The awareness of the historical nature of our human existence had a profound influence on Old Testament scholarship. The historical nature of the Hebrew Bible was also realised and historical criticism was the result, but in the 20th century there was resistance against this method. This article is an attempt to emphasise the importance of historical understanding as a means of reliving the experiences of others in the present. To illustrate this we focus on the work of Eckart Otto and his exposition of the golden calf narrative in Deuteronomy 9:9–21; 10:1–5*. The importance of his work for us lies in his blending of synchrony and diachrony in the study of the book of Deuteronomy.
One of the most profound intellectual developments in the history of hermeneutics occurred at the end of the 18th century when people became aware of the historical character of their human existence (Ankersmit
There was, however, also resistance against this way of thinking. A typical feature of South African biblical scholarship since 1971 was the constant debate about the value of history for the interpretation of the Old Testament. This article attempts to show that despite ‘the pastness of the past’ the past can still be experienced and can come closer to us (Ankersmit
We begin this article with a brief depiction of the resistance against a historical understanding and a possible way out.
The road that South African biblical scholarship has travelled the past half century is one of constant hermeneutical reflection and intense discussions on theory, exegesis and the understanding of the text. And the terms ‘synchrony’ and ‘diachrony’ became central to our biblical scholarship (Le Roux
This suspicion is also part of international Old Testament scholarship of the past decades. In his work on the collapse of history, Perdue refers to the resistance against ‘the domination of history (particularly in its positivistic expression) and the historical method in accessing the meaning of the Hebrew Bible and birthing of Old Testament theology’ (Perdue
In our scholarly community we have also experienced the power of an approach which focussed more on the final text and structural analysis and underplayed historical information. The extra-linguistic world was bracketed and the single sign or word or expression was viewed as sufficient for understanding a linguistic utterance. All that was needed was the correct method and the correct execution of the different exegetical steps (Le Roux
Perhaps we get further if we understand history in terms of recreation, reliving, re-enactment (cf. Gadamer
To accomplish this, the Old Testament scholar must endeavour to penetrate the ideas constituting a specific era or author. Collingwood called it the inner and outer side of an event. One can for instance be interested in the detail of Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon or the precise events surrounding his assassination, but that is not enough. The inside, the thinking behind these events must also be explored. Thus, although the historian usually begins by investigating the outside of an event it never ends there. The historian must take into account that the event was an action and ‘that his main task is to think himself into this action, to discern the thought of its agent’ (Collingwood
This thought can be found in the ideas of a specific time. Ideas are important because the historical reality or the past is the expression of ideas. Each era also reflects a dominant idea, which permeates all aspects of life and which is the driving force that shapes a society and its people (Ankersmit
Another way of saying it is to use the word ‘re-enactment’: Knowledge of the past is gained when the past is re-enacted in the mind of the Old Testament scholar (Ankersmit
Historical understanding as recreation or reliving has not always been appreciated in a context where the text was bracketed from the context and structural analysis was viewed as the only way to the understanding of a text. Eckart Otto showed us a way out and below his thoughts are discussed. His work enables us to grasp something of the thinking behind the text and the thoughts expressed in it (cf. Collingwood
Although the tension between synchrony and diachrony has not been solved in Old Testament scholarship yet (cf. Kilchör
One reviewer stated that this commentary ‘is unique in its scope and intent’. It is also ‘the first commentary on Deuteronomy systematically to combine two hermeneutical perspectives that had seemed for centuries to be separate and irreconcilable streams of exegesis’ (Markl
[
At the end of his long research history Otto declared that he wanted to emphasise both a diachronic (describing the origin and growth of a text) as well as a synchronical approach (taking the final form of the text seriously) (Otto
In Otto’s approach text and history are thus not standing over against each other, but the text leads us to a living world where people reflect on God and life. To illustrate this point we are focussing on the narrative of the golden calf in Deuteronomy 9:9–21; 10:1–5* and how the reliving of a much earlier event encouraged the exiles.
According to Otto the book of Deuteronomy had a very long history. It was formed and shaped over more than 300 years ago and the process probably began in the 7th century during the neo-Assyrian rule and the reformation of Josiah; during the exile and the post-exilic times it was thoroughly reworked whilst further additions were made during the Hellenistic era (Otto
Below we highlight the close relationship between the golden calf narrative and the history of Judah. Each time when the story of the calves was being told something was also said about Judah. In pre-exilic times the story has always been told in such a manner that Judah was exempted from the sins of the Northern Kingdom or Israel and therefore would not be punished. After 586 BC and the fall of Jerusalem this storyline had to be changed drastically in order to comfort the exiles in their misery. To illustrate this we briefly refer to three groups of text (Otto
Probably 1 Kings 12:28, 2 Kings 17:7–20 and 2 Kings 17:21–23 belonged to the first pre-exilic redaction of the book of Kings and was written from a Judean perspective in an attempt to exempt, or rather absolve Judah from all the gross atrocities of Jeroboam and Israel (Otto
You have been going up to Jerusalem long enough. Here is your God, who brought you out of Egypt … and the people went in procession in front of the other one all the way to Dan. (vv. 28–29)
The essence of Jeroboam’s apostasy lies in his equation of the calves with the God who led them out of Egypt. Israel followed him in this and this caused their destruction in 722 BC. Judah, however, is not mentioned (Otto
Something similar can be found in 2 Kings 17:21–23. There is an interesting flow of events in these verses. Yahweh tore Israel away from Judah and the people ‘had made Jeroboam son of Nebat king’. The Israelites continued with the sin ‘which Jeroboam had committed’ and ‘they did not give it up’. The consequences were severe and at length Yahweh ‘thrust Israel away from him’ and ‘he deported the Israelites from their own country to Assyria, where they have been ever since.’ To emphasise the total destruction it is also said that:
[
Once again nothing is said of Judah. The same is true of 2 Kings 17:7–20 which vividly depicts the consequences of Jeroboam’s apostasy. The people went much further than Jeroboam and worshiped all kinds of graven images and false gods and therefore their downfall in 722 BC was inevitable. Verse 19 indeed states that Judah also participated, but this is probably a later addition. 2 Kings 17:7–20 therefore also focussed on the abominations of the Northern Kingdom and not Judah (Otto
In the late pre-exilic redaction of the book of Kings, Judah was thus evaluated more positively and this trend was continued in Exodus 32. Underlying this chapter is a pre-Deuteronomistic narrative which can be found in verses 1a. 4aβb. (6) 15aα,19abα. 20.30.31abα β.32,33, 5abα and which also attempted to depict Judah more favourably:
When the people saw that Moses was a long time before coming down the mountain, (they) made the statue of a calf. ‘Israel,’ the people shouted, ‘here is your God who brought you here from Egypt! Early next morning they sacrificed burnt offerings and brought communion sacrifices. The people then sat down to eat and drink, and afterwards got up to amuse themselves. Moses turned and came down the mountain. And there, as he approached the camp, he saw the calf and the groups dancing. Moses blazed with anger. He seized the calf they had made and burned it, grinding it into powder which he scattered on the water, and made the Israelites drink it. On the following day Moses said to the people, ‘You have committed a great sin. But now I shall go up to Yahweh: perhaps I can secure expiation for your sin.’ Moses then went back to Yahweh and said, ‘Oh, this people has committed a great sin. And yet, if it pleased you to forgive their sin …! If not, please blot me out of the book you have written!’ Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Those who have sinned against me are the ones I shall blot out of my book. And Yahweh punished the people for having made the calf’. (Otto
This pre-Deuteronomistic narrative underlying Exodus 32 is based on 1 Kings 12 and 2 Kings 17:7–20, 21–23: ‘
The fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC made a radical reinterpretation of 2 Kings 17:7–20, 21–23 and Exodus 32:1–35* necessary. A theology emphasising that Judah would be spared the calamities of Israel was not possible anymore. The Babylonians crushed Judah and Jerusalem and the exiles grappled with important questions. Did the exile imply the end of God’s history with his people? In their spiritual odyssey the dates 722 BC (the fall of Israel) and 586 BC (the fall of Judah) haunted them because they were historical markers accentuating defeat, suffering and loss. Would the Babylonian exiles experience the same fate as Israel? Would Judah’s identity also be completely destroyed as in the case of the people of Samaria? Would Judah also fade from the pages of history as did Israel? (Otto
In order to answer these questions the authors of the Deuteronomistic Horeb tradition harked back to the event of the golden calf at Horeb, and because they were acquainted with Exodus 32:1–35* they adjusted this narrative to fit their depressing exilic context. Although the new golden calf story in Deuteronomy 9:9–21 and 10:1–5* was based on Exodus 32:1–35* the latter was reinterpreted and a few important changes were made (cf. Otto
Important is the mention of the tablets and the link that was forged with the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5:1–22* and the transgression of the First Commandment (Otto
This was an ingenious endeavour by the authors of the golden calf narrative in Deuteronomy 9:9–21; 10:1–5*. According to 1 Kings 12:26–28, 2 Kings 17:7–20 and 2 Kings 17:21–23 as well as the pre-Deuteronomistic narrative underlying Exodus 32 there was hope for Judah because they did not participate in the calf worship and other atrocities of the Northern Kingdom. After 586 BC and the suffering in exile, a different approach had to be followed and in Deuteronomy 9:9–21; 10:1–5* the calf story was reworked in a very creative way: Moses destroyed the original tablets, prayed that Yahweh should not destroy his own people and then Yahweh reissued the laws on two new tablets. And this was the sign that Yahweh would not destroy his own people. The narrative of the golden calf in Deuteronomy 9:9–21; 10:15* thus emphasised that there was indeed hope. Intercession changed Yahweh’s intention to destroy all his people and the reissuing of the Commandments stressed that Judah would not share the fate of Israel and be destroyed from the pages of history. The reissuing of the Commandments served as an ‘
Wird in der Fabel der erzählten Zeit das Gesetz in Deuteronomyn 12–26 von Mose … vorgetragen … so ist das Unterpfand dafür, dass auch in der exilischen Erzählzeit mit der Verlesung des Gesetzes des Deuteronomiums sich der Zorn JHWH’s in Heilswillen gewandelt habe. (Otto
This hope for the future was also strengthened by something else: The Covenant, which has not been broken. On a synchronic level the text of Deuteronomy shows an important difference with the golden calf episode at Horeb. At Horeb the laws were given (cf. Ex 20:18–23:33) and following that event the Covenant was concluded in Exodus 24:1–18*. The breaching of the Covenant in Exodus 32:1–35* thus followed after the making of the Covenant in Exodus 24. This first generation at Sinai did indeed break the Covenant; they built the calf and thereby transgressed the First Commandment not to worship other gods. By means of clever ordering of the chapters in the book of Deuteronomy a different story is being told. In Deuteronomy 5 the Commandments were given, in 9:9–10:5 the story of the calf was being told, in Deuteronomy 12–26 the laws of Deuteronomy were communicated and only in Deuteronomy 26:16–17 the Covenant was made. According to this perspective the golden calf episode in Deuteronomy 9:9–21; 10:1–5* took place before the conclusion of the Covenant in Chapter 26. This had major consequences for the addressees of the Horeb tradition. The breaking of the First Commandment in Deuteronomy 9:9–21 and 10:1–5 was indeed a serious transgression but the Covenant had not been broken yet. The addressees in exile knew that the narrative spoke directly to them: ‘
Thus, by means of a radical reinterpretation of pre-exilic texts and the reliving of the events at Horeb the authors of the exile could comfort the exiles with hope for a new future. By means of this desert story the exiles obtained a clearer picture of themselves as well as the unfaithfulness of previous generations (Le Roux
We began the article by stating the resistance against the historical understanding of texts, but also emphasised a different understanding of history by using the terms ‘reliving’ and ‘re-enactment’. Eckart Otto’s work can help us to take the final text’s embeddedness in life contexts seriously in order to understand the process of reinterpretation and reliving of the past (Otto
To approach a text historically can thus be a rewarding undertaking and at times even an extraordinary experience. When we relive history and re-enact each event in the mind, the past suddenly becomes alive and at times we can even unexpectedly touch something of times gone by. This also happened to the exiles when they relived amidst their bleak conditions an early period in Israel’s history. And by means of this reliving of the past they were encouraged to look forward to a new future.
This article is dedicated to my much-respected friend and colleague Pieter de Villiers whom I have known since 1976. We were very young then and part of the historical background group of the New Testament Society of South Africa. Often we have debated the value or non-value of history for biblical scholarship and may this article remind him of those discussions many years ago, but also of what we have accomplished. I wish him all the best and may he enjoy good health and have the strength to keep on working.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.