for censure, just as they are not mentioned in Deuteronomy 5 and Exodus 20” (ibid., 87; see also n. 866 below).
802 “The section was composed ... during the Exile, a crucial point in Israel’s history—and not only from the aspect of physical existence. It was a turning point in Israel’s faith, upon which idolatry was eradicated and belief in one God became exclusively dominant. Our passage supplied an ideational, fundamental basis for this turning point” (Deuteronomy, 20); cf. the discussion of the secondary position given vv. 32-40 by some scholars in Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism” (vol. 2 of FAT;
166
Others consider vv. 1-30 a composite. T. Veijola brings a recent, detailed counter to the uniformity thesis.
803G. Braulik however has argued well for its coherence.
804There still remain issues to resolve in my opinion if one holds to the single authorship thesis (see below). The author of 4:1-40 has been described as a Dtr enthusiast who appropriates priestly traditions.
805I have no reservations in placing it among the latest texts of Deuteronomy
806as plausibly reworking both “Deut 5(ff.)” and “Exod 19ff.”
807Rose labels vv. 1-40 the “Horeb Event,” “a monumental theological treatise in which the authors of ‘Layer IV’
808programmatically summarize and expound (darlegen) their theological conception.”
809Whereas in this redactional schema Rose attributes the basic sequence of commands in the Deut 5 Decalogue to his “Layer III,” “Layer IV” inserts
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 187f., who, following Lohfink, characterizes it as a peroration or peroratio (ibid., 187, 189, 191).
803 Timo Veijola, Das fünfte Buch Mose (Deuteronomium): Kapitel 1,1-16,17 (vol. 8/1 of ATD; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 93-121, cf. especially pp. 96-99; Deut 4:1aβ, 10-12a, 13, 14, 22 belong to a Grundschrift DtrN wherein Israel is addressed in the second person plural. (Actually, first person is interspersed in vv. 1aα and 10.) The first covenant, theological redaction was accomplished by DtrB (= Dtr Bearbeitung) vv. 1b, 3f, 9, 12b, 15, 16a*, 19, 20, 23abα, 24-29, 31, which focus on the problem of foreign gods and their images. Here both singular and plural address obtain, thus rendering inviable the
Numeruswechsel criterion. The second redaction (vv. 5-8*) brings into contact the wisdom tradition with the observance of the law. Here, excepting the late addition of v. 7,* with its conspicuous transition to first person plural (וילא ונארק־לכב 7bβ), second person plural predominates. In the individual expansions to the Grundschicht (v. 21) and to the first revision ( v. 2a + 2b, v. 21) both speech forms occur, even side by side (v. 21). The two following addenda (vv. 32-35 and 36-40) address Israel in the second person singular; this casts a suspicious light on the single exception (v. 34b) with the two-fold Numeruswechsel of the addition;
vv. 33, 36 are also suspicious, though for other reasons (ibid., 98); cf. Otto, “postdeuteronomistische Deuteronomium,” 78 and n. 24. Indeed, vv. 33-36 belong to the tradition of the PRR and probably HexRed;
see also MacDonald, Deuteronomy, 185ff.
804 See especially his redactional arguments in Die Mittel Deuteronomischer Rhetorik: Erhoben aus Deuteronomium 4,1-40 (vol. 68 of AB; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), affirmed by Schäfer- Lichtenberger in Josua und Salomo, 47, n. 140.
805 Rofé, Deuteronomy, 21: “There can be no doubt that the author is a loyal disciple of the
Deuteronomistic school, both in his clear Deuteronomistic style and the fundamental idea: opposition to images in the worship of the Lord (4.9-19, 23-25).” The dtr disciple combined the priestly and dtr traditions together (ibid., 21f).
806 Krüger, “Zur Interpretation,” 85: “Dtn 4.1-40 gehört—jedenfalls in seiner vorliegenden Gestalt—
wahrscheinlich zu den jüngsten Partien des Buches Deuteronomium.” Recognizing the broad historical scope of this pericope, Krüger suggests that at the time of writing it was inserted not merely into a self- standing book of Deuteronomy but rather into a cross-Pentateuchal work spanning Genesis to Deuteronomy and containing the priestly parts of the Pentateuch (ibid.).
807 Ibid., 86.
808 Martin Rose, 5. Mose Teilband 2: 5. Mose 1–11 und 26–34: Rahmenstücke zum Gesetzeskorpus (Zurich:
Theologische Verlag, 1994). Rose’s four layer diachronic scheme divide as follows: (I) Deuteronomy collection from the time of Hezekiah; (II) Deuteronomy school from Josiah’s time; (III) dtr layer from the period of the exile; (IV) Later dtr layer from the late exilic or early postexilic period.
809 Ibid., 2:491. Rose characterizes the treatise not as a systematic Dogmatik but rather a composition with the discursive breadth of a sermon and admonition: “Dies geschieht allerdings nicht im Stil einer
systematischen Dogmatik, sondern in der diskursiven Breite des Predigens und Ermahnens” (ibid.).
167
numerous additions that shape the larger theological horizon.
810The latter layer
encompasses not only ch. 5 (see especially vv. 3,
8115) but also ch. 4, where the Autoren have composed “another individual formation” (ein neuer, eigener Gestaltung), one imbued with their distinctive theological interpretation. Therewith ch. 4, particularly vv.
10-14 and 36, offers a key to understanding that aids the interpretation of ch. 5.
812Rose points out a notable topographical variable, which in this instance functions to distinguish Deuteronomy from the Dec: the prescriptions of the dtn code are communicated “beyond the Jordan” (1:1; 4:46, etc.), immediately prior to entering the land, whereas the Dec is presented as if heard for the first time at Horeb “par le peuple directement de la bouche de Dieu (5,4 ... 5,22 ...).”
813These and other factors, for example ch. 4’s familiarity with Jeremiah and the DH, nominate it as a post-dtr composition attributable to HexRed and PentRed.
Otto attributes the entire pericope to PentRed.
814There are problems with this view.
For example, verses 10-14 stand out in the manner in which they intertwine mediate and immediate facets of the divine relationship with Israel. YHWH himself speaks to the םע and writes the Dec on two stone tablets (v. 13), then assigns Moses the position not of mediator but rather teacher of law (v. 14); indeed, vv. 10-14 avoid even a hint of Mosaic
810 “Das Thema der Schicht III, nämlich in Kap. 5 von der Mitteilung der ersten und fundamentallen Gesetzesreihe (‘Zehn Gebote’) zu erzählen, hat die Redaktion [IV] aufgenommen und zu einer allgemeineren theologischen Reflexion zum ‘Gesetz’ (bes. in V.5-8 u. 40) ausgestaltet, wie sie auch stilistisch Kap.4 als eine Eröffnung zur Gestetzesmitteilung konzipiert hat (bes. in V.1: ‘Israel, höre...!’) (ibid.); cf. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 43-44: “There is no doubt but that the work of the deuteronomistic circle represents a process or movement which was not completed in the context of a single editing event incorporating Deuteronomy into the deuteronomistic history.... it must be proposed that in the case of Deuteronomy there is clear evidence of more than one deuteronomistic edition. In the context of our understanding the work of the deuteronomistic circle as a process or movement, it must of course follow that the assignment of passages to particular editorial layers is often very uncertain. Neverthless, there seems to be a least one further deuteronomistic layer in Deuteronomy, apart from that already described, which may be isolated fairly easily. This is the layer which takes its starting point in 4:1-40. It presupposes the existence of the other layer, and is, therefore, the later of the two.”
811 “Not with our ancestors did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.”
812 “Damit geben sie (bes. in V.10-14 u. 36) einen Verständnisschlüssel, der fortan für die Lektüre von Kap.
56 gelten soll” (5. Mose, 2: 491).
813 Rose, Deutéronome, 222; in the presentation of Deut 5 in which “el decálogo es promulgado
directamente por Dios y se dirige a todos los israelitas,” vv. 1,6 may suggest the location of its disclosure to be immaterial, perhaps heightening the otherworldly character of the event (García López, El
Pentateuco, 293, emphasis added).
814 Otto, “Deuteronomium 4,” 219, 221: “Überblickt der Verfasser von Dtn 4,1-40 das Deuteronomium, das Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, die Prophetenbücher, insbesondere Jeremia, und die Priesterschrift, so kommt nur der Pentateuchredaktor, der Priesterschrift und Deuteronomium in einer umfassenden
Pentateuchkonzeption vereinigt und ausgleicht, als Autor von Dtn 4,1-40 in Frage”; idem, DPH, 180.