This article provides a close analysis of the language of the doxologies in the book of Daniel. Three types of observations raise the question whether the Danielic doxologies might be redactional: 1) the language of the doxologies differs from the language of the stories in Dan 2–6; 2) the doxologies exhibit some formulaic expressions that also occur in other texts (Ps 145, 11QSefer ha-Milhamah , 4QApocryphon of Daniel AR , and 4QSongs of the Sage b ); 3) the doxologies express the notion that God’s sovereignty surpasses that of human kings, which underscores the theological conviction found in Dan 2–6 and Dan 7 and forms a literary link between them; but only some of them thereby also express that God’s sovereignty is eternal. Based on such observations, this article attempts to reconstruct some of the redactional activities in Dan 2–6 and argues that the doxologies were added (and expanded) at different stages in the growth of Daniel.
This handbook is currently in development, with individual articles publishing online in advance of print publication. At this time, we cannot add information about unpublished articles in this handbook; however, the table of contents will continue to grow as additional articles pass through the review process and are added to the site. Please note that the online publication date for this handbook is the date that the first article in the title was published online. For more information, please read the site FAQs.
Various scholars view Deuteronomy 4:32-40 as the climax of Moses' first speech. While the passage has received considerable attention on the literary-critical front and in terms of its theology, the structure of the passage has not received as much scholarly attention, possibly because the structure seems quite simple (Deut 4:32-35, 36-39, 40). The question, however, that has not been adequately addressed is: why does Deut 4:36-39 repeat Deut 4:32-35 in part and what can be deduced from this repetition? The article attempts to answer this question by investigating the occurrence of four primary themes found in the text, namely historical, universal, sensorial and relational themes, each made up of various motifs. It is argued that the blending of these motifs indicates a deliberate development in the structure of the passage. The article concludes by reflecting on the multifaceted rhetorical aim of the text in light of its structure.
The Decalogue’s iconic status within its history of reception, especially in the modern era, has made it a focal point of scholarly discussion. Its transmission in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, as well as its relation to comparative material in the Pentateuch’s legal texts, has provided an ample field of inquiry for modern historical criticism. One of the main areas that has preoccupied scholars is the quest for its origin, which is the first focus in this chapter. The chapter then turns to some of the issues that specifically concern the Decalogue’s role within Deuteronomy, where it features as a portable monument to the covenant at Horeb. The prohibition against venerating “other gods” is unfolded in Deuteronomy 6-11, and several scholars have discussed the Decalogue’s relationship with the book’s collection of laws. In the late written chapter Deuteronomy 4, the Decalogue’s prohibition of images arrives at its theological culmination in the profession of monotheism. Moses’s prophecy that breaking the prohibition of idolatry would lead to exile invites reflection on the symbolism of the breaking and renewal of the stone tablets in Deuteronomistic historiography.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.