dissertation emmer chacon

8/15/2019 Dissertation Emmer Chacon

1/359

DISSERTATION ABSTRACT

Doctor of Philosophy

Adventist International Instituteof Advanced Studies

Theological Seminary

TITLE: A DIVINE CALL TO RELATIONSHIP AND A COVENANTALRENEWAL IN DEUTERONOMY 28:69-30:20: A SYNTAGMATIC

SYNTACTIC AND TEXT-LINGUISTIC ANALYSISResearcher: Emmer Chacon

Research advisor: David Tasker, PhD

Date completed: October 2010

This study uses a linguistic approach and applies syntagmatics, syntax and

textlinguistics procedures to the Hebrew text of Deut 28:69-30:20 in order to assess what

the linguistic information thus obtained might contribute for the understanding of the

literary, structural and theological aspects portrayed in this passage.

Chapter 1 surveys the methodology that is applied to the text in Chapters 2 and 3

generating structural and theological information that Chapters 4 and 5 analyze. Finally,

Chapter 6 provides a general summary, methodological evaluation, conclusions, and

recommendations

This investigation has demonstrated that in Deut 28:69-30:20 vocabulary,

grammar, micro and macrosyntax, rhetoric and pragmalinguistic are highly crafted with

literary cohesion and coherence to convey the theology of the text. Textlinguistics

allowed identifying rhetorical strategies in Deut 28:69-30:20. These strategies seek to


2/359

provide a speech that combines a high level of organization and art while conveying a

message. These strategies enhance persuasion and memory. Repetition carries on motifs

through the speech and portrays more than one aspect of the issue or even return to the

topic after a digression. The changes in personal pronouns display harmonic patterns that

allow the speaker to argue with the individual while addressing the multitude. Temporal

patterns provide the presentation of a comprehensive covenantal programmatic offer for

the future of the audience. This offer implies a program and a history of the conditional

program of what the Lord intends to fulfill in behalf of the audience and their

descendants and the certain prophetic portrayal of what the near and future history of the

people will be. The audience has the key, the final answer that the text does not register.

Although the prophetic portrayal of the text shows us what their answer in the future will

be. Therefore, textlinguistics has proved to be efficient in elucidating the way rhetoric,

structure and theology function in the text.


3/359

Adventist International Institute

of Advanced Studies

Theological Seminary

A DIVINE CALL TO RELATIONSHIP AND A COVENANTAL

RENEWAL IN DEUTERONOMY 28:69-30:20:A SYNTAGMATIC, SYNTACTIC AND TEXT-

LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS

A dissertation

presented in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

by

Emmer Chacon

October 2010


4/359

Copyright © 2010by Emmer ChacónAll rights reserved


5/359

A DIVINE CALL TO RELATIONSHIP AND A COVENANTAL RENEWALIN DEUTERONOMY 28:69-30:20: A SYNTAGMATIC, SYNTACTIC

AND TEXT-LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS

A dissertationpresented in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degreeDoctor of Philosophy

by

Emmer Chacón

APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE:

_________________________________ ___________________________________David Tasker, PhD, Chairman Carlos Mora, ThD, MemberAssociate Professor of Old Testament Associate Professor of Old TestamentExegesis and theology Biblical Languages

_________________________________ ___________________________________Aecio Cairus, PhD, Member Kim Papaioannou, PhD, Internal ExaminerProfessor of Systematic Theology Assistant Professor of New Testament

_________________________________ ___________________________________

Grenville Kent, PhD, External Examiner David Tasker, PhD, DeanWesley Institute, Sydney, Australia AIIAS Theological Seminary

___________________________________Date Approved


6/359


7/359

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. xii

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................ 4Purpose and Significance of the Research ...................................................... 5Justification of the Research............................................................................ 7Delimitation of the Research ........................................................................... 8Methodology ................................................................................................... 9

Linguistic Analysis..................................................................................11Microsyntactical Analysis .................................................................11Word Order ...................................................................................... 12Macrosyntactical Analysis ............................................................... 13

Verbal Distribution in the Text ......................................................... 14Theological Analysis .............................................................................. 15Literature Review .......................................................................................... 15

Recent Methodologies ........................................................................... 16Historical and Literary Critical ........................................................ 16Narrative Methodology .................................................................... 18Synchronic-Canonical ...................................................................... 20Rhetorical Critical ............................................................................ 22Text-Linguistics ............................................................................... 27

Summary ................................................................................................ 29

2. TEXT–LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS (PART I) ........................................................ 31

Syntagmatical and Syntactical Analysis of Deut 28:96-29:28 ...................... 32Deuteronomy 28:69 ............................................................................... 33

Hebrew Text of Deut 28:69 .............................................................. 34Analysis of Textual Critical Notes ................................................... 34Summary .......................................................................................... 35Clause Division of Deut 28:69 ......................................................... 35Syntax and Syntagmatics ................................................................. 36


8/359

vi

Summary .......................................................................................... 41Deuteronomy 29:1-8 .............................................................................. 42

Hebrew Text of Deut 29:1-8 ............................................................ 42Analysis of Textual Critical Notes ................................................... 42Summary .......................................................................................... 47Clause Division of Deut 29:1-8 ....................................................... 47Syntax and Syntagmatics ................................................................. 49Summary .......................................................................................... 61

Deuteronomy 29:9-20 ............................................................................ 64Hebrew ext of Deut 29:9-20 ............................................................ 64Analysis of Textual Critical Notes ................................................... 65Summary .......................................................................................... 73Clause Division of Deut 29:9-20 ..................................................... 73Syntax and Syntagmatics ................................................................. 75Summary ........................................................................................ 103

Deuteronomy 29:21-28 ........................................................................ 105Hebrew Text of Deut 29:21-28 ...................................................... 105

Analysis of Textual Critical Notes ................................................. 106Summary ........................................................................................ 109Clause Division of Deut 29:21-28 ................................................. 109Syntax and Syntagmatics ................................................................110Summary ........................................................................................ 123

Summary ..................................................................................................... 125

3. TEXT–LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS (PART II) ..................................................... 126

Syntagmatical and Syntactical Analysis of Deut 30:1-20 ........................... 126Deuteronomy 30:1-10 .......................................................................... 126

Hebrew Text of Deut 30:1-10 ........................................................ 126Analysis of Textual Critical Notes ................................................. 127Summary ........................................................................................ 131Clause Division of Deut 30:1-10 ................................................... 131Syntax and Syntagmatics ............................................................... 133Summary ........................................................................................ 149

Deuteronomy 30:11-14 ........................................................................ 151Hebrew Text of Deut 30:11-14 ...................................................... 151Analysis of Textual Critical Notes ................................................. 151Summary ........................................................................................ 153Clause Division of Deut 30:11-14 ................................................. 153Syntax and Syntagmatics ............................................................... 154

Summary ........................................................................................ 160Deuteronomy 30:15-20. ....................................................................... 161Hebrew Text of Deut 30:15-20 ...................................................... 161Analysis of Textual Critical Notes ................................................. 162Summary ........................................................................................ 169Clause Division of Deut 30:15-20 ................................................. 170Syntax and Syntagmatics ............................................................... 171Summary ........................................................................................ 185


9/359

vii

Summary ..................................................................................................... 187Textual Issues ....................................................................................... 187Syntactic and Syntagmatic Analysis .................................................... 188Structural Information .......................................................................... 188Numeruswechsel and Personenwechsel ............................................... 190

4. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF DEUT 28:69-30:20 ........................................ 192

The Structure of Deuteronomy .................................................................... 193Covenant Form..................................................................................... 194Concentric Literary Pattern .................................................................. 196Collection of Speeches ......................................................................... 198Summary .............................................................................................. 205

The Structure of Deuteronomy 28:69-30:20 ............................................... 206Deuteronomy 28:69-29:8 ..................................................................... 207Deuteronomy 29:9-20 .......................................................................... 212Deuteronomy 29:21-28 ........................................................................ 216

Deuteronomy 30:1-10 .......................................................................... 219Deuteronomy 30:11-14 ........................................................................ 223Deuteronomy 30:15-20 ........................................................................ 225Summary .............................................................................................. 228

5. COVENANT THEOLOGY AND DEUTERONOMY 28:69-30:20 .................. 232

Covenant Theology in the Pentateuch ......................................................... 232Covenant Theology in Deut 28:69-30:20 .................................................... 238

Deuteronomy 28:69-29:8 ..................................................................... 239Deuteronomy 29:9-20 .......................................................................... 244Deuteronomy 29:21-28 ........................................................................ 247Deuteronomy 30:1-10 .......................................................................... 250Deuteronomy 30:11-14 ........................................................................ 253Deuteronomy 30:15-20 ........................................................................ 255

Summary ..................................................................................................... 260God’s Initiative..................................................................................... 261Love of God and the Love for God ...................................................... 261Order Is Important................................................................................ 262Danger of Idolatry and Apostasy ......................................................... 262Choices ................................................................................................. 263Covenant Elements .............................................................................. 263

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 267

Summary ..................................................................................................... 267Textual Critical Analysis ...................................................................... 267Syntagmatic and Syntactical Analysis ................................................. 268Structural Analysis ............................................................................... 269Theological Analysis ............................................................................ 269

Conclusions ................................................................................................. 273


10/359

viii

Resumptive Repetition ......................................................................... 273Numeruswechsel and Personenwechsel ............................................... 274Location and Function of Deut 28:69 ................................................. 275Covenant Features of the Text ............................................................. 275

Methodological Evaluation ......................................................................... 277Recommendations for Further Study .......................................................... 279Final Conclusion.......................................................................................... 281

APPENDIXES

A. VERBAL DISTRIBUTION IN DEUT 28:69-30:20 .......................................... 283

B. ANALYSIS OF SYNTAGMS AND CLAUSE IDENTIFICATION ................. 293

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 325


11/359


12/359

x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Ø Asyndeton

1p First person plural

2mp Second person masculine plural

2ms Second person masculine singular

3p Third person

3ms Third person masculine singular

3mp Third person masculine plural

acc accusative

Adv Adverb/adverbial

ANE Ancient Near Eastern

BDB Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon

DO Direct object

DOTP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch

IO Indirect object

LXX Septuagint

mo Modifier

MT Masoretic Text

NC Nominal clause

NIDB New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis


13/359

xi

nP Nominal predicate

OT Old Testament

P Predicate

Prep Preposition

TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament

WBC Word Biblical Commentary


14/359

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A PhD dissertation is always the result of many people’s labor. The education of

a PhD candidate does not start the moment he or she registers for the coursework. It

commences years back when academic discipline and critical thinking are planted and

then nurtured through time. Professor Eduardo Gómez hammered the ideal of academic

excellence in my mind back in 1983 during my first year in College.

Dr Laren Kurtz deposited the seed of this research back in 2003 during his class

on Pentateuch in Venezuela when he suggested literary methods as a promising exegetical

tool. Dr Clinton Whalen and Dr Gerald Klingbeil, my professors at AIIAS Theological

Seminary, took care in training me in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and exegesis providing

wide opportunity for me to explore diverse methodologies while writing several

academic papers that they carefully read and criticized. Wise feedback characterized this

process. Dr Joel Musvosvi and Dr Aecio Cairus, my PhD program directors, often went

the extra mile so that I could enjoy a research-oriented environment during all my

doctoral training. Dr Grenville Kent provided critical advice in the right moment. Dr

David Tasker, my main adviser, Dr Carlos Mora and Dr Kim Papaioannou have provided

guidance and advice.

Doctoral education demands enormous amounts of resources and implies heavy

stress. My sponsor institutions, the Seventh-day Theological Seminary of Venezuela, the

Seventh-day Adventist Venezuelan-Antillean Union and the Inter American Division


15/359

xiii

provided the needed material and moral support for my training so that I could focus on

advanced research with the basic needs of my family covered.

My friends and relatives have supported my family with their prayers and even

their resources during these years. Dr Micah Andrews has taken special attention during

all these years in providing me advice, guidance, academic resources and much more so

that my education might be balanced in the global and contemporary perspective. The

Leslie Hardinge Library has gone the extra mile helping me to find the much-needed

resources, books and articles in three continents across the sea and the ether.

My wife has been by my side for long years nurturing my scholarly dream,

pushing me ahead and unconditionally supporting me at an ineffable personal cost. Her

prayers, her character, her piety and her warm constant love have supported us through

fire and storms.

My Lord in heavens gave me a vision early in my faith journey and He has carried

me through. Glory be to Him in Heavens forever and ever. I pray that His grace might

empower me to bring glory to His Name.

1Escuchad, cielos, y hablaré;Y oiga la tierra los dichos de mi boca.

2Goteará como la lluvia mi enseñanza;Destilará como el rocío mi razonamiento;Como la llovizna sobre la grama,Y como las gotas sobre la hierba;

3Porque el nombre de Jehová proclamaré.Engrandeced a nuestro Dios.

4Él es la Roca, cuya obra es perfecta,Porque todos sus caminos son rectitud;

Dios de verdad, y sin ninguna iniquidad en él;Es justo y recto. Deut 32:1-4


16/359

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Deuteronomy has inspired and perplexed its readers for more than two millennia.

The overall covenantal form and theology coupled with its peculiar literary style both

amazes and bewilders the student of Deuteronomy. The style needs to be addressed in

order to unpack the former. The abundance of repetition and the presence of exceptions,

the often confusing flow of pronouns, the abundance of literary figures, and often unusual

vocabulary, grammar and/or syntax shroud the message of Deuteronomy. Textlinguistics

promises to provide a way to see through this fog. This methodology offers to the

interpreter an array of linguistic tools to assess the fabric of the text and reach its

message.

A review of recent scholarly publications reveals the literature on Deuteronomy as

massive and even overwhelming.1 Some of the most representative methodological

approaches applied to the academic study of Deuteronomy and particularly to Deut

28:69-30:20 include perspectives such as historical-critical methodologies,2 narrative

1 Duane Christensen, ed., A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3 (Winona Lake, IN:Eisenbrauns, 1993), ix. See a comprehensive inventory of this bibliography up to 2000 inDuane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1-21:9, Word Biblical Commentary 6A (Dallas,TX: Word Books, 2002), xxxv- liv.

2 Samuel Rolles Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978), 320-328. Alexander Rofé, “The Covenant in the Landof Moab (Deuteronomy 28:69-30:20): Historico-Literary, Comparative, and FormcriticalConsiderations,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of


17/359

2

criticism,3 synchronic-canonical,4 rhetorical-critical,5 and text-linguistic.6 However,

scholarly literature evidences that the textlinguistic approach has not been applied to Deut

28:69-30:20 to the best of my knowledge. These methodologies have contributed a rich

mine of scholarship and have brought to light a number of issues in Deuteronomy and in

the chosen text. These issues remain as a matter of study. A review of the scholarly

literature reveals that they remain either unsolved or partially solved. Some of these

subjects are pertinent to the study of Deut 28:69-30:20 and deal with areas such as the

literary structure of the passage. There is research needed in reference to the function of

Deut 28:69 as it is marked by the Masoretes as the ending of Deut 27:1-28:68 but its

vocabulary seems to be more related to 29:1-30:20.7 The syntax and syntagmatics of the

passage need analysis in reference to the resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme)8 that

Deuteronomy, ed. Duane L. Christensen, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 269-279.

3 John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids, MI:Zondervan, 1992), 471-473.

4 J. Gordon McConville, Deuteronomy, Apollos Old Testament Commentary 5(Leicester, England: Apollos, 2002), 410-420. Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy21:10-34:12, Word Biblical Commentary 6B (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2002),706-733.

5 Timothy A. Lenchak, “Choose Life!” A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of Deuteronomy 28,69-30,20, Analecta Biblica 129 (Roma: Editrice Pontificio IstitutoBiblico, 1993).

6 Eep Talstra, “Deuteronomy 9 and 10 Synchronic and Diachronic Observations,”in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis, ed.Johannes C. De Moor (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 187-210. Jason Shane DeRouchie, “ACall to Covenant Love: Text Grammar and Literary Structure in Deuteronomy 5-11,”

(PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY: 2005).7 This verse is marked with a petuḥah. Rofé, “The Covenant in the Land ofMoab,” 269-270.

8 Wiederaufnahme or resumptive repetition “is a discourse feature used to resumea previous topic, story line or theme line that has been interrupted by a span ofinformation that is related to but diverges for a short or long gap before being resumed.”See Phil Quick, “Resumptive Repetition—Introduction to a Universal DiscourseFeature,” Linguistika 14, no. 26 (2007): 1.


18/359

3

has been interpreted synchronically as literary device9 and diachronically as evidence of

the editorial history of the text.10 Another issue is the Numeruswechsel, which implies

changes in the morphological number of the addresses, and has been seen as evidence of

multiple editorial sources and as a rhetorical and even theological device.11 The presence

and function of covenant forms in Deuteronomy are still a matter of study and Deut

28:69-30:20 shares those forms and theology.12

In OT studies, recent scholarship has seen text-oriented methodologies taking

advantage of the state of the art in linguistic studies in general13 and particularly in

biblical Hebrew linguistics.14 These methodologies allow the interpreter to gain access to

9 See Denis T. Olson, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994), 129.

10 See Rofé, “The Covenant in the Land of Moab,” 274-275.11 See J. Gordon McConville, “Singular Address in the Deuteronomic Law and

the Politics of Legal Administration,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 97(2002): 19, 29-36.

12 See the discussion in James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2005), 193-192. John Charles Hutchison, “The Relationship of the Abrahamic,Mosaic, and Palestinian Covenants in Deuteronomy 29-30” (ThD diss., DallasTheological Seminary, 1981).

13 Gérard Fernández Smith, “Fundamentos teóricos, desarrollo y proyeccionesactuales de la lingüística del texto” (PhD diss., Universidad de Cádiz, Cádiz, España,2003). This research in general linguistics shows several techniques and methodologiescurrently used in reference to Hebrew linguistics.

14 Examples of the application of these text-oriented methodologies are found indissertations such as Rolf A. Jacobson, “‘Many Are Saying’: The Function of DirectDiscourse in the Hebrew Psalter” (PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, NJ, 2000).

Robert D. Holmstedt, “The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis”(PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2002). David O. Moomo, “The Meaningof the Biblical Hebrew Verbal Conjugation From a Crosslinguistic Perspective” (PhDdiss., University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2004). Michael A. Lyons, “From Law toProphecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin,Madison, 2005). Steven Edward Runge, “A Discourse-Functional Description ofParticipant Reference in Biblical Hebrew Narrative” (PhD diss., University ofStellenbosch, South Africa, 2006). Anne E. Garber Kompaoré, “Discourse Analysis ofDirective Text: The Case of Biblical Law” (MA thesis, Associated Mennonite Biblical


19/359

4

a wealth of textual information that was not accessible before and might contribute to

solve issues related to the text, its structure and its theology. In addition these

methodologies offer to provide for the researcher interpretative controls because of its

linguistic foundation. It is in this context that textlinguistics15 might contribute to the

solution of current issues related to the study of Deuteronomy and particularly Deut

28:69-30:20.

Statement of the Problem

This research aims to put the textlinguistic methodology to the test in a text where

it has not been applied so far, namely Deut 28:69-30:20. This research seeks to find what

textlinguistics might contribute to the solution of these issues in the selected text. These

issues include

Seminary, Elkhart, IN, 2004). Silvu Tatu, “Ancient Hebrew and Ugaritic Poetry andModern Linguistic Tools: An Interdisciplinary Study,” Journal for the Study of Religionsand Ideologies 17 (Summer, 2007): 47-68. Gernot Kopa, “Divine Discourse and BiblicalScholarship: A Limited Critical Assessment of Nicholas Wolterstorff’s Speech-Act

Theory Approach and Its Implications for Biblical Hermeneutics and ExegeticalMethodology” (MA thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 2008).15 See an introduction to textlinguistics in David Allan Dawson, Text-Linguistics

and Biblical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 11-219. Christo vander Merwe, “A Critical Analysis of Narrative Syntactic Approaches, With SpecialAttention to Their Relationship to Discourse Analysis,” in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 , ed. Ellen van Wolde, BiblicalInterpretation Series 29 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 133, 134, 156. Susan Anne Groom, Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2003), 131-160.Some examples of recent research in OT studies using this methodology might be seen inBaek Sung Choi, “The Unity and the Symmetry of the Book of Job” (PhD diss.,

University of Texas, Arlington, TX, 2000). Hwi Cho, “Ezekiel’s Use of the Term ayfn With Reference to the Davidic Figure in His Restoration Oracles” (PhD diss., TrinityEvangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL, 2002). Renata C. Furst, “Prophecy asNarrative World: A Study of the World-Constructing Conventions and NarrativeTechniques in Hosea 1-3” (PhD diss., Université de Montréal, Canada, 2004). OttoSánchez M., “A Textlinguistic Analysis of Exodus 15:22-17:7” (PhD diss., WestminsterTheological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA, 2004). DeRouchie, “A Call to Covenant Love.”Timothy Lee Walton, “Experimenting With Qohelet: A Text-Linguistic Approach toReading Qohelet as Discourse” (PhD diss., Vrije University, Amsterdam, 2006).


20/359

5

1. The nature, function and textual significance of resumptive repetition

(Wiederaufnahme).

2. The nature, function and textual significance of the repetitive changes in the

morphological number of the addresses ( Numeruswechsel).

3. The identification and location of structural textual markers that have been

used to delimitate the speeches in Deuteronomy. This is important for the

purposes of the study as although Deut 28:69-30:20 is Moses last speech in

Deuteronomy it seems to begin with a text (28:69) which was marked by the

Masoretes with a petuH ah as the ending of the previous speech. Therefore

there is an issue associated with the location and function of Deut 28:69 in

relation to the flow of the preceding (Deut 27:1-28:68) and the following text

(Deut 29:1-30:20). Does Deut 28:69 end Deut 27:1-28:68 or does it

introduce Deut 29:1-30:20 or does it fulfill both functions?

4. The nature and function of the covenant features of the text, both literary and

theological.

Purpose and Significance of the Research

Recent scholarship has applied linguistic advances16 from general linguistics in

the study of biblical Hebrew linguistics in order to discover the kind of literary and

theological structures revealed by the syntax and text linguistic of the text itself.17 In

16 Christo H. J. van der Merwe, “Some Recent Trends in Biblical HebrewLinguistics: A Few Pointers Towards a More Comprehensive Model of Language Use,” Hebrew Studies 44 (2003): 7-24. This article samples contributions from structuralism,pragmatics, cognitive linguistics and socio linguistics.

17 See Christo H. J. van der Merwe and Eep Talstra, “Biblical Hebrew: TheInterface of Information Structure and Formal Features,” Zeitschrift fur Althebraistik 15-16 (2002-2003): 68-107.


21/359


22/359

7

Justification of the Research

Scholars that apply literary methods to the study of the Hebrew biblical text have

recently been using linguistic tools to their exegetical endeavor.20 This methodological

tendency provides an opportunity for a fresh reading of the text and a better evaluation of

its literary aspects and its theology. This reading from a fresh perspective promises

access to a wealth of linguistic data that might enrich our understanding of the biblical

text, as recent research shows.21 The study of Deuteronomy has also begun to benefit

from this linguistic approach.22 This research seeks to take advantage of this situation

and use textlinguistic tools to study the text of Deut 28:69-30:20 and then find how this

methodology might help to solve its textual, structural and theological issues.

20 See examples in Hans Rechenmacher and Christo H. J. van der Merwe, “TheContribution of Wolfgang Richter to Current Developments in the Study of BiblicalHebrew,” Journal of Semitic Studies 50, no. 1 (2005): 80. See additionally Christo vander Merwe, “Discourse Linguistic and Biblical Hebrew Grammar” in Biblical Hebrewand Discourse Linguistics, ed. Robert D. Bergen (Dallas, TX: Summer Institute ofLinguistics, 1994), 13-49; Robert E. Longacre, “Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew

Prose,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. Robert D. Bergen (Dallas,TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994), 50-98; Francis I. Andersen, “Salience,Implicature, Ambiguity, and Redundancy in Clause-Clause Relationships in BiblicalHebrew,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. Robert D. Bergen (Dallas,TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994), 99-116; Alviero Niccacci, “On the HebrewVerbal System,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. Robert D. Bergen(Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994), 117-137.

21 See some linguistic approaches applied in Old Testament studies in Kent AaronReynolds, “Psalm 119: Promoting Torah, Portraying an Ideal Student of the Torah” (PhDdiss., University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2007), 19-65. Kent Aaron Reynolds discussesthe relationship between form and function in poetry. A more technical example is found

in Keith Andrew Massey, “The Concord of Collective Nouns and Verbs in BiblicalHebrew: A Controlled Study” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1998).Michael A. Lyons used linguistic tools to provide evidence of Ezekiel “as a reader anduser of an earlier text as scripture.” See Lyons, “From Law to Prophecy,” 194. Seeanother linguistic approach in Martin Pröbstle, “Truth and Terror: A Text-OrientedAnalysis of Daniel 8:9-14” (PhD diss., Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, 2006).

22 Talstra, “Deuteronomy 9 and 10,” 187-210. DeRouchie, “A Call to CovenantLove.”


23/359

8

Delimitation of the Research

This study deals with a large section of the Hebrew text, namely, Deut 28:69-

30:20. Therefore, issues such as the literary provenance, date of composition and other

isagogic issues of Deuteronomy are not addressed.23 Textual and morphological issues

are analyzed only as required by the study itself. This study will not address instances of

intertextuality. At the same time, structural aspects will come into focus only as required

by the syntactical and linguistic data provided by the text itself in the context of the

structural approach that will be selected in the literature review. The theological analysis

will be limited to the covenant-related data provided by the text.

23 The issue related to the unity and authorship of the book of Deuteronomy andthe whole Pentateuch is still under discussion and probably far from solution. We maysee in some scholars a tendency to approach the Pentateuch both as a unity and as acollection. Some examples in this approach are U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Hebrew University,1961), 98-105, especially page 103, where he speaks of the unity of the Torah and thevariety of its materials. M. H. Segal, The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship and Other Biblical Studies (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1967), 1-21.M. H. Segal arrives to the conclusion that the Pentateuch must be the work or final

“work of an author or compiler who worked on a definite plan with a fixed purpose onview,” 21. Thomas W. Mann, The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of thePentateuch (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 1-9, 143-147. Tomas W. Mann stresses thistwofold approach to the literary unity and the multiplicity of sources and traditions.McConville, Deuteronomy, 38-51, see especially page 51 where J. Gordon McConvillebriefly delineates his methodology and page 39 where he emphasizes evidence ofsimilarities between Deuteronomy and the Hittite treaty form, echoes in treaties and lawcodes and even in its language as reflecting the world of the second millennium BC. JanRidderbos, Deuteronomy, Bible Student’s Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Regency,1984), 6-24, see especially pages 19-22 for a “Mosaic” approach. See Sailhamer, ThePentateuch as Narrative, 1-80 where Sailhamer addresses the whole Pentateuch as a

narrative unity and stresses the literary devices that evidences this unity. See Olson, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses, 1-5; in these pages Denis T. Olson explains hismethodology as literary and theological reading and in pages 6-22 he introduces both theliterary and theological devices he will use in his reading of Deuteronomy. Olson acceptsa long editorial history for the book but he approaches it as a whole. For a briefevaluation of the vocabulary comparison between Ugarit and Deuteronomy, see Peter C.Craigie, “Deuteronomy and the Ugaritic Studies,” in A Song of Power and the Power ofSong: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, ed. Duane L. Christensen, Sources forBiblical and Theological Study 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 115-121.


24/359

9

Methodology

The study will analyze the text of Deut 28:69-30:20 focusing upon two aspects:

Text linguistics and theology. It is expected that the textlinguistic analysis will provide

information with structural implications in order to clarify issues such as the structural

function of Deut 28:69, the nature and function of resumptive repetition,

Numeruswechsel and the covenantal elements in the text. These aspects of the study will

be performed with the intention of always allowing the text to be the locus of authority

for its interpretation. This in an effort to use it as a hermeneutical control in the search of

the elusive objectivity.

In the stage of the syntactic and syntagmatic analysis this study adopts the present

form of the Hebrew text of Deut 28:69-30:20 in its Masoretic textual tradition.24 In

addition to this textual witness, it will make use of the pertinent available textual data25

24 In the textual critical field, this study is benefited from the recent publication ofCarmel McCarthy, ed., Biblia Hebraica Quinta, Fascicle 5: Deuteronomy (Stuttgart:

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007). This publication contains two books in one. Onesection contains the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy and the critical apparatus (pages I-XXXII, 1-104). The other section of the book provides a general introduction and thediscussion of both the Masorah Parva and Magna and the analysis of the main textualissues (pages 1*-190*). It considers and analyzes the evidence from all the availableresources in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac and Aramaic, see pages 5*-9*. For a review ofthe textual methodology of the Biblia Hebraica Quinta, see Gerald Klingbeil, review of Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Fascicle 18: General Introduction and Megilloth, by AdrianShenker, J. De Waard, P. B. Dirksen, Y. A. P. Goldman, R. Shäfer, and M. Sæb ø, Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary 10, no. 2 (2007): 216-219. Some other publicationsthat will provide useful information in textual issues related to the text of Deuteronomyare Sidnie White Crawford, “Textual Criticism of the Book of Deuteronomy and the

Oxford Hebrew Bible Project,” in Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays in Honor of Michael V. Fox on Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Ronald L. Troxel,Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 315-326. Robert G. Bratcher and Howard Hatton, A Handbook on Deuteronomy, UBSHandbook series (New York: United Bible Societies, 2000).

25 In reference to protocols and procedures for textual criticism in the OldTestament, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed.(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001), 287-312, 351-370.


25/359

10

from the Septuagint,26 Qumran,27 the Samaritan Pentateuch28 and the Vulgate29 as it

might be relevant for the study. Some of these textual variants does not necesarilly

reflect or suggest a different reading in the Hebrew text behind the manuscripts and

translations but might reflect translation strategies30 or even scribal habits.31 It is

important to recognize here that this textual critical discussion departs from the linguistic

methodology intended by this study. However, it is followed as even those differences

probably due to translation strategies or scribe improvement provide information about

the way the text might have been understood by ancient scribes and translators. Ancient

26 John William Wevers has published a wealth of scholarly reference worksrelated to the study of the Greek text of Deuteronomy. See John William Wevers, Deuteronomium, Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae ScientiarumGottingensis editum 3, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2006), 315-332.John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, Society of BibleLiterature Septuagint and Cognates Studies Series (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995),461-489. John William Wevers, “The LXX Translator of Deuteronomy,” in IX Congressof the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge 1995, ed. Bernard A. Taylor (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997), 57-89. John WilliamWevers, Text History of the Greek of Deuteronomy (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck andRuprecht, 1978).

27 Although Carmel McCarthy has dealt with the Qumran textual data related toDeuteronomy, the analysis will consult Ryan N. Roberts, “Textual Variants in theDeuteronomy Dead Sea Scrolls: A Case for Standardization” (MA thesis, Trinity WesternUniversity, Langley, Canada, 2005).

28 See in reference to this aspect August Freiherrn von Gall, ed., Der HebräischePentateuch der Samaritaner (1914-1918; repr. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993), 423-426.

29 R. Weber, B. Fischer, J. Gribomont, H. F. D. Sparks, and W. Thiele, ed., Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983),

30 In reference to the translation strategies of the LXX in Deuteronomy see Anneli

Aejmelaeus, On the Trial of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays (Kampen:Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1993), 65-115. Wevers, “The LXX Translator ofDeuteronomy,” 59-89. Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 151-158. McCarthy, Deuteronomy, 6*-9*.Roberts, “Textual Variants in the Deuteronomy Dead Sea Scrolls,” 112.

31 In reference to the scribal habits reflected in the Hebrew manuscripts ofDeuteronomy in Qumran, see Roberts, “Textual Variants in the Deuteronomy Dead SeaScrolls,” 112.


26/359

11

scribes and translators had to understad the text in order to copy and translate it. The

syntagmatic and syntactical analysis might take advantage of this information.

Linguistic Analysis

Microsyntactical analysis. Due to the linguistic nature of this study, the

methodology is eclectic as will become evident. The following are the steps of the

linguistic analysis.

In this step of the analysis, the text will be broken down into clauses consisting of

the smallest syntactical unit with a complete sense. Once this has been achieved, the

study will proceed first to the syntactical and syntagmatic analysis of every single

syntagm inside every clause, from the very first to the last in the Hebrew text of Deut

28:69-30:20. The syntagmatic analysis at this level will provide the necessary

information in order to identify and confirm the boundaries of every clause as well as the

internal word order and the verbal distribution. L. J. Regt elaborated a syntactic

inventory of the text of Deut 1-30 that might be useful for the purposes of this study.

Regt does not provide the linguistic database he used in his dissertation and therefore his

methodology is difficult to follow and to evaluate. 32

The microsyntactical analysis will also identify the verbal and nominal clauses as

well as clarify and exhaust elements related to the coordination and subordination of the

clauses. This initial clause classification will lead to the adequate procedures for clause

analysis.33 This information will be used to inform the flow of the utterances and, as a

32 See L. J. Regt, A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus: Demonstrated on the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 1-30 (Maastricht, Netherlands: VanGorcum, 1988), 9-112.

33 Duane A. Garrett and Jason S. DeRoouchie A Modern Grammar for Classical Hebrew, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2009), 1-14; Bill T. Arnold and


27/359

12

result, the rhetoric intention of the text as well as its structure. This information will

allow the identification of the main line of the text or foreground and the background or

supportive textual material.34 This information will make it possible to identify

“discourse types” according to the way in which the agent and the verbal temporal

succession interact. This expression refers to small sections in the text that can be

distinguished from its immediate context due to the way in which agent and verbal

aspects interact. 35 The temporal succession will be determined from the analysis of

verbal temporal aspects and verbal distribution. This microsyntactical analysis will

provide data that will inform the structural analysis in Chapter 4 and theological analysis

in Chapter 5.

Word order. The information derived from the syntactic and syntagmatic

analysis of the clauses will bring into focus the word order. This aspect has to do with

the presence (or absence) and the position of the verb and other syntagms in the clause. 36

Additionally, the analysis of the presence, position and usage of prepositions and special

particles is important.37 Prepositions and special particles will be used in identifying the

limits of the clauses and their flow and recognizing rhetorical nuances.38 Information so

John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2003), 162-170; Cynthia L. Miller, ed. The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 79-248, 297-336.

34 Groom, Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew, 146-151.35 See van der Merwe, “A Critical Analysis of Narrative Syntactical Approaches,”

133-156; Luis Vegas Montaner, “Sintaxis del verbo Hebreo bíblico,” in Jewish Studies atthe Turn of the Twentieth Century: Proceedings of the 6th EAJS Congress Toledo, July1988, ed. Judit Targarona Borrás and Angel Sáenz-Badillos, Biblical, Rabbinical, andMedieval Studies 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 221-231.

36 Katsuomi Shimasaki, Focus Structure in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of WordOrder and Information Structure (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2002).

37 Garrett and DeRoouchie, A Modern Grammar , 19-26.38 Arnold and Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 95-161.


28/359

13

obtained in the biblical text, may provide a link between the syntagmatic and syntactical

form and the theology portrayed by the text.

The unmarked word order of the Hebrew verbal clause is VSO (Verb-Subject-

Object) or even VSX (Verb-Subject-any other part of the speech).39 The unmarked order

in the case of nominal clauses is subject plus predicate (Subject-Predicate). Any variation

of these patterns that is not required by syntax provides a window to identify nuances in

the clause. Whenever any other syntagm is located ahead of the the slot reserved for the

verb (the pre-verbal slot), it is said that this syntagm is fronted.40 This fronted syntagm

might be the focus of the clause or it might have been brought in frontal position for

emphasis, comparison or even contrast.41

Macrosyntactical analysis. As the micro syntactical analysis is exhausted, then

the study moves upwards to the inter clause syntax42 in the subsections of the passage and

finally to the syntax of the whole passage. This assessment will make evident the

position of every clause in reference to the flow of the text.43 The information thus

provided leads to the identification of internal sections in the text according to different

discourse types as already mentioned. These discourse sections of the text will be

analyzed internally and in their relationship with the preceding and subsequent text44 as

well as with the whole passage. This will provide information for the structural analysis

of the passage.

39 See van der Merwe, Naudé and Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew ReferenceGrammar , 63.

40 Ibid., 333-344.41 For further details, see van der Merwe and Talstra, “Biblical Hebrew,” 68-107.42 Arnold and Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 171-192.43 Ibid., 171-192.44 Garrett and DeRoouchie, A Modern Grammar , 9-11.


29/359

14

As the syntactical analysis advances from the syntagm to the clause and from the

clause to the supra-clause-level syntax, this study will benefit from the information thus

obtained. Supra-clause-level syntax will provide the information needed to move the

study to the syntactical analysis of the whole passage.

Once the identification of the clauses is done, they are given letters according to

their order (a) and their limits are indicated (/). This procedure, once applied to the text,

provides the nomenclature used in this study to facilitate the localization of the

syntactical elements and other features in the text.45 This will facilitate the task for the

reader. This approach to the structure of the text departs from Christensen’s approach

that focuses on the counting of the accents and mora46 in a search for musical indicators

in the text. Christensen’s approach has been the object of criticism from a text linguistic

perspective.47

Verbal distribution in the text. Syntactical analysis will include the analysis of

the verbal distribution and their flow. 48 The verbal distribution has to do with the

presence and position of the verbs inside the clauses and their relation to subjects and

objects. The verbal flow has to do with their temporal-succession aspect.49 This analysis

will provide linguistic and textual evidence to identify and verify the nature of individual

45 Deut 29:1a, meaning Deuteronomy chapter 29, verse one and clause one.46 Mora, plural morae or moras, is a phonetic unit for the determination and

counting of the syllable weight.47 See Jason S. DeRouchie, “Deuteronomy as Didactic Poetry? A Critique of D.

L. Christensen’s View,” Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary 10, no. 1 (2007): 1-13.48 Vegas Montaner, “Sintaxis del verbo Hebreo bíblico,” 221-231; Bruce K.Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN:Eisenbrauns, 1990), 455-631; Arnold and Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 83-94. R. E. Longacre, “Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verb: Affirmation andRestatement,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter Ray Bodine (Winona Lake,IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 177-190.

49 Garrett and DeRoouchie, A Modern Grammar , 15-18.


30/359

15

sub-units of the discourse inside the text. Recent scholarship provides tools for this kind

of analysis of verbal distribution and flow.

Theological Analysis

This study focuses on the information that the linguistic data may provide for the

understanding of the covenantal theology of Deut 28:69-30:20. The previous stages of

the study will inform the theological analysis, which will be limited to those covenant

topics or aspects reflected in the vocabulary and the rhetorical intention of the text as

exhibited by textlinguistic analysis. The application of linguistic pragmatics to the study

of biblical Hebrew language in reference to the word order might prove useful in this

endeavor. It provides, from a text-linguistic perspective procedures to determine theme,

topic and focus of a text.50

Finally, after the theological analysis is concluded, the study will elaborate

appropriate summary and conclusions on the different stages of the study. Special

attention will be given to methodological aspects. The theology of the text will also be in

focus. These conclusions will be drawn from partial summaries and conclusions

elaborated at the end of each chapter.

Literature Review

This section surveys the literature related to relevant topics that are critical for the

objectives of this study. First, this review will evaluate a sample of the methodologies

recently applied to the study of Deuteronomy and specifically to Deut 28:69-30:20, with

50 van der Merwe and Talstra, “Biblical Hebrew,” 68-107; Vegas Montaner,“Sintaxis del verbo Hebreo bíblico,” 221-231. For an extensive treatment of pragmaticsas applied to biblical Hebrew syntax see Sebastiaan Jonathan Floor, “From InformationStructure, Topic and Focus, to Theme in Biblical Hebrew Narrative” (PhD diss.,University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2004).


31/359


32/359

17

long editorial history. That is the case of the repetitions52 and particularly resumptive

repetitions or Wiederaufnahme, 53 as in Deut 29:19b-20.

Changes in the morphology of the pronouns, Numeruswechsel, where the object

of the addressees change from third masculine plural to second masculine singular, are

part of the data interpreted as evidence of the editorial history. In Deut 28:69-30:20, Deut

29 addresses the people mainly in plural but there are singular forms in texts as 29:2

(^yn


33/359

18

Historical and literary critical methods face some problems as a result of their

analysis of Deut 28:69-30:20. Both have difficulties, first to delineate with precision the

boundaries of the different sources in the text, and second to identify the S itz im Leben of

each source.56 However, these critical methods have identified some strategies in the text

that provide a picture of the theology of this chapter. From this perspective, Deut 29 first

makes a review of YHWH’s historical actions on behalf of the people (verses 1-8), and

then makes clear to the people that they are assembled to enter in a covenant with YHWH

(verses 9-14). They are further warned about the consequences of falling into idolatry,

including the final ruin and the exile (Deut 29:9-28 and 30:1-10).57

Narrative methodology. Narrative methodology prefers to approach the text in

its final form and then analyzes Deut 28:69-30:20 in the light of an overall literary

structure running through the Pentateuch. In this sense, the Pentateuch is seen as a book

in five volumes. According to this approach, the Pentateuch is organized in such a way

that after a major narrative there is a poetic section and then a historic epilogue.58 In this

way at the end of the patriarchal narrative, there is a poetic section (Gen 49:1-27). The

background of the treatise form in Deut 29-30. Rofé, “The Covenant in the Land ofMoab,” 279. See also C. Brekelmans, “Wisdom Influence in Deuteronomy,” in A Songof Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, ed. Duane L.Christensen, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3 (Winona Lake, IN:Eisenbrauns, 1993), 127-131.

56 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 8. This workapproaches literary strategies from a diachronical perspective.

57

Driver, Deuteronomy, 320.58 Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 1-3, 35-37, 423-479. Martin G.Klingbeil, “Poemas en medio de la prosa: Poesía insertada en el Pentateuco,” in Inicios, paradigmas y fundamentos: Estudios teológicos y exegéticos en el Pentateuco, RiverPlate Adventist University Monograph Series in Biblical and Theological Studies 1, ed.Gerald A. Klingbeil (Entre Ríos, Argentina: Editorial Universidad Adventista del Plata,2004), 61-85.


34/359

19

other poetic sections are after the Exodus narrative (Exod 15:1-21), at the middle of the

wilderness narrative (Num 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9, 16-24) and at the end of it (Deut 32:1-

43; 33:2-29). Each one of these poetic sections in turn is followed by their respective

historic epilogue (Gen 50; Exod 15:22-27; Num 25 and Deut 34). In this plot, there is a

call with an imperative verb (Deut 31:28, Wlyhi óq.h;, see Gen 49:1; Num 24:14). There is a

proclamation with a cohortative verb (Deut 31:28, hd"y[i äa'w >, see Gen 49:1; Num 24:14) and

then a prediction about what will happen to the people at the “end of the days” (Deut

31:29, ~ymi êY"h; tyrI åx]a;B., see Gen 49:1; Num 24:14) featuring the presence of the king figure

(%l,mñ ,, Deut 33:5a, see Gen 49:20; Exod 15:18; Num 24:7).59 The expression ~ymi êY"h;

tyrI åx]a;B. gives an eschatological dimension to these poems.60 This literary structure of the

text serves the theological purpose of setting a future program for the people. The text

looks backward to the previous history of the people and highlights God’s guidance,

protection and provisions on their behalf. The text also looks forward to what is

portrayed as the ideal future of the people living in harmonious fidelity to YHWH. At the

same time, the real future History of infidelity, apostasy and idolatry is revealed.61

Additionally, the stories of the past serve as a type of the future events and even model

them.62

The narrative approach sees the text in reference to three historical contexts: The

context of the portrayed event, the context of the writer, and the context of the intended

59 Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 35-37.60 See Richard M. Davidson, “The Eschatological Literary Structure of the Old

Testament,” in Creation, Life and Hope: Essays in Honor of Jacques Doukhan, ed. J.Moskala (Berrien Springs, MI: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day AdventistTheological Seminary, Andrews University, 2000), 351.

61 Ibid., 472.62 Ibid., 37-44.


35/359

20

reader.63 It may be said that narrative methods answers to the critical fractioning of the

text by giving evidence of unified literary micro and macrostructures in the whole

Pentateuch and, in our specific case, in Deuteronomy. In addition, this methodology has

enunciated and revealed the theological function and the programmatic nature of these

literary structures. The application of the narrative methodology has produced fruitful

results in its approach to the Pentateuch and Deuteronomy although issues such as the

Wiederaufnahme and the Numeruswechsel have not been specifically addressed to the

best of my knowledge.

Synchronic-canonical. The synchronic-canonical approach to Deut 28:69-30:20

deals with the theology of the text as well as with its syntax and literary strategies. In this

regard, the methodology and format of the Word Biblical Commentary have exerted an

influence. This format includes a careful and comprehensive review of the available

primary and secondary literature. It relies upon a direct translation of the Hebrew text

with attention to textual, formal, structural, syntactical and literary issues of the passage.

It then follows a verse-by-verse commentary of what the text meant and finally provides

a brief explanation of the contemporary meaning of the text.

The issue of the Wiederaufnahme64 has been answered with the identification of

the presence of a synoptic/resumptive-expansive literary technique. Accordingly, this

technique allows the biblical writer to tell the story twice. In the second account, he

expands on it and may even use another point of view.65

63 Ibid., 1-11.64 See William Robert Higgs, “A Stylistic Analysis of the Numeruswechsel

Sections of Deuteronomy” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,Louisville, KY, 1982), 2-9.

65 Joe M. Sprinkle, “The Book of the Covenant:” A Literary Approach, Journalfor the Study of the Old Testament Supplemental Series 174 (Sheffield: JSOT Press,


36/359

21

An alternative explanation of the Numeruswechsel has been proposed by

identifying a legal and rhetorical strategy. According to J. Gordon McConville, this

strategy lays the responsibility of the administration of law on the people (plural) and

then on the individual (singular) rather than on the king.66 Additionally, these changes of

number in the morphology of Deut 28:69-30:20, that are not limited to the second person

in Deut 29 but also include the first person, are seen as a literary and rhetorical strategy.

As an example, Christensen uses these shifts in number as one of his tools to identify

literary structures in the text.67

The synchronic-canonical approach to Deuteronomy in addressing the issue of the

presence of the treaty form in Deut 28:69-30:20 (and in the book as a whole), has found

more consistent parallels with the second millennium Hittite vassal treaties rather than

with the first millennium neo-Assyrian treaty literature.68

Synchronic canonical methods seek to answer to critical claims by uncovering

deep, detailed and extensive literary structures in the book of Deuteronomy and by

refining the arguments related to the parallelisms with the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE)

treaty literature. Additionally, theological and strategic functions for these structures

have been suggested. This approach has tried to be comprehensive in its treatment of the

text, its contexts and the primary and secondary available literature dealing with it.

However, textlinguistic approach may contribute to the understanding of these issues

with a more detailed analysis of the text.

1994), 19; Burke O. Long detects and describes literary and spatiotemporal structuresrelated to resumptive repetition. See Burke O. Long, “Framing Repetitions in BiblicalHistoriography,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106, no. 3 (September 1987): 385-389.

66 McConville, “Singular Address in the Deuteronomic Law,” 29-36.67 Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12, 709.68 McConville, Deuteronomy, 23, 24, 37, 39-40.


37/359

22

Rhetorical critical. Recent rhetorical critical studies show mixed results.

Timothy A. Lenchack applies Greek-Latin, rhetorical criteria and categories to the

analysis of Deut 28:69-30:20.69 This study has found that the audience is the whole

nation of Israel and the speech is based upon the character, ethos, of Moses and contains

emotional, pathos, and rational, logos, elements. It aims to demonstrate that idol worship

is incompatible with the worship of YHWH and that infidelity to this covenant will bring

punishment while its observance will bring reward; the people must choose between

YHWH and other gods. It is important to recognize that Lenchack pays careful attention

to the micro and macro syntactical structures in the text70 but “doubts may remain about

the extent to which the features of classical rhetoric are actually inherent in biblical

material.”71

We find some early attempts where attention is directed to rhetorical studies in

Deuteronomy that are more oriented to the text. In the sixties, some studies focused on

literary strategies as “locating in the text key-words, motifs, speaker distribution, and

concentric inclusions.”72 In his literary study of Deut 1-28 Jack R. Lundbom found

framing literary devices, which he identifies through textual markers. 73 These are

keywords, which are repeated in such a way that form literary structures. He also found

that these literary structures fulfill rhetorical purposes.

69 See Lenchak, “Choose Life!”70 Ibid., 173-179, 221-232.71

S. McKenzie, review of “Choose Life!” 301.72 See Jack R. Lundbom, “The Inclusio and Other Framing Devices inDeuteronomy I-XXVIII,” Vetus Testamentum 46, no. 3 (July 1996): 298. This study doesnot share Lundbom’s conclusions about Deut 29-34 as a latter addendum to a first editionof the book of Deuteronomy. As already noted, narrative studies have made evident thepresence of literary macro structures in the Pentateuch and in Deuteronomy that suggestthe literary integrity of the book of Deuteronomy.

73 Ibid., 296-315.


38/359

23

Lundbom identifies Deut 1:1-5 as an inverted inclusio in itself that also introduces

the following section, which runs from 1:6 to 4:49, while 4:44-49 is an inverted inclusio

with Deut 1:1-5. He identifies Deut 1:6-3:29 as a summary of the wilderness wandering

while he sees 4:1-40 as a sermon “on what lies ahead for Israel.” 74 This finding supports

the location of Deut 4:44-49 in the structure of the text and not just as an appendix to it.

In this way the literary and the rhetorical function of Deut 4:44-49 is made evident. Next,

Lundbom proceeds to identify similar framing structures in Deut 5-11. First, he finds an

inclusio consisting of Deut 5:1 and 11:3275 since both of them use the terms “the statutes

and ordinances,” “be careful to do” and “today.” The second inclusio includes Deut 6:6-9

and 11:18-20 and a third one consists of 6:3 and 11:22.

Lundbom identifies several other framing structures in Deut 12-26.76 One of

these structures dealing with Deut 12 are verses 1 and 32 which form an inclusio with the

usage of tAf[]l; !Wråm.v.T i in Deut 12:1 and tAf+[]l; Wrßm.v.t i in 13:1. Inside this speech, there is

a section on tithes and offerings (verses 4-14) and another on clean and unclean foods

(15-28). Lundbom identifies both as being dealt with once again in Deut 14:1-21 andDeut 14:22 to 15:23 respectively. The last one deals with these themes in inverse order.77

What is interesting in Lundbom’s methodology is the way he relies upon the

textual evidence for the identification of these inclusio structures and the internal

structures of the texts he addresses. It would be interesting to analyze these passages by

using a text linguistic methodology as DeRouchie78 did with Deut 5-11 in order to

74 Ibid., 302-304.75 Ibid., 304-306.76 Ibid., 306ss77 Ibid., 306.78 DeRouchie, “A Call to Covenant Love.”


39/359

24

appraise their literary structures, rhetoric, and theology in a deeper way. It is clear also

that Lundbom’s study is focused on framing structures as literary and rhetorical devices

in a long section of Deuteronomy, namely chapters 1-28. Because of the extensive

textual data, the theology of these texts is not studied in a deeper way.

Another author who has recently used a rhetorical approach with emphasis on the

textual evidence is Robert H. O’Connell. O’Connell’s studies scrutiny deal with shorter

passages than Lundbom’s study. These shorter texts allow O’Connell to pay detailed

attention to the text and its theology. This is evident even in the way in which he deals

with the text; not only tracking keywords but also analyzing, as far as possible according

to his method, the literary and rhetorical function of every single clause thus addressing

the overall literary strategy of the passage.

O’Connell’s first study under consideration deals with Deut 8:1-20,79 analyzing its

internal rhetorical structure and its rhetorical function in the context of Deut 4-11. In this

study, he departs from only seeking textual markers in verbatim correspondence as

Lundbom did. O’Connell looks for the position and rhetorical function of the vocabulary

under focus including semantic correspondence.80 He finds a concentric asymmetric

parallelism running all through the text of Deut 8:1-20 with its axis in Deut 8:7b-9.

O’Connell thinks that the asymmetries are due to rhetorical antithetical purposes which

he suggests are located in the correspondences between A and 1/a, and B and 1/b

respectively.81 This procedure shows that O’Connell is not only after keywords; he maps

79 See Robert H. O’Connell, “Deuteronomy VIII 1-20: AsymmetricalConcentricity and the Rhetoric of Providence,” Vetus Testamentum 40, no. 4 (October1990): 437-452.

80 Ibid., 441.81 A(8:1a)–B(1bab)–C(1bg)–D(2a)–E(2ba)–F(2bb)–G(3a)–H(3b)–I(4)–J(5)–

K(6)–L(7a)–AXIS(7b-9)–L’(10)–K’(11)–J’(12–14aba)–I’(14bb15b)–G’(16a)–E’(16ab)–


40/359

25

out the whole text of Deut 8:1-20 in its immediate context. This way he discloses the

rhetorical features that carry out the argument and then explains the possible cause for the

asymmetry of the text.

Once O’Connell has analyzed the position and distribution of the whole

vocabulary of the text, he moves toward the rhetoric of the passage. O’Connell’s analysis

generally moves from vocabulary distribution to rhetoric back and forth until he

discovers the theology portrayed through the rhetorical devices present in the text. Once

the rhetoric and the theology of Deut 8:1-20 have been identified and exposed the

rhetoric of the text is seen against the larger context of Deut 4-11.82 In this process he

deals with the syntactic and literary peculiarities of the text.

O’Connell’s second and third studies, dealing with Deut 7:1-26 and Deut 9:7-

10:7, 11-12 respectively, follow the same methodology of mapping the text. In these

studies, he unveils the internal rhetoric devices and the structure of the passage as shown

in the literary arrangement of its vocabulary. He next proceeds to the analysis of the

rhetoric of the passage, which he explains based on the rhetoric already revealed and the

irregularities in the literary arrangement. As a result, the theology and the intention of the

passage are worked out in the context of Deut 4-11, and correlated with the previous

analysis of Deut 8:1-20 that he has made in his previous study. 83

H’(16bg)–F’(17)–D’(18a)–C’(18b)–Virtual Warning (19):1/A(19a)–1/B(19b)–VirtualWarning (20): 1B’(20a)/1A’(20b), this distribution shows the asymmetry alluded. Ibid.,

441-445.82 Ibid., 451-452.83 See Robert H. O’Connell, “Deuteronomy VII 1-26: Asymmetrical

Concentricity and the Rhetoric of Conquest,” Vetus Testamentum 42, no. 2 (October1992): 248-265 and Robert H. O’Connell, “Deuteronomy IX 7-X 7, 10-11: PanelledStructure, Double Rehearsal and the Rhetoric of Covenant Rebuke,” Vetus Testamentum 42, no. 4 (October 1992): 492-509. These articles analyze the passages in theperspective of the overall structure and rhetorical strategy of their contexts.


41/359

26

So far, we have seen that Lundbom’s article tracks the key words of the text under

study (Deut 1-28) and identifies its literary-rhetorical framing devices. O’Connell’s

studies address shorter passages (Deut 8:1-20, 7:1-27 and 9:7-10:7, 10-11). O’Connell

seeks to reveal the internal distribution of the vocabulary and clauses in the text. This

procedure makes it possible for him to recognize the rhetorical structures and strategies

that might be present.

O’Connell then, having identified the rhetorical strategies, proceeds to identify the

setting of the theology in its immediate and larger literary context; this context is, in this

case, Deut 4-11. Therefore, O’Connell’s methodology moves from vocabulary and clause

distribution to rhetoric, using the rhetoric to explain the possible structural irregularities

and then moving from rhetoric to theology. These two procedures, Lundbom’s and

O’Connell’s, could be used in a complementary way in order to identify in the text, the

framing and other literary devices as well as the internal rhetoric of the passages. This

way also the literary peculiarities or apparent irregularities may also be addressed.

Probably a deeper text-oriented84 analysis might provide wider perspectives about the

rationale for the possible literary irregularities Lundbom and O’Connell have found in the

literary-rhetorical structures of the texts that they have analyzed.

O’Connell’s methodology moving from vocabulary and clause distribution to

rhetoric and then from rhetoric to theology might be refined. Maybe the concept of this

approach might be modified so as to move the analysis of the text from microsyntax to

macrosyntax and then from macrosyntax to theology. In this way, the theological

analysis of a text could be better grounded in the text itself and structural and literary

peculiarities addressed in more detail.

84 For a brief rationale, exploration and example of the text-oriented approach inexegesis, see Pröbstle, “Truth and Terror,” 8-29, 30-89.


42/359

27

Text-linguistics. This section briefly reviews one study that applies a text-

linguistic approach to Deut 5-11. In a long textual sample, Jason DeRouchie studies text

grammar, structure and theology. DeRouchie’s dissertation85 reviews over 30 years of

scholarly studies in Deuteronomy from Lohfink86 to Talstra.87 This period is part of what

Christensen calls the fourth phase in the history of the studies in Deuteronomy. This

phase began with Lohfink's study, which inaugurated the stylistic analysis in the text of

Deuteronomy.88 From this review, DeRouchie concludes that these studies have counted,

charted, and evaluated the whole vocabulary and clauses; “none, however, has performed

a full text-linguistic analysis of the entire corpus.”89 The purpose of this research

endeavor is to contribute to fill this gap in the current knowledge in the field and thus test

this methodology.

DeRouchie takes advantage of the recent linguistic advances in the study of

biblical Hebrew, as becomes evident even from a cursory review of his study and its

bibliography. Next, he moves from form to meaning and then to function. This he does,

assuming that “discourse function is determined by the meaning of certain forms in given

contexts.”90 From this aspect, he recognizes that probably “text-type and/or context

85 DeRouchie, “A Call to Covenant Love,” 6-25. The studies that DeRouchiereviews provide examples of different stages in the process of the methodological shiftfrom diachronical (critical) approaches that concentrated in the editorial history of thetexts toward literary (synchronical) studies concentrating in the final form of the text andits literary features.

86 Norbert Lohfink, Das hauptgebot: Eine untersuchung literarischer

einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5-11, Analecta Biblica 20 (Rome: Editrice Pontificio IstitutoBiblico, 1963).87 Talstra, “Deuteronomy 9 and 10 Synchronic and Diachronic Observations,”

187-210.88 Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12, xxxii, xxxv-xxxvii.89 DeRouchie, “A Call to Covenant Love,” 25.90 Ibid., 26-27.


43/359

28

influence meaning” and “similar forms may bear nuanced meanings and distinct

functions in various contexts.”91

DeRouchie proceeds in his study to define, classify and analyze the clauses in the

passage.92 Once syntactical issues are clarified, he analyzes text logic, then

foregrounding, and then identifies text types.93 Based on this information, DeRouchie

traces the argument of the whole text of Deut 5-11. In order to trace the argument, he

relies upon the location of the Hebrew discourse markers in the text.94 DeRouchie then,

based on the information already obtained, proceeds to the structural analysis and

interpretation of the passage.95 His methodology moves from text linguistics to the flow

of thought, which provides him the structure of the passage, and from the flow of thought

to the theology of the text. DeRouchie seeks to keep his study grounded in the textual

evidence. In this way, he attempts to make it evident that “text grammar works hand-in-

hand with semantic meaning and discourse function to establish the message of a text.”96

This approach allows the locus of authority to be grounded in the text during the

interpretative endeavor. Hans Rechenmacher and Christo H. J. van der Merwe have

suggested that in this way the literary arguments of the researcher, which might be based

on the understanding of his or her own mother language, could be better controlled as a

way to gain a better understanding of the “structure of Biblical Hebrew.”97 In this sense

91 Ibid., 27.92 Ibid., 54-76.93 Ibid., 76-85, 96-202.94 Ibid., 202-217.95 Ibid., 218-273.96 Ibid., 272.97 Rechenmacher and van der Merwe, “The Contribution of Wolfgang Richter,”

70.


44/359


45/359


46/359

31

CHAPTER 2

TEXT–LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS (PART I)

This chapter and the next pay attention to some linguistic aspects of Deut 28:69-

30:20 in order to assess its internal flow and structure as a basis of assessing its theology.

Chapter 2 will work with Deut 28:69-29:28 and Chapter 3 with Deut 30:1-20. This

division is made based on mechanical considerations and for the sake of the reader.

These linguistic aspects, as stated in the methodology, deal with micro1 and macro

syntax2 so the syntax of the paragraph and then of the whole speech is studied. In this

way, this chapter will provide information to be used in the next chapter that deals with

structural aspects of the passage and then the information provided by the syntactical and

structural analysis will inform the theological analysis.

This text linguistic analysis aims to explain the nature and function of the

different textual aspects of this passage as outlined in the statement of the problem.

These textual aspects in Deut 28:69-30:20 deal with the resumptive repetition or

Wiederaufnahme, the shift in the grammatical person and number of the audience

( Numeruswechsel and Personenwechsel) and those clauses that seem to function as

1 The microsyntactical analysis deals with the regular grammar and syntax of theclause plus other aspects such as the amount and order of words as well as verbalposition.

2 The macrosyntactical analysis deals with supra clause syntax. The focus is onaspects such as clause coordination, subordination and verbal distribution. The clausesare identified and tagged in reference to their flow in the text as main line (foreground)and off-line (background) clauses. It is also analyzed the presence and distribution of the Numeruswechsel and Personenwechsel.


47/359

32

headings in the text. The location and function of Deut 28:69 will be object of analysis.

The verbal distribution is assessed in search of the flow and the form of the text. Word

order analysis aims to identify the focus of the text. This verbal distribution is shown in

one single section in table format in Appendix A. The analysis of the usage of certain

prepositions and particles may complement the previous aspects making evident the

internal flow of the text. Finally, the linguistic analysis of these textual features aims to

identify literary strategies that might help to inform the structure and then the theology of

the text expressed in the covenant vocabulary and forms present in the text.

In harmony with what has been expressed, the whole text of Deut 28:69-30:20 has

been divided into clauses and each one of them has been syntagmatically and

syntactically analyzed and provisionally translated into English. Textual critical issues

are analyzed when they might be pertinent and as a way to ascertain how the ancient

scribes and translators dealt with the text as they tried to understand it. The syntactical

and syntagmatical analysis implies first, the internal syntactical structure of the clause

paying attention to the function and order of each word and then the type of the clause

that has been identified. Second, the syntactical relationship of the clause with the

previous and following clauses has been established. Third, the composition and nature

of the predicate is identified and then, according to the predicate analysis, it is established

if the clause belongs to the foreground (main line) or the background (off-line) of the

text. The database of this syntactical and syntagmatical analysis can be found in

Appendix B.

Syntagmatical and Syntactical Analysis of Deut 28:96-29:28

The text has been provisionally subdivided into subsections following the major

Masoretic paragraph markers—the petuH ah (p) and the setumah (s). Once the


48/359

33

syntagmatic and textlinguistic analysis is done, a better structural perception of the text

will be obtained and analyzed as part of the discussion in Chapter 4 which deals with the

internal structure of Deut 28:69-30:20 and its relationship with the overall structure of the

book.

In this chapter the reader will find first the Hebrew text of the section to be

analyzed and already divided into sintagms ( \ ) and into clauses ( / ), then the same text in a

table presentation by clauses with its notation and English translation and this is followed

by the discussion of the pertinent critical notes and versional information. The location

of the textual variants in the Hebrew text is marked after the implicated word or

expression by using italic superscript letters (a). This is to avoid confusion with the

clause notation, which is indicated by regular superscript letters (a), located before the

first word of the new clause. Once the critical notes are analyzed, there follows a

discussion of the rationale for the clause identification together with the relevant

syntactical, semantic and literary features. This linguistic discussion will be done clause

by clause so duplicity of information might be avoided as much as possible. Finally, a

summary follows before embracing the analysis of the next section of the passage. This

summary will include the textual, syntactical, structural and semantic information derived

from the discussion.

Deuteronomy 28:69

This section provides the Hebrew text of Deut 28:69 and the relevant textual

critical issues and versional data are evaluated. The working translation of the Hebrew

text is provided. Then the

dissertation emmer chacon

Documents