“Israelite Worship as Envisioned and Prescribed in Deuteronomy 12,” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22 (2016): 161-175.

May 20, 2017 | Author: Bill T. Arnold | Category: Old Testament Theology, Deuteronomistic History, Deuteronomy, Israelite Religion, Book of Deuteronomy, ancient Israelite religion, Old Testament Exegesis, Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, ancient Israelite religion, Old Testament Exegesis, Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
Share
Report this link


Description

Sonderdruck aus / Electronic Offprint from

Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte Journal for Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Law Herausgegeben von Reinhard Achenbach, Hans Neumann und Eckart Otto 22 · 2016

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

ZAR erscheint einmal jährlich als refereed journal. Anschriften der Herausgeber: Prof. Dr. Reinhard Achenbach, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Alttestamentliche Theologie, Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät, Universitätsstraße 13–17, 48143 Münster, E-Mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Hans Neumann, Institut für Altorientalische Philologie und Vorderasiatische Altertumskunde, Universität Münster, Rosenstraße 9, 48143 Münster, E-Mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Eckart Otto (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München) Höhen 25, 21635 Jork, E-Mail: [email protected] Beratendes Herausgebergremium: Bob Becking, Joseph Fleishman, Samuel Greengus, Bernard S. Jackson, Michael Jursa, Sophie Lafont, Bernard M. Levinson, Heike Omerzu, Doris Prechel, Karen Radner und David P. Wright Redaktion: Christin Möllenbeck ([email protected]) Reettakaisa Sofia Salo ([email protected])

© Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2017 Die Zeitschrift und alle in ihr enthaltenen Beiträge und Abbildungen sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Verviel­ fältigungen jeder Art, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und für die Einspeicherung in elektronische Systeme. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier Druck und Verarbeitung: Memminger MedienCentrum AG Printed in Germany www.harrassowitz-verlag.de ISSN 0948-0587

Inhaltsverzeichnis

HOSSEIN BADAMCHI Fraud and Forgery in Old Babylonian Law ...................................................................

1

STEFAN M. MAUL Ein assyrisches Familienarchiv aus dem 14. Jh. v. Chr. und die über 100jährige Geschichte seiner Erforschung ............................................................

29

MASAMICHI YAMADA RE 6 as a Unique Contract of Caring in Emar ..............................................................

47

NADAV NA’AMAN The Royal Dynasties of Judah and Israel .....................................................................

59

WALTER J. HOUSTON Doing Justice: The Ideology, Theology and Distribution in the Hebrew Bible of hqdxw fpvm ...............................................................................

75

REINHARD ACHENBACH Lex Sacra and Sabbath in the Pentateuch ....................................................................

101

JONATHAN P. BURNSIDE Why Was Moses Banned From the Promised Land? A Radical Retelling of the Rebellions of Moses (Num 20:2–13 and Exod 2:11–15) ...................................

111

BILL T. ARNOLD Israelite Worship as Envisioned and Prescribed in Deuteronomy 12 ...........................

161

MICHAEL AVIOZ The Law of the Rebellious Son (Deut 21:18–21) according to Josephus ....................

177

RAIK HECKL Ein vollendeter Text für den Surrogat-Tempel. Struktur, Chronologie und Funktion des Pentateuchs im Anschluss an Benno Jacob .....................................

185

IV

Inhaltsverzeichnis

DAVID ROTHSTEIN Law, Narrative, and Chronology: Maturity and Adulthood in Jubilees ....................................................................................................................

223

BRUCE WELLS Punishments in the Torah and Their Rationale ...........................................................

245

REZENSIONSAUFSÄTZE BENJAMIN KILCHÖR Priester und Leviten im Alten Testament. Eine kritische Diskussion zweier neuer Monografien ........................................................................

269

SIMONE PAGANINI Wieviel Synchronie verträgt das Exodusbuch? Oder: Braucht es eine neue Kultur des Kommentierens von biblischen Texten? ................................... ........

283

DOROTHEA ERBELE-KÜSTER Eine Orientierung im Feld der ethischen Diskurse in und mit dem Alten Testament. Eine Response auf Christian Frevel (Hg.), Mehr als Zehn Worte? ZurBedeutung des Alten Testaments in ethischen Fragen, (QD 273), Freiburg – Basel – Wien (Herder) 2015 ............ ........

287

REZENSIONEN ANNIK WÜTHRICH Filip Coppens / Jiří Janák / Hana Vymazalová (Hg.), Royal versus Divine Authority Acquisition, Legitimization and Renewal of Power: 7th Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology, Prague, June 26–28, 2013 (Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen 4,4), 2015....................

295

DOMINIK MARKL Benjamin Kilchör: Mosetora und Jahwetora. Das Verhältnis von Deuteronomium 12–26 zu Exodus, Levitikus und Numeri (BZAR 21), 2015 .............

300

CHRISTIAN FREVEL Friedhelm Hartenstein / Konrad Schmid (Hg.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (VWGTh 40), 2015 .......................

305

Stellenregister ...............................................................................................................

313

Autoren .........................................................................................................................

319

Israelite Worship as Envisioned and Prescribed in Deuteronomy 12* Bill T. Arnold (Wilmore KY.)

The Book of Deuteronomy, and in particular chapter 12, is widely interpreted as instituting dramatic and profound changes in Israelite worship as part of an extensive and national reforming agenda, affecting all aspects of Israelite society. Perhaps the international spokesman for such an interpretation was Moshe Weinfeld, who argued in numerous publications that Deuteronomy instituted a “theological revolution,” centralizing the cult and setting in motion a shift in worship from an emphasis on sacrifice to a more abstract worship centered on prayer and book.1 In addition to cult centralization, Weinfeld explored the degree to which Deuteronomy’s agenda also reflected “the collapse of an entire system of concepts which for centuries had been regarded as sancrosanct.” Deuteronomy, therefore, in its role in the Josianic reform, represented “a turning point in the evolution of the religious faith of Israel,” understood in Weinfeld’s terminology as ideological “demythologization” and “secularization.”2 Despite the significance of Weinfeld’s contributions to our understanding of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, his nexus of centralization, demythologization, and secularization has come under intense criticism.3 I have argued elsewhere that Deut 12 is

                                                                                                                *

1 2 3

I presented this paper at the University of Tartu on June 1, 2015, at the invitation of Professor Urmas Nõmmik and the Faculty of Theology, in conjunction with the Estonian Society for the Study of Religions. I am especially grateful to Professor Ain Riistan and Dr. Anu Põldsam for their gracious hospitality and for the tour of their beautiful city and university. I also benefitted from comments and suggestions at Asbury Theological Seminary’s Biblical Seminar on April 22, 2015. Special thanks go to Lawson G. Stone, Stephen P. Stratton, and Brent A. Strawn, for several helpful critiques and suggestions. Articulated most thoroughly in his monumental Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), repeated frequently in many venues, including the popular version in Moshe Weinfeld, “Deuteronomy's Theological Revolution,” BRev 12 (1996): 38–41. For the quotations in this paragraph, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 190, and for his arguments for “demythologization” and “secularization” see all of Part Two, 190–243. Beginning almost immediately in Jacob Milgrom, “The Alleged 'Demythologization and Secularization' in Deuteronomy,” IEJ 23 (1973): 156–61, to which Weinfeld responded in the same journal, Moshe Weinfeld, “On 'Demythologization and Secularization' in Deuteronomy,” IEJ 23 (1973): 230–233. See also Norbert Lohfink, "Opfer und Säkularisierung im Deuteronomium," in Studien zu Opfer und Kult im Alten Testament (ed. Adrian Schenker; FAT 3; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992), 15–43, esp. 17–19. The issues have not been entirely resolved in more recent research, even resulting in monographic-level treatment; e.g., see Peter T. Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah: A Reappraisal (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2006). While I am sympathetic to much of Vogt’s criticisms of Weinfeld, I find his distinction between sacrifice and worship untenable, and his emphasis on sovereignty so broad as to be unhelpful. © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

162

Bill T. Arnold

indeed centralizing ancient Israel’s cult.4 Thus, I am essentially in agreement with Weinfeld’s view on centralization, whereas I have reservations about other features of his interpretation. I turn in this study to consider the specifics of worship envisioned and prescribed in Deut 12, one of the most important texts informing this topic, in order to investigate the distinctive features of Israelite worship in Deuteronomy compared to other portions of the Pentateuch. I will conclude with a few implications of this study for the larger question of “demythologization” and “secularization” in the history of Israelite religion.

1. Exegetical details of Deuteronomy 12 The chapter under investigation here is a rhetorical linchpin of the book of Deuteronomy as well as an ideological turning point in the history of Israelite religion.5 The book opens with three chapters of historical perspective (Deut 1-3), followed by a sermonic chapter calling for loyalty to YHWH (Deut 4), and an extended parenesis envisioning faithful adherence to the law, and especially based upon the first two commandments (Deut 5–11). Despite this dramatic and sustained anticipation, and several mentions of the “rituals and norms” (4:1,5,8,14,45; 5:1,31; 6:1,20; 7:11; 11:32), the actual specifics of the legal core begin only at Deut 12.6 Now finally at Deut 12:1, the legal core is introduced, defined again as “rituals and norms,” and the first and most revolutionary law is articulated in 12:2–28, that of the centralization of Israelite worship at one location. The implications of cult centralization are therefore extrapolated throughout the rest of the legal core, including laws on profane slaughter (12:20–25), tithes (14:22–25), holidays (16:1–17), cities of refuge (19:1–9), priesthood (18:1–8), and many others.7 Thus this chapter, and the legal core it introduces, represents a significant innovation in the history of Israelite religion. After a superscription in Deut 12:1, introducing both the legal core generally and this command specifically, the chapter has four distinct paragraphs.8 12:2–7, The “place” that YHWH chooses 12:8–12, The “rest” that YHWH provides 4 5

6

7 8

Bill T. Arnold, “Deuteronomy 12 and the Law of the Central Sanctuary noch einmal,” VT 64 (2014): 236–248, an article critiquing the most recent attempt to deny that Deuteronomy has a centralizing agenda; Frederick E. Greenspahn, “Deuteronomy and Centralization,” VT 64 (2014): 227–35. As always, Deuteronomy is pivotal in the study of religious expression generally: “The connecting link between old and new, between Israel and Judaism, is everywhere Deuteronomy”; Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1994), 362; repr. of Prologomena to the History of Israel (trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Enzies, with preface by W. Robertson Smith; Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885), trans. of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (2d ed.; Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883). All translations in this article are my own. The deuteronomic phraseology, “rituals and norms,” occurs also in 12:1 and 26:16, and has been much investigated as a framing device for both the parenesis of Deut 5–11 and the legal core of Deut 12–26. See, e.g., Georg Braulik, "Die Ausdrücke für Gesetz im Buch Deuteronomium," Bib 51 (1970): 39–66; and Norbert Lohfink, “Die ḥuqqîm ûmišpātîm im Buch Deuteronomium und ihre Neubegrenzung durch Dtn 12,1,” Bib 70 (1989): 1–29. Already discussed by Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 33–34. I take the “warnings against heresies” (Deut 12:29–31) as a general introduction to the laws of sedition in chapter 13, and therefore not relevant to the current investigation. © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

Israelite Worship as Envisioned and Prescribed in Deuteronomy 12

163

12:13–19, Eating meat in locales other than the “place” YHWH chooses 12:20–28, Provisions for profane slaughter in other locales The first three of these address the question of centralized worship in similar ways, but all four share a similar rhetorical sequence; that is, an injunction stating negatively some feature of worship that must be avoided is then followed by a command expressed positively. The flow of these paragraphs therefore uses a recurring contrast to emphasize a prohibition against one thing while commanding a new thing – you shall not worship that way, but instead like this.9 Thus in the first three paragraphs, Israel is forbidden to worship YHWH using Canaanite customs (vv. 2–4), Israel’s own pre-conquest religious practices are forbidden (vv. 8–10), and sacrifices are forbidden in multiple cult sites (v. 13). Each of these first three injunctions is then followed immediately by a command, each time stated positively, to worship with one’s family at “the place” chosen by YHWH (vv. 5,11,14).10 The fourth paragraph’s injunction is a prohibition against eating blood as part of the newly instituted profane slaughter (vv. 23–25), followed then by a positive command to travel to the chosen place for worship at the altar of YHWH (vv. 26–27).11 9 The contrast is especially highlighted in two of the paragraphs (vv. 5 and 14) by the compound restrictive adverb kî ’im, “but rather,” to mark adversitivity, and to exclude all options appearing in the preceding material; Bill T. Arnold, “Adversative: Biblical Hebrew,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (ed. Geoffrey Khan; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013), 1:53. 10 Using the solitary definite article to denote “the place,” as unique and distinctive from all other places and worship practices; Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), § 2.6.4; and Arnold, “Law of the Central Sanctuary,” esp. 238–244. 11 The third of the four paragraphs, vv. 13–19, is probably the oldest pericope of the chapter, based among other things, upon the short form of the sanctuary election formula in v. 18, and some have assumed it served as the foundation for others in this chapter; Horst Dietrich Preuss, Deuteronomium (EdF 164; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982), 133. Others have taken vv. 20–28 as the earliest text; Simeon Chavel, "The Literary Development of Deuteronomy 12: Between Religious Ideology and Social Reality," in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz; FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 303–26. Thomas Römer traces a chronological succession of the first three versions of the law of centralization in the first three paragraphs, which he believes reflect three main redactional layers within the Deuteronomistic History, corresponding to three distinct contexts: Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian; Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 56–65. Alexander Rofé has proposed two strata of laws in vv. 2–12, the first (vv. 8–12) from the eighth or seventh centuries originating in the southern kingdom, and the second (vv. 2–7) from the late seventh century coming from the northern Shilonite tradents and/or priests from Anathoth; Alexander Rofé, “The Strata of the Law about the Centralization of Worship in Deuteronomy and the History of the Deuteronomic Movement,” in Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretations (London & New York: T & T Clark, 2002), 97–101. This chapter also presents us with an interesting example of Deuteronomy’s unique interchange of singular and plural forms of second person verbs and pronouns, the so-called Numeruswechsel. Verse 1 has both singular and plurals, and was therefore harmonized in LXX, Syr., Tg. Ps.-J., and Tg. Neof.; see Carmel McCarthy, Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Deuteronomy (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), 39. Otherwise, the chapter is relatively consistently divided, with vv. 2–12 using plural forms and vv. 13–28 singular (with a few exceptions). This may indicate a redactional function for the Numeruswechsel in chapter 12 that it does not consistently suggest elsewhere in the book; see Duane L. Christensen, “The Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy 12,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, division A: The Period of the Bible (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), 61–68, repr. in A Song of Power and the © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

164

Bill T. Arnold

Together, the four paragraphs of Deut 12 articulate a vision for (1) a singular and central site for corporate Israelite worship, and then secondarily, (2) a new provision for profane slaughter throughout the land, needed because of the requirement to worship YHWH in only one location. This much seems clear as the surface-level purpose for Deut 12. However, these four paragraphs also articulate, albeit in a more oblique manner just below the surface level, a distinct vision for Israelite worship, sharing certain assumptions that permeate the whole legal core. First, Israelite worship is defined by distinguishing it over and against Canaanite worship practices. Legal collections in the Hebrew Bible begin with instructions on where to worship properly before getting to details of how and when to worship, in a form of altar law (e.g., Exod 20:23–26; Lev 17:1–9). Deuteronomy’s version of this altar law rejects “all the places where the nations” served their gods (v. 2), on its way to prescribing “the place” YHWH will choose. The “nations” likely denotes the seven nations mightier and more numerous than Israel (7:1): Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.12 The common noun “places” in Deut 12:2, therefore, denotes cult sites for ancient worship at locations where the presence of a deity was perceived as residing hypostatically.13 Archaeology and sociology have revealed quite a lot about religion in Syria-Palestine during and just before the appearance of the Israelites. Cult sites, more accurately for Deut 12:2, “cult complexes” are attested in the early second millennium down to Israel’s exilic period. We have evidence as early as Minoan culture around 1900 BCE of the widespread practice of worship centered on elevated cult complexes, so-called “peak sanctuaries,” a custom throughout the eastern Mediterranean for a thousand years.14 Such elevations are in view in 12:3 with the “lofty heights” and “hills.” These were elevations a few hours away from settlements with vistas of the settlements below, always in areas where both pastoralism and agriculture were practiced and no centralized authority prohibited worship on the site.15 The fact that such peak sanctuaries were widespread and for such an extended period

12

13 14

15

Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy (ed. Duane L. Christensen; SBTS 3; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 394–402. Anson F. Rainey, “Who is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence,” BASOR 304 (1996): 1– 15. There are five additional “dispossessed” peoples elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, but the ones included in Deut 7:1 were considered the indigenous inhabitants of the promised land; see Edwin C. Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous: The Biblical View of Palestine's Pre-Israelite Peoples (BIBAL Dissertation Series 3; North Richland Hills, Tex.: BIBAL Press, 1995), 29–31 and 111–13. HALOT 2:627; DCH 5:460; J. Gamberoni, TDOT 8:532–44, esp. 539–43. On the history of religion in Canaan, see Jonathan M. Golden, Ancient Canaan and Israel: An Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 173–205. Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London/New York: Continuum, 2001), 247–52; John S. Holladay, Jr., “Religion in Israel and Judah under The Monarchy: An Explicitly Archaeological Approach,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (eds. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson and S. Dean McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 249–99. Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 251. See Hos 4:13, 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 16:4; Jer 2:20; Isa 57:7 and 65:7. It is not clear that the “mountain heights” and “hills” are synonymous with the “high places” (bāmôt) condemned elsewhere in the Old Testament (but cf. 1 Kgs 14:23, etc.); J. A. Emerton, "The Biblical High Place in the Light of Recent Study," PEQ 129 (1997): 116–23; Humphrey H. Hardy II and Benjamin D. Thomas, “Another Look at Biblical Hebrew b¯am¯a 'High Place',” VT 62 (2012): 175– © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

Israelite Worship as Envisioned and Prescribed in Deuteronomy 12

165

of time illustrates the innate attraction and temptation they represented for ancient Israel. A complete survey of the religious phenomena being banned in 12:2–3 is beyond the task I have set for this investigation. But the opprobrium against “places” (12:2) is sufficient to illustrate that Deuteronomy’s vision of Israelite worship uses a binary system of classification distinguishing between “the Israelite way” and “the Canaanite way” of worship.16 Second, and related to this first point, Israelite worship is characterized not simply by centralization of the cult at a single place of worship but by its essential aniconism. Deuteronomy’s disapprobation of foreign altars, pillars, asherah-trees, and idols (12:3) is a condemnation, not of a presumed monolithic Canaanite syncretism or unified pre-conquest tradition in Syria-Palestine, but of a comprehensive set of religious practices deemed unacceptable for genuine YHWH worship.17 Especially appropos in this discussion is the command to hack to pieces the “idols” (plural construct of the noun pesel), which were likely anthropomorphic images carved from wood or sculpted from stone, as distinct from a “cast image” (massēkâ) forged from metal (see Deut 27:15 for both terms).18 The making of such divine images was specifically condemned in the second commandment (Deut 5:8, and see 7:5). Such cult images were thought to shadow the presence of the deity, filling the object with specific content and representing a stage for a divine theophany, yet they were not simplistically identified with the deity who was in some manner transcendent.19 By contrast, this chapter insists upon the extirpation of any vestiges of foreign cultic traditions. Like the ancient act of erasing and reinscribing royal statuary in the ancient world, Deut

16

17 18

19

88. The bāmôt do not occur in Deuteronomy except in archaic poetic forms in 32:13 and 33:29; Elizabeth C. LaRocca-Pitts, “Of Wood and Stone”: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and Its Early Interpreters (HSM 61; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001), 127–159. Nathaniel B. Levtow, Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 11; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 143–153, and esp. 148-49 for the Israelite and Canaanite “way.” See also Reinhard G. Kratz, “The Idea of Cultic Centralization and Its Supposed Ancient Near Eastern Analogies,” in One God, One Cult, One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (eds. Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann; BZAW 405; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 121–144, esp. 125–126, and on the role of centralization in Israelite identity formation and the need for “spatial proximity,” see Carly L. Crouch, The Making of Israel (VTSup 162; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014), 132–137. Saul M. Olyan, Asherah and The Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988); and LaRocca-Pitts, “Of Wood and Stone”, 5. DCH 6:725–26 and HALOT 3:948–49, and for mass¯ek¯a, DCH 5:363 and HALOT 2:605; the pesel was occasionally also theriomorphic. We should probably think of ancient Israel as having a de facto tradition that officially practiced an “empty-space aniconism” as illustrated by the presence of cherubim in Solomon’s temple as a throne of the invisible Yhwh, while on the other hand, many in earliest Israel also seemed to have tolerated a “material aniconism” in which Yhwh was perceived by means of material representation at local cult shrines in ma˝s˝sebôt-pillars; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, No Gaven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context (ConBOT 42; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995), 135–197. If this is correct, the pillars banned here were not only Bronze Age Canaanite idols, but had been used for centuries by Israelites in worship of Yhwh. Deuteronomy’s ban against Canaanite idolatry was also a ban against the Israelite practices of serving Yhwh with vestiges of Canaanite customs (Hos 3:4; 4:13; 8:4–6; 10:5–6; 13:2; 14:9 [Eng 14:8]; Amos 2:8; Mic 5:13–14). Thorkild Jacobsen, “The Graven Image,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (eds. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson and S. Dean McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 15–32, esp. 22–23 and 28–29. © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

166

Bill T. Arnold

12:3 calls for Israel to “destroy their name from that place.”20 Israelite worship is therefore exclusionary, being unable to syncretize its aniconism with standard ancient Near Eastern practices.21 Third, Israelite worship as re-imagined in Deut 12 is participative. A series of verbs with imperatival force in Deut 12:5–7 constitute a string of injunctions denoting obligations perceived by the speaker as continually valid, although not necessarily to be performed immediately:22 “you shall seek out and go…you shall take…you shall eat…you shall celebrate.” Similar terminology occurs in the eighth century prophets for “going” (Hos 4:15; Amos 5:5) or “seeking out” (Amos 5:5) cult centers for worship. And despite the interchanging singular and plural verbal and pronominal forms in vv. 5–7, the second person imperative force continues throughout, highlighting the roles played by the Israelite worshipper in the action. In v. 6, in particular, what is taken to the central place is burnt offerings, sacrifices, tithes, contributions, votive offerings, freewill offerings, and the firstborn of cattle and flocks. This is the first mention of sacrifices in Deuteronomy, in a book that rarely mentions them at all. This list of seven appears to be the full arsenal of officially sanctioned Israelite offerings, and is cited only occasionally in the legal core, making this the definitive list of deuteronomic sacrifices. Much more could be said here, especially in light of the detailed elaboration of several of these in Lev 1–7, a full treatment of which is unnecessary for our purposes in this investigation. It is enough to say here that the striking difference between the levitical treatment and this deuteronomic list, other than the limited space devoted to the topic in Deuteronomy, is that the former is directed to the priests as instructions and the latter is directed to Israelite laity. In a way that seems shockingly indifferent to the centrally important details of Lev 1–7 (such as the priestly ministrations, the manner of presentation, and the atoning result), this list in Deut 12:6 simply requires that the seven types be brought to the place YHWH chooses. Fourth, Israelite worship is here imagined as communal. Put another way, worship at the central place as envisioned in Deut 12 cannot be done in isolation or individually but always “together with your households” (v. 7).23 The term “house(hold)” (bayit, here as bāttêkem, “your households”24) refers to one of the most important features of Israelite 20 Levtow, Images of Others, 147–148 for the imagery of erasure and reinscription of divine and royal names on ancient statuary. 21 Some would say this is a liberalizing tendency, against the natural conservatism of ancient Near Eastern religions, which had an ability to retain older religious features while adding new ones; H. W. F. Saggs, The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel (Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion 12; London: Athlone Press, 1978), esp. 182–188. 22 Arnold and Choi, Guide, §3.2.2,d.4. The first verb, “seek out,” is imperfect, and the rest are perfects with waw-consecutive. 23 Literally, “you and your households,” assuming here a waw of accompaniment; DCH 2:596; HALOT 1:258; Joüon-Muraoka §151a. This clause is followed by an ambiguous relative clause, which/because Yhwh your God has blessed you, denoting either Israelite households are the results of Yhwh’s blessing, or more likely, the agrarian blessing that makes possible the sacrificial offerings listed in v. 7. 24 On the irregular form of the plural with long q¯ame˝s in a closed unaccented syllable, here however without meteg, see GKC §96, Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2nd ed.; SubBi 27; Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006), § 98f 17; and Hans Bauer, Pontus Leander and Paul Kahle, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes (Olms paperbacks Bd 19; Hildescheim: G. Olms, 1965[1922]), §78i. © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

Israelite Worship as Envisioned and Prescribed in Deuteronomy 12

167

society; that is, the extended or “joint family” (sometimes bêt ’āb, “house of one’s father”), sometimes including up to three generations in a multi-family compound, and serving as the center of religious, social, and economic life.25 The constituents of this “household” are detailed in recurring fashion elsewhere in Deut 12, emphasizing again that legitimate worship occurs together in community.26 Verse 7: …together with your households… Verse 12: …together with your sons, your daughters, your servants, your maidservants… Verse 18: …together with your son, your daughter, your servant, your maidservant… Such communal, or in this case more specifically familial worship, is envisioned as drawing each individual of the community into the act of worship and implicitly acknowledges YHWH as the source of familial blessings (as may be intended by “because YHWH your God has blessed you” in v. 7). Fifth, Israelite worship in Deut 12 places a high value on one’s social responsibility; that is, it is marked by altruism. While the opening paragraph mentions only the importance of including one’s “households” (v. 7), elsewhere the chapter adds another requirement. Israelite households are here enjoined to include “the Levite in your towns” (vv. 12 and 18). The identification and social location of “the Levite” in Deuteronomy remains a vigorously debated question.27 It is sufficient for our purposes to note that the singular “Levite” (lēwî) is used collectively thirteen times in the legal core, and the dominant concern of these references is to ensure his right to receive provisions for services rendered in the newly centralized sacrificial system (Deut 18:1–8).28 These Levites reside “in your towns,” which carries distinctive significance in Deuteronomy (lit.: “your gates”, bĕša‘ărêkem in 12:12 but usually with singular suffix, biš‘ārêkā or without preposition, šĕ‘ārêkā) to denote covenan25 Lawrence E. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” BASOR 260 (1985): 1–35, esp. 20–22; Oded Borowski, Daily Life in Biblical Times (SBLABS 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 22; Carol L. Meyers, “The Family in Early Israel,” in Families in Ancient Israel (eds. Leo G. Perdue, Joseph Blenkinsopp, John J. Collins and Carol L. Meyers; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 1–47, esp. 19. 26 The incremental movement from biological children to male and female servants, distinguished from but bound by the enclitic pronouns to the patresfamilias, reflect also the decalogue (Deut 5:13–15), which continues the concentric circles to livestock, and finally to the “immigrant” (gēr); Mark A. Awabdy, Immigrants and Innovative Law: Deuteronomy's Theological and Social Vision for the ‫גר‬ (FAT 67; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 44–45. The move to include the Levite in Deut 12 associates him with the familiar personae miserae, already expanded in Deuteronomy’s triad to include the immigrant in the ancient Near Eastern orphan-widow dyad; ibid., 30–35. Levites are apparently included because, like other personae miserae, they did not own property in Israelite or Judahite territory; ibid., 115. 27 So, e.g., we cannot be dogmatic about opinions that distinguish priests who served at altars from Levites who did not; for which, see Raymond Abba, “Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy,” VT 27 (1977): 257–267, or for the view that Levitical priests and Levites were simply equated in Deuteronomy; see John A. Emerton, "Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy: An Examination of Dr. G. E. Wright's Theory," VT 12 (1962): 129–138. 28 Occurrences in the legal core: Deut 12:12,18,19; 14:27,29; 16:11,14; 18:1,6; 21:5; 26:11,12,13, with an additional five occurrences of the plural: 17:9,18; 18:1,7; 24:8. Outside the legal core, Deuteronomy has an additional eight occurrences of “Levite/s”: 10:8,9; 27:9,12,14; 31:9,25; 33:8. © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

168

Bill T. Arnold

tally-bound Israelite villages and towns as distinct from Jerusalem.29 Whatever the details, these Levites were landless and therefore not included in the local clan structure, and had heretofore depended upon local sanctuaries for their livelihood. Deuteronomy appears to be minimizing the effects of cult centralization by ensuring their rights to provisions at the central sanctuary, not apparently on the basis of their poverty but upon the principle of fairness.30 This is likely the focus of the statement in v. 12, “because [the Levite] has no portion or inheritance apart from you.”31 Thus this mandate to include the Levite in worship is part and parcel of Deuteronomy’s extensive humanitarian system, envisioned as a means of protecting and providing for a class of personae miserae, which in this case was defined as landlessness.32 Sixth, Israel’s worship is here envisioned as celebratory. Central to the vision of worship articulated in Deut 12 is the phrase “you shall eat there before YHWH your God, and you shall celebrate over all your handiwork” (v. 7). Of course, eating sacrificial meat in the presence of YHWH becomes a sacral meal, and in Deut 12 such a meal is meticulously distinguished from profane slaughter and meat consumption (esp. vv. 20–28).33 For our purposes in this investigation, it should be noted that the chapter conspicuously links such a meal with the term śmḥ, “celebrate” (vv. 7, 12, 18, and cf. 27), a root likely implying concrete and articulated expressions of joy, such as singing, dancing, and shouting.34 The use of the root in perfect aspect with waw-consecutive (that is, Irreal Perfect) for volitional command (û´sema˝htem vv. 7 and 12; and we´s¯ama˝hat¯a, v. 18) reflects a particularly import29 So, “gates” in these occurrences refers to towns and villages by means of synecdoche; that is, these are the cities and towns enclosed by such gates. The phrase occurs 27 times in Deuteronomy with this meaning, all but six of which are in the legal core (the exceptions are 5:14; 28:52[2x],55,57; and 31:12). See Daniel A. Frese, “A Land of Gates: Covenant Communities in the Book of Deuteronomy,” VT 65 (2015): 33–52. At v. 15, the translator of LXX appears to have understood “gates” as “cities” and translates accordingly throughout the rest of Deuteronomy; cf. McCarthy, Deuteronomy, 86*. See also Avraham Faust, The Archaeology of Israelite Society in Iron Age II (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 100–109. 30 Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 230–31. Alternatively, a Levite could remain in his home village, in which case he would be dependent upon the tithes stored away in that village, along with other landless personae miserae (see Deut 14:28–29; 18:1–2; 26:12); see Robert R. Wilson, “Deuteronomy, Ethnicity, and Reform: Reflections on the Social Setting of the Book of Deuteronomy,” in Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride, Jr (eds. John T. Strong and Steven Shawn Tuell; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 107–123, esp. 117–118. 31 The preposition ’¯et, “with,” carries here a connotation “without, apart from”; DCH 1:452. 32 Awabdy, Immigrants and Innovative Law, 227–250. 33 For comparisons with iconographic and administrative records from the ancient Near East on banquets and their role in power relations and ideological devotion, as well as the potential significance of the scarcity of meat in eighth- and seventh-century Judah, see Peter Altmann, Festive Meals in Ancient Israel: Deuteronomy's Identity Politics in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2011), 78–107 and 241–244. The ritualistic nature of such festivals seems to have been common across the ancient Mediterranean, including commemoration of a theophany from long ago, offerings and sacrifices, feasting at the festival, and relaxation and enjoyment; see Walter Burkert, “Ancient Views on Festivals: A Case of Near Eastern Mediterranean Koine,” in Greek and Roman Festivals: Content, Meaning, and Practice (eds. J. Rasmus Brandt and Jon W. Iddeng; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 39–51. 34 Gottfried Vanoni, TDOT 14:142–157, esp. 149. © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

Israelite Worship as Envisioned and Prescribed in Deuteronomy 12

169

ant theme in Deuteronomy, occurring first here and repeating especially in the legal core, culminating in the Ebal celebration of 27:7.35 Some scholars have even attributed to the legal core of Deuteronomy a “festival theory,” in which statements of joy and celebration come in the form of a command, athough the specifics of such a theory remain highly speculative.36 This first occurrence in v. 7 marks the festive meal in YHWH’s presence focusing especially on one’s “handiwork” or achievements, and shared with the household, which is blessed by YHWH. Twice in Deut 12, this celebration is to occur “before YHWH your God” (lipnê YHWH ’ĕlōhêkem, v. 12; lipnê YHWH ’ĕlōhêkā, v. 18), an emphasis of v. 7 as well, where the eating is also to occur “before YHWH your God” (lipnê YHWH ’ĕlōhêkem). Such phraseological specifics are clarifying that the worship feast is to occur at the central sanctuary, but also to be perceived as enjoyed in the very presence of YHWH (see below). Finally, it should be noted that this celebratory worship is more than sitting back to enjoy the fruit of one’s labor. Rejoicing over all one’s “handiwork” denotes satisfaction at having acquired abundance as the blessing of YHWH, manifested in the ability to offer sacrifices and offerings.37 This concept is far removed from the English connotation of “sacrifice” as loss but is marked instead by exultant celebration in acknowleding one’s personal and corporate gain which can only rightly be enjoyed in the presence of, and in communion with, YHWH who makes it possible.38 This is Deuteronomy’s singular ideal for worship in the promised land. Surprisingly, we find nothing specific on ritual per se, no mention of the ark of the covenant or tabernacle, of sin, confession, repentance, atonement, and we have only two specific references to YHWH’s “altar” (both in v. 27). While the types of sacrifices and offerings are included (v. 6), we have no specific mention of sin- or guilt-offerings designed to atone for sins, whether intentional or involuntary, and no fixation on the means of expiation. Outside the obscure and possibly non-priestly mentions of the “Levite” in vv. 12, 18 and 19, we have no mention of priests. We have nothing in Deut 12 on prayer, although a case could be made that liturgical prayer played an important role elsewhere in the book.39 In nuce, this is a surprising portrait of Israelite worship when compared to other portions of the Pentateuch, which leads further to a few general observations. 35 Arnold and Choi, Guide, §3.5.2,c. 36 Georg Braulik, “The Joy of the Feast: The Conception of the Cult in Deuteronomy, the Oldest Biblical Festival Theory,” in The Theology of Deuteronomy: Collected Essays of Georg Braulik (North Richland Hills, Tex.: BIBAL Press, 1994), 27–65; trans. of Georg Braulik, “Die Freude des Festes: Das Kultverständnis des Deuteronomium – die älteste biblischer Festtheorie,” in Leiturgia, Koinonia, Diakonia: Festschrift für Kardinal Franz König zum 75. Geburtstag (eds. Raphael Schulte and Georg Braulik; Vienna: Herder, 1980), 127–179. For the idea that emotions can and should be commanded, see Bill T. Arnold, “The Love-Fear Antinomy in Deuteronomy 5–11,” VT 61 (2011): 551–569. 37 The term “handiwork” (literally: “the extending of one’s hand”) occurs only in Deuteronomy (12:7,18; 15:10; 23:21; 28:8,20; cf. DCH 5:540). 38 A similar point is made by Mark E. Biddle, Deuteronomy (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2003), 217–218. 39 So, Deut 21:8; 26:3–10,15; cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 32–45. And yet it is certainly an overstatement to assert that the religious vacuum caused by cult centralization was filled by liturgy or “formalized prayer” creating “a new means of worship,” in which prayer replaced sacrifice preparing the way in Second Temple Judaism for a religion of prayer and confession instead of religious cult; Ibid., 44. © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

170

Bill T. Arnold

2. Interpretation of worship as envisioned in Deuteronomy 12, and compared to tetrateuchal parallels The book of Deuteronomy can reasonably be said to be the “center” of the Old Testament.40 Crystalizing the tetrateuch and preparing for the Deuteronomistic History, the book of Deuteronomy is certainly the end of the beginning and the beginning of the end. And Deut 12 is the keystone of the book’s legal core, containing perhaps the oldest and most innovative features of that core. The chapter launches into the book’s long-anticipated “rituals and norms” (12:1), not by starting with warnings against apostasy and sedition (Deut 13), dietary laws (Deut 14), remission of debts (Deut 15), or festivals (Deut 16), as important as these will become in the book. Instead, the opening of the law proper is concerned with centralization of the cult and the conception of ideal worship. Therefore, after a comment about the the function of worship as envisioned in Deut 12, I will move to a few observations about the implications of this investigation related to sacrifice, holiness, and the presence of YHWH, in light of the book’s presumed demythologization and secularization. Plato averred that “knowledge does not consist in the impressions of sense; it consists in reasoning about them.”41 Bernhard Lang applied this dictum from the psychology of knowledge and perception to the concept of happiness, which does not consist in the presence and availability of material goods and services but in the act of reflecting and reasoning about them. Lang’s investigation of the Israelite experience of “the Lord of the Harvest” is helpful in this context to put into perspective Deuteronomy’s vision of worship.42 Thus the ancient Israelite understood happiness in general terms as the enjoyment of goods such as food, children, and economic success, experienced as being granted by God.43 While the material goods themselves constitute the good life, “it is their God-givenness that reflects happiness and therefore defines it.”44 Again, Lang: The fact that these goods are appreciated as coming from the hand of God and are considered as signs of divine presence and friendship is of capital importance, for the Hebrews could not speak of the good life without speaking of God. It is 40 As claimed famously by Gerhard von Rad, “Deuteronomy's 'Name' Theology and the Priestly Document's 'Kabod' Theology,” in Studies in Deuteronomy (Chicago: Regnery, 1953), 37–44, esp. 37. See similarly Patrick D. Miller, Jr, Deuteronomy (IBC; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 16–17; and consider the idea that Deuteronomy “has had greater consequences for human history than any other single book” and that its continuing influence today “is one of the major forces shaping the future of humanity”; Bruce K. Waltke, with Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007), 479. See also Thomas Römer, “Deuteronomy in Search of Origins,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (eds. Gary N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 112–138, esp. 113–114. 41 Plato, Theaet. 186D. For discussion of Plato’s quote, and more of what follows in this paragraph, see Bernhard Lang, The Hebrew God: Portrait of an Ancient Deity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 167–169. 42 Ibid.,159–169. 43 For Deuteronomy’s recurring and distinctive phraseology on the good life, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 345–346. 44 Lang, Hebrew God, 168. © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

Israelite Worship as Envisioned and Prescribed in Deuteronomy 12

171

apparently the act of associating the good life with God that transfigures life into something sacred and of ultimate value. The very act of associating God and the good life constitutes happiness.45 In this way, the Israelite conception of human happiness was constrained by inherent and natural limitations, which however could be liberated by the presence of YHWH. When the good life was enjoyed and celebrated in the presence of YHWH, human happiness is given a transcendent dimension, transfiguring the structure of happiness.46 Lang relies on the psychology of religion generally to explore further this idea of a reconfiguration of the “good life” by means of an attentiveness or mindfulness of a transcendent dimension.47 Humans typically develop two complementary preceptional sets, the one everyday, pragmatic, and profane, and the other idealistic and religious. As we grow into a culturally specific environment, humans develop both perceptional approaches to life as frames of reference on reality. These two perceptional sets, and our ability to shift from one to the other, may be compared to the famous vase of Edgar Rubin (1886–1951), who explored perceptual grouping through figure-ground organization, which gives us the ability to recognize objects through vision. Famously, the figure-ground perception represented in the face-vase (see illustration) demonstrates our visual ability to settle on either interpretation. Just as you see words on a page as the “figure” and the white sheet as the “background,” so here you perceive black and white regions separated by curved lines. But in this case, which is “figure” and which is “ground” depends on how the brain assigns the data of the scene. In this case, we have the ability to perceive a white vase on a black ground or a pair of silhouetted faces on a white ground. The human visual system will settle on one of these interpretations and can alternate between them.48

45 Ibid., 168. 46 Lang is here dependent upon Leo Gorssen for the concept of the “radical limitations” of happiness, and its transfiguration; Leo Gorssen, "La cohérence de la conception de Dieu dans l'Ecclésiaste," ETL 46 (1970): 282–324, esp. 321. 47 Lang, Hebrew God, 169. He relies most especially on the work of Hjalmar Sundén, Die Religion und die Rollen: Eine Psychologische Untersuchung der Frömmigkeit (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966). 48 Jörgen L. Pind, “Figure and Ground at 100,” The Psychologist 25 (2012): 90–91. Recent research has suggested that both mindfulness meditation (Buddhist tradition) and contemplative prayer (Christian tradition) promote the brain-based ability to maintain “open monitoring,” which is the capacity to remain open to features of the perceptual field without being fixated on only part of it. A distorted perception of reality occurs when the brain becomes preoccupied with some aspect of the preceptual world, concentrating only on the figure and losing the ground of existence. See Stephen P. Stratton, “Mindfulness and Contemplation: Secular and Religious Traditions in Western Context,” Counseling and Values 60 (2015), 100–118. © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

172

Bill T. Arnold

“Cup or faces paradox” by Bryan Derksen (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cup_or_faces_par adox.svg#mediaviewer/File:Cup_or_faces_paradox.svg)

Moving from one perception to the other, from the figure to the ground, involves restructuring. By analogy, such perceptional restructuring occurs in the rituals and enactments of worship, moving us from the mundane and everyday perception of the good life to the religious perception of the transcendent reality we would not perceive otherwise. Israelite worship as envisioned and prescribed in Deut 12 moves the worshipper’s perception from the figural good life (the grain, the wine, the oil, and the firstfruits, v. 17) to the ground of YHWH’s beneficent presence.49 Having considered the details of Deut 12 and its general vision for Israelite worship, the chapter’s view of sacrifice is an appropriate place to open the discussion of the book’s ideology more particularly. Weinfeld has rightly said that sacrifice in Deuteronomy is not “an institutional practice but a personal one” with two principal objectives: (a) humanitarian, sharing Israel’s abundance with the personae miserae class, and (b) private, as an individual means of expressing thanksgiving to YHWH in order to fulfill one’s religious obligation.50 However, in light of the exegetical details of Deut 12, it may go beyond the evidence to suggest that sacrifice in Deuteronomy “is only an expression of gratitude to the Deity, and this constitutes its entire significance” and further that “sacrifice is only of subordinate importance” since the requisite for atonement in Deuteronomy is “the sincere intentions of the worshipper.”51 While I agree that Deuteronomy’s vision is different from earlier priestly sources, especially as articulated in Leviticus 1–16, the scribes who gave us Deuteronomy expended considerable energy defining what Nathaniel B. Levtow described as “the Israelite way” over and against “the Canaanite way,” as discussed above,52 in addition to their opprobrium of iconic worship. When compared to earlier priestly views, this is a distinction 49 Lang, Hebrew God, 169; “[o]nce the shift occurred, the Israelites were well content with themselves and with their divine lord.” 50 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 212. 51 Ibid., 212–213. Weinfeld further states that this understanding of sacrifice in Deuteronomy, along with its other laws related to the cult and ritual are “conceived more rationally” than in the earlier priestly sources; Ibid., 213. 52 Levtow, Images of Others, 148–149. © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

Israelite Worship as Envisioned and Prescribed in Deuteronomy 12

173

without a difference, meaning D and P approach worship from different perceptions or points of view but not from fundamentally different ideologies. To borrow a concept from lexical semantics, the two portions of the Pentateuch are approaching the question of sacrificial worship from the perspective of separate binary opposites. 53 The earlier priestly source approached the topic from the perspective of guilt-versus-atonement. Ritual, and especially the specifics of sacrifice, were critical to move the worshipper from guilt to atonement. Deuteronomy, on the other hand, approaches the topic from the perspective of genuine-versus-false, or acceptable-versus-unacceptable. 54 The priestly perspective is narrowly drawn to the question of sin and its extirpation, which is naturally grounded in the role of the tabernacle (Exod 25–31 and 35–40) and of course, the definitions of sin and atonement as given in its foundational texts (Lev 1–7). On the other hand, the deuteronomic perspective is more broadly addressing the relational aspect of worship as gounded in its foundational text – the Ten Commandments and especially the first two commandments – as the basis for the “rituals and norms” of the legal core related to worship (Deut 12–16). And so these perspectives are distinct but not essentially different. The priestly perspective is narrower but the deuteronomic values sacrificial worship as much, only from a broader perspective with more comprehensive concerns. And so the evidence drawn from this investigation of Deut 12 leads to the conclusion that the worship envisioned by Deuteronomy is indeed different from that of earlier sources in the Tetrateuch. However, the nature of those differences, and whether they can be attributed to a demythologizing or secularizing agenda in the book of Deuteronomy, remains in doubt. Perhaps the differences between Deuteronomy’s legal core and P especially has a simpler explanation. In fact, Weinfeld himself gives the answer, or at least a partial answer, in his emphasis on “the strong predilection for wisdom characterizing the scribes who were responsible for the composition of Deuteronomy.”55 While I would not argue for sapiential origins for Deuteronomy to the extent of Weinfeld and others, the observation does suggest a helpful distinction between clergy and laity. Specifically I have in mind here the distinction evident in the Pentateuchal sources related to holiness in ancient Israel. On the one hand, holiness is a sacrifice-oriented state centered in the sanctuary and in those cultic personnel primarily responsible for the ritual to maintain the sacredness of the worshipping community. In this case, the holy-profane distinction is localized in the distinction between priests and people. On the other hand, holiness is an identity-oriented state centered in the land and its people.56 In this case, the holy-profane distinction is localized in the distinction 53 Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), 130–132. 54 Perhaps the distinction is between a vision of worship defining and preserving an identity boundary between Israel and Canaan (Deuteronomy) as opposed to an identity boundary internal to Israel itself in Leviticus 1–16, a view suggested to me by Lawson G. Stone. 55 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 245. This quote relates specifically to his treatment of Deut 1:9–18, but reflects in general his conclusion that Deuteronomy “was influenced by the ancient sapiential ideology that found expression in the book of Proverbs and the wisdom literature of the ancient Near East”; Ibid., 297, and generally, pages 244–319 for arguments. 56 The concept of holiness in D and H may also be contrasted as the difference between imperative and indicative, D stressing that Israel is holy and H stressing that they must be holy (e.g., see Deut 14:2,21 and Lev 11:44; 19:2). Holiness in D is the basis for the laws, whereas in H, holiness is their result. While these differences between H and D are irrefutable, Knohl has shown the similarities between them © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

174

Bill T. Arnold

between Israel and the nations.57 We may take the former as the original priestly position, and the latter as the refined and expanded layperson’s position. The priestly viewpoint may also be taken as a realist or pragmatic approach, while the deuteronomic viewpoint is an idealist, utopian vision. Regardless of how we might nuance the differences, it is evident that Deuteronomy has a different view of holiness than P, but not therefore a secular or demythologized view. With Lohfink, it is rather the case that Deuteronomy envisions an expanding holiness perspective that is sacralizing rather than secularizing.58 Finally, I return to the little prepositional phrase in Deut 12:7,12, and 18: the Israelite worshipper is to celebrate “before YHWH your God” (lipnê YHWH ’ĕlōhêkem, vv. 7 and 12; lipnê YHWH ’ĕlōhêkā, v. 18). Scholars have long noted the use of this phrase in the legal core of Deuteronomy to denote cultic actions (gathering, eating, rejoicing) in the very presence of YHWH at the central sanctuary envisioned in Deut 12.59 Of course, this datum relates to the complex question of whether Deuteronomy evinces a so-called “Name Theology” in which the book demythologizes older conceptions of God physically and literally dwelling in the tabernacle/temple or inhabiting the ark of the covenant, in favor of a fully transcendent God represented symbolically by God’s “name” as a proxy for YHWH’s real presence. God only puts his “name” on earth (Deut 12:5) while his real presence resides only in heaven (Deut 4:36,39; 26:15).60 A thorough review of the issue is considerably beyond the task I have set for this investigation.61 Suffice it to say that I remain unconvinced, despite an impressive and longstanding consensus, that the presence of YHWH’s “name” at the sanctuary means the absence of his essence in Israel’s earthly worship. The book is capable of nuanced understanding of YHWH’s presence as both in heaven and at the sanctuary in the midst of Israel’s worship. The phrase, “before YHWH” is alone sufficient reason to question the “Name Theology” consensus, and will no doubt continue to demand

57 58 59

60 61

are greater than their differences; Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 183, n.43. In this way, D and H together show more differences from P when it comes to conceptions of holiness, because for P, the fundamental demarcation was between holy priests and cult, as distinct from all Israel. This is a distinction made especially clear by Lohfink, who shows that holiness in Deuteronomy distinguishes Israel from the nations rather than functioning as a line of demarcation within Israel itself (between priest and laity); Lohfink, "Opfer," 35–38. He speaks of Deuteronomy taking a step in the direction of a new “Weltsakralisierung” rather than a Säkularisierung; ibid., 42–43. Ian Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy (SBLDS 151; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 161–197 and 204–205. The use of this phrase “is consistent with a belief in the Deity being localized in the immediate vicinity of the worshipper, but is antithetical to a concern to emphasize his absence from the earthly sphere”; page 204. See also Lohfink, "Opfer," 31–32. For the data and interpretive options, see Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (ConBOT 18; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1982), 54–56. For recent discussion and challenge of the consensus view, see Stephen L. Cook, "God's Real Absence and Real Presence in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomism," in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism (eds. Nathan MacDonald and Izaak J. de Hulster; FAT 61; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 121–150; Roberto Ouro, "Divine Presence Theology versus Name Theology in Deuteronomy," AUSS 51 (2014): 5–29; Sandra L. Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lĕšakkēn šĕmô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (BZAW 318; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002); and Sandra L. Richter, "The Place of the Name in Deuteronomy," VT 57 (2007): 342–366. © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.

Israelite Worship as Envisioned and Prescribed in Deuteronomy 12

175

investigation. 62 Regardless of the outcome of those investigations, Israel’s worship in YHWH’s very presence attested repeatedly in Deut 12 argues against any perceived secularization in the deuteronomic agenda.

3. Conclusions When comparing the deuteronomic law with what he considered earlier priestly law, Moshe Weinfeld argued for origins of the two among distinct sociologial groups. Priests of the Jerusalem sanctuary were scholars trained in a comprehensive knowledge of ritual minutiae, who wrote of the sacred realm and of divine worship. The scribes of the royal court, by contrast, were also men of learning with extensive knowledge of state affairs, of administrative and military matters, and of geography, history, and politics, and who wrote of the secular and mundane world.63 Weinfeld concluded that the priestly school of thought drew for its inspiration on the divine sphere, whereas the deuteronomic legal core rested upon “a distinctly secular foundation.”64 This investigation of Deuteronomy’s vision of worship cannot support such a conclusion. The sociological context of the authors of Deuteronomy was certainly distinct from that of the priestly law. But we find no evidence here of a demythologizing or secularizing agenda. Centralization of the cult resulted in wide-ranging and profound changes in society, but Deut 12 restructures the vision of Israelite worship, drawing the worshipper’s perception from the figure of the good life by means of ritual enactment, to the religious perception of the transcendent reality. This is a sacralizing agenda, leaving only the question of the former sanctuaries used in the Judean countryside. In 2005, Robert R. Wilson used the term “desacralized” to refer to Judah’s local sanctuaries that remained in existence after centralization, so that they could still be used for profane slaughter because the slaughter was no longer a ritual event.65 This is a helpful way of thinking about the local sanctuaries themselves. But in light of this investigation, the concepts of demythologization and secularization are overstatements and should be dropped from our vocabulary when referring to Deuteronomy.

62 The probable connotation of the preposition is the precise locus of Yhwh’s presence rather than a statement concerning God’s face, and may perhaps best be understood as “Yhwh in person”; Adam S. van der Woude, TLOT 2:995–1014, esp. 1012. 63 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 179–189, esp. 183–184. Weinfeld goes on to say that, while the deuteronomic perspective of the royal scribes was founded on religion and divine faith, the distinction was between a distinctly “religious-theocentric orientation” of the priests and that of the “religiousanthropocentric orientation” of the authors of Deuteronomy (185). 64 Ibid., 188. 65 Wilson, "Deuteronomy, Ethnicity, and Reform," 117. © Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2017 This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.



Comments

Copyright © 2024 UPDOCS Inc.