Studien zu Buch und Sprache des Deuteronomiums. By Georg Braulik

This volume is the fifth collection of Georg Braulik’s essays on Deuteronomy published in the Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände series. The essays stem from 2007 to 2015 and are published in the order of their original publication date with the exception of the first, which is a comprehensive introduction to the book of Deuteronomy written for the Zenger-Frevel introduction to Old Testament study. This first essay (‘Das Buch Deuteronomium’, pp. 11–50) covers the usual matters one might expect in an introduction for students: the book’s structure, origins and development, historical context(s), theology, and reception. The essay concludes with a bibliography.

There follow eleven detailed studies. The second essay (‘Deuteronomium 4, 13 und der Horebbund’, pp. 51–9) demonstrates that the ‘ten commandments’ in Deut. 4:13 are not to be understood in apposition to ‘covenant’, but rather the covenant entails the obligation to keep the ten commandments. The third (‘Der unterbrochene Dekalog: Zu Deuteronomium 5, 12 und 16 und ihrer Bedeutung für den deuteronomischen Gesetzeskodex’, pp. 61–74) reflects on the puzzling reference in the Decalogue to what YHWH has commanded. The fourth essay (‘Deuteronomium 4 und das gegossene Kalb: Zum Geschichtsgehalt paränetischer Rede’, pp. 75–87) shows the interrelationship between the language of Deut. 4:16, 31:29, and the account of the Golden Calf in Deuteronomy 9. The relationships between the text function to make the golden calf the paradigmatic case for future idolatry. The next essay (‘“Die Worte” (hadd^ebārîm) in Deuteronomium 1–11’, pp. 89–107) sees Braulik return to a topic that he first wrote upon almost 50 years ago, the expressions for law. In that earlier essay he showed that Deuteronomy’s terms were carefully chosen and not simply interchangeable. The present essay offers further refinement to that original thesis, offering an even finer analysis of the important expression hadd^ebārîm. The following essay (‘Die deuteronomistische Landeroberungserzählung aus der Joschijazeit in Deuteronomium und Josua’, pp. 109–72) is the longest in the volume and addresses the important question of whether there was a DtrL that consisted of Deuteronomy 1–Joshua 22, as proposed by Norbert Lohfink. Braulik describes some of the literary and thematic characteristics, and as the title indicates, he thinks that it was composed in the late monarchic period. The seventh essay (‘“Worauf ich euch heute eidlich verpflichte”: Beobachtungen zur Verpflichtungsformel des Deuteronomiums’, pp. 173–95) examines the relative clauses which contain participle forms of צוה. The following essay (‘Gott kämpft für Israel: Zur Intertextualität der Deuteronomistischen Landoberungserzählung mit Exodus 1–14*’, pp. 197–212) returns to the topic of DtrL and explores its relationship with the story of the Red Sea (more so than the entire exodus narrative, as the title suggests). The next essay (‘Die “Glaubensgerechtigkeit” im Buch Deuteronomium: Ein Beitrag zu den alttestamentlichen Wurzeln der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre’, pp. 213–39) explores Deuteronomy’s intertextuality with the book of Romans. Braulik explores how ‘do not say in your heart’ (Rom. 10:6–8) blends the principal citation of Deut. 30:11–14 with Deut. 8:17 and 9:4, where Deuteronomy’s understanding of righteousness is more fully explicated. There are two essays which began as lectures on love in Deuteronomy, and they cover fairly similar ground. The first (‘Die Liebe zwischen Gott und Israel: Zur theologischen Mitte des Buches Deuteronomium’, pp. 241–59) examines the use of love to describe the relationship between God and Israel. The second (‘Liebe und Gotteserkenntnis: Zu einer Besonderheit deuteronomischer Theologie’, pp. 261–9) examines the places where the two concepts of love and the acknowledgement of God converge, i.e. Deut. 4:32–40, 7:7–11, and 11:1–7. The final essay (‘Die allgemeine Gesetzsparänese und das “paränetische Schema”’, pp. 271–97) moves beyond simple appeals to the ‘parenetic’ in Deuteronomy to analyse what Braulik identifies as the general command parenesis (e.g. Deut. 5:1) and the parenetic schema (e.g. Deut. 6:3). There are 14 examples, almost all to be found in Deuteronomy 4–11.