Deuteronomy and the Book of the Covenant

A close reading of the Deuteronomic Code (Deuteronomy 12-26) shows this legal collection to be a commentary of sorts on the earlier collection of Hebrew laws, the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21-23). Again and again, the Deuteronomic writer refers to and builds upon specific themes and principles raised in the earlier collection of laws.

While the Book of the Covenant seems to provide structure to a simple, semi-sedentary agricultural village society, the Deuteronomic code speaks to a more complex society and economy of city states, monarchical government, social class divisions, and external pressures from neighboring peoples.

At the same time, Deuteronomy builds on earlier traditions from the period of the conquest of Canaan and the tribal confederacy. We see this earlier influence most clearly in Deuteronomy's emphasis on the necessity of standardized ritual worship in a single sanctuary, the centrality of covenant and the renewal of the covenant, the negative regard for the institution of the monarchy, and the repeated appeal to the "holy war" tradition. 

These early themes are remolded – updated and expanded to changing social and economic realities – by Deuteronomy's new emphasis on an absolute centralization of the sanctuary (with the attendant destruction of all local shrines and the end of family-based worship), the "name theology" which moves away from the primitive notion of the sanctuary as God's dwelling place, the fleshing-out of the concept of the election of Israel, and updating of laws beyond property rights to social justice concerns (care for the widows, the orphaned, and the immigrant) – themes first found in Hebrew literature in the pages of the Deuteronomic code.

Refer to the linked document below to compare the relatively primitive legislation of the Book of the Covenant and the clear extension and updating of early principles in the Deuteronomic code.

Download The Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomic Code Parallels.

Law Collections of the Pentateuch

There are four distinct, self-contained collections of laws found in the Hebrew Pentateuch – the "books of Moses": Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Each of these collections is clearly delineated by (1) opening and closing formulae, (2) repetitive vocabulary – key words and phrases that are regularly used in introductory formulae, transitional passages, and points of particular emphasis – and (3) recurring themes – large overall literary motifs that tie the individual laws together into a cohesive whole.

These four legal collections are 

• The Decalogue (The Ten Commandments) – Exodus 20
• The Book of the Covenant – Exodus 21-23
• The Holiness Code – Leviticus 17-26
• The Deuteronomic Code – Deuteronomy 12-26

 In the Pentateuch, these law collections are nestled within lengthy narrative passages that tell the story of ancient Israel's exodus from Egypt, initial reception of the law at Mount Sinai, generational wandering in the desert, and impending entrance into Canaan. Along with these narratives are a smorgasbord of rules and regulations which are not a coherent whole, but rather a compilation of loosely connected laws. Since most of these laws reflect a priestly outlook focusing on Hebrew worship, sanctuaries, sacrifices, and Levitical oversight, this loose conglomeration is often referred to as the "Priestly Code." This name should not be taken to suggest that these laws have the same literary unity and cohesion as the Decalogue, the Book of the Covenant, the Holiness Code, and the Deuteronomic Code.

Each of the collected law books – the Decalogue, the Book of the Covenant, the Holiness Code, and the Deuteronomic Code – reveals clues as to the time and social setting of their collection. Each collection seems to codify – place in written form – laws that speak to a specific and changing historical setting. Clearly, these collections are often built around existing and, in some cases, much earlier individual laws. Equally true, there seems to be a progression among the law "books" with later collections building on earlier collections, revising more primitive laws to apply them to changing social and economic realities.

This trajectory – devotion to early law codes that are revisited and re-applied in future generations – is exactly the same trajectory we see in the later "oral" law and the centuries-long debates among the Jewish rabbis about when and where and how ancient Israel's laws are to be applied in later generations.

David, Jerusalem, and Biblical Minimalism

In light of the recent post on archaeology and the book of Joshua, I thought I would expand the discussion a bit to focus on the period that I find to be most central in the minimalist-maximalist debate about archaeology and biblical history: the tenth century BCE, the time of the United Kingdom, the reigns of David and Solomon.

First, look at this definition of minimalism and maximalism:

The labels "maximalism" and "minimalism" were coined in the debate about the historical reliability of the Bible. For more than a century, archaeologists have been digging in the Near East, and inevitably, they found contradictions between the archaeological record and the story told in the Bible. This is neither unique nor problematic. Information about Antiquity is always fragmentary, and the scholars studying ancient Rome, Greece, Israel, Egypt, Persia, or Babylonia often have to cope with contradictory evidence. For example, Julius Caesar claims to have subjected the Belgians, but this has so far not been confirmed archaeologically. Although contradictory evidence can be frustrating, it is preferable to having only one source: in that case, we can not establish whether it is correct or not; if the evidence is inconsistent, we can at least evaluate its quality.

When we are dealing with the history of the Jews, there is, after the sixth or fifth century BCE, no real contradiction between the main written source (the Bible) and the archaeological record. No one denies that the Jews returned from their Babylonian Captivity: archaeologists have identified the new villages, although it is not entirely clear when the return took place exactly. Moving backward, the discrepancy increases: in the age of the two kingdoms (Judah and Israel), the Biblical account is sometimes at odds with the results of archaeology, and if we look at the events before, say, king David, the fragmentary nature of our evidence is even more striking.

"Minimalism" and "maximalism" are two principles to cope with this situation. Maximalist scholars assume that the Biblical story is more or less correct, unless archaeologists prove that it is not; minimalists assume that the Biblical story must be read as fiction, unless it can be confirmed archaeologically. "Minimalism" and "maximalism" are, therefore, methods, approaches, or theoretical concepts. (Livius.org)
 

The minimalists are often associated with the University of Copenhagen (in particular, Thomas Thompson and Niels Peter Lemche) although many others like John van Seters, Keith Whitelam, and Philip Davies contribute to this view.

The maximalists are often dubbed "neo-Albrightians" (followers of the famous biblical archaeologist, William Foxwell Albright). The Biblical Archaeological Review represents this view and is the most consistent opponent of the new minimalism, along with archaeologists and writers like William Dever, Iain Provan, and Kenneth Kitchen.

I strongly recommend the following online article that introduces the minimalist-maximalist debate and the main issues at its center.

Three Debates about Bible and Archaeology (Ziony Zevit)

The following online articles might also prove helpful.

Did David and Solomon Exist? (Eric H. Cline)

The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant (Amihai Mazar)

The United Monarchy Under David and Solomon

Find of Ancient City Could Alter Notions of Biblical David

Has King David's Palace in Jerusalem Been Found? (Israel Finkelstein)

Finally, see these online articles for a broader perspective on the entire debate.

The collected "Essays on Minimalism from Bible and Interpretation" from The Bible and Interpretation web site, featuring articles from many of the major players in the current debate.

 A (Very, Very) Short History of Minimalism: From The Chronicler to the Present (Jim West) which offers a refreshing breath of common sense and historical perspective to the minimalist debate.

The Toughest Passage in the New Testament?

As I was reading this weekend, I came across one of those biblical passages that continues to challenge me even though I have thought about it for many years. You know the kind where your normal interpretive principles lead you to a very uncomfortable conclusion - so your thinking turns to other ways to of reading the text until you reach the point that you realize that you are exerting a lot more energy trying to EXPLAIN AWAY the text rather than trying to EXPLAIN it.

Before I share my #1 candidate for the toughest passage in the New Testament, let me point out two close contenders to the crown - passages that drawn me in and then haunt me with misunderstanding.

-----------------------------

Matthew 11:12 - "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers [permits] violence, and the violent take it by force." (NKJV)

Matthew 11:12 - "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcibly advancing, and forceful men lay hold to it." (NIV)

The partial parallel in Luke 16:16 - "every man presses into it" - is somewhat helpful, but not completely.

What is the "violence" that the kingdom permits? And how do men forcibly seize the kingdom? Is this strong language simply a statement of the total commitment that the kingdom requires? I don't think so - the emphasis is on human status (forceful men) or human action (take it by force).

This saying of Jesus has such poetry and power it its wordplay. I only wish I knew what it meant.

-----------------------------

I Corinthians 15:29 - "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" (NIV)

NRSV and ESV say even more explicitly "in behalf of the dead."

NO. I am not becoming a Latter Day Saint. But I have long rejected the simple, literal reading of this passage by explaining that "the dead" refers to the "dead Christ" - thus, baptism into Christ is pointless if Christ remains dead and not resurrected. THIS IS THE WORST KIND OF INTERPRETATION. "The dead" in this passage is a genitive plural masculine noun. It refers to many people, not to one.

Clearly the interpretive context of this passage must be the belief of some in the Corinthian community that the resurrection is already past. This pre-Gnostic tendency reappears later in a more fully realized form which "spiritualizes" resurrection at the time of conversion (see "The Treatise on Resurrection", also known as the "Epistle to Rheginos"). But this does not really help interpret this passage.

If I try to understand this passage literally and historically (before any theological questions) - if I apply Occam's razor that the best answer is usually the simplest - then it seems that some in the Corinthian community practiced a baptismal ceremony in behalf of the dead. Is this the same as "proxy baptism?"

-----------------------------

After saying all of that, I am still left with my #1 candidate for the toughest passage in the New Testament.

Romans 11:25b-26a - "Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved." (KJV)

Romans 11:25b-26a - "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved." (NIV)

I normally read Romans 9-11 through the lens of the "remnant theology" that is prevalent in the prophetic writings of the Hebrew scriptures. Paul (like the author of the gospel of Matthew) sees Christians - especially Gentile Christians - as true Israel, the "Israel of God," a remnant of God's larger election of rebellious national Israel.

But this is NOT the message of the "grafted branches" that precedes the verses in question. The election of Israel (the root) is holy, some branches (national Israel) have fallen off (but not all), Gentiles have been grafted in to God's larger plan, but many "natural branches" (those of Israel who have fallen away) are also grafted in. Then comes the eschatological bombshell - Israel's blindness is only IN PART and it has an END DATE. In God's future, ALL Israel will be saved.

Is this passage separate from the root/branches analogy or it's conclusion? Is "all Israel" the "Israel of God," the remnant? Or is "all Israel" the sum of Gentiles and Jews "grafted in" to the root of God's election? Or does the passage mean what it literally seems to say - in some sense - in the eschaton - ALL Israel will be saved (Israel in contrast to the Gentiles? Israel including the "grafted in" Gentiles? Or all Israel in some other sense?)

If primitive Christianity (both Jesus and Paul) was a Jewish sectarian group - which I strongly believe it was - a "Judaism" among the many "Judaisms" of the first century - if the founders of the faith had no intention of dividing with the larger Jewish faith - but rather proclaimed the fulfillment of the prophets through the decisive act of God in Jesus and in a new and different way of observing the Torah (which stood against the exclusiveness of Second Temple Judaism) that included the Gentiles - if Paul, in particular, saw the inclusion of the Gentiles as the fulfillment of God's plan for the Jews (and, in turn, all humanity) - holding one standard for Gentiles (freedom from the "works of the law" - the signs of Jewish ethnicity - i.e., circumcision, Sabbath observance, cleanliness regulations, dietary laws. etc.) while never contesting the legitimacy of Torah observance for his fellow Jews -  then this offers a very  different picture of the Christian faith that that which we have on this side of the "parting of the ways" of Jews and Christians.

On the reading of this passage - "all Israel will be saved" - rests the full implications of the new perspective on Paul. Is Paul saying that the Gentiles participate in God's election of Israel without strict adherence to the "works of the law" (circumcision, dietary laws, etc.) while Jews continue to participate in the same election thought Torah observance? If so, do Jews have to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus the Christ? Or are they already recipients of God's gracious salvation via God's covenant with Israel - the tangible expression of God's election - which is witnessed and maintained through Torah observance (covenantal nomism)?

-----------------------------

So this is my choice for toughest passage in the New Testament.

Do you have a comment? Or maybe you would like to offer your own candidate for toughest passage.