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.