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 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 ,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~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

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