DOCSLIB.ORG

The Structure of Deuteronomy and the Function of Ch 27: a Discourse Analytic Inquiry Into the Redactional and Authorial Work of Deuteronomy's Narrator

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Structure of Deuteronomy and the Function of Ch 27: a Discourse Analytic Inquiry Into the Redactional and Authorial Work of Deuteronomy's Narrator THE STRUCTURE OF DEUTERONOMY AND THE FUNCTION OF CH 27: A DISCOURSE ANALYTIC INQUIRY INTO THE REDACTIONAL AND AUTHORIAL WORK OF DEUTERONOMY'S NARRATOR PETER D. MYERS A thesis submitted to The University of Gloucestershire in accordance with the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts by Research in the Faculty of Media, Arts and Technology MAY 2014 ABSTRACT This study explores the extent to which it is possible to describe the structure of Deutero- nomy in a manner that accounts for the features of the book's narrative frame, the interpola- tions in the Mosaic speeches, and especially the function of ch 27. Previous approaches to the structure of Deuteronomy from the perspectives of covenant, composition, and the identifica- tion of parallels are evaluated by the author to be limited, both methodologically and in their ability to account for the position and function of ch 27. A methodology is described for the discourse analysis of Deuteronomy's narrative framework from the theoretical orientation of functional linguistics, which integrates Miller's research into the discourse function of quotat- ive frames in Biblical Hebrew. Applying this methodology to Deuteronomy's narrative frame, the author formulates hypotheses about the narrator's work as an author and redactor of source material. Sustained attention is then paid to ch 27, which the author suggests functions as an interpolated gloss on the mutual oath between YHWH and Israel described in 26:16-19. The chapter is then exegeted in this light. The scope of the study's detailed analysis is limited to Deuteronomy's narrative frame and ch 27. The author develops conclusions touching on diachronic issues of composition and redaction on the basis of synchronic analysis of the final form of the Masoretic Text. The hypotheses contribute fresh suggestions to the discussion of Deuteronomy's narrative struc- ture and to the discussion of the latter stages of the book's redaction. The analysis models an approach to redaction criticism informed by recent developments in linguistic typology and empirical research into a communicative strategy employed in Biblical Hebrew of particular relevance to this text. iii iv v I declare that the work in this thesis was carried out in accordance with the regulations of the University of Gloucestershire and is original except where indicated by specific refer- ence in the text. No part of the thesis has been submitted as part of any other academic award. The thesis has not been presented to any other education institution in the United Kingdom or overseas. Any views expressed in the thesis are those of the author and in no way represent those of the University. Signed …………………………………………….. Date ………………………………. vi vii For Kate, Josiah, and Seth יברכך יהוה וישמרך יאר יהוה פניו אליך ויחנך ישא יהוה פניו אליך וישם לך שלום CONTENTS ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................iii CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................viii INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 1. THE STRUCTURE OF DEUTERONOMY AND CH 27 IN PREVIOUS RESEARCH....7 1.1 Covenant 7 1.1.1 Deuteronomy as treaty 7 1.1.2 Deuteronomy as law-code 15 1.1.3 Synthesis 19 1.2 Composition 20 1.2.1 The Documentary Hypothesis 21 1.2.2 Inevitable complexity 23 1.2.3 Composition and structure 25 1.2.4 Synthesis 26 1.3 Parallels and repetition 28 1.3.1 The supposed four 'headings' 30 1.3.2 The problem with parallels and repetition 34 1.3.3 Synthesis 37 1.4 Readings of ch 27 37 1.5 Conclusion 41 2. METHOD ...........................................................................................................................43 2.1 Notational convention and preliminary assumptions employed in clausal analysis 43 2.2 Functional grammar: linguistic foundations 47 2.2.1 Information 49 viii ix 2.2.2 Activation state 50 2.2.3 Default/unmarked and marked 50 2.2.4 Topic and focus 51 2.2.5 Information structure and pragmatic highlighting 52 2.3 Functional grammar: applied to Hebrew quotative frames 55 2.4 Conclusion 57 3. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF DEUTERONOMY'S NARRATIVE FRAME...................59 3.1 The introduction (1:1-5) 60 3.2 The first speech (1:6-4:40) and its quotative frame (1:5) 62 3.3 The narrative bridge between the first and second speeches (4:41-5:1ii) 64 3.4 The second speech (5:1iii-28:68) and its quotative frame (5:1i-ii) 67 3.5 The narrative bridge between the second and third speeches (28:69-29:1[29:1-2]) 69 3.6 The third, fourth, and fifth speeches (29:1iii[2iii]-30:20; 31:2ii-6, 7iii-8) and their quotative frames (29:1i-ii[2i-ii]; 31:1i-2i, 7i-ii) 70 3.7 Moses writes (31:9-23) 71 3.8 After Moses had finished writing (31:24-34:12) 74 3.9 Conclusion 76 4. EXEGESIS OF CH 27........................................................................................................81 4.1 The context and function of ch 27 81 4.1.1 Quotative frames 82 4.1.2 Comparable interpolations 83 4.1.3 Synthesis 84 4.2 Exegesis 84 4.2.1 Exegesis of 27:1-8 85 4.2.2 Exegesis of 27:9-10 86 4.2.3 Exegesis of 27:11-26 87 4.2.4 Synthesis 91 4.3 27:26 and the theology of Deuteronomy 92 x 4.4 Conclusion 95 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................97 BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................105 INTRODUCTION If ever there were a passage which appears to have been roughly manhandled by a redactor, Deut 27 would be it. The chapter intrudes into an otherwise straightforwardly organised speech, re-introducing the speaker in the third person. Parts of the passage, such as the sexual prohibitions of vv. 20-23, seem more at home in P and incongruous with the rest of Deutero- nomy. And its list of curses appear redundant in light of the much more comprehensive cov- enant sanctions in ch 28. The contextual problems of ch 27 are a particularly acute example of some of the wider difficulties with Deuteronomy's structure as a whole. In the history of Deuteronomic studies, these have been bound up with discussion of the book's composition. The traditional ascription of Deuteronomy's authorship to Moses was questioned by Ibn Ezra even in pre- critical times on the basis of the narrator's point of view, the references to a seemingly later 'present time' for the narrator interpolated into Moses' speeches, and the fact that the book de- scribes Moses' death.1 Spinoza argued that Ibn Ezra's observations could be pressed much fur- ther,2 but the discussion of Deuteronomy's composition did not take a decisive turn until De Wette's identification of this with the Josianic reform. De Wette significantly influenced Wellhausen's classic articulation of the Document- ary Hypothesis, within which Deuteronomy's structure was viewed as reflecting three major 1 Abraham ben Meïr Ibn Ezra, The Commentary of Abraham Ibn Ezra on the Pentateuch: Deuteronomy (trans. Jay F. Schachter; Hoboken: KTAV Publishing House, 2003), 1-2. 2 Benedict de Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Tractatus Politicus (trans. R. H. M. Elwes; London: Routledge, 1862), 121-25. 1 2 stages of the book's composition: (a) the creation of Urdeuteronomy in the North; (b) its ex- pansion in the latter years of the Southern monarchy; and (c) its final redaction in the postex- ilic period.3 Since Wellhausen, discussions of Deuteronomy's structure have been dominated by this paradigm, either as attempts to revise or to supplant it. As a result, the investigation of the book's structure has progressed in step with the developing discussion over its composi- tional history and provenance. Aim Similar to previous investigations, the present study is concerned with both Deuteronomy's synchronic structure and diachronic composition, but takes as its starting point an analysis of the book's narrative frame (i.e. the story within which Moses' long speeches are embedded). This distinguishes the present investigation from various other descriptions of Deuteronomy's structure that cut across the narratival series of speeches that constitute the book's narrative shape. Problematic features of Deuteronomy's narrative frame include instances of seemingly redundant repetition (e.g. 1:3-4 & 4:46-49) and asynchronous presentation of events on the storyline (e.g. 31:9-32:47). Such features are often explained on diachronic grounds, and/or considered to be structuring devices. However, the same structural devices often lead differ- ent interpreters to draw conflicting conclusions with no objective basis to choose between them. In light of the above, the aim of this investigation is to explore the extent to which it is possible to describe the structure of Deuteronomy in a manner that accounts for the features of the book's narrative frame, the interpolations in the Mosaic speeches, and especially the function of ch 27. A synchronic analysis of Deuteronomy's narrative frame is performed by employing discourse reading techniques, with a view to drawing conclusions both synchron- 3 See chapter one for a more detailed outline of Wellhausen's view. 3 ically about the structure of Deuteronomy and diachronically about the redactional work un- dertaken by an editorial hand very near the end of the book's process of composition. This editorial hand is treated as a redactor and author who had complete freedom to shape the details of the narrative frame as he saw fit. (My reasons for using the masculine pronoun to denote this particular redactor shall become apparent in the course of the investig- ation.) If a late redactor of Deuteronomy did not have the freedom to shape Deuteronomy's narrative, then there is no reason why this narrative frame should cohere as a discourse. It would be remarkable if the details of Deuteronomy's narrative frame cohered as a complex discourse if it had reached its final form through a process of unreflected accretion.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Israelian Hebrew Features in Deuteronomy 33 Gary A
    Israelian Hebrew Features in Deuteronomy 33 Gary A. Rendsburg Rutgers University Reprint from: N. S. Fox, D. A. Glatt-Gilad, and M. J. Williams, eds., Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), pp. 167-183. The author apologizes for the repeated error that appears in the printed version of this article: in notes 32, 33, 51, 65, 69, and 82, the spelling Ma>agarim should be corrected to Ma<agarim. 00-TigayFs.book Page 167 Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:45 AM Offprint from: Fox et al., ed., Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in of Jeffrey H. Tigay ç Copyright 2009 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Israelian Hebrew Features in Deuteronomy 33 Gary A. Rendsburg Rutgers University In an article published 15 years ago, I called attention to a series of Israelian Hebrew (IH) features that appear in the blessings to the northern tribes in Genesis 49 (e.g., µrg ‘bone’ in the blessing to Issachar, rpv ‘beauty’ in the bless- ing to Naphtali, etc.).1 This essay, devoted to the similar blessings to the tribes in Deuteronomy 33, is a natural complement to that article. As we shall see, also in this poem one encounters grammatical forms and lexical items that reflect the regional dialects of the tribes. It gives me great pleasure to dedicate this essay to my friend and colleague Jeffrey H. Tigay, whose many publications have illumined the world of the Bible and the ancient Near East and whose commentary on Deuteronomy is a singu- lar achievement, destined to remain the standard work for years to come.2 I am especially delighted to develop further the succinct statement penned by our jubilarian in that volume: “It is also possible that the poem uses words or forms from regional variations of Hebrew spoken by the individual tribes.”3 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Disambiguating Moses' Book Of
    2 DISAMBIGUATING MOSES’ BOOK OF LAW Efforts to delineate the contents of Moses’ book of the law face the chal- lenge of a variety of ambiguous terms and references. The phrase “this law” -occurs nineteen times in Deuteronomy, five times in con ( ַה ָ תּוֹרה ַהזּ ֹאת) and once in connection with 85( ֵסֶפר) ”nection with the word “book ,The terms “law” and “book” are themselves ambiguous 86.( ֲאָבִנים) ”stones“ can mean “instruction” or “teaching” in addition to the law and ָ תּוֹרה since can denote any written surface, from an ancient scroll to engraved ֵסֶפר stone (Barton 1998:2, 13). In 31:9, the narrator reports that Moses wrote “this law” and handed the document over to the Levites and elders with instructions for periodic reading. A little later, the narrator reports that Moses wrote “the words of this law” in “a book” which he consequently handed over to the Levites for deposition beside the ark of the covenant (31:24). Added to the polyvalent terminology and multiple reports of writ- ing are the ancillary terms “testimonies,” “commandments,” “statutes,” and “ordinances” (e.g., 4:44-5). Scholars have resorted to various means to delineate a document bur- dened so with diverse signification. In the process, some scholars have fallen into debate over the swept volume of a plastered stele so that they might better determine whether the entire Deuteronomic (sic) text (chs. 1- 34) could have been etched on its surface (cf. 27:3). While Eugene H. Merrill argues that a plastered stele could not have contained the entire Deuteronomic text, (1994:342), Jeffrey H.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel's Conquest of Canaan: Presidential Address at the Annual Meeting, Dec
    Israel's Conquest of Canaan: Presidential Address at the Annual Meeting, Dec. 27, 1912 Author(s): Lewis Bayles Paton Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Apr., 1913), pp. 1-53 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3259319 . Accessed: 09/04/2012 16:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature. http://www.jstor.org JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE Volume XXXII Part I 1913 Israel's Conquest of Canaan Presidential Address at the Annual Meeting, Dec. 27, 1912 LEWIS BAYLES PATON HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY problem of Old Testament history is more fundamental NO than that of the manner in which the conquest of Canaan was effected by the Hebrew tribes. If they came unitedly, there is a possibility that they were united in the desert and in Egypt. If their invasions were separated by wide intervals of time, there is no probability that they were united in their earlier history. Our estimate of the Patriarchal and the Mosaic traditions is thus conditioned upon the answer that we give to this question.
    [Show full text]
  • Deuteronomy 202 1 Edition Dr
    Notes on Deuteronomy 202 1 Edition Dr. Thomas L. Constable TITLE The title of this book in the Hebrew Bible was its first two words, 'elleh haddebarim, which translate into English as "these are the words" (1:1). Ancient Near Eastern suzerainty treaties began the same way.1 So the Jewish title gives a strong clue to the literary character of Deuteronomy. The English title comes from a Latinized form of the Septuagint (Greek) translation title. "Deuteronomy" means "second law" in Greek. We might suppose that this title arose from the idea that Deuteronomy records the law as Moses repeated it to the new generation of Israelites who were preparing to enter the land, but this is not the case. It came from a mistranslation of a phrase in 17:18. In that passage, God commanded Israel's kings to prepare "a copy of this law" for themselves. The Septuagint translators mistakenly rendered this phrase "this second [repeated] law." The Vulgate (Latin) translation, influenced by the Septuagint, translated the phrase "second law" as deuteronomium, from which "Deuteronomy" is a transliteration. The Book of Deuteronomy is, to some extent, however, a repetition to the new generation of the Law that God gave at Mt. Sinai. For example, about 50 percent of the "Book of the Covenant" (Exod. 20:23— 23:33) is paralleled in Deuteronomy.2 Thus God overruled the translators' error, and gave us a title for the book in English that is appropriate, in view of the contents of the book.3 1Meredith G. Kline, "Deuteronomy," in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Last Words of Moses - Deut
    #54. Last Words of Moses - Deut. 33 Following his song the next act of Moses is to bless the people before he himself departs them and this world. Many commentators note that this song was most likely recorded by Joshua who similarly recorded the death of Moses. The song of blessing has some similar characteristics to the blessing of Jacob in Genesis 49. One major feature of the blessing from Moses is the absence of the tribe of Simeon. Much of the blessing is in the 3rd person leading to the conclusion as Joshua as author, redactor or recorder of the blessing. The blessing begins with God having appeared on three mountains, Sinai, Seir and Paran. Jewish tradition said that God first offered the Torah to the firstborns, Esau on Sier and Ishmael at Paran. They rejected the Torah which was then accepted by Israel. God appears with a large but undisclosed number of angels. Tradition says that there was one angel for every man of Israel, which has given rise to the belief in personal ‘guardian angels’. Another tradition, reflected in Paul in Galatians3:19 and Hebrews 2:2, that those angels also carried and delivered the Torah to Moses. God brings the Torah and is also proclaimed King over Jeshurun, which is Israel. We see the connection of kingship with the Torah, as one of the few commands given to a king is to write a personal copy of the Torah upon ascension to the throne. What follows next are the blessings to the tribes, bar Simeon. Reuben and Judah receive brief blessings whereas Levi seems to deserve an extended one.
    [Show full text]
  • The Deuteronomic View of History in Second Temple Judaism
    Page 1 of 7 Original Research The Deuteronomic view of history in Second Temple Judaism Authors: The Babylonian Exile was a historical catalyst compelling Jewish authors of the Second 1 Ananda Geyser-Fouche Temple period to deal with their respective situations in the course of history according to – Young Namgung1 or against – various predicaments from which they suffered in an unprecedented manner. Affiliations: Second Temple Jews were faced with the most fundamental uneasiness: it seemed that God 1 Department of Old abandoned his people owing to their breaking of the covenant. Therefore, it was important Testament Studies, Faculty of Theology and Religion, to reconceptualise their worldview into which creation, history, and covenant could be University of Pretoria, incorporated and which could vouchsafe the ongoing relationship with God to their Pretoria, South Africa respective situations. Corresponding author: Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: In this article, the worldview of Ananda Geyser-Fouche, Second Temple Judaism is reflected on by observing how different communities in Second [email protected] Temple Judaism engaged the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 31–32. This article focusses on Dates: the interpretations of this passage in Second Temple Judaism, with specific reference to selected Received: 17 Sept. 2017 texts from Qumran, Tobit, the Testament of Moses, Philo, Josephus and Sifre Deuteronomy. Accepted: 11 Dec. 2018 Implicated disciplines are Old Testament studies, Apocryphal studies, Dead Sea Scroll studies Published: 30 May 2019 and New Testament studies. How to cite this article: Geyser-Fouche, A. & Keywords: Second Temple Judaism; exile; worldview; the Deuteronomic view of history; Namgung, Y., 2019, ‘The Qumran; Tobit; Song of Moses; Testament of Moses; Philo; Josephus; Sifre Deuteronomy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy 33— Logotechnical Analysis Guidelines  Please Read the General Introduction and the Introduction to the Embedded Hymns
    2. The Blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy 33— Logotechnical Analysis Guidelines Please read the General Introduction and the Introduction to the Embedded Hymns. For common features found in the numerical analysis charts, see the "Key to the charts". The Blessing of Moses in its Literary Context As I have shown elsewhere, the Blessing of Moses was secondarily incorporated into the book at a stage when the concluding chapters were already finalized and rounded-off. It appeared that Deuteronomy 31-34, without the Blessing, is a skillfully designed, meticulously constructed numerical composition, in which the divine name numbers 17 and 26 have consistently been woven into the fabric of the text. This is particularly evident in the number of words in the different sections and more particularly in the speeches by Moses and YHWH, as revealed by the logotechnical analysis. The composition of the Blessing was in all likelihood inspired by the Blessing of Jacob in Genesis 49. In fact, Jacob is explicitly mentioned in 33:4, 10, and 28, which hooks on to 32:9. Its purpose was obviously to boost the function of the Song of Moses as his Farewell Address on the eve of the occupation of the land, which it anticipates in a special way. Two crucial themes link the Blessing not only to the Song of Moses, but also to the other poetic stepping-stones in the Story of Ancient Israel (Genesis-Kings): YHWH’s incomparability and his triumphant manifestation in saving his people and establishing them in their land. For YHWH’s incomparability, compare 33:26 with Deut.
    [Show full text]
  • The Blessing of Moses (Deut 33:2–29)
    CHAPTER TEN THE BLESSING OF MOSES (Deut 33:2–29) The Blessing of Moses is one of the most difficult texts not only in the present corpus, but in Hebrew Bible in general:1 its textual conditions are much debated;2 there are many unclear and unique words.3 It is conven- tionally accepted that this literary composition is not homogeneous, and consists of the hymnal framework in vv. 2–5 and 26–29 (with some possible insertions in the middle of the composition) and the collection of tribal sayings (6–25).4 Without challenging this historical-literary approach to the problem of its composition, the discursive analysis of the text reveals a structure that is more complicated than the two-fold distinction between a hymnal framework and a collection of tribal sayings; moreover, there is a certain correlation between the framework and the collection of sayings in regard to the discourse structure, as will be shown below.5 10.1. Introduction: Discourse Structure 10.1.1. The Communication Participants An interesting discourse feature in the Blessing of Moses is the total lack of 1cs reference to the speaker, even within the elements of the conver- sational framework, which are, however, marked with the 2nd-person 1 Cf. Beyerle 1998: 215: “the Blessing of Moses (Deut 33) is among the most difficult and puzzling texts in the OT”. See also his review in Beyerle 1997: 1–7. 2 See Fuller 1993; Duncan 1995; Beyerle 1998; McCarthy 2002; 2007: 155–67. 3 Cf. Tigay 1996: 547 nn. 1 and 2 (in Excursus 33) or Rendsburg 2009a.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruah Ha-Kodesh in Rabbinic Literature
    The Dissertation Committee for Julie Hilton Danan Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: THE DIVINE VOICE IN SCRIPTURE: RUAH HA-KODESH IN RABBINIC LITERATURE Committee: Harold A. Liebowitz , Supervisor Aaron Bar -Adon Esther L. Raizen Abraham Zilkha Krist en H. Lindbeck The Divine Voice in Scripture: Ruah ha-Kodesh in Rabbinic Literature by Julie Hilton Danan, B.A., M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin May, 2009 Dedication To my husband, Avraham Raphael Danan Acknowledgements Thank you to the University of Texas at Austin Graduate School, the Middle Eastern Studies Department, and particularly to the Hebrew Studies faculty for their abundant support over my years of study in graduate school. I am especially grateful to the readers of my dissertation for many invaluable suggestions and many helpful critiques. My advisor, Professor Harold Liebowitz, has been my guide, my mentor, and my academic role model throughout the graduate school journey. He exemplifies the spirit of patience, thoughtful listening, and a true love of learning. Many thanks go to my readers, professors Esther Raizen, Avraham Zilkha, Aaron Bar-Adon, and Kristen Lindbeck (of Florida Atlantic University), each of whom has been my esteemed teacher and shared his or her special area of expertise with me. Thank you to Graduate Advisor Samer Ali and the staff of Middle Eastern Studies, especially Kimberly Dahl and Beverly Benham, for their encouragement and assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Siddur for Shabbat
    úáùì øåãéñ Siddur for Shabbat úáùì øåãéñ Siddur for Shabbat David Singer, Editor Berkeley Hillel 5763 2003 i ii Contents Preface iv On Usage v Shabbat Evening Service 1 Shabbat Morning Service 43 Havdalah 95 Supplementary Prayers 97 Songs 103 iii Preface This siddur was first created by the Reform minyan at UC Berkeley, California in the spring of 2003. In deciding to compile this siddur, students embarked on an ambitious process: how could they best combine over twenty distinct creative service packets into one inclusive and comprehensive siddur which would suit the needs of the Berkeley Reform Jewish community’s prayer in all circumstances for years to come? Further, the prayer service, while in need of energy and creativity, was also worthy of respect and in due need of a certain amount of structure which service packets could not provide. It is our hope that this siddur meets that need, and accordingly that it can and will be used for Erev and Shacharit Shabbat and Havdalah services as well as song sessions. Further, it is our hope that this siddur will help to meet the same need in other youth and young adult minyanim for years to come. We thank the many people who have helped to make this siddur a reality, especially to those who spent countless hours compiling and editing. To David Singer, Melissa Loeffler, Jill Cozen-Harel, Becky Gimbel, David Abraham and Athalia Markowitz special thanks are due. The original printing of this siddur would not be possible if not for the generous financial support provided by Temple Beth El of Berkeley, CA.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SECOND LAW the Book of Deuteronomy
    THE SECOND LAW The Book of Deuteronomy by Daniel J. Lewis © copyright 2012 by Diakonos, Inc. Troy, Michigan United States of America 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 5 The Concept of Covenant ............................................................................ 6 Special Features ........................................................................................... 9 Deuteronomy and Its Relationship to Other Books ................................... 11 Deuteronomy and the Josianic Reform ...................................................... 12 Date and Author ......................................................................................... 14 Moses and the Historical Prologue (1-4) ...................................................... 18 The Introduction (1:1-5) ............................................................................ 18 Breaking Camp at Horeb (1:6-18) ............................................................. 18 The Rebellion at Kadesh (1:19-46) ............................................................ 20 The Sojourn in the Desert (2:1-15) ............................................................ 20 The Defeat of Sihon (2:26-37) ................................................................... 21 The Defeat of Og (3:1-11) ......................................................................... 22 Division of the Transjordan (3:12-20) ....................................................... 23
    [Show full text]
  • Song of Moses
    SONG OF MOSES MOSES’ LAST COUNSEL Deuteronomy 31:1-8 It is probable that this rehearsal of the law extended over several successive days, and it might be the last and most important day on which the return of Moses to the place of assembly is specially noticed. In drawing his discourse towards a conclusion, he adverted to his advanced age; and although neither his physical nor intellectual powers had suffered any decay (Deuteronomy 34:7), he knew by a special revelation that the time to die was near and that Joshua needed to be ordained as his replacement. Numbers 27:15-23 Moses is a type for Christ in that he was the prophet of the old covenant (Acts 3:22 and 23). Joshua is the type for leading Israel into the Promised Land. Joshua is the same name as Jesus. Deuteronomy 31:10 Feast of Booths will be celebrated when Jesus returns according to Zechariah 14:19. ISRAEL WILL FALL AWAY Deuteronomy 31:14-22 Moses was distinctly apprised of the infidelity of Israel, their corruptions of the true religion through intercourse with the idolatrous inhabitants of Canaan, and their chastisements in consequence of those national defections. Psalms 106:35-39 JOSHUA IS COMMISSIONED Deuteronomy 31:23-30 Joshua knew from the beginning that Israel would turn away from God. They did not completely turn away until after the death of Joshua. SONG OF MOSES Songs of Moses are recorded when Israel left Egypt (Exodus 15), before they entered the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 32), and in Revelation 15.
    [Show full text]