Deuteronomy

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
תּוֹרָה Torah ; Five Books of Moses; Pentateuch
  • Hebrew בְּרֵאשִׁית Bereshit "In the Beginning"; genesis
  • שְׁמוֹת Schemot "names"; Exodus
  • וַיִּקְרָא Wajikra “And he called”; Leviticus
  • בְּמִדְבַּר Bemidbar "In the desert"; Numbers
  • דְּבָרִים Devarim "words"; Deuteronomy
The 24 books of the Tanach ( T a N a K h )
T ora (instruction, teaching)
N evi'im (prophets)
K etuvim (writings)
Indented: the five megillots .
Order according to BHS ; may differ depending on the edition.
Old Testament books
Pentateuch
History books
Textbooks
Prophets

"Size"

"Little" ( Book of the Twelve Prophets )

The Deuteronomy (abbreviated Dt ) is the fifth book of the Pentateuch . Devarim , Hebrew : "Words", is the name of Deuteronomy in Jewish translations of the Bible. In some evangelical translations of the Bible it is referred to as the Fifth Book of Moses .

The content of the book is the last day in the life of its main character Moses . Moses spends this day speaking to the assembled people of Israel as they prepare to cross the Jordan and conquer the land promised by their God, YHWH . Moses will no longer be involved, his speeches will in a sense represent him from now on. These farewell speeches refer to topics that already appear within the Pentateuch in the books Exodus (especially Chapters 20-23: Covenant ) and Leviticus (especially Chapters 17-26: Law of Holiness). At the end of Deuteronomy, Moses dies.

Typical of Deuteronomy is the connection between legal texts and the arguments, advertisements or warnings of Moses ( pareneesis ). This admonition is like a framework as a prologue and epilogue around the legal material that forms the core of Deuteronomy (Chapters 12 to 26). In this central legal part, Moses takes a back seat as the speaker.

The material correspondences with the covenant book and the holiness law are mostly explained in such a way that the Deuteronomy represents a commentary on the covenant book, while the holiness law comments on the Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy contains an innovation that is also very unusual in the ancient oriental context: it calls for a central shrine for YHWH instead of many local shrines. This cult centralization corresponds to the unity of YHWH, which is proclaimed in the Shema Yisrael . The Ten Commandments are placed in front of the covenant and the laws of Deuteronomy. This positioning is probably intended as a reading instruction to understand the federal book in the light of Deuteronomy.

The older parts of Deuteronomy are believed to have originated in Jerusalem (8th to 6th centuries BC). The authors deal with Neo-Assyrian politics and their ideological rationale. In the opinion of many exegetes, however, the actual elaboration of the text took place a little later, in the exilic and early post- exilic period. Now the situation presupposed in Deuteronomy for the interpretation of one's own existence became important: to imagine future living in this country outside the land of Israel and to learn to delve into the commandments that should then apply.

Devarim - Deuteronomy - Fifth Book of Moses

Beginning of Deuteronomy in the Codex Leningradensis

The Hebrew book title is named after the initial words ( incipit ). They read: "These are the words ...",אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים ʾElleh haddevarim , this was shortened to: Hebrew דְּבָרִים Devarim "words."

In Alexandria , Jewish scholars translated in the 3rd century BC. Chr. Deuteronomy in the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean, the Ancient Greek. In doing so, they stayed close to the Hebrew template. Their Deuteronomy translation later became part of the Septuagint . The book title is Δευτερονόμιον Deuteronómion , "second law". It should characterize the content of the book. The formulation can be found in Deuteronomy itself: The translators made a slight change in the meaning of Dtn 17.18  EU . The Hebrew text is about making a copy of the instruction, while the Greek text is about making a copy of a text called the “second law”, Deuteronómion . The Alexandrian scholars very likely meant Deuteronomy by this. In rabbinical literature , the synonym is usedמִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה Mishneh Torah sometimes used for the book of Deuteronomy.

The translators of the Vulgate took over the book title from the Septuagint : Deuteronomy . This Latinized spelling is predominant in the scientific literature.

The name Fifth Book of Moses, which is common in the Protestant region, is also part of a tradition that goes back to ancient times. In the 1st century AD, Flavius ​​Josephus already referred to the Torah as the "five books of Moses."

language

Deuteronomy is a prose text. It is less intended for reading in silence than for lecture, whereby it impresses the listener with rhetorical means : Wide-span sentence periods , divided into speaking lines and adorned with assonances , create a surging rhythm. On the one hand, Deuteronomy argues and solicits the listener's approval; on the other hand, the book has an educational interest. Key words and recurring formulations shape or call to mind religious content. This “rhetorical art prose” is characterized by a high recognition value. The Hebrew text of Deuteronomy has a particular aesthetic quality. The Encyclopedia Judaica says: "The style of Deuteronomy is characterized by its simplicity, fluidity and clarity and is recognizable through its use of language and especially through its rhetorical character."

Author, time and place of origin

Deuteronomy gives itself an archaic appearance by using old geographical and ethnic designations and names of ancient giants and legendary peoples. But there are text signals that the authors write with a time lag to the events presented. In order to be able to formulate, for example: “Never again did a prophet like Moses arise in Israel” ( Deut. 34.10  EU ), one had to have knowledge of a long series of prophets after Moses. That is why writing in the pre-state period, be it by Moses or by writers in his environment, is hardly represented in historical-critical research.

It is believed that the book is younger and that it was not written all at once. The text was more or less alive and grew over the centuries until it finally adopted a binding version. Now it has been reworked into the final part of a larger work, the Pentateuch . As much as Deuteronomy was an independent work in its long history (diachronic consideration), the following also applies: as the final text that is now available, it is no longer that, but the conclusion of the Pentateuch (synchronous consideration).

The time window for the emergence of Deuteronomy can be determined as follows:

  • For the first time, Deuteronomy became recognizable for many exegetes in the late phase of the southern kingdom of Judah . Successively the kings Hezekiah , Manasseh , Amon and Joschiah ruled here . In the last quarter of the 8th century BC The state administration and the related training of scribes in Jerusalem took off. Ostraka are evidence of this increasing written form. This is a prerequisite for the drafting of a code of law.
  • Another indication of the dating is the mention of astral cults ( Dtn 4.19  EU ; Dtn 17.3  EU ), which are only discussed here in the Pentateuch. Astral cults were probably established by Aramaic-Assyrian influence in the 8th century BC. Attractive in Judah.
  • The oldest known Pentateuch manuscript is 4Q17; it was made around 250 BC. Written in BC. Based on this, it is assumed that the Pentateuch at the latest around 350 BC. Was put together. The texts contained in Deuteronomy are therefore older.

Religious Changes in Hezekiah's Time

After the end of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722/720 BC. The southern kingdom of Judah experienced a period of prosperity and territorial expansion. Hezekiah, however, expected an imminent attack by the New Assyrians on Jerusalem and took security measures. The Shiloh inscription is an epigraphic evidence of these war preparations, because it concerns the water supply of Jerusalem in the event of the siege.

The local YHWH shrine of Tel Arad with a mazzebe in the background, two incense
altars in front of it ( Israel Museum )

Israeli archaeologists see evidence of cultic changes in the kingdom of Judah as early as the reign of Hezekiah. Ze'ev Herzog attributes the abandonment of the YHWH shrines of Tel Arad and Tell Be'er Scheva to the religious policy of this king, which, however , is questioned by Nadav Na'aman . The sanctuaries were not simply destroyed (after all, they were YHWH sanctuaries), but rather respectfully closed - according to the representatives of this scenario. Cult centralization is a central concern of Deuteronomy. Such a measure was undoubtedly disturbing for the rural population, even if it was subsequently legitimized in an "original Deuteronomy" written at the time. Georg Braulik tries to combine cult centralization with Hezekiah's preparations for war: the king resettled the rural population in fortified cities for their protection. For this, the ties between people and the local shrines of their extended families had to be broken.

Hezekiah's preparations for war were justified. As part of a punitive expedition, the Assyrian king Sennacherib destroyed several cities in the Shefela , including Lachish III, and began the siege of Jerusalem ( 2 Kings 18.17  EU ), which he broke off for unknown reasons - a miracle worked by YHWH for the Bible . Hezekiah sent his tribute after the retreating Assyrian king ( 2 Kings 18.14–16  EU , confirmed by Assyrian sources) and thus took the southern kingdom of Judah out of the sights of future Assyrian attacks.

Manasses vassal oath

King Manasseh, rated negatively by the Bible, behaved as a loyal vassal of the New Assyrians, which gave the subjects a stable and prosperous time during his long reign (694–640 BC).

The Assyrian king Asarhaddon had a text written in 672, with which his vassals were obliged to the heir to the throne he wanted: Ashurbanipal on the throne of Asshur and Šamaš-šuma-ukin on the throne of Babylon. The text, written on cuneiform tablets , was called adê ("oath of loyalty") in Assyrian . British archaeologists found over 350 fragments of these tablets in the Nabu Temple at Nimrud in 1955 . When it was first published in 1958, adê was interpreted as a "vassal contract", hence the name The Vassal-treaties of Esarheddon , or VTE for short. The similarity of the threatened curses in the case of infidelity with the curses in Dtn 28 was striking. But it was not until 1995 that Hans Ulrich Steymans was able to prove that the similarities are not based on an ancient oriental tradition of threatening and cursing, but that Dtn 28 is literarily dependent on the VTE. An example (translations after Steymans):

Ashurbanipal and a member of his retinue ( British Museum )
  • “May all the gods ... make your soil like iron! Let nothing come of it! Just as it doesn't rain from the sky made of bronze, so may rain and dew not come on your fields and your corridors! Instead of rain ... may it rain coals on your land! "(VTE §63, line 526 - §64, line 533)
  • “And your sky, which is above your head, will be bronze, and the earth that is below you will be iron. YHWH give (as) rain (for) your soil dust and ashes, from heaven he'll be down on you until your extinction. "( Deut 28.23 to 24  EU )

Specimens of the VTE have so far only been found in temples, where they were apparently worshiped by the vassal kings like images of gods. One can therefore assume that King Manasseh of Judah also set up his copy in the YHWH temple in Jerusalem. This is how the text became known in the Jerusalem upper class. According to Steyman's analysis, the basic stock of Dtn 28.20–44  EU was written soon after 672, although it should be remembered that Nineveh was in ruins from 612 and the text of the Assyrian oath of allegiance did not survive the end of the New Assyrian Empire very long.

Eckart Otto points out another parallel. Even a "bad, bad, inappropriate word that is ... not appropriate, not good for Assurbanipal" is considered high treason in the formulas of the VTE (VTE §10). High traitors must be reported and extradited to the palace, but it is best to “grab them, kill them” (VTE §12). There is a striking similarity to Dtn 13.2–10  EU , where the offense of religious high treason is created, which is also to be punished with lynching . "The demand of the lynching has ... in the entire legal system of the Old Testament no further clues, but rather in the VTE." It contradicts other texts of Deuteronomy that require due process with consultation of at least two witnesses ( Deut 17.2 to 13  EU ; Dtn 19.15–21  EU ), an indication that a different legal tradition was cited in Dtn 13.2–10. Following the Assyrian model, Deut. 13: 2–10 creates a kind of YHWH loyalty obligation, with threats that sound strange within Deuteronomy and within the Hebrew Bible. Otto thinks that Judean intellectuals critically dealt with the absolute loyalty demand of the Assyrian hegemonic power and made an equally high demand for loyalty to their god YHWH. He sees this as a subversive strategy. "The idea of ​​limiting state power through the power of the one God who demands absolute loyalty was a fruit of the traditional history of the Hebrew Bible" and, according to Otto, began with the quotations from the VTE. Thomas Römer sees the VTE as the “template and source of inspiration” of the original Deuteronomy, but does not specify whether this reception was subversive “or simply corresponded to the zeitgeist.” That also means: “Without the Assyrians, the Dtn would never have existed ! "

Moshe Weinfeld and S. David Sperling point out that in Deuteronomy the conventional language form of treaties from the 7th and 6th centuries BC BC, only related to the deity and not to the ruler. The assurance that you “love him with all your heart” is the usual way of expressing your loyalty to the ruler at the time (cf. Dtn 6.5  EU ).

Joschija and a book find in the temple

In 2 Kings 22.9  EU there is talk of a Torah book being found in the Jerusalem temple. In addition, in 2 Kings 23.4ff. King Joschiah's cult reforms are reported that were directed against non-Yahweh cults and made Jerusalem the only legitimate place of YHWH cult. The story of the book find interprets Joschiah's measures as a restoration program, one returns to an old and original YHWH worship. The material culture of the region, as it is archaeologically tangible, shows that the reforms represented a program of modernization, if they have taken place historically. However, this is difficult to assess because the text has been edited several times. There is no archaeological evidence of religious changes during the reign of Joschija; Cult practices of the population such as the worship of pillar figurines were in any case continued. Angelika Berlejung draws the conclusion from this: If historical, Joschija's modernization program was without support from the population and therefore remained an episode.

Michael Pietsch believes that there was a religious reinterpretation of the YHWH belief in Jerusalem under Joschiah, which then also led to changes in the cult activities at the temple there. Historically, however, Deuteronomy was not the blueprint for this reform. It was only interpreted in this way in retrospect, with a certain factual right, because Deuteronomy puts the unity of YHWH at the center ( Dtn 6.4  EU ), and the cult reform under Joschija started a process of self-reflection, which then later ran towards a monotheistic concept of God .

Georg Braulik defines the Torah book in the temple at the time of Joschiah as a relatively brief preliminary stage of Deuteronomy. It had not yet contained any Moser speeches or social laws, but above all cult laws and blessing-curse sanctions. Joschiah also wanted to use the weakness of the great power Assyria and want to expand the territory of the kingdom of Judah to the north and west (cf. 2 Kings 23: 15-20  EU ). With a "land conquest story" he justified his expansion into the territory of Assyrian provinces (or the former northern Reich of Israel) propagandistically. Joschiah only claimed the land that God had given Israel long ago. This propaganda script was processed according to Braulik in the biblical books Deuteronomy and Joshua . One advantage of this hypothesis is that it can make plausible the forcible land conquest and distribution of land that Deuteronomy promised and described in the Book of Joshua, a motive that is difficult to imagine in the case of authors of the exile. Braulik is looking for the author circles of the Ur-Deuteronomy in the Jerusalem leadership elite, in people with courtly speaking style as well as knowledge of Neo-Assyrian legal texts. The original Deuteronomy was intended for public lecture in the popular assembly.

Deuteronomy as exile literature

In contrast to the majority of exegetes, Reinhard Gregor Kratz denies that an original Deuteronomy was written before the end of the southern empire of Judah. The cult centralization was "so strange and singular in the ancient oriental world" that it could not be made understandable as a government measure of the kings Hezekiah or Joschiah. Only after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (586 BC), when all the YHWH shrines were already lost, members of the Jerusalem elite in exile could have developed this program, and now it is plausible: “The natural will be replaced by a artificial center, the ritual claim of the deity itself takes the place of the state cult ... ” Karin Finsterbusch agrees that she sees Deuteronomy as an“ exilic composition ”, a well-planned overall structure into which older subjects have been integrated. The situation of exile is addressed several times in Deuteronomy: Dtn 4.25–31  EU , Dtn 28.63–67  EU , Dtn 29.21–27  EU . It was only here in exile that Deuteronomy received its profile - according to Finsterbusch:

  • Torah, “instruction”, is a key word in Deuteronomy. What is meant is a concrete text: Under the heading Dtn 4,44  EU the text corpus Dtn 5,1b – 26,16 is communicated, plus blessings and curse as a conclusion.
  • The federal treaty in the state of Moab is a special feature of Deuteronomy; otherwise it is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. According to Dtn 5,2-3  EU , YHWH himself concluded a covenant with Israel at Horeb , whose covenant document is the Decalogue . According to Dtn 28.69  EU , Moses concluded another covenant with Israel in the land of Moab, whose covenant document is the Torah contained in Deuteronomy.
  • Teaching and learning are key words in Deuteronomy, and they are encountered in a similar concentration in the Book of Psalms . In Deuteronomy (and only here within the Pentateuch) Moses is a teacher, his counterpart, Israel, constitutes itself as a learning community. Educating the next generation is an important concern of the writers. Free Israelite men and women are addressed as “you”, ie neither children nor unfree.

The purpose of the composition is for the addressees of exiled Judeans to identify with the Israel taught by Moses in the land of Moab: an identity script. This is served on the one hand by the haunting "you / you" with which Moses addresses his counterpart and the "we" in historical retrospectives, on the other hand by the "today" which is very characteristic of Deuteronomy. It is the "today" of the day of Moses' death, but it is used in such a way that it remains transparent for a later today, the presence of the addressees.

Contents overview

The following structure of Deuteronomy is based on the presentation by Jan Christian Gertz and Karin Finsterbusch :

1.1-5 Book introduction
1.6-4.43 First speech of Moses Review of 40 Years of Desert Migration: Delays in Capturing the Promised Land. Reminder about the ban on images - Israel constitutes itself as a learning community (4.1–40). Narrative note: Establishment of asylum cities in the East Bank (4.41–43).
4.44-49 Headline and introduction to the second speech
5.1-11.32 Second speech of Moses Review of the events at Horeb : Decalogue ; Shema Yisrael ; Reminder speech about the most important commandment.
12.1 Heading of the body of law
12.2-26.15 Corpus of law 12.2-16.17 Cult centralization and the privilege of YHWH (= duties of every Israelite towards YHWH); Social laws.
16.18-18.22 Office laws, so-called draft constitution (= "office laws organized in a divided manner on judges, kings, priests, prophets").
19.1-26.15 Legal, social and taboo provisions; cultic appendix.
26.16-19 Transition to the third speech
27-30 Third speech of Moses Curse and Blessing (27.11-28.68). Federal treaty in the state of Moab (29.1–30.20).
31-34 Completion of the entire Pentateuch Commissioning of Joshua as Moses' successor and writing of the Torah (31: 1–13). Song of Moses (31.14-32.44). Closing note and final admonitions (32: 45–47). Last orders from God for Moses (32: 48–34, 12). Blessing of Moses (33: 1-29). Moses' death and final recognition as a prophet (34: 1-12).

Narrative framework and Mosereden

Place and time of the action

Arnon Valley (Wadi Mujib)

The book narrator provides information about the place, time and occasion of the Mosereden in a concise, concentrated form. This narrator locates himself in the land of Israel , because from his point of view, Moses and his listeners are “across the Jordan” ( Dtn 1,1  EU ) in the land of Moab ( Dtn 1,5  EU ). The story of Deuteronomy takes place in today's Jordan . Despite several place names in Dtn 1.1  EU, it is not (no longer) clear where exactly Moses and his listeners are “in the desert”. According to Dtn 3.29  EU, the Israelites camp "in the valley across from Bet-Peor". And there Moses is buried by God in an unknown place according to Dtn 34,6  EU .

A geographical indication that has weight in Deuteronomy can be clearly localized: the deeply cut valley of the Arnon ( Wadi Mudschib ). His crossing marks the change from the peaceful migration of the people of Israel to the military conquest of the promised land. Somewhere here, east of the Dead Sea, is the plot of Deuteronomy.

The narrated time, the last day of Moses' life, is "April 1st, 1940 after the exodus from Egypt", as Dtn 1,3  EU precisely states .

Purpose of the Mosereden

The verb Hebrew באר Beʾer in Dtn 1,5 explains what the purpose of Moses' speech is; When translating this rare word, preliminary decisions are therefore made for understanding the book:

  • "[Here] Moscheh began the explanation of this teaching" ( Rabbinical Bible );
  • “[Here] Moses began to interpret this law” ( English Lutheran Bible );
  • "[Here] began Moses ... to write down this precept" (unrevised NIV 1980);
  • "[Here] Moses ... began to make this directive binding" (Revised Standard Translation 2016).

Behind the first two translations stands the rabbinical tradition of interpretation: the following Moser speeches are a commentary, an explanation of the instruction given in the previous books of the Pentateuch. If the unrevised standard translation had reproduced the passage quite freely in the light of Dtn 31,24-26 EU , the revision was abandoned  . In the meantime Georg Braulik and Norbert Lohfink had proposed the meaning of Hebrew באר beʾer to illuminate with the Akkadian word bâru (m) : " Create legal validity , make binding, give legal force". The public lecture, to which Moses begins from Deut. 1.6, is the first step in the multi-phase implementation ( promulgation ) of the Torah. “In the narrated world, the Torah is the document of the covenant / contract that Moses has to swear on on the occasion of the change of leadership and the installation of Joshua in Moab Israel. What he finally presents to Israel in order to establish this legal status (1.5) is the reformulation of the already known divine legal will received from YHWH (5-26). It is now imparted by Moses, not interpreted. "

However , this was contradicted by other exegetes, especially Eckart Otto , so that the traditional Jewish view that the Moser speeches of Deuteronomy are a commentary on the Torah within the Torah is also widespread in today's exegesis.

But to what extent do the Mosereden interpret the Sinai legislation? According to Konrad Schmid, the Ten Commandments play a key role here. They precede both the federal book and the body of laws of Deuteronomy programmatically and ensure the factual identity of both legislations.

God's and Moses writing

As the only book of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy expressly describes itself as the writing of Moses' instructions. Here means Hebrew תּוֹרָה Torah the authoritative and divinely affirmed instruction. "In short, the Torah is in fact a substitute for Moses himself in his capacity as the highest mediator of the divine Word to Israel."

That God himself writes a text is stated several times in the Pentateuch and exclusively for the Decalogue, which gives this text the highest authority. In the Pentateuch, Moses is commissioned to write down the Sinai Laws ( Ex 24.4  EU ; Ex 34.27–28  EU ). After he has finished his speeches in Moab, he also writes them down ( Dtn 31.9–13  EU ) and finally also the Moselle song ( Dtn 31.24  EU ). That means: The ancient final editors of the Pentateuch were not of the opinion that Moses wrote down the narrative material of the Pentateuch, including the entire book of Genesis and extensive parts of the other four books.

Corpus of law

The corpus of the law, which is available in chapters 12 to 26, is considered to be the oldest part of Deuteronomy. A distinction is made between a basic stock, multi-level processing and more recent supplements. It is relatively certain that one is dealing with the basic stock where Deuteronomy deals with the covenant book . The basic stock began with a book title:

  • "These are ... the laws and legal decisions that Moses announced to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt." (Deut 4, 45 *)

This means that the original Deuteronomy was already written as a speech by Moses after the exodus from Egypt , the content of this speech was legal material. This was followed by Dtn 5.1 *:

  • “Moses called all Israel together. He said to them ... "

This is how the basic text of the Jewish faith was introduced, the first sentence of the Shema Yisrael (Deut. 6.4):

  • "Hear Israel, YHWH is our God, YHWH is only!"

The next sentence of the Shema Yisrael with the call to love God ( Dtn 6,5  EU ) is secondary according to the analysis by Timo Veijola . In the basis of Deuteronomy, the “Hear Israel” was followed directly by the corpus of the law, namely - at least - these legal texts:

  • Basic requirement of cult centralization : there is only one legitimate YHWH sanctuary ( Dtn 12 : 13–28  EU );
  • Tithe ( Dtn 14.22-29  EU );
  • Year of release and slave release ( Dtn 15.1–18  EU );
  • Firstborn ( Dtn 15.19–23  EU );
  • Festival calendar ( Dtn 16.1–17  EU );
  • Reforms of the administration of justice ( Dtn 16.18  EU ; Dtn 17.8–13  EU ; Dtn 19.1–13  EU ; Dtn 19.15–21  EU ; Dtn 21.1–9  EU ; Dtn 25.1–3  EU ) .

Two approaches are roughly outlined for the continuation of Deuteronomy in exile-early post-exile times: Timo Veijola and Eckart Otto expect continuous revisions of the entire corpus of law Deut 12-25. Norbert Lohfink and Georg Braulik, on the other hand, believe that a primordial Deuteronomy from the time of Hezekiah and a “federal document” from the time of Joschiah were supplemented in blocks by a) the exiled office law, b) the post-exilic laws in Dtn 19-25.

Dtn 26.1–15  EU are two amendments with which the body of law concludes. They assume that the Israelites live in the land and name two liturgical texts that should be recited when visiting the central shrine. The first text ("My father was a homeless Aramean ...") is known under the name "Small historical Credo" ( Gerhard von Rad ). It was not inserted at this point as an ancient text by the authors of Deuteronomy, as Rad suspected. You have not adopted the text, but formulated it yourself. As a pedagogically helpful “short formula of faith”, it sums up the history of Israel - that is typical of Deuteronomy. Together with the introductory text that calls for the one central shrine, the supplements form a framework around the body of the law.

Examination of the federal book

The Deuteronomic Law refers to an older body of law that is also contained in the Pentateuch: the covenant book in the Book of Exodus (Ex 20.22–23.33). What is new is the demand for cult centralization, which is formulated in contradiction to the Altar Law of the Federal Book. The Deuteronomic formulation of the altar law refers back to the Shema Yisrael: "Just as YHWH should not be sacrificed in a multitude of local shrines, YHWH should not be worshiped in a multitude of local manifestations that are associated with YHWH shrines."

The Hebrew text of the two altar laws shows close linguistic contact with diametrically different content:

  • Covenant book : “You are to make me an altar out of earth and on it slaughter your burnt offerings and salvation offerings, your sheep, goats and cattle. In every place where I make a memory of my name, I will come to you and bless you. ” (Ex 20:24 EÜ)
  • Deuteronomy : “Be careful! Do not burn your burnt sacrificial animals in any place that you just see, but only in the place which the LORD will choose in the area of ​​one of your tribes! ” (Deut 12: 13-14a EÜ)

What is it now? The heroes of the biblical tales (of both the Pentateuch and the history books) sacrifice at local shrines without making this a problem; some examples: Abraham builds an altar in Shechem ( Gen 12.7–8  EU ), Jacob builds an altar in Bet-El ( Gen 35.1–7  EU ), Samuel builds an altar in Rama ( 1 Sam 7.17  EU ), Elijah rebuilds the altar of YHWH on Mount Carmel ( 2 Kings 18: 30–40  EU ). Bernard M. Levinson emphasizes that the authors of Deuteronomy represented their reform program in a world in which old, authoritative texts like the federal book were almost invulnerable. They therefore camouflaged the radical nature of their project by adopting formulations from the Federal Book and filling them with new meaning; Levinson calls this a "learned text recycling." Her goal was to displace the covenant book and put Deuteronomy in its place.

Dtn 12, 20–25 calls for bleeding of the slaughtered animal, as is guaranteed with slaughtering . Jewish butcher ( Schochet ), painting by Max Ferguson ( Yeshiva University Museum, New York)

Eckart Otto takes the opposite position: “Read from the perspective of the German centralization laws, the federal book basically defines the legitimacy of a YHWH sanctuary. In Deuteronomy this definition is applied to the election of the central shrine. … The reformulation through Deuteronomy does not take the authority of the federal book, which now wants to be interpreted within the horizon of Deuteronomy. ”Because both corpora of laws complement each other, the law of bodily harm and property Ex 21.18-22.14 has no counterpart in Deuteronomy , while family law (in the Federal Book only Ex 22.15f.) is broadly developed in Deuteronomy. Since the social legislation of the Dtn is linked to the Federal Book, this part of the body of law has also been proven to be late pre-exilic - there is broad consensus here. This gives rise to the chronological sequence of the corpora of laws that were integrated into the Pentateuch: Federal Book - Deuteronomy - Priestly Scriptures - Holiness Law .

Cult centralization had a profound effect on the everyday life of the population. So far z. B. for each meat meal the animal is slaughtered at the local YHWH sanctuary. Deuteronomy released profane slaughter and established rules for it ( Dtn 12.20–25  EU ). “The radical break in this change in religious routines should not be underestimated. The fact that Deuteronomy repeatedly emphasizes the 'joy' that one experiences in the central shrine may very well have been intended as an attempt to compensate for the loss of the local shrines, where people could have more frequent access to the deity, ”suggests Levinson.

But the changes that the authors of Deuteronomy made to the Federal Book are not limited to cult centralization and the practical consequences that follow. This can be illustrated using the example of the law on the release of slaves ( Dtn 15.12–28  EU versus Ex 21.2–7  EU ). It is about debt slaves, that is, Israelites who had to go into slavery out of poverty. They are to be released after six years of service. Deuteronomy made some clarifications: the master should equip the slaves (who are referred to here as his "siblings") when they are released so that they can build up their own existence - a kind of start-up capital. Slave and slave should be treated equally. There are no longer any special rules for a woman married in slavery and children together. Deuteronomy justifies these social demands with the fact that YHWH freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. The slave-owner is to be won over to the innovations by arguments, and divine blessings are promised for compliance.

Decalogue as basic law, Deuteronomy as development

The text of the Ten Commandments ( Decalogue ) "only appeared on the horizon of the Dtn at a certain point in time, but then decisively shaped the theology, structure and language of the Dtn", says Georg Braulik. For the author it is a unique text, distinguished by the fact that God himself revealed it to Israel at Horeb ( Deut. 5,2-22  EU ). Norbert Lohfink suggested seeing the Decalogue in Deuteronomy as a kind of eternal basic law that Moses unfolded in Deut. 12-26 with specific, time-related individual laws. However, it has not plausibly succeeded in showing an arrangement of the individual laws according to the Ten Commandments in Deut. 12–26.

The Decalogue begins with a self-conception of the divine “I” as Israel's liberator from Egyptian slavery. If one asks who the addressee of the commandments is, it seems above all to mean free, wealthy Israelite men. But the Sabbath commandment ( Dtn 5,12–15  EU ) makes it clear that the Israelites are also addressed as “you”. Otherwise one would have to assume that the householder, his sons and daughters, slaves, and even the domestic animals keep the Sabbath rest and the housewife works as the only person. It is very unlikely.

Deuteronomy as an ancient oriental legal book

In the ancient Orient, legal books were not the basis of jurisprudence. Trial files have been preserved from neighboring cultures in Israel; the judges did not refer to a code of law in them. They decided according to common law and precedents . Ancient oriental law books were probably teaching texts that the would-be judges used to train their legal awareness. The same applies to Deuteronomy: it was “not a code of law, but a textbook.” This can be seen in the way in which the material is arranged. Actually, the laws are presented sorted by subject area, borderline cases mark the transition to the next subject area. But related material can accumulate everywhere through keyword associations, which is then treated like an excursus. After this digression, the main theme is taken up again. This order, which is rather confusing for today's reader, made memorization easier.

Comparison with Greek and Roman law

Although the legal corpus is as little of one piece as the rest of Deuteronomy, it can be treated theologically and historically as a closed context. Like the city ​​law of Gortys and the Twelve Tables Act and in contrast to other ancient oriental legal corpora, it is a body of law for a free community of citizens.

The poorly structured or systematized material can be roughly divided into three parts:

  • Religious laws (cult, festivals, taxes, purity laws, prohibition of other cults);
  • Regulations of a constitutional and judicial nature;
  • Civil, criminal, social and family law.

Although the impression arises that the entire law of Israel is presented here, it is not. In the case of theft law, which is discussed in the Federal Book ( Ex 22.1–4  EU ), the authors of Deuteronomy saw no need for reform and seem to refer to this older law. The law of inheritance is only touched upon ( Dtn 18.1–7  EU , Dtn 21.15–17  EU ).

It is all about substantive law , while the procedural law a few precautions. Compared with the city law of Gortys and the Twelve Tables law, it is striking that in Israel it is a law set by the deity, while in Gortys and in Rome law is something that societies give themselves. In procedural law, it is interesting that the administration of justice knows two levels: local courts ( Dtn 16, 18-20  EU ) and a kind of central court to which difficult cases are to be referred. However, it is probably not an appeal body for the disputing parties, but is called in by the local judge if he has difficulties in reaching a judgment ( Dtn 17.8–13  EU ). The judge is instructed to carefully investigate a case, especially the veracity of testimony, the most important piece of evidence. So he is the investigator and the judge in one person. According to Dtn 25.1–3  EU , he also has a role in the penal system, he is responsible for the correct implementation of the corporal punishment . This accumulation of competencies in the local judge is unusual compared to Gortys and Rome.

Large parts of the substantive law in Deuteronomy have no parallel in the town law of Gortys and in the Twelve Tables: the entire sacred law, the asylum law, the provisions on the tithe, but also civil law provisions that could be described as social legislation. The punishment ranges from the death penalty to corporal punishment up to the fine, whereby the latter is little developed in Deuteronomy compared to Gortys and Rome (only Dtn 22.19  EU and Dtn 22.29  EU ). Just like the Twelve Tables law, Deuteronomy ( Deut 19.4–6  EU ) also differentiates between actions with and without intent . "Individual responsibility for one's own actions is valued, the will behind an action is given the decisive weight in its assessment - in the literal sense of the word - regardless of its consequences."

Deuteronomy as the conclusion of the Pentateuch

Samaritan Pentateuch

In the Persian province of Yehud was until the middle of the 4th century BC. The Pentateuch compiled. That means: The Persian government set the political framework in which this happened. The fact that it quasi commissioned the Pentateuch to introduce it as binding law for its Jewish subjects (thesis of the Reich authorization) is less popular today. One looks for the motives for the composition of this work rather within the religious community. The province of Yehud was completely in the shadow of the neighboring province of Samaria, both economically and in terms of population size. A Pentateuch editorial office, probably based in Jerusalem, therefore sought a compromise with Samaritan traditions and interests. As a result, the Pentateuch is a consensus document of the YHWH religion that was acceptable to both Jews (with the center Jerusalem) and Samaritans (with the center Garyzim). In another sense, too, one finds a balance of interests in the Pentateuch: Deuteronomy with its emphasis on state independence in a militarily conquered land of promise could not be in the interests of the Persian central government. In contrast, Ernst Axel Knauf describes the priestly script as universalistic and pacifistic - wars do not appear in it. The Pentateuch editors took the "Persian Empire conform" priestly script as a frame (Gen 1 and Dtn 34), and the priest script also shaped the center, the Sinai pericope (Ex 25 to Num 10). The “national religious” Deuteronomy was not suppressed, but integrated into this framework, its aggressive-militant parts domesticated.

The final part of Deuteronomy is of outstanding importance for the composition of the Pentateuch. The final chapter of Dtn 34.1–12 EU brings two arcs of  tension to an end: Not only does the main character Moses die here, who has accompanied the reader since her birth in the Book of Exodus ( Ex 2.2  EU ), Dtn 34.4  EU reminds us of the land promise to the fathers and thus takes up a motif from the Book of Genesis ( Gen 12.7  EU ). The Jordan Basin and the town of Zoar are intentionally used as locations for the stories of Abraham.

It is usually assumed that the story of the death of Moses comes from the authors of the priestly book (or circles close to them), but was "cut" and supplemented by the Pentateuch editorial team. The Pentateuch editorial team put a literary monument (" epitaph ") to Moses in Deut. 34.4–12 EU : all the prophets who appear in the following historical books do not come close  to him. The fact that Moses dies at the age of 120 ( Dtn 34.7  EU ) corresponds to the maximum human lifetime of Gen 7.3  EU and lets Moses appear as a perfect human being. While it was said in Dtn 31.2  EU that Moses died old, this is corrected in the "epitaph". Despite his old age, Moses remained young ( Dtn 34.7  EU ). At the end of Deuteronomy, Moses takes the side of God, to whom he has a unique closeness.

The intermediate position of Deuteronomy as the conclusion of the Pentateuch and the opening of the Deuteronomistic History can be seen as in a magnifying glass in Dtn 34:

  • Deut 34: 8–9  EU : The people no longer mourn Moses and listen to Joshua. That is not a conclusion, but continuity or dynamic forward. The first sentences in the book of Joshua can be read as a continuation.
  • Dtn 34,10–12  EU : The death of Moses means a decisive turning point. So the Pentateuch editorial team closes the Five Books of Moses.

For various texts it is discussed whether they were first inserted into Deuteronomy by the Pentateuch editorial staff, e.g. B. the list of clean and unclean animals in Dtn 14.1-21  EU , and learned glosses about previous inhabitants of the country and geographical notes. Another addition from the Pentateuch editorial team is the blessing of Moses over the tribes of Israel at the end of Deuteronomy ( Deut. 33 : 1–29  EU ). It has its counterpart in the Blessing of James at the end of the book of Genesis. Karin Finsterbusch suspects the intention of the Pentateuch editorial team: "Outside of the promised land, 'Israel' has been blessed twice by key figures in its founding history and is therefore ideally equipped for the future."

Impact history

Mount Garizim or Mount Ebal

Samaritans celebrate Passover on Mount Gerizim (2006)

In the Persian period, Jews and Samaritans lived halfway harmoniously in neighboring provinces, but in the Hellenistic period, relations deteriorated drastically. This left its mark on the book of Deuteronomy. For in the time of good neighborly relations it was formulated that the Israelites should set up stones coated with lime and inscribed with Torah texts on Mount Garizim after their entry into the Land of Promise; In addition, an altar was to be built there for YHWH and sacrifices were made to him ( Dtn 27.4–8  EU ). The fact that the altar on the Garizim corresponds to the Torah is impressively underlined by the writing on the stones.

In the Hasmonean period (2nd century BC) the break between the two religious communities occurred. This was followed by an intervention in the text: “In Deut. 27.4, in the Masoretic text and in the Hebrew model of the Septuagint ... Garizim is reformulated in Ebal and thus the Mosaic-Sinaitic legitimation is withdrawn from the altar on the Garizim by being diverted. “In the Samaritan Pentateuch , of course, Garizim was still used at this point. That Garizim is the original reading and not Ebal is very likely because the "unsuspecting" translators of the Vetus Latina (Codex Lugdunensis) who were not involved in polemics read Garizim and thus preserved an uncorrected version of the Septuagint. This assumption has recently been confirmed by a Qumran text fragment (4QDeut f ).

In the Samaritan Pentateuch, this section from Deut. 27 was added as the tenth commandment to the Decalogue because it was so important for one's own identity (Ex 20,17b = Deut 5, 21b); So that it stays at ten commandments, Samaritans count the ban on foreign gods and images as one commandment. The text change legitimizes the Samaritan cult and place of worship, and the conclusion of the Ten Commandments offered itself as a "text location" because the Decalogue is of central importance for the Samaritan religious community and because the altar building is concerned in the context of the Ten Commandments - so that fit pretty good.

Deuteronomy in Qumran

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls there are 33 to 36 fragmentary copies of the book Deuteronomy, depending on the number. This makes it the most common biblical script alongside the Book of Psalms (36 copies). It is believed that important, often-read books were copied more frequently; there were also luxury manuscripts of particularly valued fonts. The high number of copies reflects the great popularity of Deuteronomy.

11QT a , a particularly well-written copy of the temple scroll.

The temple scroll, which is represented in several copies in Qumran, is a work that is unique in ancient Judaism and which deals critically with Deuteronomy and aims to surpass it. It is a classic example of the Rewritten Bible . While the first editor Yigael Yadin in 1976 considered the temple scroll to be a work of the Essenes , this opinion is hardly held today. The temple scroll is older than the group of Essenes described by ancient authors. Your final editing took place in the 3rd / 2nd Century BC Took place in circles that were ideologically close to the later Jachad . In the temple scroll, God himself is given a systematic new version of the Torah, the mediator figure of Moses has become superfluous. Another advantage: not only 40 years later in the land of Moab, but directly on Sinai, YHWH gives the binding interpretation of his Torah laid down in the temple scroll. The temple role does not replace Deuteronomy, but relates to it like a correction, addition or systematization. That is why it does not contain either the Shema Yisrael or the Ten Commandments. Apparently it was enough for the authors that these texts were contained in Deuteronomy, which should be read with the hermeneutic key of the temple scroll.

Bedouins found ancient phylacteries ( tefillin ) in the caves by the Dead Sea ; the oldest specimens come from the 2nd century BC. The inhabitants of Qumran therefore obeyed Deut 6,8–9  EU , but not in the way these commandments were later interpreted in rabbinic Judaism. The ancient tefillin were leather capsules with up to four compartments, some of which still contained pieces of parchment with inscriptions, as well as separate leather straps and pieces of parchment without capsules. Some of them are thought to be mezuzah , although no ancient case of a mezuzah is known. Among the biblical texts contained in Tefillin is the Decalogue, which had a very high position in ancient Judaism.

Deuteronomy in the New Testament

Not only in Qumran, but also in early Christianity, Deuteronomy was a widely read script. After the Psalms and Isaiah, it is the third most frequently quoted Old Testament scripture in the New Testament.

An example from the Logia source Q , the Gospel of Matthew ( Mt 4,1-11  EU ) adopted this pericope almost unchanged: After his baptism, Jesus spends 40 days fasting in the desert and is tempted by the devil. Jesus fends off temptation three times with a quote from Deuteronomy ( Dtn 8.3  EU ; Dtn 6.16  EU and Dtn 6.13  EU ). The author of the Jesus story read the Deuteronomy in its Greek version and obtained additional keywords from the context: According to Dtn 8.2-5  EU ( ἤγαγεν ḗgagen ) God led the people of Israel into the desert for 40 years by trying ( ἐκπειράσῃ ekpeirásē ) whether he should keep his commandments and to raise him like a son. For the evangelist Matthew, Jesus is the Son of God because he keeps the basic commandment to love God. Birger Gerhardsson saw a more extensive reference of the temptation narrative to the Shema Israel : The first temptation shows that one should love God with all your heart, the second with all your life, the third with all your strength or with all your property.

“The temptation tale was not written down by a simple mind who composed its story with the help of a few quotations from an ancient and highly valued scroll. On the contrary, we have a story here that bears the stamp of late Jewish and early Christian scriptural tradition. It is an example of an early Christian Midrash. "

- Birger Gerhardsson : The testing of God's son (Matt 4: 1-11 & Par): an analysis of an early Christian Midrash

The author of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2–5) described the way of life of the early community in Jerusalem with motifs from Deuteronomy. In particular, there should be no more poor in the Christian community (cf. Dtn 15.4  EU ) because existing goods were shared. The joy that Deuteronomy connects with the pilgrims' festivals at the central shrine could be experienced in the Christian meal ( Acts 2,44–46  EU ). Mediated by the Acts of the Apostles, topics from Deuteronomy have an impact on modern Christian pastoral theology .

Paul of Tarsus developed his doctrine of justification in dealing with Deuteronomy. An example: In Romans ( Rom 10.6–9  EU ) Paul interpreted Deut 30.12–14  EU for his Christian readers. Paul inferred from Deuteronomy that what really matters for Israel was doing the commandments and, on the other hand, that Israel would be accepted by God despite its disobedience. The tension between “law and gospel”, characteristic of Pauline theology, was already laid out in Deuteronomy.

Passover Haggadah

The ze u-lemad section begins with the capital letters
צא . Rothschild Haggadah , Italy around 1450 ( Israeli National Library , Ms. Heb. 4 ° 6130)

The Seder evening , with which the Jewish Passover festival begins, took up elements of the ancient symposium ; this includes a table talk with an educational character. The Mishnah (Pesachim X4) stipulated that everyone was obliged to explain the section of Dtn 26.5–10 EU to their children in detail and to cite  traditional as well as their own interpretations. In the course of the Seder there is first a Beracha (praise: God who keeps his promises), then the section ze u-lemad : "Go and learn what Laban, the Aramean, wanted to do to our father Jacob ...". Then follows in the Passover Haggadah , the text book for the Seder evening, a traditional interpretation of Deut. 26: 5–10. It is a compilation of various midrashim , which was probably given its final form in the early Middle Ages.

A special feature of the Passover Haggadah is the interpretation of the verse Dtn 26.5  EU . Here, too, a problem arises for today's reader: Which biblical figure does the statement fit: “My father was a homeless Aramean. He moved to Egypt ... "? Most likely to Jacob , but he is not represented as an Aramean in the Book of Genesis .

  • The translators of the Septuagint found an elegant solution by changing the word separation in the Hebrew consonant text (ארם יאבד אבי instead of ארמי אבד אבי), which translates as follows: "My father gave up Syria, went down to Egypt ..."
  • The trick of the midrash is to change the vocalization of the consonant text : ʾArami ʾived ʾavi instead of ʾ Arami ʾoved ʾavi . With this vocalization, the sentence has the following meaning: “An Aramean tried to destroy my father.” Now it is clear: the “father” is the patriarch Jacob, the “Aramean” is Jacob's father-in-law Laban , who in the Book of Genesis has an ambivalent attitude towards Jacob occupies. In the Passover Haggadah, Laban becomes the villain of history. According to Louis Finkelstein, this understanding of the text, which was then included in the Passover Haggadah, is the oldest midrash in rabbinical literature. He dates it to the 3rd / 2nd Century BC BC and thus in the time of the clashes between supporters of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies in Jerusalem. Both groups can be assumed behind the terms Arameans / Syria or Egypt.

The vocalization represented by the Passover Haggadah is also shared by the translators of Deuteronomy into Aramaic ( Targum Onkelos ) and Arabic ( Saadja Gaon ). For philological reasons Abraham ibn Esra rejected this understanding of the text, as did Obadja ben Jacob Sforno and Samuel ben Meir . Thus, the interpretation of Laban in rabbinical exegesis was widespread and popularized by the Haggadah, but it was not undisputed.

Deuteronomy and Halacha

Dtn 13.1  EU contains the so-called canon formula. However, as Hanna Liss explains, it is not understood in Judaism as “as if one only had to carry out what the Torah commands (and only in this way). The rabbis have always adapted commandments to the current situation, added laws or reinterpreted punitive measures. ”Passages and entire tracts of the Mishnah refer to sections of Deuteronomy. Günter Stemberger gives the following examples:

  • Recitation of the Shema ( Deut 6.4 to 9  EU ; Deut 11,13ff.  EU ): Mishna Berachot, Chapter 1-2;
  • Tithe ( Dtn 14.22–27  EU ; Dtn 26.12–15  EU ): Mishnah Maʿasrot and Mishnah Maʿaser Scheni;
  • First fruits ( Dtn 26.1–11  EU ): Mishnah Bikkurim;
  • Leviric marriage ( Dtn 25.5–11  EU ): Mishnah Jevamot;
  • Exceptions from military service ( Dtn 20.1–9  EU ) and atonement for murder in the case of an unknown perpetrator (Dtn 21.1–8): Mishnah Sota, Chapter 8.

There are parallels to the Mishnah tracts in the Tosefta and a further development of the material in the Talmudim .

An example of the development of a biblical halacha is בל תשחית Bal Tashchit ("Destroy nothing!"): Dtn 20: 19-20  EU is in the Bible text related to fruit trees that are placed under protection. Today we understand it to mean that fruit trees are named representative of all plants. Today, Bal Taschchit stands for the conservation of natural resources and environmental protection in general.

Moses as the type of the Pope

Luca Signorelli: Testament and Death of Moses

In no other European city is Moses so visually present as in Renaissance Rome. Moses could be interpreted as an image for Christ ( typus Christi ) and as an image for the Pope ( typus papae ). The basis for this humanistic study of the figure of Moses was a work of late Christian antiquity: Gregor von Nyssa's “Life of Moses” ( De vita Moysis ), which was translated from ancient Greek into Latin in 1446 . The work was read at the papal court and aroused interest in promoting the authority and prestige of the popes with the help of the Moses typology. The Umbrian humanist Lilio Tifernate venerated Pope Sixtus IV. 1480 a Latin translation of Philo of Alexandria's "Life of Moses". The ancient Greek original by the Jewish scholar Philo had already served Gregor von Nyssa as a source for many details of his biography of Moses.

The pictorial program for the painting of the Sistine Chapel was set against this background . On the walls are scenes from the life of Moses opposite scenes from the life of Christ. They are chosen to suggest parallels between Christ and Moses as rulers, priests and legislators of their respective communities. Portraits of the early Popes can be seen above this cycle of pictures, so that the viewer also remembers the Pope typology.

Luca Signorelli painted the fresco “Testament and Death of Moses” in 1482 for this cycle of pictures . Here you can see the various events of the day of Moses' death and thus essential motifs of the book of Deuteronomy:

  • in the foreground on the left the installation of Joshua by handing over a staff;
  • in the right foreground the reading of the law, with Moses towering over the crowd in his chair;
  • in the central background Moses looks out over the Promised Land.

The artist relocated the death and burial of Moses to a rocky landscape in the left background, while in the foreground the teaching Moses and the crowd gathered around him - women and men, old people and children - attracts the viewer's gaze. A carefully listening young man in the center of the picture is particularly emphasized as the opposite of the aged Moses. Perhaps he represents the non-Jews who are in the camp of the Israelites (cf. Dtn 29.11  EU ). The testament of Moses has its typological counterpart in the Sistine Chapel in the teaching of the disciples at the Last Supper .

Calvin's Deuteronomy Sermons

Johannes Calvin, anonymous portrait around 1550 ( Museum Catharijneconvent )

In 200 sermons from March 20, 1555 to July 15, 1556 , John Calvin continuously interpreted Deuteronomy in his Geneva congregation. He probably chose this biblical book to address social ethical issues. The audience lived mostly in prosperity.

“Oh, it seems to the rich that the poor shouldn't come near them. You want to have a separate world, as it were. If it weren't for the fact that they want to be served by the poor, they would be quite content to never see them at all. "

- John Calvin : Sermon on Deut 15 : 11–15  EU of October 30, 1555

Basically it was true for Calvin: Why some people are poor and others rich is the secret of God. Because of the unequal distribution of goods, Christians are confronted by God with various tasks which should show how they have proven themselves ethically. Calvin combined Dtn 15.4  EU and Dtn 15.11  EU to the principle: Begging must be rigorously stopped; but the poor have to be helped. The late medieval alms piety only favored fraudsters. In his Deuteronomy sermons, however, Calvin did not present a new concept of how the poor could be better supported. Even before Calvin's arrival, the city of Geneva had reorganized its poor welfare.

Calvin had a historical awareness insofar as he did not attempt to transfer the social laws of ancient Israel to the Geneva of his time. But the basic intention of the laws is timeless and exemplary. “He is particularly fascinated by the biblical idea that the land was only given to its owners by God on loan. [...] When the poor ask the rich to let them have some of their property, they are asking for something like rent on behalf of God, "comments Frank Jehle . Calvin also analyzed why the rich often clung to their wealth and identified fear of the future behind it. Jehle compares Adam Smith's and Calvin's business ethics and finds a fundamental difference: “According to Adam Smith, the egoistic drive of the individual involuntarily leads to the common good. According to Calvin, the selfish drive is an expression of mistrust and lack of faith and has the fateful effect that the rich get richer and richer. "

Contrast society

The term contrast society was coined by the brothers Gerhard and Norbert Lohfink. Gerhard Lohfink , a New Testament scholar, saw the church called to be a society of contrasts. In 1982 he found two aspects of the contrasting society church in Deuteronomy:

  • a strict separation of God's people from other peoples ( Dtn 7,6–8  EU ), and
  • the alternative social order, in which the “holy people” differ from all the peoples of the earth ( Dtn 7.11  EU ).

Norbert Lohfink , one of the formative Catholic Old Testament scholars in the German-speaking area, used the term “contrast society” a little later for the social model of Deuteronomy. Georg Braulik made the contrast society in 1986 the leitmotif of his Deuteronomy Commentary (New Real Bible); the reference to ecclesiology says it all : “The society designed in the Dtn belongs in the prehistory of the New Testament. ... It is a special concern of this commentary to make the ecclesiological and social instructive power of the Dtn, which extends to us, speak. "

The ecclesiological concept of the contrast society was a phenomenon especially in the 1980s. At the time, critics noted that the “world” was consistently rated negatively. The representatives of the concept called for the establishment of model Christian alternative societies. The critics felt that this was not a realistic option for the local churches as a whole. Wolfgang Huber spoke of a "flight into the contrasting society" that could be found in two varieties: the church as a "sacred contrast society" that sees itself as the guardian of supposedly timeless beliefs and values, and the church as a "prophetic contrast society" that claims for itself I suppose to know the causes of poverty and hunger and the means to overcome them. According to Huber, both contrasting societies have an elitist trait.

Paradigm of cultural mnemonics

In several works, the Egyptologist Jan Assmann has clarified the importance of Deuteronomy for the establishment of a new kind of cultural mnemonics . This has its primal scene or founding legend in the story of the discovery of the Torah book in the Jerusalem temple. The historicity is questionable, but as a "memory figure" it is important. The cult reform of Joschiah made the temple in Jerusalem the only legitimate place of worship: a deliberate breach of tradition. This upheaval is legitimized by a book that suddenly appeared, a “forgotten truth”. This dramatizes the subject of memory. Forgetting and remembering are leitmotifs in Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy introduces eight processes of culturally shaped memory:

  1. Heartedness - writing in one's own heart;
  2. Passing on to the next generation, communication;
  3. Visualization through body signs ( tefillin );
  4. Registered mail at the borders of one's own area ( mezuzah );
  5. Registered mail on limestone stones that are to be publicly displayed;
  6. Three annual pilgrimage festivals ( Passover , Shavuot , Sukkot ) as a celebration of collective memory;
  7. Poetry as an additional form of memory - the Song of Moses in Deut. 31;
  8. Writing down the Torah and obliging it to be read regularly.

“Of these eight forms of collective mnemonics, the eighth is the decisive one. It means an intervention in tradition, which subjects the abundance of traditions, which is in constant flux, to a strict selection, solidifies and sacralizes what has been selected in a solid manner, ie increases it to the ultimate level of commitment and stops the flow of tradition once and for all. "

Research history

The medieval Jewish commentators studied the book of Deuteronomy intensively. The following places were considered particularly difficult:

  • Dtn 1,1  EU : The expression "beyond the Jordan" in the mouth of Moses seems strange because Moses was never allowed to cross the Jordan.
  • Dtn 2,12  EU : Here we look back at the conquest of Canaan, which for Moses lies in the future.
  • Dtn 2.34  EU ; Dtn 3,4  EU : The formulations “at that time” and “until this day” imply that a lot of time has passed since then.
  • Dtn 3,11  EU : The bed of the giant Og as proof of his huge size implies that Og died a long time ago.
  • Dtn 31.24  EU : A book cannot describe the author's actions after its completion.

Abraham ibn Esra therefore assumed in the 12th century that some sentences in the book of Deuteronomy had been added after the death of Moses. Ibn Esra, however, expressed himself unclearly, probably to avoid sanctions.

In 1670, Baruch de Spinoza , in the Tractatus theologico-politicus, was of the opinion that Ezra had written a great historical work covering the time from the creation of the world to the destruction of Jerusalem, or the biblical books from Genesis to the 2nd Book of Kings (so-called Enneateuch, "Nine Book"). In 1678, in a critical examination of Spinoza, the oratorian Richard Simon developed an Enneateuch hypothesis: “Public writers” and “public speakers” had further developed the Torah of Moses, and Ezra had collected and revised these texts.

Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette

The 19th century began with a bang for Deuteronomy research: Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette put forward in his Jena dissertation in 1805 the thesis that the Torah book found in the temple (2 Kings 22.8-10) was an early form of Deuteronomy and stand in connection with the reform measures of King Joschiah. And - that was really new - it was only written at this time, shortly before it was found, consequently Moses was not the author.

Heinrich Graetz

Based on de Wettes' thesis, new questions were posed to research: Was the original Deuteronomy a pious fraud - reform-minded court officials wrote a work that contained their concerns and deposited it in the temple in such a way that it soon had to be found? Or was the story of the book find a legend to give Deuteronomy a great age, and that meant: great authority? This was discussed intensely in the 19th and early 20th centuries, in which Jewish theologians and historians also took part, who positioned themselves differently. Heinrich Graetz z. B. was able to integrate de Wette's theory into his conception of history: “Is the book very old? Or was it written shortly before it was found? Idle questions! Even if not ancient, no code of the literate peoples equals it in age, just as it surpasses all codes of law in grandeur and beauty. A code of law with winning cordiality and mild intimacy is certainly a rare occurrence. "

David Hoffmann

David Hoffmann, on the other hand, defended the Mosaic authorship in several commentaries on the Pentateuch because, from his point of view, something crucial was at stake here. He preceded his commentary on the Book of Leviticus with a few hermeneutical principles that begin as follows: “The Jewish exponentor of the Pentateuch has to take into account a special circumstance ... which, as it were, dictates the laws for his exegesis. This fact is: our belief in the divinity of the Jewish tradition. "

In 1906, the Pontifical Biblical Commission rejected the newer document hypothesis and taught that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. But this need not be understood as a handwritten writing or dictation by Moses; possibly several scribes under the supervision of Moses would have written the text. Older sources and oral traditions may have been incorporated with Moses' approval; Text changes and transmission errors in the post-Mosaic period are possible. This marked out the field of their Pentateuch research for Roman Catholic Old Testament scholars. (In the mid-20th century, the Roman Catholic Church opened up to biblical studies, first in the biblical encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu and then in the context of the Second Vatican Council .)

In the early 20th century, the weakness of de Wettean's thesis became obvious. Because what was in the original Deuteronomy from the time of Joschiah? Now it became methodologically difficult. The delimitation of the original Deuteronomy was based on the reform measures attributed to Joschija in 2 Kings 22-23. 2 Kings 22-23 is itself an editorially (deuteronomistically) edited text: a circular argument. In 1922 Gustav Hölscher criticized the attempts to reconstruct a primordial Deuteronomy by "glancing over" which texts in Deuteronomy matched Joschiah's reforms described in 2 Kings 22-23. Hölscher himself saw in Deuteronomy a utopian concept of society from the post-exilic period. He referred z. B. on the “unworldly idealism of the legislature”, which shows itself in the social laws of Deuteronomy: “One can understand Deuteronomy as an appeal to the mild disposition, but hardly as a state law.”

For the newer document hypothesis, a dating of Deuteronomy after the Yahwist and before the priestly scriptures was indispensable, so the connection between Deuteronomy and King Joschiah's reform had to be preserved. For this reason, the well-known German Protestant Old Testament scholars unanimously rejected both a late and an early dating of Deuteronomy. Two paths were then open to Deuteronomy research:

  • Analysis of the literary stratification based on the change of address between “you” and “her” ( Carl Steueragel ). As a rule of thumb, formulations in the singular are older, plural formulations are added later.
  • Adoption of very old, pre-state source texts that were incorporated into the original Deuteronomy ( Gerhard von Rad ).

By wanting to understand Deuteronomy not as part of the Pentateuch, but as part of the Deuteronomic History (DtrG), Martin Noth "immunized" the document hypothesis against possible inquiries from Deuteronomy experts. In the 20th century, Old Testament science was based on the assumption that there was a deep break between the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy, while Deuteronomy was connected in many ways with the subsequent history books (Joshua to the 2nd Book of Kings). "The Dtn was initially the head piece of the Deuteronomistic history, before it was added to the Tetrateuch [= the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers] as its end in the course of the formation of the Torah." Noth had an author personality (the Deuteronomists) behind the Seen from a Deuteronomistic History, exegesis soon abandoned it and postulated a Deuteronomistic School that had revised the historical books of the Hebrew Bible over a longer period of time. First of all, it was assumed that the editors had adopted Deuteronomy en bloc (except for the introductory chapters 1-3). Horst-Dietrich Preuss, on the other hand, reckoned with the fact that they had also been active in editing in Deuteronomy. This opened the study of the "Deuteronomic Deuteronomy" in the 1980s. Irritatingly, the stratification identified in Deuteronomy by Dietrich Knapp (1987) could not be related to the so-called Göttingen stratification model of the Deuteronomistic History.

Deuteronomy has a peculiar intermediate position with which it was difficult to integrate both in the more recent document hypothesis and in the hypothesis of the Deuteronomic History. "But after both the newer document hypothesis and the thesis of the DtrG have faltered, the game is open again," wrote Reinhard Gregor Kratz in 2002. For example, representatives of the Münster Pentateuch model accept a "great post-exilic historical work" that has nothing in its basic idea is different from the Enneateuch, as it was already represented by Spinoza and Simon in the 17th century.

At the turn of the 21st century, the diachronic analysis, interested in the historical growth of the text, had gained the reputation of breaking down the text into small and tiny fragments with its instruments, which, however, remain hypothetical and on which no consensus can usually be reached . As a result, it takes away from the exegete the only sure thing he is holding in his hands: the text. Synchronous analysis has been preferred by many experts since the turn of the millennium, but is still in the process of developing its instruments. It deals with the text as it is now. In the background is the literary turn in the exegesis of the Old Testament: instead of reconstructing the authors and editors and their presumed interests, the focus is now on the interaction between text and reader. Two examples from the abundance of recent works: Jean-Pierre Sonnet presented the first synchronous overall draft for Deuteronomy in 1997. Sonnet examines the motif of the writing by Moses as a self-reflective mode of legitimation in Deuteronomy. Geert Johan Venema (2004) sees the Hebrew Bible as a literary text in which texts refer to other texts, but not to a reality outside the textual world. The canon set the framework within which texts from various biblical books dealing with a common topic could be brought into conversation with one another.

literature

Text output

Tools

Overview representations

  • Georg Braulik : The book Deuteronomy. In: Christian Frevel (ed.): Introduction to the Old Testament. 9th, updated edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2016, ISBN 978-3-17-030351-5 , pp. 152-182.
  • Jan Christian Gertz : The Deuteronomy. In: Jan Christian Gertz (Hrsg.): Basic information Old Testament. 6th, revised and expanded edition. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2019, ISBN 978-3-8252-5086-7 , pp. 248-260.
  • Hanna Liss : The Book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) . In: Tanach. Textbook of the Jewish Bible ( = writings of the College for Jewish Studies. Volume 8). Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 4th, completely revised edition Heidelberg 2019, ISBN 978-3-8253-6850-0 , pp. 213-256.
  • S. Dean McBride Jr .: Art. Deuteronomy. In: Theological Real Encyclopedia . Volume 8, 1981, pp. 530-542.
  • Moshe Weinfeld, S. David Sperling: Art. Deuteronomy . In: Encyclopaedia Judaica . 2nd edition, Volume 5, 2007, pp. 613-619.

Research reports

Comments

Articles and monographs

  • Ulrich Dahmen : Levites and Priests in Deuteronomy. Literary-critical and editorial history studies. (= Bonn Biblical Contributions. Volume 110). PHILO, Bodenheim 1996, ISBN 3-8257-0039-9 .
  • Karin Finsterbusch : Deuteronomy . An introduction. UTB 3626. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2012, ISBN 978-3-8252-3626-7 .
  • Georg Fischer , Dominik Markl , Simone Paganini (eds.): Deuteronomy - Torah for a new generation (= supplements to the journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . Volume 17). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2011, ISBN 978-3-447-06553-5 .
  • Jan Christian Gertz : The judicial organization of Israel in the deuteronomic law (= research on the religion and literature of the Old and New Testaments. Volume 165). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1994, ISBN 3-525-53847-2 .
  • Bernard M. Levinson: Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York 1998. ISBN 978-0-19-515288-3 .
  • Norbert Lohfink : Studies on Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature 5. (= Stuttgart biblical essays. Volume 38). Catholic Biblical Works, Stuttgart 2005, ISBN 3-460-06381-5 .
  • Dominik Markl: God's people in Deuteronomy (= supplements to the journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . Volume 18). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2012, ISBN 978-3-447-06763-8 .
  • Eckart Otto: God's right as a human right. Legal and literary historical studies on Deuteronomy (= supplements to the journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . Volume 2). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2002, ISBN 3-447-04276-1 .
  • Eckart Otto: The Deuteronomy: Political Theology and Legal Reform in Judah and Assyria (= supplements to the journal for Old Testament science . Volume 284). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1999, ISBN 3-11-016621-6 .
  • Eckart Otto: The post-German Deuteronomy as the integral keystone of the Torah . In: The Torah: Studies on the Pentateuch: Collected essays (= supplements to the journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . Volume 9). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 421-446. ( PDF )
  • Lothar Perlitt : Deuteronomy studies (= research on the Old Testament . Volume 8). Mohr (Siebeck), Tübingen 1994, ISBN 3-16-146154-1 .
  • Hans Ulrich Steymans: Deuteronomy 28 and the adê to the regulation of the succession to the throne Asarhaddons: Blessing and curse in the ancient Orient and in Israel (= Orbis biblicus et orientalis . Volume 145). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Friborg / Göttingen 1995, ISBN 3-525-53780-8 . ( Digitized version )

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. The Pentateuch in this article refers to the group of writings known as the Torah. Torah, “instruction”, is one of the central concepts of Deuteronomy and does not designate the Pentateuch in Deuteronomy - at least not always.
  2. In this article, the old Hebrew DIN 31636 is used to transliterate .
  3. Testified by Origen through his Greek transcription: ancient Greek Ἔλλε ἀδδεβαρρὶμ Élle addebarìm , cf. Eusebius: Church history VI, 25. Also in the Mishnah , z. B. mSota VII, 8. From a mention by Hieronymus we know that the title was shortened to Addebarim in late antiquity ; finally the article was also omitted.
  4. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 15.
  5. Wolfgang Kraus , Martin Karrer (Ed.): S eptuaginta German. The Greek Old Testament in German translation . German Bible Society, Stuttgart 2009, p. 175 f.
  6. Hebrew אֶת־מִשְׁנֵה הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת ʾEt-mishneh hattorah hazzoʾt
  7. ancient Greek τὸ Δευτερονόμιον τοῦτο tò Deuteronómion toũto .
  8. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 16.
  9. ^ Moshe Weinfeld, S. David Sperling: Art. Deuteronomy . In: Encyclopaedia Judaica . 2nd edition, Volume 5, 2007, p. 613.
  10. Josephus: Contra Apionem I, 38 f. In the Dead Sea Scrolls (1Q30 I 4) the “five books” are mentioned; it is likely, but not certain because of the fragmentary text, that it refers to the five books of Moses.
  11. The Moselied in Dtn 32.1–34  EU and related narrative passages are often considered secondary additions in exegetical literature, cf. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomy. An introduction , Göttingen 2012, p. 187.
  12. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 161 f.
  13. ^ Moshe Weinfeld, S. David Sperling: Art. Deuteronomy . In: Encyclopaedia Judaica . 2nd edition, Volume 5, 2007, p. 618: The style of Deuteronomy is distinguished by its simplicity, fluency, and lucidity and may be recognized by its phraseology and especially by its rhetorical character .
  14. ^ Moshe Weinfeld, S. David Sperling: Art. Deuteronomy . In: Encyclopaedia Judaica . 2nd edition, Volume 5, 2007, p. 614.
  15. Eckart Otto: Mose the scribe . In: Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch , Wiesbaden 2009, p. 470–479, here p. 472: "A Deuteronomy to be analyzed synchronously with the exception of the rest of the Pentateuch does not exist and would be an unhistorical, fictional quantity ..."
  16. That is the majority opinion compared to the minority opinion of Reinhard Gregor Kratz of an exilic composition. See Jan Christian Gertz: Das Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2019, p. 253.
  17. ^ Christian Frevel: History of Israel . Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2018, p. 268.
  18. ^ Moshe Weinfeld, S. David Sperling: Art. Deuteronomy . In: Encyclopaedia Judaica . 2nd edition, Volume 5, 2007, p. 614.
  19. a b Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 27 f.
  20. Angelika Berlejung: History and religious history of ancient Israel . In: Jan Christian Gertz (Hrsg.): Basic information Old Testament. An introduction to Old Testament literature, religion, and history . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6th, revised and expanded edition Göttingen 2019, pp. 59–192, here pp. 114–116.
  21. ^ Ze'ev Herzog: Perspectives on Southern Israel's Cult Centralization: Arad and Beer-sheba . In: Reinhard G. Kratz, Hermann Spieckermann (eds.): One God - One Cult - One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (= supplements to the journal for Old Testament science . Volume 405). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2010, pp. 169–197, especially p. 196 f.
  22. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 163 f.
  23. Angelika Berlejung: History and religious history of ancient Israel . In: Jan Christian Gertz (Hrsg.): Basic information Old Testament. An introduction to Old Testament literature, religion, and history . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6th, revised and expanded edition Göttingen 2019, pp. 59–192, here p. 116.
  24. Angelika Berlejung: History and religious history of ancient Israel . In: Jan Christian Gertz (Hrsg.): Basic information Old Testament. An introduction to Old Testament literature, religion, and history . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6th, revised and expanded edition Göttingen 2019, pp. 59–192, here pp. 116f.
  25. Hans Ulrich Steymans: Deuteronomy 28 and the adê to the regulation of the succession to the throne Asarhaddons: Blessing and curse in the ancient Orient and in Israel , Friborg / Göttingen 1995, p. 1.
  26. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 173.
  27. Hans Ulrich Steymans: Deuteronomy 28 and the adê to the regulation of the succession to the throne Asarhaddons: Blessing and curse in the ancient Orient and in Israel , Friborg / Göttingen 1995, p. 284. Moshe Weinfeld, S. David Sperling: Art. Deuteronomy . In: Encyclopaedia Judaica . 2nd edition, Volume 5, 2007, p. 615.
  28. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 172. Thomas Römer: Der Pentateuch . In: Walter Dietrich et al. (Ed.): The Origin of the Old Testament . New edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2014, pp. 53–166, here p. 158.
  29. Hans Ulrich Steymans: Deuteronomy 28 and the adê to the regulation of the succession to the throne Asarhaddons: Blessings and curse in the Old Orient and in Israel , Friborg / Göttingen 1995, p. 377. Unlike Christoph Koch, who with a tradition of neo-Assyrian treaty texts, including VTE, and their " Amalgamation ”with Aramaic escape texts (from Tell Fecheriye , Sfire, etc.) in a learned writing environment. The texts of Dtn 13 and Dtn 28 were only formulated in this tradition in exile. Cf. Christoph Koch: contract, loyalty oath and covenant: studies on the reception of the ancient oriental contract law in Deuteronomy and on the development of federal theology in the Old Testament (= supplements to the journal for Old Testament science . Volume 383). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin et al. 2008, pp. 317-320.
  30. Eckart Otto: Das Deuteronomium: political theology and legal reform in Judah and Assyria (= supplements to the journal for Old Testament science . Volume 284). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1999, p. 4. Moshe Weinfeld, S. David Sperling: Art. Deuteronomy . In: Encyclopaedia Judaica . 2nd edition, Volume 5, 2007, p. 615.
  31. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 157.
  32. Eckart Otto: "Human Rights" in the Old Orient and in the Old Testament . In: Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal History: Collected Studies (= supplements to the journal for ancient Oriental and biblical legal history. Volume 8). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2008, pp. 120–153, here pp. 132f. The literary dependence on the VTE also means, of course, that 672 represents a terminus post quem for the entire book, even if parts of Deuteronomy may be older.
  33. Thomas Römer: The Pentateuch . In: Walter Dietrich et al. (Ed.): The Origin of the Old Testament . New edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2014, pp. 53–166, here p. 158.
  34. Thomas Römer: The Pentateuch . In: Walter Dietrich et al. (Ed.): The Origin of the Old Testament . New edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2014, pp. 53–166, here p. 166.
  35. ^ Moshe Weinfeld, S. David Sperling: Art. Deuteronomy . In: Encyclopaedia Judaica . 2nd edition, Volume 5, 2007, p. 615.
  36. Angelika Berlejung: History and religious history of ancient Israel . In: Jan Christian Gertz (Hrsg.): Basic information Old Testament. An introduction to Old Testament literature, religion, and history . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6th, revised and expanded edition Göttingen 2019, pp. 59–192, here p. 145.
  37. “The authors and editors of 2 Reg 22 [= 2 Kings 22.8–10  EU ] meant with the Torah book found in the temple with a probability bordering on certainty the (them) Deuteronomy and also wanted their addressees to do so understood. "Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 22.
  38. Michael Pietsch: Josiah's cult reform: Studies on the religious history of Israel in the late royal period (= research on the Old Testament . Volume 86). Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2013, p. 482.
  39. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 165.
  40. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 166. The "deuteronomistic land conquest narrative" was already represented by Norbert Lohfink, z. B .: Kerygmata of the Deuteronomic History . In: Studies on Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature , Volume 2, Stuttgart 1991, pp. 125–142.
  41. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 23.
  42. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 160.
  43. Reinhard Gregor Kratz: The composition of the narrative books of the Old Testament: Basic knowledge of biblical criticism . Göttingen 2000, pp. 136-138, quoted here. based on: Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 24 f.
  44. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 25.
  45. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, pp. 210–212.
  46. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 213.
  47. Jan Christian Gertz: Das Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2019, p. 249. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 205.
  48. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 157.
  49. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 51 f.
  50. Eckart Otto: Deuteronomy 1-3 as the key of the Pentateuch criticism in diachronic and synchronous reading . In: The Torah: Studies on the Pentateuch . Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 284–420, here p. 368.
  51. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 155.
  52. Georg Braulik, Norbert Lohfink: Deuteronomy 1.5 באר את התורה הזאה "he gave this Torah legal force" . In: Norbert Lohfink: Studies on Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic literature . Volume 5, Stuttgart 2005, pp. 233-251.
  53. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 156.
  54. ^ Christian Frevel: Torah as a place of learning. Initiatives from the Old Testament . In: Images of God and Images of Man. Studies in anthropology and theology in the Old Testament . Neukirchen-Vluyn 2016, pp. 151–180, here pp. 166–169.
  55. Konrad Schmid: The Deuteronomy within the "Deuteronomistic works of history" in Gen - 2 Kings . In: Eckart Otto, Reinhard Achenbach (ed.): The Deuteronomy between Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic history . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2004, pp. 193–211, here p. 208.
  56. ^ S. Dean McBride Jr .: Art. Deuteronomy. In: Theological Real Encyclopedia . Volume 8, 1981, p. 531.
  57. Eckart Otto: The post-deuteronomistic Deuteronomy as an integrating keystone of the Torah . In: The Torah: Studies on the Pentateuch: Collected essays (= supplements to the journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . Volume 9). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 421–446, here p. 428 f., Quotation p. 429.
  58. a b Jan Christian Gertz: Das Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2019, p. 256.
  59. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 73.
  60. Jan Christian Gertz: Das Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2019, p. 250., with reference to Timo Veijola: The Confession of Israel. Observations on the history and theology of Deut. 6, 4-9 . In: Theologische Zeitschrift 48 (1992), pp. 369-381.
  61. Eckart Otto: New Perspectives on Deuteronomy Research . In: The Torah: Studies on the Pentateuch: Collected essays (= supplements to the journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . Volume 9). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 229–247, here p. 239.
  62. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 171.
  63. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, pp. 145–147.
  64. This is the majority opinion, the work of Bernard M. Levinson and Eckart Otto are important here. The opposing position that the federal book is younger and includes Deuteronomy is represented by John Van Seters: A Law Book for the Diaspora. Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code , Oxford / New York 2003.
  65. Eckart Otto: Deuteronomy 12.1–23.15 (= HThKAT), Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2016, p. 1161.
  66. ^ Bernard B. Levinson: Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation , New York 1998, p. 6.
  67. Levinson sees the fact that both text corpora were finally integrated into the Pentateuch as an irony of history: ibid., P. 94.
  68. Eckart Otto: Das Deuteronomium: Political Theology and Legal Reform in Juda and Assyria , Berlin / New York 1999, p. 349 f.
  69. Eckart Otto: New Perspectives on Deuteronomy Research . In: The Torah: Studies on the Pentateuch: Collected essays (= supplements to the journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . Volume 9). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 229–247, here p. 236.
  70. Eckart Otto: New Perspectives on Deuteronomy Research . In: The Torah: Studies on the Pentateuch: Collected essays (= supplements to the journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . Volume 9). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 229–247, here p. 237 f.
  71. ^ Bernard B. Levinson: Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation , New York 1998, p. 4 f .: The radically disruptive nature of that transformation of religious routine should not be underestimated. Deuteronomy's repeated emphasis on the “joy” to be experienced at the central sanctuary might well represent an attempt to provide compensation for the loss of the local cultic sites, where the people would more conventionally have gained access to the deity .
  72. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 119 f. Jan Christian Gertz: The legal texts in the Pentateuch . In: In: Jan Christian Gertz (Hrsg.): Basic information Old Testament. An introduction to Old Testament literature, religion, and history . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6th, revised and expanded edition Göttingen 2019, pp. 221–237, here p. 224.
  73. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 162. Cf. Eckart Otto: The Decalogue as a burning mirror of Israeli legal history . In: Continuum and Proprium: Studies on the social and legal history of the Old Orient and the Old Testament . Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1996, pp. 293–303, here p. 293: "The Decalogue is a late bloom of deuteronomistic literature that made a quick career in post-exilic Israel."
  74. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld : The Decalogue - a problem display . In: Reinhard Gregor Kratz (ed.): Love and Commandment: Studies on Deuteronomy (FS Lothar Perlitt), Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2000, pp. 46–59, especially pp. 49 f. 54-59. Likewise Jan Christian Gertz: Das Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2019, p. 256 f. An example of such an assignment of the individual laws to the Ten Commandments in Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 168.
  75. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 75.
  76. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 158.
  77. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 157 f. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 107.
  78. ^ Leonhard Burckhardt: Elements of the comparability of legislation. Deuteronomy - Gortyn - XII Table Laws. A sketch . In: Leonhard Burckhardt, Klaus Seybold, Jürgen Ungern-Sternberg (eds.): Legislation in ancient societies: Israel, Greece, Rome . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2007, pp. 1–66, here p. 12.55.
  79. ^ Leonhard Burckhardt: Elements of the comparability of legislation. Deuteronomy - Gortyn - XII Table Laws. A sketch . In: Leonhard Burckhardt, Klaus Seybold, Jürgen Ungern-Sternberg (eds.): Legislation in ancient societies: Israel, Greece, Rome . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2007, pp. 1–66, here p. 15 f.
  80. ^ Leonhard Burckhardt: Elements of the comparability of legislation. Deuteronomy - Gortyn - XII Table Laws. A sketch . In: Leonhard Burckhardt, Klaus Seybold, Jürgen Ungern-Sternberg (eds.): Legislation in ancient societies: Israel, Greece, Rome . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2007, pp. 1–66, here p. 25.
  81. ^ Leonhard Burckhardt: Elements of the comparability of legislation. Deuteronomy - Gortyn - XII Table Laws. A sketch . In: Leonhard Burckhardt, Klaus Seybold, Jürgen Ungern-Sternberg (eds.): Legislation in ancient societies: Israel, Greece, Rome . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2007, pp. 1–66, here p. 29 f.
  82. ^ Leonhard Burckhardt: Elements of the comparability of legislation. Deuteronomy - Gortyn - XII Table Laws. A sketch . In: Leonhard Burckhardt, Klaus Seybold, Jürgen Ungern-Sternberg (eds.): Legislation in ancient societies: Israel, Greece, Rome . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2007, pp. 1–66, here p. 42.
  83. ^ Leonhard Burckhardt: Elements of the comparability of legislation. Deuteronomy - Gortyn - XII Table Laws. A sketch . In: Leonhard Burckhardt, Klaus Seybold, Jürgen Ungern-Sternberg (eds.): Legislation in ancient societies: Israel, Greece, Rome . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2007, pp. 1–66, here p. 51.
  84. ^ Leonhard Burckhardt: Elements of the comparability of legislation. Deuteronomy - Gortyn - XII Table Laws. A sketch . In: Leonhard Burckhardt, Klaus Seybold, Jürgen Ungern-Sternberg (eds.): Legislation in ancient societies: Israel, Greece, Rome . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2007, pp. 1–66, here p. 54.
  85. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, pp. 28–30.
  86. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 33 f.
  87. Benedikt Hensel: Juda and Samaria: On the relationship between two post-exilic Yahwisms (= research on the Old Testament . Volume 110). Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2016, p. 413.
  88. ^ Ernst Axel Knauf: Audiatur et altera pars. On the logic of the Pentateuch editorial team . In: Bibel und Kirche 3 (1998), pp. 118–126, here pp. 123–125. ( PDF ) Cf. Thomas Römer: Phases of the “Deuteronomic History” . In: Markus Witte, Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid (eds.): The Deuteronomistic History Works: Editorial and Religious Historical Perspectives on the “Deuteronomism” Discussion in the Torah and Anterior Prophets . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2006, pp. 45–70, here p. 69: “The theory of a compromise between priestly and dtr circles, advocated by Blum , Albertz , Knauf and others, for which one does not necessarily have a Persian one that is difficult to grasp Needs to postulate empire authorization, it still seems to me to be the best working model. "
  89. Eckart Otto: Deuteronomy 23.16-34.12 (= HThKAT), Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2017, p. 2277.
  90. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 168. The long-standing consensus that the original end of the priestly script was preserved at the end of the Pentateuch was questioned by Lothar Perlitt , cf. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 197 f., With reference to Lothar Perlitt: Priestly Scripture in Deuteronomy? (1988) In: Deuteronomy Studies . Mohr, Tübingen 1994, pp. 109-112.
  91. a b Thomas Römer: The Pentateuch . In: Walter Dietrich et al. (Ed.): The Origin of the Old Testament . New edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2014, pp. 53–166, here p. 86.
  92. Eckart Otto: Deuteronomy 23.16-34.12 (= HThKAT), Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2017, p. 2282.
  93. Thomas Römer: The Pentateuch . In: Walter Dietrich et al. (Ed.): The Origin of the Old Testament . New edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2014, pp. 53–166, here p. 161.
  94. Thomas Römer: The Pentateuch . In: Walter Dietrich et al. (Ed.): The Origin of the Old Testament . New edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2014, pp. 53–166, here p. 162.
  95. Karin Finsterbusch: Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2012, p. 196.
  96. Eckart Otto: Deuteronomy 23.16–34.12 (= HThKAT), Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2017, p. 1924. 1933.
  97. Eckart Otto: Deuteronomy 23.16–34.12 (= HThKAT), Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2017, p. 1924. 1950.
  98. Eckart Otto: Deuteronomy 23.16–34.12 (= HThKAT), Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2017, p. 1920 f. See already Emanuel Tov, The Text of the Hebrew Bible. Handbuch der Textkritik , Stuttgart 1997, p. 78. The more recent Bible revisions have reacted to this, especially the standard translation (2016), which is noted here as a footnote: "Ebal in H [= the Hebrew text] comes from an anti-Samaritan tendency."
  99. Jacobus Cornelis de Vos: Reception and Effect of the Decalogue in Jewish and Christian Scriptures up to AD 200. Brill, Leiden / Boston 2016, pp. 40–46.
  100. ^ Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra : Qumran. The texts from the Dead Sea and ancient Judaism , Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2016, pp. 185–187.
  101. ^ Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra: Qumran. The texts from the Dead Sea and ancient Judaism , Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2016, p. 221.
  102. Simone Paganini : "You are not allowed to add anything to these words". The reception of Deuteronomy in the temple roll: language, authors and hermeneutics (= supplements to the journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . Volume 11). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 297-301. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 170 f.
  103. ^ Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra: Qumran. The texts from the Dead Sea and ancient Judaism , Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2016, pp. 367–370.
  104. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 162 f.
  105. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 166. Cf. Birger Gerhardsson: The testing of God's son (Matt 4: 1-11 & Par ): an analysis of an early Christian Midrash . CWK Gleerup, Lund 1966, new edition Wipf & Stock, Eugene OR 2009.
  106. Late Judaism is Christian theological usage in the 1960s.
  107. Birger Gerhardsson: The testing of God's son (Matt 4: 1-11 & Par): an analysis of an early Christian Midrash . CWK Gleerup, Lund 1966, new edition Wipf & Stock, Eugene OR 2009, p. 11: The temptation narrative was not written by some simple soul who constructed his story with a few suitable quotations from an old and valued scroll: on the contrary, we have in it a narrative whose every detail bears the stamp of the late-Jewish (and early Christian) scribal tradition. It is an example of an early Christian midrash .
  108. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 181.
  109. Georg Braulik: Das Buch Deuteronomium , Stuttgart 2016, p. 182.
  110. ^ Baruch M. Bokser: The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism . University of California Press, Berkeley et al. 1984, pp. 10-12.
  111. Hanna Liss: Das Buch Devarim (Deuteronomium) , Heidelberg 2019, p. 248.
  112. Yitzhak Berger: Art. Deuteronomy, Book of . III, C. Medieval Judaism: General Issues . In: Dale C. Allison (Ed.): Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception , Volume 6, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin et al. 2014, Sp. 668–672, here p. 671.
  113. ^ Siegfried Kreuzer : The Septuagint in the context of Alexandrian culture and education . In: Heinz-Josef Fabry , Dieter Böhler (Ed.): In focus: The Septuagint. Studies on the Origin and Significance of the Greek Bible . Volume 3, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2007, pp. 28–56, here p. 49.
  114. Septuagint German , ed. by Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer , German Bible Society, Stuttgart 2009, p. 204.
  115. ^ Israel Jacob Yuval: Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages . University of California Press, Berkeley et al. 2006, p. 85. Martin Sicker: A Passover Seder Companion and Analytic Introduction to the Haggadah , iUniverse, Lincoln NE 2004, p. 75 f. See Louis Finkelstein: The Oldest Midrash: Pre-rabbinic Ideals and Teachings in the Passover Haggadah , Harvard 1938.
  116. David Kennemer: Did an Aramean (Try to) Kill our Father? In: Jewish Bible Quarterly , Volume 47, 2019/4, pp. 231-236. ( PDF )
  117. Hanna Liss: Das Buch Devarim (Deuteronomium) , Heidelberg 2019, p. 231.
  118. ^ Günter Stemberger: Art. Deuteronomy, Book of . III, B. Rabbinic Judaism . In: Dale C. Allison (Ed.): Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception , Volume 6, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin et al. 2013, Sp. 667–668, here p. 667.
  119. Hanna Liss: Das Buch Devarim (Deuteronomium) , Heidelberg 2019, p. 239.
  120. Brett Foster, "Types and Shadows": Uses of Moses in the Renaissance . In: Jane Beal (ed.): Illuminating Moses. A History of Reception from Exodus to the Renaissance . Brill, Leiden / Boston 2014, pp. 353–406, here p. 393.
  121. ^ A b Charles L. Stinger: The Renaissance in Rome . Indiana University Press, Bloomington IN (1985) 1998, p. 212.
  122. Brett Foster, "Types and Shadows": Uses of Moses in the Renaissance . In: Jane Beal (ed.): Illuminating Moses. A History of Reception from Exodus to the Renaissance . Brill, Leiden / Boston 2014, pp. 353–406, here p. 395 f.
  123. Jan Christian Gertz: Das Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2019, p. 260.
  124. Franz-Joachim Verspohl : Michelangelo Buonarroti and Pope Julius II: Moses - military leader, legislator, muse leader . Wallstein, Göttingen 2004, p. 84.
  125. ^ John T. Paoletti, Gary M. Radke: Art in Renaissance Italy . Laurence King Publishing, 3rd edition London 2005, p. 308.
  126. Frank Jehle: Calvin - Father of Capitalism? To a sermon by the Geneva reformer . In: From Johannes auf Patmos to Karl Barth. Theological works from two decades , ed. by Adrian Schenker and Marianne Jehle-Wildberger . TVZ, Zurich 2015, pp. 87–100, here p. 91 f. Two hundred sermons on Deuteronomy are probably unique in Christian theology (ibid.).
  127. Johannes Calvin: Sermons on Deuteronomy and 1st Timothy (1555/1556): a selection (= Calvin study edition. Volume 9), ed. by Eberhard Busch . Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2009, pp. 67–80, here p. 73.
  128. ^ Bonnie L. Pattison: Poverty in the Theology of John Calvin , Wipf & Stock, Eugene 2006, pp. 335-337.
  129. ^ Bonnie L. Pattison: Poverty in the Theology of John Calvin , Wipf & Stock, Eugene 2006, p. 338.
  130. Frank Jehle: Calvin - Father of Capitalism? To a sermon by the Geneva reformer . In: From Johannes auf Patmos to Karl Barth. Theological works from two decades , ed. by Adrian Schenker and Marianne Jehle-Wildberger. TVZ, Zurich 2015, pp. 87–100, here p. 97 f.
  131. Gerhard Lohfink: How did Jesus want the church? On the social dimension of the Christian faith . Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau et al. 1982, pp. 142–154 The Church as a Contrast Society , esp. Pp. 142 f .: People of God in Deuteronomy .
  132. ^ Norbert Lohfink: Volkskirche and contrast society . In: Ders., The Jewish aspect of Christianity. The lost dimension . Freiburg, 2nd ed. 1989, pp. 30-47. Norbert Lohfink: The Deuteronomic Law in its final form - Draft of a society without marginal groups. In: Ders., Studies on Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature . Volume 2, Stuttgart 1995, pp. 205-218.
  133. Georg Braulik: Deuteronomy 1 - 6,17 (= New Real Bible . Volume 15). Echter, Würzburg 1986, p. 17. Cf. B. the comment on Dtn 7.6  EU : “Israel must live as a society in contrast to the previous inhabitants of the country and their religious forms of expression ... Since its otherness is related to its social order, its holiness has a social form of expression. ... The eschatological people of God [= the Church] live, for example, through their renunciation of violence and domination in sharp contrast to the other societies of the world. "
  134. ^ Herbert Schlögel : Church - Morals - Spirituality . LIT Verlag, Münster 2001, pp. 41–45. Ursula Nothelle-Wildfeuer : Church in Contrast or Church in the World? On the basis and character of Christian responsibility for the world . In: Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift , Volume 43, No. 3 (1992), pp. 347-366. ( PDF )
  135. ↑ Referred here to: Leopold Neuhold : Religion and Catholic Social Doctrine in Transition, especially Values: Appearances and Opportunities , Münster 2000. LIT Verlag, p. 169. Cf. Wolfgang Huber: Church in the turn of the times. Social change and renewal of the church , Gütersloh 1998.
  136. Jan Assmann: The cultural memory: writing, memory and political identity in early high cultures . CH Beck, Munich 2007, p. 216.
  137. Jan Assmann: The catastrophe of forgetting. Deuteronomy as a paradigm of collective mnemonic technology . In: Aleida Assmann , Dietrich Harth (Hrsg.): Mnemosyne: forms and functions of cultural memory . Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 1991, pp. 337-355, here p. 341.
  138. ^ Moshe Weinfeld, S. David Sperling: Art. Deuteronomy . In: Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd edition, Volume 5, 2007, p. 613 f.
  139. Thomas Römer: The Pentateuch . In: Walter Dietrich et al. (Ed.): The Origin of the Old Testament . New edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2014, pp. 53–166, here p. 57.
  140. Eckart Otto: Deuteronomy 1.1–4.43 (= HThKAT), Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2012, p. 63.
  141. The importance of de Witte's theory for the newer document hypothesis shows the judgment of Otto Eißfeldt over 100 years later that this observation was the "Archimedean point" of the Pentateuch criticism. Cf. Eckart Otto: Deuteronomy 1,1–4,43 (= HThKAT), Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2012, p. 72.
  142. Thomas Römer: The Pentateuch . In: Walter Dietrich et al. (Ed.): The Origin of the Old Testament . New edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2014, pp. 53–166, here p. 154.
  143. ^ Heinrich Graetz: History of the Jews from the oldest times to the present , 2nd volume, 1st half, 2nd increased and improved edition, Leiner, Leipzig 1902, p. 271.
  144. David Hoffmann: The Book of Leviticus , 1st half volume. Poppelauer, Berlin 1905, p. 1.
  145. 3394–3397: Answer of the Biblical Commission, June 27, 1906 . In: Heinrich Denzinger : Compendium of the creeds and church teaching decisions. Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum . Improved, expanded, translated into German and edited by Peter Hünermann with the assistance of Helmut Hoping . 45th edition Herder, Freiburg et al. 2017, pp. 1906 f.
  146. Here today's exegetes have become cautious. So z. B. Jan Christian Gertz: Das Deuteronomium , Göttingen 2019, S, 253: “The report in 2 Kings 22-23 is clearly in dtr edited form, which significantly reduces its historical value and suggests that it is a from the Dtn itself inspired legend is. "
  147. Gustav Hölscher: Composition and Origin of Deuteronomy . In: Journal for Old Testament Science 40 (1922), pp. 161–255, here p. 189 f. Quoted from: Eckart Otto: New Perspectives on Deuteronomy Research . In: The Torah: Studies on the Pentateuch: Collected essays (= supplements to the journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . Volume 9). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 229–247, here p. 230.
  148. Ibid., P. 195, quoted here from: Eckart Otto: Deuteronomium 1,1–4,43 (= HThKAT), Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2012, p. 109.
  149. Werner H. Schmidt : Introduction to the Old Testament (De Gruyter textbook) . Fourth, extended edition Berlin / New York 1989, p. 124. The change in number cannot, however, be used mechanically to differentiate between layers, since it is often a stylistic means, cf. Thomas Römer: The Pentateuch . In: Walter Dietrich et al. (Ed.): The Origin of the Old Testament . New edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2014, pp. 53–166, here p. 155.
  150. Eckart Otto: New Perspectives on Deuteronomy Research . In: The Torah: Studies on the Pentateuch: Collected essays (= supplements to the journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . Volume 9). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 229–247, here p. 231.
  151. Konrad Schmid : The Deuteronomy within the "Deuteronomistic works of history" in Gen - 2 Kings . In: Eckart Otto, Reinhard Achenbach (ed.): The Deuteronomy between Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic history . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2004, pp. 193–211, here p. 194.
  152. Eckart Otto: New Perspectives on Deuteronomy Research . In: The Torah: Studies on the Pentateuch: Collected essays (= supplements to the journal for ancient oriental and biblical legal history . Volume 9). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2009, pp. 229–247, here p. 232. Göttingen layer model: Rudolf Smend explained that there is a basic layer and two more recent working layers: "the basic conception of the historical work (DtrH), an adaptation that enters prophetic texts ( DtrP), and another, whose main interest is the law (DtrN) ”(The emergence of the Old Testament, Stuttgart 1989, p. 123, quoted here from: Werner H. Schmidt: Introduction to the Old Testament (De Gruyter textbook). Fourth, expanded edition Berlin / New York 1989, p. 139.)
  153. Reinhard Gregor Kratz: The pre- and post-priestly written Hexateuch . In: Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, Markus Witte (eds.): Farewell to the Yahwist: The composition of the Hexateuch in the latest discussion . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2002, pp. 295–324, here p. 295.
  154. Erich Zenger, Christian Frevel: Theories about the origin of the Pentateuch in the course of research . In: Christian Frevel (ed.): Introduction to the Old Testament . 9th, updated edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2016, pp. 87–135, here pp. 123–134, especially p. 131.
  155. Eckart Otto: Deuteronomy 1,1–4,43 (= HThKAT), Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2012, p. 193.
  156. Eckart Otto: Deuteronomy 1,1–4,43 (= HThKAT), Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2012, p. 206 f.
  157. ^ Jean-Pierre Sonnet: The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy . Brill, Leiden 1997.
  158. Eckart Otto: Deuteronomy 1,1–4,43 (= HThKAT), Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2012, p. 201.
  159. Eckart Otto: Deuteronomy 1,1–4,43 (= HThKAT), Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 2012, pp. 209 f., Cf. Geert Johan Venema: Reading Scripture in the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 9-10, 31, 2 Kings 22-23, Jeremiah 36, Nehemiah 8 . Brill, Leiden 2004.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on August 13, 2020 in this version .