The form and function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1-43)

Journal of Biblical Literature

Volumn 123, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 401-424

  Thiessen, Matthew ^a  

^a TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 64949187968     PISSN: 00219231     EISSN: 19343876     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3268040     Document Type: Review

References (90)

1. G. Ernest Wright, "The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32," in Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 26-67
2. See, e.g., J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC 5; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1974), 296-97
3. A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCB; Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1979), 380-81
4. Patrick D. Miller, Deuteronomy (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 226
5. Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 278-90
6. Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy (NIBC 4; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 297-98
7. Particularly, James R. Boston, "The Wisdom Influence upon the Song of Moses," JBL 87 (1968): 198-202
8. Wright, "Lawsuit," 34-36
9. This form category itself is not uncontested. Two articles have been published providing critique of this genre. Michael De Roche criticizes the term and concept of a "covenant lawsuit" as an appropriate translation for ("Yahweh's Rîb Against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-Called 'Prophetic Lawsuit' in the Preexilic Prophets," JBL 102 [1983]: 563-74)
10. For a more thorough critique of the whole genre of the rîb, see Dwight R. Daniels, "Is There a 'Prophetic Lawsuit' Genre?" ZAW 99 (1986): 339-60. Both of these criticisms fall short in that they assume that no modification could take place within the form
11. Herbert B. Huffmon, "The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets," JBL 78 (1959): 285-95, here 285
12. Huffmon bases his description on the work of Gunkel, Introduction, 279-80
13. Huffmon ("Covenant Lawsuit," 286) does not provide argumentation for seeing a judiciary role attributed to heaven and earth; he merely agrees with Gunkel's analysis. But Gunkel himself does not appear to argue this. He does state, somewhat ambiguously, that "heaven and earth are brought to judgment" (Introduction, 279), but then states that YHWH acts as judge (p. 280)
14. Wright, "Lawsuit," 54
15. Boston, "Wisdom Influence," 198-202
16. Boston himself attempts to do this but only discusses eleven such instances ("Wisdom Influence," 198-99)
17. Jeremiah 22:29 also contains a command to the land to hear, but here "land" refers to the people of the land. Here too the context is one of judgment
18. Many psalms could be added to this category. Multiple times in the Psalter, the "earth" is paralleled to "inhabitants of the world" and called to praise. Such a meaning for earth cannot be excluded outright from these other passages
19. Perhaps it is somewhat arbitrary to examine summons only to heaven, earth, and mountains. Other aspects of creation are also summoned in Scripture; see Pss 96:11-12 and 148:3, where the sea, field, forest, sun, moon, and stars are also invoked in the context of praise
20. Boston, "Wisdom Influence," 199
21. Wright, "Lawsuit," 34
22. So too Huffmon, who argues that vv. 26-43 "may be an appendix stating why Yahweh will remit the sentence" ("Covenant Lawsuit," 289)
23. The word "liturgical" is here being used in the rather broad sense of words that accompany a public cultic ceremony. Sigmund Mowinckel's definition of "cult"/"ritual" is apt: "The cult is, as mentioned above, the visible and audible expression of the relation between the congregation and the deity" (The Psalms in Israel's Worship [trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas; 2 vols.; New York: Abingdon, 1967], 16)
24. These words, according to Mowinckel, "seem originally to belong to the acts as interpretation and complement - that also being one side of the cult's dramatic character" (ibid., 20). Such words were by nature fixed rather than spontaneous. But see Erhard S. Gerstenberger, who suggests that cult should not be confined merely to a centralized place of worship but in early Israel should be thought to be a part of clan and tribal life (Psalms: Part I with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry [FOTL 14; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1988], 5-9, 21-22)
25. Others have argued that the Song is in fact liturgical, but they have not demonstrated to my satisfaction the evidence that leads to this conclusion or the implications of this conclusion. See Umberto Cassuto, who states that the Song "[i]s to be regarded as a liturgical composition for the New Year's festival, dating from the age of the Judges" (Biblical and Oriental Studies [trans. Israel Abrahams; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973], 1:46)
26. The LXX apparently misses the significance of this shift in person, making the subject of all the verbs in the verse third person singular
27. The antecedent of "their" in this verse is somewhat ambiguous. In v. 30, "their rock" is clearly YHWH, as seen from the fact that YHWH is paralleled with "their rock" in the next stich, and the antecedent is YHWH's people, who are handed over to their enemies. Yet in v. 31 "their rock" appears to be referring to the god of the enemy nation contrasted with "our rock" - that is, Israel's God. Even this ambiguity buttresses the argument that the Song was performed, since a change of speaker most likely took place here and notified the congregation that the two occurrences of "their rock" in vv. 30-31 refer to two different antecedents - the first Israel, the second the enemy nation
28. Changes occur also from second person singular to second person plural and vice versa. Since such changes are not restricted to the Song of Moses itself (i.e., 32:3 - "Give" [pl.]; 32:7 - "Ask" [sg.]) but are a phenomenon attested throughout the book of Deuteronomy, nothing will be made of their presence within the Song
29. q is to be preferred based on both lectio difficilior (containing the reference to "gods" that is lacking in the MT) and on lectio brevior (being a shorter variant than the LXX). If so, the verse should read: "Rejoice, O heavens with his people; bow to him all gods. For the blood of his sons he will avenge and vengeance he will return upon his enemies, and to those who hate him he will repay, and he will atone for the land of his people."
30. See Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59 (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 488-89
31. Craig C. Broyles, Psalms (NIBC 11; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 223-25
32. Kraus suggests that the psalm was used in a covenant renewal festival (Psalms 1-59, 490-91)
33. So too Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (WBC 19; Waco: Word Books, 1983), 363. Such a possibility is perhaps buttressed by the thunderstorm theophany in vv. 1-3, which Exodus associates with Mount Sinai, where the original covenant was formed
34. See Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991)
35. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 182
36. The chapter is made up of a series of oracles woven together. For a discussion of the component parts, see Peter C. Craigie et al., Jeremiah 1-25 (WBC 26; Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 20-21
37. For a discussion of comparisons and contrasts between Jer 2 and Deut 32, see Jack Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 109-17
38. William L. Holladay, "Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations," JBL 85 (1966): 17-27
39. While two different forms can be detected in this passage, that of a lawsuit (vv. 1-5) and an entrance liturgy (vv. 6-8), the two are combined to form a unified composition. So too Leslie C. Allen, The Book of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 363
40. Hans Walter Wolff, Micah: A Commentary (trans. Gary Stansell; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990), 166-69
41. James Luther Mays thinks that Israel may be asking this question (Micah: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 137-38)
42. Such thinking is in line with other temple entries, such as Pss 15 and 24. In both of these psalms a principal requirement for temple entry is social, not sacrificial
43. Gunkel and Beglich suggest that Mic 6:6-8, along with Isa 33:14-16, are prophetic imitations of Torah liturgy (Psalms, 313-14)
44. See the discussion on the cultic background to these verses in Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24E; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 510-11
45. See Lundbom, who argues that vv. 5-9 are a discrete chiastic unit, introduced by v. 4 and demarcated by the phrases "thus said YHWH" in v. 5 and "oracle of YHWH" in v. 9 (Jeremiah, 256-57). If so, the grammatical shift that occurs between vv. 5-9 and vv. 10-13 in reference to Israel is explained
46. See Broyles, Psalms, 127-32
47. Gerstenberger, Psalms, 117-19
48. Mowinckel, Psalms I, 5-6
49. Klaus Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method (trans. S. M. Cupitt; New York: Scribner, 1969), 30
50. See also Gunkel and Begrich, who view Ps 24 as a Torah liturgy (Psalms, 289-92)
51. See ibid., 44-48
52. So too, with some reservation, Craigie, Psalms 1-50, 64-65
53. John H. Eaton believes that there are no changes in speaker and that the king performed the entire psalm alone (Kingship and the Psalms [SBT 32; London: SCM, 1976], 111). This conclusion does not do justice to the evidence in the psalm
54. This speech may stop at v. 27. Then vv. 28-29 would belong with the speech of v. 30. With no first-person pronouns it is difficult to tell who is speaking. Perhaps since there is no clear demarcation of a new speaker it is safest to assume that vv. 28-29 continue YHWH's speech and that v. 30 is a new speaker, since YHWH is referred to in the third person
55. If the Song does have its origins after the inception of the monarchy, the "voice" of YHWH may well have been the king, particularly if there is truth to the claims of the Scandinavian Myth and Ritual school (John H. Eaton and others; see, e.g., Eaton, Kingship). That the king played such a central role in liturgical performances is largely speculative
56. This verse could just as easily be understood as part of the speech of the choir that follows in vv. 31-33
57. Once again it is unclear whether vv. 32-33 are the speech of the choir or form a new speech performed by the priest. As above, since there are no clear indicators, it will be assumed that the speech of the choir continues
58. This may be a continuation of YHWH's speech. The shift in person, from referring to Israel in the third person to addressing her in the second person, suggests that a change in speaker may take place here as well
59. Aubrey R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet and Israel's Psalmody (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1979), 150-65
60. He argues that one of the features of this prophetic style is that the cultic prophet acts as the "mouthpiece of Yahweh" (pp. 6-7). He believes that the Song of Moses was performed by the cultic prophet, but this fails to account for the liturgical aspects of the Song, which seem to point to various "actors" in its performance. See also Steven J. L. Croft, who discusses the role of the cultic prophet in the preexilic period (The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms [JSOTSup 44; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987], 151-59)
61. See Mark S. Smith, who argues that the Levites had liturgical and scribal functions in the postexilic period and were likely responsible for the compilation of the Psalter ("The Levitical Compilation of the Psalter," ZAW 103 [1991]: 258-63). This argument is bolstered by the fact that a number of psalms (42, 44-49, 84, 85, 87, 88) are associated with the sons of Korah, who were levitical. Such liturgical roles may have preceded this period as well
62. For Weiser's theory of the covenant-renewal festival, see the introduction to The Psalms: A Commentary (trans. Herbert Hartwell; OTL; London: SCM, 1962), in particular, pp. 35-52
63. See George E. Mendenhall, "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," BA 17 (1954): 50-76
64. and Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents in the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963)
65. For studies that examine Deuteronomy specifically, see Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963)
66. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomist (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 59-157
67. The antiquity of some of the traditions contained in Deut 27-34 is seen particularly clearly in ch. 27. As in Exod 20:25, Deut 27:5-6 says that an altar must be of uncut stone but does not need to be at a central place of worship; Deut 12 reflects later concerns for the centralization of worship. Further, evidence for the antiquity of this tradition is that Levi is included in the tribal list, and the division of the house of Joseph into Manasseh and Ephraim had not yet happened
68. The omission of any reference to cultic apparatus or the temple is uncommon in hymns; see Gunkel and Begrich, Introduction, 41-43
69. So too, Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies, 1:41. Lack of references to the temple and monarchy is an inconclusive indicator of where the Song was performed. Numerous psalms likely performed at the temple make no mention of the temple or the monarchy, e.g., Pss 33; 103; 104; 105; 113; etc
70. Taken from Broyles, Psalms, 13-15
71. For similar descriptions of the form of a hymn, see also Gerstenberger, Psalms, 16-19
72. Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, volume 1, The Theology of Israel's Historical Traditions (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; London: SCM Press, 1975), 359
73. See Frank Crüsemann, Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel (WMANT 32; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 19-154, 285-306, referred to by Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 43
74. Crüsemann, Studien, 308
75. cited by Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 44
76. One could argue that nontraditional elements in the Song are an expansion of the hymnic form. Thus, the condemnation of the people (32:5-6) is meant to contrast with YHWH's faithfulness, and the narrative in vv. 8-42 could be understood to reflect this faithfulness of YHWH throughout Israel's history. In the wilderness, YHWH provided graciously for his people. The disobedience of the people (vv. 15-18) will lead YHWH to respond with just retribution (vv. 19-25). Yet he will not allow his name to be maligned and so will both judge the nation that harmed his people and restore his people (vv. 26-42)
77. This is not the place for a discussion of these arguments. The reader is referred to the following works for this analysis. For proposals of an early date, see Otto Eissfeldt, Das Lied Mose Deutronomium 32:1-43 und Das Lehrgedicht Asaphe Psalm 78: samt einer Analyse der Umgebung des Mose-Liedes (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1958)
78. D. A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (SBLDS 3; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972), 153-56
79. Paul Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1996)
80. A late date is proposed by James R. Boston, "The Song of Moses: Deuteronomy 32:1-43" (Th.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York, 1966)
81. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 381-82
82. Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (trans. Dorothea Barton; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 200. Solomon A. Nigosian takes a mediating position, arguing that the mixture of early and late features points to a period of transition in Hebrew poetry and that Deut 32 should be dated between the tenth and eighth centuries B.C.E
83. One thinks of the modern example of attempting to "update" the King James Bible with the New King James Bible, primarily by replacing archaic language. While such updating took place, it in no way completely removed the evidence of an earlier style
84. Weiser, Psalms, 25
85. Moshe Weinfeld makes a similar point in regard to the structure of the book of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 1-11: An Introduction with Translation and Commentary [AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991], 13)
86. See Gunkel and Beglich, who argue that the genre of the hymn is preexilic, citing the Song of Deborah, Ps 89, 1 Sam 2:1-10, etc., as examples of hymns that are clearly preexilic (Introduction, 319-20)
87. Cited in S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901), 346
88. Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 23-27
89. See Holladay, "Jeremiah and Moses," 17-27, for an impressive list of parallels between the Song and Jeremiah; see also Cassuto, who states: "We shall be able to understand this entire complex of formal analogies with verses from the prophetic books much better, if we assume the song to be a very ancient text that was held in high esteem and was widely known, and that the prophets who came afterwards frequently recalled it. Since this is to be observed already in the case of Hosea, it serves to confirm the poem's great antiquity" (Biblical and Oriental Studies, 1:44)
90. For example, it is not said which god(s) the nation chased after