Much of the topographic-epistemological tension within the portrait in Deut 4 ultimately affirms the plenary reception of revelation. As the directness of the exchange

TEXTS IN DEUTERONOMY DOCUMENTING THE PLENARY RECEPTION OF REVELATION

Lev 10:1f.). Much of the topographic-epistemological tension within the portrait in Deut 4 ultimately affirms the plenary reception of revelation. As the directness of the exchange

between YHWH and all-Israel comes into focus, the picture of mediation between the two agents cannot but dim:

At the same time it can be said the fire would be on the earth and the voice of God would resound from it 4:12, 15. Although Deut 4 encompasses the theme “you have seen no form of YHWH,” it also guarantees that the people standing at the foot of the mountain can perceive the Dec. From these two potentially contradictory notions a compromise (Spagat) was struck: The fire reaches from heaven to earth. Thereby the position of YHWH would remain intentionally unclear, his form having undergone no delimitation. The “voice” comes from the fire. Its place of origin—subsequently emphasized—can be in heaven or on earth. Epistemically, these differentiated

topologies have no real consequence. Israel hears the Dec, and needs no mediator.

⁸⁶⁰

858 So the translation of ןנעwithin the phrase in 11bβ לפרעו ןנע ךשח. Plurality is not a foregone conclusion, though, so NAS (1995) “darkness, cloud and thick gloom”; cf. NJB “a sky darkened by cloud, murky and thunderous.” Given the theophanic import of “the cloud” on the one hand, emphasized oneness of YHWH on the other, singularity or collectivity is preferable. LXX renders ןנעin 4:11 as γνόφος( “(a) darkness (that conceals),” then translates ךשח with the more common σκότος. Targums Onq., Neof.,and Ps-J. retain אננע

“the cloud” within the phrase אתטימאו אננע אכושח.

859 Cf. Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg, 78: “Das Feuer fungiert als Zeichen der Anwesenheit Gottes.”Es ist nicht nur auf dem Berg lokalisiert, sondern reicht bis in den Kern des Himmels (4,11). Daher kann es hier hießen: ‘vom Himmel hat er dich seine Stimme hören lassen’ (4,36).”

860 Translating, with some paraphrasis, Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg, 78: “Gleichzeitig kann aber gesagt werden, das Feuer sei auf der Erde und die Stimme Jhwhs erschalle daraus (4,12.15). Hinter der

topologischen Unklarheit steckt eine klare Konzeption. Transzendence und Kondeszendenz Jhwhs sollen gleichermaßen zum Ausdruck kommen. Dtn 4 kreist um das Thema “Keine Gestalt Jhwhs habt ihr gesehen”, gleichzeitige soll aber sichergestellt werden, dass das am Fuße des Berges stehende Volk den Dekalog wahrnehmen kann. Ein Spagat im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes ist die Folge. Das Feuer reicht von Himmel bis zur Erde. Die Position Jhwhs darin bleibt gewollt unklar, er hat ja keine abgegrenzte Gestalt.

Die Stimme kommt aus dem Feuer, ihr Ursprungsort ist—je nach dem, was betont wird—im Himmel oder auf der Erde. Epistemologisch hat diese differentierte Topologie aber keine Konsequenzen. Israel hört den Dekalog, kein Mittler wird gebraucht” (emphasis added). Deut 5 (excluding secondary additions such as v.

5) would portray a different scenario, as we will see below.

179 In Deut 4:12 we find a curious variation on the theme of “the sound/voice” (לוק), which appears in both 12bα and 12bβ. The formulation may have bemused the LXX translator, who assays to transfer various semantic shades of the term. The translation has been complicated by its juxtaposition with davar/devarim, another term lending itself to multivalence.

⁸⁶¹

The result is an effort to preserve the emphasis on the comprehensibility of the transmission.

⁸⁶²

In the Hebrew, although v. 12a clearly recounts the Lord speaking (רבד qal) directly to the people, 12bα foregrounds the “sound” of the words in a way that raises questions about the comprehensibility of that speech. Rose interprets v. 12 as sharing the view of 5:22 that the people did not comprehend the words but only heard a voice.

⁸⁶³

This reading reflects a dubious interpretation of 4:12bβ, however. While the verse does relativize its sonic elements, the purpose of doing so is probably not to insinuate (a) inapprehension or (b) defective transmission. With regard to (a), the benei yisrael show few signs of

deficient hearing;

⁸⁶⁴

this leaves (b), which entertains the idea of an ineffectual divine transmission, an unlikely premise for an Israelite to propagate. Rather, the relativizing of the sonic dimensions serves an aniconic purpose in this instance, namely, to draw

attention to the supranatural dimension of theophany and away from the possibility of seeing God’s form. Israel saw no visage

⁸⁶⁵

—only a “voice” (לוק יתלוז םיאר םכניא הנומתו).

⁸⁶⁶

861 “You heard a sound/voice of words, and you saw no likeness/form, but heard only a voice” (φωνὴν ῥημάτων ὑμεῖς ἠκούσατε καὶ ὁμοίωμα οὐκ εἴδετε ἀλλ᾽ ἢ φωνήν). Grk. φωνή carries the same semantic meaning as לוק, as both are fairly rendered “sound” or “voice.”

862 καὶ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐκ μέσου τοῦ πυρός φωνὴν ῥημάτων ὑμεῖς ἠκούσατε καὶ ὁμοίωμα οὐκ εἴδετε ἀλλ᾽ ἢ φωνήν “And the Lord spoke to you from the midst of the fire a voice of words, which you heard, and you no likeness, you heard only a voice” (writer’s tr.).

863 “Was Israel hörte, waren auch nicht direkt ‘Worte’ (vgl. 5,22), sondern die ‘Stimme’ von Worten, also das Reden Gottes nur als akustisches Phänomen ohne ein Erfassen artikulierter und verstehbarer

Formulierungen” (5. Mose, 2: 495); Krüger (“Zur Interpretation,” 91) confirms Rose’s reading.

864 Since the people “overhear” quite well in Exod 19:19; 33:1-4, there is no reason to assume differently in the Horeb account.

865 Tigay, Deuteronomy, 47-8, suggests translating temunah as “‘visage’ in the sense of ‘aspect,’

‘appearance’.... the visible aspect of a being, as in the present verse”; cf. ibid., nn. 43f.

866 Ibid.; Exod 20:4 also concerns itself with restricting the use of some types of image to represent YHWH.

B. Schmidt (“Aniconic Tradition”) cautions against assuming a blanket censure of visual representations in texts such as Exod 20:3f. and Deut 5 (see esp. pp. 80f.). “While in the history of interpretation both versions of the [second] commandment have been understood to encompass all image making, the broader contexts of Deut 5 and Exod 20 suggest otherwise. That is to say, Deut 5:8-10 and Exod 20:4-6 do not provide an inclusive list of what would have constituted conventional images regardless of whether they be images of foreign gods or those of YHWH” (ibid., 81; see also n. 801, above).

180 The dread associated with an illicit viewing of temnunat YHWH

⁸⁶⁷

does not apply to the comprehension of davar YHWH, however. A similar presupposition encumbers Rose’s interpretation of 5:22. In this verse the sentient apprehension of the “words” (22a) has immediate connection with their Verschriftung, being inscribed into two stone tablets (22b). No hint of a separation between what the people hear and that which is written materializes.

⁸⁶⁸

The current formulation of v. 22 suggests just the opposite.

⁸⁶⁹

Both Hebrew and Greek texts of vv. 12-14 display a sequence from theophanic audition to direct proclamation (v. 13a) to mediated teaching (v. 14). Subsequent verses reiterate and intensify the interdiction against fashioning YHWH’s form (vv. 15-18), envisioning him or another heavenly deity among the “hosts of heaven” (םימש אוצ לכ;

v.19). On the synchronic level Deut 4 thereby dogmatizes and absolutizes the “second commandment” (5:8f.) in advance. This suggests, once again, that Deut 4 postdates ch. 5, 3.3 Deut 4:33-37

Has any people ever heard the voice of a god speaking out of a fire, as you have heard, and lived? ³⁴Or has any god ever attempted to go and take a nation for himself from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and by terrifying displays of power, as the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes? ³⁵To you it was shown so that you would acknowledge that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him. ³⁶From heaven he made you hear (עמש hip’il) his voice to discipline (LXX “instruct” παιδεύω) you. On earth he showed you his great fire, while

867 The Bible does not deny YHWH a visage, but warns against presumptious gazing. In the present passage even the faintest outline of a being was obfuscated, therefore absolving the people from possible infraction.

The writer wished to leave no doubt as to Israel’s—perhaps also the deity’s—innocence, in this matter.

868 So Otto, “postdeuteronomische Deuteronomium,” 89-90: “Innerhalb der erzählten Zeit der Fabel des Pentateuch ist dieses Problem dadurch gelöst, daß, wie Ex 20,18 zeigt, das Volk den Sinaidekalog nicht verstanden hat, wenn es nur die Begleiterscheinungen der Offenbarung ‘sah’ und in Ex 20,19 sagt, es wolle hören,’ wenn Mose mit ihm rede. Erstmals in Dtn 5 hört es den Dekalog aus dem Munde des Mose, während der Dekalog in Ex 20,1 direkt von JHWH verkündet wird, und so zeigt sich dieser Vers Ex 20,1 as unmittelbare Leserinformation, die den akteuren auf der Ebene der erzählten Zeit nicht zur Verfügung steht”; cf. ibid., 92f. “Since the people do not understand the Dec in Exod 20, YHWH repeats the image prohibition in the framework of the Covenant Code, now however diverging in a concrete way by connecting to the cult (Exod 20:23), which makes the “decalogish” image prohibition of Exod 20:4 more understandable.”

869 Contra Rose: “Ausdrücklich wird unterstrichen, daß für Israel die Gottes-Begegnung in nichts ‘außer einer Stimme’ bestanden habe” (Rose, 5. Mose, 2:495). In other Deuteronomy passages Rose comes down in favor of the plenary theme, e.g., Deut 4:33, 36 (5. Mose, 2: 501f). Although he does not specify whether the people understood what they heard in v. 33, he connects v. 36 with 8:5 and says: “Der alleinige, universale Gott, der über Himmel und Erde verfügt (v.36), hat Israel in solchem ‘Wissen’ unterwiesen (‘erzogen’; vgl. 8,5), indem er vom Himmel aus direkt zum Volk sprach.” Here he connects the theophany with the impartation of ‘knowledge’ (Wissen), but then appears to waffle when, once again, he connects the concern about seeing YHWH’s temunah with cognitive apprehension of his devarim, concluding that “in dieser differenzierten Weise soll die Überlieferung von der Wahrnehmung der ‘Worte’ Gottes (vgl.5,4.22- 23) verstanden werden: nämlich als ‘Stimme’ (Schall) ‘mitten aus dem Feuer’” (ibid., 502).

Dalam dokumen levites and the plenary reception of revelation (Halaman 197-200)