TEXTS IN DEUTERONOMY DOCUMENTING THE PLENARY RECEPTION OF REVELATION
3.1 Introduction to Deut 4–5: The Dec Delivered at Mt Horeb
3.1.1 Deuteronomy’s Relationship to Other Texts and the Double Decalogue
Deuteronomy is to be read within the poetic parameters established in its opening. It is not a prophetic work, but a narrative about Moses’ prophetic communication in Moab;
it shares the historiographical claim made in the previous Pentateuch narrative.
771J.-P. Sonnet draws attention to the inner-connectedness between Deuteronomy and the other books in the Pentateuch, chapters 1–3 offering a parade example of this. Indeed, if one disregards the colophon in Num 36:13 and the five-verse Buchüberschrift of Deut 1:1-5,
772the latter of which gives the impression of a thoroughly separating caesura, then a reading of Deut 1–3 suggests a continuation of relatively uninterupted, narratival development from Genesis through Deuteronomy. Recent scholarship however scruples over the Notian notion that chs. 1–3 function primarily as the original, introductory speech to the Enneateuch.
773Given the Dec’s importance within the Pentateuchal
771 Sonnet, Book, 11; cf. ibid., 11-12: “Everything in Deuteronomy is mediated by historiographic telling;
sense and reference primarily reverberate within the represented world set up by the book’s opening.... the reader relates to the represented world as to the world of past history... the reader’s hermeneutical
relationship with Deuteronomy is not achieved at the expense of the work’s historiographical claim; it operates along with it. Historiographical narration is Deuteronomy’s most basic ideal”; cf. Gertz,
“Kompositorische Funktion,” 112f.
772 Cf. Karin Finsterbusch, Weisung für Israel. Studien zu religiösem Lehren und Lernen im Dtn and in seinem Umfeld (vol. 44 of FAT; Mohr Siebeck: Tubingen, 2005), 117-28; see also n. 796 below.
773 Cf. Gertz, “Kompositorische Funktion,” 103-04. Times have changed. The Hexateuch and Enneateuch are now reemerging, although in a Gestalt unaligned with the discussion before Noth (see now the tour de force essay of Römer, “How Many Books”). Deut 1-3 are currently being reconsidered; they not only stand at the beginning of the DH but are also interwoven with several great narrative works placed within one another, viz., (1) the book of Deuteronomy delimited by the (earlier) colophon Num 36:13 and the book superscription in (the subsequent expansions of) Deut 1:1-5 on the one hand, death of Moses in Deut 34:1-9 on the other; (2) the Pentateuch completed via the Moses epitaph in Deut 34:10-12, the Hexateuch given prominence as individual entity via Rückblick to Josh 24; (3) the great historical work from Gen–Kgs held together by the continuation of the story/plot (Fortlauf der Handlung). Thus it is time to readdress the question “what Deut 1–3 could otherwise be, if not the introductory speech to DtrG” (Gertz, op. cit., 104, 113). Gertz’s not uncontested thesis runs as follows: “Deut 1-3 can be appropriately described as a
161
framework, and though the direction of development between Exodus and Deuteronomy often remains less than clear, internal connections between the Dec in Exodus and its counterpart in Deuteronomy can be assumed. In general, the basic direction of influence appears to flow from the former to the latter. One might accuse dtr Dec of putting its awareness of the Exodus Dec on display.
“The authority of God and his claim on Israel belongs to that theme in which all statements of Deuteronomy have a part.”
774By emphasizing the direct impartation of the Dec, Deuteronomy theologically reevaluates both it and the nation, the dignity of the former deriving from its being promulgated by the deity.
775That it was proclaimed both orally and etched in stone guarantees its eternal validity.
776This is not to imply ancient audiences did not perceive its redactional and constructed character; such awareness would not have necessarily diminished the theological authority of its content, however.
The benei yisrael’s participation in the revelatory theophanies helped affirm and maintain that authority.
777F. García López recognizes the emphasis of the community’s own experiences in the formulating of the Dec: “El decálogo recibió su formulación definitiva en el seno de una communidad de personas libres y creyentes, que habían experimentado la salvación de Dios.”
778relecture of the preceding narratives of the desert wandering, the task of which from the beginning exists in firmly integrating Deuteronomy into a non-P, narratival sequence of events stretching from at least Exodus to Joshua” (ibid. and 111-13; for critique of this thesis see the respective essays of T. Römer and E. Blum in the same volume).
774 “Die Autorität Gottes und seines Anspruches an Israel gehört zu jenen Themen, die all Aussagen des Deuteronomium mitbestimmt haben” (Schäfer-Lichtenberger, Josua und Salomo, 43). “An understanding of authority unfolds in Deuteronomy that takes its departure from the first commandment and from this guideline (Leitlinie) presents an inspired system of living (Lebensordnung) for Israel” (ibid.).
775 Georg P. Braulik, Deuteronomium 1–16,17 (vol. 15 of NEB; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1986), 17, 52.
776 To these criteria Krüger (“Zur Interpretation,” 94) adds two more: the laws stood the test of time, and they showed themselves to be wise and just: “Was bleibt und orientierend weiter wirkt, sind die von Jahwe aufgeschriebenen Gebote und die von Mose gelehrten Satzungen und Rechte ([Dtn 4]v. 13f), die es allesamt zu halten gilt (v. 1f). Sie gewinnen ihre Bedeutung nicht (nur) aus ihrer göttlichen und/oder menschlichen Herkunft, sondern vor allem aus ihrer geschichtlichen Bewährung (v. 3f) und daraus, dass sie als weise und gerecht einleuchten (v. 5ff).”
777 Schäefer-Lichtenberger asserts that in light of the delegation of authority to Moses, the authority relation for Israel can only be mediated with a view to the torah. At Moses’ death, moreover, another entity must then continue the mediation of torah (Josua und Salomo, 45). Her seminal study however does not take into account either pentateuchal passages that (a) document the PRR or (b) allow for the unmediated
transmission of divine torah (of which Jer 31 fervently speaks).
778 El Pentateuco, 294.
162
In the extant record of law-related events in the Pentateuch, only Deuteronomy depicts the decisive transmission of the divine law as a Mosaic interpretation.
779That the Dec soon passes to Moses suggests dtr preoccupation with the ongoing maintenance and propagation of the combined oral and written
780tradition (cf. Deut 9:9-11; 31:9
781; Exod 24:12
782; 32:15).
783Whereas Mt Horeb figures centrally in the dtn conception of Mosaic revelation in the land of Moab
784(e.g., Deut 4:10, 15; 5:2; 18:16), Sinai appears in Deuteronomy only in the Blessing of Moses (33:2, 16).
785The different loci of revelation function in part to distinguish between the reception and interpretation in the Exodus and Deuteronomy accounts, respectively. Passages in Deuteronomy that bring writing into bold relief form a framework within the Pentateuchal narratives and plot in an effort to differentiate the religious status of the legal stipulations.
786779 Schmid, “Das Deuteronomium,”198f.
780 Respecting the “very elevated rhetorical style which characterises the homilies, especially thoughout chs. 4–11 ... this hortatory style is a literary feature, that is, a feature connected with written composition, even though it appears to have originated in a situation where oral teaching and exhortation would have been normal. Its originators must have been preachers and teachers, rather than scribes in the narrower sense. Since it is this elevated rhetorical style that is the most distinctive characteristic of the book of Deuteronomy, and since it also reappears to some degree in motive clauses in the law code, it may be regarded as a major clue to the identity of its authors” (Ronald E. Clements, Deuteronomy [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997], 35). Clements appears to acquiesce to von Rad and others’ notions of northern levitical authorship, to which he already points in ibid., 18.
781 The text reflects cooperation of levitical priests and elders in (cf. also 15:1; 2 Kgs 23:1f). For Braulik (Deuteronomium II, 223f.) such a setting facilitates Israel’s reflecting on the religious fundamentals of its existence.
782 The contents of “the tablets and the law and the commandment” in 24:12 written by YHWH for the instruction of the people remain obscure (“bleibt dunkel,” Krüger, “Zur Interpretation,” 92). Himbaza (Le Décalogue, 281) wonders whether הוצמהו הרות in 24:12 may have in mind an inscription that carries greater spiritual authority than that of 5:22.
783 Cf. Braulik, Deuteronomium 1–16, 17: “An die beiden Rechtsakte der Verkündigung und Niederschrift schließt die Übergabe der beiden Tafeln an Mose (vgl. 9:9-11; Exod 24:12; 32:15) an.” The positioning of Moses between YHWH and Israel, moreover, points to the importance of future juristic mediation (cf. ibid., 49).
784 “One should not look for Horeb on a map; the name is a literary construct from a Hebrew root meaning dry, waste or desert” (Römer, So-called, 127-28).
785 Deuteronomy views Trans-Jordan as the promised land that the people will possess. “They are now on the boundary, not yet in the land” (Miller, Deuteronomy, 53); cf. 6:1.
786 Otto, “Synchronical,” 17; Adam C. Welch, Deuteronomy: The Framework to the Code (London: Oxford University, 1932), 29, suggests the two decalogues reflect different stories of origin: “To have found that one version can be derived from the northern kingdom is enough to suggest that the other version in Exodus may spring from Judah. Then we should have a phenomenon similar to the case of the double story of the origins of Israel.” But this explanation seems an oversimplification.