1

Texts for Recitation

Eep TalstraVrije Universiteit

’Lernen’: share the experience.

Being committed daily to the text of the Tanach. That is basically, what KarelDeurloo has done in his career as a minister and as a professor of Biblical Studies.Executing carefully the instruction of Deuteronomy 6,7 about how to transmitexperience with the Torah to a next generation:

:��� �

⋅�����

⋅���

⋅� ��� ���

⋅����� �

⋅� ��� ���

⋅�� ��� ���

⋅����� ����� �

⋅� �

⋅�� ���"!

⋅� #

⋅� �

⋅� ���$

⋅� �%��!�� &'�(�*) +,� �-� #

⋅� �.) &

⋅) /0�"!�� &

’Repeat them for your children,say them when you are at home and when you are on your way,when you lay down and when you get up.’

This instruction in 6,7 has a parallel in Deuteronomy 11,19 where the verb ’toteach’ is used:

... 1 ⋅2 354

⋅2 687 9;:< 1>= ?A@CB D ⋅2E<GFIH ?J1 F 3;H�K 1 ⋅

F ? 7"< ⋅L 98:M�N O

’Teach them to your children, by saying them ...’

These texts formulate something fundamental. Basic to keeping the words of theTorah and to exercise its way of life is: repetition and remembering. To KarelDeurloo that has been profession and lifestyle at the same time. Repeating theinstructions and the commandments of the Torah for his students - if for thisoccasion I may translate the word PQ@�B R 2 3;:< ’dynamically’ by ’students’ - and let thewords sound ’when at home and when on his way’. Many students will be ableto confirm that fact. About repeating the words ’when laying down and whengetting up’ one cannot be fully sure, of course, but I would not be surprised. Inshort, theology as a daily commitment to Scripture and its language.

In my view it is appropriate to address these texts on teaching in the context ofthis volume, especially while the translation of the two most simple words in theinstructions: 1 ⋅

2 3⋅F 3S4 <

⋅2 987"M�N O

’to say them’, is less evident then it might seem at firstsight. Now to Karel Deurloo himself such may not be an unusual experience, butI hope that my contribution on these two ordinary words may assure him thathis students and colleagues are prepared to continue to work in his style of beingboth curious and dedicated to the texts of the Torah.

2

Translating

Modern translations usually render the words 1 ⋅2 3

⋅F 384 <

⋅2 9T7"MUN O

by phrases of the type:’speak about them’. Such is the case with the older Dutch translation by theNetherlands Bible Society (1951): ’Wat ik u heden gebied, zal in uw hart zijn, gijzult het uw kinderen inprenten en daarover spreken, wanneer gij in uw huis zijt,wanneer gij onderweg zijt ...’. The same is true of the newer Dutch translation bythe Catholic Bible Institute (1995): ’spreek er met uw kinderen telkens opnieuwover ...’ Translating by ’speak about them’ has a clear impact on the nature ofinstruction that is referred to in Deuteronomy 6. The Hebrew text itself emphas-izes the aspect of presentation: present the text to your audience. Instructionhappens in the mode of performing the texts of the Torah. This is completelydifferent from the modern translations, since they in fact turn the process ofinstruction into an strictly intellectual procedure: speak about them, i.e speakabout the texts’ content. One finds that formulated very explicitly in thetranslation by J. Wijngaards 1 in his commentary to the book of Deuteronomy:’prent ze je kinderen in en maak ze een onderwerp van gesprek ...’ (’impressthem upon your children and make them the topic of your conversation ...’).

Interesting, however, is an intriguing small note, written by Georg Braulik in hiscommentary to the German "Einheitsübersetzung" of the book of Deuteronomy.This translation itself presents the type of rendering found in the Dutch trans-lations mentioned above. It has: ’Du sollst von ihnen reden ...’(you should speakabout them). Braulik, though writing his commentary to this translation, adds aremark to the text of Deuteronomy 6,72: ’du sollst von ihnen reden, besser: »dusollst sie aufsagen«.’ (’You should speak about them, better: »you should recitethem« ’). Evidently Braulik prefers a translation of the type ’performing,quoting’. Clearly also in his view the process of instruction mentioned inDeuteronomy 6 and 11 is not a matter of ’speaking about’. Instruction is notgiven by abstracting a text to a short formula of its contents, it is done by recitingthe text itself. Not ’reciting’ as a kind of drill somewhere else in a separateclassroom, but reciting within the setting of real life situations. The words of theTorah are to be performed by the parent or the teacher, on important momentsof the day.

It is no surprise that specially translations of Jewish background confirm thisapproach to the text. An example can be found in the commentary to Deutero-

1 J. Wijngaards, Deuteronomium uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (BOT: De boeken van het OudeTestament), Roermond, 1971, p. 77, 105.

2 G. Braulik, Deuteronomium (1-16,17) (Die neue Echter Bibel. Kommentar zum Alten Testamentmit der Einheitsübersetzung), Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1986; Deuteronomium II (16,18-34,12),Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992. For the note mentioned, see Part I, p. 56.

3

nomy by Moshe Weinfeld3. He translates 6,7: ’you shall recite them ...’ adding areference to the texts of studying the Torah in Joshua 1,8 and Psalm 1,2 : ’and hislaw he murmurs (hgh b) day and night.’

Questions

The variation of translations presented sofar gives raise to a couple of questions.1. Is the difference equal to a difference between Jewish and Christian traditionin reading the Bible?2. Is the choice in favor of a particular translation a matter of tradition only? Canone find linguistic data to support one of these translations against the other one?One notices that the textual references given by Weinfeld in fact only imply anargumentation based on Jewish tradition, not on an explanation of the idiom.Joshua 1 and Psalm 1 do not use the words

2V4(2W7.

1. In my view the difference of translations indeed can be derived from a dif-ference between Jewish and Christian traditions of transmitting religion and faithto new generations. Additional comments to this can be read in the commentaryto the book of Deuteronomy by J.H. Tigay, that is based on the translation of theJewish Publication Society4. This translation also uses the word ’recite’.Deuteronomium 6,7:

"Impress them upon your children.Recite them when you stay at home and ..."

Deuteronomium 11,19:" ... teach them to your children -reciting them when you stay at home and ..."

In an excursus5 Tigay provides further explanation. In halachic exegesis theinstructions of Deuteronomy 6,7 and 11,19 have been interpreted as: quote, recitethese words. In this way they have become part of morning and evening prayers.Reciting these texts is called the Keri’at Shema which has been practised from theperiod of the second temple until the present day.Here one sees a practice different from christian theology where one, contrastingBible and modern culture, usually prefers to speak in terms of ’content’ or even’propositions’. Modern theological hermeneutics prefers to focus on isolating thetopic, "die Sache", from the text that consequently is being treated as a culturallydetermined container, whereas in Jewish tradition preference is with language,ritual and with the text as it is. Respect for this tradition and its way of handling

3 M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11. A new Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The AnchorBible 5), New York: Doubleday, 1991, p. 341; 333.

4 J.H. Tigay, The Jewish Publication Society Tora Commentary. Deuteronomy. The Traditional HebrewText with the New JPS Translation, Philadelphia-Jerusalem, 1996, p. 78, 114.

5 Tigay, aw. p. 440, Excursus 10.

4

Scripture always has been the main characteristic of Karel Deurloo’s position inacademic theology.6

2. Some combination of linguistic data and exegetical tradition can be found inthe Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 6 and 11. The words of 6,7 1 ⋅

2 3⋅F 3;4 <

⋅2 987"M�N O

are translated ’litteraly’ by XQYIZ[]\ Y \Q^0_�`>a Zcb a d.e Ygf dihkj Zl b : ’and you will talk with them’,which only can be taken to mean: speak using these particular words. The wordsof 11,19 1 ⋅

2 3m4⋅2 687 9;:<

are translated, copying even the infinitive construction, by\ Y \�a Zl e Ygf dih Y [ : ’to talk these things’.

However, in spite of these witnesses, the tradition of translating the words by’recite’ is not generally practiced. Martin Buber, for example, translates 6,7 by:’rede davon’ (speak about them) and 11,19 by ’davon redend’ (speaking aboutthem). One could try to explain that in terms of ’make these words being heard’,but that would not be very convincing. Bubers translation does not exactly followtraditional Jewish practice here. It is striking that also Tigay in his commentary7

focusses on content rather than on wording. He writes: ’Recite them, Rather,"speak about them", as in 1 Sam. 19,3,4 (...) Psalm 119, 13,46.’Of course, it is somewhat ironical that in this way Tigay follows the reversedpath in comparison to the proposal by Braulik, mentioned earlier. Braulik, havingto explain the Einheitsübersetzung: ’rede davon’ (speak about them) prefered thealternative translation ’recite’. Tigay on the other hand, having to explain theJewish Publications Society’s translation ’recite’, is on favor of the translation ’tospeak about’.According to the point of view Tigay expresses in his Excursus, the Jewish trans-lation ’recite’ is a matter of text reception and not a matter of linguistic meaningof the Hebrew expression. And indeed, except for Psalm 119,13, the texts hementions to corroborate this, all of them use the words

2V4(2W7.

Psalm 119,46 : npo 2qH 65H�Kr:sN O 1Q@�= M�: 3cLt<G7vu REB R�PQ@ F ? 7 w>x 6c2E<�yI4 3 ⋅2E<z7 98H {|N }

I Sam. 19,3 1>n 3Jy ⋅F 38H 9~4 n ? H {�yp7 ? ⋅

� 3⋅2 9 @ 2EMzH 3J7 @ }�:< @ ⋅

F"M�7"<.L 9;x 3AN O�H]� 6;H 6 @CB � H {|N }@ 2EMzH 35:pH ?JP ⋅2E<G4

⋅2 687 9;H { @CB � H {|N }

Vers 4, idem.

Now these examples are not in all respects of equal value. As the texts ofDeuteronomy, also Psalm 119,46 speaks of the Torah. I Samuel 19, hoewever,refers to speaking about somebody. In that case the translation ’recite’ is notappropriate, but in Psalm 119 it would be perfectly fitting.Therefore, the question still is, whether to translate ’reciting’ merely would be a

6 K.A. Deurloo, ’Exegese naar Amsterdamse traditie’, in: Inleiding tot de studie van het OudeTestament, A.S. van der Woude (red.), Kampen, 1986. p 188-198; K.A. Deurloo - G.J. Venema,’Exegesis according to Amsterdam Tradition’, in: J.W.Dyk, a.o., (ed.), The Rediscovery of theHebrew Bible, ACEBT-Suppl.1, Maastricht: Shaker, 1999, 3-14.

7 Tigay, aw., p. 78.

5

matter of reception and tradition, or whether it could also be the linguisticmeaning of the idiom

2�4(2W7. Weinfeld, mentioned above, argues in favor of this,

but fails to present linguistic arguments. Tigay’s examples only partially fit, butare not decisive. The challenge remains: can one find more linguistic data to beable to take a decision?

Textual data: in search of linguistic system

Can one collect sufficient textual material to help in taking a decision on’speaking about’ [a matter] or ’reciting’ [the words]? More precisely put: whatcould be meaning of

4�2W7+2

+ ’instruction’?With the assistance of the retrieval programme Quest8, half-verses have beencollected that use the words

4(2g7en2

: in this order only, and without any otherword in between. To be precise, this means that more cases of the idiom probablycould be found. But this restricted query already resulted in quite a number oftexts, sufficient for sorting the material into a number of sets of identicalconstruction. Below I present these constructions adding one or a few examplesof each.

Set I:22

= adjunctIn sorting the data the first question asked was whether the prepositional phraseusing

2functions as an adjunct, referring to time or location or qualifying the

subject of the clause. In those cases the2

phrase does not influence the meaningof the predication verb

4(2W7. It is an ’adjunct’, a non-obligatory element with

respect to the predication of the clause. Some examples:

I.1.2

= locationI Kings 13,25 : ⋅

y⋅2 3�2 n 6 @ ���U� 6 ⋅

� ��y 95H @ 2EM ⋅B ��y 954 n ? H {�4 @ xMU2 3 ⋅N�4

⋅2E<�7 9 @ O�N } ⋅

N.H�K2⋅@ ��N }

I.2.2

= timeII Sam. 20,18 :⋅

N⋅LIF 98y 6 � = 6-N O�:]2 6;H 3 ⋅

2E<⋅N�:pH { n 3 @ O�:pH�K n 354�LwkHp: 6Jy B � n wkHp4 M�2 3 ⋅

N�4⋅2E<�7 9 @ O�4 ⋅

2 6⋅7 9

I. 3.2

= qualification of the subjectJob 10,1 :@Un MU�r< B } 4�L 9 ⋅

2E<GyI4 3⋅2E<.7 9;H {

Set II:22

= complementNext the sorting of the remaining texts. These are the cases where the

2phrase

represents a clause constituent which produces meaning in combination whiththe predication verb. Here the

2phrase functions as a ’complement’, an

8 On the users software see: W.-D. Syring, ’QUEST 2 - Computergestützte Philologie und Exegese’,Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 11 (1998) 85-89. On the development of the Hebrew database see: E.Talstra - C. Sikkel, ’Genese und Kategorienentwicklung der WIVU-Datenbank, oder: ein Versuch,dem Computer Hebräisch beizubringen’, in: Christof Hardmeier, Wolf-Dieter Syring, Jochen D.Range, Eep Talstra (eds.), Ad Fontes! Quellen erfassen - lesen - deuten. Was ist Computerphilologie?[Applicatio 15], Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2000, p. 33-68.

6

obligatory contribution to the predicate. The difference between’adjunct’ and’complement’ can be observed in texts where both are present, e.g. in Ezekiel38,17. One group with

2is an adjunct: the time reference "in former days"1Q@�B ��o Lg7"< � 9 1Q@ LtM @ � ⋅2E< , the other group with

2is a complement to

4�2W7: "speak by

means of" @ 7 9-2 3;x {�7 @ } ⋅2E< . y]N � y @ O @iB ��7 w>H {�4�L 9SH 3�y ⋅= w... @ H 6 @ 2EM B O @ 7 9-2 3;x {�7 @ } ⋅2E< 1Q@iB ��o LI7"< � 9 1Q@ LtM @ � ⋅2E< @ ⋅

F"Mz4 <⋅2 9

⋅7"M�4 n ? H {�H ⋅

N.y�y⋅F 38H 98y 9

Thus has spoken the Lord:Were not you the one whom I mentioned in earlier days by the service of myprophets ...?

Within the set of texts with a2

-complement it was necessary to draw furtherdistinctions between subsets of various semantic functions.

II.1.2

= types of presentation7 @ } ⋅2E<�4 ⋅2 ? ⋅7"M

I Kgs.14,18 :H @ 2EM ⋅B ��y 9 ⋅

N.y⋅@ ���"M�H { o ⋅

7Q2E<zx 9J7 @ } ⋅2E<�4 ⋅2 ? ⋅7"M�4 n ? H {�yQN �*y @ O�4(2 9T7"< ⋅= M@�B D � OtH 3 ⋅

2E<�4⋅2 ? ⋅7"M

Deut.5,1 1Qo ⋅@ y 9 1>= ?-@�B D � OtH 3 ⋅2E<�4�2 6

⋅7 w @U= M B � H 354 n ? H { ... 1Q@ ⋅� M.� ��y 9�FIH ?PQ@ �rM ⋅

2E<⋅F 3S4 <

⋅2 9

⋅7"M

I Kgs.8,24 :y

⋅� R y 9 1]o ⋅@ ⋅= 9�F 3SH ⋅

: 6TLtM P 7"< @ �02E< ⋅N P]@ �rM ⋅2E<�4

⋅2 6;7 9

⋅F"<�N }

P L ?Tn < ⋅2EM�4

⋅2 687 9

Ex.5,23y

⋅� R y 9 1 x 3;: 35xp4 9Ty 6 P L ?Tn < ⋅

2EM�4⋅2 6T7 9;:<GyIxwk4 <

⋅� 95:pH ?�@ F"MzH ⋅

2 3��zH 3cL 6⋅N

II.2.2

= personto speak about somebodyEzek.33,30 ...⋅

N�F o 4 @ ⋅� M.y 9~:s� ? H 6 P ⋅2E< 1Q@ 4 M ⋅

2 387"<⋅B � y 9 P ⋅

Lt<�x 9 @�B D ⋅2E< 1 7 3;H 3 � 2 ? y ⋅F 38H 9AN O

to speak to somebodyNum.12,8 �]@ ⋅

2EM @ }�y]N �*y @ O�F B }*L �|F"< ⋅N�Fp7w @ �"M�2E<GH�Kr:sN O�yIH ? 4 <�L 9 ⋅N o ⋅2V4

⋅2 ? 7 9;H {�y ⋅

� ? :IH ? y ⋅� ?

to speak against somebody, challenge somebodyNum.12,8 :

y n ? L wv2E< @ ⋅7"MU2E<zx 9

⋅2E<�4

⋅2 687 9;:< 1 F ? Hp4 6 @ O�H�Kr: x 9 ⋅

N⋅7>L 9

⋅N

Job 19,18 :@ 2EM ⋅N�4

⋅2E<�7 9 @ O�N }�y>L 3 ⋅

N � H 3Num.21,7 ¡ 2 3%N ��y]N ��y @ 2 9 ⋅

N B 4 < ⋅2 987"M @ ⋅= M ⋅

N B H � 38� 3 ⋅N�4�Lt<zH�K

⋅@ N }�y n ? L w�:pH ?J1 x 38y 3JH�K2 ⋅@ ��N }The person indicated by the

2-phrase can be the topic of the conversation, but

s/he can also be the partner in conversation. An additional feature turned out tobe the social status of the speaker with reference to the addressee. To speak to

2a socially higher ranking person actually means to speak against, challenge; tospeak to

2someone of equal or lower rank means to address someone. The two

examples from Numbers 12,8 are the most clear ones showing the difference.

Finally, those texts where the2

-complement does not indicate a person, but ameans of communication, a text type, or a more visual type, such as a dream ora vision. In these cases the

2-complement refers to the instrument. The full

expression means: to speak by means of. When a text type is the instrument ofspeaking, it means: make the words of the text audible, recite the text. Below Ipresent all the cases of this subset found.

II.3.2

= means of communicationtext type:Deut.6,7 1 ⋅

2 3⋅F 3;4 <

⋅2 987"M�N O P]@CB R 2 3;:< 1 ⋅

F 3 B O ⋅B } n M�N ODeut.11,19 1 ⋅

2 354⋅2 687 9;:< 1>= ?A@CB D ⋅2E<GFIH ?J1 F 3;H�K 1 ⋅

F ? 7"< ⋅L 98:M�N O

7

Ezech.3,4 : 1 y ?A@ : 68H { @ 4 9-2 3T7"<U2EM ⋅F 3;4 <

⋅2 987"M�N O�:pH 6;4 3 � < @ � F @ ⋅

2 65:pH ? H�K ⋅2 ¡ : ?J1 7 3SH 3 � ⋅2 ?

Psalm 119,46 : npo 2qH 65H�Kr:sN O 1Q@�= M�: 3cLt<G7vu REB R�PQ@ F ? 7 w>x 6c2E<�yI4 3 ⋅2E<z7 98H {|N }

Daniël 9,21y

⋅: 3c�rM

⋅F"<

⋅2 954

⋅2 687 9TLt< @�B � H {�7 o xsN O

vision/dream:Psalm 89:20

4 o ⋅2

⋅u � :kx 9~4¢� R x 6 @ F"M @ ⋅N �n M�4�L ? H�K ⋅F]N } P>@ 7 ?-@�£ M�� {(: 9 �Co ��� 3c2E< ⋅

F 3;4 <⋅2 9

⋅7"M¤��H 3

Num.12:6 :o ⋅2 4

⋅2 ? 7 98H { 1]o :k� { ⋅

2 9 x⋅7 3%N }�F"<�H ? N @ : 3;H 6JyIH 3;4 < ⋅

L 9⋅2 9Jy]N �*y @ O 1>= ? H { @ 2EM B O�y @ R y"< @ ��1 HM

The text of Numbers 12,6, where two different2

complements are being used,demonstrates the difference between

2+ person (address) en

2+ type of

communication (speak by means of).

The result of this grammatical and lexical sorting of the materials is that thewording of Deuteronomy 6,7 and 11,19 fits best into this last set of texts. Thetranslation ’recite’ is its most adequate rendering.

By way of a short aside: the only text difficult to assign to one of the sets listedhere is in Isaiah 63,1.

:x 9 @Un M o yI:<¥2W4 9Jy � 387 3A�E< ⋅

2EMG4⋅2 6T7 98Lt< @�B � H {

It is I, speaking ’iny � 3T7 3-�E< ’, fully capable to save.

When God speaks ’2

+justice’, do we have an adjunct as in I.3: ’qualifying thesubject’? His style of speaking is ’with justice’? Or do we have a complement asin II.3: ’by means of’? A translation ’speak about’ (II.2) would be meaningless inthis verse. It is attractive to make a choice in favor of II.3. In speaking Godexpresses and performs

y � 387 3-�E< . See Jesaja 56,1 59,16v.9

Back to reading

The practical and theological result of a linguistic exercise is the possibility toargue first on the basis of linguistic features, before one continues to argue on thebasis of tradition or religious concepts. At the same time, of course, one has toadmit that computers when collecting and sorting linguistic materials do not’prove’. It is the researcher who has to test and verify whether the sorting of thematerial is consistent and can be convincingly applied. In my opinion such is thecase here. The presentation of the texts with

4�2W7+2

may have demonstratedthat concentrating on language as a system of signs is very well possible incooperation with concentrating on texts as literary compositions. For thelinguistic analysis of the valency pattern of

4�2W7+2

shows part of the specialidiom of the Old Testament: to instruct the Torah to next generations is to be

9 W.A.M. Beuken, Jesaja deel IIIA (de Prediking van het Oude Testament) Callemebach: Nijkerk,1989, p. 250.

8

done by recitation. Making the text of the Torah heard by means of performance.The moment of transmitting a tradition is located there where students hear thegeneration of parents and teachers personally perform its texts. It is like teachingmusic. This style implies a criticism of western, academic style of transmittingreligious knowledge: by abstraction and summary, by historical reconstructionand by ’speaking about’ the ideas below the surface of the texts.It is in this critical attitude towards a theology that seems to loose its capacity ofproper reading where Karel Deurloo’s style of doing Theology is the mostpowerful. Biblical texts are not containers of ancient thoughts, or concepts of Godin antique dressing. These texts are, when taught in the way of performing them,tradition itself. In our times however, philosophical hermeneutics dominates thestage by presenting its concepts of human understanding as a universally validprescription for reading: peel away the accidental and find the "Sache", the realthing. Exegetes react by withdrawing into their laboratories of historicalreconstruction and rhetorical beauty. However, reading and teaching a text is notunpacking its kernel, it is not ’to speak about’ it, rather it is reciting it in full.These are good reasons to continue confrontation with the style of reading KarelDeurloo always has presented. Because it is fun and because it helps. No doubt,exegetes need the laboratory situation time and again. But they do not live there.Rediscovery of the interaction of biblical text and the communities of its ancientand modern readers, is the basic task. Or, as it has been formulated once by RoelOost10: ’Het enig werkelijk specialisme van de theoloog is zijnschriftgeleerdheid.’ (The only true profession of a theologian is being a studentof Bible.’)Biblical texts are to be recited in the context of a living community that in thisway is presenting itself, using a language of its own, on the much broader stageof modern culture. Theology can be taught by music in these respects. You don’tsummary and abstract a Bach cantata, you perform it. And you will find thatvarious sectors of modern culture know how to enjoy a professional perfor-mance. Apparently, what in the book of Deuteronomy already was obvious interms of didactics and theology, has to be reclaimed at modern universities againand again. It is my sincere hope that with his joyful dedication to the study ofScripture Karel Deurloo will continue to be a partner in dialogue for manybiblical scholars.

10 R. Oost, Omstreden Bijbeluitleg. Aspecten en achtegronden van de hermeneutische discussie rondom deexegese van het Oude Testament in Nederland. Een bijdrage tot gesprek, Kanpen: Kok, 1987, p. 125.