Deuteronomy in the New Testament (Library of New Testament Studies)

THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE SCRIPTURES OF ISRAEL Editor Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise Published under LIBRARY OF...

Author: Maarten J. J. Menken | Steve Moyise

654 downloads 3806 Views 7MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE SCRIPTURES OF ISRAEL Editor Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise

Published under

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

358 formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor Mark Goodacre Editorial Board John M. G. Barday, Craig Blomberg, Kathleen E. Corley, R Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenbor& Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Robert L. Webb, Cauin H. Williams

DEUTERONOMY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Edited by

Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise

Publishedby T&T Clark International A Continuum imprint The Tower Buildin& 11 York Rod, London SEI 7NX SO Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 1W38

-

AU debts r-ed No mrt of this ~ihlieatiwmay be reprmked or mmnitted in any formor by any mans, electronic or mechanical, inc1photocopying,recording or any information storage or retrieval system, withoutpermission in writingfrom the pnbLisbers. British Libracy Cataiogoiog-in-Poblicatian Data A catalogm recad for this book is available from the British Library

Typeset by ISB Typeseltin&Sheffietd Printed onadd-freepapx in Great Britain by Biddles Ltd, King's Lynn

Abbreviations List of Conlributors Introduction Chapter 1 DEUTERONOMY INTHEJUDAISM OF THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD

Timothy H. Lm Chapter 2 DEUTERONOMY IN MARK'SGOSPFL Steve Moyise

chapter 3 DEUTERONOMY IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL Maarten 3.3. Menken Chapter 4 D E m O N O M Y IN LUKE-ACTS

Dietrich Rusam Chapter 5 DEUTERONOMY IN JOHN'S GOSPEI Michael Labahn Chapter 6 DEUTERONOMY IN GALATIANS AND ROMANS

Roy E. Ciampa Chapter7 DEUTERONOMY IN 1 AND 2 C0IUNTHIANS

Brian S. Rosner

chapter 8 DEUTERONOMY IN THEPASTORAL EPISTLES

Gerd H3fner

vii

xi

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

vi Chapter 9

~ O N O M INYHEBREWS

Gert 1. Steyn Chapter 10 D m O N O M Y IN REVELATION

Michael Tily Index of Quotations and Allusions -New Testament Order Index of Quotations and Allusions - Deuteronomv ~,Order Index of Modem Authom

ABBREVIATIONS

AASF AB ABG ABRL AnBih BAGD

BASOR BBB BBET BDB

BDF

B m BETL Brn Bib BN BNTC BThs BTS BZ BZAW BZNW CBm CBQ CBQMS CdNT Dm EKiaT ETL EvT EWNT W T

FRLANT GTA HAT HBS

Amales A&ae S c i e n t i m Fennicae Anchor Bible A h h zur BIGXI und iha Gescbichte Anchor Bible Reference Libmy Anal& biblica W. B-, W. F. Amdt, F. W. Giogdch 4 F .W. Danker, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of theNou Testment ondOtherEnr5. Christian Litel-ahrre (Chicago:Univmity of Chicago Press, 1958). BuIIetin of rheameticm Schwls of on'enral R d Bonaah%lische E!=&Qe Beimge m h % k h e n Exegese and Thedogie F. BS. R Driver andC. A. Briggs, A Hebrew mdEnglish Lexicon of the Old Trrramenr (C!ardon Press, 1907) F. B h , A, Debsa n d R W. Funk, A Greek G ~ m m oorf the New Testment ond OtherEor2y Chrirtim Literame (Cambridge: Cambridge Univasity Press, 1961) Baker Evangelical Commentary oftheNew Testament Biblioth- ephweridum thmlogiwum lovaniensium Bdme zur histodscheo Theologie Biblico Biblische Noti=en BlacYs New Testament Commentaries Biblisch-theologische Studin! Bible et T m Soinle Biblische Zeibch?'ft Beihefte nu ZAW Beihefte m ZNW Contniwions to Biblical Exegesis andTheology CofhDIicBiblical @rmerly Catholic Biblical Quanaly, Monogaph Series Cariectaneabibliw New Tesmmeut Discovedes in the J k Desd E-gelisch-katholischer Kommentar nuo N e w Testament Ephemerides theol&ae lovonimes Ewmgelische Theologie Eregetisches Wdrfebuch m Naren Te3tmorr Expository rim F01sekgen rn Relidon m d Litdes Alten md N ~ l e Testmeats n a theologkhe Meiten Handbwh zum Alten Testament Herdea biblische Sbldien

Deuteronomy in the New Testament HeyJ HKAT

HNT

m XLICA

IBC ICC ISBE JAC JBL JBTh

JETS JJS JQR JSI IsJSq JSm JSNTSup

JS07 JSOrsup JSS JTS

KEK LAB

LD MJSt MSLT m s t N A ~ NAC NCB NDBT NEBNT

NIBCPJT NICNT NIrn NovT N ~

NPNF NTA

m rn NTOA NTS 6TK

a

OTP OTS Prn

U P

Hqrrnop J O U ~ Hdkommentp nun Alten Testament Emdbuch nunNeuen Tesrammt Hadastheologischer Kommentp zum Neuen Testam& Hebrew Union College A m d Inter@& Bible Commentary I n t a n a t i d critical commenw TheInt~m~tional SrandardBible Encyclopedia (ed G. Bromilex Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1979-88) Jahrbuch /%Ann% und ChriPtenhm J o m a l ofEiblicalLifcaNre JohrbuchfJr biblische TheolDgie J o u m l of the Evmgelical Theological SocieN Jo-1 ofJewish Studies Jewish @merry Review Jam,oI for the Smdy ofJudaism Jomal for the Study of Judaism, Supplement Saies J o u d for rhe Shrdy of rheNew Tesfamenr Jomal fathe Stndy of the New Testament Supplement Series Journalfor the Sh& of rhe Old Tesfamenr J o d for the Sbdy of the Old TestamenofSupplaoent Series J d of Semitic Studies J d of l%eob@al Sludies KridPch-~~egetischer Kommentar a e r das Neue Testament Libmanziquirahm bibliemum Led0 aivins Mumtermer Jdzidsche Studien Mitb&mges des S e p h g h t a - U ~ ~ t e m e ~ Marburger Theologisehe Shdien N& and Aland, N m m TesfmmhdmGraeeeS(Deulsche BibelgeseIlsehatI, 27m edu, 1993) New American CommenWy New Cemny Bible New Dictioof Biblical Theologv ~ e kw~ e~ib,l, r ~ e u e~esrmerd s New Jntem&onal Bible Commentary New Jntem&onal Gmmmay on ! kNew Testamem The New kAemationalG r d t Testament Commnkv Nowm T-1Nawm TestamSupplement Series and P m - N h e Fathers Nov TeSfmn&ntA b s t r m ~ Dm Neue Testament Deubch New Testament Librarv NO~estamemm n ohis antiquus New TestamenfStudies 6kmwnkhm Tascharbuch-KOnun Neuen Testament old Tstament r i i OH TesfmMnfPsew*pipapha(ed. I. R Chadmorth) Oudmhmmtische SMim Perspecfiw in Religiour S N d b

Abbreviations QD RAC RB R 4 RNT SBAB SBL SBLDS SBLSCS SBLSP SBLSymS SBS SESJ

sm SNTSMS

TDNT

THK TLZ TRE WAT

Quoestiomer dbpuhztae Reollezikonfiir Antike OndChrisfmIum Rewe biblique Revue de Qumran RegensburgerNeues Testament Stlmemer b i b k h e A u i 3 d 5 d e s&& of Biblical Litemme SBL Dissertatim Series SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBL Smkm Papas SBL Symposium Series Stuttgaaa Bibelstudien Suomen eksegeeaisen seuaaj&ah&ja Studim zumNeuen Testament Society for New Testanent StudiesMmogaph Smies Studies on the Tax@of the Desat ofJudah Theologishe BaCherei TheoIogiicolDictionay of IheNovTesfamenr(trans. G. W .Bromiley) TheologischerHmdkommentp ThmlopircheLiteramneimg TheologischeR~lnuykloplidie Theolopisches WdnwbuchzumAllen Terfment(ed G.I. Bottaweck aad n-~ioggrm) Theolopirches Wdrterbuehm Neuen Testomenf(ed GXiW and G. Friedrich) Uni-Taschenbiicher Yerur TesfmenNm Vaus Testmenlum, SppIement Series WordBiblical Commentary WissmscMUiiche Untersuchungen zumNeuen Testament Zei~sehrijip-die dner~mnenflicheW I S S O I E ~ ~ ~ Zwher Bibelkommentan- ALtes Testament Ztlnber B i b e b t a n - Neues Testament Zeitschnifi die neurestmnfliche WU-semchafr

-

UTB YT -up

WBC

w ZAW ZBKAT Z B m

m

LIST OF C O ~ U T O R S

Roy E. Ciampa is Associate Professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Massachusetts, and author of The Presence andFunction of Scripture in Galatians I and 2 (Mohr Siebeck, 1998). Gerd H a e r is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at the University of Munich and author of 'Nutzlichzur Belehnm,o' (2 Tim 3.16): Die Rolle derSchr$ in den Pastoralbriefen im Rahmen der Paulusraeption (Herder, 2000). Michael Labah is BAP Scientific Researcher (biblical studies) atthe Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and co-author of Vetus Testamentum in Novo. Vol. 1.2: Evangelium seeundum Iohannem (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003). Timothy H. Lim is Professor ofHebrew Bible and SewndTemple Judaismat the University of Edinburgh and author of Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Clarendon Press, 1997). Maatten J. J. Menken is Professor ofNew Testament Exegesis at the Faculty of Catholic Theology of the University of Tilburg and author of Manhew's Bible (Leuven University Press - Peeters, 2004). Steve Moyise is Professor ofNew Testament at the University of Chichesterand author of The Old Testament in theNew (T&T Clark, 2001). Brian S. Rosner is Senior LecturerinNew Testament andEthics at Moore Theological College and Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Sydney, and author of Greed as Idolatry: The Origin of a Pauline Metaphor (Eerdmans, 2007). DietrichRusam is Professor ofNew Testament at the Otto-Friedrich-Universit@ Bamberg and a u k of Das Alte Testament bei Lukas (de Gruyter, 2003). Gert J. Steyn is ProfessorofNew Testament Studies at aeuniversity ofPretoria and author of 'Torah Quotations Common to Philo, Hebrews, Clemens Romanus and Justin Martyr: What is the Common Denominator?' in C. Breytenbach, J.C. Thorn and J. Punt (eds), The New Testament Interpreted. Essays in Honour of Bernard Letegan (Brill, 2006). Michael Tilly is Professor of New Testament at the Instititut fiir Evangelische Thcologie, UniversiGt Landau and author of Einfirhnrng in die Septuaginta (Darmstadt, 2005).

It is well !mown that in the early Christian writings that have been collected in the New Testament, the Psalms, Isaiah and Deuteronomy are the most widely used Old Testament books, to judge from quotations, allusions, and other references. In this respect, early Christianitywas not exceptionalwithin its Jewish context: similarpreferenceshave been established, for instance, forthe communitybehind the Dead Sea Scrolls. So it is appropriate that after volumes on the Psalms and Isaiah in the New Testament, this series on the New Testament andthe Scriptures of Israel is now continued with a volume that is devotedto the significance ofthe book of Deuteronomy in the New Testament. In early Jewish and early Christian perspective, Deuteronomywas hardly wnsidered as a separate book; it was part of the Torah, the Law of Moses, together witb Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, andNumbers. Nevertheless, in this volume, Deuteronomy is treated as a more or less separate entity within the Torah, for three reasons. The first is of apmctical kind: avolume on 'the Torah in tbeNew Testament' along the lines set out in the previous volumes, would simply become to voluminous for the series. Secondly, as already suggested,among the five books of the Torah, Deuteronomy is the book most ffequently utilized in the New Testament. And thirdly, Deuteronomy has its own literary and theological characterwithintheTorah, this concernsin particular its h l chapters (27-32), with the blessings and curses and the Song of Moses. The New Testament authors (and the early Christian tradents that preceded them) did not read and interpretthe book of Deuteronomy in a vacuum, but were tributary to the extant Jewish ways of reading and interpreting this document. The fixst chapter, written by Timothy L i is therefore devoted to Deuteronomy in Second Temple Judaism. Lim argues that the obvious stahgpoint for any interpretation of Deuteronomy should be the transmission of the text itself. He gives extensive attention to the materials found in the Judaean Desert: the many fragments of Deuteronomy scrolls, generally witnessing to a proto-Masoretic text type, but with significant variants, and also the excerpts from Deuteronomy, the phylacteries and menuot. These materials show in any case that the Qumran community had a lively and varied interest in Deuteronomy. This interest is also apparent from the importance Deuteronomy has in the non-biblical Qumran scrolls, especially in the Temple Scroll. Otber interpretations of Deuteronomy brietly dealt with in this chapter are those of the Septuagint translator, of Philo and of Josephus.

2

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

Next, Steve Moyise discusses the quotations from and allusions to Deuteronomy inMark's Gospel. It is ditfcult to be precise about what text ofDeuteronomy Madihas used. It appears to be the LXX, but some quotations probably come from church tradition, and in other cases, there are so few common words that it is impossible to tell. Mark certainly has a positive view of Deuteronomy and of Moses as the authority behind it, but sometimes one part of Deuteronomy takes priority over another part (and this actually occurs with the Torah as a whole). Mark does not always simply reproduce the text of Deuteronomy; on occasion, he changes or transforms it by its new setting. Of course, allusions lend themselves to this type of transformation more easily than quotations. In the chapter onDeuteronomy in Matthew (with some attentionto Deutemnomy in Q),MaartenMenkenpointsout that the formulae introducing quotations from Deuteronomy in Matthew show that the evangelist did not consider the book as a separate entity within the Torah. Matthew adopted most of his Deuteronomy quotations from his sources (Mark, Q, other materials), with modest editorial changes. He also introduced in his role as editor, a few quotations from Deuteronomy; so far as these allow determi~tionofhis biblical text, it must have been the LXXIt can be saidthat Matthew's selectionof passages h m Deuteronomy is largely governed by already existing Christian!dition. Matthew's interpretation of the legal regulations from Deuteronomy is characterizedby the idea that there is an order of rank among them: the governingprinciple is the double commandment to love God and to love one's neighbour (see esp. 22.34-40). Dieaich Rusam, who contrlbntes the chapter on Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts, strongly focuses on the meaning which Luke's quotations from Deuteronomy acquire in their new, Lukan context. There is a significant difference between Luke's Gospel and the book of Acts, caused by the change brought about by the death and resurrection ofJesus: in the Gospel, allquotations from Deuteronomy function as legal prescripts, whereas in Acts, the promise of the 'prophet like Moses' (Deut. 18.15, 19-20, cf. Acts 3.22-23; 7.37) functions as a prophecy. referring back, on the one hand, to Jesus' earthly ministry, and announcing, on the other hand, a future in which those who believe in Jesus willpartake in God's kingdom. In Luke's view, the legal prescripts from Deuteronomy which Jesus repeats are bmding for Christians, who are able to fulfil them only by God's power (cf. L k 18.27). The place ofDeuteronomy in John's Gospel is studied by MichaelLabahn. At fust sight, it seems to be rather minima1: there is only one marked but completely rephrased quotation fiom Deut 19.15 in John 8.17, with some related materials in John 5.3 1-34. But that is not all: various allusionsto passages from Deuteronomy can be detected as well. It is striking that quotation and allusions occur in the polemical contexts of John 5 and John 7-8, both to describe and to counter the position of 'the Jews'. In addition, some importantthemes of Johannine theology and ethics have parallels in Deuteronomy. Factors to be taken into account in explaining John's use ofDeuteronomy are John's own style and theology, andalso

the 'collective memory' of first-century Jews and Christians, in which passages from Deuteronomy (such as the Decalogue and the Shema) were prominent. Scriptural arguments constitute an essential element of Paul's letters to the Galatians and the Romans, and Deuteronomy plays an essential part in these. Roy Ciampa investigatesthis part in the present volume. Paul's exegesis ofDeut 27.26; 21.23 in Gal. 3.10,13 is less arbitrarythan it is sometimes assumed: Denteronomy itselfseems to present the curse ofthe law as something that has effectively fallenon Israel, and the crucified Christ was, in Paul's view, subject to this very curse. In Romans, Paul utilizes the Decalogue and the final chapters of Deuteronomy. It seems that Paul sees a c o a c t within Scripture itself, exemplified in Deuteronomy in the tension between the curses in Deuteronomy 27-30 and the message of God's universal salvation in the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32. The tension is solved in Christ bringing abcuf by his righteous obedience, the transition from curse to blessing. Brian Rosner, inhis chapter on Deutemnomy in 1 and2 Corinthians, first discussesthe general intluenceofDeuteronomy on the Corinthian comspondence, in particular on 1 Corinthians. In his view, the Corinthian correspondence displays similaritiesto Deuteronomy: both voice the theologicaland ethical consequences of God's liberating act (ithe Exodus and in Christrespectively),andboth warn against sexual immoralityand idolatry. Within this context of general similarity_ Rosner addresses the various quotations from and allusions to Deuteronomy in 1 Corinthians, and the one quotation in 2 Corinthians (Deut 19.15 in2 Car. 13.1). It appears that several of Paul's practical regulations, chieflythose concerning sexualbehaviow in 1Corinthians 5-7, were inspiredbyregulationsfromDeuteronomy. Gerd H&er deals with Deuteronomy in the Pastoral Epistles, distinguishing one quotation (Deut. 25.4 in 1 Tim 5. IS), one possible allusion (Deut. 19.15 in 1 T i . 5.19), andinstances of 'biblical language' derived from Deuteronomy. The author of the Pastoral Epistles is very pmbably not a scriptural expert, but feels obliged to make use of scriptural arguments against the false teachers wbom he combats, probably because they are making use of Scripture(see 2 T i 2.16-17). His one explicit quotation probably comes Gom Pauline tradition rather than a WrittenGreektext ofDeuteronomy (I Cor. 9.9); his attachment to haditionis obvious throughout the three epistles. Hebrews is dealt with by Gert Steyn. He finds one quotation Gom Deuteronomy in cb. 1 (Deut. 32.43 inHeb. 1.6), and a series of quotationsandallusions. as well as one reference, in chs 10-13. He shows that Deuteronomy 31-33 (the Song of Moses and its context) was an important quarry for the auctor ad Hebraeos. Similarities between the quotations in Hebrews and what we find in Paul, Philo, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the version of Deutemnomy 32 in Ode 2, suggest that the quotations were drawn Gom a Greek text that differed £ram both 'the' Lxx and the MT,or came from (liturgical) tradition. Steyn also gives adentiontomotifs from Deuteronomy in Hebrews: the covenanf Moses, and the priesthoodand the

4

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

cultic life. The author ofthe document shows thatthe revelationthrough Jesus is both similar and superior to the revelation through Moses and the priests. It is well known that the book of Revelation does not contain any marked quotations from the Old Testament, but is characterized by a host of nnmarked quotations, allusions, and instances of 'biblical language'. Michael Tfly charts the use of Deuteronomy in Revelation. There are several allusions, especiallyto the Song ofMoses inDeuteronomy 32, by which the author ofRevelation creates a typological correspondencebetween God's judging and saving activity during Israel's exodus from Egypt and God's eschatologicaljudgement of the enemies of the oppressed community of Christ and his saving ofthe Christian church. The 'integrity formula' fromDeut. 4.1-2,13.1 inRev. 22.18-19 is interesting: ittuns Revelation into a bmding religious document to be safeguarded, intended to fend off idolatry and false prophecy. Not all New Testament bwks which contain Deuterouomy materials arecovered in this volume. It was decided to leave out those books which contain only a few allusions (debatable as these always are) or borrowings of 'biblical language' but no marked or unmarked quotafious (or, as in the case ofRevelation, an impressive series o f d t a k a b l e allusions). Ephesians and James were left outbecause the only quotations from Deuteronomy are fiom the Decalogue (see Eph. 6.2-3; Jas 2.1 1). They could also derive from the book of Exodus or, indeed, from the general acquaintance with the Decalogue among early Jews and early Christians. Discussion ofthem would probably not add substantiallyto what is already said about the Decalogue in the New Testament. There are evidently also aspects ofthe Wirkungsgeschichteof Deuteronomy in the New Testament that are not covered in this volume. For instance, a lot more could be said on the presence and sigdicance of the 'prophet like Moses' of Deuteronomy 18 in the New Testament. The studies presented here are largely limited, however, to the use ofthe texi ofDeuteronomy; the furlher development of concepts derived from the book is outside the scope of this collection. Apart from the chapter on Second Temple Judaism, all the chapters focus on Deuterouomy in one individual New Testament document or in two closelyrelating documents, and each author expresseshis own conclusions. In addition, four general trends throughout the volume may be mentioned here. F i(andnot surprisingly), in so farasNew Testament authors make use of a written text of Deuteronomy, it is usually the ~ x xSecondly, . it seems that aconsiderable amount of materials &omDeuteronomy, mainly well-knownparts like the Decalogue orthe Shema, reached New Testament authors through the 'collective memory' of early Judaism and incipient early Christianity, includingliturgicaltradition, or through already extant Christian doaments (Q, Mark,Paul's letters). Thirdly,the closing chapters of Deuteronomy have been particularly intluential, in the h t place the Song ofMoses (Deut. 32), which ispmminentlypresent inRomans, Hebrews, and Revelation. Finally, passages fiom Deuteronomy play an essential role in early discussions on the ranking of scriptural texts: which passage can overmle another?

Introduction

5

Such discussionsare foundnot only in the controversy on the greatest commandmentand similarthings, butalso in Paul's 'antithetichmeneutic', which centres on the validity of the Torah itself. Here, important theological questions are touched on, whichmakes the present collection of studies also relevantto a wide audience.

Chapter 1

DEUTERONOMY IN THE JUDAISMOF THE SECOND TEMPLE

PERIOD

Timothy H. Lim

Introduction The importance of the book of Deuteronomy for the study of Israel's Scriptures in the New Testament can hardly be exaggerated As is recognized, the fiAh book of the Pentateuch, along with the Psalms and the prophecy of Isaiah, is the most quoted of Old Testament books in the New Testament.' Paul, for instance, cites Deuteronomy as one of several possible proof-texts @eut 32.43 inRom. 15.10; Deut. 17.7 in 1 Car. 5.13); he erects a central, theological pillar ofhow the blessing of Abraham was extended to Gentiles by a paradoxical interpretationof 'the curse of the one who hangs on a tree' (Deut. 27.26 in Gal.3.13); and he instructs his congregation on the contrast between living righteously, founded on faith, against life based on the law by a 'midrashi~'~ reading of Deuteronomy 30 in Romans 10.) The study of quotations is a usefd and illuminating exeerise, but it hardly exhausts the influence of Deuteronomy on the New Testament and other Jewish writers of the Second Temple Period. In 1805, W. M. L. de Wette famously described Deuteronomy as the 'Archimedean point' of pentatewhal studies since, for him, it provided the vantage from which one couldview the authorship, date and content ofthe first five books. De Wette showed how the historical circumstances of the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah were related to the deuteronomicprescription for a cultic centraliition.4It

1. G . J . B r o o k e i n ~ 1 u d e s G e n e ~ i s i n a t o p f 0 ~ 1 L i s t ~ T h e C a n 0 n ~ 6 e C a n 0 n " a t ~ a n d The ScrollsondtheSniptum: @mron F i b Yeom A#er fShe5eId: Sheffield Academic Press. 199'71. . . .. DD. . . 242-66). 2. For the van- usec of & 1YX: my 'The On* and Emergmce of M i h h ln Relanan LO the liebrew Scripums', lo J. Ncrr\nvr and A. Avury-Peck (eds), Thr .U~dru(hAn Enqclopc,dza u, Ribl~collnrrrpreroizonm fonnornt~Juddr.~n8 (tendto: Brill, 20041,pp. 595412. 3. For Paul'$ use ofthe Old TwLmmt, u*.my I l u h Scripture t n t k Ournrun (brnrnmmm mui PaulimLeners (Oxford. ClarendonPress, 1997); ~.-k~~acb~ie~chnjs~ls~nrgedes~~m)~eliums Untermhungn, m a Venr'end~gund mrn Verstiindnis der Schnji bei P a l m (Thgen: Mohr Sicbeck 1986); R B. Hays, E c h m o/&iiphue in rheLetters o/Pml(Nm Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); C. D. Stanley, PoulandtheLonguoge ofScripture (Cambridge: CUP,1992). 4. See the discussion in M. Weiofeld,Deuteronomy 1-11 (New Yodr Doubleday, 1991), pp. 1617.

intheNewTstameot".inS.E.PorteraodC.E.Ev-[edr],

1. Deuteronomy in the J h i s m of the Second Temple Period

7

would be an overstatementto claim the same for the book of Deuteronomy with regard to its reception-history; nonetheless, its wide use among ancient Jewish Writings surely attests to its singular importance. Our English word 'Deuteronomy' is a transliterationofthe Greektitle that the rxxgives to the book. The Greek worddeuteronomosmeans 'secondlaw' andis a translation of the book's evident self-reference, in Hebrew mishneh ha-torah ha-z'ot or 'a copy of this law (or teaching)', inDeut 17.18. Whereas the Hebrew words refer to 'a copy of this teaching' (i.e. the book of Deuteronomy) that the king is required to have before him when seated on the throne, the ~ x interprets x the phrase to mean 'this second law', coining a neologism of one Greek word deuteronomion to translate two Hebrew terms, mishneh and torah. The Septnagint's translation ofthe original meaning of the king's 'copy' to 'second' law is semantically signiscant, as it implies an understandingof the book as another law; this is the law in addition to (rrhrjv) the one that was given to Moses on Mount Horeb (28.69; 'Horeb' is Deuteronomy'sprefd name for Deuterouomy, therefore, is an apt designation of the character, if not also genre, of the book as the second law that God covenanted with Israel on the plains of Moab. Scholars have, moreover, identified Deuteronomy's law code (chs 12-26) or something similar as the book that was discovered by Hilkiah the High Priest in the Temple during the reign of Josiah (-09 BCE; 2 Kgs 22.8). Here, the Hebrew phrase, sepher ha-torah with the definite article refers to a book whose instluction (ha-torah) was previously known and thisis more or less the same as the law code thatpresumably circulated independentlybefore bemg incorporated into Deuteronomy. Another reference to Deuteronomymay be foundin Joshua 8.30-35, apassage that describes the ceremony of the renewal of the covenant on Mount Ebal and Gerizii after the conquest of Ai. Joshua built to Yahweh an altar out of unhewn stones and on it sacrificed offerings and wrote mishneh torat mosheh, 'a copy of the law of Moses'. The Septuagint,which has a different literary edition, translates the phrase as v6pov M w u 6 and explicitly equates it with TA ~ E ~ T E ~ O V O ~ I O V (Josh. 9.2): In Hebrew the title of the book is taken h m its opening line and is best known as devurim (alternatively as elleh devarim or sepher devarim), literally meaning 'things' and 'words', but which would be best translatedas 'speeches' (a reference to both its literary genre and content) of Moses. Though different from

"

-

-

barn law (H,,mi@wt Grnuo.9.1), whacastheaotlochmr.f&eriheodornmdndilara'rsaprtu-

IaIioll' of icgwkiun given m Exodrrc, Levrncus aod Numbm (L)ut,rlrr,m on I>ruarunomy I . p 232, 1-2). 6. Othervimin~1&M.J.Pa~'HilkiahandtheLaw',inN.Lo~(ed),DmD~e1onomium @wen; Leuven Univenitypless, 1985), pp. 95-1 12, wbo arguesfhat only Dee. 28-31 are inview and k Van H w m k a who points to Lw.17-26 (J. Lust,'A. Van H o o m k a and Deuteronomy', in Dm Deureronomium, pp. 13-23). 7. T h ~ U g h t h i s d o e s n o t ~ ~ ~ i n ~ V a t i ~ ~ ~ , s e e n o ~ A . ~ e A d ~ J o ~ h ~ a ofNwZ, in Codex Voficmm (Leiden:Brill, 2005).

8

Deuteronomy in the New Tesfamenf

the Septuagint's subsequent interpretation ofthebookas second law, the Hebrew title rightly points to the literary structureofthreemosaic speeches that comprise most ofthe book (1.1-4.43; 4.44-28.68; 28.69-30.20). A postscript ofa farewell discourse closes the book when the finalwords and death ofMoses are reported (31.1-34.12). Over the years, much scholarly discussionhas takenplace about the relationship betweenDeuteronomyandExodus, especially the covenant wde (Exad. 1223),Numbers and Leviti~us.~ DidDeuteronomydraw material &omExodus andl or an independent source, or was the intluence viceversa? When should the covenant code andDeuteronomy be dated?9Moreover, the book ofDeuteronomy, in its 6nal form as found in the MT, is a heavily redacted work that incorpomtes earlier sources and shows several stages of editing:'%e law code (Deut. 12-26) f m s the earliest layer, dating to the seventh century, andtraceablein t h e m t i v e accounts ofthe Josianic reform; an editorial adoption of Deuteronomy atthe head of a 'Deuteronomistic' history11 (Deuteronomy to 2 Kings), with its expansions that reflect an exilic origin; and a h a 1priestly redaction that made Deuteronomy the end of the Pentateuch. In studying its reception history one may inadvertently err in assuming that the study of such editorial changes and redactional seams ofthe bookofDeuteronomy have little, if any, relevance. What is important, so it might be argued is not what the bookmeant assuch, but how it was understood by subsequent Jews and Christians. But to draw such a sharp distinctionbetweenthe stagesof compositionand subsequent reception is to miss the complexity of the task of studying ancient biblical interpretation. First, while the Deuteronomy manuscripts from Qumran, where they may be classified, attest only to the proto-MT text-type,'2 there are also individual readings ofverses in the hgments that corroborate the Septuagintalvariantsor have afEnities to the expansionistictendencies ofthe Samaritan Pentateuch. In studying the biblical quotations of Deuteronomy in theNew Testament, one has to be m i n W that it is not the whole of the book that is in view; the Christian authors typically cite and allude to selected passages. It is not classification of texts as 8. G.von Rad, DmflnPeBuch MOS Deutemmmium (ET as Deuteonomy (London: SCM, 19661, p. 13), p v i h a fable of mmmon material between Deuteronomy and the Book of the Covenant C. DcgoiezandM. Harl,LoBibled'Alerond~.LeDeufiromme(Pads: Cerf, 1992),pp. 104-7, include a compreheosive synopsis ofthe common material between D e u t m m y , Exodus, LNi6cus and Numbas. 9. Ihe debate is ongoing, see recently,B. Lmimon, 'Is the Covenant Code an M C Composition? A Rspoaseto John Van Setw', in J. Day (ed),In Search offie-Exilic Isroe1 @don: T&T C W Jnbr&on& ZU), cb 13. 10. Above aU M . Fishbe, Biblical I n r e t i in Ancienf lsroel (Oxford: Clawdon Press, 1985).NotealsoB. M ~ D n r f ~ ~ o ~ m y o n d t h e H m ofLeg~~llnnoVmr'on(Orford: e ~ ~ t i c s Orford University Ress, 1997). 11. M N o t h ' s ~ o ~ c ~ h a s b e e o c h a l l m g 4 d e f e o d e d a n d m & e d S e e a ~ sim of the storus waestionisin T. Rlimer, The So-CalledDeutwommisfic Histow: A Socioloziu1l. Hl~roricolu d L~rrror)Inrrduo,on (London.T&T Clark latmatiooal, 2W6). 12. There is a Greek hagmcot from Cave 1 that follows the Septuagmt

1. Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period

9

such, but the linding of textual variants that corroborate ones in the New Testament quotation. The Septuagint, for instance, is characterized by m l a t i o n a l conservatism vis-8-vis its proto-rm Vorlage;nevertheless, there is a myriad of details and divergences between them.I3 Second, Deuteronomy, even in 'its h a 1 form', is not univocal. Its successive layers of redaction attest to different, sometimes even irreconcilable, perspectives. Take, for instance, Deuteronomy's theme of standingat the thresholdofthe Pmmised Land The land that God long ago had intended for Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 12-50) was about to be given to the Israelites; Joshua and not Moses is to lead theminto the PromisedLand (Deut. 3 1-34). This is, in any case, the perspective of the closing chapters of Deuteronomy; the m t o r is looking across the river Jordan from the east into Canaan. Yet, one only has to read the opening verse to realize that equally the perspective is also that of someone who is already on the other side: 'These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond(or "across") the Jordan.' The narrator states that the speechesthat he will convey in this book are the words that Moses had spoken to all Israel while they were in the Transjordan.This west-Jordan standpoint o f t h e m t a r is also found inDeut 3.8,20,25; 4.41,46 and 11.30.'41notherwords, the 'final form' ofDeuteronomy does not only reflecttheperspective of one standingat the thresholdof the Promised Land, but also the view of one who is already there. Hebrew Manuscrip@ ofDeuteronomyfiorn the Judaean Desert

Fragments of some thirty-four original scrolls of Deuteronomy have been found in the Ju&ean Desert. Thirty-one ofthese were discovered in caves near Khirbet Qwmnand attest to the importanceofthe bookamongstthe sectariansandthree other copies were unearthed at sites in the Wadi Murabba'at, Nahal Hever andon

13. See the tarid eonrmentariesof Domiez , m.29-73; - and ~ L e D e u f P r o m m eeswcially . .. and J. W. W c v q Nurzs on ,he Grz& TurufDrur~~runom) (Arlanm:Scholars Press, 199S)and T a t Ilr~fomof rhr, Grwk / > m ~ t t ~ o n u(Gbningea: m~ Vandcnhosk & Ruprsbt, 1978) 14.- & fiumerdiscuspionin~.D. H. ~iyes,~euteronomy(Lnn~don: ~ a r s h a l ~ ~ o r g SaC-n ~ r 1979),pp. 113-14. Many ofthelegalpresmip&ms inDeutemnomyassumeaseiW apriansoeiety that is postanquest 15. M m of the information in the followingtable is conveniently gathersdin E. Tov et aL, The Tertsfiom the JudoeonDererf.Indiem &An Innoduction lo fheDiscovenenm in theJud~m D m (Oxford: C h d o n Press,2002). See also, 3. A Duncan,'D&onomy, Book of, mL. H. Schifhnan and 1. C. VaodmKam (eds), TheEmyclopedio of fheDeodSea Scrolk (Oxford: OUP, 2W), I, pp. 198-202; d S. Wbite Crawford, 'Reading Deuteronomy in the Semnd T q l e Pajod' in K de Tmyer and A Lange (eds), Reading the Present h the Qumran Librmy. The Perception of the Confemponvyby M e m of S r r i p m ~ l 1 n ~ e f o t i o(Atlnrtl: ns SBL. ZOOS), pp. 127-40.

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

. . .

4 Q L m u t (4Q122) 4QpaleoDeUr(4045) 4C&eo~ed (4&6) 5 Q M (5Ql) 6QapDeM (6Q3) 6QDeut ? (6Q20)2' 11ODmt (1103)

50-25 BCE 30 BCE-68 CE fist centley C E ' ~ 17S150 BCE 150-1W BCE 150-1W BCE 125-75 BCE 50-25 BCE 7 5 5 0 BCE 1-25 CE 50-1 BCE 100-75 BCE 50 CE 30-1 BCE 30-1 BCE 50 CE 50 BCE 50-1 BCE 30-1 BCE 75-50 BCE 7S50 BCB 50 -10 CE 200-150 BCE 100-25 BCE 250-2W BCE 2W175 BCE

SO CE

16. ~edatesarepalaeo~~cal~tesand~~fertotbetimeofthecopying,andnot~~

of the saolls.Not every single text has been given a date. 17. '[Gtiaphie M s pleioe, de type analogue la seeonde panie du 1QW (= 12frlW BCE; D. BarUltIwy and 3. T.Milik in P...an Cwe I . Dircoveriesin the Jur*IeanD a m [Oxford:Clarendon Press, 19551, p. 54). de lQkbmaisletexteI'estmoins',ibid,p. 57. 18. '[Llagmphies sontaumi cIassi~sgueceUe8 lQkbis dated to 5W25 BCE. 19. '[qalligmphe hemdime ph&t tardive (lmsi&le de notre &re)' BaiUet i n h 'Petites Grot&'& Qumran: ~ l o n t i o n d e lfalaire, a lesgmtfes2Q. 3Q. 54 6 4 7Qd 1 0 4 Disco~riesin the Judaeon Deserfm [Oxford: C h d m Res,196213, p. 61. 20. '[ElaiMe di5cile dater', M Baillet, ;bid., p. 154. No date is @ten for 643 either. 21. S. Talmw, 'Fcwnnts ofaDentmnnrm SEmU fiomMasada: Deuteronomy 33.17-34.C.i~

1. Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period

11

Even ifone were to discount the texts that have been uncenainly identified as Deuteronomy (namely the two texts from Cave 6),the number oforiginal scrolls of Deuteronomy found at Qumran is n~teworthy.~' With twenty-nine copies, Deuteronomy is the second best attested biblical book in the Qumran library, only surpassed by the Psalms with some forty c o p i e ~The . ~ Qumran copies of Deuteronomy are written on skin and papyrus in palaeo-Hebrew and, more usually, in square script They attest to the copying of Deuteronomy for more than three hundred years, 4QpaleoDeuf (4446) being the earliest (25CL200 BCE) and several texts dating to the lirst century CE. Three other copies of Deuteronomy were fomd elsewhere in the Judaean Desm. Most of the copies of Deuteronomy are too iiagmentaq to permit a textual classilication. However, the best preserved copy of Deuteronomy (4QDeutC [4Q30]), consisting of one hundred and twenty verses dram h m nineteen chapters,has been classifiedby Julie Duncan as a proto-Masoretic Text, agreeing with the latter in orthography,paragraph divisions and reading~.'~Another wpy ( 4 ~ ~ e[4Q29]) u t ~ apparently 'shows affinitiestothetextbehind the Septnagintin that it concurs uniquely with it in a f w distinctive errors'.25There are also a few excerpted texts with affinities to the Samaritan Pentateuch. In general, Duncan states that the Qumranmanuscripts 'attest to slightly expanded variant readings'26 and this textual phenomenon, which entered the @tion early, is due to the distinctive nature ofDeuteronomywith its repetitive and formulaic style. Thedegree of expansion occurs in the following order: the proto-Masoretic Text is least expansive; followed by the pre-Samaritan text; and h l l y the scrolls and the Septuagint. Sidnie White Crawford, however, argues that the errors are primarily due to scribal mistakes rather than 'deliberate. intervention intothe text' and that 'Deuteronomy does not exist inhvo variant litetarytraditions,as does for example, Jeremiah'?' In other words, as far as textual classification is concerncxl, none of the text-types differs from each other beyond scribal variants. Even though the fragments do not attest to variant literary editions,28the deuteronomic manuscripts kom Qumran do witness to readings that stand behind

22. E. Puech, 'Identi6cation de noweslrx matlusnihhliquff:Deut+omme etfioye~besd m les deSxis de la gmm:4' RevQ 20 (2001), pp. 121-28, hao recently suggested that the two M e n t t s attheboaomrightofPAM40.028 originally belongedtoanothermanusniptofDeutwn~mywhich he labelled ' 4 Q D d (=4Q38c)'. 23. Theu11certedyof exact number of copies is due to the fragmentary nature of the texts. See my The DeadSea Scrolls. A V ~ n Short y Inrmduclion (Oxford: OUP,2M)5), ch. 3; and Peshmim (London: ContinZWZ), pp. 19-20. 24. See hereditiopdaQpsinE. ULricb andF. M.C m (eds), Qumran 6 v e 4. D1 Dnrt~ooomy, Jmha. Judges. Kings (Oxfnd: CLmdon Press, 1995). 25. Duncan,' D ~ o m y ' p., 199. 26. Bid. 27. Crawfo@ 'R&gLklrtemnomy'. p. 128. 28. E. C. ULdeh's theory of multiple literary editions is articulated in a number of articles now c o U 4 in The Deadsen Scrollr ond the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), eqeciaUy chapter 7.

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

12

the Septuagint The Song of Moses, embedded in the finaldiscourse, is a wellknown example. In Deut. 32.8, the Rsv reads: When theMost Hi& gave to the nations their inhedtance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples accordingto the number of the sons of God.

A note in the RSV compares the phrase, italicized here, to the Greek reading. Almost all the Greek witnessesread cbyyihwv 8 ~ 0 'the 3 angels ofGod', adeliberate, theological change from the original reading 'sons (G16v)of God' as preserved in P. Fouad 848 (first century BCE).~~ The hlT, moreover, reads beney yisrael 'the sons of Israel', which includes a subsequent correction of 'God' to 'Israel' in order to make clear the allusion to the seventy families who came out of Egypt30 4 ~ ~ e (4437) ug preserves a variant that attests to the reading of papyrus 848, namely 'the sons of God' (beney el~hirn).~' This is likely to have been the original reading (cf. Psalm 82.1) and it was emended to remove what appeared to have been a reference to pre-Israelite polytheism, a theme that Deuteronomy wholly rejected3?Before Deuteronomy was tidied up, so to speak, it attested to the Canaanitemythof 'the sons of god (Elf' who figured in the fixation of the borders between peoples. Another Qumranvariant is close to the presumed Vorlage of the Septuagint In the deathbed scene of Dentemnomy 33, Moses blesses the children of Ismel, with benedictions for each of the tribes of Israel that assume the subsequenttribal settlement. In v. 12, Moses blesses Benjamin: OfBenjaminhe said 'The beloved of the Lord, he dwells in safety by him; he encompasseshim aU the day long, and makes his dwelling between his shouldas.'

The RsV translates the MT 'by him' ('Zliiyw), but the LXX separates this word from the sentence and begins a new phrase by reading 'and God' (KU; b BE&). Julie Duncan has suggested that 4 ~ ~ e (4435) u P supports the LXX with the reading 'el which would mean that God is the subject of the following sentence ('and God encompasses him')."

Encerpta Deuteronomii I have been suggesting that the reception of the book of Deuteronomy actually begins with its own textual trammissionhistory which is additionally illumined 29. So Wwas, 'Nots',pp. 512-13. 30. Dogniez and% LeDeut&omme, pp. 325-26, point out that 'sons' is alludedtoin Targum Jonathan and 'aogeb' in Jubilees. 31. P. W. Skehm, 'A F-ent ofthe *Son= of Moses" lDmt 32) fmm Oumrsn'. BASOR 136

Berlin LdM.Zvs ~ T e t d ~ ~ ( e Tlw d s )Jmsh , SluJy Bthk [Oxford o h , 20041). 33. 'No. R&gs for he "Bleuing of Moss" b m Qumran'. JBL 1 14 (1995), pp. 273-90.

n M a b~A

1. Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period

13

by the Hebrew hgments from Qumran. Textual variants in the tradition are created sometimesby scribal errors, other times by the interpretationofadifEcult word, phrase or passage. One step removed fiom the manuscripts are the scrolls that appear to extract passages from Deuteronomy. These scrolls have been characterizedas excerpts; they are not manuscripts ofDeutemnomy, nor are they abbreviated te~ts."~ The selection of one passage over another, on the face of it, implies an interpretativeprocess, but such is thenature of excerptedtexts that the exegetical intention is not always evident. The best known of these excerpted texts at Qumran being 44175, variously described as '4QTestimonia' or 'Messianic Anth0logy'.'~4Q175 was copiedby a scribe in the first century BCE on a single sheet. There are four paragraphs with quotatious from 1)Deut. 5.28-29 and 18.18-19; 2)Num. 24.15-17; 3) Deut. 33.81I; and 4) Apocryphon ofJoshua (=4QPdosh [4Q379, fr. 22, wl. 21, an interpretationof LXX Josh 6.26). There are short sentences introducingall fourparagraph, but interpretative comment accompanying only the h a 1 citation of Josh. 6.26. The verbatim citation of Deut. 33.8-1 1 is based on a text that is close to 4 Q ~ e u P and the h a 1 paragraph is in fact a quotation from the Apocryphon ofJo~hua."~ Presuming that thislatter text is sectarian,the Qumrancommnniqwould appear to have considered the Apoclyphon of Joshua as an authoritativetext alongside other books that were eventually included in the canon. Textually, the biblical quotations vary from passage to passage: the combition of Deut. 5.28-29 and 18.18-19 is found in the Samaritan Pentateuch at Exod. 20.21b; Josh. 6.26 follows the presumed Vorlage of the Septuagint; and the others the MT. In my view, 44175 attests to the phenomenon among Jews and subsequently Christiansin late SecondTemple period of excerptingtexts for various purposes, whether for study, liturgical practice or c~ntroversy.'~Ostensibly, the first three passages selected by the compiler of 44175 have a messianic theme. The passages point to the expectationofdifferent messianicfigures:aprophetic one like Moses; a royal one according to Balaam's prophecy; and a levitical or priestly messiah. The fourth passage sits awkwardly with the iirst three in that it is an interpretation of the curse, found in Joshua, on anyone who rebuilds the city of Jericho. The man is accursed, a man of Belial, who rebuilds the city to fortify it as a 'stronghold of ungodliness in Israel'. He may have had either two sons or a brother as accomplice, depending upon how one reads the peshmsque exegesis. In the past, this accursed man has been identified with Simon Maccabee and 34. E. Tov draws s distinction between rxc~~pted l e i & that collect pasages from one or more btbhcal bmh and those abbreviated texts that shonm the bibhcal text in chapta ordn ('Fzcerpted and AbbnviatedBiblical T& h m Qumran',ReQ 64/16 [1995],pp. 581600.) 35. See, e.g., G. Vermes's heading for the text in The Complere Decd Seo ScroNs in English o n d o n : Penguin Books,2004), p. 527. 36. See J. A lhwa, Qumran Cove 4. DL DeutPmnonv,Judges, Joshua, Kings @ID, 14; Oxford: C b d o n b s s , 1995),pp. 6 b 7 0 ; C . Newsom, ' " P of~Jasbuaua(4Q378 and4Q379) h m Q u m m Cave&, JJS39 (1988),pp. 5 6 7 3 ; andmy 'The 'Psalms ofbshua'(4Q379 &. 22coL 2): A Reeonsiderationo f its Tart', JJS44 (1993),pp. 3-12. discussion of m e E.Hatch's theory o f biblical a c q f u in light o f the QumranS B D ~ 37. See inH& S a i p m , pp. 150-58.

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

14

more recently with John Hyronus. In any case, 44175 illustrateswell the nature of excerpts: they were compiledby someone, but without intapretativecomment the original intention orraison d'itreis lost. 'Testimony' or 'messianic anthology' is a partial description of only the h t three paragraphs of 44175. Among the Deuteronomy scrolls, there are four texts that have been characterized by their editors as biblical excerpts. Texr 4 Q W (4937)'' 4QDeutL' (4Q38) 4 Q M (4Q41) 4 Q W (4Q44)

BiblicnlPapsoges

Dnb 5.14.3; 8.5-13; 10.12-1121; Exod 12.43-13.16; Dent 32.1-9 Dew 5.28-32; 11.6-13; 32.17-18,22-u, 2527 D m 8.5-10 and5.14.1 Deut 32.1-43

Chapters 5 and 32 are quoted by three of the four texts and Deuteronomy 8 and 11 are common in two scrolls. The key to unlocking the character of these excerpts is 4QDeuP (*I), the 'AU Souls Deuteronomy' (named after the AU Souls Unitarian Church that purchased it) and the inter-relations between it and the three other scrolls. @Dent", originallylonger, consists oftwo sheetsand six columns citing Deuteronomy 8 and 5 in that order. The editor ofthe text, Sidnie White Crawfo14 has arguedthatthe 'All SoulsDeuteronomy' shouldnotbeconsidered as a biblical manuscriptwith a variant chapter order, but a biblical except as was suggested long ago by Hartmut Stege~uann?~ She adduced four reasons: 1)the chapters are out of order with respect to the uniform textual tradition of the mder of Deuteronomy 5 and 8; 2) the blank space at the bottom of column 1 is significant codicologically; 3) the excerpted texts of the Decalogue and Shema, cited in 4QDeuP, are used liturgically elsewhere; and4) its harmonistic text-type is characteridc especially of other excerpted texts. The Decalogue and Shema are quoted in the phylactaiies(tefrllin) found in the JudaeanDesert andDeuteronomy 8 is used in the rabbinic 'grace after meals' ( b i r d ha-mazon)." As for its harmonistic character Crawford points especially to the version of the fourth commandment as found in 4QDeuP:

38. Although the Lhtemnorny and Ex& fmgmmh are ~~, 1.A. hmcsn, 'Considaatims of 40& in Light of the *AU Souls Llmtmmow" and Cave 4 Texts'. in J. ~ l e b o l l e ~ m & a a nLdG a p Montaoer(eds), The hrl&&ran ~ m g m s ~ : - h c e ~ do/rhhh i~gs 1ntrmol;onol Conmas rm lhr Dc,udSeo krol&. I 8 21 March 1991 (Leiden: Bn11,IWX I,w .199203, has made a case on material gnm& for cambiningt h e h a s %ether. Tks& been &ed by Tov, 'Excerpted and Abbrevktd', p. 588. 39. See her '4QDt4 Biblical Maowxipi or Excerpted Text?' io H.W. Amidge cr at. (edp), Of S m ' h nnd SrroIk. S a d i e on the Hebrew Bible ond I n t e r t e ~ f ~Judahn, ?l ond Chrirfirm On'& Presented to John Shrgnell (laham College Theology Society Resomces in Retipion, 1990), pp. 13-20. Stegerm discusses the Dmmci~cmy on pp. 217-27 of ' W e b S a k e von4QpPsalm 37, von 4QPatrimhalBlessingsund Ainweis aufeine uoedierte HEXIS&& B ~ H S a e 4Q mit Eaaptm am dem Detrtamwium', RevQ 6 (1967-69). 40. See M Weinfe14 'Gram e l k Meals at Qumran',JBL 111 (1992), pp. 427-40.

~~

'w,

1. Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period

15

Observethesabbathdayto~~n~h~&5theLOrdyour~~yo~. Six days you shall labor and do all your work but the seventh day is a sM&hto the Lord y w r God You shall not do in it any w+ you, your son, your daughta, your male slave or your female slave, y o u ox or your ass or your beast, your sojomer who is witbin your pates, in mder that yolrr male slave and y m M e s h e may rest Ure you. ~nd~remember that you - a slave in the land of E~ and the ~nd-your Gd bmught you out from there with a mighty hand and an onmetched arm;therefore tbe LmcLndY& Gd commandedyou to obsthe Sabbath d q to s-ti6 it. For sir doys the Lom'mode the h e o v m &the emth, theseo ondeveryrhingwhich is in them, ond he m d o n thesewnth dqv: therdore theLordblessedthese~enfhday to sancmG ir.dl

In the 'All Souls' version ofthe fourth commandment,the holiness ofthe Sabbath is underpinned not only by the deuteronomicreasoning of hieration from Egyptian bondage @ a t . 5.12-15), but also the creational account as found in Exod. 20.8-1 1(in italics). The phrase that links the two passages together is 'to sanclify it' (IZqahho;underlined). This passage, moreover, shares variant readings with the Samaritan Pentateuch, Nash , P Septuagint and Vulgate. Julie Duncan has argued that a comparisonofthe spacing, layout and selection of 4Q~eutjwith 4QDeuP will likewise show that the former is not a biblical manuscript but an excerpted text used for liturgical purposes. 4Q~eutjexcerpts texts from Deuteronomy 5 and 10 and Exodus 12, passages that are selected by several phylacteries of the Judaean Desert, as well Deuteronomy 32, which is preserved in 4QPhyln.Moreover, 4QDed and4QDeuPagreein including Deuteronomy 8 in their selection, and the liturgical character of the latter text helps establish the devotionalquality ofthe former. Similar argumentswexe offered for ~QD&' and 4QDeut4." Beyond the general characterization of the litnrgical and devotional nature of these four excerpa deutmnomii, there exists no exegeticalcommentto guide one in their usage. We do not know who excerpted these texts and for what purpose they used them The texts43are, fortunately, related in their selection ofbiblical passages to the phylacteries and mezuzot and it is to these that we must turn for further illnmination. Phytacteries and Meztrzot One of the most notorious passages in theNew Testament, at least forthe bistoty of anti-Semitism, is Maahew 23 in which Jesus denouncesthe scribes andPharisees as hypocrites. In verse 5 of that chapter, there is a passing reference to the Pharisees who make their phylacteries broad and fringeslong. The wearing ofphylacteries (TU @uha~T+pla 'amulets') is attestedbefore h4atthew's time; PseudoAristeas, dating to the second centmy BCE, refers to the binding of phylacteries

41. Translati0n(~eg&)byCra~in~m6ve4.DnrImmmy.J0~hu(1,JudgeFmrd Kings (DID, 14; Word:CLawdon Ress, 1995), pp. 124-25. 42. 'Coasidaatim of4QM. 43. Tov, ' E x c q t d and Abbreviated', p. 597, would add SQDeut to this list, atext of 15 lines citing segmentn of Deut 5 and 8.

16

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

on the arm (Let. An>. 159), and Philo (Spec. 4.137) and Josephus (Ant. 4.213) in the first century CE make reference to both the arm and head tefiNn.* The custom of wearing phylacteries on the forehead and arm as a s i p and reminder of the commandments is to be traced back to a handful of biblical texts (Exod 13.9,16; Deut 6.8; 11.18). Yet while its practice was known, there were no extant exemplars dating to the Second Temple period before the discoveriesin the Judaean Desert. Tbirty-one phylacteries" in total have been recovered. 21 copies kom Cave 4 (Phylactery A-U [4Q128-481); 1 copy each from Cave 1 (1Q13), 5 (548) and8 (8Q3); 4 copies &oma cave that camotbe detemGned(XQ1-4); and 3 copies kom Wadi Murabba'at (Mur 4) andNahal HeverISe'elim (XHevISeS; 34 Se 1). They date to the Herodian and Bar Kochba periods respectively. Inrabbinic &tio& four texts are anthologized inthephylacteries,Exod 13.110,ll-16 andDeut. 6.4-9and 11.13-21. Thephylacteries hmtheJudaeanDesert, however, vary in their choice ofbiblicalpassages. Emanuel Tov has divided those that are legible into two groups. Into group one, namely phylactery A, B, G-Q, belong those texts that cite more biblical passages than the prescribed texts of rabbinic tradition. There is an addition of Exod 12.43-51 in A, I and M, various portions ofExod 13.1-16 inB, G, HandM, andalso ofDeuteronomy 10-11in& K and P.As was previously mentioned, Phylactery N appears to have contained only Deuteronomy 32. What is most striking is the addition of the Decalogue in no less than eight of the phylacteries (A, B, G-H, J, G M and 0).This, according to Tov, is the category of refillinwritten inthe Qumranpracticeandreflectsa sectarian selection andwriting.a Lawrence H. Schiagreed and added that these exemplars do not represent the commonphylacteries ofthe Second Temple period Rather, they embody the sectarianphylacteries that set aside the pharisaic scribal practice that was already in place?' The presence ofthe Decalogue among several ofthe phylacteries is noteworthy, because it recalls the Nash Papyrus which cites Deut 5.64.2; 6.4-5. Prior to the discovery ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls, theNash Papyrus (named after W. L.,&a. the then Secretary of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, who bought it from an Egyptian antiquities dealer) was the oldest known biblical manuscript Found somewhere near FaEgypt, the fragments of this Hebrew manuscript were first published by Stanley A Cook in 1903."A subsequent study by F. C. Burkitt

44. Philo and J o s e p h avoid the term ' p h y M e s ' on account of its mociafion with magic 19621, $159). 45. They are so chmwteked on the basis of theirmimgraphic writing and some with accomp a n m

(APelletin;La L a m d ' h t i e d PhBocmfe[ p a r k C d ,

46. 'T~ofDiffaentOrigio~om~?',inY.Ho~andF.~Poiak(eds),ALight/or Jocob: Sfdiesin the Bible and theDeodSea Smolfs in Memory ofJacob SMomLichr(Heb) (Jerusalem MossadBialik, 1957 ' ), pp. 44-54. 47. 'Phylacteries andMemzot', inL. H.SchBkm andJ. C.VaoderKam (eds), EncyIop..Iio of the DeadSea Scrolls (Oxford: OUP,2000), I[,p. 676. 48. Proceed~g~oftheSociery~fBibIi~~IAreh~eologv,Ianuary, 1903. Atmsaiptionandstudy was also published anonymously as 'Unpqyms h a m @massdque', RE N.S. 1 (1904). pp. 242-50.

1. Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period

17

dated the text to 55 CE:9 but William F. Albright argued that it should be brought back earlier to between 165 and 37 BCE?~TheNash Papyrus agrees textually with the Septuagint in several places; its liturgical character has been recognized; and its combination of excerpts of the Decalogue and Shema together is an important literary link with the phylacteries. Esther Eshel has even suggestedthat it might originally have been part of a phylactery or mezuzah?' However, and this is a cautionasy point, the evidence of the Nash Papyrus does not support the view of the 'sectarian' status ofgroup one phylacteries. The argument of scnialpractice notwithstanding,the combination ofthe Decaloguewith theshema as such is not sectarian practice. It reflects the fluidity of the selection, a variance that continned into the Middle Ages. According to Tov, a second group ofphylacteries (C-F, Rand S) may be identified by the fact that they are not written in the Qumran practice. These phylacteries cite only texts that were latex included in rahhinicbadition, namely Exod. 13.1-16, Deut. 6.4-9 and 11.13-21. Moreover, phylactery C isveryclose to the exemplars dating to the Second Revolt, the tefilllin &om Murabba'at and Nahal HeverISe'elim. As for the textual character ofthephylacteries,Tov noted that none ofthem is close to the MT and he suggestedthat they come kom amilieuthat differed from those circles that wrote and copied Scriptures." In a later publication, he briefly implied what that milieu was with reference to Bavli Megillah lXh, a passage which stipulated that phylacteries and mezuzot could be copied 'without a written source'. Tov averred that they were written &om rnemory.i3 In arecent study oftheNash Papyrus, Philo, 4QPhyl G, XQPhyl3 and 4QMez A, Innocent Himbaza has shown that the Decalogue in these texts is closer to Exodus than Deuteronomy and the Septuagint than the MT?4 He pointed out that the Decalogue of Exodus must have been known by heart by the scribe of the Nash Papyms. Similarly, the copyist of 4QPhyl G and XQPhyl3 and 4QMez A cited the Ten Commandments of Exodus from memory. Philo too, though he regularly paraphrasedtheDecalogue, probably cited it by heart He concluded by statingthat '[tlhe Decalogue ofthese scribes is therefore aDecaloguethatis inadvertently "eclecti~"'.~5 A practice related to the wearing of phylacteries is the a5xing of mauzot to the door posts and gates of a house @eut 6.9 and 11.20). The word, mezuzah 49. 'The Hebrew P m ofthe Ten Commandments', JQR 15 (1903), p. 400. 50. 'ABiblieal F-at from theMaccabwan Age: the NashPapy~s',JBL 56 (1937),p. 149. 123~36. 51. '4QDeuP-ATextthatHasUn~oneHmooisticEdi~,HliCA62(1991),p. 52. 'Excepted andAbbRviated',pp. 599-Wo. 53. Tahrol Criticirm ofthe Hebrew Bible IMh-lis: Fortress Ress, 2nd eds 2001). D. 119. Y. ' I P D6dopllc de Papyrus Nasb Philon, ~ Q P / G, ~ ~XQPhyl3 I el 4QMer A'. 79/20 (2002). pp. 41 1-28. See also his L* D i ' . u l o w rr I'horuirr du rexrr (FniurdG8tungcn: Academic ~ e s F&ernglVandmb+& s & ~ q r e c h $&M),pp. 4747. ~ m e v e rG. , I. ~moke,'ktemnomy Min the Phylaeteria fmm QmmmCave 4',in R A. Kmfl, L. A. S c h i b and W. Fields (eds), E m m e l : Stdies in Hebrew Bible, Sepmagiru and Dead Seo Scrolk (Leiden: Brill, 2003), p. M), states that 'the decalogue of Dentemnomy is the base and controuing text'. 55. 'Le D&alogue', p. 427.

~nd

18

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

(plural: mezuzot), means 'doorpost' and in the biblical text Israelites are enjoined to inscribe the divine inshuctious on i t As the tradition developed, the mezuzah itself (but not the 'gate') came to refer to the parchment ofbiblicalexcerptsto be attachedto door posts. In rabbinic tradition thesemauzotare excerptedtextsthat include the srst~aragraphof the Shema in its parallel passages of Deut 6.4-9 and 11.13-21.In the SecondTemplePeriod, the practice was attested by PseudoAristeas (Let. Aris. 158)and Josephus (Ant. 4.213). The discoveriesin the Judaean Desert have brought to light nine mezuzot: 7 &om Cave 4 (44149-155), 1 from Cave 8 (844); and 1 from Wadi Mmbba'at @fur5). As with the phylacteries, these mewot contain additional passages fiom the Decalogue (Exod. 20) and Deut. 6.6-18 and its text is likely to have been cited from memory. On the basis of the similarity of the biblical texts collected, Tov has suggested that all the teflin andrnezuzot, as well as three ofthe fourexcerptedDeuteronomy texts (4QDeut', 4 Q ~ e u 6 ~ and = ~ 4QDefl " were created for liturgical purposes; 4QDeutq was probably intended for personal study, and 4QTestimonia is an exegetical-ideological anthology.s6Tbis topic needs to be further exploredas it is probable that some of these texts were also recited in a liturgical context. In the Mishnah, it is stated that the Decalogue and Shema were said together with the daily blessing in the Temple and during the Sabbath when the priestly course changed (m. Tamid 5.1). n t e Septuaginf of Deuteronomy 'Translation is an act of interpretation.' This axiom is as true today as it was in the ancient world The grandson, who translated his grandfather Jesus son of Eleazar's book of wisdom in the second century BCE,formulated in the preface what eveq translator or bilingual person knows intuitivelythat 'what was originally expressed in Hebrew [or in any language] does not have exactly the same sensewhen translatedinto another language', in this case the language was Greek (Prologue of the Wisdom ofBen Sira 21-22). The Septuagint of Deuteronomy is first and foremost a Greektranslation of a Hebrew text. It may be assumedthatthe Hebrew Vorlage was the pmto-Masoretic Text that eventually became the authoritative edition of the Hebrew Bible for the rabbis, althoughthere ase passages where the Septuagintreflects in its muslation a variant not found in the MT. Some of these variants have now been recovered from one or more Qutman manmxipts (such as Deut 32.8 and 33.12). Qumran, moreover, preserves a kt-century BCE Greek fragment that agrees with the Septuagbt of Deut 11.4 (4QLXXDeuteronomy [4Q122], fig. I)?' The Greektranslator of Deuteronomy was pmumably an Alexandrian who lived in the tbkd centuryBCE. Overall, his translation has been characterized by

56. 'Excmted and Abbreviated', m. .. 5957. See E.C. L I i c h ' a L d l d o ~ n c ~LO p P.W. Skrhm, E. Ulnch e,ol (A). @hrmr,n (bw 4.11 Polueu-llzbra, ond l;r.&k R,bh

30

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

Though divorce is not mentioned in these texts, Jesus deduces that 'one flesh' implies the impossibility of separation, and so concludes that the one who 'divorces his wife andmarries another commits adultery' (MJt 10.1I), along with its corollary, 'and if she divorcesher husband and marries another, she commits adultery' (MJt 10.12).'O Marriage and divorce were keenly debated in the Second Temple period, and in labbinic literature, an entire tractate is devoted to it (Gittin). Much of the debate focused on the meaning of the phrase 'something objectionable' in Deut 24.1. The school of Shammai took the rigorous view that divorce should only be permitted for some shameful act, whereas the school of Hillel took the more liberal view that it could be for a variety of faults, even as trivial as spoiling the dinner (m. Git. 9.10). Josephus appears to support the latter view for he paraphrases Deut 24.1 with the words, 'He who desires to be divorced from the wife who is living with him for whatsoever cause - and with mortals many such may arise - must certify in writing that he will have no W e r intercome with her' (Ant. 5.253). At Qumran, divorce is acceptedwithoutcomment in CD 13.17 and 11QT 54.4-5 but CD 4.2C5.2 accuses the 'builders of the wall' of unchastity because 'they take two wives in their lives, while the foundation of creation is male and female he created them'. The s& on 'lives' is masculine, which, accordingto Westerholm, 'suggests thatthe sectarians were opposedto any second maniage for a man, whether the firsthad been terminatedby death or divorce'." Ifthis is true, it could be that the 'test' of the Pharisees was to see ifJesus agreed with the Qumran heretics (as they saw them). However, Brewer think;sthis text is primarily about polygamy (not having two wives simultaneously) and so does not contradict the permissive view found elsewhere in the scrolls.12 What is strikingabout the way Mark presents this debate is that Jesus contrasts a commandofMoses with the will of God expressed in the creation stories. Two arguments are used to support this. First, Jesus claims that the comuiand was given ' n p k yourhardness ofheart'. Most commentators take the rrp& to mean 'with regard to' or 'because o f and the 'your' to refer to humanity in general or perhaps the Jewi~hrace.'~ In other words, the commandofDeut. 24.14 does not express the will of God but was a concession to human weakness. kondly, the mostmodem commmtntms SeeD. S. New,O l d T e s ~ n e n ~ ~ o l o fmthe&opficGospeLr iom rmd the Tw-Do-t Hypothesir (SBLSCS, 37; Atlanta: Scholers Ress, 1993), pp. 82-5. 10. Fmce,[email protected])suggestnthis~ddbeoidencef01theRomaneaiginof tkGospel sinceRoman l a w p m h d eaherpmty to initiate d i v a but this was rskictedto mm

d law. 11. S. WeatdobS Jesus d k r i 6 a l A u f h o r i p (ConBNT, 7; 7 ;GI-, 1978),p. 116.So also W.R G.Laader,Jaus' Aftihrde to f h e h (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans, 2002 [19971), p. 89. 12. D.LB~~er,'Jesus'OldTestamentBasirf~~M-gamy~,inS.Moyise(ed),TheOldTesfnment in the New Tesfmnencfisqvs in Honour ofLL. Nonh (JSNTSup, IW, Shefliel* Sheffield Academic PRSS,2000). pp. 7S105. 13. RH.Guodcy,MmR:A Commentmy on hisAp~logyforfhe CrOss(Grand~.Eadmans, 1993)insistgthat the 'your' nlafs ontyto the Pharisees avld thus c m t he the reMoses gave nuch a command He takes n p k in a telic m e to mean thatMoses gave the command in mdm to 'incite the Pharisees to dimwee their wives against God's ordinance' (p. 538). in J

2. Deuteronomy in Mark's Gospel

31

creation stories take priority because they state what was so ' h m the beginning of creation'. Powery draws a wide-ranging conclusion fiom this: By the use of this wider nawtive or sc&

1levels the Mwaic law to a post-tion period for 'hardened' humanity. That is, it is not the ideaL I-' scriptural choice serves as a corrective. This hmprebtive tension (-pi againstszipke) ssetsup elements in a hnmmeutid (preferential) system (1) God's act over Moses' mmman&; (2) the a t i o n period ss the ideal; md (3) historical n d v e bdmccs law.I4

It is interesting that in Matthew's reordering of the material (Mt. 19.1-12), Jesus responds to the Pharisees' question by citing the Genesis texts, to which they then cite Deut. 24.1-3 as a challenge: 'Why then did Moses commandusto give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?' (19.7). Jesus then states that it was because ofyour hardness ofheart that Moses alloweddivorce. Matthew is, of course, correct. Deut 24.1-4 is not a 'command' to divorce but a piece of legislation outlawing a particular practice, namely, a man remarrying his divorced wife if she has since remarried (24.4). But Mark has Jesus asking the Pharisees what Moses commanded and when they cite phrases i?omDeut 24.1,3, he refers to it as 'this commandment'. France seeksto mitigate this by suggesting that Jesus must be refRTing to the whole ofDeut. 24.1-4 since it is only v. 4 that is actually a commandment.15But it is difficult to escape the consequencetbat Madi's Jesus is here playing off one Scripture against another. Deut. 5.16-20/24.14 in Mk 10.19 Mark follows the discussion on maniage and divorce with the blessing of the children (Mk 10.13-16), followed by a dialoguewith a rich man (Luke calls him a ruler). The man addresses Jesus with the unusual epithet, 'Good Teacher', followed by a question, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?' (Mk 10.17) After a puzzling counterquestion ('Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone'), Jesus responds by quoting kern the second table of the ten commandments (Exod. 20.12-16Deut. 5.16-20), along with a command not to deiiaud. The man responds that he has kept these sincehis youth, which,judging by Jesus response ('Jesus looking at him, loved him'), should be taken as sincere rather than arrogant. But Jesus continues: 'You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor; then come, foUow me' (Mk 1021). This is too much for the man, who 'went away grieving', leading to the pronouncement that it willbe difficult (but not impossible) for rich people to enter the kingdom of God Madi's listing of the commandmentscould come from either Exodusor Deuteronomy or, given the fact that he uses a different construction to the rxx ( +i aorist subjunctive instead of 04 +future) and a different order (honouring parents comes last), *om the fom being used in his church The manuscript @adition shows considesable interferenceh m parallel passagesbut accordingto G6ttingen

14. E.B.Poway,JenrsReodrSo-iplur~:TheFunctionofJ-'UseofScripWeinfhesyMpfic GospeLF @iden: Brill, ZM)3),p. 52. 15. Em", The Gwgel ofMok, p. 391.

32

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

(La) and^^^ @Jew~estament),the order of the commandments in the relevant texts is as foUows.I6 Ewd. 20.12-17 Deul 5.16-21 M10.19

honour

honour

adultery theft murder false wimess covet

.dult.ry murder thee false witness covet

m"rdef

Mr. 19.18-19

Lk. 18.20

murder

adultery adultery murder murder thefl thefl false witness covet

adultery d t a y thee theft false winess false witness

dehud hmow

honour honour love neighbow

Rom. 13.9

love neighbour

Two things caU for comment. First, Mark cites the command to honourparents (present imperative as in LXX) in last position, perhaps to prepare for the man's response that he has kept the commandments 'since his youth'. It is interesting that the example chosen to illustrate hypocrisy in Mark 7 (Corban) leads to the accusationthat 'you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother' (Mk 7.12). On the other hand, ifhe were. to obey Jesus' command to give aU his riches to the poor, he would likewise not be able to do anything for his parents. Secondly, Mark's list contains a command not to defraud (absent kom Matthew a Luke). Gundry suggests this is in place ofthe command not to covetbecause(a) it is more visible and thus allows the man to claim that he has kept the wmmandments since his youth, and @) the rich have less need to covet but might weU have gained their riches by defrauding." The exact wording of the fraud prohibition ( p i & T ~ o o T E occurs ~~~~ in ssir. ) 4.1, andalmost ( O ~cicrrw~~pjoei~) K in some manuscripts of Deut 24.14 (A, F), and is even italicized in NA". However, the G8ningen edition is almost certainlycorrect that the reading of Deut 24.14 found in manuscripts A and F is the result of assimilation to Mark and not a text that Mark could have h o w u It seems most likely that Mark derived his form of the commandments h m church ldition rather than an actual manuscript of Dateronomy.18 The enigmatic reply, 'Why do yon call me good? No one is good but God alone ( ~p ii &S 6 O E ~ ) . , could be an allusionto the opening of the Shema @eut 6.4): 'Hear0 Israel:the Lordour God,the Lord is one' (6 BE&. ..As ELTTIV). The vase is explicitly quotedinMk 12.29 (see below) as the ' k t ' commandment and it is perhaps more likely that Jesus is directingthe man to Israel's central afhnation ('God is One') than to a general point about God's goodness ('God alone'). 16. TheMasoretic Hebrew has tbe order honour, rrmrder, adultay, the& false witness and covet in both Ex& and Deutaonomy butthere are also vadatiom in the Hebrew ~~~. Inthe u x eaditioa, odor A appearsto have eon£-d to the Hebrew order. 17. Gun*, Mark p. 553. 18. To M e r complicate mattem, pj i r r u m p f i is ~ omitted h s o m e impmtaot mmwaips ofMadr (B*K W A Y), tho@ this can be explained as either assimilafionto Matmewnuke orme urx SeeNew, Old Tesrmenr Quototiom,pp. 71-7.

2. Deuteronomy in Mark's Gospel

33

Exactly the same phrase is used in another incident w 2 . 7 ) when the Pharisees ask, 'Who can forgive sins but Godalone?' ( ~ vi i ds 6 886s). Marcus notes that the numeral 'one' is not necessary for either ofthese sayings ('no one is good but God'Pwho can forgive sins but God?'), so that had Mark wanted to express God's uniqueness, he could have used p6vos (as in Ps. 86.10; Isa. 37.16; Dan. 3.45). Marcus thus takes thenumeral 'one' as a deliierate reference to the Shema for 'Mark is engaged in a creative struggle to reconcile exegeticauy the Shema's a5rmation of God's unity with scriptural passages that speak of exalted figures with great, even God-like a~thority'.'~ Dart. 25.5 in Mk 12.19 In Mk 12.13-17, Pharisees and Herdans seekto trap Jesus by asking him ifit is lawful to pay taxes. In the following incident (Mk 12.18-27), Sadduceesconcoct a story about seven brothers all marrying the same woman in order to ridicule belief in the resurrection. The story is based on the rules of levirate marriage found in Deut. 25.5 and aparticular example narrated in Gen. 38.8: Deuf 25.5

Got. 38.8

When brolhers rside together, Thm lud& said to Onan, 'Go and one of themdies and hm no in to your brother's wife and pafomthe duty of a brotherson, the wife of the deceased s b i l not be mmied outside the in-law to ha; raise up offspringforyour brorher.' family to a &anger. Her husband's hozher shall go in to her, r&g h e in mnioge, and performkg the duty of a h ~ s b a n dbrother *~ to her...

Mkl2.19

Teacher, Moses wmte for us that if aman's bmtherdies, leaving awife but no child, the man shall many the widow and raise up2'children for his brotha

Jesus' reply consists of a rhetorical question ('Is not this the reason that you are wrong, that you know neither the scripturesnor the power of God?'), a statement ('For when they rise fkomthe dead, they neither many nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven') and a scriptnral defence of resurrection ('I am the God ofAbraham, the Godof Isaac, and the God of Jacob'). This does not appear to have much to do with an interpretationof Deut. 25.5 (and there is little verbal similarityto deduce anything about the possible text-form) but it does tell us a great deal about Mark's portrayal of Jesus' hermeneutics. First, it is not enough to cite individualtexts. Knowing Scripturemeans knowing how different texts relate to one another (cf. Deuteronomy 24 and Genesis 1-2). Secondly, as 19. 1. Mawus, 'Authority to Forgive Sins Upon Esrth', in C.A. Evans and W.R Steper (eds), The G o s ondfhe ~ ~ SoipruresofIs1d(3SPJTSup, 1M. Sheffield:SheffieldAcademic R s s , 1994), pp. 2 0 W . He thus tlkes Jesus' reply as a Ral qustirm: 'Wfwt is your basis for caILing me good, seeingmatno oneisgwdexcept God?' (p. 209).Manhewhasrewordedtheexchangesomattheman does not say, 'Gwd teacher, what must I do...?' hut 'Teacher, what gwd ddeed must I do...?' (Mt 19.16) andhas Jesus respond, 'Why do you ask me about what is good?' Luke agrees withMark u). It is p+s smprisiagthatMarkuses the compound icavaoTTj instead ofthe &&mqoov in m G e n . 38.8, whichwould havepmvidedagwdlinkwahdm(&u&oraa~g),as@aps Matthew noticed

34

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

Powery observes, scriptural interpretation accordmg to Mark requires a proper theology of God It is not a literal or historical interpretation but one that stems from a specific theological conviction ('He is God not of the dead, but of the living')." Meier suggests the logic of the scriptural proof is as follows: 1. 2.

3.

Majorpremise:According to God's self-chosende6nition, the verybeing of God involvesbeiig the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is his permanent self-definition. Minor Premise: But, as the whole of the Old Testament proclaims, God is God only of the living, not the defiling, unclean dead, with whom he has no relation. Unspoken Conclusion: Therefore, if God's being is truly defined by his permanent relationship to the three patriarchs, the three patriarchs must be (now or in the future) living and in living relationship to Godz

Since Markhas Jesus frequently quote fromthe Psalms and the prophet^,^ one might have expecteda 'more convincing' proof-text such as Dan 12.2 ('Many of those who sleep in the dust ofthe earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt'). However, Mark's Jesus is aware ofthe dispute between Sadducees and Pharisees concerning resurrection (12.18) and probably also aware that the Sadducees would have demanded proof from the Torah. This Jesus offers, thus demonstrating his authority as an interpreter of Scripture, and the ongoing importance of Torah.

Deut. 6.4-5; 4.35 in Mk 12.29-33 Mark tells us that a scribe heard this dispute andaskedJesus: 'Which commandment is the first of all?' (12.28). Jesus replies by citing the opening words of the Shema (Deut. 6.4-5): 'Hear0 Israel: the Lord our Go4 the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' He adds a second, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself, from Lev. 19.18, and concludes that 'There is no other commandment greater than these'. Rather strangely, Mark then has the scribe repeat Jesus' answerbut in a differentfonn. Beginning with an afkmtion ('You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that') and an oddly familii reference to God ('he is one'), he adds 'and besides him there is no other', possibly taken 21. Powery,Jesus Reads Scripture,p. 69. SchWLerFio~makesB diffewtpoint The Sad& eees not only have a faulty theology w .. of resmectim, they also have a f a d.W . ! m h i a r c b d d ~ d i. nf mmiage ('whose wif~.will she be?'). Jesus challeoga this with his view of the afterlife, where 'they ncrtha marry ow ue aveo 10mamiage'. Sec E SchWlcr Fih U e m qflllller ~ 1F c ~ ~ I nisr Theologid Recomrruction of CM~& Origiw (rev. edn; London:SCM, 19G), pp. 141-45.

22. 1P. Meier, A Marginal Jew,VolZ: Mentor, Message, andMir~~cIes (NmYork Doubleday, 1994. . w. .. 429-30. 23 Isa.6.6(4.I2J,lw29.13(7 6.7). lw 56 7 Ja.7.11 (11.17J.P~. 1 l X 22(12.10-11);Ps.110.1 (12.36);Ira 13.1034.4Joel2.10(1324-25l;Daa 7.13 (13261;Zecb. 13.7 (14.271;Dan.7.13Pr i l 0 . l G4.62); Ps. 22.1 (15.34). F& aa &xition ofM&'S t i e of the P & &&)and Isaiah (Hwker), see the previous volumes in the series.

2. Deuteronomy in Mark's Gospel

35

from Deut. 4.35.24He then abbreviates the four faculties to three by omitting 'soul' and substituting 'understanding' for 'mind', deducing that 'this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices' (absent from Matthew andLuke"), whichMarkregards as awise answer(12.34). The texts ofDeut. 6.4 and Lev. 19.18 are reproduced exactly but there is some variation in the named faculties, as there is also in the LXX tradition: Deur 6 . 5 - 8 Deut 6 . 5 - A Detn 6.5-.W .Mk12.30

Ml.22.37

Lk 10.27

mind soul mi&[

heaa soul

heart soul

mind

m%h

hem soul might

heaa soul

might

heaa

soul miod strength

mind

Giittingen favoursB (supportedas it is by papyrus 963), concludingthat 'heart' in Codex A is due to assimilationto the Hebrew. It could equally be argued that 'mind' (61avo1a)in Codex B is due to assimilationto the synoptics. Since Mark uses a different word for 'might' (io$s for 6Jvap1s)and a different preposition for 'with' (BK instead of Cv), it is likely that he is quoting the form known in his church (as with the commandmeuts). More a c u l t to explain is why Markhas the scnie repeat Jesus' answer in a different form. If the story had endedin a rebuke, one might conclude that Mark is portraying the scribe as anogantly reminding Jesus that the quotedtextmentions only three faculties. His substitution of 'understanding' for 'mind' might then be taken as self-serving, a key quality in his particular profession as a scnie. But Mark has Jesus aEim the man ('When Jesus saw that he answeredwisely') so this cannotbecorrect A convincingexplanation for this variation is yet to be foundzb C o m b i i g the commandments to love God and neighbour has partial parallels in T.Iss. 5.2 ('love the Lord and your neighbour'; cf. 7.6)and T.Dan 5.3 ('love the Lord and one another with a !me heart') but citing the actual commandments in this way appears to be origmaL2' It might have been prompted by the fact that the Hebrew texts bothuse arelatively rare form for 'you shall love' (invertedpdect with imperative or jussive meaning, translated dryamjoe~s),or as Allison has argued, because the Ten Commandmentshad already been summarized as 'love for God' (list five) and 'love ofneighbow' (second five). His evidence forthis is primarily Philo, though he also notes that Josephus (Ant. 3.5.8) thought the two tablets wried down the mountainby Moses each contained five commandments 24. Similarphrasesaecurelsewhere, e.g. 2 Sam. 7.22,lKgs 8.60;2 Kgs 19.19;Isa 37.20;45.5, 6,14, l8,21,22. 25. Luke's version of this stmy oecm d e r (in 10.25-28)and it is the 'lawyer' who quotes Deut. 6.5 fcml~l. 26. G , d r y ( ~ o r kp., 711) thinks the s c n i is so overawedby Jesus' reply that all he 00 do is pwaphmsehiswords. Butthisdws notexplainthev&om. Powery(JenrsReodsScr@hrre,p.71) notes how Madr uses repetition to 'remind, inform, and permade readers' and that slight differences onbring additional nuancesbut he d w s not say what they are in this case. 27. Thae is aiso some doubt as to whetherthese are ktapolations into the Testmenrs of the Twelve P&mchs.

36

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

(a not unreasonable deduction). Allison thus thinks that citing the Shema (love for God) and Lev. 19.18 (love for neighbour) wouldbave been taken as 'wnstituting a synopsis of the d ~ a l o g u e "and ~ thus not particularly noteworthy. However, tbe scnie's comment that 'this is much more important than whole burnt offerings and s a d c e s ' (12.33) does appear to be signifcant. For Loader, Mark is dehierately drawing a contrastbetweenheartreligionand cultic activity, along the same lines as his understanding of Mark's parentbesis in 7.19 (which he takes to be an annulment ofthe food laws).'gFrance calls it a sweeping 'demotion' oftemple sacrifice but does not think that it implies 'doubt as to thevalidity of the sacrificial system; the point is its relative importar~ce'.~~ If it could be shown that Mark has verses l i e Deut. 12.6,11,27 in mind (where the combmation 'burnt offerings' and 'sacrifices' occur), this couldbe seen as putting Deuteronomy 6 andDeuteronomy 12 into apriorityrelatiouship (as with Genesis2 and Deuteronomy 24). However, the combiitionoccurstbroughout Scripture andit is perhaps more likely that Mark has atext like Hos. 6.6 ('For I desire steadfastlove and not sadice, the knowledge of God rather than bumt offerings') in mind This text occurs twice in Matthew (9.13; 12.9, though not in this in~ident.~' Allusions Deut. 23.5 in Mk 2.23 Mark 2.1-3.6 consists of a series of controversy stories where Jesus' actions provoke hostility because be pronounces forgvenessonaparalytic(2.1-12), eats withtax-collectors and sinners (2.13-19, failsto observe times of fasting (2.1822), allows his disciples to pluck corn on the Sabbath (2.23-28) and heals a man with a withered h&d on the Sabbath (3.1-6). If the latter is understood as an emergency, Jewishtraditionwould agree that 'saving l i e overrulesthe Sabbath' (b. Yoma 8%) but that could hardly be argued for the corn incident, where there is no mention of hunger, let alone ~ t a r v a t i o eDeut ~ ~ 23.25 provides the general background for the disciples' activity ('Ifyougo into your neighbour's standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbour's standing grain') but there is no mention of the Sabbath in this text The command to keep or observe the Sabbath occurs inExod. 20.8-1 1 ('For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth') and Deut. 5.12-15 ('Remember 28. D. C. Allison, 'Mk 1228-3 1 and the Decalogue'. in CA. Evans andW. R Stegner (eds), The GospeIr md the Sm'phnes ofIsroel (JSNlSnp, IM, She5eld: S h a e l d Academic h u ,1994), p. 273. 29. Laader,Jesw Amhule Towmdv f h e h , p . 101. 30. Fiance, The Gospel of M d ,p. 481. P o w q ( J e w Rmdv Srripture, p. 73 n. 210) says: 'Neither Jesus' h a l state"men-no greater Lawsththesepnorthe scdbe's h a 1s!akment, -it is much mme than sacrifices,"suggestr mmulbg these practices!' 31. Manhew la& my response by the man and ends the story with this dlimatim: 'On t h e two mmmdmats hmg all the law and the prophets' (22.40). 32. Il is not literally me even forthe man with the witherdhand, since his life is tmWrely to be in danger had Jesus waited until the Sabbath was over.

2. Deuteronolny in Mark's Gospel

37

that yon were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out hmtbere'). The more humanitarianbasisforthe Sabbath inDentemnomy is closer to the wncerns of this incident and might speak in favour of the Deuteronomic version. On the other ban4 Jesus' reply that 'the Sabbath was made (&VETO)for humankind andnot humankind forthe Sabbath' alludesto the creation story and wuld thus support the Exodus version. No decision can be made as to whether either should be given priority. Of more signii?cance is whether Jesus is being portrayed as breakingthe Sabbath. The key saying is found in Mk 2.28 ('the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath'), but this can be interpreted in at least three ways: (1) Jesus has the authority to override the Sabbath; (2) Jesus has the authority to discern what constitutes a breaking of the Sabbatb, and his ruling is that the disciples' action does not; (3) Jesus has the authority to determine what circumstances constitutea (temporary) suspensionof the Sabbath, as did David in his day. A fourth alternative is that Mark intends 'son ofman' to be a synonym for 'humanity' and thus Jesus' verdict is that because the Sabbath was made for humanity, humanity is lord of the Sabbath. Some would deny this possibility, claimingthat Jesus wuldnotpossibly have put 'humanity' above the law but some sort of priority is implied by the maxim of v. 27. Once again, the answer is likely to be conditioned by one's overall view of Mark and the law (and in this case, Jesus and the law). Deut. 18.15 in Mk9.4, 7 in the transiiguration story, Elijah and Moses appear with Jesus and a heavenly voice declares, 'This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!'. The mention of Moses, the prophet and the command to listen to him (C~KOJETE ~ 6 ~ 0 ;is) suggestive of Deut. 18.15, where God promises to raise up a pmphet l i e Moses: 'The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me &om among your own people; you shall heed ( ~ 6 ~ 0&KO~OE&E) ; such a pmphet.' France calls it an 'echo'ofDeut. 18.15 andalong withotherindicationsofaMosestypologyin Mark, he says that it implies that 'Jesus ful6ls the eschatological role of the "prophet like Moses" in Dt. 18'."Wowever, he also notes that the ensuing discussion (Mk 9.1 1-13) concerns Elijab rather thanMoses and so while the motif is present, it is 'more a part of Mark's inherited pattern of thought than a theme which he is particularly concerned to press on his readers, however gladly he takes the opportunities which this incident afFords to make the connection'? Marcus assigns it a more prominent role, calling it a 'virtual citation' of Deut. 18.15, which is 'only the most visible manifestation of a wmplex tissue of allusions in the ttansfigurationnarrative of the Pentateuchal accounts of Mo~es'.'~ From thisprompt, he surveysthe post-biblical tmlitious of Moses' enthronement,

33. France, The Gospel of Ma& p. 353. 34. Frrolae, 7 7 G ~ o v l d M n k , p. 353. 35. Mawus, The Way of the Lard, p. 82. Marms denies that the m e r in which they an i n b dueed('E1ijah wah Moses') counts againstthis. Rather, the mmtion of Elijah 'ensures mat thetypolopy wiU be int+ eschotologieally' @. 83).

38

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

translation and divhhtion as important background for understanding M&s transfiguration narrative.

Deut 4.32: 13.1-2 [6]; 30.4 in Mark 13 During the course of Mark's so-called apocalyptic discourse, there are several ideas that have significant parallels with texts from Deuteronomy: Deureromm?

For ask now about former es, long before yow own, ever since the day that God created (4s lrrtoav 6 8 ~ 0 s human ) beings on the eaah ask h m one end of heaven to the other has anything so great as this ever happened or has i s like ever been heard of?(4.32)

MnTk

For in those days there willbe suffering, such as has not been h m t h e be+g ofthe d o n that Gad mated (cu irrlosv 6 &&) until now, no, andnever willbe (13.19).

I€prophets or those who divine by dreams

False messiahs and false pophets will appear appear among you and pmmise you omens and produce s i p (qvEia) and omens (qvfiov) or pmem (ripas), and the omens ( ~ i p a ~ ato) ,Lead aswy, ifpassible, the elect or the portents declared by them take p k , and (13.22). they say, 'Let us follow other gods' (whom you have not h w n ) 'and let us serve them'... (13.1-2)

Even if you are oriled to the ends of the world (dri 6r;pou rdl nipavdu io, dcpou rob oupavob). bom there the L O W y o u God will gather y& (uwva.?,~!),and fmm tiere he will bdng youback (30.4).

-

Then he will send out the aneek. - and e&n (invmucicr~)his elect from the four w d s . born the ends (an' ~ r.p o.vofthc j eanh to the ends of heav&~cascixpou o6pamC) (1327).

In each case, the thought or idea is also found in other passages. For example, Dan. 12.1 predicts 'a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations k t came into existence', and Joel 2.2 speaks of the Day of the Lord as apower11 m y , 'their like has never been h m of old, nor will be again after them in ages to come'. The future orientation of these passages is conceptually closer to Mark, andloel also includes the clause 'nor will be again'. However, the s p e d c link with God's creating activity (Gv EKTIOEV t ) €I€&) is closer to the wording of Deut. 4.32 and may have iduenced Mark (or his s~urce)."~ Likewise,the phrase 'signs and wonders' occurs some twenty times in the Old Testament and according to France, had become a stock phrase for 'imposters and deceivers'.)'The majority of scriptural occurrences refer to the events surrounding the Exodus (beginning at Exod. 7.3) but Deuteronomy 13 is the first passage to associate 'signs and wonders' with a future false prophet Indeed, the passage goes on to warn the people that this might arise from 'your brother, your father's 36. Exod. 9.1 8 is anotherpossibility: 'Tomonow at this h e I will cause the heaviest hail to fali that has ever fallen in Egypt fiomthe day it was foundeduntil now' & ivipas i r n m a Ems ~ 6 5 ivipas r d q s ) . 37. F m e , The Gospel ofMork, p. 529, citing Josephus Ant. 20.167-68.

2. Deuteronomy in Mark's Gospel

39

sonor your mother's son, or your own son or daughter' @eut 13.6), an interesting parallel to Mk 13.12 ('Brother will betray brother to death, and a fatber his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death'). The gathering of Israel from exile and dispersion occurs in a number of passages (Ps. 107.3; 147.2; Isa. 43.5-6; 49.2) but it is Deut 30.4 andZech. 2.638that speak of a future gathering (ouva~w)from the four winds (Zechariah) or the ends of the earthheaven @euteronomy). It would appearthat Mk 13.27 combines both texts, while further specifyingthat the angels will cany out the gathering, and that it is God's elect who willbe gathered. In sum, it would appear that Deuteronomy has played some part in the constmction of the so-called 'little apocalypse'. whether by Mark or his source.

Deut. 15.11 in Mk 14.7 It is possible that the statement that 'you always have the poor with you' is s~mply a reflection on the realities of lifc but it could be that Deut. 15.1I is particularly in mind. Deuteronomy 15 is concerned with the needs of the poor and verse 11 says: 'Since there will never cease to be some in need on the eaah, I therefore command you, "Open your hand to the poor andneedy neighbour in your land".' ~

~

Conclusion

On the whole, Mark has a positive view of Deuteronomy. This is shown in his portrayal ofJesus as atfirming Deut. 6.4-5 as the 'ht' commandment (Mk 12.29), reciting the second table of the Ten Commandmentsto the man enquiring after eternal life (Mk 10.19). and describing the command to honour parents as the 'word of God' in contrast to 'yourtraditions' (Mk7.13). For Ma& Deutemnomy has pmved a fruitful resource for the apocalyptic discourse (whetherby Mark or his source) and the promise of a 'prophet like Moses' appears to play some role in the kawfiguration story. Lastly, the statement about always having the poor (Mk 14.7) may well draw on the teaching of Deutemnomy 15. This emphasis corresponds to the kequent mention ofMoses by name inMark ( ~ 8 ) It. is interesting that a variety of verbs are used in conjunction with these references. The leper is to do what Moses commanded (Mk 1.44); the Pharisees and scribes should do what Moses said (Mk 7.10); the concession to divorce is also what Moses commanded (Mk 10.3); the levirate law is what Moses wore (Mk 12.19); and the Sadducees are directed to read something in the book of Moses (Mk 12.26). It is difficult to see any rationale behind these different uses but taken together, they do indicate the fundamental importance of Moses for Mark and his churchZ9 38. The MI. of a past scattering rather than a fuhne gathering ('I have spread you abroad Wre the four winds ofheaven'). Pahaps under the idiumce of Dew 30.4, the ua: has miSnuslate-3 this 'I will -=they' (SO F-c~). 39. See funher C. Breytenbach, 'Die VorwbnItendesM o w ~mMarkuwangcbumEnvaglmgm zur Kompasitioo von Mk 7,9-13, 102-9 und 12,IX-27', LhW'97 (20061, pp 23 4 3

40

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

On the other hand, the divorce pericope (Mk 10.2-12) contrasts the concession ofDeuteronomy 24 with the will of God expressdinthe creation accounts (Gen. 1.2712.24). It is also possible thatthe 'com' controversy (Mk2.23-28) is intended to relativize the Sabbath laws and the scribe's reply that Deut. 6.4-5 is 'much more important than whole burnt offerings and sacrifices' (Mk 12.33) could be intendedto relativlze the sacrificiallaws." The latter is interesting in that even if this is the implication, then it involves givingpriority to one part ofDeuteronomy over another and not to the creation accounts, as with the divorce pericope. This suggests that we should not generalize P o w q ' s comment that 'Jesus levels the Mosaic law to a post-creation period for 'hardened" h~~uzmity'~' beyond the divorce pericope. After all, the first commandmentcomes hmDeuteronomy and the second h m Leviticus, so there is little to sustain an argument that Genesis always takes priority over Deuteronomy. A third factor to take into consideration is the way that some texts have been changed or transformedby their new setting. For example, the tditional 'gathering of Israel' motif has undergone an 'ironic reversal'" by its setting and the mention of God's 'elect'. The citation of the Ten Commandments has gained a commandnot to defraud (absent from Matthew, Luke and Paul), while the command to love God with heart, soul and might has gained an additional faculty. Thus although it can be claimed that these texts are citedpositively by Mark, they do not appear to constitute what Greene calls 'reproductive imitation', where the original is 'beyond alteration andbeyondcriticism, a sacred originalwhose greatness can never be adequately repr0duce8.4~Deuteronomy is an authoritative sourcebut that does not rule out debate concerningwhich texts take priority when an ambiguity or contradiction is discerned. On the whole, I find Broadhead's summary of the 'son of man' material a suitable summary of the Deuteronomy material: Tbe Gospel of Mark invokes a variety of imditim and texts in its portrayal of Jesus. These previoosEy existing texts have been appropriated under a guiding hermeneutic whose effect is not correction, but reciprocity... thereconfi&on ofJesusinthe Gospel of Mzxk belongs ultimately to the intertexhlal dialogue though which early Chistian tmdition was shaped, mined, premed, and tmmdted" 40. To my mh4 this is apossible intapWAonbutno more than that. Those who are convinced that Mark is nullifying the ritualwects of the law for the sake of his Gentile readen are n a d y nnclincd lo see it this way. But olhei would argue that texb like J-eornmwding thL.lcper toa~e; the prcxnbed sacnficer (Mk 1.44) and upholdlog the 'word of God' agamst human tradition (Mk 7.13) ndes outsuchanintapIetation. Forthe effect ofs c h ~ l a r l y ~ ~ p i onan~odenfanldin~ tim ofMark's use ofScriphm, see S. Moyise, 'The Wilderness Quatationin Ma& 12-3', in R S. Sugitharajah (d), Wildemers. Essays in H o n o w o f F r ~ ~ l ~Young@mdon& ep New York T&T CLarlg ZOOS), pp. 78-87. 41. Powq,JRe& Scriphae,~.52. 42. F m e , The Gospel ofM& p. 536. 43. T. M Cimme, The Light in Troy: Imitation ond Dircovery in Roloi.Tsmce Pmhy @Jew Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 38. 44. E. R Bmadbead, ' R d g u d n g I-: The Son ofMan inMadnm Pwpdve',inT. R Hatina (d) Biblical , Inrqrefation in Eody Chrisrim Gospels. I. The Gospel of Mark (budon & New Y& T&T Clark,2006), p. 30.

2. Deuteronomy in Mark's Gospel

41

Lastly, in terms ofthe text-form used by Mark, very little can be said with a%conlidence.Of the five explicit quotations, Mark agreeswith the LXX in the command to honour parents @eut 5.16 -but this could come from Exodus or tradition) and the opening of the Shema @eut 6.4), but differs in the form of the commandments @eut. 5.12-16) and the faculties by which one must love God @eut. 6.5).Neither of these differences leads to a text that is closer to the Masoretic Hebrew, however. The other two examples (divorce concession and levirate law) have only a few words in common, making it impossible to say anytbing &finite about their textual form. Allusions, by definition, have less verbal similarity and so add little to the evidence. It would a p p m that Mark drew some of his quotatiotls from church tradition but whether he had contact with an actual manuscript of Deuteronomy must be left open.

Chapter 3

Matthew's Gospel contains some fitken quotations from the book of Deuteronomy.' The exact number depends on how one counts some dubious cases, but the following list can be considered as representing a broad consensus: M t 4.4 Mt 4.7

Xt 4.10 M t 5.21 Xt 5.27 M t 5.31 M t 5.33 M t 5.38 M t 5.432 M t 15.4b3 M t 18.16 M t 19.7 Mt. 19.18-19a M t 22.24 M t 22.37

= Deut

8.3

= D e d 6.16 =Dent 6.13; 10.20 =Dent 5.17(urx5.18)orExod20.13 (urx20.15) = B u t . 5.18(m5.17)0rExod.20.14(m20.13)

=Deut24.1,3 =free rendering of hter nlia Deut 5.11,20;23.22 = Deut 19.21 or Exod 21.24or Lev. 24.20 =free rendering of infer olio Deut. 7.2;20.16; 23.4,7 =Deut. 5.16or Exod 20.12 = D M 19.15 = Deur 24.1,3 = Deut. 5.17-20.16 or E x d 20.13-16.12 = Deut 25.5 = Lkut 6.5

The list immediately shows some aspects of the way Deuteronomy is used in Matthew. Ifwe look at the Matthew column at the l e 4 we see a concentrationof quotations from Deuteronomy in the story of Jesus being tempted by the devil (4.1-1 1): three times, Jesus refusesthe suggestionsofthe devil by quoting words from Deuteronomy. Another concentrationoccursin the s d e d 'antitheses' in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (5.21-48), where Jesus offers his own radical interpretationof several OldTestamentlaws. The other Matthean quotations &om Deuteronomy are spread over chapters 15-22; on a closer look, it appears that with one exception,they occur in pronouncement stories, mostly controversies,in the argument of either Jesus or his discussionpartoers.The exception is Mt 18.16, 1. Traaslatim ofbibticalpassageshave bmtaken £corn the NRSv, unlegs otherwiseindicated. I have s o m e h e s m o v e d slight . inconsistenciesofthemv. to facihte mmrrarisonbetween Dassapes. 2. 'And you shall hate your enemy.' 3. 'Honour your father and your mother.'

.

3. Deuteronomy in Matthew's Gospel

43

where a law &om Deuteronomyis used to regdate relations within the Christian c o ~ ~ l y . If we look at the Deuteronomy column at the right, we see that four quotations (inMt 5.21,27; 15.4; 19.18-19) come fromtheDecalogue@eut 5.6-21). Since the book of Exodus also contains a version of the Decalogue (Exod. 20.2-17), which differs at some points from the Deuteronomy version but not in the parts cited in Matthew, Matthew's quotations from the Decalogue could equally well come from Exodus. The quotation in 5.33 may also come from the Decalogue @eut 5.1 1,20 or Exod 20.7, 16), but other sources are possible as well (Lev. 19.12; Num. 30.3; Deut 23.22). TheDecaloguewas no doubt avery familiar Old Testament passage: circulating in many different f a d and known by heart by early Jews and early Christians. Other well-knownpassages from Deuteronomy in Matthew are the commandmentto love the Lord from Deut 6.5 in Mt 22.37,6 and the retaliation law of Deut. 19.21 in Mt. 5.38.' In the latter case, however, other provenances are equally possible. The divorce regulation of Deut 24.1,3 occurs twice in Matthew (5.31; 19.7). Deuteronomy has been one ofthe main quarries from which Matthew drew Old Testament quotations, along with the Psalms andIsaiah. Among the five books of the Torah, Deuteronomy scoreshighestas a source of quotations inMatthew. Even ifone takes into account that quotations fromthe Decalogue may come from either Exodus or Deuteronomy,Deuteronomy is stillthe winner, with Exodus in the second place. In addition, there are more than forty allusions to Deuteronomy in Matthew's Gospel? Matthew's quotationsfrom Deuteronomy can also he categorizedaccordingto the sourcethrough which they reached Matthew. Presupposing the Two-Document Hypothesis, according to which Matthew made use of Mark and Q, we can say that the quotations in Mt. 15.4; 19.7,18-19; 2224,37 were derivedfromMark(see Mk 7.10; 10.3,19; 12.19,30), andthatthequotationsinMt 4.4,7,10 came from Q (cf. Lk. 4.4,12,8). The remainingMatthean quotations&om Deuteronomy (in 5.21,27,31,33,38,43; 18.16) occur inMatthew's Sondergut, that is, thematerials without aparallel in the other SynopticGospels. In the Sondergutinstances, Matthew may either have harrowed a quotation in the context of tmditional materials, or he may have inserted it himselt apriori decisions are impossible here, one has to decide case by case. It is evident that within the Torah, the book of Deuteronomy has its own individual imits, with its typical exhortativestyle and its characterof Moses' farewell I mention Philo. De decalo~o; - Ps-Phoc. 3-8: LAB 11.6-13: 44.67: Rom 13.9. See R. H . Gundry, 73r U,r.u/llad tNd k~lorndnrm St. Ilutlb~~t I Gv%prl,sdllt Sprcul RcyL,rn c r n, rhr M<.srcan~c Hup(NovTSup, . 18; Leidm: Brill.2ndcd~1975 119671). pp. 17-19; D S. New, . . Old Testament Quototiom in the Synoptic Gospels, andthe ~ w + & & n t G ~ b i h e s i s ( ~ ~ ~37; ~~~, Atlanta: Scholars k, 1993). pp. 74-5. 6. See,e.g.,Let.A&. 160;J0~ephugAnr4.212;m.Ber1-3;m. Tomid5.1;Did I.Z;ZClem.3.4. 7. See,e.g.,hb64.31-32;LAB44.10. of allusions is based on the lists in NAz' and UBS4,and on W . Dittmar, Vem 8. M y e-t Ze~Immrumin N m : Die alnesfmentlichen Porallelen des Neuen Testnmena im Wo~Ioutd e Urierfem d & r Sepruaginto (G6ltingeo: Vandenhoeck & R+f 1903). 4. 5

~

44

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

speech. In early Jewish and early Christian literature, the book is sometimes mentioned by its own name as an individual entity within the T ~ r a hDid . ~ Matthew also perceive Deuteronomy as an individual book within the Torah? If we take a look at the formulae with which Matthew introduces quotations &omDeuteronomy, we can observe that the book of Deuteronomy is never presented by the evangelistas a separate entity within the Scriptures.All three quotations from Deuteronomy in Matthew's temptation story (4.1-1 1) are introduced by yLyparrra~,'it is written' (4.4,7,10). Matthew wpiedhere what he found in Q: inLk 4.4,8, the quotationsare also introducedby yiypamal, and~ypq~ai, 'it is said' in Lk. 4.12, the parallel of Mt. 4.7, seems to be due to Luke.IoIn any case, Matthew saw no reason to use a more specific introductory formula. In the antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount (5.21-48), the Matthean Jesus introduces some OldTestament laws with the word tpp6@q,'it was said'. Matthew probably found the introductory formula in the case of the Sondergut antitheses 5.21-26. 27-30,33-37, andimitated it in the antitheses 5.31-32,38-42,43-48." The passive 'it was said' is best interpreted as apassiwm divinum, a circumlocution for God's speaking, to avoidmentioningGod di~ectly.'~ So Matthew makesuse here of a formula of introduction which emphasizes that God is speaking in the words of the Torah, but which does not specifically introduce quotations as coming fiomDeuteronomy. With the quotations &omDeuteronomy that reached MaiG~ew throughMark, Matthew mostly wpiesthe essentials ofthe introductory formula or chamchintion h m Mark('Moses commanded', Mt. 19.7, &omMk10.3; 'the commandments', Mt. 19.17-18, £ram Mk 10.19; 'commandment', Mt. 22.36, h m M k 12.28). In 15.4, Matthew has changedMark's 'Moses said' (7.10) into 'God said', to improve the connection with what precedes ('the commandment of God' in contrast to 'your U t i o n ' , Mt. 15.3 diff. Mk 7.9). In 22.24, Matthew has replaced Mark's 'Moses wrote for us' (12.19) by 'Moses said'; wmparable changes are found in Matthew's avoidance of the writing ofMoses in 19.8 (diff. Mk 10.5), and of the book ofMoses in Mt. 22.31 (diff. Mk 12.26). In sum: Matthew mostly copies the introductionsto quotations fhmDeuteronomy as foundinhis sources, these introductionsnever wntain speci6creferences to Deuteronomy, and if Matthew substantially modifies an introduction, it is to 9. Forthe Greek name A~u~~povAptov, 'second law' (thew o r d m a k d y in Deut 17.18; Josh 9 . 2 LxX), ~ see, e.g., Philo, Leg. 3.174; Dew 50; Bmn. 10.2; Melito of Sadis according to Eusebius,Hist. eccl 442.14; Origen aceordingto Eusebius, Hisf eccl. 6.25.1. Forthe Hebrewnam mn am,'mptcdlaw', see,e.g., b. ~ e g31b; . ~n ~ o b3.5. . 10. Luke probably changed the Q wading for the sake of variatio~Manhew had no reason to change anoriginal 'it issaid' into 'it is W r i W . See S. Carmthandf. M.Robinson, Q 4:I-13.16: The Temptotiions ofJ- - Narwo (ed C. Heil; Dontmenta Q ; Leuven: Peeten, 1996), pp. 2 4 3 4 8 . 11. SeefmkrbeI~w,inthesdonanMt 5.21-48. 12. SecM Zenulek 8,hl~cnlGr~~ck Illurrrr,rJh) F ~ m p l r . > ,J d. Smith@omr: Bibbcal l n m ~ c Re% 1963; orig in Latin, IYSS),par 236; fur theapplicatioom Manhew L' L q l h E\unxclrurn ~ nochMoIfhrj,1: Mr1-7(EXKN'f, 111; ZM& ~ e o d ~ e r , ~ ~ e n -Nevhchener~erlag, v 1 u ~ : 3rd* 1992 [1985]),p.249; W .D. Davies andD. C. Allism,A Critical mdExegericn1Commenlar). on the Gospel ~ ~ ~ c o r d i nSoin1 g l o M~~nhew I : Innoduction ondCommentq on Manhl-l-YII(ICC; Edinburgh:T & T Clark 1988), pp. 510-11.

3. Deuteronomy in Matthew's Gospel

45

emphasize the spoken word of Moses over against his written text. This tallies with the circumstance that Matthew never refers to any individual book of the To& but only to 6 v6por, 'the law', the five books of the Torah taken together and distingnished from 'the prophets', and consideredas something valid for his audience." In the next section, I shall discuss the quotations kom Deuteronomy in Matthew's Gospel, following the sequence in whichthe quotations occur inMatthew. The first question to be asked in each case is: in what textual form does Matthew present the quotation? Did he make use of a biblical text, and if so, which one (m,Hebrew text, etc.), or did he copy the quotation komhis sources (Mark, Q, other rnate~ials)?'~ We have to determine as precisely as possible the textual form in whichMatthew found a quotation,because we have to know whathe interpreted before we can investigatehow he interpreted i t So the second, logically ensuing question is: what does the quotationmean in its Matthean context? Here, we have to keep in mind that Matthew read the Old Testament as a first-century Christian Jew. His Old Testament is an Old Testament that was already interpreted before him, in early Jewish and early Christian tradition. I shall finally summarize my results and make some general remarks on Matthew's use of Deuteronomy. Quotationsfrom Deuteronomy in Matthew: Textual Form and Meaning Quotatiomfrom Deuteronomy in the Temptation Stoty (Mt. 41-11) Matthew's narrative on Jesus being tempted by the devil in the desert (4.1-1 1) has a parallel in Luke (4.1-13) but not in Mark (who only has a very succinct temptation story in 1.12-13), so it must come h m Q. The three quotations from Deuteronomy found in the temptationnarrativeare the only quotations from Deuteronomy in Q (m so far as we can reconstruct this document'3. On account of the very limited use ofDeuteronomy in Q, it has notbeendeemednecessarytoinclude in the present collectionof essays a separate chapter on Deuteronomy in Q, and I shall here give attention to the textual formand the meaning of the Deuteronomy quotations in Q. For the purposes of this study, a full reconstructionofthe Q version of the entire temptation story is not required, it is sufficient to establish the original sequence of the temptations in Q and the textual form of the Deuteronomy quotations in Q. In bothMatthew andLuke, the temptation story startswith the devil's request to Jesustomake breadout of stones. InMatthew's sequence, the second temptation consists in the request to Jesus to throw himself from the temple roof, and the third one is the devil's invitation to Jesus to worship him in order to receive dominion of the entire world. Matthew's second temptation is Luke's third one, 13. SeeMt.5.17,18;7.12; 11.13; 12.5; 22.36,40; 23.23. 14. For detailed discussionof the t e d form of Marthew's quotationshmDeuteronomy, see M. J 1. Menkeo, Manhew's Bible. The OldTertomenl Taf of theEvangelist (BETL,173; h v m : Leuven University Prss - Peeters, 2004). 15. For arecent r e c o r n d o n , see J. M. R0bhW9 P. Hoftnans I. S. KIoppenborg andM C. Mmland (eds), The CrtticnlEdition of Q (Lewm: Peters, 2000).

46

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

and Matthew's third temptation is Luke's second one. Matthew has probably retainedthe original sequenceofQ, because Luke's interest in Jerusalemandthe templet6makes it probable that he transposed the second and tbird temptation so as to have the temple scene as a climax.t7 As far as the textual form of the quotations from Deuteronomy is concerned, there is complete agreementbetween Matthew andLuke. So we may assume that in Q, the quotations read as follows: 'One does not live by bread alone' (Q 4.4); 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test' (Q 4.12); 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him' (Q 4.8).'8 The only difference between Matthew and Luke is that in Matthew, the h t quotation is longer: 'One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes fromthe mouth ofGod' (Mt. 4.4). The question is: did Luke omit the second half of the quotation fiom Q or did Matthew add it to Q? To my mind, Matthean addition is the more probable ~ption.'~ Luke hadno reason to omit the secondhalf:the third evangelist has signiscant interest in the reception of the word of God or J e ~ n sand , ~ he knows that human existence is ultimately not based on material things (see Lk.9.25; 12.13-34; 182425). On the other hand, there were good reasons for Matthew to expand the quotarion: he emphasizes that Jesus obeys the word or the will of God (3.15; 5.17; 6.10; 26.39,42), and he considers Jesus as a teacher ofdivine wisdom (see 11.19, 25-30; 23.34-36). Moreover, ifwe assume that it was Matthew who expandedthe quotation, the original Q narrative appears to possess a distinct sttucture. The three temptation scenes move itom the ground to the temple roof to a mountain top, and Jesus' answers to the devil consist in quotations from Deuteronomy in reverse order (Dew 8.3; 6.16. 1321).The first and second quotations differ born the third one in that the devil starts with the words 'if you are the Son of God', and Jesus answers with a categoric biblical prohibition (in literal translation: 'Man shall not live by bread alone'; 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test'). The addition of the positive counterpart to the h t prohibitionbreaks this pattern. In texhlal form, the Deuteronomy quotations in Q agree with the uor (apart from a few details in the third one to be discussed below). In the case of the h t one, the Greek translation is a correct and very obvious translation ofthe Hebrew, so here one cannot say with certainty that the LXX is the source of the quotation, but given the fact that the two others derive from the m,there is a very good chance that the h t one does so as well. The second quotation can only come fiorn the m:the Hebrew verb ?Dl,'to put to the test', is translated not by the usual simplex rc~lpa[~lv or m1p6vbntbythe compound 6~rnl~&Ftv,andthe second person plural of the Hebrew text has been replaced by a second person singular. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20.

See,e.g.,Lk 9.31,51,53; 13.33; 17.11; 19.11;24.47,52;Aets 1.8;2.46. See Camdh and Robinson, Q 4:l-13, 16, pp. 1 4 M . I&Uowthecmventimofref~gtoQbymeansofthechapterandversenumbmafZuke Sce Camdh and Robinson 0 - 4:l-13.16. w. . . 137-47.

See,e.g.,Lk. 1.38.5.1,6.47;811-15,21;11.28;Ans4.4;6.7,8.11,11.1; 1224;1326;17.11. 21. The word5 an question also occur in Deur 10.20, hut the Droxlrnlw ofDcut 6 1 3 to Delrt 6.16,the sourceoflhe&cedingquotation, suggeststhatDeut 6.1; isafthe~rigiooft&eqmt&min Q 4.8.

3. Deuteronomy in Matthew's Gospel

47

The third quotation also comes fmmthe LXX: the Hebrew verb ?XU, 'to serve', is rendered by the Greek verb h a ~ p ~ l j ~which l v , the L x x translators of the Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges have used almost always when the Hebrew verb refers to religious senrice." The third quotation deviates fiom Deut. 6.13 L x x in two details." Firstly, it ~ , shall worship'. instead ofthe wx's 1$op11Brjag, 'you reads r r p w v r j o ~ t'you shall fear' (which is an excellent translation of the Hebrew m'n). The change verypmbably occurredunderthe influence ofLxxpassages in which we findthe verbs rrpoo~uvEivand haTpEitElv inimmediate parallel sequence, as translations of the Hebrew verbs 7ln (histafel) and 72Y. The L x x version of Deuteronomy contains a series ofthese," and wemeet them elsewhere as well.25The most obvious candidate to have iduenced the text of the quotation is Deut. 5.9 (or Exod. 20.5): the j k t commandment ftomtheDecalogue pent. 5.8-10) is, in both content and wording, very similar to Deut. 6.13-15, and could therefore be used as an analogous text, ftom which words could be borrowed as an addition or a substiThe second differencebetween the quotation in 44.8 and Deut 6.13 LXX is that in the quotation the word 'only' (p6vc9) has been added: 'serve only him'. The addition serves to reinforce the monotheism of the quotation, and it may derive from the analogous passage 1 Sam. 7.34." Addition of 'only' to a reference to Israel's God in similar contexts has sometimes occurred in the L X X . ~The ~ two changes in the ~ x text x probably go back to the stage ofthe originalcomposition ofthe temptationnarrative,because they constitute an integralpart ofthe story: the devil promises Jesus to give him power over the entire earth 'if you will worship (rcpw~uvriqs)me',andJesus answersh i m by citing scripturalwads concerning the worship of God, and of God alone. What is the meaning ofthe three quotationsfromDeuteronomyin Q's temptation story?29I start h t h e presuppositionsthat the temptationnarrativeconstitntes an integral part of Q, and that the use of Scripture which we find in this 22. SeeH. Strafhmana,'ha~p~
48

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

narrative, is striking but not completely foreign to the rest of Q. Three times, the devil puts Jesus to the test, and in each case, the answer of Jesus consists of a quotation fiom Deuteronomy. All three quotations come fiom the same part of Deuteronomy, the admonitions of Moses to Israel in chapters 5-1 1, apart which also containsthe Decalogue (5.6-21) and the 'Hear Israel' (6.4-9). The three quotations express vital tenets of Jewish faitb: man does not live just by material things, one should not put God to the test, and God is the only one to be worshipped. So by putting the quotationsinJesus' mouth, the Q author presents him as a devout Jew, one who complies with the requirements of the Torah. In this respect, the temptation narrative is in line with other parts of Q (11.42; 16.17). It is useful to have a more detailed look at each of the three individualtemptations. In the h t one, the devil invites Jesus to make bread out of stones (4.3), that is, he invites h i to take care, in a miraculous way, of his own material subsistence. Such an invitation is at odds with what Jesus teaches elsewhere in Q, that one shouldnot care about material things but strive for God's kingdom, and God will then take care of his own also in material respects (12.22-32; also 11.2-4,913). Israel in the wilderness succumbed to this temptation,by complaining about their lack of food (Exod. 16.2-3, etc.); Q's Jesus does not succumb. In the second temptation,the devil tries, by citing Ps. 91.1 1-12, to move Jesus to perform a sign. Or, to put it more precisely: Jesus should move Godto perform a sign by saving Jesus when he would throw himself down fromthe temple roo£ By doing so, Jesus would go against his own saying in Q 11.29-32, that 'this evil generation' is asking for a sign, but that they will not receive any other sign than the one of Jonah: just as Jonah's preaching was su86cient for the Nievites to repent, so Jesus' preaching shouldbe sufficient for his own generation to repent By responding to the devil's suggestion, Jesus woulddo the same as Israel did in the wilderness, when they tested the Lord by asking Moses for a sign by giving them water ( E x d 17.1-7; Num.14.22; Ps. 95.8-9). But Jesus does not comply with the request of the devil. Jesus' refusal, in the third temptation, to worship the devil in exchange for dominionof all the kingdoms of the world also fits in withhis teaching elsewhere in Q. One cannot at the same time serve God and the devil (Q 11.14-23), or God and wealth (16.13), one shouldopt for the kingdom of God and not for the riches ofthis world (12.29-30). Again, Jesus doesnot succumb to atemptationto which Israel succumbed in the wilderness: to worship other gods (identifiedwith demons in Deut 32.17) than the Lord alone (see Exodus 32; Numbers 25). In Q, it is not quite clearwhetherJesus acts as an exemplatyJew or as the JewishMessiah. Twice, the devil begins his tempting words with E; uibs d TOG 8e&, which can he translated either as 'ifyou are a son of God' or as 'if you are the Son of God'. In the former case, Jesus acts as an exemplary Jew (cf. Wis. 2.1 8); in the latter, as the Jewish Messiah. If in Q the temptation narrative waspreceded by a story on Jesus' baptism, and if in that story the voice from heaven called idem, 'Scdphlre a d Q', in idem (ed),The Scrprurer in the Gospelr (BETL, 131; Leuven: Leuven Univasity Press -Pee1997). pp. 3-26;Hieke, ' S c h d f t g e l e ~ e i i tn der LogienqueUe'.

3. Deuterononty in Matthew's Gospel

49

Jesus 'my Son', a case could be made out for the latter possibility, but the e n deuce for this assumption is slightg0In fact, none ofthe three temptationshas an explicitly Messianic character, so for Q the paradigmatic interpretationseems to be the safest one. Matthew has incorporated Q's temptation narrative in his Gospel. We have already observedthathe copied the three quotations fiomDeuteronomy from Q. We have also established that he has expanded the quotation from Deut. 8.3 by adding the words 'but by every word that comes from the mouth of God', and that he had good reasons to do so. Matthew's addition must come from the LXX. The Hebrew text reads, in a literal translation, 'but by everything that comes fromthe mouth of the Lord'. The LXX speaks of 'everyword' and of 'the mouth of God', and Matthew's text agrees completely with the Lxx." Matthew's interpretation of the Deuteronomy quotations presupposes the Q interpretation, but Matthew adds a few aspectsby making the temptation narrative part of his Go~pel?~ The temptation narrative comes now after a baptism narrative in which God has called Jesus 'my Son' (Mt. 3.13, and after a b i i narrative in which Jesus has been begotten by the Holy Spirit (1.18-25) and according to which Hosea's prophecy, 'Out of Egypt I have called my son' (Has. 1l.l), has been fuliilled in Jesus (2.15). Accordingly, Matthew's Jesus istemptedinhis quality of 'the Son of God'" and as one who in his divine sonship represents Israel as God's son. The temptations now become challenges to perform Messianic signs, challenges which Jesus rejects (see Mt. 12.3842; 16.14), and theDeuteronomyquotations become statementswhich are especially valid for the Messiah. Matthew's expansion of the first quotation serves the same view: as the Messiah, Jesus depends on God's word (cf. 3.15; 26.54). In Matthew, there are also clea~connectionsbetween the temptationnanative and the end of the Gospel. When Jesus has been cruci6e& both passers-by and Council members mock him by challenginghim to substantiatehis divine sonship by coming down from the cross (27.3943)." The former group even does so by saying, 'Save yourself, if you are the Son of God' (27.40), thereby imitating the words of the devil in 4.3,6. Jesus is the Son of God by obeying his Father, from his exemphy fulfilmentofthe commandments fromDeuteronomyuntilhis death on the cross. The devil's wish that Jesus worship him in exchange for dominion over all kingdoms of the world (4.9) h d s its counterpart in the closing scene of the Gospel (28.16-20): on the mountain in Galilee, the disciples worship the risen Jesus (the same word rrpm~uvfivisusedin4.9-10 and28.13, to whom God, and not the devil, has given 'all authority in heaven and on earth'. The Son of Godhas obeyed his Father unto death, and therefore he is now entitled to divine worship 30. It is only supported by a few minor -ens of Manhov and LuLe against Mark in Mt 3.13-17 IILk. 321-22. 31. Including a few words where than me Gre& maslation was possible. 32. SeeM Hasitscblra, 'Die V-&g der SchriflinMt 4,l-ll', in Tnckett (ed), The Scn'p ma in the Gospels,pp. 487-90. 33. This title is a prominent one in Matthew, see 829; 14.33; 16.16; 26.63; 27.40,43,54. 34. Note that the references to 'the Son ofGod'in Mt. 27.40,43 belong to Matthew's redaction.

50

Deuteronomy in the New Testamenr

anduniversal dominion. To Matthew, then, the three quotations hmDeuteronomy in the temptation narrative are essential in showing what type of 'Son of God' Jesus bas to be: one who is obedient to his heavenly Father. Quotatiomfrom Deuteronomy in the Antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5.21-48) In the antitheses at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount (5.21-48), Jesus confionts six legal provisions derived h m the Torah with his own radical interpretation ofthem. He introducesthe six regulations with the formula, 'Youhave heard that it was said', or a variation on it (Mt. 5.21,27, 31, 33, 38,43), and begins his own interpretation with 'But I say to you' (5.22,28,32,34,39,44). The legal provisions have been derived from various parts of the Torah, among them the book of Deuteronomy. In what follows, I limit myself to what comes h m Deuteronomy. In 5.21,27, Jesus cites two commandments h m the Decalogue: 'You shall not murder', and 'You shall not commit adultery'. The Old Testament source of the former is Deut 5.17 (rxx 5.18) or Exod. 20.13 (rxx 20.1 5), and of the latter Deut. 5.18 (LXX 5.17) or E x d 20.14 (rxx 20.13). Inboth instances, Matthew's Greek wording agrees with the rxx, but as the translation is an extremely obvious one, this is not very telling. In the thirdantithesis, the legal provision is: 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificateof dismissal' (5.31); this is a fiee rendering ofDeut. 24.1,3. The next commandment, in 5.33, reads: 'Youshallnot swear falsely, but cany out the vows you have made to the Lord.' This is again a fieerendering,this time ofthe substance of various legal provisions, among them Deut 5.11,20; 23.22. The law ofretaliationis quotedin 5.38: 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'; it is found in Deut. 19.21, and at two other places in the Torah ( E x d 21.24; Lev. 24.20). Although the Hebrew is not exactly the same in all three cases, the LXX offers a uniform and obvious translation, which is completely suitable in Exod 21.24 only. Apart h m o n e insignificantdetail (the addition of 'and'), Matthew's text agrees with the ~ x xIn . the linal commandment (5.43), the secondclause, 'And you shall hateyour enemy', may have been inspired by, among other texts, Deut. 7.2; 20.16; 23.4,7, but there are no verbal links. AU six qnotations belong to Matthew's Sondergut, so we have to check whether Matthew found them in existing materials or inserted them himself. The antithesesin 5.21-26,27-30,33-37 are probably pre-Matthean, and the evangelist then imitated their model in the antitheses in 5.3 1-32,3842,4348. In the former t h e . antitheses, both the Old Testament laws and Jesus' interpretation of them belong to Matthew's own materials, to which then in the first and second antitheses other materials have been appended (5.25-26,29-30, cf. Lk. 12.57-59; Mk 9.4348). In the latter three antitheses, Jesus' interpretations derive h m Q (cE Lk. 16.18; 6.29-30,27-28,32-36), but the Old Testament laws belong to Matthew's ownmaterials. The entire series of antitheses starts with those in whichboth laws and interpretationbelongto Matthew's Sondergut,withthe exception ofthe antithesis on divorce in 5.31-32, but this exception is easily explicable: this passage

3. Deuterononty in Matthew's Gospel

51

was added to the antithesis on adultery on account of the related topic. So it seems that Matthew derived a series of three antitheses from existing materials, to which he added three more, which he composed himself on the basis of Q materials. The Deuteronomy quotations in the former three antitheses belonged already to pre-Matthean materials, those in the latter three were inserted by the evangelist. We cannot say, however, much on the type of Deuteronomy text used by Matthew himself or in his source. In so far as real quotations are given and not free paraphrases, Matthew's text agrees with the LXX, but other translations are hardly possible, and, as we saw in the introductory section, all real quotations concern well-knownpassages.The only serious indication for use ofthe LXX could be the word & n w ~ a o ~ o'certificate v, of dismissal', in 5.3 1; this word, however, can quite well be a halachic term in use among Greek-speaking Jews. Besides, Matthew &the word from Mark (10.4 //Mi. 19.7). He may evenhave derived the complete wording of the paraphrase in 5.31 from Mk 10.4, 11. The question of what the quotationsfrom Deuterowmy mean in Mt 5.2148Pj is actually an aspect of the more encompassing question what the Torahmeans in Matthew. In the three antitheses which Matthew borrowed, Jesus sharpens Old Testament prohibitions by also prohibiting things that could lead to their violation. God has said: 'You shall not murder'; Jesus equally forbids anger, abuse and contlict, which could lead to murder (5.21-26). God has said: 'You shall not commit adultery'; Jesus equally forbids looking at a woman with lust (the text betrays amale perspective), which could lead to adultery (5.27-30). Godhas said: 'You shall not swear falsely, but carry out thevows youhave made to the Lord'; Jesus equally forbids any kind of swearing, which could lead to swearing falsely (5.33-37). In the thee antitheses which Matthew created with the help ofQ materials, Jesus sharpens Old Testament laws by forbiddingwhat seemsto beaccepted in these laws as allowed. God has said: 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of dismissal'; Jesus forbids divorce, except in the case of rropu~iu. 'adultery' (5.31-32). God has said: 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; Jesus forbids retaliation altogether (5.3842). God has said: 'You shall love you neighbour andhate your enemy'; Jesus forbids limiting love to one's own people (5.43-47). So in all six antitheses, Jesus radicalizes OldTestament law, either by forbidding what might lead to its violation, or by forbidding things that were allowed only on account of the people's hardness of heart (cf. Mt. 19.8). The seriesof antitheses is preceded by apassage in which Jesus clearly states that he has come not to abolish but to fulfil the law, and that in this aeon, not a single detail will pass fiomthe law (5.17-19). There seems to be a certain tension

-

35. See. ex.. A. Sand Dm Gesea und die Pm~heten:Untmuchunnen a r ThPoIopiie dzs 11)74),esppp. 32124, 178-205; K. Snodgrars. 'Manhew md h e Law', lo D.R Bmm and M. A. Powell (edsr. Treasures New and 012 Recent Contibutions lo Matthem Smdies (SBLSymS, 1;~ t l a n t a , ~ ~ ~ : Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 99-127;M. Limbeck, Dm Gesen im Alten und Nnren Te~tmnenr @armstadtr Wis~~~~haWicheBuchgeseUschaft 1997),pp. 12M5;P.Foster, Commmiy, h a n d Miision in Manhew's Gospel (WUNT, 21177,Tiibiagen: Mohr Siebeck,2W), pp. 9&217. Lvongdltvmv nol.h Mul,ltbu~(BBbcbcCoknxbuogro. I I . Regemburg: Pun*

52

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

within Matthew's conception of the signi6cance of the Torah. On the one hand, the Matthean Jesus seems to advocate a legalistic stance: the law has to he kept completely, in all its details (see also 23.2-3,23; 24.20). On the other hand, he seems to adopt a liberal point of view: he summarizesthe entire law in the double commandment to love God and one's neighbour (19.19; 22.3440), and he puts mercy above cultic observance (9.13; 12.7). How should we solve this tension, and how sbould we understand the antitheses? In the Torah, we fmd a multitude ofcommandments andprohibitions. It is not surprising, then, that Jews started to wonder what basic principles govemedthis multitude, and which laws took precedence over others in case of collision between laws. According to Jewish tradition, a Gentile asked Hillel the Elder (who lived around the beginning of our era) to teach him the entire Torah while he was standing on one foot, andHillel said to him: 'What you donot like, do not do to yourneighbour; that is the entire Torah and the rest is commenm go and learn it' (b. Shabb. 31a). R Akiba (d 135) is said to have called the commandment to 'love your neighbour as yourself' of Lev. 19.18 'the greatest principle in the law' (Szfia Lev. 19.18). There is not much differencebetween Hillel's 'Golden Rule' and Lev. 19.18: both statements boil down to the same.36 In Matthew's Gospel, we can observe the same tendency; it is now appliednot only to the Torah,hut to 'the law and the prophets'. To Matthew, 'the prophets' are at least as important as 'the law', because they expressed God's will, that was revealed in the Torah, in a fresh and authoritative way. Towards the end of the Sermon on the Mount, the Matthean Jesus says: 'In everything do to others as you would have them do to yon; for this is the law and the prophets' (7.12). The 'Golden Rule' (in apositive wording) is considered to be the govemingprinciple behind 'the law and the prophets', just as Hilel considered it to be 'the entire Torah'. As we shall see below, Matthew's Jesus empbasiies in 19.16-22 and 22.34-40 the priority of the commandments to love God and one's neighbow @ a t . 6.5; Lev. 19.18). In two controversies with the Pharisees, Matthew's Jesus legitimates his own behaviour with a quotation h m Hos. 6.6: 'I desire mercy andnot sacrifice' (9.13 diff. Mk2.17; 12.7 diff. Mk2.26); hethereby aflkmsthat moral laws precede cultic laws. Finally, Mt. 23.23 is signi6cant: Jesus characterizes 'justice and mercy and faith' as 'the weightiermattersofthe law', which the scriies and the Pharisees neglect at the cost of 'tithing mint, dill, and cummin', but both these minutiae and the more important matters ought to be practised So to Matthew, the entire Torah with all its details is of importance, but its governing principle is love or mercy. This point of view expla& the antitheses with their quotations fiom Deuteronomy: the Old Testament laws remain valid, but Jesus interprets them in the light of the governing principle of love or mercy. Acting fully in accordance with this goveming principle means that 'yourrighteousness exceeds that ofthe scribes andpharisees' (5.20) andthat one is 'uerfect as your heavenly Father is perfect' (5.48, cf. 19.21). 36. In Tg.Ps.-J Lev. 19.18, the two are combined: 'Youshail love y o ~ n e & b o u sothat ~, what you do not like for yours04 you shall not do to him.'

3. Deuteronomy in Matthew's Gospel

53

Deut. 5.16 in Mt. 15.4 The controversy on clean andunclean in Mt. 15.1-20 is basically arewrittenversion of Mk 7.1-23. It contains in 15.4 another quotation from the Decalogue, fromDeut. 5.16 or Exod 20.12; Matthew borrowedit from Mk 7.10. If 1translate extremely literally, Mark's quotation reads: 'Honour your father and your mother.' Matthew has: 'Honour the father and the mother'; Mark's double possessive oou, 'of yon', is missing in Matthew. This omission removes Matthew's quotation from its Old Testament sources (both Hebrew text and=), but it is in line with Matthew's style: Matthew is consistentin omittingpossessivegenitives of the personal pronoun after 'father' and 'mother' wherever these two words occur in immediate conjunction." So the omission in 15.4 is best explained as a simple editorial retouching of the evangelist for stylistic reasons. A secondary motive may have been Matthew's wish to enhance the parallelism between the Decalogue quotation and the immediately ensuing quotati09 which has in both Mark and Matthew 'father or mother', without possessive genitives. Matthew has in several respects streamlined Mark's fairly complex controversy story.38The sole topic of Jesus' conversations, 6rst with Pharisees and scribes and then with the crowd and the disciples, is the contrast between keeping the commandment of God (as found in the Torah) and keeping the tradition of the elders (that is, the oral tradition of the Pharisees, exemplilied in washing of hands beforemeals). The Pharisees and scribes ask Jesus why his disciplesbreak the tradition of the elders by not washing their hands before eating (15.1-2), and Jesus retorts with a counterquestion: 'And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?' (15.3). He then gives an example of the way in which his opponents use human tradition against divine commandment: they allow people to dedicate whatever material pmfits their parents might have h m them, as a gift to God,39and thereby his opponents break two commandments of the Tor& 'Honour your father and your mother' (Deut. 5.16; Exod 20.12), and 'Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die' (Exod. 21.17; Lev. 20.9). In this way, they hold on to their tradition at the cost of 'the word of God', revealing themselves to be people 'teaching human precepts as doctrines' (15.4-9; 6.Isa. 29.13). Jesus then tells the crowd that 'it is not what goes into the mouth that defdes a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles' (15.10-11). He elucidates to his disciples what this means: eating withunwashedhands does not defile, butddement comes from 'evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication,theft, false witness, slander' (15.16-20). In 15.19, Matthew has reorganized the long list of vices of Mark 7.21-22 into a short list that parallels the second table of the Decalogue. In short: the Matthean Jesus upholds the Torah, especially the Decalogue, against the tradition of the elders, which may well be at odds with the Torah. 37. See 1037(diIT a 14.26); 154a(diR Mk 7.103); 15.4b(- Mk 7IOb); 15.5 (- Mk 7.11); 19.5 (diff. 'wr 10.7); 19.19 (diff \Ik 10.19); 19.29 (= Mk 10 29). 38. See, cg., R F. Colllap,'Matthcar'r ivrohoi Towards an Undemding ofthe Commmhentr m the Fin1 GomcI'. rrol (cds),7'hr Four Gusprlr 1991, pp. 132518, csp. 133 1-36, . . ia Vm Smbrocck 39. Cf.,e.g., m. Ned. 55..

54

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

Deut. 19.15 in Mt. 18.16 In Jesus' discourse on bow to live within the Christian community (Matthew IS), there is a section onbow to deal with sinners(18.15-18). If a sinner does not listen in a private conversation,Jesus' disciple is advised to take one or two others with him, 'that every matter may be settled on the statement oftwo orthreewitnesses' (18.16; I translate literally). These words are an unmarked quotation from Deut 19.15, the d e that at least two witnesses are required to sustain a charge. The LXX reads here (in literal translation): 'Every matter will be settled on the statement of two witnesses and onthe statement of three witnesses.' The Hebrew has (once again in literal translation): 'A matter will be settled on the statement of two witnesses or on the statement ofthree witnesses.' Some details ofMatthew's quotation show that it derives &omthe LXX. The quotation agrees witb the LXX against the Hebrew inhaving 'eve?y matter', andnot 'amatter'. Besides, quotation and LXX agree in two rather peculiar translations of the Hebrew. For the Hebrew expression 19-53 ( m l a t e d as 'on the statement of), both have m 6 p a ~ o sFor . ~ the ~ Hebrew verb Oli)(qal) in the sense of 'to be settled', both have passive forms of the Greek verb i o ~ & v o ~SO . ~it' seems obvious that Matthew's quotation is based on the Lxx The slight differences between quotation and LXX are the result of omission of superfluous parts, and of adaptation to the Matthean context ('or' instead of 'and', on account of 'one or two' in the preceding clause). Did Matthew himself insertthis LXX quotation or did he find it in bk source W a l s ? Mt. 18.15,21 come from Q (the verses have paralleb in Lk. 17.3,4); the question is where the intwening verses 18.16-20 come from. As thcy display both Mailhean and un-Matthean traits, they probably come from tradition, either from Q or from Matthew's own materials. In any case, the passage M t 18.15-17 shows averyregular structure; five times in succession, an 'if'-clause is fouowed by a main clause. Only in 18.16 has the regular structure been broken, because the main clause has been expanded by the final clause with the quotation. This final clause is expendable: it is not essential to the argument. Now we can observe at other places of Matthew's Gospel as well, that the evangelist likes to expand his source materials by Old Testament quotations: Matthew has added not only the fulfilmentquotalions, but also others.42Ifwe take into account these two factors, the circumstance that the quotation breaks the regular st~uctureof M t 18.15-17 and Matthew's habit to add quotations, we can assume that Matthew added the final clause in 18.16 with the quotation from D& 19.15. 40. The cxpmsion79-5~ o w some 40x in the Hebrew Bible in the sof 'on the basis of the uawnffiof, but the only h t a c a where the ~ x has x the eanslatiion 6lri m6parw are Deut 19.15 (twice) and 2 Kings 23.35. 41. Inthemorethaathiav~~~~cesinwhi&af-~fi~~avarenders~l~oal(ord~~ , . . . .. is almost always u??)vat,o;rjosdat or b ~ & v obut ~ , in Lev. 27.14 and Deut 19.15 we find the rnssivema6fbsdal used Inthe finalclauseofMt 18.16.the aor. as. di.o r 0 6 is theobvious equvalenr ofthe fur. p m . ind oro@jmro#. 42 Scx1.22-23,215, 17-18,23;4.14-16;8.17:9 13;12.7,17-21.40;13.35;1627,19.19;21.45.

3. Deuteronomy in Matthew's Gospel

55

By citing the Deuteronomy verse, Matthew gives ageneral applicationto arule that origiually applied only to witnesses for the prosecution in a criminal pmcedure. That he docs so, is not surprising: we know ofother extended applications of this rule in Matthew's environment (see CD ix 22-23; Jn 8.17; 2 Car. 13.1; 1 Tim. 5.19)." Apparently, the rule enjoyeda certain popularity as a directive that was applicable to various situations.Matthew employs it in the context of the first beginnings of canon law: the Matthean Jesus gives in 18.15-17 rules of conduct concerning sinners in the community. If a fellow Christian sins, the injuredpaxty shouldfirst try to convince himMface to face ofhis transgression, in order to win him back If this does not work, he should try again together with one or two others, in order to increase pressure on the sinner, and, if the sinner refuses to acknowledge his sin, to make sure that there are witnesses of the refusal. If the sinner persists in his refusal, the matter shouldbe brought before the entire community, and if the sinner continues to refuse even then, the community should terminate fellowship with him. The context, with its emphasis on forgiveness (18.12-14,21-35), suggests that theultimate goal evenoftemhating fellowship remains thereofthe sinner, although a 6tension between 18.15-17 and the Matthean context is undeniable.45The passage demonstrates in any case that, to Matthew, forgiveness does not mean overlooking the serious offences of an uurepenting sinner.

Deut. 24.1, 3 in Mt. 19.7 InMt. 19.3-9, Jesus is disputingwith the Pharisees on the topic of divorce. In the course of the controversy, the Phariseesconhut Jesus with the law on divorce by asking him why Moses ordered 'to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her' (19.7). The law in question is to be found in Deut 24.1,3. The relevant part ofthe two verses is completely identical in Hebrew text and m.The q which gives here a correct translation of the Hebrew, reads in a literal translation: 'He shall write her a certificate of dismissal and give it into her hands and send her away out ofhis house.' The immediate.source from which Matthew barowedthe regulation, was not, however, a text ofDeuteronomy, but Mark, where we also fiud the controversy on divorce (10.2-12). In Ma& the Pharisees speak of the permission given by Moses 'to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her' (10.4). The reference to Deuteronomy is wordedinMatthewandMark in slightly differentways. Minor differences (invisible in the English translation) are a small change of word order and the addition of an explicit direct object; in both, Matthew follows his usual preferences. A major difference is that Matthew has 43. See K vao YLiet,No Single Tmtimny: A Study on the Adoption of the L m ofDeur l9:lS por. into the New Testmnenr(Shldia~~1ogicaRhen~Tlaiec~ 4; Utrecht Kernink 1958); idnn, Did GI=&-Roman-HellenkticLow Know the Exclu~ionof the Single Wimrrs? The ANW of the Early Christian Writings/ The Lmu o f D m 19:lSpw. andthe Early Chrirtion Writings(Franeker: Wma; 1980). 44. Or her, ofc o w ; for the sake of simplicity, I use mascdhepm~~)uns only. 45. See U.Luz, D m Evangeliurn m h Manhrjur 3: Mt 18-25 (F1CKNT, 113; ZMch: Bewig"; Neukinh-Wuyn: Ndirchener Verlag, 3rd edn, 1992 [19851), pp. 3760.

56

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

replaced Mark's 'to write' by 'to give'. Both verbs occur in the Old Testament source; Matthew probably preferred the latter because it was the delivery of the c d c a t e of dismissal to the wife that made the divorce deiinite.' In 19.3-9, Matthew has in many respects rewritten and reordered his source text Mk 10.2-12. In both Gospels, the controversy is characterized by a c d c t between two laws fiom the Torah. There is on the one hand the Mosaic regulation of Deuteronomy 24, which permits a man to divorce his wife." There is on the other hand the divine regulation of Genesis 1-2: God bas created humans h m the beginning as man and wife (Gen. 1.27), and he has said: 'For tbis reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh' (Gen. 2.24). This divinely ordained union precludes human separation. We meet here the problem, already mentioned, of colliding laws. In this case, the Genesis regulation comes from Godhimself, that of Deuteronomy comes &omMoses. Moreover, the former goes back to creation, the latter dates back to amuch later time. So it is evident that the Genesis regulationprevails.In Ma& the Pharisees bring forward the Deuteronomy law (10.4); Jesus then says that Moses wote this commandmentbecause of their hardness of hearf and he puts forward the Genesis regulation with its consequence (10.5-9). In Matthew, the sequence of the two Old Testament references has been inverted After the initialwording ofthe question (19.3), Jesus refers to the divine commandment in Genesis (19.4-6), thenthe Phariseespoint to the Deuteronomy regulation (19.7), and Jesus answersthat Moses allowed divorce because of their hardness ofheart (19.8). The effect oftbis change of sequence is that the Genesis regulationon the indissolubility ofmaniage is clearly presented as the rule, and the Deuteronomy regulation on divorce as the exception, caused by human weakness. This effect isreinfo~cedby other editorial changes of Matthew. In his version, the Pharisees respond to Jesus' presentation of God's commandment in Genesis witb the question why then Moses 'commandedus to give a c d c a t e of dismissal and to divorce her' (19.7), and Jesus reacts by saying that because of their bardness of heart 'Moses aNowedyou to divorce your wives' (19.8; cf. Mk 10.3-5). The divorce law isnot areal commandmentbuta concession. Matthew has fuaher made Jesus' halprohiiition of divorce, which inMk 10.10-12 is directed to the disciples, into his final word to the Pharisees(19.9). Just as in 5.32, the Matthean Jesus considers rropv~ia,'adultery', as the only exceptiontotherule that divorce is forbidden. This exception corresponds to Matthew's additionoftbe words 'for any cause' in the initial question of the Pharisees whether divorce is allowed (19.3 diE. Mk 10.2).48

46. Cf. m. Gir. 8.1-3. 47. ThelawofDa~24.1-4is~ynotaboadiv~,butabo~thequstionwhetheramaois permittedto remwy the wife whombe d i v d cadier and who was maniedto anotherin the

meantime. However, apresuppositim ofthis +on is tbat divorce is permitted 48. The addition r e f i e Jewish discussion on the intqrewion ofLsomethiDgobjectionable' in Dart 24.1, see, e.g., m. Git. 9.10.

3. Deuteronomy in Matthew's Gospel

57

Deut 5.17-20, I6 in Mr. 19.18-19 In the conversation with the rich young man (Mt 19.16-22), Matthew has the young man ask what wmmandments to keep in order to have eternal life. Jesus answers him by referring to the second table of the Decalogue: 'You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honour your father and mother' (19.18-19). The Old Testament source ofthese commandments is Deut 5.17-20,16 or E x d 20.13-16, 12, but Matthew's direct source for the entire scene has been Mark 10.17-22. As for the sequence of the wmmandments, Matthew obviously depends on* but he has omittedthe commandment 'Yon shall not dehud'. Theomission is easily understood: this commandment is not found in the Decalogue. Matthew's wording ofthe commandments differs somewhat from Mark's. In the four commandments mentioned in 19.18, Matthew uses the same GreekconsIruction as the LXX, but Mark has a different one (10.19).49This does not mean that Matthew made direct use of a LXX text. We already observed that theDecalogue must have been avery familiiOldTestament passage, which circulatedin many different forms and was known by heart by many. Moreover, the construction we find in Matthew and the LZ Decalogue was not nnknown in classical Greek, is frequently found elsewhere in the Lxx, and occurs also elsewhere in Matthew. Thirdly, by using a wnstmctionwiththe fnture tense, Matthew created similarity with the command, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself', which he added in 19.19( d 8 . Mk 10.19). So Matthew simply adaptedMark's wording of the commandmentsto a wording with which he was h i l i a r and which snitedhim here. He also omitted in his usual way the possessive genitives in the commandment 'Honour your father and your mother' (see the discussion of M t 15.4). Among the changes which Matthew made in this pericope in his sourceMark,50 two are relevant to our understanding of Matthew's interpretation of the Decalogue. Firstly, Matthew addedthe commandmentto love one's neighbour as one self h m Lev. 19.18 to the second table of the Decalogue. The addition can only mean that the evangelistconsidered this wmmandment as the summary andgoveming principle of the commandments of the second table. Secondly, Matthew emphasizes that simply keeping the wmmandments is not enough; to the young man, who has kept the wmmandments, the Matthean Jesus &ally says: 'Ifyou wish to be perf- go, sell yourpossessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will havetreaswe in heaven; then come, follow me' (19.21). The word 'perfect' ( T ~ ~ E I O& S) the end of the antithesesof the Sermonon the Mount, when Jesus says: 'Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect' (5.48). A disciple of Jesus has to follow Jesus' interpretation ofthe commandments in the light of love as their governing principle. What Jesus M y requires the young man to do, is to realize the righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees (5.20), and that is exemplified in the antitheses (5.21-48). 49. Matthew and the LXX have d + 2 n d p a . sg. fat ind, Markhas i16+ 2ndpers. sg. aor. subj. The Hebrew originalhas ~5 + b. 50. See, e.g., Colhs, 'Matmew's iv~oAot',pp. 1326-31.

58

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

Deut. 25.5 in Mt. 22.24 Matthew's version of the dispute between Jesus and the Sadduceeson the resurrection (22.23-33) was derived from Mk 12.18-27. It starts in both Gospels with a catch question worded by the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, and arising from the institute of levirate marriage: if seven brothers have successively been married to one wife who has remained childless, whose will she then be in the resurrection? Their question begins with a non-literal reference to the beginning of the levirate law in Deut. 25.5 in combination with Judah's command to Onan to many his sister-in-law Tamar in Gen. 38.8. It reads in Mt. 22.24: 'If a man dies childless, his brother shall many his widow, and raise up children for his brother.' In Mk 12.19, it reads: 'If aman's brother dies, leaving awife but no child, his brnther must take the widow and raise up children for hi brother.' Matthew has simplified and abbreviatedMark's rather complex wording, but he has largely retained Mark's vocabulary. On two points, be has changed it; the question is why he did so. Firstly, the Greek word in Mt. 22.24 translated above as 'to many' is 8ntyapep~b~lv; it replaces Mark's happciva~v,'to take'. The simplex y a ~ ~ p e i r ~ l v is used in Geu. 38.8 Lxx, and in Deut. 25.5 Aquila's translation has 6rrlyapB ~ E ~ E in I Vboth ; cases, the Greek words render the Hebrew verb D3' piel, translated in the NRSV as 'to perform the duty of a husband's brother'. It is possible that Matthew derived the word from a Greek translation of the Old Testament, but the simplest explanation is probably that he rewrote Mark with the help of halachic terminology which he knew from certain biblical passages and from debates onthe~e.~' Secondly,the Greek word translated aboveby 'to raise up' is in Mark ~ ~ a v l o ~ a vbut a tw, at thew has instead drvtmavat, and thisverb also 0u:m in Gen. 38.8 Lxx.Again there isno reason to suppose that Matthew's choice was motivated by t h e m : he generally prefers the simplex to the compound, and in this case, the use of drvto~avatproduces a better comection with the theme of the pericope than we h d in Mark. The controversy is about the drvamao~s,the 'resurrection' of the dead Both Mark and Matthew use this substantive and the verb drv~o~ava~ several times in the episode (Mt. 22.23,28,30,31; Mk 12.18, 23,25). By using a v ~ o ~ a vin a lthe quotation, Matthew creates a fitting play on words: the drvdo~ao~s of offspring forthe dead brother is irrelevant in relation to the drv&a~aots of the dead. So Matthew here simply edited Mark's text. Matthew followsMark in the interpretation of theDeuteronomy passage. It is a Mosaic regulation that is misused by the Sadducees who 'know neitherthe scrip turesnor the power of God' (22.29), and that is irrelevant in comparimn with the eschatological resurrectionof the dead, when 'they neither many nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven' (22.30). The word ofMoses in Deut 25.5 ranksa f t e what ~ God himself says to Moses at the burning bush: 'I am the God of Abmtm~ the God of Isaac, andthe God of Jacob' (Exod. 3.6). The fact that God says to Moses that he is the God ofAbraham, Isaac and Jacob, who have all died 51. So&oKStendahl,TheSchoolofSl.M~nhouondIt~UseoftheOldTe~Imenl~~elphi8: Fortress, 21141968; aig. Lund: GI-, 1W), pp. 7C-1.

3. Deuteronomy in Matthew's Gospel

59

long before Moses, proves that the patriarchs are alive, and that there is resurredonofthe dead (Mt. 22.31-32)J2Once again, the Matthean Jesus decides in a collision of Torah texts

Deut. 6.5 in Mt. 22.37 The dispute on the resurrection is followed in Matthewby adispute between Jesus and the Pharisees on the question which is the greatest commandment in the law (22.34-40). Jesus' answer to this question consists of the commandments to love God @cut 6.5) and to love one's neighbur (lev. 19.18). The former commandment reads in M t 22.37: 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' The Greek preposition translated as 'with' is iv (literally 'in'). The Hebrew text of Deut. 6.5 reads in English translation: 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your bearf and with all your soul and with all your strength.' In the ~xx, the Hebrew preposition just translated as 'with' (3, literally 'in') has become i t (literally 'out of), and forthe substantive translated as 'heart' (Hebrew 22?), we h d in the textualtraditionofthe m t w o translations: either G~uvota,'mind' (so cod B and others), or ~ a ~ G i a , 'heart' (so cod A and others). In M k 12.30, the parallel of M t 22.37, the commandment is as follows: 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' Just as the rxx, Mark has the preposition Ht, and he has both possible Greektranslations ofthe ~ebrewword335, so that he has a series offour, not three, human faculties. In the case of this pericope, the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels seems to be somewhat complicated. We find the pericope in Mk 12.28-34; Mark has it, just as Matthew, in the context ofthe controversiesduringthepassionweek. In Luke, this dispute is found much earlier in the Gospel, as an introduction to the parable ofthe good Samaritan(lk.10.25-28), and there are severalminoragree ments between Luke andMatthew against Mark. It could be that Matthew made use here not only of Mark but also of the non-Markan source from which Luke drew 10.25-28 (Q?), but this assumption is not imperative. I shall presuppose that Matthew here depends on Mark, but in view of the similarities between the versions ofDeut 6.5 in Lk. 10.27 andMk 12.30 my argument wouldnot be vety different if the source of Mt. 22.37 were not Mk 12.30 but the source drawn upon by Luke in 10.27. If we compare Matthew's version of Deut. 6.5 with Mark's, we observe that Matthew has changed the proposition 65 into 6v. This modification makes Matthew's biblical text even more differentfrom the than Mark's already is,and closer to the Hebrew. Direct influence of the Hebrew text is not a necessary assnmption: the change may have been caused by apardlel phrase elsewhere in the Old Testament or by a revised LXX. Moreover, we have seen that Deut. 6.5 must have been very well knownamong Jews and early Christians,so the change

=

52. On the loac of Isus' qwnrnt, see W. D. Davies and D. C. AUison, A C"tiu11 md Exegetical C o m n f m y on the GospeloceordingtoSaint Matthew 3: Commolhny on M~?nhpwXLyXW7ll QCC; Ediobmgk T&T Clerk, 1 W n pp. 23-33;

L q Manham 3, pp. 26567.

60

Deuteronomy in the Nav Testament

of preposition does not require consultation of a written text. Matthew's other change of Mark is the omission of 'and with all your strength'. It is not easy to explain it; I see three possible explanations, which complement each other and may together constitute a plausible explanation: (a) @)

(c)

Matthew omitted the final member of Mark's series of four in order to return to the traditional series of three members." Matthew was influencedby the many Old Testament parallelsthat speak of 'with all your / his / their heart and with all your /his / their soul', and that occur especially in Deute~onomy.~~ He omitted the element that is not found in the shorter phrase. The third explanation presupposes that Matthew knew the early Jewish interpretation of 'with all your strength' as 'with all yourproperty'.i5 To Matthew (who was here apparently influenced by Q), God's kingdom makes prop* unimportant This becomes clear in a very forceful way in the Q passage 6.19-34, but elsewhere in Matthew, one h d s similar ideas.i6

Concerningthe Matthean meaning ofthe Deuteronomyq~otation,~' two aspects of Matthew's redaction of the pericope deserve attention. Firstly, the evangelist makes Jesus say about the two commandmentsto love God andone's neighborn: 'On these two commandments hang all the law and the pmphets' (22.40, dB. Mk 12.31). In the verb 'to hang', Matthew uses Jewish termino10&~ to indicate that the two commandments constitute a wording of the governing principle of the Torah and the prophets, and that in case of collision between laws, these two carry most weight (see fartherthe sectiononMt 5.21-48). The commandmentto love God is 'the greatest and fust commandment', but the other one is of equal importance (22.38-39); the two end, so to spe& joint fust. Secondly, Matthew has, by abbreviation and modification, made Mark's didactic dialogue into an ou!right controversy story. This suggests that the story rdects real controversy between Matthew's Christian Jews and other Jews on the ranking of the commandments. A Sardy ofManhnv 22 37'.JBI 53 So also P Fom, ' M y Lhd Matthew Gel rhrShrmo 122 (2003).pp 309-33 Foam addmooally explManhew's o m o n by the w b mavo~dwMdr

that&dnot~cllrinthe~~~(for'stren@,~hasi~,notthem's~hva~~~s). Thisexplanationisimplausible: itpresuppasesthatMaahew&dnotlmowthe synonymyofi&s andShmv~s. 54. SeeDeut4.29; 10.12; 11.13; 13.4;26.16;302,6;~er3e.g.,Jash.Z2.5;1 Kgs8.48;ZKgs 23.3. for past-biblical accurrences, see 4QMMT 14-17; 2 Bor. 66.1. 55. See Tg. Onq., Tg. NeoJ, Tg. P s . 4 Dent 6.5; m Ber. 9.5; b. Ber. 61b; b. Pesoh. 25a; St@ Deut 6.5. 56. See4.18-22; 8.18-22; 10.29-31; 19.21-30. 57. See, e.g., B. Gerhardsscm, 'The Hmeneutic Program in Matthew 2237-40', in idon,The Shemo in theNew Trrtomenf:Deuf 6.4-5 in Sip$canf Pmsnges (Lmd:Novapress, 1996), pp. 20223 (the aaicle dates back to 1976); Collins, 'Matthew's ivrohai', pp. 1 3 3 H 3 . 58. SeeW Baeher,Dieeregerisck Tmino1ogiede)-j&ehen T r o d t i o m l i t ~ ~ ~ M l :bibelDie eregetische T m i m l o g i e der Tannairen (Leiizig: Hinrichs, 1899; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1990), p. 198; Luz,Match& 3, pp. 281-83.

3. Deuteronomy in Matthew's Gospel

61

Conclusion Matthew has adoptedthemajority of the Deuteronomyquotations which we iind in his Gospel, from his sources Ma& and Q, and from other materials used by him. The changes which he makes in the quotations (so far as we candetect them), are minimal; several of them are stylistic improvements or slight adaptations to the context. Changes that affect the contents of a quotation, are thereplacement of 'to write' by 'to give' (Deut. 24.1,3 in M t 19.7), the omission of a commandment that is absent fromtheDecalogue (Dent.5.17-20 inMt 19.18), andthe reduction of the number of human faculties mentioned in the commandment to love God from four to three (Deut 6.5 inMt. 22.37). It cannot be shownthat Matthew has intentionallyadapted quotations from Deuteronomy to the q he simply edits them in much the same way as he edits the rest of his materials. In his role as editor, Matthew himself has also introduced a few quotations from Deuteronomy. Some of these are kee paraphrases, and they do not allow conclusions on the type of Old Testament text used by the evangelist. Others agree with the wcx. For one of these (Deut. 19.21 in Mt 5.38), the provenance from Deuteronomy is not certain, another Greek translationwashardly possible, and it concerns a well-known passage that must have circulated widely. Two others, however, were unmistakably derived from the Lxx. The h tof these is not an independent quotation, but an expansion, in Mt. 4.4, of a quotation from Deut 8.3 that was already present in Q. The other is themmarkedquotation f h n Deut 19.15 inMt 18.16. That Matthew himselfmakes use in these two instances of the q is rather striking, because when he insertsa quotation elsewherein his Gospel, he makes use of a revised LXX that is, a uoc that was comected mainly to make it better agree with the Hebrew text and to improve the quality of its Greek So i k as we can see, Matthew had a revised Lxx text for Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Minor Prophets, and the Psalms,and an unrevised Lxx text for Deuteronomy. Apparently, the biblical scrollswhich Matthew used and which he probably found in his local synagogue, were not all of the same textualcharacter. Matthew's seleaion of passages from Deuteronomy is largely governed by already existing Christian tradtion. He derives most of his quotations fium his sources,andmany of these quotations came h well-known parts ofDeuteronomy. One Deuteronomy quotation which he incmpatm of his own accord (Deut 19.15 in Mt. 18.16), is also usedby several other New Testament authors. Ifwe look for Matthew's interpretationofthe quotationshmDeuteronomy, it is evidentthat the evangelist retainstheir legal character. All his Deuteronomy quotations are originallylegal regulations, and they remain so in Matthew's Gospel. We have seen that Matthew does not distinguish Deuteronomy fromthe rest of the Torah; therefore his interpretation of the laws in Deuteronomy does not differ from his interpretation of other Old Testament laws. CharacteristicofMatthew's interpretationis that on the one hand the Torah and the prophets remain valid; the evangelist can therefore easily apply a law from 59. See M

w Monhou's Bible

62

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

Deuteronomy to the Christian community (18.16). On the other hand, there is an order of rank among the various laws of the Torah. To begin with, God's laws prevail against human mditions: keeping the commandments of the Decalogue is what matters if it comes to purity, not washing hands before meals (15.1-20). But within the Torah there are weightier and less weighty matters (cf. 23.23): the two commandments which are at the basis of the law and the prophets, are the commandments to love God and to love one's neighbow (22.34110). These two together constitute the governingprinciple ofthe To* the former as far as relations between humans and God are in view, the latter as far as relations among humans are inview; therefore the command to love one's neighbow can be considered as a summary of the second table of the Decalogue (19.16-19). The governing principle is also worded as the Golden Rule, or as 'I desire mercy and not sacdice' (Has. 6 4 , or as 'justice and mercy and faith'. Application of it to a series ofbasic laws leads to a radical interpretation of them (5.21 -48; 19.20-22). This radical interpretationcanmeantwo things: either a sharpening, or, in case of laws that are actually concessionsto human weakness, adevaluationin favow of more important laws. Such devaluation is perceptiblenot only in some antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount, but also in 19.3-9, where God's command at the creationprevailsagainst Moses' divorce law, and in22.23-33, where God's word at the burning bush prevails against Moses' regulation of levirate marriage. One gets the impression that this radical interpretationis at least one aspect of what Matthew means when he has Jesus say that he has come 'not to abolish but to &l' (5.17): the Matthean Jesus '&&Is' the law by interpreting it radically. He also &&Is it, however, by obeying and doing it, as he demonstrates in an exemplary way in the temptation story (4.1-1 I). Both aspects together, Matthew's Jesus as a radical interpreter and as an exemplary doer oftbe Torah, show Matthew to firmly belong to a community of Christian Jews in conflict with other Jews over the significance of Jesus' interpretation of tbe Torah in word and deed.

Chapter 4

Introduction If it is understood that a quotation is an (almost) non-modified and explicitly marked taking over of a text or part of a text by a new text, then only a few quotations from the book of Deuteronomy are found in Luke-Acts. It is notable that they are all taken over &om other l i t e r q works except the two quotations of Deut 18.15: Lk. 4.4 Lk 4.8 Lk. 4.12 Lk 10.27 Lk 18.20 Lk 20.28 Acts 3.22 Acts 7.37

from Q (cf Mt. 4.4) from: Q (cEMt. 4.10) = Dew 6.16 from Q (cf. Mt. 4.n = Deut 6.5 M 10.12 from: Mk 12.28 =Dew 5.17-20,160rExad. 20.13-16,12 from:Mk 10.19 = Deut 25.5,6 from Mk 12.19 =M. 18.15-20 =Deut. 18.15 = Dem. 8.3

= Deut 6.13 M 10.20

It is also interesting to see which quotations are probably hownby Luke but are not taken over: Mk7.10 Mk 10.4

= k t . 5.16or~od.20.12 = Deut. 24.1,3

cf. Mt. 15.4b ef. Mt 19.7; 5.31

In addition, there are further quotationsin Matthew, which do not occur in Mark or Luke. But these are almost certainly insertions by Matthew into his Q-copy. The antithetical setting ofthe commandment to love one's enemy mMt. 5.43 by a free rendering of Deut 5.11,20; 23.22 is very sbriking, but there is no such allusion in Lk. 6.27. We begin with the quotation formulae used by Luke to introducehis quotations. These are: 'It is written' (Lk. 4.4,8); 'It is said' (Lk. 4.12; differently Mt 4.7: 'It is written'); 'Wbat is written in the law? What do you read there?' (Lk 10.27); 'You know the commandments' (Lk. 18.20); 'Moses wrote for us' (Lk. 20.28); 'Moses said' (Acts 3.22); and 'This is the Moses who said to the Israelites' (Acts 7.37). The passive formulationsare -without a doubt -passiva divina,whereas innearly all the other cases, Moses is mentioned as the author of the quoted word (exception: Lk. 18.20).

64

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

A comparison of Lk. 10.27 with Mk 12.28 shows the absence of a quotation formula in Mark In Mark, Jesus answers the question of the expert in the Law of Moses concerning the most important commandmenf by quoting Deut 6.4,s. But in Luke, Jesus asks back: 'What is written in the law? What do you read there?' Luke shows his readers that Jesus does not say something new but by refeningto the Law, Jesus is an expert of the law by himsew. Differently to Mark (and Matthew), it is Jesus' interlocutorwho quotes the commandment in Luke. By this means, Luke shows two points: (1) Jesus and his interlocutor share the same assumptions; and (2) the expert of the Law, who indeed knew the right answer, gets the opportunity of asking again, so that Jesus cantell the story ofthe good Samaritan (Lk. 10.30-35). The quotation formula in L k 18.20 is identical to Mk 10.19: 'You know the commandments.' In the same way, Jesus' interlocutor is asked for his existing knowledge evenif it is Jesus who cites the commandments. The quotation formula, 'Moses wrote for us' in Mk 12.19 is also identically taken over by Luke (Lk 20.28). It is conspicuous that all the quotations iiom the book of Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts are cited by characters of the Lukan story - the story-teller never quotes.' The citations always have, M y , a function in the context of the story and, secondly, a function in the events between narrator and reader. Those who cite are also important Apart from Lk. 20.28, all quotations from the book of Deuteronomy are cited by a 'reliable chara~ter'.~ Tanneldl shows that these reliable characters are important for the implied author 'When the views of a character mirror those of the implied author, we have "reliable commentary"." Apart from the quotation ofDeut 25.25f., all thequotationsare made by areliable character. Furthermore, all the quotationswhich Luke received fiomhistradition appear in controversies between Jesus andhis interlocutors, butthe quotationsin Acts 3.22 and 7.37 @cut. 18.15-29) appear in Peter's and Stephen's apologies. The table above shows that there can be three different sources for the textual form of the Lukan quotations: Q (m L k 4.4,8, 12), Mark (in L k 1027; 18.20; 20.28). h ex (in x Acts 3.22: 7.37). -~-~ ,.andaversion ofthe OldTestament ~ e r h a ~ s t~ There is no question that the textual form of the quotations derived from Q is that of the m (the only difference with Lk 4.8 and Mt. 4.10 is the verb npoaK U ~ ~ ~ instead E I S of +oprlqq). Also the textual form of thc quotations which arc taken over from Ma& is that of the rxx And it can be seen that Luke has verified the quotationshe took over, because he changed in Lk 18.20the s-ce of the verbs 'to commit adultery' (UOIXE~EIV) and 'to murder' (+OVE~EIV) against Mk 10.19, so that his text is now closer to the text of the Lxx @eut. 5.17, 18). The allusion to Deut. 25.5,6 in L k 20.28 is - as the verbal comparison shows -

..

.

1. In the whole w d & e story-teller quotes only twice:in Lk. 2.23,24@mi 13.2,15and lev. 12.6-8). 2. W.C. Bwtb Die Rhetor* der Enihllunsl I , trans. by A. Polzin (UTB, 284; HeideIbmg: Queue IBMeyer, 1974),p. 164.InLk 1027the q a t of the Law quotes Deut 6.5 in Jesus' sense. 3. R C. Tannehill, The Nmafive Unity ofLu!e-Acls. A Lilermylnfqrefofion I. The Gospel mco~mjtgto Luke (PhiMelphia: Fortre- 1986). p. 8.

4. Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts

65

derived from Mark, even ifLuke changes a few words. In Acts 322,23 and 7.37 we find a rendering of Deut. 18.15,19. The key words are identical even if the order is different. So we can be sure that Luke knew the wording of the ~ x and x it is the form of the text that he quoted There are many allusions to the book of Deuterouomy in Luke-Acts and it is likely that these are also drawn from the ~ x xStephen's . speech (Acts 7), for example, is a mine of allusions to the book ofDeuterouomy. Stephen remembers historical occurrencesrunatedin Deuteronomy (Acts 7.5 cf. Deut 2.5; Acts 7.38 cf. Deut 4.10; 9.10; Acts 7.41 cf. Deut. 4.28;Acts 7.45 cf. Deut 32.49). We find the same phenomenon in the speeches of Peter (Acts 10.34 cf. Deut. 10.17) and Paul (Acts 13.17 cf. Deut. 4.34,37; 5.15; 9.26,29; 10.15; Acts 13.18 cf. Deut. 1.31; A m 13.19 cf. Deut. 7.1; and Acts 17.26 cf. Deut 32.8). Here the bookof Deuteronomy is used in a way similar to that in which the Scriptures are used in 4 Maccabees in the last speech of the J u d m mother to her seven sons (4 M a c . 18.11-18). Although it would be interesting to analyse these and other allusions in Luke-Acts, for reasons of space, I will w&e myselfto the quotationsin this chapter.

Quotations from Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts The Testing by the Devil (Luke 4.1-13) The three quotations fiomthebookofDeuteronomyin the Lukan story ofthe testing of Jesus by the devil are no doubt originally derived h m the LXX - as the identical wording shows? But for Luke, the climax is the temptation in which the devil cites a Scripturepassage (F's. 91.1 1,12) to underline his challenge. Jesus' quotation of Deut 6.16 concludes not only the third temptation but the temptation story as a whole. The devil is now defeated for a while (&PI ra~po;)). The function ofthese three quotations inLuke 4 is identical, even ifonly Deut 6.13 and Deut. 6.16 are explicitprohibitions.But Jesus derives fromthe statement in Deut 8.3 the prohibition of turning the stones into bread. In this respect, the quotations *om the book of Deuteronomy are understood legally. Before the temptation story we fmd the story of Jesus' baptism (Lk 321,22) and his genealogy (Lk. 3.23-38). In both passages, the subject is Jesus' divine sonship. This sonship is going to be tested in the temptation story. After overcoming the test, Jesus' divine sonship is also important for his first speech in his hometownNazareth(cf. Lk 4.22). At the same time, the motive ofpossessingthe spirit is embedded into the context of the temptation story: the reader is told that Jesus was sUed by the Holy Spirit andled into the desert by the Holy Spirit (Lk 4.1). This is the linkto Jesus' baptism(Lk. 3.22) and to Jesus' h t speech inNazareth (Lk. 4.16, 18).

4. Cf. the synopsi. in D.RUu, Alre Tesrumznr be, Luhns(R5INW. 112; Balk New Y d : & Gruytt~,2003). pp. M; M. I. J. Mmkm, 'Deumoomy in Marrhnv'r Cispel', in this book.

66

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

The diegeticalmodel of the temptation story is Exod 34.28 (Moses was 40 days and 40 nights upon Mount Sinai and during this time he ate and drank nothing) and 1 Kings 19(Elijah in the desert was forced by anangel to eat and to drink and to go 40 days and 40 nights to Mount Horeb).j Indeed, the origin of the quotations in the temptation story cited by Jesus (Dent 8.3; 6.13,16) is a sign for these diegetical allusi~ns.~ But there is no doubt that Luke derivedhis temptation story h m Q. The wording of the quotation inLk 4.4 is identicalto Mt. 4.4 andDeut. 8.3. At the same time we have the same quotation formula in Mt 4.4 and Lk 4.4: 'it is written'. But differentto Mt. 4.4, the quotation in Lk. 4.4 stops after seven words. Unfortunatelywe do not have Q, so there are two possibilities: either Luke cancelled the second p m of the quotation or Matthew added it. This second possibility is more likely. According to Brawley, Luke wants to present Jesus as a man who 'lives by the word that wmes from God in his responses to the second and third temptation'.' In the wntext of Luke-Acts this quotation has a special function, because the 'Author of life' (Acts 3.15; 5.21) is the one who cites this word Thus, it is clear, that it is the word of God which leads to life. The quotation formula of the second citation in L k 4.8 is nearly identical to Mt. 4.10 ('For it is written'). Both quotations(Lk 4.8 andMt 4.10) agree inusing the sameverb ('worship- rrpomvrjo~ts)and in adding the intensifying adjective 'alone'. Deut 6.13 Lxx differs on these two points (@opq8iqand no adjective 'alone'). The source ofthe quotation is therefore without doubt 4.8According to Robbins, the omission of Deut 6.12 gives the quotation 'a crisp,proverbial function in the verbal contest between Jesus and the devil'? The use of the verb rrpou~uvilvis appropriate to Luke-Acts: in L k 4.7 the devil makes use of the same verb. And it is clear in Acts 7.43, 10.25, that only God and the resurrected Jesus are to be worshipped. Finally, it is important to see that the Gospel according to Luke ends with the worshipping of Jesus by the disciples (Lk. 24.52). ~t the end of the quotation we find the word 'to serve' ( A ~ T ~ E ~ ItErecalls Iv). Zechariah's hymn of praise, after which the aim of God's salvation work is the serving (Aa~pEbslv)of God,which begins with the birth of John the Baptist (Lk. 1.74). The prophetess Anna is an example of serving God pre-resurrection (Lk 2.37), and Paul is an example of serving god post-resurrection (Acts 24.14; 27.23).

5. Accordingto V.K Robbios, The T q e r n y o f E w @ChrinIimDircmme. Rhetoric, k e t y and Ideology (Lodon: Routledge, 1996), p. 107, these parallels are a kind of 'monfiguration'. 6. Cf. R L. Brawley, T7rrtlo Terr PoursFo~fh Speech. VoicesofScripme ;"Luke-Acts (Blwm~ I N : I n d b a U n i v e r S i i y R e s c 1995),p. , 18.BrawleymognizstfiesfOlyo~um.20.8~d this temptatiollbecausethere 'inasimitarway, tbedeviltemps Jesustocommandastmetobeeome a I d o f bread'. 7. Brawley, T a t , p. 19. 8. in a similarway T. Hole, Untersuchuneeniiberdie nlnestammrlichenZirae beiLukas ( B m h

4. Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts

67

The notelothat follows the statement that power over the nations of the earth has been given to the devil" and he can give it to whom he wants, is inserted by Luke (Lk 4.6). This assertion and the rejection by Jesus shows a dualism, which is the background ofLuke's story of Jesus: the earth is under the power of Satan, and Jesus 'fights' inhis way forthe freedom ofhumankind against Satan (cf. Lk 1.71,74; 4.18, 19 etc.). The devil's quotation is problematic, forthe wording inLk. 4.10,11 isnot identical either to Ps. 91.1 1,12 nor to Mt. 4.6, but the citation formula ('For it is wrirten') is identical (Lk 4.10; Mt 4.6). In M t 4.6, the quotation looks like a united complete sentence, but Luke inserts apart ofPs. 91.1 lb and shows, by doing so, that the two originally separated parts have been brought together as a unity." The Matthean version seems here to be the older one.'; Jesus answers by using a Scripturejust as Satan did. But this time the citation formula differs to that in Mt. 4.7. Instead of 'It is written', we find in Lk 4.12, 'Because it is said' (;TI E ~ P ~ T The U I )prohibition . to tempt God in Lk 4.12 isjust the same as it is in Deut. 6.16 and M t 4.7. We h d the word 'to tempt, to put to the test' (BKTTEIPU~EIV) only twice inLuke-Acts (Lk 4.12; 10.25). In the second passage an expert in the Law of Moses tempts Jesus andJesus answers by using a question (Lk. 10.26).IdLuke wants to establish a connection between these two passages. This is likely because Matthew and Mark are using different verbs in this context: Mark has 'he asked' (Mk 12.28) and Matthew presents the simple verb 'to test' (TIEIPU(E~V, Mt. 22.35). The Lukan introduction of the temptation story (Lk 4.1,2) and its ending (Lk 4.13) show that Jesus' answer fits each temptationand so 6nishesthe whole temp tation story as well. For Jesus' followers, the only possibility not to be led into temptation is through prayer (cf L k 11.4; 22.40,46), because at the end of a temptation secession is probable (Lk. 8.13). The background of this ending of the Lukan temptation story is the story of Ahaz and Isaiah in Isaiah 7.10-14. King Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign by using the prohibitionto tempt God. But differentto Isaiah 7, the startingpointin Luke 4 is not God's invitationbut Satan's demand in spite of Ps. 91.1 1,12. By using Ps. 91.1 1,12, it seems that Satan's demand is God's promise, but the reader lmows that Ps. 91.1 1,12 is used by Satan and that Satan uses the Scripture in a wrong This way to tempt Jesus. Satan is going to become unmasked by Jesus' 10. Cf. A. Polag. Frormento 0. Tuthefr mr Lo~ien~uelle ( N e ~ h e b V I u y nNdirchener : - . V a t , 21ad edn, 1982), p. 11. Here the same word is used as in the betrayal @.k 22.4,6,21,22,48). Jews is going to be delivered up to the satan (napa6i6oral). 12. Hob., Untersuchungen, p. 57; cf C. A Kimbd, Jesus' Exposirion of the Old Testament in Luke's Gospel (JSNTSup, 94; Sheffield:JSOT Press,1994), p. 88. 13. CE the @wording in Polag, Fragmmta Q,p. 30. But Holk ( U n ~ c h u n g ~ST), p .suggests that Malthew has shortened the Lukan version. 14. Cf the 'temptltion' ( ~ E I P U < ofJesus E I V ) inLk 11.16. 15. CLBrawley, Tc.xt,p.22:LHerethedwitdsiotoqu&tionthefundamental&eaeyofscrip lure ifhsus doa notleap bacause he doubts the dependabilityofthe divinepmmis~ofPs. 90: 11-12 ucw,or ifhe does leap a d the divine pmmises fail.'

32.

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

68

is the reason why Luke changedthe sequenceofthe temptation in comparisonto Matthew. Luke's third temptation is the hardest one because Satan uses a Scripture text Jesus' answer concludes the whole temptation story and overcomes Satan 'for a while'. How to become an Heir to Eternal Life - I (Luke 10.27) The litaaq model of the quotation fiom the book of Deuteronomy in Lk. 10.27 is not clear. By comparing Mk 10.17-22 and Lk.10.25-28 one notices important differences: the question at the beginning (Mk 12.28; Lk. 10.25) is different- and the one citing is also different: in Mk 12.29-31, it is Jesus himself who quotes Deut. 6.5 (or Deut 10.12), but in Lk 10.27, it is the expert of the Law who quotes the Scripture. Furthermore,there are minoragreementsbetweenMt.22.34-40 and Lk. 1025-28 against M k 12.28-34: (a) the qualification of Jesus' interlocutor as 'expert ofthe Law' (UOUIK& -Mt. 22.35; Luke 10.25); @)theintention to tempt Jesus ( [ ~ K ] T E ~ ~ & -< Mt. E I22.35; U Lk 10.25); (c) the indication of Jesus as a teacher (616&maAos- Mt 22.36; Lk. 10.25); (d) the expression 'in the law' (6v v6pw -Mt. 22.36; Lk. 10.26); and (e) the omission of Deut 6.4 in Mt. 22.37 and L k 10.27. Three different opinions among scholars are to be consideredhere:I6

TI

1.

Luke and Maahew have used a common source (sometimesidenhiied as

Q13an4 in addition to that, some material from Mark (esp. Mk 10.172. 3.

22 and 12.28-34).18 Luke tookthe story out of hissondergut, because he tells here a different story to that of Mk 12.28-34.19 Luke's pattern here is Mk 12.28-34 (and probably Mk 10.17-34). Only the story of the good Samaritan (Lk 10.29-37) is derived from his Sondergut.Zo

16. The s o w are discussed in A. SchUnmq D m Luknswnngelium. 2. Teil, E m Folge (Kopitel9,Sl-11,54) @lKNT, III 2'1; Fmiwg: Herder, 1993), pp. 136-40. C. M Tuck= O 17. So. for ex-Re, - ondtheHbtory ofl3arlvChristionily. Srudies on O Wbmgh: T&T Clark, i9%), p. 22, and 1. Lambmhr, 'The d m ~ornmandmLi1Pmicape L ~ Q in R A Piper (cd),ihr Gmprl hrhidrhr ( i r , ~ w l .('urnem ~. irudid~on Q - WovTSup, 7 5 ; k d m : BnU, 1995). 7 3 4 6 , esp. 76-8. 18. Cf.foraample k J. Hultgren, 'The Double Commandment ofLoveinMt223W, CBQ36 (1974), pp. 37?-7% E. E. Ellis,'New Directions in FormCriticism' io idem,Propheq d H m e -tic (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990),pp. 237-53, esp. 248E an. 47£, and]. Nolland LwCe 9:2118:34 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1993),p. 580. mRecordedin the GospeIr ~?cco~dingto St. Manhew 19. Cf. T. W. Maason, TTreSoyins ofJ&St. LwCeArrmgedwirh I ~ c t i o n & C o ~ m y & m d o n :SCM, 1971),pp. 25961; aodL K Marsha The Gospel of Luke. A Commentmy on the Greek Terr (NIGTC; Exem Paternoster, 1?78), pp. 440f. 20. N. Penin,Redircoyeringthe TeachingofJerur &mdon: SCM, 1%7), pp. 123e V.P. Fun&& TheLoveCommmdinfheNew Testmolt (Nahi!le: Abingdon, 1972),pp. 3 U 5 ; JM.C x d The Gospel According U, Sf.Luke.The Greek Terr.with hnoduetion, Nores, d l n d i c r r (london:Macmillan, 1957),pp. 15&52; C.KBzmlt,L&-A&, inD. k Cas0nandH.G.M WiUiamm(eds),It ir winen: SmipIure CifingSeripmre (FS B. Lindars;Cambridge:CambridgeUnivedy Presp, 1988), pp. 2 3 1 4 , q . 232, is not sure,whether his -stion of t h e b k b n source is conect

'

4. Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts

69

Space prohibits further discussion of these v i d ' but the third possibility has the merit of not postulating another source that is no longer extant.22 It is important to notice that Luke has changed the sequence. The question of which is the most important commandment(Mk 12.28-34) is inLukethe question ofhow to become an heir to etemal life. Luke knew this question already since he had read it in Mark 10.17. In addition, Luke moved the story away fiom Jerusalem (so Mark) to the beginning of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem. At this point in Mark, when Jesus is asked about the most important commandment, Luke only has the sentence: 'They no longer dared to askhimanother question' (Lk 20.40). Thus Luke avoids a duplication. The starting point of the quotation in L k 10.25 is not, 'Which commandment is the first of all?' (as Mk 12.28) butthe question which, slightly changed, comes fiom Mk 10.17 ('Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?'). This same question the rich man will ask Jesus again at the end of his journey to Jerusalem (Lk 18.18). For Luke, the theoretical question about the most important commandment is not as interesting as the question about the value of the Torah.23Both questions(Lk 10.25 and 18.18) are nearly identical, sothat the different answers (Lk 10.27 and 18.20) are very conspicuous. w e have already noticedthat the verb 'to test' ( ~ K T T E I ~which ~ ~ Eoccurs I V ) in , the introductionto the citation (Lk. 10.25) and only once more in Luke-Acts as a prohibition, is derived fiom Deut. 6.16: 'Do notput the Lord your God to the test' (Lk. 4.12). This is interesting because Mt. 22.35 has the simple verb 'to test T T E I ~ ~ ~ E I The V ' . expert ofthe Law violates the commandmentofDeut. 6.16. This is the reason for Jesus' answer, the counter-question- in differenceto the Markan pattern (Mk 12.29-31) and the Mattheanparallel (Mt 22.37-39): 'What is written in the law? What do you read there?' Jesus does not let himselfbetested- just as he refuses the testing of God (Lk. 4.12). He underlines the validity of the commandment in Deut. 6.16. So the expert of the Law has to cite the Law by himself. By doing this, he is able to continue the conversationby asking: 'Who is my neighbour?' Luke describes this question as an attempt to justify himsew. The reader realizes that the expert of the Law knows that he had tried to test Jesus. The comparisonbetween Lk. 10.27 and its pres~rnedmodel~~ in Mk 12.30,33 shows two main differences:(a) the omission ofthe introduction (Deut. 6.4-Mk 12.30a); and @) the combinationoforiginallytwo commandments into one. The omission of 'Hear 0Israel, ...' depends on the different question at the beginning. The expert of the Law does not ask Jesus about the most important commandment 21. Cf.the discussionaboutthe soureefor Lk. 10.27inF. Nel, 'The Double Commandment of Love in Idr 1037.A A o W c PiUar m LukanRedaktionofMk 122%337', m C.M Tuekett (d) TheSrriphra , in the Gospels(BETL, 131;Lewen:LNvenUnivetsityRess-Peeters, 1997), pp. 55970,esp. 56166. 22. Nel, 'Commandment', p. 566,concludff,that 'Mk 1229-33and the Septuagint' are the s o w for Lk 10.27. ~r,on 23. This shorn K.Salo,L&,'s Irturmcnt ujrhz I-. A R e d m r ~ o n - C n r ~ u l l m ~ r ~ g ((AASF, 57: Helsinki Suomalaroen Ticdeakatemi%IWI),p. 109: 'Lukc does not wish to discuss s nnglc commadment,but rather the whole law.' 24. CE NOEL'Stext Bitical suggestions ('Commandment', pp. 5MI%)

70

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

(cf. Mk 12.28), but he wants to know what he has to do in order to become an heir of eternal life. The beginning of the quotation, which we do not findinLuke @eut. 6.4), is appropriate to theMarkan question, but it does not 6 t in with the question in Lk. 10.25.25Concerning the combiiation, the commandment of loving one's neighbour is so close to the commandmentof loving God in& 10.27that it seems to be only one single commandment. Matthew andLuke obviouslyhad aproblem with the subordinationof the commandment of loving neighbour under the commandment ofloving God InMatthew Jesus fits in the sentence: 'The second [commandment] is 'ke it' (Mt. 22.39). But inLukethe expert inthe law omits the second, 'you shall love', and puts the two commandments together in this way. So for Matthew and Luke, the commandment of loving the neighbow is as important as the commandment of loving God. The headword 'neighbour' leads up to the story of the good Samaritan. This story interprets the commandment oflovingone's neighbour. The topic of loving Godis exemplifiedinthe foUowingpassages (Lk 10.3842 11.1-13). The question, 'What must1 do to inherit eternal life?' shows that 'the term ofdeeds which were previously viewed in 10.20,21-24 in an eschatological perspective' is the new s u b j e ~ tIt. ~ also reminds us ofthe questions to John the Baptist in Lk.3.10, 12,14 ('What shouldwe do?') andthe questionto PeteratPentecost inActs2.37 ('What shouldwedo?'). Jesus answers these questions in Luke 1028 and 10.37: 'Do this, ...' and 'Go and do likewise'. So Luke descnies the expert of the Law (the tester in Luke 10.25) as clever, when the expert uses a questionthat is normally asked by convea: 'What shouldwe do?' Verhoef shows that accordingto Luke, 'for Jesus doing the law is the way to obtain eternal life'.27Indeed, Jesus' concluding demand ('do this, and you wiU live') relates to the Law. The question as to who can possibly fulfilthe two commandments in& 10.27 is not answered. So it is no coincidencethat in L k 18.26 it is asked: 'Then who can be saved?' In his answer in L k 18.27, Jesus points to God's activity: 'What is impossible for mortals is possible for God.' Exactly this insight 1s found m the story of the merciful father in Lk. 15.11-31.Here the father establishes: TIIS son of mine wasdead andis alive again; he was lost and is found' (Lk 15.24; cf. 15.32). Repentance and turning back is like a resurrection. This is the reason why the call to repentance and turning back is very important forthe Lukan Jesus (Lk. 5.32; 13.3,5; 15.10; 16.39), just as it is for the early Christian preaching (Lk 24.47; Acts 2.38, etc.). The turning back enabledby God giveshumankindthe chancetobe saved and to become heirs to eternal life. So there is no differencebetween Jesus' answer in L k 10.28 and Peter's answer in Acts 2.38. According to Luke, the keepingofthe 25.

-a

Cf N-3, 'Commandment',p. 568:'Themangelist evaluatedthe "Shema" as aninadequate to the question T; T T O I ~ ~ O ~ S . .

p. 121. 27. E.Verhffif '(Eternal) Life and Following the Commandments.Lev 18,s andluke 10,28', m C .M Tuckell (ed),The Srripfures in the Gospels (BETL, 131; h e n : h e n Univmity Ress Pee-, 1997), pp. 571-77, esp. 576f

4. Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts

71

Torah commandments and the obtaining of eternal life automatically follows repentance and baptism in the name of Christ for the forgiveness of In this way, after his resurrection, Jesus is the 'Author of life' (Acts 3.15; 5.31); the offer of repentance is open until death. This is to be seen as the fate of the two criminals hanging on the cross: the way to life is repentance (Lk. 23.40-42) and forgiveness of sins (Lk23.43). These can take place shortly before death- as Jesus' promise shows; for the other criminal any help will be too late. The story of the rich man and poor Lazarus (Lk. 16.19-3 1) illustratesthe idea, that Moses and the prophets are normally sufficient as guides to l i e (Lk. 16.283 1). In its Lukan context the story aims at a change of conduct (cf. v. 30: VETavo&v).Repentance and turning backz9areunconditionalelements on someone's way though life. The reason why in Lk 10.30-37 a Samaritan is a model for Jews3"is the following: Samaritansare neither Jews nor Gentiles. Luke regards them highly and by doing so he prepares the readd' for the future Christian mission among the Gentiles: the Samaritan in Lk 17.16 shows that Jesus himself already gave his benefits to Samaritans and so he passed the borderlines of the Jewish nation (cf. Lk 2.31,32; 24.47; Acts 1.8). So we see that, according to the Lukan Jesus, the way to eternal l i e is not to be a Jew but to do the two most important Torah commandments. How to become an Heir to Eternal Life - D (Luke18.20) The variable elements ofthe commandments in L k 18.20 show little differences with their sources. Possible models ofLk 18.20 are Exod 20.12-16; Deut. 5.1620 and, of course, Mk 10.19. A comparison between L k 18.20 and Mk 10.19 reveals two differences: (I) the first two commandments have changedplaces in Luke; and (2) the prohibition to defraud is omitted in Luke. Both differences depend on a Lukan revision of the Markan version by using E x d 20.12-16 or Deut. 5.16-20. Luke adapted his passage to the LXX text. The starting question, 'What must I do to inherit eternal lie?' (Lk. 18.18), followsthe story ofJesus' blessing of the little children. According to Lk. 18.17, this man will not get into God's kingdom unless be enters it like a child. This opinion forces the question, what has an adult to do to enter God's kingdom? The starting question of the important man3?is the same as the question ofthe expen 28. C£ L. Schottm& '
bes. Lk lop-31; 1627-31): 29. Accordingto Luke 1025-28 the keeping of me commandment of Loving God and the neighbow opeas the possibility of becoming an heir of eternal life. 30. C£ Luke 17.11-19: the onlymanamongthebealedpeople,who~edto Jesustothmkhim was a -tan 31. G. Wasserbag,Aus IrraelsMitteHeilf*.die Welt:Eine nmafivaegetivcheShuliezur Theologie des Lukar (BZNW, 92; Berlio: de Gruyter, 1998),pp. 44-67, explains the figure ofthe implied reader in Luke-Am. 32 The word d e m k r r p e m I a I t v a ofthe Jews. mostly ln oppostnonOI Jesus or the Chn,uan cummun~tyLk X41. 12 58, 14 1, 18 18,23 13,35,2120, Acb3 17.4 5.8.26. 13 27

72

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

of theLaw in L k 10.25. In both passages, the same answer is formally given: commandmentsofthe Law are quoted. In Lk. 10.27, it is Jesus' interlocutor who cites and in Lk. 18.20 it is Jesus who cites. But Jesus' sentence, 'Yon know the commandments' (Lk.18.20a), and the importantman's first answer ('I have kept all these [commandments] since my youth' - Lk. 18.21) show a fundamental agreement: the commandments of the law are very important. But the problem of why in L k 10.25 a different answer is given to Luke 18.18 is still not solved Inboth passages, the way to become an heirto eternallife is to keep the commandments. The new aspect in L k 18.18-29 is the question of whether the commandments can be fulfilled The important man claims: 'I have kept all these.' The implied reader ofthis passage realizes that the important man has no need for repentance. This is thereason why Jesus repeats a commandment that he had already given to his disciples in Lk. 12.33 (cf. 14.33): 'Sell all that you own and distriiute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me' (Lk 18.22). According to Luke, everyone who wants to be Jesus' disciple has to sell e v e r y t h g ' k d give it to the poor, as Lk. 12.33 and 14.33 show. And indeed, Jesus promises his disciples 'in the age to come eternal life' at the end of the passage (Lk. 18.30). It is importantto notice that the demand in L k 18.22 c o m b i s the commandment of loving God ('thencome, follow me') and the commandment of loving the neighbour ('sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor') -just as it was in L k 10.27. So there is no fundamental difference between the two answersto the same question in Lk 10.25 and Lk. 18.18. In Lk.18.18-29, it is an important man ofthe Jewish nation (cf. Lk 8.41; 12.58 and who is not able to -1 the commandment to give up his riches. In a similar way in Lk 10.30-36, it is not a priest or a Levite but a Samaritan who fulfils the Jewish commandment of loving the neighbour. In both passages, it is clear that in Luke's eyes the failure ofthe Jewish people leads to the broadening of salvation to the Gentiles. Schotkaff and Stegemannhaveshowed that in Luke, thevoluntarypoverty of Jesus' disciples has 'the character of a literary ideal': 'that it concerns a litemy ideal is shown as LKcannot imagine involuntarypoverty ofJesus' disciples. He sees theirpoverty as arespectable effort of ~arrifice.'~~ This is likely, as our passage shows. Jesus' answer in L k 18.20 hishes the story but the important man is not satisfied WhenJesushears his reply (Lk 18.22a), he is givena taskwhich he will not be able to achieve and which is much more than,for example, what is askedof Zacchaeus (Lk 19.8). So Jesus' answer to the important man shows that 33. The order to seU ev-g (rrdna) is added by Luke (cf. hlk 1021). 34. Cf M KLinghdt, Gerefz Md Yolk Goner: Das 1uAmrirche VerstdnmtB d s Gerene nach Herkrmfr,F&on undseinmr On inder Gerchichteder U r d v i s r m ~ n(WUNT, s W32;Tnbingex Mohr Siebeck,1988), pp. 132-35, wbo describes thewcia1 and social position of the ~ ~ X O Y T E S among the Jews. 35. L.SchothoffandW. S t e g ~ J e n * r v o n N u u ~ ~ e t h - H o ~(SMtgarC g d e r ~Kohlhammer, 3rd edn, IM), p. 105.In A& 5.1;10.2it is not the aim, to seU ev-g andto give ii to the poor.

4. Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts

73

he will fail when he tries to become an heir to eternal l i e through obeying the commandments by his own power. He must always be dependent on God's forgiving of sins. The demand to sell everything shows the impliedreaderthe necessity ofrepentance, which leads to life. Perhaps it is possible to keep all ofthe commandments cited in Lk. 18.20 but the demand to love God and neighbour as ill-ted by Jesus is more than humankind is able to doJ6So Jesus' audience does not ask how a rich man can be saved, but more generally, 'Then who canbe saved?' And Jesus points to God rather than human possibilities (Lk 18.27). Now it becomes clear why Jesus at the beginning of the passage refuses to be characterized as 'good' (Lk 18.19). The statement, 'No one is good but God alone' is conspicuous, because inLuke-Acts, individualpeople canbe denotedas 'good' (Lk 6.45; 19.17; 23.50; Acts 11.24). But theverse remembers God's goodness in comparison to the malice of the audience in Lk. 11.13. Indeed, aperson by himself is not good (and rigbteous - cf. Lk. 23.50). No one can be saved by himself, but 'what is impossible for mortals is possible for God' (Lk 18.27). The quotation in Lk.18.20 shows people a way to become an heir to eternal life-just as it was inLk 10.25ff. But now it is clear that this way is not practical. Humankind is not able to keep the commandment of loving God andneighbour. This is the reason why Luke changed the question, 'Which commandment is the lint of all?' (Mk 12.28), into the questios 'What must I do to inherit eternal life?' Luke wants to continue the train of thought on how to become an heir to etemal life in L k 18.18-29, with the question of its practicabilityfor humankind The realization that humankind is insufficient ('No one is good hut God alone') and repentance is necessary because only God is able to save someone is important Only he has the possibiity to give someone the heritage of eternal life. To enter God's kingdom like a child (lk 18.17) means that the entering is undesewed The commandments in L k 18.20,22 show the implied readers their own inability to become heirs to eternal life.

The Question ConcerningResurrection (Luke 20.28) The introductionto the quotation is taken over h m Mk 12.19: 'Teacher, Moses wrote ...' There is no question that this is a citation formula (cf. L k 2.23; 10.26) but it is interesting that the citation carmot be foundliterallyin the Old Testament Scriptures. The Sadducees appear here for the first time in Luke-Acts as Jews who do not believe thatpeoplewouldrise to life after death (cf. Acts4.1; 23.8):' 36. Cf Schomoffaad Stegemanp . I , p. 104: 'Hecue aber- zurZeit der lk Gemeinde- kaon niwand mehr Isus nach I d a n folgen, hat sich nicht nur die *the Form der Nachfolge nb&oIt, sondem ist aueh das Pmblan des Reichtums andm m M e n . ' 37. To the historical background of the denying of d o n by the Sadducees cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.4.1;b.S&.90b; XbotR.Nor5;m.S&. lO.l;m.Bm.9.5;Tonh.3a(cf.KL.Saackand P. BillerbeekKommenfornmt Neun Tertomentm TolmudundMi&a~ch I : Dar Ev~~npelium mch

74

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

And exactly this characterktic of faith is the theme ofthe followingconversation. Because ofthe commandment inDeut. 2 . 5 3 (Lk 20.28) andatheoreticallypossible case (Lk 20.29-32), the Sadducees ask the questio~~ 'In the resurrection, whose wife wiU the woman be?' The convictionbehind this question is thatthere is no resurrection. The reader knows this because ofthe intmduction of the Sadducees in Lk 20.27. The citation iuelf is taken over from Mk 12.19. F o d y the question ofthe Sadducees is similar to the third temptation inLk. 4.9-12. There the devil uses an Old Testament citation to test Jesus too. Luke's account M e r s from Mark in that there is no tough codontation between Jesus and the Sadducees: Jesus does not rebuke them; the case pxesentedbythe S&cees is not interpreted as ridiculingthehope ofresurre~tion;~~ the conve~tionis conducted in a pleasant atmosphere, so that some of the experts of the Law evaluate Jesus' answerpositively: 'Teacher, you have spoken well' (Lk 20.39).39We see here the firstdispute between Pharisees and Sadducees,which becomes obvious in Paul's trial in Jerusalem (Acts 23.6-10). In Acts 23 it is clear that the Christianbelief in resurrection agrees with the hopes of the Pharisees. Luke explains tohisreaderst b t i m e s (Lk 20.27; Acts 4.1,2; 23.6-8) thatthe Sadducees do not believe that people would rise to life after death. This shows that we do not 6nd here a discussion which is derived 6om Luke's own time." Important are (a) Jesus' answer in Lk. 20.34-36; and (b)the r e b a l ofthe negation of resurrection in Lk. 20.37-38. In regard to the Jesus states that resurrected people will be like the angels and will be God's children (v. 36). According to Acts 23.8, this contradictsthe belief of the Sadd~cees.4~ The Lukan Jesus wants to explain that life after resurrection will be totally different 6om that before resurrection (v. 34). In regard to the second point, Jesus pointsto Moses (v. 37). This is a linkto the quotation f o d a of the Sadducees in v. 28 and shows that Jesus andhis interlocutors share the same basis. The function ofthe citation in v. 37 is to make the fact of the resurrection comprehensible, even if the Sadducees do not agree. The question of the Sadducees simply gives Jesus t h e p ~ s s ~ l i t yshow t o that resurrection is in accordance with the Scriptures. The citation formula in v. 37a makes it clear that the following quotation is only a hint to resurrection. The Lord is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; but these three fathers have died already. So Jesus concludesthat the Lordis not the Godof the dead butof the living (v. 38). Marshall summarks: 'Only living people can have a God,and therefore God's pmmise to the patriarchs that he istwill be their God requires that he maintain 38. According to Kimball, Jerw 'Eqosition,p. 170, the question ofthe Sadducgs is polemical: '...they were not saually asking a serious @on, but they were posing a far-fetched situation to make heliefin the lsmec60n I d rididous.' Similarly, Tarmehiu,Nmofive UniW 1,p. 190: 'Once again the intention is to "catch" J-, this time by embarrassiog him before the p q l e through a trick question' 39. But I do not think that Luke identihes Sadducees and ypawvarils. 40. Cf.G. Kege/AufemfehwgJesu- Aufersfehg der Toten:Eim trodiriomgerchichrlicheUntersudnmg rum Neum Tesfommt(Gltmloh: Moha, 1970), p. 84. 41. This had already shown L. T. Johnson, I%eGosge[ofLukp:A Commentmyon the Greek Text (CoUegeviUe:Lihugical Reu,1991), p. 317.

4. Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts

75

them in life.'42The three fathers are an intertextual sign: accordingto Lk 13.2328, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets are assembled in God's reign, that is, they live. The story ofpoor Lazams, who died and then was consoled in a place of honour next to Abraham (Lk. 16.19-3l), should also be associated with this. Finally, the blessings inLk 620-26 presuppose resurrectionjustas the double question about how to become an heir to eternal life (Lk 10.25; 18.18) does. According to Acts 4.2 and Acts 17.18 the message of resurrection depends on Jesus' resurrection." Before Eastathe argumentation is different. Only Moses is able to 'show' (v. 37: vll&w) the resurrection of the dead, but he is not able to prove it. Jesus' resurrection is the proof (cf. Lk.24.4448; Acts 2.2432; 3.15; 5.31; 13.32-39; 26.23, etc.). The dispute between Jesus and the Sadducees showsthe reader how to use the Scriptures. Because the reader lmows that Jesus is resurrected and that there is therefore a hope of resurrection for the believer, the dispute points to Jesus' and the believer's resurrection. And the Sadducees deny the centre of the Christian preaching. Lk 20.40 shows that there is aturning pointinJesus' work. His opponents were not able to refute him.Verse 40 points back to Lk. 4.13, the last sentence in the temptation story. An edge is reached when Jesus' interlocutors use a Scripture quotation against Jesus (in a wrong way - as Jesus' answer always shows).

i%e 'Rophei like Moses '- I (Acts3.22) Acts 3.18 is a summary of the whole of the fust part of Peter's speech in Acts 3.12-26. The human deeds done in ignoranceare in a sbarp contrast to the divine actions. Peter connects earlier statementsofZachariasandJesus (Lk 1.70; 18.31; 24.44-46) with the first part of his speech. The reference to the sayings of the prophets fromthe beginning is an intertextual signal. The reader shouldremember the allusions to Scripture, especially in the h t p a r t of the speech. Peter makes exact use of the keywords, which were used by the resurrected Jesusaccordiag to L k 24.4447 ('to be ful£illed' &k. 24.441 and 'to suffer', with 'the Christ' as subject 24.46; cf. L k 24.26 and Acts 17.31). This observation shows that Peter's sermon stands in continuity with the words of the earthly (cf. Lk. 9.22; 18.31) andresurrectedJesus. Atthe same time, the assertioninv. 18 is going to be v d e d in the Scripture proof in Acts 4.24-30. In Acts 3.19-21, Peter describes the wnsequences of Jesus' passion (v. 18). The request for repentance is similar to Acts 2.38 but in Acts 3 it is motivated by the role of the Jews in Jesus' passion and reinforced by the callto con~ersion.~ This calloccurs in the middle of the speech. It refers to the appeals ofthe earthly

m.

42. Marsha Gospel ofluke, p. 743; eE also J. A Fi-er, 7%eGospel according lo LukeXXUV(AB, 28; Garden City,NY:Dwbleday, 1986), pp. 1306f 43. ff.0.Schw* Die SMduzdqioge (Mk 12.18-27pm): Eim oregetisch-fheolopische S f d i e +urAufe)-steh@emo~Nng (BBB, 66,Fmddini aM.: Athen&w, 1987). p. 462. 44. Adifierentopioionhas W. H.Maty, TheNewMose~(lmpublisheddisdqWThe(r logical Seminary, 1984),p. 188: 'urrcrv&w focuses on the negative aspect ofhrming awayhm sin, and intmp6+won the positive diredon of tumiog to God and a new way of life'.

76

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

Jesus (cf. L k 5.32; 13.3.5; 15.7.10; 16.30) and verifies the heilsgeschichtliche necessity of the call to repentance as asserted by the resurrected Jesus in Luke 24.47. This connection shows Peter's call for repentance to the Jerusalem Jews begins to fulfil God's plan which is foretold in the Scripture. The use of the Scripture is similarto the use of the Scripture in the h t Peirhe speech(Acts 1.16-22). Peterlirst cites biblical references that are already W e d (cf. Acts 3.18; 1.16-20b) and then points to biblical references which are yet to be llfilled (cf. Acts 3.19; Lk.24.47; cf. Acts 1.20~-26).But in Acts 1, it is only in the fictional world of the participants for the reader of Luke-Acts h a w s that both kinds of biblical quotations have been fuW1ed Verse 20 followsby using a 6 ~ l c o n j u n c t i 8o n~ o~s~6v. This is not to imply that present repentance may accelerate the coming of the times of refreshment ( ~ a ~ pdrva+t~ws). oi According to Acts 1.7, the times are xpdvo~~ a ~i a ~ p o i predestined by the Father alone. And the addressee of the call of repentance cannot be the reader, who is already achristian. So Peter says nothing about an acceleration ofthe Parousia. But be calls his listeners to repentance, sothat the times of refresbment come to them anyway. So we see that the Jewish listener's salvation is at stake. This assumption is supportedby the potation fiom Deut. 18.19 and Lev. 2329 in Acts 2.23, as we shall see. Some scholars deny that the times ofrefieshment are an event that takesplace atthe Par~usia.~They think the times ofrefreshmentare present in the Christian community. But the kingdom of God is exclusivelybound to Jesus' crucilixion, resurrection and exaltation and so it has acquired a purely heavenly dimension since Jesus' exaltation!' So we may suggest that only the earthly restoration of the kingdom ofGod willbring the times ofrekshment to the followers of Jesus. This suggestionis in accordance with the signilicanceofthe miracles in the book of Acts. What follows in v. 20 supports our suggestion because the sending of Jesus does not concern his earthly work but his coming at the Parousia; perhaps we have here an allusion to the eschatologicalsending of Elijah (cf. Mal. 3.22f.). Verse 21a alludes to the ascension narrative (Acts 1.6-11; cE L k 24.50-53); by using the expression d r n o ~ a ~ a o ~ a oit lalludes s, especially to the disciples' question in Acts 1.6: 'Lord, is this the time when you will restore (drno~a81oTC~VEIS) the kingdom to Israel?' So what are the times ofrestoration o f d (Xp6~01 ~ ~ ~ O K ~ T ~ O T &TTuvTC~V)? O E W S ~ h e ~ anot r e identicalto the times ofrefreshment

45. C£ F. Blass, A D e h n andF. R&kop5 G r m n f i k d e r neuralmnenriichenGn'echBch (meen:Vandenhoeck & Rupmht, "1990), 8 369 n. 11; similarlk 2.35; Ace 15.17. 46. ff.G.Voss, Die C h l i r f ~ i ~&Fi e luRon*.ehen Sehnjen in G m d g e n Paris:Descl& de Bauwn, 19653,~. (1x9). ~. 151: G. Lob&& '~10piedGeschichtsbiidinAvg3.19-21'.BZ13 .. . pp =HI,cw. =Of., A. we is^^. Dw A ~ l r l ~ e ~ r h r hh r' qe ~ l r ~ l I - (@TK I2 5 I; Gntnslah C&mlobn Vcrlagshaus. 1981). p. 118; G. Sehille, Dd<~Apu
4. Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts

77

( ~ a ~ p&va@{~os oi -v. 20)48but are temporally the times between the first and the second Parousia, as Franz Overbeckhasalready suggested," and, with regard to the contents, they are the times of the fuliilment of every prophecy made in the scriptures - beginning with Jesus' work (cf. Lk. 4.18E) and ending with the earthly restoration of the kingdom of God Actually, the expression 'restoration of all' is not correct because it shortens the Petrine statement Peter is talking about the 'restoration of all (prophecies) that Godaunouncedlongago throughhis holy prophets'. The Lucanpeterusesthe term xp6vo1& r o ~ a ~ a o ~ o i(andso o ~ w son) andnot, for example, the expression 'fuliilment of everyprophecy' because Luke wants the reader to connect Acts 3.20f. with the disciples' question in Acts 1.6: dPleEi CV TG xp6lf(I?TO~T(I? & ~ O K ~ ~ ~ O T & ~V W E $aolh~iav IS TG 'IopafiA; In his response to this question Jesus says: 'It is not for you to know the times or periods &p6vo1fi ~ a ~ ~ oand i ) 'promises his disciples to be universal witnesses 'in Jerusalem, Samaria and to the end of the world' (v. 8). This expression does not mean the capital Rome, nor does it refer the disciples to an indehite time. According to Van Umik, it is 3n expression for thc cxtrcmc border of the world, alludlng to Isa. 52.10 (cf. Isa.48.20; 49.6; 62.1 Woltershowsthat inthis way the early Jewish kingdom expectation is reversed:the universality of the kingdom of God, says Wolter, evokes a centrifugal process which leads away i%omJewsalembecauseofthe kingdom's attachmentto Jesus Christ. This is the characteristic difference to the centripetal mcture of the early Jewish basileia-concept, whichis orientated to JerusalemS' So, before the kingdomof Godis restored, the witnesses have to preach. This preaching, as a preaching of repentance to bring forgiveness of sins to all the Gentiles ( p ~ ~ a v E o ~ di@~olv S a &pap~l&v E~S lrciv~aT& iewq), has, according to Lk.24.46f., been foretold in the Scriptures (O~TWS y&pamai); SO it has to be l l f i U e d (6Ei nhqpwEjva~r r a v ~ aTU ~ y p a v p i v -Lk a 24.44). This interpretation is supportedbythe obsenrafion that the word wav~wvoccurs i n ~ c t 3.21 s and lrcivra inLk 24.44. Indeed, the only prophecy which is not verified yet is the call to repentance inLk 24.44-47. Before the kingdom can be restored, the witnesses have to preach until the end of the world Gws . $ ~ U T O U6 5 5 s -Acts 1.6-8). According to L k 24.47, it is foretold in the Scriptures; and now it is going to be verif~ed. The disciples, especially Peter, fulfilJesus' order and, at the same time, the Scriptures or the divine plan, when they become witnesses in Jerusalem &k 24.47; Acts 1.8; cf Acts 1.20022) anduntilthe endofthe world (Acts 1.8) or, as it is said in Lk. 24.47, before every nation Only in this way the kingdom of God 48. Cf.R C.Tmch, Synonym of tkeNov Test~ment(London;Kegan P a 4 1901), p. 197 and others. 49. F.OvemeCk, KuneE~kl~ngderAposteIgeschi& (Leipzig: Him5 4th edn, 1870), p. 55; D.Hmm, 'Am 3.12-26.Peter's Speech and the Healing of theMan Born Lame',PRSt 11 (1984), pp. 199-217, esp. 211. o~ 61s yils (ApostelgesehichteIS) md sein 50. W. C.van Unni 'DsA d r u c k ~ iqdrou aldestamentlieherHinmgnmd', in idem, Sparso Coflectecra I (NovTSup,29;Leiden: Brill, 1973), pp. 3Sf301,esp. 400. 51. Wolter, '"Reich Goltes" bei Lukas', p. 558.

78

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

can be restored on earth and all prophecies of the Scriptures are fuliilled When thishappens the times ofrefreshmentare present to Jesus' disciples. The xpovo~

arro~a~amau~ r rwa vs ~ o are v the times of restoration ofthe kingdomof God, and therein the fulfilment of every &ation prophecy. The function of the following quotation is to show exegetically the necessity of the call of repentance. The quotation proves and verifies that Peter's call of repentance wasprophesiedby God'sprophets fiomthe beginning (drG ai6vos). So it is to be fuEUed by Jesus' disciples. There is no doubt that it is a LXX quotation There are two main differences between Acts 3.22 andDeut. 18.15-19 /Lev. 23.29: (1) In the clause 'Youmust listen to whatever he tells to you', the word 'you' has been added; and (2) the passage Deut. 18.16-18 is omitted. The added sentence inv. 23 reRects Deut. 18.19, and so only the two words 'to you' (rrp6s &ICY)are left These two words are added, because the quotation should be adapted to its new context: the 'prophet like Moses' spoke 'to you', that is, he spoke to Peter's listeners. The omittedpassage Deut 18.16-18 does not fit in the Lukan context and would lead the reader astray. So the adaption is also the reason for the omission. This shows that the differences are needed to adapt the quotation to its new context There is no doubt thatthe 'prophet like Moses' is the earthly Jesus. Sowe h d here, as in Acts 2.22ff., an internal, homodiegetic and repetitive a~alepsis,~~ which refers the reader to Jesus' eaahly life, pottrayed in the Gospel of Luke. Luke 424 shows that Jesus could be d e s m i as a prophet, a man who liberatespeople. The command to listen to Jesus is averbal aUusion to the story of Jesus' transfiguration. In L k 9.35 the heavenly voice requires them to listen to the Son of God,Jesus. Peter himself is the example for this listener. He becomes anew disciple of Jesus by listening to the address of the resurrectedJesus in Luke 24 (cf. Lk 24.41a andLk 24.52f.). The coherence with the transfiguration story shows the fulfilment o f f e Scripture quoted in Acts 3.22 (cf. Lk. 10.24). The fouowing verse (v. 23) has important differences to its model. The subordinate clause, 'and the man who does not listen to what the prophet will speakin my name' was changed into 'it will be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet'. The introduction 'it will be' is just the same as it is in Peter's Pentecost speech. In that speech both the first and the last sentence of the Joel quotation are introduced with this word (Acts 2.17,21). Peter formulates in Acts 3.23 the other side of the medal of Acts 2.21, and 'it will be' is added in Acts 3.23 to show this connection to Acts 2.21. The phrase 'every soul' (rrGoa +$)is taken over because of Lev. 23.29; the final words of v. 23 also come fiom this Old Testamentpassage. By these means Peter leads up to the new Scripture passage, so that

52. These categories presented by G. Geneito,DieEnehlung (Mimchac Fink,1994),pp. 33f. are veryhelpfultome. Forecrample,dgtoGenetteistheaaalepsisinActs2.22ff.intem&hdiegdeandqetitive: 'in~'-beeauseit~toevenO,whiehareinside&etempaal~eof Luk~AetF,'homodiegetie3-becitcon-theplotoft6ebasisde, 'repetitive'-because the mmtive foUows inthis analepsis its own tram (EmMh1ung, p. 36).

4. Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts

79

the reader might not recognize it as a new Scripture passage. The phrase 'of that prophet' increases this impression: it creates a relation to the beginning of the quotation, so that the reader thioks it is a single homogeneous quotation- similar to Lk. 10.27. Formally there is a change from analepsis (Acts 2.22) to prolepsis (Acts 2.23) inside the quotation, both in view of Peter's fictitious listener and in view of the reader ofluke-Acts. Everyone who ackoowledges the tmth ofthe analepsis also accepts the prolepsis as tlue.i3 What is foretold in v. 23? Wasserberg complains that many commentators say nothing about the sharpness of this statement." I suggest the statement is understandable only in the view of the implied author. He suffers because most Jews do not repent and do not believe in Jesus, although he is - in his opinion- fmetold by the Jewish Scriptures. As long as the kingdom of God is only a heavenly phenomenon (and it is so since Jesus' exaltationand will remain so until Parousia), it is possible to repent while still alive. Atter death it is not possible to repent. But in the view of Luke, the third generation after Jesus' death lives already. So the quotation in Acts 3.23 explains that all those Jews who died without repentance and faith in Jesus (cf. Lk 23.39-43) are lost.i5 In other words, in Acts 3.23 the opinionis expressedthat those who believe in Jesus arenot lost. The quotation in Acts 3.23 bas the function of stabilizing the Christian community; and there is nothing said about a possible destmction of Jews on earth. Verse 24 is very closely l i e d to the quotation in w. 22f. So v. 24 has an important significance for the function of the quotation. The quotation of the Pentateuch passage in w. 22f. and the reference to 'all the prophets from Samuel and those aEter him' tries to verify the estimatedassertionofv. 21. So we see that the prophet Moses is ranked among the prophets from the beginning (v. 21). The content is the necessity to listen to Jesus. Peter's Scripture witnesses are 'rhetorically nearly overwhelming'" to his Jewish listeners. There is no question that Jesus is the 'Moses redivivus'. So the verb 'to raise up' ( & v a o j o ~ v. ~ 22) primarily stands for Jesus' earthly work. But Jesus is resurrected both in the view of Peter and in the view of the reader. Therefore the verb alludes at the same time to Jesus' resurrection. 'These days' -an expression which alludes to Peter's Pentecost speech (Acts 2.1 7) -are identicalto the times of restoration of all (v. 21); and this is - as we already have seen - the time between the first and the second Parousia, which includes the times of the earthly Jesus (cf.Lk. 5.32; 13.3.5; 15.7.10; 16.30),Peter'stimes(cf.Acts2.38;3.13 &.),the

53. In Lk. 4.18, 19 andin Acts 1.1622 we find the same phenomenac A fuWIedpmpheey is connected with apmphecywhich is to be lidi5Ued (cf Acts 1332-41). 54. Wasserbetg, Am Isruels Mine,p. 227 n.35. 55. The importance of the point of view of the implied &or and reader shows M.Woita, 'I~raeLsZukunftmdParusievaz6genmg beiLukas',mM.Evangetol.,ErchotologieundScho~fung @S E. GmXq BZNW, 89;Berlin: de Grayter, 1997), pp. 40fr26,esp. 420f 56. Cf. Wasseberg. Aus IssoeIs Mine,p. 228.

80

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

m t o r ' s times, and the following times. Intended is the call to repentance to Israel and the Gentiles as the times of fulfhent ofthe Scriptureprophecies. The second part of the quoted Scripture passage (v. 23) establishes the necessity of the call to repentance in a negative way (cf. Lk. 24.47): the one that does not repent shall never gain eternal life. The 'Prophet like Moses' - II (Acts 7.37) In Stephen's speech in Acts 7, Moses is characterized digressively (w. 35-38). By using the quotation of Deut. 18.15, which is known by the reader since Acts 3.22, Stephen describes Moses as chosen l i e Jesus. Stephenusesnearly exactly the same words as Peter in Acts 3.22. So we see that there is a continuity between Peter and Stephen, even ifthe quotationhas a different function.And because of Acts 3.22 the reader knows at once that the 'prophet like me' is Jesus. In Acts 7.37 Stephen uses the quotation &om Deut. 18.15 to show that Moses and Jesus share the same fate. Both men were denied by the Israelites or the Jews. The use of the Scripture is typological. Moses normally is considered as very important for the Jewishpeople. They are convinced that they follow God's wmmandments, which were given to them by Moses. So they belong to Moses and to the God who was preached by him. But Stephen tells his Jewish audiencethe opposite. Moses is the type of man who is denied by his own people. The denying of God's will by Israel is the subject of Stephen's speech. In Stephen's speech the denial of Jesus by Israel bewmes clear again and againvia the depiction of the denial of Moses by the people. Jesus is the 'prophet l i e Moses', because theJews go against him. This becomes equally clearthroughthe characterizationofMosesas 'rulerandliberator' (Acts 7.35; cf. Acts 5.31: Jesus as 'Leader and Saviour'), and through the motives of the lack of understanding (Acts 7.25), that is also found with regard to Jesus 2.50; 18.34), and of the working of 'wonders and signs' (Acts 7.36; cf. Acts 2.22 wn&g Jesus). Certainly Moses' 'wonders and signs' are only mentioned here in order to explain the analogywith Jesus. After all, Moses is saidto have been sent by God,just as Jesus was (Acts 7.35; cf. Lk. 4.43; Acts 3.26 about Jesus). And it is not just by chance that the 'words of life' that Moses received in order to pass on to the Israelites are mentioned in the followingverse. This term reminds us intratextually of the Torah commandments quoted in L k 10.25-37 and Lk. 18.18-27, which are both times cited in connection with the question 'What must I do to inherit eternal life?' Principally, the e d y Jesus did not deny the function of the Torah Commandments as guides to life (Lk 10.28). This citation fiom Acts 7.37 amacts attention more than any ofthe other citations up to now in Luke-Acts because it does not fit in chronologicallywith the described wurse of the story -previously it was cited h m Exodus 3 (Acts 7.3234), afterwards it was cited fromExodus32 (Acts 7.40). It also does not illustrate a certain event, but it illustrates the character of Moses and enables the reader to create an analogy between Moses and Jesus. The citation in Acts 322f., on the other hand, characterizes Jesus' character.

4. Deuteronomy in Luke-Acts

81

In v. 39 Stephenblames the Israelitesfor exactly that for which he was blamed: disobediencetowards Moses. Through this comection, Moessner indicated the character of a prophet in the image of Jesus?' In addition, he tried to work out, using the term 'prophet l i e Moses' (Acts 3.22; 7.37; cf. Deut 18.15), the diegeticalparallelsbetween Moses and Jesus whicb canbe seen inLuke's G0spe1.5~ It is quite possible that the narrator actually took over one or two traits of Moses in his image of Jesus. Conclusion

A considerable difference can be seen between the citations fiom Deuteronomy which Luke took over from tradition (Mk or Q), and the two citations whicb he himself offers (see the list in the Introduction). In Lk.4.8 (rrpoomv&61s). 4.12 ( O ~~KK T ~ E I ~ ~10.27 O E(&yadlo~~s)and IS), 18.20(pfi ~ O I X E I pt ~ I@ovehqs, J~, ~ A 6 4 q 5 ufi . + ~ ~ 6 0 u a p ~ p~ ~i u q ..as.),, thecitations are exclusively in the imperative or prohibitive, and also in Lk. 20.28(iva Aapg ...) a commandment is mentioned which is to he observed. Even in Lk 4.4 the citation is used as a commandment. The usage of Deut. 18.15(-20) in Acts 3.22 is very different. Starting £romLk. 24.44, the use ofDeuteronomy &Luke-Acts becomesprophetic andnot normative, that is the citation of Deut 18.15(-20) serves to refer prophetically to Jesus. This method of usage can be traced back to the words of Jesus in L k 18.3 133 and 24.44-47 (cf. also Lk.24.6f.). The citation from Deut. 18.15 in Acts 3.22 forms for Peter the basis for the necessity ofthe conversion sermon, andit thereby verifies apart of the general thesis of& 24.44: Peter's conversion sermon is also predicted kom the beginning in the book of Deuteronomy and is therefore to be performed by Christians. Different again is the manner of use of Deut 18.15 in Acts 7.37. Here, the same verse is cited as in Acts 3.22, hut the citation should illustratethe thesis that Jesus hadthe same fate as Moses Stephenproves that the Israelites already did not believe Moses. The starting point here is the proverb from L k 4.24, that no prophet is respected in his home town. Luke takes over many normative passages, hut makes clear in Acts 322 and 7.37, that also in the book of Deuteronomy Jesus is referred to as the Christ in a prophetic way, just as the story ofthe rejection of the prophets can be used as an illustration of the history of Jesus.

.. . Trovrl Nonurite (Minneapolis: Foruers, 1989). pp. 48-50. Monmer mentions Ule fall vlsion (I.k.

3.21f.;4.18E;Aek 10.38:cf.Eid 24.9-11;Numbm1 3 ; M . 1.22-33;2Kgs2.1-18;9.1-13),and the special role of the Holy Spirit in the work of the pmphet (Luke 3.16; 4:1,14, 18; cf I Kings 19.16;W. 61.1;CD6.1;2.12; 1QM 11.7,andalso1 En. 493;Pss. Sol. 17.42; 18.8; T. Levi 18.2-14; T. Jud 24.2E). 58. Messnu, Bmpef,pp. 6&70.

Chapter 5

DEUTERONOMY IN JOHN'S GOSPEL Michael Labahn

Introduction It is a weU-known fact that the book of Deuteronomy is frequently used in Ancient Judaism Basic identity-shaping texts and ideas were taken over from that book and were popular in ancient Jewishtexts.It claims to have been written by Moses, the law giver, thus presenting itself as the overall basic document of Judaism' That is why ancient Jewish writings allude to Deuteronomic conceptions, ideas and motifs without necessarily referring back to the book of Deuteronomy as awritten source. The content ofDeuteronomywaspresent in the 'public mern~ry',~ for instance, in mentioning Moses or the Law (given by Moses) or in praying the Shern~:~ To say that the & r e of Mases towm over Judaism of the Second T m-l e & .cd. including that of the Qumran covenanters, is merely a truism. The pervasive influence of this historic figure in the religion and literame of Israel is nearly everywhere apparent "

So Moses, 'his' Law and Deuteronomy have played a sig&icant role in creatively shaping Jewish identity5 and this must be bome in mind when we analyse specsc Johannine texts. Not every parallel which seems to stem from Deuteronomy refers directly back to the book but may have its roots in the history of reception of the book in the public memory.

..

1. S. DeanMcBride, b 'Deutmnomium'. TRE 8 (1981). w . 53043 (5311. 2

For rhe c m q t of cultural memory in gunad, cf J Arsnans D u hulrurt~llt~ Gr,Ju hmr, S knfl rnnngung undpltftn he ld~,nnrJrinlnihm l i m hhulmnn (Mlmteh Bcek.. 1992). ..an lorn d d o n is given in]. A s k m ~~eligion , and C ~ ~ ~ ~erno?: U ~ L I I Ten ~ m d i e s( C u h m l ~ e m ofthe o~ PresmC Palo Alto, CA: StanfcadUnivmilyRess, 2006). 3. For the ' f u n a t a l ' nib of the Shemq see E.P. Sanders,Judoism: Pracfice ondBelie/ 63 a c E d 6 CE (London: SCMiPhhieIphia: TPJ, l W ) , pp. 195-%. 4. J. E. Bowley. 'Moses inthe Dead Sea ScroIls: Livine in the Shadow ofGod's A n o w . in P.W .Flint(ed), TheBibleor Qmrm: T a t , Shape,ond~nre~~ermion (~hldiesin the ~ c a ~de a ~ c m l l s andRelatedLaaature:GrandRaoids.MI: Eerdmans. 2M)1>. . . toMoses as law eiva . w. 15W1(159): and other charanenrationsufhcr presence b Jewish Second Templenarrauvc,see S. H a m e , Moro ~lr u C'hormrcr .r,n rlre l b u n h Gub,>rl A S ~ ~ u l 4 n c t m Xr~rdznx f - Terhnruurr (JSNTSUD.229: Sheffield: sh&e~d ~ e a d e mPi ~~ S i ,m ) , pp.96-129. 5. C£ for Q u m : Bowley, 'Moses', pp. 16466,17680,181.

.-

..

-

5. Deuteronomy in John's Gospel

83

It is also a well-knm fact that the Old Testament is a major source for the Gospel of John's theology and Christol~gy.~ The still unpublished register (for V e m Testamentum in Novo, vol. U2)to the Old Testament parallels and references in John' counts about 128 entries for Deuteronomy. These include both marked andwnmarkedquotations, allusions, echoes, motifs and texts illushatingthe biblical background, such as Jewish customs andfeasts.8This shows that Deuteronomy is one of the most important sources for the Gospel of J o h even though there are relatively few explicit quotations? This would appear to imply that the book was well-knownto the Gospel's inte~dedreaders,'~ althoughnot everypassage listed in Vetus Testamentum in Novo is a receptionof a specific written text of Deuteronomy. Although Old Testament quotations are frequently used as a criterion for source hypotheses," this chapter deals with the entire Johannine text and the use ofthe Old Testament by its author. It is not denied that some of the material may sternfr~m~revious tra&tiion,either d e n or oral, butthere is not space to discuss the prehistory of the material in detail here.

6. For example, U. SchneUe,DasEvmgelium noch Johrmnes (TIM,4; Lei*: Evangelis& Verlaesanstalt 3rd edn.2004). a. 16. callstheOld Testament a 'Fundament' oflobamhe Gosod Mlting. 1.M. Lieu, ' N d v e Analysis and Scrip- inJohn', in S. Moyise (ed), The Old Testomen1m the New Testmnr (Essays in Honour of J. L. North; JSNTSup, 189; She5eLd: Sheffield Academic Press, ZWO), pp. 14463 (144), works ouf perhaps a lisle too d-ely, &tbe OldTestament 'makes the G o w l Wok"'. Fors more cmmlete list of literalme dealingwith Joho's use of see

,.. .

~anom?~eue~tondorrbesrimmun~m(~~,i03; Freiburgi. Br.: ~erd;, 2003),pp. 1 6 7 7 (149-50 n. 15). 7. H. HObna, A Lab* a n d M Lab* V& Tesrmmrum in .Nova. Vol In: Evmgelrum secundum Iohmmem (Giithgen: Vandenhceck & Rupreehf 2003). 8. For an exhaustivelist of cafeeoriesto cbsifvtbe imrtemduse of Old T e S z m t ~ m - t e r n in J o b see H.-1. KLwek, "3schdeben, dill
84

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

Studies in intertextuality have shown that the relationship between texts need notbe confmedto 'authoral intention' or even chronological priority. Readers who know Deuteronomy well may see things that other readers do not see, thereby starting their own intertextual 'play' and developing their own intertextualreadings.I2 But the focus of this chapter will be on those intertextual relationships where the JohanniDe text intentionally refers backtothebook of Deuteronomyby quoting or alluding to it. In other words, the focus is on those ~ignslmarks'~ that make such references explicit to the intended readers. We should also bear in mind that the relationship of texts and ideas within a text (mtra-textuality) may sometimes explain some of the motifs that might otherwise be explained as the influence of an extra-textual 'source'.14 Quotations

Jn 8.1 7 andDeut. 19.15 The search for marked quotatious ofDeuteronomy in John is normallyjudgedto be unsuc~essful.'~ However, there is one text that must at leastbe considered as a quotation because of its introdncto~yformula. Jn 8.17 begins with 'in your law it is writtenthat', which is an expanded but well-knomNew Testament quotation formula (cf. Lk.2.23; 10.26-27; 1 Car. 9.9; 14.21).16There are some parallels to this fonnula in John (1.45: 'about whom Moses and the prophetsmote'; 6.45: 'it is written in the prophets' and 2.17: 'his disciples remembered that it was written'; cf. 5.46; 6.31).17Theparallels indicate that the foUowing passage in Jn 8.17 is marked to the intended reader as a quotation kom the (Jewish) Law.'%Based on Lk. 2.23, Dietrich Rusam considers that such quotation formulae do not 12. See R Allen. I n r ~ n ~ ~ t u a l(Nnr t t ) Critical Idiom, Landon: Romlalge, .?OM))and for irs applimtion to biblical d e s , S. M o y a , 'Intertcxtualityand Ihc Study of the Old Tektam~mtin the NLwT-~~~', in S. ~ o ~ i( ds )e, T h e ~ l d ~ e s t o m o rt~hi en ~ o ~v e ~ t m n (&says nt in honour of J. L. Nmth; JSNTSup, 189; ShetXeLd.SheffietdAcademicPms,2OOO),pp. 1 U 1 ; &TI, 'Intextex& ality and Historical m e s to theuse of Seriphnein the New Testament', V e b m etEcc1r~iu 26 (2005), pp. 447-58. 13. Still a vav valuable instnmKnt for analysing, the maddng, of a reference is 1. Helbig

14. Cf. M. Labahn, ' ~ e r ~ a s s e noder " iroll&det". Ps 22 in der johanneiassion" ~visch& und IntatexluaWd', in: D. SHnger (ed.), Ps 22 und die Pasriomgerchichten der Eyungelien (BThSf 88,Neukimhen-VIuyn: Nmkkhener Verlag 2007). auf dem Hint@ der mhrist15. Cf M.Hengel, 'Die Sehriftauslegung des 4. EmgelilichmExegese',JBTh4 (1989),~.276e95; Sehnelle,Johmer,p. 16; S c h d t i s s e k , " l k d 6 s bare SduW (Joh 10,35)', p. 159. 16. This f d a is not discussed or mentioned in B. G. Schuehard Sc"pmre within Scripme.

In-

77zr 1nrrmelutron~h;prdFom, undFunction in thr, Lrplicir Old Tzstommr Cltorionr in the Gospel of John (SBLDS, 133; Atlanra, OA: Scholw: Res, 1992). w xiiCriv. 17. See C. A. Evan%'On dm QuotationFormulas in %e Fourth Gospel', BZNF26 (1982), pp.

79-83; Hengel, ' S c ~ u s l e ~ gpp. ' , 276ff. 18. That means that the followiog passage is not intended as 'proverbial'(as Reim, Jochonm, p. 109 assumes) but as belonging to the Law, Coat means to Scripture.

5. Deuteronomy in John's Gospel

85

necessarily signal a 'correct' quotation, aiming at verbal identity with a specific text, but may include a creative reception of the t e a l 9Therefore, it is misleading to exclude apossible quotation purely on the basis ofinsufficientverbal identity.20 By referring to the law as 'your Law' the narrator addressesJesus' opponents within the text but develops a distancebetween Jesus and the law. The Law used without the christological bermeneutic developed by the fourth evangelist is a foreign element to Jesus and owned by his opponents." But eventhat text ironically supportstheargument ofthenanator's hero. However, 'searching the Scriptures' does not help to h d a text with the same wording as Jn 8.17, 'the testimony of two witnesses isvalid' (660 drv9pcjrrwv v a p r u p i a drAqqs Bonv). Although marked as a quotation, Jn 8.1% is formed by the narrative shape and the language of the Fourth Gospel. The theme of witnessing for Jesusz is already present in John 5 (see later), so that 8.17 forms a kind of repetition of the previous discussionandrefersback to 5.31-47. Fnrthermore, dr)lq%s('true, valid')" is an importantJohanninethemeand is kquently combinedwith v a p r u p i a (5.31,32; 8.13, 14, 17; 21.24). Thus, in 8.17 two different hermeneutical principles overlap: (1) the quotation formula refers to interfatuality marked by the text; and (2) Jobannine language and motifs refer to other passages within the text. The latter does not foster an exclusively intra-textual explanation ofthe text since it is marked as aquotatiou, but it makes the reader aware that there is some change in wording in regard to any possible pre-text." The Old Testament passages that are closest to Jn 8.17 are Deut. 19.15 and Deut. 17.15. Num. 35.30 ('and one witness shallnot testify against a soul that he should die') is considered possible by Beutler but this seems unlikely since it does not explicitly speak of two witne~ses.?~

4

Deut 19.15:

'by the mouth of two witnesses, or by the mouth of three witnesses, every word shallbe established;'

Dent. 17.6:

'he shall die on the testimony oftwo or three witnesses'

19. D. Rwam,DmAltc Testament beiLukar (BZNW, 112; BerIkNewYork:deGrqm,ZW3), pp. 53-4. 20. P a ,R Schnackenbw&Dm Johonnesevmgelium II Kommentorzu Kop. >I2 (HTKNT, Nk Fmibw: .Herder, 1971). . rr. . 246 n. 3. 2 1. M. Miilln. 'SchriRbeweis d u r Vollcmdung? Das Johmexvaopcltum und das Alrc Testament', in K:M. Bull / E. Relnmurh (cds), tlekennmu undtrmmm,8y @S 1l:F W L ~Rostocker , TheologischeStudien,16;Mimster:LIT-VerIag,ZW),pp. 151-71,pLaSwhrases8.17as 'thelaw, as you readit' ('das Gesso wie ihr es 1st'). 22. Stiu a very w d y m t n i o n is J. Beutler, Mmwa: TrodiTiomgerchichtli Untermehungen nrm Zeugnisthm bei J o h m e r (Frmkhter theol-he Studien,10; Fmkfm am Main: Wt,1972). 23. Fomizentima inJohneomparedtoonlyenereeordinMadraodMatmew(Mll2.14psr.Mt 22.16). 24. CX Beutler, Mma, p. 270. 25. OnN~35.30asapossiblep1~tna,seeJ.~utla,'DerGebm&von"S~~imJohannesevangelim', in J. Beutler, Smdim zu denjohmeischen Schrrjrm (SBAB,25; Smart Ka& olisches Bibeherk, 1998). pp. 255-315 (304).

86

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

As Maarten MenkenZ6has pointed out, Deut 17.6 (like Num. 35.30) focuses on the death penalty, whereas Deut 19.15 and Jn 8.17 reilect more generallythe task of the witnesses?' Since the Johannine Gospel exercises some keedom in quoting texts, and the fact that the Greek !ranslationof the Hebrew text is fairly literal, one cannot be certain as to the textual form of the cited text. Given that the ixxis more general than the MT by speaking of 'every case' (n&v;:NU), the Greek background is slightly more probable. Bearing in mind that the Johannine narrator quoted Old Testament texts in a fairly free way:9 it is not unreasonable to call Jn 8.17 a Johannine-style quotation of Deut 19.15. With regard to Johannine christologicalreflection, the two different witnesses of the father and of Jesus come together in the revelation and voice of Jesus as stated in v. 19,'"dicating that Jesus' opponent does not share the Johannine 'universe of discourse' as a common hermeneutical ground."' Use of Scripture and Scripture-based argumentation is part of the christologicalpremises of the Johannine hermeneutic, forming a creative communication with its pretexts.

True Witness (Jn 5.31-34; 8.16-17 andDeut. 17.6; 19.15; Num. 35.30) As mentioned above, the quotation of Jn 8.17 is part of the Johannine witness motif that is also present in Jn 5.31-34. Both texts are connected because they share the issue of multiple witnesses. In contrast to 8.17, the passage in John 5 alludes even more abundantly to an Old Testament background that seems to includeNum.35.30andDeut. 17.6; 19.15. Jn 5.31 ('Ifltestify aboutmyself,my testimony is not true') takes up Num. 35.30 in so far as 'one witness shall not testify against a soul'. However, there is more to it for there is a second witness (v. 32: the one who sent his son33and a third (w. 34-36: John the Baptist in relation to Jesus' own works). In contrast to Jn 8.17, the tendency of John 5 is less general. Jn 5.19E challenges the decision of a death penalty by Jesus' Jewish opponents in 5.16-18, so that Jesus' argument is more in accordance with the juridical problem of Num 35.30 and Deut 17.6. In alluding to the Old Testament, the Johannine Jesus 26. Menken, Old T e r t m m @ o t ~ ~ t i o m p., 16: 'The legal content of Dent 19:15 has evidently been rephrasedinJohmine m e . ' 27. Cf J. W. We"=, Notes on the Creek Text of Deuteronomy (SBLSCS,39;Atlanta, GA. Scholars Ress, 199% p. 315, on Deut 19.15: 'V. 15b makes a general rule out of the regubtian cmcaniw - ~ m w i m e s s e ats 17.6for CaDital offences.' 28. llowevm,thew are some slight differences io i.xx tour, cf Wsverr. .\utl.\, p. 315 29. ke John 7.42and themmarks orMenkcs t l l d 7 n t ~ m m1 O h ~ . t ~ 1rm. ~ n1617. m. mdo,~,!,r 30. See also L. Schmke, Johanna: Kommentm (KO-& m den ~&gelien;~ i l s ~ l d o d Patmm, 1998), p. 166. see M Labahn, 'Die rrappqoia des Gofteswhnes im 31. On the term 'universe of disco-' Johannese~ngeliumTheolopischeHermeneutik uadphilosophischesS e W ~in 1. F~ K ~, and U. SchneUe(eds), Konferte dPs Johmnaevmgeliums. D m vi&e Evmgelium in religiom- und naditiomgeschichtlicher Pmspektive (WUNT, 175;Tiibhgen: Mok Siebeck,2W), pp. 321-63 (33LL31). 32 See M Asicdu-Prm JolrunnzrrSohhoth C b n f l ~ a c7~Jur,d11.~1 ~ C'ot~rnm (WlJNT, ~~ 2 132, Tlrbingm: Mohr Siebeck, 2001 ), prr 9W;SchneUe,Johunnr~,D. 125.The issue is funhsclaboravd in Jn 5.37-40 taking the father k&additionalwi&ess forthesent one.

5. Deuteronomy in John's Gospel

87

underscores that his witness against the death charge is !me with regard to the Law. The Johanninc intertextual play between alluding, quoting and actualizing Old Testament pre-texts in Jn 5.31-34 and 8.16-17is faithful and intended. Ilcre, the narrator respects the different backgroundsofhispre-texts, in so far as he &tinguishes between a concrete anda more general issue in which the number ofwitnesses is discussed He uses the technique of allusion when m a e tbanone pre-text could be used and he quotes with regard to a specific pre-text. In both cases he adjusts the pre-text to his narrative and argum&tative background even by seriously rephrasing the wording of his pre-text (cf. Deut. 19.15).

Jn 8.54 and Deut. 6.4 In his defence before his Jewish opponents (Jn 8.54), the Johannine Jesus identifies his father as the one his opponents call their god. 'It is my Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, "He is our God"' (8sk j ~ G v~ T I UThis ). last phrase appears to allude to Deut 6.4, 'Hear, 0 Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord' ( d p ~ o s6 BE& jpGv ~ljplosd5 EOTIV). Yet the text is not introduced as a quotation h m Scripture but as a quotation/allusion from a popular religious claim by Jesus' opponents. That might be the reason why it is not generally listed as a quotation of Deut. 6.4. The claim of Jesus' opponents might originate from Scripture but this is not made explicit by the narrator and therefore it is not used within the argumentationofthe Johannine characters. For sure, Deut. 6.4 is not the only possible Old Testament parallel containing the central claim that God is Israel's God" The formulation 'of whom you say' canies a fundamentalundertonethat refers to a basic marker of Jesus' opponents' religious identity. Of course, the Skema Israel presents such a text, taken l?om Deut. 6.4-5 and belonging to the daily Jewish prayer. I think the Johannine narrator presents Jesus as refening to the basic tradition of his Jewish opponents, thus presupposing that it will strike a chord with his intended readers. However, in doing this, I wonder if the narrator does not open an intertextual window back to Scripture? bearing in mind that Moses and Scripture speak about Jesus (cf. 5.45-47 with reference to God as Jesus' father). However, without a quotation formula, we can only guess at such a relationship and scholarly analysis itselfbecomes part of the open world of textual relationship that forms intertextuality.

33. SeefmihertnrtrrnentionedbyHObner,I&&,I&&, Veru.Trrfmnmmm%NOW)Val.I.2 to In 8.54: your [singular]God hod 202, Deut 5.6; 6.5. 34. John 8.41 (Lwe have one father, Godhimself) i n the eontext of". 54 also reflectst h e m *

88

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

Jn 5.44 andDeut. 6.4 Within the polemical monologue, Jn 5.19-47, in which Jesus tries to defend his healing on the Sabbath, Jesus exhorts his opponents not to 'seek the glory that comes fromthe one who alone is God (TOGp b o u BEOG)'~~(v. 44). It is clear that this is closer to a number of Hellenistic Jewish texts which speak of the 'only God/Lord' or 'God/Lord alone'" but Beutler thinks it is signiscant that it is the lack of love for God that urges people to seek their own glory which may refer to Deut 6.4.)'Additionally, we may note that in advance of an intentional reference to Deuteronomy: (1) in the immediate context, Moses is said to have written about Jesus (5.46); and (2) there are many other references to Deuteronomy in ch. 5 (e.g., 5.5,21,31-34,37; see also 5.20,22-23,39-40,42, 43).98However, it is possible that we have an influence or echo of Deut 6.4 as held in the public memory. As Beasley-Mumy states, "'The only God"rei3ects the Jewish wnfessiou of faith, rooted in the Shema in Deut. 6.4'."9 Regarding the importance of the Shema Israel and taking into account the character of the Johannine references, it is not possible to gain any c e h t y t h a t John refers intentionally to Deut. 6.4 as a pre-text There are no reliable markers in the Johannine text, but the criterion of availability and the criterion of recurrence allow the possibility of such areference. Theologically,Jn 5.44 is of importance because it shows that the oneness of God from Deut 6.4 is a basic axiom also within Johannine christologicalthinking.iOHowever, within Johannine berms neutics the one and only God is one who only can be met inhis only son (Jn 1.18) -and both are one (Jn 10.30). Allusions

I define references to be allusions ifthey are not explicitlymarked like quotations by some kind of quotation formula or by a recognizable verbal identi&. An allusion is an intended, but more unspecific reference to apre-text indicated by some verbal and thematic overlaps. According to Martin Hengel, allusions are the main

-

.

35. In some- text-criticdlvb considered-- .ewd maauscriots.. 660; is missins -& . '" P'* B et 01.); the reading without 'God'IS also the moa difficult one f l o w s v ~the ~ , omiss~oncould easily be explained as mismading . . Waco.. TX. . by . hw .l o m h y , see G. R Beaslcy-Mmy, .John ~ . W C. 36. 1987),p. 70;F. J. Moloney, he Gospel o f ~ o h n(Sacrapagina, 4, ~ o ~ e g e v i l l e~mngical~ess, ,~~: 1998), p. 192. 36. SceApw Mor. 13.5; 1. JOT.6.5; 8.5;Jm. A i m . 131;Apuc. Sch. 8.10; 15.1;Lel Ar,r 132. 139; Sih. Or Ill 629; V 2x5. Such anouon of God is alcowmmon to authon in anuquity:E. N o h Agnostos Theos. ~ n ~ e n ~ ~ h u n g e n m ~ o m e n ~ e ~ ~ h i ~ h t e ~isseasehaftreli@~se~~ede liche BuchgeseIlscW 4th edn, 1956), p. 245. Norden hints at Aelius Adsides. 37. J. &der, 'Das Hauptgebot im J&annese~ogelium',in Beutler, S t d i m , pp. 107-20 (1 13). 38. ~,the~hargeagainstJesus,thathemakes~+toGod(5~18),vio~the~lb fessionofthe oneGodinDad6.4; cf., e.g., J. Becker, Joh0nneische-s Christenhim. Seine Geschichte und Theologie im iiberblick~iibingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2004). pp. 17&75. 39. Beasley-Munay, John, p. 70. 40. Cf T. Siding,'"IchuadderVater sind eins" (Joh 1030). Diejdmmeische Christo10@evor dwA q m c h des Hauptgebotes (TXD 6,4f)', ZNW93 (2W2), pp. 177-99.

5. Deuteronomy in John's Gospel

89

type of references to the Old Testament in the Fourth G~spel.~' The following includes a sample of some of the more important examples.

Jn 5.5 (Deut.2.14) InJohn 5, Jesus meets aparalytic man at a miraculous healing pool (v. 7 -w. 3b-4 are a text-criticallysecondary explanation) near the Sheep Gate (v. 2) ona Sabbath day (v. 9)."Becausethe man cannot move into the pool himself, hehas never had a chance to be healed (v. 7). The narrator refers to the length of time the man has been lying at the pool: 'A man was there who had been ill for &kty-eight years.' A note on the lengthof a person's illness is oftenusedas a signal for the difficulty facing the miracle-worker.43Jesus is able to heal where the power of the pooland of humankind has come to an end after 38 years.M However, in mentioning such a specific number, it seemsprobablethat the narrator has another purpose, namely to allude to Deut 2.14 ('And the days in which we travelled h m Kadesh-bamea until we crossed the Wadi Zered was thirtyeight years')j5 Israel's 38 years long stay in the wilderness is interpretedas apunishment for its grumbling against YHWH Numbers 14; cf. v. 29). Therefore, Hengel descriies the Jobannine use of that span of time as 'Typos des Unglaubens an Christus' (in accordance with Greek Church Fathers)." A close look at the paralytic man as a narrative characterwithin the Jobmine story may help to gain some insights. It is debated as to whether the paralytic is a positive or a neffdtve character within the story:' and Jn 5.14 is crucial in this regard. Jesus addressesthe manwho was previously unable to say anything about 41. Hengel, 'Schriffauslegung'. p. 282. 42. For details of analysis, see M.Labahs Jesur olr Lebousspender. Untersuchunaen - m einer Ge$ch!chtrdt,r,<,honnrachm Trodmon onhud,h,r.r 1Vunnttqr.v hrrhren (8TNW,98; B d n - 5nv York de Gruyter, 1999), pp. 213-64 43. C£ G: Theissen, ~rchristlicheWu&rggeschichten. Ein Beinag nrrfinngeschichtlichen E$orschung der syzoptisehen EvmgeIien (SNT, 8; Ciitersloh: GatersloherValagshaus, 6th edn, 1990). ...D. 61: see afso L Broer. 'Die Heiluns des Gelahmtenam Teich Bethesda(1oh5.1-9a) und ihre Nachgrschichichlc im vimen Evmgclium(Joh 59b16)', m J . Pichlerand C. Hell (A), llc:,lung~nund Wundc~~rolr,xurhc.hrsto"a he ,rundrmd~in,rch~%uw2ny~~(D-& WBG, 2027).... m. 143-61 - -. (154-5) who also considers apossible influence of dent 2.14. 44. SdmeUe,J o h m m . o. 1 s . 45. See P. Dwhulnigg, Jrruv B e ~ e ~ n r Pn .e n o w urtd ihre R,~drurung,m Johunn~mmn~rlzwn iTbmloerc, -~ 30: lrlknnrr LIT-Vnlae.ZWO),p. 148; K Gran-tun, Thr Gt~spr.lu/John(NarratlveCommentaris; ~Madel~hia: TPI, 1990),;. 48; ~r~chwank, ~ ~ A ~ e l nach i u m~ohonner( ~ t ~ eEOS, n : 1W6),p. 177; K Thyen,Dar Johonnesevongelium(HNT,6;Tiibingen: Mohr S i e h k , 2005),p. 299; C. Welek, EncihlteZeichen. Die Wdergepehichts, dm Johannsevongeliumr lifmorfschuntmuchr M t einmr Ausblick 4 J o h 21 (WUNT, W69; Tnbingen: Mohr Siebezk, 199% pp. 155-56. 46. H-L ' S c ~ w l e w n e ' o. . 286. 47 Cf. mon recently K Seholtlswk 'Mimdlger Glnube Zur Arcbtelua und Ragmank ,ohannctrcher Brremmgsacscbchtea luh 5 und loh 9'. m D Shgcr, U MeU (eds), P . n h u,~llJv/uu~n~~r

-

~

-

hrmscifopndffnently lhr healed man becomaa ktnd o f p r o c ~ e r d u ~ . m ~ n gtnrcnn t h e ofthc Juva oo the sub~ectoflhc rntnelc off h m brealnng the Sabbath (D 88) Schalnrsrk does no1 m e n 1 on the allusion in Jo 5.5

90

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

his healer (v. 13): 'Do not sin any more, so that nothing worse happens to you.' Within the Gospel text, the sin ofthe paralytic is not some moral failure, unknown to the readem, that has caused his illness. The sin has to do withtheman'srelation to Jesus.48After being healed, he does not know Jesus (v. 13) and aftm being addressed by Jesus he informs Jesus' Jewish opponents (v. 15), wbo sentence Jesus to death (5.1&18).49 From this perspective, we can read the allusion to Deut. 2.14 as a signal that the paralytic man as narrative character is not accepting God's will. The allusion gives an intertextual 'colour' to a man who is himseIfvery sparselypaintedhy the narrator,sobecausewe hear nothing about his name, home, or anything else. The nature of the allusion does not allow us to say anything about its textual form. Jn 5.21 (Deut. 32.39)

In Jesus' reply to the reproach in John 5 that he makes himself equal to God (v. 18), he claims that he 'can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatevertheFather does, the Son does likewise' (v. 19). Therefore, the addressees of Jesus' speech will see 'greater things' than the miracles (v. 20): 'Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes' (v. 21). The Johannine narration of miracles portrays Jesus as a spender of life: He will give eternal life just as his father does.51Such a strong ciaim is also in accordance with the Johannine pwexistence Christology, which considers the logos to be the one through whom 'all things came into being' (Jn 1.3; cf v. 4). However, the Johanaine Jesus not only claims to do the same things as his father does, he also alludes to words which, in the OldTestamenf are descriptions ofGod: 'I kill and I make alive' (Deut. 32.39). Deut 32.39 is not the only passage within the Old Testament that ascriies the power to give and take life to GodSZ but there are a number of similarities between the two passages: (1) The similar 48. For ao uodashndiag of sin in John, see M. Aadtschka, Befpirmg von SCnde m h d m Johomeseymgelium:Ehe bibelIheolo@chhe U~fersuchung~ckerthegIc&cheStudien, 27; Iansbruck:Tyrolia, 1989);R Mekner,Dm Vnsldnhh derSrinde im Johmmesevmgelium(WUNT, 1.122; Tobingeti:Mohr Siebeck, 2WO). 49. In C o n W to the anonymous man born blind who bxm into a positive characterin &fen& ing, proclaiming and finally worshipping Jesus; cf. M. Labahn, ' k Weg e i n s Namenloscn - Vom Hiltlosen nrm Vorbild (Job 9). Aasahe zu einer nawfiva, ES& der smialen V-twabmg im Yiaten Evangelium', in R GebmerandM.Meiser(eds),Die bleibmde Ceg~r~mfdeaEwmppliwnr (FS 0.Me& MThSt, 76; Marburg: Elwert, 2003), pp. 63-80. M. Cf. R A. ~ , A n o t o m ofy rheFowlh Gaspel: A So& inLifea~Derign (repr.; P6iladelphia: F o r k s , 1987), pp. 137-38. 51. Cf. Labahn,Jem &Lebensrpendn;p. 501,etparrim;suppoaedby B.Ko!haw 'Wunder IV.Neues Testament', TRE 36 O W ) , pp. 389-97 (395). 52. Cf. Neh. 9.6, see also 2 Kgs 5.7; EeeL 7.12; see especially 4 Mocc 18.19 a 'recitation' from Deut 32.39 (cf D. A deSilw. 4 ihiaccczbees I S m t m z h t Cornentar, S&: LeidedBostan: Brik 20061,pp.2 k 5 ) ; 4 .Wcur 18.19indiurer ho& D&L 32.39rouldberead maoeieal Judaism: C i hlledand gave life back &awards. h u t . 32.39 f o c w on both,thedyhgofpeopleaod bnnglng . . them backtto life. The last part is st hand in Joha Deut 3239 is also quoted in Odes 2 . 3 9 - 2 re8eeted in Dao m 4.37 [I].

5 . Deuteronomy in John's Gospel

91

verb: John's cr+orro~~i" resemblnGu noljoo ofDeut 32.39; (2)The statement (Jn 5.44) that God is the only God; (3) God as baler; and (4) God as responsible for death (in John 5.2 1. both God and Jesus give hfc but in 5.22, it is Jesus alone who judges and hence brings death). In regard to these arguments, it seems likely that Jn 5.21 intentionallyalludes to Deut 32.39, though once again, the text has been repbrasedusing Johannine vocabulary. With respect to the verb SWOITOIE?, it is plausible that the cfiv rro~juwof the Greek version is in mind?4 John 5.37 (Deut. 4.12) For not accepting Jesus as the one sent by God and in whom God is present, the Johannine Jesus counters the Jewish opponents in Jn 5.37 by stating that they have never had an intimate relationship with God: 'You have never heard his voice or seen his form.' The secondpart of the accusation is an inhatextual referencepointiugtotbe close and unique relation between the son andhis father in Jn 1.18, where it is claimed that no one has ever seen the father except the son. Yet, the first part offers a new idea: the Jewish opponents have never heard God's voice. Scholars seeking a source for this motif refer to the Old Testament?s In Exod. 19.9,19, it is saidtbat Israel will hear God's voice (v. 9) and that Moses has heard God's voice (v. 19)?6The Lxxtranslation of Exod. 20.18 changed the idea of hearing to seeing (k&pa).57 In these passages, it is not stated whether the people heard or nots8 Deut 4.12 is more explicit: 'Then theLORD spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice.'59 This has three issues in common with Jn 5.37: (I) a p l d t y ofpeoplerepresentingIsrael; (2) mention that someone heard or didnot hear (using an aorist or aperfect form of ck~06ca);(3) God's voice (both texts use the Greek word @ w 4 )as the object ofhearing. The relationship of the debatedtexts isunderscored by a secondmotif. Both texts con6rm that the said persons did not see God.MIfDeut. 4.12 is present as an echo in Jn 1.18,6' it is likely that it is present also in Jn 5.37. 53. Within the Gospels, the verb is only to be foundin Jn 5.21 (twice); 6.63. Sevenlimes (of 1I) it is used by Paul m d once in 1 Peter(3.18). 54. Hebrewii'nnlisnotasdearastheGreektextitmayslmplymeaotokeepalivein~~n~to 'to kill' or it may refer to provide life. 55. SeeSchnackenb-Dm Johnnneseyrmzeliumll.. 174:U.Wilckens,DosEwmeelium~~h -. Juhwne.~ (NllJ, 4; Gdniogeo:Vandenhack & Ruprecht, 17th dn, IWX), p. 123. Any rcfermce to Senphlrr in 5.37 s denied by J. Painter, ihr @es, /or rh8 .Wer~wh Tkr H,rron. Lirerorurr unJ l'h&logv ofthe ~ohomine&mmunig o dinb burgh: T&T ~ k k2nd , edn, 1993),p. 240. Tke Gospel Accordhgto John (I-A70 (AB, 29; GardenCity,NY:Doubleday, 56. R E . B1969, p. 225, meofions b o d 199 as Johamineptext 57. ff.Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel, pp. 7 3 4 . 58. ~ M o s s m a y h a v e h e a r d W s ~ i c e a s ~ i n T @ c l i t B M l R , a ~ b ~ T k e P r 0 phetic Gospel, p. 75, mfers to, is not the same as being heard by the people. 59. Deut 5.4 sttpports the h lpart of4.12 without refeningto seeingthe Likelinessof Gad: God has spokento Israel out of the &. 60. CompareJn5.37 (GTEsT605 ~ G T O Gimpdll(m) &Dent 4.12 ( ~ advoiwlia i GxrBrrs). 61. M M. Thompson, The Godofthe Gospel ofJohn (GrandRapids,MI: EBmnans, 2001), p. 110, assumes aoeeho to Exod. 33.11, 18-23 andDeut 4.12; 5.4inJn 1.18; 5.37; 6.45-46; idem, '"God's

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

92

Michael Theohald seems to be right when he states that Jn 5.37 contradicts Deut 4.12.aYet, Jn 5.37 does not simply deny what Deut 4.12 states. Deut 4.12 is addressed to the people, Jn 5.37 is directed against Jesus' addressees within the Johannine text John contradictsthe message of Deut 4.12 with regard to the opponents in the text, who are going to kill Jesus (5.16,18). The difference is not to be seen inrelation to the biblical pre-text but with regard to thevalidity ofthis text to Jesus' addressees inJohn 5.63The wntradictim is part of a hemeneutical process inthe Gospel of J o h The narrator contradictsthe addressees within the Johannine text As far as they oppose the son sent by Go4 to whom Moses and the Scripturebore witness, the dissenters witnessthat they never heard God;Jesus as a Johannine character conttadicts the pre-text only in so far as it was not ttue with regard to the addressees claiming to have Moses and the Law on their side (cf. 5.17-18,39). This interpretation is supportedby Jn 6.44-46, where it is God who provides access to his son (v. 44) and those who believe inhimare taughtby the father and have heard him (v. 45: 'Everyone who has heard and learned h m the Father wmes to me'). 6.46 indicates that the narrator is aware ofthe connection of Jn 1.18,5.37 and 6.45: 'Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is ftom God; he has seen the Father.' By using this technique of repetition, John unfolds his christologicalclaims. Moreover, he distinguishes between thoseto whom the statement ofDeut. 4.12 is valid andthose to whomit is not The technique also says something aboutthe meaning of God's conversation onMount Sinai, which, according to the narrator ofthe Johannine Jesus-story, was a communication concerning Jesus.- Thus, reading Jn 5.37 in the light of the other mentioned texts provides new insights into the christocentiic understanding of Scripture in the Fourth Gospel."

Jn 7.24,51 (Deut. 1.16-17; c f : 16.18-19; 25.1) Jesus' appearance at the feast i f tabernacles (John 7-8) brings him into conflict with Jewish authorities (cf. 7.4W.). Some people want to catch him (v. 431, an VoiceYouHaveNevaHeard,God's FolmYouHaveNeverSeen": The ~ o n o f G c d i n theGosDel of JoW. h e i a 63 (1993). m. 177-204. However.the above armrmentshows thatJohn . .... 5.37 is Are conc& in the wnsfoming rcfamcc to one +c pre-I-. 62. M Ibmbald, Die F k i s c k r d u n ~dm Lqxos. hudU.n.w Vrhdmis dm Jo-lops zlmz C o ' p u s d e s E v ~ g e / i u m ~ dIzJ& u ( N T ~ 2 0 ; ~ i i m t eAsebBudorfF, c 1988),pp.363-61.& betweenvoice (the @c somd of one persam) and h&w (Wwhatpeople have heard)Thyen.Johmesewnpeli~~p32fi,main~thatJn537daesnotam~OIdTeshlmeot p n - e & . ~ o w e v a , Dna 4.12 e&y st& that l w c l h d 'a voice (mumi) of words.. 63. See also kholdssek '-Die uaauEbrbare S c W (Joh 10.35)'. pp. 168-69 uadersecfing the e ~ l o e i c a l d v that e leads those skatemen* in Jn 537.39. 64 Cf S vanTlmorg,DarJoh11~~1)e~npcItlon E m K o m ~ n , m @ h e R u ~(Slmgut \ KBW, 20051, p 80 It IS posslblc that the nawtor c b that it was mot God bur the prccustmr 1 y . u ~ d o swkc to the &mole on him Sinai as b n R e h h e r i c Gosoel...D. 8L. stats: see a& M. Labah, 'Jesus und die Autoritat dm khrfti im Johanonevangclim. Obalcgungen m eloem spanntmgaeichen V d m i r ' , m Labah, kholtisrek Stmtmarm (eds.), &roc/ und setnr, Hedlrwodnonn im Johonnesevmpclium,pp. 185-206 @. I% inlnpreting lo 7.51;pp. 20344). 65. Since the Greek version of Deut 4.12 is a rme rend-g of the Hebrew text thm is w d G cation ifthe reference in John was to the Gmek or the Hebrew version

.

.

.

5 . Deuteronomy in John's Gospel

93

act presented as initiated by the high priests and the Pharisees (v. 44). In condemning the crowd (v. 49: 'But this crowd, which does not h o w the law they are accursed'), the Pharisees provide a catchword for the next acting character,Nicodemus, who has already been introduced to the reader (3.1-2). He raises his voice in favour of Jesus, challenging the Pharisees with the question: Our law does notjudge people without6mt giving them a beat doing, does it? (Jn 7.59)

to find out what they

The system of intra-textual references indicates that Nicodemus has heard Jesus and that he is impressed by Jesus' proclamation; the narrator indicatesthat the people do not know the law according to the Pharisees (7.49), but in contrast to them, one ofthose who knows the law is on Jesus' side. Moreover,Nicodemus' question indicates that the law itself speaks on Jesus' behalf. In the speech of Nicodemus, the law becomes an actor within the narrative, functioning to judge people with a clear agenda to be followed: first to hear a man's word and then to look at his deeds and make a fairjudgement The reference to the law is apossible marker used by the narrator establishingan intatextual reference. Referring to the function of the law allows the readers and interpreters to search for possible parallels. The lack of any explicit marker or precise verbal agreement makes this difEcult but a case can be made for Deut 1.16-17.ffi Iehargedyourjudgesatthattinm ' G i v e t b e m e m b e n o f y o ~ ~ w d t y a f a i r b ~ mdjn~righffybeoaeenanepenansndmotha,~dhacitizenorRsident&~~ You mvst not be @a1 in judging:hear out the smalland the great alike; you shall not be intimidated by anyme, for the judgment is God's. Any ease that is too hard for yo% bringtome, andIwi!Jhearit'(Deut 1.16-17)

The verbal agreement between the possible allusion and the Johanninetext is small. Dent 1.16-17 does not refer to the law as actor but to judges who were installed by Moses. The words ofMoses present a basic rule forjudges acting in accordance with the law. So one may identi@ the work of those judges with that of the law. The possibility of an intendedreference in John to Deut 1.16 is snpported by the rule the Johannine Jesus quotes in Jn 7.24, 'Do notjudgeby appearances, but judge with rightjudgement'. Again theverbal agreements are quite few (KP~VELV and ~IKUI-), but thematic parallels are pmmt" The &g not to go ons8to 'judge by appearances' is fuaherelaborated in Deut 1.17, adding what the judges have to avoid Some scholars, however, refer to Isa. 11.3 as a closer parallel ('He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear'). It is difEcult to

and 25 1. Tne Cn two tms occur in a conten of idolarry md Derrt 25.1 deals wih matters of crvll rights There are also l e x u omside Deuteronomy m be coosidered bere (Exod 23 1; N l m ~35.30; ~kXX42.1). 67. Of course, Dent 1.16 is not the only passage in the Old Testamentpleading to a* judgement; cf h e l m n 69. 68. Maloney, GospelofJo~p.246,isrighttopoiatmthe-t~ve~~ref~man ongoing pmcess mat meats 'a habitual way ofj&ingg.

94

Deuteronomy in the New Tesiament

ignore Isa. 11.3 as a possible source for Jn 7.24, especially in a Greek variant closer to the Hebrew. Indeed, the idea taken up in Jn 7.24 is also found in other Old Testament textsWand so an allusionto Deut. 1.16-17 must remain uncertain. It is a text which readers who are familiar with Deuteronomy may take into consideration for firing the general reference to the law with a particular example. Jn 7.33-36 (Deut. 4.29: Isa. 55.6) Jn 7.33-36 formulatesthe problem that fosters Johannine post-Easter bameneutics. During his earthly life, Jesus waspresent tohis contemporariesku rrappqoia ('openly'; 7.4, 13; 11.54; 18.20).70The Jewish addressees do not understand the matter raised, because they do not share Jesus' 'universe of discourse' forthey do not know Jesus' origin witb the father (1.18; cf. 1.1) nor his destination to return to the father. Thus there is a time where there is no direct access to Jesus, a time of searching for Jesus in vain: 'You will search ((~TI~OETE) for me, but you will not find (~Aprjoen)me; and where I am, you cannot come' (Jn 7.34). Two possible pretexts are Deut. 4.29 and Isa. 55.6:'' Fmmtheeyoudseek(
While the structure of the parallel sentences differs between the Hebrew and the GreekOldTestament version ofIsa. 55.6,"they share the nearness ofGod as a condition to get in touch with him.Such a movement is close to John 7 where the accessibility of Jesus is bound to his life-time presence (v. 33: 'I will be with you a little while longer'). Because Deut. 4.29 misses such a condition, it is more plausible to think of Isa. 55.6 as a plausible pre-text, either in the Greek version or the more clearly structured Hebrew text However, I would not completely exclude an influence fmmDeut. 4.29. Theunbelief ofthe addresseeswuldimply that they do not search Jesus 'with all their heart' andthat they do notunderstand thenearness ofGod's presence in Jesus because they are accusednot to share the Johannioe hermenentical wncept

Jn 9.14 (Deut. 5.9) Jesus and his disciples meet a man born blind. Within ancient popular moral values, which were largely based on an action-consequenceprinciple, blindness 69. Cf. Deut 10.17; 16.19; 2 Chron. 19.7; Prov.28.23; see also Job 32.21; 34.19; Rov. 28.21; MaL 2.9 (ldhgjmidieal implicatiom). 70. Cf. Labahn,'Die rrappqoia des Goltessohoes',parsirn,on John 7 cf. ibid,pp. 32428. k 55.6;JerLXX36.13 71. There are texts~ef~rnthepbLwof~eanhiog~ndhdiogGod; (whichmay&& Deut 4.29: rdi i
5. Deuteronomy in John's Gospel

95

is thought to be a punishment for sin by the godsn Consequently, to be born blind could mean that the man did not sin himself.74Therefore, the question is asked, 'Rabbi, who s h e d , this man or his parents, that he was born blmd?' (Jn 9.2).75It is possible that Deut 5.9 (or Exod. 20.5) are in the background: 'I the LORD your God am ajealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me.' Deut. 5.9 and Exod. 20.5 are elemental texts mentioning a sin for which the children are punished instead of the parents, though such a conception is not undisputed, even within Deuteronomy itself (cf. 24.16). It is probable that Jn 9.2 alludes to the 'Ten Commandments', but due to the general character ofthe reference it is not possible to decide which version of the Ten Commandmentswas in mind. Moreover, since the Ten Commandmentswere part of the cultural memory of the Jewish people, the reference may originate there.

Theological, Christological andEthical Features Takenfrom the Book of Deuteronomy Within the last section I will address myself very briefly to some of the motifs within the Gospel of John that have parallels in the book ofDeuteronomy. These motifs should, according to my analysis, be counted neither as quotations nor within the category of allusions. However, the material mentioned hereafter indicates that the narrator of John's Gospel is much more concemedwiththebckof Deuteronomy than the small number of quotations from or allusions to the book may indicate. Nevertheless, it is much more complicated to constitute a direct relationship to the written book of Deuteronomy because some of these motifs seem to be rather popular within Old Testament and ancient Judaism. There are two main areas to take into account. With regard to Johannine theology and ethics the motifLove of God/Jesus and Carefor God's Commandments (Ju5.42; 8.41-42; 14.1576andDeut6.4-6;seealso 7.9-11; 10.12-13; 11.1,13-14, 22; 13.3[4]-4[5]; 19.9; 30.6, 16, 19-20; cf. Jn 8.51 and Deut. 4.1-4) has to be

73. C t the mareial p e n r e d by Labahn, Je,.vur u l ~Lebm.~rpedr.r.p. 233 n 101. For the Old Teqtament rf 1.c~ 2616; DLut 26.28:'ThcI.ORDwill amict you wth mdmes, btiodnerr,andconfusion of mind'; see M L. Brown, Isroel'k DivineHeoler (Studies in Old T-ent BiblicalTkmlogy; Gmnd Rapids, MI: Zondavao, 1995), p. 241. 74. But see the discussion about orenatal siimine in rabbinic literature: Gen. Rob 63.6:

rn M labahn i d B J Lseraen P-rbolte (eds),A ~ m d uifago f ~Ln.ier\tudt~y Uqtr tn rk, \eJesps,amc,nt dnrlzt, R c ~ , xfnv,ronmen.nl I ~ ~ (LNTS,306, L n n h & New York T&T Clark, 2W7),. rn . 13-56 (52-3); ~ e t z n ; ,Slinde, pp. 75-5. 76. John 13.3635 isnotto be eonsideredhere.Introducedasanew ernJohn 13.3&35 receives its aothorty hmJesus; so U. Sehnelle, 'Johaoneische Ethik', in C. Bilttrich (ed),Eschotologie und Ethik i m f i h e n Chrirtenmm (ES G. Haufe; M w a l d e theolagische Forschungq 11; F r d h V M . : Peter-, 2W6), pp. 309-27 (317); G. Theissen, DieReli@ion der mrn Christen. Eine Theoriedes U~chnstnhrmr(GUtRsloh: GatRslohaVelag, 2000), p. 270, obsnverightly,howe v e , an i w d relatiomhipto Lev. 19.17-18 is not excluded

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

96

mentioned" According to Beutler, the Johannine commandment of mutual love ofbrothers and sisters is a direct development out of Deut. 6.4-5.18 Here, Johannine intratextuality - the motif of immanence of father and son- and intertextuality both have to be considered Without discussinghere the adequateness of the tide the Prophet to Come (Jn 1.21; 6.14; 7.40; 9.17 andDwt 18.15-18; cf. Jn5.43; 12.49-50 p e u t 18.18-201) within Johannine Christology,Deuteronomy 18canbe mentioned as areference for the Johannine concept79However, it is noteworthy that a messianicprophet to come is mentionedin some Jewish texts especially from Qumran as well.80See further:

.

The True Works of God (Jn 5.20; 7.18; 8.16-18 and Deut. 32.4), Life and Scriphrre (Jn 5.39-40 andDeut 30.16-20; 32.47),8' To Give Honour to the Father and to the Son (Jn 5.22-23 and Deut. 5 4 , Moses, theProvideroftheLaw (3117.19 andDeut. 27.1-3; 31.9; 32.44-46), Serving God, the Lord(Jn 16.2 and Deut 31.9; 32.44-46).

77. On the Johannine conomnon of Love ofGod 11and cam far Cmd's commandments,ree I. Augmnem, Dw la~hrsgrbutim Juhonn'~.~e~mgel&m v l d i n d m h ~ h m n c \ b N ~ f(BWANT, e~ 1%; Stvttgan: Kohlhammer, 1993),pp. 183-&1;BeMler,'Hauptgebot',pp. 107-20. Theclosenasofhc l a h ~ e c o o c r p l o f c o ~ m t u , t h c w ~ ~ m D s u t ~ ~ o n o m y ib~yaRlE.sBrows4n o~cd I ~ d u e t i o n t othe GospelofJohn(ed F.J. ~ o l o n e ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ,Doubleday,2003),p. ~ e w ~ o r k : 135. t to be found i n m The combinationoflove ofGodand keeping his ~ d m m & i s n oonly momv:.however. it is a fornulaic statemento h found emeciallv in this Biblical bmk CE Banla. 'Aauptgebot', p. 117: within the Bible the formulahas i& 'plivilegedplace' inthe bookofDeutemnomv. On the formulacf.N . LohfinkDar Hmr~tne6r.EineUntersuchunplitwarischwEinleimmf i O ~ C nrn I)m j-I 1 (Analecla Btblrca, 20; ~ o & ~ ~ o n t m chttou u , ~ibli&,1963);oa h e nlatiooslup of love and commandmrnt m D e u t ~ m m cf y H.Spicckmmw 'Milder Llcbe un Wort Em &mag zur Thwlogie des D c u t m o a ~ u m s 'in , Spiccknmana,Guttr~Lwbzn, lrrorl Smddmxr Thrr,logr~ d,:i .41rtm Terramrnrs (Fonehung~nrum AllenTe~Zam'nl 33, TObinga: Mahr Siebeck 2001), pp. 157-72; L. Perlig "'Evangelium" undGesek im Dmemnomium', in PerligDeuremnomim-Stden (Fomchungen m Alten Testament, 8; Tiibingm: Mohr Siebeck 1994),pp. 17243. Beutlerpoints also to Jn 5.42 and 8.4142 (Bmtler, 'Hmptgebn', pp. 111-15). He strsses this r e h t i d p as a reference to the OldTedanent 'Bundestheologie' @p.118-19). 78. Beutler, 'DieJohaooesbriefe indeneu~tenlaaatlrr(1978-1985)', inBeutler,SNdien,pp. 12140 (132). Chrirtolom 79. Sce W.A Me&, The hnhet-Kinp: Moses T r d o n r rmd the Joh& (NovTSup, 14: Leida: Brill, 1%7);M.-k Boirmsrd, Mo.vrso r J w AnEssqvmJuhmineChrirtolow - (Mmmaplir: Fomsr, 1993);K S. Fuglsab JohotmmeE~1anontimin Pempecliw. A 9x10logical, HirtoTicol, rmd Compmafiw Amlysir of Tolple rmdSoiocio1 relationships h the Gospel of John, Philo, o n d Q m r m (NovTSup, 119; Leiden et a/.: Brill, 2003, p. 266. See alsoJ. Lierman, The New Testament Moses: Christim Perceptions ofMoses andIsroe1 in the Sening @Jewish Religion (WUNT, IU173; Ttlbingen: Mohr Sicbeck, 2004), pp. 111-12, referring to a ]dog Some scholars neelectanallusiontoMosesaadlo~De~mmm 18-soA O ~ D i e c ~ o l o p i r e h e E r.t t i l .l u w drr.S~hrrfrrm Juhannrrolm~cliurn Ldne U n ~ r s u c h u n ~ ; u r , o I ~ ~ n wIlennenrunk ~~~~hen u n W & E h n l r r ~ w v(WLWT, U 83, Tibm~en:Mohr Stebeck 19961,. nr. . 13X39.370 a 14. See LabJrsm oh ~~bc&~pendcr, p. 278 a 72. 81. Oberm.nsChri~tolo~~heE~IIungdaSchTift,p.375,whopo~&to~ab~licaltodsrs well: p. 379.

.

80.

.

.

5. Deuteronomy in John's Gospel

97

All of the entries in this list stand in a close relationship to the maturing of Johannine ideas and indicate how seriously Johannine ethics, Christology and theology are established in dialogue with Deuteronomy. Neveaheless, a close look at the motifs mentioned above will show in what respect the narrator ofthe Gospel or perhaps already his school or community, shape those ideas in regard to the needs of their own theological and christological images. Conclusions The above shows that themes and motifs from the book of Deuteronomy are present throughout the fourth Gospel. The fourth evangelist develops his christological and theological insights in dialogue with Deuteronomy. Ethics especially, the central idea of love of God andlor Jesus and the care for their commandments, are developed in a creative dialogue with ideas &omthe book of Deuteronomy. It is important to maintain that result when drawing implications from the relative paucity of quotations and allusions. It is surprisiig that quotations(that occur scarcely and are disputed) and allusions cannot be foundeverywherein the Gospel. According to my analysis, most ofthem occur only in polemical contexts: John 5 and John 7-8. In confrontation with Jewish opponents, the Johannine Jesus uses material from Deuteronomy which is most prominent for the religious self-understandingofthe Jewish people (especially Deut. 6.4-6). John uses texts from Deuteronomy to descnie and to counter the position ofthe Jewishpeople. It might be suspectedthat at least some of these texts were used in discussion of the Johannine school with representatives of Jewish synagogues. It is not a debate regarding the meaning of the pretext but regarding hermeneutics. John shares a strong emphasis on monotheism but within a christologicaluniverseofthougW2that is unacceptableto his Jewish opponents within (and outside) the text. Consequently, the Gospel text opens a window to the extratextual ancient world The hermeneutical strategy is receptive; the narrator claims the Scripture according to his own understanding and reads it withhis own christological and theological interpretationin mind Thus, Scriptwe becomes an argument approved in the text speaking against Jewish opponents in the text. From the above discussion it can be shown that most of the possible references are reworked with regard to the innertextual religious language, thought and value-system of John. Therefore it is sometimes dij3icult to decide whether we can h d an intra-textual repetition or variation of Johanninemotifs or thoughts or ifit was an intentionalintertextuallink opening up a dialoguewith other texts. Moreover, the c k t e r of an intmtextual play may not ahvays be fixed to one singlepre-text (7.33-36). And further, as already mentioned in the introduction, it

RZ See U SehneUe, 'Tmrtanwhr. Dmkm ~mJohaooerevangcbum', ur Labahn, Scholwwk Strom~ann(eds),Isrod und rand Hnl\nadtnonm rm Johonne~~~ungrbum, pp 367-86

98

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

cannot always be decided for sure if a reference goes back to a written text or to the reception ofthat text by public memory (cf. 5.44; 7.51; 9.2; see also 8.54). In the latter case, the intertextual play operates with material which is itself part of that kind of play. Because of the nature of the texts under investigation in this study, it has not been possible to decide whether they presuppose a Greek or Hebrew version of theirpre-text. However, there is no clear sign that a Hebrew pre-text needs to be assumed and sometimes the Greek one is the most probable source.

Chapter 6 DEUTERONOMY IN GALATIANS AND ROMANS

Roy E. Ciampa

Introduction Romans has the greatest density ofbiblical quotations of all the book of theNew Testament, with 7.2 verses per quotation. Galatians comes fourth in lme, behind Hebrews and 1 Peter, with 12.5 verses per quotation.' Of course, the quotations arenot found evenly distributed throughout the letters. They tend to be clumped together in sections where a variety of scriptural texts are drawn together and interpreted in light of each other. Since it is clear that Paul is generally foUowing the Septuagint,primaryreferencewill be made to that ancient versionin discussing his use of Deuteronomy.

Deuteronony in Galatians There are two explicit quotations from Deuteronomy in Galatians, and both of them mention a curse. Two other echoes of Deuteronomy also relate to that theme. Among other things, Pauluses Deuteronomy in Galatiansto explain how people fall under the curse of the Law and how they can find redemption from it through Jesus Christ.

Gal. 1.8-9/Deut. 13.12-16 (echo)' Paul describes the Galatians' situation as one of impendingapostasy fromGodthey are 'turning quickly from [God]who calledthem' (1.6). Moreprecisely, it is a situation in which the Galatians are being seduced towards apostasy by some teachers who have come into their midst. When Paul a h twice (w.8-9) that anyone preaching a gospel message differenth m the one he proclaimed to them should be accursed, or anathematized (&vaO~paEmo) he seems to be echoing Deut. 13.12-16 LXX, where the Israelites are told that if people try to lead the inhabitants of one of their towns astray by promoting the worship of other gods 1. Statistics +&en from Stwe Moyise, 'Isaiah in 1 Peter', in S. Moyise and M. J. I. Menken (eds), Isaiah in ihe New Tesfment(London& N m York: T&T Clark, 2005), p. 175 e 1. 2.

The following is only slightly adapledfiammy ~ u l l e r d i s ~ ~of ~ ithis o nin ThePru-enceand I and2 (WUNT,2.102;Taingac Mohr Siebeck, 1998),pp. 83-88.

Function of S m p N ~ in e Gold-

100

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

they should (among other things) cursethem with the curse (or anathematize them with the anathema- &va8k8~ua~1 &vu8rpa~tG~~). In the Hebrew text the penalty was the ban @Ti), which was translated into Greek as hvdr8~pa.~ There was a transitionin Second Temple Judaism &omexecuting offendersto excommunicating them (with the use of curses) as apreparation or substitution for such punishment4R 0.Sandnes has pointed out that the three examples of seducing to apostasy inDeuteronomy 13(w.2-6,7-11,13-18) 'have a structure which resembles that of Gal. 1.8-9' in that each is structnredby an opening conditional clause (idrv 66)with an accusationwhichis followed by a statement ofthe puni~hment'.~ Furthermore, the 'third instance in Deuteronomy 13 defines the punishment in the others as a curse. Deut. 13.1-6 thus witnesses that false prophecy and curse belonged together in the traditio~'.~ It seems reasonableto understandPaul's curses on those who entice God'speople to turn away from him to be apostolic declarations whose content is based on the scriptural ban on people who do the same thing @eut 13.12-15).

Gal. 2.6Deut. 10.17 (echo) In the middle of his discussionofhis relationship with the apostles in Jerusalem (2.1-10) Paul cites a maxim on the impartiality of God - 'God does not show favouritism' (rrp6aw~rovfi] BE& &vBp&rrouoh Aa$av~~).Deut 10.17 is the primary source for the aEumation of God's impartiality (oh 8aupac~1 rrp6oorrov), a truth that is reaffirmed throughout the Old Testament and early Jewish literature (2 Chron. 19.7; Sir. 35.12-13; Jub. 5.16; 21.4; 30.16; 33.18; Pss.Sol. 2.18; 2Apoc. Bar. 13.8;44.4; 1Enoch 63.8; andBib. Ant. 20.4).'lnmanyofthese texts there is an element of warning to those whose power may lead them to be proud or arrogant or who may be tempted to oppress those less powerful than themselves. Paul bas just finished asserting his own unwillingness to give in to those who were seeking to exercise power and social iduence in a way he felt inappropriate. Like God himself, he cannot be expected to show p-ty by bowing to human influence.

divd8jrvo and bva&uai~
3.

4

6. Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans

Gal. 3.10Deut. 27.26 (quotation) Deut. 2 7 . 2 6 ~ ~ ~

Gal. 3.10

Cursed is any man who does not continue in all For all those who identify themselves with the w o h of the Law are under a m e , for il is the words of this Law so as to do them written, 'Cum& is anyone who does not continue in all the things written in the book of the Law so astodothem'

The twin motifs ofblessing and curse occupy Paul's argument in Gal. 3.1-14. The texts &om Deuteronomy are engaged in dialogue with Gen. 15.6; 12.3 (18.18; 22.18), Hab. 2.4 and Lev. 18.5, which provide the background on the blessing of Abraham and two alternative approaches to finding life. The opening 'for' (ycip) indicatesthatthepassagebeginrimginv. 10 serves to confirm the point ofthe previous passage, especially v. 9, that those with faith are the ones who receive the blessing of Abraham. That point is establishedby the introductionof the contrastingmotif ofthe curse, which is understoodto be upon those who take the alternative approach to membership in God's people - the Mosaic Law. As Hays indicates, the reference to Deuteronomy clarifies which curse Paul has in mind. 'When Paul's allusion to Deuteronomy is taken fully into account, one time-worn issue of Pauline exegesis solves itself: "the curse of the law" fiom which Christ redeems us (Gal. 3.13) is not the law itselfregarded as a curse, but the curse that the Law pronounces in Deuteronomy 27': Christopher Stanley thioks 'the informed audience would have found ample reason to question the legitimacy of Paul's biblical argumentation' in w. 10-14. 'Whereas the quotation pronounces a curse on the person who failsto abide by the requirements of Torah, Paul applies the curse to those who seek to comply with the lawsof T~rah'.~ Francis Watson admits that 'Paul here appears to universalize a scriptural statement which refers prima facie to only one of the two main categories of those addressed by the law: those who transgress it, as opposed to those who observe it'.Io He suggests Paul has adopted 'a consecutive reading of his texts fiom Leviticus andDeuteronomy, in which the latter effectively cancels the former'. This brings to the surface 'a severe internal tension within the mcial closing chapters of Deuteronomy: the tension between conditional statements, which imply the choice between blessing and curse, life and death is genuinely open, and statements of prophetic denunciation, in which the realition of the curse has become a certainty'."

8. RB.Hay$EchwsofScn'phrreintheLenersofPaI~ewHavenandLondon:YaleUni~~sity Ress, 19893, pp. 2 0 3 4 n 24. 9. C. D. Stanley, A w i n g with Sm'pNre: The Rheroric of Quorotionr in the Lertws of P a l (rondon & New Ynk: T&T Clark, 2W),pp. 123-4. lo. F. W a ~ nP,a l mdthPHemeneutics o f F d (rondon& New York T&T Clark, u)04), p. 427. 11. Wabon.Pmr1 andtheHermennrtics ofFaith, p. 429.

102

Deuteronomy in the New Tesrament

Admitting that in the local context of this verse 'it is certainly not those who practice w o h of the law who are under this curse', Watson argues that 'in the wider context of the concluding chapters of Deuteronomy, things are not so stmightforward. In these chapters, the curse that is initially directedaffdinst lawbreakers is extended so as to encompass all Israel'." Perhaps it would be more precise to suggest that while both Leviticus andDeuteronomy 'imply the choice between blessing and curse, life and death is genuinely open' the latter indicates that the choice and application of the curse would eventually be universal, and Paul understands himself andhis readers to be living in the periodsince the curse of the Law has fallen defioitively on his people. Paul's wording does not match the ixuform ofthis text exactlyI3and Watson thinks it 'evident fiom the form of Paul's citation of Deut 27.26 that he has in mind more than an isolated proof-text'." The differences in wording between Paul's quotation of the verse and that which is found in the ixumay reflect the influenceof some texts from later on inDeuteronomythat refer not simply to the Law or commandment, but to 'this book' or 'the book ofthe Law' (esp, 28.58,61; 28.61; 29.20; 30.10).15 It seems a 'sbift occurs here from law as oral proclamation ('the words of this law', 27.26) to an identificationbetween law and the book of Deuteronomy itself'.I6 Fuahermore, in these othertexts "'thebookofthe law" is associatedwith the threat -and indeed the certainty -that the law's curse presents the destiny ofthe entire people, andnotjust of individual law-breakers'." This is in keeping with a common (although not universal) understanding in Paul's day that the curse of the Law had fallen on Israel and Judah, and, as has been pointed out by others, a number of early Jewish texts reflect the understanding that the curse of the Law had fallen on Israel in its later history and had yet to be fully liftdls Paul's citation of this verse makes much better sense if it is understood not merely as a reference to the meaning of the words in the nearest context buq as 12. Watson,Paul ondfheHermemticsof Faifh, p. 430. 13. For a careful word-by-wordcomparison ofPaul's tea with the rxx of this verse, see C.D. Stanley,Poul mdtheLm,guageofSoip~ure:Citation Techniquein thePaulineEpirtles mtdContcmp o r q Liferamre (SNTSMS, 69;Cambridge: Cambridge University Ress, 1992), pp. 23843. 14. Watson,Paul ondtheHermeneutics ofFoith, p. 431. 15. ~precisewording,'EvTGPtPAig mC vbllou,f fomdinDeut28.61;29.19,20,26;30.10; and Jm. 23.6. 16. Watson,Poul &the Hermeneuticr of Faith, p. 431. 17. Watson,Poul and the Hermeneutics ofFoith, p. 432. 18. E.z., 0.H.Steck, 'Dm Problem theolo~scherSmmunzen in nachadlischerZeit', EvT28 (1%8),6445-58. M.A b i b . 'TheExilcio the ~~umtwcu~thclnlmestamen~ll P m o d ' . l l r d 17 (1976).pp. 253--72; N T.W"gh< The .Vtw lu.~tumentu d r h r PeupL ofGd(Chnfiao Chighs and the~ue%onafGod;~andon: SPCK, 1992),pp. 139-43,26872;C. M.Pate,J. S. ~wall,~.6 Hay% E.R Richards,W.D.Tucker 11.and P.Van& The Story of Isroe11A Biblical Theology (Downers Grove,U:htaVmily,2W), pp. 10S118;C.k Evans, 'Jesus &the Conthing Exile o h L ' in C.C.Newman(ed), Jesus & theRestorotion of1smel:A CrificalAssessmoltqfN T W ~ g h t 'Jesw s andthe Victoryof God@owners Grove,U:JnterVarsity,1999),pp.77-100; S. G.Dempster,Dominion m t d l l y m t y : A Biblical Theology of theHebrew Bible (New Shldies in Biblical Theology, 15; D m e r s Grove, U:InterVmity,2W3), p. 219 n. 7.

6. Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans

103

suggestedby the incorporation of language h m later texts dealingwith the curse and by other ancient Jewishunderstaadings, as areferenceto the curse which was understoodby the endofthe book of Deutemnomy, and certainlyby Paul's time, to have fallen on Jews as a whole, the curse h m which some Jews continued to await redemption and consolation Gal. 3.13Deut. 21.23 (quotation) Deut 21.22-23 LJX

Gal. 3.13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law If someone is found to have wmmitkd a sin which is punishable by death and youhang him by becoming accursed for ow sakes, since it is on a tree [or gallows], you must not let his body written, 'anyone who is hung on a treelgallows remain upon tbe tree all night, bllt you must bury is cursed'. them on that same day, for anyone hmg on a m [or gallows] is cursed by God and you must not d&e the land which the Lord yow God is giving you for an inheritance.

Having argued in the previous verses that the blessing comes duough faith in Christ rather than through the Law of Moses and that those who are committedto an identity based on the latter are nuder a curse, Paul cites Deut. 21.23 in order to explain how it is that that some find redemption from the Law's curse. Stanley thinks Paul's use of this verse wouldhave added yet more fuel to the infamedaudience's growing suspicion of Paul's .rgument~from the Jewish Scriptures. A glance at the ori&al passage would have ~ shown that the verse ~ a uql n o t e i ~ y &ers to the ancient practice of-z the dead body of a wnvicted aimid an atree for public display,not the redeemingdeath of a d e d M e s s i a h . Only by extractingthe vase fromits originalcontext andrevisingirs wording wuld Paul claim that it refers to the death of Jesus. Forthe informed audience, the tendentiownem of such areading wouldhave been obviou~.'~

Paul does not say theverse refers to Christ, however, but indicatesthat we can learn from it how Christ's death might provide a means of redemption from a curse. As Watson insists the snipml text functions as a valid piece of legislatian, and not as a prophecy of Christ R& than speakiog directly of Chist, il refers to everyone hanged upon the wwd-including Christ Of course, notevqone who is hanged uponthe wwd becomes a nose form, as Christ dos; Paul -ot extraathe saving si@cance of the mci6xion fmm Dentemnomy. What he cao do is to reflect on the scriphd connection behueen ~ublicexecution and the divioe curse, and to ask what light thatconnection sheds on the red@on Christ has achievedzo

Watson recomtmcts an exegetical argument for extending the Law to those who were bung not as a separate act from the execution but as the means of executionz' That the same Law (and evaluation of the executed person) would be 19. Stanley, Arguing with ScnpIure, pp. 1216. 20. Wats09 P a l &the Hennozeutiw ofFoith, p. 422. 21. Cf.Watson,Poul and the Hmnoleutiw of Fnirh, pp. 420-21.

104

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

understood to apply to a form of execution that incorporates the act of public expasure.of the convict (and the corpse) into the method ofexecution itselfwould not seem to require significant comment, anddid not seem to merit such comment in 1 I Q19 LXTV 10-12 where the law cited by Paul is applicd in just such case." Paul's wording ofthe quotation ofthis v e r s e reilectsthe use of analternalive for the Greek wordused for 'curse' in the ~ x (ET~IKCITU~UTOS x instead of KEKUq p a p ~ v o s )The . word used in the ~ x isxonly used in one other place in Denteronomy (23.5 [23.4]), while the word Paul substitutes is used repeatedly in Deuteronomy 27-28 L x x (27.15, 16,17, 18, 19,20,21,22,23 [x2], 24,25,26; 28.16 [x2], 19 [x2]). The verbal substitution not only helps to more closely associate this verse with apredominanttheme in chapters 27-28, it also 'assimilates this passage to the opening words of Deuteronomy 27.26 (cited in Gal. 3.10)'.24As Watson stresses,Paul's assimilation of one text to theotherpromotes the recognition of a connection between the two texts which is of fundamental importance for his argument.= He recognizes that this verse enables Paul to speak of the m e r of the redemption aehiend by Christ - in par6&, that this involveshis entering fully into the dire state ofthoseneedingto be redeemed Inhis cruWon, Christ himelfwas subject tothevery curse*om which he seek to I i i t e othas: and Paul Learns this from the Deuteronomy tea rather than merely using it to c o b what he already

Obviously, Paul did not learn this from Deuteronomy based on the similar wording of the two texts (since they were. not similarly worded), but having deduced the relationship based on the two different ways in which people might be cursed, his rewording of the text serves to encourage his readers to recognize the connection as well. Arguably the most significant difference between Paul's rendering of Deut. 21.23 and that found in the L x x (and the HB) is that the latter explicitly says the person hung is cursed 'by God', while Paul's text doesnot. Many thinkthis deviation is of tremendous importance.17 In both Gal. 3.10 and 3.13, however, Paul undembnds the curse to be one which is threatened by God and carried out by 22. See the text and discussion in Watsm, Paul and the H e m m t i c s ofFaith, p. 420. 23. For a eanfulword-by-word cornpadson of Paul's tent with the uor here, see Stanley, Paul &the Lrmwoze - . ofSmbture. . . .w. . 245-8. 24. Warson, Paul undth< Hermmzuncr o f F d h ,p. 422. So also M. Silva 'Galatians and Philip piaas' in D. A Carson and G. K. Beale (eds), ( b m m e a m , vn rhr, Ore ,,/the Old Td.v~mmrm the k

v Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, forthu)ming).

25. Watson, Poul m d theHenn-ria

ofFaifh,p. 422. 26. Watson.Prm1 &theHennmeytics ofFnith,p. 422. Similarly,Hays (Echoes,p. 169): 'Scrip Me spoke the tmth when it said, "Ctmed is every rme who is hanged upon a m" but Paul now constnrsthattruthinanimnic&byhm~upon~tRe,Jesus~ecunedinaderthat blesdng might aarue 0 others.' 27. Cf thevadousviews ofJ. L. Martm Golotl'm: A N w Trmldon uith InbodLCtion & Commmrmy(AB,3 3 4 New York: Doubleday, 1997). pp. 32&21; E &Win B m n , A C r i n l d u d ~irwe~icul Commentary on the E~istlrnr the Galar,nm OCC; Edinb*: T&T Clark, IYZl), w . 1&$ F. F. 9-, ~ h e ~ p i s t il teh e ~ d ~ ~ t Commentmy i m : ~ on the Greek ~ e x (NIGTC; r -d Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p.165; Stanley,Paul and the Longuoge of Scripture,p. 247.

6. Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans

105

him in accordance with the warning given in the law, so that the 'curse of the Law', is hardly to be distinguished fiom 'cursed by God'." The omission of 'by God' may simply be explained on the same basis as the substitution of the alternative word for 'cursed', namely, that Paul conforms the style ofthe quotation in v. 13to that ofthe quotation in v. 10. Rather than having 'cursed [is] everyone' in the first case and then 'cursed by God [is] everyone' in the second, he conforms the second quotation to the first. With eachquotebeginning in precisely the same way, 'cursed is everyone ...' ( ' ~ r r t ~ a ~ a p a ~rr6v) o v the suggestion of a theological relationship between the two verses is enhanced by the clear limguistic parallel between them. Deuteronomy in Romans

In his use of Deuteronomyin Romans Paul seems to focus on the goodness and holiness of the Law and Israel's contrasting dullness andunresponsiveness to it, andon the explanatorypower ofthe Song of Moses for understanding the role of Paul's ministry and its intended outcomes among both Jews and Gentiles. Rom. 7.7/Deut. 5.21[Exod. 20.1 71 (quotation) Deut 5.21 rn

Rom. 7.7

You must not covet your neighbur's wife. You What wiU we say then? That the Law is sin? must not covet your neighbur's house, his field, Out of the question! But I would not have his male savant, his fd m a n \ his ox, his known sin if it wae not throughthe Law. I donkey, animal, or anything- else that would not have known what it is to met ifthe . his pack . Law had not said, 'You must not covet' belongs to your neighbur. ~

The quoted text from the Ten Commandmentsis identical in both Deut 5.21 and Ex& 20.17,but when Paul quotes it again inRom. 13.9 it is clearthathe is citing from Deuteronomy (see below). Watson seems to be on target in suggestingthat the Sephlagint's version ofthe commands regarding coveting serves 'to differentiate sexual desire for an illicit object fromthe other prohibited desires andto pre sent it as paradigmatic of all suchprohiibiteddesires'. In this way t h e ~ x 'invites x reflectionon the problematicnature of"desire" as such, tacitly drawingupon the oftennegative connotationsof the correspondingGreek noun,epithumio.Paul can therefore cite the tenth commandment in an abbreviated form in which "desii" itself is prohibited, without reference to specificobjects'. This abbreviation 'has the effect of widening the scope ofthe c o m d m e n t ' 2 9Others have pointed out

28. Cf R N. Longenecker, Golathns (WBC, 41; Dallas: Word, 1990). p. 122. 29. Watson, Pmrl and the Hermeneutics of Foirh, pp. 361-2. Willjam Loader (The Sepmogint. Sauolinr ondrheNov Testmenr CoseStwlie~onthelmpactofrheOMinPhilowdfheNovTertD mmr [C&d Rap& Fmdmns, 20041, p ~5.1 1) pmri& 3 d&ed & w k o n of the prarmn~mee and signulcance of this particular phibition mthe I.=,which he &inks has a stronger wxual wnnctationthan the ~ e b n w a n d which cove&g (or Lusting over) one's neighbour's wife befme

106

Deuteronomy in the New Testamenr

that 'the generaking omission of the compound objects (n!lv yuuai~aKTA.) when citing this commandment is standard practice in Dispora Judaism'."" Rom. 10.6-9Deut. 9.4; 30.11-14 (quotation) Deul. 9.4 rxu

Do not say heart, when the Lord your . in your . God cam out thcs natiom frum before you, '11 s because o f my righteousness that rhc Lord has brought me in ;o G e r i t this gwd land'.

Rom. 10.6-10

The righteousless bssed on faith speaks this . way 'Donot ray in your h e w "Who will go np

rn heaven"' (that is, to bring Chnsl dom).

'or, "Who will go down to theabyss* ' (that is,

to bring Christ up h m the dead). But what dwsit say? 'The word is near to you. It is in your mouth and in your heart' (that is, 'the Dnrr. 30.11-14 m word' of faith that we preach). Because ifyou For this commaadment that I am m m m d i n g confess 'in your mouth' that Jesus is Lo* you today is not excessive M r is it far h m y o v and believe 'in your heart' that God has raised It I\ not m heaveo above, that you m~ghtsay. h~m h m h e dead, you wll be saved For one Who w ~ l gu l up w heaven for u aml take it for bebeves wrth the heart and is thmby ~u~,lrfied us so that we might hear and do it?' NOTis it and one confssw with the mouth i d is beyond the sea, &at you might say, 'Who will thereby saved go over to the other side of the sca for us and take it for us and make it audible for us SO mat we might do it?' Tbe word is verynear to you. It is in your m o d and in your heart and in yom haods to do i t

This passage contains an intriguing composite quotation,basedprimarily onDeut 30.1 1-14, but with the opening line taken fromDeut. 9.4. Thep;nt that represents Deut. 30.13 may reflect influence from Ps. 107.26 (106.26). Paul's interpretation of this text seems to go directly against its grain, raising many questions about the persuasiveness of Paul'suse of it inhis v e n t Hays describes Paul's usage here as 'an apparently capricious act of interpretation' in which 'Paul seizes Moses' admonitionto Israel, warning them to obey the Law without rationalization or excuse (Deut 30.1 1-14), and tums it info an uttemnce of The Righteousness h m Faith, a clwacter who contravenesthe manifest sense of Moses' words by transmuting them into a cryptic prophecy of the Ciuistiangospel as preached by Paul'."' Paul's attriiution of the quotation to 'the righteousness based on faith' may provide a clue as to the somewhat unusual nature of Paul's use of the text here.

cove6nghishouse,whichcomeshtintkHebrw ofExod 20.17(thewifewmesbdorethehouse inboth the Hebrew and the Lxx of Deut. 521). 30. Stanley, P a l &the Lonplage of Smpwe, p. 103, citing Diehid-Alex Koc4 Die Schn-fr 01s Zeuge der Evmgelium: Untmchungenzur Yawendung d a m Ywtrindnb derSchn-frbei Paulus (BHT, 69;Tfrbingen. Mohr Siebeck, 1986),p. 117 andK. -,Die Geselze(~s1egungJesu; Ihr historischerHintergmnd im Judmnrm dim Alten Tpsfmmt. Teil 1: Morkm undPornlIeIen (WMANT, 40; NeukirchewV1uyn: Neukkchener Verlag, 1972), pp. 34647. 31. Hays, Echoes,pp. 73--4.

6. Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans

107

Watson pints out that Paul's 'athibution of a scriptural text to a personified theological concept is ...highly nnusual' and that it also 'con@as&strikingly with the widespread tendency in Romans 9-1 1 to name the scriptural authors whose texts are cited'. He suggests Moses is not named as the source of this quotation 'because Paul has no intention ofciting this text in the fam in whichMoses wmte it'JZ Rather, Paul senses that the text 'must be rewritten so that it testifies to the righteousnessof faith, and against the righteousness ofthe Law as articulated in the Leviticus [18.5] citation'J3 Paul's use of a commentary orpesher-style interpretation suggests to others, however, that he expects his use of this text to be recognized as an earnest attemptto come to terms with its meaning and relevance for his readers. That commentary or pesher approach is seen in Paul's use of the expression 'that is' (TOUT' ~ T I V to )introduceinterpretiveglosses in the midst of the quoted textJ4It will be argued here that Paul indicates he is neither providing a simple exegesis ofthe text nor simply using it as a p i n t of departure to present atheologicalperspective that has no basis in the text. That Paul is not simply providing an exegesis ofthe text is strongly suggestedby his contrast between what 'Moses writes' in v. 5 and what 'the righteousness by faith' says in w. 6-10. He IS explicitly nut expounding on what Moses wrote. Paul has already indicated that the readers have been freed fmm the Law (Ram 7.1-4). Just before his rcferenee to what Moseswrote inRom. 10.5 Paul m e d t h a t 'Christ is the end ofthe Law for justification for all who believe' (10.4), suggesting he believed Christ brought about a signiscant chaoge in the way justification works. Although it may work differedy, it seems that in some ways it parallels the pattern suggested by Deuteronomy 30 and Paul provides his readers with a commentary on how the message ofDeut. 30.1 1-14playsout in the eschatological context established by Christ35 The bet key observationregarding the quotation itself is that the opening line, 'Do not say in your heart', does not come fiom the same passage as the rest of the quotation, but from Deut 9.4. Deut 30.11 refers to 'this commandment that I am commanding yon today' as something 'not too diflicult'. Watson suggests Paul attached these words to the front of his quotation 'in order to conceal the fact that, in its literal sense, it speaksunambiguouslyofthe righteousnessof the law'J6 The context (w. 4-5) would seem to suggesttbaf rather than concealing the fact, Paul expects the readers to know that Moses' text deals with the 'righteousness based on the law' and that Cbrist has intmduced a signiscantchange. Some of that

32. Watson, P a l andtheHemeneutics ofFoth, p. 338. 33. Wasm,Poul &the Hmmoleutics ofFoirh,p. 338. 34. In the words ofHays (Echoes, D. 81). Pad's ' ~ v i s i o n a r v of ~ z!Jeut 30.14, -1oYi.z . h e pcshrr style, man each phrase of the p r c c m n k x t as a shanhaod ophrr for m element of the C h N m canfepsnon Pad w o r k am bs 8nkqmm011rn Rom I0 8-9 by expandugeach key urn of Deut 30.14.' Cf. Wamn, Poul &theHemoleutics of Fairh, p. 336. 35. Cf.Hay~Echoes,p.82:'PaulisnotmerelyeehohgDeutagn~.~isan~ceofiineby-line d g , a s h g explicitly that the l a t s m of the Torah text is noar -ssed overtly in the gaspel' 36. WBtoq P a l rmdtheHemene21rics ofFoith, p. 339.

108

Deuteronomy in the Nav Testament

change is reflected in the elements that Paul omits from his quotation: Deut 30.12-13 refers notjustto going great distances (up into heaven or across the sea) but also of getting, hearing and observzng the command, while v. 14 concludes by pointing out that God's word is nearby and available 'for you to observe'. Thus,while the text f?om which Paul is quoting gives great emphasisto the need to obey the Law of Moses, Paul omits those elements, introducing references to Christ and the gospel message in their place. 37 Paul suggests the fact that one neednot go up into heaven (Deut 30.12) indicates that it was not our task to bring Christ down (Rom. 10.6; r e f d g to his incamation or i n d o n and death). While Deut. 30.13 goes on to dismiss any need to go across the sea to find the commandment (and do it), Paul's version refers to no needto go down to the abys~.'~ Duon suggests 'the possibility cannot be excluded that there was atext form of Deut 30 in which the horizontal contrast (heavenlother side of the sea) had been replaced by the vertical contrast' but admits it is more likely that 'the two contrasts were recognized in Jewish cucles as equivalent, so that one could be used in place of or to supplement the other without loss of or addition to the meaning'.'9 Of course, the veaical contrast fits Paul's needs much better, providmg him with the means to relate Deut. 30.13 to the message ofthe resurrection. As the Israelites didnot need to travel to heaven or across the sea to find God's command and do it (because God has made it accessible and easy), Paul's gospel assertsthat one need not bring Christ to earth or raise him from the dead (because God has already accomplishedthat for us). The 'word' that 'is near' is understood to be the 'word' (message) of faith preached by Paul. Deuteronomy's references to the mouth and the heart arerelated to the confession of Christ as Lord and faith in the truth of his rffunection since 'one believes with the heart and is thereby j d e d and one confesses with the mouth and is thereby saved'. Hays credits Dan Via with the observation that 'there is a deep structural between the theology ofthe word in Deuteronomv and in Paul: "God's life-eiving action seems to be intemreted in DeuteremeaningofDeut 30.11-i4 forPaulthenis the community of God's people empowers

maLingishis,notthcin'(aays,Edrom,p. 79; cf W ~ P o u l r m d r h e H m e n n m c r o f ~ a ~ t339; h,p. Stgnley, Poulmd the Language of S q m e , pp. 129-30) 38. It may be that Paul's adoptionofthe vertical mntasl was iotluencedby Ps. 107.26 (106.269, which @ally h ia divinely p o k e d qwrimce m horrible stmm-tossed seas as one of going up m the heaveas and Qwn to the abyss (hva~a'wmatvto5 rrju &pavrju aai xa-raBaivowa~v"Eos~ r j hBhaawv). v 39. 1. D. G.Dun, R o m m Y - 1 6 W C 38b; Dallas: Word, 2002). p. 606. Soalso,T. R Sehrana, R u m v (BECNT, 6; Graad Rap& Baker,1998). p. 559, who provides a helpful tin of evidence u, the effect mat 'the seaand the were closely ~dentifiedin~ewishthon&:Gen 12: 7.11; 82;

abyss

Deut 33.13;Jcb28.14; 38.16; Ps. 7120; Rw.320; 8.24; Jsa 44.27; 51.10; 63.12-13; Ezek.26.19; 31A,15;Amos 7.4; Joe2.3-10 Lxx, esp. 3-4,6;Hab. 3.10; Sir.24.56,29; 4323.

6. Deuteronomy in Galatians andRomans

109

the obedienceof faitW.40 Ellis sees the key not in the theology ofthe word, but in the theology of God's eschatologicalwork in the hearf since 'Deut. 30.6 speaks of the "circumcision of the heart", which Jer. 31.31 identdies with the New Covenant Deut 30.11-14does not merely concernthe "location" of the law but an attitude towards it, in which they love the Lord God "with all their h d @cut 30.6, 10, 16)'. He thinks 'Paul sees implicit in this an attitude of faith, which alone can fulfil the law (cf Ram. 8.4), and so applies the principle to his own day.'4i Deut. 30.1-14 moves back and forth between the present, the near future and the distant future. These different temporal orientations distinguish between the present moment, in which Israel is challengedtokeep God's 'near' and accessible commandments, and two different future contexts: the first in which judgement would come on the community for not keeping the commandments4zand a second in which God would transform the heart of his people so that their obedience would he a natural and easy thing (again?). The curse and death did not come on Israel immediately,but in time, along with a deahess andblindnessthat reflected uncircumcised hearts. The nearness of God's presence and word at the time of Moses' speech may have served as an empowering presence which led to the commandmentnot being too hard forthe people. Moses looks forward to a future day when God's presence and word would be restored to his people and they would love him and obey him again. That would wme about after they had returned to God and seen the end of their exile. Paul seems to understand that God himself has turned his chosen people's hearts back to him through the death and resurrection of Christ (that one, world-tlansfoanig, act of obedience) and the proclamation of the same."

40. Hays,Echoer,p. 163, CitingD. 0.V- J~,KqgmzondCome&infheNm Terment (?Medelphia: Fortress, 1975), pp. 62-3. 41. E.E.Ellis, Paul> Use of the Old Testmnenr (Grand RapidE: Baka, 1957), p. 123 n.1. 42. Perhaps as evidencethat God's word had some how^ less near and ~ i b since k it wasd-dven,althoughPaulse-tosu%gstinRom 5.12-21; 7.14-25mattheprobhgoes back to the death into which Adam ushaed h d t y in the b w b n h 43. Detdemwmy'o theology ofresunatlonbawdon tummg-back God in W e n c e is hardly abvot h m Paul's tbcologv.But Christ's own obdkm is d e n t e d to be key thar makes it possible forhis people toto God in W m e e . lo 2 Cor 3.16-17 Wul rap a v - d is r e m o d s h m e v n a Jew~ l mtothe r Lord(invxp&q np& K ~ J ~ I SOi V m Jh .i y , m I Shesr 1.9 Paul b i the convenicm of the Thessaloniansin tems oftummg to God @IEUTE~;~)~TE np& TAU EEAv), although h e x gentile mnversim are in mind Paul also uses the language of tuming to desmii mmiog away from God in ways which suggst tlre same people had previously m e d to him ( e g , Galatians 1.6; 4.9). The theme of obedience is alsonot lacking in Paul's theology. In fact, Romaos begios and ends with the theme of the 'obedience of faith' (1.5; 1626). W~thinthe letter he speaks of what God has accomplishedthrough him 'to bring the Ge& to obedience' (15.18). In 6.16 he &of 'obedience Leadim to ri&te~umess'(mpossiily to ' i ~ c a t i o n ' ;6ixa1winq).Paul's i s s a g e has to do with obedimcr :om the bean (6.17) to &c mrth (Rom 2.8; Gal 5.7). gospel (Rom. 10.16;2 The=. 18),orChna (2Cor. 10.54). It isChrist'sownobediena~chprovidesb key to the lighteo(and obedi-) ofhis people (5.19; cE Phil. 2.8)

thc

110

Deuteronomy in the New Tesfamenl

If the main point of Deut. 30.11-14 is that God's commandments were not difficult to 6ndand obey, Paul wants to affirmthat the same may also be said for the gospel message that he preaches (perhaps he would say, 'how much more

.\

Rom. 10.19/De2tt.32.21 (quotation) Deut. 32.21 M

They provoked me to jealwsy with what is not a god, they mgered me wah their idols. I will provoke them to jealousy with that which is not anation; I will anger them by means of a C d s h nation.

Rorn. 10.19

But I ask, did Israel not know? First Moses says, 'I will provoke you to jealwsy with that which isnot a nation; I d angeryou by means of a fmlish nafion'

This quotation is embedded within a series of quotations (from Isa. 52.7; 53.1; Ps.18.5 119.51; Isa. 65.1-2) dealing with the contrasting responses to the gospel among Jews (who have been generally unresponsive) and Gentiles (many of whomhave been responsive). Stanleypointsout thatin Ram. 10.19 'the focus of Paul's argument shifts fromthe universalavailability ofthe message of salvation (10.5-18) to the contrastingresponseof Jews andGentilesto the gospelmessage (10.19-1 1.36). The quotation in Ram. 10.19b thus occupies a key place in the structure ofRom. 10-11.' The quotation, then, does not merely supplya 'biblical justification for the statement in v. 19a' but it 'actually foreshadowsthe position that Paul will develop in fuller terms throughout the whole of chapter 11'.* The main storylie seemsto be providedby the quotes from Isaiah (which come in canonical order), with support in the middle fromthe Psalm and Deuteronomy 32. Paul's associationbetween Deut. 32.21 and Isaiah 65 may have been encouragedby the fact that the Hebrew word for 'provoke to anger' (OD)found in the former text also appears in Isa 65.3 (the verse following the two he quotes immediately after Deut 32.21). The only significantdifference between Paul's quotation and the ixx text is that Paul changes the two third person plural pronouns ('them'; a b t o k ) to secondpersonplural pronouns ('yon'; bpiis). Grammatical changes ofperson, number, tense, mood, etc. were quite wmmon in ancient quot a t i o n ~Stanley . ~ ~ suggests the 'element of rhetorical intensification that results h m framing the citation as an apostrophe to Israel highlights for the hearer the important place of this verse in the following discussion'P6 44. Stanley,Poul &the Language ofSrripture, pp. 143-4. 45. See Stanley,Pml ond the Language of Smphrre. p. 343 (Thewidenee collectedby Stanley & into question the suggestion oCE. E. EUis (Prophecy ondHmoreutic in Em.$ Chrirtimiry [GtmdRapids: Baker, 19931,p. 177) and othersthat such changes an indieationsthat a 'peshatechnigue'isat work KochandR Bellarguethechangewasmadebec;wsethethirdpersonm~mwas used in the previousverse with a differmtrefmin Paul's citation of Ps. 18.5 m. 'Paul &=fore changes the pron- in 10.19 to make it clearthatthe objecthas changedandthathe is wwrefaing to Inael' & H. Bell, ProvokzdtoJeolouy The &gin OndPwposeofrhe Jeo/oluyMoh~mRomans 9-11 2.63; Titbingen:M o b Sicbeck 1994% p. 96; c£ Kwh, Die Schn?, p. 110. 46. Stanley,PmlondtheLmrgwrge0fSm~1~re,p.144.W~on(PmlondtheHem~fi~~of

m,

6. Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romons

111

Stanley takes issue with Ross Wagner, who 'believes that Paul was drawing on the message of hope and restoration that comes at the end of Deut 32 rather than the language of judgment that fills the previous verses'." 'The verse that Paul chose to quote in Ram. 10.19 appears in the middle of a "judgment"passage that nms for at least 24 verses in our modem versions @eut. 32.15-38). For the "informed audience", the language of divinejudgment against Israel would have dominatedthehorizon, regardless ofPaul's intentions.'@Likemany otherpoetic and prophetic texts ofthe OldTestament, this passage moves fromjudgement to salvation and that pattern was common enough that Paul's readers might have expected it. The recognition that the Deuteronomy text predicts that judgement will fall on Israel need not be understood to conflict with the fact that that is not thought to be the end of the story, or even where this particular passage leaves o E After Israel suffersjudgement there will he judgement for their (and God's) enemies anddeliverance for Israel." 'Paul draws fromDeutemnomythe idea that God has transferred his favour from Israel to the "foolish nation", and that this naturally arouses Israel's "jealousy". Yet this jealousy is overcome as soon as it arises, for it is nothing other than the recognition of the fu%ent of Israel's ancesbal blessings in the midst of the Gentile world - and to recogoize this is already to participate in it and so to be 'saved".'>O

Rom. 11.8/Deut. 29.3(4)/Isa. 29.10 (quotation) Deut 29.3 m

Rom. 11.7-8

A n d & h r d G o d b a s n o t ~ v m y w a ~ t oWhatthen? Thatwhichlsraelsoughf itEdledto how, eyes to see and ears to hear, up to this obtain. The elect obtained&but the rest were hardened As it is writtq 'God gave them a day. spirit of s l u ~ ~eyes r , that would nut see and ears that would not hear, up to OUT very day.'

Faith, D. 447 n. 60) suzzests .- Paul's use of 'you' rather than 'them'mav . 'sueeest - that the zoneration has now m v c d for whom the Song was once wnttcn (for the Song', onenranon towards the future, ef Deut 31 16-21J' T h i s may be the case. ahhough it would rew that the pomt could have k o made more clearly by ch&g the verbs from-the future tense to p&t ('I am pmvoIdng/ angering them'). 47. Stanley,Arpanngwith Scripme, p. 163 a. 55,refezringto 1.R Wagner,Heralds of thP Good ~VovsIsoioh ondpoulin Concert b, fheklterto IheRomm (Leiden: Bdl, 2W3X pp. 1SiL205(cf. esp. pp. 1974). 1l should be pointed o=t that W w gives signill-t m a t t n to the motif of Ismel's apostssy and judgement (W. 194-5). 48. Stanley, Arauiw with Seripfure,P. 163 n. 55. 49 And ifwe are aiowcd to consldba b& narrative b o r n , that Judgemmtof(jmnla and delrverance of Israel oml not be the md of ihc rtory dnber, but perhaps all the farmher ofth~.cath will wentually experience the bleuings asmiat& witb &l's &mptim Paul seans to be foUoWingtheleadofotha'infomrcdaudience~'(suchastheLxxtranslatas)innadingDeut 32.43 in this way. See on Rom. 15.10. 50. Watson, Paul ond the Hcmeneutim of Faith, p. 448. For a f i discussion of the jealousy motif in R o m , see Ben, Pmvokedto Jeal~usy,pp. 81-166.

112

Deuteronomy in the ?Vew Testament

Paul presents a rewritten version of Deut. 29.4 t29.3 LXX], with the help of Isa 29.10, which provides the expression 'spirit of stupor'.S1 The new version transforms apeople who had not been given receptive hearts, eyes and ears to apeople who had been given a spirit of stupor and, with it, unreceptive eyes and ears. Watsonpoints out that '[rlatherthannegating "a heart to h o w " ...Paulreplaces this with the more vivid Isaianic "spirit of sleep", which fits well with the image of unseeing eyes and nnhearhg ears'." Moreover, it seems that for Paul 'the Israel of his own day is in exactly the same situation as the Israel addressed by Moses in the land ofMoab'.iWe thinks the broader context of Deuteronomy 29 may have provided Paul with some justification for this understanding, since Moses 'announces that the covenant in the landof Moab includes not only 'those who are here with us this day before the Lord our God' but also 'those who are not with us this day' (Deut. 29.14; cf. 5.3)" Rom. 12.19/Dart. 32.35 (quotation} Deur 32.35 m

Rom. 12.19

In&e dav ofvengeance I will may, Do not avenge beloved, but Leave . . w the .yourrefves, . occasion when their foot geis m d q ; for !he room for God's wrath, for it is wrilte9 day of their destmerion is neaymd those 'vengeace is mioe, I will repay' . . says !he which have been p q m e d for me at haod ~orh

In the midst of apassage dedicated to directions for living in Cbristian community Paul cites Deut. 32.35 in support of one of several exhortations dealing with the proper Christian response to being mieeated by others (including those who persecute you [12.14], those who dish out evil [v. 171, and one's enemies [v. 201). Verse 20 is presented in contrast with this verse so as to suggest that this verse addresses the way one should not deal with one's enemies (and why). In Deut. 32.35 God promises to repay Israel's enemies with divine vengeance. Paul follows early Jewish tradition in applyingthis promise to personal offences suffered at the hand of ungodly neighbours and enemies (cf. 1QS X.17-18; CD IX2-5; T. Gad 6.7; 2 Enoch 50.4; Ps. Phoc. 77).55This is now applied even to Gentile believers so that 'here again we see the effect of Chri&ty9s redefining the 51. 1. R Wagna, 'Isaiah in Romans and Galatiam', in S. Moyise and hi. 1.1. Menken (eds), Isoioh in theNov Testment (London &New York T&T CCLark,2005). p. 125, sugges6 that '[bly means oflraiah'swads, %spiritaf~r",PaultransmutesMoses'~mp~thatGodhad~yef granted Israel an mdemlmdiag heart into the much stronger claim that God has directly csuscd IsraeL'sspidtual in&bility'. 52. Waison, Paul and the Hemeneutia ofFaith, p. 434. 53. Wais04 Paul ondthe Herme~uticsofFoith, P. 435 51. Watsoh I'aul ~ r n dlhc, iir,rmmc%nc.r u/Fd$h, p 436. 55. W w o ' s ,uggation that uc rnighr 'dcun hm a subtle mvginallnogof the Song's wching on thedivinevengeance' sinceitfunctiom 'a~putofaprohibitionofrevenge'(Pmr1nndtheHomeneutics ofFoth, p. 450 emphasis original) sto go directlyagainst tfie mmst of the text which baseslhe phibition ofhumanrevengeprecisely on the eddence thatGod willvindicatethemand that the ahtention h m human revenge leaves 'room for God's wram'. ~

6. Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans

113

boundaries of the people of God as resulting in a greater openness and wider application of this principle'.jG Paul's rendering ofDeut. 32.35 comes closer to what we find in the MT ('vengeance is mine, and recompense'; D'iDl DPI '5) than to the LXX ('in the day of judgement I will repay'; 'Eu i k p a ~ K ~ I K I ! ~ E~ W V T S ~ I T O ~ WStanley ~ W ) . points out that the similaritiesbetween Ram. 12.19, the texts of Symmachusand the Aramaic Targumsto Deut 32.35 suggest an underlying Hebrew text such as Di)j 'i ~ ' i ('vengeance ~ 1 is mine and I will re pa^').^' The concluding 'says the Lord' senresto distinguish the Deuteronomy quotation from the (non-prophetic) citation of Prov. 25.21-2 wbich immediately follows.S8

Rom. 13.8-IO/Deut. 5.17-19,21 (quotation) Deut. 5.17-21 U X

dm.

You must not commit You must not murder. Youmust not steal. You must not bear false wimess against yow neighbow. You must not covet your neighbow's wife You must not covet vourneiphbow's house. his field his male senrant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, his pack animal, or anything . .else that belongs to neighbour.

Rom. 13.8-10 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilledthe Law. For the cmmmdmene, 'You must not commit adultery. Youmust not murder. You must not steal.You must not covet'. and any other commandment, are summed up in this one: 'You m t love vow neighbow as vowself.' Love does no wmng to a neighbour. Therefore love is the Mfilment of the Law.

In the midst of a series of directions for living out Christian community, Paul developsthe theme offul6lling one's obligations, including theunending obligation to love each other. The citation ofDeut. 5.17-19,21 isfollowedby;citation h m Lev. 19.18, with both citations being sandwiched between twin assertions that the practice of love ful6ls the Law @om. 13.8h, lob). The order of the commandments given by Paul (adultery, mnrder, stealing) is the order found in the presentation of Deut 5.17-19 in ms B. It is also the order given in the Nash Papyrus, Philo, Mk 10.19 (ms A), Luke 18.20 and James 2.1.59 Paul may think of Deut. 5.17-19 as summarizingthe second table ofthe Decalogue (if he thinks ofit as divided into two sets of ~ommandments).~~Paulleaves out the prohibition against giving false testimony @eut 5.20) and also abbreviates the 56. hmn,Romonr M 6 . p . 750. 57. Stanley, P a l ondfheLonguage ofScn'pIwe,p. 172. Hepoints outthatbhhas followedan older imditim which suggested Pad and the ahatats are based on 'a mmmm nal aadition in which the wording of Deut 32.35 had taken on something of a provdial usage' ( P a l ond the Language of Scripture, p. 172, citiog Kwh, Die Schnjr, pp. 77-8,95). 58. Watso9 Poul ondfheHmenartic.~ ofFaifh,p. 449. 59. The &given in the MT inboth Ex& andDeutemnomy, including 4QDeutnandms A of Deutemnomy LXX andnumaom other tatsis ~~~~-stealing. The order adultq-&gmurder is folmd in ms B of Exodus LXX and in Mk 7.21-22 in A and B (see Loader, The Septuagint,

PP.@I. M).

So also Watson,Poulrmdfhe Hemennrtia ofFaifh,p. 31 1.

114

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

prohibition against wveting. Of course, his reference to 'any other mmmandment' makes it clear 'that he is offering only a selection from the De~alogue'.~' The abbreviation of Deut 521, which summarizes the b l commandments in terms of a general prohibition against coveting, is in keeping with Hellenistic Jewi~htradition~~ By utilizingthe abbrevia&version of Deut 5.21, Paul's selection of commandments from the Decalogue consists of a series of four simple two-word prohibitions (each merely consisting of a negated verb). Paul does not actually exhort the Roman believers to keep the Decalogue, but he does clearly expect that they will obey the love command of Lev. 19.18, which he says represents the very heart of all ofthe commands in Scripture, andthereby avoid transgressing these other commands as well. Rom. 15.10Deut 32.43 (quotation) Dm. 32.43m:

Rom. 15.10

Rejoice, 0 heavens, with him and let all the And again it says, 'Rejoice, Gentiles,with his soas of Gad worship him Rejoice, 0 Gentiles, people.' with his people, and let all the angels of God renew their strength in him;fahe will avmge the blood of his sons, and he will take revenge, and repay his enemies with their penalty, and he will repay those who hate; and the Lord will cl-e the land ofhis oeoole.

This quotation fromDeuteronomy is nestled between quotations of2 Sam. 22.50 =Ps. 18.49 (17.5O),Ps. 117.1 (116.1), andIsa. 11.10. That is, his quotation from the Torah is accompanied by another from the Prophets and two from the Writings. What aU these quotationshave in common and led Paul to cite them all here is the positive ways in which each one speaks of 'the eschatological consummation in which Gentiles join in the worship of Israel's God'.63 Paul provides a verbatim quotation from Deut 32.43 Lx& but the LXX is quite diierent from the MT here. Rather than four lines, as in the MT, we have eight lines, with an even greater stress on heavenly rejoicing. The part that Paul quotes from the lxxreads 'Praise his people, 0nations!' or 'Make his people shout out forjoy, 0 nations!' in the MT.The Hebrew consonantsfor 'people' @D) can also be read as 'with' and the LXX has given the word a 'double reading', incorporating both potential meanings, so that the Hebrew 'his people' (113Y) has been read 'with his people'.@Thus the IXx reading reflects a much more positive attitude towards the Gentiles than that which is found in them, one which servesmuch 61. Stanley, Pal ondthe Lmrguoge ofScripmre, p. 175, ding Kocb Die Schn'ft, pp. 116-17. 62. See Stanley, Paul and the Language of Sm'ptwe, p. 176, cihhg Kwh, Die Schrifr,pp. 117, and the d i m i o n above on Row. 7.7. 63. Hays,Echoer,p. 71. 64. See Wagner, Heralds of the G o o d N ~ w sp., 316 n. 36. 65. Wagner (Heralds,p. 316 n 36) points o& that Targum Neofitiinteqmts Deut 32.43 in a manner similar to that oftfie W.

6. Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans

115

more effectively to reinforce Paul's point about Jews and Gentiles worshipping God together as members of his eschatological While explanations for how the LXX reading came to differ so markedly fromthe MT (neither of which is likely to reflect the original reading) are ~mplicated,~' it seems clear that the reading of the Lxx reflects not merely a translation of an earlier Hebrew text of Deuteronomy, but a reading which is influenced by, and motivated to reinforce, other OldTestamenttexts (quitepossiblyincludingtheothers which Paulcites in this same contexP8) which point to a future in which the redemption of Israel results in the redemption ofthe rest of the world as well." Watson rightly points out that 'Paul notes the Song's testimony to the divinejudgment (Ram. 12.19)' but 'is much more interested in its testimony to universal reconciliation' seeing that 'beyondthe jealousy and the hostility [an4 one might ad4 beyond the judgment ofboth Jews and Gentiles], Gentiles and Jews will together praise the one God of Israel'.'" Paul S Construal ofDeuteronomy in Galatians and Romans The most ambitions and provocative construal of Deuteronomy in Paul's theology is that of Francis Watson. Watson argues that Paul finds two nanative endings in Deuteronomy, one whichhighlights the curse motif of chs 27-30 and the other in the Song of Moses in which we find 'Moses' iinal prophetic insight into God's unwnditional, all comprehending saving action'.71Leviticus indicates that the way to life is through the Law and Deuteronomy 30 still seems to indicate that a return to faithful keeping of the Law is the key to moving £ram Israel's experience ofthe Law's curse to theirpromised experienceof eschatologicalblessing. P a 4

67 For three different explmatio~seeWagner,H H H H Up / 316 ~ ~ ,n. 36; Warn9 P<,ul
~ible',BASOR 146955). pp. 32-3. 68. Staoley (Paul andrhe Lonmape of Smipture, p. 181) is probably rigbt to suggest . . that Paul's use ofthts sbon excerpt mfernng lo C i o l e s pr;uslng God 'lcndc s q p m totheoouonthu Paul mgw larly mvde oote, of porennally mrful "me, m the c o m e of own pemnal study of Smptwr' 69. Wagner (Ho-aids, p. 316) argues 'Deutemnorny 32.43 fits &perfectly with& the catenainRomans15,foritinvitestheGentilestorejoiffitog~with~linthesaldmGodhas wmght for the entire world At the same time, P a u l W m ofthis text~mvidesa dee~lv . satisfvine ." u)IIc&ion to his &g of Moses' Song in Romsns 9-1 1. There, appealed to Deutaonomy 3221 inordertodemcmstntethatlsae1'srrresentr~~cetothe~~liS;mint&~artofWs plan to cffect the salvation of the Gentlld an4 in the end, to red1-1 us we;' ' 70. Wausn, P a l and!&, I l ~ ~ r r n ~ ~ut j~l b~~wr hrp.~, 452 s W a g n e r ( l i ~ , ~ l Jp.. ~3.17 n. 38,rtmbds us that 'although Moses' Song depicts God's i m m i o ~ l vengcaneeon t hb m e m i l s i n c ~ d rre ~ n e v a idenufici thwc m m s as %e G~nulcr"p r ac. Ins& of 33~1, the poet uses the l m 68 k~8poi,68 bnsvav6ot and;, p!ooGv~sps (Dent. 32.27,41-3). In Deut 3228 ux,thepwteastigates h l ' s enemies as E8vov hnohokrov pouhfiv (cf.32.21,31), hut this does not constitute a condamaim of rdr E 8 q as a whole'. 71. Warson, Paul ondtheHmen&'cs ofFaith, p. 470.

~~

PA

.

116

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

in Watson's view, sees this as part of an internal contlict within the Scripture itself, which, in different places, provides opposing accounts of God's plan of redemption, leading him to adopt an antithetical hermeneutic which rejects the teaching of some texts (such as Lev. 18.5) and a&rms that of others (such as Hab. 2.4). Deuteronomy 30 anticipatesa retumto God as 'a matter of appropriatehuman action' while on the basis ofthe Song ofMoses Paul sees it as 'a matter of definitive, unsnrpassable divine saving action, which rwrients human action towards itselfand sorepresents a breach with the la^'.'^ Theantithesisbetween human and divine action is not absolute since 'the divine action in Christ intends the human action of faith that corresponds to it and acknowledges It seems unlikely, however, that Paul finds two opposing abstract and static approaches to redemption in Scripture, two contradictory voices, one ofwhichmust be rejected and the other upheld. If we grant that Paul perceives that Christ's coming has brought about the transition fiom curse to blessing that was anticipated in Deuteronomy 30 in a surprising way, it opens up the possibility that Paul views some texts as reflecting divine guidance and instruction for the times before the coming of Christ and others provide clues for the situation in which Paul's readers h d themselves as believers in Christ. That was then, this is now (Ram. 10.4). Paul makes it clear that justi6cation cannot (any longer) possibly be through the Law, since that wouldmean Christ's death to bring it about wouldhavebeen in vain (Gal. 2.21). The point in Gal. 4.4-5 about Christ's humanity and its importance for the achieving of redemption for those under the Law (as well as for the adoption of Jews and Gentiles as sons of God), along withPaul's statements about Christ's obedience inRom. 5.18-19 andPhil. 2.8 (both passages echoing or alluding to Admn's disobedience), should serve as reminders that for Paul it is not simply 'the divine action in Christ' which 'intends the human action offaith that corresponds to it and acknowledges it', but rather that Christ's is also a human action ofrightwusobedienceto God which achievesthe restoration which 'intends the [equally] human action of faith that correspondsto it and acknowledges it'. It is (not merely, but cnrcially) the man Jesus Christ whose obedience and vindication have brought about the transition fiom curse to blessing, from death to life, that is anticipated in Deuteronomy 30 (Rom 10.69). In Paul's view, the surprising way in which this has been achieved in Christ points to the conclusionthat the obedience and slaverytorighteousness which is expected of the believer works itself out differently in the life of the Christian believer (as an 'obedience of faith') than Paul's opponents hold According to Watson,Paul thinks 'the non-Christian Israel of his own day is characterizedby the ever-renewed attemptto enact the return to the Law by zealouspractice of the Law's works. This is the theological programme ofDeuteronomy 30, and, fiom a Paulineperspective, its failureis contirrnedby the simplefact thatGod ha.chosen

72. Watson,Poul multheHmmeutics oofFaith, p. 464. 73. Watcon,Poul mdtheHennennrtics ofFaith, p. 464.

6 . Deuteronomy in Galatians andRomans

117

to act difIe~ently'.~~Aithough Paul hardly spells it out inRomans or Galatians, we would argue that there are enough hints to suggest that in Paul's view God has fulfilled the theological programme of Deuteronomy 30 through Christ himself; and that has brought about sigdicant implications for understanding how the realities of curse and blessing, death andliie, disobedience and obedience, sinand righteousness are conceived in light of the goad news of Christ's achievement.

Chapter 7

Brian S. Rosner Introduction Deuteronomy seems to play only a minor role in the Corinthiancorrespondence. In 1 Cmhthians, out of atotal of sixteen citations from Scripture, the fifth bookof Moses only appears three times. In 2 Corinthians Scripture is quoted nine times with only one quotationdramhmDeuteronomy. Four quotations fromDeuteronomy intwenty-nine chapters of 1and2 Corintbianshardly seems to be formative! Isaiah is more impressively represented with eight appearances in the two letters, bolstered by another four quotations h m other prophets, namely, Jeremiah, Hosea andEzekie1.' It is tempting to conclude that in 1and2 Corinthians, two of Paul's most ethically oriented epistles, the apostle looks to sources other thanthe Law for moral guidance. AUenVerbey drawsthis conclusion on the basis of explicit citations across Paul's letters: 'in contexts of moral exhortation ... Paul] cited the Pmphets and Wisdom more often than the Torah, and when he did appeal to the Torah it was more often to narratives than to statutes." One of the tasks of this chapter is to test this thesis. In response, in terms of method, it must be recognized that an accurate assessment ofthe role ofDeuteronomyin 1 and2 Corinthians cannotbe formed simply by noticing quotations and even allusions. We need to consider bow the books compare in global t e r n and to ascertain where they are situated in the context of the salvation history presented in the Bible. After all, any study of the relationship between the tt%aments is an exercise in biblical theolo&. Though rarely undertaken in studies of the use of the Old Testament in the New, a general comparison between Deuteronomy and 1and 2 Corinthianswill help explain the more specific connections. Without first taking this step the links with Deutemnomy will be underestimated and their hermeneutical function misconstrued

I . Thcw numbm are drawn from b e ehaptcn on I and2 Coriothlaos(by B. S.Romm m d R E Clampa, and P. Balla m@vsly) m D.A Carran andG Beals(d~),('r,mmm,u~~<,n ,he l'.,r 01,he ( I N T
7. Deuteronomy in I and 2 Corinthians

119

Deuteronomy and I and 2 Corinthians in General In the context of the Pentateuch, the book ofDeuteronomy is Moses' attempt to spell out for God's people the theological and ethical consequencesofthe exodus deliverance. Put another way, Deuteronomy explains the nature of an obedient response to God's grace. The collectionsoflaws inchapters5 and 12-26 stipulate that the LORD is to be worshipped at the place and in the way that he chooses (cf. e.g., ch. 12) andinsist that nothing is to be done to defile the land, which is the place where God is encountered (cf. 12.7). In particular, God'spwple are to shun the idolatry (e.g., 12.1-6) and sexual immorality (e.g., 22.21; 23.2, 17-18; cf. 3 1.16) of the original inhabitants of the land, and they are to maintainjustice and right relationships with each other. To this end, Moses appointsjudges (ch. I), calls on the people to listen to his teaching (4.1 and especially the Shemain 6.1E). marks their redemption from slavery in Egypt with the Passover wmmemoration (ch. 16), also celebrating it in song (ch. 32), and finally inaugurates a new wvenantatMoah (29.1). Curiously, various elements strike apessimisticnote andpointbeyondthe book to the need for the future decisive action of God That little can be expected 6-om God's pwple is signalled in chapter 2 where they are unfavourab1y compared to the Moabites and Ammonites. It is alsoexpressedthroughout chapters 5 11where repeatedcalls to obey or remernber(e.g., 5.1,31-33; 6.1-14; 7.12-15) suggest a negative expectation. Israel's spiritualincapacity is repeatedly nnderswred (e.g., 29.4). Nothing less than a circumcision of the heart is required which only God canperform(30.6; cf. 10.16). Mosespredicts Israel's apostasy(31.16-18; 32.1921,26) and he himself dies outside the land (ch. 34), suggesting that there is little hope for the nation. Moses' song ends with the one reference to atonement in the entire book (32.43). The new covenant teaching ofJeremiahandEzekiel,in which the problem ofthe human heart is resolved, is thus anticipated in Deuteronomy.' In many ways the theological or canonical setting of 1 and 2 C o ~ t h i a n iss analogousto that ofDeuteronomy, with some major twists. Paul like Moses, seeks to spell out for thenew people of God the theologicaland ethical consequencesof the act of salvation that is an exodus. He too wishes to explain the nature of an obedient response to God's grace. The apostle stops short of calling himself a second Moses, but he does compare and wnttast his role as a 'minister ofthenew covenant' with that of Moses in 2 Corinthians 3. He follows the pattern of Moses appointingjudgesin Deuteronomy 1 (andExodus 18) in 1 Cor. 6.1-6 when hetells the Corin!&ians to appoint wise and righteous laity to decide lesser civil cases

3.

I owe much ofthis &g

of Dwtemnomy to L G. Millar,Now ChwseLifez Theolommui -

E,b!cr in Deurc,ronum, (Leiccaer M'.1998); fora nmmay we Millar, 'DclaL~onomy', NDRT, pp 1 5 9 4 5 Cf. J Warner, /~rroclun,onro Old Trsfammr n ~ r o l u-1~ Cm,n~~rrl.4pppprrw~h . ((id

Rapids:Zondervao, 1995), who argues that the Pentateuch as a whole presents the way of Abraham who lived by faith befme the Law, as better than that of Moses, who failed to keep the Law once xt was given.

120

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

of Law between their brothers.' Also like Moses, Paul uses Exodus/Passover/ Unleavened Bread imagery as a basis for his moral exhortation (e.g., 1 Cor. 5.68; 11.17-24). If in Deuteronomy repeated reference is made to 'the place which the Lord your God will chooseto have people call upon his name' (cf. L m Deut. 12.11,21,26; 14.23-24; 16.2,6,11; 17.8,10; 26.2),ratherthanrefertothatplace, Paul says the Corinthians are among those who call on the name of our Lord 'in i 6 r r(1~ Cor. ) 1.2)' every place (hv r r a v ~ ~ Two of Paul's main moral emphases in 1 Corinthians are, like Deuteronomy, the shunning ofthe sexual immorality and idol* ofthe nations/Gentiles. In fact, as I have argued elsewhere (with Roy E. Ciam~a),~ Paul's opposition to these twovices structures the central section ofthe letter, where most ofthe links with Deuteronomy are to be found In chapters 5-7, Paul fmt opposes various forms of rropvsia (chs 5 6 ) before giving a positive tleatment of marriage and sexual relationships (ch. 7). In chapters &14, he deals with the issue of idolatry, beginning with a negativetreatment of its manifestations in Corinth (chs &lo) and then moving to a more positive treatment of the proper worship of the one true God (chs 11-14). Strategicallyplaced imperatives co&m these emphases: With reference to rropvsia, Paul tells the Corinthiansto 'flee sexual immorality' (6.18) and to 'glorify God in your body' (6.20); with respect to ~ i 8 o h o h a T ~ ihe a , says to 'flee idolatry' (10.14) and to do everything 'to the glory of God' (10.31). Paul explicitly ties the two sins to Old Testament background in his discussion of Israel's failures in 1 Cor. 10.7-8 and their inclusion in a vice list in 5.9-11, as shownbelow, derives fromthe Deuteronomicexpulsion formula quoted in 5.13. 2 Corinthians carries forward this stress on the dangers of idolatry (2 Cor. 6.16 7.1) and sexual immorality (2 Car. 12.19-21). Other points of comparison between Deuteronomyand 1and 2 Corinthiansthat fall short ofthe statusof quotation or allusion also point to Paul's high regard for the themes ofDeuteronomy. These include Paul's emphasis in 1 Corinthians 2.616 on the inabity of the human being to grasp spiritual truth without the aid of God's Spirit, the association of healing with the restoration of God's people @ m t 32.39; 1 Cor. 12.9), the Passover emphasis on remembering @ m t 16.3; 1 Cor. 11.24-26), the association of sufferingwith the Passover @eut. 16.3, 'the bread of afiiction'; 1 Cor. 11.23-26) and the notion of 'Israel according to the 4. See B.S. Rosner,Paul, Scriptwe, mdEthics:A Study of 1 Corinthim 5-7(CrrandRapids: Baker, 199% cb 4. (1 Cor. 1.2;2 Cor. 5. In the New Testament this qmssion is only- f 2.14; 1 Thess. 1.8;1 Tim2.8)andPauluses~torefertothew~pofGodthafisspreadingamund t h e w o r l d ~ g h h i s ~ t o t Gentiles. he ItechoesMaL 1.11 uqwhich(inac0ntextof~tion over the wav the Lmd is bcioe w o r s. h.i d in J d ~.~mhesies o ~ a futlrn time whm God would be wmshipped by Gentiles 'in every place': 'Fmm the rising of the slm until its settiDg my name willbe glorified amonz (tv nawi &no) incense is offered to .. - the kctilesand in ineryr,lm my nameand a pmoffenng, for my name is p a t among the kctila, says the Lon1 Almighty'. For ik rimificancc i n 1 Corinthians, pee R E. Ciampa and B. S. Romn, 'The ShucNmand Argument of 1 &thians: A ~iblieal/~m+hApproach', ? v k 52 (2009,pp. 20>18. 6. Ciampa andRosner, 'The Stnrcture and Argument of 1 Chthians'. For a full defence see OUr f0rtb~-g 1 codn*hian~ P i f k C O - ~ ~

-

~

w).

7. Deuteronomy in I and 2 Corinthians

121

flesh' (1 Cor. 10.18) implying a distinction between a true and only nominal Israel (Deut 10.16). In one sense, it is not only the Corinthian epistles that look back to Deuteronomy, but Deuteronomy that anticipates 1 and2 Corinthians. The 'later days', to which Deut 4.30 refers, 'when you will return to the Lord your God and obey him', of which the Hebrew Prophets also speak,' is the time in which Paul locates the church of God in Corinth: the Corinthianbelievers are those 'on whom the lidfilment ofthe ages has come' (1 Cor. 10.11). Paul writes as a miuister ofthe new covenant, a covenant that Deuteronomy does not name but ultimately points forward to.

Quotatiom from andAllusions to Deuterononty in 1 Corinthians The four main sections of 1 Corinthians address divisions and wisdom(chs I+), sexuality (chs 5-7), worship (chs 8-14), andresurrection andconsummation(ch 15). The six quotations of Scripture in the k t section form the backbone of the discussion and are all drawn from passages that 'depict God as one who acts to judge and save his people in ways that defy human imagination'? Three are from Isaiah and one each fiom other books. The h a 1 section cites five texts in the space ofhalfa chapter (15.27-55), none ofwhich wmes fromDeuteronomy. The vast majority of quotations of andalsoallusionsto Deuteronomy in 1Corinthians appear in chaptern 5-14, where Paul is most directly concerned with regulating the conduct of the church.

Deut. 17.7, etc. in 1 Cor. 5.13 In 1 Cor. 5.13 there is a quotation of a fiequent expression of the rxx of Deuteronomy, where it is used on five occasions to signal the execution of a variety of offenders (17.7; 19.19; 21.21; 22.21; 24.7; cf. 13.5; Judg. 20.13): 'Expel the wicked man from among you' The texts in rxxDeuteronomy and 1 Corinthians are identical, apart fiom changes that suit Paul's epistolary context: the verb changes h m a singular future indicative to a plural aorist imperative. Even though there is no introductory formula (cf. 'For it is written in the Law of Moses' in 9.9), 'expel' (bQ5pa~~) occurs only here in the New Testament, suggesting Paul's intentionaland explicituse ofthe words hDeuteronomy. Perhaps Paul chose not to introduce the quotation formally so as not to disturb the urgent tone of his imtmctions. The same command appears in other ways throughout the chapter: see w. 2,5,7 aud 11. The command to expel the sinner inv. 13b closes Paul's instmctions on the case of the incestuous man in an unambiguous and uuwmpromisiing way.

Cf ler. 23.20, 3024;18.47;19 3'): Ezck 38.16:Daa 228, 1014;!la$3.5. 8. R B.Ilays. 'The Cmvmioo ofthe imagmatioo: Scnptllre and Eschatolou io I C O M ~ ' . ?

122

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

The use ofDeut 17.7, etc. in 1 Cor. 5.13 is one of the most impressive examples of the crucialnature of Old Testament context in the study of the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament There is good evidence that the contextsof all six appearances ofthe Deuteronomic expulsion formulain their orighl contexts have exerted an intuence on Paul's h s t ~ c t i oacross ~ ~ ~the chapter. The expulsion formulae involving the verb 'to utterly remove'9 in Deuteronomy are associated with three motifs. F i they are connected to the idea of a covenant. SpecScally, people are expelled in Deuteronomy because of a breach ofthe wvenant. Deut. 17.7makes thisclearwhere the expulsion takes place because aperson has 'violated the covenant' of Israel's God (17.2). In Joshua 7, commenting on Achan's sin,v. 15 states: 'He who is caught with the devoted things shall be destroyed.. . He has violated the covenant of the LORD.' In the Damascus Document expulsion fiom the community for a variety of offences is also consistently associated with the covenant The covenant motif informs the vice list of 1 Cor. 5.1 1. Inv. 10 Paul lists four examples ofpeople with whom social contact in the world is not to be avoided. Then in v. 11 he gives a representative list of six sinners that the church is to judge (5.12b) in terms of withdrawal of social integration. This list of sinners is in one sense a catalogue of covenantal norms which, when broken, automatidy exclude the offender. The six sins form a remarkable parallel to the sins Deuteronomy insists deserve exclusion &omthe community according to the Deuteronomic formula, 'Expel the wicked man fiom among yon', which Paul quotes in 5.13.'O

Sexually i m m d Greedy

Idolater Reviler Drunkard Robber

pmisndty, adultery (22.21-2530) (no d e 1 bul paired with 'robbd in 1 Cor. 5.9) idol* (13.1-5; 17.2-7) malicious testhnooy (19.16-19) rebeIliws dnmken son (21.18-21) ki-g, s l a v b k g (24.7; k x uses the nom Khimqs, 'thief)

A second reason for expulsion in this material is the deterrence of a further breach of the covenant in the community. For example, Deut 19.19b-2Oa states: 'You must purge the evil fiom among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afmid and never again will such an evil thing be done in IsraeL' The dissuasionto sin further is amotive for expulsion in 13.12-18; 17.2-7,12-13; 21.1821. In such formulae,the offender is expelled to maintain Israel's obedienceto the demandsofthe covenant Paul's comments about the infectious nature of leaven in 5.6-8, a metaphorical reference to the incestuousman,also warnofthe danger ofhis sin spreading. Paul explains that although only a 'little' part of the church, the evil would inevitably, dowly but surely, spread through the whole community,

9. BDB,129.3. lo. Rmer,Pml, S+We rmdEthim,pp. 6C70; R B.Hays, First Corimhirms Qtqx&lion; LmiwiUe: John Kno& 1997), p. 88.

7. Deuteronomy in I and 2 Connthim

123

iflefI unchecked ReminiscentofDeuteronomy,Paulbelievesthat the example of wilful sin in the churchcanhave serious e f f d . Like leaven in bread, unchecked sin in the church spreads through the whole and h&ievably changes it. A third motif is associated with the occurrences of the 'utterly remove' formulae in Deut 19.13 and21.9. In both cases, the expression, 'youmust ridIsrael of the guilt of innocent blood', is the penalty forthe crime ofmurder. That 'blood guilt' touches the whole community is made clear in Deut 19.13where the motivation for the expulsion is 'so that it may go well with you [i.e., the nation]' (cf. Dent 21.8). The notion of 'blood guilt' intloducesthemotifofcorporateresponsibility, in which the communityis held responsible for the sin of an individnal, a thought suggested by the call of 1 Cor. 5.2 for the church to 'mourn' overthe sin of their erring member. Paul's rebuke of Corinthian arrogance and his call for the body to show passionate grief that will lead to action in v. 2 indicatesthat he consideredthe Corinthians in some sense implicated in the offenceofthe sinner. The verb 'to grieve', T ~ E U ~ Eis ~ used J, in the New Testament of mourning over the death of a loved one (Mt. 9.15;Mk 16.10;cf. Gee 50.10)andforgriefoveragreatloss(Rev. 18.11, 15,19). Hence many commentators understand Paul to be enjoining a mourning over the impending loss of the sinning brother. However, the word is only used elsewhere by Paul in2 Cor. 12.21 (cf. Jas 4.9; 1Clem.2.6), where its sense closely p d e 1 s the wncept ofgodly sorrow orrepentance.Its use in the LXX also favours this interpretation, where the word occurs six times with reference to sin, five of which refer to sorrow over the sins of others (Ezra 10.6; Neb. 1.4; 1 Esd. 8.72; 9.2 and Dan. 10.2). Paul's use ofthe Deuteronomic expulsion formula at the endof 1 Corinthians 5, along with connecting with the vice list of v. 11 (see above), draws together the threads of covenant and corporate responsibilitywhich run through the passage and complements Paul's own authority with that of Scripture.

Allusions to Deutmonomy in 1 Corinthians 5 In addition to the quotation of the expulsion formula in 5.13, three further links with Deuteronomy in 1 Corinthians 5 merit attention. They concern the grounds for Paul's oppositionto incest (v. 2), the forum forjudgement(v. 4) and the reason the man's flesh must be 'destroyed' (v. 5). Whether with one's ~- mother or with the wife of one's father. incest is mhibited in the Old Testament (and early Judaism). Many commentators mention Lev. 18.8 and 20.1 1 as the critical background to Paul's decision to expel the sinner, notingthe sharedterminologyof 'woman' and 'father' (v. 2). Sexual interwurse with the 'wife' of one's father is also condemned in Gen 49.4 (see 35.22) and Ezek. 22.10-1 1. However, two verses in Deuteronomy are just as likely to have intlnenced Paul. Deut 27.20, 'cursed is the man who sleeps with his father's wife', is perhaps the reason Paul 'curses' the sinner in 1 Corinthians5. AndDeut. 23.1 (22.30), 'aman isnot to many his father's wife', may have been the impetus for Paul to quote the Deuteronomic expulsion formula in v. 13. A variation of that formula appears in Deut 22.22 ('If a man is found sleeping with another ~

124

Deuteronomy in the N a v Testament

man's wife ...you must purge the evil from Israel'; cf. 22.24) and is presumably the penalty for the incest prohiiited in Deut 23.1 (22.30).11 In 1 Cor. 5.4 the exwmmuuicationis to take place when the Corinthiam 'are assembled' in the name and power of the Lord Jesus. Whatever else this scene implies it is comparable to thejudgement scene of Deut 19.16-20 which includes the command quoted in 1 Cor. 5.13b. InDeutemnomy 19the d w i p h e also takes place in the presence of the congregation (19.20a) and the Lord (19.17: 'in the presence of the A perennial puzzle for the interpretationof 1 Corinthians 5 is the severity of Paul's respause. In particular, in v. 5, why must the man's fleshbe 'destroyed'? Three groups of observations support the case for reading 1 Corinthiam 5 (esp. v. 5) with 1 Car. 3.16-17 ('Don't youknowthatyou yourselves areGod's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple God will destroy him; for God's temple is holy and that is what youare') with anold Testament templeholinessmotif in mind In my view, the man must suffer 'destsuction' because he has 'destroyed' God's holy temple, the church. First, certain features of 3.16-17 suggest its aflkity with ch 5. The characteristic of the temple to which Paul draws attention in 3.16-1 7 is its holiness, which carries a demand for the maintenance of purity, a thought which Paul develops in 5.6-8. Sewndly, temple imagery is highly prevalent in both Corinthian epistles. The church is identified as the 'temple of God' in 2 Car. 6.16. In 1 Cor. 6.19 the need for sexual purity is linkedto individual Christians being the temple of the Holy Spirit Fuaherrnore, Paul associates sexual chastity with temple in 1 Cor. 6.12-20. A third point is the observation of William Horbury that during the Second Templeperiod the scope of the laws of admissionto the assembly found in Deut. 232-9 (1-8) were expandedbeyondstipdatiousofphysiqueanddescent to include moral requirements. Biblical evidence for this evoIution includes the 'entrancetorot' (Pss. 15; 24.3-5;Isa. 33.14-17),the exclusionof'rebels' inE& 20.38-40 fmmthe congregation, and the indictment of Israel for admitting into the sanctuary alienswho are 'uncircumcised in heart' inEzek 44.6-9. Josephus and Philo build upon this biblical background and 'take Deuteronomy 23 to exclude not only aliens and defectiveJews, but alsogravely-offending Jewish sinners'." The likelihood that Deut 232-9 (1-8) played a role in the formation of Paul's thinking in 1 Corinthhs 5 is increased by the fact that the previous verse in Deuteronomy addresses thevety questionwith whichPaul is engaged: 'Aman is punishable by s t o ~ g )9..1 and Ker 1 I (in- is ore ofthe Iim ntffcnc6 l i d for '&g 06'). Jub. 33.1013;r Smh 10.1;CD 5 aod h e hemole Scrr,NUNL losephus h iin- ar 'he gmssst of sins' and 'an oueagmus crime' (&. 33274) and of in& Philo adrs, 'what form of unholinss couldbemore ~ O U thanthis?' S (Spa. 3-13-14; cf. 32021). 12. Num 15.35 ('&eentinassembly~stone'thesabb&-~~3524(Ltheassembly~ jndge' a cax of homicide) and Lev. 24.14, 16 ('the entire assembly is to stone' a blasphemer) are comparable.The f w m for thejudgement of offenders is also the gatunnmunity in 1QS VIW.In biblical Biminal Law the whole cmmmnv i is involved injudgement 13. W.Horbury, 'Fxtiption aadExcodcation', YT35 (1985), p. 26.

7. Deuteronomy in I and 2 Corinthians

125

not to many his father's wife; he must not dishonour his father's bed.' That Paul linked the two passages has every posslbity since, as Horbury observes: 'The admission-regulationsof Deut 23.2-9 (1-8) were linked in rabbinic exegesis with 23.1 (22.30), and correspondinglyunderstod, as by TvPseudo-Jonathan, as maniage laws' (25). This exegesis may even have a basis in Deuteronomy. Michael Fihbane has suggested that Deut 23.1 and 23.2-9 (1-8) are linked through the mention of the Ammonites and Moabites, who, according to Gen. 19.31-38, are the offspring of incest (TA~and his daughters).14 Allusion to Deut. 1.9-1 7 (andfiod. 18.13-26) in 1 Car. 6.1-6 Paul's concern that judicial matters be settled intanally in 1 Cor. 6.14 derives &om a biblical and Jewish background RolanddeVaux explains that in biblical times Israel had three differentjurisdictions involvingpriests, elders, andpmfessionaljudges instituted by the authority of the !&g.ls All three groups are mentioned in the Pentateuch and take part in judicial affairs in other parts of the Scriptures. It is the third group ofjudges that is relevant to 1 Cor. 6.1-6. Such judges find their prototypes in the competent laymen appointed to dispensejustice by Moses upon the advice ofJethro, his father-in-law, inExod 18.13-26 and Deut 1.9-17. Deut 16.18-20 and 17.8-13 give fuaherdirectionsforthesejudges. This background sheds lights on a number of elements in 1 Corinthians 6. The situationsin which Moses in Exodus 18iDeuteronomy1 and Paul in 1 Cor. 6.1-6 find themselves are remarkably similar. Both Moses and Paul are overwhelmed by the judicial problems of the people of God Both leaders decide to handle the more =cult cases themselves,with the Lord's help (cf.Exod 18.19b and 1 Cor. 5.3-5) and appoint judges to adjudicate the lesser cases (see Exod 18.21-22; Deut 1.15, and 1 Cor. 6.lb, 4, %)by decidingbetweentheibmthers. There are also impressive terminological links between 6.1-1 1 and Exodus 181 Deuteronomy 1(and related passages). A total of eight terms, some ofwhich occur rarely in both the ixx and Paul's letters, can be traced £ram 6.1-8 to the tradition of Moses appointingjudges in the Greek Old Testament Furthermore, verse Sb may be an echo of Deut. 1.16.16 In 6.1-6 Paul applies the lessons of Exodus 18iDeuteronomy 1 (and related passages) to the problem of lawsuits in Gninth. He follows the implications of the Moses material (because Moses was the most impartantbiblical precedent for what he was doing), but does not find it necessary to signalhis use of Scriptureto the Corinthianseither by quotation or allusion. Just as Moses appointedwiseand rightems laity to decide lesser civil cases(including hud)between their brothers, so also Paul rejectedunrighteousjudges and told the Corinthiansto appoint wise laity to decide such casesbetween their brothers.That Paulconsiders 'unrighteous'

14. M.Fishbane,Biblical Infopetafion in Ancienf Lrrnel (Oxford: C b d o n , 1985), p. 120. 15. R de V a q Ancior I m l (Xew York: McCww-HiU Book Co., 1965), 5 pp. 152-5. 16. See B.S. h e r , 'Moss Appointing Judges: An M e n t to 1 Cor6.14?', ZVW82.314 (IWl),pp. 275-8.

126

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

judges, the & ~ I K O Iunsuitable, , a description that simultaneously identi6es them as unbelievers and as unfair as judges; is not surprising in terms of the qnalilications of judges taught throughout the Old Testament, especially in Exodus 18iDenteronomy 1 and related passages (cf. rxx Deut 16.18-20a with four occurrences of dik-words). Allusions to D e u t e r o ~ m y6 in I Corinthians Perhaps the most famous text in the Hebrew Bible, next to the Decalogue, is the Shem. Bursting with theological and ethical implications,withits a&mation of monotheism and the command to 'love the Lord your God', the Shem is 'central to the whole book of Deuteronomy'." Evidence for its impact on 1 Corinthii can be felt in Paul's 011 to undistracted devotion to the Lord in 7.32-35, the emphasis on love and &cation in chapters 8-14 and in the teasing out of the implications of monotheism for Paul's treatment of idolairy in 8.1-6. In 1 Car. 7.32-35 Paul explains that he prefers singleness to the married state because marriage makes life more complicated and can be a distraction from devotion to Christ The priority of pleasing God in these verses may have been derived kom Denteranomy 6, which Paul alludes to in the next chapter (8.6). Martin McNarnara has noted the PalestinianTargnmto the Pentateuch's m e n t of Deuteronomy 6 and its relevance to New Testament teaching on the undivided heart: 'Israel was commandedto love God "withallher heart" peut. 6.51. In the targnm full devotion to God is describedas "a perfect heart," i.e. one completely set on God, not divided between him and created things.'18 Fnrthermore, in severalrabbinictexts, worldly preoccupations, such as awife, are seenas apotential distraction fiom the study of Torah (e.g., Xbot R.Nut. a. 20). 1 Corinthians 8-14 deal with the worship of the one true God, h t negatively in chapters 8-10, with respect to idolatry, and then positively in chapters 11-14, in tamsof trueworship. Underlying Paul's instructionsacross the seven chapters, although nnstated, is the double command to love God and your neighbour. A link between love and edification is forged in 8.1 ('love builds up') and the two concepts become distinct foci in chapten: 13and 14respectively. Paul wants the Corinthians to do everything out of love for God and people, the latter being expressed in the desire to build up the other. If Paul is indebted to Lev. 19.18 for his emphasis on the love of one's neighbour (seeRam 13.9-10), his emphasison loving God is based on Dent 6.5, a text to which he alludes in the opening vases of the section. In 1 Corinthians 8.1-6 Paul responds to those in the church in Corinth who believed that it is acceptableto eat food sacrificed to idols. 1 Cor. 8.1 is likely a quotation fium their letter to Paul (see 7.la): 'we all have knowledge'. Apparently they based their view on an idiosyncratic interpretation of Deut 6.4, 'The Lordour God, the Lord is one', s u d m g t h a t since 'idols don't really exist' and 17. P. C. C w e , The B w k of DeYfemmmy( G r d -ids Eadmans, 1976), p. 169. 18. MMcNamara,Tmgum muiTertment:Armi~Pmophra~eroftheHebr~~Bib/e-A Lixht on the* TestmMnf (GraodFapids Eadmans, 19723,pp. 122-3.

7. Deuteronomy in I and 2 Corinthim

127

' h e is no God but one' (8.4) then there is no reason to fear contact with idols. Paul'sresponse is not to address the question of knowledge primarily in terms of our knowledge of God, but to shiff the focus to our love for God and his knowledge ofus: 'if anyone loves Go4 they are known by him' (8.3). N. T. Wright notes the influence of the Shema here: 'Paul's references to humans loving Go4 as opposed to vice versa, are few and far between, and in tbis case at least ...the reason for the reference is that he wishes to allude to, or echo, the Jewish confession of monotheistic faith.'19 In terms of the Shema, 'loving God' implies a rejection of idolatry. Paul teases out this implication in 8.5-6 where he applies the words of the p m ailkmation of the Shema. In particular, the language of Deut. 6.4, 'the Lord our God, the Lord is one', govems Paul's wording andargument.Paultakes the key words 'Lord', 'God' and 'one' fiom Deut 6.4, but he 'has glossed"G0d" with "the Father", and "Lord" with "Jesus Christ'', adding in each case an explanatory phrase: "God" is the Father, '%om whom are all things and we to him", and the ''Lord" is Jesus the Messiah, "through whom are all things and we through him".'20In this way he simultaneouslyr d i m e d strict Jewish monotheism and embedded Christ within the very definition ofthat one GcdLord ofIsrael. Ciampa draws out the theological significanceof Paul's use of the Shemo in 1 Cor. 8.1-6: The Shemowasimpmtantbot6foritstheoIogid afhmlion and its sociologicalfun& Early J u d a h d i e d around the one God who had redeemed them,and their allegiance to that one God was rdsted both by their worship ofhim and by their rejedion of all otlaerolaimstod+.Itisn&IetbatPaul's~@calmodificatimoftheSho~ comes ina passage where he hopes this stlfement might fulfillthe very same mles that the Shemo did in Judaism If the Corinthians would rally togetha in loyalty to God the fatha and the Lord Jesus Christ in a way that signaledaladiealreje&&of dl other claims to deirvit wouldzo a long waypromoting .unity . withi0 the mnmestion and towards kintairirii a dis6nct identiiy incontrast to the pagan envir&<"

Allmion to Deut. 24.1-4 in 1 Cor. 7.39-40 Paul makes three points regardingthe temhation of marriage and remarriage for the benefit of Christian widows in Corinth in 7.39-40. Peter Tomson argues that all three use 'formulations directly related to Rabbinic halakha'.= Bihlical roots are also evident, not least in Deuteronomy. In 7.39a Paul indicates that the death of a husband ternhates the maniage bond, so that the widow has the right to remarry. Deut. 24.3, with reference to remarrying a former partner after the death of one's spouse, stipulates the same provision with the words, 'if the latterhusband dies'. In 7.39b Paul states thatthe widow may marry whomever she wishes. This is similar tom. Gittin 9.3, a tmctate expounding the halakhic implications ofDeut. 24.1-4, 'you are permitted to many any man'. Finally, in 7.39~Paul adds the restriction, 'only in the Lord'. 19. N.T. Wright, The Climm offhe G v n a n t ( M ~ e a p o l i s Fomes~ : 1992), p. 127. 20. Wright, The Climm of the C o v m f ,p. 129. 21. Rosner and Ciampa, '1 Codothians'. 22. P.TomsqPnul and the J m b h Law:Halokha in the Len- of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Minneapolis Fomess, 1990). pp. 12%22.

128

Deuteronomy in the N a v Testament

$milar clauses were in Jewish circulation in Paul's day. For example, a Bar Kokhba divorce deed has an analogous specification: 'you may go and be married to any Jewish man you want'.23The exclusion of marriage to a non-Jew has its basis in Scripture (Deut 7.3; Josh. 23.12; Ezra 9.1-4; Neh. 13.23-7).

Deut. 25.4 in I Car. 9.9 Paul's surprising use of the law against muzzling the threshing ox to support his argument that the minister of the gospel is entitled to material compensation is frequentlycited as aclear example of(strained) allegorical exege~is?~ However, when Deut. 25.4 is read in its Old Testament context and in the light of its use in early Judaism, Paul's use ofthe text is better understood in terms of an argument from the lesser to the greater (kal wa-homer in iabbinic literature; a fortiori in Latin). At fmt blush, 'You shall not m d e an ox while it treads out the grain',seems disconnected &om the laws surrounding it in Deuteronomy. Many Bibles and commentaries in fact head the section in whichit appears: 'Miscellaneous Laws'. Yet the statutes in Deut. 24.1c25.3 do seem to have in common a concern for the fair and humane treatment of one's fellow human beings. This includes the benevolent treatment ofthe poor, marginalized,sojourners,orphans andwidows. Philo's discussion of Deut. 25.4 reflects this context in Deuteronomy. When the relevant section in Deuteronomy is introduced in On the Virhres (12547) Philo informs the reader that he will address the extension of the same principle of behaving humanely and wmpassionately to aU types of people, 'even to the race of irrational animals' (Virt. 125). According to Philo, the significanceofthe laws concerning the kind treatment of animals and lower forms of l i e is that we must do the same with humans as well (Virt. 160). To his mind, 'the Law p e u t 25.41 was not given for the sake ofunthinking creatures, but for the sake of those who can thinkandreas~n'.'~ This sentimentis remarkably similmtoPaul's words in 1 Cor. 9.9-10, where he asks rhetorically: 'Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he?' Not dissimilarly,Josephus expounds Deut. 25.4 inAnt. 4.233 inconnection with his discussion of the laws of gleaning (Lev. 19.9; 23.2) and those which allow people who pass through a field to pluck ears with their hands @cut. 23.25). He treats the statute conceming work animalsas related to legislation that refers to human workers. In this regard the word he uses to refer to the animals is noteworthy: one is not 'to b i d the mouth of the oxen treading out the w m on the threshing floor, since it is not right to deprive our co-workers of the fruit' (Ant. 4.233).

23. Dm 2, no. 19. 21. Sex. sg., W. Schrage, Uc,r En,., E n ~ y ' u nclrl, Konn,ln r ( E m ,4 vols, Zunch: Benzigcr Verlag; Ne&mhener-Vlup Ncukirchener Verlag, I WI 2001J, II,pp. 298-300 On Jcwnsh usage seespecially thcdiwrrwion in D. Inctonc-Brewer, ' I Camthians9.9-II : A Literal Inrerpretation of "Do no1 M d e &c Ox"', NTS 38 (1992), pp 554-65. 25. Phito,Spec. 1.263

7 . Deuteronomy in 1 and 2 Corinthians

129

The Talmud's teaching on Deut. 25.4 includes the decision that men may eat from the loose produce of the field in which they work on the basis of an argument from the lesser to the greater (cf m. B. M e ~'a i 7.2).26The logic is that since oxen are not allowed to eat food that is still unplncked (or which is not loose) but men are, it follows that if even oxen are allowed to eat loose food, men must also be allowed to do so. The assumption is that laws like Dent 25.4 that enjoin humanitarian care to animals are an extension ofthose which show similar kindness to humans. In the following discussion (b. B. Mesi'a 89a) Rabinaargues, on the basis of the use of the word 'ox' both in Deut. 25.4 and in Deut. 5.14, that whatever applies to the muzzled (i.e., the ox and animals in general) applies to the muzzler (i.e., people) as well. In another example of argument from the lesser to the greater, b. Yebam. 4a applies Deut. 25.4 metaphorically to the issue of levirate marriage, an issue that is treated in the immediately following verses in Deuteronomy (25.5-10). The view is taken that a widow is not to he forced to enter into a lairate maniage with a man she h d s objectionable. If an ox is free to eat and is not to be con&ed as it labours, a woman who suffers the loss of her husband is not to be constrained to many someone against her will. To 'muzzle' her would be to force her to endure even greater hardship than she has already experienced. In the light of the history of its interpretation, Paul's use of Deut. 25.4 in 1 Cor. 9.9 seems less odd thanmost commentators seem to think. Paul quotes thetext2' in order to bolster his argument that the Christian worker is entitled to com+on. The logic of Paul's use of Deut. 25.4 fits well with the other examples he cites in his case for material support of ministers of the gospel in 1 Car. 9.7: Just as the soldier, shepherd and farmer rightly expect to benefit from their labours, so too the ox, and ultimately the Christian worker. In the flow of chapters 8-10 Paul is seeking to establish his own rights (9.1-14), before proceeding to point out that he relinquishes them for the sake of the gospel (9.15-27). This is a model of behaviour that he hopes the Corinthians will emulate with reference to eating food offered to idols (cf. 11.I). The main objection to seeing an argument from the lesser to the greater in Paul's use of Deut. 25.4 concerns the translation of 1 Car. 9.10a, which can be rendered in two ways: 'Does he not speak entirely for our sake?' or 'Doesn't he surely say it for our sake?' In other words, is Paul afkuing an absolute denial of God's interest in oxen or is he just strongly assertingthatGod is more concerned about humans than oxen? Whereas both translations are possible on lexical grounds:8 the case for an argument from the lesser to the greater is strengthened 26. SeeTomson,PoulondtheJewishLmu,pp.12Ml.HenotestbatDeutU2424ialsoin~lved in the discussion. 27. In tams oftsrmalmatters, the m andthe L x x are in close agrewent Paul uses a different wmd for 'muzzle' than in the ucwthat is effectively . a synonym . . 1 Tim. 5.18 quotes Deut 25.4butin exad agreement with the OLX. 28. In favow ofthe firstis C . K Barren, TheFimt Epistle ro the Corinthians (BNTC,2. Peabody: Henddckson, 1996), and the second A. C. Thiselton, TheFimt Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), and BDAG.

130

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

in the light of the argument from the greater to the lesser in v. 11: 'If a labourer may eat of avaluable crop he is working on, much more should he be allowed to eat from a less valuable crop instead.'" Either way, Paul's use ofDeut 25.4 is a clear example ofPaul using theTorah as a guide for Christian conduct To his mind this Scriptureinforms his conviction that Christian leaders have aright to be suppoaed in their ministries and he expects his appeal to it to bethe clinching proof in his attempt to persuade the Corinthians to his position.

Deut. 32.17 in I Cor. 10.20 In 1 Car. 10.14Paul enjoinsthe Corinthians to 'flee fromidolatry', whichincontext means that he wants them not to eat food sacrificed to idols at pagan cultic meals. By way of explanation, in 1 Cor. 10.16ff. Paul discusses the religious significance of cnltic meals, whether Jewish, Christian or pagan innature. In the larger context of chapters 8-10, the question arises: ifthere is only one true God (see 8.4) and food sacrificed to idols is not thereby contaminated (10.19), why does Paul object to the Corinthiansparticipatinginpagan religious meals? 1Car. 10.20 supplies the answer by quoting Deut 32.17. Deuteronomy 32, the so-called Song of Moses, recounts Israel's unfaithfulness to the Lord in terms of idolatry. In v. 16 the nation, 'his [the Lord's] sons and daughters' @cut. 32.19), is charged with having provoked the Lord to jealousy 'with their foreign gods' and 'their detestable idols'. In v. 17this is further c M e d : 'They sacrificed to demons, which are not God - gods they had not Imam' The 'demons' in this context are spirits that appear inMesopotamiantexts as protectors of places andpe~ple.'~ Moses accuses Is~aelof worshipping inferior spiritual beings instead of God The history of the interpretation of Deut 32.17 treats it as a touchstone of spiritualconuption. Ps. 106.37 alludes to and extends Deut. 32.17 in its indictment of Israel for sacrificing 'their own sous and daughters to demons'. Bar. 4.7 points to Israel 'sacrificing to demons and not to God' as an explanation for the exile. I Enoch 19.1 states that the spirits of the angels who cohabitedwith women (cf. Genesis 6) will lead people to offer sacrifices to demons as though they were gods. T.Sol. 5.5 tells of the progeny of a human mother and an angelic father who along with his collaboratorsintends to lead the human race into worshippingthem as gods. Finally, Lev.Rob. 22.8 associatesDeut 32.17 with the sacrifices to goat idolddemons mentioned in Lev. 17.7. These associations heighten the heinous nature of sacrifice to demons and pave the way for Paul's use ofDeut. 32.17 in 1 Corinthians 10. Paul's citation of the text agrees with the LXX, apart h m the verb changing from anaorist to apresent tense verb ('they sacrifice' rather than 'they sacrificed'). Evenifby Paul's day the concept of 'demons' was more highly develop4 inboth Deuteronomy 32 and in 1 Corinthians 10 the accusation of sacrificing to demons 29. C£ Instone-Brewer,'1 Corinthians 9.9-ll', p. 559, and his broader djscussion 30. m A T , p. 906.

7. Deuteronomy in 1and 2 Corinthians

131

refers to pagan sacri6ces. However, Hays is right that 'Paul's real concern, l i e that of the Song of Moses, is that God's ownpeople are becoming implicated in this "abhorrent" practice'." Even ifthe Corinthians were not explicitly offering sacrifices to pagan gods, Paul's point, as he explains in 1 Car. 10.16-18, is that by partaking in pagan religious meals they are implicated in the sacrifices themselves. Deut 32.17 is used to underscore the unacceptability of this implicit idolatry. Allusions to Deut. 32 in I Cor. 10.22 The intluence ofthe Song ofMoses on 1 Corinthians 10 does not stop with 10.20. Both halves of 1 Car. 10.22 also betray the intluence of the famous text. Paul's question in 1 Car. 10.22a, 'Shall we provoke the Lord?' returns to the series of rhetorical questionsthathe had begun inv. 19. In this case, Paul's words echo the Lord's complaint against Israel inDeut 32.21 LXX: 'They have provokedme with what is no god, they have angered me by their idols.' Paul's point is that to pasticipate in pagan worship, even ifunwitting,would be to follow inIsrael's example of idolatry and to incite God to act in judgement. Paul's follow-up question, in 1 Car. 10.22b, 'Are we stronger than he?', likewise expects a negative response and is also an allusion to Denteronomy 32. The Song of Moses emphas'ies the strength of the Lord in a number of ways. According to Deuteronomy 32, one ofthe purposes ofthe comingjudgementwill be to impress on the nation their lack of strength and the Lord's great power. Verse 30 depicts Israel's impotence without the Lord's help: one man will chase a thousand Israelites; two will put ten thousand to flight. And verses 36-38 indicate that judgement will bring an end to Israel's strength, including any they may have derived from 'the gods': The Lord will desist hmpunishment 'when he sees that their strength is gone' (32.36). Themotif of God's strengthisalso reflected in Deuteronomy 32 through the repeated use of the epithet 'the Ro~k'.'~ In fact, in haslating the chapter the Targumimemployseveral titles whichinterpret 'rock' as a figure for God's strength (most h q u e t l y , 'the StrongOne)'.)3 In Deuteronomy 32, especially in the Tarthe question of Israel's participation in idolatry and the Lord's jealousy and discipline is set in terms of strength and power. Israel follows other gods when they feel strong (cf. 1 Car. 10.11, 'Let him who thinks be stands ...') and in response, the Lord purposes to show himself strong by punishing the Israelites. Paul's question in 1 Car. 10.22b is designed not only to underscore the impotence of believers, but also to stress the omnipotence of God:surely we are not stronger than the Strong One! Understood in the light of this background, 1 Car. 10.22b can be seen as a frightening threat of judgement upon those Corinthian Christians who provoke God to jealousy." 31. Hays, I Corinthionr,p. 169. 32. C£theHebrewfor'mk'inDeuL32.4,15,18,30,31. 33. See Rosner, Poul. Scripture nndEth;cr,p. 200. 34. C~ostommd~Paul'sintentionsimilar1yY~g'ArewetemptingHim,whetherHe is able topunishus, andinita~Himbygoingo~ertothe8dversariesaod~go~~~dwithHis enemies?' WNF 12.141).

132

Deuteronomy in the N m Testament

Allusion to Deut. 34.10 in 1Cor.13.12 (and 2 Cor. 3.18) In 1 Car. 13.12 Paul alludes to Nnm. 12.6-8 which contrasts Moses' prophetic experience with that of all other prophets. While other prophets receive revelation throughvisionsand dreams (12.6; cf. Joel 2.28 [3.1]), Moses experiencesthe presence of the Lord face to face ( o ~ 6 p aK ~ T mdpa), U not indirectly (06 61' hiv~~uci~w and v he ) sees his f o m ' ( m : glory). Paul says 'now we see-inamirror (61' Bo6rr~pou)indirectly (iv aiviypa~t),butthen face to face (rrp6awrrov rrp& rrp6oorrov). Now I &ow in inart; then I shall know fully, even as I am follyknown.' Paul suggests Christians now share the experience of seeing God indirectly, in a mirror, (presumably analogousto his understandingof the prophets' experience) but will one day see him face to face (as did Moses). Lev Rub. 1.14 goes on to quote Isa 40.5 and say that while only a few in this age were able to see God the way Moses did, in the age to come 'all flesh shall see the glory ofthe Lard' (as Moses did). The contrastbetween this age and the age to come matches Paul's thinkingprecisely. The reference to the vision of 'the glory of the Lord' (m the citation fiom Isa. 40.5) brings us to the rxx translation of Num. 12.8. While the Hebrew says Moses saw the 'likeness' or 'form' ofthe Lor4 the IXxsays he saw the 'glory' oftheLord The rxxboth affumsMoses' faceto-face experience with the Lord and interprets it as a vision of his glory. Paul's discussion of the glory ofthe new covenant in 2 Comthians 3 likewise speaks ofthe experience of believers reflecting the Lord's glory with unveiled faces (2 Car. 3.18). In Deut. 34.10 Moses is described as the only prophetwhom 'the LORD h e w face to face', a closer parallel to Paul's words in 1 Cor. 13.12 than Num. 12.8 which has Moses speakingto God literally 'mouth to mouth'. Fishbane suggests that Paul's alteration of LXX Num.12.8 'mouth to mouth' to 'face to face' may reflect the influenceofDeut. 34.10J5A codation omurn. 12.8 andDeut. 34.10 is also evident in Philo (Her. 262). As Ciampa points out, Deut. 34.10 'also provides another link to the motif of "knowing" and '%being known" (cf. also Num. 1 2 . 6 ~a~6~~:yvoo8~oo~a~)whichispminentin 4 1 Car. 13.12 (cf. v. Allusion to Deut. 15.14 in 1Cor. 16.2 In 1 Cor. 16.1-4 Paul instructs the Corinthians concerning the collection for the saints in Jerusalem. One of the principles he advocates is giving that is literally 'whatever be well led ( E ~ o ~ G T ~ Ithat ) ' , is, ~ ' 'in keeping with [one's] income' (w) or 'in accordancewith how you may fare' (Thiselton). The thought is comparable to 2 Car. 8.12 ('the gift is acceptable accordingto what one ha.'). Keener notes that this instruction is an application of Deut. 15.14 which is part of the instructions concerning the compensationof a Hebrew slave who has served out

35. Fishbane,Biblicol Interpretation in Ancient Isroel, p. 74. 36. Rosner and Ciampa, '1 GnWhians'. 37. Liddel and Scott define do66o in the passive as having the metaphorical meaning of 'to prosper, be successful'.

7. Deuteronoq in I and 2 Corinthians

133

his six years: 'Supply him liberally &omyour flock, your threshingfloorand your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed (LXX: ~6h6yquQv) you.'38

Allusion to Deut. 31.6, 7,13 in 1 Cor. 16.23 Paul begins his conclusion to the letter with a series of five pithy exhortations in 1 Cor. 16.13-14, the thirdofwhich is variously translatedas 'be men ofcourage' (NIV),'be brave' (NIB), 'be valiant' (REB), or 'conduct yourselves in a manly or courageous way' (BAGD). The Greek d i ~ 6 ~ i t ; oevokes ~ a t stereotypical masculine qualities ofboth strength, over against the feminine (cf. the following exhorThe tation, 'be strong'), and maturity, over against the childish (cf 1Car. 13.1 exhortation to 'show mature courage' (Thiselton) calls to mind the sturdy Old Testament motif of a call to courage in fulfilling the call of God under difficult cir~umstances.~ The archetypal example of this motif is of Joshua's need to be courageous as he led the people of God into the Promised Land The succession narrative of Deuteronomy 31, where Moses hands over his leadership to Joshua, usesthe sameverb inthe m D e u t . 31.6,7,23, firstly directedto thepeople and then twice to Joshua: 'be courageous and strong' (div6piCou ~ a '~OXUE). i The coupling of div6pi(oua~with a term for strength (cf. 'be strong' in 1 Car. 16.13, ~pa~a1oGo8e) lends weight to the identification of a general allusion to this biblical theme at the close of 1 Corinthians. Just as Deuteronomy closes with Moses urging the people of God to be bold and robust in following the Lord's instructions to enter the laud, in contrast to the generation who had died in the wilderness, so Paul called on believers in Corinth to have the same qualities having urged them not to follow the idolatrous and immoral example of the wilderness generation, whom he regards as the Corinthians' forefathers (1 Car. 10.1-11). A Quotationfrom Deuteronomy in 2 Corinthians 2 Corinthians has three main sections: A lengthy explanation of the nature of Paul's apostolic ministry (1.3-7.16); arrangements forthe Collection (8.1-9.15); and a defence of Paul's apostleship (10.1-13.10). The letter's lack of direct and explicit ethical material explains the relatively mar@ in5uence of Deuteronomy. There are no discemable allusions and only one quotation.

Deut. 19.15 in 2 Cor. 13.1 The theme of boasting in weakness occupies Paul in ch. 12, where he speaks of his visions and then ironically of his thorn in the flesh. In Paul's concern to secure the Corinthians' pure devotion to Christ (1 1.2) he mentions in 12.14 that he is ready to make a 'third visit'. He reminds them that onhis earlier visits he did not 38. C. S. K-er,

TheNPBiblicalBackgramdCommento'y: New Testament@owners Gmve,

IL:Int~Varsity,1993), p. 489. 39. Thiselton, I Corinfhim,p. 1336. 40. Cf.Josh. 1.6.9.1s; 10.25;ZSam. 10.12; lhn.22.13;282~2Cbmn.32.7;Ps.26.14;3025.

134

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

take advantage of them or burden them (12.16-19). However, if he has to visit them a third time, he will have to point out their sins, a sample of which he lists in the h a l two verses of ch. 12 (w.20-21)." In this context, ch. 13 opens with the words of warning: 'Thiswill be my third visit to you.' The ominous tone is reinforced with a quotation of Deut 19.15: 'Any charge must be sustainedby the evidence of two or three witnesses.'" Verse 2 spells out the need to take heed: 'I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if1 come again I will not spare them.' In the rest of the chapter Paul makes a number of appeals to the Corinthians to 'mend their ways' (e.g., 13.11) and, more reassuringly, he affectionately greets them(13.12-13). Deuteronomy 19 deals with a number of 'legal' matters, including the establishment of three cities of refuge for those guilty of unintentional maaslaughter (19.2-lo), instructions inthe case ofintentionalmurder(19.1 1-13), the moving of a neighbour's boundary stone (19.14), the requirement that there be more than one witness (19.15), which Paul quotes, and various regulations for witnesses (19.1 5-21). The commonthreadin the chapter is the need to take care to prevent injustice of one sort or another. Deut. 19.15 is a prominent text in both early Judaism (e.g., CD M,17-23 and 1QS V, 25-26) and in the New Testament (cf. M t 18.16;Heb. 10.28; Jn8.17; 1 Tim. 5.19),~0ntinuingits~uenceinbothlegal and semi-legal contexts.43 The main issue for understanding Paul's use ofDeut. 19.15 in 2 Cor. 13.1 is the question of whether the two or three witnesses are real @ersons) or metaphorical (the visits). In favour of the former view is the fact that in the Old Testament the witnesses are persons and at other points for Paul Titus, Timothy and even God are witnesses."However, as Thrall argues, 'the third time' inv. 1 and 'the second time' inv. 2 are references to visits, and it is safe to conclude that 'Paul intends his threevisits to be understood as the equivalent ofthree wit~esses'!~The rhetorical effect ofthe quotation is 'to add f ~ r c e ' ~the ~ t warning o ofhis next visit on which Paul intends to exercise discipline if necessary. The sentiment is reminiscent of 1 Car. 4.18-21: 'I will come to you very soon ... Shall I come with a whip?'

41. Cf the pagan vices of 1 Cor. 6-9-10, 42. Paul cits the uor tart 'ina stighdyabbrwkted form' p.E.GarIan4 2 CorinfhimsWAC; Nashville: Broadman & HolmanPublishers, 19991,p. 540), o m i h g therepethion of the words for 'mouth' and 'wim-8'. 43. See H.wn Vliet, No Single Testimony;A Shr.3. on the Adopion ofrhe L w ofDeuf. 19.Ij por into theNnv Tmrmnenr (Utrecht Kemink en Zoon), 1958. 44. Garland, 2 Grinthions, p. 541. 45. M E .l k & , A Crin'eolnndExegeticoI Commentmy on theSemndEpirtIe to the Corinfhions (ICC; 2 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark,VOL 1: 1W4,voL 2:2000), II, p. 874. 46. Ib!L 2 Corinthians, U,p. 876.

7. Deuteronomy in I and 2 Corinthians

Conclusion

The apparent paucity of links between the Corinthian correspondence and Deuteronomy creates an impression that does not last. Especially in the sections where Paul is primarily concemedwithethics andmatters ofconduct, four quotations ofDeuteronomy and numerous clusters of allusions accord the bookamajar role, especially in the central section of Paul's fust letter. The main material of Deuteronomy, namely its laws, and the most famous texts, includingthe Sherna and the Song ofMoses, are stronglyrepresented. Paul foundinDeuteronomy and Moses atypologicalmodel and sympathetic ally. Both were concemedtoexplain to God's people an obedient response to God's grace in the light of the (new) exodus and (new) Passover. Bothhave the basic goal of securing the holiness and purity of that people in distinction h m the nations and to promote the glo~yof God in 'the land', in the case ofDeuteronomy, or 'in everyplace' (1 Car. 1.2), as with 1 and 2 Corinthians.

Chapter 8 DEUTERONOMY IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES Gerd Haher Introduction Before analysing the role ofDeuteronomyin the Pastoral Epistles, it isnecessary to clarify a number of assumptions concerningthe literary character ofthe Pastorals and the distinctive featuresof scripturalreferences in these letters. I regard both letters to Timothy and the one to Titus as pseudepigraphicwritings, written after the death of Paul1and written as a literary corpus. The three letters are intended to be read (or heard) as three pieces which belong together, beginning with 1Timothy and ending with 2 Timothy. All the letters are connected by particular linguistic features and the polemic against false teachers: two of them in addition by the Tituq and two by the same addressee. question of church order (1 There is no speciiic situation that could be detected for each of the letters - one of the great differences (among others4)between the Pastorals and the undisputed Pauline writing^.^ But as this problem is not the topic of this study, space does 1. GendythePastoralsaredatedatthehrmofthe~~~~tury,ifpse~~hicch~eris assume4 cg. A T. Hauson, ThePatorolEpistle~@CB;GrandRapiddLmdo~EadmanslMarshall, Mngaa & S e 4 1982). p. 13, but H.Koester, Innoduction to the New Testamen:. U History ond Litmawe of Eorly Christirmi@ (New YmkBerlio: de Gruyter, 2nd edn, 2000), p. 307, regards 120-160 CE as most likely. 2. Tbc bank agavln f a k reachm 1% robe found in I Tim. 1.3-10, 19-20.4 1-10; 63-5.20-1; 2 T i m 2.144.5;Tit. 1.10-16; 3 PI 1. E x ~ p o r l n o f & s u n d v e l h ~ ~ rfeaarrsofthcthme oc Panorals in theNewTestammtaretheuse of'to be/& become somd'(&aivo)in a f i d v e seoseaodthe f o d a 'the saying is me' (nlorbr b hbyw). 3. Seee.g. 1 Th2.1-3.16;Tit 1.5-9and2.1-15 w i t h t h e f ~ e u s a r ' G w e i d e p ~ b u t s e e also the uncan for community Leadership in 2 Tim 2.2. 4. In mv view, differences carmine " the l a n m e . the sihlation of the c d t i e s , and the church order me derisive for the psedepigrapbc character of the Pastorals, see e.g. L. O b c r l h a , DieP~ztoralbrief~, 3 YoL (HTKNT. XLZ 1-3: Fm'burc Ilnder, 19%%). .~ 1,~ m..W.d v ; R F. C o h , I& 2 ~&othym d If&:A ~ ~ ( N T ~L ; m y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w&sta~ohn ~ d o l lt : ~&n o x

- -

PressrnX~.7. d P a s t d as authentic 1ettas 5. This is, admimdly, a contcmmial issue. Those who ~ g a r the assoeiatethw with diffmt historical situations,while other scholars denythe existence of my letter m w . See W.A. Richards..DiffprmcemtdDi%mce in Post-Pouline Chrirfmitv: An E~istoImy &o@sb of the PaIoraIs ( S u e s in Biblical Litem*, 44; New Yodi: Lang, ZOM); I. Heaer, 'AbschiedvomKoosmd', TLZ129 (ZW),pp. 1267-82 (heregards 1 Timothyasapsedepigraphie

-

8. Deuteronomy in the Pastoral Epistles

137

not allow furtherdiscussion. The following considerations treat the Pastorals as a unit: the corpus is the object of the interpretation, hence it is not necessary to treat each letter ~eparately.~ Explicit scriptural references are only rarely attested in the Pastorals and it seems clear that the author ofthese letters is no expert in Saipture-basedreasoning, though that does not mean that he is unhterested in Scripture. In 2 Tim. 3.14-17 he provides a proposition about the 'Holy Scriptures' ( i ~ p yh p k p ~ a r a ) and 'each Scripture' ( n k a ypa+$ respectively. Three issues can be discerned in this programmatic passage: (a) Scripture is useful for the functions of the church leader -the focus is not on the relevance of Scripture for all believers; (h) it is a suitable instrument for battling against the false teachers and their adherents (see esp. 2 T i . 3.16-17); (c) Scripture is embedded inthe traditionof the Churchwithout considering its origins in Israel. Why does an author obviously interested in emphasizing the importance of Scripture resort to this authority so rarely? Or put another way: Why does an author, obviously reticent to quote from Scripture explicitly,provide apmgrammatic passage about the practical significance of Scripture?' The puzzle can be solved in two steps. Fit, the programme of 2 T i . 3.14- 17harmonizes with the concrete usage of Scripturein the Pastoralsinasmuchas there are no conbdictions between the two. The three issues noted above can be combined with the actual recourse to Scripture in the Pastorals. (a) Paul and the addressees Tiothy and Titus are not identified with the church leaders of the time of the Pastorals, but these churchleaders should consider Paul, Tiothy andTitus as examples? Thus the usage of Scripture in the letters can be considered as the standard for those who exercise authority in the church. (b) The context of combat against the false teachers is apparent in 1 Tim. 4.3-4; 2 T i 2.19; 2 Ti 3.8-9. It is less evident but nevertheless present in 1 Tim 2.13-149and eventhe quotation of Deut. 25.4 letter); L. T. Johnson, The First ondSecondLetters to Timothy (AB, 35.4; New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp. 634,778-90. 6. There are good-rs for a pseudepigraphicauthor to m t e a q v s of three Letters. The second addressee,T i is linkedwith a diffedngtopographicalselling (Crete: Tit. 1.5), thusassat-

ingtheauthor'sclaims ofabr0aderwlidi~ofhis~tim:theyarenotlimitedto~s~onin ~~thefonmnmitvmnn~WithTimo. t h. v ( 1 T1.3:alsoZTim im 1.18).TheseoondIetterm Tkmthy v\ cha&&ed by e l m m u of a testament. sec A. Weism,Der meire Rndmr Tlmorhnrr (EKKNT. XV1.I; Dclsscldorf, NeukirehcwVllryn Bewigcr, Neukuchcncr. 2003). pp. 3 8 9 . As a lenerof farewell it md&a the weight ofthelnmucdonsgivm m all lhree miHslce, the fan thar t h ~ marc rhree l n v m docs not militate agaian their pseudeprgraphiccharacta,pce G . D. Fa, I and2 Timothy, Tim (NICNT;Peabody: ~e&ickson, 1984), p. 6; W.D.Mounce,P(u-toroIEpistles (WBC, 46,Nashville: Nelson,ZOOO), p. cxx 7. Theemphasisisnotontheinsp~onThisvie~doesnM~donad~oninthedeW syntactical m h l r e of 2 Tim. 3.16: 'AU Scriphlre is inspired by God and useful for teaching' or ' e v e. n insDired SCrmhlre is &o useful for feachinp'? - We need not deeide tbis issue here. 8. See rrp. 2 Tim 2.2: 'and what you have hlard from me through m y witnesses e n m to

.

farthful . wonlr. . who will be able to teach 0th- a% well'. Teaching ic one of the t a s k ofthc church officer(see 1 Tim 3.2; 5.17; Tit 1.9). 9. Seenry'N~~lichzurBeleh~n~'(ZTim3,16):DieRolledaSchn~indenPmtoralbri~enim ohme en der~mlILTrezeption (Herd&~iblische Studien, 25; Freiburg: Herder, 2W),p. 157-9.

8. Deuteronomy in the Pastoral Epistles

139

the problems of the second part can be left aside for now." The wording of the citation is almost identical to the ~xx, as can be seen by the following: Dnrf. 25.4

You shall not d e an ox wblle n i s &ng our the p i n c& Stc&orc; boiv &A&ma)

1 Tim. X 1 8

For the scripme says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it e mading out the grain (@Cv i A & v ~ a dr o.cwor.,.)

The only difference lies in the word order: in 1 T i 5.18 the direct object is at tbe beginning of the clause. This word order is peculiar to the Pastorals and no extant version of the Greek or Hebrew text of Deut. 25.4 begins with the direct object. It is unlikely thatthe author ofthe Pastoral Epistleshashimselftranslated fromthe Hebrew text. He uses exactly the same words as the Sephlaginf which is not inevitable, at least in the case ofthe predicate. Insteadof + 1 ~ 6 w the author could have used qpow, as Paul did inhis quotation of Dent 25.4 in 1 Cor. 9.9.14 The fact that Paul cites the same verse of Deuteronomy is ofvital importance for our survey ofthe role ofthis OldTestamentbookin the Pastorals, for it raises the question of whether the author of these letters is citing from the Old Testament on the basis of the W t i o n available to him. To answer this question we have to take a closer look at the Pauline quotation of Deut. 25.4. Paul does not simply adduce the verse in question, he also tries to give reasons for the relevance ofthis statement to the issue treated in 1 Car. 9.118, namely, the apostles' right to be maintained by their communities. It is not easy to read this out of Deut 25.4, a fact taken into consideration by Paul when be & 'Is it for oxen that God is concerned?' This question is followed by a second one which points to the alternative: 'Or does he (God)not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever ploughs should plough in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop' (1 Cor.9.10-11). This statementcontains some exegetical problems which cannot be discussed in detail here.I5 For our purposes, it is sutlicient to concentrate on the shift of meaning that can be detected in the Pauline exegesis. Whether Paul denies the literal sense is a debated issue. The conkontation of the two rhetorical questions in 9.9 and 9.10 suggests that Paul wishes to exclude the view that God could be concerned for oxen.I6 He is not arguing from the 'lesser to the greater' (if 13. The wording ofthe secondquotationagrees withLuke 10.7. It is, however, iqmbable that theGospelofLuke (orfheQsouneorsomeotheru)Uectionofsa~ ofJ-)iscitedas Scriparc. For details see my Belehrung, pp. 192,201-3. 14. ThemmwSpS are, admmedly, dividedintheof l Car. 9.9, but g m d y ~ M C & I S is regarded as the aria below). - 6 -s (see . 15 E.g. the mterpmtatim cfthe fim personplural; ihe d g of n d v ~ u (mslared , above as ' e o m l y ' ) , the r e f m a ofthcrhetoncal qucstion in". 10:DcuL 25.4(cited in v. 9)orlhc sp&ng of ~ d a l ~ e r . 16. A. C.Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentmy on the Greek T a t (NGTC; Grand RapiWCadisle:Eerdmansmateme Press, 2000),p. 686, regards 9.9 rather as 'a

140

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

God is concerned for oxen, then afortiori forhis servants), as GordonFeerightly Ob~erves."But the statement that Paul's eschatological view of the Old Testament 'is not so much a denial of concern for animals as it is a recognition that even the Law's concern for oxen was a way of teaching Israel of God's mercy toward a1l'l8 does not find mfiicient support in the text. It could be maintained that Paul retains a fundamental theme of Deut 25.4 (thosewho labour shall partake in the fruitsof theirwork), but he is not interested in keeping the original 'addressees' of the Old Testament text, not even in the sense of 'not so much a denial of concern for animals'. Richard Hays notes that the 'surroundinglaws inDeut 24 and25 (especiallyDeut 24.6-7,IO-22; 25.1-3) almost aII serve to promote dignity andjustice for humanbeiigs ...It is not surprising that Pad would have read this verse also as suggesting something about justice in human economic affairs.'I9 But even if this show that Paul's exegesis is not 'an example of arbitmypro~ftexting'(~ it is not justijiedto conclude h m this contextual setting that Deut. 25.4 cannot be read as a pure rule for the protection of animal^.^' This rule is associated with the context by the idea of sensitivity and compassion which is not restricted to human relationships but extends to (threshing) animals. This can clearly be seen by the recourse to this passage in Philo and Joswhus. Philo is an expert in allegorizing Old Testament passages but does not allegorize Deut. 25.4. He praises the Law for the mercy against the labouring animal, not only with regard to threshing (Virt. 145), but also to ploughing (Virt. 146, referring to Deut 22.10). Philo highlights the concern for the animal on the part ofthe lawgiver: to yoke together the oxand the ass is forbiddennot only because of the difference of nature between the two animals (the ass W i g unclean), but also because of 'their disparity of strength'. The lawgiver 'takes thought for the weaker, and would not have them suffer discomfort or oppression h m superior force'. Philo draws a conclusion of these instmctions for human relatiouship~,~~

hesitant question' rhan w a hctoncal queniondemandmga oegmive annvm. But r h c m ~ u a t i o nlo 9.10 doe not ~ppmrhis view: Pad juxtaposes two possibilities of h c h only one is valid 17. G.D. Fee, 7hcFinr Lpnrle~th
.

-.

.

8. Deuteronomy in the Pastoral Epistles

141

but he does this on the basis of a literal understanding of the Deuteronomy passages which are not interpreted allegorically. Josephus refers to Deut 25.4 in a passage that deals with the generosity demanded fiomthose who possess fields, vineyards or olives, a generosity towards the poor, towards those who pass by the field@ethey Israelite or strangers) - and towards the oxen, 'for it is notjust to exclude from the fmit your fellow-labourers who have toiled to produce it' (Ant. IV.233). Furthermore, the argument from the lesser to the greater is attested solely in the Rabbinic tradition in which the rule of Deut 25.4 is expandedto the harvester (see b. B.Mes. 88b). The nual context, and thus the 'literal meaning', is still p r e sent It follows from all this that the Pauline application of the Deuteronomy verse in question wuld hardly tie in with early Jewish traditions. The nearest parallel to the repudiation ofthe thought that God wuldbe concerned for oxenis found in the Letter ofAiisteas, where, however, Deut. 25.4plays no role.z3 This result has consequences forthe interpretationof 1 Tim. 5.18. When referring to Deut 25.4,the Pastoralspresuppose the hermeneuticalworkdone by Paul. The context in which the quotation is embeddediscomparable in both cases. Paul is treating the issue of the rights of an apostle, especially his right to be maintained by the community (1 Cor. 9.4,6-7).Inthe Pastorals the quotation follows a statement about the 'double honourUT (61nA?jTIM$ which shouldbe givento the elders. The exact meaning of this term is dispute4 but possibly it includes some sort of payment or material benefit The quotation of Deut. 25.4 acts as justification for this support: in both cases the Scripture reference is intloduced by the conjunction 'for' (yap). It is, therefore, 'part ofGod's design that Christianworkers be paid fortheir That Deut. 25.4can serve asjustification for this is by no means obvious and, as shown above, the Jewish traditiongavenoclue for such an understanding of the verse. Whereas Paul felt the necessity to give reasons for his Scripturebasedreasoning,and rightly did so,the Pastorals seem to take it for granted that Deut 25.4 is an argument for the 'double honour' the elders are worthy oE In other words: Deueonomy is cited 'via Paul'. This conclusion does not mean that the Scripture reference is weakened in favour of a reference to Pauline traditiouZSThe intent to cite Scripture is made explicit by the introductory famula followed by an identifiable Old Testament taka fmm the Loeb Classical Librmy @. H. Colson) as is the case for the qwtafion of Flwim 1 " p h below (H.St J. Thackeray). 23. Let Arir 144 ~ n Wa s this: 'Do not take the u m ~ h ' b l view e that Moses e n d this legislationbecauseof an exeessive~neoccupationwith mice and weasels and m d i k e creatures.T k bdis that waytbing has been solemnly set in orderfor unblemished investigation and amendment of life for the sake of righteousness' (c&d according to R 1.H. S h q ' I . & of ~risteas',in I. H Charleswoah [dlTheOldTertmlPseudepigrqhn , WewYak Doubleday 1985],ll,p. =).The thoughtrefas tothe respeefivee h x t a o f eLeanrmdunc1eanbirds, the uncleanbeing wild and earnivmw,qmmiing overtheothasbytheirownshen@& obtliningfwdbypreyiogonothmbkis andby seiahg lambs and kids (see Let. Arb. 1 W q . 24. Mounce, PojtorolEpistIes, p. 310. 25. Paee 1.RoloE Der emu Briefm Timothew @KKNT, XV, Ztirieh: Benzige, N&hWuyn: N e ~ h m m 1988), , p. 309.

142

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

passage (Deut. 25.4). There is no reason to qualify this statement, the more so as the second part of the quotation gives no hint to specijic Pauline tmdition. Differences between 1 Car. 9.9 and 1 Tim. 5.18 in the wording of the qwtation do not militate against the 'Pauline transmission' discussed above. Paul uses another Greekverb for 'to muzzle' (tqP6oinstead of + i p 6 d 6 ) but follows the word order of the Septuagint (direct object at the end of the sentence). This is, however, the very reason why the Pastorals have not referred to the Septuagint directly. If the intent of the author of these letters had been to adapt the Pauline quotation of Deut. 25.4 to the exact wading of the LXX," the position of the object could not be accounted for. No extant version of the verse has the word order of 1 Tim. 5.18. That this order could be due to the wish to emphasize the objectz8is an unconvincing assumption: the sentence is so short that such a reordering can hardly have that effect. 'Pauline transmission' does not necessarily mean that the Pastorals used the passage ofthe k t epistle to the Corinthians as immediate source. The main objectionto be raised against this view is the difference in the second part of the quotation. 'The labourer is worthy of his wages' as attested in the Scripture- no clue could be found for this thought in 1 Corinthians 9. Indeed, Paul refers to this saying, but as a saying of the Lord: 'The Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel' (1 Car. 9.14). It is hard to see how the misunderstandingof 1 Tim 5.18b that this saying is taken from the could have been derived directly from 1 Corinthians 9. Probably the author of the Pastorals is dependent on a principle !mown in Pauline tradition and tracing back to the k t epistle to the Corinthians, but not on this letter as a literary source. Be that as it may, there is no evidence that the Pastorals resort to the Septuagint directly. There are no observationswhich could counter the fact that the author draws on two sayings also attested in a Pauline letter within a comparable context. What is the relevance of the quotation in the context ofthe Pastorals?The preceding verse is anappeal concemingtheattitude towards elders. The TIPEO(~~B~TEPOI 26. Both Radings are attested in the m a n k m the use of bip& ~ e n d y .seen as a . beinp. ~rnpmvLm&tand as an adaptation u, the wordmg of the kpruagmt. See B. M.Mckga, A 1 ' ~ r l wCl o m m n m q on thr. tirrek Vets k n r m m r (Stuttg&cw York: Bhlgesellwhaft United Bible Societies,2nd edn, 1994), p. 492. This is, indeed, from sure (C. D. ~tanley, ~ m r&the l Lmrguoge ofSm'pfure: Citation Technique in the Prmline Epbtles and Conrempormy Liteafure [SNTSMS, 74; Cambridge:CambridgeUnivasityRss, 19921,pp. 1956),~weneednotdiscuss this issue here. 27. Sa for uample, P. T~mmer,Die Paulu~froditiondePartora1briefe (BBET, 8;-E Lang, 1978),p. 155. 28. See Rolo4 Der ersleBri./nn Timorhn*r,p. 305 (with fwtnote 408). 29. There are no h i m that the author of our letters would have acceptedthe Gospels (or that of Luke)= 'Scripture'. Probably he sopposed(withsayings ntehasLev. 19.13;Deot 24.1&15;MaL 3.5 inmind) thesayingto be a R ~ i n t h e O L d T ~ e nfordt; seemyBelehnmg201-3;seealsotbe snnitar stafwent of Collins, 1&2 Timothy,p. 146. An opposite point ofview is held by P. Tnrmmer, 'Cnpus P&um - Corpus Pastorale:Zzx Ortung der Paul-6cm in den Pastoralbriefen' in K Kertelge (d) Paulus , in den neufestmtlichenSp&schrfieen (QD, 89; Ereiburg: H&, 1981), pp. 12245 (139). lil-

far

8. Deuteronomy in the Pastoral Epistles

143

are not 'elderly men' (as in 1 Tim. 5.1) but church leaders, as is plain from the designation as 'well rnling elders' and from the addition 'especially those who labour in preaching and teaching'.30 These persons should be considered worthy of 'double honour'. l'be Greek word TIP^ has a wide range ofmeaning: it denotes not only 'honour', but also 'value, price' and 'compensation'." The exact meaning in l Tim. 5.17 is disputed. It seems unlikely, for lexicographical andhistoncal reasons, that ~ l pisi to be understood as a regular paid salary: ~ l pdoes i not mean 'regular salary' but 'honour', and the early church was hardly able to give such regular payments to leaders who were permanently present in their communities."' It does not follow from this that the meaning of 'remuneration' is to be excluded, but the primary accent is on the respect that should he demonstrated for the elders. This respect can be expressedinanhonoiarium; what is decisive is that the elders are highly esteemed by the community. For this interpretation the quantity 'double' is not redundant, but refers in all likelihood to the state of widows discussed in the preceding paragraph (1 T i . 5.3-16).33The elders should be held in considerably higher esteem. The quantity 'double' does not need to be defined exactly," as the author is concerned with the appropriate relationship between the state of widows and of elders - appropriate in his eyes: the author shows a tendency to downgrade the state of the widows35in favour of a strong leadership exercised by elders and the bishop respectively. To strengthen the church office is one of the major concerns of the Pa~torals,'~thus the passage 1 T i . 5.17-18 is not an aside but a central expression of the message of these letters. A strong leadership is regarded as the best means for rejecting the false

30. For a recent discussion of pdrhtora (muslated above as 'especially') see H. B. Kim, 'The Intqmtalion of MAAlITA in 1 Timothy 5.17'. NovT46 (2004), pp. 3 6 W . 31. SeeH. G. L i d d e w S-A Greek-EngllihLaicon (Oxfonl: Clam& 1973),pp. 17934. 32. See I. A Kirk, 'Did 'Oflidals' in the New Testament C h d receive a S-, ZhpT 84 (1972t73).w. 1 0 s . It is thereforenot i&edto conclude -the vvndiagofthe suotatim in 1 Tim 5.18& 'honour' must mean 'co&n~&on/paymad', as does 1ohns&, en&, pp. 2TI-8, without taking into c o n s i W o n a f i h v e meaning of the quotatim. According to Collins, I&2 Timothy, p. l& the ,'double honm'refers to &and s&ffi. That the & d e s wwe able to pmvide an elder with his sustenance is, however, +robable. 33. Hence,the quantity 'double'has its reference point not in elders who donot rule we4poce C. Spicq, Ler ~ p i ParIorales m (Etudes Bibliques; Pads: Caf,4th edo, 1969). p. 542, M in eldm who do not& at all,pace 1.N. D. Kelly,A Commentmy in IheParforalEplifIes @NTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1963), p. 125. The first suggestion raises the question of who could have decided whichof~preshytmhavebeeo&gweU.Iothesecoodcasethefunctionofthose 'se~nd-class eldw' Rmains unclear. 34. See also Mounce, Partoral Eplirle~,p. 309: 'hnh?),"double" does not necessarily mean double the and canbeused "without any definite numaicalrefewce"' (cithg the commentary of J. H. Bernard). 35. See fen this tendency U. Wagener, Die &hung der 'Hrmser Goner': Der On der F m e n in dm Ekklesiologie undErhik der Parforalbriefe (WUNT, U62; TBbingen: M o b Siebeck, 199% pp. 231-3. 36. See e.g. H m o q PmIorolEpBtles, pp. 2 3 4 .

-

144

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

teachers."' To reach this aim it is necessary that the teaching elders be respected by the community. The figurativesense of Deut 25.4 is increased when compared to 1 Car. 9.9. There is not only a shiftfiom arule for the protection of animals to the maintenance of the apostle by the endtime community, but also ilom this question of maintenance to that of respect due to church officers (the nuance of material support being at best secondary).

A Possible Allusion

Deut.19.15 in I Tim.5.19 Nwer accept any accusation against an elder except on the evidence of two or tbree witnesses.

It is beyond doubt that we find in this verse an Old Testament principle attested twice in Deuteronomy (19.15; 17.6) and once inNumbers (35.30). According to that principle it is forbidden to convict an accused person on the evidence of a single witness. InDeut 17.6 andNum. 35.30, the rule relates to the execution of the death sentence, whereas Deut 19.15 is about 'any crime or wrongdoing'. Consequently, the respective contexts are quite different: in the Pastorals the cited norm is not connectedto a lawsuit but to a critique directed against elders. This shift of context is by no means peculiar to 1 Tim. 5.19 within early ChristianM t i o n . The nearest parallel is to be found in M t 18.16 f i c h is part of a passage dedicated to the procedure for admonishing a brother who has sinned (18.15-18). As 1 Tim. 5.20 is concerned with sinning elders, the contexts are indeed comparable. That the focus in the Pastorals is on the church officer and not on the believer in general ('brother') is a characteristic feature for these letters and constitutes no essentialdifferenceregarding the problem to which the 'witness rule' is applied. Both cases are about church discipline. This is, in a sense, even hue fora third passage drawing on Deut. 19.15, namely 2 Car. 13.1. Here, Paul is announcing his thirdvisit to the community of Corinth, and then he cites the rule under discussion. In the face of opponents who had success in Corinth, Paul is writing a sort of apology38thus preserving the forensic context of Deut 19.15,99but this is hue only in ametaphoric sense: we do not leave the context of 'church discipline', which does refer here to the relationship between the apostle andthe community founded by him. So again, as in 1 T i 5.19-20 andin

37. See Obedher, Pr?~toralbrief,Vol.3, pp. 83,91. 38. Sea KG. Sundwnann, Der schwahe Apostel und die KT@ der Rede: Eine rhetohche AmIyse von 2 Kor 1&13 (Fankfurt:Lang, 1W6), pp. 39-45. 39. ~ b I y h e ~ g a r & t h e v i s i t s t h e m ~ e L ~ e ~ ~ ~ t h e w i m e s s e ~ i n t h e ' ~ a l ' ~ t h e ~ ~ r m r nity(see M E. TbralI,A Critical mdExegeticnl Cornmenlory on rheSecondEp&llelo the Con'nthiionr FCC; T&T CEX, ZW],4 pp. 874-5), but for om plnpass we can leave wide the details ofthe exegesis of 2 Cor. 13.1.

~~

8. Deuteronomy in the Pastoral Epistles

145

Mt. 18.15-18, we hear of sinningmembers ofthe comunity(13.2). As aresult, the horizon of the deuteronornic rule has been enlarged in each of these cases. Such changes do notper se cast doubt on the scripturalreference. This is true in a general sense4 but is also con6rmed in view of the fourth passage in the New Testament which refers to Deut. 19.15.4' Only in Ju 8.17 is the reference explicitly indicated, namely by the formula 'it is written' ($ypamat). The cortext is totally differentfkom the one detected so far. John is concernedwith Christology not with church discipline. There are traces indicating the situation of a butthe assumption thatthe evangelist is particularly interested in the exact reproduction of the Old Testament reference text would be misleading. On the wnirary, in spite of signaling a citation (yiyparrrat) John does not quote but adduces the content of Dent. 19.15 'in his own free phrasing'.'3 Indeed, any other rendering of this verse in the New Testament shows greaterverbal similaritythan the alleged quotation." We learn fkom this that the intended role of Scripture in New Testament writings is not necessarily dependent on literal agreement with the reference text. But without signals such as 'it is written' the matter becomes more complicated This is especially true if other ways of &ammission of Bible traditions, besides the direct recourse to Scripture, cannot be excluded. In these instances the verbal similarity is of vital importance. In 1 Tim. 5.19 there is no explicit mention of Scripture as the source of the 'witness rule'. The quotation in the preceding verse is finished, 'Paul' appeals to 'Timothy' at the beginning of v. 19 ('never accept any accusation against an elder') without marking any further Scripture referen~e.'~None of the three Old Testament texts is reproduced verbally.46

40. 'Anvone M a r with the exeeetical methods used in the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Talmud kmws well amugh that o n g m l conten s c m ( y detam~nwllata appheanoa' (W D Dav!cr and D C Allnson, Tht GmpI ( 1 ~ rt ~ r d m lo~Moehrr pCC, London, New York T&T Clark 2W1, II, p. 784. 41. AW&ne-e on the ' d e s s rule'- be Leffaside. Heb. 10.28isclearly . citiw .Deut. 17.6, but the nhr ofwitcesxr is of no importance m lb context of lhe ~ U O I A O R 42. lo Jo 8.12-20 'tenimony'(popwpio)and 'lo bearwmess'(liapwpciv)arccentralexpensions repeated several times,as is the case for 'tojudge' (rpivrrv) mdjudge-t (rpiors). 43. M.I. J. Menken, OIdTestoment Quotatiow in theFomh Gospel(CBET, 15; Kampen: Kok, 1999, p. 16. 44. Menken, Old T ~ e s t o mplotofiom, t p. 16, pints out mat the agreement is 'limited to the nrrmeral&a d t h e r w t u a o m o - ' . J o ~ l a n m z e h a tsa k e n t h e ~ l a e e o f h o r i W w d e . . 45. Thgefore,~see~~j&edtota~ethe~tmduetionofthe&min5,18&evi~~1 an intended S a m i reference h c e A Mer, Die~iveSelbrt~Ie~nprtrsPymI~~: In/-ruelle Shrdien mr ht&n u n d ~ a e p t i o nder Pasforalbriefe W04 52;4~GBninge~ribmg: Vandenhwck & R u p s h t , 20041, p. 110). 46. In the following synopsis the lmslation of the cited Greek text is h e d by italics. The tramlationistbat of the MW, except in me case of Dent 19.15:Here, theKing's James Version is cit& because i& greater fidelity to the origioal text facilitates following the ressoniog of the subsequentmh ~~~

146

Deuterononry in the New Testament I Tim. 5.19

Na c m.t aw . accusation against an elder a c e p t on the evidence oftwo or three wimerses.

Num. 35.30

If anyone kills another. the murderer shallbe put to death on the evidenee of w i m m ;

Dnrt. 17.6

Deul. 19.15

One wimess shall not rise up aga& a man for any iniquity, or f a any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: or the mouth of two witnesses. or at the mouth ofthree wimesser, shall the matter be erroblished ini 6uoiw php~uotvi ini mbparw.G. o. ini rptoiv prip~oiu papr[lpov rac rm!

On the evidence of two or three wimerses the death solfemeshd be e r e ~ t e da; p o n but no oneshall beput m t not be put to to &ah on the death on the evidence lertimov ofo single of only one wimess. wimess.

i n & s i p~imi 6"0 i nai p c i p AS ~ ~w rplov pap7irpwv. paprvpjo~~ 'rni +vxilv &no8av~Tv. hno8av~T'ratb hmo8~mwv...

mbparw rpt& pap~pov maBrjo~~at nirv h a .

The synopsis shows that only Deuteronomy has the characteristic feature of the numbers two and three. Consequently we can exclude Num. 35.30 h m the following discussion. The two remaining passages seem to be both in the background of 1 Tim 5.19j7The phrasing in the Pastorals agrees with Dent 17.6 in the omission of 'the mouth' -a clear hint that the Hebrew t e a has had no i d u e n c e w h a w e r o n 1T i 5.19j8The preposition hi,however, doesnot govem the dative, as inDeut 17.6, butthegenitive as inDeut. 19.15. Onthe otherhand, allthat is characteristic of the last named verse is missing in 1 T i 5.19: not only the phrase hd m b p a ~ o ('at s the mouth'), but also the subject andthe predicate by which the statement is characterized as a basic principle ('shall all matter be established', a r a 0 ~ o ~rrcv ~ a bijpa). 1 Hence, it is extremely diffcnlt to iden* a precise reference point in Scripture. This can be highlighted by a comparison with Mt. 18.16: But ifhe d lnot hear thee, thentake with thee one or two more, that in the mouth oftwo or three wimwrrew~monermqybeestobl~hul(iva iril orbpa~w6"o pap7irpov 5 TP~GY m a 6 mirv bjpa).

In spite of some differencesp9there is no doubt that Deut 19.15 is the reference text ofthis Matthean ~tatement.~ This can be seennotonly by the extent of verbal 17 See Marshall. I'u,r~>nllI j l ~ $ t l op., 61: 4X in none of the thra Old Tntlment ventof rhe 'wimess d e ' the phrase 'E-7; (at the mou!b) s absent Ln the SeptuaginL howevcr, only DLW.19 15 bas an eqluvalmt for &SI peplrstiooal expression (ini m-rbuaro5).The md o f h vent shows m rootran a pligh~difCmce bmum I ux and~ebrewtextewrymatterin6vbjpaisattestedonlyinthe~v.rsionForourdiscussionof 1 Tim. 5.19 these variations are of w d m . 49. The conjmctive mood (ora8j) iastead of the future (ma%psral) is depmdent on the conjunction'iva; the rai ('and') h e m the two numbers ofwimessesis sxhtitmedbyfi('or'); and, M y , Matmew (orthe tradition on which he is dependent)has slightly a%m%tedthe kxt(without eff& on the wntent). 50. J. NoUand, The GospelofManhew. A Cornmottoryon the Greek T a t (NIGTC; (jrandRqidd

8. Deuteronomy in the Pastoral Epistles

147

agreementbut also by the syntactical stmcture: the 'witness rule' is embedded in a final clause and this indicates that the rule is perceived as something to be observed, as a given commandment. It can be assumed, then, that the author is aware of the source of the saying. Both indicators are missing in 1Tim 5.19. The verbal agreement is, as s h o q very limited, and there is no syntactical evidence for the existence of a quotation. Sowe cannot be sure that the OldTestament background is ofany importance for the author of the Pastorals. Maybe he is simply adducing a 'ch&ch rke', a principle of church discipline, and applies it to the behaviour against elders?' He shows no effort to trace that back to Scripture. Co&quently, readers who do not h o w the Deuteronomy passages have no chance to perceive the Srrip twe reference.52It cannot be excluded that the author is informed about the Old Testament and deuteronomic origin of the 'witness rule'. But positive evidence for this is not available. Hence, I speak of a possible allusion to Deut 19.15. Deuteronomy in the Biblical Language of the Pastorals

Io 1T i . 2.3 we reada comment on the preceding instluctionforwo~ship,namely, that prayers should be offered for everyone, including kings and all those in authority, aiming at aquiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity (2.1-2): 'This is right ( K U ~ and ~ Uis) acceptable ( ~ ~ ~ ~ E in K the TO sight U )of (ivcjrc~ov) God our Saviour.' This wording is reminiscent of severalpassages in Dederowmy but no exact parallel is to be found Observing the commandments of God can be rendered by 'doing what is right (~ah6v)and pleasing (&p&m6v) in the eyes of (ivav~iov)the LORD your God'. The structure of the sayings is identical: a certain behaviour is denoted by using two adjectivesfollowed by aprepositionalphrase.The content is very similar:the meaning ofthe two adjectivesdoes not differ (and inone case we h d the same word); the same is true for the respective preposition and the following expression which in both cases relates to God (as Saviour or as Lord). But the frequency of the sentence (Deut. 12.25,28; 13.19; 21.9)53renders it impossible to

Bletchley: E e r M a t m o s t e r Ress, 2M)5), p. 747,sees, obviously by mistake, the M a a m hguage as 'very close to the L x x of Dr. 17.6' (italics mine). 51. It is, however,imombabIe that the rule is bornwed fmmMatthew (regarded as mssible by

19791,p. 137).TheprecediagvnsecitesaSyn0pticsayias-witb&~aah~f&(~ 10.7: 'the labomdesewestobepaiid';Mt 10.10:thelabom~eshisfood).Andtbesameistrueforthe wording of 1 Tim. 5.19 compared to M t 18.16 (see, in ddilion to the omissions, the position of p a p 6 p o v in the Greektcxt).It seems, then,preferable to assum that Dent 19.15was part of an d y collection ofrules concerningthe e h ~ & h , seem A l b 'Andscripmreconnot be bmken': The Fonn m d the Function of the Ewly Chlistim Testimcmia Collectio~~~ (NovTSup,96; Leidenr BriU, 1999), p. 170. 52. See Maq Selbstmlepmg,p. 68. 53. See also Deut 6.18(with sLi& differences in the order of the adjectives).

148

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

identify a single passage as source or reference point of 1 Tim. 2.3."None ofthe contexts has left any trace: neitherthe interdictionof eatingblood (12.25)northe commandments concerning the s a d c e s (12.28) or apostasy (13.1 9) or an expiation ritual (21.9). In addition, a shorter, but similarphrase is attestednot only in Deuteronomy but also elsewhere in the So it seemsjustifiedto think of a formulaic expression which has its Sitz im Leben in the cultic-litlrrgical sphere." Although 'biblical language' cannotbe reducedto a specific reference point in the Old Testament, it is not irrelevant for the topic of this chapter ifthe iostaaces ofa given expressionare characteristically fiequent in one biblical book This is the case in the preceding example: most references are to be found in Demonomy. The same is true for the term. 'people of his own' in Tit 2.14 (Aabs T T E ~ I oho~os).Three times we read this title for Israel in Deuteronomy (7.6; 14.2; 26.18), one time in Exodus (19.5) or two times if we take the Septuagint into account (LXX Exod 23.22, the Hebrew equivalent is not attested in the Hebrew text). But apart h m the fact that Israel's title is claimed for the church, thus retaining the reference to apeople of God, the Old Testament passages have left no traces intheNew Testament text. Again, the relationship is very selective and this is corroborated by the fact that Ezek 37.23 LXX is also discussed as background text ofTit 2.14. Actually, there are some similarities, particularlythe connection between redemption, purification and the establishing of a relationship between God and his people. But we deal witb an almost inextricable tangle of textual contacts, not with identiiiablequotations or even allusions. In thisnetwo* Deuteronomy plays a certain role but is not dominant: despite the verbal agreement in the phrase under discussion we cannot find a specific concern for 'Deuteronomy themes'. And the concept of the 'people of God' is not prominent in the ecclesiologyofthe Pastorals. There is only the one hint inTit 2.14; othemke the ecclesiology is marked by the metaphor of 'the house'.57 Severalphrases can be foundin the Pastorals which are widely attested in Old Testament writings includingDeuteronomy, but only as one among others. This is true for 'the living God' (1 Tim. 3.15; 4.10; cf. Deut. 4.33; 5.2658) and for the 54. See Hansoo, PclrtoralEpirtla, p. 67, who also coosiders a reference to Mal 1.11 but mncludes: 'ifthereis anecho ofDmtmnomyorMalaehihae,t h e r e f e r e n c s a r e ~ n d o w l y i o h ~ by the author in the material he is wing'. 55. .. whatisnght(hp~mbv)inhis(=God's)eyes(~v&rnov)': DRb.12.8;ZEsra 10.11;Tob. 421; 14.9 (Sinaiticus). 56. See Obedinner,Pclrtoralbriefe, Vol. 1, p. 71. Cult (boundto aholyplaee, withvarious fof sacrifices) and pmyer are indeed different phmmena But the mentioned Sin im Leben with the two components (cult,liturgy) is appropriate iaasmuch as both case are about m action bedto Gd.It is, however, impossible to conshuct a bhk to a d c passage in Deutemnomy. 57. See 1 Tim 3.15; 2 Tim 2.19-21; also 1 Tim 3.&5 and the passages in which the arttior inculcatesthe roles ofthe ancienthousehold (Tit2.1-10; 1 Tim. 2.11-5; 6.1-2; fordis see eg. D. C. Vmer, TheHmeholdof God: thesocia/ Wo~IdofrhePastoralEpirties[SBLDS, 71;Chim: Scholars Prss, 19831, pp. 127-86). 58. Butseealsointheuor:Jos.3.10; 1Kgs 17.364Kgs19.4, 16;Ps.41.3;Isa37.4,17;Dan. 5.23 etal.

'.

8. Deuteronomy in the Pastoral Epistles

149

designation of a minister of God as 'man of God' (1 Tim. 6.1 1; 2 Tim. 3.17; cf. Deut. 33.lS9).The phrase 'topu~suerighteousness'(1 Tim. 6.11) istobe found in Deut. 16.2060 and in many other instances as well.61The designation of God as 'Lord of the Lords' (1 Tim. 6.15) likewise is not restricted to Deuteronomy (10.17)6Zas is the case for 'the great God' (Tit. 2.13).63 Perhaps there is another example for an indirect influence ofDeuteronomyon the Pastorals. Accordingto 2 T i 3.15 the holy Scriptures are able to make wise (oa$ioai). This wording does not allude to a specific text, the Old Testament rather provides a broader background for the idea of Torah as source of wisdom.@ God's commandment (Bv~ohfi)'makes me wiser than my enemies' (Ps. 118.98 LXXalso v. 130), his Law (vbpw) makes infants wise (Ps. 18.8 wx). Possibly these psalms are a reflection of Deut. 4.5-6 where it is said that the wisdom of Israel is rooted in the statutes and ordinances given by God Thus Deuteronomy could have played a part in the development of that tradition, but there is no evidence for an allusion to that book in 2 Tim. 3.15. Finally, there is the phrase 'works done inrighteousness' inTit. 3.5. Salvation is not founded in such works but in the grace of God. A similar exclusion, it seems, is found in Deut. 9.5: the gift of the land is not athiiuted to Israel's righteousness, hut to the activity of God.A specification,however, needs to be added: this activity is motivated by the wickednessof the nations living in Canaan andby the promise given to the fathers. This constitutes a remarkable difference between the two texts, as in Tit. 3.5 motives for God's mercy are totally absent. In addition, the verbal agreement is not too impressive: 'worksdone in righteousness' is peculiar to Tit. 3.5. What we h d in both texts is the opposition of human righteousness and the saving act of God. Lastly, in a letter belonging to the Pauline M t i o n , it is no surprise to find a repudiation of salvationby works of righteousness, even ifthere is no exact parallel. Paul, inhisundisputedletters,never speaks of 'works (done) in righteousness', but of 'works of the Law' which cannot lead

59. And 1 Chron. 23.14 (Moses); Judg. 13.6,s (an angel of God); 1 S a m 9.6 (Samuel); 1 Kgs 12.22 (Shemaiah); 1 Kgs 17.18 (Etijah); 2 Kgs 4.7 (E.li&) et 01. M). With slight variations, which are, however, m the Greek text Less distinct than in English versions which mostly use the tam 'just' or 'justice' in rendering Deut 16.20, as does the NRSV: 'Justice,andonly justice, youshallpurme' (LXX: 6ixaios & Bralov 61rjm). 61. SeeProv.15.9;Sir.27.8;Isa51.1;seealsoRom9.30andothacasesintheP&e1~in whichavirmeis object oftheverb 'topmme' (as e.g.peaceandlove; see Rom 12.13; 14.19; 1 Car. 14.1; 1 Thss.5.15; aLsoHeb. 12.14; 1 Pet 3.11). 6'2 Again thae are differeoces in the precise wording not easily renderedin Eng!&h. In 1 Tim 6.15 wehdtheunnecfirnofKbp1a5 andr~p~~fi~lv(tOreign,tOmle,henee 'Lordoftheruling'ina verballramlafirn). Thisisnowbaeattfftedinthe~ 5 i n ~ & t h e p h r a s e ' L o r d o f t h e L o r d s ' appean(Kbp!o~rupiov,seeDan.4.37;Ps. 135.3.26m). 63. SeeintheU0r:Deut 10.17;ZChmn.2.4;2Esra5.8; 18.6;Ps.85.10;Isa26.4;Ja.39.18; Dan 2.45. 64. See Spicq, ~ ~ i h -Postor~~lrr, es p. 786: there was a traditional bond between Torah and 'makingwise'.

150

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

to righteousness. The difference is not insigniscant but for ow purposes,65a reference to Deut 9.5 can be excluded: The phrase under discussion is not an example of 'biblical' but of 'Pauline language'. Conclusion As far as explicit Scripturereferences ingeneral are concerned, Deuteronomy does

not play a major role for the Pastorals. The author of these letters is not inclined (and presumably not able) to refer extensively to Scripture passages in his reasoning. But nevertheless the testimony of Scriptureis ofvital importance for these letters (see 2 T i 3.14-17), in all probability because of the role Scriptureplayed for the opponents: Scripturecould not be left to them. Within this narrow range, Deuteronomy is not irrelevant for the Pastorals. There is one explicit quotation which is introduced as Scriplure (ypa$$, at leastpartially takenhmDeuteronm y , and applied to an issue of vital importance for these letters: church order and commnnity leadership. There is a possible allusion in the reference to the rule of two or three witnesses. And some of the 'biblical language' could stem from Deuteronomy, though it also occurs elsewhere. A distinctive feature of these letters in general is also true for the Scripture references, and accordmgly for the role of Deuteronomy: the attachment to tradition ('Traditionsgebundenheit'), not only to Pauline tradition but also, in a broader sense, to that of the Hellenistic world and particularly to Hellenistic Judaism.66With regard to biblical language, this characteristic is obvious, but it counts also for the ident3iable Scripture references. In the case of the Deuteronomy passages cited or alluded to in the Pastorals, that attachment to tradition becomes apparent in the fact that the possible allusion is probably a principle of church disciplineand that the quotation and application ofDeut. 25.4 is basedou .. Pauline &tion. At first glance, these results might be disappointing for those interested in the role of the Scripturein the New Testament, butthey shouldnotbe seen as wholly negative. The importance and the effect of Scriptureis not limited to those cases in which Scripture is cited expressly and intentionally. There is also a more subtle presence of the Old Testament in the New thus comborating the fact that theNew Testament cannotbe understood adequatelywithout the Old This is true even if the Pastoral Epistles do not reflect the fact that the Scripture is a heritage

65. It is easy to imagine that those who mgsrd the P~sforalsas d e n t i e 6 g r ; stressthe common fatams between Tit. 3.5 and the undisputed letters of Paul. They refa to the theolopieal idea ofjWcationby grace, ' a t d y Pauline thought', see Mounce, Pmto~alEphtler,p. 448. Butwhy thisratherun-Paulinephrasing?AsH~ll~oa,Pmto~~IEphrIeS,p. 191,putsit 'Paulwouidneveruse dikniosm-(righteousness)in &is way', and this meaos: as a virme. 'Works done in righteousness' are 'righteous wmW. 66. This is a bmadly heldnew, see for example Hanson, Studies in thePmforolEpistler,p.60: The Pastorals belong 'to second generation Chdstiaoiv, stiU in mntactwah Hellenistic Judaism'.

8 . Deuteronomy in the Pastoral Epistles

151

taken over from Israel. Without further ado, the Scripture is read as addressed to the Christian chwch. For us today, because of our themlogical sensibility that God's covenant was withIsrael and has never beenabrogatedby God, we cannot ignore the fact that the Scriptureswere originally given to IsraeL But even these letters, despitetheirlimitatious,testify to the fundamentalrole Scriptureplays for the understanding of the early Christian tradition

Chapter 9

DEUTERONOMY IN HEBREWS

Introduction

The fact of Pentateuchalinfluence on the writers oftheNew Testament, andparticularly their use ofDeuteronomy, is widely accepted in scholarly circles today. Substantialevidencefor this is foundin the explicit quotations,' references: allusiom3and broader motifs.4 he presence of qu&oni from ~euteronom~ retlects the attitude of the New Testamentwriters towardsthe Jewish Law and customs, at a time when early Christianitywas stillpositioning itself- sometimesalongside, other times in opposition to it. The role of the Shema and the Decalogue is obvious in this regard and it occurs in almost all of the New Testament books that quote from Deuteronomy. Along with Romans, Mark, Matthew, and LukeActs, Hebrews is iden&ed as one of the New Testamentbooks that quoted the most *om Deuteronomy.It also contains the quotations closest to the beginning and to the end of Deuteronomy. Ellingworthpointed out that although 'the earlierchaptersof Deuteronomyare not neglected', 'the author shows particular interest in its h a 1 chapters'? But all of the (suggested) Deuteronomy quotations in Hebrews are short and hgmentary when comparedto the same author's quotatiom fromthe Psalms and the Prophets. This raises some questions: Did he quote from memoxy rather than from a written text? Did he know these phrases from the early Jewish or early Christian traditions? What role did the liturgical M t i o m play here? Should these brief I . Almost always <xclusively iauoduccd with a pmpcr a d idmt5able inooduetary formula. Consnous lrfennee by the author to an element or aspen of a lext, but nor m e a t to be a qnotation 3. In the words ofW. C. Kaiser: 'Allusions may be c h ,p b or even a single word, and, b f m ,we may not always be sure matthe New Tstammt writer dehimtelv intended that the Old Tetsment coaneetion should be made in ihe rmnds of his readem' (The U.vr, o f l k Old Testumen1 in the New [Ch~cago:Moody Bible l o m ~ e 19851, . D. 2). flowevcr. one cwld not ahvavs bL.

2.

was

8-

mt whether the a u t h o r o I b ~ f mnseiously if&&usion. 1t A d b e redythe&t of mmonlmowledge ofthe ~Ligions&tion or seriptxrd intlumce on the Ian-e of the day. 4. ~ o n s i s t i a g o f a n l r m b e r o f e ~ e m e n ~ f m m a ~ ~ d o c u m m t o ~ m ~ ~ ~ o n ~ f about a particulartheme. 5. P. FJhgwoah, The Epistle to tkHebrews. A Commentmy on the Greek Terl(GmdRBpi&: Eadmaas, ZOOO), p. 39.

9. Deuteronomy in Hebrews

153

Deuteronomic phrases be seen as conscious references or allusions, rather than explicit quotations, especially in the light of the absence of clear introductory formulae and in most cases, differences in wording?

Synopsis of Quotatiom, References and Allusions Attributed to Deuteronomy In comparing the lists provided by S ~ e t eBiiche17 ,~ Archer and Chirichigno8and NA", there are nine possible quotations inHebrews,most of whichare also found elsewhere in the New Testament (and Pl~ilo).~ Heb. 1.6 Heb. 10.28 Heb. 10.30 Heb. 12.3 Heb. 12.15 Heb. 12.18+19 Heb. 12.21 Heb. 12.29 Hob. 13.5

Rom 15.10 Mk 14.56; In 8.7 Rom 10.19; 12.19 Acts 8.23

(Rom 10.6a = Dent 9.4) Philo, Con$ 166

Demt. 32.43 Wovloses' Song] Dent. 17.6 Dent. 32.35-36 woses' Song] Dent. 20.3 oeut.29.17(18) Dent. 4.11+12 Deut. 9.19 Deut. 4.24193 Deut 31.6 (Josh. 1.5?)

Two features are also worth noting at the outset. Fitly, d i k e the Psalmquotations (and Jeremiah), the texts are not quoted with reference to divine authority. Ellingworth is thus of the opinion that the author possibly 'felt that the authority of the Pentateuch did not need to be aliirmed','"which in itself conveys the attitude that the author of Hebrews had with regard to the Torah, and especially with regard to Deuteronomy. Another interesting phenomenon is the fact that, except for Heb. 1.6 (and it is questionable whether it really belongs to the Deuteronomy quotations- see below), all of the quotations are to be found in the latter part of Hebrews, between Heb. 10.28 andkeb. 13.5. A closer look at these nine identi6ed 'quotations' k m Deuteronomy shows, however, that there are strictly speaking on&four explicit quotatiom Deut 32.43 LXX (Ode 2) in Heb. 1.6; Deut. 32.35-36 in Heb. 10.30-31; Deut. 9.19 in Heb. 1221, and Deut 31.6 inHeh. 13.5. At least four ofthe instancesusually identified

6. H . B. Sw&+ Infroduction lo lhe OldTestmnt in Greek(Cambridge:CambtidgeUniveaity Press, 1914),p. 383. wid das ALte Testpnem',Sfudien MdfiiiTiken 79 (1906), pp. 7. C.Biichel, 'DerH&&ef 50891. 8. For a gaopsis, see G.L.Archer and G.Ckichigno, OIdTeslmnent @ o m i o ~ .in the New Tertomenr (Chicago: ~ o o d Bale y Preu, 1983), pp. 34-48. 9. Scholars.pply~tcritaiatoidentify'q~~tatio~'and~meinc1ude~ferencesaadall~s i m also as 'quotations'. M.Karrer counts, forkstance, 13 quotations fortbePentateuch as awhole (DmBriefon dieHebrde~: Kqilel I , 1-5, I0 [[(m20/1; Gibersloh: G i a a s I o h e r V ~ u s20421, , p. 62) whaeas L H.Eybm identified 25 forDeuteronomy only ('Hoe gebruik die SWdie SxBe?', TheologiaE~mgeIic02[1969], pp. 82-93, herep. 83). 10. EIlingwoah Hebrews, pp. 38-39.

154

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

as quotations shouldratherbe countedas allusions (all oftheminHebrews 12)11 and the remaining one as an intended reference.I2Furthermore, a number of these nine cases occur as quotations in early Christian literature, or, as in the case of the very last quotation listed above, by the Jewish writer, Philo (Conf: 166). Of particular interest are those that occur in Romans, for the unknown author of Hebrews quotes from the context immediately preceding a quotation @eut 9.3 in Hebrews and Deut. 9.4 in Romans) and also alludesto the followingcontext of a quotation that occurred in Romans @eut. 29.17 in Hebrews and Dew 29.3 in Romans). Furthermore, from all the books in the New Testament that contain quotations from Deuteronomy, it is only Hebrews and Romans that explicitly quote from Deuteronomy 32, the 'Song ofMoses'. Hebrews' possible familiarity with the books of Paul and the connection between Paul's letter to the Romans (Rome) and Hebrews' addressees (also possibly Rome?) will, however, not be discussed here.

The Song of Moses (Dart. 31.30-32.44) Gheorghita13has recently c o h e d t h e numerous allnsionsto Deuteronomy 3133 in Hebrews. This is no strange phenomenon, due to a number of reasons: This part was well known as it contains the Song of Mose~.'~It can be assumed that the Canticum Mosis was a familiar song among the Jews. Its presence amongst the Odes in Codex A of the uoc (at the end of the corpus of the Psalms) also points in tbis direction. The author ofHebrews compares the superiority of the Son with the mle of Moses. This inevitably involved considering the farewell address of the great mediator of the Law. The number of references to and explicit quotations ffom this section of Deuteronomy in Hebrews is striking, so that it is not strange to also h d a fair amount of allusions to this section. The liturgical connections of Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 135 with the festiva115cult of the Israelite covenant ~omrnunity'~ might throw some 11. Deut 20.3inHeb. 12.3;Deut29.17inHeb. 12.15;Deut4.11-12inHeb.12.18-l9,andDeut 4.24 1 9 3 in Heb. 12.29. 12. Deut 17.6 in Heb. 1028. 13. R Gheorghita, TheRole offheSeptuagint inHebms. An Imestigntion ofltr Influence with Special Considerofion to the Use ofHnb 2.3-4 in Heb 10.37-38 (WUNT, 11M);Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), p. 95. 14. Cf.G. A. F. Knight, The Song ofMoses. A Theological Qwmy (Gnrod Rapids: Eerdmsns, 1994), for ageneral commentary on the Song of Moses. 15. Accmdio~ to M.Baah, 'The author shows an mmisahble interest in the festivals. the holy . s ~ m b l i c rthe , cultic aetlm$and tnmnuionr ofGod's pwple' ('The OldTestam~nllo Hebrews:Ao Fssay in Biblical Hermencmics', in W . Klassea andG F. Snyder ludsl, . . . Cunc*t lsrurr ,n N m Itlrromenthte'prefafion.Essoys in honor ofOtto A. P i p m don:SCM, 19621,pp. 53-78,herep. 71). 135 was lherary dependent on other literary so16. A. Weism pointed to the fanmat P& andtha '...are c& clearly see that Psalm 135 is in all its a &gical hymo whichwas &inted to be recited antiphonally at me festival cult of the h d t e covatant mmunity' (The Psalms: A Cornmentory [ O n ; London: SCM, 19821, pp. 788,789).

*

9. Deuteronomy in Hebrews

.

155

light on the covenant motif as found in Hebrews. The covenant festival was, according to Weiser,l7an annuallyrepeated sacred act ofthe renewal of the Covenant and is attested in the Qumran Manual ofDiscipline 2.10 (although further evidence of such an annual festival is scarce). The firstcentury CE Testament of Moses (alternatively known as the Assumption ofMoses) is 'framed around the end ofthe book of Denteronomy' 31-34,18 with evidence of an existing second-century BCE origid . 1 9 This in itself is an indication of the importance that this section of Deuteronomy had for early Judaism.

Deut. 32.43 m ( 0 d e 2) in Heb. 1.6 An explicit quotation fiomthe Cantiam Mosis is to be found in Heb. 1.6 ('Let all God's angels worship him')?" There are three different strands of the tradition to be identifiedin a comparbnbetween the quotation in Heb. 1.6 and the available intertexts. Strand A consists of the MT, but when turning to Dent. 32.43 in the Hebrew of the MT, the line qnoted in Heb. 1.6 is absent. It is thus clear that this version was not used for the quotation. StrandB is representedby Deuteronomy 32 ( m ) which contains an expanded reading covering eight lines at this point, '. .. of which it is not easy to decide how many belong to the original translator'?' Also belonging tothis strand is the Hebrew text ofDeuteronomy discoveredat Qnmranu (4QDeuq. The line quoted in Hebrews is again present here (line 2) - confirmingthe reading also uioi 8 ~ 0 % 'the (sons) of God' i 'all the gods' as does Deuteronomy 32 (=)!*? Also l i e 3 (quoted in Ram. 15.10) and line 4 £ram the LXX version are present in this Hebrew version of4QDentq.The occurrence ofthese lines in 4QDeutqthus confirms thus that these lines had a Hebrew Vorlage which was known in Qumran?" Whether 17. Weisa, Psalms, p. 32 n. 2. 18. Cf J. Priest, 'Testament ofMoses'. in J. H. Chadesworth(ed),The OldTesfmenrPsewlepigrapha, I (New Y d :Doubleday, 1983), pp. 919-34, here p. 923. (Philadelphia:Wesrminster, 19. Cf 1. L. Kugel and R A. Greer, Eorly Biblical inferp~efaion 198% p. 76. 20. SeeG.J.Steyn,'AQustfortheYorlogeoftheSongofMases(Dt32)Quota6rmsinHebrew~', Neofeslomenfico 34 (ZOW), pp. 263-72. 21. P. Ka*;'The Quotatiow fromDeutemnomyinHebRws',ZNW49 (1958),pp. 213-23, here p. 217. 22. Thetextwas~publishedaod~edbyP.W.Skh('AF~&oftheSongo~om [Dent 321 from Qwmm', BASOR 136 [1954], pp. 12-15). He later added some f i ~ n e n t (s' Q ~ r m and the h e n t State of O.T. Text S!xdies: The Masoretie Text', JBL 78 [1959], pp. 21-5). W. F. Atbright supptiedarecow~onofthetort('NewLightonEarly Re-imoftheHehrear Bible', BASOR 140 [1955],pp. 32-3). ff.also S. Jellicoe, TheSepruaginrondModonSludy(win0naLake: E i s h , 19891. 23. There wpm UI br: &lfer~neesin the rrcansmeoon of this line. E. N i e h (I)lub~rununl!um IIIAT I.6,Tiibingea:Mohr S a k k 1995l.p.28)laker it as: 3'-'n, whilst P W Skehanpo~ntedm kerfragmm~whichleadto tbereeon%ction of~.;r"m'13.('The Stmdure of the Song ofMoses ioDeuteronomy [32.1-43]', in D. L. Chdstensen(ed.),A SongofPowermdlhePowerofSong Essays on IheBook of Deuteronomy Winona LaLe: Eisenhrauns 19931, pp. 15648, here pp. 167-8). 24. ff.Skkehaq 'F-ent', pp. 12-15, and E Gidsser, An die Hebro'er: 1.Teilband Hebr 1-6 @KKNT,x w / l ; Zurich: Bmziger, 1990).

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

156

4QDeutq(dating from the first half of the first century CE) was a wpy that was made for personal reading" or a 'special use' li-cal teaz it6seems to have contained only the Song of Moses (Dent. 32.143).n Strand C is lepresented by theversionto be found in the second Ode, belonging to a group of selected odes, prayers and hymns that are bound in just after the Psalms in Codex Alexandrinus of the LXP (and to be clearly distinguished fromthe Odes of Solomon). Heb. 1.6 is closest to this version, withboth reading 6iyy~ho1BEO?J-the latter with the dehite article. Deut. 32.43 m

Heb. 1.6

Ka; np-qadrwaov obrw n d m j -Ao,

Or&

rai npmruqadrooav o h 4 ndv-5 v'mi Or&

Ode 2 LlX roi npoaruqodrooov a b r 4 ndvns 61ciyydo, Or&

Thus the statement that the quotation in Hebrews corresponds exactly to Deut. 32.43 in the Song of Moses,lYor that it is a quotation &omDeuter~norny,~ needs qualifying:to which version is one refening? Van Rad already pointed out that '(t)he so-called Song of Moses is a long widely ranging poem which came into existence quite independentlyofDeuteronomy'." It represents a wmplex textual tradition and one should ask whether the author translated his quotation h t h e same version as 4QDeuC or whether he used a ~ xtranslation x representing the same text tradition as that found in 4QDeutq.The question whether the text that he is quoting &omwas a written or orally transmitted text is an irrelevant one, as the orally transmitted text representsa written accouut somewhm along the tradition Thus he might have had access to the scrolls inhis synagogue or the liturgy duringthe senices held there or both. The fact of the matter is that the author of Hebrews is quoting the particular tradition that refers to the 'angels of God', which is closest to that fomdin the Odes (of Codex A). Tnis not only suitedhis argument that Christ is differentfiumthe angels (Heh. 1.5) and that God saidthat the angels should worship Christ, it was probably also the version h o w n to him 25. C£E.Tov,'&~andAb~edBiblicalT&~Qumrad,Rarrede@mm 16 (1993.w. . ... 581-600 (mfdtobv1.E Baumemtea 'SrrmtuRandLawin40265'.inM. E Stone aad E.G. C h u m [eds], B~blrcolPenpectrVrSEmly Usc mrdlnterpretotion of the Bible in L~ghto/ the DpodSpo Scmlls Ilsden: Brill,19981,m.25-33, herc D. 29). 26. P. W.Flinf T h e ~ e r u i ~ e n ~S&ILS s a h ondfhe~obR~&lmr (STDJ, 17;Leiden: Bdl, 19973,p. 167(n67)andp.218 (n102). 27. Flint, PsollmrScmIl,p. 167(n67)andp. 218(n 102);A Steude5Der .4Iidrarch~~~Eschatolopie mrsder@mmgm&de ( 4 Q m i d r E s ~ ~MoferieIlleReko~ktion, ~). Tedbarmd GmMlg udnodifio~geschichtlicheEinordmmgdes&ch 4Q174 ('Flon'legim11 und4Ql77('CofoloA'/ rrprrirenfiertenW e r k mdm @mrangkdm @den: B a 1994),p. 181,note 3. 28. ~dedtoCodexA(4W5thcmtCE).CodexRW~is.6thcentCE),CodnrTClirri7tb'-t c ~ and ) ~ i o A 55e (10th a).' 29. For ezanmle, H. W .AtUidgc, 7he he~istletothe / / & m s (Hameuck Philadelphia. F m h c s

-is,

cArury

Prss,1989),~.G;H.J.B.corn'~ome~ho&&onh~~d~estament~-in&~& to the Hebrews',Neofertmnentica5 (1971), pp. 22-36, herep.27. 30. ~ , f o r h c e , ~ n ; R G . B r a t c h e r , O I d T e s t m n e n ~ ~ m ~ o ~ m f h e N o u T e s ~ Y& U W Bible Sodetie$l%l). p. 57; 8),p. 195. 31. G.von Rad, Deuteronomy. A C o r n

9. Deuteronomy in Hebrews

157

kom the liturgicaltraditi~n.~~ With this he indicated that God himself aclmowledged the divinity of Christ The quoted text is taken out of its context andapplied to Christ. Its meaning is made ambiguous with the pronoun a 6 ~ 4('him'),33 which originallyreferred to Go4 but now refers to Christ The previous attempts of Swete,%K a ~ zArcher , ~ ~ and Chiri~higno~~ and Weiss3"to explain the change &om 'sons' to 'angels' by means of some influence or conilation with Ps. 96.7 (m)are not convinci~@ for they do not take the other versions of4QDeuP and Odes" fully into account. It is interestingthat Heb. 1.2 opens with the same thought as that which isjust prior to the Song ofMoses inDeut 3 1.29: E"cqa~ov~ i j $v~ o p i j vAccording . to Moses' Song, 'when the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankin4 he 6xed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of God's angels' @eut 32.8). However, the author of Hebrews makes it clear that 'God did not subjectthe coming world, about which we are speaking, to angels' (Heb. 2.5). Furthermore, both Moses @eut 32.20) and the author of Hebrews (Heb. 3.12ff.) warn about the danger of apostasy. Deut 32.35-36 in Heb. 10.30 An interestingphenomenon takes place with the presentation of an explicit quotation h m Deut 32.35-36 in Heb. 10.30-3 1 ('Vengeance is mine, I will repay' And again, 'The Lord will judge his people'). Being p& of Moses' speech in Deuteronomy,the author of Hebrews introduces the quotation with the formula, 'for we h o w him who said' as a so-called 'Jesus saying',40that is, as ifthese are the direct words of Jesus himself There are a number ofpossible intertextsto be consulted here when considering the possible Vorlage ofthis quotation, which canbe grouped into three major strands. Strand A is represented in the newly recovered reading of Spmachns, 32. S. 1.Kistrmaker. ThePsolm Citationsin the E~irtleto theHebrews (AmstVan Soest, 1961).pp. 22-3; G. vsa den Br& 'DeSekifl zegt of de SckiR fan-? ( 2 ) H e gebruk van ha Oudc T c ~ t l m ~ m int Heb-'. in A G. b e v e l rr at. (eds), Btibd en t i e r s < : VwPmnmn~enm dr hlholieRe b r i m m ~ e b r e e (Theologisehe a ~ 4 ~Kamfm~: 7 K O ;~ V ~ C 1993), & , pp. 211-17. 33. Athidge,Hebrous, p. 57. in Greek, p. 383. 34. Swete,Old Te~fommt s t since h a t h i 0 1anduioi, andotherwords 35. ~ ~ o f o t i o ~ ~ p . 2 1 7 . H e a l F o ~ k r m'... too,are in-hanged in some classes o f m MSS (butnot inA ...!),notking canbe taka tiomthis 'p.'~mmdefinethepredsenahrreofthesoumo~~(@aIations,p.219).~amoogst others, never rakes the Odes-version inm acmmt as wen 36. Anhaand Chiricbigno, OldTesfomoltQwfntiom,p. 51. 37. H.-F. Weiss,DerBriefandieHeb).der(KEK13; Galiin@% Vandenhoeck&RnpxcM, 1991), 0.163. 38. Similarly also Gheorghiu, Role ofthc Srptuogmr,p. 42. 39 So also memaker '. . . i t may b e a m e d thar the ql~orationha\ banpan ofthe Hymn of Moses (Odes), which was s-ly incmpmted in the lit& of the Chunb' (P& C i t a t i o ~ , pp. 22-3). 40. For a discussion on thae quotations,cf G.J. Stcyn, "Jesus-?qh@ in Hebrews', E l I 77 (2001), pp. 433-40.

158

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

4QDeutq them, Targum Onkelosand the Peshitta. Howard has pointed out that the quotation as a whole is closer to the Targum of Onkelos and to the Peshitta," whereas Femrindez Marcos has drawn att&tion to 'new fragmenb of the SyroHexapiaric version (which have) increasedthe number of Symmachianreadings before the historical Symmachus'."He concludesthat the 'new reading of Symmachus recovered for DL 32.35 ... is probably the source of this curious quotation in Rom. 12.19 andHeb. 10.30'.43 Strand B can be seen in Deut. 32 ( m ) , Ode 2 of Codex A and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Strand C are quotations &omthe Song of Moses, with Deut. 32.3536a (Heb. 10.30) quotedin Rom 12.19 andDeut. 32.36b quotedin 2 Macc. 7.6." The h t part of the quotation corresponds exactly with the version in Rom 12.19 (strand C) against the readings of Deut 32 ( m ) and Ode 2 (strand B). Both the readings of Rom 12.19 and Heb. 10.30 are closer to the Hebrew and the S p Hexaplaric fragment (strand A).45The texts are as follows: Heb. 10.30

A. D m . 32.35-36 Syo-Kexoplo~c

~ v o'EutiLmols, i i v d 'Evoi fx616mls xai av~and& hvruno6& (Vengeance is mine, I WY)

K ~ I V E nipios ~

r6v AaAv

8. Deur. 3 2 . 3 5 - 3 6 u Ode 2 LIT'

C. Rom. 12.19 + 2 Mocc. 7.6

iv i i p a Rom 12.19 hr61niml~os k ~ okx6imols, i iyd hvrano6&o, iv hvrand&oo. xoip+. Lrav or$aAe b A& nip,% no"< a l ~ l i vLn , E ' YYjs hvipa cirrohriag aLrliu, rai n a p a m ~ v % ~LEV. o~~a ?rr, uptvii nip!% 76v A a b

WT&

&T&.

(The Lord willjudge his people)

xai (Eni 7015 606A015 ~ a$i 6 TGS 606Ao1s ah& rraoarhn%os~at naoadn%orrat

2 Moce 7.6

41. G. Howard, 'Hebrews andtheOldT~mtQuotatio11~',NovT10(1968),pp. 208-16, here p. 213. 42. N.Fernink Mareos, The SepNngint in Conferf.Inhoducfionlo fhe Greek Versionr of the Bible (hiden: Brill, ZOOO), p. 137. 43. FernindezMareos, Sepluogin1,p. 138. Cf. alsoW. Baars,NewSyrnheroploric Tenr(Leiden: Brill, 19683,~. 148. 44. F m h k Mareos, Septuoginl, p. 263. 45. G. Harder, 'Die Sqmaghtazitatedes Hebrhhiefs',inM. Amert5H.Asnusseoefal.(eds). A ~ l r , p ulior,,mm 7&~,1ogtich~lufiite (Munich. K ~ ~ L1939). T , pp. 33-52, hemp 50 Cf. also D-A. Kwh: ' . mnr Tertanmhnmg dic dem wr naenteht alr der LxX,dm Ziral van Dm 32,358 in R6m 12.19, das ingleicher ~ m a&h m in ~ e b 10.30 r vorliegt' (DieSchr$olr Zeuge dm Evmgelim. Linlersuch~genzurVowMdung u r r d m V e r s I ~ *der . Schrifi beiPmIw. BHT, 69; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeek, 19861,p. 77), and 'Als Tatpmdagehat gnmdsafzlichdie S e p e t a mgelteq auch wenn (wie imFde derDeut8momium-Zitate)mil sekundamAngleichlmg dm Temorlage an eine he-sche Vorlage zu reehoen ist'('Sehrihlegung n',TXE 30 [1W9], pp. 457-71, here p. 465). ~

9. Deuteronomy in Hebrews

159

Some of the New Testament textual witnesses have the insertion of X6ye1 k p l o s after &vrarrod&ao. The reading, though, as it is printed in the reconstructedtext o f N ~ "is to be preferred Koch points out that Paul also adds %yet ~ P I O Sin Ram. 12.19. The fact that Hebrews omits it, proves for him that the quotation in Heb. 10.30 cannot be ascribed to P a d 4 In Neb. 10.26-28 the author of Hebrews refers to disobedience to the Law of Moses and to the punishment of execution on the testimony of two or three witnesses. He paraphrases Deut. 17.6 to make his point (see the next paragaph). In Heb. 10.29-31 disobediencetotheLaw ofMosesisnow cantrastedwitl~ spuming the Son of God, profaning the blood of the covenant and outraging the Spirit of grace. To make his point on this matter, our author quotes Deut 32.35-36 which servesas areminder about divinejudgement The emphaticpositions o f ~ p oand i kY&, as well as the sbategic position of ~ P I O confirm S, this. Deut. 17.6 in Heb. 10.28 Although scholars generally take Heb. 10.28 ('on the testimony of two or three witnesses') as another explicit quotation %omDeuteronomy," it should probably be treated as a consciousreference or an allusion. There is no introductory formula or signal that an explicit qnotation is intendeda andneitherthe precise wording of the MT or of the Lxx are followed. Ellingworth calls it an 'abbreviated quotaThere are two other passages @&. 19.15 andNum. 35.30) with similar wording which could be in mind but Deut. 17.6 is the closest parallel.jWser refers to three localities for the law about two or more witnesses and indicates that the author explicitly combines Deut. 17.6 with Num. 35.30.j' Whatever the case may be, it seems more likely that our author refers here to the matter of the witnesses by paraphrasingthelirst sentenceof Deut 17.6: irit Guaiv ( v a p ~ o ~ v ) ii(iril)TPICT~V pcipwa~v[ ~ I T ~ O ~ Ui)V dIrro%Vjmov.] E~T~I He omits the words indicatedhere betweenbrackets and replaces the phrasebetween squarebrackets with an indicative form. Textual evidence amongst the LXX witnesses that might suppoa these changes is weak and belongs to younger witnesses.j2Amidge is therefore correct in assumingthat our author has probably simplfiedthe cumbersome phrase by eliminating the h t n o u n and 'the main predication, with its awkward translation ofaHebrew infinite absolute'.j3 Add tothis also the omission of the second hi.According m Deut 17.6, execution can thus take place on the testimony of two or threewitnesses - an issue thus referred to here by the author

n

46. =hrift OIS zeuge,,p. n 96. 47. ConfxaAttridge, Hebrew, p. 294 n 32 who cab it a 'citation'. 48. Also Anher and Chiiehigno (Old Tmtment Qmtotionr) do not listthisas a quaationintheir

synopsis. 49. ELLingwoah, Hebroos.p. 537. 50. EUingwoah, Hebrews, p. 537. 51. GrZsser, Hebrrirr, p. 43. 52. Cf.J. W.Wmven, Sepruaginta Yetus Testomnrum Groenrm, Yo1 111,2. Deuteronomium (GWkgen:Vandenh-k & Fapmhf 2 M ) , p. 215. 53. A w e , Hebrews, p. 294.

160

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

ofHebrews in 10.28, and an issue that was already alludedto inMark 14.56 and John 8.7, which in turn, serves as an indication ofthe familiarity of this tradition in the New Testament By referring to the confirmation of two or three witnesses on disobedience to the Law of Moses and execution as punishment (Heb. 10.26-28), our author contrasts that with disobedienceto the Sonof God,the bloodofthe covenant and the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10.30 -see above). It might be that our author intended the latter three to be witnesses testifyiog about the rejection of Christ's sacrijice for sins (Heb. 10.1lff.).

Deut 20.3 in Heb. 12.3 Deut 20.3 encourages the people ofIsrael not to lose heart, or be aftaid, or panic, or be in dread oftheir enemies. The author of Hebrews alludes to the same attitude in Heb. 12.3 when be tells his addressees to 'Consider him who endured such hostility against himself from sinners, so that you may not grow weary or lose heart'. There is no introductory formula or signal that an explicit quotation is intendedi4Furthermore, it is only loosely based on the LXX of Deut 20.3: Heb. 12.3 iva p: ~ndpqrr cis

Dnrt. 20.3 ur

WxGs LpGv 'E~AuBp~votilri irAv6dw irapgia LpGv

Deut. 29.17(18) in Heb. 12.15 In Deut. 29.17(18) the phrase 'root ofbittemess' refers to the Israelites who had become involved in idolatry. According to Oberholtzer, 'The "root ofbittemess" parallels the developing of a hardened, unbelieving he& in Hebrews 3.12 and includes leading others to withdraw from the community into apostasy.'55 Heb. 12.15

Dnrl29.17uM

It seems as if a phrase has been quoted explicitly fiom Deut 29.17(18), as it agrees almost verbatim with the passage in Deuteronomy. However, the author of

54. Also Archer and Chirichigno (Old Tu-tmnmr Quotations) do not list this as a quotation in

their synopsis. 55. T. K Oberholtza, 'The Failure to Heed His Speaking in Hebrews 12.25-29. Part 5 o f The Warning Passages in Hebrews', BSae 1461581(1989), pp. 67-75, here p. 68. 56. The variant fv)([.]Aq is read by P. 57. 'EvoxAq(the rwdw i M .as in Heb. 12.15) is mstedbv the a - of Codex B and by Codex A in the i x x This srue \ ~ disemcsed s ertenrively by K ~ QQuurarronc, pp. 213-23 58. biCa n ~ r p i a(IhcradingasfouodinHeb. i 12.15)isaacstedby CodexAandFinthe~.xx. onlyGI& arad at the most wt more than one minuscu~supprts t b e ~ d g .

9. Deuteronony in Hebrews

161

Hebrews gives no indication in Heb. 12.15 that this is intended to be an explicit quotations9andan introductory formula is lacking. The author ofHebrews rather alludes to Dent. 29.17 in Heb. 12.15, orparaphrasesthe issue as neitherthe exact words, nor the word order is maintained. Acts 8.23 also alludes to this passage and it is even more likely that we have here simply f d a r i t y with 'scriptural language'. Deut. 4.11-12 in Heb. 12.18-19 Heb. 12.18-19

You have not come to something that can be touched, a blaahg fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest, and the somd of a trumpet,and avoice whox words made the hearas beg that not anotherword be spoken tothem.

Deuf. 4.11-12 you approached and at the fool of the mgmtaio while the mo& was bladog up to the very heavens, shrouded in dark clouds. Then the LORD spoke to you out of the fire. YOUheard the s o d ofwords but saw no form; there was only a voice.

The Book of Jubilees, possibly written by a Jew in Palestine during the second century BCE, is an important source for the character of Moses. Russell pointed out that Jubilees 'is a form of midrash on GenesisandExodus 1-12 and is written in the form of a revelation given to Moses on Mount Sinai during the forty days he spent This serves as evidence that the p d c u l a r event of Moses on mount Sinai played an important role in the religious heritage of the Jews. The event during which Moses received the Law at Mount S i i is also described in vivid detail in Deut. 4.1 1-12. It decnbes how the people were gathered at the foot of the mountain whilst it 'was blazing up to the very heavens, shrouded in dark clouds'. Then the Lord spoke to them out of the h.Theyjust heard the words and his voice but did not see him. The author of Hebrews alludes to this passage in Heb. 12.18-19. There is no introductory formula or intention of an explicit q~otation.~' These are merely allusions to the theme of God's revelation at Sinai as found in the related passage from Deut. 4.1 1-12. The author of Hebrews tells his readers that they 'have not come to something that can be touched, a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest, and the sound of a tnunpet, and a voice whose words made the hearem beg that not another word be spoken to them'. Without having to quote explicitlyfrom any appropriatepassage in this regard, the author uses the imagery that described the event at Sinai when Moses received the Law. He reinterprets

59. Also Archer and Chidchigoo (Old Testament Quototiom) do not List this as a quotalion in their synopsis. 60. D.S. R-!3, The Old Testament Pseudepigropha (Phihdelphia: Fomess, 1987). p. 96. 61. AlsoAreherandChidchigoo(0ldTestmenrQuotnriom)don~listthisintheir~yn~asa q"0tation

162

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

the imagery in terms ofhis readers and in the light ofJesus as the better mediator (Heb. 12.24).

Deut. 9.19 in Heb. 12.21 Heb. 12.21 Indeed, so tarifying was the sight that Moses said 'I tremble with W.

&+o$ds
KO;

EVTPO~OS)

Deut. 9.19

For1 was &aid (~K@O!& itp1) thal the angm that the LORD bore -a yon was SO fierce that he wouid b y you.

In Deut. 9.19, Moses states his fear concerningthe anger of God and the reason for it. The author ofHebrewsquotes verybrieay fromthis passage inHeb. 12.21. There is a clear introductory formula ('IndeeQ so terrifying was the sight that Moses said') which marks the phrase that follows as an intended explicit quotation fIom the mouth of Moses. The expression ~ i+,a v ~ a ~ 6 p ~ ('the v o v sight') in the parenthesis of the introductory formula is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament and the only occurrence in early Christianliterature. The actual quotation of what Moses would have saidandwhich follows after this introductoryformula, contains only part of the actual words to be foundinDeut 9.19. The rest of the words, supposedly hmMoses, whichoccursinHeb. 12.21 ( ~ aBv~popos ; 'I am trembling with fear') is nowhere to be found amongst any of the known textual witnesses of either the LXX or the MT. There is also no evidence of any New Testament textual witnesses that omit this phrase and it is certainly part of Hebrews' text The only difference, in fa& between Heb. 1221 andDeut 9.19 LXX is this addition of K U Ev~popos ~ by the author of Hebrews - probably with the rhetorical function of describing the fear in more vivid terms. 'Trembling' seems to have aparticularfunction inHebrewsand seems to be closely connected to the presence of God. The word occurs only three times in theNew Testament: here in Heb. 12.21 and then &Acts 7.32 and Acts 16.29. Heb. 12.18-21 describe the circumstancesin which the Jews received the old covenant: You have not come to ... The section ends in the quotation from Deut. 9.19 withMoses' fear and to which our author added him 'trembling' as well. This is contrastedwith the circumstances of the new covenant in the next section, Heb. 12.22-24: Butyou have come to ... This section ends with the reference to Jesus as the mediator of the new covenant

Deut. 4.24/9.3 in Heb. 12.29 Heb. 12.29

for indeed our God is a corn* 6re. K a i y i p b Brbs xa~avaAionov

ivov rrifp

D a t . 4.24

For the LORD your God (b BE&) is a devouring fire, a jealous God (nirp ~arauakionov).

Deur. 9.3

Know then today that the LORD your God (b BE&) is the one who cmsses over before you as a devo* fire ( G p mrauahionov).

9. Deuteronomy in Hebrews

163

Basedmaialyon the imagery ofDeuteronomy4, the author ofHebrews describes the very nature of God to be a connrmingfre (Kai yapbZ6 8 ~ 0 s ~ ) ~ 6 p ~ a ~ a v a h i u ~Heb. o v , 12.29).65Hedoes this by using familiar phrases fromDeut. 4.24 and 9.3 (Deut. 9.4 was already quoted in Rom 10.6a). Both the lack of an introductory formula as well as the brief text that coincides here with similar phrases in Deuteronomy, point in the direction of an allusion, rather than to an explicit quotation It is a similar case as that of Heb. 12.15-a few verses earlier. The author uses familiar phrases, or a familiar concept, as an expression of the identity of God It is a conscious allusion,using h o w 'scriptud language' from his time. 'It seems to adopt the key phrase of Deut 4.24 as a very authoritative pronouncement concerning the judicial severity of God'%

Deut. 31.6 in Heb. 13.5 Close to the end of his book, the author of Hebrews urges his readers to keep their lives h e from the love of money and to be content with what they have6^ (Heb. 13.5-6). This directive is explicitlylinkedwitha quotation fromDeut. 3 1.6 to remind them about the very gist of the covenant: 'Never will I leave you, ~6UE i y ~ a ~ a h i Heb. ~r~:~ never will I forsake you' (oh p i UE &vrvc?ohg 13.5). It is clearly meant to be an explicit quotation and is properly introduced with an introductory formula, 'because he has said', which refers to God as the speaker of the words to follow. Furthermore, there is a change in the quotation itself fromthe thirdperson singular forms of Deuteronomy ( 6 6 ,i y ~ a ~ a h i r r l l ) to thefirst person singular forms of Hebrews (&v&,kylta~ahirrw)in order to present the words from Deuteronomy as direct speech from God himsex. Heb.13.:

w p< os h G &6' w p i OE 6yxa~aAin0

Philo, Conf: 166

or h G , 0;6' & p i OE iyra~nhirro

Deut. 3 1 . 6 ~ ~ &~OOE&*&TE

,iii 0 s 6ymmaAq

It is not easy to locate the quotation Possibilities include Deut 31.6, Gen. 28.15,'" Josh. 1.5'' and 1 Chron. 28.20 (m). Althoughthe actual form ofthe quotation is 62. The &I of Deut 4.24 and Deut. 9.3 is replaced with nai ydp in Heb. 12.29. 63. Heb. 12.29 omits niptor which appears before b 8 ~ 6 5in both Dem 4 2 4 and Deut 9.3. 64. Whereasboth Deut. 4.24 andDeut 9.3 readtheseond~erson wrsonalrmnomas a ~enitive singulor(oou), Heb. 12.29readsit as afvstprrsonpersonalpronoung.nitivepIurol(~ll~). It isthe only place in Hebrews where the expression b BE& jpOv is found 65. Some scholarshave wg%est&that theori* text of Hebrews d e d h e r r . 66. Archer and Cnirichigno, Old T e s t m n t Quototiom, p. 35. 67. Cf alsoMt 6 2 4 (Lk 16.13) andMt 6.31-34 (Lk 12.29-32). 68. Deut 31.6 (m): o h reads wS w in Codex Ale~and&m 69. Sonaewimesses(Pt+ACD2Y 0243.0285.33.1739.1881 M)read'kyKa~aA~ino instead of'rvrarnhirro(D'81.326.365.629.630.945. 1175.124lS. 1505 01). 70. P. K ~ U ; Ouior ~ &&, &6'& sioriyxaraAinoHebr. ~ i l i . 5TheBibbcalSoureeofrhe Quotalion'. R#hlro33 (1952). pp. 523-5; Kaa. Quurulr,nx, pp 220-21 71. B. F.Westcotf TheEpisIIe to theHebrews(~raod~apids: Eerdmans, 1974),p.434; H.Monfefiore, %Epistle to theHebrews (London: Black, l979), pp. 240-41; R Williamson,Philo and the EpbtIe to theHebrews (ALGHJ4; L e i h Brill, 1970), p. 570.

164

Deuteronomy in the New Tesfament

unsupported in the snrviving manuscripts of the Old Greek V e r ~ i o nthe , ~ Deut. 31.6 option as a possible l o w , seems to be the best choice." Both the MT and the LXX read the same at this point, but differ from the reading of Heb. 13.5. Interestingly, though, is the fact that the reading agrees exactly74with that of Philo of Alexandria (Conf: 166) against t h e m and the ~ x x . Scholars 7~ usually ascribe this tendencybetweenHebrewsand Philo to an adaptationofPhilo's text by a later Christian hand. This is debatable as there are cases of the very same quotation that occur more than once in Pbilo and which were left unchanged at other place^.'^ Biichel was ofthe opinion that the author ofHebrews took it from Philo," but it is more probable according to KussT8that both Philo and Hebrews independently used a special Greek translation of Deut. 3 1.6. Motjsfrom Deuteronomy in Hebrews

Not much attention had been paid in the past by scholars to the role that Deuteronomy played in Hebrews. There are some obvious reasons for this, such as the prominence of the Psalm quotations, or the fact that there are indeed not many explicit quotations fiom Deuteronomy to be found inHebrews. The whole issue of Deutemnomicinfluence inHebrews shouldbe approached from another angle rather than merely looking at it through the lenses ofthe explicit quotations. The fact that there are a fair amount of allusions, references and linguistic similarities to be found from Deuteronomy in Hebrews, points inanother direction. By looking at all these inter-textual relations in a holistic manner, one can build a &I better picture of the presence of some prominent motifs h m Deuteronomy in Hebrews. The allusions, references, quotations and linguistic similarities are clues that are pointing towards particular motifs from Deuteronomy that played a role during the writing process ofthe ancient author. It is clear that at least the motifs of the covenant, Moses and that of the priesthood and cultic life are featuring prominently. It is after all part of the purpose of the author of Hebrews to show that the revelation that comes through Jesus is superiorto that which came through Moses and the priests.79The connectionwithMoses as mediator ofthe Law, on the one hand, and the mediatory work of the priests, on the other band, would thus

72. W.L.he,Hebrews %I3 (WBC 47b;Dallas:Woni 1998), p. 519. 73. CE G.I. Steyn,'The Ocmmnce of Ps 118(117).6 in Hebrews 13.6: Possible l i e c a l migias?', Neofest~mentie~ 40 (2006),pp. 119-34. 74. Also Bfichel, Hebr&brief, p. 528. 75. So alsoE. -,An deHebrrier~e~lO,l9-I3,25) ~ , x w / 3 ; Z M c h Bemkger, : 1997), p. 360. 76. CEG.J.Steyn,'TorahQu~tatioa~CommmtoPhil~,Hebrw,CIemensRo~and~ hfaqr What is the Common Denomhatof?', in J. C. Breytenbach er d.(eds), %New Tesfament Intqreted@S B. C. Lategan; NoVTSup, 124;Leiden: BriU, 2006),pp. 135-51. 77. mchel,Hebrderbrief,p. 528. 78. 0.Kuss, DeBriiefon dicHebrrier(Regensburg:Pustef 1966),p. 216. ~ 79. CE S.Moyise, The OldTestmenf in theNov An Infroductionmndm: C o n t i a 2W1), p. 100.

9. Deuteronomy in Hebrews

165

be obvious. Nonetheless, these motifs as such are not exclusivelyrestrictedto the book of Deuteronomy. The Covenant Motif Just more than half of all the occmences of the word 61aql(rl(covenant) in the New Testament are to be found in the book of Hebrews and point to the prominence of this motiffor that author. The Covenant motif caunot be detached from the motifofthe priesthoodand cultic life. The covenant motifis not exclusive to Deuteronomy and the author of Hebrews also quotes from Exodusa0and Jererniah8'in this regard However, particular aspects or elements that also connect closely with Deuteronomy are present in Hebrews. The author alludes to these, simply coniirmiug some elements from Deuteronomy at particular moments. Sometimes, however, hemakes the connection with some ofthe elements for the sake of contrasting them in the light of his reinterpretation. An eternal covenant: Deuteronomy refers to 'God who will not forget his covenant' with the ancestors of Israel (Deut. 4.31; see also Deut. 8.18; 9.5). In Heb. 13.20 the same underlying idea is to be found when the author makes reference to the 'eternal covenant'. An oath by Godhimseg This was a covenant that God promised 'by oath to their ancestors' (Deut. 7.12-13; 32.40). The author of Hebrews also explains that when God made his promise with Abraham, God made an oath with God himself 'as there is no one greater than himself web. 6.13-20). Thepromised land Wben the author of Hebrews lists his 'faith heroes' in Hebrews 11, he mentions the patriarchsby name and statesthat along with Abraham, also Isaac and Jacob were heirs of the same promise (Heb. 11.9-10). He mentions that, althoughthey all believed they died without receiving the promise (Heb. 11.13) and they were looking for a 'fatherland' (rra~pi6a,Heb. 11.14). According to Deut. 31.7 Moses summoned Joshua and said to him in the sight of all Israel: 'Be strong and bold, for you are the one who will go with this people into the land that the Lord has swom to their ancestorsto give them; and you willput them in possession of it' The author of Hebrews picks up on this in Heb. 4.8, referring to the fact that if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about 'another day'. The author of Hebrews skilfully moves from the 'land of rest' to a day, or a 'period of rest'. This 'other day' is 'today' (mjp~pou)for the author of Hebrews (cf. Heb. 3.7,15) -which features along similar lines in Deuteronomy (31.21,27). By reinterpretingthe covenantalpromise in this manner inHebrews3-4, the author draws attention to the differences between the disobedient previous generation and the current generation, that the promise is still

80. E x d 24.8 in Heb. 920. 81. Jer. 31(38)inHeb. 8.8-12; 10.16-17.

166

Deuteronomy in the New Testament valid and open, and that the covenantal 'rest' actually refers to a Sabbatical period Intendedfor those who arepresent Israel is told in Deut. 5.3-4 that the covenant is being made with those who are present there and then, not with their ancestors. Along similar Lines, the author ofHebrews explains to his readers that they themselves did not come to a physical mountain with a burning fire,clouds of thunder, darkness, a stom wind, etc. (Heb. 12.18), but they came to mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12.22). They came to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 12.24). The author earlier introducedthe quotation from Jeremiah 3 l(38) -the longest quotation in the New Testament -which explainsthe matter of a new covenant. The author refers to this issue a number of times (Heb. 7.22; 8.6,13; 9.15; 12.24), stating thatthe old covenant is now obsolete. TheDecalogueitselfwas seen as the 'two stones ofthe covenant' @eut 9.15).82 Similarly the author of Hebrews regards the Decalogue as the 'law of the covenant' that resided in the ark of the covenant (Heb. 9.4).

Thus, apart fromthe fact that the author ofHebrewsconnects tothe Deuteronomic ideasthatthe covenant is eternal, that God made an oath, and that theDecalogueis the 'law ofthe covenant', the authorpointsout that the 'oldcovenant' lacks something, for 'if nothing lacked fkom the first covenant, a second wouldnot have been necessary' (Heb. 8.7). Instead of coming to aphysical mountain, his readers found themselves coming to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant The Moses Motif Deuteronomy creates the expectation of the coming of a prophet like Moses83 @eut. 18.1SE) -who is described as the greatest of Israel's prophets according to Deut. 34.10. Philo even calls him more than once a 'god'." The viewpoint of the prophetic role ascnied to Moses was alive in the first century C E . Without ~~ explicitlyreferring to these expectations, Jesus is for the author ofHebrews even greater than Moses (Heb. 3.3)! The attention being paid to the role of Moses by the author ofHebrews is in Line withHellenistic Judaism whichassigned a central place to M0ses.8~'In the Hellenistic Jewish!mdition,Moses is the supreme exemplat. of pexfection because of his unique access to the mediated presence of God, a feature that would explain Hebrews' sustained comparison of Moses and Jesus' (cf. Heb. 3.1-6; 8.3-5; 12.18-29; 13.20).8'

82. So also iotqmted by Gheo&ita, Role of the SepfUIl@nt,pp. 118-19. 83. M o s s is seenas apmphet inDeuf. 18.15; 34.10; Hos. 12.13; Sir. 46.1; Wis. 11.1. 84. F~example,Mos.1.158 (R P.Martin andP. K Davids,DicIionq ofIheLaterNw Testamen1 d I t s Dwelopments @JownersGrove,IL: IntervarsityPress-Logos eletronic editionZMX11). 85. Cf 4 E r a 14.34: 2 Bor 59.41 1: 84.2-5. 86. Conpare 73,.biroduc of bled the Tragedian (preserved by Eusebius. Pro+ FL. 9.29) and Phrlo (Mur 2 6 1 8 6 , Iler 182; Pwem 53. 561(Manin and Dawds. Drctdonml. 87. Manin and Davids, Dictionwj

9. Deuteronomy in Hebrews

167

Althoughthe~xxdoes not use the term 'mediator' of Moses, both Philoskd Paul (Gal. 3.19) describe Moses' role as that of mediator (p~aiTQs).This becomes particularly clear from Deuteronomy 9-10. 'Moses acted on behalf of Israel to obtain the covenant and to maintain that covenant relationship through intercession for the people when they broke faith with God'89However, forthe author of Hebrews, Jesus is also the better mediator (Heb. 8.6; 9.15; 12.21).

Some Aspects of the Motiiof the Priesthood and the Cultic Life M a r k Bartbuot only pointed to the fact of Hebrews' interest in the festivals, holy assemblies, cultic actions and institutions ofGod's people, but also suspectedthat 'the clusters of quotations and allusionsappearing in chapters 1-2; 3-4; 5-10; 11; 12-13 may eachbave to do witha specsc festival or feature ofIsrael's w~rship'.~ Although this assumption is somewhat diflicult to substantiate, it is true that cultic tones are prominent in Hebrews. i. The Place andNature of the Sacrgce. Deut 12.5-6 and 12.11-16 describe the place ofthe sacrifices. Descriptions ofthe requirements andprescriptions regarding the nature of the sacrifices themselves are found at a number of places in Deuteronomy, for instance in Deut 15.19-16.17; 17.1; 18.10; 26.1-27.8. The whole issue ofthe cultic life and the repetitive nature ofthe sacrificesis addressed and re-interpreted by the author of Hebrews. A substantial part of the document is allocated to this theme with numerous allusions and references to the imagery ofthe cultic practices. By applyingthese to, and comparing them with, theperson and death of Jesus, the author of Hebrews describes and understands Jesus to be simultaneously the (High) Priest who brings the sacrilice, as well as being the sacrifice himselfwhen Jesus dies. This is an act of atonement for sins once and for all (cf. Heb. 4.14-5.10; 9.1-10.22).

ii. Mediators ofthe Service to the Lord. Deut. 10.8 mentions the fact that 'the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister to him, and to bless in his name, to this day'. Also Deut. 18.1-8 describes the role of the Levite priests. The author of Hebrews, in turn, refers to the superior role ofMelchizedek who diduot belong to the Levites. He argues how Levi actually submitted himself via the tithing of Abraham to Melchizedek (Heb. 7.4-10). The differences between the Levite priesthood and that of Melcbizedek, which is used as an example to describe the superiority of Jesus' priesthood, are M e r elaboratedupou in Heb. 7.11- 8.6. The comparison shows that Jesus is greater thanthe priests who are standing 'day after day at his service, offering again and again the same s a d c e s that can never take away sins' (Heb. 10.10). 88. Cf.Mas. 3.19. 89. S. E.Porter and C . k Evaos,Dicrionnry o f N w TrrfamemBackground: A Compendiumof Contmrporav Biblical Scholarship @owners Gmve, IL: Intervarsity Press - Logos electronic edition 2000). W. B& 'Old Testament in Hebrew', p. 71.

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

Conclusion There is little doubt that the author of Hebrews is in dialogue with JewishHellenistic Christians. He reinterprets some key aspects of their Jewishreligious background and heritage in the light of Jesus as the exalted SonofGod.The cove nant, cultic life and the role of Moses are prominent motifs to be found in his document. Thesemotifsare also prominent, thoughnot restricted to Deuteronomy, and Deuteronomic influencecouldhave played at least a partial role in their presence in the book of Hebrews. It is also clear that pdcular elements of these motifs can he traced back to Deuteronomy. These elements are found in the four allusions and one reference discussed above. The allusions neither follow the exact wording and word order of the Deuteronomy texts, nor are they introducedwith clearintroductayformulae. The author selectedonly certain keywords to suppoa his argument These are used particularly in an informative sense, or as a reminder of past events. Counections with Deuteronomy 4 and 9 are striking. But the elements of the above mentioned motifs are also to he found in the four brief explicit quotations. The latter might have been known to the author of Hebrews via the early Jewish (Philo on Deut 3 1 4 , early Christian (Paul on Deut. 32.35), and liturgical (Deut. 3210de 2) traditions. Even though there is little data in this regard, there seem to be a real possibility that the Vorlage of these quotations differs fiom both 'the' ~ x and x the W.There are closer similarities with Philo of Alexandria, Paul's letter to the Romans, and with the Dead Sea Scrolls where parallel versions are available. This leaves us with the question ofwhether the author was familiar with and utilized another Jewish text version (in Greek) than those known to us through our L x x versions and the MT, or whether he simply quotes h m and refers to Deuteronomic material familiar to him through the tmdition- which, nonetheless, seems to show signs of a slightlydifferent text. What is clear, though, is that the author interpretedDeut.32.35-36 as direct words kom Jesus, Deut 31.6 as the direct words of God, andDeut. 32.4310de 2 as referring to the Son. AU in all, our author applied his knowledge fiom Deuteronomy in an informativeand a normative manner in the light of the exalted Son and the implications for the Christian community.

Chapter 10

Michael T i y

Introduction The book of Revelation is permeated by Old Testament ideas and expressions.' Although in Revelation Bible quotations are never marked by the usual phrases or explicitly introduced as such,2the book contains more linguistic references, implicit citations and allusionsto biblical texts, themes andmotifsthan any other New Testamentwriting. More thanhalf ofthese quotations andallusionsas well as the 'biblical' motifs, expressionsandpbrases, used in the interpretationofthe present of the apocalyptic author, are taken h m the book of Psalms,Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel.3 More than 80 passages refer to the Pentateuch, 19 of these to Deuter~nomy.~ It is likely that the citations andallusionsin Revelation, the text of which deviates from the Septuapint, do not point towards the use of a Hebrew or Aramaic version Such divergences can rather be explained by assuming that the author used a Greek biblical text which differed fiom the text tradition which was later to become dominant in Christianity or - even more likely - that he quoted 'kely' and slightly m o a e d t h e biblical traditions to which he refemdS Similarly,the

*

Many thanks to Dr Jutb L e o W - B a l m for the EngIish +ranslationof this chapter. 1. Cf.0.B&her, 'Johaones-Apokdypsese,R4C 18 (1998), pp. 595-646. 2. Cf.E.Lohe,'Die alltmtamtlicbeS p h e des SehersJohanna', W 5 2 (1%1),pp. 122-6 (bae: 123); F. Jenkios, %Old Tesfmnenfin theBmkofRevelotion (GrandRapids: B a ! 1972), p. 27; G.K Beale, John's Use ofthe OldTerment in Revelarion (JSNTSup, 166, Sh&eId: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998),p. 61. 3. Cf B&hez 'Johannes-Addwse', . .. v. . 616. 4 Dcln 17(Rcv 9.14). Deut 3 1 I (Rcv. 21.17).Deut. 4 . l t (Rev ZiIXf.), DNL 5.8 (Ruu 5.3). Deut 10 17(Rcv. 17.14: 1916j,Deur. 11 6(Rrv. 12.16).Dem. 13.1(Rev.22.18f.),Drra28.35(Rev 162),Deln29.19f(Rw.~2.18f.),Deln32.4~~. 15.3f;16.5),~~32.17(Rev.920),DDeut32.40 (Rev. 1.18; 10.5f),[email protected]; 12.12; 19.2),Deut34.5(Rev. 15.3).ff H.B.Swete,The Apocolw8e o/St John (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1908' [Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968),pp. cxl-eliii. 5. Cf. S. Moyise, The Old Testament in theBookofReveIation(JSNTSlg, 115; Sh&el& AcademicPnss, 1995),p. 17;Be.de, Use, pp. 61f.; idem, TheBooko/Revelotion(NIGTC; GrandRapids: Eerdmans 1999), pp. 77-9; M. Reiser, Sproche m d litermirche Fonnen der N a e n Testmen8 (Paderbom:Schaning4 2W1), p. 85.

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

170

'semitizing' Greek6 ofthe apocalyptic author from AsiaMinor can beunderstood on the basis of his striving towards a 'biblical' language. It does not have to be proof of any use of the Hebrew text. On the whole, it must be remembered that the idioms as weU as the whole world of ideas and images of the Greek and the Hebrew Bible shaped the seer's life, thought and writing without any continuous couscious reference. The author of Revelation's Christ-centredinterpretationof contempomy events occurs against the background of a worldview transcendinghistory and according to the paradigm of promise and fulfilment. Within this approach, the repeated reference to the biblical tradition creates meaning in understandingthe present. He obtains reassurance £ram the interpretationparticular1y ofthe prophetic tradition in the light ofpresent events and proceedings.'The author relates statementsoriginally directed at Israel among the biblical nations andat its relationship with God, with its environto the community ofJesus Christand ment (particularlywitb the Roman state ideol~gy).~ The question arises whether the parenetically oriented recontextualization of the biblical texts and motifs remains within their 'original' potential of meaning, respectively its traditioubound reception by ancient Jewish communities,or wbetber John the Apocalyptic steppedoutofthis given h e and gave a new meaning to the Jewish holy Scriptures which differed h m their original meaning and the ancient Jewish traditions of interpreting re-writing.9

Clear Actualizations of and Allusions to Deuteronomy in Revelation

Rev. 12.16 In the visionary description of the rebellion ofthe powers opposed to God Rev. 12.1-14.20) Rev. 12.13-18presents the utmost danger tothe community of salvation and its miraculous deliverance; v. 16 expresses inmythicallanguage God's destructive punishment of his opponents: But the earth came to the he4 of the wwoman; it opened its mouth and d o w e d the rimthat the dragon hadpoured from& mouth. (Rev. 12.16)

The phrase i j v o 1 5 i ~ ~yil T& o ~ & a ~ a Ki ~ T ~ T I I ET&V V ITOT~II~V reminds in form and content of Deut. 1 1.6 m.The Deuteronomyverse stands in the context of an adrnonitoryre-telling of God's actions in history p e n t 11.2-7) which ends on a negative note with an example of Israel's failure to react properly to God's saving actions:

6. Cf.U. SchoeUe,EhleitungindmNeue Tesfammi(GM6ngen:Vaodenhcxck&Rqmchf 3rd edn, 1999)- p. 527; Reiser, Sprache, pp. 84f 7. C£ Beale, Use, p. 45. 8. C£ Beale, Use, p. 100. 9. Cf Beale, Use, p. 42.

10. Deuteronomy in Revelation

171

And what he did to Dathao and Absoas ofEliab son ofReuhq how in the midst of all 1-1 the earth owed its mouth and swallowed &up, alongwahtheirhouseholds, their tents, and all their substance which was with them @cut 11.6)

The literary recourse to the punishment of Dathan and Abiram of the tribe Reuben, who, accordingtoNum.26.9f. (cf. Ps. 106 [m:1051.17f.; S ir.45.18f.), protested against Moses and Aaron as the divinely institutedleaders ofthe people and who were killed by divine judgement, presents a typological model for the opponents of the Christian communities: 'Dathan and Abiram opposed the prophetic authority of God by "blasphemingg'God,and by "misleading the Israelites" about the matter (. ..). In like manner the dragon inspires opposition to the prophetic truth of the g~spel."~It is to be assumed that in the metaphorical language ofthe seer, following the typological model of Deut. 11.6, 'the river' in Rev. 12.16 stands for a hostile crowd In its 111meaning this allusion to Deut. 11.6 in Rev. 12.16 canonly beunderstoodinconnectionwithExod15.12 ixx,'Youstretched out your right hand, the earth swallowedthem.' The song atthe Red Sea inExod 15.2-8, which is repeatedly r e f d to in the context of Rev. 12.16 (Rev. 11.1 1 Exad. 15.161; 18 [Exod. 15.141; 15.3 [Exod 15.11) descnies how Godmadethe euth swallow the army of Pharaoh pmuing the children of Israel. In the same way the church of Jesus Christ will now be saved by the power of God from the persecutions of its enemies. Rev. 16.2 The vision of the seven bowls (Rev. 16.1-21) begins with the ! k t bowl being poured out over the dry land as the habitat of humankind (w. If.). Every human being who has accepted the mark of the beast and who has joined the ruler cult will be plagued by incurable malignant ulcers (cf. v. 11): And a foul and paiaful sore came on those who had the mark of the beast and who wonhipped its image. (Rev. 162)

The expression 'a foul and painful sore' (ZAKOSK ~ K O U ~ a rrouqp6v) i corresponds in wording as well as in literary context to Dent. 28.35 uoi:'The Lord will strike yon on the b e e s and on the legs with bad bods (kv ZAKEI iroqpr$).' In Deut. 28.1-69 the covenant liturgy is completed with formulae of blessing and curse; v. 15 is part of a longer list of conditional curses aimed at every Israelite who does not listen to the voice of Yahweh and does not obey his commands (w. 15-45). Rev. 16.2 and Deut 28.35 both &ten a painful, polluting, disfiguring skin disease leading ultimately to complete social isolation (cf. 2 Kgs 20.7). In bothcases EAKOS is qualifiedby anintensifying adjective attribute (rrouqp6s resp. K ~ K & ~ anovqp&) i (cf. Job 2.7). hboth cases, the text pursues the intention of consoli&thg and stabilizinga p u p ofaddresseesthreatenedby giving in to the religious and culturalpressure ofthe overall society around it. In both cases, the emphasis is on the threat of the marked bodily punishment for the 10. Beale,BookofRe~e1arion,p. 675; d J. Massyngberde Ford,Rcyeldion(AB, 38; Gardeo CityDoubleday, 1975), p. 203; J. Roloff, Die ~enbruungdenJohonnu (ZBKNT, 18; ZiAicb: Theol. Vedag, 1984),p. 132; D. E. A m , Rwelotion 17-22 (WBC, 52C; Nashville:Nelson, 1998), p. 707.

172

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

refusal to acknowledge God with his claim tounconditionaland exclusivevenmtion." As already inRev. 12.16, however, this allusionto apassage fiomDeuteronomy is also closely connected to a reference to the Exodus tradition (Exod 9.8-12; cf. Josephus, Ant. 2.304): 'And it caused festering boils on humans and animals' (Exod 9.10). Although the proof of God's power in Exod 9.8-12 is directed at the assumedly overpowering enemies of the people, the fact that the list of curses in Deuteronomy, directed at Israel, alludes to the Egyptian plagues becomes particularly apparent inDeut 2827, where the perpetrator is summarily described as afflicted 'with the boils of Egypt'. This in turn corresponds to the repeated allusions to the Egyptian plagues (Exodus 7 - 10) in the vision of the sevenbowls (Rev. 16.2 [Exod 9.10L],3f. [Exod 7.17-21],10 [Exod 10.22],13 [Exod 8.3],18 b o d 9.241) as well as inthe vision of the seventrumpets (Rev. 8.7 [Exod 9.23-251,s [Exod 7.201, 12 [Exod 10.21],9.3 [Exod 10.121, 11.6 [Exod 7.17,19f], 19 [Exod 9.241). This leads to the conclusion that there could be an interpretative connection (deriving fiom Jewish-Christian traditions) in terms of a typological correspondence between God's eschatologicaljudgement of the destruction of his opponents and the biblical tradition of the Egyptian plagues in the context of the Exodus events.

The Song of Moses (Deut.32.1-43) in Revelation Stylized as part ofthe testament of Moses, a speech before his death, the Song of Moses @eut 32.143) contains theological instruction in poetic form, as well as in the shape of a memoly running counter to the present and a hope-givingpromise of future salvation for God's people.12An extensive introduction@eut 32.14) is followed by descriptivepraise of Yahweh's beneficial actions for his people (w. 7-14), anaccwnt o f t h e m f a i ~ e s ofIsrael(w. s 15-18),tOe announcement of Yahweh's punishment through Israel's enemies (w. 19-25), a long pronouncement of wming salvation (w. 26-42) anda i3.d call for universalpraise of God (v. 43). Severalpassages ofthe Apocalypse ofJohn wntainquotations fiom and allusions to the song of Moses in the sense of a salvation-typologicalconnectionwith the Exodus event - God saves the people of Israel h m i t s enemies and punishes them. The communityof Christ as the eschatologicalpeopleofsalvationis delivered h m the earthly into a heavenly world and the powers opposed to God are judged-

Rev. 6.10, 19.2 The opening ofthe seal (Rev. 6.9-1 1) expresses the persecution and murder of the faithful witnesses of Jesus Christ Their hope for the just retribution of theirblood sacrifice by God's ultimate interventionin the world's history andby

11. CE hhqngberde Ford, Revelation, p. 270. 12. OnMosesas a f i p ofme whaton cf MaL 3.22-24,LAB 19.12-16,Jub. 48.1-19.

10. Deuteronomy in Revelation

173

the punishment oftheir godless persecutors is expressed in the collective lament at the foot of the heavenly altar They cried oui with a loud voice, 'Sovereign Lord, holy and tm,how long will it be before youjudge and avenge our blmd on the inhabitants of the &1' (Rev. 6.10)

Almost as a comfortinganswer to the lamenting call forjust retriution in Rev. 6.10, the wording of the verse is taken up in the concluding heavenly praise of Rev. 19.1-10: God has called the whore Babylon to justice; the spilled blood of the witnesses is avenged now.') For his judgemem a x hue and jusg he has judged the great whore who c o q t e d the eaah with her fornication,and he has avenged on her the blwd of hir servants.(Rev. 192)

The hope of the fai&ful for the coming acts of vengeance by God, who will revenge the persecution andmurderofhis fai&fulservants, also occurs in the call for praise in Deut. 32.43 LXX, which closes the Song of Moses. The verse differs markedly kom the Masoretic text in the Greek text tradition and in a Hebrew fragment of Deuteronomy from Qumran (4Q44).I4 It contains a poetic call for hopell joy at the powerful intervention of Yahweh, who will avenge the blood of the persecutedpeople of God and punish the wickedness of its enemies in his judgement: Rejoice, you hewen$ with him, and all children of God will bow down before him Rejoice, you nations, with his people, and all angels of God w i l l regain aength before him, for the blmd of his children will be avenged. He will avenge and take vengeance onhisadveMdes, andwillretabateagaiostthosewhohatehim,andtheLordwillmake expidon fmhispeople's land @cut. 32.43)

Rev. 6.10 and 19.2have a number of similarities with Deut 32.43 Lxx. First, there are visibleparallelsin the wording.'* Furthermore, the litemy wntext,partitularly of Rev. 19.2 -a hymnic finale in which the call for praise is passed on by a heavenly voice to all the faithful on earth - correspondsto the call for univetsaljoy at the end of the song ofMoses. Finally Revelation andDeuteronomy correspond in the function of the prospectively comfOmng statementof the avenging action of M I 6In Deut. 32.43, the judgement and the punishing wrath of Yahweh are proof of his power and of his active intavention for his people IsraeL The seer John transfers this theological idea (which also occurs in 2 Kgs 9.7; Ezek 14.21; Ps. 9.12f.; 78[m 791.10) to the community ofJesus Christ andtheir present oppressors. This achdintion of an important hope-giving tradition h m the Jewish tradition visualizes the radical saving interventionof God inhistoryin 13. Only in these hvo passages the verb in6rdo occurs in Revelation. CE Beale, Book of Revelation. D. 928. 14 Tbc &ek -4atlon of the vene is probably bawd oo a longr~o n p a l &f'-ent from the (mtc-jMarorenc text tmd~honand one whtch w a passrbly delrberately changed here (cf 4Q44) C t i.W. Skehan, '~~lil~mentofthe"~ongof~oses"~@eut 32)F-Q~~~~~',BAsoR 136 (1954),pp. 12-15; k van dm Kooij, 'The Endiog of the Song ofMoses: On the Pre-Masoretic Version of Dew 32.43', Smdier rnDeuterononiy (TTSup, 53;Leiden: BriU, 1994), pp. 93-1W. 15. CE Beale, BookofRpwlntion, p. 393. 16. Ame,Revelmion 17-22, pp. 408.

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

174

the face of a discrepancy between convictions of faith and perception of the present, which was probably regarded as threatening by many Christians of Asia Minor.

Rev. 9.20 At the end ofthe sixth vision ofthe trumpets (Rev. 9.13-21), v. 20 describes summarily the effect of all the previous visions ofthis series and qualifiesthe plagues as a whole, introduced by the signals, as signs of God's power over the obdurate resistance of ma&ind A third of all W i t h f u l human beings will be killed (w. 15,18); nevertheless,those who remain persist in their faithless and unrepentant unbelief in spite of the terribleproofs of God's powerto date. Fo110wing the Jewishtradition(cf. Ps. 113.12[m 115.41; 134[m 1351.15; Jer. 1.16;Dan. 5.423) this obdurate unbelief nystallizesin their meaningless idolatry" andparticularly in their veneration of powerless artefacts of their haods or give up w d P i n g demonsk d id& of gold d silykaud bmnze and stone and wood which cannot see or hear or walk (Rev. 9.20)

This is another allusion to the song of Moses. The parenetically motivated reference. to the continuingveneration of foreign deities, respectivelytheir cultic images or statues, together with the emphasis on their actual powerlessness, is similar to Deut 32.17 uoc. There theaccusation ofthe veneration ofhelplessand d o w n deities describes Israel's faithless behaviour: They &ced to demons, not Go4 to skilies they had never !mown, to new ones recently rmived,whom their ancestors had notimown.(Dent 32.17)

The verse from Deuteronomy is part of a strong accusation against Israel @cut. 32.15-18); the explicit reference to the idolatry corresponds to a common tendency in ancient Judaism for linking any polemic against foreign culb with the prohibition of images in the Decalogue (Exod 20.4f.; Deut 5.8f.).'qe passage is preceded in the Song of Moses by the praising description of the aooep tance and protection of God's people during the migation through the wilderness and the occupation of the land @cut 32.10-14). Thus the contrast between the care of God and the faithlessnessof Israel is emphasized strongly. A comparison of the allusion to Deut 32.17 L;ux in Rev. 9.20 with the explicit quotation of this verse in 1 Cor. 10.19f., shows an important difference in the early Christianassessment of pagan deities. For a while, Paul regards the demons here as existing but basically subordinate to the one and only God; for the seer John they are only figments of human imagination. In Deut 32.15-18, the main subjectis to admonish and to show the continuing apostasy of all of Israel including the addressees of the text, while in Rev. 9.13-21 the reading audience is 17. ff.Jub. 1.11, 11.4-6, 2217 as well as Arne, RPveInIion 17-22, pp. 543; Beale, Book of Revel~11ion,p. 519: 'The & w e of sins is prefaced by a slnmnary of the idol's spiritual -ee: behind the idols are demonic f-.' 18. CE M.TiUy, 'Die S ~ e n ~ l s u o d d e r H e i d e n d e n , J S(2T 006 3), 7pp. 192-211 @ere: 205f.).

10. Deuteronomy in Revelation

175

enabled to identify with the just who remain.Nevertheless, an argument for the intentional reference to the devaluation of the power of foreign gods in Deut 32.17 is the continuing comqmndence between the descriptionof God's eschatological judgement and the Exodus e~ents,'~ as well as the observation that in Revelation the meaaingless superstitiousveneration of idols is contrastedby their exposingpresentation as empty images. Another argument for a deliberate reference to the Deuteronomy passage is that in both passages this contrast forms the closure of a parenetically motivated passage.

Rev. 10.5f: In the course of his renewed instruction after the vision of the trumpet which emphasises thatthe end is near(Rev. 10.1-11) the visionary sees anangelwithan open book who af&ms the counsel of God for the coming eschatological event by a solemn oath. The gesture, as well as the oath by the God 'who lives forever', appears to correspond to Deut 32.40 ixx: Then the a z e l whom I saw standing an the sea and the Land raisedhis d&t b a d tc b v e o and &are by him who lives f o r e v and ~ ~ evn. who created haven what is i~ it. the earth and what is la 16and the sea and whal is la it. that hen: wll be no more delay. (Rev. 10.54)

aod

For I liff up my hmd to heaven, and swear with my right hand and say: 'As I live forwe?. (Dat 32.40)

In the context ofthe Song ofMoses in Deut. 32.40, Godhimselfannouncesthe future vengeance on Israel's enemies. Beyond the Hebrew text tradition, the text of the Septuagintoffers 'and swear with my light hand'. This interprets the gesture, which in the Hebrew text can also be seen as a sign of an activeintervention of the punishing God,w in an accentuatingway as an ant!xopopatim against the background of the practice of raising the hand (respectivelyboth hands) towards the sky aflirmatively when swearing an oath (cf. Deut. 426; Dan. 12.7).2' The vivid description of God's judgement has a number of similarities in the immediate literary context of Deut 32.40, as well as of Rev. 10.5f. (Rev. 9.19 [cf. Deut 32.32-351; Rev. 10.4 [cf. Deut. 32.34f.l; Rev. 10.6 [cf. Deut. 32.35J). However, Rev. 10.5-7 is also clearly iduencedby Dan. 12.7, which mentions a heavenly being standing above the waters ofthe stream,both hands raised for an oathand swearing 'by God who lives forever' (cf. Rev. 1.18; Dan 4.34Th;Sir 18.1).U Although only Deut 32.40 LXX mentions that the right hand is raised for the oath, a @tion-historical relationship, possibly even a literary dep~~dence of Rev. 10.5-7 to Dan 10.7 is indicated not only by the high importance of Daniel 7-12 19. On the motifof the hardening of the heats of the E M a n s in the face of the plagues, cf. E x d 7.13, Z f ; 8.15,28; 9.12.34f etc. 20. Thus 1.ImA, 'For1 Liff Up My Hand to Heaven and Swear. Deut 32AO', Smdim in D w e r onomy(VTSup, 53;Leida: ~ ~ 1 9 9 4 )15544@ere: , ~ ~ . 163)refRlingtoExod 6.8;Ezek20.5E; 44.12; Ps 10.12 (m:9.33). Der Himmel im AIIol Tesfmnolf(OTS, 30; Leiden: Briu, 1993), p. 352. 21. Cf C. Ho22. Cf. Aune, Revelerion 17-22, p. 564, Beale, B o d ofleyelofion, p. 537.

176

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

throughout the accounts of the visions of the Revelation of Job, but also by the repertoire of motifs in Rev. 10.5f., and particularly by the announcement that there would be no more delay until judgement andredemption are accompliihed (Rev. 10.6; cf. Philo, Leg. 3.106).=

Rev. 15.3J, 16.5 In the context of the heavenly preparation for the pouring of the seven bowls (Rev. 15.1-8) the redeemed praise the almighty and only holy God on the sea of glass in a descriptive hymn: And they . sing - the song.ofMoses, the senant ofGo4 and the song of the Lamb:'Great and amazing an.yoln deeds, Lord God the Almighty' Jun and true are your ways, Kmg of the ndtions! Lord, who will not fear and glorifi your oamc7 For you alone are holy . .. Allnationswill caneand worship befmyo~fmy~~1~gementshaveb~1wealed'. (Rw.15.3-4)

The hymn is clearly marked as a partial reference to a 'Song of Moses' by the expression w6: Mwijoios. This phrase, however couldbe taken to referto either the song at the Red Sea (cf. Exod 15.1) or to Deut 32.1-43 (cf. Deut. 31.19,22, 30; 32.44).24While the hymn visibly differs from the song at the Red Sea (Ex& 15.1-21) and actually contains borrowings fiom or allusions to a number of different writings (Ps. llO[m 1111.2; 13X[m 1391.14;Amos 4.13; Deut 32.4; Ps. 144[m 1453.17; Jer. 10.7; Mal. 1.11; Ps. 85Im 861.9; Hos. 6.5), at the endof Rev. 15.3 there is an unambiguous reference to the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32: Go4 his works are genuine, and all his wap are just A faimful Go4 without dece& just and holy is the Lord (Deut. 32.4)

The praise of God's ways and ofhis reliability is expressedatthe endof Rev. 15.3 in the synonymous parallelism 6 i K a l o s ~ a 60105 i & p l o y as a nominal clause. The phrase corresponds in form and content to Deut 32.4b, a part of a hymnic doxology ofjudgementat the introduction of the song ofMoses, in which the Exodus generation praises God's action asjust andhis retribution as fitting.= Apart fiomDeut. 32.4, the comb'ition of Gi~a~os andC&losoccurs in the Greek translations ofthe Hebrew holy Scriphues only inPs. 144[m 1451.17 (ef. also Ps.Sol. 10.5; Odes 2.4). The salvation h m the powers of the present eschatological age opposed to God corresponds to the saving action of the Exodus. God was and isjust. In the same way the pouring of the seven bowls described by the seer as part of the all-encompassingjudgement of the divine wrath (Rev.16.1-21) appears as meaningful and as the ground for a doxology of judgement (cf. Ps. 118[m 1191.75;Neh. 9.8,33), with which the thirdangel ofthe bowls mnrments on his destructive action: 23. Cf Beale, BookofRe~eI0fion.p.537: 'Dan 12.7 is adevelopment ofDeut 32.40, whichalso may be secondarily in mind here in RweIatioa' 24. Cf Beale,BookofRevelation, p. 793. 25. ff Maqmgbade Ford,Revelution, p. 257.

10. Deuteronomy in Revelation

177

And I heard the angel of the waters say, 'Youare just, who are and were, who is holy, for you havejndged these things'. (Rev.16.5)

The verse takes up the allusion to Deut 32.4 by transfening thejusticeofGod praised by the redeemed in 15.3f., into the performance ofhis wsmic judgement: God punishes all who spilled the blood of Christian~.~~ Later rabbinic tradition read Deot 32.4 as referring to the world to come and to the final judgement (cf. e.g. SzPeDeut. 307; b. Ta 'an. 1la). That this reading was already known at the time ofthe seer is supportedby the salvation historical interpretation ofthe Song of Moses in LAB 19.4. If this reading was also applied by the seer John, here above all he actualizes a hopegiving tradition by transfening the election of God's people through disaster in past, present and future as addressed in the song of Moses onto the oppressed wmmonity of Christ." The Integngny Fonnula (Deut. 4 3 ; 13.1) in Revelation Aparticularly marked example ofthe reception ofDeuteronomy in Revelation is the combined reference to three passages from Deuteronomy (Deut. 4.lf.; 13.1; 29.19f.) in Rev. 22.18f" 8the context ofthe closure of the monumental description of eternal salvation for thejust,the author himselfturns to the Christian hearedreaders of his book: I wam everyone who h- the words of the pmphecy of this book if goyane adds to thw, God will add to that p a n the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this pmphecy, God will take away that person's share in the @e of life and in the holy city, which are d e m i e d in this book (Rev. 22.18-19)

The verdict of J. Massyngberde Ford, that these two verses were phrased 'in true Deoteronomic style'," can be based on a series ofparallels in contenf t d nology, fnndion and wntext between Rev. 22.1 Sf. and the passages h m Deuteronomy mentioned above.30A translation of the Septuagint text rewnshucted by I. W. Wevers andU. Quast3' is as follows:

26 Cf Ekalc, b'ool n/Xnelot,on, p 817 27 7he honorific tttle 'the servant ofthc Lord' occurs m Dcut 34 5 1 Y x in UK account ofthe dwtb of Moses but since it oeeurs liquntly in Scripme, literary d#-e cannot be demonstrated 28. Cf. Swete,Apoeolypse, p. cliii. 29. MassynpberdeFord,Rmelation,p. 369. SimilarlyE. W e r , ' k Methurgeman des PermsermS, NeufesfmnmrlicheA@zfze (Regensburg: Pust* 1%3), pp. 283-93 (here: 291); E. L o b , Die OffenbonmedaJohwnes RSD, I l : G 6 t t i n ~ m . V a n d e n h a e d i & R llthadn, ~t 19761,~. 114; $.C. .vfin&, 'De la Sgle nP&?va! p i n 6@dEhEiv& l ~ s t o i r du s can&'; idem, .%ma CollecteII (NovTSw,30: Leiden: Brill, 1980X w.12>56 (here: 153); H. Rkt, offmbmunp &s ~ohonncs(NEBNT,2 1 ; ~ G h u rEfhtn.4th ~: &~lYW), p. 119. 30. C t Beale, Rook of Rnvlonon, p 11 5 1. D i f f m t l y R. Olsson, 'Dm Epilog dm Offmbanmg

4;

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

178

So now, lnaeL h e n 10 the s t a m r and ohnancer that 1 am tcachg you to obravc them today, so that you may live to mter and arupy b e land thar the Lor4 h e God of your anccatms, is giving you YOUmtdneither add anything to the Word I w W you nor take away anything &omit Keep the commandmen&of Lord,yollr Go4 which I am commanding you (Dew 4.1-2)

You must diligently observe werythiog mat I command you today, do not add to it or take anything fmm i t (Do& 13.1) The Lmd will be unwillingto pardon him, for the anger of the Lmd and his jealousy shall bum wainst the man. And all the curses ofthis coverant which me d e n in this b w k of the Law will descend on him and the Lord will blot out hrr name from under beavm. And Ihc Lord will node him out fmm all the cWdnn of Israel for ealarmly, in aceadace wim all the m a i f t h e mv-t which are written in this bwk ofthe &w @cut 29.19-20).

-

The correlationsin content between Rev. 22.18f. and Dent. 4.1f. consist in the two fold formula-like commandment, not to add to or take away from an explicitly mentioned normative text, which is inRevelation extended into a conditional curse formula. The direct connection ofthe two prohibiticms 'defines the finalform of a given text'.32In both cases, the reward promised to the just consists in the life preserved at a new place, either in the promised land (cf. Deut 28.1-14) or the heavenly J d e m (Rev. 21.1-22.5): 'The promise of life is given to the obediencetothelaw.'"ThesmtiesbetweenRev. 22.18f. andDeut 13.1 arerelated to the use of the integrity formula or 'Texlsi~herungsformel'~ (cf. Eccl. 3.14; Prov. 30.5f.; Jer. 26.2 [=LXX3321; Sir. 18.6; 42.21) in connection with the entry into the promised land (Dent.12.28f.). The text in Rev. 22.1 Sf. is linked to Dent 29.1% by the threat of the double punishment of the transgressor by his individual punishment and his precautionary expulsion from the community of the just ofIsrael whichgumntees that the divine punishment only strikes at the guilty?' The direct terminologicalwmpondences consistfirstly in the wording of the twofold integrity formula, although the author of Rev. 22.18f. offers the pair of opposites ~ V I T ~-&@a~p~~insteadoftheantonyms ~ ~ V I rrpmi8qpl -di@alp&o @eut 4.2; 13.l),probably because this gives him the styMc opporhmity ofusing the same verb in the safeguardingofthe revelation for the mirror image of godless action(6oiv TIS 6 r n 6ri ~ a6~oi)andthe immediatepunishing reaction (irn@OEI6 && iri a6~6v).~~~notherliteral correspondencebetweenRev. 22.18f. and Deut 29.19f consists in the twofold reference to the 'imminentpunishments' being mated in each book (Rev. 22.18E: TUS y~ypappivask TG $ ~ $ A i q 32. C£ A m , R m l ~ ~ t i o17-22, n p. 1209, ChT. Ddunea, M.Ckmhg. Biblischer Konon, wmum 1992),pp. 6 8 4 9 @em p. 80). 33. M Rase, 5. Mose (ZEIKAT 5: Teilband2: Zmich: TheoL VerL, 1994). D. 491. 34. Dobmm, Oermn& Kuwn, p. 80; d.E. R c m , ' N m luchts davm wcg und Qc oichts b!', B.V47 (1989). w..107-14; A V d 'Disso~!eaamreK a m - oder Flahotepfamel'. R o e .. kolle -Bibel 6 (1997), pp. 7 ~ 0AU; ~ w e l ( 1 t i17-22, o ~ p. 1208; Th.Hieke,T. Nicklas, 'Die d w o z u ? (QD, 137; Freibw H&,

WonehProphetiediesesB~ehes'@ThS,6Z;N~hebVLuyn:N~ener,2W3),pp. 7W72. 35. CE Beale, Use, p. 98; idon,BwkofRwelotion, p. 1152; Rose,5. Mose, p. 554. 36. C £ M K a w , D i e J ~ ~ o f f e ~ ~ a I s ~ ~ , 1 4 0 , G 6 t t i n g e n : V a & Ruprecht, 1986), p. 274; Hieke,Nicklag 'Wone: p. 75.

10. Deuteronomy in Revelation

179

T O G T ~ [...I TWV y~ypappQwvkv TG $ ~ $ A i q T O ~ ;TDeut. ~ 29,19f.: ai yEypappQva~ b TG p~$AiqTO^ V ~ V O UT O ~ T O U [...I TUS Y~YPap!JQvas kv TG $ l B A i q TOG vdpou TOGTOU).Considering the immediate context of the last passage named the identical threat to the transgressor using TUS rrAny& in Deut 292 1 and Rev. 22.18 must be mentioned.37In Revelation the noun rrArjyq and the verb rrAfiuow occur mainly in the context of the time of the oppression ofthe just before the linal coming of Christ (Rev. 8.12; 9.18,20; 11.6; 13.3,12, 14; cf. 16.21).38 The correspondences between the functions of the texts within their literary context relate to their position at the beginning or end of a binding religious document with its claim to perfection, authority and wisdom,which is to be safeguarded39Rev. 22.18f. summarizesthe completedbook ofRevelationas authoritative 'holy Scripture', a claim accentuated by the correspondence of the two verses with Rev. 1.2Ea The parenesis in the context of the opportunities and dangers in the promised land in Deuteronomy4, inserted by the redactor af€erthe historical review ofthe migration fromHoreb to Bet-Pegor (1.6-3.29), prepares for the actual legislation in Deuteronomy 5-28.'" Probably a Deutemnomistic redactor in late exilic or earlypost-exilic time has fitted an introducto~y M e to the Deuteronomic law here by introducing urgent calls to heed the laws." Deut 13.1 corresponds inform and content to the heading of Dent 12.1 (cf. 4.1),43and the manuscript tradition of the Masoretes marks the end ofthe passage only after 13.1 by Petucha." Thisleads tothe conclusionthatDeut 13.1 originally mustbe undentood as a redactionally created safeguardingclosure of the preceding commandment from chapter 12 to centralizethe cult. The context leads to the observation that throughout the preceding catalogues of vices in Rev. 21.8,27; 22.15, heresy has apronounced importance. In immediate reference to Deut 4.1f., the participation in the cult of a foreign deity (cf. Num. 25.1-5) is also referred to in similar ways. Likewise,Deut. 12.30f explicitly warns 37. Several witnesses (046.051'. 2377. M A ) dimd before nhqyas, by which the 'plaguff' memioned h a t rder explicitly to Rev. 15.1,8; 21.9. 38. CE Beaie, Bmk ofRevelotion, p. 1153; Hieke, Nickh, 'WoIIe: pp. 8M. 39. C£ Dohmen, Oeming,Kmon, p. 84; Aune,Rmelnrion 17-22, p. 1229. 40. Cf H.Kraft Die Offenborungdes Johanna (HNl', 16%TGbingeo;Mohr, 1974),p. 281; U. B. M i i k D i e Wenbnrungder Johanner (bTKl%GWdoh: ~ l a h e r V1984),p. ~ , 372: Moyise, Old Test-M,p. 24; Beaie, Use,p. 95; idem,BmkofRoielolion,p. 1150; Hieke, Nicklas, ' W e',pp. 76f 41. Roloff DieOfenbmwgdes J o h m n e s , ~213;MWeinfeld,De~femmmyl-ll . (AB5;New Ynk: Doubleday, 1991), p. 200. 42. Cf Dohmen, Omhg, Konon, p. 83; D. Knapp, Dnrto.onornium 4 (GTA, 35; G6aiagen: VanWaeek&Ruplecht, 1987),pp. 159f;E.Otto, ' D e ~ ~DiePmtma&d&mim 4 : DeuteronomiumsM, D m Deureronomim und seine &erbeziehgen (SESJ, 62; H e l s i i * g e ~ Vandenhoeck & RqmcM 19%), pp. 196-222,202. 43. Cf. A D. H. Mayes, Delllnonomy(NCB; CnandRapiddhdnc Eerdmang 1979),pp. 231f; Dohmen, Oemhg, h, p. 83. 44. C£ F.Host, 'Das Privilegrecht Jahwes', idan, GonesRecht (TB, 12; Munich Kaiser 1961), pp. 17-154 @en: 60); Dohmen, Oeming,Konon,p. 83; Hiekc, Nicklas, 'Wone',p.74; Mays, Derneronomy,p. 231. Diffaenty Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, p. ZOO; Beale, BookofRevehtion, p. 1151.

180

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

against idolatry. Deut. 29.15-18 also gives reasons for the subsequent threat ofpunishment (cf. Deut. 28.58-61) in the warning reference to the gods of the foreign nations encounteredby Israel (respectivelythe generation of the fathers) so For a contribution to the answer to the question of whether a profile of the reception of Deuteronomy in Revelation can be drawn, the texts referred to in Rev. 22.18f. must be studied For this, some light must first be thrown onto the characteristics of these texts in the context of the Septuagint of Deuteronomy. The study ofthe history oftheir inBuence and reception in Jewish writings ftom Hellenistic-Romantimes as well as the reception ofthe Hebrew text tradition in the library of Qnmranserves as a basis ofthe subsequentthoughts wncerning the particular use of Deut. 4.lf., 13.1,29.19f. in Revelation. The History of the Integr@ Fonnula As the last book of the Torah, Deuteronomy was probably translated last into Greek The translator 'appears to know the other books already in Greek and uses them as a help for difficult passages, but also as a source ofhis interpretation'." It can be regarded as certain that already before the beginning of the Greek translation, all the tea blocks of Deuteronomy were integral parts of the book. As to the general character of the Septuagint of Deuteronomy,this can be characterized, among other things, by the obvious care ofthe ancienttranslator to adjust his work - particularly in terms of quality - to the model of the Hebrew text/7 Likewise, in the translation repeatedly there are the same sequences of words, expressions and phrases." Apparently, this 'conservative' approach to the biblical texP9was based on its special quality as revelation,which required a particularly precise transformation into the Greek language, as the purpose was nothing less than the creation of a universally understandable basic text so that all the faithful can h d orientation on the word of God in a11 aspects of life. Similarly, wnceming the passages kom Deuteronomy referred to in Rev. 22.18f. a high degree of correspondencebetween the Hebrew and Greek biblical text is noticeable. Nevertheless, somepeculiar aspects ofthe translation must be mentioned IuDeut 4.2 the semanticallypolyvalent in6nitive constructionltl~~~~ is translated by the imperative +uhaom&~wbichinaeases the expressive effect 45. Beale, Use,p. 96;i k m , Book ofRevelolion, p. 1151. 46. A Aejmelaeus, Die Septuaginto des Deuleronomiums (veijalq Deufaonomium, pp. 1-22 Ihere: 41);Cf. M. R W @memngols Yoll&gderAurlepg@ZAW, W;BerLin,NwYo*: de Gruyter. 1994), p. 257. 47. CE J. W . Wevers, TheAttilude of the Greek T r d t o r ofDwtemnomytow& hisPment Terr zur alUestaumtlichc11Theologie; Gattingen: Vandenbe& & R-hf 1977). pp. 498-505 (here: 505). Cf Aejmelaeu$ Sepluaginto,p. 13. In greaterdetail C. Dog"iez,M. Had,Le Deut&onome (Ia Bible #Alexandrie, 5; Paris: Ed du C d , 1992), pp. 2940. 48. Cf. J. W . Wevem. Texr History of the GmeRDeutemnomyN U , 13; w g e n . . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), p. 86. 49. Cf. Wevem,AnVrude,p. 501. 50. a.B. K Waltke,hi,02Comor,Anlnf~o&ctiontoBiblicalNeb~ewsyntm(WmrmaLake, W: Eisenbram, 1990X pp. 60>10.

10. Deuteronomy in Revelation

181

ofthe integrity formula. ~ikewise,the twofoldaddition of ~ V E P O (not V supported by any ofthe remaining Hebrew witnesses) serves as actnaliizationofthe immutability of God's word?' In Deut. 13.1 the changing numerus in the address is harmonizedintothe singular. This emphasizes the individnalvalidity ofthe commandment, however it dissolves the connection betweenDeut. 12.1 and 13.1, the beginning and end of the commandment to cenmlue the cult (marked by the sipdicant change innumber in the Hebrew text), as apassage which is closed in itself in content andmeaning. The GreekrenditionofDeut. 29.19f. mostly corresponds in quality and quantity to the Hebrew text; only the translation of Tag cipas e s 6taBfiws T a s y ~ y ~ a & v a('all s the curses ofthis covenant, which are written'), as opposed to X l n 3 7 7 5 ~ h 7 ('all the curse, which is written') is noteworthy.52 In this passage, it is particularlyinteresting that in the preceding verse 18, the vividexpression7NDS7I n N 7117 nl30 j X 5 (s'o as to bring disaster onmoist and dry alike') is translated as'iva ~14 ouvanoAQq6 c i ! . I a p ~ ~ h c k T~)V civapapq~ov('lest the sinner should destroy the innocent'). The interpreting translation of the phrase enables the direct reference to the subsequent punishment ofthe obdurate transgressor by GodinDeut. 29.19f? It can be noted that already at the point of origin ofthe exegetical tradition, in the Septuagint of Deuteronomy, the individualvalidity of the direct effects ofthe integrity formula in Deut. 4.1f., 13.1 as well as the parenetically motivated threat ofpunishmentin Deut. 29.19f are in certain ways reinforced against the Hebrew text. A h t reference to Deut 4.lf. and 13.1 can be fonnd at the end of the legendary account of the inspired translation of the Torah into Greek in Let. Ari% 3 10f.S The representatives of the Alexandrian Jews approve of the work of the 72 translators as 'well and oiouslv (...). and in even, ,resuect accurate'. For this reason no change of the text was going to he pennined (Let Aris. 3 10). This safeguard of the immutability of the Greek Torah translation for all future is accomplished by an act of public cursing, which (using the antonyms npou-riflq~la$a~pEw)prohiits any additions, rearrangements or omissions, 'according to their custom (;Boy)' (Let. Aris. 3 11). The conclusion that theauthor ofthe epistle of Aristeas was thinking of the inst~ctionsof Deuteronomy is supported by his choice of words and anumber of observations: (1) He uses the term Eeos in Let. Aris. 182.184.305 as a general term for the specfic Jewish customs; and (2) particularly inhis explanationofthe Jewish foodlaws inlet. A*. 153-60,he A

.

.

51. Cf.L. Iaberge, 'La Septante deDt 1-1 l',DarDeutmonomium (BETL, 68;Leuyen; Peeters, 1985), pp. 129634 @ere: 130); E. Nielsen, Deuteronomium (HAT, U6; TGbingen: Mohr Siebeck 1995),p. 54. 52. CE Dogniez, Ha& Deutdronome,p. 303. 53. Cf Mayes, Deuteronomy, p. 365; Aejmelaeus, SepNoginta,p. 5; Nielsen, Deuteronomium, p. 262. 54. CE M . H d a , Aristear to Philocr(~fes (JAC; New York: Harper, 1951). p. 219£ with note 'Rkgle', p. 137; F. Siegert, 'Early Jewish InteqmWion in aHell&c Style', p. 305; Van Hebrew B i b l d d Tesrmnent. The HLvtory of 18 Iinterpret~tionV l (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & R-hf 1996),pp. 1 3 W 8 (esp. 144-54; here: 147);iden, ZwischenHebrdkcheBibeI undAlten T a ~ m e n(MJSt, t 9; Miraster: Lit., ZWl), p. 29.

182

Deuteronomy in the New Tesrament

continuouslyrefers to Deuteronomy@cut 6.7-9; 7.18; 1021; 11.18,20; 14.6). It is also noteworthythat already in Let.Aris. 311the integrity formulaDeut. 4. If., 13.1 is connected with a conditional curse formula as in Rev. 22.18f. In the version of the legend of the Septuagint's origin as written down by Philo of Alexandria (Mos. 2.34), the rulingto maintain the original thought in the translation of the Torah (61a@uAarrw;cE Deut. 13.1 [@daooo])and not to take anything ftom it or add to it (ci@a~pEo - r p m i h ~ ~corresponds i) to the perfection of the Law revealedby divinepmlamation5~The terms i ~ p o @ a v r~a ~a i rrpo@ll~as ('mystery priests andprophets', MOS.2.40) forthe translators correspondstothe conviction ofthe translation's inspiration.InSpec.4.143-147, Philo directlyreferstoDeut. 4.lf., 13.1, condemning any alteration in formor content ofthe whole ofthe just Law, however small a change it may be. Any such intrusion into the perfect text ofthe Torah would imply the radical cancellation of its perfection; piety would turn into superstition or impietyJ6 The Jewish writer Flavius Josephus also describes the origin of the Greek mlationoftheTorahinAlexandria(Ant. 12.11-118). Inthis,unlikeLet. Aris 3lo£, he does not linkthe explicit instmctionnot to add or detract from the translation, taken hmDeuteronomy, with an act of nusing,but - like Philo in Mos 2.34 - in concluding, he refers to the particular perfection of the work (Ant. 12.108f.).57In Confra Apionem, followingthe treatment ofthe Jewish holy Scripturesas reliable historical sources, he marksthe strick exertionson behalfoftheir exact transmission as a specific feature of the Jewish religion (C. Ap. 1.42f.).58 Ofpaaicuk interest is thereferencetothe integity formula @eut 4.1E; 13.1) in BJ 126 and Ant. 1.17. In both cases Flavius Josephus uses the phrase as a 'programmatic formula of his own literary writing' placed at the beginning of each woks9At first sight this emphasis on the exactness in dealing with the sourcescontdicls their creativeinterpretationby the ancientJewish author, who uses the contemporarygenre ofrhetoricalhistoriography in &tic ways inorder to compose a Greekversion ofJewishhistorywithspecifically religious implications. Yet in both cases Josephus certainly does not wish to state that he merely repeats his sources slavishly. Instead he wants to emphasize that he only renders their actual meaning faitlfidly without being affectedby his own emotions or being 'partial'.@'Probably he assumes in his religious interpretation of Jewish history that he is an empowered tradent as well as prophetic proclaimer of the biding word of God in his own work as historian and translator of the Jewish

55. C£ Van U'Regle', p. 137f. 56. CE Van Un& 'R&le', p. 150f.; Dogniq Har/ Deur&omme, p. 133. 57. Cf. Van Umk, 'Regle', p. 138; idem, Fluvim J o s e p h als hlsforischer Schrifsfeller (FDV.F, Heidehrg: LamhtScImeider, 1978), p. 31f 58. Cf VanUnr&'Regle',p. 138f.; idem,FIavimJosephus,p.36;Beaie,Use,p. 97; idem,Book of Revelafion, p. 1152; Hieke,Nicklas, 'Wone p. 77, n 142. 59. S t a m , 'Methugeman', p. 289. Cf. L. K Feldmao, Judem Antiquities I 4 (Fkvius Joscphus. T d t i o n and Commmtq, X 3;hBrill, 2000). p. 7f n.22. 60. CE VanUnnilg F1m.w J m e p h , p. 39.

>

10. Deuteronomy in Revelation

183

holy scriptures (as well as the biblical prophets) (cf. BJ3.403; 5.362-419 [esp. 391-93])." Apart from the exegetical tradition of the Septuagint of Deuteronomy, a glance at the reception of Dent 4.lf; 13.1,29.19f. in the Hebrew text tradition contributesto the understanding ofthesepasages in ancient Judaism. Here, above all, the explicit continuationand actualinterprehtion ofDeuteronomy in Qumran must be mentioned Thus,1QS 8.17 addresses the divinely inspiredandpropbetically proclaimed authoritative legislation and sentencing on the basis of the Torah by referring to Deut. 4.1f; 13.1 in warning. The long subsequent passage (1QS 8.20ff.) on the punitive expulsion of the transgressor &omthe community is of particular interest (cf. Deut 29.19f.; 1QS 2.12-16).62It is, however, doubtful whether the rendition of the integrity formula in llQT 54.5-7 should be undersoad only as a finaladmonition referring to the preceding regulation on vows. Immediately after the reference to Deut 4.lf., 13.1 there are warnings against the seductionto idolatry and against the appearanceof illegitimateprophets and interpreters of dreams (1 lQTR 54.8ff.): Finally, 1Enoch 104.10-12 must be mentioned As the conclusion of a series ofwoes on sinners and warnings to the righteous (1Enoch 94.M04.13), there is a threat to the tmmgressors who distort the tluth in their speeches andwritings. As part of the broad tradition of understanding Deuteronomy, the text takes up the integrity formula and arranges it as a conditional promise in demarcation from false prophecy and any alteration of the revealed word of Godm With all due reservations resulting from the differing historical and literary context ofthe received texts mentioned, some broad Lines ofthe exegeticaltraditionofDeut 4.lf., 13.1,29.19f. areapparent Firstly, the integrity fonnulaintroduces the text to be safeguarded or concludes it (Let. Aris. 310f.; llQT 54.5-7; Josephus BJ 1.26;Ant. 1.17; 1Enoch 104.10-12); at first, the emphasis is on the inspirationofthis text (Let A*. 310f.; 1QS 8.17). In the same way - also referring to the immediate context and tied to other biblical passages - its prophetic mediation as the revealed word of God is emphasized and explicitly separated fiomillegitimateprophecy(1QS 8.17; I Enoch 104.10-12; cf. Phi10,Spec. 11.15; JosephusBJ1.26; Ant. 1.17; 10218). Second, particularly in 'apocalyptic' contexts, the formula is not used metaphorically but with a warning intention comb i i w i t h a conditional curse and with explicitwamings against idolatry, which in turn has its tradition-historicalbasis in the h e of the Deutemnomic law -

as propbeey c€. the -on of I ~ i o c h1.9m ludc 14.A d i m berween I E m h 104.10-12and Rev. 22.18f..as L. L. Johns W (TheLomb Chrirfologyof the A p o d p e o f J o h n WUNT, Z167;TSingen: Mokr Siebeek, 2W31, P. 95) apperns 6 1 ~ .

autbonty of the Enaehic tit& wdmion-hhnd - d o n

184

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

particularly inDeuteronomy29 (IQS 8.20E; 11QT 54.5-7; cf. Let. Aris. 310f.). Third, Philo (Mos. 2.34; Spec. 4.143-147) and Josephus (Ant. 12.108f.) also mention the perfection of the inspiredtext the least alteration of which means not merely a gradual but rather a radical cancellation of its perfection.

The Integngng Formula in Revelation ForR H.Charles, the reference to the Septuagint ofDeuteronomyinRev. 22.18f. served, above all, the lasting safeguardingof the literal text transmission: 'It was not unusual for Writers, Christianand Jewish,to attemptto secure a faithful transmission oftheir works by appendingsolemn adjwaiious that the scribesshould in no wise change or tamper with the text'6s It appears doubtful, however, that the apocalypticauthor, who intends to pass on the comf'orting assurance ofthe imme diate victoriousand lastinginterventionof God in worldhistory to his contemporary addressees, who are in a situationperceived as critical and who appeals to their s ~ a s t n e s shas , inmind the continuing secnredtradition ofhis own writing." Against the assumption of the subsequent insertion of the two verses into the original booF7the argumentsmustbe raised that: (1) Rev. 22.18£ corresponds noticeably to Rev. 1.2f. (cf. Rev. 2.7,22; 3.12); (2) no known textversion offers a shorter text; (3) already Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 135-202 CE) refers to Rev. 22.18f. in his interpretationof the non-unifm text tradition of Rev. 13.18 in Adversus HaeresesV 30.1;68and (4) the numerous smaller variants speak against the existence or use of a stereotypical formula customary in the text's reproduction. A comparison with the exegetical tradition ofDeut 4.If., 13.1,29.19f. in ancient Judaism points in a differentdirection; here the inspiration of God's revealed wordmediatedby theprophetsreceivesspecial emphasis particularly in the context of the warning demardon from illegitimate prophecy and idolatry.@ Even if he does not call himself aprophet, John composes his work - written down at the order of Jesus Christ, i.e. qualified by avision of calling (Rev.1.9-20; cf. Isa. 6.1-13; Jer. 1.4-10; Ezek. 2.8 - 3.3) -with a claim to prophetic authority (Rev. 22.9; cf. 19.10)."Hisuseoftheterm$t$Aiov(Rev. 1.11; 22.7,%, 18f.; cf. Nah. 1.1) suppoa this finding. In Rev. 22.1Sf. the apocalyptic author attempts to take a direct controlling influence on the immediate addressees of his book; for

65. R H. Charles, A Cnricol and tirgerrrol C o m m r t # y on the Rm4orion of Sr John ((ICC, W w g h : T . & T. Clark, 1920), 11, p 223;Cf J. Leipaldt, S. Morcoz, Heilixc Srhnfirn . (Lemde . . Hawssowi9 1953),p. 58. 66. Cf R K M o m , %Bwkof Revdotion (NICNT., Clrand Rapids, MI: ERdmans, 2nd do, 1998). D. 409.

at me Crossroads', in, dm,The 6&k o / ~ c r s ar ~ h & h l l u r o ~Apmlelgerchirhre : & Krrchengeschlchre(BZNW, IM, W N e w Y& W. dc GruyterZOO3). . pp. . 1-5 (bere: If).

69. Aieke, Nick& 'Wone;pp. llof 70. C£ D. E. h e , Prophecy in Emly ChrkfLnrity m t d t h e A w ~ e r U ~ m a ~ World(Grand on Rapids: Esdmans,Znddo, 1991),pp.238fB. h M ~ D i e ~ ~ g & J o h m m e ~ ( S t u t t g a r t : Kohlhamma, 2002). pp. 39f

10. Deuteronomy in Revelation

185

him,their reading does not represent apassive reception of formulated information but an active challenge to orientate their lives with his prophetic message. The traditional integrity formula, which in its content, its reference to the context and its connection with other biblicalpassages, links up with the main streamof ancient Jewish scriptural reception, receives a strong cbristological focus through him. This use of the integrity formula shows clearly that the seer of Patmos regards his work as literary processing of his prophetic reception of revelati09 the decisive and unconditional integrity and anthority of which z e to be emphasized in c0ncluding.7~Althoughthe trouble taken to preserve the 'origjd' contextual identity of the biblical passages used does not play any noticeable mle for him, the apocalyptic author in his use of Scripture remains within the ancient Jewish tradition of understanding these passages h m Deutmm0my.7~ It must be assertedthat here the author of Revelation forbidshis readers the precise thing he himself does to the texts, that is the creativenewcontextualization ofa document of revelation. The warning at the end ofthe work, based on the Septuagint ofDeuteronomy not 'to add' nor 'to take away' anything, marks the whole of the last book ofthe Christian Bible's claim to proclaiming God's eschatologicalsalvationto the communities of Asia Minor and at the sametime to preserving them from the constant pressure to assimilate, that is h m the expectations of their pagan environment that they conformto it73 'Consequently, to "addntothewords of lohn'sprophecy is to pmmote the false teaching that idolatry is not inconsistent with faith in Christ"' The explicit warning protects the writing as divine instruction Written down in its words. At the sametime it claims unconditional observance in aradical way." The conclusion that the explicitly limited (cf. Rev. 1.4) circle of Chistian addressees not only receive the promise of salvation but also the eschatological threat of the only comprehensive evidence of early Christian prophecy within the New Testamentis also supportedby the observationthatJohnconsistentlyreads the comforting and admonishing words to the scriptural people of God as referringtotheChristians (cf. Rev. 2.7 [Geu 2.91; Rev. 2.14 31.16l;Rev. 2.17 [Ps. 78.241; Rev. 2.20 [ZKgs. 9.22l;Rev. 5.5 [Gen.49.9£]; Rev. 7.16 [Isa.49.10]

-

71. Cf Lo&, ' S p h e ' , p. 114; Karrer, Johmmesoff-g, p. 274; Moyise, Old Testp. 98; h e , Revelofion 17-22, p. 1231; I. C. Var&Kam, 'The PmphetieSapiential O@rs of Apocslyptic Thought', From Revekzlion lo 6 M n (JSJSnp, 62; Leiden: B d , ZWO), pp. 241-54 (ha:245); K Backham, 'DieVxonvomganzAndere&Theologieol. Tiwn(SBS, 191; Stungart: Katb BjbeIwak, ZWI), pp. 31f.; Hieke, Nicklaq 'Wort=; p. 76; B. Withahgtnn ID,Revelation cambridge: CambddgeUnivWity Press, 2W3), p. 283. 72. Cf. L Pa* 'The Use of the Old Testament in Revelation 12', in S.Moyise (d)The , Old Testmnent in the New Testmnent (JSNTSup, 189; She5eId: S M e l d Acadeuic Resr, ZWO), pp. 256-76&re: 273): 'ItislessacaseofRNeLation%~"theOldTestament~RNe~on using OldTestament categoriesto intezpret its own world'. Similarly Momce,Rwelotion, p. 410. 73. CE MlUer, Offenbonmg, p. 372. 74. M e , BwkofRweIofion, p. 1151. 'Worte',p. 77. 75. CT Hieke,Ni*

186

Deuteronomy in fheNew Tesfoment

etc.).76 With this in mind, it should be considered wbether the author of the visionary book argues against particular currents or charismatic teachers in the Christian communities of Asia Mmor, who intend to add to or change his work i n s p i b y the spirit of God- claiming their own prophetic inspiration: 'Revelation was (...)written in a setting of prophetic c~nRict.'~ This idea is supported by the fact that the context of Deut. 4.1f., 13.1f., 29.19f., as well as the ancient Jewish exegetical tradition combines the integrity formula with the warning of the f a i W against seductionby illegitimateprophets (cf. Rev. 2.20-25; 22.9).78 Concerning the thought that the early Christian 'Silz im Leben' of the formula must be sought in the struggle with enthusiasticprophets and ecstaticvisionaries withinthe author's own community, 1Car. 4.6 could alsobe added as proof. Here Paul contraststo the exaggerated self-importance ofthe Corinthians the demand for a restriction to the authority and committing power of the written word (cf. 2 Pet. 3.16f.)." Indirect References ondSimilarifies between Deuteronomy and Revelofion Rev. 9.13 andDeuf.1.7 The trumpet signal ofthe sixthangel in Rev. 9.13 i n a c e s an event which was ordered by Godhimself;avoice from the comers of the heavenly altar commands 'to release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates' (v. 14). Such unenaypted geograph'1c references are unusual in Revelation outside of the letters to the seven churches. The apocalyptic idea of the ultimate attack of the demonic armies ofthe East fiom the Euphratescorrespondsto the visionary presentation of the final assault of the foreign nations on Israel in Ezek 38.1-23 (cf. Jer. 46 [m:261.4; 1Enoch 56.5f.) but the phrase 'as far as the great river, the river Euphrates' also occurs in Deut. 1.7 LXX concemingtheideal dimensionsof the settlement at the time of the entry into the promised land (cf. Deut 11.24). A direct aUusionis dike1y, however, and it isprobable that both passages refer to the promise of the land up to the Euphrates for the descendants of Abraham in Gen. 15.18 (cf. Exod 23.31; Josh. 1.4). Themetaphorical definitionof the ideal Davidic kingdom up to the Euphrates (Ps. 72 [LXX: 711.8; cf. Mic. 7.12; Zech. 9.10) impliedhere, in its turn fed the apocalyptic imagination (cf. 1Enoch 77.6; 4 Ezro 13.43).

76. Cf.Bkher, 'Johannes-Apokalypse'. p. 628;U.B.MuUer, 'ApokalyptiL imNeuw Testament', ChrOfolozieundApobIwtik (ABG .12: Leiez: . .EVA.2W3), w. .. 268-90 (hen: 284). 77. ~ i eXn~~lurirrrrun . ;7-?. p. 1232. Cf idem. .TheRophctic Circle of John of Pafmos and the ExcgesisofRcvel&on22.16', J.SW37(1989),pp.103-16lbue: l W); Karrer, Juhann~sc~Jer~humn~, p. 275;K Giesen, Die 0@nhanmZde8 ~ohan-ks ~e~ensbwg: :PustS 1997),py493. 78. Cf Arne, Rwelafion 17-22, p. 1232. 79. Cf. S W e r , Methu'gemm, p. 289.

m,

10. Deuteronomy in Revelation

187

Rev. 17.14.19.16andDeut. 10.17 The title 'Lord of lords and King of kings' (Rev. 17.14) and in reverse order, 'King of kings and Lord of lords' (Rev. 19.16) is thought to he based on Dan. 4.37 uor. The wording is almost identical, the themes are similar and Dan. 4.7 is alluded to in Revelation 17. A similar title occurs in Deut. 10.17 Ec$ where inan extensive admonition to fear God @em 10.12-1 1.I), God's imperial power, superiority and sovereignty are praised by the twofold title 'God of gods and Lord of lords'. However, this divine predication, which takes up the original title of the Persian great kings W k . 26.7; Ezra 7.12), is common inthe Judeo-Christian tradition (cf. Ps. 136 [Lm: 1351.2f.; Dan. 2.37,47; 2 Macc. 13.4; 3 Macc. 5.35; 1 Enoch 9.4; 1 Tim. 6.15; cf. Phil. 2.9) and so dependence on Deuteronomy cannot be established

Rev. 21.17 and Deut. 3.11 The last visionofthe Apocalypse ofJohn (Rev. 21.S22.5) descnies the eschatological city of God as the habitat o f t h e M community of salvation. Inv. 15f. the revealmg angel measures the city before the eyes of the seer; its cubic dimensions symbolize its huge size and perfection. The height measurements of the walls also correspondto this, namely 144 (i.e. 12 x 12) normal cubits 'by human measurement'. The genitive drv0pdrrou must be understood as an adjective and speciiies the measurement used. The customary measurement among human beings is also used by the angels in heavens. A comparablemeasure to the one in Rev. 21.17, 'by the wmmoncubit', also occurs Deut. 3.11 LxX,wherethedimensions of the iron bed of the legendary Ammonite king Og in Rabba are menti0ned.8~ However, since the whole vision finds its model in Ezekiel's vision of the renewal of the temple and its cult (Ezekiel 4048), and the text of Papyrus 967 for Ezek 40.5 offers a close parallel to Rev. 21.17, direct dependence on Deuteronomy is nnlikely.8'

Conclusion The seer John reveals to his Christian addressees a temporally and spatially transcendentreality. His own reference to the Septuagint ofDeuteronomyandits exegetical tradition wrresponds to his own idea ofhimselfas recipient and prophetic proclaimer of this otherworldlyrevelation. The share in the tree oflife and in the eschatologicalnew Jerusalem expected in the near fiture by the Wtim addressed by him is fundamentallyjeopardized by any present ineerence with

80. Cf. Auoc, Revelorion 17-22, pp. 1162f.

81. Io &&id the measure behind the long &it ('a cubit and a handbreadth') is not w&ed in either the text of the ~ e b r e w~ i b l or e the main slzearn of the Gmek text -00 buttheOflkdngof 967(tv dvZip& nai mxAnb-) is an early wimess to atext before the recension of Origen aod is close to Rev.l.17.

188

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

the text of the 'revelation ofJesus Christ, which Godgave to him' (Rev. 1.1) and prophetically revealed Their present behaviour is of eschatological relevance: 'Thus, by eschatological interpretation of the present, the apocalyptic author succeeds in passing on to his readers standards ofthe highest dignity concerning ecclesiastical practice and Christian life; the church becomes a piece of heaven on earth.'8'

JSIONS - NEWTESTAMENT ORDER

Motthen, 4.4 (Deut 8.3) 4.7 @at.6.16) 4.10 (Deut 6.13) 5.21 (Dent. 5.17) 5.27 (Deut 5.18) 5.31 (Deut. 24.1,3) 5.33 (Deut. 5.11,20; 23.22) 5.38 e u t . 19.21) 5.43 (Deut. 7.2; 20.16; 23.4,7) [email protected]) 18.16 (Dent. 19.15) 19.7 @cut 24.1,3) 19.18-19 @cut. 5.17-20, 16) 22.24 (Dent. 25.5) 22.37 (Deut 6.5) Mm-k 2.73 (Dent 23.5) 7.10 (Dent 5.16) 9.47 (Deut. 18.15) 10.4 @cut 24.1,3) 10.19 (Deut. 5.16-20; 24.14) 12.19 (Deut. 25.5) 12.29-33 (Deut 6.4-5; 4.35) 13.19 (Deut 4.32) 1322 (Deut 13.1-2) 1327 (Deut 30.4) 14.7 (Dew 15.11)

Luke 4.4 (Deut 8.3) 4.8 (Dmt 6.13) 4.12 (Deut 6.16) 1027 @at 6.5) 1820 W.5.17-20,16) 2028 (Deut. 25.5,6)

John 5.5 @cut. 2.14) 521 @at. 3239) 5.31-34(Deut. 17.6; 19.15)

5.37 (Dent 4.12) 5.44 @at 6.4) 7.24 @at 1.16-17) 7.33-36 @at 4.29) 7.51 @at 1.16-17) 8.16-17@eut 17.6; 19.15) 8.17 @cut. 19.15) 8.54 @cut.6.4) 9.14 @mi 5.9) Acts 322 (Dent. 18.15-20) 7.37 @nd. 18.15) Romom 7.7 @eat 521) 10.6-9 @cut 9.4; 30.11-14) 10.19 (Dent 32.21) 11.8 (Dent. 293) 12.19 (Dent. 32.35) 13.8-10 @cut 5.17-19,21) 15.10 (Deut 32.43) 1 Corinthians 5.2 @cut. 23.1; 2720) 5.4 (Deut.19.16-20) 5.5 @at 23.2-9) 5.13 (Deut. 17.7, etc.) 6.14@eut 1.917) 7.32-35 @cut 6.45) 7.3940 (Deut. 24.1-4) a-14 @cut 6.4-5) 8.1-6 (Deut 6.4-5) 9.9 @ut. 25.4) 10.20 @at 32.17) 10.22 (Dent. 32) 13.12 @cut. 34.10) 16.2 @at 15.14)

I Corinrhians (cont) 16.23 (Deut.31.6,7,13)

Deuteronomy in the New Testament 12.18-19 e n t . 4.11-12) 1221 (Dwt. 9.19) 12.29 (Dent.4.24; 9.3) 13.5(DNt 31.6)

161-2 162 162-3 163-4

Rewlonbn

1 Timothy 5.18 (Dent.25.4) 5.19 (DNt 19.15)

Hebrews 1.6 (Deut. 32.43) 10.28 (ocut. 17.6) 10.30 (Deut. 32.354) 12.3 @ a t . 20.3) 12.15 @&. 29.17)

6.10 @ a t 32.43) 1724 186 9.13 (But 1.7) 17+5 9.20 (Dent 32.17) 10.54 (Dent.32.40) 1 7 s 12.16@& 11.6) 17M 1767 15.34 (Deut 32.4) 171-2 16.2 (DNt 28.35) 16.5 (DNt 32.4) 1767 187 17.14 @em 10.17) 1724 19.2 @ a t 32.43) 19.16 @ut 10.17) 187 21.17@& 3.11) 187 22.18-19 (Deut. 4.1-2; 13.1; 29.19-20) 177-86

m E X OF QUOTATIONS AND ALLUSIONS - DEUTERONOMY ORDER

m E X OF AUTHORS

Aejmelaeus, A 180 Albl,M. 147 Allnight, W.F. 17,115,155 Allen, R 84 AUison, D. C. 36,44,59,145 Archer, G. L. 153,157,159-61,163 Asiedu-Pep&, M. 86 Assmm, J. 82 Amidge, H. W 1567,159 Augensteh I. % Add, A G. 7 Aune, D. E. 170,173-5, 17&9,183-7 Bacher, W. 60 Bail14 M. 10 Bamdt, C. K. 68,129,140 Barth, M. 154,167 Bd61emy. D. 10 Bamgarten, I. H. 156 Beale, G. K 16!%70,1734,17G30,182-3, 185 Beasley-Mway, G. R 88 Becker,J. 88 Bell,l.R 11&11 BendemR von 70 Berger, K 106 Beutler, I. 83,85,88,96 Bockhans,K 185 B6eha, 0. 169,186,188 Boismard, M.-E.83,96 B W W. C. 64 Bowley, I. E. 82 Bratcher, R G. 156 Brawley, R L. 6 4 6 7 Brepabach, C. 39 Bmadhead, E.K 41 Broer, I. 89 Bmke,G.J. 417,21 Bmwq M. L. 9E-6 Brown, R E. 91

Bmce,F.F. 104 BGcheI, C. 153,164 Bu&tt,F.C. 17 Burton, E. de Win 104 Campbell, J. 21 CaMth, S. 44,46 Charles, R H. 184 Chirichigno, G. 153,157,15%61,163 Ciampa, R E. 99,118,120,127,132 CoIliOs,R F. 53,57,60,136,140,142-3 Comb* H. I. B. 156 Cook, S. A 16 Craigie, P. C. 126 Cmwfnd, S. W. 9,11,15,23 Cree4 I. M. 68 Crossly, I. G. 29 CWFW~,RA 90

EUingwoah, P. 152-3.159 Ellis, E. E. 68, 1 W 1 0 Evans, C. A 84,102 Eykn, I. H. 153

Fa=, A 83 Fee, G. D. 137,140 Feldmq L. H 24,182 F e h d e z Marcos, N. 158 Fishbane, M. 8,125,132

Fitnnyer, L A. 75 Flia5 P. W. 156 Ford, I. M. 17&1,17&7 Foster,P. 51,M) Fraaee,R T. 28,3&1,3&7,40 Fugketh K S. 96 Funk R W. 29 Furnish, V.P. 68

Garland, D. E. 134 G e n e , G. 78 Gdmdssm, B. 47, @I Gheo@i@R 154,157,166 GiH. 186 Gd&a,E. 76,155,159,164 Grayston, K 89 Greene, T. M. 40 Greer, R A. 155 Gundry, R H. 30,32,35,43,47 Hadas,M. 181 H&er, G. 137,139,142 Hamm, D. 77 Hauson, A T. 83,91-2,136,143,148,150 Harder,G. 158 Had, M. &9,12,1%20,24,94,18&2 Hamine, S. 82 EIa$tschLa, M. 49, W nays, I. D.102 &ys,RB. 6,83,101,104,1LU9,114, 121-2,131,140 Helbig, J. 84 Hengel, M. 84,89 H , I. 136 Hieke, T. 47,17&9,182,18&5 Himbaza,I. 17 HoImen,T. 95 Holq T. 66-7 HO*, W. 100,124 Horn F. 179 Houbmm C. 175 Howard, G. 158 HSmer, R 83,87,93 Hdtgw, A J. 68 Instone Bnwer, D. 30,12%9

Johnson, L. T. 74,137,143 Kaiser, W. C. 152 Kamr, M. 153,178,185-6 Kak,P. 15.%7,160,163 Katzin,D. 21 Keener, C. S. 133 Kegel, G. 74 Kelly, J. N. D. 143 Kim, H. B. 143 Kimball, C. A. 67,734 Kirk,J. A 143 Khmaker, S. J. 157 Klauclq K-J. 83 KLinghardt, M. 72 Koapp, D. 179 Kaibb, M. A 20,102 Knight, G. A. F. 154 K0ch.D.-A. 6,106,110,11~14,15&9 Kaester, H. 136 Kooij, A. van der 173 Kraq M. 179,184 Kugel, J. L. 155 Kuss, 0. 164

Labah, A. 83,87,93 M. 8341.86-7,8W, 9 2 4 Laberge, L. 181 h m b r d f J. 68 Lamode, A. 83 Lane, W. L. 164 Leipol* L 184 Levinmu, B. M. 8,12 Lieman,* 96 Lieu, L M. 83 Lim, T. H. 6,11, 13,2&1,24 Limbeclq M. 5 1 h d e m a m , A. 147 Loader, W. R G. 30,36,105,113 L o W G. 76 LoWN. % Lohse,E. 169,177,185 bmgmwker, R N. 105 Lust,1. 7,175 LuzU. 44,5559-60

Lab*

194

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

Malina, B.J 184 M-n, T.W. 68 Marcus,J. 28,33,37-9 Marshall,I. H. 68,75,140,146 M*, w. E. 75 M* J. L. 104 Mayer, G. 183 Mayes, AD.H. 9,179,181 M&, W.A. 96 Meier,L P. 34 Menken,M. J. J. 45,47,61,65,83,86,145 Men, A. 145,147 Meeger,B.M. 142 Metmer,R 90,95 Meyer,R 73 M i l k I. T. 10 MiUar, J. G. 119 Moessner,D. 81 Molonq: F. J. 88,93 MonteGore,H. 163 MoreqS. 184 Mounce, R H. 141,143,150,18+5 Moyise,S. 40,84,99,164,169,179,185 MiiUer,M 85 MiiUer,U. B. 179,1854 Neslm,R D. 140 New,D.S. 29,32,43 Newsom, C. 13 Nicklas,T. 17G9, 182,184-5 Nielson, E. 155, 181 Nel,F. 69-70 Nolland, J. 68,146 Norden, E. 88 N4M. 8 O'Comor, M 180 Oberholtzer,T.K 160

Ohdinner,L. 136,144,148 Obermana A. 96 Oeming, M. 1784 Olsson, B. 177 Otto, E. 179 Overbeck, F. 77 Painter,1. 91 Pate,C.M. 102 P a 4 L 185 P a 4 M.J. 7

Pelletier,A 16 Pertin,L. 96 Penin,N. 68 Pesch,R 76 Polag,A 67 Powery,E. B. 31,34-6,40 Priest,J. 155 Puech,E. 11

R d G.von 8, 156 Reim, G. 8 3 4 Reisa,M. 169 Reuter, E. 178 Richards, E.R 102 Richards, W A. 136 Ritt,H. 177 Robbins V. K 66 RobhsqLM. 44,46 Re-, T. 8 RBeL M 180 RolofSI. 141-2,170,179 Rose,M. 178 Rosner,B. S. 120,122,125,127,131-2 Rusam, D. 65,85 b l & D.S. 161 Saibma,J. 119 Salo,K 69 Sand A 51 Sanders,E. P. 29,82 Sandnes, K 0.100 S c m L.H. 16 Schille, G. 76 Schnackenburg,R 85,91 SchoeUe,U. 834,86,89,95,97,170 Scholtissek, K 834,87,89,92 SchomfSL. 71-3 Schge,w. 128,140 S c k ,T. R 108 Schuchard, B.G. 84 SchB 6s Sckler F i a m a , E. 34 Schutter,W.L. 138 Schwa&, B. 89 Schwankl0.75 Shun,R.1.H. 141 Siege% F. 181 Sit- M I04 Skehan,P. W. 12, 155,173

Index ofAuthors S-4 F. 83 Snodgrass, K 51 Siding, T. 88 Spicq, C. 143,149 Spieckermans H. 96 Stanley, C. D. 6,101-4,106,108, 11M1, 113-15.142 StmfCer, E. 177,182,186 St* 0.K 102 S t e g e m m H. 14,23 Stegemann. W. 72-3 Stendaid, K. 58 Steudeh A 156 Steyn, G. J. 155,157,164 Stratbmaw K 47 Suodemw+ H.G. 144 Svartik 1. 29 Swete, K B. 153, 157, 169, 177

Talmon, S. 10 Tannebill, R C. 64,74 Thackeray, K St. 1. 25 Theissen, G. 89.95 Theobal4 M 92 T b h l t q A. C. 129,133,139 Thompson,M. M. 91 ThrallM. E. 134,144 T k y q H. 89 Tilborg, S. van 92 Titly, M 174,184 Tomson, P. 127.129 Tov, E. 9,13-17,156 Trench, R C. 77 T m e r , P. I42 Tudra; W. D. 102 Tuck% C. M. 47,68

Ulnicb,E.C. 11,18 Unnk W.C. van 77,177,181-3 VanderKam, I. C. 184 vmg, P. 102 Vaux, R de 125 V w , A 118 V&wf, E. 70 V m e s , G. 13 Vemer, D. C. 148 Via, D. 0. 109 Yliet, H.van 55,134 VonacbA 178 Voss, G. 76

Wagener, U. 143 Wagner, I. R 111-12, 114-15 WalUre, B.K 180 Washbum, D. L. 20 Wasserkg, G. 71,79 Watson, F. 101-5,107-8,11IF13,115-17 Weinfei4 M 6,14,179 Weiser, k 76,137,1544 Weiss, H.-F. 157 WstahoIm, S. 30 Wevers, I. W. 9,12,19-20,86,159,177, 180 Wilckens, U. 91 Williamson, R 163 Witherkgbn Jll, B. 185 Wolter, M 7&7,79 Wrigh5 N. T. 102,127