Saturday, April 3, 2021

Arie Versluis: Deuteronomy 4:2 and 13:1 are not about the Text but the Commandments Themselves

 

 

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)