Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Timothy M. Willis Pepperdine University Malibu, California

Transcription

1 RBL 06/2014 Jack R. Lundbom Deuteronomy: A Commentary Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Pp. xxx Paper. $80.00, ISBN Timothy M. Willis Pepperdine University Malibu, California Jack Lundbom is best known for his several works on the book of Jeremiah, culminating in his three-volume commentary in the Anchor Bible series. 1 The well-recognized literary and theological connections between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy make it no great surprise that he would next turn his attention to the latter. Those who are familiar with his Jeremiah commentary will find that his assumptions and approach do not change when he looks to Deuteronomy, even down to the way he structures the presentation of his comments. The result is a commentary bursting with helpful information about textual, linguistic, and rhetorical features of the Hebrew text, yet one that holds itself at arm s length from many (though certainly not all) of the modern scholarly discussions of the ideological complexities of the work. Lundbom begins with a lengthy introduction (1 97). He opens with a concise synopsis of the textual witnesses, including a catalog of numerous ancient papyri that include lines from Deuteronomy (1 6). He then moves further back chronologically, as he presents his view of the original date and composition of the book (6 21). Here he is likely to raise eyebrows among most Deuteronomy scholars, first because he places the original work 1. Jeremiah 1 20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 21A); Jeremiah (AB 21B); Jeremiah (AB 21C) (New York: Doubleday, 1999, 2004, 2004).

2 (all of Deut 1 28) almost entirely in the reign of Hezekiah and (perhaps) the early days of Manasseh. His justification for such an early date is simple: the leaders of Judah receive the book in the days of Josiah as a work of the past, so it must have been composed before Josiah s time; further, A reform document such as Deuteronomy is more likely to have emanated from a reform in progress favoring the reign of Hezekiah over the reign of Manasseh (12). As for authorship, the book s perspective shows commonalities with priestly and prophetic and scribal circles; Lundbom does not attempt to differentiate between them here. He reinforces and clarifies his reconstruction by appealing to Hebrew rhetoric, arguing that Deut 28:69 serves as the subscription to the book s First Edition, forming an inclusio with 1:1 5 (21 25; cf ). The First Edition constitutes the book of the covenant, which he distinguishes from the book of the law that Shaphan reads to Josiah (2 Kgs 22); the latter entailed only the Song of Moses (Deut 32). 2 Chapters were added as a supplement to the First Edition soon after its completion, 3 and then someone else attached chapters as a second supplement after the discovery of the law book (Deut 32) in 622 BCE. Moreover, Lundbom gives little to no indication that those responsible for expanding the book with supplements made any emendations at all to the existing work. In looking for antecedents to the Deuteronomic laws (26 43), he finds legal antecedents primarily in the Covenant Code, but he follows Weinfeld and implies that D and P were essentially contemporaneous law collections, one with an anthropocentric orientation (D) and one with a theocentric orientation (P). He also finds antecedents in the writings of Amos and Hosea, while Deuteronomy shares a common perspective with Micah and Isaiah on the religious state of affairs in Judah; however, Deuteronomy clearly influences (and therefore precedes) Jeremiah. Lundbom gives greater weight than most researchers to the contributions of wisdom thinkers to the teachings in Deuteronomy (44 59). He attributes to wisdom circles laws as diverse as those calling for the humane treatment of the poor and those establishing criteria for the discernment of genuine prophecies. He uses his treatment of wisdom influences to transition into a delineation of fifteen significant theological themes in the book (59 73). Eight of the fifteen themes concern the nature of Yahweh (e.g., Yahweh s name, holiness, uniqueness, faithfulness) and two themes concern the people (their election and holiness). The rest involve the covenant relationship that Yahweh establishes with Israel, the divine promise of the land, the rules of holy war to attain and preserve the land as a 2. Lundbom first developed his theory for this differentiation more than thirty years ago, in Lawbook of the Josianic Reform, CBQ 38 (1976): Lundbom acknowledges without response that others question the identification of 28:69 as the latter end of an inclusio because the similarity of language and style could just as easily indicate that both passages serve as introductions to their respective blocks of material. See Norbert Lohfink, Dtn 28,69 Überschrift oder Kolophon? BN 64 (1992): Lundbom is not entirely consistent on this point. He provisionally dates the first supplement to the seventh century BCE (25), but then he assumes a late eighth to early seventh-century audience when discussing the message of each unit in chs (803, 814, 820, 826).

3 holy place, and the proper reception of Yahweh s agricultural and economic blessings. The final theological theme consists of a half dozen covenant obligations that the people must fulfill as part of a grateful response to Yahweh s covenant actions on their behalf. This is a provocative thesis, but what remains unexplained is how Lundbom can so narrowly attribute these themes to wisdom influence when he had earlier lumped together priestly, wisdom, and prophetic tradents into a common intellectual and rhetorical tradition, fully capable of producing the discourse and teaching of Deuteronomy (20). Lundbom next supplies a running narrative summary of the contents of the original book, speech by speech (chs. 1 4, 5 11, 12 26, 27 28) and then the two supplements (chs , 31 34) (73 92). He closes the introduction with brief summaries of the numerous references to Deuteronomy (113 in all, from his own count) by various New Testament writers (93 97). The fifty-five-page bibliography that precedes the detailed commentary is expansive and impressive, yet certain omissions reflect a widening gulf between American and European scholarship, particularly in the area of redaction criticism. Lundbom seems perfectly comfortable with the findings of redaction critics of previous generations, because he cites S. R. Driver, Martin Noth, and Gerhard von Rad frequently in his discussion of the development of the book; on the other hand, numerous works by leading European redaction critics of the most recent generation go unacknowledged (Eckart Otto, Jean- Pierre Sonnet, Thomas Römer, and Udo Rüterswörden, to name but a few). 4 This leaves the impression of imbalance in his presentation, which he could rectify by engaging in brief discussions with the more recent proposals. Similarly, he is good (in my opinion) to highlight the theological views of scholars such as Norbert Lohfink and Moshe Weinfeld, yet when there are significant opposing voices he either omits all reference to them or acknowledges them without response. Likewise, I find it curious that Lundbom often selects briefer treatments by an author over more developed and therefore helpful works by the same author. For example, he references a few articles by Bernard M. Levinson on matters relating to Deuteronomy, yet he omits Levinson s most significant work, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). He rightly criticizes Duane Christensen for identifying chiasms 4. Eckart Otto, Gottes Rechts als Menschenrecht: Rechts- und literaturhistorische Studien zum Deuteronomium (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2002); idem, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); idem, Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsformen in Juda und Assyrien (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999); Jean-Pierre Sonnet, The Book within the Book: The Writing of Deuteronomy (Leiden: Brill, 1997); Thomas Römer, Israel's Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1990); Udo Rüterswörden, Das Buch Deuteronomium (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 4; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2006).

4 on the basis of thematic rather than linguistic clues (919), yet he bases his objections on a single article from 1984, when Christensen subsequently provides many more examples of chiasmus in Deuteronomy (along with other potentially more compelling insights) in his two-volume commentary. 5 Finally regarding bibliography, I imagine that those with archaeological expertise will find Lundbom s comments in this area to be suspect, as he most frequently cites W. F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, and G. E. Wright, great scholars to be sure, but scholars whose work has been refined and/or fully revised during the fifty years since their careers ended. Lundbom presents the main section of his comments according to literary units, using the same format that he used to organize his Anchor Bible commentary on Jeremiah. Almost every unit represents a paragraph as demarcated by the petuhah or setumah sigla of the MT (Leningradensis), even when Lundbom s own literary analysis suggests a preference for a different demarcation. Following his translation of a unit, Lundbom provides his comments under three headings: Rhetoric and Composition, Notes, and Message and Audience. The brief Rhetoric and Composition portion summarizes the flow of the passage, noting rhetorical elements (particularly inclusio or chiasmus) that suggest a literary structure for the unit. He gives the locations of any paragraph sigla, including variations between the MT, Samaritan Pentateuch, and any Qumran fragments (which he fully lists). He reserves detailed comments for the Notes, where he deals primarily with idioms and questions of translation, how phraseology and ideology work together, the significance of geography and history, and connections between the immediate unit and the rest of the book. The Message and Audience portion provides a relatively brief summation of the main theological ideas of the unit, usually assuming that it was written for a late 8th- and early 7th-century (Judahite) audience. In a few instances Lundbom also mentions later talmudic or early Christian interpretations. The only significant deviation from this pattern comes in his treatment of Deut 32, where he adds to the usual components an excursus on the history of research of the Song of Moses, an extended rhetorical analysis, a metrical analysis, and an outline of the contents of the Song. He reiterates and furthers his previous proposal on the relationship between Deut 32 and the Josianic reform, acknowledging the counterarguments of subsequent writers without amending his own theory. The main commentary section is too broad in scope for a single review; so, for the sake of some brevity, I have selected three passages to critique as exemplars of Lundbom s overall approach: Deut 4:1 40; 8:1 20; and 24: Deuteronomy 1:1 21:9 (WBC 6A); Deuteronomy 21:10 34:12 (WBC 6B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001, 2002).

5 Lundbom divides Deut 4:1 40 into two units almost exclusively because of the presence of a petuhah after verse 24, and he presents his discussion accordingly (229 46, ). Despite this bifurcation, his initial treatment of Rhetoric and Composition involves the refining of a proposal by Weinfeld in which Lundbom lays out a chiastic structure that encompasses all forty verses, with verses 9 31 functioning as a two-part, unified core discourse. Lundbom does not seek to integrate these two opposing structural schema. Having argued to view all forty verses as a single chiastic unit, he then discusses them as two separate units in relative isolation from one another (vv. 1 24, 25 40), establishing the flow of thought, explaining the meanings of various phrases, and suggesting theological interpretations that would pertain to Judahites of the late eighth century for each unit but not for verses 1 40 as a unity. It would make more sense for him to identify the overarching chiastic structure if he then were to draw significant insights from that structure in his subsequent treatment of the message of the chapter, but he never makes that move. Instead of taking the petuhah as a secondary clue to a transition within the core of the chiasmus (from exhorting obedience to warning about the consequences of disobedience), his presentation suggests that it is an original literary feature whose function overrides any literary function inherent to the chiasmus. Lundbom effectively implies in this that the MT including its editorial sigla preserves the text precisely as it was first penned around 700 BCE and that any redactions appear only in the form of equally immutable supplements. While we might wonder about his mapping of the forest, Lundbom s discussion of the trees is quite beneficial. The long section of Notes provides numerous helpful insights into the meaning and importance of various phrases from chapter 4 within the rest of Deuteronomy and other biblical books, and readers will benefit from consulting his observations in virtually every instance. He also references important literary and cultural parallels beyond the Bible that could be of benefit to those seeking a broader understanding of the cultural context in which the Bible was written. For example, he shows how the prohibition against adding to or taking away from the commands has analogues in the Code of Hammurabi and international treaties of the ancient world (v. 2 at 236; cf. on v. 8 at 238). He affirms David Daube s thesis that exhortations to obey divine statutes reflect a shame-culture mentality (v. 6 at 237). He notes similarities between the command to teach the laws to one s offspring and provisions of the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon (v. 9 at 239). He cites Assyrian and Babylonian examples of the expectation that worshipers will fear their gods as parallel to Yahweh s desire that Israel fear me all the days that they are living on the soil (v. 10 at 240). When he considers the common phrase, by a strong hand and by an outstretched arm (v. 34 at 254), he points the reader not only to other texts in the Hebrew Bible but to Egyptian and Babylonian parallels as well. These and numerous other examples broaden our perspective on the theological

6 filter through which the peoples of the ancient Near East including the people of Judah at the end of the eighth century typically interpreted events in their lives. Still, one wishes Lundbom would more fully integrate such observations into his theological interpretations. Some recent rhetorical analyses of passages from Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua 2 Kings) expose the likelihood that these works were composed in part as responses to similar rhetoric from foreign aggressors. Instead, he restricts his interpretative comments to what is said in Deuteronomy and other biblical texts, giving the impression that the people of Judah were living in a sort of biblical bubble, where the canonical biblical works provide the only voices in the conversation about how a Judahite might be expected to construe the recent collapse of the north, the reform of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:4), and other events in Judah s history. The rhetorical and interpretative analyses of Deut 8:1 20 (344 56) are equally suggestive but not entirely satisfying. Lundbom examines the entire chapter as a unit because there are petuhot before 8:1 and 9:1. He notes a few suggestions regarding a chiastic structure for the entire chapter, finally modifying a proposal by Tigay with a chiasmus of his own ( ; ; ). There are two problems here, though. First, the linkages between the pieces of the chiasmus seem fabricated. The only verbal link between the opening (v. 1) and concluding (vv ) pieces is a contrast between live and perish, and the proposed mirroring of verses 6 10 to is based solely on the use of commandments in the opening clause of two successive paragraphs, even though the latter instance extends commandments with ordinances and statutes and the author uses the same term by itself in verse 2. Second, Lundbom follows his proposal of a chiasmus spanning the entire chapter by positing two shorter chiastic subunits, one involving verses 1 5 and the second There is no explanation here of how verse 6 (with the important term commandments ) works with these subunits, and he suggests nothing comparable for verses One is left with a sense of uncertainty about whether there is any intended chiastic structure holding the chapter together. Perhaps what we have here is merely the frequent repetition of certain popular expressions. Moreover, Lundbom does not go on show how the chiastic structure that he lays out at the beginning of his treatment of the chapter functions to emphasize some important aspect of the theological message of the chapter. One should complement the other, but he does not bother to specify how this might be the case in this chapter. The Notes for 8:1 20 are again helpful for the most part, with several more references to extrabiblical parallels that place the text in its broader literary context. The most obvious frustration (expressed at times by Lundbom himself) is seen in his habit of acknowledging or suggesting explanations that cry out for more elaborate justification. For example, he accepts a modern scientific explanation for the miraculous phenomenon of manna in the wilderness (v. 3 at 349). The explanation involves physical conditions that do not exist

7 most of the year, so he is left to wonder how the manna could have sustained the Israelites week in and week out for forty years. A note regarding Exod 16 does not alleviate this problem. It is unclear how this helps us to understand the message of the passage, and this is but one of many occasions where Lundbom raises unanticipated insights yet leaves the original question unresolved. As with all of chapters 1 30, Lundbom interprets the message of the chapter as a warning or exhortation to a Judahite audience around 700 BCE, identifying the specific experiences of exile and salvation, religious apostasy and faithfulness, and agricultural loss and prosperity that they would have experienced (according to the biblical record) as the historical context for the chapter. But citing the plausibility of interpreting this chapter in the light of these particular events does not establish the original audience. Subsequent generations would have known of these events and undergone similar experiences as well, so the same message could have been composed for a Judahite audience during any part of the centuries of Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian (or early Persian?) domination. That being said, I am sympathetic with Lundbom when he makes the case for a late eighth-century audience and date of composition. It is a reconstruction that in many respects is no less plausible than reconstructions of other modern scholars that posit a Josianic or exilic or postexilic date of composition. What it exposes is the need for more objective criteria in an enterprise rife with subjectivity. In particular, Lundbom would need to integrate together much more tightly (1) observations regarding the Deuteronomic language, (2) his own insights into the rhetorical structure of each unit, and (3) the message of each and every unit as they all in their current form would relate to Hezekiah s reign and not to other historical settings. As it currently stands, Lundbom provides no compelling reason to jettison the more common view that an early version of the law book could have originated around the time of Hezekiah or shortly thereafter but that it was thoroughly revised and expanded by various Deuteronomistic hands over the next few centuries. As a final example of Lundbom s approach, I have chosen Deut 24:6 13 because it stands within the central and probably oldest portion of the law book. Lundbom separates these verses out as a unit for discussion on the basis of common catchwords and themes. Verses 6 13 constitute one of five units within a section of humane laws that extend from 24:1 to 25:4. What holds the five laws in this unit together (24:6, 7, 8 9, 10 11, 12 13) is the common topic of pledges in the first, second, fourth, and fifth laws. This delineation of the constitutive pieces diverges slightly from the Masoretic notations, in which setumah sigla hold verses 7 8 together and place verse 9 in isolation. The appeal to pledges as a unifying theme is reasonable but also a bit arbitrary, because the Hebrew term for pledge in verses (cf. 15:6, 8) is different from the term used in verses 6 and 7 (cf. 3:4, 13 14). One might just as easily argue that verses 1 13 hold together because of the

8 presence of his house in verses 1 3 and 10 or that verses 6 15 hold together because of the presence of soul in verses 6 7 and 15. But this is a small matter, and one that plagues anyone who tries to explain the organization of these disparate laws. More significant is the presence of the middle piece in verses 8 9 (a warning about scale disease), which has nothing to do with pledges and, by Lundbom s own admission, could have been added later (679). There is no clarification of what he means by this. Did someone add the warning some years after the reign of Hezekiah or Manasseh? Or is this a pre-deuteronomic composition to which an Hezekianic compiler added the warning about scale disease? I assume that Lundbom prefers the latter and that he would cite the contemporaneity of D with P to support this view (the assumed commands to the priests were codified later in Lev [685]). In either case, the reason for inserting the addition here continues to allude us. Once again the exegetical notes for this unit are very helpful for understanding technical details. Lundbom cites parallel biblical and cuneiform laws that clarify the laws concerning payment of debts and pledges and the problem of human trafficking (vv. 6 7, 10 13). Archaeological finds illuminate the brief reference to millstones (v. 6 at ). Ancient references to skin diseases help to diagnose the nature of the scale disease in verses 8 9 (684 85). The summation of the theological message of the unit is a helpful reiteration of what has already been stated in the notes, but Lundbom goes beyond the evidence when he identifies the audience. He cites the assumed context of simple village life, the absence of any mention of king or officials or city elders, and the reference to Miriam (Num 12) to imply that these laws come down basically unchanged from the premonarchic period. The same evidence could be brought forward just as cogently to posit a date of composition in the years between Zerubbabel and Nehemiah. This review is already too long and probably treats this work a bit unfairly because of the very nature of a commentary. It is unfair to expect one writer to address all the issues a reader would like addressed in a single work. Perhaps all we should look for in a commentary is suggestions and speculations about how to read the text in a more informed way, and perhaps we are wrong to expect more definitive answers. Such a work would require a lifetime of analysis (and probably more, in the case of a book as large and influential as Deuteronomy). The sixty pages that Lundbom supplies in his analysis of the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1 43) more closely approximates what the present critiques implicitly demand, and that would result in a multivolume work that would far eclipse his Jeremiah commentaries. This illustrates, in my mind, the agony and the ecstasy of biblical interpretation. I for one am grateful to Professor Lundbom for even attempting what he does in this massive work, and my hope is that it will prompt us all to reassess our assumptions and then dive down again into the depths of the teachings of this highly complex and influential biblical work.