William Morrow Queen stheological College Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Transcription

1 RBL 06/2007 Vogt, Peter T. Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah: A Reappraisal Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, Pp. xii Hardcover. $ ISBN William Morrow Queen stheological College Kingston, Ontario, Canada In this revised doctoral dissertation, Peter Vogt characterizes the ideology (worldview) of Deuteronomy as a theology of the supremacy of Yahweh and his Torah (the word is capitalized in order to denote a written body of instruction). He thereby challenges scholarship that describes essential aspects of the Deuteronomic (Dtn) worldview in terms of a revolution of centralization, secularization, and demythologization. An introductory chapter examines accounts of centralization in Deuteronomy by five representative scholars: S. R. Driver, G. von Rad, M. Weinfeld, N. Lohfink, and B. Levinson. Vogt shows that their interpretations vary and suggests that this lack of agreement supports the case for an alternate perception of the Dtn worldview, which reads Deuteronomy in a synchronic fashion. Chapter 2 addresses the appointment of judges in Deut 1:9 18. Vogt disputes Weinfeld s emphasis on intellectual capacities in the Dtn account in contrast to parallels in Exod 18:13 17 and Num 11:11 17 that mention charisma or moral qualities. Deuteronomy s valorization of righteousness (e.g., 16:18 20) and the involvement of priests in the central judiciary (17:8 13) argue against the idea that the Dtn conception involves a secularizing tendency. The judges of Deut 1 are charged with acting in conformity with Yahweh s Torah, indicating that their role is inherently sacred, although perhaps not cultic.

2 Chapter 3 deals with the presence of Yahweh and Torah in Deut 4:1 6:9. Vogt opposes the view that Deut 4 represents a form of demythologization. For example, Deut 4:36 is interpreted as showing that Yahweh is present in both heaven and earth. Vogt also denies that the differences between the theophany in Exod and Deut 4 are as stark as Weinfeld and others maintain. He agrees that Deut 4 emphasizes the idea that it is through Torah that Yahweh s nearness is experienced by Israel. But this conception of Yahweh s presence is not a form of demythologization, because Yahweh s presence through Torah-adherence is not the only way the deity is present to Israel. The prohibition against images in Deut 4 represents a sophisticated understanding of the presence of Yahweh that balances transcendence and immanence. The deity s immanence is apparent in his nearness to Israel. Yahweh s transcendence is apparent in his ubiquity and freedom to choose how he will be worshiped and in the fact that his presence is manifest in Torah and its adherence. Similarly, Deut 5:1 6:9 is analyzed in terms that deny a demythologizing force to instructions such as the Sabbath law in Deut 5: Chapter 4 deals with Deut 12, a text Vogt reads as a rhetorical unity, following his doctoral supervisor, J. G. McConville. Vogt attends to the issue of centralization by questioning an assumed contrast between the altar law in Exod 20:24 25 and Deut 12. On his view, neither text is principally concerned with the number of legitimate altars. The context of the altar law in Exodus involves proper worship of Yahweh as opposed to idols (20:22 23). There are a variety of ways to read Deut 12, including the possibility that provisions for a single sanctuary could be met in a succession of places. Consequently, Levinson and others may be wrong to suggest that the number of altars is a primary emphasis in Deut 12, although Vogt concedes that evidence favors the view that the text envisages a single sanctuary. The crucial issue, however, is Yahweh s sovereignty in both altar laws. The secularization hypothesis is discussed by comparing the provisions in Deut 12 to the terms of 1 Sam 14: Vogt disputes the supposition that the Samuel passage supports the view that an altar was traditionally required for proper animal slaughter. He also uses Lohfink s refutation of Weinfeld s secularization thesis, noting the extension of the concept of holiness to the people and the retention of a sacrificial term in Deut 12 to refer to animal slaughter in the towns. Vogt agrees with Levinson that Deuteronomy creates a new, non-cultic procedure in mandating animal slaughter apart from the central altar. However, this is not a transformation of an earlier altar law but an extension of an ethic of holiness to the entire people, for Deuteronomy emphasizes the profoundly religious of nature of all life lived before Yahweh in the land. The concept of demythologization is addressed by opposing the idea of a name theology in the Dtn centralization formula. Vogt notes that name itself connotes a concept of presence in biblical thought. Moreover, any concept of divine absence seems to be

3 excluded by Deuteronomy s repeated reference to the performance of sacred acts before Yahweh. As a result, Vogt refocuses Deut 12 in terms of the contrast between rightful Yahweh worship and false worship of Canaanite gods. Allegiance to the God of Israel is expressed by seeking Yahweh at the place he chooses. But, while sacrifice is restricted to the central sanctuary, worship is not. The provisions for nonsacrificial slaughter underscore Israel s loyalty to Yahweh even when far from the central sanctuary. Chapter 5 discusses the concept of Torah and administration in Deut 16:18 18:22. Provisions for various officials show that, rather than being radical through an ideology of centralization and secularism, Deut 16:18 18:22 is radical in its opposition to ancient Near Eastern models of administration that emphasize the role of the king. For example, judges are appointed by all the people. The king is denied a judicial function in 17:14 20 while being subject to Torah. Such observations show that Deuteronomy is a radical document, although not in the way generally perceived. By emphasizing the supremacy of Yahweh through adherence to Torah, Deuteronomy evinces a remarkably countercultural ideology. What emerges is a deliberate rejection of ancient Near Eastern institutions of kingship in favor of an emphasis on the holiness of all life lived out before Yahweh in the context of Torah. While he addresses the views of various scholars, Vogt most frequently opposes those of Weinfeld, whose Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972) represents a classic in the field of Deuteronomy studies (the argument is restated in his 1991 Anchor Bible commentary). For the sake of space and in view of its influence, the rest of this review is dedicated to exploring Vogt s rejection of Weinfeld s description of the Dtn ideology. My primary concern is with Vogt s preference for describing the worldview of Deuteronomy as radical rather than revolutionary, an adjective preferred by Weinfeld. I will pursue this discussion in the terms that Vogt himself has established: the distinctive emphasis in Dtn ideology on a written Torah as the revelation of Yahweh s presence to Israel. Certainly Weinfeld s description of Dtn thought in terms of secularization and demythologization warrants critique. These concepts suggest a diminution of the category of the sacred in the development of Israel s institutions and religious imagination. As Vogt shows, this characterization of Dtn ideology is unconvincing. On the other hand, Vogt s account does not adequately describe the significance of the innovations that Dtn theology represents in the history of ancient Judaism. One reason for this is that, unlike Weinfeld, Vogt does not address the place of Deuteronomy in the development of Israelite religion. He defends this decision because of the lack of critical

4 consensus about a historical setting for the composition of Deuteronomy. However, this concern is not escaped so easily in a thesis about the centrality of the concept of a written Torah in Deuteronomy. One might question whether Vogt s emphasis on Torah is as important in Dtn theology as he proposes. The word itself appears mainly in the prose prologue and epilogues to the laws in Deut Within those laws, torah is used only in the instructions for judges (17:11) and the king (17:18 19). Nevertheless, Vogt is correct to draw readers attention to an insistence on Yahweh s sovereignty as characteristic of the Dtn worldview and of the importance it places on written Torah as a means for realizing Yahweh s presence among the people. He observes that Dtn Torah regards itself as the successor to Moses: it provides for the offices and institutions that replace the prophet. Moreover, obedience to written Torah is a means of actualizing the presence of Yahweh. Such a conception of Torah has significant implications for the history of Israelite religion. A text such as Deut 4 underscores the revolutionary nature of this scriptural revelation and its claims to superiority over other forms of wisdom (S. A. Geller, Fiery Wisdom: Logos and Lexis in Deuteronomy 4, Prooftexts 14 [1994]: 133). Vogt recognizes that Deuteronomy s written Torah emerges at a significant transitional moment in the biblical story of Israel (on the brink of occupying the land of promise), but he does not ask what such a transition symbolizes in the history of ancient Judaism. In fact, biblical documents that originate from or describe the monarchical period suggest that scripture was not an important religious institution for that era (or most of it). The esteem according to written Torah (i.e., scripture) in Dtn ideology was an innovation with far-reaching consequences for institutions that mediated the sacred in ancient Judaism. Weinfeld is correct, therefore, to emphasize the revolutionary significance of Deuteronomy. Concerns for writing a history of Israelite religion are frequently operative in scholarship on Deuteronomy. Vogt can only defuse this interest by selective discussion of some important issues. For example, in the case of the relationship to P, Vogt moves too quickly to characterize P as conceptually unopposed to the theology of divine presence in Deuteronomy. There are layers in P, and some of these express an ideology at odds with the Dtn worldview. A case in point is the contrast between the demand in Lev 17 that all domestic animals be slaughtered at an altar and the permission for profane slaughter in Deut 12. Weinfeld appealed to this contrast to bolster his claims for the significance of centralization and demythologization in Deuteronomy. Unfortunately, the opposition between Lev 17 and Deut 12 is not addressed by Vogt. Even if (as many scholars believe) Lev 17 was written after Deut 12, it still seems to articulate a traditional theology that Deuteronomy challenged.

5 The opposition between Lev 17 and Deut 12 indicates that the Dtn doctrine of centralization did entail an institutional and conceptual revolution in the history of Israelite religion. Similar transformations are indicated by Weinfeld s theory about the composition of Deuteronomy. While Deuteronomy gives priests the task of teaching Torah to the people, Weinfeld s perception of a scribal school in the royal court as the source of Deuteronomy denies any implication that priestly functionaries were charged with composing Dtn Torah. Traditionally, priests had the tasks of both formulating torah (understood as judgments on clean and unclean conditions) and of communicating it. But, according to Weinfeld, the royal (lay) scribes responsible for Deuteronomy both expanded the definition of Torah and appropriated the right to formulate it. This is a significant innovation with important implications for Israel s religious history. Vogt takes Weinfeld to task for suggesting a model of secularization that smacks of Enlightenment categories, but Weinfeld s theory of secularization implies another development that is less anachronistic. His description of the composition of Dtn Torah by lay authorities anticipates the later displacement of priestly leadership by the lay movement that generated rabbinic Torah. Such a model is suggested, for example, by connections that can be drawn between Dtn thinking and rabbinic exegesis (see J. Weingreen, From Bible to Mishna [Manchester, 1976]). Vogt is correct to insist that the category of the sacred is not abandoned in Deuteronomy, but his work confirms the fact that it was significantly redefined. Perhaps instead of demythologization, one ought to talk about theological transformation in Dtn ideology. Instead of secularization, it might be better to speak of a trend toward laicization in the Dtn worldview. Nevertheless, it is to Weinfeld s credit that he perceived that Deuteronomy represents significant transformations in the development of ancient Israel s religious institutions. Vogt offers a thoughtful approach to a number of problems in the description of Dtn ideology. However, he has chosen not to situate the emergence of Dtn Torah in a historical matrix. The confinement of his observations to a literary and synchronic context mutes the degree to which Deuteronomy stands for innovative revision of its religious patrimony and a revolutionary approach to the mediation of divine presence in ancient Judaism.