The exhortation to
neither add nor take away from a text has its parallels or possibly even its
origin, in the literature from the Ancient Near East. From the many parallels that
have been adduced (Oeming distinguishes no less than ten ‘Sitze im Leben’), I
mention three which are the most relevant.
First, the
exhortation to neither add nor take away anything occurs in the instructions
for scribes or messengers. An example is the Egyptian Instruction of Khety or
Dua-Khety (the so-called Satire on the trades; texts from the
eighteenth/nineteenth dynasty), in which a writer exhorts his son: “When an
official sends you with a message, Tell it as he told it, Don’t omit it, don’t
add to it” (translation William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds., The
Context of Scripture [Leiden: Brill, 2003], 1:125). In this text, it is
part of the professional ethics of a messenger or scribe that he carefully conveys
his message. Colophons regularly contain the claim that a scribe transcribed
the original verbatim.
Second, an
interesting parallels is found in the Mesopotamian Erra epic (Text from the
eighth century B.C.), which deals with conveying the message of a god. The
ending of the poem contains a message about the scribe: “The one who put together
the composition about him [Erra] was Kabti-ilani-Marduk son of Dabibi. (Some
god) revealed it to him in the middle of the night, and when he recited it upon
waking, he did not miss anything out, Nor add a single world to it” (Erra epic
V:42-44; COS 1:415) The scribe claims inspiration, even verbal inspiration,
by means of a dream; remarkably, though, it remains unclear which god revealed
it to him.
Third, the clause occurs
in royal inscriptions and treaty texts, indicating that the text should not be
changed. Usually, this is formulated as a curse. The Codex Hammurapi ends with
the stipulation that should anyone not heed his pronouncements, change them,
erase his name and replace it, by his own name, followed by extensive curse
formulas in which twelve gods and the “great gods of heaven and earth” are
involved to cause that person all terrible diseases, distresses and destruction
(Codex Hammurapi 49:18-51:91). In the treaty of the Hittite king Tadualiya IV
with Kurunta of Tarhunsašša, the person is cursed who “should alter a single
word of this tablet” (COD 2:105). In treaty texts, the warning against
alternation especially functions to secure the strict observance of the agreed
(or imposed) stipulations.
These parallels show
that the exhortation to neither add nor take away anything is not unique to the
Old Testament. In addition, such formulations appear to occur very early
already )so they could be early in Israelite literature as well), although the
parallel is rather general. Especially interesting is the parallel with treaty
texts, since the covenant between YHWH and Israel is a central theme in
Deuteronomy. A remarkable difference, however, is that in treaty texts the
canon formula is always found at the end, accompanied by curse formulas. In
Deuteronomy, the formula does not occur at the end of the book and it is not
connected with a curse.
As for the canon
formula in Deuteronomy, however, the usual interpretation that it would
establish and protect a certain text has a number of problems.
First, in the context
of Deut. 4:2 and 13:1, there is no mention of a written text at all. Rather,
the formula aims at perfect obedience, as appears from the structure of Deut.
4:1-4. The passage opens with the exhortation to hear YHWH’s commandments and
to do them, that Israel may live and enter the land YHWH promised them. The
latter part (verse 1b) is elaborated in verses 3-4 with reference to the events
of Baal-peor; following YHWH or the idols appeared to be a question of life and
death. The exhortation to keep YHWH’s commandments (שמר, עשה), verbs which are
often used in combination in Deuteronomy. This parallel makes it likely to
interpret the merism “not adding”—“not taking away” as an exhortation to complete
and strict obedience. In Deuteronomy, this appeal sounds in various ways: in
series of verbs (עשה, שמר, שמע; e.g., Deut. 5:1;
6:3; 7:12; 28:1), in the image of a way that Israel may not deviate from,
either to the right or the left (Deut. 5:32; 17:11, 20; 28:14), and also in the
present exhortation. In Deut. 13:1 as well, the canon formula continues and
elaborates on the call to keep and to do what Moses commands, with no mention of
a text that should be preserved. The singular “(entire) word) does not point to
a fixed text either; in Deuteronomy, the combination of a “word” that Moses “commands”
occurs as often in the singular as in the plural (Singular: Deut. 4:2; 13:1;
15:15; 24:18, 22. Plural: Deut. 1:18; 6:6; 12:28; 28:14; 32:46). Neither are
the verbs “to add” (יסף) and “to take away” (גרע) specific for texts; “to add” is a frequent verb; “to take away” is
also used for the reduction of a task, of marital duties, of an inheritance,
and for shearing a beard (see Ex. 5:11; 21:10; Num. 36:3; Isa. 15:2). In
conclusion, both the text of Deut. 4:2 and 13:1 and its direct context point to
call to complete and strict obedience, rather than to the fixation and protection
of a text.
Second, if this
formulation was intended to protect a text, its position in the book is
remarkable, especially its absence at the end. The place of Deut. 4:2 can be explained:
at the beginning of the following stipulations. The position of Deut. 13:1 is
remarkable, however; of course, this may be explained by the genesis of
Deuteronomy or as an emphasis on the main law of Deut. 12. Even then, however,
it seems strange that a similar formula does not recur at the end of the book.
Deuteronomy 27-28 contain extensive curses, with the curse on anyone who does
not do the words of this Torah as a climax of chap. 27 (Deut. 27:26). Any
threat against someone adding anything to or taking away anything from the text,
however, is missing, whereas in the Ancient Near East this is a very common
formula at the end of an important text.
Third, the same
formula elsewhere in the Old Testament does not refer to a text either (In the
Apocrypha, it is found in Sir. 18:6; 42:21. The content of these verses
corresponds to Qoh. 3:14: God’s mighty works, from which a human being cannot
take away anything nor can he add anything to id). The combination “to add” and
“to take away” is found in Qoh. 3:14 (NRSV): “whatever God does endures for
ever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it.” Here, the
formula is not an exhortation, but an observation. It emphasizes God’s
sovereignty and the perfection of his deeds; his work is unreachable for human
influence. Thus, God makes that people fear before him.
One half of the
formula is found in Jer. 26:2 and Prov. 30:6. In Jer. 26, Jeremiah is
instructed to speak YHWH’s words in the temple; he may not hold back a word.
This text is about a message, albeit an oral one—writing is not mentioned in
the chapter. The fact that Kürzungsverbot is mentioned, may be explained
by the people’s resistance to his message; the other half of the formula wouldn’t
make sense in this context. In Prov. 30:6, the other half of the formula is
used: “Do not add to his words, or else he will rebuke you, and you will be found
a liar.” In the preceding verses, the limitations of human wisdom are marked;
God’s word, however, proves true. In the context, the Erwiterungsverbot mainly
is a warning against speculation, and hubris. Again, the focus is not the
protection of a text, but the call to be satisfied with what God has revealed
to human beings (cf. Duet. 29:28).
In conclusion, the
exhortation in Deut. 4:2 and 13:1 is neither add or take away from Moses’s
commandments does not aim to fix or to protect a certain text (which is not mentioned
in the context), but rather functions as a call to strict obedience (this interpretation
is also suggested by Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, which translates “nor shall you dimmish
anything by not keeping the commandments of YHWH your God . . .” [ . . . ולא תבצרון מיניה מן לא למינטור], thus connecting
the canon formula even more strongly to the rest of the verse). The formula
does show the authority of God’s words of commands; nothing may be changed to
them. The emphasis, however, is on Israel’s obedience. This can affect dealing
with the text of the book at most indirectly or secondarily. It is conceivable
that, if YHWH’s words are so important, one would also care for (the preservation
and correctness of) the text; but this is not the formula’s primary meaning.
From the parallels
mentioned from the Ancient Near East, this corresponds best with the formula in
treaty texts. Deuteronomy likewise deals with a covenant between two parties;
the emphasis, as in treaties, is on observance of the stipulations rather than
on the text in itself. (Arie Versluis, “’And Moses Wrote This Torah’: Canon Formulas and the Theology
of Writing in Deuteronomy,” in Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen and Eric Peels,
eds., Sola Scriptura: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority,
and Hermeneutics [Studies in Reformed Theology 32; Leiden: Brill, 2018], 137-58,
here, pp. 139-43)
