Reconsidering Deuteronomy 26:5–11 as a ‘small historical creed’: Overtures towards a ‘migrant reading’ within the Persian period (original) (raw)
Related papers
Introduction to the Book of Deuteronomy
The English title for the book of Deuteronomy is transliterated from the Greek (LXX) translation of Deut 17:18, in which the king shall have ֹּאת ַז ה ה ַּתֹורָ ה ֵה נ ְּ ש ִ מ ("a copy of this law"). However, both the Greek Δευτερονόμιον and its rendering ("Deuteronomy") into English mean "a second law," rather than "a copy or a repetition of this law." Therefore, the English name of "Deuteronomy" is a misnomer for its meaning may imply that Moses had a second law different from the Israelites' first law. In the setting of Deuteronomy, however, it was a renewal or a copy of the covenant made at Mount Sinai/Horeb with Moses. Following the ancient Jewish practice of naming a book by its opening line, the Hebrew name for this book is debarim, for the book began with "These are the words . . ." ( ֶּה ֵל א
Reassessing the Origins of Deuteronomic Prophecy: Early Moses Traditions in Deuteronomy 18:15-22
2013
The prophet like and the test of the false prophet in Deut 18:21-22 are often judged to be exilic (or postexilic) insertions that retrospectively redefine prophecy in response ٠ ؛ a crisis in prophecy that arose during the final years of the Judean monarchy. Against this standard critical reconstruction, this article argues that the ideas recorded in Deut 18:15-22 are rooted in earlier traditions about Moses and prophecy, and therefore, that the passage is better characterized as a compilation andformalization ofearly traditions than as a late innovation or redefinition ofprophecy. Arguments for a preexilic date ofcomposition are also proposed. Key Words: prophet like Moses, true and false prophecy,, Jer 1:7-9, Jer 28:8-9, Hos 12:14.
This expansive volume is an apt development in Lundbom’s career, as it complements his longstanding interest in rhetorics, and follows his three-volume commentary on Jeremiah for the Anchor Bible series. The connections between Jeremiah’s prophecy and the redaction of his book to the Deuteronomistic school, and the setting of Deuteronomy as an extended oration delivered by Moses in the Transjordan, are two branches that connect the commentary to the author’s previous projects as an obvious continuum, evident in the erudition and the scope of his commentary. My qualms as a legal historian aside, Lundbom’s commentary is dense in breadth and depth. He covers an impressive ground of scholarship and traditions, ranging from the Ancient Near East to classical Greco-Roman sources, Christian interpretation, and modern scholarship. The introduction alone is a valuable guide, and his rhetorical and structural analysis of each passage of the book is a tremendous resource for any scholar of Deuteronomy. In his survey of previous research and his presentation of theology, Lundbom offers a new path for twenty-first century scholarship. I did not always agree with his theological interpretations, but his choice to focus on theological issues such as love and justice serves as an important reminder of the brilliant cohesion of Deuteronomy, for all its complexities, that made its impact longstanding on many generations to come
This essay revisits three texts that have long proved key to scholarly reconstructions of Deuteronomy’s influence and innovation in regulating the location of sacrifice; namely, Deut 12, Exod 20:22–26, and Lev 17. Scholars continue to place heavy weight on the question of the relative chronology of these three passages. The dominant assumption remains that, if it can be proven that Deut 12:13-18 (at least) predates the latter two texts, this would necessitate reading Exod 20:22–26 as a critical reaction to D, and Lev 17 as a modified acceptance of its commands. Alternatively, should it be accepted that Deut 12:13–18 critically appropriated the altar law of Exod 20:24, then this would effectively end the debate about how many locations of sacrifice could be permitted in later legislation. This essay argues, however, that we should not fall into the trap of assuming that centralizing discourses developed in a linear way after the composition of Deut 12:13–18. Nor should we imagine that all later texts that dealt with the question of the location of sacrifice and slaughter were always referring back to D. Following a brief discussion of the development of centralization as a legislative theme in Deut 12, the essay offers a fresh evaluation of the degree to which D’s centralization mandate shaped how later scribes approached laws dealing with centrifugal or centripetal sacrificial practice. A brief conclusion then addresses the implications of the analysis for the study of Deuteronomy and its influence on other pentateuchal traditions.
Spoken Word and Ritual Performance: The Oath and the Curse in Deuteronomy 27-28
2015
The composition of Deut 27-28 is shaped by its ritual and performative function and by the narrative device of a script within a speech: the oral and ritual performance of the covenant ceremony by the Levites is framed within the speech-command of Moses. Studies of Deut 28 have largely focused on the textual tradition of this chapter and on its parallels with ancient near eastern treaties, and with the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon in particular. Many studies view Deut 28 as a collection of isolated units of curse lines disconnected from the ceremonial performance of the covenant ratification ceremony detailed in Deut 27. This is due in part to the commonly held view that chapter 27 is an interpolation and a later addition to the literary unit of 12-26 and 28. However, a re-examination of comparative ancient near eastern evidence and a fresh literary analysis of 27 suggests that chapters 27-28 form a unified whole. A text-centric approach to Deut 28 has left largely unexamined the...
Interpreting Deuteronomy: Issues and Approaches
2012
Interpreting Deuteronomy: Issues and Approaches is the fruit of the 2011 Tyndale Fellowship Old Testament Study Group and the third in a series of books devoted to current “issues and approaches” in OT books (following Interpreting the Psalms [2005] and Interpreting Isaiah [2009]). It is not intended to serve as an introduction to the book nor to engage with “scholarly minutiae,” but rather to “bridge the gap” between the two (p.14). This collection of essays thus assumes a basic knowledge of Deuteronomy and Deuteronomy scholarship and draws the reader deeper into the themes and issues found in this theologically rich book.